Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 172, Issue 3, pp 751–766 | Cite as

Thresholds in plant–herbivore interactions: predicting plant mortality due to herbivore browse damage

  • E. Penelope HollandEmail author
  • Roger P. Pech
  • Wendy A. Ruscoe
  • John P. Parkes
  • Graham Nugent
  • Richard P. Duncan
Plant-animal interactions - Original research

Abstract

Patterns of herbivore browse at small scales, such as the rate of leaf consumption or plant preferences, drive the impact of herbivores on whole-plant processes, such as growth or survival, and subsequent changes in plant population structure. However, herbivore impacts are often non-linear, highly variable and context-dependent. Understanding the effect of herbivores on plant populations therefore requires a detailed understanding of the relationships that drive small-scale processes, and how these interact to generate dynamics at larger scales. We derive a mathematical model to predict annual rates of browse-induced tree mortality. We model individual plant mortality as a result of rates of foliage production, turnover and herbivore intake, and extend the model to the population scale by allowing for between-tree variation in levels of herbivore browse. The model is configurable for any broadleaved tree species subject to vertebrate or invertebrate browse, and is designed to be parameterized from field data typically collected as part of browse damage assessments. We parameterized and tested the model using data on foliage cover and browse damage recorded on kamahi trees (Weinmannia racemosa) browsed by possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand forests. The model replicated observed patterns of tree mortality at 12 independent validation sites with a wide range of herbivore densities and browse damage. The model reveals two key thresholds; in plant foliar cover, indicating when individual trees may be at high risk from browse-induced mortality, and in herbivore intake, leading to high rates of mortality across the whole population.

Keywords

Herbivore impacts Plant–animal interactions Generic model Mechanistic model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mandy Barron, Duane Peltzer, Alex Dumbrell, Alex James, Sarah Richardson, Dan Tompkins, Christine Bezar, Andrea Byrom and two anonymous referees for constructive comments and helpful discussions. This work was funded by the Landcare Research Capability Fund and the Ministry of Science and Innovation Programme C09X0909. The studies in which the parameterization and validation data were collected were undertaken by Landcare Research, funded by and with the collaboration of staff from the New Zealand Department of Conservation (Projects 2398 and 2083).

Supplementary material

442_2012_2523_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (96 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 95 kb)
442_2012_2523_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (35 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 35 kb)
442_2012_2523_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (64 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 63 kb)
442_2012_2523_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (31 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 30 kb)
442_2012_2523_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (80 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 79 kb)
442_2012_2523_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (83 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 83 kb)

References

  1. Augustine D, De Calesta D (2003) Defining deer overabundance and threats to forest communities: from individuals to landscape structure. Ecoscience 10:472–486Google Scholar
  2. Barber NA, Marquis RJ (2011) Leaf quality, predators and stochastic processes in the assembly of a diverse herbivore community. Ecology 92:699–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bee J, Kunstler G, Coomes D (2007) Resistance and resilience of New Zealand tree species to browsing. J Ecol 95:1014–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bee J, Tanentzap AJ, Lee WG, Lavers RB, Mark AF, Mills JA, Coomes D (2009) The benefits of being in a bad neighbourhood: plant community composition influences red deer foraging decisions. Oikos 118:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellingham PJ, Lee WG (2006) Distinguishing natural processes from Impacts of Invasive mammalian herbivores. In: Allen RB, Lee WG (eds) Biological Invasions in New Zealand, Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley YM, Rees M, Sheppard AW, Smyth MJ (2005) Stable coexistence of an invasive plant and biocontrol agent: a parameterized coupled plant–herbivore model. J Appl Ecol 42:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caley P (2006) Bovine tuberculosis in brushtail possums: models, dogma and data. NZ J Ecol 30:25–34Google Scholar
  8. Caughley G, Lawton J (1981) Plant–herbivore systems. In: May RM (ed) Theoretical ecology: principles and applications, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 132–166Google Scholar
  9. Choquenot D, Parkes J (2001) Setting thresholds for pest control: how does pest density affect resource viability? Biol Conserv 99:29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowan PE, Chilvers BL, Efford MG, McElrea GJ (1997) Effects of possum browsing on northern rata, Orongorongo Valley, Wellington, New Zealand. J R Soc NZ 27:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawley MJ (1999) Herbivory. In: Press MC, Scholes JD, Barker MG (eds) Physiological plant ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, p 480Google Scholar
  12. Danell K, Niemelä P, Varvikko T, Vuorisalo T (1991) Moose browsing on Scots pine along a gradient of plant productivity. Ecology 72:1624–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeAngelis DL, Mooij WM (2005) Individual–based modeling of ecological and evolutionary processes. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Sys 36:147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Didion M, Kupferschmid AD, Bugmann H (2009) Long–term effects of ungulate browsing on forest composition and structure. For Ecol Manag 258:S44–S55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duncan RP, Holland EP, Pech RP, Barron M, Nugent G, Parkes JP (2011) The relationship between possum density and browse damage on kamahi in New Zealand forests. Austral Ecol 36:858–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eschtruth AK, Battles JJ (2008) Deer herbivory alters forest response to canopy decline caused by an exotic insect pest. Ecol Appl 18:360–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fagan WF, Lewis M, Neubert MG, Aumann C, Apple JL, Bishop JG (2005) When can herbivores slow or reverse the spread of an invading plant? A test case from Mount St Helens. Am Nat 166:669–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feng Z, Qiu Z, Liu R, DeAngelis DL (2011) Dynamics of a plant–herbivore–predator system with plant–toxicity. Math Biosci 229:190–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feng ZL, Liu RS, DeAngelis DL, Bryant JP, Kielland K, Chapin SF, Swihart R (2009) Plant toxicity, adaptive herbivory, and plant community dynamics. Ecosystems 12:534–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS (2004) Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:557–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gelman A, Su Y, Yajima M, Hill J, Grazia Pittau M, Kerman J, Zheng T (2008) arm: Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. R package version 11-16 http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/software/
  22. Gordon IJ (2003) Browsing and grazing ruminants: are they different beasts? For Ecol Manag 181:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hakes AS, Cronin JT (2011) Environmental heterogeneity and spatiotemporal variability in plant defense traits. Oikos 120:452–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holland EP (2012) Inferring changes in foliar mass and area from foliage cover: a mechanistic model. Austral Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  25. Horn H (1971) The adaptive geometry of trees. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  26. Hörnberg S (2001) Changes in population density of moose (Alces alces) and damage to forests in Sweden. For Ecol Manag 149:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ivlev VS (1961) Experimental ecology of the feeding of fishes. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  28. Jorritsma ITM, van Hees AFM, Mohren GMJ (1999) Forest development in relation to ungulate grazing: a modeling approach. For Ecol Manag 120:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kamler J, Homolka M, Cerkal R, Heroldová M, Krojerová-Prokešová J, Barančeková M, Dvořák J, Vejražka K (2009) Evaluation of potential deer browsing impact on sunflower (Helianthus annus). Eur J Wildl Res 55:583–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kamler J, Homolka M, Barančeková M, Krojerová-Prokešová J (2010) Reduction of herbivore density as a tool for reduction of herbivore browsing on palatable tree species. Eur J For Res 129:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kotanen PM, Rosenthal JP (2000) Tolerating herbivory: does the plant care if the herbivore has a backbone? Evol Ecol 15:537–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koyama K, Kikuzawa K (2009) Is Whole-Plant Photosynthetic Rate Proportional to Leaf Area? A test of scalings and a logistic equation by leaf demography census. Am Nat 173:640–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kramer K, Groen TA, van Wieren SE (2003) The interacting effects of ungulates and fire on forest dynamics: an analysis using the model FORSPACE. For Ecol Manag 181:205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuijper DPJ, Cromsigt JPMG, Churski M, Adams B, Jedrzejewska B, Jedrzejewski W (2009) Do ungulates preferentially feed in forest gaps in European temperate forests? For Ecol Manag 258:1528–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kunstler G, Allen RB, Coomes DA, Canham CD, Wright EF (2011) Sortie/NZ model development. Landcare Research, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  36. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Makhabu SW, Skarpe C, Hytteborn H (2006) Elephant impact on shoot distribution on trees and on rebrowsing by smaller browsers. Acta Oecol 30:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moore BD, Lawler IR, Wallis IR, Beale CM, Foley WJ (2010) Palatability mapping: A koala’s eye view of spatial variation in habitat quality. Ecology 11:3165–3176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Possum Control Agencies (2000) Protocol for possum population monitoring using the trap catch method. National Possum Control Agencies, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Nugent G, Fraser K, Sweetapple P (1997) Comparison of red deer and possum diets and impacts in podocarp-hardwood forest, Waihaha Catchment, Pureora Conservation Park. Science for Conservation no. 50, New Zealand Department of Conservation, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  41. Nugent G, Sweetapple P, Coleman J, Suisted P (2000) Possum Feeding Patterns: Dietary tactics of a Reluctant Folivore. In: Montague TL (ed) The Brushtail Possum. Biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial, Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  42. Nugent G, Whitford J, Sweetapple P, Duncan R, Holland P (2010) Effect of one–hit control on the density of possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) and their impacts on native forests. Science for Conservation no. 304, New Zealand Department of Conservation, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Connor MI, Gilbert B, Brown CJ (2011) Theoretical predictions for how temperature affects the dynamics of interacting herbivores and plants. Am Nat 178:626–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pacala SW, Canham CD, Silander JAJ (1993) Forest models defined by field measurements: I. The design of a northeastern forest simulation. Can J For Res 23:1980–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parkes J, Robley A, Forsyth D, Choquenot D (2006) Adaptive management experiments in vertebrate pest control in New Zealand and Australia. Wildl Soc Bull 34:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parsons K, Quiring D, Piene H, Moreau G (2005) Relationship between balsam fir sawfly density and defoliation in balsam fir. For Ecol Manag 205:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Payton IJ (2000) Damage to Native Forests. In: Montague TL (ed) The Brushtail Possum. Biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial, Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  48. Payton IJ, Pekelharing CJ, Frampton CM (1999) Foliar Browse Index: a method for monitoring possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) damage to plant species and forest communities. Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, Lincoln, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  49. Pekelharing CJ, Parkes JP, Barker RJ (1998) Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) densities and impacts on fuchsia (Fuchsia excorticata) in South Westland, New Zealand. NZ J Ecol 22:197–203Google Scholar
  50. R Development Core Team (2010) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org, ISBN 3-900051-07-0
  51. Ramsey D, Efford M, Ball S, Nugent G (2005) The evaluation of indices of animal abundance using spatial simulation of animal trapping. Wildl Res 32:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Richardson SJ, Peltzer DA, Allen RB, McGlone MS, Parfitt RL (2004) Rapid development of phosphorus limitation in temperate rainforest along the Franz Josef soil chronosequence. Oecologia 139:267–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richardson SJ, Peltzer DA, Hurst JM, Allen RB, Bellingham PJ, Carswell FE, Clinton PW, Griffiths AD, Wiser SK, Wright EF (2009) Deadwood in New Zealand’s indigenous forests. For Ecol Manag 258:2456–2466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Richardson SJ, Peltzer DA, Allen RB, McGlone MS (2010) Declining soil fertility does not increase leaf lifespan within species: evidence from the Franz Josef chronosequence, New Zealand. NZ J Ecol 34:306–310Google Scholar
  55. Rose A, J PC, Platt KH (1992) Magnitude of canopy dieback and implications for conservation of southern rata-kamahi (Metrosideros umbellata-Weinmannia racemosa), Central Westland, New Zealand. NZ J Ecol 16:22–32Google Scholar
  56. Sasaki T, Okayasu T, Jamsran U, Takeuchi K (2008) Threshold changes in vegetation along a grazing gradient in Mongolian rangelands. J Ecol 96:145–154Google Scholar
  57. Sessions LA, Kelly D (2001) Methods for monitoring herbivory and growth of New Zealand mistletoes (Loranthaceae). NZ J Ecol 25:19–26Google Scholar
  58. Solomon ME (1949) The natural control of animal populations. J Anim Ecol 18:1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stewart GH, Rose AB (1988) Factors predisposing rata-kamahi (Metrosideros umbellata-Weinmannia racemosa) forests to canopy dieback, Westland, New Zealand. Geol J 17:217–223Google Scholar
  60. Stolter C (2008) Intra-individual plant response to moose browsing: feedback loops and impacts on multiple consumers. Ecol Monogr 78:167–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stone C, Matsuki M, Carnegie A (2003) Pest and disease management in young eucalypt plantations: field manual for using the Crown Damage Index. National Forest Inventory, Bureau of Rural Sciences, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  62. Suresh HS, Dattaraja HS, Sukumar R (2010) Relationship between annual rainfall and tree mortality in a tropical dry forest: Results of a 19-year study at Mudumalai, southern India. For Ecol Manag 259:762–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Todd CR, Forsyth DM, Choquenot D (2008) modeling the effects of fertility control on koala-forest dynamics. J Appl Ecol 45:568–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tompkins DM, Veltman CJ (2006) Unexpected consequences of vertebrate pest control: predictions from a four-species community model. Ecol Appl 16:1050–1061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tremblay JP, Huot J, Potvin F (2006) Divergent nonlinear responses of the boreal forest field layer along an experimental gradient of deer densities. Oecologia 150:78–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Vila AR, Borelli L (2011) Cattle in the Patagonian forests: feeding ecology in Los Alerces National Reserve. For Ecol Manag 261:1306–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wallis IR, Edwards MJ, Windley H, Krockenberger AK, Felton A, Quenzer M, Ganzhorn JU, Foley WJ (2012) Food for folivores: nutritional explanations linking diets to population density. Oecologia 169:281–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weisberg PJ, Bugmann H (2003) Forest dynamics an ungulate herbivory: from leaf to landscape. For Ecol Manag 181:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weisberg PJ, Hobbs NT, Ellis JE, Coughenour MB (2002) An ecosystem approach to population management of ungulates. J Environ Manag 65:181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Penelope Holland
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roger P. Pech
    • 1
    • 3
  • Wendy A. Ruscoe
    • 1
  • John P. Parkes
    • 1
  • Graham Nugent
    • 1
  • Richard P. Duncan
    • 2
  1. 1.Landcare ResearchLincolnNew Zealand
  2. 2.Bio-Protection Research CentreLincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand
  3. 3.Joint Graduate School in Biodiversity and Biosecurity, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations