Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 95, Issue 9, pp 885–889 | Cite as

Nest site selection and induced response in a dominant arboreal ant species

  • Alain Dejean
  • Julien Grangier
  • Céline Leroy
  • Jerôme Orivel
  • Marc Gibernau
Short Communication

Abstract

It is well known that arboreal ants, both territorially dominant species and plant ants (e.g., species associated with myrmecophytes or plants housing them in hollow structures), protect their host trees from defoliators. Nevertheless, the presence of an induced defense, suggested by the fact that the workers discovering a leaf wound recruit nestmates, is only known for plant ants. Based on the results from a field study, we show here (1) that colonies of Azteca chartifex, a territorially dominant, neotropical arboreal ant species, mostly selected Goupia glabra (Goupiaceae) trees in which to build their principal carton nests and (2) that plant signals induced workers to recruit nestmates, which patrol the leaves, likely providing the plant with a biotic defense. Furthermore, the number of recruited workers was clearly higher on G. glabra, their most frequently selected host tree species, than on other tree species. These results show that contrary to what was previously believed, induced responses are also found in territorially dominant arboreal ants and so are not limited to the specific associations between myrmecophytes and plant ants.

Keywords

Ant–plant relationships Biotic defense Induced responses Predation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Jacques H.C. Delabie and Roy R. Snelling for the identification of different samples of ants, to Pascal Petronelli for the identification of the trees, and to Andrea Dejean for proofreading the manuscript. This study was a part of the Programme Amazonie of the CNRS-Guyane.

References

  1. Agrawal AA (1998) Leaf damage and associated cues induce aggressive ant recruitment in a neotropical ant-plant. Ecology 79:2100–2112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA, Dubin-Thaler BJ (1999) Induced responses to herbivory in the Neotropical ant-plant association between Azteca ants and Cecropia trees: response of ants to potential inducing cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blüthgen N, Stork NE (2007) Ant mosaics in a tropical rainforest in Australia and elsewhere: a critical review. Aust Ecol 32:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouat C, McKey D, Bessiere JM, Pascal L, Hossaert-McKey M (2000) Leaf volatile compounds and the distribution of ant patrolling in an ant–plant protection mutualism: preliminary results on Leonardoxa (Fabaceae: Caesalpinioideae) and Petalomyrmex (Formicidae: Formicinae). Acta Oecol 21:349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christianini AV, Machado G (2004) Induced biotic responses to herbivory and associated cues in the Amazonian ant-plant Maieta poeppigii. Entomol Exp Appl 112:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coley PD, Kursar TA (1996) Anti-herbivore defenses of young tropical leaves: physiological constraints and ecological trade-offs. In: Smith AP, Muclkey SS, Chazdon RL (eds) Tropical forest plant ecophysiology. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 305–336Google Scholar
  7. Davidson DW (2005) Cecropia and its biotic defenses. Flora Neotrop 94:214–226Google Scholar
  8. Dejean A, Corbara B, Orivel J, Leponce M (2007) Rainforest canopy ants: the implications of territoriality and predatory behavior. Funct Ecosyst Commun 1:105–120Google Scholar
  9. Dejean A, Djiéto-Lordon C, Céréghino R, Leponce M (2008) Ontogenetic succession and the ant mosaic: an empirical approach using pioneer trees. Basic Appl Ecol 9:316–323Google Scholar
  10. Djiéto-Lordon C, Dejean A (1999) Tropical arboreal ant mosaic: innate attraction and imprinting determine nesting site selection in dominant ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards DP, Yu DW (2007) The roles of sensory traps in the origin, maintenance, and breakdown of mutualism. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1321–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. GLIM (1986) Generalised linear interactive modelling 3.77. Royal Statistical Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Heil M, McKey D (2003) Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Ann Rev Ecol Syst Evol 34:425–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lapola DM, Bruna EM, Vasconcelos HL (2003) Contrasting responses to induction cues by ants inhabiting Maieta guianensis (Melastomataceae). Biotropica 35:295–300Google Scholar
  15. Longino JT (2007) A taxonomic review of the genus Azteca (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Costa Rica and a global revision of the aurita group. Zootaxa 1491:1–63Google Scholar
  16. Romero GQ, Izzo TJ (2004) Leaf damage induces ant recruitment in the Amazonian ant-plant Hirtella myrmecophila. J Trop Ecol 20:675–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2007) Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing insects. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tollrian R, Harvell CD (1999) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Dejean
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julien Grangier
    • 2
  • Céline Leroy
    • 2
  • Jerôme Orivel
    • 2
  • Marc Gibernau
    • 2
  1. 1.UPS 2561CNRS-GuyaneCayenneFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire Evolution et Diversité Biologique, UMR-CNRS 5174Université Toulouse IIIToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations