Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:03:43.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of extrafloral nectar availability and plant genotype on ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) visitation to quaking aspen (Salicaceae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2015

Jonathon R. Newman ,
Diane Wagner  and
Patricia Doak
Jonathon R. Newman
Affiliation:
Institute of Arctic Biology and Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775, United States of America
Diane Wagner*
Affiliation:
Institute of Arctic Biology and Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775, United States of America
Patricia Doak
Affiliation:
Institute of Arctic Biology and Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775, United States of America
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: diane.wagner@alaska.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michaux; Salicaceae) the rate of extrafloral (EF) sugar secretion is increased by defoliation and decreased by drought. Although wholesale blocking of EF nectar has been shown to reduce ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) visitation to aspen, the effect of more subtle and realistic variations in nectar availability on ant recruitment is unknown. Working in Alaskan boreal forest (United States of America), we reduced and supplemented EF nectar availability on potted aspen ramets of three genotypes and surveyed visitation by free-living Formica fusca (Linnaeus) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ants were more responsive to a subtle increase in sugar availability than to a decrease. While nectar reduction had no effect on ant visitation, nectar supplementation increased ant visitation to one aspen genotype by 70% during an early summer trial. Average ant visitation to different aspen genotypes varied during the late summer, indicating that aspen genotype can influence attractiveness to ants. We conclude that natural induction of EF secretion in response to herbivory may benefit aspen through improved ant recruitment, though the response is dependent on aspen genotype and time of year. Differences among aspen genets in attractiveness to ants could influence the relative success of genotypes, especially in settings in which aspen regenerates from seed.

Type
Behaviour & Ecology
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 148 , Issue 1 , February 2016 , pp. 36 - 42
Copyright
© Entomological Society of Canada 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: Justin Schmidt

References

Apple, J.L. and Feener, D.H. 2001. Ant visitation of extrafloral nectaries of Passiflora: the effects of nectary attributes and ant behavior on patterns in facultative ant-plant mutualisms. Oecologia, 127: 409–416.Google Scholar
Blüthgen, N. and Feldhaar, H. 2010. Food and shelter: how resources influence ant ecology. In Ant ecology. Edited by L. Lach, C.L. Parr, and K.L. Abbott. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Pp. 115–136.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, S.A. and Holland, J.N. 2008. Density-mediated, context-dependent consumer–resource interactions between ants and extrafloral nectar plants. Ecology, 89: 1364–1374. doi:10.1890/07-1139.1.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, S.A. and Holland, J.N. 2009. Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant-plant protection mutualisms. Ecology, 90: 2384–2392.Google Scholar
De Woody, J., Rickman, T.H., Jones, B.E., and Hipkins, V.D. 2009. Allozyme and microsatellite data reveal small clone size and high genetic diversity in aspen in the southern Cascade Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management, 258: 687–696.Google Scholar
Doak, P., Wagner, D., and Watson, A. 2007. Variable extrafloral nectary expression and its consequences in quaking aspen. Canadian Journal of Botany, 85: 1–9. doi:10.1139/B06-137.Google Scholar
Dussutour, A. and Simpson, S.J. 2008. Carbohydrate regulation in relation to colony growth in ants. Journal of Experimental Biology, 211: 2224–2232. doi:10.1242/jeb.017509.Google Scholar
Dussutour, A. and Simpson, S.J. 2009. Communal nutrition in ants. Current Biology, 19: 740–744. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.03.015.Google Scholar
Eller, A.S.D., de Gouw, J., Graus, M., and Monson, R.K. 2012. Variation among different genotypes of hybrid poplar with regard to leaf volatile organic compound emissions. Ecological Applications, 22: 1865–1875.Google Scholar
Francoeur, A. 1973. Révision taxonomique des espèces néarctiques du groupe fusca, genre Formica (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). Mémoires de la Société Entomologique du Québec, 3: 1–316.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Teuber, M. and Heil, M. 2009. Nectar chemistry is tailored for both attraction of mutualists and protection from exploiters. Plant Signaling & Behavior, 4: 809–813.Google Scholar
Heil, M. 2004. Induction of two indirect defences benefits lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae) in nature. Journal of Ecology, 92: 527–536.Google Scholar
Heil, M. 2008. Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytologist, 178: 41–61.Google Scholar
Heil, M. 2011. Nectar: generation, regulation and ecological functions. Trends in Plant Science, 16: 191–200.Google Scholar
Jelinski, D.E. and Cheliak, W.M. 1992. Genetic diversity and spatial subdivision of Populus tremuloides Salicaceae) in a heterogeneous landscape. American Journal of Botany, 79: 728–736.Google Scholar
Johnstone, J.F., Hollingsworth, T.N., Chapin, F.S., and Mack, M.C. 2010. Changes in fire regime break the legacy lock on successional trajectories in Alaskan boreal forest. Global Change Biology, 16: 1281–1295. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02051.x.Google Scholar
Katayama, N. and Suzuki, N. 2003. Changes in the use of extrafloral nectaries of Vicia faba (Leguminosae) and honeydew of aphids by ants with increasing aphid density. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 96: 579–584.Google Scholar
Koptur, S. 2005. Nectar as fuel for plant protectors. In Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects: a protective mutualism and its applications. Edited by F.L. Wackers and P.C.J. van Rijn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Pp. 75–108.Google Scholar
Kost, C. and Heil, M. 2005. Increased availability of extrafloral nectar reduces herbivory in lima bean plants (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae). Basic and Applied Ecology, 6: 237–248.Google Scholar
Landhäusser, S.M., Deshaies, D., and Lieffers, V.J. 2010. Disturbance facilitates rapid range expansion of aspen into higher elevations of the Rocky Mountains under a warming climate. Journal of Biogeography, 37: 68–76. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02182.x.Google Scholar
Long, J.N. and Mock, K. 2012. Changing perspectives on regeneration ecology and genetic diversity in western quaking aspen: implications for silviculture. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42: 2011–2021. doi:10.1139/x2012-143.Google Scholar
Mortensen, B., Wagner, D., and Doak, P. 2011. Defensive effects of extrafloral nectaries in quaking aspen differ with scale. Oecologia, 165: 983–993. doi:10.1007/s00442-010-1799-6.Google Scholar
Mortensen, B., Wagner, D., and Doak, P. 2013. Parental resource and offspring liability: the influence of extrafloral nectar on oviposition by a leaf-mining moth. Oecologia, 172: 767–777. doi:10.1007/s00442-012-2525-3.Google Scholar
Newman, J. and Wagner, D. 2013. The influence of defoliation and water availability on extrafloral nectar secretion in quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx). Botany, 91: 761–767.Google Scholar
Romme, W.H., Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., Hargrove, W.W., Tuskan, G.A., Despain, D.G., et al. 1997. A rare episode of sexual reproduction in aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx) following the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Natural Areas Journal, 17: 17–25.Google Scholar
Rosumek, F.B., Silveira, F.A.O., Neves, F.d.S., Barbosa, N.P.d.U., Diniz, L., Oki, Y., et al. 2009. Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the roles of ants as plant biotic defenses. Oecologia, 160: 537–549.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. and Strauss, S.Y. 2004. A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism betweeen ants and wild cotton. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271: 2481–2488.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 2008. SAS/STAT 9.2 user’s guide. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, United States of America.Google Scholar
Trager, M.D., Smriti, B., Hostetler, J.A., Andrade, G.V., Rodriguez-Cabal, M.A., McKeon, C.S., et al. 2010. Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis. Public Library of Science One, 5: e14308. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014308.Google Scholar
Wagner, D. and Doak, P. 2013. Long term impact of a leaf miner outbreak on the performance of quaking aspen. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 43: 563–568. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2012-0486.Google Scholar
Wooley, S.C., Donaldson, J.R., Gusse, A.C., Lindroth, R.L., and Stevens, M.T. 2007. Extrafloral nectaries in aspen (Populus tremuloides): heritable genetic variation and herbivore-induced expression. Annals of Botany, 100: 1337–1346.Google Scholar
Yamawo, A., Hada, Y., and Suzuki, N. 2012. Variations in direct and indirect defenses against herbivores on young plants of Mallotus japonicus in relation to soil moisture conditions. Journal of Plant Research, 125: 71–76. doi:10.1007/s10265-011-0407-0.Google Scholar