Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 37–52 | Cite as

Assessment of correlational selection on tolerance and resistance traits in a host plant–parasitic plant interaction

  • Rodrigo Medel
Article

Abstract

Resistance and tolerance are considered to be different plant strategies against disease. While resistance traits prevent hosts becoming parasitized or reduce the extent of parasitism, tolerance traits reduce the fitness-impact of parasitism on infected hosts. Theoretical considerations predict that in some circumstances mutual redundancy will give hosts with either high resistance or high tolerance a fitness advantage over hosts that exhibit both of these traits together. However, empirical evidence has provided mixed results. In this paper, I describe the pattern of phenotypic selection imposed by the holoparasitic mistletoe Tristerix aphyllus upon resistance (spine length) and tolerance (branching) traits in the cactus Echinopsis chilensis. Results indicate that branching was an efficient compensatory mechanism, reducing 75.5% of the fitness-impact attributable to parasitism. Even though both traits showed a negative correlation, as expected from the presence of allocation costs between strategies, no correlational selection coefficient was significant indicating that selection did not favor alternative combinations of traits. Consequently, I did not find evidence for selection promoting mutually exclusive defense strategies against the mistletoe, which suggests that tolerance and resistance traits may coexist stably in populations of E. chilensis.

host–parasite interaction phenotypic selection plant defense strategies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agrawal, A.A., Strauss, S.Y. and Stout, M.J. (1999) Costs of induced responses and tolerance to herbivory in male and female fitness components of wild radish. Evolution 53, 1093-1104.Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A.A. (2000) Overcompensation of plants in response to herbivory and the by-product benefits of mutualism. Trends Plant Sci. 5, 309-313.Google Scholar
  3. Ballabeni, P. (1995) Parasite-induced gigantism in a snail: a host adaptation? Funct. Ecol. 9, 887-893.Google Scholar
  4. Bentler, P.M. (1995) EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Multivariate Software, Inc. Encino, California, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Bergelson, J. and Crawley, M.J. (1992) The effects of grazers on the performance of individuals and populations of scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 90, 435-441.Google Scholar
  6. Botto-Mahan, C., Medel, R., Ginocchio, R. and Montenegro, G. (2000) Factors affecting the circular distribution of the leafless mistletoe Tristerix aphyllus (Loranthaceae) on the cactus Echinopsis chilensis. Rev. Chil. Nat. Hist. 73, 525-531.Google Scholar
  7. Burdon, J.J. (1987) Diseases and Plant Population Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Byrne, B.M. (1994) Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, D.R., Waser, N.M., Price, M.V., Lynch, E.A. and Mitchell, R.J. (1991) Components of phenotypic selection: pollen export and flower corolla width in Ipomopsis aggregata. Evolution 45, 1458-1467.Google Scholar
  10. Cody, M.L. (1984) Branching patterns in columnar cacti. In N.S. Margaris, M. Arianoustou-Farragitako and W.C. Orchel (eds). Being Alive on Land. Tasks for vegetation studies, Vol. 13. W. Junk, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 201-236.Google Scholar
  11. Cody, M.L. (1986) Structural niches in plant communities. In J. Diamond and T.J. Case (eds). Community Ecology. Harper & Row, New York, USA, pp. 381-405.Google Scholar
  12. Coleman, J.S., McConnaughay, K.D.M. and Ackerly, D.D. (1994) Interpreting phenotypic variation in plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 187-191.Google Scholar
  13. Conner, J.K., Rush, S., Kercher, S. and Jennetten, P. (1996) Measurements of natural selection on floral traits in wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). II. Selection through lifetime male and total fitness. Evolution 50, 1137-1146.Google Scholar
  14. Crespi, B.J. (1990) Measuring the effect of natural selection on phenotypic interaction systems. Am. Nat. 135, 32-47.Google Scholar
  15. Crespi, B.J. and Bookstein, F.L. (1989) A path-analytic model for the measurement of morphology. Evolution 43, 18-28.Google Scholar
  16. Dunn, G., Everitt, B. and Pickles, A. (1993) Modelling Covariances and Latent Variables using EQS. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Fineblum, W.L. and Rausher, M.D. (1995) Tradeoff between resistance and tolerance to herbivore damage in a morning glory. Nature 377, 517-520.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, A.C. and Nobel, P.S. (1986) The Cactus Primer. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Gotelli, N.J. and Moore, J. (1992) Altered host behavior in a cockroach-acanthocephalan association. Anim. Behav. 43, 949-959.Google Scholar
  20. Haukioja, E. (1991) The influence of grazing on the evolution, morphology and physiology of plants as modular organisms. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 333, 241-247.Google Scholar
  21. Hechtel, L.J., Jonhnson, C.L. and Juliano, S.A. (1993) Modification of antipredator behavior of Caecidotea intermedius by its parasite Acanthocephalus dirus. Ecology 74, 710-713.Google Scholar
  22. Juenger, T. and Bergelson, J. (1997) Pollen and resource limitation of compensation to herbivory in scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata. Ecology 78, 1684-1695.Google Scholar
  23. Juenger, T. and Bergelson, J. (2000) The evolution of compensation to herbivory in scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata: herbivore-imposed natural selection and the quantitative genetics of tolerance. Evolution 54, 764-777.Google Scholar
  24. Karban, R. and Baldwin, I.T. (1997) Induced Responses to Herbivory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Kuijt, J. (1969) The Biology of Parasitic Flowering Plants. University of California Press, California, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Lande, R. and Arnold, S.J. (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37, 1210-1226.Google Scholar
  27. Lively, C.M. (1999) Migration, virulence, and the geographic mosaic of adaptation by parasites. Am. Nat. 153, S34-S47.Google Scholar
  28. Lobuc, C. and Bell, M.A. (1993) Phenotypic manipulation by the cestode parasite, Schistocephalus solidus, of its intermediate host, Gasterosteus aculeatus, the threespine stickleback. Am. Nat. 142, 725-735.Google Scholar
  29. Maad, J. (2000) Phenotypic selection in hawkmoth-pollinated Plantanthera bifolia: targets and fitness surfaces. Evolution 54, 112-123.Google Scholar
  30. Marquis, R.J. (1996) Plant architecture, sectoriality and plant tolerance to herbivores. Vegetatio 127, 85-97.Google Scholar
  31. Martinez del Río, C., Hourdequín, M., Silva, A. and Medel, R. (1995) The influence of cactus size and previous infection on bird deposition of mistletoe seeds. Aust. J. Ecol. 20, 571-576.Google Scholar
  32. Maschinski, J. and Whitham, T.G. (1989) The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability, and timing. Am. Nat. 134, 1-19.Google Scholar
  33. Mauricio, R. and Rausher, M.D. (1997) Experimental manipulation of putative selective agents provides evidence for the role of natural enemies in the evolution of plant defense. Evolution 51, 1435-1444.Google Scholar
  34. Mauricio, R., Rausher, M.D. and Burdick, D.S. (1997) Variation in the defense strategies of plants: are resistance and tolerance mutually exclusive? Ecology 78, 1301-1311.Google Scholar
  35. Mauseth, J.D., Montenegro, G. and Walckowiak, A.M. (1984) Studies of the holoparasite Tristerix aphyllus (Loranthaceae) infecting Trichocereus chilensis (Cactaceae). Can. J. Bot. 62, 847-857.Google Scholar
  36. Mauseth, J.D., Montenegro, G. and Walckowiak, A.M. (1985) Host infection and flower formation by the parasite Tristerix aphyllus (Loranthaceae). Can. J. Bot. 63, 567-581.Google Scholar
  37. Medel, R. (2000) Assessment of parasite-mediated selection in a host-parasite system in plants. Ecology 81, 1554-1564.Google Scholar
  38. Mitchell, R.J. (1992) Testing evolutionary and ecological hypotheses using path analysis and structural equation modelling. Funct. Ecol. 6, 123-129.Google Scholar
  39. Moore, J. (1983) Responses of an avian and its isopod prey to an acanthocephalan parasite. Ecology 64, 1000-1015.Google Scholar
  40. Mouritsen, K.N. and Jensen, K.T. (1994) The enigma of gigantism: effect of larval trematodes on growth, fecundity, egestion and locomotion in Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant) (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 181, 53-66.Google Scholar
  41. Musselman, L.J. and Press, M.C. (1995) Introduction to parasitic plants. In M.C. Press and J.D. Graves (eds). Parasitic Plants. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pp. 1-13.Google Scholar
  42. Ness, J. and Foster, S.A. (1999) Parasite-associated phenotype modifications in threespine stickleback. Oikos 85, 127-134.Google Scholar
  43. Nobel, P.S. (1980) Interception of photosythetically active radiation by cacti of different morphology. Oecologia 45, 160-166.Google Scholar
  44. Nobel, P.S. (1981) Influences of photosythetically active radiation on cladode orientation, stem tilting, and height in cacti. Ecology 63, 982-990.Google Scholar
  45. Norton, D.A. and Carpenter, M.A. (1998) Mistletoes as parasites: host specificity and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 101-105.Google Scholar
  46. Núñez-Farfán, J. and Dirzo, R. (1994) Evolutionary ecology of Datura stramonium L. in central Mexico: natural selection for resistance to herbivore insects. Evolution 48, 423-436.Google Scholar
  47. Paige, K.N. (1992) Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: from mutualistic to antagonistic interactions. Ecology 73, 2076-2085.Google Scholar
  48. Paige, K.N. and Whitham, T.G. (1987) Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: the advantage of being eaten. Am. Nat. 143, 739-749.Google Scholar
  49. Poulin, R. (1994) Parasite manipulation of host behaviour: should hosts always lose? Oikos 70, 479-484.Google Scholar
  50. Poulin, R. and Thomas, F. (1999) Phenotypic variability induced by parasites: extent and evolutionary implications. Parasitol. Today 15, 28-32.Google Scholar
  51. Rausher, M.D. (1992) The measurement of selection on quantitative traits: biases due to environmental covariances between traits and fitness. Evolution 46, 616-626.Google Scholar
  52. Rausher, M.D. and Simms, E.L. (1989) The evolution of resistance to herbivory in Ipomoea purpurea. I. Attempts to detect selection. Evolution 43, 563-572.Google Scholar
  53. Rosenthal, J.P. and Kotanen, P.M. (1994) Terrestrial plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 145-148.Google Scholar
  54. Roy, B.A., (1993) Floral mimicry by a plant pathogen. Nature 362, 56-58.Google Scholar
  55. Roy, B.A. and Kirchner, J.W. (2000) Evolutionary dynamics of pathogen resistance and tolerance. Evolution 54, 51-63.Google Scholar
  56. Schluter, D. (1988) Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 42, 849-861.Google Scholar
  57. Shonle, I. and Bergelson, J. (2000) Evolutionary ecology of the tropane alkaloids of Datura stramonium L. (Solanaceae). Evolution 54, 778-788.Google Scholar
  58. Shykoff, J.A., Bucheli, E. and Kaltz, O. 1997. Anther smuth disease in Dianthus silvester (Caryophyllaceae): natural selection on floral traits. Evolution 51, 383-392.Google Scholar
  59. Shykoff, J.A. and Kaltz, O. 1998. Phenotypic changes in host plants diseased by Microbotrym violaceum: parasite manipulation, side effects, and trade offs. Int. J. Plant Sci. 159, 236-243.Google Scholar
  60. Silva, A. and Martinez del Río, C. (1996) Effects of the mistletoe Tristerix aphyllus (Loranthaceae) on the reproduction of its cactus host Echinopsis chilensis. Oikos 75, 437-442.Google Scholar
  61. Simms, E.L. and Rausher, M.D. (1989) The evolution of resistance to herbivory in Ipomoea purpurea. II: natural selection by insects and costs of resistance. Evolution 43, 573-585.Google Scholar
  62. Simms, E.L. and Triplett, J. (1994) Costs and benefits of plant responses to disease: resistance and tolerance. Evolution 48, 1973-1985.Google Scholar
  63. Stamp, N. (1981) Behavior of parasitized aposematic caterpillars: advantageous to the parasitoid or the host? Am. Nat. 118, 715-725.Google Scholar
  64. Stowe, K.A. (1998) Experimental evolution of resistance in Brassica rapa: correlated response of tolerance in lines selected for glucosinolate content. Evolution 52, 703-712.Google Scholar
  65. Stowe, K.A., Marquis, R.J. Hochwender, C.G. and Simms, E.L. (2000) The evolutionary ecology of tolerance to consumer damage. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 565-595.Google Scholar
  66. Strauss, S.Y. and Agrawal, A.A. (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 179-185.Google Scholar
  67. Thompson, J.N. (1994) The Coevolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  68. Thompson, J.N. (1999) Specific hypothesis on the geographic mosaic of coevolution. Am. Nat. 153, S1-S14.Google Scholar
  69. Tiffin, P. and Rausher, M.D. (1999) Genetic constraints and selection acting on tolerance to herbivory in the common morning glory Ipomoea purpurea. Am. Nat. 154, 700-716.Google Scholar
  70. Tuomi, J., Nilsson, P. and Åström, M. (1994) Plant compensatory responses: bud dormancy as an adaptation to herbivory. Ecology 75, 1429-1436.Google Scholar
  71. van der Meijden, E., Wijn, M. and Verkaar, H.J. (1988) Defense and regrowth, alternative plant strategies in the struggle against herbivores. Oikos 51, 355-363.Google Scholar
  72. Vance, S.A. (1996) Morphological and behavioural sex reversal in mermithid-infected mayflies. P. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Bio. 263, 907-912.Google Scholar
  73. Yan, G., Stevens, L. and Schall, J.J. (1994) Behavioral changes in Tribolium beetles infected with tapeworm: variation in effects between beetle species and among genetic strains. Am. Nat. 143, 830-847.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Medel
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations