Advertisement

Differences in flowering phenology, architecture, sexual expression and resource allocation between a heavily haired and a lightly haired nettle population: relationships with sika deer

  • Rieko Hirata
  • Naoko Wasaka
  • Aiko Fujii
  • Teiko Kato
  • Hiroaki SatoEmail author
Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Japanese stinging nettles, Urtica thunbergiana, in Nara Park (660 ha), central Japan, where several hundred sika deer Cervus nippon have been protected for 1200 years, bear quite dense stinging hairs on leaves and stems compared to those in surrounding areas where the deer density is very low. Our previous studies have suggested that nettles in the park have evolved such a trait as a constitutive resistance against sika deer through natural selection. Here, we explored differences in plant architecture, flowering phenology, resource allocation pattern and sexual expression between a heavily haired and a lightly haired population with relationship to defence against sika deer. We raised seedlings from the two populations in a greenhouse and monitored relevant traits for three successive years. Individuals from the heavily haired population had earlier flowering, longer flowering period and lower growth rate than those from the lightly haired population. The former allocated more resources to inflorescences and leaves but less to stems and rhizomes than the latter. Most individuals from the heavily haired population were monoecious irrespective of age, while in the lightly haired population the proportion of females increased with age. These results indicate that the historically browsed population has evolved constitutive tolerance conferred by early and prolonged reproduction and that a resource allocation trade-off exists between defence and growth. Consequently, this study suggests that sika deer have exerted selection on U. thunbergiana for changes not only in defensive traits but also in resource allocation pattern and sexual expression.

Keywords

Defence–growth–reproduction trade-off Defence strategy Herbivory Resistance Tolerance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Oishi and Y. Wada for their help of measurement and M. T. Kimura for his valuable suggestions and critical readings of the manuscript. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (No. 22570019).

Supplementary material

11258_2019_910_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 53 kb)

References

  1. Agrawal AA, Gorski PM, Tallamy DW (1999) Polymorphism in plant defense against herbivory: constitutive and induced resistance in Cucumis sativus. J Chem Ecol 25:2285–2304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashman TL, Cole DH, Bradburn M (2004) Sex-differential resistance and tolerance to herbivory in a gynodioecious wild strawberry. Ecology 85:2550–2559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton KE (2013) Ontogenetic patterns in the mechanisms of tolerance to herbivory in Plantago. Ann. Bot 112:711–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton KE (2014) Prickles, latex, and tolerance in the endemic Hawaiian prickly poppy (Argemone glauca): variation between populations, across ontogeny, and in response to abiotic factors. Oecologia 174:1273–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton KE, Koricheva J (2010) The ontogeny of plant defense and herbivory: characterizing general patterns using meta-analysis. Am Nat 175:481–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boege K, Marquis RJ (2005) Facing herbivory as you grow up: the ontogeny of resistance in plants. TREE 20:441–448Google Scholar
  7. Caruso CM, Case AL (2007) Sex ratio variation in gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica: effects of population size and geographic location. J Evol Biol 20:1396–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnov EL (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Cipollini D, Walters D, Voelckel C (2014) Costs of resistance in plants: from theory to evidence. Annu Plant Rev 47:263–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Didiano TJ, Turley NE, Everwand G, Schaefer H, Crawley MJ, Johnson MT (2014) Experimental test of plant defence evolution in four species using long-term rabbit exclosures. J Ecol 102:584–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fornoni J (2011) Ecological and evolutionary implications of plant tolerance to herbivory. Funct Ecol 25:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foundation for the Protection of Deer in Nara (2013) Deer abundance in Nara Park. https://naradeer.com/aboutnaradeer/index.html. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  13. Hochwender CG, Marquis RJ, Stowe KA (2000) The potential for and constraints on the evolution of compensatory ability in Asclepias syriaca. Oecologia 122:361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoque S, Avila-Sakar G (2014) Trade-offs and ontogenetic changes in resistance and tolerance to insect herbivory in Arabidopsis. Int J Plant Sci 176:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IBM (2012) IBM SPSS statistics 21 command syntax reference. IBM Corporation, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
  16. Iwamoto M, Horikawa C, Shikata M, Wasaka N, Kato T, Sato H (2014) Stinging hairs on the Japanese nettle Urtica thunbergiana have a defensive function against mammalian but not insect herbivores. Ecol Res 29:455–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Juenger T, 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 54:764–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karban R (2011) The ecology and evolution of induced resistance against herbivores. Funct Ecol 25:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karlsson PS, Méndez M (2005) The resource economy of plant reproduction. In: Reekie EG, Bazzaz FA (eds) Reproductive allocation in plants. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 17–47Google Scholar
  21. Kato T, Ishida K, Sato H (2008) The evolution of nettle resistance to heavy deer browsing. Ecol Res 23:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitamura S, Murata G (1961) Colored illustrations of herbaceous plants of Japan, Vol. II (Chripetalae) Hoikusha Publishing, Osaka. (In Japanese) Google Scholar
  23. Korpelainen H (1998) Labile sex expression in plants. Biol Rev 73:157–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krupnick GA, Weis AE (1998) Floral herbivore effect on the sex expression of an andromonoecious plant, Isomeris arborea (Capparaceae). Plant Ecol 134:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lennartsson T, Tuomi J, Nilsson P (1997) Evidence for an evolutionary history of overcompensation in the grassland biennial Gentianella campestris (Gentianaceae). Am Nat 149:1147–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lennartsson T, Nilsson P, Tuomi J (1998) Induction of overcompensation in the field gentian, Gentianella campestris. Ecology 79:1061–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lind EM, Borer E, Seabloom E et al (2013) Life-history constraints in grassland plant species: a growth-defence trade-off is the norm. Ecol Let 16:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marquis RJ (1996) Plant architecture, sectoriality and plant tolerance to herbivores. Vegetatio 127:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin LJ, Agrawal AA, Kraft CE (2015) Historically browsed jewelweed populations exhibit greater tolerance to deer herbivory than historically protected populations. J Ecol 103:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ochoa-López S, Villamil N, Zedillo-Avelleyra P, Boege K (2015) Plant defence as a complex and changing phenotype throughout ontogeny. Ann Bot 116:797–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schaller A (ed) (2007) Induced plant resistance to herbivory. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  32. Shikata M, Kato T, Shibata E, Sato H (2013) Among-population variation in resistance traits of a nettle and its relationship with deer habitat use frequency. Ecol Res 28:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (2012) Biometry, 4th edn. W. H, Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Stowe KA, Marquis RJ, Hochwender CG, Simms EL (2000) The evolutionary ecology of tolerance to consumer damage. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:565–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. TREE 14:179–185Google Scholar
  36. van der Meijden E, Wijn M, Verkaar HJ (1988) Defence and regrowth, alternative plant strategies in the struggle against herbivores. Oikos 51:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warner RR (1988) Sex change and the size-advantage model. TREE 3:133–136Google Scholar
  38. Zandt PAV (2007) Plant defense, growth, and habitat: a comparative assessment of constitutive and induced resistance. Ecology 88:1984–1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Züst T, Agrawal AA (2017) Trade-offs between plant growth and defense against insect herbivory: an emerging mechanistic synthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 68:513–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Züst T, Joseph B, Shimizu KK, Kliebenstein DJ, Turnbull LA (2011) Using knockout mutants to reveal the growth costs of defensive traits. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 278:2598–2603CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of ScienceNara Women’s UniversityNaraJapan

Personalised recommendations