Downloaded 270 times
![0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
8000000
9000000
10000000
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046
Population(1000s);CerealProduction(x500tonnes)
Will future demand be met?
Source: FAOSTAT
Bruce (2010) Food Security 2: 133-141
To keep pace with
growing demand,
global food
production needs
to increase by an
estimated 70% by
2050 [United
Nations]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/insect-plantinteractions-140529092507-phpapp01/75/Insect-plant-interactions-17-2048.jpg)
![No hyphal connection
Receiver plants (no aphids)
0.5 µm 40 µm
rotated
40 µm
static
no
barrier
Donor
(with
aphids)
Timespent[min]
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Pea aphid
Aphidius ervi
Hyphal connection
Attractive
Repellent
a
a
b
b b
z
z
y y
y
Response of pea aphid and its parasitoid wasp (Aphidius
ervi) to volatiles in olfactometer bioassays: time spent in
treated arm minus control (mean)
3
-2
-1
0
1
2
With
MeS
Without
MeS
Attractive
Repellent
Timespent
[min]
***
-3
amountofmethylsalicylate[ng/ml]
0
2
4
6
8
10
Methylsalicylate
[ng/ml]
Response of pea aphid to volatiles in olfactometer
bioassays: time spent in treated arm minus control (mean)
Babikova et al. (2013) Ecology Letters 16: 835-43](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/insect-plantinteractions-140529092507-phpapp01/75/Insect-plant-interactions-84-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byToby Bruce
Insect plant interactions
The document discusses the dynamic co-evolutionary relationship between insects and plants, highlighting its significance for future food security in agriculture. It underscores the vulnerabilities of agro-ecosystems to pests and stresses the need for integrated pest management (IPM) strategies and sustainable agricultural practices to cope with increasing global food demands. The document also emphasizes research on insect-plant interactions and biocontrol methods to enhance crop protection while reducing reliance on pesticides.
More Related Content
Similar to Insect plant interactions
Insect plant interactions
- 1. Insect-Plant Interactions: adynamic co-evolutionary struggle highly relevant to future food security Toby Bruce University of Nottingham, 12 May 2014
- 2. Modern agriculture: High yieldingvarieties (?)
- 3. High yield – onlyif there is adequate crop protection against pests
- 4. Overview of talk: •Vulnerability of agro-ecosystems to pest attack Implications for Food Security • Insect-plant interactions • Techniques for managing pests • Future directions
- 5. Vulnerability of agro-ecosystemsto pest attack Lush monocultures of high yielding varieties grown with fertiliser and irrigation are often more susceptible to pests
- 6. Bruce (2011) J.Exp. Bot. 63: 537-541
- 7. fewer effective pesticides reduced genetic diversity in crops THRIVING PESTS AND HIGHCROP LOSSES climate change can make conditions better for pests less intrinsic resistance to insects and pathogens, and less competitiveness with weeds fertilised crops more nutritious to insects and pathogens broad spectrum pesticides kill natural enemies of pests Bruce (2011) J. Exp. Bot. 63: 537-541
- 8. Impact of Pests,Weeds & Diseases 1965 – staple cereals 1992 – staple cereals 42% lost 36% lost SOURCE: Oerke & Dehne (2004) Crop Prot 23:275–285 Crop losses caused by pests have not decreased since the 1960s, even with use of pesticides
- 9. Resistance to agrochemicalsworldwide
- 10. EC Directive 2009-128 Aframework “Promoting the use of IPM and of alternative approaches”
- 11. Research on “Alternatives”is urgently needed Promoting IPM and use of alternatives 2009/128/EC on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Reducing risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and environment
- 12. Research on “Alternatives”is urgently needed
- 13. More complicated thanjust banning pesticides Bees
- 14. “Impacts of pesticideson human health and the environment” … BUT WAIT, some impacts are positive
- 15. Human health ► increasedaffordability of healthy food (e.g. fruit & veg) ► less mycotoxin contamination Environment ► more food can be produced on less land with less water and fertiliser ► more efficient production – less GHG
- 16. • EU yieldsdecline • Increased selection pressure for resistance to remaining pesticides • Food price increase • Food production companies move out of Europe • More land used for agriculture Unintended consequences
- 17. 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000 9000000 10000000 1961 1966 19711976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 Population(1000s);CerealProduction(x500tonnes) Will future demand be met? Source: FAOSTAT Bruce (2010) Food Security 2: 133-141 To keep pace with growing demand, global food production needs to increase by an estimated 70% by 2050 [United Nations]
- 18. New directions forAgriculture in the 21st Century Royal Society: “There is a pressing need for the ‘sustainable intensification’ of global agriculture in which yields are increased without adverse environmental impact and without the cultivation of more land”. Royal Society (2009) Policy document 11/09 A second green revolution which is knowledge intensive rather than input intensive?
- 20. So we needto learn more about insect-plant interactions… …these are complicated and dynamic
- 21.
- 22. The different timescalesassociated with insect-plant interactions Bruce (2014) JXB in press
- 23. DNA code hasevolved over millions of years - subject to mutations that are deleterious or advantageous according to context - gene expression is modulated by epigenetic ‘stress imprints’
- 25. Insect effectors supressor induce plant defence (depending if insect or plant is ‘ahead’) (image courtesy of Saskia Hogenhout)
- 26. Plant defence changesover time (image courtesy of Jurriaan Ton and Marieke van Hulten)
- 27. Defences: traditionally dividedinto “constitutive” and “induced” Primed defence plant is ready to mount quicker or stronger defences when subsequently attacked Induced defence these traits are always expressed these traits need a signal to elicit them - attacking organism - volatile surrogate (plant activator) Constitutive defence Bruce & Pickett (2007) Current Opinion in Plant Biology 10: 387-392
- 28. primed not primed Bruce etal. (2007) Plant Science 173: 603-608
- 29. primed not primed Bruce etal. (2007) Plant Science 173: 603-608
- 30. primed not primed Doespriming leave an epigenetic mark? MeMeMeMeMeMeMeMeMeMe MeMeMeMeMeMeMeMeMeMe Bruce et al. (2007) Plant Science 173: 603-608
- 32. Rapid decisions byinsects about plant colonisation, made in flight Bruce (2014) JXB in press
- 33. How do insectsrecognise host plants? 1. Species-specific odour recognition: taxonomically characteristic volatiles ORN Plant Volatile CNS ORN Plant Volatile CNS Plant Volatile Plant Volatile Plant Volatile Plant VolatileORN ORN ORN ORN Bruce et al. (2005) TRENDS in Plant Science 10: 269 2. Ratio-specific odour recognition: specific combinations of volatiles, distributed generally among plant species
- 34. GC-linked electroantennography • Theinsect antenna is used as a biological detector • Delicate manipulation with microelectrodes to connect an antenna to an electrical circuit • Volatiles (GC effluent) passed over electrophysiological preparation • There is increased depolarisation when the insect responds
- 35. • Insect releasedin the centre • Time spent in treated arm compared with time spent in control arms • Insects released at downwind end • Upwind flight and source contacts recorded Olfactometer Wind-tunnel Behavioural Bioassays
- 36. Helicoverpa armigera • highlypolyphagous • specialises on flowers
- 37. H O H CH3 CH2 H O benzaldehyde phenylacetaldehyde limonenelinalool Bruce & Cork (2001) J. Chem. Ecol. 27: 1119 Helicoverpa armigera
- 38. • host plants limitedto wheat and a few related grasses Sitodiplosis mosellana
- 39. Birkett et al.(2004) J. Chem. Ecol. 30: 1319 3-carene (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate acetophenone Ubiquitous compounds! Sitodiplosis mosellana
- 40. Aphis fabae • specialiston beans • feeds in colonies
- 41. (E)-2-hexenal 1-hexanol (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol benzaldehyde 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one octanal (Z)-3-hexen-1-yl acetate (R)-linalool methyl salicylate decanal undecanal (E)-caryophyllene (E)-β-farnesene (S)-(-)-germacrene (E,E)-4,8,12-trimethyl-1,3,7,11- tridecatetraene Websteret al. (2008) J. Chem. Ecol. 34: 1153
- 42. Webster et al.(2010) Animal Behaviour 79: 451 Aphis fabae Timespent(Min) 0 2 - 3 9-comp syntheti c blend * * * * * * * * * * 0.1ng (E)-2-hexanal 1ng benzaldehyde 0.01ng octanal 0.01ng(Z)-3- hexenyl acetate 0.1ng(R)- lianlool 10ngmethyl salicylate 100ngdecanal 0.01ng(S)- germacreneD 0.1ngTMTT
- 43. Attraction to blends Bruce& Pickett (2011) Phytochem. 72: 1605
- 44. Right mix isneeded… Bruce & Pickett (2011) Phytochem. 72: 1605
- 45. Bruce et al.(2005) TRENDS in Plant Science 10: 269 Spatio-temporal resolution of signals
- 46. The challenge ofhost recognition
- 47. Insect responses changeover time (image courtesy of Patrizia d'Ettorre and Mauro Patricelli)
- 48.
- 50. Orange wheat blossommidge • varies from year to year • was difficult to decide in time which fields needed treating • difficult to control with insecticide
- 51. • Females layeggs, but larvae die when they start to feed • A wound plug is formed at the feeding site due to lignification • Antibiotic action of phenolic acids by the grain Resistant varieties
- 53. Resistant varieties Oakley etal 2005 HGCA Project Report No. 363 Now approx. 60% of UK wheat is resistant Resistant varieties
- 54. Yellow rust onwheat OWBM resistant cultivar (Robigus) Need for multiple resistance
- 55.
- 56. Monitoring systems Bruce etal. (2007) Pest Man. Sci. 63: 49 • Allow rational use of pesticides • Need based applications save costs and importantly slow down the development of resistance • sex pheromone traps: - provide a solution to the detection problem - enable more accurate and effective spray timing
- 57. Bruce et al.(2007) Pest Man. Sci. 63: 49 • Pheromone traps widely used by wheat growers in the UK
- 58. Decision support systemfor OWBM Bruce & Smart (2009) Outlooks Pest Management 20: 89-92
- 60. • Identified fromwinter host volatiles of lettuce aphid, Nasonovia ribis-nigri • Emitted by insect infested plants: – cotton plants damaged by Spodoptera – potato plants infested with potato aphid • Biological effects observed >24h after spraying plants with cis-jasmone • Non-toxic • No residue left as it is volatile cis-Jasmone O
- 61. • aphids (Sitobionavenae) released at downwind end • numbers settled on wheat seedlings recorded • Fewer aphids colonised cis- jasmone induced plants 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -1 4 9 14 19 24 time after release (h) %settlement control cis-jasmone Settlement bioassay in simulator
- 62. Bruce et al.(2003) Pest Management Science 59: 1031 – 1036 Field plot trial: spray application
- 63. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 28-May 8-Jun 16-Jun24-Jun 6-Jul MeanNo.Aphids/Tiller * * control cis-jasmone P = 0.036 Bruce et al. (2003) Pest Management Science 59: 1031 – 1036 Wheat Field Trial
- 64. significantly longer timespent on induced plants 0 5 10 15 20 25 Treated Control min Aphidius ervi foraging on cis-Jasmone treated wheat
- 65. CYP81D11 • Insect responsesto CYP81D11 OE plants are similar to the responses observed with CJ treated plants • We still do not know the function of this gene Bruce et al. (2008) PNAS 105: 4553-4558
- 67.
- 68. Collecting volatiles fromplants with eggs
- 69. Bioassay • insect releasedin the centre • time spent in treated arm compared with time spent in control arms Response to volatiles collected from plants with and without eggs?
- 70. Maize landrace lines Tamiruet al. (2011) Ecology Letters 14: 1075 Parasitoid response - landraces Attracted to plants with eggs
- 71. Volatile profiles -landraces (a) (E)-ocimene, (b) (R)-linalool, (c) (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7, nonatriene (DMNT), (d) methyl salicylate, (e) decanal, (f) methyleugenol, (g) (E)-(1R,9S)-caryophyllene, (h) (E)-β-farnesene, (i) (E,E)- 4,8,12-trimethyl-1,3,7,11-tridecatetraene (TMTT). Tamiru et al. (2011) Ecology Letters 14: 1075
- 72. New Project: markersfor egg induced volatile emission trait
- 74.
- 75. HIPV induced byeggs in improved line Improved maize line CKIR12001 emits DMNT when stemborer eggs are laid on it.
- 77. New aphid repellentsidentified • Volatiles from Fusarium graminearum infested wheat are repellent to grain aphid, Sitobion avenae • EAG active compounds: ▫ 2-pentadecanone, ▫ 2-heptanone, ▫ phenyl actetic acid, ▫ α-gurjunene, ▫ 2-tridecanone, ▫ α -cedrene
- 78. • Key behaviourallyactive compounds: ▫ 2-pentadecanone ▫ 2-heptanone -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
- 80. - volatiles producedfrom vegetative parts and roots can change significantly following aphid attack - repellent to subsequent herbivores - signalling molecules attract natural enemies Babikova et al. (2013) Ecology Letters 16: 835-43 Herbivore-Induced Plant Volatiles
- 81. Common Mycorrhizal Networks Hypothesis:Mycorrhizal fungal networks communicate pest defence between plants via signalling through mycelia Babikova et al. (2013) Ecology Letters 16: 835-43
- 82. - arbuscular mycorrhizaeare ubiquitous ancient plant mutualists -80 % of terrestrial plants -due to lack of specificity of form CMNs connecting plants - CMNs act as conduits of nutrients and water and also disease resistance signals - role in transfer of signals released in response in insect damage in multitrophic interactions was unknown Babikova et al. (2013) Ecology Letters 16: 835-43 Common Mycorrhizal Networks
- 83. Donor plant with aphids No barrier.Root and hyphal contact Static 40 µm mesh. Hyphal contact, no root contact 0.5 µm mesh. No hyphal contact, no root contact Rotated 40 µm mesh. No hyphal contact, no root contact Roots AM fungi Babikova et al. (2013) Ecology Letters 16: 835-43 Experimental mesocosm
- 84. No hyphal connection Receiverplants (no aphids) 0.5 µm 40 µm rotated 40 µm static no barrier Donor (with aphids) Timespent[min] -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Pea aphid Aphidius ervi Hyphal connection Attractive Repellent a a b b b z z y y y Response of pea aphid and its parasitoid wasp (Aphidius ervi) to volatiles in olfactometer bioassays: time spent in treated arm minus control (mean) 3 -2 -1 0 1 2 With MeS Without MeS Attractive Repellent Timespent [min] *** -3 amountofmethylsalicylate[ng/ml] 0 2 4 6 8 10 Methylsalicylate [ng/ml] Response of pea aphid to volatiles in olfactometer bioassays: time spent in treated arm minus control (mean) Babikova et al. (2013) Ecology Letters 16: 835-43
- 85.
- 87. Biocontrol with naturalenemies • Natrual enemies of pests can be released to control them • Successful in glasshouses e.g. Almaria in Spain • Harder to use in open field environments
- 88. New Agri-tech Catalystproject: Lure-and-kill technology to manage beetle pests of field beans and peas 4-Methylheptane-3,5-dione Beauveria bassiana spores adhering to Entostat particles Sitona lineatus adults ♂ produced aggregation pheromone that attracts ♀s and ♂s
- 89. The main non-chemicalcontrol of aphids is based on parasitoids - either by release in glasshouses or encouraging natural populations outside.
- 90. Biocontrol in edibleprotected crops 2010/11 (UK) Aphidius ervi used on 2072 ha: 350 ha tomatoes, 131 ha of cucumbers, 1511 ha of peppers Data from Fera Pesticide Usage survey (ha are treated hectares and include repeat treatments) Aphidius colemani used on 3160 ha: 2235 ha peppers, 487 ha of cucumbers, 426 other vegetables
- 91.
- 92.
- 95.
- 96. at least 10,000years ago wild einkorn wheat (Triticum urartu) wild goat grass related to Aegilops speltoides Triticum diccocoides, wild emmer wheat prehistoric times goat grass (Aegilops tauschii) Bread wheat, Triticum aestivum
- 97. Blight resistant potato+Rpi-vnt1 5 fungicide sprays to protect No pesticide needed
- 98. Aphid resistant wildpotatoes 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Nymph survival (after 7 days) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Nymphs produced (after 24h) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Adults settled (after 24h) Two of the ten lines tested were very resistant with 0% aphid survival after 7 days.
- 99. Molecular recognition systemin insects
- 100. Molecular recognition systemin plants
- 101. Understanding resistance mechanisms (imagecourtesy of Saskia Hogenhout)
- 102.
- 103. Intensified agriculture ismore dependent on crop protection Lush monocultures of high yielding varieties grown with fertiliser are often more susceptible to pests
- 104. Value of CropProtection – UK wheat Oerke EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science 144:31-43. Value of UK wheat production in 2011 (Defra - Agiculture in the UK dataset) £ 2 210 million Crop losses with no crop protection (from Oerke 2006) % weeds 23 £ 508 million pests 8.7 £ 192 million diseases 18.1 £ 400 million TOTAL £1100 million
- 106. 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000 9000000 10000000 Population(1000s);Cereal Production(x500tonnes) Source: FAOSTAT Will FutureDemand be Met? Consider resources, planetary boundaries and climate change
- 107.