| Literature DB >> 35621763 |
Phawini Khetnon1,2, Kanungnid Busarakam3, Wissarut Sukhaket2,4, Cholticha Niwaspragrit2, Wintai Kamolsukyeunyong5, Naoto Kamata1,6, Sunisa Sanguansub1.
Abstract
Plant trichomes generally act as a physical defense against herbivore attacks and are present in a variety of plants, including rice plants. This research examined the physical and chemical defenses of rice plants against the brown planthopper (BPH), Nilaparvata lugens (Stål) (Hemiptera: Delphacidae). A total of 10 rice varieties were used in this study. An electron microscope was used to observe trichomes. Constitutive and induced volatile compound profiles were assessed using GC-MS analyses. The preference of BPH for volatiles from the 10 rice plants was tested using a two-choice arena olfactometer system. The density of prickle trichomes had a negative relationship with the BPH injury level. Without BPH infestation, the volatile of the most resistant rice variety (Rathu Heenati (RH)) was preferred by BPH than those of the other varieties, with the exception of Gled Plah Chawn. However, the relative BPH preference for volatiles from the RH variety decreased during BPH infestation. When rice plants were infested by BPH, the numbers of VOCs and these quantities decreased. In the RH variety, the emission of essentities found without BPH infestation ceased during infestation by BPH. During the BPH infestation, rice plants started to emit new VOCs that were not detected before the BPH infestation started. In conclusion, we discovered that rice plants defended against BPH by changing VOC components during BPH infestation and β-Sesquiphellandrene was likely the most effective component.Entities:
Keywords: brown planthopper; rice; trichome; volatile organic compound
Year: 2022 PMID: 35621763 PMCID: PMC9143670 DOI: 10.3390/insects13050427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 3.139
Ten rice varieties used in the experiments.
| Variety | Varieties Description | Originated | Resistance to BPH | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beu Sim | Indigenous rice variety | Thailand | Data not found | - |
| Gled Plah Chawn | Indigenous rice variety | Thailand | Data not found | - |
| Hawm Dawk Doo | Indigenous rice variety | Thailand | Data not found | - |
| Kam Pai | Indigenous rice variety | Thailand | Data not found | - |
| Khao Maew | Indigenous rice variety | Thailand | Data not found | - |
| Sahm Ruang | Indigenous rice variety | Thailand | Data not found | - |
| Rathu Heenati (RH) | Resistant donor variety in the conventional breeding program | Sri Lanka | Resistant | [ |
| Taichung Native 1 (TN1) | Standard susceptible variety | Taiwan | Susceptible | [ |
| Khao Dawk Mali 105 (KDML105) | Commercial variety | Thailand | Susceptible | [ |
| Suphan Buri 1 | Commercial variety | Thailand | Resistant | [ |
Injury levels by BPH obtained by SSBS test and evaluated BPH resistance of 10 rice varieties.
| Varieties | Injury Score by SES (0–9) | BPH | Evaluated BPH | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 DAI | 9 DAI | 11 DAI | |||
| RH | 0.0 (0–0) a | 0.2 (0–1) a | 6.0 (3–9) ab | 3.2 (1.5–4.5) a | HR |
| Suphan Buri 1 | 0.0 (0–0) ab | 2.0 (1–3) ac | 6.7 (5–9) a | 5.3 (3.5–7.5) ac | R |
| Hawm Dawk Doo | 0.3 (0–1) ab | 4.2 (0–7) abc | 9.0 (9–9) c | 8.8 (4.5–11.5) abc | I |
| KDML105 | 0.7 (0–3) ab | 5.3 (5–7) bc | 8.7 (7–9) c | 10.0 (8.5–12.0) bc | I |
| Gled Plah Chawn | 1.3 (0–5) ab | 5.0 (3–7) bc | 9.0 (9–9) c | 10.1 (7.5–14.0) abc | I |
| Kam Pai | 2.3 (0–5) ab | 5.0 (1–7) bc | 9.0 (9–9) c | 10.6 (5.5–14.0) b | S |
| Sahm Ruang | 2.2 (0–5) ab | 5.3 (5–7) bc | 8.3 (5–9) bc | 10.6 (8.0–14.0) b | S |
| Khao Maew | 3.2 (0–7) ab | 5.3 (3–7) bc | 9.0 (9–9) c | 11.4 (7.5–15.0) b | S |
| Beu Sim | 1.8 (0–3) ab | 6.3 (5–7) b | 9.0 (9–9) c | 11.8 (9.5–13.0) b | S |
| TN1 | 3.8 (0–7) b | 5.7 (1–9) b | 9.0 (9–9) c | 12.1 (5.5–17.0) b | S |
| Mean | 1.0 | 4.6 | 8.5 | 9.4 | |
| 0.006 | 0.0007 | 0.0002 | 0.0004 | ||
Mean (minimum–maximum) are shown. DAI: days after infestation. Same letter indicates no statistical difference at p = 0.05. (Post Hoc Dunn’s multiple comparison using adjusted p-values by the Benjamini–Hochberg method following Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum test). Evaluated resistance to BPH was categorized using the relative value of the AUC. HR: highly resistant; R: resistant; I: intermediate; S: susceptible; Criteria for the categories are shown in the text.
Figure 1The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observation of rice leaf surface at 500× magnification. Rice trichomes found in selected varieties were classified as follows (A) arrowhead: prickle trichome; (B) arrowhead: macro trichome; (C) arrow: micro trichome; arrowhead: glandular trichome; and (D) arrowhead: Papillae.
Length of trichomes on the leaf surface of 10 rice varieties.
| Rice Varieties | Glandular Trichome | Non-Glandular Trichome | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prickle | Micro | Macro | Papillae | ||
| RH | 35.10 ± 0.49 b | 36.00 ± 1.80 d | 16.80 ± 0.75 c | 247.67 ± 12.44 b | 15.80 ± 0.57 bc |
| Suphan Buri 1 | 37.93 ± 3.66 ab | 42.77 ± 3.84 cd | 16.67 ± 2.50 c | 170.33 ± 17.46 c | 15.60 ± 0.92 bc |
| Hom Dawk Doo | 44.83 ± 2.23 a | 74.47 ± 4.37 a | 0.00 ± 0.00 d | 249.33 ± 13.78 b | 19.00 ± 0.25 a |
| KDML105 | 38.03 ± 1.42 ab | 0.00 ± 0.00 e | 0.00 ± 0.00 d | 157.33 ± 20.85 cd | 18.07 ± 1.01 ab |
| Gled Plah Chawn | 40.23 ± 4.36 ab | 55.10 ± 7.95 b | 25.53 ± 1.58 a | 125.33 ± 0.88 cd | 14.50 ± 0.75 c |
| Kam Pai | 42.37 ± 0.27 ab | 45.83 ± 1.67 bcd | 21.40 ± 2.63 b | 110.80 ± 5.88 d | 14.83 ± 2.09 c |
| Sahm Ruang | 40.23 ± 2.14 ab | 0.00 ± 0.00 e | 23.03 ± 0.22 ab | 229.33 ± 7.31 b | 15.33 ± 0.60 bc |
| Khao Maew | 40.20 ± 0.87 ab | 0.00 ± 0.00 e | 0.00 ± 0.00 d | 342.67 ± 34.23 a | 15.00 ± 0.31 c |
| Beu Sim | 40.87 ± 1.91 ab | 48.47 ± 4.60 bc | 22.73 ± 0.22 ab | 162.33 ± 9.96 cd | 16.00 ± 0.26 bc |
| TN1 | 37.90 ± 1.65 ab | 43.23 ± 4.43 cd | 0.00 ± 0.00 d | 108.13 ± 19.45 d | 14.53 ± 0.52 c |
Mean ± SD. The same superscript letters indicate no statistical difference at p = 0.05 (Post Hoc Duncan’s multiple range test following ANOVA).
Density of trichomes on the leaf surface of 10 rice varieties.
| Rice Varieties | All | Glandular | Non-glandular Trichome | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prickle | Micro | Macro | Papillae | |||
| RH | 11.42 ± 0.58 c | 0.33 ± 0.38 e | 0.58 ± 0.14 b | 0.42 ± 0.14 bc | 0.17 ± 0.14 e | 9.92 ± 0.52 c |
| Suphan Buri 1 | 10.92 ± 1.04 cd | 1.75 ± 0.43 c | 1.58 ± 1.26 a | 0.83 ± 0.29 a | 0.42 ± 0.14 de | 6.33 ± 0.88 cde |
| Hom Dawk Doo | 15.67 ± 3.25 b | 2.50 ± 0.50 b | 0.17 ± 0.14 b | 0.00 ± 0.00 d | 2.58 ± 0.95 a | 10.42 ± 3.75 b |
| KDML105 | 8.42 ± 0.58 cde | 0.67 ± 0.14 de | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | 0.00 ± 0.00 d | 1.75 ± 0.25 b | 6.00 ± 0.50 de |
| Gled Plah Chawn | 5.42 ± 1.28 e | 0.83 ± 0.14 de | 0.17 ± 0.14 b | 0.67 ± 0.29 ab | 0.17 ± 0.29 e | 3.58 ± 0.95 e |
| Kam Pai | 7.75 ± 1.98 de | 0.58 ± 0.14 de | 0.17 ± 0.29 b | 0.92 ± 0.38 a | 0.92 ± 0.29 cde | 5.17 ± 2.57 de |
| Sahm Ruang | 11.50 ± 1.64 c | 2.58 ± 0.63 b | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | 0.17 ± 0.14 cd | 0.67 ± 0.29 cde | 8.08 ± 1.04 bcd |
| Khao Maew | 21.33 ± 2.01 a | 3.67 ± 0.38 a | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | 0.00 ± 0.00 d | 2.50 ± 0.25 a | 15.17 ± 2.27 a |
| Beu Sim | 8.25 ± 1.15 cde | 1.25 ± 0.43 cd | 0.25 ± 0.00 b | 0.25 ± 0.25 cd | 1.08 ± 0.52 bcd | 5.42 ± 1.59 de |
| TN1 | 9.33 ± 3.26 cd | 1.75 ± 0.66 c | 0.08 ± 0.14 b | 0.00 ± 0.00 d | 1.33 ± 0.29 bc | 6.17 ± 3.06 de |
Densities of trichomes per square millimeters (mean ± SD) are shown. The same superscript letters indicate no statistical difference at p = 0.05 (Post Hoc Duncan’s multiple range test following ANOVA).
Spearman’s rank correlation (ρ) of injury level and the physical characteristics of trichomes on 10 rice varieties.
| Length | Density | |
|---|---|---|
| All trichomes | NA | −0.15 ( |
| Grandular trichome | 0.05 ( | 0.27 ( |
| Prickle trichome | 0.05 ( | −0.43 ( |
| Micro trichome | −0.10 ( | −0.33 ( |
| Macro trichome | −0.32 ( | 0.44 ( |
| Papillae | −0.10 ( | −0.20 ( |
NA: Not Available.
Figure 2Relative olfactory preferences of BPH for volatiles from rice plants of RH variety to the others determined by two−choice tests using potted plants without BPH infestation.
Figure 3Relative olfactory preferences of BPH for volatiles from rice plants of RH variety to the others determined by two–choice tests using potted plants with BPH infestation.
Compounds identified in volatiles from 10 varieties of rice plants with (w) and without (w/o) BPH infestation.
| Compounds | RH | Suphan Buri 1 | Hawm Dawk Doo | KDML105 | Gled Plah Chawn | Kam Pai | Sahm Ruang | Khao Maew | Beu Sim | TN1 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| w/o | w | w/o | w | w/o | w | w/o | w | w/o | w | w/o | w | w/o | w | w/o | w | w/o | w | w/o | w | ||
| Monoterpenoids | Total | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Bicyclo[3.1.0]hex-2-ene,4-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| D-Limonene | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| α-Phellandrene | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||||
| β-Myrcene | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Sesquiterpenoids | Total | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| (S,1Z,6Z)-8-Isopropyl-1-methyl-5-methylenecyclodeca-1,6-diene | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Aromandendrene | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Caryophyllene | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||||
| α-Cubebene | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||||||||||
| β-Caryophyllen | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| β-Curcumene | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| β-Sesquiphellandrene | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Norsesquiterpenes | Total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Geijerene | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Carbonyl compounds | Total | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 1-Hepten-3-one | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1-Penten-3-one | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 4′-Ethylpropiophenone | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Ethanone,1-(4-ethylphenyl)- | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Terpene | Total | 12 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| 1-Methyl-3-(1′-methylcyclopropyl)cyclopentene | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1-Octene,2-methyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,3-Bis(cyclopentyl)-1-cyclopentanone | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,3-Cyclohexadiene,5,6-dimethyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,3,4,6-Hexanetetrone,1-(4-methylphenyl)-6-phenyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,5-Heptadiene,(E)- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,5-Heptadiene,(Z)- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,5-Heptadiene,3-methyl-,(E)- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1H-Indene,1-hexadecyl-2,3-dihydro- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2,5-Cyclohexadien-1-one,4,4′-(1,2-ethanediylidene)bis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 3-Ethyl-3-hexene | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 3-Pentanone,2,2,4,4-tetramethyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 3-Undecene,5-methyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 4-(2′,4′,4′-trimethyl-yciclo[4.1.0]hept-2′-en-3′-yl)-3-buten-2-one | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 4-Undecene,6-methyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 5-Hepten-3-one,5-ethyl-4-methyl- | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Benzene,(2,2-dimethylpropyl)- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Benzene,[(cyclohex-1-en-1-yl)methyl]- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Benzene,1,2-diethyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Benzene,1,3-diethyl | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Benzene,1,4-diethyl- | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||
| Bicyclo[5.2.0]nonane,2-methylene-4,8,8-trimethyl-4-vinyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| cis-Muurola-4(15),5-diene | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Cyclobutane,1,2-bis(1-methylethenyl)-,trans- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cyclobutane,1,2-dipropenyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cyclobutane,1,3-diisopropenyl-,trans | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||||
| Cyclobutanone,2,3,3,4-tetramethyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cyclohexene,1-(1-propynyl)- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cyclopentanone,2,2,5-trimethyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cyclopropane,1-(2-methylbutyl)-1-(1-methylpropyl)- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Decane,3,8-dimethyl- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Hexane,3-methyl-4-methylene- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Hexane,3,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2,2,5,5-tetramethyl- | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||
| Naphthalene | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||
| Naphthalene,1,2,3,4,4a,7-hexahydro-1,6-dimethyl-4-(1-methylethyl)- | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Octadecane,2,2,4,15,17,17-hexamethyl-7,12-bis(3,5,5-trimethylhexyl)- | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Santolinatriene | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Tridecane,2,2,4,10,12,12-hexamethyl-7-(3,5,5-trimethylhexyl)- | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Sum total | 17 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 12 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 4 | |