Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractFitness and virulence of a bacterial endoparasite in an environmentally stressed crustacean host    Next AbstractCaution on the use of liquid nitrogen traps in stable hydrogen isotope-ratio mass spectrometry »

J Chem Ecol


Title:Clonal Saplings of Trembling Aspen Do Not Coordinate Defense Induction
Author(s):Cope OL; Lindroth RL;
Address:"Department of Integrative Biology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. ocope@wisc.edu. Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA"
Journal Title:J Chem Ecol
Year:2018
Volume:20180815
Issue:11
Page Number:1045 - 1050
DOI: 10.1007/s10886-018-1006-5
ISSN/ISBN:1573-1561 (Electronic) 0098-0331 (Linking)
Abstract:"Induction of plant chemical defenses in response to insect feeding may be localized to the site of damage or expressed systemically, mediated by signal transduction throughout the plant. Such systemic induction processes have been widely investigated in plants with single stems, but rarely in clonal plants comprised of multiple ramets with vascular connections. For a clonal tree species such as trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx), integration of induced defense within clones could be adaptive, as clones are spatially extensive and susceptible to outbreak herbivores. We used pairs of aspen saplings with shared roots, replicated from three genotypes, to determine whether defense-induction signals are communicated within clones. One ramet in each pair was subjected to a damage treatment (feeding by Lymantria dispar, followed by mechanical damage), and subsequent changes in leaf defensive chemistry were measured in both ramets. Responses to damage varied by defense type: condensed tannins (CTs) increased in damaged ramets but not in connected undamaged ramets, whereas salicinoid phenolic glycosides (SPGs) were not induced in any ramets. Genotypes varied in their levels of CTs, but not in their levels of SPGs, and responded similarly to damage treatment. These results suggest that, even with both vascular and volatile information available, young aspen ramets do not induce defenses based on signals or metabolites from other ramets. Thus, unlike other clonal plant species, aspen do not appear to coordinate defense induction within clones. Lack of coordinated early induction in aspen may be related to the function of CTs in tolerance, rather than resistance"
Keywords:"Animals Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid Genotype Glycosides/analysis/*metabolism Herbivory Mass Spectrometry Moths/growth & development/physiology Phenols/chemistry Plant Leaves/chemistry/genetics/parasitology Populus/*chemistry/genetics/parasitology;"
Notes:"MedlineCope, Olivia L Lindroth, Richard L eng 2018/08/16 J Chem Ecol. 2018 Nov; 44(11):1045-1050. doi: 10.1007/s10886-018-1006-5. Epub 2018 Aug 15"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 22-11-2024