Chemical defense

Last updated
Monarch butterfly caterpillar on milkweed plant. Milkweeds use three primary defenses to limit damage caused by caterpillars: hairs on the leaves, cardenolide toxins, and latex fluids, but Monarchs have evolved to remain unaffected by these defenses. Cardenolide toxins sequestered during the Monarch's larval stage from feeding on the plant remains in the adult, making it unpalatable to predators. Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Vertical Caterpillar 2000px.jpg
Monarch butterfly caterpillar on milkweed plant. Milkweeds use three primary defenses to limit damage caused by caterpillars: hairs on the leaves, cardenolide toxins, and latex fluids, but Monarchs have evolved to remain unaffected by these defenses. Cardenolide toxins sequestered during the Monarch's larval stage from feeding on the plant remains in the adult, making it unpalatable to predators.

Chemical defense is a strategy employed by many organisms to avoid consumption by producing toxic or repellent metabolites or chemical warnings which incite defensive behavioral changes. [1] [2] The production of defensive chemicals occurs in plants, fungi, and bacteria, as well as invertebrate and vertebrate animals. [3] [4] The class of chemicals produced by organisms that are considered defensive may be considered in a strict sense to only apply to those aiding an organism in escaping herbivory or predation. [1] However, the distinction between types of chemical interaction is subjective and defensive chemicals may also be considered to protect against reduced fitness by pests, parasites, and competitors. [5] [6] [7] Repellent rather than toxic metabolites are allomones, a sub category signaling metabolites known as semiochemicals. Many chemicals used for defensive purposes are secondary metabolites derived from primary metabolites which serve a physiological purpose in the organism. [1] Secondary metabolites produced by plants are consumed and sequestered by a variety of arthropods and, in turn, toxins found in some amphibians, snakes, and even birds can be traced back to arthropod prey. [8] [9] There are a variety of special cases for considering mammalian antipredatory adaptations as chemical defenses as well. [10]

Contents

Prokaryotes and fungi

The fungus Penicillium chrysogenum. It produces penicillin, a compound which kills bacteria. Penicillium notatum.jpg
The fungus Penicillium chrysogenum . It produces penicillin, a compound which kills bacteria.

Bacteria of the genera Chromobacterium , Janthinobacterium , and Pseudoalteromonas produce a toxic secondary metabolite, violacein, to deter protozoan predation. Violacein is released when bacteria are consumed, killing the protozoan. Another bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa , aggregates into quorum sensing biofilms which may aid the coordinated release of toxins to protect against predation by protozoans. Flagellates were allowed to grow and were present in a biofilm of P. aeruginosa grown for three days, but no flagellates were detected after seven days. This suggests that concentrated and coordinated release of extracellular toxins by biofilms has a greater effect than unicellular excretions. [11] Bacterial growth is inhibited not only by bacterial toxins, but also by secondary metabolites produced by fungi as well. [4] [7] The most well-known of these, first discovered and published by Alexander Fleming in 1929, described the antibacterial properties of a "mould juice" isolated from Penicillium notatum . He named the substance penicillin, and it became the world's first broad-spectrum antibiotic. [4] [12] Many fungi are either pathogenic saprophytic, or live within plants without harming them as endophytes, and many of these have been documented to produce chemicals with antagonistic effects against a variety of organisms, including fungi, bacteria, and protozoa. [4] Studies of coprophilous fungi have found antifungal agents which reduce the fitness of competing fungi. [7] In addition, sclerotia of Aspergillus flavus contained a number of previously unknown aflavinines which were much more effective at reducing predation by the fungivorous beetle, Carpophilus hemipterus , than aflatoxins which A. flavus also produced and it has been hypothesized that ergot alkaloids, mycotoxins produced by Claviceps purpurea , may have evolved to discourage herbivory of the host plant. [7]

Lichen

Lichens demonstrate chemical defenses similar to those mentioned above. Their defenses act against herbivores and pathogens including bacterial, viral, and fungal varieties. [13] [14] To that end, a variety of chemicals are produced by the lichen's mycobiont via hydrocarbons produced by the lichen's photobiont. [15] [16] However, a single defensive chemical may serve multiple purposes. Usnic acid, for example, is implicated across anti-bacterial, -viral, and -fungal actions. [17] [18] Such defensive chemicals may be stored in various tissue types of the lichen thallus, or they may accumulate on the mycobiont hyphae as extracellular crystals. [15]

Mycobiont-produced acids, including but not limited to, evernic, stictic, and squamatic acids exhibit allelopathy, more specifically, lichen defensive chemicals may inhibit a primary metabolic pathway within competing lichens, mosses, microorganisms, and vascular plants. [13] [15] Documented allelopathic targets include jack pine, white spruce, and garden variety tomato, cabbage, lettuce, and pepper plants. [15] Antimicrobial efforts of lichen are also mediated by various mycobiont-produced acids such as lecanoric and gyrophoric. Similar defensive chemicals were found to inhibit herbivores and insects. Some of these lichen defensive compounds show pharmaceutical potential, too. [15] [18]

In 2004 the death of hundreds of elk near Rawlins, Wyoming was linked to consumption of tumbleweed shield lichen (Xanthoparmelia chlorochroa). This strangely powerful chemical defense is irregular given that such poisoning is very rare while the consumption of this lichen is fairly regular. [19]

Plants

A wealth of literature exists on the defensive chemistry of secondary metabolites produced by terrestrial plants and their antagonistic effects on pests and pathogens, likely because human society depends upon large-scale agricultural production to sustain global commerce. Since the 1950s, over 200,000 secondary metabolites have been documented in plants. [20] These compounds serve a variety of physiological and allelochemical purposes, and provide a sufficient stock for the evolution of defensive chemicals. Examples of common secondary metabolites used as chemical defenses by plants include alkaloids, phenols, and terpenes. [21] Defensive chemicals used to avoid consumption may be broadly characterized as either toxins or substances reducing the digestive capacity of herbivores. Although toxins are defined in a broad sense as any substance produced by an organism that reduces the fitness of another, in a more specific sense toxins are substances which directly affect and diminish the functioning of certain metabolic pathways. [22] [23] Toxins are minor constituents (<2% dry weight), active in small concentrations, and more present in flowers and young leaves. On the other hand, indigestible compounds make up to 60% dry weight of tissue and are predominately found in mature, woody species. [23] Many alkaloids, pyrethrins, and phenols are toxins. Tannins are major inhibitors of digestion and are polyphenolic compounds with large molecular weights. Lignin and cellulose are important structural elements in plants and are also usually highly indigestible. Tannins are also toxic against pathogenic fungi at natural concentrations in a variety of woody tissues. [1] Not only useful as deterrents to pathogens or consumers, some of the chemicals produced by plants are effective in inhibiting competitors as well. Two separate shrub communities in the California chaparral were found to produce phenolic compounds and volatile terpenes which accumulated in soil and prevented various herbs from growing near the shrubs. Other plants were only observed to grow when fire removed shrubs, but herbs subsequently died off after shrubs returned. [6] Although the focus has been on broad-scale patterns in terrestrial plants, Paul and Fenical in 1986 demonstrated a variety of secondary metabolites in marine algae which prevented feeding or induced mortality in bacteria, fungi, echinoderms, fishes, and gastropods. [24] In nature, pests are a severe problem to plant communities as well, leading to the co-evolution of plant chemical defenses and herbivore metabolic strategies to detoxify their plant food. [25] [14] A variety of invertebrates consume plants, but insects have received a majority of the attention. Insects are pervasive agricultural pests and sometimes occur in such high densities that they can strip fields of crops. [26]

Animals

Terrestrial arthropods

Series from a study by Eisner and colleagues investigating defensive spray in bombardier beetles. The paper is specially treated to have a color reaction with the spray, which is normally clear. Chlaenius Plate 10 Eisner et al 1963.png
Series from a study by Eisner and colleagues investigating defensive spray in bombardier beetles. The paper is specially treated to have a color reaction with the spray, which is normally clear.

There are many strategies terrestrial arthropods employ in terms of chemical defense. The first of these strategies include the direct use of secondary metabolites. [27] Many insects are distasteful to predators and excrete irritants or secrete poisonous compounds that cause illness or death when ingested. Secondary metabolites obtained from plant food may also be sequestered by insects and used in the production of their own toxins. [25] [28] One of the more well-known examples of this is the monarch butterfly, which sequesters poison obtained from the milkweed plant. Among the most successful insect orders employing this strategy are beetles (Coleoptera), grasshoppers (Orthoptera), and moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera). [29] [30] Insects also biosynthesize unique toxins, and while sequestration of toxins from food sources is claimed to be the energetically favorable strategy, this has been contested. [25] [31] Passion-vine associated butterflies in the tribe Heliconiini (sub-family Heliconiinae) either sequester or synthesize de novo defensive chemicals, but moths in the genus Zygaena (family Zygaenidae) have evolved the ability to either synthesize or sequester their defensive chemicals through convergence. [25] Some coleopterans sequester secondary metabolites to be used as defensive chemicals but most biosynthesize their own de novo. Anatomical structures have developed to store these substances, and some are circulated in the hemolymph and released associated with a behavior called reflex bleeding. [28]

The use of chemical alarms and detection is another strategy of chemical defense. Identifying predators and responding swiftly and appropriately is advantageous and leads to higher fitness. [2] These defensive responses can include (but are not limited to) avoidance and escape responses, safeguarding offspring, aggressive behaviors, and applying "direct defenses" (i.e. toxins or defensive chemicals similar to the strategy of the monarch butterfly discussed above). [2] For example, the fruit fly ( Rhagoletis basiola ) can chemically detect a nearby parasitoid (an organism that acts as both a parasite and a predator) and halt its egg-laying. [32] Delaying oviposition can reduce the risk of predation and falls under the category of protecting offspring. [2] The spider mite ( Tetranychus urticae ) can respond to predator volatiles in the environment and will choose to feed in areas without predator cues. [33] Similarly, spider mites are also able to sense damaged body parts of individuals of the same species, or conspecifics, and present the same avoidance behavior as with predator cues. [34] Furthermore, spider mites exhibit a similar behavior with egg-laying as the fruit fly and will elect to move to areas absent of predator cues before oviposition. Spider mites will not avoid areas with other, non-predator volatiles meaning these organisms are able to chemically distinguish threats from non-threats. [2] Parasitic wasps (Aphidius uzbekistanicus) also sense volatiles of their predator, a hyperparasitoid (a parasite whose host is another parasite), and fly to new areas devoid of the chemical cues, displaying similar avoidance behaviors as the spider mite. [35]

Alternately, chemical detection of predators or threats can instigate aggressive behaviors in some terrestrial arthropods, rather than escape and avoidance behaviors. [2] Polybia paulista , a vespid wasp, is a social species that forage and defend according to complex social structures. [36] These wasps have evolved to detect pheromones in the venom of members of the same species. Identifying volatiles from the venom of conspecifics allows the vespid wasps to discern a nearby threat. When detected, these pheromones induce an attacking behavior within members of the same species. These wasps will then work together to defeat the threat. [37] Similarly, honeybees ( Apis mellifera scutellata ) release a warning pheromone when threatened. These pheromones intensify the honeybees' defenses by increasing the duration of the stinging behavior in all nearby honeybees. [38]

Aphids, small insects that can be found feeding on the sap of plants, exhibit many strategies in terms of chemical defense. [39] [40] Aphids have structures called cornicles along the posterior side of their abdomen which are used to deliver secretions containing both volatile and nonvolatile compounds. [40] Volatile compounds serve primarily as alarm pheromones. Pheromones are chemicals released from one individual that elicit a response from another. Nonvolatile compounds, such as wax, are used as noxious adhesives that the aphid will smear on their enemies. These smears are used to fatally bind predators' mouthparts, antennas, legs, etc., meaning these compounds are typically used more for physical defense rather than chemical. [41] [40] Pea aphids ( Acyrthosiphon pisum ) produce a warning chemical called (E)-β-farnesene which is excreted as a volatile compound in the presence of predators or perceived threats. [40] In many cases, the aphid will respond by leaving the feeding site in search of an area without alarm pheromones. [2] Additionally, pea aphids are highly attune to which predators are in their area as they can chemically identify what is posing as a threat and adjust their response accordingly. For example, pea aphids can identify Adalia bipunctata , the ladybird beetle, by their chemical predator cues. After sensing this predator, pea aphids are known to produce more offspring with wings. [42] The winged offspring are able to better avoid predation; however, winged individuals are less fertile. This trade-off between wings and fertility shows the success of this particular defensive strategy. [2] In "relaxed" conditions, or conditions in which predator cues are absent, more wing-less offspring are produced. [42]

The structure of (E)-b-farnesene. This is used by many aphid species as an alarm pheromone. B-Farnesene.svg
The structure of (E)-β-farnesene. This is used by many aphid species as an alarm pheromone.

The chemical defense systems of aphids are highly specific. (E)-β-farnesene, the alarm pheromone discussed above, is used by many species of aphids. [40] When released, (E)-β-farnesene will only extend 2-3 centimeters in diameter. [43] This protects farther conspecifics from the alarm chemical so they do not experience any needless pause in feeding or respond unnecessarily. [40] Furthermore, these chemical alarms are detected by structures on the antennae of aphids that utilize specialized binding proteins. Warning chemicals must accumulate to a certain minimum within the binding proteins before a response is produced. [44] [45] These factors are used to highlight the specificity of the chemical defense systems of aphids. [40] Moreover, the chemical warnings used are also highly specific and the method in which the alarm pheromone is distributed can elicit different responses. For example, Ceratovacuna lanigera , the sugarcane wooly aphid, has two methods of distribution of alarm pheromones. When threatened, the alarm pheromones can either be released as a droplet or as a smear. When the alarm is released as a droplet from the aphid's cornicle, the local conspecifics will respond individually and will either avoid or escape the area. However, when alarm pheromones are spread on a predator, other members of the same species will launch a joint attack. [46] As discussed above, waxy cornicle smears are typically used to physically defend an aphid from a predator. In this case, however, the chemical alarms in the wax are eliciting a behavioral change; therefore, this particular strategy can be considered chemical defense. [40]

Other organisms have been able to take advantage of the elaborate chemical defenses of aphids to increase their own fitness. [40] Chemical mimicry is powerful tool in terms of chemical defense. [47] Lysiphlebus fabarum, a parasitoid of aphids, is able to mimic the chemical secretions of specific aphids when infiltrating their colonies. This mimicry serves as a “chemical camouflage” and protects these parasitoids as they go undetected within aphid colonies. [48] Chrysopa glossonae, a lacewing, uses the wax of the woolly alder aphid to chemically disguise itself from formicine ants (of the sub-family Formicinea) who have learned to avoid attacking the aphid. [49] This means that nearby formicine ants will ignore the lacewing as it would the wooly alder aphid. This is another instance where waxy secretions are used for chemical defense rather than physical.[ citation needed ]

Marine invertebrates

Marine invertebrates employ a diverse array of strategies in terms of chemical defense. Some of these strategies include: secondary metabolite production, storage and modification of another organism's secondary metabolites, chemical warnings, predator warnings, phagomimicry, and chemical “clothing.” The success of these strategies is exemplified by the number of species who exhibit these chemical defenses. [50]

A spicule found on the surface of a sponge. Sponges who produce more secondary metabolites produce fewer spicules. Sponge-spicule hg.jpg
A spicule found on the surface of a sponge. Sponges who produce more secondary metabolites produce fewer spicules.

Sea sponges, of the phylum Porifera, are just one example of marine invertebrates who benefit from the production of secondary metabolites. [51] Sponges have the ability to produce their own secondary metabolites rather than rely on the storage and modification of another organism's chemical defenses. [51] The roles of some observed secondary metabolites are still unknown; however, there is evidence highlighting the fact that a large number of secondary metabolites are used for defensive purposes. [51] For example, there is an inverse relationship between the quantity of secondary metabolites within a sponge and the number of spicules present on the organism itself. [52] Spicules are sharp, needle-like structures protruding from the sponge and are used as a form of physical defense. [53] Secondary metabolites and spicules have an inverse relationship because, as the quantity of secondary metabolites increase, the number of spicules decrease. [52] This leads to the idea that secondary metabolites are indeed used for defensive purposes and sponges no longer have to rely on physical defenses. [51] Additionally, many sponges that produce secondary metabolites are toxic to potential predators. [54] Sponges that exhibit a larger production of secondary metabolites experience less predation, aiding in the idea that secondary metabolites are used as a defensive mechanism. [51]

Secondary metabolite storage and modification is a useful strategy for many marine invertebrates. They are able to sequester preexisting chemicals without needing to spend the energy producing the secondary metabolites themselves. [51] For example, Nudibranchs, also known as sea slugs, exhibit both a “passive” and an “active” form of chemical defense. Sea slugs are carnivorous and a central part of their diet consists of sea sponges who, as discussed above, produce their own defensive secondary metabolites. [51] A key feature of sea slugs' chemical defense is their ability to store and reuse the chemicals produced by the organisms they consume. [55] For instance, a sea sponge produces pigments which gives them their vibrant colors. The pigments in the sponges accumulate in the sea slugs as they feed, allowing the sea slug to be camouflaged within its environment. [56] The color of the sea slug is dependent on which sponge they consume. For example, a sea slug that appears pink when found feeding on a pink sponge can turn green when migrating to a green sponge. [56] This camouflage can be regarded as an “accidental” or passive form of chemical defense. [51] A more active form of chemical defense found in sea slugs is their ability to store and use the defensive secondary metabolites produced by sponges. [51] Sea slugs exhibit two mechanisms of storing defensive chemicals. The first of these mechanisms is storing the chemicals within their dorsum (or “backside”). [57] This storage mechanism is advantageous because the defensive chemicals are located near the surface of the sea slug and are readily available for any mucus secretion. [51] The second mechanism of defensive chemical storage exhibited by sea slugs is preserving the secondary metabolites in other areas of their body. For example, some sea slugs store secondary metabolites within their digestive track. [51] Sea slugs who use this strategy for secondary metabolite storage have mechanisms of deploying the defensive chemicals when needed. Sea slugs are phylogenetically related to sea snails. [58] One of the most distinguishing factors between these two marine invertebrates is sea snails have a shell while sea slugs do not. This loss of shell provides insight to the success of the sea slug's chemical defensive strategies. [51] With the use of defensive chemicals, shells are unnecessary and energetically expensive, leading to the loss of these protective structures. The fact that sea slugs can effectively survive and evade predation without the use of the shell highlights the success of storing and modifying secondary metabolites as a defensive mechanism. [51]  

The use of chemical warnings and alarms as a defensive mechanism is employed by many marine invertebrates. [50] This mechanism relies on the invertebrates releasing and sensing chemical cues throughout their aquatic environment and modifying their behavior as a result. [50] For example, clams have evolved to sense predator pheromones in the surrounding water and respond in a way that hides their presence from those predators. [59] Clams, referring to many species of mollusks, feed by pumping. “Pumping” occurs when clams pull surrounding water in, feed on microorganisms present in the water, and release the newly filtered water. [59] Predators of clams, namely blue shell crabs and whelks, are able to identify their prey by sensing the chemical cues present in the filtered water. Clams have evolved to chemically sense upstream predators. [50] When a predator is sensed nearby, clams modify their behavior and discontinue their pumping to reduce consumer cues. Predators no longer have a chemical trail to follow when searching for the clam. [59] Clams only restart their pumping when consumer cues are absent. [59] In this scenario, both predator and prey are relying on the presence of secondary metabolites, predators are using these chemicals as a hunting mechanism while the clams are using them as an alarm that elicits their behavioral response. Blue shell crabs (Callinectes sapidus), a common predator of clams, have a similar mechanism of defense; however, instead of chemically sensing predators in the local environment, they are able to sense chemical warnings emitted by members of the same species. [60] These crabs, when harmed, emanate a chemical warning that is species specific, meaning these chemical warnings are only detected by other blue shell crabs. These warnings can come from damaged whole crabs or body parts of the blue shell crabs. [60] These chemical signals warn others to avoid areas of high risk. [60] The use of chemical warnings and alarm pheromones is a mechanism used by many marine invertebrates, clams and blue shell crabs are only two examples of this defensive strategy. [50]

Sea hares employ phagomimicry as a form of chemical defense. Aplysia californica.jpg
Sea hares employ phagomimicry as a form of chemical defense.

Sea hares use a form of chemical defense called phagomimicry. [50] Unlike the widespread use of the previously discussed chemical defensive strategies, phagomimicry is specific to sea hares. [61] Phagomimicry, as the name suggests, is a type of chemical mimicry. Many organisms have evolved to use mimicry as it is a highly successful mechanism of chemical defense. [47] Sea hares, when attacked, quickly release a fog of chemicals into the surrounding environment. The chemical cloud consists of two main parts: the ink and the opaline. [61] The ink, when released into the water, physically obscures the sea hare from their predator. The opaline fog is a mixture of chemicals that mimic the signals of the predator's food and therefore acts as a food stimulus. [61] The goal of the opaline chemical cloud is to supply a stronger food stimulus than the sea hare itself provides. [61] Altogether, the cloud works to overwhelm and distract the predator. Confused, the predator will attack the chemical mixture rather than the sea hare itself, allowing time for the sea hare to escape. [50]

Several marine invertebrates are able to acquire chemical defense by covering themselves in other organisms who possess defensive secondary metabolites. This defensive mechanism is described as "chemical clothing." [50] Invertebrates have been observed using many different organisms as a form of clothing. These include sponges, bacteria, and seaweed. [50] Interestingly, many marine invertebrates who capitalize on this mechanism of defense are herbivores. These herbivores choose to use seaweed as clothing rather than food, meaning they value the seaweed more for their defensive abilities rather than as potential food. [62] In the field, invertebrates such as the Atlantic decorator crab (Libinia dubia) experience significantly less predation when "clothed" in noxious seaweed than their unclothed conspecifics. [62] The marine invertebrate and the chemically defended organism are able to form a symbiotic relationship resulting in the marine invertebrate acquiring long-term chemical defenses. [50]

Vertebrates

Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) in defensive posture with erect and puffed tail, indicating it may be about to spray. Skunk about to spray.jpg
Skunk ( Mephitis mephitis ) in defensive posture with erect and puffed tail, indicating it may be about to spray.

Vertebrates can also biosynthesize defensive chemicals or sequester them from plants or prey. [9] [31] Sequestered compounds have been observed in frogs, natricine snakes, and two genera of birds, Pitohui and Ifrita . [9] It is suspected that some well-known compounds such as tetrodotoxin produced by newts and pufferfish [63] are derived from invertebrate prey. Bufadienolides, defensive chemicals produced by toads, have been found in glands of natricine snakes used for defense. [9]

Amphibians

Frogs acquire the toxins needed for chemical defense by either producing them through glands on their skin or through their diet. The source of toxins in their diet are primarily arthropods, ranging from beetles to millipedes. When the required dietary components are absent, such as in captivity, the frog is no longer able to produce the toxins, making them nonpoisonous. The profile of toxins may even change with the season, as is the case for the Climbing Mantella, whose diet and feeding behavior differ between wet and dry seasons [64]

The evolutionary advantage of producing such toxins is the deterrence of predators. There is evidence to suggest that the ability to produce toxins evolved along with aposematic coloration, acting as a visual cue to predators to remember which species are not palatable. [19]

While the toxins produced by frogs are frequently referred to as poisonous, the doses of toxins are low enough that they are more noxious than poisonous. However, components of the toxins, namely the alkaloids, are very active in ion channels. Therefore, they disrupt the victim's nervous system, making them much more effective. Within the frogs themselves, the toxins are accumulated and delivered through small, specialized transport proteins. [65]

The Golden poison frog (Phyllobates terribilis) is among the species of poison frogs that have potential significance to medical research. Golden Frog (5819807508).jpg
The Golden poison frog (Phyllobates terribilis) is among the species of poison frogs that have potential significance to medical research.

Besides providing defense from predators, the toxins that poison frogs secrete interest medical researchers. Poison dart frogs, of the Dendrobatidae family, secrete batrachotoxin. This toxin has the potential to act as a muscle relaxant, heart stimulant, or anesthetic. Multiple species of frogs secrete epibatidine, whose study has yielded several important results. It was discovered that the frogs resist poisoning themselves through a single amino acid replacement that desensitizes the targeted receptors to the toxin, but still maintains the function of the receptor. This finding gives insight to the roles of proteins, the nervous system, and the mechanics of chemical defense, all of which promote future biomedical research and innovation.

Mammals

Some mammals can emit foul smelling liquids from anal glands, such as the pangolin [66] and some members of families Mephitidae and Mustelidae including skunks, weasels, and polecats. [67] Monotremes have venomous spurs used to avoid predation [68] and slow lorises (Primates: Nycticebus) produce venom which appears to be effective at deterring both predators and parasites. [69] It has also been demonstrated that physical contact with a slow loris (without being bitten) can cause a reaction in humans – acting as a contact poison. [70]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Endosymbiont</span> Organism that lives within the body or cells of another organism

An endosymbiont or endobiont is an organism that lives within the body or cells of another organism. Typically the two organisms are in a mutualistic relationship. Examples are nitrogen-fixing bacteria, which live in the root nodules of legumes, single-cell algae inside reef-building corals, and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to insects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Herbivore</span> Organism that eats mostly or exclusively plant material

A herbivore is an animal anatomically and physiologically evolved to feed on plants, especially upon vascular tissues such as foliage, fruits or seeds, as the main component of its diet. These more broadly also encompass animals that eat non-vascular autotrophs such as mosses, algae and lichens, but do not include those feeding on decomposed plant matters or macrofungi.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pheromone</span> Secreted or excreted chemical factor that triggers a social response in members of the same species

A pheromone is a secreted or excreted chemical factor that triggers a social response in members of the same species. Pheromones are chemicals capable of acting like hormones outside the body of the secreting individual, to affect the behavior of the receiving individuals. There are alarm pheromones, food trail pheromones, sex pheromones, and many others that affect behavior or physiology. Pheromones are used by many organisms, from basic unicellular prokaryotes to complex multicellular eukaryotes. Their use among insects has been particularly well documented. In addition, some vertebrates, plants and ciliates communicate by using pheromones. The ecological functions and evolution of pheromones are a major topic of research in the field of chemical ecology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aphid</span> Superfamily of insects

Aphids are small sap-sucking insects and members of the superfamily Aphidoidea. Common names include greenfly and blackfly, although individuals within a species can vary widely in color. The group includes the fluffy white woolly aphids. A typical life cycle involves flightless females giving live birth to female nymphs—who may also be already pregnant, an adaptation scientists call telescoping generations—without the involvement of males. Maturing rapidly, females breed profusely so that the number of these insects multiplies quickly. Winged females may develop later in the season, allowing the insects to colonize new plants. In temperate regions, a phase of sexual reproduction occurs in the autumn, with the insects often overwintering as eggs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nudibranch</span> Order of gastropods

Nudibranchs belong to the order Nudibranchia, a group of soft-bodied marine gastropod molluscs that shed their shells after their larval stage. They are noted for their often extraordinary colours and striking forms, and they have been given colourful nicknames to match, such as "clown", "marigold", "splendid", "dancer", "dragon", and "sea rabbit". Currently, about 3,000 valid species of nudibranchs are known.

Chemical ecology is the study of chemically mediated interactions between living organisms, and the effects of those interactions on the demography, behavior and ultimately evolution of the organisms involved. It is thus a vast and highly interdisciplinary field. Chemical ecologists seek to identify the specific molecules that function as signals mediating community or ecosystem processes and to understand the evolution of these signals. The substances that serve in such roles are typically small, readily-diffusible organic molecules, but can also include larger molecules and small peptides.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Allomone</span> Chemical communication between species that benefits the first but not the second

An allomone is a type of semiochemical produced and released by an individual of one species that affects the behaviour of a member of another species to the benefit of the originator but not the receiver. Production of allomones is a common form of defense against predators, particularly by plant species against insect herbivores. In addition to defense, allomones are also used by organisms to obtain their prey or to hinder any surrounding competitors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plant defense against herbivory</span> Evolutionary mechanism

Plant defense against herbivory or host-plant resistance is a range of adaptations evolved by plants which improve their survival and reproduction by reducing the impact of herbivores. Many plants produce secondary metabolites, known as allelochemicals, that influence the behavior, growth, or survival of herbivores. These chemical defenses can act as repellents or toxins to herbivores or reduce plant digestibility. Another defensive strategy of plants is changing their attractiveness. Plants can sense being touched, and they can respond with strategies to defend against herbivores. To prevent overconsumption by large herbivores, plants alter their appearance by changing their size or quality, reducing the rate at which they are consumed.

The latrunculins are a family of natural products and toxins produced by certain sponges, including genus Latrunculia and Negombata, whence the name is derived. It binds actin monomers near the nucleotide binding cleft with 1:1 stoichiometry and prevents them from polymerizing. Administered in vivo, this effect results in disruption of the actin filaments of the cytoskeleton, and allows visualization of the corresponding changes made to the cellular processes. This property is similar to that of cytochalasin, but has a narrow effective concentration range. Latrunculin has been used to great effect in the discovery of cadherin distribution regulation and has potential medical applications. Latrunculin A, a type of the toxin, was found to be able to make reversible morphological changes to mammalian cells by disrupting the actin network.

Herbivores are dependent on plants for food, and have coevolved mechanisms to obtain this food despite the evolution of a diverse arsenal of plant defenses against herbivory. Herbivore adaptations to plant defense have been likened to "offensive traits" and consist of those traits that allow for increased feeding and use of a host. Plants, on the other hand, protect their resources for use in growth and reproduction, by limiting the ability of herbivores to eat them. Relationships between herbivores and their host plants often results in reciprocal evolutionary change. When a herbivore eats a plant it selects for plants that can mount a defensive response, whether the response is incorporated biochemically or physically, or induced as a counterattack. In cases where this relationship demonstrates "specificity", and "reciprocity", the species are thought to have coevolved. The escape and radiation mechanisms for coevolution, presents the idea that adaptations in herbivores and their host plants, has been the driving force behind speciation. The coevolution that occurs between plants and herbivores that ultimately results in the speciation of both can be further explained by the Red Queen hypothesis. This hypothesis states that competitive success and failure evolve back and forth through organizational learning. The act of an organism facing competition with another organism ultimately leads to an increase in the organism's performance due to selection. This increase in competitive success then forces the competing organism to increase its performance through selection as well, thus creating an "arms race" between the two species. Herbivores evolve due to plant defenses because plants must increase their competitive performance first due to herbivore competitive success.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biological pigment</span> Substances produced by living organisms

Biological pigments, also known simply as pigments or biochromes, are substances produced by living organisms that have a color resulting from selective color absorption. Biological pigments include plant pigments and flower pigments. Many biological structures, such as skin, eyes, feathers, fur and hair contain pigments such as melanin in specialized cells called chromatophores. In some species, pigments accrue over very long periods during an individual's lifespan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spongivore</span> Organism that feeds primarily on sea sponges

A spongivore is an animal anatomically and physiologically adapted to eating animals of the phylum Porifera, commonly called sea sponges, for the main component of its diet. As a result of their diet, spongivore animals like the hawksbill turtle have developed sharp, narrow bird-like beak that allows them to reach within crevices on the reef to obtain sponges.

Pyrrolizidine alkaloid sequestration by insects is a strategy to facilitate defense and mating. Various species of insects have been known to use molecular compounds from plants for their own defense and even as their pheromones or precursors to their pheromones. A few Lepidoptera have been found to sequester chemicals from plants which they retain throughout their life and some members of Erebidae are examples of this phenomenon. Starting in the mid-twentieth century researchers investigated various members of Arctiidae, and how these insects sequester pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs) during their life stages, and use these chemicals as adults for pheromones or pheromone precursors. PAs are also used by members of the Arctiidae for defense against predators throughout the life of the insect.

Green leaf volatiles (GLV) are organic compounds released by plants. Some of these chemicals function as signaling compounds between either plants of the same species, of other species, or even different lifeforms like insects.

Insects have a wide variety of predators, including birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, carnivorous plants, and other arthropods. The great majority (80–99.99%) of individuals born do not survive to reproductive age, with perhaps 50% of this mortality rate attributed to predation. In order to deal with this ongoing escapist battle, insects have evolved a wide range of defense mechanisms. The only restraint on these adaptations is that their cost, in terms of time and energy, does not exceed the benefit that they provide to the organism. The further that a feature tips the balance towards beneficial, the more likely that selection will act upon the trait, passing it down to further generations. The opposite also holds true; defenses that are too costly will have a little chance of being passed down. Examples of defenses that have withstood the test of time include hiding, escape by flight or running, and firmly holding ground to fight as well as producing chemicals and social structures that help prevent predation.

Trail pheromones are semiochemicals secreted from the body of an individual to affect the behavior of another individual receiving it. Trail pheromones often serve as a multi purpose chemical secretion that leads members of its own species towards a food source, while representing a territorial mark in the form of an allomone to organisms outside of their species. Specifically, trail pheromones are often incorporated with secretions of more than one exocrine gland to produce a higher degree of specificity. Considered one of the primary chemical signaling methods in which many social insects depend on, trail pheromone deposition can be considered one of the main facets to explain the success of social insect communication today. Many species of ants, including those in the genus Crematogaster use trail pheromones.

Phycotoxins are complex allelopathic chemicals produced by eukaryotic and prokaryotic algal secondary metabolic pathways. More simply, these are toxic chemicals synthesized by photosynthetic organisms. These metabolites are not harmful to the producer but may be toxic to either one or many members of the marine food web. This page focuses on phycotoxins produced by marine microalgae; however, freshwater algae and macroalgae are known phycotoxin producers and may exhibit analogous ecological dynamics. In the pelagic marine food web, phytoplankton are subjected to grazing by macro- and micro-zooplankton as well as competition for nutrients with other phytoplankton species. Marine bacteria try to obtain a share of organic carbon by maintaining symbiotic, parasitic, commensal, or predatory interactions with phytoplankton. Other bacteria will degrade dead phytoplankton or consume organic carbon released by viral lysis. The production of toxins is one strategy that phytoplankton use to deal with this broad range of predators, competitors, and parasites. Smetacek suggested that "planktonic evolution is ruled by protection and not competition. The many shapes of plankton reflect defense responses to specific attack systems". Indeed, phytoplankton retain an abundance of mechanical and chemical defense mechanisms including cell walls, spines, chain/colony formation, and toxic chemical production. These morphological and physiological features have been cited as evidence for strong predatory pressure in the marine environment. However, the importance of competition is also demonstrated by the production of phycotoxins that negatively impact other phytoplankton species. Flagellates are the principle producers of phycotoxins; however, there are known toxigenic diatoms, cyanobacteria, prymnesiophytes, and raphidophytes. Because many of these allelochemicals are large and energetically expensive to produce, they are synthesized in small quantities. However, phycotoxins are known to accumulate in other organisms and can reach high concentrations during algal blooms. Additionally, as biologically active metabolites, phycotoxins may produce ecological effects at low concentrations. These effects may be subtle, but have the potential to impact the biogeographic distributions of phytoplankton and bloom dynamics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tritrophic interactions in plant defense</span> Ecological interactions

Tritrophic interactions in plant defense against herbivory describe the ecological impacts of three trophic levels on each other: the plant, the herbivore, and its natural enemies. They may also be called multitrophic interactions when further trophic levels, such as soil microbes, endophytes, or hyperparasitoids are considered. Tritrophic interactions join pollination and seed dispersal as vital biological functions which plants perform via cooperation with animals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marine microbial symbiosis</span>

Microbial symbiosis in marine animals was not discovered until 1981. In the time following, symbiotic relationships between marine invertebrates and chemoautotrophic bacteria have been found in a variety of ecosystems, ranging from shallow coastal waters to deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Symbiosis is a way for marine organisms to find creative ways to survive in a very dynamic environment. They are different in relation to how dependent the organisms are on each other or how they are associated. It is also considered a selective force behind evolution in some scientific aspects. The symbiotic relationships of organisms has the ability to change behavior, morphology and metabolic pathways. With increased recognition and research, new terminology also arises, such as holobiont, which the relationship between a host and its symbionts as one grouping. Many scientists will look at the hologenome, which is the combined genetic information of the host and its symbionts. These terms are more commonly used to describe microbial symbionts.

A phytobiome consists of a plant (phyto) situated in its specific ecological area (biome), including its environment and the associated communities of organisms which inhabit it. These organisms include all macro- and micro-organisms living in, on, or around the plant including bacteria, archaea, fungi, protists, insects, animals, and other plants. The environment includes the soil, air, and climate. Examples of ecological areas are fields, rangelands, forests. Knowledge of the interactions within a phytobiome can be used to create tools for agriculture, crop management, increased health, preservation, productivity, and sustainability of cropping and forest systems.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Berenbaum MR (January 1995). "The chemistry of defense: theory and practice". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 92 (1): 2–8. Bibcode:1995PNAS...92....2B. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.1.2 . PMC   42807 . PMID   7816816.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dicke, Marcel; Grostal, Paul (2001). "Chemical Detection of Natural Enemies by Arthropods: An Ecological Perspective". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 32 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.113951. ISSN   0066-4162.
  3. ↑ Clucas B (2010). "Defensive Chemicals". In Breed MD, Moore J (eds.). Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Oxford: Academic Press. pp. 481–486. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-045337-8.00293-X. ISBN   9780080453378.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Keller NP, Turner G, Bennett JW (December 2005). "Fungal secondary metabolism - from biochemistry to genomics". Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 3 (12): 937–47. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1286. PMID   16322742. S2CID   23537608.
  5. ↑ Walters D (2011). Plant defense: warding off attack by pathogens, herbivores and parasitic plants. John Wiley & Sons.
  6. 1 2 Whittaker RH, Feeny PP (February 1971). "Allelochemics: chemical interactions between species". Science. 171 (3973). New York, N.Y.: 757–70. Bibcode:1971Sci...171..757W. doi:10.1126/science.171.3973.757. JSTOR   1730763. PMID   5541160.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Gloer JB (1995). "The chemistry of fungal antagonism and defense". Canadian Journal of Botany. 73 (S1): 1265–1274. doi:10.1139/b95-387.
  8. ↑ Lasley EN (1999). "Having Their Toxins and Eating Them Too: Study of the natural sources of many animals' chemical defenses is providing new insights into nature's medicine chest". BioScience. 49 (12): 945–950. doi: 10.1525/bisi.1999.49.12.945 .
  9. 1 2 3 4 Savitzky AH, Mori A, Hutchinson DA, Saporito RA, Burghardt GM, Lillywhite HB, Meinwald J (September 2012). "Sequestered defensive toxins in tetrapod vertebrates: principles, patterns, and prospects for future studies". Chemoecology. 22 (3): 141–158. Bibcode:2012Checo..22..141S. doi:10.1007/s00049-012-0112-z. PMC   3418492 . PMID   22904605.
  10. ↑ Hettyey A, Üveges B, Móricz ÁM, Drahos L, Capon RJ, Van Buskirk J, et al. (December 2019). "Predator-induced changes in the chemical defence of a vertebrate". The Journal of Animal Ecology. 88 (12): 1925–1935. Bibcode:2019JAnEc..88.1925H. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13083 . PMID   31408536.
  11. ↑ Matz C, Kjelleberg S (July 2005). "Off the hook--how bacteria survive protozoan grazing". Trends in Microbiology. 13 (7): 302–7. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2005.05.009. PMID   15935676.
  12. ↑ Fleming A (1929). "On the antibacterial action of cultures of a penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae". British Journal of Experimental Pathology. 10 (3): 226–236. PMC   2048009 .
  13. 1 2 Perry, Nigel B.; Benn, Michael H.; Brennan, Nerida J.; Burgess, Elaine J.; Ellis, Gill; Galloway, David J.; Lorimer, Stephen D.; Tangney, Raymond S. (1999). "Antimicrobial, Antiviral and Cytotoxic Activity of New Zealand Lichens". The Lichenologist. 31 (6): 627–636. Bibcode:1999ThLic..31..627P. doi:10.1006/lich.1999.0241. S2CID   86005089.
  14. 1 2 Lawrey, James D. (1989). "Lichen Secondary Compounds: Evidence for a Correspondence between Antiherbivore and Antimicrobial Function". The Bryologist. 92 (3): 326–328. doi:10.2307/3243401. JSTOR   3243401.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 Molnár, K., & Farkas, E. (2010). Current results on biological activities of lichen secondary metabolites: a review. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C, 65(3-4), 157-173.
  16. ↑ Bhattacharyya, S., Deep, P. R., Singh, S., & Nayak, B. (2016). Lichen secondary metabolites and its biological activity. Am. J. PharmTech Res, 6(6), 1-7.
  17. ↑ Emmerich, R., Giez, I., Lange, O. L., & Proksch, P. (1993). Toxicity and antifeedant activity of lichen compounds against the polyphagous herbivorous insect Spodoptera littoralis. Phytochemistry, 33(6), 1389-1394.
  18. 1 2 Furmanek, Ł., Czarnota, P., & Seaward, M. R. (2022). A review of the potential of lichen substances as antifungal agents: the effects of extracts and lichen secondary metabolites on Fusarium fungi. Archives of Microbiology, 204(8), 1-31.
  19. 1 2 Cook, W. E., Raisbeck, M. F., Cornish, T. E., Williams, E. S., Brown, B., Hiatt, G., & Kreeger, T. J. (2007). Paresis and death in elk (Cervus elaphus) due to lichen intoxication in Wyoming. Journal of wildlife diseases, 43(3), 498-503
  20. ↑ Hartmann T (2007). "From waste products to ecochemicals: fifty years research of plant secondary metabolism". Phytochemistry. 68 (22–24): 2831–46. Bibcode:2007PChem..68.2831H. doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2007.09.017. PMID   17980895.
  21. ↑ Levin DA (1976). "The chemical defenses of plants to pathogens and herbivores". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 7 (1): 121–159. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.07.110176.001005.
  22. ↑ Wittstock U, Gershenzon J (August 2002). "Constitutive plant toxins and their role in defense against herbivores and pathogens". Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 5 (4): 300–7. Bibcode:2002COPB....5..300W. doi:10.1016/S1369-5266(02)00264-9. PMID   12179963.
  23. 1 2 Cates RG, Rhoades DF (1977). "Patterns in the production of antiherbivore chemical defenses in plant communities". Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 5 (3): 185–193. Bibcode:1977BioSE...5..185C. doi:10.1016/0305-1978(77)90003-5.
  24. ↑ Paul VJ, Fenical W (1986). "Chemical defense in tropical green algae, order Caulerpales". Marine Ecology Progress Series. 34: 157–169. Bibcode:1986MEPS...34..157P. doi: 10.3354/meps034157 .
  25. 1 2 3 4 Fürstenberg-Hägg J, Zagrobelny M, Jørgensen K, Vogel H, Møller BL, Bak S (2014). "Chemical defense balanced by sequestration and de novo biosynthesis in a lepidopteran specialist". PLOS ONE. 9 (10): e108745. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j8745F. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108745 . PMC   4191964 . PMID   25299618.
  26. ↑ Lomer CJ, Bateman RP, Johnson DL, Langewald J, Thomas M (2001). "Biological control of locusts and grasshoppers". Annual Review of Entomology. 46 (1): 667–702. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.667. PMID   11112183.
  27. ↑ Eisner, Thomas; Meinwald, Jerrold (1966-09-16). "Defensive Secretions of Arthropods". Science. 153 (3742): 1341–1350. Bibcode:1966Sci...153.1341E. doi:10.1126/science.153.3742.1341. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   17814381.
  28. 1 2 Dettner K (1987). "Chemosystematics and evolution of beetle chemical defenses". Annual Review of Entomology. 32 (1): 17–48. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.32.010187.000313.
  29. ↑ Schmidt JO (2008). "Venoms and Toxins in Insects". Encyclopedia of Entomology. Netherlands: Springer. pp. 4076–4089. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6359-6_3957. ISBN   978-1-4020-6359-6.
  30. ↑ Trigo JR (2000). "The chemistry of antipredator defense by secondary compounds in neotropical Lepidoptera: facts, perspectives and caveats". Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society. 11 (6): 551–561. doi: 10.1590/S0103-50532000000600002 .
  31. 1 2 Mebs D (January 2001). "Toxicity in animals. Trends in evolution?". Toxicon. 39 (1): 87–96. Bibcode:2001Txcn...39...87M. doi:10.1016/S0041-0101(00)00155-0. PMID   10936625.
  32. ↑ Hoffmeister, T. S.; Roitberg, B. D. (1997-03-21). "Counterespionage in an Insect Herbivore-Parasitoid System". Naturwissenschaften. 84 (3): 117–119. Bibcode:1997NW.....84..117H. doi:10.1007/s001140050358. ISSN   0028-1042. S2CID   43784335.
  33. ↑ Grostal, P. (1999-07-01). "Direct and indirect cues of predation risk influence behavior and reproduction of prey: a case for acarine interactions". Behavioral Ecology. 10 (4): 422–427. doi: 10.1093/beheco/10.4.422 . ISSN   1465-7279.
  34. ↑ Grostal, P.; Dicke, M. (2000-03-23). "Recognising one's enemies: a functional approach to risk assessment by prey". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 47 (4): 258–264. Bibcode:2000BEcoS..47..258G. doi:10.1007/s002650050663. ISSN   0340-5443. S2CID   2071560.
  35. ↑ Höller, C.; Micha, S. G.; Schulz, S.; Francke, W.; Pickett, J. A. (1994-02-01). "Enemy-induced dispersal in a parasitic wasp". Experientia. 50 (2): 182–185. doi:10.1007/BF01984961. ISSN   1420-9071. S2CID   6380388.
  36. ↑ O'Donnell, Sean (January 1998). "Reproductive Caste Determination in Eusocial Wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae)". Annual Review of Entomology. 43 (1): 323–346. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.323. ISSN   0066-4170. PMID   15012393.
  37. ↑ Manzoli-Palma, M.F.; Gobbi, N.; Palma, M.S. (1998). "ALARM Pheromones and the Influence of Pupal Odor on the Aggressiveness of Polybia paulista (Ihering) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae)". Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins. 4 (1): 61–69. doi: 10.1590/s0104-79301998000100006 . ISSN   0104-7930.
  38. ↑ Núñez, J (1997-12-31). "Alarm Pheromone Induces Stress Analgesia via an Opioid System in the Honeybee". Physiology & Behavior. 63 (1): 75–80. doi:10.1016/s0031-9384(97)00391-0. ISSN   0031-9384. PMID   9402618. S2CID   8788442.
  39. ↑ Smith, C. Michael; Boyko, Elena V. (2007). "The molecular bases of plant resistance and defense responses to aphid feeding: current status". Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 122 (1): 1–16. Bibcode:2007EEApp.122....1S. doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2006.00503.x . ISSN   0013-8703. S2CID   54875407.
  40. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michaud, J.P. (2022-01-07). "The Ecological Significance of Aphid Cornicles and Their Secretions". Annual Review of Entomology. 67 (1): 65–81. doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-033021-094437. ISSN   0066-4170. PMID   34995085. S2CID   263481309.
  41. ↑ Barry, Adema; Ohno, Kazuro (2016-07-06). "Cornicle secretions ofUroleucon nigrotuberculatum(Homoptera: Aphididae) as the last bullet against lady beetle larvae". Entomological Science. 19 (4): 410–415. doi:10.1111/ens.12221. ISSN   1343-8786. S2CID   89225187.
  42. 1 2 Dixon, A. F. G.; Agarwala, B. K. (1999-08-07). "Ladybird-induced life–history changes in aphids". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 266 (1428): 1549–1553. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0814. ISSN   0962-8452. PMC   1690176 .
  43. ↑ Micha, Stephan G.; Wyss, Urs (1996). "Aphid alarm pheromone (E)-?-farnesene: A host finding kairomone for the aphid primary parasitoidAphidius uzbekistanicus (Hymenoptera: Aphidiinae)". Chemoecology. 7 (3): 132–139. Bibcode:1996Checo...7..132M. doi:10.1007/bf01245965. ISSN   0937-7409. S2CID   28800099.
  44. ↑ Wang, Ling; Bi, Ying-Dong; Liu, Ming; Li, Wei; Liu, Miao; Di, Shu-Feng; Yang, Shuai; Fan, Chao; Bai, Lei; Lai, Yong-Cai (2019-07-25). "Identification and expression profiles analysis of odorant-binding proteins in soybean aphid, aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae)". Insect Science. 27 (5): 1019–1030. doi:10.1111/1744-7917.12709. ISSN   1672-9609. PMID   31271503. S2CID   195798550.
  45. ↑ van Emden, Helmut F.; Dingley, Jane; Dewhirst, Sarah Y.; Pickett, John A.; Woodcock, Christine M.; Wadhams, Lester J. (2014-08-25). "The effect of artificial diet on the production of alarm pheromone byMyzus persicae". Physiological Entomology. 39 (4): 285–291. doi:10.1111/phen.12074. ISSN   0307-6962. S2CID   84758675.
  46. ↑ Arakaki, Norio (1989). "Alarm pheromone eliciting attack and escape responses in the sugar cane woolly aphid, Ceratovacuna lanigera (Homoptera, Pemphigidae)". Journal of Ethology. 7 (2): 83–90. doi:10.1007/bf02350028. ISSN   0289-0771. S2CID   24333580.
  47. 1 2 Dettner, K; Liepert, C (1994). "Chemical Mimicry and Camouflage". Annual Review of Entomology. 39 (1): 129–154. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.39.010194.001021. ISSN   0066-4170.
  48. ↑ Rasekh, Arash; Michaud, J.P.; Kharazi-Pakdel, Aziz; Allahyari, Hossein (2010). "Ant Mimicry by an Aphid Parasitoid,Lysiphlebus fabarum". Journal of Insect Science. 10 (126): 126. doi:10.1673/031.010.12601. ISSN   1536-2442. PMC   3016887 . PMID   20879920.
  49. ↑ Eisner, Thomas; Hicks, Karen; Eisner, Maria; Robson, Douglas S. (1978-02-17). ""Wolf-in-Sheep's-Clothing" Strategy of a Predaceous Insect Larva". Science. 199 (4330): 790–794. Bibcode:1978Sci...199..790E. doi:10.1126/science.199.4330.790. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   17836295. S2CID   11558335.
  50. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hay, Mark E. (2009-01-01). "Marine Chemical Ecology: Chemical Signals and Cues Structure Marine Populations, Communities, and Ecosystems". Annual Review of Marine Science. 1 (1): 193–212. Bibcode:2009ARMS....1..193H. doi:10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163708. ISSN   1941-1405. PMC   3380104 . PMID   21141035.
  51. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Faulkner, DJ; Ghiselin, MT (1983). "Chemical defense and evolutionary ecology of dorid nudibranchs and some other opisthobranch gastropods". Marine Ecology Progress Series. 13: 295–301. Bibcode:1983MEPS...13..295F. doi: 10.3354/meps013295 . ISSN   0171-8630.
  52. 1 2 Walker, Roger P.; Thompson, Janice E.; Faulkner, D. John (1980). "Sesterterpenes from Spongia idia". The Journal of Organic Chemistry. 45 (24): 4976–4979. doi:10.1021/jo01312a032. ISSN   0022-3263.
  53. ↑ Sethmann, Ingo; Wörheide, Gert (2008-04-01). "Structure and composition of calcareous sponge spicules: A review and comparison to structurally related biominerals". Micron. 39 (3): 209–228. doi:10.1016/j.micron.2007.01.006. ISSN   0968-4328. PMID   17360189.
  54. ↑ Bakus, Gerald J. (1981-01-30). "Chemical Defense Mechanisms on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia". Science. 211 (4481): 497–499. Bibcode:1981Sci...211..497B. doi:10.1126/science.7455691. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   7455691.
  55. ↑ Thompson, Janice E.; Walker, Roger P.; Wratten, Stephen J.; Faulkner, D. John (1982). "A chemical defense mechanism for the nudibranch cadlina luteomarginata". Tetrahedron. 38 (13): 1865–1873. doi:10.1016/0040-4020(82)80035-5. ISSN   0040-4020.
  56. 1 2 Schrödl, Michael; Grau, José H (2006). "Nudibranchia from the remote southern Chilean Guamblin and Ipún islands (Chonos Archipelago, 44-45° S), with re-description of Rostanga pulchra MacFarland, 1905". Revista chilena de historia natural. 79 (1). doi: 10.4067/s0716-078x2006000100001 . ISSN   0716-078X.
  57. ↑ Cimino, G.; De Rosa, S.; De Stefano, S.; Sodano, G. (1982). "The chemical defense of four Mediterranean nudibranchs". Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Comparative Biochemistry. 73 (3): 471–474. doi:10.1016/0305-0491(82)90061-x. ISSN   0305-0491.
  58. ↑ GOSLINER, T. M. (1981). "Origins and relationships of primitive members of the Opisthobranchia (Mollusca: Gastropoda)". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 16 (3): 197–225. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1981.tb01848.x. ISSN   0024-4066.
  59. 1 2 3 4 Smee, Delbert L.; Weissburg, Marc J. (2006). "Clamming Up: Environmental Forces Diminish the Perceptive Ability of Bivalve Prey". Ecology. 87 (6): 1587–1598. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1587:cuefdt]2.0.co;2. hdl: 1853/36765 . ISSN   0012-9658. PMID   16869434.
  60. 1 2 3 Ferner, MC; Smee, DL; Chang, YP (2005). "Cannibalistic crabs respond to the scent of injured conspecifics: danger or dinner?". Marine Ecology Progress Series. 300: 193–200. Bibcode:2005MEPS..300..193F. doi: 10.3354/meps300193 . ISSN   0171-8630.
  61. 1 2 3 4 Kicklighter, Cynthia E.; Shabani, Shkelzen; Johnson, Paul M.; Derby, Charles D. (2005). "Sea Hares Use Novel Antipredatory Chemical Defenses". Current Biology. 15 (6): 549–554. Bibcode:2005CBio...15..549K. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.057 . ISSN   0960-9822. PMID   15797024. S2CID   11562464.
  62. 1 2 Stachowicz, John J.; Hay, Mark E. (1999). "Reducing Predation Through Chemically Mediated Camouflage: Indirect Effects of Plant Defenses on Herbivores". Ecology. 80 (2): 495–509. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[0495:rptcmc]2.0.co;2. hdl:1853/36756. ISSN   0012-9658.
  63. ↑ Fuhrman FA (December 1986). "Tetrodotoxin, tarichatoxin, and chiriquitoxin: historical perspectives". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 479 (1 Tetrodotoxin): 1–14. Bibcode:1986NYASA.479....1F. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb15556.x. PMID   3468842. S2CID   44741246.
  64. ↑ Moskowitz NA, Roland AB, Fischer EK, Ranaivorazo N, Vidoudez C, Aguilar MT, et al. (2018-12-26). Chaves AV (ed.). "Seasonal changes in diet and chemical defense in the Climbing Mantella frog (Mantella laevigata)". PLOS ONE. 13 (12): e0207940. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1307940M. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207940 . PMC   6306172 . PMID   30586404.
  65. ↑ Caty SN, Alvarez-Buylla A, Byrd GD, Vidoudez C, Roland AB, Tapia EE, et al. (June 2019). "Molecular physiology of chemical defenses in a poison frog". The Journal of Experimental Biology. 222 (Pt 12): jeb204149. doi: 10.1242/jeb.204149 . PMID   31138640. S2CID   169034903.
  66. ↑ "Pholidota (pangolins)". Animal Diversity Web .
  67. ↑ Andersen KK, Bernstein DT (1980). "Sulfur Compounds in Mustelids". Natural Sulfur Compounds. Boston, MA.: Springer. pp. 399–406. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3045-5_35. ISBN   978-1-4613-3047-9.
  68. ↑ Hurum JH, Luo ZX, Kielan-Jaworowska Z (2006). "Were mammals originally venomous?" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 51 (1): 1–11.
  69. ↑ Nekaris KA, Moore RS, Rode EJ, Fry BG (September 2013). "Mad, bad and dangerous to know: the biochemistry, ecology and evolution of slow loris venom". The Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases. 19 (1): 21. doi: 10.1186/1678-9199-19-21 . PMC   3852360 . PMID   24074353.
  70. ↑ Gardiner M, Weldon A, Poindexter SA, Gibson N, Nekaris KA (2018). "Survey of practitioners handling slow lorises (Primates: Nycticebus): an assessment of the harmful effects of slow loris bites". Journal of Venom Research. 9: 1–7. PMC   6055083 . PMID   30090322.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.