The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Major evolutionary transitions in ant agriculture
Open accessAbstract
Agriculture is a specialized form of symbiosis that is known to have evolved in only four animal groups: humans, bark beetles, termites, and ants. Here, we reconstruct the major evolutionary transitions that produced the five distinct agricultural systems of the fungus-growing ants, the most well studied of the nonhuman agriculturalists. We do so with reference to the first fossil-calibrated, multiple-gene, molecular phylogeny that incorporates the full range of taxonomic diversity within the fungus-growing ant tribe Attini. Our analyses indicate that the original form of ant agriculture, the cultivation of a diverse subset of fungal species in the tribe Leucocoprineae, evolved ≈50 million years ago in the Neotropics, coincident with the early Eocene climatic optimum. During the past 30 million years, three known ant agricultural systems, each involving a phylogenetically distinct set of derived fungal cultivars, have separately arisen from the original agricultural system. One of these derived systems subsequently gave rise to the fifth known system of agriculture, in which a single fungal species is cultivated by leaf-cutter ants. Leaf-cutter ants evolved remarkably recently (≈8–12 million years ago) to become the dominant herbivores of the New World tropics. Our analyses identify relict, extant attine ant species that occupy phylogenetic positions that are transitional between the agricultural systems. Intensive study of those species holds particular promise for clarifying the sequential accretion of ecological and behavioral characters that produced each of the major ant agricultural systems.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Relaxed Phylogenetics and Dating with Confidence
Drummond, A. J., Ho, S. Y. W., Phillips, M. J., & Rambaut, A. (2006) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040088 · Cited by 6,463 · cited 1×
“6 (70, 71) with the SRD06 two-partition codon-specific rates model of sequence evolution (72) and a Yule process for the tree prior.”
MethodA likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data
Lewis, P. O. (2001) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/106351501753462876 · Cited by 2,929
Sanderson, M. J. (2002) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003974 · Cited by 1,977
Cited by
The natural history of antibiotics
Clardy, J., Fischbach, M. A., & Currie, C. R. (2009) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.001 · Cited by 402
Evolution of brain size in class-based societies of fungus-growing ants (Attini).
Riveros, A. J., Seid, M. A., & Wcislo, W. T. (2012) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.01.032 · Cited by 74
Biomineral armor in leaf-cutter ants
Li, H., Sun, C.-Y., Fang, Y., Carlson, C. M., Xu, H., Ješovnik, A., Sosa-Calvo, J., Zarnowski, R., Bechtel, H. A., Fournelle, J. H., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19566-3 · Cited by 58
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Schultz, T. R., & Brady, S. G.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2008-04-08
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 5435-5440
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2116107007
- Cited by
- 647
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 21.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.