Arthropod-Plant Interactions

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 59–67 | Cite as

Invasive interactions: can Argentine ants indirectly increase the reproductive output of a weed?

  • Margaret C. Stanley
  • Helen W. Nathan
  • Lara K. Phillips
  • Sarah J. Knight
  • Josie A. Galbraith
  • Chris J. Winks
  • Darren F. Ward
Original paper


The direct and indirect interactions of invasive ants with plants, insect herbivores, and Hemiptera are complex. While ant and Hemiptera interactions with native plants have been well studied, the effects of invasive ant–scale insect mutualisms on the reproductive output of invasive weeds have not. The study system consisted of Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera monilifera), and sap-sucking scale insects (Hemiptera: Saissetia oleae and Parasaissetia nigra), all of which are invasive in New Zealand. We examined the direct and indirect effects of Argentine ants on scale insects and other invertebrates (especially herbivores) and on plant reproductive output. Argentine ants spent one-third of their time specifically associated with scale insects in tending behaviours. The invertebrate community was significantly different between uninfested and infested plants, with fewer predators and herbivores on ant-infested plants. Herbivore damage was significantly reduced on plants with Argentine ants, but sooty mould colonisation was greater where ants were present. Herbivore damage increased when ants were excluded from plants. Boneseed plants infested with Argentine ants produced significantly more fruits than plants without ants. The increase in reproductive output in the presence of ants may be due to increased pollination as the result of pollinators being forced to relocate frequently to avoid attack by ants, resulting in an increase in pollen transfer and higher fruit/seed set. The consequences of Argentine ant invasion can be varied; not only does their invasion have consequences for maintaining biodiversity, ant invasion may also affect weed and pest management strategies.


Linepithema humile Boneseed Indirect effects Mutualism Scale insect 



We thank the Auckland City Council for permission to work in Te Whau Point reserve. We also thank Jo Rees for data checking, Rosa Henderson for identifying the scale insects, and Stephen Thorpe for identifying other invertebrates. Greg Arnold and Guy Forrester helped with statistical design and analyses. Richard Toft, Shaun Forgie and two anonymous reviewers improved earlier versions of the manuscript. This work was funded by the University of Auckland summer student scholarship programme (to L. Phillips, H. Nathan, J. Galbraith, S. Knight) and the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (C09X0211) and complies with New Zealand laws.


  1. Abbott KL, Green PT (2007) Collapse of an ant–scale mutualism in a rainforest on Christmas Island. Oikos 116:1238–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altshuler DL (1999) Novel interactions of non-pollinating ants with pollinators and fruit consumers in a tropical forest. Oecologia 119:600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach CE (1991) Direct and indirect interactions between ants (Pheidole megacephala), scales (Coccus viridis) and plants (Pluchea indica). Oecologia 87:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beggs JR (2001) The ecological consequences of social wasps (Vespula spp.) invading an ecosystem that has an abundant carbohydrate resource. Biol Conserv 99:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blancafort X, Gomez C (2005) Consequences of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (Mayr), invasion on pollination of Euphorbia characias (L.) (Euphorbiaceae). Acta Oecol 28:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briden K (2008) Current status and management of boneseed in New Zealand. Plant Prot Q 23(1):20–22Google Scholar
  7. Buckley RC (1987) Interactions involving plants, Homoptera, and ants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:111–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chamberlain SA, Holland JN (2009) Quantitative synthesis of context-dependency in ant-plant protection mutualisms. Ecology 90(9):2384–2392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2005) Change in marine communities. An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edn. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  10. Denno RF, McClure MS, Ott JR (1995) Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects: competition revisited and resurrected. Ann Rev Entomol 40:297–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gastreich KR (1999) Trait-mediated indirect effects of a Theridiid spider on an ant–plant mutualism. Ecology 80:1066–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Green OR (1990) Entomologist sets new record at Mt Smart for Iridomyrmex humilis established in New Zealand. Weta 13:14–16Google Scholar
  13. Harris R, Ward D, Sutherland MA (2002) A survey of the current distribution of Argentine ants, Linepithema humile, in native habitats in New Zealand, and assessment of future risk of establishment. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0102/105 to Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Biosecurity Authority. Accessed 20/3/12
  14. Helms KR, Vinson SB (2003) Apparent facilitation of an invasive mealybug by an invasive ant. Insectes Soc 50:403–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hodgson CJ, Henderson RC (2000) Coccidae (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccoidea). Fauna of New Zealand 41. Manaaki Whenua Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoeksema JD, Bruna EM (2000) Pursuing the big questions about interspecific mutualism: a review of theoretical approaches. Oecologia 125:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  18. Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:181–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kessler A, Baldwin IT (2002) Plant responses to insect herbivory: the emerging molecular analysis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 53:299–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krivan V, Schmitz OJ (2004) Trait and density mediated indirect interactions in simple food webs. Oikos 107:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lach L (2003) Invasive ants: unwanted partners in ant–plant interactions. Ann Mo Bot Gard 90:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lach L (2007) A mutualism with a native membracid facilitates pollinator displacement by Argentine ants. Ecology 88:1994–2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lach L (2008) Argentine ants displace floral arthropods in a biodiversity hotspot. Divers Distrib 14:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lach L, Tillberg CV, Suarez AV (2010) Contrasting effects of an invasive ant on a native and an invasive plant. Biol Invasions 12:3123–3133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer GA (2000) Effects of insect feeding on growth and fitness of goldenrod (Solidago altissima). Recent Res Develop Entomol 3:29–41Google Scholar
  26. Ness JH (2006) A mutualism’s indirect costs: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos 113:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ness JH, Bronstein JL (2004) The effects of invasive ants on prospective ant mutualists. Biol Invas 6:445–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norbury G (2001) Conserving dryland lizards by reducing predator-mediated apparent competition and direct competition with introduced rabbits. J Appl Ecol 38:1350–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Dowd DJ, Green PT, Lake PS (2003) Invasional ‘meltdown’ on an oceanic island. Ecol Lett 6:812–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rooney TP, Waller DM (2003) Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manage 181:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schoener TW (1993) On the relative importance of direct versus indirect effects in ecological communities. In: Kawanabe H, Cohen JE, Iwasaki K (eds) Mutualism and community organization: behavioral, theoretical, and food web approaches. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 365–411Google Scholar
  32. Schoener TW, Spiller DA, Losos JB (2002) Predation on a common Anolis lizard: can the food-web effects of a devastating predator be reversed? Ecol Monogr 72:383–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Siddon CE, Witman JD (2004) Behavioral indirect interactions: multiple predator effects and prey switching in shallow rocky subtidal zone. Ecology 85:2938–2945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Invas 1:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stanley MC, Ward DF (2012) Impacts of Argentine ants on invertebrate communities with below-ground consequences. Biodivers Conserv (in press)Google Scholar
  36. Stanley MC, Ward DF, Harris RJ, Arnold G, Toft R, Rees J (2008) Optimising pitfall sampling for the detection of Argentine ants, Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiol 51:461–472Google Scholar
  37. Strauss SY (1991) Indirect effects in community ecology: their definition, study and importance. Trends Ecol Evol 6:206–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2007) The ecological consequences of ant-hemipteran interactions. Proc Roy Soc B 274:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Styrsky JD, Eubanks MD (2010) A facultative mutualism between aphids and an invasive ant increases plant reproduction. Ecol Entomol 35:190–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trager MD, Bhotika S, Hostetler JA, Andrade GV, Rodriguez-Cabal MA, McKeon CS, Osenberg CW, Bolker BM (2010) Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 5(12):e14308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014308 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Traveset A, Richardson DM (2006) Biological invasions as disruptors of plant reproductive mutualisms. Tree 21:208–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Veech JA (2000) Predator-mediated interactions among the seeds of desert plants. Oecologia 124:402–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ward DF, Harris R (2005) Invasibility of native habitats by Argentine ants, Linepithema humile, in New Zealand. NZ J Ecol 29:215–219Google Scholar
  45. Ward DF, Harris RJ, Stanley MC (2005) Human-mediated range expansion of Argentine ants Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in New Zealand. Sociobiology 45:401–408Google Scholar
  46. Ward DF, Green C, Harris RJ, Hartley S, Lester PJ, Stanley MC, Suckling DM, Toft RJ (2010) Twenty years of Argentine ants in New Zealand: past research and future priorities for applied management. NZ Entomol 33:67–78Google Scholar
  47. Way MJ (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing Homoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 8:307–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weiss PW, Adair PB, Edwards MA, Winkler MA, Downey PO (2008) Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera (l.) T. Norl. and subsp. rotundata (DC.) T. Norl Plant Prot Q 23:3–14Google Scholar
  49. Winks CJ, Fowler SV, Smith LA (2004) Invertebrate fauna of boneseed, Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. monilifera (L.) T. Norl. (Asteraceae: Calenduleae), an invasive weed in New Zealand. NZ Entomol 27:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wootton JT (1994) The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:443–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret C. Stanley
    • 1
  • Helen W. Nathan
    • 1
  • Lara K. Phillips
    • 1
  • Sarah J. Knight
    • 1
  • Josie A. Galbraith
    • 1
  • Chris J. Winks
    • 2
  • Darren F. Ward
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Biodiversity and Biosecurity, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Landcare ResearchAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations