| Literature DB >> 19907662 |
Jennifer L Apple1, Michael Wink, Shannon E Wills, John G Bishop.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The average nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratio (NratioP) of insect herbivores is less than that of leaves, suggesting that P may mediate plant-insect interactions more often than appreciated. We investigated whether succession-related heterogeneity in N and P stoichiometry influences herbivore performance on N-fixing lupin (Lupinus lepidus) colonizing primary successional volcanic surfaces, where the abundances of several specialist lepidopteran herbivores are inversely related to lupin density and are known to alter lupin colonization dynamics. We examined larval performance in response to leaf nutritional characteristics using gelechiid and pyralid leaf-tiers, and a noctuid leaf-cutter. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19907662 PMCID: PMC2771767 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007807
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1RGR is related to %P in wild-collected leaves.
RGR (d−1) is closely related to leaf % P (a) but not leaf %N (b). Each point represents the mean of 15–86 individual larvae fed a particular batch of food. Groups of larvae feeding on different diets during the same time interval are connected by lines. Filled symbols represent feeding on leaves from high-density center areas.
Regression analysis of nutritional effects on herbivore RGR (d−1) or mass (mg).
| Effect | Mean | Coefficient |
| |
|
| ||||
|
| %P | 0.17 | 0.94 | 0.008 |
|
| %C | 44.7 | −0.02 | 0.009 |
| Alkaloids | 0.0044 | −1.45 | 0.106 | |
|
| Alkaloid Difference | −0.0025 | −6.75 | 0.054 |
|
| %P Difference | 0.0097 | 0.77 | 0.037 |
|
| ||||
|
| N∶P | 37.5 | 2.40 | <0.0001 |
|
| N∶P2 | −0.027 | <0.0001 | |
| %P | 0.11 | 58.2 | 0.002 | |
Sources were either high-density center or the low-density matrix (in 2002 the matrix sample included some samples from the margin). Regression coefficients are shown in the Day and Center vs. Matrix columns.
Linear Mixed Effects model with time interval and group identity (species × diet source) as random effects. No r2 is available for a mixed effects model. See Materials and Methods for model.
Mean RGR (d−1): Euxoa: 0.114, leaf-tiers: 0.142, combined: 0.128.
Dropping %N had no effect on model fit (model comparison by ANOVA: p = 0.668).
RGR was first regressed on group identity to account for repeated measures, then the residuals were used to calculate RGRcenter − RGRmargin. Dropping %N had no effect on model fit (ANOVA: F = 1.17, DF = 1, p = 0.327).
Dry mass was squared to meet regression assumptions. Mean dry mass = 8.7 mg (with competitors). Molar ratio was used for N∶P, and %P had a low correlation to N∶P (r = −0.11). Dropping any of the terms in this model dramatically increased the AIC.
Figure 2Greenhouse fertilization and competition treatments.
a) Treatment effects on larval dry mass (mean ± SE, n is shown above each point) at 46 days. There are significant effects of P and N × P × competition. Panels b–d: The effects of leaf (N∶P)2 and %P on larval dry mass at 46 days are highly significant (P<0.0001; P = 0.002; Table 1) with grass competitors (b,c) but not without competitors (d). The legend in (b) applies to (c) and (d).
Figure 3Field fertilization and competitor removal experiment.
Percent leaf area consumed by gelechiid leaf-tiers (mean ± SE) is used as an index of survival and growth on plants with competitors removed the previous summer and competitors removed + P fertilization. Survival is almost 0 on plants with neighbors. Treatments not sharing a letter (above error bars) are significantly different (P = 0.01).
Figure 4Leaf nutrient concentrations over the 2002 (a and c) and 2003 (b and d) growing seasons, by location.
Each point is from a homogenized bulk collection sampled from many plants. Points with error bars represent the mean (± SE) of samples from multiple sites on that date (data from each sample were used in the regression analysis). Matrix refers to low-density areas being colonized by lupins. Plants from matrix areas were much richer in both %N and %P in both years (P<0.0002; see Table 2). Least squares fits are shown by solid (center) and dotted (matrix) lines.
Regression analyses of lupin leaf tissue nutrient and alkaloid content on date and source.
| Day | Center vs. Matrix |
|
| ||
|
| %N | −0.0158**** | 0.2662*** | 0.65 | 38 |
| %P | −0.0013**** | 0.0290**** | 0.64 | 36 | |
| N∶P | 0.070* | −2.38* | 0.14 | 36 | |
| QAs | 0.001** | 0.0028* | 0.52 | 22 | |
|
| %N | −0.0106**** | 0.2904**** | 0.66 | 56 |
| %P | −0.0010**** | 0.0188**** | 0.76 | 56 | |
| N∶P | 0.027* | 0.630* | 0.15 | 56 | |
| QAs | 0.99 | 0.0011 | 0.12 | 24 |
Sources were either high-density center or the low-density matrix (in 2002 the matrix sample included some samples from the margin). Regression coefficients are shown in the Day and Center vs. Matrix columns.
Negative coefficient indicates a higher value in center plants.
P-values: * = p≤0.05, ** = p≤0.01, *** = p≤0.001, **** = p≤0.0001