A Framework for Predicting Intraspecific Variation in Plant Defense

SUPPLEMENTARY MATRIALS

Inventory: Table S1-S2

A framework for predicting intraspecific variation in plant defense

Philip G Hahn and John L Maron

Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA

Corresponding author: Hahn, P.G. [

Key-words: intraspecific trait variation, plant defense, resource availability hypothesis.

Table S1. Summary of common garden studies included in the synthesis.

We searched Web of Science using different combinations of the following search terms: "resource availability hypothesis", "growth rate hypothesis", "plant defense", "adaptation", "herbiv*", "resource or light or nutrient or water", "growth", "defens*", "clin". We also studied and searched the references of the articles.

Reference / Gradient / Location / Plant guild / Experiment type / Estimate of defense / Resource-growth relationship / Resource-resistance relationship / Resource-herbivore pressure relationship / Growth-resistance relationship
Coley et al. [1]† / Resources (light and soil nutrients) / Positive / Negative / None / Negative
Galen et al. [2] / Elevation / Colorado, USA / Herb / Common greenhouse and reciprocal transplant / Trichomes and aphid colonization in greenhouse / Negative / Positive / Positive / Negative
Nerg et al. [3] / Latitude / Finland / Tree / Multiple common gardens / Phenolics, resin and monoterpenes / None / Negative
Klingaman and Oliver [4] / Latitude / SE USA / Herb / Common garden / Trichome density / Positive / None
Wainhouse et al. [5] / Latitude / Pacific coast, North America / Tree / Multiple common gardens / Lignin and resin / Positive / Negative / None
Salgado and Pennings [6] / Latitude / Atlantic coast, USA / Herbs / Common garden / Consumption by insects, physical resistance traits / Positive / Positive
Pennings et al. [7] / Latitude / Atlantic coast, USA / Herb / Reciprocal transplant / Damage / Positive / Positive
Ward et al. [8] / Precip / Israel / Tree / Common garden / Tannins and spines. Induced resistance was via clipping / Negative / Positive
Woods et al. [9] / Latitude and precip / Eastern USA / Herb / Multiple common gardens / Resistance traits and damage in the common gardens / Positive / Negative and mixed / Mixed, damage greatest at range center / None
Pratt et al. [10] / Precip / California, USA / Shrub / Common garden / Monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes / Negative / Negative / None
Pellissier et al. [11] / Elevation / Swiss Alps / Herb / Field observations and experiments, growth chamber experiment / Bioassay to generalist insect and chemical defenses / None / Positive / Positive / None
Metz et al. [12] / Precip / Israel / Herb / Common greenhouse / Chemical defenses (glucosinolates) / Positive / Positive
Rasmann et al. [13] / Elevation / Swiss Alps / Herb / Common greenhouse and field observations / Bioassay, measured VOCs / Positive / Positive
Wieski and Pennings [14] / Latitude / Atlantic coast, USA / Shrub / Common garden / Bioassays to measure constitutive and induced resistance and tolerance / Positive / Positive / Positive / Positive
Reudler and Elzinga [15] / Day length / Northern and Middle Europe / Herb / Common greenhouse / Chemical resistance (iridoid glycocides) / Positive / Positive
Anderson et al. [16] / Elevation / Rocky Mountains, USA / Herb / Two common gardens / Resistance measured as inverse of damage / Positive / Positive / Positive
Couture et al. [17] / Latitude / Wisconsin, USA / Herb / Common greenhouse / Resistance traits, monarch bioassay / Positive / Mixed
Anstett et al. [18] / Latitude / Eastern North America / Herb / Common garden / Chemical resistance traits measured. Resistance estimated as inverse of damage / None / Positive / Mixed / None
Lehndal et al. [19] / Latitude, growing season / Sweden / Herb / Common garden and field observations / Damage and tolerance / Positive / Positive / Positive / None
Agrawal et al. [20] / Temp, precip / Eastern USA / Herb / Common growth chamber / Chemical (const. and induced), physical, bioassay / Positive / None / None
Stevens et al. [21] / Latitude / Canada / Tree / Common garden / Constitutive chemical resistance traits / Positive / Negative / Negative

Notes: †Coley et al. [1] is listed for reference. Predictions are extensions of the predictions outlined in Coley et al. [1] that are more applicable to within-species studies.

Table S1 [con't].

Reference / Summary
Coley et al. [1]†
Galen et al. [2] / Plants from high elevations grew larger and had smaller aphid population growth rates compared to low elevation plants.
Nerg et al. [3] / Several monoterpenes were higher from high-latitude populations. No effect of origin for phenolics or resin.
Klingaman and Oliver [4] / Plants from higher latitudes had faster flowering times but lower dry biomass. No difference in trichomes across latitude.
Wainhouse et al. [5] / Lignin and resin were higher and growth rate (DBH) was lower in populations from higher latitudes.
Salgado and Pennings [6] / Herbivores consumed more leaf tissue of high- vs. low-latitude plants for three species (two grasses, one forb). Leaf toughness was also higher in low-latitude populations of Spartina alterniflora.
Pennings et al. [7] / Herbivore densities and/or damage were higher for most herbivore types in lower latitude sites. Transplant experiments for three herbaceous species showed that high-latitude plants transplanted to low-latitude sites received the most herbivore damage.
Ward et al. [8] / Spine length and tannins were positively related to plant size. Resistance traits for resource environment were not presented.
Woods et al. [9] / Latitude had a negative effect on growth. Latex increased with precipitation and latitude. Resistance to aphids and monarch larvae increased with precipitation and latitude. Herbivore pressure was greatest near the center of the distribution of the plant.
Pratt et al. [10] / Plant growth decreased with precipitation. Monoterpene concentration decreased with precipitation, but there was no relationship for sesquiterpenes.
Pellissier et al. [11] / Plant growth did not differ between low- and high-elevation plants grown in growth chambers. High-elevation plants were less resistant in a herbivore bioassay. Iridoid glycosides increased in response to herbivore damage at 20°C but decreased at 12°C; high-elevation plants did not response to herbivore damage.
Metz et al. [12] / Total glucosinolate concentration increased in populations collected along a precipitation gradient. Indole glucosinolate concentration was highest in the population from the most mesic site.
Rasmann et al. [13] / No direct measure of growth rate, but suggest that low elevation plants grow faster. Constitutive resistance (measured with bioassay and VOC) were greater at lower elevations and induced defenses (VOCs) were greater at higher elevations. Herbivory rates were higher at lower elevations.
Wieski and Pennings [14] / Plants from low latitudes grew larger and had higher constitutive and inducible defenses. Tolerance did not differ among populations.
Reudler and Elzinga [15] / Plants from lower latitudes (longer day length) were larger and produced more iridoid glycosides.
Anderson et al. [16] / Plants from lower elevations had higher fitness. High-elevation genotypes were less resistant to herbivory than low-elevation genotypes. Herbivore pressure was greater at lower elevations. Also found an effect of geographic distance of population from garden, suggesting potential adaption to local herbivores.
Couture et al. [17] / Southern populations grew larger. Monarch performance and resistance traits (latex, and trichomes) differed among populations. Trichome density was higher in southern populations; latex was higher in northern populations; cardenolides did not differ among populations.
Anstett et al. [18] / No difference in growth rate among populations. Resistance (inverse of damage) was negatively related to latitude of origin. Two oenothein compounds had opposite responses to latitude (one positive, one negative).
Lehndal et al. [19] / Southern plants grew faster. Resistance decreased with latitude, whereas tolerance increased. Field surveys showed higher herbivore pressure (and more damage) in low-latitude sites. Tolerance was higher in northern populations because they emerged earlier and were larger when herbivores emerge.
Agrawal et al. [20] / Plants (native populations only) grew marginally larger with increased temp. No clinal patterns for resistance traits. Larger plants also had higher inducibility. Constitutive and induced cardenolides traded off.
Stevens et al. [21] / Plants from southern latitudes grew faster, but had lower resin gland density. Growth and resin gland density was negatively related.

Table S2. Summary of observational studies from Box 1.

Table S2 [con't].

Reference / Summary
Lesage et al. [22] / Higher phenols at higher latitudes for an herb and shrub, but no relationship for four tree species and one herb.
Siska et al. [23] / Several herbaceous species had higher phenol concentrations and/or greater leaf toughness at lower latitudes.
Azevedo et al. [24] / Of 14 terpenoid compounds, 10 were not related to latitude, two were higher and two were lower at high latitudes.
Gaston et al. [25] / Herbivore density was higher at higher latitudes and lower elevations
Karkkainen et al. [26] / Frequency of trichome-producing genotypes increased with latitude.
Zhou et al. [27] / Alkaloid concentration increased with latitude and elevation, and decreased with temperature.
Stark et al. [28] / Flavonoid concentration increased with site annual temperature. No relationship for total flavonoid concentration with latitude, but mixed relationship (+ and -) for specific flavonoid types. No relationship for tannins.
Adams et al. [29] / Higher phenolics and condensed tannins at higher latitudes, no relationship for hydrolysable tannins for Acer rubrum. No relationship for Fagus grandifolia, Liquidambar styraciflua, or Quercus alba.
Martz et al. [30] / All chemical concentrations increased with latitude and elevation. Effect of latitude was stronger than elevation.
Mossi et al. [31] / Positive relationship between temperature and climate (more tropical) with tannins, but no relationship with latitude or elevation. No clinal patterns for triterpenes.
Castillo et al. [32] / Relationship between aridity and trichomes was negative (positive for resource-resistance). No relationship between aridity and atropine or scopolamine. Plant size was positively related to trichome density but negatively related to scopolamine concentration.
Katz et al. [33] / Phytolith concentration increased along precipitation gradient for one grass species and three non-spiny Asteraceae species, but no relationship in five species of spiny Asteraceae.
Kooyers et al. [34] / Frequency of cyanogenic morphs of white clover increased along a precipitation gradient. Herbivore damage also increase along precipitation gradient.
Kim [35] / Positive, negative, and unimodal relationships found between latitude and plant resistance (measured with bioassays), depending on the plant species and herbivore species.
Abdala-Roberts et al. [36] / Only significant relationship was between precipitation and leaf phenolics. No relationship between resistance traits and temperature.

References

S1. Coley, P. et al. (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230, 895–899.

S2. Galen, C. et al. (1991) Ecotypic divergence in alpine Polemonium viscosum: genetic structure, quantitative variation, and local adaptation. Evolution 45, 1218–1228.

S3. Nerg A, et al. (1994) Seasonal and geographical variation of terpenes, resin acids and total phenolics in nursery grown seedlings of Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L). New Phytol. 128, 703–713.

S4. Klingaman, T.E. and Oliver, L.R. (1996) Existence of ecotypes among populations of entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var integriuscula). Weed Sci. 44, 540–544.

S5. Wainhouse, D. and Ashburner, R. (1996) The influence of genetic and environmental factors on a quantitative defensive trait in Spruce. Funct. Ecol. 10, 137–143.

S6. Salgado, C.S. and Pennings, S.C. (2005) Latitudinal variation in palatability of salt-marsh plants: Are differences Constitutive? Ecology 86, 1571–1579.

S7. Pennings, S.C. et al. (2009) Latitudinal variation in herbivore pressure in Atlantic Coast salt marshes. Ecology 90, 183–95.

S8. Ward, D. et al. (2012) Evolution and ecology meet molecular genetics: adaptive phenotypic plasticity in two isolated Negev desert populations of Acacia raddiana at either end of a rainfall gradient. Ann. Bot. 109, 247–255.

S9. Woods, E.C. et al. (2012) Adaptive geographical clines in the growth and defense of a native plant. Ecol Monogr 82, 149–168.

S10. Pratt, J.D. and Mooney, K.A. (2013) Clinal adaptation and adaptive plasticity in Artemisia californica : implications for the response of a foundation species to predicted climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 19, 2454–2466.