Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis
Costs and benefits for partners in mutualistic interactions can vary greatly, but surprisingly little is known about the factors that drive this variation across systems. We conducted a meta-analysis of ant-plant protective mutualisms to quantify the effects of ant defenders on plant reproductive ou...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2010-12, Vol.5 (12), p.e14308-e14308 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e14308 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | e14308 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 5 |
| creator | Trager, Matthew D Bhotika, Smriti Hostetler, Jeffrey A Andrade, Gilda V Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A McKeon, C Seabird Osenberg, Craig W Bolker, Benjamin M |
| description | Costs and benefits for partners in mutualistic interactions can vary greatly, but surprisingly little is known about the factors that drive this variation across systems. We conducted a meta-analysis of ant-plant protective mutualisms to quantify the effects of ant defenders on plant reproductive output, to evaluate if reproductive effects were predicted from reductions in herbivory and to identify characteristics of the plants, ants and environment that explained variation in ant protection. We also compared our approach with two other recent meta-analyses on ant-plant mutualisms, emphasizing differences in our methodology (using a weighted linear mixed effects model) and our focus on plant reproduction rather than herbivore damage. Based on 59 ant and plant species pairs, ant presence increased plant reproductive output by 49% and reduced herbivory by 62%. The effects on herbivory and reproduction within systems were positively correlated, but the slope of this relationship (0.75) indicated that tolerance to foliar herbivory may be a common plant response to absence of ant guards. Furthermore, the relationship between foliar damage and reproduction varied substantially among systems, suggesting that herbivore damage is not a reliable surrogate for fitness consequences of ant protection. Studies that experimentally excluded ants reported a smaller effect of ant protection on plant reproduction than studies that relied upon natural variation in ant presence, suggesting that study methods can affect results in these systems. Of the ecological variables included in our analysis, only plant life history (i.e., annual or perennial) explained variation in the protective benefit of mutualistic ants: presence of ants benefitted reproduction of perennials significantly more than that of annuals. These results contrast with other quantitative reviews of these relationships that did not include plant life history as an explanatory factor and raise several questions to guide future research on ant-plant protection mutualisms. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0014308 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1296285238</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A473813416</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_97d155d33fd943adb1c3ac23ca4ded38</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A473813416</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-f44ef837ed2874ffbb514005a060f76383893fd89165c298359c6d6d5744a2773</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkktvEzEQx1cIREvgGyBYCQnEYYPf6-WAVCookSpV4nW1HD8SR7vr1PZW9NvjJNsqi3pAPow9_s1_xuMpipcQzCGu4YeNH0Iv2_nW92YOACQY8EfFKWwwqhgC-PHR_qR4FuMGAIo5Y0-LEwSzk1JwWlx8Nr2xLsXS-lBuW9nnrevLbKv9qdwGn4xK7saU3ZAG2brYxY-lLDuTZCVzCbfRxefFEyvbaF6Mdlb8-vrl5_m36vLqYnF-dlkp1sBUWUKM5bg2GvGaWLtcUkhyXRIwYGuGOeYNtpo3kFGFGo5po5hmmtaESFTXeFa8PuhuWx_F2IMoIGoY4hRlgVmxOBDay43YBtfJcCu8dGLv8GElZEhOtUY0tYaUapwzNgRLvYQKS4WwkkQbvdf6NGYblp3RyvQpyHYiOr3p3Vqs_I3AAHBW7wTejQLBXw8mJtG5qEybO2v8EAVHiFLGOMzkm3_Ihx83UiuZ63e99Tmt2mmKM1LjrEMgy9T8ASovbTqn_O7Ds38S8H4SkJlk_qSVHGIUix_f_5-9-j1l3x6xayPbtI6-HZLzfZyC5ACq4GMMxt73GAKxG_e7bojduItx3HPYq-P_uQ-6m2_8F0go-PA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1296285238</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Trager, Matthew D ; Bhotika, Smriti ; Hostetler, Jeffrey A ; Andrade, Gilda V ; Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A ; McKeon, C Seabird ; Osenberg, Craig W ; Bolker, Benjamin M</creator><creatorcontrib>Trager, Matthew D ; Bhotika, Smriti ; Hostetler, Jeffrey A ; Andrade, Gilda V ; Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A ; McKeon, C Seabird ; Osenberg, Craig W ; Bolker, Benjamin M</creatorcontrib><description>Costs and benefits for partners in mutualistic interactions can vary greatly, but surprisingly little is known about the factors that drive this variation across systems. We conducted a meta-analysis of ant-plant protective mutualisms to quantify the effects of ant defenders on plant reproductive output, to evaluate if reproductive effects were predicted from reductions in herbivory and to identify characteristics of the plants, ants and environment that explained variation in ant protection. We also compared our approach with two other recent meta-analyses on ant-plant mutualisms, emphasizing differences in our methodology (using a weighted linear mixed effects model) and our focus on plant reproduction rather than herbivore damage. Based on 59 ant and plant species pairs, ant presence increased plant reproductive output by 49% and reduced herbivory by 62%. The effects on herbivory and reproduction within systems were positively correlated, but the slope of this relationship (0.75) indicated that tolerance to foliar herbivory may be a common plant response to absence of ant guards. Furthermore, the relationship between foliar damage and reproduction varied substantially among systems, suggesting that herbivore damage is not a reliable surrogate for fitness consequences of ant protection. Studies that experimentally excluded ants reported a smaller effect of ant protection on plant reproduction than studies that relied upon natural variation in ant presence, suggesting that study methods can affect results in these systems. Of the ecological variables included in our analysis, only plant life history (i.e., annual or perennial) explained variation in the protective benefit of mutualistic ants: presence of ants benefitted reproduction of perennials significantly more than that of annuals. These results contrast with other quantitative reviews of these relationships that did not include plant life history as an explanatory factor and raise several questions to guide future research on ant-plant protection mutualisms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014308</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21203550</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Animals ; Ants ; Ants - physiology ; Comparative analysis ; Cost benefit analysis ; Damage ; Ecological effects ; Ecological monitoring ; Ecology ; Ecology/Behavioral Ecology ; Ecology/Community Ecology and Biodiversity ; Ecology/Evolutionary Ecology ; Ecosystem ; Environment ; Feeding Behavior - physiology ; Fitness ; Flowers & plants ; Herbivores ; Herbivory ; Life history ; Magnoliopsida ; Meta-analysis ; Models, Biological ; Models, Statistical ; Mutualism ; Observational studies ; Plant Leaves - physiology ; Plant protection ; Plant reproduction ; Plant species ; Plants - metabolism ; Reproduction ; Reproduction (biology) ; Reviews ; Studies ; Symbiosis ; Variation</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2010-12, Vol.5 (12), p.e14308-e14308</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2010 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2010 Trager et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Trager et al. 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-f44ef837ed2874ffbb514005a060f76383893fd89165c298359c6d6d5744a2773</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-f44ef837ed2874ffbb514005a060f76383893fd89165c298359c6d6d5744a2773</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3008678/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3008678/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21203550$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Trager, Matthew D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhotika, Smriti</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hostetler, Jeffrey A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrade, Gilda V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKeon, C Seabird</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osenberg, Craig W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolker, Benjamin M</creatorcontrib><title>Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Costs and benefits for partners in mutualistic interactions can vary greatly, but surprisingly little is known about the factors that drive this variation across systems. We conducted a meta-analysis of ant-plant protective mutualisms to quantify the effects of ant defenders on plant reproductive output, to evaluate if reproductive effects were predicted from reductions in herbivory and to identify characteristics of the plants, ants and environment that explained variation in ant protection. We also compared our approach with two other recent meta-analyses on ant-plant mutualisms, emphasizing differences in our methodology (using a weighted linear mixed effects model) and our focus on plant reproduction rather than herbivore damage. Based on 59 ant and plant species pairs, ant presence increased plant reproductive output by 49% and reduced herbivory by 62%. The effects on herbivory and reproduction within systems were positively correlated, but the slope of this relationship (0.75) indicated that tolerance to foliar herbivory may be a common plant response to absence of ant guards. Furthermore, the relationship between foliar damage and reproduction varied substantially among systems, suggesting that herbivore damage is not a reliable surrogate for fitness consequences of ant protection. Studies that experimentally excluded ants reported a smaller effect of ant protection on plant reproduction than studies that relied upon natural variation in ant presence, suggesting that study methods can affect results in these systems. Of the ecological variables included in our analysis, only plant life history (i.e., annual or perennial) explained variation in the protective benefit of mutualistic ants: presence of ants benefitted reproduction of perennials significantly more than that of annuals. These results contrast with other quantitative reviews of these relationships that did not include plant life history as an explanatory factor and raise several questions to guide future research on ant-plant protection mutualisms.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Ants</subject><subject>Ants - physiology</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Damage</subject><subject>Ecological effects</subject><subject>Ecological monitoring</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecology/Behavioral Ecology</subject><subject>Ecology/Community Ecology and Biodiversity</subject><subject>Ecology/Evolutionary Ecology</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Feeding Behavior - physiology</subject><subject>Fitness</subject><subject>Flowers & plants</subject><subject>Herbivores</subject><subject>Herbivory</subject><subject>Life history</subject><subject>Magnoliopsida</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Models, Biological</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Mutualism</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Plant Leaves - physiology</subject><subject>Plant protection</subject><subject>Plant reproduction</subject><subject>Plant species</subject><subject>Plants - metabolism</subject><subject>Reproduction</subject><subject>Reproduction (biology)</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Symbiosis</subject><subject>Variation</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkktvEzEQx1cIREvgGyBYCQnEYYPf6-WAVCookSpV4nW1HD8SR7vr1PZW9NvjJNsqi3pAPow9_s1_xuMpipcQzCGu4YeNH0Iv2_nW92YOACQY8EfFKWwwqhgC-PHR_qR4FuMGAIo5Y0-LEwSzk1JwWlx8Nr2xLsXS-lBuW9nnrevLbKv9qdwGn4xK7saU3ZAG2brYxY-lLDuTZCVzCbfRxefFEyvbaF6Mdlb8-vrl5_m36vLqYnF-dlkp1sBUWUKM5bg2GvGaWLtcUkhyXRIwYGuGOeYNtpo3kFGFGo5po5hmmtaESFTXeFa8PuhuWx_F2IMoIGoY4hRlgVmxOBDay43YBtfJcCu8dGLv8GElZEhOtUY0tYaUapwzNgRLvYQKS4WwkkQbvdf6NGYblp3RyvQpyHYiOr3p3Vqs_I3AAHBW7wTejQLBXw8mJtG5qEybO2v8EAVHiFLGOMzkm3_Ihx83UiuZ63e99Tmt2mmKM1LjrEMgy9T8ASovbTqn_O7Ds38S8H4SkJlk_qSVHGIUix_f_5-9-j1l3x6xayPbtI6-HZLzfZyC5ACq4GMMxt73GAKxG_e7bojduItx3HPYq-P_uQ-6m2_8F0go-PA</recordid><startdate>20101222</startdate><enddate>20101222</enddate><creator>Trager, Matthew D</creator><creator>Bhotika, Smriti</creator><creator>Hostetler, Jeffrey A</creator><creator>Andrade, Gilda V</creator><creator>Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A</creator><creator>McKeon, C Seabird</creator><creator>Osenberg, Craig W</creator><creator>Bolker, Benjamin M</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20101222</creationdate><title>Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis</title><author>Trager, Matthew D ; Bhotika, Smriti ; Hostetler, Jeffrey A ; Andrade, Gilda V ; Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A ; McKeon, C Seabird ; Osenberg, Craig W ; Bolker, Benjamin M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-f44ef837ed2874ffbb514005a060f76383893fd89165c298359c6d6d5744a2773</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Ants</topic><topic>Ants - physiology</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Damage</topic><topic>Ecological effects</topic><topic>Ecological monitoring</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecology/Behavioral Ecology</topic><topic>Ecology/Community Ecology and Biodiversity</topic><topic>Ecology/Evolutionary Ecology</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Feeding Behavior - physiology</topic><topic>Fitness</topic><topic>Flowers & plants</topic><topic>Herbivores</topic><topic>Herbivory</topic><topic>Life history</topic><topic>Magnoliopsida</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Models, Biological</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Mutualism</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Plant Leaves - physiology</topic><topic>Plant protection</topic><topic>Plant reproduction</topic><topic>Plant species</topic><topic>Plants - metabolism</topic><topic>Reproduction</topic><topic>Reproduction (biology)</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Symbiosis</topic><topic>Variation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Trager, Matthew D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhotika, Smriti</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hostetler, Jeffrey A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrade, Gilda V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKeon, C Seabird</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osenberg, Craig W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolker, Benjamin M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Trager, Matthew D</au><au>Bhotika, Smriti</au><au>Hostetler, Jeffrey A</au><au>Andrade, Gilda V</au><au>Rodriguez-Cabal, Mariano A</au><au>McKeon, C Seabird</au><au>Osenberg, Craig W</au><au>Bolker, Benjamin M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2010-12-22</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e14308</spage><epage>e14308</epage><pages>e14308-e14308</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Costs and benefits for partners in mutualistic interactions can vary greatly, but surprisingly little is known about the factors that drive this variation across systems. We conducted a meta-analysis of ant-plant protective mutualisms to quantify the effects of ant defenders on plant reproductive output, to evaluate if reproductive effects were predicted from reductions in herbivory and to identify characteristics of the plants, ants and environment that explained variation in ant protection. We also compared our approach with two other recent meta-analyses on ant-plant mutualisms, emphasizing differences in our methodology (using a weighted linear mixed effects model) and our focus on plant reproduction rather than herbivore damage. Based on 59 ant and plant species pairs, ant presence increased plant reproductive output by 49% and reduced herbivory by 62%. The effects on herbivory and reproduction within systems were positively correlated, but the slope of this relationship (0.75) indicated that tolerance to foliar herbivory may be a common plant response to absence of ant guards. Furthermore, the relationship between foliar damage and reproduction varied substantially among systems, suggesting that herbivore damage is not a reliable surrogate for fitness consequences of ant protection. Studies that experimentally excluded ants reported a smaller effect of ant protection on plant reproduction than studies that relied upon natural variation in ant presence, suggesting that study methods can affect results in these systems. Of the ecological variables included in our analysis, only plant life history (i.e., annual or perennial) explained variation in the protective benefit of mutualistic ants: presence of ants benefitted reproduction of perennials significantly more than that of annuals. These results contrast with other quantitative reviews of these relationships that did not include plant life history as an explanatory factor and raise several questions to guide future research on ant-plant protection mutualisms.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>21203550</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0014308</doi><tpages>e14308</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2010-12, Vol.5 (12), p.e14308-e14308 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1296285238 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Animals Ants Ants - physiology Comparative analysis Cost benefit analysis Damage Ecological effects Ecological monitoring Ecology Ecology/Behavioral Ecology Ecology/Community Ecology and Biodiversity Ecology/Evolutionary Ecology Ecosystem Environment Feeding Behavior - physiology Fitness Flowers & plants Herbivores Herbivory Life history Magnoliopsida Meta-analysis Models, Biological Models, Statistical Mutualism Observational studies Plant Leaves - physiology Plant protection Plant reproduction Plant species Plants - metabolism Reproduction Reproduction (biology) Reviews Studies Symbiosis Variation |
| title | Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T01%3A45%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Benefits%20for%20plants%20in%20ant-plant%20protective%20mutualisms:%20a%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Trager,%20Matthew%20D&rft.date=2010-12-22&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e14308&rft.epage=e14308&rft.pages=e14308-e14308&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0014308&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA473813416%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1296285238&rft_id=info:pmid/21203550&rft_galeid=A473813416&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_97d155d33fd943adb1c3ac23ca4ded38&rfr_iscdi=true |