Population Ecology

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 405–410 | Cite as

The aphid-tending ant Lasius fuji exhibits reduced aggression toward aphids marked with ant cuticular hydrocarbons

Original article

Abstract

Some aphid species are attended by ants, which protect aphids against enemies, but ants sometimes prey on the aphids they are attending depending on the resource conditions. A previous study indicated that the ant Lasius niger preys less on the aphid individuals that experienced ant attendance than on those that did not. This observation leads to the hypothesis that ants transfer some substances to the aphids they attend and selectively prey on the aphids without the substances. In this study, we focus on cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs), which are used by ants as nestmate recognition substances, and test whether ants discriminate the aphids on the basis of CHCs. We confirmed that the ant Lasius fuji preyed less on the aphids that were attended by their nestmates than those that were not attended. Glass dummies treated with CHCs from attended aphids were attacked less by ants than those treated with CHCs from non-attended aphids. The CHC profiles of ant attended aphids resembled those of the ants, suggesting that ants’ CHCs are transferred to the aphids’ body surface through ant attendance. These results support the hypothesis that ants “mark” their attended aphids with their CHCs and the CHCs reduce ant predation intensity.

Keywords

Ant–aphid mutualism Chemical discrimination Cuticular hydrocarbon (CHC) Selective predation Stomaphis yanonis 

References

  1. Akino T, Yamaoka R (1998) Chemical mimicry in the root aphid parasitoid Paralipsis eikoae Yasumatsu (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) of the aphid-attending ant Lasius sakagamii Yamauchi & Hayashida (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Chemoecology 8:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akino T, Yamaoka R (2002) Cuticular hydrocarbon profile as a critical cue candidate for nestmate recognition in Lasius fuliginosus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomol Sci 5:267–273Google Scholar
  3. Akino T, Mochizuki R, Morimoto M, Yamaoka R (1996) Chemical camouflage of myrmecophilous cricket Myrmecophilus sp. to be integrated with several ant species. Jpn J Appl Entomol Zool 40:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akino T, Morimoto M, Yamaoka R (2005) The chemical basis for trail recognition in Lasius nipponensis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Chemoecology 15:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blomquist GJ, Tillman JA, Mpuru S, Seybold SJ (1998) The cuticle and cuticular hydrocarbons of insects: structure, function, and biochemistry. In: Vander Meer RK, Breed MD, Winston ML, Espelie KE (eds) Pheromone communication in social insects. Westview Press, Oxford, pp 34–54Google Scholar
  6. Edwards RL (1951) Change in the foraging behavior of the garden ant Lasius niger L. Entomol Mon Mag 87:280Google Scholar
  7. Glinwood R, Willekens J, Pettersson J (2003) Discrimination of aphid mutualists by an ant based on chemical cues. Acta Agric Scand B S P 53:177–182Google Scholar
  8. Howard RW (1993) Cuticular hydrocarbons and chemical communication. In: Stanley-Samuelson DW, Nelson DR (eds) Insect lipids: chemistry, biochemistry, and biology. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 179–226Google Scholar
  9. Lohman DJ, Liao Q, Pierce NE (2006) Convergence of chemical mimicry in a guild of aphid predators. Ecol Entomol 31:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pontin AJ (1958) A preliminary note on the eating of aphids by ants of the genus Lasius (Hym., Formicidae). Entomol Mon Mag 94:9–11Google Scholar
  11. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  12. Radchenko A (2005) A review of the ants of the genus Lasius Fabricius, 1804, subgenus Dendrolasius Ruzsky, 1912 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from East Palaearctic. Ann Zool 55:83–94Google Scholar
  13. Sakata H (1994) How an ant decides to prey on or to attend aphids. Res Popul Ecol 36:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Skinner GJ, Whittaker JB (1981) An experimental investigation of inter-relationships between the wood-ant (Formica rufa) and some tree-canopy herbivores. J Anim Ecol 50:313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stadler B, Dixon AFG (2005) Ecology and evolution of aphid–ant interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:345–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sudd JH (1987) Individual behaviour and mixed diet strategy in ants. In: Pasteels JM, Deneubourg JL (eds) From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 81–92Google Scholar
  17. Vander Meer RK, Morel L (1998) Nestmate recognition in ants. In: Breed MD, Winston ML, Espelie KE, Vander Meer RK (eds) Pheromone communication in social insects. Westview Press, Oxford, pp 79–103Google Scholar
  18. Way MJ (1954) Studies on the association of the ant Oecophylla longinoda (Latr.) (Formicidae) with the scale insect Saissetia zanzibarensis Williams (Coccidae). Bull Entomol Res 45:113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Way MJ (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing Homoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 8:307–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yamaoka R (1990) Chemical approach to understanding interactions among organisms. Physiol Ecol Jpn 27:31–52Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mountain and Environmental ScienceShinshu UniversityMatsumotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Biology, Faculty of ScienceShinshu UniversityMatsumotoJapan
  3. 3.Institute of Mountain ScienceShinshu UniversityMatsumotoJapan

Personalised recommendations