INTERACTION OF PRE-ATTACK AND INDUCED MONOTERPENE CONCENTRATIONS IN HOST CONIFER DEFENSE AGAINST BARK BEETLE FUNGAL COMPLEXES

被引:214
作者
RAFFA, KF [1 ]
SMALLEY, EB [1 ]
机构
[1] UNIV WISCONSIN,DEPT PLANT PATHOL,MADISON,WI 53706
关键词
INDUCED RESISTANCE; PLANT INSECT INTERACTIONS; INSECT FUNGAL INTERACTIONS; TERPENES; BARK BEETLES;
D O I
10.1007/BF00329795
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Two pine species (Pinus resinosa, P. banksiana) responded to inoculation with fungi carried by bark beetles by rapidly increasing monoterpene concentrations at the entry site. Changes in total monoterpenes were more pronounced than changes in proportionate compositions. The extent and rate of host response was affected by fungal species, the viability of the inoculum, and host tree species. In general, host responses were highest to fungi that are phytopathogenic and consistently associated with the major bark beetles in the study region. Simple mechanical wounding cannot account for the observed allelochemical changes, as aseptic inoculations elicited only minor reactions. Similarly, inoculation with autoclaved inviable fungi generally elicited intermediate responses, suggesting that both structural and metabolic fungal properties are important. Responses by jack pine, P. banksiana, were generally more rapid and variable than those of red pine, P. resinosa. Dose-toxicity experiments with synthetic compounds demonstrated that monoterpene concentrations present in vivo only a few days after simulated attack are lethal to most beetles. Constitutive (pre-attack) monoterpene levels can also exert some toxicity. Because bark beetles engage in pheromone-mediated mass attacks that can deplete host defenses, constitutive monoterpene levels, while a necessary early phase of successful plant defense, appear insufficient by themselves. Such interactions between constitutive and induced defense chemistry may be important considerations when evaluating general theories of plant defense.
引用
收藏
页码:285 / 295
页数:11
相关论文
共 55 条
[11]  
Croteau R., Burbott A.J., Loomis W.D., Apparent energy deficiency in mono- and sesqui-terpene biosynthesis in peppermint, Phytochemistry, 11, pp. 2937-2948, (1972)
[12]  
Fowler D.P., Lester D.T., The genetics of red pine, (1970)
[13]  
Hain F.P., Mawby W.D., Cook S.P., Arthur F.H., Host conifer reaction to stem invasion, Z angew Entomol, 96, pp. 247-256, (1983)
[14]  
Hemmingway R.W., McGraw G.W., Barras S.J., Polyphenols in Ceratocystis minor-infected Pinus taeda: fungal metabolites phloem and xylem phenols, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 25, pp. 717-720, (1977)
[15]  
Hunt D.W.A., Lintereur G., Raffa K.F., Rearing methods for Hylobius radicis and Hylobius pales (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Journal of Economic Entomology, 85, pp. 1873-1877, (1992)
[16]  
Karban R., Myers J.H., Induced plant responses to herbivory, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20, pp. 331-348, (1989)
[17]  
Klepzig K.D., Raffa K.F., Smalley E.B., Association of insectfungal complexes with red pine decline in Wisconsin, For Sci, 37, pp. 1119-1139, (1991)
[18]  
Langenheim J.H., Higher plant terpenoids—a phytocentric overview of their ecological roles, J Chem Ecol, 20, pp. 1223-1280, (1994)
[19]  
Lerdau M., Litvak M., Monson R., Plant chemical defense: monoterpenes and growth-differentiation hypothesis, Trends Ecol Evol, 9, pp. 58-61, (1994)
[20]  
Lewinsohn E., Gijzen M., Croteau R., Defense mechanisms of conifers, Physiol Plant Pathol, 96, pp. 44-49, (1991)