4.7 Article

Herbivory-mediated pollinator limitation: negative impacts of induced volatiles on plant-pollinator interactions

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 92, 期 9, 页码 1769-1780

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/10-1945.1

关键词

Cajacay province; Peru; constancy; cost of defenses; herbivory; indirect defenses; induced resistance; pollination; pollinator limitation; Solanaceae; wild tomato (Solanum peruvianum); Peruvian Andes

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0717139]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [PO 1215-3.1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although induced plant responses to herbivory are well studied as mechanisms of resistance, how induction shapes community interactions and ultimately plant fitness is still relatively unknown. Using a wild tomato, Solanum peruvianum, native to the Peruvian Andes, we evaluated the disruption of pollination as a potential ecological cost of induced responses. More specifically, we tested the hypothesis that metabolic changes in herbivore-attacked plants, such as the herbivore-induced emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), alter pollinator behavior and consequentially affect plant fitness. We conducted a series of manipulative field experiments to evaluate the role of herbivore-induced vegetative and floral VOC emissions as mechanisms by which herbivory affects pollinator behavior. In field surveys and bioassays in the plants' native habitat, we found that real and simulated herbivory (methyl jasmonate application) reduced attractiveness of S. peruvianum flowers to their native pollinators. We show that reduced pollinator preference, not resource limitation due to leaf tissue removal, resulted in reduced seed set. Solitary bee pollinators use floral plant volatiles, emitted in response to herbivory or methyl jasmonate treatment, as cues to avoid inflorescences on damaged plants. This herbivory-induced pollinator limitation can be viewed as a general cost of induced plant responses as well as a specific cost of herbivory-induced volatile emission.

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