Chemoecology

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 239–248 | Cite as

Identification of kairomones of second instar nymphs of the variegated coffee bug Antestiopsis thunbergii (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae)

  • Teresiah N. Njihia
  • Baldwyn Torto
  • Lucy K. Murungi
  • Janet Irungu
  • Dickson M. Mwenda
  • Régis Babin
Original Article
  • 167 Downloads

Abstract

The variegated coffee bug Antestiopsis thunbergii Gmelin is a key pest of Coffea arabica in East Africa. Although the bug feeds on various parts of the coffee plant, it has a strong preference for mature green berries which are essential for the bug to complete its life cycle, reproduce and enhance its longevity. To locate mature green coffee berries, we hypothesized that second instar nymphs, which are the most mobile and active feeding immature stage of the bug, must rely on key volatile compounds emitted by the host for recognition. We tested this hypothesis using behavioral and electrophysiological assays and chemical analysis. In olfactometer assays, the second instar nymphs were strongly attracted to volatiles emitted from mature green berries but avoided those from ripe coffee berries of C. arabica. Coupled gas chromatography–electroantennographic detection (GC/EAD) isolated five antenally active components from mature green berries volatiles, four of which were identified by coupled GC–mass spectrometry as toluene, anisole, methyl 3-ethyl-4-methylpentanoate and (5S,7S)-conophthorin. In concentration assays, in which second instar nymphs did not respond to toluene, they were strongly attracted to anisole, methyl 3-ethyl-4-methylpentanoate and (5S,7S)-conophthorin, and a blend from the three compounds at concentrations lower or equivalent to the natural volatile extract. Our results suggest that the blend from these three compounds allows host recognition in second instar nymphs of the variegated coffee bug and is a candidate kairomone for monitoring the pest in coffee plantations.

Keywords

Antestiopsis orbitalis Antestia bugs Coffee Coffea arabica Kairomones 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. Isaac Gichia (Kiambu Mbumi farm and millers) for allowing us to obtain coffee berries and insects from his coffee plantation. We acknowledge the financial support for this research by the following organizations and agencies: Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), Montpellier, France; CHIESA project (Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Services and Food Security in Eastern Africa), icipe funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland;UK Aid from the UK Government; Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the Kenya Government. The first author was supported by a German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) In-Region Postgraduate Scholarship. We also thank Dr. Emilie Delétré for her helpful comments on the work and Dr. Chris Beadle for reviewing the manuscript.

References

  1. Ahmed AG, Murungi LK, Babin R (2016) Developmental biology and demographic parameters of antestia bug Antestiopsis thunbergii (Hemiptera:Pentatomidae), on Coffea arabica (Rubiaceae) at different constant temperatures. Int J Trop Insect Sci 36:119–127.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758416000072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruce TJA, Pickett JA (2011) Perception of plant volatile blends by herbivorous insects-finding the right mix. Phytochemistry 72:1605–1611.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2011.04.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruce TJA, Wadhams LJ, Woodcock CM (2005) Insect host location: a volatile situation. Trends Plant Sci 10:269–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2005.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Burbano EG, Wright MG, Gillette NE, Mori S, Dudley N, Jones T (2012) Efficacy of traps, lures, and repellents for Xylosandrus compactus (Coleoptera:Curculionidae) and other ambrosia beetles on Coffea arabica plantations and Acacia koa nurseries in Hawaii. Environ Entomol 41:133–140.  https://doi.org/10.1603/EN11112 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Byers JA, Zhang QH, Schlyter F, Birgersson G (1998) Volatiles from non-host birch trees inhibit pheromone response in spruce bark beetles. Sci Nat 85:557–561.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001140050551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cilas C, Bouyjou B, Decazy B (1998) Frequency and distribution of Antestiopsis orbitalis Westwood (Hem., Pentatomidae) in coffee plantations in Burundi: implications for sampling techniques. J Appl Entomol 122:601–606.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1998.tb01552.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Egonyu JP, Torto B (2017) Responses of the ambrosia beetle Xylosandrus Compactus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae:Scolytinae) to volatile constituents of its symbiotic fungus Fusarium solani (Hypocreales:Nectriaceae). Arthropod Plant Interact.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-017-9552-2 Google Scholar
  8. Francke W, Kitching W (2001) Spiroacetals in insects. Curr Org Chem 5:233–251.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1385272013375652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foucart G, Brion L (1959) Contribution à Íétude de la punaise du caféier Arabica au Rwanda-Burundi. Rwanda Agricultural Research Institute (ISAR), Butare, RwandaGoogle Scholar
  10. Giordanengo P, Brun LO, Frerot B (1993) Evidence for allelochemical attraction of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei, by coffee berries. J Chem Ecol 19:763–769.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Huber DP, Gries R, Borden JH, Pierce HD (1999) Two pheromones of coniferophagous bark beetles found in the bark of non-host angiosperms. J Chem Ecol 25:805–816.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020892700653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackels SC, Marshall EE, Omaiye AG, Gianan RL, Lee FT, Jackels CF (2014) GCMS investigation of volatile compounds in green coffee affected by potato taste defect and the antestia bug. J Agric Food Chem 62:10222–10229.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf5034416 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaramillo J, Torto B, Mwenda D, Troeger A, Borgemeister C, Poehling HM, Francke W (2013) Coffee berry borer joins bark beetles in coffee klatch. PLoS One 8:e74277.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074277 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirkpatrick TW (1937) Studies on the ecology of coffee plantations in East Africa. II. The autecology of Antestia spp. (Pentatomidae) with a particular account of a Strepsipterous parasite. Ecol Entomol 86:247–343.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1937.tb00245.x Google Scholar
  15. Kugel M (1977) The time course of the electroretinogram of compound eyes in insects and its dependence on special recording conditions. J Exp Biol 71:1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Le Pelley HR (1942) The food and feeding habits of Antestia in Kenya. Bull Entomol Res 33:71–89.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300026377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leal WS, Yadava CPS, Vijayvergia JN (1996) Aggregation of the scarab beetle Holotrichia consanguinea in response to female-released pheromone suggests secondary function hypothesis for semiochemical. J Chem Ecol 22:1557–1566.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0202773 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Matsuura Y, Hosokawa T, Serracin M, Tulgetske GM, Miller TA, Fukatsu T (2014) Bacterial symbionts of a devastating coffee plant pest, the stinkbug Antestiopsis thunbergii (Hemiptera:Pentatomidae). Appl Environ Microbiol 80:3769–3775.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00554-14 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Morewood W, Simmonds K, Gries R, Allison J, Borden J (2003) Disruption by conophthorin of the kairomonal response of sawyer beetles to bark beetle pheromones. J Chem Ecol 29:2115–2129.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025690519818 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mugo HM, Kimemia JK, Mwangi JM (2013) Severity of antestia bugs, Antestiopsis spp. and other key insect pests under shaded coffee in Kenya. Int J Sci Nat 4:324–327Google Scholar
  21. Njihia TN, Jaramillo J, Murungi LK, Mwenda D, Orindi B, Poehling HM, Torto B (2014) Spiroacetals in the colonization behaviour of the coffee berry borer: a ‘push-pull’ system”. PLoS One 9:e111316.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111316 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Nyambo BT, Masaba DM, Hakiza GJ (1996) Integrated pest management of coffee for small-scale farmers in East Africa: needs and limitations. Integr Pest Manag Rev 1:125–132.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00130671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ortiz A, Ortiz A, Vega FE, Posada F (2004) Volatile composition of coffee berries at different stages of ripeness and their possible attraction to the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J Agric Food Chem 52:5914–5918.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf049537c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. R Development core team (2014) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
  25. Scarpati ML, Scalzo RL, Vita GJ (1993) Olea europaea volatiles attractive and repellent to the olive fruit fly Dacus oleae Gmelin. J Chem Ecol 19:881–891.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Suinyuy TN, Donaldson JS, Johnson SD (2015) Geographical matching of volatile signals and pollinator olfactory responses in a cycad brood-site mutualism. Proc R Soc Biol 282:20152053.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vallat A, Dorn S (2005) Changes in volatile emissions from apple trees and associated response of adult female codling moths over the fruit-growing season. J Agric Food Chem 53:4083−4090. doi: 10.1021/jf048499u CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Vrkočová P, Valterová I, Vrkoč J, Koutek B (2000) Volatiles released from oak, a host tree for the bark beetle Scolytus intricatus. Biochem Syst Ecol 28:933–947.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-1978(00)00042-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ward A, Moore C, Anitha V, Wightman J, Rogers DJ (2002) Identification of the sex pheromone of Holotrichia reynaudi. J Chem Ecol 28:515–522.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014535910946 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Webster B, Bruce T, Pickett J, Hardie J (2010) Volatiles functioning as host cues in a blend become nonhost cues when presented alone to the black bean aphid. Anim Behav 79:451–457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teresiah N. Njihia
    • 1
    • 2
  • Baldwyn Torto
    • 1
  • Lucy K. Murungi
    • 2
  • Janet Irungu
    • 1
  • Dickson M. Mwenda
    • 1
  • Régis Babin
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe)NairobiKenya
  2. 2.Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT)NairobiKenya
  3. 3.Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD), UPR BioagresseursNairobiKenya
  4. 4.Bioagresseurs, Univ Montpellier, CIRADMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations