Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 1687–1714 | Cite as

Effects of Light and Nutrient Availability on Aspen: Growth, Phytochemistry, and Insect Performance

  • Jocelyn D. C. Hemming
  • Richard L. Lindroth
Article

Abstract

This study explored the effect of resource availability on plant phytochemical composition within the framework of carbon–nutrient balance (CNB) theory. We grew quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) under two levels of light and three levels of nutrient availability and measured photosynthesis, productivity, and foliar chemistry [water, total nonstructural carbohydrates (TNC), condensed tannins, and phenolic glycosides]. Gypsy moths (Lymantria dispar) and forest tent caterpillars (Malacosoma disstria) were reared on foliage from each of the treatments to determine effects on insect performance. Photosynthetic rates increased under high light, but were not influenced by nutrient availability. Tree growth increased in response to both the direct and interactive effects of light and nutrient availability. Increasing light reduced foliar nitrogen, while increasing nutrient availability increased foliar nitrogen. TNC levels were elevated under high light conditions, but were not influenced by nutrient availability. Starch and condensed tannins responded to changes in resource availability in a manner consistent with CNB theory; levels were highest under conditions where tree growth was limited more than photosynthesis (i.e., high light–low nutrient availability). Concentrations of phenolic glycosides, however, were only moderately influenced by resource availability. In general, insect performance varied relatively little among treatments. Both species performed most poorly on the high light–low nutrient availability treatment. Because phenolic glycosides are the primary factor determining aspen quality for these insects, and because levels of these compounds were minimally affected by the treatments, the limited response of the insects was not surprising. Thus, the ability of CNB theory to accurately predict allocation to defense compounds depends on the response of specific allelochemicals to changes in resource availability. Moreover, whether allelochemicals serve to defend the plant depends on the response of insects to specific allelochemicals. Finally, in contrast to predictions of CNB theory, we found substantial allocation to storage and defense compounds under conditions in which growth was carbon-limited (e.g., low light), suggesting a cost to defense in terms of reduced growth.

Carbon–nutrient balance theory forest tent caterpillar growth–differentiation balance theory gypsy moth Lymantria dispar; Malacosoma disstria phenolic glycosides Populus tremuloides quaking aspen 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bazzaz, F. A., and Miao, S. L. 1993. Successional status, seed size, and responses of tree seedlings to CO2, light, and nutrients. Ecology 74:104-112.Google Scholar
  2. Bowman, W. D., and Conant, R. T. 1994. Shoot growth dynamics and photosynthetic response to increased nitrogen availability in the alpine willow Salix glauca. Oecologia 97:93-99.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, K., and Higginbotham, K. O. 1986. Effects of carbon dioxide enrichment and nitrogen supply on growth of boreal tree seedlings. Tree Physiol. 2:223-232.Google Scholar
  4. Bryant, J. P. 1987. Feltleaf willow-snowshoe hare interactions: Plant carbon/nutrient balance and floodplain succession. Ecology 68:1319-1327.Google Scholar
  5. Bryant, J. P., Chapin, F. S., III, and Klein, D. R. 1983. Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40:357-368.Google Scholar
  6. Bryant, J. P., Clausen, T. P., Reichardt, P. B., McCarthy, M. C., and Werner, R. A. 1987. Effect of nitrogen fertilization upon the secondary chemistry and nutritional value of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) leaves for the large aspen tortrix [Choristoneura conflictana (Walker)]. Oecologia 73:513-517.Google Scholar
  7. Chapin, F. S., III. 1980. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11:233-260.Google Scholar
  8. Chapin, F. S., III, Bloom, A. J., Field, C. B., and Waring, R. H. 1987. Plant responses to multiple environmental factors. BioScience 37:49-57.Google Scholar
  9. El Kohen, A., and Mousseau, M. 1994. Interactive effects of elevated CO2 and mineral nutrition on growth and CO2 exchange of sweet chestnut seedlings (Castanea sativa). Tree Physiol. 14:679-690.Google Scholar
  10. Farrar, R. R., Jr., Barbour, J. D., and Kennedy, G. G. 1989. Quantifying food consumption and growth in insects. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 82:593-598.Google Scholar
  11. Hagerman, A. E., and Butler, L. G. 1980. Condensed tannin purification and characterization of tannin-associated proteins. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 28:948-952.Google Scholar
  12. Hartley, S. E., Nelson, K., and Gorman, M. 1995. The effect of fertiliser and shading on plant chemical composition and palatability to Orkney voles, Microtus arvalis orcadensis. Oikos 72:79-87.Google Scholar
  13. Hemming, J. D. C., and Lindroth, R. L. 1995. Intraspecific variation in aspen phytochemistry: Effects on performance of gypsy moths and forest tent caterpillars. Oecologia 103:79-88.Google Scholar
  14. Herms, D. A., and Mattson, W. J. 1992. The dilemma of plants: To grow or defend. Q. Rev. Biol. 67:282-335.Google Scholar
  15. Hwang, S.-Y., and Lindroth, R. L. 1997. Clonal variation in foliar chemistry of aspen: Effects on gypsy moths and forest tent caterpillars. Oecologia 111:99-108.Google Scholar
  16. Kinney, K. K., and Lindroth, R. L. 1997. Responses of three deciduous tree species to atmospheric CO2 and soil NO3 availability. Can. J. For. Res. 27:1-10.Google Scholar
  17. Kinney, K. K., Lindroth, R. L., Jung, S. M., and Nordheim, E. V. 1997. Effects of atmospheric CO2 and soil NO3 availability on deciduous trees: phytochemistry and insect performance. Ecology 78:215-230.Google Scholar
  18. Koricheva, J., Larsson, S., Haukioja, E., and KeinÄnen, M. 1998. Regulation of woody plant secondary metabolism by resource availability: Hypothesis testing by means of meta-analysis. Oikos 83:212-226.Google Scholar
  19. Lang, C. A. 1958. Simple microdetermination of Kjeldahl nitrogen in biological materials. Anal. Chem. 30:1692-1694.Google Scholar
  20. Lawler, I. R., Foley, W. J., Woodrow, I. E., and Cork, S. J. 1997. The effects of elevated CO2 atmospheres on the nutritional quality of Eucalyptus foliage and its interaction with soil nutrient and light availability. Oecologia 109:59-68.Google Scholar
  21. Lindroth, R. L., and Hwang, S.-Y. 1996. Clonal variation in foliar chemistry of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 24:357-364.Google Scholar
  22. Lindroth, R. L., Hsia, M. T. S., and Scriber, J. M. 1987. Seasonal patterns in the phytochemistry of three Populus species. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 15:681-686.Google Scholar
  23. Lindroth, R. L., Kinney, K. K., and Platz, C. L. 1993. Responses of deciduous trees to elevated atmospheric CO2: Productivity, phytochemistry, and insect performance. Ecology 74:763-777.Google Scholar
  24. Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS Systems for Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  25. Matsuki, M. 1996. Regulation of plant phenolic synthesis: from biochemistry to ecology and evolution. Aust. J. Bot. 44:613-634.Google Scholar
  26. Mattson, M. J., Jr. 1980. Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11:119-161.Google Scholar
  27. McDonald, A. J. S., Lohammar, T., and Ericsson, A. 1986. Growth response to step-decrease in nutrient availability in small birch (Betula pendula Roth). Plant Cell Environ. 9:427-432.Google Scholar
  28. McDonald, E. P., and Lindroth, R. L. 1999. CO2 and light effects on deciduous trees: Growth, foliar chemistry, and insect performance. Oecologia. In press.Google Scholar
  29. McGuire, A. D., Melillo, J. M., and Joyce, L. A. 1995. The role of nitrogen in the response of forest net primary production to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:473-503.Google Scholar
  30. Mole, S. 1994. Trade-offs and constraints in plant-herbivore defense theory: a life-history perspective. Oikos 71:3-12.Google Scholar
  31. Parkinson, J. A., and Allen, S. E. 1975. A wet oxidation procedure suitable for the determination of nitrogen and mineral nutrients in biological material. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 6:1-11.Google Scholar
  32. Pettersson, R., McDonald, A. J. S., and Stadenberg, I. 1993. Response of small birch plants (Betula pendula Roth.) to elevated CO2 and nitrogen supply. Plant Cell Environ. 16:1115-1121.Google Scholar
  33. Porter, L. J., Hrstich, L. N., and Chan, B. G. 1986. The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25:233-230.Google Scholar
  34. Raubenheimer, D., and Simpson, S. J. 1992. Analysis of covariance: An alternative to nutritional indices. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 62:221-231.Google Scholar
  35. Reichardt, P. B., Chapin, F. S., III, Bryant, J. P., Mattes, B. R., and Clausen, T. P. 1991. Carbon/nutrient balance as a predictor of plant defense in Alaskan balsam poplar: Potential importance of metabolite turnover. Oecologia 88:401-406.Google Scholar
  36. Roth, S. K., and Lindroth, R. L. 1995. Elevated atmospheric CO2: Effects on phytochemistry, insect performance and insect-parasitoid interactions. Global Change Biol. 1:173-182.Google Scholar
  37. Roth, S., McDonald, E. P., and Lindroth, R. L. 1997. Atmospheric CO2 and soil water availability: consequences for tree-insect interactions. Can. J. For. Res. 27:1281-1290.Google Scholar
  38. RuohomÄki, K., Chapin, F. S., III, Haukioja, E., Neuvonen, S., and Suomela, J. 1996. Delayed inducible resistance in mountain birch in response to fertilization and shade. Ecology 77:2302-2311.Google Scholar
  39. SAS Institute. 1989. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, version 6 ed. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  40. Tuomi, J., Niemela, P., Haukioja, E., SirÉn, S., and Neuvonen, S. 1988. Defensive responses of trees in relation to their carbon/nutrient balance, pp. 57-72, in W. J. Mattson, J. Levieux, and C. Bern-Dagan (eds.). Mechanisms of Woody Plant Defenses Against Insects—Search for Pattern. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Waldbauer, G. P. 1968. The consumption and utilization of food by insects. Adv. Insect Physiol. 5:229-288.Google Scholar
  42. Walters, M. B., and Reich, P. B. 1996. Are shade tolerance, survival, and growth linked? Low light and nitrogen effects on hardwood seedlings. Ecology 77:841-853.Google Scholar
  43. Walters, M. B., Kruger, E. L., and Reich, P. B. 1993. Growth, biomass distribution and CO2 exchange of northern hardwood seedlings in high and low light: Relationships with successional status and shade tolerance. Oecologia 94:7-16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jocelyn D. C. Hemming
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard L. Lindroth
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Toxicology CenterMadison
  2. 2.Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene-BiomonitoringMadison

Personalised recommendations