Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 168, Issue 1, pp 131–139 | Cite as

Mycorrhizal colonization does not affect tolerance to defoliation of an annual herb in different light availability and soil fertility treatments but increases flower size in light-rich environments

  • Ana Aguilar-Chama
  • Roger Guevara
Plant-Animal interactions - Original Paper

Abstract

Heterogeneous distribution of resources in most plant populations results in a mosaic of plant physiological responses tending to maximize plant fitness. This includes plant responses to trophic interactions such as herbivory and mycorrhizal symbiosis which are concurrent in most plants. We explored fitness costs of 50% manual defoliation and mycorrhizal inoculation in Datura stramonium at different light availability and soil fertility environments in a greenhouse experiment. Overall, we showed that non-inoculated and mycorrhiza-inoculated plants did not suffer from 50% manual defoliation in all the tested combinations of light availability and soil fertility treatments, while soil nutrients and light availability predominately affected plant responses to the mycorrhizal inoculation. Fifty percent defoliation had a direct negative effect on reproductive traits whereas mycorrhiza-inoculated plants produced larger flowers than non-inoculated plants when light was not a limiting factor. Although D. stramonium is a facultative selfing species, other investigations had shown clear advantages of cross-pollination in this species; therefore, the effects of mycorrhizal inoculation on flower size observed in this study open new lines of inquiry for our understanding of plant responses to trophic interactions. Also in this study, we detected shifts in the limiting resources affecting plant responses to trophic interactions.

Keywords

Cross-pollination Floral display Seed set Solanaceae Trophic interactions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Antonio Castillo for all the logistic support in setting up the greenhouses, Reyna Hernández for assistance throughout the experiment, Mimi Vega-Fruits and Armando Aguirre for their help at harvest and Ing. Francisco J. Guzmán (Centro de Conservación y Educación Ambiental Francisco Javier Clavijero) for all his logistical support, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on early drafts of this study. Funding was provided by CONACYT, (scholarship 190667 awarded to A.ACh) and the Red de Biología Evolutiva INECOL. The reported experiment complied with the current legislation on environmental health of Mexico.

References

  1. Adler LS, Bronstein JL (2004) Attracting antagonists: does floral nectar increase leaf herbivory? Ecology 85:1519–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker HG (1961) The adaptation of flowering plants to nocturnal and crepuscular pollinators. Q Rev Biol 36:64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell G (1985) On the function of flowers. Proc R Soc Lond B 224:223–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bello-Bedoy R, Núñez-Farfán J (2010) Cost of inbreeding in resistance to herbivores in Datura stramonium. Ann Bot 105:747–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett AE, Bever JD (2007) Mycorrhizal species differentially alter plant growth and response to herbivory. Ecology 88:210–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett AE, Alers-García J, Bever JD (2006) Three-way interactions among mutualistic mycorrhizal fungi, plants, and plant enemies: hypotheses and synthesis. Am Nat 167:141–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonser SP, Aarssen LW (2003) Allometry and development in herbaceous plants: functional responses of meristem allocation to light and nutrient availability. Am J Bot 90:404–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borowicz VA (1997) A fungal root symbiont modifies plant resistance to an insect herbivore. Oecologia 112:534–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cyr H, Face ML (1993) Magnitude and patterns of herbivory in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Nature 361:148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finlay R, Söderström B (1992) Mycorrhiza and carbon flow to the soil. In: Allen MF (ed) Mycorrhizal functioning: an integral plant–fungal process. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 134–160Google Scholar
  11. Fitter AH, Hay RKM (2002) Environmental physiology of plants, 3rd edn. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  12. Fogel R, Hunt G (1983) Contribution of mycorrhizae and soil fungi to nutrient cycling in a Douglas-fir ecosystem. Can J For Res 13:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fornoni J, Núñez-Farfán J (2000) Evolutionary ecology of Datura stramonium: genetic variation and costs for tolerance to defoliation. Evolution 54:789–797PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fornoni J, Valverde PL, Núñez-Farfán J (2004) Population variation in the cost and benefit of tolerance and resistance against herbivory in Datura stramonium. Evolution 58:1696–1704PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gange AC, Smith AK (2005) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence visitation rates of pollinating insects. Ecol Entomol 30:600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gange AC, Bower E, Brown VK (2002) Differential effects of insect herbivory on arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization. Oecologia 131:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garrido E, Bennett AE, Fornoni J, Strauss SY (2010) Variation in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization modifies the expresion of tolerance to above-ground defoliation. J Ecol 98:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hawkes CV, Sullivan JJ (2001) The impact of herbivory on plants in different resource conditions: a meta-analysis. Ecology 82:2045–2058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson NC, Graham JH, Smith FA (1997) Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism–parasitism continuum. New Phytol 135:575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson NC, Wilson GWT, Bowker MA, Wilson JA, Miller RM (2010) Resource limitation is a driver of local adaptation in mycorrhizal symbioses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:2093–2098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klironomos JN, Hart MM (2002) Colonization of roots by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi using different sources of inoculum. Mycorrhiza 12:181–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klironomos JN, McCune J, Moutoglis P (2004) Species of arbuscular mycorrhizal affect mycorrhizal responses to simulated herbivory. Appl Soil Ecol 26:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koide RT, Dickie IA (2002) Effects of mycorrhizal fungi on plant populations. Plant Soil 244:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koske R, Gemma J (1989) A modified procedure for staining roots to detect VA mycorrhizas. Mycol Res 92:486–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kula AAR, Hartnett DC, Wilson GWT (2005) Effects of mycorrizal symbiosis on tallgrass prairie plant–herbivore interactions. Ecol Lett 8:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lambers H, Chapin FS III, Pons TL (2008) Plant physiological ecology, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lu X, Koide RT (1994) The effects of mycorrhizal infection on components of plant growth and reproduction. New Phytol 128:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGonigle TP, Miller MH, Evans DG, Fairchild GL, Swan JA (1990) A new method which gives an objective measure of colonization of roots by vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 115:495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Motten AF, Antonovics J (1992) Determinants of outcrossing rate in a predominantly self-fertilizing weed, Datura stramonium (Solanaceae). Am J Bot 79:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Motten AF, Stone JL (2000) Heritability of stigma position and the effect of stigma-anther separation on outcrossing in a predominantly self-fertilizing weed, Datura stramonium (Solanaceae). Am J Bot 87:339–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nourtila C, Kytöviita MM, Tuomi J (2004) Mycorrhizal symbiosis has contrasting effects on fitness components in Campanula rotundifolia. New Phytol 164:543–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Núñez-Farfán JS (1991) Biología evolutiva de Datura stramonium L. en el centro de México: selección natural de la resistencia a los herbívoros, sistema de cruzamiento y variación genética intra e interpoblacional. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  33. Núñez-Farfán J, Cabrales VRA, Dirzo R (1996) Mating system consequences on resistance to herbivory and life history traits in Datura stramonium. Am J Bot 83:1041–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pezzani F, Motaña C, Guevara R (2006) Associations between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and grasses in the successional context of a two-phase mosaic in the Chihuahuan desert. Mycorrhiza 16:285–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pietikäinen A, Mikola J, Vestberg M, Setälä H (2009) Defoliation effects on Plantago lanceolata resource allocation and soil decomposers in relation to AM symbiosis and fertilization. Soil Biol Biochem 41:2328–2335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pinheiro J, Douglas B, Saikat D, Deepayan S, the R Core team (2009) nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package ver. 3.1–92. http://www.R-project.org
  37. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
  38. Smith SE, Read DJ (2008) Mycorrhizal symbiosis, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Stone JL, Motten AF (2002) Anther-stigma separation is associated with inbreeding depression in Datura stramonium a predominantly self-fertilizing annual. Evolution 56:2187–2195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Strauss SY, Irwin RE (2004) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of multispecies plant–animal interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:435–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valverde PL, Fornoni J, Núñez-Farfán J (2003) Evolutionary ecology of Datura stramonium: equal plant fitness benefits of growth and resistance against herbivory. J Evol Biol 16:127–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Kleunen M, Fischer M, Johnson SD (2007) Reproductive assurance through self-fertilization does not vary with population size in the alien invasive plant Datura stramonium. Oikos 116:1400–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Varga S, Kytöviita MM (2009) Sexual differences in response to simulated herbivory in the gynodioecious herb Geranium sylvaticum. Plant Ecol 202:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vega-Frutis R, Guevara R (2009) Different arbuscular mycorrhizal interactions in male and female plants of wild Carica papaya L. Plant Soil 322:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Warnes GR (2009) gmodels: Various R programming tools for model fitting. R package version. 2.15.0. http://www.r-project.org
  46. Wiens JA (2000) Ecological heterogeneity: an ontogeny of concepts and approaches. In: Hutchings MJ, John EA, Stewart AJA (eds) The ecological consequences of environmental heterogeneity. Blackwell, Cambridge, pp 9–33Google Scholar
  47. Wise MJ, Abrahamson WG (2005) Beyond the compensatory continuum: environmental resource levels and plant tolerance of herbivory. Oikos 109:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wise MJ, Abrahamson WG (2007) Effects of resource availability on tolerance of herbivory: a review and assessment of three opposing models. Am Nat 169:443–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolfe BE, Husband BC, Klironomos JN (2005) Effects of a belowground mutualism on an aboveground mutualism. Ecol Lett 8:218–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Red de Biología EvolutivaInstituto de Ecología A.C.VeracruzMexico

Personalised recommendations