Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 165, Issue 2, pp 417–425 | Cite as

Is extrafloral nectar production induced by herbivores or ants in a tropical facultative ant–plant mutualism?

  • R. J. Bixenmann
  • P. D. Coley
  • T. A. Kursar
Plant-Animal interactions - Original Paper

Abstract

Many plants use induced defenses to reduce the costs of antiherbivore defense. These plants invest energy in growth when herbivores are absent but shunt energy to defense when herbivores are present. In contrast, constitutive defenses are expressed continuously regardless of herbivore presence. Induction has been widely documented in temperate plants but has not been reported from tropical plants. Most tropical plants have higher, more constant herbivore pressure than temperate plants. In this situation, it is hypothesized that constitutive defenses rather than induced defense would be favored. Using natural herbivores of four species of Inga saplings on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, herbivore presence was crossed with ant presence to determine their effects on extrafloral nectar production. Analysis of nectar samples revealed that Inga species do not induce nectar production in response to herbivores. This result is not due to an inability of the plants to respond, as the plants in this study increased nectar production in response to light and ant presence. Contrary to most induction experiments with temperate ecosystem plants, these results demonstrate that tropical plants do not induce one type of defense, and they suggest that the most adaptive defense strategies are different for the two ecosystems.

Keywords

Constitutive defense Inga Facultative mutualism Plant–insect interaction Herbivory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by short-term awards from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, a Grants-in-Aid of Research award from Sigma Xi (RJB) and funding from NSF grants DEB-0640630, DEB-0234936, and OISE-0531803 (PDC and TAK). The field work would not have been possible without the help of our field assistants: Laura Jara, Venicia Cerrud, and Aneth Sarmiento. RJB would like to thank Tania Brenes-Arguedas and John Lokvam for their help during the initial stages of GC method development. We would like to thank all the friends and colleagues on BCI for their ideas and conversation regarding this project and ecology in general. We would also like to thank Joshua Tewksbury and one anonymous reviewer for comments that improved the quality of this paper. The field portion of this study complies with the current laws of the Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente de la Republica de Panama.

References

  1. Apple JL, Feener DH (2001) Ant visitation of extrafloral nectaries of Passiflora: the effects of nectary attributes and ant behavior on patterns in facultative ant–plant mutualisms. Oecologia 127:409–416Google Scholar
  2. Arimura G, Kost C, Boland W (2005) Herbivore-induced, indirect plant defences. Biochim Biophys Acta 1734:91–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker HG, Baker I (1973) Amino-acids in nectar and their evolutionary significance. Nature 241:543–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker HG, Baker I (1982) Chemical constituents of nectar in relation to pollination mechanisms and phyologeny. In: Nitecki MH (ed) Biochemical aspects of evolutionary biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 131–171Google Scholar
  5. Baker HG, Baker I (1983) Floral nectar sugar constituents in relation to pollinator type. In: Jones CE, Little RJ (eds) Handbook of experimental pollination biology. Scientific and Academic Editions, New York, pp 117–141Google Scholar
  6. Bentley BL (1976) Plants bearing extrafloral nectaries and the associated ant community: interhabitat differences in the reduction of herbivore damage. Ecology 57:815–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentley BL (1977) The protective function of ants visiting the extrafloral nectaries of Bixa orellana (Bixaceae). J Ecol 65:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berenbaum MR, Zangerl AR (1994) Costs of inducible defense: protein limitation, growth, and detoxification in parsnip webworms. Ecology 75:2311–2317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjorkman C, Dalin P, Ahrne K (2008) Leaf trichome responses to herbivory in willows: induction, relaxation and costs. N Phytol 179:176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bluthgen N, Gottsberger G, Fiedler K (2004) Sugar and amino acid composition of ant-attended nectar and honeydew sources from an Australian rainforest. Austral Ecol 29:418–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boege K (2004) Induced responses in three tropical dry forest plant species—direct and indirect effects on herbivory. Oikos 107:541–548Google Scholar
  12. Brenes-Arguedas T, Horton MW, Coley PD, Lokvam J, Waddell RA, Meizoso-O’Meara BE, Kursar TA (2006) Contrasting mechanisms of secondary metabolite accumulation during leaf development in two tropical tree species with different leaf expansion strategies. Oecologia 149:91–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bronstein JL, Alarcon R, Geber M (2006) The evolution of plant-insect mutualisms. N Phytol 172:412–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coley PD, Aide TM (1991) Comparisons of herbivory and plant defenses in temperate and tropical broad-leaved forests. In: Price PW, Lewinsohn TM, Fernandes GW, Benson WW (eds) Plant–animal interactions: evolutionary ecology in tropical and temperate regions. Wiley, New York, pp 25–49Google Scholar
  15. Coley PD, Barone JA (1996) Herbivory and plant defenses in tropical forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:305–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coley PD, Kursar TA (1996) Anti-herbivore defenses of young tropical leaves: physiological constraints and ecological trade-offs. In: Mulkey SS, Chazdon RL, Smith AP (eds) Tropical forest plant ecophysiology. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 305–336Google Scholar
  17. Coley PD, Lokvam J, Rudolph K, Bromberg K, Sackett TE, Wright L, Brenes-Arguedas T, Dvorett D, Ring S, Clark A, Baptiste C, Pennington RT, Kursar TA (2005) Divergent defensive strategies of young leaves in two species of Inga. Ecology 86:2633–2643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Croat TB (1978) Flora of Barro Colorado Island. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Dalin P, Bjorkman C (2003) Adult beetle grazing induces willow trichome defence against subsequent larval feeding. Oecologia 134:112–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Darrow K, Bowers MD (1999) Effects of herbivore damage and nutrient level on induction of iridoid glycosides in Plantago lanceolata. J Chem Ecol 25:1427–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Folgarait PJ, Davidson DW (1994) Antiherbivore defenses of myrmecophytic Cecropia under different light regimes. Oikos 71:305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gonzalez-Teuber M, Heil M (2009) The role of extrafloral nectar amino acids for the preferences of facultative and obligate ant mutualists. J Chem Ecol 35:459–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Heil M, McKey D (2003) Protective ant–plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:425–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heil M, Silva Bueno JC (2007) Within-plant signaling by volatiles leads to induction and priming of an indirect plant defense in nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5467–5472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Heil M, Fiala B, Baumann B, Linsenmair KE (2000) Temporal, spatial and biotic variations in extrafloral nectar secretion by Macaranga tanarius. Funct Ecol 14:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heil M, Koch T, Hilpert A, Fiala B, Boland W, Linsenmair KE (2001) Extrafloral nectar production of the ant-associated plant, Macaranga tanarius, is an induced, indirect, defensive response elicited by jasmonic acid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1083–1088CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Heil M, Rattke J, Boland W (2005) Post secretory hydrolysis of nectar sucrose and specialization in ant–plant mutualism. Science 308:560–563Google Scholar
  28. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335Google Scholar
  29. Holdridge L, Grenke W, Hatheway W, Liang T, Tosi J (1971) Forest environments in tropical life zones: a pilot study. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. Karban R, Agrawal AA, Thaler JS, Adler LS (1999) Induced plant responses and information content about risk of herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:443–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kersch MF, Fonseca CR (2005) Abiotic factors and the conditional outcome of an ant–plant mutualism. Ecology 86:2117–2126Google Scholar
  33. Koptur S (1984) Experimental evidence for defense of Inga (Mimosoideae) saplings by ants. Ecology 65:1787–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koptur S (1985) Alternative defenses against herbivores in Inga (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) over an elevational gradient. Ecology 66:1639–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koptur S (1989) Is extrafloral nectar production an inducible defense? In: Bock JH, Linhart YB (eds) The evolutionary ecology of plants. Westview, Boulder, pp 323–339Google Scholar
  36. Koptur S (1992) Extrafloral nectary-mediated interactions between insects and plants. In: Bernays E (ed) Insect–plant interactions, vol 4. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 81–129Google Scholar
  37. Koptur S (1994) Floral and extrafloral nectars of Costa Rican Inga trees: a comparison of their constituents and composition. Biotropica 26:276–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koptur S (2005) Nectar as fuel for plant protectors. In: Wackers FL, PCJv Rijn, Bruin J (eds) Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects: a protective mutualism and its applications. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 75–108Google Scholar
  39. Kost C, Heil M (2005) Increased availability of extrafloral nectar reduces herbivory in Lima bean plants (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae). Basic Appl Ecol 6:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kursar TA, Coley PD (1992) Delayed development of the photosynthetic apparatus in tropical rain forest species. Funct Ecol 6:411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kursar TA, Coley PD (2003) Convergence in defense syndromes of young leaves in tropical rainforests. Biochem Syst Ecol 31:929–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kursar TA, Wolfe BT, Epps MJ, Coley PD (2006) Food quality, competition, and parasitism influence feeding preference in a neotropical lepidopteran. Ecology 87:3058–3069CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lanza J (1988) Ant preferences for Passiflora nectar mimics that contain amino acids. Biotropica 20:341–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lanza J, Vargo EL, Pulim S, Yu Zong C (1993) Preferences of the fire ants Solenopsis invicta and S. geminata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) for amino acid and sugar components of extrafloral nectars. Environ Entomol 22:411–417Google Scholar
  45. Leigh EG (1999) Tropical forest ecology: a view from Barro Colorado Island. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Litvak ME, Monson RK (1998) Patterns of induced and constitutive monoterpene production in conifer needles in relation to insect herbivory. Oecologia 114:531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lokvam J, Kursar TA (2005) Divergence in structure and activity of phenolic defenses in young leaves of two co-occurring Inga species. J Chem Ecol 31:2563–2580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Lokvam J, Coley PD, Kursar TA (2004) Cinnamoyl glucosides of catechin and dimeric procyanidins from young leaves of Inga umbellifera (Fabaceae). Phytochemistry 65:351–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lokvam J, Brenes-Arguedas T, Lee JS, Coley PD, Kursar TA (2006) Allelochemic function for a primary metabolite: the case of L-tyrosine hyper-production in Inga umbellifera (Fabaceae). Am J Bot 93:1109–1115Google Scholar
  50. Ness JH (2003) Catalpa bignonioides alters extrafloral nectar production after herbivory and attracts ant bodyguards. Oecologia 134:210–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Pacini E, Nepi M (2007) Nectar production and presentation. In: Nicolson SW, Nepi M, Pacini E (eds) Nectaries and nectar. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 167–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Richards LA, Coley PD (2007) Seasonal and habitat differences affect the impact of food and predation on herbivores: a comparison between gaps and understory of a tropical forest. Oikos 116:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richards LA, Windsor DM (2007) Seasonal variation of arthropod abundance in gaps and the understorey of a lowland moist forest in Panama. J Trop Ecol 23:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rohde S, Wahl M (2008) Antifeeding defense in baltic macroalgae: induction by direct grazing versus waterborne cues. J Phycol 44:85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rudgers JA (2004) Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: selection in a facultative ant–plant mutualism. Ecology 85:192–205Google Scholar
  56. Rudgers JA, Gardener MC (2004) Extrafloral nectar as a resource mediating multispecies interactions. Ecology 85:1495–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schupp EW, Feener DH (1991) Phylogeny, lifeform, and habitat dependence of ant-defended plants in a Panamanian forest. In: Huxley CR, Cutler DF (eds) Ant–plant interactions. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Scutareanu P, Bruin J, Posthumus MA, Drukker B (2003) Constitutive and herbivore-induced volatiles in pear, alder and hawthorn trees. Chemoecology 13:63–74Google Scholar
  59. Shiojiri K, Karban R (2006) Plant age, communication, and resistance to herbivores: young sagebrush plants are better emitters and receivers. Oecologia 149:214–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith LL, Lanza J, Garon CS (1990) Amino acid concentrations in extrafloral nectar of Impatiens sultani increase after simulated herbivory. Ecology 71:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stamp N (2003) Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q Rev Biol 78:23–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Wold EN, Marquis RJ (1997) Induced defense in white oak: effects on herbivores and consequences for the plant. Ecology 78:1356–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wooley SC, Donaldson JR, Gusse AC, Lindroth RL, Stevens MT (2007) Extrafloral nectaries in aspen (Populus tremuloides): heritable genetic variation and herbivore-induced expression. Ann Bot 100:1337–1346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Zimmerman M (1988) Nectar production, flowering phenology, and strategies for pollination. In: Doust JL, Doust LL (eds) Plant reproductive ecology: patterns and strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 157–178Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations