Oecologia

, Volume 160, Issue 3, pp 537–549 | Cite as

Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses

  • Felix B. Rosumek
  • Fernando A. O. Silveira
  • Frederico de S. Neves
  • Newton P. de U. Barbosa
  • Livia Diniz
  • Yumi Oki
  • Flavia Pezzini
  • G. Wilson Fernandes
  • Tatiana Cornelissen
Plant-Animal Interactions - Original Paper

Abstract

We reviewed the evidence on the role of ants as plant biotic defenses, by conducting meta-analyses for the effects of experimental removal of ants on plant herbivory and fitness with data pooled from 81 studies. Effects reviewed were plant herbivory, herbivore abundance, hemipteran abundance, predator abundance, plant biomass and reproduction in studies where ants were experimentally removed (n = 273 independent comparisons). Ant removal exhibited strong effects on herbivory rates, as plants without ants suffered almost twice as much damage and exhibited 50% more herbivores than plants with ants. Ants also influenced several parameters of plant fitness, as plants without ants suffered a reduction in biomass (−23.7%), leaf production (−51.8%), and reproduction (−24.3%). Effects were much stronger in tropical regions compared to temperate ones. Tropical plants suffered almost threefold higher herbivore damage than plants from temperate regions and exhibited three times more herbivores. Ant removal in tropical plants resulted in a decrease in plant fitness of about 59%, whereas in temperate plants this reduction was not statistically significant. Ant removal effects were also more important in obligate ant–plants (=myrmecophytes) compared to plants exhibiting facultative relationships with hemiptera or those plants with extrafloral nectaries and food bodies. When only tropical plants were considered and the strength of the association between ants and plants taken into account, plants with obligate association with ants exhibited almost four times higher herbivory compared to plants with facultative associations with ants, but similar reductions in plant reproduction. The removal of a single ant species increased plant herbivory by almost three times compared to the removal of several ant species. Altogether, these results suggest that ants do act as plant biotic defenses, but the effects of their presence are more pronounced in tropical systems, especially in myrmecophytic plants.

Keywords

Ant–plant interaction Ant–plant mutualism Formicidae Herbivory Indirect interactions 

Supplementary material

442_2009_1309_MOESM1_ESM.doc (237 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 237 kb)

References

  1. Alvarez G, Armbrecht I, Jiménez E, Armbrecht H, Ullóa-Chacón P (2001) Ant–plant association in two Tococa species from a primary rain forest of Colombian Choco (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 38:585–602Google Scholar
  2. A.P.G. [= Angiosperm Phylogeny Group] II (2003) An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Bot.J Linn Soc 141:399–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beattie AJ (1985) The evolutionary ecology of ant–plant mutualisms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Blüthgen N, Verhaagh M, Goitía W, Jaffé 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
  5. 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 106:4344–4358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronstein JL (1998) The contribution of ant plant protection studies to our understanding of mutualism. Biotropica 30:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronstein JL, Alarcon R, Geber M (2006) The evolution of plant–insect mutualisms. New Phytol 172:412–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruna EM, Lapola DM, Vasconcelos HL (2004) Interspecific variation in the defensive responses of obligate plant–ants: experimental tests and consequences for herbivory. Oecologia 138:558–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coley PD, Barone JA (1996) Herbivory and plant defenses in tropical forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:305–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Compton SG, Robertson HG (1988) Complex interactions between mutualisms: ants tending homopterans protect fig seeds and pollinators. Ecology 69:1302–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crutsinger GM, Sanders NJ (2005) Aphid-tending ants affect secondary users in leaf shelters and rates of herbivory on Salix hookeriana in a coastal dune habitat. Am Midl Nat 154:296–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuautle M, Rico-Gray V (2003) The effect of wasps and ants on the reproductive success of the extrafloral nectaried plant Turnera ulmifolia (Turneraceae). Funct Ecol 17:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson DW (1997) The role of resource imbalances in the evolutionary ecology of tropical arboreal ants. Biol J Linnean Soc 61:153–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davidson DW, McKey D (1993) The evolutionary ecology of symbiotic ant–plant relationships. J Hymenoptera Res 2:13–83Google Scholar
  15. Dejean A, Corbara B (2003) A review of mosaics of dominant ants in rainforests and plantations. In: Basset Y, Novotny V, Miller SE (eds) Arthropods of tropical forests: spatio-temporal dynamics and resource use in the canopy. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 341–347Google Scholar
  16. Dejean A, Delabie JHC, Cerdan P, Gibernau M, Corbara B (2006) Are myrmecophytes always better protected against herbivores than other plants? Biol J Linn Soc 89:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delabie JHC (2001) Trophobiosis between Formicidae and Hemiptera (Sternorrhyncha and Auchenorrhyncha): an overview. Neotrop Entomol 30:501–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Delabie JHC, Osprina M, Zabala G (2003) Relaciones entre hormigas y plantas: una introducción. In: Fernandez F (ed) Introducción a las Hormigas de la región Neotropical. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander Von Humboldt, Bogotá, pp 167–180Google Scholar
  19. Del-Claro K (2004) Multitrophic relationships, conditional mutualisms, and the study of interaction biodiversity in tropical savannas. Neotrop Entomol 33:665–672Google Scholar
  20. 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 124:156–165Google Scholar
  21. Del-Claro K, Berto V, Réu W (1996) Effect of herbivore deterrence by ants on the fruit set of an extrafloral nectary plant, Qualea multiflora (Vochysiaceae). J Trop Ecol 12:887–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Del-Claro K, Byke J, Yugue GM, Morato MG (2006) Conservative benefits in an ant–hemipteran association in the Brazilian tropical savanna. Sociobiology 47:415–421Google Scholar
  23. Djiéto-Lordon C, Dejean A, Ring RA, Nkongmeneck BA, Lauga J, McKey D (2007) Ecology of an improbable association: the Pseudomyrmecine plant–ant Tetraponera tessmanni and the myrmecophytic liana Vitex thyrsiflora (Lamiaceae) in Cameroon. Biotropica 37:421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dutra HP, Freitas AVL, Oliveira PS (2006) Dual ant attraction in the neotropical shrub Urera baccifera (Urticaceae): the role of ant visitation to pearl bodies and fruits in herbivore deterrence and leaf longevity. Funct Ecol 20:252–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dyer LA, Coley PD (2002) Tritrophic interactions in tropical and temperate communities. In: Tscharntke T, Hawkins B (eds) Multitrophic Level Interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 67–88Google Scholar
  26. Dyer LA, Singer MS, Lill JT, Stireman JO, Gentry GL, Marquis RJ, Greeney HF, Wagner DL, Morais HC, Diniz IR, Kursar TA, Coley PD (2007) Host specificity of Lepidoptera in tropical and temperate forests. Nature 448:696–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fiala B, Maschwitz U, Pong TY, Helbig AJ (1989) Studies of a Southeast asian ant–plant association: protection of Macaranga trees by Crematogaster borneensis. Oecologia 79:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fiala B, Jakob A, Maschwitz U (1999) Diversity, evolutionary specialization and geographic distribution of a mutualistic ant–plant complex: Macaranga and Crematogaster in South East Asia. Biol J Linn Soc 66:305–331Google Scholar
  29. Fonseca CR (1994) Herbivory and the long-lived leaves of an Amazonian ant-tree. J Ecol 82:833–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fowler SV, MacGarvin M (1985) The impact of hairy wood ants, Formica lugubris, on the guild structure of herbivorous insects on birch, Betula pubescens. J Anim Ecol 54:847–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fraser AM, Axén AH, Pierce NE (2001) Assessing the quality of different ant species as partners of a myrmecophilous butterfly. Oecologia 129:452–460Google Scholar
  32. Frederickson ME, Gordon DM (2007) The devil to pay: a cost of mutualism with Myrmelachista schumanni ants in ‘devil’s gardens’ is increased herbivory on Duroia hirsuta trees. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:1117–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Freitas L, Galetto L, Bernardello G, Paoli AAS (2000) Ant exclusion and reproduction of Croton sarcopetalus (Euphorbiaceae). Flora 195:398–402Google Scholar
  34. Gaume L, Zacharias M, Grosbois V, Borges RM (2005) The fitness consequences of bearing domatia and having the right ant partner: experiments with protective and non-protective ants in a semi-myrmecophyte. Oecologia 145:76–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gibb H (2003) Dominant meat ants affect only their specialist predator in a complex natural system. Oecologia 136:609–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Halaj J, Wise DH (2001) Terrestrial trophic cascades: how much do they trickle? Am Nat 157:262–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heil M (2008) Indirect defense via tritrophic interactions. New Phytol 178:41–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Heil M, Fiala B, Maschwitz U, Linsenmair KE (2001) On benefits of indirect defence: short- and long-term studies of antiherbivore protection via mutualistic ants. Oecologia 126:395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hossaert-McKey M, Orivel J, Labeyrie E, Pascal L, Delabie JHC, Dejean A (2001) Differential associations with ants of three co-occurring extrafloral nectary-bearing plants. Ecoscience 8:325–335Google Scholar
  41. Izzo TJ, Vasconcelos HL (2002) Cheating the cheater: domatia loss minimizes the effects of ant castration in an Amazonian ant–plant. Oecologia 133:200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. James DG, Stevens MM, O’Malley KJ, Faulder RJ (1999) Ant foraging reduces the abundance of beneficial and incidental arthropods in Citrus canopies. Biol Control 14:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Janzen DH (1966) Coevolution of mutualism between ants and acacias in Central America. Evolution 20:249–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Janzen DH (1967) Interaction of the bull’s horn Acacia (Acacia cornigera L.) with an ant inhabitant (Pseudomyrmex ferruginea F. Smith) in Eastern Mexico. Univ Kans Sci Bull 47:315–558Google Scholar
  45. Karhu KJ (1998) Effects of ant exclusion during outbreaks of a defoliator and a sap-sucker on birch. Ecol Entomol 23:185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kersch MF, Fonseca CR (2005) Abiotic factors and the conditional outcome of an ant–plant mutualism. Ecology 86:2117–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koptur S (2005) Nectar as fuel for plant protectors. In: Wackers FL, van Rijn PCJ, Bruin J (eds) Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects: a protective mutualism and its applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 75–108Google Scholar
  48. Letourneau DK (1998) Ants, stem-borers, and fungal pathogens: Experimental tests of a fitness advantage in Piper ant–plants. Ecology 79:593–603Google Scholar
  49. Letourneau DK, Barbosa P (1999) Ants, stem borers, and pubescence in Endospermum in Papua New Guinea. Biotropica 31:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Messina FJ (1981) Plant protection as a consequence of an ant–membracid mutualism: interactions on goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Ecology 62:1433–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Michelangeli FA (2003) Ant protection against herbivory in three species of Tococa (Melastomataceae) occupying different environments. Biotropica 35:181–188Google Scholar
  52. Miller TEX (2007) Does having multiple partners weaken the benefits of facultative mutualism? A test with cacti and cactus-tending ants. Oikos 116:500–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moller AP, Jennions MD (2001) Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends Ecol Evol 16:580–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mooney KA (2007) Tritrophic effects of birds and ants on a canopy food web, tree growth, and phytochemistry. Ecology 88:2005–2014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Novotny V, Drozd P, Miller SE, Kulfan M, Janda M, Basset Y, Weiblen GD (2006) Why are there so many species of herbivorous insects in tropical rainforests? Science 313:1115–1118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Offenberg J, Nielsen MG, Macintosh DJ, Havanon S, Aksornkoae S (2005) Lack of ant attendance may induce compensatory plant growth. Oikos 111:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Oliveira PS (1997) The ecological function of extrafloral nectaries: Herbivore deterrence by visiting ants and reproductive output in Caryocar brasiliense (Caryocaraceae). Funct Ecol 11:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Oliveira PS, Freitas AVL (2004) Ant–plant–herbivore interactions in the Neotropical Cerrado Savanna. Naturwissenschaften 91:557–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Renault CK, Buffa LM, Delfino MA (2005) An aphid–ant interaction: effects on different trophic levels. Ecol Res 20:71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rico-Gray V, Oliveira P (2007) The ecology and evolution of ant–plant interactions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  61. Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J (2000) MetaWin: statistical software for meta-analysis. Version 2.0, Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  62. Rosenthal R (1979) The ‘file drawer’ problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 86:638–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rudgers JA (2004) Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: Selection in a facultative ant–plant mutualism. Ecology 85:192–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ruhren S (2003) Seed predators are undeterred by nectar-feeding ants on Chamaecrista nictitans (Caesalpineaceae). Plant Ecol 166:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schemske DW (1982) Ecological correlates of a neotropical mutualism: ant assemblages at Costus extrafloral nectaries. Ecology 63:932–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schmitz OJ, Hamback PA, Beckerman AP (2000) Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removal on plants. Am Nat 55:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schultz TR, McGlynn TP (2000) The interaction of ants with another organisms. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR (eds) Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  68. Sipura M (2002) Contrasting effects of ants on the herbivory and growth of two willow species. Ecology 83:2680–2690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2007) Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing insects. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 274:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Suzuki N, Ogura K, Katayama N (2004) Efficiency of herbivore exclusion by ants attracted to aphids on the vetch Vicia angustifolia L. (Leguminosae). Ecol Res 19:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Torres-Hernandez L, Rico-Gray V, Castillo-Guevara C, Vergara JA (2000) Effect of nectar-foraging ants and wasps on the reproductive fitnesse ot Turnera ulmifolia (Turneraceae) in a coastal sand dune in Mexico. Acta Zool Mex 81:13–21Google Scholar
  73. Webber BL, Moog J, Curtis ASO, Woodrow IE (2007) The diversity of ant–plant interactions in the rainforest understory tree, Ryparosa (Achariaceae): food bodies, domatia, prostomata, and hemipteran trophobionts. Biol J Linn Soc 154:353–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix B. Rosumek
    • 1
  • Fernando A. O. Silveira
    • 1
  • Frederico de S. Neves
    • 1
  • Newton P. de U. Barbosa
    • 1
  • Livia Diniz
    • 1
  • Yumi Oki
    • 1
  • Flavia Pezzini
    • 1
  • G. Wilson Fernandes
    • 1
  • Tatiana Cornelissen
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de Ciências BiológicasUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.Faculdade de Ciências Integradas do PontalUniversidade Federal de UberlândiaItuiutabaBrazil

Personalised recommendations