Integrating quality and quantity of mutualistic service to contrast ant species protecting Ferocactus wislizeni

Ecology

Volumn 87, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 912-921

  Ness, J H ^a,c   Morris, W F ^b   Bronstein, J L ^a  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c SKIDMORE COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ant; Ferocactus wislizeni; Maximum likelihood; Michaelis Menten; Mutualism; Plant defense; Protection; Sonoran Desert

Indexed keywords

CACTUS; CATERPILLAR; MUTUALISM; PHENOLOGY; PLANT-HERBIVORE INTERACTION;

ANIMAL; ANT; ARTICLE; CACTACEAE; PARASITOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL; SYMBIOSIS;

ANIMALS; ANTS; CACTACEAE; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; SYMBIOSIS;

ARIZONA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

CACTACEAE; FEROCACTUS WISLIZENI; FORMICIDAE; MANDUCA SEXTA;

EID: 33646150215     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: 00129658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[912:IQAQOM]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Blom, P. E., and W. H. Clark. 1980. Observations of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) visiting extrafloral nectaries of the barrel cactus, Ferocactus gracilis Gates (Cactaceae), in Baja California, Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 25:181-196.
2. Buckley, R., and P. Gullan. 1991. More aggressive ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) provide better protection for soft scales and mealybugs (Homoptera: Coccidae, Pseudococcidae). Biotropica 23:282-286.
3. Carroll, R. C., and D. H. Janzen. 1973. Ecology of foraging by ants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:231-257.
4. Cronin, G. 1998. Between-species and temporal variation in Acacia-herbivore interactions. Biotropica 30:135-139.
5. Del-Claro, K., and P. S. Oliveira. 2000. Conditional outcomes in a neotropical treehopper-ant association: temporal and species specific variation in ant protection and homopteran fecundity. Oecologia 124:156-165.
6. Djieto-Lordon, C., A. Dejean, M. Gibernau, M. Hossaert-McKey, and D. McKey. 2004. Symbiotic mutualism with a community of opportunistic ants: protection, competition, and ant occupancy of the myrmecophyte Barteria nigritana (Passifloraceae). Acta Oecologica 26:109-116.
7. Freitas, A. V. L., and P. S. Oliveira. 1996. Ants as selective agents on herbivore biology: effects on the behaviour of a non-myrmecophilous butterfly. Journal of Animal Ecology 65:205-210.
8. Gange, A. C., and R. L. Ayres. 1999. On the relation between arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization and plant 'benefit.' Oikos 87:615-621.
9. Goldberg, D. E., and R. M. Turner. 1986. Vegetation change and plant demography in permanent plots in the Sonoran Desert. Ecology 67:695-712.
10. Herrera, C. M. 1987. Components of pollinator "quality": comparative analysis of a diverse insect assemblage. Oikos 50:79-90.
11. Herrera, C. M. 1989. Pollinator abundance, morphology, and flower visitation rate: analysis of the "quantity" component in a plant-pollinator system. Oecologia 80:241-248.
12. Hilborn, R., and M. Mangel. 1997. The ecological detective: confronting models with data. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
13. Holland, J. H., D. L. DeAngelis, and J. L. Bronstein. 2002. Population dynamics of mutualism: functional responses of benefits and costs. American Naturalist 159:231-244.
14. Horvitz, C. C., and D. W. Schemske. 1984. Effects of ants and an ant-tended herbivore on seed production of a neotropical herb. Ecology 65:1369-1378.
15. Inouye, D. W., and O. R. Taylor. 1979. A temperate region plant-ant-seed predator system: consequences of extra floral nectar secretion by Helianthella quinquenervis. Ecology 60:1-7.
16. Itioka, T., M. Nomura, Y. Inui, and T. Inoue. 2000. Difference in intensity of ant defense among three species of Macaranga myrmecophytes in a Southeast Asian dipterocarp forest. Biotropica 32:318-326.
17. Janzen, D. H. 1972. Protection of Barteria (Passifloraceae) by Pachysima ants (Psudomyrmcinae) in a Nigerian rain forest. Ecology 53:885-892.
18. Koptur, S. 1984. Experimental evidence for defense of Inga (Mimosoideae) saplings by ants. Ecology 65:1787-1793.
19. Lloyd, F. E. 1908. Extra-floral nectaries in the cacti. Plant World 11:138-140.
20. McIntosh, M. E. 2002. Plant size, breeding system, and limits to reproductive success in two sister species of Ferocactus (Cactaceae). Plant Ecology 162:273-288.
21. Michelangeli, F. A. 2003. Ant protection against herbivory on three species of Tococa (Melastomaceae) occupying different environments. Biotropica 35:181-188.
22. Morris, W. F. 2003. Which mutualists are most essential?: buffering of plant reproduction against the extinction of pollinators. Pages 260-280 in P. Kareiva and S. Levin, editors. The importance of species: perspectives on expendability and triage. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
23. Morris, W. F., W. G. Wilson, J. L. Bronstein, and J. H. Ness. 2005. Environmental forcing and the temporal dynamics of a competitive guild of cactus-tending ants. Ecology 86:3190-3199.
24. Ness, J. H. 2006. A mutualist's indirect costs: the most agressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos, in press.
25. Ness, J. H., J. L. Bronstein, A. N. Andersen, and J. N. Holland. 2004. Ant body size predicts the dispersal distance of ant-adapted seeds: implications for mutualism disruption by invasive ants. Ecology 85:1244-1250.
26. Oliveira, P. S., and C. R. F. Brandão. 1991. The ant community associated with extrafloral nectaries in the Brazilian cerrados. Pages 198-212 in C. R. Huxley and D. F. Cutler, editors. Ant-plant interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
27. Oliveira, P. S., V. Rico-Gray, C. Diaz-Castelazo, and C. Castillo-Guevara. 1999. Interactions between ants, extrafloral nectaries and insect herbivores in Neotropical coastal sand dunes: herbivore deterrence by visiting ants increases fruit set in Opuntia stricta (Cactaceae). Functional Ecology 13:623-631.
28. Pemberton, R. W. 1988. The abundance of plants bearing extrafloral nectaries in Colorado and Mojave Desert communities of southern California. Madrono 35:238-246.
29. Pickett, C. H., and W. D. Clark. 1979. The function of extrafloral nectaries in Opuntia acanthocarpa (Cactaceae). American Journal of Botany 66:618-625.
30. Rico-Gray, V., and L. B. Thien. 1989. Effect of different ant species on reproductive fitness of Schomburgkia tibicinis (Orchidaceae). Oecologia 81:487-489.
31. Rocha, C. F. D., and H. G. Bergallo. 1992. Bigger ant colonies reduce herbivory and herbivore residence time on leaves of an ant-plant: Azteca muelleri vs. Coleomera ruficornis on Cecropia pachystachya. Oecologia 91:249-252.
32. Rudgers, J. 2004. Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: selection in a facultative ant-plant mutualism. Ecology 85:192-205.
33. Rufner, G. A., and D. W. Clark. 1986. Extrafloral nectar of Ferocacatus acanthodes (Cactaceae): composition and its importance to ants. American Journal of Botany 73:185-189.
34. Schemske, D. W., and C. C. Horvitz. 1984. Variation among floral visitors in pollination ability: a precondition for mutualism specialization. Science 225:519-521.
35. Schupp, E. W. 1993. Quantity, quality, and the effectiveness of seed dispersal by animals. Vegetatio 107/108:15-29.
36. Stanton, M. L. 2003. Interacting guilds: moving beyond the pairwise perspective on mutualisms. American Naturalist 162:S10-S23.