Southern Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis, Antennal and Behavioral Responses to Nonhost Leaf and Bark Volatiles

Abstract

A growing body of evidence suggests that bark beetles detect and avoid release points of volatile compounds associated with nonhost species, and thus such nonhost volatiles may have potential utility in the management of bark beetles. We used a coupled gas chromatograph-electroantennographic detector (GC-EAD) to assay the olfactory sensitivity of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann, to volatiles from leaves and bark of eight species of nonhost angiosperm trees that are common in the range of D. frontalis. Tree species sampled were red maple (Acer rubrum L.), mockernut hickory [Carya alba (L.) Nutt. ex Ell.], sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.), black tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica Marsh.), black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.), southern red oak (Quercus falcata Michx.), blackjack oak [Quercus marilandica (L.) Muenchh.], and water oak (Quercus nigra L.). Beetle antennae responded to a total of 28 identifiable compounds in these samples. The relative olfactory responsiveness to 14 of these, as well as to nonanoic acid and four additional volatiles reported to be associated with nonhost angiosperms, was assessed in GC-EAD analyses of synthetic dilutions spanning six orders of magnitude. The largest response voltage amplitudes were obtained with trans-conophthorin, nonanoic acid, terpinen-4-ol, phenylethyl alcohol, and eucalyptol, whereas the lowest response thresholds were to nonanoic acid, nonanal, linalool, (E)-2-hexen-1-ol, and phenylethyl alcohol. Funnel traps baited with various combinations of eleven antennally-active angiosperm volatiles along with a standard attractant captured significantly fewer male and female D. frontalis than traps baited with the standard attractant alone. Our data suggest that a diversity of semiochemicals may be involved in host species discrimination by D. frontalis, and several may have utility in their management.

Characterizing the scent and chemical composition of Panthera leo marking fluid using solid-phase microextraction and multidimensional gas chromatography–mass spectrometry-olfactometry

“…Three out of the top five compounds with the highest surrogate odor activity values in lion MF (4-methylphenol, nonanal, and dimethyl disulfide) were also the compounds with most researched olfactory functions and animal behavioral studies 59–66, 78–89 (see Supplementary Table S3). Their high odor intensity in lion MF could be revealing their importance in lion communication.…”

“…The aroma detection of only a third of these confirmed odorous compounds could have been due to their potential low detection thresholds, potential interference from non-volatile components within the sample, the lipid portion of the marking fluid, or from the background contaminants of the enclosure’s floor 43 . The VOCs identified in lion MF play a role in sexual reproduction, sexuality, gender and age differentiation, aggression, attraction, anti-attraction, defense, and locomotion in a variety of species 15, 55, 68, 70, 85, 88, 89 . The 3 compounds with the highest surrogate odor activity values in lion MF (4-methylphenol, nonanal, and dimethyl disulfide) were also the compounds with the most researched olfactory functions in animal behavioral studies.…”

Effects of plant volatiles on electrophysiological and behavioral responses of Cryptorrhynchus lapathi

“…In a Y-tube olfactometer, female Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) were attracted to a 10% geraniol solution (de Kogel et al, 1999). Salicylaldehyde is emitted by bark of Salicaceae species and for various beetles EAG responses have been shown (Cheng & Chi, 2007;Shepherd et al, 2008;Chi et al, 2011;Shepherd & Sullivan, 2013). Only a small amount of geraniol has been detected from poplar leaf-buds (Jerkovi c & Masteli c, 2003).…”

Volatiles from non‐host aromatic plants repel tea green leafhopper Empoasca vitis

“…The release by L. pinnata and C. citriodora of repellent VOCs or of VOCs that mask the host's odor can protect the tea plants by effectively reducing the level of E. vitis attacks below that found in the monocropping plots. Ultimately, the perception of volatiles in the wrong blend or ratio of species-specific compounds might enable leafhoppers to avoid non-host intercrops (Reddy & Guerrero, 2004;Shepherd & Sullivan, 2013). Field experiments have indicated that NHVs can inhibit the ability of E. vitis to locate the habitat of its host.…”