Do extrafloral nectaries distract ants from visiting flowers? An experimental test of an overlooked hypothesis

By D. Wagner, A. Kay. 2002

102 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/57fc7dc7da110dc0447f6c4eec8d84fa705797d0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Martin Heil
2. J. Ness
3. K. Del‐Claro
4. P. Willmer
5. Jennifer A. Rudgers
6. N. E. Raine
7. V. Rico‐Gray
8. Lori Lach

Citations in the corpus

• Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. (2008, background): “There are still alternative interpretations in the case of EFN, however, as some authors suggested a function in the distraction of ants from flowers (Wagner & Kay, 2002).”
• Floral volatiles controlling ant behaviour (2009, background): “In this light, we hypothesize that EFNs may have evolved an important secondary role as attractive decoys to keep ants away from the floral nectar and out of flowers in both myrmecophytes and non-myrmecophytes ( Wagner & Kay 2002 ).”
• Plant Defense against Insect Herbivores (2013, background): “In contrast to floral nectar, used to attract pollinators, EFN is secreted on leaves and shoots to attract predators and parasitoids [360–362], but its repellent function has been discussed as well [363].”
• EXTRAFLORAL NECTAR AS A RESOURCE MEDIATING MULTISPECIES INTERACTIONS (2004, background): “EF nectar may also attract seed dispersers, as in Acacia ligulata, where EF nectar feeds ants that disperse the plants’ arillate seeds (Whitney 2002; K. D. Whitney, personal communication).”
• HOW TO BE SWEET? EXTRAFLORAL NECTAR ALLOCATION BY GOSSYPIUM HIRSUTUM FITS OPTIMAL DEFENSE THEORY PREDICTIONS (2004, background): “Extrafloral nectar may serve to prevent these problems by distracting ants away from delicate flowers (Trelease 1879, Wagner and Kay 2002).”
• How do belowground organisms influence plant–pollinator interactions? (2015, unknown): “If EFN alters the foraging behaviors of ants by reducing foraging on floral nectar sources (Wagner and Kay 2002), it might reduce nectar robbing by ants or ant aggressiveness towards pollinators, thereby increasing pollination.”
• HERITABILITY OF NECTAR TRAITS: WHY DO WE KNOW SO LITTLE? (2004, background): “…and Galen 1991, Real and Rathcke 1991, Koptur 1992, Creswell 1993, Mitchell 1993, Hodges 1995, Meléndez-Ackerman et al. 1977, Mitchell et al. 1998, Wagner and Kay 2002), but for it to cause evolutionary change, nectar traits must be heritable (or must have been heritable in the past), and…”
• A mutualism's indirect costs: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators (2006, background): “Whether flower visitation by ants is increased or decreased by the presence of alternative rewards such as EFN is controversial (Guerrant and Fiedler 1981, O’Dowd and Catchpole 1983, Wagner and Kay 2002, Raine et al. 2002, Galen 2005).”
• Loss and gains in ant–plant interactions mediated by extrafloral nectar: fidelity, cheats, and lies (2016, background): “An interesting hypothesis brought up in the nineteen century, but rarely tested empirically until recently (Wagner and Kay 2002), was the role of EFNs as ant distractors from Fig.”
• Argentine ants displace floral arthropods in a biodiversity hotspot (2007, background): “When plants offer both extrafloral and floral nectar, ants may be distracted by the former (Wagner & Kay, 2002) and pollinator displacement may be avoided, though this may depend on the ant species involved (Ness, 2006).”