4.5 Article

Horizontal partner exchange does not preclude stable mutualism in fungus-growing ants

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 372-382

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ary176

关键词

attine ants; mutualism; symbiont transmission; symbiosis

资金

  1. ERC [323085]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [323085] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vertical symbiont transmission tends to stabilize mutualisms by aligning the reproductive interests of cooperating species. The attine ants conform well to this principle because all species are nutritionally dependent on vertically transmitted and clonally propagated fungal cultivars. Multiple mechanisms expressed by both partners constrain cultivar transmission between established colonies, but these appear not to preclude horizontal transfer during colony founding, consistent with multiple phylogenetic analyses indicating at least occasional horizontal transfer. The ecological and evolutionary impact of transfers is unknown because, although they can be induced in laboratory experiments, they remain undocumented in natural colonies. In a large-scale field study, we manipulated clusters of newly founded nests and their still portable gardens in two sympatric species of Acromyrmex leaf-cutting ants. This created mosaics of intact nests, queens without a cultivar, and cultivars without a tending queen. We tracked the movements of queens and cultivars through direct observation and microsatellite analysis, respectively. This showed that horizontal acquisition of incipient gardens is surprisingly common because queens actively searched for replacement cultivars and often adopted orphaned gardens. However, these horizontal cultivar exchanges are unlikely to destabilize obligate farming mutualisms when they are restricted to the founding stage, as colonies eventually commit to a single cultivar clone, irreversibly aligning the partners' fitness interests before colonies reproduce.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据