2009
DOI: 10.1007/s12374-009-9073-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relationship Among Phenolic Contents, Seed Predation, and Physical Seed Traits in Mimosa bimucronata Plants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
15
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
1
15
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The negative impact of phenolic compounds on some phytophagous insects, including some beetles, is well documented (Hartley & Firn, 1989;Serratos et al, 1993;Harborne, 1994;Matsuki & MacLean, 1994;Hartley & Jones, 1997;Kestring et al, 2009). The negative impact of phenolic compounds on some phytophagous insects, including some beetles, is well documented (Hartley & Firn, 1989;Serratos et al, 1993;Harborne, 1994;Matsuki & MacLean, 1994;Hartley & Jones, 1997;Kestring et al, 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The negative impact of phenolic compounds on some phytophagous insects, including some beetles, is well documented (Hartley & Firn, 1989;Serratos et al, 1993;Harborne, 1994;Matsuki & MacLean, 1994;Hartley & Jones, 1997;Kestring et al, 2009). The negative impact of phenolic compounds on some phytophagous insects, including some beetles, is well documented (Hartley & Firn, 1989;Serratos et al, 1993;Harborne, 1994;Matsuki & MacLean, 1994;Hartley & Jones, 1997;Kestring et al, 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is not surprising, given the different investment of plants into the chemical and mechanical defences of seeds versus mesocarp. Seeds are often protected by high concentrations of secondary compounds (Kestring et al 2009, Rehr et al 1973, Rosenthal et al 1977 and may be attacked by a rather narrow group of specialized predators with detoxifying counter-adaptations whereas such protection is often effective against generalists (Sallabanks & Courtney 1992). Mesocarp is less chemically defended than seeds, in woody plants especially (Ehrlen & Eriksson 1993), where the protective function is compromised to increase palatability to animal seed dispersers at least when fruit is ripe (Westcott & Graham 2000, Willson et al 1989).…”
Section: Host Specificitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the C. retusa populations, the positive correlation between the accumulation of oxidized phenols and the rate of seed predation suggests induced chemical defense [14] which, particularly concentrated in unviable seeds, increase as a response to the increase of the predation rate by U. ornatrix larvae. Predation is a strong selective force; a single developing larva consumes all seeds in the fruit and predation, which is low in drought, increases significantly during the rainy season, reaching up to 80% of all seeds produced in certain populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The somatic polymorphism is a phenomenon relatively common in pioneer species of the coastal dunes [5] [13] and it has been interpreted as an adaptation to greater hostility and variability of environmental conditions that characterize the habitat [14] [15]. Since autogamy tends to reduce the genetic polymorphism [16], polymorphic changes between habitats in self-compatible species may not reflect genetic differences between populations, but differences in selfing rates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%