Abstract
Main conclusion
Cotton genotypes displayed similar volatile organic compound (VOC) profiles, but major differences in terpenoid aldehyde (TA) content. The differences in VOC production were minor among genotypes, but these differences are crucial for boll weevil attraction. Weevils did not display any preference in feeding behaviour towards cotton genotypes, suggesting physiological adaptation to cope with cotton chemical defence mechanisms.
Abstract
Plant cultivar selection for resistance to herbivore pests is an effective, environmentally safe and inexpensive method to implement in integrated pest management programmes. In this study, we evaluated seven cotton genotypes with respect to the production of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and non-volatile compounds [terpenoid aldehydes (TAs)], and the attraction and feeding preference of adult boll weevils. Chemical analyses of VOCs from BRS-293, BRS-Rubi, CNPA TB-15, CNPA TB-85, CNPA TB-90, Delta Opal, and Empire Glandless showed that there were few qualitative and quantitative differences across the range of genotypes. In contrast, major differences in TA content were observed, with CNPA TB-15 and CNPA TB-85 producing higher levels of TAs compared to the other genotypes. Our results showed that boll weevil attraction to cotton genotypes varied, suggesting that the ratios and quantities of emitted cotton VOCs are important for host location. However, boll weevil feeding behaviour was neither positively nor negatively influenced by the terpenoid content (non-volatile compounds) of cotton genotypes. The results in this study suggest that boll weevils have adapted physiologically to cope with cotton chemical defence mechanisms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- DMNT:
-
(E)-4,8-Dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene
- TA:
-
Terpenoid aldehyde
- TMTT:
-
(E,E)-4,8,12-Trimethyltrideca-1,3,7,11-tetraene
- VOC:
-
Volatile organic compound
References
Altman DW, Stipanovic RD, Benedict JH (1989) Terpenoid aldehydes in upland cottons II. Genotype-environment interactions. Crop Sci 29:1451–1456. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900060025x
Bell AA (1986) Physiology of secondary products. In: Mayney JR, Stweart MCD (eds) Cotton physiology, book 2. The Cotton Foundation, Memphis, pp 597–621
Bell AA, Stipanovic RD, O’Brien DH, Fryxell PA (1978) Sesquiterpenoid aldehyde quinones and derivatives in pigment glands of Gossypium. Phytochemistry 17:1297–1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(00)94578-3
Bell AA, Stipanovic RD, Williams HJ (1995) Variation and genetic control of volatile terpenes in Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). In: Proc. meeting of PSNA, p 8
Beltrão NEM, Pereira JR, Oliveira JN (2001) Comportamento de cultivares precoces de algodão, com resistência ao bicudo em várias densidades de plantio no Cariri do Ceará. CBA Annals, Campo Grande
Benson CG, Willie SG, Leach DN, Mares CL, Fitt GP (2001) Improved method for the rapid determination of terpenois aldehydes in cotton. J Agric Food Chem 49:2181–2184. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0010836
Bruce TJA, Pickett JA (2011) Perception of plant volatile blends by herbivorous insects—finding the right mix. Phytochemistry 72(1605):1611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2011.04.011
Busoli AC, Parisi HAM, Michelotto MD (2007) Infestação de Anthonomus grandis Boheman, 1843 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) e Pectinophora gossypiella Saunders, 1843 (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) na cultivar NuOpal (Bollgard I), comparada a cultivares comerciais de algodoeiro. CBA Annals, Uberlândia
Carvalho LP, Lukefhar MJ, Farias FJC, Vieira RM, Moreira JAN, da Costa JN (1996) Seleção de algodoeiro com resistência ao bicudo. Pesq Agropec Bras 31:195–199
Cha DH, Linn-Jr CR, Teal PEA, Zhang A, Roelofs WL, Loeb GM (2011) Eavesdropping on plant volatiles by a specialist moth: significance of ratio and concentration. PLoS ONE 6(2):e17033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017033
Chen F, Tholl D, Bohlmann J, Pichersky E (2011) The family of terpene synthases in plants: a mid-size family of genes for specialized metabolism that is highly diversified throughout the kingdom. Plant J 66:212–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2011.04520.x
Cheng AX, Lou YG, Mao YB, Lu S, Wang LJ, Chen XY (2007) Plant terpenoids: biosynthesis and ecological functions. J Integr Plant Biol 49:179–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2007.00395.x
Davis GD, Essenberg M (1995) (+)-Delta-cadinene is a product of sesquiterpene cyclase activity in cotton. Phytochemistry 39:553–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9422(95)00067-H
Dudareva N, Klempien A, Muhlemann JK, Kaplan I (2013) Biosynthesis, function and metabolic engineering of plant volatile organic compounds. New Phytol 198:16–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12145
Eisenring M, Naranjo SE, Bacher S, Abbott A, Meissle M, Romeis J (2019) Reduced caterpillar damage can benefit plant bugs in Bt cotton. Sci Rep 9:2727. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38917-9
Elzen GW, Williams HJ, Bell AA, Stipanovic RD, Vinson SB (1985) Quantification of volatile terpenes of glanded and glandless Gossypium hirsutum L. cultivars and lines by gas chromatography. J Agric Food Chem 33:1079–1082. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00066a015
Gershenzon J (2010) Secondary metabolites and plant denfese. In: Taiz L, Zeiger E (eds) Plant physiology, 5th edn. Sinauer Associates Inc, Publishers, Sunderland, pp 369–396
Grigolli JFJ, Souza LA, Fraga FDF, Busoli AC (2012) Boll weevil feeding preference on squares at different ages and square shedding time of cotton cultivars. Afr J Agric Res 7:417–4323. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR12.657
Hagenbucher S, Olson DM, Ruberson JR, Wackers FL, Romeis J (2013) Resistance mechanisms against arthropod herbivores in cotton and their interactions with natural enemies. Crit Rev Plant Sci 32:458–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2013.809293
Hardee DD, Mitchell EB (1997) Boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis Boheman (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): a summary of research on behaviour as affected by chemical communication. Southwest Entomol 22:466–491
Hedin PA, McCarty JC (1990) Possible roles of cotton bud sugars and terpenoids in oviposition by the boll weevil. J Chem Ecol 16:757–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01016487
Hedin PA, McCarty JC (1995) Boll weevil Anthonomus grandis Boh. oviposition is decreased in cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. lines lower in anther monosaccharides and gossypol. J Agric Food Chem 43:2735–2739. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00058a035
Hedin PA, Thompson AC, Minyard JP (1966) Constituents of the cotton bud. III. Factors that stimulate feeding by the boll weevil. J Econ Entomol 59:181–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/59.1.181
Isley D (1928) The relation of leaf color and leaf size to boll weevil infestation. J Econ Entomol 21:553–559. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/21.4.553
Jenkins JN, Maxwell FG, Parrott WL (1967) Field evaluation of glanded and glandless cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) lines for boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis Boh.) susceptibility. Crop Sci 7:437–440. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1967.0011183X000700050009x
Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kong G, Daud MK, Zhu S (2010) Effects of pigment glands and gossypol on growth, development and insecticide-resistance of cotton bollworm (Heliothis armigera (Hubner)). Crop Prot 29:813–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2010.03.016
Lambert L, Jenkins JN, Parrott WL, McCarty JC (1980) Evaluation of foreign and domestic cotton cultivars and strains for boll weevil resistance. Crop Sci 20:804–806. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1980.0011183X002000060032x
Leopold EJ (1990) Selective hydroboration of a 1, 3, 7-triene: homogeraniol. Org Synth 64:164–171
Linding OH, Roberson J, Wright JE (1979) Evaluation of three larval and adult boll weevil diets. J Econ Entomol 72:450–452. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/72.3.450
Loughrin JH, Manukian A, Heath RH, Tumlinson JH (1995) Volatiles emitted by different cotton varieties damaged by feeding beet armyworm larvae. J Chem Ecol 21:1217–1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02228321
Magalhães DM, Borges M, Laumann RA, Sujii ER, Mayor P, Caulfield JC, Midega CA, Khan ZR, Pickett JA, Birkett MA, Blassioli-Moraes MC (2012) Semiochemicals from herbivory induced cotton plants enhance the foraging behaviour of the cotton boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis. J Chem Ecol 38:1528–1538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-012-0216-5
Magalhães DM, Borges M, Laumann RA, Woodcock CM, Pickett JA, Birkett MA, Blassioli-Moraes MC (2016) Influence of two acyclic homoterpenes (tetranorterpenes) on the foraging behavior of Anthonomus grandis Boh. J Chem Ecol 42:305–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0691-1
Magalhães DM, Borges M, Laumann RA, Woodcock CM, Withall DM, Pickett JA, Birkett MA, Blassioli-Moraes MC (2018) Identification of volatile compounds involved in host location by Anthonomus grandis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Front Ecol Evol 6:98. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00098
Maxwell FG, Lafever HN, Jenkins JN (1966) Influence of the glandless genes in cotton on feeding, oviposition and development of the boll weevil in the laboratory. J Econ Entomol 59:585–588. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/59.3.585
McAuslane HJ, Alborn HT, Toth JP (1997) Systemic induction of terpenoid aldehydes in cotton pigment glands by feeding of larval Spodoptera frugiperda. J Chem Ecol 23:2861–2879. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022575313325
Merkl ME, Meyer JR (1963) Studies of resistance of cotton strains to the boll weevil. J Econ Entomol 56:860–862. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/56.6.860
Moraes MCB, Laumann RA, Aquino MFS, Paula DP, Borges M (2011) Effect of Bt genetic engineering on indirect defense in cotton via a tritrophic interaction. Trans Res 20:99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-010-9399-0
Najar-Rodriguez AJ, Galizia CG, Stierle J, Dorn S (2010) Behavioral and neurophysiological responses of an insect to changing ratios of constituents in host plant-derived volatile mixtures. J Exp Biol 213:3388–3397. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.0462
NIST (2008) Software NIST/EPA/NIH mass spectral library 2008
Oliveira IR, Carvalho HWL, Moreira MAB, Costa JN (2007) Bicudo e lagarta-rosada em algodoeiros no sertão sergipano. Embrapa Tabuleiros Costeiros, Aracaju
Optiz S, Kunert G, Gersehenzon J (2008) Increased terpenoid accumulation in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) foliage is a general wound response. J Chem Ecol 34:508–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-008-9453-z
Optiz S, Kunert G, Gersehenzon J (2014) Both methylerithritol phosphate and mevalonate pathways contribute to biosynthesis of each of the major isoprenoid classes in young cotton. Phytochemistry 98:110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2013.11.010
Painter RH (1951) Insect resistance in crop plants. Macmillan, New York
Paré PW, Tumlinson JH (1998) Cotton volatiles synthesized and released distal to the site of insect damage. Phytochemistry 47:521–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(97)00442-1
R Development Core Team (2011) A language and environment for statistical computing. In: R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria
Rodríguez-Concepción M (2006) Early steps in isoprenoid biosynthesis: multilevel regulation of the supply of common precursors in plant cells. Phytochem Rev 5:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-005-3130-4
Rodriguez-Saona C, Crafts-Brandner SJ, Cañas LA (2003) Volatile emissions triggered by multiple herbivore damage: beet armyworm and whitefly feeding on cotton plants. J Chem Ecol 29:2539–2550. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026314102866
Röse URS, Manukian A, Heath RR, Tumlinson JH (1996) Volatile semiochemicals released from undamaged cotton leaves (a systemic response of living plants to caterpillar damage. Plant Physiol 111:487–495. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.2.487
Sadras OV, Felton GW (2010) Mechanisms of cotton resistance to arthropod herbivory. In: Stewart JM, Oosterhuis DM, Heitholt JJ, Mauney JR (eds) Physiology of cotton. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 213–228
Sappington TW, Spurgeon DW (2000) Preferred technique for adult sex determination of the boll weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Ann ESA 93:610–615. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013-8746(2000)093[0610:PTFASD]2.0.CO;2
Schmidt FGV, Monnerat R, Borges M, Carvalho R (2001) Criação de insetos para avaliação de agentes entomopatogênicos e semioquímicos. Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, Brasília, pp 1–20
Silva JB, Silva-Torres CSA, Blassioli-Moraes MC, Torres JB, Laumann RA, Borges M (2015) Interaction of Anthonomus grandis and cotton genotypes: biological and behavioral responses. Entomol Exp Appl 156:238–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12326
Singh ID, Weaver JB (1972) Growth and infestation of boll weevils on normal-glanded, glandless, and high-gossypol strains of cotton. J Econ Entomol 65:821–824. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/65.3.821
Stipanovic RD (1992) Natural product biosynthesis via the Diels–Alder reaction. In: Petroski RJ, McCormick SP (eds) Secondary metabolites and metabolism. Plenum Press, New York, pp 319–328
Stipanovic RD, Bell AA, O’Brien DH, Lukefahr MJ (1978) Heliocide H3 an insecticidal terpenoid from Gossypium hirsutum. Phytochem 17:151–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(00)89702-2
Stipanovic RD, Altman DW, Begin DL, Greenblatt GA, Benedict JH (1988) Terpenoid aldehydes in upland cottons: analysis by aniline and HPLC methods. J Agric Food Chem 36:509–515. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00081a026
Stipanovic RD, Lopez JD, Dowd MK, Puckhaber LS, Duke SE (2006) Effect of racemic and (+)- and (−)-gossypol on the survival and development of Helicoverpa zea larvae. J Chem Ecol 32:959–968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-006-9052-9
Stipanovic RD, Williams HJ, Bell AA (2010) Secondary products. In: Stewart JM, Oosterhuis DM, Heitholt JJ, Mauney JR (eds) Physiology of cotton. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 342–352
Vidal-Neto FC, Silva FP, Bleicher E, Melo FIO (2005) Mutantes morfológicos de algodoeiro herbáceo como fonte de resistência ao bicudo. Pesq Agropec Bras 40:123–128
Wittstock U, Gershenzon J (2002) Constitutive plant toxins and their role in defense against herbivores and pathogens. Curr Opin Plant Biol 5:300–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-5266(02)00264-9
Zangerl AR, Rutledge CE (1996) The probability of attack and patterns of constitutive and induced defense: a test of optimal defense theory. Am Nat 147:599–608. https://doi.org/10.1086/285868
Acknowledgements
We thank Hélio Moreira dos Santos for helping with laboratory rearing of boll weevils and Dr. Fabio Aquino de Albuquerque for providing cotton seeds. We also thank the Post-Graduate Zoology Program of the University of Brasília (UnB) for the use of its facility. This work received financial support from the Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement (CAPES) through a grant to DMM (no. 99999.014964/2013-09), National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq), Federal District Research Foundation (FAP-DF) and the Brazilian Corporation of Agricultural Research (EMBRAPA). The work at Rothamsted forms part of the Smart Crop Protection (SCP) strategic programme (BBS/OS/CP/000001) funded through Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Dorothea Bartels.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Magalhães, D.M., Borges, M., Laumann, R.A. et al. Inefficient weapon—the role of plant secondary metabolites in cotton defence against the boll weevil. Planta 252, 94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-020-03497-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-020-03497-w