Chemical mimicry is an effective strategy when signal receivers recognize and discriminate models by relying on chemical cues. Some aphid enemies mimic the cuticular chemicals of aphids through various means thus avoiding detection and attack by aphid-tending ants. However, because ants have been reported to learn the chemical signatures of aphids in order to distinguish the aphids, the efficacy of chemical mimicry is predicted to depend on the experience of the ants that had tended aphids. The present study tested this hypothesis using two predator species: larvae of the green lacewing Mallada desjardinsi, and larvae of the ladybeetle Scymnus posticalis. Lacewing larvae carry the carcasses of aphids on which they have preyed upon their backs, and these function via chemical camouflage to reduce the aggressiveness of aphid-tending ants toward the larvae. Ladybeetle larvae reportedly produce a covering of wax structures, and their chemicals appear to attenuate ant aggression. We examined whether the behavior of the ant Tetramorium tsushimae toward these predators changed depending on their aphid-tending experience. Ants moderated their aggressiveness toward both predators when they had previously tended aphids, indicating that chemical mimicry by both aphid predators is dependent on previous experience of the ants in tending aphids. Chemical mimicry by the predators of ant-tended aphids is therefore considered to exploit learning-dependent aphid recognition systems of ants.
Chemical mimicry Ant-aphid mutualism Recognition system Chemical communication Green lacewing Scymnus beetle
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
We thank T. Yokoyama of the University of Toronto for constructive comments. This work was supported by grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists to M. H. (24–4473).
Ayasse M, Schiestl FP, Paulus HF, Ibarra F, Francke W (2003) Pollinator attraction in a sexually deceptive orchid by means of unconventional chemicals. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:517–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi M, Choh Y, Nakamuta K, Nomura M (2014) Do aphid carcasses on the backs of larvae of green lacewing work as chemical mimicry against aphid-tending ants? J Chem Ecol 40:569–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hayashi M, Nakamuta K, Nomura M (2015) Ants learn aphid species as mutualistic partners: Is the learning behavior species-specific? J Chem Ecol 41:1148–1154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hayashi M, Nomura M (2011) Larvae of the green lacewing Mallada desjardinsi (neuroptera: chrysopidae) protect themselves against aphid-tending ants by carrying dead aphids on their backs. Appl Entomol Zool 46:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaneko S (2007) Predator and parasitoid attacking ant-attended aphids: effects of predator presence and attending ant species on emerging parasitoid numbers. Ecol Res 22:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang C, Menzel F (2011) Lasius niger ants discriminate aphids based on their cuticular hydrocarbons. Anim Behav 82:1245–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohman DJ, Liao Q, Pierce NE (2006) Convergence of chemical mimicry in a guild of aphid predators. Ecol Entomol 31:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majerus MEN, Sloggett JJ, Godeau J-F, Hemptinne J-L (2007) Interactions between ants and aphidophagous and coccidophagous ladybirds. Popul Ecol 49:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzberg EG, Haynes KF, Johnson DW, Brown GC (2010) Wax structures of Scymnus louisianae attenuate aggression from aphid-tending ants. Environ Entomol 35:1298–1303Google Scholar
Stadler B, Dixon AFG (2005) Ecology and evolution of aphid-ant interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:345–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wilgenburg E, Felden A, Choe D-H, Sulc R, Luo J, Shea KJ, Elgar MA, Tsutsui ND (2012) Learning and discrimination of cuticular hydrocarbons in a social insect. Biol Lett 8:17–20CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar