Aguirre, A., Coates, R., Cumplido-Barragán, G., Campos-Villanueva, A. and Díaz-Castelazo, C. (2013) Morphological characterization of extrafloral nectaries and associated ants in tropical vegetation of Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Flora, 208, 147–156.Google Scholar

Alves-Silva, E., Baronio, G. J., Torezan-Silingardi, H. M. and Del-Claro, K. (2013) Foraging behavior of Brachygastra lecheguana (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) on Banisteriopsis malifolia (Malpighiaceae): extrafloral nectar consumption and herbivore predation in a tending ant system. Entomological Science, 16, 162–169.Google Scholar

Alves-Silva, E. and Del-Claro, K. (2013) Effect of post-fire resprouting on leaf fluctuating asymmetry, extrafloral nectar quality, and ant-plant-herbivore interactions. Naturwissenschaften, 100, 525–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Barrett, L. G. and Heil, M. (2012) Unifying concepts and mechanisms in the specificity of plant-enemy interactions. Trends in Plant Science, 17, 282–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Beach, R. M., Todd, J. W. and Baker, S. H. (1985) Nectaried and nectariless cotton cultivars as nectar sources for the adult soybean looper. Journal of Entomological Science, 20, 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentley, B. L. (1977) Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8, 407–427.Google Scholar

Bentley, B. L. (1976) Plants bearing extrafloral nectaries and the associated ant community: interhabitat differences in the reduction of herbivore damage. Ecology, 57, 815–820.Google Scholar

Bizerril, M. X. A. and Vieira, E. M. (2002) Azteca ants as antiherbivore agents of Tococa formicaria (Melastomataceae) in Brazilian Cerrado. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 37, 145–149.Google Scholar

Blattner, F. R., Weising, K., Bänfer, G., Maschwitz, U. and Fiala, B. (2001) Molecular analysis of phylogenetic relationships among myrmecophytic Macaranga species (Euphorbiaceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 19, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bleil, R., Bluethgen, N. and Junker, R. R. (2011) Ant-plant mutualism in Hawai’i? Invasive ants reduce flower parasitism but also exploit floral nectar of the endemic shrub Vaccinium reticulatum (Ericaceae). Pacific Science, 65, 291–300.Google Scholar

Blüthgen, N. and Wesenberg, J. (2001) Ants induce domatia in a rain forest tree (Vochysia vismiaefolia). Biotropica, 33, 637–642.Google Scholar

Bronstein, J. L. (1998) The contribution of ant-plant protection studies to our understanding of mutualism. Biotropica, 30, 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brouat, C., Garcia, N., Andary, C. and McKey, D. (2001) Plant lock and ant key: pairwise coevolution of an exclusion filter in an ant-plant mutualism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 268, 2131–2141.Google Scholar

Brown, W. L. J. (1960) Ants, acacias, and browsing mammals. Ecology, 41, 587–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carrillo, J., McDermott, D. and Siemann, E. (2014) Loss of specificity: native but not invasive populations of Triadica sebifera vary in tolerance to different herbivores. Oecologia, 174, 863–871.Google Scholar

Chamberlain, S. A. and Holland, J. N. (2009) Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant-plant protection mutualisms. Ecology, 90, 2384–2392.Google Scholar

Chomicki, G., Staedler, M., Schönenberger, Y., , J. and Renner, S. S. (2016) Partner choice through concealed floral sugar rewards evolved with the specialization of ant-plant mutualisms. New Phytologist, 211, 1358–1370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Darwin, F. (1876) On the glandular bodies on Acacia sphaerocephala and Cecropia peltata serving as food for ants. With an appendix on the nectar-glands of the common brake fern, Pteris Aquilina. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 15, 398–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davidson, D. W. and McKey, D. (1993) Ant-plant symbioses: stalking the Chuyachaqui. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 326–332.Google Scholar

Escalante-Perez, M. and Heil, M. (2012) The production and protection of Nectars. In Lüttge, U. and Beyschlag, W., eds. Progress in Botany, Vol. 74. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 239–261.Google Scholar

Escalante-Perez, M., Jaborsky, M., Lautner, S., Fromm, J., Muller, T. et al. (2012) Poplar extrafloral nectaries: two types, two strategies of indirect defenses against herbivores. Plant Physiology, 159, 1176–1191.Google Scholar

Fagundes, R., Anjos, D. V., Carvalho, R. and Del-Claro, K. (2015) Availability of food and nesting-sites as regulatory mechanisms for the recovery of ant diversity after fire disturbance. Sociobiology, 62, 1–9.Google Scholar

Federle, W., Fiala, B., Zizka, G. and Maschwitz, U. (2001) Incident daylight as orientation cue for hole-boring ants: prostomata in Macaranga ant-plants. Insectes Sociaux, 48, 165–177.Google Scholar

Federle, W., Maschwitz, U. and Holldobler, B. (2002) Pruning of host plant neighbours as defence against enemy ant invasions: Crematogaster ant partners of Macaranga protected by ‘wax barriers’ prune less than their congeners. Oecologia, 132, 264–270.Google Scholar

Feeny, P. (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry, 10, 1–40.Google Scholar

Ferguson, B. G., Boucher, D. H. and Maribel Pizzi, C. R. (1995) Recruitment and decay of a pulse of Cecropia in Nicaraguan rain forest damaged by hurricane Joan: relation to mutualism with Azteca ants. Biotropica, 27, 455–460.Google Scholar

Ferreira, J. A. M., Cunha, D. F. S., Pallini, A., Sabelis, M. W. and Janssen, A. (2011) Leaf domatia reduce intraguild predation among predatory mites. Ecological Entomology, 36, 435–441.Google Scholar

Fiala, B., Jakob, A., Maschwitz, U. and Linsenmair, K. E. (1999) Diversity, evolutionary specialisation and geographic distribution of a mutualistic ant-plant complex: Macaranga and Crematogaster in South East Asia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 66, 305–331.Google Scholar

Fiala, B. and Linsenmair, K. E. (1995) Distribution and abundance of plants with extrafloral nectaries in the woody flora of a lowland primary forest in Malaysia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 4, 165–182.Google Scholar

Fiala, B. and Maschwitz, U. (1992a) Domatia as most important adaptions in the evolution of myrmecophytes in the paleotropical tree genus Macaranga (Euphorbiaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution, 180, 53–64.Google Scholar

Fiala, B. and Maschwitz, U. (1991) Extrafloral nectaries in the genus Macaranga (Euphorbiaceae) in Malaysia: comparative studies of their possible significance as predispositions for myrmecophytism. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 44, 287–305.Google Scholar

Fiala, B. and Maschwitz, U. (1992b) Food bodies and their significance for obligate ant-association in the tree genus Macaranga (Euphorbiaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 110, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiala, B. and Maschwitz, U. (1990) Studies on the south east asian ant-plant association Crematogaster borneensis/Macaranga: adaptations of the ant partner. Insectes Sociaux, 37, 212–231.Google Scholar

Fischer, R. C., Richter, A., Wanek, W. and Mayer, V. (2002) Plants feed ants: food bodies of myrmecophytic Piper and their significance for the interaction with Pheidole bicornis ants. Oecologia, 133, 186–192.Google Scholar

Folgarait, P. J. and Davidson, D. W. (1995) Myrmecophytic Cecropia: antiherbivore defenses under different nutrient treatments. Oecologia, 104, 189–206.Google Scholar

Freitas, L., Galetto, L., Bernardello, G. and Paoli, A. A. S. (2000) Ant exclusion and reproduction of Croton sarcopetalus (Euphorbiaceae). Flora, 195, 398–402.Google Scholar

Géneau, C. E., Wäckers, F. L., Luka, H., Daniel, C. and Balmer, O. (2012) Selective flowers to enhance biological control of cabbage pests by parasitoids. Basic and Applied Ecology, 13, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goheen, J. R. and Palmer, T. M. (2010) Defensive plant-ants stabilize megaherbivore-driven landscape change in an African savanna. Current Biology, 20, 1766–1772.Google Scholar

González-Teuber, M. and Heil, M. (2015) Comparative anatomy and physiology of myrmecophytes: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Research and Reports in Biodiversity Studies, 4, 21–32.Google Scholar

González-Teuber, M. and Heil, M. (2009) Nectar chemistry is tailored for both attraction of mutualists and protection from exploiters. Plant Signaling and Behavior, 4, 809–813.Google Scholar

González-Teuber, M., Kaltenpoth, M. and Boland, W. (2014) Mutualistic ants as an indirect defence against leaf pathogens. New Phytologist, 202, 640–650.Google Scholar

Gras, P., Tscharntke, T., Maas, B., Tjoa, A., Hafsah, A. et al. (2016) How ants, birds and bats affect crop yield along shade gradients in tropical cacao agroforestry. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53, 953–963.Google Scholar

Heil, M. (2015) Extrafloral nectar at the plant-insect interface: a spotlight on chemical ecology, phenotypic plasticity, and food webs. Annual Review of Entomology, 60, 213–232.Google Scholar

Heil, M. (2008) Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytologist, 178, 41–61.Google Scholar

Heil, M. (2004) Induction of two indirect defences benefits Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae) in nature. Journal of Ecology, 92, 527–536.Google Scholar

Heil, M. (2011) Nectar: generation, regulation and ecological functions. Trends in Plant Science, 16, 191–200.Google Scholar

Heil, M. (2016) Nightshade wound secretion: the world’s simplest extrafloral nectar? Trends in Plant Science, 21, 637–638.Google Scholar

Heil, M., Baumann, B., Krüger, R. and Linsenmair, K. E. (2004) Main nutrient compounds in food bodies of Mexican Acacia ant-plants. Chemoecology, 14, 45–52.Google Scholar

Heil, M., Fiala, B., Boller, T. and Linsenmair, K. E. (1999) Reduced chitinase activities in ant plants of the genus Macaranga. Naturwissenschaften, 86, 146–149.Google Scholar

Heil, M., Fiala, B., Linsenmair, K. E., Zotz, G., Menke, P. et al. (1997) Food body production in Macaranga triloba (Euphorbiaceae): a plant investment in anti-herbivore defence via mutualistic ant partners. Journal of Ecology, 85, 847–861.Google Scholar

Heil, M., González-Teuber, M., Clement, L. W., Kautz, S., Verhaagh, M. et al. (2009) Divergent investment strategies of Acacia myrmecophytes and the coexistence of mutualists and exploiters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 106, 18091–18096.Google Scholar

Heil, M., Greiner, S., Meimberg, H., Krüger, R., Noyer, J.-L. et al. (2004b) Evolutionary change from induced to constitutive expression of an indirect plant resistance. Nature, 430, 205–208.Google Scholar

Heil, M., Koch, T., Hilpert, A., Fiala, B., Boland, W. et al. (2001) Extrafloral nectar production of the ant-associated plant, Macaranga tanarius, is an induced, indirect, defensive response elicited by jasmonic acid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98, 1083–1088.Google Scholar

Heil, M. and McKey, D. (2003) Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34, 425–453.Google Scholar

Herms, D. A. and Mattson, W. J. (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or to defend. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 67, 283–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huxley, C. R. (1978) The ant-plants Myrmecodia and Hydnophytum (Rubiaceae), and relationships between their morphology, ant occupants, physiology and ecology. New Phytologist, 80, 231–268.Google Scholar

Janzen, D. H. (1969) Allelopathy by myrmecophytes: the ant Azteca as an allelopathic agent of Cecropia. Ecology, 50, 147–153.Google Scholar

Janzen, D. H. (1966) Coevolution of mutualism between ants and acacias in Central America. Evolution, 20, 249–275.Google Scholar

Janzen, D. H. (1967) Fire, vegetation structure, and the ant x Acacia interaction in Central America. Ecology, 48, 26–35.Google Scholar

Janzen, D. H. (1985) On ecological fitting. Oikos, 45, 308–310.Google Scholar

Janzen, D. H. (1972) Protection of Barteria (Passifloraceae) by Pachysima ants (Pseudomyrmecinae) in a Nigerian rain forest. Ecology, 53, 885–892.Google Scholar

Janzen, D. H. (1974) Swollen-Thorn Acacias of Central America: Smithsonian Contributions to Botany, Vol. 13. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar

Jones, I. M., Koptur, S. and von Wettberg, E. (2016) The use of extrafloral nectar in pest management: overcoming context dependence. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 489–499.Google Scholar

Jones, M. E. and Paine, T. D. (2012) Ants impact sawfly oviposition on bracken fern in southern California. Arthropod-Plant Interactions, 6, 283–287.Google Scholar

Kato, H., Yamane, S. and Phengklai, C. (2004) Ant-colonized domatia on fruits of Mucuna interrupta (Leguminosae). Journal of Plant Research, 117, 319–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Keeler, K. H. (1979) Distribution of plants with extrafloral nectaries and ants at two different elevations in Jamaica. Biotropica, 11, 152–154.Google Scholar

Keeler, K. H. (1980) Distribution of plants with extrafloral nectaries in temperate communities. The American Midland Naturalist, 104, 274–279.Google Scholar

Koptur, S., Palacios-Rios, M., Diaz-Castelazo, C., Mackay, W. P. and Rico-Gray, V. (2013) Nectar secretion on fern fronds associated with lower levels of herbivore damage: field experiments with a widespread epiphyte of Mexican cloud forest remnants. Annals of Botany, 111, 1277–1283.Google Scholar

Koptur, S., Rico-Gray, V. and Palacios-Rios, M. (1998) Ant protection of the nectaried fern Polypodium plebeium in Central Mexico. American Journal of Botany, 85, 736–739.Google Scholar

Koptur, S., William, P. and Olive, Z. (2010) Ants and plants with extrafloral nectaries in fire successional habitats on Andros (Bahamas). Florida Entomologist, 93, 89–99.Google Scholar

Koricheva, J. and Romero, G. Q. (2012) You get what you pay for: reward-specific trade-offs among direct and ant-mediated defences in plants. Biology Letters, 8, 628–630.Google Scholar

Lach, L. (2003) Invasive ants: unwanted partners in ant-plant interactions? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 90, 91–108.Google Scholar

Lach, L., Hobbs, R. J. and Majer, J. D. (2009) Herbivory-induced extrafloral nectar increases native and invasive ant worker survival. Population Ecology, 51, 237–243.Google Scholar

Lach, L. and Hoffmann, B. D. (2011) Are invasive ants better plant-defense mutualists? A comparison of foliage patrolling and herbivory in sites with invasive yellow crazy ants and native weaver ants. Oikos, 120, 9–16.Google Scholar

Lach, L., Tillberg, C. V. and Suarez, A. V. (2010) Contrasting effects of an invasive ant on a native and an invasive plant. Biological Invasions, 12, 3123–3133.Google Scholar

Leal, L. C., Andersen, A. N. and Leal, I. R. (2015) Disturbance winners or losers? Plants bearing extrafloral nectaries in Brazilian Caatinga. Biotropica, 47, 468–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lin, I. W., Sosso, D., Chen, L.-Q., Gase, K., Kim, S.-G. et al. (2014) Nectar secretion requires sucrose phosphate synthases and the sugar transporter SWEET9. Nature, 508, 546–549.Google Scholar

Longino, J. T. (1989) Geographic variation and community structure in an an-plant mutualism: Azteca and Cecropia in Costa Rica. Biotropica, 21, 126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lortzing, T., Calf, O. W., Böhlke, M., Schwachtje, J., Kopka, J. et al. (2016) Extrafloral nectar secretion from wounds of Solanum dulcamara. Nature Plants, 2, Article number: 16056, doi:10.1038/nplants.2016.56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marazzi, B., Bronstein, J. and Koptur, S. (2013) The diversity, ecology and evolution of extrafloral nectaries: current perspectives and future challenges. Annals of Botany, 111, 1243–1250.Google Scholar

Marazzi, B., Conti, E., Sanderson, M. J., McMahon, M. M. and Bronstein, J. L. (2013) Diversity and evolution of a trait mediating ant-plant interactions: insights from extrafloral nectaries in Senna (Leguminosae). Annals of Botany, 111, 1263–1275.Google Scholar

Marazzi, B. and Sanderson, M. J. (2010) Large-scale patterns of diverstfication in the widspread legume genus Senna and evolutionary role of extrafloral nectaries. Evolution, 64, 3570–3592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mathews, C. R., Bottrell, D. G. and Brown, M. W. (2009) Extrafloral nectaries alter arthropod community structure and mediate peach (Prunus persica) plant defense. Ecological Applications, 19, 722–730.Google Scholar

Mathews, C. R., Brown, M. W. and Bottrell, D. G. (2007) Leaf extrafloral nectaries enhance biological control of a key economic pest, Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in peach (Rosales: Rosaceae). Environmental Entomology, 36, 383–389.Google Scholar

Mathur, V., Wagenaar, R., Caissard, J.-C., Reddy, A. S., Vet, L. E. M. et al. (2013) A novel indirect defence in Brassicaceae: Structure and function of extrafloral nectaries in Brassica juncea. Plant, Cell & Environment, 36, 528–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Melo, Y., Machado, S. R. and Alves, M. (2010) Anatomy of extrafloral nectaries in Fabaceae from dry-seasonal forest in Brazil. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 163, 87–98.Google Scholar

Millán-Cañongo, C., Orona-Tamayo, D. and Heil, M. (2014) Phloem sugar flux and jasmonic acid-responsive cell wall invertase control extrafloral nectar secretion in Ricinus communis. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 40, 760–769.Google Scholar

Moog, J., Feldhaar, H. and Maschwitz, U. (2002) On the caulinary domatia of the SE-Asian ant-plant Zanthoxylum myriacanthum Wall. ex Hook. f. (Rutaceae) their influence on branch statics, and the protection against herbivory. Sociobiology, 40, 547–574.Google Scholar

Ness, J. H. (2006) A mutualism’s indirect costs: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos, 113, 506–514.Google Scholar

Ness, J. H. and Bronstein, J. L. (2004) The effects of invasive ants on prospective ant mutualists. Biological Invasions, 6, 445–461.Google Scholar

Ness, J. H., Morales, M. A., Kenison, E., Leduc, E., Leipzig-Scott, P. et al. (2013) Reciprocally beneficial interactions between introduced plants and ants are induced by the presence of a third introduced species. Oikos, 122, 695–704.Google Scholar

Ness, J. H., Morris, W. F. and Bronstein, J. L. (2009) For ant-protected plants, the best defense is a hungry offense. Ecology, 90, 2823–2831.Google Scholar

Oliveira, P. S. and Brandão, C. R. F. (1991) The ant community associated with extrafloral nectaries in the Brazilian cerrados. In Huxley, C. R. and Cutler, D. F., eds. Ant-plant interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 198–212.Google Scholar

Olson, D. M. and Wäckers, F. L. (2007) Management of field margins to maximize multiple ecological services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 13–21.Google Scholar

Orona-Tamayo, D., Wielsch, N., Blanco-Labra, A., Svatos, A., Faría-Rodríguez, R. et al. (2013) Exclusive rewards in mutualisms: ant proteases and plant protease inhibitors create a lock-key system to protect Acacia food bodies from exploitation. Molecular Ecology, 22, 4087–4100.Google Scholar

Palmer, T. M., Stanton, M. L. and Young, T. P. (2003) Competition and coexistence: Exploring mechanisms that restrict and maintain diversity within mutualist guilds. American Naturalist, 162, S63–S79.Google Scholar

Palmer, T. M., Stanton, M. L., Young, T. P., Goheen, J. R., Pringle, R. M. et al. (2008) Breakdown of an ant-plant mutualism follows the loss of large herbivores from an African savanna. Science, 319, 192–195.Google Scholar

Philpott, S. M. and Foster, P. F. (2005) Nest-site limitation in coffee agroecosystems: Artificial nests maintain diversity of arboreal ants. Ecological Applications, 15, 1478–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Piovia-Scott, J. (2011) The effect of disturbance on an ant-plant mutualism. Oecologia, 166, 411–420.Google Scholar

Pringle, E. G., Akçay, E., Raab, T. K., Dirzo, R. and Gordon, D. M. (2013) Water stress strengthens mutualism among ants, trees, and scale insects. PLoS Biol, 11, e1001705.Google Scholar

Putz, F. E. and Holbrook, N. M. (1988) Further observations on the dissolution of mutualism between Cecropia and its ants: the Malaysian case. Oikos, 53, 121–125.Google Scholar

Quek, S. P., Davies, S. J., Itino, T. and Pierce, N. E. (2004) Codiversification in an ant-plant mutualism: Stem texture and the evolution of host use in Crematogaster (Formicidae: Myrmicinae) inhabitants of Macaranga (Euphorbiaceae). Evolution, 58, 554–570.Google Scholar

Rickson, F. R. (1971) Glycogen plastids in Müllerian body cells of Cecropia peltata – a higher green plant. Science, 173, 344–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rickson, F. R. and Risch, S. J. (1984) Anatomical and ultrastructural aspects of the ant-food cell of Piper cenocladum C.DC (Piperaceae). American Journal of Botany, 71, 1268–1274.Google Scholar

Riginos, C., Karande, M. A., Rubenstein, D. I. and Palmer, T. M. (2015) Disruption of a protective ant-plant mutualism by an invasive ant increases elephant damage to savanna trees. Ecology, 96, 654–661.Google Scholar

Rocha, C. F. D. and Bergallo, H. G. (1992) Bigger ant colonies reduce herbivory and herbivore residence time on leaves of an ant-plant: Azteca muelleri vs. Coelomera ruficornis on Cecropia pachystachia. Oecologia, 91, 249–252.Google Scholar

Romero, G. Q. and Koricheva, J. (2011) Contrasting cascade effects of carnivores on plant fitness: a meta-analysis. Journal of Animal Ecology, 80, 696–704.Google Scholar

Rosumek, F. B., Silveira, F. A. O., Neves, F. D., Barbosa, N. P. D., Diniz, L. et al. (2009) Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses. Oecologia, 160, 537–549.Google Scholar

Rudgers, J. and Gardener, M. C. (2004) Extrafloral nectar as a resource mediating multispecies interactions. Ecology, 85, 1495–1502.Google Scholar

Ruhlmann, J. M., Kram, B. W. and Carter, C. J. (2010) CELL WALL INVERTASE 4 is required for nectar production in Arabidopsis. Journal of Experimental Botany, 61, 395–404.Google Scholar

Savage, A. M. and Rudgers, J. A. (2013) Non-additive benefit or cost? Disentangling the indirect effects that occur when plants bearing extrafloral nectaries and honeydew-producing insects share exotic ant mutualists. Annals of Botany, 111, 1295–1307.Google Scholar

Savage, A. M. and Whitney, K. D. (2011) Trait-mediated indirect interactions in invasions: unique behavioral responses of an invasive ant to plant nectar. Ecosphere, 2, Article 106.Google Scholar

Schremmer, F. (1969) Extranuptiale Nektarien. Beobachtungen an Salix eleagnos Scop. und Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn. Plant Systematics and Evolution (Österr. Bot. Z.), 117, 205–222.Google Scholar

Schupp, E. W. (1986) Atzeca protection of Cecropia: ant occupation benefits juvenile trees. Oecologia, 70, 379–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schupp, E. W. and Feener, D. H. (1991) Phylogeny, life form, and habitat dependence of ant-defended plants in a Panamanian forest. In Huxley, C. R. and Cutler, D. F., eds. Ant-plant interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–197.Google Scholar

Sobrinho, T. G., Schoereder, J. H., Rodrigues, L. L. and Collevatti, R. G. (2002) Ant visitation (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) to extrafloral nectaries increases seed set and seed viability in the tropical weed Triumfetta semitriloba. Sociobiology, 39, 353–368.Google Scholar

Stapley, L. (1998) The interaction of thorns and symbiotic ants as an effective defence mechanism of swollen-thorn acacias. Oecologia, 115, 401–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stenberg, J. A., Heil, M., Åhman, I. and Björkman, C. (2015) Optimizing crops for biocontrol of pests and disease. Trends in Plant Science, 20, 698–712.Google Scholar

Tempel, A. S. (1983) Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and nectar-feeding ants: a nonmutualistic interaction. Ecology, 64, 1411–1422.Google Scholar

Trager, M. D., Bhotika, S., Hostetler, J. A., Andrade, G. V., Rodriguez-Cabal, M. A. et al. (2010) Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis. Plos One, 5, e14308.Google Scholar

Traveset, A. and Richardson, D. M. (2014) Mutualistic interactions and biological invasions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 89–113.Google Scholar

Wang, Y., Carrillo, J., Siemann, E., Wheeler, G. S., Zhu, L. et al. (2013) Specificity of extrafloral nectar induction by herbivores differs among native and invasive populations of tallow tree. Annals of Botany, 112, 751–756.Google Scholar

Ward, P. S. (1999) Systematics, biogeography and host plant associations of the Pseudomyrmex viduus group (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), Triplaris- and Tachigali-inhabiting ants. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 126, 451–540.Google Scholar

Webber, B. L., Moog, J., Curtis, A. S. O. and Woodrow, I. E. (2007) The diversity of ant-plant interactions in the rainforest understorey tree, Ryparosa (Achariaceae): food bodies, domatia, prostomata and hemipteran trophobionts. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 154, 353–371.Google Scholar

Weber, M. G. and Agrawal, A. (2014) Defense mutualisms enhance plant diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 111, 16442–16447.Google Scholar

Weber, M. G. and Keeler, K. H. (2013) The phylogenetic distribution of extrafloral nectaries in plants. Annals of Botany, 111, 1251–1261.Google Scholar

White, R. A. and Turner, M. D. (2012) The anatomy and occurrence of foliar nectaries in Cyathea (Cyatheaceae). American Fern Journal, 102, 91–113.Google Scholar

Young, T. P., Stubblefield, C. H. and Isbell, L. A. (1997) Ants on swollen-thorn acacias: species coexistence in a simple system. Oecologia, 109, 98–107.Google Scholar

Yu, D. W. and Pierce, N. E. (1998) A castration parasite of an ant-plant mutualism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 265, 375–382.Google Scholar

Yumoto, T. and Maruhashi, T. (1999) Pruning behavior and intercolony competition of Tetraponera (Pachysima) aethiops (Pseudomyrmecinae, Hymenoptera) in Barteria fistulosa in a tropical forest, Democratic Republic of Congo. Ecological Research, 14, 393–404.Google Scholar

Aizen, M. A., Sabatino, M. & Tylianakis, J. M. (2012). Specialization and rarity predict non-random loss of interactions from mutualistic networks. Science, 335, 1486–1489.Google Scholar

Andersen, A. N., Hoffmann, B. D., Muller, W. J. & Griffiths, A. D. (2002). Using ants as bioindicators in land management: simplifying assessment of ant community responses. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 8–17.Google Scholar

Asian, C. E., Zavaleta, E. S., Tershy, B. & Croll, D. (2013). Mutualism disruption threatens global plant diversity: a systematic review. PLoS ONE, 8, e66993.Google Scholar

Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S. et al. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471, 51–57.Google Scholar

Bascompte, J. & Jordano, P. (2007). Plant-animal mutualistic networks; the architecture of biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 38, 567–593.Google Scholar

Beattie, A. J. & Culver, D. C. (1981). The guild of myrmecochores in the herbaceous flora of West Virginia forests. West Virginia forests. Ecology, 62, 107–119.Google Scholar

Bond, W. J. (1994). Do mutualisms matter? Assessing the impact of pollinator and disperser disruption on plant extinction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 344, 83–90.Google Scholar

Bronstein, J. L., Dieckmann, U. & Ferriere, R. (2004). Coevolutionary dynamics and the conservation of mutualisms. In Evolutionary Conservation Biology, ed. Fierriere, R., Dieckmann, U. and Couvet, D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 305–326.Google Scholar

Cammeraat, L. H., Willott, S. J., Compton, S. G. & Incoll, L. D. (2002). The effect of ants’ nests on the physical, chemical and hydrological properties of a rangelend soil in semi-arid Spain. Geoderma, 105, 1–20.Google Scholar

Cribb, J. (2016). Surviving the 21st Century. New York: Springer International.Google Scholar

Culver, D. C. & Beattie, A. J. (1983). Effects of ant mounds on soil chemistry and vegetation patterns in Colorado. Ecology, 64, 485–492.Google Scholar

Dauber, J., Bengtsson, J. & Lenoir, L. (2006). Evaluating effects of habitat loss and land-sue continuity on ant species richness in seminatural grassland remnants. Conservation Biology, 20, 1150–1160.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. W. (1997). The role of resource imbalances in the evolutionary ecology of tropical arboreal ants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 61, 153–181.Google Scholar

Dunn, R. R. (2009). Coextinction: anecdotes, models and speculation. In Holocene Extinctions, Turvey, S. T. Oxford Scholarship Online, doi: 10.1093/acprof.oso/9780199535095.003.0008.Google Scholar

Dunn, R. R., Harris, N. C., Colwell, R. K., Koh, L. P. & Sodhi, N. S. (2009). The sixth mass coextinction: are most endangered species parasites and mutualists? Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, 276, 3037–3045.Google Scholar

Ehrlich, P. R. & Ehrlich, A. H. (2012). Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided? Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, 280, 20122845.Google Scholar

Emmott, S. (2013). 10 Billion. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Fitzroy, F. R. & Papyrakis, E. (2016). An Introduction to Climate Change Economics and Policy, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Folgarait, P. J. (1998). Ant biodiversity and its relationships to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodiversity & Conservation, 7, 1221–1244.Google Scholar

Gordon, D. (1999). Ants at Work. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Guber, D. (2003). The Grassroots of a Green Revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Heil, M. & McKey, D. (2003). Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annual Review of Ecology. Evolution. and Systematics, 34, 425–453.Google Scholar

Hooke, R. L. & Martin-Duque, J. F. (2012). Land transformation by humans: a review. Geological Society of America (GSA), 22, 4–10.Google Scholar

Johns, D. (2009). New Conservation Politics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Kiers, E. T., Palmer, T. M., Ives, A. R., Bruno, J. F. & Bronstein, J. L. (2010). Mutualisms in a changing world. Ecology Letters, 13, 1459–1474.Google Scholar

Klein, A. M., Cunningham, S. A., Bos, M. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2008). Advances in pollination ecology from tropical plantation crops. Ecology, 89, 935–943.Google Scholar

Knight, A. T., Bode, M., Fuller, R. A. et al. (2010). Barometer of life: more action, not more data. Science, 329, 141.Google Scholar

Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., Aizen, M. A., Gemmill-Herren, B. et al. (2007). Pollination and other ecosystem services by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework of land-use change. Ecology Letters, 10, 299–314.Google Scholar

Lach, L., Parr, C. & Abbott, K. (2010). Ant Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Laurence, W. F., Koster, H., Grooten, M. et al. (2012a). Making conservation research more relevant for conservation practitioners. Biological Conservation, 153, 164–168.Google Scholar

Laurence, W. F., Useche, D., Rendeiro, J. et al. (2012b). Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature, 489, 290–294.Google Scholar

Lengyel, S., Gove, A. D., Latimer, A. M., Majer, J. D. & Dunn, R. R. (2009a). 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.Google Scholar

Lengyel, S., Gove, A. D., Latimer, A. M., Majer, J. D. (2009b). Ants sow the seeds of global diversification in flowering plants. PLoS ONE, 4, 1–6.Google Scholar

Lobry de Bruyn, L. A. (1999). Ants as bioindicators of soil function in rural environments. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 74, 425–441.Google Scholar

Mayer, V. E., Frederickson, M. E., MvKey, D. & Blatrix, R. (2014). Current issues in the evolutionary ecology of ant-plant symbioses. New Phytologist, 202, 749–764.Google Scholar

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar

Palmer, T. M., Stanton, M. L., Young, T. P., Goheen, J. R., Pringle, R. M. & Karban, R. 2008 Breakdown of an ant-plant mutualism follows loss of large herbivores from an African savanna. Science 319, 192–195.Google Scholar

Price, P. W. (1980). Evolutionary Biology of Parasites. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Pudlo, R. J., Beattie, A. J. & Culver, D. C. (1980). Population consequences of changes in an ant-seed mutualism in Sanguinaria Canadensis. Oecologia, 46, 32–37.Google Scholar

Rastogi, N. (2011). Provisioning services from ants: food and pharamceuticals. Asian Myrmecology, 4, 103–120.Google Scholar

Ribas, C. R., Campos, R. B. F., Schmidt, F. A. & Solar, R. R. C. (2012). Ants as indicators in Brazil: a review with suggestions to improve the use of ants in environmental monitoring programs. Psyche, 636749, doi:10.1155/2012/636749Google Scholar

Rico-Gray, V. & Oliveira, P. S. (2007). The Ecology and Evolution of Ant-Plant Interactions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Rosenau, J. (2016). That sinking feeling. New Scientist, 231, 18–19.Google Scholar

Rowles, A. D. & O’Dowd, D. J. (2009). New mutualism for old: indirect disruption and direct facilitation of seed dispersal following Argentine ant invasion. Oecologia, 158, 709–716.Google Scholar

Rudgers, J. A. (2004). Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: selection in facultative ant-plant mutualism. Ecology, 85, 192–205.Google Scholar

Rudgers, J. A. & Strauss, S. Y. (2004). A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271, 2481–4288.Google Scholar

Rutter, M. T. & Rausher, M. D. (2004). Natural selection of extrafloral nectar production on Chamaecrista fasciculate: the costs and benefits of a mutualism trait. Evolution, 58, 2657–2668.Google Scholar

Schleuning, M., Frund, J. & Garcia, D. (2015). Predicting ecosystem functions from biodiversity and mutualistic networks: an extension of trait-based concepts to plant-animal interactions. Ecography, 38, 380–392.Google Scholar

Sodhi, N. S., Brook, B. W. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. (2009). Causes and Consequences of Species Extinctions. In Princeton Guide to Ecology, ed. Levin, S.A. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 514–520.Google Scholar

Stuart, S. N., Wilson, E. O., McNeely, J. A., Mittermeier, R. A. & Rodriguez, J. P. (2010). Barometer of life: response. Science, 329, 141–142.Google Scholar

Thackerey, S. J., Henrys, P. A., Hemmeing, D. et al. (2016). Phenological sensitivity to climate across taxa and trophic levels. Nature, 535, 241–245.Google Scholar

Trager, M. D., Bhotika, S., Hostetler, J. A. et al. (2010). Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 5, e14308.Google Scholar

Tylianakis, J. M., Didham, R. K., Bascompte, J. & Wardle, D. A. (2008). Global change and species interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 11, 1351–1363.Google Scholar

Underwood, A. J. (1991). Beyond BACI: experimental designs for detecting human environmental impacts on temporal variations in natural populations. Marine & Freshwater Research, 42, 569–587.Google Scholar

United Nations (2015). https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf.Google Scholar

Valiente-Banuet, A., Aizen, M. A., Alcantara, J. M. et al. (2015) Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Functional Ecology, 29, 299–307.Google Scholar

Venter, O., Sanderson, E. W., Magrach, A. et al. (2016). Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications 7, 12558, doi:10.1038/ncomms12558.Google Scholar

Watson, J. E. M., Shanahan, D. F., Di Marco, M. et al. (2016). Catastrophic declines in wilderness areas undermine global environment targets. Current Biology, 26, 1–6.Google Scholar

Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar

Wilson, E. O. & Holldobler, B. (2005). The rise of the ants: a phylogenetic and ecological explanation. PNAS, 102, 7411–7414.Google Scholar

World Bank (2014). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.LND.PTLD.ZS.Google Scholar