000001652 001__ 1652
000001652 005__ 20200423202404.0
000001652 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:19302172
000001652 0247_ $$2DOI$$a10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01969.x
000001652 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000266601600012
000001652 037__ $$aPreJuSER-1652
000001652 041__ $$aeng
000001652 082__ $$a570
000001652 084__ $$2WoS$$aPlant Sciences
000001652 1001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)VDB68283$$aSchmidt, L.$$b0$$uFZJ
000001652 245__ $$aLocal and systemic effects of two herbivores with different feeding mechanisms on primary metabolism of cotton leaves
000001652 260__ $$aOxford [u.a.]$$bWiley-Blackwell$$c2009
000001652 300__ $$a893 - 903
000001652 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article
000001652 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000001652 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000001652 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000001652 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000001652 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000001652 440_0 $$04976$$aPlant, Cell and Environment$$v32$$x0140-7791$$y7
000001652 500__ $$aRecord converted from VDB: 12.11.2012
000001652 520__ $$aCaterpillars and spider mites are herbivores with different feeding mechanisms. Spider mites feed on the cell content via stylets, while caterpillars, as chewing herbivores, remove larger amounts of photosynthetically active tissue. We investigated local and systemic effects of short-term caterpillar and spider mite herbivory on cotton in terms of primary metabolism and growth processes. After short-term caterpillar feeding, leaf growth and water content were decreased in damaged leaves. The glutamate/glutamine ratio increased and other free amino acids were also affected. In contrast, mild spider mite infestation did not affect leaf growth or amino acid composition, but led to an increase in total nitrogen and sucrose concentrations. Both herbivores induced locally increased dark respiration, suggesting an increased mobilization of storage compounds potentially available for synthesis of defensive substances, but did not affect assimilation and transpiration. Systemically induced leaves were not significantly affected by the treatments performed in this study. The results show that cotton plants do not compensate the loss of photosynthetic tissue with higher photosynthetic efficiency of the remaining tissue. However, early plant responses to different herbivores leave their signature in primary metabolism, affecting leaf growth. Changes in amino acid concentrations, total nitrogen and sucrose content may affect subsequent herbivore performance.
000001652 536__ $$0G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407$$2G:(DE-HGF)$$aTerrestrische Umwelt$$cP24$$x0
000001652 588__ $$aDataset connected to Web of Science, Pubmed
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aAnimals
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aFeeding Behavior
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aGlutamic Acid: metabolism
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aGlutamine: metabolism
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aGossypium: growth & development
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aGossypium: metabolism
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aLarva: physiology
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aNitrogen: metabolism
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aPhotosynthesis
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aPlant Leaves: growth & development
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aPlant Leaves: metabolism
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aSpecies Specificity
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aSpodoptera: physiology
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aSucrose: metabolism
000001652 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aTetranychidae: physiology
000001652 650_7 $$056-85-9$$2NLM Chemicals$$aGlutamine
000001652 650_7 $$056-86-0$$2NLM Chemicals$$aGlutamic Acid
000001652 650_7 $$057-50-1$$2NLM Chemicals$$aSucrose
000001652 650_7 $$07727-37-9$$2NLM Chemicals$$aNitrogen
000001652 650_7 $$2WoSType$$aJ
000001652 65320 $$2Author$$aGossypium hirsutum
000001652 65320 $$2Author$$aSpodoptera littoralis
000001652 65320 $$2Author$$aTetranychus urticae
000001652 65320 $$2Author$$aamino acids
000001652 65320 $$2Author$$aherbivory
000001652 65320 $$2Author$$aleaf growth
000001652 65320 $$2Author$$anitrogen
000001652 65320 $$2Author$$aphotosynthesis
000001652 65320 $$2Author$$astarch
000001652 65320 $$2Author$$asucrose
000001652 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)129402$$aSchurr, U.$$b1$$uFZJ
000001652 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)VDB64337$$aRöse, U.S.R.$$b2$$uFZJ
000001652 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2020843-1$$a10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01969.x$$gVol. 32, p. 893 - 903$$p893 - 903$$q32<893 - 903$$tPlant, cell & environment$$v32$$x0140-7791$$y2009
000001652 8567_ $$uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01969.x
000001652 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1652/files/FZJ-1652.pdf$$yRestricted$$zPublished final document.
000001652 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:1652$$pVDB
000001652 9131_ $$0G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407$$bErde und Umwelt$$kP24$$lTerrestrische Umwelt$$vTerrestrische Umwelt$$x0
000001652 9141_ $$y2009
000001652 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0010$$aJCR/ISI refereed
000001652 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)ICG-3-20090406$$d31.10.2010$$gICG$$kICG-3$$lPhytosphäre$$x1
000001652 970__ $$aVDB:(DE-Juel1)103200
000001652 980__ $$aVDB
000001652 980__ $$aConvertedRecord
000001652 980__ $$ajournal
000001652 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118
000001652 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000001652 981__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118
000001652 981__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)ICG-3-20090406