Arthropod-Plant Interactions

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 71–77 | Cite as

Response of the lichen-eating moth Cleorodes lichenaria larvae to varying amounts of usnic acid in the lichens

  • Michal Goga
  • Heikki Pöykkö
  • Wolfram Adlassnig
  • Martin Bačkor
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Lichens are characterized by a great variety of secondary metabolites. The function of these substances remains partly unknown. In this study, we propose that some of these metabolites may expel insect herbivores. To test this hypothesis, we reared larvae of the lichenivorous moth Cleorodes lichenaria on three selected lichens, Cladonia arbuscula subsp. mitis, Usnea hirta, and Usnea dasypoga. In experimental setup, the secondary metabolite usnic acid was removed from the lichens with acetone prior to feeding, whereas a control was left untreated. On all three lichens, removal of usnic acid from the lichens using acetone significantly prolonged survival of larvae and increased their viability. Larvae reared on control lichens contained significantly more usnic acid than those reared on treated lichens, both in their biomass and their faeces. These results support the hypothesis that usnic acid serves as a repellent against insect feeding, besides its well established functions of UV protection and antimicrobial properties.

Keywords

Herbivory Insect feeding Moths Repellent Usnic acid 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by Slovak Grant Agency (VEGA 1/1238/12). Thanks are expressed to Ass. Prof. Mag. Dr. Ingeborg Lang (Core Facility Cell Imaging and Ultrastructure Research, University of Vienna) for critical reading and reviewing this manuscript.

References

  1. Asplund J, Wardle DA (2013) The impact of secondary compounds and functional characteristics on lichen palatability and decomposition. J Ecol 101:689–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asplund J, Bokhorst S, Kardol P, Wardle DA (2015) Removal of secondary compounds increases invertebrate abundance in lichens. Fungal Ecol 18:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bačkor M, Klemová K, Bačkorová M, Ivanova V (2010) Comparison of the phytotoxic effect of usnic acid on cultures of free-living alga Scenedesmus quadricauda and aposymbiotically grown lichen photobiont Trebouxia erici. J Chem Ecol 36:405–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blewitt MR, Cooper-Driver GA (1990) The effects of lichen extracts on feeding by gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). Bryologist 93:220–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Culberson CF, Culberson WL, Johnson A (1977) Second supplement to chemical and botanical guide to lichen products. The American Bryological and Lichenological Society, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  6. Emmerich R, Giez I, Lange OL, Proksch P (1993) Toxicity and antifeedant activity of lichen compounds against the polyphagous herbivorous insect Spodoptera littoralis. Phytochemistry 33(6):1389–1394. doi: 10.1016/0031-9422(93)85097-B CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahselt D (1994) Secondary biochemistry of lichens. Symbiosis 16:117–165Google Scholar
  8. Feige GB, Lumbsch HT, Huneck S, Elix JA (1993) The identification of lichen substances by a standardized high-performance liquid chromatographic method. J Chromatogr 646:417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gauslaa Y (2005) Lichen palatability depends on investments in herbivore defence. Oecologia 143(1):94–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerson U, Seaward MRD (1977) Lichen-invertebrate associations. In: Seaward MRD (ed) Lichen ecology. Academic Press, London, pp 69–119Google Scholar
  11. Giez I, Lange OL, Proksch P (1994) Growth retarding activity of lichen substances against the polyphagous herbivorous insect Spodoptera littoralis. Biochem Syst Ecol 22:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauck M, Huneck S (2007) Lichen substances affect metal absorption in Hypogymnia physodes. J Chem Ecol 33:219–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hauck M, Willenbruch K, Leuschner C (2009) Lichen substances prevent lichens from nutrient deficiency. J Chem Ecol 35:71–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawksworth DL, Kirk PM, Sutton BC, Pegler DN (1995) Ainsworth and Bisby’s dictionary of the fungi, 8th edn. CAB International, Wallingford, p 616Google Scholar
  15. Hyvärinen M, Crittenden PD (2000) 33P translocation in the thallus of the mat forming lichen Cladonia portentosa. New Phytol 145:281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ingólfsdóttir K (2002) Usnic acid. Phytochemistry 61(7):729–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Larson DW (1987) The absorption and relase of water by lichens. In: Peveling E (ed) Progress and problems in lichenology in the eighties. Bibliotheca Lichenologica 25, J. Cramer, Berlin-Stuttgart, pp 351–360Google Scholar
  18. Lawrey JD (1983) Lichen herbivore preference: a test of two hypotheses. Am J Bot 70:1188–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawrey JD (1986) Biological role of lichen substances. Bryologist 89:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Orange A, James PW, White FJ (2001) Microchemical methods for the identification of lichens. British Lichen Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Pöykkö H (2005) Host range of Lichenivorous Moths with special reference to nutritional quality and chemical defence in lichens. Ph.D. dissertation, Oulu University pressGoogle Scholar
  22. Pöykkö H (2006) Females and larvae of a geometrid moth Clerodes lichenaria prefer a lichen host that assures shortest larval period. Environ Entomol 35:1669–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pöykkö H (2011a) Host growth form underlies enemy-free space for lichen-feeding moth larvae. J Anim Ecol 80:1324–2329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pöykkö H (2011b) Enemy-free space and the host range of a lichenivorous moth: a field experiment. Oikos 120:564–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pöykkö H, Tammaru T (2010) Countergradient versus cogradient variation in growth and diapause in a lichen-feeding moth, Eilema depressum (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). J Evol Biol 23(6):1278–1285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pöykkö H, Hyvärinen M, Bačkor M (2005) Removal of lichen secondary metabolites affects food choice and survival of lichenivorous moth larvae. Ecology 86(10):2623–2632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pöykkö H, Bačkor M, Bencúrová E, Mocanová V, Bačkorová M, Hyvärinen M (2010) Host use of a specialist lichen-feeder: dealing with lichen secondary metabolites. Oecologia 164(2):423–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Reutimann P, Scheidegger C (1987) Importance of lichen secondary products in food choice of two oribatid mites (Acari) in an alpine meadow ecosystem. J Chem Ecol 13:363–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Slansky F (1979) Effect of the lichen chemicals atranorin and vulpinic acid upon feeding and growth of larvae of the yellow—striped armyworm, Spodoptera ornithogalli. Environ Entomol 8:865–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Solhaug KA, Gauslaa Y (1996) Protective role of parietin against high light in the lichen Xanthoria parietina. Oecologia 108:412–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Solhaug KA, Gauslaa Y (2004) Photosynthates stimulate the UV-B induced fungal anthraquinone synthesis in the UV-B induced fungal anthraquinone synthesis in the foliose lichen Xanthoria parietina. Plant Cell Environ 27:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Solhaug KA, Lind M, Nybakken L, Gauslaa Y (2009) Possible functional roles of cortical depsides and medullary depsidones in the foliose lichen Hypogymnia physodes. Flora 204:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stahl GE (1904) Die Schutzmittel der Flechten gegen Tierfrass. In: Festschrift zum sibenzigsten Geburstage von Ernst Haeckel. Fischer, Jena, pp 357–375Google Scholar
  34. Stephenson NL, Rundel PW (1979) Quantitative variation and the ecological role of vulpinic acid and atranorin in the thallus Letharia vulpina (Lichenes). Biochem Syst Ecol 7:263–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zukal H (1895) Morphologische und biologische Untersuchungen über die Flechten II. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe 104:1303–1395Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michal Goga
    • 1
    • 3
  • Heikki Pöykkö
    • 2
  • Wolfram Adlassnig
    • 3
  • Martin Bačkor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Botany, Institute of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of ScienceŠafárik UniversityKosiceSlovak Republic
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  3. 3.Core Facility Cell Imaging and Ultrastructure ResearchUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations