Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:05:02.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Fitness consequences of food-for-protection strategies in plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2009

Maurice W. Sabelis
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam The Netherlands
Paul C. J. van Rijn
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute of Ecology The Netherlands
Arne Janssen
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam The Netherlands
F. L. Wäckers
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute of Ecology
P. C. J. van Rijn
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute of Ecology
J. Bruin
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

Behind the idle and quiet appearance of plants, warfare is an everyday issue. Herbivorous arthropods, below- and aboveground, continue to threaten a plant's existence, whereas their attack is countered by the plant in many ways. Plants defend themselves directly by modifying plant structure (e.g., cuticle thickness, leaf hairiness), lowering nutritional quality, decreasing digestibility and increasing toxicity, but also indirectly by promoting the effectiveness of enemies of the herbivores (Price et al. 1980). This indirect plant defense implies that plants provide chemical lures, shelter and/or food, whereas they gain protection in exchange (Sabelis et al. 1999a, b, c, d, 2002). Central American Acacia trees stand out as a landmark example (Janzen 1966). They have stipular thorns that are expanded and hollow and provide nesting sites for certain ants. In addition, they secrete nectar from large foliar nectaries and produce nutritive organs called Beltian bodies on the leaf pinnules. These food bodies are eagerly harvested by foraging ants and fed to their larvae. The ants in turn kill insect herbivores, repel mammalian herbivores, and destroy plants interfering with the Acacia tree. In this chapter, we focus on food provisioning as a strategy of the plant to boost the third trophic level and we discuss the conditions under which this particular mode of defense is favored by natural selection.

The argument that plants benefit from consumers of the foods they provide dates back to Thomas Belt in his book published in 1874.

Type
Chapter
Information
Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects
A Protective Mutualism and its Applications
, pp. 109 - 134
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, L. S. 2000. The ecological significance of toxic nectar. Oikos 91: 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. A. 1999. Leaf damage and associated cues induced aggressive ant recruitment in a Neotropical ant-plant. Ecology 80: 1713–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. A. and Dubin-Thaler, B. J.. 1999. Induced responses to herbivory in the Neotropical ant–plant association between Azteca ants and Cecropia trees: response of ants to potential inducing cues. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45: 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. A., and R. Karban. 1999. Why induced defenses may be favored over constitutive strategies in plants. In Tollrian, R. and Harvell, C. D. (eds.) The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 45–61.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. A. and Rutter, M. T.. 1998. Dynamic anti-herbivore defense in ant-plants: the role of induced responses. Oikos 83: 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggen, L. R., Gurr, G. M., and Meats, A.. 1999. Flowers in tri-trophic systems: mechanisms allowing selective exploitation by insect natural enemies for conservation biological control. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 91: 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, F. M. and Klein, M. E.. 1992. Transtrophic interactions in cassava. Experimental and Applied Acarology 14: 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, A. J., 1985. The Evolutionary Ecology of Ant–Plant Interactions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Becerra, J. X. I. and Venable, D. L.. 1989. Extrafloral nectaries: a defense against ant–Homoptera mutualisms. Oikos 55: 276–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, N. and Hurd, L. E.. 2003. Pollen feeding and fitness in praying mantids: the vegetarian side of a tritrophic predator. Environmental Entomology 32: 881–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belt, T., 1874. The Naturalist in Nicaragua. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.Google Scholar
Breton, L. M. and Addicott, J. F.. 1992. Density-dependent mutualism in an aphid–ant interaction. Ecology 73: 2175–2180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, J. L. 1994a. Our current understanding of mutualism. Quarterly Review of Biology 69: 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, J. L. 1994b. Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 214–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, J. L. 1998. The contribution of ant-plant protection studies to our understanding of mutualism. Biotropica 30: 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, J. L. 2001. The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecology Letters 4: 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. W., Snelling, R. R., and Longino, J. T.. 1989. Competition among ants for myrmecophytes and the significance of plant trichomes. Biotropica 21: 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuente, M. A. S. and Marquis, R. J.. 1999. The role of ant-tended extrafloral nectaries in the protection and benefit of a Neotropical rainforest tree. Oecologia 118: 192–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVries, P. J. and Baker, I.. 1989. Butterfly exploitation of an ant–plant mutualism: adding insult to herbivory. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 97: 332–340.Google Scholar
Del-Claro, K. and Oliveira, P. S.. 1993. Ant–Homoptera interaction: do alternative sugar sources distract tending ants? Oikos 68: 202–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Giusto, B., Anstett, M. C., Dounias, E., and McKey, D. B.. 2001. Variation in the effectiveness of biotic defence: the case of an opportunistic ant–plant protection mutualism. Oecologia 129: 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicke, M. and Sabelis, M. W.. 1988. How plants obtain predatory mites as bodyguards. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 38: 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicke, M. and M. W. Sabelis. 1992. Costs and benefits of chemical information conveyance: proximate and ultimate factors. In Roitberg, B. and Isman, M. (eds.) Insect Chemical Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 122–155.Google Scholar
Doebeli, M. and Knowlton, N.. 1998. The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 95: 8676–8680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyer, L. A., Dodson, C. D., Beihoffer, J., and Letourneau, D. K.. 2001. Trade-offs in antiherbivore defenses in Piper cenocladum: ant mutualists versus plant secondary metabolites. Journal of Chemical Ecology 27: 581–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eck, G., Fiala, B., Linsenmair, K. E., Hashim, R. Bin, and Proksch, P.. 2001. Trade-off between chemical and biotic antiherbivore defense in the South East Asian plant genus Macaranga. Journal of Chemical Ecology 27: 1979–1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, V., Fischer, M. K., Wäckers, F. L., and Völkl, W.. 2001. Interactions between extrafloral nectaries, aphids and ants: are there competition effects between plant and homopteran sugar sources? Oecologia 129: 577–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eubanks, M. D., Nesci, K. A., Petersen, M. K., Liu, Z., and Sanchez, H. B.. 1997. The exploitation of an ant-defended host plant by a shelter-building herbivore. Oecologia 109: 454–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, E. W. and Swallow, J. G.. 1993. Numerical responses of natural enemies to artificial honeydew in Utah alfalfa. Environmental Entomology 22: 1392–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faegri, K. and Pijl, L.. 1979. The Principles of Pollination Ecology. Toronto, Ontario: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Fagan, W. F., Siemann, E., Mitter, C., et al. 2002. Nitrogen in insects: implications for trophic complexity and species diversification. American Naturalist 160: 784–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinsinger, P. and Swarm, L. A.. 1978. How common are ant-repellent nectars? Biotropica 10: 238–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrière, R., Bronstein, J. L., Rinaldi, S., Law, R., and Gauduchon, M.. 2002. Cheating and the evolutionary stability of mutualisms. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 269: 773–780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiala, B. 1990. Extrafloral nectaries vs. ant–Homoptera mutualisms: a comment on Becerra and Venable. Oikos 59: 281–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiala, B., Grunsky, H., Maschwitz, U., and Linsenmair, K. E.. 1994. Diversity of ant–plant interactions: protective efficacy in Macaranga species with different degrees of ant association. Oecologia 97: 186–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, R. C., Richter, A., Wanek, W., and Mayer, V.. 2002. Plants feed ants: food bodies of myrmecophytic Piper and their significance for the interaction with Pheidole bicornis ants. Oecologia 133: 186–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galen, C. 1999. Flowers and enemies: predation by nectar-thieving ants in relation to variation in floral form of an alpine wildflower, Polemonium viscosum. Oikos 85: 426–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaume, L. and McKey, D.. 1999. An ant–plant mutualism and its host-specific parasite: activity rhythms, young leaf patrolling, and effects on herbivores of two specialist plant-ants inhabiting the same myrmecophyte. Oikos 84: 130–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaume, L., McKey, D., and Terrin, S.., 1998. Ant–plant–homopteran mutualism: how the third partner affects the interaction between a plant-specialist ant and its myrmecophyte host. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 265: 569–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghazoul, J. 2001. Can floral repellents pre-empt potential ant-plant conflicts? Ecology Letters 4: 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, K. S., 1986. Ecosystem analysis: plant cultivars (HPR), entomophagous species and food supplements. In Boethel, D. J. and Eikenbarry, R. D. (eds.) Interactions of Plant Resistance and Parasitoids and Predators of Insects. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood, pp. 151–197.Google Scholar
Hamilton, E. W. and Frank, D. A.. 2001. Can plants stimulate soil microbes and their own nutrient supply? Evidence from a grazing tolerant grass. Ecology 82: 2397–2402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatada, A., Itioka, T., Yamaoka, R., and Itino, T.. 2002. Carbon and nitrogen contents of food bodies in three myrmecophytic species of Macaranga: implications for antiherbivore defense mechanisms. Journal of Plant Research 115: 179–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heil, M., Delsinne, T., Hilpert, A., et al. 2002. Reduced chemical defence in ant-plants? A critical re-evaluation of a widely accepted hypothesis. Oikos 99: 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M., Fiala, B., Baumann, B., and Linsenmair, K. E.. 2000b. Temporal, spatial and biotic variations in extrafloral nectar secretion by Macaranga tanarius. Functional Ecology 14: 749–757.Google Scholar
Heil, M., Fiala, B., Boller, T., and Linsenmair, K. E.. 1999. Reduced chitinase activities in ant-plants of the genus Macaranga. Naturwissenschaften 86: 146–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M., Fiala, B., Kaiser, W., and Linsenmair, K. E.. 1998. Chemical contents of Macaranga food bodies: adaptations to their role in ant attraction and nutrition. Functional Ecology 12: 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M., Fiala, B., Maschwitz, U., and Linsenmair, K. E.. 2001b. On benefits of indirect defence: short- and long-term studies of antiherbivore protection via mutualistic ants. Oecologia 126: 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M., Fiala, B., Zotz, G., Menke, P., and Maschwitz, U.. 1997. Food body production in Macaranga triloba (Euphorbiaceae): a plant investment in antiherbivore defence via symbiotic ant partners. Journal of Ecology 85: 847–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M., Hilpert, A., Fiala, B., et al. 2002. Nutrient allocation of Macaranga triloba ant plants to growth, photosynthesis and indirect defence. Functional Ecology 16: 475–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M., Hilpert, A., Fiala, B., and Linsenmair, K. E.. 2001a. Nutrient availability and indirect (biotic) defence in a Malaysian ant-plant. Oecologia 126: 404–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M., Koch, T., Hilpert, A., et al. 2001c. Extrafloral nectar production of the ant-associated plant, Macaranga tanarius, is an induced, indirect, defensive response elicited by jasmonic acid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 98: 1083–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M., Staehelin, C., and McKey, D.. 2000a. Low chitinase activity in Acacia myrmecophytes: a potential trade-off between biotic and chemical defenses? Naturwissenschaften 87: 555–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itino, T. and Itioka, T.. 2001. Interspecific variation and ontogenetic change in antiherbivore defense in myrmecophytic Macaranga species. Ecological Research 16: 765–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itino, T., Itioka, T., Hatada, A., and Hamid, A. A.. 2001. Effects of food rewards offered by ant-plant Macaranga on the colony size of ants. Ecological Research 16: 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, F. and Higashi, S.. 1991. An indirect mutualism between oaks and wood ants via aphids. Journal of Animal Ecology 60: 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izzo, T. J. and Vasconcelos, H. L. 2002. Cheating the cheater: domatia loss minimizes the effects of ant castration in an Amazonian ant-plant. Oecologia 133: 200–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, V. A. A. and Sabelis, M. W.. 1995. Outbreaks of colony-forming pests in tri-trophic systems: consequences for pest control and the evolution of pesticide resistance. Oikos 74: 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1966. Coevolution of mutualism between ants and acacias in Central America. Evolution 20: 249–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolivet, P., 1996. Ants and Plants: An Example of Coevolution. Leiden, the Netherlands: Backhuys.Google Scholar
Koptur, S., 1992. Extrafloral nectary-mediated interactions between insects and plants. In Bernays, E. (ed.) Insect–Plant Interactions, vol. 4. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 81–129.Google Scholar
Labeyrie, E., Pascal, L., Delabie, J., et al. 2001. Protection of Passiflora glandulosa (Passifloraceae) against herbivory: impact of ants exploiting extrafloral nectaries. Sociobiology 38: 317–321.Google Scholar
Lanza, J. 1991. Response of fire ants (Formicidae, Solenopsis invicta and S. geminata) to artificial nectars with amino-acids. Ecological Entomology 16: 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, K. J., Staehle, L. M., and Dotseth, E. J.. 2001. Tending ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) regulate Dalbulus quinquenotatus (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) population dynamics. Environmental Entomology 30: 757–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letourneau, D. K. 1990. Code ant–plant mutualism broken by parasite. Science 248: 215–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linsenmair, K. E., Heil, M., Kaiser, W. M., et al. 2001. Adaptations to biotic and abiotic stress: Macaranga-ant plants optimize investment in biotic defence. Journal of Experimental Botany 52: 2057–2065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mondor, E. B. and Addicott, J. F.. 2003. Conspicuous extra-floral nectaries are inducible in Vicia faba. Ecology Letters 6: 495–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, M. A. 2000. Mechanisms and density dependence of benefit in an ant–membracid mutualism. Ecology 81: 482–489.Google Scholar
Morris, W. F., Bronstein, J. L., and Wilson, W. G.. 2003. Three-way coexistence in obligate mutualist-exploiter interactions: the potential role of competition. American Naturalist 161: 860–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ness, J. H. 2003a. Catalpa bignonioides alters extrafloral nectar production after herbivory and attracts ant bodyguards. Oecologia 134: 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ness, J. H. 2003b. Contrasting exotic Solenopsis invicta and native Forelius pruinosus ants as mutualists with Catalpa bignonioides, a native plant. Ecological Entomology 28: 247–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nomikou, M., Janssen, A., Schraag, R., and Sabelis, M. W.. 2002. Phytoseiid predators suppress populations of Bemisia tabaci on cucumber plants with alternative food. Experimental and Applied Acarology 27: 57–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novak, H. 1994. The influence of ant attendance on larval parasitism in hawthorn psyllids (Homoptera, Psyllidae). Oecologia 99: 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offenberg, J. 2001. Balancing between mutualism and exploitation: the symbiotic interaction between Lasius ants and aphids. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49: 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, P. S. 1997. The ecological function of extrafloral nectaries: herbivore deterrence by visiting ants and reproductive output in Caryocar brasiliense (Caryocaraceae). Functional Ecology 11: 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, P. S., Rico-Gray, V., Diaz-Castelazo, C., and Castillo-Guevara, C.. 1999. Interaction 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallini, A., Janssen, A., and Sabelis, M. W.. 1999. Spider mites avoid plants with predators. Experimental and Applied Acarology 23: 803–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pels, B., Roos, A. M., and Sabelis, M. W.. 2002. Evolutionary dynamics of prey exploitation in a metapopulation of predators. American Naturalist 159: 172–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pemberton, R. W. and Lee, J. H.. 1996. The influence of extrafloral nectaries on parasitism of an insect herbivore. American Journal of Botany 83: 1187–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. W., Bouton, C. E., Gross, P., et al. 1980. Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11: 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rico-Gray, V. and Castro, G.. 1996. Effect of an ant–aphid interaction on the reproductive fitness of Paullinia fuscecens (Sapindaceae). Southwestern Naturalist 41: 434–440.Google Scholar
Risch, S. J. and Rickson, F. R. 1981. Mutualism in which ants must be present before plants produce food bodies. Nature 291: 149–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, C. E. 1985. Extrafloral nectar: entomological implications. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 31: 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. 2002. The distraction hypothesis depends on relatively cheap extrafloral nectaries. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4: 307–311.Google Scholar
Roulston, T. H., Cane, J. H., and Buckmann, S. L.. 2000. What governs protein content of pollen: pollinator preferences, pollen-pistol interactions, or phylogeny? Ecological Monographs 70: 617–643.Google Scholar
Rudgers, J. A., Hodgen, J. G., and White, J. W.. 2003. Behavioral mechanisms underlie an ant–plant mutualism. Oecologia 135: 51–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruhren, S. and Handel, S. N.. 1999. Jumping spiders (Salticidae) enhance the seed production of a plant with extrafloral nectaries. Oecologia 119: 227–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabelis, M. W. and Jong, M. C. M.. 1988. Should all plants recruit bodyguards? Conditions for a polymorphic ESS of synomone production in plants. Oikos 53: 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabelis, M. W., and P. C. J. van Rijn. 1997. Predation by insects and mites. In Lewis, T. (ed.) Thrips as Crop Pests. Wallingford, UK: CAB- International, pp. 259–354.Google Scholar
Sabelis, M. W., A. Janssen, J. Bruin, et al. 1999c. Interactions between arthropod predators and plants: a conspiracy against herbivorous arthropods? In Bruin, J., , L. P. S. Geest, and Sabelis, M. W. (eds.) Ecology and Evolution of the Acari. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 207–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabelis, M. W., A. Janssen, A. Pallini, et al. 1999b. Behavioural responses of predatory and herbivorous arthropods to induced plant volatiles: from evolutionary ecology to agricultural applications. In Agrawal, A., Tuzun, S., and Bent, E. (eds.) Induced Plant Defenses against Pathogens and Herbivores. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society, pp. 269–298.Google Scholar
Sabelis, M. W., M. van Baalen, F. M. Bakker, et al. 1999a. Evolution of direct and indirect plant defence against herbivorous arthropods. In Olff, H., Brown, V. K., and Drent, R. H. (eds.) Herbivores: Between Plants and Predators. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science, pp. 109–166.Google Scholar
Sabelis, M. W., M. van Baalen, J. Bruin, et al. 1999d. The evolution of overexploitation and mutualism in plant–herbivore–predator interactions and its impact on population dynamics. In Hawkins, B. A. and Cornell, H. V. (eds.) Theoretical Approaches to Biological Control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabelis, M. W., M. van Baalen, B. Pels, M. Egas, and A. Janssen., 2002. Evolution of exploitation and defence in plant–herbivore–predator interactions. In Dieckmann, U., Metz, J. A. J., Sabelis, M. W., and Sigmund, K. (eds.) The Adaptive Dynamics of Infectious Diseases: In Pursuit of Virulence Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakata, H. 1994. How an ant decides to prey on or to attend aphids. Researches in Population Ecology 36: 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakata, H. and Hashimoto, Y.. 2000. Should aphids attract or repel ants? Effect of rival aphids and extrafloral nectaries on ant–aphid interactions. Population Ecology 42: 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, O. J., Hamback, P. A., and Beckerman, A. P.. 2000. Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. American Naturalist 155: 141–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sipura, M. 2002. Contrasting effects of ants on the herbivory and growth of two willow species. Ecology 83: 2680–2690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. L., Lanza, J., and Smith, G. C.. 1990. Amino-acid concentrations in extrafloral nectar of Impatiens sultani increase after simulated herbivory. Ecology 71: 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, M. L., Palmer, T. M., Young, T. P., Evans, A., and Turner, M. L.. 1999. Sterilization and canopy modification of a swollen thorn acacia tree by a plant-ant. Nature 401: 578–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suttle, K. B. 2003. Pollinators as mediators of top-down effects on plants. Ecology Letters 6: 688–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. 1978. Cherries, ants and tent caterpillars: timing of nectar production in relation to susceptibility of caterpillars to ant predation. Ecology 59: 686–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijn, P. C. J. and Tanigoshi, L. K.. 1999a. Pollen as food for the predatory mites Iphiseius degenerans and Neoseiulus cucumens (Acari: Phytoseiidae): dietary range and life history. Experimental and Applied Acarology 23: 785–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijn, P. C. J. and Tanigoshi, L. K.. 1999b. The contribution of extrafloral nectar to survival and reproduction of the predatory mite Iphiseius degenerans on Ricinus communis. Experimental and Applied Acarology 23: 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijn, P. C. J., Houten, Y. M., and Sabelis, M. W.. 2002. How plants benefit from providing food to predators when it is also edible to herbivores. Ecology 83: 2664–2679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wäckers, F. L. and Bezemer, T. M.. 2003. Root herbivory induces an above-ground indirect defence. Ecology Letters 6: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wäckers, F. L. and Wunderlin, R.. 1999. Induction of cotton extrafloral nectar production in response to herbivory does not require a herbivore-specific elicitor. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 91: 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wäckers, F. L., Zuber, D., Wunderlin, R., and Keller, F.. 2001. The effect of herbivory on temporal and spatial dynamics of foliar nectar production in cotton and castor. Annals of Botany 87: 365–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, D. 1997. The influence of ant nests on Acacia seed production, herbivory and soil nutrients. Journal of Ecology 85: 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, D. 2000. Pollen viability reduction as a potential cost of ant association for Acacia constricta (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany 87: 711–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, D. and Kay, A.. 2002. Do extrafloral nectaries distract ants from visiting flowers? An experimental test of an overlooked hypothesis. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4: 293–305.Google Scholar
Werner, E. E. and Peacor, S. D.. 2003. A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84: 1083–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willmer, P. G. and Stone, G. N.. 1997. How aggressive ant-guards assist seed set in Acacia flowers. Nature 388: 165–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, W. G., Morris, W. F., and Bronstein, J. L.. 2003. Coexistence of mutualists and exploiters on spatial landscapes. Ecological Monographs 73: 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, D. W., and Pierce, N. E.. 1998. A castration parasite of an ant–plant mutualism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 265: 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, D. W., Wilson, H. B., and Pierce, N. E.. 2001. An empirical model of species coexistence in a spatially structured environment. Ecology 82: 1761–1771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×