Literature DB >> 22617264

The direct and ecological costs of an ant-plant symbiosis.

Megan E Frederickson1, Alison Ravenscraft, Gabriel A Miller, Lina M Arcila Hernández, Gregory Booth, Naomi E Pierce.   

Abstract

How strong is selection for cheating in mutualisms? The answer depends on the type and magnitude of the costs of the mutualism. Here we investigated the direct and ecological costs of plant defense by ants in the association between Cordia nodosa, a myrmecophytic plant, and Allomerus octoarticulatus, a phytoecious ant. Cordia nodosa trees produce food and housing to reward ants that protect them against herbivores. For nearly 1 year, we manipulated the presence of A. octoarticulatus ants and most insect herbivores on C. nodosa in a full-factorial experiment. Ants increased plant growth when herbivores were present but decreased plant growth when herbivores were absent, indicating that hosting ants can be costly to plants. However, we did not detect a cost to ant colonies of defending host plants against herbivores. Although this asymmetry in costs suggests that the plants may be under stronger selection than the ants to cheat by withholding investment in their partner, the costs to C. nodosa are probably at least partly ecological, arising because ants tend scale insects on their host plants. We argue that ecological costs should favor resistance or traits other than cheating and thus that neither partner may face much temptation to cheat.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22617264     DOI: 10.1086/665654

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Nat        ISSN: 0003-0147            Impact factor:   3.926


  13 in total

1.  The influence of symbiotic bacteria on reproductive strategies and wing polyphenism in pea aphids responding to stress.

Authors:  Miguel L Reyes; Alice M Laughton; Benjamin J Parker; Hannah Wichmann; Maretta Fan; Daniel Sok; Jan Hrček; Tarik Acevedo; Nicole M Gerardo
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 5.091

2.  The Red Queen and King in finite populations.

Authors:  Carl Veller; Laura K Hayward; Christian Hilbe; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Gene flow and metacommunity arrangement affects coevolutionary dynamics at the mutualism-antagonism interface.

Authors:  Paula Lemos-Costa; Ayana B Martins; John N Thompson; Marcus A M de Aguiar
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  Harnessing ant defence at fruits reduces bruchid seed predation in a symbiotic ant-plant mutualism.

Authors:  Elizabeth G Pringle
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Caterpillars lack a resident gut microbiome.

Authors:  Tobin J Hammer; Daniel H Janzen; Winnie Hallwachs; Samuel P Jaffe; Noah Fierer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  An ant-plant mutualism through the lens of cGMP-dependent kinase genes.

Authors:  Pierre-Jean G Malé; Kyle M Turner; Manjima Doha; Ina Anreiter; Aaron M Allen; Marla B Sokolowski; Megan E Frederickson
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Effects of multiple mutualists on plants and their associated arthropod communities.

Authors:  Kane R Keller; Sara Carabajal; Felipe Navarro; Jennifer A Lau
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Costs and benefits of omnivore-mediated plant protection: effects of plant-feeding on Salix growth more detrimental than expected.

Authors:  Adriana Puentes; Christer Björkman
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  Water stress strengthens mutualism among ants, trees, and scale insects.

Authors:  Elizabeth G Pringle; Erol Akçay; Ted K Raab; Rodolfo Dirzo; Deborah M Gordon
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 8.029

10.  Temporal Structure in Cooperative Interactions: What Does the Timing of Exploitation Tell Us about Its Cost?

Authors:  Jessica L Barker; Judith L Bronstein
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 8.029

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.