4.6 Article

Herbivore exclusion drives the evolution of plant competitiveness via increased allelopathy

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 198, Issue 3, Pages 916-924

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.12172

Keywords

allelopathy; artificial selection; cis-dehydromatricaria ester; evolution; Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) hypothesis; herbivory; inter- and intra-specific competition; Solidago altissima

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (USA) [NSF-IOS 0950225]
  2. Cornell University
  3. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [0950225] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA)' hypothesis predicts the evolution of plant invasiveness in introduced ranges when plants escape from their natural enemies. So far, the EICA hypothesis has been tested by comparing plant vigor from native and invasive populations, but these studies are confounded by among-population differences in additional environmental factors and/or founder effects. We tested the major prediction of EICA by comparing the competitive ability (CA) of Solidago altissima plants originating from artificial selection plots in which we manipulated directly the exposure to above-ground herbivores. In a common garden experiment, we found an increase in inter-specific, but not intra-specific, CA in clones from herbivore exclusion plots relative to control plots. The evolutionary increase in inter-specific CA coincided with the increased production of polyacetylenes, whose major constituent was allelopathic against a heterospecific competitor, Poa pratensis, but not against conspecifics. Our results provide direct evidence that release from herbivory alone can lead to an evolutionary increase in inter-specific CA, which is likely to be mediated by the increased production of allelopathic compounds in S.altissima.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available