Oecologia

, Volume 174, Issue 1, pp 227–239 | Cite as

Difference in defense strategy in flower heads and leaves of Asteraceae: multiple-species approach

Plant-microbe-animal interactions - Original research

Abstract

Although a vast number of studies have investigated defenses against herbivores in leaves, relatively little is known about defenses in flowers. Using wild individuals of 34 species of Asteraceae, we investigated differences in five traits that are thought to affect the intensity of herbivory (C, N, P, water, and total phenolic contents). Combinations of these traits between flower heads and leaves were studied as well. We also evaluated phylogenetic patterns of flower head and leaf traits. Flower heads had higher P and lower total phenolics than leaves. Water and C contents were negatively correlated both in the flower heads and leaves. N, P, and water contents were positively correlated in the flower heads, whereas this pattern was not found in the leaves. Thus, the traits we measured were more tightly inter-correlated in flower heads than in leaves. Because the flower heads had a lower total phenolic content, the relative allocation of defensive compounds could not be explained solely by fitness values of the organs. Perhaps plants employ an escape strategy rather than a defense strategy to cope with floral herbivores and higher allocation in P may enhance their escape from herbivores by improving the growth rate of flower heads, though our result might be affected in part by the plasticity of plants growing at different sites. Moreover, we found weak phylogenetic signals in the defensive traits. Because we found significant differences in the flower head traits, these weak signals may imply that the traits we measured evolved frequently.

Keywords

Florivory Defense syndrome Optimal defense Phylogenetic analysis Plant apparency 

Supplementary material

442_2013_2765_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (108 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 108 kb)
442_2013_2765_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (119 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 118 kb)
442_2013_2765_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (139 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 139 kb)
442_2013_2765_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (114 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 113 kb)

References

  1. Adler LS, Wink M, Distl M, Lentz AJ (2006) Leaf herbivory and nutrients increase nectar alkaloids. Ecol Lett 9:960–967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler LS, Seifert MG, Wink M, Morse GE (2012) Reliance on pollinators predicts defensive chemistry across tobacco species. Ecol Lett 15:1140–1148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal AA (2007) Macroevolution of plant defense strategies. Trends Ecol Evol 22:103–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrawal AA (2011) Current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence. Funct Ecol 25:420–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrawal AA, Fishbein M (2006) Plant defense syndromes. Ecology 87:S132–S149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Agrawal AA, Johnson MTJ, Hastings AP, Maron JL (2013) A field experiment demonstrating plant life-history evolution and its eco-evolutionary feedback to seed predator populations. Am Nat 0:S1–S11Google Scholar
  7. Armbruster WS (1997) Exaptations link evolution of plant-herbivore and plant-pollinator interactions: a phylogenetic inquiry. Ecology 78:1661–1672Google Scholar
  8. Armbruster WS, Lee J, Baldwin BG (2009) Macroevolutionary patterns of defense and pollination in Dalechampia vines: adaptation, exaptation, and evolutionary novelty. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:18085–18090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ashman TL, Baker I (1992) Variation in floral sex allocation with time of season and currency. Ecology 73:1237–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bakker MA, Carreño-Rocabado G, Poorter L (2011) Leaf economics traits predict litter decomposition of tropical plants and differ among land use types. Funct Ecol 25:473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr (2002) Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. J Evol Biol 15:899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr, Ives AR (2003) Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717–745PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bosu PP, Wagner MR (2008) Anatomical and nutritional factors associated with susceptibility of elms (Ulmus spp.) to the elm leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Econ Entomol 101:944–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Broadway RM, Duffey SS (1988) The effect of plant protein-quality on insect digestive physiology and the toxicity of plant proteinase-inhibitors. J Insect Physiol 34:1111–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen M-S (2008) Inducible direct plant defense against insect herbivores: a review. Insect Sci 15:101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen Y, Opit GP, Jonas VM, Williams KA, Nechols JR, Margolies DC (2007) Twospotted spider mite population level, distribution, and damage on ivy geranium in response to different nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization regimes. J Econ Entomol 100:1821–1830PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coley PD (1987) Interspecific variation in plant anti-herbivore properties: the role of habitat quality and rate of disturbance. New Phytol 106:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coley PD, Bryant JP, Chapin FS (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895–899PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cornelissen JHC et al (2003) A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot 51:335–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dethier V (1954) Evolution of feeding preferences in phytophagous insects. Evolution 8:33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dugal Wallace D, O’Dowd DJ (1989) The effect of nutrients and inflorescence damage by insects on fruit-set by Banksia spinulosa. Oecologia 79:482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elser JJ, Dobberfuhl DR, MacKay NA, Schampel JH (1996) Organism size, life history, and N:P stoichiometry. Bioscience 46:674–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elser JJ et al (2000) Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs. Nature 408:578–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Endara M-J, Coley PD (2011) The resource availability hypothesis revisited: a meta-analysis. Funct Ecol 25:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Euler M, Baldwin IT (1996) The chemistry of defense and apparency in the corollas of Nicotiana attenuata. Oecologia 107:102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feeny P (1975) Biochemical coevolution between plants and their insect herbivores. In: Gilbert LE, Raven PH (eds) Coevolution of animals and plants. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 3–19Google Scholar
  27. Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds) Recent advances in phytochemistry, vol 10. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  28. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fenner M, Cresswell JE, Hurley RA, Baldwin T (2002) Relationship between capitulum size and pre-dispersal seed predation by insect larvae in common Asteraceae. Oecologia 130:72–77Google Scholar
  30. Fordyce JA (2000) A model without a mimic: aristolochic acids from the California pipevine swallowtail, Battus philenor hirsuta, and its host plant, Aristolochia californica. J Chem Ecol 26:2567–2578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fraenkel GS (1959) The raison d’être of secondary plant substances. Science 129:1466–1470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. García MB, Ehrlén J (2002) Reproductive effort and herbivory timing in a perennial herb: fitness components at the individual and population levels. Am J Bot 89:1295–1302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gleadow RM, Woodrow IE (2000) Temporal and spatial variation in cyanogenic glycosides in Eucalyptus cladocalyx. Tree Physiol 20:591–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Green PB, Cummins WR (1974) Growth-rate and turgor pressure—auxin effect studied with an automated apparatus for single coleoptiles. Plant Physiol 54:863–869PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guerra PC, Becerra J, Gianoli E (2010) Explaining differential herbivory in sun and shade: the case of Aristotelia chilensis saplings. Arthropod-Plant Interact 4:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hättenschwiler S, Vitousek PM (2000) The role of polyphenols in terrestrial ecosystem nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 15:238–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huberty A, Denno R (2006) Consequences of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation for the performance of two planthoppers with divergent life-history strategies. Oecologia 149:444–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Imura O (2003) Herbivorous arthropod community of an alien weed Solanum carolinense L. Appl Entomol Zool 38:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Irwin RE, Adler LS (2006) Correlations among traits associated with herbivore resistance and pollination: implications for pollination and nectar robbing in a distylous plant. Am J Bot 93:64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jansson J, Ekbom B (2002) The effect of different plant nutrient regimes on the aphid Macrosiphum euphorbiae growing on petunia. Entomol Exp Appl 104:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson E, Berhow M, Dowd P (2008) Colored and white sectors from star-patterned petunia flowers display differential resistance to corn earworm and cabbage looper larvae. J Chem Ecol 34:757–765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Julkunen-Tiitto R (1985) Phenolic constituents in the leaves of northern willows: methods for the analysis of certain phenolics. J Agric Food Chem 33:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Karban R, Strauss SY (1993) Effects of herbivores on growth and reproduction of their perennial host, Erigeron glaucus. Ecology 74:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kembel SW et al (2010) Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26:1463–1464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kerkhoff AJ, Fagan WF, Elser JJ, Enquist BJ (2006) Phylogenetic and growth form variation in the scaling of nitrogen and phosphorus in the seed plants. Am Nat 168:E103–E122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kessler A, Halitschke R (2009) Testing the potential for conflicting selection on floral chemical traits by pollinators and herbivores: predictions and case study. Funct Ecol 23:901–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kleiner KW, Raffa KF, Dickson RE (1999) Partitioning of C-14-labeled photosynthate to allelochemicals and primary metabolites in source and sink leaves of aspen: evidence for secondary metabolite turnover. Oecologia 119:408–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krupnick GA, Weis AE (1999) The effect of floral herbivory on male and female reproductive success in Isomeris arborea. Ecology 80:135–149Google Scholar
  49. Krupnick GA, Weis AE, Campbell DR (1999) The consequences of floral herbivory for pollinator service to Isomeris arborea. Ecology 80:125–134Google Scholar
  50. Kurokawa H, Peltzer DA, Wardle DA (2010) Plant traits, leaf palatability and litter decomposability for co-occurring woody species differing in invasion status and nitrogen fixation ability. Funct Ecol 24:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Larcher W (1999) Ökophysiologie der Pflanzen (in Japanese), 5th edn. Springer, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  52. Levin RA, Raguso RA, McDade LA (2001) Fragrance chemistry and pollinator affinities in Nyctaginaceae. Phytochemistry 58:429–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Losos JB (2011) Seeing the forest for the trees: the limitations of phylogenies in comparative biology (American Society of Naturalists Address). Am Nat 177:709–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Louda SM, Potvin MA (1995) Effect of inflorescence-feeding insects on the demography and lifetime fitness of a native plant. Ecology 76:229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Manson JS, Rasmann S, Halitschke R, Thomson JD, Agrawal AA (2012) Cardenolides in nectar may be more than a consequence of allocation to other plant parts: a phylogenetic study of Asclepias. Funct Ecol 26:1100–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maron JL, Combs JK, Louda SM (2002) Convergent demographic effects of insect attack on related thistles in coastal vs. continental dunes. Ecology 83:3382–3392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McCall AC (2008) Florivory affects pollinator visitation and female fitness in Nemophila menziesii. Oecologia 155:729–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McCall AC, Fordyce JA (2010) Can optimal defence theory be used to predict the distribution of plant chemical defences? J Ecol 98:985–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McCall AC, Irwin RE (2006) Florivory: the intersection of pollination and herbivory. Ecol Lett 9:1351–1365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McCall AC, Karban R (2006) Induced defense in Nicotiana attenuata (Solanaceae) fruit and flowers. Oecologia 146:566–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McKey D (1974) Adaptive patterns in alkaloid physiology. Am Nat 108:305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moran N, Hamilton WD (1980) Low nutritive quality as defense against herbivores. J Theor Biol 86:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nordin A, Nasholm T, Ericson L (1998) Effects of simulated N deposition on understorey vegetation of a boreal coniferous forest. Funct Ecol 12:691–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Oguro M, Sakai S (2009) Floral herbivory at different stages of flower development changes reproduction in Iris gracilipes (Iridaceae). Plant Ecol 202:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ohashi K, Yahara T (2000) Effects of flower production and predispersal seed predation on reproduction in Cirsium purpuratum. Can J Bot 78:230–236Google Scholar
  66. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Vendramini F, Cornelissen JHC, Gurvich DE, Cabido M (2003) Leaf traits and herbivore selection in the field and in cafeteria experiments. Aust Ecol 28:642–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Petersen BL, Chen SX, Hansen CH, Olsen CE, Halkier BA (2002) Composition and content of glucosinolates in developing Arabidopsis thaliana. Planta 214:562–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Poorter L, de Plassche MV, Willems S, Boot RGA (2004) Leaf traits and herbivory rates of tropical tree species differing in successional status. Plant Biol 6:746–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pringle EG et al (2011) Distinct leaf-trait syndromes of evergreen and deciduous trees in a seasonally dry tropical forest. Biotropica 43:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: 2.13.2 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  72. Rasmann S, Agrawal AA (2009) Plant defense against herbivory: progress in identifying synergism, redundancy, and antagonism between resistance traits. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12:473–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reese JC, Chan BG, Waiss AC (1982) Effects of cotton condensed tannin, maysin (corn) and pinitol (soybeans) on Heliothis zea growth and development. J Chem Ecol 8:1429–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Revell LJ, Harmon LJ, Collar DC (2008) Phylogenetic signal, evolutionary process, and rate. Syst Biol 57:591–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rhoades DF, Cates RG (1976) Toward a general theory of plant antiherbivore chemistry. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds) Recent advances in phytochemistry, vol 10. Plenum Press, New York, pp 168–213Google Scholar
  76. Ricklefs RE (2008) Foliage chemistry and the distribution of Lepidoptera larvae on broad-leaved trees in southern Ontario. Oecologia 157:53–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rose KE, Louda SM, Rees M (2005) Demographic and evolutionary impacts of native and invasive insect herbivores on Cirsium canescens. Ecology 86:453–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schade JD, Kyle M, Hobbie SE, Fagan WF, Elser JJ (2003) Stoichiometric tracking of soil nutrients by a desert insect herbivore. Ecol Lett 6:96–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schädler M, Jung G, Auge H, Brandl R (2003) Palatability, decomposition and insect herbivory: patterns in a successional old-field plant community. Oikos 103:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schemske DW, Horvitz CC (1988) Plant-animal interactions and fruit production in a neotropical herb: a path analysis. Ecology 69:1128–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Scriber JM (1979) Effects of leaf-water supplementation upon post-ingestive nutritional indices of forb-, shrub-, vine-, and tree-feeding Lepidoptera. Entomol Exp Appl 25:240–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Scriber JM, Feeny P (1979) Growth of herbivorous caterpillars in relation to feeding specialization and to the growth form of their food plants. Ecology 60:829–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Scriber JM, Slansky F (1981) The nutritional ecology of immature insects. Annu Rev Entomol 26:183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shipley B, Lechowicz MJ, Wright I, Reich PB (2006) Fundamental trade-offs generating the worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Ecology 87:535–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stamp N (2003) Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Quart Rev Biol 78:23–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002a) Biological chemistry: building cells from elements. In: Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, pp 44–79Google Scholar
  87. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002b) Imbalanced resources and animal growth. In: Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, pp 179–230Google Scholar
  88. Strauss SY (1997) Floral characters link herbivores, pollinators, and plant fitness. Ecology 78:1640–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Strauss SY, Rudgers JA, Lau JA, Irwin RE (2002) Direct and ecological costs of resistance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 17:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Strauss SY, Irwin RE, Lambrix VM (2004) Optimal defence theory and flower petal colour predict variation in the secondary chemistry of wild radish. J Ecol 92:132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tilman GD (1984) Plant dominance along an experimental nutrient gradient. Ecology 65:1445–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wetzel RG, Likens GE (2000) Limnological analyses, 3rd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Williams IS (1999) Slow-growth, high-mortality—a general hypothesis, or is it? Ecol Entomol 24:490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wise MJ (2007) Evolutionary ecology of resistance to herbivory: an investigation of potential genetic constraints in the multiple-herbivore community of Solanum carolinense. New Phytol 175:773–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wright IJ et al (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Züst T, Heichinger C, Grossniklaus U, Harrington R, Kliebenstein DJ, Turnbull LA (2012) Natural enemies drive geographic variation in plant defenses. Science 338:116–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Life SciencesTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations