Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 2055–2063 | Cite as

Seasonal variation in volatile secondary compounds ofChrysothamnus nauseosus (Pallas) britt.; asteraceae ssp.hololeucus (Gray) hall. & clem. Influences herbivory

  • Steven C. Halls
  • David R. Gang
  • Darrell J. Weber
Article

Abstract

Chrysothamnus nauseosus (rubber rabbitbrush) is used by browsing animals, especially mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), as a forage in the winter months. It is used only slightly, if at all in the summer. This dietary difference may result from changes in the secondary chemical composition of the leaves. Solvent extracts from summer and winter rabbitbrush leaves were analyzed by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry, and the volatile compounds were quantified and identified. Hexane and chloroform extracts from winter leaves exhibit a marked concentration decrease in most chemicals when compared to summer extracts. The methanol extracts revealed the presence of several chemicals in the summer leaves that were absent in winter leaves. Rubber rabbitbrush has fewer secondary volatile chemicals in the winter than in the summer. These chemical differences may influence the seasonal dietary difference observed in mule deer and other browsing animals.

Key words

Rabbit brush Chrysothamnus nauseosus secondary chemicals essential oils herbivory hydrocarbons natural products mule deer Odocoileus hemionus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, L.C. 1986. An overview of the genusChrysothamnus (Asteraceae). pp. 29–45,in E.D. McArthur and B.L. Welch (eds.). Proceedings—Symposium on the Biology ofArtemisia and Chrysothamnus. Provo, Utah, July 9–13, 1984. Intermountain Research Station USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
  2. Bhat, R.B., Weber, D.J., Hegerhorst, D.F., andMcArthur, E.D. 1990a. Rubber and resin content in natural and uniform-garden populations ofChrysothamnus nauseosus subspecies.Phyton 51:35–42.Google Scholar
  3. Bhat, R.B., Welch, B.L., Weber, D.J., andMcArthur, E.D. 1990b. Mid-winter protein, phosphorus, and digestibility ofChrysothamnus nauseosus subspecies.J. Range Manage. 43:177–179.Google Scholar
  4. Bohlmann, F., Dutta, L., Robinson, H., andKing, R. M. 1979. New labdane derivatives fromChrysothamnus nauseosus.Phytochemistry 18:1889–1892.Google Scholar
  5. Deans, S.G., andSvoboda, K.P., 1989. Antibacterial activity of summer savory (Satureja hortensis L.) essential oil and its constituents.J. Hortic. Sci. 64:205–210.Google Scholar
  6. Dowdy, S., andWearden, S. 1983. Statistics for Research. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 194–195.Google Scholar
  7. Hanks, D.L., McArthur, E.D., Plummer, A.P., Giunta, B.C., andBlauer, A.C. 1975. Chromatographic recognition of some palatable and unpalatable subspecies of rubber rabbitbrush in and around Utah.J. Range Manage. 28:144–148.Google Scholar
  8. Harborne, J.B. 1991. Recent advances in the ecological chemistry of plant terpenoids, pp. 297–313,in J.B. Harborne and F.A. Tomas-Barberan (eds.). Proceedings of the Phytochemical Society of Europe, Ecological Chemistry and Biochemistry of Plant Terpenoids. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Hegerhorst, D.F., Weber, D.J., McArthur, E.D., andKhan, A.J. 1987. Chemical analysis and comparison of subspecies ofChrysothamnus nauseosus and other related species.Biochem. Syst. 15:201–208.Google Scholar
  10. Hegerhorst, D.F., Bhat, R.B., Weber, D.J., andMcArthur, E.D. 1988. Seasonal changes of selected secondary plant products inChrysothamnus nauseosus ssp.turbinatus.Great Basin Nat. 48:1–8.Google Scholar
  11. Hubbell, S.P., Wiemer, D.F., andAdejare, A., 1983. An antifungal terpenoid defends a neotropical tree (Hymenaea) against attack by fungus-growing ants (Atta).Oecologia. 60:321–327.Google Scholar
  12. Maugh, T.H. 1982. Exploring plant resistance to insects.Science 216:722–723.Google Scholar
  13. McArthur, E.D., Blauer, A.C., Plummer, A.P., andStevens, R. 1979. Characteristics and hybridization of important Intermountain shrubs. III. Sunflower family. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-200, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 82 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Pickett, J.A. 1991. Lower terpenoids as natural insect control agents, pp. 297–313,in J.B. Harborne and F.A. Tomas-Barberan (eds.). Proceedings of the Phytochemical Society of Europe, Ecological Chemistry and Biochemistry of Plant Terpenoids. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Sampson, A.W., andJesperson, B.S. 1963. California range, brushlands and browse plants.Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Serv. Manual, Berkeley. 33:1–162.Google Scholar
  16. Sankhla, N., Davis, T., Weber, D.J., andMcArthur, E.D. 1987. Biology and economic botany ofChrysothamnus (rabbitbrush): A potential useful shrub for arid regions.J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 10:481–495.Google Scholar
  17. Ward, A.L., 1971.In vitro digestibility of elk winter forage in southern Wyoming.J. Wildl. Manage. 35:681–688.Google Scholar
  18. Weber, D.J., Davis, T.D., McArthur, E.D., andSankhla, N. 1985.Chrysothamnus nauseosus (rubber rabbitbrush): Multiple-use shrub of the desert.Desert Plants 7:172–180, 208–210.Google Scholar
  19. Weber, D.J., Hegerhorst, D.F., Davis, T.D., andMcArthur, E.D. 1987. Potential uses of rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), pp. 27–33,in K.L. Johnson (ed.). Proceedings of the Fourth Utah Shrub Ecology Workshop: The genusChrysothamnus. Utah State University, Logan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven C. Halls
    • 1
  • David R. Gang
    • 1
  • Darrell J. Weber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Botany and Range ScienceBrigham Young UniversityProvo

Personalised recommendations