Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 40, Issue 10, pp 1135–1145 | Cite as

Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) Intake and Preference by Mammalian Herbivores: The Role of Plant Secondary Compounds and Nutritional Context

  • Juan J. VillalbaEmail author
  • Elizabeth A. Burritt
  • Samuel B. St. Clair


Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) has evolved a chemical defense system comprised of phenolic glycosides (PG), which effectively deter insect herbivory. However, much less is known about the role of PG and the nutritional quality of the associated plant community on aspen browse susceptibility to mammalian herbivores. In three successive periods during the growing season, we conducted experiments with sheep by offering leaves from two aspen stands with different concentrations of PG (LOW, HIGH) or aspen leaves vs. leaves from a forb (Utah pea, Lathyrus pauciflorus) or a grass (smooth brome, Bromus inermis Leyss.) growing in an aspen understory. Intake of aspen (19 to 35 % PG) was low in all periods (1 to 6 g/Kg0.75 in 2 hr) supporting the notion that aspen’s defense system may contribute to its ecological success. However, lambs ate larger amounts of LOW than of HIGH suggesting that sheep could discriminate between aspen stands with different concentrations of PG, even when both stands were relatively well defended. Concentration of nutrients and chemical defenses in aspen leaves remained fairly stable across the growing season, and preference for aspen increased over the growing season. In contrast, preference for the forb and the grass decreased across the growing season in concert with a decline in the nutritional quality of these plants. The data suggest that nutritional context of aspen and associated forage species drove preference more than contrasts in defense chemistry of aspen. There may be periods of “susceptibility” of aspen use by mammalian herbivores, despite high concentrations of chemical defenses, which can potentially be targeted by management to reduce aspen herbivory.


Herbivory Phenolic glycosides Condensed tannins Ovis aries Plant secondary compounds foraging 



Research was supported by grants from the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah Cooperative Extension and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. This paper is published with the approval of the Director, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, and Utah State University, as journal paper number 8658. We thank the US Forest Service for allowing us collect plant material at the Uintah/Wasatch/Cache National Forest. We also thank A. E. Hagerman and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions that improved this manuscript. We acknowledge T. Lisonbee, R. Cabassu, V. Egea, Shay Hunt, Tyson Grisenti, and Gavin Johnson for technical support.


  1. AOAC (2000) Official methods of analysis, 17th edn. Association of official analytical chemists, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey AW, Irving BD, Fitzgerald RD (1990) Regeneration of woody species following burning and grazing in aspen parkland. J Range Manag 43:212–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA, Rehill BJ, Irschick DJ, Whitham TG, Lindroth RL (2007) Rapid shifts in the chemical composition of aspen forests: an introduced herbivore as an agent of natural selection. Biol Inv 9:715–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baraza E, Villalba JJ, Provenza FD (2005) Nutritional context influences preferences of lambs for foods with plant secondary metabolites. Appl Anim Behav Sci 92:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbehenn RV, Constabel PC (2011) Tannins in plant-herbivore interactions. Phytochemistry 72:1551–1565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck JL, Peek JM (2005) Diet composition, forage selection, and potential for forage competition among elk, deer, and livestock on aspen-sagebrush summer range. Range Ecol Manag 58:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Behmer ST (2009) Insect herbivore nutrient regulation. Annu Rev Entomol 54:165–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Behmer ST, Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D (2002) Herbivore foraging in chemically heterogeneous environments: nutrients and secondary metabolites. Ecology 83:2489–2501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boeckler GA, Gershenzon J, Unsicker SB (2011) Phenolic glycosides of the Salicaceae and their role as anti-herbivore defenses. Phytochemistry 72:1497–1509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheeke PR, Shull LR (1985) Natural toxicants in feeds and poisonous plants. AVI Publ. Co., WestportGoogle Scholar
  11. Diner B, Berteaux B, Fyles J, Lindroth RL (2009) Behavioral archives link the chemistry and clonal structure of trembling aspen to the food choice of North American porcupine. Oecologia 160:687–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Distel EA, Laca EA, Griggs TC, Demment MW (1995) Patch selection by cattle: maximization of intake rate in horizontally heterogeneous pastures. Appl Anim Behav Sci 45:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dockrill CWM, Blenis PIV, Bailey AW, King JR (2004) Effect of summer cattle grazing on aspen stem injury, mortality and growth. Forest Chron 80:257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donaldson JR, Lindroth RL (2007) Genetics, environment, and their interaction determine efficacy of chemical defense in trembling aspen. Ecology 88:729–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald RD, Hudson RJ, Bailey AW (1984) Control of aspen regrowth by grazing with cattle. J Range Manag 37:156–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeland WJ, Janzen DH (1974) Strategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of plant secondary compounds. Am Nat 108:269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagerman A, Butler L (1980) Condensed tannin purification and characterization of tannin-associated proteins. J Agric Food Chem 28:947–952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hobbs NT (1996) Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. J Wildl Manag 60:695–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobbs NT (2006) Large herbivores as sources of disturbance in ecosystems. In: Danell K, Pastor J, Bergström R, Duncan P (eds) Large herbivore ecology and ecosystem dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 261–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Illius AW, Jessop NS (1995) Modeling metabolic costs of allelochemical ingestion by foraging herbivores. J Chem Ecol 21:693–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones B (2010) Restoring aspen under grazed landscapes. PhD Diss. University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones B, Lile D, Tate K (2011) Cattle selection for aspen and meadow vegetation: implications for restoration. Rangel Ecol Manag 64:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kays JS, Canham CD (1991) Effects of time and frequency of cutting on hardwood root reserves and sprout growth. For Sci 37:524–539Google Scholar
  24. Laca EA, Ungar ED, Demment MW (1994) Mechanisms of handling time and intake rate of a large mammalian grazer. Appl Anim Behav Sci 39:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Le Gall M, Behmer ST (2011) Nutrient-allelochemical interactions: metabolic effects on a generalist insect herbivore. Ecological Society of America 96th Annual Meetings, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  26. Lindroth RL (2001) Adaptations of quaking aspen for defense against damage by herbivores and related environmental agents. In: Shepperd WD, Binkley DB, Bartos DL, Stohlgren TJ, Eskew LG (eds), Sustaining aspen in western landscapes: symposium proceedings. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, pp 273–284Google Scholar
  27. Lindroth R, Clair SSB (2013) Adaptation of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) for defense against herbivores. For Ecol Manag 299:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindroth RL, Hwang SY (1996) Diversity, redundancy, and multiplicity in chemical defense systems of aspen. In: Romeo JT, Saunders JA, Barbosa P (eds) Phytochemical diversity and redundancy in ecological interactions. Plenum Press, New York, pp 25–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindroth RL, Kinney KK, Platz CL (1993) Responses of deciduous trees to elevated atmospheric CO2: productivity, phytochemistry, and insect performance. Ecology 74:763–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Min BR, Barry TN, Attwood GT, McNabb WC (2003) The effects of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: a review. Anim Feed Sci Technol 106:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nersesian CL, Banks PB, Simpson SJ, McArthur C (2012) Mixing nutrients mitigates the intake constraints of a plant toxin in a generalist herbivore. Behav Ecol 23:879–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NRC (1985) Nutrient requirements of sheep, 6th edn. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Palo RT, Robbins CT (1991) Plant defenses against mammalian herbivory. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  34. Porter LJ, Hrstich LN, Chan BC (1986) The conversion of urocyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Provenza FD (1995) Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. J Range Manag 48:2–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Provenza FD, Villalba JJ (2006) Foraging in domestic vertebrates: linking the internal and external milieu. In: Bels VL (ed) Feeding in domestic vertebrates: from structure to function. CABI Publ, Oxfordshire, pp 210–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Provenza FD, Burritt EA, Clausen TP, Bryant JP, Reichardt PB, Distel RA (1990) Conditioned flavor aversion: a mechanism for goats to avoid condensed tannins in blackbrush. Am Nat 136:810–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rackham O (2008) Ancient woodlands: modern threats. New Phytol 180:571–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robbins CT, Mole S, Hagerman AE, Hanley TA (1987) Role of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in dry matter digestion. Ecology 68:1606–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schoenecker KA, Singer FJ, Zeigenfuss LC, Binkley D, Menezes RSC (2004) Effects of elk herbivory on vegetation and nitrogen processes. J Wildl Manag 68:837–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seager ST, Eisenberg C, Clair SSB (2013) Patterns and consequences of ungulate herbivory on aspen in western North America. For Ecol Manag 299:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silanikove N, Nitsan Z, Perevolotsky A (1994) Effect of a daily supplementation of polyethylene glycol on intake and digestion of tannin-containing leaves (Ceratonia siliqua) by sheep. J Agric Food Chem 42:2844–2847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D (2001) The geometric analysis of nutrient-allelochemical interactions: a case study using locusts. Ecology 81:422–439Google Scholar
  44. Smith AD, Lucas PA, Baker CO, Scotter GW (1972) The effects of deer and domestic livestock on aspen regeneration in Utah. Aspen Bibliography. Paper 5381
  45. Smith EA, Collette SB, Boynton TA, Lillrose T, Stevens MR, Bekker MF, Eggett D, St Clair SB (2011) Developmental contributions to phenotypic variation in functional leaf traits within quaking aspen clones. Tree Physiol 31:68–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swift RW (1957) The caloric value of TDN. J Anim Sci 16:753–756Google Scholar
  47. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verheyden-Tixier H, Duncan P (2000) Selection for small amounts of hydrolysable tannins by a concentrate-selecting mammalian herbivore. J Chem Ecol 26:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD (1997a) Preference for wheat straw by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusions of starch. Br J Nutr 77:287–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD (1997b) Preference for flavored foods by lambs conditioned with intraruminal administrations of nitrogen. Br J Nutr 78:545–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD (1999) Nutrient-specific preferences by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusions of starch, casein, and water. J Anim Sci 77:378–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD, Bryant JP (2002) Consequences of the interaction between nutrients and plant secondary metabolites on herbivore selectivity: benefits or detriments for plants? Oikos 97:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD, GouDong H (2004) Experience influences diet mixing by herbivores: implications for plant biochemical diversity. Oikos 107:100–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD, Shaw R (2006) Initial conditions and temporal delays influence preference for foods high in tannins and for foraging locations with and without foods high in tannins by sheep. Appl Anim Behav Sci 97:190–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weiss WP, Conrad HR, Pierre NRS (1992) A theoretically-based model for predicting total digestible nutrient values of forages and concentrates. Anim Feed Sci Technol 39:95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White CA, Olmsted CE, Kay CE (1998) Aspen, elk, and fire in the Rocky Mountain national parks of North America. Wildl Soc Bull 26:449–462Google Scholar
  57. White CA, Feller MC, Bayley S (2003) Predation risk and the functional response of elk–aspen herbivory. Forest Ecol Manag 181:77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wooley SC, Walker S, Vernon J, Lindroth RL (2008) Aspen decline, aspen chemistry, and elk herbivory: Are they linked? Rangelands 30:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan J. Villalba
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elizabeth A. Burritt
    • 1
  • Samuel B. St. Clair
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Wildland ResourcesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Deptartment of Plant & Wildlife SciencesBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations