Psyche: A Journal of Entomology

Psyche: A Journal of Entomology / 2012 / Article
Special Issue

Advances in Neotropical Myrmecology

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2012 |Article ID 172739 |

Jonas Maravalhas, Jacques H. C. Delabie, Rafael G. Macedo, Helena C. Morais, "Tree-Dwelling Ants: Contrasting Two Brazilian Cerrado Plant Species without Extrafloral Nectaries", Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, vol. 2012, Article ID 172739, 6 pages, 2012.

Tree-Dwelling Ants: Contrasting Two Brazilian Cerrado Plant Species without Extrafloral Nectaries

Academic Editor: Fernando Fernández
Received31 May 2011
Revised28 Jun 2011
Accepted30 Jun 2011
Published26 Sep 2011


Ants dominate vegetation stratum, exploiting resources like extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) and insect honeydew. These interactions are frequent in Brazilian cerrado and are well known, but few studies compare ant fauna and explored resources between plant species. We surveyed two cerrado plants without EFNs, Roupala montana (found on preserved environments of our study area) and Solanum lycocarpum (disturbed ones). Ants were collected and identified, and resources on each plant noted. Ant frequency and richness were higher on R. montana (67%; 35 spp) than S. lycocarpum (52%; 26), the occurrence of the common ant species varied between them, and similarity was low. Resources were explored mainly by Camponotus crassus and consisted of scale insects, aphids, and floral nectaries on R. montana and two treehopper species on S. lycocarpum. Ants have a high diversity on cerrado plants, exploring liquid and prey-based resources that vary in time and space and affect their presence on plants.

1. Introduction

Foliage-dwelling ants are an important component in tropical environments [13], affecting locally the composition and abundance of other insect communities [46] and directly or indirectly driving mutualistic and trophic interactions in plant-herbivore-predator/parasite interactions [711]. High abundance and richness of ants on this stratum are due to a highly energetic liquid diet, mainly extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) and hemipteran honeydew [1214]. Ants use a variety of resources from plants and their herbivores and these associations are facultative and vary temporally and spatially [1].

In the cerrado, a savanna-like vegetation in central Brazil, there is a high proportion of plants bearing EFNs, representing up to 31% of the plant individuals surveyed [15, 16] and a rich fauna of ants exploiting them [2, 1719]. A vast literature about direct and indirect associations of ants and plants in this biome is available [20], but there are few studies comparing ant faunas and their resources between plant species, especially those without EFNs. Results presented by Schoereder et al. [2] indicate that the presence of EFNs does not affect ant species richness within a given tree and there is no particular ant species composition typical of plants with EFNs.

To link the richness and seasonal variation of ants to attractive resources available on a particular plant species, we compared ant assemblages on two species that do not bear EFNs and are common of the cerrado region of central Brazil: Roupala montana Aubl. (Proteaceae) and Solanum lycocarpum St. Hill. (Solanaceae). In our sampling area, both plants have similar stature and structure, are consumed by myrmecophilous hemipterans [21, 22], and were found in different environments: R. montana occurring in native cerrado vegetation, where S. lycocarpum is rarely found, being common in altered areas at the borders of roads and agropastoral fields. The ability of S. lycocarpum to establish itself in a wider range of environments supposedly leads to bigger ant richness, in contrast to R. montana. On the other hand, impoverished areas, where S. lycocarpum occurs, can sustain weaker ant diversity, which can affect the ant fauna foraging on this species. We expect that differences on the area of occurrence and resource availability between these plant species may lead to important differences in the composition of ant species.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study was conducted in the Fazenda Agua Limpa (15°57′S, 47°54′W), Federal District, Brazil. This 4,500 ha farm belongs to the University of Brasilia and includes mainly undisturbed cerrado vegetation and agro-silvo-pastoral experimental areas. The region has altitudes around 1,050 m a.s.l., average annual temperature of 22°C, and average annual rainfall of 1,417 mm (series from 1980 to 2004, data from RECOR Meteorological Station,, and a marked seasonality, with a lengthy dry season ranging from May to September and a wet season from October to April.

2.2. Plant Species

Roupala montana is widely distributed in the Brazilian cerrado [23] and is abundant in cerrado remnants of the Federal District. It is an evergreen shrub that simultaneously sheds leaves and produces new ones, reaching up to three meters height, blooms for a long period during the year, and is pollinated by moths [2426]. It hosts ant-tended hemipterans like scale insects (Coccoidea), aphids (Aphidoidea), and, especially a leafhopper species, Rotundicerus sp. (Cicadellidae and Idiocerinae), which forms large aggregates of nymphs feeding on new leaves at the beginning of the rainy season [21]. A rich fauna of caterpillars, including Hallonympha paucipuncta (Spitz, 1930) (Riodinidae) and at least 10 species of Lycaenidae, consumes its leaves and inflorescences [2729].

Solanum lycocarpum is an evergreen shrub with maximum height of about two meters, being extremely common in disturbed environments [30, 31]. New leaves and flowers grow throughout the year, but flowers do not reward nectar to insects, and pollen is the floral resource collected by bumblebees through buzz pollination behavior [30]. Leaf surfaces are covered with simple glandular and nonglandular trichomes and stellate trichomes [32]. The treehopper Enchenopa brasiliensis Strümpel, 2007 (Membracidae) is a common species feeding on apical meristems and inflorescences [22]. In the study area, two species of Membracidae, one of Aetalionidae and an inderterminated number of species of scale insects were tended by ants on new leaves of this plant. One Cicadelidae species was very abundant too on the same plants, but it was not associated with ants. Solanum lycocarpum leaves are eaten by several microlepidoptera, especially Symmetrischema chloroneura (Meyrick, 1923) (Gelechiidae) [33], its stems are consumed by gall-forming weevil, Collabismus clitellae Boheman, 1837 (Curculionidae) [34] and its leaves and fruits are eaten by several species of mammals [31, 3537]. Attini nests (Formicidae and Myrmicinae) favor the establishment of seedlings and enhance nutrient in the leaves of S. lycocarpum [38].

2.3. Samples and Data Analysis

Individuals of both plant species were carefully examined always in the morning period. Every ant observed on the plant was collected and the occurrence of myrmecophilous hemipterans registered. Roupala montana plants were examined between April and September (dry season) of 2007 in a typical cerrado vegetation area of 2 ha. Previous surveys in the same study area were made on this species during the wet season of 2006, when the focus was to collect the ants tending nymphs of Rotundicerus sp. . Solanum lycocarpum plants were inspected between March 2007 and March 2008 along dirt roads that cross a mosaic of environments, including typical and “campo sujo” (a physiognomy dominated by herbaceous vegetation) native cerrado areas, pastures and cultures of coffee, sorghum, and pine. The sampling area of S. lycocarpum was more widely spread than that of R. montana.

The mean similarity of ant species composition between the two plant species was calculated by grouping the samples of each month from April and October . The similarity indexes and rarefaction curves were generated using EstimateS [39]. The frequency tests were made using BioEstat 5.0 [40].

3. Results

Ants were more frequent on R. montana (67%) as compared to S. lycocarpum (52%) and this difference was due to higher occurrence of ants on R. montana plants without myrmecophilous hemipterans (Table 1). Along the study we collected a total of 45 ant species from 11 different genera. We recorded 35 species on R. montana and 26 on S. lycocarpum, with estimated richness (first order Jackknife ± standard deviation) of 40 (± 2.6) and 29 (± 2.3), respectively, (Figure 1; Table 2).

CaracteristicsRoupalaSolanumχ 2P

Examined plants327431
Plants with ants21822615.5170.0001
Plants with myrmecophilous hemipterans1391880.0940.816
Co-occurrence of ants and hemipterans1151430.3280.620
Plants with hemipterans without ants24452.1610.141
Plants with ants without hemipterans1038315.0460.0001


Cephalotes adolphi Emery20
Cephalotes atratus Linnaeus02
Cephalotes betoi De Andrade30
Cephalotes depressus (Klug)510
Cephalotes grandinosus (Smith)60
Cephalotes liepini de Andrade & Baroni Urbani20
Cephalotes pusillus (Klug)14718
Crematogaster distans Mayr36
Crematogaster evallans Forel113
Crematogaster stollii Forel140
Crematogaster victima (Smith)10
Crematogaster sp.30
Nesomyrmex pleuriticus (Wheeler)10
Nesomyrmex tristani Emery10
Pheidole capillata Emery107
Pheidole sp.1 grupo fallax 21
Solenopsis substituta (Santschi)09
Solenopsis sp.120

Brachymyrmex sp.149
Camponotus arboreus (Smith)40
Camponotus atriceps (Smith)20
Camponotus blandus (Smith)12
Camponotus crassus Mayr64105
Camponotus fastigatus Roger02
Camponotus melanoticus Emery15
Camponotus novogranadensis Mayr30
Camponotus rufipes Fabricius038
Camponotus (Myrmaphaenus) sp.113
Camponotus (Myrmaphaenus) sp.2342
Camponotus (Myrmaphaenus) sp.301
Camponotus (Myrmaphaenus) sp.403
Camponotus (Myrmobrachys) sp.110
Camponotus (Myrmobrachys) sp.220
Camponotus (Tanaemyrmex) sp.42

Azteca instabilis (Smith)190
Azteca sp.140
Dorymyrmex sp.106

Pseudomyrmex gracilis (Fabricius)014
Pseudomyrmex pupa (Forel)02
Pseudomyrmex termitarius (Smith)01
Pseudomyrmex tenuissimus (Emery)72
Pseudomyrmex rufiventris (Forel)14
Pseudomyrmex sp. gp. Pallidus 14

Pachycondyla inversa (Smith)10
Pachycondyla villosa (Fabricius)30

The frequency of occurrence of the most common ant species were different on the two plant species (Table 2) and the mean similarity (±sd) of the ant assemblages for the dry season was low (Sorensen Index = 0.419 ± 0.078), especially when the frequency of occurrence of ant species was considered (Morisita-Horn Index = 0.372 ± 0.167).

Scale insects were an abundant resource in the leaves of R. montana, being found throughout the sampling period and 21% of ants in this plant were exploring this resource. We found 15 species of ants attending scale insects, and the most frequent were Cephalotes pusillus (Klug, 1824) (17 occurrences), Camponotus crassus (Mayr, 1862) (8), Brachymyrmex sp. (7), Crematogaster evallans (Forel, 1907) (6), and Solenopsis sp. (5). Some individuals of R. montana were flowering between April and July 2007 and developing inflorescences were explored by aphids, associated to four ant species, mainly Cr. evallans (4) and Camponotus (Myrmaphaenus) sp.2 (3). Seven species were recorded exploring mature floral nectaries, mostly Ce. pusillus (5) and Camponotus (Myrmaphaenus) sp.2 (4).

The frequency of occurrence of the commonest ant species was different on R. montana with and without Rotundicerus sp. A large proportion (67%) of the R. montana individuals examined during the dry season had ants, and 68% of the groups of Rotundicerus sp. on the same plant species and in the same area where tended by ants during the rainy season of 2006. Although the occurrence of the leafhopper did not enhance the frequency of visits of ants, it altered the composition of the ant fauna. The most notable cases were Ca. crassus and Azteca instabilis (Smith, 1862), which increased their frequency on the plants when Rotundicerus sp. was present, from 4 to 28% and 0 to 10%, respectively. Cephalotes pusillus and Crematogaster stollii Forel, 1885, on the other hand, decreased their frequency from 19% to 8% and from 7% to 0%, respectively.

Major resources explored by ants in S. lycocarpum were two species of Membracidae, each one present in 23% of the examined plants and Ca. crassus was the most frequent ant found in association with them. One species of Aetalionidae and scale insects were infrequent on this plant, being seen three and seven times, respectively. We lack nutritional information of glandular trichomes of S. lycocarpum, but small ants, like some species belonging to the genera Brachymyrmex, Dorymyrmex, Pheidole, and Solenopsis, possibly use this resource. Pseudomyrmex spp. were generally present (68%) on plants without myrmecophilous hemipterans.

4. Discussion

We found a high frequency of plants visited by ants, showing the prevalence of ants foraging on cerrado plants, even during the dry season, when R. montana plants were examined. The high availability of potential resources for ants [2, 13, 41], especially myrmecophilous hemipterans in the cerrado vegetation [21, 22, 42, 43], makes this stratum attractive to ants. Even with the predominance of liquid diet, it is important to stress that various species of ants forage for preys on plants, including myrmecophilous hemipterans [44]. In an urban area of Campinas (SP), for example, 70% of the diet of Pseudomyrmex gracilis (Fabricius, 1804) was based on arthropods, primarily a Psyllidae species (Hemiptera and Sternorryncha) [45]. This can explain the high frequency of Pseudomyrmex spp. in the samples, as well as the presence of Pachycondyla spp., a genus of predator ants [46]. Besides, some genera (e.g., Cephalotes and Pseudomyrmex) nest in dried plant branches, and this too can affect the ant assemblage that forage on an individual plant.

Richness of ants was high in both plant species, especially considering that the surveys were conducted only in the morning. Studies including day and night time observations, showed an average of 21 ant species visiting EFNs on six species of cerrado plants, with a minimum of nine on Qualea multiflora Mart. (Vochysiaceae) and a maximum of 34 on Caryocar brasiliense Camb. (Caryocaraceae) (Appendix  6.1 in [1]). Sequential samplings on Schefflera vinosa (Cham. & Schltdl.) Frondin and Fiasch (Araliacae) revealed that Guayaquila xiphias (Fabricius, 1803) treehoppers are attended day and night by 21 species of honeydew-gathering ants [42], whereas shrubs of Solanum lycocarpum hosting Enchenopa brasiliensis treehoppers are regularly visited by 10 ant species [22]. Campos et al. [19], using pitfall traps in a cerrado area of the state of Goias, found 16 species of ants on the shrub stratum (height between 0.5 and 1.5 m) and 28 on the arboreal stratum (dominated by taller, mature trees).

As expected, ant fauna between the two plants species investigated showed small similarity. The different habitats of occurrence of the plants undoubtedly had an effect on this result [4750], but variation on resource availability might have an important influence on the composition of ant species [41]. So there must be a particular ant species composition typical of plants with these kinds of resources (e.g., big groups of myrmecophilous hemipterans and active EFNs) even though for a limited period of time. Probably the fidelity of dominant ants plays a key role in structuring assemblages of tending ants on this rich food resource. Hence, comparisons on the frequency of occurrence and composition of species of ants on plants with and without these resources need to be done when they are present (e.g., active EFNs) and, preferentially, carefully choosing the species of plants, as phylogeny and genetic distance have a known influence in herbivore communities [51, 52].

Most studies about ant-hemipteran associations do not take into account records of ants on plants during periods of absence of these sap-sucking insects. Nevertheless they feed on young tissues of the host plant [9, 21, 22, 42, 43], so plant phenology has a direct effect on their occurrence and their potential association with ants. Solanum lycocarpum continuously produces leaves that are consumed by treehoppers practically throughout the year, while R. montana produces leaves roughly around September and November, period when its main sap-sucking insect, the myrmecophilous hemipteran, Rotundicerus sp., achieves its development and leaves the host plants. In any case, both plant species are patrolled by ants in the absence of their main hemipteran resources and other apparent ones. Plant phenology and seasonality have an effect on availability of resources exploited by tree-dwelling ants, producing a dynamics of niches occupied by a turnover of ant species. This yearly variation can reveal the strength of mutualistic associations between ants and myrmecophilous hemipterans and plants with or without EFNs, being important to understand the patterns of ant-plant-herbivore interactions.


The authors thank Ecology Graduate Program, technicians of the Tri Trophics Interaction laboratory, the University of Brasília—Fazenda Agua Limpa for the infrastructure, and Dr. Mundayatan Haridasan (Universidade de Brasília) who made suggestions and corrections in the manuscript. J. Maravalhas received Scientific Initiation scholarship from PIBIC/CNPq-UnB; J. H. C. Delabie acknowledges his research grant from CNPq.


  1. V. Rico-Gray and P. S. Oliveira, The Ecology and Evolution of Ant-Plant Interactions, Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill, USA.
  2. J. H. Schoereder, T. G. Sobrinho, M. S. Madureira, C. R. Ribas, and P. S. Oliveira, “The arboreal ant community visiting extrafloral nectaries in the Neotropical cerrado savanna,” Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews, vol. 3, pp. 3–27, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  3. P. Klimes, M. Janda, S. Ibalim, J. Kua, and V. Novotny, “Experimental suppression of ants foraging on rainforest vegetation in New Guinea: testing methods for a whole-forest manipulation of insect communities,” Ecological Entomology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 94–103, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. A. V. L. Freitas and P. S. Oliveira, “Ants as selective agents on herbivore biology: effects on the behaviour of a non-myrmecophilous butterfly,” Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 205–210, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  5. A. Floren, A. Biun, and K. Eduard Linsenmair, “Arboreal ants as key predators in tropical lowland rainforest trees,” Oecologia, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 137–144, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. G. W. Fernandes, M. Fagundes, M. K. B. Greco, M. S. Barbeitos, and J. C. Santos, “Ants and their effects on an insect herbivore community associated with the inflorescences of Byrsonima crassifolia (Linnaeus) H.B.K. (Malpighiaceae),” Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, vol. 49, pp. 264–269, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  7. M. Heil and D. McKey, “Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research,” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, vol. 34, pp. 425–453, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  8. J. A. Rudgers and S. Y. Strauss, “A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 271, no. 1556, pp. 2481–2488, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. D. McKey, L. Gaume, C. Brouat et al., “The trophic structure of tropical ant-plant-herbivore interactions: community consequences and coevolutionary dynamics,” in Biotic Interactions in the Tropics: Their Role in the Maintenance of Species Diversity, D. Burslem, M. Pinard, and S. Hartley, Eds., pp. 386–413, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  10. J. P. R. Guimarães, V. Rico-Gray, P. Oliveira, T. J. Izzo, S. F. dos Reis, and J. N. Thompson, “Interaction intimacy affects structure and coevolutionary dynamics in mutualistic networks,” Current Biology, vol. 17, no. 20, pp. 1–7, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. L. A. Kaminski, A. V. L. Freitas, and P. S. Oliveira, “Interaction between mutualisms: ant-tended butterflies exploit enemy-free space provided by ant-treehopper associations,” American Naturalist, vol. 176, no. 3, pp. 322–334, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. J. E. Tobin , “Ants as primary consumers: diet and abundance in the formicidae,” in Nourishment and Evolution in Insect Societies, J. H. Hunt and C. A. Napela, Eds., pp. 279–307, Westview Press, Boulder, Colo, USA, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  13. J. H. C. Delabie, “Trophobiosis between formicidae and hemiptera (sternorrhyncha and auchenorrhyncha): an overview,” Neotropical Entomology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 501–516, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  14. D. W. Davidson, S. C. Cook, R. R. Snelling, and T. H. Chua, “Explaining the abundance of ants in lowland tropical rainforest canopies,” Science, vol. 300, no. 5621, pp. 969–972, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. P. S. Oliveira and H. F. Leitão-Filho, “Extrafloral nectaries: their taxonomic distribution and abundance in the woody flora of Cerrado vegetation in Southeast Brazil,” Biotropica, vol. 19, pp. 140–148, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  16. P. S. Oliveira and A. T. Oliveira-Fliho, “Distribution of extrafloral nectaries in the woody flora of tropical communities in Western Brazil,” in Plant-Animal Interactions: Evolutionary Ecology in Tropical and Temperate Regions, P. W. Price, T. M. Lewinsohn, G. Fernandes, and W. W. Benson, Eds., pp. 163–175, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  17. C. R. Ribas, J. H. Schoereder, M. Pic, and S. M. Soares, “Tree heterogeneity, resource availability, and larger scale processes regulating arboreal ant species richness,” Austral Ecology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 305–314, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. G. D. V. Marques and K. Del-Claro, “The ant fauna in a cerrado area: the influence of vegetation structure and seasonality (Hymenoptera: Formicidae),” Sociobiology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  19. R. I. Campos, C. T. Lopes, W. C. S. Magalhães, and H. L. Vasconcelos, “Estratificação vertical de formigas em Cerrado strictu sensu no Parque Estadual da Serra de Caldas Novas, Goiás, Brasil,” Iheringia, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 311–316, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. P. S. Oliveira and A. V. L. Freitas, “Ant-plant-herbivore interactions in the neotropical cerrado savanna,” Naturwissenschaften, vol. 91, no. 12, pp. 557–570, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. J. Maravalhas and H. C. Morais, “Association between ants and a leafhopper (Cicadellidae: Idiocerinae) in the central brazilian cerrado,” Florida Entomologist, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 563–568, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. V. S. S. Moreira and K. Del-Claro, “The outcomes of an ant-treehopper association on Solanum lycocarpum St. Hill: increased membracid fecundity and reduced damage by chewing herbivores,” Neotropical Entomology, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 881–887, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  23. J. A. Ratter, S. Bridgewater, J. F. Ribeiro, T. A. Borges, and M. R. Silva, “Estudo preliminar da distribuição das espécies lenhosas da fitofisionomia cerrado sentido restrito nos estados compreendidos pelo bioma Cerrado,” Boletim do Herbário Ezechias Paulo Heringer, vol. 5, pp. 5–43, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  24. A. C. Franco, M. Bustamante, L. S. Caldas et al., “Leaf functional traits of Neotropical savanna trees in relation to seasonal water deficit,” Trees, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 326–335, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. E. Lenza and C. A. Klink, “Comportamento fenológico de espécies lenhosas em um cerrado sentido restrito de Brasília, DF,” Revista Brasileira de Botanica, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 627–638, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. P. E. Oliveira, P. E. Gibbs, and A. A. Barbosa, “Moth pollination of woody species in the Cerrados of Central Brazil: a case of so much owed to so few?” Plant Systematics and Evolution, vol. 245, no. 1-2, pp. 41–54, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  27. A. Bendicho-López, H. C. Morais, J. D. Hay, and I. R. Diniz, “Lepidópteros folívoros em Roupala montana Aubl. (Proteaceae) no cerrado sensu stricto,” Neotropical Entomology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 182–191, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. L. A. Kaminski, “Polyphagy and obligate myrmecophily in the butterfly Hallonympha paucipuncta (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae) in the neotropical cerrado savanna,” Biotropica, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 390–394, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. N. A. P. Silva, Biologia de lagartas de lycaenidae em inflorescências de plantas no cerrado do Brazil Central, M.S. thesis, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil, 2011.
  30. A. T. Oliveira-Filho and L. C. A. Oliveira, “Biologia floral de Solanum lycocarpum St. Hil. (Solanaceae) em Larvras, MG,” Revista Brasileira de Botânica, vol. 11, pp. 23–32, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  31. J. A. Lombardi and J. C. Motta-Junior, “Seed dispersal of Solanum lycocarpum St. Hil. (Solanaceae) by the maned wolf, Chysocyon brachyurus Illiger (Mammalia, Canidae),” Ciência e Cultura, vol. 45, pp. 126–127, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  32. S. R. M. Elias, R. M. Assis, E. Stacciarini-Seraphin, and M. H. Rezende, “Anatomia foliar em plantas jovens de Solanum lycocarpum A.St.-Hil. (Solanaceae),” Revista Brasileira de Botânica, vol. 26, pp. 169–174, 2033. View at: Google Scholar
  33. I. R. Diniz and H. C. Morais, unpublished data.
  34. A. L. T. Souza, G. W. Fernandes, J. E. Cortes Figueira, and M. O. Tanaka, “Natural history of a gall-inducing weevil Collabismus clitellae (coleoptera: Curculionidae) and some effects on its host plant Solanum lycocarpum (Solanaceae) in Southeastern Brazil,” Annals of the Entomological Society of America, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 404–409, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  35. J. C. Dalponte and E. S. Lima, “Disponibilidade de frutos e a dieta de Lycalopex vetulus (Carnivora) em um cerrado do Mato Grosso, Brasil,” Revista Brasileira de Botânica, vol. 22, pp. 325–332, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  36. L. M. S. Aguiar, “Primeiro registro do uso de folhas de Solanum lycocarpum (Solanaceae) e de frutos de Emmotum nitens (Icacinaceae) por Platyrrhinus lineatus (E. Geoffroy) (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae) no Cerrado brasileiro,” Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, vol. 22, pp. 509–510, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  37. D. C. Briani and J. P. R. Guimaraes, “Seed predation and fruit damage of Solanum lycocarpum (Solanaceae) by rodents in the cerrado of central Brazil,” Acta Oecologica, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 8–12, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. L. Sousa-Souto, J. H. Schoereder, and C. E. G. R. Schaefer, “Leaf-cutting ants, seasonal burning and nutrient distribution in Cerrado vegetation,” Austral Ecology, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 758–765, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. R. K. Colwell, “EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8.0.0 User’s Guide and Application,” 2008, View at: Google Scholar
  40. M. Ayres, M. Ayres Jr., D. L. Ayres, and A. A. S. Santos, BioEstat 5.0, Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá, Belém, Brazil, 2005.
  41. V. Rico-Gray, J. G. García-Franco, M. Palacios-Rios, C. Diaz-Castelazo, V. Parra-Tabla, and J. A. Navarro, “Geographical and seasonal variation in the richness of ant-plant interactions in Mexico,” Biotropica, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 190–200, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  42. B. C. Lopes, “Treehoppers (Homoptera: Membracidae) in the Southeast Brazil: use of host plants,” Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, vol. 12, pp. 595–608, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  43. K. Del-Claro and P. S. Oliveira, “Ant-homoptera interactions in a neotropical savanna: the honeydew-producing treehopper, Guayaquila xiphias (Membracidae), and its associated ant fauna on Didymopanax vinosum (Araliaceae),” Biotropica, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 135–144, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  44. H. C. P. Silveira, P. S. Oliveira, and J. R. Trigo, “Attracting predators without falling prey: chemical camouflage protects honeydew-producing treehoppers from ant predation,” American Naturalist, vol. 175, no. 2, pp. 261–268, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. C. V. A. Dansa, Estratégia de forrageamento de pseudomyrmex gracilis (Fabr.) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), M.S. thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil, 1989.
  46. H. G. Fowler, L. C. Forti, C. R. F. Brandão, J. H. C. Delabie, and H. L. Vasconcelos, “Ecologia nutricional de formigas,” in Ecologia Nutricional de Insetos e Suas Implicações no Manejo de Pragas, A. R. Panizzians and J. R. P. Parra, Eds., pp. 131–223, Editora Manole e CNPq, São Paulo, Brazil, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  47. M. A. S. De La Fuente and R. J. Marquis, “The role of ant-tended extrafloral nectaries in the protection and benefit of a neotropical rainforest tree,” Oecologia, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 192–202, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. R. Cogni, A. V. L. Freitas, and P. S. Oliveira, “Interhabitat differences in ant activity on plant foliage: ants at extrafloral nectaries of Hibiscus pernambucensis in sandy and mangrove forests,” Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 125–131, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. A. D. Gove, J. D. Majer, and V. Rico-Gray, “Ant assemblages in isolated trees are more sensitive to species loss and replacement than their woodland counterparts,” Basic and Applied Ecology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 187–195, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. F. S. Neves, R. F. Braga, M. M. Do EspíritoSanto, J. H. C. Delabie, G. W. Fernandes, and G. A. Sánchez-Azofeifa, “Diversity of arboreal ants in a brazilian tropical dry forest: effects of seasonality and successional stage,” Sociobiology, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 177–194, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  51. G. D. Weiblen, C. O. Webb, V. Novotny, Y. Basset, and S. E. Miller, “Phylogenetic dispersion of host use in a tropical insect herbivore community,” Ecology, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 62–75, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  52. H. C. Morais, E. R. Sujii, M. Almeida-Neto, P. S. de Carvalho, J. D. V. Hay, and I. R. Diniz, “Host plant specialization and species turnover of caterpillars among hosts in the Brazilian Cerrado,” Biotropica, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 467–472, 2011. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2012 Jonas Maravalhas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2021, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.