Responses of a plant to soil-moisture changes as shown by guayule

Veihmeyer, F. J.; Hendrickson, A. H.

doi:10.3733/hilg.v30n20p621

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Allocation to differentiation includes process and product, so it includes cost of enzymes, transport, and storage structures involved in defense. Research shows that growth processes and secondary metabolism can compete for available photosynthate (Wadleigh et al 1946;Veihmeyer and Hendrickson 1961;Mooney and Chu 1974) and, thus, full carbon allocation to all functions cannot be met simultaneously (Lorio 1986).…”

Section: The Growth-differentiation Balance Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Out Of The Quagmire Of Plant Defense Hypotheses

Stamp

2003

The Quarterly Review of Biology

1,049

877

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several hypotheses, mainly Optimal Defense (OD), Carbon: Nutrient Balance (CNB), Growth Rate (GR), and Growth-Differentiation Balance (GDB), have individually served as frameworks for investigating the patterns of plant defense against herbivores, in particular the pattern of constitutive defense. The predictions and tests of these hypotheses have been problematic for a variety of reasons and have led to considerable confusion about the state of the "theory of plant defense." The primary contribution of the OD hypothesis is that it has served as the main framework for investigation of genotypic expression of plant defense, with the emphasis on allocation cost of defense. The primary contribution of the CNB hypothesis is that it has served as the main framework for investigation of how resources affect phenotypic expression of plant defense, often with studies concerned about allocation cost of defense. The primary contribution of the GR hypothesis is that it explains how intrinsic growth rate of plants shaped evolutionarily by resource availability affects defensive patterns. The primary contribution of the expanded GDB hypothesis is that it recognizes the constant physiological tradeoff between growth and differentiation at the cellular and tissue levels relative to the selective pressures of resource availability, including explicitly taking into account plant tolerance of damage by enemies. A clearer understanding of these hypotheses and what we have learned from investigations that use them can facilitate development of well-designed experiments that address the gaps in our knowledge of plant defense.

show abstract

Section: The Growth-differentiation Balance Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Out Of The Quagmire Of Plant Defense Hypotheses

Stamp

2003

The Quarterly Review of Biology

1,049

877

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Allocation to differentiation includes cost of enzymes, transport and storage structures involved in defense. Growth and secondary metabolism can compete for available photosynthate (Wadleigh et al 1946, Veihmeyer and Hendrickson 1961, Mooney and Chu 1974), and so there is a trade‐off for carbon allocation (Lorio 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the growth–differentiation balance hypothesis be tested rigorously?

Stamp

2004

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth Á /differentiation balance (GDB) hypothesis (as elaborated by Herms and Mattson) provides a framework for examining the impact of a resource gradient on the constant tradeoff between growth and differentiation in cells and tissues of plants, in particular with the consequences for plant defense. The GDB hypothesis, which is the most mature of the hypotheses of plant defensive levels, has not been tested directly. Examination of the requirements for a rigorous test indicates that, like the other hypotheses of plant defense, it cannot be tested directly. Furthermore, rigorously testing the primary derivative hypotheses, while possible, would require considerable methodological effort, on a scale not previously attempted for tests of plant defense, which is likely to discourage researchers, and understandably so, even though the GDB hypothesis warrants methodical investigation due to its potential explanatory power. Although farther removed from the abstract model (i.e. the GDB framework), other derivative hypotheses can be tested, but doing so will require thoughtful consideration and acknowledgement of that. Study of a few carefully chosen systems (i.e. plant species) may provide considerable insight and potentially useful refinement of the GDB framework.The growth Á/differentiation balance (GDB) hypothesis predicts how plants allocate between differentiationrelated processes and growth-related processes in different environmental conditions (Loomis 1932(Loomis , 1953. Growth is the production of roots, stems and leaves, or any process that requires substantial cell division and elongation. In contrast, differentiation is the enhancement of the structure or function of existing cells. Some examples of differentiation-related processes are secondary metabolism, trichome production and thickening of leaf cuticle, all of which can limit herbivory (Herms and Mattson 1992). Allocation to differentiation includes cost of enzymes, transport and storage structures involved in defense. Growth and secondary metabolism can compete for available photosynthate (Wadleigh et al. 1946, Veihmeyer and Hendrickson 1961, Mooney and Chu 1974, and so there is a trade-off for carbon allocation (Lorio 1986).The GDB hypothesis predicts that any factor that slows growth more than it slows photosynthesis can increase the internal resources available for allocation to differentiation (Loomis 1932(Loomis , 1953. For instance, growth is slowed by limitation of nutrients and water, whereas photosynthesis is less sensitive to such shortages (reviewed by Herms and Mattson 1992). Consequently, carbohydrates accumulate beyond growth demands and, thus, may be converted to secondary metabolites, with little additional cost to the plant, at least in terms of soil nutrients. Herms and Mattson's (1992) expansion of the GDB hypothesis provides an explanation for phenotypic variation in concentrations of secondary metabolites in plants and for predicting the consequences of that variation on plant Á/invertebrate herbivore interactions. Furtherm...

show abstract

“…well-defended/slow-growing species are replaced by poorly defended/fast-growing species). The growth-differentiation balance hypothesis states that as growth and defence processes compete for available nutrients (Wadleigh et al, 1946;Veihmeyer & Hendrickson, 1961;Mooney & Chu, 1974), there are trade-offs between allocating nutrients towards growth or defence mechanisms (Lorio, 1986). Overall, these two hypotheses predict that increasing N r -deposition rates lead to decreased allocation to C-based defence metabolites (Herms & Mattson, 1992;Jones & Hartley, 1999).…”

Section: Primary Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of nitrogen deposition on forest and lake food webs in nitrogen‐limited environments

Meunier

Gundale

Sánchez

et al. 2015

Global Change Biology

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased reactive nitrogen (Nr ) deposition has raised the amount of N available to organisms and has greatly altered the transfer of energy through food webs, with major consequences for trophic dynamics. The aim of this review was to: (i) clarify the direct and indirect effects of Nr deposition on forest and lake food webs in N-limited biomes, (ii) compare and contrast how aquatic and terrestrial systems respond to increased Nr deposition, and (iii) identify how the nutrient pathways within and between ecosystems change in response to Nr deposition. We present that Nr deposition releases primary producers from N limitation in both forest and lake ecosystems and raises plants' N content which in turn benefits herbivores with high N requirements. Such trophic effects are coupled with a general decrease in biodiversity caused by different N-use efficiencies; slow-growing species with low rates of N turnover are replaced by fast-growing species with high rates of N turnover. In contrast, Nr deposition diminishes below-ground production in forests, due to a range of mechanisms that reduce microbial biomass, and decreases lake benthic productivity by switching herbivore growth from N to phosphorus (P) limitation, and by intensifying P limitation of benthic fish. The flow of nutrients between ecosystems is expected to change with increasing Nr deposition. Due to higher litter production and more intense precipitation, more terrestrial matter will enter lakes. This will benefit bacteria and will in turn boost the microbial food web. Additionally, Nr deposition promotes emergent insects, which subsidize the terrestrial food web as prey for insectivores or by dying and decomposing on land. So far, most studies have examined Nr -deposition effects on the food web base, whereas our review highlights that changes at the base of food webs substantially impact higher trophic levels and therefore food web structure and functioning.

show abstract

Responses of a plant to soil-moisture changes as shown by guayule

Cited by 13 publications

References 13 publications

Out Of The Quagmire Of Plant Defense Hypotheses

Out Of The Quagmire Of Plant Defense Hypotheses

Can the growth–differentiation balance hypothesis be tested rigorously?

Impact of nitrogen deposition on forest and lake food webs in nitrogen‐limited environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About