Advertisement

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 383–392 | Cite as

How oilseed rape (Brassica napus) genotype influences pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus) oviposition

  • Maxime R. HervéEmail author
  • Régine Delourme
  • Mélanie Leclair
  • Nathalie Marnet
  • Anne Marie Cortesero
Original Paper

Abstract

Oviposition of phytophagous insects is determined either by adaptive behaviours allowing evaluation and response to host plant quality and/or by nutritional constraints occurring during oogenesis. Besides differences found among host plant species, plant intraspecific diversity can also affect insect oviposition. However, to date few studies have extensively investigated the factors accounting for the effect of this intraspecific variation. We addressed this question using oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and the pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus), a phytophagous insect that uses the same plants and plant organs both for feeding and laying eggs. Our objectives were to test for a genotypic effect of oilseed rape on pollen beetle oviposition and identify the origin of the possible intergenotypic differences. We tested three hypotheses: oviposition is directly linked to (1) the amount of food eaten; (2) the nutritional quality of the food eaten; (3) a preference of females for certain plant genotypes. Results showed intergenotypic differences in both the number and the size of eggs laid. The factor that best accounted for most of these differences was the amount of food eaten. Nutritional quality of the pollen was of minor importance and females exhibited no preference among genotypes. These results reveal the importance of adult feeding on subsequent oviposition in phytophagous insects, an often neglected factor which partly determines the amount of energy available for oogenesis. Taking into account this factor may be of crucial importance in studies conducted on synovogenic insect species feeding on the same plant on which they lay eggs.

Keywords

Oviposition Plant intraspecific variation Oogenesis Feeding stimulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Antoine Gravot for his stimulating remarks about plant biochemistry, to Maria Manzanares-Dauleux for her valuable comments on the study, to Céline Josso, Sonia Dourlot, Christine Lariagon and Anne Boudier for their help during bud dissections, to Sophie Rolland for her help during starch content quantification, to Muriel Escadeillas for the elemental analysis, to Dennis Webb for English improvement and to the UMR IGEPP glasshouse team for taking care of the plants used in this study. Metabolic analyses were performed on the P2M2 platform (Le Rheu, France), except elemental analysis which was performed on the CRMPO platform (Rennes, France). Maxime Hervé was supported by a CJS grant from the French National Institute of Agronomical Research.

References

  1. Agrawal AA, Kurashige NS (2003) A role for isothiocyanates in plant resistance against the specialist herbivore Pieris rapae. J Chem Ecol 29(6):1403–1415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awmack CS, Leather SR (2002) Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 47:817–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker M, Rayens W (2003) Partial least squares for discrimination. J Chemom 17:166–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
  5. Bauerfeind SS, Fischer K (2009) Effects of larval starvation and adult diet-derived amino acids on reproduction in a fruit-feeding butterfly. Entomol Expl Appl 130:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Behmer ST (2009) Insect herbivore nutrient regulation. Annu Rev Entomol 54:165–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  8. Berenbaum MR, Zangerl AR (2008) Facing the future of plant–insect interaction research: le retour à la “raison d’être”. Plant Physiol 146:804–811PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Beres BL, Cárcamo HA, Byers JR, Clarke FR, Pozniak CJ, Basu SK, DePauw RM (2013) Host plant interactions between wheat germplasm source and wheat stem sawfly Cephus cinctus Norton (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) I. Commercial cultivars. Can J Plant Sci 93:607–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blight MM, Smart LE (1999) Influence of visual cues and isothiocyanates lures on capture of the pollen beetle, Meligethes aeneus in field traps. J Chem Ecol 25(7):1501–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borg A, Ekbom B (1996) Characteristics of oviposition behaviour of the pollen beetle, Meligethes aeneus on four different host plants. Entomol Expl Appl 81:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman RF (2013) Nutrition. In: Simpson SJ, Douglas AE (eds) The insects: structure and function, 5th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 81–106Google Scholar
  13. Cheng D, van der Meijden E, Mulder PPJ, Vrieling K, Klinkhamer PGL (2013) Pyrrolizidine alkaloid composition influences cinnabar moth oviposition preferences in Jacobaea hybrids. J Chem Ecol 39:430–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook SM, Smart LE, Martin JL, Murray DA, Wats NP, Williams IH (2006) Exploitation of host plant preferences in pest management strategies for oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Entomol Expl Appl 119:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Sena Fernandes ME, da Silva DJH, Picanço MC, Fernandes FL, Jham GH, Carneiro PDS (2011) Resistance of tomato subsamples to Bemisia tabacai biotype B (Genn.) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Agron J 103:1849–1861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Després L, David JP, Gallet C (2007) The evolutionary ecology of insect resistance to plant chemicals. Trends Ecol Evol 22(6):298–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekbom B (1998) Clutch size and larval performance of pollen beetles on different host plants. Oikos 83(1):56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ekbom B, Borg A (1996) Pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus) oviposition and feeding preference on different host plant species. Entomol Expl Appl 78:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ekbom B, Ferdinand V (2003) Field oviposition rates and egg load dynamics of pollen beetles (Meligethes aeneus Fab.) (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Agr For Entomol 5:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ekbom B, Popov SYA (2004) Host plant affects pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus) egg size. Physiol Entomol 29:118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elkin CM, Reid ML (2005) Low energy reserves and energy allocation decisions affect reproduction by mountain pine beetles, Dendroctonus ponderosae. Funct Ecol 19:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fox CW, Czesak ME (2000) Evolutionary ecology of progeny size in Arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 45:341–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fraenkel GS (1959) The raison d’être of secondary plant substances. Science 129:1466–1470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Free JB, Williams IH (1978) The responses of the pollen beetle, Meligethes aeneus, and the seed weevil, Ceutorhynchus assimilis, to oil-seed rape, Brassica napus, and other plants. J Appl Ecol 15(3):761–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. González I, Lé Cao KA, Déjean S (2011) mixOmics: Omics Data Integration Project. http://www.math.univ-toulouse.fr/~biostat/mixOmics
  27. 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 188:98–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gripenberg S, Mayhew PJ, Parnell M, Roslin T (2010) A meta-analysis of preference–performance relationships in phytophagous insects. Ecol Lett 13:383–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hopkins RJ, Ekbom B (1996) Low oviposition stimuli reduce egg production in the pollen beetle Meligethes aeneus. Physiol Entomol 21:118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hopkins RJ, Ekbom B (1999) The pollen beetle, Meligethes aeneus, changes egg production rate to match host quality. Oecologia 120:274–278Google Scholar
  31. Hopkins RJ, Ekbom B, Henkow L (1998) Glucosinolate content and susceptibility for insect attack of three populations of Sinapis alba. J Chem Ecol 24(7):1203–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hopkins RJ, van Dam NM, van Loon JJA (2009) Role of glucosinolates in insect–plant relationships and multitrophic interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 54:57–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson MTJ (2008) Bottom-up effects of plant genotype on aphids, ants, and predators. Ecology 89(1):145–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 146:2008–2019PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Lancashire PD, Bleiholder H, Vandenboom T, Langeluddeke P, Strauss R, Weber E, Witzenberger A (1991) A uniform decimal code for growth-stages of crops and weeds. Ann Appl Biol 119:561–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lenth RV (2013) lsmeans: least-squares means. R package version 1.10-4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lsmeans
  38. Magalhães STV, Guedes RNC, Demuner AJ, Lima ER (2008) Effect of coffee alkaloids and phenolics on egg-laying by the coffee leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella. Bull Entomol Res 98:483–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mphosi MS, Foster SP (2010) Female preference and larval performance of sunflower moth, Homoeosoma electellum, on sunflower pre-breeding lines. Entomol Expl Appl 134:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Musse M, De Franceschi L, Cambert M, Sorin C, Le Caherec F, Burel A, Bouchereau A, Mariette F, Leport L (2013) Structural changes in senescing oilseed rape leaves at tissue and subcellular levels monitored by nuclear magnetic resonance relaxometry through water status. Plant Physiol 163:392–406PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Nilsson C (1987) Yield losses in summer rape caused by pollen beetles (Meligethes aeneus). Swed J Agric Res 17:105–111Google Scholar
  42. Osier TL, Hwang SY, Lindroth R (2000) Effects of phytochemical variation in quaking aspen Populus tremuloides clones on gypsy moth Lymantria dispar performance in the field and laboratory. Ecol Entomol 25:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Papaj DR (2000) Ovarian dynamics and host use. Annu Rev Entomol 45:423–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paul NK, Johnston TD, Eagles CF (1986) Inheritance of S-methyl-l-cysteine sulphoxide and thiocyanate contents in forage rape (Brassica napus L.). Theor Appl Genet 72:706–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Poelman EH, van Dam NM, van Loon JJA, Vet LEM, Dicke M (2009) Chemical diversity in Brassica oleracea affects biodiversity of insect herbivores. Ecology 90(7):1863–1877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/
  47. Rasmann S, Agrawal AA (2009) Plant defense against herbivory: progress in identifying synergism, redundancy, and antagonism between resistance traits. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12:473–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruther J, Thiemann K (1997) Response of the pollen beetle Meligethes aeneus to volatiles emitted by intact plants and conspecifics. Entomol Expl Appl 84:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singer MC, Vasco D, Parmesan C, Thomas CD, Ng D (1992) Distinguishing between ‘preference’ and ‘motivation’ in food choice: an example from insect oviposition. Anim Behav 44:463–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smart LE, Blight MM (2000) Response of the pollen beetle, Meligethes aeneus, to traps baited with volatiles from oilseed rape, Brassica napus. J Chem Ecol 26(4):1051–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson JN (1988) Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects. Entomol Expl Appl 47:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Treutter D (2006) Significance of Flavonoids in plant resistance: a review. Environ Chem Lett 4:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maxime R. Hervé
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Régine Delourme
    • 1
  • Mélanie Leclair
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nathalie Marnet
    • 5
  • Anne Marie Cortesero
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.UMR1349 IGEPPINRALe RheuFrance
  2. 2.UMR1349 IGEPPUniversité Rennes 1RennesFrance
  3. 3.Université Européenne de BretagneRennesFrance
  4. 4.UMR1349 IGEPPAGROCAMPUS OUESTRennesFrance
  5. 5.UR1268 BIAINRALe RheuFrance

Personalised recommendations