Oecologia

, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp 358–364

Plasticity and overcompensation in grass responses to herbivory

  • Richard D. Alward
  • Anthony Joern
Original Papers

Abstract

Several hypotheses predict defoliation-induced increases in individual plant fitness. In this paper we examine three such hypotheses: the Herbivore Optimization Hypothesis (HOH); the Continuum of Responses Hypothesis (CRH); and the Growth Rate Model (GRM). All three have in common predictions based on responses of defoliated individuals with the objective of explaining community and higher level phenomena. The latter two extend theory by specifying conditions for overcompensatory responses. They differ in whether overcompensation is sensitive to conditions external (CRH) or internal (GRM) to the plant. We tested these hypotheses with field experiments in a grassland system in which two native, perennial grass species replace each other along a short topographic/resource gradient. We detected positive, neutral, and negative changes in plant mass in response to partial defoliation. Patterns of responses to the edaphic and competitive environment combinations were unique to each species and neither the CRH nor the GRM were able to consistently predict responses in these grasses. Predictions of the HOH were fully supported only by the species naturally limited to lower-resource environments: overcompensation occurred in natural environments and it occurred at herbivory levels these plants experience naturally. Thus, the overcompensatory response can be important for the maintenance of local plant population distributions. However, new mechanistic theory is needed to account for the trend common to both species: overcompensatory responses to herbivory were greater in the edaphic environment in which each species was naturally most abundant.

Key words

Bouteloua Grasshopper herbivory Overcompensation Plant-Herbivore interactions Sandhills prairie 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adjei MB, Mislevy P, Ward CY (1980) Response of tropical grasses to stocking rate. Agron J 72:863–868Google Scholar
  2. Alward RD (1992) The roles of competition and herbivory in maintaining the local distributions of two native grasses. M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes PW, Harrison AT, Heinisch SP (1984) Vegetation patterns in relation to topography and edaphic variation in Nebraska Sandhills Prairie. Prairie Nat 16:145–158Google Scholar
  4. Beard JB (1973) Turfgrass: Science and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  5. Belsky AJ (1986) Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. Am Nat 127:870–892Google Scholar
  6. Belsky AJ (1987) The effects of grazing: Confounding of ecosystem, community, and organism scales. Am Nat 129:777–783Google Scholar
  7. Bergelson J, Crawley MJ (1992) Herbivory and Ipomopsis aggregata: The disadvantages of being eaten. Am Nat 139:870–882Google Scholar
  8. Brown BJ, Allen TFH (1989) The importance of scale in evaluating herbivory impacts. Oikos 54:189–194Google Scholar
  9. Crawley MJ (1983) Herbivory: The Dynamics of Animal-Plant Interactions. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawley MJ (1988) Herbivores and plant population dynamics. In: Davy AJ, Hutchings MJ, Watkinson AR (eds) Plant Population Ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 367–392Google Scholar
  11. Dyer MI (1975) The effects of red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus L.) on biomass production of corn grains (Zea mays L.). J Appl Ecol 12:719–726Google Scholar
  12. Dyer MI, Detling JK, Coleman DC, Hilbert DW (1982) The role of herbivores in grasslands. In: Estes JR, Tyrl RJ, Bruuken JN (eds) Grasses and Grasslands: Systematics and Ecology. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp 255–295Google Scholar
  13. Heinisch SP (1981) Water allocation and rooting morphology of two Bouteloua species in relation to their distributions in the Nebraska sandhills. M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilbert DW, Swift DM, Detling JK, Dyer MI (1981) Relative growth rates and the grazing optimization hypothesis. Oecologia 51:14–18Google Scholar
  15. Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition and the structure of prey communities. Theor Popul Biol 12:197–229Google Scholar
  16. Joern A (1982) Distributions, densities, and relative abundances of grasshoppers (Othoptera: Acrididae) in a Nebraska Sandhills Prairie. Prairie Nat 14:37–45Google Scholar
  17. Keeler KH, Harrison AT, Vescio LS (1980) The flora and sandhills prairie communities of Arapaho Prairie, Arthur County, Nebraska. Prairie Nat 12:65–78Google Scholar
  18. Louda SM, Keeler KH, Holt RD (1990) Herbivore influences on plant performance and competitive interactions. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives in Plant Competition. Academic Press, New York, pp 413–444Google Scholar
  19. Maschinski J, Whitham TG (1989) The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: The influence of plant association, nutrient availability and timing. Am Nat 134:1–19Google Scholar
  20. McNaughton SJ (1976) Serengeti migratory wildebeest: Facilitation of energy flow by grazing. Science 191:92–94Google Scholar
  21. McNaughton SJ (1979a) Grassland-herbivore dynamics. In: Sinclair ARE, Norton-Griffiths M (eds) Serengeti: Dynamics of an Ecosystem. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 46–81Google Scholar
  22. McNaughton SJ (1979b) Grazing as an optimization process: Grassland-ungulate relationships in the Serengeti. Am Nat 113:691–703Google Scholar
  23. McNaughton SJ (1983a) Physiological and ecological implications of herbivory. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Zeigler H (eds) Physiological Plant Ecology III. Responses to the chemical and biological environment. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 657–677Google Scholar
  24. McNaughton SJ (1983b) Compensatory plant growth as a response to herbivory. Oikos 40:329–336Google Scholar
  25. Oesterheld M, McNaughton SJ (1988) Intraspecific variation in the response of Themeda triandra to defoliation: The effect of time of recovery and regrowth rates on compensatory growth. Oecologia 77:181–186Google Scholar
  26. Paige KN, Whitham TG (1987) Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: The advantage of being eaten. Am Nat 129:407–416Google Scholar
  27. SAS (1987) SAS/STAT guide for personal computers, ver 6. SAS Institute, Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  28. Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1980) Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Sutherland DM (1986) Poaceae. In: Great Plains Flora Association (ededs) Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, pp 1113–1234Google Scholar
  30. Williamson SC, Detling JK, Dodd JL, Dyer MI (1989) Experimental evaluation of the grazing optimization hypothesis. J Range Man 42:149–152Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard D. Alward
    • 1
  • Anthony Joern
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations