Effects of variability in the amount and dispersion of within-plant herbivory on resistance- and tolerance-related responses in wild cotton
Ramirez-Delgado, V. H.; Briones-May, Y.; Sanchez-Duran, J.; Martin-Cacheda, L.; Moreira, X.; Turlings, T. C.; Abdala-Roberts, L.
Show abstract
Herbivory triggers complex induced defensive responses in plants that may vary depending on the amount and dispersion of damage, the latter has received much less attention. We examined how wild cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) responds to different amounts of herbivory and how it is dispersed among the leaves (concentrated versus dispersed) using the specialist caterpillar Alabama argillacea. In a greenhouse experiment, plants underwent different herbivory treatments: no damage, low herbivory (two caterpillars, one on each of two leaves), high concentrated herbivory (four caterpillars, two on each of two leaves), and high dispersed herbivory (four caterpillars, each on one of four leaves). We measured extrafloral nectar (EFN), an indirect defense trait, and phenolic production, a direct chemical defense, as well as regrowth capacity (new leaf biomass two months after herbivory) as a tolerance proxy. To distinguish between local and systemic defense induction, we measured resistance-related responses on damaged and undamaged leaves. EFN was significantly and more consistently induced in damaged leaves (i.e., stronger local induction) in response to high dispersed damage. Phenolic compounds were not affected by any of the damage treatments. Additionally, wild cotton fully compensated for damage in terms of new leaf biomass under all herbivory treatments, except after high concentrated damage, suggesting higher costs incurred by this type of herbivory. These results highlight the importance of studying plant-induced defenses under varying herbivory conditions and suggest opposing effects on resistance-related (EFN, indirect) versus tolerance-related induced responses, which are known to affect tri-trophic interactions associated with wild cotton. Main ConclusionVariability in caterpillar damage to wild cotton leaves differentially shapes resistance- and tolerance-related responses; dispersed damage induces more extrafloral nectar production, and concentrated damage more strongly drives reductions in regrowth.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Leaf chemical defences and insect herbivory in oak: accounting for canopy position unravels marked genetic relatedness effects 94%
- Elevated CO2, Warming and Drought Differentially Impact Reproductive and Vegetative Economic Traits in Two Grassland Species 93%
- Herbivory enhances leaky sex expression in the dioecious herb Mercurialis annua 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative transcriptome reprogramming in oak galls containing asexual or sexual generations of gall wasps 93%
- Within-plant variation in chemical defence of Erysimum cheiranthoides does not explain Plutella xylostella feeding preference 93%
- Chemodiversity in flowers of Tanacetum vulgare has consequences on a florivorous beetle 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Silicon supplementation and jasmonate activation synergistically increase phenolic defences against a legume herbivore 95%
- Direct and indirect fitness effects of plant metabolites and genetic constraints limit evolution of allelopathy in an invading plant 94%
- Adaptations and responses of the common dandelion to low atmospheric pressure in high altitude environments 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Interspecific plant competition mediates the metabolic and ecological signature of a plant-herbivore interaction under warming and elevated CO2 94%
- Microbe-induced plant resistance against insect pests depends on timing of inoculation, but is consistent across climatic conditions 93%
- Flower visitation of alien plants is non-linearly related to phylogenetic and floral similarity to native plants 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.