Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 90–100 | Cite as

Headspace Volatiles from 52 oak Species Advertise Induction, Species Identity, and Evolution, but not Defense

Article

Abstract

Leaf volatiles convey information about a plant to other organisms in their proximity. Despite increasing interest in understanding the relevance of volatile emissions for particular ecological interactions, there has been relatively little effort to assess generally what information volatile profiles transmit. We surveyed the volatile profiles of wounded and unwounded leaves of 52 oak (Quercus) species. We used phylogenetic comparison and multivariate techniques to assess in what circumstances oak individuals advertised their species identity, evolutionary history, direct defenses, or damage. We found that both species identity and evolutionary history were advertised when leaves were wounded, but species could not be differentiated by odor when leaves were not wounded. Various fatty-acid derivative compounds showed the strongest phylogenetic signal suggesting that they may best disclose taxonomic affiliations in oaks. We tested whether oak volatile composition or diversity advertised high defensive investment, but we found no evidence for this. Wounded leaves disclose much about an oak species’ identity and taxonomic affiliation, but unwounded leaves do not. This is consistent with the idea that volatile information is targeted toward natural enemy recruitment.

Keywords

VOC Volatile Quercus Aposematic Green leaf volatiles Macroevolution 

Supplementary material

10886_2012_224_MOESM1_ESM.xls (31 kb)
ESM 1(XLS 31 kb)
10886_2012_224_MOESM2_ESM.xls (202 kb)
ESM 2(XLS 202 kb)

References

  1. Agrawal, A. A. 2012. New synthesis-trade-offs in chemical ccology. J. Chem. Ecol. 37:230–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aide, T. M. 1993. Patterns of leaf development and herbivory in a tropical understory community. Ecology 74:455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becerra, J. X., Noge, K., and Venable, D. L. 2009. Macroevolutionary chemical escalation in an ancient plant-herbivore arms race. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106:18062–18066.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, J. J., Smith, L., and Merrill, G. B. 2008. In situ volatile collection, analysis, and comparison of three Centaurea species and their relationship to biocontrol with herbivorous insects. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56:2759–2764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruce, T. J. A., Wadhams, L. J., and Woodcock, C. M. 2005. Insect host location: A volatile situation. Trends Plant Sci. 10:269–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Courtois, E. A., Paine, C. E. T., Blandinieres, P. A., Stien, D., Bessiere, J. M., Houel, E., Baraloto, C., and Chave, J. 2009. Diversity of the volatile organic compounds emitted by 55 species of tropical trees: A survey in French Guiana. J. Chem. Ecol. 35:1349–1362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Csiky, O. and Seufert, G. 1999. Terpenoid emissions of Mediterranean oaks and their relation to taxonomy. Ecol. Appl. 9:1138–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Moraes, C. M., Mescher, M. C., and Tumlinson, J. H. 2001. Caterpillar-induced nocturnal plant volatiles repel conspecific females. Nature 410:577–580.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delphia, C. M., Mescher, M. C., and de Moraes, C. M. 2007. Induction of plant volatiles by herbivores with different feeding habits and the effects of induced defenses on host-plant selection by thrips. J. Chem. Ecol. 33:997–1012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dicke, M. and Baldwin, I. T. 2010. The evolutionary context for herbivore-induced plant volatiles: Beyond the ‘cry for help’. Trends Plant Sci. 15:167–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dicke, M. and van Loon, J. J. A. 2000. Multitrophic effects of herbivore-induced plant volatiles in an evolutionary context. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 97:237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freckleton, R., Harvey, P. H., and Pagel, M. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: A test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. 160:712–726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halitschke, R., Schittko, U., Pohnert, G., Boland, W., and Baldwin, I. T. 2001. Molecular interactions between the specialist herbivore Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) and its natural host Nicotiana attenuata. III. Fatty acid-amino acid conjugates in herbivore oral secretions are necessary and sufficient for herbivore-specific plant responses. Plant Physiol. 125:711–717.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halitschke, R., Stenberg, J. A., Kessler, D., Kessler, A., and Baldwin, I. T. 2008. Shared signals—‘alarm calls’ from plants increase apparency to herbivores and their enemies in nature. Ecol. Lett. 11:24–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Harbourne, J. B. and Turner, B. L. 1984. Plant Chemosystematics. Academic, London.Google Scholar
  16. Hare, J. D. and Sun, J. J. 2011. Production of induced volatiles by Datura wrightii in response to damage by insects: Effect of herbivore species and time. J. Chem. Ecol. 37:751–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heil, M. and Silva Bueno, J. C. 2007. Within-plant signaling by volatiles leads to induction and priming of an indirect plant defense in nature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104:5467–5472.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunter, M. D. 1992. A variable insect plant interaction—the relationship between tree budburst phenology and population levels of insect herbivores among trees. Ecol. Entomol. 17:91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karban, R. and Shiojiri, K. 2009. Self-recognition affects plant communication and defense. Ecol. Lett. 12:502–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kessler, A. and Baldwin, I. T. 2001. Defensive function of herbivore-induced plant volatile emissions in nature. Science 291:2141–2144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kessler, A. and Heil, M. 2011. The multiple faces of indirect defences and their agents of natural selection. Funct. Ecol. 25:348–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Legendre, P. and Legendre, L. 1998. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Loreto, F. 2002. Distribution of isoprenoid emitters in the Quercus genus around the world: Chemo-taxonomical implications and evolutionary considerations based on the ecological function of the trait. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 5:185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loreto, F., Ciccioli, P., Brancaleoni, E., Valentini, R., de Lillis, M., Csiky, O., and Seufert, G. 1998. A hypothesis on the evolution of isoprenoid emission by oaks based on the correlation between emission type and Quercus taxonomy. Oecologia 115:302–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mallet, J. and Joron, M. 1999. Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: Polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30:201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCormick, A. C., Unsicker, S. B., and Gershenzon, J. 2012. The specificity of herbivore-induced plant volatiles in attracting herbivore enemies. Trends Plant Sci. 17:303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mithofer, A., Wanner, G., and Boland, W. 2005. Effects of feeding Spodoptera littoralis on lima bean leaves. II. Continuous mechanical wounding resembling insect feeding is sufficient to elicit herbivory-related volatile emission. Plant Physiol. 137:1160–1168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., O’Hara, B., Simpson, G., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., and Wagner, H. 2010. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 1.17.1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.
  29. Pagel, M. D. and Harvey, P. H. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, GB.Google Scholar
  30. Pearse, I. S. 2011. Leaf defensive traits in oaks and their role in both preference and performance of a polyphagous herbivore, Orgyia vetusta. Ecol. Entomol. 36:635–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pearse, I. S. and Baty, J. H. 2012. The predictability of traits and ecological interactions on 17 different crosses of hybrid oaks. Oecologia 169:489–497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pearse, I. S. and Hipp, A. L. 2009. Phylogenetic and trait similarity to a native species predict herbivory on non-native oaks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106:18097–18102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pearse, I. S. and Hipp, A. L. 2012. Global patterns of leaf defenses in oak species. Evolution 66:2272–2286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., Debroy, S., Sarkar, D., and The R Core Development Team. 2009. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models: R package version 3.1-93. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/index.html.
  35. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 2.12.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  36. Rodriguez-Saona, C., Crafts-Brandner, S. J., and Canas, L. A. 2003. Volatile emissions triggered by multiple herbivore damage: Beet armyworm and whitefly feeding on cotton plants. J. Chem. Ecol. 29:2539–2550.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Romeo, J. T. 2009. New SPME guidelines. J. Chem. Ecol. 35:1383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rose, U. S. R., Lewis, W. J., and Tumlinson, J. H. 1998. Specificity of systemically released cotton volatiles as attractants for specialist and generalist parasitic wasps. J. Chem. Ecol. 24:303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sabelis, M. W., Takabayashi, J., Janssen, A., Kant, M. R., van Wijk, M., Sznajder, B., Aratchige, N. S., Lesna, I., Belliure, B., and Schuurink, R. C. 2007. Ecology meets plant physiology: Herbivore-induced plant responses and their indirect effects on arthropod communities, pp. 188–217, in T. Ohgushi, T. P. Craig, and P. W. Price (eds.), Ecological Communities: Plant Mediation in Indirect Interaction Webs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Savchenko, T., Pearse, I. S., Ignatia, L., Karban, R., and Dehesh, K. 2012. Insect herbivores selectively suppress the HPL branch of the oxylipin pathway in host plants. Plant J. doi:10.1111/tpj.12064.
  41. Staudt, M., Mandl, N., Joffre, R., and Rambal, S. 2001. Intraspecific variability of monoterpene composition emitted by Quercus ilex leaves. Can. J. For. Res. Rev. Can. Rech. For. 31:174–180.Google Scholar
  42. Turlings, T. C. J., Lengwiler, U. B., Bernasconi, M. L., and Wechsler, D. 1998. Timing of induced volatile emissions in maize seedlings. Planta 207(1):146–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Wijk, M., de Bruijn, P. J. A., and Sabelis, M. W. 2010. The predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis does not perceive odor mixtures as strictly elemental objects. J. Chem. Ecol. 36:1211–1225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Wijk, M., de Bruijn, P. J. A., and Sabelis, M. W. 2011. Complex odor from plants under attack: Herbivore’s enemies react to the whole, not its parts. PLoS One 6:7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department EntomologyUC DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.U. S. Department of AgriculturePlant Mycotoxin Research, Western Regional Research Center, Agricultural Research ServiceAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Department Neurobiology and BehaviorCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations