Literature DB >> 26019168

Mechanisms and ecological consequences of plant defence induction and suppression in herbivore communities.

M R Kant1, W Jonckheere2, B Knegt2, F Lemos2, J Liu2, B C J Schimmel2, C A Villarroel2, L M S Ataide2, W Dermauw2, J J Glas2, M Egas2, A Janssen2, T Van Leeuwen2, R C Schuurink2, M W Sabelis2, J M Alba2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Plants are hotbeds for parasites such as arthropod herbivores, which acquire nutrients and energy from their hosts in order to grow and reproduce. Hence plants are selected to evolve resistance, which in turn selects for herbivores that can cope with this resistance. To preserve their fitness when attacked by herbivores, plants can employ complex strategies that include reallocation of resources and the production of defensive metabolites and structures. Plant defences can be either prefabricated or be produced only upon attack. Those that are ready-made are referred to as constitutive defences. Some constitutive defences are operational at any time while others require activation. Defences produced only when herbivores are present are referred to as induced defences. These can be established via de novo biosynthesis of defensive substances or via modifications of prefabricated substances and consequently these are active only when needed. Inducibility of defence may serve to save energy and to prevent self-intoxication but also implies that there is a delay in these defences becoming operational. Induced defences can be characterized by alterations in plant morphology and molecular chemistry and are associated with a decrease in herbivore performance. These alterations are set in motion by signals generated by herbivores. Finally, a subset of induced metabolites are released into the air as volatiles and function as a beacon for foraging natural enemies searching for prey, and this is referred to as induced indirect defence. SCOPE: The objective of this review is to evaluate (1) which strategies plants have evolved to cope with herbivores and (2) which traits herbivores have evolved that enable them to counter these defences. The primary focus is on the induction and suppression of plant defences and the review outlines how the palette of traits that determine induction/suppression of, and resistance/susceptibility of herbivores to, plant defences can give rise to exploitative competition and facilitation within ecological communities "inhabiting" a plant.
CONCLUSIONS: Herbivores have evolved diverse strategies, which are not mutually exclusive, to decrease the negative effects of plant defences in order to maximize the conversion of plant material into offspring. Numerous adaptations have been found in herbivores, enabling them to dismantle or bypass defensive barriers, to avoid tissues with relatively high levels of defensive chemicals or to metabolize these chemicals once ingested. In addition, some herbivores interfere with the onset or completion of induced plant defences, resulting in the plant's resistance being partly or fully suppressed. The ability to suppress induced plant defences appears to occur across plant parasites from different kingdoms, including herbivorous arthropods, and there is remarkable diversity in suppression mechanisms. Suppression may strongly affect the structure of the food web, because the ability to suppress the activation of defences of a communal host may facilitate competitors, whereas the ability of a herbivore to cope with activated plant defences will not. Further characterization of the mechanisms and traits that give rise to suppression of plant defences will enable us to determine their role in shaping direct and indirect interactions in food webs and the extent to which these determine the coexistence and persistence of species.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  Herbivory; adaptation; community interactions; detoxification; facilitation; herbivore; induction; jasmonate; manipulation; plant defence; plant–animal interaction; resistance; salicylate; sequestration; suppression

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26019168      PMCID: PMC4648464          DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcv054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Bot        ISSN: 0305-7364            Impact factor:   4.357


  429 in total

1.  The adaptation of insects to plant protease inhibitors.

Authors:  C Bolter; M A. Jongsma
Journal:  J Insect Physiol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 2.354

2.  Phytoplasma protein effector SAP11 enhances insect vector reproduction by manipulating plant development and defense hormone biosynthesis.

Authors:  Akiko Sugio; Heather N Kingdom; Allyson M MacLean; Victoria M Grieve; Saskia A Hogenhout
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  An insect countermeasure impacts plant physiology: midrib vein cutting, defoliation and leaf photosynthesis.

Authors:  Kevin J Delaney; Leon G Higley
Journal:  Plant Cell Environ       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 7.228

4.  Jasmonate, salicylate, and benzoate in insect eggs.

Authors:  John F Tooker; Consuelo M De Moraes
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 5.  Acaricide resistance mechanisms in the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae and other important Acari: a review.

Authors:  Thomas Van Leeuwen; John Vontas; Anastasia Tsagkarakou; Wannes Dermauw; Luc Tirry
Journal:  Insect Biochem Mol Biol       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 4.714

6.  RIN4 interacts with Pseudomonas syringae type III effector molecules and is required for RPM1-mediated resistance in Arabidopsis.

Authors:  David Mackey; Ben F Holt; Aaron Wiig; Jeffery L Dangl
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2002-03-22       Impact factor: 41.582

7.  Isoprenoid biosynthesis: the evolution of two ancient and distinct pathways across genomes.

Authors:  B M Lange; T Rujan; W Martin; R Croteau
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-11-21       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Male-derived butterfly anti-aphrodisiac mediates induced indirect plant defense.

Authors:  Nina E Fatouros; Colette Broekgaarden; Gabriella Bukovinszkine'Kiss; Joop J A van Loon; Roland Mumm; Martinus E Huigens; Marcel Dicke; Monika Hilker
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-07-14       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Successful herbivore attack due to metabolic diversion of a plant chemical defense.

Authors:  Ute Wittstock; Niels Agerbirk; Einar J Stauber; Carl Erik Olsen; Michael Hippler; Thomas Mitchell-Olds; Jonathan Gershenzon; Heiko Vogel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-03-29       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Tomato linalool synthase is induced in trichomes by jasmonic acid.

Authors:  Chris C N van Schie; Michel A Haring; Robert C Schuurink
Journal:  Plant Mol Biol       Date:  2007-04-12       Impact factor: 4.076

View more
  58 in total

1.  Eavesdropping on gall-plant interactions: the importance of the signaling function of induced volatiles.

Authors:  Gudryan J Barônio; Denis Coelho Oliveira
Journal:  Plant Signal Behav       Date:  2019-09-20

Review 2.  Plants are not sitting ducks waiting for herbivores to eat them.

Authors:  Simcha Lev-Yadun
Journal:  Plant Signal Behav       Date:  2016-05-03

3.  Risk of herbivore attack and heritability of ontogenetic trajectories in plant defense.

Authors:  Sofía Ochoa-López; Roberto Rebollo; Kasey E Barton; Juan Fornoni; Karina Boege
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  The Salivary Protein Repertoire of the Polyphagous Spider Mite Tetranychus urticae: A Quest for Effectors.

Authors:  Wim Jonckheere; Wannes Dermauw; Vladimir Zhurov; Nicky Wybouw; Jan Van den Bulcke; Carlos A Villarroel; Robert Greenhalgh; Mike Grbić; Rob C Schuurink; Luc Tirry; Geert Baggerman; Richard M Clark; Merijn R Kant; Bartel Vanholme; Gerben Menschaert; Thomas Van Leeuwen
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 5.911

5.  Antixenosis and antibiosis response of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae).

Authors:  Marie Shoorooei; Abdul Hadi Hoseinzadeh; Reza Maali-Amiri; Hossein Allahyari; Masoud Torkzadeh-Mahani
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 2.132

6.  Soil microbial species loss affects plant biomass and survival of an introduced bacterial strain, but not inducible plant defences.

Authors:  Viola Kurm; Wim H van der Putten; Ana Pineda; W H Gera Hol
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 4.357

7.  Distinct defensive activity of phenolics and phenylpropanoid pathway genes in different cotton varieties toward chewing pests.

Authors:  Garima Dixit; Alka Srivastava; Krishan Mohan Rai; Rama Shanker Dubey; Rakesh Srivastava; Praveen Chandra Verma
Journal:  Plant Signal Behav       Date:  2020-04-14

8.  Oral Secretions Affect HIPVs Induced by Generalist (Mythimna loreyi) and Specialist (Parnara guttata) Herbivores in Rice.

Authors:  Islam S Sobhy; Atsushi Miyake; Tomonori Shinya; Ivan Galis
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 2.626

9.  Genome streamlining in a minute herbivore that manipulates its host plant.

Authors:  Robert Greenhalgh; Wannes Dermauw; Joris J Glas; Stephane Rombauts; Nicky Wybouw; Jainy Thomas; Juan M Alba; Ellen J Pritham; Saioa Legarrea; René Feyereisen; Yves Van de Peer; Thomas Van Leeuwen; Richard M Clark; Merijn R Kant
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 8.140

10.  Down-regulation of plant defence in a resident spider mite species and its effect upon con- and heterospecifics.

Authors:  Diogo P Godinho; Arne Janssen; Teresa Dias; Cristina Cruz; Sara Magalhães
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 3.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.