Advertisement

Evolutionary Biology

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 22–28 | Cite as

Retaliation in Response to Castration Promotes a Low Level of Virulence in an Ant–Plant Mutualism

  • Pierre-Jean G. Malé
  • Jean-Baptiste Ferdy
  • Céline Leroy
  • Olivier Roux
  • Jérémie Lauth
  • Arthur Avilez
  • Alain Dejean
  • Angélique Quilichini
  • Jérôme Orivel
Research Article

Abstract

The diversion of a host’s energy by a symbiont for its own benefit is a major source of instability in horizontally-transmitted mutualisms. This instability can be counter-balanced by the host’s retaliation against exploiters. Such responses are crucial to the maintenance of the relationship. We focus on this issue in an obligate ant–plant mutualism in which the ants are known to partially castrate their host plant. We studied plant responses to various levels of castration in terms of (1) global vegetative investment and (2) investment in myrmecophytic traits. Castration led to a higher plant growth rate, signalling a novel case of gigantism induced by parasitic castration. On the other hand, completely castrated plants produced smaller nesting and food resources (i.e. leaf pouches and extra floral nectaries). Since the number of worker larvae is correlated to the volume of the leaf pouches, such a decrease in the investment in myrmecophytic traits demonstrates for the first time the existence of inducible retaliation mechanisms against too virulent castrating ants. Over time, this mechanism promotes an intermediate level of castration and enhances the stability of the mutualistic relationship by providing the ants with more living space while allowing the plant to reproduce.

Keywords

Evolutionary conflict Cheater Overexploitation Mutualism breakdown Allomerus decemarticulatus Hirtella physophora 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Laboratoire Environnement de Petit Saut and the Nouragues scientific station for furnishing logistical help, to Dr. Jacqui Shykoff and Pr. Doyle McKey for insightful comments and to Andrea Yockey-Dejean for proofreading the manuscript. Financial support for this study was provided by a research program of the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (research agreement n°ANR-06-JCJC-0109-01), by the ESF-EUROCORES/TECT/BIOCONTRACT program, by the Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité (research agreement n°AAP-IN-2009-050), by the Programme Convergence 2007–2013 Région Guyane from the European Community, and by the Programme Amazonie II of the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. This work has benefited from “Investissement d’Avenir” grants managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (CEBA, ref. ANR-10-LABX-25-01 and TULIP, ref. ANR -10-LABX-0041).

Supplementary material

11692_2013_9242_MOESM1_ESM.doc (70 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 69 kb)

References

  1. Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2009). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. (R package version 0.999375-32 ed.).Google Scholar
  2. Best, A., White, A., & Boots, M. (2009). Resistance is futile but tolerance can explain why parasites do not always castrate their hosts. Evolution, 64(2), 348–357. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00819.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronstein, J. L. (2001). The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecology Letters, 4(3), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Douglas, A. E. (2008). Conflict, cheats and the persistence of symbioses. New Phytologist, 177(4), 849–858. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02326.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Douglas, A. E. (2010). The symbiotic habit. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dussutour, A., & Simpson, S. J. (2012). Ant workers die young and colonies collapse when fed a high-protein diet. In Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences: online. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0051.
  7. Edwards, D. P., Ansell, F. A., Woodcock, P., Fayle, T. M., Chey, V. K., & Hamer, K. C. (2010). Can the failure to punish promote cheating in mutualism? Oikos, 119, 45–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17591.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, D. P., Hassall, M., Sutherland, W. J., & Yu, D. W. (2006). Selection for protection in an ant–plant mutualism: host sanctions, host modularity, and the principal–agent game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 273, 595–602. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3273.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards, D. P., & Yu, D. W. (2008). Tolerating castration by hiding flowers in plain sight. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 63(1), 95–102. doi: 10.1007/s00265-008-0639-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fonseca, C. R. (1993). Nesting space limits colony size of the plant–ant Pseudomyrmex concolor. Oikos, 67, 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Frederickson, M. E. (2009). Conflict over reproduction in an ant-plant symbiosis: Why Allomerus octoarticulatus ants sterilize Cordia nodosa trees? American Naturalist, 173(5), 675–681. doi: 10.1086/597608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaume, L., Zacharias, M., & Borges, R. M. (2005). Ant–plant conflicts and a novel case of castration parasitism in a myrmecophyte. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 7, 435–452.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, F. S., Haines, N., & Dickson, K. (1991). Empty flowers. Functional Ecology, 5, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grangier, J., Dejean, A., Malé, P.-J. G., & Orivel, J. (2008). Indirect defense in a highly specific ant–plant mutualism. Naturwissenschaften, 95(10), 909–916. doi: 10.1007/s00114-008-0398-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grangier, J., Dejean, A., Malé, P.-J. G., Solano, P.-J., & Orivel, J. (2009). Mechanisms driving the specificity of a myrmecophyte–ant association. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 97, 90–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01188.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, S. R., Becker, C., & Cáceres, C. E. (2007). Parasitic castration: A perspective from a model of dynamic energy budgets. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 47(2), 295–309. doi: 10.1093/icb/icm057.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heil, M., & McKey, D. (2003). Protective ant–plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 34, 425–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herre, E. A., Knowlton, N., Mueller, U. G., & Rehner, S. A. (1999). The evolution of mutualisms: Exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14(2), 49–53. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01529-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inouye, D. W. (1983). The ecology of nectar robbing. In B. Bentley & T. Elias (Eds.), The biology of nectaries. New York, USA: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Izzo, T. J., & Vasconcelos, H. L. (2002). Cheating the cheater: Domatia loss minimizes the effects of ant castration in an Amazonian ant-plant. Oecologia, 133, 200–205. doi: 10.1007/s00442-002-1027-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jaenike, J. (1996). Suboptimal virulence of an insect–parasitic nematode. Evolution, 50(6), 2241–2247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leroy, C., Jauneau, A., Quilichini, A., Dejean, A., & Orivel, J. (2008). Comparison between the anatomical and morphological structure of leaf blades and foliar domatia in the ant–plant Hirtella physophora (Chrysobalanaceae). Annals of Botany, 101, 501–507. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leroy, C., Jauneau, A., Quilichini, A., Dejean, A., & Orivel, J. (2010). Comparative structure and ontogeny of the foliar domatia in three neotropical myrmecophytes. American Journal of Botany, 97, 557–565. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malé, P.-J. G. (2011). Stabilité évolutive des mutualismes et mécanismes de contrôle : le cas d’une relation plante-fourmis. PhD thesis, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  26. Malé, P.-J. G., Leroy, C., Dejean, A., Quilichini, A., & Orivel, J. (2012). An ant symbiont directly and indirectly limits its host plant’s reproductive success. Evolutionary Ecology, 26(1), 55–63. doi: 10.1007/s10682-011-9485-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Obeso, J. R. (2002). The cost of reproduction in plants. New Phytologist, 155, 321–348. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00477.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Keefe, K. J., & Antonovics, J. (2002). Playing by different rules: The evolution of virulence in sterilizing pathogens. American Naturalist, 159(6), 597–605. doi: 10.1086/339990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orivel, J., Lambs, L., Malé, P.-J. G., Leroy, C., Grangier, J., Otto, T., et al. (2011). Dynamics of the association between a long-lived understory myrmecophyte and its specific associated ants. Oecologia, 165, 369–376. doi: 10.1007/s00442-010-1739-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pacini, E., Nepi, M., & Vesprini, J. L. (2003). Nectar biodiversity: A short review. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 238, 7–21. doi: 10.1007/s00606-002-0277-yNectar.Google Scholar
  31. Palmer, T. M., Doak, D. F., Stanton, M. L., Bronstein, J. L., Kiers, E. T., Young, T. P., et al. (2010). Synergy of multiple partners, including freeloaders, increases host fitness in a multispecies mutualism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(40), 17234–17239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., & The R Core Team. (2009). nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. (R package version 3.1-96 ed.).Google Scholar
  33. R Development Core Team (2009). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. In R. F. f. S. Computing (Ed.). Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  34. Solano, P.-J., Durou, S., Corbara, B., Quilichini, A., Cerdan, P., Belin-Dupoux, M., et al. (2003). Myrmecophytes of the understory of French Guianian rainforests: Their distribution and their associated ants. Sociobiology, 41(3), 605–614.Google Scholar
  35. Szilágyi, A., Scheuring, I., Edwards, D. P., Orivel, J., & Yu, D. W. (2009). The evolution of intermediate castration virulence and ant coexistence in a spatially structured environment. Ecology Letters, 12(12), 1306–1316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S (4th ed.). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Watson, M. A. (1984). Developmental constraints: effect on population growth and patterns of resource allocation in a clonal plant. American Naturalist, 123(3), 411–426. doi: 10.1086/284212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. West, S. A., Kiers, E. T., Simms, E. L., & Denison, R. F. (2002). Sanctions and mutualism stability: Why do rhizobia fix nitrogen? Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 269, 685–694. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1878.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilkinson, D. M., & Sherratt, T. N. (2001). Horizontally acquired mutualisms, an unsolved problem in ecology? Oikos, 92(2), 377–384. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.920222.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yu, D. W., & Pierce, N. E. (1998). A castration parasite of an ant-plant mutualism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 265, 375–382. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0305.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zeileis, A., & Hothorn, T. (2002). Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. R News, 2(3), 7–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Jean G. Malé
    • 1
    • 2
    • 7
  • Jean-Baptiste Ferdy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Céline Leroy
    • 3
  • Olivier Roux
    • 4
  • Jérémie Lauth
    • 5
  • Arthur Avilez
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alain Dejean
    • 5
    • 6
  • Angélique Quilichini
    • 5
  • Jérôme Orivel
    • 5
  1. 1.ENFA, UMR5174 EDB (Laboratoire Évolution & Diversité Biologique)Université de ToulouseToulouseFrance
  2. 2.UMR5174 EDBCNRS, Université Paul SabatierToulouseFrance
  3. 3.UMR 123, AMAP (botAnique et bioinforMatique de l’Architecture des Plantes)IRDMontpellier Cedex 5France
  4. 4.UMR 224, Maladies Infectieuses et Vecteurs Ecologie, Génétique, Evolution et ContrôleIRDBobo Dioulasso 01Burkina Faso
  5. 5.UMR 8172, Ecologie des Forêts de GuyaneCNRSKourou CedexFrance
  6. 6.UMR EcolabUniversité de ToulouseToulouse Cedex 9France
  7. 7.Laboratoire Evolution & Diversité BiologiqueUniversité Paul SabatierToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations