Advertisement

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 513–518 | Cite as

Leaf area lost, rather than herbivore type, determines the induction of extrafloral nectar secretion in a tropical plant (Clerodendrum philippinum)

  • Fang Fang Xu
  • Jin Chen
  • John Husson
Original Paper

Abstract

Plants produce extrafloral nectar (EFN) as indirect defense against herbivores. How different types of herbivores and types of damage affect EFN secretion rates are still not fully understood. In this study, a common shrub, Clerodendrum philippinum, was exposed to three different herbivores (with the two smaller species exposed at two densities), as well as three different types of mechanical damage. Feeding by a large generalist herbivore, the locust Atractomorpha sinensis, resulted in a significantly higher EFN secretion rate than the control treatment, while the other two herbivores, the specialist beetle Hoplasoma unicolor and generalist weevil Hypomeces squamosus, only caused significant increases in EFN secretion rate when present in high densities. Under these higher-density conditions, leaf area lost also increased. With respect to mechanical damage, a significant increase in EFN secretion rate, compared to control treatments, occurred only in the treatment with leaves damaged by scratching, but not in the treatments in which leaves had a hole punched in them or were cut from the stem. The significant regression of the change in EFN secretion rate on the amount of leaf area lost also indicates that leaf area lost to chewing insects may be an important factor in EFN secretion rate change. This research suggests that the induced response of EFN secretion in C. philippinum is a matter of the amount of the leaf area lost, more than a response to whether an insect is a generalist or specialist.

Keywords

Extrafloral Generalist Indirect defense Induced defense Mechanical damage Specialist 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Eben Goodale and Dr. Tom Fayle for their help with the statistical analysis, thank the anonymous reviewers for their help in improving the manuscript, and Ms. Yalan Wu and Ms. Bomei Peng for their assistance with the experiment. We are also thankful for logistical help from the Horticulture Department of XTBG and the Central Laboratory of XTBG.

References

  1. Ali JG, Agrawal AA (2012) Specialist versus generalist insect herbivores and plant defense. Trends Plant Sci 17:293–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arimura G, Ozawa R, Shimoda T, Nishioka T, Boland W, Takabayashi J (2000) Herbivory-induced volatiles elicit defence genes in lima bean leaves. Nature 406:512–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin IT (1988) The alkaloidal responses of wild tobacco to real and simulated herbivory. Oecologia 77:378–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates FJ, Swindells JF (1942) Polarimetry, saccharimetry and the sugars. NBS Circular C440. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp 632–641Google Scholar
  5. Bidart-Bouzat MG, Kliebenstein D (2011) An ecological genomic approach challenging the paradigm of differential plant responses to specialist versus generalist insect herbivores. Oecologia 167:677–689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bixenmann R, Coley P, Kursar T (2011) Is extrafloral nectar production induced by herbivores or ants in a tropical facultative ant–plant mutualism? Oecologia 165:417–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmona D, Fornoni J (2013) Herbivores can select for mixed defensive strategies in plants. New Phytol 197:576–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrillo J, Wang Y, Ding J, Siemann E (2012) Induction of extrafloral nectar depends on herbivore type in invasive and native Chinese tallow seedlings. Basic Appl Ecol 13:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creelman RA, Mullet JE (1997) Biosynthesis and action of jasmonates in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 48:355–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halitschke R, Schittko U, Pohnert G, Boland W, Baldwin IT (2001) Molecular interactions between the specialist herbivore Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) and its natural host Nicotiana attenuata. III. Fatty acid-amino acid conjugates in herbivore oral secretions are necessary and sufficient for herbivore-specific plant responses. Plant Physiol 125:711–717CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Halitschke R, Gase K, Hui D, Schmidt DD, Baldwin IT (2003) Molecular interactions between the specialist herbivore Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) and its natural host Nicotiana attenuata. VI. Microarray analysis reveals that most herbivore-specific transcriptional changes are mediated by fatty acid-amino acid conjugates. Plant Physiol 131:1894–1902CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Heil M, Bueno JCS (2007) Within-plant signaling by volatiles leads to induction and priming of an indirect plant defense in nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5467–5472CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Heil M, Fiala B, Baumann B, Linsenmair K (2000) Temporal, spatial and biotic variations in extrafloral nectar secretion by Macaranga tanarius. Funct Ecol 14:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heil M, Koch T, Hilpert A, Fiala B, Boland W, Linsenmair KE (2001) Extrafloral nectar production of the ant-associated plant, Macaranga tanarius, is an induced, indirect, defensive response elicited by jasmonic acid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1083–1088CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Heil M, Hilpert A, Kruger R, Linsenmair KE (2004) Competition among visitors to extrafloral nectaries as a source of ecological costs of an indirect defence. J Trop Ecol 20:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang W, Siemann E, Wheeler GS, Zou J, 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
  17. Igathinathane C, Pordesimo L, Columbus E, Batchelor W, Methuku S (2008) Shape identification and particles size distribution from basic shape parameters using ImageJ. Comput Electron Agric 63:168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Izaguirre MM, Mazza CA, Astigueta MS, Ciarla AM, Ballaré CL (2013) No time for candy: passion fruit (Passiflora edulis) plants down-regulate damage-induced extra floral nectar production in response to light signals of competition. Oecologia 173:213–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Janzen DH (1966) Coevolution of mutualism between ants and acacias in Central America. Evolution 20:249–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kersch MF, Fonseca CR (2005) Abiotic factors and the conditional outcome of an ant-plant mutualism. Ecology 86:2117–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kost C, Heil M (2005) Increased availability of extrafloral nectar reduces herbivory in Lima bean plants (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae). Basic Appl Ecol 6:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lankau RA (2007) Specialist and generalist herbivores exert opposing selection on a chemical defense. New Phytol 175:176–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Macel M (2011) Attract and deter: a dual role for pyrrolizidine alkaloids in plant–insect interactions. Phytochem Rev 10:75–82CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mathur V, Wagenaar R, Caissard JC, Reddy AS, Vet LEM, Cortesero AM, Van Dam NM (2013) A novel indirect defence in Brassicaceae: structure and function of extrafloral nectaries in Brassica juncea. Plant Cell Environ 36:528–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Meng LZ, Martin K, Liu JX, Chen J (2012) Young leaf protection in the shrub Leea glabra in south-west China: the role of extrafloral nectaries and ants. Arthropod-Plant Interact 6:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Narváez-Vásquez J, Ryan CA (2004) The cellular localization of prosystemin: a functional role for phloem parenchyma in systemic wound signaling. Planta 218:360–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Narváez-Vásquez J, Pearce G, Ryan CA (2005) The plant cell wall matrix harbors a precursor of defense signaling peptides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:12974–12977CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Price PW, Bouton CE, Gross P, McPheron BA, Thompson JN, Weis AE (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rudgers JA, Gardener MC (2004) Extrafloral nectar as a resource mediating multispecies interactions. Ecology 85:1495–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sutter R, Müller C (2011) Mining for treatment-specific and general changes in target compounds and metabolic fingerprints in response to herbivory and phytohormones in Plantago lanceolata. New Phytol 191:1069–1082CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Team RC (2005) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, 2013. http://www.R-project.org
  32. van der Meijden E (1996) Plant defence, an evolutionary dilemma: contrasting effects of (specialist and generalist) herbivores and natural enemies. Proc 9th Int Symp Insect Plant Relatsh 53:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Fourth Edition. Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387-95457-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wäckers FL, Wunderlin R (1999) Induction of cotton extrafloral nectar production in response to herbivory does not require a herbivore-specific elicitor. Entomol Exp Appl 91(1):149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wasternack C, Parthier B (1997) Jasmonate-signalled plant gene expression. Trends Plant Sci 2:302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xu F, Chen J (2010) Competition hierarchy and plant defense in a guild of ants on tropical Passiflora. Insectes Soc 57:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical GardenChinese Academy of SciencesMenglaChina
  2. 2.Undergraduate ProgramMiddlebury CollegeMiddleburyUSA

Personalised recommendations