↓ Skip to main content

Why Do Herbivorous Mites Suppress Plant Defenses?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
49 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Why Do Herbivorous Mites Suppress Plant Defenses?
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.01057
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Joséphine H. Blaazer, Ernesto A. Villacis-Perez, Rachid Chafi, Thomas Van Leeuwen, Merijn R. Kant, Bernardus C. J. Schimmel

Abstract

Plants have evolved numerous defensive traits that enable them to resist herbivores. In turn, this resistance has selected for herbivores that can cope with defenses by either avoiding, resisting or suppressing them. Several species of herbivorous mites, such as the spider mites Tetranychus urticae and Tetranychus evansi, were found to maximize their performance by suppressing inducible plant defenses. At first glimpse it seems obvious why such a trait will be favored by natural selection. However, defense suppression appeared to readily backfire since mites that do so also make their host plant more suitable for competitors and their offspring more attractive for natural enemies. This, together with the fact that spider mites are infamous for their ability to resist (plant) toxins directly, justifies the question as to why traits that allow mites to suppress defenses nonetheless seem to be relatively common? We argue that this trait may facilitate generalist herbivores, like T. urticae, to colonize new host species. While specific detoxification mechanisms may, on average, be suitable only on a narrow range of similar hosts, defense suppression may be more broadly effective, provided it operates by targeting conserved plant signaling components. If so, resistance and suppression may be under frequency-dependent selection and be maintained as a polymorphism in generalist mite populations. In that case, the defense suppression trait may be under rapid positive selection in subpopulations that have recently colonized a new host but may erode in relatively isolated populations in which host-specific detoxification mechanisms emerge. Although there is empirical evidence to support these scenarios, it contradicts the observation that several of the mite species found to suppress plant defenses actually are relatively specialized. We argue that in these cases buffering traits may enable such mites to mitigate the negative side effects of suppression in natural communities and thus shield this trait from natural selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Student > Bachelor 17 17%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 4%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 31 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 15%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 33 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,400,613
of 26,454,856 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#420
of 25,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,846
of 344,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#15
of 489 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,454,856 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,287 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 489 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.