Nicole L Soper Gorden1, Lynn S Adler. 1. Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA. sope0007@d.umn.edu
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: While the effect of abiotic factors on leaf herbivory is well known, the relative importance of abiotic conditions influencing both mutualists and antagonists is less well understood. Species interactions could enhance or reduce the direct effects of abiotic factors, depending on how mutualists and antagonists respond to abiotic conditions. METHODS: We manipulated soil nutrients and shade in a factorial design and measured soil moisture in the annual Impatiens capensis. We then measured interactions with mutualists (two pollinating species) and antagonists (herbivores, florivores, nectar thieves, and flower bud gallers), as well as plant growth, floral rewards, and plant reproduction. KEY RESULTS: Fertilizer increased plant growth, floral attractiveness, mutualist and antagonist interactions, and plant reproduction. Shade had no effects, and soil moisture was negatively associated with plant growth and reproduction. All effects were additive. Mutualist and antagonist floral interactions both increased on fertilized plants, but antagonists increased at a greater rate, leading to a larger ratio of antagonist to mutualist interactions on fertilized plants. Despite having more antagonists, fertilized plants still had significantly higher reproduction, suggesting higher tolerance to antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: Abiotic effects can have consistent effects on antagonists and mutualists, and on both floral and leaf antagonists. However, tolerance to antagonisms increased in favorable conditions. Thus, the direct positive effects of favorable abiotic conditions on plants outweighed negative indirect effects via increased antagonisms, which may lead to selection to grow in high-nutrient microsites in spite of increased herbivory.
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: While the effect of abiotic factors on leaf herbivory is well known, the relative importance of abiotic conditions influencing both mutualists and antagonists is less well understood. Species interactions could enhance or reduce the direct effects of abiotic factors, depending on how mutualists and antagonists respond to abiotic conditions. METHODS: We manipulated soil nutrients and shade in a factorial design and measured soil moisture in the annual Impatiens capensis. We then measured interactions with mutualists (two pollinating species) and antagonists (herbivores, florivores, nectar thieves, and flower bud gallers), as well as plant growth, floral rewards, and plant reproduction. KEY RESULTS: Fertilizer increased plant growth, floral attractiveness, mutualist and antagonist interactions, and plant reproduction. Shade had no effects, and soil moisture was negatively associated with plant growth and reproduction. All effects were additive. Mutualist and antagonist floral interactions both increased on fertilized plants, but antagonists increased at a greater rate, leading to a larger ratio of antagonist to mutualist interactions on fertilized plants. Despite having more antagonists, fertilized plants still had significantly higher reproduction, suggesting higher tolerance to antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: Abiotic effects can have consistent effects on antagonists and mutualists, and on both floral and leaf antagonists. However, tolerance to antagonisms increased in favorable conditions. Thus, the direct positive effects of favorable abiotic conditions on plants outweighed negative indirect effects via increased antagonisms, which may lead to selection to grow in high-nutrient microsites in spite of increased herbivory.