Cargando…

Benefits for Plants in Ant-Plant Protective Mutualisms: A Meta-Analysis

Costs and benefits for partners in mutualistic interactions can vary greatly, but surprisingly little is known about the factors that drive this variation across systems. We conducted a meta-analysis of ant-plant protective mutualisms to quantify the effects of ant defenders on plant reproductive ou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trager, Matthew D., Bhotika, Smriti, Hostetler, Jeffrey A., Andrade, Gilda V., Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A., McKeon, C. Seabird, Osenberg, Craig W., Bolker, Benjamin M.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3008678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21203550
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014308
_version_ 1782194532720312320
author Trager, Matthew D.
Bhotika, Smriti
Hostetler, Jeffrey A.
Andrade, Gilda V.
Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A.
McKeon, C. Seabird
Osenberg, Craig W.
Bolker, Benjamin M.
author_facet Trager, Matthew D.
Bhotika, Smriti
Hostetler, Jeffrey A.
Andrade, Gilda V.
Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A.
McKeon, C. Seabird
Osenberg, Craig W.
Bolker, Benjamin M.
author_sort Trager, Matthew D.
collection PubMed
description Costs and benefits for partners in mutualistic interactions can vary greatly, but surprisingly little is known about the factors that drive this variation across systems. We conducted a meta-analysis of ant-plant protective mutualisms to quantify the effects of ant defenders on plant reproductive output, to evaluate if reproductive effects were predicted from reductions in herbivory and to identify characteristics of the plants, ants and environment that explained variation in ant protection. We also compared our approach with two other recent meta-analyses on ant-plant mutualisms, emphasizing differences in our methodology (using a weighted linear mixed effects model) and our focus on plant reproduction rather than herbivore damage. Based on 59 ant and plant species pairs, ant presence increased plant reproductive output by 49% and reduced herbivory by 62%. The effects on herbivory and reproduction within systems were positively correlated, but the slope of this relationship (0.75) indicated that tolerance to foliar herbivory may be a common plant response to absence of ant guards. Furthermore, the relationship between foliar damage and reproduction varied substantially among systems, suggesting that herbivore damage is not a reliable surrogate for fitness consequences of ant protection. Studies that experimentally excluded ants reported a smaller effect of ant protection on plant reproduction than studies that relied upon natural variation in ant presence, suggesting that study methods can affect results in these systems. Of the ecological variables included in our analysis, only plant life history (i.e., annual or perennial) explained variation in the protective benefit of mutualistic ants: presence of ants benefitted reproduction of perennials significantly more than that of annuals. These results contrast with other quantitative reviews of these relationships that did not include plant life history as an explanatory factor and raise several questions to guide future research on ant-plant protection mutualisms.
format Text
id pubmed-3008678
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30086782011-01-03 Benefits for Plants in Ant-Plant Protective Mutualisms: A Meta-Analysis Trager, Matthew D. Bhotika, Smriti Hostetler, Jeffrey A. Andrade, Gilda V. Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A. McKeon, C. Seabird Osenberg, Craig W. Bolker, Benjamin M. PLoS One Research Article Costs and benefits for partners in mutualistic interactions can vary greatly, but surprisingly little is known about the factors that drive this variation across systems. We conducted a meta-analysis of ant-plant protective mutualisms to quantify the effects of ant defenders on plant reproductive output, to evaluate if reproductive effects were predicted from reductions in herbivory and to identify characteristics of the plants, ants and environment that explained variation in ant protection. We also compared our approach with two other recent meta-analyses on ant-plant mutualisms, emphasizing differences in our methodology (using a weighted linear mixed effects model) and our focus on plant reproduction rather than herbivore damage. Based on 59 ant and plant species pairs, ant presence increased plant reproductive output by 49% and reduced herbivory by 62%. The effects on herbivory and reproduction within systems were positively correlated, but the slope of this relationship (0.75) indicated that tolerance to foliar herbivory may be a common plant response to absence of ant guards. Furthermore, the relationship between foliar damage and reproduction varied substantially among systems, suggesting that herbivore damage is not a reliable surrogate for fitness consequences of ant protection. Studies that experimentally excluded ants reported a smaller effect of ant protection on plant reproduction than studies that relied upon natural variation in ant presence, suggesting that study methods can affect results in these systems. Of the ecological variables included in our analysis, only plant life history (i.e., annual or perennial) explained variation in the protective benefit of mutualistic ants: presence of ants benefitted reproduction of perennials significantly more than that of annuals. These results contrast with other quantitative reviews of these relationships that did not include plant life history as an explanatory factor and raise several questions to guide future research on ant-plant protection mutualisms. Public Library of Science 2010-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3008678/ /pubmed/21203550 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014308 Text en Trager et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Trager, Matthew D.
Bhotika, Smriti
Hostetler, Jeffrey A.
Andrade, Gilda V.
Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A.
McKeon, C. Seabird
Osenberg, Craig W.
Bolker, Benjamin M.
Benefits for Plants in Ant-Plant Protective Mutualisms: A Meta-Analysis
title Benefits for Plants in Ant-Plant Protective Mutualisms: A Meta-Analysis
title_full Benefits for Plants in Ant-Plant Protective Mutualisms: A Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Benefits for Plants in Ant-Plant Protective Mutualisms: A Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Benefits for Plants in Ant-Plant Protective Mutualisms: A Meta-Analysis
title_short Benefits for Plants in Ant-Plant Protective Mutualisms: A Meta-Analysis
title_sort benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3008678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21203550
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014308
work_keys_str_mv AT tragermatthewd benefitsforplantsinantplantprotectivemutualismsametaanalysis
AT bhotikasmriti benefitsforplantsinantplantprotectivemutualismsametaanalysis
AT hostetlerjeffreya benefitsforplantsinantplantprotectivemutualismsametaanalysis
AT andradegildav benefitsforplantsinantplantprotectivemutualismsametaanalysis
AT rodriguezcabalmarianoa benefitsforplantsinantplantprotectivemutualismsametaanalysis
AT mckeoncseabird benefitsforplantsinantplantprotectivemutualismsametaanalysis
AT osenbergcraigw benefitsforplantsinantplantprotectivemutualismsametaanalysis
AT bolkerbenjaminm benefitsforplantsinantplantprotectivemutualismsametaanalysis