Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 May 27;247(2):884–896. doi: 10.1111/nph.70243

Signaling defenses with color: a meta‐analysis of leaf color variation, palatability, and herbivore damage

Tatiana Cornelissen 1,2,✉, Fernando A O Silveira 1, Susan Vieira Gomes 1, Xosé Lopez‐Goldar 3,4,5, Sylvie Martin‐Eberhardt 6, William Wetzel 2,3
PMCID: PMC12177304  PMID: 40432272

Summary

  • We investigated the impact of leaf color variation on herbivory, testing current hypotheses indicating that leaf color could influence herbivory through bottom‐up control (by signaling leaf quality and defenses) or top‐down control (by attracting predators).

  • A comprehensive phylogenetic meta‐analysis was conducted to assess the effects of leaf color on defense traits, leaf palatability, herbivore fitness, and herbivory.

  • We show that nongreen leaves were better defended, less nutritive, and experienced less herbivory, leading to a reduction in herbivore fitness. Stronger effects of leaf color on herbivory were found in tropical plants, whereas lowered leaf quality in nongreen leaves was found in temperate plants. Increased leaf defense and reduction in insect fitness traits were observed in both temperate and tropical nongreen leaves.

  • Our results indicate that leaf color plays a significant role in shaping plant defenses, leaf nutritive value, and herbivore fitness, ultimately modulating levels of herbivory. This suggests coordination between leaf color, defenses, and quality, which may be responsible for patterns of variation in herbivory and fitness‐related traits in herbivores.

Keywords: delayed greening, herbivory, leaf color, leaf color polymorphism, red leaves

Introduction

A complex interplay of leaf functional traits such as size (Zhu et al., 2024), specific leaf area (Poorter et al., 2004; Kozlov et al., 2015), shape (Ferris, 2019; Higuchi & Kawakita, 2019), nutrient stoichiometry (Njovu et al., 2019; Schön et al., 2023), and mechanical and chemical defenses (Hanley et al., 2007; Caldwell et al., 2016; Agrawal et al., 2021) determines how herbivores find and use resources. Leaf palatability, therefore, reflects a syndrome of coordinated leaf traits that ultimately shape plant resistance and/or tolerance to insect herbivory, which in turn is countered by insect adaptation, driving the coevolutionary dynamics between insects and host plants (Ehrlich & Raven, 1964; Archetti et al., 2009; Agrawal & Zhang, 2021). Despite overwhelming evidence of the effects of plant interspecific trait variability on herbivory (see Wetzel et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2024; Zvereva et al., 2024), considerably little attention has been paid to intraspecific leaf color variability that occurs between plant populations or within individual plants. The intraspecific diversity in leaf size, shape, morphology, and color is typically suggested as the product of selective pressures optimizing trait combinations to cope with abiotic conditions that drive strategies of resource use, acquisition, and conservation (Campitelli et al., 2008; Hughes et al., 2022). However, leaf functional traits also influence how plants interact with insect herbivores, but which leaf traits influence variation in herbivory and how these variations arise and are selected have been a long‐lasting debate in plant–herbivore interactions (Harper, 1977; Carmona et al., 2011; Muiruri et al., 2019).

While the role of color has been extensively studied in animals, particularly in the contexts of color vision, aposematism, and sexual selection (see Wiens & Emberts, 2024), a comprehensive understanding from the plant perspective is emerging more recently (but see Landi et al., 2015; Renoult et al., 2017). Research has predominantly focused on flower and fruit color, a key trait mediating interactions with pollinators, frugivores, and seed dispersers. However, the significance of leaf color and its implications for understanding plant–herbivore interactions and plant defense mechanisms remain largely underexplored. Leaf color variability is commonly observed in phylogenetically unrelated species and across biogeographic regions (e.g. Lee & Collins, 2001; Lee, 2002; Gong et al., 2020; Hughes & Lev‐Yadun, 2023), with nonphotosynthetic pigments arguably playing dual roles in plant physiology and defense (Archetti et al., 2009). The diverse range of leaf color polymorphisms not only likely reflects a complex interplay between environmental factors and physiological processes associated with photoprotection and photoinhibition (Gould et al., 2002; Karageorgou et al., 2008; Archetti et al., 2009; Menzies et al., 2016) but also other sources of stress such as heavy metals (Landi, 2015), temperature (Renner & Zohner, 2019), and nutrient deficiency (Liang & He, 2018). Still, leaf polymorphism may also indicate the end product of evolutionary pressures driven by leaf herbivores (Archetti, 2009; Cooney et al., 2012; Menzies et al., 2016; Lev‐Yadun, 2023). Although valuable insights about the ecological role of leaf coloration have been accrued over the past 20 yr (Archetti, 2000; Hamilton & Brown, 2001; Lev‐Yadun, 2006, 2014, 2016, 2022; Lev‐Yadun & Gould, 2007, 2009; Archetti et al., 2009), our understanding of its significance in mediating plant–herbivore interactions has been mostly focused on autumn leaves. The lack of synthetic views on how leaf color influences herbivory prevents us from generating insights into the adaptive strategies employed by plants to deter or tolerate herbivory under different environmental conditions.

Ontogenetic and seasonal leaf color change is usually coordinated with leaf traits shown to affect herbivory, in which the contribution of mechanical features (Caldwell et al., 2016) and chemical compounds in shaping herbivore selective feeding and ovipositing sites is widely recognized (Moore et al., 2014; Richards et al., 2015; Wetzel & Whitehead, 2020; Muller & Junker, 2022). Variation in color of leaves, petioles, and stems (Lev‐Yadun et al., 2004; Lev‐Yadun, 2016) can occur during ontogeny, under varying physiological conditions and seasonality in both temperate and tropical regions (Kursar & Coley, 1992; Archetti, 2009; Queenborough et al., 2013). For example, leaf color is linked to plant defenses against herbivores, representing a covariate of trait syndromes associated with the accumulation of secondary compounds (see Cooney et al., 2012) and mechanical defenses (e.g. toughness and trichome density; Poorter et al., 2004; Hughes et al., 2022). These traits often co‐vary during leaf ontogeny, as seen in nongreen leaves during young, early developmental stages, which later transition to harder, green, and more herbivore‐prone leaves (Chen & Huang, 2013; Ochoa‐López et al., 2015; Dayrell et al., 2018).

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the relationship between leaf color variability and herbivory incidence and intensity (e.g. Givnish, 1990), as summarized in Fig. 1. The coevolutionary or signaling hypothesis (Archetti, 2000; Hamilton & Brown, 2001; Archetti & Brown, 2004) suggests that nongreen leaves represent honest warning signs of low leaf palatability due to higher concentration and diversity of defensive compounds such as secondary metabolites so that lower herbivory of such leaves would benefit both herbivores and plants. The camouflage hypothesis (Stone, 1979; Karageorgou & Manetas, 2006; Niu et al., 2017, 2018) suggests that nongreen leaves might not be perceived by insects and would therefore escape herbivory. The camouflage hypothesis pertains specifically to red leaves and animals that do not perceive red wavelengths, such as most mammals and many insects (Döring et al., 2009; Hughes et al., 2021; Van Der Kooi et al., 2021). The anti‐camouflage hypothesis (or the undermining insect camouflage; Lev‐Yadun et al., 2004) proposes that nongreen leaves (especially young red leaves) would enhance the conspicuousness of insect herbivores, making them more apparent and more vulnerable to visually oriented predators, resulting in low herbivory levels. The unpalatability hypothesis (Coley & Aide, 1989; Archetti, 2009) suggests that low herbivory in nongreen leaves or plants with nongreen leaves is due to the presence of nongreen pigments that act as herbivore deterrents, benefiting plants by a direct gustatory effect (Schoonhoven, 1969; Van Loon, 1990). Finally, the net‐damage hypothesis (Kursar & Coley, 1992), initially proposed for tropical plants with delayed greening, poses that nongreen leaves are both less nutritive and visually attractive to herbivores, which may function to delay herbivory until the leaves are better mechanically protected. While temperate plants also produce nongreen young leaves, the adaptive significance of this trait may differ from tropical delayed greening, as it often co‐occurs with abiotic stress or variegation (e.g. Gould et al., 2002; Hughes & Lev‐Yadun, 2023). Although these five hypotheses differ mechanistically, they are functionally similar in that all lead to lower levels of herbivory, due to either bottom‐up control via leaf quality or to top‐down control via predators or parasites (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Conceptual models and predictions of the effects of leaf color on herbivory based on classical hypotheses aiming to explain intra‐ and interspecific variation in plant traits, including leaf defense and leaf quality, and insect traits associated with fitness. The response variables commonly evoked by authors to explain differences in herbivory levels in nongreen leaves are listed on the left. Arrows indicate either an increase (pointed up) or a decrease (pointed down) of such variables in nongreen, colored leaves.

Although hypotheses addressing the role of leaf color as an important driver of plant–herbivore interactions have been discussed and exposed to criticism (e.g. Lev‐Yadun, 2006) over the past 25 yr (see Archetti, 2000, 2009; Lev‐Yadun, 2003, 2016, 2022; Hughes & Lev‐Yadun, 2023), a quantitative synthesis incorporating the predictions of the main hypotheses accounting for leaf color variability and its effects on herbivory is still lacking. Here, we aimed to integrate the current hypotheses relating the adaptive value of leaf color with a deep and comprehensive examination of how leaf color influences herbivory patterns. To this end, we conducted a meta‐analysis that incorporates the effects of plant phylogeny and biogeographic region to provide a quantitative assessment of the effects of color on (1) plant traits associated with leaf defense and leaf palatability or nutritional quality, (2) traits associated with the fitness of insect herbivores, and (3) interactions between herbivorous insects and plants via leaf consumption. We tested the following predictions: (1) Nongreen leaves will show lower herbivory than green leaves, with stronger effects in tropical species where delayed greening is a common anti‐herbivore strategy; (2) Nongreen leaves will exhibit higher defense traits, with stronger effects in tropical plants due to stronger selection pressure from herbivores on young leaves; (3) Nongreen leaves will have lower nutritional quality, with temperate plants showing stronger reductions due to the prevalence of stress‐ or senescence‐related pigments (e.g. anthocyanins in aging leaves); and (4) Herbivore fitness will be lower on nongreen leaves across regions, reflecting their dual role as defended (tropics) or low‐quality (temperate) resources.

Materials and Methods

Literature search

The literature search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus, using search terms commonly indexed in the literature on leaf color. Online searching was conducted as of February 2024, covering the entire time span of each search engine (1945–2024), and keywords were used as independent strings encompassing aspects of leaf traits, insect traits, and herbivory in the literature on leaf color. Keyword selection was supplemented using the litsearch package (Grames et al., 2019) on R (R Core Team, 2024) and keyword co‐occurrence was checked and clustered using VosViewer (Van Eck & Waltman, 2014). These combined approaches generated 24 keywords (Supporting Information Methods S1); studies were only searched with English keywords.

The studies from this initial literature search (n = 1486) were screened by title, abstract, full text, and evaluated for eligibility following PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2020; O'Dea et al., 2021). Studies were included in the final database if they addressed the effects of leaf color in plant–insect interactions, evaluating quantitative aspects of leaf quality, leaf defense, herbivore fitness, and herbivory levels, in both green and nongreen leaves of angiosperms. We only considered studies comparing green and nongreen leaves within the same species, either between individuals (e.g. color morphs) or within individuals (e.g. ontogenetic shifts). Studies comparing communities of species with exclusively green or nongreen leaves were excluded. After two full‐text screenings, 27 studies met our inclusion criteria (PRISMA flowchart, Methods S1).

Database assembly

From these 27 studies, we gathered information on: (1) authorship, publication date, country and region (temperate, including Mediterranean, or tropical) of the study; (2) biome, host plant species, botanical family, and leaf color (red, purple, pink, white, or yellow as nongreen leaves); and (3) broad herbivore group (caterpillars, beetles, grasshoppers, or aphids) and guild (chewers or sap‐feeders). We also recorded how variability in leaf color was evaluated in those plants (between individual plants or plant populations; within individual plants) nested with the mechanisms (leaf color polymorphism, leaf variegation, delayed greening, differences in leaf color margin, and autumn colors) that generated leaf color variability. Several response variables were evaluated in these studies, and we focused our review on plant, insect, and interaction response variables associated with herbivory that enabled the computation of effect sizes (Figs S1, S2).

Response variables were grouped into leaf defenses (including secondary compounds such as tannins, polyphenols, trichome density, anthocyanin content, carbon and leaf toughness), leaf nutrients or nutritional quality (Chl and nitrogen content, specific leaf area, and 1/(C : N) ratio), proxies for herbivore fitness (growth rate, development rate, fecundity, biomass, and survival), and herbivory, which encompassed measurements of herbivory incidence (frequency of attacked leaves, frequency of feeding scars), herbivory intensity (proportion of leaf area removed), and herbivore abundance (number of herbivores feeding upon leaves). We did not include herbivory on leaves fallen to the ground because data are not readily available (Heinrich & Collins, 1983). To be included in the set of response variables, studies had to clearly report means, measurements of variation (SE, SD, confidence intervals (CI)), and sample size of the response variable(s) in both green and nongreen leaves of the same plant species. These 27 studies generated 160 effect sizes, as 88% addressed more than one response variable (Table 1). Response mean values (X green, X nongreen), SD (SDgreen, SDnongreen), and sample size (N green, N nongreen) for each response were gathered from the text, tables, and/or figures. Data from the figures was extracted using ImageJ (Schneider et al., 2012).

Table 1.

List of the 27 studies used in meta‐analysis evaluating the effects of leaf color on herbivory, leaf nutritional quality, leaf defenses, and insect traits associated with fitness.

Study Author and year Plant species studied Mechanism of leaf color variation Scale of study Region Response variables
1 Agrawal & Spiller (2004) Conocarpus erectus Leaf color polymorphism BTW Tropical Herbivory, leaf defenses, leaf quality
2 Ayestaran & Alcala (2016) Pinguicula moranensis Leaf color polymorphism BTW Temperate Herbivory
3 Baisden et al. (2018)

Rhus copallinum

Viburnum dentatum

Cornus florida

Cornus sericea

Liquidambar styraciflua

Leaf color polymorphism BTW Temperate Herbivory
4 Ballas & Matter (2020) Sedum lanceolatum Leaf color polymorphism BTW Temperate Herbivory, leaf defenses
5 Brennan & Weinbaum (2001) Eucalyptus pilularis Young nongreen adult green WTN Temperate Herbivory
6 Campitelli et al. (2008) Hydrophyllum virginianum Leaf variegation BTW Temperate Herbivory, leaf quality
7 Cooney et al. (2012) Pseudowintera colorata Leaf margin BTW Temperate Herbivory, leaf defenses
8 Costa‐Arbulu et al. (2001) Sorghum halepense Leaf color polymorphism WTN Temperate Insect traits
9 Döring et al. (2009) Prunus padus Leaf color polymorphism WTN Temperate Herbivory
10 Farnier et al. (2014)

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

Eucalyptus kitsoniana

Young nongreen adult green WTN Temperate Herbivory, leaf defenses, leaf quality
11 Farnier & Steinbauer (2016)

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

Eucalyptus kitsoniana

Young nongreen adult green WTN Tropical Herbivory
12 Gerchman et al. (2012)

Brassica oleracea

Salvia viridis

Leaf color polymorphism WTN Tropical Herbivory, leaf defenses
13 Gomes & Cornelissen (2025) Lecythis pisonis Young nongreen adult green WTN Tropical Herbivory, leaf quality
14 Gould et al. (1995)

Begonia pavonina

Triolena hirsuta

Leaf color polymorphism BTW Tropical Leaf defenses, leaf quality
15 Hughes et al. (2010) Veronica spp. (5 species) Leaf margin BTW Temperate Herbivory, leaf defenses
16 Ide (2022)

Perilla frutescens

Ipomoea batatas

Leaf color polymorphism BTW Temperate Herbivory, leaf quality, insect traits
17 Karageorgou & Manetas (2006) Quercus coccifera Young nongreen adult green WTN Temperate Herbivory
18 Kursar & Coley (1992)

Ouratea lucens

Connarus semidecandrus

Xylopia macrantha

Desmopsis panamensis

Annona spraguei

Young nongreen adult green WTN Tropical Herbivory, leaf quality
19 Markwick et al. (2012) Malus pumila Leaf color polymorphism BTW Temperate Leaf defenses, insect traits
20 Menzies et al. (2016) P. colorata Leaf color polymorphism BTW Temperate Herbivory, leaf defenses, leaf quality
21 Mercader et al. (2007)

Fraxinus cuspidata

Liriodendron tulipifera

Prunus serotina

Leaf color autumn WTN Temperate Herbivory, insect traits
22 Numata et al. (2004)

Nolana acuminata

Shorea macroptera

Shorea multiflora

Shorea ovalis

Leaf color polymorphism BTW Tropical Herbivory
23 Portillo‐Nava et al. (2021) Amaranthus hybridus Leaf color polymorphism BTW Tropical Herbivory, leaf defenses, insect traits
24 Sadof et al. (2003) Plectranthus scutellarioides Leaf variegation BTW Temperate Insect traits, leaf quality
25 Schaefer & Rolshausen (2007) Sorbus aucuparia Leaf color polymorphism BTW Temperate Herbivory
26 Sulifoa et al. (2015) Abelmoschus manihot Leaf color polymorphism BTW Tropical Herbivory
27 Vogado et al. (2022)

Brachychiton acerifolius

Phaleria clerodendron

Young nongreen adult green BTW Tropical Leaf quality
Open in a new tab

All studies included in the meta‐analysis compared green vs nongreen leaves within plant species. Refer to the main manuscript for a description of categories of studies (BTW, between individual plants; WTN, within individual plants) of the same species (e.g. BTW, red vs green morphs within a polymorphic species; WTN, young red vs mature green leaves on the same plant). Complete citations are listed in the Reference list and indicated by an asterisk (*).

Meta‐analysis

To address the effects of leaf color on (1) leaf traits, (2) insect traits, and (3) herbivory, we used the standardized mean difference between green and nongreen leaves from each individual study to calculate individual values of Hedge's g. Because our study focused on intraspecific variability on leaf color and herbivory, the meta‐analysis did not include studies that compared community‐wide variation in leaf color (e.g. Chen & Huang, 2013; Gong et al., 2020). Because red leaves were the most common color leaves in our database, we grouped all color combinations (e.g. purple, pink, and red leaf margins) into a larger category called ‘Red Leaves’. Yellow and silver leaves were kept separately. For each plant species, green leaves were assigned to the control group, and nongreen leaves were assigned to the treatment group. Individual Hedge's g was calculated for each register (n = 160), and the cumulative overall Hedge's g was calculated using a weighting method with the reciprocal of the sampling variances (Koricheva et al., 2013). Negative Hedge's g values indicate a decrease in the response variable in nongreen leaves, and positive values indicate an increase in the response variable. Effect sizes were calculated using the escalc function on metafor (Viechtbauer, 2010) and mean effects are considered significant when confidence intervals do not overlap with zero (Borenstein et al., 2011). Plots of mean effect sizes, prediction intervals (which show heterogeneity among effect sizes), and individual effect sizes scaled by their precision (inverse of the SE) were conducted using the orchard 2.0 package (Nakagawa et al., 2023).

To examine the relationship between leaf color and phylogenetic relatedness, we first reconstructed the phylogenetic tree of the studied plant species using v.phylomaker2 (Jin & Qian, 2022) and for the sake of clarity, the only gymnosperm species in our database (Juniperus virginiana in Baisden et al., 2018) was removed from the reconstructed tree. Species names were checked and updated using the R package lcvplants (Freiberg et al., 2020), and the six species absent from the Open Tree Taxonomy super phylogeny tree were bound to their designated congeneric species. For all plant species, we calculated evolutionary distances using the rotl package (Michonneau et al., 2016). We then reconstructed the plant phylogeny for each dataset (each one of the four response variables), calculating a covariance matrix using the phytools package (Revell, 2024). The covariance matrix of distances was added as a random variable in each model.

We first ran an overall random model for each response variable, including three levels, to account for nonindependence among studies (level 1), nonindependence among registers or outcomes within the same study (level 2), and plant phylogeny (level 3). Models were calculated for each response variable using the maximum likelihood estimator and rma function (Viechtbauer, 2010; Gao & Carmel, 2020) and model goodness of fit was evaluated using Akaike information criterion corrected for small sample sizes. In addition, we ran mixed‐model multilevel meta‐analyses in which we incorporated moderators of the effects of leaf color on leaf and insect traits and herbivory. Due to the predictions of the five hypotheses (Fig. 1) associated with the adaptive value of leaf color, the moderators of effect sizes included in the models were region (tropical or temperate) and insect guilds (chewers or sapsuckers). We also tested whether the mechanism responsible for leaf color variability influenced the strength of the mean effects of leaf color on herbivory.

Publication bias

The total heterogeneity of effect sizes in all models was evaluated using the Q‐statistic, partitioning heterogeneity between groups (levels on moderators) and within groups (error), using a chi‐square distribution with n − 1 degrees of freedom, where n equals the number of comparisons in each model. We also computed the heterogeneity statistic I 2, which ranges from 0 to 1 (low = 25%, medium = 50%, and high = 75%), and indicates the proportion of variance not due to sampling error variance (Nakagawa et al., 2017). The robustness of the meta‐analysis was also evaluated through funnel plots, the calculation of Rosenthal's fail‐safe numbers (Koricheva et al., 2013), and Egger's regression (Table S1).

Results

Studies evaluating the intraspecific effects of leaf color on herbivory that met our inclusion criteria were conducted over the past 30 yr in 18 different countries, in both tropical (12 studies, 63 effect sizes) and temperate regions (15 studies, 97 effect sizes). Twenty‐seven studies of 47 plant species (Fig. 2) from 29 families resulted in a total of 160 effect sizes. Most effect sizes (59%) included paired comparisons of green and red leaves, with fewer comparing green with purple (14.4%), white/silver (13.8%), red margins (7.5%), and yellow (3.1%). More details on our qualitative results can be found in Notes S1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic reconstruction of plant species used in the meta‐analysis evaluating the effects of nongreen leaves on herbivory, leaf defenses, leaf quality, and insect traits associated with fitness. Icons denote the nongreen leaf type (e.g. red, purple, white) or pattern (e.g. green leaves with red margins) compared to green leaves within the same species.

We found strong evidence for the effects of leaf color variation on leaf traits, insect performance, and herbivory (Fig. 3). Overall, compared to green leaves, nongreen leaves exhibited higher defensive traits (g = 4.55, SE = 0.85, CI = 2.87–6.23), lower nutritional quality (g = −3.11, SE = 1.24, CI = −5.56 to −0.66), experienced less herbivory (g = −2.61, SE = 1.06, CI = −4.7 to −0.51), and their consumption reduced insect performance (g = −2.66, SE = 0.69, CI = −4.02 to −1.3). Overall, phylogenetic models indicated that plant phylogenetic distance significantly influenced cumulative effect size for leaf defenses (estimate = 15.62, df = 18, P < 0.05), but did not influence leaf quality effect sizes (estimate = 0.00, df = 17, P = 0.264), herbivory effect sizes (estimate = 0.00, df = 35, P = 0.41), or insect fitness (estimate = 1.85, df = 7, P = 0.084).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Overall effect sizes of leaf color on response variables associated with herbivory, herbivore fitness, leaf defenses, and leaf quality in plant species with nongreen leaves. Orchard plots indicate the mean overall effect with its associated 95% confidence interval (thick horizontal lines), the prediction confidence intervals around effect sizes (slim horizontal lines), and individual effect sizes weighed by their precision (1/SE). An overlap between confidence intervals and the dashed vertical lines indicates nonsignificant effects (k = number of independent comparisons).

The strength of the effects of leaf color was modulated in most cases by latitude (Fig. 4). Nongreen leaves showed higher defenses in temperate (g = 5.08, CI = 3.09–7.07) than in tropical species (g = 3.72, CI = 1.11–6.34), although not significantly different (Q B = 0.051, df = 1, P = 0.820). Lower leaf quality in nongreen leaves was mainly driven by temperate plants (g = −3.91, CI = −7.73 to −0.10) with no significant effect of leaf color on leaf quality in tropical plants (g = −2.49, CI = −5.82 to 0.82; Q w = 47.39, df = 13, P < 0.001). Stronger effects of leaf color on herbivory were found for tropical compared to temperate plants (g = −3.19, g = −1.62, respectively) and consumption of nongreen leaves significantly reduced herbivore fitness (Q B = 8.05, df = 1, P = 0.0045) in both tropical (g = −3.61, CI = −6.8 to −0.43) and temperate (g = −2.42, CI = −4.1 to −0.70) regions.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Effects sizes of leaf color on response variables associated with herbivory, insect traits associated with fitness, leaf defenses, and leaf quality in tropical and temperate regions. Orchard plots indicate the mean overall effect with its associated 95% confidence interval (thick horizontal lines), the prediction confidence intervals around effect sizes (slim horizontal lines), and individual effect sizes weighed by their precision (1/SE). An overlap between confidence intervals and the dashed vertical lines indicates nonsignificant effects (k = number of independent comparisons).

Herbivore guild also influenced the patterns of attack on leaves of different color patterns, but overall reductions in herbivory in nongreen leaves were detected only for chewers (g = −2.20, CI = −2.78 to −1.63, n = 59), with no significant effect on sap‐feeders such as aphids and mealybugs (g = −0.03, CI = −1.45 to 1.38, n = 10). When the guild was nested into latitude, reduced herbivory by sap‐feeders on colored leaves was detected only in tropical plants (g = −4.24, CI = −7.97 to −0.51, n = 4). For the other response variables (leaf defenses, leaf quality, and insect traits), the low sample size and representation of sap‐feeders in the database impaired the inclusion of guild as a moderator of the effect sizes.

There was no detectable effect of the scale at which the study was conducted (between individuals g = −2.11, within individuals g = −2.89) on herbivory levels (Q B = 0.0062, df = 1, P = 0.93). When mechanisms generating leaf color variability were evaluated, stronger effects of leaf color on herbivory were observed for leaf color polymorphisms (g = −3.15, CI = −3.85 to −2.44, n = 29) and delayed greening (g = −2.12, CI = −1.92 to −0.31, n = 21). Other groups such as autumn leaf color, colored margins of the leaves, and leaf variegation had small sample sizes that did not enable analyses.

Assessment of publication bias

Heterogeneity was high for all response variables evaluated, and I 2 values ranged between 96.88 and 99.65, with a larger contribution of variation arising from individual studies compared to individual outcomes. Fail‐safe numbers were high (> 5k + 10, where k is the number of comparisons) in all models, indicating the robustness of our results. Trim and fill analyses for each response variable (Fig. S3) indicated that a small number of studies would need to be included in the analyses to turn funnel plots into a symmetrical shape, also indicating the robustness of the results found.

Discussion

Herbivorous insects use chemical and visual cues to locate, identify, and consume suitable host plants and/or plant parts (Bruce, 2015; Richards et al., 2015; Blande, 2017). Our meta‐analytical results demonstrate that leaf color significantly modulates herbivory levels, with nongreen leaves experiencing lower herbivory across both tropical and temperate regions. Crucially, our analysis of effect sizes reveals this pattern is most strongly associated with two factors: significantly higher chemical defenses (Hedge's g = 4.55) and lower nutritional quality (Hedge's g = −3.11) in nongreen leaves. While other mechanisms like camouflage or mechanical defenses have been proposed (e.g. Lev‐Yadun et al., 2004; Karageorgou & Manetas, 2006), our dataset contained insufficient studies measuring these variables to test their effects statistically. The consistent reduction in herbivore fitness and lower herbivory by chewers further supports that chemical/nutritional traits drive these patterns, as chewers are particularly sensitive to such leaf properties (Caldwell et al., 2016).

Our results support the general hypothesis that leaf color represents a trait syndrome associated with visual, chemical, and mechanical defenses that influence herbivory incidence and intensity. Specifically, our findings support both the coevolutionary and unpalatability hypotheses, but with limited support for the palatability hypothesis, as leaf palatability measured in terms of leaf quality was lower in nongreen leaves. The role of color mediating tri‐trophic interactions via herbivore predation has also been suggested in the anti‐camouflage hypothesis (Lev‐Yadun et al., 2004), which proposes that nongreen leaves undermine herbivore camouflage, making insects more visible to predators and thus reducing herbivory indirectly by deterring colonization (see Lev‐Yadun et al., 2004). However, this hypothesis inherently limits its own testability: If nongreen leaves effectively prevent herbivore establishment, few studies would record herbivore presence or predation rates on such leaves, which may aid in explaining the scarcity of quantitative data in our meta‐analysis. Future experimental work – manipulating predator access to herbivores on green vs nongreen leaves or the use of artificial prey – is needed to explicitly test this mechanism (see Koski et al., 2017). Most hypotheses relating color polymorphisms to variation in leaf herbivory rely on the assumption that nongreen color is associated with leaf traits that might indicate resource quality (Hypotheses 2, 4, and 5 in Fig. 1) such as the concentration of secondary compounds such as anthocyanins, which are honest signals to herbivores in red, purple, or pink leaves. Red leaves (e.g. Sedum lanceolatum; Ballas & Matter, 2020) or leaves with red margins (e.g. Pseudowintera colorata; Cooney et al., 2012) might serve as visual cues signaling leaf unpalatability, which can be detected by several herbivores known to recognize such hues (Briscoe & Chittka, 2001; Chen et al., 2021). The red color is usually a warning signal of the defensive chemical status of leaves to potential insect herbivores, and although this is not explicitly claimed in all hypotheses, all hypotheses assume that leaf quality is important for herbivore selection and feeding, and that direct or indirect leaf defenses would reduce herbivory in such leaves.

Color is correlated with leaf properties that influence herbivore loads and ultimately herbivory (see Archetti et al., 2009; Lev‐Yadun, 2016, 2023; Ide, 2022; Hughes & Lev‐Yadun, 2023). Our findings suggest that nongreen leaves are associated with reduced herbivory, with stronger effects in tropical plants. This aligns with the coevolutionary hypothesis, which proposes that plants have evolved to develop red leaves as a defense mechanism against herbivores. The stronger effect of leaf color on reducing herbivory in the tropics could be attributed to the higher diversity and specialization of herbivores in these regions (Kursar & Coley, 1992; Becerra, 2015), leading to a more pronounced coevolutionary response between plants and herbivores compared to temperate regions. In our phylogenetic meta‐analysis, we assessed the variations in leaf color at the species level, either within or between individual plants. Concurrently, community‐level herbivory data corroborate our overall finding of lower leaf quality mediating lower herbivory in nongreen leaves (Coley & Aide, 1989; Chen & Huang, 2013; Gong et al., 2020). We examined a select number of studies carried out in tropical communities, focusing on plants producing exclusively green or red leaves, especially during their early growth stages. Our brief analysis revealed a trend of reduced herbivory in nongreen plants compared to their green counterparts (see Table S2). This summary supports the prevalent hypotheses that leaf color functions as a warning signal to herbivores, highlighting its adaptive significance. Leaf coloration could potentially serve as an adaptive defense mechanism in tropical and temperate plants, particularly when physical defenses, such as leaf toughness, are not yet fully developed in young leaves (Aide, 1992). This hypothesis is supported by studies showing increases in mechanical defenses as young red leaves mature into expanded green leaves (see Chen & Huang, 2013). Furthermore, the observed differences in defense mechanisms between plants that initially had green or red leaves tend to disappear once those leaves mature (see Gong et al., 2020).

The expression and maintenance of leaf coloration usually entails some metabolic costs, due to the associated costs of pigment synthesis and their reduced photosynthetic capacity (but see Hara, 1957; Shelef et al., 2019). The accumulation of chemical compounds in colored leaves is therefore adaptive if the benefits associated with pigment accumulation in leaves compensate for the negative effects of nonphotosynthetic pigments that might compete with Chl or are costly to plants (Lee, 2002; Archetti et al., 2009; Hughes & Lev‐Yadun, 2023). Anthocyanins were the single most common secondary compound evaluated in the studies reviewed here, although other compounds such as tannins, sesquiterpene polygodials, and phenolics were also common. Anthocyanins and other phenolic compounds such as tannins are usually positively correlated in red leaves, as shown for 96 tropical plant species in China (see Gong et al., 2020), as these two compounds share the same biosynthetic pathway (Fineblum & Rausher, 1997; Schaefer & Rolshausen, 2006; Tanaka et al., 2008) and may represent the main line of chemical defense in colored leaves.

Overall, our study showed that plant phylogenetic relatedness was important only for plant defenses, and nongreen leaves exhibited a strong and significant increase in chemical and mechanical defenses compared to green leaves, providing support for the coevolutionary and the unpalatability hypotheses. The fact that most studies to date involve chewer herbivores highlights the importance of understanding how the diet breadth of antagonists (specialists vs generalists) and how plant secondary chemistry influence herbivore feeding selection and resource assimilation. However, formal tests of the coevolutionary hypothesis will require addressing the mechanistic links between host plant resource use, diet breadth, and plant defenses on leaves of different colors. None of the studies reviewed here have simultaneously integrated leaf defense, leaf quality, insect traits, and herbivory intensity for a single plant–herbivore system, limiting our understanding of the adaptive mechanistic value of leaf color in both tropical and temperate plants. Studies conducted over leaf ontogeny are also necessary to understand whether shifts in leaf color that occur from young to older leaves, especially in tropical systems where delayed greening is common (Kursar & Coley, 1992), are accompanied by shifts in the way herbivores locate and use plant resources.

Autumn leaf senescence is widespread in temperate deciduous forests (Lee, 2002) and red foliage is usually a result of anthocyanin production in senescing leaves (Hoch et al., 2001; Gould, 2004). More recent studies suggested that leaf color is adaptive and not only a byproduct of leaf senescence (Chen & Huang, 2013), especially for species that maintain red leaves when they are young. This is the case for several unrelated plant species in the tropics (Kursar & Coley, 1992), subtropics (Lev‐Yadun et al., 2012; Gong et al., 2020), and in temperate forests (Archetti & Brown, 2004; Lev‐Yadun et al., 2012; Lev‐Yadun, 2016), although mechanisms usually evoked to relate leaf color and herbivory in different latitudes or different leaf ontogenies are quite different (Lev‐Yadun, 2016). The coevolutionary hypothesis (Archetti, 2000; Hamilton & Brown, 2001; Archetti & Brown, 2004) was initially proposed to explain yellow and red autumn coloration in temperate plants and its effects on herbivores. This hypothesis is rooted in the idea of coloration as a true warning sign, in which both plants and herbivores would benefit, following co‐evolutionary paths due to the benefits of reduced herbivory in plants and increased efficiency in host selection and resource feeding in insects. Our meta‐analysis revealed strong effects of leaf color on leaf traits associated with increased leaf defense in both tropical and temperate plants, which supports the idea of an honest warning sign via leaf coloration.

Both tropical and temperate plants showed higher concentrations of secondary compounds in nongreen than in green leaves. Reductions in leaf quality, measured as reduced amounts of Chl and nitrogen, were found only for temperate plants, whereas reductions in fitness‐related insect traits were found for both tropical and temperate plants. Therefore, resource advertisement in terms of leaf palatability via leaf defenses is supported for plants regardless of leaf ontogeny, as coloration of leaves due to anthocyanins is transient but expressed in both young leaves (e.g. tropical, subtropical, and temperate plants) or in old senescent leaves (e.g. in temperate plants). These patterns align with functional hypotheses: In temperate plants, nongreen leaves (often associated with senescence or abiotic stress) prioritize resource conservation (Archetti et al., 2009), leading to lower nutritional quality, while tropical plants leverage delayed greening primarily as an anti‐herbivore strategy, resulting in stronger herbivory reductions. Thus, leaf color polymorphisms likely serve divergent roles across latitudes – buffering stress in temperate systems and deterring herbivores in the tropics – while consistently reducing insect performance.

Lastly, the lack of significant effects on leaf quality in the tropics, despite the observed impacts on herbivory and insect traits, suggests that the relationship between leaf color and plant quality may be more complex in tropical ecosystems, such as the humid tropical forests reviewed here. This could be attributed to the more complex dynamics of plant–insect interactions (Novotny & Basset, 2005) and ecological factors unique to tropical regions, which may influence the expression of plant quality traits in response to leaf color.

The degree of leaf damage by insects is a result of multiple and complex processes, driven by how herbivores find host plants and leaves and how they deal with factors associated with leaf palatability. One of the main assumptions of the coevolution hypothesis is that herbivorous insects have the ability to recognize nongreen leaves as an honest signal of resource quality. The camouflage and the anti‐camouflage hypotheses propose that plants may use conspicuous leaf coloration as a signal to deter herbivores and/or attract their natural enemies. Contrary to previous findings (e.g. Archetti et al., 2009; Lev‐Yadun, 2016), our results show that the influence of nonphotosynthetic compounds on insect host encounters and feeding through increased levels of leaf defenses in nongreen leaves may serve as a mechanism to counteract herbivory, supporting the idea that leaf color can function as a visual cue or even signal against herbivores.

Overall, our findings provide valuable insights into the multifaceted relationships between leaf color, plant defenses, herbivory, and insect traits, conceptually and biogeographically extending our current knowledge regarding the prevailing hypotheses and highlighting the ecological significance of leaf color polymorphisms regardless of plant phylogeny and biogeographic region. The integration of functional traits related to plant defense into the framework of defense syndromes (Agrawal, 2020; Ruiz‐Guerra et al., 2020) should therefore include leaf color polymorphisms and leaf color over plant ontogeny (e.g. Massad, 2013). As an important trait influencing herbivory and related to plant species strategies shaped by evolutionary history, leaf color polymorphisms should be incorporated into the current theory of plant defense against insect herbivores.

Competing interests

None declared.

Author contributions

TC designed the database. SVG and TC collected data. TC, FAOS, XL‐G, SM‐E and WW contributed to data analysis, manuscript preparation, and revision. Submission was accomplished by TC.

Disclaimer

The New Phytologist Foundation remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in maps and in any institutional affiliations.

Supporting information

Fig. S1 Variables extracted from primary data and variable grouping.

Fig. S2 Alluvial plot of meta‐analysis moderators.

Fig. S3 Trim and fill funnel plots.

Methods S1 Literature search, keyword co‐occurrence, and PRISMA flowchart.

Notes S1 Results of qualitative data of leaf color variation among plants.

Table S1 Assessment of publication bias.

Table S2 Studies of leaf color variation conducted at the community scale.

Please note: Wiley is not responsible for the content or functionality of any Supporting Information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the New Phytologist Central Office.

NPH-247-884-s001.pdf (712.3KB, pdf)

Acknowledgements

TC acknowledges support from CAPES (grant 88887.910715/2023‐00), CNPq (311243/2023‐1), and FAPEMIG. The authors thank the helpful comments by Simcha Lev‐Yadun. The Article Processing Charge for the publication of this research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior ‐ Brasil (CAPES) (ROR identifier: 00x0ma614). The Article Processing Charge for the publication of this research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior ‐ Brasil (CAPES) (ROR identifier: 00x0ma614).

Data availability

Data available on FigShare (doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.28945454).

References

  1. Agrawal AA. 2020. A scale‐dependent framework for trade‐offs, syndromes, and specialization in organismal biology. Ecology 101: e02924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Agrawal AA, Böröczky K, Haribal M, Hastings AP, White RA, Jiang R‐W, Duplais C. 2021. Cardenolides, toxicity and the costs of sequestration in the coevolutionary interaction between monarchs and milkweeds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 118: e2024463118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. *Agrawal AA, Spiller DA. 2004. Polymorphic buttonwood: effects of disturbance on resistance to herbivores and plant growth. American Journal of Botany 91: 1990–2000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Agrawal AA, Zhang X. 2021. The evolution of coevolution in the study of species interactions. Evolution 75: 1594–1606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Aide TM. 1992. Dry season leaf production: an escape from herbivory. Biotropica 24: 532–537. [Google Scholar]
  6. Archetti M. 2000. The origin of autumn colours by coevolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 205: 625–630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Archetti M. 2009. Classification of hypotheses on the evolution of autumn colours. Oikos 118: 328–333. [Google Scholar]
  8. Archetti M, Brown S. 2004. The coevolution theory of autumn colours. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271: 1219–1223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Archetti M, Doring TF, Hagen SB, Hughes NM, Leather SR, Lee DW, Lev‐Yadun S, Manetas Y, Ougham HJ, Schaberg PG et al. 2009. Unravelling the evolution of autumn colours: an interdisciplinary approach. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 166–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ayestaran A, Alcala RE. 2016. Is the red coloration in the carnivorous plant Pinguicula moranensis related with protection against photodamage or against herbivory? Journal of Plant Biology Research 5: 12–19. [Google Scholar]
  11. Baisden EC, Tallamy DW, Nrango DL, Boyle E. 2018. Do cultivars of native plants support insect herbivores? HortTechnology 28: 557–563. [Google Scholar]
  12. *Ballas P, Matter SF. 2020. UV‐induced anthocyanin in the host plant Sedum lanceolatum has little effect on feeding by larval Parnassius smintheus . Alpine Botany 130: 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  13. Becerra J. 2015. On the factors that promote the diversity of herbivorous insects and plants in tropical forest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 112: 6098–6103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Blande J. 2017. Plant communication with herbivores. Advances in Botanical Research 82: 281–304. [Google Scholar]
  15. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. 2011. Introduction to meta‐analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brennan EB, Weinbaum SA. 2001. Psyllid responses to colored stick traps and the colors of juvenile and adult leaves of the heteroblastic host plant Eucalyptus globulus. Environmental Entomology 30: 365–370. [Google Scholar]
  17. Briscoe AD, Chittka L. 2001. The evolution of color vision in insects. Annual Review of Entomology 46: 471–510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Bruce TA. 2015. Interplay between insects and plants: dynamic and complex interactions that have coevolved over millions of years but act in milliseconds. Journal of Experimental Botany 66: 455–465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Caldwell E, Read J, Sanson GD. 2016. Which leaf mechanical traits correlate with insect herbivory among feeding guilds? Annals of Botany 117: 349–361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Campitelli BE, Stehlik I, Stinchcombe JR. 2008. Leaf variegation is associated with reduced herbivore damage in Hydrophyllum virginianum . Botany 86: 306–313. [Google Scholar]
  21. Carmona D, Lajeunesse MJ, Johnson MTJ. 2011. Plant traits that predict resistance to herbivores. Functional Ecology 25: 358–367. [Google Scholar]
  22. Chen Y, Huang Z, Tang L. 2021. Invisible red in young leaves: anthocyanin likely plays a defensive role in some other way beyond visual warning. Flora 280: 151833. [Google Scholar]
  23. Chen YZ, Huang SQ. 2013. Red young leaves have less mechanical defence than green young leaves. Oikos 122: 1035–1041. [Google Scholar]
  24. Coley PD, Aide MT. 1989. Red coloration of tropical young leaves: a possible anti‐fungal defense? Journal of Tropical Ecology 5: 293–300. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cooney LJ, van Klink JW, Hughes NM, Perry NB, Schaefer HM, Menzies IJ, Gould KS. 2012. Red leaf margins indicate increased polygodial content and function as visual signals to reduce herbivory in Pseudowintera colorata . New Phytologist 194: 488–497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Costa‐Arbulu C, Gianoli E, Gonzáles WL, Niemeyer HM. 2001. Feeding by the aphid Sipha flava produces a reddish spot on leaves of Sorghum halepense: an induced defense? Journal of Chemical Ecology 27: 273–283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Dayrell RLC, Arruda AJ, Pierce S, Silveira FAO. 2018. Ontogenetic shifts in plant ecological strategies. Functional Ecology 32: 2730–2741. [Google Scholar]
  28. Döring TF, Archetti M, Hardie J. 2009. Autumn leaves seen through herbivore eyes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 276: 121–127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ehrlich PR, Raven PH. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18: 586–608. [Google Scholar]
  30. Farnier K, Dyer AG, Steinbauer MJ. 2014. Related but not alike: not all Hemiptera are attracted to yellow. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2: 108464. [Google Scholar]
  31. Farnier K, Steinbauer MJ. 2016. Elevated anthocyanins protect young Eucalyptus leaves from high irradiance but also indicate foliar nutritional quality to visually attuned psyllids. Ecological Entomology 41: 168–181. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ferris KG. 2019. Endless forms most functional: uncovering the role of natural selection in the evolution of leaf shape. American Journal of Botany 106: 1532–1535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Fineblum WL, Rausher MD. 1997. Do floral pigmentation genes also influence resistance to enemies? The W locus in Ipomoea purpurea . Ecology 78: 1646–1654. [Google Scholar]
  34. Freiberg M, Winter M, Gentile A, Zizka A, Muellner‐Riehl AN, Weigelt A, Wirth C. 2020. LCVP, The Leipzig catalogue of vascular plants, a new taxonomic reference list for all known vascular plants. Scientific Data 7: 416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gao J, Carmel Y. 2020. A global meta‐analysis of grazing effects on plant richness. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 302: 107072. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gerchman Y, Dodek I, Petichov R, Yerushalmi Y, Lerner A, Keasar T. 2012. Beyond pollinator attraction: extra‐floral displays deter herbivores in a Mediterranean annual plant. Evolutionary Ecology 26: 499–512. [Google Scholar]
  37. Givnish TJ. 1990. Leaf mottling: relation to growth form and leaf phenology and possible role as camouflage. Functional Ecology 4: 463–474. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gomes M, Cornelissen T. 2025. Shifts in leaf color during ontogeny do not affect herbivory in the tropical tree Lecythis pisonis (Lecythidaceae). Plant Species Biology, in press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gong W‐C, Liu Y‐H, Wang C‐M, Chen Y‐Q, Martin K, Meng L‐Z. 2020. Why are there so many plant species that transiently flush young leaves red in the tropics? Frontiers in Plant Science 11: 83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gould KS. 2004. Nature's Swiss army knife: the diverse protective roles of anthocyanins in leaves. Journal of Biomedicine & Biotechnology 2004: 314–320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gould KS, Kuhn DN, Lee DW, Oberbauer SF. 1995. Why leaves are sometimes red. Nature 378: 241–242. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gould KS, McKelvie J, Markham KR. 2002. Do anthocyanins function as antioxidants in leaves; imaging of H2O2 in red and green leaves after mechanical injury. Plant, Cell & Environment 25: 1261–1269. [Google Scholar]
  43. Grames EM, Stillman AN, Tingley MW, Elphick CS. 2019. An automated approach to identifying search terms for systematic reviews using keyword co‐occurrence networks. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10: 1645–1654. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hamilton WD, Brown SP. 2001. Autumn tree colours as a handicap signal. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 268: 1489–1493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hanley ME, Lamont BB, Fairbanks MM, Rafferty CM. 2007. Plant structural traits and their role in anti‐herbivore defence. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 8: 157–178. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hara N. 1957. Study of the variegated leaves, with special reference to those caused by air spaces. Japanese Journal of Botany 16: 86–101. [Google Scholar]
  47. Harper JL. 1977. Population biology of plants. New York, NY: Academic Press, 892. [Google Scholar]
  48. Heinrich B, Collins SL. 1983. Caterpillar leaf damage, and the game of hide‐and‐seek with birds. Ecology 64: 592–602. [Google Scholar]
  49. Higuchi Y, Kawakita A. 2019. Leaf shape deters plant processing by an herbivorous weevil. Nature Plants 5: 959–964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoch WA, Zeldin EL, McCown BH. 2001. Physiological significance of anthocyanins during autumnal leaf senescence. Tree Physiology 21: 1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Hughes N, Lev‐Yadun S. 2023. Why do some plants have leaves with red or purple undersides? Environmental and Experimental Botany 205: 105126. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hughes NM, Connors MK, Grace MH, Lila MA, Willans BN, Wommack AJ. 2021. The same anthocyanins served four different ways: insights into anthocyanin structure‐function relationships from the wintergreen orchid, Tipularia discolor . Plant Science 303: 110793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Hughes NM, George CO, Gumpman CB, Neufeld HS. 2022. Coevolution and photoprotection as complementary hypotheses for autumn leaf reddening: a nutrient‐centered perspective. New Phytologist 233: 22–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Hughes NM, Smith WK, Gould KS. 2010. Red (anthocyanic) leaf margins do not correspond to increased phenolic content in New Zealand Veronica spp. Annals of Botany 105: 647–654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Ide JY. 2022. Why do red/purple young leaves suffer less insect herbivory: tests of the warning signal hypothesis and the undermining of insect camouflage hypothesis. Arthropod‐Plant Interactions 16: 567–581. [Google Scholar]
  56. Jin Y, Qian H. 2022. v.phylomaker2: an updated and enlarged R package that can generate very large phylogenies for vascular plants. Plant Diversity 44: 335–339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Karageorgou P, Buschmann C, Manetas Y. 2008. Red leaf color as a warning signal against insect herbivory: honest or mimetic? Flora 203: 648–652. [Google Scholar]
  58. Karageorgou P, Manetas Y. 2006. The importance of being red when young: anthocyanins and the protection of young leaves of Quercus coccifera from insect herbivory and excess light. Tree Physiology 26: 613–621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K, eds. 2013. Handbook of meta‐analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 592. [Google Scholar]
  60. Koski T, Lindstedt C, Klemola T, Troscianko J, Mäntylä E, Tyystjärvi E, Stevens M, Helander M, Laaksonen T. 2017. Insect herbivory may cause changes in the visual properties of leaves and affect the camouflage of herbivores to avian predators. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 71: 97. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kozlov MV, Lanta V, Zverev V, Zvereva EL. 2015. Latitudinal patterns in insect herbivory. Global Ecology and Biogeography 24: 1126–1135. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kursar TA, Coley PD. 1992. Delayed greening in tropical leaves: an antiherbivore defense? Biotropica 24: 256–262. [Google Scholar]
  63. Landi M. 2015. Can anthocyanins be part of the metal homeostasis network in plant. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10: 170–177. [Google Scholar]
  64. Landi M, Tattini M, Gould KS. 2015. Multiple functional roles of anthocyanins in plant‐environment interactions. Environmental and Experimental Botany 119: 4–17. [Google Scholar]
  65. Lee D. 2002. Anthocyanins in autumn leaf senescence. Advances in Botanical Research 37: 147–165. [Google Scholar]
  66. Lee D, Collins TM. 2001. Phylogenetic and ontogenetic influences on the distribution of anthocyanins and betacyanins on leaves of tropical plants. International Journal of Plant Sciences 162: 1141–1153. [Google Scholar]
  67. Lev‐Yadun S. 2003. Why do some thorny plants resemble green zebras? Journal of Theoretical Biology 244: 483–489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Lev‐Yadun S. 2006. Defensive coloration in plants: a review of current ideas about anti‐herbivore coloration strategies. In: da Teixeira Silva JA, ed. Floriculture, ornamental and plant biotechnology: advances and topical issues, vol. IV. London, UK: Global Science Books, 292–299. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lev‐Yadun S, Gould KS. 2007. What do red and yellow autumn leaves signal? The Botanical Review 73: 279–289. [Google Scholar]
  70. Lev‐Yadun S, Gould KS. 2009. Role of anthocyanins in plant defense. In: Gould KS, Davies KM, Winefield C, eds. Life's colorful solutions: the biosynthesis, functions, and applications of anthocyanins. Berlin: Springer‐Verlag, 21–48. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lev‐Yadun S, Yamazaki K, Holopainen JK, Sinkkonen A. 2012. Spring versus autumn leaf colours: evidence for different selective agents and evolution in various species and floras. Flora 207: 80–85. [Google Scholar]
  72. Lev‐Yadun S. 2014. Potential defence from herbivory by dazzle effects and trickery coloration of leaf variegation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 111: 692–697. [Google Scholar]
  73. Lev‐Yadun S. 2016. Defensive anti‐herbivory coloration in land plants. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 373. [Google Scholar]
  74. Lev‐Yadun S. 2022. The phenomenon of red and yellow autumn leaves: hypotheses, agreements and disagreements. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 35: 1245–1282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Lev‐Yadun S. 2023. Testing of two of the visual anti‐herbivory strategies of red young leaves: aposematic versus undermining herbivorous insect's camouflage. Arthropod‐Plant Interactions 17: 615–619. [Google Scholar]
  76. Lev‐Yadun S, Dafni A, Flaishman MA, Inbar M, Izhaki I, Katzir G, Ne'eman G. 2004. Plant coloration undermines herbivorous insect camouflage. BioEssays 26: 1126–1130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Liang J, He J. 2018. Protective role of anthocyanins in plants under low nitrogen stress. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 498: 946–953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Liu MU, Jiang P, Chase JM, Liu X. 2024. Global insect herbivory and its response to climate change. Current Biology 34: 2558–2569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. *Markwick NP, Poulton J, Wratten SD, He XZ. 2012. Red‐foliaged apples affect the establishment, growth, and development of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana . Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 146: 261–275. [Google Scholar]
  80. Massad TJ. 2013. Ontogenetic differences of herbivory on woody and herbaceous plants: a meta‐analysis demonstrating unique effects of herbivory on the young and the old, the slow and the fast. Oecologia 172: 1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Menzies IJ, Youard LW, Lord JM, Carpenter KL, van Klink JW, Perry NB, Schaefer HM, Gould KS. 2016. Leaf colour polymorphisms: a balance between plant defence and photosynthesis. Journal of Ecology 104: 104–113. [Google Scholar]
  82. Mercader RJ, Kruithoff R, Scriber JM. 2007. Do generalist tiger swallowtail butterfly females select dark green leaves over yellowish – or redish‐green leaves for oviposition? The Great Lakes Entomologist 40: 29–42. [Google Scholar]
  83. Michonneau F, Brown JW, Winter DJ. 2016. rotl: an R package to interact with the Open Tree of Life data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7: 1476–1481. [Google Scholar]
  84. Moore BD, Andrew RL, Kulheim C, Foley WJ. 2014. Explaining intraspecific diversity in plant secondary metabolites in an ecological context. New Phytologist 201: 733–750. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Muiruri EW, Barantal S, Iason GR, Salminen J‐P, Perez‐Fernandez E, Koricheva J. 2019. Forest diversity effects on insect herbivores: do leaf traits matter? New Phytologist 221: 2250–2260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Muller C, Junker RR. 2022. Chemical phenotype as important and dynamic niche dimension of plants. New Phytologist 234: 1168–1174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Nakagawa S, Noble DWA, Senior AM et al. 2017. Meta‐evaluation of meta‐analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists. BMC Biology 15: 18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Nakagawa S, Lagisz M, O'Dea RE, Pottier P, Rutkowska J, Senior AM, Yang Y, Noble DWA. 2023. orchard 2.0: an R package for visualising meta‐analyses with orchard plots. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 14: 2003–2010. [Google Scholar]
  89. Niu Y, Chen Z, Stevens M, Sun H. 2017. Divergence in cryptic leaf colour provides local camouflage in an alpine plant. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 284: 20171654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Niu Y, Sun H, Stevens M. 2018. Plant camouflage: ecology, evolution, and implications. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33: 608–618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Njovu HK, Peters MK, Schellenberger CD, Brandl R, Kleyer M, Steffan‐Dewenter I. 2019. Leaf traits mediate changes in invertebrate herbivory along broad environmental gradients on Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Journal of Animal Ecology 88: 1777–1788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Novotny V, Basset Y. 2005. Host specificity of insect herbivores in tropical forests. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 272: 1083–1090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Numata S, Kachi N, Okuda T, Manokaran N. 2004. Delayed greening, leaf expansion, and damage to sympatric Shorea species in a lowland rain forest. Journal of Plant Research 117: 19–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Ochoa‐López S, Villamil N, Zedillo‐Avelleyra P, Boege K. 2015. Plant defence as a complex and changing phenotype throughout ontogeny. Annals of Botany 116: 797–806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. O'Dea RE, Lagisz M, Jennions MD, Koricheva J, Noble DW, Parker TH, Gurevitch J, Page MJ, Stewart G, Moher D et al. 2021. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension. Biological Reviews 96: 1695–1722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE et al. 2020. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 372: n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Poorter L, Van De Plassche M, Willems S, Boot RGA. 2004. Leaf traits and herbivory rates of tropical tree species differing in successional status. Plant Biology 6: 746–754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Portillo‐Nava C, Guerrero‐Esperanza M, Guerrero‐Rangel A, Guevara‐Dominguez P, Martinez‐Gallardo N, Nava‐Sandoval C, Ordaz‐Ortiz J, Sanchez‐Segura L. 2021. Natural or light‐induced pigment accumulation in grain amaranths coincides with enhanced resistance against insect herbivory. Planta 254: 101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Queenborough SA, Metz MR, Valencia R, Wright SJ. 2013. Demographic consequences of chromatic leaf defence in tropical tree communities: do red young leaves increase growth and survival? Annals of Botany 112: 677–684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. R Core Team . 2024. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ⟨https://www.R-project.org/⟩. [Google Scholar]
  101. Renner SS, Zohner CM. 2019. The occurrence of red and yellow autumn leaves explained by regional differences in insolation and temperature. New Phytologist 224: 1464–1471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Renoult JP, Kelber A, Schaefer HM. 2017. Colour spaces in ecology and evolutionary biology. Biological Reviews 92: 292–315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Revell LJ. 2024. phytools 2.0: an updated R ecosystem for phylogenetic comparative methods (and other things). PeerJ 12: e16505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Richards LA, Dyer LA, Forister ML, Smilanich AM, Dodson CD, Leonard MD, Jeffrey CS. 2015. Phytochemical diversity drives plant–insect community diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 112: 10973–10978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Ruiz‐Guerra B, Velázquez‐Rosas N, Díaz‐Castelazo C, Guevara R. 2020. Functional plant traits and plant–herbivore interactions. In: Núñez‐Farfán J, Valverde P, eds. Evolutionary ecology of plant–herbivore interaction. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 191–207. [Google Scholar]
  106. Sadof CS, Neal J, Cloyd RA. 2003. Effect of variegation on stem exudates of coleus and life history characteristics of citrus mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Environmental Entomology 32: 463–469. [Google Scholar]
  107. Schaefer HM, Rolshausen G. 2006. Plants on red alert – do insects pay attention? BioEssays 28: 65–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Schaefer HM, Rolshausen G. 2007. Aphids do not attend to leaf colour as visual sign, but to the handicap of reproductive investment. Biology Letters 2: 1–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Schneider CA, Rasband W, Eliceri K. 2012. NIH to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods 9: 671–675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Schön JE, Tiede Y, Becker M, Donoso DA, Homeier J, Limberger O, Bendix J, Farwig N, Brandl R. 2023. Effects of leaf traits of tropical trees on the abundance and body mass of herbivorous arthropod communities. PLoS ONE 18: e0288276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Schoonhoven LM. 1969. Gustation and foodplant selection in some lepidopterous larvae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 12: 555–564. [Google Scholar]
  112. Shelef O, Summerfield L, Lev‐Yadun S, Villamarin‐Cortez S, Sadeh R, Herrmann I, Rachmilevitch S. 2019. Thermal benefits from white variegation of Silybum marianum leaves. Frontiers in Plant Science 10: 688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Stone BC. 1979. Protective coloration of young leaves in certain Malaysian palms. Biotropica 11: 126. [Google Scholar]
  114. Sulifoa JB, Faleono I, Kant R. 2015. Herbivory assessments of Indian rose beetle (Adoretus versutus) on selected cultivars of bele (Abelmoschus manihot) in Samoa. Acta Horticulturae 1102: 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  115. Tanaka Y, Sasaki N, Ohmiya A. 2008. Biosynthesis of plant pigments: anthocyanins, betalains and carotenoids. The Plant Journal 54: 733–749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Van Der Kooi CJ, Stavenga DG, Arikawa K, Belušič G, Kelber A. 2021. Evolution of insect color vision: from spectral sensitivity to visual ecology. Annual Review of Entomology 66: 435–461. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. 2014. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding Y, Rousseau R, Wolfram D, eds. Measuring scholarly impact: methods and practice. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 285–320. [Google Scholar]
  118. Van Loon JJ. 1990. Chemoreception of phenolic acids and flavonoids in larvae of two species of Pieris. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 166: 889–899. [Google Scholar]
  119. Viechtbauer W. 2010. Conducting meta‐analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 36: 1–48. [Google Scholar]
  120. Vogado NO, Cheesman AW, Cersunak LA. 2022. Delayed greening during leaf expansion under ambient and elevated CO2 in tropical tree seedlings. Austral Ecology 47: 345–356. [Google Scholar]
  121. Wetzel WC, Inouye BD, Hahn PG, Whitehead SR, Underwood N. 2023. Variability in plant–herbivore interactions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 54: 451–474. [Google Scholar]
  122. Wetzel WC, Whitehead SR. 2020. The many dimensions of phytochemical diversity: linking theory to practice. Ecology Letters 23: 16–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Wiens JJ, Emberts Z. 2024. How life became colorful: colour vision, aposematism, sexual selection, flowers and fruits. Biological Reviews 100: 308–326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Zhu J, Sun L, He C, Cai Q, Zhu J, Ji C. 2024. Large and thin leaves are compromised more by chewers. Ecosphere 15: e4748. [Google Scholar]
  125. Zvereva E, Castagneyrol B, Kozlov M. 2024. Does spatial variation in insect herbivory match variations in plant quality? A meta‐analysis. Ecology Letters 27: e14440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Fig. S1 Variables extracted from primary data and variable grouping.

Fig. S2 Alluvial plot of meta‐analysis moderators.

Fig. S3 Trim and fill funnel plots.

Methods S1 Literature search, keyword co‐occurrence, and PRISMA flowchart.

Notes S1 Results of qualitative data of leaf color variation among plants.

Table S1 Assessment of publication bias.

Table S2 Studies of leaf color variation conducted at the community scale.

Please note: Wiley is not responsible for the content or functionality of any Supporting Information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the New Phytologist Central Office.

NPH-247-884-s001.pdf (712.3KB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

Data available on FigShare (doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.28945454).

Articles from The New Phytologist are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES