Vegetatio

, Volume 127, Issue 1, pp 99–109 | Cite as

Optimal distribution of herbivory and localized compensatory responses within a plant

  • Kari Lehtilä
Article

Abstract

Because the impact of induced resistance on herbivores is often too small to have a considerable impact on herbivore populations, it has been suggested that the function of defenses is not necessarily to affect herbivore densities per se, but to spread the damage evenly throughout a plant. Some observations suggest that evenly-distributed herbivory results in a smaller decrease in growht and reproduction than the same level of herbivory concentrated on only one part of the canopy. One possible reason for this is that plant parts are able to compensate for small amounts of local damage spread all over the plant but not for larger concentrated damage of the same extent because of the of resource distribution patterns in a plant.

Models were constructed to analyze how to optimally distribute damage among modules so that the total performance (growth, subsequent reproduction) of a plant, measured as the sum of the module performances, is maximized. According to the models, spreading damage is profitable when the performance of all or most modules decreases slowly with small damage levels and then faster as damage increases. In addition, the pattern of resource movement between modules must be tolerant to damage. It is proposed a hypothesis that the resource distribution system is often tolerant to at least small or moderate total damage levels, since there are several alternative pathways of movement for assimilates and water through the plant's structure.

It has been suggested that defense and compensatory growth are alternative strategies for a plant in the struggle against herbivores. The present models suggest that they can also work together to increase fitness under herbivore pressure.

Key words

Compensation after herbivory Modularity Leaf damage pattern Optimal models Plants Sectoriality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chiang A. C. 1984. Fundamental methods of mathematical economics, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, Singapore.Google Scholar
  2. Coley P. D., Bryant J. P. & Chapin F. S.III 1985. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defence. Science 230: 895–899.Google Scholar
  3. Edwards P. J. & Wratten S. D. 1983. Wound induced defences in plants and their consequences for patterns of insect grazing. Oecologia 59: 88–93.Google Scholar
  4. Edwards P. J., Wratten S. D. & Gibberd R. M. 1991. The impact of inducible phytochemicals on food selection by insect herbivores and its consequences for the distribution of grazing damage. Pp. 205–221. In: Tallamy D. W. & Raupp M. J. (eds), Phytochemical induction by herbivores. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Fowler S. V. & Lawton J. H. 1985. Rapidly induced defenses and talking trees: the devil's advocate position. Am. Nat. 126: 181–195.Google Scholar
  6. Harper J. L. 1989. The value of a leaf. Oecologia 80: 53–58.Google Scholar
  7. Hartley S. E. & Lawton J. H. 1991. Biochemical aspects and significance of the rapidly induced accumulation of phenolics in birch foliage. Pp. 105–132. In: Tallamy D. W. & Raupp M. J. (eds), Phytochemical induction by herbivores. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Harvell C. D. 1990. The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Quart. Rev. Biol. 65: 323–340.Google Scholar
  9. Haukioja E., Ruohomäki K., Senn J., Suomela J. & Walls M. 1990. Consequences of herbivory in the mountain birch (Betula pubescens ssp. tortuosa): importance of the functional organization of the tree. Oecologia 82: 238–247.Google Scholar
  10. Herms D. A. & Mattson W. J. 1992. The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Quart. Rev. Biol. 67: 283–335.Google Scholar
  11. Hodgkinson K. C. 1974. Influence of partial defoliation on photosynthesis, photorespiration and transpiration by lucerne leaves of different ages. Austr. J. Plant Physiol. 1: 561–578.Google Scholar
  12. Janzen D. H. 1979. New horizons in the biology of plant defenses. Pp. 331–350. In: Rosenthal G. A. & Janzen D. H. (eds.), Herbivores. Their interactions with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Jerling L. 1985. Are plants and animals alike? A note on evolutionary plant population ecology. Oikos 45: 150–153.Google Scholar
  14. Karban R. 1993a. Induced resistance and plant density of a native shrub, Gossypium thurberi, affects its herbivores. Ecology 74: 1–8.Google Scholar
  15. Karban R. 1993b. Costs and benefits of induced resistance and plant density for a native shrub, Gossypium thurberi. Ecology 74: 9–19.Google Scholar
  16. Långström B., Tenow O., Ericsson A., Hellqvist C. & Larsson S. 1990. Effects of shoot pruning on stem growth, needle biomass, and dynamics of carbohydrates and nitrogen in Scots pine as related to season and tree age. Can. J. For. Res. 20: 514–523.Google Scholar
  17. Marquis R. J. 1991. Physiological constraints on response by Ostrya virginiana (Betulaceae) to localized folivory. Can. J. Bot. 69: 1951–1955.Google Scholar
  18. Marquis R. J. 1992. A bite is a bite is a bite? Constraints on response to folivory in Piper arieianum (Piperaceae). Ecology 73: 143–152.Google Scholar
  19. Marshall D. L. 1989. Integration of response to defoliation within plants of two species of Sesbania. Funct. Ecol. 3: 207–214.Google Scholar
  20. Mauricio R., Bowers M. D. & Bazzaz F. A. 1993. Pattern of leaf damage affects fitness of the annual plant Raphanus sativus (Brassicaceae). Ecology 74: 2066–2071Google Scholar
  21. Maschinski J. & Whitham T. G. 1989. The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability and timing. Am. Nat. 134: 1–19.Google Scholar
  22. Ovaska J., Walls M. & Mutikainen P. 1992. Changes in leaf gas exchange properties of cloned Betula pendula saplings after partial defoliation. J. Exp. Bot. 43: 1301–1307.Google Scholar
  23. Pitelka L. F. & Ashmun J. W. 1985. Physiology and integration of ramets in clonal plants. Pp. 399–435. In: Jackson J. B. C., Buss L. W. & Cook R. E. (eds), Population biology and evolution of clonal organisms. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  24. Price E. A. C. & Hutchings M. J. 1992. Studies of growth in the clonal herb Glechoma hederacea. II. The effects of selective defoliation. J. Ecol. 80: 39–47.Google Scholar
  25. Reichman O. J. & Smith S. C. 1991. Responses to simulated leaf and root herbivory by a biennal, Tragopogon dubius. Ecology 72: 116–124.Google Scholar
  26. Sachs T., Novoplansky A. & Cohen D. 1993. Plants as competing populations of redundant organs. Plant Cell Environ. 16: 765–770.Google Scholar
  27. Schultz J. C. 1988. Plant responses induced by herbivores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3: 45–49.Google Scholar
  28. Shea M. M. & Watson M. A. 1989. Patterns of leaf and flower removal: their effect on fruit growth in Chamaenerion angustifolium (fireweed). Amer. J. Bot. 76: 884–890.Google Scholar
  29. Silkstone B. E. 1987. The consequences of leaf damage for subsequent insect grazing on birch (Betula spp.). Oecologia 74: 149–152.Google Scholar
  30. Sprugel D. G., Hinckley T. M. & Schaap W. 1991. The theory and practice of branch autonomy. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22: 309–334.Google Scholar
  31. Stephenson A. G. 1980. Fruit set, herbivory, fruit reduction, and the fruiting strategy of Catalpa speciosa (Bignoniaceae). Ecology 61: 57–64.Google Scholar
  32. Tuomi J., Niemelä P., Rousi M., Sirén S. & Vuorisalo T. 1988a. Induced accumulation of foliage phenols in mountain birch: branch response to defoliation? Am. Nat. 32: 602–608.Google Scholar
  33. Tuomi J., Nisula S., Vuorisalo T., Niemelä P. & Jormalainen V. 1988b. Reproductive effort of short shoots in silver birch (Betula pendula Roth). Experientia 44: 540–541.Google Scholar
  34. Tuomi J., Vuorisalo T., Niemelä P., Nisula S. & Jormalainen V. 1988c. Localized effects of branch defoliations on weight gain of female inflorescences in Betula pubescens. Oikos 51: 327–330.Google Scholar
  35. Tuomi J. & Vuorisalo T. 1990. Modularity as an organizational constraint on selection. Pp. 223–233. In: Maynard Smith J. & Vida G. (eds), Organizational constraints on the dynamics of evolution. Manchester Univ. Press, Manchester.Google Scholar
  36. van derMeijden E., Wijn M. & Verkaar H. J. 1988. Defense and regrowth: alternative plant strategies in the struggle against herbivores. Oikos 51: 355–363.Google Scholar
  37. Vuorisalo T. & Tuomi J. 1986. Unitary and modular organisms: criteria for ecological division. Oikos 47: 382–385.Google Scholar
  38. Wallace L. L., McNaughton S. J. & Coughenour M. B. 1984. Compensatory photosynthetic responses of three African graminoids to different fertilization, watering, and clipping regimes. Botanical Gazette 145: 151–156.Google Scholar
  39. Watson M. A. & Casper B. B. 1984. Morphogenetic constraints on patterns of carbon distribution in plants. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 233–258.Google Scholar
  40. Wisdom C. S., Crawford C. S. & Aldon E. F. 1989. Influence of insect herbivory on photosynthetic area and reproduction in Gutierrezia species. J. Ecol. 77: 685–692.Google Scholar
  41. Wratten S. D., Edwards P. J. & Winder L. 1988. Insect herbivory in relation to dynamic changes in host plant quality. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 35: 339–350.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kari Lehtilä
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Archipelago Research InstituteUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Section of Evolution and EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations