The Ecological Effects of Ant-Aphid Mutualism on Plants at a Large Spatial Scale

Authors

  • Shuang Zhang Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Yuxin Zhang Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Keming Ma Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v60i3.236-241

Keywords:

Ant defense, ant-plant interaction, herbivory, exclusion experiment

Abstract

The protective ant-plant interaction has been considered as a model system in studying mutualistic interactions, but we know little about the ecological effects of the mutualism at relatively larger spatial scales. In this study, by excluding an aphid-tending ant species (Lasius fuliginosus) from all host oak trees (Quercus liaotungensis) in 20x20 m plots, we evaluated the effects of ants on herbivory, fruit production and leaf toughness of the host tree. Through a two years study, we found that ants have a significant anti-herbivory effect on the host tree, with no effects on fruit production. At the end of the growing season, leaf toughness for plants without ants increased significantly. This suggests that ants are reliable and effective bodyguards for plants at larger spatial scales. For plants, the possible tradeoff between different defensive strategies at larger scale should be focused in further works.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agrawal, A. A. (2007). Macroevolution of plant defense strategies. Trends Ecol. Evol., 22: 103-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.012

Agrawal, A. A. (2011). Current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence. Funct. Ecol., 25: 420-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01796.x

Agrawal, A. A., D. D. Ackerly, F. Adler, A. E. Arnold, C. Caceres, D. F. Doak, E. Post, P. J. Hudson, J. Maron, K. A. Mooney, M. Power, D. Schemske, J. Stachowicz, S. Strauss, M. G. Turner, & E. Werner. (2007). Filling key gaps in population and community ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ., 5: 145-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[145:FKGIPA]2.0.CO;2

Bascompte, J. & P. Jordano. (2007). Plant-Animal Mutualistic Networks: The Architecture of Biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 38: 567-593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095818

Bronstein, J. L. (1994). Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol., 9: 214-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(94)90246-1

Bruno, J. F., J. J. Stachowicz, & M. D. Bertness. (2003). Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol. Evol., 18: 119-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00045-9

Buckley, R. (1983). Interaction between Ants and Membracid Bugs Decreases Growth and Seed Set of Host Plant Bearing Extrafloral Nectaries. Oecologia, 58: 132-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00384553

Chamberlain, S. A. & J. N. Holland. (2009). Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant-plant protection mutualisms. Ecology, 90: 2384-2392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1490.1

Del-Claro, K. (2004). Multitrophic relationships, conditional mutualisms, and the study of interaction biodiversity in tropical savannas. Neotrop. Entomol., 33: 665-672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2004000600002

Del-Claro, K. & P. S. Oliveira. (2000). Conditional outcomes in a neotropical treehopper-ant association: temporal and species-specific variation in ant protection and homopteran fecundity. Oecologia, 124: 156-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050002

Frederickson, M. E., A. Ravenscraft, L. M. Arcila Hernández, G. Booth, V. Astudillo, & G. A. Miller. (2013). What happens when ants fail at plant defence? Cordia nodosa dynamically adjusts its investment in both direct and indirect resistance traits in response to herbivore damage. J. Ecol., 101: 400-409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12034

Garcia, D., R. Zamora, & G. C. Amico. (2011). The spatial scale of plant-animal interactions: effects of resource availability and habitat structure. Ecol. Monogr., 81: 103-121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0470.1

Harper, J. L. (1989). The value of a leaf. Oecologia, 80: 53-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00789931

Heil, M., T. Delsinne, A. Hilpert, S. Schurkens, C. Andary, K. E. Linsenmair, M. S. Sousa, & D. McKey. (2002). Reduced chemical defence in ant-plants? A critical re-evaluation of a widely accepted hypothesis. Oikos, 99: 457-468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.11954.x

Hopkins, G. W. & J. I. Thacker. (1999). Ants and habitat specificity in aphids. J. Insect Conserv., 3: 25-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009626405307

Janzen, D. H. (1966). Coevolution of mutualism between ants and acacias in central America. Evolution, 20: 249-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1966.tb03364.x

Kaplan, I. & M. D. Eubanks. (2005). Aphids alter the community-wide impact of fire ants. Ecology, 86: 1640-1649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0016

Korndörfer, A. P. &K. Del-Claro. (2006). Ant Defense Versus Induced Defense in Lafoensia pacari (Lythraceae), a Myrmecophilous Tree of the Brazilian Cerrado1. Biotropica, 38: 786-788. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00200.x

Leiss, K. A. and P. G. L. Klinkhamer. (2005). Spatial distribution of nectar production in a natural Echium vulgare population: Implications for pollinator behaviour. Basic Appl. Ecol. 6: 317-324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2005.02.006

Moreira, V. S. S. & K. Del-Claro. (2005). The outcomes of an ant-treehopper association on Solanum lycocarpum St. Hill: increased membracid fecundity and reduced damage by chewing herbivores. Neotrop. Entomol. 34: 881-887. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2005000600002

Onoda, Y., M. Westoby, P. B. Adler, A. M. F. Choong, F. J. Clissold, J. H. C. Cornelissen, S. Díaz, N. J. Dominy, A. Elgart, L. Enrico, P. V. A. Fine, J. J. Howard, A. Jalili, K. Kitajima, H. Kurokawa, C. McArthur, P. W. Lucas, L. Markesteijn, N. Pérez-Harguindeguy, L. Poorter, L. Richards, L. S. Santiago, E. E. Sosinski, S. A. Van Bael, D. I. Warton, I. J. Wright, S. Joseph Wright, & N. Yamashita. (2011). Global patterns of leaf mechanical properties. Ecol. Lett., 14: 301-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01582.x

Pringle, E., R. Dirzo, & D. Gordon. (2011). Indirect benefits of symbiotic coccoids for an ant-defended myrmecophytic tree. Ecology, 92: 37-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0234.1

Romero, G. Q. & J. Koricheva. (2011). Contrasting cascade effects of carnivores on plant fitness: a meta-analysis. J. Anim. Ecol., 80: 696-704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01808.x

Rosumek, F., F. Silveira, F. de S. Neves, N. de U. Barbosa, L. Diniz, Y. Oki, F. Pezzini, G. Fernandes, & T. Cornelissen. (2009). Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses. Oecologia, 160: 537-549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1309-x

Stadler, B. and A. F. G. Dixon. (2005). Ecology and evolution of aphid-ant interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36: 345-372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.091704.175531

Stamp, N. (2003). Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q. Rev. Biol., 78: 23-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/367580

Styrsky, J. D. and M. D. Eubanks. 2007. Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing insects. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 274:151-164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3701

Trager, M. D., S. Bhotika, J. A. Hostetler, G. V. Andrade, M. A. Rodriguez-Cabal, C. S. McKeon, C. W. Osenberg, & B. M. Bolker. (2010). Benefits for Plants in Ant-Plant Protective Mutualisms: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 5:e14308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014308

WallisDeVries, M. F., E. A. Laca, & M. W. Demment. (1999). The importance of scale of patchiness for selectivity in grazing herbivores. Oecologia, 121: 355-363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050939

Way, M. J. (1963). Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing homoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 8: 307-344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.08.010163.001515

Westphal, C., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke, T. (2006). Bumblebees experience landscapes at different spatial scales: possible implications for coexistence. Oecologia, 149: 289-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0448-6

Wimp, G. M. & T. G. Whitham. (2001). Biodiversity consequences of predation and host plant hybridization on an aphid-ant mutualism. Ecology, 82: 440-452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[0440:BCOPAH]2.0.CO;2

Zhang, S., Y. Zhang, & K. Ma. (2012a). Different-sized oak trees are equally protected by the aphid-tending ants. Arthropod-Plant Interact., 6: 307-314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-011-9172-1

Zhang, S., Y. X. Zhang, & K. M. Ma. (2012b). The ecological effects of the ant-hemipteran mutualism: a meta-analysis. Basic Appl. Ecol., 13: 116-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2012.02.002

Downloads

Published

2013-11-06

How to Cite

Zhang, S., Zhang, Y., & Ma, K. (2013). The Ecological Effects of Ant-Aphid Mutualism on Plants at a Large Spatial Scale. Sociobiology, 60(3), 236–241. https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v60i3.236-241

Issue

Vol. 60 No. 3 (2013)

Section

Research Article - Ants

License

Sociobiology is a diamond open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).