, Volume 164, Issue 3, pp 741–750 | Cite as

Do extrafloral nectar resources, species abundances, and body sizes contribute to the structure of ant–plant mutualistic networks?

  • Scott A. ChamberlainEmail author
  • Jeffrey R. Kilpatrick
  • J. Nathaniel Holland
Community ecology - Original Paper


Recent research has shown that many mutualistic communities display non-random structures. While our understanding of the structural properties of mutualistic communities continues to improve, we know little of the biological variables resulting in them. Mutualistic communities include those formed between ants and extrafloral (EF) nectar-bearing plants. In this study, we examined the contributions of plant and ant abundance, plant and ant size, and plant EF nectar resources to the network structures of nestedness and interaction frequency of ant–plant networks across five sites within one geographic locality in the Sonoran Desert. Interactions between ant and plant species were largely symmetric. That is, ant and plant species exerted nearly equivalent quantitative interaction effects on one another, as measured by their frequency of interaction. The mutualistic ant–plant networks also showed nested patterns of structure, in which there was a central core of generalist ant and plant species interacting with one another and few specialist–specialist interactions. Abundance and plant size and ant body size were the best predictors of symmetric interactions between plants and ants, as well as nestedness. Despite interactions in these communities being ultimately mediated by EF nectar resources, the number of EF nectaries had a relatively weak ability to explain variation in symmetric interactions and nestedness. These results suggest that different mechanisms may contribute to structure of bipartite networks. Moreover, our results for ant–plant mutualistic networks support the general importance of species abundances for the structure of species interactions within biological communities.


Ant–plant interaction Interaction frequency Community structure Ecological network Nestedness 



We thank Darrell Tersey for facilitating research in Ironwood Forest National Monument, and Zhenhao Liu for assistance with field work. Suggestions of Martina Stang, Steve Johnson, Diego Vázquez, and an anonymous reviewer greatly improved an earlier version of this manuscript. This study complies with current laws of the USA. J.R.K. was supported by DOE CSGF grant DE-FG02-97ER25308.


  1. Atmar W, Patterson BD (1993) The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat. Oecologia 96:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bascompte J, Jordano P (2007) Plant–animal mutualistic networks: the architecture of biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:567–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bascompte J, Jordano P, Melian CJ, Olesen JM (2003) The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:9383–9387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bascompte J, Jordano P, Olesen JM (2006) Asymmetric coevolutionary networks facilitate biodiversity maintenance. Science 312:431–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Basilio AM, Medan D, Torretta JP, Bartoloni NJ (2006) A year-long plant pollinator network. Austral Ecol 31:975–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bukovinszky T, van Veen FJF, Jongema Y, Dicke M (2008) Direct and indirect effects of resource quality on food web structure. Science 319:804–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgos E, Ceva H, Hernández L, Perazzo RPJ (2009) Understanding and characterizing nestedness in mutualistic bipartite networks. Comput Phys Commun 180:532–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns KC (2006) A simple null model predicts fruit–frugivore interactions in a temperate rainforest. Oikos 115:427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chamberlain SA, Holland JN (2008) Density-mediated and context-dependent consumer–resource interactions between ants and extrafloral nectar plants. Ecology 89:1364–1374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chamberlain SA, Holland JN (2009a) Body size predicts degree in ant–plant mutualistic networks. Funct Ecol 23:196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chamberlain SA, Holland JN (2009b) Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant–plant protection mutualisms. Ecology 90:2384–2392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dalsgaard B, González AMM, Olesen JM, Timmermann A, Andersen LH, Ollerton J (2008) Pollination networks and functional specialization: a test using Lesser Antillean plant–hummingbird assemblages. Oikos. doi:  10.1111/j.2008.0030-1299.16537.x
  14. Davidson DW, Cook SC, Snelling RR (2004) Liquid-feeding performances of ants (Formicidae): ecological and evolutionary implications. Oecologia 139:255–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dormann CF, Frund J, Bluthgen N, Gruber B (2009) Indices, graphs and null models: analyzing bipartite ecological networks. Open Ecol J 2:7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2002) Treating the nestedness temperature calculator as a “black box” can lead to false conclusions. Oikos 99:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldwasser L, Roughgarden J (1993) Construction and analysis of a large Caribbean food web. Ecology 74:1216–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guimarães PR Jr, Rico-Gray V, dos Reis SF, Thompson JN (2006) Asymmetries in specialization in ant–plant mutualistic networks. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2041–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holland JN, DeAngelis DL (2010) A consumer–resource approach to the density-dependent population dynamics of mutualism. Ecology 91:1286–1295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Holland JN, Ness JH, Boyle AL, Bronstein JL (2005) Mutualisms as consumer–resource interactions. In: Barbosa P, Castellanos I (eds) Ecology of predator–prey interactions. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 17–33Google Scholar
  22. Hurlbert A, Ballantyne F IV, Powell S (2008) Shaking a leg and hot to trot: the effects of body size and temperature on running speed in ants. Ecol Entomol 33:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2004) Comprehensive database of diameter-based biomass regressions for North American tree species. GTR NE-319. USDA Forest Services Northeastern Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaspari M, Weiser MD (1999) The size-grain hypothesis and interspecific scaling in ants. Funct Ecol 13:530–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krishna A, Guimaraes PR, Jordano P, Bascompte J (2008) A neutral-niche theory of nestedness in mutualistic networks. Oikos 117:1609–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LeBrun EG, Tillberg CV, Suarez AV, Folgarait PJ, Smith CR, Holway DA (2007) An experimental study of competition between fire ants and Argentine ants in their native range. Ecology 88:63–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. McCann KS (2000) The diversity–stability debate. Nature 405:228–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Medan D, Basilio AM, Devoto M, Bartoloni NJ, Torretta JP, Petanidou T (2006) Measuring generalization and connectance in temperate, year-long active systems. In: Waser NM, Ollerton J (eds) Plant–pollinator interactions: from specialization to generalization. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Morales JM, Vázquez DP (2008) The effect of space in plant–animal mutualistic networks: insights from a simulation study. Oikos 117:1362–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowbahari E, Fénéron R, Malherbe M-C (1999) Effect of body size on aggression in the ant, Cataglyphis niger (Hymenoptera; Formicidae). Aggress Behav 25:369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Okuyama T, Holland JN (2008) Network structural properties mediate the stability of mutualistic communities. Ecol Lett 11:208–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Oliveira PS, Freitas AVL (2004) Ant–plant–herbivore interactions in the neotropical cerrado savanna. Naturwissenschaften 91:557–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Otto SB, Rall BC, Brose U (2007) Allometric degree distributions facilitate food-web stability. Nature 450:1226–1229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Price CA, Enquist BJ (2006) Scaling of mass and morphology in plants with minimal branching: an extension of the WBE model. Funct Ecol 20:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Santamaría L (2006) A new algorithm to calculate the nestedness temperature of presence–absence matrices. J Biogeog 33:924–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J (2000) MetaWin. Statistical software for meta-analysis, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosumek FB et al (2009) Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses. Oecologia 160:537–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Rudgers JA (2004) Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: Selection in a facultative ant–plant mutualism. Ecology 85:192–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sánchez-Pinero F, Polis GA (2000) Bottom-up dynamics of allochthonous input: direct and indirect effects of seabirds on islands. Ecology 81:3117–3132Google Scholar
  41. Shurin JB, Gruner DS, Hillebrand H (2006) All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stang M, Klinkhamer PGL, van der Meijden E (2006) Size constraints and flower abundance determine the number of interactions in a plant–flower visitor web. Oikos 112:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stang M, Klinkhamer PGL, van der Meijden E (2007) Asymmetric specialization and extinction risk in plant–flower visitor webs: a matter of morphology or abundance? Oecologia 151:442–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Stang M, Klinkhamer PGL, Waser NM, Stang I, van der Meijden E (2009) Size-specific interaction patterns and size matching in a plant–pollinator interaction web. Ann Bot 103:1459–1469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Vázquez DP, Morris WF, Jordano P (2005a) Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants. Ecol Lett 8:1088–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vázquez DP, Poulin R, Krasnov BR, Shenbrot GI (2005b) Species abundance and the distribution of specialization in host–parasite interaction networks. J Anim Ecol 74:946–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vázquez DP, Melian CJ, Williams NM, Bluthgen N, Krasnov BR, Poulin R (2007) Species abundance and asymmetric interaction strength in ecological networks. Oikos 116:1120–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vázquez DP, Bűlthgen N, Cagnolo L, Chacoff NP (2009a) Uniting pattern and process in plant–animal mutualistic networks: a review. Ann Bot 103:1445–1457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Vázquez DP, Chacoff NP, Cagnolo L (2009b) Evaluating multiple determinants of the structure of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Ecology 90:2039–2046CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott A. Chamberlain
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeffrey R. Kilpatrick
    • 2
  • J. Nathaniel Holland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer SciencesRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations