Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 43, Issue 8, pp 778–793 | Cite as

Is Prey Specificity Constrained by Geography? Semiochemically Mediated Oviposition in Rhizophagus grandis (Coleoptera: Monotomidae) with Its Specific Prey, Dendroctonus micans (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), and with Exotic Dendroctonus species

  • Loïc Dohet
  • Jean-Claude Grégoire
Article
  • 133 Downloads

Abstract

Examples of totally specific predators are rare, and the mechanisms underlying this specificity are often poorly understood. In Eurasia, the Monotomid beetle Rhizophagus grandis is found only in the galleries of its prey, the bark beetle Dendroctonus micans. The specificity of R. grandis relies on kairomones which female predators use to adjust their oviposition to the number of prey larvae available in a gallery. Yet these chemical signals are still largely unknown. The North American D. punctatus and D. valens, which are not sympatric with R. grandis but have a similar ecology as D. micans, could also elicit predator oviposition, which would suggest that specificity in this predator-prey system is constrained by geography. In order to further identify these determinants of specificity, we used artificial oviposition boxes to compare the oviposition level of R. grandis in the presence of larvae of each of the three prey species. We jointly used sequential dynamic headspace extractions and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry to investigate oviposition stimuli associated with each prey species and potential oviposition inhibitors emitted by the predator. We further assessed potential stimuli with the analysis of emissions from D. micans larvae reared alone. Overall, we identified and quantified 67 compounds, mostly terpenes. Several robust candidate stimulants or inhibitors of R. grandis’ oviposition were identified. The three prey species elicited similar oviposition levels in R. grandis, which suggests that this predator could form new associations outside of its native range.

Keywords

Chemical ecology Kairomones Predator-prey coevolution Rhizophagus grandis Dendroctonus Bark beetles 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et l’Agriculture (FRIA) and travel grants were provided by the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS). L.D. was supported by a doctoral grant from the FRIA and by an award from the Fonds David and Alice Van Buuren. We are grateful to Prof. Staffan Lindgren, Luke Spooner, Rylee Isitt, Prof. Allan Carroll, Debra Wytrykush, Jordan Lindgren, Dr. Nancy Gillette, Dr. Tom Smith, Dr. Donald Owen, Dr. Ceridwen Fraser and Antoine Boullis for their help in the field. We also thank Prof. Hazan Alkan, Jean-Marc Molenberg, Séverine Hasbroucq and Lise Lambin for their assistance in the laboratory, Dr. Maxime Hervé and Jean Artois for statistical advice, and Dr. Petr Žáček for guiding through the chemical analyses. Many thanks to Prof. Wittko Francke for his careful reviewing of the manuscript and helpful suggestions.

Supplementary material

10886_2017_869_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4.1 mb)
Online Resource 1 Emission rate of analytes and class totals (mean ± standard deviation, in ng hr.−1 box−1) in exp. 1, with GLM results for each analyte and day, and number of replicates (n). Analytes are numbered according to Table 1 (number in multivariate analyses). Classes are abbreviated as follows: monoterpene hydrocarbons (MTH), oxygenated monoterpenes (OMT), sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (STH), oxygenated sesquiterpenes (OST), terpenoids (Ter) and non-terpenes (nT). Treatments are abbreviated as follows: control (Ctrl), D. micans alone (Dm) or with predators (DmRg), D. punctatus alone (Dp) or with predators (DpRg), and D. valens alone (Dv) or with predators (DvRg). Treatments with a same letter do not differ significantly during the same day (Tukey multiple comparisons after GLM). Analytes absent from most treatments during one day were not tested (NT) in GLM for this day (DOCX 4192 kb)
10886_2017_869_Fig7_ESM.gif (490 kb)
Online Resource 2

Chromatogram of the larval emissions of D. valens in presence of predators during the 18th day of exp. 1, 10th replicate. This particular chromatogram was chosen as an illustration because it displays the largest number of compounds (54 analytes out of 67). No chromatogram was more complete due to compound dynamics during the 22 days of experiment. Analytes are numbered according to Table 1 (number in multivariate analyses). Istd = internal standard (TIFF 2099 kb) (GIF 489 kb)

10886_2017_869_MOESM2_ESM.tif (2.1 mb)
High Resolution Image (TIFF 2099 kb)
10886_2017_869_Fig8_ESM.gif (669 kb)
Online Resource 3

Score plots (C, E) and correlation plots (D, F) of PLS-DA on analyte emission rates (exp. 1). Variation was searched between the control and all other treatments in analyte emission rates during day 1 (C, D) and day 8 (E, F). Treatments are abbreviated as follows: control (Ctrl), D. micans alone (Dm) or with predators (DmRg), D. punctatus alone (Dp) or with predators (DpRg), and D. valens alone (Dv) or with predators (DvRg). Analytes are numbered according to Table 1 (number in multivariate analyses). Components 1 and 2 (comp1 and comp2) explained 77 and 17% (C, D) and 87 and 8% (E, F) of variance between groups, respectively. Model predictabilities were 96% (C, D) and 99% (E, F). Score plots display centroids (boxes) and dispersion ellipses (axes, which length are 1.5× the square root of covariance matrix eigenvalues, are defined according to Pearson 1901) of treatments. Correlation plots indicate correlation circles of 0.5 (dotted circle) and 1 (dashed circle) (GIF 668 kb)

10886_2017_869_MOESM3_ESM.tif (1.6 mb)
High Resolution Image (TIFF 1621 kb)
10886_2017_869_Fig9_ESM.gif (1009 kb)
Online Resource 4

Score plots (A, C, E) and correlation plots (B, D, F) of PLS-DA on analyte emission rates (exp. 1). Variation was searched between treatments with or without predators in analyte emission rates during day 15 (A, B), day 18 (C, D) and day 22 (E, F). Treatments are abbreviated as follows: D. micans alone (Dm) or with predators (DmRg), D. punctatus alone (Dp) or with predators (DpRg), and D. valens alone (Dv) or with predators (DvRg). Analytes are numbered according to Table 1 (number in multivariate analyses). Components 1 and 2 (comp1 and comp2) explained 67 and 17% (A, B), 60 and 22% (C, D), and 70 and 12% (E, F) of variance between groups, respectively. Model predictabilities were 83% (A, B), 88% (C, D), and 90% (E, F). Score plots display centroids (boxes) and dispersion ellipses (axes, which length are 1.5× the square root of covariance matrix eigenvalues, are defined according to Pearson 1901) of treatments. Correlation plots indicate correlation circles of 0.5 (dotted circle) and 1 (dashed circle) (GIF 1009 kb)

10886_2017_869_MOESM4_ESM.tif (2 mb)
High Resolution Image (TIFF 2066 kb)
10886_2017_869_Fig10_ESM.gif (2.3 mb)
Online Resource 5

Score plots (A, C, E, G, I, K) and correlation plots (B, D, F, H, J, L) of PLS-DA on analyte emission rates (exp. 1). Variation was searched between all treatments during day 1 (A, B), day 5 (C, D), day 8 (E, F), day 11 (G, H), day 15 (I, J), day 18 (K, L), and day 22 (M, N). Treatments are abbreviated as follows: control (Ctrl), D. micans alone (Dm) or with predators (DmRg), D. punctatus alone (Dp) or with predators (DpRg), and D. valens alone (Dv) or with predators (DvRg). Analytes are numbered according to Table 1 (number in multivariate analyses). Components 1 and 2 (comp1 and comp2) explained 53 and 17% (A, B), 63 and 12% (C, D), 55 and 14% (E, F), 50 and 14% (G, H), 47 and 23% (I, J), 56 and 13% (K, L), and 38 and 19% (M, N) of variance between groups, respectively. Model predictabilities were 36% (A, B), 50% (C, D), 52% (E, F), 48% (G, H), 46% (I, J), 51% (K, L), and 50% (M, N). Score plots display centroids (boxes) and dispersion ellipses (axes, which length are 1.5× the square root of covariance matrix eigenvalues, are defined according to Pearson 1901) of treatments. Correlation plots indicate correlation circles of 0.5 (dotted circle) and 1 (dashed circle) (GIF 2379 kb)

10886_2017_869_MOESM5_ESM.tif (5 mb)
High Resolution Image (TIFF 5102 kb)

References

  1. Adams RP (2007) Identification of essential oil components by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, 4th edn. Allured Publishing Corporation, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams AS, Aylward FO, Adams SM, Erbilgin N, Aukema BH, Currie CR, Suen G, Raffa KF (2013) Mountain pine beetles colonizing historical and naive host trees are associated with a bacterial community highly enriched in genes contributing to terpene metabolism. Appl Environ Microbiol 79:3468–3475CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Angioni A, Barra A, Coroneo V, Dessi S, Cabras P (2006) Chemical composition, seasonal variability, and antifungal activity of Lavandula stoechas L. Ssp. stoechas essential oils from stem/leaves and flowers. J Agric Food Chem 54:4364–4370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Babushok VI, Linstrom PJ, Zenkevich IG (2011) Retention indices for frequently reported compounds of plant essential oils. J Phys Chem Ref Data 40:043101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baisier M (1990) Biologie des stades immatures du prédateur Rhizophagus grandis Gyll. (Coleoptera: Rhizophagidae). Dissertation. Université Libre de BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  6. Baisier M, Grégoire J-C (1988) Factors influencing oviposition in Rhizophagus grandis (Coleoptera: Rhizophagidae), specific predator of the bark beetle Dendroctonus micans (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Med Fac Landbouww Rijksuniv Gent 53(3a):1159–1167Google Scholar
  7. Baisier M, Grégoire J-C, Delinte K, Bonnard O (1988) The role of spruce monoterpene derivatives as oviposition stimuli for Rhizophagus grandis, a predator of the bark beetle, Dendroctonus micans. In: Mattson WJ, Levieux J, Bernard-Dagan C (eds) Mechanism of woody plant defenses against insects. Springer-V, New York, pp 359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ballabio D, Consonni V (2013) Classification tools in chemistry. Part 1: linear models. PLS-DA. Anal Methods 5:3790–3798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barker M, Rayens W (2003) Partial least squares for discrimination. J Chemom 17:166–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Branco M, Lettere M, Franco JC, Binazzi A, Jactel H (2006) Kairomonal response of predators to three pine bast scale sex pheromones. J Chem Ecol 32:1577–1586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Core Team R (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  12. Leco Corporation (2013) Rapid qualitative GC-TOFMS analysis of unleaded gasoline http://www.leco.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/PEG_UNLEADED-GASOLINE_203-821-064.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2013
  13. Deneubourg J-L, Grégoire J-C, Le Fort E (1990) Kinetics of larval gregarious behavior in the bark beetle Dendroctonus micans (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J Insect Behav 3:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dohet L, Grégoire J-C, Berasategui A, Kaltenpoth M, Biedermann PHW (2016) Bacterial and fungal symbionts of parasitic Dendroctonus bark beetles. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 92:fiw129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Douglas AE (2009) The microbial dimension in insect nutritional ecology. Funct Ecol 23:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunkelblum E, Harel M, Assael F, Mori K, Mendel Z (2000) Specificity of pheromonal and kairomonal response of the Israeli pine bast scale Matsucoccus josephi and its predator Elatophilus hebraicus. J Chem Ecol 26:1649–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Everaerts C, Grégoire J-C, Merlin J (1988) The toxicity of Norway spruce monoterpenes to two bark beetle species and their associates. In: Mattson WJ, Levieux J, Bernard-Dagan C (eds) Mechanism of woody plant defenses against insects. Springer-V, New York, pp 335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franceschi VR, Krokene P, Christiansen E, Krekling T (2005) Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytol 167:353–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Furniss MM (1995) Biology of Dendroctonus punctatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 88:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gong WC, Chen G, Vereecken NJ, Dunn BL, Ma YP, Sun WB (2015) Floral scent composition predicts bee pollination system in five butterfly bush (Buddleja, Scrophulariaceae) species. Plant Biol 17:245–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Grégoire J-C (1988) The greater European spruce beetle. In: Berryman AA (ed) Dynamics of Forest insect populations: patterns, causes. Implications. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, pp 455–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grégoire J-C, Braekman J-C, Tondeur A (1981) Chemical communication between the larvae of Dendroctonus micans KUG. (Coleoptera, scolytidae). Colloques de l'INRA 7:253–257Google Scholar
  23. Grégoire J-C, Baisier M, Drumont A, Dahlsten DL, Meyer H, Francke W (1991) Volatile compounds in the larval frass of Dendroctonus valens and Dendroctonus micans (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in relation to oviposition by the predator, Rhizophagus grandis (Coleoptera: Rhizophagidae). J Chem Ecol 17:2003–2019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Grégoire J-C, Couillien D, Krebber R, König WA, Meyer H, Francke W (1992) Orientation of Rhizophagus grandis (Coleoptera: Rhizophagidae) to oxygenated monoterpenes in a species-specific predator-prey relationship. Chemoecology 3:14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hajek A (2004) Natural enemies. An introduction to biological control, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hassell MP (1968) The behavioural response of a tachinid fly (Cyzenis albicans (fall.)) to its host, the winter moth (Operophtera brumata (L.)). J Anim Ecol 37:627–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hassell MP (1978) The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems, 1st edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Hendry LB, Piatek B, Browne LE, Wood DL, Byers JA, Fish RH, Hicks RA (1980) In vivo conversion of a labelled host plant chemical to pheromones of the bark beetle Ips paraconfusus. Nature 284:485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kováts E (1958) Gas-chromatographische Charakterisierung organischer Verbindungen. Teil 1: Retentionsindices aliphatischer Halogenide, Alkohole, Aldehyde und Ketone. Helv Chim Acta 41:1915–1932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leroy PD, Sabri A, Heuskin S, Thonart P, Lognay G, Verheggen FJ, Francis F, Brostaux Y, Felton GW, Haubruge E (2011) Microorganisms from aphid honeydew attract and enhance the efficacy of natural enemies. Nat Commun 2:348CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindgren BS, Lewis KJ, Grégoire J-C (1999) Notes on the incidence and host preference of Dendroctonus punctatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in spruce forests near Prince George, BC. J Entomol Soc Brit Columbia 96:69–72Google Scholar
  32. Mason CJ, Hanshew AS, Raffa KF (2016) Contributions by host trees and insect activity to bacterial communities in Dendroctonus valens (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) galleries, and their high overlap with other microbial assemblages of bark beetles. Environ Entomol 45:348–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Merlin J, Grégoire J-C, Baisier M, Pasteels JM (1984) Some new data on the biology of Rhizophagus grandis (col: Rhizophagidae). In: Grégoire J-C, Pasteels JM (eds) Biological control of bark beetles (Dendroctonus micans). Proceedings of a Seminar Organized by the Commission of the European Communities and the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, pp 107–121Google Scholar
  34. Meurisse N (2008) Chemical ecology of Rhizophagus grandis (Coleoptera: Monotomidae) and its application to the biological control of Dendroctonus micans. Université Libre de Bruxelles, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  35. Meurisse N, Couillien D, Grégoire J-C (2008) Kairomone traps: a tool for monitoring the invasive spruce bark beetle Dendroctonus micans (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and its specific predator, Rhizophagus grandis (Coleoptera: Monotomidae). J Appl Ecol 45:537–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mevik B-H, Wehrens R (2007) The pls package: principal component and partial least squares regression in R. J Stat Softw 18:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller MC, Moser JC, McGregor M, Grégoire J-C, Baisier M, Dahlsten DL, Werner RA (1987) Potential for biological control of native North American Dendroctonus beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 80:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. NIST Mass Spec Data Center, Stein SE (2011) Mass spectra. In: Linstrom PJ, Mallard WG (eds) NIST chemistry WebBook, NIST standard reference database number 69. National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  39. Obregón-Molina G, Cesar-Ayala AK, López MF, Cano-Ramírez C, Zúñiga G (2015) Comparison of orthologous cytochrome P450 genes relative expression patterns in the bark beetles Dendroctonus rhizophagus and Dendroctonus valens (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) during host colonization. Insect Mol Biol 24:649–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pearson K (1901) On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philos Mag 2:559–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pitarokili D, Tzakou O, Loukis A (2006) Essential oil composition of Salvia verticillata, S. verbenaca, S. glutinosa and S. candidissima growing wild in Greece. Flavour Fragr J 21:670–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pripdeevech P, Chumpolsri W, Suttiarporn P, Wongpornchai S (2010) The chemical composition and antioxidant activities of basil from Thailand using retention indices and comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography. J Serbian Chem Soc 75:1503–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Romanenko EP, Tkachev AV (2006) Identification by GC-MS of cymene isomers and 3,7,7-trimethylcyclohepta-1,3,5-triene in essential oils. Chem Nat Compd 42:699–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saitō Y (1990) Life-history and feeding habit of Typhlodromus bambusae, a specific predator of Schizotetranychus celarius (Acari: Phytoseiidae: Tetranychidae ). Exp Appl Acarol 10:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scheuringer BT (2010) The endosymbiont Wolbachia in Rhizophagus grandis (Coleoptera, Monotomidae). Dissertation. Universität für Bodenkultur WienGoogle Scholar
  46. Shi Z-H, Sun J-H (2010) Quantitative variation and biosynthesis of hindgut volatiles associated with the red turpentine beetle, Dendroctonus valens LeConte, at different attack phases. Bull Entomol Res 100:273–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith RH (1971) Red turpentine beetle. US Dep Agric For Serv Forest Pes 55:1–9Google Scholar
  48. Storer AJ, Speight MR (1996) Relationships between Dendroctonus micans Kug. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) survival and development and biochemical changes in Norway spruce, Picea abies (L.) Karst., phloem caused by mechanical wounding. J Chem Ecol 22:559–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sun J, Lu M, Gillette NE, Wingfield MJ (2013) Red turpentine beetle: innocuous native becomes invasive tree killer in China. Annu Rev Entomol 58:293–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Tauber CA, Tauber MJ (1987) Food specificity in predacious insects: a comparative ecophysiological and genetic study. Evol Ecol 1:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson WR (1951) The specificity of host relations in predacious insects. Can Entomol LXXXIII: 83 (10) 262–269Google Scholar
  52. Van Alphen JJM, Jervis MA (1996) Foraging behaviour. In: Jervis M, Kidd N (eds) Insect natural enemies. Practical approaches to their study and evaluation. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 1–62Google Scholar
  53. Wenger SJ, Olden JD (2012) Assessing transferability of ecological models: an underappreciated aspect of statistical validation. Methods Ecol Evol 3:260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wold H (1966) Estimation of principal components and related models by iterative least squares. In: Krishnaiah PR (ed) Multivariate analysis. Academic Press, New York, pp 391–420Google Scholar
  55. Wood SL (1982) The bark and ambrosia beetles of North America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic monograph, 1st edn. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs, Number 6, Brigham Young University, ProvoGoogle Scholar
  56. Wyatt TD, Phillips AD, Grégoire J-C (1993) Turbulence, trees and semiochemicals: wind-tunnel orientation of the predator, Rhizophagus grandis, to its barkbeetle prey, Dendroctonus micans. Physiol Entomol 18:204–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang Y, Zhang Z-Q, Liu Q, Lin J (1999) Biology of Typhlodromus bambusae (Acari: Phytoseiidae), a predator of Schizotetranychus nanjingensis (Acari: Tetranychidae) injurious to bamboo in Fujian, China. Syst Appl Acarol 4:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang Y-X, Zhang Z-Q, Zhang X-J, Liu Q-Y, Ji J (2001) Population dynamics of phytophagous and predatory mites (Acari: Tetranychidae, Eriophyidae, Phytoseiidae) on bamboo plants in Fujian, China. Exp Appl Acarol 25:383–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Zilahi-Balogh GMG, Kok LT, Salom SM (2002) Host specificity of Laricobius nigrinus fender (Coleoptera: Derodontidae), a potential biological control agent of the hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae Annand (Homoptera: Adelgidae). Biol Control 24:192–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biological Control and Spatial Ecology Laboratory (LUBIES)Université Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations