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-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:47:47.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Influence of plant defenses and nutrients on trophic control of ecosystems

from Part III - Patterns and Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

By
Karin T. Burghardt  and
Oswald J. Schmitz
Edited by
Torrance C. Hanley  and
Kimberly J. La Pierre
Karin T. Burghardt
Affiliation:
Yale University
Oswald J. Schmitz
Affiliation:
Yale University
Torrance C. Hanley
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, Boston
Kimberly J. La Pierre
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Ecological systems are extraordinarily complex. Thus classical approaches to resolve ecosystem functioning have simplified analyses by conceptualizing ecosystems as being organized into trophic level compartments that contain organisms with similar feeding dependencies (e.g., producers, herbivores, carnivores) (Elton, 1927; Lindeman, 1942). Two competing worldviews on the regulation of ecosystem productivity emanated from such a conceptualization of ecosystem structure. The bottom-up view posits that the productivity of each trophic level is essentially limited by the one immediately below it (Lindeman, 1942; Feeny, 1968), while the top-down view recognizes that resource levels influence production, but contends that herbivore populations are mostly limited by predators rather than producer biomass (Hairston et al., 1960). Accordingly, predators can indirectly increase the productivity of a given system by reducing the negative effects of herbivores on plant biomass, resulting in a world that is green with plant material, rather than denuded by herbivory (Paine, 1969; Oksanen et al., 1981). Bottom-up theory countered that the world is green not because of predators, but instead due to variation in plant quality as a result of anti-herbivore defenses or weather patterns (Murdoch, 1966; Ehrlich and Birch, 1967; Scriber and Feeny, 1975; White, 1978; Feeny, 1991; Polis and Strong, 1996). This variation causes much of the “green” world to be inedible to herbivores; thus herbivores are still resource-limited.

The recognition of context-dependence in the degree of top-down or bottom-up control of ecosystems has resulted in gradual changes in how ecosystem functioning is envisioned. For instance, the “exploitation ecosystems” hypothesis (EEH) addresses context-dependence by combining elements of top-down and bottom-up concepts (Oksanen et al., 1981; Oksanen and Oksanen, 2000). At low levels of soil resource availability, plants are not productive enough to support herbivore populations and are thus bottom-up controlled (see Fig. 5.3). At medium levels of soil resources, an ecosystem can support herbivore populations, which in turn control plant productivity, while carnivores enter the ecosystem and control the herbivore population at the highest resource availability, thus releasing plant productivity from herbivore control.

Type
Chapter
Information
Trophic Ecology
Bottom-up and Top-down Interactions across Aquatic and Terrestrial Systems
 , pp. 203 - 232
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

Agrawal, A. A. (1998). Algal defense, grazers, and their interactions in aquatic trophic cascades. Acta Oecologica, 19, 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. A. (2001). Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science, 294, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agrawal, A. A. and Fishbein, M. (2006). Plant defense syndromes. Ecology, 87, S132–S149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agrawal, A. A. and Karban, R. (1998). Why Induced Defenses May Be Favored over Constitutive Strategies in Plants. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, T., Elser, J. J. and Hessen, D. O. (2004). Stoichiometry and population dynamics. Ecology Letters, 7, 884–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arimura, G.-I., Kost, C. and Boland, W. (2005). Herbivore-induced, indirect plant defences. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids, 1734, 91–111.Google ScholarPubMed
Armbruster, W. S. (1997). Exaptations link evolution of plant-herbivore and plant-pollinator interactions: a phylogenetic inquiry. Ecology, 78, 1661–1672.Google Scholar
Arnason, J. T. and Bernards, M. A. (2010). Impact of constitutive plant natural products on herbivores and pathogens. Canadian Journal of Zoology – Revue Canadienne De Zoologie, 88, 615–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, T. M. (1995). Phenotypic variation in polyphenolic content of the tropical brown alga Lobophora variegata as a function of nitrogen availability. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 123, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, M. P. (1993). Plant defense, herbivory, and climate change. Biotic Interactions and Global Change, 75, 94.Google Scholar
Bagchi, S. and Ritchie, M. E. (2011). Herbivory and plant tolerance: experimental tests of alternative hypotheses involving non-substitutable resources. Oikos, 120, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardgett, R. D. and Wardle, D. A. (2003). Herbivore-mediated linkages between aboveground and belowground communities. Ecology, 84, 2258–2268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, K. E. and Koricheva, J. (2010). The ontogeny of plant defense and herbivory: characterizing general patterns using meta-analysis. The American Naturalist, 175, 481–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bazely, D. R., Myers, J. H. and Da Silva, Burke, , K. (1991). The response of numbers of bramble prickles to herbivory and depressed resource availability. Oikos, 61, 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belovsky, G. E. and Schmitz, O. J. (1994). Plant defenses and optimal foraging by mammalian herbivores. Journal of Mammalogy, 75, 816–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belovsky, G. E. and Slade, J. B. (2000). Insect herbivory accelerates nutrient cycling and increases plant production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97, 14412–14417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernays, E. A. (2001). Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Annual Review of Entomology, 46, 703–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Bryant, J. P., Chapin, F. S., Reichardt, P. B. and Clausen, T. P. (1987). Response of winter chemical defense in Alaska paper birch and green alder to manipulation of plant carbon nutrient balance. Oecologia, 72, 510–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burkepile, D. E. (2013). Comparing aquatic and terrestrial grazing ecosystems: is the grass really greener? Oikos, 122, 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkepile, D. E. and Hay, M. E. (2006). Herbivore vs. nutrient control of marine primary producers: context-dependent effects. Ecology, 87, 3128–3139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camacho, F. (2008). Macroalgal and cyanobacterial chemical defenses in freshwater communities. In Algal Chemical Ecology, ed. Amsler, C.. Berlin HeidelbergSpringer, pp. 105–120.Google Scholar
Cash, V. W. and Fulbright, T. E. (2005). Nutrient enrichment, tannins, and thorns: effects on browsing of shrub seedlings. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69, 782–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cebrian, J. and Lartigue, J. (2004). Patterns of herbivory and decomposition in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 74, 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, P. A., Lacoul, P., Murphy, K. J. and Thomaz, S. M. (2008). Global diversity of aquatic macrophytes in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, S. K., Hart, S. C., Cobb, N. S., Whitham, T. G. and Koch, G. W. (2003). Insect herbivory increases litter quality and decomposition: an extension of the acceleration hypothesis. Ecology, 84, 2867–2876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, J. M. (2000). Are there real differences among aquatic and terrestrial food webs? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 408–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chase, J. M., Leibold, M. A. and Simms, E. (2000a). Plant tolerance and resistance in food webs: community-level predictions and evolutionary implications. Evolutionary Ecology, 14, 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, J. M., Leibold, M. A., Downing, A. L. and Shurin, J. B. (2000b). The effects of productivity, herbivory, and plant species turnover in grassland food webs. Ecology, 81, 2485–2497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudhury, D. (1988). Herbivore induced changes in leaf-litter resource quality: a neglected aspect of herbivory in ecosystem nutrient dynamics. Oikos, 51, 389–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipollini, D. and Bergelson, J. (2001). Plant density and nutrient availability constrain constitutive and wound-induced expression of trypsin inhibitors in Brassica napus. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 27, 593–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cipollini, D., Purrington, C. B. and Bergelson, J. (2003). Costs of induced responses in plants. Basic and Applied Ecology, 4, 79–89.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
Cook, C. D. K. (1999). The number and kinds of embryo-bearing plants which have become aquatic: a survey. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 2, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, J. H. C. (1996). An experimental comparison of leaf decomposition rates in a wide range of temperate plant species and types. Journal of Ecology, 84, 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, T. and Stiling, P. (2006). Does low nutritional quality act as a plant defence? An experimental test of the slow-growth, high-mortality hypothesis. Ecological Entomology, 31, 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornwell, W. K., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Amatangelo, K., et al. (2008). Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecology Letters, 11, 1065–1071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronin, G. and Hay, M. (1996). Within-plant variation in seaweed palatability and chemical defenses: optimal defense theory versus the growth-differentiation balance hypothesis. Oecologia, 105, 361–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronin, G. and Lodge, D. (2003). Effects of light and nutrient availability on the growth, allocation, carbon/nitrogen balance, phenolic chemistry, and resistance to herbivory of two freshwater macrophytes. Oecologia, 137, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cyr, H. and Pace, M. L. (1993). Magnitude and patterns of herbivory in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Nature, 361, 148–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. W. (1993). The effects of herbivory and granivory on terrestrial plant succession. Oikos, 68, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deangelis, D. L. (1980). Energy-flow, nutrient cycling, and ecosystem resilience. Ecology, 61, 764–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deangelis, D. L., Mulholland, P. J., Palumbo, A. V., et al. (1989). Nutrient dynamics and food-web stability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20, 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deangelis, D., Ju, S., Liu, R., Bryant, J. and Gourley, S. (2012). Plant allocation of carbon to defense as a function of herbivory, light and nutrient availability. Theoretical Ecology, 5, 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, J. E. (2009). Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. R. and Birch, L. C. (1967). The “Balance of Nature” and “Population Control”. The American Naturalist, 101, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elton, C. (1927). Animal Ecology. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.Google Scholar
Feeny, P. P. (1968). Effect of oak leaf tannins on larval growth of winter moth Operophtera brumata. Journal of Insect Physiology, 14, 805–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeny, P. (1976). Plant apparency and chemical defense. In Biochemical Interaction Between Plants and Insects, ed. Wallace, J. W. and Mansell, R. L.. USA: Springer, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Feeny, P. (1991). Theories of plant-chemical defense: a brief historical survey. Symposia Biologica Hungarica, 39, 163–175.Google Scholar
Fine, P. V. A., Miller, Z. J., Mesones, I., et al. (2006). The growth-defense trade-off and habitat specialization by plants in Amazonian forests. Ecology, 87, S150–S162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fogg, G. E. (1991). Tansley Review No. 30. The phytoplanktonic ways of life. New Phytologist, 118, 191–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forkner, R. E. and Hunter, M. D. (2000). What goes up must come down? Nutrient addition and predation pressure on oak herbivores. Ecology, 81, 1588–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, C. J. and Hunter, M. D. (2008). Insect herbivores and their frass affect Quercus rubra leaf quality and initial stages of subsequent litter decomposition. Oikos, 117, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavis, J., Chamberlin, C. and Lystad, L. (1979). Coenobial cell number in Scenedesmus quadricauda (Chlorophyceae) as a function of growth rate in nitrate-limited chemostats. Journal of Phycology, 15, 273–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, C., Herms, D. A., Orians, C. M., Hansen, R. C. and Larsson, S. (2007). Testing the growth-differentiation balance hypothesis: dynamic responses of willows to nutrient availability. New Phytologist, 176, 623–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gowda, J. H., Albrectsen, B. R., Ball, J. P., Sjöberg, M. and Palo, R. T. (2003). Spines as a mechanical defence: the effects of fertiliser treatment on juvenile Acacia tortilis plants. Acta Oecologica, 24, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Thompson, K. and Hodgson, J. G. (1996). Evidence of a causal connection between anti-herbivore defence and the decomposition rate of leaves. Oikos, 77, 489–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, J. P. (1995). Competition, herbivory, and enrichment: nutrient-based models for edible and inedible plants. The American Naturalist, 145, 746–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruner, D. S. and Mooney, K. A. (2013). Green grass and high tides: grazing lawns in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (commentary on Burkepile 2013). Oikos, 122, 313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haak, D., Ballenger, B. and Moyle, L. (2013). No evidence for phylogenetic constraint on natural defense evolution among wild tomatoes. Ecology, 95, 1633–1641Google Scholar
Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E. and Slobodkin, L. B. (1960). Community structure, population control, and competition. American Naturalist, 94, 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, M. E., Lamont, B. B., Fairbanks, M. M. and Rafferty, C. M. (2007). Plant structural traits and their role in anti-herbivore defence. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 8, 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harborne, J. B., Baxter, H. and Moss, G. P. (1999). Phytochemical Dictionary: A Handbook of Bioactive Compounds From Plants.London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Hay, K. B., Poore, A. G. B. and Lovelock, C. E. (2011). The effects of nutrient availability on tolerance to herbivory in a brown seaweed. Journal of Ecology, 99, 1540–1550.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., Kappel, Q. E. and Fenical, W. (1994). Synergisms in plant defenses against herbivores: interactions of chemistry, calcification, and plant quality. Ecology, 75, 1714–1726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmi, A. and Jormalainen, V. (2002). Nutrient enhancement increases performance of a marine herbivore via quality of its food alga. Ecology, 83, 1052–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Hoffland, E., Dicke, M., Van Tintelen, W., Dijkman, H. and Van Beusichem, M. (2000). Nitrogen availability and defense of tomato against two-spotted spider mite. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 26, 2697–2711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, M. (2001). Insect population dynamics meets ecosystem ecology: effects of herbivory on soil nutrient dynamics. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 3, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, M. D. and Price, P. W. (1992). Playing chutes and ladders: heterogenity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology, 73, 724–732.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. (1975). A Treatise on Limnology: Limnological Botany. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ilvessalo, H., Ilvessalo, J. and Tuomi, (1989). Nutrient availability and accumulation of phenolic compounds in the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus. Marine Biology, 101, 115–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, I., Halitschke, R., Kessler, A., Sardanelli, S. and Denno, R. F. (2008). Constitutive and induced defenses to herbivory in above- and belowground plant tissues. Ecology, 89, 392–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karban, R. and Baldwin, I. T. (1997). Induced Responses to Herbivory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karban, R., Agrawal, A. A., Thaler, J. S. and Adler, L. S. (1999). Induced plant responses and information content about risk of herbivory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 443–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karban, R., Baldwin, I. T., Baxter, K. J., Laue, G. and Felton, G. W. (2000). Communication between plants: induced resistance in wild tobacco plants following clipping of neighboring sagebrush. Oecologia, 125, 66–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitchell, J. F., Oneill, R. V., Webb, D., et al. (1979). Consumer regulation of nutrient cycling. Bioscience, 29, 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koricheva, J. (2002). Meta-analysis of sources of variation in fitness costs of plant antiherbivore defenses. Ecology, 83, 176–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamberti-Raverot, B. and Puijalon, S. (2012). Nutrient enrichment affects the mechanical resistance of aquatic plants. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63, 6115–6123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lampert, W., Rothhaupt, K. O. and Vonelert, E. (1994). Chemical induction of colony formation in a green-alga Scenedesmus acutus by grazers (Daphnia). Limnology and Oceanography, 39, 1543–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, S. and Spaak, P. (2003). Chemically induced anti-predator defences in plankton: a review. Hydrobiologia, 491, 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibold, M. A. (1989). Resource edibility and the effects of predators and productivity on the outcome of trophic interactions. American Naturalist, 134, 922–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibold, M. A. (1999). Biodiversity and nutrient enrichment in pond plankton communities. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 1, 73–95.Google Scholar
Lindeman, R. L. (1942). The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology, 23, 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loreau, M. (2010). From Populations to Ecosystems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundgren, V. (2010). Grazer-induced defense in Phaeocystis globosa (Prymnesiophyceae): influence of different nutrient conditions. Limnology and Oceanography, 55, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lürling, M. and Beekman, W. (1999). Grazer-induced defenses in Scenedesmus (Chlorococcales; Chlorophyceae): coenobium and spine formation. Phycologia, 38, 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madritch, M. D. and Hunter, M. D. (2005). Phenotypic variation in oak litter influences short- and long-term nutrient cycling through litter chemistry. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 37, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massad, T., Fincher, R. M., Smilanich, A. and Dyer, L. (2011). A quantitative evaluation of major plant defense hypotheses, nature versus nurture, and chemistry versus ants. Arthropod-Plant Interactions, 5, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauricio, R., Rausher, M. D. and Burdick, D. S. (1997). Variation in the defense strategies of plants: are resistance and tolerance mutually exclusive?Ecology, 78, 1301–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, S. J. (1985). Ecology of a grazing ecosystem – the Serengeti. Ecological Monographs, 55, 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, S. J., Oesterheld, M., Frank, D. A. and Williams, K. J. (1989). Ecosystem-level patterns of primary productivity and herbivory in terrestrial habitats. Nature, 341, 142–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, J. C., Berlow, E. L., Coleman, D. C., et al. (2004). Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 7, 584–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. The American Naturalist, 100, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, R. M. and Rotjan, R. D. (2013). Re-examining the fundamentals of grazing: freshwater, marine and terrestrial similarities and contrasts (commentary on Burkepile 2013). Oikos, 122, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolet, B. (2004). Overcompensation and grazing optimisation in a swan-pondweed system? Freshwater Biology, 49, 1391–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norberg, J., Swaney, D. P., Dushoff, J., et al. (2001). Phenotypic diversity and ecosystem functioning in changing environments: a theoretical framework. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98, 11376–11381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowlin, W. H., Vanni, M. J. and Yang, L. H. (2008). Comparing resource pulses in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology, 89, 647–659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Donnell, D. R., Fey, S. B. and Cottingham, K. L. (2013). Nutrient availability influences kairomone-induced defenses in Scenedesmus acutus (Chlorophyceae). Journal of Plankton Research, 35, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohgushi, T. (2008). Herbivore-induced indirect interaction webs on terrestrial plants: the importance of non-trophic, indirect, and facilitative interactions. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 128, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oksanen, L. and Oksanen, T. (2000). The logic and realism of the hypothesis of exploitation ecosystems. The American Naturalist, 155, 703–723.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
Osier, T. L. and Lindroth, R. L. (2001). Effects of genotype, nutrient availability, and defoliation on aspen phytochemistry and insect performance. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 27, 1289–1313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osier, T. L. and Lindroth, R. L. (2004). Long-term effects of defoliation on quaking aspen in relation to genotype and nutrient availability: plant growth, phytochemistry and insect performance. Oecologia, 139, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostrofsky, M. L. and Zettler, E. R. (1986). Chemical defences in aquatic plants. Journal of Ecology, 74, 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paine, R. T. (1969). Pisaster-Tegula interaction: prey patches, predator food preference, and intertidal community structure. Ecology, 50, 950–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palkova, K. and Leps, J. (2008). Positive relationship between plant palatability and litter decomposition in meadow plants. Community Ecology, 9, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavia, H. and Toth, G. (2008). Macroalgal models in testing and extending defense theories. In Algal Chemical Ecology, ed. Amsler, C.. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 147–172Google Scholar
Pohnert, G. (2004). Chemical defense strategies of marine organisms. In The Chemistry of Pheromones and Other Semiochemicals I, ed. Schulz, S.. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 180–219Google Scholar
Pohnert, G., Steinke, M. and Tollrian, R. (2007). Chemical cues, defence metabolites and the shaping of pelagic interspecific interactions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22, 198–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polis, G. A. and Strong, D. R. (1996). Food web complexity and community dynamics. American Naturalist, 147, 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. E. (1992). Top-down and bottom-up forces in food webs: do plants have primacy? Ecology, 73, 733–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pringle, R. M., Doak, D. F., Brody, A. K., Jocque, R. and Palmer, T. M. (2010). Spatial pattern enhances ecosystem functioning in an African savanna. PLoS Biology, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prusak, A., O'Neal, J. and Kubanek, J. (2005). Prevalence of chemical defenses among freshwater plants. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 31, 1145–1160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raubenheimer, D. (1992). Tannic acid, protein, and digestible carbohydrate: dietary imbalance and nutritional compensation in locusts. Ecology, 73, 1012–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, C. J., Ferrell, G. M. and Vaithiyanathan, P. (1999). Nutrient effects on stand structure, resorption efficiency, and secondary compounds in everglades sawgrass. Ecology, 80, 2182–2192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, M. E., Tilman, D. and Knops, J. M. H. (1998). Herbivore effects on plant and nitrogen dynamics in oak savanna. Ecology, 79, 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronsted, N., Symonds, M. R., Birkholm, T., et al. (2012). Can phylogeny predict chemical diversity and potential medicinal activity of plants? A case study of amaryllidaceae. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 12, 182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, J. P. and Kotanen, P. M. (1994). Terrestrial plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 145–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozema, J., Rozema, L. O., Björn, J. F., et al. (2002). The role of UV-B radiation in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems: an experimental and functional analysis of the evolution of UV-absorbing compounds. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 66, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruehl, C. B. and Trexler, J. C. (2013). A suite of prey traits determine predator and nutrient enrichment effects in a tri-trophic food chain. Ecosphere, 4, art75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sardans, J., Rivas-Ubach, A. and Peñuelas, J. (2012). The elemental stoichiometry of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and its relationships with organismic lifestyle and ecosystem structure and function: a review and perspectives. Biogeochemistry, 111, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, O. (2010). Resolving Ecosystem Complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitz, O. J. (2008). Herbivory from individuals to ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, O. J., Adler, F. R. and Agrawal, A. A. (2003). Linking individual-scale trait plasticity to community dynamics. Ecology, 84, 1081–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, O. J., Krivan, V. and Ovadia, O. (2004). Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecology Letters, 7, 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, O. J., Hawlena, D. and Trussell, G. C. (2010). Predator control of ecosystem nutrient dynamics. Ecology Letters, 13, 1199–1209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schweitzer, J., Madritch, M., Bailey, J., et al. (2008). From genes to ecosystems: the genetic basis of condensed tannins and their role in nutrient regulation in a Populus model system. Ecosystems, 11, 1005–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scriber, J. M. and Feeny, P. P. (1975). Growth form of host plant as a determinant of feeding efficiencies and growth-rates in Papilionidae and Saturniidae (Lepidoptera). Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 83, 247–248.Google Scholar
Shurin, J., Shurin, E., Borer, E., 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
Stamp, N. (2003). Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Quarterly Review of Biology, 78, 23–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, P. D. (1995). Evolutionary consequences of food chain length in kelp forest communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 92, 8145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterner, R. W. and Elser, J. J. (2002). Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to Biosphere. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sterner, R. W., Elser, J. J. and Hessen, D. O. (1992). Stoichiometric relationships among producers, consumers and nutrient cycling in pelagic ecosystems. Biogeochemistry, 17, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, S. Y. and Agrawal, A. A. (1999). The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strong, D. (1992). Are trophic cascades all wet? Differentiation and donor-control in speciose ecosystems. Ecology, 73, 747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiffin, P. (2000). Mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage: what do we know? Evolutionary Ecology, 14, 523–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toth, G. B. and Pavia, H. (2007). Induced herbivore resistance in seaweeds: a meta-analysis. Journal of Ecology, 95, 425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trainor, F. and Siver, P. (1983). Effect of growth rate on unicell production in two strains of Scenedesmus (Chlorophyta). Phycologia, 22, 127–131.Google Scholar
Trussell, G. R. and Schmitz, O. J. (2012). Species functional traits, trophic control, and the ecosystem comsequences of adaptive foraging in the middle of food chains. In Trait-mediated Indirect Interactions: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives, ed. Ohgushi, T., Schmitz, O. and Holt, R. D.. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 324–338.Google Scholar
Uriarte, M. (2000). Interactions between goldenrod (Solidago altissima L.) and its insect herbivore (Trirhabda virgata) over the course of succession. Oecologia, 122, 521–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Alstyne, K. L. (2000). Effects of nutrient enrichment on growth and phlorotannin production in Fucus gardneri embryos. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 206, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Der Putten, W. H., Vet, L. E. M., Harvey, J. A. and Wäckers, F. L. (2001). Linking above- and belowground multitrophic interactions of plants, herbivores, pathogens, and their antagonists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16, 547–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Donk, E. (1997). Defenses in phytoplankton against grazing induced by nutrient limitation, UV-B stress and infochemicals. Aquatic Ecology Series, 31, 53–58.Google Scholar
Van Donk, E., Ianora, A. and Vos, M. (2011). Induced defences in marine and freshwater phytoplankton: a review. Hydrobiologia, 668, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanni, M. J. (2002). Nutrient cycling by animals in freshwater ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschoor, A. M., Van Der Stap, I., Helmsing, N. R., Lürling, M. and Van Donk, E. (2004a). Inducible colony formation within the Scenedesmaceae: adaptive responses to infochemicals from two different herbivore taxa. Journal of Phycology, 40, 808–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschoor, A. M., Vos, M. and Van Der Stap, I. (2004b). Inducible defences prevent strong population fluctuations in bi- and tritrophic food chains. Ecology Letters, 7, 1143–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitousek, P., Vitousek, J., Aber, R., et al. (1997). Human alterations of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecological Applications, 7, 737–750.Google Scholar
Vos, M., Verschoor, A. M., Kooi, B. W., et al. (2004). Inducible defenses and their trophic structure. Ecology, 85, 2783–2794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, A. (1989). Relationships among nitrogen, silicon, and heavy metal uptake by plants. Soil Science, 147, 457–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, T. C. R. (1978). Importance of a relative shortage of food in animal ecology. Oecologia, 33, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiltshire, K. H. and Lampert, W. (1999). Urea excretion by Daphnia: A colony-inducing factor in Scenedesmus? Limnology and Oceanography, 44, 1894–1903.Google Scholar
Wise, M. J. and Abrahamson, W. G. (2005). Beyond the compensatory continuum: environmental resource levels and plant tolerance of herbivory. Oikos, 109, 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, M. J. and Abrahamson, W. G. (2007). Effects of resource availability on tolerance of herbivory: a review and assessment of three opposing models. American Naturalist, 169, 443–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, L. H. (2004). Periodical cicadas as resource pulses in North American forests. Science, 306, 1565–1567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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
×