Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 38, Issue 7, pp 902–913 | Cite as

Genetic and Environmental Factors Behind Foliar Chemistry of the Mature Mountain Birch

  • Sanna Haviola
  • Seppo Neuvonen
  • Markus J. Rantala
  • Kari Saikkonen
  • Juha-Pekka Salminen
  • Irma Saloniemi
  • Shiyong Yang
  • Teija Ruuhola
Article

Abstract

Previous studies of mountain birch (Betula pubescens spp. czerepanovii) repeatedly have found differences between individual trees in herbivory-related traits, but rarely have yielded estimates of the additive genetic variation of these traits or of their relationship to habitat. We used thirty-year-old birch half-sibs in a northern common garden to estimate the effect of genetics and local microhabitat on resistance-related traits. Genetic estimates of foliar chemistry have been studied only rarely with trees as old as these. Moth performance (Epirrita autumnata), rust (Melampsoridium betulinum) incidence levels, and the general level of natural herbivory damage to individual trees were used as direct measures of birch resistance. Chemical resistance-related traits in plant chemistry included 15 individual phenolics, 16 amino acids, and phenoloxidase activities in the foliage. We also followed birch phenology and growth. Our results show that the genotype of the birch was the most important determinant of phenolic composition and phenoloxidase activity, but that amino acid levels were best explained by the microhabitat of the birch. We also found that the phenology of the birch had a high heritability, although its variation was low. Our results reveal rich genetic variation in birch chemistry.

Keywords

Microhabitat Additive genetic variation Heritability Woody plant Phenotypic correlation Phenotypic plasticity Insect outbreaks 

References

  1. Adler, F. R. and Karban, R. 1994. Defended fortresses or moving targets? Another model of inducible defenses inspired by military metaphors. Am. Nat. 144:813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts, R., Cornelissen, J. H. C., and Dorrepaal, E. 2006. Plant performance in a warmer world: General responses of plants from cold, northern biomes and the importance of winter and spring events. Plant Ecol. 182:65.Google Scholar
  3. Agrawal, A. A. 2011. Current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence. Funct. Ecol. 25:420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahlholm, J. U., Helander, M., Henriksson, J., Metzler, M., and Saikkonen, K. 2002. Environmental conditions and host genotype direct genetic diversion of ventura ditricha, a fungal endophyte of birch trees. Evolution 56:1566.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Anttila, U., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., Rousi, M., Yang, S., Rantala, M. J., and Ruuhola, T. 2010. Effects of elevated ultraviolet-B radiation on a plant-herbivore interaction. Oecologia 164:163–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Appel, H. M. 1993. Phenolics in ecological interactions: The importance of oxidation. J. Chem. Ecol. 19:1521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayres, M. P. and Maclean, S. F. J. 1987. Development of birch leaves and the growth energetics of epirrita autumnata (geometridae). Ecology 68:558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayres, M. P., Suomela, J., and Maclean, S. F. J. 1987. Growth performance of epirrita autumnata (lepidopteran: Geometridae) on mountain birch: Trees, broods, and tree x brood interactions. Oecologia 74:450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bank, R. A., Jansen, E. J., Beekman, B., and Te Koppele, J. M. 1996. Amino acid analysis by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography: Improved derivatization and detection conditions with 9-fluoremethyl chloroformate. Anal. Biochem. 240:167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berenbaum, M. R. 1995. Turnabout is fair play: Secondary roles for primary compounds. J. Chem. Ecol. 21:925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berenbaum, M. R. and Zangerl, A. R. 1992. Genetics of secondary metabolism and herbivore resistance in plants., pp. 415, in G. A. Rosenthal and M. R. Berenbaum (eds.), Herbivores: Their Interactions with Secondary Plant Metabolites. Volume II. Ecological and Evolutionary Processes. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.Google Scholar
  12. Bradford, M. M. 1976. Rapid and sensitive method for quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72:248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bryant, J. P., Chapin, S. F. I., and Klein, D. R. 1983. Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40:357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carmona, D., Lajeunesse, M. J., and Johnson, M. T. J. 2011. Plant traits that predict resistance to herbivores. Funct. Ecol. 25:358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Close, D. C. and McArthur, C. 2002. Rethinking the role of many plant phenolics—Protection from photodamage not herbivores? Oikos 99:166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elamo, P., Helander, M., Saloniemi, I., and Neuvonen, S. 1999. Birch family and environmental conditions affect endophytic fungi in leaves. Oecologia 118:151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elamo, P., Saloniemi, I., Helander, M. L., and Neuvonen, S. 2000. Genetic and environmental variation in rust frequency on mature mountain birch trees. Scand. J. For. Res. 15:510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elkington, T. T. 1968. Introgressive hybridization between Betula nana L. and B. pubescens Ehrh. in North-West Iceland. New Phytol. 67:109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feeny, P. 1976. Plant apparency and chemical defence. Rec. Adv. Phytochem. 10:1.Google Scholar
  20. Felton, G. W., Donato, K., del Vecchio, R. J., and Duffey, S. S. 1989. Activation of plant foliar oxidases by insect feeding reduces nutritive quality of foliage for noctuid herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 15:2667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetic Theory of Natural Selection. Charendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Geber, M. S. and Griffen, L. R. 2003. Inheritance and natural selection of functional traits. Int. J. Plant Sci. 164:s21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harborne, J. B. and Williams, C. A. 2000. Review: Advances in flavonoid research since 1992. Phytochemistry 55:481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haukioja, E. 2003. Putting the insect into the birch-insect interaction. Oecologia 136:161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haukioja, E. 2005. Plant defenses and population fluctuations of forest defoliators: Mechanism-based scenarios. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 42:313.Google Scholar
  26. Haukioja, E., Ossipov, V., and Lempa, K. 2002. Interactive effects of leaf maturation and phenolics on consumption and growth of a geometrid moth. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 104:125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haviola, S., Saloniemi, I., Ossipov, V., and Haukioja, E. 2006. Additive genetic variation of secondary and primary metabolites in mountain birch. Oikos 112:382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haviola, S., Kapari, L., Ossipov, V., Rantala, M. J., Ruuhola, T., and Haukioja, E. 2007. Foliar phenolics are differently associated with epirrita autumnata growth and immunocompetence. J. Chem. Ecol. 33:1013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Houle, D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130:195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jonsell, B. 2000a. Betula L, pp. 197, in B. Jonsell (ed.), Flora Nordica, vol. 1: Lycopodiaceae to Polygonaceae. The Royal Swdish Academy of Sciences, Stocholm.Google Scholar
  31. Kallio, P. and Lehtonen, J. 1973. Birch forest damage caused by oporinia autumnata (bkh.) in 1965–66 in Utsjoki, N Finland. Rep. Kevo Subarctic Res. Stat. 10:55.Google Scholar
  32. Kallio, P. and Mäkinen, Y. 1978. Vascular flora of Inari Lapland. 4. betulaceae. Rep. Kevo Subarctic Res. Stat. 14:38.Google Scholar
  33. Kallio, P., Hurme, H., Eurola, S., Norokorpi, Y., and Sepponen, P. 1986. Research activities on the forest line in northern Finland. Arctic 39:52.Google Scholar
  34. Karban, R. 2011. The ecology and evolution of induced resistance against herbivores. Funct. Ecol. 25:339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karlsson, P. S. and Weih, M. 1996. Relationship between nitrogen economy and performance in the mountain birch betula pubescens ssp. tortuosa. Ecol. Bull. 45:71.Google Scholar
  36. Kause, A., Ossipov, V., Haukioja, E., Lempa, K., Hanhimäki, S., and Ossipova, S. 1999a. Multiplicity of biochemical factors determining quality of growing birch leaves. Oecologia 120:102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kause, A., Saloniemi, I., Haukioja, E., and Hanhimäki, S. 1999b. How to become large quickly: Quantitative genetics of growth and foraging in a flush feeding lepidopteran larva. J. Evol. Biol. 12:471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keinänen, M., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., Mutikainen, P., Walls, M., Ovaska, J. A., and Vapaavuori, E. 1999. Trade-offs in phenolic metabolism of silver birch: Effects of fertilization, defoliation, and genotype. Ecology 80:1970.Google Scholar
  39. Laitinen, M., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., and Rousi, M. 2000. Variation in phenolic compounds within a birch (betula pendula) population. J. Chem. Ecol. 26:1609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lande, R. and Arnold, S. J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Linhart, Y. B. and Grant, M. C. 1996. Evolutionary significance of local genetic differentiation in plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27:237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Macdonald, A. D. and Mothersill, D. H. 1983. Shoot development in Betula papyrifera. I. Short-shoot organogenisis. Can. J. Bot. 61:3049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moilanen, J. and Salminen, J. 2008. Ecologically neglected tannins and their biologically relevant activity: Chemicalstructures of plant ellagitannins reveal their in vitro oxidative activity at high pH. Chemoecology 18:73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mousseau, T. A. and Roff, D. A. 1987. Natural selection and the heritability of fitness components. Heredity 59:181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mutikainen, P., Walls, M., Ovaska, J. A., Keinänen, M., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., and Vapaavuori, E. 2000. Herbivore resistance in betula pendula: Effect of fertilization, defoliation, and plant genotype. Ecology 81:49.Google Scholar
  46. Tenow, O. 1972. The outbreaks of oporinia autumnata bkh. and operophtera spp. (lep.; geometridae) in the scandinavian mountain chain and northern Finland 1862–1968. Dissertation. University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
  47. Nurmi, K., Ossipov, V., Haukioja, E., and Pihaja, K. 1996. Variation of total phenolic content and individual low-molecular weight phenolics in foliage of mountain birch trees (betula pubescens ssp. tortuosa). J. Chem. Ecol. 22:2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pigliucci, M. 2001. Phenotypic Plasticity—Beyond Nature and Nurture. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  49. Price, P. 1991. The plant vigor hypothesis and herbivore attack. Oikos 62:244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Riihimäki, J., Vehvilainen, H., Kaitaniemi, P., and Koricheva, J. 2006. Host tree architecture mediates the effect of predators on herbivore survival. Ecol. Entomol. 31:227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riipi, M., Ossipov, V., Lempa, K., Haukioja, E., Koricheva, J., Ossipova, S., and Pihlaja, K. 2002. Seasonal changes in birch leaf chemistry: Are there trade-offs between leaf growth and accumulation of phenolics? Oecologia 130:380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Riipi, M., Haukioja, E., Lempa, K., Ossipov, V., Ossipova, S., and Pihlaja, K. 2004. Ranking of individual mountain birch trees in terms of leaf chemistry: Seasonal and annual variation. Chemoecology 14:31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roff, D. A. and Mousseau, T. A. 1987. Quantitative genetics and fitness: Lessons from drosophila. Heredity 58:103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roslin, T., Gripenberg, S., Salminen, J., Karonen, M., O’Hara, R. B., Pihlaja, K., and Pulkkinen, P. 2006. Seeing the trees for the leaves—Oaks as mosaic for a host-specific moth. Oikos 113:106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruohomäki, K., Chapin, S. F. I., Haukioja, E., Neuvonen, S., and Suomela, J. 1996. Delayed inducible resistance in mountain birch in response to fertilization and shade. Ecology 77:2302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ruuhola, T. and Yang, S. 2006. Wound-induced oxidative responses in mountain birch leaves. Ann. Bot. 97:29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ruuhola, T., Ossipov, V., Lempa, K., and Haukioja, E. 2003. Amino acids during development of mountain birch leaves. Chemoecology 13:95.Google Scholar
  58. Ruuhola, T., Salminen, J., Haviola, S., Yang, S., and Rantala, M. J. 2007. Immunological memory of mountain birches: Effects of phenolics on performance on the autumnal moth depend on herbivory history of trees. J. Chem. Ecol. 33:1160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruusila, V., Morin, J., van Ooik, T., Saloniemi, I., Ossipov, V., and Haukioja, E. 2005. A short-lived herbivore on a long-living host: Tree resistance to herbivory depends on leaf age. Oikos 108:99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Salminen, J. and Karonen, M. 2011. Chemical ecology of tannins and other phenolics: We need a change in approach. Funct. Ecol. 25:325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Salminen, J., Ossipov, V., Loponen, J., Haukioja, E., and Pihlaja, K. 1999. Characterisation of hydrolysable tannins from leaves of betula pubescens by high-performance liquid chromatography—Mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A. 864:283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Salminen, J., Ossipov, V., Haukioja, E., and Pihlaja, K. 2001. Seasonal variation in the content of hydrolysable tannins in leaves of betula pubescens. Phytochemistry 57:15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. SAS Institute 1990. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. 6th version. SAS Institute, Cary.Google Scholar
  64. Senn, J., Hanhimäki, S., and Haukioja, E. 1992. Among-tree variation in leaf phenology and morphology and its correlation with insect performance in the mountain birch. Oikos 63:215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shelton, A. L. 2004. Variation in chemical defences of plants may improve the effectiveness of defence. Evol. Ecol. Res. 6:709.Google Scholar
  66. Sulkinoja, M. and Valanne, T. 1987. Leafing and bud size in betula provenances of different latitudes and altitudes. Rep. Kevo Subarctic Res. Stat. 20:27.Google Scholar
  67. Suomela, J., Ossipov, V., and Haukioja, E. 1995. Variation among and within mountain birch trees in foliage phenols, carbohydrates, and amino acids, and in growth of epirrita autumnata larvae. J. Chem. Ecol. 21:1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sveinbjörnsson, B., Kauhanen, H., and Nordell, O. 1996. Treeline ecology of mountain birch in the torneträsk area. Ecol. Bull. 45:65.Google Scholar
  69. Tenow, O. 1996. Hazards to a mountain birch forest—Abisko in perspective. Ecol. Bull. 45:104.Google Scholar
  70. Underwood, N. 2004. Variance and skew of the distribution of plant quality influence herbivore population dynamics. Ecology 85:686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Virtanen, T. and Neuvonen, S. 1999. Performance of moth larvae on birch in relation to altitude, climate, host quality and parasitoids. Oecologia 120:92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yang, S., Haviola, S., and Ruuhola, T. 2007. Temporal and spatial variation in mountain birch foliar enzyme activities during the larval period of epirrita autumnata. Chemoecology 17:71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanna Haviola
    • 1
    • 2
  • Seppo Neuvonen
    • 3
  • Markus J. Rantala
    • 1
  • Kari Saikkonen
    • 4
  • Juha-Pekka Salminen
    • 5
  • Irma Saloniemi
    • 6
  • Shiyong Yang
    • 1
    • 7
  • Teija Ruuhola
    • 8
  1. 1.Section of Ecology, Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Kevo Subarctic Research InstituteUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.The Finnish Forest Research InstituteJoensuuFinland
  4. 4.Plant Production ResearchMTT Agrifood Research FinlandJokioinenFinland
  5. 5.Laboratory of Organic Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Department of ChemistryUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  6. 6.Laboratory of Genetics, Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  7. 7.Section of Ecology, College of Life ScienceAnhui Normal UniversityWuhuChina
  8. 8.Department of BiologyUniversity of Eastern Finland (UEF)JoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations