Ontogenetic consistency in oak defence syndromes
Plant species allocate resources to multiple defensive traits simultaneously, often leading to so‐called defence syndromes (i.e. suites of traits that are co-expressed across several species). While reports of ontogenetic variation in plant defences are commonplace, no study to date has tested for o...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of ecology 2020-09, Vol.108 (5), p.1822-1834 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1834 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1822 |
container_title | The Journal of ecology |
container_volume | 108 |
creator | Moreira, Xoaquín Abdala‐Roberts, Luis Galmán, Andrea Bartlow, Andrew W. Berny‐Mier y Teran, Jorge C. Carrari, Elisa Covelo, Felisa de la Fuente, María Ferrenberg, Scott Fyllas, Nikolaos M. Hoshika, Yasutomo Lee, Steven R. Marquis, Robert J. Nakamura, Masahiro Nell, Colleen S. Pesendorfer, Mario B. Steele, Michael A. Vázquez‐González, Carla Zhang, Shuang Rasmann, Sergio Züst, Tobias |
description | Plant species allocate resources to multiple defensive traits simultaneously, often leading to so‐called defence syndromes (i.e. suites of traits that are co-expressed across several species). While reports of ontogenetic variation in plant defences are commonplace, no study to date has tested for ontogenetic shifts in defence syndromes, and we know little about the ecological and evolutionary drivers of variation in plant defence syndromes across ontogeny.
We tested for ontogenetic variation in plant defence syndromes by measuring a suite of defensive and nutritional traits on saplings and adult trees of 29 oak (Quercus, Fagaceae) species distributed across Europe, North America, and Asia. In addition, we investigated if these syndromes exhibited a phylogenetic signal to elucidate the nature of their macro‐evolutionary variation, whether they were associated with levels of herbivore pressure and climatic conditions, and if any such evolutionary and ecological patterns were contingent on ontogeny.
Our analyses revealed three distinct oak defence syndromes: the first included species with high defences, the second species with high defences and low nutrient levels, and the third species with high nutrients and thinner leaves. Interestingly, these defence syndromes remained virtually unchanged across the two ontogenetic stages sampled. In addition, our analyses indicated no evidence for a phylogenetic signal in oak syndromes, a result consistent across ontogenetic stages. Finally, with respect to ecological factors, we found no effect of climatic conditions on defences for either ontogenetic stage, whereas defence syndromes were associated with differing levels of herbivory in adults but not saplings suggesting an association between herbivore pressure and syndrome type that is contingent on ontogeny.
Synthesis. Together, these findings indicate that defence syndromes remain remarkably consistent across oak ontogenetic stages, are evolutionarily labile, and while they appear unrelated to climate, they do appear to be associated with herbivory levels in an ontogenetic‐dependent manner. Overall, this study builds towards a better understanding of ecological and evolutionary factors underlying multivariate plant defensive phenotypes.
We found three distinct oak defence syndromes: the first one including species with high defences, the second one including species with high defences and low nutrient levels, and the third one including species with high nutrients |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1365-2745.13376 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2433872725</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2433872725</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3566-9c5ab9808f0718a0ef977743fbfbe88c3f2c04589f3fc30f2262f7a82e7b28933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1PwzAMhiMEEmVw5lqJczc3aer0iKbxpUm7wDlqMwd1bMlIOqH-e1qKuOKLZet5belh7DaHeT7UIhelzDgWcp4LgeUZS_425ywB4DyDAvGSXcW4A4ASJSQMNq7z7-Soa01qvItt7MiZPm1d6uuPdEt2GCmNvdsGf6B4zS5svY9089tn7O1h9bp8ytabx-fl_TozQpZlVhlZN5UCZQFzVQPZChELYRvbkFJGWG6gkKqywhoBlvOSW6wVJ2y4qoSYsbvp7jH4zxPFTu_8KbjhpeaFEAo5cjlQi4kywccYyOpjaA916HUOetSiRwl6lKB_tAwJOSW-2j31_-H6ZbWcct9lQWLN</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2433872725</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ontogenetic consistency in oak defence syndromes</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Moreira, Xoaquín ; Abdala‐Roberts, Luis ; Galmán, Andrea ; Bartlow, Andrew W. ; Berny‐Mier y Teran, Jorge C. ; Carrari, Elisa ; Covelo, Felisa ; de la Fuente, María ; Ferrenberg, Scott ; Fyllas, Nikolaos M. ; Hoshika, Yasutomo ; Lee, Steven R. ; Marquis, Robert J. ; Nakamura, Masahiro ; Nell, Colleen S. ; Pesendorfer, Mario B. ; Steele, Michael A. ; Vázquez‐González, Carla ; Zhang, Shuang ; Rasmann, Sergio ; Züst, Tobias</creator><contributor>Züst, Tobias</contributor><creatorcontrib>Moreira, Xoaquín ; Abdala‐Roberts, Luis ; Galmán, Andrea ; Bartlow, Andrew W. ; Berny‐Mier y Teran, Jorge C. ; Carrari, Elisa ; Covelo, Felisa ; de la Fuente, María ; Ferrenberg, Scott ; Fyllas, Nikolaos M. ; Hoshika, Yasutomo ; Lee, Steven R. ; Marquis, Robert J. ; Nakamura, Masahiro ; Nell, Colleen S. ; Pesendorfer, Mario B. ; Steele, Michael A. ; Vázquez‐González, Carla ; Zhang, Shuang ; Rasmann, Sergio ; Züst, Tobias ; Züst, Tobias</creatorcontrib><description>Plant species allocate resources to multiple defensive traits simultaneously, often leading to so‐called defence syndromes (i.e. suites of traits that are co-expressed across several species). While reports of ontogenetic variation in plant defences are commonplace, no study to date has tested for ontogenetic shifts in defence syndromes, and we know little about the ecological and evolutionary drivers of variation in plant defence syndromes across ontogeny.
We tested for ontogenetic variation in plant defence syndromes by measuring a suite of defensive and nutritional traits on saplings and adult trees of 29 oak (Quercus, Fagaceae) species distributed across Europe, North America, and Asia. In addition, we investigated if these syndromes exhibited a phylogenetic signal to elucidate the nature of their macro‐evolutionary variation, whether they were associated with levels of herbivore pressure and climatic conditions, and if any such evolutionary and ecological patterns were contingent on ontogeny.
Our analyses revealed three distinct oak defence syndromes: the first included species with high defences, the second species with high defences and low nutrient levels, and the third species with high nutrients and thinner leaves. Interestingly, these defence syndromes remained virtually unchanged across the two ontogenetic stages sampled. In addition, our analyses indicated no evidence for a phylogenetic signal in oak syndromes, a result consistent across ontogenetic stages. Finally, with respect to ecological factors, we found no effect of climatic conditions on defences for either ontogenetic stage, whereas defence syndromes were associated with differing levels of herbivory in adults but not saplings suggesting an association between herbivore pressure and syndrome type that is contingent on ontogeny.
Synthesis. Together, these findings indicate that defence syndromes remain remarkably consistent across oak ontogenetic stages, are evolutionarily labile, and while they appear unrelated to climate, they do appear to be associated with herbivory levels in an ontogenetic‐dependent manner. Overall, this study builds towards a better understanding of ecological and evolutionary factors underlying multivariate plant defensive phenotypes.
We found three distinct oak defence syndromes: the first one including species with high defences, the second one including species with high defences and low nutrient levels, and the third one including species with high nutrients and thinner leaves. These defence syndromes remained virtually unchanged across the ontogenetic stages sampled.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0477</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2745</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.13376</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>adult trees ; chemical defences ; Climate effects ; Climatic conditions ; Defense mechanisms ; Disorders ; Ecological effects ; Environmental factors ; Evolution ; Herbivores ; Herbivory ; insect herbivory ; Mineral nutrients ; Nutrients ; Oak ; Ontogeny ; Phenotypes ; Phylogenetics ; Phylogeny ; physical defences ; Quercus ; saplings ; Symptoms ; Variation</subject><ispartof>The Journal of ecology, 2020-09, Vol.108 (5), p.1822-1834</ispartof><rights>2020 British Ecological Society</rights><rights>Journal of Ecology © 2020 British Ecological Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3566-9c5ab9808f0718a0ef977743fbfbe88c3f2c04589f3fc30f2262f7a82e7b28933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3566-9c5ab9808f0718a0ef977743fbfbe88c3f2c04589f3fc30f2262f7a82e7b28933</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3542-0334 ; 0000-0002-3120-6226 ; 0000-0001-6344-7721 ; 0000-0002-3804-9200 ; 0000-0001-6810-164X ; 0000-0003-1394-3043 ; 0000-0002-7994-7090 ; 0000-0003-3731-5033 ; 0000-0003-0166-838X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1365-2745.13376$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1365-2745.13376$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,1433,27924,27925,45574,45575,46409,46833</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Züst, Tobias</contributor><creatorcontrib>Moreira, Xoaquín</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdala‐Roberts, Luis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galmán, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bartlow, Andrew W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berny‐Mier y Teran, Jorge C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrari, Elisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Covelo, Felisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de la Fuente, María</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrenberg, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fyllas, Nikolaos M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoshika, Yasutomo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Steven R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marquis, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakamura, Masahiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nell, Colleen S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pesendorfer, Mario B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steele, Michael A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vázquez‐González, Carla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Shuang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rasmann, Sergio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Züst, Tobias</creatorcontrib><title>Ontogenetic consistency in oak defence syndromes</title><title>The Journal of ecology</title><description>Plant species allocate resources to multiple defensive traits simultaneously, often leading to so‐called defence syndromes (i.e. suites of traits that are co-expressed across several species). While reports of ontogenetic variation in plant defences are commonplace, no study to date has tested for ontogenetic shifts in defence syndromes, and we know little about the ecological and evolutionary drivers of variation in plant defence syndromes across ontogeny.
We tested for ontogenetic variation in plant defence syndromes by measuring a suite of defensive and nutritional traits on saplings and adult trees of 29 oak (Quercus, Fagaceae) species distributed across Europe, North America, and Asia. In addition, we investigated if these syndromes exhibited a phylogenetic signal to elucidate the nature of their macro‐evolutionary variation, whether they were associated with levels of herbivore pressure and climatic conditions, and if any such evolutionary and ecological patterns were contingent on ontogeny.
Our analyses revealed three distinct oak defence syndromes: the first included species with high defences, the second species with high defences and low nutrient levels, and the third species with high nutrients and thinner leaves. Interestingly, these defence syndromes remained virtually unchanged across the two ontogenetic stages sampled. In addition, our analyses indicated no evidence for a phylogenetic signal in oak syndromes, a result consistent across ontogenetic stages. Finally, with respect to ecological factors, we found no effect of climatic conditions on defences for either ontogenetic stage, whereas defence syndromes were associated with differing levels of herbivory in adults but not saplings suggesting an association between herbivore pressure and syndrome type that is contingent on ontogeny.
Synthesis. Together, these findings indicate that defence syndromes remain remarkably consistent across oak ontogenetic stages, are evolutionarily labile, and while they appear unrelated to climate, they do appear to be associated with herbivory levels in an ontogenetic‐dependent manner. Overall, this study builds towards a better understanding of ecological and evolutionary factors underlying multivariate plant defensive phenotypes.
We found three distinct oak defence syndromes: the first one including species with high defences, the second one including species with high defences and low nutrient levels, and the third one including species with high nutrients and thinner leaves. These defence syndromes remained virtually unchanged across the ontogenetic stages sampled.</description><subject>adult trees</subject><subject>chemical defences</subject><subject>Climate effects</subject><subject>Climatic conditions</subject><subject>Defense mechanisms</subject><subject>Disorders</subject><subject>Ecological effects</subject><subject>Environmental factors</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Herbivores</subject><subject>Herbivory</subject><subject>insect herbivory</subject><subject>Mineral nutrients</subject><subject>Nutrients</subject><subject>Oak</subject><subject>Ontogeny</subject><subject>Phenotypes</subject><subject>Phylogenetics</subject><subject>Phylogeny</subject><subject>physical defences</subject><subject>Quercus</subject><subject>saplings</subject><subject>Symptoms</subject><subject>Variation</subject><issn>0022-0477</issn><issn>1365-2745</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1PwzAMhiMEEmVw5lqJczc3aer0iKbxpUm7wDlqMwd1bMlIOqH-e1qKuOKLZet5belh7DaHeT7UIhelzDgWcp4LgeUZS_425ywB4DyDAvGSXcW4A4ASJSQMNq7z7-Soa01qvItt7MiZPm1d6uuPdEt2GCmNvdsGf6B4zS5svY9089tn7O1h9bp8ytabx-fl_TozQpZlVhlZN5UCZQFzVQPZChELYRvbkFJGWG6gkKqywhoBlvOSW6wVJ2y4qoSYsbvp7jH4zxPFTu_8KbjhpeaFEAo5cjlQi4kywccYyOpjaA916HUOetSiRwl6lKB_tAwJOSW-2j31_-H6ZbWcct9lQWLN</recordid><startdate>202009</startdate><enddate>202009</enddate><creator>Moreira, Xoaquín</creator><creator>Abdala‐Roberts, Luis</creator><creator>Galmán, Andrea</creator><creator>Bartlow, Andrew W.</creator><creator>Berny‐Mier y Teran, Jorge C.</creator><creator>Carrari, Elisa</creator><creator>Covelo, Felisa</creator><creator>de la Fuente, María</creator><creator>Ferrenberg, Scott</creator><creator>Fyllas, Nikolaos M.</creator><creator>Hoshika, Yasutomo</creator><creator>Lee, Steven R.</creator><creator>Marquis, Robert J.</creator><creator>Nakamura, Masahiro</creator><creator>Nell, Colleen S.</creator><creator>Pesendorfer, Mario B.</creator><creator>Steele, Michael A.</creator><creator>Vázquez‐González, Carla</creator><creator>Zhang, Shuang</creator><creator>Rasmann, Sergio</creator><creator>Züst, Tobias</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3542-0334</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3120-6226</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6344-7721</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3804-9200</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6810-164X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1394-3043</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7994-7090</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3731-5033</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0166-838X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202009</creationdate><title>Ontogenetic consistency in oak defence syndromes</title><author>Moreira, Xoaquín ; Abdala‐Roberts, Luis ; Galmán, Andrea ; Bartlow, Andrew W. ; Berny‐Mier y Teran, Jorge C. ; Carrari, Elisa ; Covelo, Felisa ; de la Fuente, María ; Ferrenberg, Scott ; Fyllas, Nikolaos M. ; Hoshika, Yasutomo ; Lee, Steven R. ; Marquis, Robert J. ; Nakamura, Masahiro ; Nell, Colleen S. ; Pesendorfer, Mario B. ; Steele, Michael A. ; Vázquez‐González, Carla ; Zhang, Shuang ; Rasmann, Sergio ; Züst, Tobias</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3566-9c5ab9808f0718a0ef977743fbfbe88c3f2c04589f3fc30f2262f7a82e7b28933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>adult trees</topic><topic>chemical defences</topic><topic>Climate effects</topic><topic>Climatic conditions</topic><topic>Defense mechanisms</topic><topic>Disorders</topic><topic>Ecological effects</topic><topic>Environmental factors</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Herbivores</topic><topic>Herbivory</topic><topic>insect herbivory</topic><topic>Mineral nutrients</topic><topic>Nutrients</topic><topic>Oak</topic><topic>Ontogeny</topic><topic>Phenotypes</topic><topic>Phylogenetics</topic><topic>Phylogeny</topic><topic>physical defences</topic><topic>Quercus</topic><topic>saplings</topic><topic>Symptoms</topic><topic>Variation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moreira, Xoaquín</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdala‐Roberts, Luis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galmán, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bartlow, Andrew W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berny‐Mier y Teran, Jorge C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrari, Elisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Covelo, Felisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de la Fuente, María</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrenberg, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fyllas, Nikolaos M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoshika, Yasutomo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Steven R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marquis, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakamura, Masahiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nell, Colleen S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pesendorfer, Mario B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steele, Michael A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vázquez‐González, Carla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Shuang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rasmann, Sergio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Züst, Tobias</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Journal of ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moreira, Xoaquín</au><au>Abdala‐Roberts, Luis</au><au>Galmán, Andrea</au><au>Bartlow, Andrew W.</au><au>Berny‐Mier y Teran, Jorge C.</au><au>Carrari, Elisa</au><au>Covelo, Felisa</au><au>de la Fuente, María</au><au>Ferrenberg, Scott</au><au>Fyllas, Nikolaos M.</au><au>Hoshika, Yasutomo</au><au>Lee, Steven R.</au><au>Marquis, Robert J.</au><au>Nakamura, Masahiro</au><au>Nell, Colleen S.</au><au>Pesendorfer, Mario B.</au><au>Steele, Michael A.</au><au>Vázquez‐González, Carla</au><au>Zhang, Shuang</au><au>Rasmann, Sergio</au><au>Züst, Tobias</au><au>Züst, Tobias</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ontogenetic consistency in oak defence syndromes</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of ecology</jtitle><date>2020-09</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>108</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1822</spage><epage>1834</epage><pages>1822-1834</pages><issn>0022-0477</issn><eissn>1365-2745</eissn><abstract>Plant species allocate resources to multiple defensive traits simultaneously, often leading to so‐called defence syndromes (i.e. suites of traits that are co-expressed across several species). While reports of ontogenetic variation in plant defences are commonplace, no study to date has tested for ontogenetic shifts in defence syndromes, and we know little about the ecological and evolutionary drivers of variation in plant defence syndromes across ontogeny.
We tested for ontogenetic variation in plant defence syndromes by measuring a suite of defensive and nutritional traits on saplings and adult trees of 29 oak (Quercus, Fagaceae) species distributed across Europe, North America, and Asia. In addition, we investigated if these syndromes exhibited a phylogenetic signal to elucidate the nature of their macro‐evolutionary variation, whether they were associated with levels of herbivore pressure and climatic conditions, and if any such evolutionary and ecological patterns were contingent on ontogeny.
Our analyses revealed three distinct oak defence syndromes: the first included species with high defences, the second species with high defences and low nutrient levels, and the third species with high nutrients and thinner leaves. Interestingly, these defence syndromes remained virtually unchanged across the two ontogenetic stages sampled. In addition, our analyses indicated no evidence for a phylogenetic signal in oak syndromes, a result consistent across ontogenetic stages. Finally, with respect to ecological factors, we found no effect of climatic conditions on defences for either ontogenetic stage, whereas defence syndromes were associated with differing levels of herbivory in adults but not saplings suggesting an association between herbivore pressure and syndrome type that is contingent on ontogeny.
Synthesis. Together, these findings indicate that defence syndromes remain remarkably consistent across oak ontogenetic stages, are evolutionarily labile, and while they appear unrelated to climate, they do appear to be associated with herbivory levels in an ontogenetic‐dependent manner. Overall, this study builds towards a better understanding of ecological and evolutionary factors underlying multivariate plant defensive phenotypes.
We found three distinct oak defence syndromes: the first one including species with high defences, the second one including species with high defences and low nutrient levels, and the third one including species with high nutrients and thinner leaves. These defence syndromes remained virtually unchanged across the ontogenetic stages sampled.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/1365-2745.13376</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3542-0334</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3120-6226</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6344-7721</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3804-9200</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6810-164X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1394-3043</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7994-7090</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3731-5033</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0166-838X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-0477 |
ispartof | The Journal of ecology, 2020-09, Vol.108 (5), p.1822-1834 |
issn | 0022-0477 1365-2745 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2433872725 |
source | Access via Wiley Online Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection) |
subjects | adult trees chemical defences Climate effects Climatic conditions Defense mechanisms Disorders Ecological effects Environmental factors Evolution Herbivores Herbivory insect herbivory Mineral nutrients Nutrients Oak Ontogeny Phenotypes Phylogenetics Phylogeny physical defences Quercus saplings Symptoms Variation |
title | Ontogenetic consistency in oak defence syndromes |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T06%3A41%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ontogenetic%20consistency%20in%20oak%20defence%20syndromes&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20ecology&rft.au=Moreira,%20Xoaqu%C3%ADn&rft.date=2020-09&rft.volume=108&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1822&rft.epage=1834&rft.pages=1822-1834&rft.issn=0022-0477&rft.eissn=1365-2745&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1365-2745.13376&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2433872725%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2433872725&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |