OPTIMAL STRATEGY OF PLANT ANTIHERBIVORE DEFENSE - IMPLICATIONS FOR APPARENCY AND RESOURCE-AVAILABILITY THEORIES

被引:31
作者
YAMAMURA, N [1 ]
TSUJI, N [1 ]
机构
[1] SASEBO COLL TECHNOL, DEPT CONTROL ENGN, SASEBO, NAGASAKI 85711, JAPAN
关键词
ANTIHERBIVORY; APPARENCY; MAXIMUM PRINCIPLE; PLANT DEFENSE; RESOURCE-AVAILABILITY;
D O I
10.1007/BF02347652
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Plants produce chemicals as methods against animal herbivory. Such chemical defenses are classified into two major categories: (i) quantitative defense with massive production of indigestible substances; and (ii) qualitative defenses with production of poisonous substances. A mathematical model was developed that identified factors that favored the evolution of quantitative defenses. Selecting an annual plant for simplicity, the allocation of photosynthetic production between growth substances and defense substances was considered. If the plant invests more in defense substances, it can protect itself more efficiently from herbivory but with a reduced growth rate. If it invests more in growth substances, the contrary holds. Using Pontoryagin's maximum principle, the following results were obtained: (i) the plant should conduct quantitative defenses when the growth rate (G), reflecting resource-availability, is low and the growth period (T) is long as well; (ii) if the plant invests in quantitative defenses, the optimal proportion of defense substances (x*) should be higher as G is smaller, but it is independent of T; and (iii) the value of x* is not monotone for the effectiveness of defense substance (A), but has a maximum at an intermediate value of A. Predictions of the model partly supported both Feeny's apparency theory, claiming that apparent plants or their parts for herbivores should quantitatively defend themselves, and Coley's resource-availability theory, claiming that plants with rich resources should invest in growth rather than defense.
引用
收藏
页码:19 / 30
页数:12
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
Coley P.D., Bryant J.P., Chapin F.S., Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense, Science, 230, pp. 895-899, (1985)
[2]  
Cooper S.M., Owen-Smith N., Effects of plant spinescence on large mammalian herbivores, Oecologia, 68, pp. 445-446, (1986)
[3]  
Ehrlich P.R., Raven P.H., Butterflies and plants: A study in coevolution, Evolution, 8, pp. 586-608, (1964)
[4]  
Feeny P.P., Biochemical coevolution between plants and their insect herbivores, Coevolution of Animals and Plants, pp. 1-19, (1975)
[5]  
Feeny P.P., Plant apparency and chemical defense, Recent Advances in Phytochemistry, 10, pp. 1-40, (1976)
[6]  
Futuyma D.J., Evolutionary interactions among herbivorous insects and plants, Coevolution, pp. 207-231, (1983)
[7]  
Her D.A., Mattson W.J., The dilemma of plants: To grow or defend, Quarterly Review of Biology, 67, pp. 283-335, (1992)
[8]  
Iwasa Y., Roughgarden J., Shoot/root balance of plants: Optimal growth of a system with many vegetative organs, Theoretical Population Biology, 25, pp. 78-105, (1984)
[9]  
Karban R., Myers J.H., Induced plant responses to herbivory, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20, pp. 331-348, (1989)
[10]  
Kinsman S., Platt W.J., The impact of a herbivore upon Mirabilis hirsuta, a fugitive prairie plant, Oecologia, 65, pp. 2-6, (1984)