| Literature DB >> 28943720 |
Miriam Frida Karlsson1,2, Magali Proffit1,3, Göran Birgersson1.
Abstract
Insects locate their host plants using mainly visual and olfactory cues, generally of the exploited plant structure. However, when the resource is difficult to access, it could be beneficial to utilise indirect cues, which indicates the presence of reward (e.g., oviposition site or mate). In the present study, we investigated the host-plant location strategy of the monophagous Guatemalan potato moth Tecia solanivora (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). The larva of the moth feed exclusively on potato Solanum spp. (Solanaceae) tubers usually hidden below ground. Using electrophysiological and behavioural tests, we characterised the olfactory cues mediating the attraction of the moth towards their host plant. Odour blends were made to represent different potato structures: tubers, foliage, and flowers. Synthetic blends were created by combining potato-emitted compounds that were antennal active which showed positive dose-response. Attraction to these blends of compounds in relation to the mating status of males and females was tested in dual-choice Y-tube assays. Both males and females, virgin and mated, were attracted to a three-compound blend representing flower odour, while foliage and tuber blends attracted neither sexes. Oviposition bioassays indicated additionally that the floral blend enhances oviposition. We show that potato flower odour might indicate the presence of an oviposition site for the female and possibly an increased mating opportunity for both sexes. Our results provide one of the few examples of the use of floral odour as a reliable indicator of host and probably mating possibility for phytophagous insects exploiting a site spatially separated from the flower.Entities:
Keywords: Attraction; Gelechiidae; Kairomone; Olfactometer; Solanum tuberosum
Year: 2017 PMID: 28943720 PMCID: PMC5587627 DOI: 10.1007/s00049-017-0244-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chemoecology ISSN: 0937-7409 Impact factor: 1.725
Synthetic chemical compounds used for electroantennal- and behavioural assays
| Compound name | CAS-nra | Brand | Purity % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Benzaldehyde | 100-52-7 | Fluka | 99.5 |
| δ-Elemene | 20307-84-0 | Giftb | >75 |
| δ-Cadinene | 483-76-1 | Florida chemical | 85.5 |
| α-Caryophyllene | 4586-22-5 | Sigma Aldrich | >85 |
| β-Caryophyllene | 87-44-5 | Fluka | 98.5 |
| α-Copaene | 3856-25-5 | Sigma Aldrich | >90 |
| α-Cubebene | 17699-14-8 | Giftb | >75 |
| Decanal | 112-31-2 | Sigma Aldrich | 98 |
| ( | 502-61-4 | Bedoukian | >95 |
| ( | 18794-84-8 | Bedoukian | 90 |
| Germacrene D | 23986-74-5 | Giftb | >75 |
| Methyl phenylacetate | 101-41-7 | Sigma Aldrich | 99 |
| β-Myrcene | 123-35-3 | ICN Biomedicals | 90 |
| Nonanal | 124-19-6 | Fluka | 95 |
| 3-Octanone | 106-68-3 | Fluka | Purum |
| 1-Octen-3-ol | 3391-86-4 | Acros AG | 98 |
| Phenylacetaldehyde | 122-78-1 | Sigma Aldrich | 95 |
| 2-Phenylethanol | 60-12-8 | Merck-Schuchardt | 98 |
| Sabinene | 3387-41-5 | Fluka | 98.5 |
| Sulcatone | 110-93-0 | Sigma Aldrich | 99 |
| Tetradecanal | 124-25-4 | unknown | >70 |
aCAS, Chemical Abstracts Service number
bGift from Prof. Anna-Karin Borg-Karlsson, KTH Stockholm, Sweden
Foliage, tuber, and flower blend composition in T. solanivora behavioural assays, representing measured potato plant emission [ng plant−1 h−1]
| Foliage blend | ng | Tuber blend | ng | Flower blend | ng |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β-Caryophyllene | 2000 | Decanal | 80 | Methyl phenylacetate (MPA) | 8000 |
| β-Myrcene | 400 | 3-Octanone | 80 | Phenylacetaldehyde (PAA) | 40 |
| ( | 400 | 1-Octen-3-ol | 80 | 2-Phenylethanol (PE) | 120 |
| ( | 200 | Nonanal | 80 |
| |
| Phenylacetaldehyde | 40 | Methyl phenylacetate | 40 | ||
| 2-Phenylethanol | 40 | Benzaldehyde | 40 |
| |
| Nonanal | 40 | Sulcatone | 20 | ||
| Phenylacetaldehyde | 20 |
| |||
| 2-Phenylethanol | 20 |
Dose effect of the synthetic chemical compounds on the EAG response of Tecia solanivora females
| Compound name |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Benzaldehyde | 10 | 9.192 | 0.0002 |
| δ-Elemene | 6 | 1.412 | 0.2781 |
| δ-Cadinene | 10 | b | 0.5296 |
| α-Caryophyllene | 10 | 0.211 | 0.0894 |
| β-Caryophyllene | 9 | 9.817 | 0.0002 |
| α-Copaene | 11 | 2.007 | 0.1341 |
| α-Cubebene | 9 | c | 0.4868 |
| Decanal | 16 | 11.57 | <0.001 |
| ( | 10 | 9.908 | 0.0001 |
| ( | 10 | 7.541 | 0.0008 |
| Germacrene D | 10 | 1.984 | 0.1401 |
| Methyl phenylacetate | 15 | b | <0.001 |
| β-Myrcene | 10 | 7.951 | 0.0006 |
| Nonanal | 11 | b | <0.001 |
| 3-Octanone | 8 | b | 0.0079 |
| 1-Octen-3-ol | 11 | 15.07 | <0.001 |
| Phenylacetaldehyde | 10 | 6.228 | 0.0024 |
| 2-Phenylethanol | 10 | 5.576 | 0.0041 |
| Sabinene | 10 | 0.822 | 0.4934 |
| Sulcatone | 11 | 14.56 | <0.001 |
| Tetradecanal | 2 | n.a. | n.a. |
aRepeated measures one-way ANOVA
bNon-parametric Friedman’s test
cPaired t test
Fig. 1EAG dose response curves for Tecia solanivora females to synthetic plant volatiles. EAG amplitudes are control-adjusted and presented as relative response to the standard 0.1 μg (E)-3-12:Ac (Tecia solanivora pheromone). Doses tested were 0.01, 0.1, 1, and 10 μg μl−1. ns not significant, nt not tested
Fig. 2Response of male and female, virgin and mated Tecia solanivora, in Y-tube experiments when presented with odour blends (Table 2) vs control (a–d). a Tuber blend; b foliage blend; c flower blend; d tuber; and e tuber vs flower blend
Tecia solanivora ovipositor extension during olfactometer assays in different treatment combinations
| Treatment combination | Virgin (%) | Mated (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Tuber blend vs control | 7 | 12 | 0.413 |
| Foliage blend vs control | 7 | 16 | 0.176 |
| Flower blend vs control | 10 | 20 | 0.19 |
| Tubers vs flower blend | 0 | 11 | 0.006 |
| Tubers vs control | 2 | 31 | <0.001 |
a χ 2 test