Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Experimental evidence of a tripartite mutualism: bacteria protect ant fungus gardens from specialized parasites

Currie, C. R., Bot, A. N. M., Boomsma, J. J.·2003·Oikos

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12036.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Currie, C. R., Bot, A. N. M., & Boomsma, J. J.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-04
Volume
101
Issue
1
Pages
91-102
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2103754254
Cited by
191
References
0
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Experimental evidence of a tripartite mutualism: bacteria protect ant fungus gardens from specialized parasites. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12036.x
The paper
Currie, C. R., Bot, A. N. M., & Boomsma, J. J. (2003). Experimental evidence of a tripartite mutualism: bacteria protect ant fungus gardens from specialized parasites. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12036.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.