Adaptive advantages of myrmecochory: The predator-avoidance hypothesis tested over a wide geographic range

Ecography

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 583-592

  Manzaneda, Antonio J ^a   Fedriani, Jose M ^a   Rey, Pedro J ^b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION BIOLOGY   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JAÉN   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; GEOGRAPHICAL REGION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MYRMECOCHORY;

EASTERN HEMISPHERE; EURASIA; EUROPE; IBERIAN PENINSULA; SOUTHERN EUROPE; WORLD;

APODEMUS SYLVATICUS; FORMICIDAE; HELLEBORUS FOETIDUS; VERATRUM;

EID: 26844470365     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.2005.0906-7590.04309.x     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Alcántara, J. M. et al. 2000. Early effects of rodents' post-dispersal seed predation on the outcome of the plant-seed disperser interaction. - Oikos 88: 362-370.
2. Andersen, A. N. 1988. Dispersal distance as a benefit of myrmecochory. - Oecologia 75: 507-511.
3. Auld, T. D. and Denham, A. J. 1999. The role of ants and mammals in dispersal and post-dispersal seed predation of the shrubs Grevillea (Proteaceae). - Plant Ecol. 144: 201-213.
4. Beattie, A. J. 1985. The evolutionary ecology of ant-plant mutualisms. - Cambridge Univ. Press.
5. Beattie, A. J. and Culver, D. C. 1982. Inhumation: how ants and other invertebrates help seeds. - Nature 297: 627.
6. Beattie, A. J. and Hughes, L. 2002. Ant-plant interactions. - In: Herrera, C. M. and Pellmyr, O. (eds), Plant-animal interactions. An evolutionary approach. Blackwell, pp. 211-235.
7. Benkman, C. W. 1999. The selection mosaic and diversifying coevolution between crossbills and lodgepole pine. - Am. Nat. 153: S75-S91.
8. Benkman, C. W. et al. 2003. Reciprocal selection causes a coevolutionary arms race between crossbills and lodgepole pine. - Am. Nat. 162: 182-194.
9. Bennett, A. and Krebs, J. 1987. Seed dispersal by ants. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 2: 291-292.
10. Bennington, C. C. and Thayne, W. V. 1994. Use and misuse of mixed model analysis of variance in ecological studies. - Ecology 75: 717-722.
11. Berg, R. Y. 1975. Myrmecochorous plants in Australia and their dispersal by ants. - Aust. J. Bot. 23: 475-508.
12. Bond, W. J. and Breytenbach, G. J. 1985. Ants, rodents and seed predation in Proteaceae. - S. Afr. J. Zool. 20: 150-154.
13. Boyd, R. S. 2001. Ecological benefits of myrmecochory for the endangered chaparral shrub Fremontodendron decumbens (Sterculiaceae). - Am. J. Bot. 88: 234-241.
14. Bronstein, J. L. 1994. Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 214-217.
15. Christian, C. E. 2001. Consequences of a biological invasion reveal the importance of mutualism for plant communities. - Nature 413: 635-639.
16. Christian, C. E. and Stanton, M. L. 2004. Cryptic consequences of dispersal mutualism: seed burial, elaiosome removal, and seed-bank dynamics. - Ecology 85: 1101-1110.
17. Crawley, M. J. 2000. Seed predators and plant population dynamics. - In: Fenner, M. (ed.), Seeds, the ecology of regeneration in plant communities. CABI Publ., pp. 167-182.
18. Cushman, J. H. and Beattie, A. J. 1991. Mutualisms: assessing the benefits to host and visitors. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 6: 193-195.
19. Cushman, J. H. et al. 1998. Geographic and taxonomic distribution of a positive interaction: ant-tended homopterans indirectly benefit figs across southern Africa. - Oecologia 116: 373-380.
20. Espadaler, X. and Gómez, C. 1996. Seed production predation and dispersal in the Mediterranean myrmecochore Euphorbia characias (Euphorbiaceae). - Ecography 19: 7-15.
21. Espadaler, X. and Gómez, C. 1997. Soil surface searching and transport of Euphorbia characias seeds by ants. - Acta Oecol. 18: 39-46.
22. Fedriani, J. M. 2005. Do frugivorous mice choose where or what to feed on? - J. Mammal. 86: 576-586.
23. Fedriani, J. M. et al. 2004. Geographical variation in the potential of mice to constrain an ant-seed dispersal mutualism. - Oikos 105: 181-191.
24. Garrido, J. L. 2003. Semillas y plántulas de Helleborus foetidus L. (Ranunculaceae): Variación geográfica, ecología y evolución. - Tesis Doctoral Universidad de Jaén.
25. Garrido, J. L. et al. 2002. Geographical variation in diaspore traits of ant-dispersed plant (Helleborus foetidus): are ant community composition and diaspore traits correlated? - J. Ecol. 90: 446-455.
26. Gibson, W. 1993. Selective advantages to hemi-parasitic annuals, genus Melampyrum, of a seed-dispersal mutualism involving ants: II. Seed-predator avoidance. - Oikos 67: 345-350.
27. Gómez, C. and Espadaler, X. 1998. Aphaenogaster senilis Mayr (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): a possible parasite in the myrmecochory of Euphorbia characias (Euphorbiaceae). - Sociobiology 32: 441-450.
28. Gorb, S. N. and Gorb, E. 1999. Dropping rates of elaiosome-bearing seeds during transport by ants (Formica polyctena Foerst.): implications for distance dispersal. - Acta Oecol. 20: 509-518.
29. Gorb, E. and Gorb, S. 2003. Seed dispersal by ants in a deciduous forest ecosystem. Mechanisms, strategies, adaptations. - Kluwer.
30. Guitián, P., Medrano, M. and Guitián, J. 2003. Seed dispersal in Erythronium dens-canis L. (Liliaceae): variation among habitats in a myrmecochorous plant. - Plant Ecol. 169: 171-177.
31. Handel, S. N. and Beattie, A. J. 1990. Seed dispersal by ants. - Sci. Am. 8: 58-64.
32. Hanzawa, F. M., Beattie, A. J. and Holmes, A. 1985. Dual function of the elaiosome of Corydalis aurea (Fumariaceae): attraction of dispersal agents and repulsion of Peromyscus maniculatus, a seed predator. - Am. J. Bot. 72: 1707-1711.
33. Hanzawa, F. M., Beattie, A. J. and Culver, D. C. 1988. Directed dispersal: demographic analysis of ant-seed mutualism. - Am. Nat. 131: 1-13.
34. Heithaus, E. R. 1981. Seed predation by rodents on three ant-dispersed plants. - Ecology 62: 136-145.
35. Herrera, C. M. 2000. Flower-to-seedling consequences of different pollination regimes in an insect-pollinated shurb. - Ecology 81: 15-29.
36. Herrera, C. M. et al. 2001. Geographical variation in autonomous self-pollination levels unrelated to pollinator service in Helleborus foetidus (Ranunculaceae). - Am. J. Bot. 88: 1025-1032.
37. Herrera, C. M. et al. 2002. Interaction of pollinators and herbivores on plant fitness suggests a pathway for correlated evolution of mutualism- and antagonism-related traits. - Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 16823-16828.
38. Howe, H. F. and Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13: 201-228.
39. Hughes, L. and Westoby, M. 1992a. Fate of seeds adapted for dispersal by ants in Australian sclerophyll vegetation. - Ecology 73: 1285-1299.
40. Hughes, L. and Westoby, M. 1992b. Effect of diaspore characteristics on removal of seeds adapted for dispersal by ants. - Ecology 73: 1300-1312.
41. Hulme, P. E. 1994. Post-dispersal seed predation in grassland: its magnitude and sources of variation. - J. Ecol. 82: 645-652.
42. Hulme, P. E. and Benkman, C. W. 2002. Granivory. - In: Herrera, C. M. and Pellmyr, O. (eds), Plant-animal interactions. An evolutionary approach. Blackwell, pp. 132-154.
43. Kjellsson, G. 1985. Seed fate in a population of Carex pilulifera L. II. Seed predation and its consequences for dispersal and seed bank. - Oecologia 67: 424-429.
44. Littell, R. C. et al. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. - SAS Inst.
45. LoGiudice, K. and Ostfeld, R. S. 2002. Interactions between mammals and trees: predation on mammals-dispersed seeds and the effect of ambient food. - Oecologia 130: 420-425.
46. Manson, R. H. and Stiles, E. W. 1998. Links between microhabitat preferences and seed predation by small mammals in old fields. - Oikos 82: 37-50.
47. Myster, R. W. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1993. Effects of litter, distance, density and vegetation patch type on postdispersal tree seed predation in old fields. - Oikos 66: 381-388.
48. O'Dowd, D. J. and Hay, M. E. 1980. Mutualism between harvester ants and a desert ephemeral: seed escape from rodents. - Ecology 6: 531-540.
49. Ohkawara, K., Higashi, S. and Ohara, M. 1996. Effects of ants, ground beetles and the seed-fall patterns on myrmecochory of Erythronium japonicum Decne. (Liliaceae). - Oecologia 106: 500-506.
50. Rey, P. J. et al. 2002. Spatial variation in ant and rodents post-dispersal predation of vertebrate-dispersed seeds. - Funct. Ecol. 16: 773-781.
51. Ruhren, C. and Dudash, M. R. 1996. Consequences of the timing of seed release of Erytronium americanum (Liliaceae), a deciduous forest myrmecochore. - Am. J. Bot. 83: 633-640.
52. Schabenberger, O., Gregorie, T. G. and Kong, F. 2000. Collections of simple effects and their relationships to main effects and interactions in factorial. - Am. Stat. 54: 210-214.
53. Schöning, C. et al. 2004. Seed predation of the tussock-grass Stipa tenacissima L. by ants (Messor spp.) in south-eastern Spain: the adaptive value of trypanocarpy. - J. Arid. Environ. 56: 43-61.
54. Schreiner, M., Bauer, E. M. and Kollmann, J. 2000. Reducing predation of conifer seeds by clear-cutting Rubus fruticosus agg. in two montane forest stands. - For. Ecol. Manage. 126: 281-290.
55. Slingsby, P. and Bond, W. J. 1985. The influence of ants on the dispersal distance and seedling recruitment of Leucospermum conocarpodendron (L.) Buek (Proteaceae). - S. Afr. J. Bot. 51: 30-34.
56. Smith, B. H., Ronsheim, M. L. and Swartz, K. R. 1986. Reproductive ecology of Jeffersiona diphylla (Berberidaceae). - Am. J. Bot. 73: 1416-1426.
57. Smith, B. H., Forman, P. D. and Boyd, A. E. 1989. Spatial patterns of seed dispersal and predation of two myrmecochores forests herbs. - Ecology 70: 1649-1656.
58. Stiles, E. W. 2000. Animals as seed dispersers. - In: Fenner, M. (ed.), Seeds. The ecology of regeneration in plant communities. CABI Publ., pp. 111-124.
59. Taraborelli, P. A., Dacar, M. and Giannoni, S. 2003. Effect of plant cover on seed removal by rodents in the Monte Desert (Mendoza, Argentina). - Aust. Ecol. 28: 651-657.
60. Thompson, J. N. 1988. Variations in interspecific interactions. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19: 65-87.
61. Thompson, J. N. 1994. The coevolutionary process. - Univ. Chicago Press.
62. Thompson, J. N. 1999. The evolution of species interactions. - Science 284: 2116-2118.
63. Thompson, J. N. 2002. Plant-animal interactions: future directions. - In: Herrera, C. M. and Pellmyr, O. (eds), Plant-animal interactions. An evolutionary approach. Blackwell, pp. 236-247.
64. Thompson, J. N. and Cunningham, B. M. 2002. Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection. - Nature 417: 735-738.
65. Thompson, J. N., Nuismer, S. L. and Gomulkiewicz, R. 2002. Coevolution and maladaption. - Integrative Comp. Biol. 42: 381-387.
66. Turnbull, C. L. and Culver, D. C. 1983. The timing of seed dispersal in Viola nuttallii: attraction of dispersers and avoidance of predators. - Oecologia 59: 360-365.
67. Veech, J. A. 2001. The foraging behavior of granivorous rodents and short-term apparent competition among seeds. - Behav. Ecol. 12: 467-474.
68. Wang, B. C. and Smith, T. B. 2002. Closing the seed dispersal loop. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 379-385.
69. Wenny, D. G. 2001. Advantages of seed dispersal: a re-evaluation of directed dispersal. - Evol. Ecol. Res. 3: 51-74.
70. Werner, K. and Ebel, F. 1994. Zur Lebensgeschichte der Gattung Helleborus L. (Ranunculaceae). - Flora 189: 97-130.
71. Westoby, M. et al. 1991. Why do more plant species use ants for dispersal on infertile compared with fertile soils? - Aust. J. Ecol. 16: 445-455.
72. Whitney, K. D. 2002. Dispersal for distance? Acacia ligulata seeds and meat ants Iridomyrmex viridiaeneus. - Aust. Ecol. 27: 589-595.
73. Zamora, R. 2000. Functional equivalence in plant-animl interactions: ecological and evolutionary consequences. - Oikos 88: 442-447.