| Literature DB >> 24116211 |
Anna Späthe1, Andreas Reinecke, Alexander Haverkamp, Bill S Hansson, Markus Knaden.
Abstract
Host plant choice is of vital importance for egg laying herbivorous insects that do not exhibit brood care. Several aspects, including palatability, nutritional quality and predation risk, have been found to modulate host preference. Olfactory cues are thought to enable host location. However, experimental data on odor features that allow choosing among alternative hosts while still in flight are not available. It has previously been shown that M. sexta females prefer Datura wrightii compared to Nicotiana attenuata. The bouquet of the latter is more intense and contains compounds typically emitted by plants after feeding-damage to attract the herbivore's enemies. In this wind tunnel study, we offered female gravid hawkmoths (Manduca sexta) odors from these two ecologically relevant, attractive, non-flowering host species. M. sexta females preferred surrogate leaves scented with vegetative odors form both host species to unscented control leaves. Given a choice between species, females preferred the odor bouquet emitted by D. wrightii to that of N. attenuata. Harmonizing, i.e. adjusting, volatile intensity to similar levels did not abolish but significantly weakened this preference. Superimposing, i.e. mixing, the highly attractive headspaces of both species, however, abolished discrimination between scented and non-scented surrogate leaves. Beyond ascertaining the role of blend composition in host plant choice, our results raise the following hypotheses. (i) The odor of a host species is perceived as a discrete odor 'Gestalt', and its core properties are lost upon mixing two attractive scents (ii). Stimulus intensity is a secondary feature affecting olfactory-based host choice (iii). Constitutively smelling like a plant that is attracting herbivore enemies may be part of a plant's strategy to avoid herbivory where alternative hosts are available to the herbivore.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24116211 PMCID: PMC3792911 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077135
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Effects of host blend composition and intensity on host choice in M. sexta.
(A) Choice experiments with gravid M. sexta females were performed in a wind tunnel. Plants were placed in glass boxes outside the wind tunnel where they could not be seen by the moths. Pumps delivered plant headspace to two surrogate leaves serving as visual stimuli inside the wind tunnel. Two host plants, D. wrightii and N. attenuata, were tested (I) against a clean air control, (II) with their plant headspaces mixed together 1:1 against a clean air control, (III) against a conspecific plant whose headspace was diluted with clean air, and (IV) against each other, with N. attenuata headspace either not manipulated or diluted with clean air. Plant headspace and clean air were mixed in a 1:4 (vol/vol) ratio resulting in a 5-fold dilution. (B) The percentage of first choices made in the corresponding experiments. Sample size is given next to each experiment. Asterisks denote significant differences between sources (Binomial Test, *** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05). (C) Boxplots depict preference indices calculated from the number of contacts to each source. Values close to 1/-1 represent a high preference for one source; 0 means no preference. The black line delineates the median; color distribution within the box represents the percentage of contacts to each source. Asterisks above the boxes denote indices significantly different from 0 (Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, *** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; * p<0.05). Preference indices resulting from experiments in which the plant headspace of both species is offered superimposed or separately against clean air differed significantly (Kruskal-Wallis Test, p<0.0001, and Dunn’s post hoc test, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05). Furthermore, preference indices derived from interspecific choice experiments were significantly different from each other (Mann-Whitney U Test, p<0.05).
Numbers of responders, non-responders and animals excluded from analysis due to their behaviour of extending their proboscis during the experiment are given for each experiment.
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| 2.9 ± 2.9 | | |||||
| vs | 83 | 3 | 1 | 39 | 40 | |||
| control | control | 0.7 ± 1.1 |
| |||||
|
|
| 2.1 ± 2.4 | | |||||
| vs | 122 | 6 | 0 | 68 | 48 | |||
| control | control | 0.8 ± 1.4 |
| |||||
| mixture | mixture | 3.0 ± 2.4 | dF=37 | |||||
| vs | 77 | 10 | 19 | 7 | 41 | |||
| control | control | 3.9 ± 2.9 | n.s. | |||||
| diluted | 1/5 N | 2.5 ± 2.1 | dF=46 | |||||
| vs | 72 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 51 | |||
|
|
| 2.4 ± 2.6 | n.s | |||||
| diluted | 1/5 D | 2.2 ± 2 | dF=30 | |||||
| vs | 56 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 34 | |||
|
|
| 2.6 ± 2.8 | n.s. | |||||
|
|
| 1.1 ± 1.5 |
| |||||
| vs | 81 | 5 | 0 | 31 | 45 | |||
|
|
| 2.5 ± 3 |
| |||||
| diluted | 1/5 N | 2.7 ± 2.3 |
| |||||
| vs | 55 | 3 | 10 | 3 | 39 | |||
|
|
| 4 ± 3.3 |
| |||||
Average number of source contacts (± SD) was tested with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.
a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test