4.7 Article

Chewing sandpaper: grit, plant apparency, and plant defense in sand-entrapping plants

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 97, 期 4, 页码 826-833

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/15-1696.1

关键词

Abronia latifolia; external defenses; Navarretia mellita; physical defenses; plant apparency; plant defense; psammophory; sand armor

类别

资金

  1. NSF-GRFP
  2. Davis Botanical Society
  3. Jastro-Shields fund
  4. Center for Population Biology
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology [1456225] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sand entrapment on plant surfaces, termed psammophory or sand armor, is a phylogenetically and geographically widespread trait. The functional significance of this phenomenon has been poorly investigated. Sand and soil are nonnutritive and difficult for herbivores to process, as well as visually identical to the background. We experimentally investigated whether this sand coating physically protected the plant from herbivores or increased crypsis (e.g., decreased apparency to herbivores). We tested the former hypothesis by removing entrapped sand from stems, petioles, and leaves of the sand verbena Abronia latifolia and by supplementing natural sand levels in the honeyscented pincushion plant Navarretia mellita. Consistent with a physical defensive function, leaves with sand present or supplemented suffered less chewing herbivory than those with sand removed or left as is. To test a possible crypsis effect, we coated some sand verbena stems with green sand, matching the stem color, as well as others with brown sand to match the background color. Both suffered less chewing herbivory than controls with no sand and herbivory did not significantly differ between the colors, suggesting crypsis was not the driving resistance mechanism. Strong tests of plant apparency are rare; this experimental approach may be possible in other systems and represents one of few manipulative tests of this long-standing hypothesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据