Folivory versus florivory-adaptiveness of flower feeding

Bandeili B, Müller C (2010)

No fulltext has been uploaded. References only!
Journal Article | Original Article | Published | English

No fulltext has been uploaded

The distribution of resources and defence is heterogeneous within plants. Specialist insects may prefer tissue with high concentrations of the plant's characteristic defence compounds. Most herbivorous butterfly or sawfly larvae are considered to be folivores, so also the turnip sawfly Athalia rosae (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), a specialist herbivore on Brassicaceae. We investigated which tissue larvae choose to feed upon and how they perform on flowers, young or old leaves of Sinapis alba. Furthermore, constitutive and inducible levels of glucosinolates and myrosinases were investigated and nutrients analysed. Larvae moved from leaves to flowers for feeding from the third larval instar on. Flowers were not actively chosen, but larvae moved upwards on the plant, regardless of how plants were orientated (upright or inverted). Flower-feeding larvae were heavier and developed faster than larvae feeding on young leaves, and adults laid more eggs. Old leaves as food source resulted in the lowest growth rates. Flowers contained three and ten times higher myrosinase activities than young and old leaves, respectively, whereas glucosinolate concentrations and nitrogen levels of flowers and young leaves were comparable. Glucosinolate concentrations of old leaves were very low. Changes in tissue chemistry caused by larval feeding were tissue specific. Defence levels did not change in flowers and old leaves after A. rosae feeding in contrast to young leaves. The high insect performance on flowers cannot be explained by differences in chemical defence. Instead, the lack of mechanical defence (trichomes) is probably responsible. Movement to the flowers and folivory is overall highly adaptive for this sawfly species.
Publishing Year

Cite this

Bandeili B, Müller C. Folivory versus florivory-adaptiveness of flower feeding. NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN. 2010;97(1):79-88.
Bandeili, B., & Müller, C. (2010). Folivory versus florivory-adaptiveness of flower feeding. NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN, 97(1), 79-88. doi:10.1007/s00114-009-0615-9
Bandeili, B., and Müller, C. (2010). Folivory versus florivory-adaptiveness of flower feeding. NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN 97, 79-88.
Bandeili, B., & Müller, C., 2010. Folivory versus florivory-adaptiveness of flower feeding. NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN, 97(1), p 79-88.
B. Bandeili and C. Müller, “Folivory versus florivory-adaptiveness of flower feeding”, NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN, vol. 97, 2010, pp. 79-88.
Bandeili, B., Müller, C.: Folivory versus florivory-adaptiveness of flower feeding. NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN. 97, 79-88 (2010).
Bandeili, Babak, and Müller, Caroline. “Folivory versus florivory-adaptiveness of flower feeding”. NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN 97.1 (2010): 79-88.
This data publication is cited in the following publications:
This publication cites the following data publications:

6 Citations in Europe PMC

Data provided by Europe PubMed Central.

Caught between parasitoids and predators - survival of a specialist herbivore on leaves and flowers of mustard plants.
Lucas-Barbosa D, Poelman EH, Aartsma Y, Snoeren TA, van Loon JJ, Dicke M., J. Chem. Ecol. 40(6), 2014
PMID: 24888744

42 References

Data provided by Europe PubMed Central.

R, Nachrbl Dtsch Pflanzenschutzd (Berlin) 15(), 1961

E, Z ang Entomol 26(), 1939

LM, 2006
Flower vs. leaf feeding by Pieris brassicae: glucosinolate-rich flower tissues are preferred and sustain higher growth rate.
Smallegange RC, van Loon JJ, Blatt SE, Harvey JA, Agerbirk N, Dicke M., J. Chem. Ecol. 33(10), 2007
PMID: 17828429

E, Phytochem Rev 8(), 2009

JLM, J Insect Behav 10(), 1997


S, Phytochem Rev 8(), 2009

N, Funct Ecol 22(), 2008
Specificity of induction responses in Sinapis alba L.: Plant growth and development.
Travers-Martin N, Muller C., Plant Signal Behav 3(5), 2008
PMID: 19841655
Revised determination of free and complexed myrosinase activities in plant extracts.
Travers-Martin N, Kuhlmann F, Muller C., Plant Physiol. Biochem. 46(4), 2008
PMID: 18395461
Factors affecting the glucosinolate content of kale (Brassica oleracea acephala group).
Velasco P, Cartea ME, Gonzalez C, Vilar M, Ordas A., J. Agric. Food Chem. 55(3), 2007
PMID: 17263499

U, 2003


0 Marked Publications

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

View record in Web of Science®


PMID: 19826770
PubMed | Europe PMC

Search this title in

Google Scholar