Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 140, Issue 2, pp 234–240 | Cite as

Defoliation increases carbon limitation in ectomycorrhizal symbiosis of Betula pubescens

  • Annamari MarkkolaEmail author
  • Karita Kuikka
  • Pasi Rautio
  • Esa Härmä
  • Marja Roitto
  • Juha Tuomi
Ecophysiology

Abstract

Boreal forest trees are highly dependent on root-colonizing mycorrhizal fungi. Since the maintenance of mycorrhizal symbiosis implies a significant carbon cost for the host plant, the loss of photosynthetic leaf area due to herbivory is expected to reduce the host investment in mycorrhizae. We tested this hypothesis in a common garden experiment by exposing ectomycorrhizal white birch (Betula pubescens Ehrh.) seedlings to simulated insect defoliation of 50 or 100% intensity during either the previous or the current summer or repeatedly during both seasons before harvest. The shoot and root growth of the seedlings were distinctly reduced by both 100% defoliation and repeated 50% defoliation, and they were more strongly affected by previous-year than current-year defoliation. The root to shoot ratio significantly decreased after 100% defoliation, indicating reduced proportional allocation to the roots. Ergosterol concentration (i.e. fungal biomass) in the fine roots decreased by 100% defoliation conducted either in the year of harvest or in both years. No such decrease occurred following the 100% defoliation conducted in the previous year, indicating the importance of current photosynthates for fungal symbionts. The trend was similar in the colonization percentage of thick-mantled mycorrhizae in the roots, the most marked decline occurring in the repeatedly defoliated seedlings. The present results thus support the prediction that the plant investment in ectomycorrhizae may decline as a response to foliage loss. Moreover, the colonization percentage of thick-mantled mycorrhizae correlated positively with the ratio of leaf to heterotrophic plant biomass in the defoliated birch seedlings, but not in the control ones. This tends to indicate a stronger carbon limitation of ectomycorrhizal colonization in defoliated seedlings.

Keywords

Below-ground allocation Cost of symbiosis Defoliation Ectomycorrhiza Herbivory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The personnel at the Botanical Garden of University of Oulu are warmly thanked for providing facilities and help during the experiment. We are grateful to Dr. Ulla Ahonen-Jonnarth and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript. Cristina Torres Rosell is acknowledged for conducting the colonization assessments on the white birch roots. We also thank Sirkka-Liisa Leinonen for revising the language of the manuscript. The study was financially supported by The Academy of Finland (Nos. 40951 and 157685), The Finnish Foundation for Natural Resources, The Oskar Öflund Foundation, The Finnish Union of Concordia and The Kone Foundation.

References

  1. Antibus RK, Sinsabaugh RL (1993) The extraction and quantification of ergosterol from ectomycorrhizal fungi and roots. Mycorrhiza 3:137–144Google Scholar
  2. Beutler H-O, Michal G, Beistingl G (1978) Enzymatische Analyse von komplexen Kohlenhydratgemischen. Dtsch Lebensm-Rundsch 74:431–434Google Scholar
  3. Bloom AJ, Chapin FS III, Mooney HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants—an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363–392Google Scholar
  4. Borowicz VA (1993) Effects of benomyl, clipping, and competition on pre-reproductive growth of Lotus corniculatus. Can J Bot 71:1169–1175Google Scholar
  5. Bryant JP, Chapin FS III, Klein DR (1983) Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plant in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40:357–368Google Scholar
  6. Colpaert JV, Van Asshe JA, Luijtens K (1992) The growth of the extramatrical mycelium of ectomycorrhizal fungi and the growth response of Pinus sylvestris L. New Phytol 120:127–135Google Scholar
  7. Crawley MJ (1997) Plant-herbivore dynamics. In: Crawley MJ (ed) Plant ecology, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 401–474Google Scholar
  8. Del Vecchio TA, Gehring CA, Cobb NS, Whitham TG (1993) Negative effects of scale insect herbivory on the mycorrhizae of juvenile pinyon pine. Ecology 74:2297–2302Google Scholar
  9. Finlay R, Söderström B (1992) Mycorrhiza and carbon flow to the soil. In: Allen MF (ed) Mycorrhizal functioning: an intregrative plant-fungal process. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 134–160Google Scholar
  10. Gehring CA, Whitham TG (1991) Herbivore-driven mycorrhizal mutualism in insect-susceptible pinyon pine. Nature 353:556–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gehring CA, Whitham TG (1994) Interactions between aboveground herbivores and the mycorrhizal mutualists of plants. Trends Ecol Evol 9:251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gehring CA, Whitham TG (2002) Mycorrhizae-herbivore interactions: population and community consequences. In: van der Hejden MGA, Sanders IR (eds) Mycorrhizal ecology. Ecological studies 157. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 295–320Google Scholar
  13. Godbold DL, Berntson GM (1997) Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration changes ectomycorrhizal morphotype assemblage in Betula papyrifera. Tree Physiol 17:347–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawkes CV, Sullivan JJ (2001) The impact of herbivory on plants in different resource conditions: a meta-analysis. Ecology 82:2045–5058Google Scholar
  15. Hoeksema JD, Kummel M (2003) Ecological persistence of the plant-mycorrhizal mutualism: a hypothesis from species coexistence theory. Am Nat 162:S40–S50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoogesteger J, Karlsson PS (1992) Effects of defoliation on radial stem growth and photosynthesis in the mountain birch (Betula pubescens ssp. tortuosa). Funct Ecol 6:317–323Google Scholar
  17. Kosola KR, Dickmann DI, Paul EA, Parry D (2001) Repeated insect defoliation effects on growth, nitrogen acquisition, carbohydrates, and root demography of poplars. Oecologia 129:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kozlowski TT (1991) Effects of environmental stresses on deciduous trees. In: Mooney HA, Winner WE, Pell EJ (eds) Response of plants to multiple stresses. Academic, San Diego, pp 391–411Google Scholar
  19. Kuikka K, Härmä E, Markkola AM, Rautio P, Roitto M, Saikkonen K, Ahonen-Jonnarth U, Finlay R, Tuomi J (2003) Severe defoliation of Scots pine reduces reproductive investment by ectomycorrhizal symbionts. Ecology 84:2051–2061Google Scholar
  20. MacDonald AD, Mothersill DH (1983) Shoot development in Betula papyrifera. I. Shoot-root organogenesis. Can J Bot 61:3049–3065Google Scholar
  21. MacDonald AD, Mothersill DH, Caesar JC (1984) Shoot development in Betula papyrifera. III. Long-shoot organogenesis. Can J Bot 62:437–445Google Scholar
  22. Meyer GA, Root RB (1993) Effects of herbivorous insects and soil fertility on reproduction of goldenrod. Ecology 74:1117–1128Google Scholar
  23. Millard P, Hester A, Wendler R, Baillie G (2001) Interspecific defoliation responses of trees depend on sites of winter storage responses. Funct Ecol 15:535–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norusis MJ (1993) SPSS for windows, advanced statistics 6.0. SPSS, Chicago Google Scholar
  25. Nylund J-E, Wallander H (1992) Ergosterol analysis as a means of quantifying mycorrhizal biomass. Met Microbiol 24:77–88Google Scholar
  26. Obeso JR (1993) Does defoliation affect reproductive out in herbaceous perennials and woody plants in different ways? Funct Ecol 7:150–155Google Scholar
  27. Pregitzer KS (2002) Fine roots of trees—a new perspective. New Phytol 154:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raitio H, Paukkonen K, Kauppi A (1994) Effects of defoliation, nitrogen nutrition, and temperature on leafing and root carbohydrates of birch seedlings. Can J For Res 24:1914–1920Google Scholar
  29. Rautio P, Markkola AM, Martel J, Tuomi J, Härmä E, Kuikka K, Siitonen A, Leal Riesco I, Roitto M (2002) Developmental plasticity and inducible morphological responses to defoliation in birch leaves. Oikos 98:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. de la Rosa T, Aphalo PJ, Lehto T (1998) Effects of far-red light on the growth, mycorrhizas and mineral nutrition of Scots pine seedlings. Plant Soil 201:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rossow LJ, Bryant JP, Kielland K (1997) Effects of above-ground browsing by mammals on ectomycorrhizal infection in an early successional taiga ecosystem. Oecologia 110:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruess RW, Hendrick RL, Bryant JP (1998) Regulation of fine root dynamics by mammalian browsers in early successional Alaskan taiga forests. Ecology 79:2706–2720Google Scholar
  33. Saikkonen K, Ahonen-Jonnarth U, Markkola AM, Helander M, Tuomi J, Roitto M, Ranta H (1999) Defoliation and mycorrhizal symbiosis: a functional balance between carbon sources and belowground sinks. Ecol Lett 2:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sauter JJ, van Cleve B (1992) Seasonal variation of amino acids in the xylem sap of “Populus × Canadiensis” and its relation to protein body remobilisation. Trees 7:26–32Google Scholar
  35. Smith SE, Read DJ (1997) Mycorrhizal symbiosis, 2nd edn. Academic, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Vranjic JA, Ash JE (1997) Scale insects consistently affect roots more than shoots: the impact on infestation size on growth of eucalypt seedlings. J Ecol 85:143–149Google Scholar
  38. Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu B, Nara K, Hogetsu T (2001) Can 14C labelled photosynthetic products move between Pinus densiflora seedlings linked by ectomycorrhizal mycelia? New Phytol 149:137–146Google Scholar
  40. Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical analysis. 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annamari Markkola
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karita Kuikka
    • 1
  • Pasi Rautio
    • 1
    • 2
  • Esa Härmä
    • 1
  • Marja Roitto
    • 3
    • 4
  • Juha Tuomi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Forest Research InstituteParkano Research StationParkanoFinland
  3. 3.Department of Ecological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiLahtiFinland
  4. 4.Ecological ProductionMTT Agrifood Research FinlandMikkeliFinland

Personalised recommendations