Biological Invasions

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 715–722 | Cite as

Rapid shifts in the chemical composition of aspen forests: an introduced herbivore as an agent of natural selection

  • Joseph K. Bailey
  • Jennifer A. Schweitzer
  • Brian J. Rehill
  • Duncan J. Irschick
  • Thomas G. Whitham
  • Richard L. Lindroth
Original Paper

Abstract

The global ecological impacts of introduced and exotic species can be dramatic, leading to losses in biodiversity and ecosystem “meltdown”, however, the evolutionary impacts of introduced species are much less understood. Further, very few studies have examined whether mammalian herbivores can act as agents of natural selection for plant traits. We examined the hypothesis that variation in aspen phytochemistry resulted in selective herbivory by Cervus elaphus (elk), an introduced mammalian herbivore. With the experimental removal of a large elk exclosure, elk selectively eliminated 60% of an aspen population previously protected from herbivory resulting in a dramatic shift in the phytochemical composition of the aspen forest. Selection gradients (β) varied from 0.52 to 0.66, well above average relative to other studies of selection. These results indicate that introduced herbivores can have rapid evolutionary consequences even on long lived native species. Because there are fundamental links between phytochemistry, biodiversity and ecosystem processes, the effects of an introduced herbivore are likely to have cascading impacts on the services ecosystems provide.

Keywords

Aspen Elk Herbivory Introduced species Natural selection Phytochemistry Populus Plant animal interactions 

References

  1. Arnold SJ (1983) Morphology, performance and fitness. Am Zool 23:347–361Google Scholar
  2. Bailey JK, Whitham TG (2002) Interactions among fire, aspen and elk affect insect diversity: reversal of a community response. Ecology 83:1701–1712Google Scholar
  3. Bailey JK, Whitham TG (2003) Interactions among elk, aspen, galling sawflies and insectivorous birds. Oikos 101:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA, Rehill BJ et al. (2004) Beavers as molecular geneticists: a genetic basis to the foraging of an ecosystem engineer. Ecology 85:603–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker WL, Munroe JA, Hessl AE (1997) The effects of elk on aspen in the winter range in Rocky Mountain National Park. Ecography 20:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basey JM, Jenkins SH, Busher PE (1988) Optimal central-place foraging by beavers: tree-size selection in relation to defensive chemicals of quaking aspen. Oecologia 76:278–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basey JM, Jenkins SH, Miller GC (1990) Food selection by beavers in relation to inducible defenses of Populus tremuloides. Oikos 59:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brodie ED III, Moore AJ, Janzen FJ (1995) Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Tr Ecol Evol 10:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown TM (1996) Molecular genetics and the evolution of pesticide resistance. Washington, DC: American Chemical SocietyGoogle Scholar
  10. Bryant JP (1981) Phytochemical deterrence of snowshoe hare browsing by adventitious shoots of four Alaskan trees. Science 313:889–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conner JK, Hartl DL (2004) A primer of ecological genetics. Sinauer, Sunderland MassachusettesGoogle Scholar
  12. Cyr H, Pace ML (1993) Magnitudes and patterns of herbivory in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Nature 361:148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donaldson JR, Stevens MT, Barnhill HR et al. (2006) Variation in aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) leaf chemistry: developmental shifts in allocation result in diverse chemical landscapes. J. Chem. Ecol. (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD et al. (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Endler J (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  16. Groombridge B (ed) (1992) Global biodiversity: status of earth’s living resources. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagerman AE, Butler LG (1980) Condensed tannin purification and characterization of tannin-associated protein. J Agric Food Chem 28:947–952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hairston NG Jr, Lampert W, Caceres CE et al. (1999) Rapid evolution revealed by dormant eggs. Nature 401:446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hereford J, Hansen TF, Houle D (2004) Comparing strengths of directional selection: how strong is strong? Evolution 58:2133–2143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hessl A (2002) Aspen, elk and fire: the effects of human institution on ecosystem processes. Bioscience 52:1011–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffmeister DF (1986) Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  22. Janzen FJ, Stern HS (1998) Logistic regression for empirical studies of multivariate selection. Evolution 52:1564–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kingsolver JG, Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM et al. (2001) The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am Nat 157:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindroth RL, Hwang S-Y (1996) Diversity, redundancy and multiplicity in chemical defense systems of aspen. In: Romeo J (ed) Recent advances in phytochemistry, vol 33. Plenum Press, New York, pp 25–56Google Scholar
  26. Lindroth RL, Kinney KK, Platz CL (1993) Responses of deciduous trees to elevated atmospheric CO2: productivity, phytochemistry and insect performance. Ecology 74:763–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mauricio R, Rausher MD (1997) Experimental manipulation of putative selection agents provides evidence for the role of natural enemies in the evolution of plant defense. Evolution 51:1435–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Minchin PR (1987) An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio 69:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Reilly-Wapstra JM, McArthur C, Potts BM (2002) Genetic variation in Eucalyptus globulus to marsupial browsers. Oecologia 130:289–296Google Scholar
  30. O’Reilly-Wapstra JM, McArthur C, Potts BM (2004) Linking plant genotype, plant defensive chemistry and mammal browsing in a Eucalyptus species. Func Ecol 18:677–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palo RT (1984) Distribution of birch (Betula spp.), willow (Salix spp.), and poplar (Populus spp.) secondary metabolites and their potential role as chemical defense against herbivores. J Chem Ecol 10:499–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parker JD, Burkepile DE, Hay ME (2006) Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions. Science 311:1459–1461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Porter LJ, Hrstich LN, Chan BG (1986) The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pusenius J, Prittinen K, Heimonen J et al. (2002) Choice of voles among genotypes of birch seedlings: its relationship with seedling quality and preference of insects. Oecologia 130:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richter TE, Ronald PC (2000) The evolution of disease resistance genes. Plant Mol Bio 42:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roff DA (1997) Evolutionary quantitative genetics. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Rolf JM (2001) Aspen fencing in northern Arizona: a 15 year perspective. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18. pp 193–196Google Scholar
  38. Romme WH, Turner MG, Wallace LL et al. (1995) Aspen, elk, and fire in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 76:2097–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Romme WH, Turner MG, Tuskan GA et al. (2005) Establishment, persistence, and growth of aspen (Populus tremuloides) seedlings in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86:404–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simberloff D (2001) Biological invasions—how are they affecting us and what can we do about them? West North Am Nat 61:308–315Google Scholar
  41. Simberloff D, Parker IM, Windle PN (2005) Introduced species policy, management and future research needs. Fron Ecol Environ 3:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Still WC, Kahn M, Mitra A (1978) Rapid chromatographic technique for preparative separations with moderate resolution. J Org Chem 43:2923–2925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stinchcombe JR, Rausher MD (2001) Diffuse selection on resistance to deer herbivory in the ivyleaf morning glory, Ipomea hederacea. Am Nat 158:376–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stinchcombe JR, Rausher MD (2002) The evolution of tolerance to deer herbivory: modifications caused by the abundance of insect herbivores. Proc R Soc Lond 269:1241–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stinchcombe JR (2005) Measuring natural selection on proportional traits: comparisons of three types of selection estimates for resistance and susceptibility to herbivore damage. Evol Ecol 19:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson JN (1998) Rapid evolution as an ecological process. Tr Ecol Evol 13:329–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson JN, Reichman OJ, Morin PJ et al. (2001) Frontiers in ecology. Bioscience 51:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verheyden-Tixier H, Duncan P (2000) Selection for small amounts of hydrolysable tannins by a concentrate-selecting mammalian herbivore. J Chem Ecol 26:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Whitham TG, Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA et al. (2006) A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nat Rev Genet 7:510–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph K. Bailey
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Jennifer A. Schweitzer
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Brian J. Rehill
    • 5
  • Duncan J. Irschick
    • 6
  • Thomas G. Whitham
    • 2
    • 4
  • Richard L. Lindroth
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  3. 3.School of ForestryNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  4. 4.Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental ResearchNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  5. 5.Department of ChemistryUnited States Naval AcademyAnnapolisUSA
  6. 6.Department of BiologyUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  7. 7.Department of EntomologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations