Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:08:18.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Plasticity and Efficacy of Defense Strategies against Herbivory in Ant-Visited Plants Growing in Variable Abiotic Conditions

from Part III - Ant-Plant Protection Systems under Variable Habitat Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2017

By
Akira Yamawo
Edited by
Paulo S. Oliveira  and
Suzanne Koptur
Paulo S. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil
Suzanne Koptur
Affiliation:
Florida International University
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Ant-Plant Interactions
Impacts of Humans on Terrestrial Ecosystems
 , pp. 159 - 178
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, A. A. and Spiller, D. A. (2004). Polymorphic buttonwood: effects of disturbance on resistance to herbivores in green and silver morphs of a Bahamian shrub. American Journal of Botany, 91, 1990–1997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballaré, C. L., Mazza, C. A., Austin, A. T. and Pierik, R. (2012). Canopy light and plant health. Plant Physiology, 160, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballhorn, D. J., Godschalx, A. L., Smart, S. M., Kautz, S. and Schädler, M. (2014). Chemical defense lowers plant competitiveness. Oecologia, 176, 811–824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barton, A. M. (1986). Spatial variation in the effect of ants on extrafloral nectary plant. Ecology, 67, 495–504.Google Scholar
Beattie, A. J. (1985). The Evolutionary Ecology of Ant-Plant Mutualisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Belkhadi, A., Hediji, H., Abbes, Z. et al. (2010). Effects of exogenous salicylic acid pre-treatment on cadmium toxicity and leaf lipid content in Linum usitatissimum L. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 73, 1004–1011.Google Scholar
Bentley, B. L. (1977). Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8, 407–427.Google Scholar
Bixenmann, R. J., Coley, P. D. and Kursar, T. A. (2011). Is extrafloral nectar production induced by herbivores or ants in a tropical facultative ant-plant mutualism? Oecologia, 165, 417–425.Google Scholar
Bryant, J. P., Chapin III, F. S. and Klein, D. R. (1983). Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos, 40, 357–368.Google Scholar
Bryant, J. P., Chapin III, F. S., Reichardt, P. B. and Clausen, T. P. (1987). Response of winter chemical defense in Alaska paper birch and green alder to manipulation of plant carbon/nutrient balance. Oecologia, 72, 510–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chamberlain, S. A. and Holland, J. N. (2009). Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant-plant protection mutualisms. Ecology, 90, 2384–2392.Google Scholar
Chen, X., Adams, B., Bergeron, C., Sabo, A. and Hooper-Bùi, L. (2014). Ant community structure and response to disturbances on coastal dunes of Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Insect Conservation, 19, 1–13.Google Scholar
Choh, Y., Kugimiya, S. and Takabayashi, J. (2006). Induced production of extrafloral nectar in intact lima bean plants in response to volatiles from spider mite-infested conspecific plants as a possible indirect defense against spider mites. Oecologia, 147, 455–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cogni, R., Freitas, A. V. and Oliveira, P. S. (2003). Interhabitat differences in ant activity on plant foliage: ants at extrafloral nectaries of Hibiscus pernambucensis in sandy and mangrove forests. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 107, 125–131.Google Scholar
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P. and Chapin, F. S. (1985). Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science, 230, 895–899.Google Scholar
Dalling, J. W. and Hubbell, S. P. (2002). Seed size, growth rate and gap microsite conditions as determinants of recruitment success for pioneer species. Journal of Ecology, 90, 557–568.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. W. and Fisher, B. L. (1991). Symbiosis of ants with Cecropia as a function of light regime. In Ant-Plant Interactions, Huxley, C. R. and Cutler, D. F. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. W. and McKey, D. (1993). Ant-plant symbioses: stalking the chuyachaqui. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 326–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de la Fuente, M. A. S. and Marquis, R. J. (1999). The role of ant-tended extrafloral nectaries in the protection and benefit of a Neotropical rainforest tree. Oecologia, 118, 192–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Sibio, P. R. and Rossi, M. N. (2016). Interaction effect between herbivory and plant fertilization on extrafloral nectar production and on seed traits: An experimental study with Ricinus communis (Euphorbiaceae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 109, 1612–1618.Google Scholar
Dyer, L. A., Dodson, C. D., Beihoffer, J. and Letourneau, D. K. (2001). Trade-offs in antiherbivore defenses in Piper cenocladum: ant mutualists versus plant secondary metabolites. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 27, 581–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eck, G., Fiala, B., Linsenmair, K. E., Hashim, R. B. and Proksch, P. (2001). Trade-off between chemical and biotic antiherbivore defense in the South East Asian plant genus Macaranga. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 27, 1979–1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellsworth, D. S. and Reich, P. B. (1992). Water relations and gas exchange of Acer saccharum seedlings in contrasting natural light and water regimes. Tree Physiology, 10, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falcão, J. C. F., Dáttilo, W. and Izzo, T. J. (2014). Temporal variation in extrafloral nectar secretion in different ontogenic stages of the fruits of Alibertia verrucosa S. Moore (Rubiaceae) in a Neotropical savanna. Journal of Plant Interactions, 9, 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R. C., Richter, A., Wanek, W. and Mayer, V. (2002). Plants feed ants: food bodies of myrmecophytic Piper and their significance for the interaction with Pheidole bicornis ants. Oecologia, 133, 186–192.Google Scholar
Folgarait, P. J. and Davidson, D. W. (1994). Antiherbivore defenses of myrmecophytic Cecropia under different light regimes. Oikos, 71, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folgarait, P. J. and Davidson, D. W. (1995). Myrmecophytic Cecropia: antiherbivore defenses under different nutrient treatments. Oecologia, 104, 189–206.Google Scholar
Fournier, A. R., Gosselin, A., Proctor, J. T. et al. (2004). Relationship between understory light and growth of forest-grown American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.). Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 129, 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederickson, M. E., Ravenscraft, A., Arcila Hernández, L. M. et al. (2013). What happens when ants fail at plant defence? Cordia nodosa dynamically adjusts its investment in both direct and indirect resistance traits in response to herbivore damage. Journal of Ecology, 101, 400–409.Google Scholar
Frederickson, M. E., Ravenscraft, A., Miller, G. A. et al. (2012). The direct and ecological costs of an ant-plant symbiosis. The American Naturalist, 179, 768–778.Google Scholar
García, L. V., Maltez-Mouro, S., Pérez-Ramos, I. M., Freitas, H. and Marañón, T. (2006). Counteracting gradients of light and soil nutrients in the understorey of Mediterranean oak forests. Web Ecology, 6, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M. (2010). Plastic defense expression in plants. Evolutionary Ecology 24, 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M. (2013). Let the best one stay: screening of ant defenders by Acacia host plants functions independently of partner choice or host sanctions. Journal of Ecology, 101, 684–688.Google Scholar
Heil, M. (2015). Extrafloral nectar at the plant-insect interface: a spotlight on chemical ecology, phenotypic plasticity, and food webs. Annual Review of Entomology, 60, 213–232.Google Scholar
Heil, M., Baumann, B., Krüger, R., and Linsenmair, K. E. (2004). Main nutrient compounds in food bodies of Mexican Acacia ant-plants. Chemoecology, 14, 45–52.Google Scholar
Heil, M., Delsinne, T., Hilpert, A. et al. (2002). Reduced chemical defence in ant-plants? A critical re-evaluation of a widely accepted hypothesis. Oikos, 99, 457–468.Google Scholar
Heil, M., Fiala, B., Baumann, B. and Linsenmair, K. E. (2000). Temporal, spatial and biotic variations in extrafloral nectar secretion by Macaranga tanarius. Functional Ecology, 14, 749–757.Google Scholar
Heil, M., Fiala, B., Kaiser, W. and Linsenmair, K. E. (1998). Chemical contents of Macaranga food bodies: adaptations to their role in ant attraction and nutrition. Functional Ecology, 12, 117–122.Google Scholar
Heil, M., Fiala, B., Linsenmair, K. E., Zotz, G. and Menke, P. (1997). Food body production in Macaranga triloba (Euphorbiaceae): a plant investment in anti-herbivore defence via symbiotic ant partners. Journal of Ecology, 85, 847–861.Google Scholar
Heil, M., Gonzàlez-Teuber, M., Clement, L. W. et al. (2009). Divergent investment strategies of Acacia myrmecophytes and the Academy coexistence of mutualists and exploiters. Proceedings of the National of Sciences, 106, 18091–18096.Google Scholar
Heil, M., Hilpert, A., Fiala, B. et al. (2002). Nutrient allocation of Macaranga triloba ant plants to growth, photosynthesis and indirect defence. Functional Ecology, 16, 475–483.Google Scholar
Heil, M., Hilpert, A., Krüger, R. and Linsenmair, K. E. (2004). Competition among visitors to extrafloral nectaries as a source of ecological costs of an indirect defence. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 20, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M., Koch, T., Hilpert, A. et al. (2001). Extrafloral nectar production of the ant-associated plant, Macaranga tanarius, is an induced, indirect, defensive response elicited by jasmonic acid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 1083–1088.Google Scholar
Hemming, J. D. and Lindroth, R. L. (1999). Effects of light and nutrient availability on aspen: growth, phytochemistry, and insect performance. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 25, 1687–1714.Google Scholar
Herms, D. A. and Mattson, W. J. (1992). The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Quarterly Review of Biology, 67, 283–335.Google Scholar
Holland, J. N., Chamberlain, S. A. and Horn, K. C. (2010). Temporal variation in extrafloral nectar secretion by reproductive tissues of the senita cactus, Pachycereus schottii (Cactaceae), in the Sonoran Desert of Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 74, 712–714.Google Scholar
Howe, H. F. and Westley, L. C. (1988). Ecological Relationships of Plants and Animals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, W., Siemann, E., Wheeler, G. S. et al. (2010). Resource allocation to defence and growth are driven by different responses to generalist and specialist herbivory in an invasive plant. Journal of Ecology, 98, 1157–1167.Google Scholar
Izaguirre, M. M., Mazza, C. A., Astigueta, M. S., Ciarla, A. M. and Ballaré, C. L. (2013). No time for candy: passionfruit (Passiflora edulis) plants down-regulate damage-induced extra floral nectar production in response to light signals of competition. Oecologia, 173, 213–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Izzo, T. J. and Vasconcelos, H. L. (2002). Cheating the cheater: domatia loss minimizes the effects of ant castration in an Amazonian ant-plant. Oecologia, 133, 200–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itioka, T. (2005). Diversity of anti-herbivore defenses in Macaranga. In Pollination Ecology and the Rain Forest: Sarawak Studies, D. W. Roubik, S. Sakai and A. A. H. Karim (eds.). Ecological Studies, 174. New York: Springer, pp. 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, I. M. and Koptur, S. (2015a). Dynamic extrafloral nectar production: The timing of leaf damage affects the defensive response in Senna mexicana var. chapmanii (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany 102, 58–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, I. M. and Koptur, S. (2015b). Quantity over quality: light intensity, but not red/far-red ratio, affects extrafloral nectar production in Senna mexicana var. chapmanii. Ecology and Evolution, 5, 4108–4114.Google Scholar
Katayama, N. and Suzuki, N. (2011). Anti-herbivory defense of two Vicia species with and without extrafloral nectaries. Plant Ecology, 212, 743–752.Google Scholar
Kersch, M. F. and Fonseca, C. R. (2005). Abiotic factors and the conditional outcome of an ant-plant mutualism. Ecology, 86, 2117–2126.Google Scholar
Kitajima, K., Llorens, A. M., Stefanescu, C. et al. (2012). How cellulose-based leaf toughness and lamina density contribute to long leaf lifespans of shade-tolerant species. New Phytologist, 195, 640–652.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, S., Asai, T., Fujimoto, Y. and Kohshima, S. (2008). Anti-herbivore structures of Paulownia tomentosa: morphology, distribution, chemical constituents and changes during shoot and leaf development. Annals of Botany, 101, 1035–1047.Google Scholar
Koptur, S. (1985). Alternative defenses against herbivores in Inga (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) over an elevational gradient. Ecology, 66, 1639–1650.Google Scholar
Koptur, S. (1992). Extrafloral nectary-mediated interactions between insects and plants. Insect Plant Interactions, 4, 81–129.Google Scholar
Koricheva, J. and Romero, G. Q. (2012). You get what you pay for: reward-specific trade-offs among direct and ant-mediated defences in plants. Biology Letters, 8, 628–630.Google Scholar
Kost, C. and Heil, M. (2005). Increased availability of extrafloral nectar reduces herbivory in Lima bean plants (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae). Basic and Applied Ecology, 6, 237–248.Google Scholar
Kost, C. and Heil, M. (2006). Herbivore-induced plant volatiles induce an indirect defence in neighbouring plants. Journal of Ecology, 94, 619–628.Google Scholar
Kost, C. and Heil, M. (2008). The defensive role of volatile emission and extrafloral nectar secretion for lima bean in nature. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 34, 2–13.Google Scholar
Lach, L., Parr, C. L. and Abott, K. L. (2010). Ant Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Letourneau, D. K. and Barbosa, P. (1999). Ants, Stem Borers, and Pubescence in Endospermum in Papua New Guinea1. Biotropica, 31, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeVan, K. E., Hung, K. L. J., McCann, K. R., Ludka, J. T. and Holway, D. A. (2014). Floral visitation by the Argentine ant reduces pollinator visitation and seed set in the coast barrel cactus, Ferocactus viridescens. Oecologia, 174, 163–171.Google Scholar
Li, T., Holopainen, J. K., Kokko, H., Tervahauta, A. I. and Blande, J. D. (2012). Herbivore-induced aspen volatiles temporally regulate two different indirect defences in neighbouring plants. Functional Ecology, 26, 1176–1185.Google Scholar
Malé, P. J. G., Leroy, C., Dejean, A., Quilichini, A. and Orivel, J. (2012). An ant symbiont directly and indirectly limits its host plant’s reproductive success. Evolutionary Ecology, 26, 55–63.Google Scholar
Maschwitz, U., Fiala, B., Davies, S. J. and Linsenmair, K. E. (1996). A south-east asian myrmecophyte with two alternative inhabitants: Camponotus or Crematogaster as partners of Macaranga lamellate. Ecotropica 2, 26–132.Google Scholar
McKey, D. (1974). Ant-plants: selective eating of an unoccupied Barteria by a Colobus monkey. Biotropica, 6, 269–270.Google Scholar
Millán-Cañongo, C., Orona-Tamayo, D. and Heil, M. (2014). Phloem sugar flux and jasmonic acid-responsive cell wall invertase control extrafloral nectar secretion in Ricinus communis. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 40, 760–769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, T. E. (2014). Plant size and reproductive state affect the quantity and quality of rewards to animal mutualists. Journal of Ecology, 102, 496–507.Google Scholar
Mithöfer, A. and Boland, W. (2012). Plant defense against herbivores: chemical aspects. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 63, 431–450.Google Scholar
Mody, K. and Linsenmair, K. E. (2004). Plant-attracted ants affect arthropod community structure but not necessarily herbivory. Ecological Entomology, 29, 217–225.Google Scholar
Mondor, E. B. and Addicott, J. F. (2003). Conspicuous extrafloral nectaries are inducible in Vicia faba. Ecology Letters, 6, 495–497.Google Scholar
Murase, K., Itioka, T., Nomura, M. and Yamane, S. (2003). Intraspecific variation in the status of ant symbiosis on a myrmecophyte, Macaranga bancana, between primary and secondary forests in Borneo. Population Ecology, 45, 221–226.Google Scholar
Ness, J. H. (2003). Catalpa bignonioides alters extrafloral nectar production after herbivory and attracts ant bodyguards. Oecologia, 134, 210–218.Google Scholar
Ness, J. H. (2006). A mutualism’s indirect costs: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos, 113, 506–514.Google Scholar
Newman, J. R. and Wagner, D. (2013). The influence of water availability and defoliation on extrafloral nectar secretion in quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Botany, 91, 761–767.Google Scholar
Newman, J. R., Wagner, D. and Doak, P. (2015). Impact of extrafloral nectar availability and plant genotype on ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) visitation to quaking aspen (Salicaceae). The Canadian Entomologist, 148, 1–7.Google Scholar
Nogueira, A., Rey, P. J. and Lohmann, L. G. (2012). Evolution of extrafloral nectaries: adaptive process and selective regime changes from forest to savanna. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25, 2325–2340.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, D. J. (1979). Foliar nectar production and ant activity on a neotropical tree, Ochroma pyramidale. Oecologia, 43, 233–248.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, D. J. (1982). Pearl bodies as ant food: an ecological role for some leaf emergences of tropical plants. Biotropica, 14, 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, K. N., Coley, P. D., Kursar, T. A. et al. (2015). The effect of symbiotic ant colonies on plant growth: a test using an Azteca-Cecropia system. PloS one, 10, e0120351.Google Scholar
Palmer, T. M., Stanton, M. L., Young, T. P. et al. (2008). Breakdown of an ant-plant mutualism follows the loss of large herbivores from an African savanna. Science, 319, 192–195.Google Scholar
Philpott, S. M., Perfecto, I., Armbrecht, I. and Parr, C. L. (2010). Ant diversity and function in disturbed and changing habitats. Ant Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press, 137–157.Google Scholar
Pulice, C. E. and Packer, A. A. (2008). Simulated herbivory induces extrafloral nectary production in Prunus avium. Functional Ecology, 22, 801–807.Google Scholar
Radhika, V., Kost, C., Mithöfer, A. and Boland, W. (2010). Regulation of extrafloral nectar secretion by jasmonates in lima bean is light dependent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 17228–17233.Google Scholar
Raine, N. E., Willmer, P. and Stone, G. N. (2002). Spatial structuring and floral avoidance behavior prevent ant-pollinator conflict in a Mexican ant-acacia. Ecology, 83, 3086–3096.Google Scholar
Rico-Gray, V. and Oliveira, P. S. (2007). The Ecology and Evolution of Ant-Plant Interactions. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Risch, S. J. and Rickson, F. R. (1981). Mutualism in which ants must be present before plants produce food bodies. Nature, 291, 149–150.Google Scholar
Rosumek, F. B., Silveira, F. A., Neves, F. D. S. et al. (2009). Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses. Oecologia, 160, 537–549.Google Scholar
Rudgers, J. A. and Strauss, S. Y. (2004). A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2481–2488.Google Scholar
Rudgers, J. A., Strauss, S. Y. and Wendel, J. F. (2004). Trade-offs among anti-herbivore resistance traits: insights from Gossypieae (Malvaceae). American Journal of Botany, 91, 871–880.Google Scholar
Rutter, M. T. and Rausher, M. D. (2004). Natural selection on extrafloral nectar production in Chamaecrista fasciculata: the costs and benefits of a mutualism trait. Evolution, 58, 2657–2668.Google Scholar
Schupp, E. W. and Feener, D. H. (1991). Phylogeny, lifeform, and habitat dependence of ant-defended plants in a Panamanian forest. In Ant-Plant Interactions, Huxley, C. R. and Cutler, D. F. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–197.Google Scholar
Slaymaker, D. H., Navarre, D. A., Clark, D. et al. (2002). The tobacco salicylic acid-binding protein 3 (SABP3) is the chloroplast carbonic anhydrase, which exhibits antioxidant activity and plays a role in the hypersensitive defense response. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 11640–11645.Google Scholar
Smith, L. L., Lanza, J. and Smith, G. C. (1990). Amino acid concentrations in extrafloral nectar of Impatiens sultani increase after simulated herbivory. Ecology, 71, 107–115.Google Scholar
Stamp, N. (2003). Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 78, 23–55.Google Scholar
Stanton, M. L. and Palmer, T. M. (2011). The high cost of mutualism: effects of four species of East African ant symbionts on their myrmecophyte host tree. Ecology, 92, 1073–1082.Google Scholar
Stephenson, A. G. (1982). The role of the extrafloral nectaries of Catalpa speciosa in limiting herbivory and increasing fruit production. Ecology, 63, 663–669.Google Scholar
Steward, J. L. and Keeler, K. H. (1988). Are there trade-offs among antiherbivore defenses in Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae)? Oikos, 53, 79–86.Google Scholar
Trager, M. D., Bhotika, S., Hostetler, J. A. et al. (2010). Benefits for plants in ant-plant protective mutualisms: a meta-analysis. PLoS one, 5, e14308.Google Scholar
Trager, M. D. and Bruna, E. M. (2006). Effects of plant age, experimental nutrient addition and ant occupancy on herbivory in a neotropical myrmecophyte. Journal of Ecology, 94, 1156–1163.Google Scholar
Tripathi, S. N. and Raghubanshi, A. S. (2013). Seedling growth of five tropical dry forest tree species in relation to light and nitrogen gradients. Journal of Plant Ecology, 7, 250–263.Google Scholar
Wagner, D. and Fleur Nicklen, E. (2010). Ant nest location, soil nutrients and nutrient uptake by ant associated plants: Does extrafloral nectar attract ant nests and thereby enhance plant nutrition? Journal of Ecology, 98, 614–624.Google Scholar
Walters, D. (2011). Plant Defense: Warding off Attack by Pathogens, Herbivores and Parasitic Plants. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Carrillo, J., Siemann, E. et al. (2013). Specificity of extrafloral nectar induction by herbivores differs among native and invasive populations of tallow tree. Annals of Botany, mct129.Google Scholar
Webber, B. L., Abaloz, B. A. and Woodrow, I. E. (2007). Myrmecophilic food body production in the understorey tree, Ryparosa kurrangii (Achariaceae), a rare Australian rainforest taxon. New Phytologist, 173, 250–263.Google Scholar
Weber, M. G. and Keeler, K. H. (2013). The phylogenetic distribution of extrafloral nectaries in plants. Annals of Botany, 111, 1251–1261.Google Scholar
Wäckers, F. L. and Bezemer, T. M. (2003). Root herbivory induces an above-ground indirect defence. Ecology Letters, 6, 9–12.Google Scholar
Wäckers, F. L., Zuber, D., Wunderlin, R. and Keller, F. (2001). The effect of herbivory on temporal and spatial dynamics of foliar nectar production in cotton and castor. Annals of Botany, 87, 365–370.Google Scholar
Wildermuth, M. C., Dewdney, J., Wu, G., and Ausubel, F. M. (2001). Isochorismate synthase is required to synthesize salicylic acid for plant defence. Nature, 414, 562–565.Google Scholar
Xu, F. F. and Chen, J. (2015). Extrafloral nectar secretion is mainly determined by carbon fixation under herbivore-free condition in the tropical shrub Clerodendrum philippinum var. simplex. Flora-Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants, 217, 10–13.Google Scholar
Yamawo, A. and Hada, Y. (2010). Effects of light on direct and indirect defences against herbivores of young plants of Mallotus japonicus demonstrate a trade-off between two indirect defence traits. Annals of Botany, 106, 143–148.Google Scholar
Yamawo, A., Hada, Y. and Suzuki, N. (2012a). Variations in direct and indirect defenses against herbivores on young plants of Mallotus japonicus in relation to soil moisture conditions. Journal of Plant Research, 125, 71–76.Google Scholar
Yamawo, A., Katayama, N., Suzuki, N. and Hada, Y. (2012b). Plasticity in the expression of direct and indirect defence traits of young plants of Mallotus japonicus in relation to soil nutritional conditions. Plant Ecology, 213, 127–132.Google Scholar
Yamawo, A., Tagawa, J., Hada, Y. and Suzuki, N. (2014). Different combinations of multiple defence traits in an extrafloral nectary bearing plant growing under various habitat conditions. Journal of Ecology, 102, 238–247.Google Scholar
Yamawo, A., Tokuda, M., Katayama, N., Yahara, T. and Tagawa, J. (2015). Ant-attendance in extrafloral nectar-bearing plants promotes growth and decreases the expression of traits related to direct defenses. Evolutionary Biology, 42, 191–198.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×