%0 Figure %A Kaplan, Ian %A H. McArt, Scott %A S. Thaler, Jennifer %D 2014 %T Interactive effects of plant defense and predation risk on leaf consumption (mean ± SE) of (a) T. ni, (b) L. decemlineata, and (c) M. sexta. %U https://plos.figshare.com/articles/figure/_Interactive_effects_of_plant_defense_and_predation_risk_on_leaf_consumption_mean_SE_of_a_T_ni_b_L_decemlineata_and_c_M_sexta_/992941 %R 10.1371/journal.pone.0093714.g002 %2 https://plos.figshare.com/ndownloader/files/1456927 %K agriculture %K Agricultural methods %K Sustainable agriculture %K Agroecology %K Pest control %K ecology %K Community Ecology %K Trophic interactions %K Plant ecology %K Plant-environment interactions %K Behavioral ecology %K Chemical ecology %K Plant science %K Species interactions %K Zoology %K Entomology %K predation %X

Plant defense was manipulated using three plant types varying in their jasmonate signaling pathway with ‘jasmonate insensitive’ expressing low resistance, ‘wild-type’ the intermediate phenotype, and ‘jasmonate overexpress’ displaying high resistance. White bars are the predator-free control, and grey bars are labeled ‘PR’ to denote the ‘predation risk’ treatment (i.e., presence of a non-lethal stink bug). Statistical outcome for the main factors, covariate (weight), and interaction term are displayed in the upper right corner of each panel; asterisks correspond to the level of significance: * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001. Bolded asterisks above bar pairs indicate significant differences between the predator-free and predation risk treatments at each level of plant resistance in cases where the resource-risk interaction was significant. N = 10–13, 11–13, and 17–21 replicates per treatment combination for T. ni, L. decemlineata, and M. sexta, respectively.

%I PLOS ONE