Ant‐mediated dispersal of the black willow aphid <i>Pterocomma salicis</i> L.; does the ant <i>Lasius niger</i> L. judge aphid‐host quality?

Collins, C. Matilda; Leather, Simon R.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2311.2002.00390.x

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is the main food of several ant species (Carroll and Janzen 1973;Skinner 1980) and to guarantee their food supply, ants protect aphids against predators and parasitoids (Fritz 1983;Völk 1992), transport them to parts of the plant with better quality sap supply (Way 1963;Collins and Leather 2002), protect their eggs (Pontin 1960;Matsuura and Yashiro 2006), and provide some hygienic services (Nixon 1951). Ant attendance increases the feeding rate (Banks and Nixon 1958;Takeda et al 1982) and reproduction rate (Stadler and Dixon 1999;Flatt and Weisser 2000) of aphids and delays their dispersion (Kindlmann et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honeydew collection by the invasive garden ant Lasius neglectus versus the native ant L. grandis

Paris

Espadaler

2009

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Honeydew collection performed by the invasive ant Lasius neglectus and by the native ant L. grandis was compared. The invasive ant collected 2.09 kg of honeydew per tree while the native ant collected 0.82 kg. The aphid Lachnus roboris was visited by both ant species. In holm oaks colonized by L. neglectus, aphid abundance tended to increase and its honeydew production increased twofold. The percentage of untended aphids was lower in holm trees occupied by L. neglectus. As tending ants also prey on insects, we estimated the percentage of carried insects. The native ant workers carried more insects than the invasive ant. Both ant species preyed mainly on Psocoptera and the rarely tended aphid, Hoplocallis picta. We conclude that the higher honeydew collection achieved by L. neglectus was the consequence of (1) its greater abundance, which enabled this ant to tend more Lachnus roboris and (2) its greater level of attention towards promoting an increase of honeydew production.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honeydew collection by the invasive garden ant Lasius neglectus versus the native ant L. grandis

Paris

Espadaler

2009

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These excretions/secretions contain a variety of amino acids and carbohydrates which ant colonies use for fuel‐foraging activity and feed developing brood. In return, ants provide a wide range of benefits to their partners including protection from predators and parasites (Jones, 1929; Stadler & Dixon, 2005), shelter (Way, 1963), transport (Collins & Leather, 2002) and reduction of pathogen contamination (Way, 1954; Fokkema et al. , 1983).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These excretions ⁄ secretions contain a variety of amino acids and carbohydrates which ant colonies use for fuel-foraging activity and feed developing brood. In return, ants provide a wide range of benefits to their partners including protection from predators and parasites (Jones, 1929;Stadler & Dixon, 2005), shelter (Way, 1963), transport (Collins & Leather, 2002) and reduction of pathogen contamination (Way, 1954;Fokkema et al, 1983). The mutualism between ants and Homoptera is economically important because Homoptera are major agricultural pests worldwide and ants are ecologically dominant organisms having widespread impacts on the community structure (Wimp & Whitham, 2001) and nutrient cycling of ecosystems (Folgarait, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroevolutionary patterns in the origin of mutualisms involving ants

Oliver

Leather

Cook

2008

J of Evolutionary Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ants are a diverse and abundant insect group that form mutualistic associations with a number of different organisms from fungi to insects and plants. Here, we use a phylogenetic approach to identify ecological factors that explain macroevolutionary trends in the mutualism between ants and honeydew‐producing Homoptera. We also consider association between ant–Homoptera, ant–fungi and ant–plant mutualisms. Homoptera‐tending ants are more likely to be forest dwelling, polygynous, ecologically dominant and arboreal nesting with large colonies of 104–105 individuals. Mutualistic ants (including those that garden fungi and inhabit ant‐plants) are found in under half of the formicid subfamilies. At the genus level, however, we find a negative association between ant–Homoptera and ant–fungi mutualisms, whereas there is a positive association between ant–Homoptera and ant–plant mutualisms. We suggest that species can only specialize in multiple mutualisms simultaneously when there is no trade‐off in requirements from the different partners and no redundancy of rewards.

show abstract

“…Thus, the deterioration in host plant quality is expected to influence interactions between aphids and ants. Collins and Leather (2002) discovered that some nymphs of the black willow aphid Pterocomma salicis L. are carried to high quality host plants by L. niger, indicating that ants are able to detect host plant quality via the nutritional level of the honeydew produced by aphids. In a rearing study of three different degrees of ant-attended aphid species and one non ant-attended aphid species living on poor and high quality plants, Stadler et al (2002) demonstrated that the fitness costs of ant attendance depend on the degree of myrmecophily (i.e., positive interactions of ants with the other species) and host plant quality.…”

Section: Mediation Of Host Plants On Aphid-ant Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs and constraints in aphid‐ant mutualism

Yao

2014

Ecological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While many studies have demonstrated that ants provide beneficial services to aphids, Bristow (Antplant interactions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 104-119, 1991) first questioned why so few aphid species are ant-attended. Phylogenetic trees have demonstrated multiple gains and loss of ant-attendance in the course of aphid-ant interactions, implying that mutualisms easily form and dissolve. Several studies have reported the factors that influence the formation and maintenance of aphid-ant interactions. Examples include the physiological costs of ant attendance, competition for mutualistic ants, ant predation on aphids, the influence of host plants, and parasitoid wasps. Recent physiological techniques have also revealed the chemical component of aphid-ant mutualisms. The honeydew of ant-attended aphids contains melezitose (a trisaccharide), which has an important role in aphid-ant interactions. Studies of cuticular hydrocarbons on aphids and ants have clarified the underlying mechanisms of ant predation on aphids. Attending ants also reduce aphid dispersal ability, causing the formation of fragmented aphid populations with low genetic diversity in each population. The reduced aphid dispersal could be partly explained by higher wing loading and reduction of flight apparatus due to ant attendance. Whether ant attendance is associated with the range of host plants of aphids or genetic variation in microorganism in aphids remain to be explored.

show abstract

Ant‐mediated dispersal of the black willow aphid Pterocomma salicis L.; does the ant Lasius niger L. judge aphid‐host quality?

Cited by 19 publications

References 23 publications

Honeydew collection by the invasive garden ant Lasius neglectus versus the native ant L. grandis

Honeydew collection by the invasive garden ant Lasius neglectus versus the native ant L. grandis

Macroevolutionary patterns in the origin of mutualisms involving ants

Costs and constraints in aphid‐ant mutualism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About