The eco-physiological complexity of plant responses to insect herbivores

Baldwin, Ian Thomas; Preston, Catherine A.

doi:10.1007/s004250050543

Cited by 225 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 98 publications

(94 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

144

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…How the emission of volatile organic compounds functions as a defense-activating mechanism is the major difference between the response of plants to pathogens and to herbivores. The type of defense a plant deploys against a particular herbivore will be highly contingent on the ecological circumstances of the plant (Baldwin and Preston, 1999). It is possible to speculate that there might be emission of volatile compounds in sugarcane in response to herbivory since several genes involved in this signaling pathway are expressed in some of the tissues of this plant.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of sugarcane response to herbivory

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deciphering plant-insect interactions at the molecular level is one of the major topics of interest in contemporary plant biology research. In the last few years, various aspects of the plant response to insect damage have been investigated, including the characterization of direct and indirect responses, the regulation of gene expression resulting from insect attack and the signal transduction pathways. Such research has resulted in the proposal of new methods to enhance host resistance to insect pests, including the use of insecticidal genes that can be transferred by genetic engineering into target crops. By integrating the understanding of how plants react to insect damage with the techniques of molecular biology researchers should be able to increase the wide range of methods available for the control of insect pests. The sugarcane transcriptome project (SUCEST) has allowed the identification of several orthologues genes involved in the plant response to insect damage. In this paper we summarize several aspects of the complex interaction between plants and insects and describe the use of in silico analysis to provide information about gene expression in different sugarcane tissues in response to insect attack.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of sugarcane response to herbivory

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible that in our experiments (2)-linalool interferes with the attractiveness of foliage volatiles from host plants (Chapman et al 1981;Thiéry & Visser 1986) or that (2)-linalool is repellent (Dethier et al 1960;Hori 1998). Plants defend themselves against insect herbivory by producing volatiles (including linalool; see below) that provide host-location cues for insects that are natural enemies of the herbivores (De Moraes et al 1998;Baldwin & Preston 1999;Paré & Tumlinson 1999;Schnee et al 2006). Indeed, feeding by M. sexta larvae on tobacco plants induces systemic production of enantiomerically uncharacterized linalool (De Moraes et al 2001;Kessler & Baldwin 2001) and decreases oviposition by the closely related moth Manduca quinquemaculata (Kessler & Baldwin 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Antagonistic effects of floral scent in an insect–plant interaction

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In southwestern USA, the jimsonweed Datura wrightii and the nocturnal moth Manduca sexta form a pollinator-plant and herbivore-plant association. Because the floral scent is probably important in mediating this interaction, we investigated the floral volatiles that might attract M. sexta for feeding and oviposition. We found that flower volatiles increase oviposition and include small amounts of both enantiomers of linalool, a common component of the scent of hawkmoth-pollinated flowers. Because (þ)-linalool is processed in a female-specific glomerulus in the primary olfactory centre of M. sexta, we hypothesized that the enantiomers of linalool differentially modulate feeding and oviposition. Using a synthetic mixture that mimics the D. wrightii floral scent, we found that the presence of linalool was not necessary to evoke feeding and that mixtures containing (þ)-and/or (2)-linalool were equally effective in mediating this behaviour. By contrast, females oviposited more on plants emitting (þ)-linalool (alone or in mixtures) over control plants, while plants emitting (2)-linalool (alone or in mixtures) were less preferred than control plants. Together with our previous investigations, these results show that linalool has differential effects in feeding and oviposition through two neural pathways: one that is sexually isomorphic and non-enantioselective, and another that is female-specific and enantioselective.

show abstract

“…This paper intends to show the parallels between these well-known direct and indirect responses to feeding herbivores and the plant responses to ovipo- sition ( Figure 1). Direct plant responses induced by feeding directly target the herbivores and may, for example, reduce access to the plant nutrients or result in the production of anti-nutritive components or toxins ( Figure 1) (Duffey & Stout, 1996;Turlings & Benrey, 1998;Baldwin & Preston, 1999;Baldwin et al, 2001). Indirect plant defensive responses to feeding arthropods result in the emission of induced volatiles, which attract carnivores from the third trophic level (Turlings et al, 1990;Tumlinson et al, 1993;De Moraes et al, 1998;Dicke & Vet, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hilker

Meiners

2002

Entomologia Exp Applicata

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 plant's defensive responses. The reactions of herbivores to oviposition induced plant responses are compared with their reactions to feeding induced plant responses.

show abstract

The eco-physiological complexity of plant responses to insect herbivores

Cited by 225 publications

References 98 publications

Mechanisms of sugarcane response to herbivory

Mechanisms of sugarcane response to herbivory

Antagonistic effects of floral scent in an insect–plant interaction

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About