Response of a Predatory ant to Volatiles Emitted by Aphid- and Caterpillar-Infested Cucumber and Potato Plants
- 1.5k Downloads
In response to herbivory by insects, various plants produce volatiles that attract enemies of the herbivores. Although ants are important components of natural and agro-ecosystems, the importance of herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) as cues for ants for finding food sources have received little attention. We investigated responses of the ant Formica pratensis to volatiles emitted by uninfested and insect-infested cucumber (Cucumis sativus) and potato (Solanum tuberosum) plants. Cucumber plants were infested by the phloem-feeding aphid Aphis gossypii, the leaf chewer Mamestra brassicae or simultaneously by both insects. Potato plants were infested by either Aphis gossypii, by the leaf chewer Chrysodeixis chalcites or both. In olfactometer experiments, ants preferred volatile blends emitted by cucumber plants infested with M. brassicae caterpillars alone or combined with A. gossypii to volatiles of undamaged plants or plants damaged by A. gossypii only. No preference was recorded in choice tests between volatiles released by aphid-infested plants over undamaged plants. Volatiles emitted by potato plants infested by either C. chalcites or A. gossypii were preferred by ants over volatiles released by undamaged plants. Ants did not discriminate between potato plants infested with aphids and caterpillars over plants infested with aphids only. Plant headspace composition showed qualitative and/or quantitative differences between herbivore treatments. Multivariate analysis revealed clear separation between uninfested and infested plants and among herbivore treatments. The importance of HIPVs in indirect plant defence by ants is discussed in the context of the ecology of ant-plant interactions and possible roles of ants in pest management.
KeywordsTritrophic interactions Ant-plant interactions Herbivore-induced plant volatiles Infochemicals GC-MS analysis Behavioural response Herbivory Plant defence Indirect defence
We thank Jeroen van Schelt of Koppert B.V., Berkel en Rodenrijs, The Netherlands and Joke van Elven of Rijk Zwaan B.V., De Lier, The Netherlands for providing us with insects, Unifarm of Wageningen University and Research for growing the plants, Ron Felix for showing us where to collect ants and Dani Lucas-Barbosa for advice. We are also grateful to the anonymous Reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments on the manuscript.
This study was funded with grants by University of Parma (FIL 2014–2015) assigned to DA Grasso.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations on studies on live animals.
- Bristow CM (1991) Why are so few aphids ant-tended? In: Huxley CR, Cutler DF (eds) Ant-plant interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 104–119Google Scholar
- Brouat C, McKey D, Bessière J-M, Pascal L, Hossaert-McKey M (2000) Leaf volatile compounds and the distribution of ant patrolling in an ant–plant protection mutualism: preliminary results on Leonardoxa (Fabaceae: Caesalpinioideae) and Petalomyrmex (Formicidae: Formicinae). Acta Oecol 21:349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cerdá X, Dejean A (2011) 3. Predation by ants on arthropods and other animals. In: Polidori C (ed) Predation in the Hymenoptera: an evolutionary perspective. Transworld Research Network, Kerala, pp 39–78Google Scholar
- Chong CS, D’Alberto CF, Thomson LJ, Hoffmann AA (2010) Influence of native ants on arthropod communities in a vineyard. Agric For Entomol 12:223–232Google Scholar
- Dicke M (1999) Evolution of induced indirect defence of plants. In: Tollrian R, Harvell CJ (eds) The ecology and evolution of inducible defences. University Press, Princeton, pp 62–88Google Scholar
- Godzińska EJ, Kieruzel M, Korczyńska J (1990) Predation of ants of the genus Formica L. (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) on Colorado beetles, Leptinotarsa decemlineata say (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Mem Zoologi 44:47–53Google Scholar
- Heil M (2015) Extrafloral nectar at the plant-insect interface: a spotlight on chemical ecology, phenotypic plasticity, and food webs. Annu Rev Entomol 60:213–232Google Scholar
- Joachim C, Vosteen I, Weisser WW (2015) The aphid alarm pheromone (E)-β-farnesene does not act as a cue for predators searching on a plant. Chemoecology 25:105–113Google Scholar
- Li Y, Weldegergis BT, Chamontri S, Dicke M, Gols R (2017) Does aphid infestation interfere with indirect plant defense against lepidopteran caterpillars in wild cabbage? J Chem Ecol 43:493–505 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-017-0842-z
- Pavan M (1959) Attività italiana per la lotta biologica con formiche del gruppo Formica rufa contro gli insetti dannosi alle foreste. Ministero dell’Agricoltura e delle Foreste, Collana verde 4:1–80Google Scholar
- Philpott SM, Perfecto I, Armbrecht I, Parr CL (2010) Ant diversity and function in disturbed and changing habitats. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbott K (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 137–156Google Scholar
- Schoonhoven LM, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2005) Insect-plant biology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Silva DB, Weldegergis BT, van Loon JJA, Bueno VHP (2017) Qualitative and quantitative differences in herbivore-induced plant volatile blends from tomato plants infested by either Tuta absoluta or Bemisia tabaci. J Ecol 43:53–65Google Scholar
- Solida L, Grasso DA, Testi A, Fanelli G, Scalisi M, Bartolino V, Mori A, Fanfani A (2011) Differences in the nesting sites microhabitat characteristics of two syntopic species of Messor harvester ants in a phytosociological homogeneous grassland area. Ethol Ecol Evol 23:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Speight MR, Hunter MD, Watt AD (2008) Ecology of insects: concepts and applications. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Stewart-Jones A, Pope TW, Fitzgerald JD, Poppy GM (2008) The effect of ant attendance on the success of rosy apple aphid populations, natural enemy abundance and apple damage in orchards. Agr Forest Entomol 10:37–43Google Scholar
- Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2007) Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew producing insects. Proc R Soc B 274:151–164Google Scholar
- Wanjiku C, Khamis FM, Teal PEA, Torto B (2014) Plant volatiles influence the African weaver ant-cashew tree mutualism. J Chem Ecol 40:1167–1117Google Scholar
- Weisser WW, Siemann E (2004) The various effects of insects on ecosystem functioning. In: Weisser WW, Siemann E (eds) Insects and Ecosystem Function,Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 3-24Google Scholar