Induced defences in plants reduce herbivory by increasing cannibalism

ABSTRACT Plants are attacked by myriad herbivores, and many plants exhibit anti-herbivore defences. We tested the hypothesis that induced defences benefit tomato plants by encouraging

insects to eat other members of their species. We found that defences that promote cannibalism benefit tomatoes in two ways: cannibalism directly reduces herbivore abundance, and cannibals

eat significantly less plant material. This previously unknown means of defence may alter plant–herbivore dynamics, plant evolution and pathogen transmission. Access through your institution

Buy or subscribe This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your institution Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription $29.99 / 30 days cancel any time Learn more Subscribe to this journal Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles $119.00

per year only $9.92 per issue Learn more Buy this article * Purchase on SpringerLink * Instant access to full article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated

during checkout ADDITIONAL ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs * Contact customer support SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS PLANT DEFENCE

TO SEQUENTIAL ATTACK IS ADAPTED TO PREVALENT HERBIVORES Article 14 October 2021 TOMATO DEFENCES MODULATE NOT ONLY INSECT PERFORMANCE BUT ALSO THEIR GUT MICROBIAL COMPOSITION Article Open

access 24 October 2023 COOPERATIVE HERBIVORY BETWEEN TWO IMPORTANT PESTS OF RICE Article Open access 19 November 2021 REFERENCES * Karban, R. & Baldwin, I. T. _Induced Responses to

Herbivory_ (Univ. Chicago Press, 1997). * Karban, R., Yang, L. H. & Edwards, K. F. _Ecol. Lett._ 17, 44–52 (2014). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Karban, R. _Plant Sensing and

Communication_ (Univ. Chicago Press, 2015). * Orrock, J. L. _et al_. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 30, 441–445 (2015). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Agrawal, A. A. & Klein, C. N. _J. Anim.

Ecol._ 69, 525–535 (2000). Article  Google Scholar  * Poelman, E. H., van Loon, J. A. J. & Dicke, M. _Trends Plant Sci._ 13, 534–541 (2008). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Agrawal, A. A. _Funct. Ecol._ 25, 420–432 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Agrawal, A. A. _Entomol. Exp. Applic._ 115, 97–105 (2005). Article  Google Scholar  * Farmer, E. E. & Ryan,

C. A. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 87, 7713–7716 (1990). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Tian, D., Peiffer, M., De Moraes, C. M. & Felton, G. W. _Planta_ 239,

577–589 (2014). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Richardson, M. L., Mitchell, R. F., Reagel, P. F. & Hanks, L. M. _Annu. Rev. Entomol._ 55, 39–53 (2010). Article  CAS  PubMed 

Google Scholar  * Fox, L. _Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst._ 6, 87–106 (1975). Article  Google Scholar  * Al-Zubaidi, F. S. & Capinera, J. L. _Environ. Entomol._ 12, 1687–1689 (1983). Article 

Google Scholar  * Tian, D. _et al_. _PLoS One_ 7, e36168 (2012). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Polis, G. A. _Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst_ 12, 225–251 (1981). Article 

Google Scholar  * Andow, D. A. _et al_. _Ecol. Entomol._ 40, 229–236 (2005). Article  Google Scholar  * Karban, R., Agrawal, A. A., Thaler, J. S. & Adler, L. S. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 14,

443–447 (1999). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Sadeh, A. & Rosenheim, J. A. _Ecology_ 97, 1994–2002 (2016). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Thaler, J. S. _Nature_ 399,

686–688 (1999). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Elvira, S., Williams, T. & Caballero, P. _J. Econ. Ent._ 103, 577–582 (2010). Article  Google Scholar  Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Comments from E. Preisser and E. Damschen greatly improved the manuscript. We appreciate artwork by B. Feeny. J.O. was hosted by the Department of Biology at Virginia

Commonwealth University (VCU) while writing the manuscript; VCU Biology, the Johnson, Vonesh and Damschen laboratories kindly shared space and equipment for conducting experiments. AUTHOR

INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Integrative Biology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53704, USA John Orrock, Brian Connolly & Anthony Kitchen Authors * John

Orrock View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Brian Connolly View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google

Scholar * Anthony Kitchen View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS J.O. conceived the study; J.O. and B.C. designed the study; A.K.,

  B.C. and J.O. conducted the experiments; J.O. performed all analyses and led manuscript preparation; B.C. and A.K. contributed to manuscript revision. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence

to John Orrock. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing financial interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Springer Nature remains neutral with

regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Results,

Supplementary References, Supplementary Figures 1–5 RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Orrock, J., Connolly, B. & Kitchen, A. Induced

defences in plants reduce herbivory by increasing cannibalism. _Nat Ecol Evol_ 1, 1205–1207 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0231-6 Download citation * Received: 08 September 2016

* Accepted: 05 June 2017 * Published: 10 July 2017 * Issue Date: August 2017 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0231-6 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will

be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt

content-sharing initiative