Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 397–408 | Cite as

Differences in herbivore damage and performance among Arctium minus (burdock) genotypes sampled from a geographic gradient: a common garden experiment

Original Paper

Abstract

Performance of plant species does not necessarily decline as they approach their geographic range limits. One reason for this may be a loss of natural enemies in marginal populations. Such patterns have been found in native species, but also may occur for exotics if they have not already escaped their herbivores in invaded regions. For instance, the Eurasian biennial Arctium minus (common burdock) is attacked by a variety of native and introduced insects in its new North American range. Previously, research has shown that damage by these herbivores strongly decreases towards the northern range limit of this species. This gradient might reflect a genetic cline in resistance to herbivores, or geographic variation in herbivore abundance. To distinguish between these possibilities, herbivore damage to leaves and seeds of A. minus was measured in a common garden experiment with genotypes sampled from 11 populations along a 550 km transect extending from southern Ontario towards burdock’s northern range limit. As well, a freezing tolerance experiment was performed with the important lepidopteran seed predator Metzneria lappella, and palatability experiments were performed with two generalists, the snail Cepaea nemoralis and the moth Trichoplusia ni. Although there were some differences in damage among populations, results indicated that latitudinal differences in herbivore damage are not explained by genotypic differences among populations, but instead are likely to result from the absence of herbivores from colder sites. Escape of A. minus from its usual herbivores may increase performance of marginal populations, and contribute to future spread.

Keywords

Arctium minus Burdock Common garden Herbivory Latitudinal gradients Metzneria lappella 

Supplementary material

10530_2014_737_MOESM1_ESM.doc (67 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 67 kb)

References

  1. Agrawal AA (1998) Induced responses to herbivory and increased plant fitness. Science 279:1201–1202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander HM, Price S, Houser R, Finch D, Tourtellot M (2007) Is there reduction in disease and pre-dispersal seed predation at the border of a host plant’s range? Field and herbarium studies of Carex blanda. J Ecol 95:446–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruelheide H, Scheidel U (1999) Slug herbivory as a limiting factor for the geographical range of Arnica montana. J Ecol 87:839–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colautti RI, Barrett SCH (2013) Rapid adaptation to climate facilitates range expansion of an invasive plant). Science 342:364–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colautti RI, Eckert CG, Barrett SCH (2010) Evolutionary constraints on adaptive evolution during range expansion in an invasive plant. Proc R Soc B 277:1799–1806PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coley PD, Bryant JP, Chapin FS III (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895–899PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garcia MB, Goni D, Guzman D (2010) Living at the edge: local versus positional factors in the long term population dynamics of an endangered orchid. Conserv Biol 24:1219–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geber MA (2008) The edge: studies of species’ range limits. New Phytol 178:228–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilman SE, Urban MC, Tewksbury J, Gilchrist GW, Holt RD (2010) A framework for community interactions under climate change. Trends Ecol Evol 25:325–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gross RS, Werner PA, Hawthorn W (1980) The biology of Canadian weeds. 38. Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh. and A. lappa L. Can J Plant Sci 60:621–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hargreaves AL, Samis KE, Eckert CG (2014) Are species’ range limits simply niche limits writ large? A review of transplant experiments beyond the range. Am Nat 183:157–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill SB, Kotanen PM (2012) Biotic interactions experienced by a new invader: effects of its close relatives at the community scale. Botany 90:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill JK, Hannah M, Thomas CD (2011) Climate change and evolutionary adaptations at species’ range margins. Annu Rev Entomol 56:143–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jump AS, Woodward FI (2003) Seed production and population density decline approaching the range-edge of Cirsium species. New Phytol 160:349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kambo D, Kotanen PM (2014) Latitudinal trends in herbivory and performance of an invasive species, common burdock (Arctium minus). Biol Invasions 16:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kawecki TJ (2008) Adaptation to marginal habitats. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:321–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kozlov MV (2007) Losses of birch foliage due to insect herbivory along geographical gradients in Europe: a climate-driven pattern? Clim Change 87:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lakeman-Fraser P, Ewers RM (2013) Enemy release promotes range expansion in a host plant. Oecologia 172:1203–1212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maron JL, Vilà M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P (2004) Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol Monogr 74:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Menéndez R, Gonzàlez-Megías A, Lewis OT, Shaw MR, Thomas CD (2008) Escape from natural enemies during climate-driven range expansion: a case study. Ecol Entomol 33:413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Gilbert GS, Hufbauer RA, Klironomos JN, Maron JL, Morris WF, Parker IM, Power AG, Seabloom EW, Torchin ME, Vázquez DP (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:726–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moles AT, Bonser SP, Poore AGB, Wallis IR, Foley WJ (2011a) Assessing the evidence for latitudinal gradients in plant defence and herbivory. Funct Ecol 25:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moles AT, Wallis IR, Foley WJ, Warton DI, Stegen JC, Bisigato AJ, Cella-Pizarro L, Clark CJ, Cohen PS, Cornwell WK, Edwards W, Ejrnæs R, Gonzales-Ojeda T, Graae BJ, Hay G, Lumbwe FC, Magaña-Rodríguez B, Moore BD, Peri PL, Poulsen JR, Veldtman R, von Zeipel H, Andrew NR, Boulter SL, Borer ET, Campón FF, Coll M, Farji-Brener AG, De Gabriel J, Jurado E, Kyhn LA, Low B, Mulder CPH, Reardon-Smith K, Rodríguez-Velázquez J, Seabloom EW, Vesk PA, van Cauter A, Waldram MS, Zheng Z, Blendinger PG, Enquist BJ, Facelli JM, Knight T, Majer JD, Martínez-Ramos M, McQuillan P, Prior LD (2011b) Putting plant resistance traits on the map: a test of the idea that plants are better defended at lower latitudes. New Phytol 191:777–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morriën E, Engelkes T, Macel M, Meisner A, Van der Putten WH (2010) Climate change and invasion by intracontinental range-expanding exotic plants: the role of biotic interactions. Ann Bot 105:843–848PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ozgo M, Schilthuizen M (2012) Evolutionary change in Cepaea nemoralis shell colour over 43 years. Glob Change Biol 18:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pateman RM, Hill JK, Roy DB, Fox R, Thomas D (2012) Temperature-dependent alterations in host use drive rapid range expansion in a butterfly. Science 336:1028–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pennings SC, Zimmer M, Dias N, Sprung M, Davé N, Ho C-K, Kunza A, McFarlin C, Mews M, Pfauder A, Salgado C (2007) Latitudinal variation in plant-herbivore interactions in European salt marshes. Oikos 116:543–549Google Scholar
  31. Pennings SC, Ho C-K, Salgado CS, Wieski K, Dave N, Kunza AE, Wason EL, Davé N (2009) Latitudinal variation in herbivore pressure in Atlantic Coast salt marshes. Ecology 90:183–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reinartz JA (1984) Life history variation of common mullein (Verbascum thapsus): I. latitudinal differences in population dynamics and timing of reproduction. J Ecol 72:897–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schoonhoven LM, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2005) Insect-plant biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Sexton JP, McIntyre PJ, Angert AL, Rice KJ (2009) Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:415–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spencer KA, Steyskal GC (1986) Manual of the Agromyzidae (Diptera) of the United States. United States Dept of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Torchin ME, Mitchell CE (2004) Parasites, pathogens, and invasions by plants and animals. Front Ecol Environ 2:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Traw MN, Dawson TE (2002) Differential induction of trichomes by three herbivores of black mustard. Oecologia 131:526–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van der Putten WH, Macel M, Visser ME (2010) Predicting species distribution and abundance responses to climate change: why it is essential to include biotic interactions across trophic levels. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 365:2025–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vaupel A, Matthies D (2012) Abundance, reproduction, and seed predation of an alpine plant decrease from the center toward the range limit. Ecology 93:2253–2262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woods EC, Hastings AP, Turley NE, Heard SB, Agrawal AA (2012) Adaptive geographical clines in the growth and defense of a native plant. Ecol Monogr 82:149–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of Toronto MississaugaMississaugaCanada

Personalised recommendations