@article {1131,
	title = {Secondary Metabolites in Plant Defense-Mechanisms},
	journal = {New Phytologist},
	volume = {127},
	year = {1994},
	note = {J
English
Review
BENNETT, RN, ROTHAMSTED EXPTL STN, AFRC, INST ARABLE CROPS RES, DEPT BIOCHEM \& PHYSIOL, HARPENDEN AL5 2JQ, HERTS, ENGLAND
171
245
CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
NEW YORK
40 WEST 20TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10011-4211
NEW PHYTOL
AUG
Discipline: Plant Sciences
PG825},
	month = {1994///},
	pages = {617 - 633},
	abstract = {Many secondary metabolites found in plants have a role in defence against herbivores, pests and pathogens. In this review, a few examples are described and discussed, and some of the problems in determining the precise role(s) df such metabolites highlighted. The role of secondary metabolites in defence may involve deterrence/anti-feedant activity, toxicity or acting as precursors to physical defence systems. Many specialist herbivores and pathogens do not merely circumvent the deterrent or toxic effects of secondary metabolites but actually utilize these compounds as either host recognition cues or nutrients (or both). This is true of both cyanogenic glucosides and glucosinolates, which are discussed in detail as examples of defensive compounds. Their biochemistry is compared and contrasted. An enormous variety of secondary metabolites are derived from shikimic acid or aromatic amino acids, many of which have important roles in defence mechanisms. Several classes of secondary products are {\textquoteright}induced{\textquoteright} by infection, wounding or herbivory, and examples of these are given. Genetic variation in the speed and extent of such induction may account, at least in part, for the difference between resistant and susceptible varieties. Both salicylates and jasmonates have been implicated as signals in such responses and in many other physiological processes, though their prescise roles and interactions in signalling and development are not fully understood},
	keywords = {2-SPOTTED SPIDER-MITE, activity, ALKALOIDS, BICOLOR L MOENCH, CYANOGENIC GLUCOSIDE DHURRIN, CYANOGENIC GLUCOSIDES, development, GLUCOSINOLATES, herbivory, interactions, METHYL JASMONATE, OILSEED RAPE, PATHOGENESIS-RELATED PROTEINS, PHENOLICS, PHENYLALANINE AMMONIA-LYASE, PHYTOALEXINS, PLANTS, RAPE BRASSICA-NAPUS, RECOGNITION, SALICYLIC ACID, SALICYLIC-ACID, SYSTEMIC ACQUIRED-RESISTANCE, VIRUS-INOCULATED TOBACCO},
	isbn = {0028-646X},
	url = {ISI:A1994PG82500001},
	author = {Bennett,R.N. and Wallsgrove,R.M.}
}
@article {1048,
	title = {Interactions among elk, aspen, galling sawflies and insectivorous birds},
	journal = {Oikos},
	volume = {101},
	year = {2003},
	note = {Journal
APR
665EL
OIKOS},
	month = {2003///},
	pages = {127 - 134},
	keywords = {insectivorous birds, interactions},
	url = {ISI:000182106600013},
	author = {Bailey,J.K. and Whitham,T.G.}
}
@article {1105,
	title = {Interactions between chemical and mechanical defenses in the plant genus Bursera and their implications for herbivores},
	journal = {American Zoologist},
	volume = {41},
	year = {2001},
	note = {J
SEP},
	month = {2001///},
	pages = {865 - 876},
	keywords = {defense, interactions},
	url = {ISI:000173403000016},
	author = {Becerra,J.X. and Venable,D.L. and Evans,P.H. and Bowers,W.S.}
}
@article {1049,
	title = {Importance of species interactions to community heritability: a genetic basis to trophic-level interactions},
	journal = {Ecology Letters},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2006},
	note = {J
JAN},
	month = {2006///},
	pages = {78 - 85},
	keywords = {COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITY, interactions},
	url = {ISI:000235306400011},
	author = {Bailey,J.K. and Wooley,S.C. and Lindroth,R.L. and Whitham,T.G.}
}
@article {1050,
	title = {Importance of species interactions to community heritability: a genetic basis to trophic-level interactions},
	journal = {Ecology Letters},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2006},
	note = {J
JAN},
	month = {2006///},
	pages = {78 - 85},
	keywords = {COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITY, interactions},
	url = {ISI:000235306400011},
	author = {Bailey,J.K. and Wooley,S.C. and Lindroth,R.L. and Whitham,T.G.}
}
@article {940,
	title = {Defining and measuring the impact of dynamic traits on interspecific interactions},
	journal = {Ecology},
	volume = {88},
	year = {2007},
	note = {J
OCT},
	month = {2007///},
	pages = {2555 - 2562},
	abstract = {Trait- and density-mediated indirect effects describe different pathways by which indirect interactions in food webs are propagated from one species to another, through changes in intermediate species. A series of articles in Ecology has progressively altered the original definitions of "trait-mediated{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} to the point where understanding is being impeded. The most recent of these articles are two meta-analyses that use "trait-mediated{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} to describe the demographic costs to a prey species of employing anti-predator defenses. These same articles introduce a companion term, "density-mediated interaction,{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} apparently to describe direct and indirect interactions that only involve changes in population density due to consumption by predators. This new terminology has many disadvantages, including ( 1) using a general term for a relatively narrow group of processes; ( 2) using "mediated{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} in a manner inconsistent with existing terminology; ( 3) confusing the accepted definitions of different types of indirect effects; and ( 4) providing a highly incomplete measure of the impact of behavior on the predator - prey interaction. Solutions to these problems and the meaning of the meta-analyses are discussed},
	keywords = {defense, ecology, food webs, indirect effects, indirect interactions, interactions, INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTIONS, PREDATOR, predators, PREY},
	isbn = {0012-9658},
	url = {ISI:000250714200016},
	author = {Abrams,P.A.}
}
@article {941,
	title = {Does competition between resources change the competition between their consumers to mutualism? Variations on two themes by Vandermeer},
	journal = {American Naturalist},
	volume = {170},
	year = {2007},
	note = {J
NOV},
	month = {2007///},
	pages = {744 - 757},
	abstract = {How does competition between resources affect the interaction between consumer species that share those resources? Existing theory suggests that high resource competition can lead to mutualism. However, this is based on an analysis that need only apply near equilibrium, and experimental demonstrations of such mutualism are rare. Two alternative approaches to measuring food web mutualism are examined here. These are based on the population level effects of adding or removing a consumer species or on the amount of additional mortality that can be applied to one consumer without excluding it. Both measures suggest that mutualism is likely to be confined to two situations: when overlap in resource use by the consumers is very low and when the consumers are inefficient users of their resources. Competition between resources is also likely to increase the occurrence and magnitude of "hypercompetition" between consumers, where the reduction in population size caused by the introduced consumer is greater than that caused by a consumer that is identical to the resident species. Competition between resources can also increase the negative interaction between consumers by destabilizing the dynamics of the system. Such destabilization can cause negative indirect interactions between specialist consumers having no overlap in resource use},
	keywords = {COMPETITION, DYNAMICS, indirect interactions, interactions, MORTALITY, MUTUALISM, SIZE, theory},
	isbn = {0003-0147},
	url = {ISI:000249981500009},
	author = {Abrams,P.A. and Nakajima,M.}
}
@article {942,
	title = {Measuring the impact of dynamic antipredator traits on predator-prey-resource interactions},
	journal = {Ecology},
	volume = {89},
	year = {2008},
	note = {J
JUN},
	month = {2008///},
	pages = {1640 - 1649},
	abstract = {This article analyzes the limitations of the most widely used method for quantifying the impact of dynamic antipredator traits on food chain dynamics and discusses alternative approaches. The standard method for a predator-prey-resource chain estimates the effects of the prey{\textquoteright}s defensive behavior by comparing population densities or fitness measures in a {\textquoteright}{\textquoteright}predator cue{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} treatment to those in a no-predator treatment. This design has been interpreted as providing a measure of the {\textquoteright}{\textquoteright}nonconsumptive effect{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} of the predator on the prey and the {\textquoteright}{\textquoteright}trait-mediated indirect effect{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} of the predator on the resource. Other approaches involve measurements of the impact of the behavior in the presence of functional predators. The questions addressed here are: (1) How consistent are the results of different approaches? (2) How time-dependent are their results? (3) How well do they correspond to theoretical measures of effect size? (4) How useful are the measurements in understanding system dynamics? A model of a tritrophic system in which the prey species adjusts a defensive trait adaptively is used to evaluate the experimental designs. Measures of changes in prey fitness or population density in a cue treatment generally include offsetting effects of the cost of the behavior and the benefit of more resources. This means that the sign of the effect, as well as its magnitude, may change depending on when the experiment is terminated. Because predation is not present in the cue treatment, few conclusions can be drawn about the impact of the behavior on population densities or fitness of the prey in a natural setting with predators. Cue experiments often do not accurately separate trait-mediated from density-mediated effects on the resource. Most scalar measures of effects are sensitive to experimental duration and initial densities. Use of a wider range of experimental designs to measure trait-related effects is called for},
	keywords = {DYNAMICS, interactions, predation, PREDATOR, predators, PREY, SIZE},
	isbn = {0012-9658},
	url = {ISI:000256540300017},
	author = {Abrams,P.A.}
}
@article {971,
	title = {Current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence},
	journal = {Functional Ecology},
	volume = {25},
	year = {2011},
	note = {J
APR},
	month = {2011///},
	pages = {420 - 432},
	abstract = {P>1. In this essay I summarize current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence, while advocating for approaches that integrate community ecology with specific tests of classic evolutionary hypotheses. Several conclusions emerge. 2. The microevolution of defence is perhaps best studied by reciprocal transplant experiments of differentiated plant populations while simultaneously manipulating the presence of the herbivore(s) hypothesized to be the agent(s) of natural selection. 3. Although there is continued interest in the costs of defence, I argue that some empirical approaches to estimating costs (e.g. genetic engineering) may provide limited insight into evolutionary processes. 4. Essentially all plants employ several different lines of defence against herbivory. It is thus time to abandon searching for single silver bullet traits and the simple trade-off model (where traits are arbitrarily expected to negatively covary across genotypes or species). We still know very little about which trait combinations are most effective and have repeatedly evolved together. Thus, some of our prominent theories (e.g. a predicted trade-off between direct and indirect defence) need to be revised. 5. Studies of the macroevolution of plant defence are enjoying renewed interest due to available phylogenies and analytical methods. Although general trends are not currently surmisable, we will soon have strong case studies evaluating both biotic and abiotic drivers of convergent evolution in defence strategies and the role of defence evolution in the adaptive radiation of plant lineages. 6. The evolution of specificity is proposed as a final frontier in understanding complexity in plant-herbivore interactions. Although it is abundantly clear that plants can deploy highly specific defensive responses that are differentially perceived by herbivore species, how such responses evolve and are physiologically regulated remains an important gap. Relatively straightforward methodologies are now available to close the loop between plant perception of herbivory, hormonal responses, and production of defensive end-products across genotype or species},
	keywords = {COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITY, community ecology, COMPLEXITY, ecology, EVOLUTION, HERBIVORE, herbivory, interactions, MODEL, phylogeny, plant, plant-herbivore interactions, PLANTS, POPULATIONS, RESPONSES, SPECIFICITY, theory},
	isbn = {0269-8463},
	url = {ISI:000288501100012},
	author = {Agrawal,A.A.}
}
