Abstract
Plants are attacked by myriad herbivores, and many plants exhibit anti-herbivore defences. We tested the hypothesis that induced defences benefit tomato plants by encouraging insects to eat other members of their species. We found that defences that promote cannibalism benefit tomatoes in two ways: cannibalism directly reduces herbivore abundance, and cannibals eat significantly less plant material. This previously unknown means of defence may alter plant–herbivore dynamics, plant evolution and pathogen transmission.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Understanding interdisciplinary perspectives of plant intelligence: Is it a matter of science, language, or subjectivity?
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine Open Access 30 May 2022
-
Generalist herbivore response to volatile chemical induction varies along a gradient in soil salinization
Scientific Reports Open Access 01 February 2022
-
An influential meal: host plant dependent transcriptional variation in the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
BMC Genomics Open Access 13 November 2019
Access options
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
$29.99
monthly
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
$119.00
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
$32.00
All prices are NET prices.

References
Karban, R. & Baldwin, I. T. Induced Responses to Herbivory (Univ. Chicago Press, 1997).
Karban, R., Yang, L. H. & Edwards, K. F. Ecol. Lett. 17, 44–52 (2014).
Karban, R. Plant Sensing and Communication (Univ. Chicago Press, 2015).
Orrock, J. L. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 441–445 (2015).
Agrawal, A. A. & Klein, C. N. J. Anim. Ecol. 69, 525–535 (2000).
Poelman, E. H., van Loon, J. A. J. & Dicke, M. Trends Plant Sci. 13, 534–541 (2008).
Agrawal, A. A. Funct. Ecol. 25, 420–432 (2011).
Agrawal, A. A. Entomol. Exp. Applic. 115, 97–105 (2005).
Farmer, E. E. & Ryan, C. A. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7713–7716 (1990).
Tian, D., Peiffer, M., De Moraes, C. M. & Felton, G. W. Planta 239, 577–589 (2014).
Richardson, M. L., Mitchell, R. F., Reagel, P. F. & Hanks, L. M. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55, 39–53 (2010).
Fox, L. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 6, 87–106 (1975).
Al-Zubaidi, F. S. & Capinera, J. L. Environ. Entomol. 12, 1687–1689 (1983).
Tian, D. et al. PLoS One 7, e36168 (2012).
Polis, G. A. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 12, 225–251 (1981).
Andow, D. A. et al. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 229–236 (2005).
Karban, R., Agrawal, A. A., Thaler, J. S. & Adler, L. S. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 443–447 (1999).
Sadeh, A. & Rosenheim, J. A. Ecology 97, 1994–2002 (2016).
Thaler, J. S. Nature 399, 686–688 (1999).
Elvira, S., Williams, T. & Caballero, P. J. Econ. Ent. 103, 577–582 (2010).
Acknowledgements
Comments from E. Preisser and E. Damschen greatly improved the manuscript. We appreciate artwork by B. Feeny. J.O. was hosted by the Department of Biology at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) while writing the manuscript; VCU Biology, the Johnson, Vonesh and Damschen laboratories kindly shared space and equipment for conducting experiments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J.O. conceived the study; J.O. and B.C. designed the study; A.K., B.C. and J.O. conducted the experiments; J.O. performed all analyses and led manuscript preparation; B.C. and A.K. contributed to manuscript revision.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Results, Supplementary References, Supplementary Figures 1–5
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Orrock, J., Connolly, B. & Kitchen, A. Induced defences in plants reduce herbivory by increasing cannibalism. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 1205–1207 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0231-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0231-6
This article is cited by
-
The consequence of leaf life span to virus infection of herbivorous insects
Oecologia (2023)
-
Viral transmission and infection prevalence in a cannibalistic host–pathogen system
Oecologia (2023)
-
Understanding interdisciplinary perspectives of plant intelligence: Is it a matter of science, language, or subjectivity?
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2022)
-
Generalist herbivore response to volatile chemical induction varies along a gradient in soil salinization
Scientific Reports (2022)
-
Plant induced defenses that promote cannibalism reduce herbivory as effectively as highly pathogenic herbivore pathogens
Oecologia (2022)