| Literature DB >> 28178961 |
Dinesh Kafle1, Anne Hänel2, Tobias Lortzing3, Anke Steppuhn3, Susanne Wurst2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Herbivore-induced changes in plant traits can cause indirect interactions between spatially and/or temporally separated herbivores that share the same host plant. Feeding modes of the herbivores is one of the major factors that influence the outcome of such interactions. Here, we tested whether the effects of transient aboveground herbivory for seven days by herbivores of different feeding guilds on tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum) alters their interaction with spatially as well as temporally separated belowground herbivores.Entities:
Keywords: Above- and belowground interaction; Feeding guilds; Induced plant defense; Priming; Resistance; Tolerance
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28178961 PMCID: PMC5299658 DOI: 10.1186/s12898-017-0115-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol ISSN: 1472-6785 Impact factor: 2.964
Fig. 1Shoot (a) and root (b) biomass (mean ± SE; n = 15) of the tomato plants following herbivory treatments. Treatments: Ctrl: control (no herbivory), Nem nematode only, Aph aphids only, Aph + Nem aphids followed by nematodes, Spo S. exigua larvae only, Spo + Nem S. exigua larvae followed by nematodes. Different letters above the bar indicate the significant difference in their mean. Aboveground herbivory (AGH) was applied for a week and belowground herbivory (BGH) was applied for two weeks while there was a lag phase of a week between AGH and BGH in sequential herbivory treatments
The effect of above- and belowground herbivory treatments on C and N concentration (percentage) and their ratios in leaves and roots of the tomato plants
| Tissue | Concentration (Mean ± SE; n = 15) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ctrl | Nem | Aph | Aph + Nem | Spo | Spo + Nem | |
|
| ||||||
| C | 38.99 ± 0.36a | 38.60 ± 0.38a | 38.66 ± 0.43a | 38.37 ± 0.5a | 38.61 ± 0.38a | 38.56 ± 0.35a |
| N | 2.89 ± 0.08b | 2.92 ± 0.10b | 2.98 ± 0.08ab | 2.75 ± 0.04b | 3.03 ± 0.09ab | 3.27 ± 0.08a |
| C/N | 13.63 ± 0.41a | 13.41 ± 0.41a | 13.11 ± 0.38ab | 14.00 ± 0.25a | 12.94 ± 0.41ab | 11.88 ± 0.29b |
|
| ||||||
| C | 41.86 ± 0.56ab | 43.37 ± 0.42a | 41.06 ± 0.69b | 43.05 ± 0.43ab | 37.94 ± 0.51c | 42.64 ± 0.56ab |
| N | 2.46 ± 0.08b | 3.02 ± 0.04a | 2.61 ± 0.07b | 2.68 ± 0.06b | 2.53 ± 0.06b | 3.08 ± 0.05a |
| C/N | 17.18 ± 0.48a | 14.38 ± 0.21cd | 15.81 ± 0.36abc | 16.15 ± 0.37ab | 15.1 ± 0.39bcd | 13.88 ± 0.21d |
Treatments: Ctrl: control (no herbivory), Nem nematode only, Aph aphids only, Aph + Nem aphids followed by nematodes, Spo S. exigua larvae only, Spo + Nem S. exigua larvae followed by nematodes. AGH and BGH stand for above- and belowground herbivory respectively. (AGH. df: 2, 84; BGH. df: 1, 84; AGH:BGH. df: 2, 84). Italic fonts indicate the significant effects (P < 0.05) of the treatments. Mean ± SE followed by different letters are significantly different from each other (Tukey HSD test: P < 0.05)
Fig. 2Leaf (a, b) and root (c, d) SA and JA content of the tomato plants (mean ± SE; n = 8) following herbivory treatments. Treatments: Ctrl: control (no herbivory), Nem nematode only, Aph aphids only, Aph + Nem aphids followed by nematodes, Spo S. exigua larvae only, Spo + Nem S. exigua larvae followed by nematodes. Different letters above the bar indicate the significant difference in their mean. Aboveground herbivory (AGH) was applied for a week and belowground herbivory (BGH) was applied for two weeks while there was a lag phase of a week between AGH and BGH in sequential herbivory treatments