Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
182,469 studies31 sourcesUpdated 50 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0American Journal of Botany

The intensity and spatial dispersion of within‐plant herbivory drive trait‐specific resistance and tolerance in wild cotton

  • Víctor Hugo Ramírez‐Delgado1
  • Yeyson Briones‐May1
  • Juan Sánchez‐Durán1
  • Lucía Martín‐Cacheda2
  • Xoaquín Moreira2
  • Ted C. J. Turlings3,4,5
  • Luis Abdala‐Roberts6
6 affiliations
  1. 1Departamento de Ecología Tropical, Campus de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán Km. 15.5 Carretera Mérida‐Xtmakuil s/n Merida 97200 Yucatán Mexico
  2. 2Misión Biológica de Galicia (MBG‐CSIC) Apdo. 28 Pontevedra 36080 Galicia Spain
  3. 3Laboratory of Plant‐Insect Research for Sustainable Agriculture (PIRSA), State Key Laboratory of Cotton Bio‐breeding and Integrated Utilization, School of Life Sciences, College of Agriculture Henan University Kaifeng 475004 China
  4. 4Laboratory of Fundamental and Applied Research in Chemical Ecology (FARCE), Institute of Biology University of Neuchâtel Rue Emile‐Argand 11 Neuchâtel 2000 Switzerland
  5. 5Department of Entomology The Pennsylvania State University University Park PA USA
  6. 6Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores‐Unidad Mérida Carretera Mérida‐Tetiz Km. 4.5 Ucú 97357 Yucatán Mexico
Read full textDOICite

Abstract

Premise: Herbivory induces complex plant defensive responses that may vary depending on the amount and spatial dispersion of damage on the plant; however, of the two variables, damage dispersion has received much less attention. To address this gap, we studied wild cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) defensive responses to different herbivory amounts and degrees of dispersion among leaves using the specialist caterpillar Alabama argillacea (Erebidae).

Methods: Four herbivory treatments differing in the amount and spatial distribution were applied to 4‐month‐old plants: no herbivory (controls), low (two caterpillars: one on each of two leaves), high‐concentrated (four caterpillars: one pair on each of two leaves), and high‐dispersed (four caterpillars: one on each of four leaves). We measured extrafloral nectar (EFN) and phenolics, both resistance‐related traits, and as a proxy for tolerance, regrowth capacity (new leaf biomass post‐herbivory). To differentiate local from systemic induction, we measured EFN and phenolics separately for damaged and undamaged leaves.

Results: EFN was significantly and more consistently induced in damaged leaves (i.e., stronger local induction) and in response to high‐dispersed damage, but phenolics were unaffected by the treatment. Biomass of new leaves produced post herbivory was similar to that of controls for most treatment groups, except for high‐concentrated damage (lower than controls), suggesting this damage treatment incurred higher costs.

Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of studying induced plant defenses under various herbivory patterns and suggest that the spatial distribution of within‐plant damage has contrasting effects on resistance‐ (namely EFN) versus tolerance‐related induced responses of importance for wild cotton growth and ant‐plant interactions.

Related

  1. Integrated transcriptomic and metabolomic analysis reveals differential molecular mechanisms underlying resistance of native and invasive Phytolacca americana against Spodoptera litura herbivory.
    Feiran Jia, Huiyi Lu, Baoya He +4
    BMC plant biologyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textZoology & animal behaviourEurope PMCDOAJ
  2. Mangrove-Derived Halotolerant Endophytic Bacteria Confer Strain-Specific and Consortium-Mediated Salt Tolerance in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)
    Nagarathnamma Yammanuri, Subramanyam Reddy Chinreddy, Preetham Naik KT +3
    Plants (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textPlant biologyEurope PMC
  3. Arabidopsis thaliana root responses to Cd exposure: insights into root tip‐specific changes and the role of HY5 in limiting Cd accumulation and promoting tolerance
    Ludwig Richtmann, Santiago Prochetto, Noémie Thiébaut +5
    The Plant JournalPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull text6 citedPlant biologyHAL
  4. Kupffer cells are key mediators of antigen-specific immune tolerance by peptide-coupled red blood cells
    Vasileia Kalaitzaki, Pietro Oldrati, Filipa M. Ferreira +13
    Science AdvancesPeer-reviewedLicence not statedImmunologyCrossref
  5. Host-transposable element coexistence: a matter of resistance, tolerance and trade-off
    Séverine Chambeyron, Alain Pélisson, Yuica Koga +2
    The EMBO JournalPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full text1 citedPlant biologyHAL

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{ramirezdelgado2026intensity,
  title = {{The intensity and spatial dispersion of within‐plant herbivory drive trait‐specific resistance and tolerance in wild cotton}},
  author = {Víctor Hugo Ramírez‐Delgado and Yeyson Briones‐May and Juan Sánchez‐Durán and Lucía Martín‐Cacheda and Xoaquín Moreira and Ted C. J. Turlings and Luis Abdala‐Roberts},
  journal = {American Journal of Botany},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1002/ajb2.70280},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.70280},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - The intensity and spatial dispersion of within‐plant herbivory drive trait‐specific resistance and tolerance in wild cotton
AU  - Víctor Hugo Ramírez‐Delgado
AU  - Yeyson Briones‐May
AU  - Juan Sánchez‐Durán
AU  - Lucía Martín‐Cacheda
AU  - Xoaquín Moreira
AU  - Ted C. J. Turlings
AU  - Luis Abdala‐Roberts
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/16
JO  - American Journal of Botany
DO  - 10.1002/ajb2.70280
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.70280
AB  - Premise: Herbivory induces complex plant defensive responses that may vary depending on the amount and spatial dispersion of damage on the plant; however, of the two variables, damage dispersion has received much less attention. To address this gap, we studied wild cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) defensive responses to different herbivory amounts and degrees of dispersion among leaves using the specialist caterpillar Alabama argillacea (Erebidae).  Methods: Four herbivory treatments differing in the amount and spatial distribution were applied to 4‐month‐old plants: no herbivory (controls), low (two caterpillars: one on each of two leaves), high‐concentrated (four caterpillars: one pair on each of two leaves), and high‐dispersed (four caterpillars: one on each of four leaves). We measured extrafloral nectar (EFN) and phenolics, both resistance‐related traits, and as a proxy for tolerance, regrowth capacity (new leaf biomass post‐herbivory). To differentiate local from systemic induction, we measured EFN and phenolics separately for damaged and undamaged leaves.  Results: EFN was significantly and more consistently induced in damaged leaves (i.e., stronger local induction) and in response to high‐dispersed damage, but phenolics were unaffected by the treatment. Biomass of new leaves produced post herbivory was similar to that of controls for most treatment groups, except for high‐concentrated damage (lower than controls), suggesting this damage treatment incurred higher costs.  Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of studying induced plant defenses under various herbivory patterns and suggest that the spatial distribution of within‐plant damage has contrasting effects on resistance‐ (namely EFN) versus tolerance‐related induced responses of importance for wild cotton growth and ant‐plant interactions.
SN  - 0002-9122
SN  - 1537-2197
ER  -