Plant response to touch vs. insect feeding vibrations

被引:0
|
作者
Paret, Taylor [1 ,2 ]
Marici, Connor [1 ]
Cocroft, Reginald [3 ]
Appel, Heidi [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toledo, Dept Environm Sci, Toledo, OH 43606 USA
[2] Univ Houston, Dept Biol & Biochem, Houston, TX 77004 USA
[3] Univ Missouri, Dept Biol Sci, Columbia, MO USA
关键词
Insect feeding vibrations; Plant chemical defenses; Touch; Biotremology; Plant sensory ecology; JASMONATE-INDUCED RESISTANCE; ARABIDOPSIS-THALIANA; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR; HERBIVORE; SOUND; WIND; BEHAVIOR; STIMULI; STRESS; GROWTH;
D O I
10.1007/s11829-025-10139-z
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Plants experience a wide variety of mechanical stimuli in their environment, some of which indicate the presence of herbivory. Insect feeding vibrations elicit direct and primed increases in levels of defensive compounds. Touch is also a mechanical stimulus arising from rain, wind, and the movement of herbivores and pollinators. In this study, we compared the effect of insect feeding vibrations on flavonoid defenses with two other mechanical stimuli, a silent sham treatment and an active touch treatment. Feeding vibrations caused a direct increase in the concentration of anthocyanins compared to silent sham and active touch, and elicited no priming effects on response to methyl jasmonate. Silent sham caused a priming increase in the concentration of flavonols compared to feeding vibrations and active touch, and there were no direct effects. Although these results provide additional evidence for plant discrimination among mechanical stimuli, we discuss the common intertwining of touch and vibration in what plants experience in natural environments. We propose that touch and vibration are likely perceived by plants as related mechanical stimuli, and encourage broader exploration of this core feature of plant sensory ecology.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Influence of feeding guild on insect response to host plant fertilization
    Meyer, GA
    Root, RB
    ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY, 1996, 21 (03) : 270 - 278
  • [2] Testing Touch: Emulators vs. Devices
    Baker, Rebecca
    Sun, Xiaoning
    Hendrich, Bob
    INTERNATIONALIZATION, DESIGN AND GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT, 2011, 6775 : 135 - 142
  • [3] Arabidopsis-thrips system for analysis of plant response to insect feeding
    Abe, Hiroshi
    Onnishi, Jun
    Narusaka, Mari
    Seo, Shigemi
    Narusaka, Yoshihiro
    Tsuda, Shinya
    Kobayashi, Masatomo
    PLANT SIGNALING & BEHAVIOR, 2008, 3 (07) : 446 - 447
  • [4] Scent matters: differential contribution of scent to insect response in flowers with insect vs. wind pollination traits
    Wang, Theresa N.
    Clifford, Marie R.
    Martinez-Gomez, Jesus
    Johnson, Jens C.
    Riffell, Jeffrey A.
    Di Stilio, Veronica S.
    ANNALS OF BOTANY, 2019, 123 (02) : 289 - 301
  • [5] What vs. where in touch: an fMRI study
    Reed, CL
    Klatzky, RL
    Halgren, E
    NEUROIMAGE, 2005, 25 (03) : 718 - 726
  • [6] The Human Touch- REALITY vs. RIGHTS
    Jawad, Fatema
    Kalra, Sanjay
    JOURNAL OF THE PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2021, 71 (01) : 2 - 3
  • [7] Gross vs. net income: How plant toughness affects performance of an insect herbivore
    Clissold, Fiona J.
    Sanson, Gordon D.
    Read, Jenny
    Simpson, Stephen J.
    ECOLOGY, 2009, 90 (12) : 3393 - 3405
  • [8] Development of the spatial coding of touch: ability vs. automaticity
    Roeder, Brigitte
    Heed, Tobias
    Badde, Stephanie
    DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 2014, 17 (06) : 944 - 945
  • [9] Congruent Indirect Touch vs. mouse pointing performance
    Berard, Francois
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN-COMPUTER STUDIES, 2024, 187
  • [10] Memory for curvature of objects: Haptic touch vs. vision
    Ittyerah, Miriam
    Marks, Lawrence E.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 98 : 589 - 610