Nectar- and pollen-gathering Cephalotes ants provide no protection against herbivory: a new manipulative experiment to test ant protective capabilities

By Jonas Byk, K. Del‐Claro. Acta Ethologica, 2010

99 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Loss and gains in ant–plant interactions mediated by extrafloral nectar: fidelity, cheats, and lies (2016, background): “For example, Byk and Del-Claro (2010) tested in the Brazilian savanna the protective action of a very common and abundant EFN visiting ant, Cephalotes pusillus on the EFN-bearing tree Ouratea spectabilis (Ochnaceae).”
Ant–plant interaction in the Neotropical savanna: direct beneficial effects of extrafloral nectar on ant colony fitness (2011, background): “In the present case, if C. pusillus may be considered a parasite as predicted by Byk and Del-Claro (2010), our data contradict the observations made by Clement et al. (2008) in myrmecophytic systems.”
Influence of extrafloral nectary phenology on ant–plant mutualistic networks in a neotropical savanna (2013, background): “…the majority only verify the © 2013 The Royal Entomological Society 463 outcomes of the interaction for plants (leaf loss) (Davidson & McKey, 1993; Blüthgen et al., 2000; Floren et al., 2002; Byk & Del-Claro, 2010), while only a few verify the effects on ant fitness (Byk & Del-Claro, 2011).”
Do ant visitors to extrafloral nectaries of plants repel pollinators and cause an indirect cost of mutualism (2014, background): “, 1992) and aggressiveness (Byk and Del-Claro, 2010).”