Impact of herbivore preference on the benefit of plant trait variability
- PDF / 2,017,342 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 51 Downloads / 138 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Impact of herbivore preference on the benefit of plant trait variability Tatjana Thiel1 · Sarah Gaschler1 · Karsten Mody3 · Nico Blüthgen2 · Barbara Drossel1 Received: 18 June 2019 / Accepted: 14 October 2020 © The Author(s) 2020
Abstract We explore the hypothesis that intraspecific trait variability can be per se beneficial for the plant when the curvature of the herbivore response to this trait is concave downwards. This hypothesis is based on a mathematical relation for nonlinear averaging (Jensen’s inequality), leading to reduced herbivory when the trait distribution becomes broader. Our study introduces and investigates a model for plants and their insect herbivores that includes an unequal distribution of nutrient content between leaves. In contrast to earlier publications, we take into account the ability of herbivores to choose leaves, and the associated costs of this preference behavior. By performing computer simulations and analytic calculations, we find that this herbivore preference can considerably alter the conclusion cited above. In particular, we demonstrate that herbivore populations that show preference for leaves on which they grow well can benefit from large nutrient-level variability independently of the curvature of the herbivore response function, despite the cost for preference. Keywords Intraspecific trait variability · Herbivore preference · Plant–herbivore model · Jensen’s inequality
Introduction Populations in nature consist of individuals that typically differ in size, physiology, morphology, behavior, and resource utilization (Gibert and Brassil, 2014; Schreiber and Bürger et al., 2011). This intraspecific trait variability occurs not only between populations, but also within populations and even within individuals (Albert and Grassein et al., 2011; Albert and Thuiller et al., 2010b; Bolnick and Svanbäck et al., 2002). Taking for instance plant leaves, there are differences in morphology (e.g., leaf area and thickness) (Siefert and Violle et al., 2015; Jung and Violle, 2010; Coleman and McConnaughay et al., 1994; Albert and Thuiller et al., 2010b; Albert and Thuiller et al., 2010a) nitrogen and phosphorus concentration (Siefert and Violle et al., 2015; Albert and Thuiller et al., 2010a; Albert and Thuiller et al., 2010b), or secondary metabolites (Ohmart and Stewart et al., 1985; * Tatjana Thiel [email protected]‑darmstadt.de 1
Institut für Festkörperphysik, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Hochschulst 6, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany
2
Ecological Networks, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Schnittspahnstraße 3, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
3
Department of Applied Ecology, Hochschule Geisenheim University, Von‑Lade‑Str. 1, 65366 Geisenheim, Germany
Ali and Agrawal, 2012; Hartmann, 1996; Moore and Andrew et al., 2014). Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence of intraspecific trait variability on all mentioned scales (Herrera, 2009; Herrera, 2017; Siefert and Violle et al., 2015; Jung and Violle, 2010; Fridley and Grime, 2010), ecological theory has focused
Data Loading...
