Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 768–771 | Cite as

Trade-Offs between Silicon and Phenolic Defenses may Explain Enhanced Performance of Root Herbivores on Phenolic-Rich Plants

  • Adam FrewEmail author
  • Jeff R. Powell
  • Nader Sallam
  • Peter G. Allsopp
  • Scott N. Johnson
Rapid Communication


Phenolic compounds play a role in plant defense against herbivores. For some herbivorous insects, particularly root herbivores, host plants with high phenolic concentrations promote insect performance and tissue consumption. This positive relationship between some insects and phenolics, however, could reflect a negative correlation with other plant defenses acting against insects. Silicon is an important element for plant growth and defense, particularly in grasses, as many grass species take up large amounts of silicon. Negative impact of a high silicon diet on insect herbivore performance has been reported aboveground, but is unreported for belowground herbivores. It has been hypothesized that some silicon accumulating plants exhibit a trade-off between carbon-based defense compounds, such as phenolics, and silicon-based defenses. Here, we investigated the impact of silicon concentrations and total phenolic concentrations in sugarcane roots on the performance of the root-feeding greyback canegrub (Dermolepida albohirtum). Canegrub performance was positively correlated with root phenolics, but negatively correlated with root silicon. We found a negative relationship in the roots between total phenolics and silicon concentrations. This suggests the positive impact of phenolic compounds on some insects may be the effect of lower concentrations of silicon compounds in plant tissue. This is the first demonstration of plant silicon negatively affecting a belowground herbivore.


Carbon Insect herbivory Phenolics Silicon Sugarcane Trade-off 



We thank the teams at Sugar Research Australia and the Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment for their support throughout this project, particularly Andrew Gherlenda, Allen Eaton, and Lisa Derby for their help and advice. Funding was provided by Sugar Research Australia (project no.2014/104) and the Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University.


  1. Allsopp PG (2010) Integrated management of sugarcane whitegrubs in Australia: an evolving success. Annu Rev Entomol 55:329–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton CVM, Ellsworth DS, Medlyn BE, Duursma RA, Tissue DT, Adams MA, Eamus D, Conroy JP, McMurtrie RE, Parsby J, Linder S (2010) Whole-tree chambers for elevated atmospheric CO2 experimentation and tree scale flux measurements in South-Eastern Australia: the Hawkesbury Forest experiment. Agric For Meteorol 150:941–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooke J, Leishman MR (2011) Is plant ecology more siliceous than we realise? Trends Plant Sci 16:61–68.Google Scholar
  4. Cooke J, Leishman MR (2012) Tradeoffs between foliar silicon and carbon-based defences: evidence from vegetation communities of contrasting soil types. Oikos 121:2052–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Johnson SN, Nielsen UN (2012) Foraging in the dark – chemically mediated host plant location by belowground insect herbivores. J Chem Ecol 38:604–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Massey FP, Hartley SE (2009) Physical defences wear you down: progressive and irreversible impacts of silica on insect herbivores. J Anim Ecol 78:281–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Massey FP, Ennos AR, Hartley SE (2007) Herbivore specific induction of silica-based plant defences. Oecologia 152:677–683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Mithöfer A, Boland W (2012) Plant defense against herbivores: chemical aspects. Annu Rev Plant Biol 63:431–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O'Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2015) vegan: Community Ecology Package. URL: Google Scholar
  10. Reidinger S, Ramsey MH, Hartley SE (2012) Rapid and accurate analyses of silicon and phosphorus in plants using a portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer. New Phytol 195:699–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Salminen J-P, Karonen M (2011) Chemical ecology of tannins and other phenolics: We need a change in approach. Funct Ecol 25:325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schaller J, Brackhage C, Dudel EG (2012) Silicon availability changes structural carbon ratio and phenol content of grasses. Environ Exp Bot 77:283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wieczorek M, Zub K, Szafrańska PA, Książek A, Konarzewski M (2015) Plant–herbivore interactions: silicon concentration in tussock sedges and population dynamics of root voles. Funct Ecol 29:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hawkesbury Institute for the EnvironmentWestern Sydney UniversityRichmondAustralia
  2. 2.Sugar Research Australia LimitedMeringaAustralia
  3. 3.Sugar Research Australia LimitedIndooroopillyAustralia

Personalised recommendations