ArticleAnnals of botany2013
Specificity of extrafloral nectar induction by herbivores differs among native and invasive populations of tallow tree.
Article in Annals of botany, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid growth and defence evolution following multiple introductions.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- Herbivore-specific induction of indirect and direct defensive responses in leaves and roots.AoB PLANTS · 2019Article
- Specificity of herbivore-induced responses in an invasive species,Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Below-ground herbivory limits induction of extrafloral nectar by above-ground herbivores.Annals of botany · 2015Article
- A comprehensive test of evolutionarily increased competitive ability in a highly invasive plant species.Annals of botany · 2014Article
- Loss of specificity: native but not invasive populations of Triadica sebifera vary in tolerance to different herbivores.Oecologia · 2014Article
- Seedling-herbivore interactions: insights into plant defence and regeneration patterns.Annals of botany · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsInvasive plants can be released from specialist herbivores and encounter novel generalists in their introduced ranges, leading to variation in defence among native and invasive populations. However, few studies have examined how constitutive and induced indirect defences change during plant invasion, especially during the juvenile stage.
methodsConstitutive extrafloral nectar (EFN) production of native and invasive populations of juvenile tallow tree (Triadica sebifera) were compared, and leaf clipping, and damage by a native specialist (Noctuid) and two native generalist caterpillars (Noctuid and Limacodid) were used to examine inducible EFN production. KEY
resultsPlants from introduced populations had more leaves producing constitutive EFN than did native populations, but the content of soluble solids of EFN did not differ. Herbivores induced EFN production more than simulated herbivory. The specialist (Noctuid) induced more EFN than either generalist for native populations. The content of soluble solids in EFN was higher (2·1 times), with the specialist vs. the generalists causing the stronger response for native populations, but the specialist response was always comparable with the generalist responses for invasive populations.
conclusionsThese results suggest that constitutive and induced indirect defences are retained in juvenile plants of invasive populations even during plant establishment, perhaps due to generalist herbivory in the introduced range. However, responses specific to a specialist herbivore may be reduced in the introduced range where specialists are absent. This decreased defence may benefit specialist insects that are introduced for classical biological control of invasive plants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.