Plant-Herbivore Interactions: A Case of an Extreme Generalist, the Two-Spotted Spider Mite <i>Tetranychus urticae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant-herbivore interactions evolved over long periods of time, resulting in an elaborate arms race between interacting species. While specialist herbivores evolved specific strategies to cope with the defenses of a limited number of hosts, our understanding of how generalist herbivores deal with the defenses of a plethora of diverse host plants is largely unknown. Understanding the interaction between a plant host and a generalist herbivore requires an understanding of the plant's mechanisms aimed at defending itself and the herbivore's mechanisms intended to counteract diverse defenses. In this review, we use the two-spotted spider mite (TSSM), Tetranychus urticae (Koch) as an example of a generalist herbivore, as this chelicerate pest has a staggering number of plant hosts. We first establish that the ability of TSSM to adapt to marginal hosts underlies its polyphagy and agricultural pest status. We then highlight our understanding of direct plant defenses against spider mite herbivory and review recent advances in uncovering mechanisms of spider mite adaptations to them. Finally, we discuss the adaptation process itself, as it allows TSSM to overcome initially effective plant defenses. A high-quality genome sequence and developing genetic tools, coupled with an ease of mite experimental selection to new hosts, make TSSM an outstanding system to study the evolution of host range, mechanisms of pest xenobiotic resistance and plant-herbivore interactions. In addition, knowledge of plant defense mechanisms that affect mite fitness are of practical importance, as it can lead to development of new control strategies against this important agricultural pest. In parallel, understanding mechanisms of mite counter adaptations to these defenses is required to maintain the efficacy of these control strategies in agricultural practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".