Plant Ecology

, Volume 213, Issue 6, pp 945–954 | Cite as

Decreased indirect defense in the invasive tree, Triadica sebifera

  • Juli Carrillo
  • Yi Wang
  • Jiangqing Ding
  • Kyle Klootwyk
  • Evan Siemann
Article

Abstract

In the absence of coevolved natural enemies, plants are expected to experience selection away from costly herbivore defenses toward growth and reproduction [evolution of increased competitive ability hypothesis (EICA)], yet no one has demonstrated EICA for an indirect defense trait. Likewise, we have little understanding of how constitutive and induced levels of defense vary among native and invasive plant populations. We conducted a greenhouse experiment in the introduced range to test whether invasive populations have reduced constitutive and induced investment in an indirect defense trait, extrafloral nectar (EFN) production, compared to native populations of Chinese tallow tree, Triadica sebifera, through an experimental leaf damage treatment. Overall, native populations invested more in indirect defense: Native populations had a greater number (+16 %) and percentage of leaves producing EFN (35 vs. 28 %), produced more EFN (63 % greater volume), and produced more sugar (+33 %) compared to invasive populations, independent of damage treatment. Of these traits, number of leaves producing EFN and volume of EFN exhibited a trade-off between constitutive and induced investment but these did not depend on plant origin. Our results are the first to support the EICA hypothesis for an indirect defense trait. This suggests that tri-trophic interactions such as indirect defense are under similar selection as direct defense traits within introduced populations. Despite reduced investment in EFN production, invasive populations still retain the ability to produce EFN, which may enable invasive plants to defend against herbivores in the introduced range.

Keywords

Evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) Extrafloral nectar (EFN) Exotic species Tallow tree Trade-offs 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank C. Gabler, K. Horn, S. Siemann, M. Siemann, K. Klimas, and A. Luckey for their help in data collection and four anonymous reviewers whose comments significantly improved the manuscript. This study was supported by a U.S. NSF Graduate Research and Ford Foundation fellowship (to J. Carrillo), the 100 Talent Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (to J. Ding), the U.S. National Science Foundation (DEB 0820560 to E. Siemann), and the foreign visiting professorship of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (2009S1-30 to E. Siemann).

References

  1. Arimura G, Kost C, Boland W (2005) Herbivore-induced, indirect plant defences. Biochim Biophys Acta 1734:91–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin IT (1990) Herbivory simulations in ecological research. Trends Ecol Evol 5:91–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaton LL, Van Zandt PA, Esselman EJ, Knight TM (2011) Comparison of the herbivore defense and competitive ability of ancestral and modern genotypes of an invasive plant, Lespedeza cuneata. Oikos 120:1413–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants—a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruce KA, Cameron GN, Harcombe PA, Jubinsky G (1997) Introduction, impact on native habitats, and management of a woody invader, the Chinese tallow tree, Sapium sebiferum (L) Roxb. Nat Area J 17:255–260Google Scholar
  7. Cano L, Escarre J, Vrieling K, Sans FX (2009) Palatability to a generalist herbivore, defence and growth of invasive and native Senecio species: testing the evolution of increased competitive ability hypothesis. Oecologia 159:95–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cipollini D, Heil M (2010) Costs and benefits of induced resistance to pathogens and herbivores in plants. CAB Rev 5:1–25Google Scholar
  9. Cipollini D, Mbagwu J, Barto K, Hillstrom C, Enright S (2005) Expression of constitutive and inducible chemical defenses in native and invasive populations of Alliaria petiolata. J Chem Ecol 31:1255–1267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cripps MG, Hinz HL, McKenney JL, Price WJ, Schwarzlander M (2009) No evidence for an ‘evolution of increased competitive ability’ for the invasive Lepidium draba. Basic Appl Ecol 10:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeWalt SJ, Siemann E, Rogers W (2011) Geographic distribution of genetic variation among native and introduced populations of Chinese tallow tree, Triadica sebifera (Euphorbiaceae). Am J Bot 98:1128–1138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eichhorn MP, Ratliffe LC, Pollard KM (2011) Attraction of ants by an invasive Acacia. Insect Conserv Divers 4:235–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eigenbrode SD, Andreas JE, Cripps MG, Ding H, Biggam RC, Schwarzlaender M (2008) Induced chemical defenses in invasive plants: a case study with Cynoglossum officinale L. Biol Invasions 10:1373–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franks SJ, Pratt PD, Dray FA, Simms EL (2008) No evolution of increased competitive ability or decreased allocation to defense in Melaleuca quinuenervia since release from natural enemies. Biol Invasions 10:455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galen C (2005) Catching ants with honey: an experimental test of distraction and satiation as alternative modes of escape from flower-damaging ants. Oecologia 144:80–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants—to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrera AM, Carruthers RI, Mills NJ (2011) No evidence for increased performance of a specialist psyllid on invasive French broom. Acta Oecol 37:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang W, Siemann E, Wheeler GS, Zou JW, Carrillo J, Ding J (2010) Resource allocation to defence and growth are driven by different responses to generalist and specialist herbivory in an invasive plant. J Ecol 98:1157–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hull-Sanders HM, Clare R, Johnson RH, Meyer GA (2007) Evaluation of the evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis: loss of defense against generalist but not specialist herbivores. J Chem Ecol 33:781–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kempel A, Schadler M, Chrobock T, Fischer M, van Kleunen M (2011) Tradeoffs associated with constitutive and induced plant resistance against herbivory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:5685–5689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kessler A, Baldwin IT (2001) Defensive function of herbivore-induced plant volatile emissions in nature. Science 291:2141–2144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kessler A, Heil M (2011) The multiple faces of indirect defences and their agents of natural selection. Funct Ecol 25:348–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koptur S (1992) Interactions between insects and plants mediated by extrafloral nectaries. In: Bernay E (ed) Insect/plants interactions, vol 4. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 85–132Google Scholar
  24. Morris WF, Traw MB, Bergelson J (2006) On testing for a tradeoff between constitutive and induced resistance. Oikos 112:102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orians CM, Ward D (2010) Evolution of plant defenses in nonindigenous environments. Annu Rev Entomol 55:439–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ridenour WM, Vivanco JM, Feng YL, Horiuchi J, Callaway RM (2008) No evidence for trade-offs: Centaurea plants from America are better competitors and defenders. Ecol Monogr 78:369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers WE, Siemann E, Lankau RA (2003) Damage induced production of extrafloral nectaries in native and invasive seedlings of Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum). Am Midl Nat J 149:413–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rudgers JA (2004) Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: selection in a facultative ant–plant mutualism. Ecology 85:192–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2001) Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol Lett 4:514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003a) Herbivory, disease, recruitment limitation, and success of alien and native tree species. Ecology 84:1489–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003b) Reduced resistance of invasive varieties of the alien tree Sapium sebiferum to a generalist herbivore. Oecologia 135:451–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Siemann E, Rogers WE, Dewalt SJ (2006) Rapid adaptation of insect herbivores to an invasive plant. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2763–2769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stinchcombe JR, Rausher MD (2002) The evolution of tolerance to deer herbivory: modifications caused by the abundance of insect herbivores. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1241–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strauss SY, Irwin RE (2004) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of multispecies plant–animal interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:435–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tiffin P, Inouye BD (2000) Measuring tolerance to herbivory: accuracy and precision of estimates made using natural versus imposed damage. Evolution 54:1024–1029PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang Y, Huang W, Siemann E, Zou JW, Wheeler GS, Carrillo J, Ding JQ (2011) Lower resistance and higher tolerance of invasive host plants: biocontrol agents reach high densities but exert weak control. Ecol Appl 21:729–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xu FF, Chen J (2009) Comparison of the differences in response to the change of the extrafloral nectar-ant-herbivore interaction system between a native and an introduced Passiflora species. Acta Bot Yun 31:543–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang KD, Lin YT (1994) Chinese Tallow. China Forestry Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  39. Zou JW, Rogers WE, Siemann E (2007) Differences in morphological and physiological traits between native and invasive populations of Sapium sebiferum. Funct Ecol 21:721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zou JW, Rogers WE, Siemann E (2008a) Increased competitive ability and herbivory tolerance in the invasive plant Sapium sebiferum. Biol Invasions 10:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zou JW, Siemann E, Rogers WE, DeWalt SJ (2008b) Decreased resistance and increased tolerance to native herbivores of the invasive plant Sapium sebiferum. Ecography 31:663–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juli Carrillo
    • 1
  • Yi Wang
    • 2
  • Jiangqing Ding
    • 2
  • Kyle Klootwyk
    • 1
  • Evan Siemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Aquatic Botany and Watershed Ecology, Wuhan Botanical Institute/Wuhan Botanical GardenChinese Academy of SciencesWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations