Behavioral Adaptations in Insects to Plant Allelochemicals

Tallamy, Douglas W.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1865-1_8

Cited by 23 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 116 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specialists reduce the diversity of allelochemicals they ingest and gain an energetic advantage over polyphagous species by having smaller, less expensive detoxication systems. Cost reduction in specialists is further enhanced by target site insensitivity (Berenbaum 1986), specific excretion of major dietary allelochemicals (Maddrell and Gardiner 1976), and behavioral modification (Tallamy 1986). Studies designed to measure metabolic loads of detoxication in insects and to test the hypothesis have had equivocal results; the issue continues to be debated (Schoonhoven and Meerman 1978, Scriber 1981, Neal 1987, Appel and Martin 1992, Cresswell et al 1992, Rausher 1992 and references therein, Berenbaum and Zanger!…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritional Costs of a Plant Secondary Metabolite Explain Selective Foraging by Ruffed Grouse

Guglielmo¹,

Karasov²,

Jakubas³

1996

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant secondary metabolites (PSMs) are commonly thought to deter vertebrate herbivores by being toxic or by reducing nutrient assimilation. An alternative, complementary hypothesis is that PSMs may influence herbivore forage selection at subtoxic levels by imposing high detoxication costs post absorption. Many studies of insect herbivores have been undertaken to measure the metabolic load of detoxication as it relates to host—plant specialization, but results have been equivocal and the subject of much debate. Some recent studies of vertebrate herbivores indicate that metabolism of PSMs can impose a cost by increasing nutrient losses due to conjugation of PSMs to endogenous materials, and by upsetting pH homeostasis. In this study, we demonstrate that detoxication costs in Ruffed Grouse are substantial, and are reduced by selective foraging. In winter, Ruffed Grouse feed preferentially on quaking aspen with relatively low levels of coniferyl benzoate (CB) in staminate flower buds. We collected aspen buds with low—and high—CB levels and conducted feeding trials with captive Ruffed Grouse that had been acclimated to an aspen bud diet. We measured nutrient utilization efficiencies and excretion of detoxication conjugates. Grouse assimilated 24% less energy from high— vs. low—CB buds. Using a nutritional model, we determined that the reduction of energy utilization efficiency was mainly due to dilution of the diet by CB, and not by digestive inhibition. As CB intake increased, grouse excreted more glucuronic acid and ornithine (two major detoxication conjugates), resulting in an energetic cost of 10% to 14% of metabolizable energy intake for low— and high—CB buds, respectively. Conjugation with the amino acid ornithine increased minimum nitrogen requirement by 68% to 90% for low— and high—CB buds, respectively. Ammonium excretion also increased with CB intake, indicating an upset of pH homeostasis. Thus, detoxication costs were relatively high and increased with higher CB intake. Ruffed Grouse preference for low—CB, high—protein aspen buds in nature appears to be related to lower utilization efficiency and higher detoxication costs associated with high CB concentrations. The importance of detoxication cost to herbivores must be more thoroughly evaluated and integrated into existing models of herbivore foraging behvior.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritional Costs of a Plant Secondary Metabolite Explain Selective Foraging by Ruffed Grouse

Guglielmo¹,

Karasov²,

Jakubas³

1996

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Insects exhibit diverse behaviours for modifying plants before or after feeding and ovipositing (Tallamy, 1986; Dussourd, 1993; Karban & Agrawal, 2002). These behaviours serve a variety of functions that include forming a safe haven for feeding, improving leaf nutrition, etc.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do canal-cutting behaviours facilitate host-range expansion by insect herbivores?

Dussourd

2009

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the escalation-radiation model of co-evolution, insect herbivores that acquire the ability to circumvent a plant defence enter a new adaptive zone and increase in species. How herbivore counter-adaptations to plant defences might lead to speciation is poorly understood. Studies of nymphalid butterflies suggest that the evolution of a broadened host range may be a critical step. This paper examines if leaf-feeding insects capable of deactivating defensive plant canals with canal cutting often have broad host ranges. A total of 94 species of canal-cutting insects were identified from the literature, including eight new canal cutters described in this paper. Only 27% of canal cutters with known host ranges are generalists that feed on plants in multiple families. The proportion of generalist canal cutters is similar or lower than estimates of generalists among phytophagous insects overall. Only five species, at most, of the canal-cutting generalists feed exclusively on plants with secretory canals. The paucity of generalists can be attributed in part to the considerable taxonomic distance separating canal-bearing plant families and to their corresponding chemical distinctiveness. The dependence of many canal-cutting species on host chemicals for defence would also favour specialization.

show abstract

“…Several species of cerambycid beetles that attack vigorous host plants girdle the stems or branches of the host before they deposit eggs (partial review by Hanks 1999). Again, wounding of plant tissue by the ovipositor of membracid bugs may block host plant defences (Tallamy 1986), as well as giving access to feeding sites (Wood 1976).…”

Section: Modifications By Parentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modification of adverse conditions by insects

Danks¹

2002

Oikos

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many insects modify their environments directly, rather than merely choosing available sites that are already favourable. The modifications are carried out by making excavations in soil and other substrates, constructing feeding or resting shelters, inducing plant responses such as galls, aggregating, building colonial nests, and through parental actions. Such environmental modifications are briefly reviewed and related to the conditions that they modify. Some of the modifications offset physical factors such as dryness or flooding and cool or freezing temperatures. Others reduce the effects of natural enemies or enhance food resources. These effects have seldom been quantified and much of the evidence is anecdotal, but preliminary generalizations are made from existing information. Although potential roles often overlap, excavations and shelters protect especially against physical factors, while aggregations, colonies and parental actions more often influence the acquisition of resources. How modifications affect the impact of natural enemies differs among different kinds of enemies and is especially difficult to test. In any event, adaptive local modifications of the environment by insects are shown to be widely distributed and important. However, their specific roles have often been assumed rather than tested, or have been overlooked along with the potential interdependence of different effects. Therefore, environmental modifications should be considered explicitly and examined with greater rigour during the study of insect life cycles.

show abstract

Behavioral Adaptations in Insects to Plant Allelochemicals

Cited by 23 publications

References 116 publications

Nutritional Costs of a Plant Secondary Metabolite Explain Selective Foraging by Ruffed Grouse

Nutritional Costs of a Plant Secondary Metabolite Explain Selective Foraging by Ruffed Grouse

Do canal-cutting behaviours facilitate host-range expansion by insect herbivores?

Modification of adverse conditions by insects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About