Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Aug 16;11(8):e0161076.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161076. eCollection 2016.

Parasite Removal, but Not Herbivory, Deters Future Parasite Attachment on Tomato

Affiliations

Parasite Removal, but Not Herbivory, Deters Future Parasite Attachment on Tomato

Muvari Connie Tjiurutue et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Plants face many antagonistic interactions that occur sequentially. Often, plants employ defense strategies in response to the initial damage that are highly specific and can affect interactions with subsequent antagonists. In addition to herbivores and pathogens, plants face attacks by parasitic plants, but we know little about how prior herbivory compared to prior parasite attachment affects subsequent host interactions. If host plants can respond adaptively to these different damage types, we predict that prior parasitism would have a greater deterrent effect on subsequent parasites than would prior herbivory. To test the effects of prior parasitism and prior herbivory on subsequent parasitic dodder (Cuscuta spp.) preference, we conducted two separate greenhouse studies with tomato hosts (Solanum lycopersicum). In the first experiment, we tested the effects of previous dodder attachment on subsequent dodder preference on tomato hosts using three treatments: control plants that had no previous dodder attachment; dodder-removed plants that had an initial dodder seedling attached, removed and left in the same pot to simulate parasite death; and dodder-continuous plants with an initial dodder seedling that remained attached. In the second experiment, we tested the effects of previous caterpillar damage (Spodoptera exigua) and mechanical damage on future dodder attachment on tomato hosts. Dodder attached most slowly to tomato hosts that had dodder plants previously attached and then removed, compared to control plants or plants with continuous dodder attachment. In contrast, herbivory did not affect subsequent dodder attachment rate. These results indicate that dodder preference depended on the identity and the outcome of the initial attack, suggesting that early-season interactions have the potential for profound impacts on subsequent community dynamics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Differences in attachment rate of the initial dodder seedlings on 6 tomato cultivars.
Lines shows proportion of dodder seedling attachment at each time point. Cultivar ‘H5608’ had significantly higher attachment rate compared to other cultivars (|Z| > 4.10, P < 0.001 for all).
Fig 2
Fig 2. Effects of prior dodder treatment on the attachment rate of a second dodder parasite across 3 tomato cultivars.
Lines indicate proportion of dodder seedling attachment at each time point. The ‘continuous attachment’ treatment line stops at day 4 because all dodder that did not attach by this point had died. Plants with the initial dodder removed had significantly lower attachment rate compared to control (Dodder-removed: hazard ratio vs control = 0.48, Z = -2.96, P = 0.0031) and plants with continuous dodder attachment (Dodder-continuous: hazard ratio vs control = 0.97, Z = -0.13, P = 0.900).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Effects of prior herbivory on the attachment rate of dodder plants on the ‘H5608’ tomato cultivar.
Lines indicate proportion of dodder seedling attachment at each time point. There were no significant differences between treatments (Herbivory: hazard ratio vs. control = 1.10, Z = 0.36, P = 0.72; Mechanical: hazard ratio vs. control = 1. 14, Z = 0.51, P = 0.62).

References

    1. Van Zandt PA, Agrawal AA. Specificity of induced plant responses to specialist herbivores of the common milkweed Asclepias syriaca. Oikos. 2004;104(2):401–9. 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12964.x . - DOI
    1. Karban R, Baldwin IT. Induced responses to herbivory London: The Univeristy of Chicago Press; 1997.
    1. Agrawal AA. Current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence. Funct Ecol. 2011;25(2):420–32. 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01796.x . - DOI
    1. Dicke M, Baldwin IT. The evolutionary context for herbivore-induced plant volatiles: beyond the 'cry for help'. Trends Plant Sci. 2010;15(3):167–75. 10.1016/j.tplants.2009.12.002 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Moraes CM, Lewis WJ, Pare PW, Alborn HT, Tumlinson JH. Herbivore-infested plants selectively attract parasitoids. Nature. 1998;393(6685):570–3. .

LinkOut - more resources