Table 5. Comparison of the species most frequently sampled in this study, with those in other urban ant studies.

Reference	Region	Distance from Manhattan, NY (km)	Total Species	Most abundant species	Shared species (with this study)	Notes
This study	Manhattan, NY, USA	0	14	T. caespitum , L. neoniger , S. molesta , N. flavipes	13/13
Danoff-Burg & Melnick (2004)	Manhattan, New York City, USA	0	24	N. flavipes , Prenolepis imparis, Ponera pennsylvanica, L. neoniger , L. alienus, Aphaenogaster rudis	7/13	Unpublished data
Nuhn & Wright (1979)	Raleigh, NC, USA	650	59	Pheidole vinlandica, Forelius pruinosus, Monomorium minimum, T. caespitum , L. neoniger , Nylanderia sp. parvula complex, Aphaenogaster spp.	10/13	Habitat surveyed was the North Carolina State University Campus in Raleigh
Lessard & Buddle (2005)	Quebec, Canada	715	24	Aphaenogaster sp., Camponotus pennsylvanicus, Formica glacialis, L. alienus, L. neoniger , T. caespitum	6/13	Only the urban aspect of this study
Thompson & McLachlan (2007)	Manitoba, Canada	2000	10	C. pennsylvanicus, F. glacialis, Lasius pallitarsis	1/13	Only the urban aspect of this study
Sanford et al (2009)	Lake Tahoe basin, USA	3800	42	Formica sybilla, Formica lassioides, Myrmica tahoensis, Camponotus modoc, Formica accreta, Camponotus vicinus, T. sessile	0/13	Only the most urbanized of the sites characterized by this study.
Suarez et al (1998)	Coastal southernCalifornia	4000	46	L. humile, Dorymyrmex insanus, Prenolepis imparis, Solenopsis molesta, Leptothorax andrei	2/13
Clarke et al (2008)	San Francisco	4600	15	Linipithema humile, Temnothorax andrei, Monomorium ergatogyna, T. sessile	2/13

The number of shared species is in some cases an estimate as in some studies certain ant types were only identified to the genus level. For studies that had such separation of results, only the urban aspect was considered. Shared species indicates the number of species found in this study that were also found in each of the other studies, where the maximum would be 13/13.