Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:20:29.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An ant-membracid-plant interaction in a cerrado area of Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Claudia Valeria De Assis Dansa ,
Carlos Frederico  and
Duarte Rocha
Claudia Valeria De Assis Dansa
Affiliation:
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
Carlos Frederico
Affiliation:
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
Duarte Rocha*
Affiliation:
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
*
2Setor de Ecologia, Departamento de Biologia Animal e Vegetal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524, 20550, Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the Cerrado of Itirapina, Brazil, 34% of the shrubs of Didymopanax vinosum (Araliaceae) were colonized by the honeydew-producing homopteran Aconophora teligera (Membracidae) which was found exclusively on this species of plant. Correlations were made between membracid density and ant frequency, as well as between these parameters and plant damage. We found that: (1) ant frequency was higher on branches with membracids and both were more frequently found near apical meristems; (2) herbivore damage was lower on apical meristems where the membracids concentrate than on ones where they are absent; (3) the presence of membracids on the plant was correlated with a reduction in the occurrence of other potential herbivores, especially on the branches housing membracids; (4) plants with more tillers tended to have a larger number of membracids. The data suggest that the presence of A. teligera and associated ants probably reduce herbivory on apical meristems of D. vinosum.

Keywords

Aconophora teligeraantAraliaceaeBrazilcerradoDidymopanax vinosumHomopteraHymenopteraMembracidaemutualismplant-animal interactions
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , August 1992 , pp. 339 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Bentley, B. L. 1977. Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annual Review of Ecology and Syslematics 8:407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bristow, C. 1983. Treehoppers transfer parental care to ants: a new benefit of mutualism. Science 220:532–533.Google Scholar
Bristow, C. 1984. Differential benefits from ant attendance to two tropical species of homopterans of New York ironweed. Journal of Animal Ecology 53:715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, R. 1983. Interaction between ants and membracid bugs decreases growth and seed set of host plant bearing extrafloral nectaries. Oecologia (Berlin) 58:132–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, R. 1987a. Ant-plant-homopteran interactions. Advances in Ecological Research 16:53–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, R. 1987b. Interactions involving plants, Homoptera and ants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18:111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, R. 1990. Ants protect tropical Homoptera against nocturnal spider predation. Biotropica 22(2): 207–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, J. H. & Beattie, A. J. 1991. Mutualisms: Assessing the benefits to hosts and visitors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6(6): 193–195.Google Scholar
Goodland, R. 1971. A physiognomic analysis of the Cerrado vegetation of central Brazil. Journal of Ecology 59:411–419.Google Scholar
Horvitz, C. C. & Schemske, D. W. 1984. Effects of ants and an ant-tended herbivore on seed production of a Neotropical herb. Ecology 65(5)1369–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koptur, S. & Lawton, J. H. 1988. Interactions among vetches bearing extrafloral nectaries, their biotic protective agents, and herbivores. Ecology 69(1):278–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laine, K. J. & Niemela, P. 1980. The influence of ants on the survival of mountain birches during an Oporinia autumnata (Lep., Geometridae) outbreak. Oecologia (Berlin) 47(1):39–42.Google Scholar
Messina, F. 1981. Plant protection as a consequence of an ant-mcmbracid mutualism: Interactions of goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Ecology 662(5): 1433–1440.Google Scholar
Nickerson, J. C., Rolphkay, C. A., Buschman, L. L. & Whitcomb, W. H. 1977. The presence of Spissistilus festinus as a factor affecting egg predation by ants in soybeans. Florida Entomologist 60(3):193–199.Google Scholar
Oliveira, P. S., Da Silva, A. F. & Martins, A. B. 1987. Ant foraging on extrafloral nectaries of Qualea grandiflora (Vochysiaceae) in Cerrado vegetation: ants as potential antiherbivore agents. Oecolgia 74:228–230.Google Scholar
Rico-Gray, V. & Thien, L. B. 1989. Ant-mealy bug interaction decreases reproductive fitness of Schomburgkia tibicinis (Orchidaceae) in Mexico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 5:109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, P. 1984. The distribution of aphids in response to variation among individual host plants: Uroleucon rudbeckia (Homoptera:aphididae) and Rudbeckia lacinata (Asteraceae). Ecological Entomology 9:321–328.Google Scholar
Stout, J. 1979. An association of an ant, a mealy bug, and an understory tree from a Costa Rican rain forest. Biotropica 11:309–311.Google Scholar
Takada, H. & Hashimoto, Y. 1985. Association of the root aphid parasitoids Aclitus sappaphis and Paralipsis eikoae with the aphid-tending ants Pheidole favida and Lasius niger. Kontyu 53:150–160.Google Scholar
Way, M. J. 1963. Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing Homoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 8:307–344.Google Scholar
Zar, J. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.718 pp.Google Scholar