Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:53:56.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proximity shapes similarity in epiphytic composition of Neotropical ant gardens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2016

Lucas N. Paolucci ,
Ricardo R.C. Solar  and
Laura C. Leal
Lucas N. Paolucci*
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Departamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa. Av. P.H. Rolfs, s/n, Campus Universitário, 36570-000, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Ricardo R.C. Solar
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Departamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa. Av. P.H. Rolfs, s/n, Campus Universitário, 36570-000, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Laura C. Leal
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-graduação em Zoologia, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana. Av. Transnordestina, s/n, Novo Horizonte, 44036–900, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Ant gardens (AGs) are specialized ant-plant associations where arboreal ants build their carton nests in association with epiphytes that use the carton as a substrate. Most of the epiphytes are planted by ants; therefore, seed selection by ants is a key driver of the epiphyte composition of AGs. However, deterministic post-dispersal factors, such as the surrounding environmental conditions and plant succession, may also influence epiphyte composition. Here we ask whether epiphyte composition on a local scale is associated with dispersal constraints, local environmental conditions (light availability, number of branches and nest height) or AG successional stage. We sampled all epiphyte species in 18 AGs formed by Camponotus femoratus and Crematogaster levior in Central Amazon, Brazil. AGs were located within a range of 1 km and at a maximum of 20 m from the edges of a dirt road within a primary forest. Epiphytic composition showed strong spatial structure, decreasing in similarity with increasing distance. Environmental conditions and AG successional stage were not related to AG floristic composition, suggesting a key role of stochastic processes related to seed dispersal. A combination of seed abundance and attractiveness in neighbouring AGs seems to drive the higher similarity in epiphyte composition among closer AGs.

Keywords

Amazonant-plant interactionsassembly rulesCamponotus femoratusCrematogaster leviordeterministic processesmutualismrain forestseed dispersalstochastic processes
Type
Short Communication
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , July 2016 , pp. 325 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

BLANCHET, F. G., LEGENDRE, P. & BORCARD, D. 2008. Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89:2623–2632.Google Scholar
BLÜTHGEN, N., SCHMIT-NEUERBURG, V., ENGWALD, S. & BARTHLOTT, W. 2001. Ants as epiphyte gardeners: comparing the nutrient quality of ant and termite canopy substrates in a Venezuelan lowland rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 17:887–894.Google Scholar
DAVIDSON, D. W. 1988. Ecological studies of Neotropical ant gardens. Ecology 69:1138–1152.Google Scholar
DEJEAN, A., CORBARA, B., ORIVEL, J., SNELLING, R. R., DELABIE, J. H. C. & BELIN-DEPOUX, M. 2000. The importance of ant gardens in the pioneer vegetal formations of French Guiana (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 35:425–439.Google Scholar
DRAY, S., LEGENDRE, P. & PERES-NETO, P. R. 2006. Spatial modelling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices (PCNM). Ecological Modelling 196:483–493.Google Scholar
HUSTON, M. A. 1994. Biological diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 681 pp.Google Scholar
KAUFMANN, E. 2002. Southeast Asian ant-gardens: diversity, ecology, ecosystematic significance, and evolution of mutualistic ant-epiphyte associations. Dissertation, Goethe-Universität in Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
NEKOLA, J. C. & WHITE, P. S. 1999. The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology. Journal of Biogeography 26:867–878.Google Scholar
NIEDER, J., ENGWALD, S., KLAWUN, M. & BARTHLOTT, W. 2000. Spatial distribution of vascular epiphytes (including hemiepiphytes) in a lowland Amazonian rain forest (Surumoni crane plot) of southern Venezuela. Biotropica 32:385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ORIVEL, J. & DEJEAN, A. 1999. Selection of epiphyte seeds by ant-garden ants. Ecoscience 6:51–55.Google Scholar
ORIVEL, J. & LEROY, C. 2011. The diversity and ecology of ant gardens (Hymenoptera: Formicidae; Spermatophyta: Angiospermae). Myrmecological News 14:73–85.Google Scholar
PERES-NETO, P. R., LEGENDRE, P., DRAY, S. & BORCARD, D. 2006. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625.Google Scholar
YOUNGSTEADT, E., NOJIMA, S., HÄBERLEIN, C., SCHULZ, S. & SCHAL, C. 2008. Seed odor mediates an obligate ant–plant mutualism in Amazonian rainforests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:4571–4575.Google Scholar
YOUNGSTEADT, E., BACA, J. A., OSBORNE, J. & SCHAL, C. 2009. Species-specific seed dispersal in an obligate ant-plant mutualism. PLoS ONE 4:e4335.Google Scholar