Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:30:10.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Multitrophic interactions in a neotropical savanna: ant–hemipteran systems, associated insect herbivores and a host plant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2009

Paulo S. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
Kleber Del-Claro
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal de Uberlândia
David Burslem
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Michelle Pinard
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Sue Hartley
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In many habitats ants form a major part of the arthropod fauna found on vegetation, and recent studies have shown that the abundance and diversity of ant–plant associations is particularly remarkable in the tropical region. For instance, one-third of the plant species in a Panamanian forest (Schupp & Feener 1991) and over 20% of the woody species in a Brazilian savanna (Oliveira & Oliveira-Filho 1991) were found to produce ant rewards. Furthermore, 312 ant–plant interactions were recorded in one Mexican coastal site (Rico-Gray 1993), and the ant–plant community in an Amazonian rainforest comprised 377 plants per ha (Fonseca & Ganade 1996). In the tropics many ant species use plant surfaces as a foraging substrate to search for both live and dead animal prey, as well as for different types of plant-derived food products (Carroll & Janzen 1973). Ant activity on foliage can be promoted by the occurrence of predictable and immediately renewable food sources, in cluding extrafloral nectar, honeydew from phloem-feeding hemipterans, and secretions from lepidopteran larvae (see Way 1963; Bentley 1977; Buckley 1987; Koptur 1992; Pierce et al. 2002). In fact, plant- and insect-derived liquid foods appear to provide a large amount of the energy supply of foliage-dwelling ants (Tobin 1994; Davidson et al. 2003). Although food resources located on foliage are probably more often found and exploited by arboreal species, ground-nesting ants frequently extend their foraging areas onto the plant substrate as well (Rico-Gray 1993; Blüthgen et al. 2000; Davidson et al. 2003).

Type
Chapter
Information
Biotic Interactions in the Tropics
Their Role in the Maintenance of Species Diversity
, pp. 414 - 438
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addicott, J. F. (1978) Competition for mutualists: aphids and ants. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 56, 2093–2096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atsatt, P. R. (1981a) Ant-dependent food plant selection by the mistletoe butterfly Ogyris amaryllis (Lycaenidae). Oecologia, 48, 60–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atsatt, P. R. (1981b) Lycaenid butterflies and ants: selection for enemy-free space. American Naturalist, 118, 638–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, C. E. (1991) Direct and indirect interactions between ants (Pheidole megacephala), scales (Coccus viridis) and plants (Pluchea indica). Oecologia 87, 233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, A. J. (1985) The Evolutionary Ecology of Ant–Plant Mutualisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, A. J. & Hughes, L. (2002) Ant–plant interactions. In Plant–Animal Interactions: An Evolutionary Approach (ed. , C. M. Herrera & , O. Pellmyr). Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 211–235Google Scholar
Becerra, J. X. & Venable, D. L. (1989) Extrafloral nectaries: a defense against ant–Homoptera mutualism?Oikos, 55, 276–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, B. L. (1977) Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8, 407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billick, I. & Tonkel, K. (2003) The relative importance of spatial vs. temporal variability in generating a conditional mutualism. Ecology, 84, 289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billick, I., Weidmann, M. & Reithel, J. (2001) The importance of ant-tending to maternal care in the membracid species, Publilia modesta. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 51, 41–46Google Scholar
Blüthgen, N., Verhaagh, M., Goitía, W., Jaffé, K., Morawetz, W. & Barthlott, W. (2000) How plants shape the ant community in the Amazonian rainforest canopy: the key role of extrafloral nectaries and homopteran honeydew. Oecologia, 125, 229–240CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boucher, D. H., James, S. & Keeler, K. H. (1982) The ecology of mutualism. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13, 315–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bristow, C. M. (1983) Treehoppers transfer parental care to ants: a new benefit of mutualism. Science, 220, 532–533CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bristow, C. M. (1984) Differential benefits from ant attendance to two species of Homoptera on New York iron weed. Journal of Animal Ecology, 53, 775–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, J. L. (1994a) Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 214–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, J. L. (1994b) Our current understanding of mutualism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 69, 31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, J. L. (1998) The contribution of ant-plant protection studies to our understanding of mutualism. Biotropica, 30, 150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, J. L. & Barbosa, P. (2002) Multitrophic/multispecies mutualistic interactions: the role of non-mutualists in shaping and mediating mutualisms. In Multitrophic Level Interactions (ed. , T. Tscharntke & , B. A. Hawkins). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 44–66Google Scholar
Buckley, R. C. (1983) Interaction between ants and membracid bugs decreases growth and seed set of host plant bearing extrafloral nectaries. Oecologia, 58, 132–136CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, R. C. (1987) Interactions involving plants, homoptera, and ants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 18, 11–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, R. C. & Gullan, P. (1991) More aggressive ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) provide better protection for soft scales and mealybugs (Homoptera: Coccidae, Pseudococcidae). Biotropica, 23, 282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, C. R. & Janzen, D. H. (1973) Ecology of foraging by ants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 231–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, J. H. (1991) Host-plant mediation of insect mutualisms: variable outcomes in herbivore–ant interactions. Oikos, 61, 138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, J. H. & Addicott, J. F. (1989) Intra- and interspecific competition for mutualists: ants as a limited and limiting resource for aphids. Oecologia, 79, 315–321CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cushman, J. H. & Addicott, J. F. (1991) Conditional interactions in ant–plant–herbivore mutualisms. In Ant–Plant Interactions (ed. , C. R. Huxley & , D. F. Cutler). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 92–103Google Scholar
Cushman, J. H. & Whitham, T. G. (1989) Conditional mutualism in membracid–ant association: temporal, age-specific, and density-dependent effects. Ecology, 70, 1040–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. W., Cook, S. C., Snelling, R. R. & Chua, T. H. (2003) Explaining the abundance of ants in lowland tropical rainforest canopies. Science, 300, 969–972CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, D. W. & McKey, D. (1993) The evolutionary ecology of symbiotic ant–plant relationships. Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 2, 13–83Google Scholar
Del-Claro, K. & Mound, L. A. (1996) Phenology and description of a new species of Liothrips (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) from Didymopanax (Araliaceae) in Brazilian cerrado. Revista de Biologia Tropical, 44, 193–197Google Scholar
Del-Claro, K. & Oliveira, P. S. (1993) Ant–homoptera interaction: do alternative sugar sources distract tending ants?Oikos, 68, 202–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del-Claro, K. & Oliveira, P. S. (1996) Honeydew flicking by treehoppers provides cues to potential tending ants. Animal Behaviour, 51, 1071–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del-Claro, K. & Oliveira, P. S. (1999) Ant-Homoptera interactions in neotropical savanna: the honeydew- producing treehopper Guayaquila xiphias (Membracidae) and its associated ant fauna on Didymopanax vinosum (Araliaceae). Biotropica, 31, 135–144Google Scholar
Del-Claro, K. & Oliveira, P. S. (2000) Conditional outcomes in a neotropical treehopper–ant association: temporal and species-specific effects. Oecologia, 124, 156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, P. J. (1991) Mutualism between Thisbe irenea butterflies and ants, and the role of ant ecology in the evolution of larval–ant associations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 43, 179–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, P. J. & Baker, I. (1989) Butterfly exploitation of a plant-ant mutualism: adding insult to herbivory. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 97, 332–340Google Scholar
Douglas, J. M. & Sudd, J. H. (1980) Behavioral coordination between an aphid and the ant that tends it: an ethological analysis. Animal Behaviour, 28, 1127–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, L. A. & Coley, P. D. (2002) Tritrophic interactions in tropical versus temperate communities. In Multitrophic Level Interactions (ed. , T. Tscharntke & , B. A. Hawkins). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–88Google Scholar
Fiala, B. (1990) Extrafloral nectaries versus ant–Homoptera mutualism: a comment on Becerra and Venable. Oikos, 59, 281–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiala, B., Maschwitz, U., Pong, T. Y. & Helbig, A. J. (1989) Studies of a South East Asian ant–plant association: protection of Macaranga trees by Crematogaster borneensis. Oecologia, 79, 463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca, C. R. & Ganade, G. (1996) Asymmetries, compartments and null interactions in an Amazonian ant–plant community. Journal of Animal Ecology, 65, 339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitas, A. V. L. & Oliveira, P. S. (1996) Ants as selective agents on herbivore biology: effects on the behaviour of a non-myrmecophilous butterfly. Journal of Animal Ecology, 65, 205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, R. S. (1982) An ant-tended treehopper mutualism: effects of Formica subsericea on survival of Vanduzea arquata. Ecological Entomology, 7, 267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, R. S. (1983) Ant protection of a host plant's defoliator: consequence of an ant-membracid mutualism. Ecology, 64, 789–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaume, L., McKey, D. & Anstett, M.-C. (1997) Benefits conferred by ‘timid’ ants: active anti-herbivore protection of the rainforest tree Leonardoxa africana by the minute ant Petalomyrmex phylax. Oecologia, 112, 209–216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaume, L., McKey, D. & Terrin, S. (1998) Ant–plant–homopteran mutualism: how the third partner affects the interaction between a plant-specialist ant and its myrmecophyte host. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265, 569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, L. E. (1980) Food web organization and the conservation of neotropical diversity. In Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (ed. , M. E. Soulé & , B. A. Wilcox). Sunderland: Sinauer, pp. 11–33Google Scholar
Heithaus, E. R., Culver, D. C. & Beattie, A. J. (1980) Models of some ant–plant mutualisms. American Naturalist 116, 347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölldobler, B. & Wilson, E. O. (1990) The Ants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvitz, C. C. & Schemske, D. W. (1984) Effects of ants and ant-tended herbivore on seed production of a neotropical herb. Ecology, 65, 1369–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvitz, C. C. & Schemske, D. W. (1988) A test of the pollinator limitation hypothesis for a neotropical herb. Ecology, 69, 200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. (1979) New horizons in the biology of plant defenses. In Herbivores: Their Interactions with Secondary Plant Metabolites (ed. , G. A. Rosenthal & , D. H. Janzen). New York: Academic Press, pp. 331–350Google Scholar
Koptur, S. (1992) Extrafloral nectary-mediated interactions between insects and plants. In Insect–Plant Interactions. Vol. 4 (ed. , E. Bernays). Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 81–129Google Scholar
Lawton, J. H. & McNeill, S. (1979) Between the devil and the deep blue sea: on the problem of being a herbivore. Symposium of the British Ecological Society 20, 223–244Google Scholar
Letourneau, D. K. (1983) Passive aggression: an alternative hypothesis for the Piper– Pheidole association. Oecologia, 60, 122–126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopes, B. C. (1995) Treehoppers (Homoptera: Membracidae) in the southeast Brazil: use of host plants. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 12, 595–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, R. J., Morais, H. C. & Diniz, I. R. (2002) Interactions among cerrado plants and their herbivores: unique or typical? In The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical Savanna (ed. , P. S. Oliveira & , R. J. Marquis). New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 306–328Google Scholar
McEvoy, P. B. (1979) Advantages and disadvantages to group living in treehoppers (Homoptera: Membracidae). Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America, 11, 1–13Google Scholar
McKey, D. (1984) Interaction of the ant-plant Leonardoxa africana (Caesalpiniaceae) with its obligate inhabitants in a rainforest in Cameroon. Biotropica, 16, 81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messina, F. J. (1981) Plant protection as a consequence of ant–membracid mutualism: interactions on Goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Ecology, 62, 1433–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morais, H. C. & Benson, W. W. (1988) Recolonização de vegetação de cerrado após queimada, por formigas arborícolas. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 48, 459–466Google Scholar
Morales, M. A. (2000) Mechanisms and density dependence of benefit in an ant– membracid mutualism. Ecology, 81, 482–489Google Scholar
Oliveira, P. S. (1997) The ecological function of extrafloral nectaries: herbivore deterrence by visiting ants and reproductive output in Caryocar brasiliense (Caryocaraceae). Functional Ecology, 11, 323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, P. S. & Brandão, C. R. F. (1991) The ant community associated with extrafloral nectaries in Brazilian cerrados. In Ant–Plant Interactions (ed. , D. F. Cutler & , C. R. Huxley). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 198–212Google Scholar
Oliveira, P. S., Freitas, A. V. L. & Del-Claro, K. (2002) Ant foraging on plant foliage: contrasting effects on the behavioral ecology of insect herbivores. The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical Savanna (ed. , P. S. Oliveira & , R. J. Marquis). New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 287–305Google Scholar
Oliveira, P. S. & Leitão-Filho, H. F. (1987) Extrafloral nectaries: their taxonomic distribution and abundance in the woody flora of cerrado vegetation in southeast Brazil. Biotropica, 19, 140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, P. S. & Oliveira-Filho, A. T. (1991) Distribution of extrafloral nectaries in the woody flora of tropical communities in Western Brazil. In Plant–Animal Interactions: Evolutionary Ecology in Tropical and Temperate Regions (ed. , P. W. Price, , T. M. Lewinsohn, , G. W. Fernandes & , W. W. Benson). New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 163–175Google Scholar
Oliveira, P. S., Silva, A. F. da & Martins, A. B. (1987) Ant foraging on extrafloral nectaries of Qualea grandiflora (Vochysiaceae) in cerrado vegetation: ants as potential antiherbivore agents. Oecologia, 74, 228–230CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira-Filho, A. T. & Ratter, J. A. (2002) Vegetation physiognomies and woody flora of the cerrado biome. In The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical Savanna (ed. , P. S. Oliveira & , R. J. Marquis). New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 91–120Google Scholar
Pierce, N. E., Braby, M. F., Heath, A.et al. (2002) The ecology and evolution of ant association in the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera). Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 47, 733–771Google Scholar
Pierce, N. E. & Elgar, M. A. (1985) The influence of ants on host plant selection by Jalmenus evagora, a myrmecophilous lycaenid butterfly. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 16, 209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. W. (2002) Species interactions and the evolution of biodiversity. In Plant–Animal Interactions: An Evolutionary Approach (ed. , C. M. Herrera & , O. Pellmyr). Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 3–25Google Scholar
Price, P. W., Bouton, C. E., Gross, P., McPheron, B. A., Thompson, J. N. & Weis, A. E. (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11, 41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. W., Westoby, M., Rice, B.et al. (1986) Parasite mediation in ecological interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 17, 487–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queiroz, J. M. & Oliveira, P. S. (2001) Tending-ants protect honeydew-producing whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Environmental Entomology, 30, 295–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 2167–2174Google Scholar
Rico-Gray, V. (1993) Use of plant-derived food resources by ants in the dry tropical lowlands of coastal Veracruz, Mexico. Biotropica, 25, 301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rico-Gray, V. & Castro, G. (1996) Effect of an ant–aphid interaction on the reproductive fitness of Paullinia fuscecens (Sapindaceae). Southwestern Naturalist, 41, 434–440Google Scholar
Rico-Gray, V. & Thien, L. B. (1989) Ant–mealybug interaction decreases reproductive fitness of Schomburgkia tibicinis (Orchidaceae) in Mexico. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 5, 109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Room, P. M. (1972) The fauna of the mistletoe Tapinanthus bangwensis growing on cocoa in Ghana: relationships between fauna and mistletoe. Journal of Animal Ecology, 41, 611–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schupp, E. W. & Feener, D. H. (1991) Phylogeny, lifeform, and habitat dependence of ant-defended plants in a Panamanian forest. In Ant–Plant Interactions (ed. , C. R. Huxley & , D. F. Cutler). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–197Google Scholar
Stout, J. (1979) An association of an ant, a mealy bug and an understorey tree from a Costa Rican rain forest. Biotropica, 11, 309–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. N. (1988) Variation in interspecific interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19, 65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. N. (1994) The Coevolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. N. (1997) Conserving interaction biodiversity. In The Ecological Basis of Conservation: Heterogeneity, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity (ed. , S. T. A. Pickett, , R. S. Ostfeld, , M. Shachak & , G. E. Likens). New York: Chapman & Hall, pp. 285–293Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N. (2002) Plant–animal interactions: future directions. In Plant–Animal Interactions: An Evolutionary Approach (ed. , C. M. Herrera & , O. Pellmyr). Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 236–247Google Scholar
Tobin, J. E. (1994) Ants as primary consumers: diet and abundance in the Formicidae. In Nourishment and Evolution in Insect Societies (ed. , J. H. Hunt & , C. A. Nalepa). Oxford: Westview Press, pp. 279–308Google Scholar
Völkl, W. (1992) Aphids and their parasitoids: who actually benefits from ant-attendance?Journal of Animal Ecology, 61, 273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Völkl, W. & Kroupa, A. S. (1997) Effects of adult mortality risks on parasitoid foraging tactics. Animal Behaviour, 54, 349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, M. J. (1954) Studies of the association of the ant Oecophylla longinoda and the scale insect Saissetia zanzibarensis. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 45, 113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, M. J. (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing homoptera. Annual Review of Entomology, 8, 307–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×