Terrestrial biodiversity is dominated by plants and the herbivores that consume them, and they are one of the major conduits of energy flow up to higher trophic levels. Here, we address the processes that have generated the spectacular diversity of flowering plants (>300,000 species) and insect herbivores (likely >1 million species). Long-standing macroevolutionary hypotheses have postulated that reciprocal evolution of adaptations and subsequent bursts of speciation have given rise to much of this biodiversity. We critically evaluate various predictions based on this coevolutionary theory. Phylogenetic reconstruction of ancestral states has revealed evidence for escalation in the potency or variety of plant lineages' chemical defenses; however, escalation of defense has been moderated by tradeoffs and alternative strategies (e.g., tolerance or defense by biotic agents). There is still surprisingly scant evidence that novel defense traits reduce herbivory and that such evolutionary novelty spurs diversification. Consistent with the coevolutionary hypothesis, there is some evidence that diversification of herbivores has lagged behind, but has nevertheless been temporally correlated with that of their host-plant clades, indicating colonization and radiation of insects on diversifying plants. However, there is still limited support for the role of host-plant shifts in insect diversification. Finally, a frontier area of research, and a general conclusion of our review, is that community ecology and the long-term evolutionary history of plant and insect diversification are inexorably intertwined.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/43/18054.full.pdf

Macroevolution and the biological diversity of plants and herbivores

Summary

1. The negative effect of induced plant resistance on the preference and performance of herbivores is a well-documented ecological phenomenon that is thought to be important for both plants and herbivores. This study links the well-developed mechanistic understanding of the biochemistry of induced plant resistance in the tomato system with an examination of how these mechanisms affect the community of herbivores in the field.



2. Several proteins that are induced in tomato foliage following herbivore damage have been linked causally to reductions in herbivore performance under laboratory conditions. Application of jasmonic acid, a natural elicitor of these defensive proteins, to tomato foliage stimulates induced responses to herbivory.



3. Jasmonic acid was sprayed on plants in three doses to generate plants with varying levels of induced responses, which were measured as increases in the activities of proteinase inhibitors and polyphenol oxidase.



4. Field experiments conducted over 3 years indicated that induction of these defensive proteins is associated with decreases in the abundance of all four naturally abundant herbivores, including insects in three feeding guilds, caterpillars, flea beetles, aphids, and thrips. Induced resistance killed early instars of noctuid caterpillars. Adult flea beetles strongly preferred control plants over induced plants, and this effect on host plant preference probably contributed to differences in the natural abundance of flea beetles.



5. The general nature of the effects observed in this study suggests that induced resistance will suppress many members of the herbivore community. By linking plant biochemistry, insect preference, performance, and abundance, tools can be developed to manipulate plant resistance sensibly and to predict its outcome under field conditions.

Jasmonate-mediated induced plant resistance affects a community of herbivores.

A recent surge in attention devoted to the ecology of soil biota has prompted interest in quantifying similarities and differences between interactions occurring in above- and belowground communities. Furthermore, linkages that interconnect the dynamics of these two spatially distinct ecosystems are increasingly documented. We use a similar approach in the context of understanding plant defenses to herbivory, including how they are allocated between leaves and roots (constitutive defenses), and potential cross-system linkages (induced defenses). To explore these issues we utilized three different empirical approaches. First, we manipulated foliar and root herbivory on tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and measured changes in the secondary chemistry of above- and belowground tissues. Second, we reviewed published studies that compared levels of secondary chemistry between leaves and roots to determine how plants distribute putative defense chemicals across the above- and belowground systems. Last, we used meta-analysis to quantify the impact of induced responses across plant tissue types. In the tobacco system, leaf-chewing insects strongly induced higher levels of secondary metabolites in leaves but had no impact on root chemistry. Nematode root herbivores, however, elicited changes in both leaves and roots. Virtually all secondary chemicals measured were elevated in nematode-induced galls, whereas the impact of root herbivory on foliar chemistry was highly variable and depended on where chemicals were produced within the plant. Importantly, nematodes interfered with aboveground metabolites that have biosynthetic sites located in roots (e.g., nicotine) but had the opposite effect (i.e., nematodes elevated foliar expression) on chemicals produced in shoots (e.g., phenolics and terpenoids). Results from our literature review suggest that, overall, constitutive defense levels are extremely similar when comparing leaves with roots, although certain chemical classes (e.g., alkaloids, glucosinolates) are differentially allocated between above- and belowground parts. Based on a meta-analysis of induced defense studies we conclude that: (1) foliar induction generates strong responses in leaves, but much weaker responses in roots, and (2) root induction elicits responses of equal magnitude in both leaves and roots. We discuss the importance of this asymmetry and the paradox of cross-system induction in relation to optimal defense theory and interactions between above- and belowground herbivory.

Constitutive and induced defenses to herbivory in above-and belowground plant tissues

Plants are under siege from a diversity of enemies that consume both leaf and floral parts. Plants resist damage to leaves in a variety of ways, and we now have a rich literature documenting how plants defend themselves against herbivore attack. In con- trast, the mechanisms by which plants resist enemies that consume floral parts or resources are much less known, even though damage to floral tissue usually has tighter links to plant fitness than damage to leaf tissue. Many plants experience nectar robbing, whereby floral visitors remove nectar from flowers, often without pollinating. Nectar robbers can reduce plant fitness to degrees comparable to, or even surpassing, reduction by herbivores. How- ever, because nectar attracts both pollinators and nectar robbers, plants face a dilemma in defending against nectar robbers without also deterring pollinators. Here, we extend the conceptual framework of resistance to herbivores to include resistance to nectar robbers, focusing on nectar traits. We review published data and find that an array of nectar traits may deter robbers without deterring pollinators. Although resistance traits against robbers have been broadly identified, the costs and benefits of these traits in terms of plant fitness remain poorly understood. We present data showing that a nectar trait (dilute nectar) might directly, as well as indirectly, benefit plant fitness by deterring nectar-robbing bumble bees of Ipomopsis aggregata without deterring hummingbird pollinators. However, the magni- tude of any plant fitness benefit will depend on the degree to which plants are pollen- vs. resource-limited in a given year. The results of our work offer both conceptual and empirical insight into how plants cope with attack by nonpollinating floral visitors through a relatively unexplored trait, nectar.

/pdf/the-dual-role-of-floral-traits-pollinator-attraction-and-5ecaquk9dn.pdf

The dual role of floral traits: Pollinator attraction and plant defense

Roots play a critical, but largely unappreciated, role in aboveground anti-herbivore plant defense (e.g. resistance and tolerance) and root–leaf connections may therefore result in unexpected coupling between above- and belowground consumers. Using the tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) system we highlight two examples of this phenomenon. First, the secondary metabolite nicotine is produced in roots, yet translocated aboveground for use as a foliar resistance trait. We demonstrate that nematode root herbivory interferes with foliar nicotine dynamics, resulting in positive effects on aboveground phytophagous insects. Notably, nematode-induced facilitation only occurred on nicotine-producing plants, and not on nicotine-deficient mutants. In the second case, we use stable isotope and invertase enzyme analyses to demonstrate that foliar herbivory elicits a putative tolerance response whereby aboveground nutritional reserves are allocated to roots, resulting in facilitation of phytoparasitic nematodes. Thus, plants integrate roots in resistance and tolerance mechanisms for leaf defense, and such root–leaf connections inherently link the dynamics of above- and belowground consumers.

Physiological integration of roots and shoots in plant defense strategies links above- and belowground herbivory.

Two species of lepidopteran herbivores, Manduca sexta (Sphingidae) and Trichoplusia ni (Noctuidae), were reared on synthetic diet containing either the alkaloid nicotine or the flavonoid rutin. Survival and pupal weight of the specialist M. sexta did not differ when larvae were reared on diet containing nicotine or rutin. In contrast, the generalist T. ni did not survive on diet containing 0.125% nicotine or greater, whereas larvae survived on all concentrations of rutin. These data demonstrate that the alkaloid nicotine is inhibitory toward generalist, but not specialist herbivores, whereas the flavonoid rutin has no effect on specialist herbivores and limited effects on generalist herbivores. Five species of Pseudomonas bacterial pathogens: P. syringae, P. syringae pv. angulata, P. syringae pv. tabaci, P. fluorescens, and P. solanacearum were grown on nutrient agar containing nicotine or rutin at concentrations ranging from 0.0 to 1.0% wet weight in 0.1% intervals. No species of Pseudomonas grew at concentrations greater than 0.5% nicotine when 106 colony forming units (cfu) were used, but growth occurred at all concentrations of rutin when 102 cfu were used. These data indicate that nicotine was inhibitory to growth of both herbivores and pathogens, suggesting that certain plant secondary chemicals with high toxicity are of a generalized nature and affect multiple species. Differences in the sensitivity of organisms to allelochemicals such as generalist or specialist can make it appear that specific allelochemicals affect specific organisms, when in fact it is the tolerance of the organism to the plant chemical that is responsible. In four separate studies, the growth of M. sexta, T. ni and Helicoverpa zea was significantly lower on plants inoculated with P. solanacearum. Alteration in leaf quality by P. solanacearum was due to either reductions in leaf nutrients or increases in allelochemicals. We speculate that localized or systemic induction by both herbivores and pathogens can cause changes in leaf quality, effecting each other's subsequent colonization. The generalized nature of plant secondary compounds and potential reciprocal effects on induction by both species suggests that herbivores and pathogens may affect plant quality through induction and diffuse interactions of disparate species can alter the community of organisms colonizing a plant.

Generalized plant defense: effects on multiple species

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Robert W. Goth

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Generalized plant defense: effects on multiple species