Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 369–377 | Cite as

Induction of Phenolic Glycosides by Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Leaves in Relation to Extrafloral Nectaries and Epidermal Leaf Mining

  • Brian YoungEmail author
  • Diane Wagner
  • Patricia Doak
  • Thomas Clausen


We studied the effect of epidermal leaf mining on the leaf chemistry of quaking aspen, Populus tremuloides, during an outbreak of the aspen leaf miner, Phyllocnistis populiella, in the boreal forest of interior Alaska. Phyllocnistis populiella feeds on the epidermal cells of P. tremuloides leaves. Eleven days after the onset of leaf mining, concentrations of the phenolic glycosides tremulacin and salicortin were significantly higher in aspen leaves that had received natural levels of leaf mining than in leaves sprayed with insecticide to reduce mining damage. In a second experiment, we examined the time course of induction in more detail. The levels of foliar phenolic glycosides in naturally mined ramets increased relative to the levels in insecticide-treated ramets on the ninth day following the onset of leaf mining. Induction occurred while some leaf miner larvae were still feeding and when leaves had sustained mining over 5% of the leaf surface. Leaves with extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) had significantly higher constitutive and induced levels of phenolic glycosides than leaves lacking EFNs, but there was no difference in the ability of leaves with and without EFNs to induce phenolic glycosides in response to mining. Previous work showed that the extent of leaf mining damage was negatively related to the total foliar phenolic glycoside concentration, suggesting that phenolic glycosides deter or reduce mining damage. The results presented here demonstrate that induction of phenolic glycosides can be triggered by relatively small amounts of mining damage confined to the epidermal tissue, and that these changes in leaf chemistry occur while a subset of leaf miners are still feeding within the leaf.

Key Words

Populus tremuloides Phyllocnistis populiella Epidermal leaf mining Induced defense Phenolic glycosides Extrafloral nectaries Alaska 



We thank Shandra Miller and Sara Young for assistance with data collection. Colin McGill provided technical assistance and advice with the HPLC. We also thank Diana Wolf and Julie McIntyre for valuable insight and input. This research was funded by NSF DEB 0543632 to DW and PD. B. Young was partially supported by TASK (Teaching Alaskans, Sharing Knowledge), an NSF supported GK-12 Program.


  1. Agrawal, A. A., Strauss, S. Y., and Stout, M. J. 1999. Costs of induced responses and tolerance to herbivory in male and female fitness components of wild radish. Evolution 53:1093–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentley, B. L. 1977. Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Systemat. 8:407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingaman, B. R., and Hart, E. R. 1993. Phenolic glycosides and host selection behavior of Chrysomela scripta (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ. Entomol. 22:397–403.Google Scholar
  4. Bokalo, M., Comeau, P. G., and Titus, S. J. 2007. Early development of tended mixtures of aspen and spruce in western Canadian boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 242:175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant, J. P., Clausen, T. P., Reichardt, P. B., Mccarthy, M. C., and Werner, R. A. 1987. Effect of nitrogen fertilization upon the secondary chemistry and nutritional value of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) leaves for the large aspen tortrix (Choristoneura conflictana [Walker]). Oecologia 73:513–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clausen, T. P., Reichardt, P. B., Bryant, J. P., Werner, R. A., Post, K., and Frisby, K. 1989a. Chemical model for short-term induction in quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) foliage against herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 15:2335–2346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clausen, T. P., Reichardt, P. B., Evans, T., and Bryant, J. P. 1989b. A simple method for the isolation of salicortin, tremulacin, and tremuloiden from quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). J. Nat. Products 52:207–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Condrashoff, S. F. 1964. Bionomics of the aspen leaf miner, Phyllocnistis populiella Cham. (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae). Can. Entomol. 96:857–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Critchfield, W. B. 1960. Leaf dimorphism in Populus trichocarpa. Am. J. Bot. 47:699–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doak, P., Wagner, D., and Watson, A. 2007. Variable extrafloral nectary expression and its consequences in quaking aspen. Can. J. Bot. 85:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson, J. R., and Lindroth, R. L. 2007. Genetics, environment, and their interactions determine efficacy of chemical defense in trembling aspen. Ecology 88:729–739.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher, A. E. I., Hartley, S. E., and Young, M. 2000. Direct and indirect competitive effects of foliage feeding guilds on the performance of the birch leaf-miner Eriocrania. J. Anim. Ecol. 69:165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heil, M., Greiner, S., Meimberg, H., Kruger, R., Noyer, J. -L., Heubl, G., Linsenmair, K. E., and Boland, W. 2004. Evolutionary change from induced to constitutive expression of an indirect plant resistance. Nature 430:205–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hemming, J. D. C., and Lindroth, R. L. 1995. Intraspecific variation in aspen phytochemistry: effects on performance of gypsy moths and forest tent caterpillars. Oecologia 103:79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hemming, J. D. C., and Lindroth, R. L. 1999. Effects of light and nutrient availability on aspen: growth, phytochemisrty, and insect performance. J. Chem. Ecol. 25:1687–1714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hering, M. 1951. Biology of the Leaf Miners. Uitgeverij Dr. W.Junk, 's-Gravenhage, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. Hwang, S. -Y., and Lindroth, R. L. 1997. Clonal variation in foliar chemistry of aspen: effects on gypsy moths and forest tent caterpillars. Oecologia 111:99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Inbar, M., Doostdar, H., Leibee, G. L., and Mayer, R. T. 1999. The role of plant rapidly induced responses in asymmetric interspecific interactions among insect herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 99:1961–1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones, C. G., and Hartley, E. 1999. A protein competition model of phenolic allocation. Oikos 86:27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kao, Y. Y., Harding, S. A., and Tsai, C. 2002. Differential expression of two distinct phenylalanine ammonia-lyase genes in condensed tannin-accumulating and lignifying cells of quaking aspen. Plant Physiol. 130:796–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karban, R., and Adler, F. R. 1996. Induced resistance to herbivores and the information content of early season attack. Oecologia 107:379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karban, R., and Baldwin, I. T. 1997. Induced Responses to Herbivory. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Kenward, M. G., and Roger, J. H. 1997. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53:983–997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleiner, K. W., Ellis, D. D., Brent, H., McCown, B. H., and Raffa, K. F. 2003. Leaf ontogeny influences leaf phenolics and the efficacy of genetically expressed Bacillus thuringiensis cry1A(a) d-endotoxin in hybrid poplar against gypsy moth. J. Chem. Ecol. 29:2585–2602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koptur, S. 1992. Extrafloral nectary-mediated interactions between insects and plants. Pp. 81–129 in E. Bernays (ed.). Insect–plant Interactions. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Lindroth, R. L., and Hemming, J. D. C. 1990. Responses of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) to tremulacin, an aspen phenolic glycoside. Environ. Entomol. 19:842–847.Google Scholar
  27. Lindroth, R. L., and Hwang, S. -Y. 1996a. Diversity, redundancy and multiplicity in chemical defense systems of aspen. Phytochemistry 30:25–56.Google Scholar
  28. Lindroth, R. L., and Hwang, S. -Y. 1996b. Clonal variation in foliar chemistry of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 24:357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindroth, R. L., and Kinney, K. K. 1998. Consequences of enriched atmospheric CO2 and defoliation: Chemistry and gypsy moth performance. J. Chem. Ecol. 24:1677–1695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindroth, R. L., and Pajutee, M. S. 1987. Chemical analysis of phenolic glycosides: art, facts, and artifacts. Oecologia 74:144–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindroth, R. L., Hsia, M. T. S., and Scriber, J. M. 1987. Characterization of phenolic glycosides from quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 15:677–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mattson, W. J., and Palmer, S. R. 1988. Changes in foliar minerals and phenolics in trembling aspen, Populus tremuloides, in response to artificial defoliation. pp. 157–169 in W. J. Mattson, J. Levieux, and C. Bernard-Dagan (eds.). Mechanisms of Woody Plant Defenses Against Insects: Search for Pattern. Springer, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Mattson, W. J., Hart, E. A., and Bolney, W. J. A. 2001. Insect pests of Populus: coping with the inevitable. Pp. 219–248 in J. G. Isebrands, D. I. Dickmann, J. E. Eckenwalder, and J. Richardson (eds.). Poplar Culture in North America. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  34. Mitton, J. B., and Grant, M. C. 1996. Genetic variation and the natural history of quaking aspen. Bioscience 46:25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mortensen, B. D. 2009. Extrafloral nectaries as an indirect defense in quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Across spatial scales. Ms Thesis, University Of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Osier, T. L., and Lindroth, R. L. 2006. Genotype and environment determine allocation to and costs of resistance in quaking aspen. Oceologia 148:293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Osier, T. L., Hwang, S. -Y., and Lindroth, R. L. 2000. Within- and between- year variation in early season phytochemistry of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) clones. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 28:197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Philippe, R. N., and Bohlmann, J. 2007. Poplar defense against insect herbivores. Can. J. Bot. 85:1111–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramiro, D. A., Guerreiro-Filho, O., and Mazzafera, P. 2006. Phenol contents, oxidase activities, and the resistance of coffee to the leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella. J. Chem. Ecol. 32:1977–1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rhoades, D. F. 1979. Evolution of plant chemical defense against herbivores. pp 3–54 in G. A. Rosenthal and D. H. Janzen (eds.). Herbivores: Their Interaction with Secondary Plant Metabolites. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Röse, U. S. R., Lewis, J., and Tumlinson, J. H. 2006. Extrafloral nectar from cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) as a food source for parasitic wasps. Funct. Ecol. 20:67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rudgers, J. A., Strauss, S. Y., and Wendel, J. F. 2004. Trade-offs among antiherbivore resistance traits: Insights from Gossypieae (Malvaceae). Am. J. Bot. 91:871–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stevens, M. T., Waller, D. M., and Lindroth, R. L. 2007. Resistance and tolerance in Populus tremuloides: genetic variation, costs, and environmental dependency. Evol. Ecol. 21:829–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stout, M. J., Workman, K. V., Workman, J. S., and Duffey, S. S. 1994. Differential induction of tomato foliar proteins by arthropod herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 20:2575–2594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strauss, S. Y., Rudgers, J. A., Lau, J. A., and Irwin, R. E. 2002. Direct and ecological costs of resistance to herbivory. TREE 17:278–285.Google Scholar
  47. Trelease, W. 1881. The foliar nectar glands of Populus. Botanical Gazette, 6:284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. U.S. Forest Service. 2006. Forest health conditions in Alaska: A forest health protection report. U.S. For. Serv. Alaska Region R10-PR-5.Google Scholar
  49. U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Forest health conditions in Alaska: A forest health protection report. U.S. For. Serv. Alaska Region R10-PR-18.Google Scholar
  50. U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Forest health conditions in Alaska: A forest health protection report. U.S. For. Serv. Alaska Region R10-PR-20.Google Scholar
  51. Underwood, N. 2000. Density dependence in induced plant resistance to herbivore damage: threshold, strength and genetic variation. Oikos 89:295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wagner, D., Defoliart, L., Doak, P., and Schneiderheinze, J. 2008. Impact of the aspen leaf miner, Phyllocnistis populiella, on the physiology and growth of quaking aspen. Oecologia 157:259–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Young, B. D., Wagner, D., Doak, P., and Clausen, T. P. 2010. Within-plant distribution of phenolic glycosides and extrafloral nectaries in trembling aspen, Populus tremuloides. Am. J. Bot. (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Young
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Diane Wagner
    • 1
  • Patricia Doak
    • 1
  • Thomas Clausen
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Arctic Biology and Department of Biology & WildlifeUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry and BiochemistryUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA

Personalised recommendations