The origin of a mutualism: A morphological trait promoting the evolution of ant-aphid mutualisms

Evolution

Volumn 59, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 921-926

  Shingleton, Alexander W ^a   Stern, David L ^a   Foster, William A ^b  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ants; Aphids; Comparative analysis; Mutualism; Myrmecophily; Preadaptation

Indexed keywords

ANT; APHID; COMPARATIVE STUDY; MUTUALISM; RESOURCE USE;

APHIDIDAE; CHAITOPHORUS; FORMICIDAE; HEMIPTERA;

EID: 17844376263     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01766.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anstett, M. C., M. Hossaert-McKey, and F. Kjellberg. 1997. Figs and fig pollinators: Evolutionary conflicts in a coevolved mutualism. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 12:94-99.
2. Auclair, J. L. 1963. Aphid feeding and nutrition. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 8:439-490.
3. Banks, C. J. 1962. Effects of the ant, Lasius niger (L.), on insects preying on small populations of Aphis fabae Scop. on bean plants. Ann. Appl. Entomol. 50:669-679.
4. Blackman, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 1994. Aphids on the world's trees. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, U.K.
5. Boucher, D. H., S. James, and K. H. Keeler. 1982. The ecology of mutualism. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13:315-347.
6. Bristow, C. M. 1991. Why are so few aphids ant-tended? Pp. 104-119 in C. R. Huxley and D. F. Cutler, eds. Ant-plant interactions. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
7. Dixon, A. F. G. 1998. Aphid ecology. Chapman and Hall, London.
8. Elliott, D. I., and C. J. Hodgson. 1996. The distribution of the vetch aphid on bean stems in relation to stylet length and phloem depth. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 78:175-180.
9. Fischer, M. K., and A. W. Shingleton. 2001. Host plant and ants influence the honeydew sugar composition of aphids. Funct. Ecol. 15:544-550.
10. Garland, T., P. H. Harvey, and A. R. Ives. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41:18-32.
11. Herre, E. A., N. Knowlton, U. G. Mueller, and S. A. Rehner. 1999. The evolution of mutualisms: Exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 14:49-53.
12. Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1960. The genus Chaitophorus Koch in North America. Tijdschr. Entomol. 103:1-30.
13. Hoeksema, J. D., and E. M. Bruna. 2000. Pursuing the big questions about interspecific mutualism: A review of theoretical approaches. Oecologia 125:321-330.
14. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and B. Rannala. 2003. Detecting correlation between characters in a comparative analysis with uncertain phylogeny. Evolution 57:1237-1247.
15. Huelsenbeck, J. P., B. Rannala, and J. P. Masly. 2000. Accommodating phylogenetic uncertainty in evolutionary studies. Science 288:2349-2350.
16. Janzen, D. H. 1966. Coevolution of mutualism between ants and acacias in Central America. Evolution 20:249-275.
17. Matsiliza, B., and C. E. J. Botha. 2002. Aphid (Sitobion yakini) investigation suggests thin-walled sieve tubes in barley (Hordeum vulgare) to be more functional than thick-walled sieve tubes. Physiol. Plant. 115:137-143.
18. Münch, E. 1930. Die Stoffbewegungen in der Pflanze. Gustav Fischer, Jena, Germany.
19. Nixon, G. E. J. 1951. The association of ants with aphids and coccids. Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London: 1-36.
20. Pellmyr, O. 1997. Pollinating seed eaters: Why is active pollination so rare? Ecology 78:1655-1660.
21. Pellmyr, O., J. N. Thompson, J. M. Brown, and R. G. Harrison. 1996. Evolution of pollination and mutualism in the yucca moth lineage. Am. Nat. 148:827-847.
22. Pintera, A. 1987. Taxonomic revision of the species of the genus Chaitophorus Koch in Palaearctic. Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 34:219-340.
23. Purvis, A., and A. Rambaut. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrast (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analyzing comparative data. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 11:247-251.
24. Shingleton, A. W. 2001. The evolution of ant-aphid interactions. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
25. Shingleton, A. W., and D. L. Stern. 2003. Molecular phylogenetic evidence for multiple gains or losses of ant mutualism within the aphid genus Chaitophorus. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 26:26-35.
26. Stadler, B. 1997. The relative importance of host plants, natural enemies and ants in the evolution of life-history characters in aphids. Pp. 241-256 in K. Dettner, G. Bauer, and W. Völk, eds. Vertical food web interactions. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
27. Stadler, B., and A. F. G. Dixon. 1998. Costs of ant attendance for aphids. J. Anim. Ecol. 67:454-459.
28. Stadler, B., P. Kindlmann, P. Smilauer, and K. Fiedler. 2003. A comparative analysis of morphological and ecological characters of European aphids and lycaenids in relation to ant attendance. Oecologia 135:422-430.
29. Takeda, S., K. Kinomura, and H. Sakurai. 1982. Effect of ant-attendance on the honeydew excretion and larviposition of the cowpea aphids, Aphis craccivora. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 17:133-135.
30. Ward, P. S. 1991. Phylogenetic analysis of pseudomyrmecine ants associated with domatia-bearing plants. Pp. 335-352 in C. R. Huxley and D. F. Cutler, eds. Ant-plant interactions. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
31. Way, M. J. 1963. Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing homoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 8:307-344.
32. Yao, I., and A. Akimoto. 2001. Ant attendance changes the sugar composition of the honeydew of the depanosiphid aphid Tuberculatus quercicola. Oecologia 128:36-43.
33. Yao, I., H. Shibao, and S. Akimoto. 2000. Costs and benefits of ant attendance to the drepanosiphid aphid Tuberculatus quercicola. Oikos 89:3-10.
34. Yu, D. W., and D. W. Davidson. 1997. Experimental studies of species-specificity in Cecropia-ant relationships. Ecol. Monogr. 67:273-294.