Researches on Population Ecology

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 159–164 | Cite as

Density-dependent predation of the antLasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on two attended aphidsLachnus tropicalis andMyzocallis kuricola (Homoptera: Aphididae)

  • Hiroshi Sakata
Original Paper


The antLasius niger was observed collecting honeydew and preying on the two aphid speciesLachnus tropicalis andMyzocallis kuricola on the chestnut treesCastanea crenata. Observation determined how the antL. niger controlled their predation on the aphids in response to the density and honeydew-productivity of the aphids.Lachnus tropicalis was a better honeydew source thanM. kuricola forL. niger in terms of the amount of honeydew collected per unit time by the ants. The number of foraging workers on a tree increased with the number ofL. tropicalis on the tree, but not with the number ofM. kuricola. The density ofL. tropicalis perL. niger worker on a tree had a positive effect on the predation activity ofL. niger on both aphids, whereas the density ofM. kuricola per ant did not have any significant effect. The predation pressure by the ant which increased withL. tropicalis density, however, directed toM. kuricola rather than toL. tropicalis. These facts suggest (1) thatL. niger control their predation activities on aphids with regards to the densities of the attended aphids per worker, and (2) that the ants prey on the aphid species producing less honeydew. The effects of the ant predation on aphids and the importance of these predation effect in antaphids interactions were discussed.

Key words

predation attendance honeydew interaction modifications density dependence foraging 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Addicott, J. F. (1978) Competition for mutualist: aphids and ants.Can. J. Zool. 56: 2093–2096.Google Scholar
  2. Addicott, J. F. (1979) A multispecies aphid-ant association: density dependence and species-specific effects.Can. J. Zool. 57: 558–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breton, L. M. and Addicott J. F. (1992) Density-dependent mutualism in an aphid-ant interaction.Ecology 73: 2175–2180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cherix, D. (1987) Relation between diet and polyethism inFormica colonies. pp. 93–115.In J. M. Pasteels and J. L. Deneubourg (eds.)From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Brikhauser, Basel.Google Scholar
  5. Cushman, J. H. and Addicott, J. F. (1989) Intra- and interspecific competition for mutialists: ant as a limited and limiting resource for aphids.Oecologia 79: 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cushman, J. H. and T. G. Whitham (1989) Conditional mutualism in a membracid-ant association: temporal, age-specific, and density-dependent effects.Ecology 70: 1040–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushman, J. H. and T. G. Whitham (1991) Competition mediating the outcome of a mutualism: protective services of ants as a limiting resource for membracids.Am. Nat. 138: 851–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edinger, B. B. (1985) Conditional mutualism in tree aphid-tending ants.Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 66: 168.Google Scholar
  9. Pontin, A. J. (1958) Preliminary note on the eating of aphids by ants of the genusLasius.Entomologist's Monthly Mag. 94: 9–11.Google Scholar
  10. Pontin, A. J. (1978) The numbers and distribution of subterranean aphids and their exploitation by the antLasius flavus Fabr.Ecol. Entomol. 3: 203–207.Google Scholar
  11. Rosengren, R. and L. Sundstrom (1991) The interaction between red wood ants, Cinara aphids, and pines. A ghost of mutualism past? pp. 80–91.In C. R. Huxley and D. F. Cutler (eds.)Ant-plant interactions. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Sakata, H. (1994) How an ant decides to prey on or to attend aphid.Res. Popul. Ecol. 36: 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. SAS Institute Inc. (1990)SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6, 4 th Edition. Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Skinner, G. J. and J. B. Whittaker (1981) An experimental investigation of inter-relationships between the wood-ant and some tree-canopy herbivores.J. Anim. Ecol. 50: 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sudd, J. H. (1987) Individual behavior and mixed diet strategy in ants. pp. 81–92.In J. M. Pasteels and J. L. Deneubourgh (eds.)From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Brikhauser, Basel.Google Scholar
  16. Way, M. J. (1954) Studies on the association of the antOecophylla longinoda with the scale insectSaissetia zanzibarensis.Bull. Entomol. Res. 45: 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Way, M. J. (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew producting Homoptera.Annu. Rev. Entomol. 8: 307–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© the Society of Population Ecology 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroshi Sakata
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Entomology, Faculty of AgricultureKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations