Trade-Offs and Ontogenetic Changes in Resistance and Tolerance to Insect Herbivory in <i>Arabidopsis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Premise of research. As plants grow and develop larger roots and leaves, their access to resources increases. Consequently, reproductive plants should be able to invest in defense against herbivores more than younger plants. However, because plant defense may occur through resistance (traits that reduce herbivore damage) or tolerance (traits that reduce the negative effects of damage on plant fitness), ontogenetic changes in the pattern of resource allocation to growth, defense, and reproduction are likely to influence the relative investment in resistance and tolerance. Currently, many mechanisms of resistance are known, while mechanisms of tolerance are still rather unexplored. We investigated whether resistance and tolerance increase with ontogeny, whether tolerance is costly (i.e., lower seed production in the absence of damage), whether the relative investment into these two modes of defense changes with ontogeny, and whether plant growth rate and certain biomass allocation patterns are associated with tolerance.Methodology. In a greenhouse experiment, we measured resistance and tolerance to the generalist herbivore Trichoplusia ni in seven accessions of Arabidopsis thaliana at three ontogenetic stages: early vegetative (four-leaf rosette), first flower, and first fruit.Pivotal results. Both resistance and tolerance to T. ni larvae increased from the vegetative stage to flowering and remained high through fruiting in A. thaliana. We found a negative association between resistance and tolerance that was very pronounced at the vegetative stage, decreased during flowering, and disappeared by the fruiting stage. We also found a cost of tolerance at the vegetative stage but not in later stages. Growth rate did not influence tolerance, but plants with greater root ∶ shoot ratios were more tolerant of herbivory.Conclusions. Our study demonstrated that both resistance and tolerance increase with ontogeny and that the cost of tolerance and a pronounced trade-off between resistance and tolerance faded through ontogeny.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".