Cargando…

Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community?

Mutualism benefits partner species, and theory predicts these partnerships can affect the abundance, diversity, and composition of partner and non‐partner species. We used 16 years of monitoring data to determine the ant partner species of tree cholla cacti (Cylindropuntia imbricata), which reward a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Donald, Marion L., Miller, Tom E. X.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8796954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35127034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8524
_version_ 1784641432872550400
author Donald, Marion L.
Miller, Tom E. X.
author_facet Donald, Marion L.
Miller, Tom E. X.
author_sort Donald, Marion L.
collection PubMed
description Mutualism benefits partner species, and theory predicts these partnerships can affect the abundance, diversity, and composition of partner and non‐partner species. We used 16 years of monitoring data to determine the ant partner species of tree cholla cacti (Cylindropuntia imbricata), which reward ants with extrafloral nectar in exchange for anti‐herbivore defense. These long‐term data revealed one dominant ant partner (Liometopum apiculatum) and two less common partners (Crematogaster opuntiae and Forelius pruinosus). We then used short‐term characterization of the terrestrial ant community by pitfall trapping to sample partner and non‐partner ant species across ten plots of varying cactus density. We found that the dominant ant partner tended a higher proportion cacti in plots of higher cactus density, and was also found at higher occurrence within the pitfall traps in higher density plots, suggesting a strong positive feedback that promotes ant partner occurrence where plant partners are available. Despite the strong association and increased partner occurrence, ant community‐wide effects from this mutualism appear limited. Of the common ant species, the occurrence of a single non‐partner ant species was negatively associated with cactus density and with the increased presence of L. apiculatum. Additionally, the composition and diversity of the ant community in our plots were insensitive to cactus density variation, indicating that positive effects of the mutualism on the dominant ant partner did not have cascading impacts on the ant community. This study provides novel evidence that exclusive mutualisms, even those with a strong positive feedback, may be limited in the scope of their community‐level effects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8796954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87969542022-02-04 Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community? Donald, Marion L. Miller, Tom E. X. Ecol Evol Research Articles Mutualism benefits partner species, and theory predicts these partnerships can affect the abundance, diversity, and composition of partner and non‐partner species. We used 16 years of monitoring data to determine the ant partner species of tree cholla cacti (Cylindropuntia imbricata), which reward ants with extrafloral nectar in exchange for anti‐herbivore defense. These long‐term data revealed one dominant ant partner (Liometopum apiculatum) and two less common partners (Crematogaster opuntiae and Forelius pruinosus). We then used short‐term characterization of the terrestrial ant community by pitfall trapping to sample partner and non‐partner ant species across ten plots of varying cactus density. We found that the dominant ant partner tended a higher proportion cacti in plots of higher cactus density, and was also found at higher occurrence within the pitfall traps in higher density plots, suggesting a strong positive feedback that promotes ant partner occurrence where plant partners are available. Despite the strong association and increased partner occurrence, ant community‐wide effects from this mutualism appear limited. Of the common ant species, the occurrence of a single non‐partner ant species was negatively associated with cactus density and with the increased presence of L. apiculatum. Additionally, the composition and diversity of the ant community in our plots were insensitive to cactus density variation, indicating that positive effects of the mutualism on the dominant ant partner did not have cascading impacts on the ant community. This study provides novel evidence that exclusive mutualisms, even those with a strong positive feedback, may be limited in the scope of their community‐level effects. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8796954/ /pubmed/35127034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8524 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Donald, Marion L.
Miller, Tom E. X.
Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community?
title Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community?
title_full Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community?
title_fullStr Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community?
title_full_unstemmed Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community?
title_short Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community?
title_sort does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community?
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8796954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35127034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8524
work_keys_str_mv AT donaldmarionl doesantplantmutualismhavespillovereffectsonthenonpartnerantcommunity
AT millertomex doesantplantmutualismhavespillovereffectsonthenonpartnerantcommunity