BENEFITS AND COSTS OF INDUCED PLANT DEFENSE FOR<i>LEPIDIUM VIRGINICUM</i>(BRASSICACEAE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Induced responses to herbivores are common and well documented in plants. It has been hypothesized that the evolutionary ecology of induced responses can be understood by studying benefits of induction in the presence of herbivores and costs of induction in the absence of herbivores. Phenotypic benefits and costs of induction would indicate that such plasticity in defense could be adaptive (i.e., that phenotypes matched to their environmental conditions have higher relative fitness than unmatched phenotypes). However, few studies to date have investigated the benefits and costs of induction in the same system. In this study, induced responses of Lepidium virginicum to herbivory reduced feeding by generalist noctuid caterpillars in choice and no-choice experiments. Induced plant responses to herbivory were correlated with an increase in the number of trichomes per leaf and an increase in the diversity of the putatively defensive chemical compounds, glucosinolates, present in the foliage of damaged plants compared to undamaged controls. Induction did not affect the feeding behavior of the larvae of the specialist butterfly, Pieris rapae. In field experiments, induction reduced natural colonization of plants by aphids compared to both unmanipulated controls and controls that were damaged (but not induced) by clipping a leaf from the plant using a pair of scissors. Induced plants were more likely to survive in the field than clipped plants, a result that suggests a net fitness benefit of induction when leaf tissue removal was controlled. In experiments conducted in the absence of herbivores, damage induced responses did not reduce the root or shoot biomass of plants grown at low density. At high plant density, induction was associated with both reduced root biomass and increased aboveground growth, suggesting that induction may cause an allocation shift, rather than a loss of total biomass. Induced responses of plants satisfy a necessary component of adaptive plasticity because plants in variable herbivore environments maximize relative fitness by adjusting their defensive phenotype.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".