Research Questions
1. Are gall diameter (ball or rosette) and stem heights significantly correlated?
2. What effect do galls (ball or rosette) have on stem heights?
Content and Background to the Study
Physical Growth Effects of Galls Found on Golden Rods
Abstract:
We studied the effect of gall (ball or rosette) type on the resulting height and thickness of the goldenrod in Warbler Ridge Conservation Area. This large gall structures are formed by the goldenrod gall fly (Eurostasolidaginis) . The female insects quickly lay their eggs into the tip of golden rod stem, resulting in a complex parasitic interaction between larva and golden rod. This interaction results in a gall. In order to find the most common gall type present students used a 10x50m field divided into transects. Then used a random number generator to walk the designated steps and sample the nearest gall and ungalled goldenrod. After careful measurements and observations, we saw that out of 115 rosette galls only 5 were ball .This means that not only were rosette galls more prevalent but would show the biggest impact on height, but for the comparison of average height in centimeters of Rosette and Ball galled Goldenrods in relationship to their nearest ungalled golden rods found it was concluded that ungalled goldenrod almost doubled the in height and circumference. This may be due to the tight nit parasitic interaction between the golden rod and the gall fly. The golden is basically a nutrient rich housing unit for the larva, as a result it is expect that they will almost be stunted in growth due to this sharing of resources. Lastly in figure four a linear regression of the distance each golden rod was from the edge of the plot in correlation to its height was developed. This was developed in order to see if there was any correlation between gall stem and distance from the edge. In conclusion since both p values were greater than 0,05, we accept the null hypothesis and say there is no relationship between gall stem height and distance from the edge. This simply menaswhen the gall flies are picking their golden rod they are picking completely at random and does no matter the location or height of the golden rod.
Introduction:
Parasitism is an important predation of interspecific interaction. Parasites live in the hosts’ body and have influence on their hosts. To order to know this experiment, we want to know the effect of gall on the goldenrods’ physical growth. We can know the relationship between gall and goldenrods by analyzing the stem thickness and stem height of goldenrod with different types of gall and goldenrod without gall. Firstly, what is the gall. Gall formation is among the most specialist of plant-parasite interaction, and the gall induced by insects are the most morphologically complex (Mani, 1964). The survival possibility depends on gall size. In small galls, the larva is vulnerable to parasitoid, whereas in larvae in large galls are frequently eaten by avian predators (Abrahamson, et al. 1989). Then, we should know that insects get nutrients from the innermost layer and protection from out ones (Weis, Wolfe and Groman 1989). In this experiment, we set up two groups as group 1: the stem diameter, stem thickness with different types of gall and group 2: the stem diameter, stem thickness with no gall.
Methods
On 19 September 2019, at approximately 1000 in the morning students began to answer two questions: Which gall type (ball or rosette) is most in east-Central Illinois and what effect do galls have on stem height and thickness? We took a 10x50m field of goldenrod found inConservation Area and randomly divide it into 6 lanes and divide those lanes with a random transect of which each group of students was assigned. Next, each group took a random number generator and generated 20 values between 1-30; whatever random number that was generated would correlate with the number of paces a student should take deeper into the field. Finally, one tape measure was laid out in the middle of the field to ensure each group had their own lane. Finally, once a random number was obtaining our group would walk the designated number of steps and pick the nearest goldenrod with gall. Data were collected on the height and diameter, 20cm from the ground, of both a galled and ungalled golden rod at this measured point. This procedure was repeated for the remaining plots within that transect.
Each group compiled their data to compare the results across the entire field so that the class was able to analyze the data. After the data were organized showing the height and thickness of goldenrods with or without ball or rosette galls, summary statistics were developed and utilized for a paired T-tests to compare whether our hypothesis for our third question: “Does a goldenrod’s distance from the edge of the plot affect the height of its stem?” By graphing the Stem height vs. the distance from the edge, we were able to add a trend line to both sets of data. The trendline had an r value which represents Pearson’s correlation coefficient that measures the linear relationship between two variables. After analyzing the data, we accepted the null hypothesis that there is no effect of goldenrods’ distance from the edge of the plot on the height of its stem.
Results
Figure 1.Gall types (ball and rosette) found in a 10x50m field of golden rods in Ridge State Natural Area.
From Figure 1, we detected 115 rosette galls of 120 galls namely, 96% gall we detected is rosette type. Also, from the information read before the lab exercise, class can infer that Rosette galls are the most common gall type in east-central Illinois.
Figure 2. The comparison of average height in centimeters of Rosette and Ball galled Goldenrods in relationship to their nearest ungalled golden rods found in 10x50m field of goldenrod found in Ridge State Natural Area.
Figure 3. The comparison of average circumference in millimeters of Rosette and Ball galled Goldenrods in relationship to their nearest ungalled goldenrods found in 10x50m field of golden rod found in Ridge Conservation Area.
Figure 4 The linear regression of the distance each golden rod was from the edge of the plot in correlation to its height. (Galled: r= 0.113, dF=118, P= 0.22, Ungalled: r= 0.0057, dF=118, P=0.54)
From Figures two and three help to give an explanation to how well goldenrods thrive with and without a gall growing on it. Here we see that Goldenrod stems thrive better in height without the company of a rosette gall, but no change was noted in Ball Galls. For thickness of the stems, stems with ball galls showed to be the thickest, while there was no noticeable difference with rosette galls. The p value in galled group is 0.23, and in ungalled group is 0.54. The both p values are greater than 0.005. Since the p value for both stems are greater than 0.05, we accept the null hypothesis and infer that there is no relationship between gall stem height and the distance from the edge.
Discussion:
We determined that rosette gall type is the most abundant in Ridge Conservation Area. Meanwhile, we found that there is no significant effect of ball gall on stem height and rosette gall on stem thickness, whereas, there is little influence of ball gall on stem thickness and rosette gall on stem height. We sampled one hundred and twenty goldenrods in total, which is enough for a small area; meaning the different gall type may affect different structure. For rosette gall, it influences the stem height little more than ball gall and ball gall influence the stem thickness little more than rosette gall. To be specific, rosette gall decreases the stem height comparing to ungalled and ball-galled goldenrods, and ball gall increases the stem thickness comparing to ungalled and rosette-galled goldenrod. As for previous work, we can know Gelechiidae, Tephritidae, and Cecidomyiidae, are three types of gall types that have been proven to increase stem production, decrease current rhizome production, and lower seed production (Hartnett and Abrahamson 1979). Meanwhile, Paclt (1972) argued that the formation of gall does not represent a defense reaction of host plant but rather a forced growth reaction governed essentially by the gall-inducing organism. This force growth reaction represents an added energy cost to the plants. Numerous studies with plants have shown that resource allocation is affected by such factors as the environment, life span and habitat of the plant and competitive and density interaction (Harper 1970, Abrahamson 1979, etc.). Based on that, we think if the stem thickness and stem height is related to the allocation of energy of plants. Meanwhile, we also determined that there is no relationship between gall stem height and the distance from the edge. At each distance from edge, there are nearly equal number for galled and ungalled goldenrod. It means that the gall occurs in goldenrod randomly and the distance from edge has no effect on stem height and thickness of goldenrod.
Citations
Abrahamson, W. G. 1979 Patterns of resource allocation in wildflower populations of fields and
woods. American Journal of Botany 66: 71-79.
Abrahamson W.G., Sattler J. F., McCrea K. D. and Weis A.E. 1989 Variation in selection
pressures on goldenrod gall fly and the competitive interactions of its natural enemies.
Oecologia Vol. 79. No.1 pp. 15-22.
Harper, J. L. and J. Ogden. 1970 The reproductive strategy of higher plants. Journal of ecology
58:681-698.
Hartnett D.C. and Abrahamson W.G. 1979 The effects of stem gall insects on life history
patterns in Solidago Canadensis. Ecology Vol. 60 No. 5 pp.910-917.
Mani M. S. 1964 Ecology of Plant galls Junk, The Hague.
Paclt J. 1972 Zurallgemein-biologischendeutung der pflanzengalle. BeitraegeBiologie
Pflanzen48:63-77.
Weis A.E., Wolfe C.L. and Gorman W. L. 1989 Genotypic variation and integration in
histological features of the goldenrod ball gall. American Journal of Botany Vol. 76. No.
10 pp. 1541-1550.
Gallfly Parasitism of Goldenrod
LUKE H. S ANDRO RICHARD E. LEE, JR.2006
Abstract
Plant frequently maintain protection from different natural enemies, including galls that hide within living tissue of the plant.The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether the effects of the goldenrod ball and rosette galls on stem heights and diameter of Solidago altissima. This can account for changes in biomass allocation and total biomass observed in galled goldenrod.Galls are influenced by various agents, such us:goldenrod gall fly (Eurostasolidaginis). females flylay eggs on vegetation, their larvae hatch and tunnel into host tissue where they spend their hours eating away on the plant’s living cells,then eats its way into the stem and forms a feeding/living chamber.In a prairie of a study 10x50m field divided into transects and used those to find either rosette or ball galls on goldenrod, Solidago spp., within the randomized plots along one transect, we measured stem height and benefits o The presencePopulations of goldenrods (Solidago altissima) were sampled to determine the effects of two stem gall insects (flies ball galls and rosette galls on resource stem height in the plants.Rosette Gall invasions were as high in the prairie and the dominant gall insect differed from site to site………………..
Introduction
Discussion
Methods: We drew 30 random numbers and used those to find either rosette or ball galls on goldenrod, Solidago spp., within the randomized plots along one transect. This transect was one of five other transects within a goldenrod field at Ridge Conservation Area. Ridge sits North of Ridge Park .The Ridge Area is approximately two to four miles west of Route 215 and one road past the W Road heading south on 215. The data were collected at approximately 1400 on 19 September 2019. Gall types were documented separately, however, no ball galls were observed for our group’s data. The rosette gall diameter was measured, in millimeters, from the middle of the gall’s outgrowth from leaf tip to leaf tip. We measured the stem heights, in centimeters, from the base of the stem to the top of the flowers in healthy plants and from the base of the stem to thetop of the rosette growth in galled goldenrod. All measurements were compiled from each group and 100 data were used for analysis.
The data on gall type, gall diameter, gall plant height, and healthy plant height were put into an Excel table. Two scatterplots were created from the Excel data and the correlation coefficient was calculated. One graph compares the rosette gall diameter with the galled plant height in centimeters and the second compares the ball gall diameter with the galled plant height in centimeters. A bar chart was created showing the differences in height between rosette galled plants, ball galled plants, and healthy plants occurring near the rosette and ball galled plants. A paired t-test was performed for both rosette and ball galls.
Results:
In figure 1. the scatterplot depicts ball gall correlations ( r= 0.824; df = 2). Since the r value is greater than 0.5, ball gall diameter and galled stem height have a strong positive relationship. In figure 2. the scatterplot depicts rosette gall correlations ( r = 0.192; df = 94). Since the r value is less than 0.2, rosette gall diameter and gall height have a very weak positive relationship. Figure 3. is a bar chart comparing the heights of healthy plants and plant heights of rosette and ball galled plants. The ball gall plants and healthy nearest plants have the same height. Rosette gall plants and healthy nearest plants do not have the same height. Standard error bars are shown in the graph. The paired t-test for Rosette gall plant height shows the following data (t = -14.3; df = 95, p = 0.000). The probability being less than 0.05 means the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Rosette galls do effect stem height. The paired t-test for Ball gall plant height shows the following data (t = 0.00445; df = 8, p = 0.997). The probability being more than 0.05 means the null hypothesis is accepted and Ball galls have no effect on stem height.
Figure 1. Scatterplot shows the relationship between ball gall diameter in centimeters and the galled plant stem height of ball gall plants in centimeters. Data was collected at approximately 1400 on 19 September 2019 from a goldenrod field . The R2 value is shown.
Figure 2. Scatterplot shows the relationship between rosette gall diameter in centimeters and the galled plant stem height of rosette gall plants in centimeters. Rosette diameters were measured mid-gall from leaf tip to leaf tip. Data was collected at approximately 1400 on 19 September 2019 from. The R2 value is shown.
Figure 3. Bar Graph showing the relationship between Ball and Rosette Galls on plants stem height based on 100 Goldenrods at 1400. Standard deviation bars are shown.
REFERENCES
Sandro, L. H., & Lee, R. E. (2006). Winter biology & freeze tolerance in the goldenrod gall fly. The American Biology Teacher, 68(1), 29-36.
https://bioone.org/journals/The-American-Biology-Teacher/volume-68/issue-1/0002-7685(2006)068[0029:WBFTIT]2.0.CO;2/Winter-Biology–Freeze-Tolerance-in-the-Goldenrod-Gall-Fly/10.1662/0002-7685(2006)068[0029:WBFTIT]2.0.CO;2.short
Helms, A. M., De Moraes, C. M., Mescher, M. C., &Tooker, J. F. (2014). The volatile emission of Eurostasolidaginis primes herbivore-induced volatile production in Solidagoaltissima and does not directly deter insect feeding. BMC plant biology, 14(1), 173.
https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2229-14-173
Helms, A. M., De Moraes, C. M., Tooker, J. F., &Mescher, M. C. (2013). Exposure of Solidagoaltissima plants to volatile emissions of an insect antagonist (Eurostasolidaginis) deters subsequent herbivory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(1), 199-204.
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/1/199.short
Wise, M. J., & Abrahamson, W. G. (2017). Constraints on the evolution of resistance to gall flies in Solidagoaltissima: resistance sometimes costs more than it is worth. New Phytologist, 215(1), 423-433.
https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.14583
Start, D., & Gilbert, B. (2016). Host–parasitoid evolution in a metacommunity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1831), 20160477.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2016.0477
Yip, E. C., Sowers, R. P., Helms, A. M., Mescher, M. C., De Moraes, C. M., &Tooker, J. F. (2019). Trade-offs between defenses against herbivores in goldenrod (Solidagoaltissima). Arthropod-Plant Interactions, 13(2), 279-287.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11829-019-09674-3
Wise, M. J., Abrahamson, W. G., & Cole, J. A. (2010). The role of nodding stems in the goldenrod–gall–fly interaction: A test of the “ducking” hypothesis. American journal of botany, 97(3), 525-529.
https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3732/ajb.0900227
Abrahamson, W. G., Sattler, J. F., McCrea, K. D., & Weis, A. E. (1989). Variation in selection pressures on the goldenrod gall fly and the competitive interactions of its natural enemies. Oecologia, 79(1), 15-22.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00378234
Stinner, B. R., & Abrahamson, W. G. (1979). Energetics of the Solidago canadensis‐stem gall insect‐parasitoid guild interaction. Ecology, 60(5), 918-926.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1936860
Confer, J. L., &Paicos, P. (1985). Downy woodpecker predation at goldenrod galls. Journal of Field Ornithology, 56-64.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4512979?seq=1
even in the presence of substantial genetic variation for resistance. Identifying constraints on
the evolution of increased resistance has been a major goal of researchers of plant–herbivore
interactions.
Autotoxicity may constrain the resistance of S. altissima to an intermediate level, and variation
in environmental conditions may alter the relative costs and benefits of resistance and tolerance,
thus maintaining genetic variation within goldenrod populations.
Larvae of the goldenrod gall fly {Eurostasolidaginis),
can survive freezing to -40°C or below
Galls can also be studied to learn about insect ovipositing
beha\ior and plant responses to three types of
gallmakers-each with its own distinct gall type
(Newell, 1994)
The presence of a gall did not significantly affect final stem height but did slow the growth of ramets during the period of most rapid gall growth. The observed effects of the gall probably explain changes in resource allocation shown by other studies but do not account for the overall decrease in biomass of galled ramets