Next Article in Journal
Effects of Elevated Temperature and Ozone in Brassica juncea L.: Growth, Physiology, and ROS Accumulation
Previous Article in Journal
Warming Effects on Topsoil Organic Carbon and C:N:P Stoichiometry in a Subtropical Forested Landscape
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/f11010067
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Functional Role of Extrafloral Nectar in Boreal Forest Ecosystems under Climate Change

by
Jarmo K. Holopainen
*,
James D. Blande
and
Jouni Sorvari
Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627 Kuopio, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2020, 11(1), 67; https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010067
Submission received: 15 December 2019 / Revised: 2 January 2020 / Accepted: 2 January 2020 / Published: 6 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Carbohydrate-rich extrafloral nectar (EFN) is produced in nectaries on the leaves, stipules, and stems of plants and provides a significant energy source for ants and other plant mutualists outside of the flowering period. Our review of literature on EFN indicates that only a few forest plant species in cool boreal environments bear EFN-producing nectaries and that EFN production in many boreal and subarctic plant species is poorly studied. Boreal forest, the world’s largest land biome, is dominated by coniferous trees, which, like most gymnosperms, do not produce EFN. Notably, common deciduous tree species that can be dominant in boreal forest stands, such as Betula and Alnus species, do not produce EFN, while Prunus and Populus species are the most important EFN-producing tree species. EFN together with aphid honeydew is known to play a main role in shaping ant communities. Ants are considered to be keystone species in mixed and conifer-dominated boreal and mountain forests because they transfer a significant amount of carbon from the canopy to the soil. Our review suggests that in boreal forests aphid honeydew is a more important carbohydrate source for ants than in many warmer ecosystems and that EFN-bearing plant species might not have a competitive advantage against herbivores. However, this hypothesis needs to be tested in the future. Warming of northern ecosystems under climate change might drastically promote the invasion of many EFN-producing plants and the associated insect species that consume EFN as their major carbohydrate source. This may result in substantial changes in the diet preferences of ant communities, the preventative roles of ants against insect pest outbreaks, and the ecosystem services they provide. However, wood ants have adapted to using tree sap that leaks from bark cracks in spring, which may mitigate the effects of improved EFN availability.

1. Introduction

Extrafloral nectar (EFN) is produced in nectaries, which are specialized plant glands or less distinctive secretory structures that contain secretory trichomes and vascularized parenchyma [1]. EFN nectaries secrete carbohydrate-rich nectar and are located on plant parts other than flowers, most often on stipules, at leaf bases, or on petioles [2], but sometimes they occur on the surfaces of flower buds [3] or inside stems that have an opening to the stem surface [4]. Although EFN nectaries have high structural diversity, the chemical composition of EFN is more similar among different plant taxa than the highly variable composition of floral nectar [5]. There are more than 3900 plant species bearing EFN nectaries in at least 108 plant families [2]. EFN nectaries have not been observed in early angiosperms, magnoliids, or gymnosperms [2], but leaf (frond) nectaries are present on non-flowering ferns, suggesting the principal role of leaf nectaries in protective mutualism of plants before the evolution of nectar production in flowers [5]. In general, a higher diversification rate in plant families that have EFN-producing nectaries compared to plant families that lack the EFN trait has been considered an indication that mutualistic interactions with animals enhance plant diversity [6].
EFN is known to be an important energy source for predatory insects such as polyphagous ants that protect plants from herbivores [3,7,8,9]. EFN is consumed by species of many other insect groups and other arthropods such as spiders and predatory mites [9]. In Acacias, flower-pollinating passerine birds may also collect nectar from EFN nectaries [10]. An extrafloral diet of predacious insects and spiders may also include extrafloral food bodies provided by leaves of some plant species, which are rich in protein and lipids and resemble more pollen than flower nectar [8,11,12].
Production of EFN is one of the inducible indirect plant defenses against herbivores which exist [13,14,15]. An induced response may involve increases in the number of EFN nectaries on leaves developing after leaf damage [15,16] or a change in nectar production in existing EFN nectaries. The volume of nectar produced can be either increased [4,17,18] or reduced in damaged leaves [19]; the nectar may also become more concentrated [20], or the proportion of amino acids compared to carbohydrates may increase after herbivore damage [21]. These changes will make EFN more attractive to ants, wasps, and parasitoids, which can all be natural enemies of herbivores, and enhance top-down control of herbivores [3]. Furthermore, EFN production in a healthy plant responds positively to herbivore-induced volatiles from neighboring plants [18,19,22].
The importance of EFN in plant–ant mutualism has been demonstrated in various ecosystems, including tropical dry forests [23] and rainforests [24,25,26], temperate forests [27,28], savannas [29], shrublands [30], dry grasslands [31] and desert ecosystems [32,33]. However, the role of EFN in boreal ecosystems is still poorly understood [28,34,35] and most experimental field studies in the boreal–subarctic zone have been conducted with Populus tremuloides Michx. in Alaska [36,37,38]. Although EFN together with aphid (homopteran) honeydew is known to have a key role in shaping the structure of canopy-dwelling ant communities in rainforest ecosystems [39], only a study by Wenninger et al. [35] has assessed the role of EFN in ant community structures in boreal forest ecosystems.
Boreal forests (taiga) cover about 33% of the world’s total forest area, representing the largest terrestrial biome on Earth [40]. They are a globally important sink and storage pool of carbon [41] and are mostly dominated by coniferous trees [42]. Furthermore, the largest remaining unfragmented and natural landscape patches without human impact can be found in Russian and Canadian boreal forests [43]. In addition to conifers, deciduous trees such as Betula pendula Roth, B. pubescens Ehrh., Populus tremula L., Alnus incana (L.) Moench, A. glutinosa (L.) Gaertn., Sorbus aucuparia L., and Salix caprea L. can be dominant tree species in mixed stands in Scandinavian and Finnish taiga forests [42,44]. With the warming climate, there is a shift in the boreal forest biome towards the arctic [45], and the proportion of deciduous trees in boreal ecosystems will increase due to a northward shift of many thermophilic tree species [46,47,48,49,50]. This change in tree species composition may also have an impact on species interactions and mutualistic relationships at the ecosystem level [8].
Ants play an important role in the control of herbivores on forest trees and may prevent insect outbreaks locally in boreal forests [51,52]. Ants attend aphids on trees and consume honeydew as a source of nitrogen and carbohydrate, but they also frequently consume EFN [34]. Several studies have supported the hypothesis that EFN acts as an attractant to ants that chase away or kill harmful herbivorous insects [33,53,54]. In the spring, before aphid honeydew is available, EFN is an especially substantial energy source for temperate and boreal ant species, which equally use oligosaccharide-rich honeydew and disaccharide-rich EFN as an energy source [55]. In general, ants play a significant role in the C and N cycle and the maintenance of C soil storage in boreal forest ecosystems [56].
In this review, we aim to unravel and discuss the functional role of EFN, with a particular focus on that produced by deciduous woody plants (Figure 1) in boreal forest ecosystems. These ecosystems are dominated by coniferous trees that do not produce EFN, but wood ants are still keystone species in these ecosystems [56,57]. We discuss the reasons for the scarcity of EFN-producing plants in boreal ecosystems, which still maintain a high abundance of ants. Honeydew produced by conifer aphids is an important source of carbohydrates for ants, but what will happen if the proportion of EFN-producing trees increases? Global climate change will promote the shift of EFN-producing plants native to temperate forest ecosystems towards boreal ecosystems [58] and will also promote the invasion of introduced horticultural and ornamental EFN-producing species to boreal forest ecosystems.

2. EFN Production

EFN is primarily composed of sucrose, glucose, and fructose, and is thus an appropriate source of energy for insects [59]. Amino acids in EFN are also important for insects, but their proportion is normally under a tenth of the carbohydrate concentration [3,60]. The average concentrations of sugars in EFN of two subtropical species range from 2 to 18 mmol L−1, while total amino acid concentrations have been found to be between 0.8 and 1.3 mmol L−1 [60]. There are important qualitative differences in the amino acid content of EFN and leaf tissues. In EFN of two Populus spp., amino acids responsible for a “sweet taste”, such as phenylalanine, tryptophan, and valine, have been found to be common, whereas they have been observed in low levels or to be absent in leaf extracts; proline, which has a “salty taste,” has only been found in EFN [61].
Secondary metabolites have been reported to be in EFN and nectaries secreting EFN, but in general nectary structures and their surrounding tissues have some specific secondary metabolites such as non-protein amino acids [62]. EFN droplets from nectaries in floral bracts of non-flowering Sansevieria sp. have been found to have minor amounts of alcohols, terpenes, and nitrogen-containing phytochemicals [63], but more extensive surveys of EFN secondary metabolites are lacking.
EFN is considered an important energy source for many predators, pollinators, and other mutualists, but the production costs of EFN for plants are poorly understood. For Ochroma pyramidale (Cav. ex Lam.) Urb., a neotropical tree, EFN production costs have been estimated to be only one per cent of the total energy invested in leaves [64]. The cost of defense through production of EFN appears very low compared to floral nectar production costs, which may reach 37% of the daily photosynthetic assimilate production [24]. In relatively cloudy boreal summers, EFN production is probably substantially more costly than the reported 1% [64]. Lower resource availability at high latitudes may mean that the production of EFN requires a greater proportional investment of photoassimilates. The herbivore-inducible nature of EFN production [13] may help some species to reduce this investment in the absence of herbivores.

3. Usage of Non-Floral Carbohydrate Sources by Mutualists

Insect-pollinated plants have two major nectar sources, namely, flowers and EFN nectaries. The major nectar collectors from flowers are wasps (bees) in the superfamily Apoidea which use pollen and nectar to produce honey for their offspring [65]. In addition, flower nectar is an important source of energy for adult moths and butterflies that are herbivorous in their larval stages [66].
EFN production in plants is typically correlated with ants, which provide a defense against leaf-eating herbivores on plant foliage [3]. However, in the vegetative stages of field crops that produce EFN, such as broad beans (Vicia faba L.), EFN nectaries are frequently visited by bees before flowers are available [65]. In addition to bees, many parasitoid wasps and midges and polyphagous predators of herbivores including ants collect both floral nectar and EFN, although in some cases the signals provided by open flowers might be needed for the exploitation of a plant’s EFN [67]. Knowledge of the role of EFN for many other insect groups might be skewed by active research on ant–plant mutualism. For example, it has recently been found that 17.3% of highly diverse arboreal beetles in a tropical rain forest consume EFN [68]. Some of these beetles were found to feed exclusively on EFN, suggesting a similar plant–insect mutualism to that involving ants [68]. Offenberg [34] has found that if an aphid species is attended by ants, it will increase the likelihood of this aphid species having an association with host plants that produce EFN. He concluded that the correlation is best explained by one of two hypotheses, namely, (1) the host-selection hypothesis that aphids can benefit from being attended by ants and will, therefore, select host plant species that produce EFN and maintain strong ant communities or (2) the host-sharing hypothesis that aphids on plants producing EFN are more likely to become associated with ants and through ant-provided protection be present more often on EFN-producing plants than on host plant species without EFN.
Some moth larvae have been reported to remove the secretory tissues of EFN nectaries [62]. The secretory trichome cells producing EFN are rich in carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids [1,69] and might be more nutritious than other leaf tissue, but have less defense compounds than the non-secretory tissues of the nectary [62]. Gish et al. [62] have suggested that plants allocate chemical defenses to the protection of EFN nectaries from predation, but this may not be entirely effective, as herbivorous insects limit their exposure to these defenses by targeting their consumption on the secreting tissue of the nectary.
A third significant carbohydrate source for nectar-feeding organisms, particularly for ants, is hemipteran honeydew, which is most often produced by aphids and is directly collected from aphids by aphid-attending ants. The deposition of aphid honeydew, e.g., on the foliage of understory vegetation, is important for insects from other insect orders, including bees, that collect honeydew deposits from leaves and produce honeydew honey [70]. However, for some wasps that parasitize insect eggs, consumption of EFN is a stronger stimulant for egg-laying on host eggs than consumption of flower nectar or aphid honeydew [71].
Through changes of the nutritive value of nectar, plants to a certain extent affect the behavior of their mutualists during vegetative, flowering, and seed production stages. Ants prefer nitrogen-rich food and they have a preference for nectar [72] and aphid honeydew [73,74] that have a higher content of amino acids. The increase in the proportion of amino acids in EFN after herbivore damage [74] could lead to more ants remaining on foliage and predating on damaging herbivores.
Interestingly, EFN production might even be increased during flowering [75,76,77] and thus show that EFN production does not set any constraints on flower nectar production [77]. The amino acid content of EFN during flowering has not been studied, but an increase in amino acid content might make the ant distraction effect even stronger. In particular, ants require a high amino acid content when they are providing food for a queen [74], but nitrogen availability can be controlled by increasing the proportion of insect prey in their food [78].

4. Ants and EFN in Boreal Forests

The most dominant ants in boreal coniferous forests in Northern Europe are the wood ants of the Formica rufa species group, especially Formica aquilonia Yarrow, and F. polyctena Förster, which can build spatially well-dispersed multiple-nest colonies and substantial and very populous nest mounds [79,80]. Three other species of the group, F. lugubris Zetterstedt, F. pratensis Retzius, and F. rufa L. are more typical in open forests, young forest stands, and forest margins in the boreal zone [79,81]. Coniferous forests are inhabited to a lesser extent by other subdominant or opportunistic species, such as the conifer trunk nesting carpenter ant Camponotus herculeanus (L.), and other commonly encountered species such as Lasius platythorax Seifert, F. lemani Bondroit, Myrmica ruginodis Nylander, and Leptothorax acervorum (Fabricius) (e.g., [52,82]).
In North American boreal forests, the most dominant ants are the carpenter ants, especially Camponotus pensylvanicus (De Geer) and C. modoc Wheeler [83]. Formica obscuribes Forel, a North American member of the F. rufa species group, builds large populous nests like its relatives in Europe and is locally dominant [84]. Other commonly encountered, yet not behaviorally dominant, ant species in boreal forests include Formica neogagates Viereck, F. subsericea Say, Lasius americanus Emery, Aphaenogaster rudis Enzmann, and several species of the genus Myrmica [84,85]. In early-successional aspen stands of inner Alaska, Formica podzolica Francoeur, Leptothorax muscorum (Nylander), F. subaenescens Emery, F. aserva Forel, and Camponotus herculeanus have been found to be characteristic species [35]. It has been suggested that early successional aspen stands may provide critical resources such as EFN [36] or prey availability for these species [35].
In mixed forests comprising conifers and deciduous broad-leaved birch in Europe and Asia, the red wood ant F. aquilonia is a dominant species. In spring the ants collect birch sap and nest-building materials, but predation on invertebrates is limited [78]. In sub-boreal deciduous forests of western Siberia, the F. aquilonia settlement capacity is lower than in boreal populations. This is because F. aquilonia prefers spruce forests for nest building and usually settles under spruce trees in mixed forests [86]. In temperate Polish forests, this species prefers conifers in mixtures with broad-leaved trees [87]. In addition, carpenter ants rarely nest in deciduous tree trunks or fallen logs of deciduous trees. However, other typical forest-dwelling ants, e.g., Lasius platythorax, F. lemani, Myrmica ruginodis, and Leptothorax acervorum thrive in deciduous forests (J.S., own observations). The leafless period in spring increases exposure to sunlight, which is likely to advance colony development in spring. Forest margins are inhabited by a richer ant fauna with species associated with forest and open field ant faunae, such as Formica truncorum Fabricius, F. fusca L., Lasius niger (L.), and several species of Myrmica. The North American carpenter ant species also differ in their preferences for conifer and deciduous trees [88]; thus, shifts in dominant carpenter ant species are expected if conifers are displaced by deciduous trees. Similarly, conifer forest dwelling F. obscuribes would be replaced by other ant species.
Based on these observations, the predicted increase in replacement of coniferous forests by mixed and deciduous forests due to climate change [46] would alter forest-dwelling ant communities, making conifer-dependent wood ants of the F. rufa species group rarer and at the same time benefitting those ant species that dwell in deciduous forests.

5. Ecosystem Services Provided by EFN in Boreal Forest

Ecosystem services (ES) provided by forest ecosystems to humans can be divided into provisioning, regulating, and cultural services [89]. Provisioning services include material products such as food, fibers and timber; regulating services include environmental controls such as maintenance of hydrological and carbon cycles, water purification, control of soil erosion, and biological pest control; cultural services include recreational activities such as hiking and berry picking and spiritual experiences such as artistic representations of nature [89]. In ES assessment of specific groups of phytochemicals produced by forest plants, such as plant volatiles [90] or flower nectar [91], the services of the plant product can be classified into the provisioning (e.g., perfumes and honey) [91] and regulating (e.g., ozone removal and pollination) [90] ES categories. In the case of EFN in forest plants, mutualism with ants and the regulatory ES provided by ant communities, such as control of forest pests [7,92] and maintenance of the carbon cycle in forest ecosystems [56,57,93], are probably the major ES related to EFN production in boreal forest plants. However, in special cases, EFN could have a role in provisional ES when honeybees use EFN for honey production. In Italy, the invasive alien species Australian Acacia pycnantha Benth is an efficient foliar EFN producer in the afternoons, while pollen availability from flowers is highest in the mornings. Local honeybee populations have adapted to collect pollen from A. pycnantha flowers in the mornings and EFN from leaf phyllodes (modified petioles) in the afternoons [94]. A comprehensive assessment of the role of EFN in, e.g., honey production and the maintenance of pollination services in boreal and other forest ecosystems, remains to be carried out. We have limited knowledge about, e.g., forest honey with a low content of pollen. It is expected to contain mostly aphid honeydew [95], but it may contain EFN in the early season when the aphid population density is still low.
The regulating role of EFN for polyphagous ant populations may affect both ES, such as biological control of harmful herbivorous insects by ant predation, and ecosystem disservices, such as reduction of tree productivity by ant species that improve survival of harmful aphids (e.g., plant virus vectors) or predate on pollinators or other predators and parasitoids of herbivores [92]. It has been shown in temperate and boreal vegetation that plant species bearing EFN nectaries are more likely to be associated with aphid species with an ant mutualism than plants without EFN nectaries [34]. Aphids and other honeydew producers such as mealybugs and scale insects consume photosynthesis products of trees and may result in a substantial reduction in tree productivity if they appear at outbreak levels [96,97]. However, in forest ecosystems, it has been shown that exclusion of wood ant access on trees may result in a 90–95% reduction in the growth of ant-tended aphid colonies [51]. As a result, foliar feeding by outbreaking geometrid moths has been found to increase and leaf damage to be 34% lower in ant-foraged trees compared to non-foraged trees [51]. The effect of wood ant–aphid mutualism is normally positive on growth of deciduous forest trees that suffer from defoliating herbivores [98]. In boreal conifer forests, blocking ant visits to aphids on Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. trees in 5, 30, 60, and 100 year-old stands has been observed to result in a significant reduction in the mean annual radial growth of a 30-year-old stand [99]. In boreal pine forests, possible negative effects of aphid feeding on Pinus sylvestris L. are efficiently compensated by significantly improved ant predation on needle-feeding pine sawfly larvae on aphid-infested trees [100]. These results suggest that in boreal forest ecosystems, aphid–ant associations promoted by EFN will more likely provide regulating ES by reduction of defoliating herbivores rather than ecosystem disservices by increased removal of tree photosynthesis products of trees by aphid feeding.

6. Effects of Climate Change on EFN Production and the Distribution of EFN-Producing Plants

6.1. EFN Production

Cold and humid boreal ecosystems have a lower number of species and lower biological diversity than major terrestrial ecosystems in warmer areas [101]. In large areas of boreal forests, the clear-cut harvesting of timber and growing of even-aged stands has strongly truncated natural species succession and further reduced the diversity of vegetation [102]. Hence, factors such as climate warming that promote the spread of new plant species into boreal ecosystems, including those with substantial EFN production, will have large potential to change trophic interactions between species and eventually ecosystem function [103].
It has been suggested that plants with carbon-based chemical defenses against biotic stressors are more common at lower latitudes where the temperature is higher, the availability of light is better, and the herbivore pressure is thought to be higher compared to at higher latitudes [104]. This hypothesis, formed on the basis of older literature, is called the latitudinal herbivory-defense hypothesis (LHDH) [105]. However, an increasing number of studies have failed to support this hypothesis [106,107], or have even found evidence of the opposite trend. For example, analysis of plant defenses based on phenolic compounds in Oenothera spp. leaves has not supported the LHDH and total phenolics of fruits have been found to be even greater in species originating from regions with colder climates [105]. However, indirect chemical plant defense based on carbohydrate-rich EFN is more common at low latitudes [28,34] and thus follows the LHDH hypothesis.
In Denmark and Fennoscandia, 44 plant species bearing EFN nectaries have been listed [34]. However, the majority of these are cultivated plants, and several species are only found in the temperate zone of Denmark and Southern Sweden. The flora of the boreal forest of Finland [108,109] is used as an example of North European boreal forest composition and particularly of species with EFN nectaries (Appendix A). The Finnish territory between 60 and 70° N represents very well the current boreal forest zone [110]. The EFN nectaries of its four native tree species (Figure 1) and four understory species (Figure 2) are shown. Although many other boreal species might be EFN producers, their nectaries are not described. The introduced species bearing EFN (Figure 3) are either actively planted forest trees such as hybrid aspen (Populus × wettsteinii Hämet-Ahti) used in short rotation forestry or exotic ornamental species listed in the Finnish register of introduced alien species (www.vieraslaji.fi).
Escalante-Pérez et al. [61] have shown that hybrid aspen (Populus × wettsteinii), a hybrid of two boreal species (P. tremula and P. tremuloides) constantly secretes EFN from nectaries while P. trichocarpa Torr. & A.Gray ex. Hook., originating from the more temperate zone, has inducible EFN production, and EFN secretion starts after the plant is damaged by a herbivore. Both of these tree species bear EFN nectaries on about 38% of leaves. In the original boreal aspen species, P. tremuloides in America [36] and P. tremula in Europe (J.K. Holopainen, field observations), the first 1–3 basal leaves developing on short and long ramets more often bear EFN nectaries than leaves developing later. P. tremuloides and P. tremula have both displayed stress-induced formation of EFN nectaries. In temperate P. tremuloides, feeding by tent caterpillars has been found to increase the density of EFN nectaries by 23% [111]. Nearly all fast-growing leaves developing on young shoots of cut stems of P. tremula saplings bear EFN nectaries (Figure 1D).
In Prunus padus L., the pre-formed leaves bursting from overwintering buds in spring have fully developed EFN nectaries before leaf expansion, and these developing leaves with EFN nectaries are actively visited by ants (Figure 4A,C). Young P. padus trees seem to bear EFN nectaries on all leaves, including those that are preformed and those developing later in the summer (J.K. Holopainen, field observations). The distribution of EFN nectaries in leaves of boreal tree species and the capacity of nectaries to secrete EFN need to be studied in the future to better understand their ecological roles.
In boreal forest ecosystems, Salix is the most taxonomically and ecologically diverse tree genus [112] and includes several hybrids and also some small shrub-like species. Some Salix species have EFNs, e.g., Keeler [27] has listed eight EFN-bearing North American Salix species from the temperate zone. Salix species also have various other secretory structures that secrete resins, oils and carbohydrates [113,114]. However, the occurrence and distribution of EFN nectaries and other wax and resin-producing glands in this genus is still understudied [114]. For example, EFN nectaries of S. pentandra L. [115] (Figure 1C) look quite similar to resin glands of Salix lucida Muhl., which secrete filamentous resins [116]. Both species belong to the same Salix Salicaster section [117], so the exact function of different leaf and petiole glands should be studied better in this and other Salix sections, and EFN production should be better demonstrated, e.g., by using glucose tests [28,118].

6.2. Physiological Response to Climate Change Factors

Global climate change is a multifaceted phenomenon where warming of temperature is associated with more severe drought episodes, more frequent storms, and continuous increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Through synergistic or antagonist mechanisms acting directly or indirectly, these factors all affect the diversity and synchronism of organisms [45,119,120]. In forest ecosystems, this could mean, e.g., changes in the capacity of plants to produce phytochemicals that are responsible for plant chemical defense [121,122] and communication between trophic levels [123,124,125], and increased risk of forest insect pest outbreaks [119]. In boreal forest, photoperiodism becomes an additional constraint for species distribution to the north, because day length reaches a 24 h sunshine period during the growing season at the polar circle [126], even if the temperature constraints are released. This may additionally affect phenological synchrony between plants and their mutualists and herbivores, but may also be highly species-specific [127].
Elevated CO2 is a key component of current climate change, and several studies have shown that improved CO2 availability substantially affects plant growth and physiology [128], secondary metabolism [121,123,129], and flower nectar production [130]. Studies of the direct effects of climate change factors on EFN production in plants are relatively scarce (Table 1). The only report of CO2 effects on EFN production [131] has shown that under elevated CO2 there is an increase in the proportion of leaves actively producing nectar in wild cotton plants and a decrease in the nectar volume per active leaf. After four weeks of exposure to 700 ppm CO2, the excreted amount of EFN in this case increased compared to that of plants grown at ambient CO2, but at the end of the experiment there was no significant difference [131]. Elevated atmospheric CO2 may disturb the orientation behavior [132] of some EFN foraging parasitoids [133] of herbivores that utilize herbivore-induced volatiles [132] and thus reduce their arrival on induced-EFN-producing plants.
The greenhouse effect of elevated CO2 concentration in the atmosphere could reach several degrees of warming in forthcoming decades, particularly in arctic and boreal zones [123,134]. It has been found that plants adapted to colder environments may have some traits inhibited or behave differently at elevated temperatures. One such trait is the plant capacity to produce and emit isoprene, which may be inhibited in cold conditions and recover in warmer conditions [135]. Interestingly, the temperature dependence of EFN production in plants has not been directly studied in exposure experiments. In Amazonian savanna sites, 11.6% of a studied group of 849 plant species have been found to bear EFN nectaries [136]. Sites with a greater annual temperature range were found to have a higher proportion of EFN-producing species than sites with a smaller temperature range, but the annual mean temperature in this instance did not have an explanatory value. However, precipitation seasonality and low precipitation in the driest quarter of the year had significant negative effects on the proportion of EFN-producing plants [136], indicating the importance of water availability for EFN production.
In an experimental test, drought stress was found to reduce the EFN sugar secretion rate of one of the four Populus tremuloides genotypes and did not prevent induction by herbivory, suggesting that EFN production and response to water limitation is genotype specific [138].
Light conditions [140] and photoperiod [143] have been reported to affect constitutive and induced EFN production in plants. In lima bean plants, constitutive EFN production is higher during dark periods than during daylight, but EFN production induced by jasmonic acid (JA) is more active during daytime [143]. This might be an adaptation of some low-latitude plants to 12/12 h dark–light periods to rely more on herbivore-induced EFN production during the daytime. However, there is evidence that the total lack of a dark phase during mid-summer in the boreal zone is not a constraint for EFN production in low-latitude plants, because invasive and EFN-producing Himalayan balsam has successfully spread to the boreal and sub-arctic areas within the Arctic Circle [109]. Overall, high light intensity and sunny growth conditions support higher ant activity [140] and improved EFN production in plants when compared to shady conditions [139]. The presence of ants significantly reduces herbivory rates in sunny habitats, resulting in better seed production on a plant with ants and thus in improved plant fitness [140].
Ozone (O3) is a phytotoxic gas in the ground-level layer of the troposphere and is formed in photochemical reactions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and anthropogenic or biogenic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) [144]. Formation of O3 is most active in forests surrounding urban areas [145], but long-term transportation of O3 from warmer areas is becoming more important in boreal environments. According to climate change models, warming of oceans may increase the risk of variability in long-term transportation and summer peak concentrations of O3 in boreal forests [146]. High O3 concentrations may degrade herbivore-induced plant VOCs and VOC signaling, leading to reduced production of induced EFN [18].

6.3. Range Shift of EFN-Bearing Forest Plants

The effects of climate warming on the function of natural ecosystems can be more drastic at high latitudes closer to the poles than at lower latitudes [45]. This may lead to, e.g., a mismatch between plant flowering phenology and pollinator emergence [120]. However, it still remains to be clarified if specialized mutualisms between plants and insects have lost the evolutionary flexibility to respond to rapid ecosystem shifts under the warming climate of the Anthropocene [92].
At cold high latitudes and altitudes, the number of organisms and plant species is lower compared to that at low latitudes and altitudes [147,148]. Also, the proportion of the total number of plant species having EFNs is substantially lower in colder climatic environments, such as boreal and cool temperate Russian forests, compared to warm temperate and subtropical forests [28]. This supports the LHDH hypothesis that high diversity of herbivores and their pressure increases plant defenses [105]. Thus, warming of the climate will lead to new invasive plant species [149], which should also include a higher proportion of species with EFNs. However, the evidence from an analysis of the Viburnum genus does not necessarily support this hypothesis fully and it is notable that the largest EFN nectaries have been found in temperate–boreal V. opulus [118].
A meta-analysis of the ecological effects of climate warming on ecosystems [147] has indicated a constant range shift of species in various ecosystems with an average speed of 6.1 km per decade towards the poles. A later arthropod-dominated meta-analysis [148] has indicated a range shift of species to higher latitudes at a median rate of 16.9 kilometers per decade. In temperate and boreal forest ecosystems, the speed of range shift of trees varies between tree species depending on their adaptation capacity to, e.g., different soil types and fertility levels [47,150]. However, distribution models of the main forest tree species in Europe have indicated a constant shift of tree species from the temperate zone to the boreal zone, a global plant invasion hotspot [58], by the end of this century [149]. Global warming will be faster in polar regions than closer to the equator due to polar amplification caused by polar sea ice loss [151]. This will change the timing of flowering, leading to shorter flowering periods and overlapping of the flowering time of early and late flowering plants at high latitudes [152]. The pollinating and predatory species relying on late-flowering plant species as their food source may particularly suffer from flower nectar shortage and take advantage of EFN-producing species that are capable of providing EFN later in the growing season [152].
In addition to vegetation zone shift, many introduced exotic ornamental trees and herbaceous species (Figure 3) have the potential to become invasive under warmer conditions and spread from managed urban areas as alien species in current natural forest ecosystems [153].

7. Effects of Climate Change on EFN-Dependent Communities

A long-standing food-web theory [154] predicts that herbivore pressure should be most severe in relatively unproductive environments, such as in cold boreal and arctic regions. Insect outbreaks could be rather devastating for the whole forest ecosystem if natural abiotic control factors such as critical cold winter temperatures do not control the over-wintering herbivore populations in these ecosystems, e.g., those of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) [155], or the European pine sawfly (Neodiprion sertifer (Geoffroy)) [156]. According to this theory [154], higher productivity at warmer low latitudes will maintain higher productivity and higher predation rates essential to herbivore regulation, as well as improve plants’ capacity to attract natural enemies of herbivores [157,158].
Under warmer conditions, plant signaling to higher trophic levels with induced volatiles is improved [159], partly due to increased volatility of volatile and semivolatile compounds [160]. This results in an increased capacity of plant species to attract predators and reduce the effects of herbivores on plant communities [154]. However, according to both modern and fossil evidence, species at higher trophic levels, such as predators and parasitoids, are the most sensitive to climatic change [161]. Disruption of trophic interactions, e.g., through changes in plant phenology [120,161], range shift [48,49], or changes in atmospheric quality [18,159], can amplify climate change effects throughout the community and particularly on top-level predators of herbivores, such as ants in boreal forests [78].
Stable N and C isotope analyses have indicated that ant species with flexibility in their diet breadth have the greatest potential to be invasive or to adapt to changes in environment [78,162]. This means that the capacity to consume more carbon-based resources such as EFN and aphid honeydew and thus occupy a lower trophic level will improve the success of an ant species. Consequently, the possibly higher proportion of EFN-producing plant species in boreal forests with climate warming could improve the proportion of EFN using species in ant communities.
Although meta-analyses [163] have shown that in tropical and temperate forests availability of EFN affects ant behavior, studies assessing the role of EFN for ants in northern temperate and boreal forests are sparse. The only study assessing the effects of EFN availability from boreal trees to ants is a field study [38] with modified availability of artificial EFN for a circumpolar wood ant Formica cf. fusca on Populus tremuloides in Alaska. In this case, visitation activity of F. fusca was more responsive to a subtle increase in sugar availability than to a decrease. Observations from the temperate north of the USA have shown that visits per bud on Prunus serotina (Ehrh.) by the wood ant Formica obscuribes are highest just after budbreak, when young leaves have active EFN nectaries, and decrease as the number of active EFN nectaries decreases. Ant visitation peaks coincide with the outbreak time of the eastern caterpillar Malacosoma americana (Fabricius), the main defoliator of P. serotina [164]. In the temperate/boreal area of North America, local Camponotus, Formica, and Tapinoma ant species and a solitary parasitoid wasp Methoca stygia (Say) frequently visit EFN nectaries of Reynoutria × bohemica Chrtek & Chrtková, indicating their capacity to exploit EFN of an invasive plant species [142].
EFN and aphid honeydew are not the only carbohydrate sources provided by boreal forest trees for wood ants and other insects. Spring sap bleeding from trunks of deciduous trees is a common phenomenon used for syrup production [165,166]. The flow of sugar and nutrient-rich xylem sap during spring, before the development of leaves and the start of photosynthesis, transports sugars from storage pools in root and trunk xylem accessory parenchyma cells to opening buds by osmotic xylem sap pressurization [167,168]. The concentrations of the main sugars (glucose 2.5–4.7 and fructose 2.3–4.5 5–8 g L−1) of birch sap (Betula pendula Roth. and B. pubescens Ehrh.) [169] are highest in April and May [166] during the transportation period between the thawing of the soil and bud break [165]. Glucose and fructose content of birch sap in spring is higher than in the xylem sap of maple species (Acer spp.) that mostly produce sucrose-rich sap [170]. Leakage of spring sap on the bark of birch trees from frost cracks and winter browsing wounds [171] or from ambrosia beetle (Trypodendron sp) attack holes [172] is an important carbohydrate source for wood ants at the beginning of the growing season [78,173,174]. Phloem sap leaking from bark wounds during the growing season is considered an important carbohydrate source for insects, particularly in tree species that do not bear EFN nectaries [175]. The proportion of birch trees having frost cracks in boreal plantation forests (8–15%) [171] is higher than the proportion of bark-wounded trees (0.5%) in the forests of warmer environments [175]. This support the observation that birch sap leakage is an important carbohydrate source for ants in the early growing season and may maintain the high abundance of wood ants in boreal forests. This may compensate for the relatively scarce nature of EFN sources before the availability of aphid honeydew in summer [78,176].
Leakage of carbohydrates from bark cracks of boreal deciduous trees could also be an important buffer to prevent drastic ecological changes in ant faunal composition and behavior under climate change-related invasion of EFN-bearing trees. The projected increase in the proportion of Betula pendula and B. pubescens in the forested area of Finland from 17% to 23% during this century [141] suggests that the role of birch as a carbohydrate source for wood ants in future forests could be more important than now. By providing spring sap leaking [174] before the availability of aphid honeydew [78] until the end of autumn defoliation [177,178], birches will provide an alternative carbohydrate source for EFN-bearing tree species during the whole growing season.

8. Conclusions

It has been suggested that non-floral sources of carbohydrates, such as insect-secreted honeydew, sugary wasp gall secretions, and plant EFN could be more general carbohydrate sources for insects in ecosystems than flower nectar, although this is best documented for temperate ecosystems [179,180]. Hence, a better knowledge of EFN availability and its role in plant defense in various forest ecosystems is necessary for a better understanding of forest ecosystem function. Boreal forests are located at high latitudes where solar radiation is at a lower level than at low latitudes. Thus, low temperature limits plant growth in the boreal zone, but this is compensated for by long day-length that maintains rapid growth during the short growing season. Climate models suggest that polar areas will become warmer in future decades and that temperature will become a less limiting factor for plant growth and survival of organisms from all trophic levels in boreal forests.
EFN is an important component of plant defense and a higher proportion of plant species produces EFN in temperate and warmer ecosystems where the diversity of natural enemies of herbivores, such as ants, Coccinellid beetles, predatory mites and parasitic wasps is much higher than in boreal zones [28]. The range shift of temperate zone plant species to the boreal zone and the arrival of high-altitude invasive plants will change the vegetation composition from current conifer dominance towards mixed forests comprising conifer and broad-leaved trees [47]. This trend is particularly expected in more fertile sites where the total productivity will increase [181]. These changes will add EFN-producing tree species and understory species but also EFN-bearing plant species favoring forest margins and fertile and wet soils. However, for wood ants of boreal forests, the frost cracks on the bark of deciduous trees in spring might remain an important carbohydrate source in the early growing season before the availability of aphid honeydew.

Author Contributions

J.K.H. and J.S. conceived of and designed the review. J.K.H. and J.D.B. collected the plant literature, J.S. collected ecosystem function and ant literature, and J.K.H. took the nectary and insect photos. All authors drafted and wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project was supported by the UEF International Top-Level Research Area BORFOR, the Academy of Finland (decision no. 278424 for J.K.H. and decision no. 309425 for J.D.B.), and the Kone Foundation (J.S.).

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the three anonymous reviewers whose comments and feedback helped improve the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Below are listed native forest plant species and introduced plant species with documented extrafloral nectaries which are found in North European boreal forests or forest margins in Finland [108,109] or listed as alien invasive species in Finland (www.vieraslajit.fi). References are the scientific publications that describe EFN production in these plant species.
Table
SpeciesFamilyEFN PositionReferences
Native Tree Species
Populus tremula L.SalicaeaLeaf base[28,34]
Salix pentandra L.SalicaeaPetiole, leaf base[115]
Prunus padus L.RosaceaePetiole[28,34]
Viburnum opulus L.OleaceaePetiole[34]
Native Understory Species
Pteridium aquilinum L. (Kuhn)DennstaedtiaceaeRachis stem junction[28,34]
Vaccinium uliginosum L.EricaceaePetiole[28]
Vicia cracca L.FabaceaeStipules[34]
V. sepium L.FabaceaeStipules[34]
Impatiens noli-tangere L.BalsaminaceaePetiole, leaf margin[28]
Melampyrum pratense L.OrobanchaceaeBracts[34]
M. nemorosum L.OrobanchaceaeBracts[34]
Introduced Tree Species
Sambucus racemosa L.AdoxaceaeStipules[34]
Populus × wettsteinii1 Hämet-Ahti SalicaeaLeaf base[19]
Prunus pensylvanica L. f.RosaceaPetiole[182]
Introduced Understory Species
Impatiens glandulifera RoyleBalsaminaceaeStipules, petiole,[34]
I. parviflora DC.Balsaminaceaepetiole[34]
Reynoutria japonica Houtt.PolygonaceaePetiole near stem[34]
Reynoutria sachalinensis
(F. Schmidt) Nakai		PolygonaceaePetiole near stem[34]
Reynoutria × bohemica
Chrtek and Chrtková		PolygonaceaePetiole near stem[142]
1 Cultivated in forest plantations (synonym P. tremula x P. tremuloides).

References

  1. Giuliani, C.; Lastrucci, L.; Cresti, L.; Santini, G.; Fogg, B.; Lippi, M.M. The morphology and activity of the extrafloral nectaries in Reynoutria x bohemica (Polygonaceae). Plant Biol. 2019, 21, 975–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Weber, M.G.; Keeler, K.H. The phylogenetic distribution of extrafloral nectaries in plants. Ann. Bot. 2013, 111, 1251–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Heil, M. Extrafloral Nectar at the Plant-Insect Interface: A Spotlight on Chemical Ecology, Phenotypic Plasticity, and Food Webs. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2015, 60, 213–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mathur, V.; Wagenaar, R.; Caissard, J.; Reddy, A.S.; Vet, L.E.M.; Cortesero, A.; van Dam, N.M. A novel indirect defence in Brassicaceae: Structure and function of extrafloral nectaries in Brassica juncea. Plant Cell Environ. 2013, 36, 528–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Marazzi, B.; Bronstein, J.L.; Koptur, S. The diversity, ecology and evolution of extrafloral nectaries: Current perspectives and future challenges. Ann. Bot. 2013, 111, 1243–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Weber, M.G.; Agrawal, A.A. Defense mutualisms enhance plant diversification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 16442–16447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Chamberlain, S.A.; Holland, J.N. Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant-plant protection mutualisms. Ecology 2009, 90, 2384–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Mayer, V.E.; Frederickson, M.E.; McKey, D.; Blatrix, R. Current issues in the evolutionary ecology of ant-plant symbioses. New Phytol. 2014, 202, 749–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Del-Claro, K.; Rico-Gray, V.; Torezan-Silingardi, H.M.; Alves-Silva, E.; Fagundes, R.; Lange, D.; Dattilo, W.; Vilela, A.A.; Aguirre, A.; Rodriguez-Morales, D. Loss and gains in ant-plant interactions mediated by extrafloral nectar: Fidelity, cheats, and lies. Insectes Soc. 2016, 63, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stone, G.N.; Raine, N.E.; Prescott, M.; Willmer, P.G. Pollination ecology of acacias (Fabaceae, Mimosoideae). Aust. Syst. Bot. 2003, 16, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wackers, F.L.; Wunderlin, R. Induction of cotton extrafloral nectar production in response to herbivory does not require a herbivore-specific elicitor. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1999, 91, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nyffeler, M.; Olson, E.J.; Symondson, W.O.C. Plant-eating by spiders. J. Arachnol. 2016, 44, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Heil, M.; Karban, R. Explaining evolution of plant communication by airborne signals. Trends Ecol. Evolut. 2010, 25, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Aljbory, Z.; Chen, M. Indirect plant defense against insect herbivores: A review. Insect Sci. 2018, 25, 2–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Yamawo, A.; Suzuki, N. Induction and relaxation of extrafloral nectaries in response to simulated herbivory in young Mallotus japonicus plants. J. Plant Res. 2018, 131, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huntzinger, M.; Karban, R.; Young, T.P.; Palmer, T.M. Relaxation of induced indirect defenses of acacias following exclusion of mammalian herbivores. Ecology 2004, 85, 609–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wäckers, F.L.; van Rijn, P.C.J.; Bruin, J. (Eds.) Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects: A Protective Mutualism and its Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  18. Blande, J.D.; Holopainen, J.K.; Li, T. Air pollution impedes plant-to-plant communication by volatiles. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 1172–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, T.; Holopainen, J.K.; Kokko, H.; Tervahauta, A.I.; Blande, J.D. Herbivore-induced aspen volatiles temporally regulate two different indirect defences in neighbouring plants. Funct. Ecol. 2012, 26, 1176–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ness, J.H. Catalpa bignonioides alters extrafloral nectar production after herbivory and attracts ant bodyguards. Oecologia 2003, 134, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Smith, L.L.; Lanza, J.; Smith, G.C. Amino-Acid-Concentrations in Extrafloral Nectar of Impatiens sultani Increase After Simulated Herbivory. Ecology 1990, 71, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kost, C.; Heil, M. Herbivore-induced plant volatiles induce an indirect defence in neighbouring plants. J. Ecol. 2006, 94, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Camara, T.; Leal, I.R.; Bluethgen, N.; Oliveira, F.M.P.; de Queiroz, R.T.; Arnan, X. Effects of chronic anthropogenic disturbance and rainfall on the specialization of ant-plant mutualistic networks in the Caatinga, a Brazilian dry forest. J. Anim. Ecol. 2018, 87, 1022–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Fiala, B.; Linsenmair, K.E. Distribution and Abundance of Plants with Extrafloral Nectaries in the Woody Flora of a Lowland Primary Forest in Malaysia. Biodivers. Conserv. 1995, 4, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bluthgen, N.; Stork, N.E.; Fiedler, K. Bottom-up control and co-occurrence in complex communities: Honeydew and nectar determine a rainforest ant mosaic. Oikos 2004, 106, 344–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bluethgen, N.; Stork, N.E. Ant mosaics in a tropical rainforest in Australia and elsewhere: A critical review. Austral Ecol. 2007, 32, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Keeler, K.H. Distribution of Plants with Extrafloral Nectaries in Temperate Communities. Am. Midl. Nat. 1980, 104, 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Pemberton, R.W. The occurrence and abundance of plants with extrafloral nectaries, the basis for antiherbivore defensive mutualisms, along a latitudinal gradient in east Asia. J. Biogeogr. 1998, 25, 661–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lange, D.; Del-Claro, K. Ant-Plant Interaction in a Tropical Savanna: May the Network Structure Vary over Time and Influence on the Outcomes of Associations? PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Morellato, L.; Oliveira, P.S. Distribution of Extrafloral Nectaries in Different Vegetation Types of Amazonian Brazil. Flora 1991, 185, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ohm, J.R.; Miller, T.E.X. Balancing anti-herbivore benefits and anti-pollinator costs of defensive mutualists. Ecology 2014, 95, 2924–2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Holland, J.N.; Chamberlain, S.A.; Horn, K.C. Temporal variation in extrafloral nectar secretion by reproductive tissues of the senita cactus, Pachycereus schottii (Cactaceae), in the Sonoran Desert of Mexico. J. Arid Environ. 2010, 74, 712–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Aranda-Rickert, A.; Diez, P.; Marazzi, B. Extrafloral nectar fuels ant life in deserts. AoB Plants 2014, 6, plu068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Offenberg, J. Correlated evolution of the association between aphids and ants and the association between aphids and plants with extrafloral nectaries. Oikos 2000, 91, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Wenninger, A.; Hollingsworth, T.; Wagner, D. Predatory hymenopteran assemblages in boreal Alaska: Associations with forest composition and post-fire succession. Ecoscience 2019, 26, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Doak, P.; Wagner, D.; Watson, A. Variable extrafloral nectary expression and its consequences in quaking aspen. Can. J. Bot. Rev. Can. Bot. 2007, 85, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mortensen, B.; Wagner, D.; Doak, P. Defensive effects of extrafloral nectaries in quaking aspen differ with scale. Oecologia 2011, 165, 983–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Newman, J.R.; Wagner, D.; Doak, P. Impact of extrafloral nectar availability and plant genotype on ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) visitation to quaking aspen (Salicaceae). Can. Entomol. 2016, 148, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Bluthgen, N.; Verhaagh, M.; Goitia, W.; Jaffe, K.; Morawetz, W.; Barthlott, W. How plants shape the ant community in the Amazonian rainforest canopy: The key role of extrafloral nectaries and homopteran honeydew. Oecologia 2000, 125, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Taggart, R.E.; Cross, A.T. Global greenhouse to icehouse and back again: The origin and future of the Boreal Forest biome. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2009, 65, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Adamczyk, B.; Sietio, O.; Strakoya, P.; Prommer, J.; Wild, B.; Hagner, M.; Pihlatie, M.; Fritze, H.; Richter, A.; Heinonsalo, J. Plant roots increase both decomposition and stable organic matter formation in boreal forest soil. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Tikhonova, E.; Tikhonov, G.; Shevchenko, N.; Knyazeva, S.; Plotnikova, A.; Lukina, N.; Shashkov, M. Tree diversity patterns along the latitudinal gradient in the northwestern Russia. For. Ecosyst. 2017, 4, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Jacobson, A.P.; Riggio, J.; Tait, A.M.; Baillie, J.E.M. Global areas of low human impact (‘Low Impact Areas’) and fragmentation of the natural world. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Korhonen, K.T.; Ihalainen, A.; Ahola, A.; Heikkinen, J.; Henttonen, H.M.; Hotanen, J.P.; Nevalainen, S.; Pitkänen, J.; Strandström, M.; Viiri, H. Suomen metsät 2009–2013 ja niiden kehitys 1921–2013. LUKE Luonnonvara Biotalouden Tutk. 2017, 59, 1–86. [Google Scholar]
  45. Scheffers, B.R.; De Meester, L.; Bridge, T.C.L.; Hoffmann, A.A.; Pandolfi, J.M.; Corlett, R.T.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Pearce-Kelly, P.; Kovacs, K.M.; Dudgeon, D.; et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science 2016, 354, aaf7671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kellomäki, S.; Rouvinen, I.; Peltola, H.; Strandman, H.; Steinbrecher, R. Impact of global warming on the tree species composition of boreal forests in Finland and effects on emissions of isoprenoids. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2001, 7, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Torssonen, P.; Strandman, H.; Kellomaki, S.; Kilpelainen, A.; Jylha, K.; Asikainen, A.; Peltola, H. Do we need to adapt the choice of main boreal tree species in forest regeneration under the projected climate change? Forestry 2015, 88, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Thurm, E.A.; Hernandez, L.; Baltensweiler, A.; Ayan, S.; Rasztovits, E.; Bielak, K.; Zlatanov, T.M.; Hladnik, D.; Balic, B.; Freudenschuss, A.; et al. Alternative tree species under climate warming in managed European forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 430, 485–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brice, M.; Cazelles, K.; Legendre, P.; Fortin, M. Disturbances amplify tree community responses to climate change in the temperate-boreal ecotone. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2019, 28, 1668–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hiura, T.; Go, S.; Iijima, H. Long-term forest dynamics in response to climate change in northern mixed forests in Japan: A 38-year individual-based approach. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 449, 117469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Karhu, K.J. Effects of ant exclusion during outbreaks of a defoliator and a sap-sucker on birch. Ecol. Entomol. 1998, 23, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Punttila, P.; Haila, Y.; Niemelä, J.; Pajunen, T. Ant Communities in Fragments of Old-Growth Taiga and Managed Surroundings. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 1994, 31, 131–144. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rudgers, J.A.; Strauss, S.Y. A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2004, 271, 2481–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Koptur, S.; Palacios-Rios, M.; Diaz-Castelazo, C.; Mackay, W.P.; Rico-Gray, V. Nectar secretion on fern fronds associated with lower levels of herbivore damage: Field experiments with a widespread epiphyte of Mexican cloud forest remnants. Ann. Bot. 2013, 111, 1277–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Rosumek, F.B.; Bluthgen, N.; Brueckner, A.; Menzel, F.; Gebauer, G.; Heethoff, M. Unveiling community patterns and trophic niches of tropical and temperate ants using an integrative framework of field data, stable isotopes and fatty acids. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Frouz, J.; Jilková, V.; Sorvari, J. Contribution of wood ants to nutrient cycling and ecosystem function. In Wood Ant Ecology and Conservation; Stockan, J.A., Robinson, E.J.H., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 207–220. [Google Scholar]
  57. Finer, L.; Jurgensen, M.F.; Domisch, T.; Kilpeläinen, J.; Neuvonen, S.; Punttila, P.; Risch, A.C.; Ohashi, M.; Niemelä, P. The Role of Wood Ants (Formica rufa group) in Carbon and Nutrient Dynamics of a Boreal Norway Spruce Forest Ecosystem. Ecosystems 2013, 16, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, C.; Li, Q.; Wan, J. Potential invasive plant expansion in global ecoregions under climate change. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Bentley, B.L. Extra-Floral Nectaries and Protection by Pugnacious Bodyguards. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1977, 8, 407–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Staab, M.; Methorst, J.; Peters, J.; Bluethgen, N.; Klein, A. Tree diversity and nectar composition affect arthropod visitors on extrafloral nectaries in a diversity experiment. J. Plant Ecol. 2017, 10, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Escalante-Perez, M.; Jaborsky, M.; Lautner, S.; Fromm, J.; Mueller, T.; Dittrich, M.; Kunert, M.; Boland, W.; Hedrich, R.; Ache, P. Poplar Extrafloral Nectaries: Two Types, Two Strategies of Indirect Defenses against Herbivores. Plant Physiol. 2012, 159, 1176–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Gish, M.; Mescher, M.C.; De Moraes, C.M. Targeted predation of extrafloral nectaries by insects despite localized chemical defences. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 20151835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Gaylor, M.O.; Juntunen, H.L.; Hazelwood, D.; Videau, P. Assessment of Multiple Solvents for Extraction and Direct GC-MS Determination of the Phytochemical Inventory of Sansevieria Extrafoliar Nectar Droplets. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2018, 56, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. O’Dowd, D.J. Foliar Nectar Production and Ant Activity on a Neotropical Tree, Ochroma pyramidale. Oecologia 1979, 43, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Free, J.B. The behaviour of honeybees visiting field beans (Vicia faba). J. Anim. Ecol. 1962, 31, 497–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dennis, R.; Doak, P.; Wagner, D. Aspen leaf miner (Phyllocnistis populiella) oviposition site selection mediated by aspen (Populus tremuloides) extrafloral nectaries. Arthropod-Plant Interact. 2015, 9, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Geneau, C.E.; Waeckers, F.L.; Luka, H.; Balmer, O. Effects of extrafloral and floral nectar of Centaurea cyanus on the parasitoid wasp Microplitis mediator: Olfactory attractiveness and parasitization rates. Biol. Control 2013, 66, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kirmse, S.; Chaboo, C.S. Extrafloral nectaries mediate the arboreal beetle community (Coleoptera) in a Neotropical rainforest. J. Nat. Hist. 2019, 53, 1313–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Davis, A.R.; Peterson, R.L.; Shuel, R.W. Vasculature and Ultrastructure of the Floral and Stipular Nectaries of Vicia faba (Leguminosae). Can. J. Bot. Rev. Can. Bot. 1988, 66, 1435–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Terrab, A.; Berjano, R.; Alberto Sanchez, J.; Gomez Pajuelo, A.; Josefa Diez, M. Palynological and geographical characterisation of Spanish oak honeydew honeys. Grana 2019, 58, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Teraoka, T.; Numata, H. Effects of feeding on reproduction and overwintering in female adults of Ooencyrtus nezarae Ishii (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2000, 35, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Grasso, D.A.; Pandolfi, C.; Bazihizina, N.; Nocentini, D.; Nepi, M.; Mancuso, S. Extrafloral-nectar-based partner manipulation in plant-ant relationships. AoB Plants 2015, 7, plv002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Douglas, A.E. Phloem-sap feeding by animals: Problems and solutions. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 747–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Madsen, N.E.L.; Sorensen, P.B.; Offenberg, J. Sugar and amino acid preference in the black garden ant Lasius niger (L.). J. Insect Physiol. 2017, 100, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Villamil, N.; Marquez-Guzman, J.; Boege, K. Understanding ontogenetic trajectories of indirect defence: Ecological and anatomical constraints in the production of extrafloral nectaries. Ann Bot 2013, 112, 701–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Villamil, N. Why are flowers sweeter than fruits or buds? Variation in extrafloral nectar secretion throughout the floral ontogeny of a myrmecophile. Biotropica 2017, 49, 581–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Villamil, N.; Boege, K.; Stone, G.N. Testing the Distraction Hypothesis: Do extrafloral nectaries reduce ant-pollinator conflict? J. Ecol. 2019, 107, 1377–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Iakovlev, I.K.; Novgorodova, T.A.; Tiunov, A.V.; Reznikova, Z.I. Trophic position and seasonal changes in the diet of the red wood ant Formica aquilonia as indicated by stable isotope analysis. Ecol. Entomol. 2017, 42, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rosengren, R.; Pamilo, P. The evolution of polygyny and polydomy in mound-building Formica ants. Acta Entomol. Fenn. 1983, 42, 65–77. [Google Scholar]
  80. Punttila, P.; Kilpeläinen, J. Distribution of mound-building ant species (Formica spp., Hymenoptera) in Finland: Preliminary results of a national survey. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2009, 46, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Punttila, P. Succession, forest fragmentation, and the distribution of wood ants. Oikos 1996, 75, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Seifert, B. The Ants of Central and Northern Europe; Lutra Verlags- und Vertriebsgeschellschaft: Boxberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–408. [Google Scholar]
  83. Fisher, B.L.; Cover, S.P. Ants of North America—A Guide to the Genera; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA; Los Angeles, CA, USA; London, UK, 2007; p. 194. [Google Scholar]
  84. Jurgensen, M.F.; Storer, A.J.; Risch, A.C. Red wood ants in North America. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2005, 42, 235–242. [Google Scholar]
  85. Weseloh, R.M. Forest characteristics associated with abundance of foraging ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Connecticut. Environ. Entomol. 1995, 24, 1453–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Korochkina, N.I.; Konopleva, E.E.; Zryanina, T.A. Population Structure of Formica aquilonia (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) at the Border of Boreal and Subboreal Landscapes in the Volga River Region. Zool. Zhurnal 2014, 93, 559–569. [Google Scholar]
  87. Sondej, I.; Domisch, T.; Finer, L.; Czechowski, W. Wood ants in the Bialowieza Forest and factors affecting their distribution. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2018, 55, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hansen, L.D.; Klotz, J.H. Carpenter Ants of the United States and Canada; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2005; p. 204. [Google Scholar]
  89. Locatelli, B.; Lavorel, S.; Sloan, S.; Tappeiner, U.; Geneletti, D. Characteristic trajectories of ecosystem services in mountains. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Simpraga, M.; Ghimire, R.P.; Van Der Straeten, D.; Blande, J.D.; Kasurinen, A.; Sorvari, J.; Holopainen, T.; Adriaenssens, S.; Holopainen, J.K.; Kivimaenpaa, M. Unravelling the functions of biogenic volatiles in boreal and temperate forest ecosystems. Eur. J. For. Res. 2019, 138, 763–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Affek, A.N. Indicators of ecosystem potential for pollination and honey production. Ecol. Ind. 2018, 94, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Thurman, J.H.; Northfield, T.D.; Snyder, W.E. Weaver Ants Provide Ecosystem Services to Tropical Tree Crops. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 7, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Wardle, D.A.; Hyodo, F.; Bardgett, R.D.; Yeates, G.W.; Nilsson, M. Long-term aboveground and belowground consequences of red wood ant exclusion in boreal forest. Ecology 2011, 92, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Giovanetti, M.; Lippi, M.M.; Foggi, B.; Giuliani, C. Exploitation of the invasive Acacia pycnantha pollen and nectar resources by the native bee Apis mellifera. Ecol. Res. 2015, 30, 1065–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Salonen, A.; Virjamo, V.; Tammela, P.; Fauch, L.; Julkunen-Tiitto, R. Screening bioactivity and bioactive constituents of Nordic unifloral honeys. Food Chem. 2017, 237, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Collins, C.M.; Fellowes, M.D.E.; Sage, R.B.; Leather, S.R. Host selection and performance of the giant willow aphid, Tuberolachnus salignus Gmelin—Implications for pest management. Agric. For. Entomol. 2001, 3, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Salle, A.; Jerger, R.; Vincent-Barbaroux, C.; Baubet, O.; Dahuron, D.; Bourgerie, S.; Lieutier, F. Tree-killing aphid dramatically reduces bark contents in carbohydrates and nitrogen compounds. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 407, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Whittaker, J.B.; Warrington, S. An Experimental Field-Study of Different Levels of Insect Herbivory Induced by Formica rufa Predation on Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). Effects on Tree Growth. J. Appl. Ecol. 1985, 22, 797–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kilpelainen, J.; Finer, L.; Neuvonen, S.; Niemela, P.; Domisch, T.; Risch, A.C.; Jurgensen, M.F.; Ohashi, M.; Sundstrom, L. Does the mutualism between wood ants (Formica rufa group) and Cinara aphids affect Norway spruce growth? For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lindstedt, C.; Mappes, J.; Paivinen, J.; Varama, M. Effects of group size and pine defence chemicals on Diprionid sawfly survival against ant predation. Oecologia 2006, 150, 519–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Gaston, K.J. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 2000, 405, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kuuluvainen, T. Forest Management and Biodiversity Conservation Based on Natural Ecosystem Dynamics in Northern Europe: The Complexity Challenge. Ambio 2009, 38, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Corlett, R.T. The Anthropocene concept in ecology and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Levin, D.A. Alkaloid-Bearing Plants—Ecogeographic Perspective. Am. Nat. 1976, 110, 261–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Anstett, D.N.; Ahern, J.R.; Johnson, M.T.J.; Salminen, J. Testing for latitudinal gradients in defense at the macroevolutionary scale. Evolution 2018, 72, 2129–2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Johnson, M.T.J.; Rasmann, S. The latitudinal herbivory-defence hypothesis takes a detour on the map. New Phytol. 2011, 191, 589–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Moles, A.T.; Bonser, S.P.; Poore, A.G.B.; Wallis, I.R.; Foley, W.J. Assessing the evidence for latitudinal gradients in plant defence and herbivory. Funct. Ecol. 2011, 25, 380–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hämet-Ahti, L.; Suominen, J.; Ulvinen, T.; Uotila, P. (Eds.) Retkeilykasvio (Field Flora of Finland); Finnish Museum of Natural History, Botanical Museum: Helsinki, Finland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  109. Lampinen, R.; Lahti, T. Kasviatlas 2018; Distibution Maps; University of Helsinki, Finnish Museum of Natural History: Helsinki, Finland, 2019; Available online: http://koivu.luomus.fi/kasviatlas (accessed on 30 October 2019).
  110. Kellomaki, S.; Peltola, H.; Nuutinen, T.; Korhonen, K.T.; Strandman, H. Sensitivity of managed boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive management. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 2341–2351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  111. Wooley, S.C.; Donaldson, J.R.; Gusse, A.C.; Lindroth, R.L.; Stevens, M.T. Extrafloral nectaries in aspen (Populus tremuloides): Heritable genetic variation and herbivore-induced expression. Ann. Bot. 2007, 100, 1337–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Nyman, T.; Julkunen-Tiitto, R. Manipulation of the phenolic chemistry of willows by gall-inducing sawflies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 13184–13187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Lersten, N.R.; Czlapinski, A.R.; Curtis, J.D.; Freckmann, R.; Horner, H.T. Oil bodies in leaf mesophyll cells of angiosperms: Overview and a selected survey. Am J Bot 2006, 93, 1731–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wilkinson, H.P. Leaf teeth in certain Salicaceae and ‘Flacourtiaceae’. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2007, 155, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Ianishevskii, D.E. The extrafloral nectar-glands of Salix. Trudy Bot. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser4 1941, 5, 258–294. [Google Scholar]
  116. Curtis, J.D.; Lersten, N.R. Morphology and Anatomy of Resin Glands in Salix lucida (Salicaceae). Am. J. Bot. 1980, 67, 1289–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Barkalov, V.Y.; Kozyrenko, M.M. Phylogenetic Relationships of Salix L. subg. Salix Species (Salicaceae) according to Sequencing Data of Intergenic Spacers of the Chloroplast Genome and ITS rDNA. Russ. J. Gen. 2014, 50, 940–949. [Google Scholar]
  118. Weber, M.G.; Clement, W.L.; Donoghue, M.J.; Agrawal, A.A. Phylogenetic and Experimental Tests of Interactions among Mutualistic Plant Defense Traits in Viburnum (Adoxaceae). Am. Nat. 2012, 180, 450–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Jactel, H.; Koricheva, J.; Castagneyrol, B. Responses of forest insect pests to climate change: Not so simple. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2019, 35, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Kudo, G.; Cooper, E.J. When spring ephemerals fail to meet pollinators: Mechanism of phenological mismatch and its impact on plant reproduction. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2019, 286, 20190573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Holopainen, J.K.; Virjamo, V.; Ghimire, R.P.; Blande, J.D.; Julkunen-Tiitto, R.; Kivimäenpää, M. Climate Change Effects on Secondary Compounds of Forest Trees in the Northern Hemisphere. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Liebelt, D.J.; Jordan, J.T.; Doherty, C.J. Only a matter of time: The impact of daily and seasonal rhythms on phytochemicals. Phytochem. Rev. 2019, 18, 1409–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Penuelas, J.; Staudt, M. BVOCs and global change. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Blande, J.D.; Holopainen, J.K.; Niinemets, U. Plant volatiles in polluted atmospheres: Stress responses and signal degradation. Plant Cell Environ. 2014, 37, 1892–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Conchou, L.; Lucas, P.; Meslin, C.; Proffit, M.; Staudt, M.; Renou, M. Insect Odorscapes: From Plant Volatiles to Natural Olfactory Scenes. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Saikkonen, K.; Taulavuori, K.; Hyvonen, T.; Gundel, P.E.; Hamilton, C.E.; Vanninen, I.; Nissinen, A.; Helander, M. Climate change-driven species’ range shifts filtered by photoperiodism. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Ward, S.F.; Moon, R.D.; Herms, D.A.; Aukema, B.H. Determinants and consequences of plant-insect phenological synchrony for a non-native herbivore on a deciduous conifer: Implications for invasion success. Oecologia 2019, 190, 867–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Liberloo, M.; Calfapietra, C.; Lukac, M.; Godbold, D.; Luos, Z.B.; Polle, A.; Hoosbeek, M.R.; Kull, O.; Marek, M.; Raines, C.; et al. Woody biomass production during the second rotation of a bio-energy Populus plantation increases in a future high CO2 world. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2006, 12, 1094–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Calfapietra, C.; Mugnozza, G.S.; Karnosky, D.F.; Loreto, F.; Sharkey, T.D. Isoprene emission rates under elevated CO2 and O3 in two field-grown aspen clones differing in their sensitivity to O3. New Phytol. 2008, 179, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Erhardt, A.; Rusterholz, H.P.; Stocklin, J. Elevated carbon dioxide increases nectar production in Epilobium angustifolium L. Oecologia 2005, 146, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Fabian, B.; Atwell, B.J.; Hughes, L. Response of extrafloral nectar production to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide. Aust. J. Bot. 2018, 66, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Vuorinen, T.; Nerg, A.M.; Ibrahim, M.A.; Reddy, G.; Holopainen, J.K. Emission of Plutella xylostella-induced compounds from cabbages grown at elevated CO2 and orientation behavior of the natural enemies. Plant Physiol. 2004, 135, 1984–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  133. Jamont, M.; Crepelliere, S.; Jaloux, B. Effect of extrafloral nectar provisioning on the performance of the adult parasitoid Diaeretiella rapae. Biol. Control 2013, 65, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; p. 151. [Google Scholar]
  135. Mutanda, I.; Inafuku, M.; Saitoh, S.; Iwasaki, H.; Fukuta, M.; Watanabe, K.; Oku, H. Temperature controls on the basal emission rate of isoprene in a tropical tree Ficus septica: Exploring molecular regulatory mechanisms. Plant Cell Environ. 2016, 39, 2260–2275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Boudouris, J.; Queenborough, S.A. Diversity and distribution of extra-floral nectaries in the cerrado savanna vegetation of Brazil. PeerJ 2013, 1, e219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Bristow, C.M.; Yanity, E. Seasonal response of workers of the Allegheny mound ant, Formica exsectoides (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) to artificial honeydews of varying nutritional content. Great Lakes Entomol. 1999, 32, 15–27. [Google Scholar]
  138. Newman, J.R.; Wagner, D. The influence of water availability and defoliation on extrafloral nectar secretion in quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Botany 2013, 91, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Jones, I.M.; Koptur, S. Quantity over quality: Light intensity, but not red/far-red ratio, affects extrafloral nectar production in Senna mexicana var. chapmanii. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 5, 4108–4114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Jones, I.M.; Koptur, S.; Gallegos, H.R.; Tardanico, J.P.; Trainer, P.A.; Pena, J. Changing light conditions in pine rockland habitats affect the intensity and outcome of ant-plant interactions. Biotropica 2017, 49, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. ALRahahleh, L.; Kilpelainen, A.; Ikonen, V.P.; Strandman, H.; Asikainen, A.; Venalainen, A.; Kaurola, J.; Kangas, J.; Peltola, H. Effects of using certain tree species in forest regeneration on volume growth, timber yield, and carbon stock of boreal forests in Finland under different CMIP5 projections. Eur. J. For. Res. 2018, 137, 573–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Johnson, L.R.; Breger, B.; Drummond, F. Novel plant–insect interactions in an urban environment: Enemies, protectors, and pollinators of invasive knotweeds. Ecosphere 2019, 10, 2885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Radhika, V.; Kost, C.; Mithoefer, A.; Boland, W. Regulation of extrafloral nectar secretion by jasmonates in lima bean is light dependent. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 17228–17233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Yi, K.; Liu, J.; Ban-Weiss, G.; Zhang, J.; Tao, W.; Cheng, Y.; Tao, S. Response of the global surface ozone distribution to Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature changes: Implications for long-range transport. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2017, 17, 8771–8788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Jeon, W.; Lee, S.; Lee, H.; Park, C.; Kim, D.; Park, S. A study on high ozone formation mechanism associated with change of NOx/VOCs ratio at a rural area in the Korean Peninsula. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 89, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Bronstein, J.L.; Alarcon, R.; Geber, M. The evolution of plant-insect mutualisms. New Phytol. 2006, 172, 412–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Parmesan, C.; Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 2003, 421, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Chen, I.; Hill, J.K.; Ohlemueller, R.; Roy, D.B.; Thomas, C.D. Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming. Science 2011, 333, 1024–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Takolander, A.; Hickler, T.; Meller, L.; Cabeza, M. Comparing future shifts in tree species distributions across Europe projected by statistical and dynamic process-based models. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Boisvert-Marsh, L.; Perie, C.; de Blois, S. Divergent responses to climate change and disturbance drive recruitment patterns underlying latitudinal shifts of tree species. J. Ecol. 2019, 107, 1956–1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Screen, J.A.; Simmonds, I. The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification. Nature 2010, 464, 1334–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  152. Prevey, J.S.; Rixen, C.; Rueger, N.; Hoye, T.T.; Bjorkman, A.D.; Myers-Smith, I.H.; Elmendorf, S.C.; Ashton, I.W.; Cannone, N.; Chisholm, C.L.; et al. Warming shortens flowering seasons of tundra plant communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Parmesan, C.; Hanley, M.E. Plants and climate change: Complexities and surprises. Ann. Bot. 2015, 116, 849–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Oksanen, L.; Fretwell, S.D.; Arruda, J.; Niemela, P. Exploitation Ecosystems in Gradients of Primary Productivity. Am. Nat. 1981, 118, 240–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Bleiker, K.P.; Smith, G.D.; Humble, L.M. Cold Tolerance of Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Eggs from the Historic and Expanded Ranges. Environ. Entomol. 2017, 46, 1165–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Veteli, T.O.; Lahtinen, A.; Repo, T.; Niemela, P.; Varama, M. Geographic variation in winter freezing susceptibility in the eggs of the European pine sawfly (Neodiprion sertifer). Agric. For. Entomol. 2005, 7, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Pellissier, L.; Moreira, X.; Danner, H.; Serrano, M.; Salamin, N.; van Dam, N.M.; Rasmann, S. The simultaneous inducibility of phytochemicals related to plant direct and indirect defences against herbivores is stronger at low elevation. J. Ecol. 2016, 104, 1116–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Kergunteuil, A.; Roeder, G.; Rasmann, S. Environmental gradients and the evolution of tri-trophic interactions. Ecol. Lett. 2019, 22, 292–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Holopainen, J.K.; Gershenzon, J. Multiple stress factors and the emission of plant VOCs. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Mofikoya, A.O.; Bui, T.N.T.; Kivimäenpää, M.; Holopainen, J.K.; Himanen, S.J.; Blande, J.D. Foliar behaviour of biogenic semi-volatiles: Potential applications in sustainable pest management. Arthropod-Plant Interact. 2019, 13, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Blois, J.L.; Zarnetske, P.L.; Fitzpatrick, M.C.; Finnegan, S. Climate Change and the Past, Present, and Future of Biotic Interactions. Science 2013, 341, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  162. Roeder, K.A.; Kaspari, M. From cryptic herbivore to predator: Stable isotopes reveal consistent variability in trophic levels in an ant population. Ecology 2017, 98, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  163. Trager, M.D.; Bhotika, S.; Hostetler, J.A.; Andrade, G.V.; Rodriguez-Cabal, M.A.; McKeon, C.S.; Osenberg, C.W.; Bolker, B.M. Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e14308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  164. Tilman, D. Cherries, ants and tent caterpillars: Timing of nectar production in relation to susceptibility of caterpillars to ant predation. Ecology 1978, 59, 686–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Essiamah, S.K. Spring Sap of Trees. Berichte Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 1980, 93, 257–267. [Google Scholar]
  166. Kallio, H.; Ahtonen, S. Seasonal-Variations of the Sugars in Birch Sap. Food Chem. 1987, 25, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Westhoff, M.; Schneider, H.; Zimmermann, D.; Mimietz, S.; Stinzing, A.; Wegner, L.H.; Kaiser, W.; Krohne, G.; Shirley, S.; Jakob, P.; et al. The mechanisms of refilling of xylem conduits and bleeding of tall birch during spring. Plant Biol. 2008, 10, 604–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Hölttä, T.; Dominguez Carrasco, M.D.R.; Salmon, Y.; Aalto, J.; Vanhatalo, A.; Back, J.; Lintunen, A. Water relations in silver birch during springtime: How is sap pressurised? Plant Biol. 2018, 20, 834–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Kallio, H.; Ahtonen, S.; Raulo, J.; Linko, R.R. Identification of the Sugars and Acids in Birch Sap. J. Food Sci. 1985, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Luczaj, L.; Bilek, M.; Stawarczyk, K. Sugar content in the sap of birches, hornbeams and maples in southeastern Poland. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2014, 9, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Vihera-Aarnio, A.; Velling, P. Growth, wood density and bark thickness of silver birch originating from the Baltic countries and Finland in two Finnish provenance trials. Silva Fenn. 2017, 51, 7731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Kankaanhuhta, V. Lehtitikaskuoriainen (Trypodendron signatum); MetINFO Service: Luke, Finland, 2003; Available online: http://www.metla.fi.ezproxy.uef.fi:2048/metinfo/metsienterveys/lajit_kansi/trsign-n.htm (accessed on 30 October 2019).
  173. Elton, C. Territory among wood ants (Formica rufa L.) at Picket Hill. J. Anim. Ecol. 1932, 1, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Rosengren, R.; Sundström, L. The Foraging System of a Red Wood Ant Colony (Formica s. str.)—Collecting and Defending Food Through an Extended Phenotype. In From Individual to Collective Behavior in Social Insects; Pasteels, K.M., Deneubourg, J.L., Eds.; Birkhäuser Verlag: Basel, Switzerland, 1987; pp. 117–137. [Google Scholar]
  175. Staab, M.; Fornoff, F.; Klein, A.; Bluethgen, N. Ants at Plant Wounds: A Little-Known Trophic Interaction with Evolutionary Implications for Ant-Plant Interactions. Am. Nat. 2017, 190, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Domisch, T.; Finer, L.; Neuvonen, S.; Niemelä, P.; Risch, A.C.; Kilpeläinen, J.; Ohashi, M.; Jurgensen, M.F. Foraging activity and dietary spectrum of wood ants (Formica rufa group) and their role in nutrient fluxes in boreal forests. Ecol. Entomol. 2009, 34, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Holopainen, J.K.; Peltonen, P. Bright autumn colours of deciduous trees attract aphids: Nutrient retranslocation hypothesis. Oikos 2002, 99, 184–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Peltonen, P.A.; Julkunen-Tiitto, R.; Vapaavuori, E.; Holopainen, J.K. Effects of elevated carbon dioxide and ozone on aphid oviposition preference and birch bud exudate phenolics. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2006, 12, 1670–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Wagner, D.L.; Gagliardi, B.L. Hairstreaks (and Other Insects) Feeding at Galls, Honeydew, Extrafloral Nectaries, Sugar Bait, Cars, and Other Routine Substrates. Am. Entomol. 2015, 61, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Pierce, M.P. The ecological and evolutionary importance of nectar-secreting galls. Ecosphere 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Shanin, V.; Komarov, A.; Makipaa, R. Tree species composition affects productivity and carbon dynamics of different site types in boreal forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 2014, 133, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Chin, S.; Lutz, S.; Wen, J.; Potter, D. The Bitter and the Sweet: Inference of Homology and Evolution of Leaf Glands in Prunus (Rosaceae) through Anatomy, Micromorphology, and Ancestral-Character State Reconstruction. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 174, 27–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 11 00067 g001 550
Figure 1. Extrafloral (EF) nectaries (arrows) in four native deciduous tree species of boreal forest in Finland: nectaries on (A) a petiole of Viburnum opulus L., (B) a petiole of Prunus padus L., (C) a petiole and leaf base of Salix pentandra L., and (D) a leaf base of sprouting leaves from the cut stem of a Populus tremula sapling.
Figure 1. Extrafloral (EF) nectaries (arrows) in four native deciduous tree species of boreal forest in Finland: nectaries on (A) a petiole of Viburnum opulus L., (B) a petiole of Prunus padus L., (C) a petiole and leaf base of Salix pentandra L., and (D) a leaf base of sprouting leaves from the cut stem of a Populus tremula sapling.
Forests 11 00067 g001
Forests 11 00067 g002 550
Figure 2. Extrafloral nectar (EFN) nectaries (arrows) on common native forest margin and understory species of boreal forests in Finland. (A) The nectar-producing tissue in the rachis stem junction of Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn is surrounded by darker pigment. (B) EFN nectaries of Vicia sepium L. are in stipules. (C) EFN nectaries of Melampyrum pratense L. are on flower bracts and (D) EFN nectaries of Vaccinium uliginosum L. are at the leaf base and petiole.
Figure 2. Extrafloral nectar (EFN) nectaries (arrows) on common native forest margin and understory species of boreal forests in Finland. (A) The nectar-producing tissue in the rachis stem junction of Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn is surrounded by darker pigment. (B) EFN nectaries of Vicia sepium L. are in stipules. (C) EFN nectaries of Melampyrum pratense L. are on flower bracts and (D) EFN nectaries of Vaccinium uliginosum L. are at the leaf base and petiole.
Forests 11 00067 g002
Forests 11 00067 g003 550
Figure 3. EFN nectaries (arrows) on introduced plant species of boreal forests in Finland. (A) Sambucus racemosa L. is an established alien tree species in the nutrient-rich forests. EFN nectaries are on stipules. (B) Populus × wettsteinii has EFN nectaries at the leaf base and grows in short-rotation forest stands. (C) Invasive alien tree species Prunus pensylvanica L. has large EFN nectaries on petioles. (D) The harmful invasive alien herb species, Impatiens glandulifera Royle, occupies the forest understory on fertile soils. EFN nectaries can be found on its stipules, petioles, and leaf base.
Figure 3. EFN nectaries (arrows) on introduced plant species of boreal forests in Finland. (A) Sambucus racemosa L. is an established alien tree species in the nutrient-rich forests. EFN nectaries are on stipules. (B) Populus × wettsteinii has EFN nectaries at the leaf base and grows in short-rotation forest stands. (C) Invasive alien tree species Prunus pensylvanica L. has large EFN nectaries on petioles. (D) The harmful invasive alien herb species, Impatiens glandulifera Royle, occupies the forest understory on fertile soils. EFN nectaries can be found on its stipules, petioles, and leaf base.
Forests 11 00067 g003
Forests 11 00067 g004 550
Figure 4. Ant species collecting EFN on nectaries of boreal forest trees. (A) Formica rufa on petiole nectaries of flushing leaves of Prunus padus. (B) Lasius niger on a leaf base nectary of Populus tremula. (C) Myrmica rubra (L.) on petiole nectaries of flushing leaves of Prunus padus. (D) Myrmica rubra on leaf base nectaries of Populus x wettsteinii.
Figure 4. Ant species collecting EFN on nectaries of boreal forest trees. (A) Formica rufa on petiole nectaries of flushing leaves of Prunus padus. (B) Lasius niger on a leaf base nectary of Populus tremula. (C) Myrmica rubra (L.) on petiole nectaries of flushing leaves of Prunus padus. (D) Myrmica rubra on leaf base nectaries of Populus x wettsteinii.
Forests 11 00067 g004
Table
Table 1. Summary of impacts of abiotic climate change factors on EFN-producing plants, EFN quality, and potential effects on tree physiological and forest community level responses, and potential effects on EFN that could affect ants and other tree mutualists.
Table 1. Summary of impacts of abiotic climate change factors on EFN-producing plants, EFN quality, and potential effects on tree physiological and forest community level responses, and potential effects on EFN that could affect ants and other tree mutualists.
Type of DisturbanceEFN Production ResponseRef.Potential Effects Affecting Ants and Other MutualistsRef.
Plant physiological level responses
Elevated CO2A higher number of leaves producing EFN, no quality changes[131]Improved EFN availability[131]
WarmingAccelerates leaf maturation leading to earlier ceasing of EFN production[59]Possible sucrose shortage later in the growth season[137]
DroughtReduced sugar secretion[138]Reduced EFN quality[139]
Cloudiness/shadingReduced EFN production[140]Reduced EFN availability, lower herbivore predation rate, reduced plant fitness[140]
Forest community-level responses
WarmingDeciduous trees become more dominant in conifer forests[141]Improved EFN availability → change in ant species composition[85]
WarmingAmong alien invasive plant species more efficient EFN producers[142]Ants can move to invasive plant species[142]
Elevated O3Atmospheric degradation of volatile organic compound (VOC) signal reduces EFN induction in neighboring plants[18]Less EFN available for natural enemies of herbivores → higher damage risk[18]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Holopainen, J.K.; Blande, J.D.; Sorvari, J. Functional Role of Extrafloral Nectar in Boreal Forest Ecosystems under Climate Change. Forests 2020, 11, 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010067

AMA Style

Holopainen JK, Blande JD, Sorvari J. Functional Role of Extrafloral Nectar in Boreal Forest Ecosystems under Climate Change. Forests. 2020; 11(1):67. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010067

Chicago/Turabian Style

Holopainen, Jarmo K., James D. Blande, and Jouni Sorvari. 2020. "Functional Role of Extrafloral Nectar in Boreal Forest Ecosystems under Climate Change" Forests 11, no. 1: 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010067

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop