Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 175–183 | Cite as

Variation in herbivory-induced responses within successively flushing Quercus serrata seedlings under different nutrient conditions

  • Eri Mizumachi
  • Akira S. Mori
  • Reiko Akiyama
  • Naoko Tokuchi
  • Naoya Osawa
Original Article


Herbivore damage can induce the host plant to alter the chemical and physical qualities of its leaves, which is thought to be a plant strategy—termed “induced response”—for avoiding further herbivory. In woody plants, many studies have considered variation in induced response with resource availability, but few studies have examined this variation in relation to growth patterns of woody plants. We studied the phenotypic variability of induced response within successively flushing Quercus serrata seedlings. Q. serrata seedlings were grown under controlled conditions. The controlled factors were herbivore damage (herbivore-damaged and -undamaged) and soil fertility (low and high). At each flush stage, the concentrations of condensed tannin (CT), total phenolics (TP), and nitrogen (N) in leaves were analyzed, and the leaf mass per area (LMA) was measured. CT and TP concentrations in leaves and LMA were higher in herbivore-damaged seedlings. Leaves of the first flushes showed greater sensitivity to herbivore damage and had a higher CT concentration than leaves of the later flushes. Furthermore, seedlings growing in low-fertility soil showed a greater induced response. The results suggest that the induced response of Q. serrata seedlings was related to the contributions of the tissue to current productivity. Leaves of the first flush showed a greater induced response, possibly because they play an important role in subsequent growth. The potential of Q. serrata seedlings to adjust the properties of leaves depending on herbivory and soil fertility in relation to growth patterns may be advantageous on the forest floor, where seedlings grow in soil of heterogeneous fertility and are constantly exposed to herbivory.


Herbivorous insect Induced response Leaf flushing Phenolics Soil fertility 



We thank the members of the Kitashirakawa Experimental Station, Field Science Education, and Research Center, Kyoto University, for their support in this experiment. We also thank Professor H. Takeda, Mr. H. Ishii, and Dr. M. Yamasaki of Kyoto University for their helpful advice and encouragement, and all of the members of the Laboratory of Forest Ecology, Kyoto University, for engaging us in useful discussions. This study was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Science Research (no. 13306012, to N. Osawa) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan. This study was also supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Research Fellowships for Young Scientists (no. 17 2313, to E. Mizumachi).


  1. Alaoui-Sossé B, Ricaud S, Barnola P, Dizengremel P (1996) Rhythmic growth and carbon allocation in Quercus robur. Sucrose metabolizing enzymes in leaves. Physiol Plant 96:667–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baraza E, Gómez JM, Hódar JA, Zamora R (2004) Herbivory has a greater impact in shade than in sun: response of Quercus pyrenaica seedlings to multifactorial environmental variation. Can J Bot 82:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boege K (2004) Induced responses in three tropical dry forest plant species–direct and indirect effects on herbivory. Oikos 107:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boege K, Marquis RJ (2005) Facing herbivory as you grow up: the ontogeny of resistance in plants. Trends Ecol Evol 20:441–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borchert R (1975) Endogenous shoot growth rhythms and indeterminate shoot growth in oak. Physiol Plant 35:152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaar H, Colin F, Collet C (1997a) Effects of environmental factors on the shoot development of Quercus petraea seedlings. A methodological approach. For Ecol Manag 97:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaar H, Colin F, Leborgne G (1997b) Artificial defoliation, decapitation of the terminal bud, and removal of the apical tip of the shoot in sessile oak seedlings and consequences on subsequent growth. Can J For Res 27:1614–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choong MF (1996) What makes a leaf tough and how this affects the pattern of Castanopsis fissa leaf consumption by caterpillars. Funct Ecol 10:668–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coley PD (1983) Herbivory and defensive characteristics of tree species in a lowland tropical forest. Ecol Monogr 53:209–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornelissen T, Stiling P (2006) Does low nutritional quality act as a plant defence? An experimental test of the slow-growth, high-mortality hypothesis. Ecol Entomol 31:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickson RE, Tomlinson PT, Isebrands JG (2000) Allocation of current photosynthate and changes in tissue dry weight within northern red oak seedlings: individual leaf and flush carbon contribution during episodic growth. Can J For Res 30:1296–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feeny P (1970) Seasonal changes in oak leaf tannins and nutrients as a cause of spring feeding by winter moth caterpillars. Ecology 51:565–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forkner RE, Hunter MD (2000) What goes up must come down? Nutrient addition and predation pressure on oak herbivores. Ecology 81:1588–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forkner RE, Marquis RJ (2004) Uneven-aged and even-aged logging alter foliar phenolics of oak trees remaining in forested habitat matrix. For Ecol Manag 199:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forkner RE, Marquis RJ, Lill JT (2004) Feeny revisited: condensed tannins as anti-herbivore defences in leaf-chewing herbivore communities of Quercus. Ecol Entomol 29:174–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Furuno T, Saito H (1981) Seasonal variations of litter fall and primary consumption by herbivorous insects in Quercus serrata in Kyoto. Bull Kyoto Univ For 53:52–64 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  17. Hanley ME, Lamont BB, Fairbanks MM, Rafferty CM (2007) Plant structural traits and their role in anti-herbivore defence. Perspect Plant Ecol 8:157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haukioja E (1990) Induction of defenses in trees. Annu Rev Entomol 36:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hikosaka K, Takashima T, Kabeya D, Hirose T, Kamata N (2005) Biomass allocation and leaf chemical defence in defoliated seedlings of Quercus serrata with respect to carbon–nitrogen balance. Ann Bot 95:1025–1032Google Scholar
  20. Hunter MD (1987) Opposing effects of spring defoliation on late season oak caterpillars. Ecol Entomol 12:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunter MD, Schultz JC (1995) Fertilization mitigates chemical induction and herbivore responses within damaged oak trees. Ecology 76:1226–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Karban R, Myers JH (1989) Induced plant responses to herbivory. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:331–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koike T, Tobita H, Shibta T, Matsuki S, Konno K, Kitao M, Yamashita N, Maruyama Y (2006) Defense characteristics of seral deciduous broad-leaved tree seedlings grown under differing levels of CO2 and nitrogen. Popul Ecol 48:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koricheva J, Larsson S, Haukioja E, Keinänen M (1998) Regulation of woody plant secondary metabolism by resource availability: hypothesis testing by means of meta-analysis. Oikos 83:212–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kudo G (1996) Herbivory pattern and induced responses to simulated herbivory in Quercus mongolica var. grosseserrata. Ecol Res 11:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kytö M, Niemelä P, Larsson S (1996) Insects on trees: population and individual response to fertilization. Oikos 75:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lill JT, Marquis RJ (2001) The effects of leaf quality on herbivore performance and attack from natural enemies. Oecologia 126:418–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lower SS, Kirshenbaum S, Orians CM (2003) Preference and performance of a willow-feeding leaf beetle: soil nutrient and flooding effects on host quality. Oecologia 136:402–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matsuki S, Sano Y, Koike T (2004) Chemical and physical defence in early and late leaves in three heterophyllous birch species native to northern Japan. Ann Bot 93:141–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mattson WJ (1980) Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:119–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mauffette Y, Oechel WC (1989) Seasonal variation in leaf chemistry of the coast live oak Quercus agrifolia and implications for the California oak moth Phryganidia californica. Oecologia 79:439–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Migita C, Chiba Y, Tange T (2007) Seasonal and spatial variations in leaf nitrogen content and resorption in a Quercus serrata canopy. Tree Physiol 27:63–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mizumachi E, Osawa N, Akiyama R, Tokuchi N (2004) The effects of herbivory and soil fertility on the growth patterns of Quercus serrata and Q. crispula saplings at the shoot and individual levels. Popul Ecol 46:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mizumachi E, Mori A, Osawa N, Akiyama R, Tokuchi N (2006) Shoot development and extension of Quercus serrata saplings in response to insect damage and nutrient conditions. Ann Bot 98:219–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murakami M, Yoshida K, Hara H, Toda MJ (2005) Spatio-temporal variation in lepidopteran larval assemblages associated with oak, Quercus crispula: the importance of leaf quality. Ecol Entomol 30:521–531Google Scholar
  37. Mutikainen P, Walls M, Ovaska J, Keinänen M, Julkunen-Tiitto R, Vapaavuori E (2000) Herbivore resistance in Betula pendula: effect of fertilization, defoliation, and plant genotype. Ecology 81:49–65Google Scholar
  38. Nabeshima E, Murakami M, Hiura T (2001) Effects of herbivory and light conditions on induced defense in Quercus crispula. J Plant Res 114:403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nakamura M, Hina T, Nabeshima E, Hiura T (2008) Do spatial variation in leaf traits and herbivory within a canopy respond to selective cutting and fertilization? Can J For Res 38:1603–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nomura M, Itioka T (2002) Effects of synthesized tannin on the growth and survival of a generalist herbivorous insect, the common cutworm, Spodoptera litura Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Appl Entomol Zool 37:285–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nykänen H, Koricheva J (2004) Damage-induced changes in woody plants and their effects on insect herbivore performance: a meta-analysis. Oikos 104:247–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ohsawa T, Saito Y, Sawada H, Ide Y (2008) Impact of altitude and topography on the genetic diversity of Quercus serrata populations in the Chichibu Mountains, central Japan. Flora 203:187–196Google Scholar
  43. Ozawa H, Itoh K, Hori Y (2000) Shoot structure and dynamics of saplings and canopies of three deciduous broad-leaved trees of a coppice forest in central Japan. Trees 14:206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poorter H, Niinemets U, Poorter L, Wright IJ, Villar R (2009) Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): a meta-analysis. New Phytol 182:565–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Porter LJ, Hrstich LN, Chan BG (1986) The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reich PB, Uhl C, Walters MB, Elsworth DS (1991) Leaf lifespan as a determinant of leaf structure and function among 23 amazonian tree species. Oecologia 86:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rossiter MC, Schultz JC, Baldwin IT (1988) Relationships among defoliation, red oak phenolics, and gypsy moth growth and reproduction. Ecology 69:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruohomäki K, Chapin FS III, Haukioja E, Neuvonen S, Suomela J (1996) Delayed inducible resistance in mountain birch in response to fertilization and shade. Ecology 77:2302–2311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Salminen J-P, Roslin T, Karonen M, Sinkkonen J, Pihlaja K, Pulkkinen P (2004) Seasonal variation in the content of hydrolyzable tannins, flavonoid glycosides, and proanthocyanidins in oak leaves. J Chem Ecol 30:1693–1711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. SAS Institute (2005) JMP statistical discovery software (ver. 6.0). SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  51. Sprugel DG, Hinckley TM, Schaap W (1991) The theory and practice of branch autonomy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:309–334Google Scholar
  52. Teramoto N (1993) Catalogue of host plants of lepidopterous insects in Japan (Fagaceae). Bull Shiga Agric Exp Stn (extra issue) 1:1–161 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  53. Teramoto N (1996) Studies on lepidopterous insect fauna on Fagaceous plants, as the food plants of the wild silk moth, Antheraea yamamai. Special Bull Shiga Agric Exp Stn 19:1–216 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  54. Wait DA, Jones CG, Coleman JS (1998) Effects of nitrogen fertilization on leaf chemistry and beetle feeding are mediated by leaf development. Oikos 82:502–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waterman PG, Mole S (1994) Analysis of phenolic plant metabolites. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Watson MA (1986) Integrated physiological units in plants. Trends Ecol Evol 1:119–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wold EN, Marquis RJ (1997) Induced defense in white oak: effects on herbivores and consequences for the plant. Ecology 78:1356–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yamasaki M, Kikuzawa K (2003) Temporal and spatial variations in leaf herbivory within a canopy of Fagus crenata. Oecologia 137:226–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Forest Society and Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eri Mizumachi
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  • Akira S. Mori
    • 1
    • 3
  • Reiko Akiyama
    • 1
    • 4
  • Naoko Tokuchi
    • 5
  • Naoya Osawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Environmental Science and Technology, Graduate School of AgricultureKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences (iCeMS)Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Graduate School of Environment and Information SciencesYokohama National UniversityYokohamaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Plant Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre (EBC)Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  5. 5.Field Science Education and Research CenterKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  6. 6.Science Communication Group, Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences (iCeMS)Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations