Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 136, Issue 3, pp 402–411 | Cite as

Preference and performance of a willow-feeding leaf beetle: soil nutrient and flooding effects on host quality

  • Steven S. Lower
  • Sheril Kirshenbaum
  • Colin M. Orians
Plant Animal Interactions

Abstract

The distribution and abundance of herbivores on plants growing under different environmental conditions may depend upon preference and/or performance. Soil nutrients and water availability are key determinants of herbivore distribution, as both influence plant growth and tissue quality. However, the effects of water on plant quality may depend upon the availability of nutrients and vice versa. Surprisingly few studies have examined the interactions between the two. We investigated the effects of soil nutrient and water availability on (1) the growth and chemistry of the silky willow (Salix sericea Marshall), and (2) the preference and performance of the imported willow leaf beetle (Plagiodera versicolora Laichartig). We conducted two common garden experiments using a similar 2×2 fully factorial design with two levels of soil nutrients (low, high) and two levels of water availability (field capacity, flooded). In the first experiment (larval performance), larval development time and pupal weight were not influenced by nutrient or water availability to the plant. This occurred despite the fact that plants in the high nutrient treatments had higher protein concentration and lower foliar concentrations of the phenolic glycoside 2′-cinnamoylsalicortin. In the second experiment (adult preference), we caged four plants (one from each treatment) and released beetles into cages. We found that plant growth and leaf protein depended upon the interaction between nutrient and water availability. Plant growth was greatest in the high nutrient-field capacity treatment and leaf protein was greatest in the high nutrient-flooded treatment. In contrast, adults settled and oviposited preferentially on the high nutrient treatment under flooded conditions, but we found no evidence of interactions between nutrients and water on preference. Thus, at least under flooded conditions nutrients affect adult preference. We also found that foliar protein was correlated positively with adult oviposition preference and per capita egg production. Our results, then, suggest that soil nutrients can influence adult preference, and that adults choose high-quality hosts (high protein) that promote egg production.

Keywords

Resource availability Nutrient × water interactions Plagiodera versicolora Herbivore preference and performance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dr. Michael Reed and Durwood Marshall for statistical advice. We thank Dr. Frances Chew for assistance with cage design. The laboratory of Dr. Adrien Finzi at Boston University provided facilities and technical support for nitrogen analyses. We thank the Tufts University Department of Biology for support and facilities. We are grateful to Lisa Tewksbury (University of Rhode Island) and the Systemic Entomology Laboratory (Baltimore, Md.) for identification of Schizonotus. This work was supported by the EPA STAR Fellowship Program, the Draupner Ring Foundation, the Howard Hughes Biomedical Institute and the National Science Foundation (deb9981568). Dr. George Ellmore, Dr. Sara Lewis, Dr. Greg English-Loeb, Dr. Margret Van Vuuren, Megan Griffiths, Benjamin Babst, Brian Brannigan and two anonymous reviewers gave valuable suggestions on the manuscript.

References

  1. Argus GW (1986) The genus Salix (Salicaceae) in the southeastern United States. Syst Bot Monogr 9:1-70Google Scholar
  2. Bach CE (1990) Plant successional stage and insect herbivory: flea beetles on sand-dune willow. Ecology 71:598–609Google Scholar
  3. Barros HC, Zucoloto FS (1999) Performance and host preference of Ascia monuste (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). J Insect Physiol 45:7-14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behmer ST, Joern A (1993) Diet choice by a grass-feeding grasshopper based on the need for a limiting nutrient. Funct Ecol 7:522–527Google Scholar
  5. Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1994) Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryant JP, Clausen TP, Reichardt PB, McCarthy MC, Werner RA (1987) Effect of nitrogen fertilization upon the secondary chemistry and nutritional value of quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Michx. leaves for the large aspen tortrix Choristoneura conflictana Walker. Oecologia 73:513–517Google Scholar
  7. Coleman JS, Jones CG (1988) Plant stress and insect performance: Cottonwood ozone and a leaf beetle. Oecologia 76:57–61Google Scholar
  8. Crone E, Jones CG (1999) The dynamics of carbon-nutrient balance: effects of cottonwood acclimation to short- and long-term shade on beetle feeding preferences. J Chem Ecol 25:635–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denno RF, Larsson S, Olmstead KL (1990) Role of enemy-free space and plant quality in host-plant selection by willow beetles. Ecology 71:124–137Google Scholar
  10. English-Loeb G, Stout MJ, Duffy SS (1997) Drought stress in tomatoes: changes in plant chemistry and potential nonlinear consequences for insect herbivores. Oikos 79:456–468Google Scholar
  11. Estiarte M, Filella I, Serra J, Penuelas J (1994) Effects of nutrient and water stress on leaf phenolic content of peppers and susceptibility to generalist herbivore Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Oecologia 99:387–391Google Scholar
  12. Forkner RE, Hunter MD (2000) What goes up must come down? Nutrient addition and predation pressure on oak herbivores. Ecology 81:1588–1600Google Scholar
  13. Gershenzon J (1984) Changes in the levels of plant secondary metabolites under water and nutrient stress. Rec Adv Phytochem 18:273–320Google Scholar
  14. Hacker SD, Bertness MD (1995) A herbivore paradox: Why salt marsh aphids live on poor quality hosts. Am Nat 145:192–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanks LM, Denno RF (1993) Natural enemies and plant water relations influence the distribution of an armored scale insect. Ecology 74:1081–1091Google Scholar
  16. Hemming JDC, Lindroth RL (1999) Effects of light and nutrient availability on aspen: growth, phytochemistry, and insect performance. J Chem Ecol 25:1687–1714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hochberg Y, Hommel G (1988) Step-up multiple testing procedures. Encycl Stat Sci Suppl vol 2Google Scholar
  18. Jauset AM, Sarasua MJ, Avilla J, Albajes R (1998) The impact of nitrogen fertilization of tomato on feeding site selection and oviposition by Trialeurodes vaporariorum. Entomol Exp Appl 86:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Justus KA, Mitchell BK (1996) Oviposition site selection by the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). J Insect Behav 9:887–898Google Scholar
  20. Kolehmainen J, Julkunen-Tiitto R, Roininen H, Tahvanainen J (1995) Phenolic glucosides as feeding cues for willow-feeding leaf beetles. Entomol Exp Appl 74:235–243Google Scholar
  21. Koricheva J, Larsson S, Haukioja E (1998) Insect performance on experimentally stressed woody plants: a meta-analysis. Annu Rev Entomol 43:195–216Google Scholar
  22. Kozlowski TT, Pallardy SG (1984) Effect of flooding on water, carbohydrate and mineral relations. In: Kozloski TT (ed) Flooding and plant growth. Academic Press, New York, pp 165–181Google Scholar
  23. Larsson S, Wiren A, Lundgren L, Ericsson T (1986) Effects of light and nutrient stress on leaf phenolic chemistry in Salix dasyclados and susceptibility to Galerucella lineola Coleoptera. Oikos 47:205–210Google Scholar
  24. Letourneau DK, Fox LR (1989) Effects of experimental design and nitrogen on cabbage butterfly oviposition. Oecologia 80:211–214Google Scholar
  25. Lindroth RL (1989) Biochemical detoxication mechanism of differential tiger swallowtail tolerance to phenolic glycosides. Oecologia 81:219–224Google Scholar
  26. Lower SS (2002) The effects of soil moisture and water on the suitability of silky willow for the imported willow leaf beetle. Dissertation, Tufts UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Lower SS, Orians CM (2003) Soil nutrients and water availability interact to influence willow growth and chemistry but not leaf beetle performance. Entomol Exp Appl 197:69–79Google Scholar
  28. Marschner H (1986). Mineral nutrition of plants. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Matsuki M, MacLean SF Jr (1994) Effects of different leaf traits on growth rates of insect herbivores on willows. Oecologia 100:141–152Google Scholar
  30. Mattson WJ Jr (1980) Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:119–161Google Scholar
  31. Mayew PJ (2001) Herbivore host choice and optimal bad motherhood. Trends Ecol Evol 16:165–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mensah RK, Madden JL (1992) Factors affecting Ctenarytaina thysanura oviposition on Boronia megastigma terminal shoots. Entomol Exp Appl 62:261–268Google Scholar
  33. Mutikainen P, Walls M, Ovaska J, Keinanen M, Julkunen-Tiitto R, Vapaavuori E (2000) Herbivore resistance in Betula pendula: Effect of fertilization, defoliation, and plant genotype. Ecology 81:49–65Google Scholar
  34. Nichols-Orians CM, Fritx RS, Clausen TP (1993) The gentic basis for varition in the concentration of phenolic glycosides in Salix sericea: clonal variation and sex based differences. Biochem Syst Ecol 21:535–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Orians CM (1995) Preserving leaves for chemical analyses: a comparison of methods using three willow taxa. J Chem Ecol 21:1235–1243Google Scholar
  36. Orians CM, Fritz RS (1996) Genetic and soil nutrient effects on the abundance of herbivores on willow. Oecologia 105:388–396Google Scholar
  37. Orians CM, Huang CH, Wild A, Dorfman KA, Zee P, Dao Minh Tam T, Fritz RS (1997) Willow hybridization differentially affects preference and performance of herbivorous beetles. Entomol Exp Appl 83:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pimbert MP, Srivastava CP (1991) The influence of rainfall deficits on the abundance of Helicoverpa armigera and Heliothis armigera in Andhra Pradesh, India. Biol Agric Hortic 8:153–176Google Scholar
  39. Roininen H, Tahvanainen E (1989) Host selection and larval performance of two willow-feeding sawflies. Ecology 70:129–136Google Scholar
  40. Scriber JM, Slansky F (1981) The nutritional ecology of immature insects. Annu Rev Entomol 26:183–211Google Scholar
  41. Sipura M, Tahvanainen J (2000) Shading enhances the quality of willow leaves to leaf beetles—but does it matter? Oikos 91:550–558Google Scholar
  42. Tahvanainen J, Julkunen Tiitto R, Kettunen J (1985) Phenolic glycosides govern the food selection pattern of willow-feeding leaf beetles. Oecologia 67:52–56Google Scholar
  43. Takabayashi J, Dicke M, Maarten A (1994) Volatile herbivore-induced terpenoids in plant-mite interactions: variation caused by biotic and abiotic factors. J Chem Ecol 20:1329–1354Google Scholar
  44. Thompson JN (1998) The evolution of diet breadth: monophagy and polyphagy in swallowtail butterflies. J Evol Biol 11:563–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tisdale RA, Wagner MR (1991) Host stress influences oviposition preference and performance of a pine sawfly. Ecol Entomol 16:371–376Google Scholar
  46. Valladares G, Lawton JH (1991) Host-plant selection in the holly leaf-miner: does mother know best? J Anim Ecol 60:227–240Google Scholar
  47. Vrieling K, de Boer Nico J (1999) Host-plant choice and larval growth in the cinnabar moth: do pyrrolizidine alkaloids play a role? Entomol Exp Appl 91:251–257Google Scholar
  48. Wait DA, Jones CG, Coleman JS (1998) Effects of nitrogen fertilization on leaf chemistry and beetle feeding are mediated by leaf development. Oikos 82:502–514Google Scholar
  49. Watt AD (1986) The performance of the pine beauty moth Panolis flammea on water-stressed lodgepole pine Pinus contorta plants a laboratory experiment. Oecologia 70:578–579Google Scholar
  50. White TCR (1984) The abundance of invertebrate herbivores in relation to the availability of nitrogen in stressed food plants. Oecologia 63:90–105Google Scholar
  51. Young CE, Hall RW (1986) Factors influencing suitability of elms for elm leaf beetle Xanthogaleruca luteola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ Entomol 15:843–849Google Scholar
  52. Zar JH (1996). Biostatistical analysis. Simon and Schuster, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven S. Lower
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sheril Kirshenbaum
    • 1
  • Colin M. Orians
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyTufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of NematologyUniversity of California (Davis)DavisUSA

Personalised recommendations