Global pattern of plant utilization across different organisms: Does plant apparency or plant phylogeny matter?

Abstract

The present study is the first to consider human and nonhuman consumers together to reveal several general patterns of plant utilization. We provide evidence that at a global scale, plant apparency and phylogenetic isolation can be important predictors of plant utilization and consumer diversity. Using the number of species or genera or the distribution area of each plant family as the island “area” and the minimum phylogenetic distance to common plant families as the island “distance”, we fitted presence–area relationships and presence–distance relationships with a binomial GLM (generalized linear model) with a logit link. The presence–absence of consumers among each plant family strongly depended on plant apparency (family size and distribution area); the diversity of consumers increased with plant apparency but decreased with phylogenetic isolation. When consumers extended their host breadth, unapparent plants became more likely to be used. Common uses occurred more often on common plants and their relatives, showing higher host phylogenetic clustering than uncommon uses. On the contrary, highly specialized uses might be related to the rarity of plant chemicals and were therefore very species‐specific. In summary, our results provide a global illustration of plant–consumer combinations and reveal several general patterns of plant utilization across humans, insects and microbes. First, plant apparency and plant phylogenetic isolation generally govern plant utilization value, with uncommon and isolated plants suffering fewer parasites. Second, extension of the breadth of utilized hosts helps explain the presence of consumers on unapparent plants. Finally, the phylogenetic clustering structure of host plants is different between common uses and uncommon uses. The strength of such consistent plant utilization patterns across a diverse set of usage types suggests that the persistence and accumulation of consumer diversity and use value for plant species are determined by similar ecological and evolutionary processes.

Are dominant plant species more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects? A case study at Saihanwula Nature Reserve, China

“…Although many quantitative traits, such as density, cover, or biomass, can be used to measure community dominance, the use of combinations of multiple variables may be more appropriate (Guo & Rundel, 1997). As the importance value encompasses cover, frequency, abundance, and, occasionally, diversity (Curtis & McIntosh, 1951; Gonmadje et al., 2011; Mori, Boom, de Carvalino, & dos Santos, 1983), it is expected to be a good indicator of dominance or apparency (Brandt, Zimmermann, Hensen, Mariscal Castro, & Rist, 2012; Dahdouh‐Guebas, Koedam, Satyanarayana, & Cannicci, 2011; Dahdouh‐Guebas, Verheyden, De Genst, Hettiarachchi, & Koedam, 2000; Dai, Zhang, Xu, Duffy, & Guo, 2017; Gonçalves, Albuquerque, & de Medeiros, 2016; Guèze et al., 2014; Guo, Li, Liu, & Zhou, 2012; Hu, Su, Li, Li, & Ke, 2015; Smith & Smith, 2001; Soldati, de Medeiros, Duque‐Brasil, Coelho, & Albuquerque, 2017; Thomas, Vandebroek, & Van Damme, 2009). Importance values can be applied to detect dominant species in different communities, especially along ecological gradients (Greig‐Smith, 1983; Henkel, Chambers, & Baker, 2016; Kent, 2012).…”

“…Why do the dominant tree taxa in zonal vegetation host more parasites than subordinate taxa do; that is, why do “the outstanding usually bear the brunt of attack?” One explanation is that dominants are generally apparent plants, which might attract more consumers (Dai et al., 2017). According to plant apparency, ecological apparency, and optimal foraging hypotheses, apparent dominants are more likely to be found and preferred by parasites, natural enemies, pollinators, and humans (Feeny, 1976; Gonçalves et al., 2016; Phillips & Gentry, 1993; Schlinkert et al., 2015).…”

“…Therefore, leaf mines might provide important insights regarding the life history, taxonomy, interspecific relationships, and evolution of leaf‐mining insects (Hirowatari, 2009; Liu et al., 2015). High incidences and abundances of leafminers on dominant plants have been demonstrated at global, regional, and community levels (Dai et al., 2017). For example, the highest reported abundance and richness values of leaf‐mining insects are found for members of Fagaceae and Myrtaceae (i.e., the most dominant plant families in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, respectively) (Bairstow, Clarke, McGeoch, & Andrew, 2010; Claridge & Wilson, 1982; Dai, Xu, & Cai, 2014; Dai, Xu, & Ding, 2013; Faeth & Mopper, 1981; Ishida, Hattori, & Kimura, 2004; Kollár & Hrubík, 2009; Lopez‐Vaamonde, Godfray, & Cook, 2003; Nakamura, Hattori, Ishida, Sato, & Kimura, 2008; Opler & Davis, 1981; Sato, 1991; Sinclair & Hughes, 2008a,b).…”

“…For example, the highest reported abundance and richness values of leaf‐mining insects are found for members of Fagaceae and Myrtaceae (i.e., the most dominant plant families in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, respectively) (Bairstow, Clarke, McGeoch, & Andrew, 2010; Claridge & Wilson, 1982; Dai, Xu, & Cai, 2014; Dai, Xu, & Ding, 2013; Faeth & Mopper, 1981; Ishida, Hattori, & Kimura, 2004; Kollár & Hrubík, 2009; Lopez‐Vaamonde, Godfray, & Cook, 2003; Nakamura, Hattori, Ishida, Sato, & Kimura, 2008; Opler & Davis, 1981; Sato, 1991; Sinclair & Hughes, 2008a,b). The variation in leafminer species richness among different host plants might be described by the species–area (i.e., leafminer species to host plant area) or species–apparency (i.e., leafminer species to host plant apparency) relationship (Dai et al., 2017; MacArthur & Wilson, 1967; Opler, 1974). “Area” here is a function of the distribution area, body size, number of individuals, and other indicators of plant dominance (Chaij, Devoto, Oleiro, Chaneton, & Mazía, 2016; Feeny, 1976; Joy & Crespi, 2012; Kamiya, O'Dwyer, Nakagawa, & Poulin, 2014; Miller, 2012).…”

“…“Area” here is a function of the distribution area, body size, number of individuals, and other indicators of plant dominance (Chaij, Devoto, Oleiro, Chaneton, & Mazía, 2016; Feeny, 1976; Joy & Crespi, 2012; Kamiya, O'Dwyer, Nakagawa, & Poulin, 2014; Miller, 2012). However, the unapparent relatives of apparent hosts might be utilized by leafminers due to the chemical similarities among phylogenetically closed plants (Dai et al., 2017). Therefore, the effects of plant phylogeny on the incidence of leafminers should be also considered (Claridge & Wilson, 1982; Dai et al., 2017; Godfray, 1984; Lawton & Price, 1979; Lopez‐Vaamonde et al., 2003).…”