We are grateful that an attempt has been made (Heil 1999) to place the issue of systemic acquired resistance (SAR) within an ecological context. However, although this review raises some interesting points for further action and provides food for thought, we believe that the author may have underestimated both the changes in conceptual frameworks that are needed in order to incorporate SAR within such a context, and the efforts already being made in this area. The investigation of induced resistance mechanisms in plants is a fast-moving area of research and several excellent reviews on aspects considered in Heil (1999) have subsequently appeared (e.g. Agrawal et al. 1999; Bostock 1999; Maleck & Dietrich 1999; Pieterse & van Loon 1999). Indeed, a further review could usefully explore the evidence available for the points that Heil raises at the beginning of his article. Our article does not purport to be such a review; rather we wish to raise, in reply, two important points that have been generally overlooked in this debate. First, any understanding of SAR in its ecological context involves integrating this resistance within the framework of the other mechanisms by which the plant modifies its interactions with consumers. Second, this wider context for SAR must consider the potential for very broad interphylumn effects. We demonstrate these points from our studies on the interactions between the large perennial herb Runmex obtusifolius and its consumers, notably the leaf-feeding chrysomelid beetle Gastrophysa viridula and the leaf-infecting rust fungus Uromyces rumnicis. This is one of the few tripartite systems that has been intensively studied and that can also provide information on multiple, interacting resistances in plants.