Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 333–347 | Cite as

Pre-adaptations and shifted chemical defences provide Buddleja davidii populations with high resistance against antagonists in the invasive range

  • Helga Pankoke
  • Lisa Johanna Tewes
  • Stephanie Matties
  • Isabell Hensen
  • Martin Schädler
  • Susan Ebeling
  • Harald Auge
  • Caroline MüllerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The local invasion success of invasive plants can be strongly influenced by reduced antagonist pressure and changes in resistance-mediating traits, but information about comprehensive metabolic backgrounds of native versus invasive populations and their functions is lacking. We examined the defence potential of ten native (Chinese) and ten invasive (European) populations of the shrub Buddleja davidii (Scrophulariaceae) grown in a common garden in the invasive range. We compared the chemical defence arsenal of these plant populations, scored their herbivore damage in the field and determined effects on a generalist herbivore species in the laboratory. Moreover, we isolated compounds that mediate resistance against two potential generalist herbivore species and a pathogenic fungus using bioassay-guided fractionation. Metabolic fingerprinting revealed that invasive populations were chemically very similar to one native population (Mupingzhen, Sichuan Province), which may indicate the geographic region from where the species was introduced. Herbivore damage and herbivore performance were reduced on plants of invasive populations. Different chemical compounds provided distinct resistance against the herbivore and fungus species. Based on our results we suggest that the diverse cocktail of chemical compounds, potentially together with physical leaf features, may provide this plant species with an effective defence arsenal against antagonists. In particular, advantageous pre-adaptations and/or shifted profiles of the chemical bouquet may contribute to the success of invasive plants.

Keywords

Amata mogadorensis Botrytis cineraea Bioassay-guided fractionation Lymantria dispar Metabolomics Novel weapons hypothesis UHPLC–TOF–MS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dörte Goertz (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria) for providing egg batches of the generalist Lymantria dispar and the technical staff of the field research station of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle (UFZ) in Bad Lauchstädt for maintenance of the common garden experiment.

Funding

This work was partly funded by the grant of the German Research Foundation (DFG) MU1829/16-1. Seed collection in native and invasive populations was funded by the German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU, 20004/705).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1825_MOESM1_ESM.docx (346 kb)
Methods S1 UHPLC-TOF analysis and data processing. Figure S1 Total ion chromatogramms of Buddleja davidii leaf extract and fractions. Figure S2 Fragmentation and respective ion and adduct pattern of reference substances (DOCX 346 kb)

References

  1. Alalouni U, Schädler M, Brandl R (2013) Natural enemies and environmental factors affecting the population dynamics of the gypsy moth. J Appl Entomol 137:721–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbosa P, Krischik VA (1987) Influence of alkaloids on feeding preference of Eastern deciduous forest trees by the gypsy moth Lymantria dispar. Am Nat 130:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbosa P, Gross P, Provan GJ, Pacheco DY, Stermitz FR (1990) Allelochemicals in foliage of unfavored tree hosts of the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar L. 1. Alkaloids and other components of Liriodendron tulipifera L. (Magnoliaceae), Acer rubrum L. (Aceraceae), and Cornus florida L. (Cornaceae). J Chem Ecol 16:1719–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton KE, Koricheva J (2010) The ontogeny of plant defense and herbivory: characterizing general patterns using meta-analysis. Am Nat 175:481–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett AE (2013) Can plant–microbe–insect interactions enhance or inhibit the spread of invasive species? Funct Ecol 27:661–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowers MD (1991) Iridoid glycosides. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores. Their interactions with plant metabolites: chemical participants, 2nd edn, vol 1. Academic Press, Inc. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, San Diego, pp 297–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broz AK, Broeckling CD, De-La-Peña C, Lewis MR, Greene E, Callaway RM, Sumner LW, Vivanco JM (2010) Plant neighbor identity influences plant biochemistry and physiology related to defense. BMC Plant Biol 10:115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casanova E, García-Mina JM, Calvo MI (2008) Antioxidant and antifungal activity of Verbena officinalis L. leaves. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 63:93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cassey P, Garzía-Díaz P, Lockwood JL, Blackburn TM (2018) Invasion biology: searching for predictions and prevention and avoiding lost causes. In: Jeschke JM, Heger T (eds) Invasion biology: hypotheses and evidence. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen G, Sun WB, Sun H (2010) Leaf epidermal characteristics of Asiatic Buddleja L. under scanning electron microscope: insights into chromosomal and taxonomic significance. Flora 205:777–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheriet T, Mancini I, Seghiri R, Benayache F, Benayache S (2015) Chemical constituents and biological activities of the genus Linaria (Scrophulariaceae). Nat Prod Res 29:1589–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doorduin LJ, Vrieling K (2011) A review of the phytochemical support for the shifting defence hypothesis. Phytochem Rev 10:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebeling SK, Hensen I, Auge H (2008) The invasive shrub Buddleja davidii performs better in its introduced range. Divers Distributions 14:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Enge S, Nylund GM, Harder T, Pavia H (2012) An exotic chemical weapon explains low herbivore damage in an invasive alga. Ecology 93:2736–2745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farr D, Rossmann A (2014) Fungal databases. Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA, Retrieved 15 Apr 2014 from http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/
  17. Felton GW, Donato K, Delvecchio RJ, Duffey SS (1989) Activation of plant foliar oxidases by insect feeding reduced nutritive quality of foliage for Noctuid herbivores. J Chem Ecol 15:2667–2694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiehn O (2002) Metabolomics—the link between genotypes and phenotypes. Plant Mol Biol 48:155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gatto MA, Sanzani SM, Tardia P, Linsalata V, Pieralice M, Sergio L, Di Venere D (2013) Antifungal activity of total and fractionated phenolic extracts from two wild edible herbs. Nat Sci 5:895–902Google Scholar
  20. Hadacek F, Greger H (2000) Testing of antifungal natural products: methodologies, comparability of results and assay choice. Phytochem Anal 11:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hendricks LG, Mossop HE, Kicklighter CE (2011) Palatability and chemical defense of Phragmites australis to the Marsh Periwinkle snail Littoraria irrorata. J Chem Ecol 37:838–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Houghton PJ (1985) Lignans and neolignans from Buddleja davidii. Phytochemistry 24:819–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Houghton PJ, Mensah AY, Lessa N, Hong LY (2003) Terpenoids in Buddleja: relevance to chemosystematics, chemical ecology and biological activity. Phytochemistry 64:385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen SR (2000) Chemistry of Buddlejaceae. Flora Neotrop Monogr 81:42–61Google Scholar
  25. Jensen SR, Franzyk H, Wallander E (2002) Chemotaxonomy of the Oleaceae: iridoids as taxonomic markers. Phytochemistry 60:213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krischik VA, Goth RW, Barbosa P (1991) Generalized plant defense—effects on multiple species. Oecologia 85:562–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kriticos DJ, Watt MS, Potter KJB, Manning LK, Alexander NS, Tallent-Halsell N (2011) Managing invasive weeds under climate change: considering the current and potential future distribution of Buddleja davidii. Weed Res 51:85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuhlisch C, Pohnert G (2015) Metabolomics in chemical ecology. Nat Prod Rep 32:937–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhlmann F, Müller C (2011) Impact of ultraviolet radiation on interactions between plants and herbivorous insects: a chemo-ecological perspective. Progr Bot 72:305–347Google Scholar
  31. Kühnle A, Müller C (2009) Differing acceptance of familiar and unfamiliar plant species by an oligophagous beetle. Entomol Exp Appl 131:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lamarque LJ, Delzon S, Lortie CJ (2011) Tree invasions: a comparative test of the dominant hypotheses and functional traits. Biol Invasions 13:1969–1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macel M, van Dam NM, Keurentjes JJB (2010) Metabolomics: the chemistry between ecology and genetics. Mol Ecol Res 10:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marak HB, Biere A, van Damme JMM (2002) Two herbivore-deterrent iridoid glycosides reduce the in vitro growth of a specialist but not of a generalist pathogenic fungus of Plantago lanceolata L. Chemoecology 12:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Müller C (2018) Evolution of increased competitive ability and shifting defence hypotheses. In: Jeschke JM, Heger T (eds) Invasion biology: hypotheses and evidence. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 103–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Müller-Schärer H, Schaffner U, Steinger T (2004) Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol Evol 19:417–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nylund GM, Weinberger F, Rempt M, Pohnert G (2011) Metabolomic assessment of induced and activated chemical defence in the invasive red alga Gracilaria vermiculophylla. PLoS ONE 6:e29359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Orians CM, Ward D (2010) Evolution of plant defenses in nonindigenous environments. Annu Rev Entomol 55:439–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pankoke H, Gehring R, Müller C (2015a) Impact of the dual defence system of Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae) on performance, nutrient utilisation and feeding choice behaviour of Amata mogadorensis larvae (Lepidoptera, Erebidae). J Insect Physiol 82:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pankoke H, Höpfner I, Matuszak A, Beyschlag W, Müller C (2015b) The effects of mineral nitrogen limitation, competition, arbuscular mycorrhiza, and their respective interactions, on morphological and chemical plant traits of Plantago lanceolata. Phytochemistry 118:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Patti GJ, Tautenhahn R, Siuzdak G (2012) Meta-analysis of untargeted metabolomic data from multiple profiling experiments. Nat Protoc 7:508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Developmental Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, vol. 3.0.3. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  44. Schweiger R, Baier MC, Persicke M, Müller C (2014) High specificity in plant metabolic responses to arbuscular mycorrhiza. Nat Commun 5:3886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tallent-Halsell NG, Watt MS (2009) The invasive Buddleja davidii (butterfly bush). Bot Rev 75:292–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taskova RM, Gotfredsen CH, Jensen SR (2006) Chemotaxonomy of Veroniceae and its allies in the Plantaginaceae. Phytochemistry 67:286–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tewes LJ, Müller C (2018) Syndromes in suites of correlated traits suggest multiple mechanisms facilitating invasion in a plant range-expander. NeoBiota 37:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tewes LJ, Michling F, Koch MA, Müller C (2018) Intracontinental plant invader shows matching genetic and chemical profiles and might benefit from high defence variation within populations. J Ecol 106:714–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Kleunen M, Fischer M (2009) Release from foliar and floral fungal pathogen species does not explain the geographic spread of naturalized North American plants in Europe. J Ecol 97:385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verhoeven KJF, Biere A, Harvey JA, van der Putten WH (2009) Plant invaders and their novel natural enemies: who is naïve? Ecol Lett 12:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waldbauer GP (1968) The consumption and utilization of food by insects. Adv Insect Phys 5:229–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williamson B, Tudzynsk B, Tudzynski P, van Kan JAL (2007) Botrytis cinerea: the cause of grey mould disease. Mol Plant Pathol 8:561–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wink M, Schneider D (1990) Fate of plant-derived secondary metabolites in three moth species (Syntomis mogadorensis, Syntomeida epilais, and Creatonotos transiens). J Comp Phys B Biochem Syst Environ Phys 160:389–400Google Scholar
  54. Wolfe LM, Elzinga JA, Biere A (2004) Increased susceptibility to enemies following introduction in the invasive plant Silene latifolia. Ecol Lett 7:813–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical EcologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Biology, Geobotany and Botanical GardenMartin Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany
  3. 3.Department of Community EcologyHelmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZHalle (Saale)Germany
  4. 4.German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations