Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 169, Issue 1, pp 49–60 | Cite as

Protein storage and root:shoot reallocation provide tolerance to damage in a hybrid willow system

  • Cris G. HochwenderEmail author
  • Dong H. Cha
  • Mary Ellen Czesak
  • Robert S. Fritz
  • Rebecca R. Smyth
  • Arlen D. Kaufman
  • Brandi Warren
  • Ashley Neuman
Physiological ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

To determine the mechanistic basis of tolerance, we evaluated six candidate traits for tolerance to damage using F2 interspecific hybrids in a willow hybrid system. A distinction was made between reproductive tolerance and biomass tolerance; reproductive tolerance was designated as a plant’s proportional change in catkin production following damage, while biomass tolerance referred to a plant’s proportional change in biomass (i.e., regrowth) following damage. F2 hybrids were generated to increase variation and independence among candidate traits. Using three clonally identical individuals, pre-damage candidate traits for tolerance to damage (root:shoot ratio, total nonstructural carbohydrate, and total available protein) and post-damage candidate traits (relative root:shoot ratio, phenolic ratio, and specific leaf area ratio) were measured. The range of variation for these six candidate traits was broad. Biomass was significantly increased two years after 50% shoot length removal, and catkin production was not significantly reduced when damaged, suggesting that F2 hybrids had great biomass tolerance and reproductive tolerance. Based on multiple regression methods, increased reproductive tolerance was associated with increased protein storage and decreased relative root:shoot ratio (reduced root allocation after damage). In addition, a positive relationship between biomass tolerance and condensed tannins was detected, and both traits were associated with increased reproductive tolerance. These four factors explained 57% of the variance in the reproductive tolerance of F2 hybrids, but biomass tolerance explained the majority of the variance in reproductive tolerance. Changes in plant architecture in response to plant damage may be the underlying mechanism that explains biomass tolerance.

Keywords

Carbon storage Chemical defense Herbivore damage Plant architecture Salix 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by NSF Grants DEB 01-27369 to CGH and DEB 99-81406 to RSF. We thank the Sosnowskis and M. Membrino, who have permitted us to conduct research on their property. We received logistical support from the Biology Department at Hartwick College. We thank the following people for help with field work: S.D. Bodach, R.D. Fritz, R.G. Gale, S. Irwin, M.J. Knee, J. Mann, B. Mock, B. Murray, M. Rasher, N. Rice, E. Sedgwick, and L. Spiller. We thank B. Mock and J. Rudolph for help with grinding the root and shoot samples. We give special thanks to C.M. Orians for guidance with phenolic glycoside analyses and for chemical standards. We thank anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

  1. Agrawal AA, Strauss SY, Stout MJ (1999) Costs of induced responses and tolerance to herbivory in male and female fitness components of wild radish. Evolution 53:1093–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appel HM, Govenor HL, D’Ascenzo M, Siska E, Schultz JC (2001) Limitations of Folin assays of foliar phenolics in ecological studies. J Chem Ecol 27:761–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argus GW (1986) The genus Salix (Salicaceae) in the southeastern United States. Syst Bot Monogr 9:1–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babst BA, Ferrieri RA, Thorpe MR, Orians CM (2005) Lymantria dispar herbivory induces rapid changes in carbon transport and partitioning in Populus nigra. Entomol Exp Appl 128:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belsky AJ, Carson WP, Jensen CL, Fox GA (1993) Overcompensation by plants: herbivore optimiation or red herring? Evol Ecol 7:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biere A (1996) Intra-specific variation in relative growth rate: impact on competitive ability and performance of Lychnis flos-cuculi in habitats differing in soil fertility. Plant and Soil 182:313–327Google Scholar
  7. Boege K, Dirzo R, Siemens D, Brown P (2007) Ontogenetic switches from plant resistance to tolerance: minimizing costs with age? Ecol Lett 10:177–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive for the quantitation of microgram quantitites of protein utilizing the principle of protein–dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broberg CL, Borden JH, Humble LM (2002) Distribution and abundance of Cryptorhynchus lapathi on Salix spp. in British Columbia. Can J For Res 32:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapin FS III, McKendrick JD, Johnson DA (1986) Seasonal changes in carbon fractions in Alaskan tundra plants of differing growth form: implications for herbivory. J Ecol 74:707–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawley MJ (1985) Reduction of oak fecundity by low-density herbivore populations. Nature 314:163–164Google Scholar
  12. Danell K, Bergstrom R, Edenius L (1994) Effects of large mammalian browsers on architecture, biomass, and nutrients of woody plants. J Mammal 75:833–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donaldson JR, Kruger EL, Lindroth RL (2006) Competition- and resource-mediated tradeoffs between growth and defensive chemistry in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). New Phytol 169:561–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eyles A, Pinkard EA, Mohammed C (2009) Shifts in biomass and resource allocation patterns following defoliation in Eucalyptus globulus growing with varying water and nutrient supplies. Tree Phys 29:753–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faber M (2002) Soil survey of Dutchess County. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, MillbrookGoogle Scholar
  16. Fineblum WL, Rausher MD (1995) Tradeoff between resistance and tolerance to herbivore damage in a morning glory. Nature 377:517–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fornoni J (2011) Ecological and evolutionary implications of plant tolerance to herbivory. Funct Ecol 25:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fornoni J, Valverde PL, Núñez-Farfán J (2003) Quantitative genetics of plant tolerance and resistance against natural enemies of two natural populations of Datura stramonium. Evol Ecol Res 5:1049–1065Google Scholar
  19. Fornoni J, Núñez-Farfán J, Valverde PL, Rausher MD (2004) Evolution of mixed strategies of plant defense allocation against natural enemies. Evolution 58:1685–1695PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fritz RS, Simms EL (eds) (1992) Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution, and genetics. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Fritz RS, Crabb BA, Hochwender CG (2000) Preference and performance of a gall-inducing sawfly: a test of the plant vigor hypothesis. Oikos 89:555–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fritz RS, Hochwender CG, Brunsfeld SJ, Roche BM (2003) Genetic architecture of susceptibility to herbivores in hybrid willows. J Evol Biol 16:1115–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fritz RS, Hochwender CG, Albrectsen BR, Czesak ME (2006) Fitness and genetic architecture of parent and hybrid willows in common gardens. Evolution 60:1215–1227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardig TM, Brunsfeld SJ, Fritz RS, Morgan M, Orians CM (2000) Morphological and molecular evidence for hybridization and introgression in a willow (Salix) hybrid zone. Mol Ecol 9:9–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harms KE, Dalling JW (1997) Damage and herbivory tolerance through resprouting as an advantage of large seed size in tropical trees and lianas. J Trop Ecol 13:617–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haukioja E, Koricheva J (2000) Tolerance to herbivory in woody versus herbaceous plants. Evol Ecol 14:551–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hendrix SD (1979) Compensatory reproduction in a biennial herb following insect defloration. Oecologia 42:107–118Google Scholar
  28. Hjältén J, Price PW (1996) The effect of pruning on willow growth and sawfly population densities. Oikos 77:549–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hochwender CG, Fritz RS, Orians CM (2000a) Using hybrid systems to explore the evolution of tolerance to damage. Evol Ecol 14:521–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hochwender CG, Marquis RJ, Stowe KA (2000b) The potential for and constraints on the evolution of compensatory ability in Asclepias syriaca. Oecologia 122:361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hochwender CG, Sork VL, Marquis RJ (2003) Fitness consequences of herbivory on Quercus alba. Am Midl Nat 150:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hochwender CG, Janson EM, Cha DH, Fritz RS (2005) Community structure of insect herbivores in a hybrid system: examining the effects of browsing damage and plant genetic variation. Ecol Ent 30:170–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hódar JA, Zamora R, Castro J, Gómez JM, Garcia D (2008) Biomass allocation and growth responses of Scots pine saplings to simulated herbivory depend on plant age and light availability. Plant Ecol 197:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Houle G, Simard G (1996) Additive effects of genotype, nutrient availability and type of tissue damage on the compensatory response of Salix planifolia ssp planifolia to simulated herbivory. Oecologia 107:373–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones CG, Hare JD, Compton SJ (1989) Measuring plant protein with the Bradford assay: evaluation and a standard method. J Chem Ecol 15:979–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Juenger T, Bergelson J (2000) The evolution of compensation to herbivory in scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata: herbivore-imposed natural selection and the quantitative genetics of tolerance. Evolution 54:764–777PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaitaniemi P, Neuvonen S, Nyyssönen T (1999) Effects of cumulative defoliations on growth, reproduction, and insect resistance in mountain birch. Ecology 80:524–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  39. Katjiua MJL, Ward D (2006) Resistance and tolerance of Terminalia sericea trees to simulated herbivore damage under different soil nutrient and moisture conditions. J Chem Ecol 32:1431–1443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lambers H, Poorter H (1992) Inherent variation in growth-rate between higher-plants: a search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Adv Ecol Res 23:187–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lennartsson T, Nilsson P, Tuomi J (1998) Induction of overcompensation in the field gentian, Gentianella campestris. Ecology 79:1061–1072Google Scholar
  42. Marquis RJ (1984) Leaf herbivores decrease fitness of a tropical plant. Science 226:537–539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marquis RJ (1996) Plant architecture, sectoriality and plant tolerance to herbivores. Vegetatio 127:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marquis RJ, Newell EA, Villegas AC (1997) Non-structural carbohydrate accumulation and use in an understorey rain-forest shrub and relevance for the impact of leaf herbivory. Funct Ecol 11:636–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maschinski J, Whitham TG (1989) The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability, and timing. Am Nat 134:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mauricio R, Rausher MD, Burdick DS (1997) Variation in the defense strategies of plants: are resistance and tolerance mutually exclusive? Ecology 78:1301–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mosseler A (1990) Hybrid performance and species crossability relationships in willows (Salix). Can J Botany 68:2329–2338Google Scholar
  48. Murtaugh PA (2009) Performance of several variable-selection methods applied to real ecological data. Ecol Lett 12:1061–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Myers JA, Kitajima K (2007) Carbohydrate storage enhances seedling shade and stress tolerance in a neotropical forest. J Ecol 95:383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nelson N (1944) A photometric adaptation of the Somogyi method for the determination of glucose. J Biol Chem 153:375–380Google Scholar
  51. Nichols-Orians CM, Fritz RS, Clausen TP (1993) The genetic basis for variation in the concentration of phenolic glycosides in Salix sericea: clonal variation and sex-based differences. Biochem Syst Ecol 21:535–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Núñez-Farfán J, Fornoni J, Valverde PL (2007) The evolution of resistance and tolerance to herbivores. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 38:541–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ogren E (1999) Fall frost resistance in willows used for biomass production. I. Characterization of seasonal and genetic variation. Tree Phys 19:749–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Orians CM, Griffiths ME, Roche BM, Fritz RS (2000) Phenolic glycosides and condensed tannins in Salix sericea, S. eriocephala and their F1 hybrids: not all hybrids are created equal. Biochem Syst Ecol 28:619–632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Paige KN, Whitham TG (1987) Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: the advantage of being eaten. Am Nat 129:407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pilson D, Decker KL (2002) Compensation for herbivory in wild sunflower: response to simulated damage by the head-clipping weevil. Ecology 83:3097–3107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pratt PD, Rayamajhi MB, Van TK, Center TD, Tipping PW (2005) Herbivory alters resource allocation and compensation in the invasive tree Melaleuca quinquenervia. Ecol Ent 30:316–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rogers WE, Siemann E (2002) Effects of simulated herbivory and resource availability on native and invasive exotic tree seedlings. Basic Appl Ecol 3:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roininen H, Price PW, Bryant JP (1997) Response of galling insects to natural browsing by mammals in Alaska. Oikos 80:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) (1992) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites, vol II: evolutionary and ecological processes. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Rosenthal JP, Welter SC (1995) Tolerance to herbivory by a stemboring caterpillar in architecturally distinct maizes and wild relatives. Oecologia 102:146–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roy BA, Kirchner JW (2000) Evolutionary dynamics of pathogen resistance and tolerance. Evolution 54:51–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Ryser P, Lambers H (1995) Root and leaf attributes accounting for the performance of fast-growing and slow-growing grasses at different nutrient supply. Plant Soil 170:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. SAS Institute (2001) JMP statistics and graphics guide, version 4. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  65. Schierenbeck KA, Mack RN, Sharitz RR (1994) Effects of herbivory on growth and biomass allocation in native and introduced species of Lonicera. Ecology 75:1661–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Siemens DH, Lischke H, Maggiulli N, Schürch S, Roy BA (2003) Cost of resistance and tolerance under competition: the defense-stress benefit hypothesis. Evol Ecol 17:247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Simms EL, Triplett J (1994) Costs and benefits of plant responses to disease: resistance and tolerance. Evolution 48:1973–1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Somogyi M (1952) Notes on sugar determination. J Biol Chem 195:19–23Google Scholar
  69. Stevens MT, Waller DM, Lindroth RL (2007) Resistance and tolerance in Populus tremuloides: genetic variation, costs, and environmental dependency. Evol Ecol 21:829–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stevens MT, Kruger EL, Lindroth RL (2008) Variation in tolerance to herbivory is mediated by differences in biomass allocation in aspen. Funct Ecol 22:40–47Google Scholar
  71. Stowe KA, Marquis RJ, Hochwender CG, Simms EL (2000) The evolutionary ecology of tolerance to consumer damage. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:565–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tiffin P (2000) Mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage: what do we know? Evol Ecol 14:523–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tilmon KJ (ed) (2008) Specialization, speciation, and radiation: the evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  75. van der Meijden E, Wijn M, Verkaar HJ (1988) Defense and regrowth: alternative plant strategies in the struggle against herbivores. Oikos 51:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. van der Meijden E, Boer NJ, van der Veen-van Wijk CAM (2000) Pattern of storage and regrowth in ragwort. Evol Ecol 14:457–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vandenberghe C, Freléchoux F, Buttler A (2008) The influence of competition from herbaceous vegetation and shade on simulated browsing tolerance of coniferous and deciduous saplings. Oikos 117:415–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Weinig C, Stinchcombe JR, Schmitt J (2003) Evolutionary genetics of resistance and tolerance to natural herbivory in Arabadopsis thaliana. Evolution 57:1270–1280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Wise MJ, Abrahamson WG (2005) Beyond the compensatory continuum: environmental resource levels and plant tolerance of herbivory. Oikos 109:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wise MJ, Abrahamson WG (2008) Applying the limiting resource model to plant tolerance of apical meristem damage. Am Nat 172:635–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wise MJ, Carr DE (2008) On quantifying tolerance of herbivory for comparative analyses. Evolution 62:2429–2434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wright IJ, Westoby M (1999) Differences in seedling growth behaviour among species: trait correlations across species, and trait shifts along nutrient compared to rainfall behavior. J Ecol 87:85-97Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cris G. Hochwender
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dong H. Cha
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mary Ellen Czesak
    • 3
  • Robert S. Fritz
    • 3
  • Rebecca R. Smyth
    • 5
  • Arlen D. Kaufman
    • 4
  • Brandi Warren
    • 4
  • Ashley Neuman
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of EvansvilleEvansvilleUSA
  2. 2.Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, USDA-ARSWapatoUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyVassar CollegePoughkeepsieUSA
  4. 4.Department of ChemistryUniversity of EvansvilleEvansvilleUSA
  5. 5.Department of EntomologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations