5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The use of Leaf Surface Contact Cues During Oviposition Explains Field Preferences in the Willow Sawfly Nematus Oligospilus

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          After an insect herbivore has reached its host plant, contact cues from the leaf surface often determine host acceptance. We studied contact cues during oviposition behavior of a willow pest, the sawfly Nematus oligospilus (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), a specialist feeder on Salix (Salicaceae) trees, and how it determines oviposition preference in lab and field conditions. We described the sequence of behaviors that lead to egg laying on the most and least preferred willow species. Then we studied the morphology of chemosensory structures present on the female antenna, cerci and ovipositor. Since phenolic glycosides (PGs) are the main secondary metabolites present in Salicaceae species, we investigated their role in host acceptance. We quantified these compounds in different willow species and correlated PG content with oviposition preference under lab and natural field conditions. We demonstrated a major role for contact cues in triggering N. oligospilus egg laying on the leaf surface of preferred willow genotypes. Firstly cues are sensed by antennae, determining to leave or stay on the leaf. After that, sensing is performed by abdominal cerci, which finally triggers egg laying. The lack of PGs in non-preferred species and the significant correlation observed between PGs, natural damage and oviposition preference suggest a role for these compounds in host selection. Our study suggests that in specialist feeders, secondary compounds normally acting as defenses can actually act as a susceptibility factor by triggering specific insect behavior for oviposition. These defensive compounds could be selected against to increase resistance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A meta-analysis of preference-performance relationships in phytophagous insects.

          The extent to which behavioural choices reflect fine-tuned evolutionary adaptation remains an open debate. For herbivorous insects, the preference-performance hypothesis (PPH) states that female insects will evolve to oviposit on hosts on which their offspring fare best. In this study, we use meta-analysis to assess the balance of evidence for and against the PPH, and to evaluate the role of individual factors proposed to influence host selection by female insects. We do so in an explicitly bitrophic context (herbivores versus plants). Overall, our analyses offer clear support for the PPH: Offspring survive better on preferred plant types, and females lay more eggs on plant types conducive to offspring performance. We also found evidence for an effect of diet breadth on host choice: female preference for 'good quality plants' was stronger in oligophagous insects than in polyphagous insects. Nonetheless, despite the large numbers of preference-performance studies conducted to date, sample sizes in our meta-analysis are low due to the inconsistent format used by authors to present their results. To improve the situation, we invite authors to contribute to the data base emerging from this work, with the aim of reaching a strengthened synthesis of the subject field.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation.

            E Bernays (2000)
            This review points out the problem of processing multiple sensory inputs and provides evidence that generalists suffer a disadvantage compared with specialists with respect to efficiency of host plant choice and discrimination. The specialists' mechanisms for improved efficiency are discussed as well as some of the processes that may be selected to increase processing efficiency in generalists. The fitness consequences of differences in efficiency of specialists and generalists are pointed out. One of the major disadvantages for generalists is the increase in vulnerability to ecological risks, especially risks imposed by various natural enemies. Efficiency-related factors are indicated as previously underestimated elements that could influence host affiliations including diet breadth and changes in host plant use.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              David's score: a more appropriate dominance ranking method than Clutton-Brock et al.'s index

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                pcfernan@agro.uba.ar
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                20 March 2019
                20 March 2019
                2019
                : 9
                : 4946
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1945 2152, GRID grid.423606.5, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas, ; Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [2 ]INTA, Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Delta del Paraná. Paraná de las Palmas y Cl Comas s/n (2804), Campana, Buenos Aires Argentina
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0056 1981, GRID grid.7345.5, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Cátedras de Química de Biomoléculas y Bioquímica, ; Facultad de Agronomía. Av. San Martín 4453, C1417DSE Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2167 7174, GRID grid.419231.c, INTA, Instituto de Recursos Biológicos, Centro de Investigación de Recursos Naturales, De los Reseros y Dr. Nicolás Repetto s/n (1686), ; Hurlingham, Buenos Aires Argentina
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0056 1981, GRID grid.7345.5, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Departamento Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Instituto Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada, CONICET - UBA, ; Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [6 ]ISNI 0000000121496664, GRID grid.108162.c, PROIMI-CONICET Biotecnología, Av. Belgrano y Pje, Caseros (T4001 MBV), Tucumán, Argentina and Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e IML, UNT, ; Miguel Lillo 205, San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0491 7131, GRID grid.418160.a, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, ; Jena, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6691-6500
                Article
                41318
                10.1038/s41598-019-41318-7
                6426852
                30894616
                65afeeed-5cf4-4fa7-a263-c5793bfee15f
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 November 2018
                : 6 March 2019
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article