Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:56:55.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attraction of flower visitors to plants that express indirect defence can minimize ecological costs of ant–pollinator conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2010

Johnattan Hernández-Cumplido ,
Betty Benrey  and
Martin Heil
Johnattan Hernández-Cumplido
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Evolutionary Entomology, Institute of Biology, University of Neuchâtel (UNINE), Emile Argand 11, 2009 Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Betty Benrey
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Evolutionary Entomology, Institute of Biology, University of Neuchâtel (UNINE), Emile Argand 11, 2009 Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Martin Heil*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ingeniería Genética, CINVESTAV Irapuato. Km. 9.6 Libramiento Norte, Carretera Irapuato-León, 36821 Irapuato, Guanajuato, México
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thousands of plant species throughout tropical and temperate zones secrete extrafloral nectar (EFN) (see www.biosci.unl.edu/emeriti/keeler/extrafloral/worldlistfamilies.htm) to attract ants, whose presence leads to an indirect defence against herbivores (Chamberlain & Holland 2009, Heil 2008, Heil & McKey 2003, Rico-Gray & Oliveira 2007). Although termed ‘extrafloral’ because the nectar is not involved in pollination, EFN can also be secreted within the inflorescences (Bentley 1977, Holland et al. 2010, Martins 2009). Because ants tend to defend reliable food sources against all types of putative competitors, it has been hypothesized that the presence of extrafloral nectaries close to flowers may lead to competition among ants and pollinators, or even to direct ant–pollinator conflicts. Such antagonistic interactions would reduce the access of pollinators to flowers and, thereby, may cause significant ‘ecological costs’ of indirect, ant-mediated defences (Heil 2002).

Keywords

Lima beancompetitionextrafloral nectarinflorescencepollinationjasmonic acidplant defence
Type
Short Communication
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , September 2010 , pp. 555 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

LITERATURE CITED

BENTLEY, B. L. 1977. Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 8:407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAMBERLAIN, S. A. & HOLLAND, J. N. 2008. Density-mediated, context dependent consumer resource interaction between ants and extrafloral nectar plants. Ecology 89:1364–1374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CHAMBERLAIN, S. A. & HOLLAND, J. N. 2009. Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant–plant protection mutualisms. Ecology 90:2384–2392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GALEN, C. 2005. Catching ants with honey: an experimental test of distraction and satiation as alternative modes of escape from flower-damaging ants. Oecologia 144:80–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GHAZOUL, J. 2001. Can floral repellents pre-empt potential ant–plant conflicts? Ecology Letters 4:295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HEIL, M. 2002. Ecological costs of induced resistance. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 5:345–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HEIL, M. 2004. Induction of two indirect defences benefits Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae) in nature. Journal of Ecology 92:527–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HEIL, M. 2008. Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytologist 178:41–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HEIL, M. & McKEY, D. 2003. Protective ant–plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:425–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HOLLAND, J. N., CHAMBERLAIN, S. A. & HORN, K. C. 2010. Temporal variation in extrafloral nectar secretion by reproductive tissues of the senita cactus, Pachycereus schottii (Cactaceae), in the Sonoran Desert of Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments 74:712–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KOST, C. & HEIL, M. 2005. Increased availability of extrafloral nectar reduces herbivory in Lima bean plants (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae). Basic and Applied Ecology 6:237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KOST, C. & HEIL, M. 2008. The defensive role of volatile emission and extrafloral nectar secretion for Lima bean in nature. Journal of Chemical Ecology 34:2–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MARTINS, D. J. 2009. Pollination and facultative ant-association in the African Leopard Orchid Ansellia africana. Journal of East African Natural History 98:67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NESS, J. H. 2006. A mutualism's indirect costs: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos 113:506–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NICKLEN, E. F. & WAGNER, D. 2006. Conflict resolution in an ant–plant interaction: Acacia constricta traits reduce ant costs to reproduction. Oecologia 148:81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RADHIKA, V., KOST, C., BOLAND, W. & HEIL, M. 2010. The role of jasmonate signalling in floral nectar secretion. PLoS ONE 5: e9265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RAINE, N. E., WILLMER, P. & STONE, G. N. 2002. Spatial structuring and floral avoidance behavior prevent ant–pollinator conflict in a Mexican ant-acacia. Ecology 83:3086–3096.Google Scholar
RICO-GRAY, V. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2007. The ecology and evolution of ant–plant interactions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 331 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WAGNER, D. & 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