Next Article in Journal
Herbaceous Vegetation Responses to Gap Size within Natural Disturbance-Based Silvicultural Systems in Northeastern Minnesota, USA
Next Article in Special Issue
Polish Pony Changes Lower Layer Biodiversity in Old Growth Scots Pine Stands
Previous Article in Journal
Soil Fungal Community in Norway Spruce Forests under Bark Beetle Attack
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/f10020110
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Egg Deposition of Micromelalopha sieversi (Staudinger) on Clones of Populus from Section Aigeiros Induces Resistance in Neighboring Plants

by
Li Guo
1,2,
Fu Liu
1,
Sufang Zhang
1,
Xiangbo Kong
1 and
Zhen Zhang
1,*
1
Research Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China
2
Academy of Biological Science and Engineering, Xingtai University, Xingtai 054001, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2019, 10(2), 110; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020110
Submission received: 18 December 2018 / Revised: 29 January 2019 / Accepted: 29 January 2019 / Published: 30 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant-Animal Interactions in Forest Ecosystems)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Research Highlights: We demonstrated that the resistance mechanisms of plants could be used to combat damage caused by pests in forestry plantations. Background and Objectives: Poplar is the main tree species used in plantations in northern China, with Micromelalopha sieversi (Staudinger) representing a major pest species causing defoliation. Here, we investigated whether two poplar clones could resist this pest species and the physiological mechanisms involved. Materials and Methods: Two clones of Populus from section Aigeiros were used, with ‘108’ (P. × euramericana ‘Guariento’) being more attractive to M. sieversi than ‘111’ (P. × euramericana ‘Bellotto’). Three treatments were set up (oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants) to determine whether resistance was induced in plants neighboring oviposited plants. Results: Significantly fewer eggs were oviposited on neighboring plants compared to control plants for both clones, with more eggs being laid on oviposited and control plants of ‘108’ compared to ‘111’. β-Pinene was detected in oviposited and neighboring plants, but not control plants for either clone. Significantly higher concentrations of 3-carene was present in oviposited and neighboring plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’ compared to control plants at 24, 48, and 72 h after oviposition. Males, females, and mated females primarily responded to electroantennogram (EAG), methyl palmitate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate at 50 ng/μL, and to 3-carene and β-pinene at 5 ng/μL, and to styrene at 10 ng/μL in EAG assays. When using these concentrations on plant leaves, 3-carene, β-pinene, and styrene significantly reduced the number of eggs laid on ‘108’, while 3-carene and β-pinene were effective for ‘111’. Conclusions: Plants neighboring oviposited plants exhibited defense responses; 3-carene and β-pinene were used to transmit chemical signals (volatile cues) from oviposited plants to neighboring plants; which induced neighboring plants released volatiles as a defense mechanism to prevent egg laying.

1. Introduction

Plants are able to detect and respond to oviposition by insects by activating direct and indirect defense responses [1]. Many studies have demonstrated a variety of responses of plants to the early stages of insect attack [2]. Induced direct and indirect plant defenses in response to egg deposition have been determined. Egg deposition may induce the formation of a neoplasm that elevates eggs from the plant surface, so the exposed eggs easily drop off the leaves [3]. Leaves with eggs may form necrotic tissue to remove eggs and reduce the survival of hatching larvae [4,5]. Rice plants even produce an ovicidal substance that kills the eggs of Sogatella furcifera (Horváth) [6,7,8]. Furthermore, cabbage leaves with the eggs of Pieris brassicae L. produce oviposition deterrents [9].
In response to herbivory, plants emit volatiles that may be quantitatively and qualitatively different from those emitted by intact plants [10]. Information-mediated indirect resistance might increase by attracting predatory and parasitoid organisms [11,12,13,14,15]. For instance, egg deposition by Diprion pini induces a significant increase in the amount of (E)-β-farnesene from Pinus sylvestris, attracting the egg parasitoid Chrysonotomyia ruforum [16]. This induced response is not strictly limited to the site of egg deposition, but egg-free leaves adjacent to the site of oviposition also release volatiles that are attractive to egg parasitoids, showing systematic induced resistance [15,17,18].
Phytophagous insects are able to identify chemical signals emitted by host plants and locate them. As long as there is a smell of potato leaves, potato beetles exhibit host directed behavior [19]. The odor from withering black poplar (Populus nigra L.) branches affect how sites are selected for hiding and oviposition, mating rates, and the fecundity of female moths of the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hübner) [20]. The monoterpene profiles of defoliated and undefoliated lodgepole pines (Pinus contorta Douglas) are associated with the oviposition preferences of Panolis flammea (D&S) [21]. The females of Pyrrhalta maculicollis Mots. preferentially lay eggs on uninfected leaves compared to heavily infected leaves due to changes in plant volatiles [22]. Following mating, female Trichoplusia ni (Hubner) moths primarily oviposit on undamaged cotton plants (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and cabbage plants (Brassica oleracea L.) [23].
The air transfer experiment is used to confirm the role of volatile cues in communication between plants [24]. Volatiles are released within minutes in response to tissue damage that induces the undamaged parts of damaged plant and neighboring plants [25]. Undamaged leaves of hybrid poplar (Populus deltoides × nigra) exposed to volatiles from herbivore-wounded leaves on the same stem exhibit elevated defensive responses to feeding by Lymantria dispar L. [26]. The systemic defenses of blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) are activated on undamaged branches when damaged branches release volatiles in response to damage by herbivores [27]. Some plants rely on volatile cues that are active over relatively short distances and might be subject to eavesdropping by other plants [28]. Conveyance of chemical information between damaged and undamaged plants has been detected [29]. For example, wild tobacco (Nicotiana attenuata) becomes more resistant to herbivores when grown in close proximity to clipped sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) neighbors, with communication being airborne rather than soilborne [30]. Pairs of sagebrush (A. tridentata) plants that were grown up to 60 cm apart were influenced by the experimental clipping of a neighbor [31].
Thus, there is evidence that plants with eggs, including egg-laden leaves and egg-free leaves, activate direct and indirect defenses. However, there is limited information on the defenses of neighboring plants induced by oviposited plants. Here, we investigated the response of two clones of Populus from section Aigeiros to the eggs deposition of M. sieversi (Staudinger), including oviposited plants and nearby plants, and we examined whether the plants neighboring to oviposited plants can produce induced resistance and the mechanism of induced resistance. ‘108’ (Populus × euramericana ‘Guariento’) is more susceptible than ‘111’ (P. × euramericana ‘Bellotto’) to M. sieversi (Staudinger) [32].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plants and Insects

In 2017, branches of ‘108’ (Populus × euramericana ‘Guariento’) and ‘111’ (P. × euramericana ‘Bellotto’) were cut from the forest farm in Daxing, Beijing. Each branch was cut into small segments (about 12–13 cm) with 3–4 buds, and was cultivated outside for 3–10 month in separate plastic pots filled with soil containing nutrients (Figure 1A). Plants of 4–5-month-old, with more than 20 leaves (Figure 1B), were transferred to the laboratory (26 ± 2 °C, 50% ± 5% relative humidity (RH), 16:8 h light:dark (L:D)) and were used for the experiments. Pupae of M. sieversi (Staudinger) were collected in the field. Each pupae was placed separately in an incubator (28 ± 1 °C, 50 ± 1% RH, 16:8 h L:D) to pupate.

2.2. Oviposition Bioassay I

The experiments were carried out in two laboratories with the same natural conditions. There were three treatments: the oviposited plants, the plants neighboring oviposited plants, and the control plants. Two insect cages (150 cm × 75 cm × 75 cm) for four oviposited plants and four neighboring plants were set up in a laboratory, with a distance of about 50 cm between the plants (inside and between cages), Another insect cage was set up with four control plants in another laboratory. Twenty pairs of newly hatched male and female moths were allowed to mate freely and lay eggs in the cage for oviposited plants. After egg masses appeared on oviposited plants, 20 pairs of male and female moths were placed in the cages of neighboring and control plants. The number of eggs on the plants of the three treatments was counted at 24 h, 48 h and, 72 h after oviposition. ‘108’ and ‘111’ were tested separately, and the experiment was repeated four times. After analyzing how the positioning (1, 2, 3, 4) of oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants affected the number of eggs in the same cage using the Kruskal-Wallis test of non-parametric test in SPSS 19.0 (IBM, New York, NY, USA), respectively, the changes of the number of eggs at three time periods were statistically analyzed. Finally, the sum number of eggs on the four plants in each cage at 72 h after oviposition was used for the statistical analysis.

2.3. Volatile Collection

Volatile compounds were collected from whole poplar plants, with and without the eggs of M. sieversi, using dynamic headspace sampling [33]. Before collecting volatiles, plants for oviposition were kept overnight inside cages with 20 pairs of female and male moths. Volatiles were collected for 8 h from oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after eggs were laid on oviposited plants. The upper eight to 10 leaves of plants with and without eggs were enclosed in sample bags (Ziploc, 25.0 cm × 32.5 cm) and the volatiles were collected using the atmospheric sampling instrument (QC-1S, Institute of Labor Protection Science, Beijing, China). The inlet port was connected to the sample tube (Chrompack, 0.6 mm × 16 mm, Porapak Q, 200 mg) by a silicone pipe. The outlet port was directly connected to the silicone tube. The sample tube and the silicone tube were connected to the outlet port and were sealed in the sample bag. Velocity of air flow was 500 mL·min−1. After entrainment, volatiles were eluted with 4 mL hexane and were concentrated to 0.5 mL using N2.

2.4. Coupled Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)

The concentrated extracts of the volatile substances were analyzed on GC-MS (Trace DSQ, Thermo, Boston, MA, USA) with a capillary column (DB-5, 30 m length, 0.25 mm i.d. (inner diameter), 0.25 μm film thickness, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Ionization was performed by electron impact (70 eV, 230 °C). The oven temperature was maintained at 40 °C for 1 min, and then programmed at 4 °C·min−1 to 200 °C, where it was held for 5 min. The software (Xcalibur Data System, Ver.1.4 (Thermo, Boston, MA, USA)) began to collect data after 3 min into sample processing. The total scanning mass range was 41–650 amu (atomic mass unit), scanning five times per second. Compounds were identified by comparing the retention indices and mass spectra with those of authentic standards. We analyzed the relative contents of the main component over three time periods, and the relative contents of five terpenes and esters were compared in detail. The samples of five volatile compounds were tested by the following electroantennogram analyses.

2.5. Electroantennogram (EAG) Recording

EAG analyses were conducted as described by Kong et al. [33]. In brief, the metal electrodes were connected to the antennae of a male/female/mated female of M. sieversi with conductive adhesive, and the metal electrodes with the antennae were suspended at 0.5 cm in the mouth of the “L” glass tube, in a continuous and humid air flow (900 mL min−1). The Pasteur tube that contained the filter paper with the sample was aimed at the small hole of the “L” glass tube, and the volatiles were blown into the glass tube with N2. A piece of filter paper (6 cm × 0.5 cm) with 10 μL samples of different concentrations was placed in the Pasteur tube. The concentration of samples was 1 ng/ μL, 5 ng/ μL, 10 ng/μL, 50 ng/μL, and 100 ng/μL. The five concentrations of each sample were grouped together. Each group was controlled by 10 μL hexane. The five concentrations of samples were analyzed in the order of low to high. The stimulus time was 0.2 s, and the interval of two stimuli was 40 s. After three samples tests, one control was tested, and each concentration analyzed three times. The difference between the electroantennogram response value and the control mean value was the absolute value of the EAG test. The average of three absolute values of each concentration was analyzed three times before being compared. Males, females, and mated females were tested in the same way.

2.6. Volatile Treatment and Oviposition Bioassay II

The second egg-laying test was carried out using volatile compounds on the plants. Five samples were dissolved in 75% ethanol, and the concentrations were the maximum concentration of the active EAG for each chemical. The solution of each compound (10 μL) was dropped on the leaves of each plant, and 10 μL of 75% ethanol solution was applied to the control plants. The six insect cages containing the plants treated with five volatile compounds and control plants were placed in separate laboratories. Four plants were placed in each cage, 20 pairs of newly hatched male and female moths were allowed to mate freely and lay eggs in each cage. The sum number of eggs on the four plants in each cage at 72 h after oviposition was used for the statistical analysis. ‘108’ and ‘111’ were processed separately, and the experiment was repeated four times.

3. Results

3.1. Differences in Oviposition among Oviposited Plants, Neighboring Plants, and Control Plants

The results showed that there was no significant difference in the number of eggs on oviposited plants (p = 0.936), neighboring plants (p = 0.755), and control plants (p = 0.637) at different positions in each cage on ‘108’. There was also no significant difference in the number of eggs on oviposited plants (p = 0.985), neighboring plants (p = 0.798), and control plants (p = 0.839) at different positions in each cage on ‘111’. Therefore, for further statistical analysis, the four plants groups in each cage were considered as a replicate. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the number of eggs on oviposited plants (F(2,9) = 0.000, p = 1.000), neighboring plants (F(2,9) = 0.010, p = 0.990), and control plants (F(2,9) = 0.000, p = 1.000) of ‘108’ at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after oviposition (Figure 2A). There was also no significant difference in the number of eggs on oviposited plants (F(2,9) = 0.002, p = 0.998), neighboring plants (F(2,9) = 0.010, p = 0.990), and control plants (F(2,9) = 0.007, p = 0.993) of ‘111’ at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after oviposition (Figure 2B). Therefore, the number of eggs on the three treated plants was counted at 72 h after oviposition. The number of eggs on the neighboring plants of both ‘108’ (F(2,9) = 6.303, p = 0.019) and ‘111’ (F(2,9) = 14.425, p = 0.002) was significantly lower than that on oviposited plants and control plants in the first bioassay (Figure 3A). The number of eggs on the oviposited (p = 0.048, n = 4) and control (p = 0.033, n = 4) plants of ‘108’ was significantly higher than that on ‘111’ (Figure 3B).

3.2. Comparison of Volatiles Emitted from Oviposited Plants, Neighboring Plants, and Control Plants

Coupled gas chromatography-mass spectrometry revealed that there were differences in the relative content of the main volatile components in three treatments of ‘108’ and ‘111’. Ten volatile components were detected in the processing of most ‘108’ samples (Table 1). p-Xylene, styrene, 3-carene, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, 2,6,10-trimethyl tetradecane, C26H42O4 (unknown), and methyl palmitate were detected in every processed sample. β-Pinene was detected in oviposited and neighboring plants but was not detected in control plants. 3-carene was significantly higher in oviposited and neighboring plants than in control plants at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h. The relative content of styrene and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate in oviposited plants was significantly higher than that in control plants at 24 h and 48 h, while the content of these compounds was significantly lower than that in control plants at 72 h. Methyl palmitate was significantly lower in oviposited plants than in control plants at 48 h. Styrene was significantly lower in neighboring plants than in control plants at 48 h and 72 h. 2-Ethylhexyl acrylate was significantly lower in neighboring plants than in control plants at 24 h and 48 h. Methyl palmitate was significantly lower in neighboring plants than in control plants at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h. In addition, 1,3-diethylbenzene and 1,4-diethylbenzene both only had a high relative content in neighboring plants at three time periods.
Eight volatile components were detected in most of the processed ‘111’ samples (Table 2). p-Xylene, styrene, 3-carene, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, 2,6,10-trimethyl tetradecane, C26H42O4 (unknown), and methyl palmitate were detected in every process. β-Pinene was detected in oviposited and neighboring plants, but was not detected in control plants, similar to ‘108’. The relative content of 3-carene in oviposited and neighboring plants was significantly higher than that in control plants at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h, similar to ‘108’. The relative content of styrene in oviposited plants was significantly lower than that in control plants at 48 h and 72 h. 2-Ethylhexyl acrylate was significantly higher in oviposited than in control plants at 24 h. Methyl palmitate was significantly higher in oviposited plants than in control plants at 48 h and 72 h, while it was significantly lower at 24 h. The relative content of styrene in neighboring plants was significantly lower than that of the control at 24 h and 72 h. 2-Ethylhexyl acrylate was significantly lower in neighboring plants than in the control at 24 h and 48 h. Methyl palmitate was significantly higher in neighboring plants than in the control at 48 h.

3.3. Electroantennogram (EAG) Response of the Males, Females, and Mated Females to the Five Volatile Compounds

There was a difference in the active EAG of males, females, and mated females with respect to the five compounds at different concentrations, including methyl palmitate, 3-carene, β-pinene, styrene, and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate. The EAG reaction of males to methyl palmitate (F(4,10) = 22.644, p = 0.000) and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (F(4,10) = 6.990, p = 0.006) was greatest at 50 ng/μL. The EAG reaction of males to 3-carene (F(4,10) = 57.584, p = 0.000) and β-pinene (F(4,10) = 13.699, p = 0.000) at 5 ng/μL was significantly greater than that at other concentrations. The EAG reaction of males to styrene at 10 ng/μL was significantly greater than that at other concentrations (F(4,10) = 20.726, p = 0.000) (Figure 4).
The EAG reaction of females to methyl palmitate (F(4,10) = 36.004, p = 0.000) and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate(F(4,10) = 10.763, p = 0.001) was greatest at 50 ng/μL. Females exhibited the largest response to 3-carene (F(4,10) = 53.307, p = 0.000) and β-pinene (F(4,10) = 3.769, p = 0.040) at 5 ng/μL respectively. Females exhibited the greatest response to styrene (F(4,10) = 25.381, p = 0.000) at 10 ng/μL (Figure 5).
There was no significant difference in the response of mated females to the EAG with different concentrations of styrene (F(4,10) = 1.911, p = 0.185), and the response was greatest at 10 ng/μL. The EAG reaction of mated females to methyl palmitate (F(4,10) = 13.968, p = 0.000) and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (F(4,10) = 38.743, p = 0.000) was greatest at 50 ng/μL. The EAG reaction of mated females to 3-carene (F(4,10) = 55.409, p = 0.000) and β-pinene (F(4,10) = 110.77, p = 0.000) was greatest at 5 ng/μL, and was significantly greater than that of the other concentrations (Figure 6).
The males, females, and mated females exhibited the greatest response to the EAG at 50 ng/μL of methyl palmitate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, 5 ng/μL of 3-carene and β-pinene, and 10 ng/μL of styrene, respectively.

3.4. Differences in Oviposition on the Plants Treated with Volatile Compounds

There was a difference between the number of eggs from the treated plants and control plants. The number of eggs on ‘108’ plants treated with 3-carene, β-pinene, and styrene was significantly lower than that of the controls (F(5,18) = 5.496, p = 0.003). There was no significant difference between the controls and plants treated with methyl palmitate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate. ‘108’ plants treated with 3-carene had significantly fewer eggs than plants treated with methyl palmitate. There was no significant difference in the number of eggs laid on plants treated with β-pinene, styrene, and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate. The number of eggs on ‘111’ plants treated with 3-carene and β-pinene was significantly lower than that of the controls (F(5,18) = 4.823, p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in the number of eggs on the controls versus plants treated with methyl palmitate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and styrene. Plants treated with 3-carene and β-pinene had significantly fewer eggs than that treated with methyl palmitate (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

The present study demonstrated that neighboring plants had significantly fewer eggs than control plants. These results indicate that neighboring plants of two clones of Populus from section Aigeiros were probably induced to change the relative content and composition of volatile compounds that resist oviposition by M. sieversi, when that of oviposited plants changed. Some plants rely on volatile cues that are active over relatively short distances and might be subject to eavesdropping by other plants [28]. For example, wild tobacco (N. attenuata) became more resistant to herbivores when grown in close proximity to clipped sagebrush (A. tridentata) neighbors within 15 cm [30]. Furthermore, in another study, pairs of sagebrush (A. tridentata) plants that were up to 60 cm apart were influenced by the experimental clipping of their conspecific neighbor [31]. However, few studies have evaluated egg deposition induced resistance of conspecific neighboring plants. In this experiment, the two areas of oviposited plants and neighboring plants were about 50 cm apart. The neighboring plants clearly produced induced resistance. Whether greater distances between the two areas would produce induced resistance, along with the interaction between the plants in same area requires further verification. In addition, once egg masses appeared on ‘108’ and ‘111’ clones, the number of eggs basically remained unchanged until the end of the egg incubation period. Previous research demonstrated that egg-free leaves neighboring those laden with eggs on the same plant show systemically induced resistance [15,17,18]. The results showed that the oviposited plants of two P. nigra clones produced systemic induced resistance.
We recorded a difference in the composition and relative content of the volatiles collected from oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’ at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after egg-laying. The quantity and quality of terpenoid volatiles on bean plants [14], elm trees [13], and pine needles [16] changes with the presence of egg masses. In this study, β-pinene and 3-carene caused a significant reduction in the amount of eggs from M. sieversi (Staudinger). Thus, this compound had a clear repellent effect on adults. In a previous study, β-pinene and 3-carene, which are volatile compounds from the flowers and leaves of Rosa multiflora var. cathayensis, showed some antibacterial activity [34]. 3-carene is often used as an active ingredient in repellents [35]. β-pinene and 3-carene deter the presence of Monochamus alternatus (Hope) adults on plants, which could noticeably reduce the number of grooves that the insect carves on the trunk [36]. 3- carene has a repellent effect on the females of Dendrolimus superans, while β-pinene induces both males and females at low levels but causes them to evade plants at high levels [37]. When the needles of Pinus massoniana Lamb release high concentrations of β-pinene, the females of Dendrolimus punctatus Walker lay significantly fewer eggs on the needles [38]. Our results confirmed these studies. In addition, the number of eggs laid on the ‘108’ treated with styrene decreased significantly, indicating that it had some repellent effect on adults. Styrene is the main volatile component of Salix ohsidare, Melia azedarach, and Acer negundo, and might be an attractant to Anoplophora glabripennis [39]. Thus, styrene affects the behavior of different insects differently. Compared to the control, there was no significant difference in the number of eggs laid on ‘108’ and ‘111’ clones treated by methyl palmitate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate. Thus, methyl palmitate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate had no obvious attraction or repellent effect to M. sieversi. Methyl palmitate is a fatty acid methyl ester that is found in many plants and has bactericidal activity [40]. Methyl palmitate extracted from Juglans regia L. has strong acaricidal activity, with 10 mg/mL methyl palmitate having a 97.9% mortality rate on Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval) and only 57.2% on its eggs [41]. Insect eggs may be considered microbial pathogens at least at the molecular level [42]. Methyl palmitate increased or decreased in the oviposited and neighboring plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’. Thus, the change of the relative content of methyl palmitate in two clones of Populus from section Aigeiros might play a role in plant response to pathogen but did not affect the oviposition behavior of M. sieversi. The EAG response and olfactory behavior of Apriona germari (Hope) were tested using 2-ethylhexyl acrylate from mulberry (Morus alba L.) [43] and Juglans mandshurica [44], both of which attract A. germari (Hope). In this experiment, it did not affect the oviposition behavior of M. sieversi. Thus, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate has different effects on the behavior of different insects.
Some studies suggest that there is no difference between the sexes in the EAG response to plant odors [45,46]. The EAG responses of females and males to 2-ethylhexyl acrylate in this experiment was consistent with this suggestion. In addition, males and females might react differently to the EAG response of the same compound. The EAGs of female moths to some volatiles are often about 2-fold greater than those observed for male moths [47,48]. In this study, the response of female and mated females to different concentrations of methyl palmitate and β-pinene confirmed this observation. Also, each sex exhibits stronger EAG responses to specific volatile components in insects. For example, the antennae of Ceratitis capitata Wied females respond more to dihydrocarvone, 4-ethyl acetophenone, and carvone than males. In comparison, the antennae of males respond more to limonene oxide than females [49]. Hexyl butyrate and (E)-2-hexenyl butyrate elicited greater EAGs in the males of Lygus lineolaris than females; females were more sensitive to the monoterpene geraniol than males [50]. In the current study, the EAG response of female to 50 ng/μL methyl palmitate was significantly greater than that of males, whereas the EAG response of males to 100 ng/μL 3-carene of was significantly greater than that of females. Whether a female was mated also affected the EAG response. The EAG responses of Dioryctria abietivorella females to monoterpenes generally increased with age and mating, and were greater than those of males of the same age [51]. In this study, mated females exhibited weaker responses to 3-carene, β-pinene, styrene, and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate than did males and unmated females; however, certain concentrations of methyl palmitate generated more responses in mated females compared to males and unmated females. The results showed that both females and males might be affected by the volatiles of plants during their search for hosts.
At present, studies on the response of various organisms in the tritrophic system to induced-oviposition are mainly focused on synomones from oviposition-induced plant, which are semiochemical cues used by egg parasitoids during host selection. For example, the induction time for Brassica oleracea, Murgantia histrionica, and Trissolcus brochymenae was less than 24 h [52]. The egg parasitoid Telenomus podisi responds quickly to induced volatiles from soybean when damaged following oviposition by Euschistus heros [53]. Oomyzus gallerucae is a major egg parasitoid of the elm leaf beetle, and it responds to volatiles produced by elm leaves with eggs at 3 h after egg deposition by herbivores [12,17]. This experiment confirmed that plants are able to detect changes to volatile composition from conspecific plant in a short time. The eggs of M. sieversi usually require just three days to hatch after being laid. Our study detected a significant induction response between neighboring plants and oviposited plants within 24 h. The results showed that the neighboring plants of both two clones of Populus from section Aigeiros could detect changes to volatile composition from oviposited plants and quickly respond to these changes.

5. Conclusions

In this study, significantly fewer eggs were laid on plants neighboring oviposited plants. Thus, neighboring plants were induced to change the relative content and composition of volatile compounds to deter oviposition by M. sieversi. Resistance could be induced by changing the composition and relative content of volatiles in neighboring plants by these plants detecting changes to the volatiles of oviposited plants. β-pinene and 3-carene exhibited a clear repellent effect on the adults of M. sieversi, so the development of a relevant repellent is feasible. The study could provide new ideas for future pest resistance afforestation.

Author Contributions

L.G. and Z.Z. conceived and designed the experiments; L.G. and F.L. collected the pupae in the wild; L.G. performed the experiments and wrote the paper; S.Z. and X.K. conducted the data analysis.

Funding

This work was supported by the Special Fund for Forest Scientific Research in the Public Welfare (201504302).

Acknowledgments

We thank the staff of Pingyin Forest Station in Shandong Province for collecting pupae of M. sieversi (Staudinger).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hilker, M.; Fatouros, N.E. Resisting the onset of herbivore attack: Plants perceive and respond to insect eggs. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2016, 32, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hilker, M.; Meiners, T. Early herbivore alert: Insect eggs induce plant defense. J. Chem. Ecol. 2006, 32, 1379–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Doss, R.P.; Oliver, J.E.; Proebsting, W.M.; Potter, S.W.; Kuy, S.R.; Clement, S.L.; Williamson, R.T.; Carney, J.R.; Devilbiss, E.D. Bruchins-insect-derived plant regulators that stimulate neoplasm formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 6218–6223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Shapiro, A.M.; Devay, J.E. Hypersensitivity reaction of Brassica nigra L. (Cruciferae) kills eggs of Pieris butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Oecologia 1987, 71, 631–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Balbyshev, N.F.; Lorenzen, J.H. Hypersensitivity and egg drop, a novel mechanism of host-plant resistance to Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1997, 90, 652–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Seino, Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Sogawa, K. An ovicidal substance produced by rice plants in response to oviposition by the Whitebacked Planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Horváth) (Homoptera: Delphacidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1996, 31, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Suzuki, Y.; Sogawa, K.; Seino, Y. Ovicidal reaction of rice plants against the Whitebacked Planthopper, Sogatella furcifera Horváth (Homoptera: Delphacidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1996, 31, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yamasaki, M.; Yoshimura, A.; Yasui, H. Genetic basic of ovicidal response to Whitebacked Planthopper (Sogatella furcifera Horváth) in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Mol. Breed. 2003, 12, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Blaakmeer, A.; Hagenbeek, D.; Beek, T.A.V.; Groot, A.D.; Schoonhoven, L.M.; van Loon, J.J. Plant response to eggs vs. host marking pheromone as factors inhibiting oviposition by Pieris brassicae. J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 1657–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dicke, M.; van Loon, J.J. Multitrophic effects of herbivore-induced plant volatiles in an evolutionary context. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2000, 97, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Kessler, A.; Heil, M. The multiple faces of indirect defences and their agents of natural selection. Funt. Ecol. 2011, 25, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Meiners, T.; Hilker, M. Host location in Oomyzus gallerucae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), an egg parasitoid of the elm leaf beetle Xanthogaleruca luteola (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Oecologia 1997, 112, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wegener, R.; Schulz, S.; Meiners, T.; Hadwich, K.; Hilker, M. Analysis of volatiles induced by oviposition of elm leaf beetle Xanthogaleruca luteola on Ulmus minor. J. Chem. Ecol. 2001, 27, 499–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Colazza, S.; Fucarino, A.; Peri, E.; Salerno, G.; Conti, E.; Bin, F. Insect oviposition induces volatile emission in herbaceous plants that attracts egg parasitoids. J. Exp. Biol. 2004, 207, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Hilker, M.; Kobs, C.; Varama, M.; Schrank, K. Insect egg deposition induces Pinus sylvestris to attract egg parasitoids. J. Exp. Biol. 2002, 205, 455–461. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mumm, R.; Schrank, K.; Wegener, R.; Schulz, S.; Hilker, M. Chemical analysis of volatiles emitted by Pinus sylvestris after induction by insect oviposition. J. Exp. Biol. 2003, 29, 1235–1252. [Google Scholar]
  17. Meiners, T.; Hilker, M. Induction of plant synomones by oviposition of a phytophagous insect. J. Exp. Biol. 2000, 26, 221–232. [Google Scholar]
  18. Colazza, S.; Mcelfresh, J.S.; Millar, J.G. Identification of volatile synomones, induced by Nezara viridula feeding and oviposition on bean spp., that attract the egg parasitoid Trissolcus basalis. J. Exp. Biol. 2004, 30, 945–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schoonhoven, L.M.; Jermy, T.; van Loon, J.J. Host-Plant Selection: How to Find a Host Plant. In Insect-Plant Biology; Springer US: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 121–153. [Google Scholar]
  20. Guo, X. The effects of withering poplar branch on the reproductive behavior of cotton bollworm. J. Plant Protect. 2003, 30, 148–152. [Google Scholar]
  21. Leather, S.R.; Watt, A.D.; Forrest, G.I. Insect-induced chemical changes in young lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta): The effect of previous defoliation on oviposition, growth and survival of the pine beauty moth, Panolis flammea. Ecol. Entomol. 2010, 12, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Meiners, T.; Hacker, N.; Anderson, P.; Hilker, M. Response of the elm leaf beetle to host plants induced by oviposition and feeding: the infestation rate matters. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2005, 115, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Landolt, P.J. Effects of host plant leaf damage on cabbage looper moth attraction and oviposition. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2011, 67, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Karban, R.; Shiojiri, K.; Ishizaki, S. An air transfer experiment confirms the role of volatile cues in communication between plants. Am. Nat. 2010, 176, 381–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Heil, M.; Bueno, J.C.S. Within-plant signaling by volatiles leads to induction and priming of an indirect plant defense in nature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 5467–5472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Frost, C.J.; Appel, H.M.; Carlson, J.E.; Moraes, C.M.D.; Mescher, M.C.; Schultz, J.C. Within-plant signalling via volatiles overcomes vascular constraints on systemic signalling and primes responses against herbivores. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10, 490–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rodriguezsaona, C.R.; Rodriguezsaona, L.E.; Frost, C.J. Herbivore-induced volatiles in the perennial shrub, Vaccinium corymbosum, and their role in inter-branch signaling. J. Chem. Ecol. 2009, 35, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Karban, R. The ecology and evolution of induced resistance against herbivores. Funct. Ecol. 2011, 25, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bruin, J.; Dicke, M. Chemical information transfer between wounded and unwounded plants: backing up the future. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2001, 29, 1103–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Karban, R. Communication between sagebrush and wild tobacco in the field. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2001, 29, 995–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Karban, R.; Shiojiri, K.; Huntzinger, M.; Mccall, A.C. Damage-induced resistance in Sagebrush: volatiles are key to intra- and interplant communication. Ecology 2006, 87, 922–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fan, L.P.; Wang, J.H.; Yu, Z.J.; Huang, F.Q.; Kong, X.B.; Wang, H.B.; Zhang, S.F.; Zhang, Z. Host selection behavior of Micromelalopha sieversi (Staudinger) to five Populus deltoids clones. For. Res. 2014, 27, 459–465. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kong, X.B.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, H.B.; Yang, J.; Hu, Y.T. Analysis of Platycladus orientalis volatiles and their electroantennogram responses with Semanotus bifasciatus. For. Res. 2005, 20, 260–266. [Google Scholar]
  34. Guo, A.J.; Li, L.M. Composition and antibacterial effect of volatile organic compounds of Rosa multiflora var. cathayensis. J. Northeast For. Univ. 2016, 44, 81–84. [Google Scholar]
  35. He, L.Z.; Wang, J.; Zhao, Z.D.; Chen, Y.X.; Gu, Y. Research progress on resources and bioactivity applications of 3-Carene. Chem. Ind. For. Prod. 2011, 31, 122–126. [Google Scholar]
  36. Li, S.Q.; Zhang, Z.N. EAG responses of Monochamus alternatus Hope (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to volatiles from larval frass and the repellency tests in fields. Acta Entomol. Sin. 2008, 51, 284–289. [Google Scholar]
  37. Liu, Y.S.; Yan, S.C.; Cheng, H.; Wang, Q.; Wen, P.; Wang, Y.J. Behavioural responses of Dendrolimus superans to Dahurin Larch and its nine volatiles. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2009, 45, 72–77. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhao, C.H.; Yan, Y.H. Oviposition behavior of the pine caterpillar moth, Dendrolimus punctatus influenced by needle volatiles of Pinus massoniana. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2003, 39, 91–93. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhu, N.; Zhang, D.Y.; Shen, H.X.; Hu, Q.; Fan, J.T. Oviposition preferences of Anoplophora glabripennis on three host plants and composition analysis of host plant volatiles. J. Zhejiang A. F. Univ. 2017, 34, 1059–1064. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, Y.N.; Wang, H.X.; Shen, Z.J.; Zhao, L.L.; Clarke, S.R.; Sun, J.H.; Du, Y.Y.; Shi, G.L. Methyl palmitate, an acaricidal compound occurring in green walnut husks. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 102, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, Y.N.; Shi, G.L.; Ren, J.J.; Zhao, L. Acaricidal activity of methyl palmitate to T. cinnabarinus. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, Beijing, China, 11–13 June 2009; IEEE Xplore Digital Library: Miami, FL, USA; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  42. Reymond, P. Perception, signaling and molecular basis of oviposition-mediated plant responses. Planta 2013, 238, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Bi, Y.G.; Guo, L.; Wang, Z.G.; Lv, F.; Yan, A.H. Electroantennogram and behavioral responses of Apriona germari to five plant volatiles and their mixtures. Sci. Seric. 2017, 43, 32–38. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ma, Y.; Shi, L.Y.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, H.C. Comparison of volatiles released from the host Juglans mandshurica in different damaged states and the GC-EAD and behavioral responses of Apriona germari (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to these volatiles. Acta Entomol. Sin. 2018, 61, 574–584. [Google Scholar]
  45. Balakrishnan, K.; Holighaus, G.; Weißbecker, B.; Schütz, S. Electroantennographic responses of red flour beetle tribolium castaneum Herbst (coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to volatile organic compounds. J. Appl. Entomol. 2017, 141, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vanderpers, J. Comparison of electroantennogram response spectra to plant volatiles in 7 species of yponomeuta and in the tortricid adoxophyes-orana. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2011, 30, 181–192. [Google Scholar]
  47. Light, D.M.; Kamm, J.A.; Buttery, R.G. Electroantennogram response of alfalfa seed chalcid, Bruchophagus roddi (Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae) to host- and nonhost-plant volatiles. J. Chem. Ecol. 1992, 18, 333–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Raguso, R.A.; Light, D.M.; Pickersky, E. Electroantennogram responses of Hyles lineata (Sphingidae: Lepidoptera) to volatile compounds from Clarkia breweri (Onagraceae) and other moth-pollinated flowers. J. Chem. Ecol. 1996, 22, 1735–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hernándze, M.M.; Sanz, I.; Anelantado, M.; Ballach, S.; Primo, E. Electroantennogram activity from antennae of Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) to fresh orange airborne volatiles. J. Chem. Ecol. 1996, 22, 1607–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chinta, S.; Dickens, J.C.; Aldrich, J.R. Olfactory reception of potential pheromones and plant odors by tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris (Hemiptera: Miridae). J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 3251–3267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shu, S.; Grant, G.G.; Langevin, D.; Lombardo, D.A.; MacDonald, L. Oviposition and electroantennogram responses of Dioryctria abietivorella, (lepidoptera: pyralidae) elicited by monoterpenes and enantiomers from eastern white pine. J. Chem. Ecol. 1997, 23, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Conti, E.; Salerno, G.; Leombruni, B.; Frati, F.; Bin, F. Short-range allelochemicals from a plant-herbivore association: a singular case of oviposition-induced synomone for an egg parasitoid. J. Exp. Biol. 2010, 213, 3911–3919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Moraes, C.B.M.; Pareja, M.; Laumann, R.A.; Hoffman-Campo, C.B.; Borges, M. Response of the parasitoid Telenomus podisi to induced volatiles from soybean damaged by stink bug herbivory and oviposition. J. Plant Inter. 2008, 3, 111–118. [Google Scholar]
Forests 10 00110 g001 550
Figure 1. (A) Seedlings from cuttings of ‘108’ and ‘111’; (B) the seedling with leaves.
Figure 1. (A) Seedlings from cuttings of ‘108’ and ‘111’; (B) the seedling with leaves.
Forests 10 00110 g001
Forests 10 00110 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) The number of eggs on oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants of ‘108’ at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after oviposition, respectively. ANOVA was used to compare the numbers. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) test. Note: different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference between the three time periods of each treatment (p < 0.05). (B) Number of eggs on oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants of ‘111’ at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after oviposition, respectively. ANOVA was used to compare the numbers. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test. Note: different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference between the three time periods of each treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. (A) The number of eggs on oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants of ‘108’ at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after oviposition, respectively. ANOVA was used to compare the numbers. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) test. Note: different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference between the three time periods of each treatment (p < 0.05). (B) Number of eggs on oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants of ‘111’ at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after oviposition, respectively. ANOVA was used to compare the numbers. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test. Note: different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference between the three time periods of each treatment (p < 0.05).
Forests 10 00110 g002
Forests 10 00110 g003 550
Figure 3. (A) The number of eggs on oviposited, neighboring, and control plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’. ANOVA was used to compare the numbers. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test. Note: different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference between three treatments of ‘108’ (p < 0.05), and different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference between three treatments of ‘111’ (p < 0.05). (B) Number of eggs on the oviposited or control plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’ was compared using independent-samples T test. Note: different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference between oviposited plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’ (p < 0.05), and different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference between control plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’ (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. (A) The number of eggs on oviposited, neighboring, and control plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’. ANOVA was used to compare the numbers. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test. Note: different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference between three treatments of ‘108’ (p < 0.05), and different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference between three treatments of ‘111’ (p < 0.05). (B) Number of eggs on the oviposited or control plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’ was compared using independent-samples T test. Note: different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference between oviposited plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’ (p < 0.05), and different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference between control plants of ‘108’ and ‘111’ (p < 0.05).
Forests 10 00110 g003
Forests 10 00110 g004 550
Figure 4. Electroantennogram responses of Micromelalopha sieversi males to different concentrations of the five volatile compounds. The concentration of the five compounds was 1 ng/μL, 5 ng/μL, 10 ng/μL, 50 ng/μL, and 100 ng/μL. ANOVA was used to compare the averages of three absolute values of each concentration for each chemical composition. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test.
Figure 4. Electroantennogram responses of Micromelalopha sieversi males to different concentrations of the five volatile compounds. The concentration of the five compounds was 1 ng/μL, 5 ng/μL, 10 ng/μL, 50 ng/μL, and 100 ng/μL. ANOVA was used to compare the averages of three absolute values of each concentration for each chemical composition. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test.
Forests 10 00110 g004
Forests 10 00110 g005 550
Figure 5. Electroantennogram responses of Micromelalopha sieversi females to different concentrations of the five volatile compounds. The concentration of the five compounds was 1 ng/μL, 5 ng/μL, 10 ng/μL, 50 ng/μL, and 100 ng/μL, ANOVA was used to compare the average of three absolute values of each concentration for each chemical composition. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test.
Figure 5. Electroantennogram responses of Micromelalopha sieversi females to different concentrations of the five volatile compounds. The concentration of the five compounds was 1 ng/μL, 5 ng/μL, 10 ng/μL, 50 ng/μL, and 100 ng/μL, ANOVA was used to compare the average of three absolute values of each concentration for each chemical composition. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test.
Forests 10 00110 g005
Forests 10 00110 g006 550
Figure 6. Electroantennogram responses of mated Micromelalopha sieversi females to different concentrations of the five volatile compounds. The concentration of the five compounds was 1 ng/μL, 5 ng/μL, 10 ng/μL, 50 ng/μL, and 100 ng/μL. ANOVA was used to compare the average of three absolute values of each concentration for each chemical composition. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test.
Figure 6. Electroantennogram responses of mated Micromelalopha sieversi females to different concentrations of the five volatile compounds. The concentration of the five compounds was 1 ng/μL, 5 ng/μL, 10 ng/μL, 50 ng/μL, and 100 ng/μL. ANOVA was used to compare the average of three absolute values of each concentration for each chemical composition. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test.
Forests 10 00110 g006
Forests 10 00110 g007 550
Figure 7. Number of eggs on ‘108’ and ‘111’ plants treated with the five compounds. The compounds were methyl palmitate, 3-carene, β-pinene, styrene, and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate. ANOVA was used to compare the number of eggs. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test. Note: Different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference between six treatments on ‘108’ (p < 0.05); different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference between six treatments on ‘111’ (p < 0.05).
Figure 7. Number of eggs on ‘108’ and ‘111’ plants treated with the five compounds. The compounds were methyl palmitate, 3-carene, β-pinene, styrene, and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate. ANOVA was used to compare the number of eggs. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test. Note: Different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference between six treatments on ‘108’ (p < 0.05); different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference between six treatments on ‘111’ (p < 0.05).
Forests 10 00110 g007
Table
Table 1. Main volatile components of oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants after 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h of ‘108’. The relative content of the same chemical components of three treatments in each time period was compared by ANOVA. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test. Note: Different lowercase letters in the same line show significant differences between the three treatments in the same time period (p < 0.05).
Table 1. Main volatile components of oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants after 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h of ‘108’. The relative content of the same chemical components of three treatments in each time period was compared by ANOVA. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test. Note: Different lowercase letters in the same line show significant differences between the three treatments in the same time period (p < 0.05).
Compound Composition of ‘108’Oviposited-24 hNeighboring-24 hControl-24 hOviposited-48 hNeighboring-48 hControl-48 hOviposited-72 hNeighboring-72 hControl-72 h
Relative Content (%)
p-Xylene3.79 ± 0.08 a1.32 ± 0.06 b1.05 ± 0.09 b4.45 ± 0.19 a1.26 ± 0.08 b0.85 ± 0.04 b2.21 ± 0.06 b3.41 ± 0.19 a1.81 ± 0.12 b
Styrene8.08 ± 0.28 a2.70 ± 0.46 b3.19 ± 0.10 b8.46 ± 0.06 a2.70 ± 0.12 c5.79 ± 0.13 b2.77 ± 0.04 b3.98 ± 0.22 b6.09 ± 0.62 a
3-Carene9.65 ± 0.58 a4.63 ± 0.52 b1.26 ± 0.17 c14.22 ± 0.77 a4.29 ± 0.10 b1.85 ± 0.09 c6.82 ± 0.12 b9.26 ± 0.72 a1.51 ± 0.06 c
β-Pinene2.17 ± 0.12 a0.42 ± 0.03 b0.00 ± 0.00 c1.63 ± 0.13 a0.28 ± 0.01 b0.00 ± 0.00 c2.22 ± 0.07 a2.49 ± 0.12 a0.00 ± 0.00 b
1,3-Diethylbenzene0.00 ± 0.00 b17.44 ± 1.20 a0.00 ± 0.00 b0.00 ± 0.00 b21.53 ± 0.75 a0.00 ± 0.00 b0.00 ± 0.00 b18.12 ± 1.05 a0.00 ± 0.00 b
1,4-Diethylbenzene0.00 ± 0.00 b22.35 ± 1.11 a0.00 ± 0.00 b0.00 ± 0.00 b28.15 ± 1.54 a0.00 ± 0.00 b0.00 ± 0.00 b12.03 ± 1.27 a0.00 ± 0.00 b
2-Ethylhexyl acrylate2.21 ± 0.06 a0.55 ± 0.01 c1.45 ± 0.03 b5.73 ± 0.08 a0.82 ± 0.03 c1.78 ± 0.35 b0.83 ± 0.08 b1.74 ± 0.05 a1.86 ± 0.10 a
2,6,10-Trimethyl tetradecane5.26 ± 0.04 b1.99 ± 0.16 c12.80 ± 0.81 a2.55 ± 0.12 b1.33 ± 0.10 b12.36 ± 0.79 a1.36 ± 0.09 b1.83 ± 0.08 b13.33 ± 0.71 a
C26H42O4 (Unknown)6.75 ± 0.23 a3.73 ± 0.19 b6.63 ± 0.17 a4.46 ± 0.14 b2.80 ± 0.23 c6.09 ± 0.12 a3.85 ± 0.21 b2.29 ± 0.13 c6.81 ± 0.44 a
Methyl palmitate61.71 ± 0.88 a38.61 ± 1.97 b67.61 ± 1.67 a54.47 ± 0.42 b28.38 ± 0.13 c67.84 ± 1.42 a69.90 ± 2.83 a26.67 ± 1.54 b63.32 ± 1.80 a
Table
Table 2. Main volatile components of oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h for ‘111’. ANOVA was used to compare the relative content of the same chemical components of the three treatments in each time period. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test. Note: Different lowercase letters on the same line show significant differences between the three treatments in the same time period (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Main volatile components of oviposited plants, neighboring plants, and control plants at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h for ‘111’. ANOVA was used to compare the relative content of the same chemical components of the three treatments in each time period. Multiple comparisons and significant means were separated using the Tukey HSD test. Note: Different lowercase letters on the same line show significant differences between the three treatments in the same time period (p < 0.05).
Composition Compound of ‘111’Oviposited-24 hNeighboring-24 hControl-24 hOviposited-48 hNeighboring-48 hControl-48 hOviposited-72 hNeighboring-72 hControl-72 h
Relative Content (%)
p-Xylene8.90 ± 0.81 a4.05 ± 0.10 b2.05 ± 0.10 c2.85 ± 0.09 b3.61 ± 0.11 a3.46 ± 0.07 a3.32 ± 0.06 b3.98 ± 0.18 a2.07 ± 0.15 c
Styrene15.52 ± 1.34 a9.75 ± 0.64 b17.82 ± 1.04 a4.62 ± 0.18 b7.82 ± 0.18 a8.23 ± 0.25 a3.15 ± 0.03 c6.21 ± 0.22 b8.31 ± 0.41 a
3-Carene20.46 ± 1.13 a12.53 ± 0.71 b5.53 ± 0.17 c7.97 ± 0.21 b10.79 ± 0.12 a5.14 ± 0.02 c7.33 ± 0.06 b9.82 ± 0.65 a4.40 ± 0.06 c
β-Pinene1.65 ± 0.09 a0.18 ± 0.01 b0.00 ± 0.00 c0.36 ± 0.01 b1.09 ± 0.04 a0.00 ± 0.00 c1.34 ± 0.07 a0.94 ± 0.08 b0.00 ± 0.00 c
2-Ethylhexyl acrylate5.72 ± 0.18 a3.55 ± 0.09 c4.78 ± 0.09 b7.77 ± 0.27 a4.06 ± 0.03 b8.85 ± 0.78 a4.99 ± 0.14 a6.54 ± 0.38 a7.41 ± 0.88 a
2,6,10-Trimethyl tetradecane1.20 ± 0.09 b2.13 ± 0.04 a2.00 ± 0.19 a2.06 ± 0.02 b2.23 ± 0.12 b3.59 ± 0.21 a1.14 ± 0.03 b1.67 ± 0.10 b3.52 ± 0.07 a
C26H42O4 (Unknown)2.63 ± 0.06 b5.55 ± 0.08 a5.77 ± 0.13 a4.90 ± 0.17 b5.28 ± 0.06 b7.96 ± 0.18 a3.18 ± 0.10 b3.17 ± 0.10 b6.97 ± 0.27 a
Methyl palmitate41.52 ± 1.42 b59.84 ± 0.23 a59.66 ± 1.41 a64.17 ± 1.25 a63.48 ± 0.85 a55.87 ± 0.50 b72.95 ± 0.98 a60.26 ± 1.18 b59.49 ± 1.66 b

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Guo, L.; Liu, F.; Zhang, S.; Kong, X.; Zhang, Z. Egg Deposition of Micromelalopha sieversi (Staudinger) on Clones of Populus from Section Aigeiros Induces Resistance in Neighboring Plants. Forests 2019, 10, 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020110

AMA Style

Guo L, Liu F, Zhang S, Kong X, Zhang Z. Egg Deposition of Micromelalopha sieversi (Staudinger) on Clones of Populus from Section Aigeiros Induces Resistance in Neighboring Plants. Forests. 2019; 10(2):110. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020110

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guo, Li, Fu Liu, Sufang Zhang, Xiangbo Kong, and Zhen Zhang. 2019. "Egg Deposition of Micromelalopha sieversi (Staudinger) on Clones of Populus from Section Aigeiros Induces Resistance in Neighboring Plants" Forests 10, no. 2: 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020110

APA Style

Guo, L., Liu, F., Zhang, S., Kong, X., & Zhang, Z. (2019). Egg Deposition of Micromelalopha sieversi (Staudinger) on Clones of Populus from Section Aigeiros Induces Resistance in Neighboring Plants. Forests, 10(2), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020110

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop