Torsten Meiners

Early Herbivore Alert: Insect Eggs Induce Plant Defense

Plants are able to “notice” insect egg deposition and to respond by activating direct and indirect defenses. An overview of these defenses and the underlying mechanisms is given from a tritrophic perspective. First, the interface between plant and eggs is addressed with respect to the mode of attachment of eggs on the plant surface. It is elucidated which plant cells might respond to components from insect eggs or the egg deposition. The scarce knowledge on the elicitors associated with the eggs or the egg-laying female is outlined. Since endosymbiotic microorganisms are often present on the eggs, and microorganisms are also abundant on the leaf surface, the role of these hidden players for eliciting oviposition-induced plant responses is considered. Furthermore, the question of which physiological and molecular processes are induced within the plant in response to egg deposition is addressed. Second, studies on the response of the herbivorous insect to oviposition-induced plant defenses are outlined. Third, the importance of oviposition-induced plant volatiles and contact cues for host and prey location of parasitoids and predators is discussed in the context of other informative chemicals used by carnivores when searching for food. Finally, physiological and ecological costs of oviposition-induced plant responses are addressed.

Chemoecology of Insect Eggs and Egg Deposition

The insects that cause or transmit human and animal disease constitute a wide range of taxa sharing a similar feeding habit, but differing in most other aspects of their life histories, including oviposition. This chapter mainly deals with oviposition or larviposition behaviour within the Diptera, since the major groups that exhibit such behaviour and that constitute pests of major medical or veterinary importance are true flies. Aggregation behaviour in bloodsucking Hemiptera is discussed briefly. Bloodfeeding groups generally oviposit at sites remote from their vertebrate hosts: mosquitoes (Culicidae) and blackflies (Simuliidae) oviposit in aquatic environments, and sandflies (Psychodidae), tsetse flies (Glossinidae), bedbugs (Cimicidae) and kissing bugs (Reduviidae) oviposit in terrestrial environments. Facultative or obligatory carnivorous Diptera, where the immature stages can be saprotrophic or parasitic on the same animals on which the adult flies feed, also locate and select oviposition or larviposition sites using chemical cues. These include warble flies, bot flies (Oestridae), blowflies, screwworms (Calliphoridae) and flesh flies (Sarcophagidae). Not surprisingly, given the range of life histories of these diverse groups, the interaction of pheromones with visual cues, odours of environmental origin and the physical properties of the oviposition site, is wide-ranging in nature. Knowledge of the chemoecology of oviposition in these insects lags behind that on herbivorous and parasitic insects and attractant compounds have been identified in only a few cases. A number of plant species have evolved to mimic animal odour cues to attract carnivorous fly species as pollinators. Because of the importance of these insects as vectors of human and animal disease, interest in this field has been driven primarily by a search for chemically baited traps for monitoring and control. Odour baited oviposition traps are currently used in the surveillance of a number of important pest species. Odour baited trapping for the control of pest populations may be feasible for certain species. 5.

Induction of Plant Synomones by Oviposition of a Phytophagous Insect

Earlier investigations of host habitat location in the egg parasitoid Oomyzus gallerucae have shown that oviposition of the elm leaf beetle (Xanthogaleruca luteola) induces the field elm (Ulmus minor) to emit volatiles that attract the egg parasitoid. In this study we investigated the mechanism of this induction by testing the effects of differently treated elm leaves on O. gallerucae in a four-arm olfactometer. First we investigated which sequence of the herbivore oviposition behavior is necessary for the synomone induction. The following major sequences were observed: (1) Prior oviposition, the gravid female gnawed shallow grooves into the leaf surface. (2) After gnawing upon the leaf surface, the female attached about 20–30 eggs with oviduct secretion in the grooves. We experimentally mimicked the shallow grooves on the leaf surface by scratching the leaf surface with a scalpel (= scratched leaves). Volatiles from such scratched leaves did not attract the egg parasitoid. However, as soon as eggs with oviduct secretion, or only oviduct secretion, was applied to these scratched leaves, they emitted attractive volatiles. Application of oviduct secretion and eggs on undamaged leaves did not elicit release of attractive synomones. Thus, an elicitor is located in the oviduct secretion, but becomes active only when the leaf surface is damaged. Jasmonic acid is known as a mediator of plant responses induced by feeding of herbivorous arthropods, and we demonstrate that it mediates production of elm synomones that attract O. gallerucae. The plants reaction to oviposition was systemic, and leaves without eggs near leaves with eggs emitted attractants.

Induction of plant responses to oviposition and feeding by herbivorous arthropods: a comparison

Plants may respond both to feeding and oviposition by herbivorous insects. While responses of plants to feeding damage by herbivores have been studied intensively during the past decades, only a few, but growing number of studies consider the reactions of plants towards egg deposition by herbivorous insects. Plants showing defensive response to oviposition by herbivores do not ‘wait’ until being damaged by feeding, but may instead react towards one of the initial steps of herbivore attack, the egg deposition. Direct plant defensive responses to feeding act directly against the feeding stages of the herbivores. However, a plant may also show direct defensive responses to egg deposition by (a) formation of neoplasms, (b) formation of necrotic tissue (= hypersensitive response), and (c) production of oviposition deterrents. All these plant reactions have directly negative effects on the eggs, hatching larvae, or on the ovipositing females. Indirect plant defensive responses to feeding result in the emission of volatiles (= synomones) that attract predators or parasitoids of the feeding stages. A few recent studies have shown that plants are able to emit volatiles also in response to egg deposition and that these volatiles attract egg parasitoids. Studies on the mechanisms of induction of synomones by egg deposition show several parallels to the mechanisms of induction of plant responses by feeding damage. When considering induced plant defence against herbivores from an evolutionary point of view, the question arises whether herbivores evolved the ability to circumvent or even to exploit the plants defensive responses. The reactions of herbivores to oviposition induced plant responses are compared with their reactions to feeding induced plant responses.

How do plants “notice” attack by herbivorous arthropods?

Precise and deep comprehension of plant responses to herbivorous arthropods requires detailed knowledge of how a plant “notices” the attack. Herbivore attack is not restricted to plant wounding by feeding, but instead different phases of attack that elicit a plant response need to be distinguished: touch, oviposition and feeding. Touch, secretions released with eggs and regurgitate delivered during feeding may act in concert as elicitors of plant defence. Here, we discuss the current knowledge of what a plant “notices” during the different phases of herbivore attack and how it responds at the molecular, physiological and ecological level. Understanding the mechanisms of plant responses to the different phases of herbivore attack will be a key challenge in unravelling the complex communication pathways between plants and herbivores.

Choosing and using diversity indices: Insights for ecological applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories

Biodiversity, a multidimensional property of natural systems, is difficult to quantify partly because of the multitude of indices proposed for this purpose. Indices aim to describe general properties of communities that allow us to compare different regions, taxa, and trophic levels. Therefore, they are of fundamental importance for environmental monitoring and conservation, although there is no consensus about which indices are more appropriate and informative. We tested several common diversity indices in a range of simple to complex statistical analyses in order to determine whether some were better suited for certain analyses than others. We used data collected around the focal plant Plantago lanceolata on 60 temperate grassland plots embedded in an agricultural landscape to explore relationships between the common diversity indices of species richness (S), Shannon’s diversity (H’), Simpson’s diversity (D1), Simpson’s dominance (D2), Simpson’s evenness (E), and Berger–Parker dominance (BP). We calculated each of these indices for herbaceous plants, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, aboveground arthropods, belowground insect larvae, and P. lanceolata molecular and chemical diversity. Including these trait-based measures of diversity allowed us to test whether or not they behaved similarly to the better studied species diversity. We used path analysis to determine whether compound indices detected more relationships between diversities of different organisms and traits than more basic indices. In the path models, more paths were significant when using H’, even though all models except that with E were equally reliable. This demonstrates that while common diversity indices may appear interchangeable in simple analyses, when considering complex interactions, the choice of index can profoundly alter the interpretation of results. Data mining in order to identify the index producing the most significant results should be avoided, but simultaneously considering analyses using multiple indices can provide greater insight into the interactions in a system.

Plants and insect eggs: how do they affect each other?

Plant-insect interactions are not just influenced by interactions between plants and the actively feeding stages, but also by the close relationships between plants and insect eggs. Here, we review both effects of plants on insect eggs and, vice versa, effects of eggs on plants. We consider the influence of plants on the production of insect eggs and address the role of phytochemicals for the biosynthesis and release of insect sex pheromones, as well as for insect fecundity. Effects of plants on insect oviposition by contact and olfactory plant cues are summarised. In addition, we consider how the leaf boundary layer influences both insect egg deposition behaviour and development of the embryo inside the egg. The effects of eggs on plants involve egg-induced changes of photosynthetic activity and of the plants secondary metabolism. Except for gall-inducing insects, egg-induced changes of phytochemistry were so far found to be detrimental to the eggs. Egg deposition can induce hypersensitive-like plant response, formation of neoplasms or production of ovicidal plant substances; these plant responses directly harm the eggs. In addition, egg deposition can induce a change of the plants odour and leaf surface chemistry which serve indirect plant defence with the help of antagonists of the insect eggs. These egg-induced changes lead to attraction of egg parasitoids and their arrestance on a leaf, respectively. Finally, we summarise knowledge of the elicitors of egg-induced plant changes and address egg-induced effects on the plants transcriptional pattern.

Host location in Oomyzus gallerucae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), an egg parasitoid of the elm leaf beetle Xanthogaleruca luteola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Abstract Eggs of the elm leaf beetle Xanthogaleruca luteola are often heavily attacked by the chalcidoid wasp Oomyzus gallerucae. We studied the chemical signals mediating interactions between the egg parasitoid, its host, and the plant Ulmus campestris. Olfactometer bioassays with O. gallerucae showed that volatiles of the host-plant complex attract the parasitoid. In order to determine the source of attractive volatiles within this host-plant-complex, we tested separately the effect of odours of eggs, gravid elm leaf beetle females, faeces of the beetles and elm twigs (with undamaged leaves and leaves damaged either mechanically or by feeding of the beetles). Odours of faeces of the elm leaf beetle were attractive, whereas neither volatiles from eggs nor from gravid females acted as attractants. Volatiles from undamaged or damaged plants did not elicit a positive reaction in O. gallerucae, whereas volatiles from feeding-damaged plants onto which host eggs had been deposited were attractive. This latter result suggests that it is not feeding but deposition of host eggs onto elm leaves that induces the production of plant volatiles attractive to the egg parasitoid. Investigations of the search patterns of O. gallerucae within the habitat by laboratory bioassays revealed that the egg parasitoid encounters host eggs by chance. Contact kairomones from faeces were demonstrated to be important in microhabitat acceptance, while contact kairomones isolated from the host eggs are relevant for host recognition.

Rich in phenomena-lacking in terms. A classification of kairomones

Summary. Although the usefulness of the term kairomone was discussed controversially after its introduction, it is now widely accepted in chemical ecology. It is commonly used to describe a chemical that is pertinent to the biology of an organism (organism 1) and that when it contacts an individual of another species (Organism 2) evokes in the receiver a behavioural or physiological response that is adaptively favourable to organism 2 but not to organism 1. A look at the chemoecological literature reveals that chemicals classified by the mere term kairomone may have completely different biological functions for the receiving organism. Chemicals meeting the definition of a kairomone are used for the location of food sources and sexual mates, or may be used by potential prey or host organisms to decrease the negative impact of natural enemies. Thus, by describing those diverse mediators merely as kairomones, no information on the actual function of the chemical is given. When considering the terminology of pheromones, another diverse group of infochemicals mediating intraspecific interactions, further subdivision is common practice and useful to describe the multitude of different functions and thus, to prevent terminological confusion.¶The present paper demonstrates the diversity of kairomone-related ecological phenomena by several examples and proposes a further classification of kairomones according to the function for the benefiting organism, by introducing the terms foraging kairomone (used in the context of food location), enemy-avoidance kairomone (used to reduce the negative impact of natural enemies), sexual kairomone (used for sexual purposes), and aggregation kairomone (attracting/arresting both sexes of an organism). Additionally, discrimination of two groups of kairomones according to the effect on the benefiting organism is proposed leading to the terms primer kairomone (inducing physiological responses) and releaser kairomone (inducing behavioural responses). The intention of the proposed classification is to allow a more precise description of kairomones and thus, to aid the discussion of these compounds and to improve the readability of kairomone-related papers.

Analysis of Volatiles Induced by Oviposition of Elm Leaf Beetle Xanthogaleruca luteola on Ulmus minor

Egg deposition of the elm leaf beetle Xanthogaleruca luteola causes the emission of volatiles from its food plant, Ulmus minor. These volatiles are exploited by the egg parasitoid, Oomyzus gallerucae, to locate its host. In contrast to other tritrophic systems, the release of volatiles is not induced by feeding but by egg deposition. Previous investigations showed that the release is systemic and can be triggered by jasmonic acid. Comparison of headspace analysis revealed similarities in the blend of volatiles emitted following egg deposition and feeding. The mixture consists of more than 40 compounds; most of the substances are terpenoids. Leaves next to those carrying eggs emit fewer compounds. When treated with jasmonic acid, leaves emit a blend that consists almost exclusively of terpenoids. Dichloromethane extracts of leaves treated with jasmonic acid were also investigated. After separation of extracts of jasmonate induced elm leaves on silica, we obtained a fraction of terpenoid hydrocarbons that was attractive to the parasitoids. This indicates that jasmonic acid stimulates the production of terpenoid hydrocarbons that convey information of egg deposition to the parasitoid.