Plant Ecology

, Volume 212, Issue 10, pp 1723–1731 | Cite as

Resistance to herbivory of two populations of Elodea canadensis Michaux and Elodea nuttallii Planchon St. John

  • Anatole BoichéEmail author
  • Damien G. Lemoine
  • Marie-Hélène Barrat-Segretain
  • Gabrielle Thiébaut


In this article, we compared the resistance of two introduced populations of Elodea nuttallii and Elodea canadensis to two different herbivores. Samples were collected from the River Rhine and River Rhône in eastern France. The two populations of E. nuttallii differed in their introduction history, whereas E. canadensis was introduced at the same time in the two sites. The Daily Food Consumption (DFC) rates of the two macrophyte populations were evaluated in no-choice experiments using the scraper Lymnaea stagnalis and the shredder Gammarus roeseli. At the same time, we assessed four plant traits: dry matter content (DMC), total nitrogen content, carbon/nitrogen ratio and total phenolic content. The two populations of E. canadensis were consumed at low levels by both the herbivores. L. stagnalis showed a higher DFC on the Rhône population of E. nuttallii than on the Rhine population. No significant difference between the two populations was established with G. roeseli, but the level of DFC was high. This result demonstrates that the assessment of plant palatability should be carried out with several generalist herbivores belonging to various feeding groups (e.g. scrapers or shredders). Although the Rhône population of E. nuttallii had higher levels of phenols than the other populations, it was consistently consumed in greater quantities than E. canadensis. Neither the phenolic contents were not effective against these herbivores, nor the levels of phenolics too low to induce an efficient resistance. The higher DMC and the lower DFC of the two populations of E. canadensis suggest that this introduced plant has co-evolved with indigenous enemies in the introduced range.


Nutritional values Defences Introduced species Gammarus roeseli Lymnaea stagnalis 



Constructive comments on a previous version of this article by two anonymous referees are gratefully acknowledged. The authors wish to thank Philippe Rousselle for elemental analyses of carbon and nitrogen; Etienne Morhain for laboratory assistance; and Cédric Mondy and Sophie Sroda for field assistance. This study was supported by a PhD research grant from the Conseil Régional de Lorraine.


  1. Agrawal AA, Kotanen PM, Mitchell CE, Power AG, Godsoe W, Klironomos J (2005) Enemy Release? An experiment with congeneric plant pairs and diverse above-and below ground enemies. Ecology 86(11):2979–2989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrat-Segretain MH (2001) Invasive species in the Rhône River floodplain (France): replacement of Elodea canadensis Michaux by Elodea nuttallii St John in two former river channels. Arch Hydrobiol Fund Appl Limnol 152:237–251Google Scholar
  3. Barrat-Segretain MH, Elger A (2004) Experiments on growth interactions between two invasive macrophyte species. J Veg Sci 15:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrat-Segretain MH, Elger A, Sagnes P, Puijalon S (2002) Comparison of three life-history traits of invasive Elodea canadensis Michx. and Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) H. St. John. Aquat Bot 74:299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blossey B, Notzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook CDK, Urmi-König K (1985) A revision of the genus Elodea (Hydrocharitaceae). Aquat Bot 21:111–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cruz-Rivera E, Hay ME (2001) Macroalgal traits and the feeding and fitness of an herbivorous amphipod: the roles of selectivity, mixing, and compensation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 218:249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Nino F, Thiébaut G, Muller S (2007) Phenology and phenotypic variation of genetically uniform populations of Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) H. St John at sites of different trophic states. Fund Appl Limnol 168:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elger A, Barrat-Segretain MH (2002) Use of the pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis (L.) in laboratory experiments for evaluating macrophyte palatability. Arch Hydrobiol Fund Appl Limnol 153:669–683Google Scholar
  10. Elger A, Barrat-Segretain MH (2004) Plant palatability can be inferred from a single-date feeding trial. Funct Ecol 18:483–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elger A, Lemoine D (2005) Determinants of macrophyte palatability to the pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis. Freshw Biol 50:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elger A, Willby NJ (2003) Leaf dry matter content as an integrative expression of plant palatability: the case of freshwater macrophytes. Funct Ecol 17:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elger A, Bornette G, Barrat-Segretain MH, Amoros C (2004) Disturbances as a structuring factor of plant palatability in aquatic communities. Ecology 85:304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erhard D, Pohnert G, Gross EM (2007) Chemical defense in Elodea nuttallii reduces feeding and growth of aquatic herbivorous lepidoptera. J Chem Ecol 33:1646–1661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gross EM, Johnson RL, Hairston NG (2001) Experimental evidence for changes in submersed macrophyte species composition caused by the herbivore Acentria ephemerella (Lepidoptera). Oecologia 127:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanley ME, Lamont BB (2001) Herbivory, serotiny and seedling defence in Western Australian Proteaceae. Oecologia 126:409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hérault B, Bornet A, Trémolières M (2008) Redundancy and niche differentiation among the European invasive Elodea species. Biol Invasions 10:1099–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobsen D, Sand-Jensen K (1992) Herbivory of invertebrates on submerged macrophytes from Danish freshwaters. Freshw Biol 28:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joshi J, Vrieling K (2005) The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol Lett 8:704–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lankau RA, Rogers WE, Siemann E (2004) Constraints on the utilisation of the invasive Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum by generalist native herbivores in coastal prairies. Ecol Entomol 29:66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li Y, Yu D, Yan X (2004) Are polyphenolics valuable in anti-herbivory strategies of submersed freshwater macrophytes? Arch Hydrobiol Fund Appl Limnol 161:391–402Google Scholar
  23. Mattson WJ (1980) Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:119–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mc Canny SJ, Keddy PA, Arnason TJ, Gaudet CL, Moore DRJ, Shipley B (1990) Fertility and the food quality of wetland plants: a test of the resource availability hypothesis. Oikos 59:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Gilbert GS, Hufbauer RA, Klironomos JN, Maron JL, Morris WF, Parker IM, Power AG, Seabloom EW, Torchin ME, Vázquez DP (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:726–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Müller-Scharer H, Schaffner U, Steinger T (2004) Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol Evol 19:417–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Økland J (1990) Lakes and snails. Environment and Gastropoda in 1500 Norwegian Lakes, Ponds and Rivers. Universal Book Services/Dr. Backhuys, OegstgeestGoogle Scholar
  28. Pöckl M (1995) Laboratory studies on growth, feeding, moulting and mortality in the freshwater amphipods Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli. Arch Hydrobiol Fund Appl Limnol 134:223–253Google Scholar
  29. Siegel S, Castellan NJ (1988) Non parametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. MacGraw Hill Int, New York, pp 213–214Google Scholar
  30. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2001) Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol Lett 4:514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simpson DA (1990) Displacement of Elodea canadensis Michx. by Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) St. John in the British Isles. Watsonia New J Bot 18:173–177Google Scholar
  32. Smolders AJP, Vergeer LHT, van der Velde G, Roelofs JGM (2000) Phenolic contents of submerged, emergent and floating leaves of aquatic and semi-aquatic macrophyte species: why do they differ? Oikos 91:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. WH Freeman & Co, New York, pp 445–447Google Scholar
  34. Thiébaut G (2007) Non-indigenous aquatic and semi-aquatic plant species in France. In: Gherardi F (ed) Biological invaders in inland waters: profiles, distribution and threats. Springer, Berlin, pp 209–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thiébaut G, Di Nino F (2009) Morphological variations of natural populations of an aquatic macrophyte Elodea nuttallii in their native and in their introduced ranges. Aquatic Invasions 4(2):311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thiébaut G, Gross Y, Gierlinski P, Boiché A (2010) Accumulation of metals in Elodea canadensis and Elodea nuttallii: implications for Plant-macroinvertebrates Interactions. Sci Total Environ 408:5499–5505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wong PK, Liang Y, Liu Y, Qiu JW (2010) Palatability of macrophytes to the invasive freshwater snail Pomacea canaliculata: differential effects of multiple plant traits. Freshw Biol 55:2023–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zimmer M, Bartholmé S (2003) Bacterial endosymbionts in Asellus aquaticus (Isopoda) and Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda), and their contribution to digestion. Limnol Oceanogr 48:2208–2213CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anatole Boiché
    • 1
    Email author
  • Damien G. Lemoine
    • 2
  • Marie-Hélène Barrat-Segretain
    • 2
  • Gabrielle Thiébaut
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratoire des Interactions Ecotoxicologie Biodiversité Ecosystèmes (LIEBE)Université Paul Verlaine-METZMetzFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Ecologie des Hydrosystèmes Naturels et AnthropisésUniversité Lyon 1VilleurbanneFrance
  3. 3.UMR ECOBIO 6553, Université de Rennes 1RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations