Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Associational resistance for mule’s ears with sagebrush neighbors

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Plant Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many examples of associational resistance have been reported, in which a plant’s neighbors reduce the rate of damage by herbivores that it experiences. Despite 30 years of interest and hundreds of examples of associational resistance, we still know very little about how plants avoid their herbivores. This lack of mechanistic understanding prevents us from predicting when or where associational resistance will be important or might affect species’ distributions. I demonstrate here that the plant neighborhoods that surrounded focal mule’s ears (Wyethia mollis) individuals affected the damage they received. In particular, distance between a focal mule’s ears individual and its nearest sagebrush neighbor (Artemisia tridentata) was a good predictor of how much leaf area the mule’s ears would lose to herbivores over 2 years. Mule’s ears close to sagebrush suffered less loss than those with more distant nearest sagebrush neighbors. Mule’s ears with near sagebrush neighbors suffered half the leaf loss as mule’s ears with sagebrush experimentally removed. This associational resistance was probably not caused by sagebrush attracting or increasing populations of predators of generalist herbivores. Sagebrush is known to emit chemicals that are feeding deterrents to generalist grasshoppers and these deterrents were probably involved here. Volatile chemicals emitted by damaged sagebrush have been found to induce resistance in neighboring plants of several species. However, I found no evidence for such eavesdropping here as mule’s ears gained associational resistance from sagebrush neighbors whether or not those sagebrush neighbors had been experimentally damaged. Understanding the mechanisms responsible for associational resistance is critical to predicting where and when it will be important.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andow DA (1991) Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annu Rev Entomol 36:561–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atsatt P, O’Dowd D (1976) Plant defense guilds. Science 193:24–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1994) Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertness MD, Callaway RM (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray RO, Wambolt CL, Kelsey RG (1991) Influence of sagebrush terpenoids on mule deer preference. J Chem Ecol 17:2053–2062

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM (1995) Positive interactions among plants. Bot Rev 61:306–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM (1997) Positive interactions in plant communities and the individualistic-continuum concept. Oecologia 112:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM et al (2002) Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature 417:844–848

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clements FE (1916) Plant succession. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Publication #242

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Lawrence Earlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie PO, Goodwin DL (1966) Consumption of forage by black-tailed jackrabbits on salt-desert ranges of Utah. J Wildl Manage 30:304–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds) Biochemical interactions between plants and insects. Recent advances in phytochemistry, vol 10. Plenum, New York, pp 1–40

  • Gleason HA (1926) The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bull Torr Bot Club 53:7–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Aparicio L, Zamora R, Gomez JM, Hodar JA, Castro J, Baraza E (2004) Applying plant facilitation to forest restoration: a metaanalysis of the use of shrubs as nurse plants. Ecol Appl 14:1128–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf M (1999) Plants of the Tahoe Basin. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamback PA, Agren J, Ericson L (2000) Associational resistance: insect damage to purple loosestrife reduced in thickets of sweet gale. Ecology 81:1784–1794

    Google Scholar 

  • Jermy T (1984) Evolution of insect/host relationships. Am Nat 124:609–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jermy T (1993) Evolution of insect–plant relationships – a devil’s advocate approach. Entomol Exp Appl 66:3–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Baldwin IT, Baxter KJ, Laue G, Felton, GW (2000) Communication between plants: induced resistance in wild tobacco plants following clipping of neighboring sagebrush. Oecologia 125:66–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Baxter KJ (2001) Induced resistance in wild tobacco with clipped sagebrush neighbors: the role of herbivore behavior. J Insect Behav 14:147–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Maron J (2002) The fitness consequences of interspecific eavesdropping between plants. Ecology 83:1209–1213

    Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Maron J, Felton GW, Ervin G, Eichenseer H (2003) Herbivore damage to sagebrush induces wild tobacco: evidence for eavesdropping between plants. Oikos 100:325–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Huntzinger M, McCall AC (2004) The specificity of eavesdropping on sagebrush by other plants. Ecology 85:1845–1852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Shiojiri K, Huntzinger M, McCall AC (2006) Damage-induced resistance in sagebrush: volatiles are key to intra- and interplant communication. Ecology 87:922–930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva P (1983) Influence of vegetation texture on herbivore populations: resource concentration and herbivore movement. In: Denno RF, McClure MS (eds) Variable plants and herbivores in natural and managed systems. Academic Press, New York, pp 259–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsey RG, Stevenson TT, Scholl JP, Watson TJ, Shafizadeh F (1978) The chemical composition of the litter and soil in a community of Artemisia tridentata spp. vaseyana. Biochem Syst Ecol 6:193–200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy PB, Doten SB (1901) A preliminary report on the summer ranges of western Nevada sheep. Nevada State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Reno, NV Bulletin #51, 57 pp

  • Lortie CJ, Brooker RW, Choler P, Kikvidze Z, Michalet R, Pugnaire FI, Callaway RM (2004) Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos 107:433–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM (1982) Limitation of recruitment of the shrub Haplopappus squarrosus (Asteraceae) by flower- and seed-feeding insects. J Ecol 70:43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maron JL, Vila M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis RJ (1992) The selective impact of herbivores. In: Fritz RS, Simms EL (eds) Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 301–325

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuliffe JR (1986) Herbivore-limited establishment of a Sonoran desert tree, Cercidium microphyllum. Ecology 67:276–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAuliffe JR (1988) Markovian dynamics of simple and complex desert plant communities. Am Nat 131:459–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milchunas DG, Noy-Meir I (2002) Grazing refuges, external avoidance of herbivory and plant diversity. Oikos 99:113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker VT, Yoder-Williams MP (1989) Reduction of survival and growth of young Pinus jeffreyi by an herbaceous perennial, Wyethia mollis. Am Midl Naturalist 121:105–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Personius TL, Wambolt CL, Stephens JR, Kelsey RG (1987) Crude terpenoid influence on mule deer preference for sagebrush. J Range Manage 40:84–88

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pickford GD (1932) The influence of continued heavy grazing and of promiscuous burning on spring-fall ranges in Utah. Ecology 13:159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston CA, Laue G, Baldwin IT (2001) Methyl jasmonate is blowing in the wind but can it act as a plant–plant airborne signal?. Biochem Syst Ecol 29:1007–1023

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rausher MD (1981) The effect of native vegetation on the susceptibility of Aristolochia reticulata (Aristolochiaceae) to herbivore attack. Ecology 62:1187–1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton AM, Badenes-Perez FR (2006) Concepts and applications of trap cropping in pest management. Annu Rev Entomol 51:285–308

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tahvanainen JO, Root RB (1972) The influence of vegetational diversity on the population ecology of a specialized herbivore, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Oecologia 10:321–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser JH (1986) Host odor perception in phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 31:121–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1967) Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biol Rev Cambridge Philos Soc 42:207–264

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Cates RG, Rotenberry JT, Cobb N, Van Horne B, Redak RA (1991) Arthropod dynamics on sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata): effects of plant chemistry and avian predation. Ecol Monogr 61:299–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JA, Evans RA, Major J (1988) Sagebrush steppe. In: Barbour MG, Major J (eds) Terrestrial vegetation of California, 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society Special Publication #9, pp 763–769

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Mikaela Huntzinger and Claire Karban for help in the field, and Claire Karban, Jesse Karban, Aaron Combs, and Louie Yang for helping measuring leaf damage. Andy McCall, Louie Yang, and Truman Young improved the manuscript. I benefitted from facilities at the UC Sagehen Creek field station and Jeff Brown facilitated this research in numerous ways. This work was conducted in the Tahoe National Forest adjacent to the field station.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Karban.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Karban, R. Associational resistance for mule’s ears with sagebrush neighbors. Plant Ecol 191, 295–303 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-006-9243-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-006-9243-z

Keywords

Navigation