Advertisement

Volatile Interactions Between Undamaged Plants: Effects and Potential for Breeding Resistance to Aphids

  • Inger Åhman
  • Velemir Ninkovic
Chapter
Part of the Signaling and Communication in Plants book series (SIGCOMM)

Abstract

Various theories about why vegetational diversity may affect herbivore abundance have been put forward over the years. In this chapter, we discuss one possible mechanism that has not been widely studied, involving plant volatiles and using an aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi L.) and one of its hosts (Hordeum vulgare L., barley) as test organisms. Volatiles from neighbouring plants of a different species or even from plants of the same species have been found to alter aphid acceptance of the receiving plant. Similar effects have been found earlier with volatiles from damaged plants, but here the volatile-emitting plants are apparently undamaged. In the majority of plant combinations tested, host acceptance is decreased but only when certain emitters are combined with certain receivers. Exposure of barley to volatiles from the common weeds Chenopodium album L., Cirsium spp. and Solanum nigrum L. resulted in reduced host acceptance by the aphid, but exposing barley to volatiles from many other weed species had no effect. The same was true for intra-specific interactions; only when certain barley genotypes were exposed to volatiles from specific barley genotypes did the aphids respond differently. Such induced effects correlated with aphid growth rates in a set of barley genotypes representing a wide range of host suitability to the aphid. Pedigree information suggested that the ability to become induced is heritable in barley, something that might be exploited in breeding. More crop/pest combinations should be investigated for these effects, and favourable interactions should be exploited in new cropping systems as plant mixtures or in monocultures with chemical elicitors applied according to forecasts of pest attacks.

Keywords

Quantitative Trait Locus Natural Enemy Plant Volatile Wild Barley Barley Genotype 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) through the PlantComMistra programme and by the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS). Lisbeth Jonsson, Robert Glinwood and Martin Kellner are thanked for reviewing previous versions of the manuscript.

References

  1. Åhman I (2009) Breeding for inducible resistance against insects – applied plant breeding aspects. In: Schmitt A, Mauch-Mani B, Birch N, Dicke M (eds) Proceedings working group “Induced resistance in plants against insects and diseases”, Heraklion, Crete (Greece), Apr 27–29 2006. ISBN 978-92-9067-218-0. IOBC/WPRS Bull 44:121–130Google Scholar
  2. Åhman I, Tuvesson S, Johansson M (2000) Does indole alkaloid gramine confer resistance in barley to aphid Rhopalosiphum padi? J Chem Ecol 26:233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andow DA (1991) Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Ann Rev Entomol 36:561–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andow DA, Risch SJ (1985) Predation in diversified agroecosystems: relations between a coccinellid predator Coleomegilla maculata and its food. J Appl Ecol 22:357–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arimura GI, Ozawa R, Shimoda T, Nishioka T, Boland W, Takabayashi J (2000) Herbivory-induced volatiles elicit defence genes in lima bean leaves. Nature 406:512–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bach CE (1980) Effect of plant diversity and time of colonization on an herbivore–plant interaction. Oecologia 44:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldwin IT, Halitschke R, Paschold A, von Dahl CC, Preston CA (2006) Volatile signaling in plant–plant interactions: “talking trees” in the genomics era. Science 311:812–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertholdsson NO (2007) Varietal variation in allelopathic activity in wheat and barley and possibilities for use in plant breeding. Allelopathy J 19:193–201Google Scholar
  9. Berzonsky WA, Ding H, Haley SD, Harris MO, Lamb RJ, Mckenzie RIH, Ohm HW, Patterson FL, Peairs FB, Porter DR, Ratcliffe RH, Shanower TG (2003) Breeding wheat for resistance to insects. Plant Breed Rev 22:221–296Google Scholar
  10. Blackman RL, Eastop VF (1984) Aphids on the world’s crops: an identification guide. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruin J, Dicke M, Sabelis MW (1992) Plants are better protected against spider-mites after exposure to volatiles from infested conspecifics. Experientia 48:525–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadet E, Fried G, Chauvel B (2007) Floristic diversity in wildlife-friendly set-aside: what risk for invasive species to appear? In: 20eme Conference du COLUMA. Journées Internationales sur la Lutte contre les Mauvaises Herbes, Dijon, France, Dec 11–12 2007, pp 382–392Google Scholar
  13. Cheung WY, Di Giorgio L, Åhman I (2010) Mapping resistance to the bird cherry-oat aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi) in barley. Plant Breed 129:Google Scholar
  14. Couldridge C, Newbury HJ, Ford-Lloyd B, Bale J, Pritchard J (2007) Exploring plant responses to aphid feeding using a full Arabidopsis microarray reveals a small number of genes with significantly altered expression. Bull Entomol Res 97:523–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Degen T, Dillmann C, Marion-Poll F, Turlings TCJ (2004) High genetic variability of herbivore-induced volatile emission within a broad range of maize inbred lines. Plant Physiol 135:1928–1938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delp G, Gradin T, Åhman I, Jonsson LMV (2009) Microarray analysis of the interaction between the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi and host plants reveals both differences and similarities between susceptible and partially resistant barley lines. Mol Genet Genomics 281:233–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dicke M (2009) Behavioural and community ecology of plants that cry for help. Plant Cell Environ 32:654–665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douglas AE, van Emden HF (2007) Nutrition and symbiosis. In: van Emden H, Harrington R (eds) Aphids as crop pest. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elzen GW, Williams HJ, Vinson SB (1986) Wind tunnel flight responses by hymenopterous parasitoid Campoletis sonorensis to cotton cultivars and lines. Entomol Exp Appl 42:285–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engelberth J, Alborn HT, Schmelz EA, Tumlinson JH (2004) Airborne signals prime plants against insect herbivore attack. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:1781–1787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frost CJ, Appel HM, Carlson JE, De Moraes CM, Mescher MC, Schultz JC (2007) Within-plant signalling via volatiles overcomes vascular constraints on systemic signalling and primes responses against herbivores. Ecol Lett 10:490–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geervliet JBF, Posthumus MA, Vet LEM, Dicke M (1997) Comparative analysis of headspace volatiles from different caterpillar-infested or uninfested food plants of Pieris species. J Chem Ecol 23:2935–2954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glinwood R, Ninkovic V, Pettersson J, Ahmed E (2004) Barley exposed to aerial allelopathy from thistles (Cirsium spp.) becomes less acceptable to aphids. Ecol Entomol 29:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gustafsson Å (1953) The cooperation of genotypes in barley. Hereditas 39:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hacker SD, Bertness MD (1996) Trophic consequences of a positive plant interaction. Am Nat 148:559–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haddad NM, Tilman D, Haarstad J, Ritchie M, Knops JMH (2001) Contrasting effects of plant richness and composition on insect communities: a field experiment. Am Nat 158:17–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heil M (2008) Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytol 178:41–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heil M (2009) Damaged-self recognition in plant herbivore defence. Trends Plant Sci 14:356–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heil M, Bueno JCS (2007) Within-plant signaling by volatiles leads to induction and priming of an indirect plant defense in nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5467–5472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heil M, Ton J (2008) Long-distance signalling in plant defence. Trends Plant Sci 13:264–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hernandez HP, Hsieh TC-Y, Smith CM, Fischer NH (1989) Foliage volatiles of two rice cultivars. Phytochemistry 28:2959–2962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jokinen K (1991) Competition and yield advantage in barley–barley and barley–oats mixtures. J Agric Sci Finl 63:255–285Google Scholar
  33. Karban R, Baldwin IT, Baxter KJ, Laue G, Felton GW (2000) Communication between plants: induced resistance in wild tobacco plants following clipping of neighboring sagebrush. Oecologia 125:66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karban R, Shiojiri K, Huntzinger M, McCall AC (2006) Damage-induced resistance in sagebrush: volatiles are key to intra- and interplant communication. Ecology 87:922–930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koricheva J, Mulder CPH, Schmid B, Joshi J, Huss-Danell K (2000) Numerical responses of different trophic groups of invertebrates to manipulations of plant diversity in grasslands. Oecologia 125:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li Y, Hill CB, Carlson SR, Diers BW, Hartman GL (2007) Soybean aphid resistance genes in the soybean cultivars Dowling and Jackson map to linkage group M. Mol Breed 19:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu YB, McCreight JD (2006) Responses of Nasonovia ribisnigri (Homoptera: Aphididae) to susceptible and resistant lettuce. J Econ Entomol 99:972–978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mercer PC (2006) Growing organic cereals in Northern Ireland – disease and weed problems. Asp Appl Biol 79:229–232Google Scholar
  39. Messina FJ, Bloxham AJ (2004) Plant resistance to the Russian wheat aphid: effects on a nontarget aphid and the role of induction. Can Entomol 136:129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Messina FJ, Taylor R, Karren ME (2002) Divergent responses of two cereal aphids to previous infestation of their host plant. Entomol Exp Appl 16:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mewes S, Kruger H, Pank F (2008) Physiological, morphological, chemical and genomic diversities of different origins of thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.). Genet Res Crop Evol 55:1303–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mundt CC (2002) Use of multiline cultivars and cultivar mixtures for disease management. Ann Rev Phytopathol 40:381–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ninkovic V (2003) Volatile communication between barley plants affects biomass allocation. J Exp Bot 54:1931–1939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ninkovic V, Åhman I (2009) Aphid acceptance of Hordeum genotypes is affected by plant volatile exposure and is correlated with aphid growth. Euphytica 169:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ninkovic V, Glinwood R, Dahlin I (2009) Weed–barley interactions affect plant acceptance by aphids in laboratory and field experiments. Entomol Exp Appl 133:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ninkovic V, Glinwood R, Pettersson J (2006) Communication between undamaged plants by volatiles: the role of allelobiosis. In: Baluška F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D (eds) Communication in plants: neuronal aspects of plant life, vol 28. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 421–434Google Scholar
  47. Ninkovic V, Olsson U, Pettersson J (2002) Mixing barley cultivars affects aphid host plant acceptance in field experiments. Entomol Exp Appl 102:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nissinen A, Ibrahim M, Kainulainen P, Tiilikkala K, Holopainen JK (2005) Influence of carrot psyllid (Trioza apicalis) feeding or exogenous limonene or methyl jasmonate treatment on composition of carrot (Daucus carota) leaf essential oil and headspace volatiles. J Agric Food Chem 53:8631–8638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Otway SJ, Hector A, Lawton JH (2005) Resource dilution effects on specialist insect herbivores in a grassland biodiversity experiment. J Anim Ecol 74:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pettersson J, Ninkovic V, Ahmed E (1999) Volatiles from different barley cultivars affect aphid acceptance of neighbouring plants. Acta Agric Scand B Soil Plant Sci 49:152–157Google Scholar
  51. Pettersson J, Ninkovic V, Glinwood R (2003) Plant activation of barley by intercropped conspecifics and weeds: allelobiosis. BCPC Crop Sci Technol 2:1135–1144Google Scholar
  52. Pettersson J, Quiroz A, Fahad AE (1996) Aphid antixenosis mediated by volatiles in cereals. Acta Agric Scand B Soil Plant Sci 46:135–140Google Scholar
  53. Pettersson J, Tjallingii WF, Hardie J (2007) Host-plant selection and feeding. In: van Emden H, Harrington R (eds) Aphids as crop pest, vol 4. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 87–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Power AG (1991) Virus spread and vector dynamics in genetically diverse plant populations. Ecology 72:232–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prado E, Tjallingii WF (1997) Effects of previous plant infestation on sieve element acceptance by two aphids. Entomol Exp Appl 82:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rapusas HR, Bottrell DG, Coll M (1996) Intraspecific variation in chemical attraction of rice to insect predators. Biol Control 6:394–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rice EL (1984) Allelopathy, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New York, 1989Google Scholar
  58. Risebrow A, Dixon AFG (1987) Nutritional ecology of phloem-feeding insects. In: Slansky F Jr, Rodriguez JG (eds) Nutritional ecology of insects, mites, spiders, and related invertebrates. Wiley Interscience, USA, pp 421–448Google Scholar
  59. Root RB (1973) Organization of plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecol Monogr 43:95–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ruther J, Kleier S (2005) Plant–plant signaling: ethylene synergizes volatile emission in Zea mays induced by exposure to (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol. J Chem Ecol 31:2217–2222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scutareanu P, Bruin J, Posthumus MA, Drukker B (2003) Constitutive and herbivore-induced volatiles in pear, alder and hawthorn trees. Chemoecology 13:63–74Google Scholar
  62. Szumigalski AR, van Acker RC (2006) The agronomic value of annual plant diversity in crop-weed systems. Can J Plant Sci 86:865–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tahvanainen JO, Root RB (1972) The influence of vegetational diversity on the population ecology of a specialized herbivore, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Oecologia 10:321–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thiéry D, Visser JH (1987) Misleading the Colorado potato beetle with an odor blend. J Chem Ecol 13:1139–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tratwal A, Law J, Philpott H, Horwell A, Garner J (2007) The possibilities of reduction of winter barley chemical protection by growing variety mixtures. Part II. Effect on yield. J Plant Prot Res 47:79–86Google Scholar
  66. Underwood N (2009) Effect of genetic variance in plant quality on the population dynamics of a herbivorous insect. J Anim Ecol 78:839–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Underwood N, Rausher MD (2000) The effects of host-plant genotype on herbivore population dynamics in a model system. Ecology 81:1565–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Underwood N, Rausher MD (2002) Comparing the consequences of induced and constitutive plant resistance for herbivore population dynamics. Am Nat 160:20–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Uvah III, Coaker TH (1984) Effect of mixed cropping on some insect pests of carrots and onions. Entomol Exp Appl 36:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Walling LL (2000) The myriad plant responses to herbivores. J Plant Growth Regul 19:195–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang Y, Kays SJ (2002) Sweetpotato volatile chemistry in relation to sweetpotato weevil (Cylas formicarius) behaviour. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 127:656–662Google Scholar
  72. Weaver DK, Buteler M, Hofland ML, Runyon JB, Nansen C, Talbert LE, Lamb P, Carlson GR (2009) Cultivar preferences of ovipositing wheat stem sawflies as influenced by the amount of volatile attractant. J Econ Entomol 102:1009–1017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weibull J (1987) Screening for resistance against Rhopalosiphum padi (L.). 2. Hordeum species and interspecific hybrids. Euphytica 36:571–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weibull J (1994) Resistance to Rhopalosiphum padi L. (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Hordeum vulgare subsp. spontaneum and in hybrids with H. vulgare subsp. vulgare. Euphytica 78:97–101Google Scholar
  75. Zhu YY, Chen HR, Fan JH, Wang YY, Li Y, Chen JB, Fan JX, Yang SS, Hu LP, Leung H, Mew TW, Teng PS, Wang ZH, Mundt CC (2000) Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature 406:718–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zhu-Salzman K, Salzman RA, Ahn JE, Koiwa H (2004) Transcriptional regulation of sorghum defense determinants against a phloem-feeding aphid. Plant Physiol 134:420–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Landscape Planning, Horticulture and Agricultural ScienceSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarpSweden
  2. 2.Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations