Plant Ecology

, Volume 186, Issue 1, pp 47–55 | Cite as

The effects of herbivory and resource variability on the production of a second inflorescence by the desert lily, Pancratium sickenbergeri

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

We investigated the effects of herbivory by the dorcas gazelle, Gazella dorcas, on the production of a second inflorescence in a desert lily, Pancratium sickenbergeri (Amaryllidaceae), after the first inflorescence was eaten. In three populations exposed to different levels of herbivory, we conducted an inflorescence-clipping experiment in the flowering seasons of 1997, 1998 and 1999. The experiment was performed on inflorescences at both the emerging stage and the anthesis stage. Plants in each control group were undamaged. Clipped plants had a greater probability of producing a second inflorescence stalk than unclipped plants. In all the populations, the probability of producing a second inflorescence was greater when the first inflorescence was cut in the emerging stage than when it was cut in anthesis, indicating that there was a cost of compensation. In the population with the highest level of herbivory, the production of a second inflorescence stalk was related to resource availability in all 3 years. Plants produced as many flowers or fruits on the second stalk as on the first, indicating that potential reproductive output is double that usually achieved. Although we found no evidence for a trade-off between investment in first and second inflorescence stalks, the lower probability of producing a second inflorescence if heavy investment had been made in the first inflorescence indicates that compensation is costly. These results contradict the mutualism hypothesis that herbivory is beneficial to plants and provide support for the trade-off hypothesis that benefits of herbivory are proximal and are attained at an evolutionary cost.

Keywords

Compensation Geophytes Phenotypic plasticity Trade-offs 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Iris Musli, Tamar Erez and Dror Zchori for assistance in the field. This study was supported by the Israel Science Foundation. This is publication number 511 of the Mitrani Department for Desert Ecology.

References

  1. Aarssen L.W. (1995). Hypotheses for the evolution of apical dominance in plants: implications for the interpretation of overcompensation. Oikos 74:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belsky A.J. (1986). Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. Am. Nat. 127:870–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belsky A.J., Carson W.P., Jensen C.L., Fox G.A. (1993). Overcompensation by plants?: herbivore optimization or red herring? Evol. Ecol. 7:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaauw A.H. (1931). Formation and periodicity of the organs in Hippeastrum hybridum. Verhandlingen Koningrijke Nederlandse Akademie 29:1–90 (English summary)Google Scholar
  5. Boeken B. (1989). Life histories of desert geophytes - the demographic consequences of reproductive biomass partitioning patterns. Oecologia 80:278–283Google Scholar
  6. Boeken B., Gutterman Y. (1986). The effect of temperature in different habitats on flowering time of Sternbergia clusiana in the Negev desert. In: Dubinski Z., Steinberger Y. (eds). Environmental Quality and Ecosystem Stability. Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, Ramat-Gan Israel, Vol. 3 pp. 151–158Google Scholar
  7. Dafni A., Cohen D., Noy-Meir E. (1981a). Life-cycle variation in geophytes. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 68:652–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dafni A., Shmida A., Avishai M. (1981b). Leafless autumnal-flowering geophytes in the Mediterranean region – phytogeographical, ecological and evolutionary aspects. Plant Syst. Evol. 137:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fortanier E.J., Van Brenk G., Wellensiek S.J. (1979). Growth and flowering of Nerine flexuosa alba. Sci. Hortic. 11:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Inouye D.W. (1982). The consequences of herbivory: a mixed blessing for Jurinea mollis (Asteraceae). Oikos 39:267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaremo J., Nilsson P., Tuomi J. (1996). Plant compensatory growth: herbivory or competition? Oikos 77:238–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lawes M.J., Nanni R.F. (1993). The density, habitat use and social organization of the dorcas gazelles (Gazella dorcas) in the Makhtesh Ramon, Negev desert, Israel. J. Arid Environ. 24:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lennartsson T., Tuomi J., Nilsson P. (1997). Evidence for an evolutionary history of overcompensation in the grassland biennial Gentianella campestris (Gentianaceae). Am. Nat. 149:1147–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maschinski J., Whitham T.G. (1989). The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability, and timing. Am. Nat. 134:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mathews J.N.A. (1994). The benefits of overcompensation and herbivory: the difference between coping with herbivores and liking them. Am. Nat. 144:528–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McNaughton S.J. (1979). Grazing as an optimization process: grass-ungulate relationships in the Serengeti. Am. Nat. 113:691–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McNaughton S.J. (1986). On plants and herbivores. Am. Nat. 128:765–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Medrano M., Guitian P., Guitian J. (1999). Breeding system and temporal variation in fecundity of Pancratium maritimum L. (Amaryllidaceae). Flora 194:13–19Google Scholar
  19. Nilsson P., Tuomi J., Astrom M. (1996). Bud dormancy as a bet-hedging strategy. Am. Nat. 147:269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Owen D.F. (1980). How plants may benefit from the animals that eat them. Oikos 35:230–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paige K.N. (1992). Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory – from mutualistic to antagonistic interactions. Ecology 73:2076–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paige K.N., Whitham T.G. (1987). Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: the advantage of being eaten. Am. Nat. 129:407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Philippi T., Seger J. (1989). Hedging one’s evolutionary bets, revisited. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4:41–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruiters C., McKenzie B., Raitt L.M. (1993). Life-history studies of the perennial geophyte Haemanthus pubescens L. subspecies pubesccens (Amaryllidaceae) in lowland costal fynbos, South Africa. Int. J. Plant Sci. 154:441–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruiz N., Ward D., Saltz D. (2002a). Crystals of calcium oxalate in leaves: constitutive or induced defense? Funct. Ecol. 16:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruiz N., Ward D., Saltz D. (2002b). Responses of Pancratium sickenbergeri to simulated bulb herbivory: combining defense and tolerance strategies. J. Ecol. 90:472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruiz N., Ward D. and Saltz D. 2006. Signal selection in a desert lily. Evol. Ecol. Res. (accepted)Google Scholar
  28. Saltz D., Ward D. (2000). Responding to a three-pronged attack: desert lilies subject to herbivory by dorcas gazelles. Plant Ecol. 148:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saltz D., Schmidt H., Rowen M., Karnieli A., Ward D., Schmidt I. (1999). Assessing grazing impacts by remote sensing in hyper-arid environments. J. Range Manag. 52:500–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SAS Institute. 1995. SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6.1. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Seger J., Brockmann H.J. (1987). What is bet-hedging? Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 4:182–211Google Scholar
  32. Simons A.M., Johnston M.O. (1999). The cost of compensation. Am. Nat. 153:683–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slabbert M.M. (1997). Inflorescence initiation and development in Cyrtanthus elatus (Jacq. Traub). Sci. Hortic. 69:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Theron K.I., Jacobs G. (1994). Periodicity of inflorescence initiation and development in Nerine bowdenii W. Watson (Amaryllidaceae). J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 119:1121–1126Google Scholar
  35. Tuomi J., Nilsson P., Astrom M. (1994). Plant compensatory responses – bud dormancy as an adaptation to herbivory. Ecology 75:1429–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vail S.G. (1992). Selection for overcompensatory plant responses to herbivory: a mechanism for the evolution of plant-herbivore mutualism. Am. Nat. 139:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Der Meijden E. (1990). Herbivory as a trigger for growth. Funct. Ecol. 4:597–598Google Scholar
  38. Ward D. (2001). Plant species diversity and population dynamics in Makhtesh Ramon. In: Krasnov B., Mazor E. (eds). The Makhteshim Country: A Laboratory of Nature. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria, pp. 171–186Google Scholar
  39. Ward D., Olsvig-Whittaker L. (1993). Plant species diversity at the junction of two desert biogeographic zones. Biodivers. Lett. 1:172–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ward D., Saltz D. (1994). Foraging at different spatial scales: Dorcas gazelles foraging for lilies in the Negev desert. Ecology 75:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ward D., Olsvig-Whittaker L., Lawes M.J. (1993). Vegetation-environment relationships in a Negev desert erosion cirque. J. Veg. Sci. 4:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ward D., Saltz D., Olsvig-Whittaker L. (2000). Distinguishing signal from noise: long-term studies of vegetation in Makthesh Ramon erosion cirque, Negev desert, Israel. Plant Ecol. 150:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ward D., Spiegel M., Saltz D. (1997). Gazelle herbivory and interpopulation differences in calcium oxalate content of leaves of a desert lily. J. Chem. Ecol. 23:333–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert ResearchBen Gurion University of the NegevSede BoqerIsrael
  2. 2.Department of BiologyNational University of ColombiaBogotá A.A.Colombia
  3. 3.School of Biological and Conservation SciencesUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalScottsvilleSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations