Genetics, environment, and their interaction determine efficacy of chemical defense in trembling aspen

Ecology

Volumn 88, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 729-739

  Donaldson, Jack R ^a   Lindroth, Richard L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemical defense; Genetic variation; Gypsy moth; Lymantria dispar; Mesocosms; Plant defense; Populus tremuloides; Preference

Indexed keywords

GLYCOSIDE; PHENOL DERIVATIVE;

CHEMICAL DEFENSE; DECIDUOUS TREE; DEFOLIATION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE; MOTH; NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY; PLANT DEFENSE; PLANT-HERBIVORE INTERACTION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ASPEN; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENT; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; LARVA; METABOLISM; MOTH; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT LEAF; UNITED STATES;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; ENVIRONMENT; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; GLYCOSIDES; LARVA; MOTHS; PHENOLS; PLANT LEAVES; POPULUS; SELECTION (GENETICS); VARIATION (GENETICS); WISCONSIN;

HEXAPODA; LYMANTRIA; LYMANTRIA DISPAR; POPULUS TREMULOIDES;

EID: 34247137609     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/06-0064     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Adler, L. S., and P. M. Kittelson. 2004. Variation in Lupinus arboreus alkaloid profiles and relationships with multiple herbivores. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 32:371-390.
2. Agrawal, A. A. 1999. Induced responses to herbivory in wild radish: effects on several herbivores and plant fitness. Ecology 80:1713-1723.
3. Augner, M. 1995. Low nutritive quality as a plant defense: effects of herbivore-mediated interactions. Evolutionary Ecology 9:605-616.
4. Ayres, M. P., T. P. Clausen, S. F. MacLean, Jr., A. M. Redman, and P. B. Reichardt. 1997. Diversity of structure and antiherbivore activity in condensed tannins. Ecology 78:1696-1712.
5. Bergelson, J., and C. B. Purrington. 1996. Surveying patterns in the cost of resistance in plants. American Naturalist 148:536-558.
6. Boege, K., and R. Dirzo. 2004. Intraspecific variation in growth, defense and herbivory in Dialium guianense (Caesalpiniaceae) mediated by edaphic heterogeneity. Plant Ecology 175:59-69.
7. Chilcote, C. A., J. A. Witter, M. E. Montgomery, and J. L. Stoyenoff. 1992. Intra- and inter-clonal variation in gypsy moth larval performance on bigtooth and trembling aspen. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22:1676-1683.
8. Churchill, G. B., H. H. John, D. P. Duncan, and A. C. Hodson. 1964. Long-term effects of defoliation of aspen by the forest tent caterpillar. Ecology 45:630-633.
9. Close, D. C., and C. McArthur. 2002. Rethinking the role of many plant phenolics - protection from photodamage not herbivores? Oikos 99:166-172.
10. Cole, C. 2005. Allelic and population variation of microsatellite loci in aspen (Populus tremuloides). New Phytologist 167:155-164.
11. Coley, P. D., J. P. Bryant, and F. S. Chapin, III. 1985. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895-899.
12. Doane, C. C., and L. M. McManus. 1981. The gypsy moth: research toward integrated pest management. Forest Service Technical Bulletin 1584. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA.
13. Donaldson, J. R. 2005. Benefits and costs of phytochemical defense in aspen-insect interactions: causes and consequences of phytochemical variation. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
14. Donaldson, J. R., E. L. Kruger, and R. L. Lindroth. 2006a. Competition- and resource-mediated tradeoffs between growth and defensive chemistry in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). New Phytologist 169:561-570.
15. Donaldson, J. R., M. T. Stevens, H. R. Barnhill, and R. L. Lindroth. 2006b. Age-related shifts in leaf chemistry of clonal aspen (Populus tremuloides). Journal of Chemical Ecology 32:1415-1429.
16. Duncan, D. P., and A. C. Hodson. 1958. Influence of the forest tent caterpillar upon the aspen forests of Minnesota. Forest Science 4:71-93.
17. Falconer, D. S. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Third edition. Longman, London, UK.
18. Farrar, R. R., Jr., J. D. Barbour, and G. G. Kennedy. 1989. Quantifying food consumption and growth in insects. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 82:593-598.
19. Firn, R. D., and C. G. Jones. 1996. An explanation of secondary product "redundancy." Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 30:295-312.
20. Hale, B. K., D. A. Herms, R. C. Hansen, T. P. Clausen, and D. Arnold. 2005. Effects of drought stress and nutrient availability on dry matter allocation, phenolic glycosides, and rapid induced resistance of poplar to two lymantriid defoliators. Journal of Chemical Ecology 31:2601-2620.
21. Hamilton, J. G., A. R. Zangerl, E. H. DeLucia, and M. R. Berenbaum. 2001. The carbon-nutrient balance hypothesis: its rise and fall. Ecology Letters 4:86-95.
22. Haukioja, E. 2003. Putting the insect into the birch-insect interaction. Oecologia 136:161-168.
23. Hemming, J. D. C., and R. L. Lindroth. 1995. Intraspecific variation in aspen phytochemistry: effects on performance of gypsy moths and forest tent caterpillars. Oecologia 103:79-88.
24. Hemming, J. D. C., and R. L. Lindroth. 1999. Effects of light and nutrient availability on aspen: growth, phytochemistry, and insect performance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 25:1687-1714.
25. Herms, D. A., and W. J. Mattson. 1992. The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Quarterly Review of Biology 67:283-335.
26. Hodson, A. C. 1941. An ecological study of the forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria Hubn., in northern Minnesota. University of Minnesota Agricultural Experimental Station Technical Bulletin 148.
27. Hogg, E. H., J. P. Brandt, and B. Kochtubajda. 2005. Factors affecting interannual variation in growth of western Canadian aspen forests during 1951-2000. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:610-622.
28. Kause, A., V. Ossipov, E. Haukioja, K. Lempa, S. Hanhimäki, and S. Ossipova. 1999. Multiplicity of biochemical factors determining quality of growing birch leaves. Oecologia 120:102-112.
29. Kondoh, M., and I. S. Williams. 2001. Compensation behaviour by insect herbivores and natural enemies: its influence on community structure. Oikos 93:161-167.
30. Koricheva, J. 2002. Meta-analysis of sources of variation in fitness costs of plant antiherbivore defenses. Ecology 83:176-190.
31. Latta, R. G., and Y. B. Linhart. 1997. Path analysis of natural selection on plant chemistry: the xylem resin of ponderosa pine. Oecologia 109:251-258.
32. 2 atmospheres. Functional Ecology 9:306-311.
33. Lindroth, R. L., and S.-Y. Hwang. 1996a. Diversity, redundancy and multiplicity in chemical defense systems of aspen. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 30:25-56.
34. Lindroth, R. L., and S.-Y. Hwang. 1996b. Clonal variation in foliar chemistry of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 24:357-364.
35. 2: productivity, phytochemistry, and insect performance. Ecology 74:763-777.
36. Lindroth, R. L., K. A. Klein, J. D. C. Hemming, and A. M. Feuker. 1997. Variation in temperature and dietary nitrogen affect performance of the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.). Physiological Entomology 22:55-64.
37. Louda, S. M. 1982. Limitation of the recruitment of the shrub Haplopappus squarrosus (Asteraceae) by flower- and seedfeeding insects. Journal of Ecology 70:43-53.
38. Marak, H. B., A. Biere, and J. M. M. Van Damme. 2003. Fitness costs of chemical defense in Plantago lanceolata L.: effects of nutrient and competition stress. Evolution 57:2519-2530.
39. Mattson, W. J., D. A. Herms, J. A. Witter, and D. C. Allen. 1991. Woody plant grazing systems: North American outbreak folivores and their host plants. Pages 53-84 in Y. N. Baranchikov, W. J. Mattson, F. P. Hain, and T. L. Payne, editors. Forest insect guilds: patterns of interaction with host trees. General Technical Report NE-153. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania, USA.
40. Mauricio, R. 2000. Natural selection and the joint evolution of tolerance and resistance as plant defenses. Evolutionary Ecology 14:491-507.
41. Osier, T. L. 2001. Genotype and environment as determinants of intraspecific variation in quaking aspen phytochemistry and consequences for an insect herbivore. Dissertation. Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
42. Osier, T. L., S.-Y. Hwang, and R. L. Lindroth. 2000. Withinand between-year variation in early season phytochemistry of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) clones. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 28:197-208.
43. Osier, T. L., and R. L. Lindroth. 2001. Effects of genotype, nutrient availability, and defoliation on aspen phytochemistry and insect performance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 27:1289-1313.
44. Osier, T. L., and R. L. Lindroth. 2006. Genotype and environment determine allocation to and costs of resistance in quaking aspen. Oecologia 148:293-303.
45. Parry, D., and R. A. Goyer. 2004. Variation in the suitability of host tree species for geographically discrete populations of forest tent caterpillar. Environmental Entomology 33:1477-1487.
46. Parry, D., D. A. Herms, and W. J. Mattson. 2003. Responses of an insect folivore and its parasitoids to multiyear experimental defoliation of aspen. Ecology 84:1768-1783.
47. Parry, D., J. R. Spence, and W. J. A. Volney. 1998. Budbreak phenology and natural enemies mediate survival of first-instar forest tent caterpillar (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). Environmental Entomology 27:1368-1374.
48. Perala, D. A. 1990. Populus tremuloides Michx. quaking aspen. Pages 555-569 in R. M. Burns and B. H. Honkala, editors. Silvics of North America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
49. Porter, L. J., L. N. Hrstich, and B. G. Chan. 1986. The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25:223-230.
50. Price, P. W. 1991. The plant vigor hypothesis and herbivore attack. Oikos 62:244-251.
51. Prittinen, K., J. Pusenius, K. Koivunoro, M. Rousi, and H. Roininen. 2003. Mortality in seedling populations of silver birch: genotypic variation and herbivore effects. Functional Ecology 17:658-663.
52. Rhoades, D. F. 1979. Evolution of plant chemical defense against herbivores. Pages 3-54 in G. A. Rosenthal and D. H. Janzen, editors. Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA.
53. Robison, D. J., and K. F. Raffa. 1994. Characterization of hybrid poplar clones for resistance to the forest tent caterpillar. Forest Science 40:686-714.
54. SAS Institute. 2001. JMP IN. Version 4.0.4. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, California, USA.
55. Schultz, J. C. 1989. Tannin-insect interactions. Pages 417-433 in R. W. Hemingway and J. J. Karchesy, editors. Chemistry and significance. Plenum Press, New York, New York, USA.
56. Siemens, D. H., H. Lischke, N. Maggiulli, S. Schurch, and B. A. Roy. 2003. Cost of resistance and tolerance under competition: the defense-stress benefit hypothesis. Evolutionary Ecology 17:247-263.
57. Simms, E. L. 1992. Costs of plant resistance to herbivory. Pages 392-425 in R. S. Fritz and E. L. Simms, editors. Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution, and genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
58. Stevens, M. T. 2005. Plant defense strategies against herbivores: resistance and tolerance in Populus tremuloides. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
59. Strauss, S. Y., J. A. Rudgers, J. A. Lau, and R. E. Irwin. 2002. Direct and ecological costs of resistance to herbivory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:278-285.
60. Valentine, H. T., and R. L. Talerico. 1980. Gypsy moth larval growth and consumption of red oak. Forest Science 26:599-605.
61. Weis, A. E., and M. E. Hochberg. 2000. The diverse effects of intraspecific competition on the selective advantage to resistance: a model and its predictions. American Naturalist 156:276-292.
62. Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.