| Abstract: | Inducible plant resistance against herbivores is becoming a paradigm of plant–herbivore ecology. Fundamental to understanding induced resistance and its evolutionary ecology is specificity of "induction" and "effects". Specificity in the induction of resistance refers to whether plant damage by various herbivores causes the same response in plants. Specificity in the effects of induced resistance refers to whether induction has the same consequences (i.e., reduced preference or performance) for various herbivores. I examined both specificity of induction and effect employing four lepidopteran herbivores and wild radish plants, a system for which fitness benefits and costs of induction have been documented for the plant. Variation in the specificity of induction and effects of induced plant resistance was found; however, this variation was not associated with diet specialization in the herbivores (i.e., specialists vs generalists). Induction caused by Plutella (specialist) and Spodoptera (generalist) resulted in general resistance to all of the herbivores, induction caused by Pieris (specialist) induced resistance only to Spodoptera (generalist) and Pieris , and plant damage by Trichoplusia (generalist) failed to induce resistance and reduce the performance of any of the herbivores. To the contrary, plants damaged by Trichoplusia supported enhanced growth of subsequently feeding Trichoplusia compared to uninduced controls. These results add a novel level of complexity to interactions between plants and leaf chewing caterpillars. Within the same guild of feeders, some herbivores cause strong induced resistance, no induced resistance, or induced susceptibility. Similarly, caterpillar species were variable in the level to which induced resistance affected their performance. Such interactions limit the possibility of pairwise coevolution between plants and herbivores, and suggest that coevolution can only be diffuse. |
