| Literature DB >> 32694547 |
Lucía B Zamora-Nasca1, Romina D Dimarco2, Daniela Nassini3, Pablo A Alvear1, Ariel Mayoral1, Martin A Nuñez4, M Andrea Relva1.
Abstract
Herbivores modulate the structure and composition of plant communities, including plant invasions. This is conditioned by plant palatability which can be reduced by its chemical or physical traits. The effects that ungulates browsing has on pine invasions are variable and the empirical evidence on the causes of this variability is scarce. We experimentally explored how sheep browsing preference varies between seedlings of pine species with different invasiveness; Pinus contorta (high invasiveness), P. ponderosa (medium invasiveness), P. radiata (medium invasiveness) and P. jeffreyi (low invasiveness). Secondly, we quantified anti-herbivory chemical compounds and physical traits of these species and related them with sheep preference observed. The browsing incidence of P. contorta was 68%, P. ponderosa 58%, P. radiata 29%, and P. jeffreyi 84%. Among anti-herbivory traits analyzed, α-pinene concentration had a negative effect on the probability of a terminal bud being browsed and on browsing intensity. Meanwhile, foliar toughness was negatively related to browsing intensity and water concentration was positively related to browsing intensity. Also, the most invasive species, P. contorta, was highly damaged. Thus, sheep herbivory could be slowing pine invasion rate; suggesting that could be considered a tool to control early invasions, especially for this particular species.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32694547 PMCID: PMC7374590 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-68748-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Results of the models performed to analyze sheep herbivory preference between four invasive pine species.
| Model | Coefficient | Estimate | SE | z value | Pr(>|z|) | Probability | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| Browsing incidence | Intercept | 0.76 | 0.65 | 1.17 | 0.2412 | 0.68 | 0.32 | 0.91 |
| 0.89 | 0.38 | 2.37 | 0.84 | 0.53 | 0.96 | |||
| − 0.43 | 0.35 | − 1.22 | 0.2215 | 0.58 | 0.23 | 0.86 | ||
| − 1.67 | 0.36 | − 4.61 | 0.29 | 0.08 | 0.64 | |||
| Relative reduction in seedling height | Intercept | − 0.99 | 0.18 | − 5.39 | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.35 | |
| − 0.53 | 0.17 | − 3.13 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.24 | |||
| − 0.15 | 0.17 | − 0.85 | 0.3957 | 0.24 | 0.18 | 0.31 | ||
| − 0.2 | 0.17 | − 1.17 | 0.2432 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.3 | ||
| Probability of terminal bud damage | Intercept | − 0.24 | 0.49 | − 0.48 | 0.628751 | 0.44 | 0.2 | 0.71 |
| − 1.22 | 0.34 | − 3.62 | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.42 | |||
| − 0.65 | 0.32 | − 2.04 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 0.56 | |||
| − 0.54 | 0.32 | − 1.71 | 0.087385 | 0.31 | 0.12 | 0.59 | ||
| Browsing intensity | Intercept | − 0.92 | 0.46 | − 1.99 | 0.28 | 0.11 | 0.54 | |
| − 0.6 | 0.14 | − 4.14 | 0.18 | 0.07 | 0.4 | |||
| 0.01 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.9566 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 0.55 | ||
| − 0.07 | 0.24 | − 0.27 | 0.7846 | 0.27 | 0.1 | 0.54 | ||
| Probability of defoliation | Intercept | − 2.15 | 0.44 | − 4.93 | 0.1 | 0.04 | 0.22 | |
| 2.41 | 0.39 | 6.25 | 0.56 | 0.36 | 0.75 | |||
| 1.31 | 0.39 | 3.41 | 0.3 | 0.15 | 0.5 | |||
| − 1.91 | 0.78 | − 2.45 | 0.017 | 0.002 | 0.06 | |||
| Probability of survival | Intercept | 2.53 | 0.52 | 4.84 | 0.93 | 0.81 | 0.98 | |
| 2.31 | 1.05 | 2.21 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 1 | |||
| − 0.33 | 0.47 | − 0.71 | 0.4753 | 0.9 | 0.76 | 0.97 | ||
| − 0.16 | 0.48 | − 0.33 | 0.74 | 0.91 | 0.79 | 0.98 | ||
We present the estimated value (Logit scale), standard error, z-value and their associated p value, and probability and lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval. Significant p values are highlighted in bold.
Figure 1Herbivory on four pine species with different invasiveness: C: P. contorta (high invasiveness), P: P. ponderosa and R: P. radiata (moderate invasiveness), and J: P. jeffreyi (low invasiveness). (a) Estimated probability of browsing incidence. (b) Relative reduction in seedling height. (c) Estimated probability of a terminal bud being browsed. (d) Estimated probability of browsing intensity. (e) Estimated probability of a seedling being defoliated (only the needles damaged). (f) Estimated probability of seedling survival. Black point refers to the mean and black line to the median, whiskers correspond to SE. Different letters above boxplots indicate significant differences (Scheffe method).
Figure 2Chemical compounds and physical traits of four pine species with different invasiveness: C: P. contorta (high invasiveness), P: P. ponderosa and R: P. radiata (moderate invasiveness), and J: P. jeffreyi (low invasiveness). (a) α-pinene, (b) Toughness, (c) Water content, (d) Total monoterpenes, (e) β-pinene, (f) 3-carene, (g) β-phellandrene, (h) non-volatile resins. Black point refers to the mean and black line to the median, whiskers correspond to SE. Different letters above boxplots indicate significant differences. Data of total monoterpenes, α-pinene β-pinene, β-phellandrene, 3-carene, and toughness was taken from the needles and data of non-volatile resins content and water content was taken from branches and needles together.
Mean concentration of totals Monoterpenes in four invasive species of pine and results of ANOVA.
| Mean concentration per species | ANOVA results | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | |||||||
| Total monoterpenes (μL/g) | 4.51 | 5.72 | 1.73 | 4.45 | 29.35 | 3 | |
Mean concentration of chemical anti-herbivory compounds in four invasive species of pine and results of Kruskal–Wallis test.
| Mean concentration per species | Kruskal–Wallis test results | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X2 | |||||||
| β-Pinene (μL/g) | 1.81 | 2.7 | 1.06 | 1.26 | 36.52 | 3 | |
| β-Phellandrene (μL/g) | 1.94 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 47.61 | 3 | |
| 3-Carene (μL/g) | 0.30 | 1.94 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 56.83 | 3 | |
| Non-volatile resins (mg/g DW) | 25.33 | 72.72 | 12.8 | 25.73 | 46.87 | 3 | |
Results of models that assess the probability of a terminal bud being browsed in relation to chemical compounds and physical traits of pine seedlings.
| Model | Coefficients | Estimate | SE | Z value | 95% CI | Pr(>|z|) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| M1 | α (Intercept) | − 0.67 | 0.18 | − 3.63 | − 1.15 | − 0.21 | |
| β1 (total monoterpenes) | − 0.08 | 0.36 | − 0.21 | − 1.00 | 0.82 | 0.833 | |
| β2 (resins) | 0.07 | 0.36 | 0.18 | − 0.83 | 1.00 | 0.854 | |
| M2 | α (Intercept) | − 0.68 | 0.11 | − 6.27 | − 0.89 | − 0.47 | |
| β1 (α-pinene) | − 0.34 | 0.12 | − 2.91 | − 0.57 | − 0.12 | ||
| M3 | α (Intercept) | − 0.67 | 0.13 | − 5.20 | − 1.00 | − 0.36 | |
| β1 (toughness) | − 0.19 | 0.15 | − 1.29 | − 0.56 | 0.18 | 0.197 | |
| β2 (water) | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.85 | − 0.24 | 0.51 | 0.397 | |
We present the estimated value (Logit scale), standard error, z-value and their associated p value, and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval. Significant p values are highlighted in bold. M1: Results of the model that assess the probability of a terminal bud being browsed in relation to total monoterpenes and total resins concentration. α is the baseline probability, β1 is the regression coefficient that represents the effects of totals monoterpenes; β2 is the regression coefficient that represents the effects of totals resin content. M2: Results of the model that assess the probability of a terminal bud being browsed in relation to α-pinene concentration. α is the baseline probability, β1 is the regression coefficient that represents the effects of α-pinene concentration. M3: Results of the model that assess the probability of a terminal bud being browsed in relation to foliar toughness and water content. α is the baseline probability, β1 is the regression coefficient that represents the effects of foliar toughness; β2 is the regression coefficient that represents the effects of water content.
Results of models that assess the browsing intensity in relation to chemical compounds and physical traits of pine seedlings.
| Model | Coefficients | Estimate | SE | Z value | 95% CI | Pr(>|z|) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| M1 | α (Intercept) | − 0.87 | 0.14 | − 6.09 | − 1.23 | − 0.53 | |
| β1 (total monoterpenes) | − 0.19 | 0.29 | − 0.68 | − 0.89 | 0.50 | 0.497 | |
| β2 (resins) | 0.25 | 0.27 | 0.91 | − 0.43 | 0.93 | 0.362 | |
| M2 | α (Intercept) | − 0.84 | 0.05 | − 14.24 | − 0.96 | − 0.73 | |
| β1 (α-pinene) | − 0.29 | 0.05 | − 5.71 | − 0.40 | − 0.20 | ||
| M3 | α (Intercept) | − 0.81 | 0.06 | − 13.28 | − 0.93 | − 0.69 | |
| β1 (toughness) | − 0.16 | 0.08 | − 1.98 | − 0.33 | 0.00 | ||
| β2 (water) | 0.19 | 0.07 | 2.61 | 0.05 | 0.33 | ||
We present the estimated value (Logit scale), standard error, z-value and their associated p value, and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval. Significant p values are highlighted in bold. M1: Results of the model that assess the probability of browsing intensity in relation to total monoterpenes and total resins concentration. α is the baseline probability, β1 is the regression coefficient that represents the effects of totals monoterpenes; β2 is the regression coefficient that represents the effects of totals resin content. M2: Results of the model that assess the probability of browsing intensity in relation to α-pinene concentration. α is the baseline probability, β1 is the regression coefficient that represents the effects of α-pinene concentration. M3: Results of the model that assess the probability of browsing intensity in relation to foliar toughness and water content. α is the baseline probability, β1 is the regression coefficient that represents the effects of foliar toughness; β2 is the regression coefficient that represents the effects of water content.