Advertisement

Population Ecology

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 327–332 | Cite as

Ant–plant interaction in the Neotropical savanna: direct beneficial effects of extrafloral nectar on ant colony fitness

  • Jonas Byk
  • Kleber Del-Claro
Original Article

Abstract

Current evidence suggests that ant–plant relationships may influence species composition, abundance, and interactions at the community scale. The main resource that plants offer to ants is extrafloral nectar (EFN) and the major part of published studies shown benefits from ants to plants possessing EFNs. However, the complementary question of whether and how ants benefit from EFNs is rarely addressed. Here, we present the results of a long-term study to demonstrate whether EFN has a positive effect on ant colony fitness. We quantified colony growth rate, survival and the final weight of individuals as measures of benefit derived from EFN. Our results provide clear evidence that EFN can have a significant positive impact on the survivorship, growth and reproduction of the Myrmicinae Cephalotes pusillus. In fact, a diet rich in EFN (providing at least 30 cal per day) resulted in five times more individuals per colony, greater body weights, and more eggs. These results have shed new light on the relationships between ants and EFN-bearing plants such as in tropical and temperate systems. The ant C. pusillus is the first case in which we have firm evidence that EFN improves colony growth and development, corroborating more than 100 years of experimental evidence of benefits to plants in these widespread relationships.

Keywords

Cephalotes Chamaecrista Colony growth rate Mutualism Tropical 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank to Judith Bronstein, Heraldo L. Vasconcelos, Sérvio P. Ribeiro, Gustavo Q. Romero and three anonymous referees for valuable comments on the early version of the manuscript. We specially thank Michele Lanan for suggestions and a strong English review. Authors thank financial support from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (J. Byk/graduate fellowship) and Conselho Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia (K. Del-Claro, PQ/research grant).

References

  1. Bhatkar A, Whitcomb WH (1970) Artificial diet for rearing various species of ants. Fla Entomol 53:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blüthgen N, Verhaagh M, Goitia W, Jaffe K, Morawetz W, Barthlott W (2000) How plants shape the ant community in the Amazonian rainforest canopy: the key role of extrafloral nectaries and homopteran honeydew. Oecologia 125:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blüthgen N, Gottsberger G, Fiedler K (2004a) Sugar and amino acid composition of ant-attended nectar and honeydew sources from an Australian rainforest. Austral Ecol 29:418–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blüthgen N, Stork NE, Fiedler K (2004b) Bottom-up control and co-occurrence in complex communities: honeydew and nectar determine a rainforest ant mosaic. Oikos 27:344–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borer ET, Seabloom EW, Shurin JB, Anderson KE, Blanchette CA (2005) What determines the strength of a trophic cascade? Ecology 86:528–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronstein JL (1998) The contribution of ant–plant protection studies to our understanding of mutualism. Biotropica 30:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byk J, Del-Claro K (2010) Nectar- and pollen-gathering Cephalotes ants provide no protection against herbivory: a new manipulative experiment to test ant protective capabilities. Acta Ethol 13:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clement LW, Köppen SCW, Brand WA, Heil M (2008) Strategies of a parasite of the ant–Acacia mutualism. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:953–962CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cushman JH, Beattie A (1991) Mutalisms: assessing the benefits to hosts and visitors. Trends Ecol Evol 6:193–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cushman JH, Rashbrook VK, Beattie AJ (1994) Assessing benefits to both participants in a Lycaenid–ant association. Ecology 75:1031–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dafni A (1992) Pollination ecology: a practical approach (the practical approach series). Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson DW (1998) Resource discovery versus resource domination in ants: a functional mechanism for breaking the trade-off. Ecol Entomol 23:484–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson DW, Cook SC, Snelling RR (2003) Explaining the abundance of ants in lowland tropical rainforest canopies. Science 300:969–972CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Del-Claro K, Oliveira PS (2000) Conditional outcomes in a neotropical treehopper–ant association: temporal and species-specific variation in ant protection and homopteran fecundity. Oecologia 124:156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Del-Claro K, Santos JC, Júnior ADS (2002) Etograma da formiga arborícola Cephalotes pusillus (Klug, 1824) (Formicidae: Myrmicinae). Rev Etol 4:31–40 (in Portuguese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  16. Fiedler KL, Saam C (1995) Ants benefit from attending facultatively myrmecophilous Lycaenidae caterpillars: evidence from a survival study. Oecologia 104:316–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fokuhl G, Heinze J, Poschlod P (2007) Colony growth in Myrmica rubra with supplementation of myrmecochorous seeds. Ecol Res 22:845–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gammans N, Bullock JM, Schonhogge K (2005) Ants benefit in a seed dispersal mutualism. Oecologia 146:43–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. González-Teuber M, Heil M (2009) Nectar chemistry is tailored for both attraction of mutualists and protection from exploiters. Plant Sign Behav 4:809–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Heil M, Fiala B, Baumann B, Linsenmair KE (2000) Temporal, spatial and biotic variations in extrafloral nectar secretion by Macaranga tanarius. Funct Ecol 14:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heil M, Koch T, Hilpert A, Fiala B, Boland W, Lisenmair KE (2001) Extrafloral nectar production of the ant-associated plant, Macaranga tanarius, is an induced, indirect, defensive response elicited by jasmonic acid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1083–1088CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Irwin HS, Barneby R (1982) The American Cassinae A synoptical revision of Leguminosae tribe Cassieae subtribe Cassinae in The New World. Mem New York Bot Gard 35:1–918Google Scholar
  24. Janzen DH (1975) Pseudomyrmex nigropilosa: a parasite of a mutualism. Science 188:936–937CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kearns CA, Inouye D (1993) Techniques for pollinations biologists. Colorado University Press, NiwotGoogle Scholar
  26. Keeler KH (1978) Insects feeding at extrafloral nectaries of Ipomoea carnea (Convolvulaceae). Entomol News 89:163–168Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Korndörfer AP, Del-Claro K (2006) Ant defense versus induced defense in Lafoensia pacari (Lythraceae), a myrmecophilous tree of the Brazilian cerrado. Biotropica 38:786–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lach L, Hobbs ER, Majer EJD (2009) Herbivory-induced extrafloral nectar increases native and invasive ant worker survival. Popul Ecol 51:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Letorneau DK (1990) Code of ant–plant mutualism broken by parasite. Science 248:215–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Nascimento EA, Del-Claro K (2010) Ant visitation to extrafloral nectaries decreases herbivory and increases fruit set in Chamaecrista debilis (Fabaceae) in a Neotropical savanna. Flora. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2009.12.040
  33. O’Dowd DJ, Catchpole EA (1983) Ants and extrafloral nectaries: no evidence for plant protection in Helichrysum spp.–ant interactions. Oecologia 59:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ohgushi T (2008) Herbivore-induced indirect interaction webs on terrestrial plants: the importance of non-trophic, indirect, and facilitative interactions. Entomol Exp App 128:217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Powell S (2008) Ecological specialization and the evolution of a specialized caste in Cephalotes ants. Funct Ecol 22:902–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pulice CE, Packer AA (2008) Simulated herbivory induces extrafloral nectar production in Prunus avium. Funct Ecol 22:801–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rashbrook VK, Compton SG, Lawton JH (1992) Ant–herbivore interactions: reasons for the absence of benefits to a fern with foliar nectaries. Ecology 73:2167–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rico-Gray V, Oliveira PS (2007) The ecology and evolution of ant–plant interactions. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 Mid Nat 140:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosumek FB, Silveira FAO, Neves FS, Barbosa NP, Diniz L, Oki Y, Pezzini F, Fernandes GW, Cornelissen T (2009) Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses. Oecologia 160:537–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rudgers JA, Gardner MC (2004) Extrafloral nectar as a resource mediating multispecies interactions. Ecology 85:1495–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rutter MT, Rausher MD (2004) Natural selection on extrafloral nectar production in Chamaecrista fasciculata: the costs and benefits of a mutualism trait. Evolution 58:2657–2668PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Sachs JL, Simms EL (2006) Pathways to mutualism breakdown. Trends Ecol Evol 21:585–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sendoya SF, Freitas AVL, Oliveira PS (2009) Egg-laying butterflies distinguish predaceous ants by sight. Am Nat 174:134–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Simberloff D (2006) Invasional meltdown 6 years later: important phenomenon, unfortunate metaphor, or both? Ecol Lett 9:912–919CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson JN (2005) The geographic mosaic of coevolution. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação de Recursos NaturaisUniversidade Federal de UberlândiaUberlândiaBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto de Biologia LECIUniversidade Federal de UberlândiaUberlândiaBrazil

Personalised recommendations