1,758
Views
11
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Short Communication

Mechanical defenses of plant extrafloral nectaries against herbivory

, &
Article: e1178431 | Received 06 Apr 2016, Accepted 11 Apr 2016, Published online: 11 May 2016

ABSTRACT

Extrafloral nectaries play an important role in plant defense against herbivores by providing nectar rewards that attract ants and other carnivorous insects. However, extrafloral nectaries can themselves be targets of herbivory, in addition to being exploited by nectar-robbing insects that do not provide defensive services. We recently found that the extrafloral nectaries of Vicia faba plants, as well as immediately adjacent tissues, exhibit high concentrations of chemical toxins, apparently as a defense against herbivory. Here we report that the nectary tissues of this plant also exhibit high levels of structural stiffness compared to surrounding tissues, likely due to cell wall lignification and the concentration of calcium oxalate crystals in nectary tissues, which may provide an additional deterrent to herbivore feeding on nectary tissues.

Extrafloral nectaries are widespread in plants, having been reported in more than 100 families.Citation1-3 These nectar-secreting organs may be located on any above-ground plant part,Citation4 and function in plant defense against herbivory via the recruitment of ants and other predatory (and parasitoid) insects.Citation5 The protection that such insects provide in exchange for the nutritional reward offered by the plants is a classic example of plant-insect mutualism.Citation6 However, extrafloral nectaries can also be vulnerable to exploitation. For example, many invertebrates consume extrafloral nectar without providing protective services in return, including herbivores that feed on the plants they “rob”Citation?7-10 Furthermore, we recently reported that nectary tissues can also be subject to targeted feeding by insects, including species that are otherwise not primarily herbivorous.Citation11

Opportunities for such exploitation are reduced by the “indirect” defense provided by defending mutualists. However, defending insects such as ants are not always present near the nectaries, nor are they effective against all plant visitors. Consequently, some plants might be expected to complement these indirect defenses by investing in the direct defense of extrafloral nectaries, which constitute valuable defensive organs. We recently found that the extrafloral nectaries of Vicia faba, as well as leaf tissues surrounding the nectaries, exhibit high levels of L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (L-DOPA), a non-protein amino acid toxic to insects. In some other plant species, embedding extrafloral nectaries in the tissues of other organs (e.g. pit nectariesCitation12) may reduce their exposure to potential exploiters. We hypothesized that plants might also defend extrafloral nectaries by fortifying these structures with mechanical defenses that increase tissue stiffness. To explore this possibility, we assessed the stiffness of the extrafloral nectaries of V. faba plants compared to that of other regions of the stipules on which the nectaries are located.

Extrafloral nectary tissue was stiffer than tissue elsewhere on the stipule in all cases (n = 20 stipules examined). On average, nectary tissue was 2.28 ± 0.14 (SE) times stiffer than the rest of the stipule (paired-sample T-test, t19 = 10.21, P < 0.0001). This increased stiffness may be caused by the thickened and lignified walls of some of the cells in the extrafloral nectaries of V. faba.Citation13 Studies examining other plant species have also documented lignification of cell wallsCitation14 and sometimes masses of sclereidsCitation15 in extrafloral nectary tissues. The resulting increase in stiffness (and probably also toughness) may be expected to provide some degree of mechanical defense against herbivory, as previous work on foliar herbivory indicates that these characteristics adversely impact herbivore feeding performance.Citation16,17

Extrafloral nectaries are also typically rich in calcium oxalate crystals, which are usually found in the parenchyma that lies underneath the secreting epidermis and sometimes create a mass at the core of the nectary.Citation18 Concentration of calcium oxalate crystals in and around extrafloral nectaries has been extensively documentedCitation14,19-25 and occurs in diverse plant taxa.Citation12,26,27 Calcium oxalate crystals in extrafloral nectaries may function as a sink for calcium ions that could otherwise interfere with the transport of sugars into the nectary;Citation28 however, they may also enhance the resistance of the nectary to feeding by insects with chewing mouthparts.Citation29,30 To efficiently extract the nutrients from plant tissue, most chewing insects must crush and disrupt cell walls in order to gain access to the cytoplasm.Citation31 Calcium oxalate crystals, which are harder than insect mandibles (>5 vs. 3 on Mohs scale, respectivelyCitation32,33) and roughly the size of the surrounding cells, may reduce cell crushing efficiency by preventing mandible closure, similar to the probable main mode of action of silica phytoliths on insect mouthparts.Citation34

Even when combined with chemical defenses, these mechanical characteristics do not provide total protection, as extrafloral nectaries can be damaged by insect feeding and are sometimes targeted for in preference to other plant tissues.Citation11 However, these mechanical defenses probably reduce vulnerability of the nectary to herbivory as well as its value as a food source. Moreover, such quantitative plant defenses (reducing the digestibility and/or palatability of the plant) are more immune to herbivore specialization than qualitative defenses (toxins), which may be metabolized and deactivated by coevolved herbivores.Citation35 Consequently, the mechanical characteristics of extrafloral nectaries, in combination with chemical defenses, may play an important role in the direct defense of critical plant organs that, in turn, mediate the indirect defense of other plant tissues.

Materials and methods

We measured the differences in stiffness between extrafloral nectaries of V. faba and the tissue that surrounds them. We mounted 20 stipules from 20, 18-day-old plants on adhesive tape that was attached (sticky side up) to the surface of a piece of flat Styrofoam. We did a penetrometer test to measure the initial modulus of rigidity of the spot being tested, using a texture analyzer (TA.XT2i, Stable Micro Systems, Surrey, UK) fitted with a 10° stainless steel cone moving at 0.5 mm/s. In each stipule, one measurement was done in the center of the extrafloral nectary and 3 measurements were done in random locations on the stipule. For each stipule, an average “stipule stiffness” was calculated from these 3 measurements and this value was compared with the measured stiffness of the extrafloral nectary on that stipule.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Acknowledgments

We thank Gregory Ziegler for his help with the penetrometer measurements.

References

  • Bentley BL. Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1977; 8:407-27; http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.002203
  • Koptur S. Extrafloral nectary-mediated interactions between insects and plants. In: Insect plant iteractions. Bernays EA (eds.), Vol IV. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 1992; p. 81-129.
  • Weber MG, Keeler KH. The phylogenetic distribution of extrafloral nectaries in plants. Ann Bot 2013; 111:1251-61; PMID:23087129; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs225
  • Heil M. Extrafloral nectar at the plant-insect interface: a spotlight on chemical ecology, phenotypic plasticity, and food webs. Annu Rev Entomol 2015; 60:213-32; PMID:25564741; http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-010814-020753
  • Heil M. Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytol 2008; 178:41-61; PMID:18086230; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02330.x
  • Bronstein JL, Alarcón R, Geber M. The evolution of plant-insect mutualisms. New Phytol 2006; 172:412-28; PMID:17083673; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01864.x
  • Heil M, Hilpert A, Krüger R, Linsenmair KE. Competition among visitors to extrafloral nectaries as a source of ecological costs of an indirect defence. J Trop Ecol 2004; 20:201-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026646740300110X
  • Bronstein JL. The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecol Lett 2001; 4:277-87; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00218.x
  • DeVries PJ, Baker I. Butterfly exploitation of an ant-plant mutualism: adding insult to herbivory. J New York Entomol Soc 1989; 97:332-40.
  • Heil M, Hilpert A, Krüger R, Linsenmair KE. Competition among visitors to extrafloral nectaries as a source of ecological costs of an indirect defence. J Trop Ecol 2004; 20:201-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026646740300110X
  • Gish M, Mescher MC, De Moraes CM. Targeted predation of extrafloral nectaries by insects despite localized chemical defences. Proc R Soc London Ser B Biol Sci 2015; 282:20151835; PMID:26446809; http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1835
  • Elias TS. Extrafloral nectaries: their structure and distribution. In: The biology of nectaries. Bentley BL, Elias TS (eds.), New York: Columbia University Press; 1983; pp 174-203.
  • Davis A, Peterson R, Shuel R. Vasculature and ultrastructure of the floral and stipular nectaries of Vicia faba (Leguminosae). Can J Bot 1988; 66:1435-48; http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/b88-198
  • Melo Y, Machado SR, Alves M. Anatomy of extrafloral nectaries in Fabaceae from dry-seasonal forest in Brazil. Bot J Linn Soc 2010; 163:87-98; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01047.x
  • Turner GW, Lersten NR. Apical foliar nectary of pomegranate (Punica granatum: Punicaceae). Am J Bot 1983; 70:475-80; http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2443158
  • Hanley ME, Lamont BB, Fairbanks MM, Rafferty CM. Plant structural traits and their role in anti-herbivore defence. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 2007; 8:157-78; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2007.01.001
  • Clissold FJ, Sanson GD, Read J, Simpson SJ. Gross vs. net income: How plant toughness affects performance of an insect herbivore. Ecology 2009; 90:3393-405; PMID:20120808; http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/09-0130.1
  • Elias TS, Gelband H. Morphology, anatomy, and relationship of extrafloral nectaries and hydathodes in two species of Impatiens (Balsaminaceae). Bot Gaz 1977; 138:206-12; http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/336916
  • Machado SR, Morellato LPC, Sajo MG, Oliveira PS. Morphological patterns of extrafloral nectaries in woody plant species of the Brazilian cerrado. Plant Biol 2008; 10:660-73; PMID:18761504; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2008.00068.x
  • Gonçalves-Souza P, Gonçalves EG, Paiva EAS. Extrafloral nectaries in Philodendron (Araceae): distribution and structure. Bot J Linn Soc 2016; 180:229–40; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/boj.12366
  • Paiva ÉAS, Buono RA, Delgado MN. Distribution and structural aspects of extrafloral nectaries in Cedrela fissilis (Meliaceae). Flora 2007; 202:455-61; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2006.11.001
  • Elias TS, Rozich WR, Newcombe L. The foliar and floral nectaries of Turnera ulmifolia L. Am J Bot 1975; 62:570-6; http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2441934
  • Boughton VH. Extrafloral nectaries of some Australian phyllodineous acacias. Aust J Bot 1981; 29:653-64; http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/BT9810653
  • Durkee LT. The floral and extra-floral nectaries of Passiflora. II. The extra-floral nectary. Am J Bot 1982; 69:1420-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2443103
  • Rocha DI, da Silva LC, Valente VMM, Francino DMT, Meira RMSA. Morphoanatomy and development of leaf secretory structures in Passiflora amethystina Mikan (Passifloraceae). Aust J Bot 2009; 57:619-26; http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/BT09158
  • Schnell R, Cusset G, Quenum M. Contribution a l'etude des glandes extra-florales chez quelques groupes de plantes tropicales. Rev Générale Bot 1963; 70:269-342.
  • Metcalfe CR, Chalk L. Anatomy of the Dicotyledons. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford, Clarendon Press; 1979.
  • Nepi M. Nectary structure and ultrastructure. In: Nectaries and nectar. Nicolson SW, Nepi M, Pacini E (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer; 2007; p. 129-66.
  • Franceschi VR, Nakata PA. Calcium oxalate in plants: formation and function. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2005; 56:41-71; PMID:15862089; http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.56.032604.144106
  • Coté GG, Gibernau M. Distribution of calcium oxalate crystals in floral organs of Araceae in relation to pollination strategy. Am J Bot 2012; 99:1231-42; PMID:22753813; http://dx.doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1100499
  • Hochuli DF. The ecology of plant/insect interactions: implications of digestive strategy for feeding by phytophagous insects. Oikos 1996; 75:133-41; http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3546331
  • Neville AC. Biology of the arthropod cuticle. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1975.
  • Danielson DR, Reinhard KJ. Human dental microwear caused by calcium oxalate phytoliths in prehistoric diet of the lower Pecos region, Texas. Am J Phys Anthropol 1998; 107:297-304; PMID:9821494; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199811)107:3<297::AID-AJPA6>3.0.CO;2-M
  • Hunt JW, Dean AP, Webster RE, Johnson GN, Ennos AR. A novel mechanism by which silica defends grasses against herbivory. Ann Bot 2008; 102:653-6; PMID:18697757; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn130
  • Lambers H, Chapain FS, Thijs PL. Plant Physiological Ecology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2008.