The Existential Game of Individual Self-Maintaining Units: Selection and Defence Tactics of Trees

Tuomi, Juha; Salo, Jukka; Haukioja, Erkki; Hakala, Tuomo; Mannila, Rauno; Niemelä, Pekka

doi:10.2307/3544309

Cited by 19 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study with P. glauca reemphasizes the importance of the modular structure of plants (Harper 1977, Tuomi et al 1983, Hallé 1986 (Whitham and Slobodchikoff 1981). In P. glauca, the effect of localized resource deficiencies caused by C. fumiferana was evident at the branch level, with respect to both time of budburst and leaf size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Why Does Early-Season Herbivory Affect Subsequent Budburst?

Quiring

McKinnon

1999

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delays in budburst in the year following herbivory have previously been attributed to a defensive response to early-season herbivory or localized resource deficiencies (resource availability hypothesis) limiting bud development. We carried out field experiments to test the resource availability hypothesis as well as the crown architecture hypothesis, which attributes changes in the time of budburst in the year following herbivory to changes in the proportion of different bud types. We examined predictions from these hypotheses using a defoliator, Choristoneura fumiferana; a defoliator/stem feeder, Zeiraphera canadensis; and a stem galler, Adelges abietis; on white spruce, Picea glauca. The time of budburst and final leaf size of unexploited midcrown shoots of white spruce were compared to those of adjacent exploited shoots. We also evaluated budburst in a manipulated field study, in which tree growth was reduced through root pruning and increased through fertilization.Partial defoliation by C. fumiferana and Z. canadensis did not affect budburst, but did result in smaller leaves. Almost complete defoliation of shoots by C. fumiferana and galling by A. abietis resulted in delayed budburst. Reductions in leaf size were directly related to the amount of herbivory (i.e., low or high) by C. fumiferana and Z. canadensis. Budburst of trees whose growth rate had been decreased by root pruning or increased by fertilizing occurred later and sooner, respectively, than budburst on unmanipulated trees. The time of budburst was inversely correlated with foliar nitrogen and water content and the length of unexploited shoots. These results supported the resource availability hypothesis. The influence of resource availability on time of budburst was observed at the shoot, branch, and whole-tree levels. When Ͼ50% of stems were destroyed by Z. canadensis, budburst occurred earlier or at the same time in the following spring. This was due to the production of basal buds, which burst before all other buds on a shoot. The production of early-bursting basal buds more than compensated, or just compensated, for a small delay in budburst of terminal, distal-lateral, and medial-lateral buds. Thus, changes in the time of budburst in the year following herbivory were due to changes in crown architecture as well as to changes in resource availability. We predict that increased intra-tree heterogeneity in the time of budburst should make P. glauca more, rather than less, susceptible to two of the herbivores studied because of the presence of a highly nutritious food source, newly burst buds, for a longer period of time. We suggest that the influence of previous herbivory on the time of budburst in the next growing season is a commonly overlooked factor that may have a large influence on herbivore abundance and distribution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Why Does Early-Season Herbivory Affect Subsequent Budburst?

Quiring

McKinnon

1999

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well established that plants, as they grow, accumulate spontaneous somatic mutations ( Whitham & Slobodchikoff, 1981; Tuomi et al ., 1983 ; Antolin & Strobeck, 1985; Slatkin, 1985; Gill, 1986; Klekowski & Godfrey, 1989; Edwards et al ., 1990 ). The inheritance and adaptive significance of these mutations is well documented in plant breeding where new varieties arising through spontaneous somatic mutations have been widely utilized for a long time ( Dermen, 1960; Whitham & Slobodchikoff, 1981; Gill, 1986).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the potential for evolutionary change in meristematic cell lineages through intraorganismal selection

Pineda‐Krch¹,

Fagerström²

1999

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the absence of sexual recombination somatic mutations represent the only source of genetic variation in clonally propagating plants. We analyse the probability of such somatic mutations in the shoot apical meristem being fixed in descendant generations of meristems. A model of meristem cell dynamics is presented for the unstratified shoot apical meristem. The fate of one mutant initial is studied for a two‐ and three‐celled shoot apical meristem. The main parameters of the model are the number of apical initials, the time between selection cycles, number of selection cycles and cell viability of the mutant genotype. As the number of mitotic divisions per selection cycle and number of selection cycles increases the chimeric state dissipates and the probability of mutation fixation approaches an asymptote. The value of this fixation asymptote depends primarily on cell viability, while the time to reach it is mainly influenced by the total number of mitotic divisions as well as the number of initials. In contrast to the presumed operation of Muller’s Ratchet in plants the chimeric state may represent an opportunity for deleterious mutations to be eliminated through intraorganismal selection or random drift. We conclude that intraorganismal selection not only can be a substantial force for the elimination of deleterious mutations, but also can have the potential to confer an evolutionary change through a meristematic cell lineage alone.

show abstract

“…Genetically based resistance to insect herbivory, once attacked, has also been reported (Hatchett and Gallun, 1970;Mitter et al, 1979;Gould, 1979;Moran, 1981;Kinsman, 1982;Lin and Eckenrode, 1984;Marquis, 1984;Service, 1984;Berenbaum et al, 1986;Fritz et al, 1986;Maddox and Root, 1987;Karban, 1988;Simms andRausher, 1987, 1989;and Marquis, 1990). The ability of certain genotypes to resist insect herbivores may entail a fitness cost that is dependent upon the level of herbivory: a high proportional allocation to resistance to herbivory may be detrimental in periods of low populations of herbivores, but may confer a fitness advantage to the individual during herbivore population outbreaks (Tuomi et al, 1983;Bazzaz et al, 1987;Simms and Rausher, 1987;Fagerstrom, 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%