Search

We tested whether differences in ploidy level and previous exposure to herbivory can affect plant tolerance to herbivory. We conducted a common garden experiment with 12 populations of two ploidy levels of the perennial herb Cardamine pratensis (five populations of tetraploid ssp. pratensis and seven populations of octoploid ssp. paludosa). Earlier studies have shown that attack rates by the main herbivore, the orange tip butterfly Anthocharis cardamines, are lower in populations of octoploids than in populations of tetraploids, and vary among populations. In the common garden experiment, a combination of natural and artificial damage significantly reduced seed and flower production. We measured tolerance based on four plant-performance metrics: survival, growth, seed production and clonal reproduction. For three of these measurements, tolerance of damage did not differ between ploidy levels. For clonal reproduction, the octoploids had a higher tolerance than the tetraploids, although they experience lower herbivore attack rates in natural populations. Populations from sites with high levels of herbivory had higher tolerance, measured by seed production, than populations with low levels of herbivory. We did not detect any significant costs of tolerance. We conclude that high intensity of herbivory has selected for high tolerance measured by seed production in C. pratensis.

To study mechanisms underlying plant tolerance to herbivore damage, we used apical and foliar damage as experimental treatments to study whether there are similar tolerance mechanisms to different types of damage. We also studied whether tolerance to different types of damage are associated, and whether there is a cost involved in plant tolerance to different types of herbivore damage. Our greenhouse experiment involved 480 plants from 30 full-sib families of an annual weed Raphanus raphanistrum, wild radish, which were subjected to control and two different simulated herbivore damage treatments, apex removal and foliar damage of 30% of leaf area. Apical damage significantly decreased seed production, whereas foliar damage had no effect. There was a significant genetic variation for tolerance to foliar, but not apical damage. No costs were observed in terms of negative correlation between tolerance to either damage type and fitness of undamaged plants. Tolerances to apical and foliar damage were not significantly correlated with each other. We observed a larger number of significant associations between tolerance and reproductive traits than between tolerance and vegetative traits. Plant height and leaf size of damaged plants interacted in their association to tolerance to foliar damage. Inflorescence number and pollen quantity per flower of damaged plants were positively associated with tolerance to apical damage. In late-flowering genotypes, petal size of undamaged plants and pollen quantity of damaged plants were positively associated with tolerance to foliar damage. In summary, traits involved in floral display and male fitness were associated with plant tolerance to herbivore damage.

For heavy metals, quality standards indicating good environmental status are designed to evaluate concentrations in the whole fish body, whereas monitoring of metals is often conducted using muscle or liver tissue. As most metals accumulate at different rates in different parts of fish, data should be adjusted to reflect whole fish body concentrations; however, this requires knowledge on distribution of metal concentrations within fish. Here, concentrations of cadmium, mercury, and lead were analyzed in the liver, muscle and whole fish of herring and perch to create conversion factors for transformation of heavy metal concentrations between these tissues. Species-specific accumulation of metals between muscle, liver, and whole fish were observed. Relationships between different tissues were used to recalculate data from monitoring programs in the Baltic Sea region. Based on whole fish concentrations, environmental status for cadmium and mercury in herring improved compared to assessments based on muscle or liver concentrations alone.

Artificial damage is a popular method in plant-herbivore studies, because the use of real herbivores is often laborious and because it may be virtually impossible to use herbivores in many experimental setups. We made a literature search of studies that tested whether natural and artificial damage have similar effects on plants. Of 46 studies found, 33 (72%) reported a significant difference between responses to artificial and natural herbivore damage in at least one of the statistical tests included. The studies contained 280 statistical tests, of which 99 (35%) showed a significant difference between artificial and natural damage. Phytochemical responses to artificial and natural damage were different in 41% of the statistical tests and 75% of the studies found at least one significant difference. Plant resistance, measured as secondary damage, herbivore performance, fungal growth in damaged tissue or plant attractivity to parasitoids of herbivores, differed in 60% of the statistical tests and 85% of the studies had significant differences. Growth, reproduction and physiological responses to artificial and natural damage differed in 20–30% of statistical tests and 50–83% of studies had significant differences. Thus, studies on plant tolerance (growth and reproduction after damage) more often showed similar effects for artificial and natural damage than studies on plant resistance to herbivory, but even in tolerance studies artificial and natural damage often have different effects. Some studies indicated that application of herbivore saliva and careful imitation of timing and spatial pattern of damage helped in reaching the same effect with simulations and natural damage.