Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
21
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
21 results for “ant-plant mutualism”
Data from: Which traits optimize plant benefits? Meta-analysis on the effect of partner traits on the outcome of an ant-plant protective mutualism
<p><span>1. Theoretical models on mutualism dynamics predict that partner traits may influence the outcome of mutualistic interactions. However, most empirical data on this issue is restricted to case studies, limiting our ability to reach a more widespread comprehension of the role of partner traits on the dynamic of mutualisms. </span></p> <p><span>2. We investigated how the outcome of protective mutualisms between ants and plants bearing extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) is influenced by the traits of EFNs and ants feeding on EFNs. We used a meta-analytical approach based on 35 studies investigating the effect of ant attendance on the herbivores and reproductive performance of EFN-bearing plants. We evaluated how variation in the EFN vascularization and location on plants and the ant aggressiveness can modulate the effect of ant attendance on the plants. </span></p> <p><span>3. Both plant and ant traits investigated here drove the outcome of the protective mutualism for EFN-bearing plants. Plants exclusively bearing EFNs near reproductive organs benefited more from ant attendance than plants bearing EFNs on vegetative or vegetative and reproductive organs. Ants had a higher positive impact on the reproductive performance of plants bearing non-vascularized EFNs than plants bearing vascularized EFNs, although their effects on herbivores had been similar in both plant types. Regarding the ant behavior, plants often attended by more aggressive ant species had a higher reproductive performance than plants often attended by less aggressive ones. </span></p> <p><span>4. Synthesis</span><span>: Our results highlight that the selective pressures and evolutionary routes in ant-plant protective mutualisms may depend on the pool of traits exhibited by partner species. Although some studies have already reported some impact of species traits on the outcome of ant-plant mutualisms, this is the first time that a generalization about the role of species traits on the net balance of ant attendance was proposed. Due to this generalization, it was possible to advance our knowledge about the evolution of facultative mutualisms by showing that the role of species traits on the mutualistic outcome can vary in intricate ways due to a particular trait combination found among partners in communities where the interactions are embedded in.</span></p>
Disruption of an ant-plant mutualism shapes interactions between lions and their primary prey
<p><strong>Data and file overview:</strong></p> <ol> <li>Kamaru_Path_Analysis_Data.csv</li> <li>Kamaru_Path_Analysis.R</li> <li>Kamaru_Zebra_RSF_Data.csv</li> <li>Kamaru_Zebra_RSF.R</li> </ol> <p><strong>Layers used to build Zebra RSF:</strong></p> <ol> <li>Kamaru_DWater: distance to water</li> <li>Kamaru_DGlade: distance to glade</li> <li>Kamaru_DSettlement: distance to human settlement</li> <li>Kamaru_OPC_Veg: vegetation layer (classes: <em>V. drepanolobium</em>, <em>E. divinorum, </em>others)</li> </ol> <p><strong>SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: Kamaru_Path_Analysis_Data.csv</strong></p> <ol> <li>Number of variables: 11</li> <li>Description: This data file includes 105 zebra kill sites and paired random locations from June 2019 to August 2020. It also includes: (A) monthly utilization distributions of lion prides associated with each kill site and paired point; and (B) zebra densities estimated from resource selection functions, associated with each kill site, and paired random location. Please see our supplementary materials for more details on data and methods.</li> <li>Variable list:</li> </ol> <p>(A) rsf.block: Resource Selection Function blocks (block 1: Jan-Apr 2019, block 2: May-Sep 2019, block 3: Oct 2019 – Jan 2020, block 4: Feb-May 2020, block 5: Jun-Sep 2020)</p> <p>(B) Kill_ID: kill identifier.</p> <p>(C) Lion_ID: individual lion pride identifier.</p> <p>(D) Date (Day, Month, Year) when a specific kill occurred.</p> <p>(E) Zebra_kill (1 = kill site, 0 = paired random location).</p> <p>(F). Species: Zebra.</p> <p>(G) Visibility: openness measurement using a rangefinder in (m).</p> <p>(H) Lion_activity: Utilization distributions (UD) of lions.</p> <p>(I) Invasion (1 = invaded by big-headed ants, 0 = uninvaded by big-headed ants).</p> <p>(J) zeb.rsf: resource selection function value.</p> <p>(K) zeb.density: zebra density estimated from resource selection functions.</p> <p><strong>SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: Kamaru_Zebra_RSF_Data.csv</strong></p> <ol> <li>Number of variables: 10</li> <li>Description: This data file includes 182 zebra sightings, paired with 10 random points created for each sighting/used point. Also, the data includes actual GPS locations of each sighting and the total number of zebras in each sighting. Please see our supplementary materials for more details on data and methods.</li> <li>Variable list:</li> </ol> <p>(A) Species: Zebra.</p> <p>(B) Date (Day, Month, Year) for that sighting.</p> <p>(C) Survey: count identifier (Survey 2 to 21).</p> <p>(D) GPS location (X and Y), longitude and latitude of that sighting location.</p> <p>(E) Transect: Transect number.</p> <p>(F) Used: (1= zebra sighting, 0 = paired point).</p> <p>(G) zebra.ct: total number of zebras in each sighting.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>R CODE</strong></p> <p><strong>SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: Kamaru_Path_Analysis.R</strong></p> <ol> <li>Description: Apply this code to Kamaru_Path_Analysis_Data.csv to build nested path models.</li> </ol> <p><strong>SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: Kamaru_Zebra_RSF.R</strong></p> <ol> <li>Description: Apply this code to Kamaru_Zebra_RSF_Data.csv to build resource selection functions for zebra. Use the following layers: Kamaru_DWater, Kamaru_DGlade, Kamaru_DSettlement and Kamaru_OPC_Veg to build the Zebra RSF.</li> </ol>
Data from: Which traits optimize plant benefits? Meta-analysis on the effect of partner traits on the outcome of an ant-plant protective mutualism
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Economy of scale: third partner strengthens a keystone ant-plant mutualism
While foundation species can stabilize ecosystems at landscape scales, their ability to persist is often underlain by keystone interactions occurring at smaller scales. Acacia drepanolobium is a foundation tree, comprising >95% of woody cover in East African black-cotton savanna ecosystems. Its dominance is underlain by a keystone mutualistic interaction with several symbiotic ant species in which it provides housing (swollen thorns) and carbohydrate-rich nectar from extra-floral nectaries (EFN). In return, it gains protection from catastrophic damage from mega-herbivores. Crematogaster mimosae is the ecologically dominant symbiotic ant in this system, also providing the highest protection services. In addition to tending EFN, C. mimosae tend scale insects for carbohydrate-rich honeydew. We investigated the role of scale insects in this specialized ant-plant interaction. Specifically, does this putatively redundant third partner strengthen the ant-plant mutualism by making the ant a better protector of the tree? Or does it weaken the mutualism by being costly to the tree while providing no additional benefit to the ant-plant mutualism? We coupled observational surveys with two scale-manipulation experiments and found evidence that this third partner strengthens the ant-plant mutualism. Trees with scale insects experimentally removed experienced a 2.5X increase in elephant damage compared to trees with scale insects present over 10 months. Reduced protection was driven by scale removal causing a decrease in ant colony size and per capita baseline activity and defensive behavior. We also found that ants increased scale-tending and the density of scale insects on trees when EFN were experimentally reduced. Thus, in this system, scale insects and EFN are likely complementary, rather than redundant, resources with scale insects benefitting ants when EFN production is low (such as during annual dry periods in this semi-arid ecosystem). This study reveals that a third-partner strengthens an ant-plant mutualism that serves to stabilize a whole ecosystem.
Does ant-plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non-partner ant community?
<p>Mutualism benefits partner species and theory predicts these partnerships can affect the abundance, diversity, and composition of partner and non-partner species.<br> We used 16 years of monitoring data to determine the ant partner species of tree cholla cacti (<em>Cylindriopuntia imbricata</em>), which reward ants with extrafloral nectar in exchange for anti-herbivore defense. This long-term data revealed one dominant ant partner (<em>Liometopum apiculatum</em>) and two less common partners (<em>Crematogaster opuntiae</em> and <em>Forelius pruinosus</em>. We then used short-term characterization of the terrestrial ant community via pitfall trapping to sample partner and non-partner ant species across ten plots of varying cactus density. We found that the dominant ant partner tended a higher proportion cacti in plots of higher cactus density, and was also found at higher occurrence within the pitfall traps in higher density plots, suggesting strong positive feedbacks that promote ant partner occurrence where plant partners are available. Despite the strong association and increased partner occurrence, ant community-wide effects from this mutualism appear limited. Of the common ant species, the occurrence of a single non-partner ant species was negatively associated with cactus density and with the increased presence of <em>L. apiculatum</em>. Additionally, the composition and diversity of the ant community in our plots were insensitive to cactus density variation, indicating that positive effects of the mutualism on the dominant ant partner did not have cascading impacts on the ant community. This study provides novel evidence that exclusive mutualisms, even those with strong positive feedbacks, may be limited in the scope of their community-level effects.</p>
Climate and ant diversity explain the global distribution of ant-plant mutualisms
<p>Biotic interactions play an important role in shaping species geographic distributions and diversity patterns. However, the role of mutualistic interactions in shaping global plant diversity patterns remains poorly understood, particularly with respect to interactions with invertebrates. It is unclear how the nature of different mutualisms interacts with abiotic drivers and affects the distribution of mutualistic organisms. Here, we present a global-scale biogeographic analysis of three distinct ant-plant mutualisms, differentiating between plants bearing domatia, extrafloral nectaries (EFNs), and elaiosomes, based on comprehensive geographic distributions of ~19,000 flowering plants and ~13,000 ant species. Domatia and extrafloral nectaries involve indirect plant defences provided by ants, while elaiosomes attract ants to disperse seeds. Our results reveal distinct biogeographic patterns of different ant-plant mutualisms, with domatium- and EFN-bearing plant diversity decreasing sharply from the equator towards the poles, while elaiosome-bearing plants prevail at mid-latitudes. Present climate, especially mean annual temperature and precipitation, emerge as the strongest predictors of ant-associated plant diversity. In hot and moist regions, typically the tropics, the representation of EFN-bearing plants increases with the proportion of potential ant partners while domatium-bearing plants show no correlation with ants. In dry regions, plants with elaiosomes are strongly linked to interacting ant seed dispersers. Our results suggest that ants in combination with climate drive the spatial variation of plants bearing domatia, extrafloral nectaries, and elaiosomes, highlighting the importance of mutualistic interactions for understanding plant biogeography.</p>
Climate and ant diversity explain the global distribution of ant-plant mutualisms
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Does ant-plant mutualism have spillover effects on the non-partner ant community?
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Urbanization drives partner switching and loss of mutualism in an ant-plant symbiosis
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Distinctive fungal communities in an obligate African ant-plant mutualism
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Economy of scale: third partner strengthens a keystone ant-plant mutualism
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Harnessing ant defence at fruits reduces bruchid seed predation in a symbiotic ant-plant mutualism
In horizontally transmitted mutualisms, mutualists disperse separately and reassemble in each generation with partners genetically unrelated to those in the previous generation. Because of this, there should be no selection on either partner to enhance the other's reproductive output directly. In symbiotic ant–plant mutualisms, myrmecophytic plants host defensive ant colonies, and ants defend the plants from herbivores. Plants and ants disperse separately, and, although ant defence can indirectly increase plant reproduction by reducing folivory, it is unclear whether ants can also directly increase plant reproduction by defending seeds. The neotropical tree Cordia alliodora hosts colonies of Azteca pittieri ants. The trees produce domatia where ants nest at stem nodes and also at the node between the peduncle and the rachides of the infloresence. Unlike the stem domatia, these reproductive domatia senesce after the tree fruits each year. In this study, I show that the tree's resident ant colony moves into these ephemeral reproductive domatia, where they tend honeydew-producing scale insects and patrol the nearby developing fruits. The presence of ants significantly reduced pre-dispersal seed predation by Amblycerus bruchid beetles, thereby directly increasing plant reproductive output.
Data from: Limited gene dispersal and spatial genetic structure as stabilizing factors in an ant-plant mutualism
Comparative studies of the population genetics of closely associated species are necessary to properly understand the evolution of these relationships because gene flow between populations affects the partners' evolutionary potential at the local scale. As a consequence (at least for antagonistic interactions), asymmetries in the strength of the genetic structures of the partner populations can result in one partner having a co-evolutionary advantage. Here, we assess the population genetic structure of partners engaged in a species-specific and obligatory mutualism: the Neotropical ant-plant, Hirtella physophora, and its ant associate, Allomerus decemarticulatus. Although the ant cannot complete its life cycle elsewhere than on H. physophora and the plant cannot live for long without the protection provided by A. decemarticulatus, these species also have antagonistic interactions: the ants have been shown to benefit from castrating their host plant and the plant is able to retaliate against too virulent ant colonies. We found similar short dispersal distances for both partners, resulting in the local transmission of the association and, thus, inbred populations in which too virulent castrating ants face the risk of local extinction due to the absence of H. physophora offspring. On the other hand, we show that the plant populations probably experienced greater gene flow than did the ant populations, thus enhancing the evolutionary potential of the plants. We conclude that such levels of spatial structure in the partners' populations can increase the stability of the mutualistic relationship. Indeed, the local transmission of the association enables partial alignments of the partners' interests, and population connectivity allows the plant retaliation mechanisms to be locally adapted to the castration behaviour of their symbionts.
Data from: Limited gene dispersal and spatial genetic structure as stabilizing factors in an ant-plant mutualism
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Harnessing ant defence at fruits reduces bruchid seed predation in a symbiotic ant-plant mutualism
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Phylogeny of Cecropieae (Urticaceae) and the evolution of an ant-plant mutualism
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
The impacts of tropical forest degradation and fragmentation on ant-plant mutualisms, and consequences for plant community dynamics
<b>Description: </b><p>Myrmecophyte interactions in differing habitats</p><p><b>Project: </b>This dataset was collected as part of the following SAFE research project: <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/projects/project_view/119"><b>The impacts of tropical forest degradation and fragmentation on ant-plant mutualisms, and consequences for plant community dynamics</b></a></p><p><b>Funding: </b>These data were collected as part of research funded by: </p><ul><li>GACR (National, 16-09427S, <a href="NA">NA</a>)</li></ul><p>This dataset is released under the CC-BY 4.0 licence, requiring that you cite the dataset in any outputs, but has the additional condition that you acknowledge the contribution of these funders in any outputs.</p><p></p><p><b>Permits: </b>These data were collected under permit from the following authorities:</p><ul><li>Sabah Biodiversity Council (Research licence NA)</li></ul><p></p><p><b>XML metadata: </b>GEMINI compliant metadata for this dataset is available <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/datasets/xml_metadata?id=3979296">here</a></p><p><b>Files: </b>This consists of 1 file: M.pearsonii_habitat_comparison_OP_Matrix_MH_August.xlsx</p><p><b>M.pearsonii_habitat_comparison_OP_Matrix_MH_August.xlsx</b></p><p>This file contains dataset metadata and 3 data tables:</p><ol><li><p><b>Branch data</b> (described in worksheet Branch_data)</p><p>Description: Branch data</p><p>Number of fields: 86</p><p>Number of data rows: 611</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Tree_code</b>: Tree ID (Field type: location)</li><li><b>Branch_code</b>: Branch code (Field type: id)</li><li><b>Coccids</b>: Number of coccids on br0nches (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood1</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants1</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates1</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen1</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood2</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants2</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates2</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen2</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood4</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants4</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates4</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen4</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood5</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants5</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates5</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen5</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood6</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants6</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates6</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen6</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood7</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants_7</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates7</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen7</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood8</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants8</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates8</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen8</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood9</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants9</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates9</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen9</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood10</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants10</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates10</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen10</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood11</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants11</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates11</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen11</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood12</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants12</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates12</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen12</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood13</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants13</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates13</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen13</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood14</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants14</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates14</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen14</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood15</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants15</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates15</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen15</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood16</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants16</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates16</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen16</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood17</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants17</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates17</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen17</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood18</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants18</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates18</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen18</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood19</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants19</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates19</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen19</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood20</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants20</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates20</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen20</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Brood21</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ants21</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Allates21</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>queen21</b>: Number of ants on branch (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>damaged_queens</b>: Number of damaged ants (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>wasp</b>: Number of wasps (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Notes</b>: Comments (Field type: comments)</li></ul></li><li><p><b>Tree data</b> (described in worksheet Tree_data)</p><p>Description: Tree data, including soil nutrient profiles</p><p>Number of fields: 23</p><p>Number of data rows: 84</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Date</b>: Date of sampling (Field type: date)</li><li><b>Tree</b>: Tree ID (Field type: id)</li><li><b>Tree_code</b>: Tree ID code (Field type: location)</li><li><b>Habitat</b>: Habitat type (Field type: categorical)</li><li><b>Number_ants_first_5_leaves</b>: Number of ants on first 5 leaves (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>DBH</b>: Diametre at breast height (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Height</b>: Tree height (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>N</b>: Canopy cover (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>S</b>: Canopy cover (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>E</b>: Canopy cover (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>W</b>: Canopy cover (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Canopy_cover</b>: Canopy cover (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Leaf_biomass</b>: Leaf biomass (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Total_branches</b>: Total number of branches (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Phosphate</b>: Leaf phosphates (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Nitrate</b>: Leaf nitrates (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Total_wet_weight</b>: Total soil wet weight (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Wet_weight_sample</b>: Soil wet weight (sample) (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Dry_weight_sample</b>: Soil dry weight (sample) (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>pH</b>: Leaf pH (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Dry_Wet_ratio</b>: Soil wet: dry weight ratio (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Total_dry_weight</b>: Total soildry weight (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Density</b>: Soil density (Field type: numeric trait)</li></ul></li><li><p><b>All M.Pearsonii-Herbivory data</b> (described in worksheet All_Pearsonii-Herbivory_data)</p><p>Description: Summarised version of data used for analysis</p><p>Number of fields: 17</p><p>Number of data rows: 86</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Date</b>: Date the measurements were taken (Field type: date)</li><li><b>Tree</b>: Tree tag (Field type: id)</li><li><b>Tree_Code</b>: Tree code (Field type: id)</li><li><b>Habitat</b>: Habitat type (Field type: categorical)</li><li><b>Tree_Height_Rank</b>: Tree height rank (Field type: categorical)</li><li><b>Corrected_Leaf_Biomass</b>: Corrected leaf biomass (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Herbivory</b>: Leaf herbivory (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Coccids</b>: Coccid abundance (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ant_abundance</b>: Ant abundance (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Ant_ranked_abundance</b>: Ant coverage ranked (Field type: categorical)</li><li><b>Brood</b>: Ant abundance (Field type: numeric interaction)</li><li><b>Biomass_height_ratio</b>: Tree biomass to height ratio (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Coccid_ant_ratio</b>: Coccid to ant ratio (Field type: numeric)</li><li><b>Brood_ant_ratio</b>: Brood to ant ratio (Field type: numeric trait)</li><li><b>Attendence_ratio</b>: Attendence ratio (Field type: numeric)</li><li><b>DomTaxa</b>: Taxa record for the dominant species (Field type: taxa)</li><li><b>Dominant_species</b>: Is there a dominant species? (Field type: categorical interaction)</li></ul></li></ol><p><b>Date range: </b>2016-11-19 to 2017-11-24</p><p><b>Latitudinal extent: </b>4.5000 to 5.0700</p><p><b>Longitudinal extent: </b>116.7500 to 117.8200</p><p><b>Taxonomic coverage: </b><br> All taxon names are validated against the GBIF backbone taxonomy. If a dataset uses a synonym, the accepted usage is shown followed by the dataset usage in brackets. Taxa that cannot be validated, including new species and other unknown taxa, morphospecies, functional groups and taxonomic levels not used in the GBIF backbone are shown in square brackets.</p><div> -  Plantae <br> -  -  Tracheophyta <br> -  -  -  Magnoliopsida <br> -  -  -  -  Malpighiales <br> -  -  -  -  -  Euphorbiaceae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Macaranga</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Macaranga pearsonii</i> <br> -  Animalia <br> -  -  Arthropoda <br> -  -  -  Insecta <br> -  -  -  -  Hymenoptera <br> -  -  -  -  -  Formicidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.1 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.2 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.4 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.5 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.6 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.7 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.8 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.9 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.10 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.11 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.12 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.13 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.14 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.15 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.16 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.17 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.18 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.19 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.20 <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  sp.21 <br> -  -  -  -  Hemiptera <br> -  -  -  -  -  Coccidae <br></div><p></p>
Data from: The evolution of communication in two ant-plant mutualisms
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Comparative genomics reveals convergent rates of evolution in ant-plant mutualisms
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Ant-plant mutualism: a dietary by-product of a tropical ant's macronutrient requirements
Many arboreal ants depend on myrmecophytic plants for both food and shelter; in return, these ants defend their host plants against herbivores, which are often insects. Ant-plant and other mutualisms do not necessarily involve the exchange of costly rewards or services; they may instead result from by-product benefits, or positive outcomes that do not entail a cost for one or both partners. Here, we examined whether the plant-ant Allomerus octoarticulatus pays a short-term cost to defend their host plants against herbivores, or whether plant defense is a by-product benefit of ant foraging for insect prey. Because the food offered by ant-plants is usually nitrogen-poor, arboreal ants may balance their diets by consuming insect prey or associating with microbial symbionts to acquire nitrogen, potentially shifting the costs and benefits of plant defense for the ant partner. To determine the effect of ant diet on an ant-plant mutualism, we compared the behavior, morphology, fitness, stable isotope signatures, and gaster microbiomes of A. octoarticulatus ants nesting in Cordia nodosa trees maintained for nearly a year with or without insect herbivores. At the end of the experiment, ants from herbivore exclosures preferred protein-rich baits more than ants in the control (i.e., herbivores-present) treatment. Furthermore, workers in the control treatment were heavier than in the herbivore-exclusion treatment, and worker mass predicted reproductive output, suggesting that foraging for insect prey directly increased ant colony fitness. The gaster microbiome of ants was not significantly affected by the herbivore exclusion treatment. We conclude that the defensive behavior of some phytoecious ants is a by-product of their need for external protein sources; thus, the consumption of insect herbivores by ants benefits both the ant colony and the host plant.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.