Biological Invasions

, Volume 10, Issue 8, pp 1373–1379 | Cite as

Induced chemical defenses in invasive plants: a case study with Cynoglossum officinale L.

  • Sanford D. Eigenbrode
  • Jennifer E. Andreas
  • Michael G. Cripps
  • Hongjian Ding
  • Russell C. Biggam
  • Mark Schwarzländer
Original Paper

Abstract

The ‘evolution of increased competitive ability’ (EICA) hypothesis is an extension of optimal defense theory and predicts that reduced pressure from insect herbivores in the introduced range results in evolution of reduced defenses in invading plant populations, allowing greater allocation of resources to competitive traits such as growth rate and reproduction. The EICA hypothesis considered levels of defensive chemistry to be fixed within a particular genotype. In this paper, we propose that if herbivory is reduced in the introduced range, but chemical defenses are inducible in response to herbivory, evolution of reduced defenses and any associated increase competitive ability should not occur. Rather, mean induced and constitutive levels of induced defenses should be similar in introduced and native ranges, but the variance about mean induced levels should be greater in the introduced range. This is predicted because induced levels will occur less frequently in the introduced range where herbivory is reduced, thereby insulating these levels from the stabilizing selection expected in the native range where induced levels occur more frequently. We conducted a preliminary study to examine this by comparing constitutive and induced concentrations of total pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs) from native (European) and introduced (western North America) populations of Cynoglossum officinale L. The mean constitutive and induced concentrations of PAs did not differ between continents, but the variability of the induced concentrations was significantly greater for plants from the introduced range. Although our study with C. officinale is provisional due to a small sample size, it supports our predictions for evolution of inducible defenses in introduced ranges where herbivore pressure is reduced. Most chemical defenses in plants have been found to be inducible, so similar patterns may occur widely. If so, this weakens the generality of EICA’s predictions concerning chemical defenses. The effects of inducible defenses should be considered in cross-continent comparisons of other invasive plant species.

Keywords

EICA Houndstongue Herbivore defense Herbivore resistance Induced defense Invasive species 

References

  1. Agrawal AA (2005) Future directions in the study of induced plant responses to herbivory. Entomol Exp Appl 115:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin IT (1998) Jasmonate-induced responses are costly but benefit plants under attack in native populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:8113–8118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11Google Scholar
  5. Brand A (1921) Cynoglossum. In: Engler HGA (ed) Das Pflanzenreich. Engelmann, Berlin, pp 114–153Google Scholar
  6. De Clerk-Floate R, Schwarzländer M (2002) Cynoglossum officinale L., Houndstongue (Boraginaceae). In: Mason PG, Huber JT (eds) Biological control programmes in Canada 1981–2000. CABI Publishing, Oxon, UK, pp 337–342Google Scholar
  7. De Jong TJ, Klinkhamer PGL, Boorman LA (1990) Biological flora of the British Isles: Cynoglossum officinale. J Ecol 78:1123–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cipollini D, Mbagwu J, Barto K, Hillstrom C, Enright S (2005) Expression of constitutive and inducible chemical defenses in native and invasive populations of Alliaria petiolata. J Chem Ecol 31:1255–1267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions of animals and plants. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds) Biochemical interaction between plants and insects. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  11. Fordyce JA (2006) The evolutionary consequences of ecological interactions mediated through phenotypic plasticity. J Exp Biol 209:2377–2383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freese A (1987) A literature review of European insect species associated with hound’s-tongue, Cynoglossum officinale L. and their potential suitability for biological control in Canada. CABI Bioscience, Delémont, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartmann T, Zimmer M (1986) Organ-specific distribution and accumulation of pyrrolizidine alkaloids during the life history of two annual Senecio species. J Plant Physiol 122:67–80Google Scholar
  14. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J Ecol 93:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hinz HL, Schwarzländer M (2004) Comparing invasive plants from their native and exotic range: what can we learn for biological control? Weed Technol 18:1533–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joshi J, Vrieling K (2005) The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental differences between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol Lett 8:704–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mack RN (2003) Phylogenetic constraint, absent life forms, and preadapted alien plants: a prescription for biological invasions. Int J Plant Sci 164:S185–S196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maron JL, Vilà M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mattocks AR (1967) Spectrophotmetric determination of unsaturated pyrrolizidine alkaloids. Anal Chem 39:443–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ (2000) Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Müller-Schärer H, Schaffner U, Steinger T (2004) Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol Evol 19:417–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pimentel D (2002) Introduction: non-native species in the world. In: Pimentel D (ed) Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal, and microbe species. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  26. Rhoades DF, Cates RG (1976) Toward a general theory of plant antiberbivore chemistry. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds) Biochemical interactions between plants and insects. Plenum Press, New York, pp 168–213Google Scholar
  27. Rice P (2005) INVADERS database system. http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/. Accessed 18 Aug 2006
  28. Stamp N (2003) Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q Rev Biol 78:23–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stastny M, Schaffner U, Elle E (2005) Do vigour of introduced populations and escape from specialist herbivores contribute to invasiveness? J Ecol 93:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strauss SY, Rudgers JA, Lau JA, Irwin RE (2002) Direct and ecological costs of resistance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 7:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA (1972) Flora Europaea: Diapensiaceae - Myoporaceae. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. USDA-NRCS (2005) The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed 18 Aug 2006
  33. Van Dam NM, Bhairo-Marché SK (1992) Induced chemical defence in Cynoglossum officinale. In: Menken SBJ, Visser JH, Harrewign P (eds) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Insect-Plant Relationships, Kluwer Academic Pub, Dordredht, pp 79–82Google Scholar
  34. Van Dam NM, Vrieling K (1994) Genetic variation in constitutive and inducible pyrrolizidine alkaloid levels in Cynoglossum officinale L. Oecologia 99:374–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Dam NM, Vandermeijden E, Verpoorte R (1993) Induced responses in three alkaloid-containing plant species. Oecologia 95:425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Dam NM, De Jong TJ, Iwasa Y, Kubo T (1996) Optimal distribution of defences: are plants smart investors? Funct Ecol 10:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vrieling K, Vanwijk CAM (1994) Cost assessment of the production of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in ragwort (Senecio jacobaea L). Oecologia 97:541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanford D. Eigenbrode
    • 1
  • Jennifer E. Andreas
    • 1
  • Michael G. Cripps
    • 1
  • Hongjian Ding
    • 1
  • Russell C. Biggam
    • 1
  • Mark Schwarzländer
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Entomology, Department of Plant Soil and Entomological SciencesUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations