Differential Benefits from Ant Attendance to Two Species of Homoptera on New York Ironweed

Bristow, Catherine M.

doi:10.2307/4654

Cited by 132 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies of putative mutualisms have concentrated primarily on the effects of visitors on the survival and reproduction of their hosts (see Boucher et al 1982, Addicott 1984. Considerably less attention has been directed toward potential host benefits related to development time, which is especially pertinent in animal-animal mutualisms (see Bristow 1984 Although the definition of mutualism requires that both participants benefit from their association (Boucher et al 1982, Boucher 1985, most studies have neglected to consider the perspective of visitors or have simply assumed that visitors benefit from their interactions with hosts (Cushman and Beattie 1991). There are at least two reasons why the perspective of visitors is so commonly overlooked.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Benefits to Both Participants in a Lycaenid‐Ant Association

Cushman

Rashbrook

Beattie

1994

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.We examined interactions between the ant Iridomyrmex nitidiceps and the lycaenid butterfly Paralucia aurifera in southeastern Australia, and present data supporting the hypothesis that both participants benefit from their association. In the field, lycaenids persisted only on those host plants that ants subsequently colonized. In the laboratory, lycaenid larvae reared with ants were 31-76% heavier, developed 37% faster, and commonly completed one or two fewer instars than larvae reared without ants. Ant tending also resulted in 20% heavier pupae, 69% shorter pupal duration, and 5% larger adults as measured by forewing length; adults were not significantly different as measured by body length. We hypothesize that these positive effects occurred largely because ant-tended lycaenid larvae spent more time feeding than did untended larvae. Field data documented that ants colonized host plants only after lycaenid larvae were present, indicating that ants actively maintained the association. In laboratory experiments, 40% more ant workers survived when lycaenid larvae were present than when they were absent, although ant mass was not significantly affected. We hypothesize that the survivorship effects occurred because ants consumed the lycaenid's nectary gland secretions, which contained considerable amounts of glucose and amino acids. Our results show that lycaenids can benefit from ants in ways other than, or in addition to, protection from natural enemies and that they incur minimal developmental costs from associating with ants.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Benefits to Both Participants in a Lycaenid‐Ant Association

Cushman

Rashbrook

Beattie

1994

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well established that aphid-tending ants favour the growth of homopteran populations (Addicott, 1978;Bristow, 1984;Novgorodova, 2005) by reducing the negative predatory effects of aphidophagous insects (Way, 1963;Fischer et al, 2001;Phillips & Willis, 2005;Novgorodova & Gavrilyuk, 2012). Here we showed that L. niger ants react differently and tune the level of protection they provide to their trophobionts depending on the instar of the aphidophagous hoverfly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Tuned protection of aphids by ants against a predatory hoverfly

Detrain¹,

Fichaux²,

Verheggen

2017

Ecological Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. 1. Aphid-tending ants that feed on honeydew have evolved strategies against aphidophagous insects and tune their aggressive behaviour according to the level of danger for their trophobionts. Here we investigate how Lasius niger Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) ants react to different instars of Episyrphus balteatus De Geer (Diptera: Syrphidae) hoverflies which vary in their voracity and defensive abilities.2. During pairwise encounters, early syrphid instars (eggs, L1, and L2 larvae) elicited lower aggression scores compared to third larval instars (L3), which was intensively bitten by ants. L3 tried to escape from ants by releasing a sticky and toxic secretion over biting ants that died or underwent severe morbidity.3. In a standardised system including the host plant, aphid, tending ant, and hoverfly, the ability of ants to protect an Aphis fabae Scopoli (Hemiptera: Aphididae) colony was evaluated. Early E. balteatus instars placed onto the plant elicited no mobilisation of ants, which often removed the hoverfly successfully. Eggs and early instars appeared as the weak links for integrated pest management by hoverfly auxiliaries.4. In contrast, L3 induced the number of ant patrollers to increase at a local scale without any further recruitment from inside the ant nest. L3 syrphids were quite efficient at gluing ants with defensive secretions and at resisting to removal attempts by ants.5. While supporting the assumption that ants tune their defensive response to the aphidophagous predator, the present results also showed a lack of efficient protection of their trophobionts from the most voracious late syrphid instar.

show abstract

“…It is now well established that hymenopteran attendance enhances the fitness of homopterans (Bristow 1984, Fritz 1982 (Wagner and Cameron 1985).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Benefits to homopterans from hymenopteran attendants may not be equal and certain Homoptera-Hymenoptera associations may be favored (Addicott 1979, Bristow 1984, Messina 1981 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Homopteran Attendance by Wasps and Ants:The Stochastic Nature of Interactions

Letourneau

Choe

1987

Psyche: A Journal of Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Associations of Hymenoptera with Homoptera have intrigued ecologists and evolutionary biologists as model systems of mutualism. The extensive body of literature, however, tends to be skewed to the interactions between ants and homopteran trophobionts in the Aphidae or Coccoidea (e.g., Kloft et al. 1965, Nixon 1951, Way 1963, Wilson 1971). In the following account we document a web of multispecies interactions within and between trophic levels, involving a species of wasp, several species of ants, and two species of Homoptera. This account is unique in the literature on Hymenoptera-Homoptera associations because it (1) addresses observable interference between hymenopteran attendants, (2) reports behavioral preference by homopterans for certain hymenopreran attendants, and (3) describes an interaction between a polistine wasp and an aetalionid planthopper. In addition, this study has general implications about the quality of diffuse and multiple associations between Homoptera and their honeydew foragers.

show abstract

Differential Benefits from Ant Attendance to Two Species of Homoptera on New York Ironweed

Cited by 132 publications

References 24 publications

Assessing Benefits to Both Participants in a Lycaenid‐Ant Association

Assessing Benefits to Both Participants in a Lycaenid‐Ant Association

Tuned protection of aphids by ants against a predatory hoverfly

Homopteran Attendance by Wasps and Ants:The Stochastic Nature of Interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About