Plant–Animal Interactions: Exploring Costs and Benefits in Highly Conditional Relationships
A special issue of Plants (ISSN 2223-7747). This special issue belongs to the section "Plant Protection and Biotic Interactions".
Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 June 2024 | Viewed by 17951
Special Issue Editor
Interests: animal behavior; arthropod–plant interactions; behavioral ecology; plant–animal interactions
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals
Special Issue Information
Dear Colleagues,
Whether or not they are mutually beneficial, plant–animal interactions are highly variable in their outcomes, depending on a variety or combination of abiotic and biotic factors. Depending on the biotic features of the associated species, a mutualistic interaction can be converted into a facilitative one, or even an exploitative one, such as parasitism. In this special volume, we intend to pay special attention to studies that explore how variation in environmental and biological aspects, which shape plant–animal systems, can directly influence the outcomes of these interactions.
Prof. Dr. Kleber Del-Claro
Guest Editor
Manuscript Submission Information
Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.
Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Plants is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.
Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2700 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.
Keywords
- mutualism
- facilitation
- herbivory
- pollination
Planned Papers
The below list represents only planned manuscripts. Some of these manuscripts have not been received by the Editorial Office yet. Papers submitted to MDPI journals are subject to peer-review.
Title: The Ecology of Cheating: Why Nectar-Rob a Flower More than Once?
Authors: J.L. Bronstein; E.M. Lichtenberg; R.E. Irwin
Affiliation: JLB- University of Arizona; EML - University of North Texas; REI - North Carolina State University
Abstract: Cheating is ubiquitous within mutualisms. Primary nectar-robbers, ubiquitous exploiters of pollination mutualisms, feed through holes they make in corollas. One commonly observed behavior is the addition of new holes to previously robbed flowers. Why flowers should be robbed repeatedly is difficult to understand: a hole signals that a nectar forager has already fed, perhaps very recently, likely reducing its value. Possibilities include: (1) Multiple holes appear only once every flower has been robbed; hence, they represent the only way to acquire nectar for robbers unwilling to re-use an existing hole and who cannot reach nectar by visiting flowers legitimately. (2) Individual foragers make multiple holes during single visits, perhaps as the most effective way to obtain the maximum amount of nectar. (3) previously robbed flowers contain more nectar than unrobbed ones, making them better choices for bees seeking high nectar rewards. During 2014-2016, inflorescences in a Colorado population of Corydalis caseana were tagged and flowers were marked with date-specific colors as they opened. Nectar volumes were recorded from flowers of known age that were protected and exposed to robbers. Holes were counted on exposed flowers as they aged. We also recorded population-wide rates of multiple robbing twice weekly.
Multiple holes began appearing when >75% of flowers lacked a single hole, allowing us to reject Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 cannot offer a full explanation because >50% of holes appeared in flowers one or more days after the first hole appeared. Repeated sampling of bagged and exposed inflorescences revealed that flowers fill at a constant rate for 5-7 days and refill after being drained (either by a robber or a pollinator). As a direct consequence, consistent with Hypothesis 3, young, unrobbed flowers are of relatively low value to primary robbers because they contain little nectar. Rather, it is more profitable in many cases for bees to rob older flowers, even if they have previously been robbed. These results cannot explain why bees choose to create new holes rather than reuse existing ones. However, they do offer a simple explanation for the paradoxical clustering of cheater activity. Research on cheating in mutualisms has focused to date on the consequences of being cheated. Conversely, little is known about the choices involved in adopting cheating behaviors. We argue that nectar-robbing can serve as an ideal model system for the broader study of cheating in mutualism.
Title: Plant performance depends to resistance phenotype to a gall-inducing insect
Authors: Jean C. Santos, Janete F. Andrade, Guilherme Ramos Demetrio Ferreira, Eduardo Soares Calixto, Pablo Cuevas-Reyes, Marcos Vinicius Meiado, Denise G. Santana & Wanessa Rejane de Almeida
Affiliation: Universidade Federal de Sergipe; Universidade Federal de Alagoas; University of Florida; Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo; Universidade Federal de Uberlândia
Abstract: Variations in plant genotypes and phenotypes are expressed in ways to develop defensive abilities against herbivory. Induced defenses are well-known mechanisms that affect herbivore insect performance and foraging behavior. We aimed to evaluate the performance of Bauhinia brevipes according to phenotype (resistant versus susceptible) against attacks by the gall-inducing insect Schizomyia macrocapillata. We hypothesized that there is a positive relationship between resistance to S. macrocapillata and host plant performance because resistance can have high adaptive value. We evaluated plant architecture, nutritional leaf quality (vegetative performance), and capacity to compound fruits and seeds (reproductive performance) between groups of plants. Offspring performance was also evaluated at three stages of development: seeds, seedlings, and juveniles. There were no differences in the vegetative and reproductive performance of resistant and susceptible mature plants. In addition, there was no relationship between nutritional leaf quality and resistance to S. macrocapillata. Offspring performance was equal for both phenotypes at all developmental stages. We believe that the low incidence of S. macrocapillata in the B. brevipes population contributed to the similar performance between phenotypes. In contrast, plant defenses are costly, and resistant genotypes are favored when the probability of damage to insects is high. However, these genotypes may be disfavored when the probability of herbivore attack is low. Susceptible individuals can overcompensate for the damage caused by S. macrocapillata by increasing the number of leaves and branches. Moreover, strategies such as tolerance to herbivory should be analyzed in this gall insect/plant host system.
