Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in Aggressive Behaviors between Two Ant Species Determine the Ecological Consequences of a Facultative Food-for-Protection Mutualism

  • Published:
Journal of Insect Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ant-hemipteran mutualisms are widespread interactions in terrestrial food webs with far-reaching consequences for arthropod communities. Several hypotheses address the behavioral mechanisms driving the impacts of this mutualism, but relatively few studies have considered multiple ant species simultaneously as well as interspecific and intraspecific variation in ant behavior. In a series of field experiments that manipulated ant diet, this work examines the role of induced behaviors of forest ant species actively engaged in mutualism with Hemiptera. Based on other work in ant mutualisms, we predicted a higher frequency of aggressive behaviors towards prey and competitors by ants in the presence of honeydew-producing Hemiptera. We specifically compared Camponotus chromaoides and Formica neogagates (Formicidae), two abundant species in temperate forests of the northeastern U.S.A. After manipulating ant diet and interactions with sap-feeders experimentally, we observed 494 one-on-one interactions between ants and competitors, ladybird beetles and caterpillar prey. We found that C. chromaoides, exhibited behavioral dominance over F. neogagates, and C. chromaoides was more likely to attack ladybird beetles, competing ants, and caterpillar prey. However, contrary to other work in ant-Hemipteran mutualisms, we observed no evidence that food rewards provided by sap-feeders induced changes in ant behavior for either ant species examined. These results reveal the importance of considering interspecific differences in behavior as a mechanism underlying the ecological impacts of ant-Hemipteran protection mutualisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afkhami ME, Rudgers JA, Stachowicz JJ (2014) Multiple mutualist effects: conflict and synergy in multispecies mutualisms. Ecology 95:833–844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal AA, Ackerly DD, Adler F (2007) Filling key gaps in population and community ecology. Front Ecol Environ 5:145–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton BT, Ives AR (2014) Direct and indirect effects of warming on aphids, their predators, and ant mutualists. Ecology 95:1479–1484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bascompte J, Jordano P (2007) Plant-animal mutualistic networks: the architecture of biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:567–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronstein JL (2015) Mutualism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buczkowski G, Bennett GW (2008) Aggressive interactions between the introduced argentine ant, Linepithema humile and the native odorous house ant, Tapinoma sessile. Biol Invasions 10:1001–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain SA, Holland JN (2009) Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant-plant protection mutualisms. Ecology 90:2384–2392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain SA, Bronstein JL, Rudgers JA (2014) How context-dependent are species interactions? Ecol Lett 17:881–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng S, Zeng L, Xu Y (2015) Mutualism between fire ants and mealybugs reduces lady beetle predation. J Econ Entomol 108:1560–1569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen KL, Gallacher AP, Martin L, Tong D, Elgar MA (2010) Nutrient compensatory foraging in a free-living social insect. Naturwissenschaften 97:941–944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RE, Singer MS (2018) Keystone mutualism strengthens top–down effects by recruiting large-bodied ants. Oecologia 186(3):601–610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RE, Farkas TE, Lichter-Marck I, Johnson ER, Singer MS (2016) Multiple interaction types determine the impact of ant predation of caterpillars in a forest community. Ecology 97(12):3379–3388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DW (1998) Resource discovery versus resource domination in ants: a functional mechanism for breaking the trade-off. Ecol Entomol 23:484–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dejean A, Bourgoin T, Gibernau M (1997) Ant species that protect figs against other ants: result of territoriality induced by a mutualistic homopteran. Écoscience 4:446–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detrain C, Verheggen FJ, Diez L, Wathelet B, Haubruge E (2010) Aphid-ant mutualism: how honeydew sugars influence the behavior of ant scouts. Physiol Entomol 35:168–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison AM, Gotelli NJ, Farnsworth EJ, Alpert GD (2012) A field guide to the ants of New England. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, Second edn. Sage, Thousands Oaks

  • Grover CD, Kay AD, Monson JA (2007) Linking nutrition and behavioural dominance: carbohydrate scarcity limits aggression and activity in argentine ants. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:2951–2957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood WM, Horton PM, McCreadie JW (2003) Field evaluation of the red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera : Formicidae) for the control of wax moths (Lepidoptera : Pyralidae) in stored honey bee comb. J Agr Urban Entomol 20:93–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan I, Eubanks MD (2005) Aphids alter the community-wide impact of fire ants. Ecology 86:1640–1649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay AD, Zumbusch T, Heinen JL, Marsh TC, Holway DA (2010) Nutrition and interference competition have interactive effects on the behavior and performance of argentine ants. Ecology 91:57–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL (2010) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Langsrud Ø (2003) ANOVA for unbalanced data: use type II instead of type III sums of squares. Stat Comput 13:163–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenth RV (2016) Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69:1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlynn TP, Parra EL (2016) Mechanisms of carbohydrate-fuelled ecological dominance in a tropical rainforest canopy-foraging ant. Ecol Entomol 41:226–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney KA, Mandal K (2010) Competition hierarchies among ants and predation by birds jointly determine the strength of multi-species ant–aphid mutualisms. Oikos 119:874–882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morales MA, Barone JL, Henry CS (2008) Acoustic alarm signaling facilitates predator protection of treehoppers by mutualist ant bodyguards. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 275:1935–1941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ness JH, Morris WF, Bronstein JL (2009) For ant-protected plants, the best defense is a hungry offense. Ecology 90:2823–2831

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver TH, Leather SR, Cook JM (2008) Macroevolutionary patterns in the origin of mutualisms involving ants. J Evol Biol 21:1597–1608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer TM, Doak DF, Stanton ML, Bronstein JL, Kiers ET, Young TP, Goheen JR, Pringle RM (2010) Synergy of multiple partners, including freeloaders, increases host fitness in a multispecies mutualism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:17234–17239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Petry WK, Perry KI, Mooney KA (2012) Influence of macronutrient imbalance on native ant foraging and interspecific interactions in the field. Ecol Entomol 37:175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips ID, Willis CKR (2005) Defensive behavior of ants in a mutualistic relationship with aphids. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:321–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pringle EG, Gordon DM (2013) Protection mutualisms and the community: geographic variation in an ant-plant symbiosis and the consequences for herbivores. Sociobiology 60:242–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria http://www.R-project.org/

  • Rosumek FB, Silveira FAO, de S Neves F et al (2009) Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses. Oecologia 160:537–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roulston TH, Buczkowski G, Silverman J (2003) Nestmate discrimination in ants: effect of bioassay on aggressive behavior. Insect Soc 50:151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph KP, Palmer TM (2013) Carbohydrate as fuel for foraging, resource defense and colony growth - a long-term experiment with the plant-ant Crematogaster nigriceps. Biotropica 45:620–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders NJ, Gotelli NJ, Wittman SE, Ratchford JS, Ellison AM, Jules ES (2007) Assembly rules of ground-foraging ant assemblages are contingent on disturbance, habitat and spatial scale. J Biogeogr 34:1632–1641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shik JZ, Silverman J (2013) Towards a nutritional ecology of invasive establishment: aphid mutualists provide better fuel for incipient argentine ant colonies than insect prey. Biol Invasions 15:829–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shik JZ, Kay AD, Silverman J (2014) Aphid honeydew provides a nutritionally balanced resource for incipient argentine ant mutualists. Anim Behav 95:33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer MS, Johnson ER, Lichter-Marck IH, Clark RE, Mooney KA (2017) Predatory birds and ants partition caterpillar prey based on caterpillar body size and diet breadth. J Anim Ecol 86:1363–1371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler BA, Dixon FG (2008) Mutualism: ants and their insect partners. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton ML (2003) Interacting guilds: moving beyond the pairwise perspective on mutualisms. Am Nat 162:S10–S23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stenberg JA, Lehrman A, Bjorkman C (2011) Plant defence: feeding your bodyguards can be counter-productive. Basic Appl Ecol 12:629–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuble KL, Rodriguez-Cabal MA, McCormick GL, Juric I, Dunn RR (2013) Tradeoffs, competition, and coexistence in eastern deciduous forest ant communities. Oecologia 171:981–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2007) Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing insects. Proc Biol Sci 274:151–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2010) A facultative mutualism between aphids and an invasive ant increases plant reproduction. Ecol Entomol 35:190–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez AV, Holway DA, Liang D, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) Spatiotemporal patterns of intraspecific aggression in the invasive argentine ant. Anim Behav 64:697–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilder SM, Eubanks MD (2010) Extrafloral nectar content alters foraging preferences of a predatory ant. Biol Lett 6:177–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilder SM, Barnum TR, Holway DA, Suarez AV, Eubanks MD (2013) Introduced fire ants can exclude native ants from critical mutualist-provided resources. Oecologia 172:197–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wills BD, Chong CD, Wilder SM, Eubanks MD, Holway DA, Suarez AV (2015) Effect of carbohydrate supplementation on investment into offspring number, size, and condition in a social insect. PLoS One 10(7):e0132440

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wimp GM, Whitham TG (2001) Biodiversity consequences of predation and host plant hybridization on an aphid–ant mutualism. Ecology 82:440–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo HJS, Kizner MC, Holway DA (2013) Ecological effects of multi-species, ant-hemipteran mutualisms in citrus: ecological effects of a multi-species mutualism. Ecol Entomol 38:505–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang YZ (2012) The ecological effects of the ant–hemipteran mutualism: a meta-analysis. Basic App Ecol 13:116–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant DEB-1404177. Fieldwork components of this project could not have been completed without the help of Henok Alemu, Mattheau Comerford, Taiga Araki, Maxwell Atkinson, Pierre Gerard, and Delaine Winn. We thank Sonia E. Sultan, Frederick M. Cohan, and Manuel A. Morales for helpful feedback in the design of these experiments. We also acknowledge the Singer lab group for their constructive comments on early versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wesleyan University Department of Biology, Middletown, CT, USA

    Robert E. Clark & Michael S. Singer

Authors
  1. Robert E. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael S. Singer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

REC and MSS designed experiments and wrote and revised the manuscript. REC performed field experiments and analyzed data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert E. Clark.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 5166 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clark, R.E., Singer, M.S. Differences in Aggressive Behaviors between Two Ant Species Determine the Ecological Consequences of a Facultative Food-for-Protection Mutualism. J Insect Behav 31, 510–522 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-018-9695-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-018-9695-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation