| Title |
Ant species confer different partner benefits on two neotropical myrmecophytes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oecologia, February 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00442-004-1817-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Megan E. Frederickson |
| Abstract |
The dynamics of mutualistic interactions involving more than a single pair of species depend on the relative costs and benefits of interaction among alternative partners. The neotropical myrmecophytes Cordia nodosa and Duroia hirsuta associate with several species of obligately symbiotic ants. I compared the ant partners of Cordia and Duroia with respect to two benefits known to be important in ant-myrmecophyte interactions: protection against herbivores provided by ants, and protection against encroaching vegetation provided by ants. Azteca spp., Myrmelachista schumanni, and Allomerus octoarticulatus demerarae ants all provide the leaves of Cordia and Duroia some protection against herbivores. However, Azteca and Allomerus provide more protection than does Myrmelachista to the leaves of their host plants. Although Allomerus protects the leaves of its hosts, plants occupied by Allomerus suffer more attacks by herbivores to their stems than do plants occupied by other ants. Relative to Azteca or Allomerus, Myrmelachista ants provide better protection against encroaching vegetation, increasing canopy openness over their host plants. These differences in benefits among the ant partners of Cordia and Duroia are reflected in the effect of each ant species on host plant size, growth rate, and reproduction. The results of this study show how mutualistic ant partners can differ with respect to both the magnitude and type of benefits they provide to the same species of myrmecophytic host. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 6 | 4% |
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Colombia | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Unknown | 122 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 29 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 27 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 96 | 64% |
| Environmental Science | 23 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 20 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,674
of 4,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,646
of 141,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 141,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.