Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 105–111 | Cite as

Floral resource partitioning by ants and bees in a jambolan Syzygium jambolanum (Myrtaceae) agroforestry system in Brazilian Meridional Amazon

  • Wesley DáttiloEmail author
  • Rodrigo L. Martins
  • Vera Uhde
  • Janaína C. Noronha
  • Fernando P. Florêncio
  • Thiago J. Izzo
Article

Abstract

The fruit production of flowering plants critically depends on the pollination services provided by animals that compete for flower resources. The output of competitive interactions between ants and bees for inflorescences of jambolan Syzygium jambolanum (Myrtaceae) in an agroforestry system in Brazilian Meridional Amazonian are an interesting system of investigation due the possibility to control variables experimentally. In 20 S. jambolanum individuals we performed 300 treatments in different inflorescences of two strata (upper and lower) as follows: (1) ants exclusion, (2) bees exclusion, and (3) control group where ants and bees could access the inflorescences. There was no difference in the number of inflorescences, volume of nectar and sugar concentration between the strata. Also the visitors considered are distributed equally in the tree’s stratum. When bees were prevented from access the inflorescences, ants dominated more inflorescences only in the lower stratum. On the contrary, when ants were excluded, bees visited more inflorescences only in the upper stratum. We conclude that ants prevent the access to bees and vice versa as the result of different ability of resource utilization and foraging strategies. Thus, preventing the access of ants to the floral nectar could increase the level of nectar available to pollinators of S. jambolanum, thereby increasing productivity and reducing economic losses.

Keywords

Competitive interactions Nectar Pollinator cheaters Pollination Agriculture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank R.E. Vicente for her assistance during the fieldwork and Office National des Forêts Brazil by logistical support. We also thank CAPES by masters fellowship to WD, VH, JCN and FPF. This research was conducted as part of an ecology field course from the Ecology and Conservation of Biodiversity Graduate Program of the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso. This is publication 16 in the NEBAM technical series.

References

  1. Baiardi A (1997) Mudanças técnicas na agricultura medieval e o processo de transição para o capitalismo. Cad Cienc Tec 14(3):449–464Google Scholar
  2. Bawa KS, Bullock SH, Perrv DR, Coville RE, Gravum MH (1985) Reproductive biology of tropical lowland rain forest trees. Am J Bot 72(3):346–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beattie AJ (1985) The evolutionary ecology of ant-plant mutualisms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentham G (1863–1878) Flora Australiensis: a description of the plants of the Australian territory. Assisted by Ferdinand Mueller, vol 7 Lovell Reeve, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Blüthgen N, Fiedler K (2004) Competition for composition: lessons from nectar-feeding ant communities. Ecology. doi: 10.1890/03-0430 Google Scholar
  6. Blüthgen N, Stork NE, Fiedler K (2004) Bottom-up control and co-occurrence in complex communities: honeydew and nectar determine a rainforest ant mosaic. Oikos. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12687.x Google Scholar
  7. Boose DL (1997) Sources of variation in floral nectar production rate in Epilobium canum (Onagraceae): implications for natural selection. Oecologia. doi: 10.2307/4221635 Google Scholar
  8. Bragança LAR (1996) Aspectos gerais no preparo e no controle de qualidade de plantas e fitoterápicos hipoglicemiantes. In: Sixel PJ (ed) Plantas medicinas antidiabéticas: uma abordagem multidisciplinar, 1st edn. Editora da Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro, pp 105–122Google Scholar
  9. Bronstein JL, Alarcon R, Geber M (2006) The evolution of plant-insect mutualisms. New Phytol. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01864.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A, Whitham TG, Bond HW (1981) Competition between hummingbirds and insects for the nectar of two species of shrubs. Southwest Nat 26:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brühl CA, Gunsalam G, Linsenmair KE (1998) Stratification of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a primary rain forest in Sabah, Borneo. J Trop Ecol 14:285297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buys B (1987) Competition for nectar between Argentine ants (Iridomyrmex humilis) and honeybees (Apis mellifera) on black ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon). S Afr J Zool 22:173–174Google Scholar
  13. Câmara JQ, Souza AH, Vasconcelos WE, Freitas RS, Maia PHS, Almeida JC, Maracajá PB (2004) Estudos de meliponíneos, com ênfase a Melipona subnitida D. no município de Jandaíra, RN. Rev Biol Cienc Terra 4:1–20Google Scholar
  14. Camargo FF, Costa RB, Resende MDV, Roa RAR, Rodrigues NB, Santos LV, Freitas ACA (2010) Variabilidade genética para caracteres morfométricos de matrizes de castanha-do-brasil da Amazônia Mato-grossense. Acta Amaz. doi: 10.1590/S0044-59672010000400010 Google Scholar
  15. Cawoy V, Kinet JM, Jacquemart AL (2008) Morphology of nectaries and biology of nectar production in the distylous species Fagopyrum esculentum. Ann Bot. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcn150 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Costanza R, D’arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M (1997) The value the world’s service and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dáttilo W, Marques EC, Falcão JCF, Moreira DDO (2009) Interações mutualísticas entre formigas e plantas. EntomoBrasilis 2:32–36Google Scholar
  18. Davidson DW, Cook SC, Snelling RR, Chua TH (2003) Explaining the abundance of ants in lowland tropical rainforest canopies. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.1082074 Google Scholar
  19. Della Lucia TMC (1993) As formigas cortadeiras. Ed. Folha de Viçosa, ViçosaGoogle Scholar
  20. De-Marco P, Coelho FM (2004) Services performed by the ecosystem: forest remnants influence agricultural cultures’ pollination and production. Biodivers Conserv. doi: 10.1023/B:BIOC.0000019402.51193.e8 Google Scholar
  21. Douglas AE (2008) Conflict, cheats and the persistence of symbioses. New Phytol. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02326.x Google Scholar
  22. Fowler HG, Forti LC, Brandão CRF, Delabie JHC, Vasconcelos HL (1991) Ecologia nutricional de formigas. In: Panizzi AR, Parra JRP (eds) Ecologia nutricional de insetos e suas implicações no manejo de pragas, 1st edn. Manole, São Paulo, pp 131–223Google Scholar
  23. Frankie GW, Coville R (1979) An experimental study on the foraging behavior of selected solitary bee species in the Costa Rica dry forest (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). J Kansas Entomol Soc 52:591–602Google Scholar
  24. Galen C, Geib JC (2007) Density-dependent effects of ants on selection for bumble bee pollination in Polemonium viscosum. Ecology. doi: 10.1890/06-1455 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gallai N, Salles JM, Settele J, Vaissière BE (2009) Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.01 Google Scholar
  26. Gómez JM, Zamora R (1992) Pollination by ants: consequences of the quantitative effects on a mutualistic system. Oecologia. doi: 10.1007/BF00317631 Google Scholar
  27. Gressler E, Pizo MA, Morellato LPC (2006) Polinização e dispersão de sementes em Myrtaceae do Brasil. Rev Bras Bot 29:509–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harder LD, Barrett SCH (1992) The energy cost of bee pollination for Pontederia cordata (Pontederiaceae). Funct Ecol 6:226–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoeksema JD, Bruna EM (2000) Pursuing the big questions about interspecific mutualism: a review of theoretical approaches. Oecologia. doi: 10.1007/s004420000496 Google Scholar
  30. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Hubbell SP, Johnson LK (1978) Comparative foraging behavior of six stingless bee species exploiting a standardized resource. Ecology 59:1123–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Irwin RE, Brody AK, Waser NM (2001) The impact of floral larceny on individuals, populations and communities. Oecologia. doi: 10.1007/s004420100739 Google Scholar
  33. Itino T, Yamane S (1995) The vertical distribution of ants on canopy trees in a Bornean lowland rain forest. Tropics 4:277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jean-Prost P (1985) Apicultura. Ediciones Mundi-Prensa, MadridGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson LK, Hubbell SP (1974) Aggression and competition among stingless bees: field studies. Ecology 55:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koptur S, Truong N (1998) Facultative ant-plant interactions: nectar sugar preferences of introduced pest ant species in South Florida. Biotropica 30:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lassen KM, Ræbild A, Hansen H, Brødsgaard C, Eriksen EN (2011) Bats and bees are pollinating Parkia biglobosa in The Gambia. Agroforest Syst. doi: 10.1007/s10457-011-9409-0 Google Scholar
  38. Loguercio AP, Battistin A, Castagna A, Niura AH, Witt M (2005) Atividade antibacteriana de estrato hidro-alcoólico de folhas de jambolão (Syzygium cumini). Cienc Rur 35:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mariconi FA (1970) As saúvas. Editora Agronômica Ceres, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  41. Mazzanti CM, Schossler DS, Filappi A, Prestes D, Balz D, Miron V, Morsch A, Schetinger MRC, Morsch VM, Cecim M (2003) Estrato da casca de Syzygium cumini no controle da glicemia e estresse oxidativo de ratos normais diabéticos. Cienc Rur 33:1061–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Menzel R, Greggers U, Smith A, Berger S, Brandt R, Brunke S, Bundrock G, Hulse S, Plumpe T, Schaupp F, Schuttler E, Stach S, Stindt J, Stollhoff N, Watzl S (2005) Honeybees navigate according to a map-like spatial memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(8):3040–3045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nagamitsu T, Inoue T (1997) Aggressive foraging of social bees as a mechanism of floral resource partitioning in an Asian tropical rainforest. Oecologia 110:432–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nic Lughadha EN, Proença C (1996) A survey of the reproductive biology of the Myrtoideae (Myrtaceae). Ann Miss Bot Gard 83:480–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oliveira ML, Campos LAO (1996) Preferência por estratos florestais e por substâncias odoríferas em abelhas Euglossinae (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Rev Bras Zool 13(4):1075–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Puterbaugh MN (1998) The roles of ants as flower visitors: experimental analysis in three alpine plant species. Oikos 83:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pyke GH (1991) What does it cost a plant to produce floral nectar? Nature 350:58–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ramalho M, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL, Kleinert-Giovannini A (1991) Ecologia nutricional de abelhas sociais. In: Panizzi AR, Parra JRP (eds) Ecologia nutricional de insetos e suas implicações no manejo de pragas, 1st edn. Manole, São Paulo, pp 225–252Google Scholar
  49. Rico-Gray V (1989) The importance of floral and circum-floral nectar to ants inhabiting dry tropical lowlands. Biol J Linn Soc 38:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rico-Gray V, Oliveira PS (2007) The ecology and evolution of ant–plant interactions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  51. Roubik DW (1989) Ecology and natural history of tropical bees. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sakuragui CM, Alves EM, Lorenzetti ER, Janunzi AM, Borges RAX, Toledo VAA (2011) Bee flora of an insular ecosystem in southern Brazil. J Bot Res Inst Texas 5:311–319Google Scholar
  53. Schaffer WM, Zeh DW, Buchmann SL, Kleinhans S, Schaffer MV, Antrim J (1983) Competition for nectar between introduced honey bees and native North American bees and ants. Ecology 64:564–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sobral M, Proença C, Souza M, Mazine F, Lucas E (2010) Lista de Espécies da Flora do Brasil: Myrtaceae. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/2010/FB024036. Accessed 14 Jan 2011
  55. Tiple AD, Khurad AM, Dennis RLH (2009) Adult butterfly feeding-nectar flower associations: constraints of taxonomic affiliation, butterfly, and nectar flower morphology. J Nat Hist. doi: 10.1080/00222930802610568 Google Scholar
  56. Torezan-Silingardi HM (2012) Flores e animais: uma introdução a história natural da polinização. In: Del-Claro K, Torezan-Silingardi HM (eds) Ecologia das interações planta-animais—uma abordagem ecológico-evolutiva, 1st edn. Technical Books Editora, Rio de Janeiro, pp 111–140Google Scholar
  57. Veloso HP, Rangel-Filho ALR, Lima JCA (1991) Classificação da vegetação brasileira, adaptada a um sistema universal. IBGE, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  58. Velthuis HHW, Van-Doorn A (2006) A century of advances in bumblebee domestication and the economic and environmental aspects of its commercialization for pollination. Apidologie. doi: 10.1051/apido:2006019 Google Scholar
  59. Vianna MR, De-Marco P, Campos LAO (2007) Manejo de polinizadores e o incremento da produtividade agrícola: uma abordagem sustentável dos serviços do ecossistema. Rev Bras Agroecol 2(1):144–147Google Scholar
  60. Wäckers FL, Romeis J, Van-Rijn P (2007) Nectar and pollen-feeding by insect herbivores and implications for multitrophic interactions. Annu Rev Entomol. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091352 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Wallace HM, Lee LS (1999) Pollen source, fruit set and xenia in mandarins. J Hortic Sci Biotech 74:82–86Google Scholar
  62. Wiens JA (1976) Population responses to patchy environments. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 7:81–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilkinson L (1998) Systat: the system for statistics. SYSTAT Inc. Evaston, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  64. Yu DW (2001) Parasites of mutualisms. Biol J Linn Soc. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2001.tb01336.x

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wesley Dáttilo
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Rodrigo L. Martins
    • 2
  • Vera Uhde
    • 1
  • Janaína C. Noronha
    • 1
  • Fernando P. Florêncio
    • 1
  • Thiago J. Izzo
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate Program in Ecology and Conservation of BiodiversityUniversidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Instituto de BiologiaCuiabáBrazil
  2. 2.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Campus Macaé, Pólo BarretoMacaéBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Botany, Laboratory of Insect-Plant InteractionsUniversidade Federal de Mato GrossoCuiabáBrazil

Personalised recommendations