Patterns of herbivore damage, developmental stability, morphological and biochemical traits in female and male Mercurialis perennis in contrasting light habitats

  • Danijela Miljković
  • Sara Selaković
  • Vukica Vujić
  • Nemanja Stanisavljević
  • Svetlana Radović
  • Dragana Cvetković
Original Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Light environments can influence variation in plant morphology, development and susceptibility to herbivores. Our research interest was to investigate the patterns of herbivore damage and developmental stability in dioecious understory forb Mercurialis perennis in contrasting light habitats, located at 1700 m a.s.l. on Mt. Kopaonik. Male and female plants from two light habitats, open (a sun-exposed field) and shaded (a spruce forest) were examined with respect to: herbivore damage (percentage of leaf area loss), fluctuating asymetry (FA) as a measurement of developmental stability, plant morphological and, specifically, leaf size traits, as well as biochemical traits relating to nutritional quality and defence, taking into account the possible presence of intersexual differences. Our results show that herbivore damage was significantly higher in open habitat, as well as one out of four univariate FA indices and the multivariate index. Morphological and biochemical traits, apart from defensive compounds, had higher values in the shade, pointing to sun-exposed habitat being more stressful for this species. Intersexual differences were observed for foliar damage, defensive compounds (phenolics and tannins), all leaf size traits, total leaf area, and protein content. Contrasting light habitats affected most of the analysed traits. Both foliar damage and FA were higher in a more stressful habitat; within habitats, no positive correlations were found. Herbivore damage was significantly male biased in open habitat. The analysis of intersexual differences in developmental stability measured by leaf asymmetry levels provided no evidence that female plants were more sensitive to environmental stress.

Keywords

Leaf asymmetry Folivory Environmental stress Plant sexual dimorphism Plant defence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia Grant No. 173025 title “Evolution in heterogeneous environments: mechanisms of adaptation, biomonitoring and conservation of biodiversity” and Grant No. 173005 title “Molecular mechanisms of plant response to abiotic stress—the role of transcription factors and small RNAs and analysis of genetic diversity of plant crops of interest for agriculture and biotechnology”.

Author contributions

DM and DC conceived the idea and designed the study. SS, VV and DC conducted fieldwork. NS, SS and SR performed biochemical analyses, VV and SS performed herbivory analyses, DM performed statistical analyses. SS, DM and DC wrote the draft, DC and DM wrote the final version of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm that there is no conflict of interest in relation to this article.

References

  1. Abràmoff MD, Magalhães PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int 11:36–42. https://imagescience.org/meijering/publications/download/bio2004.pdfGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves-Silva E, Del-Claro K (2016) Herbivory-induced stress: Leaf developmental instability is caused by herbivore damage in early stages of leaf development. Ecol Indic 61:359–365.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anne PF, Mawri S, Gladstone DC (1998) Is fluctuating asymmetry a reliable biomonitor of stress? A test using life history parameters in soybean. Int J Plant Sci 159:559–565.  https://doi.org/10.1086/297573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auslander M, Nevo E, Inbar M (2003) The effects of slope orientation on plant growth, developmental instability and susceptibility to herbivores. J Arid Environ 55:405–416.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1963(02)00281-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bañuelos MJ, Sierra M, Obeso JR (2004) Sex, secondary compounds and asymmetry: effects on plant–herbivore interaction in a dioecious shrub. Acta Oecol 25:151–157.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2005.14075.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbehenn RV, Constable CP (2011) Tannins in plant-herbivore interactions. Phytochemistry 72:1551–1565.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2011.01.040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett SC, Hough J (2013) Sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. J Exp Bot 64:67–82.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers308 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckley NE, Avila-Sakar G (2013) Reproduction, growth, and defense trade-offs vary with gender and reproductive allocation in Ilex glabra (Aquifoliaceae). Am J Bot 100:357–364.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1200603 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Castagneyrol B, Giffard B, Péré C, Jactel H (2013) Plant apparency, an overlooked driver of associational resistance to insect herbivory. J Ecol 101(2):418–429.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12055/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cepeda-Cornejo V, Dirzo R (2010) Sex-related differences in reproductive allocation, growth, defense and herbivory in three dioecious neotropical palms. PLoS One 5:e9824.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009824 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornelissen T, Stiling P (2005a) Perfect is best: low leaf fluctuating asymmetry reduces herbivory by leaf miners. Oecologia 142:46–56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1724-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornelissen T, Stiling P (2005b) Sex-biased herbivory: a meta-analysis of the effects of gender on plant-herbivore interactions. Oikos 111:488–500.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2005.14075.x/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornelissen T, Stiling P (2011) Similar responses of insect herbivores to leaf fluctuating asymmetry. Arthropod Plant Interact 5:59–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-010-9116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornelissen T, Wilson Fernandes G, Vasconcellos-Neto J (2008) Size does matter: variation in herbivory between and within plants and the plant vigor hypothesis. Oikos 117:1121–1130.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16588.x/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costa FVD, Pinheiro de Azevedo IF, Braga LDL, Perillo LN, Neves FDS, Leite LO, Cuevas-Reyes P (2013) Fluctuating asymmetry and herbivory in two ontogenetical stages of Chamaecrista semaphora in restored and natural environments. J Plant Interact 8:179–186.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2012.657253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cuevas-Reyes P, Oyama K, González-Rodríguez A, Fernandes GW, Mendoza-Cuenca L (2011) Contrasting herbivory patterns and leaf fluctuating asymmetry in Heliocarpus pallidus between different habitat types within a Mexican tropical dry forest. J Trop Ecol 27:383–391.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646741100006X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cuevas-Reyes P, Gilberti L, González-Rodríguez A, Fernandes GW (2013) Patterns of herbivory and fluctuating asymmetry in Solanum lycocarpum St. Hill (Solanaceae) along an urban gradient in Brazil. Ecol Indic 24:557–561. https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1470160X12003020/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.011
  19. Cvetković D, Jovanović V (2007) Altitudinal variation of the sex ratio and segregation by gender in the dioecious plant Mercurialis perennis L.(Euphorbiaceae) in Serbia. Arch Biol Sci 59:193–198.  https://doi.org/10.2298/ABS0703193C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elemans M (2004) Light, nutrients and the growth of herbaceous forest species. Acta Oecol 26:197–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2004.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Espírito-Santo MM, Neves FS, Fernandes GW, Silva JO (2012) Plant phenology and absence of sex-biased gall attack on three species of Baccharis. PloS One 7:e46896.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046896 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernandes GW, de Oliveira SCS, Campos IR, Barbosa M, Soares LA, Cuevas-Reyes P (2016) Leaf fluctuating asymmetry and herbivory of Tibouchina heteromalla in restored and natural environments. Neotrop Entom 45:44–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-015-0342-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freeman DC, Brown ML, Dobson M, Jordan Y, Kizy A, Micallef C, Emlen JM (2003) Developmental instability: measures of resistance and resilience using pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.). Bio J Linn Soc 78:27–41.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00123.x/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graham JH, Raz S, Hel-Or H, Nevo E (2010) Fluctuating asymmetry: methods, theory, and applications. Symmetry 2:466–540. http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/2/2/466
  25. Hagen SB, Ims RA, Yoccoz NG, Sørlibråten O (2008) Fluctuating asymmetry as an indicator of elevation stress and distribution limits in mountain birch (Betula pubescens). Plant Ecol 195:157–163.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-007-9312-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hakes AS, Cronin JT (2012) Successional changes in plant resistance and tolerance to herbivory. Ecology 93:1059–1070. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23225222
  27. Harris MS, Pannell JR (2008) Roots, shoots and reproduction: sexual dimorphism in size and costs of reproductive allocation in an annual herb. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 275:2595–2602. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1651/2595
  28. Huberty AF, Denno RF (2004) Plant water stress and its consequences for herbivorous insects: a new synthesis. Ecology 85:1383–1398.  https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0352/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Inbar M, Kark S (2007) Gender-related developmental instability and herbivory of Pistacia atlantica across a steep environmental gradient. Folia Geobot 42:401–410.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02861702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jefferson RG (2008) Biological flora of the British isles: Mercurialis perennis L. J Ecol 96:386–412.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01348.x/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson MT (2011) Evolutionary ecology of plant defences against herbivores. Func Ecol 25:305–311.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01838.x/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Juvany M, Munné-Bosch S (2015) Sex-related differences in stress tolerance in dioecious plants: a critical appraisal in a physiological context. J Exp Bot 66:6083–6092.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv343 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Klingenberg CP (2015) Analyzing fluctuating asymmetry with geometric morphometrics: concepts, methods, and applications. Symmetry 7:843–934. http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/7/2/843
  34. Klingenberg CP, Barluenga M, Meyer A (2002) Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution 56:1909–1920.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00117.x/full CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Labouche AM, Pannell JR (2016) A test of the size-constraint hypothesis for a limit to sexual dimorphism in plants. Oecologia 181:873–884.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3616-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lempa K, Martel J, Koricheva J, Haukioja E, Ossipov V, Ossipova S, Pihlaja K (2000) Covariation of fluctuating asymmetry, herbivory and chemistry during birch leaf expansion. Oecologia 122:354–360.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Leung B, Forbes MR, Houle D (2000) Fluctuating asymmetry as a bioindicator of stress: comparing efficacy of analyses involving multiple traits. Am Nat 155:101–115. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/303298
  38. Lusk CH, Onoda Y, Kooyman R, Gutiérrez-Girón A (2010) Reconciling species-level vs plastic responses of evergreen leaf structure to light gradients: shade leaves punch above their weight. New Phytol 186:429–438.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03202.x/full CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Maldonado-López Y, Cuevas-Reyes P, Sánchez-Montoya G, Oyama K, Quesada M (2014) Growth, plant quality and leaf damage patterns in a dioecious tree species: is gender important? Arthropod Plant Interact 8:241–251.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-014-9314-3 Google Scholar
  40. Miljković D (2012) Developmental stability of Iris pumila flower traits: a common garden experiment. Arch Biol Sci 64:123–133.  https://doi.org/10.2298/ABS1201123M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Møller AP, Shykoff JA (1999) Morphological developmental stability in plants: patterns and causes. Int J Plant Sci 160:S135–S146.  https://doi.org/10.1086/314219 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Moura RF, Alves-Silva E, Del-Claro K (2017) Patterns of growth, development and herbivory of Palicourea rigida are affected more by sun/shade conditions than by Cerrado phytophysiognomy. Acta Bot Bras 31:286–294.  https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062016abb0446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Muth NZ, Kluger EC, Levy JH, Edwards MJ, Niesenbaum RA (2008) Increased per capita herbivory in the shade: necessity, feedback, or luxury consumption. Ecoscience 15:182–188.  https://doi.org/10.2980/15-2-3095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Niesenbaum RA, Kluger EC (2006) When studying the effects of light on herbivory, should one consider temperature? The case of Epimecis hortaria F. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) feeding on Lindera benzoin. L. (Lauraceae). Environ entomol 35:600–606.  https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-35.3.600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nijhout HF, Davidowitz G (2003) Developmental perspectives on phenotypic variation, canalization, and fluctuating asymmetry. In: Polak M (ed), Developmental instability: causes and consequences. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–13. (ISBN: 0-19-514345-0)Google Scholar
  46. Nikiforou C, Manetas Y (2017) Ecological stress memory: evidence in two out of seven species through the examination of the relationship between leaf fluctuating asymmetry and photosynthesis. Ecol Indic 74:530–534.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Obeso JR (2002) The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytol 155:321–348.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00477.x/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palmer AR, Strobeck C (2003) Fluctuating asymmetry analyses revisited. In: Polak M (ed) Developmental instability: causes and consequences. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 279–319Google Scholar
  49. Puerta-Piñero C, Gómez JM, Hódar JA (2008) Shade and herbivory induce fluctuating asymmetry in a Mediterranean oak. Int J Plant Sci 169:631–635. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/533601
  50. Ribeiro VA, Silva RND, Sousa-Souto L, Neves FDS (2013) Fluctuating asymmetry of and herbivory on Poincianella pyramidalis (Tul.) LP Queiroz (Fabaceae) in pasture and secondary tropical dry forest. Acta Bot Bras 27:21–25.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-33062013000100003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roberts MR, Paul ND (2006) Seduced by the dark side: integrating molecular and ecological perspectives on the influence of light on plant defence against pests and pathogens. New Phytol 170:677–699.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01707.x/full CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sakai A, Sasa A, Sakai S (2006) Do sexual dimorphisms in reproductive allocation and new shoot biomass increase with an increase of altitude? A case of the shrub willow Salix reinii (Salicaceae). Am J Bot 93:988–992. http://www.amjbot.org/content/93/7/988.full.pdf+html
  53. Salgado-Luarte C, Gianoli E (2010) Herbivory on temperate rainforest seedlings in sun and shade: resistance, tolerance and habitat distribution. PLoS One 5:e11460.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011460 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Salgado-Luarte C, Gianoli E (2012) Herbivores modify selection on plant functional traits in a temperate rainforest understory. Am Nat 180:E42–E53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/666612
  55. Sánchez-Vilas J, Pannell JR (2011) Sex-differential herbivory in androdioecious Mercurialis annua. PloS One 6:e22083.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022083 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Sandner TM, Matthies D (2017) Fluctuating asymmetry of leaves is a poor indicator of environmental stress and genetic stress by inbreeding in Silene vulgaris. Ecol Indic 79:247–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Santos JC, Alves-Silva E, Cornelissen TG, Fernandes GW (2013) The effect of fluctuating asymmetry and leaf nutrients on gall abundance and survivorship. Basic Appl Ecol 4:489–495.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2013.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sheets HD (2003) IMP— Integrated Morphometrics Package. Buffalo: Department of physics, Canisius College. http://www3.canisius.edu/~sheets/morphsoft.html
  59. Silva HV, Alves-Silva E, Santos JC (2016) On the relationship between fluctuating asymmetry, sunlight exposure, leaf damage and flower set in Miconia fallax (Melastomataceae). Trop Ecol 57:419–427. http://tropecol.com/pdf/open/PDF_57_3/4%20Venancio%20Silva,%20Alves-Silva%20&%20Santos-f.pdf
  60. Singleton VL, Rossi JA (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Viticult 16:144–158. http://www.ajevonline.org/content/16/3/144
  61. Suárez-Piña J, Rueda-Almazán JE, Ayestarán LM, Alcalá RE (2016) Effect of light environment on intra-specific variation in herbivory in the carnivorous plant Pinguicula moranensis (Lentibulariaceae). J Plant Interact 11:146–151.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2016.1231851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Takafumi H, Kawase S, Nakamura M, Hiura T (2010) Herbivory in canopy gaps created by a typhoon varies by understory plant leaf phenology. Ecol Entom 35:576–585.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2010.01216.x/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Telhado C, Esteves D, Cornelissen T, Fernandes GW, Carneiro MAA (2010) Insect herbivores of Coccoloba cereifera do not select asymmetric plants. Environ Entom 39:849–855.  https://doi.org/10.1603/EN09179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Telhado C, Silveira FAO, Fernandes GW, Cornelissen T (2017) Fluctuating asymmetry in leaves and flowers of sympatric species in a tropical montane environment. Plant Spec Biol 32:3–12.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1442-1984.12122/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Valladares F, Niinemets Ü (2008) Shade tolerance, a key plant feature of complex nature and consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:237–257.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Valladares F, Laanisto L, Niinemets Ü, Zavala MA (2016) Shedding light on shade: ecological perspectives of understorey plant life. Plant Ecol Divers 9:237–251.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2016.1210262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vandepitte K, Roldán-Ruiz I, Leus L, Jacquemyn H, Honnay O (2009) Canopy closure shapes clonal diversity and fine-scale genetic structure in the dioecious understorey perennial Mercurialis perennis. J Ecol 97:404–414.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01484.x/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vandepitte K, Honnay O, De Meyer T, Jacquemyn H, Roldán-Ruiz I (2010) Patterns of sex ratio variation and genetic diversity in the dioecious forest perennial Mercurialis perennis. Plant Ecol 206:105–114.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-009-9627-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Venâncio H, Alves-Silva E, Santos JC (2016) Leaf phenotypic variation and developmental instability in relation to different light regimes. Acta Bot Bras 30:296–303.  https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062016abb0081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vujić V, Rubinjoni L, Selaković S, Cvetković D (2016) Small-scale variations in leaf shape under anthropogenic disturbance in dioecious forest forb Mercurialis perennis: a geometric morphometric examination. Arch Biol Sci 68:705–713.  https://doi.org/10.2298/ABS151111011V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wadhwa S, Gallagher FJ, Rodriguez-Saona C, Holzapfel C (2017) Exposure to heavy metal stress does not increase fluctuating asymmetry in populations of isopod and hardwood trees. Ecol Indic 76:42–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weijschedé J, Martínková J, De Kroon H, Huber H (2006) Shade avoidance in Trifolium repens: costs and benefits of plasticity in petiole length and leaf size. New Phyt 172:655–666.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01885.x/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wright VL, Dorken ME (2014) Sexual dimorphism in leaf nitrogen content but not photosynthetic rates in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae). Botany 92:109–112.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-2013-0246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Xu BJ, Chang SKC (2007) A comparative study on phenolic profiles and antioxidant activities of legumes as affected by extraction solvents. J Food Sci 72:S159–S166.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00260.x/abstract CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhang L, Yang M, Gao J, Jin S, Wu Z, Wu L, Zhang X (2016) Seasonal variation and gender pattern of phenolic and flavonoid contents in Pistacia chinensis Bunge inflorescences and leaves. J Plant Phys 191:36–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2015.11.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zvereva EL, Kozlov M, Niemelä VP, Haukioja E (1997) Delayed induced resistance and increase in leaf fluctuating asymmetry as responses of Salix borealis to insect herbivory. Oecologia 109:368–373.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050095 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Botanical Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Biological Research “Siniša Stanković”University of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Faculty of BiologyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Institute of Molecular Genetics and Genetic EngineeringUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations