Bird and ant synergy increases the seed dispersal effectiveness of an ornithochoric shrub

Camargo, Paulo H. S. A.; Martins, Maria; Feitosa, Rodrigo M.; Christianini, Alexander V.

doi:10.1007/s00442-016-3571-z

Cited by 35 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, ants can only partially mitigate the impact of vertebrate exclusion on secondary diaspore removal in the habitats in which vertebrate populations are declining. This is in accordance with other studies suggesting that ants exert a complementary role in the removal of non‐myrmecochorous diaspores in relation to diaspore removal services provided by vertebrates (Christianini and Oliveira , Camargo et al ). This complementary role seems to be more important with respect to the removal of shrub and of small‐sized diaspores.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Ants as diaspore removers of non‐myrmecochorous plants: a meta‐analysis

Anjos

Leal

Jordano

et al. 2020

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diaspore (e.g. seeds, fruits) dispersal is pivotal for plant communities and often involves several steps and different dispersing agents. Most studies focusing on diaspore dispersal by animals have highlighted the role of vertebrates, neglecting the role of ants in the diaspore dispersal of non‐myrmecochorous plants. Diaspore dispersal by ants is especially relevant in the current scenario of declining of vertebrate populations and, consequently, collapse of the dispersal system of large‐seeded plants. Although ants can never compensate for the dispersal service provided by vertebrates, they can mitigate the impact of vertebrate decline via removal of diaspores deposited on the ground. We have used a meta‐analytical approach to investigate the contribution of ants in the removal of non‐myrmecochorous diaspores (through vertebrate exclusion experiments). We considered the number of diaspore removal as effect size and factors such as plant growth forms, diaspore and ant size, habitat type as moderators. In addition, we investigated the role of such factors on the diaspore removal distance by ants. Ants played complementary role to non‐myrmecochorous diaspore removal services provided by vertebrates (mean Hedges’ g of −0.30). The ant diaspore removal was 69% higher for diaspores from shrubs than that of tree diaspores and removal of small‐sized diaspores were 69% and 70% higher in comparison to medium‐ and large‐sized diaspores, respectively. Regarding the diaspore removal distance by ants, those of tree species were removed 32% farther than those of shrub species, and diaspores were removed three‐ times farther in the savanna than in rainforest ecosystems. Our results highlight the shrubs and small‐sized diaspores. Regarding the diaspore removal distance, the ants can be crucial for the dispersal of tree diaspores and in the savanna ecosystems. Finally, considering the biodiversity crisis, the ants may play an even more important role than appreciated in diaspores dispersal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Ants as diaspore removers of non‐myrmecochorous plants: a meta‐analysis

Anjos

Leal

Jordano

et al. 2020

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, it has been used to tease out the contributions of Phase I (bird) and Phase II (ant) dispersal to SDE in Erythroxylum ambiguum in a Brazilian Atlantic forest (Camargo et al . ). Similarly, it has been modified to compare the SDE of Phase I dispersal with the SDE of combined Phase I and Phase II dispersal to quantify the additional fitness benefits of Phase II dispersal in diplochorous systems (Culot et al .…”

Section: Flexibility Of the Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The framework is adaptable to more complex mutualistic interactions than discussed so far, such as diplochorous seed dispersal systems where diplochory does not just add one or more additional species of dispersers, but rather adds a separate sequential stage of dispersal (Phase II) that interacts with the original pattern of dispersal (Phase I). For example, it has been used to tease out the contributions of Phase I (bird) and Phase II (ant) dispersal to SDE in Erythroxylum ambiguum in a Brazilian Atlantic forest (Camargo et al 2016). Similarly, it has been modified to compare the SDE of Phase I dispersal with the SDE of combined Phase I and Phase II dispersal to quantify the additional fitness benefits of Phase II dispersal in diplochorous systems (Culot et al 2015).…”

Section: Flexibility Of the Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A general framework for effectiveness concepts in mutualisms

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A core interest in studies of mutualistic interactions is the 'effectiveness' of mutualists in providing benefits to their partners. In plant-animal mutualisms it is widely accepted that the total effect of a mutualist on its partner is estimated as (1) a 'quantity' component multiplied by (2) a 'quality' component, although the meanings of 'effectiveness,' 'quantity,' and 'quality' and which terms are applied to these metrics vary greatly across studies. In addition, a similar quantity 9 quality = total effect approach has not been applied to other types of mutualisms, although it could be informative. Lastly, when a total effect approach has been applied, it has invariably been from a phytocentric perspective, focussing on the effects of animal mutualists on their plant partner. This lack of a common framework of 'effectiveness' of mutualistic interactions limits generalisation and the development of a broader understanding of the ecology and evolution of mutualisms. In this paper, we propose a general framework and demonstrate its utility by applying it to both partners in five different types of mutualisms: pollination, seed dispersal, plant protection, rhizobial, and mycorrhizal mutualisms. We then briefly discuss the flexibility of the framework, potential limitations, and relationship to other approaches.

show abstract

“…Many ant‐dispersed plants are considered myrmecochorous, that is, they exhibit specific adaptations for ant dispersal such as lipid‐rich elaiosomes attached to seeds (Giladi, ). However, ants also move seeds of many non‐myrmecochorous plants that are primarily adapted to dispersal by vertebrates (e.g., Christianini, Mayhé‐Nunes, & Oliveira, ; Milesi & Lopez De Casenave, ; Rico‐Gray & Oliveira, ; Camargo, Martins, Feitosa, and Christianini ). In the Neotropics, true myrmecochory is rare—of the 3,000 known myrmecochorus plant species, only 0.2% occur in the Neotropics (Rico‐Gray & Oliveira, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ant seed removal in a non‐myrmecochorous Neotropical shrub: Implications for seed dispersal

Clemente

Whitehead

2019

Biotropica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated ant seed removal of Piper sancti‐felicis, an early successional Neotropical shrub. Neotropical Piper are a classic example of bat‐dispersed plants, but we suggest that ants are underappreciated dispersal agents. We identified eleven ant species from the genera Aphaenogaster, Ectatomma, Paratrechina, Pheidole, Trachymyrmex, and Wasmannia recruiting to and harvesting P. sancti‐felicis seeds in forest edge and secondary forest sites at La Selva, Costa Rica. We also tested for differences in ant recruitment to five states in which ants can commonly encounter seeds: unripe fruit, ripe fruit, overripe fruit, bat feces, and cleaned seeds. Overall, ants harvested more seeds from ripe and overripe fruits than other states, but this varied among species. To better understand the mechanisms behind ant preferences for ripe/overripe fruit, we also studied how alkenylphenols, secondary metabolites found in high concentrations in P. sancti‐felicis fruits, affected foraging behavior in one genus of potential ant dispersers, Ectatomma. We found no effects of alkenylphenols on recruitment of Ectatomma to fruits, and thus, these compounds are unlikely to explain differences in ant recruitment among fruits of different maturity. Considering that P. sancti‐felicis seeds have no apparent adaptations for ant dispersal, and few ants removed seeds that were cleaned of pulp, we hypothesize that most ants are harvesting its seeds for the nutritional rewards in the attached pulp. This study emphasizes the importance of ants as important additional dispersers of P. sancti‐felicis and suggests that other non‐myrmecochorous, vertebrate‐dispersed plants may similarly benefit from the recruitment to fruit by ants.

show abstract

Bird and ant synergy increases the seed dispersal effectiveness of an ornithochoric shrub

Cited by 35 publications

References 48 publications

Ants as diaspore removers of non‐myrmecochorous plants: a meta‐analysis

Ants as diaspore removers of non‐myrmecochorous plants: a meta‐analysis

A general framework for effectiveness concepts in mutualisms

Ant seed removal in a non‐myrmecochorous Neotropical shrub: Implications for seed dispersal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About