Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1469–1480 | Cite as

Direct and indirect transgenerational effects alter plant-herbivore interactions

  • Casey P. terHorst
  • Jennifer A. Lau
Original Paper

Abstract

Theory suggests that environmental effects with transgenerational consequences, including rapid evolution and maternal effects, may affect the outcome of ecological interactions. However, indirect effects occur when interactions between two species are altered by the presence of a third species, and can make the consequences of transgenerational effects difficult to predict. We manipulated the presence of insect herbivores and the competitor Medicago polymorpha in replicated Lotus wrangelianus populations. After one generation, we used seeds from the surviving Lotus to initiate a reciprocal transplant experiment to measure how transgenerational effects altered ecological interactions between Lotus, Medicago, and insect herbivores. Herbivore leaf damage and Lotus fecundity were dependent on both parental and offspring environmental conditions. The presence of insect herbivores and Medicago in the parental environment resulted in transgenerational changes in herbivore resistance, but these effects were non-additive, likely as a result of indirect effects in the parental environment. Indirect transgenerational effects interacted with more immediate ecological indirect effects to affect Lotus fecundity. These results suggest that explanations of ecological patterns require an understanding of transgenerational effects and that these effects may be difficult to predict in species-rich, natural communities where indirect effects are prevalent.

Keywords

Diffuse evolution Invasive species Maternal effects Non-additive interactions Rapid evolution Resistance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank A. McCall, J. Wright, L. Yang, and T. Yang for field assistance. T. Bassett, K. Keller, R. Prunier, E. Schultheis, T. Suwa, D. Weese, and two anonymous reviewers provided valuable input on a previous version of the manuscript. This manuscript is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant # IBN-0206601 awarded to S.Y. Strauss and J.A.L. and DEB-0918963 awarded to J.A.L. This work was performed at the University of California Natural Reserve System’s Donald and Sylvia McLaughlin Reserve. Data and the SAS code for the analyses presented in this manuscript can be found on Dryad (doi: 10.5061/dryad.22672702). This is contribution #1588 from the Kellogg Biological Station.

References

  1. Abrams PA (1992) Predators that benefit prey and prey that harm predators: unusual effects of interacting foraging adaptation. Am Nat 140:573–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA, Laforsch C, Tollrian R (1999) Transgenerational induction of defences in plants and animals. Nature 401:60–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bassar RD, Marshall MC, Lopez-Sepulcre A, Zondona E, Auer SK, Travis J, Pringle CM, Flecker AS, Thomas SA, Fraser DF, Reznick DN (2010) Local adaptation in Trinidadian guppies alters ecosystem processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:3616–3621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezemer TM, Thompson LJ, Jones TH (1998) Poa annua shows intergenerational divergences in response to elevated CO2. Glob Chang Biol 4:687–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conner JK (2003) Artificial selection: a powerful tool for ecologists. Ecology 84:1650–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Haan RL, Barnes DK (1998) Inheritance of pod type, stem color, and dwarf growth habit in Medicago polymorpha. Crop Sci 38:1558–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellner SP, Geber MA, Hairston NG (2011) Does rapid evolution matter? Measuring the rate of contemporary evolution and its impacts on ecological dynamics. Ecol Lett 14:603–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huxman TE, Hamerlynck EP, Jordan DN, Salsman KJ, Smith SD (1998) The effects of parental CO2 environment on seed quality and subsequent seedling performance in Bromus rubens. Oecologia 114:202–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huxman TE, Charlet TN, Grant C, Smith SD (2001) The effects of parental CO2 and offspring nutrient environment on initial growth and photosynthesis in an annual grass. Int J Plant Sci 162:617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Irwin RE (2006) The consequences of direct versus indirect species interactions to selection on traits: pollination and nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata. Am Nat 167:315–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Janzen DH (1980) When is it coevolution? Evolution 34:611–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson MTJ, Stinchcombe JR (2007) An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol Evol 22:250–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lau JA (2008) Beyond the ecological: biological invasions alter natural selection on a native plant species. Ecology 89:1023–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lau JA, Strauss SY (2005) Insect herbivores drive important indirect effects of exotic plants on native communities. Ecology 86:2990–2997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lau JA, Peiffer J, Reich PB, Tiffin P (2008) Transgenerational effects of global environmental change: long-term CO2 and nitrogen treatments influence offspring growth response to elevated CO2. Oecologia 158:141–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meyer JR, Ellner SP, Hairston NG, Jones LE, Yoshida T (2006) Prey evolution on the time-scale of predator-prey dynamics revealed by allele-specific quantitative PCR. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:10690–10695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller TE (1994) Direct and indirect species interactions in an early old-field plant community. Am Nat 143:1007–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller TE, terHorst C (forthcoming) Indirect effects in communities and ecosystems. In: Gibson D (ed) Oxford Bibliographies Online: Ecology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller TE, Travis J (1996) The evolutionary role of indirect effects in communities. Ecology 77:1329–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Platenkamp GAJ, Shaw RG (1993) Environmental and genetic maternal effects on seed characters in Nemophila menziesii. Evolution 47:540–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reale D, McAdam AG, Boutin S, Berteaux D (2003) Genetic and plastic responses of a northern mammal to climate change. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roach DA, Wulff RD (1987) Maternal effects in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:209–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rossiter MC (1996) Incidence and consequences of inherited environmental effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:451–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoener TW (2011) The newest synthesis: understanding the interplay of evolutionary and ecological dynamics. Science 331:426–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Slobodkin LB (1961) Growth and regulation of animal populations. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Stone L, Roberts A (1991) Conditions for a species to gain advantage from the presence of competitors. Ecology 72:1964–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strauss SY, Irwin RE (2004) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of multispecies plant-animal interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:435–466Google Scholar
  28. Strauss SY, Lau JA, Schoener TW, Tiffin P (2008) Evolution in ecological field experiments: implications for effect size. Ecol Lett 11:199–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. terHorst CP (2010) Evolution in response to direct and indirect ecological effects in pitcher plant inquiline communities. Am Nat 176:675–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. terHorst CP (2011) Experimental evolution of protozoan traits in response to interspecific competition. J Evol Biol 24:36–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. terHorst CP, Miller TE, Levitan DR (2010) Evolution of prey in ecological time reduces the effect size of predators in experimental microcosms. Ecology 91:629–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thompson JN (1998) Rapid evolution as an ecological process. Trends Ecol Evol 13:329–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walsh MR, Reznick DN (2010) Influence of the indirect effects of guppies on life-history evolution in Rivulus hartii. Evolution 64:1583–1593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wootton JT (1994) The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 25:443–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yoshida T, Jones LE, Ellner SP, Fussmann GF, Hairston NG (2003) Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature 424:303–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yoshida T, Ellner SP, Jones LE, Bohannan BJM, Lenski RE, Hairston NG (2007) Cryptic population dynamics: rapid evolution masks trophic interactions. PLoS Biol 5:1868–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Youngson NA, Whitelaw E (2008) Transgenerational epigenetic effects. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 9:233–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.W. K. Kellogg Biological StationMichigan State UniversityHickory CornersUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant BiologyMichigan State UniversityHickory CornersUSA

Personalised recommendations