Evidence of indirect biotic resistance: native ants decrease invasive plant fitness by enhancing aphid infestation

Oecologia (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

The biotic resistance hypothesis asserts that native species may hinder the invasion of exotic species, which can occur either directly or indirectly by influencing interactions between exotic and local species. Aphid-tending ants may play a key role in the indirect biotic resistance to plant invasion. Ants may protect aphids, thus increasing their negative effect on exotic plants, but may also deter chewing herbivores, thus benefiting exotic plants. We studied native aphid-tending ants (Dorymyrmex tener, Camponotus distinguendus, and Dorymyrmex richteri) on exotic nodding thistles (Carduus thoermeri), which are attacked by thistle aphids (Brachycaudus cardui) and thistle-head weevils (Rhinocyllus conicus). We evaluated the impact of ants, aphids, and weevils on thistle seed set. We compared ant species aggressiveness towards aphid predators and weevils and performed ant-exclusion experiments to determine the effects of ants on aphid predators and weevils. We analysed whether ant species affected thistle seed set through their effects on aphids and/or weevils. The ant D. tener showed the most aggressive behaviour towards aphid predators and weevils. Further, D. tener successfully removed aphid predators from thistles but did not affect weevils. Excluding D. tener from thistles increased seed set. Analyses supported a negative indirect pathway between the aggressive D. tener and thistle seed set through aphid populations, while the other ant species showed no indirect effects on thistle reproduction. Therefore, aggressive aphid-tending ants may enhance biotic resistance by increasing aphid infestation on exotic invasive plants. This study highlights the importance of indirect biotic resistance in modulating the success of invasive species.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study will be available in the Figshare Data Repository (https://figshare.com/).

References

  1. Alba-Lynn C, Henk S (2010) Potential for ants and vertebrate predators to shape seed-dispersal dynamics of the invasive thistles Cirsium arvense and Carduus nutans in their introduced range (North America). Plant Ecol 210:291–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-010-9757-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alves-Silva E, Bächtold A, Barônio GJ, Torezan-Silingardi HM, Del-Claro K (2015) Ant–herbivore interactions in an extrafloral nectaried plant: are ants good plant guards against curculionid beetles? J Nat Hist 49:841–851. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2014.954020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Banks CJF, Nixon HL (1958) Effects of the ant, Lasius Niger L., on the feeding and excretion of the Bean Aphid Aphis Fabae Scop. J Exp Biol 35:703–711

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blackman RL, Eastop VF (2006) Aphids on the World’s herbaceous plants and shrubs, vol 2. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boldt PE, Kok LT (1982) Bibliography of Rhinocyllus conicus froel. (coleoptera: curculionidae), an introduced weevil for the biological control of Carduus and Silybum thistles. Bull Ecol Soc Am 28:355–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/besa/28.4.355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brody AK, Irwin RE, McCutcheon ML, Parsons EC (2008) Interactions between nectar robbers and seed predators mediated by a shared host plant, Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 155:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0879-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Byk J, Del-Claro K (2010) Nectar-and pollen-gathering Cephalotes ants provide no protection against herbivory: a new manipulative experiment to test ant protective capabilities. Acta Ethol 13:33–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-010-0071-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2:436–443. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0436:nwisat]2.0.co;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Canedo-Júnior EO, Santiago GS, Zurlo LF, Ribas CR, Carvalho RP, Alves GP, Souza B et al (2017) Isolated and community contexts produce distinct responses by host plants to the presence of ant–aphid interaction: plant productivity and seed viability. PLoS ONE 12:e0170915. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170915

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Chalcoff VR, Lescano MN, Devegili AM (2019) Do novel interactions with local fauna have reproductive consequences for exotic plants? A case study with thistles, ants, aphids, and pollinators. Plant Ecol 220:125–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-019-00907-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clark RE, Farkas TE, Lichter-Marck I, Johnson ER, Singer MS (2016) Multiple interaction types determine the impact of ant predation of caterpillars in a forest community. Ecology 97:3379–3388. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Clark RE, Gutierrez Illan J, Comerford MS, Singer MS (2019) Keystone mutualism influences forest tree growth at a landscape scale. Ecol Lett 22:1599–1607. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 154:296–304. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2005)154[0296:aaasui]2.0.co;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. DeRivera CE, Ruiz GM, Hines AH, Jivoff P (2005) Biotic resistance to invasion: native predator limits abundance and distribution of an introduced crab. Ecology 86:3364–3376. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Desrochers AM, Bain JF, Warwick SI (1988) The biology of Canadian weeds.: 89. Carduus Nutans L. and Carduus Acanthoides L. Can J Plant Sci 68:1053–1068. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps88-126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Devegili AM, Chalcoff VR (2020) Nectar shortage caused by aphids may reduce seed output via pollination interference. Oecologia 194:321–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04712-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Devegili AM, Lescano MN, Gianolli E, Farji-Brener AG (2020) Defence variation within a guild of aphid-tending ants explains aphid population growth. Ecol Entomol 45:1180–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dimitri MJ (1962) La Flora Andino-Patagónica. In: Anales de Parques Nacionales, 9:1–115. SAGN, Direccion Nacional de PN, Argentina

  19. Dixon AFG (1998) Aphid Ecology: An Optimisation Approach. Springer, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  20. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by plants and animals. Springer, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  21. Enrique de Briano AE, Acciaresi HA, Briano JA (2013) Establishment, dispersal, and prevalence of Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a biological control agent of thistles, Carduus species (Asteraceae), in Argentina, with experimental information on its damage. Biol Control 67:186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2013.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Eskelinen A, Harrison S (2014) Exotic plant invasions under enhanced rainfall are constrained by soil nutrients and competition. Ecology 95:682–692. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0288.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Farji-Brener AG, Ghermandi L (2008) Leaf-cutting ant nests near roads increase fitness of exotic plant species in natural protected areas. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 275:1431–1440. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Farji-Brener AG, Corley JC, Bettinelli J (2002) The effects of fire on ant communities in North-Western Patagonia: the importance of habitat structure and regional context. Divers Distrib 8:235–243. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2002.00133.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fox J, Weisberg S, Adler D, Bates D, Baud-Bovy G, Ellison S, Heiberger R et al (2012) Package ‘car’. R package version 3.0–3. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/car/index.html. Accessed 9 Jan 2019

  26. Gobbi M, Puntieri J, Calvelo S (1995) Post-fire recovery and invasion by alien plant species in a South American woodland-steppe ecotone. In: Pysek P, Rajmanek M, Wade M (eds) Plant invasions: general aspects and special problems. Academic Publishing, The Netherlands, pp 105–115

    Google Scholar 

  27. Grace JB (2006) Structural equation modeling and natural systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  28. Green PT, O’Dowd DJ, Abbott KL, Jeffery M, Retallick K, Mac Nally R (2011) Invasional meltdown: invader–invader mutualism facilitates a secondary invasion. Ecology 92:1758–1768. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0050.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jensen JM, Six DL (2006) Myrmecochory of the exotic plant, Centaurea maculosa: a potential mechanism enhancing invasiveness. Environ Entomol 35:326–331. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225x-35.2.326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaneko S (2003) Different impacts of two species of aphid attending ants with different aggressiveness on the number of emerging adults of the aphid’s primary parasitoid and hyperparasitoids. Ecol Res 18:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1703.2003.00547.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(02)02499-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Larson KC, Whitham TG (1997) Competition between gall aphids and natural plant sinks: plant architecture affects resistance to galling. Oecologia 109:575–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050119

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lescano MN, Farji-Brener AG (2011) Exotic thistles increase native ant abundance through the maintenance of enhanced aphid populations. Ecol Res 26:827–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-011-0842-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00657.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Louda SM, Pemberton RW, Johnson MT, Follett P (2003) Nontarget effects—the Achilles’ heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. Annu Rev Entomol 48:365–396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.48.060402.102800

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Masciocchi M, Farji-Brener AG, Sackmann P (2010) Competition for food between the exotic wasp Vespula germanica and the native ant assemblage of NW Patagonia: evidence of biotic resistance? Biol invasions 12:625–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9469-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mazerolle MJ (2013) Package ‘AICcmodavg’. R package version 2.2–2. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/AICcmodavg/index.html. Accessed 20 Jan 2019

  38. McGlynn TP, Parra EL (2016) Mechanisms of carbohydrate-fuelled ecological dominance in a tropical rainforest canopy-foraging ant. Ecol Entomol 41:226–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Messina FJ (1981) Plant protection as a consequence of an ant-membracid mutualism: interactions on goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Ecology 62:1433–1440. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Gilbert GS, Hufbauer RA, Klironomos JN, Maron JL, Power AG et al (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:726–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00908.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mooney KA, Mandal K (2010) Competition hierarchies among ants and predation by birds jointly determine the strength of multi-species ant–aphid mutualisms. Oikos 119:874–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18163.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Morales CL, Aizen MA (2002) Does invasion of exotic plants promote invasion of exotic flower visitors? A case study from the temperate forests of the southern Andes. Biol Invasions 4:87–100. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020513012689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ness JH, Morris WF, Bronstein JL (2006) Integrating quality and quantity of mutualistic service to contrast ant species protecting Ferocactus wislizeni. Ecology 87:912–921. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[912:iqaqom]2.0.co;2

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nielsen C, Agrawal AA, Hajek AE (2010) Ants defend aphids against lethal disease. Biol Lett 6:205–208. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Nuñez MA, Horton TR, Simberloff D (2009) Lack of belowground mutualisms hinders Pinaceae invasions. Ecology 90:2352–2359. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2139.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. O’Dowd DJ, Green PT, Lake PS (2003) Invasional ‘Meltdown’ on an oceanic island. Ecol Lett 6:812–817. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00512.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ohgushi T (2005) Indirect interaction webs: herbivore-induced effects through trait change in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:81–105. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.091704.175523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ohgushi T (2008) Herbivore-induced indirect interaction webs on terrestrial plants: the importance of non-trophic, indirect, and facilitative interactions. Entomol Exp Appl 128:217–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00705.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ortega-Ramos PA, Mezquida ET, Acebes P (2019) Ants indirectly reduce the reproductive performance of a leafless shrub by benefiting aphids through predator deterrence. Plant Ecol 221:91–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-019-00995-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Parker JD, Hay ME (2005) Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants. Ecol Lett 8:959–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00799.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Phillips ID, Willis CKR (2005) Defensive behavior of ants in a mutualistic relationship with aphids. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:321–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-005-0046-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Popay AI, Medd RW (1990) The biology of Australian weeds. 21. Carduus nutans L. ssp. nutans. Plant Prot Q 5:3–13

    Google Scholar 

  53. Prider JN, Facelli JM, Watling JR (2011) Multispecies interactions among a plant parasite, a pollinator and a seed predator affect the reproductive output of an invasive plant, Cytisus scoparius. Austral Ecol 36:167–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2010.02132.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Prior KM, Robinson JM, Meadley Dunphy SA, Frederickson ME (2015) Mutualism between co-introduced species facilitates invasion and alters plant community structure. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 282:20142846. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Puth M, Neuhäuser M, Ruxton GD (2014) Effective use of Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient. Anim Behav 93:183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

  57. Rand TA, Louda SM (2004) Exotic weed invasion increases the susceptibility of native plants to attack by a biocontrol herbivore. Ecology 85:1548–1554. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-3067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ricciardi A, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP, Lockwood JL (2013) Progress toward understanding the ecological impacts of nonnative species. Ecol Monogr 83:263–282. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0183.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D’Antonio CM, Milton SJ, Rejmanek M (2000) Plant invasions—the role of mutualisms. Biol Rev 75:65–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.1999.tb00041.x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ripley B, Venables B, Bates DM, Hornik K, Gebhardt A, Firth D, Ripley MB (2013) Package ‘Mass’. R package version 7.3–53. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MASS/index.html. Accessed 30 Jan 2019

  61. Rosseel Y (2012) Package ‘Lavaan’. R package version 0.6–3. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lavaan/index.html. Accessed 21 Jan 2019

  62. Rosumek FB, Silveira FAO, Neves FS, Barbosa NPU, Diniz L, Oki Y, Pezzini F, Fernandes GW, Cornelissen T (2009) Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses. Oecologia 160:537–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1309-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Schmitz OJ (2008) Effects of predator hunting mode on grassland ecosystem function. Science 319:952–954. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152355

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Shea K, Kelly D, Sheppard AW, Woodburn TL (2005) Context-dependent biological control of an invasive thistle. Ecology 86:3174–3181. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sheppard AW, Cullen JM, Aeschlimann JP (1994) Predispersal seed predation on Carduus nutans (Asteraceae) in southern Europe. Acta Oecol 15:529–541

    Google Scholar 

  67. Shik JZ, Silverman J (2013) Towards a nutritional ecology of invasive establishment: aphid mutualists provide better fuel for incipient Argentine ant colonies than insect prey. Biol Invasions 15:829–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0330-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010086329619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Stadler B, Dixon AFG (2008) Mutualism: ants and their insect partners. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  70. Strauss SY (1991) Indirect effects in community ecology: their definition, study and importance. Trends Ecol Evol 6:206–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(91)90023-q

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Strauss SY, Irwin RE (2004) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of multispecies plant-animal interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:435–466. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2007) Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing insects. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 274:151–164. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wardle DA, Ahmed M, Nicholson KS (1991) Allelopathic influence of nodding thistle (Carduus nutans L.) seeds on germination and radicle growth of pasture plants. New Zeal J Agr Res 34:185–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1991.10423358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. White EV, Wilson JC, Clarke AR (2006) Biotic indirect effects: a neglected concept in invasion biology. Divers Distrib 12:443–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00265.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Yoo HJ, Kizner MC, Holway DA (2013) Ecological effects of multi-species, ant–hemipteran mutualisms in citrus. Ecol Entomol 38:505–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Zhang S, Zhang Y, Ma K (2012) The ecological effects of the ant–hemipteran mutualism: a meta-analysis. Basic Appl Ecol 13:116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2012.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Zhang S, Zhang Y, Ma K (2015) Mixed effects of ant–aphid mutualism on plants across different spatial scales. Basic Appl Ecol 16:452–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  79. Zwölfer H, Harris P (1984) Biology and host specificity of Rhinocyllus conicus (Froel.)(Col., Curculionidae), a successful agent for biocontrol of the thistle, Carduus nutans L. 1. Z Angew Entomol 97:36–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1984.tb03714.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to M Rodriguez-Cabal who gave valuable suggestions to an earlier version of the manuscript. Thanks to A Lovrich, T Gonzalez, and D Gonzalez who assisted in the field, and L Ammassari who processed samples in the laboratory. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer who provided numerous recommendations that improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript. AM Devegili is supported by a doctoral fellowship from the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas of Argentina.

Funding

This study was conducted without funding.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Laboratorio de Investigaciones en Hormigas (LIHO), Laboratorio Ecotono, INIBIOMA (CONICET-UNComa), Pasaje Gutiérrez 1125, C.P: 8400, S.C. de Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina

    Andrés M. Devegili, María N. Lescano & Alejandro G. Farji-Brener

  2. Departamento de Biología, Universidad de La Serena, La Serena, Chile

    Ernesto Gianoli

  3. Departamento de Botánica, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

    Ernesto Gianoli

Authors
  1. Andrés M. Devegili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. María N. Lescano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ernesto Gianoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alejandro G. Farji-Brener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors conceived and designed the experiments; AMD collected the data and performed the experiments; AMD analysed the data; AMD led the writing of the manuscript, to which all authors contributed.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrés M. Devegili.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of human and animal rights

All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Additional information

Combining field observations and experiments, we show that aggressive aphid-tending ants can enhance biotic resistance by increasing aphid infestation on an exotic plant.

Communicated by Diethart Matthies.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file2 (MP4 25479 KB)

Supplementary file3 (MP4 23501 KB)

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 2207 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Devegili, A.M., Lescano, M.N., Gianoli, E. et al. Evidence of indirect biotic resistance: native ants decrease invasive plant fitness by enhancing aphid infestation. Oecologia (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-021-04874-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Exotic plants
  • Aphid
  • Aphid-tending ants
  • Biotic resistance
  • Indirect interactions