795 Fire Ant- Hemipteran Mutualisms: Comparison of Ant Preference for Honeydew Excreted by an Invasive Mealybug and a Native Aphid by Aiming Zhou, Yong yue Lu, Ling Zeng, Yijuan Xu* & Guangwen Liang* ABSTRACT Interaction between ants and honeydew-producing hemipterans is defined as mutualism which is beneficial for both species. Red imported fire ants, Solenopsis invicta, who tend the honeydew-producing hemipteran insects, can help reduce their predators and parasites. In return, ants receive honeydew as an important food resource. In this study, we tested the foraging intensity (FI), weight change and honeydew consumption (HC) of S. invicta on Phenacoccus solenopsis, Myzus persicae and infested plants by mixed-colony (both P. solenopsis and M. persicae) . Our results showed that FI of S. invicta was gradually increasing with time on the plants infested by aphids and the mixed-colony, while inverse situation was found on mealybug- infested plants. Within 10 and 15 days, FI on aphid and the mixed-species infested plant was significantly more than that on the mealybug infested plant. We compared the ant weight between the two moving directions, and the result showed that the weight of downward ants was significantly heavier than upward ants except that on the mealybug infested plant after 15 days. The study also indi- cated that there was no observable difference of HC among the three kinds of honeydew resource in one day and five days, while HC on aphid and the mixed colony infested plant in 10 and 15 days was significantly more than that on mealybug-infested plants. Key words: Solenopsis invicta, Myzus persicae, Phenacoccus solenopsis, forag- ing intensity, honeydew consumption. Red Imported Fire Ant Research Center, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China *Corresponding authors: e-mail: xuyijuan@yahoo.com, gwliang@scau.edu.cn 796 Sociobiolog y Vol. 59, No. 3, 2012 INTRODUCTION Mutualistic interactions between ant species and honeydew-producing hemipteran insects, such as aphids, scales, mealybugs, membracids and lepi- dopteran larvae, have been described extensively in various ecosystems (Nixon 1951, Buckley 1987b, Buckley 1987a, Holway et al. 2002, Ness & Bronstein 2004). Ants tend honey-producing hemipteran insects by reducing not only the predation and parasitism by natural enemies but also the risk of fungal infection. In return, the ants receive abundant honeydew from hemipteran insects as food (Banks & Macaulay 1967, Tilles & Wood 1982, Yao et al. 2000, Standler & Dixon 1998). Honeydew excreted by hemipterans is considered to be an important food resource for ants because it contains sugars mixed with various amino acids and energ y-rich materials (Hölldobler & Wilson 1990, Douglas 1993, Tobin 1994, Davidson et al. 2004). Previous studies showed that S. invicta colonies grew substantially larger when supplied with insect prey and honeydew produced by the invasive mealybug Antonina graminis (Maskell) (Helms & Vinson 2008). The intensity of mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing hemipterans is involved with various factors, such as host density, host plant quality, species and density of hemipterans and ants (Addicott 1978, Addicott 1979, Auclair 1963, Cushman 1991, Breton & Addicott 1992, Bristow 1984). Hibiscus rosa-sinensis is commonly infested by ant-tending aphids and mealybugs such as Myzus persicae and Phenacoccus solenopsis in South China. M. persicae is a native species which has abundant population density in the field. The mealybug P. solenopsis is native to the US and has spread through- out the world (Fuchs et al. 1991). It has a wide geographic distribution and can be found in Central America, South America and Africa (Williams & Willink 1992, Culik & Gullan 2005). Recently, P. solenopsis was reported to be an important invasive species in Southern China (Lu et al. 2008). The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, is a new invasive pest in South China. Negative effects of S. invicta on agriculture and forestry production, human health and poultry production have been reported in South China (Zeng et al. 2005). Like the aphid M. persicae, we found that S. invicta were also at- tracted by the honeydew-producing P. solenopsis in the field. In this study, we compare the FI and HC of S. invicta on the plant infested by M. persicae, P. 797 Zhou, A. et al. — Ant Preference for Honeydew solenopsis and the mixed-colony respectively, as well as to test the hypothesis that S. invicta had higher FI and HC on a plant infested by mixed-colony than that on a plant which was infested by a single colony of M. persicae or P. solenopsis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Host plants H. rosa-sinensis was purchased from a commercial horticultural farm. All plants had 25-30 uninoculated leaves and were approximately 25-30 cm in height. Each plant was cultivated in plastic flowerpots (the diameters of the upper and lower edges were 18 cm and 14 cm, respectively, with a height of 17 cm) in greenhouses. Mealybugs and Aphids Colonies of P. solenopsis and Myzus persicae were fed on H. rosa-sinensis. The 1st instar P. solenopsis and M. persicae nymphs were inoculated on each plant and raised for several generations. All colonies were reared in the labo- ratory with the temperature maintained at 27 ±2°C and a relative humidity of 60-70%. Fire ants Colonies of S. invicta were collected from the suburb of Guangzhou and reared in plastic boxes (116 L). All colonies were separated from the soil by dripping water into plastic boxes until the colonies floated ( Jouvenaz et al. 1977). The ants were removed and reared in plastic boxes with tubes filled with distilled water. Colonies were divided into several small colonies (ap- proximately 1.0 g workers and one queen) measured with a microbalance (Sartorius, BS, 224S). The ants were placed in a 9-cm plastic Petri dish with moist plaster, which served as an artificial nest. The ants were given fresh live Tenebrio molitor worms, and a 10% solution of honey mixed with water (50 ml) weekly. The colony was assigned randomly to each experimental treatment. H. rosa-sinensis seedling leaves were inoculated with 60 3rd instar P. solen- opsis and M. persicae. Artificial nests of S. invicta were transferred to plastic cases (40 cm × 28 cm × 22 cm). After 24 h, mealybug and aphid-infected plants were placed into each plastic case. A plastic hose (1.5 cm diameter) 798 Sociobiolog y Vol. 59, No. 3, 2012 was used to build a bridge between the ants’ nest and the basic stem of the plant to allow worker foraging. We randomly collected 30 workers from the bottom stalk as they were moving toward the hemipteran colony since the beginning of the experiment, and 30 more were collected after 1, 5, 10 and 15 days as they were returning from the colony. Weights of the ants before and after foraging were measured with a microbalance (Sartorius, BS, 224S). Workers’ weight change of S. invicta was viewed as an indirect measure of P. solenopsis and M. persicae honeydew consumption. Meanwhile, in order to measure the ant foraging intensity, we also counted all the ants present on each plant. In addition, honeydew consumption and foraging intensity of S. invicta were studied as was described in the preceding experiments when both mealybugs and aphids were present on the same plant (mixed-colony) (60 3rd instar nymph each hemipteran species). The studies were conducted in an enemy-free laboratory. All treatments were replicated ten times. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Difference of FI and HC of S. invicta between mealybug, aphid and mixed-colony inoculated plants and in four different experimental times were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA followed by LSD tests for multiple comparisons. Changes in ant weight between traveling up and down were analyzed with paired-sample t-tests. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS, version 14.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS Foraging intensity of S. invicta We found that FI on mealybug-infested plants was gradually decreasing, the number of foraging ants in 15 days was significantly smaller than that after one day (F 3,36 =3.406, P=0.028, Fig.1.A). FI on the plants infested by aphids or mixed-colony gradually increased, and the number of foraging ants on aphid-infested plants after 10 and 15 days was larger than that after one day (F 3,36 =3.749, P=0.019, Fig.1.A). There was no marked difference of FI on the plant infested by mixed-colony among the four tests (F 3,36 =1.323, P=0.282, Fig.1.A). In addition, there was no significant difference of FI in one day among the three kinds of honeydew resources (F 2,27 =1.967, P=0.159, Fig.1.B), while the number of foraging workers on the plant infested by aphids 799 Zhou, A. et al. — Ant Preference for Honeydew and the mixed-colony in 10 and 15 days was significantly larger than that on mealybug-infested plant after one day (F 2,27 =9.701, P=0.001; F 2,27 =15.042, P=0.000, Fig.1.B). Honeydew consumption of S. invicta We recorded the difference of the weights of the workers moving in two directions. Our results indicated that the weights of all downward workers were significantly heavier than upward ones on plants inoculated with the three kinds of heipteran species in the four tests, while only the result on mealybug-infested plants in 15 days was significant (Fig.2.A, B and C). We also calculated the HC of S. invicta under different honeydew resources for four Fig.1.Comparision of the average number (M±SE) of foraging ants per plant (A): the same honeydew resource and different testing time; (B): the same testing time and different honeydew resource. The same letter on bars indicates no significant difference (P≥0.05). 800 Sociobiolog y Vol. 59, No. 3, 2012 Fig.2. Mean (±SE) weight of workers traveling up (❒) and traveling down (■) (A): H. rosa-sinensis infested with P. solenopsis only (B): H. rosa-sinensis infested with M. persicae only (C): H. rosa-sinensis infested with both P. solenopsis and M. persicae, (* indicate P<0.05, ** indicate P≥0.01). 801 Zhou, A. et al. — Ant Preference for Honeydew different testing times. The results showed that when plants were inoculated with the mixed-colony, there was no significant difference in HC of S. invicta among all the four testing times (F 3,36 =1.157, P=0.339 , Fig.3.A). Compared with HC in one day on aphid-infested plants, HC of S. invicta increased after 15 days (F 3,36 =2.398, P=0.084 , Fig.3.A). But the trend on mealybug-infested plants was reversed (F 3,36 =3.688, P=0.021 , Fig.3.A). In addition, there was no observable difference of HC among the three kinds of hemipteran spe- cies after one day and five days (F 2,27 =0.361, P=0.700; F 2,27 =0.373, P=0.692, Fig.3.B), while HC on the plants infested by aphids and the mixed-colony after 10 and 15 days was significantly larger than that on mealybug-infested plants (F 2,27 =6.023, P=0.007; F 2,27 =9.292, P=0.001, Fig.3.B). Fig.3.Comparision among the average weight (M±SE) of honeydew consumption (A): the same honeydew resource and different testing time; (B): the same testing time and different honeydew resource. The same letter on bars indicates no significant difference (P≥0.05). 802 Sociobiolog y Vol. 59, No. 3, 2012 DISSCUSSION Our results demonstrated that FI and HC of S. invicta decreased on mealybug-infested plants and increased on the plants infested by aphids or the mixed-colony (Fig.1.A, Fig.3.A). Compared with the cases on the plant infested by single-colony, there was no significant increase of FI and HC of S. invicta when ants had access to the plants infested by the mixed-colony (Fig.1.B, Fig.3.B). We conclude that FI and HC of S. invicta were involved with the quantity of honeydew produced, the more honeydew produced by hemipterans, the more ants attracted to the infested plants. FI and HC of S. invicta on the plant infested by aphids and mixed-colony after 10 and 15 days was significantly more than that on mealybug-infested plants after one day (Fig.1.B, Fig.3.B). Those results indicated that the M. persicae colony could produce more honeydew than P. solenopsis in 10 and 15 days. In addition, the quantities of honeydew produced between M. persicae and the mixed- colony showed no significant difference. Different reproductive rates and inter-specific competition between M. persicae and P. solenopsis could be responsible for the above results. The developmental period of P. solenopsis from immature crawler to adult stage (females) was ap- proximately 9-16 days with 23.3-30.2 and 40.5-92.5% RH (Vennila et al. 2010). The developmental period of M. persicae from nymph to adult was approximately 5-6 days (Liu 1991). A higher reproductive rate of M. persicae may lead to decreasing population and fitness of P. solenopsis when M. persicae and P. solenopsis feed on the same plant. This may explain why ants had stronger FI and more HC on the plants infested by mixed colony than on those only infested by M. persicae. Our results accorded with the report that ants usually visited a rich hydrocarbon source with higher intensity rather than a less rich one, and would exploit much closer and more worthy sugar resources within their foraging range (Hölldobler & Wilson 1990, Bonser et al. 1998, Mailleux et al. 2000). Previous studies showed that ants prefer honeydew which contained trisaccharides such as raffinose and melezitose (Vökl et al. 1999). Lasius niger showed marked preferences when collecting honeydew from three aphid species living on tansy (Fischer et al. 2001). 803 Zhou, A. et al. — Ant Preference for Honeydew Therefore, difference of honeydew quality between P. solenopsis and M. persicae may be another reason for the results seen here. However, the composition of honeydew excreted by P. solenopsis and M. persicae should be further studied. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31101498). REFERENCES Addicott, J. H. 1978. Competition for mutualists: aphids and ants. Can. J. Zool. 56: 2093–2096 Addicott, J. H. 1979. A multispecies aphid-ant association: density dependence and species- specific effects. Can. J. Zool. 57: 558–569 Auclair, J. L. 1963. Aphid feeding and nutrition. Annu.Rev. Entomol. 8: 439–490 Banks, C.J. & E. D. M. Macaulay 1967, Effect of Aphis fabae Scop,and of its attendant ants and insect predators on yields of field beans (Vicia faba L.). Annals of Applied Biolog y 60(3):445-453. Bonser, R., P.J.Wright, S. Bament & U.O.Chukwu 1998. Optimal patch use by foraging workers of Lasius fuliginosus, L. niger and Myrmica ruginodis. Ecol. Entomol. 23: 15–21 Breton, L. M. & J. F. Addicott 1992. Does host-plant quality mediate aphid-ant mutualism? Oikos 63: 53–259. Bristow, C. 1984. Differential benefits from ant-attendance to two species of Homoptera on New York ironweed. J. Anim. Ecol. 53:715–726 Buckley, R.C. 1987a. Ant-plant-homopteran interactions. Advances in Ecological Research 16:53-85. Buckley, R.C. 1987b. Interactions involving plants, Homoptera, and ants. Annual Review of Ecolog y and Systematics 18:111-135. Culik, M.P.& P.J. Gullan 2005. A new pest of tomato and other records of mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) from Espírito Santo, Brazil. Zootaxa 964:1-8. Cushman, J. H. 1991. Host plant mediation of insect mutualism: variable outcomes in herbivore-ant interactions. Oikos 61: 138–144. Davidson, D.W., S.C. Cook & R.R.Snelling 2004. Liquid-feeding performances of ants (Formicidae): ecological and evolutionary implications. Oecologia 139 (2):255-266. Douglas, A. 1993. The nutritional quality of phloem sap utilized by natural aphid populations. Ecological Entomolog y 18 (1):31-38. Fischer, M. K., K.H.Hoffmann & W.Völkl 2001. Competition for mutualists in an ant–homopteran interaction mediated by hierarchies of ant attendance. Oikos 92: 531–541. 804 Sociobiolog y Vol. 59, No. 3, 2012 Fuchs, T.W., J.W.Stewart, R. Minzenmayer & M. Rose 1991. 1st record of Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley in cultivated cotton in the united-States. Southwestern Entomologist 16 (3):215- 221. Helms, K.R. & S.Vinson 2008. Plant resources and colony growth in an invasive ant: the importance of honeydew-producing hemiptera in carbohydrate transfer across trophic levels. Environmental entomology 37 (2):487-493. Hölldobler, B.& E.O. Wilson 1990. The ants. Holway, D.A., L. Lach, A.V. Suarez, N.D. Tsutsui & T.J. Case 2002. The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:181–233. Jouvenaz, D., G. Allen, W. Banks & D.P.Wojcik 1977. A survey for pathogens of fire ants, Solenopsis spp., in the southeastern United States. Florida Entomologist 60(4):275-279. Liu, S. S. 1991.The influence of temperature on the population increase of Myzus persicae and Lipaphis erysimi. Acta Entomologica Sinica 34(2):189-197. Lu, Y.Y., L.Zeng, L.Wang, Y.J.Xu & K.W. Chen 2008. Precaution of solenopsis mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley. Journal of Environmental Entomology 30 (4):386-387. Mailleux, A. C., C.Detrain & J.L.Deneubourg 2000. How do the ants assess food volume? Anim. Behav. 59:1061–1069 Ness, J.H. & I.L.Bronstein 2004. The effects of invasive ants on prospective ant mutualists. Biological Invasions 6 (4):445-461. Nixon, G.E.J. 1951. The association of ants with aphids and coccids. Commonwealth Institute of Entomology London, United Kingdom Stadler, B. & A.F.G. Dixon 1998. Cost of ant attendance for aphids. Journal of Animal Ecology 67:454-595. Tilles, A.D. & D. L. Wood 1982. The influence of carpenter ant (Camponotus modoc) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) attendance on the development and survival of aphids (Cinara spp.) (Homoptera:Aphididae) in a giant sequoia forest. The Canadian Entomologist 114: (12) 1133-1142. Tobin, J.E. 1994. Ants as primary consumers: diet and abundance in the Formicidae. Nourishment and evolution in insect societies 9:279-307. Vennila, S., A.J.Deshmukh, D.Pinjarkar, M.Agarwal, V.V.Ramamurthy, S.Joshi, K.R.Kranthi &O.M. Bambawale 2010. Biology of the mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis on cotton in the laboratory, Journal of Insect Science 10:1-8. Vökl, W., J. Woodring, M. Fischer, M.W. Lorenz & K.H. Hoffmann 1999. Ant-aphid mutualisms: the impact of honeydew production and honeydew sugar composition on ant preferences. Oecologia 118: 483-491. Williams, D. & M.Willink 1992. Mealybugs of Central and South America. Yao, I., H. Shibao & S. Akimoto 2000. Costs and benefits of ant attendance to the drepanosiphid aphid Tuberculatus quercicola. Oikos 89:3–10. Zeng, L., Y.Y.Lu, X.F.He, W.Q.Zhang & G.W.Liang 2005. Identification of red imported fire ant Solenopsis invicta to invade mainland China and infestation in Wuchuan, Guangdong. Chinese Bulletin of Entomology 42 (2):144-148.