Open access journal: http://periodicos.uefs.br/index.php/sociobiology ISSN: 0361-6525 DOI: 10.13102/sociobiology.v69i3.8308Sociobiology 69(3): e8308 (September, 2022) Introduction Myrmecochory is an ecosystem function in which ants disperse approximately 11,000 species of myrmecochorous plants (Lengyel et al., 2010). Within this function, diaspore removal is the process in which ants transport diaspores, which is part of the seed dispersal. This is an asymmetric mutualism in which seeds of many angiosperm species are dispersed by a few ant species (Warren & Giladi, 2014). In general, ants are attracted by the high lipid content of seed elaiosomes for primary dispersal (Bas et al., 2007; Servigne & Detrain, 2008; Leal et al., 2014) and to the arils of diaspores on the ground for secondary dispersal (Pizo & Oliveira, 2000). Ants, along with birds, are the major secondary removers of fleshy diaspores falling on the grounds of Brazilian tropical Abstract Secondary diaspore removal on the ground is an important ecosystem process. In this process, solitary foraging ants with larger body sizes are more efficient because they may remove more diaspores, faster and carry them at greater distances. Therefore, we sought to test the effects of the sizes of the morphological traits of ants, removal strategy, and nest distance on secondary diaspore removal, testing hypotheses related to the efficiency of this process. We evaluated the removal of artificial diaspores by ants in 15 areas of Cerrado sensu stricto (tropical savanna), collecting data on diaspore removal strategy (solitary or group), nest distance, diaspore discovery time, diaspore removal time, and the number of diaspores removed. Larger ants tended to remove diaspores alone and remove diaspores faster than smaller ones. Ants that removed diaspores alone removed more diaspores than ants that removed diaspores in groups. However, we did not find a linear relationship between ant size and diaspore removal. This is likely due to a limitation on, or a preference by larger ants for removing larger diaspores, while the smaller diaspores may have hindered manipulation or been less attractive to larger ants. Thus, the removal strategy was the best predictor of efficient diaspore removal performance, where the solitary foraging ants discover and remove diaspores quickly and remove more diaspores, mainly from the closest nests to the sampling point. However, the benefits (or not) of removing more diaspores still need to be evaluated. Sociobiology An international journal on social insects Icaro Wilker¹, Mariana A. Rabelo¹, Marina A. Angotti¹,², Carla R. Ribas¹ Article History Edited by Kleber Del-Claro, UFU, Brazil Received 23 June 2022 Initial acceptance 29 June 2022 Final acceptance 11 August 2022 Publication date 12 September 2022 Keywords Functional traits, Myrmecochory, Seed removal, Morphology, Strategy foraging, Animal-plant interactions. Corresponding author Icaro Wilker Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia Aplicada, Departamento de Ecologia e Conservação Instituto de Ciências Naturais, Universidade Federal de Lavras Aquenta Sol, s/nº, CEP: 37200-900 Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brasil. E-Mail: gonzagaicaro@gmail.com savannas (Campagnoli & Christianini, 2021; Christianini & Oliveira, 2010). These ants are typically large ants that forage solitarily and small ants that forage in groups, which are considered good and poor seed dispersers, respectively, due to their foraging characteristics and morphological traits (Giladi, 2006). Large species of ants that forage solitarily, which are characterized by omnivorous or scavenging guilds, are considered to be high-quality dispersers because they disperse diaspores in greater quantity and at greater distances from parent plants (Giladi, 2006; Leal et al., 2014). Species that recruit many workers (generally small ants), such as omnivorous or granivorous ants, are considered to be poor- quality dispersers because they tend to disperse fewer diaspores over shorter distances (Hughes & Westoby, 1992; 1 - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia Aplicada, Departamento de Ecologia e Conservação, Instituto de Ciências Naturais, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras-MG, Brazil 2 - Institudo Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Mato Grosso do Sul (IFMS), Campus Ponta Porã, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil RESEARCH ARTICLE - ANTS Ant Species That Remove Diaspores Alone Are More Efficient Removers Icaro Wilker, Mariana A. Rabelo, Marina A. Angotti, Carla R. Ribas – Solitary remover ants are better diaspore removers2 Giladi, 2006; Leal et al., 2014). In addition, these ants often consume the aril, elaiosome, or even the seed at the site, performing few removals, making difficult the germination or even killing the seed embryo (Fernandes et al., 2018; Pizo & Oliveira, 2000). Conversely, large species are more attracted by elaiosomes with a greater content of some lipids because these components are also found in dead insects and in the prey of these ants (Hughes et al., 1994). So, this leads large ants that forage solitarily to discover and remove diaspores before the granivorous ants consume them (Hughes et al., 1994). Moreover, larger ants probably transport diaspores to the nest faster than small ants, because long-legged ants show the best performance in carrying loads (Nielsen et al., 1982; Espadaler & Gomes, 1996). Conversely, the group-foraging ants, after finding resources and recruiting workers, continue to remove resources (Dornhaus & Powell, 2010). This behaviour can lead to faster removal of resources, due to the larger number of workers performing this function. On the other hand, although the solitary foraging ants do not recruit other workers, some ant groups, like some Ectatomminae ants, can show path fidelity, i.e., the ants specialized in particular foraging zones around the colony (Pie, 2004). In this foraging type, the ants find the resources and return to the nest quickly, which can also increase the speed of removal of resources. Some morphological traits of ants are considered useful to evaluate the effectiveness of ant performance in ecosystem processes and functions. Ants with larger bodies tend to carry more diaspores for greater distances (Ness et al., 2004), and probably discover and remove lipid-rich diaspores faster (Espadaler & Gomes, 1996; Hughes et al., 1994; Nielsen et al., 1982). This apparently is beneficial for myrmecochory, allowing increased plant dispersal and conquest of new territories (Bestelmeyer & Wiens, 2003; Ness et al., 2004). In addition, these ants often have larger legs, which indicate higher foraging speed and ease of movement on the ground (Feener Jr et al., 1988; Hurlbert et al., 2008; Silva & Brandão, 2010; Pearce-Duvet et al., 2011). Similarly, ants with larger mandibles can hold or carry larger food items (Weiser & Kaspari, 2006; Silva & Brandão, 2010; Gibb et al., 2015), which may be beneficial for diaspore dispersal because it allows these large ants to remove a wider variety of diaspores. However, larger ants tend to prefer to handle larger diaspores due to possible limitations in the manipulation of small diaspores and the lower attractiveness of them (Davidson, 1977; Takahashi & Itino, 2012; Anjos et al., 2018). Regarding orientation and search for resources, larger eyes may help in orientation (Hölldobler, 1980) and identification of food (Weiser & Kaspari, 2006; Gibb et al., 2015). Larger antennae scapes indicate greater chemosensory perception in foraging (Weiser & Kaspari, 2006; Silva & Brandão, 2010; Gibb et al., 2015). Due to the apparent advantages already presented of larger ants in the removal of diaspores (Feener et al., 1988; Bestelmeyer & Wiens, 2003; Ness et al., 2004; Hurlbert et al., 2008; Pearce-Duvet et al., 2011), if plants can attract omnivorous or scavenging ants (larger ants), this can be advantageous for diaspore dispersal. However, the opposite has been observed, with smaller ants participating in most of the interactions with diaspores (Christianini & Oliveira, 2010; Anjos et al., 2020). In Brazilian savannas, the larger interactions between ants and fleshy diaspores falling on the ground happen with small ants (Christianini & Oliveira, 2010). However, large ants remove myrmechorous diaspores at a higher rate because they are rich in lipids (Hughes et al., 1994; Giladi, 2006). It is important to evaluate the effects of ants of different sizes and with different foraging strategies on diaspore removal from the savanna ground, as this is a key part of myrmecochory. To evaluate these characteristics, we compared ant species to evaluate how morphological traits and solitarily or group foraging strategy affected secondary diaspore removal. We addressed the following questions and predictions: i) Can the diaspore removal foraging strategy be defined by the ant size? We predicted that larger species of ants would remove diaspores alone, while smaller species would remove diaspores in groups; ii) Do removal strategy, ant size and removal distance influence the time taken for diaspore discovery? We predicted that solitarily foraging ant species, larger ants with removal to greater distances, would discover diaspores faster; iii) Do removal strategy, ant size, and removal distance influence the speed of diaspore removal? We predicted that larger ants (solitary foraging ants with removal to greater distances) would remove diaspores faster; iv) Do ants remove diaspores increasingly faster? We predicted that after the first diaspore removal, the ants will remove diaspores quickly; v) Do removal strategy, ant size, and removal distance influence the number of diaspores removed? We predicted that larger ant species (solitary foraging ants with removal to greater distances) would remove more diaspores than smaller ants (group-foraging ants). Materials and Methods Study site We collected the data on Cerrado sensu stricto vegetation (tropical savanna) within the Área de Proteção Ambiental do Rio Pandeiros (APA Rio Pandeiros). This protected area encompasses 393,866 hectares and is considered the largest Sustainable Use Conservation Unit in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. It is located in the north of the state (-15° 50′ S, -44° 76′ W) in a transitional region between the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes. The climate is semiarid, with well-defined seasonality. The temperature ranges from 9 °C in the cold (June and July) to 45 °C in the hot (October to January) season. The rainfall varies from 900 to 1250 mm throughout the year (Nunes et al., 2009). Field collections were performed in March 2016 during the hot and rainy season, the period of greatest ant activity in the Cerrado (Marques & Del-Claro, 2010). Sociobiology 69(3): e8308 (September, 2022) 3 Sampling design and diaspore removal We sampled 15 areas of Cerrado spaced at least 500 m apart. In each area, 50 artificial diaspores were deposited at a sampling point 70 m from the edge of the Cerrado to avoid edge effects. The artificial diaspores were made of beads weighing 0.03 g and 2 mm in diameter, considered small, usually as myrmecochory diaspores (Anjos et al., 2020; Pizo & Oliveira, 2000), and an attractive paste composed of 75% hydrogenated vegetable fat, 7% casein, 5% maltodextrin, 4.8% fructose, 4.7% glucose, 3% calcium carbonate, and 0.5% sucrose. The beads simulated the solid part of the seed, while the attractive paste simulated the lipid-rich aril, a portion of the diaspore that is attractive to ants (see Raimundo et al., 2004). We used artificial diaspores to standardize sampling, since natural diaspores may vary in shape, size, and ripening stage, which could influence their interactions with ants. The use of artificial diaspores is a method employed to avoid problems with not finding enough natural diaspores at the time of the experiment and to standardize samplings, since natural diaspores may vary in shape, size, and ripening stage, which can influence their interactions with ants (Raimundo et al., 2004; Bieber et al., 2014; Rabello et al., 2015; Angotti et al., 2018; Rabelo et al., 2020, 2021). We defined diaspore removal as the event in which the ants transported the artificial diaspores from the sampling point to the nest. The artificial diaspores were left exposed on the ground from 7 am to 10 am (period of high activity for most ant species). During this period, we recorded the time of diaspore discovery by the ants, speed of diaspore removal from the sampling point to the nest, distance from the sampling point to the nest, diaspore removal strategy (solitary or group), and number of diaspores removed. We marked the nest with diaspore removal and collected one ant per nest after experiments. We also collected individuals from the nests that performed the removals for subsequent species identification and measurement of morphological traits. We assessed the removal strategy as whether ants transported the diaspores alone or in groups of workers. Solitary foraging occurred when only one ant carried the diaspore from the sampling point to the nest. Group foraging occurred when two or more workers jointly carried the diaspore to the nest. The groups of ants can vary in the number of individuals involved, both between different removal events and within the same removal event (during a removal, workers may join or leave the group, increasing or decreasing the number of ants). Diaspore discovery occurred when one or more ants found and began to remove the diaspore. We defined discovery time as the number of seconds (s) from the beginning of the experiment (7:00 am) until ants began removal of an artificial diaspore. For each ant species, we calculated the mean discovery time in each of the 15 experimental areas. The removal time was the time that the ants (with solitary behaviour or in groups) took to transport the artificial diaspore from the sampling point to the nest. For each ant species, we calculated the mean removal time in each of the 15 experimental areas. To assess whether the removal time changed when the same nest performed more removals, we chose the nests where the ants performed at least three diaspore removals, and considered the removal times of first, second and last diaspore removal, regardless of how many removals the nest performed overall. We chose to perform the analyses only with species that had at least three replicates (species collected in at least three out of the 15 areas). For the analyses, we calculated the mean removal time of each ant species per area. For each of the 15 areas, we calculated the arithmetic mean diaspore removals per species. In all cases, the sampling unit was the diaspore-removing ant species collected in each area. We only consider diaspore removal when the ants load the diaspores out of the sampling point to the nest. Other types of interactions between ants and diaspores, like ants that only interacted with diaspores on sampling point, which do not load diaspores until the nest, or that we do not achieve follow, were not considered in our study. We marked the nest with diaspore removal and collected one ant per nest after experiments. Species identification and morphological measurements The collected individuals were identified according to Palacio and Fernández (2003), Wilson and Hölldobler (2005), and Baccaro et al. (2015). The specimens were deposited in the reference collection of the Laboratório de Ecologia de Formigas at Universidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA). One individual from each nest was taken for morphological measurements. In species for which we sampled only one nest, only one individual was measured, whereas in species for which we sampled more than one nest, the mean of all individuals measured was calculated. We measured the following morphological traits, which are considered important for diaspore removal: body size (Weber’s length), which is the length from the anterior edge of the pronotum to the posterior edge of the propodeum (Weiser & Kaspari, 2006; Gibb et al., 2015); mandible size, which is the length from the mandibular insertion to the most external point (Weiser & Kaspari, 2006; Silva & Brandão, 2010; Gibb et al., 2015); eye width (Weiser & Kaspari, 2006; Gibb et al., 2015); scape size, which was measured by its length (Weiser & Kaspari, 2006; Silva & Brandão, 2010; Gibb et al., 2015); and leg size, which was the length of the femur added to the length of the tibia of the posterior metathorax (Weiser & Kaspari, 2006). All measurements were obtained in millimetres under a Zeiss Axio Zoom V16 microscope. The data is available in Supplementary Material. Icaro Wilker, Mariana A. Rabelo, Marina A. Angotti, Carla R. Ribas – Solitary remover ants are better diaspore removers4 Data analysis First, we performed a correlation test on the morphological traits (Weber’s length, mandible size, eye width, scape size, and leg size). The Spearman method was used due to the non-normality of the data. All morphological measurements (Weber’s length, mandible size, eye width, scape size, and leg size) were correlated with each other (Table 1). To avoid problems of multicollinearity in the analyses, we chose only Weber’s length as a predictor variable, considering that it synthesizes the other morphological traits in our data. To test whether larger ants removed diaspores alone and smaller ants removed diaspores in groups, we performed a linear mixed-effects model (LMM) where the explanatory variable was the removal strategy (solitary or group), and the response variable was the body size (Weber’s length in mm) and the fixed variable was species. To test whether larger ants, solitary removal and larger distances removal is linked to discovery of diaspores and quickly diaspore removal, we constructed an LMM and a GLMM (generalized linear mixed model), respectively: in LMM we are relating body size, removal strategy and removal distance (explanatory variables) with the discovery time (response variable), and the GLMM we relating them to removal time (response variable). In GLMM, we used the Poisson distribution family, but due overdispersion, we used quasi-Poisson distribution. In both models the fixed variable was species. To test whether, after the first removal, the ants removed the diaspores faster, we constructed a GLMM to evaluate the effect of being the first, second, or last removal (explanatory variable) on removal time (response variable) and the fixed variable was species nest. We used the Poisson distribution family, but due overdispersion, we used quasi- Poisson distribution. To test whether body size, foraging strategy and removal distance influenced the number of diaspores removed, we constructed a GLMM relating body size, removal strategy and removal distance (explanatory variables) with the proportion of diaspores removed (response variable)and the fixed variable was species. We used a quasi-Binomial distribution family because the values ranged from 0 to 1. Weber’s length Mandible length Eye width Scape length Leg length Weber’s length - 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Mandible length 0.61 - 0.007 <0.001 <0.001 Eye width 0.93 0.56 - <0.001 <0.001 Scape length 0.88 0.72 0.89 - <0.001 Leg length 0.86 0.69 0.91 0.97 - p value above the dash and Spearman correlation below the dash. Table 1. Correlation coefficients in ants morphological traits. All analyses were performed using the software R version 4.1.2 (2022). For the correlation analysis, we set p < 0.05 and Spearman’s correlation coefficient > 0.6 as statistically significant; the correlations were tested with the Hmisc package (Harrell & Harrell Jr, 2019) and plotted with the corrplot package (Wei et al., 2017). For the LMMs and GLMMs with Poisson distribution family we used lme4 package (Bates et al., 2015). For the GLMMs with quasi- Poisson and quasi-Binomial we used MASS package (Venables & Ripley, 2002). To calculate Pseudo-R² we used jtools (Long, 2022) MuMIn package (Barton, 2013). We detected multicollinearity through VIF (variance inflation factor) and excluded variables that had VIF > 4.0. All graphs were generated using the ggplot2 package of R (Wickham, 2011). Results A total of nine species of diaspore-removing ants were identified. The subfamily Ectatomminae was the most frequent, removing artificial diaspores in 13 of the 15 sampled areas. Five ant species were classified as displaying a solitary foraging strategy in the 15 sampled areas: Ectatomma opaciventre (Roger, 1861), Ectatomma edentatum Roger, 1863, Ectatomma planidens Borgmeier, 1939, Ectatomma brunneum Smith, 1858, and Odontomachus haematodus (Linnaeus, 1758). Four species displayed a group-foraging strategy in six sampled areas: Blepharidatta conops Kempf, 1967, Pheidole jelskii Mayr, 1884, Pheidole capillata Emery, 1906, and Solenopsis tridens Forel, 1911. We indeed found that (i) larger ant species removed diaspores alone and smaller ant species remove in groups (df = 19; χ² > 33.566; p < 0.001; Pseudo-R² = 0.98; Fig 1). On question (ii), we excluded ant size of model because detected multicollinearity through VIF (VIF = 6.004) and found that solitary remover ants (df = 18; χ² = 15.974; p < 0.001; Pseudo-R² = 0.70; Fig 2) and ants which remove for shorter distances discovered diaspores faster (df = 18; χ² = 5.384; p = 0.020; Pseudo-R² = 0.70; Fig 2). On question (iii), we excluded ant size of model (VIF = 8.747) and found that solitary remover ants removed diaspores faster (df = 19; χ² = 52.274; p < 0.001; Pseudo-R² = 0.92; Fig 3), but the nest distance did not affect removal time (df = 18; χ² = 0.345; p = 0.556; Pseudo-R² = 0.92). On question (iv), only one ant species was collected in more than three areas (replicate) and performed the three diaspore removals. In this case, we only made data analysis with Ectatomma edentatum Sociobiology 69(3): e8308 (September, 2022) 5 (larger species with solitary strategy). We found that the removal time decreases from the first to the last removal (df = 33; χ² = 13.127; p = 0.001; Pseudo-R² = 0.76; Fig 4). Fig 3. Solitary remover ants remove diaspores faster than group removal ants. The x-axis indicates the removal strategy, and the y-axis indicates the removal time in seconds. The centreline of each boxplot indicates the median of all values, and the boxes indicate the first quartile (median of the values above the central median) and third quartile (median of the values below the central median). The vertical lines of each boxplot are the Tukey-style whiskers (1.5 × interquartile range). Fig 1. Smaller ants remove diaspores in groups, and larger ants remove diaspores alone. The x-axis indicates the removal strategy, and the y-axis indicates the ant body size in millimetres. The centreline of each boxplot indicates the median of all values, and the boxes indicate the first quartile (median of the values above the central median) and third quartile (median of the values below the central median). The vertical lines of each boxplot are the Tukey-style whiskers (1.5 × interquartile range). The circles above each boxplot are outliers. Fig 2. Ants with solitarily removal and ants with nests less distance discover diaspores faster. The x-axis indicates nest distance in meters (m) the removal strategy (solitary and group), and the y-axis indicates the diaspore discovery time in seconds (s). The circles and the line indicate group removal ants, and the triangles and dashed line indicate solitary remover ants. Fig 4. After the first diaspore removal, Ectatomma edentatumremove diaspores more quickly. The x-axis indicates which diaspore removal (first, second and last) and the y-axis indicate removal time in seconds (s). The centreline of each boxplot indicates the median of all values, and the boxes indicate the first quartile (median of the values above the central median) and third quartile (median of the values below the central median). The vertical lines of each boxplot are the Tukey-style whiskers (1.5 × interquartile range). The circle above the boxplot is an outlier. Icaro Wilker, Mariana A. Rabelo, Marina A. Angotti, Carla R. Ribas – Solitary remover ants are better diaspore removers6 Last, regarding objective (v), we found that solitary foraging ants removed more diaspores than group-foraging ants (df = 19; χ² = 11.793; p < 0.001; Pseudo-R² = 0.39; Fig 5) and larger distance of nests decreases diaspore removal (df = 18; χ² = 7.969; p = 0.004; Pseudo-R² = 0.39; Fig 5), but the ant size did not affect removal time (df = 17; χ² = 1.888; p = 0.169; Pseudo-R² = 0.42). the search and removal of seeds alone (Gomes et al., 2009; Ostwald et al., 2018). In contrast, smaller ants are rarely able to hold and remove diaspores on their own, needing to recruit other workers to transport the resource. Our results corroborate Giladi (2006) and Leal et al. (2014), who separate ants into “good dispersers”, composed of guilds of omnivorous or scavenging ants with solitary foraging, and “poor dispersers”, which are guilds of granivorous ants that recruit many workers. We can draw a parallel between this classification and the finding that group removal ants (genera: Blepharidatta, Pheidole and Solenopsis) perform few removals and are often seen to consume the aril at the site (Pizo & Oliveira, 2000). These ants may in our study be considered “poor removers” since we only evaluated the characteristics of the diaspore removal process as part of the dispersal function. However, the small ants clean the seeds, decreasing the fungal attack and increasing the germination rate (Oliveira et al., 1995). Conversely, solitary remover ants (omnivorous or scavenging genera: Ectatomma and Odontomachus) removed more diaspores and were not observed to prey at the site, so they can be considered “good removers”. In a complementary manner, Ectatomma edentatum was the species that most participated in interactions with diaspores in our study (≈60%). In addition to being a species with solitary removal, which discovers and removes resources faster, it is also considered a good disperser by Leal et al. (2014). However, it is important to notice that removal is part of seed dispersal process, and good- quality removal does not mean dispersal, as dispersal also depends on where the seed is deposited, how the ants manipulate the seed, and whether the seed germinates. Still regarding the effect of guilds on diaspore removal, we find many interaction between omnivorous and scavenging ants which are attracted to rich lipid diaspores (Pizo & Oliveira, 2000; Bronstein et al., 2006), since our attractive paste contained 75% lipids, simulating fleshy diaspores, as done in other studies (Raimundo et al., 2004; Rabello et al., 2015; Angotti et al., 2018). More specifically, some lipids are even more attractive to scavenging ants (Hughes et al., 1994). This relationship between lipids and scavenging ants (large ants with solitary removal) occurs because these diaspore contents are the same as those found in insects that are prey to these ants (Hughes et al., 1994). These factors make the diaspores more attractive to scavenging ants, which may make it easier for them to find the diaspores faster than other guild or functional groups of group foraging ants. Moreover, the solitary foraging ants with nests closer to the diaspore, discovered diaspores faster than that with far nests, probably because they forage more around nests than in far areas. In addition to discovering diaspores faster, solitary remover ants also removed the diaspores faster, probably because they had greater ease in removing the resources than smaller ants. Their larger legs provide greater ease and speed of locomotion (Silva & Brandão, 2010; Feener et al., 1988). Regarding the diaspore removal time to Ectatomma edentatum (solitary foraging ant), we found a decrease in removal time after the first transport, which suggests that a given nest does become more efficient at removal. Ectatomma Fig 5. Ants with solitarily removal and ants with nests less distance (x-axis) remove more diaspores (y-axis). The number of diaspores removed is expressed as a percentage (number of diaspores removed by the species/total diaspores available at the sampling point*100). The circles and the line indicate group removal ants, and the triangles and dashed line indicate solitary remover ants. Discussion Overall, we found that solitary foraging ants were more effective in removing artificial diaspores. When considering the removal strategy, solitary remover ants (larger ants) discovered and transported diasporas quickly and removed more diasporas than ants with group foraging removal (small ants), showing a greater efficiency in this process, which can generate benefits for the myrmecochory function. Ectatomma edentatum, a solitary ant, removed the highest number of diaspores and with increased speeds, being more efficient. Moreover, ants with nests closer to diaspores, discovered and removed more diaspores, which can affect the dispersal distance. Larger ants removed diaspores alone, and smaller ants removed them in groups. This probably occurred because larger mandibles allow ants to hold diaspores of different sizes more easily, and they have larger bodies and legs that afford them better locomotion on the ground (Silva & Brandão, 2010; Gibb et al., 2015; Feener et al., 1988), important characteristics for performing more efficient diaspore removal. Moreover, in addition to the morphological characteristics that can help these larger ants to remove alone, they have solitary foraging behaviour, providing Sociobiology 69(3): e8308 (September, 2022) 7 edentatum are Ectatomminae ants and can show path fidelity in particular foraging zones around the nest (Pie, 2004). So, the ants find the resources and return to the nest quickly and remove diaspores in a growing speed, increasing removal efficiency. In addition, in our study some nests with group foraging ants performed only one or few removals. This may be related to body limitations among smaller ants, preference for other resources, or interactions at the sampling point (e.g., eat the diaspore at the sampling point). We observed that solitary remover ants removed more diaspores than ants in groups, but there was no direct relationship between ant size and the number of diaspores removed. This finding suggests that solitary remover ants may have a size limit in the morphological traits that would let them perform such processes more efficiently. As we observed, larger ants with solitary removal remove more diaspores, probably because they have more easily to execute this function than smaller ants with group removal. However, ants are limited in body size and diaspore size. As observed by Anjos et al. (2018), there is a relationship between mandible size and diaspore size, and larger ants prefer to handle larger diaspores. In addition, Takahashi and Itino (2012) observed that large ants have difficulty handling small diaspores. In this sense, the standardization of the size of the diaspores we used, considered small, may have generated a limitation and a difficulty for some larger ants, such as Ectatomma brunneum and Odontomachus haematodus, which removed few diaspores. However, despite this limitation for larger size ants, when comparing solitary removers with group removers, ants that remove diaspores alone still have advantages and perform the removal process more efficiently due to the aforementioned characteristics that confer greater ease in finding and removing diaspores. Moreover, ants with nests closer to diaspores, removed more diaspores. In the same way for diaspore discovery, foraging more around nests than in far areas, facilitates to remove more diaspores. However, this can lead to a limitation on the distance of seed dispersal, where more diaspores are removed only for short distances, and this should be investigated. We conclude that solitary remover ants are better diaspore removers than group removal ants. Solitary remover ants are ants with larger body sizes that discover and remove diaspores faster and in larger quantities. These ants are probably more efficient at secondary seed dispersal, as we observed that they remove more diaspores, probably decreasing the competition under the parent plant, but remove more for short distances, which can be a problem for dispersal, and we suggest this evaluation in future research. In addition, solitary remover ants find and remove diaspores quickly, and Ectatomma edentatum, the greater remover in our study, remove each time faster than the before one, decreasing the diaspore exposure time to fungi, which are likely to make the diaspores unfeasible (Oliveira et al., 1995), or to vertebrate predators and granivorous ants (Christianini & Oliveira, 2010). Smaller ants with group removal discover and remove diaspores slowly and in smaller quantities. They perform fewer dispersals (Giladi, 2006) for shorter distances (Ness et al., 2004) and are still often seen eating the attractant at the site, decreasing dispersal (Christianini & Oliveira, 2010), or eating the seed, killing the embryo. Thus, although it has been an assumption that ant morphological traits are an indication of an efficient diaspore removal performance, this is not always true, since the morphological trait evaluated by us and by most studies on this topic – ant body size – were not the best predictor of diaspore removal, but rather the removal strategy was the best predictor. Moreover, these results can change due to the chemical composition of diaspores. The larger ants in our study were probably attracted by lipid composition of diaspores, but the chemical composition influences the identity and groups of ants that interact with diaspores (Campagnoli & Christianini, 2021; Pizo & Oliveira, 2001). Acknowledgements We thank Msc Ariel Reis and Dr Graziele Santiago Silva for their help with data collection; Dr Antônio Queiroz for his help with statistical analysis; Dr Rafael Zenni, Dr Lívia Audino, and Msc Laís da Glória for their suggestions about preliminary versions of the manuscript; Dr Rodrigo Feitosa and Dr Alexandre Ferreira for confirming the species identification; We thank the anonymous referees and the Associate Editor Dr. Kleber Del- Claro of the Sociobiology for their revision of the manuscript; We thank the Centro de Estudos em Biologia Subterrânea (CEBS) for providing the microscope. This manuscript was partially produced during the course PEC 533 – Publicação Científica em Ecologia, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia Aplicada, Universidade Federal de Lavras. The funding agencies that supported this study were Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Finance code: 001), Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais S.A. (Cemig), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (Fapemig), and Programa Institucional de Bolsas de Iniciação Científica (PIBIC-UFLA). This manuscript was edited for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style by one or more of the highly qualified native English-speaking editors at AJE (American Journal Experts) due Programa de Apoio à Publicação Científica at Universidade Federal de Lavras. Code: 1259-5091-2F1B-F232-81FP. Authors’ Contribution IW: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Data Curation, Writing-Original Draft, Writing-Review & Editing, Visualization. MAR: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing-Review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration. MAA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing-Review & Editing. CRR: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Resources, Writing-Review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Icaro Wilker, Mariana A. Rabelo, Marina A. Angotti, Carla R. Ribas – Solitary remover ants are better diaspore removers8 References Angotti, M.A., Rabello, A.M., Santiago, G.S. & Ribas, C.R. (2018). Seed removal by ants in Brazilian savanna: optimizing fieldwork. Sociobiology, 65: 155-161. doi: 10.13102/sociobiology. v65i2.1938 Anjos, D., Dáttilo, W. & Del-Claro, K. (2018). Unmasking the architecture of ant-diaspore networks in the Brazilian Savanna. PLoS ONE, 13: e0201117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201117 Anjos, D.V., Leal, L.C., Jordano, P. & Del-Claro, K. (2020). Ants as diaspore removers of non-myrmecochorous plants: a meta-analysis. Oikos, 129: 775-786. doi: 10.1111/oik.06940. Baccaro, F.B., Feitosa, R.M., Fernández, F., Fernandes, I.O., Izzo, T.J., Souza, J.D. & Solar, R. (2015). Guia para os gêneros de formigas do Brasil. Manaus: Editora INPA, 388 p Barton, K. (2009). MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1. 0. 0. http://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/mumin/. (accessed date: 11 August, 2022). Bas, J.M., Oliveras, J. & Gomez, C. (2007). Final seed fate and seedling emergence in myrmecochorous plants: effects of ants and plant species. Sociobiology, 50: 101-111. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.arxiv.org/ abs/1406.5823. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1406.5823 Bestelmeyer, B.T. & Wiens, J.A. (2003). Scavenging ant foraging behavior and variation in the scale of nutrient redistribution among semi-arid grasslands. Journal of Arid Environments, 53: 373-386. doi: 10.1006/jare.2002.1044 Bieber, A.G.D., Silva, P.S.D., Sendoya, S.F. & Oliveira, P.S. (2014). Assessing the impact of deforestation of the Atlantic Rainforest on ant-fruit interactions: A field experiment using synthetic fruits. PLoS ONE, 9: e90369. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0090369 Bronstein, J.L., Alarcón, R. & Geber, M. (2006). The evolution of plant-insect mutualism. New Phytologist, 172: 412-428. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01864.x Campagnoli, M.L. & Christianini, A.V. (2021). Temporal consistency in interactions among birds, ants, and plants in a neotropical savanna. Oikos, e08231. doi: 10.1111/oik.08231 Christianini, A.V. & Oliveira, P.S. (2010). Birds and ants provide complementary seed dispersal in a neotropical savanna. Journal of Ecology, 98: 573-582. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2745.2010.01653.x Davidson, D.W. (1977). Species Diversity and Community Organization in Desert Seed-Eating Ants. Ecology, 58: 711-724. doi: 10.2307/1936208 Dornhaus, A. & Powell, S. (2010). Foraging and defence strategies. In L., Lach, C.L., Parr & K.L., Abbot (Eds.), Ant Ecology (pp. 210-230). Oxford: Oxford University Press Espadaler, X.T. & Gómez, C. (1996). Seed production, predation and dispersal in the Mediterranean myrmecochore Euphorbia characias (Euphorbiaceae). Ecography, 19: 7-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1996.tb00150.x Feener Jr, D.H., Lighton, J.R.B. & Bartholomew, G.A. (1988). Curvilinear allometry, energetics and foraging ecology: a comparison of leaf-cutting ants and army ants. Functional Ecology, 2: 509-520. doi: 10.2307/2389394 Fernandes, T.V., Paolucci, L.N., Carmo, F.M., Sperber, C.F. & Campos, R.I. (2018). Seed manipulation by ants: disentangling the effects of ant behaviours on seed germination. Ecological Entomology, 43: 712-718. doi: 10.1111/een.12655 Gibb, H., Stoklosa, J., Warton, D.I., Brown, A.M., Andrew, N.R. & Cunningham, S.A. (2015). Does morphology predict trophic position and habitat use of ant species and assemblages? Oecologia, 177: 519-531. doi: 10.1007/s00442-014-3101-9 Giladi, I. (2006). Choosing benefits or partners: a review of the evidence for the evolution of myrmecochory. Oikos, 112: 481-492. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14258.x Gomes, L., Desuó, I.C., Gomes, G. & Giannotti, E. (2009). Behavior of Ectatomma brunneum (Formicidae: Ectatomminae) preying on dipterans in field conditions. Sociobiology, 53: 913-926. Harrell Jr, F.E. & Harrell Jr, M.F.E. (2019). Package ‘Hmisc’. CRAN2018: 235-236. Hölldobler, B. (1980). Canopy orientation: a new kind of orientation in ants. Science, 210: 86-88. doi: 10.1126/science. 210.4465.86 Hughes, L. & Westoby, M. (1992). Fate of seeds adapted for dispersal by ants in Australian sclerophyll vegetation. Ecology, 73: 1285-1299. doi: 10.2307/1940676 Hughes, L., Westoby, M.T. & Jurado, E. (1994). Convergence of elaiosomes and insect prey: evidence from ant foraging behaviour and fatty acid composition. Functional Ecology, 8: 358-365. doi: 10.2307/2389829 Hurlbert, A.H., Ballantyne, F. & Powell, S. (2008). Shaking a leg and hot to trot: the effects of body size and temperature on running speed in ants. Ecological Entomology, 33: 144-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2007.00962.x Leal, L.C., Neto, M.C.L., de Oliveira, A.F.M., Andersen, A.N. & Leal, I.R. (2014). Myrmecochores can target high-quality disperser ants: variation in elaiosome traits and ant preferences for myrmecochorous Euphorbiaceae in Brazilian Caatinga. Oecologia, 174: 493-500. doi: 10.1007/s00442-013-2789-2 Lengyel, S., Gove, A.D., Latimer, A.M., Majer, J.D. & Dunn, R.R. (2010). Convergent evolution of seed dispersal by ants, and phylogeny and biogeography in flowering plants: a global survey. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 12: 43-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ppees.2009.08.001 Sociobiology 69(3): e8308 (September, 2022) 9 Long, J.A. (2022). jtools: Analysis and Presentation of Social Scientific Data. R package version 2.2.0.https://cran.r-project. org/package=jtools. (accessed date: 11 August, 2022). Marques, G.D.V. & Del-Claro, K. (2010). Sazonalidade, abundância e biomassa de insetos de solo em uma reserva de Cerrado. Revista Brasileira de Zoociências, 12: 141-150. Ness, J.H., Bronstein, J.L., Andersen, A.N. & Holland, J.N. (2004). Ant body size predicts dispersal distance of ant- adapted seeds: implications of small-ant invasions. Ecology, 85: 1244-1250. doi: 10.1890/03-0364 Nielsen, M.G., Jensen, T.F. & Holm-Jensen, I.B. (1982). Effect of load carriage on the respiratory metabolism of running worker ants of Camponotus herculeanus (Formicidae). Oikos, 39: 137-142. doi: 10.2307/3544477 Nunes, Y.R.F., Azevedo, I.F.P., Neves, W.V., Veloso, M.D.D.M., Souza, R. & Fernandes, G.W. (2009). Pandeiros: o pantanal mineiro. MG Biota, 2: 4-17. Oliveira, P.S., Galetti, M., Pedroni, F. & Morellato, L.P.C. (1995). Seed cleaning by Mycocepurus goeldii ants (Attini) facilitates germination in Hymenaea courbaril (Caesalpiniaceae). Biotropica, 27: 518-522. doi: 10.2307/2388966 Ostwald, M.M., Ruzi, S.A. & Baudier, K.M. (2018). Ambush predation of stingless bees (Tetragonisca angustula) by the solitary-foraging ant Ectatomma tuberculatum. Journal of Insect Behavior, 31: 503-509. doi: 10.1007/s10905-018-9694-9 Palacio, E.E. & Fernández, F. (2003). Claves para las subfamilias y géneros. In: F. Fernández (Ed.), Introducción a las hormigas de la region Neotropical (pp. 233-260). Bogotá: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humbolt Pearce-Duvet, J.M.C., Elemans, C.P.H. & Feener Jr, D.H. (2011). Walking the line: search behavior and foraging success in ant species. Behavioral Ecology, 22: 501-509. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arr001 Pie, M.R. (2004) Foraging ecology and behaviour of the ponerine ant Ectatomma opaciventre Roger in a Brazilian savannah. Journal of Natural History, 38: 717-729. doi: 10.1080/0022293021000041699 Pizo, M.A. & Oliveira, P.S. (2000). The Use of Fruits and Seeds by Ants in the Atlantic Forest of Southeast Brazil. Biotropica, 32: 851-861. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2000.tb00623.x Pizo, M.A. & Oliveira, P.S. (2001). Size and lipid content of non myrmecochorous diaspores: effects on the interaction withlitter-foraging ants in the Atlantic rain forest of Brazil. Plant Ecology, 157: 37-52. doi: 10.1023/A:1013735305100 Rabello, A.M., Queiroz, A.C.M., Lasmar, C.J., Cuissi, R.G., Canedo-Júnior, E.O., Schmidt, F.A. & Ribas, C.R. (2015). When is the best period to sample ants in tropical areas impacted by mining and in rehabilitation process? Insectes Sociaux, 62: 227-236. doi: 10.1007/s00040-015-0398-2 Rabelo, M.A., Angotti, M.A., Santiago, G.S., da Cruz Reis, A. & Ribas, C.R. (2021). Removal of diaspores by ants: What factors to evaluate? Acta Oecologica, 111: 103736. doi: 10.10 16/j.actao.2021.103736 Rabelo, M.A., Angotti, M.A., Santiago, G.S., da Cruz Reis, A. & Ribas, C.R. (2020). Canopy and Litter Cover do not Alter Diaspore Removal by Ants in the Cerrado. Sociobiology, 67: 501-507. doi: 10.13102/sociobiology.v67i4.5658 Raimundo, R.L.G., Guimaraes, P.R., Almeida-Neto, M. & Pizo, M.A. (2004). The influence of fruit morphology and habitat structure on ant-seed interactions: A study with artificial fruits. Sociobiology, 44: 261-270. R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/. (accessed date: 11 August, 2022). Servigne, P. & Detrain, C. (2008). Ant-seed interactions: combined effects of ant and plant species on seed removal patterns. Insectes Sociaux, 55: 220-230. doi: 10.1007/s00040- 008-0991-8 Silva, R.R. & Brandão, C.R.F. (2010). Morphological patterns and community organization in leaf-litter ant assemblages. Ecological Monographs, 80: 107-124. doi: 10.1890/08-1298.1 Takahashi, S. & Itino, T. (2012). Larger Seeds are Dispersed Farther: the Long-Distance Seed Disperser ant Aphaenogaster famelica Prefers Larger Seeds. Sociobiology, 59: 1401-1411. doi: 10.13102/sociobiology.v59i4.888 Venables, W.N. & Ripley, B.D. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S, Fourth edition. Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387- 95457-0. https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4/. (accessed date: 11 August, 2022). Warren, R.J. & Giladi, I. (2014). Ant-mediated seed dispersal: a few ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) benefit many plants. Myrmecological News, 20: 129-140. Wei, T., Simko, V., Levy, M., Xie, Y., Jin, Y. & Zemla, J. (2017). Package ‘corrplot’. Statistician, 56: 316-324. Weiser, M.D. & Kaspari, M. (2006). Ecological morphospace of New World ants. Ecological Entomology, 31: 131-142. doi: 10.1111/j.0307-6946.2006.00759.x Wickham, H. (2011). ggplot2. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 3: 180-185. doi: 10.1002/wics.147 Wilson, E.O. & Hölldobler, B. (2005). The rise of the ants: A phylogenetic and ecological explanation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102: 7411-7414. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0502264102 Icaro Wilker, Mariana A. Rabelo, Marina A. Angotti, Carla R. Ribas – Solitary remover ants are better diaspore removers10 Supplementary Material Table S1. Sampling areas, species sampled, and variables collected: sample (sampled areas - 1 to 15); specie (ants species - Hymenoptera: Formicidae); ML (Mesosomal or Weber’s length - millimeters - mm); MandL (Mandible length - millimeters - mm); EL (Eye length - millimeters - mm); SL (Scape length - millimeters - mm); FL (Leg length - summing the femur and tibia length of posterior metathorax leg - millimeters - mm); strategy (foraging strategy - solitary or group); discovery (discovery time of diaspores - seconds - s); time_r (removal time of diaspores - seconds - s); diaspore_removal (artificial diaspores removal by ants - Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sample Species ML MandL EL SL FL Strategy Discovery Distance Time_r Diaspore_ removal 1 Ectatomma edentatum 2.549 0.909 0.291 1.481 4.075 Solitary 660 4.56 289 1 1 Pheidole jelskii 0.892 0.360 0.108 0.721 1.650 Group 3240 0.35 1960 1 2 Ectatomma opaciventre 4.506 7.782 0.475 2.661 7.260 Solitary 4.11 4.50 198 4 2 Pheidole jelskii 1.146 0.442 0.126 0.808 1.560 Group 7320 5.42 960 2 3 Ectatomma planidens 2.433 0.509 0.224 0.759 1.276 Solitary 2160 1.09 128 20 4 Ectatomma edentatum 2.744 0.941 0.267 1.579 4.023 Solitary 880 2.44 177 15 5 Ectatomma edentatum 2.993 1.268 0.392 1.515 4.700 Solitary 960 1.86 101 35 6 Ectatomma edentatum 3.064 1.311 0.435 1.578 3.995 Solitary 1320 1.08 65 34 7 Ectatomma edentatum 2.875 1.130 0.348 1.616 4.303 Solitary 1120 1.99 116 15 8 Ectatomma edentatum 2.489 1.182 0.364 1.637 4.194 Solitary 1020 1.45 131 6 9 Ectatomma edentatum 2.858 1.086 0.313 1.519 3.820 Solitary 1900 4.52 146 9 9 Pheidole jelskii 1.024 0.391 0.122 1.044 2.260 Group 2340 2.13 960 1 10 Ectatomma edentatum 2.818 1.050 0.323 1.557 4.095 Solitary 330 2.55 156 13 11 Ectatomma edentatum 2.758 1.048 0.302 1.612 3.950 Solitary 480 3.60 280 4 12 Odontomachus haematodus 3.221 1.017 0.262 1.527 2.924 Solitary 1800 3.70 123 6 12 Ectatomma opaciventre 4.471 1.828 0.537 2.568 7.759 Solitary 5000 8.42 307 3 13 Odontomachus haematodus 3.144 0.968 0.275 1.557 3.069 Solitary 3240 2.42 200 1 13 Ectatomma brunneum 3.581 0.905 0.359 1.137 3.510 Solitary 4020 3.02 123 24 14 Pheidole capillata 0.807 0.451 0.099 0.702 1.670 Group 5640 2.14 1601 3 15 Blepharidatta conopsi 0.994 0.330 0.073 0.639 1.450 Group 5640 0.34 493 1 15 Solenopsis tridens 0.930 0.276 0.072 0.656 1.390 Group 6180 0.67 2100 1 Sociobiology 69(3): e8308 (September, 2022) 11 Table S2. Nests sampled in each area, species sampled (only Ectatomma edentatum), removal performed (first, second, and last), and removal time (s). Nest Species Time_r N_removal A4N1 Ectatomma edentatum 373 First A4N1 Ectatomma edentatum 178 Second A4N1 Ectatomma edentatum 149 Last A4N2 Ectatomma edentatum 63 First A4N2 Ectatomma edentatum 40 Second A4N2 Ectatomma edentatum 41 Last A5N1 Ectatomma edentatum 161 First A5N1 Ectatomma edentatum 187 Second A5N1 Ectatomma edentatum 94 Last A6N1 Ectatomma edentatum 87 First A6N1 Ectatomma edentatum 80 Second A6N1 Ectatomma edentatum 58 Last A7N1 Ectatomma edentatum 66 First A7N1 Ectatomma edentatum 57 Second A7N1 Ectatomma edentatum 71 Last A7N2 Ectatomma edentatum 196 First A7N2 Ectatomma edentatum 140 Second A7N2 Ectatomma edentatum 97 Last A7N4 Ectatomma edentatum 180 First A7N4 Ectatomma edentatum 162 Second A7N4 Ectatomma edentatum 112 Last A8N1 Ectatomma edentatum 106 First A8N1 Ectatomma edentatum 69 Second A8N1 Ectatomma edentatum 77 Last A9N1 Ectatomma edentatum 242 First A9N1 Ectatomma edentatum 296 Second A9N1 Ectatomma edentatum 240 Last A9N2 Ectatomma edentatum 206 First A9N2 Ectatomma edentatum 470 Second A9N2 Ectatomma edentatum 190 Last A10N1 Ectatomma edentatum 120 First A10N1 Ectatomma edentatum 195 Second A10N1 Ectatomma edentatum 130 Last A10N2 Ectatomma edentatum 442 First A10N2 Ectatomma edentatum 230 Second A10N2 Ectatomma edentatum 138 Last _Hlk104388684