Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resistance and tolerance in Populus tremuloides: genetic variation, costs, and environmental dependency

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Plants defend themselves against herbivores via resistance, which reduces damage, and tolerance, which minimizes the negative effects of damage. Theory predicts the existence of tradeoffs between defense and growth, as well as between resistance and tolerance, that could maintain the genetic variation for resistance and tolerance often observed in plant populations. We examined resistance and tolerance among aspen (Populus tremuloides) trees grown under divergent soil nutrient regimes. This common garden experiment revealed substantial genetic variation for resistance and tolerance under both low- and high-nutrient conditions. Costs of resistance exist, particularly under high-nutrient conditions where allocation to resistance chemicals competes directly with growth for limited carbon resources. We found no significant costs of tolerance, however, under either nutrient condition. Despite genetic variation for both resistance and tolerance, we found no evidence for a tradeoff between these two defense traits suggesting that resistance and tolerance are complementary, rather than mutually exclusive, defenses in aspen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson LP, White EH, Nowak CA et al (1990) Evaluating hybrid poplar clonal growth-potential in a 3-year-old genetic selection field trial. Biomass 21:101–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal AA, Gorski PM, Tallamy DW (1999a) Polymorphism in plant defense against herbivory: constitutive and induced resistance in Cucumis sativus. J Chem Ecol 25:2285–2304

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal AA, Strauss SY, Stout MJ (1999b) Costs of induced responses and tolerance to herbivory in male and female fitness components of wild radish. Evolution 53:1093–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal AA, Conner JK, Johnson MTJ et al (2002) Ecological genetics of an induced plant defense against herbivores: additive genetic variance and costs of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 56:2206–2213

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anttonen S, Piispanen R, Ovaska J et al (2002) Effects of defoliation on growth, biomass allocation, and wood properties of Betula pendula clones grown at different nutrient levels. Can J For Res 32:498–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arendt JD (1997) Adaptive intrinsic growth rates: an integration across taxa. Q Rev Biol 72:149–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres MP, Clausen TP, MacLean SF Jr et al (1997) Diversity of structure and antiherbivore activity in condensed tannins. Ecology 78:1696–1712

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach CE (1994) Effects of herbivory and genotype on growth and survivorship of sand-dune willow (Salix cordata). Ecol Entomol 19:303–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA, Rehill BJ et al (2004) Beavers as molecular geneticists: a genetic basis to the foraging of an ecosystem engineer. Ecology 85:603–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsky AJ, Carson WP, Jensen CL et al (1993) Overcompensation by plants: herbivore optimization or red herring? Evol Ecol 7:109–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergelson J, Purrington CB (1996) Surveying patterns in the cost of resistance in plants. Am Nat 148:536–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boege K (2005) Influence of plant ontogeny on compensation to leaf damage. Am J Bot 92:1632–1640

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant JP, Chapin FS III, Klein DR (1983) Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40:357–368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Byington TS, Gottschalk KW, McGraw JB (1994) Within-population variation in response of red oak seedlings to herbivory by gypsy moth larvae. Am Midl Nat 132:328–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dangerfield JM, Modukanele B (1996) Overcompensation by Acacia erubescens in response to simulated browsing. J Trop Ecol 12:905–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong TJ, van der Meijden E (2000) On the correlation between allocation to defence and regrowth in plants. Oikos 88:503–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del-Val E, Dirzo R (2003) Does ontogeny cause changes in the defensive strategies of the myrmecophyte Cecropia peltata? Plant Ecol 169:35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson JR (2005) Benefits and costs of phytochemical defense in aspen–insect interactions: causes and consequences of phytochemical variation. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison

  • Donaldson JR, Stevens MT, Barnhill HR et al (2006) Age-related shifts in leaf chemistry of clonal aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). J Chem Ecol 32:1415–1429

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Falconer DS (1985) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeny PP (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. Recent Adv Phytochem 10:1–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fineblum WL, Rausher MD (1995) Tradeoff between resistance and tolerance to herbivore damage in a morning glory. Nature 377:517–520

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fornoni J, Núñez-Farfán J, Valverde PL et al (2004a) Evolution of mixed strategies of plant defense allocation against natural enemies. Evolution 58:1685–1695

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornoni J, Valverde PL, Núñez-Farfán J (2004b) Population variation in the cost and benefit of tolerance and resistance against herbivory in Datura stramonium. Evolution 58:1696–1704

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz RS, Simms EL (1992) Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution, and genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulmon SL, Mooney HA (1986) Costs of defense and their effects of plant productivity. In: Givnish TJ (ed) On the economy of plant form and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Haukioja E, Koricheva J (2000) Tolerance to herbivory in woody vs. herbaceous plants. Evol Ecol 14:551–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havill NP, Raffa KF (1999) Effects of elicitation treatment and genotypic variation on induced resistance in Populus: impacts on gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) development and feeding behavior. Oecologia 120:295–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes CV, Sullivan JJ (2001) The impact of herbivory on plants in different resource conditions: a meta-analysis. Ecology 82:2045–2058

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemming JDC, Lindroth RL (1995) Intraspecific variation in aspen phytochemistry: effects on performance of gypsy moths and forest tent caterpillars. Oecologia 103:79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemming JDC, Lindroth RL (2000) Effects of phenolic glycosides and protein on gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) and forest tent caterpillar (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae) performance and detoxication activities. Environ Entomol 29:1108–1115

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochwender CG, Marquis RJ, Stowe KA (2000) The potential for and constraints on the evolution of compensatory ability in Asclepias syriaca. Oecologia 122:361–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honkanen T, Jormalainen V (2005) Genotypic variation in tolerance and resistance to fouling in the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus. Oecologia 144:196–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Houle G, Simard G (1996) Additive effects of genotype, nutrient availability and type of tissue damage on the compensatory response of Salix planifolia ssp. planifolia to simulated herbivory. Oecologia 107:373–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang S-Y, Lindroth RL (1997) Clonal variation in foliar chemistry of aspen: effects on gypsy moths and forest tent caterpillars. Oecologia 111:99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang S-Y, Lindroth RL (1998) Consequences of clonal variation in aspen phytochemistry for late season folivores. Ecoscience 5:508–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Katjiua MLJ, Ward D (2006) Resistance and tolerance of Terminalia sericea trees to simulated herbivore damage under different soil nutrient and moisture conditions. J Chem Ecol 32:1431–1443

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koricheva J (1999) Interpreting phenotypic variation in plant allelochemistry: problems with the use of concentrations. Oecologia 119:467–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koricheva J (2002) Meta-analysis of sources of variation in fitness costs of plant antiherbivore defenses. Ecology 83:176–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Körner C (1994) Biomass fractionation in plants: a reconsideration of definitions based on plant functions. In: Roy J, Garnier E (eds) A whole plant perspective on carbon–nitrogen interactions. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Leimu R, Koricheva J (2006) A meta-analysis of tradeoffs between plant tolerance and resistance to herbivores: combining the evidence from ecological and agricultural studies. Oikos 112:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennartsson T, Tuomi J, Nilsson P (1997) Evidence for an evolutionary history of overcompensation in the grassland biennial Gentianella campestris (Gentianaceae). Am Nat 149:1147–1155

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindroth RL, Hemming JDC (1990) Responses of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) to tremulacin, an aspen phenolic glycoside. Environ Entomol 19:842–847

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindroth RL, Koss PA (1996) Preservation of Salicaceae leaves for phytochemical analyses: further assessment. J Chem Ecol 22:765–771

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindroth RL, Kinney KK, Platz CL (1993) Responses of deciduous trees to elevated atmospheric CO2: productivity, phytochemistry and insect performance. Ecology 74:763–777

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maschinski J, Whitham TG (1989) The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability, and timing. Am Nat 134:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattson WJ, Herms DA, Witter JA et al (1991) Woody plant grazing systems: North American outbreak folivores and their host plants. In: Baranchikov YN, Mattson WJ, Hain FP et al (eds) Forest insect guilds: patterns of interaction with host trees. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-153, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauricio R, Rausher MD, Burdick DS (1997) Variation in the defense strategies of plants: are resistance and tolerance mutually exclusive? Ecology 78:1301–1311

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutikainen P, Walls M, Ovaska J et al (2002) Costs of herbivore resistance in clonal saplings of Betula pendula. Oecologia 133:364–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osier TL, Lindroth RL (2001) Effects of genotype, nutrient availability, and defoliation on aspen phytochemistry and insect performance. J Chem Ecol 27:1289–1313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Osier TL, Lindroth RL (2004) Long-term effects of defoliation on quaking aspen in relation to genotype and nutrient availability: plant growth, phytochemistry and insect performance. Oecologia 139:55–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Osier TL, Lindroth RL (2006) Genotype and environment determine allocation to and costs of resistance in quaking aspen. Oecologia 148:293–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parry D, Herms DA, Mattson WJ (2003) Responses of an insect folivore and its parasitoids to multiyear experimental defoliation of aspen. Ecology 84:1768–1783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Nagel O (2000) The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO2, nutrients and water: a quantitative review. Aust J Plant Physiol 27:595–607

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Porter LJ, Hrstich LN, Chan BG (1986) The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25:223–230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prittinen K, Pusenius J, Koivunoro K et al (2003) Genotypic variation in growth and resistance to insect herbivory in silver birch (Betula pendula) seedlings. Oecologia 137:572–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Purrington CB (2000) Costs of resistance. Curr Opin Plant Biol 3:305–308

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Puustinen S, Koskela T, Mutikainen P (2004) Direct and ecological costs of resistance and tolerance in the stinging nettle. Oecologia 139:76–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Relyea RA (2002) Costs of phenotypic plasticity. Am Nat 159:272–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades DF (1979) Evolution of plant chemical defense against herbivores. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic press, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Robison DJ, Raffa KF (1994) Characterization of hybrid poplar clones for resistance to the forest tent caterpillar. For Sci 40:686–714

    Google Scholar 

  • Robison DJ, Raffa KF (1997) Effects of constitutive and inducible traits of hybrid poplars on forest tent caterpillar feeding and population ecology. For Sci 43:252–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy BA, Kirchner JW (2000) Evolutionary dynamics of pathogen resistance and tolerance. Evolution 54:51–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ruuhola TM, Sipura M, Nousiainen O et al (2001) Systemic induction of salicylates in Salix myrsinifolia (Salisb.). Ann Bot 88:483–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc. (2001) JMP start statistics, 2nd edn. Duxbury, Pacific Grove, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen CS, Bach CE (1997) Genetic variation in resistance and tolerance to insect herbivory in Salix cordata. Ecol Entomol 22:335–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens DH, Lischke H, Maggiulli N et al (2003) Cost of resistance and tolerance under competition: the defense-stress benefit hypothesis. Evol Ecol 17:247–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simms EL (1992) Costs of plant resistance to herbivory. In: Fritz RS, Simms EL (eds) Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution, and genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens MT (2005) Plant defense against herbivores: resistance and tolerance in Populus tremuloides. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison

  • Stevens MT, Lindroth RL (2005) Induced resistance in the indeterminate growth of aspen (Populus tremuloides). Oecologia 145:298–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe JR (2002) Environmental dependency in the expression of costs of tolerance to deer herbivory. Evolution 56:1063–1067

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe JR (2005) SAS macro for correcting for the artifactual covariance between a mean and a plasticity calculated as the difference between means. Available from the author

  • Stowe KA (1998) Experimental evolution of resistance in Brassica rapa: correlated response of tolerance in lines selected for glucosinolate content. Evolution 52:703–712

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stowe KA, Marquis RJ, Hochwender CG et al (2000) The evolutionary ecology of tolerance to consumer damage. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:565–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss SY, Watson W, Allen MT (2003) Predictors of male and female tolerance to insect herbivory in Raphanus raphanistrum. Ecology 84:2074–2082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiffin P (2000) Are tolerance, avoidance, and antibiosis evolutionarily and ecologically equivalent responses of plants to herbivores? Am Nat 155:128–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tiffin P (2002) Competition and time of damage affect the pattern of selection acting on plant defense against herbivores. Ecology 83:1981–1990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiffin P, Rausher MD (1999) Genetic constraints and selection acting on tolerance to herbivory in the common morning glory Ipomoea purpurea. Am Nat 154:700–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meijden E, Wijn M, Verkaar HJ (1988) Defence and regrowth, alternative plant strategies in the struggle against herbivores. Oikos 51:355–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinig C, Stinchcombe JR, Schmitt J (2003) Evolutionary genetics of resistance and tolerance to natural herbivory in Arabidopsis thaliana. Evolution 57:1270–1280

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wise MJ, Abrahamson WG (2005) Beyond the compensatory continuum: environmental resource levels and plant tolerance of herbivory. Oikos 109:417–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright JW (1976) Introduction to forest genetics. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zangerl AR, Bazzaz FA (1992) Theory and pattern in plant defense allocation. In: Fritz RS, Simms EL (eds) Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution, and genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a National Science Foundation grant (DEB-0074427) to R.L.L. and an Environmental Protection Agency Science-To-Achieve-Results Fellowship and the J.J. Davis Summer Research Award to M.T.S. We thank B. McCown, B. Hoch, E. Zeldin, and J. Donaldson for their assistance with micropropagation of the aspen genotypes used in this study. Numerous research assistants were involved in tree care, growth measurements, and defoliations, including L. Riel, H. Bothwell, A. Vogelzang, L. Mortimore, P. Murray, K. Lindroth, N. Lindroth, M. Krakau, M. Drews, M. Hillstrom, L. Vigue, S. Esser, and S. Laesar. We thank H. Barnhill and B. Rehill for their help with chemical analyses and M. Madritch and J. Stinchcombe for their assistance with statistical analyses. The manuscript was strengthened by comments from two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Michael T. Stevens

    Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Stanislaus, 801 West Monte Vista Avenue, Turlock, CA, 95382, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 430 Lincoln Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Michael T. Stevens & Donald M. Waller

  2. Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Richard L. Lindroth

Authors
  1. Michael T. Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donald M. Waller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard L. Lindroth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael T. Stevens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stevens, M.T., Waller, D.M. & Lindroth, R.L. Resistance and tolerance in Populus tremuloides: genetic variation, costs, and environmental dependency. Evol Ecol 21, 829–847 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-006-9154-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-006-9154-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation