Brief Communication

Induced defences in plants reduce herbivory by increasing cannibalism

  • Nature Ecology & Evolution 112051207 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0231-6
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

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.

  • Subscribe to Nature Ecology & Evolution for full access:

    $99

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    Karban, R. & Baldwin, I. T. Induced Responses to Herbivory (Univ. Chicago Press, 1997).

  2. 2.

    Karban, R., Yang, L. H. & Edwards, K. F. Ecol. Lett. 17, 44–52 (2014).

  3. 3.

    Karban, R. Plant Sensing and Communication (Univ. Chicago Press, 2015).

  4. 4.

    Orrock, J. L. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 441–445 (2015).

  5. 5.

    Agrawal, A. A. & Klein, C. N. J. Anim. Ecol. 69, 525–535 (2000).

  6. 6.

    Poelman, E. H., van Loon, J. A. J. & Dicke, M. Trends Plant Sci. 13, 534–541 (2008).

  7. 7.

    Agrawal, A. A. Funct. Ecol. 25, 420–432 (2011).

  8. 8.

    Agrawal, A. A. Entomol. Exp. Applic. 115, 97–105 (2005).

  9. 9.

    Farmer, E. E. & Ryan, C. A. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7713–7716 (1990).

  10. 10.

    Tian, D., Peiffer, M., De Moraes, C. M. & Felton, G. W. Planta 239, 577–589 (2014).

  11. 11.

    Richardson, M. L., Mitchell, R. F., Reagel, P. F. & Hanks, L. M. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55, 39–53 (2010).

  12. 12.

    Fox, L. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 6, 87–106 (1975).

  13. 13.

    Al-Zubaidi, F. S. & Capinera, J. L. Environ. Entomol. 12, 1687–1689 (1983).

  14. 14.

    Tian, D. et al. PLoS One 7, e36168 (2012).

  15. 15.

    Polis, G. A. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 12, 225–251 (1981).

  16. 16.

    Andow, D. A. et al. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 229–236 (2005).

  17. 17.

    Karban, R., Agrawal, A. A., Thaler, J. S. & Adler, L. S. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 443–447 (1999).

  18. 18.

    Sadeh, A. & Rosenheim, J. A. Ecology 97, 1994–2002 (2016).

  19. 19.

    Thaler, J. S. Nature 399, 686–688 (1999).

  20. 20.

    Elvira, S., Williams, T. & Caballero, P. J. Econ. Ent. 103, 577–582 (2010).

Download references

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

Affiliations

  1. Department of Integrative Biology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53704, USA

    • John Orrock
    • , Brian Connolly
    •  & Anthony Kitchen

Authors

  1. Search for John Orrock in:

  2. Search for Brian Connolly in:

  3. Search for Anthony Kitchen in:

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.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Orrock.

Electronic supplementary material

  1. Supplementary Materials

    Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Results, Supplementary References, Supplementary Figures 1–5