COMPENSATORY GROWTH RESPONSES OF TWO PLANTS WITH DIFFERENT GROWTH FORMS AFTER CLIPPING

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2005.0098

Abstract

Abstract:

Identifying mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage will facilitate attempts to understand the role of tolerance in the evolutionary and ecological dynamics of plants and herbivores. Several external factors, such as water availability, nutrient availability, intensity of damage, and timing of damage, will affect the ability of individual plants to tolerate damage by mediating internal mechanisms. Though interspecific comparisons are useful for identifying possible mechanisms, direct comparisons between tolerance and putative mechanism have been made almost exclusively in interspecies or interpopulation studies.
This study compared the compensatory responses of Avena sativa and Brassica campestris, which belong to different growth forms, to clipping under two fertilization treatments. The results showed that, for Avena sativa, under no fertilization treatment, the biomass, total biomass, fruit weight and number of fruits were greater than in the control, but only some aspects resulted in overcompensation. Under fertilized conditions, clipping treatments did not cause any overcompensation. Whether fertilized or not, the index of compensation during the tillering stage and jointing stage were both higher than during the flowering stage. Thus, under the no fertilization treatment, the low clipping treatment during the vegetative stage was shown to benefit Avena sativa. With respect to Brassica campestris, the index of compensation was greatest in the low clipping treatment during the flower bud stage, and was enhanced under fertilization. These results indicate that clipping during the reproductive stage can help compensatory growth in Brassica campestris. The different responses to clipping were attributed to the different growth forms, which had different positions and activities of dormant buds.

Key words: Clipping, Compensation, Dormant bud, Growth form

LEI Shu-Qing, WANG Hai-Yang, DU Guo-Zhen, PAN Sheng-Wang. COMPENSATORY GROWTH RESPONSES OF TWO PLANTS WITH DIFFERENT GROWTH FORMS AFTER CLIPPING[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2005, 29(5): 740-746.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.17521/cjpe.2005.0098

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2005/V29/I5/740

Figures/Tables 4

References 25

[1]	Belsky AJ (1986). Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. American Naturalist, 127,870-892.
[2]	Belsky AJ, Carson WP, Jensen CL, Fox G (1993). Overcompensation by plants: herbivore optimization or red herring? Evolutionary Ecology, 7,109-121.
[3]	Bergelson J, Crawley MJ (1992). Herbivory and Ipomopsis aggregata: the disadvantages of being eaten. American Naturalist, 139,870-872.
[4]	Caldwell MM, Richards JH, Johnson DA, Nowack RS, Dzurec RS (1981). Coping with herbivory: photosynthetic capacity and resource allocation in two semiarid Agropyron bunchgrasses. Oecologia, 50,14-24. URL PMID
[5]	Chen H(陈红), Wang HY (王海洋), DU GZ(杜国祯) (2003). Impacts of clipping time, clipping intensity and fertilization on plant compensation of Avena sativa. Acta Botanica Boreali-occidentalia Sinica (西北植物学报), 23,969-975. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	DU GZ(杜国祯), Wang G(王刚) (1995). Succession and changes of grassland quality of the artificial grassland communities in subalpine meadow in Gannan. Acta Botanica Sinica (植物学报), 37,306-313. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	Evans AS (1991). Whole-plant responses of Brassica campestris to altered sink-source relations. American Journal of Botany, 78,394-400.
[8]	Hawkes CV, Sullivan JJ (2001). The impact of herb ivory on plants in different resource conditions: a meta-analysis. Ecology, 82,2045-2058.
[9]	Hilbert DW, Swift DM, Delting JK, Dyer MI (1981). Relative growth rates and the grazing optimization hypothesis. Oecologia, 51,14-48. DOI URL PMID
[10]	Huhta AP, Hellstrøm K, Rautio P, Tuomi J (2003). Grazing tolerance of Gentianella amarelle and other monocarpic herbs: why is tolerance highest at low damage levels ? Plant Ecology, 166,49-61.
[11]	Juenger T, Bergelson J (2000). The evolution of compensation to herbivory in scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata: herbivore-imposed natural selection and quantitative genetics of tolerance. Evolution, 54,764-777. URL PMID
[12]	Lehtilä K (2000). Modelling compensatory regrowth with bud dormancy and gradual activation of buds. Evolutionary Ecology, 14,315-330.
[13]	Lennartsson T, Tuomi J, Nilsson P (1998). Induction of overcompensation in the field gentian, Gentianella campestris. Ecology, 79,1061-1072.
[14]	Martínez Moreno D, Núňez-Farfán J, Terrazas T, Ruiz LM, Trinidad-Santos A, Trejo C, Larque-Saabedra A (1999). Plastic responses to clipping in two species of Amaranthus from the Sierra Norte de Puebla, Mexico. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 46,225-234.
[15]	Maschinski J, Whitham TG (1989). The continuum of plant responses to herb ivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability, and timing. American Naturalist, 134,1-19.
[16]	Obeso JR (1998). Effects of the defoliation and girdling on fruit production in Ilex aquiafolium. Functional Ecology, 12,486-491.
[17]	Paige KN, Whitham TG (1987). Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: the advantage of being eaten. American Naturalist, 129,407-416.
[18]	Rosenthal JP, Welter SC (1995). Tolerance to herbivory by a stemboring caterpillar in architecturally distinct maizes and wild relatives. Oecologia, 102,146-155. DOI URL PMID
[19]	Rosenthal JP, Kotanen PM (1994). Terrestrial plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9,145-148. DOI URL PMID
[20]	Tiffin P (2000). Mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage: what do we know? Evolutionary Ecology, 14,523-536.
[21]	Trumble JT, Kolodny-Hirsch DM, Ting IP (1993). Plant compensation for arthropod herbivory. Annual Review of Entomology, 38,93-119.
[22]	Tuomi J, Nilsson P, Åstrøm M (1994). Plant compensatory responses: bud dormancy as an adaptation to herbivory. Ecology, 75,1429-1436.
[23]	van der Meijden E, Wijin M, Verkaar HJ (1988). Denfense and regrowth, alternative plant strategies in the struggle against herbivores. Oikos, 51,355-363.
[24]	Wang HY(王海洋), Du GZ(杜国祯), Ren QJ(任青吉) (2003). The impacts of population density and fertilization on compensatory responses of Elymus nutans to mowing. Acta phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 27,477-483. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	Weis AE, Simms EL, Hochberg ME (2000). Will plant vigor and tolerance be genetically correlated? Effects of intrinsic growth rate and self-limitation on regrowth. Evolutionary Ecology, 14,331-352.

处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	补偿指数Compensation index
处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	果重Fruit weight	果数No. of fruit	生物量 Biomass	总生物量Total biomass
不施肥	1/CK	1.500^**	1.502^**	1.426^**	1.464^**
Unfertilized	2/CK	1.060	1.247	1.031	1.094
	3/CK	1.689^**	1.766^**	1.515^**	1.590^**
	4/CK	0.764^*	0.963	0.745^**	0.900
	5/CK	0.981	1.236^*	1.188	1.361^**
	6/CK	0.213^**	0.374^**	0.460^**	0.791^*
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
施肥	1/CK	0.783	0.753^*	0.701^*	0.725^*
Fertilized	2/CK	0.601^**	0.771^*	0.579^**	0.620^**
	3/CK	0.894	0.990	0.761^*	0.828
	4/CK	0.551^**	0.771^*	0.560^**	0.704^**
	5/CK	0.468^**	0.569^**	0.651^*	0.836
	6/CK	0.118^**	0.225^**	0.355^**	0.707^**
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000

处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	补偿指数Compensation index
处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	果重Fruit weight	果数No. of fruit	生物量 Biomass	总生物量Total biomass
不施肥	1/CK	1.500^**	1.502^**	1.426^**	1.464^**
Unfertilized	2/CK	1.060	1.247	1.031	1.094
	3/CK	1.689^**	1.766^**	1.515^**	1.590^**
	4/CK	0.764^*	0.963	0.745^**	0.900
	5/CK	0.981	1.236^*	1.188	1.361^**
	6/CK	0.213^**	0.374^**	0.460^**	0.791^*
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
施肥	1/CK	0.783	0.753^*	0.701^*	0.725^*
Fertilized	2/CK	0.601^**	0.771^*	0.579^**	0.620^**
	3/CK	0.894	0.990	0.761^*	0.828
	4/CK	0.551^**	0.771^*	0.560^**	0.704^**
	5/CK	0.468^**	0.569^**	0.651^*	0.836
	6/CK	0.118^**	0.225^**	0.355^**	0.707^**
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000

处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	补偿指数Compensation index
处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	果重Fruit weight	果数No. of fruit	生物量 Biomass	总生物量Total biomass
不施肥	1/CK	0.963	0.984	0.899	1.008
Unfertilized	2/CK	0.193^**	0.236^**	0.539^**	0.680^*
	3/CK	0.506^**	0.779^*	1.179	1.264^*
	4/CK	0.240^**	0.528^**	0.858	1.034
	5/CK	0.364^**	0.444^**	0.836	0.939
	6/CK	0.096^**	0.086^**	0.616^*	0.999
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
施肥	1/CK	0.589^**	0.739^**	0.582^**	0.647^**
Fertilized	2/CK	0.223^**	0.280^**	0.371^**	0.450^**
	3/CK	1.165	1.444^**	1.392^**	1.431^**
	4/CK	0.320^**	0.431^**	0.596^**	0.694^**
	5/CK	1.089	1.240	1.306^*	1.437^**
	6/CK	0.175^**	0.196^**	0.507^**	0.775^*
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000

处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	补偿指数Compensation index
处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	果重Fruit weight	果数No. of fruit	生物量 Biomass	总生物量Total biomass
不施肥	1/CK	0.963	0.984	0.899	1.008
Unfertilized	2/CK	0.193^**	0.236^**	0.539^**	0.680^*
	3/CK	0.506^**	0.779^*	1.179	1.264^*
	4/CK	0.240^**	0.528^**	0.858	1.034
	5/CK	0.364^**	0.444^**	0.836	0.939
	6/CK	0.096^**	0.086^**	0.616^*	0.999
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
施肥	1/CK	0.589^**	0.739^**	0.582^**	0.647^**
Fertilized	2/CK	0.223^**	0.280^**	0.371^**	0.450^**
	3/CK	1.165	1.444^**	1.392^**	1.431^**
	4/CK	0.320^**	0.431^**	0.596^**	0.694^**
	5/CK	1.089	1.240	1.306^*	1.437^**
	6/CK	0.175^**	0.196^**	0.507^**	0.775^*
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000