Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Site Tools

  • AAAS
  • Subscribe
  • Feedback

Site Search

Search Advanced

Science 2 July 1976:
Vol. 193. no. 4247, pp. 24 - 29
DOI: 10.1126/science.193.4247.24
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Articles

Plant Defense Guilds

Peter R. Atsatt 1 and Dennis J. O'Dowd 2

1 Associate professor of biology in, and acting chairman of, the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine 92717
2 Graduate student, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine 92717

Optimal plant defense should incorporate any mechanisms that influence the feeding behavior of potential pests. From a diverse collection of examples suggesting that the defense of a plant may be improved in the company of specific neighbors, we discuss a framework of operational mechanisms that begin to clarify some aspects of the recognized influence of species diversity on herbivory. Neighbors serve as insectary plants for herbivore predators and parasites, and influence herbivore feeding behavior by repelling, masking, attracting, and decoying. Insectary plants lower the numerical response of herbivores by increasing the efficiency of their predators and parasites. Repellent plants primarily lower functional response by causing the predator to fail to locate or reject its normal prey. Attractant-decoy plants dilute herbivore impact by drawing off herbivores, either increasing or decreasing their numerical and functional response (or either).

The concept of gene conservation guilds adds diversionary and delaying tactics to the adaptation-counteradaptation view of plant-herbivore coevolution. The useful life of a given gene for resistance may best be extended by mechanisms that disrupt genetic tracking (specialization) by herbivores. Some plants may remain inedible not because their chemistry or morphology represents an evolutionary impasse, but because they live in an environment that provides acceptable options of variable quality. Feeding environments that provide little or no choice promote specialization by forcing physiological adaptation. Conversely, the evolutionary momentum of specializing herbivores may be lowered by enhancing their susceptibility, either by selection against virulent individuals, or by decreasing the exposure frequency of susceptible genotypes. The latter mechanism of conserving susceptible individuals takes advantage of herbivore behavioral sensitivity to variable plant quality. Direct selection against virulent genotypes requires temporal cycling of the herbivore population between resistant and nonresistant hosts. Both events may occur within defense guilds that provide acceptable feeding options of similar but distinctive quality.


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
Seaweed resistance to microbial attack: A targeted chemical defense against marine fungi.
J. Kubanek, P. R. Jensen, P. A. Keifer, M. C. Sullards, D. O. Collins, and W. Fenical (2003)
PNAS 100, 6916-6921
   Abstract »    Full Text »    PDF »
Biological Control in Agroecosystems.
S. W. T. Batra (1982)
Science 215, 134-139
   Abstract »    PDF »
Group Living, Competition, and the Evolution of Cooperation in a Sessile Invertebrate.
L. W. BUSS (1981)
Science 213, 1012-1014
   Abstract »    PDF »
Specialization: Species Property or Local Phenomenon?.
L. R. Fox and P. A. Morrow (1981)
Science 211, 887-893
   Abstract »    PDF »
Biogeography.
D.R. Stoddart (1978)
Progress in Physical Geography 2, 514-528
   PDF »
Serengeti Ungulates: Feeding Selectivity Influences the Effectiveness of Plant Defense Guilds.
S. J. MCNAUGHTON (1978)
Science 199, 806-807
   Abstract »    PDF »


To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)