Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Plant age and the inducibility of extrafloral nectaries in Vicia faba

  • Published:
Plant Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Insect herbivory imposes a strong selection pressure on plants. As a result, plants have evolved a wide array of defences, including resistance traits that help them reduce the negative impact of herbivores. Along one axis of variation, these traits can be divided into direct resistance (physical and chemical defences) and indirect resistance (the recruitment of natural enemies of the herbivore via extrafloral nectar and other incentives). Along a second axis of variation, resistance can be split into constitutive resistance, which is always present, and induced resistance, which is expressed more strongly following damage to plant tissues. Interestingly, the strength and efficacy of all of constitutive-direct, constitutive-indirect, induced-direct, and induced-indirect resistance can vary with plant age and ontological stage. Here, we examine the effect of plant age on an induced-indirect resistance trait, the deployment of extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) to attract pugnacious ants, in a short-lived annual, broad bean (Vicia faba L.). We demonstrate that in severely damaged plants, the induction of EFNs is greater in older plants (5–6 weeks) than in younger plants (2–4 weeks); however, in more moderately damaged plants, the induction of EFNs is unaffected by plant age. This suggests the hypothesis that a plant’s ability to induce extrafloral nectar, and therefore recruit more ant “bodyguards,” may be related to the interaction of plant age and severity of damage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal AA (1998) Induced responses to herbivory and increased plant performance. Science 279:1201–1202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal AA, Rutter MT (1998) Dynamic anti-herbivore defense in ant-plants: the role of induced responses. Oikos 83:227–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akiyama R, Ågren J (2012) Magnitude and timing of leaf damage affect seed production in a natural population of Arabidopsis thaliana (Brassicaceae). PLoS ONE 7:e30015

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arimura G, Kost C, Boland W (2005) Herbivore-induced, indirect plant defences. Biochim Biophys Acta 1734:91–111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Axelsson EP, Hjältén J, Whitham TG, Julkenen-Tiitto R, Pilate G, Wennström A (2011) Leaf ontogeny interacts with Bt modification to affect innate resistance in GM aspens. Chemoecology 21:161–169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres MP, Clausen TP, MacLean SF Jr, Redman AM, Reichardt PB (1997) Diversity of structure and antiherbivore activity in condensed tannins. Ecology 78:1696–1712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton KE, Koricheva J (2010) The ontogeny of plant defense and herbivory: characterizing general patterns using meta-analysis. Am Nat 175:481–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beattie AJ (1985) The evolutionary ecology of ant-plant mutualisms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beattie AJ, Hughes L (2002) Ant-plant interactions. In: Herrera CM, Pellmyr O (eds) Plant–animal interactions. Blackwell Sciences, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Belsky AJ (1986) Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. Am Nat 127:870–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley BL (1977) Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 8:407–427

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bergelson J, Purrington CB (1996) Surveying patterns of in the costs of resistance in plants. Am Nat 148:536–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boege K (2005) Influence of plant ontogeny on compensation to leaf damage. Am J Bot 92:1632–1640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boege K, Marquis RJ (2005) Facing herbivory as you grow up: the ontogeny of resistance in plants. Trends Ecol Evol 20:441–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boege K, Dirzo R, Siemens D, Brown P (2007) Ontogenic switches from plant resistance to tolerance: minimizing costs with age? Ecol Lett 10:177–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boege K, Barton KE, Dirzo R (2011) Influence of tree ontogeny on plant-herbivore interactions. In: Meinzer FC, Lachenbruch B, Dawson TE (eds) Size and age-related changes in tree structure and function, tree physiology, vol 4. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Broekgaarden C, Riviere P, Steenhuis G, del sol Cuenca M, Kos M, Vosman B (2012) Phloem-specific resistance in Brassica oleracea against the whitefly Aleyrodes proletella. Entomol Exp Appl 142:153–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg RL, Ellis RT (1990) Insects associated with cover crops in Massachusetts. Biol Agric Hortic 7:47–68

    Google Scholar 

  • da Costa FV, de Siqueira Neves F, de Oliveira Silva J, Faugundes M (2011) Relationship between plant development, tannin concentration and insects associated with Copaifera langsdorffii (Fabaceae). Arthropod–Plant Interact 5:9–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke JA (1981) Handbook of legumes of world economic importance. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elger A, Lemoine DG, Fenner M, Hanley ME (2009) Plant ontogeny and chemical defence: older seedlings are better defended. Oikos 118:767–773

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ellias TS (1983) Extrafloral nectaries: their structure and distribution. In: Bently BL, Elias TS (eds) The biology of nectaries. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel V, Fischer MK, Wäckers FL, Völkl W (2001) Interactions between extrafloral nectaries, aphids and ants: are there competition effects between plant and homopteran sugar sources? Oecologia 129:577–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowda JH (1997) Physical and chemical response of juvenile Acacia tortilis trees to browsing: experimental evidence. Funct Ecol 11:106–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulmon SL, Mooney HA (1986) Costs of defence and their effects on plant productivity. In: Givnish TJ (ed) On the economy of plant form and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley ME, Lamont BB, Fairbanks MM, Rafferty CM (2007) Plant structural traits and their role in anti-herbivore defence. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 8:157–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare JD (2010) Ontogeny and season constrain the production of herbivore-inducible plant volatiles in the field. J Chem Ecol 36:1363–1374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heil M (2008) Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytol 178:41–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heil M (2010) Plastic defence expression in plants. Evol Ecol 24:555–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heil M, Fiala B, Baumann B, Linsenmair KE (2000) Temporal, spatial and biotic variations in extrafloral nectar secretion by Macaranga tanarius. Funct Ecol 14:749–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heil M, Baumann B, Kruger R, Linsenmair KE (2004a) Main nutrient compounds in food bodies of Mexican Acacia ant-plants. Cheomoecology 14:45–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heil M, Feil D, Hilpert A, Linsenmair KE (2004b) Spatiotemporal patterns in indirect defence of a South-East Asian ant-plant support the optimal defence hypothesis. J Trop Ecol 20:573–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hódor JA, Zamora R, Castro J, Gómez JM, García D (2008) Biomass allocation and growth responses of Scots pine saplings to simulated herbivory depend on plant age and light availability. Plant Ecol 197:229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juenger T, Lennartsson T (2000) Tolerance in plant ecology and evolution: toward a more unified theory of plant–herbivore interaction. Evol Ecol 14:283–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Myers JH (1989) Induced plant responses to herbivory. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:331–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katayama N, Suzuki N (2004) Role of extrafloral nectaries of Vicia faba in attraction of ants and herbivore exclusion by ants. Entomol Sci 7:119–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koptur S (1989) Is extrafloral nectar production an inducible defense? In: Bock JH, Linhart YB (eds) The evolutionary ecology of plants. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Koptur S (1992) Interactions between insects and plants mediated by extrafloral nectaries. In: Bernays E (ed) Insect plant interactions. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird RA, Addicott JF (2007) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduce the construction of extrafloral nectaries in Vicia faba. Oecologia 152:541–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mondor EB, Addicott JF (2003) Conspicuous extra-floral nectaries are inducible in Vicia faba. Ecol Lett 6:495–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondor EB, Tremblay MN, Messing RH (2006) Extrafloral nectary phenotypic plasticity is damage- and resource-dependent in Vicia faba. Biol Lett 2:583–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ness JH (2003) Catalpa bignonioides alters extrafloral nectar production after herbivory and attracts ant bodyguards. Oecologia 134:210–218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez-Farfán J, Fornoni J, Valverde PL (2007) The evolution of resistance and tolerance to herbivores. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:541–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldham M, Ransom CV, Ralphs MH, Gardner DR (2011) Galegine content in goatsrue (Galega officinalis) varies by plant part and phenological growth stage. Weed Sci 59:349–352

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pare PW, Tumlinson JH (1999) Plant volatiles as a defense against insect herbivores. Plant Physiol 121:325–332

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Quintero C, Bowers MD (2011) Plant induced defences depend more on plant age than previous history of damage: implications for plant-herbivore interactions. J Chem Ecol 37:992–1001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Quintero C, Bowers MD (2012) Changes in plant chemical defenses and nutritional quality as a function of ontogeny in Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae). Oecologia 168:471–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Radhika V, Kost C, Bartram S, Heil M, Boland W (2008) Testing the optimal defence hypothesis for two indirect defences: extrafloral nectar and volatile organic compounds. Planta 228:449–457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rausher MD (2001) Co-evolution and plant resistance to natural enemies. Nature 411:857–864

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Romero GQ, Izzo TJ (2004) Leaf damage induces ant recruitment in the Amazonian ant-plant Hirtella myrmecophila. J Trop Ecol 20:675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rostás M, Eggert K (2008) Ontogenetic and spatio-temporal patterns of induced volatiles in Glycine max in the light of the optimal defence hypothesis. Chemoecology 18:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos JC, Fernandes GW (2010) Mediation of herbivore attack and induced resistance by plant vigor and ontogeny. Acta Oecol 36:617–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilmiller AL, Howe GA (2005) Systemic signalling in the wound response. Curr Opin Plant Biol 8:369–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shiojiri K, Karban R, Ishizaki S (2011) Plant age, seasonality, and plant communication in sagebrush. J Plant Interact 6:85–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss SY, Zangerl AR (2002) Plant–insect interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Herrera CM, Pellmyr O (eds) Plant–animal interactions. Blackwell Sciences, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss SY, Rudgers JA, Lau JA, Irwin RE (2002) Direct and ecological costs of resistance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 17:278–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker C, Avila-Sakar G (2010) Ontogenetic changes in tolerance to herbivory in Arabidopsis. Oecologia 164:1005–1015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wäckers FL, Bezemer TM (2003) Root herbivory induces an above-ground indirect defence. Ecol Lett 6:9–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walling LL (2000) The myriad plant responses to herbivores. J Plant Growth Regul 19:195–216

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Patrick Barks, Vincent Hervet, R. J. Murphy, three anonymous reviewers, and the associate editor for their valuable comments on the manuscript. Funding for this project was provided by a University of Lethbridge Research Start-up Grant (RL), a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada) Discovery Grant (RL), and a University of Lethbridge Luke Stebbins Symposium award (KK).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, T1K 3M4, Canada

    Kevin E. Kwok & Robert A. Laird

Authors
  1. Kevin E. Kwok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert A. Laird
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert A. Laird.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kwok, K.E., Laird, R.A. Plant age and the inducibility of extrafloral nectaries in Vicia faba . Plant Ecol 213, 1823–1832 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-012-0138-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-012-0138-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation