Experimental evidence of a tripartite mutualism: bacteria protect ant fungus gardens from specialized parasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symbioses shape all levels of biological organization. Although symbiotic interactions are typically viewed as bipartite associations, with two organisms interacting largely in isolation from other organisms, the presence and importance of additional symbionts is becoming increasingly more apparent. This study examines the importance of a third mutualist within the ancient symbiosis between leaf‐cutting ants and their fungal cultivars. Specifically, we experimentally examine the role of a filamentous bacterium (actinomycete), which is typically carried on the cuticle of fungus‐growing ants, in suppressing the growth of a specialized microfungal parasite ( Escovopsis ) of the fungus garden. We conducted two‐by‐two factorial design experiments crossing the presence/absence of actinomycete with the presence/absence of Escovopsis within small sub‐colonies of Acromyrmex octospinosus . In these experiments, infection by Escovopsis became much more extensive within fungus gardens and had a greater impact on the health of gardens in those sub‐colonies with the bacterium removed from workers as compared to gardens with the bacterium still present on the ants. We establish that the actinomycete bacterium is most abundant on those major workers tending the garden, providing further support that the bacterium is involved in garden hygiene. We also found a significantly higher abundance of actinomycete on workers in colonies experimentally infected with Escovopsis as compared to uninfected control colonies. We suggest that mutualisms between antibiotic‐producing microbes and higher organisms may be common associations that are mostly overlooked and that the role of symbionts in reducing the impact of parasites is likely an important aspect in the cost‐benefit assessment of mutualisms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".