Abstract
Herbivores and plants have a large number of physical, chemical, and behavioral strategies to attack and defend each other. In this context, herbivores, such as aphids, sometimes join with ants to optimize the exploitation of plant resources. Aphids provide ants with sugary and nutritious liquid, while ants protect them in return. However, since simplified environments often face herbivore population explosions, aphids become large agricultural pests of difficult biological control, because, in this case, ants expel both their natural enemies and the natural enemies of other plants. Thus, ants, directly and indirectly, create a propitious environment for a larger growth of the population of aphids. Ants that interact with aphids are frequently generalists. Therefore, there is a great diversity of ants involved in this interaction. The most diverse genera, such as Pheidole, Camponotus, and Crematogaster, are among the most commonly associated with these Hemiptera. Although this interaction is frequent in Latin American agricultural environments, studies on such interaction and its effects on biological control are scarce. The ant-aphid interaction in agricultural environments should be better understood, because the Neotropical region, where Latin America is, has more than 4000 ant species. Hence, this area shows great potential to be explored by scientists, both in the theoretical and practical perspectives. This chapter shows the state-of-the-art of the subject in Latin America, with some examples and suggestions for future studies.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Altieri MA, Silva EN, Nicholls CI (2003) O papel da biodiversidade no manejo de pragas. Holos, Ribeirão Preto
Antwiki (2019) Neotropical region species list. http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/Neotropical_Region_Species_List. Accessed 30 Jan 2019
Armbrecht I, Rivera L, Perfecto I (2005) Reduced diversity and complexity in the leaf-litter ant assemblage of colombian coffee plantations. Conserv Biol 19(3):897–907
Baccaro FB, Feitosa RM, Fernandez F et al (2015) Guia para gêneros de formigas do Brasil. INPA, Petrópolis
Bächtold A, Del-Claro K (2013) Predatory behavior of Pseudodorus clavatus (Diptera, Syrphidae) on aphids tended by ants. Rev Bras Entomol 57(4):437–439
Begon M, Towsend CR, Harper JL (2007) Ecologia: de indivíduos a ecossistemas, 4a edn. Artmed, Porto Alegre
Berti-Filho E, Macedo LPM (2010) Fundamentos de controle biológico de insetos-praga. IFRN, Natal
Boiça-Júnior AL, Freitas CA, Freitas MM et al (2018) Estratégia de defesa de plantas a insetos. In: Castilho RC, Truzi CC, CPG P (eds) Tópicos em entomologia agrícola XI. Multipress, Jaboticabal, pp 71–93
Buckley RC (1987) Interactions involving plants, homoptera, and ants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 18(1):111–135
Canedo-Júnior EO, Santiago GS, Ribas CR et al (2017a) The effect size of aphid-tending ants in an agricultural tri-trophic system. J Appl Entomol 142(3):349–358
Canedo-Júnior EO, Santiago GS, Zurlo LF et al (2017b) Isolated and community contexts produce distinct responses by host plants to the presence of ant-aphid interaction: plant productivity and seed viability. PLoS One 12(1):e0170915. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170915
Chamberlain SA, Holland JN (2009) Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant–plant protection mutualisms. Ecology 90(9):2384–2392
Chown SL, Nicolson SW (2004) Insect physiological ecology mechanisms and patterns. Oxford University Press, New York
Cohen JE, Pimm SL, Yodzis P et al (1993) Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs. J Anim Ecol 62(1):67–78
Córdova-Yamauchi L, Gianoli E, Quiroz A et al (1998) The ant, Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: Formicidade:Dolichoderinae) is sensitive to semiochemical involved in the spacing behavior in the bird cherry-oat aphid Rhopalosiphum pali (Sternorrhyncha: Aphididae). Eur J Entomol 95:501–508
Dao HT, Meats A, Beattie GAC et al (2013) Ant-coccid mutualism in citrus canopies and its effect on natural enemies of red scale, Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Bull Entomol Res 104(2):1–6
Delabie JHC (2001) Trophobiosis between formicidae and hemiptera (Sternorrhyncha and Auchenorrhyncha): an overview. Neotrop Entomol 30(4):501–516
Detrain C, Verheggen FJ, Diez L et al (2010) Aphid–ant mutualism: how honeydew sugars influence the behaviour of ant scouts. Physiol Entomol 35(2):168–174
Dixon AFG (1998) Aphid ecology, 2a edn. Springer Science, New York
Fiedler K, Maschwitz U (1988) Functional analysis of the myrmecophilous relationships between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and lycaenids (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Oecologia 75(2):204–206
Flatt T, Weinsser WW (2000) The effects of mutualistic ants on aphid life history traits. Ecology 81(12):3522–3529
Gallo D, Nakano O, Silveira-Neto S et al (2002) Entomologia agrícola. FEALQ, Piracicaba
Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2003) Colonisation by a dominant ant facilitated by anthropogenic disturbance: effects on ant assemblage composition, biomass and resource use. Oikos 103(3):469–478
Gravena S (1992) Controle biológico no manejo integrado de pragas. Pesq Agropec Bras 27(13):281–299
Guindani AN, Nondillo A, Wolff VRS et al (2017) Interação mutualística entre cochonilhas e formigas em videira. RICA 2(4):6–11
Halfeld-Vieira BA, Marinho-Prado JS, Nechet KL et al (2016) Defensivos agrícolas naturais: uso e perspectivas. Embrapa, Brasília
Herbert JJ, Horn DJ (2008) Effect of ant attendance by Monomorium minimum (Buckley) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on predation and parasitism of the soybean aphid Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environ Entomol 37(5):1258–1263
Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvad University Press, Cambrige
Itioka T, Inoue T (1996) The consequences of ant-attendance to the biological control of the red wax scale insect ceroplastes rubens by anicetus beneficus. J Appl Ecol 33(3):609–618
Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL (2010) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, New York
Leite GLD, Veloso RVS, Redoan AC et al (2006) Artrópodes associados a mudas de pequizeiro. Arq Inst Biol 73(3):365–370
Nagy C, Cross JV, Markó V (2015) Can artificial nectaries outcompete aphids in ant-aphid mutualism? Applying artificial sugar sources for ants to support better biological control of rosy apple aphid, Dysaphis plantaginea Passerini in apple orchards. Crop Prot 77:127–138
Nault LR, Montgomery ME, Bowers WS (1976) Ant-aphid association: role of aphid alarm pheromone. Science 25(192):1349–1351
Nechols JR, Seibert TF (1985) Biological control of the spherical mealybug, Nipaecoccus vastator (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae): assessment by ant exclusion. Environ Entomol 14:45–47
Novgorodova TA (2002) Study of adaptations of aphids (Homoptera, Aphidinea) to ants: comparative analysis of myrmecophilous and nonmyrmecophilous species. Entomol Rev 82(5):569–576
Odum EP, Barret GW (2007) Fundamentos de ecologia, 5a edn. Thomson Pioneira, São Paulo
Oliveira IR, Andrade LNT, Nunes MUC et al (2006) Pragas e inimigos naturais presentes nas folhas das plantas de feijão-caupi e milho-verde em cultivo consorciado e com sistema orgânico de produção. Embrapa, Aracajú
Panizzi AR (1990) Ecologia nutricional de insetos e suas implicações no manejo de pragas. Manole, Brasilia
Parra JRP (2014) Biological control in Brazil: an overview. Sci Agric 71(5):345–355
Penteado SRC, Lazzari SMN, Reis-Filho W et al (2012) Associações entre Cinara atlantica, seus inimigos naturais e formigas. Pesqui Florest Bras 32(71):309–320
Perfecto I, Snelling R (1995) Biodiversity and the transformation of a tropical agroecosystem: ants in coffee plantations. Ecol Appl 5(4):1084–1097
Piñol J, Espadaler X, Cañellas N et al (2009) Effects of the concurrent exclusion of ants and earwigs on aphid abundance in an organic citrus grove. BioControl 54(4):515–527
Powell BE, Silverman J (2010) Impact of Linepithema humile and Tapinoma sessile (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on three natural enemies of Aphis gossypii (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Biol Control 54(3):285–291
Price PW, Bouton CE, Gross P et al (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11(1):41–65
Queiroz ACM, Rabello AM, Braga DL et al (2017) Cerrado vegetation types determine how land use impacts ant biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 26:1–18
Raven PH, Evert RF, Eichhorn SE (2007) Biologia vegetal, 7a edn. Guanabara Koogan, Rio de Janeiro
Resende ALS, Silva EE, Silva VB et al (2006) Primeiro Registro de Lipaphis pseudobrassicae Davis (Hemiptera: Aphididae) e sua associação com insetos predadores, parasitóides e formigas em couve (Cruciferae) no Brasil. Neotrop Entomol 35(4):551–555
Reznikova ZI, Novgorodova TA (1998) The importance of individual and social experience for interaction between ants and symbiotic aphids. Dokl Biol Sci 359:173–175
Rodrigues CA, Araújo MS, Cabral PID et al (2008) Comunidade de formigas arborícolas associadas ao pequizeiro (Caryocar brasiliense) em fragmento de Cerrado Goiano. Pesqui Florest Bras 57:3944
Rodrigues SMM, Bueno VHP, Sampaio MV (2005) Efeito da liberação inoculativa sazonal de Lysiphlebus testaceipes (Hym.: Aphidiidae) na população de Aphis gossypii (Hem.:Aphididae) em cultivo de crisântemo em casa de vegetação comercial. Bol San Veg Plagas 31:199–207
Rodrigues WC, Spolidoro MV, Zinger K et al (2010) Dinâmica populacional de pulgão preto dos citros (Sternorrhyncha) em cultivo orgânico de tangerina (Citrus reticulata Blanco) em Seropédica, RJ. EntomoBrasilis 3(2):38–44
Rosumek FB, Silveira FA, Neves FDS et al (2009) Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses. Oecologia 160(3):537–549
Roth DS, Perfecto I, Rathcke B (1994) The effects of management systems on ground-foraging ant diversity in Costa Rica. Ecol Appl 4(3):423–436
Sakata H (1995) Density-dependent predation of the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on two attended aphids Lachnus tropicalis and Myzocallis kuricola (Homoptera: Aphididae). Res Popul Ecol 37(2):159–164
Schowalter TD (2006) Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach. Academic Press, Oxford
Silva EN, Perfecto I (2013) Coexistence of aphid predators in cacao plants: does ant-aphid mutualism play a role? Sociobiology 60(3):259–265
Stadler B, Dixon AFG (2005) Ecology and evolution of aphid-ant interactions. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:345–372
Stadler B, Dixon T (2008) Mutualism: ants and their insect partners. Cambridge Press, Cambridge
Stewart-Jones A, Pope TW, Fitzgerald JD et al (2008) The effect of ant attendance on the success of rosy apple aphid populations, natural enemy abundance and apple damage in orchards. Agric For Entomol 10(1):37–43
Tegelar K, Hagman M, Glinwood R et al (2012) Ant – aphid mutualism: the influence of ants on the aphid summer cycle. Oikos 121(1):61–66
Van-Emedem HF, Harrington R (2007) Aphid as a crop pests. CABI, Oxford
Van-Lenteren JC, Bueno VHP (2003) Augmentative biological control of arthropods in Latin America. BioControl 48(2):123–139
Verheggen FJ, Diez L, Sablon L et al (2012) Aphid alarm pheromone as a cue for ants to locate aphid partners. PLoS One 7(8):e41841
Vinson SB, Scarborough TA (1989) Impact of the imported fire ant on laboratory populations of cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii) predators. Fla Entomol 72(1):107–111
Völkl W, Woodring J, Fischer M et al (1999) Ant-aphid mutualisms: the impact of honeydew production and honeydew sugar composition on ant preferences. Oecologia 118(4):483–491
Zhang S, Shang Y, Ma K (2012) The ecological effects of the ant-hemipteran mutualism: a meta-analysis. Basic Appl Ecol 13(12):116–124
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Canedo-Júnior, E.O., Monteiro, Â.B., de Queiroz, A.C.M., Silva, G.S. (2019). Aphid-Tending Ants and Their Effects on Natural Enemies Used in the Biological Control. In: Souza, B., Vázquez, L., Marucci, R. (eds) Natural Enemies of Insect Pests in Neotropical Agroecosystems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24733-1_42
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24733-1_42
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24732-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24733-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)