Oecologia

, Volume 137, Issue 4, pp 547–556 | Cite as

The resource economics of chemical and structural defenses across nitrogen supply gradients

  • Joseph Craine
  • William Bond
  • William G. Lee
  • Peter B. Reich
  • Scott Ollinger
Plant Animal Interactions

Abstract

In order to better understand the role of nutrient supplies in determining the prevalence of plant defense types, we investigated the theoretical relationships between ecosystem N supply and the net C gain of shoots that were undefended or defended in one of three ways: (1) by N-free chemical compounds, (2) by N-containing chemical compounds, or (3) by structural defenses. By extending economic models of shoot resource balance to include the relative value of C and N, depreciation, and amortization, we were able to show that the relative net C gain of the three defense types were similar to changes in their generally understood abundance along an N supply gradient. At low N supply, the additional C acquired when investing C in defense is much higher than investing N in defenses. Only at high N supply is it better to invest large quantities of N in defense rather than additional photosynthesis. In a sensitivity analysis, net C gain of shoots was most sensitive to factors that affect the relative value of C and N and the rate of herbivory. Although there is support for the relative value of C and N influencing defense strategies, more research is necessary to understand why tannins are not more prevalent at high N supply and why moderate amounts of N-based defenses are not used at low N supply.

Keywords

Carbon-nutrient balance Spinescence Herbivory Resource economics 

References

  1. Aber JD, Reich PB, Goulden ML (1996) Extrapolating leaf CO2 exchange to the canopy: a generalized model of forest photosynthesis compared with measurements by eddy correlation. Oecologia 106:257–265Google Scholar
  2. Adler FR, Karban R (1994) Defended fortresses or moving targets? Another model of inducible defenses inspired by military metaphors. Am Nat 144:813–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson IAE, Greenwood RM (1989) Relationships between moas and plants. N Z J Ecol 12 [Suppl]:67–96Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin IT, Karb MJ, Ohnmeiss TE (1994) Allocation of 15N from nitrate to nicotine: production and turnover of a damage-induced mobile defense. Ecology 75:1703–1713Google Scholar
  5. Bazzaz FA, Chiariello NR, Coley PD, Pitelka LF (1987) Allocating resources to reproduction and defense. Bioscience 37:58–67Google Scholar
  6. Berenbaum MR (1995) The chemistry of defense: theory and practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:2–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloom AJ, Chapin FS III, Mooney HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants—an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363–392Google Scholar
  8. Brooks R, Owen-Smith N (1994) Plant defences against mammalian herbivores: are juvenile acacia more heavily defended than mature trees? Bothalia 24:211–215Google Scholar
  9. Bryant JP, Chapin FS III, Klein DR (1983) Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40:357–368Google Scholar
  10. Coley PD (1986) Costs and benefits of defense by tannins in a neotropical tree. Oecologia 70:238–241Google Scholar
  11. Coley PD, Barone JA (1996) Herbivory and plant defenses in tropical forests. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto 19, pp 305–335Google Scholar
  12. Coley PD, Bryant JP, Chapin FS, III (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895–899Google Scholar
  13. De Veau EJI, Schultz JC (1992) Re-assessment of interaction between gut detergents and tannins in Lepidoptera and significance for gypsy moth larvae. J Chem Ecol 18:1437–1453Google Scholar
  14. Gartlan JS, Waterman PG, McKey DB, Mbi CN, Struhsaker TT (1980) A comparative study of the phytochemistry of two African rainforests. Biochem Syst Ecol 8:401–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gleadow RM, Woodrow IE (2000) Temporal and spatial variation in cyanogenic glycosides in Eucalyptus cladocalyx. Tree Physiol 20:591–598Google Scholar
  16. Gowda JH (1997) Physical and chemical response of juvenile Acacia tortilis trees to browsing: experimental evidence. Funct Ecol 11:106–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grubb PJ (1992) A positive distrust in simplicity: lessons from plant defences and from competition among plants and among animals. J Ecol 80:585–610Google Scholar
  18. Gulmon SL, Mooney HA (1986) Costs of defense on plant productivity. In: Givnish TJ (eds) On the economy of plant form and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 681–698Google Scholar
  19. Hartmann T, Theuring C, Schmidt J, Rahier M, Pasteels JM (1999) Biochemical strategy of sequestration of pyrrolizidine alkaloids by adults and larvae of chrysomelid leaf beetles. J Insect Physiol 45:1085–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Janzen DH, Martin PS (1981) Neotropical anachronisms: the fruits the gomphotheres ate. Science 215:19–27Google Scholar
  21. Jones DA (1988) Cyanogenesis in animal-plant interactions. In: Evered D, Harnett S (eds) Cyanide compounds in biology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 151–165Google Scholar
  22. Koricheva J (2002) Meta-analysis of sources of variation in fitness costs of plant antiherbivore defenses. Ecology 83:176–190Google Scholar
  23. McKey D (1979) The distribution of secondary compounds within plants. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, New York, pp 55–133Google Scholar
  24. Ollinger SV, Smith ML, Martin ME, Hallett RA, Goodale CL, Aber JD (2002) Regional variation in foliar chemistry and N cycling among forests of diverse history and composition. Ecology 83:339–355Google Scholar
  25. Poorter H (1989) Plant growth analysis: towards a synthesis of the classical and the functional approach. Physiol Plant 75:237–244Google Scholar
  26. Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1997) From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant functioning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:13730–13734PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Reich PB, Walters MB, Tjoelker MG, Vanderklein D, Buschena C (1998) Photosynthesis and respiration rates depend on leaf and root morphology and nitrogen concentration in nine boreal tree species differing in relative growth rate. Funct Ecol 12:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reich PB, Peterson DW, Wedin DA, Wrage K (2001) Fire and vegetation effects on productivity and nitrogen cycling across a forest-grassland continuum. Ecology 82:1703–1719Google Scholar
  29. Schappert PJ, Shore JS (1999) Cyanogenesis, herbivory and plant defense in Turnera ulmifolia on Jamaica. Ecoscience 6:511–520Google Scholar
  30. Schroeder LA (1986) Changes in tree leaf quality and growth performance and lepidopteran larvae. Ecology 67:1628–1636Google Scholar
  31. Schultz JC, Lechowicz MJ (1986) Host plant, larval age, and feeding behavior influence midgut pH in the gypsy moth ( Lymantria dispar). Oecologia 71:133–137Google Scholar
  32. Skogsmyr I, Fagerstrom T (1992) The cost of anti-herbivory defence: an evaluation of some ecological and physiological factors. Oikos 64:451–457Google Scholar
  33. Swain T (1979) Tannins and lignins. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, New York, pp 657–682Google Scholar
  34. Williams JB (1993) Field metabolism, water requirements, and foraging behavior of wild ostriches in the Namib. Ecology 74:390–404Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Craine
    • 1
    • 2
  • William Bond
    • 3
  • William G. Lee
    • 2
  • Peter B. Reich
    • 4
  • Scott Ollinger
    • 5
  1. 1.100 EcologyUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Landcare ResearchDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of BotanyUniversity of Cape TownRondeboschSouth Africa
  4. 4.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  5. 5.Institute for the Study of Earth Oceans and SpaceUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations