Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:36:45.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumption of lipid-rich seed arils improves larval development in a Neotropical primarily carnivorous ant, Odontomachus chelifer (Ponerinae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2014

Claudia Bottcher  and
Paulo S. Oliveira
Claudia Bottcher
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, C.P. 6109, 13083–862 Campinas SP, Brazil
Paulo S. Oliveira*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia Animal, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 13083-862, Campinas SP, Brazil
*
2Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Odontomachus chelifer ants collect fallen arillate seeds of Cabralea canjerana (Meliaceae), a bird-dispersed tree of the Atlantic rain forest. In the nest the larvae are fed with the lipid-rich aril, and the viable seed is discarded. Benefits from secondary seed dispersal by ants are well documented for tropical plants, but benefits to ants from consuming vertebrate-dispersed diaspores are uncertain. Twelve captive colonies of O. chelifer were used to investigate the effect of aril consumption on larval development. Treatment colonies were supplemented with 1 g of C. canjerana arils, whereas control colonies were supplemented with 1 g of synthetic diet. Egg and larval production did not differ between experimental colonies after 5 mo. Aril-fed larvae, however, grew 3.5 times larger than those in control colonies. Essential fatty acids in the arils possibly account for improved larval development. Consumption of lipid-rich arils may be critical under scarcity of arthropod prey. Improved larval development through aril consumption confirms that this ant-seed interaction is facultatively mutualistic. This result is meaningful given the predominantly carnivorous diet of O. chelifer, and the generalized nature of ant-seed/fruit interactions in tropical forests. Whether or not benefits to larvae translate into significant gains for ant colonies is uncertain.

Keywords

ant-plant interactionAtlantic rain forestCabralea canjeranaFormicidaefrugivoryMeliaceaemutualismseed dispersal
Type
Short Communication
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , November 2014 , pp. 621 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

LITERATURE CITED

BEATTIE, A. J. 1985. The evolutionary ecology of ant-plant mutualism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 196 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BONO, J. M. & HEITHAUS, E. R. 2002. Sex ratios and the distribution of elaiosomes in colonies of the ant, Aphaenogaster rudis. Insectes Sociaux 49:320–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOTTCHER, C. 2010. O consumo de sementes e frutos carnosos por formigas em Mata Atlântica: história natural, ecologia e variação espacial de uma interação proeminente. Ph.D. thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brasil.Google Scholar
BOUCHER, D. H., JAMES, S. & KEELER, K. H. 1982. The ecology of mutualism. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13:315–347.Google Scholar
BRONSTEIN, J. L. 1994. Our current understanding of mutualism. Quarterly Review of Biology 69:31–51.Google Scholar
CHRISTIANINI, A. V. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2010. Birds and ants provide complementary seed dispersal in a neotropical savanna. Journal of Ecology 98:573–582.Google Scholar
CLARK, R. E. & KING, J. R. 2012. The ant, Aphaenogaster picea, benefits from plant elaiosomes when insect prey is scarce. Environmental Entomology 41:1405–1408.Google Scholar
COGNI, R. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2004. Patterns in foraging and nesting ecology in the neotropical ant Gnamptogenys moelleri (Formicidae, Ponerinae). Insectes Sociaux 51:123–130.Google Scholar
FOKUHL, G., HEINZE, J. & POSCHLOD, P. 2012. Myrmecochory by small ants – beneficial effects through elaiosome nutrition and seed dispersal. Acta Oecologica 38:71–76.Google Scholar
FOURCASSIÉ, V. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2002. Foraging ecology of the giant Amazonian ant Dinoponera gigantea (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Ponerinae): activity schedule, diet, and spatial foraging patterns. Journal of Natural History 36:2211–2227.Google Scholar
GAMMANS, N., BULLOCK, J. & SCHÖNROGGE, K. 2005. Ant benefits in a seed dispersal mutualism. Oecologia 146:43–49.Google Scholar
HÖLLDOBLER, B. & WILSON, E. O. 1990. The ants. Belknap Press, Cambridge. 732 pp.Google Scholar
HUGHES, L., WESTOBY, M. & JURADO, E. 1994. Convergence of elaiosomes and insect prey: evidence from ant foraging behaviour and fatty acid composition. Functional Ecology 8:358–365.Google Scholar
JORDANO, P. 1993. Fruits and frugivory. Pp. 105–155 in Fenner, M. (ed.). Seeds: the ecology of regeneration in plant communities. CAB Publishing, Wallingford.Google Scholar
MORALES, M. A. & HEITHAUS, E. R. 1998. Food gained from seed dispersal mutualism shifts sex ratios in colonies of the ant, Aphaenogaster rudis. Ecology 79:734–739.Google Scholar
PASSOS, L. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2002. Ants affect the distribution and performance of Clusia criuva seedlings, a primarily bird-dispersed rainforest tree. Journal of Ecology 90:517–528.Google Scholar
PASSOS, L. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2003. Interactions between ants, fruits, and seeds in a sandy plain rainforest in Southeast Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19:261–270.Google Scholar
PIZO, M. A. 1997. Seed dispersal and predation in two populations of Cabralea canjerana (Meliaceae) in the Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 13:559–578.Google Scholar
PIZO, M. A. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 1998. Interation between ants and seeds of a nonmyrmecochorous neotropical tree, Cabralea canjerana (Meliaceae), in the Atlantic Forest of southeast Brazil. American Journal of Botany 85:669–674.Google Scholar
PIZO, M. A. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2001. Size and lipid content of nonmyrmecochorous diaspores: effects on the interation with litter-foraging ants in the Atlantic rain forest of Brazil. Plant Ecology 157:37–52.Google Scholar
PIZO, M. A., PASSOS, L. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2005. Ants as seed dispersers of fleshy diaspores in Brazilian Atlantic forests. Pp. 315–329 in Forget, P.-M., Lambert, J. E., Hulme, P. E. & Vander Wall, S. B. (eds.). Seed fate: predation and secondary dispersal. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.Google Scholar
RAIMUNDO, R. L. G., FREITAS, A. V. L. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2009. Seasonal patterns in activity rhythm and foraging ecology in the Neotropical forest-dwelling ant, Odontomachus chelifer (Formicidae: Ponerinae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 102:1151–1157.Google Scholar
RICO-GRAY, V. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2007. The ecology and evolution of ant-plant interactions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 331 pp.Google Scholar