Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 883–898 | Cite as

Trade-offs between chemical defence and regrowth capacity in Plantago lanceolata

  • J. H. Reudler
  • S. C. Honders
  • H. Turin
  • A. Biere
Original Paper


Resistance and tolerance are different strategies of plants to deal with herbivore attack. Since resources are limited and resistance and tolerance serve similar functions for plants, trade-offs between these two strategies have often been postulated. In this study we investigated trade-offs between resistance and one aspect of tolerance, the ability to regrow after defoliation. In order to minimize confounding effects of genetic background and selection history, we used offspring derived from artificial selection lines of ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata) that differed in their levels of leaf iridoid glycosides (IGs), allelochemicals that confer resistance to generalist herbivores, to study genetic associations with regrowth ability. We tested whether high-IG plants (1) suffer allocation costs of resistance in terms of reduced shoot and root growth, (2) have reduced regrowth ability (tolerance) after defoliation compared to low-IG plants, and (3) whether such costs are more pronounced under nutrient stress. High-IG plants produced fewer inflorescences and side rosettes than low-IG plants and showed a different biomass allocation pattern, but since neither the vegetative, nor the reproductive biomass differed between the lines, there was no evidence for a cost of IG production in terms of total biomass production under either nutrient condition. High-IG plants also did not suffer a reduced capacity to regrow shoot mass after defoliation. However, after regrowth, root mass of high-IG plants grown under nutrient-poor conditions was significantly lower than that of low-IG plants. This suggests that under these conditions shoot regrowth of high-IG plants comes at a larger expense of root growth than in low-IG plants. We speculate therefore that if there is repeated defoliation, high-IG plants may eventually fail to maintain shoot regrowth capacity and that trade-offs between resistance and tolerance in this system will show up after repeated defoliation events under conditions of low resource availability.


Fitness costs Iridoid glycosides Nutrient stress Plantago lanceolata Regrowth capacity Selection lines 



We thank E. van der Meijden for his constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. L. Reudler Talsma and R. M. Niermeyer are acknowledged for their help with weighing and grinding of the samples and Francesca Rinaldi for her help with the HPLC- analyses. This study was supported by a grant from the Earth and Life Science Foundation (ALW) of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Publication 5342 Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW).

Supplementary material

10682_2012_9609_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35 kb)


  1. Adler LS, Schmitt J, Bowers MD (1995) Genetic-variation in defensive chemistry in Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae) and its effect on the specialist herbivore Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae). Oecologia 101:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA (2011) Current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence. Funct Ecol 25:420–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal AA, Fishbein M (2008) Phylogenetic escalation and decline of plant defense strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:10057–10060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton KE (2008) Phenotypic plasticity in seedling defense strategies: compensatory growth and chemical induction. Oikos 117:917–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berenbaum MR, Zangerl AR, Nitao JK (1986) Constraints on chemical coevolution: wild parsnip and the wild parsnip webworm. Evolution 40:1215–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergelson J, Purrington CB (1996) Surveying patterns in the cost of resistance in plants. Am Nat 148:536–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biere A, Marak HB, van Damme JMM (2004) Plant chemical defense against herbivores and pathogens: generalized defense or trade-offs? Oecologia 140:430–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowers MD (1983) The role of iridoid glycosides in host-plant specificity of checkerspot butterflies. J Chem Ecol 9:475–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowers MD (1991) Iridoid glycosides. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 297–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowers MD (1992) Evolution of unpalatability and the cost of chemical defense in insects. In: Roitberg BD, Isman MB (eds) Insect chemical ecology: an evolutionary approach. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 216–244Google Scholar
  11. Bowers MD, Puttick GM (1988) Response of generalist and specialist insects to qualitative allelochemical variation. J Chem Ecol 14:319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowers MD, Stamp NE (1992) Chemical variation within and between individuals of Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae). J Chem Ecol 18:985–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowers MD, Stamp NE (1993) Effects of plant-age, genotype, and herbivory on Plantago performance and chemistry. Ecology 74:1778–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bryant JP, Chapin FS, Klein DR (1983) Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40:357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryant JP, Chapin FS, Reichardt P et al (1985) Adaptation to resource availability as a determinant of chemical defense strategies in woody plants. Recent Adv Phytochem 19:219–237Google Scholar
  16. Bryant JP, Tuomi J, Niemelä P (1988) Environmental constraint of constitutive and long-term inducible defenses in woody plants. In: Spencer KC (ed) Chemical medation of coevolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 367–389Google Scholar
  17. Cavers PB, Bassett IJ, Crompton CW (1980) The biology of Canadian weeds. 47. Plantago lanceolata L. Can J Plant Sci 60:1269–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crawley MJ (1983) Herbivory. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Darrow K, Bowers MD (1999) Effects of herbivore damage and nutrient level on induction of iridoid glycosides in Plantago lanceolata. J Chem Ecol 25:1427–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Deyn GB, Biere A, van der Putten WH et al (2009) Chemical defense, mycorrhizal colonization and growth responses in Plantago lanceolata L. Oecologia 160:433–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. de Jong G, van der Meijden E (2000) On the correlation between allocation to defence and regrowth in plants. Oikos 88:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dixon RA, Paiva NL (1995) Stress-induced phenylpropanoid metabolism. Plant Cell 7:1085–1097PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Duff RB, Bacon JSD, Mundie CM et al (1965) Catalpol and methylcatalpol: naturally ocurring glycosides in Plantago and Buddleia species. Biochem J 96:1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fineblum WL, Rausher MD (1995) Tradeoff between resistance and tolerance to herbivore damage in a morning glory. Nature 377:517–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fons F, Tousch D, Rapior S et al (1999) Phenolic profiles of untransformed and hairy root cultures of Plantago lanceolata. Plant Physiol Biochem 37:291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fornoni J (2011) Ecological and evolutionary implications of plant tolerance to herbivory. Funct Ecol 25:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fornoni J, Valverde PL, Núñez-Farfán J (2004a) Population variation in the cost and benefit of tolerance and resistance against herbivory in Datura stramonium. Evolution 58:1696–1704PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fornoni J, Núñez-Farfán J, Valverde PL et al (2004b) Evolution of mixed strategies of plant defense allocation against natural enemies. Evolution 58:1685–1695PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gershenzon J (1984) Changes in the levels of plant secondary metabolites under water and nutrient stress. Recent Adv Phytochem 18:273–320Google Scholar
  30. Giamoustaris A, Mithen R (1995) The effect of modifying the glucosinolate content of leaves of oilseed rape (Brassica napus ssp. oleifera) on its interaction with specialist and generalist pests. Ann Appl Biol 126:347–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hirata K, Asada M, Yatani E et al (1993) Effects of near-ultraviolet light on alkaloid production in Catharanthus roseus plants. Planta Med 59:46–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iwasa Y, Kubo T (1997) Optimal size of storage for recovery after unpredictable disturbances. Evol Ecol 11:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Katjiua MLJ, Ward D (2006) Resistance and tolerance of Terminalia sericea trees to simulated herbivore damage under different soil nutrient and moisture conditions. J Chem Ecol 32:1431–1443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Manzaneda AJ, Prasad KVSK, Mitchell-Olds T (2010) Variation and fitness costs for tolerance to different types of herbivore damage in Boechera stricta genotypes with contrasting glucosinolate structures. New Phytol 188:464–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marak HB, Biere A, van Damme JMM (2000) Direct and correlated responses to selection on iridoid glycosides in Plantago lanceolata L. J Evol Biol 13:985–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marak HB, Biere A, van Damme JMM (2002) Two herbivore-deterrent iridoid glycosides reduce the in vitro growth of a specialist but not of a generalist pathogenic fungus of Plantago lanceolata L. Chemoecology 12:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marak HB, Biere A, van Damme JMM (2003) Fitness costs of chemical defense in Plantago lanceolata L.: effects of nutrient and competition stress. Evolution 57:2519–2530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mauricio R, Rausher MD, Burdick DS (1997) Variation in the defense strategies of plants: are resistance and tolerance mutually exclusive? Ecology 78:1301–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muola A, Mutikainen P, Laukkanen L et al (2010) Genetic variation in herbivore resistance and tolerance: the role of plant life-history stage and type of damage. J Evol Biol 23:2185–2196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nieminen M, Suomi J, van Nouhuys S et al (2003) Effect of iridoid glycoside content on oviposition host plant choice and parasitism in a specialist herbivore. J Chem Ecol 29:823–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Núñez-Farfán J, Fornoni J, Valverde PL (2007) The evolution of resistance and tolerance to herbivores. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:541–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oduor AMO, Lankau RA, Strauss SY et al (2011) Introduced Brassica nigra populations exhibit greater growth and herbivore resistance but less tolerance than native populations in the native range. New Phytol 191:536–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pereyra PC, Bowers MD (1988) Iridoid glycosides as oviposition stimulants for the buckeye butterfly, Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae). J Chem Ecol 14:917–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Preisser EL, Gibson SE, Adler LS et al (2007) Underground herbivory and the costs of constitutive defense in tobacco. Acta Oecol 31:210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Primack RB, Antonovics J (1982) Experimental ecological genetics in Plantago. VII. Reproductive effort in populations of P. lanceolata L. Evolution 36:742–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Restif O, Koella JC (2004) Concurrent evolution of resistance and tolerance to pathogens. Am Nat 164:E90–E102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reudler Talsma JH, Biere A, Harvey JA et al (2008) Oviposition cues for a specialist butterfly: plant chemistry and size. J Chem Ecol 34:1202–1212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reudler JH, Biere A, Harvey JA et al (2011) Differential performance of a specialist and two generalist herbivores and their parasitoids on Plantago lanceolata. J Chem Ecol 37:765–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roitto M, Rautio P, Markkola A et al (2009) Induced accumulation of phenolics and sawfly performance in Scots pine in response to previous defoliation. Tree Physiol 29:207–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rooke T, Bergstrom R (2007) Growth, chemical responses and herbivory after simulated leaf browsing in Combretum apiculatum. Plant Ecol 189:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosenthal JP, Kotanen PM (1994) Terrestrial plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 9:145–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmidt S, Baldwin IT (2009) Down-regulation of systemin after herbivory is associated with increased root allocation and competitive ability in Solanum nigrum. Oecologia 159:473–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Siemens DH, Garner SH, Michell-Olds T et al (2002) Costs of defense in the context of plant competition: Brassica rapa may grow and defend. Ecology 83:505–517Google Scholar
  56. Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1994) Effects of cages, plant age and mechanical clipping on plantain chemistry. Oecologia 99:66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stevens MT, Waller DM, Lindroth RL (2007) Resistance and tolerance in Populus tremuloides: genetic variation, costs, and environmental dependency. Evol Ecol 21:829–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stinchcombe JR (2002) Can tolerance traits impose selection on herbivores? Evol Ecol 16:595–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Stowe KA, Marquis RJ (2011) Costs of defense: correlated reponses to divergent selection for foliar glucosinolate content in Brassica rapa. Evol Ecol 25:763–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stowe KA, Marquis RJ, Hochwender CG et al (2000) The evolutionary ecology of tolerance to consumer damage. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:565–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Strauss SY, Siemens DH, Decher MB et al (1999) Ecological costs of plant resistance to herbivores in the currency of pollination. Evolution 53:1105–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strauss SY, Rudgers JA, Lau JA et al (2002) Direct and ecological costs of resistance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 17:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Strauss SY, Watson W, Allen MT (2003) Predictors of male and female tolerance to insect herbivory in Raphanus raphanistrum. Ecology 84:2074–2082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Suomi J, Wiedmer SK, Jussila M et al (2001) Determination of iridoid glycosides by micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography-mass spectrometry with use of the partial filing technique. Electrophoresis 22:2580–2587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tiffin P (2000a) Mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage: what do we know? Evol Ecol 14:523–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tiffin P (2000b) Are tolerance, avoidance, and antibiosis evolutionarily and ecologically equivalent responses of plants to herbivores? Am Nat 155:128–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tucker C, Avila-Sakar G (2010) Ontogenetic changes in tolerance to herbivory in Arabidopsis. Oecologia 164:1005–1015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tuomi J, Niemela P, Chapin FS et al (1988) Defensive responses of trees in relation to their carbon/nutrient balance. In: Mattson WJ, Levieux J, Bernard-Dagan C (eds) Mechanisms of woody plant defenses against insects: search for pattern. Springer, New York, pp 57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van Dam NM, Baldwin IT (2001) Competition mediates costs of jasmonate-induced defences, nitrogen acquisition and transgenerational plasticity in Nicotiana attenuata. Funct Ecol 15:406–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. van der Meijden E (1996) Plant defence, an evolutionary dilemma: contrasting effects of (specialist and generalist) herbivores and natural enemies. Entomol Exp Appl 80:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van der Meijden E, Wijn M, Verkaar HJ (1988) Defense and regrowth, alternative plant strategies in the struggle against herbivores. Oikos 51:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Verges A, Perez M, Alcoverro T et al (2008) Compensation and resistance to herbivory in seagrasses: induced responses to simulated consumption by fish. Oecologia 155:751–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wurst S, van Dam NM, Monroy F et al (2008) Intraspecific variation in plant defense alters effects of root herbivores on leaf chemistry and aboveground herbivore damage. J Chem Ecol 34:1360–1367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zangerl AR, Berenbaum MR (1997) Cost of chemically defending seeds: furanocoumarins and Pastinaca sativa. Am Nat 150:491–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zavala JA, Baldwin IT (2006) Jasmonic acid signalling and herbivore resistance traits constrain regrowth after herbivore attack in Nicotiana attenuata. Plant Cell Environ 29:1751–1760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. H. Reudler
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. C. Honders
    • 1
  • H. Turin
    • 1
  • A. Biere
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Terrestrial EcologyNetherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW)WageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Biological and Environmental Science, Centre of Excellence in Biological Interactions ResearchUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations