Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T21:29:10.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Seedling herbivory and the temporal niche

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2013

Mick E. Hanley
Affiliation:
University of Plymouth
Rebecca J. Sykes
Affiliation:
Ecological Planning & Research Ltd
Colleen K. Kelly
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Michael G. Bowler
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Gordon A. Fox
Affiliation:
University of South Florida
Get access

Summary

Seedlings and the temporal niche

The facilitation of plant coexistence via temporal variation in plant recruitment is increasingly studied (see this volume plus Pake and Venable 1996, Chesson and Huntly 1997, Kelly and Bowler 2002, Verhulst et al. 2008). For the most part however, corroborating studies have examined fluctuations in abiotic factors and the role of biotic agents has been largely overlooked. This omission is symptomatic of the plant coexistence literature in general; the role of predators, herbivores, pathogens and parasites in maintaining species coexistence is more often assumed than demonstrated (but see Kelly and Bowler 2009a). Nonetheless, while a number of agents, biotic and abiotic, result in the death of entire seedling cohorts, foremost among the factors limiting seedling recruitment is herbivory (Moles and Westoby 2004, Fenner and Thompson 2005). Herbivore attack has obvious effects on seedling demography (Lindquist and Carroll 2004, Maron and Crone 2006, Maron and Kauffman 2006), but even beyond population-level considerations, selective seedling removal also exerts long-lasting effects on plant community composition. We propose that temporal fluctuation in herbivore populations, and consequently variation in the intensity of herbivory experienced by plants during their regeneration phase, exerts a powerful influence over plant species contribution to the established community.

There are four necessary conditions of any temporal dynamic involving herbivory. First, seedling herbivores must be capable of moderating plant community composition in established vegetation. Second, herbivores should select preferred seedlings on the basis of readily apparent ecophysiological characteristics. Third, and related to the previous assumption, any variation in seedling susceptibility to herbivore attack (i.e. defensive traits) will most probably correlate with competitive ability. Finally, herbivore populations must show fluctuations in numbers and therefore variation in their influence on regenerating plants. Consequently, before it is possible to develop any conceptual framework to explain how temporal variation in seedling herbivory influences species coexistence, we must first evaluate the evidence for these conditions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aars, J. and Ims, R.A. (2002). Intrinsic and climatic determinants of population demography: the winter dynamics of tundra voles. Ecology 83, 3449–3456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. A. and Fishbein, M. (2006). Plant defense syndromes. Ecology 87, S132–S149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asquith, N. M. and Mejia-Chang, M. (2005). Mammals, edge effects, and the loss of tropical forest diversity. Ecology 86, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, H. F. and Weil, J. W. (1944). Slugs in gardens: their numbers, activities and distribution: Part I. Journal of Animal Ecology 13, 140–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, K. E. (2007). Early ontogenetic patterns in chemical defense in Plantago (Plantaginaceae): genetic variation and trade-offs. American Journal of Botany 94, 56–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barton, K. E. and Koricheva, J. (2010). The ontogeny of plant defense and herbivory: characterizing general patterns using meta-analysis. American Naturalist 175, 481–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergelson, J. and Purrington, C. B. (1996). Surveying patterns in the cost of resistance in plants. American Naturalist 148, 536–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierman, S. M., Fairbairn, J. P., Petty, S. J. et al. (2006). Changes over time in the spatiotemporal dynamics of cyclic populations of field voles (Microtus agrestis L.). American Naturalist 167, 583–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boege, K. and Marquis, R. J. (2005). Facing herbivory as you grow up: the ontogeny of resistance in plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20, 441–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryant, J. P., Clausen, T. P., Swihart, R. K. et al. (2009). Fire drives transcontinental variation in tree birch defense against browsing by snowshoe hares. American Naturalist 174, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burt-Smith, G. S., Grime, J. P. and Tilman, D. (2003). Seedling resistance to herbivory as a predictor of relative abundance in a synthesised prairie community. Oikos 101, 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buschmann, H., Keller, M., Porret, N., Dietz, H. and Edwards, P.J. (2005). The effect of slug grazing on vegetation development and plant species diversity in an experimental grassland. Functional Ecology 19, 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesson, P. and Huntly, N. (1997). The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. American Naturalist 150, 519–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawley, M. J. (1997). Plant-herbivore dynamics. In Crawley, M. J. (ed.), Plant Ecology, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 401–474.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. R. (1859). The Origin of Species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Elger, A., Lemoine, D. G., Fenner, M. and Hanley, M. E. (2009). Plant ontogeny and chemical defence: older seedlings are better defended. Oikos 118, 767–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elton, C. R. (1924). Periodic fluctuations in the numbers of animals: their causes and effects. British Journal of Experimental Biology 2, 119–163.Google Scholar
Elton, C. R. (1927). Animal Ecology. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.Google Scholar
Fenner, M., Hanley, M. E. and Lawrence, R. (1999). Comparison of seedling and adult palatability in annual and perennial plants. Functional Ecology 13, 546–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, M. and Thompson, K. (2005). The Ecology of Seeds, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, P. V. A., Miller, Z. J., Mesones, I. et al. (2006). The growth defense trade-off and habitat specialization by plants in Amazonian forests. Ecology 87, S150–S162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gause, G. F. (1932). Experimental studies on the struggle for existence. I. Mixed population of two species of yeast. Journal of Experimental Biology 9, 389–402.Google Scholar
Glynn, C., Herms, D. A., Orians, C. M., Hansen, R. C. and Larsson, S. (2007). Testing the growth differentiation balance hypothesis: dynamic responses of willows to nutrient availability. New Phytologist 176, 623–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, P.T., Lake, P. S. and O’Dowd, D. J. (1997). Control of seedling recruitment by land crabs in rain forest on a remote island. Ecology 78, 2474–2486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P. T., O’Dowd, D. J. and Lake, P. S. (2008). Recruitment dynamics in a rainforest seedling community: context-independent impact of a keystone consumer. Oecologia 156, 737–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P., Thompson, K., Hunt, R. et al. (1997). Integrated screening validates primary axes of specialisation in plants. Oikos 79, 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, M. E. (2004). Seedling herbivory and the influence of plant species richness in seedling neighbourhoods. Plant Ecology 170, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, M. E., Collins, S. A. and Swann, C. (2011). Advertising acceptability: is mollusk olfaction important in seedling selection? Plant Ecology 212, 727–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, M. E., Cordier, P. K., May, O. C. and Kelly, C. K. (2007a). Seed size and seedling growth: differential response of Australian and British Fabaceae to nutrient limitation. New Phytologist 174, 381–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanley, M. E. and Fegan, E. L. (2007). Timing of cotyledon damage affects growth and flowering in mature plants. Plant, Cell and Environment 30, 812–819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanley, M. E., Fenner, M. and Edwards, P. J. (1995a). An experimental field study of the effects of mollusc grazing on seedling recruitment and survival in grassland. Journal of Ecology 83, 621–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, M. E., Fenner, M. and Edwards, P. J. (1995b). The effect of seedling age on the likelihood of herbivory by the slugDeroceras reticulatum. Functional Ecology 9, 754–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, M. E., Fenner, M. and Edwards, P. J. (1996a). The effect of mollusc grazing on seedling recruitment in artificially created grassland gaps. Oecologia 106, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanley, M. E., Fenner, M. and Edwards, P. J. (1996b). Mollusc grazing and seedling survivorship of four common grassland species: the role of gap size, species and season. Acta Oecologica 17, 331–341.Google Scholar
Hanley, M. E., Fenner, M., Whibley, H. and Darvil, B. (2004). Early plant growth: identifying the end point of the seedling phase. New Phytologist 163, 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, M. E. and Lamont, B. B. (2001). Herbivory, serotiny and seedling defence in Western Australian Proteaceae species. Oecologia 126, 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, M. E. and Lamont, B. B. (2002). Relationships between physical and chemical attributes of seedlings: how important is seedling defence? Functional Ecology 16, 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, M. E., Lamont, B. B., Fairbanks, M. M. and Rafferty, C. M. (2007b). Plant structural traits and their role in anti-herbivore defence. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 8, 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, M. E. and May, O. C. (2006). Cotyledon damage at the seedling stage affects growth and flowering potential in mature plants. New Phytologist 169, 243–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanley, M. E. and Sykes, R. J. (2009). Impacts of seedling herbivory on plant competition and implications for species coexistence. Annals of Botany 103, 1347–1353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harborne, J. B. (1993). Introduction to Ecological Biochemistry, 4th edn. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haring, D. A., Huber, M. J., Suter, D., Edwards, P. J. and Luescher, A. (2008). Plant enemy derived elicitors increase the foliar tannin concentration of Onobrychis viciifolia without a trade-off to growth. Annals of Botany 102, 979–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herms, D. A. and Mattson, W. J. (1992). The dilemma of plants: to grow or to defend. Quarterly Review of Biology 67, 283–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ims, R. A., Henden, J.-A. and Killengreen, S. T. (2007). Collapsing population cycles. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izhaki, I. and Ne’eman, G. (1996). The importance of porcupine and bast scale on Aleppo pine recruitment after fire. Acta Oecologica 17, 97– 107.Google Scholar
Kalamees, R. and Zobel, M. (2002). The role of the seed bank in gap regeneration in a calcareous grassland community. Ecology 83, 1017–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, C. K. and Bowler, M.G. (2002). Coexistence and relative abundance in forest tree species. Nature 417, 437–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, C. K. and Bowler, M.G. (2005). A new application of storage dynamics: differential sensitivity, diffuse competition and temporal niches. Ecology 86, 1012–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, C. K. and Bowler, M.G. (2009a). Investigating the role of enemies in temporal niche dynamics: differential sensitivity, competition, and stable coexistence. Theoretical Population Biology 76, 278–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, C. K. and Bowler, M.G. (2009b). Temporal niche dynamics, relative abundance and phylogenetic signal in coexisting species. Theoretical Ecology 2, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, C. K. and Hanley, M. E. (2005). Juvenile growth and palatability in congeneric British herbs. American Journal of Botany 92, 1586–1589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendall, B. E., Prendergast, J. and Bjørnstad, O.N. (1998). The macroecology of population dynamics: taxonomic and biogeographic patterns in population cycles. Ecology Letters 1, 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koricheva, J. (2002). Meta-analysis of sources of variation in fitness costs of plant anti-herbivore defences. Ecology 83, 176–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambin, X., Bretagnolle, V. and Yoccoz, N. G. (2006). Vole population cycles in northern and southern Europe: is there a need for different explanations for single pattern? Journal of Animal Ecology 75, 340–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leimu, R. and Koricheva, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of tradeoffs between plant tolerance and resistance to herbivores: combining the evidence from ecological and agricultural studies. Oikos 112, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, E. S. and Carroll, C.R. (2004). Differential seed and seedling predation by crabs: impacts on tropical coastal forest composition. Oecologia 141, 661–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindquist, E. S., Krauss, K. W., Green, P. T. et al. (2009). Land crabs as key drivers in tropical coastal forest recruitment. Biological Reviews 84, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maron, J. L. and Crone, E. (2006). Herbivory: effects on plant abundance, distribution and population growth. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 273, 2575–2584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maron, J. L. and Kauffman, M. J. (2006). Habitat-specific impacts of multiple consumers on plant population dynamics. Ecology 87, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meserve, P. L. (1971). Population ecology of prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster, in western mixed prairie of Nebraska. American Midland Naturalist 86, 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moles, A. T. and Westoby, M. (2004). What do seedlings die from and what are the implications for evolution of seed size? Oikos 106, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pake, C. E. and Venable, D. L. (1996). Seed banks in desert annuals: implications for persistence and coexistence in variable environments. Ecology 77, 1427–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafferty, C., Lamont, B.B. and Hanley, M. E. (2005). Selective feeding by western grey kangaroos on seedlings of Hakea species varying in morphology and chemistry. Plant Ecology 177, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, U., Vrieling, K. and van der Meijden, E. (2003). Pyrrolizidine alkaloid content in Senecio: ontogeny and developmental constraints. Chemoecology 13, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegal, S. and Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Stamp, N. (2003). Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Quarterly Review of Biology 78, 23–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, S. Y., Stanton, M. L., Emery, N. C et al. (2009). Cryptic seedling herbivory by nocturnal introduced generalists impacts survival, performance of native and exotic plants. Ecology 90, 419–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symondson, W. O. C., Glen, D. M., Ives, A. R., Langdon, C. J. and Wiltshire, C. W. (2002). Dynamics of the relationship between a generalist predator and slugs over five years. Ecology 83, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiffin, P. (2000). Mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage: what do we know? Evolutionary Ecology 14, 523–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasconcelos, H. L. and Cherrett, J. M. (1997). Leaf-cutting ants and early forest regeneration in central Amazonia: Effects of herbivory on tree seedling establishment. Journal of Tropical Ecology 13, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vehviläinen, H. and Koricheva, J. (2006). Moose and vole browsing patterns in experimentally manipulated pure and mixed forest stands. Ecography 29, 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vehviläinen, H., Koricheva, J. and Ruohomaki, K. (2007). Tree species diversity influences herbivore abundance and damage: meta-analysis of long-term forest experiments. Oecologia 152, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verhulst, J., Montaña, C., Mandujano, M. C. and Franco, M. (2008). Demographic mechanisms in the coexistence of two closely related perennials in a fluctuating environment. Oecologia 156, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westoby, M., Leishman, M. R. and Lord, J. (1996). Comparative ecology of seed size and dispersal. In Silvertown, J., Franco, M. and Harper, J. L. (eds), Plant Life Histories: Ecology, Phylogeny and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 143–162.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×