The interaction of plant genotype and herbivory decelerate leaf litter decomposition and alter nutrient dynamics

By J. Schweitzer, Joseph K. Bailey, S. Hart, G. Wimp, S. Chapman, T. Whitham. 2005

148 citations recorded by the source corpus.

145.We examined how plant genetic variation and a common herbivore (the leaf-gallingaphid, Pemphigus betae) influenced leaf litter quality, decomposition, and nutrientdynamics in a dominant riparian tree (Populus spp.). Based on both observationalstudies and a herbivore exclusion experiment using trees of known genotype, we foundfour major patterns: 1) the quality of galled vs non-galled or gall-excluded littersignificantly differed in the concentration of condensed tannins, lignin, nitrogen andphosphorus; 2) the difference in litter quality resulted in galled litter decomposing atrates 34 to 40% slower than non-galled litter; 3) plant genotype and herbivory hadsimilar effects on the magnitude of decomposition rate constants; and 4) plantgenotype mediated the herbivore effects on leaf litter quality and decomposition, asthere were genotype-specific responses to herbivory independent of herbivore density.In contrast to other studies that have demonstrated accelerated ecosystem properties inresponse to arthropod herbivory, our findings argue that herbivore-induced secondarycompounds decelerated ecosystem properties though their ‘‘after-life’’ effects on litterquality. Furthermore, these data are among the first to suggest that genotype-specificresponses to herbivores can have a major impact on decomposition and nutrient flux,which likely has important consequences for the spatial distribution of nutrients at thelandscape level. Due to the magnitude of these effects, we contend that it is importantto incorporate a genetic perspective into ecosystem studies.J. A. Schweitzer and S. C. Hart, School of Forestry, Box 15018, Northern ArizonaUniversity, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA (jennifer.schweitzer@nau.edu).

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8de8b3d11925df420c5f9e249c5d66f127bd7ac3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

  1. T. Ohgushi
  2. Oswald J. Schmitz
  3. T. Whitham

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

  1. T. Ohgushi
  2. K. Burghardt
  3. R. Buchkowski
  4. Colin M. Donihue
  5. C. Gehring
  6. Oswald J. Schmitz
  7. T. Whitham
  8. Marc T. J. Johnson

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

  1. T. Ohgushi
  2. C. Gehring
  3. K. Burghardt
  4. R. Buchkowski
  5. Colin M. Donihue
  6. Christopher M. Sthultz
  7. Oswald J. Schmitz
  8. T. Whitham

Citations in the corpus