Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:24:05.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Congeneric mutualist ant symbionts (Tetraponera, Pseudomyrmecinae) differ in level of protection of their myrmecophyte hosts (Barteria, Passifloraceae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2019

Bertrand Kokolo ,
Christiane Atteke ,
Boris Achille Eyi Mintsa ,
Brama Ibrahim ,
Doyle McKey  and
Rumsais Blatrix
Bertrand Kokolo*
Affiliation:
Unité de Recherche Agrobiologie, Laboratoire de Physiologie Animale: Electrophysiologie–Pharmacologie, Université des Sciences et Techniques de Masuku, Gabon, BP 901 Franceville, Gabon
Christiane Atteke
Affiliation:
Unité de Recherche Agrobiologie, Laboratoire de Physiologie Animale: Electrophysiologie–Pharmacologie, Université des Sciences et Techniques de Masuku, Gabon, BP 901 Franceville, Gabon
Boris Achille Eyi Mintsa
Affiliation:
Unité de Recherche Agrobiologie, Laboratoire de Physiologie Animale: Electrophysiologie–Pharmacologie, Université des Sciences et Techniques de Masuku, Gabon, BP 901 Franceville, Gabon
Brama Ibrahim
Affiliation:
Unité de Recherche Agrobiologie, Laboratoire de Physiologie Animale: Electrophysiologie–Pharmacologie, Université des Sciences et Techniques de Masuku, Gabon, BP 901 Franceville, Gabon
Doyle McKey
Affiliation:
CEFE, CNRS, University of Montpellier, University Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France
Rumsais Blatrix
Affiliation:
CEFE, CNRS, University of Montpellier, University Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France
*
*Author for correspondence: Bertrand Kokolo, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Barteria fistulosa and B. dewevrei, central African rain-forest trees, provide nesting cavities for Tetraponera aethiops and T. latifrons ants, respectively, which protect them against herbivores. To compare protection efficiency between these two symbioses, for 20 plants of each species in two sites in Gabon we measured the time elapsed before ants reached a focal leaf, for host leaves that were undisturbed, damaged (cut with scissors) or subjected to slight vibration (mimicking such damage), and for damaged leaves of the non-host Barteria species. Tetraponera aethiops displayed stronger protective behaviour than did T. latifrons. Time to reach a damaged host leaf (4.5 ± 2.6 min, mean ± SD) did not differ significantly from time to reach a leaf subjected to slight vibration (5.2 ± 3.0 min) for T. aethiops, but response to a leaf subjected to slight vibration (9.5 ± 1.9 min) was significantly slower than that to a damaged leaf (7.8 ± 1.9 min) for T. latifrons. The faster response of T. aethiops to slight vibration may have masked a response of this species to chemical signalling. Both ants reached damaged host leaves faster than damaged leaves of the non-host Barteria sp., indicating host plant specificity in ant responses.

Keywords

Ant–plant symbiosischemical mediationdefenceprotection mutualismspecificity
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , November 2019 , pp. 255 - 259
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Agrawal, AA (1998) Leaf damage and associated cues induce aggressive ant recruitment in a neotropical ant-plant. Ecology 79, 2100–2112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blatrix, R and Mayer, V (2010) Communication in ant–plant symbioses. In Baluska, F and Ninkovic, V (eds), Plant Communication From an Ecological Perspective. Berlin: Springer, pp. 127–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breteler, FJ (1999) Barteria Hook. f. (Passifloraceae) revised. Adansonia 21, 306–318.Google Scholar
Bruna, EM,Lapola, DM and Vasconcelos, HL (2004) Interspecific variation in the defensive responses of obligate plant-ants: experimental tests and consequences for herbivory. Oecologia 138, 558–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomicki, G and Renner, SS (2015) Phylogenetics and molecular clocks reveal the repeated evolution of ant-plants after the late Miocene in Africa and the early Miocene in Australasia and the Neotropics. New Phytologist 207, 411–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, DW and McKey, DB (1993) The evolutionary ecology of symbiotic ant–plant relationships. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 2, 13–83.Google Scholar
Dejean, A, Djiéto-Lordon, C and Orivel, J (2008) The plant ant Tetraponera aethiops (Pseudomyrmecinae) protects its host myrmecophyte Barteria fistulosa (Passifloraceae) through aggressiveness and predation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 93, 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dejean, A, Grangier, J, Leroy, C and Orivel, J (2009) Predation and aggressiveness in host plant protection: a generalization using ants from the genus Azteca. Naturwissenschaften 96, 57–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Djiéto-Lordon, C and Dejean, A (1999) Tropical arboreal ant mosaics: innate attraction and imprinting determine nest site selection in dominant ants. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45, 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djiéto-Lordon, C, Dejean, A, Gibernau, M, Hossaert-McKey, M and McKey, DB (2004) Symbiotic mutualism with a community of opportunistic ants: protection, competition, and ant occupancy of the myrmecophyte Barteria nigritana (Passifloraceae). Acta Oecologica 26, 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte Rocha, CF and Godoy Bergallo, H (1992) Bigger ant colonies reduce herbivory and herbivore residence time on leaves of an ant-plant: Azteca muelleri vs. Coelomera ruficornis on Cecropia pachystachya. Oecologia 91, 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federle, W, Maschwitz, U and Fiala, B (1998) The two-partner ant–plant system of Camponotus (Colobopsis) sp. 1 and Macaranga puncticulata (Euphorbiaceae): natural history of the exceptional ant partner. Insectes Sociaux 45, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaume, L and McKey, DB (1999) An ant–plant mutualism and its host-specific parasite: activity rhythms, young leaf patrolling, and effects on herbivores of two specialist plant-ants inhabiting the same myrmecophyte. Oikos 84, 130–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves-Souza, T (2016) Induced biotic response in Amazonian ant-plants: the role of leaf damage intensity and plant-derived food rewards on ant recruitment. Sociobiology 63, 919–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M (2015) Extrafloral nectar at the plant-insect interface: a spotlight on chemical ecology, phenotypic plasticity, and food webs. Annual Review of Entomology 60, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heil, M and McKey, DB (2003) Protective ant–plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34, 425–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, DH (1966) Coevolution of mutualism between ants and acacias in Central America. Evolution 20, 249–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janzen, DH (1972) Protection of Barteria (Passifloraceae) by Pachysima ants (Pseudomyrmecinae) in a Nigerian rainforest. Ecology 53, 885–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokolo, B, Atteke, C, Ibrahim, B and Blatrix, R (2016) Pattern of specificity in the tripartite symbiosis between Barteria plants, ants and Chaetothyriales fungi. Symbiosis 69, 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapola, DM, Bruna, EM and Vasconcelos, HL (2003) Contrasting responses to induction cues by ants inhabiting Maieta guianensis (Melastomataceae). Biotropica 35, 295–300.Google Scholar
Letourneau, DK (1998) Ants, stem-borers, and fungal pathogens: experimental tests of a fitness advantage in Piper ant-plants. Ecology 79, 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, D and Young, TP (1992) Symbiotic ants as an alternative defense against giraffe herbivory in spinescent Acacia drepanolobium. Oecologia 91, 235–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKey, DB (1974) Ant–plants: selective eating of an unoccupied Barteria by a Colobus monkey. Biotropica 6, 269–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKey, DB, Gaume, L, Brouat, C, Di Giusto, B, Pascal, L, Debout, G, Dalecky, A and Heil, M (2005) The trophic structure of tropical ant–plant–herbivore interactions: community consequences and coevolutionary dynamics. In Burslem, D, Pinard, M and Hartley, S (eds), Biotic Interactions in the Tropics: Their Role in the Maintenance of Species Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 386–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moog, J (2009) The association of the plant–ant Cladomyrma with plants in southeast Asia. PhD thesis, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany.Google Scholar
Pacheco, PSM Jrand Del-Claro, K(2018) Pseudomyrmex concolor Smith (Formicidae: Pseudomyrmecinae) as induced biotic defence for host plant Tachigali myrmecophila Ducke (Fabaceae: Caesalpinioideae). Ecological Entomology 43, 782–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosumek, FB, Silveira, FAO, Neves, FD, Barbosa, NPD, Diniz, L, Oki, Y, Pezzini, F, Fernandes, GW and Cornelissen, T (2009) Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses. Oecologia 160, 537–549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, PS (1991) Phylogenetic analysis of pseudomyrmecine ants associated with domatia-bearing plants. In Huxley, CR and Cutler, DF (eds), Ant–plant Interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 335–352.Google Scholar
Ward, PS (2006) The ant genus Tetraponera in the Afrotropical region: synopsis of species groups and revision of the T. ambigua-group (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecologische Nachrichten 8, 119–130.Google Scholar
Yu, DW and Davidson, DW (1997) Experimental studies of species-specificity in Cecropia–ant relationships. Ecological Monographs 67, 273–294.Google Scholar