Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 38, Issue 9, pp 1093–1104 | Cite as

Diaspore Trait Preferences of Dispersing Ants

  • Kerstin ReifenrathEmail author
  • Christine Becker
  • Hans Joachim Poethke


Elaiosomes of myrmecochorous plant seeds are known to enhance the attraction of diaspore-dispersing ants by serving as a nutritional reward. However, it remained unclear which (nutritional) compounds affect diaspore preferences of ants. We hypothesized that apart from elaiosome/seed-size ratio, volume, and physical surface of diaspores, the quantity and the composition of fatty acids, amino acids, and sugars strongly influence the diaspore preferences of different species. Chemical (nutritional) profiles as well as structural properties of seeds with and without elaiosomes were analyzed and correlated with observed seed choice behavior of ants. Cafeteria experiments in the field confirmed the enhanced attractiveness of elaiosome-bearing seeds for all three ant species tested (Lasius fuliginosus, Myrmica ruginodis, and Temnothorax nylanderi), although seeds lacking elaiosomes also were transported. In multiple-choice cafeteria experiments with simultaneously offered diaspores of 16 plant species with and without elaiosome and with highly varying structural and chemical properties, all three ant species showed distinct preferences for certain diaspore species. Correlation analyses confirmed that the presence of an elaiosome represents the crucial factor that favors ant diaspore dispersal. In addition, the composition and the content of free amino acids, and to varying degrees fatty acids, were found to significantly affect preferences of each ant species, whereas the effect of single fatty acids acting as chemical triggers for diaspore transport by ants, as supposed by several studies, was not confirmed. In conclusion, although at least some diaspore species lacking elaiosomes attract ants for diaspore removal services by presenting nutritional seed coats, the production of elaiosomes seems to provide a worthwhile investment. Elaiosomes ensure rapid diaspore detection and removal due to chemical cue compounds and by offering a highly nutritional food supply, probably fitting the nutritional demands of ants.


Ants Elaiosomes Nutrients Diaspore dispersal Diaspore transport 



We are indepted to thank Nico Blüthgen and Thomas Hovestadt for advice and suggestions on the statistical evaluation of the data. We appreciate the assistance of Olga Frank, Andrea Hilpert, Werner Kaiser, and Eva Wirth with the chemical analyses. We also thank Markus Riederer and Thomas Müller who made laboratory space available, and Franziska Wiegand for assistance in field and laboratory. We thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Financial support was granted by the Sonderforschungsbereich 554 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Supplementary material

10886_2012_174_MOESM1_ESM.doc (107 kb)
Supplemental Table 1 (DOC 107 kb)
10886_2012_174_MOESM2_ESM.doc (130 kb)
Supplemental Table 2 (DOC 130 kb)
10886_2012_174_MOESM3_ESM.doc (98 kb)
Supplemental Table 3 (DOC 98 kb)


  1. Baker, H. G. and Baker, I. 1973. Amino acids in nectar and their evolutionary significance. Nature 241:543–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beattie, A. J. 1985. The Ecology of Ant-plant Mutualisms. University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blüthgen, N. and Feldhaar, H. 2010. Food and shelter: how resources influence ant ecology, in L. Lach, C. Parr and K. Abbot (eds.). Ant Ecology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blüthgen, N. and Fiedler, K. 2004. Preferences for sugars and amino acids and their conditionality in a diverse nectar-feeding ant community. J. Anim. Ecol. 73:155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulay, R., Coll-Toledano, J., and Cerdá, X. 2006. Geographic variations in Helleborus foetidus elaiosome lipid composition: implications for dispersal by ants. Chemoecology 16:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bresinsky, A. 1963. Bau, Entwicklungsgeschichte und Inhaltsstoffe der Elaiosomen, P. D. H. Melchior (ed.). E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  7. Brew, C. R., Odowd, D. J., and Rae, I. D. 1989. Seed dispersal by ants - behavior-releasing compounds in elaiosomes. Oecologia 80:490–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrol, C. R. and Janzen, D. H. 1973. Ecology of foraging by ants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4:231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dadd, R. H. 1973. Insect nutrition: current developments and metabolic implications. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 18:381–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dussutour, A. and Simpson, S. J. 2009. Communal nutrition in ants. Curr. Biol. 19:740–744.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer, R. C., Ölzant, S. M., Wanek, W., and Mayer, V. 2005. The fate of Corydalis cava elaiosomes within an ant colony of Myrmica rubra: elaiosomes are preferentially fed to larvae. Insectes Sociaux 52:55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, R. C., Richter, A., Hadacek, F., and Mayer, V. 2008. Chemical differences between seeds and elaiosomes indicate an adaptation to nutritional needs of ants. Oecologia 155:539–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fokuhl, G., Heinze, J., and Poschlod, P. 2007. Colony growth in Myrmica rubra with supplementation of myrmecochorous seeds. Ecol. Res. 22:845–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gammans, N., Bullock, J. M., and Schönrogge, K. 2005. Ant benefits in a seed dispersal mutualism. Oecologia 146:43–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrido, J. L., Rey, P. J., and Herrera, C. M. 2009. Influence of elaiosome on postdispersal dynamics of an ant-dispersed plant. Acta Oecol. 35:393–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. González-Teuber, M. and Heil, M. 2009. The role of extrafloral nectar amino acids for the preferences of facultative and obligate ant mutualists. J. Chem. Ecol. 35:459–468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gorb, S. N. and Gorb, E. V. 1995. Removal rates of seeds of five myrmecochorous plants by the ant Formica polyctena (Hymenoptera). Oikos 73:367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gorb, S. N. and Gorb, E. V. 1999a. Dropping rates of elaiosome-bearing seeds during transport by ants (Formica polyctena Foerst.): Implications for distance dispersal. Acta Oecol 20:509–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gorb, S. N. and Gorb, E. V. 1999b. Effects of ant species competition on seed removal in deciduous forest in eastern Europe. Oikos 84:110–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagen, K. S., Dadd, R. H., and Reese, J. 1984. The food of insects, in C. B. Huffaker and R. L. Rabb (eds.), Ecological Entomology. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Handel, S. N. and Beattie, A. J. 1990. Seed dispersal by ants. Sci. Am. 263:58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hughes, L. and Westoby, M. 1992. Effect of diaspore characteristics on removal of seeds adapted for dispersal by ants. Ecology 73:1300–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes, L., Westoby, M., and Jurago, E. 1994. Convergence of elaiosomes and insect prey: evidence from ant foraging behaviour and fatty acid composition. Funct. Ecol. 8:358–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lanza, J. and Krauss, B. R. 1984. Detection of amino acids in artificial nectars by two tropical ants, Leptothorax and Monomorium. Oecologia 63:423–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lengyel, S., Gove, A. D., Latimer, A. M., Majer, J. D., and Dunn, R. R. 2010. Convergent evolution of seed dispersal by ants, and phylogeny and biogeography in flowering plants: A global survey. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 12:43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mark, S. and Olesen, J. M. 1996. Importance of elaiosome size to removal of ant-dispersed seeds. Oecologia 107:95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall, D. L., Beattie, A. J., and Bollenbacher, W. E. 1979. Evidence for diglycerides as attractants in an ant-seed interaction. J. Chem. Ecol. 5:335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayer, V., Ölzant, S. M., and Fischer, R. C. 2005. Myrmecochorous seed dispersal in temperate regions, in P.-M. Forget, J. E. Lambert, P. E. Hulme, and S. B. Vander Wall (eds.). Seed fate - Predation, Dispersal and Seedling Establishment. CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Oostermeijer, J. G. B. 1989. Myrmecochory in Polygala vulgaris L., Luzula campestris (L.) DC. and Viola curtisii Forster in a Dutch dune area. Oecologia 78:302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peters, M., Oberrath, R., and Böhning-Gaese, K. 2003. Seed dispersal by ants: are seed preferences influenced by foraging strategies or historical constraints? Flora 198:413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pfeiffer, M., Huttenlocher, H., and Ayasse, M. 2010. Myrmecochorous plants use chemical mimicry to cheat seed-dispersing ants. Funct. Ecol. 24:545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seifert, B. 2007. Die Ameisen Mittel- und Nordeuropas. Lutra-Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Sernander, R. 1906. Entwurf einer Monographie der europäischen Myrmekochoren. Almquist & Wiksells Boktrycheri-A.B., Uppsala & Stockholm.Google Scholar
  34. Servigne, P. and Detrain, C. 2010. Opening myrmecochory’s black box: what happens inside the ant nest? Ecol. Res. 25:663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Skidmore, B. A. and Heithaus, E. R. 1988. Lipid cues for seed-carrying by ants in Hepatica americana. J. Chem. Ecol. 14:2185–2196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson, E. O., Durlach, N. I., and Roth, L. M. 1958. Chemical releaser of necrophoric behavior in ants. Psyche 65:108–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerstin Reifenrath
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Christine Becker
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hans Joachim Poethke
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyTechnical University DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Field Station FabrikschleichachUniversity of WürzburgRauhenebrachGermany
  3. 3.Leibniz-Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops Grossbeeren/ErfurtGrossbeerenGermany

Personalised recommendations