ArticleEcology and evolution2016
Are the metabolomic responses to folivory of closely related plant species linked to macroevolutionary and plant-folivore coevolutionary processes?
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Atmo-ecometabolomics: a novel atmospheric particle chemical characterization methodology for ecological research.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2019Article
- We Are What We Eat: A Stoichiometric and Ecometabolomic Study of Caterpillars Feeding on Two Pine Subspecies ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2018Article
- Seasonal variation of secondary metabolites in nine different bryophytes.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Computational workflow to study the seasonal variation of secondary metabolites in nine different bryophytes.Scientific data · 2018Article
- Current Challenges in Plant Eco-Metabolomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
- Close and distant: Contrasting the metabolism of two closely related subspecies of Scots pine under the effects of folivory and summer drought.Ecology and evolution · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The debate whether the coevolution of plants and insects or macroevolutionary processes (phylogeny) is the main driver determining the arsenal of molecular defensive compounds of plants remains unresolved. Attacks by herbivorous insects affect not only the composition of defensive compounds in plants but also the entire metabolome. Metabolomes are the final products of genotypes and are constrained by macroevolutionary processes, so closely related species should have similar metabolomic compositions and may respond in similar ways to attacks by folivores. We analyzed the elemental compositions and metabolomes of needles from three closely related Pinus species with distant coevolutionary histories with the caterpillar of the processionary moth respond similarly to its attack. All pines had different metabolomes and metabolic responses to herbivorous attack. The metabolomic variation among the species and the responses to folivory reflected their macroevolutionary relationships, with P. pinaster having the most divergent metabolome. The concentrations of terpenes were in the attacked trees supporting the hypothesis that herbivores avoid plant individuals with higher concentrations. Our results suggest that macroevolutionary history plays important roles in the metabolomic responses of these pine species to folivory, but plant-insect coevolution probably constrains those responses. Combinations of different evolutionary factors and trade-offs are likely responsible for the different responses of each species to folivory, which is not necessarily exclusively linked to plant-insect coevolution.
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.