Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 188, Issue 3, pp 707–719 | Cite as

Temporal patterns of ungulate herbivory and phenology of aspen regeneration and defense

  • Aaron C. Rhodes
  • Randy T. Larsen
  • Jordan D. Maxwell
  • Samuel B. St. Clair
Physiological ecology - original research
  • 137 Downloads

Abstract

Ungulate herbivory can create strong top-down effects on forest recruitment, especially after fire. Defense strategies of tree species against ungulate herbivory include escape through vertical growth and resistance through the production of defense compounds. Using a four-way fence design and camera traps we characterized the differential impacts of ungulate herbivores (deer, elk, cattle) on aspen forest recruitment and plant defense responses and how they vary depending on the timing of herbivory. Aspen height growth was greatest between June and August and ungulate use of aspen was highest in July and August. Three years after fire, height of aspen differed among fence treatments with full ungulate exclusion > deer-only plots > native ungulate plots > fenceless plots: 108 ± 4 cm, 94 ± 4 cm, 89 ± 4 cm, and 65 ± 4 cm, respectively. Fenceless plots had the highest rates of removal of apical meristems by the end of 2014 and 2015 (61% and 53%, respectively). Native ungulate plots, and deer-only plots both had similar removal of apical meristems in 2014 (37% and 39%, respectively). The highest phenolic glycoside concentrations were associated with an 80% reduction in meristem removal and four-fold greater aspen height by the end of summer. Low nitrogen was associated with an 86% reduction in apical meristem removal and threefold greater aspen height. In conclusion, our study suggests that high ungulate abundance can have detrimental impacts on forest recruitment and that high aspen defense chemistry and lower leaf N deters ungulate herbivory, especially in the late summer.

Keywords

Aspen Populus tremuloides Herbivory Growth Defense chemistry Ungulates Deer Elk Phenolic glycosides Condensed tannins 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the important contributions of Tyson Nickel, Justin Taylor, Anson Call, and Kevin Ricks for assistance in the collection of data, leaf samples, and Emma Peterson for her assistance in the lab analysis of leaf chemistry.

Author contribution statement

ACR and SBS conceived and designed the experiments. ACR, JDM and SBS performed the experiments. ACR, and RTL analyzed the data. ACR, JDM, SBS, RTL wrote and revised the manuscript.

Funding

Funding was provided by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the U.S. Forest Service.

References

  1. Alldredge MW, Peek JM, Wall WA (2002) nutritional quality of forages used by Elk in Northern Idaho. J Range Manag 55(3):253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augustine DJ, McNaughton SJ (1998) Ungulate effects on the functional species composition of plant communities: herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. J Wildl Manag 62:1165–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres MP, Clausen TP, MacLean SF, Redman AM, Reichardt PB (1997) Diversity of structure and antiherbivore activity in condensed tannins. Ecology 78(6):1696–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton K (2015) MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.15.1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
  5. Beck JL, Peek JM (2005) Diet composition, forage selection, and potential competition among Elk, deer, and livestock on aspen-sagebrush summer range. Rangel Ecol Manag 58(2):135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck JL, Peek JM, Strand EK (2006) Estimates of elk summer range nutritional carrying capacity constrained by probabilities of habitat selection. J Wildl Manag 70(1):283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernales H, Hersey KR, Shannon J (2015) Utah big game annual report. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt LakeGoogle Scholar
  8. Boeckler GA, Gershenzon J, Unsicker SB (2011) Phenolic glycosides of the Salicaceae and their role as anti-herbivore defenses. Phytochemistry 72(13):1497–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryant JP, Provenza FD, Pastor J, Reichardt PB, Clausen TP, du Toit JT (1991) Interactions between woody plants and browsing mammals mediated by secondary metabolites. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22(1):431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calder WJ, St. Clair SB (2012) Facilitation drives mortality patterns along succession gradients of aspen-conifer forests. Ecosphere 3(6):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell CR (1991) Plant analysis reference procedures for the southern region of the United States. In: Plank CO (ed) Southern cooperative series, vol 368. Determination of total nitrogen in plant tissue by combustion. University of Georgia, Athens, pp 21–23Google Scholar
  12. St. Clair SBS, Cavard X, Bergeron Y (2013) The role of facilitation and competition in the development and resilience of aspen forests. For Ecol Manag 299:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clauss M, Hume ID, Hummel J (2010) Evolutionary adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for modern production systems. Animal 4(7):979–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coley PD, Bryant JP, Chapin FS (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230(4728):895–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay JP, Dussault C, Waller DM (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35(1):113–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daly C et al (2009) Local atmospheric decoupling in complex topography alters climate change impacts. Int J Climatol.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeByle NV (1985) Wildlife. In: DeByle NV, Winokur RP (eds) Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. U.S. Forest service general technical report RM-119. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, pp 129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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(3):561–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K, Ford CR et al (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3(9):479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frey BR, Lieffers VJ, Hogg E, Landhäusser SM (2004) Predicting landscape patterns of aspen dieback: mechanisms and knowledge gaps. Can J For Res 34(7):1379–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frye GG, Connelly JW, Musil DD, Forbey JS (2013) Phytochemistry predicts habitat selection by an avian herbivore at multiple spatial scales. Ecology 94(2):308–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hagerman AE, Butler LG (1980) Condensed tannin purification and characterization of tannin-associated proteins. J Agric Food Chem 28(5):947–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobbs NT (1996) Modification of ecosystems by Ungulates. J Wildl Manag 60(4):695–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hofmann RR (1989) Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants—a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78(4):443–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holeski LM, Hillstrom ML, Whitham TG, Lindroth RL (2012) Relative importance of genetic, ontogenetic, induction, and seasonal variation in producing a multivariate defense phenotype in a foundation tree species. Oecologia 170(3):695–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones DB (1941) Factors for converting percentages of nitrogen in foods and feeds into percentages of protein. US Department of Agriculture-Circ, Washington DC, p 183Google Scholar
  27. Jones BE, Burton D, Tate KW (2005) Effectiveness monitoring of aspen regeneration on managed rangelands—a monitoring method for determining if management objectives are being met in aspen communities R5–EM–TP–004. USDA, Forest Service, VallejoGoogle Scholar
  28. Krebs JR, Stephens DW, Sutherland WJ (1983) Essays presented for the centennial of the American Ornithologists Union. In: Brush AH, Clark GA (eds) Perspectives in ornithology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 165–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindroth RL, Koss PA (1996) Preservation of Salicaceae leaves for phytochemical analyses: further assessment. J Chem Ecol 22:765–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindroth RL, St. Clair SB (2013) Adaptations of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) for defense against herbivores. For Ecol Manag 299:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindroth RL, Hsia MTS, Scriber JM (1987) Seasonal patterns in the phytochemistry of 3 Populus species. Biochem Syst Ecol 15:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindroth RL, Kinney KK, Platz CL (1993) Responses of deciduous trees to elevated atmospheric CO2: productivity, phytochemistry, and insect performance. Ecology 74(3):763–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Long RA, Bowyer RT, Porter WP, Mathewson P, Monteith KL, Kie JG (2014) Behavior and nutritional condition buffer a large-bodied endotherm against direct and indirect effects of climate. Ecol Monogr 84(3):513–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lusk CH, Matus F, Moreno-Chacón M, Saldaña A, Jiménez-Castillo M (2003) Seasonal variation in leaf litter nutrient concentrations of Valdivian rainforest trees. Gayana Bot 60(1):35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Madhusudan MD (2004) Recovery of wild large herbivores following livestock decline in a tropical Indian wildlife reserve. J Appl Ecol 41(5):858–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Meth Ecol Evol 4(2):133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olsen FW, Hansen RM (1977) Food relations of wild free-roaming horses to livestock and big game. Red desert, Wyoming. J Range Manag 31:105–110Google Scholar
  38. Osier TL, Lindroth RL (2001) Effects of genotype, nutrient availability, and defoliation on aspen phytochemistry and insect performance. J Chem Ecol 27(7):1289–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Osier TL, Hwang SY, Lindroth RL (2000) Within- and between-year variation in early season phytochemistry of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) clones. Biochem Syst Ecol 28(3):197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parker KL, Barboza PS, Gillingham MP (2009) Nutrition integrates environmental responses of ungulates. Funct Ecol 23(1):57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peterson EB, Peterson NM (1992) Ecology, management and use of aspen and balsam poplar in the prairie provinces, Canada, vol 1. Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, p 252Google Scholar
  42. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Development Core Team (2016). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-120, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
  43. 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(6):746–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Porter LJ, Hrstich LN, Chan BG (1985) The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25(1):223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Provenza FD, Villalba JJ (2010) The role of natural plant products in modulating the immune system: an adaptable approach for combating disease in grazing animals. Small Rumin Res 89(2–3):131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
  47. Rhodes AC, St. Clair SB (2018) Measures of browse damage and indexes of ungulate abundance to quantify their impacts on aspen forest regeneration. Ecol Ind 89:648–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rhodes AC, Anderson V, St. Clair SB (2017a) Ungulate herbivory alters leaf functional traits and recruitment of regenerating aspen. Tree Physiol 37(3):402–413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Rhodes AC, Wan HY, St. Clair SB (2017b) Herbivory impacts of elk, deer and cattle on aspen forest recruitment along gradients of stand composition, topography and climate. For Ecol Manag 397:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rhodes AC, Larsen RT, St. Clair SB (2018) Differential effects of cattle, mule deer, and elk on aspen regeneration and thresholds for aspen recruitment after fire. For Ecol Manag 422:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robbins CT, Hagerman AE, Austin PJ, McArthur C, Hanley TA (1991) Variation in mammalian physiological responses to a condensed tannin and its ecological implications. J Mammal 72(3):480–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seager ST, Eisenberg C, St Clair SB (2013) Patterns and consequences of ungulate herbivory on aspen in western North America. For Ecol Manag 299:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Singh B, Tripath KP (2007) Temporal variations of nutrient concentrations in leaf and twigs of Populous deltoides trees. Indian For 133:1207–1215Google Scholar
  54. Spear D, Chown SL (2009) Non-indigenous ungulates as a threat to biodiversity. J Zool 279(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stewart KM, Bowyer RT, Kie JG, Cimon NJ, Johnson BK (2002) Temporospatial distributions of elk, mule deer, and cattle: resource partitioning and competitive displacement. J Mammal 83(1):229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Strand EK, Vierling LA, Bunting SC, Gessler PE (2009) Quantifying successional rates in western aspen woodlands: current conditions, future predictions. For Ecol Manag 257(8):1705–1715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ulappa AC, Kelsey RG, Frye GG, Rachlow JL, Shipley LA, Bond L et al (2014) Plant protein and secondary metabolites influence diet selection in a mammalian specialist herbivore. J Mammal 95(4):834–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. VerCauteren KC, Seward NW, Lavelle MJ, Fischer JW, Phillips GE (2007) A fence design for excluding elk without impeding other wildlife. Rangel Ecol Manag 60(5):529–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Villalba JJ, Burritt EA, St. Clair SB (2014) Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) intake and preference by mammalian herbivores: the role of plant secondary compounds and nutritional context. J Chem Ecol 40(10):1135–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wan HY, Rhodes AC, St. Clair SB (2014) Fire severity alters plant regeneration patterns and defense against herbivores in mixed aspen forests. Oikos 123(12):1479–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wooley SC, Walker S, Vernon J, Lindroth RL (2008) Aspen decline, aspen chemistry, and elk herbivory: are they linked? Rangelands 30:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yu QB, Tigerstedt PMA, Haapanen M (2001) Growth and phenology of hybrid aspen clones (Populus tremula L. × Populus tremuloides Michx.). Silva Fennica 35(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zuur AF, Ieno E, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zweifel-Schielly B, Leuenberger Y, Kreuzer M, Suter W (2012) A herbivore’s food landscape: seasonal dynamics and nutritional implications of diet selection by a red deer population in contrasting Alpine habitats. J Zool 286(1):68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant and Wildlife SciencesBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations