Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25106116›Full record

ArticleOecologia2014

A mixed diet of toxic plants enables increased feeding and anti-predator defense by an insect herbivore.

P A Mason, M A Bernardo, M S Singer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

P A MasonDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA, peri.mason@colorado.edu.
M A Bernardo
M S Singer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some insect herbivores sequester plant secondary metabolites (PSMs) for their own defense, raising the interesting possibility that grazing herbivores are defended by combinations of PSMs from different plant species. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that the grazing caterpillar, Grammia incorrupta, deters the ant, Aphaenogaster cockerelli, by eating a mixture of plants containing iridoid glycosides (IGs) and those containing pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs), and that this deterrence is greater than that attained by eating either plant alone. This hypothesis was tested against the non-mutually exclusive hypothesis that mixing plants containing PAs with those containing IGs improves growth performance. Caterpillar survival and growth were measured on three experimental diets: a PA plant, an IG plant, and a mixture of the two. We measured the degree of deterrence associated with these, and an additional experimental diet devoid of PSMs at naturally occurring A. cockerelli nests. Caterpillars fed both plants gained more mass than those fed either plant alone, but took longer to develop. These differences were not caused by diet-based variation in growth efficiency, but by eating more food when offered the mixed-plant diet relative to single-plant diets. The mixed diet was shown to provide deterrence to ants, whereas caterpillars fed single-plant diets were not significantly more deterrent than caterpillars that had eaten the PSM-free diet. We hypothesize that enhanced defense results from increased food consumption in response to multiple plant species, perhaps leading to greater PSM sequestration. Through this mechanism, bottom-up and top-down effects may mutually reinforce the grazing dietary strategy.

Indexed as

AntsHerbivoryAnimalsDietFeeding BehaviorIridoid GlycosidesLarvaMothsPlants, ToxicPredatory BehaviorPyrrolizidine AlkaloidsIridoid GlycosidesPyrrolizidine Alkaloids

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.