Brilliant SRT1720 Secrets You Are Not Utilizing

Ants foraging on EFNs represented 76.6 and 78.2 % of the epigeal (i.e. ground-dwelling and arboreal) ant assemblage at the Piedmont and Jarillal sites, respectively. Non-EFN-consumer ants included specialized granivores, fungus growers, scavengers and specialized predators [see Supporting Information]. Seasonal variation Both the abundance of nectar-consumer ants in pitfall traps and the abundance of ants on EFN plants significantly differed between seasons (F7,32 = 9.23, P diglyceride than in the Piedmont site (mean �� SD: 308.29 �� 311.69 vs. 109.16 �� 122.14, F1,32 = 19.95, P mTOR inhibitor peak EFN activity (nectar secretion) and peak abundance of nectar-consumer ants in pitfall traps (Fig.?3). The abundance of ants on EFN plants correlated positively with the abundance of nectar-consumer ants in pitfall traps (Spearman's rank correlation: rs = 0.79, P www.selleckchem.com/products/AZD0530.html interactions Networks inferred for each site differed in the number of plant and ant species involved as well as in the number of interactions, yet they shared 4 plant and 16 ant species (Table?2, Fig.?4). Both networks were asymmetric, with more ant than plant species, and little specialization. The plants were more generalist (mean number of links considering the two sites: 12.45, average of the two sites) than were the ants (mean number of links: 5.35). There were no specialist�Cspecialist interactions. Table?2. Network properties of the ant�CEFN plant networks at the Jarillal and Piedmont sites. Figure?4. Bipartite graphs showing the interaction network between EFN-ant consumers and EFN plants for the Piedmont (A) and the Jarillal (B) site. Interacting species are linked by lines, and are ordered from top to down by decreasing the number of links. The ... Opuntia sulphurea was the most visited plant species at both sites (in terms of ant species diversity and proportion of total ant visits). It was visited by 21 ant species in the Piedmont (46.