Journal of Plant Research

, Volume 131, Issue 2, pp 255–260 | Cite as

Induction and relaxation of extrafloral nectaries in response to simulated herbivory in young Mallotus japonicus plants

  • Akira Yamawo
  • Nobuhiko Suzuki
Regular Paper


The disadvantage of induced defenses compared with constitutive defenses is the time during which a plant is vulnerable to herbivory before activation. There is obvious importance in determining the costs and benefits of induced defenses. Some plants produce extrafloral nectaries (EFNs), which attract ants that protect against herbivores, and induce EFNs and extrafloral nectar in response to leaf damage. To understand induction of indirect defense by ants, we investigated the induction and relaxation of extrafloral nectar secretion and EFN formation after artificial leaf damage in young Mallotus japonicus. Plants were grown under control or leaf damage conditions a greenhouse or in the field. Following artificial leaf damage, we assessed secretion of extrafloral nectar and the number of ant workers on plants. We measured the number of EFNs on each of seven leaves produced after leaf damage. Extrafloral nectar secretion was induced within 1 day following leaf damage, resulting in the attraction of numerous ant workers, and the extrafloral nectar secretion decreased to initial levels after 7 days. The number of EFNs was largest on the first leaf and smallest on the sixth leaf produced after leaf damage, but the total number of EFNs did not differ between treatments. Thus, M. japonicus rapidly induces extrafloral nectar secretion after leaf damage, followed by relaxation. Furthermore, following induction of EFNs on newly produced leaves, it may decrease the cost of induction by reducing the number of EFNs on leaves produced later.


Ant Induced defense Indirect defense Leaf damage Herbivory 



We thank T. Yokota and S. Suematu for their assistance in the experiments. Thanks are also extended to R. Kishida for his advice on statistics. We express our gratitude to M. Kinoshita, N. Katayama, and K. Tanaka for their encouragement and advice provided throughout the study. This work was supported in part by a Research Fellowship from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for Young Scientists (234305) and a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (No. 15K18611).


  1. Agrawal AA (2000) Specificity of induced resistance in wild radish: causes and consequences for two specialist and two generalist caterpillars. Oikos 89:493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA, Strauss SS, Stout MJ (1999) Costs of induced response and tolerance to herbivory in male and female components of wild radish. Evol Int J org Evol 53:1093–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc B (Methodological) 57:289–300Google Scholar
  4. Bentley BL (1976) Plants bearing extrafloral nectaries and the associated ant community: interhabitat differences in the reduction of herbivore damage. Ecology 57:815–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentley BL (1977) Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 8:407–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouat C, Mckey D, Bessière JM, Pascal L, Hossaert-Mckey M (2000) Leaf volatile compounds and the distribution of ant patrolling in an ant-plant protection mutualism: Preliminary results on Leonardoxa (Fabaceae: Caesalpinioideae) and Petalomyrmex (Formicidae: Formicinae). Acta Oecol 6:349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conrath U, Beckers GJM, Flors V, Garcia-Agustin P, Jakab G, Mauch F, Newman M, Pieterse C, Poinssot B, Pozo M, Pugin A, Schaffrath U, Ton J, Wendehenne D, Zimmerli L, Mauch-Mani B (2006) Priming: getting ready for battle. Mol Plant Microbe In 19:1062–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Witt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS (1998) Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol 13:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frost CJ, Mescher MC, Carlson JE, De Moraes CM (2008) Plant defense priming against herbivores: getting ready for a different battle. Plant Physiol 146:818–824CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Gershenzon J (1994) Metabolic costs of terpenoid accumulation in higher plants. J Chem Ecol 20:1281–1328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gomez S, van Dijk W, Stuefer JF (2010) Timing of induced resistance in a clonal plant network. Plant Biol 12:512–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Heil M, Baldwin IT (2002) Fitness costs of induced resistance: emerging experimental support for a slippery concept. Trends Plant Sci 7:61–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Heil M, McKey D (2003) Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:425–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heil M, Fiala B, Linsenmair KE, Zotz G, Menke P, Maschwitz U (1997) Food body production in Macaranga triloba (Euphorbiaceae): a plant investment in anti-herbivore defence via symbiotic ant partners. J Ecol 85:847–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heil M, Fiala B, Baumann B, Linsenmair KE (2000) Temporal, spatial and biotic variations in extrafloral nectar secretion by Macaranga tanarius. Funct Ecol 14:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heil M, Koch T, Hilpert A, Fiala B, Boland W, Linsenmair KE (2001) Extrafloral nectar production of the ant-associated plat, Macaranga tanarius, is an induced, indirect, defensive response elicited by jasmonic acid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1083–1088CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Heil M, Greiner S, Meimberg H, Krüger R, Noyer JL, Heubl G, Linsenmair KE, Boland W (2004) Evolutionary change from induced to constitutive expression of an indirect plant resistance. Nature 430:205–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants to grow or defend. Quarterly Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holland JN, Scott A, Horn CK (2009) Optimal defence theory predicts investment in resource in an ant-plant mutualism. J Ecol 97:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones IM, Koptur S (2015) Dynamic extrafloral nectar production: the timing of leaf damage affects the defensive response in Senna mexicana var. chapmanii (Fabaceae). Ame J Bot 102:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karban R (2010) The ecology and evolution of induced resistance against herbivores. Funct Ecol 25:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koptur S (1989) Is extrafloral nectar production an inducible defense? In: Bock JH, Linhart YB (eds) Evolutionary Ecology of Plants. Westview, Boulder, pp 323–339Google Scholar
  24. Lach L, Hobbs JR, Majer JD (2009) Herbivory-induced extrafloral nectar increases native and invasive ant worker survival. Popul Ecol 51:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mattiacci L, Rudelli S, Rocca BA, Genini S, Dorn S (2001) Systemically induced response of cabbage plants against a specialist herbivore, Pieris brassicae. Chemoecology 11:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayer V, Schaber D, Hadacek F (2008) Volatiles of myrmecophytic Piper plants signal stem tissue damage to inhabiting Pheidole ant-partners. J Ecol 96:962–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Metlen KL, Aschehoug ET, Callaway RM (2009) Plant genotype and induced responses affect resistance to herbivores on evening primrose (Oenothera Biennis). Ecol Entomol 31:20–31Google Scholar
  28. Mondor EB, Addicott JF (2003) Conspicuous extrafloral nectaries are inducible in Vicia faba. Ecol Lett 6:495–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ness JH (2003) Catalpa bignonioides alters extrafloral nectar production after herbivory and attracts ant bodyguards. Oecologia 134:201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Dowd DJ (1982) Pearl bodies as ant food: an ecological role for some leaf emergences of tropical plants. Biotropica 14:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olson DM, Cortesero AM, Rains GC, Potter T, Lewis WJ (2009) Nitrogen and water affect direct and indirect plant systemic induced defense in cotton. Biol Cont 49:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pulice CE, Packer AA (2008) Simulated herbivory induces extrafloral nectary production in Prunus avium. Funct Ecol 22:801–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Radhika V, Kost C, Bartram S, Heil M, Boland W (2008) Testing the optimal defence hypothesis for two indirect defences: extrafloral nectar and volatile organic compounds. Planta 228:449–457CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 5:17228–17233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schaller A (2008) Induced plant resistance to herbivory. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  36. Strauss SY, Rudgers JA, Lau JA, Irwin RE (2002) Direct and ecological costs of resistance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 17:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wäckers FL, Zuber D, Wunderlin R, Keller F (2001) The effect of herbivory on temporal and spatial dynamics of foliar nectar production in cotton and castor. Ann Bot 87:365–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walters DR (2011) Plant defense. Warding off attack by pathogens, herbivores, and parasitic plants. Blackwell, AmesGoogle Scholar
  39. Washitani I, Takenaka A (1987) Gap-detecting Mechanism in the seed germination of Mallotus japonicus (Thunb) Müell. Arg., a common pioneer tree of secondary succession in temperate Japan. Ecol Res 2:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wooley SC, Donaldson JR, Stevens MT, Gusse AC, Lindroth RL (2007) Extrafloral nectaries in aspen (Populus tremuloides): heritable genetic variation and herbivore-induced expression. Ann Bot 100:1337–1346CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Yamawo A (2009) The defense strategies of Mallotus japonicus. Disertation, Okayama University of Science (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  42. Yamawo A, Hada Y (2010) Effects of light on direct and indirect defences against herbivores of young plants of Mallotus japonicus demonstrate a trade-off between two indirect defence traits. Ann Bot 106:143–148CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Yamawo A, Katayama N, Suzuki N, Hada Y (2012a) Plasticity in the expression of direct and indirect defence traits of young plants of Mallotus japonicus in relation to soil nutritional conditions. Plant Ecol 213:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yamawo A, Hada Y, Suzuki N (2012b) Variations in direct and indirect defenses against herbivores on young plants of Mallotus japonicus in relation to soil moisture conditions. J Plant Res 125:71–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Yamawo A, Suzuki N, Tagawa J, Hada Y (2012c) Leaf ageing promotes the shift in defence tactics in Mallotus japonicus from direct to indirect defence. J Ecol 100:802–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yamawo A, Tagawa J, Hada Y, Suzuki N (2014) Different combinations of multiple defence traits in an extrafloral nectary-bearing plant growing under various habitat conditions. J Ecol 102:238–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yamawo A, Tokuda M, Katayama N, Yahara T, Tagawa J (2015) Ant-attendance in extrafloral nectar-bearing plants promotes growth and decreases the expression of traits related to direct defenses. Evol Biol 42:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yamawo A, Hada Y, Tagawa J (2017) Aggressiveness of ants attracted to the extrafloral nectary-bearing plant, Mallotus japonicus, and temporal fluctuations in their abundance. Entomol Sci 20:150–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Young TP, Okello BD (1998) Relaxation of an induced defense after exclusion of herbivores: spines on Acacia drepanolobium. Oecologia 115:508–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Young TP, Stanton ML, Christian CE (2003) Effects of natural and simulated herbivory on spine lengths of Acacia drepanolobium in Kenya. Oikos 101:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zong N, Wang CZ (2007) Larval feeding induced defensive response in tobacco: comparison of two sibling species of Helicoverpa with different diet breadths. Planta 226:215–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan and Springer Japan KK 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology, Faculty of Agriculture and Life ScienceHirosaki UniversityHirosakiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Applied Biological Sciences, Faculty of AgricultureSaga UniversitySagaJapan

Personalised recommendations