2016
DOI: 10.1111/nph.13875
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does plant apparency matter? Thirty years of data provide limited support but reveal clear patterns of the effects of plant chemistry on herbivores

Abstract: SummaryAccording to the plant-apparency hypothesis, apparent plants allocate resources to quantitative defenses that negatively affect generalist and specialist herbivores, while unapparent plants invest more in qualitative defenses that negatively affect nonadapted generalists. Although this hypothesis has provided a useful framework for understanding the evolution of plant chemical defense, there are many inconsistencies surrounding associated predictions, and it has been heavily criticized and deemed obsole… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

6
96
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(104 citation statements)
references
References 118 publications
6
96
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our finding that adult Q. robur trees exhibited higher leaf herbivory than saplings is in line with previous work showing that larger and more conspicuous plants (adults in this case) are easier to find and thus suffer more damage by herbivores 23, 24 . In addition, our findings indicated that saplings were more defended than adult trees, which also agrees with theoretical expectations of increased investment during the sapling and juvenile stages, and a subsequent reduction of defences in adults 20 (but see Barton & Koricheva 19 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Our finding that adult Q. robur trees exhibited higher leaf herbivory than saplings is in line with previous work showing that larger and more conspicuous plants (adults in this case) are easier to find and thus suffer more damage by herbivores 23, 24 . In addition, our findings indicated that saplings were more defended than adult trees, which also agrees with theoretical expectations of increased investment during the sapling and juvenile stages, and a subsequent reduction of defences in adults 20 (but see Barton & Koricheva 19 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…The reasons that these models do not hold up are often attributed to vast variation in the extrinsic environmental factors that exert selective pressures on plant populations, broad variation in life‐history among plant species, differences between interspecific and intraspecific variation, and variation in herbivore abundances across environmental gradients (Stamp ; Hahn and Maron ; Smilanich et al. ; Hahn et al. ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…; Smilanich et al. ). Despite the development of multiple ecological and evolutionary hypotheses that postulate a relationship between growth, reproduction, and resistance to herbivores (Feeny ; Coley et al.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…; Agrawal & Weber ; Smilanich et al . ). However, most studies have assessed this relationship at a single ontogenetic stage, disregarding the possibility that the effectiveness of these as anti‐herbivore defences can be relevant at other ontogenetic stages, while at the studied stage can have other functions.…”
Section: Drivers Of Ontogenetic Changes In Plant Defencementioning
confidence: 97%