Plant-herbivore interactions

Plant-herbivore interactions affect how differently plants react to herbivore attack. To mitigate the effects of herbivore attack, several plants use morphological, biochemical, and other molecular processes. Different plants are constructed and equipped to defend themselves from intruders. The term “biochemical mechanisms” describes the use of chemicals to deter herbivores, make the leaves bitter, or draw the plant’s own personal security detail. Numerous molecular defense mechanisms exist, which is why this research was done. The defense molecules that were released alter the behavior of herbivores or could harm plants (War et al., 2012). Some plants react by releasing some volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which attract other predators of the attacking herbivores. Other plants combine strategies in order to keep off the herbivores (Heil & Bueno, 2007).

This paper looks into how lima beans (Phaseolus lunatus L.) counters herbivore attacks. In natural defence the plant produces VOCs and extrafloral nector (EFN). This study looks into how the plant produces protects itself by producing cyanogenic glycosides: linamarin and lotaustralin . These mechanisms are effective for the Lima beans to send a chemical signal which attracts the plant’s bodyguards while on the other hand repel other insects (War et al., 2012). The research data is collected by observing the plant’s reaction to Jasmonic Acid (JA), the plant reacted when treated with SLW and water content, how the plant responded to the effects of chemicals and physical leaf traits on the larva feeding habits (Stam et al., 2014).

Results

Cyanogenic

When the plant was exposed to JA or control, there were different observations that were made. Some of the plants were damaged while some were not. The research’s objective in this experiment was to look at the relation of the various treatments to the releasing of Hydrogen cyanide (HCN). The experiment was done on plants which are on different developmental stages: young and old plants. The plant is expected to change colour and the colour change should be recorded. The colour reaction is caused by a reaction plant biochemical and the JA. The colour reaction was subjected to a score where the higher the score indicates high content of JA released by the plant. The plant is expected to release high amounts of HCN. The JA caused more damage in young plants than in older plants and high HCN values in the latter. The Chi-square test ranged at 0.386405. This means that the high value of chi-square result shows that the older plant are more adapted to protect themselves.

Chi test (P)

0.386405

ά

0.05

Reject Ho

No

Leaf water content

In defence against herbivore the plant seemed to act differently by controlling the amount of water in the cell. This results in the reduction of leaf’s surface area which influences the area eaten by caterpillars.

SLW water content

ANOVA: two way without replication

SUMMARY

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

515

1

0.037225

0.037225

#DIV/0!

1461

1

0.038429

0.038429

#DIV/0!

477

1

0.029926

0.029926

#DIV/0!

1375

1

0.03763

0.03763

#DIV/0!

432

1

0.024949

0.024949

#DIV/0!

1334

1

0.029484

0.029484

#DIV/0!

448

1

0.033665

0.033665

#DIV/0!

1112

1

0.037596

0.037596

#DIV/0!

823

1

0.036462

0.036462

#DIV/0!

1469

1

0.035219

0.035219

#DIV/0!

1112

1

0.032374

0.032374

#DIV/0!

1298

1

0.032123

0.032123

#DIV/0!

454

1

0.030112

0.030112

#DIV/0!

1321

1

0.031772

0.031772

#DIV/0!

427

1

0.030922

0.030922

#DIV/0!

761

1

0.0362

0.0362

#DIV/0!

510

1

0.025551

0.025551

#DIV/0!

960

1

0.029049

0.029049

#DIV/0!

570

1

0.028871

0.028871

#DIV/0!

1295

1

0.030106

0.030106

#DIV/0!

1330

1

0.042759

0.042759

#DIV/0!

446

1

0.034601

0.034601

#DIV/0!

904

1

0.04618

0.04618

#DIV/0!

1080

1

0.035867

0.035867

#DIV/0!

870

1

0.075425

0.075425

#DIV/0!

249

1

0.029986

0.029986

#DIV/0!

1389

1

0.083305

0.083305

#DIV/0!

176

1

0.021635

0.021635

#DIV/0!

1678

1

0.042526

0.042526

#DIV/0!

558

1

0.013163

0.013163

#DIV/0!

1889

1

0.038433

0.038433

#DIV/0!

319

1

0.030576

0.030576

#DIV/0!

1346

1

0.032624

0.032624

#DIV/0!

235

1

0.028745

0.028745

#DIV/0!

1711

1

0.036805

0.036805

#DIV/0!

380

1

0.030029

0.030029

#DIV/0!

605

1

0.039846

0.039846

#DIV/0!

1096

1

0.036419

0.036419

#DIV/0!

243

1

0.031955

0.031955

#DIV/0!

410

1

0.041524

0.041524

#DIV/0!

SLW (in mg per mm^2 DW)

40

1.420069

0.035502

0.000141

ANOVA

Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

Rows

0.005508

39

0.000141

65535

#NUM!

#NUM!

Columns

0

0

65535

65535

#NUM!

#NUM!

Error

0

0

65535

Total

0.005508

39

Leaf Consumption

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

2686.388

615

Mean

5152.212795

1064.923077

Variance

7634984.203

342004.6518

Observations

39

39

Pearson Correlation

0.860890707

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

df

38

t Stat

11.19918417

P(T