4.0 Article

Nitrogen-fixing and non-fixing trees differ in leaf chemistry and defence but not herbivory in a lowland Costa Rican rain forest

Journal

JOURNAL OF TROPICAL ECOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 270-279

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266467419000233

Keywords

Chemical leaf defence; herbivory; Inga; leaf toughness; nitrogen fixation; Pentaclethra

Categories

Funding

  1. La Selva Biological Station
  2. Organization for Tropical Studies
  3. U.S. National Science Foundation's REU programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nitrogen-fixing plants provide critical nitrogen inputs that support the high productivity of tropical forests, but our understanding of the ecology of nitrogen fixers - and especially their interactions with herbivores - remains incomplete. Herbivores may interact differently with nitrogen fixers vs. non-fixers due to differences in leaf nitrogen content and herbivore defence strategies. To examine these potential differences, our study compared leaf carbon, nitrogen, toughness, chemical defence and herbivory for four nitrogen-fixing tree species (Inga oerstediana, Inga sapindoides, Inga thibaudiana and Pentaclethra macroloba) and three non-fixing species (Anaxagorea crassipetala, Casearia arborea and Dipteryx panamensis) in a lowland tropical rain forest. Leaf chemical defence, not nutritional content, was the primary driver of herbivore damage among our species. Even though nitrogen fixers exhibited 21.1% higher leaf nitrogen content, 20.1% lower C:N ratios and 15.4% lower leaf toughness than non-fixers, we found no differences in herbivory or chemical defence between these two plant groups. Our results do not support the common hypotheses that nitrogen fixers experience preferential herbivory or that they produce more nitrogen-rich defensive compounds than non-fixers. Rather, these findings suggest strong species-specific differences in plant-herbivore relationships among both nitrogen-fixing and non-fixing tropical trees.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available