Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, 37:992 | Cite as

Plant Induced Defenses Depend More on Plant Age than Previous History of Damage: Implications for Plant-Herbivore Interactions

  • Carolina Quintero
  • M. Deane Bowers
Article

Abstract

Herbivore-induced plant responses can significantly change as a function of plant developmental stage and previous history of damage. Yet, empirical tests that assess the combined role of multiple damage events and age-dependent constraints on the ability of plants to induce defenses within and among tissues are scarce. This question is of particular interest for annual and/or short-lived perennial plant species, whose responses to single or multiple damage events over a growing season are likely to interact with ontogenetic constraints in affecting a plant’s ability to respond to herbivory. Using Plantago lanceolata and one of its specialist herbivores, Junonia coenia, we examined the effect of plant ontogeny (juvenile vs. mature developmental stages) and history of damage (single and multiple damage events early and/or late in the season) on plant responses to leaf damage. Plant responses to herbivory were assessed as induced chemical defenses (iridoid glycosides) and compensatory regrowth, in both above- and below-ground tissues. We found that constitutive concentration of iridoid glycosides markedly increased as plants matured, but plant ability to induce chemical defenses was limited to juvenile, but not mature, plant stages. In addition, induced defenses observed 7 d following herbivory in juvenile plants disappeared 5 wk after the first herbivory event, and mature plants that varied considerably in the frequency and intensity of damage received over 5 wk, did not differ significantly in their levels of chemical defenses. Also, only small changes in compensatory regrowth were detected. Finally, we did not observe changes in below-ground tissues’ defenses or biomass a week following 50% removal of leaf tissues at either age class or history of damage. Together, these results suggest that in P. lanceolata and perhaps other systems, ontogenetic trajectories in plant growth and defenses leading to strong age-dependent induced responses may prevail over herbivore-induced indirect interactions.

Key Words

Iridoid glycosides Aucubin Catalpol Ontogeny Plantago lanceolata Constitutive defenses Induced defenses Root defenses Junonia coenia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank E.C. Lampert, A. Trowbridge, J. Paritsis, and S. Whitehead for valuable comments and suggestions on this manuscript. In addition, we acknowledge A. Hill, L. Mulder, E. Burke, and M. Tapy for greenhouse and laboratory assistance; and K.E. Barton for the seeds provided for this study. Funding for this project was provided by the UROP program and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, and Dissertation Improvement Grant NSF grant DEB 0909717.

References

  1. Adler, L. S., Schmitt, J., and Bowers, M. D. 1995. Genetic variation in defensive chemistry in Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae) and its effect on the specialist herbivore Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae). Oecologia 101:75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, I. T. and Schmelz, E. A. 1996. Immunological “memory” in the induced accumulation of nicotine in wild tobacco. Ecology 77:236–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton, K. E. 2007. Early ontogenetic patterns in chemical defense in Plantago (Plantaginaceae): Genetic variation and trade-offs. Am. J. Bot. 94:56–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton, K. E. 2008. Phenotypic plasticity in seedling defense strategies: compensatory regrowth and chemical induction. Oikos 117:917–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton, K. E. and Koricheva, J. 2010. The ontogeny of plant defense and herbivory: characterizing general patterns using meta-analysis. Am. Nat. 175:481–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellostas, N., Sorensen, J. C., and Sorensen, H. 2007. Profiling glucosinolates in vegetative and reproductive tissues of four Brassica species of the U-triangle for their biofumigation potential. J. Sci. Food Agric. 87:1587–1594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beninger, C. W., Cloutier, R. R., Monteiro, M. A., and Grodzinski, B. 2007. The distribution of two major iridoids in different organs of Antirrhinum majus L. at selected stages of development. J. Chem. Ecol. 33:731–747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biere, A., Marak, H. B., and Van Damme, J. M. M. 2004. Plant chemical defense against herbivores and pathogens: generalized defense or trade-offs? Oecologia 140:430–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boege, K. and Marquis, R. J. 2005. Facing herbivory as you grow up: the ontogeny of resistance in plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:441–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boege, K., Dirzo, R., Siemens, D., and Brown, P. 2007. Ontogenetic switches from plant resistance to tolerance: minimizing costs with age? Ecol. Lett. 10:177–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowers, M. D. 1983. Iridoid glycosides and larval hostplant specificity in checkerspot butterflies (Euphydryas, Nymphalidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 9:475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowers, M. D. 1984. Iridoid glycosides and host-plant specificity in larvae of the Buckeye butterfly, Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 10:1567–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowers, M. D. 1991. Iridoid glycosides, pp 297–326, in G. A. Rosenthal and M. R. Berenbaum (eds), Herbivores: Their Interactions with Secondary Plant Metabolites. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Bowers, M. D. and Puttick, G. M. 1989. Iridoid glycosides and insect feeding preferences - Gypsy moths (Lymantria dispar, Lymantriidae) and Buckeyes (Junonia coenia, Nymphalidae). Ecol. Entomol. 14:247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bowers, M. D. and Stamp, N. E. 1993. Effects of plant age, genotype, and herbivory on Plantago performance and chemistry. Ecology 74:1778–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Camara, M. D. 1997. Physiological mechanisms underlying the costs of chemical defence in Junonia coenia Hubner (Nymphalidae): A gravimetric and quantitative genetic analysis. Evol. Ecol. 11:451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cavers, P. B., Bassett, I. J., and Crompton, C. W. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 47. Plantago lanceolata L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:1269–1282.Google Scholar
  18. Cipollini, D. F., Purrington, C. B., and Bergelson, J. 2003. Cost of induced responses in plants. Bas. Appl. Ecol. 4:79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Darrow, K. and Bowers, M. D. 1999. Effects of herbivore damage and nutrient level on induction of iridoid glycosides in Plantago lanceolata. J. Chem. Ecol. 25:1427–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Deyn, G. B., Raaijmakers, C. E., van Ruijven, J., Berendse, F., and van der Putten, W. H. 2004. Plant species identity and diversity effects on different trophic levels of nematodes in the soil food web. Oikos 106:576–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dyer, L. A., and Bowers, M. D. 1996. The importance of sequestered iridoid glycosides as a defense against an ant predator. J. Chem. Ecol. 22:1527–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Erb, M., Robert, C. A. M., Hibbard, B. E., and Turlings, T. C. J. 2011. Sequence of arrival determines plant-mediated interactions between herbivores. J. Ecol. 99:7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuchs, A. and Bowers, M. D. 2004. Patterns of iridoid glycoside production and induction in Plantago lanceolata and the importance of plant age. J. Chem. Ecol. 30:1723–1741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harvey, J. A., Van Nouhuys, S., and Biere, A. 2005. Effects of quantitative variation in allelochemicals in Plantago lanceolata on development of a generalist and a specialist herbivore and their endoparasitoids. J. Chem. Ecol. 31:287–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haukioja, E. and Koricheva, J. 2000. Tolerance to herbivory in woody vs. herbaceous plants. Evol. Ecol. 14:551–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hogedal, B. D. and Molgaard, P. 2000. HPLC analysis of the seasonal and diurnal variation of iridoids in cultivars of Antirrhinum majus. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 28:949–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jamieson, M. A. and Bowers, M. D. 2010. Iridoid glycoside variation in the invasive plant Dalmatian Toadflax, Linaria dalmatica (Plantaginaceae), and sequestration by the biological control agent, Calophasia lunula. J. Chem. Ecol. 36:70–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jarzomski, C. M., Stamp, N. E., and Bowers, M. D. 2000. Effects of plant phenology, nutrients and herbivory on growth and defensive chemistry of plantain, Plantago lanceolata. Oikos 88:371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaplan, I. and Denno, R. F. 2007. Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects revised: a quantitative assessment of competition theory. Ecol. Lett. 10:977–994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaplan, I., Halitschke, R., Kessler, A., Sardanelli, S., and Denno, R. F. 2008. Constitutive and induced defenses to herbivory on above- and belowground plant tissues. Ecology 89:392–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karban, R. and Baldwin, I. T. 1997. Induced Responses to Herbivory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  32. Muola, A., Mutikainen, P., Laukkanen, L., Lilley, M., and Leimu, R. 2010. Genetic variation in herbivore resistance and tolerance: the role of plant life-history stage and type of damage. J. Evol. Biol. 23:2185–2196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ohgushi, T. 2005. Indirect interaction webs: Herbivore-induced effects through trait change in plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36:81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ohnmeiss, T. E. and Baldwin, I. T. 2000. Optimal defense theory predicts the ontogeny of an induced nicotine defense. Ecology 81:1765–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Orians, C. M., Hochwender, C. G., Fritz, R. S., and Snall, T. 2010. Growth and chemical defense in willow seedlings: trade-offs are transient. Oecologia 163:283–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pereyra, P. and Bowers, M. D. 1988. Iridoid glycosides as oviposition stimulants for the buckeye, Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 14:917–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Poelman, E. H., Broekgaarden, C., Van Loon, J. J. A., and Dicke, M. 2008. Early season herbivore differentially affects plant defence responses to subsequently colonizing herbivores and their abundance in the field. Mol. Ecol. 17:3352–3365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prudic, K. L., Oliver, J. C., and Bowers, M. D. 2005. Soil nutrient effects on oviposition preference, larval performance, and chemical defense of a specialist insect herbivore. Oecologia 143:578–587.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quintero, C., and Bowers, M. D. 2011. Changes in plant chemical defenses and nutritional quality as a function of ontogeny in Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae). Oecologia (In press).Google Scholar
  40. Roitto, M., Rautio, P., Markkola, A., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., Varama, M., Saravesi, K., and Tuomi, J. 2009. Induced accumulation of phenolics and sawfly performance in Scot pine in response to previous defoliation. Tree Physiol. 29:207–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ronsted, N., Gobel, E., Franzyk, H., Jensen, S. R., and Olsen, C. E. 2000. Chemotaxonomy of Plantago. Iridoid glucosides and caffeoyl phenylethanoid glycosides. Phytochemistry 55:337–48.Google Scholar
  42. Ruuhola, T., Salminen, J. P., Haviola, S., Yang, S., and Rantala, M. J. 2007. Immunological memory of Mountain Birches: effects of phenolics on performance of the Autumnal moth depend on herbivory history of trees. J. Chem. Ecol. 33:1160–1176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saastamoinen, M., Van Nouhuys, S., Nieminen, M., O’hara, B., and Suomi, J. 2007. Development and survival of a specialist herbivore, Melitaea cinxia, on host plants producing high and low concentrations of iridoid glycosides. Ann Zool Fenn 44:70–80.Google Scholar
  44. Shefferson, R. P. and Roach, D. A. 2010. Longitudinal analysis of Plantago: adaptive benefits of iteroparity in a short-lived, herbaceous perennial. Ecology 91:441–447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smilanich, M. A., Dyer, L. A., Chambers, J. Q., and Bowers, M. D. 2009. Immunological cost of chemical defence and the evolution of herbivore diet breadth. Ecol Lett 12:612–621.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strauss, S. Y. and Agrawal, A. A. 1999. The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Tr. Ecol. Evol. 14:179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strohmeyer, H. H., Stamp, N. E., Jarzomski, C. M., and Bowers, M. D. 1998. Prey species and prey diet affect growth of invertebrate predators. Ecol Entomol 23:68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Talsma, J. H. R., Torri, K., and Van Nouhuys, S. 2008. Host plant use by the Heath fritillary butterfly, Melitaea athalia: plant habitat, species and chemistry. Arthropod-Plant Inter. 2:63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thaler, J. S., Fidantsef, A. L., and Bostock, R. M. 2002. Antagonism between jasmonate- and salicylate-mediated induced plant resistance: Effects of concentration and timing of elicitation on defense-related proteins, herbivore, and pathogen performance in tomato. J. Chem. Ecol. 28:1131–1159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Theodoratus, D. H. and Bowers, M. D. 1999. Effects of sequestered iridoid glycosides on prey choice of the prairie wolf spider, Lycosa carolinensis. J. Chem. Ecol. 25:283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomas, S. C., Sztaba, A. J., and Smith, S. M. 2010. Herbivory patterns in mature sugar maple: variation with vertical canopy strata and tree ontogeny. Ecol. Entomol. 35:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tucker, C. and Avila-Sakar, G. 2010. Ontogenetic changes in tolerance to herbivory in Arabidopsis. Oecologia 164:1005–1015.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Dam, N. M., Horn, M., Mares, M., and Baldwin, I. T. 2001. Ontogeny constrains systemic protease inhibitor response in Nicotiana attenuata. J. Chem. Ecol. 27:547–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van ZANDT, P. A. and AGRAWAL, A. A. 2004. Community-wide impacts of herbivore-induced plant responses in milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). Ecology 85:2616–2629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Verhage, A., Van Wees, S. C. M., and Pietersen, C. M. J. 2010. Plant immunity: It’s the hormones talking, but what do they say? Plant Physiol. 154:536–540.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Viswanathan, D. V., Lifchits. O. A., and Thaler, J. S. 2007. Consequences of sequential attack for resistance to herbivores when plants have specific induced responses. Oikos 116:1389–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Waltz, A. M. and Whitham, T. G. 1997. Plant development affects arthropod communities: opposing impacts of species removal. Ecology 78:2133–2144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Warner, P. J. and Cushman, J. H. 2002. Influence of herbivores on a perennial plant: variation with life history stage and herbivore species. Oecologia 132:77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams, R. D. and Ellis, B. E. 1989. Age and tissue distribution of alkaloids in Papaver somniferum. Phytochemistry 28:2085–2088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wurst, S. and Van Der Putten, W. H. 2007. Root herbivore identity matters in plant-mediated interactions between root and shoot herbivores. Bas. Appl. Ecol. 8:491–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.University of Colorado Museum and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations