Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

William C. Wetzel

Publications and source records attributed to William C. Wetzel.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Large differences in herbivore performance emerge from simple herbivore behaviors and fine-scale spatial heterogeneity in phytochemistry

Patterns of phytochemistry localisation in plant tissues are diverse within and across leaves. These spatial heterogeneities are important to the fitness of herbivores, but their effects on herbivore foraging and dietary experience remain elusive. We manipulated the spatial variance and clusteredness of a plant toxin in a synthetic diet landscape on which individual caterpillars fed. We monitored caterpillars with cameras across most of their larval development. Caterpillars that fed on diets with a lower spatial variance and more clustered arrangement of toxins had overall worse performance, mostly because those caterpillars ate less, moved more, ingested more toxin, or failed to physiologically acclimate. Using empirically parameterised individual-based models, we found that differences in movement away from, not towards, less toxic food drove a body size-dependent effect of clusteredness. Hence, the spatial pattern of phytochemicals itself, beyond mean concentration, can have important consequences for herbivores through complex interactions with herbivore foraging.

Ecology Letters

Generalizing indirect defense and resistance of plants

Indirect defence, the adaptive top‐down control of herbivores by plant traits that enhance predation, is a central component of plant–herbivore interactions. However, the scope of interactions that comprise indirect defence and associated ecological and evolutionary processes has not been clearly defined. We argue that the range of plant traits that mediate indirect defence is much greater than previously thought, and we further organise major concepts surrounding their ecological functioning. Despite the wide range of plant traits and interacting organisms involved, indirect defences show commonalities when grouped. These categories are based on whether indirect defences boost natural enemy abundance via food or shelter resources, or, alternatively, increase natural enemy foraging efficiency via information or alteration of habitat complexity. The benefits of indirect defences to natural enemies should be further explored to establish the conditions in which indirect defence generates a plant–natural enemy mutualism. By considering the broader scope of plant–herbivore–natural enemy interactions that comprise indirect defence, we can better understand plant‐based food webs, as well as the evolutionary processes that have shaped them.

Ecology Letters