Advertisement

The Balance Between Resource Sequestration and Retention: A Challenge in Plant Science

  • R. MatyssekEmail author
  • J. Koricheva
  • H. Schnyder
  • D. Ernst
  • J. C. Munch
  • W. Oßwald
  • H. Pretzsch
Chapter
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 220)

Abstract

Plants may encounter dilemma in resource allocation while serving concurrent internal functions. Trade-off in allocation is conceived to govern allocation into growth (ensuring competitiveness) versus defence of abiotic and biotic stress, and regulatory mechanisms are postulated to accomplish the respective balance. Concepts towards clarification are exemplified, such as theories on the “growth–differentiation balance (GDB)”, “carbon–nutrient balance”, “protein competition model” and “optimal defence”. Constraints and potential of theory development are highlighted, related to theory maturation, hypothesis formulation and study design, and to biological aspects relevant for ecologically meaningful experimentation. Challenges are to foster knowledge beyond (pseudo-)steady-state towards transitory stages in plant performance, mechanistically grounding plasticity in stress response while distinguishing resource-associated cost/benefit relationships in view of direct versus indirect defence costs. GDB possesses advanced framework quality in guiding spatio-temporal process scaling across ontogenetic stages and ecological scenarios. This review sets the introductory stage for the gain in knowledge presented in this book.

Keywords

Resource Allocation Theory Development Phenotypic Plasticity Gross Primary Production Hypothesis Formulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” (DFG) for the support of research covered by the topic of this review through SFB 607 “Growth and Parasite Defence – Competition for Resources in Economic Plants from Agronomy and Forestry”. Comments on an early version of the manuscript by Dr. D. Herms are acknowledged. Stimulating discussions on the topic with Dr. U. Lüttge and inspiring suggestions by him on the manuscript are highly appreciated.

References

  1. Arnold TM, Targett NM (2003) To grow and defend: lack of tradeoffs for brown algal phlorotannins. Oikos 100:406–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldocchi DD (1993) Scaling water vapor and carbon dioxide exchange from leaves to a canopy: rules and tools. In: Ehleringer JR, Field CB (eds) Scaling physiological processes, leaf to globe. Academic, San Diego, pp 77–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin IT, Hamilton W (2000) Jasmonate-induced responses of Nicotiana sylvestris results in fitness costs due to impaired competitive ability for nitrogen. J Chem Ecol 26:915–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballhorn DJ, Kautz S, Lion U, Heil M (2008) Trade-offs between direct and indirect defences of lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus). J Ecol 96:971–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazzaz FA (1997) Allocation of resources in plants: state of the science and critical questions. In: Bazzaz FA, Grace J (eds) Plant resource allocation. Academic, San Diego, pp 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bazzaz FA, Grace J (1997) Plant resource allocation. Academic, San Diego, p 303Google Scholar
  7. Berenbaum MR (1995) The chemistry of defense: theory and practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:2–8PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bi HH, Song YY, Zeng RS (2007) Biochemical and molecular responses of host plants to mycorrhizal infection and their role in plant defence. Allelopathy J 20:15–28Google Scholar
  9. Bolton MD (2009) Primary metabolism and plant defense – fuel for the fire. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22:487–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonello P, Heller W, Sandermann H (1993) Ozone effects on root-disease susceptibility and defence responses in mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal seedlings of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). New Phytol 124:653–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradshaw AD (2006) Unravelling phenotypic plasticity – why should we bother? New Phytol 170:644–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bryant J, Chapin F III, Klein D (1983) Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40:357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bustamante RO, Chacón P, Niemeyer HM (2006) Patterns of chemical defences in plants: an analysis of the vascular flora of Chile. Chemoecology 16:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cipollini D, Heil M (2010) Costs and benefits of induced resistance to herbivores and pathogens in plants. CAB Rev Perspect Agric Vet Sci Nutr Nat Resour 5:1–25Google Scholar
  15. Darwin C (1859) The origin of species by means of natural selection: or, the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray, London, p 502Google Scholar
  16. Ericsson T, Rytter L, Vapaavuori E (1996) Physiology and allocation in trees. Biomass Bioenergy 11:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds) Biochemical interaction between plants and insects. Plenum, New York, pp 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gershenzon J (1994) The cost of plant chemical defense against herbivory: a biochemical perspective. In: Bernays EA (ed) Insect-plant Interactions. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 105–173Google Scholar
  19. Givnish TJ (ed) (1986) On the economy of plant form and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 717Google Scholar
  20. Glinski M, Weckwerth W (2006) The role of mass spectrometry in plant systems biology. Mass Spectrom Rev 25:173–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glynn C, Herms DA, Orians CM, Hansen RC, Larsson S (2007) Testing the growth-differentiation balance hypothesis: dynamic responses of willows to nutrient availability. New Phytol 176:623–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graham RD (1983) Effects of nutrient stress on susceptibility of plants to disease with particular reference to the trace elements. Adv Bot Res 10:221–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grams TEE, Andersen CP (2007) Competition for resources in trees: physiological versus morphological plasticity. In: Esser K, Lüttge U, Beyschlag W, Murata J (eds) Progress in botany, vol 68. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 356–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Häberle KH, Nunn A, Reiter I, Werner H, Heller W, Bahnweg G, Gayler S, Lütz C, Matyssek R (2009) Variation of defence-related metabolites in the foliage of adult beech and spruce: a conceptual approach to approximating traded-off carbon. Eur J Forest Res 128:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haeckel E (1870) Über Entwicklungsgang und Aufgabe der Zoologie (Rede vom 12. 1. 1869), Studien über Moneren und andere Protisten. W. Engelmann, Leipzig, pp 3–20Google Scholar
  26. Hakes AS, Cronin JT (2011) Environmental heterogeneity and spatiotemporal variability in plant defense traits. Oikos 120:452–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamilton JG, Zangerl AR, Delucia EH, Berenbaum MR (2001) The carbon-nutrient balance hypothesis: its rise and fall. Ecol Lett 4:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haugen R, Steffes L, Wolf J, Brown P, Matzner S, Siemens DH (2008) Evolution of drought tolerance and defense: dependence of tradeoffs on mechanism, environment and defense switching. Oikos 117:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heil M, Baldwin IT (2002) Fitness costs of induced resistance: emerging experimental support for a slippery concept. Trends Plant Sci 7:61–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hendriks RJJ, Luijten L, van Groenendael JM (2009) Context-dependent defence in terrestrial plants: the effects of light and nutrient availability on plant resistance against herbivory. Entomol Exp Appl 131:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones CG, Hartley SE (1999) A protein competition model of phenolic allocation. Oikos 86:27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koricheva J (2002) Meta-analysis of sources of variation in fitness costs of plant antiherbivore defenses. Ecology 83:176–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Koricheva J, Nykänen H, Gianoli E (2004) Meta-analysis of trade-offs among plant antiherbivore defenses: are plants Jacks-of-all-trades, masters of all? Am Nat 163:E65–E75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koricheva J, Gange AC, Jones T (2009) Effects of mycorrhizal fungi on insect herbivores: a meta-analysis. Ecology 90:2088–2097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Körner Ch (2003) Carbon limitation in trees. J Ecol 91:4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kramer PJ, Boyer JS (1995) Water relations of plants and soils. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  39. Küppers M (1994) Canopy gaps: competitive light interception and economic space filling – a matter of whole-plant allocation. In: Caldwell MM, Pearcy RW (eds) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants – ecophysiological processes above and below-ground. Academic, San Diego, pp 111–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lerdau M (2002) Benefits of the carbon-nutrient balance hypothesis. Oikos 98:534–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lerdau M, Gershenzon J (1997) Allocation theory and chemical defense. In: Bazzaz FA, Grace J (eds) Plant resource allocation. Academic, San Diego, pp 265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Luedemann G, Matyssek R, Fleischmann F, Grams TEE (2005) Acclimation to ozone affects host/pathogen interaction and competitiveness for nitrogen in juvenile Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies trees infected with Phytophthora citricola. Plant Biol 7:640–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Loomis WE (1953) Growth and differentiation – an introduction and summary. In: Loomis WE (ed) Growth and differentiation in plants. Iowa State College Press, Ames, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  44. Lorio PL Jr (1988) Growth and differentiation balance relationships in pines affect their resistance to bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scoloytidae). In: Mattson WJ, Levieux J, Bernard-Dagan C (eds) Mechanisms of woody plant defenses against insects: search for pattern. Springer, New York, pp 73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mattson WJ, Julkunen-Tiitto R, Herms DA (2005) CO2 enrichment and carbon partitioning to phenolics: do plants responses accord better with the protein competition model or the growth-differentiation balance models? Oikos 111:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matyssek R (2001) Trends in forest tree physiological research: biotic and abiotic interactions. In: Huttunen S, Heikkilä H, Bucher J-B, Sundberg B, Jarvis PG, Matyssek R (eds) Trends in European forest tree physiological. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Matyssek R, Schulze E-D (1987) Heterosis in hybrid larch (Larix decidua × leptolepis) II. Growth characteristics. Trees 1:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matyssek R, Schnyder H, Elstner E-F, Munch J-C, Pretzsch H, Sandermann H (2002) Growth and parasite defence in plants: the balance between resource sequestration and retention. Plant Biol 4:133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Matyssek R, Agerer R, Ernst D, Munch J-C, Osswald W, Pretzsch H, Priesack E, Schnyder H, Treutter D (2005) The plant’s capacity in regulating resource demand. Plant Biol 7:560–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mooney HA, Winner WE (1991) Partitioning response of plants to stress. In: Pell E, Mooney HA, Winner WE (eds) Response of plants to multiple stresses. Academic, San Diego, pp 129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Murray DC, Walters DR (1992) Increased photosynthesis and resistance to rust infection in upper, uninfected leaves of rusted broad bean (Vicia faba L.). New Phytol 120:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nobel PS (1983) Biophysical plant physiology and ecology. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, p 608Google Scholar
  53. Novriyanti E, Aoyama C, Watanabe M, Koike T (2010) Plant defense characteristics and hypotheses in birch species. Eurasian J Forest Res 13:77–85Google Scholar
  54. Orians CM, Ward D (2010) Evolution of plant defenses in non-indigenous environments. Annu Rev Entomol 55:439–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pankhurst CE, Jones WT (1979) Effectiveness of Lotus root nodules III. Effect of combined nitrogen on nodule effectiveness and flavolan synthesis in plant roots. J Exp Bot 30:1109–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peng M, Bi Y-M, Zhu T, Rothstein SJ (2007) Genome-wide analysis of Arabidopsis responsive transcriptome to nitrogen limitation and its regulation by the ubiquitin ligase gene NLA. Plant Mol Biol 65:775–797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Popper KR (1989) Logik der Forschung. J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen, p 477Google Scholar
  58. Potters G, Pasternak TP, Guisez Y, Jansen MAK (2009) Different stresses, similar morphogenic responses: integrating a plethora of pathways. Plant Cell Environ 32:158–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pozo MJ, Azcon-Aguilar C (2007) Unraveling mycorrhiza-induced resistance. Curr Opin Plant Biol 10:393–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Purrington CB (2000) Cost of resistance. Curr Opin Plant Biol 3:305–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rasmann S, Bauerle TL, Poveda K, Vannette R (2010) Predicting root defence against herbivores during succession. Funct Ecol. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01811.x
  62. Rhoades DF, Cates RG (1976) A general theory of plant antiherbivore chemistry. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds) Biochemical interaction between plants and insects, Recent advances in phytochemistry. Plenum, New York, pp 168–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Riipi M, Ossipov V, Lempa K, Haukioja E, Koricheva J, Ossipova S, Pihlaja K (2002) Seasonal changes in birch leaf chemistry: are there trade-offs between leaf growth and accumulation of phenolics. Oecologia 130:380–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rühmann S, Leser C, Bannert M, Treutter D (2002) Relationship between growth, secondary metabolism, and resistance of apple. Plant Biol 4:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sampedro L, Moreira X, Zas R (2011) Costs of constitutive and herbivore-induced chemical defences in pine trees emerge only under low nutrient availability. J Ecol. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01814.x
  66. Sandermann H, Matyssek R (2004) Scaling up from molecular to ecological processes. In: Sandermann H (ed) Molecular ecotoxicology of plants, vol 170, Ecological studies. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 207–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schloter M, Matyssek R (2009) Tuning growth versus defence – belowground interactions and plant resource allocation. Plant Soil 323:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schulze E-D (1982) Plant life forms and their carbon, water and nutrient relations. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Physiological plant ecology II, vol 12B. Springer, Berlin, pp 615–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schulze E-D, Küppers M, Matyssek R (1986) The roles of carbon balance and branching pattern in the growth of woody species. In: Givnish TJ (ed) On the economy of plant form and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 585–602Google Scholar
  70. Schwachtje J, Baldwin IT (2008) Why does herbivore attack reconfigure primary metabolism? Plant Physiol 146:845–851PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Schwinning S (1996) Decomposition analysis of competitive symmetry and size structure dynamics. Ann Bot 77:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Siemens DH, Lischke H, Maggiulli N, Schürch S, Roy BA (2003) Cost of resistance and tolerance under competition: the defence-stress benefit hypothesis. Evol Ecol 17:247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Siemens DH, Keck AG, Ziegenbein S (2010) Optimal defense in plants: assessment of resource allocation costs. Evol Ecol 24:1291–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stamp N (2003a) Theory of plant defensive level: example of process and pitfalls in development of ecological theory. Oikos 102:672–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stamp N (2003b) Out of the quagmire of plant defenses hypotheses. Q Rev Biol 78:23–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stamp N (2004) Can the growth-differentiation balance hypothesis be tested rigorously? Oikos 107:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stitt M, Schulze E-D (1994) Plant growth, storage, and resource allocation: from flux control in a metabolic chain to the whole-plant level. In: Schulze E-D (ed) Flux control in biological systems. Academic, San Diego, pp 57–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Strauss SY, Rudgers JA, Lau JA, Irwin RE (2002) Direct and ecological costs of resistance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 17:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van Dam NM, Heil M (2011) Multitrophic interactions below and above ground: en route to the next level. J Ecol 99:77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van Noordwijk AJ, de Jong G (1986) Acquisition and allocation of resources: their influence on variation in life history tactics. Am Nat 128:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vannette RL, Hunter MD (2011) Plant defence theory re-examined: nonlinear expectations based on the costs and benefits of resource mutualisms. J Ecol 99:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Watts DC (1999) Small worlds. The dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  83. Williams GM, Ayres PG (1981) Effects of powdery mildew and water stress on CO2 exchange in uninfected leaves of barley. Plant Physiol 68:527–530PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Zangerl AB, Bazzaz FA (1992) Theory and pattern in plant defense allocation. In: Fritz RS, Simms EL (eds) Plant resistance to herbicides and pathogens. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 363–391Google Scholar
  85. Zilber-Rosenberg I, Rosenberg E (2008) Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution. FEMS Microbiol Rev 32:723–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Matyssek
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Koricheva
    • 2
  • H. Schnyder
    • 3
  • D. Ernst
    • 4
  • J. C. Munch
    • 5
  • W. Oßwald
    • 6
  • H. Pretzsch
    • 7
  1. 1.Chair of Ecophysiology of PlantsTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany
  2. 2.School of Biological Sciences, Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonEgham, SurreyUK
  3. 3.Lehrstuhl für GrünlandlehreTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Biochemical Plant BiologyHelmholtz Zentrum MünchenNeuherbergGermany
  5. 5.Institute of Soil EcologyHelmholtz Zentrum MünchenNeuherbergGermany
  6. 6.Phytopathology of Woody PlantsTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany
  7. 7.Chair of Forest Growth and Yield ScienceTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany

Personalised recommendations