Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 1465–1473 | Cite as

Strawberry resistance toTetranychus urticae Koch: Effects of flower, fruit, and foliage removal—comparisons of air- vs. nitrogen-entrained volatile compounds

  • T. R. Hamilton-Kemp
  • J. G. Rodriguez
  • D. D. Archbold
  • R. A. Andersen
  • J. H. Loughrin
  • G. G. Patterson
  • S. R. Lowry
Article

Abstract

An increase in resistance to the two-spotted spider mite (TSSM),Tetranychus urticae Koch, is observed in field-grown strawberry plants during the period from flowering to postharvest. This seasonal phenomenon was investigated to determine the influence of the metabolic sink, that is, fruiting in the plant. Removal of flowers and fruit and partial removal of foliage did not alter the pattern of resistance of the strawberry plant to TSSM. Bioassays were conducted in concert with chemical analyses. Headspace chemicals emitted from foliage samples were entrained in air and trapped on Tenax, identified, and compared with those entrained in nitrogen and trapped. Terpenes were among the major compounds entrained in air, whereas alcohols were obtained with nitrogen. The air-entrained headspace compounds did not appear to correlate quantitatively with the development of mite resistance in the control plants or those subjected to metabolic sink (flower and fruit) removal. Evidence was obtained for the presence of heretofore unreported strawberry foliage headspace components, namely, (Z)-3-hexenyl 2-meth-ylbutyrate, (Z)-3-hexenyl tiglate, (E)-β-ocimene, (Z)-β-ocimene, α-farnesene, and germacrene D.

Key Words

Tetranychus urticae two-spotted spider mite Acari Tetranychidae strawberry resistance metabolic sink removal volatile foliage compounds headspace entrainment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Buttery, R.G., Kamm, J.A., andLing, L.C. 1984. Volatile components of red clover leaves, flowers, and seed pods: Possible insect attractants.J. Agric. Food Chem. 32:254–256.Google Scholar
  2. Buttery, R.G., Flath, R.A., Mon, T.R., andLing, L.C. 1986. Identification of germacrene D in walnut and fig leaves.J. Agric. Food. Chem. 34:820–822.Google Scholar
  3. Buttery, R.G., Teranishi, R., andLing, L.C. 1987. Fresh tomato aroma volatiles: A quantitative study.J. Agric. Food Chem. 35:540–544.Google Scholar
  4. Davies, D.D. 1980. Anaerobic metabolism and the production of organic acids, pp. 581–611,in P.K. Stumpf and E.E. Conn (eds.). The Biochemistry of Plants: A Comprehensive Treatise, Vol. 2. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Feeny, P.P. 1976. Plants apparency and chemical defense, pp. 1–40,in J.W. Wallace and R.L. Mansell (eds.).Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Finch, S. 1986. Assessing host-plant finding by insects, pp. 23–63,in J.R. Miller and T.A. Miller (eds.). Insect-Plant Interactions. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Hamilton-Kemp, T.R., Andersen, R.A., Rodriguez, J.G., Loughrin, J.H. andPatterson, C.G. 1988. Strawberry foliage headspace vapor components at periods of susceptibility and resistance to Tetranychus urticae Koch.J. Chem. Ecol. 14:789–796.Google Scholar
  8. Perry, J.A. 1981. Introduction to Analytical Gas Chromatography. Marcel Dekker, New York, p. 246.Google Scholar
  9. Rodriguez, J.G., andRodriguez, L.D. 1987. Nutritional ecology of phytophagous mites, pp. 177–208,in Frank Slansky, Jr., and J.G. Rodriguez (eds.). Nutritional Ecology of Insects, Mites, Spiders and Related Invertebrates. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Shanks, C.H., Jr., andBarritt, B.H. 1975. Resistance of strawberries to the twospotted spider mite.J. Econ. Entomol. 68:7–10.Google Scholar
  11. Siegler, D.S. 1983. Role of lipids in plant resistance to insects, pp. 303–327,in P.A. Hedin (ed.). Plant Resistance to Insects. ACS Symposium Series No. 208. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Stipanovic, R.D. 1983. Function and chemistry of plant trichomes and glands in insect resistance: Protective chemicals in plant epidermal glands and appendages, pp. 69–100.in P.A. Hedin (ed.). Plant Resistance to Insects. ACS Symposium Series No. 208. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. R. Hamilton-Kemp
    • 1
  • J. G. Rodriguez
    • 2
  • D. D. Archbold
    • 1
  • R. A. Andersen
    • 3
  • J. H. Loughrin
    • 1
  • G. G. Patterson
    • 2
  • S. R. Lowry
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of HorticultureUniversity of KentuckyLexington
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of KentuckyLexington
  3. 3.U.S. Department of Agriculture, ARS, and Department of AgronomyUniversity of KentuckyLexington
  4. 4.Department of Animal SciencesUniversity of KentuckyLexington

Personalised recommendations