Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 148, Issue 3, pp 414–425 | Cite as

Tall herb herbivory resistance reflects historic exposure to leaf beetles in a boreal archipelago age-gradient

  • Johan A. StenbergEmail author
  • Johanna Witzell
  • Lars Ericson
Plant Animal Interactions

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce the coevolution-by-coexistence hypothesis which predicts that the strength of a coevolutionary adaptation will become increasingly apparent as long as the corresponding selection from an interacting counterpart continues. Hence, evolutionary interactions between plants and their herbivores can be studied by comparing discrete plant populations with known history of herbivore colonization. We studied populations of the host plant, Filipendula ulmaria (meadow sweet), on six islands, in a Bothnian archipelago subject to isostatic rebound, that represent a spatio-temporal gradient of coexistence with its two major herbivores, the specialist leaf beetles Galerucella tenella and Altica engstroemi. Regression analyses showed that a number of traits important for insect-plant interactions (leaf concentrations of individual phenolics and condensed tannins, plant height, G. tenella adult feeding and oviposition) were significantly correlated with island age. First, leaf concentrations of condensed tannins and individual phenolics were positively correlated with island age, suggesting that plant resistance increased after herbivore colonization and continued to increase in parallel to increasing time of past coexistence, while plant height showed a reverse negative correlation. Second, a multi-choice experiment with G. tenella showed that both oviposition and leaf consumption of the host plants were negatively correlated with island age. Third, larvae performed poorly on well-defended, older host populations and well on less-defended, younger populations. Thus, no parameter assessed in this study falsifies the coevolution-by-coexistence hypothesis. We conclude that spatio-temporal gradients present in rising archipelagos offer unique opportunities to address evolutionary interactions, but care has to be taken as abiotic (and other biotic) factors may interact in a complicated way.

Keywords

Coevolution Filipendula ulmaria Galerucella tenella Plant–herbivore interaction Selection gradient 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Kjell Leonardsson for help with the ANOVA resampling (Adult preference) and the statistical analysis, Hans Gardfjell for statistical advice, and Aron Ericson, Ingrid Ericson, Mirjam Ericson, Ann-Helen Mäki, Ann Sehlstedt, and Mårten Söderquist for assistance in the greenhouse experiments. We are also grateful to three anonymous reviewers for comments that improved an earlier draft of this paper. This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR). All experiments presented here comply with the current laws of Sweden.

Supplementary material

442_2006_390_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (55 kb)
Supplementary material

References

  1. Agrawal A (2002) Herbivory and maternal effects: mechanisms and consequences of transgenerational induced plant resistance. Ecology 83:3408–3415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ågren J (1996) Population size, pollinator limitation, and seed set in the self-incompatible herb Lythrum salicaria. Ecology 77:1779–1790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson RM, May RM (1982) Coevolution of hosts and parasites. Parasitology 85:411–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Awmack CS, Leather SR (2002) Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 47:817–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker AJ, Moeed A (1987) Rapid genetic differentiation and founder effects in colonizing populations of common mynas (Acridotheres tristis). Evolution 41:525–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becerra JX (2003) Synchronous coadaptation in an ancient case of herbivory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:12804–12807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Benkman CW, Parchman TL, Favis A, Siepielski AM (2003) Reciprocal selection causes a coevolutionary arms race between crossbills and lodgepole pine. Am Nat 162:182–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1994) Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Boecklen WJ, Mopper S (1998) Local adaptation in specialist herbivores: theory and evidence. In: Mopper S, Strauss SY (eds) Genetic structure and local adaptation in natural insect populations. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradshaw AD (1952) Population of Agrostis tenuis resistant to lead and zinc poisoning. Nature 169:1098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burdon JJ, Thompson JN (1995) Changed patterns of resistance in a population of Linum marginale attacked by the rust pathogen Melampsora lini. J Ecol 83:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burdon JJ, Ericson L, Müller WJ (1995) Temporal and spatial changes in a metapopulation of the rust pathogen Triphragmium ulmariae and its host, Filipendula ulmaria. J Ecol 83:979–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlsson U, Elmqvist T, Wennström A, Ericson L (1990) Infection by pathogens and population age of host plants. J Ecol 78:1094–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donaldson JR, Lindroth RL (2004) Cottonwood leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) performance in relation to variable phytochemistry in juvenile aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). Environ Entomol 33:1505–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ericson L (1981) Aspects of the shore vegetation of the Gulf of Bothnia. Wahlenbergia 7:45–60Google Scholar
  17. Ericson L, Burdon JJ, Müller WJ (2002) The rust pathogen Triphragmium ulmariae as a selective force affecting its host, Filipendula ulmaria. J Ecol 90:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraenkel GS (1959) The raison d’être of secondary plant substances. Science 129:1466–1470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Futuyma DJ (1998) Evolutionary biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  20. Gomulkiewicz R, Thompson JN, Holt RD, Nuismer SL, Hochberg ME (2000) Hot spots, cold spots, and the geographic mosaic theory of coevolution. Am Nat 156:156–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptionist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B 205:581–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawksworth DL, Kalin-Arrayo MT (1995) Magnitude and distribution of biodiversity. In: Heywood VH, Watson RT (eds) Global diversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 107–191Google Scholar
  23. Ikonen A, Tahvanainen J, Roininen H (2001) Chlorogenic acid as an antiherbivore defence of willows against leaf beetles. Entomol Exp Appl 99:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ikonen A, Tahvanainen J, Roininen H (2002) Phenolic secondary compounds as determinants of the host plant preferences of the leaf beetle, Agelastica alni. Chemoecology 12:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iwao K, Rausher MD (1997) Evolution of plant resistance to multiple herbivores: quantifying diffuse coevolution. Am Nat 149:316–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janzen DH (1975) Behavior of Hymenaea courbaril when its predispersal seed predator is absent. Science 189:145–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janzen DH (1980) When is it coevolution? Evolution 34:611–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jassbi AR (2003) Secondary metabolites as stimulants and antifeedants of Salix integra for the leaf beetle Plagiodera versicolora. Z Naturforsch C 58:573–579PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Jermy T (1993) Evolution of insect–plant relationships—a devil’s advocate approach. Entomol Exp Appl 66:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. de Jong PW, Nielsen JV (2000) Reduction in fitness of flea beetles which are homozygous for an autosomal gene conferring resistance to defences in Barbarea vulgaris. Heredity 84:20–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kessler A, Baldwin IT (2004) Herbivore-induced plant vaccination. Part I. The orchestration of plant defenses in nature and their fitness consequences in the wild tobacco Nicotiana attenuata. Plant J 38:639–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Leger EA, Rice KJ (2003) Invasive California poppies (Eschscholzia californica Cham.) grow larger than native individuals under reduced competition. Ecol Lett 6:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marak HB, Biere A, van Damme JMM (2003) Fitness costs of chemical defense in Plantago lanceolata L.: effects of nutrient and competition stress. Evolution 57:2519–2530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Maron JL, Vila M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P (2004) Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol Monogr 74:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. May RM, Anderson RM (1990) Parasite–host coevolution. Parasitology 100:S89–S101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McEvoy (2002) Insect–plant interactions on a planet of weeds. Entomol Exp Appl 104:165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mitchell BK (1988) Adult leaf beetles as models for exploring the chemical basis of host-plant recognition. J Insect Physiol 34:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mopper S, Whitham TG, Price PW (1990) Plant phenotype and interspecific competition determine sawfly performance and density. Ecology 71:2135–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mopper S, Beck M, Simberloff D, Stiling P (1995) Local adaptation and agents of selection in a mobile insect. Evolution 49:810–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mousseau TA, Fox CW (1998) The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nuismer SL, Thompson JN, Gomulkiewicz R (2003) Coevolution between hosts and parasites with partially overlapping geographic ranges. J Evol Biol 16:1337–1345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Park T (1962) Beetles, competition, and populations. Science 138:1369–1375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips BL, Shine R (2004) Adapting to an invasive species: toxic cane toads induce morphological change in Australian snakes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:17150–17155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Puustinen S, Koskela T, Mutikainen P (2004) Direct and ecological costs of resistance and tolerance in the stinging nettle. Oecologia 139:76–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rossiter MC (1996) Incidence and consequences of inherited environmental effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:451–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmitt TM, Hay ME, Lindquist N (1995) Constraints on chemically mediated coevolution: multiple functions for seaweed secondary metabolites. Ecology 76:107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scriber JM (2002) Evolution of insect–plant relationships: chemical constraints, coadaptation, and concordance of insect/plant traits. Entomol Exp Appl 104:217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith DL, Ericson L, Burdon JJ (2003) Epidemiological patterns at multiple spatial scales: an 11-year study of a Triphragmium ulmariaeFilipendula ulmaria metapopulation. J Ecol 91:890–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Snaydon RW, Davies TM (1982) Rapid divergence of plant-populations in response to recent changes in soil-conditions. Evolution 36:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stanton ML (1984) Seed variation in wild radish: effect of seed size on components of seedling and adult fitness. Ecology 65:1105–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strauss SY, Zangerl AR (2002) Plant–insect interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Herrera CM, Pellmyr O (eds) Plant–animal interactions. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Strauss SY, Rudgers JA, Lau JA, Irwin RE (2002) Direct and ecological costs of resistance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 17:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sun BS, Ricardo da Silva JM, Spranger I (1998) Critical factors of vanillin assay for catechins and proanthocyanidins. J Agric Food Chem 46:4267–4274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson JN (1994) The coevolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson JN (1999a) Specific hypotheses on the geographic mosaic of coevolution. Am Nat 153:S1–S14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thompson JN (1999b) What we know and do not know about coevolution: Insect herbivores and plants as a test case. In: Olff H, Brown VK, Drent RH (eds) Herbivores: between plants and predators. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  57. Valovirta EJ (1937) Untersuchungen uber die säkulare Landhebung als pflanzengeographischer Faktor. Acta Botanica Fennica 20:1–173Google Scholar
  58. Visser JH (1986) Host odour perception in phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 31:121–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zangerl AR, Berenbaum MR (2003) Phenotype matching in wild parsnip and parsnip webworms: causes and consequences. Evolution 57:806–815PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan A. Stenberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Johanna Witzell
    • 2
  • Lars Ericson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Environmental ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Umeå Plant Science Centre, Department of Forest Genetics and Plant PhysiologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations