Mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage:what do we know?

Tiffin, Peter

doi:10.1023/a:1010881317261

Cited by 326 publications

(353 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

334

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The increase in basal branching we observed resembles the regrowth response of some plants to herbivory. However, with herbivore damage, the increased basal branching is due to a loss of apical dominance from clipping of the primary inflorescence (Tiffin, 2000); in our experiments, there was no visible damage to the inflorescences.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

A Developmental Response to Pathogen Infection in Arabidopsis

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present evidence that susceptible Arabidopsis plants accelerate their reproductive development and alter their shoot architecture in response to three different pathogen species. We infected 2-week-old Arabidopsis seedlings with two bacterial pathogens, Pseudomonas syringae and Xanthomonas campestris, and an oomycete, Peronospora parasitica. Infection with each of the three pathogens reduced time to flowering and the number of aerial branches on the primary inflorescence. In the absence of competition, P. syringae and P. parasitica infection also increased basal branch development. Flowering time and branch responses were affected by the amount of pathogen present. Large amounts of pathogen caused the most dramatic changes in the number of branches on the primary inflorescence, but small amounts of P. syringae caused the fastest flowering and the production of the most basal branches. RPS2 resistance prevented large changes in development when it prevented visible disease symptoms but not at high pathogen doses and when substantial visible hypersensitive response occurred. These experiments indicate that phylogenetically disparate pathogens cause similar changes in the development of susceptible Arabidopsis. We propose that these changes in flowering time and branch architecture constitute a general developmental response to pathogen infection that may affect tolerance of and/or resistance to disease.One way that plants can respond to pathogen infection is through an induced resistance response called R gene resistance. When a plant has an R gene that confers resistance to an infecting pathogen, the plant initiates extensive biochemical and structural defense mechanisms, including the production of phytoalexins and pathogenesis-related proteins, the strengthening of cell walls, local cell death, and systemic acquired resistance (Dangl and Jones, 2001). Plants that are "susceptible," i.e. do not have R gene resistance to a particular pathogen strain, exhibit many defenses similar to R gene resistance, but are slower in their expression of these responses (Yang et al., 1997;Maleck et al., 2000). Like R gene-resistant plants, susceptible plants have increased levels of salicylic acid (SA; O'Donnell et al., 2001), cell death, and defense mechanisms characteristic of systemic acquired resistance (Glazebrook, 2001). In addition, infected, susceptible plants can exhibit increased levels of jasmonic acid (JA), auxin, and ethylene (Dong, 1998;Lund et al., 1998;O'Donnell et al., 2003).These responses of plants to pathogen infection bear some similarity to responses to abiotic stress. Both can involve cell death (Beers and McDowell, 2001), ethylene, SA, and JA (Wang et al., 2002) and cause changes in the expression of some of the same transcription factors (Chen et al., 2002). One way in which plants respond to abiotic stresses is to accelerate their transition to reproduction. Researchers have noted that plants flower faster in response to shade, overcrowding, low nutrients, drought, heat, and low light quality (Casal ...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

A Developmental Response to Pathogen Infection in Arabidopsis

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because each character that contributes to tolerance may face different evolutionary constraints, examining constraints on operationally defined tolerance may be very difficult. Thus, understanding the evolution of tolerance, and constraints on the simultaneous evolution of resistance and tolerance (e.g., Mauricio et al 1997, Tiffin and Rausher 1999, Pilson 2000b will require elucidation of characters conferring the ability to tolerate herbivory (Maurico 2000, Tiffin 2000.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of mechanisms have been proposed to increase plant compensatory ability (for review, see Strauss and Agrawal 1999, Kotanen and Rosenthal 2000, Tiffin 2000. Clearly the best explored of these mechanisms is the activation of dormant meristems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compensation for Herbivory in Wild Sunflower: Response to Simulated Damage by the Head-Clipping Weevil

Pilson

Decker

2002

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Herbivore damage is generally detrimental to plant fitness, and the evolutionary response of plant populations to damage can involve either increased resistance or increased tolerance. While characters that contribute to resistance, such as secondary chemicals and trichomes, are relatively well understood, characters that contribute to a plant's ability to tolerate damage have received much less attention. Using Helianthus annuus (wild sunflower) and simulated damage of Haplorhynchites aeneus (head-clipping weevil) as a model system, we examined morphological characters and developmental processes that contribute to compensatory ability. We performed a factorial experiment that included three levels of damage (none, the first two, or the first four inflorescences were clipped with scissors) and eight sires each mated to four dams. We found that plants compensated fully for simulated head-clipper damage and that there was no variation among plant families in compensatory ability: seed production and mean seed mass did not vary among treatments, and sire ϫ treatment interactions were not significant. Plants used four mechanisms to compensate for damage: (1) Clipped plants produced significantly more inflorescences than unclipped plants. Plants produced these additional inflorescences on higher order branches at the end of the flowering season. (2) Clipped plants filled significantly more seeds in their remaining heads than did unclipped plants. (3) Clipped plants, because they effectively flowered later than unclipped plants, were less susceptible to damage by seedfeeding herbivores other than Haplorhynchites. (4) In later heads, seed size was greater on clipped plants, which allowed mean seed size to be maintained in clipped plants. Although there was genetic variation among the families used in this experiment for most of the characters associated with compensation for damage (seed number, mean seed size, mean flowering date, length of the flowering period, and branching morphology), in analyses of these characters, no sire ϫ treatment interactions were significant indicating that all of the families relied on similar mechanisms to compensate for damage.

show abstract

“…For example, plants can tolerate damage by pathogens or herbivores in several different ways, by delaying the senescence of infected tissue or by increasing chlorophyll concentration and leaf size (12,13). Similar mechanisms are likely to be found for tolerating herbicides.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Rounding up the costs and benefits of herbicide use

Roy¹

2004

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage:what do we know?

Cited by 326 publications

References 65 publications

A Developmental Response to Pathogen Infection in Arabidopsis

A Developmental Response to Pathogen Infection in Arabidopsis

Compensation for Herbivory in Wild Sunflower: Response to Simulated Damage by the Head-Clipping Weevil

Rounding up the costs and benefits of herbicide use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About