Skip to main content
. 2018 Jul 17;7:e36268. doi: 10.7554/eLife.36268

Figure 2. Tupiocoris notatus feeding on single leaves does not significantly change nutrient levels.

(A) Experimental setup: On each plant we enclosed one leaf in a plastic clipcage with (clipcage +T. notatus; solid line) or without (clipcage, dashed line) 20 T. notatus. Additionally, we collected uncaged control leaves (control, dotted line). (B) Total soluble proteins (TSP), (C) starch, (D) sucrose, (E) glucose and (F) fructose were analyzed in a time-kinetic from 1 to 144 hr. Statistically significant differences were identified with ANCOVA with mirid as factor and time as continuous explanatory variable. (B) TSP: log transformed time F1,51 = 14.317, p<0.001; mirid F1,51 = 2.438, p=0.125; time*mirid F1,51 = 0.479, p=0.492. (C) log transformed starch: time F1,51 = 137.376, p<0.001; mirid F1,51 = 3.749, p=0.058; time*mirid F1,51 = 2.651, p=0.110. (D) sucrose: time F1,51 = 13.847, p<0.001; mirid F1,51 = 3.883, p=0.054; time*mirid F1,51 = 5.894, p=0.019. (E) glucose: time F1,51 = 173.06, p<0.001; mirid F1,51 = 0.050, p=0.823; time*mirid F1,51 = 0.107, p=0.745. (F) fructose: log transformed time F1,51 = 0.505, p=0.480; mirid F1,51 = 0.433, p=0.513; time*mirid F1,51 = 5.798, p=0.020. Error bars depict standard errors (N ≥ 3). FM: fresh mass. For raw data see Raw_data_FIGURE_2 (Dryad: Brütting et al., 2018).

Figure 2.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Tupiocoris notatus feeding on single leaves decreases photosynthetic rates while not influencing chlorophyll contents.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

(A) Experimental setup: On each plant we enclosed one leaf in a plastic clipcage with (clipcage +T. notatus; solid line) or without (clipcage, dashed line) 20 T. notatus. Additionally, we collected untreated control leaves (control, dotted line). (B) photosynthetic rates and (C) chlorophyll contents in a time-kinetic from 1 to 144 hr (120 hr). Statistically significant differences were identified with ANCOVA with mirid as factor and time as continuous explanatory variable. (B) photosynthetic rates: time F1,51 = 0.846, p=0.362; mirid F1,51 = 41.466, p<0.001; time*mirid F1,51 = 10.802, p=0.002; (C) chlorophyll content: time F1,45 = 2.423, p=0.127; mirid F1,45 = 1.721, p=0.196; time*mirid F1,45 = 1.670, p=0.203; Error bars depict standard errors (N ≥ 3). For raw data see Raw_data_FIGURE_2_S1 (Dryad: Brütting et al., 2018).
Figure 2—figure supplement 2. Tupiocoris notatus feeding on whole plants only slightly alters nutrient levels in attacked leaves of Nicotiana attenuata, mainly decreasing protein contents.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2.

(A) Experimental setup: whole plants were caged with (cage+ T. notatus attacked; solid line) or without (control cage, dotted line) T. notatus. B) Protein, (C) starch, (D) sucrose, (E) glucose and (F) fructose were monitored in a time-kinetic from 24 to 144 hr. Statistically significant differences were identified with ANCOVA with mirid as factor and time as continuous explanatory variable. (B) TSP: time F1,43 = 25.145, p<0.001; mirid F1,43 = 19.672, p<0.001; time*mirid F1,43 = 0.102, p=0.75. (C) starch: time F1,44 = 13.949, p<0.001; mirid F1,44 = 0.342, p=0.561; time*mirid F1,44 = 4.932, p=0.031. (D) log transformed sucrose: time F1,43 = 0.111, p=0.740; mirid F1,43 = 3.834, p=0.057; time*mirid F1,43 0.721, p=0.401. (E) log transformed glucose: time F1,44 = 0.672, p=0.417; mirid F1,44 = 0.066, p=0.798; time*mirid F1,44 4.760, p=0.035. (F) fructose: time F1,44 = 0.890, p=0.351; mirid F1,44 = 0.229, p=0.634; time*mirid F1,44 1.83, p=0.183. Error bars depict standard errors. (N ≥ 3). FM: fresh mass. For raw data see Raw_data_FIGURE_2_S2 (Dryad: Brütting et al., 2018).
Figure 2—figure supplement 3. Tupiocoris notatus feeding on whole plants decreases photosynthetic rates and chlorophyll contents in attacked leaves of Nicotiana attenuata.

Figure 2—figure supplement 3.

(A) Experimental setup: whole plants were caged with (cage+ T. notatus; solid line) or without (control cage, dotted line) T. notatus. (B) Photosynthetic assimilation rates and (C) chlorophyll contents were monitored in a time-kinetic from 24 to 144 hr (120 hr) after the start of herbivore exposure. Statistically significant differences were identified with ANCOVA with mirid as factor and time as continuous explanatory variable. (B) photosynthetic rates: time F1,44 = 0.196, p=0.660; mirid F1,44 = 102.063, p<0.001; time*mirid F1,44 1.234, p=0.273. (C) chlorophyll content: time F1,36 = 5.244, p=0.028; mirid F1,36 = 40.128, p<0.001; time*mirid F1,36 7.215, p=0.011. Error bars depict standard errors (N = 4). For raw data see Raw_data_FIGURE_2_S3 (Dryad: Brütting et al., 2018).