Home  About us  Contact
 

Defensive Compounds (defensive + compound)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Life Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Leaf herbivory and nutrients increase nectar alkaloids

ECOLOGY LETTERS, Issue 8 2006
Lynn S. Adler
Abstract Correlations between traits may constrain ecological and evolutionary responses to multispecies interactions. Many plants produce defensive compounds in nectar and leaves that could influence interactions with pollinators and herbivores, but the relationship between nectar and leaf defences is entirely unexplored. Correlations between leaf and nectar traits may be mediated by resources and prior damage. We determined the effect of nutrients and leaf herbivory by Manduca sexta on Nicotiana tabacum nectar and leaf alkaloids, floral traits and moth oviposition. We found a positive phenotypic correlation between nectar and leaf alkaloids. Herbivory induced alkaloids in nectar but not in leaves, while nutrients increased alkaloids in both tissues. Moths laid the most eggs on damaged, fertilized plants, suggesting a preference for high alkaloids. Induced nectar alkaloids via leaf herbivory indicate that species interactions involving leaf and floral tissues are linked and should not be treated as independent phenomena in plant ecology or evolution. [source]

Foraging by fearful frugivores: combined effect of fruit ripening and predation risk

FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY, Issue 6 2006
J. M. FEDRIANI
Summary 1Plant defensive compounds and predation risk are main determinants of herbivore foraging, though empirical studies have seldom measured the combined effects of these two factors. By considering the interaction between the herb Helleborus foetidus and its main fruit and seed predator, the Wood Mouse Apodemus sylvaticus, we evaluated whether the defensive role against seed predators of compounds present in H. foetidus unripe fruits holds across a micro-landscape that differs in foraging costs (i.e. predation risk). 2First, we used standardized food patches that simulated fruiting H. foetidus plants to ascertain fruit preferences of captive mice. Then, by means of field experiments, we assessed the combined effects of fruit ripening and predation risk on foraging by free-ranging mice. 3Captive mice avoided plants with unripe fruit and avoided consuming unripe fruits within a particular plant. Free-ranging mice also avoided unripe fruits in safe microhabitats (rocky substrate), but not in risky microhabitats (bare ground) where few fruits were consumed. This unexpected result may be driven by predation risk experienced by mice foraging on H. foetidus fruits, and/or plant defensive compounds acting in a dose-dependent manner. 4Frugivorous mice responded to both chemical defences present in unripe H. foetidus fruits as well as to predation cost though such response was sequential. Plant defence compounds appeared to play a part in mouse foraging only after mice selected low predation risk microhabitats. 5Our study indicates that both digestive and ecological factors influence foraging decisions, which in turn affects pressures exerted by herbivores on plant populations. [source]

Gall insects can avoid and alter indirect plant defenses

NEW PHYTOLOGIST, Issue 3 2008
John F. Tooker
Summary ,,Parasitic species can dramatically alter host traits. Some of these parasite-induced changes can be considered adaptive manipulations that benefit the parasites. Gall-inducing insects are parasites well known for their ability to alter host-plant morphology and physiology, including the distribution of plant defensive compounds. Here it was investigated whether gall-inducing species alter indirect plant defenses, involving the release of volatile compounds that are attractive to foraging natural enemies. ,,Using field and factorial laboratory experiments, volatile production by goldenrod (Solidago altissima) plants was examined in response to attack by two gall-inducing species, the tephritid fly Eurosta solidaginis and the gelechiid moth Gnorimoschema gallaesolidaginis, as well as the meadow spittlebug, Philaenus spumarius, and the generalist caterpillar Heliothis virescens. ,,Heliothis virescens elicited strong indirect defensive responses from S. altissima, but the gall-inducing species and spittlebugs did not. More significantly, infestation by E. solidaginis appeared to suppress volatile responses to subsequent attack by the generalist caterpillar. ,,The extensive control that E. solidaginis apparently exerts over host-plant defense responses may reduce the predation risk for the gall inducer and the subsequent herbivore, and could influence community-level dynamics, including the distribution of herbivorous insect species associated with S. altissima parasitized by E. solidaginis. [source]