Skip to main content
Log in

Prolonged exposure is required for communication in sagebrush

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Arthropod-Plant Interactions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Volatile communication allows plants to coordinate systemic induced resistance against herbivores. The mechanisms responsible and nature of the cues remain poorly understood. It is unknown how plants distinguish between reliable cues and misinformation. Previous experiments in which clipped sagebrush branches were bagged suggested that cues are emitted or remain active for up to 3 days. We conducted experiments using plastic bags to block emission of cues at various times following experimental clipping. We also collected headspace volatiles from clipped and unclipped branches for 1 h, transferred those volatiles to assay branches, and incubated the assays for either 1 or 6 h. We found that assay branches that received volatile cues for less than 1 h following clipping of neighbors failed to induce resistance. Assay branches that received volatile cues for more than 1 h experienced reduced herbivory throughout the season. Branches incubated for 6 h with volatiles that had been collected during the first hour following clipping showed induced resistance. These results indicate that sagebrush must receive cues for an extended time (>1 h) before responding; they suggest that the duration of cue reception is an important and overlooked process in communication allowing plants to avoid unreliable, ephemeral cues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arimura G, Shiojiri K, Karban R (2010) Acquired immunity to herbivory and allelopathy caused by airborne plant emissions. Phytochemistry 71:1642–1649

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Cipollini DF (1997) Wind-induced mechanical stimulation increases pest resistance in common bean. Oecologia 111:84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer EE, Ryan CA (1990) Interplant communication: airborne methyl jasmonate induces synthesis of proteinase inhibitors in plant leaves. Proc Natl Acad Sci 87:7713–7716

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frost CJ, Appel HM, Carlson JD, De Moraes CM, Mescher MC, Schultz JC (2007) Within-plant signaling via volatiles overcomes vascular constraints on systemic signaling and primes responses against herbivores. Ecol Lett 10:490–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2004) A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Heil M, Karban R (2010) Explaining evolution of plant communication by airborne signals. Trends Ecol Evol 25:137–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heil M, Silva Bueno JC (2007) Within-plant signaling by volatiles leads to induction and priming of an indirect plant defense in nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:5467–5472

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hilker M, Meiners T (2006) Early herbivore alert: insect eggs induce plant defense. J Chem Ecol 32:1379–1397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Karban R (2008) Plant behavior and communication. Ecol Lett 11:727–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Agrawal AA, Thaler JS, Adler LS (1999) Induced plant responses and information content about risk of herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:443–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Shiojiri K, Huntzinger M, McCall AC (2006) Damage-induced resistance in sagebrush: volatiles are key to intra- and interplant communication. Ecology 87:922–930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karban R, Shiojiri K, Ishizaki S (2010) An air transfer experiment confirms the role of volatile cues in communication between plants. Amer Nat 176:381–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler A, Halitschke R, Diezel C, Baldwin IT (2006) Priming of plant defense responses in nature by airborne signaling between Artemisia tridentata and Nicotiana attenuata. Oecologia 148:280–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Quaghebeur H, Felton GW (2011) Reiterative and interruptive signaling in induced plant resistance to chewing insects. Phytochemistry 72:1624–1634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Orians C (2005) Herbivores, vascular pathways, and systemic induction: facts and artifacts. J Chem Ecol 31:2231–2242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peiffer M, Tooker JF, Luthe DS, Felton GW (2009) Plants on early alert glandular trichomes as sensors for insect herbivores. New Phytol 184:644–656

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Preston CA, Laue G, Baldwin IT (2004) Plant-plant signaling: application of trans- or cis-methyl jasmonate equivalent to sagebrush releases does not elicit direct defenses in native tobacco. J Chem Ecol 30:2193–2214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Saona CR, Rodriguez-Saona LE, Frost CJ (2009) Herbivore induced volatiles in the perennial shrub, Vaccinium corymbosum, and their role in inter-branch signaling. J Chem Ecol 35:163–175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Soana C, Thaler JS (2005) The jasmonate pathway alters herbivore feeding behavior: consequences for plant defences. Ent Exp et Appl 115:125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer HM, Ruxton GD (2011) Plant-animal communication. Oxford Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiojiri K, Karban R (2006) Plant age, communication, and resistance to herbivores: young sagebrush plants are better emitters and receivers. Oecologia 149:214–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shiojiri K, Karban R, Ishizaki S (2009) Volatile communication among sagebrush branches affects herbivory: timing of active cues. Arthropod Plant Interact 3:99–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahaski M, Huntley N (2010) Herbivorous insects reduce growth and reproduction of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Arthropod Plant Interact 4:257–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan DV, Thaler JS (2004) Plant vascular architecture and within-plant spatial patterns in resource quality following herbivory. J Chem Ecol 50:531–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Cates RG, Rotenberry JT, Cobb N, Van Horne B, Redak R (1991) Arthropod dynamics on sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata): effects of plant chemistry and avian predation. Ecol Monogr 61:299–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JA, Evans RA, Major J (1988) Sagebrush steppe. In: Barbour MG, Major J (eds) Terrestrial vegetation of California, 2nd edn. California Native Plant Society Special Publication 9, Sacramento, pp 763–769

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our experiments were conducted at the UC Sagehen Natural Reserve in the Tahoe National Forest, and we thank Jeff Brown for facilitating our work there. We were supported by grants from the JSPS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Karban.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Robert Glinwood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shiojiri, K., Karban, R. & Ishizaki, S. Prolonged exposure is required for communication in sagebrush. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 6, 197–202 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-011-9180-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-011-9180-1

Keywords

Navigation