Plant Ecology

, Volume 166, Issue 1, pp 49–61 | Cite as

Grazing tolerance of Gentianella amarella and other monocarpic herbs: why is tolerance highest at low damage levels?

  • Ari-Pekka Huhta
  • Kalle Hellström
  • Pasi Rautio
  • Juha Tuomi
Article

Abstract

Plants have adapted to compensate for the loss of vegetative biomass and reproductive potential caused by grazing. Shoot damage breaks down the correlative inhibition maintained by apical dominance. The consequent increased branching may lead to increased production of flowers and fruits in damaged plants, provided that enough resources, both in terms of meristems and nutrients, are available. In Gentianella amarella, the removal of the apex of the main stem (10% clipping) had no pronounced effect on branching and plant performance. In one of the two study populations, however, apically damaged plants produced more fruits than undamaged control plants. The plants also fully compensated for 50% removal of the main stem in terms of above-ground biomass, but their fruit production was reduced compared to control and apically damaged plants. After 75% clipping, fruit production was not significantly reduced compared to 50% clipping. Consequently, G. amarella showed highest tolerance in the presence of minor shoot damage. The pattern is qualitatively similar in some other monocarpic species (Gentianella campestris, Erysimum strictum and Rhinanthus minor). Multiple constraints as well as selective forces may shape these compensatory responses: (1) A lack of basal meristems may constrain tolerance of high damage levels. (2) Species with basal meristems may have a potential to tolerate major damage, but a shortage of resources or otherwise unfavourable growth conditions may constrain their compensatory ability. (3) It may be adaptive to have maximum tolerance of low and moderate damage levels if chemical defences reduce the risk of extensive shoot damage as well as the risk of repeated grazing. (4) The compensatory ability of monocarpic species may be affected by selective forces that favour fast vertical growth early in the season and unbranched architecture in undamaged conditions. Therefore, it is not the mere grazing history, but also other factors associated with growth conditions that are required to explain the variation in grazing tolerance.

Apical dominace Branching Clipping Herbivory Overcompensation Regrowth 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarssen L.W. 1995. Hypotheses for the evolution of apical dominance in plants: implications for the interpretation of overcompensation. Oikos 74: 149–156.Google Scholar
  2. Aarssen L.W. and Irwin D.L. 1991. What selection: herbivory or competition? Oikos 60: 261–262.Google Scholar
  3. Alward R.D. and Joern A. 1993. Plasticity and overcompensation in grass responses to herbivory. Oecologia 95: 358–364.Google Scholar
  4. Beard J.B. 1973. Turfgrass: Science and culture. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Belsky A.J. 1986. Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. Am. Nat. 129: 870–892.Google Scholar
  6. Belsky A.J., Carson W.P., Jensen C.L. and Fox G.A. 1993. Overcompensation by plants: herbivore optimization or red herring? Evol. Ecol. 7: 109–121.Google Scholar
  7. Bergelson J. and Crawley M.J. 1992a. The effects of grazers on the performance of individuals and populations of scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 90: 435–444.Google Scholar
  8. Bergelson J. and Crawley M.J. 1992b. Herbivory and Ipomopsis aggregata: the disadvantages of being eaten. Am. Nat. 139: 870–882.Google Scholar
  9. Bergelson J., Juenger T. and Crawley M.J. 1996. Regrowth following herbivory in Ipomopsis aggregata: compensation but not overcompensation. Am. Nat. 148: 744–755.Google Scholar
  10. Crawley M.J. 1987. Benevolent herbivores? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2: 167–168.Google Scholar
  11. Crawley M.J. 1997. Plant ecology. Blackwell Science. University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Ekstam U., Aronsson M. and Forshed N. 1988. Ängar. Om naturliga slåttermarker i odlingslandskapet. LTs Förlag, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  13. Hämet-Ahti L. and Suominen J. 1993. Kasvistomme muinaistulokkaat: tulkintaa ja perusteluja. (Archaeophytes in the flora of Finland). Norrlinia 4: 1–90.Google Scholar
  14. Hämet-Ahti L., Suominen J., Ulvinen T. and Uotila P. (eds) 1998. Retkeilykasvio (Field flora of Finland), Finnish Museum of Natural History. Botanical Museum, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  15. Hillman J.R. 1984. Apical dominance. In: Wilkings M.B. (ed.), Advanced plant physiology. Pitman Publishing Ltd, London, pp. 127–148.Google Scholar
  16. Hostettmann-Kaldas M. and Jacot-Guillarmod A. 1978. Xanthones et C-glucosides falvoniques du genre Gentiana (sous-genre Gentianella). Phytochemistry 17: 2083–2086.Google Scholar
  17. Huhta A.-P., Tuomi J. and Rautio P. 2000a. Cost of apical dominance in two monocarpic herbs, Erysimum strictum and Rhinanthus minor. Can. J. Bot. 78: 591–599.Google Scholar
  18. Huhta A.-P., Lennartsson T., Tuomi J., Rautio P. and Laine K. 2000b. Tolerance of Gentianella campestris in relation to damage intensity: an interplay between apical dominance and herbivory. Evol. Ecol. 14: 373–392.Google Scholar
  19. Huhta A.-P., Hellström K., Rautio P. and Tuomi J. 2000c. A test of the compensatory continuum: fertilization increases and belowground competition decreases the grazing tolerance of tall wormseed mustard (Erysimum strictum). Evol. Ecol. 14: 353– 372.Google Scholar
  20. Hultén E. and Fries M. 1986. Atlas of North European vascular plants, North of the Trophic of Cancer. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein.Google Scholar
  21. Järemo J., Nilsson P. and Tuomi J. 1996. Plant compensatory growth: herbivory or competition? Oikos 77: 238–247.Google Scholar
  22. Kemp W.B. 1937. Natural selection within plant species as exemplified in a permanent pasture. J. Heredity 28: 329–333.Google Scholar
  23. Kytövuori I. 1980. Gentianella amarella (L.) Börner Horkkakatkero. In: Jalas J. (ed.), Suuri kasvikirja Part III. Otava, Keuruu, pp. 356–358.Google Scholar
  24. Latvalehto P. 1997. Melalahden perinnemaisemien ketokasvillisuus. MSc Dissertation, University of Oulu.Google Scholar
  25. Lennartsson T., Tuomi J. and Nilsson P. 1997. Evidence for the evolutionary history of overcompensation in the grassland biennial Gentianella campestris (Gentianaceae). Am. Nat. 149: 1147–1155.Google Scholar
  26. Lennartsson T., Nilsson P. and Tuomi J. 1998. Induction of overcompensation in the field gentian, Gentianella campestris. Ecology 79: 1061–1072.Google Scholar
  27. Maschinski J. and Whitham G.T. 1989. The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability and timing. Am. Nat. 134: 1–19.Google Scholar
  28. Mauricio R., Rausher M.D. and Burdick D.S. 1997. Variation in the defence strategies of plants: are resistance and tolerance mutually exclusive? Ecology 78: 1301–1311.Google Scholar
  29. McNaughton S.J. 1979. Grazing as an optimization process: grassungulate relationships in the Serengeti. Am. Nat. 113: 691–703.Google Scholar
  30. McNaughton S.J. 1983. Compensatory plant growth as a response to herbivory. Oikos 40: 329–336.Google Scholar
  31. McNaughton S.J. 1986. Grazing lawns: On domesticated and wild grazers. Am. Nat. 128: 937–939.Google Scholar
  32. Montgomery D.C. 1984. Design and analysis of experiments. 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Mopper S.J., Maschinski J., Cobb N. and Whitham T.G. 1991. A new look at habitat strcuture: consequences of herbivore-modi-fied plant architecture. In: Bell S.S., McCoy E.D. and Mushinsky H.R. (eds), Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objectes in space. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 260–280.Google Scholar
  34. Påhlsson's L. (ed.) 1994. Öppen brukningsbetingad vegetation. In: Vegetationstyper i Norden. Nordiska ministerrådet. Aka-print APS,, pp. 381–457.Google Scholar
  35. Paige K.N. 1992. Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: from mutualistic to antagonistic interactions. Ecology 73: 2076–2085.Google Scholar
  36. Paige K.N. 1994. Herbivory and Ipomopsis aggregata: Differences in response, differences in experimental protocol: a reply to Bergelson and Crawley. Am. Nat. 143: 739–749.Google Scholar
  37. Paige K.N. 1999. Regrowth following ungulate herbivory in Ipomopsis aggregata: geographic evidence for overcompensation. Oecologia 118: 316–323.Google Scholar
  38. Paige K.N. and Whitham T.G. 1987. Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: the advantage of being eaten. Am. Nat. 129: 407–416.Google Scholar
  39. Phillips I.D.J. 1975. Apical dominance. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 26: 341–367.Google Scholar
  40. Pitt M.D. and Heady H.F. 1978. Responses of annual vegetation to temperature and rainfall patterns in northern California. Ecology 59: 336–350.Google Scholar
  41. Prins A.H., Verkaar H.J. and van den Herik M. 1989. Responses of Cynoglossum off?cinale L. and Senecio jacobaea L. to various degrees of defoliation. New Phytologist 111: 725–731.Google Scholar
  42. Rassi P., Kaipiainen H., Mannerkoski I. and Ståhls G. 1991. Uhanalaisten kasvien ja eläinten seurantakomitean mietintö. (Abstract: Report on the monitoring of Threatened Animals and Plants in Finland). Committee report 1991:30. Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenthal J.P. and Kotanen P.M. 1994. Terrestrial plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 145–148.Google Scholar
  44. Saville D.J. 1990. Multiple comparison procedures: the practical solution. The American Statistician 44: 174–180.Google Scholar
  45. Trumble J.T., Kolodny-Hirsch D.M. and Ting I.P. 1993. Plant compensation for arthropod herbivory. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 38: 93–119.Google Scholar
  46. Tuomi J., Nilsson P. and Åström M. 1994. Plant compensatory responses: bud dormancy as an adaptation to herbivory. Ecology 75: 1429–1436.Google Scholar
  47. Wandera J.L., Richards J.H. and Mueller R.J. 1992. The relationships between relative growth rate, meristematic potential and compensatory growth of semiarid-land shrubs. Oecologia 90: 391–398.Google Scholar
  48. Whitham T.G., Maschinski J., Larson K.C. and Paige K.N. 1991.Plant responses to herbivory: The continuum from negative to positive and underlying physiological mechanisms. In: Price P.W., Lewinsohn T.M., Fernandes G.W. and Benson W.W. (eds), Plant-animal interactions: Evolutionary ecology in tropical and temperate regions.Google Scholar
  49. Vail S.P. 1992. Selection for overcompensatory plant responses to herbivory: a mechanism for the evolution of plant-herbivore mutualism. Am. Nat. 139: 1–8.Google Scholar
  50. van der Meijden E. 1990. Herbivory as a trigger for growth. Ecology 4: 597–598.Google Scholar
  51. Verkaar H.J. 1986. When does grazing benefit plants? Trends Ecol. Evol. 1: 168–169.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ari-Pekka Huhta
    • 1
  • Kalle Hellström
    • 1
  • Pasi Rautio
    • 1
  • Juha Tuomi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations