Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community?
Abstract 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...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Ecology and Evolution |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8524 |
| _version_ | 1797924546367455232 |
|---|---|
| author | Marion L. Donald Tom E. X. Miller |
| author_facet | Marion L. Donald Tom E. X. Miller |
| author_sort | Marion L. Donald |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T15:02:39Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0446967240194be0a030a2cf2678978e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-7758 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T15:02:39Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecology and Evolution |
| spelling | doaj.art-0446967240194be0a030a2cf2678978e2023-02-15T09:06:07ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582022-01-01121n/an/a10.1002/ece3.8524Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community?Marion L. Donald0Tom E. X. Miller1Program in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department of BioSciences Rice University Houston Texas USAProgram in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department of BioSciences Rice University Houston Texas USAAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8524Ant–plantcompositiondiversitymutualismpositive feedback |
| spellingShingle | Marion L. Donald Tom E. X. Miller Does ant–plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non‐partner ant community? Ecology and Evolution Ant–plant composition diversity mutualism positive feedback |
| 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 | Ant–plant composition diversity mutualism positive feedback |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8524 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marionldonald doesantplantmutualismhavespillovereffectsonthenonpartnerantcommunity AT tomexmiller doesantplantmutualismhavespillovereffectsonthenonpartnerantcommunity |