Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 39–49 | Cite as

Folivory Affects Composition of Nectar, Floral Odor and Modifies Pollinator Behavior

  • Maaike Bruinsma
  • Dani Lucas-BarbosaEmail author
  • Cindy J. M. ten Broeke
  • Nicole M. van Dam
  • Teris A. van Beek
  • Marcel Dicke
  • Joop J.A. van Loon
Article

Abstract

Herbivory induces changes in plants that influence the associated insect community. The present study addresses the potential trade-off between plant phytochemical responses to insect herbivory and interactions with pollinators. We used a multidisciplinary approach and have combined field and greenhouse experiments to investigate effects of herbivory in plant volatile emission, nectar production, and pollinator behavior, when Pieris brassicae caterpillars were allowed to feed only on the leaves of Brassica nigra plants. Interestingly, volatile emission by flowers changed upon feeding by herbivores on the leaves, whereas, remarkably, volatile emission by leaves did not significantly differ between infested and non-infested flowering plants. The frequency of flower visits by pollinators was generally not influenced by herbivory, but the duration of visits by honeybees and butterflies was negatively affected by herbivore damage to leaves. Shorter duration of pollinator visits could be beneficial for a plant, because it sustains pollen transfer between flowers while reducing nectar consumption per visit. Thus, no trade-off between herbivore-induced plant responses and pollination was evident. The effects of herbivore-induced plant responses on pollinator behavior underpin the importance of including ecological factors, such as herbivore infestation, in studies of the ecology of plant pollination.

Keywords

Brassica nigra (black mustard) Flower visitors Herbivore-induced plant volatiles Herbivory Honeybees Syrphid flies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Ciska Raaijmakers for helping with the glucosinolate and sugar analyses, Johan Calis and Willem-Jan Boot for the supply of the honey bees, André Gidding, Leo Koopman, Frans van Aggelen for rearing cabbage whites, and Bert Essenstam and Unifarm for growing mustard plants and field maintenance.

References

  1. Adams RP (1995) Identification of essential oil components by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, 4th edn. Allurum Publishing Corporation, Carol StreamGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler LS (2000) The ecological significance of toxic nectar. Oikos 91:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adler LS, Wink M, Distl M, Lentz AJ (2006) Leaf herbivory and nutrients increase nectar alkaloids. Ecol Lett 9:960–967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blatt SE, Smallegange RC, Hess L, Harvey JA, Dicke M, van Loon JJA (2008) Tolerance of Brassica nigra to Pieris brassicae herbivory. Botany 86:641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruinsma M, IJdema H, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2008) Differential effects of jasmonic acid treatment of Brassica nigra on the attraction of pollinators, parasitoids, and butterflies. Entomol Exp Appl 128:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchner R (1987) Approach to determination of HPLC response factors for glucosinolates. In: Wathelet J-P (ed) Glucosinolates in rapeseeds. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardel YJ, Koptur S (2010) Effects of florivory on the pollination of flowers: an experimental; field study with a perennial plant. Int J Plant Sci 171:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conner J, Davis R, Rush S (1995) The effect of wild radish floral morphology on pollination efficiency by four taxa of pollinators. Oecologia 104:234–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danderson CA, Molano-Flores B (2010) Effects of herbivory and inflorescence size on insect visitation to Eryngium yuccifolium (Apiaceae) a prairie plant. Am Midl Nat 163:234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dicke M, Baldwin IT (2010) The evolutionary context for herbivore-induced plant volatiles: beyond the ‘cry for help’. Trends Plant Sci 15:167–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dicke M, Sabelis MW (1989) Does it pay plants to advertize for bodyguards? Towards a cost-benefit analysis of induced synomone production. In: Lambers H, Cambridge ML, Konings H, Pons TL (eds) Causes and consequences of variation in growth rate and productivity of higher plants. SPB Publishing, The Hague, pp 341–358Google Scholar
  12. Diezel C, Allmann S, Baldwin IT (2011) Mechanisms of optimal defense patterns in Nicotiana attenuata: flowering attenuates herbivory-elicited ethylene and jasmonate signaling. J Integr Plant Biol 53:971–983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Effmert U, Dinse C, Piechulla B (2008) Influence of green leaf herbivory by Manduca sexta on floral volatile emission by Nicotiana suaveolens. Plant Physiol 146:1996–2007PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Euler M, Baldwin IT (1996) The chemistry of defense and apparency in the corollas of Nicotiana attenuata. Oecologia 107:102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European commission, (1990) Oil seeds - determination of glucosinolates. High performance liquid chromatography. Off J Eur Communities L 170:27–34Google Scholar
  16. Galen C (1999) Why do flowers vary? The functional ecology of variation in flower size and form within natural plant populations. Bioscience 49:631–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gols R, Witjes LMA, van Loon JJA, Posthumus MA, Dicke M, Harvey JA (2008) The effect of direct and indirect defenses in two wild brassicaceous plant species on a specialist herbivore and its gregarious endoparasitoid. Entomol Exp Appl 128:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamback PA (2001) Direct and indirect effects of herbivory: feeding by spittlebugs affects pollinator visitation rates and seedset of Rudbeckia hirta. Ecoscience 8:45–50Google Scholar
  19. Harder LD, Barrett SCH (2006) The ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Harper FR, Berkenkamp B (1975) Revised growth stage key for Brassica campestris and Brassica napus. Can J Plant Sci 55:657–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or to defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hopkins RJ, van Dam NM, van Loon JJA (2009) Role of glucosinolates in insect-plant relationships and multitrophic interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 54:57–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Irwin RE, Adler LS (2008) Nectar secondary compounds affect self-pollen transfer: implications for female and male reproduction. Ecology 89:2207–2217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irwin RE, Brody AK (2011) Additive effects of herbivory, nectar robbing and seed predation on male and female fitness estimates of the host plant Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 166:681–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. Chicago University Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kessler D, Baldwin IT (2007) Making sense of nectar scents: the effects of nectar secondary metabolites on floral visitors of Nicotiana attenuata. Plant J 49:840–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kessler A, Halitschke R (2009) Testing the potential for conflicting selection on floral chemical traits by pollinators and herbivores: predictions and case study. Funct Ecol 23:901–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kessler A, Halitschke R, Poveda K (2011) Herbivory-mediated pollinator limitation: negative impacts of induced volatiles on plant–pollinator interactions. Ecology 92:1769–1780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein AM, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klinkhamer PGL, De Jong TJ (1993) Attractiveness to pollinators: a plant’s dilemma. Oikos 66:180–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kohler A, Pirk CWW, Nicolson SW (2012) Honeybees and nectar nicotine: deterrence and reduced survival versus potential health benefits. J Insect Physiol 58:286–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krupnick GA, Weis AE, Campbell DR (1999) The consequences of floral herbivory for pollinator service to Isomeris arborea. Ecology 80:125–134Google Scholar
  33. Lehtilä K, Strauss SY (1997) Leaf damage by herbivores affects attractiveness to pollinators in wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum. Oecologia 111:396–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lucas-Barbosa D, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2011) The effects of herbivore-induced plant volatiles on interactions between plants and flower-visiting insects. Phytochemistry 72:1647–1654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lucas-Barbosa D, van Loon JJA, Gols R, van Beek TA, Dicke M (2013) Reproductive escape: annual plant responds to butterfly eggs by accelerating seed production. Funct Ecol 27:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mumm R, Dicke M (2010) Variation in natural plant products and the attraction of bodyguards involved in indirect plant defense. Can J Zool 88:628–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Myers N (1996) Environmental services of biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93:2764–2769PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oguro M, Sakai S (2009) Floral herbivory at different stages of flower development changes reproduction in Iris gracilipes (Iridaceae). Plant Ecol 202:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ohnmeiss TE, Baldwin IT (2000) Optimal defense theory predicts the ontogeny of an induced nicotine defense. Ecology 81:1765–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Omura H, Honda K, Hayashi N (1999) Chemical and chromatic bases for preferential visiting by the Cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae, to rape flowers. J Chem Ecol 25:1895–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pareja M, Qvarfordt E, Webster B, Mayon P, Pickett J, Birkett M, Glinwood R (2012) Herbivory by a phloem-feeding insect inhibits floral volatile production. PLoS ONE 7:e31971PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Poveda K, Steffan-Dewenter I, Scheu S, Tscharntke T (2003) Effects of below- and above-ground herbivores on plant growth, flower visitation and seed set. Oecologia 135:601–605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Poveda K, Steffan-Dewenter I, Scheu S, Tscharntke T (2005) Effects of decomposers and herbivores on plant performance and aboveground plant-insect interactions. Oikos 108:503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reisenman CE, Riffell JA, Bernays EA, Hildebrand JG (2010) Antagonistic effects of floral scent in an insect-plant interaction. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 277:2371–2379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoonhoven LM, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2005) Insect-plant biology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Simms EL (1992) Costs of plant resistance to herbivory. In: Fritz RS, Simms EL (eds) Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution, and genetics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 392–425Google Scholar
  48. Smallegange RC, van Loon JJA, Blatt SE, Harvey JA, Agerbirk N, Dicke M (2007) Flower vs. leaf feeding by Pieris brassicae: glucosinolate-rich flower tissues are preferred and sustain higher growth rate. J Chem Ecol 33:1831–1844PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strauss SY, Murch P (2004) Towards an understanding of the mechanisms of tolerance: compensating for herbivore damage by enhancing a mutualism. Ecol Entomol 29:234–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strauss SY, Conner JK, Lehtilä KP (2001) Effects of foliar herbivory by insects on the fitness of Raphanus raphanistrum: damage can increase male fitness. Am Nat 158:496–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strauss SY, Rudgers JA, Lau JA, Irwin RE (2002) Direct and ecological costs of resistance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 17(6):278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strauss SY, Irwin RE, Lambrix VM (2004) Optimal defence theory and flower petal colour predict variation in the secondary chemistry of wild radish. J Ecol 92:132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tautz J, Rostás M (2008) Honeybee buzz attenuates plant damage by caterpillars. Curr Biol 18:R1125–R1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Topazzini A, Mazza M, Pelosi P (1990) Electroantennogram responses of 5 Lepidoptera species to 26 general odorants. J Insect Physiol 36:619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Dam NM, Witjes L, Svatos A (2004) Interactions between aboveground and belowground induction of glucosinolates in two wild Brassica species. New Phytol 161:801–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Loon JJA, Frentz WH, van Eeuwijk FA (1992) Electroantennogram responses to plant volatiles in two species of Pieris butterflies. Entomol Exp Appl 62:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zangerl AR, Hamilton JG, Miller TJ, Crofts AR, Oxborough K, Berenbaum MR, de Lucia EH (2002) Impact of folivory on photosynthesis is greater than the sum of its holes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:1088–1091PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maaike Bruinsma
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dani Lucas-Barbosa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cindy J. M. ten Broeke
    • 1
  • Nicole M. van Dam
    • 4
    • 5
  • Teris A. van Beek
    • 6
  • Marcel Dicke
    • 1
  • Joop J.A. van Loon
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of EntomologyWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Plant Ecology and Phytochemistry, Institute of Biology LeidenLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.NaktuinbouwRoelofarendsveenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Terrestrial EcologyNIOO-KNAWWageningenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Ecogenomics, Institute for Water and Wetland ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Laboratory of Organic ChemistryWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations