ReviewAnnals of botany2016
Plant defences on land and in water: why are they so different?
Review in Annals of botany, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Flavone-associated resistance of twoEcology and evolution · 2022Article
- Diverse traits of aquatic plants cannot individually explain their consumption by the generalist gastropodPeerJ · 2021Article
- Different Metabolic Roles for Alternative Oxidase in Leaves of Palustrine and Terrestrial Species.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- Plant feeding promotes diversification in the Crustacea.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlants (attached photosynthesizing organisms) are eaten by a wide variety of herbivorous animals. Despite a vast literature on plant defence, contrasting patterns of antiherbivore adaptation among marine, freshwater and land plants have been little noticed, documented or understood. SCOPE: Here I show how the surrounding medium (water or air) affects not only the plants themselves, but also the sensory and locomotor capacities of herbivores and their predators, and I discuss patterns of defence and host specialization of plants and herbivores on land and in water. I analysed the literature on herbivory with special reference to mechanical defences and sensory cues emitted by plants. Spines, hairs, asymmetrically oriented features on plant surfaces, and visual and olfactory signals that confuse or repel herbivores are common in land plants but rare or absent in water-dwelling plants. Small terrestrial herbivores are more often host-specific than their aquatic counterparts. I propose that patterns of selection on terrestrial herbivores and plants differ from those on aquatic species. Land plants must often attract animal dispersers and pollinators that, like their herbivorous counterparts, require sophisticated locomotor and sensory abilities. Plants counter their attractiveness to animal helpers by evolving effective contact defences and long-distance cues that mislead or warn herbivores. The locomotor and sensory world of small aquatic herbivores is more limited. These characteristics result from the lower viscosity and density of air compared with water as well as from limitations on plant physiology and signal transmission in water. Evolutionary innovations have not eliminated the contrasts in the conditions of life between water and land.
conclusionPlant defence can be understood fully when herbivores and their victims are considered in the broader context of other interactions among coexisting species and of the medium in which these interactions occur.
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.