Additive genetic variation in resistance traits of an exotic pine species: Little evidence for constraints on evolution of resistance against native herbivores

Heredity

Volumn 110, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 449-456

  Moreira, X ^a,b   Zas, R ^b   Sampedro, L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b MISIÓN BIOLÓGICA DE GALICIA CSIC   (Spain)

Author keywords

Chemical defences; Hylobius abietis; Methyl jasmonate; Pinus radiata; Thaumetopoea pityocampa; Trade offs

Indexed keywords

ACETIC ACID DERIVATIVE; CYCLOPENTANE DERIVATIVE; JASMONIC ACID METHYL ESTER; OXYLIPIN; PLANT RESIN; POLYPHENOL;

ANTIHERBIVORE DEFENSE; BEETLE; BIOASSAY; BIOLOGICAL INVASION; CHEMICAL DEFENSE; CONIFEROUS TREE; GENETIC VARIATION; HERITABILITY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; INVASIVE SPECIES; INVASIVENESS; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MOTH; NINETEENTH CENTURY; TRADE-OFF;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BEETLE; CHEMISTRY; EUROPE; EVOLUTION; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HERBIVORY; INTRODUCED SPECIES; MOTH; PHENOTYPE; PHLOEM; PHYSIOLOGY; PINE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; SPAIN;

ACETATES; ANIMALS; BEETLES; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; CYCLOPENTANES; EUROPE; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; GENETIC VARIATION; HERBIVORY; INTRODUCED SPECIES; MOTHS; OXYLIPINS; PHENOTYPE; PHLOEM; PINUS; POLYPHENOLS; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE; RESINS, PLANT; SPAIN;

SPAIN;

HYLOBIUS ABIETIS; PINUS RADIATA; THAUMETOPOEA PITYOCAMPA;

EID: 84878678000     PISSN: 0018067X     EISSN: 13652540     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2012.108     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Alpert P, Bone E, Holzapfel C (2000). Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 3: 52-66. (Pubitemid 30387917)
2. Alpert P, Simms EL (2002). The relative advantages of plasticity and fixity in different environments: when is it good for a plant to adjust? Evol Ecol 16: 285-297. (Pubitemid 35008580)
3. Bingham RA, Agrawal AA (2010). Specificity and trade-offs in the induced plant defence of common milkweed Asclepias syriaca to two lepidopteran herbivores. J Ecol 98: 1014-1022.
4. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995). Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83: 887-889.
5. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D (2005). Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144: 1-11. (Pubitemid 41175367)
6. Carrillo-Gavilan A, Vila M (2010). Little evidence of invasion by alien conifers in Europe. Divers Distrib 16: 203-213.
7. Carrillo-Gavilán A, Moreira X, Zas R, Vila M, Sampedro L (2012). Early resistance of alien and native pines against two native generalist insect herbivores: no support for the Natural Enemy Hypothesis. Funct Ecol 26: 283-293.
8. Caño L, Escarré J, Vrieling K, Sans FX (2009). Palatability to a generalist herbivore, defence and growth of invasive and native Senecio species: testing the evolution of increased competitive ability hypothesis. Oecologia 159: 95-106.
9. Cipollini D, Mbagwu J, Barto K, Hillstrom C, Enright S (2005). Expression of constitutive and inducible chemical defenses in native and invasive populations of Alliaria petiolata. J Chem Ecol 31: 1255-1267. (Pubitemid 40837298)
10. de la Mata R, Zas R (2010). Transferring Atlantic maritime pine improved material to a region with marked Mediterranean influence in inland NW Spain: a likelihood-base approach on spatially adjusted field data. Eur J Forest Res 129: 645-658.
11. Donaldson JR, Kruger EL, Lindroth RL (2006). Competition- and resource-mediated tradeoffs between growth and defensive chemistry in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). New Phytol 169: 561-570.
12. Dunn OJ (1961). Multiple comparisons among means. J Am Stat Assoc 56: 52-64.
13. Eigenbrode SD, Andreas JE, Cripps MG, Ding H, Biggam RC, Schwarzländer M (2008). Induced chemical defenses in invasive plants: a case study with Cynoglossum officinale L. Biol Invasions 10: 1373-1379.
14. Elton CS (1958). The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
15. Fry JD (2004). Estimation of genetic variances and covariances by restricted maximum likelihood using PROC MIXED. In Saxton AM (ed) Genetic Analysis of Complex Traits Using SAS. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC, pp 11-34.
16. Holland JB (2006). Estimating genotypic correlations and their standard errors using multivariate restricted maximum likelihood estimation with SAS Proc MIXED. Crop Sci 46: 642-654.
17. Hódar JA, Castro J, Zamora R (2003). Pine processionary caterpillar Thaumetopoea pityocampa as a new threat for relict Mediterranean Scots pine forests under climatic warming. Biol Conserv 110: 123-129. (Pubitemid 36128637)
18. Inderjit EH (2012). Exotic plant invasion in the context of plant defense against herbivores. Plant Physiol 158: 1107-1114.
19. Joshi J, Vrieling K (2005). The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol Lett 8: 704-714. (Pubitemid 40850019)
20. Joshi S, Tielbörger K (2012). Response to enemies in the invasive plant Lythrum salicaria is genetically determined. Ann Bot 110: 1403-1410.
21. Karban R (2011). The ecology and evolution of induced resistance against herbivores. Funct Ecol 25: 339-347.
22. Koricheva J, Nykanen 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: 64-75.
23. Lavery PB, Mead DJ (1998). Pinus radiata: a narrow endemic from North America takes on the world. In: Richardson DM (ed). Ecology and biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp 432-449.
24. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004). A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7: 975-989. (Pubitemid 39348411)
25. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger R, Schabenberger O (2006). SAS System For Mixed Models, 2nd edn SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC.
26. Lombardero MJ, Vázquez-Mejuto P, Ayres MP (2008). Role of plant enemies in the forestry of indigenous vs. nonindigenous pines. Ecol Appl 18: 1171-1181.
27. Lynch M, Walsh JB (1998). Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Assocs Inc: Sunderland, MA.
28. Maron JL, Vilà M (2001). When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95: 361-373. (Pubitemid 34140065)
29. Maron JL, Vilà M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P (2004). Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol Monograph 74: 261-280. (Pubitemid 39182895)
30. Messina FJ, Durham SL, Richards JH, McArthur ED (2002). Trade-off between plant growth and defense? A comparison of sagebrush populations. Oecologia 131: 43-51. (Pubitemid 36059194)
31. Moreira X, Sampedro L, Zas R (2009). Defensive responses of Pinus pinaster seedlings to exogenous application of methyl-jasmonate: Concentration effect and systemic response. Environ Exp Bot 67: 94-100.
32. Moreira X, Zas R, Sampedro L (2012a). Differential allocation of constitutive and induced chemical defenses in pine tree juveniles: a test of the optimal defense theory. PLoS One 7: e34006.
33. Moreira X, Zas R, Sampedro L (2012b). Methyl jasmonate as chemical elicitor of induced responses and anti-herbivory resistance in young conifer trees. In: Merillon JM, Ramawat KG (eds) Plant Defence: Biological control. Progress in Biological Control. Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 345-362.
34. Moreira X, Zas R, Sampedro L (2012c). Quantitative comparison of chemical, biological and mechanical induction of secondary compounds in Pinus pinaster seedlings. Trees 26: 677-683.
35. Mumm R, Hilker M (2006). Direct and indirect chemical defence of pine against folivorous insects. Trends Plant Sci 11: 351-358. (Pubitemid 44094223)
36. Oduor AM, Lankau RA, Strauss SY, Gómez JM (2011). Introduced Brassica nigra populations exhibit greater growth and herbivore resistance but less tolerance than native populations in the native range. New Phytol 91: 536-544.
37. Orians CM, Ward D (2010). Evolution of plant defenses in nonindigenous environments. Ann Rev Entomol 55: 439-459.
38. Parker JD, Hay ME (2005). Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants. Ecol Lett 8: 959-967. (Pubitemid 41247271)
39. Rudgers JA, Strauss SY, Wendel JF (2004). Trade-offs among anti-herbivore resistance traits: insights from Gossypieae (Malvaceae). Am J Bot 91: 871-880. (Pubitemid 43186502)
40. Sampedro L, Moreira X, Zas R (2011a). Costs of constitutive and herbivore-induced chemical defenses in pine trees emerge only under low resources availability. J Ecol 99: 818-827.
41. Sampedro L, Moreira X, Zas R (2011b). Resistance and response of Pinus pinaster seedlings to Hylobius abietis after induction with methyl jasmonate. Plant Ecol 212: 397-401.
42. Wang Y, Siemann E, Wheeler GS, Zhu L, Gu X, Ding J (2012). Genetic variation in antiherbivore chemical defences in an invasive plant. J Ecol 100: 894-904.
43. Yang RC (2002). Likelihood-based analysis of genotype-environment interactions. Crop Sci 42: 1434-1440.
44. Zas R, Moreira X, Sampedro L (2011). Tolerance and induced resistance in a native and an exotic pine species: relevant traits for invasion ecology. J Ecol 99: 1316-1326.
45. Zas R, Sampedro L, Moreira X, Marti'ns P (2008). Effect of fertilization and genetic variation on susceptibility of Pinus radiata seedlings to Hylobius abietis damage. Can J Forest Res 38: 63-72. (Pubitemid 351287678)