Net benefits of a mutualism: Influence of the quality of extrafloral nectar on the colony fitness of a mutualistic ant

Calixto, Eduardo Soares; Lange, Denise; Del‐Claro, Kleber

doi:10.1111/btp.12925

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, studying Inga species, Bixenmann et al (2011) showed that the increase in sugar concentration in natural and artificial conditions significantly increased ant abundance. Thus, our results support the growing evidence that changes in ant abundance are closely and positively related to changes in extrafloral nectar volume and sugar concentration, even after herbivory events (Bixenmann et al, 2011; Calixto, Lange, Moreira, & Del‐Claro, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In the Brazilian Cerrado, EFN activity is most concentrated in the rainy season, from October to March (Calixto, Novaes, dos Santos, et al, 2021), which corresponds to the period with the highest ant activity and colony growth (Calixto, Lange, & Del‐Claro, 2021). Since extrafloral nectar is a carbohydrate‐rich liquid, it represents an important resource to meet the energetic balance required by ant workers (Blüthgen & Feldhaar, 2010), directly and positively influencing colony fitness (Byk & Del‐Claro, 2011; Calixto, Lange, & Del‐Claro, 2021). For instance, studying Inga species, Bixenmann et al (2011) showed that the increase in sugar concentration in natural and artificial conditions significantly increased ant abundance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Time course of inducibility of indirect responses in an ant‐defended plant

Calixto

Del‐Claro

Lange

et al. 2023

Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plants have evolved inducible defenses that allow them to minimize costs associated with the production of constitutive defenses when herbivores are not present. However, as a consequence, some plants might experience a period of vulnerability between damage and the onset of defense and/or between the cessation of damage and relaxation of defense. Few studies have examined the time course in the inducible protective mutualism between ants and extrafloral nectary (EFN)‐bearing plants. None has compared the inducibility of EFNs on vegetative versus reproductive parts or in response to different levels of herbivore damage. Here, we disentangle the inducibility process by evaluating extrafloral nectar production and ant attendance over time, the time course of inducibility on different plant parts, and the time course of inducibility in response to different levels of foliar damage in a Brazilian tree, Qualea multiflora (Vochysiaceae). Using simulated herbivory on leaves and flowers, we found that (a) the production of extrafloral nectar from foliar and floral EFNs, as well as ant attendance, exhibited a lag between the moment of damage and the peak of response, followed by a response peak (usually 24 h after damage) at which the defense remains at its maximum level, then declines to prestimulus levels; (b) the time course of inducibility and the peak activity did not differ between EFNs located in vegetative versus reproductive parts, except for sugar concentration, which was higher in EFNs on vegetative parts; and (c) the time course of inducibility of foliar EFNs depended on damage level. Although considered a cost‐saving strategy, inducible defenses can be disadvantageous since they can leave plants vulnerable to attack for extended periods. Our results illuminate the dynamics of the induced response and the underlying mechanisms that might mediate it, ultimately providing new insights into defense strategies employed by plants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time course of inducibility of indirect responses in an ant‐defended plant

Calixto

Del‐Claro

Lange

et al. 2023

Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similar field experiment with Qualea multiflora in the Brazilian cerrado showed that higher levels of defoliation led to greater nectar production and greater ant attendance [ 44 ]. Plants with more and better nectar receive greater levels of defense, as demonstrated in another field experiment involving a single species of ant and its predation on termites on five different plant species [ 45 ], and greater amounts of extrafloral nectar have a direct positive effect on ant colony fitness [ 46 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defoliation in Perennial Plants: Predictable and Surprising Results in Senna spp.

Koptur

Primoli

Pimienta

2023

Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When some plants are defoliated, they may suffer by reaching a smaller final size than if they had not been damaged. Other plants may compensate for damage, ending up the same size as if they had not been damaged. Still, others may overcompensate, ending up larger after defoliation than if they had been spared from damage. We investigated the response of Senna species (Fabaceae) to defoliation, comparing two native and several ornamental congeners, all of which grow locally in southern Florida. Many Senna spp. bear foliar nectaries as nutritional resources for beneficial insects that may, in exchange, protect them from herbivores. We grew five species from seed and subjected them to three levels of defoliation for a period of several months to measure effects of leaf area removal on plant height, number of leaves, and number of extrafloral nectaries. Only three of five species displayed shorter plant heights with greater levels of damage. Two species produced fewer new leaves with moderate to severe defoliation. In only one species, the number of extrafloral nectaries decreased with defoliation, suggesting that while extrafloral nectar production may be an inducible defense in some species, producing more nectaries in response to damage does not occur in these Senna species.

show abstract

“…In this mutualistic system, plants secrete extrafloral nectar that attracts predator ants that repel or eat herbivores while foraging on the plants (Marazzi et al, 2013). Thus, ants benefit from the consumption of extrafloral nectar (Byk & Del‐Claro, 2011; Calixto et al, 2021; Lach et al, 2009), while plants benefit from the protection offered by ants (Chamberlain & Holland, 2009; Leal & Peixoto, 2017; Rosumek et al, 2009). Despite the similarity in how ants and EFN‐bearing plants interact (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%