| Literature DB >> 32243466 |
Reinaldo Silva de Oliveira1, Maria Fernanda G V Peñaflor2, Felipe G Gonçalves3, Marcus Vinicius Sampaio1, Ana Paula Korndörfer1, Weliton D Silva3, José Maurício S Bento3.
Abstract
Silicon (Si) supplementation is well-known for enhancing plant resistance to insect pests, however, only recently studies revealed that Si accumulation in the plant not only confers a mechanical barrier to insect feeding, but also primes jasmonic acid-dependent defenses. Here, we examined whether Si supplementation alters wheat volatile emissions that influence the bird cherry-oat aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi) olfactory preference and the aphid parasitoid Lysiphlebus testaceipes. Even though Si accumulation in wheat did not impact aphid performance, we found that R. padi preferred constitutive volatiles from-Si wheat over those emitted by +Si wheat plants. In Y-tube olfactometer bioassays, the parasitoid was attracted to volatiles from +Si uninfested wheat, but not to those from-Si uninfested wheat. +Si and-Si aphid-infested plants released equally attractive blends to the aphid parasitoid; however, wasps were unable to distinguish +Si uninfested plant odors from those of aphid-infested treatments. GC-MS analyses revealed that +Si uninfested wheat plants emitted increased amounts of a single compound, geranyl acetone, compared to -Si uninfested wheat, but similar to those emitted by aphid-infested treatments. By contrast, Si supplementation in wheat did not alter composition of aphid-induced plant volatiles. Our results show that changes in wheat volatile blend induced by Si accumulation mediate the non-preference behavior of the bird cherry-oat aphid and the attraction of its parasitoid L. testaceipes. Conversely to the literature, Si supplementation by itself seems to work as an elicitor of induced defenses in wheat, and not as a priming agent.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32243466 PMCID: PMC7122784 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Effect of silicon supplementation on wheat direct defenses to the bird cherry-oat aphid.
(A) Olfactory preference of Rhopalosiphum padi apterae (mean number of aphids ± SE) to Si-supplemented (+Si) and non-Si supplemented (-Si) wheat plants in arena choice assays along time course; (B) R. padi performance in +Si and -Si wheat plants based on the total number of aphids (mean number of aphids ± SE). ns = not significant; ** indicates significant difference between treatments at 1% according to GLMM.
Fig 2Effect of silicon supplementation on the olfactory response of Lysiphlebus testaceipes to wheat volatiles.
Olfactory response of the aphid parasitoid Lysiphlebus testaceipes to volatile emissions from Si-supplemented (+Si) and non-Si supplemented (-Si) uninfested (-aphid) and aphid-infested (+aphid) wheat plants, in the Y-tube olfactometer. The olfactory response of parasitoid females to the treatments were first tested against the clean air (air). Treatments that were attractive were contrasted among themselves. * indicates significant difference at 5% according to chi-square test. ** indicates significant difference at 1% according to chi-square test.
Ratio of compounds (mean ± SE) emitted by silicon-supplemented (+Si) and non-silicon supplemented (Si-) uninfested and aphid-infested wheat plants.
Relative amounts were estimated based on the peak area of the internal standard. Bold value indicates significant elevation in relative amount of a compound compared to the control treatment (-Si uninfested wheat plant) according to GLM.
| Compounds | Uninfested | Aphid-infested | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -Si | +Si | -Si | +Si | |
| linalool oxide | 0.35 ± 0.06 | 0.49 ± 0.12 | 4.49 ± 1.26 | 4.14 ± 0.94 |
| benzaldehyde | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 0.26 ± 0.05 | 1.16 ± 0.21 | 0.83 ± 0.40 |
| undentified monoterpene 1 | 0.28 ± 0.17 | 0.81 ± 0.49 | 8.47 ± 4.76 | 11.09 ± 2.34 |
| undentified monoterpene 2 | 0.22 ± 0.11 | 0.21 ± 0.03 | 19.50 ± 11.63 | 19.36 ± 7.90 |
| 3-decen-5-one | - | - | 9.36 ± 2.51 | 9.68 ± 1.19 |
| ( | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.28 ± 0.10 | 1.99 ± 0.42 | 3.13 ± 0.92 |
| methyl geranate | - | - | 5.22 ± 2.28 | 7.08 ± 2.59 |
| Geranyl acetone | 0.42 ± 0.17 | 3.43 ± 0.89 | 4.41 ± 1.19 | |
| Total Emission | 1.57 ± 0.37 a | 5.73 ± 2.19 a | 53.62 ± 15.25 b | 59.72 ± 12.56 b |
a different letters indicate significant differences according to Tukey’s test at 5% probability