16.3: Herbivory

 

Herbivory is a form of consumption in which an organism principally eats autotrophs (Abraham 2006) such as plants, algae and photosynthesizing bacteria. More generally, organisms that feed on autotrophs are known as primary consumers. Herbivory is usually limited to animals that eat plants. Fungi, bacteria, and protists that feed on living plants are usually termed plant pathogens (plant diseases), while fungi and microbes that feed on dead plants are described as saprotrophs. Flowering plants that obtain nutrition from other living plants are usually termed parasitic plants.

 

16.3.1 Feeding Strategies

Two herbivore feeding strategies are grazing (e.g. cows) and browsing (e.g. moose). For a terrestrial mammal to be called a grazer, at least 90% of the forage has to be grass, and for a browser at least 90% tree leaves and twigs. An intermediate feeding strategy is called "mixed-feeding" (Janis, 1990). In their daily need to take up energy from forage, herbivores of different body mass may be selective in choosing their food (Belovsky, 1997). "Selective" means that herbivores may choose their forage source depending on, e.g., season or food availability, but also that they may choose high quality (and consequently highly nutritious) forage before lower quality. The latter especially is determined by the body mass of the herbivore, with small herbivores selecting for high-quality forage, and with increasing body mass animals are less selective (Belovsky, 1997). 

Feeding Strategy	Diet	Example
Algivores	Algae	krill, crabs, sea snail, sea urchin, parrotfish, surgeonfish, flamingo
Frugivores	Fruit	Ruffed lemurs, orangutans
Folivores	Leaves	Koalas, gorillas, red colobuses
Nectarivores	Nectar	Honey possum, hummingbirds
Granivores	Seeds	Hawaiian honeycreepers
Graminivores	Grass	Horses
Palynivores	Pollen	Bees
Mucivores	Plant fluids, i.e. sap	Aphids
Xylophages	Wood	Termites

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Herbivores employ numerous types of feeding strategies. Many herbivores do not fall into one specific feeding strategy, but employ several strategies and eat a variety of plant parts.

 

16.3.2 Plant-herbivore interactions

Interactions between plants and herbivores can play a prevalent role in ecosystem dynamics such community structure and functional processes (Sandsen & Klaassen, 2008; Descombes et al., 2016). Plant diversity and distribution is often driven by herbivory, and it is likely that trade-offs between plant competitiveness and defensiveness, and between colonization and mortality allow for coexistence between species in the presence of herbivores (Lubchenco, 1978; Gleeson & Wilson, 1986; Olff & Ritchie, 1998; Hidding et al., 2009). However, the effects of herbivory on plant diversity and richness is variable. For example, increased abundance of herbivores such as deer decrease plant diversity and species richness (Arcese et al., 2014), while other large mammalian herbivores like bison control dominant species, which allows other species to flourish (Collins 1998). Plant-herbivore interactions can also operate so that plant communities mediate herbivore communities (Pellissier et al., 2013). Plant communities that are more diverse typically sustain greater herbivore richness by providing a greater and more diverse set of resources (Tilman, 1997). 

Coevolution and phylogenetic correlation between herbivores and plants are important aspects of the influence of herbivore and plant interactions on communities and ecosystem functioning, especially in regard to herbivorous insects (Descombes et al., 2016; Pellissier et al., 2013; Mitter et al., 1991). This is apparent in the adaptations plants develop to tolerate and/or defend from insect herbivory and the responses of herbivores to overcome these adaptations. The evolution of antagonistic and mutualistic plant-herbivore interactions are not mutually exclusive and may co-occur (de Mazancourt et al., 2001). Plant phylogeny has been found to facilitate the colonization and community assembly of herbivores, and there is evidence of phylogenetic linkage between plant beta diversity and phylogenetic beta diversity of insect clades such as butterflies. These types of eco-evolutionary feedbacks between plants and herbivores are likely the main driving force behind plant and herbivore diversity (Pellissier et al., 2013; Mitter et al., 1991). 

Abiotic factors such as climate and biogeographical features also impact plant-herbivore communities and interactions. For example, in temperate freshwater wetlands herbivorous waterfowl communities change according to season, with species that eat above-ground vegetation being abundant during summer, and species that forage below-ground being present in winter months (Sansten & Klaassen, 2008; Hidding et al., 2009). These seasonal herbivore communities differ in both their assemblage and functions within the wetland ecosystem (Hidding et al., 2009). Such differences in herbivore modalities can potentially lead to trade-offs that influence species traits and may lead to additive effects on community composition and ecosystem functioning (Sansten & Klaassen, 2008; Hidding et al., 2009). Seasonal changes and environmental gradients such as elevation and latitude often affect the palatability of plants which in turn influences herbivore community assemblages and vice versa (Descombes et al., 2016; Hidding et al., 2009). Examples include a decrease in abundance of leaf-chewing larvae in the fall when hardwood leaf palatability decreases due to increased tannin levels which results in a decline of arthropod species richness (Futuyma & Gould, 1979) and increased palatability of plant communities at higher elevations where grasshoppers abundances are lower (Descombes et al., 2016). Climatic stressors such as ocean acidification can lead to responses in plant-herbivore interactions in relation to palatability as well (Poore et al., 2013).  

 

Herbivore Offense

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Aphids are fluid feeders on plant sap.

 

The myriad defenses displayed by plants means that their herbivores need a variety of skills to overcome these defenses and obtain food. These allow herbivores to increase their feeding and use of a host plant. Herbivores have three primary strategies for dealing with plant defenses: choice, herbivore modification, and plant modification.

Feeding choice involves which plants a herbivore chooses to consume. It has been suggested that many herbivores feed on a variety of plants to balance their nutrient uptake and to avoid consuming too much of any one type of defensive chemical. This involves a tradeoff however, between foraging on many plant species to avoid toxins or specializing on one type of plant that can be detoxified (Dearing et al., 2000). 

Herbivore modification is when various adaptations to body or digestive systems of the herbivore allow them to overcome plant defenses. This might include detoxifying secondary metabolites (Karban & Agrawal, 2002), sequestering toxins unaltered (Nishida, 2002), or avoiding toxins, such as through the production of large amounts of saliva to reduce effectiveness of defenses. Herbivores may also utilize symbionts to evade plant defenses. For example, some aphids use bacteria in their gut to provide essential amino acids lacking in their sap diet (Douglas, 1998). 

Plant modification occurs when herbivores manipulate their plant prey to increase feeding. For example, some caterpillars roll leaves to reduce the effectiveness of plant defenses activated by sunlight (Sagers, 1992). 

 

Plant Defense

A plant defense is a trait that increases plant fitness when faced with herbivory. This is measured relative to another plant that lacks the defensive trait. Plant defenses increase survival and/or reproduction (fitness) of plants under pressure of predation from herbivores.

Defense can be divided into two main categories, tolerance and resistance. Tolerance is the ability of a plant to withstand damage without a reduction in fitness (Call & St. Clair, 2018). This can occur by diverting herbivory to non-essential plant parts, resource allocation, compensatory growth, or by rapid regrowth and recovery from herbivory (Hawkes & Sullivan, 2001). Resistance refers to the ability of a plant to reduce the amount of damage it receives from herbivores (Call & St. Clair, 2018). This can occur via avoidance in space or time (Milchunas & Noy-Meir, 2002), physical defenses, or chemical defenses. Defenses can either be constitutive, always present in the plant, or induced, produced or translocated by the plant following damage or stress (Edwards & Wratten, 1985). 

Physical, or mechanical, defenses are barriers or structures designed to deter herbivores or reduce intake rates, lowering overall herbivory. Thorns such as those found on roses or acacia trees are one example, as are the spines on a cactus. Smaller hairs known as trichomes may cover leaves or stems and are especially effective against invertebrate herbivores (Pillemer & Tingey, 1976). In addition, some plants have waxes or resins that alter their texture, making them difficult to eat. Also the incorporation of silica into cell walls is analogous to that of the role of lignin in that it is a compression-resistant structural component of cell walls; so that plants with their cell walls impregnated with silica are thereby afforded a measure of protection against herbivory (Epstein, 1994). 

Chemical defenses are secondary metabolites produced by the plant that deter herbivory. There are a wide variety of these in nature and a single plant can have hundreds of different chemical defenses. Chemical defenses can be divided into two main groups, carbon-based defenses and nitrogen-based defenses. 

1. Carbon-based defenses include terpenes and phenolics. Terpenes are derived from 5-carbon isoprene units and comprise essential oils, carotenoids, resins, and latex. They can have several functions that disrupt herbivores such as inhibiting adenosine triphosphate (ATP) formation, molting hormones, or the nervous system (Langenheim, 1994). Phenolics combine an aromatic carbon ring with a hydroxyl group. There are several different phenolics such as lignins, which are found in cell walls and are very indigestible except for specialized microorganisms; tannins, which have a bitter taste and bind to proteins making them indigestible; and furanocumerins, which produce free radicals disrupting DNA, protein, and lipids, and can cause skin irritation.

2. Nitrogen-based defenses are synthesized from amino acids and primarily come in the form of alkaloids and cyanogens. Alkaloids include commonly recognized substances such as caffeine, nicotine, and morphine. These compounds are often bitter and can inhibit DNA or RNA synthesis or block nervous system signal transmission. Cyanogens get their name from the cyanide stored within their tissues. This is released when the plant is damaged and inhibits cellular respiration and electron transport.

Plants have also changed features that enhance the probability of attracting natural enemies to herbivores. Some emit semiochemicals, odors that attract natural enemies, while others provide food and housing to maintain the natural enemies' presence, e.g. ants that reduce herbivory (Heil et al., 2001). A given plant species often has many types of defensive mechanisms, mechanical or chemical, constitutive or induced, which allow it to escape from herbivores.

 

Sources

Abraham, M.A.A. (2006). Sustainability science and engineering. Elsevier, 1, pp. 123. ISBN 978-0444517128

Arcese, P., Schuster, R., Campbell, L., Barber, A., & Martin, T.G. (2014). Deer density and plant palatability predict shrub cover, richness, diversity and aboriginal food value in a North American archipelago. Diversity and Distributions, 20(12), pp. 1368–1378. doi:10.1111/ddi.12241. ISSN 1366-9516.

Belovsky, G.E. (1997). Optimal foraging and community structure: The allometry of herbivore food selection and competition. Evolutionary Ecology, 11(6), pp. 641–672. doi:10.1023/A:1018430201230. S2CID 23873922.

Call, A., & St. Clair, S.B. (2018). In Ryan, M. (Eds.), Timing and mode of simulated ungulate herbivory alter aspen defense strategies. Tree Physiology, 38(10), pp. 1476–1485. doi:10.1093/treephys/tpy071. ISSN 1758-4469. PMID 29982736.

Collins, S.L. (1998). Modulation of diversity by grazing and mowing in native tallgrass prairie. Science, 280(5364), pp. 745–747. Bibcode:1998Sci...280..745C. doi:10.1126/science.280.5364.745. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 9563952.

de Mazancourt, C., Loreau, M., & Dieckmann, U. (2001). Can the evolution of plant defense lead to plant‐herbivore mutualism? The American Naturalist, 158(2), pp. 109–123. doi:10.1086/321306. ISSN 0003-0147. PMID 18707340. S2CID 15722747.

Dearing, M.D., Mangione, A.M., & Karasov, W.H. (2000). Diet breadth of mammalian herbivores: Nutrient versus detoxification constraints. Oecologia, 123(3), pp. 397–405. Bibcode:2000Oecol.123..397D. doi:10.1007/s004420051027. PMID 28308595. S2CID 914899.

Descombes, P., Marchon, J., Pradervand, J.N., Bilat, J., Guisan, A., Rasmann, S., & Pellissier, L. (2016). Community-level plant palatability increases with elevation as insect herbivore abundance declines. Journal of Ecology, 105(1), pp. 142–151. doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12664. ISSN 0022-0477.

Douglas, A.E. (1998). Nutritional interactions in insect–microbial symbioses: Aphids and their symbiotic bacteria buchnera. Annual Review of Entomology, 43, pp. 17–37. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.17. PMID 15012383.

Epstein, E. (1994). A review. PNAS, 91.

Edwards, P.J., & Wratten, S.D. (1985). Induced plant defenses against insect grazing: Fact or artefact?. Oikos, 44(1), pp. 70–74. doi:10.2307/3544045. JSTOR 3544045.

Futuyma, D.J., & Gould, F. (1979). Associations of plants and insects in deciduous forest. Ecological Monographs, 49(1), pp. 33–50. doi:10.2307/1942571. ISSN 0012-9615. JSTOR 1942571.

Gleeson, S.K., & Wilson, D.S. (1986). Equilibrium diet: Optimal foraging and prey coexistence. Oikos, 46(2), pp. 139. doi:10.2307/3565460. ISSN 0030-1299. JSTOR 3565460.

Hawkes, C.V., & Sullivan, J.J. (2001). The impact of herbivory on plants in different resource conditions: A meta-analysis. 82, pp. 2045–2058 – via Wiley. 

Heil, M., Koch, T., Hilpert, A., Fiala, B., Boland, W., & Linsenmair, K.E. (2001). Extrafloral nectar production of the ant-associated plant, Macaranga tanarius, is an induced, indirect, defensive response elicited by jasmonic acid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(3), pp. 1083–1088. Bibcode:2001PNAS...98.1083H. doi:10.1073/pnas.031563398. PMC 14712. PMID 11158598.

Hidding, B., Nolet, B.A., de Boer, T., de Vries, P.P., & Klaassen, M. (2009). Above- and below-ground vertebrate herbivory may each favour a different subordinate species in an aquatic plant community. Oecologia, 162(1), pp. 199–208. doi:10.1007/s00442-009-1450-6. ISSN 0029-8549. PMC 2776151. PMID 19756762.

Janis, C. (1990). Correlation of cranial and dental variables with body size in ungulates and macropodoids. In Damuth, J., & MacFadden, B.J. (Eds.), Body size in mammalian paleobiology: Estimation and biological implications. Cambridge University Press, pp. 255–299.

Karban, R., & Agrawal, A.A. (2002). Herbivore offense. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, pp. 641–664. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150443.

Langenheim, J.H. (1994). Higher plant terpenoids: A phytocentric overview of their ecological roles. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 20,(6), pp. 1223–1280. doi:10.1007/BF02059809. PMID 24242340. S2CID 25360410.

Lubchenco, J. (1978). Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community: Importance of herbivore food preference and algal competitive abilities. The American Naturalist, 112(983), pp. 23–39. doi:10.1086/283250. ISSN 0003-0147. S2CID 84801707.

Milchunas, D.G., & Noy-Meir, I. (2002). Grazing refuges, external avoidance of herbivory and plant diversity. Oikos, 99(1), pp. 113–130. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990112.x.

Mitter, C., Farrell, B., & Futuyma, D.J. (1991). Phylogenetic studies of insect-plant interactions: Insights into the genesis of diversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 6(9), pp. 290–293. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(91)90007-k. ISSN 0169-5347. PMID 21232484.

Nishida, R. (2002). Sequestration of defensive substances from plants by Lepidoptera. Annual Review of Entomology, 47, pp. 57–92. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145121. PMID 11729069.

Olff, H., & Ritchie, M.E. (1998). Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(7), pp. 261–265. doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01364-0. hdl:11370/3e3ec5d4-fa03-4490-94e3-66534b3fe62f. ISSN 0169-5347. PMID 21238294.

Pellissier, L., Ndiribe, C., Dubuis, A., Pradervand, J.N., Salamin, N., Guisan, A., & Rasmann, S. (2013). Turnover of plant lineages shapes herbivore phylogenetic beta diversity along ecological gradients. Ecology Letters, 16(5), pp. 600–608. doi:10.1111/ele.12083. PMID 23448096.

Pillemer, E.A., & Tingey, W.M. (1976). Hooked trichomes: A physical plant barrier to a major agricultural pest. Science, 193(4252), pp. 482–484. Bibcode:1976Sci...193..482P. doi:10.1126/science.193.4252.482. PMID 17841820. S2CID 26751736.

Poore, A.G.B., Graba-Landry, A., Favret, M., Sheppard Brennand, H., Byrne, M., & Dworjanyn, S.A. (2013). Direct and indirect effects of ocean acidification and warming on a marine plant–herbivore interaction. Oecologia, 173(3), pp. 1113–1124. Bibcode:2013Oecol.173.1113P. doi:10.1007/s00442-013-2683-y. ISSN 0029-8549. PMID 23673470. S2CID 10990079.

Sagers, C.L. (1992). Manipulation of host plant quality: Herbivores keep leaves in the dark. Functional Ecology, 6(6), pp. 741–743. doi:10.2307/2389971. JSTOR 2389971.

Sandsten, H., & Klaassen, M. (2008). Swan foraging shapes spatial distribution of two submerged plants, favouring the preferred prey species. Oecologia, 156(3), pp. 569–576. Bibcode:2008Oecol.156..569S. doi:10.1007/s00442-008-1010-5. ISSN 0029-8549. PMC 2373415. PMID 18335250.