Attractivity or Repellence: Relation between the Endophytic Fungi of <i>Acalypha</i>, <i>Colocasia</i> and the Leaf-Cutting Ants—<i>Atta sexdens</i>

Symbiotic relations are present in the nature and can contribute to the success of the organisms involved. Endophytic fungi live within the leaf tissues without causing any harm to the host plant, and some of them can be a defense mechanism against the attack by the leaf-cutting ants. Ants of the genus Atta are known as leaf-cutting ants and have an obligatory association with the fungus Leucoagaricus gongylophorus, cutting pieces of leaves and bringing them back to the colony to the fungus. The present study aimed to find out the endophytic fungi community of an attractive plant ( Acalypha wilkesiana) and a less attractive plant ( Colocasia esculenta) to the ants Atta sexdens. We found out that the communities are different in quantity and in composition and 73% of the isolated fungi were from A. wilkesiana, which has fungi known as attractive to leaf-cutting ants, such as genus Colletotrichum, Pestalotiopsis, Phomopsis and Xylaria. On the other hand, in C. esculenta, there was found the genus Fusarium, known to be reject by the leaf-cutting ants, and less fungal diversity than in the attractive plant A. wilkesiana. Therefore, our data suggest that attractivity or repelence of a plant to the leaf-cutting ants could be related to presence or ausence of determinated fungi more than the quantity of fungi present in a leaf.

• Attine
• Musaica
• Marginata
• Interaction Plant-Ant
• Leaf-Cutting Ants

1. Introduction

Symbiotic relations are present among many organisms in nature, contributing to the success of the involved. Plants associate with many microorganisms, such as fungi, bacteria and virus, varying from mutualisms to parasitisms [1] [2]. The microorganisms associated with plants develop competition relations between themselves, for resources or predation and by the release of volatiles and antimicrobial compounds, having consequences in the structure and stability of the microbial community and in its homeostasis with the host plant [3].

The endophytic fungi are found between the plant’s leaf tissues and stablish a mutualistic relation with the host, without causing symptoms [4]. These fungi are abundant in the tropical regions [5] and have a pathogenic potential if the host plant goes through a stressful situation, for natural causes or for the use of products in its maintenance, which can disequilibrate the endophytic mycobiota and potentialize these fungi’s pathogenicity [6].

Van Bael and colaborators [7] suggested that the endophytic fungi have a defense function in the plant by altering the leaf’s morphology and chemistry. In addition, plants can use directly the endophytic fungi as a defense against these ants [8], as they answer in different ways to each fungus’s signals [9]. The diversity of endophytic fungi that are introduced in the nest by the ant’s foraging activity is not yet widely known, as well as the symbiotic interactions between these endophytic, the ants and their fungal garden [10]. In one of the few studies on the subtopic Van Bael and collaborators [7] verified a tendency for a greater fungi mass per worker in colonies fed with low endophytic leaves and that a high quantity of endophytic fungi of Cucumissativus and Manihotesculenta leaves transported to new nests of Atta colombica (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) could affect its development by limiting the colony’s productivity, while the high endophytic load was beneficial to old colonies, by increasing their defenses against parasitic fungi.

Ants of the genus Atta (Fabricius, 1804) and Acromyrmex (Mayr, 1865), classified as Attine: Attina, are popularly known as leaf-cutting ants and fungus growing ants [11]. Some species are considered plagues in the neotropical region due to the intense cutting of leaves of important agricultural cultures [12]. Another important and obligatory symbiotic relation is the association between the ants of theAtta genus and the fungus Leucoagaricusgongylophorus, which produces biomass, enzymes and nutrients to the colony [13]. The ants execute a quality control of the leaf material that is transported, selecting those which will be incorporated to the fungal garden and removing the unwanted ones [14]. The leaf-cutting ants have a hygiene behavior specific to the different species of endophytic fungi [9], important because filamentous fungi can have antagonistic actions to the attine ant’s cultivar [15]. The mutualist fungus L. gongylophorus, such as the workers, also has defense mechanisms against parasite fungi [10], as the Trichoderma genus fungi [8].

Leaf-cutting ants have a preference for certain plants, like Ligustrum spp., Psidiumguajava, Hyparrheniarufa and Acalypha sp. [16], which is used for maintenance of colonies in laboratories [17]. Acalypha is the most diverse genus of the Euphorbiaceae family with mostly arboreal species [18]. The species Acalyphawilkesiana (Müll.) Arg. is widely used for ornamental purposes and is a potential source of bioactive compounds for cancer’s treatment [19]. This species is very attractive to the leaf-cutting ants, since it can complement the colony’s nutrition by liquids extracted directly from the leaves [16] [20]. Among its many varieties, Acalyphawilkesianahas the “Marginata” variety and the “Musaica” variety. The cultivar “Marginata” has coppery green leaves with a light pink variant borderand is known to be more attractive to the leaf-cutting ants when compared with the cultivar “Musaica”, which has green, red and orange spotted leaves [21].

On the other hand, the leaves of Taro (Colocasiaesculenta (L.) Schott var. esculenta) are less attractive to the leaf-cutting ants, classified as “moderately accepted” [22]. Previous works have shown that C. esculenta lectins have an anti-insect potential [23] and the ability of blocking cysteine proteases of fungal mycelium [24]. The lectins present in this plant are considered insecticidal agents [25] and a compound of its roots (2, 3-Dimethylmaleic anhydride) is biofumigant [26]. The Colocasiaesculenta (L.) Schott is the main species of the Araceae family, has rhizomes rich in starch and is used as human food [27]. Atta sexdens workers are fewly attracted for this plant, and its younger leaves are more cut compared to senescent leaves [28]. Preliminary tests in laboratory showed that the leaf-cutting ants Atta sexdens are more attracted to A. wilkesiana and less attracted to C. esculenta (pers. obs.). However, endophytic diversity can contribute to the choice of material foraged by leaf-cutting ants as demonstrated by Rocha et al. (2017) [8].

Therefore, in this study we aimed to verify how the presence of endophytic fungi could influence the foraging by the leaf-cutting ants in plants (Figure 1). For this, two vegetal species were used, one highly attractive and other less attractive and the following items were done: to 1) isolate and identify the fungi communities present in each cultivar of A. wilkesiana and in young and senescent leaves of C. esculenta, 2) compare the endophytic communities present in each plant, to verify a possible relation with the attractiveness of A. wilkesiana and less attractiveness of C. esculenta to the Atta sexdens ants.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Collect, Isolation and Achievement of Pure Cultures

The study was carried out at the Center of Studies of Social Insects, in São Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Bioscience, Campus of Rio Claro, from June of 2018 to December of 2019. Individuals of Acalyphawilkesiana “Marginata”, Acalyphawilkesiana “Musaica” and Colocasiaesculenta variety esculentawere collected at Rio Claro, SP (22˚24'48"S, 47˚34'11"W) and kept in laboratory in 20-liter pots for two weeks. Three branches were collected from 4 individuals from each plant. After collection, the plant material was washed under running water. The external sterilization of the material was done by sequential immersion

in 70% (v/v) ethanol for 5 minutes, hypochlorite (3% - 5% active chlorine) for 5 minutes, 70% (v/v) ethanol for 30 seconds and twice in deionized sterile water (1 minute each). After removal of water excess, the leaves were cut into 0.5 cm squares, which were transferred to Petri Plaques containing Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) culture medium. In each plaque, 4 leaf squares were placed. The plaques were incubated in B.O.D. in 25˚C and observed daily. Once detected the endophytic fungus growth, samples were taken from the growing hyphae to obtain axenic cultures. To confirm that the sterilization process was successful, aliquots of deionized water, used in the final wash, were plated by the plate spreading method, in PDA medium and incubated in 25˚C [29] (Figure 2).

2.2. DNA Extraction, PCR, Purification, Sequencing and Identification

DNA extraction was made following the CTAB method for filamentous fungi adapted from Möller et al. [30] and Gerardo et al. [31]. Each morphologic group was molecularly identified by the amplification and sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer region (ITS) of the ribosomal nuclear DNA.

For the amplification of the ITS region, it was used 1 μL (10 uM) of primers ITS1-F (forward: 5’-CTTGGTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAA-3’) [32], and ITS4 (reverse: 5’-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3’) [33], 2 μL of DNA (1:49), 5 μL of GoTaq 5× Reaction Buffer, 4 μL of dNTPs (1.25 mM each), 0.2 μL of GoTaq

DNA polymerase (5 U/μL), 2 μL of MgCl₂ (25 mM), 1 μL of BSA (10 mg/mL) and adjusting the final reaction volume to 25 μL with sterile Milli-Q^® water. The reaction was conducted in thermocirculator Veriti™ 96 Well of Applied Biosystems according to the following program: 94˚C for 10 min, followed by 30 cycles of 94˚C for 1 min, annealing at 52˚C for 1 min and 72˚C for 2 min, and final extension at 72˚C for 10 min. The PCR amplified products were analyzed by electrophoresis in agarose gel 0.81%. The amplified fragments presented around 500 base pairs (Figure 2).

The PCR product’s purification was made with the illustra™ PCR DNA and Gel Band Purification Kit (GE Healthcare), according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The purified samples were quantified in the NanoDrop 2000 Thermo Scientific—Uniscience. The sequencing reactions were made with the BigDye Terminator kit, according to the manufacturer’s orientation. Sequences were obtained using the automatic sequencer 3130 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems) [34]. Forward and reverse sequences were edited in the Bioedit Sequence Alignment Editor [35] and aligned with the Clustal W tool [36] (Figure 2). With the Blastn tool from NCBI, the consensus sequences were compared to those with the higher similarity deposited on the GenBank. Those comparisons varied from 95% to 100% of similarity rate with E.value equal to 0.0. Only the sequences with more than 95% of similarity rate were considered in the comparisons. The communities of A. wilkesiana varieties were compared as one endophytic community with the communities of the C. esculenta leaf ages, which were considered as one community as well.

3. Results

From a total of 112 isolates, 82 endophytic fungi were isolated from the attractive plant A. wilkesiana, which represents 73% of the total of isolates, being 32% from “Marginata” and 43% from “Musaica”. After a morphological grouping of A. wilkesiana isolates, it was obtained 50 morphotypes. Some of the isolates are shown in Figure 3.

The varieties ofA. wilkesiana presented a bigger endophytic community, with 82 isolates, when compared to the C. esculenta community, with 30 isolates. In A. wilkesiana, nine isolates, being eight from the variety “Marginata” and 1 from the variety “Musaica”, could not be genetically identified due to impossibility of the ITS region sequencing or because of a low rate of similarity (<95%) with the date available at the GenBank. The identified isolates of the attractive plant (A. wilkesiana) are listed in Table 1, in which is evident that there are differences in the fungal composition of the endophytic communities of the Acalyphawilkesiana varieties, “Marginata” and “Musaica”. In the variety “Marginata”, the genus Alternariasp. and Diaporthe sp. were the most frequent (with four isolates each) and in the variety “Musaica”, the genus Colletotrichumsp. (with four isolates), Alternaria sp. and Nigrosporasp. (with three isolates each) were the most found in the community.

Thirty endophytic fungi were isolated from the leaves of C. esculenta, from which five were recovered from young leaves and thirteen from the senescent ones. Three isolates from young leaves and one from the older leaves could not be identified because, although the ITS amplification was successful, the sequencer was not able to sequence the TV6, TN2, TN4 and TN5 samples, and we were not able to obtain consensus sequences for comparison to GenBank.

In Table 2 are listed the identified genus from the isolates of young and old leaves of the less attractive plant C. esculenta. In the table, it is observable the difference in quantity and composition of the endophytic communities of the two leaf ages.

Comparison of the fungal communities.

Figure 1 shows the endophytic diversity of Acalyphawilkesiana (of both cultivars

Table 1

Identified genus-taxa for each of the attractive plant’s cultivar (A. wilkesiana) cultivar, with similarity higher than 95% and E. value=0.0

Cultivar	Isolate	GenBank code	Similarity	Identification
Marginata	MA1	MN458518.1	99.67%	Colletotrichum sp.
	MA2	JQ341087.1	97.70%	Xylaria sp.
	MA3	JQ936257.1	99.66%	Diaporthe sp.
	MA4	FJ799941.1	98.47%	Diaporthe sp.
	MA5	HG779020.1	99.83%	Curvularia sp.
	MA6	MN540457.1	100%	Colletotrichum sp.
	MA7	MN458523.1	100%	Diaporthe sp.
	MA8	KX925567.1	98.59%	Alternaria sp.
	MA9	KP133219.1	99.82%	Nemania sp.
	MA10	MF380823.1	96.93%	Colletotrichum sp.
	MA11	KY568987.1	98.97%	Coniothyrium sp.
	MA12	KR093853.1	95.83%	Phomopsis sp.
	MA13	MG747466.1	97.48%	Diaporthe sp.
	MA14	MN685225.1	100%	Alternaria sp.
	MA17	MN044802.1	99.83%	Alternaria sp.
	MA19	MG753547.1	99.80%	Preussia sp.
	MA20	KX397027.1	98.85%	Phomopsis sp.
	MA23	MF927538.1	98.02%	Xylaria sp.
	MA25	MN622992.1	99.66%	Alternaria sp.
	MA28	KM979832.1	97.59%	Phomopsis sp.
	MA29	JN153062.1	99.30%	Phomopsis sp.
Musaica	MU1	KM979832.1	99.54%	Phomopsis sp.
	MU2	MF070235.1	99.58%	Diaporthe sp.
	MU3	MF375899.1	99.33%	Pestalotiopsis sp.
	MU5	DQ235676.1	98.97%	Phomopsis sp.
	MU6	MN686286.1	99.79%	Colletotrichum sp.
	MU7	MF375899.1	99.78%	Pestalotiopsis sp.
	MU8	KR093890.1	99.55%	Curvularia sp.
	MU9	MN639709.1	100%	Nigrospora sp.
	MU10	KR093890.1	99.60%	Curvularia sp.
	MU11	JQ936101.1	99.59%	Cochliobolus sp.
	MU12	MN636331.1	99.45%	Alternaria sp.
	MU13	MK881738.1	97.87%	Colletotrichum sp.
	MU14	MG976425.1	97.49%	Nigrospora sp.
	MU15	MF076603.1	99.84%	Colletotrichum sp.

	MU16	KX578788.1	99.84%	Colletotrichum sp.
	MU17	LC474421.1	100%	Colletotrichum sp.
	MU18	MK979377.1	98.14%	Alternaria sp.
	MU19	MN486553.1	99.62%	Nigrospora sp.
	MU20	MH301314.1	99.48%	Alternaria sp.
	MU21	MH864407.1	99.51%	Bipolaris sp.

Table 2

Identified genus-taxa for each of the repellent plant leave’s ages (C. esculenta), with similarity higher than 95% and E. value = 0.0

Plant	Leaf Age	Isolate	GenBank code	Similarity	Identification
Colocasia esculenta	Senescent	TV1	JQ341100.1	98.27%	Nemania sp.
		TV2	JQ760952.1	99.79%	Nemania sp.
		TV3	MG976425.1	99.49%	Nigrospora sp.
		TV4	JQ341083.1	98.50%	Xylaria sp.
		TV5	FJ799949.1	99.84%	Xylaria sp.
		TV7	JQ341064.1	97.51%	Xylaria sp.
		TV8	MH370554.1	99.26%	Fusarium sp.
		TV9	MN082533.1	99.16%	Fusarium sp.
		TV10	MH370554.1	98.86%	Fusarium sp.
		TV11	MH370554.1	99.18%	Fusarium sp.
		TV12	KJ471523.1	95.91%	Xylariaceae sp.
		TV13	MK834675.1	100%	Nigrospora sp.
Colocasia esculenta	Young	TN1	KU604568.1	97.12%	Hypoxylon sp.
		TN3	FJ799950.1	95.94%	Xylaria sp.

“Marginata” and “Musaica” together) and Colocasiaesculenta (of both leaf ages together). A. wilkesiana presented a larger diversity of fungi genus when compared with the less attractive plant, C. esculenta. This difference can be verified in Figure 4 because of the different colors that composes the pie charts, since each color below represents a different endophytic fungus genus that was found in this work. It is also evident in Figure 4 that the plants share some genus, represented by the colors orange, light yellow and blue.

The two endophytic communities have some genus in common. The cultivar “Marginata” shares the genus Xylaria sp. with the two leaf ages of Taro (C. esculenta) and the genus Nemania sp. with the senescent leaves of Taro. The cultivar “Musaica” shares the genus Nigrospora sp. with the senescent leaves of the less attractive plant. Although both A. wilkesiana cultivars have the same number of fungi genus, they share only 5 of them, which are not present in C. esculenta leaves, being the most frequent Alternaria sp. and Colletotrichum sp., followed by Phomopsis sp., Diaporthe sp. and Curvulariasp. The genus Coniotyrium sp.

and Preussia sp. were found only in “Marginata” leaves, and Bipolaris sp., Cochiliobolus sp. and Pestalotiopsis sp. were found only in “Musaica” leaves. In C. esculenta, the less attractive plant, the genus found exclusively in its leaves were Fusarium sp. in the old leaves and Hypoxylon sp. in the young leaves.

4. Discussion

In the present study, it was done the analysis of the microbiota of cultivable endophytic fungi present in the plant species A. wilkesiana (“Marginata” and “Musaica”) and C. esculenta var. esculenta(young and senescent leaves). It was put in evidence that the endophytic fungi communities differ between the attractive plant to the leaf-cutting ants Atta sexdens (A. wilkesiana) and the less attractive plant (C. esculenta). Among the 300 thousand plant species described till today, each one is a host of, at least, one endophytic microorganism [37], what can constitute a type of plant defense against the leaf-cutting ant’s [7] and other pathogen microorganism’s attack, since the endophytic fungi can have an antibiotic action via its extracellular bioactive metabolites [38]. There are evidences that the leaf-cutting ants prefer entering the colony with leaves that have endophytic fungi with antifungal properties not directed to the symbiont Leucoagaricusgongylophorus, and by that protecting the colony from parasite fungi if necessary [14].

Overall, most of the fungal community isolated from A. wilkesiana is known by the production of bioactive compounds, including antibiotics [37] [39] - [44]. Phomopsis sp. is also known for having the capacity to survive the chemical and physical cleaning done by the ants before entering their colonies [45], besides being cited as a fungal genus well accepted by the attine ants, such as the genus Colletotrichumsp., Pestalopsis sp. And Xylaria sp. [14]. Probably, the attraction of a plant is related to the volatile compounds produced by the endophytic fungi. As these fungi can produce antibiotics that can harm the L. gongylophorus, the presence of determined compounds may signalize the toxicity or nutritional potential of a plant and influence in the decision of the ants to forage or not a plant.

This could indicate that the leaf preference by the Atta sp. ants is related to the presence of determined endophytic fungi, and not by the quantity of fungus present in a leaf, contradicting previous works that have put in evidence that these ants prefer leaves with less quantity of endophytic [46] [47], that, in this study, turned out to be C. esculenta, previously classified as less attractive leaves to the leaf-cutting ants. As Hypoxylon sp. and Fusarium sp. were genus found only in C. esculenta, they could be the ones causing the less attractiveness of the host plant to the leaf-cutting ants.

Hypoxylon sp. is a fungal genus that possess an antifungal and cytotoxic potential via its metabolic activities [48] and Fusarium sp., previously identified in the rejected material by the leaf-cutting ants, during the observations of Rocha and collaborators [14].Fusarium sp. was found only in the senescent leaves of C. esculenta, which has not presented fungi of the genus Diaporthe sp., found in A. wilkesiana. These two fungal genera are suggested to have antagonist actions toward each other [49], what can explain the presence of each one in different plants and suggest a relation between the attractiveness of Diaporthe sp. to the leaf-cutting ants, as it is a genus present in A. wilkesiana and not in C. esculenta.

Workers of A. sexdens explore more the plant’s apex when compared to its other regions, that being an innate behavior of the leaf-cutting ants [27]. The plant’s apex is the place where most of the young leaves are, which can provide more nutrients to the ants and, in C. esculenta, the young leaves have a smaller diversity of endophytic fungi when compared to the old leaves of the same plant. The ant’s choice for younger leaves could be related to the ease of cutting, lack of endophytes, their nutritional value or all these factors together, but it is a difficult question to be assessed [50]. Even though ants may remove more material from weaker and thinner leaves, the endophytic load does not differ within these traits, indicating that leaf-cutting ants are not influenced only by physical leaf’s attributes [47] but by multiple factors which are difficult to be assessed alone [46].

Coblentz and Van Bael [46] and Bittleston et al. [47], suggested that the leaf-cutting ants have a preference for leaves with less quantity of endophytic fungi and Van Bael, Estrada and Wscilo [51] found out that these ants prefer to cut young leaves of plants. The presence of different fungi in the analyzed plants suggests that the composition of the plant’s endophytic communities affects its attractiveness to the leaf-cutting ants, and not only the quantity of fungi as, according to Mighell and Van Bael [9], the ants respond differently to each endophytic fungi. They can alter the leaf’s chemical characteristic, which is associated with the ant’s preference for determined plants [52], and could explain why A. wilkesiana has a bigger quantity of endophytic fungi than C. esculenta, but a different diversity, and be more attractive to the leaf-cutting ants A. sexdens.

5. Conclusion

This study’s data suggest that the endophytic fungal communities of the attractive plant A. wilkesiana, and the less attractive plant, C. esculenta are different in the quantity of isolated fungi and in the genus found in each one, suggesting a relation between the endophytic mycobiota and the preference of cutting by the A. sexdens workers. Our results suggest that the leaf-cutting ants may prefer leaves that have specific endophytic fungi, that fungi such as Hypoxylon sp. and Fusarium sp. may be responsible for the less attractiveness of a plant and that the endophytic community composition can influence the attack of those plants by the leaf-cutting ants.

Acknowledgements

We thank Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and Fundação para o Desenvolvimento da Unesp (FundUnesp); A.A.O thanks this study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (CAPES)-Finance Code 001; M.O.R. thanks U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF DEB 1900357) for financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

1. Hajek, A.E. and St Leger, R.J. (1994) Interactions between Fungal Pathogens and Insect Hosts. Annual Review of Entomology, 39, 293-322. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.39.010194.001453

2. Gilbert, G.S. and Strong, D.R. (2007) Fungal Symbionts of Tropical Trees. Ecology, 88, 539-540. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1671

3. Hassani, M.A., Durán, P. and Hacquard, S. (2018) Microbial Interactions within the Plant Holobiont. Microbiome, 6, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0445-0

4. Arnold, A.E. and Lutzoni, F. (2007) Diversity and Host Range of Foliar Fungal Endophytes: Are Tropical Leaves Biodiversity Hotspots? Ecology, 88, 541-549. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-1459

5. Arnold, A.E., Maynard, Z., Gilbert, G.S., Coley, P.D. and Kursar, T.A. (2000) Are Tropical Fungal Endophytes Hyperdiverse? Ecology Letters, 3, 267-274. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2000.00159.x

6. Mussi-Dias, V., Araújo, A.C.O., Silveira, S.F., Rocabado, J.M.A. and Araújo, K.L. (2012) Fungos Endofíticos Associados a Plantas Medicinais. Revista Brasileira de Plantas Medicinais, 14, 261-266. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-05722012000200002http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-05722012000200002&lang=pt

7. Van Bael, S.A., Estrada, C., Rehner, S.A., Santos, J.F. and Wcislo, W.T. (2012) Leaf Endophyte Load Influences Fungal Garden Development in Leaf-Cutting Ants. BMC Ecology, 12, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-12-23

8. Rocha, S.L., Evans, H.C., Jorge, V.L., Cardoso, L.A.O., Pereira, F.S.T., Rocha, F.B., Barreto, R.W., Hart, A.G. and Elliot, S.L. (2017) Recognition of Endophytic Trichoderma Species by Leaf-Cutting Ants and Their Potential in a Trojan-Horse Management Strategy. Royal Society Open Science, 4, Article ID: 160628. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160628

9. Mighell, K. and Van Bael, S.A. (2016) Selective Elimination of Microfungi in Leaf-Cutting Ant Gardens. Fungal Ecology, 24, 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2016.08.009

10. Van Bael, S.A., Fernández-Marín, H., Valencia, M.C., Rojas, E.I., Wcislo, W.T. and Herre, E.A. (2009) Two Fungal Symbioses Collide: Endophytic Fungi Are Not Welcome in Leaf-Cutting Ant Gardens. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 2419-2426. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0196

11. Ward, P.S., Brady, S.G., Fisher, B.L. and Schultz, T.R. (2015) The Evolution of Myrmicine Ants: Phylogeny and Biogeography of a Hyperdiverse Ant Clade (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Systematic Entomology, 40, 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12090

12. Fowler, H.G., Pagani, M.I., Da Silva, O.A., Forti, L.C., Da Silva, V.P. and De Vasconcelos, H.L. (1989) A Pest Is a Pest Is a Pest? The Dilemma of Neotropical Leaf-Cutting Ants: Keystone Taxa of Natural Ecosystems. Environmental Management, 13, 671-675. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01868306

13. Silva, A., Bacci, M., Pagnocca, F.C., Bueno, O.C. and Hebling, M.J.A. (2006) Starch Metabolism in Leucoagaricus gongylophorus, the Symbiotic Fungus of Leaf-Cutting Ants. Microbiological Research, 161, 299-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2005.11.001

14. Rocha, S.L., Jorge, V.L., Della Lucia, T.M.C., Barreto, R.W., Evans, H.C. and Elliot, S.L. (2014) Quality Control by Leaf-Cutting Ants: Evidence from Communities of Endophytic Fungi in Foraged and Rejected Vegetation. Arthropod-Plant Interactions, 8, 485-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-014-9329-9

15. Pagnocca, F.C., Masiulionis, V.E. and Rodrigues, A. (2012) Specialized Fungal Parasites and Opportunistic Fungi in Gardens of Attine Ants. Psyche (London), 2012, Article ID: 905109. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/905109

16. Nagamoto, N.S., Carlos, A.A., Moreira, S.M., Verza, S.S., Hirose, G.L. and Forti, L.C. (2009) Differentiation in Selection of Dicots and Grasses by the Leaf-Cutter Ants Atta capiguara, Atta laevigata and Atta sexdens rubropilosa. Sociobiology, 54, 127-138.

17. Nagamoto, N.S., Barbieri, R.F., Forti, L.C., Cardoso, S.R.S., Moreira, S.M. and Lopes, J.F.S. (2011) Attractiveness of Copperleaf-Based Bait to Leaf-Cutting Ants. Ciência Rural, 41, 931-934. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782011005000070

18. Cardiel Sanz J. ,et al. (1995)LasEspecies Herbáceas de Acalypha (Euphorbiaceae) de Colombia Anales del JardínBotánico de Madrid 52, 151-157.

19. Odjegba, V.J. and Alokolaro, A.A. (2013) Simulated Drought and Salinity Modulates the Production of Phytochemicals in Acalypha Wilkesiana. Journal of Plant Studies, 2, 105-112. https://doi.org/10.5539/jps.v2n2p105

20. Paul, J. and Roces, F. (2003) Fluid Intake Rates in Ants Correlate with Their Feeding Habits. Journal of Insect Physiology, 49, 347-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1910(03)00019-2

21. Christman, S. (1999) Acalypha Wilkesiana. https://floridata.com/plant/2

22. Meer, R.K.V., Jaffe, K. and Cedeno, A. (1990) Applied Myrmecology: A World Perspective.

23. Thakur, K., Kaur, M., Kaur, S., Kaur, A., Kamboj, S.S. and Singh, J. (2013) Purification of Colocasia esculenta lectin and Determination of Its Anti-Insect Potential towards Bactrocera cucurbitae. Journal of Environmental Biology, 34, 31-36.

24. Yang, A.H. and Yeh, K.W. (2005) Molecular Cloning, Recombinant Gene Expression, and Antifungal Activity of Cystatin from Taro (Colocasia esculenta Cv. Kaosiung No. 1). Planta, 221, 493-501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-004-1462-8

25. Das, A., Roy, A., Hess, D. and Das, S. (2013) Characterization of a Highly Potent Insecticidal Lectin from Colocasia esculenta Tuber and Cloning of Its Coding Sequence. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 4, 408-416. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2013.42A053

26. Rajashekar, Y., Tonsing, N., Shantibala, T. and Manjunath, J.R. (2016) 2,3-Dimethylmaleic Anhydride (3,4-Dimethyl-2, 5-Furandione): A Plant Derived Insecticidal Molecule from Colocasia esculenta var. esculenta (L.) Schott. Scientific Reports, 6, Article No. 20546. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20546

27. De Oliveira Gondim, A.R., Puiatti, M., Ventrella, M.C. and Cecon, P.R. (2008) Plasticidade Anatómica Da Folha de Taro Cultivado Sob Diferentes Condicoes de Sombreamento. Bragantia, 67, 1037-1045. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0006-87052008000400028

28. Noronha, N.C., Forti, L.C., Camargo, R.S. and Ramos, V.M. (2009) Sites of Defoliation by Atta sexdens rubropilosa (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in Artificial Plants. Sociobiology, 53, 795-804.

29. Araújo, W.L., Marcon, J., Maccheroni, W., Van Elsas, J.D., Van Vuurde, J.W.L. and Azevedo, J.L. (2002) Diversity of Endophytic Bacterial Populations and Their Interaction with Xylella fastidiosa in Citrus Plants. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 68, 4906-4914. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.10.4906-4914.2002

30. Moller, E.M., Bahnweg, G., Sandermann, H. and Geiger, H.H. (1992) A Simple and Efficient Protocol for Isolation of High Molecular Weight DNA from Filamentous Fungi, Fruit Bodies, and Infected Plant Tissues. Nucleic Acids Research, 20, 6115-6116. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/20.22.6115

31. Gerardo, N.M., Mueller, U.G., Price, S.L. and Currie, C.R. (2004) Exploiting a Mutualism: Parasite Specialization on Cultivars within the Fungus-Growing Ant Symbiosis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 1791-1798. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2792

32. Gardes, M. and Bruns, T.D. (1993) ITS Primers with Enhanced Specificity for Basidiomycetes—Application to the Identification of Mycorrhizae and Rusts. Molecular Ecology, 2, 113-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.1993.tb00005.x

33. White, T.J., Lee, S.B., Bruns, T.D. and Taylor, J.W. (1990) Amplification and Direct Sequencing of Fungal Ribosomal RNA Genes for Phylogenetics. In: Innis, M.A., et al., Eds., PCR Proto-Cols: A Guide to Methods and Applications, Academic Press, Inc., New York, 315-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-372180-8.50042-1

34. Ramalho, M.O., Martins, C., Silva, L.M.R., Martins, V.G. and Bueno, O.C. (2016) Molecular Profile of the Brazilian Weaver Ant Camponotus textor Forel (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Neotropical Entomology, 45, 463-470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-016-0392-z

35. Hall T.A. ,et al. (1999)BioEdit: A User-Friendly Biological Sequence Alignment Editor and Analysis Program for Windows 95/98/NT Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41, 95-98.

36. Higgins, D.G., Bleasby, A.J. and Fuchs, R. (1992) CLUSTAL V: Improved Software for Multiple Sequence Alignment. Bioinformatics, 8, 189-191. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/8.2.189

37. Chapla, V.M., Biasetto, C.R. and Araujo, A.R. (2013) Field Structural-Lithofacie Zones for Shear Remelt Granite of Lianyunshan in Hunan Province. Revista Virtual de Química, 5, 421-437. https://doi.org/10.5935/1984-6835.20130036

38. Souza, A., Pereira, J.O., et al. (2004) Atividade Antimicrobiana de Fungos Endofíticos Isolados de Plantas Tóxicas Da Amazonia: Palicourea longiflora (Aubl.) Rich e Strychnos Cogens Bentham. Acta Amazonica, 34, 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0044-59672004000200006

39. Raviraja, N.S., Maria, G.L. and Sridhar, K.R. (2006) Antimicrobial Evaluation of Endophytic Fungi Inhabiting Medicinal Plants of the Western Ghats of India. Engineering in Life Sciences, 6, 515-520. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.200620145

40. Sousa, J.P.B., Aguilar-Pérez, M.M., Arnold, A.E., Rios, N., Coley, P.D., Kursar, T.A. and Cubilla-Rios, L. (2016) Chemical Constituents and Their Antibacterial Activity from the Tropical Endophytic Fungus Diaporthe Sp. F2934. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 120, 1501-1508. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13132

41. Mapperson, R.R., Kotiw, M., Davis, R.A. and Dearnaley, J.D.W. (2014) The Diversity and Antimicrobial Activity of Preussia Sp. Endophytes Isolated from Australian Dry Rainforests. Current Microbiology, 68, 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-013-0415-5

42. Krohn, K., Michel, A., Florke, U., Aust, H.-J., Draeger, S. and Schulz, B. (1994) Biologically Active Metabolites from Fungi, 5. Palmarumycins C1-C16 from Coniothyrium sp.: Isolation, Structure Elucidation, and Biological Activity. Liebigs Annalen der Chemie, 1994, 1099-1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/jlac.199419941108

43. Strobel, G., Ford, E., Worapong, J., Harper, J.K., Arif, A.M., Grant, D.M., Fung, P.C.W. and Ming Wah Chau, R. (2002) Isopestacin, an Isobenzofuranone from Pestalotiopsis microspora, Possessing Antifungal and Antioxidant Activities. Phytochemistry, 60, 179-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(02)00062-6

44. Campos, F.F., Rosa, L.H., Cota, B.B., Caligiorne, R.B., TelesRabello, A.L., Alves, T.M.A., Rosa, C.A. and Zani, C.L. (2008) Leishmanicidal Metabolites from Cochliobolus Sp., an Endophytic Fungus Isolated from Piptadenia adiantoides (Fabaceae). PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2, e348. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000348

45. Fisher, P.J., Stradling, D.J., Sutton, B.C. and Petrini, L.E. (1996) Microfungi in the Fungus Gardens of the Leaf-Cutting Ant Atta Cephalotes: A Preliminary Study. Mycological Research, 100, 541-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-7562(96)80006-2

46. Coblentz, K.E. and Van Bael, S.A. (2013) Field Colonies of Leaf-Cutting Ants Select Plant Materials Containing Low Abundances of Endophytic Fungi. Ecosphere, 4, art66. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00012.1

47. Bittleston, L.S., Brockmann, F., Wcislo, W. and Van Bael, S.A. (2011) Endophytic Fungi Reduce Leaf-Cutting Ant Damage to Seedlings. Biology Letters, 7, 30-32. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0456

48. Silva, A.D. (2016) Bioprospeccao Do Fungo Endofítico Hypoxylon Investiens Associado à Alga Marinha Asparagopsis Taxiformis: Potencial Antifúngico, Anticolinesterásico e Antitumoral. Unesp—Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”.

49. Dos Santos, C.M., Da Silva Ribeiro, A., Garcia, A., Polli, A.D., Polonio, J.C., Azevedo, J.L. and Pamphile, J.A. (2019) Actividad Enzimatica y Antagonista de Los Hongos Endofiticos de Sapindus Saponaria L. Revista Acta Biologica Colombiana, 24, 322. https://doi.org/10.15446/abc.v24n2.74717

50. Van Bael, S.A., Seid, M.A. and Wcislo, W.T. (2012) Endophytic Fungi Increase the Processing Rate of Leaves by Leaf-Cutting Ants (Atta). Ecological Entomology, 37, 318-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2012.01364.x

51. Van Bael, S.A., Estrada, C. and Wcislo, W.T. (2011) Fungal-Fungal Interactions in Leaf-Cutting Ant Agriculture. Psyche (London), 2011, Article ID: 617478. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/617478

52. Estrada, C., Wcislo, W.T. and Van Bael, S.A. (2013) Symbiotic Fungi Alter Plant Chemistry That Discourages Leaf-Cutting Ants. New Phytologist, 198, 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12140