Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 1043–1060 | Cite as

Host genetic variation and microenvironment shape an emergent plant–antagonist interaction

  • Rebecca F. HazenEmail author
  • Michael J. Blum
Original Paper

Abstract

Geographic mosaics of interspecific interactions can arise as a consequence of intrinsic and extrinsic deterministic factors. In this study, we took advantage of the recent discovery of a specialist leaf-miner (Caloptilia triadicae) on invasive Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) in the southeastern United States to examine deterministic drivers of variation in plant–animal antagonistic interactions. We conducted a common garden study to assess the influence of intrinsic host genetic variation and extrinsic microenvironment on Triadica traits as well as Caloptilia infestation and mortality. We found that tree size, branch leaf density, and leaf toughness differed according to multilocus estimates of genetic variation. Host genetic variation also influenced mortality of early instar Caloptilia, but had little effect on peak or late season infestation. Triadica from hyperinvasive populations were larger, exhibited reduced leaf density and tougher leaves, and had the lowest levels of peak season Caloptilia infestation, but also had the lowest levels of early instar mortality. Microhabitat variation associated with edge effects influenced tree size as well as late season infestation. These findings indicate that CaloptiliaTriadica interactions reflect seasonal shifts in the relative influence of intrinsic and extrinsic drivers, where peak season interactions largely reflect genetic variation in hosts, and late–season interactions reflect microenvironmental conditions. Further study of Caloptilia infestations could offer additional understanding of novel interactions that arise following species introductions.

Keywords

Caloptilia triadicae Triadica sebifera Intrinsic deterministic factors Extrinsic deterministic factors Biocontrol Seasonal shift 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank E. Siemann, J. Carillo, G. Wheeler, and S. Wright for providing access to necessary resources and the UHCC common garden; E. Siemann, J. Ding, J. K. Davis, J. Karubian, S. Van Bael, A. Kawahara, C. Richards-Zawacki, V.L. and M.L. Aberdeen for support, guidance and input on this study; M.S. Fox, H.L. Handley, A.B. Uzunian, A.B. Quinlan, K.A. Hazen, M. Dakin, B. Kravis, S. Piper, C. Amabile, and R. da Silva Nascimento for field and laboratory assistance. Funding for this study was provided by Tulane University.

Supplementary material

10682_2016_9868_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (86 kb)
Supplementary material 1 Appendix 1. Descriptive statistics. (a) Number of individuals examined for trait and genetic analyses, and population-level genetic variability statistics. As a result of differences in survivorship and growth rate, there were unequal numbers of trees with attainable leaves from each focal population. (b) Indices of genetic diversity per locus (c) Descriptive statistics for dependent variables (JPEG 85 kb)
10682_2016_9868_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (96 kb)
Supplementary material 2 Appendix 2. Heat map of the edge effect variable. Rows 26-36, at the top of the garden plot, were removed prior to the study and afforded assessment of trees that were on and away from the forest edge. The other edges of the garden perimeter had two to three intact rows of buffer trees and were assigned edge values of three or four accordingly. Other trees within the garden were assigned values relative to their distance from the closest outermost tree (JPEG 95 kb)
10682_2016_9868_MOESM3_ESM.jpg (35 kb)
Supplementary material 3 Appendix 3. Output of Triadica GLMs testing for potential interactions between genetic variation and response to microenvironment. Genetic variation was characterized according to (left) the first factor of the PCA of multilocus microsatellite variation, and (right) categorical identity according to origin (native, early introduction, later introduction) (JPEG 35 kb)

References

  1. Awmack CS, Leather SR (2002) Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 47(1):817–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Blossey B, Notzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83(5):887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bultman TL, Faeth SH (1988) Abundance and mortality of leaf miners on artificially shaded Emory oak. Ecol Entomol 13(2):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrillo J, Wang Y, Ding J, Siemann E (2012) Induction of extrafloral nectar depends on herbivore type in invasive and native Chinese tallow seedlings. Basic Appl Ecol 13(5):449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers JM (2013) SoDA: function and examples for “Software for Data Analysis”. R 572 package version 1.0-6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=SoDA
  7. Chen LY, Tiu CJ, Peng SL, Siemann E (2013) Conspecific plasticity and invasion: invasive populations of Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) have performance advantage over native populations only in low soil salinity. PLoS ONE 8(9):1–10Google Scholar
  8. Connor EF (2006) Effects of the light environment on oviposition preference and survival of a leaf-mining moth, Cameraria hamadryadella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), on Quercus alba L. Ecol Entomol 31(2):179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornelissen T, Stiling P (2008) Clumped distribution of oak leaf miners between and within plants. Basic Appl Ecol 9(1):67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis DR, Fox MS, Hazen RF (2013) Systematics and biology of Caloptilia Triadicae (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), a new species of Leafmining moth of the invasive Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera (L.) Euphorbiaceae). J Lepid Soc 67(4):281–290Google Scholar
  11. D’Costa L, Simmonds MS, Straw N, Castagneyrol B, Koricheva J (2014) Leaf traits influencing oviposition preference and larval performance of Cameraria ohridella on native and novel host plants. Entomol Exp Appl 152(2):157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeWalt SJ, Siemann E, Rogers WE (2006) Microsatellite markers for an invasive tetraploid tree, Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera). Mol Ecol Notes 6(2):505–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeWalt SJ, Siemann E, Rogers WE (2011) Geographic distribution of genetic variation among native and introduced populations of Chinese tallow tree, Triadica sebifera (Euphorbiaceae). Am J Bot 98(7):1128–1138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study of coevolution. Evolution 18(4):586–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emanuelli F, Lorenzi S, Grzeskowiak L, Catalano V, Stefanini M, Troggio M, Myles S, Martinez-Zapater JM, Zyprian E, Moreira FM, Grando MS (2013) Genetic diversity and population structure assessed by SSR and SNP markers in a large germplasm collection of grape. BMC Plant Biol 13(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher AEI, Hartley SE, Young M (2000) Direct and indirect competitive effects of foliage feeding guilds on the performance of the Birch leaf-miner Eriocrania. J Anim Ecol 69(1):165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox M, Hazen RF, Wheeler GS, Davis DR (2012) Using internet images to gather distributional data for a newly discovered Caloptilia species (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) specializing on Chinese Tallow in North America. Am Entomol 58(1):32–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. García-Robledo C, Horvitz CC (2012) Parent–offspring conflicts, “optimal bad motherhood” and the “mother knows best” principles in insect herbivores colonizing novel host plants. Ecol Evol 2(7):1446–1457CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Garcia-Rossi D, Rank N, Strong DR (2003) Potential for self-defeating biological control? Variation in herbivore vulnerability among invasive Spartina genotypes. Ecol Appl 13(6):1640–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gatehouse JA (2002) Plant resistance towards insect herbivores: a dynamic interaction. New Phytol 156(2):145–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gehlhausen SM, Schwartz MW, Augspurger CK (2000) Vegetation and microclimatic edge effects in two mixed-mesophytic forest fragments. Plant Ecol 147(1):21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hazen RF (2015) The emergence and evolution of an antagonistic plant–animal interaction (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and theses. Accession order no. 10388Google Scholar
  23. Hazen RF, Fox MS (2012) A cascading classroom: the benefits of utilizing teachers and students as citizen scientists in research. Am Entomol 58(1):11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, Vilà M, Zamora R, Zobel M (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang W, Siemann E, Wheeler GS, Zou J, Carrillo J, Ding J (2010) Resource allocation to defence and growth are driven by different responses to generalist and specialist herbivory in an invasive plant. J Ecol 98(5):1157–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janzen DH (1980) When is it coevolution. Evolution 34(3):611–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson MT, Agrawal AA (2005) Plant genotype and environment interact to shape a diverse arthropod community on evening primrose (Oenothera biennis). Ecology 86(4):874–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones RH, McLeod KW (1989) Shade tolerance in seedlings of Chinese tallow tree, American sycamore, and cherrybark oak. Bull Torrey Bot Club 116(4):371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lebon E, Pellegrino A, Louarn G, Lecoeur J (2006) Branch development controls leaf area dynamics in grapevine (Vitis vinifera) growing in drying soil. Ann Bot 98(1):175–185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Legendre PL, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology, vol 24. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  31. Lomelí-Flores JR, Barrera JF, Bernal JS (2010) Impacts of weather, shade cover and elevation on coffee leafminer Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) population dynamics and natural enemies. Crop Prot 29(9):1039–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Macfadyen S, Bohan DA (2010) Crop domestication and the disruption of species interactions. Basic Appl Ecol 11(2):116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marino PC, Cornell HV, Kahn DH (1993) Environmental and clonal influences on host choice and larval survival in a leafmining insect. J Anim Ecol 62:503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meirmans PG (2015) Seven common mistakes in population genetics and how to avoid them. Mol Ecol 24(13):3223–3231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Meirmans PG, Tienderen V (2004) GENOTYPE and GENODIVE: two programs for the analysis of genetic diversity of asexual organisms. Mol Ecol Notes 4(4):792–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mello MO, Silva-Filho MC (2002) Plant–insect interactions: an evolutionary arms race between two distinct defense mechanisms. Braz J Plant Physiol 14(2):71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Minkenberg OPJM, Fredrix MJJ (1989) Preference and performance of an herbivorous fly, Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae), on tomato plants differing in leaf nitrogen. Ann Entomol Soc Am 82(3):350–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Minkenberg OP, Ottenheim JJ (1990) Effect of leaf nitrogen content of tomato plants on preference and performance of a leafmining fly. Oecologia 83(3):291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moctezuma C, Hammerbacher A, Heil M, Gershenzon J, Alonzo RM, Oyama K (2014) Specific polyphenols and tannins are associated with defense against insect herbivores in the Tropical Oak Quercus oleoides. J Chem Ecol 40(5):458–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mopper S, Faeth SH, Boecklen WJ, Simberloff DS (1984) Host-specific variation in Ieaf miner population dynamics: effects on density, natural enemies and behaviour of Stilbosis quadricustatella (Lepidoptera: Cosmopterigidae). Ecol Entomol 9(2):169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oszmiański J, Kalisz S, Aneta W (2014) The content of phenolic compounds in leaf tissues of white (Aesculus hippocastanum L.) and red horse chestnut (Aesculus carea H.) colonized by the horse chestnut leaf miner (Cameraria ohridella Deschka and Dimić). Molecules 19(9):14625–14636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pearse IS, Hipp AL (2009) Phylogenetic and trait similarity to a native species predict herbivory on non-native oaks. PNAS 106(43):18097–18102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Petrakis PV (2000) Larval performance in relation to oviposition site preference in olive kernel moth (Prays oleae Bern., Yponomeutidae, Praydina). Agric For Entomol 2(4):271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rasmann S, De Vos M, Casteel CL, Tian D, Halitschke R, Sun JY, Agrawal AA, Felton GW, Jander G (2012) Herbivory in the previous generation primes plants for enhanced insect resistance. Plant Physiol 158(2):854–863CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (2012) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites: ecological and evolutionary processes, vol 2. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenthal J, Dirzo R (1997) Effects of life history, domestication and agronomic selection on plant defence against insects: evidence from Maizes and wild relatives. Evol Ecol 11(3):337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roy DB, Thomas JA (2003) Seasonal variation in the niche, habitat availability and population fluctuations of a bivoltine thermophilous insect near its range margin. Oecologia 134(3):439–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Russo L, Memmott J, Montoya D, Shea K, Buckley YM (2014) Patterns of introduced species interactions affect multiple aspects of network structure in plant–pollinator communities. Ecology 95(10):2953–2963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sands DPA, Brancatini VA (1991) A portable penetrometer for measuring leaf toughness in insect herbivory studies. Proc Entomol Soc Wash 93(3):786–788Google Scholar
  50. Sato H, Higashi S (1987) Bionomics of Phyllonorycter (Lepidoptera, Gracillariidae) on Quercus. II. Effects of ants. Ecol Res 2(1):53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2001) Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol Lett 4(6):514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strauss SY, Zangerl AR (2002) Plant–insect interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Plant–animal interactions an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Publishing Company, Victoria, pp 77–106Google Scholar
  53. Thompson JN (1999a) The evolution of species interactions. Science 284(5423):2116–2118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson JN (1999b) Specific hypotheses on the geographic mosaic of coevolution. Am Nat 153(S5):S1–S14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson JN (2005) The geographic mosaic of coevolution. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang Y, Huang W, Siemann E, Zou JW, Wheeler GS, Carrillo J, Ding JQ (2011) Lower resistance and higher tolerance of invasive host plants: biocontrol agents reach high densities but exert weak control. Ecol Appl 21(3):729–738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang Y, Siemann E, Wheeler GS, Zhu L, Gu X, Ding JQ (2012) Genetic variation in anti-herbivore chemical defences in an invasive plant. J Ecol 100(4):894–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wittstock U, Agerbirk N, Stauber EJ, Olsen CE, Hippler M, Mitchell-Olds T, Gershenzon J, Vogel H (2004) Successful herbivore attack due to metabolic diversion of a plant chemical defense. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(14):4859–4864CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Yang Q, Carrillo J, Jin H, Shang L, Hovick SM, Nijjer S, Gabler CA, Li B, Siemann E (2013) Plant–soil biota interactions of an invasive species in its native and introduced ranges: Implications for invasion success. Soil Biol Biochem 65:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yarnes CT, Boecklen WJ (2006) Abiotic mosaics affect variation of plant resources and influence the performance and mortality of a leaf-miner in Gambel’s oak (Quercus gambeii, Nutt.). Ecol Res 21(1):157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yarnes CT, Boecklen WJ, Salminen JP (2008) No simple sum: seasonal variation in tannin phenotypes and leaf-miners in hybrid oaks. Chemoecology 18(1):39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zou J, Rogers WE, Siemann E (2007) Differences in morphological and physiological traits between native and invasive populations of Sapium sebiferum. Funct Ecol 21(4):721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zou J, Siemann E, Rogers WE, DeWalt SJ (2008) Decreased resistance and increased tolerance to native herbivores of the invasive plant Sapium sebiferum. Ecography 31(5):663–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zou J, Rogers WE, Siemann E (2009) Plasticity of Sapium sebiferum seedling growth to light and water resources: inter-and intraspecific comparisons. Basic Appl Ecol 10(1):79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyTrinity UniversitySan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Tulane-Xavier Center for Bioenvironmental ResearchTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations