Interspecific Interactions in Phytophagous Insects: Competition Reexamined and Resurrected

Denno, Robert F.; McClure, and M S; Ott, James R.

doi:10.1146/annurev.en.40.010195.001501

Cited by 658 publications

(496 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

473

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…and the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi (1,21) 0.0537 rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org Biol Lett 9: 20130341 feeding on barley (Hordeum vulgare) increased by 30% and 25%, respectively [5]. Over a longer time-scale, facilitative relationships may give way to competitive interactions [1], and sustained herbivory in this system may still eventually lead to competition between the two herbivores. Even a short-term positive interaction may, however, affect greatly on the host plant, because A. idaei is the principal vector of raspberry viruses [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plant-mediated interactions between insect herbivores feature prominently in most terrestrial ecosystems [1]. Above-and below-ground insect herbivores attacking the same plant can affect each other's performance [2,3] via induced changes in plant architecture [4], allocation of primary metabolites [5] or chemical defences [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While competition dominates plant-mediated herbivore interactions [1,6], facilitation-whereby herbivory by one species benefits another-has been reported in only 11% of interspecific interactions between above-ground herbivores [1]. Such facilitative interactions, however, tend to be asymmetric, benefiting only a single species [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reciprocal feeding facilitation between above- and below-ground herbivores

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interspecific interactions between insect herbivores predominantly involve asymmetric competition. By contrast, facilitation, whereby herbivory by one insect benefits another via induced plant susceptibility, is uncommon. Positive reciprocal interactions between insect herbivores are even rarer. Here, we reveal a novel case of reciprocal feeding facilitation between above-ground aphids (Amphorophora idaei) and root-feeding vine weevil larvae (Otiorhynchus sulcatus), attacking red raspberry (Rubus idaeus). Using two raspberry cultivars with varying resistance to these herbivores, we further demonstrate that feeding facilitation occurred regardless of host plant resistance. This positive reciprocal interaction operates via an, as yet, unreported mechanism. Specifically, the aphid induces compensatory growth, possibly as a prelude to greater resistance/ tolerance, whereas the root herbivore causes the plant to abandon this strategy. Both herbivores may ultimately benefit from this facilitative interaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reciprocal feeding facilitation between above- and below-ground herbivores

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimental manipulations demonstrate competition by showing that a change in population levels of one herbivore often leads to a change in population levels of another. The most recent review, covering 193 pair-wise species interactions (all major feeding guilds except pollinators and detritivores), cataloged the occurrence, frequency, symmetry, consequences, and mechanisms of competition (Denno et al, 1995). Interspecific competition occurred in 76% of interactions, was often asymmetric, and was frequent in most guilds.…”

Section: Paradigms Lost Paradigms Gainedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insect‐plant interactions on a planet of weeds

McEvoy

2002

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two conflicting views confront ecologists and evolutionary biologists on the degree of symmetry in interactions between plants and phytophagous insects. The symmetrical view holds that insects and plants have strong effects on one another's evolutionary and ecological dynamics. Thus, herbivores are regarded as a major influence on plant distribution and abundance in contemporary ecosystems, and coevolution is commonly invoked to explain adaptive radiation in plants and insects, host specialization in insects, as well as much of the morphological and chemical variety observed in plants. The asymmetrical view acknowledges that plants have major effects on insects, but claims that insects seldom impose significant effects on plants. Proponents of the asymmetric view tend to ignore or discount insect-plant interactions in communities and ecosystems altered by human impacts. If we recognize the scope and scale of human impacts, and ways in which these impacts change insect-plant interactions, then our views about symmetry or asymmetry in insect-plant interactions will change. To understand, predict, and manage insect herbivory we need to study it in all its manifestations. In particular, the study of interactions involving alien species is both an urgent priority for environmental management and potentially a source of ecological insights on the role of herbivores in plant population and community dynamics. A complete theory of insect/host plant interactions must explain and predict interactions both within and beyond the native range. Such a theory might guide efforts to deal with environmental problems stemming from rapid rates of extinction and homogenization of the world's biota.

show abstract

“…Thus, reproductive interference may alter the species composition in a community (Kuno, 1992), but such an effect can be brought also about by other competitive processes. For example, communities of plant-inhabiting arthropods are not only determined by direct competition, but also by indirect modes of competition, such as plant-mediated competition (Denno et al, 1995;Ohgushi, 2005;Denno and Kaplan, 2007) and predatormediated competition (Holt, 1977;Holt and Lawton, 1994;van Veen et al, 2006). Hence, to test for the occurrence of reproductive interference (RI) between species and its effect on the outcome of the interspecific competition, it is necessary not only to perform crossing experiments between (closely related) species and to compare the population dynamics in presence and absence of other species in the field , but also to carefully design population experiments in which other competitive processes, such as plant-mediated and predator-mediated competition, are excluded and in which the effect of RI is manipulated (for example, Kishi et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing for reproductive interference in the population dynamics of two congeneric species of herbivorous mites

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When phylogenetically close, two competing species may reproductively interfere, and thereby affect their population dynamics. We tested for reproductive interference (RI) between two congeneric haplo-diploid spider mites, Tetranychus evansi and Tetranychus urticae, by investigating their interspecific mating and their population dynamics when they competed on the same plants. They are both pests of tomato, but differ in the host plant defences that they suppress or induce. To reduce the effect of plant-mediated interaction, we used a mutant tomato plant lacking jasmonate-mediated anti-herbivore defences in the competition experiment. In addition, to manipulate the effect of RI, we introduced founder females already mated with conspecific males in mild RI treatments or founder, virgin females in strong RI treatments (in either case together with heterospecific and conspecific males). As females show first-male sperm precedence, RI should occur especially in the founder generation under strong RI treatments. We found that T. urticae outcompeted T. evansi in mild, but not in strong RI treatments. Thus, T. evansi interfered reproductively with T. urticae. This result was supported by crossing experiments showing frequent interspecific copulations, strong postmating reproductive isolation and a preference of T. evansi males to mate with T. urticae (instead of conspecific) females, whereas T. urticae males preferred conspecific females. We conclude that interspecific mating comes at a cost due to asymmetric mate preferences of males. Because RI by T. evansi can improve its competitiveness to T. urticae, we propose that RI partly explains why T. evansi became invasive in Europe where T. urticae is endemic.

show abstract

Interspecific Interactions in Phytophagous Insects: Competition Reexamined and Resurrected

Cited by 658 publications

References 56 publications

Reciprocal feeding facilitation between above- and below-ground herbivores

Reciprocal feeding facilitation between above- and below-ground herbivores

Insect‐plant interactions on a planet of weeds

Testing for reproductive interference in the population dynamics of two congeneric species of herbivorous mites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About