Journal of Plant Research

, Volume 129, Issue 4, pp 659–666 | Cite as

Seasonal variation of responses to herbivory and volatile communication in sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) (Asteraceae)

  • Satomi IshizakiEmail author
  • Kaori Shiojiri
  • Richard Karban
  • Masashi Ohara
Regular Paper


Plants can respond to insect herbivory in various ways to avoid reductions in fitness. However, the effect of herbivory on plant performance can vary depending on the seasonal timing of herbivory. We investigated the effects of the seasonal timing of herbivory on the performance of sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Sagebrush is known to induce systemic resistance by receiving volatiles emitted from clipped leaves of the same or neighboring plants, which is called volatile communication. Resistance to leaf herbivory is known to be induced most effectively after volatile communication in spring. We experimentally clipped 25 % of leaves of sagebrush in May when leaves were expanding, or in July when inflorescences were forming. We measured the growth and flower production of clipped plants and neighboring plants which were exposed to volatiles emitted from clipped plants. The treatment conducted in spring reduced the growth of clipped plants. This suggests that early season leaf herbivory is detrimental because it reduces the opportunities for resource acquisition after herbivory, resulting in strong induction of resistance in leaves. On the other hand, the late season treatment increased flower production in plants exposed to volatiles, which was caused mainly by the increase in the number of inflorescences. Because the late season treatment occurred when sagebrush produces inflorescences, sagebrush may respond to late herbivory by increasing compensation ability and/or resistance in inflorescences rather than in leaves. Our results suggest that sagebrush can change responses to herbivory and subsequent volatile communication seasonally and that the seasonal variation in responses may reduce the cost of induced resistance.


Herbivory Induced resistance Optimal defense theory Phenological differences Volatile communication Tolerance 



We thank Jeff Brown for permission to work at the UC Sagehen Creek Reserve in Tahoe National Forest; Gen-ichiro Arimura and Makiko Kawakami for assistance for our field work; Jesse Karban for assistance for laboratory work. This research was supported by Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (23405007, 23770020), research fellowships of the JSPS for Young Scientists to S. Ishizaki and K. Shiojiri, the Clark Memorial Foundation to S. Ishizaki, the Sasakawa Scientific Research Grant from The Japan Science Society, The Naito Foundation Subsidy for Female Researchers after Maternity Leave to K. Shiojiri, Grand for Promotion of Niigata University Research Projects, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan for Global Centers of Excellence Program (J01).


  1. Arimura G, Ozawa R, Shimoda T, Nishioka T, Boland W, Takabayashi J (2000) Herbivory-induced volatiles elicit defence genes in lima bean leaves. Nature 406:512–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arimura G, Shiojiri K, Karban R (2010) Acquired immunity to herbivory and allelopathy caused by airborne plant emissions. Phytochemistry 71:1642–1649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton KE, Koricheva J (2010) The ontogeny of plant defense and herbivory: characterizing general patterns using meta-analysis. Am Nat 175:481–493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boege K, Marquis RJ (2005) Facing herbivory as you grow up: the ontogeny of resistance in plants. Trends Ecol Evol 20:441–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Coley PD, Barone JA (1996) Herbivory and plant defenses in tropical forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:305–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doan AT, Ervin G, Felton G (2004) Temporal effects on jasmonate induction of anti-herbivore defense in Physalis angulata: seasonal and ontogenic gradients. Biochem Syst Ecol 32:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans RD, Black RA (1993) Growth, photosynthesis, and resource investment for vegetative and reproductive modules of Artemisia tridentata. Ecology 74:1516–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feeny P (1970) Seasonal changes in oak leaf tannins and nutrients as a cause of spring feeding by winter moth caterpillars. Ecology 51:565–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fenner M, Hanley ME, Lawrence R (1999) Comparison of seedling and adult palatability in annual and perennial plants. Funct Ecol 13:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 89:1295–1302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gustafsson C (2004) The effect of timing and amount of leaf removal on survival, growth and reproduction in the perennial herb Sanicula europea L. Plant Ecol 170:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hare JD (2010) Ontogeny and season constrain the production of herbivore-inducible plant volatiles in the field. J Chem Ecol 36:1363–1374CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Heil M, Karban R (2010) Explaining evolution of plant communication by airborne signals. Trends Ecol Evol 25:137–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ishizaki S, Narumi T, Mizushima M, Ohara M (2010) Effect of the specialist herbivore Luehdorfia puziloi on the performance of a woodland herbaceous plant, Asarum heterotropoides. Plant Spec Biol 25:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karban R, Baldwin IT, Baxter KJ, Laue G, Felton GW (2000) Communication between plants: induced resistance in wild tobacco plants following clipping of neighboring sagebrush. Oecologia 125:66–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Karban R, Maron J, Felton GW, Ervin G, Eichenseer H (2003) Herbivore damage to sagebrush induces resistance in wild tobacco: evidence for eavesdropping between plants. Oikos 100:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karban R, Shiojiri K, Huntzinger M, McCall AC (2006) Damage-induced resistance in sagebrush: volatiles are key to intra- and interplant communication. Ecology 87:922–930CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Karban R, Ishizaki S, Shiojiri K (2012) Long-term demographic consequences of eavesdropping for sagebrush. J Ecol 100:932–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knight TM (2007) Population-level consequences of herbivory timing in Trillium grandiflorum. Am Midl Nat 157:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lennartsson T, Nilsson P, Tuomi J (1998) Induction of overcompensation in the field gentian, Gentianella campestris. Ecology 79:1061–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marquis RJ (1992) A bite is a bite is a bite? Constraints on response to folivory in Piper arieianum (Piperaceae). Ecology 73:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. McKey D (1974) Adaptive patterns in alkaloid physiology. Am Nat 108:305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Messina FJ, Richards JH, McArther ED (1996) Variable responses of insects to hybrid versus parental sagebrush in common gardens. Oecologia 107:513–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Molis M, Körner J, Ko YW, Kim JH, Wahl M (2006) Inducible responses in the blown seaweed Ecklonia cava: the role of grazer identity and season. J Ecol 94:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  28. Shiojiri K, Karban R (2008) Seasonality of herbivory and communication between individuals of sagebrush. Arthropod Plant Interat 2:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stamp N (2003) Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q Rev Biol 78:23–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Takahashi M, Huntly N (2010) Herbivorous insects reduced growth and reproduction of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate). Arthropod Plant Interat 4:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ton J, D’Alessandro M, Jourdie V, Jakab G, Karlen D, Held M, Mauch-Mani B, Turlings TCJ (2007) Priming by airborne signals boosts direct and indirect resistance in maize. Plant J 49:16–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Welch BL (2005) Big sagebrush: a sea fragmented into lakes, ponds, and puddles. Gen Tech Rep RMRS-GTR-144. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research StationGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiens JA, Cates RG, Rotenberry JT, Cobb N, Van Horne B, Redak RA (1991) Arthropod dynamics on sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata): effects of plant chemistry and avian predation. Ecol Monogr 61:299–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yamawo A, Suzuki N, Tagawa J, Hada Y (2012) Leaf aging promotes the shift in defence tractics in Mallotus japonicus from direct to indirect defence. J Ecol 100:802–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan and Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Satomi Ishizaki
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kaori Shiojiri
    • 2
  • Richard Karban
    • 3
  • Masashi Ohara
    • 4
  1. 1.Graduate School of Science and TechnologyNiigata UniversityNiigataJapan
  2. 2.The Hakubi Center for Advanced ResearchKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  4. 4.Graduate School of Environmental ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations