Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:46:18.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Plant and herbivore evolution within the trophic sandwich

from Part III - Patterns and Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

By
Luis Abdala-Roberts  and
Kailen A. Mooney
Edited by
Torrance C. Hanley  and
Kimberly J. La Pierre
Luis Abdala-Roberts
Affiliation:
University of California-Irvine
Kailen A. Mooney
Affiliation:
University of California-Irvine
Torrance C. Hanley
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, Boston
Kimberly J. La Pierre
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Understanding the relative roles of resource availability and natural enemies (i.e., predators, parasites, pathogens) as determinants of species abundance and trait variation has been a research area of fundamental interest to ecologists and evolutionary biologists for decades. Essentially every organism copes with the dual concerns of bottom-up and top-down trophic pressure. Primary producers are positioned between the acquisition of nutrients, water, space, and light versus herbivory and disease; herbivores between plants versus predators, parasitoids, and disease; and predators between prey acquisition versus other predators, parasites, and disease. Consequently, the conceptual framework of bottom-up versus top-down control can be applied uniformly across all trophic levels.

In this chapter, we consider how species evolve in response to pressures imposed by resources and consumers, with a focus on species responses to the so-called “trophic sandwich,” where selective pressures are imposed simultaneously from trophic levels both above and below. A consideration of evolutionary processes within the context of trophic dynamics is critical, as it is the evolved traits of the species consuming and being consumed that determine the nature of those interactions (Mooney et al., 2010). We first provide background on the concepts and theories pertaining to the ecological and evolutionary consequences of top-down and bottom-up dynamics. Second, we review work that has addressed (implicitly or explicitly) evolution in the context of bottom-up and top-down trophic dynamics. Third, we explicitly compare aquatic and terrestrial systems. Fourth, we present a framework outlining the mechanisms that determine the combined selective effects of resources and consumers and, based on this framework, consider how common such dynamics might be. Fifth, we present a case study from our research on the interactions between the perennial herb Ruellia nudiflora Engelm. and Gray Urban (Acanthaceae), a seed predator (caterpillars of a noctuid moth), and parasitic wasps attacking the latter. Finally, we outline our perspective on future directions. Because of the long history of studies of plant–herbivore interactions, we center our review of the literature within this setting.

Type
Chapter
Information
Trophic Ecology
Bottom-up and Top-down Interactions across Aquatic and Terrestrial Systems
 , pp. 340 - 364
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdala-Roberts, L. and Mooney, K. A. (2013). Environmental and plant genetic effects on tri-trophic interactions. OIkos, 122, 1157–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdala-Roberts, L., Parra-Tabla, V., Salinas-Peba, L., Diaz-Castelazo, C. and Delfin-Gonzalez, H. (2010). Spatial variation in the strength of a trophic cascade involving Ruellia nudiflora (Acanthaceae), an insect seed predator and associated parasitoid fauna in Mexico. Biotropica, 42, 180–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdala-Roberts, L., Agrawal, A. A. and Mooney, K. A. (2012). Ant–aphid interactions on Asclepias syriaca are mediated by plant genotype and caterpillar damage. Oikos, 121, 1905–1913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdala-Roberts, L., Parra-Tabla, V., Campbell, D. R. and Mooney, K. A. (2014). Soil fertility and parasitoids shape herbivore selection on plants. Journal of Ecology, 102, 1120–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, P. A. (1995). Implications of dynamically variable traits for identifying, classifying, and measuring direct and indirect effects in ecological communities. American Naturalist, 146, 112–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, P. A. (2000). The evolution of predator–prey interactions: theory and evidence. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, P. A. and Ginzburg, L. R. (2000). The nature of predation: prey dependent, ratio dependent or neither? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 337–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adler, L. S., Karban, R. and Strauss, S. Y. (2001). Direct and indirect effects of alkaloids on plant fitness via herbivory and pollination. Ecology, 82, 2032–2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. A. (2011). Current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence. Functional Ecology, 25, 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. A., Laforsch, C. and Tollrian, R. (1999). Transgenerational induction of defences in animals and plants. Nature, 401, 60–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. A., Fishbein, M., Halitschke, R., et al. (2009). Evidence for adaptive radiation from a phylogenetic study of plant defenses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106, 18067–18072.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bailey, J. K., Genung, M. A., Ware, I., et al. (2014). Indirect genetic effects: an evolutionary mechanism linking feedbacks, genotypic diversity, and coadaptation in climate change context. Functional Ecology, 28, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becerra, J. X. (1997). Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science, 276, 253–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becerra, J. X. (2003). Synchronous coadaptation in an ancient case of herbivory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 100, 12804–12807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becerra, J. X., Noge, K. and Venable, D. L. (2009). Macroevolutionary chemical escalation in an ancient plant-herbivore arms race. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106, 18062–18066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benkman, C. W. (2013). Biotic interaction strength and the intensity of selection. Ecology Letters, 16, 1054–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berdegue, M., Trumble, J. T., Hare, J. D. and Redak, R. A. (1996). Is it enemy-free space? The evidence for terrestrial insects and freshwater arthropods. Ecological Entomology, 21, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berenbaum, M. R. and Zangerl, A. R. (1998). Chemical phenotype matching between a plant and its insect herbivore. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 95, 13743–13748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernays, E. A. (1998). Evolution of feeding behavior in insect herbivores: success seen as different ways to eat without being eaten. Bioscience, 48, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolser, R. C. and Hay, M. E. (1996). Are tropical plants better defended? Palatability and defenses of temperate vs tropical seaweeds. Ecology, 77, 2269–2286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, E. T., Seabloom, E. W., Shurin, J. B., et al. (2005). What determines the strength of a trophic cascade?Ecology, 86, 528–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, E. T., Halpern, B. S. and Seabloom, E. W. (2006). Asymmetry in community regulation: effects of predators and productivity. Ecology, 87, 2813–2820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapin, F. S. (1993). Physiological controls over plant establishment in primary succession. In Primary Succession on Land, ed. Miles, J. and Walton, D. W. H.. Oxford, Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 161–178.Google Scholar
Choat, J. H. and Clements, K. D. (1998). Vertebrate herbivores in marine and terrestrial environments: a nutritional ecology perspective. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 375–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P. and Chapin, F. S. (1985). Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science, 230, 895–899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connell, J. H. and Slatyer, R. O. (1977). Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist, 111, 1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cremieux, L., Bischoff, A., Smilauerova, M., et al. (2008). Potential contribution of natural enemies to patterns of local adaptation in plants. New Phytologist, 180, 524–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demment, M. W. and Van Soest, P. J. (1985). A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. American Naturalist, 125, 641–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dethier, V. G. (1954). Evolution of feeding preference in phytophagous insects. Evolution, 8, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodson, S. I. (1989). The ecological role of chemical stimuli for the zooplankton: predator-induced morphology in Daphnia. Oecologia, 78, 361–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duffy, J. E. and Hay, M. E. (1990). Seaweed adaptations to herbivory: chemical, structural, and morphological defenses are often adjusted to spatial or temporal patterns of attack. Bioscience, 40, 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, L. A. (1995). Tasty generalists and nasty specialists: antipredator mechanisms in tropical lepidopteran larvae. Ecology, 76, 1483–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, L. A. (2008). Tropical tritrophic interactions: nasty hosts and ubiquitous cascades. In Tropical Forest Community Ecology, ed. Carson, W. P. and Schnitzer, S. A.. Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 275–293.Google Scholar
Edwards, K. F., Klausmeier, C. A. and Litchman, E. In press. A three-way tradeoff maintains functional diversity under variable resource supply. American Naturalist.
Ehrlich, P. R. and Raven, P. H. (1964). Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution, 18, 586–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elser, J. J., Fagan, W. F., Denno, R. F., et al. (2000). Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs. Nature, 408, 578–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elzinga, J. A., Atlan, A., Biere, A., et al. (2007). Time after time: flowering phenology and biotic interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22, 432–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Endara, M.-J. and Coley, P. D. (2011). The resource availability hypothesis revisited: a meta-analysis. Functional Ecology, 25, 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erb, M. and Lu, J. (2013). Soil abiotic factors influence interactions between belowground herbivores and plant roots. Journal of Experimental Botany, 64, 1295–1303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estes, J. A., Brashares, J. S. and Power, M. E. (2013). Predicting and detecting reciprocity between indirect ecological interactions and evolution. American Naturalist, 181, S76–S99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eubanks, M. D. and Denno, R. F. (2000). Host plants mediate omnivore-herbivore interactions and influence prey suppression. Ecology, 81, 936–947.Google Scholar
Feeny, P. P. (1976). Plant apparency and chemical defense. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry, 10, 1–40.Google Scholar
Fine, P. V. A., Mesones, I. and Coley, P. D. (2004). Herbivores promote habitat specialization by trees in amazonian forests. Science, 305, 663–665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraenkel, G. S. (1959). Raison d'etre of secondary plant substances. Science, 129, 1466–1470.Google ScholarPubMed
Gaines, S. D. and Lubchenco, J. (1982). A unified approach to marine plant-herbivore interactions. 2. Biogeography. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13, 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P. (1977). Evidence for existence of 3 primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. American Naturalist, 111, 1169–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gripenberg, S. and Roslin, T. (2007). Up or down in space? Uniting the bottom-up versus top-down paradigm and spatial ecology. Oikos, 116, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruner, D. S., Smith, J. E., Seabloom, E. W., et al. (2008). A cross-system synthesis of consumer and nutrient resource control on producer biomass. Ecology Letters, 11, 740–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagen, E. M., Mccluney, K. E., Wyant, K. A., et al. (2012). A meta-analysis of the effects of detritus on primary producers and consumers in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems. Oikos, 121, 1507–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E. and Slobodkin, L. G. (1960). Community structure, population control, and competition. American Naturalist, 94, 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haloin, J. R. and Strauss, S. Y. (2008). Interplay between ecological communities and evolution review of feedbacks from microevolutionary to macroevolutionary scales. Year in Evolutionary Biology, 1133, 87–125.Google ScholarPubMed
Hambäck, P. A. and Beckerman, A. P. (2003). Herbivory and plant resource competition: a review of two interacting interactions. Oikos, 101, 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, J. D. (2002). Plant genetic variation in tritrophic interactions. In Multitrophic Level Interactions, ed. Tscharntke, T. and Hawkins, B. A.. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 278–298.Google Scholar
Hay, M. E. (1991). Marine terrestrial contrasts in the ecology of plant-chemical defenses against herbivores. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 362–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, M. E. (1992). The role of seaweed chemical defenses in the evolution of feeding specialization and in the mediation of complex interactions. In Ecological Roles of Marine Natural Products, ed. Paul, V.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, M. E. (1996). Marine chemical ecology: what's known and what's next?Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 200, 103–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, M. E. and Fenical, W. (1988). Marine plant-herbivore interactions: the ecology of chemical defense. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19, 111–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, M. E. and Steinberg, P. D. (1992). The chemical ecology of plant–herbivore interactions in marine versus terrestrial communities. In Herbivores: Their Interaction with Secondary Metabolites, Evolutionary and Ecological Processes, ed. Rosenthal, G. A. and Berenbaum, M.. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hays, G. C. (2003). A review of the adaptive significance and ecosystem consequences of zooplankton diel vertical migrations. Hydrobiologia, 503, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, M. (2008). Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytologist, 178, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herms, D. A. and Mattson, W. J. (1992). The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Quarterly Review of Biology, 67, 283–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, M. D. and Price, P. W. (1992). Playing chutes and ladders: heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology, 73, 724–732.Google Scholar
Ingram, T., Svanback, R., Kraft, N. J. B., et al. (2012). Intraguild predation drives evolutionary niche shift in threespine stickleback. Evolution, 66, 1819–1832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inouye, B. and Stinchcombe, J. R. (2001). Relationships between ecological interaction modifications and diffuse coevolution: similarities, differences, and causal links. Oikos, 95, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwao, K. and Rausher, M. D. (1997). Evolution of plant resistance to multiple herbivores: quantifying diffuse coevolution. American Naturalist, 149, 316–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juenger, T. and Bergelson, J. (1998). Pairwise versus diffuse natural selection and the multiple herbivores of scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata. Evolution, 52, 1583–1592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karban, R. and Baldwin, I. T. (1997). Induced Responses to Herbivory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, A. and Heil, M. (2011). The multiple faces of indirect defences and their agents of natural selection. Functional Ecology, 25, 348–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampert, W. (1989). The adaptive significance of diel vertical migration of zooplankton. Functional Ecology, 3, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J. H. and McNeill, S. (1979). Between the devil and the deep blue sea: on the problems of being an herbivore. In Population Dynamics. Symposium of the British Ecological Society, ed. Anderson, R. M., Turner, B. D. and Taylor, L. R.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leong, W. and Pawlik, J. R. (2010). Evidence of a resource trade-off between growth and chemical defenses among Caribbean coral reef sponges. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 406, 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. M., Borer, E., Seabloom, E., et al. (2013). Life-history constraints in grassland plant species: a growth-defence trade-off is the norm. Ecology Letters, 16, 513–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linhart, Y. B., Keefover-Ring, K., Mooney, K. A., Breland, B. and Thompson, J. D. (2005). A chemical polymorphism in a multitrophic setting: thyme monoterpene composition and food web structure. American Naturalist, 166, 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litchman, E. and Klausmeier, C. A. (2008). Trait-based community ecology of phytoplankton. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39, 615–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loose, C. J., Vonelert, E. and Dawidowicz, P. (1993). Chemically-induced diel vertical migration in Daphnia: a new bioassay for kairomones exuded by fish. Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie, 126, 329–337.Google Scholar
Marquis, R. J. (1984). Leaf herbivores decrease fitness of a tropical plant. Science, 226, 537–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marquis, R. J. (1992). Selective impact of herbivores. In Plant Resistance to Herbivores and Pathogens: Ecology, Evolution, and Genetics, ed. Fritz, R. S. and Simms, E. L.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marquis, R. J. and Whelan, C. (1996). Plant morphology, and recruitment of the third trophic level: subtle and little-recognized defenses? Oikos, 75, 330–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. E. and Travis, J. (1996). The evolutionary role of indirect effects in communities. Ecology, 77, 1329–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, K. A. and Agrawal, A. A. (2008). Plant genotype shapes ant-aphid interactions: implications for community structure and indirect plant defense. American Naturalist, 168, E195–E205.Google Scholar
Mooney, K. A. and Singer, M. S. (2012). Plant variation in herbivore-enemy interactions in natural systems. In Trait-Mediated Indirect Interactions: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives, ed. Ohgushi, T., Schmitz, O. J. and Holt, R. D.. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mooney, K. A., Halitschke, R., Kessler, A. and Agrawal, A. A. (2010). Evolutionary trade-offs in plants mediate the strength of trophic cascades. Science, 327, 1642–1644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooney, K. A., Pratt, R. T. and Singer, M. S. (2012). The tri-trophic interactions hypothesis: interactive effects of host plant quality, diet breadth and natural enemies on herbivores. PLoS One, 7, e34403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, N. and Hamilton, W. D. (1980). Low nutritive quality as defense against herbivores. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 86, 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, W. W. (1966). Community structure population control and competition: a critique. American Naturalist, 100, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ness, J. H., Morris, W. F. and Bronstein, J. L. (2009). For ant-protected plants, the best defense is a hungry offense. Ecology, 90, 2823–2831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oksanen, L., Fretwell, S. D., Arruda, J. and Niemela, P. (1981). Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. American Naturalist, 118, 240–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palkovacs, E. P., Wasserman, B. A. and Kinnison, M. T. (2011). Eco-evolutionary trophic dynamics: loss of top predators drives trophic evolution and ecology of prey. PLoS One, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennings, S. C., Siska, E. L. and Bertness, M. D. (2001). Latitudinal differences in plant palatability in Atlantic coast salt marshes. Ecology, 82, 1344–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennings, S. C., Ho, C. K., Salgado, C. S., et al. (2009). Latitudinal variation in herbivore pressure in Atlantic Coast salt marshes. Ecology, 90, 183–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polis, G. A. and Strong, D. R. (1996). Food web complexity and community dynamics. American Naturalist, 147, 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, D. M. and Palkovacs, E. P. (2009). Eco-evolutionary feedbacks in community and ecosystem ecology: interactions between the ecological theatre and the evolutionary play. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364, 1629–1640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preisser, E. L., Bolnick, D. I. and Benard, M. F. (2005). Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology, 86, 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reznick, D. and Endler, J. A. (1982). The impact of predation on life-history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia-Reticulata). Evolution, 36, 160–177.Google Scholar
Rhoades, D. F. and Cates, R. G. (1976). Toward a general theory of plant antiherbivore chemistry. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry, 10, 168–213.Google Scholar
Rico-Gray, V. and Oliveira, P. S. (2007). The Ecology and Evolution of Ant-Plant Interactions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenheim, J. A. and Corbett, A. (2003). Omnivory and the indeterminacy of predator function: can a knowledge of foraging behavior help?Ecology, 84, 2538–2548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudgers, J. A. (2004). Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: selection in a facultative ant-plant mutualism. Ecology, 85, 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, M. T. and Rausher, M. D. (2004). Natural selection on extrafloral nectar production in Chamaecrista fasciculata: the costs and benefits of a mutualism trait. Evolution, 58, 2657–2668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salgado-Luarte, C. and Gianoli, E. (2012). Herbivores modify selection on plant functional traits in a temperate rainforest understory. American Naturalist, 180, E42–E53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, J. C. (1988). Many factors influence the evolution of herbivore diets, but plant chemistry is central. Ecology, 69, 896–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shurin, J. B., Borer, E. T., Seabloom, E. W., et al. (2002). A cross-ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades. Ecology Letters, 5, 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shurin, J. B., Gruner, D. S. and Hillebrand, H. (2006). All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, M. S. (2008). Evolutionary ecology of polyphagy. In Specialization, Speciation, and Radiation: The Evolutionary Biology of Herbivorous Insects, ed. Tilmon, K. J.. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Singer, M. S. and Stireman, J. O. (2005). The tri-trophic niche concept and adaptive radiation of phytophagous insects. Ecology Letters, 8, 1247–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, M. S., Carriere, Y., Theuring, C. and Hartmann, T. (2004). Disentangling food quality from resistance against parasitoids: diet choice by a generalist caterpillar. American Naturalist, 164, 423–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, M. S., Farkas, T. E., Skorik, C. M. and Mooney, K. A. (2012). Tri-trophic interactions at a community level: effects of host-plant species quality on bird predation of caterpillars. American Naturalist, 179, 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sork, V. L., Stowe, K. A. and Hochwender, C. (1993). Evidence for local adaptation in closely adjacent subpopulations of northern red oak (Quercus rubra L) expressed as resistance to leaf herbivores. American Naturalist, 142, 928–936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stachowicz, J. J. and Hay, M. E. (1999). Reduced mobility is associated with compensatory feeding and increased diet breadth of marine crabs. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 188, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamp, N. (2003). Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Quarterly Review of Biology, 78, 23–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, P. D., Estes, J. A. and Winter, F. C. (1995). Evolutionary consequences of food-chain length in kelp forest communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 92, 8145–8148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stenberg, J. A., Lehrman, A. and Bjorkman, C. (2011). Plant defence: feeding your bodyguards can be counter-productive. Basic and Applied Ecology, 12, 629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, J. R. and Rausher, M. D. (2001). Diffuse selection on resistance to deer herbivory in the ivyleaf morning glory, Ipomoea hederacea. American Naturalist, 158, 376–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, S. Y., Sahli, H. and Conner, J. K. (2005). Toward a more trait-centered approach to diffuse (co)evolution. New Phytologist, 165, 81–89.Google Scholar
Strong, D. R., Lawton, J. H. and Southwood, R. (1984). Insects on Plants: Community Patterns and Mechanisms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Terhorst, C. P. (2010). Evolution in response to direct and indirect ecological effects in pitcher plant inquiline communities. American Naturalist, 176, 675–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, M. K., Kremer, C. T., Klausmeier, C. A. and Litchman, E. (2012). A global pattern of thermal adaptation in marine phytoplankton. Science, 338, 1085–1088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, J. N. (2005). The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. (1982). Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Turley, N. E., Odell, W. C., Schaefer, H., et al. (2013). Contemporary evolution of plant growth rate following experimental removal of herbivores. American Naturalist, 181, S21–S34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urabe, J. and Sterner, R. W. (2001). Contrasting effects of different types of resource depletion on life-history traits in Daphnia. Functional Ecology, 15, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urban, M. C. (2013). Evolution mediates the effects of apex predation on aquatic food webs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, M. R. and Reznick, D. N. (2008). Interactions between the direct and indirect effects of predators determine life history evolution in a killifish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 594–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitham, T. G., Bailey, J. K., Schweitzer, J. A., et al. (2006). A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7, 510–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, I. S. (1999). Slow-growth, high-mortality: a general hypothesis, or is it? Ecological Entomology, 24, 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, J. T. (1994). Putting the pieces together: testing the independence of interactions among organisms. Ecology, 75, 1544–1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, J. T. and Emmerson, M. (2005). Measurement of interaction strength in nature. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36, 419–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×