Advertisement

Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 92, Issue 2, pp 895–908 | Cite as

Screening the variability in oilseed rape resistance to pollen beetle attacks in the field and assessment of biochemical biomarkers

  • Gaëtan Seimandi-CordaEmail author
  • David Renaud
  • Laure Escande
  • Amandine Larièpe
  • Jérôme Ollivier
  • Sébastien Faure
  • Anne Marie Cortesero
Original Paper

Abstract

The pollen beetle (Brassicogethes aeneus) is one of the main insect pests affecting oilseed rape crops. Efficiency of insecticides used to control this pest is decreasing due to the development of resistance to compounds such as pyrethroids in many populations. Breeding oilseed rape for resistance to pollen beetle attacks could be an interesting strategy to find alternative control methods but has not been really developed in this crop yet. However, screening plants for insect resistance remains complicated as it often involves field tests on large genotype collections which are complicated to carry out without biases. Current knowledge on the chemical ecology of interactions between oilseed rape and pollen beetles could help finding biochemical markers of this resistance and bypass this problematic field screening phase, thus allowing an indirect breeding approach. Previous laboratory tests have shown that variations in attack levels among a small set of oilseed genotypes could be explained by the biochemistry of bud tissues. The present study aimed at validating this link under field conditions. For that purpose, we conducted a multi-site experiment in France with 19 genotypes exposed to pollen beetle attacks. We phenotyped pollen beetle damage and sampled buds in the field to assess their chemical composition. Large variability in pollen beetle attacks was observed over the genotypes. These attack levels were consistent between locations. Bud chemistry was highly variable, but most compounds were well correlated between locations. Potential biomarkers previously identified in laboratory experiments were not confirmed to be correlated with resistance to pollen beetles in the field, but new compounds which may be considered interesting markers for resistance screening against the pollen beetle emerged.

Keywords

Phenotyping Metabolite Plant resistance Brassicogethes aeneus Brassica napus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Nathalie Marnet, Catherine Jonard and Solene Berardocco for preparation and management of chemical analyses. All chemical analyses were performed on the P2M2 platform (Le Rheu, France). We would like to thank people from Biogemma: Pierre George and Xavier Heudelot who managed field trials, Isabelle André who participated in sample preparation and Michèle Barthes and Fabienne Mezzasalma for sowing preparation. We also thank Marie Coque and Guillaume Hostyn, who participated in the development of this project. We are grateful to Günter Leis and Thibaut Cordette from Limagrain who maintained field trials and participated in damage estimation. We are thankful to Loïc Daniel and Thomas Hecky and Kathleen Menacer who participated in sample collection and preparation, Eloïse Couthouis and Guillaume Audo who contributed to sample preparation. Gaëtan Seimandi Corda was supported by Biogemma and the French National Association Research and Technology (CIFRE N° 2014/1354).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants. All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

10340_2018_1070_MOESM1_ESM.docx (56 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 56 kb)

References

  1. Abdel-Aal E-SM, Hucl P, Sosulski FW, Graf R, Gillott C, Pietrzak L (2001) Screening spring wheat for midge resistance in relation to ferulic acid content. J Agric Food Chem 49:3559–3566.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf010027h CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams MA, Chen Z, Landman P, Colmer TD (1999) Simultaneous determination by capillary gas chromatography of organic acids, sugars, and sugar alcohols in plant tissue extracts as their trimethylsilyl derivatives. Anal Biochem 266:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AGRESTE (2013) Les indicateurs de fréquence de traitement (IFT) en 2011. Les Dossiers N° 18. http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/dossier18_ift.pdf. Accessed March 2018
  4. Alexandersson E, Jacobson D, Vivier MA, Weckwerth W, Andreasson E (2014) Field-omics—understanding large-scale molecular data from field crops. Front Plant Sci 5:286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anyanga MO, Yada B, Yencho GC, Ssemakula GN, Alajo A, Farman DI, Mwanga ROM, Stevenson PC (2017) Segregation of hydroxycinnamic acid esters mediating sweetpotato weevil resistance in storage roots of sweetpotato. Front Plant Sci 8:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Awmack CS, Leather SR (2002) Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 47:817–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barah P, Bones AM (2015) Multidimensional approaches for studying plant defence against insects: from ecology to omics and synthetic biology. J Exp Bot 66:479–493.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1:1-23Google Scholar
  9. Beleggia R, Platani C, Nigro F, De Vita P, Cattivelli L, Papa R (2013) Effect of genotype, environment and genotype-by-environment interaction on metabolite profiling in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) grain. J Cereal Sci 57:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate—a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B Methodol 57:289–300Google Scholar
  11. Berenbaum MR (1995) Turnabout is fair play: secondary roles for primary compounds. J Chem Ecol 21:925–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berenbaum MR, Zangerl AR (2008) Facing the future of plant-insect interaction research: Le Retour a la “Raison d’Etre”. Plant Physiol 146:804–811.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.113472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Broekgaarden C, Poelman EH, Steenhuis G, Voorrips RE, Dicke M, Vosman B (2008) Responses of Brassica oleracea cultivars to infestation by the aphid Brevicoryne brassicae: an ecological and molecular approach. Plant Cell Environ 31:1592–1605.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01871.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen M, Rao RSP, Zhang Y, Zhong C, Thelen JJ (2016) Metabolite variation in hybrid corn grain from a large-scale multisite study. Crop J 4:177–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2016.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke WE, Higgins EE, Plieske J, Wieseke R, Sidebottom C, Khedikar Y, Batley J, Edwards D, Meng J, Li R, Lawley CT, Pauquet J, Laga B, Cheung W (2016) A high-density SNP genotyping array for Brassica napus and its ancestral diploid species based on optimised selection of single-locus markers in the allotetraploid genome. Theor Appl Genet 129:1887–1899.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-016-2746-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook SM, Rasmussen HB, Birkett MA, Murray DA, Pye BJ, Watts NP, Williams IH (2007) Behavioural and chemical ecology underlying the success of turnip rape (Brassica rapa) trap crops in protecting oilseed rape (Brassica napus) from the pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus). Arthropod-Plant Interact 1:57–67.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-007-9004-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Culliney TW (2014) Crop losses to arthropods. In: Pimentel D, Peshin R (eds) Integrated pest management. Springer, Netherlands, pp 201–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davies HV, Shepherd LVT, Stewart D, Frank T, Röhlig RM, Engel KH (2010) Metabolome variability in crop plant species—when, where, how much and so what? Regul Toxicol Pharm 58:S54–S61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Devine GJ, Furlong MJ (2007) Insecticide use: contexts and ecological consequences. Agric Human Values 24:281–306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9067-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elek H, Smart L, Martin J, Ahmad S, Gordon-Weeks R, Welham S, Nádasy M, Pickett JA (2013) The potential of hydroxamic acids in tetraploid and hexaploid wheat varieties as resistance factors against the bird-cherry oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi. Ann Appl Biol 162:100–109.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eurostat (2016) Agriculture database. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/agriculture/data/database. Accessed Mar 2017
  22. Ferguson AW, Nevard LM, Clark SJ, Cook SM (2015) Temperature-activity relationships in Meligethes aeneus: implications for pest management. Pest Manag Sci 71:459–466.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3860 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fernie AR, Schauer N (2009) Metabolomics-assisted breeding: a viable option for crop improvement? Trends Genet 25:39–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2008.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frearson DJ, Ferguson AW, Campbell JM, Williams IH (2005) The spatial dynamics of pollen beetles in relation to inflorescence growth stage of oilseed rape: implications for trap crop strategies. Entomol Exp Appl 116:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Free JB, Williams IH (1978) A survey of the damage caused to crops of oil-seed rape (Brassica napus L.) by insect pests in south-central England and their effect on seed yield. J Agric Sci 90:417.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021859600055520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Furbank RT, Tester M (2011) Phenomics—technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci 16:635–644.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2011.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gagic V, Riggi LG, Ekbom B, Malsher G, Rusch A, Bommarco R (2016) Interactive effects of pests increase seed yield. Ecol Evol 6:2149–2157.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goggin FL, Lorence A, Topp CN (2015) Applying high-throughput phenotyping to plant–insect interactions: picturing more resistant crops. Curr Opin Insect Sci 9:69–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2015.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gravot A, Dittami SM, Rousvoal S, Lugan R, Eggert A, Collén J, Boyen C, Bouchereau A, Tonon T (2010) Diurnal oscillations of metabolite abundances and gene analysis provide new insights into central metabolic processes of the brown alga Ectocarpus siliculosus. New Phytol 188:98–110.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03400.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guo Z, Magwire MM, Basten CJ, Xu Z, Wang D (2016) Evaluation of the utility of gene expression and metabolic information for genomic prediction in maize. Theor Appl Genet 129:2413–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansen LM (2003) A model for determination of the numbers of pollen beetles (Meligethes aeneus F.) (Col., Nitidulidae) per plant in oil-seed rape crops (Brassica napus L.) by estimating the percentage of plants attacked by pollen beetles. J Appl Entomol 127:163–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hervé MR, Delourme R, Gravot A, Marnet N, Berardocco S, Cortesero AM (2014) Manipulating feeding stimulation to protect crops against insect pests? J Chem Ecol 40:1220–1231.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-014-0517-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hervé MR, Leclair M, Frat L, Paty C, Renaud D, Cortesero AM (2017) Potential biases in screening for plant resistance to insect pests: an illustration with oilseed rape. J Appl Entomol 141:150–155.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jänkänpää HJ, Mishra Y, Schröder WP, Jansson S (2012) Metabolic profiling reveals metabolic shifts in Arabidopsis plants grown under different light conditions: metabolic profiling under different light regime. Plant Cell Environ 35:1824–1836.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2012.02519.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jubault M, Hamon C, Gravot A, Lariagon C, Delourme R, Bouchereau A, Manzanares-Dauleux MJ (2008) Differential regulation of root arginine catabolism and polyamine metabolism in clubroot-susceptible and partially resistant arabidopsis genotypes. Plant Physiol 146:2008–2019.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.117432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaasik R, Kovács G, Toome M, Metspalu L, Veromann E (2014) The relative attractiveness of Brassica napus, B. rapa, B. juncea and Sinapis alba to pollen beetles. Biocontrol 59:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kleine R (1921) The rape beetle Meligethes aeneus F. and agricultural practice. Z Wiss Insektenbiologie 16:90–100Google Scholar
  38. Koricheva J, Nykänen H, Gianoli E (2004) Meta-analysis of trade-offs among plant antiherbivore defenses: Are plants jacks-of-all-trades, masters of all? Am Nat 163:E64–E75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lancashire PD, Bleiholder H, Boom TVD, Langelüddeke P, Stauss R, Weber E, Witzenberger A (1991) A uniform decimal code for growth stages of crops and weeds. Ann Appl Biol 119:561–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lê Cao KA, Rossouw D, Robert-Granié C, Besse P (2008) A sparse PLS for variable selection when integrating omics data. Stat Appl Genet Mol 7:35Google Scholar
  41. Lee SJ, Yan W, Ahn JK, Chung IM (2003) Effects of year, site, genotype and their interactions on various soybean isoflavones. Field Crops Res 81:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leiss KA, Maltese F, Choi YH, Verpoorte R, Klinkhamer PG (2009) Identification of chlorogenic acid as a resistance factor for thrips in chrysanthemum. Plant Physiol 150:1567–1575.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.109.138131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lenth RV (2016) Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lugan R, Niogret M-F, Kervazo L, Larher FR, Kopka J, Bouchereau A (2009) Metabolome and water status phenotyping of Arabidopsis under abiotic stress cues reveals new insight into ESK1 function. Plant Cell Environ 32:95–108.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01898.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Malchev I, Fletcher R, Kott L (2010) Breeding of rutabaga (Brassica napus var. napobrassica L. Reichenb.) based on biomarker selection for root maggot resistance (Delia radicum L.). Euphytica 175:191–205.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-010-0162-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matros A, Liu G, Hartmann A, Jiang Y, Zhao Y, Wang H, Ebmeyer E, Korzun V, Schachschneider R, Schacht EKJ, Longin F, Reif JC, Mock H-P (2017) Genome–metabolite associations revealed low heritability, high genetic complexity, and causal relations for leaf metabolites in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). J Exp Bot 68:415–428.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw441 Google Scholar
  47. Mishra Y, Jänkänpää HJ, Kiss AZ, Funk C, Schröder WP, Jansson S (2012) Arabidopsis plants grown in the field and climate chambers significantly differ in leaf morphology and photosystem components. BMC Plant Biol 12:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mitchell C, Brennan RM, Graham J, Karley AJ (2016) Plant Defense against herbivorous pests: exploiting resistance and tolerance traits for sustainable crop protection. Front Plant Sci 7:1132.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mithöfer A, Boland W (2012) Plant defense against herbivores: chemical aspects. Annu Rev Plant Biol 63:431–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Omoloye AA, Vidal S (2007) Abundance of 24-methylenecholesterol in traditional African rice as an indicator of resistance to the African rice gall midge, Orseolia oryzivora Harris & Gagné: resistance indicator for African rice gall midge. Entomol Sci 10:249–257.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-8298.2007.00221.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rusch A, Valantin-Morison M, Sarthou JP, Roger-Estrade J (2013) Effect of crop management and landscape context on insect pest populations and crop damage. Agric Ecosyst Environ 166:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schaefer HL, Brandes H, Ulber B, Becker HC, Vidal S (2017) Evaluation of nine genotypes of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) for larval infestation and performance of rape stem weevil (Ceutorhynchus napi Gyll.). PloS One 12:e0180807Google Scholar
  53. Schaefer-Koesterke HL, Brandes H, Ulber B, Becker HC, Vidal S (2017) The potential of resynthesized lines to provide resistance traits against rape stem weevil in oilseed rape. J Pest Sci 90:87–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-016-0742-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shaw EJ, Fletcher RS, Dosdall LL, Kott LS (2009) Biochemical markers for cabbage seedpod weevil (Ceutorhynchus obstrictus (Marsham)) resistance in canola (Brassica napus L.). Euphytica 170:297–308.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-009-9980-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Singh SP, Schwartz HF (2010) Breeding common bean for resistance to insect pests and nematodes. Can J Plant Sci 91:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith CM (2005) Plant resistance to arthropods: molecular and conventional approaches. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith CM, Clement SL (2012) Molecular bases of plant resistance to arthropods. Ann Rev Entomol 57:309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stenberg JA, Heil M, Åhman I, Björkman C (2015) Optimizing crops for biocontrol of pests and disease. Trends Plant Sci 20:698–712.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stout M, Davis J (2009) Keys to the increased use of host plant resistance in integrated pest management. In: Peshin R, Dhawan AK (eds) Integrated pest management: Innovation-development process. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 163–181Google Scholar
  60. Sun CX, Gao XX, Li MQ, Fu JQ, Zhang YL (2016) Plastic responses in the metabolome and functional traits of maize plants to temperature variations. Plant Biol 18:249–261.  https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sun CX, Chen X, Cao MM, Li MQ, Zhang YL (2017) Growth and metabolic responses of maize roots to straw biochar application at different rates. Plant Soil 416:487–502.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3229-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tamiru A, Khan ZR, Bruce TJ (2015) New directions for improving crop resistance to insects by breeding for egg induced defence. Curr Opin Insect Sci 9:51–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2015.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tatchell GM (1983) Compensation in spring-sown oil-seed rape (Brassica napus L.) plants in response to injury to their flower buds and pods. J Agric Sci 101:565–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  65. Tingey WM (1986) Techniques for evaluating plant resistance to insects. In: Miller JR, Miller TA (eds) Insect-plant interactions. Springer, New York, pp 251–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Underwood N, Rausher M, Cook W (2002) Bioassay versus chemical assay: measuring the impact of induced and constitutive resistance on herbivores in the field. Oecologia 131:211–219.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-0867-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. VanDoorn A, de Vos M (2013) Resistance to sap-sucking insects in modern-day agriculture. Front Plant Sci 4:222.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Velasco P, Francisco M, Moreno DA, Ferreres F, García-Viguera C, Cartea ME (2011) Phytochemical fingerprinting of vegetable Brassica oleracea and Brassica napus by simultaneous identification of glucosinolates and phenolics. Phytochem Anal 22:144–152.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pca.1259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang SF, Ridsdill-Smith TJ, Ghisalberti EL (2005) Chemical defenses of Trifolium glanduliferum against Redlegged Earth Mite Halotydeus destructor. J Agric Food Chem 53:6240–6245.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0502202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wang L, Qu L, Hu J, Zhang L, Tang F, Lu M (2017) Metabolomics reveals constitutive metabolites that contribute resistance to fall webworm (Hyphantria cunea) in Populus deltoides. Environ Exp Bot 136:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Williams IH (ed) (2010) Biocontrol-based integrated management of oilseed rape pests. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams IH, Free JB (1978) The feeding and mating behaviour of pollen beetles (Meligethes aeneus Fab.) and seed weevils (Ceutorhynchus assimilis Payk.) on oil-seed rape (Brassica napus L.). J Agric Sci 91:453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Winter G, Todd CD, Trovato M, Forlani G, Funck D (2015) Physiological implications of arginine metabolism in plants. Front Plant Sci 6:534.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wiseman BR (1994) Plant resistance to insects in integrated pest management. Plant Dis 78:927CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaëtan Seimandi-Corda
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David Renaud
    • 1
  • Laure Escande
    • 2
  • Amandine Larièpe
    • 2
  • Jérôme Ollivier
    • 1
  • Sébastien Faure
    • 2
  • Anne Marie Cortesero
    • 1
  1. 1.INRA, Agrocampus Ouest, Univ Rennes 1IGEPP (Institut de Génétique, Environnement et de Protection des Plantes) - UMR-A 1349RennesFrance
  2. 2.BiogemmaMondonvilleFrance

Personalised recommendations