A Effects of Ants on the Fruit Setting of Artabotrys odoratissimus R. Br.

Authors

  • Saravana Ganthi A Department of Botany, Rani Anna Govt. College for Women (affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University), Tirunelveli 627 008, Tamil Nadu, India.
  • Vellankanni K Department of Botany, Rani Anna Govt. College for Women (affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University), Tirunelveli 627 008, Tamil Nadu, India.
  • Suresh Kumar T Department of Botany, Rani Anna Govt. College for Women (affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University), Tirunelveli 627 008, Tamil Nadu, India.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55446/IJE.2023.945

Keywords:

Ant- Plant Relationship, Artabotrys odoratissimus, Floral Nectaries, Foraging, Fruit Set, Leaves, Antagonism, Nesting, Weaver Ants, Volatile Compounds, Attraction.

Abstract

Floral volatile compounds exhibit multiple functions such as attracting pollinators, source of food for pollinator and act as defense against herbivore. Thus floral scents may function as allomones to prevent enemies as well as being synomones to attract pollinating mutualist. Flowers are morphological and embryological marvels and the sites of sexual reproduction. The yellow coloured flowers of Artabotrys odoratissimus R. Br. are very fragrant. The floral volatile of this plant attracts weaver ants. It plays a crucial role in plant- ant interaction. The present study aims to explore the effect of ants on the reproductive success of A. odoratissimus. Ants are detrimental to A. odoratissimus and disturb the pollinator visits which resulted in reduced fruit set. The nest constructed leaves experience premature death, thus weaver ants show antagonistic effect in the selected species.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Downloads

Published

2023-06-16

How to Cite

A, S. G., K, V. ., & T, S. K. (2023). A Effects of Ants on the Fruit Setting of <i>Artabotrys odoratissimus</i> R. Br. Indian Journal of Entomology, 86(1), 184–186. https://doi.org/10.55446/IJE.2023.945

Issue

Volume 86, Issue 1, March 2024

Section

Research Communications
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Altshuler D L. 1999. Novel interactions of non-pollinating ants with pollinators and fruit consumers in a tropical forest. Oecologia 119: 600-606.

Bronstein J L, Alarcon R, Geber M. 2006. The evolution of plant-insect mutualisms. New Phytologist 172: 412-428.

Chomicki G, Renner S S. 2017, The interactions of ants with their biotic environment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 284: 13. .

Ferna´ndez-Marin H, Zimmerman J K, Rehner S A, Weislo W T. 2006. Active use of the metapleural glands by ants in controlling fungal infection. Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series. B 273: 1689.

Galen C, Butchart B. 2003. Ants in your plants: effects of nectar-thieves on pollen fertility and seed-siring capacity in the alpine wild flower Polemonium viscosum. Oikos 101: 521-528.

Galen C. 1999. Flowers and enemies: predation by nectar-thieving ants in relation to variation in floral form of an alpine wild-flower. Polemonium viscosum, Oikos 85: 426-434.

Galen C, Geib J C. 2007. Density-dependent effects of ants on selection for bumble bee pollination in Polemonium viscosum.Ecology 88: 1202-1209.

Gaume L, Zacharias M, Borges R M. 2005. Ant–plant confl icts and a novel case of castration parasitism in a myrmecophyte. Evolutionary Ecology Research. 7: 435-452.

Heil M, McKey D. 2003. Protective ant–plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 34:425-453.

Heil M. 2008. Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytologist 178: 41-61.

Holldobler B. 1983. Territorial behavior in the green tree ant (Oecophylla smaragdina). Biotropica 15: 241-250.

Junker R, Chung A Y C, Bluthgen N. 2007. Interactions between flowers, ants and pollinators: additional evidence for floral repellence against ants. Ecological Research 22: 665-670.

Lim G T, Kirton L G. 2003. A preliminary study on the prospects for biological control of the mahogany shoot borer, Hypsipyla robusta (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), by ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Proceedings. International Conference on Forestry and Forest Products Research, FRIM, Malaysia. pp. 240-244.

Ness J H. 2006. A mutualism’s indirect cost: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos 113: 506-514.

Peakall R C J, Handel S N, Beattie A J. 1991. The evidence for, and importance of, ant pollination. Ant–plant Interactions (C R Huxley, D F Cutler (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 421-428.

Peng P K, Christian K, Gibb P K. 1999. The effect of colony isolation of the predacious ant, Oecophylla smaragdina(F.) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), on protection of cashew plantations from insect pests. International Journal of Pest Management 45: 189-194.

Rico-Gray V, Oliveira P S. 2007. The ecology and evolution of ant- plant interactions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Schoonhoven L M, van Loon J J A, Dicke M. 2005. Insect- plant biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 421 pp.

Stadler B, Dixon T. 2008. Mutualism: ants and their insect partners, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tsuji K, Hasyim S, Nakamura H K. 2004. Asian weaver ants, Oecophylla smaragdina, and their repelling of pollinators. Biological Research 19: 669-673.

Van Mele P, Cuc N T T. 2000. Evolution and status of Oecophylla smaragdinaas a pest control agent in Citrusin the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. International Journal of Pest Management 46: 295-301.

Van Mele P, Vaysierres J F, Tellingen E V, Vrolijks J. 2007. Effects of an African weaver ant in controlling mango fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Benin. Journal of Economic Entomology 100: 695-701.