Plant defense against herbivory

Historically, insects have been the most significant herbivores, and the evolution of land plants is closely associated with the evolution of insects. While most plant defenses are directed against insects, other defenses have evolved that are aimed at vertebrate herbivores, such as birds and mammals. The study of plant defenses against herbivory is important, not only from an evolutionary viewpoint, but also for the direct impact that these defenses have on agriculture, including human and livestock food sources; as beneficial 'biological control agents' in biological pest control programs; and in the search for plants of medical importance.

Evolution of defensive traits

The earliest land plants evolved from aquatic plants around 450 million years ago (Ma) in the

The relative abundance of different species of plants in ecological communities including forests and grasslands may be determined in part by the level of defensive compounds in the different species.[7] Since the cost of replacing damaged leaves is higher in conditions where resources are scarce, it may also be that plants growing in areas where water and nutrients are scarce may invest more resources into anti-herbivore defenses, resulting in slower plant growth.^[8]

Records of herbivores

Knowledge of herbivory in geological time comes from three sources: fossilized plants, which may preserve evidence of defense (such as spines) or herbivory-related damage; the observation of plant debris in fossilised animal feces; and the structure of herbivore mouthparts.^[9]

Long thought to be a Mesozoic phenomenon, evidence for herbivory is found almost as soon as fossils can show it. As previously discussed, the first land plants emerged around 450 million years ago; however, herbivory, and therefore the need for plant defenses, undoubtedly evolved among aquatic organisms in ancient lakes and oceans.^[10] Within 20 million years of the first fossils of sporangia and stems towards the close of the Silurian, around 420 million years ago, there is evidence that plants were being consumed.^[11] Animals fed on the spores of early Devonian plants, and the Rhynie chert also provides evidence that organisms fed on plants using a "pierce and suck" technique.^[9] Many plants of this time are preserved with spine-like enations, which may have performed a defensive role before being co-opted to develop into leaves.

During the ensuing 75 million years, plants evolved a range of more complex organs – from roots to seeds. There was a gap of 50 to 100 million years between each organ's evolution and its being eaten.^[11] Hole feeding and skeletonization are recorded in the early Permian, with surface fluid feeding evolving by the end of that period.^[9]

Co-evolution

Herbivores are dependent on plants for food and have evolved mechanisms to obtain this food despite the evolution of a diverse arsenal of plant defenses.

Plant defenses can be classified as constitutive or induced. Constitutive defenses are always present, while induced defenses are produced or mobilized to the site where a plant is injured. There is wide variation in the composition and concentration of constitutive defenses; these range from mechanical defenses to digestibility reducers and toxins. Many external mechanical defenses and quantitative defenses are constitutive, as they require large amounts of resources to produce and are costly to mobilize.[17] A variety of molecular and biochemical approaches are used to determine the mechanisms of constitutive and induced defensive responses.^{[18][19][20][21]}

Induced defenses include secondary metabolites and morphological and physiological changes.^[22] An advantage of inducible, as opposed to constitutive defenses, is that they are only produced when needed, and are therefore potentially less costly, especially when herbivory is variable.^[22] Modes of induced defence include systemic acquired resistance^[23] and plant-induced systemic resistance.^[24]

Chemical defenses

The evolution of chemical defenses in plants is linked to the emergence of chemical substances that are not involved in the essential photosynthetic and metabolic activities. These substances, secondary metabolites, are organic compounds that are not directly involved in the normal growth, development or reproduction of organisms,^[25] and often produced as by-products during the synthesis of primary metabolic products.^[26] Examples of these byproducts include phenolics, flavonoids, and tannins.^[27] Although these secondary metabolites have been thought to play a major role in defenses against herbivores,^[5][25][28] a meta-analysis of recent relevant studies has suggested that they have either a more minimal (when compared to other non-secondary metabolites, such as primary chemistry and physiology) or more complex involvement in defense.^[29] Furthermore, plants can release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to warn other plants in the area of stressful conditions. These toxic compounds can be used to deter the herbivore or even attract the herbivore's predator. Finally, some plants can also produce plant defensive proteins, which upon ingestion, end up poisoning the herbivore.

Plants can also communicate through the air. Pheromone release and other scents can be detected by leaves and regulate plant immune response. In other words, plants produce volatile organic compounds (VOC) to warn other plants of danger and change their behavioral state to better respond to threats and survival.^[30] These warning signals produced by infected neighboring trees allow the undamaged trees to provocatively activate the necessary defense mechanisms. Within the plant itself, it transmits warning, nonvolatile signals as well as airborne signals to surrounding undamaged trees to strengthen their defense/immune system. For instance, poplar and sugar maple trees demonstrated that they received tannins from nearby damaged trees.^[30] In sagebrush, damaged plants send out airborne compounds, such as methyl jasmonate, to undamaged plants to increase proteinase inhibitor production and resistance to herbivory.^[30] Further observations illustrated that damaged plants release various VOCs and hormones to receiver plants as a form of communication for defense and regulating their immune system.

The release of unique VOCs and extrafloral nectar (EFN) allow plants to protect themselves against herbivores by attracting animals from the third trophic level. For example, caterpillar-damaged plants guide parasitic wasps to prey on victims through the release of chemical signals.^[31]The sources of these compounds are most likely from glands in the leaves which are ruptured upon the chewing of an herbivore.^[31] The injury by herbivores induces the release of linolenic acid and other enzymatic reactions in an octadecanoid cascade, leading to the synthesis of jasmonic acid, a hormone which plays a central role in regulating immune responses. Jasmonic acid induces the release of VOCs and EFN which attract parasitic wasps and predatory mites to detect and feed on herbivores.^[32] These volatile organic compounds can also be released to other nearby plants to be prepared for the potential threats. Studies have shown that the volatile compounds emitted by plants are easy to be detected by third trophic level organisms as these signals are unique to herbivore damage.^[31] An experiment conducted to measure the VOCs from growing plants shows that signals are released instantaneously upon the herbivory damage and slowly dropped after the damage stopped. It was also observed that plants release the strongest signals during the time of day which animals tend to forage.^[31]

Since trees are sessile, they've established unique internal defense systems. For instance, when some trees experience herbivory, they release compounds that make their vegetation less palatable. The herbivores saliva left on the leaves of the tree sends a chemical signal to the tree's cells. The tree cells respond by increasing the concentration of salicylic acid (hormone) production.^[33] Salicylic acid is a phytohormone that is one of the essential hormones for regulating plants' immune systems.^[34] This hormone then signals to increase the production of tree chemicals called tannins within its leaves.^[33] Tannins affect palatability and digestibility of vegetation while also increasing the concentration of growth hormones, encouraging new leaf growth.^[33] The increased production of tannins makes it difficult for deer to digest, which makes the leaves less appealing to eat. The research experiment done by Bettina Ohse, et al. found that a group of field-grown saplings of European beech and sycamore maple trees could sense whether it was specifically a deer eating at its leaves. The scientists realized saliva caused an increase in tannin concentration, due to their experiment of having broken leaves that contain saliva and ones that do not. The leaves that contained the deer saliva showed an increase in tannin and experienced an increase in the growth of the leaves of the tree, but the leaves without the deer saliva did not experience these changes.^[33] The increase in tannin concentration is one internal mechanism that trees use to combat mobile predators, like deer. This tannin increase is done by the trees' immune system and is a key defense strategy used by plants of all kinds.

Qualitative and quantitative metabolites

Secondary metabolites are often characterized as either

herbivores.

Quantitative chemicals are those that are present in high concentration in plants (5 – 40% dry weight) and are equally effective against all specialists and generalist herbivores. Most quantitative metabolites are digestibility reducers that make plant cell walls indigestible to animals. The effects of quantitative metabolites are dosage dependent and the higher these chemicals' proportion in the herbivore's diet, the less nutrition the herbivore can gain from ingesting plant tissues. Because they are typically large molecules, these defenses are energetically expensive to produce and maintain, and often take longer to synthesize and transport.^[35]

The

Japanese beetles. Within 30 minutes of ingestion the chemical paralyzes the herbivore. While the chemical usually wears off within a few hours, during this time the beetle is often consumed by its own predators.^[36][37]

Antiherbivory compounds

Further information: Secondary metabolite

Plants have evolved many secondary metabolites involved in plant defense, which are collectively known as antiherbivory compounds and can be classified into three sub-groups: nitrogen compounds (including alkaloids, cyanogenic glycosides, glucosinolates and benzoxazinoids), terpenoids, and phenolics.^[38]

bitter taste.^[42]

Glucosinolates are activated in much the same way as cyanogenic glucosides, and the products can cause gastroenteritis, salivation, diarrhea, and irritation of the mouth.^[42] Benzoxazinoids, such as DIMBOA, are secondary defence metabolites characteristic of certain grasses (Poaceae). Like cyanogenic glycosides, they are stored as inactive glucosides in the plant vacuole.^[44] Upon tissue disruption they get into contact with β-glucosidases from the chloroplasts, which enzymatically release the toxic aglucones. Whereas some benzoxazinoids are constitutively present, others are only synthesized following herbivore infestation, and thus, considered inducible plant defenses against herbivory.^[45]

The

glycosides (such as digitalis) and saponins (which lyse red blood cells of herbivores).^[48]

Phenolics, sometimes called phenols, consist of an

silymarin and cannabinoids.^[49] Condensed tannins, polymers composed of 2 to 50 (or more) flavonoid molecules, inhibit herbivore digestion by binding to consumed plant proteins and making them more difficult for animals to digest, and by interfering with protein absorption and digestive enzymes.^[50]

In addition, some plants use

water hemlock, is a polyyne derived from the fatty acid metabolism.^[52] Oxalyldiaminopropionic acid is a neurotoxic amino acid produced as a defensive metabolite in the grass pea (Lathyrus sativus).^[53] The synthesis of fluoroacetate in several plants is an example of the use of small molecules to disrupt the metabolism of herbivores, in this case the citric acid cycle.^[54]

Mechanical defenses

See the review of mechanical defenses by Lucas et al., 2000, which remains relevant and well regarded in the subject as of 2018^[update].

silica, and wax cover the epidermis of terrestrial plants and alter the texture of the plant tissue. The leaves of holly plants, for instance, are very smooth and slippery making feeding difficult. Some plants produce gummosis or sap that traps insects.^[57]

Spines and thorns

A plant's leaves and stem may be covered with sharp prickles, spines, thorns or

Raphides are sharp needles of calcium oxalate or calcium carbonate in plant tissues, making ingestion painful, damaging a herbivore's mouth and gullet and causing more efficient delivery of the plant's toxins. The structure of a plant, its branching and leaf arrangement may also be evolved to reduce herbivore impact. The shrubs of New Zealand have evolved special wide branching adaptations believed to be a response to browsing birds such as the moas.^[59] Similarly, African Acacias have long spines low in the canopy, but very short spines high in the canopy, which is comparatively safe from herbivores such as giraffes.^[60][61]

Coconut palms

protect their fruit by surrounding it with multiple layers of armor.

Trees such as palms protect their fruit by multiple layers of armor, needing efficient tools to break through to the seed contents. Some plants, notably the

silica (and many plants use other relatively indigestible materials such as lignin) to defend themselves against vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores.^[62] Plants take up silicon from the soil and deposit it in their tissues in the form of solid silica phytoliths. These mechanically reduce the digestibility of plant tissue, causing rapid wear to vertebrate teeth and to insect mandibles,^[63] and are effective against herbivores above and below ground.^[64] The mechanism may offer future sustainable pest-control strategies.^[65]

Thigmonastic movements

pulvini at the base of leaves resulting from osmotic phenomena. This is then spread via both electrical and chemical means through the plant; only a single leaflet need be disturbed. This response lowers the surface area available to herbivores, which are presented with the underside of each leaflet, and results in a wilted appearance. It may also physically dislodge small herbivores, such as insects.^[66]

Carnivorous plants

butterwort.^[67] Although many outside of the scientific community usually believe these plants excel in defenses, many of these plants have evolved in poor nutrient soil. In order to get sufficient nutrients in these conditions they must use an alternative method.^[68]

They use insects and small birds as a way to gain the minerals they need through carnivory. Carnivorous plants do not use carnivory as self-defense, but to get the nutrients they need.

Mimicry and camouflage

Further information: Mimicry in plants

Some plants

oviposition by butterflies.^[69]

Indirect defenses

Main article: Tritrophic interactions in plant defense

Another category of plant defenses are those features that indirectly protect the plant by enhancing the probability of attracting the

Crop domestication has increased yield sometimes at the expense of HIPV production. Orre Gordon et al 2013 tests several methods of artificially restoring the plant-predator partnership, by combining companion planting and synthetic predator attractants. They describe several strategies which work and several which do not.^[73]

Plants sometimes provide housing and food items for natural enemies of herbivores, known as "biotic" defense mechanisms, as a means to maintain their presence. For example, trees from the genus

extrafloral nectaries on their leaves as food for the ants.^[75]

tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), which is infected by Neotyphodium coenophialum.^[66][77]

Trees of the same species form alliances with other tree species in order to improve their survival rate. They communicate and have dependent relationships through connections below the soil called underground mycorrhiza networks, which allows them to share water/nutrients and various signals for predatory attacks while also protecting its immune system.[78] Within a forest of trees, the ones getting attacked send communication distress signals that alerts neighboring trees to alter their behavior (defense).^[78] The tree and fungi relationship is a symbiotic relationship.^[78] Fungi, intertwined with the trees' roots, support communication between trees to locate nutrients. In return, the fungi receive some of the sugar that trees photosynthesize. Trees send out several forms of communication including chemical, hormonal, and slow pulsing electric signals. Farmers investigated the electrical signals between trees, using a voltage-based signal system, similar to an animal's nervous system, where a tree faces distress and releases a warning signal to surrounding trees.

Leaf shedding and color

There have been suggestions that leaf shedding may be a response that provides protection against diseases and certain kinds of pests such as leaf miners and gall forming insects.^[79] Other responses such as the change of leaf colors prior to fall have also been suggested as adaptations that may help undermine the camouflage of herbivores.^[80] Autumn leaf color has also been suggested to act as an honest warning signal of defensive commitment towards insect pests that migrate to the trees in autumn.^[81][82]

Costs and benefits

Defensive structures and chemicals are costly as they require resources that could otherwise be used by plants to maximize growth and reproduction. In some situations, plant growth slows down when most of the nutrients are being used for the generation of toxins or regeneration of plant parts.^[83] Many models have been proposed to explore how and why some plants make this investment in defenses against herbivores.^[8]

Optimal defense hypothesis

The optimal defense hypothesis attempts to explain how the kinds of defenses a particular plant might use reflect the threats each individual plant faces.^[84] This model considers three main factors, namely: risk of attack, value of the plant part, and the cost of defense.^[85][86]

The first factor determining optimal defense is risk: how likely is it that a plant or certain plant parts will be attacked? This is also related to the plant apparency hypothesis, which states that a plant will invest heavily in broadly effective defenses when the plant is easily found by herbivores.^[87] Examples of apparent plants that produce generalized protections include long-living trees, shrubs, and perennial grasses.^[87] Unapparent plants, such as short-lived plants of early successional stages, on the other hand, preferentially invest in small amounts of qualitative toxins that are effective against all but the most specialized herbivores.^[87]

The second factor is the value of protection: would the plant be less able to survive and reproduce after removal of part of its structure by a herbivore? Not all plant parts are of equal evolutionary value, thus valuable parts contain more defenses. A plant's stage of development at the time of feeding also affects the resulting change in fitness. Experimentally, the fitness value of a plant structure is determined by removing that part of the plant and observing the effect.

reproductive parts are not as easily replaced as vegetative parts, terminal leaves have greater value than basal leaves, and the loss of plant parts mid-season has a greater negative effect on fitness than removal at the beginning or end of the season.^[89][90] Seeds in particular tend to be very well protected. For example, the seeds of many edible fruits and nuts contain cyanogenic glycosides such as amygdalin. This results from the need to balance the effort needed to make the fruit attractive to animal dispersers while ensuring that the seeds are not destroyed by the animal.^[91][92]

The final consideration is cost: how much will a particular defensive strategy cost a plant in energy and materials? This is particularly important, as energy spent on defense cannot be used for other functions, such as reproduction and growth. The optimal defense hypothesis predicts that plants will allocate more energy towards defense when the benefits of protection outweigh the costs, specifically in situations where there is high herbivore pressure.[93]^[94]

Carbon:nutrient balance hypothesis

The carbon:nutrient balance hypothesis, also known as the environmental constraint hypothesis or Carbon Nutrient Balance Model (CNBM), states that the various types of plant defenses are responses to variations in the levels of nutrients in the environment.^[95][96] This hypothesis predicts the Carbon/Nitrogen ratio in plants determines which secondary metabolites will be synthesized. For example, plants growing in nitrogen-poor soils will use carbon-based defenses (mostly digestibility reducers), while those growing in low-carbon environments (such as shady conditions) are more likely to produce nitrogen-based toxins. The hypothesis further predicts that plants can change their defenses in response to changes in nutrients. For example, if plants are grown in low-nitrogen conditions, then these plants will implement a defensive strategy composed of constitutive carbon-based defenses. If nutrient levels subsequently increase, by for example the addition of fertilizers, these carbon-based defenses will decrease.

Growth rate hypothesis

The growth rate hypothesis, also known as the resource availability hypothesis, states that defense strategies are determined by the inherent growth rate of the plant, which is in turn determined by the resources available to the plant. A major assumption is that available resources are the limiting factor in determining the maximum growth rate of a plant species. This model predicts that the level of defense investment will increase as the potential of growth decreases.^[97] Additionally, plants in resource-poor areas, with inherently slow-growth rates, tend to have long-lived leaves and twigs, and the loss of plant appendages may result in a loss of scarce and valuable nutrients.^[98]

One test of this model involved a reciprocal transplants of seedlings of 20 species of trees between clay soils (nutrient rich) and white sand (nutrient poor) to determine whether trade-offs between growth rate and defenses restrict species to one habitat. When planted in white sand and protected from herbivores, seedlings originating from clay outgrew those originating from the nutrient-poor sand, but in the presence of herbivores the seedlings originating from white sand performed better, likely due to their higher levels of constitutive carbon-based defenses. These finding suggest that defensive strategies limit the habitats of some plants.^[99]

Growth-differentiation balance hypothesis

The growth-differentiation balance hypothesis states that plant defenses are a result of a tradeoff between "growth-related processes" and "differentiation-related processes" in different environments.^[100] Differentiation-related processes are defined as "processes that enhance the structure or function of existing cells (i.e. maturation and specialization)."^[84] A plant will produce chemical defenses only when energy is available from photosynthesis, and plants with the highest concentrations of secondary metabolites are the ones with an intermediate level of available resources.^[100]

The GDBH also accounts for tradeoffs between growth and defense over a resource availability gradient. In situations where resources (e.g. water and nutrients) limit photosynthesis, carbon supply is predicted to limit both growth and defense. As resource availability increases, the requirements needed to support photosynthesis are met, allowing for accumulation of carbohydrate in tissues. As resources are not sufficient to meet the large demands of growth, these carbon compounds can instead be partitioned into the synthesis of carbon based secondary metabolites (phenolics, tannins, etc.). In environments where the resource demands for growth are met, carbon is allocated to rapidly dividing meristems (high sink strength) at the expense of secondary metabolism. Thus rapidly growing plants are predicted to contain lower levels of secondary metabolites and vice versa. In addition, the tradeoff predicted by the GDBH may change over time, as evidenced by a recent study on

Salix spp. Much support for this hypothesis is present in the literature, and some scientists consider the GDBH the most mature of the plant defense hypotheses.^{[citation needed][opinion}

]

Synthesis tradeoffs

The vast majority of plant resistances to herbivores are either unrelated to each other, or are positively correlated. However there are some negative correlations: In

secondary metabolites involved are negatively correlated with each other; and in the resistances of Diplacus aurantiacus.^[101]

In

Peronospora parasitica and growth rate are negatively correlated.^[101]

Mutualism and overcompensation of plants

Many plants do not have secondary metabolites, chemical processes, or mechanical defenses to help them fend off herbivores.[102] Instead, these plants rely on overcompensation (which is regarded as a form of mutualism) when they are attacked by herbivores.^[103][104] Overcompensation is defined as having higher fitness when attacked by a herbivore. This a mutual relationship; the herbivore is satisfied with a meal, while the plant starts growing the missing part quickly. These plants have a higher chance of reproducing, and their fitness is increased.

Importance to humans

Agriculture

The variation of plant susceptibility to pests was probably known even in the early stages of agriculture in humans. In historic times, the observation of such variations in susceptibility have provided solutions for major

socio-economic problems. The hemipteran pest insect phylloxera was introduced from North America to France in 1860 and in 25 years it destroyed nearly a third (100,000 km²) of French vineyards. Charles Valentine Riley noted that the American species Vitis labrusca was resistant to Phylloxera. Riley, with J. E. Planchon, helped save the French wine industry by suggesting the grafting of the susceptible but high quality grapes onto Vitis labrusca root stocks.^[105] The formal study of plant resistance to herbivory was first covered extensively in 1951 by Reginald Henry Painter, who is widely regarded as the founder of this area of research, in his book Plant Resistance to Insects.^[106] While this work pioneered further research in the US, the work of Chesnokov was the basis of further research in the USSR.^[107]

Fresh growth of grass is sometimes high in

cyanogenic chemicals in grasses is primarily a defense against herbivores.^[108][109]

The human innovation of cooking may have been particularly helpful in overcoming many of the defensive chemicals of plants. Many

pulses, such as trypsin inhibitors prevalent in pulse crops, are denatured by cooking, making them digestible.^[110][111]

It has been known since the late 17th century that plants contain

neem (Azadirachta indica), d-Limonene from Citrus species, Rotenone from Derris, Capsaicin from chili pepper and Pyrethrum.^[115]

Natural materials found in the environment also induce plant resistance as well.[116] Chitosan derived from chitin induce a plant's natural defense response against pathogens, diseases and insects including cyst nematodes, both are approved as biopesticides by the EPA to reduce the dependence on toxic pesticides.

The selective breeding of crop plants often involves selection against the plant's intrinsic resistance strategies. This makes crop plant varieties particularly susceptible to pests unlike their wild relatives. In breeding for host-plant resistance, it is often the wild relatives that provide the source of resistance

toxicological side effects.^[117]

Pharmaceutical

Many currently available

pharmaceuticals are derived from the secondary metabolites plants use to protect themselves from herbivores, including opium, aspirin, cocaine, and atropine.^[118] These chemicals have evolved to affect the biochemistry of insects in very specific ways. However, many of these biochemical pathways are conserved in vertebrates, including humans, and the chemicals act on human biochemistry in ways similar to that of insects. It has therefore been suggested that the study of plant-insect interactions may help in bioprospecting.^[119]

There is evidence that humans began using plant alkaloids in medical preparations as early as 3000

B.C.^[40] Although the active components of most medicinal plants have been isolated only recently (beginning in the early 19th century) these substances have been used as drugs throughout the human history in potions, medicines, teas and as poisons. For example, to combat herbivory by the larvae of some Lepidoptera species, Cinchona trees produce a variety of alkaloids, the most familiar of which is quinine. Quinine is extremely bitter, making the bark of the tree quite unpalatable. It is also an anti-fever agent, known as Jesuit's bark, and is especially useful in treating malaria.^[120]

Throughout history mandrakes (

Pacific yew, Taxus brevifolia, in the early 1960s.^[122]

Biological pest control

Repellent

restoration

projects.

See also

• Anti-predator adaptation
• Aposematism
• Biopesticide
• Chemical ecology
• Canavanine
• Druse (botany)
• Laticifer
• Lectin
• List of beneficial weeds
• List of companion plants
• List of pest-repelling plants
• Plant disease resistance
• Plant tolerance to herbivory
• Plant communication
• Pollination
• Phytoalexin
• Raphide
• Rapid plant movement
• Seed predation
• Tritrophic interactions in plant defense

References

Citations

1. ^ Boyd, Jade (2012). "A bit touchy: Plants' insect defenses activated by touch". Rice University. http://news.rice.edu/2012/04/09/a-bit-touchy-plants-insect-defenses-activated-by-touch-2/ Archived 2012-05-12 at the Wayback Machine
2. PMID 28878062
   .
3. PMID 11014322
   .
4. doi:10.2174/187231311796765012
   .
5. ^
   JSTOR 2406212
   .
6. PMID 11607501
   .
7. ^ Keddy, P.A. 2007. Plants and Vegetation: Origins, Processes, Consequences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 666 p. Chapter 7.
8. ^
   PMID 12179963
   .
9. ^
   S2CID 55272605
   .
10. ISBN 978-0-19-504431-7
    .
11. ^
    S2CID 221813576
    .
12. S2CID 15464125
    .
13. ISBN 978-0-87893-228-3
    .
14. ISBN 978-0-632-05155-7
    .
15. doi:10.1093/icb/34.1.57
    .
16. PMID 10322530
    .
17. S2CID 21524345. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on 2007-09-27.
18. S2CID 11842328
    .
19. PMID 19183291
    .
20. PMID 21887311
    .
21. PMID 23434671
    .
22. ^
    JSTOR 2266130
    .
23. PMID 19521483
    .
24. PMID 23100680
    .
25. ^
    PMID 13658975
    .
26. ISBN 978-0-12-654750-4
    .
27. PMID 22895106
    .
28. ISBN 978-0-02-427390-1
    .
29. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01794.x
    . Retrieved 26 June 2011.
30. ^
    PMID 22353877
    .
31. ^
    PMID 7753779
    .
32. PMID 18086230
    .
33. ^
    ISSN 0269-8463
    .
34. PMID 23745126
    .
35. S2CID 85705162. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on 2007-04-18.
36. ^ Flores, Alfredo (March 2010). "Geraniums and Begonias: New Research on Old Garden Favorites". AgResearch Magazine. United States Department of Agriculture.
37. PMID 21205899
    .
38. ^ "Biochemical defenses: secondary metabolites". Plant Defense Systems & Medicinal Botany. Archived from the original on 2007-07-03. Retrieved 2007-05-21.
39. ^ "Alkaloids: contain a N-containing heterocycle". Plant Defense Systems & Medicinal Botany. Archived from the original on 2007-07-03. Retrieved 2007-06-26.
40. ^
    ISBN 978-0-306-45465-3
    .
41. ^ Sneden, Albert T. "Alkaloids". Natural Products as Medicinally Useful Agents. Archived from the original on 2007-06-02. Retrieved 2007-05-21.
42. ^
    ISBN 978-0-12-597180-5
    .
43. doi:10.1016/S0041-0101(99)00128-2
44. PMID 19199602
    .
45. PMID 21838747
    .
46. ^ "Terpenoids". Plant Defense Systems & Medicinal Botany. Archived from the original on 2007-07-03. Retrieved 2007-06-26.
47. ISBN 978-0-8493-4085-7
    .
48. ^ Sneden, Albert T. "Terpenes". Natural Products as Medicinally Useful Agents. Archived from the original on 2007-07-16. Retrieved 2007-05-21.
49. ^ "Phenols". Plant Defense Systems & Medicinal Botany. Archived from the original on 2003-04-03. Retrieved 2007-05-21.
50. ISBN 978-0-9601586-0-7
    .
51. doi:10.1021/jf60163a003
    .
52. doi:10.1039/JR9530000309
    .
53. S2CID 33451792
    .
54. S2CID 53616334
    .
55. ^
    • Lucas, Peter W.; Turner, Ian M.; Dominy, Nathaniel J.; Yamashita, Nayuta (2000). "Mechanical Defences to Herbivory".
      S2CID 24489519
      .
56. ^
    doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2007.01.001
    .
57. ^ Fernandes, G. W. (1994). "Plant mechanical defenses against insect herbivory". Revista Brasileira de Entomologia. 38 (2): 421–433 [1].
58. S2CID 7255144
    .
59. S2CID 59123721
    .
60. S2CID 1452753
    .
61. S2CID 24374988
    .
62. S2CID 37941736
    .
63. PMID 18771503
    .
64. S2CID 24547236
    .
65. ^ Frew, A.; Allsopp, P. G.; Gherlenda, A. G.; Johnson, S. N. (2016). "Increased root herbivory under elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is reversed by silicon-based plant defences". Journal of Applied Ecology. 54 (5): 1310–1319.
    doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12822
    .
66. ^
    ISBN 978-0-7167-1007-3
    .
67. PMID 27197216
    .
68. ^ "Darwin Online: Insectivorous Plants". darwin-online.org.uk. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
69. S2CID 35244996
    .
70. ^
    S2CID 27922870
    .
71. S2CID 206527346
    .
72. PMID 23066503
    .
73. S2CID 210150752
    .
74. JSTOR 2960606
    .
75. S2CID 26354370
    .
76. ISSN 0030-1299
    .
77. PMID 10481011
    .
78. ^
    PMID 25979966
    .
79. JSTOR 1939093
    .
80. PMID 15382135. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on 2007-11-27. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
81. S2CID 27615064
    .
82. PMID 11454293
    .
83. PMID 23925939
    .
84. ^
    S2CID 10285393
    .
85. ISBN 978-0-12-612408-8
    .
86. PMID 11353840
    . Retrieved 2007-05-27.
87. ^
    ISBN 978-0-306-34710-8
    .
88. ISBN 978-0-12-597180-5
    .
89. ISBN 978-0-12-209160-5
    .
90. S2CID 85573620
    .
91. PMID 16668810
    .
92. S2CID 22955658
    .
93. JSTOR 2679994
    .
94. ISSN 0906-7590
    .
95. S2CID 85157419
    .
96. ISBN 978-0-387-96673-1
    .
97. S2CID 18179626
    .
98. JSTOR 2096908
    .
99. S2CID 41429110
    .
100. ^
     S2CID 19279900
     .
101. ^
     ISSN 1543-592X
     .
102. PMID 17002942
     .
103. PMID 10871904
     .
104. ^ "Mutualistic Interactions | Learn Science at Scitable". www.nature.com. Retrieved 2022-03-29.
105. ^ Polavarapu, Sridhar (2001). "Plant Resistance to insects". Agricultural Entomology & Pest Management. Rutgers University. Archived from the original on 2007-07-13. Retrieved 2007-05-16.
106. OCLC 443998
     .
107. OCLC 3576157
     .
108. S2CID 10054924
     .
109. ^ Vough, Lester R.; E. Kim Cassel (July 2002). "Prussic Acid Poisoning of Livestock: Causes and Prevention (ExEx 4016)" (PDF). Extension Extra. South Dakota State University Extension Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-02-13.
110. PMID 7166934
     .
111. ^ Tu Jean-Louis (1999). "Natural Toxins in Raw Foods and How Cooking Affects Them". Is Cooked Food Poison?. Beyond Vegetarianism. Retrieved 2007-05-22.
112. ISBN 978-1-892829-11-5
     . firat Ware
113. ISBN 978-1-4020-3701-6
     .
114. JSTOR 2405664
     .
115. ^ Russ, Karen. "Less toxic insecticides" (PDF). Clemson University Home & Garden Information Center. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
116. ^ "Linden, J., Stoner, R., Knutson, K. Gardner-Hughes, C. "Organic Disease Control Elicitors". Agro Food Industry Hi-Te (p12-15 Oct 2000)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-07-06.
117. doi:10.1093/aesa/92.6.788
     .
118. PMID 11395950
     .
119. S2CID 19744770
     .
120. ^ Albert T. Sneden. "The Quinine Alkaloids" (PDF). Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Design. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-02-05. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
121. ^ Albert T. Sneden. "The Tropane Alkaloids" (PDF). Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Design. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
122. ^ Albert T. Sneden. "Taxol (Paclitaxe)" (PDF). Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Design. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-05-23.

Sources

• Robert S. Fritz; Ellen L. Simms, eds. (1992). Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution, and genetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  ISBN 978-0-226-26553-7
  .
• Hartley, Sue (2010) The 300 Million Years War: Plant Biomass v Herbivores Royal Institution Christmas Lecture.
• Howe, H. F., and L. C. Westley. 1988. Ecological relationships of plants and animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
• Pierre Jolivet (1998). Interrelationship Between Insects and Plants. Boca Raton: CRC.
  ISBN 978-1-57444-052-2
  .
• Richard Karban & Ian T. Baldwin (1997). Induced responses to herbivory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  ISBN 978-0-226-42495-8
  .
• Martin R. Speight; Mark D. Hunter; Allan D. Watt (1999). Ecology of insects: concepts and applications. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
  ISBN 978-0-86542-745-7
  .
• John N. Thompson (1994). The coevolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  ISBN 978-0-226-79759-5
  .
• Wiens, D. (1978). "Mimicry in Plants". Evolutionary Biology. Vol. 11. pp. 365–403.
  PMID 22182416. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help
  )

External links

• Bruce A. Kimball Evolutionary Plant Defense Strategies Life Histories and Contributions to Future Generations
• Plant Defense Systems & Medicinal Botany Archived 2007-01-05 at the Wayback Machine
• Herbivore Defenses of Senecio viscosus L.
• Sue Hartley Royal Institution Christmas Lectures 2009: The Animals Strike Back