| Lecture 24: Predation

Reading: Economy of Nature, pp. 446-459.

Herbivore Responses
In ecological time: Selective feeding on
poorly defended plant parts or at the time of year when defense if poor
In evolutionary time: Selection for detoxification
enzymes in herbivore gut
Prediction: Co-evolution (joint-evolution)
of plants and herbivores yielding some highly specialized but successful
herbivores, and plants with complex chemical defenses that deter most
herbivores.
Trends in the co-evolutionary interaction
between herbivores and plants are influenced by plant apparency, the likelihood
of encounter with herbivores.
Apparent plants are long-lived and relatively
predictable to herbivores so these plants are likely to invest more
in defense than are unapparent plants which are short-lived, ephemeral,
and unpredictable to herbivores.
Unapparent plants are most likely to
produce relatively inexpensive qualitative chemical defenses which are
good against generalist herbivores. Apparent plants are most likely
to produce more expensive quantitative chemical defenses which are effective
against a wide range of herbivores but may be susceptible to co-evolution
by a specialist.
Some plant species, particularly apparent
plants, may produce more than one chemical defense and may switch from
qualitative to quantitative defenses as the season progresses.
Plant Apparency
| |
Apparent
Plants |
Unapparent
Plants |
| Definition |
Common and/or
conspicuous |
Rare and/or
ephemeral |
| |
Woody perennials |
Herbaceous
annuals |
| |
Slow growing
|
Fast growing |
| |
(K-type species) |
(r-type species) |
| |
Late succession,
climax |
Early succession |
| |
Readily found
by herbivores
(No escape in time or space)
|
Escapes from
herbivores in time or space |
| Plant
Responses to Herbivores |
Produce expensive
quantitative (broad-based) anti-herbivore defenses (tannins and tough
leaves) |
Produce inexpensive
qualitative (toxic) defenses to discourage generalist herbivores |
| |
Effective
ecological barrier, but a weak evolutionary barrier to herbivores
unless combined with some qualitative defenses. |
Effective
ecological barrier, but the evolution of detoxification mechanisms
results in host plant specific specialist herbivore species. |
Examples of Plant Responses to Herbivory
Cardenolides (cardiac glycosides) in milkweeds
(Asclepias) and monarch butterflies
A cardiac glycoside in the
milky sap of milkweeds makes these plants toxic to vertebrate and most
invertebrate herbivores. However, this chemical defense is not effective
against the larvae (caterpillar) of monarch butterflies. Monarch butterflies,
Danaus plexippus, lay their eggs on milkweeds, the larvae are herbivores
on milkweed leaves and they store the toxin in their body tissues. This
provides chemical protection against carnivores for both the larvae and
adult monarch butterflies.
Tannins in oak leaves (Quercus)
and moth larvae
Tannins are polyphenolic chemicals
that bind to proteins and make them unavailable for digestion. Tannin
concentrations in oak leaves increase from spring (April 0.66% dry weight)
to autumn (September 5.5% dry weight). Leaf protein content decreases
from spring to summer and them remains low. Leaf toughness (cellulose)
increases from spring to summer.
Insect herbivores (moth larvae, Lepidoptera)
respond to these defenses by feeding on spring oak leaves, or by modifying
their life cycle or feeding habits:
 |
Start feeding
on oak leaves, complete feeding on herbaceous plants |
 |
Larvae overwinter
and complete growth the following spring |
 |
Larvae bore
into leaf and feed on low tannin tissues |
Feeding habits of 201 species of Lepidoptera
larvae on oak leaves in Britain (after Krebs, 1994, p 301, Table 15.2,
data from Feeney, 1970).
| Larval Feeding
Characteristics |
Early Species
May & June (111
spp.)
|
Late Species
after June (90 spp.)
|
| One season
growth on oaks |
92%
|
42%
|
| Start on
oaks finish on herbs |
3%
|
11%
|
| Overwinter
as larvae |
4%
|
38%
|
| Leaf boring
larvae |
3%
|
26%
|
Experimental studies with winter moth Operophtera
brumata caterpillars (Feeney, 1968 and 1970).
|
Winter moth larval
diet
|
Mean maximum larval
weight (mg)
|
|
Whole leaves (young,
May 16)
|
45
|
|
Whole leaves (old,
May 28-June 8)
|
18
|
|
Ground leaves (young,
May 13)
|
37
|
|
Ground leaves (old,
June 1)
|
35
|
|
Prepared diet (casein
alone)
|
25
|
|
Prepared diet (casein
+ 1% tannin)
|
12
|
In whole leaves both leaf toughness and
tannin concentration may be responsible for the inhibition of growth with
the old leaf diet, grinding leaves eliminates leaf toughness as a variable.
Minimal differences in larval growth on ground leaves suggests that leaf
toughness is the most important variable. However, on prepared diets of
casein, tannin has an obvious inhibitory effect.
Senita cactus and fruit flies
Senita cacti, Cereus schottii,
produce an alkaloid (lophocereine) and only the fruit fly, Drosophila
pachea, is able to detoxify this chemical. It is the only fruit
fly species that uses this cactus as food.
Saguaro cactus and fruit flies
A similar situation is seen in the saguaro
cactus, Cereus giganteus which produces a different alkaloid
(carnegeine) in its tissues. Only one species of fruit fly, Drosophila
nigrospiracula, a different species than that feeding on senita
cactus has evolved detoxification adaptation for the saguaro cactus
alkaloid.
Mustards and flea beetles
Plants in the family Cruciferae produce
a glucosinolate, allyl isothiocyanate, known as mustard oil. This chemical
deters many insect herbivores but flea beetles, Chrysomelidae, use the
downwind plume of this volatile chemical to locate their preferred prey.

|