Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 97, Issue 2, pp 186–192 | Cite as

Diversity of ant-plant interactions: protective efficacy in Macaranga species with different degrees of ant association

  • Brigitte Fiala
  • Harald Grunsky
  • Ulrich Maschwitz
  • K. Eduard Linsenmair
Original Paper

Abstract

The pioneer tree Macaranga in SE Asia has developed manyfold associations with ants. The genus comprises all stages of interaction with ants, from facultative relationships to obligate myrmecophytes. Only myrmecophytic Macaranga offer nesting space for ants and are associated with a specific ant partner. The nonmyrmecophytic species are visited by a variety of different ant species which are attracted by extrafloral nectaries (EFN) and food bodies. Transitional Macaranga species like M. hosei are colonized later in their development due to their stem structure. Before the colonization by their specific Crematogaster partner the young plants are visited by different ant species attracted by EFN. These nectaries are reduced and food body production starts as soon as colonization becomes possible. We demonstrated earlier that obligate ant partners can protect their Macaranga plants against herbivore damage and vine cover. In this study we focused on nonspecific interactions and studied M. tanarius and M. hosei, representing a non-myrmecophyte and a transitional species respectively. In ant exclusion experiments both M. tanarius and M. hosei suffered significantly higher mean leaf damage than controls, 37% versus 6% in M. hosei, 16% versus 7% in M. tanarius. M. tanarius offers both EFN and food bodies so that tests for different effects of these two food rewards could be conducted. Plants with food bodies removed but with EFN remaining had the lowest mean increase of herbivore damage of all experimental groups. Main herbivores on M. hosei were mites and caterpillars. Many M. tanarius plants were infested by a shootborer. Both Macaranga species were visited by various ant species, Crematogaster spp. being the most abundant. We found no evidence for any specific relationships. The results of this study strongly support the hypothesis that non-specific, facultative associations with ants can be advantageous for Macaranga plants. Food bodies appear to have lower attractive value for opportunistic ants than EFN and may require a specific dietary adaptation. This is also indicated by the fact that food body production in the transitional M. hosei does not start before stem structure allows a colonization by the obligate Crematogaster species. M. hosei thus benefits from facultative association with a variety of ants until it produces its first domatia and can be colonized by its obligate mutualist.

Key words

Ant-plant interactions Herbivory Macaranga Mutualism Myrmecophytes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beattie AJ (1985) The evolutionary ecology of ant-plant mutualisms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Davidson DW, Foster RB, Snelling RR, Lozada PW (1991) Variable composition of some tropical ant-plant symbioses. In: Price PW (ed) Herbivory: tropical and temperate perspectives. Wiley, New York, pp 145–162Google Scholar
  3. Fiala B (1991) Partnerschaften von Pflanzen und Ameisen. Biologie Unserer Zeit 5:241–247Google Scholar
  4. Fiala B, Maschwitz U (1990) Studies on the South East Asian ant-plant association Crematogaster borneensis/Macaranga: adaptations of the ant partner. Insectes Soc 37:212–231Google Scholar
  5. Fiala B, Maschwitz U (1991) Extrafloral nectaries in the genus Macaranga (Euphorbiaceae) in Malaysia: comparative studies of their possible significance as predispositions for myrmecophytism. Biol J Linn Soc 44:287–305Google Scholar
  6. Fiala B, Maschwitz U (1992a) Food bodies and their significance for obligate ant-association in the tree genus Macaranga (Euphorbiaceae). Bot J Linn Soc 110:61–75Google Scholar
  7. Fiala B, Maschwitz U (1992b) Domatia as most important adaptations in the evolution of myrmecophytes in the paleotropical tree genus Macaranga (Euphorbiaceae). Plant Syst Evol 180:53–64Google Scholar
  8. Fiala B, Maschwitz U, Tho YP, Helbig AJ (1989) Studies of a South East Asian ant-plant association: protection of Macaranga trees by Crematogaster borneensis. Oecologia 79:463–470Google Scholar
  9. Fiala B, Maschwitz U, Tho YP (1991) The association between Macaranga and ants in South East Asia. In: Huxley C, Cutler DF (eds) Interactions between ants and plants. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 263–270Google Scholar
  10. Huxley CR (1986) Evolution of benevolent ant-plant relationships. In: Juniper B, Southwood R (eds) Insects and the plant surface. Arnold, London, pp 257–282Google Scholar
  11. Jones TH, Blum MS, Andersen AN, Fales HM, Escoubas P (1988) Novel 2-ethyl-5-alkylpyrrolidines in the venom of an Australian ant of the genus Monomorium. J Chem Ecol 14:35–45Google Scholar
  12. Keeler KH (1989) Ant-plant interactions. In: Abrahamson WG (ed) Plant-animal interactions. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 207–242Google Scholar
  13. Koptur S (1979) Facultative mutualism between weedy vetches bearing extrafloral nectaries and weedy ants in California. Am J Bot 66:1016–1020Google Scholar
  14. Koptur S (1992) Extrafloral nectary-mediated interactions between insects and plants. In: Bernays E (ed) Insect-plant interactions, vol IV. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 82–129Google Scholar
  15. Letourneau DK, Feynner AG, Jebb M (1993) Coping with enemyfilled space: herbivores on Endospermum in Papua New Guinea. Biotropica 25:95–99Google Scholar
  16. Mackay DA, Whalen MA (1991) Some associations between ants and euphorbs in tropical Australasia. In: Huxley C, Cutler DF (eds) Interactions between ants and plants. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 238–249Google Scholar
  17. McKey D (1988) Promising new directions in the study of antplant mutualisms. In: Greuter W, Zimmer B (eds) Proc Int Bot Congr XIV. Koeltz, Koenigstein, pp 335–355Google Scholar
  18. Oliviera PS, Brandão CRF (1991) The ant community associated with extrafloral nectaries in the Brazilian cerrados. In: Huxley CR, Cutler DF (eds) Ant-plant interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 198–212Google Scholar
  19. Schupp EW (1986) Azteca protection of Cecropia: ant occupation benefits juvenile trees. Oecologia 70:379–385Google Scholar
  20. Vasconcelos HL (1991) Mutualism between Maieta guianensis Aubl., a myrmecophyte melastome, and one of its ant inhabitants: ant protection against insect herbivores. Oecologia 87:295–298Google Scholar
  21. Whalen MA, Mackay DA (1988) Patterns of ant and herbivore activity on five understory euphorbiaceous saplings in submontane Papua New Guinea. Biotropica 20:294–300Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brigitte Fiala
    • 1
  • Harald Grunsky
    • 2
  • Ulrich Maschwitz
    • 2
  • K. Eduard Linsenmair
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Tierökologie und Tropenbiologie (Zoologie III)BiozentrumWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Zoologisches InstitutFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations