4.6 Article

Root herbivore effects on above-ground herbivore, parasitoid and hyperparasitoid performance via changes in plant quality

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 1121-1130

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.01006.x

关键词

above-below-ground interactions; Cotesia glomerata; Lysibia nana; Pieris brassicae; plant-insect interactions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. Plants and insects are part of a complex multitrophic environment, in which they closely interact. However, most of the studies have been focused mainly on bi-tritrophic above-ground subsystems, hindering our understanding of the processes that affect multitrophic interactions in a more realistic framework. 2. We studied whether root herbivory by the fly Delia radicum can influence the development of the leaf feeder Pieris brassicae, its parasitoid Cotesia glomerata and its hyperparasitoid Lysibia nana, through changes in primary and secondary plant compounds. 3. In the presence of root herbivory, the development time of the leaf herbivore and the parasitoid significantly increased, and the adult size of the parasitoid and the hyperparasitoid were significantly reduced. The effects were stronger at low root fly densities than at high densities. 4. Higher glucosinolate (sinigrin) levels were recorded in plants exposed to below-ground herbivory, suggesting that the reduced performance of the above-ground insects was via reduced plant quality. Sinigrin contents were highest in plants exposed to low root fly densities, intermediate in plants exposed to high root fly densities and lowest in plants that were not exposed to root herbivory. 5. Our results show, for the first time, that root herbivory via changes in plant quality can reduce the performance of an above-ground multitrophic level food chain. This underlines the importance of integrating a broader range of above- and below-ground organisms to facilitate a better understanding of complex multitrophic interactions and interrelationships.

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

4.6
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