Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Induced defences in plants reduce herbivory by increasing cannibalism

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 options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Induced defences in plants lead to increased rates of cannibalism among herbivores, which result in significant decreases in losses of plant biomass.

References

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

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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

Correspondence to John Orrock.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0231-6

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing