Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) intake and preference by mammalian herbivores: the role of plant secondary compounds and nutritional context.
Identifieur interne : 002363 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 002362; suivant : 002364Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) intake and preference by mammalian herbivores: the role of plant secondary compounds and nutritional context.
Auteurs : Juan J. Villalba [États-Unis] ; Elizabeth A. Burritt ; Samuel B. St ClairSource :
- Journal of chemical ecology [ 1573-1561 ] ; 2014.
Descripteurs français
- KwdFr :
- Animaux (MeSH), Feuilles de plante (composition chimique), Feuilles de plante (physiologie), Herbivorie (MeSH), Hétérosides (composition chimique), Hétérosides (métabolisme), Ovis (physiologie), Phénols (composition chimique), Phénols (métabolisme), Populus (composition chimique), Populus (physiologie).
- MESH :
- composition chimique : Feuilles de plante, Hétérosides, Phénols, Populus.
- métabolisme : Hétérosides, Phénols.
- physiologie : Feuilles de plante, Ovis, Populus.
- Animaux, Herbivorie.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- MESH :
- chemical , chemistry : Glycosides, Phenols.
- chemical , metabolism : Glycosides, Phenols.
- chemistry : Plant Leaves, Populus.
- physiology : Plant Leaves, Populus, Sheep.
- Animals, Herbivory.
Abstract
Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) has evolved a chemical defense system comprised of phenolic glycosides (PG), which effectively deter insect herbivory. However, much less is known about the role of PG and the nutritional quality of the associated plant community on aspen browse susceptibility to mammalian herbivores. In three successive periods during the growing season, we conducted experiments with sheep by offering leaves from two aspen stands with different concentrations of PG (LOW, HIGH) or aspen leaves vs. leaves from a forb (Utah pea, Lathyrus pauciflorus) or a grass (smooth brome, Bromus inermis Leyss.) growing in an aspen understory. Intake of aspen (19 to 35 % PG) was low in all periods (1 to 6 g/Kg(0.75) in 2 hr) supporting the notion that aspen's defense system may contribute to its ecological success. However, lambs ate larger amounts of LOW than of HIGH suggesting that sheep could discriminate between aspen stands with different concentrations of PG, even when both stands were relatively well defended. Concentration of nutrients and chemical defenses in aspen leaves remained fairly stable across the growing season, and preference for aspen increased over the growing season. In contrast, preference for the forb and the grass decreased across the growing season in concert with a decline in the nutritional quality of these plants. The data suggest that nutritional context of aspen and associated forage species drove preference more than contrasts in defense chemistry of aspen. There may be periods of "susceptibility" of aspen use by mammalian herbivores, despite high concentrations of chemical defenses, which can potentially be targeted by management to reduce aspen herbivory.
DOI: 10.1007/s10886-014-0507-0
PubMed: 25284606
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) intake and preference by mammalian herbivores: the role of plant secondary compounds and nutritional context.</title><author><name sortKey="Villalba, Juan J" sort="Villalba, Juan J" uniqKey="Villalba J" first="Juan J" last="Villalba">Juan J. Villalba</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, 84322-5230, USA, juan.villalba@usu.edu.</nlm:affiliation><country wicri:rule="url">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, 84322-5230, USA</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>USA</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Burritt, Elizabeth A" sort="Burritt, Elizabeth A" uniqKey="Burritt E" first="Elizabeth A" last="Burritt">Elizabeth A. Burritt</name></author><author><name sortKey="St Clair, Samuel B" sort="St Clair, Samuel B" uniqKey="St Clair S" first="Samuel B" last="St Clair">Samuel B. St Clair</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2014">2014</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:25284606</idno><idno type="pmid">25284606</idno><idno type="doi">10.1007/s10886-014-0507-0</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">001F76</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">001F76</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">001F76</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Curation">001F76</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">001F76</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) intake and preference by mammalian herbivores: the role of plant secondary compounds and nutritional context.</title><author><name sortKey="Villalba, Juan J" sort="Villalba, Juan J" uniqKey="Villalba J" first="Juan J" last="Villalba">Juan J. Villalba</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, 84322-5230, USA, juan.villalba@usu.edu.</nlm:affiliation><country wicri:rule="url">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, 84322-5230, USA</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>USA</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Burritt, Elizabeth A" sort="Burritt, Elizabeth A" uniqKey="Burritt E" first="Elizabeth A" last="Burritt">Elizabeth A. Burritt</name></author><author><name sortKey="St Clair, Samuel B" sort="St Clair, Samuel B" uniqKey="St Clair S" first="Samuel B" last="St Clair">Samuel B. St Clair</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Journal of chemical ecology</title><idno type="eISSN">1573-1561</idno><imprint><date when="2014" type="published">2014</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Animals (MeSH)</term><term>Glycosides (chemistry)</term><term>Glycosides (metabolism)</term><term>Herbivory (MeSH)</term><term>Phenols (chemistry)</term><term>Phenols (metabolism)</term><term>Plant Leaves (chemistry)</term><term>Plant Leaves (physiology)</term><term>Populus (chemistry)</term><term>Populus (physiology)</term><term>Sheep (physiology)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr"><term>Animaux (MeSH)</term><term>Feuilles de plante (composition chimique)</term><term>Feuilles de plante (physiologie)</term><term>Herbivorie (MeSH)</term><term>Hétérosides (composition chimique)</term><term>Hétérosides (métabolisme)</term><term>Ovis (physiologie)</term><term>Phénols (composition chimique)</term><term>Phénols (métabolisme)</term><term>Populus (composition chimique)</term><term>Populus (physiologie)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" qualifier="chemistry" xml:lang="en"><term>Glycosides</term><term>Phenols</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" qualifier="metabolism" xml:lang="en"><term>Glycosides</term><term>Phenols</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="chemistry" xml:lang="en"><term>Plant Leaves</term><term>Populus</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="composition chimique" xml:lang="fr"><term>Feuilles de plante</term><term>Hétérosides</term><term>Phénols</term><term>Populus</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="métabolisme" xml:lang="fr"><term>Hétérosides</term><term>Phénols</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="physiologie" xml:lang="fr"><term>Feuilles de plante</term><term>Ovis</term><term>Populus</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="physiology" xml:lang="en"><term>Plant Leaves</term><term>Populus</term><term>Sheep</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Animals</term><term>Herbivory</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr"><term>Animaux</term><term>Herbivorie</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) has evolved a chemical defense system comprised of phenolic glycosides (PG), which effectively deter insect herbivory. However, much less is known about the role of PG and the nutritional quality of the associated plant community on aspen browse susceptibility to mammalian herbivores. In three successive periods during the growing season, we conducted experiments with sheep by offering leaves from two aspen stands with different concentrations of PG (LOW, HIGH) or aspen leaves vs. leaves from a forb (Utah pea, Lathyrus pauciflorus) or a grass (smooth brome, Bromus inermis Leyss.) growing in an aspen understory. Intake of aspen (19 to 35 % PG) was low in all periods (1 to 6 g/Kg(0.75) in 2 hr) supporting the notion that aspen's defense system may contribute to its ecological success. However, lambs ate larger amounts of LOW than of HIGH suggesting that sheep could discriminate between aspen stands with different concentrations of PG, even when both stands were relatively well defended. Concentration of nutrients and chemical defenses in aspen leaves remained fairly stable across the growing season, and preference for aspen increased over the growing season. In contrast, preference for the forb and the grass decreased across the growing season in concert with a decline in the nutritional quality of these plants. The data suggest that nutritional context of aspen and associated forage species drove preference more than contrasts in defense chemistry of aspen. There may be periods of "susceptibility" of aspen use by mammalian herbivores, despite high concentrations of chemical defenses, which can potentially be targeted by management to reduce aspen herbivory. </div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">25284606</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2015</Year><Month>07</Month><Day>10</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2018</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>13</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1573-1561</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>40</Volume><Issue>10</Issue><PubDate><Year>2014</Year><Month>Oct</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Journal of chemical ecology</Title><ISOAbbreviation>J Chem Ecol</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) intake and preference by mammalian herbivores: the role of plant secondary compounds and nutritional context.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>1135-45</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1007/s10886-014-0507-0</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) has evolved a chemical defense system comprised of phenolic glycosides (PG), which effectively deter insect herbivory. However, much less is known about the role of PG and the nutritional quality of the associated plant community on aspen browse susceptibility to mammalian herbivores. In three successive periods during the growing season, we conducted experiments with sheep by offering leaves from two aspen stands with different concentrations of PG (LOW, HIGH) or aspen leaves vs. leaves from a forb (Utah pea, Lathyrus pauciflorus) or a grass (smooth brome, Bromus inermis Leyss.) growing in an aspen understory. Intake of aspen (19 to 35 % PG) was low in all periods (1 to 6 g/Kg(0.75) in 2 hr) supporting the notion that aspen's defense system may contribute to its ecological success. However, lambs ate larger amounts of LOW than of HIGH suggesting that sheep could discriminate between aspen stands with different concentrations of PG, even when both stands were relatively well defended. Concentration of nutrients and chemical defenses in aspen leaves remained fairly stable across the growing season, and preference for aspen increased over the growing season. In contrast, preference for the forb and the grass decreased across the growing season in concert with a decline in the nutritional quality of these plants. The data suggest that nutritional context of aspen and associated forage species drove preference more than contrasts in defense chemistry of aspen. There may be periods of "susceptibility" of aspen use by mammalian herbivores, despite high concentrations of chemical defenses, which can potentially be targeted by management to reduce aspen herbivory. </AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Villalba</LastName><ForeName>Juan J</ForeName><Initials>JJ</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, 84322-5230, USA, juan.villalba@usu.edu.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Burritt</LastName><ForeName>Elizabeth A</ForeName><Initials>EA</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>St Clair</LastName><ForeName>Samuel B</ForeName><Initials>SB</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2014</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>05</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>United States</Country><MedlineTA>J Chem Ecol</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>7505563</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0098-0331</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><ChemicalList><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D006027">Glycosides</NameOfSubstance></Chemical><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D010636">Phenols</NameOfSubstance></Chemical></ChemicalList><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000818" MajorTopicYN="N">Animals</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006027" MajorTopicYN="N">Glycosides</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000737" MajorTopicYN="N">chemistry</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000378" MajorTopicYN="Y">metabolism</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D060434" MajorTopicYN="Y">Herbivory</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D010636" MajorTopicYN="N">Phenols</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000737" MajorTopicYN="N">chemistry</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000378" MajorTopicYN="N">metabolism</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D018515" MajorTopicYN="N">Plant Leaves</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000737" MajorTopicYN="N">chemistry</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000502" MajorTopicYN="N">physiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D032107" MajorTopicYN="N">Populus</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000737" MajorTopicYN="N">chemistry</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000502" MajorTopicYN="Y">physiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D012756" MajorTopicYN="N">Sheep</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000502" MajorTopicYN="Y">physiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2014</Year><Month>07</Month><Day>18</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2014</Year><Month>09</Month><Day>02</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="revised"><Year>2014</Year><Month>08</Month><Day>25</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2014</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>7</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2014</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>7</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2015</Year><Month>7</Month><Day>15</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25284606</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1007/s10886-014-0507-0</ArticleId></ArticleIdList><ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Phytochemistry. 2011 Sep;72(13):1551-65</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">21354580</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Oecologia. 2009 Jul;160(4):687-95</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">19390868</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>J Anim Sci. 1999 Feb;77(2):378-87</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">10100667</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Phytochemistry. 2011 Sep;72(13):1497-509</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">21376356</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>J Chem Ecol. 1995 Jun;21(6):693-719</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24234313</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>New Phytol. 2008;180(3):571-86</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18771472</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Br J Nutr. 1997 Feb;77(2):287-97</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">9135373</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Br J Nutr. 1997 Oct;78(4):545-61</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">9389883</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Annu Rev Entomol. 2009;54:165-87</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18764740</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>J Agric Food Chem. 1980 Sep-Oct;28(5):947-52</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">7462522</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>J Dairy Sci. 1991 Oct;74(10):3583-97</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">1660498</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Tree Physiol. 2011 Jan;31(1):68-77</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">21389003</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Ecology. 2007 Mar;88(3):729-39</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17503600</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference></ReferenceList></PubmedData></pubmed><affiliations><list><country><li>États-Unis</li></country></list><tree><noCountry><name sortKey="Burritt, Elizabeth A" sort="Burritt, Elizabeth A" uniqKey="Burritt E" first="Elizabeth A" last="Burritt">Elizabeth A. Burritt</name><name sortKey="St Clair, Samuel B" sort="St Clair, Samuel B" uniqKey="St Clair S" first="Samuel B" last="St Clair">Samuel B. St Clair</name></noCountry><country name="États-Unis"><noRegion><name sortKey="Villalba, Juan J" sort="Villalba, Juan J" uniqKey="Villalba J" first="Juan J" last="Villalba">Juan J. Villalba</name></noRegion></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Bois/explor/PoplarV1/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002363 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 002363 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Bois
|area= PoplarV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:25284606
|texte= Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) intake and preference by mammalian herbivores: the role of plant secondary compounds and nutritional context.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:25284606" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a PoplarV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.37. |  |