Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:17:23.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Context dependency of rewards and services in an Indian ant–plant interaction: southern sites favour the mutualism between plants and ants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2014

Joyshree Chanam ,
Srinivasan Kasinathan ,
Gautam K. Pramanik ,
Amaraja Jagdeesh ,
Kanchan A. Joshi  and
Renee M. Borges
Joyshree Chanam
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
Srinivasan Kasinathan
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
Gautam K. Pramanik
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
Amaraja Jagdeesh
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
Kanchan A. Joshi
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
Renee M. Borges*
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
*
1 Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Protection-based ant–plant mutualisms may vary in strength due to differences in ant rewards, abundance of protective ants and herbivory pressure. We investigated geographical and temporal variation in host plant traits and herbivory pressure at five sites spanning the distribution range of the myrmecophyte Humboldtia brunonis (Fabaceae) in the Indian Western Ghats. Southern sites had, on average, 2.4 times greater abundance of domatia-bearing individuals, 1.6 times greater extrafloral nectary numbers per leaf, 1.2 times larger extrafloral nectary sizes, 2.2 times greater extrafloral nectar (EFN) volumes and a two-fold increase in total amino acid and total sugar concentrations in EFN compared with northern sites. A strong protection-based mutualism with ants occurred at only one southern site where herbivory was highest, suggesting that investments in attracting ants correlate with anti-herbivore benefits gained from the presence of protective ants. Our results confirm a temporally stable north–south gradient in myrmecophytic traits in this ant-plant as several of these traits were re-sampled after a 5-y interval. However, the chemical composition of EFN varied at both spatial and short-term temporal scales suggesting that only repeated measurements of rewards such as EFN can reveal the real spectrum of trait variation in an ant–plant mutualistic system.

Keywords

amino acidsdomatiaextrafloral nectargeographical variationHumboldtia brunonisnectarysugars
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , May 2014 , pp. 219 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

ARAVIND, N. A., GANESHAIAH, K. N. & UMA SHAANKER, R. 2013. Indian monsoons shape dispersal phenology of plants. Biology Letters 9:20130675.Google Scholar
BAKER-MÉIO, & MARQUIS, R. J. 2012. Context-dependent benefits from ant–plant mutualism in three sympatric varieties of Chamaecrista desvauxii . Journal of Ecology 100:242–252.Google Scholar
BARTON, A. M. 1986. Spatial variation in the effect of ants on an extrafloral nectary plant. Ecology 67:495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BIXENMANN, R. J., COLEY, P. D. & KURSAR, T. A. 2011. Is extrafloral nectar production induced by herbivores or ants in a tropical facultative ant–plant mutualism? Oecologia 165:417–425.Google Scholar
BLATRIX, R., RENARD, D., DJIETO-LORDON, C. & McKEY, D. 2012. The cost of myrmecophytism: insights from allometry of stem secondary growth. Annals of Botany 110: 943–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BRONSTEIN, J. L. 1994. Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:214–217.Google Scholar
BROUAT, C. & MCKEY, D. 2000. Origin of caulinary ant domatia and timing of their onset in plant ontogeny: evolution of a key trait in horizontally transmitted ant–plant symbioses. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 71:801–819.Google Scholar
CHAMBERLAIN, S. A. & HOLLAND, N. J. 2008. Density-mediated, context-dependent consumer-resource interactions between ants and extrafloral nectar plants. Ecology 89:1364–1374.Google Scholar
CHANAM, J., SHESHSHAYEE, M. S., KASINATHAN, S., JAGDEESH, A., JOSHI, K. A. & BORGES, R. M. 2014. Nutritional benefits from domatia inhabitants in an ant–plant interaction: interlopers do pay the rent. Functional Ecology doi: 10.1111/1365–2435.12251 Google Scholar
CRAWLEY, M. J. 2012. The R book. John Wiley & Sons. 942 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAVIDAR, P., PUYRAVAUD, J. P. & LEIGH, E. G. JR. 2005. Changes in rain forest tree diversity, dominance and rarity across a seasonality gradient in the Western Ghats, India. Journal of Biogeography 32:493–501.Google Scholar
DEV, S. A., SHENOY, M. & BORGES, R. M. 2010. Genetic and clonal diversity of the endemic ant-plant Humboldtia brunonis (Fabaceae) in the Western Ghats of India. Journal of Biosciences 35:267–279.Google Scholar
DÍAZ-CASTELAZO, C., SÁNCHEZ-GALVÁN, I. R., GUIMARÃES, P. R., RAIMUNDO, R. L. G. & RICO-GRAY, R. 2013. Long-term temporal variation in the organization of an ant–plant network. Annals of Botany 111:1285–1293.Google Scholar
ESCALANTE-PÉREZ, M., JABORSKY, M., LAUTNER, S., FROMM, J., MÜLLER, T., DITTRICH, M., KUNERT, M., BOLAND, W., HEDRICH, R. & ACHE, P. 2012. Poplar extrafloral nectaries: two types, two strategies of indirect defenses against herbivores. Plant Physiology 159:1176–1191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FIALA, B. & MASCHWITZ, U. 1992. Domatia as most important adaptations in the evolution of myrmecophytes in the paleotropical tree genus Macaranga (Euphorbiaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 180:53–64.Google Scholar
FONSECA, C. R. 1999. Amazonian ant-plant interactions and the nesting space limitation hypothesis. Journal of Tropical Ecology 15:807–825.Google Scholar
GADGIL, S. & JOSHI, N. V. 1983. Climatic clusters of the Indian region. Journal of Climatology 3:47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GAUME, L., ZACHARIAS, M., GROSBOIS, V. & BORGES, R. M. 2005. The fitness consequences of bearing domatia and having the right ant partner: experiments with protective and non-protective ants in a semi-myrmecophyte. Oecologia 145:76–86.Google Scholar
GAUME, L., SHENOY, M., ZACHARIAS, M. & BORGES, R. M. 2006. Co-existence of ants and an arboreal earthworm in a myrmecophyte of the Indian Western Ghats: anti-predation effects of the earthworm mucus. Journal of Tropical Ecology 22:341–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GOMULKIEWICZ, R., THOMPSON, J. N., HOLT, R. D., NUISMER, S. L. & HOCHBERG, M. E. 2000. Hot spots, cold spots, and the geographic mosaic theory of coevolution. American Naturalist 156:156–174.Google Scholar
GONZÁLEZ-TEUBER, M., SILVA BUENO, J. C., HEIL, M. & BOLAND, W. 2012. Increased host investment in extrafloral nectar (EFN) improves the efficiency of a mutualistic defensive service. PLoS One 7 (10): e46598.Google Scholar
HEIL, M., FIALA, B., BAUMANN, B. & LINSENMAIR, K. E. 2000. Temporal, spatial and biotic variations in extrafloral nectar secretion by Macaranga tanarius . Functional Ecology 14:749–757.Google Scholar
HEIL, M., KOCH, T., HILPERT, A., FIALA, B., BOLAND, W. & LINSENMAIR, K. E. 2001. Extrafloral nectar production of the ant-associated plant, Macaranga tanarius, is an induced, indirect, defensive response elicited by jasmonic acid. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 98:1083–1088.Google Scholar
KERSCH, M. F. & FONSECA, C. R. 2005. Abiotic factors and the conditional outcome of an ant–plant mutualism. Ecology 86:2117–2126.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
KROMBEIN, K. V., NORDEN, B. B., RICKSON, M. M. & RICKSON, F.R. 1999. Biodiversity of the domatia occupants (ants, wasps, bees, and others) of the Sri Lankan myrmecophyte Humboldtia laurifolia Vahl (Fabaceae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 603:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MONDOR, E. B., TREMBLAY, M. N. & MESSING, R. H. 2006. Extrafloral nectary phenotypic plasticity is damage-and resource-dependent in Vicia faba . Biology Letters 2:583–585.Google Scholar
PASCAL, J. P. 1988. Wet evergreen forests of the Western Ghats of India. Ecology, structure, floristic composition and succession. French Institute, Pondicherry. 342 pp.Google Scholar
PEMBERTON, R. W. 1998. The occurrence and abundance of plants with extrafloral nectaries, the basis for antiherbivore defense mutualisms, along a latitudinal gradient in East Asia. Journal of Biogeography 25:661–668.Google Scholar
PRINGLE, E. G. & GORDON, D. M. 2013. Protection mutualism and the community: geographic variation in an ant-plant symbiosis and the consequences for herbivores. Sociobiology 60:242–251.Google Scholar
PULICE, C. E. & PACKER, A. A. 2008. Simulated herbivory induces extrafloral nectary production in Prunus avium . Functional Ecology 22:801–807.Google Scholar
RAI, S. N. 2000. Productivity of tropical rain forests of Karnataka. Eastern Press, Bangalore. 128 pp.Google Scholar
RICO-GRAY, V. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2007. The ecology and evolution of ant–plant interactions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 200 pp.Google Scholar
RICO-GRAY, V., GARCIA-FRANCO, J. G., PALACIOS-RIOS, M., DÍAZ-CASTELAZO, C., PARRA-TABLA, V. & NAVARRO, J. A. 1998. Geographical and seasonal variation in the richness of ant-plant interactions in Mexico. Biotropica 30:190–200.Google Scholar
RICO-GRAY, V., DÍAZ-CASTELAZO, C., RAMÍREZ-HERNÁNDEZ, A., GUIMARÃES, P. R. & HOLLAND, J. N. 2012. Abiotic factors shape temporal variation in the structure of an ant–plant network. Arthropod–Plant Interactions 6:289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RIOS, R. S., MARQUIS, R. J. & FLUNKER, J. C. 2008. Population variation in plant traits associated with ant attraction and herbivory in Chamaecrista fasciculata (Fabaceae). Oecologia 156:577–588.Google Scholar
RUDGERS, J. A. 2004. Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: selection in a facultative ant–plant mutualism. Ecology 85:192–205.Google Scholar
RUDGERS, J. A. & GARDENER, M. C. 2004. Extrafloral nectar as a resource mediating multispecies interactions. Ecology 85:1495–1502.Google Scholar
RUDGERS, J. A. & STRAUSS, S. Y. 2004. A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271:2481–2488.Google Scholar
SHENOY, M. 2008. Spatial variation in interactions of the semi-myrmecophyte Humboldtia brunonis (Fabaceae) with ants and other invertebrates. PhD dissertation, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.Google Scholar
SHENOY, M. & BORGES, R. M. 2010. Geographical variation in an ant–plant interaction correlates with domatia occupancy, local ant diversity, and interlopers. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 100:538–551.Google Scholar
SHENOY, M., RADHIKA, V., SATISH, S. & BORGES, R. M. 2012. Composition of extrafloral nectar influences interactions between the myrmecophyte Humboldtia brunonis and its ant associates. Journal of Chemical Ecology 38:88–99.Google Scholar
SUPPIAH, R. 1996. Spatial and temporal variations in the relationships between the Southern Oscillation phenomenon and the rainfall of Sri Lanka. International Journal of Climatology 16:1391–1407.Google Scholar
THOMPSON, J. N. 1999. Specific hypotheses on the geographic mosaic of coevolution. American Naturalist 153:S1–S14.Google Scholar