Direct and indirect effects of ants on seed predation in moth/yucca mutualisms

Literature cited

• Addicott, J. F., 1986. Variation in the costs and benefits of mutualism: The interaction between yuccas and yucca moths. Oecologia, 70: 486–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Addicott, J. F. & T. Bao, 1999. Limiting the costs of mutualism: Multiple modes of interaction between yuccas and yucca moths. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 266: 197–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Addicott, J. F., J. Bronstein & F. Kjellberg, 1990. Evolution of mutualistic life cycles: Yucca moths and fig wasps. Pages 143–161 in F. Gilbert (ed.). Insect Life Cycles: Genetics, Evolution and Co-ordination. Springer-Verlag, London.
   Google Scholar
• Altshuler, D. L., 1999. Novel interactions of non-pollinating ants with pollinators and fruit consumers in a tropical forest. Oecologia, 119: 600–606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks, C. J. & E. D. M. Macaulay, 1967. Effects of Aphis fabae Scop. and of its attendant ants and insect predators on yields of field beans (Vicia faba L.). Annals of Applied Biology, 60: 445–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronstein, J. L. & Y. Ziv, 1997. Costs of two non mutualistic species in a yucca/yucca moth mutualism. Oecologia, 112: 379–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckley, R. C., 1987. Interactions involving plants, homoptera, and ants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 18: 111–135.
   Google Scholar
• Cade, B. S. & B. R. Noon, 2003. A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1: 412–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cade, B. S., J. W. Terrell & R. L. Schroeder, 1999. Estimating effects of limiting factors with regression quantiles. Ecology, 80: 311–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronin, J. T., K. J. Haynes & F. Dillemuth, 2004. Spider effects on planthopper mortality, dispersal and spatial population dynamics. Ecology, 85: 2134–2143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cushman, J. H., S. G. Compton, C. Zachariades, A. B. Ware, R. J. C. Nefdt & V. K. Rashbrook, 1998. Geographic and taxonomic distribution of a positive interaction: Ant-tended homopterans indirectly benefit figs across southern Africa. Oecologia, 116: 373–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dejean, A., T. Bourgoin & M. Gibernau, 1997. Ant species that protect figs against other ants: Result of territoriality induced by a mutualistic homopteran. Écoscience, 4: 446–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denno, R. F., M. S. McClure & J. R. Ott, 1995. Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects: Competition reexamined and resurrected. Annual Review of Entomology, 40: 297–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodd, R. J. & Y. B. Linhart, 1994. Reproductive consequences of interactions between Yucca glauca (Agavaceae) and Tegeticula yuccasella (Lepidoptera) in Colorado. American Journal of Botany, 81: 815–825.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finke, D. L. & R. F. Denno, 2005. Predator diversity and the functioning of ecosystems: The role of intraguild predation in dampening trophic cascades. Ecology Letters, 8: 1299–1306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freitas, A. V. L. & P. S. Oliveira, 1996. Ants as selective agents on herbivore biology: Effects on the behavior of a non-myrme-cophilous butterfly. Journal of Animal Ecology, 65: 205–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatcher, M. J., J. T. A. Dick & A. M. Dunn, 2006. How parasites affect interactions between competitors and predators. Ecology Letters, 9: 1253–1271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hay, M. E., J. D. Parker, D. E. Burkepile, C. C. Caudill, A. E. Wilson, Z. P. Hallinan & A. D. Chequer, 2004. Mutualisms and aquatic community structure: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35: 175–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, W. J. & R. L. Robbins, 2002. Yuccas. Pages 423–439 in Flora of North America. Volume 26. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Hodges R., T. Dominik, D. R. Davis, D. C. Ferguson, J. G. Franclemont, E. G. Munroe & J. A. Powell (eds), 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. E. W. Classey, London.
   Google Scholar
• Humphries, S. A. & J. F. Addicott, 2000. Regulation of the mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths: Intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting flower retention. Oikos, 89: 329–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huth, C. J. & O. Pellmyr, 1997. Non-random fruit retention in Yucca filamentosa: Consequences for an obligate mutualism. Oikos, 78: 576–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, M. L., 1998. Limits on the exploitation of the yucca-yucca moth mutualism (Yucca kanabensis, Tegeticula yuccasella). M.Sc. thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
   Google Scholar
• Kingsolver, R. W., 1984. Population biology of a mutualistic association: Yucca glauca and Tegeticula yuccasella. Ph.D. thesis. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
   Google Scholar
• Krombein, K. V., 1979. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Marr, D. L. & O. Pellmyr, 2003. Effect of pollinator-inflicted ovule damage on floral abscission in the yucca-yucca moth mutualism: The role of mechanical and chemical factors. Oecologia, 136: 236–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mustajarvi, K., P. Siikamaki, S. Rytkonen & A. Lammi, 2001. Consequences of plant population size and density for plant-pollinator interactions and plant performance. Journal of Ecology, 89: 80–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohgushi, T., 2005. Indirect interaction webs: Herbivore-induced effects through trait change in plants. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36: 81–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellmyr, O., 2003. Yuccas, yucca moths, and coevolution: A review. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 90: 35–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellmyr, O., J. Leebens-Mack & C. J. Huth, 1996. Non-mutualistic yucca moths and their evolutionary consequences. Nature, 380: 155–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfecto, I. & J. Vandermeer, 2006. The effect of an ant-hemipteran mutualism on the coffee berry borer (Hypthenemus hampei) in southern Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 117: 218–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry, J. C., E. B. Mondor & J. F. Addicott, 2004. An indirect mutualism: Ants deter seed predators for ovipositing in yucca fruit. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 82: 823–827.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rand, T. A., 2003. Herbivore-mediated apparent competition between two salt marsh forbs. Ecology, 84: 1517–1526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riley, C. V., 1892. The yucca moth and yucca pollination. Missouri Botanical Garden Annual Report, 1892: 99–158.
   Google Scholar
• Savage, A. M. & M. A. Peterson, 2007. Mutualism in a community context: The positive feedback between an ant-aphid mutualism and a gall-making midge. Oecologica, 151: 280–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schatz, B. & M. Hossaert-McKey, 2003. Interactions of the ant Crematogaster scutellaris with the fig/fig wasp mutualism. Ecological Entomology, 28: 359–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schatz, B., M. Proffit, B. V. Rakhi, R. M. Borges & M. Hossaert-McKey, 2006. Complex interactions on fig trees: Ants capturing parasitic wasps as possible indirect mutualists of the fig-fig wasp interaction. Oikos, 113: 344–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, J. M. & J. F. Addicott, 2003. Regulation of moth-yucca mutualisms: Mortality of eggs in oviposition-induced ‘damage zones’. Ecology Letters, 6: 440–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sih, A., P. Crowley, M. McPeek, J. Petranka & K. Strohmeier, 1985. Predation, competition, and prey communities: A review of field experiments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16: 269–311.
   Google Scholar
• Simenstad, C. A., J. A. Estes & K. W. Kenyon, 1978. Aleuts, sea otters and alternate stable-state communities. Science, 200: 403–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snell, R. S., 2004. Direct and indirect effect of ants on moth/yucca interactions: How additional species affect the costs/benefits in an obligate mutualism. M.Sc. thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, S. Y. & R. E. Irwin, 2004. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of multispecies plant-animal interactions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35: 435–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suttle, K. B., 2003. Pollinators as mediators of top-down effects on plants. Ecology Letters, 6: 688–694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. W., 1988. The influence of aggressive ants on fruit removal in the tropical tree, Ficus capensis (Moraceae). Biotropica, 20: 49–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Udovic, D., 1986. Floral predation of Yucca whipplei (Agavaceae) by the sap beetle, Anthonaeus agavensis (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 62: 55–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wootton, J. T., 1994. The nature and consequence of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 25: 443–466.
   Google Scholar