Plant allocation of carbon to defense as a function of herbivory, light and nutrient availability
Tóm tắt
We use modeling to determine the optimal relative plant carbon allocations between foliage, fine roots, anti-herbivore defense, and reproduction to maximize reproductive output. The model treats these plant components and the herbivore compartment as variables. Herbivory is assumed to be purely folivory. Key external factors include nutrient availability, degree of shading, and intensity of herbivory. Three alternative functional responses are used for herbivory, two of which are variations on donor-dependent herbivore (models 1a and 1b) and one of which is a Lotka–Volterra type of interaction (model 2). All three were modified to include the negative effect of chemical defenses on the herbivore. Analysis showed that, for all three models, two stable equilibria could occur, which differs from most common functional responses when no plant defense component is included. Optimal strategies of carbon allocation were defined as the maximum biomass of reproductive propagules produced per unit time, and found to vary with changes in external factors. Increased intensity of herbivory always led to an increase in the fractional allocation of carbon to defense. Decreases in available limiting nutrient generally led to increasing importance of defense. Decreases in available light had little effect on defense but led to increased allocation to foliage. Decreases in limiting nutrient and available light led to decreases in allocation to reproduction in models 1a and 1b but not model 2. Increases in allocation to plant defense were usually accompanied by shifts in carbon allocation away from fine roots, possibly because higher plant defense reduced the loss of nutrients to herbivory.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ågren GI, Bosatta E (1996) Theoretical ecosystem ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bloom AJ, Chapin FS III, Mooney HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants—an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363–392
Boyle RR, McLean S, Brandøn S, Wiggins N (2005) Rapid absorption of dietary 1,8-cineole results in critical blood concentration of cineole and immediate cessation of eating in the common brushtail possoum (Trichosurus vulpecula). J Chem Ecol 31:2775–2790
Bryant JP, Chapin FS III, Klein DR (1983) Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40:357–368
Buckley TN, Roberts DW (2005a) DESPOT, a process-based tree growth model that allocates carbon to maximize carbon gain. Tree Phys 26:129–144
Buckley TN, Roberts DW (2005b) How should leaf area, sapwood area and stomatal conductance vary with tree height to maximize growth? Tree Phys 26:145–157
Chapin FS III, Bloom AJ, Field CB, Waring RH (1987) Plant responses to multiple environmental factors. BioScience 37:49–57
Chapin FS III, Schulze E, Mooney HA (1990) The ecology and economics of storage in plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 21:423–447
Coley P, Bryant JP, Chapin FS III (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895–899
Comins HN, McMurtrie RE (1993) Long-term response of nutrient-limited forests to CO2 enrichment; equilibrium behavior of plant-soil models. Ecol Appl 3:666–681
Craine JM (2009) Resource strategies of wild plants. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Dybzinski R, Farrior C, Wolf A, Reich PB, Pacala SW (2011) Evolutionarily stable strategy carbon allocation to foliage, wood, and fine roots in trees competing for light and nitrogen: an analytically tractable, individual-based model and quantitative comparisons to data. Amer Natur 177:153–166
Farquhar GD, von Caemmerer S, Berry JA (1980) A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149:78–90
Feeny P (1970) Seasonal changes in oak leaf tannins and nutrients as a cause of spring feeding by winter caterpillars. Ecology 51:565–581
Field C (1983) Allocating leaf nitrogen for the maximization of carbon gain: leaf age as a control on the allocation program. Oecologia 56:341–347
Gayler S, Grams TEE, Heller W, Treutter D, Priesack E (2008) A dynamical model of environmental effects on allocation to carbon-based secondary compounds in juvenile trees. Ann Bot Lond 101:1089–1098
Givnish TJ (1995) Plant stems: biomechanical adaptation for energy capture and influence on species distributions. In: Gartner BL (ed) Plant stems: physiology and functional morphology. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 3–49
Grubb PJ (1992) A positive distrust in simplicity—lessons from plant defences and from competition among plants and among animals. J Ecol 80:585–610
Herbert DA, Rastetter EB, Shaver GR, Ågren GI (1999) Effects of plant growth characteristics on plant biogeochemistry and community composition in a changing climate. Ecosystems 2:367–382
Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Quart Rev Biol 67:283–335
Hof J, Rideout D, Binkley D (1990) Carbon fixation in trees as a micro optimization process: an example of combining ecology and economics. Ecol Econ 2:243–256
Ju S, DeAngelis DL (2009) The R* rule and energy flux in a plant-nutrient ecosystem. J Theor Biol 256(3):326–332
Ju S, DeAngelis DL (2010) Nutrient fluxes at the landscape level and the R* rule. Ecol Model 221:141–146
King DA (1993) A model analysis of the influence of root and foliage allocation on forest production and competition between trees. Tree Phys 12:119–135
Kozlowski TT (1971) Growth and development of trees, vol 1. Academic, New York
Kramer PJ, Kozlowski TT (1979) Physiology of woody plants phytochemistry and insect performance. J Chem Ecol 27:1289–1313
Mäkelä A, Valentine HT, Helmisaari H-S (2008) Optimal co-allocation of carbon and nitrogen in a forest stand at steady state. New Phytol 180:114–123
Mattson WJ Jr (1980) Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:119–161
McKey D (1979) The distribution of secondary compounds within plants. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic, New York, pp 55–133
McLean S, Duncan AJ (2006) Pharmacological perspectives on the detoxification of plant secondary metabolites: implications for ingestive behavior of herbivores. J Chem Ecol 32:1213–1228
Moran N, Hamilton WD (1980) Low nutritive quality as defense against herbivores. J Theor Biol 86:247–254
Osier T, Lindroth RL (2001) Effects of genotype, nutrient availability, and defoliation on aspen phytochemistry and insect performance. J Chem Ecol 27(7):1289–1313
Osier TL, Hwang S, Lindroth RL (2000) Effects of phytochemical variation in quaking aspen Populus tremuloides clones on gypsy moth Lymantria dispar performance in the field and laboratory. Ecol Entom 25:197–2007
Perry DA (1994) Forest ecosystems. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Rastetter EB, Ågren GI, Shaver GR (1997) Responses of N-limited ecosystems to increased CO2: a balanced-nutrition, coupled-element-cycles model. Ecol Applic 7:444–460
Rhoades DF (1979) Evolution of plant chemical defense against herbivores. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic, Orlando, pp 3–54
Schulz JC (1983) Habitat selection and foraging tactic of caterpillars in heterogeneous trees. In: Denno RF, McClure MS (eds) Variable plants and herbivores in natural and managed systems. Academic, New York, pp 61–90
White TCR (1993) The inadequate environment. Springer, Berlin