, Volume 170, Issue 3, pp 677–685 | Cite as

Plant defense, herbivory, and the growth of Cordia alliodora trees and their symbiotic Azteca ant colonies

  • Elizabeth G. Pringle
  • Rodolfo Dirzo
  • Deborah M. Gordon
Plant-animal interactions - Original research


The effects of herbivory on plant fitness are integrated over a plant’s lifetime, mediated by ontogenetic changes in plant defense, tolerance, and herbivore pressure. In symbiotic ant–plant mutualisms, plants provide nesting space and food for ants, and ants defend plants against herbivores. The benefit to the plant of sustaining the growth of symbiotic ant colonies depends on whether defense by the growing ant colony outpaces the plant’s growth in defendable area and associated herbivore pressure. These relationships were investigated in the symbiotic mutualism between Cordia alliodora trees and Azteca pittieri ants in a Mexican tropical dry forest. As ant colonies grew, worker production remained constant relative to ant-colony size. As trees grew, leaf production increased relative to tree size. Moreover, larger trees hosted lower densities of ants, suggesting that ant-colony growth did not keep pace with tree growth. On leaves with ants experimentally excluded, herbivory per unit leaf area increased exponentially with tree size, indicating that larger trees experienced higher herbivore pressure per leaf area than smaller trees. Even with ant defense, herbivory increased with tree size. Therefore, although larger trees had larger ant colonies, ant density was lower in larger trees, and the ant colonies did not provide sufficient defense to compensate for the higher herbivore pressure in larger trees. These results suggest that in this system the tree can decrease herbivory by promoting ant-colony growth, i.e., sustaining space and food investment in ants, as long as the tree continues to grow.


Allometry Ant–plant mutualism Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve Mexico Ontogeny Positive feedback 


  1. Barton KE, Koricheva J (2010) The ontogeny of plant defense and herbivory: characterizing general patterns using meta-analysis. Am Nat 175:481–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berenbaum MR (1995) Turnabout is fair play—secondary roles for primary compounds. J Chem Ecol 21:925–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boege K, Marquis RJ (2005) Facing herbivory as you grow up: the ontogeny of resistance in plants. Trends Ecol Evol 20:441–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bronstein JL (1998) The contribution of ant plant protection studies to our understanding of mutualism. Biotropica 30:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bullock SH (1986) Climate of Chamela, Jalisco, and trends in the south coastal region of Mexico. Arch Meteorol Geophys Bioclimatol Ser B Theor Appl Climatol 36:297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bullock SH, Solís-Magallanes JA (1990) Phenology of canopy trees of a tropical deciduous forest in Mexico. Biotropica 22:22–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2010) Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Campos RI, Vasconcelos HL, Ribeiro SP, Neves FS, Soares JP (2006) Relationship between tree size and insect assemblages associated with Anadenanthera macrocarpa. Ecography 29:442–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole TG, Ewel JJ (2006) Allometric equations for four valuable tropical tree species. For Ecol Manag 229:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coley PD, Kursar TA (1996) Anti-herbivore defenses of young tropical leaves: physiological constraints and ecological tradeoffs. In: Mulkey SS, Chazdon R, Smith AP (eds) Tropical forest plant ecophysiology. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 305–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coomes DA, Allen RB (2007) Effects of size, competition and altitude on tree growth. J Ecol 95:1084–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Defossez E, Djieto-Lordon C, McKey D, Selosse MA, Blatrix R (2011) Plant-ants feed their host plant, but above all a fungal symbiont to recycle nitrogen. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:1419–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Del Val E, Dirzo R (2003) Does ontogeny cause changes in the defensive strategies of the myrmecophyte Cecropia peltata? Plant Ecol 169:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dirzo R, Domínguez CA (1995) Plant-herbivore interactions in Mesoamerican tropical dry forests. In: Bullock SH, Mooney HA, Medina E (eds) Seasonally dry tropical forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 304–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duarte-Rocha CF, Godoy-Bergallo H (1992) Bigger ant colonies reduce herbivory and herbivore residence time on leaves of an ant–plant: Azteca muelleri vs. Coelomera ruficornis on Cecropia pachystachya. Oecologia 91:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer RC, Wanek W, Richter A, Mayer V (2003) Do ants feed plants? A 15N labeling study of nitrogen fluxes from ants to plants in the mutualism of Pheidole and Piper. J Ecol 91:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fonseca CR (1993) Nesting space limits colony size of the plant-ant Pseudomyrmex concolor. Oikos 67:473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frederickson ME, Gordon DM (2009) The intertwined population biology of two Amazonian myrmecophytes and their symbiotic ants. Ecology 90:1595–1607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordon DM (1987) Group-level dynamics in harvester ants—young colonies and the role of patrolling. Anim Behav 35:833–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gordon DM (1992) How colony growth affects forager intrusion between neighboring harvester ant colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guedes RNC, Zanuncio TV, Zanuncio JC, Medeiros AGB (2000) Species richness and fluctuation of defoliator Lepidoptera populations in Brazilian plantations of Eucalyptus grandis as affected by plant age and weather factors. For Ecol Manag 137:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haggar JP, Ewel JJ (1997) Primary productivity and resource partitioning in model tropical ecosystems. Ecology 78:1211–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harper JL (1989) The value of a leaf. Oecologia 80:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hazlett DL (1989) Provenance, age, and defoliation effects on the growth of Cordia alliodora in Central America. For Ecol Manag 28:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heil M, McKey D (2003) Protective ant–plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:425–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heil M, Feil D, Hilpert A, Linsenmair KE (2004) Spatiotemporal patterns in indirect defence of a South-East Asian ant–plant support the optimal defence hypothesis. J Trop Ecol 20:573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heil M, Gonzalez-Teuber M, Clement LW, Kautz S, Verhaagh M, Silva-Bueno JC (2009) Divergent investment strategies of Acacia myrmecophytes and the coexistence of mutualists and exploiters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:18091–18096Google Scholar
  28. Hummel S (2000) Height, diameter and crown dimensions of Cordia alliodora associated with tree density. For Ecol Manag 127:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Janzen DH (1973) Evolution of polygynous obligate acacia-ants in Western Mexico. J Anim Ecol 42:727–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaspari M (2005) Global energy gradients and size in colonial organisms: worker mass and worker number in ant colonies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:5079–5083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Landis RM, Peart DR (2005) Early performance predicts canopy attainment across life histories in subalpine forest trees. Ecology 86:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawton JH (1983) Plant architecture and the diversity of phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 28:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Llandres AL, Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Dirzo R (2010) Plant stages with biotic, indirect defences are more palatable and suffer less herbivory than their undefended counterparts. Biol J Linn Soc 101:536–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Menalled FD, Kelty MJ, Ewel JJ (1998) Canopy development in tropical tree plantations: a comparison of species mixtures and monocultures. For Ecol Manag 104:249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ness JH, Morris WF, Bronstein JL (2006) Integrating quality and quantity of mutualistic service to contrast ant species protecting Ferocactus wislizeni. Ecology 87:912–921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nomura M, Itioka T, Murase K (2001) Non-ant antiherbivore defenses before plant-ant colonization in Macaranga myrmecophytes. Popul Ecol 43:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oliver CD, Larson BC (1990) Forest stand dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Olson ME, Aguirre-Hernández R, Rosell JA (2009) Universal foliage-stem scaling across environments and species in dicot trees: plasticity, biomechanics and Corner’s Rules. Ecol Lett 12:210–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Orivel J et al (2011) Dynamics of the association between a long-lived understory myrmecophyte and its specific associated ants. Oecologia 165:369–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Palmer TM et al (2010) Synergy of multiple partners, including freeloaders, increases host fitness in a multispecies mutualism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:17234–17239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Potvin C, Dutilleul P (2009) Neighborhood effects and size-asymmetric competition in a tree plantation varying in diversity. Ecology 90:321–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pringle EG et al (2011a) Distinct leaf-trait syndromes of evergreen and deciduous trees in a seasonally dry tropical forest. Biotropica 43:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pringle EG, Dirzo R, Gordon DM (2011b) Indirect benefits of symbiotic coccoids for an ant-defended myrmecophytic tree. Ecology 91:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. R Development Core Team R (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, version 2.8.1. In. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  45. SAS Institute (2009) JMP, version 8.0.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith CR, Tschinkel WR (2006) The sociometry and sociogenesis of reproduction in the Florida harvester ant Pogonomyrmex badius. J Insect Sci 6:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Solano PJ, Dejean A (2004) Ant-fed plants: comparison between three geophytic myrmecophytes. Biol J Linn Soc 83:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stowe KA, Marquis RJ, Hochwender CG, Simms EL (2000) The evolutionary ecology of tolerance to consumer damage. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:565–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas SC, Sztaba AJ, Smith SM (2010) Herbivory patterns in mature sugar maple: variation with vertical canopy strata and tree ontogeny. Ecol Entomol 35:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tillberg CV (2004) Friend or foe? A behavioral and stable isotopic investigation of an ant–plant symbiosis. Oecologia 140:506–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trager MD, Bruna EM (2006) Effects of plant age, experimental nutrient addition and ant occupancy on herbivory in a neotropical myrmecophyte. J Ecol 94:1156–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tschinkel WR (1993) Sociometry and sociogenesis of colonies of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta during one annual cycle. Ecol Monogr 63:425–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tschinkel WR (1999) Sociometry and sociogenesis of colony-level attributes of the Florida harvester ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 92:80–89Google Scholar
  54. Wagner D, Gordon DM (1999) Colony age, neighborhood density and reproductive potential in harvester ants. Oecologia 119:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Warner PJ, Cushman JH (2002) Influence of herbivores on a perennial plant: variation with life history stage and herbivore species. Oecologia 132:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weiner J (2004) Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 6:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weyl EG, Frederickson ME, Yu DW, Pierce NE (2010) Economic contract theory tests models of mutualism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:15712–15716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wheeler WM (1942) Studies of neotropical ant–plants and their ants. Bull Mus Comp Zool 90:3–262Google Scholar
  59. Wulff JL (1985) Clonal organisms and the evolution of mutualism. In: Jackson JBC, Buss LW, Cook RE (eds) Population biology and evolution in clonal organisms. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 437–466Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth G. Pringle
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rodolfo Dirzo
    • 1
  • Deborah M. Gordon
    • 1
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Michigan Society of FellowsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations