Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-mkrr2 Total loading time: 0.266 Render date: 2021-04-11T13:55:31.406Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Differential effects of defoliation by mopane caterpillars and pruning by African elephants on the regrowth of Colophospermum mopane foliage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Halszka Hrabar
Affiliation:
Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
Dawood Hattas
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, 7701, Cape Town, South Africa
Johan T. du Toit
Affiliation:
Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract:

Plant responses to herbivory vary depending on herbivory type, yet the comparative effects of defoliation (e.g. by insects) and pruning (e.g. by large mammals) on a single tree species are poorly documented. We investigated this in the Northern Province of South Africa by comparing the regrowth of Colophospermum mopane trees previously defoliated by caterpillars or pruned by elephants, the two main browsers of C. mopane foliage. Shoots were up to 160% and 125% longer after natural (elephant) and simulated pruning and leaves ~25% longer in regrowth after natural pruning (n = 13–15 trees per treatment). Shoot density and chemical defences in leaves (tannin:protein ratio and total polyphenolic concentration) were, however, no different from control trees. Simulated defoliation resulted in statistically insignificant changes to regrowth in terms of leaf and shoot size (both slightly decreased) and shoot density (slightly increased). Natural (caterpillar) defoliation, however, resulted in regrowth with significantly decreased shoot and leaf size (about 50% and 20% of control lengths, respectively), as well as decreased leaf chemical defence. Shoot and leaf length were longer on trees flushing for the first time after pruning and late-season defoliation had a greater negative impact than mid-season defoliation. Despite the differences in regrowth characteristics after pruning and defoliation, mopane plants showed no apparent trade-off in investment between tolerance and resistance after either herbivory type, as neither regrowth nor chemical defence occurred at the expense of the other.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

ACOCKS, J. P. H. 1975. Veld types of South Africa. The Government Printer, Pretoria. 128 pp.Google Scholar
ALADOS, C. L., BARROSO, F. G. & GARCÍA, L. 1997. Effects of early season defoliation on above-ground growth of Anthyllis cytisoides, a Mediterranean browse species. Journal of Arid Environments 37:269283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ALBORN, H. T. & TURLINGS, T. C. J. 1997. An elicitor of plant volatiles from beet armyworm oral secretion. Science 276:945949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ANTTONEN, S., PIISPANEN, R., OVASKA, J., MUTIKAINEN, P., SARANPÄÄ, P. & VAPAAVUORI, E. 2002. Effects of defoliation on growth, biomass allocation, and wood properties of Betula pendula clones grown at different nutrient levels. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 32:498508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AOAC 1990. Official methods of analysis. (Fifteenth edition). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc., Arlington. 1230 pp.Google ScholarPubMed
BALDWIN, I. T. 1990. Herbivory simulations in ecological research. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:9193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BEN-SHAHAR, R. 1993. Patterns of elephant damage to vegetation in northern Botswana. Biological Conservation 65:249256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BERGMAN, M. 2002. Can saliva from moose, Alces alces, affect growth responses in the sallow, Salix caprea? Oikos 96:164168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BERGSTRÖM, R., SKARPE, C. & DANELL, K. 2000. Plant responses and herbivory following simulated browsing and stem cutting of Combretum apiculatum. Journal of Vegetation Science 11:409414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRYANT, J. P., HEITKÖNIG, I., KUROPAT, P. & OWEN-SMITH, N. 1991. Effects of severe defoliation on the long-term resistance to insect attack and on leaf chemistry in six woody species of the Southern African savanna. The American Naturalist 137:5063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAPIN, F. S. 1980. Nutrient allocation and responses to defoliation in tundra plants. Arctic and Alpine Research 12:553563.Google Scholar
COLEY, P. D., BRYANT, J. P. & CHAPIN, F. S. 1985. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DANELL, K., BERGSTRÖM, R. & EDENIUS, L. 1994. Effects of large mammalian browsers on architecture, biomass, and nutrients of woody plants. Journal of Mammalogy 75: 833844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DITLHOGO, M. K. 1996. Information on the biology and use of Imbrasia belina, and other edible moth species. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.Google Scholar
DUNCAN, A. J., HARTLEY, S. E. & IASON, G. R. 1998. The effects of previous browsing damage on the morphology and chemical composition of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) saplings and their subsequent susceptibility to browsing by red deer (Cervus elaphus). Forest Ecology and Management 103:5767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DU TOIT, J. T., BRYANT, J. P. & FRISBY, K. 1990. Regrowth and palatability of Acacia shoots following pruning by African savanna browsers. Ecology 71:149154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FEENY, P. 1970. Seasonal changes in oak leaf tannins and nutrients as a cause of spring feeding by winter moth caterpillars. Ecology 55:565581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FERREIRA, D., MARAIS, J. P. J. & SLADE, D. 2003. Phytochemistry of the mopane, Colophospermum mopane. Phytochemistry 64:3151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GADD, M. E., YOUNG, T. P. & PALMER, T. M. 2001. Effects of simulated shoot and leaf herbivory on vegetative growth and plant defence in Acacia drepanolobium. Oikos 92:515521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GASTON, K. J., CHOWN, S. L. & STYLES, C. V. 1997. Changing size and changing enemies: the case of the mopane worm. Acta Oecologica 18:2126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAGERMAN, A. E. 1995. Tannin handbook. Miami University, Ohio. 116 pp.Google Scholar
HENNING, A. C. & WHITE, R. E. 1974. A study of the growth and distribution of Colophospermum mopane (Kirk ex Benth.) Kirk ex J. Léon.: the interaction of nitrogen, phosphorus and soil moisture stress. Proceedings of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa 9:5360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HERMS, D. A. & MATTSON, W. J. 1992. The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. The Quarterly Review of Biology 67:283335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HJÄLTÉN, J. 2004. Simulating herbivory: problems and possibilities. Pp. 243256 in Weisser, W. W. & Siemann, E. (eds). Insects and ecosystem function. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
HOBBS, N. T. 1996. Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:695713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HRABAR, H. 2005. Indirect interactions between elephants (Loxodonta africana) and mopane caterpillars (Imbrasia belina) through their shared food resource – mopane trees (Colophospermum mopane). Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
KAITANIEMI, P., NEUVONEN, S. & NYYSSÖNEN, T. 1999. Effects of cumulative defoliation on growth, reproduction, and insect resistance in mountain birch. Ecology 80:524532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KATJIUA, M. L. J. & WARD, D. 2006. Resistance and tolerance of Terminalia sericea trees to simulated herbivore damage under different soil and moisture conditions. Journal of Chemical Ecology 32:14311443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KRAUSE, S. C. & RAFFA, K. F. 1996. Differential growth and recovery rates following defoliation in related deciduous and evergreen tress. Trees 10:308316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEHTILÄ, K., HAUKIOJA, E., KAITANIEMI, P. & LAINE, K. A. 2000. Allocation of resources within mountain birch canopy after simulated winter browsing. Oikos 90:160170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LENNARTSSON, T., NILSSON, P. & TUOMI, J. 1998. Induction of overcompensation in the field gentian, Gentianella campestris. Ecology 79:10611071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEWIS, D. M. 1986. Disturbance effects on elephant feeding: evidence for compression in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. African Journal of Ecology 24:227241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEWIS, D. M. 1991. Observations of tree growth, woodland structure and elephant damage on Colophospermum mopane in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. African Journal of Ecology 29:207221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MACGREGOR, S. D. & O'CONNOR, T. 2002. Patch dieback of Colophospermum mopane in a dysfunctional semi-arid savanna. Austral Ecology 27:385395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MASCHINSKI, J. & WHITHAM, T. G. 1989. The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability, and timing. The American Naturalist 134:119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCCLOUD, E. S. & BALDWIN, I. T. 1997. Herbivory and caterpillar regurgitants amplify the wound-induced increase in jasmonic acid but not nicotine in Nicotiana sylvestris. Planta 203:430435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MESSINA, F. J., DURHAM, S. L., RICHARDS, J. H. & MCARTHUR, E. D. 2002. Trade-off between plant growth and defence? A comparison of sagebrush populations. Oecologia 131:4351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NOWAK, R. S. & CALDWELL, M. M. 1984. A test for compensatory photosynthesis in the field: Implications for herbivory tolerance. Oecologia 61:311318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PICKER, M., GRIFFITHS, C. & WEAVING, A. 2002. Field guide to insects of South Africa. Struik Publishers, South Africa. 444 pp.Google Scholar
PIENE, H., MACLEAN, D. A. & LANDRY, M. 2003. Spruce budworm defoliation and growth loss in young balsam fir: relationships between volume growth and foliage weight in spaced and unspaced, defoliated and protected stands. Forest Ecology and Management 179:3753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PINHEY, E. C. G. 1972. Emperor moths of South and Central Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 150 pp.Google Scholar
REYNOLDS, B. C. & HUNTER, M. D. 2001. Responses of soil respiration, soil nutrients, and litter decomposition to inputs from canopy herbivores. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33:16411652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROOKE, T. 2003. Growth responses of a woody species to clipping and goat saliva. African Journal of Ecology 41:324328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROOKE, T. & BERGSTRÖM, R. 2007. Growth, chemical responses and herbivory after simulated leaf browsing in Combretum apiculatum. Plant Ecology 189:201212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SMALLIE, J. J. & O'CONNOR, T. G. 2000. Elephant utilization of Colophospermum mopane: possible benefits of hedging. African Journal of Ecology 38:352359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SMIT, G. N. & RETHMAN, N. F. G. 1998. Root biomass, depth distribution and relations with leaf biomass of Colophospermum mopane. South African Journal of Botany 64:3843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STOWE, K. A., MARQUIS, R. J., HOCHWENDER, C. G. & SIMMS, E. L. 2000. The evolution of tolerance to consumer damage. Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 31:565595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STRAUSS, S. Y. 1991. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of three native herbivores on a shared host plant. Ecology 72:543558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TIFFIN, P. 2002. Competition and time of damage affect the pattern of selection acting on plant defence against herbivores. Ecology 83:19811990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TIFFIN, P. & INOUYE, B. D. 2000. Measuring tolerance to herbivory: accuracy and precision of estimates made using natural versus imposed damage. Evolution 54:10241029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TIMBERLAKE, J. R. 1995. Colophospermum mopane: annotated bibliography and review. Zimbabwe Bulletin of Forestry Research 11:149.Google Scholar
ZAR, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. (Fourth edition). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 663 pp.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 45 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 11th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Differential effects of defoliation by mopane caterpillars and pruning by African elephants on the regrowth of Colophospermum mopane foliage
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Differential effects of defoliation by mopane caterpillars and pruning by African elephants on the regrowth of Colophospermum mopane foliage
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Differential effects of defoliation by mopane caterpillars and pruning by African elephants on the regrowth of Colophospermum mopane foliage
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *