Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1101–1113 | Cite as

The association among herbivory tolerance, ploidy level, and herbivory pressure in cardamine pratensis

  • Elin Boalt
  • Leena Arvanitis
  • Kari Lehtilä
  • Johan Ehrlén
Original Paper


We tested whether differences in ploidy level and previous exposure to herbivory can affect plant tolerance to herbivory. We conducted a common garden experiment with 12 populations of two ploidy levels of the perennial herb Cardamine pratensis (five populations of tetraploid ssp. pratensis and seven populations of octoploid ssp. paludosa). Earlier studies have shown that attack rates by the main herbivore, the orange tip butterfly Anthocharis cardamines, are lower in populations of octoploids than in populations of tetraploids, and vary among populations. In the common garden experiment, a combination of natural and artificial damage significantly reduced seed and flower production. We measured tolerance based on four plant-performance metrics: survival, growth, seed production and clonal reproduction. For three of these measurements, tolerance of damage did not differ between ploidy levels. For clonal reproduction, the octoploids had a higher tolerance than the tetraploids, although they experience lower herbivore attack rates in natural populations. Populations from sites with high levels of herbivory had higher tolerance, measured by seed production, than populations with low levels of herbivory. We did not detect any significant costs of tolerance. We conclude that high intensity of herbivory has selected for high tolerance measured by seed production in C. pratensis.


Evolutionary history of herbivory Polyploidy Ecotype Insect herbivory Anthocharis cardamines 



We thank four anonymous referees for comments on the manuscript. This study was financed by the Swedish Research Council and the Baltic Sea Foundation.


  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. Aide TM (1992) Dry season leaf production: an escape from herbivory. Biotropica 24:532–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arvanitis L (2007) Plant polyploidy and interactions with insect herbivores. PhD thesis, Department of Botany, Stockholm University, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvanitis L, Wiklund C, Ehrlén J (2007) Butterfly seed predation: effects of landscape characteristics, plant ploidy level and population structure. Oecologia 152:275–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arvanitis L, Wiklund C, Ehrlén J (2008) Plant ploidy level influences selection by butterfly seed predators. Oikos 117:1020–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bach CE (1988) Effects of host plant patch size on herbivore density: underlying mechanisms. Ecology 69:1103–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergelson J, Purrington CB (1996) Surveying patterns in the cost of resistance in plants. Am Nat 148:536–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boalt E, Lehtilä K (2007) Tolerance to apical and foliar damage: costs and mechanisms in Raphanus raphanistrum. Oikos 116:2071–2081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caldwell MM, Richards JH, Johnson DA et al (1981) Coping with herbivory: Photosynthetic capacity and resource allocation in two semiarid Agropyron bunchgrasses. Oecologia 50:14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carman JG, Briske DD (1985) Morphologic and allozymic variation between long-term grazed and non-grazed populations of the bunchgrass Schizachyrium scoparium var. frequens. Oecologia 66:332–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Courtney SP (1982) Coevolution of pierid butterflies and their cruciferous foodplants IV. Crucifer apparency and Anthocharis cardamines (L.) oviposition. Oecologia 52:258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Courtney SP, Duggan AE (1983) The population biology of the orange tip butterfly Anthocharis cardamines. Br Ecol Entomol 8:271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Detling JK, Painter EL (1983) Defoliation responses of western wheatgrass populations with diverse histories of prairie dog grazing. Oecologia 57:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dyer MI, Acra MA, Wang GM et al (1991) Source-sink carbon relations in two Panicum coloratum ecotypes in response to herbivory. Ecology 72:1472–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fineblum WL, Rausher MD (1995) Tradeoff between resistance and tolerance to herbivore damage in morning glory. Nature 377:517–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franzke A, Hurka H (2000) Molecular systematics and biogeography of the Cardamine pratensis complex (Brassicaceae). Plant Syst Evol 224:213–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillespie J, Turelli M (1989) Genotype-environment interactions and the maintenance of genetic variability. Genetics 121:129–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gómez JM, Zamora R (2000) Spatial variation in the selective scenarios of Hormathophylla spinosa (Cruciferae). Am Nat 155:657–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hawkes CV, Sullivan JJ (2001) The impact of herbivory on plants in different resource conditions: a meta-analysis. Ecology 82:2045–2058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hay ME (1984) Predictable spatial escapes from herbivory: how do these affect the evolution of herbivore resistance in tropical marine communities? Oecologia 64:396–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hedrick P (1999) Antagonistic pleiotropy and genetic polymorphism: a perspective. Heredity 82:126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hultén E, Fries M (1986) Atlas of North European vascular plants: north of the Tropic of Cancer. I. Koeltz Scientific Books, KönigsteinGoogle Scholar
  24. Husband BC (2000) Constraints on polyploid evolution: a test of the minority cytotype exclusion principle. Proc R Soc London B 267:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ivey CT, Carr DE, Eubanks MD (2004) Effects of inbreeding in Mimulus guttatus on tolerance to herbivory in natural environments. Ecology 85:567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaramillo VJ, Detling JK (1988) Grazing history, defoliation, and competition: effects on shortgrass production and nitrogen accumulation. Ecology 69:1599–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Järemo J, Ripa J, Nilsson P (1999) Flee or fight uncertainty: plant strategies in relation to anticipated damage. Ecology Lett 2:361–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Kareiva P (1985) Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotreta: patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66:1809–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kéry M, Matthies D, Fischer M (2001) The effect of plant population size on the interactions between the rare plant Gentiana cruciata and its specialized herbivore Maculinea rebeli. J Ecol 89:418–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khatri KS (1989) Cardamine L. sect. Cardamine (Cruciferae) in the Asian territory of Soviet Union. A morphological, anatomical and phylogenetical study with taxonomic reconsiderations. Feddes Repert 100:81–96Google Scholar
  32. Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Neter J (2004) Applied linear regression methods, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill-Irwin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  33. Lehtilä K, Boalt E (2004) The use and usefulness of artificial herbivory in plant-herbivore studies. In: Weisser WW, Siemann E (eds) Insects and ecosystem function. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 257–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leimu R, Koricheva J (2006) A meta-analysis of tradeoffs between plant tolerance and resistance to herbivores: combining the evidence from ecological and agricultural studies. Oikos 112:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lennartsson T, Tuomi J, Nilsson P (1997) Evidence for an evolutionary history of overcompensation in the grassland biennial Gentianella campestris (Gentianaceae). Am Nat 149:1147–1155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Loreti J, Oesterheld M, Sala O (2001) Lack of intraspecific variation in resistance to defoliation in a grass that evolved under light grazing pressure. Plant Ecol 157:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lövkvist B (1956) The Cardamine pratensis complex. Outlines of its cytogenetics and taxonomy. PhD thesis, Faculty of Science, University of Uppsala, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  38. Marquis RJ (1992) Selective impact of herbivores. In: Fritz RR, Simms EL (eds) Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution, and genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 301–325Google Scholar
  39. Mauricio R, Rausher MD, Burdick DS (1997) Variation in the defence strategies of plants: are resistance and tolerance mutually exclusive? Ecology 78:1301–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McNaughton SJ (1984) Grazing lawns: animals in herds, plant form, and coevolution. Am Nat 124:863–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nuismer SL, Thompson JN (2001) Plant polyploidy and non-uniform effects on insect herbivores. Proc Royal Soc London B 268:1937–1940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oesterheld M, McNaughton SJ (1988) Intraspecific variation in the response of Themeda triandra to defoliation: the effect of time of recovery and growth rates on compensatory growth. Oecologia 77:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Painter R (1958) Resistance of plants to insects. Ann Rev Entomol 3:367–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pilson D (2000) The evolution of plant response to herbivory: simultaneously considering resistance and tolerance in Brassica rapa. Evol Ecol 14:457–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Polley HW, Detling JK (1988) Herbivory tolerance of Agropyron smithii populations with different grazing histories. Oecologia 77:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Polley HW, Detling JK (1990) Grazing-mediated differentiation in Agropyron smithii: evidence from populations with different grazing histories. Oikos 57:326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prout T, Savolainen O (1996) Genotype-by-environment interaction is not sufficient to maintain variation: Levene and the leafhopper. Am Nat 148:930–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roff DA (1992) The evolution of life histories: theory and analysis. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Segraves KA, Thompson JN (1999) Plant polyploidy and pollination: floral traits and insect visits to diploid and tetraploid Heuchera grossulariifolia. Evolution 53:1114–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simoes M, Baruch Z (1991) Responses to simulated herbivory and water stress in two tropical C4 grasses. Oecologia 88:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soltis PS, Soltis DE (2000) The role of genetic and genomic attributes in the success of polyploids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7051–7057CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Schemske DW et al (2007) Autopolyploidy in angiosperms: have we grossly underestimated the number of species? Taxon 56:13–30Google Scholar
  53. Stearns S (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Stowe KA (1998) Experimental evolution of resistance in Brassica rapa: correlated response of tolerance in lines selected for glucosinolate content. Evolution 52:703–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stowe KA, Marquis RJ, Hochwender CG (2000) The evolutionary ecology of tolerance to consumer damage. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 31:565–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Thompson JN (1994) The coevolutionary process. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  58. Thompson JN, Merg KF (2008) Evolution of polyploidy and diversification of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology 89:2197–2206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson JN, Cunningham BM, Segraves KA et al (1997) Plant polyploidy and insect/plant interactions. Am Nat 150:730–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Kleunen M, Schmid B (2003) No evidence for an evolutionary increased competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecology 84:2816–2823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weis AE, Hochberg ME (2000) The diverse effects of intraspecific competition on the selective advantage to resistance: a model and its predictions. Am Nat 156:276–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wiklund C, Åhrberg C (1978) Host plant, nectar source plants, and habitat selection of males and females of Anthocharis cardamines (Lepidoptera). Oikos 31:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilsey BJ, Coleman JS, McNaughton SJ (1997) Effects of elevated CO2 and defoliation on grasses: a comparative ecosystem approach. Ecol Appl 7:844–853Google Scholar
  64. Zangerl AR, Berenbaum MR (1990) Furanocoumarin induction in wild parsnip: genetics and populational variation. Ecology 71:1933–1940CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elin Boalt
    • 1
  • Leena Arvanitis
    • 2
  • Kari Lehtilä
    • 1
  • Johan Ehrlén
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesSödertörn UniversityHuddingeSweden
  2. 2.Department of BotanyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations