4.4 Article

White-Tailed Deer Alter Specialist and Generalist Insect Herbivory Through Plant Traits

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 1409-1416

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/EN12094

关键词

indirect interactions; induced defenses; leaf traits; terpenes; vertebrate herbivory

资金

  1. NSF REU [NSF-DBI 0851303]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences
  3. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [0851303] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Within a plant species, leaf traits can vary across environmental, genetic, spatial, and temporal gradients, even showing drastic differences within individuals. Herbivory can also induce variation in leaf morphology, defensive structure, and chemistry including nutritional content. Indirect effects of prior insect herbivory on later herbivores have been well documented, but the induction of trait changes after vertebrate herbivory has been little explored. Here, we examined how browsing of spicebush (Lindera benzoin L.), a dominant understory shrub in eastern mesic forests, by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus L.) altered plant quality and subsequent foliar herbivory by insects. Browsing history explained approximate to 10% of overall leaf trait variation; regenerated leaves had greater water content and specific leaf area (P = 0.009), but were lower in nitrogen and greater in carbon (P = 0.001), than leaves on unbrowsed plants. However, browsing did not shift terpene chemistry as revealed by GC-MS. In the lab, caterpillars of the specialist spicebush swallowtail (Papilio troilus L.) preferred (P = 0.02) and grew 20% faster (P = 0.02) on foliage from browsed plants; whereas total herbivory in the field, including generalist insect herbivory, was twice as high on unbrowsed plants (P = 0.016). These results suggest that the ecological impacts of deer in forest understories can have cascading impacts on arthropod communities by changing the suitability of host-plants to insect herbivores.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据