, Volume 142, Issue 3, pp 413–420

Quality or quantity: the direct and indirect effects of host plants on herbivores and their natural enemies

Plant Animal Interactions


Resource quality (plant nitrogen) and resource quantity (plant density) have often been argued to be among the most important factors influencing herbivore densities. A difficulty inherent in the studies that manipulate resource quality, by changing nutrient levels, is that resource quantity can be influenced simultaneously, i.e. fertilized plants grow more. In this study we disentangled the potentially confounding effects of plant quality and quantity on herbivore trophic dynamics by separately manipulating nutrients and plant density, while simultaneously reducing pressure from natural enemies (parasitoids) in a fully factorial design. Plant quality of the sea oxeye daisy, Borrichia frutescens, a common coastal species in Florida, was manipulated by adding nitrogen fertilizer to increase and sugar to decrease available nitrogen. Plant density was manipulated by pulling by hand 25 or 50% of Borrichia stems on each plot. Because our main focal herbivore was a gall making fly, Asphondylia borrichiae, which attacks only the apical meristems of plants, manipulating plant nitrogen levels was a convenient and reliable way to change plant quality without impacting quantity because fertilizer and sugar altered plant nitrogen content but not plant density. Our other focal herbivore was a sap-sucker, Pissonotus quadripustulatus, which taps the main veins of leaves. Parasitism of both herbivores was reduced via yellow sticky traps that caught hymenopteran parasitoids. Plant quality significantly affected the per stem density of both herbivores, with fertilization increasing, and sugar decreasing the densities of the two species but stem density manipulations had no significant effects. Parasitoid removal significantly increased the densities of both herbivores. Top-down manipulations resulted in a trophic cascade, as the density of Borrichia stems decreased significantly on parasitoid removal plots. This is because reduced parasitism increases gall density and galls can kill plant stems. In this system, plant quality and natural enemies impact per stem herbivore population densities but plant density does not.


Host plant quantity Natural enemies Herbivores Trophic cascade 


  1. Cornell HV, Hawkins BA (1995) Survival patterns and mortality sources of herbivorous insects: some demographic trends. Am Nat 145:563–593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cornell HV, Hawkins BA et al (1998) Towards an empirically-based theory of herbivore demography. Ecol Entomol 23:340–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dial R, Roughgarden J (1995) Experimental removal of insectivores from rain forest canopy: direct and indirect effects. Ecology 76:1821–1834Google Scholar
  4. Dyer LA, Letourneau DK (1999) Trophic cascades in a complex terrestrial community. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 96:5072–5076CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Faeth SH (1994) Induced plant responses: effects on parasitoids and other natural enemies of phytophagous insects. In: Hawkins BA, Sheehan W (eds) Parasitoid community ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 245–260Google Scholar
  6. Forkner RE, Hunter MD (2000) What goes up must come down? Nutrient addition and predation pressure on oak herbivores. Ecology 81:1588–1600Google Scholar
  7. Gomez JM, Zamora R (1994) Top-down effects in a tritrophic system: parasitoids enhance plant fitness. Ecology 75:1023–1030Google Scholar
  8. Gratton C, Denno RF (2003) Inter-year carryover effects of a nutrient pulse on Spartina plants, herbivores and natural enemies. Ecology 84:2692–2707Google Scholar
  9. Hairston NG, Smith FE et al (1960) Community structure, population control, and competition. Am Nat 44:421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halaj J, Wise DH (2001) Terrestrial trophic cascades: how much do they trickle? Am Nat 157:262–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hawkins BA, Cornell HV et al (1997) Predators, parasitoids and pathogens as mortality agents in phytophagous insect populations. Ecology 78:2145–2152Google Scholar
  12. Hunter MD (2001) Multiple approaches to estimating the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up forces on insect populations: experiments, life tables, and time-series analysis. Basic Appl Ecol 4:293–310Google Scholar
  13. Hunter MD, Price PW (1992) Playing chutes and ladders: heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73:724–732Google Scholar
  14. Jonasson S, Vestergaard et al (1996a) Effects of carbohydrate amendments on nutrient partitioning, plant and microbial performance of a grassland shrub ecosystem. Oikos 75:220–226Google Scholar
  15. Jonasson S, Michelsen A et al (1996b) Microbial biomass, C, N and P in two ostic soils and responses to addition of NPK fertilizer and sugar: complications for plant nutrient uptake. Oecologia 106:507–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karieva P (1983) Influence of vegetation texture on herbivore populations: resource concentration and herbivore movement. In: Denno RF, McClure MS (eds) Variable plants and herbivores in natural and managed systems. Academic, New York, pp 259–289Google Scholar
  17. Letourneau DK, Dyer LA (1998) Experimental test in lowland tropical rain forest shows topdown effects through four trophic levels. Ecology 79:1678–1687Google Scholar
  18. Luginbill P, McNeil F (1958) Influence of seedling density and row spacings on the resistance of spring wheats to the wheat stem sawfly. J Econ Entomol 51:804–808Google Scholar
  19. Machinski J, Whitham TG (1989) The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability and timing. Am Nat 134:1–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marquis RJ, Whelan CJ (1994) Insectivorous birds increase growth of white oak through consumption of leaf chewing insects. Ecology 75:2007–2014Google Scholar
  21. Mattson WJ (1980) Herbivory in relation to nitrogen content. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:119–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayse M (1978) Effects of spacing between rows on soya bean arthropod populations. J Anim Ecol 15:439–450Google Scholar
  23. McNeil S, Southwood TRE (1978) The role of nitrogen in the development of insect/plant relationships. In Harbone JB (ed) Biochemical aspects of plant and animal coevolution. Academic, London, pp 77–89Google Scholar
  24. van der Meijden E, Klinkhamer PGL (2000) Conflicting interests of plants and the natural enemies of herbivores. Oikos 89:202–208Google Scholar
  25. Michelsen A, Graglia E et al (1999) Different responses of grass and a dwarf shrub to long-term changes in soil microbial biomass, C, N and P following factorial addition of NPK fertilizer, fungicide, and labile carbon to heath. New Phytol 143:523–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moon DC, Stiling P (2000) Relative importance of abiotically induced direct and indirect effects on a salt marsh herbivore. Ecology 81:470–481Google Scholar
  27. Moon DC, Stiling P (2002a) The effects of salinity and nutrients on a tritrophic salt marsh system. Ecology 83:2465–2476Google Scholar
  28. Moon DC, Stiling P (2002b) Top-down, bottom-up, or side to side? Within-trophic-level interactions modify trophic dynamics of a salt marsh herbivore. Oikos 98:480–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moon DC, Stiling P (2002c) The influence of species identity and herbivore feeding mode on top-down and bottom-up effects in a saltmarsh system. Oecologia 133:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moon DC, Stiling P (2003) The influence of legacy effects and recovery from perturbations in a tri-trophic saltmarsh complex. Ecol Entomol 28:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pace ML, Cole JJ et al (1999) Trophic cascades revealed in diverse ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 14:483–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Parry D, Herms DA et al (2003) Responses of an insect folivore and its parasitoids to multi year experimental defoliation of aspen. Ecology 84:1768–1783Google Scholar
  33. Persson L (1999) Trophic cascades: abiding heterogeneity and the trophic level concept at the end of the road. Oikos 85:385–397Google Scholar
  34. Polis GA (1999) Why are parts of the world green? Multiple factors control productivity and the distribution of biomass. Oikos 86:3–15Google Scholar
  35. Polis GA, Strong DR (1996) Food web complexity and community dynamics. Am Nat 147:813–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polis GA, Sears ALW et al (2000) When is a trophic cascade a trophic cascade? Trends Ecol Evol 15:473–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Price PW, Bouton CE et al (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between herbivores and natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pringle CM, Hamazaki T (1997) Effects of fishes on algal response to storms in a tropical stream. Ecology 78:2432–2442Google Scholar
  39. Rhiands M, English-Loeb G (2003) Testing the resource concentration hypothesis with tarnished plant bug on strawberry: density of hosts and patch size influence the interaction between abundance of nymphs and incidence of damage. Ecol Entomol 28:348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Root RB (1973) Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea) . Ecol Monogr 43:95–124Google Scholar
  41. Rossi AM, Stiling P (1995) Interspecific variation in growth rate, gall size, and parasitism of galls induced by Asphondylia borrichiae. Ann Entomol Soc Am 88:39–44Google Scholar
  42. Rossi AM, Stiling PD et al (1992) Does gall diameter affect the parasitism rate of Asphondylia borrichiae (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)? Ecol Entomol 17:149–154Google Scholar
  43. Schmidt IK, Michelsen A et al (1997) Effects on plant production after addition of labile carbon to arctic/alpine soils. Oecologia 112:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmitz OJ, Hambaeck PA, Beckerman AP (2000) Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am Nat 155:141–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Shaver GR, Chapin III FS (1980) Response to fertilization by various plant growth forms in an Alaskan tundra: nutrient accumulation and growth. Ecology 61:662–675Google Scholar
  46. Slansky F Jr, Rodriguez JG (eds) (1987) Nutrition ecology of insects, mites, spiders and related invertebrates. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Stiling P, Rossi AM (1996) Complex interactions of genotype and environment on insect herbivores and their enemies. Ecology 77:2212–2218Google Scholar
  48. Stiling P, Rossi AM (1997) Experimental manipulations of top-down and bottom-up factors in a tri-trophic system. Ecology 78:1602–1606Google Scholar
  49. Stiling PD, Throckmorton A et al (1991) Biology and rates of parasitism of the salt-marsh-inhabiting planthoppers Prokelisia marginata and P. dolus. Florida Entomologist 74:81–87Google Scholar
  50. Stiling P, Rossi AM et al (1999) Weak competition between coastal insect herbivores. Florida Entomol 82:599–608Google Scholar
  51. Strong DR (1992) Are trophic cascades all wet? Differentiation and donor-control in speciose ecosystems. Ecology 73:747–754Google Scholar
  52. Turlings TCJ, Loughgrin JH et al (1995) How caterpillar-damaged plants protect themselves by attracting parasitic wasps. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:4169–4174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Turner J, Olsen PR (1976) Nitrogen relations in a Douglas fir plantation. Ann Bot 40:1185–1193Google Scholar
  54. Wallace JB, Eggert SL et al (1997) Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277:102–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waring GL, Cobb NS (1992) The impact of plant stress on herbivore population dynamics. In: Bernays E (ed) Insect-plant interactions, vol 4. CRC, Boca Raton , pp 168–226Google Scholar
  56. White TCR (1978) The importance of a relative shortage of food in animal ecology. Oecologia 33:71–86Google Scholar
  57. Wooton JT, Power ME (1993) Productivity, consumers, and the structure of a river food chain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:1384–1387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Wooton JT, Parker MS et al (1996) Effects of disturbance on river food webs. Science 273:1558–1561Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations