| Literature DB >> 23717643 |
Zuzana Münzbergová1, Jiří Skuhrovec.
Abstract
Plant traits are the key factors that determine herbivore foraging selection. The traits serving as defense traits against herbivores represent a wide range of traits, such as chemical, physiological, morphological and life-history traits. While many studies considered plant defense traits at the within-species scale, much less is known from comparisons of a wide range of closely related species. The aim of this study was to identify factors responsible for the intensity of leaf damage in the Carduoideae subfamily of Asteraceae, which hosts many invasive species and thus is potential candidate plant species that could be controlled by biological control. Specifically, we wanted to see the relative importance of habitat characteristics, plant size and plants traits in determining the degree of folivory. The study identified several defense traits able to explain differences in herbivory between species after accounting for differences in the habitats in which the species occur and the plant size. Specifically, the most important traits were traits related to the quality of the leaf tissue expressed as the content of phosphorus, water and specific leaf area, which suggests that the leaf quality had a more important effect on the degree of herbivory than the presence of specific defense mechanisms such as spines and hair. Leaf quality is thus a candidate factor that drives herbivore choice when selecting which plant to feed on and should be considered when assessing the danger that a herbivore will switch hosts when introduced to a new range.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23717643 PMCID: PMC3661506 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064639
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
List of species used in the study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The nomenclature of the species is unified according to Flora Europaea (web 1), and 2× and 4× indicate the use of diploid and tetraploid cytotypes of the given species – each cytotype is treated as a separate species.
Figure 1Effect of the moisture at the habitat on the overall leaf damage.
Effect of the habitat conditions (moisture and nutrient availability), the plant size (no. of leaves) and the species traits on the proportion of damaged leaves.
| Proportion of damaged leaves | Overall leaf damage | |||||||
| F | p | R2 | sign | F | p | R2 | sign | |
| Habitat moisture |
|
|
| + |
|
|
| + |
| Habitat nutrient |
|
|
| + | ||||
| No. of leaves |
|
|
| − | ||||
| A) | ||||||||
| Specific leaf area |
|
|
| + | ||||
| Leaf water content |
|
|
| + |
|
|
| + |
| Leaf phosphorus |
|
|
| + |
|
|
| + |
| Spine length | 3.82 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |||||
| Spine toughness |
|
|
| + | ||||
| Leaf dissection | 2.84 | 0.11 | 0.02 | |||||
| B) | ||||||||
| PCA axis 1 | 0.16 | 0.69 | <0.001 | 0.85 | 0.36 | 0.02 | ||
| PCA axis 2 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.42 | 0.52 | 0.01 | ||
| PCA axis 3 |
|
|
| − | 0.70 | 0.41 | 0.02 | |
| PCA axis 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| + |
Two different tests using the plant traits were performed. A) The traits were selected using a step-wise both directional procedure, and only variables included in the final model are shown. B) Traits were summarized using principal component analysis (Figure 2), and the positions of species on the first, second, third and fourth axes were used as independent variables.
Figure 2Effect of the content of phosphorus in plant leaves on the overall leaf damage.
Figure 3Effect of the specific leaf area on the overall leaf damage.
Figure 4Results of the principle component analysis with species traits as the dependent variables and the overall leaf damage and the proportion of damaged leaves as supplementary variables.
The first (horizontal) and the second (vertical) ordination axes explain 30% and 17.9% of the total variation, respectively.
Figure 5Results of the principle component analysis with species traits as the dependent variables and the overall leaf damage and the proportion of damaged leaves as supplementary variables.
The third (horizontal) and the fourth (vertical) ordination axes explain 11.6% and 8.3% of the total variation, respectively.