Plant Physiol. PAM Fluorometers & Gas Exchange
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Plant Physiology 146:875-880 (2008)
© 2008 American Society of Plant Biologists

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rasmann, S.
Right arrow Articles by Agrawal, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rasmann, S.
Right arrow Articles by Agrawal, A. A.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Rasmann, S.
Right arrow Articles by Agrawal, A. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Plant-Herbivore Interactions
Update on Root Chemical Defenses

In Defense of Roots: A Research Agenda for Studying Plant Resistance to Belowground Herbivory1

Sergio Rasmann* and Anurag A. Agrawal

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853–2701

Interest in root biology research is experiencing a dramatic increase. From a microphytocentric perspective, the availability of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) mutants, along with a sequenced genome, has led to valuable insights into root biochemistry, development, and other functions (Flores et al., 1999Go; D'Auria and Gershenzon, 2005Go). From an ecological perspective, belowground processes are now recognized as essential components of ecosystem productivity and stability (Van der Putten, 2003Go; Wardle et al., 2004Go). The surface area of roots can far exceed that of aerial parts, thus providing tremendous resources for microbes, nematodes, and arthropods in the soil, and these organisms are now recognized as drivers of plant diversity and ecosystem functioning (De Deyn and Van der Putten, 2005Go). Here we address one of the most neglected aspects of root biology, namely, the chemistry of plant defense against belowground herbivores. Focusing on secondary compounds present in roots and drawing some parallels with aboveground plant tissues, we outline preliminary patterns in root defense and propose a research agenda for future work.


   BACKGROUND ON BELOWGROUND HERBIVORY
TOP
 BACKGROUND ON BELOWGROUND...
CHEMICAL DEFENSES IN ROOTS
 CONCLUSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Root-feeding insects play an important role in both agricultural and natural ecosystems (Blossey and Hunt-Joshi, 2003Go; Wardle et al., 2004Go). Through physiological and physical changes of roots, belowground herbivores have the potential to shape plant communities (De Deyn et al., 2003Go), belowground microorganism and macroorganism communities (Wardle, 2006Go), as well as aboveground arthropod communities (Bezemer and van Dam, 2005Go). When attacked by herbivores, plants defend themselves through a continuum of defensive strategies, including direct resistance (chemical or mechanical traits that reduce herbivory), indirect resistance (traits enhancing the action of enemies of herbivores), or tolerance (i.e. regrowth). Although most of the theory developed to predict variation in plant defense investment was based on interactions aboveground, relatively little attention has been paid to similar interactions belowground. Is this due to a general bias against studies on underground herbivory (out of sight, out of mind?), or is belowground herbivory relatively negligible compared with aboveground herbivory?

Although there are currently no global comparisons of aboveground versus belowground herbivory, the few studies that have simultaneously examined their relative impact indicate that belowground herbivory rivals that of aboveground damage in terms of effects on plant fitness (Brown and Gange, 1989Go; Maron, 1998Go). For example, the per area biomass of cicadas (root xylem feeders) in eastern deciduous forests of North America is the highest of any terrestrial animal and their damage is substantial enough to reduce tree growth (Karban, 1980Go). To assess diversity of belowground feeders, we conducted a survey of all North American families of insects (Borror et al., 1989Go). Only 17% of the 257 families with herbivorous species (as adults or juveniles) contain species of root feeders (including chewers, sap suckers, and gall makers), compared with 92% of the families containing aboveground herbivores (including leaf, stem, flower, and seed feeders, gall makers, and miners, but not including flower visitors such as honeybees or other pollinators). We are not aware of estimates of the relative abundance of belowground and aboveground herbivores. Thus, we tentatively conclude that although root feeders may be less diverse than aboveground feeders, their impacts appear to be quite strong. Greater attention needs to be paid to the relative abundances of aboveground and belowground herbivores, and the fitness consequences of herbivory on different plant parts, separating roots, shoots, and reproductive structures.


   CHEMICAL DEFENSES IN ROOTS
TOP
 BACKGROUND ON BELOWGROUND...
 CHEMICAL DEFENSES IN ROOTS
CONCLUSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 
It is currently unclear if there are patterns associated with phytochemical investment aboveground versus belowground. In Table I we present an initial survey of major compound classes that are known to be effective defenses against herbivores. We focused primarily on studies that presented both root and shoot chemistry simultaneously from undamaged plants.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table I. Concentrations of defensive phytochemical compounds in roots and shoots from studies that simultaneously investigated both plant parts

Although not comprehensive, we attempted to broadly survey plant families and classes of chemical compounds. Data are mostly from mature leaf and root tissues.

 
Three major points emerge from the survey. First, compounds present in aboveground tissues are most often also found in roots. Second, roots appear to be unambiguously defended by phytochemicals given the substantial investment there. And finally, there is no consistent bias across species of differential allocation to aboveground versus belowground tissues. Returning to the question at the beginning of the section, we would answer that roots do not express constitutive chemical defenses more or less strongly than shoots. Nonetheless, differential allocation apparently depends on plant family, species, and genotype (Collantes et al., 1999Go; Agerbirk et al., 2003Go; Hol et al., 2004Go), age of plant (Hara et al., 2000Go; Frolich et al., 2006Go), and ontogenetic stage of the tissues (Ohnmeiss and Baldwin, 2000Go; Walls et al., 2005Go). Moreover, variability between root and shoot defensive chemical concentration can be explained by abiotic factors such as atmospheric CO2, N2, light, and site of origin (Wainhouse et al., 1998Go; Mattson et al., 2005Go).

Using a series of mechanistic and evolutionary approaches, we propose six major factors that may shape the relative composition of root versus shoot chemistry: site of production and mobility of the chemicals, damage history of an individual plant (induced responses), signaling pathways, damage history of a population (evolutionary response), domestication, and phylogenetic history. The importance of each factor and future directions are outlined below.


Site of Production and Mobility of Phytochemicals as Constraints in Defense Allocation

The site of production of defensive secondary metabolites is variable in plants, depending on the nature of the compound and the plant species. For example, in several Solanaceous species, alkaloids are synthesized in the roots and are transported into aboveground parts of plants. Hence, the pattern of alkaloids found in the leaves is determined by production in the roots. When reciprocal grafts were established between a nicotine-producing and a tropane alkaloid-producing species, the type of alkaloids found in the leaves were determined by the rootstock (Waller and Novacki, 1977Go). Similarly, Hartmann (1999)Go has also shown that the precursor of highly toxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids in the Asteraceae (senecionine N-oxide) is produced in roots, and only after translocation to the shoot is biochemical diversification achieved. Given the frequently observed higher accumulation of the transported compounds in roots compared with shoots (especially in undamaged tissues; Table I), it is unclear whether this differential initial allocation serves any adaptive function (i.e. the need for high constitutive root defense). Thus, the consequences of high constitutive levels of root compounds that are mobile (or not mobile) need to be investigated, and the inducibility of such compounds retained in roots represents an additional important and unexplored area.

Vascular constraints in shoots result in unequal systemic induction of plant secondary metabolites in different aboveground plant parts after elicitation at one site of attack (Frost et al., 2007Go). Similar vascular constrains are well known in the relationship between belowground and aboveground allocation of nutrients and secondary metabolites (Orians et al., 2002Go). The well-documented examples of signal molecules traveling from one damaged leaf to others via direct vascular connections begs the question of similar constraints in aboveground induction after root herbivory in particular zones of the rhizosphere. Aboveground and belowground signaling mediated by hormones is briefly discussed below and also by Erb et al. (2008)Go.

Finally, site specificity in defense expression may be generated by gene differentiation and expression. Chen et al. (2004)Go report on an Arabidopsis terpene synthase gene mainly responsible for the production of 1,8-cineole in the roots. The most closely related gene is a flower-specific synthase that catalyzes the formation of a set of monoterpenes very similar to those produced by the root synthase, but its major products are myrcene and (E)-β-ocimene, not 1,8-cineole. This study suggested that divergence of organ expression patterns and product specificity is potentially part of an ongoing evolutionary processes. The function of terpene production in Arabidopsis roots is unknown, although it could be related to belowground tritrophic interactions (Rasmann et al., 2005Go) or interactions with microbes.


Damage History (Induced Responses)

Induction of defensive compounds following herbivore attack is generally thought of as a way in which plants maximize their fitness depending on the site and probability of attack (Karban et al., 1997Go; Agrawal, 1998Go; Kessler and Baldwin, 2001Go). In this regard, roots should not differ from aboveground tissues. For example, in potato (Solanum tuberosum) roots and tubers, wounding and jasmonate treatment elicit lipoxygenases transcript accumulation (Geerts et al., 1994Go). Perhaps the best studied root induction system is that of spinach (Spinacia oleracea). Phytoecdysteroids present in spinach increase after damage by a root herbivore, mechanical damage, or jasmonate application (Schmelz et al., 1998Go, 1999Go, 2002Go), and, interestingly, only treatment of roots, not shoots, increased the chemical concentration in the roots (Schmelz et al., 1998Go); see Table II . This suggests a level of organ specificity and compartmentalization of the aboveground and belowground signaling pathways. Moreover, Schmelz et al. (2002)Go have shown that phytoecdysteroids decrease the survivorship and establishment of the root-feeding fungus gnat (Bradysia impatiens), and result in higher root and shoot biomass of induced plants compared with controls. Moreover, maize (Zea mays) plants, when attacked by the leaf herbivore Spodoptera littoralis, emit a conspicuous blend of volatile organic compounds in the leaves but not in the roots; likewise, root feeding induces the plant to produce the sesquiterpene (E)-β-caryophyllene in the roots, and none or very little in the leaves (Rasmann and Turlings, 2007Go). Thus, root herbivory itself may alter patterns of defense investment aboveground and belowground, and potentially even reverse the constitutive ratio of defense investment (Table II).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table II. A survey of chemical induction in plant roots when attacked by herbivores (LHe and RHe represent leaf and root herbivores, respectively), treated with plant hormones (LHo or RHo), or mechanically damaged (LMe or RMe)

 
Optimal defense theory predicts that plants should invest the most defense in plant parts with the greatest fitness value and those that are most likely to be attacked (Stamp, 2003Go). That is, plant parts that are likely to be attacked should contain high constitutive levels of defense, whereas other parts that have similar fitness value but are rarely attacked should rely more on inducible defenses. Zangerl and Rutledge (1996)Go tested this hypothesis and showed that roots of wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) contained the lowest constitutive levels of xanthotoxin, but were highly inducible, whereas leaves and flowers having a high probability of attack invested more in constitutive xanthotoxin and were less inducible than roots.

Although aboveground and belowground responses are sometimes independent (Bezemer et al., 2003Go, 2004Go), there is growing evidence for interactions between the two. For example, Brassica nigra plants showed a clear systemic increase in shoot glucosinolate levels in response to Delia radicum feeding on roots; although a congener, Brassica oleracea did not show this pattern. In both species, however, a similar local increase in indole glucosinolate levels was found in roots at the feeding site of the larvae (van Dam and Raaijmakers, 2006Go). Maize seedlings, when simultaneously attacked aboveground by the noctuid moth S. littoralis and belowground by the chrysomelid beetle Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, showed a reduction of attraction of the aboveground parasitoid Cotesia marginiventris and the belowground predatory nematode Heterorhabditis megidis, compared with singly damaged plants (Rasmann and Turlings, 2007Go). Aboveground and belowground studies are showing a complex path of communication between root and shoot tissues, and the nature and mode of signaling between the soil organs and leaves is a rapidly expanding area of research (Erb et al., 2008Go).

Finally, some defensive traits may only be expressed in one plant part, even though the expression may be influenced by the state of other plant parts. Our recent unpublished work shows that latex is only produced aboveground in common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) and no latex is found in damaged roots. Despite the strong compartmentalization, root herbivory diminishes the production and exudation of latex in the leaves (S. Rasmann and A.A. Agrawal, unpublished data). Whether this is due to loss of turgor pressure or a response to defense signaling has yet to be investigated.


Signaling Pathways of Plant Defense Induction Underground

Induction of plant resistance is generally mediated by three major signaling compounds, jasmonic acid, salicylic acid, and ethylene, and studies on aboveground herbivory have shown that the different pathways interact with each other to construct a pattern of independent and networked defense responses (Heidel and Baldwin, 2004Go). How hormones are translocated from their site of origin to other plant parts will likely play a key role in shoot-to-root communication (Atkins and Smith, 2007Go). Some signaling molecules follow phloem ducts to reach root cells (Sachs, 2005Go), but how a damaged root alerts the leaves to mobilize or synthesize defensive compounds still remains unclear. An example of this can be a pool of signaling molecules such as the precursors of jasmonic acid in cell membranes, already present in the belowground organs, which, after damage, are readily transported aboveground (Gatehouse, 2002Go). Although little is known about aboveground and belowground movement of hormones in response to root herbivory, evidence for their general importance is mounting. McConn et al. (1997)Go showed that Arabidopsis mutants deficient in the jasmonate precursor linolenic acid are extremely susceptible to the root chewing fungus gnat B. impatiens, and that resistance is partially restored by methyl jasmonate application to the leaves. Very few studies have analyzed accumulation of gene transcripts in response to root mechanical damage or feeding, but initial results indicate that the three major signaling pathways mentioned above are involved with the elicitation of root responses (Salzman et al., 2005Go; Puthoff and Smigocki, 2007Go).


Microevolution of Root Defenses

Like all other adaptations, root defenses may evolve if heritable variation in their allocation affects fitness. This has barely been studied and little direct evidence indicates that natural selection has shaped root defenses. Nonetheless, root defensive chemistry is certainly heritable (Myszewski et al., 2002Go; Hol et al., 2004Go). For example, both constitutive and induced production of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in the roots of Senecio jacobaea are heritable (Hol et al., 2004Go). The maintenance of genetic variation in defense is thought to be driven by benefits and costs of these traits. Evidence for benefits of root defense comes primarily from the agricultural literature (see discussion of spinach above and the next section on domestication). In the only study on costs, the fitness effect of resource allocation to tannin production in the roots of Populus deltoids was estimated as reduced aboveground tree growth, and costs were detected in only one out of three common garden experiments (Kosola et al., 2004Go). Thus, costs and benefits of root defense represent an opportunity for future research. Given population level variation in root herbivory and its impacts (Blossey and Hunt-Joshi, 2003Go; Maron and Kauffman, 2006Go), we predict that local adaptation to root herbivory (i.e. genetically differentiated plant populations) represents an excellent tool to study costs and benefits of allocation to root defense.


Domestication Favors Specific Plant Defensive Traits

Root herbivores are among the most harmful insects attacking crop plants (e.g. corn root worm, Diabrotica spp.), and the handful of species known to attack roots of the major crop plants dominate the literature on belowground resistance (Blossey and Hunt-Joshi, 2003Go). Although specific knowledge on human selection for root defenses is poorly documented, strong direct selection on root chemistry has occurred in root crops to increase palatability to humans (radish [Raphanus sativus], potato, cassava [Manihot esculenta], etc.) and to enhance resistance to pests. For example, Delia flies damaging Brassica spp. (oilseed rape [Brassica napus], kale [B. oleracea], swede [Brassica napobrassica], canola [B. napus]) roots affect plant performance and commercial yields. Since the discovery of the defensive role of glucosinolates in reducing herbivory, breeding efforts have led to increased belowground concentrations of these compounds in Brassica crops (Potter et al., 2000Go). Additionally, in maize, strains bred with naturally occurring high levels of hydroxamic acids showed improved resistance to corn rootworm, more biomass, and had better yield compared with varieties with lower levels of hydroxamic acids (Assabgui et al., 1993Go).

Selection on crop plants can also lead to inadvertent changes in belowground chemical defenses. We recently discovered the presence of Diabrotica-induced (E)-β-caryophyllene in maize roots, which attracts predatory nematodes (Rasmann et al., 2005Go). However, this trait was apparently lost in North American lines of maize, whereas it is still present in European varieties (Rasmann et al., 2005Go). The reactivation of the gene responsible for (E)-β-caryophyllene production in American lines could lead to a more efficient tritrophic battle against Diabrotica.


Phylogenetic Analyses

Although selection and domestication are powerful approaches to studying the microevolution of plant defense, macroevolutionary (or phylogenetic) studies have recently been advocated for studying broader patterns (Agrawal, 2007Go). Few phylogenetic analyses have addressed belowground defensive chemistry, and further assessments will improve our knowledge of: (1) the biosynthetic origin of defenses (Liscombe et al., 2005Go), (2) phylogenetic conservatism in defense allocation (Wink, 2003Go), (3) potential trade-offs among defensive strategies (Agrawal and Fishbein, 2006Go), and (4) phyletic patterns indicative of coevolution (Ehrlich and Raven, 1964Go). Our unpublished data on cardenolides in the roots of milkweed plants (Asclepias spp.) have shown over 8-fold variation in the constitutive allocation among 34 species, and thus a high level of evolutionary lability in this trait. This result suggests that root defenses may rapidly evolve as species-specific adaptations to belowground herbivores (Agrawal, 2004Go).


   CONCLUSION
TOP
 BACKGROUND ON BELOWGROUND...
 CHEMICAL DEFENSES IN ROOTS
 CONCLUSION
LITERATURE CITED
 
There are tremendous opportunities in the study of root defense, especially those that meld ecological and evolutionary context with mechanistic approaches. Why do Arabidopsis roots produce volatile terpenes? Are the alkaloids produced in Aster roots providing frontline defense against root herbivory or are they simply produced and stored underground? How might increasing root defense alter aboveground signaling in plant-herbivore-parasitoid interactions? And finally, if root herbivores are truly less diverse than foliar herbivores, is there anything fundamentally different in the chemically mediated coevolutionary interactions occurring in the rhizosphere? We have made some progress, but there is a lot to be discovered about resistance to belowground herbivory.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank the editors of this Focus Issue for the invitation to contribute, and Alexis Erwin, Rayko Halitschke, Ted Turlings, Jennifer Thaler, and anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript.

Received October 30, 2007; accepted November 28, 2007; published March 6, 2008.


   FOOTNOTES
 
1 This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (postdoctoral fellowship PBNEA–114692 to S.R.) and the National Science Foundation (grant no. NSF–DEB 0447550 to A.A.A.). Back

The author responsible for distribution of materials integral to the findings presented in this article in accordance with the policy described in the Instructions for Authors (www.plantphysiol.org) is: Sergio Rasmann (sgr37{at}cornell.edu).

www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/doi/10.1104/pp.107.112045

* Corresponding author; e-mail sgr37{at}cornell.edu.


   LITERATURE CITED
TOP
 BACKGROUND ON BELOWGROUND...
 CHEMICAL DEFENSES IN ROOTS
 CONCLUSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Adler LS, Wink M (2001) Transfer of quinolizidine alkaloids from hosts to hemiparasites in two Castilleja-Lupinus associations: analysis of floral and vegetative tissues. Biochem Syst Ecol 29: 551–561[CrossRef][Medline]

Agerbirk N, Orgaard M, Nielsen JK (2003) Glucosinolates, flea beetle resistance, and leaf pubescence as taxonomic characters in the genus Barbarea (Brassicaceae). Phytochemistry 63: 69–80[CrossRef][Medline]

Agrawal AA (1998) Induced responses to herbivory and increased plant performance. Science 279: 1201–1202[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Agrawal AA (2004) Resistance and susceptibility of milkweed: competition, root herbivory, and plant genetic variation. Ecology 85: 2118–2133[CrossRef][ISI]

Agrawal AA (2007) Macroevolution of plant defense strategies. Trends Ecol Evol 22: 103–109[CrossRef][Medline]

Agrawal AA, Fishbein M (2006) Plant defense syndromes. Ecology 87: S132–S149[CrossRef][Medline]

Akashi T, Furuno T, Takahashi T, Ayabe S (1994) Biosynthesis of triterpenoids in cultured cells, and regenerated and wild plant organs of Taraxacum officinale. Phytochemistry 36: 303–308[CrossRef][ISI]

Assabgui RA, Arnason JT, Hamilton RI (1993) Hydroxamic acid content in maize (Zea mays) roots of 18 Ontario recommended hybrids and prediction of antibiosis to the western corn rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera Leconte. Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae. Can J Plant Sci 73: 359–363

Atkins CA, Smith PMC (2007) Translocation in legumes: assimilates, nutrients, and signaling molecules. Plant Physiol 144: 550–561[Free Full Text]

Baldwin IT (1998) Jasmonate-induced responses are costly but benefit plants under attack in native populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 8113–8118[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Baldwin IT, Schmelz EA, Ohnmeiss TE (1994) Wound-induced changes in root and shoot jasmonic acid pools correlate with induced nicotine synthesis in Nicotiana sylvestris Spegazzini and Comes. J Chem Ecol 20: 2139–2157[CrossRef][ISI]

Bezemer TM, van Dam NM (2005) Linking aboveground and belowground interactions via induced plant defenses. Trends Ecol Evol 20: 617–624[CrossRef][Medline]

Bezemer TM, Wagenaar R, Van Dam NM, Van Der Putten WH, Wackers FL (2004) Above- and below-ground terpenoid aldehyde induction in cotton, Gossypium herbaceum, following root and leaf injury. J Chem Ecol 30: 53–67[CrossRef][Medline]

Bezemer TM, Wagenaar R, Van Dam NM, Wackers FL (2003) Interactions between above- and belowground insect herbivores as mediated by the plant defense system. Oikos 101: 555–562[CrossRef][ISI]

Blossey B, Hunt-Joshi TR (2003) Belowground herbivory by insects: influence on plants and aboveground herbivores. Annu Rev Entomol 48: 521–547[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Borror DJ, Triplehorn CA, Johnson NF (1989) An Introduction to the Study of Insects, Ed 6. Saunders College Publishing, Forth Worth, TX

Brown VK, Gange AC (1989) Differential effects of above-ground and below-ground insect herbivory during early plant succession. Oikos 54: 67–76[CrossRef][ISI]

Chen F, Ro DK, Petri J, Gershenzon J, Bohlmann J, Pichersky E, Tholl D (2004) Characterization of a root-specific Arabidopsis terpene synthase responsible for the formation of the volatile monoterpene 1,8-cineole. Plant Physiol 135: 1956–1966[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Collantes HG, Gianoli E, Niemeyer HM (1998) Changes in growth and chemical defences upon defoliation in maize. Phytochemistry 49: 1921–1923[CrossRef][ISI]

Collantes HG, Gianoli E, Niemeyer HM (1999) Defoliation affects chemical defenses in all plant parts of rye seedlings. J Chem Ecol 25: 491–499[CrossRef][ISI]

Cooper WR, Jia L, Goggin L (2005) Effects of jasmonate-induced defenses on root-knot nematode infection of resistant and susceptible tomato cultivars. J Chem Ecol 31: 1953–1967[CrossRef][Medline]

D'Auria JC, Gershenzon J (2005) The secondary metabolism of Arabidopsis thaliana: growing like a weed. Curr Opin Plant Biol 8: 308–316[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

De Deyn GB, Raaijmakers CE, Zoomer HR, Berg MP, de Ruiter PC, Verhoef HA, Bezemer TM, van der Putten WH (2003) Soil invertebrate fauna enhances grassland succession and diversity. Nature 422: 711–713[CrossRef][Medline]

De Deyn GB, Van der Putten WH (2005) Linking aboveground and belowground diversity. Trends Ecol Evol 20: 625–633[CrossRef][Medline]

Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants—a study in coevolution. Evolution Int J Org Evolution 18: 586–608[CrossRef][ISI]

Erb M, Ton J, Degenhardt J, Turlings TCJ (2008) Interactions between arthropod-induced aboveground and belowground defenses in plants. Plant Physiol 146: 867–874[Free Full Text]

Flores HE, Vivanco JM, Loyola-Vargas VM (1999) ‘Radicle’ biochemistry: the biology of root-specific metabolism. Trends Plant Sci 4: 220–226[CrossRef][Medline]

Frolich C, Hartmann T, Ober D (2006) Tissue distribution and biosynthesis of 1,2-saturated pyrrolizidine alkaloids in Phalaenopsis hybrids (Orchidaceae). Phytochemistry 67: 1493–1502[CrossRef][Medline]

Frost CJ, Appel M, Carlson JE, De Moraes CM, Mescher MC, Schultz JC (2007) Within-plant signalling via volatiles overcomes vascular constraints on systemic signalling and primes responses against herbivores. Ecol Lett 10: 490–498[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Gatehouse JA (2002) Plant resistance towards insect herbivores: a dynamic interaction. New Phytol 156: 145–169[CrossRef][ISI]

Geerts A, Feltkamp D, Rosahl S (1994) Expression of lipoxygenase in wounded tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. Plant Physiol 105: 269–277[Abstract]

Hara M, Fujii Y, Sasada Y, Kuboi T (2000) cDNA cloning of radish (Raphanus sativus) myrosinase and tissue-specific expression in root. Plant Cell Physiol 41: 1102–1109[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hartmann T (1999) Chemical ecology of pyrrolizidine alkaloids. Planta 207: 483–495[CrossRef][ISI]

Heidel AJ, Baldwin IT (2004) Microarray analysis of salicylic acid- and jasmonic acid-signalling in responses of Nicotiana attenuata to attack by insects from multiple feeding guilds. Plant Cell Environ 27: 1362–1373[CrossRef]

Hol WHG, Macel M, van Veen JA, van der Meijden E (2004) Root damage and aboveground herbivory change concentration and composition of pyrrolizidine alkaloids of Senecio jacobaea. Basic Appl Ecol 5: 253–260[CrossRef]

Jorgensen K, Bak S, Busk PK, Sorensen C, Olsen CE, Puonti-Kaerlas J, Moller BL (2005) Cassava plants with a depleted cyanogenic glucoside content in leaves and tubers. Distribution of cyanogenic glucosides, their site of synthesis and transport, and blockage of the biosynthesis by RNA interference technology. Plant Physiol 139: 363–374[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Karban R (1980) Periodical cicada nymphs impose periodical oak tree wood accumulation. Nature 287: 326–327[CrossRef]

Karban R, Agrawal AA, Mangel M (1997) The benefits of induced defences against herbivores. Ecology 78: 1351–1355[CrossRef][ISI]

Kessler A, Baldwin JT (2001) Defensive function of herbivore-induced plant volatile emissions in nature. Science 291: 2141–2144[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kosola KR, Dickmann DI, Hall RB, Workmaster BAA (2004) Cottonwood growth rate and fine root condensed tannin concentration. Tree Physiol 24: 1063–1068[Medline]

Liscombe DK, MacLeod BP, Loukanina N, Nandi OI, Facchini PJ (2005) Evidence for the monophyletic evolution of benzylisoquinoline alkaloid biosynthesis in angiosperms. Phytochemistry 66: 1374–1393[CrossRef][Medline]

Marak HB, Biere A, Van Damme JMM (2002) Systemic, genotype-specific induction of two herbivore-deterrent iridoid glycosides in Plantago lanceolata L. in response to fungal infection by Diaporthe adunca (Rob.) niessel. J Chem Ecol 28: 2429–2448[CrossRef][Medline]

Maron JL (1998) Insect herbivory above- and belowground: individual and joint effects on plant fitness. Ecology 79: 1281–1293[ISI]

Maron JL, Kauffman MJ (2006) Habitat-specific impacts of multiple consumers on plant population dynamics. Ecology 87: 113–124[CrossRef][Medline]

Mattson WJ, Julkunen-Tiitto R, Herms DA (2005) CO2 enrichment and carbon partitioning to phenolics: do plant responses accord better with the protein competition or the growth differentiation balance models? Oikos 111: 337–347[CrossRef][ISI]

McConn M, Creelman RA, Bell E, Mullet JE, Browse J (1997) Jasmonate is essential for insect defense in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 5473–5477[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Myszewski JH, Fins L, Moore JA, Rust M, Mika PG (2002) Variation in the root bark phenolics/sugar ratio of Douglas-fir grown in two plantations in northern Idaho. Can J For Res 32: 556–560[CrossRef]

Ohnmeiss TE, Baldwin IT (2000) Optimal defense theory predicts the ontogeny of an induced nicotine defense. Ecology 81: 1765–1783[CrossRef][ISI]

Omer AD, Granett J (2000) Relationship between grape phylloxera and fungal infections in grapevine roots. Z Pflanzenkr Pflanzenschutz 107: 285–294

Orians CM, Ardon M, Mohammad BA (2002) Vascular architecture and patchy nutrient availability generate within-plant heterogeneity in plant traits important to herbivores. Am J Bot 89: 270–278[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Petersen BL, Chen SX, Hansen CH, Olsen CE, Halkier BA (2002) Composition and content of glucosinolates in developing Arabidopsis thaliana. Planta 214: 562–571[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Potter MJ, Vanstone VA, Davies KA, Rathjen AJ (2000) Breeding to increase the concentration of 2-phenylethyl glucosinolate in the roots of Brassica napus. J Chem Ecol 26: 1811–1820[CrossRef][ISI]

Puthoff DP, Smigocki AC (2007) Insect feeding-induced differential expression of Beta vulgaris root genes and their regulation by defense-associated signals. Plant Cell Rep 26: 71–84[CrossRef][Medline]

Rasmann S, Kollner TG, Degenhardt J, Hiltpold I, Toepfer S, Kuhlmann U, Gershenzon J, Turlings TCJ (2005) Recruitment of entomopathogenic nematodes by insect-damaged maize roots. Nature 434: 732–737[CrossRef][Medline]

Rasmann S, Turlings TCJ (2007) Simultaneous feeding by aboveground and belowground herbivores attenuates plant-mediated attraction of their respective natural enemies. Ecol Lett 10: 926–936[CrossRef][Medline]

Riis L, Bellotti AC, Bonierbale M, O'Brien GM (2003) Cyanogenic potential in cassava and its influence on a generalist insect herbivore Cyrtomenus bergi (Hemiptera : Cydnidae). J Econ Entomol 96: 1905–1914[ISI][Medline]

Sachs T (2005) Auxin's role as an example of the mechanisms of shoot/root relations. Plant Soil 268: 13–19[CrossRef][ISI]

Salzman RA, Brady JA, Finlayson SA, Buchanan CD, Summer EJ, Sun F, Klein PE, Klein RR, Pratt LH, Cordonnier-Pratt MM, et al (2005) Transcriptional profiling of Sorghum induced by methyl jasmonate, salicylic acid, and aminocyclopropane carboxylic acid reveals cooperative regulation and novel gene responses. Plant Physiol 138: 352–368[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Schmelz EA, Grebenok RJ, Galbraith DW, Bowers WS (1998) Damage-induced accumulation of phytoecdysteroids in spinach: a rapid root response involving the octadecanoic acid pathway. J Chem Ecol 24: 339–360[CrossRef][ISI]

Schmelz EA, Grebenok RJ, Galbraith DW, Bowers WS (1999) Insect-induced synthesis of phytoecdysteroids in spinach, Spinacia oleracea. J Chem Ecol 25: 1739–1757[CrossRef][ISI]

Schmelz EA, Grebenok RJ, Ohnmeiss TE, Bowers WS (2002) Interactions between Spinacia oleracea and Bradysia impatiens: a role for phytoecdysteroids. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 51: 204–221[CrossRef][Medline]

Stamp N (2003) Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q Rev Biol 78: 23–55[CrossRef][Medline]

Tolra RP, Poschenrieder C, Luppi B, Barcelo J (2005) Aluminium-induced changes in the profiles of both organic acids and phenolic substances underlie Al tolerance in Rumex acetosa L. Environ Exp Bot 54: 231–238[CrossRef][ISI]

van Dam NM, Raaijmakers CE (2006) Local and systemic induced responses to cabbage root fly larvae (Delia radicum) in Brassica nigra and B. oleracea. Chemoecology 16: 17–24[CrossRef][ISI]

van Dam NM, Witjes L, Svatos A (2004) Interactions between aboveground and belowground induction of glucosinolates in two wild Brassica species. New Phytol 161: 801–810[CrossRef][ISI]

Van der Putten WH (2003) Plant defense belowground and spatiotemporal processes in natural vegetation. Ecology 84: 2269–2280[CrossRef][ISI]

Wainhouse D, Ashburner R, Ward E, Rose J (1998) The effect of variation in light and nitrogen on growth and defence in young Sitka Spruce. Funct Ecol 12: 561–572[CrossRef]

Waller GR, Novacki E (1977) Alkaloid Biology and Metabolism in Plants. Plenum Press, New York

Walls R, Appel H, Cipollini M, Schultz J (2005) Fertility, root reserves and the cost of inducible defenses in the perennial plant Solanum carolinense. J Chem Ecol 31: 2263–2288[CrossRef][Medline]

Wardle DA (2006) The influence of biotic interactions on soil biodiversity. Ecol Lett 9: 870–886[CrossRef][Medline]

Wardle DA, Walker LR, Bardgett RD (2004) Ecosystem properties and forest decline in contrasting long-term chronosequences. Science 305: 509–513[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wink M (2003) Evolution of secondary metabolites from an ecological and molecular phylogenetic perspective. Phytochemistry 64: 3–19[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Zangerl AR, Rutledge CE (1996) The probability of attack and patterns of constitutive and induced defense: a test of optimal defense theory. Am Nat 147: 599–608[CrossRef][ISI]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Plant Physiol.Home page
M. Erb, J. Ton, J. Degenhardt, and T. C.J. Turlings
Interactions between Arthropod-Induced Aboveground and Belowground Defenses in Plants
Plant Physiology, March 1, 2008; 146(3): 867 - 874.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rasmann, S.
Right arrow Articles by Agrawal, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rasmann, S.
Right arrow Articles by Agrawal, A. A.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Rasmann, S.
Right arrow Articles by Agrawal, A. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Plant-Herbivore Interactions

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Plant Biologists