Biological Invasions

, Volume 19, Issue 9, pp 2599–2607 | Cite as

Invasive ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) disrupts pollination in pumpkin

  • Palatty Allesh SinuEmail author
  • V. C. Sibisha
  • M. V. Nikhila Reshmi
  • K. S. Reshmi
  • T. V. Jasna
  • K. Aswathi
  • P. P. Megha
Original Paper


Yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes (F. Smith); “YCA”) is known for its aggressive predatory ability and ability to exert exploitation competition on both native and other invasive ants via floral nectar. We argue that YCA invasion can exert both interference and exploitation competition on legitimate pollinators. In pumpkin fields (Cucurbita maxima L.) of south India, YCA infested the flowers, particularly the pistillate flowers, for nectar foraging. Pumpkin is a honey bee-mediated cross-pollinated monoecious plant that produces disproportionately very few pistillate flowers. We hypothesize that YCA presence in the flowers can affect the visitation rate and foraging time of honey bees in the flowers, the fruit set in pumpkins, and can exert predatory pressure on the honey bees if the bees linger in ant-colonized flowers. Both YCA and honey bees preferred to forage on the limited pistillate flowers in the plants. After colonizing the flowers, YCA did not retreat for hours, even upon disturbance by competitors, such as honey bees. Both the visitation frequency and the foraging time of honey bees were drastically reduced in ant-colonized flowers, and none of the ant-colonized flowers developed into fruits, suggesting that the YCA exert both an ecological and evolutionary pressure on pumpkin. The ants preyed upon about 17% of the honey bees that lingered in ant-colonized flowers, and the time the bees spent foraging predicted the fate of the bees. Exploitation competition exerted by the YCA on pumpkin may have far-reaching consequences for the pollination and productivity of this cash crop.


Invasive species Competition Mutualism Pollination Pollination crisis Honey bee Crop production 



We thank the two anonymous reviewers and the subject editor for their constructive comments on the previous versions of the manuscript. We also thank Judith Bronstein for the comments on the original version of the manuscript. We thank Sangeetha Varma for sampling ants in the study sites using pitfall traps in the 2016–2017 cultivation period. PAS would like to thank the committee for the Conservation, Research, and Exploration of National Geographic Society and Kerala State Economic and Planning Affairs for the grants that supported this research. PAS also thanks University Grants Commission (New Delhi) for awarding the Raman Fellowship for Post-Doctoral Studies at the University of Arizona. We thank all the farmers who cooperated in our research and bore the loss incurred due to our research. We thank Kayla Sale for proof reading the revised manuscripts.

Authors’ contributions

VCS studied the effect of yellow crazy ant on honey bee visits; TVJ studied the effect of yellow crazy ant on fruit set in pumpkin; MVN, KSR, and PPM took the census of staminate and pistillate flowers in eighteen pumpkin fields; PAS studied the predation pressure of yellow crazy ant on honey bees, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abbott KL (2006) Spatial dynamics of supercolonies of the invasive yellow crazy ant, Anoplolepis gracilipes, on Christmas Island, Indian ocean. Divers Distrib 12:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali M, Saeed S, Sajjad A, Bashir MA (2014) Exploring the best native pollinators for pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) production in Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan J Zool 46:531–539Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2015) Agricultural statistics 2013–2014. Department of Economics and Statistics. Government of Kerala. Accessed 10 March 2017
  4. Anonymous (2016) Horticultural statistics at a glance 2015. Government of India. Oxford University Press, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  5. Anusree T, Abhina C, LishibaBalan PP, Rasna TV, Varma S, Sinu PA (2015) Flower sex expression in cucurbit crops of Kerala: implications for pollination and fruitset. Curr Sci 109:2299–2302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Artz DR, Nault BA (2011) Performance of Apis mellifera, Bombus impatiens, and Peponapis pruinosa (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as pollinators of pumpkin. J Econ Entomol 104:1153–1161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ashworth L, Galetto L (2002) Differential nectar production between male and female flowers in a wild cucurbit: Cucurbita maxima ssp. andreana (Cucurbitaceae). Can J Bot 80:1203–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Báez S, Donoso DA, Queenborough SA, Jaramillo L, Valencia R, Dangles O (2016) Ant mutualism increases long-term growth and survival of a common amazonian tree. Am Nat 188:567–575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker G (1972) The role of Anoplolepis longipes Jerdon (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the entomology of cacao in the Northern district of Papua New Guinea. In: International congress of entomology, Abstracts, p. 327, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  10. Bates DM, Maechler M, Bolker BM, Walker S (2014) Lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R packageGoogle Scholar
  11. Blancafort X, Gómez C (2005) Consequences of the Argentine ant, Linepithemahumile (Mayr) invasion on pollination of Euphorbia characias (L.) (Euphorbiaceae). Acta Oecol 28:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowell KL (1968) Rates of competitive exclusion by the Argentine ant in Bermuda. Ecology 49:551–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drescher J, Feldhaar H, Blüthgen N (2011) Interspecific aggression and resource monopolization of the invasive ant Anoplolepis gracilipes in Malaysian Borneo. Biotropica 43:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford KR, Ness JH, Bronstein JL, Morris WF (2015) The demographic consequences of mutualism: ants increase host-plant fruit production but not population growth. Oecologia 179:435–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerlach J (2004) Impact of the invasive crazy ant Anoplolepis gracilipes on Bird Island, Seychelles. J Insect Conserv 8:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonzálvez FG, Santamaría L, Corlett RT, Rodríguez-Gironés MA (2013) Flowers attract weaver ants that deter less effective pollinators. J Ecol 101:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanna C, Naughton I, Boser C, Alarcón R, Hung K-LJ, Holway D (2015) Floral visitation by the Argentine ant reduces bee visitation and plant seed set. Ecology 96:222–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill M, Holm K, Vel T, Shah NJ, Matyot P (2003) Impact of the introduced yellow crazy ant Anoplolepis gracilipeson Bird Island, Seychelles. Biodiv Conserv 12:1969–1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoehn P, Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Dewenter SI (2008) Functional group diversity of bee pollinators increases crop yield. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2283–2291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffmann BD, Saul WC (2010) Yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) invasions within undisturbed mainland Australian habitats: no support for biotic resistance hypothesis. Biol Invasions 12:3093–3108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 33:181–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurd PD Jr, Linsley EG, Whitaker TW (1971) Squash and gourd bees (Peponapis, Xenoglossa) and the origin of the cultivated Cucurbita. Evolution 25:218–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Cuthbert H, Fox R, Birch D, Bunbury N (2014) Invasion of yellow crazy ant Anoplolepis gracilipes in a Seychelles UNESCO palm forest. NeoBiota 22:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. KeVan KE, Holway DA (2015) Ant-aphid interactions increase ant floral visitation and reduce plant reproduction via decreased pollinator visitation. Ecology 96:1620–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lach L (2003) Invasive ants: unwanted partners in ant-plant interactions? Ann Missouri Bot 90:91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lach L (2005) Interference and exploitation competition of three nectar-thieving invasive ant species. Insectes Soc 52:257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lach L (2007) A mutualism with a native membracid facilitates pollinators displacement by Argentine ants. Ecology 88:1994–2004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lach L (2008) Argentine ants displace floral arthropods in a biodiversity hotspot. Divers Distrib 14:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lach L, Hoffmann BD (2011) Are invasive ants better plant-defense mutualists? A comparison of foliage patrolling and herbivory in sites with invasive yellow crazy ants and native weaver ants. Oikos 120:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lach L, Volp TM, Greenwood TA, Rose A (2016) High invasive ant activity drives predation of a native butterfly larva. Biotropica 48:146–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LeVan KE, Hung KLJ, McCann KR, Ludka JT, Holway DA (2014) Floral visitation by the Argentine ant reduces pollinator visitation and seed set in the coast barrel cactus, Ferocactusviridescens. Oecologia 174:163–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lowe S, Browne S, Boudlejas S, De Poorter M (2004) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species. Invasive species specialist group, IUCN.
  33. Matsumoto T, Yamazaki K (2013) Distance from migratory honey bee apiary effects on community of insects visiting flowers of pumpkin. Bull Insectol 66:103–108Google Scholar
  34. McNatty A, Abbott KL, Lester PJ (2009) Invasive ants compete with and modify the trophic ecology of hermit crabs on tropical islands. Oecologia 160:187–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Nepi M, Cresti L, Guarnieri M, Pacini E (2011) Dynamics of nectar production and nectar homeostasis in male flowers of Cucurbita pepo L. Int J Plant Sci 172:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. NeSmith DS, Hoogenboom G, Groff DW (1994) Staminate and pistillate flower production of summer squash in response to planting date. HortScience 29:256–257Google Scholar
  37. Ness JH (2006) A mutualism’s indirect costs: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos 113:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ness JH, Bronstein J (2004) The effects of invasive ants on prospective ant mutualists. Biol Invasions 6:445–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Dowd DJ, Green PT, Lake PS (2003) Invasional ‘meltdown’ on an oceanic island. Ecol Lett 6:812–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Okoli BE, Mgbeogu CM (1983) Fluted pumpkin, Telfairia occidentalis: West African vegetable crop. Econ Bot 37:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oliveira KN, Coley PD, Kursar TA, Kaminski LA, Moreira MZ, Campos RI (2015) The effect of symbiotic ant colonies on plant growth: a test using an Azteca-Cecropia system. PLoS ONE 10:e0120351CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Petersen JD, Reiners S, Nault BA (2013) Pollination services provided by bees in pumpkin fields supplemented with either Apis mellifera or Bombus impatiens or not supplemented. PLoS ONE 8:e69819CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Plentovich S, Eijzenga J, Eijzenga H, Smith D (2011) Indirect effects of ant eradication efforts on offshore islets in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Biol Invasions 13:545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prasannakumar NR, Kumar KP, Rani AT (2016) Arthropod diversity in non leguminous vegetable crops. In: Chakravarthy AK, Sridhara S (eds) Economic and ecological significances of arthropods in diversified ecosystems. Springer, Berlin, pp 243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rai M, Pandey S, Kumar S (2008) Cucurbit research in India: a retrospect. In: Pitrat M (ed) Proceedings of the IX EUCARPIA meeting on genetics and breeding of Cucurbitaceae. INRA, Avignon, pp 285–294Google Scholar
  46. Rajesh TP, Manoj K, PrashanthBallulaya U, Surendran P, Sinu PA (2017) Ants indicate urbanization pressure in sacred groves of southwest India: a pilot study. Curr Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  47. Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Gonzálvez FG, Llandres AL, Corlett RT, Santamaría L (2013) Possible role of weaver ants, Oecophyllas maragdina, in shaping plant–pollinator interactions in South-East Asia. J Ecol 101:1000–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Savage AM, Budgers JA, Whitney KD (2009) Elavated dominance of extrafloral nectar-bearing plants is associated with increased abundances of an invasive ant and reduced native ant richness. Divers Distrib 15:751–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna.
  50. Tsuji K, Hasyim A, Harlion Nakamura K (2004) Asian weaver ants, Oecophyllas maragdina, and their repelling of pollinators. Ecol Res 19:669–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Veeresh GK, Gubbaiah (1984) A report on the ‘Crazy ant’ (Anoplolepis longipes Jerdon) menace in Karnataka. J Soil Biol Ecol 4:65–73Google Scholar
  52. Vidal MG, Jong D, Wein HC, Morse RA (2006) Nectar and pollen production in pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L). Braz J Bot 29:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Visser D, Wright MG, Giliomee JH (1996) The effect of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), on flower-visiting insects of Protea nitida Mill. (Proteaceae). Afr Entomol 4:285–287Google Scholar
  54. Wäckers FL, Van Rijn PC (2005) Food for protection: an introduction. In: Wäckers FL, Van Rijn PC, J J (eds) Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects: a perspective mutualism and its applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walters SA, Taylor BH (2006) Effects of honey bee pollination on Pumpkin fruit and seed yield. HortScience 41:370–373Google Scholar
  56. Way MJ, Khoo KC (1992) Role of ants in pest management. Annu Rev Entomol 37:479–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wetterer JK (2005) Worldwide distribution and potential spread of the long- legged ant, Anoplolepis gracilipes (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 45:1–21Google Scholar
  58. Wilder SM, Barnum TR, Holway DA, Suarez AV, Eubanks MD (2013) Introduced fire ants can exclude native ants from critical mutualist-provided resources. Oecologia 172:197–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang S, Zhang Y, Ma K (2012) The ecological effects of the ant–hemipteran mutualism: a meta-analysis. Basic Appl Ecol 13:116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Palatty Allesh Sinu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • V. C. Sibisha
    • 1
  • M. V. Nikhila Reshmi
    • 1
  • K. S. Reshmi
    • 1
  • T. V. Jasna
    • 1
  • K. Aswathi
    • 1
  • P. P. Megha
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal ScienceCentral University of KeralaPadannakad, KasaragodIndia
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations