4.6 Article

Volatile unsaturated hydrocarbons emitted by seedlings of Brassica species provide host location cues to Bagrada hilaris

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209870

关键词

-

资金

  1. Iraqi Government
  2. Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MAE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bagrada hilaris Burmeister, is a stink bug native to Asia and Africa and invasive in the United States, Mexico, and more recently, South America. This species can cause serious damage to various vegetable crops in the genus Brassica, with seedlings being particularly susceptible to B. hilaris feeding activity. In this study, the role of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by seedlings of three Brassica species on the host preference of B. hilaris was evaluated. In dual choice arena and olfactometer bioassays, adult painted bugs preferred B. oleracea var. botrytis and B. napus over B. carinata. Volatiles from B. oleracea seedlings were collected and bioassayed with B. hilaris adults and late stage nymphs, using electroantennographic (EAG) and behavioral (olfactometer) techniques. When crude extracts of the VOCs from B. oleracea var. botrytis seedlings and liquid chromatography fractions thereof were bioassayed, B. hilaris adults and nymphs were attracted to the crude extract, and to a non-polar fraction containing hydrocarbons, whereas there were no responses to the more polar fractions. GC-MS analysis indicated that the main constituents of the non-polar fraction was an as yet unidentified diterpene hydrocarbon, with trace amounts of several other diterpene hydrocarbons. The major diterpene occurred in VOCs from both of the preferred host plants B. oleracea and B. napus, but not in VOCs of B. carinata. Our results suggest that this diterpene, alone or in combination with one or more of the minor compounds, is a key mediator in this insect-plant interaction, and could be a good candidate for use in lures for monitoring B. hilaris in the field.

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

4.6
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