Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ants indirectly reduce the reproductive performance of a leafless shrub by benefiting aphids through predator deterrence

  • Published:
Plant Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ant–aphid mutualisms can generate cascade effects on the host plants, but these impacts depend on the ecological context. We studied the consequences of ant–aphid interactions on the reproductive performance of a Mediterranean leafless shrub (Retama sphaerocarpa), through direct and indirect effects on the arthropod community. By manipulating the presence of ants and aphids in the field, we found that ants increased aphid abundance and their persistence on the plant and reduced aphid predators by nearly half. However, the presence of ants did not affect the abundance of other plant herbivores, which were relatively scarce in the studied plants. Aphids, and particularly those tended by ants, had a negative impact on the plant reproductive performance by significantly reducing the number of fruits produced. However, fruit and seed traits were not changed by the presence of aphids or those tended by ants. We show that ants favoured aphids by protecting them from their natural enemies but did not indirectly benefit plants through herbivory suppression, resulting in a net negative impact on the plant reproductive performance. Our study suggests that the benefits obtained by plants from hosting ant–aphid mutualisms are dependent on the arthropod community and plant traits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abràmoff MD, Magalhães PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int 11:36–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Ando Y, Utsumi S, Ohgushi T (2017) Aphid as a network creator for the plant-associated arthropod community and its consequence for plant reproductive success. Funct Ecol 31:632–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67(1):148

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ et al (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135. 10.1016 /j.tree .2008 .10.008

    Google Scholar 

  • Breton LM, Addicott JF (1992) Density-dependent mutualism in an aphid-ant interaction. Ecology 73:2175–2180

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley RC (1987) Interactions involving plants, homoptera, and ants. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 18:111–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Canedo-Júnior EO, Santiago GS, Zurlo LF, Ribas CR, Carvalho RP, Alves GP et al (2017) 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:e0170915

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Canedo-Júnior EO, Santiago GS, Ribas CR, Zurlo LF, Cuissi RG, Souza B et al (2018) The effect size of aphid-tending ants in an agricultural tri-trophic system. J Appl Entomol 142:349–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain SA, Bronstein JL, Rudgers JA (2014) How context dependent are species interactions? Ecol Lett 17:881–890

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RE, Singer MS (2018) Keystone mutualism strengthens top—down effects by recruiting large-bodied ants. Oecologia 186(3):601–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-017-4047-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RE, Farkas TE, Lichter-Marck I, Johnson ER, Singer MS (2016) Multiple interaction types determine the impact of ant predation of caterpillars in a forest community. Ecology 97:3379–3388

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2007) The R Book. Wiley, Chichester, UK, p 942

    Google Scholar 

  • Del-Claro K, Byk J, Yugue GM, Morato MG (2006) Conservative benefits in an ant-hemipteran association in the Brazilian tropical savanna. Sociobiology 47(2):415–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Flatt T, Weisser WW (2000) The effects of mutualistic ants on aphid life history traits. Ecology 81:3522–3529

    Google Scholar 

  • Heil M, McKey D (2003) Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:425–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Holman J (2009) Host plant catalog of aphids. Paleartic Region. Springer, Czech Republic

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini A, Hosseini M, Katayama N, Mehrparvar M (2017) Effect of ant attendance on aphid population growth and above ground biomass of the aphid’s host plant. Eur J Entomol 114:106–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra-Isassi J, Oliveira PS (2018) Indirect effects of mutualism: ant–treehopper associations deter pollinators and reduce reproduction in a tropical shrub. Oecologia 186:691–701

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ings TC, Montoya JM, Bascompte J, Blüthgen N, Brown L, Dormann CF et al (2009) Ecological networks—beyond food webs. J Anim Ecol 78(1):253–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ivens ABF (2015) Cooperation and conflict in ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) farming mutualisms—a review. Myrmecol News 21:19–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaneko S (2003) Different impacts of two species of aphid-attending ants with different aggressiveness on the number of emerging adults of the aphid’s primary parasitoid and hyperparasitoids. Ecol Res 18:199–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest Package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82(13):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • LeVan KE, Holway DA (2015) Ant–aphid interactions increase ant floral visitation and reduce plant reproduction via decreased pollinator visitation. Ecology 96:1620–1630

    Google Scholar 

  • López F, Fungairiño S, de las Heras P, Serrano J, Acosta F (2001) Age changes in the vegetative vs. reproductive allocation by moduledemographic strategies in a perennial plant. Plant Ecol 157:13–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Cordero C, Pedraza MA, Gil AM, Ayuso MJ (1997) Bipiperidyl and quinolizidine alkaloids in fruits of Viscum cruciatum hemiparasitic on Retama sphaerocarpa. J Chem Ecol 23(8):1913–1916

    Google Scholar 

  • Megías AG, Sánchez-Piñero F, Hódar JA (2011) Trophic interactions in an arid ecosystem: from decomposers to top-predators. J Arid Environ 75:1333–1341

    Google Scholar 

  • Messina FJ (1981) Plant Protection as a Consequence of an ant-membracid mutualism: interactions on goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Ecology 62:1433–1440

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney EH, Phillips JS, Tillberg CV, Sandrow C, Nelson AS, Mooney KA (2016) Abiotic mediation of a mutualism drives herbivore abundance. Ecol Lett 19:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto JM, Mier Durante MP, Binazzi A, Pérez-Hidalgo N (2002) Hemiptera: Aphididae II. In: Ramos MA, et al. (eds) Fauna Ibérica 19. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales CSIC, Madrid, p 355

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninyerola, M., Pons, X., & Roure, J.M. (2005) Altas climático digital de la Península Ibérica. In: Metodología y aplicaciones en bioclimatología y geobotánica. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra

  • Obeso JR (1993) Does defoliation affect reproduction in herbaceous perennials and woody plants in different ways? Funct Ecol 7:150–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Offenberg J (2001) Balancing between mutualism and exploitation: the symbiotic interaction between Lasius ants and aphids. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:304–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Peñas J (2009) Retama sphaerocarpa. Flora Vascular de Andalucía Oriental. Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía, Sevilla, pp 298–301

  • Pinol J, Espadaler X, Canellas N, Pérez N (2009) Effects of the concurrent exclusion of ants and earwigs on aphid abundance in an organic citrus grove. Biocontrol 54:515–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-008-9203-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pringle EG, Ableson I, Kerber J, Vannette RL, Tao L (2017) Orthogonal fitness benefits of nitrogen and ants for nitrogen-limited plants in the presence of herbivores. Ecology 98(12):3003–3010

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pugnaire FI, Haase P, Puigdefábregas J, Cueto M, Clark SC, Incoll LD (1996) Facilitation and succession under the canopy of a leguminous shrub, Retama sphaerocarpa, in a semi-arid environment in south-east Spain. Oikos 76:455–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Rico-Gray V, Oliveira PS (2007) The ecology and evolution of ant–plant interactions, 1st edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss J, Bridle JR, Montoya JM, Woodward G (2009) Emerging horizons in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning research. Trends Ecol Evol 24(9):505–514

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Renault CK, Buffa LM, Delfino MA (2005) An aphid-ant interaction: effects on different trophic levels. Ecol Res 20:71–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson JA, McHugh JV, Whiting MF (2004) A molecular phylogenetic analysis of the pleasing fungus beetles (Coleoptera: Erotylidae): evolution of colour patterns, gregariousness and mycophagy. Syst Entomol 29:173–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosumek FB, Silveira FA, Neves FDS, Barbosa NPDU, Diniz L, Oki Y et al (2009) Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defences. Oecologia 160:537–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibold S, Cadotte MW, MacIvor JS, Thorn S, Müller J (2018) The necessity of multitropic approaches in community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 33:754–764

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snow AA, Stanton ML (1988) Aphids limit fecundity of a weedy annual (Raphanus sativus). Am J Bot 75(4):589–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler B, Dixon AFG (1999) Ant attendance in aphids: why different degrees of myrmecophily? Ecol Entomol 24:363–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler B, Dixon AF (2005) Ecology and evolution of aphid-ant interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:345–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2007) Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing insects. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:151–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2010) A facultative mutualism between aphids and an invasive ant increases plant reproduction. Ecol Entomol 35:190–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Szentesi A, Wink M (1991) Fate of quinolizidine alkaloids through three trophic levels: Laburnum anagyroides (Leguminosae) and associated organisms. J Chem Ecol 17:1557–1573

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trager MD, Bhotika S, Hostetler JA, Andrade GV, Rodriguez-Cabal MA, McKeon CS et al (2010) Benefits for plants in ant–plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 5:e14308

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vilela AA, Del-Claro K (2018) Effects of different ant species on the attendance of neighbouring hemipteran colonies and the outcomes for the host plant. J Natl Hist 52:415–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2018.1432774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood S, Scheipl F (2017) Generalized additive mixed models using ‘mgcv’ and ‘lme4’. Package “gamm4”. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gamm4/gamm4.pdf

  • Yao I (2014) Costs and constraints in aphid-ant mutualism. Ecol Res 29:383–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Zhang Y, Ma K (2012) The ecological effects of the ant–hemipteran mutualism: a meta-analysis. Basic Appl Ecol 13:116–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Zhang Y, Ma K (2015) Mixed effects of ant–aphid mutualism on plants across different spatial scales. Basic Appl Ecol 16:452–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou A, Kuang B, Gao Y, Liang G (2015) Density-dependent benefits in ant-hemipteran mutualism? The case of the ghost ant Tapinoma melanocephalum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and the invasive mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). PLoS ONE 10:e0123885

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zvereva EL, Lanta V, Kozlov MV (2010) Effects of sap-feeding insect herbivores on growth and reproduction of woody plants: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Oecologia 163(4):949–960

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank J. Seoane and F.M. Azcárate for their comments and suggestions, N. Pérez and F.M. Azcárate for identifying aphids and ants, respectively, J. Herranz for helping in the identification of other arthropods and M. Silvestre for her contribution in the fieldwork. We appreciate the comments and suggestions made by two anonymous reviewers. PO was granted with an aid for postgraduate students of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. This paper is a contribution to the Project CGL2014-53789-R funded by the Spanish MICINN and the REMEDINAL 3 network (S2013/mae-2719) of the Comunidad de Madrid-European Social Fund.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Patricia A. Ortega-Ramos

    Present address: Department of Biointeractions and Crops Protection, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2JQ, UK

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, C. Darwin 2, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Patricia A. Ortega-Ramos, Eduardo T. Mezquida & Pablo Acebes

  2. Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad Y Cambio Global (CIBC-UAM), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, C. Darwin 2, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Eduardo T. Mezquida & Pablo Acebes

Authors
  1. Patricia A. Ortega-Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eduardo T. Mezquida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pablo Acebes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia A. Ortega-Ramos.

Additional information

Communicated by Elizabeth Pringle.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 2699 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortega-Ramos, P.A., Mezquida, E.T. & Acebes, P. Ants indirectly reduce the reproductive performance of a leafless shrub by benefiting aphids through predator deterrence. Plant Ecol 221, 91–101 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-019-00995-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-019-00995-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation