Cited by 164Insect-Plant Interactions and ControlPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis

Plant–arthropod interactions: who is the winner?

Open access
Stahl, Elia, Hilfiker, Olivier, Reymond, Philippe·2018·The Plant Journal

Abstract

Summary: Herbivorous arthropods have interacted with plants for millions of years. During feeding they release chemical cues that allow plants to detect the attack and mount an efficient defense response. A signaling cascade triggers the expression of hundreds of genes, which encode defensive proteins and enzymes for synthesis of toxic metabolites. This direct defense is often complemented by emission of volatiles that attract beneficial parasitoids. In return, arthropods have evolved strategies to interfere with plant defenses, either by producing effectors to inhibit detection and downstream signaling steps, or by adapting to their detrimental effect. In this review, we address the current knowledge on the molecular and chemical dialog between plants and herbivores, with an emphasis on co‐evolutionary aspects.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/tpj.13773

Cites

301 of 301 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 304 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Schoonhoven, L.M., van Loon, J.J.A. and Dicke, M. (2005) Insect-plant biology , 1729 Oxford University Press, USA. 1730

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stahl, E., Hilfiker, O., & Reymond, P.
Affiliations
University of Lausanne (CH)
Corresponding author
Reymond, Philippe
Venue
The Plant Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-12-20
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
703-728
ISSN
  • 0960-7412 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-313X
OpenAlex
W2770133701
Cited by
164
References
304
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Plant Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (169278)
  • Université de Lausanne
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Keywords
plant-arthropod interactions, herbivorous arthropods, plant defense response, chemical communication, plant volatiles, parasitoid attraction, effectors, plant defense gene expression, toxic metabolites
MeSH terms
Animals, Arthropods, Biological Evolution, Insecta, Plant Proteins, Plants, Plant Physiological Phenomena, Phytoplasma, Receptors, Pattern Recognition, Herbivory

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