Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:44:51.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Plant-mediated effects linking herbivory and pollination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2009

Judith L. Bronstein
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Travis E. Huxman
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Goggy Davidowitz
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Takayuki Ohgushi
Affiliation:
Kyoto University, Japan
Timothy P. Craig
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Peter W. Price
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Over its lifetime, an individual plant must cope with a variety of challenges posed by other species. In fact, it may be interacting simultaneously with competitors, consumers, and a variety of mutualists, including pollinators, seed dispersers, and root symbionts. How the plant will fare in the presence of both beneficial and antagonistic species is at least in part a function of the resources it is able to devote to attracting and deterring them. Since resource availability is not unlimited, this sets up a situation in which allocation in the context of one set of interactions (such as attracting and rewarding mutualists) may force a trade-off with allocation in the context of another (such as defending against antagonists). While these trade-offs are well known, the vast majority of studies of interspecific interactions nevertheless focus on a single kind of interaction at a time. Hence, we know remarkably little about the nature and consequences of interactions among interactions experienced by a single organism.

One notable exception involves the topic of this chapter, interactions between herbivory and pollination. The literature on the ways in which herbivory alters pollination rates and hence reproductive success has grown rapidly in recent years. The large communities of researchers who focus on herbivory and on pollination now clearly recognize that they are not independent (Strauss 1997, Strauss and Armbruster 1997, Adler and Bronstein 2004, Irwin et al. 2004; see also Chapter 7, this volume).

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecological Communities
Plant Mediation in Indirect Interaction Webs
, pp. 75 - 103
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

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

Ackerman, J. D., Rodriguez-Robles, J. A., and Meléndez, E. J.. 1994. A meager nectar offering by an epiphytic orchid is better than nothing. Biotropica 26:44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, L. S., and Bronstein, J. L.. 2004. Attracting antagonists: does floral nectar increase leaf herbivory? Ecology 85:1519–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, L. S., Karban, R., and Strauss, S. Y.. 2001. Direct and indirect effects of alkaloids on plant fitness via herbivory and pollination. Ecology 82:2032–2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. A. 2000. Overcompensation of plants in response to herbivory and the by-product benefits of mutualism. Trends in Plant Science 5:309–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aizen, M. A., and Raffaele, E.. 1996. Nectar production and pollination in Alstroemeria aurea: responses to level and pattern of flowering shoot defoliation. Oikos 76:312–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aizen, M. A., and Raffaele, E.. 1998. Flowering-shoot defoliation affects pollen grain size and postpollination pollen performance in Alstroemeria aurea. Ecology 79:2133–2142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. and Grace, J. (eds.) 1997. Plant Resource Allocation.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bergelson, J., and Crawley, M. J.. 1992. Herbivory and Ipomopsis aggregata: the disadvantages of being eaten. American Naturalist 139:870–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergelson, J., Juenger, T., and Crawley, M. J.. 1996. Regrowth following herbivory in Ipomopsis aggregata: compensation but not overcompensation. American Naturalist 148:744–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertness, M. D., Wise, C., and Ellison, A. M.. 1987. Consumer pressure and seed set in a salt marsh perennial plant community. Oecologia 71:190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, A. J., Chapin, F. S., and Mooney, H. A.. 1985. Resource limitation in plants: an economic analogy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16:363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, A. K. 1997. Effects of pollinators, herbivores, and seed predators on flowering phenology. Ecology 78:1624–1631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, A. K., and Mitchell, R. J.. 1997. Effects of experimental manipulation of inflorescence size on pollination and pre-dispersal seed predation in the hummingbird-pollinated plant Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 110:86–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bronstein, J. L. 2001. The costs of mutualism. American Zoologist 41:127–141.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M., and West, G. B.. 2004. Towards a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 58:1771–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cariveau, D., Irwin, R. E., Brody, A. K., Garcia-Mayeya, L. S., and der Ohe, A.. 2004. Direct and indirect effects of pollinators and seed predators to selection on plant and floral traits. Oikos 104:15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, T. M. 1976. Activity patterns, body temperature and thermal ecology in two desert caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Ecology 57:485–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabot, B. F., and Hicks, D. J.. 1982. The ecology of leaf life spans. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13:229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. L., and Reynolds, J. F.. 1997. GePSI: a generic plant simulator based on object-oriented principles. Ecological Modeling 94:53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comstock, J. P., and , J. R. Ehleringer Jr. 1986. Canopy dynamics and carbon gain in response to soil moisture availability in Encelia frutescens Gray, a drought deciduous shrub. Oecologia 68:271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conner, J. K., and Rush, S.. 1996. Effects of flower size and number on pollinator visitation to wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum. Oecologia 105:509–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, J. M., and Rasplus, J.-Y.. 2003. Mutualists with attitude: coevolving fig wasps and figs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, J. M., Bean, D., Power, S. A., and Dixon, D. J.. 2004. Evolution of a complex coevolved trait: active pollination in a genus of fig wasps. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17:238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, J. E., and Galen, C.. 1991. Frequency-dependent selection and adaptive surfaces for floral character combinations: the pollination of Polemonium viscosum. American Naturalist 138:1342–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, S. A. 1995. Ecological constraints on fruit initiation by Calyptrogyne ghiesbreghtiana (Arecaceae): floral herbivory, pollen availability, and visitation by pollinating bats. American Journal of Botany 82:1527–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidowitz, G., and Nijhout, H. F.. 2004. The physiological basis of reaction norms: the interaction between growth rate, the duration of growth and body size. Integrative and Comparative Biology 44:443–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidowitz, G., D'Amico, L. J., and Nijhout, H. F.. 2003. Critical weight in the development of insect body size. Evolution and Development 5:188–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidowitz, G., D'Amico, L. J., and Nijhout, H. F.. 2004. The effects of environmental variation on a mechanism that controls insect body size. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6:49–62.Google Scholar
Mazancourt, C., and Loreau, M.. 2000. Grazing optimization, nutrient cycling, and spatial heterogeneity of plant–herbivore interactions: should a palatable plant evolve? Evolution 54:81–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazancourt, C., Loreau, M., and Abbadie, L.. 1998. Grazing optimization and nutrient cycling: when do herbivores enhance plant production? Ecology 79:2242–2252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazancourt, C., Loreau, M., and Dieckmann, U.. 2001. Can the evolution of plant defense lead to plant–herbivore mutualism? American Naturalist 158:109–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dufaÿ, M., and Anstett, M.-C.. 2003. Conflicts between plants and pollinators that reproduce within inflorescences: evolutionary variations on a theme. Oikos 100:3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dukas, R., and Morse, D.. 2003. Crab spiders affect flower visitation by bees. Oikos 101:157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlén, J. 2002. Assessing the lifetime consequences of plant–animal interactions for the perennial herb Lathyrus vernus (Fabaceae). Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 5:145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elle, E., and Hare, J. D.. 2002. Environmentally induced variation in floral traits affects the mating system in Datura wrightii. Functional Ecology 16:79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English-Loeb, G., Pritts, M., Kovach, J., Rieckenberg, R., and Kelly, M. J.. 1999. Compensatory ability of strawberries to bud and flower removal: implications for managing the strawberry bud weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 92:915–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enquist, B. J., Haskell, J. P., and Tiffney, B. H.. 2002. General patterns of taxonomic and biomass partitioning in extant and fossil plant communities. Nature 419:610–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enquist, B. J., Economo, E. P., Huxman, T. E., et al. 2003. Scaling metabolism from organisms to ecosystems. Nature 423:639–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferdy, J.-B., Després, L., and Godelle, B.. 2002. Evolution of mutualism between globeflowers and their pollinating flies. Journal of Theoretical Biology 217:219–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, C. 1983. Allocating leaf nitrogen for the maximization of carbon gain: leaf age as a control on the allocation program. Oecologia 56:341–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazee, J. R., and Marquis, R. J.. 1994. Environmental contribution to floral trait variation in Chamaecrista fasciculata (Fabaceae: Caesalpinoideae). American Journal of Botany 81:206–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. S., Brody, A. K., and Neefus, C. D.. 2003. Flowering phenology and compensation for herbivory in Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 136:394–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galen, C., and Cuba, J.. 2001. Down the tube: pollinators, predators, and the evolution of flower shape in the alpine skypilot, Polemonium viscosum. Evolution 55:1963–1971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gómez, J. M. 1993. Phenotypic selection of flowering synchrony in a high mountain plant, Hormathophylla spinosa (Cruciferae). Journal of Ecology 81:605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, J. M. 2003. Herbivory reduces the strength of pollinator-mediated selection in the Mediterranean shrub Erysimum mediohispanicum: consequences for plant specialization. American Naturalist 162:242–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace, J. 1997. Towards models of resource allocation in plants, pp. 279–281 in Bazzaz, F. A. and Grace, J. (eds.) Plant Resource Allocation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hamback, P. A. 2001. Direct and indirect effects of herbivory: feeding by spittlebugs affects pollinator visitation rates and seedset of Rudbeckia hirta. Ecoscience 8:45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamerlynck, E. P., Huxman, T. E., Charlet, T. N., and Smith, S. D.. 2002. Effects of elevated CO2 (FACE) on the functional ecology of the drought-deciduous Mojave Desert shrub, Lycium andersonii. Environmental and Experimental Botany 43:93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants.London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heinrich, B. 1971. The effect of leaf geometry on the feeding behavior of the caterpillar of Manduca sexta (Sphingidae). Animal Behavior 19:119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrix, S. D. 1984. Reactions of Heracleum lanatum to floral herbivory by Depressaria pastinacella. Ecology 65:191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herre, E. A., Knowlton, N., Mueller, U. G., and Rehner, S. A.. 1999. The evolution of mutualisms: exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:49–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrera, C. M. 2000. Measuring the effects of pollinators and herbivores: evidence for non-additivity in a perennial herb. Ecology 81:2170–2176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrera, C. M., Medrano, M., Rey, P. J., et al. 2002. Interaction of pollinators and herbivores on plant fitness suggests a pathway for correlated evolution of mutualism- and antagonism-related traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 99:16823–16828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodges, S. A. 1995. The influence of nectar production on hawkmoth behavior, self pollination, and seed production in Mirabilis multiflora (Nyctaginaceae). American Journal of Botany 82:197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. N., and Fleming, T. H.. 1999. Mutualistic interactions between Upiga virescens (Pyralidae), a pollinating seed-consumer, and Lophocereus schottii (Cactaceae). Ecology 80:2074–2084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. N., and DeAngelis, D. L.. 2002. Ecological and evolutionary conditions for fruit abortion to regulate pollinating seed-eaters and increase plant reproduction. Theoretical Population Biology 61:251–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huxman, T. E., and Loik, M. E.. 1997. Reproductive patterns of two varieties of Yucca whipplei (Liliaceae) with different life histories. International Journal of Plant Sciences 158:778–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, R. E., Adler, L. S., and Brody, A. K.. 2004. The dual role of floral traits: pollinator attraction and defense. Ecology 85:1503–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, N., Till-Bottraud, I., and Després, L.. 2000. Evolutionary conflict between Trollius europaeus and its seed-parasite pollinators Chiastocheta flies. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2:885–896.Google Scholar
Jaremo, J., Tuomi, J., Nilsson, P., and Lennartsson, T.. 1999. Plant adaptations to herbivory: mutualistic versus antagonistic coevolution. Oikos 84:313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jousselin, E., Rasplus, J. Y., and Kjellberg, F.. 2003. Convergence and coevolution in a mutualism: evidence from a molecular phylogeny of Ficus. Evolution 57:1255–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juenger, T., and Bergelson, J.. 1997. Pollen and resource limitation of compensation to herbivory in scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata. Ecology 78:1684–1695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juenger, T., and Bergelson, J.. 1998. Pairwise versus diffuse natural selection and the multiple herbivores of scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata. Evolution 52:1583–1592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juenger, T., Lennartsson, T., and Tuomi, J.. 2000. The evolution of tolerance to damage in Gentianella campestris: natural selection and the quantitative genetics of tolerance. Evolutionary Ecology 14:393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karban, R., and Strauss, S. Y.. 1993. Effects of herbivores on growth and reproduction of their perennial host, Erigeron glaucus. Ecology 74:39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, M., Takimura, A., and Kawakita, A.. 2003. An obligate pollination mutualism and reciprocal diversification in the tree genus Glochidion (Euphorbiaceae). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100:5264–5267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnick, G. A., and Weis, A. E.. 1998. Floral herbivore effect on the sex expression of an andromonoecious plant, Isomeris arborea (Capparaceae). Plant Ecology 134:151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnick, G. A., and Weis, A. E.. 1999. The effect of floral herbivory on male and female reproductive success in Isomeris arborea. Ecology 80:135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnick, G. A., Weis, A. E., and Campbell, D. R.. 1999. The consequences of floral herbivory for pollinator service to Isomeris arborea. Ecology 80:125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leege, L. M., and Wolfe, L. M.. 2002. Do floral herbivores respond to variation in flower characteristics in Gelsemium sempervirens (Loganiaceae), a distylous vine? American Journal of Botany 89:1270–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehtilä, K., and Strauss, S. Y.. 1997. Leaf damage by herbivores affects attractiveness to pollinators in wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum. Oecologia 111:396–406.Google ScholarPubMed
Lennartson, T., Nilsson, P., and Tuomi, J.. 1998. Induction of overcompensation in the field gentian, Gentianella campestris. Ecology 79:1061–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. C. 1981. Path Analysis: A Primer, 3rd edn. Pacific Grove, CA: Boxwood.Google Scholar
Lohman, D. J., Zangerl, A. R., and Berenbaum, M. R.. 1996. Impact of floral herbivory by parsnip webworm (Oecophoridae: Depressaria pastinacella Duponchel) on pollination and fitness of wild parsnip (Apiaceae: Pastinaca sativa L.). American Midland Naturalist 136:407–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louda, S. M., and Potvin, M. A.. 1995. Effect of inflorescence-feeding insects on the demography and lifetime fitness of a native plant. Ecology 76:229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenberg, G. J. 1994. Effects of floral herbivory on maternal reproduction in Sanicula arctopoides (Apiaceae). Ecology 75:359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenberg, G. J. 1997. Effects of floral herbivory, limited pollination, and intrinsic plant characteristics on phenotypic gender in Sanicula arctopoides. Oecologia 109:279–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madden, A. H., and Chamberlin, F. S.. 1945. Biology of the tobacco hornworm in the southern cigar tobacco district. US Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 896.Google Scholar
Matter, S. F., Landry, J. B., Greco, A. M., and Lacourse, C. D.. 1999. Importance of floral phenology and florivory for Tetraopes tetraophthalmus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae): tests at the population and individual level. Environmental Entomology 28:1044–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDade, L. A., and Davidar, P.. 1984. Determinants of fruit and seed set in Pavonia dasypetala (Malvaceae). Oecologia 64:61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, M. W. 1968. Observations on feeding and movement of tobacco hornworm larvae. Journal of Economic Entomology 61:352–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mechaber, W. L., and Hildebrand, J. G.. 2000. Novel, non-solanaceous hostplant record for Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) in the southwestern United States. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 93:447–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meekijjaroenroj, A., and Anstett, M.-C.. 2003. A weevil pollinating the Canary Islands date palm: between parasitism and mutualism. Naturwissenschaften 90:452–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mira, A., and Bernays, E. A.. 2002. Trade-offs in host use by Manduca sexta: plant characters vs. natural enemies. Oikos 97:387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. J. 1992. Testing evolutionary and ecological hypotheses using path analysis and structural equation modelling. Functional Ecology 6:123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. J., and Waser, N. M.. 1992. Adaptive significance of Ipomopsis aggregata nectar production: pollination success of single flowers. Ecology 73:633–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, H. A. 1972. The carbon balance of plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:315–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mothershead, K., and Marquis, R. J.. 2000. Fitness impacts of herbivory through indirect effects on plant–pollinator interactions in Oenothera macrocarpa. Ecology 81:30–40.Google Scholar
Muñoz, A. A., and Arroyo, M. T. K.. 2004. Negative impacts of a vertebrate predator on insect pollinator visitation and seed output in Chuquiraga oppositifolia, a high Andean shrub. Oecologia 138:68–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murawski, D. A. 1987. Floral resource variation, pollinator response, and potential pollen flow in Psiguria warscewiczii. Ecology 65:1273–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutikainen, P., and Delph, L. F.. 1996. Effects of herbivory on male reproductive success in plants. Oikos 75:353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paige, K. N. 1994. Herbivory and Ipomopsis aggregata: differences in response, differences in experimental protocol – a reply to Bergelson and Crawley. American Naturalist 143:739–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paige, K. N., and Whitham, T. G.. 1987. Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: the advantage of being eaten. American Naturalist 129:407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paige, K. N., Williams, B., and Hickox, T.. 2001. Overcompensation through the paternal component of fitness in Ipomopsis arizonica. Oecologia 128:72–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellmyr, O. 1997. Pollinating seed-eaters: why is active pollination so rare? Ecology 78:1655–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellmyr, O. 2003. Yuccas, yucca moths, and coevolution: a review. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 90:35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilson, D. 2000. Herbivory and natural selection on flowering phenology in wild sunflower, Helianthus annuus. Oecologia 122:72–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poorter, H., and Navas, M. L.. 2002. Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2: on winners, losers and functional groups. New Phytologist 157:175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primack, R. B., Miao, S. L., and Becker, K. R.. 1994. Costs of reproduction in the pink lady's slipper orchid (Cypripedium acaule): defoliation, increased fruit production, and fire. American Journal of Botany 81:1083–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quesada, M., Bollman, K., and Stephenson, A. G.. 1995. Leaf damage decreases pollen production and hinders pollen performance in Cucurbita texana. Ecology 76:437–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raguso, R. A., Henzel, C., Buchmann, S. L., and Nabhan, G. P.. 2003. Trumpet flowers of the Sonoran Desert: floral biology of Peniocereusi cacti and sacred Datura. International Journal of Plant Science 164:877–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathcke, B. J. 2001. Pollination and predation limit fruit set in a shrub, Bourreria succulenta (Boraginaceae), after hurricanes on San Salvador Island, Bahamas. Biotropica 33:330–338.Google Scholar
Richards, A. J. 1997. Plant Breeding Systems.New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schemske, D. W., and Horvitz, C. C.. 1988. Plant–animal interactions and fruit production in a neotropical herb: a path analysis. Ecology 69:1128–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharaf, K. E., and Price, M. V.. 2004. Does pollination limit tolerance to browsing in Ipomopsis aggregata? Oecologia 138:396–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shykoff, J. A., and Bucheli, E.. 1995. Pollinator visitation patterns, floral rewards and the probability of transmission of Microbotryum violaceum, a venereal disease of plants. Journal of Ecology 83:189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F. A., Brown, J. H., and Valone, T. J.. 1997. Path analysis: a critical evaluation using long-term experimental data. American Naturalist 149:29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J.. 1981. Biometry, 2nd edn. San Fransisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Stowe, K. A., Marquis, R. J., Hochwender, C. G., and Simms, E. L.. 2000. The evolutionary ecology of tolerance to consumer damage. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:565–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strain, B. R., and F. A. Bazzaz. 1983. Terrestrial plant communities, pp. 177–222 in Lemon, E. R. (ed.) CO2 and Plants: The Response of Plants to Rising Levels of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, S. Y. 1997. Floral characters link herbivores, pollinators, and plant fitness. Ecology 78:1640–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, S. Y., and Armbruster, W. S.. 1997. Linking herbivory and pollination: new perspectives on plant and animal ecology and evolution. Ecology 78:1617–1618.Google Scholar
Strauss, S. Y., Conner, J. K., and Rush, S. L.. 1996. Foliar herbivory affects floral characters and plant attractiveness to pollinators: implications for male and female plant fitness. American Naturalist 147:1098–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, S. Y., Siemens, D. H., Decher, M. B., and Mitchell-Olds, T.. 1999. Ecological costs of plant resistance to herbivores in the currency of pollination. Evolution 53:1105–1113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, S. Y., Connor, J. K., and Lehtilä, K. P.. 2001. Effects of foliar herbivory by insects on the fitness of Raphanus raphanistrum: damage can increase male fitness. American Naturalist 158:496–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vail, S. G. 1992. Selection for overcompensatory plant responses to herbivory: a mechanism for the evolution of plant–herbivore mutualism. American Naturalist 139:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vázquez, D. P., and Simberloff, D.. 2004. Indirect effects of an introduced ungulate on pollination and plant reproduction. Ecological Monographs 74:281–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westercamp, C. 1996. Pollen in bee–flower relations: some considerations on melittophily. Botanica Acta 109:325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, D. W., Gifford, R. M., Hilbert, D., and Luo, Y. 1998. Integration of photosynthetic acclimation to CO2 at the whole-plant level. Global Change Biology 4:879–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, L. M., and Krstolic, J. L.. 1999. Floral symmetry and its influence on variance in flower size. American Naturalist 154:484–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamauchi, A., and Yamamura, N.. 2004. Herbivory promotes plant production and reproduction in nutrient-poor conditions: effects of plant adaptive phenology. American Naturalist 163:138–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, D. W., Ridley, J., Jousselin, E., et al. 2004. Oviposition strategies, host coercion and the stable exploitation of figs by wasps. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 271:1185–1195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zangerl, A. R., and Rutledge, C. E.. 1996. The probability of attack and patterns of constitutive and induced defense: a test of optimal defense theory. American Naturalist 147:599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, M. 1983. Plant reproduction and optimal foraging: experimental nectar manipulations in Delphinium nelsonii. Oikos 41:57–63.CrossRefGoogle 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
×