Talk:Plant defense against herbivory

message: I´d like to add something to "Constitutive vs. Induced Defense"
"Why these defenses are inducible rather than constitutive?"
By "choosing" induced defense over constitutive defense, the plant will only allocate resources to defense that originally were supposed to go to growing, flowering (...), when strictly necessary, rather then allocating every time a part of the resources to constitutive defence. The disadvantage of induced defence is that it requires a certain period of time to take place after the attack begins. Depending on this period, the plant can be in risk while waiting for the substances to be synthesized and transported. 
In sum, the reliability of the INDUCED DEFENCE will depend on the plant´s chance of being attacked by herbivores and the time duration between the attack and the defense response.
As a general rule, the type of defense depends on the cost-benefit relatioship. To better understand the cost-benefit relationship we must consider the Optimal Defense Theory (that is further metioned), which is based on three factors: 
1 - All plant defence has a cost, and resources used for plant defence cannot be used to others functions (as growing, flowering, seeding) at one time;
2 - The impact of a plant´s tissue loss depends on the significance of the affected plant tissue in a specific phenophase,physiological stage of development(exemple: During flowering phenophase, the most important part of the plant would be the flower); 
3 - Some parts and tissues of plants has a greater chance to be attacked by herbivores than others (it reffers to the Apparency Theory).
So, we can assume that, the type of defense will be ruled by the plant´s chance of being attacked by herbivores, the physiological stage of development of the plant and the plant strategy to allocate resources.
e-mail: joaninha_sem_lacinho@yahoo.com.br
:Go for it! (Please add citations)--Franciepants18 19:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has pictures to add, please do so!  --Franciepants18 21:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutive vs. Induced Defense

message: I begin to reorganize references in footnotes (easier to read). I'm waiting for some feedback before to continue, because there are a lot of them! (maybe too much, citing sources is good policy but cutting some recent scientific research may help the standard reader). Besides that, i'm not a good english writer and some sentences must be modified if we replace the name if scientist by a footnote number.
--alink 14:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes references 

message: There is no mention in this article about indirect defence, where plants emit Volatile Organic Compounds to attract parasitoids of their herbivores. I am quite familiar with this subject, but I find it difficutl to embed it in this article. Maybe we can discuss?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroenemans (talk • contribs)  16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the section in the article called Indirect defenses would be a good place to include information on ....indirect defenses.--DO11.10 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  indirect defence 

message: Since this page appears to be undergoing significant editing I'm placing it on hold until the content stabilises as per criterion 5. 
:I've failed the article for now - but please do relist it once it's been re-written! I'd be happy to review it if you let me know. Verisimilus T 16:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA 
on hold
 failed 

message: The article structure may need some slight modifications, here is a proposal
* Introduction - what it is and a preview of subsequent parts
* Evolutionary perspective (value to plant )
** coevolution
* Classification and kinds of resistance
** induced  - constitutive
** antixenosis - antibiosis - tolerance
** chemical - mechanical and life history strategies (r K selection)
* Historic perspective and application (value to humans)
** use of varietal traits
** measurement of resistance
** transgenic resistance 
** benefit to agriculture
* references
Shyamal 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific? Roughly, where would the sections in the current article go in your proposal? I don't really know a whole lot about this subject, (although I have learned a fair amount editing this article) so you might have to "dumb it down" a bit for me. What about the study of defense section, and the section on induced defenses, where would they go? --DO11.10 04:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the introduction is not a titled section. Currently the article has many examples which are scattered. Evolution unfortunately is not going to be short because plant-herbivore interactions have a very interesting evolutionary background. Ok, forms of defense can be elevated and not below evolution. There is perhaps very little that is going to be entirely new. Only filling some gaps and reorganizing. Shyamal 02:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks great! My only complaint is that the lead is a little short. Could it be expanded a bit? Maybe add a sentence about indirect defenses, and a sentence or two on importance to humans?--DO11.10 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Another thing, the evolution section seems to exclusively devoted to insect herbivory, what about herbivory by mammals? It seems like they have driven a lot of plant defenses as well.--DO11.10 17:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A fresh eye will find more things to do and add, so do take a go at it. I was mostly looking at how the parts fit in, I will take a look at content again later. Shyamal 01:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The breadth of the article is now better. Formatting of references needs to be made consistent. Shyamal 04:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have formatted the refs that had PMIDs or ISBNs with Diberri's template filler. But some journals don't appear to be associated with PubMed (I couldn't find the articles there) so they will probably have to be converted by hand.--DO11.10 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Great ! That was quite some work. Thanks. Shyamal 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure

message: 1.  Allelopathy is used incorrectly--it is about plant defenses against other plants.  Maybe it is used for herbivory also, in which case, cite a current article that discusses plant allelopathic chemical defenses against herbivores.</BR>
2.  Chemical defenses list only allelopathy, not the well known relationships between various herbivores who have adapted to chemicals that plants use as defenses, such as glucosinolate-myrosinase, and what about swallowtails, aren't the plants themselves toxic to other organisms, isn't that part of the evolutionary relationship, the plant's defense against herbivores, a single herbivore's adaptation to the defense and use of it?  The glucosinolate-myrosinase is easy and well researched, see .  </BR>
3.  Don't reach for a 1975 book on ecology, when there are tons of well-researched articles directly about chemical defenses that plants have against herbivores.  I'm concerned about the scope of the article in general, that it's not overall well-developed, but rather put together in pieces.  The one article on line you cite in the allelopathy section does not use that term at all, the other books are old.  It's not my area, so I could be wrong, but please find a recent article to show me allelopathy used in this way, and write about plant secondary metabolites as defenses against herbivores, not about allelochemicals.  KP Botany 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be sort of a nit-pick, and I don't really know how much this field has changed since 1975, or what kinds of articles you have in mind (for example, review articles versus articles on specific mechanisms), but there is nothing wrong with citing secondary sources (in fact, most of the time it works better than citing primary sources, in the sense that there is less need to pick and choose which information is worth presenting: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). Kingdon 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked around a bit and found that KP Botany is correct, alleochemicals is used incorrectly. I have to say that I came to this article with the intention of footnoting the referencing, then I stayed on to copyedit it and add images. So most of the references were here when I got here. I don't know a lot about this subject either, but I have learned a lot. I found a good source for information about chemical defenses, if you give me some time (a few hours for a rough draft) I will update the page with the correct information. --DO11.10 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kingdon, the issue isn't with secondary sources, even tertiary sources would be better for most articles on Wikipedia--in fact, I'd vote that Wikipedia editors should go to college textbooks on a subject first (not other encyclopedias), then work out from there.  The issue is researching a specific subject, plant chemical defenses against herbivory, out of an old and general book (ecology).  If you'd rather use books, that's fine.  But use something more recent, that shows the relationship of the evolutionary dance between species as evidenced by genetic studies, and use something more on topic, the ecology of plants, or the ecology of plant insect relationships.  However, much more readily available than these books, and available to the style of editing prevalent on Wikipedia (web only), are the many review articles and the introductions of non-review articles in peer reviewed journals that are on line.  KP Botany 19:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DO11.10, I'm impressed by how quickly you steared the article's section on chemical defenses towards the right direction.  KP Botany 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I did not realize it was wrong, or I would have changed it much sooner. If you would like to have a go at copyediting, or have anything to add please feel free to do so.--DO11.10 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: K P Botany, do you have any specific suggestions on the scope of the article ? It was indeed filled with disconnected trivia and I have specifically tried to find a coherent thread to connect it. Unfortunately I do not have access to any recent review articles, but someone with access to Ann.Rev.Ent.Syst. chould be able to compare the structures and find gaps. Thanks for pointing out the allelochemicals bit. And thanks DO11.10, the article looks enormously better. I guess it can soon be renominated for GA. Shyamal 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is to get a book on the topic, again, those secondary and tertiary sources, and look at the table of contents, even looking online at Amazon or BN might be enough, to see how they organize the topic, then see how that organization scheme compares with ours and tweak ours in any way you see necessary.  Once you get the organization down, then let's figure out what else is needed.  I think we should go for FA, too, as the topic is great.  Lots of work left to do, and I'm busy this week.  KP Botany 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this article 

message: I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have put the article on hold until the following issues are addressed:
#In the second paragraph in the intro, reword some of the sentences so they don't all start with "By".
#The definition of co-evolution in the Coevolution section uses the hyphen, so the heading should also.
#"When an herbivore eats a plant it selects for plants that can mount a defensive response." Remove "for".
#"Over 3000 known alkaloids exist, examples include nicotine, caffeine, morphine, colchicine, ergolines, strychnine, and quinine." Add an inline citation for the 3,000 fact. Same for "There are over 10,000 known types of terpenoids."
#"Phenolics, sometimes called phenols, contain a fully saturated 6 carbon ring linked to an oxygen." Linked to an oxygen what?
#Fix the link for goat to direct to the correct page instead of a dab page in "Plant structural features like spines and thorns reduce feeding by large ungulate herbivores (e.g. kudu, impala, and goats)..."
#"Some plants prevent the laying of eggs by insects species by mimicking the presence of insect eggs on their leaves." Either remove species or I think it should be "insect species".
#"Because female butterflies are less likely to lay their eggs on plants that already have butterfly eggs, some species of neotropical vines of the genus Passiflora (Passion flowers) containing physical structures resembling the yellow eggs of Heliconius butterflies on their leaves, and discouraging oviposition by butterflies." Rewrite to "Because female butterflies are less likely to lay their eggs on plants that already have butterfly eggs, some species of neotropical vines of the genus Passiflora (Passion flowers) contain physical structures resembling the yellow eggs of Heliconius butterflies on their leaves, which discourage oviposition by butterflies."
#"The formal study of plant resistance to herbivory was first covered extensively in 1951 by Reginald (R.H.) Painter, who is widely regarded as the founder of this area of research, in his Plant Resistance to Insects." State if this is a book, journal article; assume reader may not know.
Altogether, there weren't that many issues, and the article is very well written. Fix these issues within seven days and I'll pass the article. When you are done or if you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 23:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to ""When an herbivore eats a plant it selects for plants that can mount a defensive response." Remove "for"." - Actually, this sentence is stated correctly. The herbivore selects plants that cannot mount a defensive response, thereby selecting for those that can. Those that mount effective defenses survive (i.e., are selected for). Antelan talk 23:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe I have addressed points 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Antelan talk 23:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point 8 also appears fixed. I have made amends for point 9. Regarding 3, I have an additional point that this should be "a herbivore" (Br. E.) and not "an herbivore" (Am. E.), since the British spelling of colour is used. Shyamal 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The intro's been reworded, so pt 1 is tackled too.AshLin 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Good work on fixing the above issues so quickly. The eighth point still needs to be addressed, the main difference between the two sentences is changing "containing" to "contain" and "and discouraging" to "which discourage". If you change it to that, I think the sentence will run more smoothly. Also thank you for describing point three, I didn't read it like that. Anyway, continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. Maybe consider a peer review and go on to FA if you think you are ready. If you have the time please consider reviewing an article or at GAC to help with the backlog. Make sure to update the article history with its first GA fail, and current pass. Good work, and I hope that you continue to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 18:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and done. Thanks again. Cheers--DO11.10 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: Some of these may be relevant. Aposematism and mimicry needs more attention, and the first article looks very interesting.
*Malka Halpern, Dina Raats, Simcha Lev-Yadun (2007) Plant biological warfare:  thorns inject pathogenic bacteria into herbivores Environmental Microbiology  9 (3), 584–592. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01174.x 
*SIMCHA LEV-YADUN, MOSHE INBAR (2002) Defensive ant, aphid and caterpillar  mimicry in plants? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 77 (3),  393–398. doi:10.1046/j.1095-8312.2002.00132.x
*SIMCHA LEV-YADUN, GIDI NE'EMAN (2004) When may green plants be aposematic?  Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 81 (3), 413–416.  doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00307.x
I also recently heard about plants not only communicating with predators of the herbivore, but with other plants. This should also be covered, though I haven't looked into the literature for anything on this yet. Richard001 00:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some interesting articles

message: I'm considering starting an article on mimicry in plants some day, which I thought I would mention here if anyone is interested. This article could then cover a give a few quick examples and link to the article for those wanting further information. Richard001 01:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mimicry in plants

message: I don't think this should redirect here, as plants have to defend against many things besides herbivores - e.g. pathogenic viruses, bacteria and fungi, parasitic plants, and even, in a broader sense, the elements (e.g. frost). How should we deal with this? Should we perhaps have an article on all these things, with this one being summarized there? Richard001 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Plant defense]]

message: What is the working definition of a plant in this article? Does it include seaweeds and such, about which there is some good literature? Richard001 (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: This article has just been reassessed as part of the GA SWEEPS. Although it has been kept as a GA, some minor issues were identified that need to be addressed as soon as possible. See here for the review. If these problems are not fixed, it may mean the article could be delisted immediately should it come up under review again. If you have any questions or queries, please contact me regarding them. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 18:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA reassessment of article 

message: In response to the above hidden text comment... There is no preferred form of English on Wikipedia. All that's important is internal consistency. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English.
Fuzzform (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: What form of English is the article supposed to be using? 

message: There seems to be some overlap with Inducible plant defenses against herbivory. Perhaps the two articles should be merged? pgr94 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge:  Inducible plant defenses against herbivory 

message: it explains how everything else in he intro, and rest of the article, makes sense, plus its interesting and documented.
Plants can sense being touched, and they can use several strategies to defend against damage caused by herbivores mainly via hormone production. Boyd, Jade (2012). "A bit touchy: Plants' insect defenses activated by touch". Rice University. http://news.rice.edu/2012/04/09/a-bit-touchy-plants-insect-defenses-activated-by-touch/ http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/04/09/a.bit.touchy.plants.insect.defenses.activated.touch Lutz, Diana (2012). "Key part of plants' rapid response system revealed". Washington University in St. Louis. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/23979.aspx     Sidelight12 (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited article is about activation of defenses against insect herbivory, and does not belong in the summary of the article.  The article summary is a shorter, simpler version of the entrie article.  This article is not solely about the activation of herbivory defenses by touch, which is what your edits claim it is.  The lead paragraph currently summarizes that there are several defense strategies, but your edit implies that all strategies rely upon activation by touch.  This is not supported by any research, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This belongs in the intro

message: A number of animals do graze on poison oak. It is not a systemic toxin produced as a chemical defense, rather it is a monomer that polymerizes (lacquer), covering mechanical damage to the plant tissue. In humans, it is an allergen, meaning that at first, no toxic skin reactions are observed and not all humans produce a T-cell mediated immune response against this hapten. Therefore, it should be removed as a plant defense against herbivory, at least, it is not a good example.(76.105.129.239 (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Urushiols are allergens not toxins

message: I would like to add a few sentences regarding the potential self-toxicity of plants' defense compounds.  Although the article explains how herbivores activate stored, inactive compounds, it is important to mention that plants must use relatively benign precursors, to protect themselves from their own defenses.  Examples include storing DIBOA as DIBOA-glucoside and hydrogen cyanide as cyanogenic glycosides.  Justin Bai (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding section about self-toxicity of plants' defense compounds 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Plant defense against herbivory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010636/http://www.pitt.edu/~biohome/Dept/pdf/1723.pdf to http://www.pitt.edu/~biohome/Dept/pdf/1723.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/mlerdau/Papers/Theis2003.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602113859/http://www.people.vcu.edu/~asneden/alkaloids.htm to http://www.people.vcu.edu/~asneden/alkaloids.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716022711/http://www.people.vcu.edu/~asneden/terpenes.htm to http://www.people.vcu.edu/~asneden/terpenes.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116132945/http://elife.elifesciences.org/content/elife/1/e00007.full.pdf to http://elife.elifesciences.org/content/elife/1/e00007.full.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127035021/http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/research/leaves/pdf/bIOeSSAYS%20PLANT%20COLOR.pdf to http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/research/leaves/pdf/bIOeSSAYS%20PLANT%20COLOR.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713203855/http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~hamilton/lecture12.htm to http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~hamilton/lecture12.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213090143/http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx4016.pdf to http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx4016.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706111024/http://www.yeacrops.com/Crop%20Protection%20Article.pdf to http://www.yeacrops.com/Crop%20Protection%20Article.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205203742/http://www.people.vcu.edu/~asneden/The%20Quinine%20Alkaloids.pdf to http://www.people.vcu.edu/~asneden/The%20Quinine%20Alkaloids.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010636/http://www.people.vcu.edu/~asneden/tropane%20alkaloids.pdf to http://www.people.vcu.edu/~asneden/tropane%20alkaloids.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010639/http://www.people.vcu.edu/~asneden/Taxol.pdf to http://www.people.vcu.edu/~asneden/Taxol.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Plant defense against herbivory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205144747/http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_1996/kimball.html to http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_1996/kimball.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: It seems that the costs and benefits section should go under evolution. I would suggest that "Types" be put first, followed by the "Evolution" section which would contain the section on costs and benefits. beanstash (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorganization?