, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 127–135 | Cite as

Attraction of two larval parasitoids with varying degree of host specificity to single components and a binary mixture of host-related plant volatiles

  • Tolulope Morawo
  • Henry Fadamiro
Research Paper


As an indirect defense to herbivore attack, plants release many types of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which guide parasitoids to their herbivore hosts. In the present study, VOCs were categorized as those released passively from undamaged plants and herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs). HIPVs were further categorized into: (1) volatiles released by fresh damage plants, and (2) volatiles released by old damage plants. We used as models, two parasitoids with different degree of host specificity, Microplitis croceipes (specialist) and Cotesia marginiventris (generalist), to address the evolutionary and mechanistic question of whether specialist and generalist parasitoids differ in their use of VOCs for host location. Both species are solitary larval endoparasitoids in the same family (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and are important parasitoids of caterpillar pests of cotton. Based on the results of previous studies, α-pinene, (Z)-3-hexenol, and (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate were selected as representatives of the different types of VOCs in cotton. The attraction of both parasitoid species to synthetic components and a binary mixture of the above VOCs was tested in four-choice olfactometer bioassays. Female M. croceipes showed the greatest attraction to the HIPVs while female C. marginiventris could not discriminate among the three VOCs. Conspecific males showed similar responses with a few exceptions. When presented with the choices; α-pinene, (Z)-3-hexenol and a binary mixture (50:50v/v) of the two compounds, the specialist showed the greatest attraction to the mixture. However, the mixture did not elicit such an additive effect on the attraction of the generalist. Overall response latency (time taken to choose VOCs) indicated species and sexual (in the specialist) differences. Using a simple model, this study provides a fundamental insight into odor preferences and discriminatory ability of the test parasitoids. The ecological significance and practical implications of these results are discussed.


Volatiles organic compounds Specialist Generalist Host location Four-choice olfactometer Response latency 



We thank Erica Williams, Matthew McTernan and Savannah Duke for rearing the insects used for this study.


  1. Alborn T, Turlings TCJ, Jones TH, Stenhagen G, Loughrin JH, Tumlinson JH (1997) An elicitor of plant volatiles from beet armyworm oral secretion. Science 276:945–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarado MC, Rudy JW (1992) Some properties of configural learning—an investigation of the transverse-patterning problem. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 18:145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker TC, Vogt RG (1988) Measured behavioural latency in response to sex-pheromone loss in the large silk moth Antheraea polyphemus. J Exp Biol 137:29–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bargmann CI (2006) Comparative chemosensation from receptors to ecology. Nature 444:295–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boland W, Hopke J, Piel J (1998) Induction of plant volatile biosynthesis by jasmonates. In: Schreier P, Herderich M, Humpf H, Schwab W (eds) Natural product analysis: chromatography, spectroscopy, biological testing. Viehweg, Braunschweig, pp 255–269Google Scholar
  6. Bruce TJA, Midega CAO, Birkett MA, Pickett JA, Khan ZR (2009) Is quality more important than quantity? Insect behavioural responses to changes in a volatile blend after stemborer oviposition on an African grass. Biol Lett 6:314–317PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen L, Fadamiro HY (2007) Differential electroantennogram response of females and males of two parasitoid species to host-related green leaf volatiles and inducible compounds. Bull Entomol Res 97:515–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Alessandro M, Turlings TCJ (2005) In situ modification of herbivore-induced plant odors: a novel approach to study the attractiveness of volatile organic compounds to parasitic wasps. Chem Senses 30:739–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Alessandro M, Brunner V, von Mérey G, Turlings TCJ (2009) Strong attraction of the parasitoid Cotesia marginiventris towards minor volatile compounds of maize. J Chem Ecol 35:999–1008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Das P, Chen L, Sharma KR, Fadamiro HY (2011) Abundance of antennal chemosensilla in two parasitoid wasps with different degree of host specificity, Microplitis croceipes and Cotesia marginiventris may explain sexual and species differences in their response to host-related volatiles. Microsc Res Tech 74:900–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Bruyne M, Baker TC (2008) Odor detection in insects: volatile codes. J Chem Ecol 34:882–897PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Moraes CM, Mescher MC (2005) Intrinsic competition between larval parasitoids with different degrees of host specificity. Ecol Entomol 30:564–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Moraes CM, Lewis WJ, Pare PW, Alborn HT, Tumlinson JH (1998) Herbivore-infested plants selectively attract parasitoids. Nature 393:570–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denis D, van Baaren J, Pierre J, Wajnberg E (2013) Evolution of a physiological trade-off in a parasitoid wasp: how best to manage lipid reserves in a warming environment. Entomol Exp Appl 148:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erickson RP, Priolo CV, Warwick ZS, Schiffman SS (1990) Synthesis of tastes other than the primaries—implications for neural coding theories and the concept of suppression. Chem Senses 15:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fontana A, Held M, Fantaye C, Turlings T, Degenhardt J, Gershenzon J (2011) Attractiveness of constitutive and herbivore-induced sesquiterpene blends of maize to the parasitic wasp Cotesia marginiventris (Cresson). J Chem Ecol 37:582–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris CM, Ruberson JR, Meagher R, Tumlinson J (2012) Host suitability affects odor association in Cotesia marginiventris: implications in generalist parasitoid host-finding. J Chem Ecol 38:340–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoballah ME, Turlings TCJ (2005) The role of fresh versus old leaf damage in the attraction of parasitic wasps to herbivore-induced maize volatiles. J Chem Ecol 31:2003–2018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. James DG, Grasswitz TR (2005) Synthetic herbivore-induced plant volatiles increase field captures of parasitic wasps. Biocontrol 50:871–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. James DG, Price TS (2004) Field-testing of methyl salicylate for recruitment and retention of beneficial insects in grapes and hops. J Chem Ecol 30:1595–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaissling K (1986) Chemo-electrical transduction in insect olfactory receptors. Ann Rev Neurosci 9:121–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kay LM, Crk T, Thorngate J (2005) A redefinition of odor mixture quality. Behav Neurosci 119:726–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lei H, Vickers N (2008) Central processing of natural odor mixtures in insects. J Chem Ecol 34:915–927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis WJ, Burton RL (1970) Rearing Microplitis croceipes in the laboratory with Heliothis zea as host. J Econ Entomol 63:656–658Google Scholar
  25. Linster C, Cleland TA (2004) Configurational and elemental odor mixture perception can arise from local inhibition. J Comput Neurosci 16:39–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loughrin JH, Manukian A, Heath RR, Turlings CJ, Tumlinson JH (1994) Diurnal cycle of emission of induced volatile terpenoids by herbivore-injured cotton plants. Proc Nati Acad Sci 91:11836–11840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lozano C, Gonzalez E, Pena A, Campos M, Plaza MT et al (2000) Response of parasitoids Dendrosoter protuberans and Cheiropachus quadrum to attractants of Phloeotribus scarabaeoides in an olfactometer. J Chem Ecol 26:791–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Magalhães DM, Borges M, Laumann RA, Sujii ER, Mayor P et al (2012) Semiochemicals from herbivory induced cotton plants enhance the foraging behavior of the cotton boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis. J Chem Ecol 38:1528–1538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mc Call PJ, Turlings CJ, Loughrin J, Proviouex AT, Tumlinson JH (1994) Herbivore-induced volatiles from cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) seedlings. J Chem Ecol 20(12):3039–3050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meiners T, Wackers F, Lewis WJ (2002) The effect of molecular structure on olfactory discrimination by the parasitoid Microplitis croceipes. Chem Senses 27:811–816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mumm R, Hilker M (2005) The significance of background odour for an egg parasitoid to detect plants with host eggs. Chem Senses 30:337–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Navasero RC, Elzen GW (1989) Responses of Microplitis croceipes to host and non-host plants of Heliothis virescens in a wind tunnel. Entomol Exp Appl 53:57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ngumbi E, Fadamiro H (2012) Species and sexual differences in behavioral responses of a specialist and generalist parasitoid species to host-related volatiles. Bull Entomol Res 102:710–718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ngumbi E, Chen L, Fadamiro HY (2009) Comparative GC-EAD responses of a specialist (Microplitis croceipes) and a generalist (Cotesia marginiventris) parasitoid to cotton volatiles induced by two caterpillar species. J Chem Ecol 35:1009–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ngumbi E, Chen L, Fadamiro H (2010) Electroantennogram (EAG) responses of Microplitis croceipes and Cotesia marginiventris and their lepidopteran hosts to a wide array of odor stimuli: correlation between EAG response and degree of host specificity? J Insect Physiol 56:1260–1268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ngumbi E, Jordan M, Fadamiro HY (2012) Comparison of associative learning of host-related plant volatiles in two parasitoids with different degrees of host specificity, Cotesia marginiventris and Microplitis croceipes. Chemoecology 22:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olson DM, Rains GC, Meiners T, Takasu K, Tertuliano M et al (2003) Parasitic wasps learn and report diverse chemicals with unique conditionable behaviors. Chem Senses 28:545–549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ozawa R, Shiojiri K, Sabelis MW, Takabayashi J (2008) Maize plants sprayed with either jasmonic acid or its precursor, methyl linolenate, attract armyworm parasitoids, but the composition of attractants differs. Entomol Exp Appl 129:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pare PW, Tumlinson JH (1997) De novo biosynthesis of volatiles induced by insect herbivory in cotton plants. Plant Physiol 114:1161–1167PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pare PW, Tumlinson JH (1999) Plant volatiles as a defense against insect herbivores. Plant Physiol 121:325–331PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Penaflor MFGV, Erb M, Miranda LA, Werneburg AG, Bento JMS (2011) Herbivore-induced plant volatiles can serve as host location cues for a generalist and a specialist egg parasitoid. J Chem Ecol 37:1304–1313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rains GC, Tomberlin JK, D’Alessandro M, Lewis WJ (2004) Limits of volatile chemical detection of a parasitoid wasp, Microplitis croceipes, and an electronic nose: a comparative study. Trans ASAE 47:2145–2152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rose USR, Tumlinson JH (2004) Volatiles released from cotton plants in response to Helicoverpa zea feeding damage on cotton flower buds. Planta 218:824–832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rose USR, Manukian A, Heath RR, Turlings CJ, Tumlinson JH (1996) Volatile semiochemicals released from undamaged cotton Leaves. A systemic response of living plants to caterpillar damage. Plant Physiol 111:487–495PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rose USR, Lewis WJ, Tumlinson JH (1998) Specificity of systemically released cotton volatiles as attractants for specialist and generalist parasitic wasps. J Chem Ecol 24:303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schnee C, Kollner TG, Held M, Turlings TCJ, Gershenzon J et al (2006) The products of a single maize sesquiterpene synthase form a volatile defense signal that attracts natural enemies of maize herbivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:1129–1134PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schroder R, Hilker M (2008) The relevance of background odor in resource location by insects: a behavioral approach. Bioscience 58:308–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shorey HH, Hale RL (1965) Mass rearing of the larvae of nine noctuid species on a simple artificial medium. J Econ Entomol 58:55–68Google Scholar
  49. Smid HA, van Loon JJA, Posthumus MA, Vet LEM (2002) GC-EAG-analysis of volatiles from Brussels sprouts plants damaged by two species of Pieris caterpillars: olfactory receptive range of a specialist and a generalist parasitoid wasp species. Chemoecology 12:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith BH (1998) Analysis of interaction in binary mixtures. Physiol Behav 65:397–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sobhy IS, Erb M, Sarhan AA, El-Husseini MM, Mandour NS, Turlings T (2012) Less is more: treatment with BTH and laminarin reduces herbivore-induced volatile emissions in maize but increases parasitoid attraction. J Chem Ecol 38:348–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thaler JS (2002) Effect of jasmonate-induced plant responses on the natural enemies of herbivores. J Anim Ecol 71:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turlings TCJ, Tumlinson JH, Lewis WJ (1990) Exploitation of herbivore-induced plant odors by host-seeking parasitic wasps. Science 250:1251–1253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turlings TCJ, Davisony AC, Christina T (2004) A six-arm olfactometer permitting simultaneous observation of insect attraction and odour trapping. Physiol Entomol 29:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uefune M, Kugimiya S, Sano K, Takabayashi J (2012) Herbivore-induced plant volatiles enhance the ability of parasitic wasps to find hosts on a plant. J Appl Entomol 136:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Uefune M, Kugimiya S, Ozawa R, Takabayashi J (2013) Parasitic wasp females are attracted to blends of host-induced plant volatiles: do qualitative and quantitative differences in the blend matter? F1000Research 2:57. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.2-57.v2 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. van Dam NM, Qiu B, Hordijk CA, Vet LEM, Jansen JJ (2010) Identification of biologically relevant compounds in aboveground and belowground induced volatile blends. J Chem Ecol 36:1006–1016PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Poecke RMP, Roosjen M, Pumarino L, Dicke M (2003) Attraction of the specialist parasitoid Cotesia rubecula to Arabidopsis thaliana infested by host or non-host herbivore species. Entomol Exp Appl 1075:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Wijk M, De Bruijn PJA, Sabelis MW (2011) Complex odor from plants under attack: herbivore’s enemies react to the whole, not its parts. PLoS ONE 6:e21742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021742 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wajnberg É, Haccou P (2008) Statistical tools for analyzing data on behavioral ecology of insect parasitoids. In: Wajnberg E, Bernstein C, van Alphen J (eds) Behavioral ecology of insect parasitoids: from theoretical approaches to field applications. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, pp 402–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wei J, Kang L (2006) Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of a parasitic wasp to plant volatiles induced by two leaf miner species. Chem Senses 31:467–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wei J, Wang L, Zhu J, Zhang S, Nandi OI, Kang L (2007) Plants attract parasitic wasps to defend themselves against insect pests by releasing hexenol. PLoS ONE 2:e852. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000852 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yu H, Zhang Y, Wyckhuys AG, Wu K, Gao X, Gou Y (2010) Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of Microplitis mediator (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to caterpillar-induced volatiles from cotton. Environ Entomol 39:600–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology and Plant PathologyAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations