Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026)

Adaptive leaf traits responses of Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels to grazing pressure: Insights from leaf morphological, anatomical and phytochemical traits

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12054
Submitted
29 September 2025
Published
11-09-2026 — Updated on 30-09-2026
Versions

Abstract

Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels is an endemic Moroccan tree that plays a vital role in semi-arid and arid agro-sylvopastoral systems by supporting local livelihoods, mitigating desertification and providing resources such as grazing areas and high-value seed oil. However, goat grazing is a major biotic stressor that impairs the growth and performance of many plant species. Plant adaptive responses to such pressures are often reflected in leaf functional traits, which provide insight into resilience mechanisms. This study investigated the adaptive strategies of  A. spinosa by comparing leaf morphological, anatomical and phytochemical traits between grazed and ungrazed (exclosure) argan trees. The analysis revealed the species' strategies for withstanding grazing impacts, contributing to a better understanding of its resilience and potential conservation needs. Grazing significantly increased leaf thickness and leaf mass per area (LMA), while reducing leaf surface area and dry mass. No significant induction of chemical defence compounds was detected in grazed individuals. Instead, A. spinosa primarily exhibited an avoidance strategy, characterised by enhanced morphological defences, including increased spine density, to deter herbivory. Moreover, grazed trees displayed a trade-off between growth and defence, compensating through increased photosynthetic activity to maintain resource balance under grazing stress. These findings highlight the adaptive strategies of A. spinosa. This knowledge supports agroforestry management and breeding programmes focused on the long-term sustainability of this key species.

References

  1. 1. Nait Douch A, Boukhalef L, El Asbahani A, Al-Namazi AA, El Mehrach K, Bouqbis L, et al. Photosynthetic behaviour of Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels induced under grazed and ungrazed conditions. Sustainability. 2022;14(19):12081. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912081
  2. 2. Fassih B, Ait-El-Mokhtar M, Nait Douch A, Boutasknit A, Ben-Laouane R, Aganchich B, et al. The impact of browsing intensity on argan trees in the Essaouira region of Morocco. J Arid Environ. 2025;231:105472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2025.105472
  3. 3. Díaz Barradas MC, Zunzunegui M, Esquivias MP, Boutaleb S, Valera-Burgos J, Tagma T, et al. Some secrets of Argania spinosa water economy in a semiarid climate. Nat Prod Commun. 2013;8(1):11–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/1934578X1300800103
  4. 4. Chakhchar A, Salah IB, El Kharrassi Y, Filali-Maltouf A, El Modafar C, Lamaoui M. Agro-fruit-forest systems based on argan tree in Morocco: a review of recent results. Front Plant Sci. 2022;12:783615. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.783615
  5. 5. Ait Bihi M, Ain-Lhout F, Hatimi A, Fahmi F, Tahrouch S. Ecophysiological response and morphological adjustment of Argania spinosa L. Skeels under contrasting climates: case study of marginal populations. Int J Plant Biol. 2022;12(1):9404. https://doi.org/10.4081/pb.2021.9404
  6. 6. Boukhalef L, Nait Douch A, Bouqbis L, El Asbahani A, Touaf M, Ain-Lhout F. Physiological and morphological response of Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels to a competing liana: case study under arid climate. Int J Plant Biol. 2023;14(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijpb14010001
  7. 7. de Waroux YlP, Lambin EF. Monitoring degradation in arid and semi-arid forests and woodlands: the case of the argan woodlands (Morocco). Appl Geogr. 2012;32(2):777–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.08.005
  8. 8. Santoro A, Ongoma V, Ait el Kadi M, Piras F, Fiore B, Bazzurro A, et al. Innovation of argan (Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels) products and byproducts for sustainable development of rural communities in Morocco: a systematic literature review. Biodivers Conserv. 2023;34:3211–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02691-y
  9. 9. Afi C, Telmoudi M, Labbassi S, Chabbi N, Hallam J, Msanda F, et al. Assessing the impact of aridity on argan trees in Morocco: implications for conservation in a changing climate. Resources. 2024;13(10):135. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13100135
  10. 10. Kirchhoff M, Marzolff I, Stephan R, Seeger M, Aït Hssaine A, Ries JB. Monitoring dryland trees with remote sensing. Part B: Combining tree cover and plant architecture data to assess degradation and recovery of Argania spinosa woodlands of South Morocco. Front Environ Sci. 2022;10:896703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.896703
  11. 11. Yin J, Li X, Guo H, Zhang J, Kong L, Ren W. Legacy effects of historical grazing alter leaf stomatal characteristics in progeny plants. PeerJ. 2020;8:e9266. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9266
  12. 12. Lehndal L, Ågren J. Herbivory differentially affects plant fitness in three populations of the perennial herb Lythrum salicaria along a latitudinal gradient. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0135939. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135939
  13. 13. Perkovich C, Ward D. Differentiated plant defence strategies: herbivore community dynamics affect plant–herbivore interactions. Ecosphere. 2022;13(2):e3935. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3935
  14. 14. Sánchez-Sánchez H, Morquecho-Contreras A. Chemical plant defence against herbivores. In: Shields VDC, editor. Herbivores. London: InTech; 2017. https://doi.org/10.5772/67346
  15. 15. Bandoly M, Hilker M, Steppuhn A. Oviposition by Spodoptera exigua on Nicotiana attenuata primes induced plant defence against larval herbivory. Plant J. 2015;83(4):661–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12918
  16. 16. Mancilla-Leytón JM, Joffre R, Vicente AM. Effect of grazing and season on the chemical composition of Mediterranean shrub species in Doñana Natural Park, Spain. J Arid Environ. 2014;108:10–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.04.007
  17. 17. Pratyusha S. Phenolic compounds in plant development and defence: an overview. In: Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, editors. Plant Stress Physiology - Perspectives in Agriculture. London: IntechOpen; 2022. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102873
  18. 18. Kara E, Sürmen M. The effects of secondary metabolites of rangeland and pasture plants on the animal health in Mediterranean ecological conditions. J US-China Med Sci. 2019;16:63–72.
  19. 19. Gratani L, Covone F, Larcher W. Leaf plasticity in response to light of three evergreen species of the Mediterranean maquis. Trees. 2006;20:549–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-006-0070-6
  20. 20. Puglielli G, Crescente MF, Frattaroli AR, Gratani L. Leaf mass per area (LMA) as a possible predictor of adaptive strategies in two species of Sesleria (Poaceae): analysis of morphological, anatomical and physiological leaf traits. Ann Bot Fenn. 2015;52(1–2):135–43. https://doi.org/10.5735/085.052.0201
  21. 21. Wilson SL, Kerley GIH. The effect of plant spinescence on the foraging efficiency of bushbuck and Boergoats: browsers of similar body size. J Arid Environ. 2003;55(1):150–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1963(02)00254-9
  22. 22. Wiesneth S, Jürgenliemk G. Total phenolic and tannins determination: a modification of Ph. Eur. 2.8.14 for higher throughput. Pharmazie. 2017;72(4):195–6. https://doi.org/10.1691/ph.2017.6911
  23. 23. Zengin G, Uysal A, Gunes E, Aktumsek A. Survey of phytochemical composition and biological effects of three extracts from a wild plant (Cotoneaster nummularia Fisch. et Mey.): a potential source for functional food ingredients and drug formulations. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e113527. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113527
  24. 24. Reese AT, Ames GM, Wright JP. Variation in plant response to herbivory underscored by functional traits. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0166714. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166714
  25. 25. Li X, Png GK, Li Y, Jimoh SO, Ding Y, Li F, et al. Leaf plasticity contributes to plant anti-herbivore defences and indicates selective foraging: implications for sustainable grazing. Ecol Indic. 2021;122:107273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107273
  26. 26. Lang B, Ahlborn J, Oyunbileg M, Geiger A, von Wehrden H, Wesche K, et al. Grazing effects on intraspecific trait variability vary with changing precipitation patterns in Mongolian rangelands. Ecol Evol. 2020;10(2):678–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5895
  27. 27. Hui A, Guoqi L. Differential effects of grazing on plant functional traits in the desert grassland. Pol J Ecol. 2014;62(2):239–52. https://doi.org/10.3161/104.062.0205
  28. 28. Zheng SX, Ren HY, Lan ZC, Li WH, Wang KB, Bai YF. Effects of grazing on leaf traits and ecosystem functioning in Inner Mongolia grasslands: scaling from species to community. Biogeosciences. 2010;7(3):1117–32. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-1117-2010
  29. 29. Féret JB, le Maire G, Jay S, Berveiller D, Bendoula R, Hmimina G, et al. Estimating leaf mass per area and equivalent water thickness based on leaf optical properties: potential and limitations of physical modelling and machine learning. Remote Sens Environ. 2019;231:110959.
  30. 30. Gara TW, Rahimzadeh-Bajgiran P, Darvishzadeh R. Forest leaf mass per area (LMA) through the eye of optical remote sensing: a review and future outlook. Remote Sens. 2021;13(17):3352. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13173352
  31. 31. Wang R, Yu G, He N, Wang Q, Zhao N, Xu Z, et al. Latitudinal variation of leaf stomatal traits from species to community level in forests: linkage with ecosystem productivity. Sci Rep. 2015;5:14454. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14454
  32. 32. Guo X, Zheng Y, Chen Y, Zhou Z, Xue J. Intra-plant variation in leaf dry mass per area (LMA): effects of leaf–shoot orientation and vertical position on dry mass and area scaling. Forests. 2025;16(5):724. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050724
  33. 33. de la Riva EG, Olmo M, Poorter H, Ubera JL, Villar R. Leaf mass per area (LMA) and its relationship with leaf structure and anatomy in 34 Mediterranean woody species along a water availability gradient. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148788
  34. 34. Liu M, Gong J, Yang B, Ding Y, Zhang Z, Wang B, et al. Differences in the photosynthetic and physiological responses of Leymus chinensis to different levels of grazing intensity. BMC Plant Biol. 2019;19:558. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-019-2184-1
  35. 35. Dorji T, Gyaltshen D, Ghemiray DK, Wangda P, Fukuda K. Grazing effects on the easily measurable plant functional traits of Quercus semecarpifolia Sm. seedlings. Indian Forester. 2015;141 (3):324–332.
  36. 36. Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Garnier E, Lavorel S, Poorter H, Jaureguiberry P, et al. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot. 2013;61(3):167–234. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT12225
  37. 37. Wright IJ, Cannon K. Relationships between leaf lifespan and structural defences in a low-nutrient, sclerophyll flora. Funct Ecol. 2001;15(3):351–9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.2001.00522.x
  38. 38. Lev-Yadun S, Halpern M. Extended phenotype in action. Two possible roles for silica needles in plants: not just injuring herbivores but also inserting pathogens into their tissues. Plant Signal Behav. 2019;14(7): 1609858. https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2019.1609858
  39. 39. Janzen DH, Martin PS. Neotropical anachronisms: the fruits the gomphotheres ate. Science. 1982;215(4528):19–27. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.215.4528.19
  40. 40. Midgley J, Altayeb H, Mbosso P. Further evidence that in African acacia, white is a warning colour to herbivores: the white pseudo-galls of Vachellia seyal. Afr J Range Forage Sci. 2016;33(2):127–9. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2016.1162196
  41. 41. Tindall ML, Thomson FJ, Laffan SW, Moles AT. Is there a latitudinal gradient in the proportion of species with spinescence? J Plant Ecol. 2017;10(2):294–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtw031
  42. 42. Ford AT, Goheen JR, Otieno TO, Bidner L, Isbell LA, Palmer TM, et al. Large carnivores make savanna tree communities less thorny. Science. 2014;346(6207):346–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1252753
  43. 43. Hanley ME, Lamont BB, Fairbanks MM, Rafferty CM. Plant structural traits and their role in anti-herbivore defence. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. 2007;8(4):157–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2007.01.001
  44. 44. Fürstenberg-Hägg J, Zagrobelny M, Bak S. Plant defence against insect herbivores. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(5):10242–97. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms140510242
  45. 45. Rosenthal JP, Kotanen PM. Terrestrial plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol. 1994;9(4):145–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(94)90180-5
  46. 46. Schwachtje J, Baldwin IT. Why does herbivore attack reconfigure primary metabolism? Plant Physiol. 2008;146(3):845–51. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.112490
  47. 47. Huot B, Yao J, Montgomery BL, He SY. Growth-defence tradeoffs in plants: a balancing act to optimize fitness. Mol Plant. 2014;7:1267–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/ssu049
  48. 48. Hofmann RW, Jahufer MZZ. Tradeoff between biomass and flavonoid accumulation in white clover reflects contrasting plant strategies. PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e18949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018949

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.