Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Volatile Response (volatile + response)
Selected AbstractsFeeding by Hessian fly [Mayetiola destructor (Say)] larvae does not induce plant indirect defencesECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY, Issue 2 2007JOHN F. TOOKER Abstract 1.,Recent research has addressed the function of herbivore-induced plant volatiles in attracting natural enemies of feeding herbivores. While many types of insect herbivory appear to elicit volatile responses, those triggered by gall insects have received little attention. Previous work indicates that at least one gall insect species induces changes in host-plant volatiles, but no other studies appear to have addressed whether gall insects trigger plant indirect defences. 2.,The volatile responses of wheat to feeding by larvae of the Hessian fly Mayetiola destructor (Say) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) were studied to further explore indirect responses of plants to feeding by gall insects. This specialist gall midge species did not elicit a detectable volatile response from wheat plants, whereas a generalist caterpillar triggered volatile release. Moreover, Hessian fly feeding altered volatile responses to subsequent caterpillar herbivory. 3.,These results suggest that Hessian fly larvae exert a degree of control over the defensive responses of their host plants and offer insight into plant-gall insect interactions. Also, the failure of Hessian fly larvae to elicit an indirect defensive response from their host plants may help explain why natural enemies, which often rely on induced volatile cues, fail to inflict significant mortality on M. destructor populations in the field. [source] The piercing-sucking herbivores Lygus hesperus and Nezara viridula induce volatile emissions in plants ,,ARCHIVES OF INSECT BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY (ELECTRONIC), Issue 2 2005Livy Williams III Abstract Plant volatiles induced by herbivory are often used as olfactory cues by foraging herbivores and their natural enemies, and thus have potential for control of agricultural pests. Compared to chewing insects and mites, little is known about plant volatile production following herbivory by insects with piercing-sucking mouthparts. Here, we studied factors (insect life stage, gender, the role of salivary glands, and type of bioassay used for volatile induction) that influence the induction of plant volatiles by two agriculturally important hemipterans, Lygus hesperus and Nezara viridula. Feeding on intact cotton by virgin females of L. hesperus induced 2.6-fold greater volatile response compared to that induced by mated females, possibly due to increased feeding activity by virgin females. This plant volatile response was associated with elicitors present in the insect's salivary glands as well as to the degree of mechanical injury. Feeding injury by N. viridula females also increased volatile emissions in intact maize by approximately 2-fold compared to control plants. Maize seedlings injured by N. viridula emitted higher amounts of the monoterpene linalool, the sesquiterpenes (E)-,-caryophyllene, ,- trans -bergamotene, and (E,E)-,-farnesene, and the homoterpene (E,E)-4,8,12-trimethyl-1,3,7,11-tridecatetraene, but not amounts of green leaf volatiles, compared to uninjured plants. Emissions from intact maize injured by adult males were lower than those emitted by adult females of the same age and did not differ from those emitted by uninjured plants. Similarly, feeding by virgin female N. viridula followed by excision led to 64% higher quantities of volatiles compared to untreated plants. Volatile emission in excised plants, however, was considerably greater than in intact plants, suggesting that careful consideration must be given to bioassay design in studies of herbivore-induced plant volatiles. Salivary gland extracts of N. viridula led to sesquiterpene emissions approximately 2.5-fold higher than for controls, although no significant differences were observed for green leaf volatiles, monoterpenes, and homoterpenes. These results indicate that L. hesperus and female N. viridula feeding induce volatile production in plants, and that volatile production is affected by gender and life stage of the bug. Although oviposition and mechanical injury by stylets may increase release of volatiles, elicitors from salivary glands of L. hesperus and N. viridula also seem to play a role in the emission of plant volatiles. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 58:84,96, 2005. Published 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Feeding by Hessian fly [Mayetiola destructor (Say)] larvae does not induce plant indirect defencesECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY, Issue 2 2007JOHN F. TOOKER Abstract 1.,Recent research has addressed the function of herbivore-induced plant volatiles in attracting natural enemies of feeding herbivores. While many types of insect herbivory appear to elicit volatile responses, those triggered by gall insects have received little attention. Previous work indicates that at least one gall insect species induces changes in host-plant volatiles, but no other studies appear to have addressed whether gall insects trigger plant indirect defences. 2.,The volatile responses of wheat to feeding by larvae of the Hessian fly Mayetiola destructor (Say) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) were studied to further explore indirect responses of plants to feeding by gall insects. This specialist gall midge species did not elicit a detectable volatile response from wheat plants, whereas a generalist caterpillar triggered volatile release. Moreover, Hessian fly feeding altered volatile responses to subsequent caterpillar herbivory. 3.,These results suggest that Hessian fly larvae exert a degree of control over the defensive responses of their host plants and offer insight into plant-gall insect interactions. Also, the failure of Hessian fly larvae to elicit an indirect defensive response from their host plants may help explain why natural enemies, which often rely on induced volatile cues, fail to inflict significant mortality on M. destructor populations in the field. [source] Gall insects can avoid and alter indirect plant defensesNEW PHYTOLOGIST, Issue 3 2008John F. Tooker Summary ,,Parasitic species can dramatically alter host traits. Some of these parasite-induced changes can be considered adaptive manipulations that benefit the parasites. Gall-inducing insects are parasites well known for their ability to alter host-plant morphology and physiology, including the distribution of plant defensive compounds. Here it was investigated whether gall-inducing species alter indirect plant defenses, involving the release of volatile compounds that are attractive to foraging natural enemies. ,,Using field and factorial laboratory experiments, volatile production by goldenrod (Solidago altissima) plants was examined in response to attack by two gall-inducing species, the tephritid fly Eurosta solidaginis and the gelechiid moth Gnorimoschema gallaesolidaginis, as well as the meadow spittlebug, Philaenus spumarius, and the generalist caterpillar Heliothis virescens. ,,Heliothis virescens elicited strong indirect defensive responses from S. altissima, but the gall-inducing species and spittlebugs did not. More significantly, infestation by E. solidaginis appeared to suppress volatile responses to subsequent attack by the generalist caterpillar. ,,The extensive control that E. solidaginis apparently exerts over host-plant defense responses may reduce the predation risk for the gall inducer and the subsequent herbivore, and could influence community-level dynamics, including the distribution of herbivorous insect species associated with S. altissima parasitized by E. solidaginis. [source] | ||||||||||