Coevolution With Particular Reference to Herbivory

2224 Words9 Pages

Of all the extant organisms in the world, it is believed that terrestrial plants and their natural ‘enemies’ constitute more than forty percent. Moreover, plants exhibit a remarkable diversity of supposedly defensive characteristics including trichomes, spines, silica, secondary chemical compounds, temporal avoidance of enemies, and structures along with chemicals that attract predators of their natural enemies. In addition, the exploitation of the plants and their defences is facilitated by a vast number of behavioural, morphological and physiological adaptations by herbivores

Accounting for this diversity has been a major area of research for nearly a century. The seminal article, attributing this diversity to coevolution, was published in 1964 by Ehrlich and Raven. They suggested plants and herbivorous insects evolved reciprocally by the following events: Plants, through occasional mutations and recombinations, produced a series of chemical compounds not directly related to their basic metabolic pathways. Some of these compounds, by chance, serve to reduce or destroy the palatability of the plant in which they are produced. Such a plant, protected from the attack of phytophagous animals, would in a sense have entered a new adaptive zone. Evolutionary radiation of plants might follow.

If a new recombinant or mutant appeared in a population of insects that enabled individuals to feed on some previously protected plant, selection could carry the line into a new adaptive zone. Here it would be free to diversify in the absence of competing herbivores. Ehrlich and Raven (1964) emphasised the importance of the reciprocal selective responses between ecologically linked organisms.

Since 1964, studies have questioned Ehrlich and Ravens postulates. Due to the nature of evolutionary study, ideas are only as strong as the background in the literature; that is, acceptance by the scientific community depends upon its knowledge. In time people learn more and previously weak theories become more feasible. Alternatively, and more so in science, accepted work in time becomes disregarded (example; until the 1950’s geologists believed in static continents, now all believe in plate techtonics and continental drift). The significance of this is that any theory published is only speculation of what is happening in these in...

... middle of paper ...


 Fineblum, WL. Rausher, MD (1995) title. Nature 377 517-520

 Iwao, K. Rausher, MD. (1997) Evolution of plant resistance to multiple herbivores: Quantifying diffuse coevolution. Am. Nat. 149 (2) 317-331

 Rausher, MD. (1996) Genetic analysis of coevolution between plants and their natural enemies. Trends in Genetics. 12 (6) 212-217

 Rosenthal, GA. Berenbaum, MA.(eds.) (1992) Herbivores: Their interactons with secondary plant metabolites. Edition II. Academic Press, San Diego, U.S.

 Schoonhoven, LM. Jermy, T. van Loon, JJA.(1998) Insect-plant biology. From physiology to evolution. Chapman and Hall, London

 Thompson, JN. (1999) The raw material for coevolution. Oikos. 84 5-16

 Vail, SG. (1992) Selection for overcompensatory plants responses to herbivory: A mechanism for the evolution of plant –herbivore mutualism. Am. Nat.139(1) 1-8

 Van Valen note: get Van Valens 1973 red queen hypothesis reference.

 Vermeij, GJ. (1994) The evolutionary interaction among species: Selection, Escalation and Coevolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25 219-236



More about Coevolution With Particular Reference to Herbivory

Open Document