| Title |
Ant-lepidopteran associations along African forest edges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Science of Nature, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00114-016-1424-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alain Dejean, Frédéric Azémar, Michel Libert, Arthur Compin, Bruno Hérault, Jérôme Orivel, Thierry Bouyer, Bruno Corbara |
| Abstract |
Working along forest edges, we aimed to determine how some caterpillars can co-exist with territorially dominant arboreal ants (TDAAs) in tropical Africa. We recorded caterpillars from 22 lepidopteran species living in the presence of five TDAA species. Among the defoliator and/or nectarivorous caterpillars that live on tree foliage, the Pyralidae and Nymphalidae use their silk to protect themselves from ant attacks. The Notodontidae and lycaenid Polyommatinae and Theclinae live in direct contact with ants; the Theclinae even reward ants with abundant secretions from their Newcomer gland. Lichen feeders (lycaenid; Poritiinae), protected by long bristles, also live among ants. Some lycaenid Miletinae caterpillars feed on ant-attended membracids, including in the shelters where the ants attend them; Lachnocnema caterpillars use their forelegs to obtain trophallaxis from their host ants. Caterpillars from other species live inside weaver ant nests. Those of the genus Euliphyra (Miletinae) feed on ant prey and brood and can obtain trophallaxis, while those from an Eberidae species only prey on host ant eggs. Eublemma albifascia (Erebidae) caterpillars use their thoracic legs to obtain trophallaxis and trophic eggs from ants. Through transfer bioassays of last instars, we noted that herbivorous caterpillars living in contact with ants were always accepted by alien conspecific ants; this is likely due to an intrinsic appeasing odor. Yet, caterpillars living in ant shelters or ant nests probably acquire cues from their host colonies because they were considered aliens and killed. We conclude that co-evolution with ants occurred similarly in the Heterocera and Rhopalocera. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 40% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2017.
All research outputs
#21,141,111
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#2,076
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#360,090
of 425,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.