Spiders associated with Psychotria carthagenensis Jacquin. (Rubiaceae): vegetative branches versus inflorescences, and the influence of Crematogaster sp. (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), in South-Pantanal, Brazil

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze: i) the spider community in vegetative and reproductive branches of Psychotria carthagenensis concerning relative abundance, guild composition and body size distribution; ii) ant abundance in diferent types of branches and iii) the spider behavior when experimentally put in contact with inflorescences covered with ants. There was no difference between vegetative and reproductive branches in relation to spider abundance, composition of guilds and body size distribution of spiders. However, there was a significant difference in ant abundance. In the behavioral experiment, 90% of the spiders were expelled from inflorescences by ants; in control treatment, 100% remained in the inflorescences. The ant density in different parts of the plant may explain the spider distribution.Keywords: plant-dwelling spiders, guilds, body-size distribution, Psychotria sp., ant-plant interactions. . O objetivo deste estudo foi analisar: i) a comunidade de aranhas em ramos vegetativos e reprodutivos de P. carthagenensis quanto à abundancia relativa, composição das guildas e distribuição de tamanhos; ii) a abundância de formigas nos diferentes tipos de ramos; e iii) o comportamento das aranhas quando colocadas em inflorescências cobertas por formigas. Não houve diferença significativa entre ramos vegetativos e reprodutivos em relação à composição de guildas, abundância relativa e distribuição de tamanhos de aranhas. Mas quando comparado à abundância de formigas, houve diferença. No experimento comportamental, 90% das aranhas foram expulsas das inflorescências pelas formigas; no tratamento controle; 100% das aranhas permaneceram nas inflorescências. Para P. carthagenensis, talvez a densidade de formigas em diferentes partes da planta explique melhor a distribuição das aranhas. Aranhas associadas à Psychotria carthagenensisPalavras-chave: aranhas moradoras de plantas, guildas, distribuição de tamanho, Psychotria sp., interações formigaplanta.

Spatiotemporal niche‐based mechanisms support a stable coexistence of ants and spiders in an extrafloral nectary‐bearing plant community

“…(2012) found less richness and abundance of spiders in Qualea multiflora plants (a plant species used in our study) with ants compared to plants in which ants had been experimentally excluded. Similarly, Faria and Lima (2008) showed that 90% of the spiders inhabiting inflorescences of Psychotria carthagenensis were dissuaded by ants.…”

Ecótono Cerrado Pantanal: meio ambiente e história natural

“…Além do NEF, a presença de flor nos ramos das plantas, pode representar um aspecto que também interfere no patrulhamento das formigas. Dado o fato das flores receberem continuamente herbívoros, polinizadores e outros artrópodes como as aranhas, o patrulhamento de formigas, na tentativa de defender o recurso alimentar, nos ramos com flores pode ser maior do que o observado nos ramos sem flores (OLIVEIRA; OLIVEIRA-FILHO, 1991;NENTWIG, 1993;LIMA, 2008). Além do recurso alimentar para os polinizadores, os ramos com flores acrescentam outra dimensão à arquitetura das plantas, devido à mudança nas condições microclimáticas e à disponibilidade de refúgio contra predadores para muitos artrópodes (SOUZA; MÓDENA, 2004).…”

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitory potential and lack of toxicity of Psychotria carthagenensis infusions

“…In Brazil, P. carthagenensis is commonly found not only in areas of moist soil near water bodies (R. R. Faria & Araujo, 2015), but also on sandy or clayey soils (R. Faria & Lima, 2008;Koch et al, 2010) of the phytogeographic domains Amazon, Caatinga, Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, Pampa and Pantanal (Reflora, 2020). Consequently, as these plants are distributed in different environments, from sea level to 600 m altitude, it is possible to observe not only wide morphological variation between the populations of each of these regions (Vitarelli & Santos, 2009), but also differences in phytochemicals, since environmental factors may influence types and contents of bioactive substances (Liu et al, 2016;L.…”