Herbivory-induced extrafloral nectar increases native and invasive ant worker survival
- 351 Downloads
Ascertaining the costs and benefits of mutualistic interactions is important for predicting their stability and effect on community dynamics. Despite widespread designation of the interaction between ants and extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) as a mutualism and over 100 years of studies on ant benefits to plants, the benefits to ants have never been experimentally quantified. The success of invasive ants is thought to be linked to the availability of carbohydrate-rich resources, though reports of invasive ant visits to EFNs are mixed. In two laboratory experiments, we compared worker survival of one native (Iridomyrmex chasei) and two invasive ant species (Linepithema humile and Pheidole megacephala) exposed to herbivorized or non-herbivorized EFN-bearing plants (Acacia saligna) or positive and negative controls. We found that non-herbivorized plants did not produce any measurable extrafloral nectar, and ants with access to non-herbivorized plants had the same survival as ants with access to an artificial plant and water (unfed ants). Ants given herbivorized plants had 7–11 times greater worker survival relative to unfed ants, but there were no differences in survival between native and invasive ants exposed to herbivorized plants. Our results reveal that ants cannot induce A. saligna extrafloral nectar production, but workers of both native and invasive ant species can benefit from extrafloral nectar as much as they benefit from sucrose.
KeywordsAcacia saligna Ant–plant interaction Iridomyrmex chasei Linepithema humile Mutualism Pheidole megacephala
We thank M. Heil and J. Ness for comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript and M. Richter, P. Grimwade, K.-B. Tan, K. Rehm, and K. Wurm for logistical assistance. This study was funded by the Australian Research Council.
- Chen L, Fadamiro HY (2006) Comparing the effects of five naturally occurring monosaccharide and oligosaccharide sugars on longevity and carbohydrate nutrient levels of a parasitic phorid fly, Pseudacteon tricuspis. Physiol Entomol 31:46–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3032.2005.00484.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dytham C (2000) Choosing and using statistics: a biologist’s guide. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Hoffmann BD, Andersen AN, Hill GJE (1999) Impact of an introduced ant on native rain forest invertebrates: Pheidole megacephala in monsoonal Australia. Oecologia 120:595–604Google Scholar
- Koptur S (1992) Extrafloral nectary mediated interactions between insects and plants. In: Bernays E (ed) Insect–plant interactions. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 81–129Google Scholar
- Krushelnycky PD, Holway DA, LeBrun EG (2009) Invasion processes and causes of success. In: Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford (in press)Google Scholar
- Lach L, Hooper-Bùi LM (2009) Consequences of ant invasions. In: Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford (in press)Google Scholar
- Morales MA, Heithaus ER (1998) Food from seed-dispersal mutualism shifts sex ratios in colonies of the ant Aphaenogaster rudis. Ecology 79:734–739Google Scholar
- Passera L (1994) Characteristics of tramp species. In: Williams DF (ed) Exotic ants: biology, impact and control of introduced species. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 23–43Google Scholar
- Shattuck SO (1999) Australian ants: their biology and identification. CSIRO, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
- Wheeler DE (1994) Ants as primary consumers: diet and abundance in the Formicidae. In: Hunt JH, Nelepa CA (eds) Nourishment in ants: patterns in individuals and societies. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 245–278Google Scholar
- Wilson EO, Taylor RW (1967) The ants of Polynesia. Pac Insects Monogr 14:1–109Google Scholar