Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 121, Issue 6, pp 1133–1139 | Cite as

Plant volatile-induced aphid resistance in barley cultivars is related to cultivar age

  • Martin Kellner
  • Agnese Kolodinska Brantestam
  • Inger Åhman
  • Velemir Ninkovic
Original Paper

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that volatile chemical interaction between certain barley (Hordeum vulgare) cultivars can cause reduced host plant acceptance by the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi, and that certain cultivars can induce this effect while others can respond. In this study, we tested whether inducing and responding capabilities are linked to year of release in Swedish two-rowed spring barley. Eighteen cultivars released between 1897 and 1992 were tested in randomly selected subsets with pairwise combinations of volatile emitters and receivers. Significantly reduced aphid acceptance as a result of exposure to volatiles from plants of a different cultivar were found in 24% of the cultivar combinations. In general, older cultivars had a higher degree of aphid resistance after barley volatile treatment than did younger cultivars. The inducing effect of the emitter was also related to date of emitter cultivar release but the time relationship was reversed. Combinations with a younger volatile emitter and an older volatile receiver gave the strongest reduction in aphid acceptance of treated plants. Linear relationships between microsatellite diversity of emitting cultivars and their efficiency as inducers indicated that younger cultivars might have a more unique odour, whereas older cultivars may be more sensitive to induction.

Keywords

Barley Cultivar Volatile Profile Supplementary Appendix Volatile Emitter Aphid Resistance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the PlantComMistra Program, financed by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra). The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, Formas, also contributed funding. The microsatellite analyses were carried out at Svalöf Weibull AB. The Nordic Genetic Resource Center has kindly provided seeds. Robert Glinwood and Lisbeth Jonsson gave valuable inputs for improvement of the manuscript. Jonathan Sohl is thanked for technical support.

Supplementary material

122_2010_1377_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (25 kb)
Supplementary Appendix (PDF 25 kb)

References

  1. Bertholdsson N-O (2004) Variation in allelopathic activity over 100 years of barley selection and breeding. Weed Res 44:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonman JM, Bockelman HE, Jackson LF, Steffenson BJ (2005) Disease and insect resistance in cultivated barley accessions from the USDA National Small Grains Collection. Crop Sci 45:1271–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Degen T, Dillmann C, Marion-Poll F, Turlings TCJ (2004) High genetic variability of herbivore-induced volatile emission within a broad range of maize inbred lines. Plant Phys 135:1928–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Engelberth J, Alborn HT, Schmelz EA, Tumlinson JH (2004) Airborne signals prime plants against insect herbivore attack. PNAS 101:1781–1785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Frost CJ, Appel HM, Carlson JE, de Moraes CM, Mescher MC, Schultz JC (2007) Within-plant signalling via volatiles overcomes vascular constraints on systemic signalling and primes responses against herbivores. Ecol Lett 10:490–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Glinwood R, Ninkovic V, Pettersson J, Ahmed E (2004) Barley exposed to aerial allelopathy from thistles (Cirsium spp.) becomes less acceptable to aphids. Ecol Entomol 29:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gustafsson Å (1953) The cooperation of genotypes in barley. Hereditas 39:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heil M, Silva Bueno JC (2007) Within-plant signalling by volatiles leads to induction and priming of an indirect plant defence in nature. PNAS 104:5467–5472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jokinen K (1991) Competition and yield advantage in barley–barley and barley–oats mixtures. J Agric Sci (Finland) 63:255–285Google Scholar
  10. Keszei A, Brubaker CL, Foley WJ (2008) A molecular perspective on terpene variation in Australian Myrtaceae. Aust J Bot 56:197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kolodinska Brantestam A (2005a) A century of breeding—is genetic erosion a reality? Temporal Diversity Changes in Nordic and Baltic Barley. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae 2005:30Google Scholar
  12. Kolodinska Brantestam A (2005b) Source for data on year of cultivar release. http://diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00000797/02/appendix_kolodinska.pdf
  13. Kolodinska Brantestam A, Bothmer R, Dayteg C, Rashal I, Tuvesson S, Weibull J (2007) Genetic diversity changes and relationships in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) germplasm of Nordic and Baltic areas as shown by SSR markers. Gen Res Crop Evol 54:749–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Körner C, Stöcklin J, Reuther-Thiébaud J, Pelaez-Riedl S (2008) Small differences in arrival time influence composition and productivity of plant communities. New Phytol 177:698–705CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Maciel FL, Echeverrigaray S, Gerald LTS, Grazziotin FG (2003) Genetic relationships and diversity among Brazilian cultivars and landraces of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) revealed by AFLP markers. Gen Res Crop Evol 50:887–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Malysheva-Otto L, Ganal MW, Law JR, Reeves JC, Röder MS (2007) Temporal trends of genetic diversity in European barley cultivars (Hordeum vulgare L.). Mol Breed 20:309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mercer PC (2006) Growing organic cereals in Northern Ireland—disease and weed problems. Aspects Appl Biol 79:229–232Google Scholar
  18. Nei M (1973) Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. PNAS 70:3321–3323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ninkovic V (2003) Volatile communication between barley plants affects biomass allocation. J Exp Bot 54:1931–1939CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ninkovic V, Åhman I (2009) Aphid acceptance of Hordeum genotypes is affected by volatile exposure and is correlated with aphid growth. Euphytica 169:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ninkovic V, Pettersson J (2003) Searching behaviour of the seven spotted ladybird, Coccinella septempunctata—effects of plant–plant odour interaction. Oikos 100:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ninkovic V, Olsson U, Pettersson J (2002) Mixing barley cultivars affects aphid host plant acceptance in field experiments. Entomol Exp Appl 102:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ninkovic V, Glinwood R, Pettersson J (2006) Communication between undamaged plants by volatiles: the role of allelobiosis. In: Communication in plants: neuronal aspects of plant life. Springer, Berlin, pp 421–434Google Scholar
  24. Pettersson J, Ninkovic V, Ahmed E (1999) Volatiles from different barley cultivars affect aphid acceptance of neighbouring plants. Acta Agric Scand Sect B Soil Plant Sci 49:152–157Google Scholar
  25. Pettersson J, Ninkovic V, Glinwood R (2003) Plant activation of barley by intercropped conspecifics and weeds: allelobiosis. In: Proceedings of BCPC international congress on crop science and technology, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 10–12 November 2003, pp 1135–1144Google Scholar
  26. Prado E, Tjallingii WF (1997) Effects of previous infestation on sieve element acceptance by two aphids. Entomol Exp Appl 82:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ram SG, Thiruvengadam V, Vinod KK (2007) Genetic diversity among cultivars, landraces and wild relatives of rice as revealed by microsatellite markers. J Appl Genet 48:337–345PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rogers JS (1972) Measures of genetic similarity and genetic distance. Studies in Genet. VII. Univ Texas Publ 7213:145–153Google Scholar
  29. Rohlf M (1998) NTSYS-pc numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis systemGoogle Scholar
  30. Soler R, Harvey JA, Kamp AFD, Vet LEM, van der Putten WH, van Dam NM, Stuefer JF, Gols R, Hordijk CA, Bezemer TM (2007) Root herbivores influence the behaviour of an aboveground parasitoid through changes in plant-volatile signals. Oikos 116:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Szumigalski AR, van Acker RC (2006) The agronomic value of annual plant diversity in crop–weed systems. Can J Plant Sci 86:865–874Google Scholar
  32. Tratwal A, Law J, Philpott H, Horwell A, Garner J (2007) The possibilities of reduction of winter barley chemical protection by growing variety mixtures. Part II. Effect on yield. J Plant Prot Res 47:79–86Google Scholar
  33. Viswanathan DV, Narwani AJT, Thaler JS (2005) Specificity in induced plant responses shapes patterns of herbivore occurrence on Solanum dulcamara. Ecology 86:886–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Kellner
    • 1
  • Agnese Kolodinska Brantestam
    • 2
  • Inger Åhman
    • 3
  • Velemir Ninkovic
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Nordic Genetic Resource CenterAlnarpSweden
  3. 3.Faculty of Landscape Planning, Horticulture and Agricultural ScienceSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarpSweden

Personalised recommendations