Cited by 704Insect-Plant Interactions and ControlForest Insect Ecology and ManagementPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis

Plant resistance towards insect herbivores: a dynamic interaction

Gatehouse, John A.·2002·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: Plant defences against insect herbivores can be divided into ‘static’ or constitutive defences, and ‘active’ or induced defences, although the insecticidal compounds or proteins involved are often the same. Induced defences have aspects common to all plants, whereas the accumulation of constitutive defences is species‐specific. Insect herbivores activate induced defences both locally and systemically by signalling pathways involving systemin, jasmonate, oligogalacturonic acid and hydrogen peroxide. Plants also respond to insect attack by producing volatiles, which can be used to deter herbivores, to communicate between parts of the plant, or between plants, to induce defence responses. Plant volatiles are also an important component in indirect defence. Herbivorous insects have adapted to tolerate plant defences, and such adaptations can also be constitutive or induced. Insects whose plant host range is limited are more likely to show constitutive adaptation to the insecticidal compounds they will encounter, whereas insects which feed on a wide range of plant species often use induced adaptations to overcome plant defences. Both plant defence and insect adaptation involve a metabolic cost, and in a natural system most plant–insect interactions involving herbivory reach a ‘stand‐off’ where both host and herbivore survive but develop suboptimally. Contents Summary 145 I. Introduction 146 II. Accumulation of defensive compounds and induced resistance 146 III. Signalling pathways in wound‐induced resistance 147 IV. Insect modulation of the wounding response 155 V. Insects which evade the wounding response 156 VI. Insect‐induced emission of volatiles and tritrophic interactions 157 VII. Insect adaptation to plant defences 160 Conclusions 163 Acknowlegements 163 References 163

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00519.x

Cites

220 of 220 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 222 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gatehouse, J. A.
Affiliations
Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Gatehouse, John A.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-10-21
Volume
156
Issue
2
Pages
145-169
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2160819466
Cited by
704
References
222
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 28
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • New Phytologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Forest Insect Ecology and Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Keywords
plant-insect interactions, phytophagous insects, induced plant defense, systemin, jasmonates, oligogalacturonides, hydrogen peroxide, plant volatiles, indirect defense, tritrophic interactions, insecticidal compounds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review