Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T11:52:46.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ant foraging on ant-inhabited Triplaris (Polygonaceae) in western Brazil: a field experiment using live termite-baits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Paulo S. Oliveira ,
Ary T. Oliveira-Filho  and
Renato Cintra
Paulo S. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Departmento de Zoologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, C.P. 6109, 13081 Campinas SP, Brasil
Ary T. Oliveira-Filho
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciências Florestais, Escola Superior de Agricultura de Lavras, 37200 Lavras MG, Brasil
Renato Cintra
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia, 69000 Manaus AM, Brasil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Foraging parameters of two ant species, Pseudomyrmex triplarinus and Crematogaster sp., on P. triplarinus-occupied shrubs of Triplaris surinamensis were evaluated in a semi-deciduous forest of Mato Grosso, western Brazil. Live workers of the termite Microcerotermes strunckii, used as baits for ants, were placed on leaves in the lower, medium and upper thirds of the crown of thirty experimental Triplaris (nine baits/plant). Besides attacking more than twice as many baits as Crematogaster (131 against 59), Pseudomyrmex also attacked them signifi cantly faster. Pseudomyrmex patrolled the plant uniformly, while Crematogaster patrolled more intensively the lower portion of the crown of Triplaris. Baits retrieved by Pseudomyrmex were taken to their nests in the stem galleries of Triplaris; those retrieved by Crematogaster were carried to nearby nests in the forest understory. Greater aggressiveness and alertness to foreign objects (i.e. baits), better eyesight, larger size, and an individual foraging technique appear to be responsible for the greater foraging success of Pseudomyrmex when compared with Crematogaster.

Keywords

antsBrazilCrematogasterforaging behaviourmyrmecophytePseudomyrmextermitesTriplaris

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , August 1987 , pp. 193 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

LITERATURE CITED

Belt, T. 1874. The naturalist in Nicaragua. Bumpus, London. 403 pp.Google Scholar
Benson, W. W. 1985. Amazon ant-plants. Pp. 239–266 in Prance, G. T. & Lovejoy, T. E. (eds). Amazonia. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 442 pp.Google Scholar
Bentley, B. L. 1977. Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 8:407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downhower, J. F. 1975. The distribution of ants on Cecropia leaves. Biotropica 7:59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölldobler, B. 1977. Communication in social Hymenoptera. Pp. 418–471 in Sebeok, T. (ed.). How animals communicate. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Huxley, C. R. 1980. Symbiosis between ants and epiphytes. Biological Review 55:321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1966. Coevolution of mutualism between ants and acacias in Central America. Evolution 20:249–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janzen, D. H. 1967a. Interaction of the bull's horn acacia (Acacia comigera L.) with an ant inhabitant (Pseudomyrmex ferruginea F. Smith) in eastern Mexico. The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 47:315–558.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1967b. Fire, vegetation structure, and the ant × acacia interaction in Central America. Ecology 48:26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1969. Allelopathy by myrmecophytes: the ant Azteca as an allelopathic agent of Cecropia. Ecology 50:147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1974. Epiphytic myrmecophytes in Sarawak: mutualism through the feeding of plants by ants. Biotropica 6:237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeanne, R. L. 1979. A latitudinal gradient in rates of ant predation. Ecology 60:1211–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mckey, D. 1984. Interaction of the ant-plant Leonardoxa africana (Caesalpinaceae) with its obligate inhabitants in a rainforest in Cameroon. Biotropica 16:81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco. 859 pp.Google Scholar
Way, M. J. 1963. Mutualism between ants and honeydew producing Homoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 8:307–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. 1942. Studies of neotropical ant-plants and their ants. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard 90:1–262.Google Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. – Bailey, I. W. 1920. The feeding habits of Pseudomyrmine and other ants. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 22:235–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar