| Title |
Differential induction of trichomes by three herbivores of black mustard
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oecologia, May 2002
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00442-002-0924-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Brian Traw, Todd E. Dawson |
| Abstract |
Specificity of plant induction responses may be important to the interactions between mustards and insect herbivores. This study compared the effects of the cabbage white butterfly, Pieris rapae (L.), cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni (Hubner), and the mustard flea beetle, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze) on induction of leaf trichome density, sinigrin concentration, and nitrogen concentration in black mustard, Brassica nigra (L.) Koch. Plants were damaged for 12 h at the four-leaf stage, with effort made to standardize the damage applied. Induction responses were measured on the fifth, seventh, ninth, and 11th leaves counted from the cotyledons. Seventh leaves of plants damaged by P. rapae had 76% more trichomes per unit area than controls, whereas equivalent leaves of plants damaged by the other two herbivores exhibited no response. Ninth leaves of plants damaged by T. ni had 113% more trichomes per unit area than controls, whereas equivalent leaves of plants damaged by the other two herbivores exhibited no response. Trichome densities of fifth and 11th leaves did not respond to treatments. Leaf sinigrin and nitrogen concentrations were not affected by the damage treatments. Differential plant trichome response to P. rapae and T. ni may have been due to differences in location of feeding during the damage treatment. Other cues, such as salivary components, may also have differed between the two herbivores. This study is one of the first to document differential effects of two herbivores from the same guild on induction of morphological resistance. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 6 | 4% |
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 145 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 17% |
| Researcher | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 97 | 61% |
| Environmental Science | 17 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 7% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 25 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,453,479
of 22,786,691 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,674
of 4,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,803
of 120,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 120,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.