Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 163, Issue 4, pp 985–996 | Cite as

Geographic variation in a facultative mutualism: consequences for local arthropod composition and diversity

  • Jennifer A. RudgersEmail author
  • Amy M. Savage
  • Megan A. Rúa
Community ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Geographic variation in the outcome of interspecific interactions may influence not only the evolutionary trajectories of species but also the structure of local communities. We investigated this community consequence of geographic variation for a facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton (Gossypium thurberi). Ants consume wild cotton extrafloral nectar and can protect plants from herbivores. We chose three sites that differed in interaction outcome, including a mutualism (ants provided the greatest benefits to plant fitness and responded to manipulations of extrafloral nectar), a potential commensalism (ants increased plant fitness but were unresponsive to extrafloral nectar), and a neutral interaction (ants neither affected plant fitness nor responded to extrafloral nectar). At all sites, we manipulated ants and extrafloral nectar in a factorial design and monitored the abundance, diversity, and composition of other arthropods occurring on wild cotton plants. We predicted that the effects of ants and extrafloral nectar on arthropods would be largest in the location with the mutualism and weakest where the interaction was neutral. A non-metric multidimensional scaling analysis revealed that the presence of ants altered arthropod composition, but only at the two sites in which ants increased plant fitness. At the site with the mutualism, ants also suppressed detritivore/scavenger abundance and increased aphids. The presence of extrafloral nectar increased arthropod abundance where mutual benefits were the strongest, whereas both arthropod abundance and morphospecies richness declined with extrafloral nectar availability at the site with the weakest ant–plant interaction. Some responses were geographically invariable: total arthropod richness and evenness declined by approximately 20% on plants with ants, and extrafloral nectar reduced carnivore abundance when ants were excluded from plants. These results demonstrate that a facultative ant–plant mutualism can alter the composition of arthropod assemblages on plants and that these community-level consequences vary across the landscape.

Keywords

Ant–plant Community structure Conditionality Geographic mosaic Gossypium 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to R. Karban, who introduced us to the wild cotton system. Thanks are also extended to P. Ward (UC-Davis) and C. Olson, Associate Curator of the University of Arizona Insect Collection, for assistance with species identifications. J. Hodgen, W. White, C. Stephens, D. Hoyer, A. Stein, J. Howard, J. M. Rudgers, B. Bedard, and P. Murch provided invaluable field assistance. K. Whitney offered advice and help of many kinds. Thanks to S. Chamberlain, A. Dunham, J. Ness, M. Peterson, G. Wimp, and anonymous reviewers for improvements to this manuscript. This work was supported by an EPA S.T.A.R. fellowship and the Godwin Assistant Professorship to J.A.R. and a Wray-Todd fellowship to A.M.S. The research practices used for this study complied with all laws and regulations of the USA.

Supplementary material

442_2010_1584_MOESM1_ESM.doc (114 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 113 kb)

References

  1. Barton AM (1986) Spatial variation in the effect of ants on an extrafloral nectary plant. Ecology 67:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastolla U, Fortuna MA, Pascual-García A, Ferrera A, Luque B, Bascompte J (2009) The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 458:1018–1020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL (2006) Ecology: individuals, populations, and communities, 4th edn. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  4. Berenbaum MR, Zangerl AR (2006) Parsnip webworms and host plants at home and abroad: trophic complexity in a geographic mosaic. Ecology 12:3070–3081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blüthgen N, Stork NE (2007) Ant mosaics in a tropical rainforest in Australia and elsewhere: a critical review. Austral Ecol 32:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brodie ED, Ridenhour BJ (2002) The evolutionary response of predators to dangerous prey: hotspots and coldspots in the geographic mosaic of coevolution between garter snakes and newts. Evolution 56:2067–2082PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronstein JL (1994) Our current understanding of mutualism. Q Rev Biol 69:31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bronstein JL (1998) The contribution of ant-plant protection studies to our understanding of mutualism. Biotropica 30:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bronstein JL, Wilson WG, Morris WE (2003) Ecological dynamics of mutualist/antagonist communities. Am Nat 162:S24–S39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bronstein JL, Alarcon R, Geber M (2006) The evolution of plant-insect mutualisms. New Phytol 172:412–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheney KL, Cote IM (2005) Mutualism or parasitism? The variable outcome of cleaning symbioses. Biol Lett 1:162–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2007) Primer, version 6.1.10: user manual and tutorial. Primer-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke KR, Somerfield PJ, Airoldi LWRM (2006) Exploring interactions by second-stage community analyses. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 338:179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cuautle M, Rico-Gray V (2003) The effect of wasps and ants on the reproductive success of the extrafloral nectaried plant Turnera ulmifolia. Funct Ecol 17:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de la Fuente MAS, Marquis RJ (1999) The role of ant-tended extrafloral nectaries in the protection and benefit of a Neotropical rainforest tree. Oecologia (Berlin) 118:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Despres L, Ibanez S, Hemborg AM, Godelle B (2007) Geographic and within-population variation in the globeflower-globeflower fly interaction: the costs and benefits of rearing pollinators’ larvae. Oecologia 151:240–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Giusto B, Anstett M, Dounias E, McKey DB (2001) Variation in the effectiveness of biotic defense: the case of an opportunistic ant-plant protection mutualism. Oecologia 129:367–375Google Scholar
  19. Edelaar P, Benkman CW (2006) Replicated population divergence caused by localized coevolution? A test of three hypotheses in the red crossbill-lodgepole pine system. J Evol Biol 19:1651–1659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Elias M, Gompert Z, Jiggins C, Willmott K (2008) Mutualistic interactions drive ecological niche convergence in a diverse butterfly community. PLoS Biology 6:2642–2649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernandes GW, Fagundes M, Woodman RL, Price PW (1999) Ant effects on three-trophic level interactions: plant, galls, and parasitoids. Ecol Entomol 24:411–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fryxell PA (1979) The natural history of the cotton tribe. Texas A&M University Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaume L, McKey D, Terrin S (1998) Ant-plant-homopteran mutualism: how the third partner affects the interaction between a plant-specialist ant and its myrmecophyte host. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:569–575Google Scholar
  24. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gove AD, Rico-Gray V (2006) What determines conditionality in ant-Hemiptera interactions? Hemiptera habitat preference and the role of local ant activity. Ecol Entomol 31:568–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanson HC (1923) Distribution of Arizona wild cotton. Arizona Exp Stn Tech Bull 3:48–59Google Scholar
  27. Hay ME et al (2004) Mutualisms and aquatic community structure: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horvitz CC, Schemske DW (1984) Effects of ants and an ant-tended herbivore on seed production of a neotropical herb. Ecology 65:1369–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaplan I, Eubanks MD (2005) Aphids alter the community-wide impact of fire ants. Ecology 86:1640–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kersch MF, Fonseca CR (2005) Abiotic factors and the conditional outcome of an ant-plant mutualism. Ecology 86:2117–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lach L (2008) Argentine ants displace floral arthropods in a biodiversity hotspot. Divers Distrib 14:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lukefahr MJ (1960) Effects of nectariless cottons on populations of three lepidopterous insects. J Econ Entomol 53:242–244Google Scholar
  33. Mathews CR, Bottrell DG, Brown MW (2009) Extrafloral nectaries alter arthropod community structure and mediate peach (Prunus persica) plant defense. Ecol Appl 19:722–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  35. Mody K, Linsenmair KE (2004) Plant-attracted ants affect arthropod community structure but not necessarily herbivory. Ecol Entomol 29:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mooney KA (2007) Tritrophic effects of birds and ants on a canopy food web, tree growth, and phytochemistry. Ecology 88:2005–2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ness JH (2006) A mutualism’s indirect costs: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos 113:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peterson MA (1995) Unpredictability in the facultative association between larvae of Euphilotes enoptes (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and ants. Biol J Linn Soc 55:209–233Google Scholar
  39. Renault CK, Buffa LM, Delfino MA (2005) An aphid-ant interaction: effects on different trophic levels. Ecol Res 20:71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rey PJ, Manzaneda AJ (2007) Geographical variation in the determinants of seed dispersal success of a myrmecochorous herb. J Ecol 95:1381–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rico-Gray V, Palacios-Rios M, Garcia-Franco JG, Mackay WP (1998) Richness and seasonal variation of ant-plant associations mediated by plant-derived food resources in the semiarid Zapotitlan Valley, Mexico. Am Midl Nat 140:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rose USR, Lewis J, Tumlinson JH (2006) Extrafloral nectar from cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) as a food source for parasitic wasps. Funct Ecol 20:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rudgers JA (2004) Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: selection in a facultative ant-plant mutualism. Ecology 85:192–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rudgers JA, Clay K (2008) An invasive plant-fungal mutualism reduces arthropod diversity. Ecol Lett 11:831–840CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rudgers JA, Gardener MC (2004) Extrafloral nectar as a resource mediating multispecies interactions. Ecology 85:1495–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rudgers JA, Strauss SY (2004) A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:2481–2488Google Scholar
  47. Rudgers JA, Hodgen JG, White JW (2003) Behavioral mechanisms underlie an ant-plant mutualism. Oecologia 135:51–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Rudgers JA, Holah J, Orr SP, Clay K (2007) Forest succession suppressed by an introduced plant-fungal symbiosis. Ecology 88:18–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. SAS Institute (2004) SAS version 9.1.3. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  50. Savage AM, Peterson MA (2007) Mutualism in a community context: the positive feedback between an ant-aphid mutualism and a gall-making midge. Oecologia 151:280–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Schuster MF, Lukefahr MJ, Maxwell FG (1976) Impact of nectariless cotton on plant bugs and natural enemies. J Econ Entomol 69:400–402Google Scholar
  52. Smith RL, Flint HM (1977) A bibliography of the cotton leafperforator, Bucculatrix thurberiella, and a related species, Bucculatrix gossypiella, that also feeds on cotton (Lepidopteran: Lyonetiidae). Bull Entomol Soc Am 23:195–198Google Scholar
  53. Stachowicz JJ (2001) Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. Bioscience 51:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stapel JO (1997) Extrafloral nectar, honeydew, and sucrose effects on searching behavior and efficiency of Microplitis croceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in cotton. Ann Entomol Soc Am 26:617–623Google Scholar
  55. Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2007) Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing insects. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:151–164Google Scholar
  56. Taylor RM, Pfannenstiel RS (2008) Nectar feeding by wandering spiders on cotton plants. Environ Entomol 37:996–1002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Thompson JN (2005) The geographic mosaic of coevolution. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  58. Thompson JN, Cunningham BM (2002) Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection. Nature 417:735–738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson JN, Fernandez CC (2006) Temporal dynamics of antagonism and mutualism in a geographically variable plant-insect interaction. Ecology 87:103–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Thrall PH, Slattery JF, Broadhurst LM, Bickford S (2007) Geographic patterns of symbiont abundance and adaptation in native Australian Acacia-rhizobia interactions. J Ecol 95:1110–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van der Heijden MGA, Wiemken A, Sanders IR, Erhardt A (1998) Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396:69–72Google Scholar
  62. von Ende CN (2001) Repeated measures analysis: growth and other time dependent measures. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 134–157Google Scholar
  63. Wimp GM, Whitham TG (2001) Biodiversity consequences of predation and host plant hybridization on an aphid-ant mutualism. Ecology 82:440–452Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer A. Rudgers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amy M. Savage
    • 1
  • Megan A. Rúa
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Curriculum in EcologyUniversity of North Carolina-Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations