Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 43, Issue 8, pp 817–830 | Cite as

Plant Community Chemical Composition Influences Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Intake by Sheep

  • Kristen Y. Heroy
  • Samuel B. St. Clair
  • Elizabeth A. Burritt
  • Juan J. Villalba
Article

Abstract

Nutrients and plant secondary compounds in aspen (Populus tremuloides) may interact with nutrients in the surrounding vegetation to influence aspen use by herbivores. Thus, this study aimed to determine aspen intake and preference by sheep in response to supplementary nutrients or plant secondary compounds (PSC) present in aspen trees. Thirty-two lambs were randomly assigned to one of four molasses-based supplementary feeds to a basal diet of tall fescue hay (N = 8) during three experiments. The supplements were as follows: (1) high-protein (60% canola meal), (2) a PSC (6% quebracho tannins), (3) 25% aspen bark, and (4) control (100% molasses). Supplements were fed from 0700 to 0900, then lambs were fed fresh aspen leaves collected from stands containing high (Experiment 1, 2) or low (Experiment 3) concentrations of phenolic glycosides (PG). In Experiment 2, lambs were simultaneously offered aspen, a forb (Lathyrus pauciflorus), and a grass (Bromus inermis) collected from the aspen understory. Animals supplemented with high protein or tannins showed greater intake of aspen leaves than animals supplemented with bark or the control diet (P < 0.05), likely because some condensed tannins have a positive effect on protein nutrition and protein aids in PSC detoxification. Overall, animals supplemented with bark showed the lowest aspen intake, suggesting PSC in bark and aspen leaves had additive inhibitory effects on intake. In summary, these results suggest that not only the concentration but also the types and proportions of nutrients and chemical defenses available in the plant community influence aspen use by herbivores.

Keywords

Ovis aries Phenolic glycosides Condensed tannins Herbivory Preference Diet selection Foraging 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grants from Utah State University, School of Graduate Studies (SPARC), The Ecology Center, and the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. This paper is published with the approval of the Director, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, and Utah State University, as journal paper number 9003.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study was funded by the Utah State Agricultural Research Experiment Station (grant number 1068).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. AOAC (2000) Official methods of analysis, 17th edn. Association of official analytical chemists. Perkin Elmer 5300 DV ICP. Perkin Elmer, 710 Bridgeport avenue, Shelton, CT 06484Google Scholar
  2. Atsatt PR, O’Dowd DJ (1976) Plant defense guilds. Science 193(4247):24–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA, Rehill BJ, Irschick DJ, Whitham TG, Lindroth RL (2007) Rapid shifts in the chemical composition of aspen forests: an introduced herbivore as an agent of natural selection. Biol Invasions 9:715–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baraza E, Villalba JJ, Provenza FD (2005) Nutritional context influences preferences of lambs for foods with plant secondary metabolites. Appl Anim Behav Sci 92:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baraza E, Zamora R, Hódar JA (2006) Conditional outcomes in plant–herbivore interactions: neighbours matter. Oikos 113:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boeckler GA, Gershenzon J, Unsicker SB (2011) Phenolic glycosides of the Salicaceae and their role as anti-herbivore defenses. Phytochemistry 72:1497–1509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant JP, Kuropat PJ (1980) Selection of winter forage by subarctic browsing vertebrates: the role of plant chemistry. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11(1):261–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burritt EA, Provenza FD (2000) Role of toxins in intake of varied diets by sheep. J Chem Ecol 26(8):1991–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardozo PW, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, Kamel C (2004) Effects of natural plant extracts on ruminal protein degradation and fermentation profiles in continuous culture. J Anim Sci 82(11):3230–3236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dearing MD, Foley WJ, McLean S (2005) The influence of plant secondary metabolites on the nutritional ecology of herbivorous terrestrial vertebrates. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:169–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson JR, Stevens MT, Barnhill HR, Lindroth RL (2006) Age-related shifts in leaf chemistry of clonal aspen (Populus tremuloides). J Chem Ecol 32:1415–1429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Erbilgin N, Galvez DA, Zhang B, Najar A (2014) Resource availability and repeated defoliation mediate compensatory growth in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) seedlings. Peer J 2:e491. doi: 10.7717/peerj.491 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Foley WJ, Iason GR, McArthur C (1999) Role of plant secondary metabolites in the nutritional ecology of mammalian herbivores: how far have we come in 25 years? In: Jung HJG and Fahey GC Jr. (eds) Nutritional ecology of herbivores. American Socitey of Animal Science. Savoy, Il, pp 130–209Google Scholar
  14. Freeland WJ, Janzen DH (1974) Strategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of plant secondary compounds. Am Nat 108:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frutos P, Hervás G, Giráldez FJ, Mantecón AR (2004) Review. Tannins and ruminant nutrition. Span J Agric Res 2(2):191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hagerman AE, Butler L (1980) Condensed tannin purification and characterization of tannin-associated proteins. J Agric Food Chem 28:947–952CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagerman AE, Robbins CT, Weerasuriya Y, Wilson TC, McArthur C (1992) Tannin chemistry in relation to digestion. J Range Manag 45:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton T, Burritt EA, Villalba JJ (2015) Assessing the impact of supplements, food aversions, andsilica on medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski) use by sheep. Small Rumin Res 124:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harper AE (1974) Amino acid excess. In: White PL and Fletcher DC (eds) Nutrients in processed foods—proteins. Publishing Sciences Group, Acton, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Hemming JDC, Lindroth RL (2000) Effects of phenolic glycosides and protein on gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) and forest tent caterpillar (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae) performance and detoxication activities. Environ Entomol 29:1108–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heroy KY (2017) The influence of aspen chemistry and the nutritional context on aspen herbivory. Dissertation, Utah State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  22. Hjältén J, Danell K, Lundberg P (1993) Herbivore avoidance by association: vole and hare utilization of woody plants. Oikos 1:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holeski LM, McKenzie SC, Kruger EL, Couture JJ, Rubert-Nason K, Lindroth RL (2016) Phytochemical traits underlie genotypic variation in susceptibility of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) to browsing by a keystone forest ungulate. J Ecol 104:850–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Illius AW, Jessop NS (1995) Modeling metabolic costs of allelochemical ingestion by foraging herbivores. J Chem Ecol 21:693–719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Illius AW, Jessop NS (1996) Metabolic constraints on voluntary intake in ruminants. J Anim Sci 74:3052–3062CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones BE, Lile DF, Tate KW (2011) Cattle selection for aspen and meadow vegetation: implications for restoration. Rangel Ecol Manag 64:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kohl KD, Weiss RB, Cox J, Dale C, Dearing MD (2014) Gut microbes of mammalian herbivores facilitate intake of plant toxins. Ecol Lett 17(10):1238–1246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Leimar O, Tuomi J (1998) Synergistic selection and graded traits. Evol Ecol 12:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindroth RL, Bloomer MS (1991) Biochemical ecology of the forest tent caterpillar: responses to dietary protein and phenolic glycosides. Oecologia 86(3):408–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindroth RL, Hwang SY (1996) Diversity, redundancy, and multiplicity in chemical defense systems of aspen. In: Romeo JT, Saunders JA, Barbosa P (eds) Phytochemical diversity and redundancy in ecological interactions. Plenum Press, New York, pp 25–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindroth RL, Pajutee MS (1987) Chemical analysis of phenolic glycosides: art, facts, and artifacts. Oecologia 74:144–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindroth RL, St. Clair SB (2013) Adaptations of quaking aspen (Populus Tremuloides Michx.) for defense against herbivores. For Ecol Manag 299:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindroth RL, Kinney KK, Platz CL (1993) Responses of deciduous trees to elevated atmospheric CO2: productivity, phytochemistry, and insect performance. Ecology 74:763–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacAdam JW, Villalba JJ (2015) Beneficial effects of temperate forage legumes that contain condensed tannins. Agriculture 20:475–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marsh KJ, Wallis IR, McLean S, Sorensen JS, Foley WJ (2006) Conflicting demands on detoxification pathways influence how common brushtail possums choose their diets. Ecology 87(8):2103–2112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. NRC (1985) Nutrient requirements of sheep, 6th edn. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. Odenyo AA, Osuji PO (1998) Tannin-tolerant ruminal bacteria from east African ruminants. Can J Microbiol 44:904–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palo RT, Robbins CT (1991) Plant defenses against mammalian herbivory. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  39. Pass G, Foley WJ (2000) Plant secondary metabolites as mammalian feeding deterrents: separating the effects of the taste of salicin from its post-ingestive consequences in the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). J Comp Physiol B 170(3):185–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Porter LJ, Hrstich LN, Chan BC (1986) The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Provenza FD (1995) Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. J Range Manag 48:2–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Provenza FD, Villalba JJ (2006) Foraging in domestic herbivores: linking the internal and external milieu. In: Bels VL (ed) Feeding in domestic vertebrates: from structure to function. CABI Publ, Oxfordshire, pp 210–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rautio P, Kesti K, Bergvall UA, Tuomi J, Leimar O (2008) Spatial scales of foraging in fallow deer: implications for associational effects in plant defences. Oecologica 34(1):12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rautio P, Bergvall UA, Tuomi J, Kesti K, Leimar O (2012) Food selection by herbivores and neighbourhood effects in the evolution of plant defences. Ann Zool Fenn 49(1–2):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reed JD (1995) Nutritional toxicology of tannins and related polyphenols in forage legumes. J Anim Sci 73:1516–1528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Robbins CT, Hanley TA, Hagerman AE, Hjeljord O, Baker DL, Schwartz CC, Mautz WW (1987) Role of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in protein availability. Ecology 68:98–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robbins CT, Hagerman AE, Austin PJ, McArthur C, Hanley TA (1991) Variation in mammalian physiological responses to a condensed tannin and its ecological implications. J Mammal 72:480–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seager ST, Eisenberg C, St. Clair SB (2013) Patterns and consequences of ungulate herbivory on aspen in western North America. For Ecol Manag 299:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Senft RL, Coughenour MB, Bailey DW, Rittenhouse LR, Sala OE, Swift DM (1987) Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. Bioscience 37:789–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Swift RW (1957) The caloric value of TDN. J Anim Sci 16:753–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edn. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD (1999) Nutrient-specific preferences by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusions of starch, casein, and water. J Anim Sci 77(2):378–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD (2002) Consequences of the interaction between nutrients and plant secondary metabolites on herbivore selectivity: benefits or detriments for plants? Oikos 97(2):282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD (2005) Foraging in chemically diverse environments: energy, protein, and alternative foods influence ingestion of plant secondary metabolites by lambs. J Chem Ecol 31(1):123–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD, Banner RE (2002) Influence of macronutrients and polyethylene glycol on intake of a quebracho tannin diet by sheep and goats. J Anim Sci 80:3154–3164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD, Hall JO (2008) Learned appetites for calcium, phosphorus, and sodium in sheep. J Anim Sci 86(3):738–747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Villalba JJ, Burritt EA, St. Clair SB (2014) Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) intake and Ppference by mammalian herbivores: the role of plant secondary compounds and nutritional context. J Chem Ecol 40(10):1135–1145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD, Catanese F, Distel RA (2015) Understanding and manipulating diet choice in grazing animals. Anim Prod Sci 55:261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Waghorn G (2008) Beneficial and detrimental effects of dietary condensed tannins for sustainable sheep and goat production—progress and challenges. Anim Feed Sci Technol 147:116–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weiss WP, Conrad HR, Pierre NRS (1992) A theoretically-based model for predicting total digestible nutrient values of forages and concentrates. Anim Feed Sci Technol 39:95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Westoby M (1978) What are the biological bases of varied diets? Am Nat 112:627–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. White CA, Feller MC, Bayley S (2003) Predation risk and the functional response of elk-aspen herbivory. For Ecol Manag 181:77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wooley SC, Walker S, Vernon J, Lindroth RL (2008) Aspen decline, aspen chemistry, and elk herbivory: are they linked? Rangelands 30(1):17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristen Y. Heroy
    • 1
  • Samuel B. St. Clair
    • 2
  • Elizabeth A. Burritt
    • 1
  • Juan J. Villalba
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Wildland ResourcesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant & Wildlife SciencesBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations