Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T23:49:14.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Host plants mediate aphid–ant mutualisms and their effects on community structure and diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2009

Gina M. Wimp
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Thomas G. Whitham
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Takayuki Ohgushi
Affiliation:
Kyoto University, Japan
Timothy P. Craig
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Peter W. Price
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Much of the emphasis in studying mutualisms has been placed on defining the strength of these associations and the conditions that cause their collapse (Bronstein 1994, 1998). Yet, very few studies of aphid–ant mutualisms have linked the importance of host plant traits with the establishment and persistence of these mutualisms. Aphid performance, as well as the quality and quantity of their honeydew, may be affected by differences in host plant genetics or through environmentally induced effects on host plant quality. Differences among host plants that influence the attractiveness of aphids to tending ants can therefore alter the nature and strength of this association. The importance of host plants in determining the establishment and persistence of aphid–ant mutualisms could have consequences for biodiversity if these aphid–ant mutualisms play an important role in the structure and diversity of ecological communities.

The idea that mutualisms are important components of ecological communities arose 130 years ago (van Beneden 1875, French paper cited in Boucher 1985). However, much of the theoretical and empirical work in ecology for the past 70 years has supported the view that antagonistic interactions among species are more important than positive interactions in determining community organization. Yet, empirical data on an array of different mutualisms has shown that they can be important to community structure and diversity.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecological Communities
Plant Mediation in Indirect Interaction Webs
, pp. 275 - 305
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

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.)

References

Addicott, J. F. 1978. The population dynamics of aphids on fireweed: a comparison of local populations and metapopulations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56:2554–2564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Addicott, J. F. 1979. A multispecies aphid–ant association: density dependence and species-specific effects. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:558–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antolin, M. F., and Addicott, J. F.. 1991. Colonization, among shoot movement, and local population neighborhoods of two aphid species. Oikos 61:45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dansa, Assis C. V. de, and Rocha, C. F. Duarte. 1992. An ant–membracid–plant interaction in a cerrado area of Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 8:339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangert, R. K., Turek, R. J., Martinsen, G. D., et al. 2005. Benefits of conservation of plant genetic diversity on arthropod diversity. Conservation Biology 19:379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, E. C., K. D. Gwinn, C. D. Pless, and C. D. Williver. 1997. Soil invertebrate species diversity in endophyte-infected tall fescue pastures, pp. 125–135 in Bacon, C. W. and Hill, N. S. (eds.) Neotyphodium/Grass Interactions. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. B., and Bristow, C. M.. 2001. Effect of Allegheny mound ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) presence on homopteran and predator populations in Michigan jack pine forests. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 94:33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, C. A., Karban, R., Godfrey, L. D., Granett, J., and Chaney, W. E.. 2003. Jasmonic acid: a vaccine against leafminers (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in celery. Environmental Entomology 32:1196–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucher, D. H. 1985. The idea of mutualism, past and future, pp. 1–28 in Boucher, D. H. (ed.) The Biology of Mutualism. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bradley, G. A., and Hinks, J. D.. 1968. Ants, aphids, and jack pine in Manitoba. Canadian Entomologist 100:40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breton, L. M., and Addicott, J. F.. 1992. Does host plant quality mediate aphid–ant mutualism? Oikos 63:253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bristow, C. M. 1991. Are ant–aphid associations a tritrophic interaction? Oleander aphids and Argentine ants. Oecologia 87:514–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bronstein, J. L. 1994. Our current understanding of mutualism. Quarterly Review of Biology 69:31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, J. L. 1998. The contribution of ant–plant protection to our understanding of mutualism. Biotropica 30:150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, R. C. 1987. Interactions involving plants, homoptera, and ants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18:119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budenberg, W. 1990. Honeydew as a contact kairomone for aphid parasitoids. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 55:139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bultman, T. L., Bell, G., and Martin, W. D.. 2004. A fungal endophyte mediates reversal of wound-induced resistance and constrains tolerance in a grass. Ecology 85:679–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clay, K., and Holah, J.. 1999. Fungal endophyte symbiosis and plant diversity in successional fields. Science 285:1742–1744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloutier, C., and Mackauer, M.. 1979. The effect of parasitism by Aphidius smithi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) on the food budget of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Homoptera: Aphididae). Canadian Journal of Botany 57:1605–1611.Google Scholar
Collins, C. M., and Leather, S. R.. 2002. Ant-mediated dispersal of the black willow aphid Pterocomma salicis L.: does the ant Lasius niger L. judge aphid–host quality?Ecological Entomology 27:238–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danell, K., and Hus-Danell, K.. 1985. Feeding by insects and hares on birches earlier affected by moose browsing. Oikos 44:75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dungey, H. S., Potts, B. M., Whitham, T. G., and Li, H.-F.. 2000. Plant genetics affects arthropod community richness and composition: evidence from a synthetic eucalypt hybrid population. Evolution 54:1938–1946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisner, T., Hicks, K., Eisner, M., and Robson, D. S.. 1978. “Wolf-in-Sheep's-Clothing” strategy of a predaceous insect larva. Science 199:790–794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fasham, M. J. R. 1977. A comparison of nonmetric multidimensional scaling, principal components analysis and reciprocal averaging for the ordination of simulated coenoclines and coenoplanes. Ecology 58:551–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiala, B., Grunsky, H., Maschwitz, U., and Linsenmair, K. E.. 1994. Diversity of ant–plant interactions: protective efficacy in Macaranga species with different degrees of ant association. Oecologia 97:186–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K. 1995. Lycaenid butterflies and plants: is myrmecophily associated with particular host plant preferences?Ethology Ecology and Evolution 7:107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, M. K., Hoffmann, K. H., and Völkl, W.. 2001. Competition for mutualists in an ant–homopteran interaction mediated by hierarchies of ant attendance. Oikos 92:531–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, S. V., and MacGarvin, M.. 1985. The impact of hairy wood ants, Formica lugubris, on the guild structure of herbivorous insects on birch, Betula pubescens. Journal of Animal Ecology 54:847–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, L. H., and Grime, J. P.. 1999. Aphid fitness on 13 grass species: a test of plant defence theory. Canadian Journal of Botany 77:1783–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gange, A. C. 1995. Aphid performance in an alder (Alnus) hybrid zone. Ecology 76:2074–2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gange, A. C. 1996. Positive effects of endophyte infection on sycamore aphids. Oikos 75:500–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gange, A., and West, H.. 1993. Interactions between foliar-feeding insects and VA mycorrhizae. Bulletin of the British Ecological Society 24:72–76.Google Scholar
Gange, A. C., Brown, V. K., and Farmer, L. M.. 1990. A test of mycorrhizal benefit in an early successional plant community. New Phytologist 115:85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gange, A. C., Bower, E., and Brown, V. K.. 1999. Positive effects of an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus on aphid life history traits. Oecologia 120:123–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gehring, C. A., and T. G. Whitham. 2002. Mycorrhizae–herbivore interactions: population and community consequences, pp. 295–320 in Heijden, M. G. A. and Sanders, I. (eds.) Mycorrhizal Ecology. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Gehring, C. A., Cobb, N. S., and Whitham, T. G.. 1997. Three-way interactions among ecto-mycorrhizal mutualists, scale insects, and resistant and susceptible pinyons. American Naturalist 149:824–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayer, R. J., Kimmins, F. M., Padgham, D. E., Harborne, J. B., and Rao, D. V. R.. 1992. Condensed tannin levels and resistance of groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea) againstAphis craccivora. Phytochemistry 31:3795–3800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P., Mackey, J. M. L., Hillier, S. H., and Read, D. J.. 1987. Floristic diversity in a model system using experimental microcosms. Nature 328:420–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Heijden M. G. A., Boller, T., Wiemken, A., and Sanders, I. R.. 1998. Different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal species are potential determinants of plant community structure. Ecology 79:2082–2091.Google Scholar
Hopkins, G. W., and Thacker, J. I.. 1999. Ants and habitat specificity in aphids. Journal of Insect Conservation 3:25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübner, G. 2000. Differential interactions between an aphid endohyperparasitoid and three honeydew-collecting ant species: a field study of Alloxysta brevis (Thomson) (Hymenoptera: Alloxystidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 13:771–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, F., and Higashi, S.. 1991. An indirect mutualism between oaks and wood ants via aphids. Journal of Animal Ecology 60:463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S. N., Mayhew, P. J., Douglas, A. E., and Hartley, S. E.. 2002. Insects as leaf engineers: can leaf-miners alter leaf structure for birch aphids?Functional Ecology 16:575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S. N., Douglas, A. E., Woodward, S., and Hartley, S. E.. 2003a. Microbial impacts on plant–herbivore interactions: the indirect effects of a birch pathogen on a birch aphid. Oecologia 134:388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S. N., Elston, D. A., and Hartley, S. E.. 2003b. Influence of host plant heterogeneity on the distribution of a birch aphid. Ecological Entomology 28:533–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagata, H., and Ohgushi, T.. 2004. Leaf miner as a physical ecosystem engineer: secondary use of vacant leaf mines by other arthropods. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 97:923–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kainulainen, P., Holopainen, J., Palomäki, V., and Holopainen, T.. 1996. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on secondary chemistry and ectomycorrhizal state of Scots pine seedlings and on growth of grey pine aphid. Journal of Chemical Ecology 22:617–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kairo, M. T. K., and Murphy, S. T.. 1999. Temperature and plant nutrient effects on the development, survival, and reproduction of Cinara sp. nov., an invasive pest of cypress trees in Africa. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 92:147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karhu, K. J. 1998. Effects of ant exclusion during outbreaks of a defoliator and a sap-sucker on birch. Ecological Entomology 23:185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katayama, N., and Suzuki, N.. 2002. Cost and benefit of ant attendance for Aphis craccivora (Hemiptera: Aphididae) with reference to aphid colony size. Canadian Entomologist 134:241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenkel, N. C., and Orloci, L.. 1986. Applying metric and nonmetric multidimensional scaling to ecological studies: some new results. Ecology 67:919–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, A. 1981. Melezitose, aphids and ants. Oikos 37:382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29:1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, H. 1992. Inhibition of ovipositional responses of Chilo partellus (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) by the trichomes on the lower leaf surface of a maize cultivar. Journal of Economic Entomology 85:1736–1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, R., and Freedman, H. I.. 1989. A mathematical model of facultative mutualism with populations interacting in a food chain. Mathematical Biosciences 97:235–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leather, S. R. 1993. Early season defoliation of bird cherry influences autumn colonization by the bird cherry aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi. Oikos 66:43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. M., Hacker, S. D., Harley, C. D. G., and Bertness, M. D.. 1998. Nitrogen effects on an interaction chain in a salt marsh community. Oecologia 117:266–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liepert, C., and Dettner, K.. 1996. Role of cuticular hydrocarbons of aphid parasitoids in their relationship to aphid-attending ants. Journal of Chemical Ecology 22:695–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Llewellyn, M., and Brown, V. K.. 1985. The effect of host-plant species on adult weight and the reproductive potential of aphids. Journal of Animal Ecology 54:639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mabry, C. M., Jasieński, M., Coleman, J. S., and Bazzaz, F. A.. 1997. Genotypic variation in Polygonum pennsylvanicum: nutrient effects on plant growth and aphid infestation. Canadian Journal of Botany 75:546–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. H., and MacArthur, J. W.. 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddox, G. D., and Root, R. B.. 1987. Resistance of 16 diverse species of herbivorous insects within a population of goldenrod, Solidago altissima: genetic variation and heritability. Oecologia 72:8–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mailleux, A.-C., Deneubourg, J.-L., and Detrain, C.. 2003. Regulation of ants' foraging to resource productivity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 270:1609–1616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, S., Clay, K., and Cheplick, G. P.. 1991. Effects of fungal endophytes on interspecific and intraspecific competition in the grasses Festuca arundinacea and Lolium perenne. Journal of Applied Ecology 28:194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minchin, P. R. 1987. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio 69:89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moora, M., and Zobel, M.. 1996. Effect of arbuscular mycorrhiza on inter- and intraspecific competition of two grassland species. Oecologia 108:79–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, N. A. 1981. Intraspecific variability in herbivore performance and host quality: a field study of Uroleucon caligatum (Homoptera: Aphididae) and its Solidago hosts (Asteraceae). Ecological Entomology 6:301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, N. A. 1983. Seasonal shifts in host usage in Uroleucon gravicorne (Homoptera: Aphididae) and implications for the evolution of host alternation in aphids. Ecological Entomology 8:371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. B., and Godfray, H. C. J.. 1999. Predators and mutualists influence the exclusion of aphid species from natural communities. Oecologia 119:120–125.Google ScholarPubMed
Nakamura, M., and Ohgushi, T.. 2003. Positive and negative effects of leaf shelters on herbivorous insects: linking multiple herbivore species on a willow. Oecologia 136:445–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakamura, M., Miyamoto, Y., and Ohgushi, T.. 2003. Gall initiation enhances the availability of food resources for herbivorous insects. Functional Ecology 17:851–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, J. C., Kay, C. A. RolphKay, Buschman, L. L., and Whitcomb, W. H.. 1977. The presence of Spissistilus festinus as a factor affecting egg predation by ants in soybeans. Florida Entomologist 60:193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offenberg, J. 2001. Balancing between mutualism and exploitation: the symbiotic interaction between Lasius ants and aphids. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49:304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omacini, M., Chaneton, E. J., Ghersa, C. M., and Müller, C. B.. 2001. Symbiotic fungal endophytes control insect host–parasite interaction webs. Nature 409:78–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Omer, A. D., Granett, J., Karban, R., and Villa, E. M.. 2001. Chemically induced resistance against multiple pests in cotton. International Journal of Pest Management 47:49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orians, C. M. 2000. The effects of hybridization in plants on secondary chemistry: implications for the ecology and evolution of plant–herbivore interactions. American Journal of Botany 87:1749–1756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osier, T. L., and Lindroth, R. L.. 2001. Effects of genotype, nutrient availability, and defoliation on aspen phytochemistry and insect performance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 27:1289–1313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Painter, R. H. 1951. Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Petersen, M. K., and Sandström, J. P.. 2001. Outcome of indirect competition between two aphid species mediated by responses in their common host plant. Functional Ecology 15:525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilson, D. 1992. Aphid distribution and the evolution of goldenrod resistance. Evolution 46:1358–1372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilson, D., and Rausher, M. D.. 1995. Clumped distribution patterns in goldenrod aphids: genetic and ecological mechanisms. Ecological Entomology 20:75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. 2002. Resource-driven terrestrial interaction webs. Ecological Research 17:241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, L. B., and Pacovsky, R. S.. 1985. Reduced larva growth of two Lepidoptera (Noctuidae) on excised leaves of soybean infected with a mycorrhizal fungus. Journal of Economic Entomology 78:1358–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recher, H. F. 1969. Bird species diversity and habitat diversity in Australia and North America. American Naturalist 103:75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringel, M. S. 1996. The stability and persistence of mutualisms embedded in community interactions. Theoretical Population Biology 50:281–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudgers, J. A., and Gardener, M. C.. 2004. Extrafloral nectar as a resource mediating multispecies interactions. Ecology 85:1495–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagers, C. L. 1992. Manipulation of host plant quality: herbivores keep leaves in the dark. Functional Ecology 6:741–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, S. L., and Berenbaum, M. R.. 1989. Leaf-tying by tortricid larvae as an adaptation for feeding on phototoxic Hypericum perforatum. Journal of Chemical Ecology 15:875–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, C. J., and Knight, F. B.. 1968. Natural regulation of the aphid Pterocomma poulifoliae on bigtooth aspen in northern lower Michigan. Ecology 49:234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schupp, E. W. 1986. Azteca protection of Cercropia: ant occupation benefits juvenile trees. Oecologia 70:379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seibert, T. F. 1992. Mutualistic interactions of the aphid Lachnus allegheniensis (Homoptera: Aphididae) and its tending ant Formica obscuripes (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 85:173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, P. 1984. Genotypic interactions in an aphid–host plant relationship: Uroleucon rudbeckiae and Rudbeckia laciniata. Oecologia 61:271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloggett, J. J., and Majerus, M. E. N.. 2000. Aphid-mediated coexistence of ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and the wood ant Formica rufa: seasonal effects, interspecific variability and the evolution of a coccinellid myrmecophile. Oikos 89:345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, B. 1995. Adaptive allocation of resources and life-history trade-offs in aphids relative to plant quality. Oecologia 102:246–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stadler, B. 2002. Determinants of the size of aphid–parasitoid assemblages. Journal of Applied Entomology 126:258–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, B. 2004. Wedged between bottom–up and top–down processes: aphids on tansy. Ecological Entomology 29:106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, B., Dixon, A. F. G., and Kindlmann, P.. 2002. Relative fitness of aphids: effects of plant quality and ants. Ecology Letters 5:216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straw, N. A., and Green, G.. 2001. Interactions between green spruce aphid (Elatobium abietinum (Walker)) and Norway and Sitka spruce under high and low nutrient conditions. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3:263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, J. S. 2002. Effect of jasmonate-induced plant responses on the natural enemies of herbivores. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, J. S., Stout, M. J., Karban, R., and Duffey, S. S.. 2001. Jasmonate-mediated induced plant resistance affects a community of herbivores. Ecological Entomology 26:312–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilles, D. A., and Wood, D. L.. 1982. The influence of carpenter ant (Camponotus modoc) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) attendance on the development and survival of aphids (Cinara sp.) (Homoptera: Aphididae) in a giant sequoia forest. Canadian Entomologist 114:1133–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsarouhas, V., Gullberg, U., and Lagercrantz, U.. 2003. Mapping of quantitative trait loci controlling timing of bud flush in Salix. Hereditas 138:172–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Völkl, W. 1992. Aphids and their parasitoids: who actually benefits from ant-attendance?Journal of Animal Ecology 61:273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Völkl, W. 1995. Behavioral and morphological adaptations of the coccinellid, Platynaspis luteorubra for exploiting ant-attended resources (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 8:653–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Völkl, W., and Mackauer, M.. 2000. Oviposition behavior of aphidiine wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae, Aphidiinae): morphological adaptations and evolutionary trends. Canadian Entomologist 132:197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Völkl, W., Hübner, G., and Dettner, K.. 1994. Interactions between Alloxysta brevis (Hymenoptera, Cynipoidea, Alloxystidae) and honeydew-collecting ants: how an aphid hyperparasitoid overcomes ant aggression by chemical defense. Journal of Chemical Ecology 20:2901–2915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Völkl, W., Woodring, J., Fischer, M., Lorenz, M. W., and Hoffman, K. H.. 1999. Ant–aphid mutualisms: the impact of honeydew production and honeydew sugar composition on ant preferences. Oecologia 118:483–491.Google ScholarPubMed
Way, M. J. 1963. Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing Homoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 8:307–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weibull, J. 1990. Host plant discrimination in the polyphagous aphid Rhopalosiphum padi: the role of leaf anatomy and storage carbohydrate. Oikos 57:167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisser, W. W. 1995. Within-patch foraging behaviour of the aphid parasitoid Aphidius funebris: plant architecture, host behaviour, and individual variation. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 76:133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitham, T. G., Young, W., Martinsen, G. D., et al. 2003. Community and ecosystem genetics: a consequence of the extended phenotype. Ecology 84:559–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, G. B. 1978. A comment on equilibrium turnover rates for islands. American Naturalist 112:241–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimp, G. M., and Whitham, T. G.. 2001. Biodiversity consequences of predation and host plant hybridization on an aphid–ant mutualism. Ecology 82:440–452.Google Scholar
Wimp, G. M., Young, W. P., Woolbright, S. A., et al. 2004. Conserving plant genetic diversity for dependent animal communities. Ecology Letters 7:776–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. P., Jones, C., and Flecker, A. S.. 2002. An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia 132:96–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, J. P., Gurney, W. S. C., and Jones, C.. 2004. Patch dynamics in a landscape modified by ecosystem engineers. Oikos 105:336–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×