12 research outputs found

    Predation success by a plant-ant indirectly favours the growth and fitness of its host myrmecophyte

    Get PDF
    Mutualisms, or interactions between species that lead to net fitness benefits for each species involved, are stable and ubiquitous in nature mostly due to "byproduct benefits" stemming from the intrinsic traits of one partner that generate an indirect and positive outcome for the other. Here we verify if myrmecotrophy (where plants obtain nutrients from the refuse of their associated ants) can explain the stability of the tripartite association between the myrmecophyte Hirtella physophora, the ant Allomerus decemarticulatus and an Ascomycota fungus. The plant shelters and provides the ants with extrafloral nectar. The ants protect the plant from herbivores and integrate the fungus into the construction of a trap that they use to capture prey; they also provide the fungus and their host plant with nutrients. During a 9-month field study, we over-provisioned experimental ant colonies with insects, enhancing colony fitness (i.e., more winged females were produced). The rate of partial castration of the host plant, previously demonstrated, was not influenced by the experiment. Experimental plants showed higher ÎŽÂč⁔N values (confirming myrmecotrophy), plus enhanced vegetative growth (e.g., more leaves produced increased the possibility of lodging ants in leaf pouches) and fitness (i.e., more fruits produced and more flowers that matured into fruit). This study highlights the importance of myrmecotrophy on host plant fitness and the stability of ant-myrmecophyte mutualisms

    Conflicts and evolutionary stability of a tripartite mutualism between plants, ants and fungi

    No full text
    Les mutualismes, interactions interspĂ©cifiques oĂč chaque partenaire retire un bĂ©nĂ©fice net de leur association, sont centraux dans l’origine et l’organisation de la biodiversitĂ©. Bien que globalement bĂ©nĂ©fiques pour chacun des partenaires, ces interactions n’enlĂšvent rien Ă  l’égoĂŻsme inhĂ©rent de chaque espĂšce pour sa survie et sa reproduction, gĂ©nĂ©rant des conflits d’intĂ©rĂȘts entre les espĂšces. Ainsi, comprendre les processus Ă©cologiques et Ă©volutifs qui maintiennent le caractĂšre mutualiste d’interactions entre plusieurs espĂšces est primordial dans la comprĂ©hension du maintien de la biodiversitĂ©. NĂ©anmoins, le corpus scientifique s’est jusqu'Ă  prĂ©sent surtout concentrĂ© sur des paires d’espĂšces en interaction. Or, ces avancĂ©es scientifiques restent partielles car la plupart de ces interactions s’englobent dans un contexte communautaire. C’est dans ce cadre conceptuel que se place mon travail de thĂšse. Alors que la diversitĂ© structurelle des mutualismes de protection entre plantes et fourmis en ont fait un modĂšle d’étude clĂ© dans la comprĂ©hension des mutualismes, j’ai concentrĂ© mes recherches sur l’intĂ©gration d’un troisiĂšme partenaire fongique pour comprendre ses consĂ©quences sur les rĂ©sultantes Ă©cologiques et Ă©volutives de ces mutualismes tripartites. Je me suis tout d’abord intĂ©ressĂ© Ă  dĂ©finir la relation qui lie de façon mutualiste le champignon aux deux autres partenaires et Ă  Ă©tablir les conflits d’intĂ©rĂȘts Ă©manant de ces diffĂ©rentes interactions pour comprendre quels facteurs permettaient de les rĂ©guler. Ainsi, la relation qui lie le champignon aux fourmis peut ĂȘtre qualifiĂ©e d’agriculture. Les fourmis protĂšgent, nourrissent et dissĂ©minent le champignon et celui-ci, via ses propriĂ©tĂ©s structurales, permet l’élaboration de galeries servant de piĂšge pour capturer des proies. Ce phĂ©nomĂšne crĂ©e cependant un conflit d’allocation de la force ouvriĂšre des fourmis et nuit directement aux bĂ©nĂ©fices de la plante par une diminution de l’intensitĂ© des patrouilles sur ses feuilles, diminuant consĂ©cutivement sa protection et sa fitness. NĂ©anmoins, le rĂŽle du champignon dans les transferts de nutriments entre les fourmis et la plante, ainsi que certaines rĂ©ponses Ă©volutives de la plante permettent de rĂ©guler ces conflits, stabilisant les bĂ©nĂ©fices nets de chaque partenaire dans ce mutualisme tripartite. Puis, je me suis concentrĂ© Ă  comprendre comment certains facteurs Ă©volutifs pouvaient moduler cette rĂ©sultante Ă©cologique. La prise en compte du caractĂšre multipartite d’un mutualisme change radicalement la vision de l’évolution des mutualismes jusqu’alors Ă©tudiĂ©e entre paires d’espĂšces. Alors que le corpus scientifique s’accorde Ă  dire que la spĂ©cialisation entre espĂšce par coĂ©volution renforce la stabilitĂ© et les bĂ©nĂ©fices perçus par chaque partenaire, le contexte multipartite semble altĂ©rer ces prĂ©dictions. Au contraire la spĂ©cialisation multipartite peut ĂȘtre dans certains cas un moteur d’instabilitĂ© et de baisse des bĂ©nĂ©fices. Enfin cette thĂšse permet de faire le lien entre deux concepts qui s’opposent : la coĂ©volution diffuse et la coĂ©volution par paire. Je montre ainsi que la coĂ©volution peut intervenir sur plus de deux espĂšces Ă  la fois, mais qu’elle peut quand mĂȘme entrainer une spĂ©cialisation multispĂ©cifique. Finalement, au contraire des prĂ©dictions de la coĂ©volution diffuse, cette thĂšse montre que plusieurs pressions de sĂ©lection contrastĂ©es Ă©manant de diffĂ©rentes espĂšces envers un seul trait d’une troisiĂšme espĂšce peuvent promouvoir la spĂ©cialisation multi-spĂ©cifique.Mutualisms, defined as interspecific interactions where each partner receives net benefices from their interactions, are central to the organization of earth biodiversity. Although globally beneficial for each partner, such interactions do not modify the inherent selfishness of species for their survival and reproduction, generating conflicts of interests between species. Thus understanding the ecological and the evolutionary processes maintaining positive outcomes in mutualisms is fundamental to understand how mutualisms shape earth biodiversity. However, scientific research on mutualisms has most of the time focused on interaction between pairs of species. Such knowledge is thus partial as mutualisms are embraced in a community context. My doctoral thesis takes place in this conceptual framework. I focused my research on the integration of a third fungal partner in protective interactions between ants and plants to evaluate its consequences on the ecological and evolutionary outcomes of such mutualisms, taken as multispecies interactions. I first focused my researches in defining the mutualistic interaction linking the fungal partner with its two other associates and in revealing any conflict of interests and their regulation that may emerge from such tripartite interactions. The interactions between the ants and the fungi can be qualified as a case of non-food fungiculture. The ants protect, provide food and disseminate the fungus, and the latter, thanks to its structural properties, allows the elaboration of galleries used that are then used as trap to capture preys. This phenomenon creates a conflict of interest in the allocation of the worker force, altering host plant benefits through a decrease of worker patrolling activity and consequently leaves protection and thus fitness. However, the role of the fungus in the nutrient transfers between ants and plants added to evolutionary responses from the plant allows regulating this conflict, stabilizing the net benefits towards the plant. Then I have concentrated my researches in understanding how evolutionary factors would modulate the ecological outcomes of such interactions. Taking into account the multispecific character of mutualisms changes radically the vision on the evolution of mutualisms when pair of species are considered. While it is widely accepted that specialization of mutualist species through coevolution reinforce the stability of the interaction and the net benefit of each partner, the multispecific context seems to deviate these predictions. Conversely, I show that specialization between three mutualistic partners can drive instability and decrease of benefits. Finally, the results of this thesis join the gap between two previously opposed concepts: diffuse coevolution and pairwise coevolution. I show that coevolution can happen between more than two species simultaneously and that it can drive mutlispecific specialization. Opposed to the diffuse coevolution, I show that contrasting selective pressures on a same trait from different partner can promote specialization of species

    Convergent structure and function of mycelial galleries in two unrelated Neotropical plant-ants

    Get PDF
    International audienceThe construction process and use of galleries by Azteca brevis (Myrmicinae: Dolichoderinae) inhabiting Tetrathylacium macrophyllum (Salicaceae) were compared with Allomerus decemarticulatus (Myrmicinae: Solenopsidini) galleries on Hirtella physophora (Chrysobalanaceae). Though the two ant species are phylogenetically distant, the gallery structure seems to be surprisingly similar and structurally convergent: both are pierced with numerous holes and both ant species use Chaetothyrialean fungi to strengthen the gallery walls. Al. decemarticulatus is known to use the galleries for prey capture and whether this is also the case for Az. brevis was tested in field experiments. We placed Atta workers as potential prey/threat on the galleries and recorded the behaviour of both ant species. We found considerable behavioural differences between them: Al. decemarticulatus was quicker and more efficient at capture than was Az. brevis. While most Atta workers were captured after the first 5 min by Al. decemarticulatus, significantly fewer were captured by Az. brevis even after 20 min. Moreover, the captured Atta were sometimes simply discarded and not taken to the nest by Az. brevis. As a consequence, the major function of the galleries built by Az. brevis may, therefore, be defense against intruders in contrast to Al. decemarticulatus which uses them mainly for prey capture. This may be due to a higher need for protein in Al. decemarticulatus compared to coccid-raising Az. brevis

    Data from: Trade-offs in an ant–plant–fungus mutualism

    No full text
    Species engaged in multiple, simultaneous mutualisms are subject to trade-offs in their mutualistic investment if the traits involved in each interaction are overlapping, which can lead to conflicts and affect the longevity of these associations. We investigate this issue via a tripartite mutualism involving an ant plant, two competing ant species and a fungus the ants cultivate to build galleries under the stems of their host plant to capture insect prey. The use of the galleries represents an innovative prey capture strategy compared with the more typical strategy of foraging on leaves. However, because of a limited worker force in their colonies, the prey capture behaviour of the ants results in a trade-off between plant protection (i.e. the ants patrol the foliage and attack intruders including herbivores) and ambushing prey in the galleries, which has a cascading effect on the fitness of all of the partners. The quantification of partners' traits and effects showed that the two ant species differed in their mutualistic investment. Less investment in the galleries (i.e. in fungal cultivation) translated into more benefits for the plant in terms of less herbivory and higher growth rates and vice versa. However, the greater vegetative growth of the plants did not produce a positive fitness effect for the better mutualistic ant species in terms of colony size and production of sexuals nor was the mutualist compensated by the wider dispersal of its queens. As a consequence, although the better ant mutualist is the one that provides more benefits to its host plant, its lower host–plant exploitation does not give this ant species a competitive advantage. The local coexistence of the ant species is thus fleeting and should eventually lead to the exclusion of the less competitive species

    Trade-offs in an ant–plant–fungus mutualism

    No full text
    Species engaged in multiple, simultaneous mutualisms are subject to trade-offs in their mutualistic investment if the traits involved in each interaction are overlapping, which can lead to conflicts and affect the longevity of these associations. We investigate this issue via a tripartite mutualism involving an ant plant, two competing ant species and a fungus the ants cultivate to build galleries under the stems of their host plant to capture insect prey. The use of the galleries represents an innovative prey capture strategy compared with the more typical strategy of foraging on leaves. However, because of a limited worker force in their colonies, the prey capture behaviour of the ants results in a trade-off between plant protection (i.e. the ants patrol the foliage and attack intruders including herbivores) and ambushing prey in the galleries, which has a cascading effect on the fitness of all of the partners. The quantification of partners' traits and effects showed that the two ant species differed in their mutualistic investment. Less investment in the galleries (i.e. in fungal cultivation) translated into more benefits for the plant in terms of less herbivory and higher growth rates and vice versa. However, the greater vegetative growth of the plants did not produce a positive fitness effect for the better mutualistic ant species in terms of colony size and production of sexuals nor was the mutualist compensated by the wider dispersal of its queens. As a consequence, although the better ant mutualist is the one that provides more benefits to its host plant, its lower host–plant exploitation does not give this ant species a competitive advantage. The local coexistence of the ant species is thus fleeting and should eventually lead to the exclusion of the less competitive species

    New findings in insect fungiculture: Have ants developed non-food, agricultural products?

    No full text
    The interaction between Allomerus plant-ants and an ascomycete fungus growing on and strengthening their galleries is not opportunistic. We previously demonstrated that this association is highly specific as only one fungal species represented by a few haplotypes was found associated with the ants. We also discovered that the ants' behavior revealed a major investment in manipulating and enhancing the growth of their associated fungus. We have growing evidence that this specificity is consistent with selection by the ants. Here, we discuss this selection within the framework of insect agriculture, as we believe these ants fulfill all of the prerequisites to be considered as farmers. Allomerus ants promote their symbiont's growth, protect it from potential pathogens and select specific cultivars. Taken together, we think that the interaction between Allomerus ants and their cultivar might represent the first case of insect fungiculture used as a means of obtaining building material

    <i>Hirtella physophora</i> leaves, flowers and fruits.

    No full text
    <p>(a) Leaves bear leaf pouches (left arrow) at the base of their laminas. <i>Allomerus decemarticulatus</i> workers capture a green locust thanks to their trap: a gallery made using severed host plant trichomes and the mycelium of an Astomycota fungus that the ants manipulate to create a composite material pierced by numerous holes (from under which the workers ambush prey). A wasp is seen robbing a piece of the locust abdomen; the wasp was also captured in turn as was the red Reduviid (right arrow). (b) At the distal position of the branch, flowers are segregated on racemous inflorescences at different stages of maturation from flower buds to fully open flowers. (c) Development of young, green (i.e. unripe) drupes. (d) A dark purple (i.e. ripe) drupe. Scale bars represent 1 cm.</p

    Four developmental stages of <i>Hirtella physphora</i> leaves.

    No full text
    <p>(a) Juvenile leaves: less than 5 cm long, positioned vertically; the domatia are not fully developed. (b) Expanding leaves: have fully developed domatia, but the blade is still immature. (c) Young leaves: from 15 to 25 cm long; positioned horizontally, mature but still relatively tender, and light green in color. (d) Old leaves: older, non-senescent, mature leaves of up to 30 cm in length, positioned horizontally, stiff, and dark green in color. Scale bars represent 5 cm.</p
    corecore