The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Silica in grasses as a defence against insect herbivores: contrasting effects on folivores and a phloem feeder
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Silica, deposited as opaline phytoliths in the leaves of grasses, constitutes 2–5% of dry leaf mass, yet its function remains unclear. It has been proposed that silica may act as an antiherbivore defence by increasing the abrasiveness and reducing the digestibility of grass leaves, although there is little direct experimental evidence to support this. We investigated the effects of manipulated silica levels on the abrasiveness of the leaves of five grass species. We also examined the effects of silica levels on the feeding preferences, growth performance and digestion efficiency of two folivorous insects and one phloem‐feeding insect. Silica addition resulted in increases to leaf abrasiveness in four of the five grass species studied. Silica addition also deterred feeding by both folivores and reduced their growth rates and digestion efficiency. These effects resulted in lower pupal mass of the lepidopteron larvae Spodoptera exempta and compensatory feeding by the orthopteran, Schistocerca gregaria. In contrast, silica had no effects on the feeding preference or the population growth of the phloem feeder, Sitobion avenae. Our results demonstrate that silica is an effective defence against folivorous insects, both as a feeding deterrent, possibly mediated by increased abrasiveness, and as a digestibility reducer. The effects of silica on pupal mass and development time may impact on herbivore fitness and exposure to natural enemies. These results are the first demonstration of a direct effect of silica on the abrasiveness of grasses and the adverse impact of silica on herbivore preference and performance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Phytoliths in Paleoecology: Analytical Considerations, Current Use, and Future Directions
Strömberg, C. A. E., Dunn, R. E., Crifò, C., & Harris, E. B. (2018) · Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94265-0_12 · Cited by 94
Lam, W. N., Slade, E. M., & Wardle, D. A. (2024) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.14520 · Cited by 17
Pey, B., Trân, C., Cruz, P., Hedde, M., Jouany, C., Laplanche, C., Nahmani, J., Chauvet, E., & Lecerf, A. (2019) · Applied Soil Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.09.006 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- MASSEY, F. P., ENNOS, A. R., & HARTLEY, S. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 595-603
- ISSN
- 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2656
- OpenAlex
- W1872033435
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Silica in grasses as a defence against insect herbivores: contrasting effects on folivores and a phloem feeder. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01082.x
- The paper
- MASSEY, F. P., ENNOS, A. R., & HARTLEY, S. E. (2006). Silica in grasses as a defence against insect herbivores: contrasting effects on folivores and a phloem feeder. Journal of Animal Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01082.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.