Ecological Research

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 275–282

Efficiency of herbivore exclusion by ants attracted to aphids on the vetch Vicia angustifolia L. (Leguminosae)

Original Articles

The efficiency of herbivore exclusion by ants on the vetch Vicia angustifolia L. (Leguminosae) with extrafloral nectary, mediated by ant attraction to aphids was investigated in a field census and laboratory experiments. In the field, workers of Lasius japonicus Santschi and Tetramorium tsushimae Emery frequently visited plants of the vetch parasitized by aphids of Aphis craccivora Koch, but only a few workers visited plants without aphids. An increase in the number of ants visiting a plant with increasing numbers of aphids caused a decrease in the number of larvae of the weevil, Hypera postica Gyllenhal. Therefore, the efficiency of herbivore exclusion by ants was higher on plants parasitized by Ap. craccivora aphids than that on plants unparasitized by aphids. In the laboratory experiments, L. japonicus workers frequently patrolled not only shoots with Ap. craccivora aphids but also shoots without them. However, T. tsushimae workers visited mainly shoots with Ap. craccivora aphids but less frequently on shoots without aphids. Therefore, L. japonicus workers excluded herbivores more efficiently on plants of the vetch than T. tsushimae workers. Consequently, the efficiency of herbivore exclusion by ants on the vetch can be influenced directly by differences in ant species and indirectly by the presence of aphids on plants. The present study highlights the significance of indirect interactions between ants and plants with extrafloral nectary, mediated by ant attraction to aphids for herbivore exclusion of plants.

Key words

Aphis craccivora extrafloral nectary honeydew Lasius japonicus Tetramorium tsushimae 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apple J. L. & Feener J. R. D. L. (2001) Ant visitation of extrafloral nectaries of. Passiflora: the effects of nectary attributes and ant behavior on patterns in facultative ant-plant mutualisms. Oecologia 127: 409–416.Google Scholar
  2. Barton A. M. (1986) Spatial variation in the effect of ants on an extrafloral nectary plant. Ecology 67: 495–504.Google Scholar
  3. Beattie A. J. (1985) The Evolutionary Ecology of Ant-Plant Mutualisms. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Bentley B. L. (1977a) The protective function of ants visiting the extrafloral nectaries of Bixa orellana (Bixaceae). Journal of Ecology 65: 27–38.Google Scholar
  5. Bentley B. L. (1977b) Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 8: 407–427.Google Scholar
  6. Bristow C. M. (1984) Differential benefits from ant attendance to two species of Homoptera on New York ironweed. Journal of Animal Ecology 53: 715–726.Google Scholar
  7. Buckley R. & Gullan P. (1991) More aggressive ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) provide better protection for soft scales and mealybugs (Homoptera: Coccidae, Pseudococcidae). Biotoropica 23: 282–286.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll C. R. & Janzen D. H. (1973) Ecology of foraging ants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 231–257.Google Scholar
  9. Cushman J. H. & Addicott J. F. (1989) Intraspecific and interspecific competition for mutualists: ants as a limited and limiting resource for aphids. Oecologia 79: 315–321.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer M. K., Hoffmann K. H. & Völkl W. (2001) Competition for mutualists in an ant–homopteran interaction mediated by hierarchies of ant attendance. Oikos 92: 531–541.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer M. K., Völkl W., Schopf R. & Hoffmann K. H. (2002) Age-specific patterns in honeydew production and honeydew composition in the aphid Metopeurum fuscoviride: implications for ant-attendance. Journal of Insect Physiology. 48: 319–326.Google Scholar
  12. Floate K. D. & Whitham T. G. (1994) Aphid–ant interaction reduces chrysomelid herbivory in a cottonwood hybrid zone. Oecologia 97: 215–221.Google Scholar
  13. Gaume L. & McKey D. (1999) An ant-plant mutualism and its host-specific parasite: activity rhythms, young leaf patrolling, and effects on herbivores of two specialist plant-ants inhabiting the same myrmecophyte. Oikos 84: 130–144.Google Scholar
  14. Horvitz C. C. & Schemske D. W. (1990) Spatiotemporal variation in insect mutualists of a neotropical herb. Ecology 71: 1085–1097.Google Scholar
  15. Inouye D. W. & Taylor O. R. (1979) A temperate region plant-ant-seed predator system: consequences of extrafloral nectar secretion by Helianthella quinquenervis. Ecology 60: 1–7.Google Scholar
  16. Itioka T. & Inoue T. (1996) Density-dependent ant attendance and its effects on the parasitism of a honeydew-producing scale insect, Ceroplastes rubens. Oecologia 106: 448–454.Google Scholar
  17. Itioka T. & Inoue T. (1999) The alternation of mutualistic ant species affects the population growth of their trophobiont mealybug. Ecography 22: 169–177.Google Scholar
  18. Ito F. & Higashi S. (1991) An indirect mutualism between oaks and wood ants via aphids. Journal of Animal Ecology 60: 463–470.Google Scholar
  19. Katayama N. & Suzuki N. (2002) Cost and benefit of ant attendance for Aphis craccivora (Hemiptera: Aphididae) with reference to aphid colony size. Canadian Entomologist 134: 241–250.Google Scholar
  20. Katayama N. & Suzuki N. (2003a) Changes in the use of extrafloral nectaries of Vicia faba (Leguminosae) and honeydew of aphids by ants with increasing aphid density. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 96: 579–584.Google Scholar
  21. Katayama N. & Suzuki N. (2003b) Bodyguard effects for the aphids of Aphis craccivora Koch (Homoptera: Aphididae) as related to the activity of two ant species, Tetramorium caespitum Linnaeus and Lasius niger L. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 38: 427–433.Google Scholar
  22. Koptur S. (1979) Facultative mutualism between weedy vetches bearing extrafloral nectaries and weedy ants in California. American Journal of Botany 66: 1016–1020.Google Scholar
  23. Koptur S. (1992) Extrafloral nectary–mediated interactions between insects and plants. In: Insect–Plant Interaction Volume IV (ed. E. Bernays), pp. 81–129. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
  24. Koptur S. & Lawton J. H. (1988) Interactions among vetches bearing extrafloral nectaries, their biotic protective agents, and herbivore. Ecology 69: 278–283.Google Scholar
  25. Messina F. J. (1981) Plant protection as a consequence of an ant-membracid mutualism: interactions on goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Ecology 62: 1433–1440.Google Scholar
  26. O’Dowd D. J. & Catchpole E. A. (1983) Ants and extrafloral nectaries: no evidence for plant protection in Helicrysum spp. – ant interactions. Oecologia 59: 191–200.Google Scholar
  27. Oliveira P. S., Rico-Graym V., Díaz-Castelazo C. & Castillo-Guevara C. (1999) Interaction between ants, extrafloral nectaries and insect herbivores in Neotropical coastal sand dunes; herbivore deterrence by visiting ants increases fruit set in Opuntia stricta (Cactaceae). Functional Ecology 13: 623–631.Google Scholar
  28. Rashbrook V. K., Compton S. G., Lawton J. H. (1992) Ant–herbivore interactions: reasons for the absence of benefits to a fern with foliar nectaries. Ecology 73: 2167–2174.Google Scholar
  29. Sakata H. (1994) How an ant decides to prey on or to attend aphids. Researches on Population Ecology 36: 45–51.Google Scholar
  30. Sakata H. (1995) Density-dependent predation of the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on two attended aphids Lachnus tropicalis and Myzocallis kuricola (Homoptera: Aphididae). Researches on Population Ecology 37: 159–164.Google Scholar
  31. Sakata H. (1999) Indirect interactions between two aphid species in relation to ant attendance. Ecological Research 14: 329–340.Google Scholar
  32. Sakata H. & Hashimoto Y. (2000) Should aphids attract or repel ants? Effect of rival aphids and extrafloral nectaries on ant–aphid interactions. Population Ecology 42: 171–178.Google Scholar
  33. Shingleton A. W. & Foster W. A. (2000) Ant tending influences soldier production in a social aphid. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267: 1863–1868.Google Scholar
  34. Skinner G. J. & Whittaker J. B. (1981) An experimental investigation of inter-relationships between the wood-ant (Formica rufa) and some tree-canopy herbivores. Journal of Animal Ecology 50: 313–326.Google Scholar
  35. Tilman D. (1978) Cherries, ants, and tent caterpillars: Timing of nectar production in relation to susceptibility of caterpillars to ant predation. Ecology 59: 686–692.Google Scholar
  36. Völkl W., Woodring J., Fischer M., Lorenz M. W., Hoffmann K. H. (1999) Ant-aphid mutualism: the impact of honeydew production and honeydew sugar composition on ant preferences. Oecologia 118: 483–491.Google Scholar
  37. Way M. J. (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing Homoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 8: 307–344.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nobuhiko SUZUKI
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kazuhiro OGURA
    • 1
  • Noboru KATAYAMA
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Faculty of ScienceKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  2. 2.Department of Applied Biological Sciences, Faculty of AgricultureSaga UniversitySagaJapan

Personalised recommendations