Do herbivores eavesdrop on ant chemical communication to avoid predation?

Strong effects of predator chemical cues on prey are common in aquatic and marine ecosystems, but are thought to be rare in terrestrial systems and specifically for arthropods. For ants, herbivores are hypothesized to eavesdrop on ant chemical communication and thereby avoid predation or confrontati...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: David J Gonthier
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3250387?pdf=render
id doaj-a2b69750c2754dfcb87202cc14515e17
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a2b69750c2754dfcb87202cc14515e172020-11-25T00:53:55ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032012-01-0171e2870310.1371/journal.pone.0028703Do herbivores eavesdrop on ant chemical communication to avoid predation?David J GonthierStrong effects of predator chemical cues on prey are common in aquatic and marine ecosystems, but are thought to be rare in terrestrial systems and specifically for arthropods. For ants, herbivores are hypothesized to eavesdrop on ant chemical communication and thereby avoid predation or confrontation. Here I tested the effect of ant chemical cues on herbivore choice and herbivory. Using Margaridisa sp. flea beetles and leaves from the host tree (Conostegia xalapensis), I performed paired-leaf choice feeding experiments. Coating leaves with crushed ant liquids (Azteca instabilis), exposing leaves to ant patrolling prior to choice tests (A. instabilis and Camponotus textor) and comparing leaves from trees with and without A. instabilis nests resulted in more herbivores and herbivory on control (no ant-treatment) relative to ant-treatment leaves. In contrast to A. instabilis and C. textor, leaves previously patrolled by Solenopsis geminata had no difference in beetle number and damage compared to control leaves. Altering the time A. instabilis patrolled treatment leaves prior to choice tests (0-, 5-, 30-, 90-, 180-min.) revealed treatment effects were only statistically significant after 90- and 180-min. of prior leaf exposure. This study suggests, for two ecologically important and taxonomically diverse genera (Azteca and Camponotus), ant chemical cues have important effects on herbivores and that these effects may be widespread across the ant family. It suggests that the effect of chemical cues on herbivores may only appear after substantial previous ant activity has occurred on plant tissues. Furthermore, it supports the hypothesis that herbivores use ant chemical communication to avoid predation or confrontation with ants.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3250387?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author David J Gonthier
spellingShingle David J Gonthier
Do herbivores eavesdrop on ant chemical communication to avoid predation?
PLoS ONE
author_facet David J Gonthier
author_sort David J Gonthier
title Do herbivores eavesdrop on ant chemical communication to avoid predation?
title_short Do herbivores eavesdrop on ant chemical communication to avoid predation?
title_full Do herbivores eavesdrop on ant chemical communication to avoid predation?
title_fullStr Do herbivores eavesdrop on ant chemical communication to avoid predation?
title_full_unstemmed Do herbivores eavesdrop on ant chemical communication to avoid predation?
title_sort do herbivores eavesdrop on ant chemical communication to avoid predation?
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2012-01-01
description Strong effects of predator chemical cues on prey are common in aquatic and marine ecosystems, but are thought to be rare in terrestrial systems and specifically for arthropods. For ants, herbivores are hypothesized to eavesdrop on ant chemical communication and thereby avoid predation or confrontation. Here I tested the effect of ant chemical cues on herbivore choice and herbivory. Using Margaridisa sp. flea beetles and leaves from the host tree (Conostegia xalapensis), I performed paired-leaf choice feeding experiments. Coating leaves with crushed ant liquids (Azteca instabilis), exposing leaves to ant patrolling prior to choice tests (A. instabilis and Camponotus textor) and comparing leaves from trees with and without A. instabilis nests resulted in more herbivores and herbivory on control (no ant-treatment) relative to ant-treatment leaves. In contrast to A. instabilis and C. textor, leaves previously patrolled by Solenopsis geminata had no difference in beetle number and damage compared to control leaves. Altering the time A. instabilis patrolled treatment leaves prior to choice tests (0-, 5-, 30-, 90-, 180-min.) revealed treatment effects were only statistically significant after 90- and 180-min. of prior leaf exposure. This study suggests, for two ecologically important and taxonomically diverse genera (Azteca and Camponotus), ant chemical cues have important effects on herbivores and that these effects may be widespread across the ant family. It suggests that the effect of chemical cues on herbivores may only appear after substantial previous ant activity has occurred on plant tissues. Furthermore, it supports the hypothesis that herbivores use ant chemical communication to avoid predation or confrontation with ants.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3250387?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT davidjgonthier doherbivoreseavesdroponantchemicalcommunicationtoavoidpredation
_version_ 1725235903228542976