Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp 797–804 | Cite as

Herbivory on invasive exotic plants and their non-invasive relatives

  • Tania Jogesh
  • David Carpenter
  • Naomi CappuccinoEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The Enemy Release Hypothesis links exotic plant success to escape from enemies such as herbivores and pathogens. Recent work has shown that exotic plants that more fully escape herbivores and pathogens are more likely to become highly invasive, compared to plants with higher enemy loads in their novel ranges. We predicted that highly invasive plants from the Asteraceae and the Brassicaceae would be less acceptable, in laboratory no-choice feeding trials, to the generalist herbivore the American grasshopper, Schistocerca americana. We also compared herbivory on invasive and non-invasive plants from the genus Centaurea in no-choice feeding trials using the red-legged grasshopper Melanoplus femurrubrum and in a common garden in the field. In accordance with our predictions, highly invasive plants were fed on less by grasshoppers in the laboratory. They also received less damage in the field, suggesting that they contain feeding deterrents that render them less acceptable to generalist herbivores than non-invasive plants.

Keywords

Enemy release hypothesis Alien plants Herbivory Generalist herbivores Defensive chemistry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Ray Callaway, Giles Thelen, Joe DiTomaso and Andrew Kulmatiski for providing Centaurea seeds. Greg Sword kindly provided eggs from the Sidney, Montana USDA-ARS Schistocerca americana colony. We also thank Edward Bruggink for help in the greenhouse. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

References

  1. Agrawal AA, Kotanen PM, Mitchell CE, Power AG, Godsoe W, Klironomos J (2005) Enemy release? An experiment with congeneric plant pairs and diverse above- and belowground enemies. Ecology 86:2979–2989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton IW, Lerdau MT (2008) Tolerance to herbivory, and not resistance, may explain differential success of invasive, naturalized, and native North American temperate vines. Divers Distrib 14:169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey CG, Mukerji MK (1976) Feeding habits and food preferences of Melanoplus bivittatus and M. femurrubrum (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Can Entomol 108:1207–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernays EA, Augner M, Abbot DK (1997) A behavioral mechanism for incorporating an unpalatable food in the diet of a generalist herbivore (Orthoptera: Acrididae). J Insect Behav 10:841–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappuccino N, Arnason JT (2006) Novel chemistry of invasive exotic plants. Biol Lett, UK 2:189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cappuccino N, Carpenter D (2005) Invasive exotic plants suffer less herbivory than noninvasive plants. Biol Lett, UK 1:435–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter D, Cappuccino N (2005) Herbivory, time since introduction and the invasiveness of exotic plants. J Ecol 93:315–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll SP, Boyd C (1992) Host race radiation in the soapberry bug: natural history with the history. Evolution 46:1052–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornell HV, Hawkins BA (2003) Herbivore responses to plant secondary compounds: A test of phytochemical coevolution theory. Am Nat 161:507–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creed RP, Sheldon SP (1995) Weevils and watermilfoil: did a North American herbivore cause the decline of an exotic plant? Ecol Appl 5:1113–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Inderjit, Seastedt TR, Callaway RM, Kaur J (2008) Allelopathy and plant invasions: traditional versus biogeographical approach. Biol Invasions (this issue)Google Scholar
  14. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelsey RG, Locken LJ (1987) Phytotoxic properties of cnicin, a sesquiterpene lactone from Centaurea maculosa (spotted knapweed). J Chem Ecol 13:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landau I, Müller-Schärer H, Ward PI (1994) Influence of cnicin, a sesquiterpene lactone of Centaurea maculosa (Asteraceae), on specialist and generalist insect herbivores. J Chem Ecol 20:929–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Locken LJ, Kelsey RG (1987) Cnicin concentrations in Centaurea maculosa, spotted knapweed. Biochem Syst Ecol 15:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mack RN (2001) Motivations and consequences of the human dispersal of plants. In: McNeely J (ed) The great reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive alien species. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Mattila HR, Otis GW (2003) A comparison of the host preference of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) for milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) over dog-strangler vine (Vincetoxicum rossicum). Entomol Exp Appl 107:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421: 625–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nowak G (1992) A chemotaxonomic study of sesquiterpene lactones from subtribe Centaureinae of the Compositae. Phytochemistry 31:2363–2368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prati D, Bossdorf O (2004) Allelopathic inhibition of germination by Allaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Am J Bot 91:285–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Renwick JAA, Zhang W, Haribal M, Attygalle AB, Lopez KD (2001) Dual chemical barriers protect a plant against different larval stages of an insect. J Chem Ecol 27:1575–1583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rousseau C (1968). Histoire, habitat et distribution de 220 plantes introduites au Québec. Nat Can 95:49–169Google Scholar
  26. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Story JM, Smith L, Good WR (2001) Relationship among growth attributes of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) in Western Montana. Weed Technol 15:750–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. The Plant Conservation Alliance’s Alien Plant Working Group (2005) Alien plant invaders of natural areas. http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm. Accessed 5 Aug 2005
  29. Vivanco JM, Bais HP, Stermitz FR, Callaway RM (2004) Root allelochemistry strongly contributes to Centaurea diffusa invasive behavior. Ecol Lett 7:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang Y, Hamburger M, Cheng CHK, Costall B, Naylor RJ, Jenner P, Hostettman K (1991) Neurotoxic sesquiterpenoids from the yellow star thistle Centaurea solstitialis L. (Asteraceae). Helv Chim Acta 74:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (2007) Brown knapweed. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/Centaurea_jacea.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2007
  32. Watson AK, Renney AJ (1974) The biology of Canadian weeds. 6. Centaurea diffusa and C. maculosa. Can J Plant Sci 54:687–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williamson M, Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77: 1661–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Willis AJ, Thomas MB, Lawton JH (1999) Is the increased vigour of invasive weeds explained by a trade-off between growth and herbivore resistance? Oecologia 120:632–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tania Jogesh
    • 1
  • David Carpenter
    • 1
  • Naomi Cappuccino
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations