Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMoles, Angela T
dc.contributor.authorPeco, Begona
dc.contributor.authorWallis, Ian R
dc.contributor.authorFoley, William J
dc.contributor.authorPoore, Alistair GB
dc.contributor.authorSeabloom, Eric W
dc.contributor.authorVesk, Peter A
dc.contributor.authorBisigato, Alejandro J
dc.contributor.authorCella-Pizarro, Lucrecia
dc.contributor.authorClark, Connie J
dc.contributor.authorCohen, Philippe S
dc.contributor.authorCornwell, William K
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, Will
dc.contributor.authorEjrnaes, Rasmus
dc.contributor.authorGonzales-Ojeda, Therany
dc.contributor.authorGraae, Bente J
dc.contributor.authorHay, Gregory
dc.contributor.authorLumbwe, Fainess C
dc.contributor.authorMagana-Rodriguez, Benjamin
dc.contributor.authorMoore, Ben D
dc.contributor.authorPeri, Pablo L
dc.contributor.authorPoulsen, John R
dc.contributor.authorStegen, James C
dc.contributor.authorVeldtman, Ruan
dc.contributor.authorZeipel, Hugovon
dc.contributor.authorAndrew, Nigel R
dc.contributor.authorBoulter, Sarah L
dc.contributor.authorBorer, Elizabeth T
dc.contributor.authorCornelissen, Johannes HC
dc.contributor.authorFarji-Brener, Alejandro G
dc.contributor.authorDeGabriel, Jane L
dc.contributor.authorJurado, Enrique
dc.contributor.authorKyhn, Line A
dc.contributor.authorLow, Bill
dc.contributor.authorMulder, Christa PH
dc.contributor.authorReardon-Smith, Kathryn
dc.contributor.authorRodriguez-Velazquez, Jorge
dc.contributor.authorDe Fortier, An
dc.contributor.authorZheng, Zheng
dc.contributor.authorBlendinger, Pedro G
dc.contributor.authorEnquist, Brian J
dc.contributor.authorFacelli, Jose M
dc.contributor.authorKnight, Tiffany
dc.contributor.authorMajer, Jonathan D
dc.contributor.authorMartinez-Ramos, Miguel
dc.contributor.authorMcQuillan, Peter
dc.contributor.authorHui, Francis KC
dc.description.abstractMost plant species have a range of traits that deter herbivores. However, understanding of how different defences are related to one another is surprisingly weak. Many authors argue that defence traits trade off against one another, while others argue that they form coordinated defence syndromes. We collected a dataset of unprecedented taxonomic and geographic scope (261 species spanning 80 families, from 75 sites across the globe) to investigate relationships among four chemical and six physical defences. Five of the 45 pairwise correlations between defence traits were significant and three of these were tradeoffs. The relationship between species' overall chemical and physical defence levels was marginally nonsignificant (P = 0.08), and remained nonsignificant after accounting for phylogeny, growth form and abundance. Neither categorical principal component analysis (PCA) nor hierarchical cluster analysis supported the idea that species displayed defence syndromes. Our results do not support arguments for tradeoffs or for coordinated defence syndromes. Rather, plants display a range of combinations of defence traits. We suggest this lack of consistent defence syndromes may be adaptive, resulting from selective pressure to deploy a different combination of defences to coexisting species.
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
dc.relation.ispartofjournalNew Phytologist
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPhylogeny and Comparative Analysis
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiological Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchAgricultural and Veterinary Sciences
dc.titleCorrelations between physical and chemical defences in plants: tradeoffs, syndromes, or just many different ways to skin a herbivorous cat?
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorBoulter, Sarah L.

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record