Defence plasticity in the spiny plant Aralia elata (Miq.) Seem. in response to light and soil fertility.
Architectural defence
light
nitrogen
phenols
phosphorus
Journal
Annals of botany
ISSN: 1095-8290
Titre abrégé: Ann Bot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372347
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 08 2023
25 08 2023
Historique:
received:
12
09
2022
accepted:
14
12
2022
pmc-release:
26
12
2023
medline:
28
8
2023
pubmed:
27
12
2022
entrez:
26
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Plants have evolved various defences against herbivores, including direct chemical and structural defences and co-opted biological defences by predatory insects. However, the effects of abiotic habitat conditions on the quantitative expression of defence traits of spiny species have not been elucidated. Here, we investigated whether a spiny deciduous tree, Aralia elata (Miq.) Seem., changes its defence expression across light and nutrient gradients. We measured allocation to spines and C-based secondary metabolites (condensed tannins and total phenols) on A. elata plants growing across light and nutrient gradients in situ in natural landscapes in Japan. Second, we examined the effects of light and soil nutrient condition on allocation to shoot organs, spines and chemical defences of juveniles of two genotypes of the species, respectively spiny (mainland population) and non-spiny (island population), grown in a glasshouse. In the field investigation, absolute spine mass, spine mass fraction, total phenols and condensed tannins all responded positively to canopy openness. Total phenol content was also negatively related to soil N. In the glasshouse, spiny genotype individuals had less total biomass, had lower stem allocation and were shorter than non-spiny genotype individuals. In spiny genotype trees, both spine mass fraction and total phenols decreased under low light conditions. Nutrient additions had negative effects on spine mass fraction and total phenols, but no effect on absolute spine mass. These results suggest that development of spines is costly for A. elata and receives greater allocation when carbohydrate supply is more plentiful. Thus, light is a more important determinant of spine allocation than soil nutrients for A. elata.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Plants have evolved various defences against herbivores, including direct chemical and structural defences and co-opted biological defences by predatory insects. However, the effects of abiotic habitat conditions on the quantitative expression of defence traits of spiny species have not been elucidated.
METHODS
Here, we investigated whether a spiny deciduous tree, Aralia elata (Miq.) Seem., changes its defence expression across light and nutrient gradients. We measured allocation to spines and C-based secondary metabolites (condensed tannins and total phenols) on A. elata plants growing across light and nutrient gradients in situ in natural landscapes in Japan. Second, we examined the effects of light and soil nutrient condition on allocation to shoot organs, spines and chemical defences of juveniles of two genotypes of the species, respectively spiny (mainland population) and non-spiny (island population), grown in a glasshouse.
KEY RESULTS
In the field investigation, absolute spine mass, spine mass fraction, total phenols and condensed tannins all responded positively to canopy openness. Total phenol content was also negatively related to soil N. In the glasshouse, spiny genotype individuals had less total biomass, had lower stem allocation and were shorter than non-spiny genotype individuals. In spiny genotype trees, both spine mass fraction and total phenols decreased under low light conditions. Nutrient additions had negative effects on spine mass fraction and total phenols, but no effect on absolute spine mass.
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that development of spines is costly for A. elata and receives greater allocation when carbohydrate supply is more plentiful. Thus, light is a more important determinant of spine allocation than soil nutrients for A. elata.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36567607
pii: 6960778
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcac152
pmc: PMC10457031
doi:
Substances chimiques
Soil
0
Proanthocyanidins
0
Phenols
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1073-1080Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Plant Res. 2012 Jan;125(1):71-6
pubmed: 21331791
Plant Divers. 2020 Mar 19;42(2):83-91
pubmed: 32373766
Q Rev Biol. 2003 Mar;78(1):23-55
pubmed: 12661508
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22184
pubmed: 21811571
Oecologia. 1995 Oct;104(2):189-206
pubmed: 28307356
Science. 1985 Nov 22;230(4728):895-9
pubmed: 17739203
Planta Med. 1989 Feb;55(1):55-8
pubmed: 17262254
Oecologia. 1991 Mar;86(1):70-75
pubmed: 28313160
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Sep 20;113(38):E5572-9
pubmed: 27601649
Biol Lett. 2017 May;13(5):
pubmed: 28490447
R Soc Open Sci. 2018 Aug 15;5(8):180676
pubmed: 30225063
Am Nat. 2008 Nov;172(5):635-47
pubmed: 18840070
Ann Bot. 2020 Jan 6;124(7):1133-1142
pubmed: 31560757
J Chem Ecol. 1987 May;13(5):1243-59
pubmed: 24302146
New Phytol. 2016 Apr;210(1):71-5
pubmed: 26414800
Ann Bot. 2013 Aug;112(3):575-87
pubmed: 23877001
Mol Plant. 2014 Aug;7(8):1267-1287
pubmed: 24777989
Ann Bot. 2010 Jul;106(1):143-8
pubmed: 20472698
Oecologia. 1986 Sep;68(3):446-455
pubmed: 28311793