Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 555–569 | Cite as

Plastic defence expression in plants

  • Martin Heil
Original Paper

Abstract

Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of an organism to express different phenotypes in response to changing environments and becomes particularly obvious when plants alter their transcriptome after enemy attack. The resulting alterations affect the metabolic, chemical and morphological phenotype and cause resistance or tolerance phenomena, which allow plants to main high fitness in the presence of enemies. Volatiles released from damaged plants can be received by their neighbours or undamaged parts of the same plant to mount an adequate level of resistance and thereby add a further level of phenotypic plasticity. The induced defence responses also include attraction of the third trophic level and, thus, dramatic changes of the ‘extended phenotype’ of the plant, that is, its surrounding fauna. The underlying interactions are, at least partly, under the control of the plant and, thus, subject to co-evolutionary processes. Fitness costs are a common explanation for the evolution of inducible resistance expression. However, variability in the resistance phenotype can per se be beneficial, because it makes counter-adaptations by the plants’ enemies more difficult. In the case of indirect defences, which are mediated by plant-carnivore mutualisms, signal reliability and reciprocal responses among phenotypically plastic partners appear necessary prerequisites for their evolutionary stabilisation. The expression of resistance and tolerance is induced by enemy attack but is also under control by abiotic factors, such as resource supply, and by biotic parameters, such as current and anticipated competition, efficiency of the expressed resistance and ontogenetic stage. All these levels of plasticity help plants to survive as sessile organisms in a rapidly changing environment and in the presence of mobile enemies.

Keywords

Compensation Induced resistance Indirect defence Phenotypic plasticity Priming Tolerance 

Notes

Glossary

Constitutive resistance

The expression levels of constitutive resistance are not affected by encounters with plant enemies. They, can, however, be subject to phenotypic plasticity with respect to other factors such as, for example, abiotic conditions.

Defence

All strategies that increase plant fitness in the presence of enemies. The term as used here comprises both resistance and tolerance.

Direct resistance

Direct resistance traits are those that directly interact with the plant enemy in order to reduce feeding activity or infection level.

Indirect defence

Indirect defence traits do not directly interact with the plant enemy but rather enhance the presence of ‘enemies of the enemy of the plant’.

Induced resistance

Induced resistance traits change their expression level in response to an encounter with an enemy of the plant.

Phenotypic plasticity

The capacity of a certain genotype to express different phenotypes in response to changing environmental conditions.

Resistance

Plant traits that reduce the degree or probability at which enemies of the plants exert damage.

Tolerance

Tolerance traits minimize the fitness loss that is caused by a certain level of damage.

References

  1. Agrawal AA (1998) Induced responses to herbivory and increased plant performance. Science 279:1201–1202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA (2000a) Overcompensation of plants in response to herbivory and the by-product benefits of mutualism. Trends Plant Sci 5:309–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal AA (2000b) Specificity of induced resistance in wild radish: causes and consequences for two specialist and two generalist caterpillars. Oikos 89:493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrawal AA (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science 294:321–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrawal AA (2005) Future directions in the study of induced plant responses to herbivory. Entomol Exp Appl 115:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Agrawal AA, Strauss SY, Stout MJ (1999) Costs of induced responses and tolerance to herbivory in male and female fitness components of wild radish. Evolution 53:1093–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aldea M, Hamilton JG, Resti JP, Zangerl AR, Berenbaum MR, Frank TD, DeLucia EH (2006) Comparison of photosynthetic damage from arthropod herbivory and pathogen infection in understory hardwood saplings. Oecologia 149:221–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayres MP, Claussen TP, MacLean SFJ, Redman AM, Reichardt PB (1997) Diversity of structure and antiherbivore activity in condensed tannins. Ecology 78:1696–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baldwin IT (1988) The alkaloidal responses of wild tobacco to real and simulated herbivory. Oecologia 77:378–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baldwin IT (1998) Jasmonate-induced responses are costly but benefit plants under attack in native populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:8113–8118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baldwin IT, Schultz JC (1983) Rapid changes in tree leaf chemistry induced by damage: evidence for communication between plants. Science 221:277–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beach RM, Todd JW, Baker SH (1985) Nectaried and nectariless cotton cultivars as nectar sources for the adult soybean looper. J Entomol Sci 20:233–236Google Scholar
  13. Bernasconi ML, Turlings TCJ, Ambrosetti L, Bassetti P, Dorn S (1998) Herbivore-induced emissions of maize volatiles repel the corn leaf aphid, Rhopalosiphum maidis. Entomol Exp Appl 87:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Björkmann C, Dalin P, Ahrné K (2008) Leaf trichome responses to herbivory in willows: induction, relaxation and costs. New Phytol 179:176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boege K (2005) Influence of plant ontogeny on compensation to leaf damage. Am J Bot 92:1632–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brody AK, Price MV, Waser NM (2007) Life-history consequences of vegetative damage in scarlet gilia, a monocarpic plant. Oikos 116:975–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bronstein JL (2001) The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecol Lett 4:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown DG (1988) The cost of plant defense: an experimental analysis with inducible proteinase inhibitors in tomato. Oecologia 76:467–470Google Scholar
  19. Chamberlain SA, Holland JN (2009) Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant-plant protection mutualisms. Ecology 90:2384–2392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheong YH, Chang HS, Gupta R, Wang X, Zhu T, Luan S (2002) Transcriptional profiling reveals novel interactions between wounding, pathogen, abiotic stress, and hormonal responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 129:661–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cipollini DF (2007) Consequences of the overproduction of methyl jasmonate on seed production, tolerance to defoliation and competitive effect and response of Arabidopsis thaliana. New Phytol 173:146–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cipollini DF, Purrington CB, Bergelson J (2003) Costs of induced responses in plants. Bas Appl Ecol 4:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Creelman RA, Mullet JE (1997) Biosynthesis and action of jasmonates in plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 48:355–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Moraes CM, Mescher MC, Tumlinson JH (2001) Caterpillar-induced nocturnal plant volatiles repel conspecific females. Nature 410:577–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dicke M (1999) Evolution of induced indirect defense of plants. In: Tollrian R, Harvell CD (eds) The ecology and evolution of inducible defences. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 62–88Google Scholar
  26. Dietrich R, Ploss K, Heil M (2004) Constitutive and induced resistance to pathogens in Arabidopsis thaliana depend on nitrogen supply. Plant Cell Environ 27:896–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Doss RP, Oliver JE, Proebsting WM, Potter SW, Kuy SR, Clement SL, Williamson RT, Carney JR, DeVilbiss ED (2000) Bruchins: Insect-derived plant regulators that stimulate neoplasm formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:6218–6223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ebel J (1986) Phytoalexin synthesis: the biochemical analysis of the induction process. Annu Rev Phytopathol 24:235–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Espinosa EG, Fornoni J (2006) Host tolerance does not impose selection on natural enemies. New Phytol 170:609–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Felix G, Meins F (1985) Purication, immunoassay and characterization of an abundant, cytikinin-regulated polypeptide in cultured tobacco tissues: evidence the protein is a ß-1, 3-glucanase. Planta 164:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fineblum WL, Rausher MD (1995) Tradeoff between resistance and tolerance to herbivore damage in a morning glory. Nature 377:517–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fornoni J, Núñez-Farfán J (2003) Evolutionary ecology of tolerance to herbivory: advances and perspectives. Comm Theoret Biol 8:643–663Google Scholar
  33. Fornoni J, Valverde PL, Nunez-Farfan J (2003) Quantitative genetics of plant tolerance and resistance against natural enemies of two natural populations of Datura stramonium. Evol Ecol Res 5:1049–1065Google Scholar
  34. Frost C, Appel H, Carlson J, De Moraes C, Mescher M, Schultz J (2007) Within-plant signalling by volatiles overcomes vascular constraints on systemic signalling and primes responses against herbivores. Ecol Lett 10:490–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gardner SN, Agrawal AA (2002) Induced plant defence and the evolution of counter-defences in herbivores. Evol Ecol Res 4:1131–1151Google Scholar
  36. Gershenzon J, Dudareva N (2007) The function of terpene natural products in the natural world. Nat Chem Biol 3:408–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goellner K, Conrath U (2008) Priming: it’s all the world to induced disease resistance. Eur J Plant Pathol 121:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gomez S, Onoda Y, Ossipov V, Stuefer JF (2008) Systemic induced resistance: a risk-spreading strategy in clonal plant networks? New Phytol 179:1142–1153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. González-Teuber M, Gianoli E (2008) Damage and shade enhance climbing and promote associational resistance in a climbing plant. J Ecol 96:122–126Google Scholar
  40. González-Teuber M, Heil M (2009) Nectar chemistry is tailored for both attraction of mutualists and protection from exploiters. Plant Signal Behav 4:809–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gowda JH (1997) Physical and chemical response of juvenile Acacia tortilis trees to browsing. Experimental evidence. Funct Ecol 11:106–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Green TR, Ryan CA (1972) Wound-induced proteinase inhibitor in plant leaves: a possible defence mechanism against insects. Science 175:776–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hammerschmidt R (1999) Phytoalexins: what have we learned after 60 years? Annu Rev Phytopathol 37:285–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Heichel GH, Turner NC (1983) CO2 assimilation of primary and regrowth foliage of red maple (Acer rubrum) and red oak (Quercus rubra): response to defoliation. Oecologia 57:14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heidel AJ, Dong XN (2006) Fitness benefits of systemic acquired resistance during Hyaloperonospora parasitica infection in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 173:1621–1628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Heil M (2002) Ecological costs of induced resistance. Curr Opin Plant Biol 5:345–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Heil M (2004) Induction of two indirect defences benefits Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae) in nature. J Ecol 92:527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Heil M (2008) Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytol 178:41–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Heil M (2009) Damaged-self recognition in plant herbivore defence. Trends Plant Sci 14:356–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Heil M, Baldwin IT (2002) Fitness costs of induced resistance: emerging experimental support for a slippery concept. Trends Plant Sci 7:61–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Heil M, Karban R (2010) Explaining evolution of plant communication by airborne signals. publ online, Trends Ecol EvolGoogle Scholar
  52. Heil M, Silva Bueno JC (2007) Within-plant signalling by volatiles leads to induction and priming of an indirect plant defence in nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5467–5472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Heil M, Ton J (2008) Long-distance signalling in plant defence. Trends Plant Sci 13:264–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Heil M, Walters D (2009) Ecological consequences of plant defence signalling. In: Van Loon LC (ed) Plant Innate Immunity. Elsevier, London, pp 667–716Google Scholar
  55. Heil M, Koch T, Hilpert A, Fiala B, Boland W, Linsenmair KE (2001) Extra floral nectar production of the ant-associated plant, Macaranga tanarius, is an induced, indirect, defensive response elicited by jasmonic acid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1083–1088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Heil M, Greiner S, Meimberg H, Krüger R, Noyer J-L, Heubl G, Linsenmair KE, Boland W (2004) Evolutionary change from induced to constitutive expression of an indirect plant resistance. Nature 430:205–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Heil M, González-Teuber M, Clement LW, Kautz S, Verhaagh M, Silva Bueno JC (2009) Divergent investment strategies of Acacia myrmecophytes and the coexistence of mutualists and exploiters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:18091–18096PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hermsmeier D, Schittko U, Baldwin IT (2001) Molecular interactions between the specialist herbivore Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) and its natural host Nicotiana attenuata. I. Large-scale changes in the accumulation of growth- and defense-related plant mRNAs. Plant Physiol 125:683–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hilker M, Meiners T (2006) Early herbivore alert: insect eggs induce plant defence. J Chem Ecol 32:1379–1397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hoballah ME, Köllner TG, Degenhardt J, Turlings TCJ (2004) Costs of induced volatile production in maize. Oikos 105:168–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hodar JA, Zamora R, Castro J, Gomez JM, Garcia D (2008) Biomass allocation and growth responses of Scots pine saplings to simulated herbivory depend on plant age and light availability. Plant Ecol 197:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  63. Huhta AP, Rautio P, Hellström K, Saari M, Tuomi J (2009) Tolerance of a perennial herb, Pimpinella saxifraga, to simulated flower herbivory and grazing: immediate repair of injury or postponed reproduction? Plant Ecol 201:599–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Huntzinger M, Karban R, Young TP, Palmer TM (2004) Relaxation of induced indirect defences of acacias following exclusion of mammalian herbivores. Ecology 85:609–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Izaguirre MM, Mazza CA, Biondini M, Baldwin IT, Ballaré CL (2006) Remote sensing of future competitors: impacts on plant defences. Proceedings of The National Academy Of Sciences of the United States Of America 103: 7170–7174Google Scholar
  66. Johnston DB, Cooper DJ, Hobbs NT (2007) Elk browsing increases aboveground growth of water-stressed willows by modifying plant architecture. Oecologia 154:467–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Juenger T, Bergelson J (2000) The evolution of compensation to herbivory in scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata: herbivore-imposed natural selection and the quantitative genetics of tolerance. Evolution 54:764–777PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Juenger T, Lennartsson T (2000) Tolerance in plant ecology and evolution: toward a more unified theory of plant-herbivore interaction. Evol Ecol 14:283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Kessler A, Baldwin IT (2001) Defensive function of herbivore-induced plant volatile emissions in nature. Science 291:2141–2144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kessler A, Baldwin IT (2002) Plant responses to insect herbivory: the emerging molecular analysis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 53:299–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kishimoto K, Matsui K, Ozawa R, Takabayashi J (2005) Volatile C6-aldehydes and allo-ocimene activate defense genes and induce resistance against Botrytis cinerea in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Physiol 46:1093–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Korves TM, Bergelson J (2003) A developmental response to pathogen infection in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 133:339–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Maleck K, Levine A, Eulgem T, Morgan A, Schmid J, Lawton KA, Dangl JL, Dietrich RA (2000) The transcriptome of Arabidopsis thaliana during systemic acquired resistance. Nature Genetics 26:403–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Martinkova J, Klimesova J, Mihulka S (2008) Compensation of seed production after severe injury in the short-lived herb Barbarea vulgaris. Bas Appl Ecol 9:44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mauricio R, Rausher MD, Burdick DS (1997) Variation in the defence strategies of plants: are resistance and tolerance mutually exclusive? Ecology 78:1301–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. McGuire R, Agrawal AA (2005) Trade-offs between the shade-avoidance response and plant resistance to herbivores? Tests with mutant Cucumis sativus. Funct Ecol 19:1025–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Miller B, Madilao LL, Ralph S, Bohlmann J (2005) Insect-induced conifer defence. White pine weevil and methyl jasmonate induce traumatic resinosis, de novo formed volatile emissions, and accumulation of terpenoid synthase and putative octadecanoid pathway transcripts in Sitka spruce. Plant Physiol 137:369–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mithöfer A, Boland W (2008) Recognition of herbivory-associated molecular patterns. Plant Physiol 146:825–831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mondor EB, Addicott JF (2003) Conspicuous extra-floral nectaries are inducible in Vicia faba. Ecol Lett 6:495–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mondor EB, Tremblay MN, Messing RH (2006) Extrafloral nectary phenotypic plasticity is damage and resource-dependent in Vicia faba. Biol Lett 2:583–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Morrison KD, Reekie EG (1995) Pattern of defoliation and its effect on photosynthetic capacity in Oenothera biennis. J Ecol 83:759–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Murray DC, Walters DR (1992) Increased photosynthesis and resistance to rust infection in upper, uninfected leaves of rusted broad bean (Vicia faba L.). New Phytol 120:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Nabity PD, Heng-Moss TM, Higley LG (2006) Effects of insect herbivory on physiological and biochemical (Oxidative enzyme) responses of the halophyte Atriplex subspicata (Chenopodiaceae). Environ Entomol 35:1677–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Núñez-Farfán J, Fornoni J, Valverde PL (2007) The evolution of resistance and tolerance to herbivores. Annual review of ecology evolution and systematics 38: 541–566Google Scholar
  86. Oliver TH, Leather SR, Cook JM (2009) Tolerance traits and the stability of mutualism. Oikos 118:346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Petitt FL, Turlings TCJ, Wolf SP (1992) Adult experience modifies attraction of the leafminer parasitoid Opius dissitus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to volatile semiochemicals. J Insect Behav 5:623–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pichersky E, Gershenzon J (2002) The formation and function of plant volatiles: perfumes for pollinator attraction and defence. Curr Opin Plant Biol 5:237–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Pilson D (2000) The evolution of plant response to herbivory: simultaneously considering resistance and tolerance in Brassica rapa. Evol Ecol 14:457–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Price PW, Bouton CE, Gross P, McPheron BA, Thompson JN, Weis AE (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pulice CE, Packer AA (2008) Simulated herbivory induces extra floral nectary production in Prunus avium. Funct Ecol 22:801–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Reddall AA, Wilson LJ, Gregg PC, Sadras VO (2007) Photosynthetic response of cotton to spider mite damage: interaction with light and compensatory mechanisms. Crop Sci 47:2047–2057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rhoades DF (1983) Responses of alder and willow to attack by tent caterpillars and webworms: evidence for pheromonal sensitivity of willows. In: Hedin PA (ed) Plant resistance to insects. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rodríguez-Saona C, Thaler JS (2005) Herbivore-induced responses and patch heterogeneity affect abundance of arthropods on plants. Ecol Entomol 30:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rodríguez-Saona CR, Rodríguez-Saona LE, Frost CJ (2009) Herbivore-induced volatiles in the perennial shrub, Vaccinium corymbosum, and their role in inter-branch signalling. J Chem Ecol 35:163–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Roy BA, Kirchner JW (2000) Evolutionary dynamics of pathogen resistance and tolerance. Evolution 54:51–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Ruiz N, Saltz D, Ward D (2006) The effects of herbivory and resource variability on the production of a second inflorescence by the desert lily, Pancratium sickenbergeri. Plant Ecol 186:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Schilmiller AL, Howe GA (2005) Systemic signalling in the wound response. Curr Opin Plant Biol 8:369–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schlichting CD, Levin DA (1986) Phenotypic plasticity: an evolving plant character. Biol J Linn Soc 29:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Schwachtje J, Baldwin IT (2008) Why does herbivore attack reconfigure primary metabolism? Plant Physiol 146:845–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schwachtje J, Minchin PEH, Jahnke S, Van Dongen JT, Schittko U, Baldwin IT (2006) SNF1-related kinases allow plants to tolerate herbivory by allocating carbon to roots. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:12935–12940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Shirley BW (1998) Flavonoids in seeds and grains: physiological function, agronomic importance and the genetics of biosynthesis. Seed Sci Res 8:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Shulaev V, Silverman P, Raskin I (1997) Airborne signalling by methyl salicylate in plant pathogen resistance. Nature 385:718–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Simms EL (2000) Defining tolerance as a norm of reaction. Evol Ecol 14:563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Simms E, Triplett J (1994) Costs and benefits of plant responses to disease: resistance and tolerance. Evolution 48:1973–1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Stapel JO, Cortesero AM, DeMoraes CM, Tumlinson JH, Lewis WJ (1997) Extrafloral nectar, honeydew, and sucrose effects on searching behavior and efficiency of Microplitis croceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in cotton. Environ Entomol 26:617–623Google Scholar
  107. Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Sultan SE (2000) Phenotypic plasticity for plant development, function and life history. Trends Plant Sci 5:537–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Traw MB, Bergelson J (2003) Interactive effects of jasmonic acid, salicylic acid, and gibberellin on induction of trichomes in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 133:1367–1375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Traw MB, Kniskern JM, Bergelson J (2007) Sar increases fitness of Arabidopsis thaliana in the presence of natural bacterial pathogens. Evolution 61:2444–2449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Tumlinson JH, Paré PW, Turlings TCJ (1999) Plant production of volatile semiochemicals in response to insect-derived elicitors. In: Chadwick DJ, Goode JA (eds) Insect-plant interactions and induced plant defence. Wiley, Chichester, pp 95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Turlings TCJ, Tumlinson JH, Lewis WJ (1990) Exploitation of herbivore-induced plant odours by host -seeking parasitic wasps. Science 250:1251–1253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Unsicker SB, Kunert G, Gershenzon J (2009) Protective perfumes: the role of vegetative volatiles in plant defence against herbivores. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12:479–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Utsumi S, Ando Y, Ohgushi T (2009) Evolution of feeding preference in a leaf beetle: the importance of phenotypic plasticity of a host plant. Ecol Lett 12:920–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Van Buskirk J, Steiner UK (2009) The fitness costs of developmental canalization and plasticity. J Evol Biol 22:852–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Van Loon LC, Rep M, Pieterse CMJ (2006) Significance of inducible defense-related proteins in infected plants. Annu Rev Phytopathol 44:135–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Van Nouhuys S, Kaartinen R (2008) A parasitoid wasp uses landmarks while monitoring potential resources. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 275:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wise MJ, Abrahamson WG (2007) Effects of resource availability on tolerance of herbivory: a review and assessment of three opposing models. Am Nat 169:443–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Yi H-S, Heil M, Adame-Álvarez R-M, Ballhorn D, Ryu C-M (2009) Airborne induction and priming of plant resistance to a bacterial pathogen. Plant Physiol 151:2152–2161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Zhang Z, Wang SP, Jiang GM, Patton B, Nyren P (2007) Responses of Artemisia frigida Willd. (Compositae) and Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel. (Poaceae) to sheep saliva. J Arid Environ 70:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería GenéticaCINVESTAV—IrapuatoIrapuatoMéxico

Personalised recommendations