Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 10, pp 1876–1884 | Cite as

Stability of Genetic-Based Defensive Chemistry Across Life Stages in a Eucalyptus Species

  • Julianne M. O’Reilly-Wapstra
  • Jonathan R. Humphreys
  • Brad M. Potts
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Defensive chemistry is a key plant fitness trait, and the investigation of the expression of plant secondary metabolites across life stages is important in understanding the lifetime evolutionary selection pressures on a plant. The expression of genetic-based differences in foliar defensive chemistry, known to influence mammalian herbivore preferences, was studied across two contrasting life phases of the heteroblastic tree, Eucalyptus globulus. With plants from different subraces of E. globulus growing in a field trial, we compared the levels of seven chemical constituents in adult and juvenile foliage from related coppiced plants. Defensive chemistry was generally higher in more vulnerable coppice foliage than adult foliage. Significant, genetic-based differences among subraces were detected for two key defensive chemicals, a sideroxylonal and a macrocarpal, and these differences were stable across life phases. In contrast, significant differences among subraces in adult leaf condensed tannins were not evident in the coppice because of the absence of this group of tannins in this foliage. These findings lend support to hypotheses that suggest condensed tannins may have evolved for reasons other than mammalian herbivore defense.

Keywords

Genetic variation Heteroblasty Ontogeny Plant secondary metabolites 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgement

Funding was provided to J.O’R-W and B.P. by the Australian Research Council and the University of Tasmania Institutional Research Grant Scheme. We thank Gunns Ltd. and Kelsey Joyce for access to foliage, Robert Barbour, Hugh Fitzgerald, Simone Janney and Noel Davies for aspects of foliage collection and foliage chemical analysis, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Andrew, R. L., Peakall, R., Wallis, I. R., Wood, J. T., Knight, E. J., and Foley, W. 2006. Marker-based quantitative genetics in the wild? The heritability and genetic correlation of chemical defences in Eucalyptus. Genetics 171:1989–1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton, K. E. 2007. Early ontogenetic patterns in chemical defense in Plantago (Plantaginaceae): genetic variation and trade-offs. Am. J. Bot 94:56–66.Google Scholar
  3. Boege, K. and Marquis, R. J. 2005. Facing herbivory as you grow up: the ontogeny of resistance in plants. TREE 20:441–448.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Close, D. C. and McArthur, C. 2002. Rethinking the role of many plant phenolics—protection from photodamage not herbivores? Oikos 99:166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crawley, M. J. 1997. Plant Ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Donaldson, J. R., Stevens, M. T., Barnhill, H. R., and Lindroth, R. L. 2006. Age-related shifts in leaf chemistry of clonal aspen (Populus tremuloides). J. Chem. Ecol. 32:1415–1429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dutkowski, G. W. and Potts, B. M. 1999. Geographic patterns of genetic variation in Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus and a revised racial classification. Aust. J. Bot. 47:237–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graham, H. D. 1992. Stabilization of the prussian blue color in the determination of polyphenols. J. Agri. Food Chem. 40:801–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gras, E. K., Read, J., Mach, C. T., Sanson, G. D., and Clissold, F. J. 2005. Herbivore damage, resource richness and putative defences in juvenile versus adult Eucalyptus leaves. Aust. J. Bot. 53:33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hagerman, A. E. 2002. Tannin Chemistry. Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. < http://www.users.muohio.edu/hagermae/tannin.pdf>
  11. Hagerman, A. E., Riedl, K. M., Jones, G. A., Sovik, K. N., Ritchard, N. T., Hartzfeld, P. W., and Riechel, T. L. 1998. High molecular weight plant polyphenolics (tannins) as biological antioxidants. J. Agri. Food Chem. 46:1887–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harborne, J. B. 1991. The chemical basis of plant defense, pp. 45–59, in R. T. Palo and C. T. Robbins (eds.). Plant Defenses Against Mammalian Herbivores. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Hume, I. D. 1999. Marsupial Nutrition, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Jordan, G. R., Potts, B. M., and Wiltshire, R. J. 1999. Strong, independent, quantitative genetic control of the timing of vegetative phase change and first flowering in Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus (Tasmanian Blue Gum). Heredity 83:179–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lawler, I. R., Foley, W. J., and Eschler, B. M. 2000. Foliar concentration of a single toxin creates habitat patchiness for a marsupial folivore. Ecology 81:1327–1338.Google Scholar
  16. Leimu, R. and Koricheva, J. 2006. A meta-analysis of genetic correaltins between plant resistances to multiple enemies. Am. Nat. 168:E15–E37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowther, J. R. 1980. Use of a single sulphuric acid-hydrogen peroxide digest for the analysis of Pinus radiata needles. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 11:175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Macauley, B. J. and Fox, L. R. 1980. Variation in total phenols and condensed tannins in Eucalyptus: leaf phenology and insect grazing. Aust. J. Ecol. 5:31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Majer, J. D., Recher, H. F., Wellington, B., Woinarski, J. C. Z., and Yen, A. L. 1997. Invertebrates of eucalypt formations, pp. 278–302 in J. Williams and J. C. Z. Woinarski (eds.). Eucalypt Ecology. Individuals to Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Marsh, K. J., Foley, W. J., Cowling, A., and Wallis, I. R. 2003. Differential susceptibility to Eucalyptus secondary compounds explains feeding by the common ringtail (Pseudocheirus peregrinus) and common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). J. Comp. Physiol. B. 173:69–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mauricio, R. and Rausher, M. D. 1997. Experimental manipulation of putative selective agents provides evidence for the role of natural enemies in the evolution of plant defence. Evolution 51:1435–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore, B. D. and Foley, W. J. 2005. Tree use by koalas in a chemically complex landscape. Nature 435:488–490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Reilly-Wapstra, J. M., McArthur, C., and Potts B. M. 2002. Genetic variation in resistance of Eucalyptus globulus to marsupial browsers. Oecologia 130:289–296.Google Scholar
  24. O’Reilly-Wapstra J. M., McArthur C., and Potts, B. M. 2004. Linking plant genotype, plant defensive chemistry and mammal browsing in a Eucalyptus species. Funct. Ecol. 18:677–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Reilly-Wapstra, J. M., Potts, B. M., McArthur, C., and Davies, N. W. 2005. Effects of nutrient variability on the genetic-based resistance of Eucalyptus globulus to a mammalian herbivore and on plant defensive chemistry. Oecologia 142:597–605.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osier, T. L. and Lindroth, R. L. 2001. Effects of genotype, nutrient availability, and defoliation on aspen phytochemistry and insect performance. J. Chem. Ecol. 27:1289–1313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter, L. J., Hrstich, L. N., and Chan, B. G. 1986. The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25:223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Potts, B. M. and Jordan, G. J. 1994. The spatial pattern and scale of variation in Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus: variation in seedling abnormalities and early growth. Aust. J. Bot. 42:471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rehill, B., Whitham, T., Martinsen, G., Schweitzer, J., Bailey, J., and Lindroth, R. 2006. Developmental Trajectories in Cottonwood Phytochemistry. J. Chem. Ecol. 32:2269–2285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steane, D. A., Conod, N., Jones, R. C. Vaillancourt, R. E., and Potts, B. M. 2006. A comparative analysis of population structure of a forest tree, Eucalytpus globulus (Myrtaceae), using microsatellite markers and quantitative traits. Tree. Gen. Genom. 2:30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Swihart, R. K. and Bryant, J. P. 2001. Importance of biogeography and ontogeny of woody plants in winter herbivory of mammals. J. Mamm. 82:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tiffin, P. 2002. Competition and time of damage affect the pattern of selection acting on plant defense against herbivores. Ecology 83:1981–1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vesk, A. and Westoby, M. 2004. Sprouting ability across diverse disturbances and vegetation types worldwide. J. Ecol. 92:310–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wallis, I. R. and Foley, W. J. 2005. The rapid determination of sideroxylonals in Eucalyptus foliage by extraction with sonication followed by HPLC. Phytochem. Anal. 16:49–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whittock, S. P., Apiolaza, L. A., Kelly, C. M., and Potts, B. M. 2003. Genetic control of coppice and lignotuber development in Eucalyptus globulus. Aust. J. Bot. 51:57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wiggins, N. L., McArthur, C., Davies, N. W., and McLean S. 2006. Spatial scale of the patchiness of plant poisons: a critical influence on foraging efficiency. Ecology 87:2236–2243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julianne M. O’Reilly-Wapstra
    • 1
  • Jonathan R. Humphreys
    • 1
  • Brad M. Potts
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Plant Science and Cooperative Research Centre for ForestryUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations