Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:24:44.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of wild, local and cultivated tobacco varieties on the oviposition preference and offspring performance of Spodoptera litura

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2021

Xiaohong Li Open the ORCID record for Xiaohong Li [Opens in a new window] ,
Zhiyou Huang ,
Xianjun Yang  and
Shaolong Wu
Xiaohong Li*
Affiliation:
College of Urban and Rural Construction, Shaoyang University, Shaoyang, China
Zhiyou Huang
Affiliation:
College of Urban and Rural Construction, Shaoyang University, Shaoyang, China
Xianjun Yang
Affiliation:
College of Urban and Rural Construction, Shaoyang University, Shaoyang, China
Shaolong Wu
Affiliation:
Hunan Province Tobacco Company, Changsha, China
*
Author for correspondence: Xiaohong Li, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influences of different plants on herbivores have recently attracted research interest; however, little is known regarding the effects of wild, local and cultivated varieties of the same plant from the same origin on herbivores. This study aimed to examine the effects of different tobacco varieties from the same origin on the oviposition preference and offspring performance of Spodoptera litura. We selected two wild (‘Bishan wild tobacco’ and ‘Badan wild tobacco’), two local (‘Liangqiao sun-cured tobacco’ and ‘Shuangguan sun-cured tobacco’) and two cultivated (‘Xiangyan No. 5’ and ‘Cunsanpi’) tobacco varieties from Hunan Province, China. We found that female S. litura varied in oviposition preferences across the tobacco varieties. They preferred to lay eggs on the cultivated varieties, followed by the local varieties, with the wild varieties being the least preferred. Furthermore, different tobacco varieties significantly influenced the life history parameters of S. litura. Survival rate, pupal weight, emergence rate and adult dry weight decreased in the following order: cultivated varieties > local varieties > wild varieties. Conversely, the pupal stage and development period decreased in the following order: wild varieties > local varieties > cultivated varieties. Therefore, we conclude that wild tobacco varieties have higher resistance to S. litura than cultivated and local varieties, reflecting the evolutionary advantages of wild tobacco varieties.

Keywords

Life historyoviposition preferencessame originSpodoptera lituratobacco varieties
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 112 , Issue 3 , June 2022 , pp. 354 - 360
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chaudhary, B (2013) Plant domestication and resistance to herbivory. International Journal of Plant Genomics 2013, 572784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, YH and Bernal, CC (2011) Arthropod diversity and community composition on wild and cultivated rice. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 13, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, YH, Gols, R and Benrey, B (2015) Crop domestication and its impact on naturally selected trophic interactions. Annual Review of Entomology 60, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cusumano, A, Zhu, F, Volkoff, AN, Verbaarschot, P, Bloem, J, Vogel, H, Dicke, M and Poelman, EH (2018) Parasitic wasp-associated symbiont affects plant-mediated species interactions between herbivores. Ecology Letters 21, 957–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Lange, ES, Farnier, K, Gaudillat, B and Turlings, TCJ (2016) Comparing the attraction of two parasitoids to herbivore-induced volatiles of maize and its wild ancestors, the teosintes. Chemoecology 26, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicke, M (2015) Herbivore-induced plant volatiles as a rich source of information for arthropod predators: fundamental and applied aspects. Journal of the Indian Institute of Science 95, 35–42.Google Scholar
Dicke, M and Baldwin, IT (2010) The evolutionary context for herbivore-induced plant volatiles: beyond the ‘cry for help’. Trends in Plant Science 15, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuller, DQ, Denham, T, Arroyo-Kalin, M, Lucas, L, Stevens, CJ, Qin, L, Allaby, RG and Purugganan, MD (2014) Convergent evolution and parallelism in plant domestication revealed by an expanding archaeological record. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA 111, 6147–6152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gols, R, Bukovinszky, T, van Dam, NM, Dicke, M, Bullock, JM and Harvey, JA (2008) Performance of generalist and specialist herbivores and their endoparasitoids differs on cultivated and wild Brassica populations. Journal of Chemical Ecology 34, 132–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halitschke, R, Stenberg, JA, Kessler, D, Kessler, A and Baldwin, IT (2008) Shared signals-’alarm calls’ from plants increase apparency to herbivores and their enemies in nature. Ecology Letters 11, 24–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Hare, JD (2011) Ecological role of volatiles produced by plants in response to damage by herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology 56, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiao, F, Wu, X, Chen, X, Xu, M and Li, Y (2019) Collection, identification and application of tobacco germplasm resources in China. Tobacco Science & Technology 52, 108–116.Google Scholar
Karban, R (2011) The ecology and evolution of induced resistance against herbivores. Functional Ecology 25, 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladizinsky, G (1998) How many tough-rachis mutants gave rise to domesticated barley? Genetic Resources & Crop Evolution 45, 411–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, G, Piperno, DR, Allaby, RG, Purugganan, MD, Andersson, L, Arroyo-Kalin, M, Barton, L, Vigueira, CC, Denham, T, Dobney, K, Doust, AN, Gepts, P, Gilbert, MTP, Gremillion, KJ, Lucas, L, Lukens, L, Marshall, FB, Olsen, KM, Pires, JC, Richerson, PJ, de Casas, RR, Sanjur, OI, Thomas, MG and Fuller, DQ (2014) Current perspectives and the future of domestication studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA 111, 6139–6146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, X, Meng, L, Xing, G and Li, B (2016) Constitutive and induced resistance in soybean interact to affect the performance of a herbivore and its parasitoid. Biological Control 101, 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X, Garvey, M, Kaplan, I, Li, B and Carrillo, J (2018 a) Domestication of tomato has reduced the attraction of herbivore natural enemies to pest-damaged plants. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 20, 390–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X, Li, B and Meng, L (2018 b) Below-ground nematode herbivory of resistant soybean cultivars impairs the performances of an above-ground caterpillar and its parasitoid. Ecological Entomology 42, 712–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, G, Li, Y, Lv, H, Yang, A, Feng, Q, Dai, P, Tong, Y and Zhang, X (2020) Evaluation and cataloguing of newly collected tobacco germplasm resources in Chongqing, China. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources 21, 896–907.Google Scholar
Long, Y, Liu, J, Wu, S and Li, X (2020) Effects of different tobacco varieties on growth and food utilization efficiency of Spodoptera litura larvae. Acta Tabacaria Sinica 26, 91–97.Google Scholar
Luan, Y, Gu, J and Li, M (2013) Effect of different host plants on growth of Spodoptera litura and its mechanism. Jiangsu Agricultural Science 41, 142–144.Google Scholar
McDaniel, T, Tosh, CR, Gatehouse, AM, George, D, Robson, M and Brogan, B (2016) Novel resistance mechanisms of a wild tomato against the glasshouse whitefly. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36, 14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milla, R, Osborne, CP, Turcotte, MM and Violle, C (2015) Plant domestication through an ecological lens. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30, 463–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, C, Brennan, RM, Graham, J and Karley, AJ (2016) Plant defense against herbivorous pests: exploiting resistance and tolerance traits for sustainable crop protection. Frontiers in Plant Science 7, 1132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ode, PJ (2006) Plant chemistry and natural enemy fitness: effects on herbivore and natural enemy interactions. Annual Review of Entomology 51, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pashalidou, FG, Eyman, L, Sims, J, Buckley, J, Fatouros, NE, De Moraes, CM and Mescher, MC (2020) Plant volatiles induced by herbivore eggs prime defences and mediate shifts in the reproductive strategy of receiving plants. Ecology Letters 13, 1097–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paudel, S, Lin, PA, Foolad, MR, Ali, JG, Rajotte, EG and Felton, GW (2019) Induced plant defenses against herbivory in cultivated and wild tomato. Journal of Chemical Ecology 45, 693–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qu, X, Jiao, Y, Li, Y, Wang, T, Liu, S, Liu, G, Tong, Y and Zhang, X (2018) Identification and genetic diversity analysis of newly collected tobacco germplasm resources in Hunan province. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources 19, 1117–1125.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Saona, C, Vorsa, N, Singh, AP, Johnson-Cicalese, J, Szendrei, Z, Mescher, MC and Frost, CJ (2011) Tracing the history of plant traits under domestication in cranberries: potential consequences on anti-herbivore defences. Journal of Experimental Botany 62, 2633–2644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, JP and Dirzo, R (1997) Effects of life history, domestication and agronomic selection on plant defence against insects: evidence from maizes and wild relatives. Evolutionary Ecology 11, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowen, E and Kaplan, I (2016) Eco-evolutionary factors drive induced plant volatiles: a meta-analysis. New Phytologist 210, 284–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schillewaert, S, Vantaux, A, Van den Ende, W and Wenseleers, T (2017) The effect of host plants on genotype variability in fitness and honeydew composition of Aphis fabae. Insect Science 24, 781–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sujana, G, Sharma, HC and Rao, DM (2012) Pod surface exudates of wild relatives of pigeonpea influence the feeding preference of the pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 6, 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamiru, A, Bruce, TJA, Woodcock, CM, Caulfield, JC, Midega, CAO, Ogol, CKPO, Mayon, P, Birkett, MA, Pickett, JA and Khan, ZR (2011) Maize landraces recruit egg and larval parasitoids in response to egg deposition by a herbivore. Ecology Letters 14, 1075–1083.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turcotte, M, Lochab, AK, Turley, NE and Johnson, MT (2015) Plant domestication slows pest evolution. Ecology Letters 18, 907–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehead, SR, Turcotte, MM and Poveda, K (2017) Domestication impacts on plant-herbivore interactions: a meta-analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 372, 20160034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, C, Yang, M, Zeng, Z, Yao, M and Liao, Q (2015) Diurnal rhythm of reproductive behavior of cotton leafworm Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) feeding on different hosts. Journal of Plant Protection 42, 210–216.Google Scholar
Xiu, CL, Pan, HS, Liu, B, Luo, ZX, Williams, L, Yang, YZ and Lu, YH (2019) Perception of and behavioral responses to host plant volatiles for three adelphocoris species. Journal of Chemical Ecology 45, 779–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Y (2016) Evaluation and Genetic Dissection of Antibiosis to Common Cutworm (Spodoptera litura) in Wild Soybean (Glycine soja) and Landrace (Glycine max) Population in China. Nanjing, Jiangsu: Nanjing Agricultural University.Google Scholar
Zheng, XS, Lu, YH, Zhu, PY, Zhang, FC, Tian, J, Xu, HX, Chen, GH, Nansen, C and Lu, ZX (2017) Use of banker plant system for sustainable management of the most important insect pest in rice fields in China. Scientific Reports 7, 45581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed