Volatile production differs between oak leaves infested by leaf-miner Phyllonorycter harrisella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) and galler Neuroterus quercusbaccarum (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae)

Abstract

http://www.eje.cz damaged leaves stimulate parasitoid ovipositional probing behaviour (Dutton et al., 2000) or attract birds (Mäntylä et al., 2008; Amo et al., 2013). HIPVs are highly specifi c to particular species of herbivores (Danner et al., 2018) and act by attracting predators or parasitoids, which makes them an effi cient form of defence against a diverse set of arthropod herbivores (De Moraes et al., 1998; Turlings & Erb, 2018). In response to the proliferation of plant defences, arthropod herbivores have evolved mechanisms like detoxifi cation and sequestration (Heckel, 2014). Many guilds of arthropod herbivores, such as sap-suckers, leaf-chewers, leaf-miners or gallers, have even evolved an ability to manipulate plant metabolic pathways to their own advantage (Mapes & Davies, 2001; Tooker & De Moraes, 2011; Chung et al.,

Great tits (Parus major) flexibly learn that herbivore‐induced plant volatiles indicate prey location: An experimental evidence with two tree species

“…( 2015 ) and Klimm et al. ( 2020 ) with slight modifications. Using the PDMS tubes, we sampled volatile compounds from ca.…”

“…We performed gas chromatography to quantify the sampled VOCs (volatile organic compounds). We sampled the volatile compounds of the two plant species by passive trapping with polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) tube cuttings following a protocol described by Kallenbach et al (2015) and Klimm et al (2020) with slight modifications. Using the PDMS tubes, we sampled volatile compounds from ca.…”

Social networking in crop plants: Wired and wireless cross‐plant communications

“…Different comparative triggers (e.g. chewing vs. sucking/piercing, biotroph vs. necrotroph, host vs. non‐host pathogens and saprophytic beneficial vs. parasitic pathogenic microbes) elicit distinct bouquets of VOCs, including the quantity and quality of each compound and its emission time course (Castelyn, Appelgryn, Mafa, Pretorius, & Visser, 2014; Klimm, Weinhold, & Volf, 2020; Qawasmeh, Raman, & Wheatley, 2015; Quintana‐Rodriguez et al, 2015; Sharifi et al, 2018).…”

Social networking in crop plants: Wire and wireless cross-phytobiome communications

“…The emitted VOC profile is related to the plant genotype, organ, and type of biotic/abiotic trigger. Different comparative triggers (e.g., chewing vs. sucking/piercing, biotroph vs. necrotroph, host vs. non-host pathogens, and saprophytic beneficial vs. parasitic pathogenic microbes) elicit distinct bouquets of VOCs, including the quantity and quality of each compound and its emission time course (Castelyn, Appelgryn, Mafa, Pretorius & Visser, 2014, Klimm, Weinhold & Volf, 2020, Qawasmeh, Raman & Wheatley, 2015, Quintana-Rodriguez, Morales-Vargas, Molina-Torres, Adame-Alvarez, Acosta-Gallegos, Heil & Flynn, 2015, Sharifi et al , 2018.…”