Ant dominance hierarchy determines the nested pattern in ant-plant networks

Dáttilo, Wesley; Díaz‐Castelazo, Cecilia; Rico-Gray, Víctor

doi:10.1111/bij.12350

Cited by 67 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although they encompass only 1% of the ant species recorded in the region [36], they are over-represented in the multilayer network (> 50% of records). Previous studies carried out in distinct habitats suggest that the cores of ant-EFN and ant-honeydew networks are composed by competitively superior ant species [25,31]. In fact, Camponotus crassus and Camponotus rufipes are numerically dominant and aggressive ants, which are considered truly trophobiont and plant mutualists in cerrado [69] and campo rupestre [70].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In ant-plant networks specifically, is known that a few central ant species form a core that strongly influences the structure of the entire community [28]; this is especially true in generalized ant-EFN networks compared to those involving specialized myrmecophytic plants [29]. This core of central ant species is consistent in space [28] and time [30], and consists mostly of dominant species displaying high recruitment rates and strong territoriality [31]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Few Ant Species Play a Central Role Linking Different Plant Resources in a Network in Rupestrian Grasslands

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ant-plant associations are an outstanding model to study the entangled ecological interactions that structure communities. However, most studies of plant-animal networks focus on only one type of resource that mediates these interactions (e.g, nectar or fruits), leading to a biased understanding of community structure. New approaches, however, have made possible to study several interaction types simultaneously through multilayer networks models. Here, we use this approach to ask whether the structural patterns described to date for ant-plant networks hold when multiple interactions with plant-derived food rewards are considered. We tested whether networks characterized by different resource types differ in specialization and resource partitioning among ants, and whether the identity of the core ant species is similar among resource types. We monitored ant interactions with extrafloral nectaries, flowers, and fruits, as well as trophobiont hemipterans feeding on plants, for one year, in seven rupestrian grassland (campo rupestre) sites in southeastern Brazil. We found a highly tangled ant-plant network in which plants offering different resource types are connected by a few central ant species. The multilayer network had low modularity and specialization, but ant specialization and niche overlap differed according to the type of resource used. Beyond detecting structural differences across networks, our study demonstrates empirically that the core of most central ant species is similar across them. We suggest that foraging strategies of ant species, such as massive recruitment, may determine specialization and resource partitioning in ant-plant interactions. As this core of ant species is involved in multiple ecosystem functions, it may drive the diversity and evolution of the entire campo rupestre community.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Few Ant Species Play a Central Role Linking Different Plant Resources in a Network in Rupestrian Grasslands

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…La efectividad de la defensa contra herbívoros que pueden aportar las hormigas asociadas a plantas con NEFs puede ser muy variable, ya que se encuentran involucradas desde asociaciones obligadas hasta asociaciones facultativas generalistas (Giusto et al, 2001). Asimismo, los beneficios para las plantas en términos de adecuación pueden estar influenciados por diversos factores tales como: comportamientos defensivos de las hormigas que las visitan, abundancia, presión de herbívoros y balance costo-beneficio (Bronstein, 1994;Rico-Gray y Oliveira, 2007;Dáttilo et al, 2014).…”

Section: Las Interacciones Planta-hormiga-herbívorounclassified

Cambio de uso de suelo, manejo forestal y sus implicaciones en las interacciones bióticas asociadas a Cedrela odorata Linnaeus, Meliaceae

Ramírez-Flores

Delgado

Rico-Gray

2018

cdbio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper documents the effect of forest management on plant-ant-herbivore interactions associated with red cedar Cedrela odorata L. 1759 in forest ecosystems of central Veracruz, Mexico. Due to the high demand as precious wood and the growing exploitation of its ecosystem, the plantations of C. odorata have been promoted. Likewise, the establishment of monospecific plantations and their management practices has led to ecological imbalance and the development of pests.In the plantations of C. odorata the larvae of the herbivorous insect known as the shoot borer Hypsipyla grandella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) have become a pest of great economic importance. In this study, we found that in the places where forest management practices were carried out with greater intensity, the complexity and composition of the vegetation adjacent to the trees of C. odorata decreased, also negatively affecting the richness of the community of ants, but increasing its abundance. In plantations, dominance is concentrated in a low number of ant species characteristic of disturbed and tolerant environments. The dissemination of the damage caused by the shoot borer is greater in sites with high intensity of management, finding an inverted pattern in the best conserved sites.

show abstract

“…These results suggest that species phylogeny may not be the most important factor in partner selection, either for ants or for partners. Partner selection by ants could be driven by other factors not necessarily shared by related species, such as phenology (Rico-Gray et al, 2012), abundance (Chamberlain et al, 2010;Dáttilo et al, 2014b), body size (Chamberlain & Holland, 2009b), ant dominance hierarchies (Dáttilo et al, 2014a) and abiotic factors (Rico-Gray et al, 2012), which have been demonstrated to be good predictors of the structure of ant-EFN interaction networks. Moreover, ant visitation to FN was shown to depend on seasonality (Santos et al, 2014), and the presence of floral barriers and repellents, which were in turn independent of plant phylogeny (Junker et al, 2011).…”

Section: Do Different Myrmecophilic Partners Differ In the Taxonomic mentioning

confidence: 99%

The network structure of myrmecophilic interactions

Cagnolo

Tavella

2015

Ecological Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Ants establish mutualistic interactions involving a wide range of protective relationships (myrmecophily), in which they provide defence against enemies and partners provide food rewards and/or refuge. Although similar in the general outcome, myrmecophilic interactions differ in some characteristics such as quantity and quality of rewards offered by partners which may lead to different specialisation levels and, consequently, to different network properties.2. The aim of this study was to identify structural patterns in myrmecophilic interaction networks, focusing on aspects related to specialisation: network modularity, nestedness and taxonomic relatedness of interaction ranges. To achieve this, a database of networks was compiled, including the following interactions: ants and domatia-bearing plants (myrmecophytes); ants and extrafloral nectary-bearing plants (EFNs); ants and floral nectary-bearing plants (FNs); ants and Lepidoptera caterpillars; and ants and Hemiptera.3. Myrmecophilic networks differed in their topology, with ant-myrmecophyte and ant-Lepidoptera networks being similar in their structural properties. A continuum was found, ranging from highly modular networks and phylogenetically structured interaction ranges in ant-myrmecophyte followed by ant-Lepidoptera networks to low modularity and taxonomically unrelated interaction ranges in ant-Hemiptera, EFN and FN networks.4. These results suggest that different network topologies may be found across communities of species with similar interaction types, but also, that similar network topologies can be achieved through different mechanisms such as those between ants and myrmecophytes or Lepidoptera larvae. This study contributes to a generalisation of myrmecophilic network patterns and a better understanding of the relationship between specialisation and network topology.

show abstract

Ant dominance hierarchy determines the nested pattern in ant-plant networks

Cited by 67 publications

References 66 publications

Few Ant Species Play a Central Role Linking Different Plant Resources in a Network in Rupestrian Grasslands

Few Ant Species Play a Central Role Linking Different Plant Resources in a Network in Rupestrian Grasslands

Cambio de uso de suelo, manejo forestal y sus implicaciones en las interacciones bióticas asociadas a Cedrela odorata Linnaeus, Meliaceae

The network structure of myrmecophilic interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About