4.3 Article

Innate Responses to Putative Ancestral Hosts: Is the Attraction of Western Flower Thrips to Pine Pollen a Result of Relict Olfactory Receptors?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY
卷 40, 期 6, 页码 534-540

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10886-014-0450-0

关键词

Frankliniella occidentalis; Thrips; Pine pollen; Semiochemical; (S)-(-)-Verbenone; Electroantennogram; Insect pest

资金

  1. European Union
  2. Agrisense Ltd

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pollinophagy is widely documented in the order Thysanoptera, with representative individuals from six of the nine divergent families known to feed on pollen. Various pollens of the genus Pinus increase the development time, fecundity, longevity, and settling preference of Western Flower Thrips (WFT), Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Certain species of flower thrips discriminate among pollen types, but no studies have elucidated the olfactory cues that play a role in their pollen preferences. In this study, the volatile organic compounds emitted by pollens of the genus Pinus were elucidated. Various chemicals from pollen headspace elicited electrophysiological responses from WFT antennae. The compound (S)-(-)-verbenone, identified in pollen headspace, attracted WFT in a 4-arm olfactometer. This compound has potential for use in integrated pest management programs against the pest. We present the hypothesis that this polyphagous insect may have retained ancestral 'relict' olfactory receptors through the course of evolution, to explain this attraction to pine pollen. This attraction has allowed the insect to find and exploit an unusual nutrient source that significantly increases its fitness. The study demonstrates how fossil record analysis and subsequent evolutionary knowledge can aid in explaining possibilities as to why some insects sense and respond to chemicals that would otherwise seem peculiar to their ecology, allowing insight into the evolutionary forces that may shape insect olfactory systems over time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据