Relative fitness of aphids: effects of plant quality and ants

Abstract

We investigated the response of four species of aphids (Metopeurum fuscoviride, Brachycaudus cardui, Aphis fabae, and Macrosiphoniella tanacetaria) on tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) to plant quality and attendance by an ant, Lasius niger. The aphids experienced one of four different environments for two consecutive generations. Ant‐attendance significantly affected the time needed to reach maximum fecundity only in Me. fuscoviride and plant quality in Me. fuscoviride and B. cardui. Maximum daily fecundity was positively affected by plant quality and the magnitude of the effect was inversely associated with the degree of myrmecophily. Ant‐attendance had a positive effect on maximum fecundity only in the obligate myrmecophile, Me. fuscoviride. The intrinsic rate of population increase, rm, on high quality plants, was lowest for the obligate myrmecophile, intermediate for the facultative myrmecophiles and highest for the unattended species. On high quality plants the fitness of Me. fuscoviride was more adversely affected by the developmental stage of the plant and absence of ants than that of A. fabae or Ma. tanacetaria, which were able to maintain a high relative fitness in all the environments. The implications for aphids experiencing different degrees of ant‐attendance and seasonal changes in plant quality are discussed.

The degree of protection different ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) provide aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) against aphidophages

“…Furthermore, excluding ants from aphid colonies leads to the decline and extinction of aphid populations (Bradley & Hinks, 1968;Tilles & Wood, 1982;Karhu, 1998;Shingleton & Foster, 2000;Novgorodova, 2005a). The presence of ants increases the fitness of aphids by decreasing the negative effect of aphidophages (Way, 1963;Tilles & Wood, 1982;Fischer et al, 2001;Phillips & Willis, 2005), increasing the feeding rates of aphids and speeding up their development (Banks & Nixon, 1958;Flatt & Weisser, 2000;Stadler et al, 2002). However, comparative analysis of the extinction rates of aphid colonies has shown that survival of myrmecophilous aphids depends on the species of ant tending them (Addicott, 1978;Bristow, 1984;Novgorodova, 2005a).…”

Genetically based population variation in aphid association with ants and predators

“…Mutualisms between ants and aphids are a common component of most terrestrial communities and have served as a model for the mutualisms generally (Stadler and Dixon 2008). In these interactions, aphids feeding upon nutrient-poor phloem sap dispose of large quantities of sugar-rich fluid referred to as honeydew.…”

Bodyguard effects for aphids of Aphis craccivora Koch (Homoptera: Aphididae) as related to the activity of two ant species, Tetramorium caespitum Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Lasius niger L. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

“…In the temperate areas, most mutualistic interactions are not one-to-one obligate relationships, but facultative relationships where one aphid species is attended by many ant species (Bristow, 1984;Cushman and Addicott, 1989) or one ant species utilizes the honeydew of many aphid species (Cushman and Addicott, 1989;Sakata, 1994Sakata, , 1995Sakata, , 1999Völkl et al, 1999;. Therefore, the intensity of the mutualistic interactions between aphids and ants depends on various factors such as host plant quality (Auclair, 1963;Cushman, 1991;Fischer and Shingleton, 2001), the species of aphids (Stadler and Dixon, 1999;Fischer and Shingleton, 2001;Stadler et al, 2002), the density of aphids (Breton and Addicott, 1992;Sakata 1994Sakata , 1995Sakata , 1999, the age of aphids (Fischer et al, 2002) and the presence of other carbon resources (Addicott, 1978;Cushman and Addicott, 1989;Sakata, 1995Sakata, , 1999Offenberg, 2001). Thus, it is necessary to analyze direct interactions such as the exclusion rate of predators by ants under various conditions.…”