Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 307–319 | Cite as

Disease Status and Population Origin Effects on Floral Scent: Potential Consequences for Oviposition and Fruit Predation in A Complex Interaction Between A Plant, Fungus, and Noctuid Moth

  • S. Dötterl
  • A. Jürgens
  • L. Wolfe
  • A. Biere
Article

Abstract

In the Silene latifoliaHadena bicruris nursery pollination system, the Hadena moth is both pollinator and seed predator of its host plant. Floral scent, which differs among S. latifolia individuals and populations, is important for adult Hadena to locate its host. However, the success of moth larvae is strongly reduced if hosts are infected by the anther smut fungus Microbotryum violaceum, a pathogen that is transmitted by flower visitors. There were no qualitative differences between the scent of flowers from healthy and diseased plants. In addition, electroantennographic measurements showed that Hadena responded to the same subset of 19 compounds in samples collected from healthy and diseased plants. However, there were significant quantitative differences in scent profiles. Flowers from diseased plants emitted both a lower absolute amount of floral scent and had a different scent pattern, mainly due to their lower absolute amount of lilac aldehyde, whereas their amount of (E)-β-ocimene was similar to that in healthy flowers. Dual choice behavioral wind tunnel tests using differently scented flowers confirmed that moths respond to both qualitative and quantitative aspects of floral scent, suggesting that they could use differences in floral scent between healthy and infected plants to discriminate against diseased plants. Population mean fruit predation rates significantly increased with population mean levels of the emission rates of lilac aldehyde per flower, indicating that selection on floral scent compounds may not only be driven by effects on pollinator attraction but also by effects on fruit predation. However, variation in mean emission rates of scent compounds per flower generally could not explain the higher fruit predation in populations originating from the introduced North American range compared to populations native to Europe.

Keywords

Anther smut fungus Microbotryum violaceum Hadena bicruris Lilac aldehyde Nursery pollination Silene latifolia Flower scent Dynamic headspace Wind tunnel biotest Electroantennographic measurements 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank A. Täuber for rearing moths, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Adams, R. P. 1995. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Allured, Carol Stream, IL.Google Scholar
  2. Amirav, A., and Dagan, S. 1997. A direct sample introduction device for mass spectrometry studies and gas chromatography mass spectrometry analyses. Eur. Mass Spectrom 3:105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Awmack, C. S., and Leather, S. R. 2002. Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol 82:162–165.Google Scholar
  4. Biere, A., Elzinga, J. A., Honders, S. C., and Harvey, J. A. 2002. A plant pathogen reduces the enemy-free space of an insect herbivore on a shared host plant. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 269:2197–2204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biere, A., and Honders, S. C. 2006. Coping with third parties in a nursery pollination mutualism: Hadena bicruris avoids oviposition on pathogen-infected, less rewarding Silene latifolia. New Phytol 169:719–727.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blair, A. C., and Wolfe, L. M. 2004. The evolution of an invasive plant: an experimental study with Silene latifolia. Ecology 85:3035–3042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohlmann, J., Martin, D., Oldham, N. J., and Gershenzon, J. 2000. Terpenoid secondary metabolism in Arabidopsis thaliana: cDNA cloning, characterization, and functional expression of a myrcene/(E)-ß-ocimene synthase. Arch. Biochem. Biophys 375:261–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brantjes, N. B. M. 1976. Riddles around the pollination of Melandrium album (Mill.) Garcke (Caryophyllaceae) during the oviposition by Hadena bicruris Hufn. (Noctuidae, Lepidoptera), I. Proc. Koninkl. Ned. Akad. Wetensch., Ser. C 79:1–12.Google Scholar
  9. Cardoza, Y. J., Alborn, H. T., and Tumlinson, J. H. 2002. In vivo volatile emissions from peanut plants induced by simultaneous fungal infection and insect damage. J. Chem. Ecol 28:161–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardoza, Y. J., Teal, P. E. A., and Tumlinson, J. H. 2003. Effect of peanut plant fungal infection on oviposition preference by Spodoptera exigua and on host-searching behavior by Cotesia marginiventris. Environ. Entomol 32:970–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke, K. R. and Gorley, R. N. 2006. Primer v6: User Manual/Tutorial. Primer-E, Plymouth, 1–91.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, K. R., and Warwick, R. M. 2001. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. 2nd edn.Primer-E, Plymouth.Google Scholar
  13. Dötterl, S., Burkhardt, D., Jürgens, A., and Mosandl, A. 2007. Stereoisomeric pattern of lilac aldehyde in Silene latifolia, a plant involved in a nursery pollination system. Phytochemistry 68:499–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dötterl, S., Füssel, U., Jürgens, A., and Aas, G. 2005a. 1,4-Dimethoxybenzene, a floral scent compound in willows that attracts an oligolectic bee. J. Chem. Ecol 31:2993–2998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dötterl, S., and Jürgens, A. 2005. Spatial fragrance patterns in flowers of Silene latifolia: Lilac compounds as olfactory nectar guides? Plant Syst. Evol 255:99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dötterl, S., Jürgens, A., Seifert, K., Laube, T., Weißbecker, B., and Schütz, S. 2006. Nursery pollination by a moth in Silene latifolia: the role of odors in eliciting antennal and behaviorbehavioral responses. New Phytol 169:707–718.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dötterl, S., Wolfe, L. M., and Jürgens, A. 2005b. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of flower scent in Silene latifolia. Phytochemistry 66:203–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dudareva, N., and Pichersky, E. 2000. Biochemical and molecular genetic aspects of floral scents. Plant Physiol 122:627–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dufaÿ, M., and Anstett, M. C. 2003. Conflicts between plants and pollinators that reproduce within inflorescences: evolutionary variations on a theme. Oikos 100:3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elzinga, J. A., Van nouhuys, S., Van leeuwen, D. J., and Biere, A. 2007. Distribution and colonisation ability of three parasitoids and their herbivorous host in a fragmented landscape. Basic Appl. Ecol 8:75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feeny, P., Sachdev, K., Rosenberry, L., and Carter, M. 1988. Luteolin 7-O-(6″-O Malonyl)-beta-D-glucoside and trans chlorogenic acid: oviposition stimulants for the black swallowtail butterfly. Phytochemistry 27:3439–3448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haribal, M., and Renwick, J. A. A. 1996. Oviposition stimulants for the monarch butterfly: flavonol glycosides from Asclepias curassavica. Phytochemistry 41:139–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hatcher, P. E. 1995. Three-way interactions between plant-pathogenic fungi, herbivorous insects and their host plants. Biol. Rev 70:639–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Honda, K. 1995. Chemical basis of differential oviposition by lepidopterous insects. Arch. Insect. Biochem. Physiol 30:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Honda, K., Omura, H., Hayashi, N., Abe, F., and Yamauchi, T. 2001. Oviposition-stimulatory activity of phenanthroindolizidine alkaloids of host-plant origin to a danaid butterfly, Ideopsis similis. Physiol. Entomol 26:6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaenike, J. 1978. On optimal oviposition behavior in phytophagous insects. Theor. Popul. Biol 14:350–356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johne, A. B., Weißbecker, B., and Schütz, S. 2008. Approaching risk assessment of complex disease development in horse chestnut trees: a chemical ecologist’s perspective. J. Appl. Entomol 132:349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaiser, R. 2006. Flowers and fungi use scents to mimic each other. Science 311:806–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kato, M., Takimura, A., and Kawakita, A. 2003. An obligate pollination mutualism and reciprocal diversification in the tree genus Glochidion (Euphorbiaceae). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100:5264–5267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Komaki, R., Okui, M., Suzuki, Y., Someya, A., and Kato, Y. 2005. Lilac aldehyde-containing antifungal agents and antidandruff fragrant hair preparations containing them. Patent JP 2003-274481.Google Scholar
  31. Kreck, M., Puschel, S., Wüst, M., and Mosandl, A. 2003. Biogenetic studies in Syringa vulgaris L.: Synthesis and bioconversion of deuterium-labeled precursors into lilac aldehydes and lilac alcohols. J. Agric. Food Chem 51:463–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laine, A. L. 2004. A powdery mildew infection on a shared host plant affects the dynamics of the Glanville fritillary butterfly populations. Oikos 107:329–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marr, D. L. 1998. The effect of Microbotryum violaceum spores on pollen germination in Silene acaulis. Int. J. Plant Sci 159:221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayhew, P. J. 1997. Adaptive patterns of host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Oikos 79:417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayhew, P. J. 2001. Herbivore host choice and optimal bad motherhood. Trends Ecol. Evol 16:165–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mühlemann, J. K., Waelti, M. O., Widmer, A., and Schiestl, F. P. 2006. Postpollination changes in floral odor in Silene latifolia: adaptive mechanisms for seed-predator avoidance? J. Chem. Ecol 32:1855–1860.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naef, A., Roy, B. A., Kaiser, R., and Honegger, R. 2002. Insect-mediated reproduction of systemic infections by Puccinia arrhenatheri on Berberis vulgaris. New Phytol 154:717–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pichersky, E., Raguso, R. A., Lewinsohn, E., and Croteau, R. 1994. Floral scent production in Clarkia (Onagraceae): I. Localization and developmental modulation of monoterpene emission and Linalool synthase activity. Plant Physiol 106:1533–1540.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Plepys, D., Ibarra, F., and Löfstedt, C. 2002. Volatiles from flowers of Platanthera bifolia (Orchidaceae) attractive to the silver Y moth, Autographa gamma (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Oikos 99:69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raguso, R. A., and Roy, B. A. 1998. ‘Floral’ scent production by Puccinia rust fungi that mimic flowers. Mol. Ecol 7:1127–1136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rostás, M., Ton, J., Mauch-mani, B., and Turlings, T. C. J. 2006. Fungal infection reduces herbivore-induced plant volatiles of maize but does not affect naive parasitoids. J. Chem. Ecol 32:1897–1909.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roy, B. A., and Raguso, R. A. 1997. Olfactory versus visual cues in a floral mimicry system. Oecologia 109:414–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scheirs, J., De Bruyn, L., and Verhagen, R. 2000. Optimization of adult performance determines host choice in a grass miner. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 267:2065–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schiestl, F. P., Steinebrunner, F., Schulz, C., Von Reuß, S., Francke, W., Weymuth, C., and Leuchtmann, A. 2006. Evolution of ‘pollinator’-attracting signals in fungi. Biol. Lett 2:401–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schütz, S., Weißbecker, B., Koch, U. T., and Hummel, H. E. 1999. Detection of volatiles released by diseased potato tubers using a biosensor on the basis of intact insect antennae. Biosens. Bioelectron 14:221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shykoff, J. A., and Bucheli, E. 1995. Pollinator visitation patterns, floral rewards and the probability of transmission of Microbotryum violaceum, a venereal disease of plants. J. Ecol 83:189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shykoff, J. A., and Kaltz, O. 1998. Phenotypic changes in host plants diseased by Microbotryum violaceum: Parasite manipulation, side effects, and trade-offs. Int. J. Plant Sci 159:236–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simon, M., and Hilker, M. 2003. Herbivores and pathogens on willow: do they affect each other? Agric. For. Entomol 5:275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. StatSoft, Inc. 2004. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), Version 7.1. http://www.statsoft.com.
  50. Thompson, J. N., and Cunningham, B. M. 2002. Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection. Nature 417:735–738.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson, J. N., and Pellmyr, O. 1991. Evolution of oviposition behavior and host preference in Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol 36:65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Witt, T., Jürgens, A., Geyer, R., and Gottsberger, G. 1999. Nectar dynamics and sugar composition in flowers of Silene and Saponaria species (Caryophyllaceae). Plant Biol 1:334–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wolfe, L. M., Blair, A. C., and Penna, B. M. 2007. Does intraspecific hybridization contribute to the evolution of invasiveness?: an experimental test. Biol. Invasions 9:515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wolfe, L. M., Elzinga, J. A., and Biere, A. 2004. Increased susceptibility to enemies following introduction in the invasive plant Silene latifolia. Ecol. Lett 7:813–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant SystematicsUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  2. 2.School of Biological and Conservation SciencesUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalPietermaritzburgSouth Africa
  3. 3.Department of BiologyGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboroUSA
  4. 4.Department of Multitrophic InteractionsThe Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW)HeterenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations