Chemical phenotype matching between a plant and its insect herbivore

Two potential outcomes of a coevolutionary interaction are an escalating arms race and stable cycling. The general expectation has been that arms races predominate in cases of polygenic inheritance of resistance traits and permanent cycling predominates in cases in which resistance is controlled by major genes. In the interaction between Depressaria pastinacella, the parsnip webworm, and Pastinaca sativa, the wild parsnip, traits for plant resistance to insect herbivory (production of defensive furanocoumarins) as well as traits for herbivore “virulence” (ability to metabolize furanocoumarins) are characterized by continuous heritable variation. Furanocoumarin production in plants and rates of metabolism in insects were compared among four midwestern populations; these traits then were classified into four clusters describing multitrait phenotypes occurring in all or most of the populations. When the frequency of plant phenotypes belonging to each of the clusters is compared with the frequency of the insect phenotypes in each of the clusters across populations, a remarkable degree of frequency matching is revealed in three of the populations. That frequencies of phenotypes vary among populations is consistent with the fact that spatial variation occurs in the temporal cycling of phenotypes; such processes contribute in generating a geographic mosaic in this coevolutionary interaction on the landscape scale. Comparisons of contemporary plant phenotype distributions with phenotypes of herbarium specimens collected 9–125 years ago from across a similar latitudinal gradient, however, suggest that for at least one resistance trait—sphondin concentration—interactions with webworms have led to escalatory change.

Plant biology in the future

In the beginning of modern plant biology, plant biologists followed a simple model for their science. This model included important branches of plant biology known then. Of course, plants had to be identified and classified first. Thus, there was much work on taxonomy, genetics, and physiology. Ecology and evolution were approached implicitly, rather than explicitly, through paleobotany, taxonomy, morphology, and historical geography. However, the burgeoning explosion of knowledge and great advances in molecular biology, e.g., to the extent that genes for specific traits can be added (or deleted) at will, have created a revolution in the study of plants. Genomics in agriculture has made it possible to address many important issues in crop production by the identification and manipulation of genes in crop plants. The current model of plant study differs from the previous one in that it places greater emphasis on developmental controls and on evolution by differential fitness. In a rapidly changing environment, the current model also explicitly considers the phenotypic variation among individuals on which selection operates. These are calls for the unity of science. In fact, the proponents of “Complexity Theory” think there are common algorithms describing all levels of organization, from atoms all the way to the structure of the universe, and that when these are discovered, the issue of scaling will be greatly simplified! Plant biology must seriously contribute to, among other things, meeting the nutritional needs of the human population. This challenge constitutes a key part of the backdrop against which future evolution will occur. Genetic engineering technologies are and will continue to be an important component of agriculture; however, we must consider the evolutionary implications of these new technologies. Meeting these demands requires drastic changes in the undergraduate curriculum. Students of biology should be trained in molecular, cellular, organismal, and ecosystem biology, including all living organisms.