Avoidance of intraspecific competition via host modification in a grazing, fruit-eating insect

Marchand, Dorothée; McNeil, Jeremy N.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.03.017

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, leaves with interrupted red margins may be viewed less favorably by browsing potential herbivores, both insects and mammals, which may refrain from attacking or occupying already damaged leaves. This phenomenon would parallel reports such as: avoidance of frugivores of eating damaged fruit (especially in large fruit) (Janzen, 1977;Herrera, 1982;Manzur and Courtney, 1984;Borowicz, 1988;Buchholz and Levey, 1990;Cipollini and Stiles, 1993;Marchand and McNeil, 2004), pollinators that prefer plants with undamaged leaves over plants with damaged leaves (Lehtilä and Strauss, 1997), and herbivores that avoid damaged or occupied leaves (Benson et al, 1975;Gilbert, 1980;Shapiro, 1981a,b;Williams and Gilbert, 1981;Hartley and Lawton, 1987;Ralphs et al, 1997;Papaj and Newsom, 2005;Soltau et al, 2009). Although in fruits and flowers there are no contour marks as in the leaves that we discuss, the sensing of damage by herbivores by various means is the uniting principle.…”

Section: Highlighting Previous Damage To Deter Future Herbivoresmentioning

confidence: 60%

Red/purple leaf margin coloration: Potential ecological and physiological functions

Hughes

Lev‐Yadun

2015

Environmental and Experimental Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Highlighting Previous Damage To Deter Future Herbivoresmentioning

confidence: 60%

Red/purple leaf margin coloration: Potential ecological and physiological functions

Hughes

Lev‐Yadun

2015

Environmental and Experimental Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…13,14,37,44,46,47,62,63,65,70 The possible benefits for the signaler plant are: (1) increase in the advertisement of the fruit-bearing plant and attraction from longer distances of more frugivores per fruit unit; 7,17,18,21,22 (2) reduction in the consumption of immature seeds; (3) reduction in the abortion of damaged fruits, before seed maturation, because wounding of fruits can stimulate ethylene production and consequent abscission; 102 (4) reduction in the possible damage to fruits, which might later decrease seed dispersal because frugivores avoid eating damaged fruits (especially in large fruits). [103][104][105][106][107][108][109] The frugivores benefit from the signal because: (1) they avoid poisonous fruits that contain harmful substances or spiny ones, and (2) they refrain from damaging future fruit resources in their home range.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unripe red fruits may be aposematic

Lev‐Yadun

Ne’eman

Izhaki

2009

Plant Signaling & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

leaves, [28][29][30][31] and these color changes were proposed to serve physiological functions (see refs. 32 and 33), anti herbivory functions (see refs. 29, 34 and 35) or both (see refs. 36-38). Color changes also characterize old aposematic spines, thorns and prickles of many taxa that lose their conspicuousness when the organ they protect matures and needs less defense. 39Aposematic coloration, a well-known phenomenon in animals (e.g., see refs. 40-42), has recently been shown to be common also in thorny plants and in plants that mimic them 39,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] as well as in certain poisonous plants, some of which proposed to be aposematic earlier. 13,14,[36][37][38]46,47,51,[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] In animals, aposematic coloration is usually red, orange, yellow, black and white or combinations of these, which protect unpalatable, dangerous or poisonous prey species. [40][41][42] The similarity between aposematic colors in poisonous insects and ripe fruits has already been demonstrated, 68,69 but their aposematic role in fruits was not considered by Herrera 68 and was not found to operate in artificial fruit-like objects introduced to domestic chicks. 69 Several types of defensive aposematic coloration have been proposed to occur in fruits that repel large herbivores: (1) brightly colored poisonous fruits; 13,14,60,65 (2) pods of several wild annual legumes (Lathyrus ochrus, Pisum humile, P. elatius and Vicia peregrina) have conspicuous reddish spots arranged along them that appear to mimic aposematic lepidopteran caterpillars and may repel various herbivores; 37,46,47,70 (3) colorful (yellow, red, purple or various combinations of these) aposematic thorn-like unripe soft fruits in several wild Erodium species and in Sinapis alba growing in Israel. 44 Here we report that conspicuous red but unripe fruit of several plant species are poisonous or unpalatable. We propose that in such cases fruit color may contribute to the general attraction of frugivores to the plant but at the same time serve as an aposematic IntroductionAdvertisement is an important aspect of plant-animal relationships because it attracts pollinators to flowers 1-4 and seed-dispersing frugivores to ripe fruit. [5][6][7][8][9][10] Fruit color is the typical visual signal that plants use to communicate with frugivores, 5,6,8,[11][12][13][14] although other plant parts (branches of the raceme, panicle or leaves) may also contribute to this signaling system. 5,7 Multicolored fruit displays, where fruits first change their color from green to a conspicuous color when they have reached full size but are still unripe and later to a second conspicuous color upon ripening, have been studied in plants of several ecosystems. 7,8,11,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Some studies indicated that bicolored fruit displays enhance seed dispersal 7,11,[15][16][17][18][19][21][22][23] but other studies did not. 11,15,16,19,23 Thus, it seems that promotion of dispersal can only partly explain multicolo...

show abstract

“…The frass of several Lepidoptera species was also found to act as an oviposition deterrent to subsequent herbivores (Jones & Finch, 1987;Hashem et al, 2013;Molnár et al, 2017). Second, herbivory can induce changes in the physical and chemical characteristics of attacked plants (Marchand & McNeil, 2004;Blenn et al, 2012;Fatouros et al, 2012;Hilker & Fatouros, 2015;Abdala-Roberts et al, 2019), thereby reducing their attractivity to mated females.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous herbivory generally reduces the performance of later arriving herbivores on the same plant (Moreira et al, 2018), although the opposite effect can also be observed (Sarmento et al, 2011;Godinho et al, 2016). Reduced performance of herbivores on previously damaged plants could occur through both exploitative competition -whereby the first attacking herbivore depletes the resource available to forthcoming herbivores (Kaplan & Denno, 2007) -or through changes in plant traits (Hilker & Fatouros, 2015;Abdala-Roberts et al, 2019;Marchand & McNeil, 2004;Blenn et al, 2012;Fatouros et al, 2012). By triggering an hormonal response and inducing the production of anti-herbivore defenses as well as resource reallocation in plant tissues, herbivory may induce changes in plant quality that generally reduce the performance of late coming herbivores (Agrawal, 1999;Abdala-Roberts et al, 2019;Wratten et al, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Host-mediated, cross-generational intraspecific competition in a herbivore species

Castagneyrol

Halder

Kadiri

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conspecific insect herbivores co-occurring on the same host plant interact both directly through interference competition and indirectly through exploitative competition, plant-mediated and enemy-mediated interactions. The situation is however less clear when interactions among conspecific insect herbivores are separated in time over the course of the same growing season such as in multivoltine herbivore species. We hypothesized that early season herbivory would result in reduced egg deposition and lower next generation herbivore performance on previously attacked plants. We experimentally tested this hypothesis in a choice experiment with box tree moth females, Cydalima perspectalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), offered box trees, Buxus sempervirens L. (Buxaceae), that had been, or not, previously defoliated by BTM larvae earlier in the season. We further compared the performance of next generation larvae on previously damaged vs undamaged plants. Prior herbivory had no effect on egg laying behaviour, but next generation larval weight was significantly lower in previously damaged plants. There was a negative correlation between the number of egg clutches per plant and larval performance. Altogether, our findings reveal that early season herbivory reduces the performance of conspecific individuals on the same host plant later in the plant growing season, and that this time-lagged intraspecific competition results from a mismatch between female oviposition preference and the performance of its offspring.

show abstract

Avoidance of intraspecific competition via host modification in a grazing, fruit-eating insect

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Red/purple leaf margin coloration: Potential ecological and physiological functions

Red/purple leaf margin coloration: Potential ecological and physiological functions

Unripe red fruits may be aposematic

Host-mediated, cross-generational intraspecific competition in a herbivore species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About