Advertisement

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 23–31 | Cite as

The reproductive biology of the myrmecophyte, Hirtella physophora, and the limitation of negative interactions between pollinators and ants

  • Pierre-Jean G. Malé
  • Céline Leroy
  • Lucie Lusignan
  • Frédéric Petitclerc
  • Angélique Quilichini
  • Jérôme Orivel
Original Paper

Abstract

Myrmecophytism occurs in plants that offer ants a nesting space and, often, food rewards in exchange for protection from predators and competitors. Such biotic protection by ants can, however, interfere with the activity of pollinators leading to potential negative consequences for the plant’s reproduction. In this study, we focused on the association between the understory myrmecophyte, Hirtella physophora (Chrysobalanaceae), and its obligate ant partner, Allomerus decemarticulatus (Myrmicinae). We investigated the reproductive biology of H. physophora and the putative mechanisms that may limit ant–pollinator conflict. Our results show that H. physophora is an obligate outcrosser, self-incompatible, and potentially insect-pollinated species. The reproduction of H. physophora relies entirely on pollen transfer by pollinators that are likely quite specific. Potential interference between flower-visiting insects during pollination may also be lessened by a spatial and temporal segregation of ant and pollinator activities, thus enabling pollen transfer and fruit production.

Keywords

Ant-plant Ant–pollinator interactions Floral structure and display Plant reproductive biology Spatial and temporal segregation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Laboratoire Environnement de Petit Saut for its logistical assistance, to Andrea Dejean for proofreading the manuscript, to Stéphanie Montembault, Isabelle Henry and Mathieu Duvignau for technical assistance, to Marc Gibernau for advice on statistical analyses, to Jean-Philippe Champenois for identifying the stingless bees and to Jérôme Barbut for identifying the Geometridae. Financial support was provided by the Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité (research Agreement No. AAP-IN-2009-050), by the Programme Convergence 20072013 Région Guyane from the European Community (BI-Appli, ref. 115/SGAR-DE/2011/052274). This study has also 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

11829_2014_9352_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (4.6 mb)
Figure S1. Photographs of the reproductive parts of Hirtella physophora during the different stages of anthesis and fruiting. (A) Flower buds are segregated on fasciculate racemous inflorescences; (B) as the flower opens, the stamens and the style progressively uncoil; (C) flowers are characterized by a pentamerous perianth with five pale pink to white petals alternating with the sepal. Allomerus decemarticulatus workers can be observed foraging at the mouth of the floral cup; (D) once the flowers are completely open, the stigma from one flower is several centimetres away from that flower’s anthers, but can be very close to the anthers of another flower; (E-F) the fruit is a fleshy drupe. (JPEG 4670 kb)

Movie S1. Footage of a Mecoceras sp. (Geometridae) visiting an Hirtella physophora inflorescence. Monitoring was performed using an infrared security camera coupled with a movement detector and a digital video recorder. The moth’s behaviour is consistent with its potential role as a pollinator. (WMV 1123 kb)

References

  1. Altshuler DL (1999) Novel interactions of non-pollinating ants with pollinators and fruit consumers in a tropical forest. Oecologia 119:600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arista M, Oliveira PE, Gibbs PE, Talavera S (1997) Pollination and breeding system of two co-occurring Hirtella species (Chrysobalanaceae) in Central Brazil. Bot Acta 110:496–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M (2009) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. (R package version 0999375-32 ed)Google Scholar
  4. Bullock SH (1985) Breeding systems in the flora of a tropical deciduous forest in Mexico. Biotropica 17:287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cembrowski AR, Thomson TMG, Frederickson ME (2014) Ants and ant scent reduce bumblebee pollination of artificial flowers. Am Nat 183:133–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cruden RW (1977) Pollen–ovule ratios: a conservative indicator of breeding systems in flowering plants. Evolution 31:32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dejean A, Solano P, Belin-Depoux M, Cerdan P, Corbara B (2001) Predatory behavior of patrolling Allomerus decemarticulatus workers (Formicidae; Myrmicinae) on their associated host plant. Sociobiology 38:571–578Google Scholar
  8. Dejean A, Solano PJ, Ayrolles J, Corbara B, Orivel J (2005) Arboreal ants build traps to capture prey. Nature 434:973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dutton EM, Frederickson ME (2012) Why ant pollination is rare: new evidence and implications of the antibiotic hypothesis. Arthropod Plant Interact 6:561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernandez F (2007) The myrmicine ant genus Allomerus Mayr (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Caldasia 29:159–175Google Scholar
  11. Frederickson ME (2009) Conflict over reproduction in an ant–plant symbiosis: why Allomerus octoarticulatus ants sterilize Cordia nodosa trees. Am Nat 173:675–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaume L, Zacharias M, Borges RM (2005) Ant–plant conflicts and a novel case of castration parasitism in a myrmecophyte. Evol Ecol Res 7:435–452Google Scholar
  13. Ghazoul J (2001) Can floral repellents pre-empt potential ant–plant conflicts? Ecol Lett 4:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grangier J, Dejean A, Malé PJG, Orivel J (2008a) Indirect defense in a highly specific ant–plant mutualism. Naturwissenschaften 96:57–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Grangier J, Orivel J, Negrini M, Dejean A (2008b) Low intraspecific aggressiveness in two obligate plant–ant species. Insect Soc 55:238–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grangier J, Dejean A, Malé PJG, Solano PJ, Orivel J (2009) Mechanisms driving the specificity of a myrmecophyte–ant association. Biol J Linn Soc 97:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heil M, McKey D (2003) Protective ant–plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:425–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Izzo TJ, Vasconcelos HL (2002) Cheating the cheater: domatia loss minimizes the effects of ant castration in an Amazonian ant–plant. Oecologia 133:200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Junker R, Chung AYC, Bluthgen N (2007) Interaction between flowers, ants and pollinators: additional evidence for floral repellence against ants. Ecol Res 22:665–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lack A (1978) The ecology of the flowers of the savanna tree Maranthes polyandra and their visitors, with particular reference to bats. J Ecol 66:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larson BMH, Barrett SCH (2000) A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biol J Linn Soc 69:503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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). Ann Bot 101:501–507PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leroy C, Jauneau A, Quilichini A, Dejean A, Orivel J (2010) Comparative structure and ontogeny of the foliar domatia in three neotropical myrmecophytes. Am J Bot 97:557–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leroy C, Séjalon-Delmas N, Jauneau A, Ruiz-González MX, Gryta H, Jargeat P, Corbara B, Dejean A, Orivel J (2011) Trophic mediation by a fungus in an ant–plant mutualism. J Ecol 99:583–590Google Scholar
  25. Malé PJG, Leroy C, Dejean A, Quilichini A, Orivel J (2012) An ant symbiont directly and indirectly limits its host plant’s reproductive success. Evol Ecol 26:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malé PJG, Ferdy JB, Leroy C, Roux O, Lauth J, Avilez A, Dejean A, Quilichini A, Orivel J (2014) Retaliation in response to castration promotes a low level of virulence in an ant–plant mutualism. Evol Biol 41:22–28Google Scholar
  27. Ness JH (2006) A mutualism’s indirect costs: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos 113:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Orivel J, Lambs L, Malé PJG, Leroy C, Grangier J, Otto T, Quilichini A, Dejean A (2011) Dynamics of the association between a long-lived understory myrmecophyte and its specific associated ants. Oecologia 165:369–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paulino-Neto HF (2007) Pollination and breeding system of Couepia uiti (Mart. And Zucc.) Benth (Chrysobalanaceae) in the Pantanal da Nhecolândia. Braz J Biol 67:715–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prance GT, Sothers CA (2003) Species plantarum: flora of the world. Part 9. Chrysobalanaceae 1. Chrysobalanus to Parinari. Australian Biological Resources Study, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  31. Prance GT, White F (1988) The genera of Chrysobalanaceae: a study in practical and theoretical taxonomy and its relevance to evolutionary biology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 320:1–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raine NE, Willmer P, Stone GN (2002) Spatial structuring and floral avoidance behavior prevent ant–pollinator conflict in a Mexican ant–acacia. Ecology 83:3086–3096Google Scholar
  33. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org
  34. Rico-Gray V, Oliveira PS (2007) The ecology and evolution of ant–plant interactions. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruiz-González MX, Malé PJG, Leroy C, Dejean A, Gryta H, Jargeat P, Quilichini A, Orivel J (2011) Specific, non-nutritional association between an ascomycete fungus and Allomerus plant–ants. Biol Lett 7:475–479PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Solano PJ, Durou S, Corbara B, Quilichini A, Cerdan P, Belin Depoux M, Delabie JHC, Dejean A (2003) Myrmecophytes of the understory of French Guianian rainforests: their distribution and their associated ants. Sociobiology 41:605–614Google Scholar
  37. Stanley MC, Nathan HW, Phillips LK, Knight SJ, Galbraith JA, Winks CJ, Ward DF (2013) Invasive interactions: can Argentine ants indirectly increase the reproductive output of a weed? Arthropod Plant Interact 7:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stanton ML, Palmer TM, Young TP, Evans A, Turner ML (1999) Sterilization and canopy modification of a swollen thorn acacia tree by a plant–ant. Nature 401:578–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsuji K, Hasyim A, Harlion, Nakamura K (2004) Asian weaver ants, Oecophylla smaragdina, and their repelling of pollinators. Ecol Res 19:669–673 Google Scholar
  40. Wagner D (2000) Pollen viability reduction as a potential cost of ant association for Acacia constricta (Fabaceae). Am J Bot 87:711–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Willmer PG, Stone GN (1997) How aggressive ant-guards assist seed-set in Acacia flowers. Nature 388:165–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yu DW, Pierce NE (1998) A castration parasite of an ant–plant mutualism. Proc R Soc Lond 265:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Jean G. Malé
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Céline Leroy
    • 4
    • 5
  • Lucie Lusignan
    • 4
  • Frédéric Petitclerc
    • 4
  • Angélique Quilichini
    • 2
    • 4
  • Jérôme Orivel
    • 4
  1. 1.CNRS, EDB (Laboratoire Evolution et Diversité Biologique)Université de ToulouseToulouse CedexFrance
  2. 2.Université de Toulouse, EDBToulouse CedexFrance
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.CNRSUMR Ecologie des Forêts de GuyaneKourou CedexFrance
  5. 5.IRDUMR AMAP (botAnique et bioinforMatique de l’Architecture des Plantes)Montpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations