Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 471–485 | Cite as

Vascular Architecture Generates Fine Scale Variation in Systemic Induction of Proteinase Inhibitors in Tomato

  • Colin M. Orians
  • Jason Pomerleau
  • Rafael Ricco
Article

Abstract

Systemic induction following damage has been found in many plant species. Despite this widespread appreciation for the importance of induction, few studies have characterized the spatial variability of induction. We used tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum, to examine how damage to a single leaf affected the spatial distribution of systemic induction of proteinase inhibition in leaves above the damaged leaf. We crushed each leaflet of the second true leaf with forceps and measured the spatial distribution of proteinase inhibition in leaves 3, 4, and 5 at 8, 16, 24, 48, 72, and 120 hr. Constitutive levels of proteinase inhibitor activity were quantified in undamaged plants. We hypothesized that, due to vascular control of signal movement, systemic induction would show both among and within leaf variability. Following damage to leaf 2, induction was most pronounced in leaf 5 and minimal in leaf 3. In general, proteinase inhibitor activity was greatest at 24 hr and then declined. As predicted by vascular architecture, the near side of leaves in adjacent orthostichies showed higher induction than the far side of leaves. There was no increase in proteinase inhibitor activity in the undamaged neighboring plants. Overall our results demonstrate that systemic induction of proteinase inhibitors is partially controlled by vascular architecture and that future studies on systemic induction should examine the vascular architecture of the plants being studied. We argue that this spatial variation may influence the performance of herbivores sensitive to induced chemical changes.

systemic induction vascular architecture sectoriality proteinase inhibitors Lycopersicon esculentum 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alarcon, J. J., and Malone, M. 1995. The influence of plant age on wound induction of proteinase inhibitors in tomato. Physiol. Plant. 95:423–427.Google Scholar
  2. Apriyanto, D., and Potter, D. A. 1990. Pathogen-activated induced resistance of cucumber: response of arthropod herbivores to systemically protected leaves. Oecologia 85:25–31.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, A. M., Wratten, S. D., and Edwards, P. J. 1995. Wound-induced changes in tomato leaves and their effects on the feeding patterns of larval lepidoptera. Oecologia 101:251–257.Google Scholar
  4. Bergelson, J. M., and Lawton, J. H. 1988. Does foliage damage influence predation on the insect herbivores of birch? Ecology 69:434–445.Google Scholar
  5. Bodnaryk, R. P., and Rymerson, R. T. 1994. Effect of wounding and jasmonates on the physicochemical properties and flea beetle defense responses of canola seedlings, Brassica napus L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:899–907.Google Scholar
  6. Broadway, R. M. 1995. Are insects resistant to plant proteinase inhibitors? J. Insect Physiol. 41:107–116.Google Scholar
  7. Broadway, R. M., and Colvin, A. A. 1992. Influence of cabbage proteinase inhibitors in situ on the growth of larval Trichoplusia ni and Pieris rapae. J. Chem. Ecol. 18:1009–1025.Google Scholar
  8. Broadway, R. M., Duffey, S. S., Pearce, G., and Ryan, C. A. 1986. Plant proteinase inhibitors: A defense against herbivorous insects? Entomol. Exp. Appl. 41:33–38.Google Scholar
  9. Constabel, C. P., Bergey, D. R., and Ryan, C. A. 1995. Systemin activates synthesis of woundinducible tomato leaf polyphenol oxidase via the octadecanoid defense signaling pathway. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 92:407–411.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, J. M., Gordon, M. P., and Smit, B. A. 1991. Assimilate movement dictates remote sites of wound-induced gene expression in poplar leaves. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88:2393–2396.Google Scholar
  11. Denno, R. F., and McClure, M. S. (eds.). 1983. Variable Plants and Herbivores in Natural and Managed Systems. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Dimond, A. E. 1966. Pressure and flow relations in vascular bundles of the tomato plant. Plant Physiol. 41:449–431.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, P. J., Wratten, S. D., and Gibberd, R. M. 1991. The impact of inducible phytochemicals on food selection by insect herbivores and its consequences for the distribution of grazing damage, pp. 223-243, in D. W. Tallamy and M. J. Raupp (eds.). Phytochemical Induction by Herbivores. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, P. J., Wratten, S. D., and Parker, E. A. 1992. The ecological significance of rapid wound-induced changes in plants: Insect grazing and plant competition. Oecologia 91:266–272.Google Scholar
  15. Farmer, E. E., and Ryan, C. A. 1990. Interplant communication: airborne methyl jasmonate induces synthesis of proteinase inhibitors in plant leaves. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 87:7713–7716.Google Scholar
  16. Green, T. R., and Ryan, C. A. 1972. Wound-induced proteinase inhibitors in plant leaves: A possible defense mechanism against insects. Science 175:776–778.Google Scholar
  17. Hare, J. D. 1983. Manipulation of host suitability for herbivore pest management, pp. 655-680, in R. F. Denno and M. S. McClure (eds.). Variable Plants and Herbivores in Natural and Managed Systems. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Hartley, S. E., and Jones, C. G. 1997. Plant chemistry and herbivory, or why the world is green, pp. 284-324, in M. J. Crawley (ed.). Plant Ecology, 2nd ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Haukioja, E. 1990. Induction of defenses in trees. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 36:25–42.Google Scholar
  20. Hilder, V. H., Gatehouse, A. M. R., Sheerman, S. E., Barker, R. F., and Boulter, D. 1987. A novel mechanism of insect resistance engineered into tobacco. Nature 330:160–163.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, C. G., Hopper, R. F., Coleman, J. S., and Krischik, V. A. 1993. Control of systemically induced herbivore resistance by plant vascular architecture. Oecologia 93:452–456.Google Scholar
  22. Karban, R., and Baldwin, I. T. 1997. Induced Responses to Herbivory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Krause, S. C., and Raffa, K. F. 1992. Comparison of insect, fungal, and mechanically induced defoliation of larch: Effects on plant productivity and subsequent host susceptibility. Oecologia 90:411–416.Google Scholar
  24. Marquis, R. J. 1992. A bite is a bite is a bite? Constraints on response to folivory in Piper arieianum (Piperaceae). Ecology 73:143–152.Google Scholar
  25. Marquis, R. J. 1996. Plant architecture, sectoriality and plant tolerance to herbivores. Vegetatio 127:85–97.Google Scholar
  26. Marshall, C. 1996. Sectoriality and physiological organisation in herbaceous plants: An overview. Vegetatio 127:9–16.Google Scholar
  27. Mauricio, R., Bowers, D. M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 1993. Patterns of leaf damage affects fitness of the annual plant Raphanus sativus (Brassicaceae). Ecology 74:2066–2071.Google Scholar
  28. McCauley, M. M., and Evert, R. F. 1988. Morphology and vasculature of the leaf of potato (Solanum tuberosum). Am. J. Bot. 75:377–390.Google Scholar
  29. McGurl, B., Pearce, G., Orozco-CÁrdenas, M., and Ryan, C. A. 1992. Structure, expression, and antisense inhibition of the systemin precursor gene. Science 255:1570–1573.Google Scholar
  30. Moran, P. J. 1998. Plant-mediated interactions between insects and a fungal plant pathogen and the role of plant chemical responses to infection. Oecologia 115:523–530.Google Scholar
  31. Murray, B. J., Mauk, C., and Nooden, L. D. 1982. Restricted vascular pipelines (and orthostichies) in plants. What's New Plant Physiol. 13:33–36.Google Scholar
  32. Mutikainen, P., Walls, M., and Ovaska, J. 1996. Herbivore-induced resistance in Betula pendula: The role of plant vascular architecture. Oecologia 108:723–727.Google Scholar
  33. NarvÁez-VÁsquez, J., Orozco-CÁrdenas, M. L., and Ryan, C. A. 1994. A sulfhydryl reagent modulates systemic signaling for wound-induced and systemin-induced proteinase inhibitor synthesis. Plant Physiol. 105:725–730.Google Scholar
  34. Orozco-CÁrdenas, M., McGurl, B., and Ryan, C. A. 1993. Expression of an antisense prosystemin gene in tomato plants reduces resistance toward Manduca sexta larvae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90:8273–8276.Google Scholar
  35. Pearce, G., Strydom, D., Johnson, S., and Ryan, C. A. 1991. A polypeptide from tomato leaves induces wound-inducible proteinase inhibitor proteins. Science 253:895–898.Google Scholar
  36. Prochaska, H. J., Santamaria, A. B., and Talalay, P. 1992. Rapid detection of inducers of enzymes that protect against carcinogens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89:2394–2398.Google Scholar
  37. Rhodes, J. D., Thain, J. F., and Wildon, D. C. 1996. The pathway for systemic electrical signal conduction in the wounded tomato plant. Planta 200:50–57.Google Scholar
  38. Ryan, C. A. 1989. Proteinase inhibitor gene families: strategies for transformation to improve plant defenses against herbivores. BioEssays 10:20–24.Google Scholar
  39. SAS Institute. 1997. SAS STAT User's Guide, release 6.12. Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  40. Schultz, J. C. 1983. Habitat selection and foraging tactics of caterpillars in heterogeneous trees, pp. 61-90 in R. F. Denno and M. S. McClure (eds.). Variable Plants and Herbivores in Natural and Managed Systems. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Seldal, T., Anderson, K.-J., and Hogstedt, G. 1994. Grazing-induced proteinase inhibitors: A possible cause for lemming population cycles. Oikos 70:3–11.Google Scholar
  42. Shulaev, V., Leon, J., and Raskin, I. 1995. Is salicylic acid a translocated signal of systemic acquired resistance in tobacco? Plant Cell 7:1691–1701.Google Scholar
  43. Stankovic, B., and Davies, E. 1997. Intercellular communication in plants: electrical stimulation of proteinase inhibitor gene expression in tomato. Planta 202:402–406.Google Scholar
  44. Stout, M. J., and Duffey, S. S. 1996. Characterization of induced resistance in tomato plants. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 79:273–283.Google Scholar
  45. Stout, M. J., Workman, J., and Duffey, S. S. 1994. Differential induction of tomato foliar proteins by arthropod herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 20:2575–2593.Google Scholar
  46. Stout, M. J., Workman, K. V., and Duffey, S. S. 1996. Identity, spatial distribution, and variability of induced chemical responses in tomato plants. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 79:255–271.Google Scholar
  47. Stout, M. J., Workman, K. V., Bostock, R. M., and Duffey, S. S. 1998. Specificity of induced resistance in the tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum. Oecologia 113:74–81.Google Scholar
  48. Thaler, J. S., Stout, M. J., Karban, R., and Duffey, S. S. 1996. Exogenous jasmonates simulate insect wounding in tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum) in the laboratory and field. J. Chem. Ecol. 22:1767–1781.Google Scholar
  49. Watson, M. A., and Casper, B. B. 1984. Morphogenetic constraints on patterns of carbon distribution in plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15:233–258.Google Scholar
  50. Wolfson, J. L. 1991. The effects of induced plant proteinase inhibitors on herbivorous insects, pp. 223-243, in D. W. Tallamy and M. J. Raupp (eds.). Phytochemical Induction by Herbivores. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin M. Orians
    • 1
  • Jason Pomerleau
    • 1
  • Rafael Ricco
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyTufts UniversityMedford

Personalised recommendations