www.landesbioscience.com Plant Signaling & Behavior 937

Plant Signaling & Behavior 5:8, 937-939; August 2010; © 2010 Landes Bioscience

Mini-Review Mini-Review

Colorful (red and yellow) autumn leaves dominate large areas of America, Asia and Europe, expressed by thousands of tree, shrub and climber species.1-5 In the last decade, this phenomenon received considerable scientific attention. For a long time it was a common belief that this coloration is the by-product of the cessation of masking by chlorophylls that degrade in autumn. However, two key theoretical and experimental developments

Correspondence to: Simcha Lev-Yadun; Email: levyadun@research.haifa.ac.ilSubmitted: 04/08/10; Accepted: 04/09/10Previously published online:www.landesbioscience.com/journals/psb/article/12034

stimulated the recent wave of study of autumn leaf coloration. The first was the recognition that anthocyanins are synthesized de novo in red autumn leaves,1,2 and the second was the formula-tion of the anti-herbivory co-evolutionary hypothesis.6-8

The updated version of the co-evolutionary hypothesis9 posits that red autumn coloration signals to all types of insects (includ-ing aphids) that migrate to the trees in autumn about their chemical defense, lower nutritional quality or imminent leaf fall, or any other characteristic that would induce a lower fitness in the insects. In addition, yellow leaves signals the same to all herbivores except aphids. A special aspect of the co-evolutionary hypothesis is that the reduced fitness of the insects is not only immediate, reducing insect feeding in autumn, but also related to the reduced development of the next generation that hatches in the following spring from eggs laid on the trees in the autumn.9 Originally, the co-evolutionary hypothesis addressed both red and yellow autumn leaves.6-8 However, with the later understand-ing that yellow leaves usually attract rather than repel aphids,9-13 the co-evolutionary hypothesis was later restricted to red leaves when aphids are concerned.9

In addition to other various potential anti-herbivory roles,14,15 red autumn leaf coloration has several potential physiological functions, such as protection from photoinhibition and photo oxidation, and other physiological functions have been proposed but not agreed upon.1,2,9,16-21

Visual Aposematism

Aposematic (warning) coloration is a biological phenomenon in which poisonous, dangerous or otherwise unpalatable organisms visually advertise these qualities to animals. The evolution of aposematic coloration is based on the ability of target enemies to associate the visual signal with the risk, damage, or non-profitable handling, and later to avoid such organisms as prey. Typical col-ors of aposematic animals are yellow, orange, red, purple, black, white and brown and combinations of these,22-25 and the same is true of visually aposematic plants.26,27

Many types of aposematic coloration may simultaneously serve physiological, communicative and other defensive func-tions as well.9,15,25,27 Therefore, since it is difficult in many cases to evaluate the relative share of the various physiological and defensive roles of autumn leaf coloration and identify the specific

The shared and separate roles of aposematic (warning) coloration and the co-evolution

hypothesis in defending autumn leavesSimcha Lev-Yadun

Department of Science education—Biology; Faculty of natural Sciences; University of Haifa—Oranim; Tivon, israel

Key words: aposematic, autumn coloration, co-evolution, defense, evolution, herbivory, trees

The potential anti-herbivory functions of colorful (red and yellow) autumn leaves received considerable attention in the last decade. The most studied and discussed is the co-evolutionary hypothesis, according to which autumn coloration signals the quality of defense to insects that migrate to the trees in autumn. in addition to classic aposematism (repellency due to signaling unpalatability, non profitability of consumption, or danger for whatever reasons) that operates immediately, this hypothesis also proposes that the reduced fitness of the insects is in their next generation hatching in the spring from eggs laid on the trees in autumn. Supporters of the co-evolutionary hypothesis either posited that this hypothesis differs from visual aposematism or ignored the issue of aposematism. interestingly, other authors that cited their papers considered the co-evolutionary hypothesis as visual aposematism. Recently, the overlap between the co-evolutionary hypothesis and visual aposematism was finally recognized, with the exception of yellow autumn leaves not signaling defense to aphids, which are known to be attracted to yellow leaves. However, the detailed relationships between these two hypotheses have not been discussed yet. Here i propose that the co-evolutionary hypothesis generally equals visual aposematism in red and yellow autumn leaves towards all herbivores except for yellow not operating with aphids. The co-evolutionary signaling extends beyond classic aposematism because it may operate later and not only immediately. The possibility that for yellow autumn leaves the co-evolutionary hypothesis may also operate via olfactory aposematism should not be dismissed.

938 Plant Signaling & Behavior volume 5 issue 8

addition, the fact that there are good physiological measurements of significant volatile release from autumn leaves47 supports the possibility of the operation of olfactory aposematism by these leaves simultaneously with visual aposematism.

Conclusions

I propose that the relationships between the co-evolutionary and aposematic hypotheses are as follows: the co-evolutionary hypothesis concerning red and yellow autumn leaves indeed equals aposematism for various herbivorous species for which it is effective, excluding the combination of yellow leaves and aphids. Furthermore, the co-evolutionary hypothesis is actually a mixture of two types of aposematism: (1) delayed aposematism because the purpose of the signaling is to deter egg laying in autumn, and the damaged insects are mainly the ones that would hatch in the following spring, and (2) operates immediately, like clas-sic aposematism. Classic aposematism is aimed towards animals that feed at the time of signaling. The indications for volatile signaling46,47 raise the possibility that for certain yellow autumn leaves the co-evolutionary hypothesis may operate even towards aphids via olfactory aposematism.

A careful examination of both plant and insect species in each studied case is needed in order to make a precise classi-fication of the signaling: simple immediate aposematism/co-evolutionary or only delayed co-evolutionary relationships. The potential role of olfactory aposematism in red, yellow, brown and green autumn leaves has received very little attention,46 and deserves much more.

The posited co-evolutionary hypothesis6-8 was very fruitful in stimulating theoretical discussions and empirical studies on the defense mechanisms of red and yellow autumn leaves. The pos-sibility that classic aposematism, in signaling systems other than red and yellow autumn leaves, has a delayed action has not been considered in depth in general and in plants in particular and needs further study. Studying this aspect of aposematism may be an additional important contribution of the co-evolutionary hypothesis.

Acknowledgements

I thank Marco Archetti for critical reading the manuscript and for his very important and illuminating comments.

selective agents involved in their evolution, the relative contribu-tion of these roles in the evolution of autumn leaf coloration is not well understood yet.

Contrasting views on the phenomenon of bright autumn leaf coloration have been presented concerning the hypoth-esis that these leaves may be aposematic. Archetti,6 in the first paper presenting the co-evolutionary hypothesis, specifically rejected the possibility that these leaves are visually aposematic in his discussion of the defensive signaling by red and yellow autumn leaves to aphids. The major general theoretical progress of the co-evolutionary hypothesis was the demonstration of a potentially broad operation of Zahavi’s handicap principle in plants. It is important to view this definition in the light of the theoretical understanding of the time, since aposematism was not considered to be a handicap at the time.28 In other stud-ies that favored the co-evolutionary signaling hypothesis,7,8,29-31 aposematism was not discussed. Interestingly, Lee and Gould,17 Lee,32 Gould,19 Sherratt et al.33 Karageorgou and Manetas,34 Manetas,35 Chittka and Döring,12 Schaefer and Rolshausen36 and Karageorgou et al.37 interpreted the co-evolutionary hypoth-esis of autumn coloration presented in the papers by Archetti,6 Hamilton and Brown7 and Archetti and Brown8 as a case of visual aposematism (warning coloration), in spite of the authors’ differing view.

When the red-colored autumn leaves are well defended by various chemicals because of shared biosynthetic pathways, as proposed by Schaefer and Rolshausen,38 or when yellow autumn leaves are poisonous, they should be considered apose-matic.9,15,21,27,39,40 Recently, Archetti40 and Archetti et al.9 accepted that there is an overlap between the co-evolutionary and visual aposematic hypotheses, but the fine details and degree of overlap of the two hypotheses have only been partly elaborated yet,40 and a more detailed view is the purpose of this discussion.

Olfactory Aposematism

Visual aposematism of red and yellow autumn leaves may not be the only type of aposematism expressed by autumn leaves. Olfactory aposematism, whereby poisonous plants deter mam-malian or insect herbivores, has been proposed to operate in plants.41-45 Holopainen46 presented data strongly indicating the involvement of olfactory aposematism in autumn leaves. In

References1. Matile P. Biochemistry of Indian summer: physiol-

ogy of autumnal leaf coloration. Exp Gerontol 2000; 35:145-58.

2. Hoch WA, Zeldin EL, McCown BH. Physiological significance of anthocyanins during autumnal leaf senescence. Tree Physiol 2001; 21:1-8.

3. Lee DW, O'Keefe J, Holbrook NM, Feild TS. Pigment dynamics and autumn leaf senescence in a New England deciduous forest, eastern USA. Ecol Res 2003; 18:677-94.

4. Archetti M. Phylogenetic analysis reveals a scattered dis-tribution of autumn colours. Ann Bot 2009; 103:703-13.

5. Lev-Yadun S, Holopainen JK. Why red-dominat-ed American autumn leaves and yellow-dominated autumn leaves in northern Europe? New Phytol 2009; 183:506-12.

6. Archetti M. The origin of autumn colours by coevolu-tion. J Theor Biol 2000; 205:625-30.

7. Hamilton WD, Brown SP. Autumn tree colours as a handicap signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 2001; 268:1489-93.

8. Archetti M, Brown SP. The coevolution theory of autumn colours. Proc R Soc Lond B 2004; 271:1219-23.

9. Archetti M, Döring TF, Hagen SB, Hughes NM, Leather SR, Lee DW, et al. Unravelling the evolution of autumn colours: an interdisciplinary approach. Trends Ecol Evol 2009; 24:166-73.

10. Holopainen JK, Peltonen P. Bright autumn colours of deciduous trees attract aphids: nutrient retranslocation hypothesis. Oikos 2002; 99:184-8.

11. Wilkinson DM, Sherratt TN, Phillip DM, Wratten SD, Dixon AFG, Young AJ. The adaptive significance of autumn leaf colours. Oikos 2002; 99:402-7.

12. Chittka L, Döring TF. Are autumn foliage colors red signals to aphids? PLoS Biol 2007; 5:1640-4.

13. Döring TF, Archetti M, Hardie J. Autumn leaves seen through herbivore eyes. Proc R Soc B 2009; 276:121-7.

14. Lev-Yadun S, Dafni A, Flaishman MA, Inbar M, Izhaki I, Katzir G, et al. Plant coloration undermines herbivo-rous insect camouflage. BioEssays 2004; 26:1126-30.

15. Lev-Yadun S, Gould KS. What do red and yellow autumn leaves signal? Bot Rev 2007; 73:279-89.

16. Chalker-Scott L. Environmental significance of antho-cyanins in plant stress responses. Photochem Photobiol 1999; 70:1-9.

17. Lee DW, Gould KS. Why leaves turn red. Amer Sci 2002; 90:524-31.

18. Close DC, Beadle CL. The ecophysiology of foliar anthocyanin. Bot Rev 2003; 69:149-61.

www.landesbioscience.com Plant Signaling & Behavior 939

40. Archetti M. Classification of hypotheses for the evolu-tion of autumn colours. Oikos 2009; 118:328-33.

41. Rothschild M. The red smell of danger. New Sci 1986; 111:34-6.

42. Eisner T, Grant RP. Toxicity, odor aversion and “olfac-tory aposematism”. Science 1981; 213:476.

43. Launchbaugh KL, Provenza FD. Can plants practice mimicry to avoid grazing by mammalian herbivores? Oikos 1993; 66:501-4.

44. Massei G, Cotterill JV, Coats JC, Bryning G, Cowan DP. Can Batesian mimicry help plants to deter her-bivory? Pest Manag Sci 2007; 63:559-63.

45. Lev-Yadun S, Ne’eman G, Shanas U. A sheep in wolf ’s clothing: Do carrion and dung odours of flowers not only attract pollinators but also deter herbivores? BioEssays 2009; 31:84-8.

46. Holopainen JK. Importance of olfactory and visual signals of autumn leaves in the coevolution of aphids and trees. BioEssays 2008; 30:889-96.

47. Keskitalo J, Bergquist G, Gardeström P, Jansson S. A cellular timetable of autumn senescence. Plant Physiol 2005; 139:1635-48.

30. Hagen SB, Debeausse S, Yoccoz NG, Folstad I. Autumn coloration as a signal of tree condition. Proc R Soc Lond B 2004; 271:184-5.

31. Archetti M, Leather SR. A test of the coevolution theory of autumn colours: colour preference of Rhopalosiphum padi on Prunus padus. Oikos 2005; 110:339-43.

32. Lee DW. Anthocyanins in autumn leaf senescence. Adv Bot Res 2002; 37:147-65.

33. Sherratt TN, Wilkinson DM, Bain RS. Explaining Dioscorides’ “double difference”: why are some mush-rooms poisonous, and do they signal their unprofit-ability? Amer Nat 2005; 166:767-75.

34. Karageorgou P, Manetas Y. The importance of being red when young: anthocyanins and the protection of young leaves of Quercus coccifera from insect herbivory and excess light. Tree Physiol 2006; 26:613-21.

35. Manetas Y. Why some leaves are anthocyanic and why most anthocyanic leaves are red? Flora 2006; 201:163-77.

36. Schaefer HM, Rolshausen G. Aphids do not attend to leaf colour as visual signal, but to the handicap of reproductive investment. Biol Lett 2007; 3:1-4.

37. Karageorgou P, Buschmann C, Manetas Y. Red leaf color as a warning signal against insect herbivory: Honest or mimetic? Flora 2008; 203:648-52.

38. Schaefer HM, Rolshausen G. Plants on red alert: do insects pay attention? BioEssays 2006; 28:65-71.

39. Lev-Yadun S. Defensive coloration in plants: a review of current ideas about anti-herbivore coloration strate-gies. In: Teixeira da Silva JA, ed. Floriculture, orna-mental and plant biotechnology: advances and topical issues. Vol IV. London, UK: Global Science Books 2006; 292-9.

19. Gould KS. Nature’s Swiss army knife: the diverse pro-tective roles of anthocyanins in leaves. J Biomedicine & Biotechnol 2004; 2004:314-20.

20. Ougham HJ, Morris P, Thomas H. The colors of autumn leaves as symptoms of cellular recycling and defenses against environmental stresses. Curr Top Dev Biol 2005; 66:135-60.

21. Lev-Yadun S, Gould KS. 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, Germany: Springer-Verlag 2008; 21-48.

22. Cott HB. Adaptive coloration in animals. London, GB: Methuen & Co., Ltd. 1940.

23. Edmunds M. Defence in animals. A survey of anti-predator defences. Harlow, UK: Longman Group Ltd. 1974.

24. Wickler W. Mimicry in plants and animals. London, UK: Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1968.

25. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP. Avoiding attack. The evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals & mimicry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2004.

26. Lev-Yadun S. Aposematic (warning) coloration associ-ated with thorns in higher plants. J Theor Biol 2001; 210:385-8.

27. Lev-Yadun S. Aposematic (warning) coloration in plants. In: Baluska F, ed. Plant-environment interac-tions. From sensory plant biology to active plant behav-ior. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag 2009; 167-202.

28. Guilford T, Dawkins MS. Are warning colors handi-caps? Evolution 1993; 47:400-16.

29. Hagen SB, Folstad I, Jakobsen SW. Autumn coloura-tion and herbivore resistance in mountain birch (Betula pubescens). Ecol Lett 2003; 6:807-11.