| Literature DB >> 29526022 |
Marco Tasin1,2, Sebastian Larsson Herrera3, Alan L Knight4, Wilson Barros-Parada5,6, Eduardo Fuentes Contreras5, Ilaria Pertot7,8.
Abstract
Semiochemicals released by plant-microbe associations are used by herbivorous insects to access and evaluate food resources and oviposition sites. Adult insects may utilize microbial-derived nutrients to prolong their lifespan, promote egg development, and offer a high nutritional substrate to their offspring. Here, we examined the behavioral role of semiochemicals from grape-microbe interactions on oviposition and field attraction of the grapevine moth Lobesia botrana (Denis & Schiffermüller). The volatile constituents released by grape inoculated with yeasts (Hanseniaspora uvarum (Niehaus), Metschnikowia pulcherrima (Pitt.) M.W. Miller, Pichia anomala, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Meyen ex E.C. Hansen, and Zygosaccharomyces rouxii (Boutroux) Yarrow), sour rot bacteria (Acetobacter aceti (Pasteur) Beijerinck and Gluconobacter oxydans (Henneberg) De Ley), and a fungal pathogen (Botrytis cinerea Pers.) all endemic of the vineyard were sampled by solid-phase microextraction and analyzed by gas-chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. Ethanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, and ethyl acetate were the most common volatiles released from all microbe-inoculated grapes. In addition, acetic acid was released at a substantial amount following bacteria inoculation and in a three-way inoculation with yeasts and the fungus. 2-phenylethanol, a compound reported to attract tortricid moths when used in combination with acetic acid, was found at a relatively low level in all microbial combinations as well as in the control grape. While grapes inoculated with a consortium of yeasts stimulated oviposition in comparison with uninoculated berries, the phytopathogenic fungus deterred egg-laying. Nonetheless, the highest preference to lay eggs was measured when the yeasts were co-inoculated with the fungus. The lowest preference was obtained when grapes were inoculated with sour rot bacteria and their binary co-inoculation with yeasts and the fungus. Interestingly, oviposition on berries simultaneously inoculated with all the three microbial groups was unaffected. Lures loaded with either acetic acid or 2-phenylethanol were not attractive when placed in traps as single component in vineyards, but a binary blend attracted both sexes of grapevine moth in significant numbers. Further addition of the three most common volatiles released by infected berries (ethanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, and ethyl acetate) did not significantly increase moth catch with this binary blend. The ecological implications of the grape-microorganism and grapevine moth interaction as well as the possibility to develop a pest monitoring system based on microbial volatiles are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: 2-phenylethanol; Acetic acid; Dual sex attractant; Lobesia botrana; Pest monitoring
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29526022 PMCID: PMC6132500 DOI: 10.1007/s00248-018-1164-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Ecol ISSN: 0095-3628 Impact factor: 4.552
Fig. 1Heat map representing the chemical analysis of volatile compounds emitted by single or multiple microorganisms inoculated on grapes. Compounds were identified via SPME-GC-MS. The scale of the heat map represents a log 10 value of the compound abundance. The calibration of the SPME efficiency is shown in the graph at the bottom
Fig. 2Boxplot representing the number of eggs laid by L. botrana females a laboratory dual-choice experiment with uninoculated or microorganism inoculated grapes. Choice experiments were done in net-cages. Non-respondent insects were included in the statistical model. The boxplot includes the median line (tick line inside the box), the interquartile range (lower and upper box limits), the variability outside the interquartile range (whisker), and the outliers (points). Letter in the middle box indicates significant difference based on the number of eggs laid at each side of the bioassay and their ratio
Fig. 4Boxplot with field catches of both sexes of L. botrana from a vineyard in Chile during 2017. A total of 57 females and 48 males were caught. The boxplot includes the median line, the 25 and 75% range (lower and upper box limits), and the outliers. The thickness of the bar mirrors the density of the catch at a given level. Treatments capped with the same letter do not differ significantly in the number of caught moths
Output from the statistical analyses
| Model | Distributiona | Dispersion | Estimate | SE | z | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oviposition treatment vs control | |||||||
| Uninoculated (control) | Negative binomial (0.569) | 0.938 | − 0.026 | 0.400 | − 0.065 | 0.948 | |
| Fungus yeast bacteria | Negative binomial (0.861) | 0.828 | − 0.213 | 0.322 | − 0.661 | 0.508 | |
| Fungus yeast | Negative binomial (0.429) | 0.976 | 0.820 | 0.417 | 1.965 | 0.049 | |
| Yeast | Negative binomial (0.188) | 0.978 | 0.604 | 0.656 | 0.922 | 0.357 | |
| Fungus | Negative binomial (0.302) | 1.128 | − 0.841 | 0.419 | − 2.006 | 0.045 | |
| Yeast bacteria | Negative binomial (0.378) | 0.720 | − 0.995 | 0.517 | − 1.927 | 0.054 | |
| Fungus bacteria | Negative binomial (1.051) | 0.670 | − 1.136 | 0.351 | − 3.233 | 0.001 | |
| Bacteria | Negative binomial (0.133) | (1.368) | − 1.598 | 0.516 | − 3.096 | 0.002 | |
| Oviposition pairwise comparisonb | Binomial, cbind() | 1 | |||||
| Fungus yeast vs control | 0.846 | 0.182 | 4.640 | < 0.001 | |||
| Yeast vs control | 0.630 | 0.158 | 3.992 | 0.002 | |||
| Fungus vs control | − 0.815 | 0.150 | − 5.453 | < 0.001 | |||
| Yeast bacteria vs control | − 0.970 | 0.225 | − 4.310 | < 0.001 | |||
| Fungus bacteria vs control | − 1.110 | 0.219 | − 5.063 | < 0.001 | |||
| Bacteria vs control | − 1.572 | 0.167 | − 9.391 | < 0.001 | |||
| Fungus yeast vs fungus yeast bacteria | 1.033 | 0.179 | 5.773 | < 0.001 | |||
| Yeast vs fungus yeast bacteria | 0.817 | 0.154 | 5.307 | < 0.001 | |||
| Fungus vs fungus yeast bacteria | − 0.628 | 0.146 | − 4.319 | < 0.001 | |||
| Yeast bacteria vs fungus yeast bacteria | − 0.782 | 0.222 | − 3.520 | 0.010 | |||
| Fungus bacteria vs fungus yeast bacteria | − 0.923 | 0.217 | − 4.263 | < 0.001 | |||
| Bacteria vs fungus yeast bacteria | − 1.385 | 0.164 | − 8.456 | < 0.001 | |||
| Fungus vs fungus yeast | − 1.661 | 0.187 | − 8.892 | < 0.001 | |||
| Yeast bacteria vs fungus yeast | − 1.815 | 0.251 | − 7.223 | < 0.001 | |||
| Fungus bacteria vs fungus yeast | − 1.958 | 0.246 | − 7.944 | < 0.001 | |||
| Bacteria vs fungus yeast | – | − 2.417 | 0.201 | − 12.01 | < 0.001 | ||
| Fungus vs yeast | − 1.446 | 0.163 | − 8.862 | < 0.001 | |||
| Yeast bacteria vs yeast | − 1.600 | 0.234 | − 6.830 | < 0.001 | |||
| Fungus bacteria vs yeast | − 1.740 | 0.229 | − 7.608 | < 0.001 | |||
| Bacteria vs yeast | − 2.202 | 0.180 | − 12.25 | < 0.001 | |||
| Bacteria vs fungus | − 0.756 | 0.172 | − 4.388 | < 0.001 | |||
| Multicomparison of field catchesb | |||||||
| Males | Blend 7 vs blend 2/3/4 | Negative binomial (1.099) | 0.661 | 2.944 | 0.968 | 3.043 | 0.019 |
| Blend 8 vs blend 2/3/4 | 2.708 | 0.972 | 2.785 | 0.040 | |||
| Females | Blend 7 vs Blend 4 | Negative binomial (0.809) | 0.409 | 2.996 | 0.795 | 3.769 | 0.001 |
| Blend 8 vs blend 4 | 3.296 | 0.791 | 4.164 | 0.001 | |||
| Blend 7 vs blend 5 | 2.303 | 0.654 | 3.523 | 0.004 | |||
| Blend 8 vs blend 5 | 2.603 | 0.650 | 4.007 | < 0.001 | |||
aTheta parameter for negative binomial distribution
bOnly significant comparisons are shown
Fig. 3Density distribution of L. botrana egg in a laboratory dual-choice experiment with uninoculated or microorganism-inoculated grapes. The experiment was done in net-cages. Percentage of responding female is shown in parenthesis. The asterisk indicates a significant choice for one of the two treatments. The area delimited by each ridgeline is equal to 1