Oecologia

, Volume 173, Issue 1, pp 213–221 | Cite as

No time for candy: passionfruit (Passiflora edulis) plants down-regulate damage-induced extra floral nectar production in response to light signals of competition

  • Miriam M. Izaguirre
  • Carlos A. Mazza
  • María S. Astigueta
  • Ana M. Ciarla
  • Carlos L. Ballaré
Plant-microbe-animal interactions - Original research

Abstract

Plant fitness is often defined by the combined effects of herbivory and competition, and plants must strike a delicate balance between their ability to capture limiting resources and defend against herbivore attack. Many plants use indirect defenses, such as volatile compounds and extrafloral nectaries (EFN), to attract canopy arthropods that are natural enemies of herbivorous organisms. While recent evidence suggests that upon perception of low red to far-red (R:FR) ratios, which signal the proximity of competitors, plants down-regulate resource allocation to direct chemical defenses, it is unknown if a similar phytochrome-mediated response occurs for indirect defenses. We evaluated the interactive effects of R:FR ratio and simulated herbivory on nectar production by EFNs of passionfruit (Passiflora edulis f. flavicarpa). The activity of petiolar EFNs dramatically increased in response to simulated herbivory and hormonal treatment with methyl jasmonate (MeJA). Low R:FR ratios, which induced a classic “shade-avoidance” repertoire of increased stem elongation in P. edulis, strongly suppressed the EFN response triggered by simulated herbivory or MeJA application. Strikingly, the EFN response to wounding and light quality was localized to the branches that received the treatments. In vines like P. edulis, a local response would allow the plants to precisely adjust their light harvesting and defense phenotypes to the local conditions encountered by individual branches when foraging for resources in patchy canopies. Consistent with the emerging paradigm that phytochrome regulation of jasmonate signaling is a central modulator of adaptive phenotypic plasticity, our results demonstrate that light quality is a strong regulator of indirect defenses.

Keywords

Indirect defenses Herbivory Extrafloral nectaries Jasmonate Phytochrome Passiflora 

References

  1. Agrawal A, Kearney E, Hastings A, Ramsey T (2012) Attenuation of the jasmonate burst, plant defensive traits, and resistance to specialist monarch caterpillars on shaded common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). J Chem Ecol 38:893–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apple JL, Feener DH Jr (2001) Ant visitation of extra floral nectaries of Passiflora: the effects of nectary attributes and ant behavior on patterns in facultative ant-plant mutualisms. Oecologia 127:409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballaré CL (1999) Keeping up with the neighbours: phytochrome sensing and other signalling mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci 4:97–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballaré CL (2009) Illuminated behaviour: phytochrome as a key regulator of light foraging and plant anti-herbivore defence. Plant Cell Environ 32:713–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballaré CL (2011) Jasmonate-induced defenses: a tale of intelligence, collaborators and rascals. Trends Plant Sci 16:249–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballaré CL, Scopel AL, Roush ML, Radosevich SR (1995) How plants find light in patchy canopies. A comparison between wild-type and phytochrome-B-deficient mutant plants of cucumber. Funct Ecol 9:859–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ballaré CL, Mazza CA, Austin AT, Pierik R (2012) Canopy light and plant health. Plant Physiol 160:145–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentley BL (1977) Extra-floral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 8:407–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernays EA, Cornelius ML (1989) Generalist caterpillar prey are more palatable than specialists for the generalist predator Iridomyrmex humilis. Oecologia 79:427–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bixenmann RJ, Coley PD, Kursar TA (2011) Is extra floral nectar production induced by herbivores or ants in a tropical facultative ant-plant mutualism? Oecologia 165:417–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cagnola JI, Ploschuk E, Benech-Arnold T, Finlayson SA, Casal JJ (2012) Stem transcriptome reveals mechanisms to reduce the energetic cost of shade-avoidance responses in tomato. Plant Physiol 160:1110–1119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casal JJ (2012) Shade Avoidance. In: The Arabidopsis Book. American Society of Plant Biologists, Rockville, p e0157Google Scholar
  13. Cerrudo I et al (2012) Low red/far-red ratios reduce arabidopsis resistance to Botrytis cinerea and jasmonate responses via a COI1-JAZ10-dependent, salicylic acid-independent mechanism. Plant Physiol 158:2042–2052PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chamberlain SA, Holland NJ (2009) Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant-plant protection mutualisms. Ecology 90:2384–2392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornelius ML, Bernays EA (1995) The effect of plant chemistry on the acceptability of caterpillar prey to the Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilils (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Insect Behav 8:579–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Kroon H, Visser EJW, Huber H, Mommer L, Hutchings MJ (2009) A modular concept of plant foraging behaviour: the interplay between local responses and systemic control. Plant, Cell Environ 32:704–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Wit M et al (2013) Perception of low red: far-red ratio compromises both salicylic acid- and Jasmonic acid- dependent pathogen defences in Arabidopsis. Plant J 75:90–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deginani NB (2001) Las especies argentinas del género Passiflora (Passifloraceae). Darwiniana 39:43–129Google Scholar
  19. DeLucia EH, Nabity PD, Zavala JA, Berenbaum MR (2012) Climate change: resetting plant-insect interactions. Plant Physiol 160:1677–1685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Di Giusto B, Anstett MC, Dounias E, McKey DB (2001) Variation in the effectiveness of biotic defence: the case of an opportunistic ant-plant protection mutualism. Oecologia 129:367–375Google Scholar
  21. Escalante-Pérez M et al (2012) Poplar extra floral nectaries: two types, two strategies of indirect defenses against herbivores. Plant Physiol 159:1176–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harper JL (1977) Population biology of plants. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Heil M (2008) Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytol 178:41–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heil M (2010) Plastic defence expression in plants. Evol Ecol 24:555–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heil M (2011) Nectar: generation, regulation and ecological functions. Trends Plant Sci 16:191–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 98:1083–1088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Held M, Baldwin IT (2005) Soil degradation slows growth and inhibits jasmonate-induced resistance in Artemisia vulgaris. Ecol Appl 15:1689–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Izaguirre MM, Scopel AL, Baldwin IT, Ballaré CL (2003) Convergent responses to stress. Solar ultraviolet-B radiation and Manduca sexta herbivory elicit overlapping transcriptional responses in field-grown plants of Nicotiana longiflora. Plant Physiol 132:1755–1767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Izaguirre MM, Mazza CA, Biondini M, Baldwin IT, Ballaré CL (2006) Remote sensing of future competitors: impacts on plant defenses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:7170–7174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karban R, Baldwin I (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. Chicago University Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kazan K, Manners JM (2011) The interplay between light and jasmonate signalling during defence and development. J Exp Bot 62:4087–4100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kegge W, Pierik R (2010) Biogenic volatile organic compounds and plant competition. Trends Plant Sci 15:126–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keller MM, Jaillais Y, Pedmale UV, Moreno JE, Chory J, Ballaré CL (2011) Crypto chrome 1 and phytochrome B control shade-avoidance responses in Arabidopsis via partially-independent hormonal cascades. Plant J 67:195–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kigathi RN, Weisser WW, Veit D, Gershenzon J, Unsicker SB (2013) Plants suppress their emission of volatiles when growing with conspecifics. J Chem Ecol 39:537–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koptur S (1974) Facultative mutualism between weedy vetches bearing extra floral nectaries and weedy ants in California. Am J Bot 66:1016–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGuire R, Agrawal AA (2005) Trade-offs between the shade-avoidance response and plant resistance to herbivores? Tests with mutant Cucumis sativus. Funct Ecol 19:1025–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McLain DK (1983) Ants, extra floral nectaries and herbivory on the Passion vine, Passiflora incarnata. Am Midl Nat 110:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moreno JE, Tao Y, Chory J, Ballaré CL (2009) Ecological modulation of plant defense via phytochrome control of jasmonate sensitivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:4935–4940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Novoplansky A (2009) Picking battles wisely: plant behaviour under competition. Plant, Cell Environ 32:726–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pierik R, Mommer L, Voesenek LACJ (2013) Molecular mechanisms of plant competition: neighbour detection and response strategies. Funct Ecol. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12010
  42. Radhika V, Kost C, Mithöfer A, Boland W (2010) Regulation of extrafloral nectar secretion by jasmonates in lima bean is light dependent. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:17228–17233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ray TS (1992) Foraging behaviour in tropical herbaceous climbers (Araceae). J Ecol 80:189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roberts MR, Paul ND (2006) Seduced by the dark side: integrating molecular and ecological perspectives on the influence of light on plant defence against pests and pathogens. New Phytol 170:677–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruberti I, Sessa G, Ciolfi A, Possenti M, Carabelli M, Morelli G (2012) Plant adaptation to dynamically changing environment: the shade avoidance response. Biotechnol Adv 30:1047–1058PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoonhoven LM, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2005) Insect-plant biology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Smiley J (1986) Ant constancy at Passiflora extra floral nectaries: effects on caterpillar survival. Ecology 67:516–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stephenson AG (1982) The role of the extra floral nectaries of Catalpa speciosa in limiting herbivory and increasing fruit production. Ecology 63:663–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tao Y et al (2008) Rapid synthesis of auxin via a new tryptophan-dependent pathway is required for shade avoidance in plants. Cell 133:164–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Way MJ, Paiva MR, Cammell ME (1999) Natural biological control of the pine processionary moth Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.) by the Argentine ant Linepithema humile (Mayr) in Portugal. Agric For Entomol 1:27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xu FF, 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-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miriam M. Izaguirre
    • 1
  • Carlos A. Mazza
    • 2
  • María S. Astigueta
    • 1
  • Ana M. Ciarla
    • 1
  • Carlos L. Ballaré
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Facultad de AgronomíaUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Universidad Nacional de San MartínBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations