Summary
A plant may lower its nutritive quality, for herbivores, by using secondary compounds, morphological characters and/or having a lowered nutrient content. If such traits decrease the amount of resources lost through herbivory, then they act as antiherbivore defences. However, if herbivores compensate for the lowered nutrient availability, by increasing their intake rates or by prolonging their feeding periods, then this may render the defence useless. I analyse the conditions for evolution of this type of plant defences in a game theoretical model. The predictions of the model depend on the amount of compensatory feeding performed by the herbivores and on the herbivores' mobility in relation to the spatial structure of the plant population. When herbivores cannot compensate for a lowered nutritive quality, the defence can evolve irrespective of the type of herbivore. When herbivores can compensate for such defences, the outcome depends on how the herbivores compensate. In situations where herbivores compensate only on defended plants, which could correspond to immobile herbivores, this type of defence can evolve only if the level of compensation is lower than a certain critical value. When herbivores compensate more on defended than on undefended plants, e.g. because of low mobility, the outcome depends on the level of compensation performed on defended plants. If this level of compensation is high, then the model predicts a stable coexistence of defended and undefended plants and, if it is low, then the populations can consist of only defended plants. When herbivores compensate more on undefended plants than on defended ones, e.g. highly mobile herbivores, the result is populations consisting of either only defended plants, or only undefended plants. Consequently, the fact that herbivores may compensate for lowered nutrient quality does not, as such, nullify the notion of low nutrient quality as a plant defence. However, compensatory feeding may restrict the conditions for the evolution of such defences.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Augner, M. (1994) Should a plant always signal its defence against herbivores?Oikos 70 322–32.
Augner, M., Fagerström, T. and Tuomi, J. (1991) Competition, defense and games between plants.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29 231–4.
Belovsky, G.E. and Schmitz, O.J. (1990) Mammalian herbivore optimal foraging and the role of plant defenses. InPlant defenses against mammalian herbivory (R.T. Palo and C.T. Robbins, eds), pp. 1–28. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Belovsky, G.E., Schmidtz, O.J., Slade, J.B. and Dawson, T.J. (1991) Effects of spines and thorns on Australian arid zone herbivores of different body masses.Oecologia 88 521–8.
Björkman, C. and Andersson, D.B. (1990) Trade-offs among anti-herbivore defences in a South American blackberry (Rubus bogotensis).Oecologia 85 247–9.
Bryant, J.P. and Kuropat, P.J. (1980) Selection of winter forage by subarctic browsing vertebrates: the role of plant chemistry.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11 261–85.
Charnov, E.L. (1976) Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem.Theor. Pop. Biol. 9 129–36.
Clancy, K.M. and Price, P.W. (1987) Rapid herbivore growth enhances enemy attack: sublethal plant defenses remain a paradox.Ecology 68 733–7.
Coley, P.D. (1986) Costs and benefits of defense by tannins in a neotropical tree.Oecologia 70 238–41.
Feeny, P. (1975) Biochemical coevolution between plants and their insect herbivores. InCoevolution of animals and plants (L.E. Gilbert and P.H. Raven, eds), pp. 3–19. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Feeny, P. (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense.Rec. Adv. Phytochem. 10 1–40.
Haukioja, E., Ruohomäki, K., Suomela, J. and Vuorisalo, T. (1991) Nutritional quality as a defense against herbivores.Forest Ecol. Manage. 39 237–45.
Hay, M.E. (1986) Associational plant defenses and the maintenance of species diversity: turning competitors into accomplices.Am. Nat. 128 617–41.
Hjältén, J. and Palo, T. (1992) Selection of deciduous trees by free ranging voles and hares in relation to plant chemistry.Oikos 63 477–84.
Jarman, P.J. and Sinclair, A.R.E. (1979) Feeding strategy and the pattern of resource partitioning in ungulates. InSerengeti, dynamics of an ecosystem (A.R.E. Sinclair and M. Norton-Griffiths, eds), pp. 130–63. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Leather, S.R. and Walsh, P.J. (1939 Sub-lethal plant defences: the paradox remains.Oecologia 93 153–5.
Lundberg, P. and Åström, M. (1990) Low nutritive quality as a defense against optimally foraging herbivores.Am. Nat. 135 547–62.
Lundberg, P. and Palo, R.T. (1993) Resource use, plant defenses, and optimal digestion in ruminants.Oikos 68 224–8.
McNaughton, S.J. (1978) Serengeti ungulates: feeding selectivity influencess the effectiveness of plant defense guilds.Science 199 806–7.
McNaughton, S.J. and Tarrants, J.L. (1983) Grass leaf silification: natural selection for an inducible defense against herbivores.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80 790–1.
Maynard Smith, J. (1982)Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Moran, N. and Hamilton, W.D. (1980) Low nutritive quality as defense against herbivores.J. Theor. Biol. 86 247–54.
Myers, J.H. and Bazely, D. (1991) Thorns, spines, prickles, and hairs: are they stimulated by herbivory and do they deter herbivores? InPhytochemical induction by herbivores (D.W. Tallamy and M.J. Raupp, eds), pp. 325–44. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Potter, D.A. and Kimmerer, T.W. (1988) Do holly leaf spines really deter herbivory?Oecologia 75 216–21.
Price, P.W., Bouton, C.E., Gross, P., McPheron, B.A., Thompson, J.N. and Weis, A.E. (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11 41–65.
Rhoades, D.F. (1979) Evolution of plant chemical defense against herbivores. InHerbivores: their interaction with plant secondary metabolites (G.A. Rosenthal and D.H. Janzen, eds), pp. 3–54. Academic Press, New York.
Rhoades, D.F. and Cates, R.G. (1976) Toward a general theory of plant antiherbivore chemistry.Rec. Adv. Phytochem. 10 168–213.
Robbins, C.T., Mole, S., Hagerman, A.E. and Hanley, T.A. (1987) Role of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in dry matter digestion.Ecology 68 1606–15.
Ryan, C.A. (1979) Proteinase inhibitors. InHerbivores: their interaction with plant secondary metabolites (G.A. Rosenthal and D.H. Janzen, eds), pp. 599–618. Academic Press, New York.
Skogsmyr, I. and Fagerström, T. (1992) The cost of anti-herbivore defence: an evaluation of some ecological and physiological factors.Oikos 64 451–7.
Swain, T. (1979) Tannins and lignins. InHerbivores: their interaction with plant secondary metabolites (G.A. Rosenthal and D.H. Janzen, eds), pp. 657–82. Academic Press, New York.
Tahvanainen, J.O. and Root, R.B. (1972) The influence of vegetational diversity on the population ecology of a specialized herbivore,Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera: Chr somelidae).Oecologia 10 321–46.
Tuomi, J. and Augner, M. (1993) Synergistic selection of unpalatability in plants.Evolution 47 668–72.
Van Soest, P.J. and Jones, L.H.P. (1968) Effect of silica in forages upon digestibility.J. Dairy Sci. 51 1644–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Augner, M. Low nutritive quality as a plant defence: Effects of herbivore-mediated interactions. Evol Ecol 9, 605–616 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237658
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237658