Lesley Smarts Semiochemicals.pdf
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Lesley Smarts Semiochemicals.pdf as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,458
- Pages: 32
ROTHAMSTED RESEARC H
Semiochemicals in field experiments aiming at improved insect pest control Lesley Smart, Rothamsted, UK
Outline • Introduction to field trials with semiochemicals • Three examples of the use of semiochemical based control of pests in the field – The plant activator cis‐jasmone – Aphid alarm pheromone – Push‐pull in Africa, a complete strategy
Introduction • Develop new strategies, incorporating semiochemicals, to minimise or replace the need for the use of conventional insecticides in integrated pest management (IPM)
Push‐Pull Strategy P U S H
Main crop • Less attractive crop cultivars • Repellents (non‐host volatiles, alarm pheromones, antifeedants, intercrops)
Trap crop • More attractive cultivars / related hosts •Attractants (aggregation / sex pheromones; visual stimuli)
+ Selective control agents
P U L L
Introduction Standard conditions in the field
Introduction Pests
Introduction Trial design 6
5.5
5
A2
B1
C4
D3
D4
C3
B2
A1
10
C1
A3
D2
B4
8
12
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
6
2
B3
1.5
D4
A2
C1
1 1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
4
Quasi‐complete Latin square
The plant activator cis‐jasmone •
Stress related volatile plant activator that induces plant defence mechanisms
•
Emitted by insect infested plants: – cotton plants damaged by Spodoptera – potato plants infested with potato aphid
•
Biological effects observed >24h after exposing plants to cis‐jasmone
• •
Non‐toxic No residue as it is volatile
cis‐jasmone Birkett et al. (2000) PNAS 97: 9329‐9334.
The plant activator cis‐jasmone In laboratory and semi‐field studies we have shown that: • cis‐jasmone is directly repellent to many aphid species and attractive to aphid parasitoids and predators • Aphids are repelled by the volatiles emitted by treated plants and settlement is reduced • Aphid parasitoids are attracted by the volatiles from treated plants and parasitism is increased • Aphid development and fecundity is reduced on treated plants
Bruce et al, (2003) Outlook on Pest Management 14: p96‐98; Pickett et al, (2007) Phytochemistry 68: 2937‐ 2945; Moraes et al, (2008) Phytochemistry 69: 9‐17.
The plant activator cis‐jasmone 12 x 12m plots; treatment applied at the onset of cereal aphid immigration in the autumn and spring. Sampling points on a grid, visual counts of aphids on 100 plants or tillers per plot made weekly.
The plant activator cis‐jasmone Reduction in colonisation in the field is not always significant, but trends are consistent 1.2
0.5
control
*
0.45
P = 0.036
P = 0.001
1 0.4
* Mean No. Aphids / Tiller
Mean No. Aphids / Tiller
cis‐jasmone 0.8
0.6
* 0.4
0.35 0.3 0.25
*
0.2 0.15 0.1
0.2
0.05 0
0 28-May
08-Jun
16-Jun
24-Jun
10-May
06-Jul
22-May
31-May
06-Jun
12-Jun
26-Jun
0.35
4.5
*
4
P = 0.063
control
3.5
Mean No. of Aphids / Tiller
Mean No. of Aphids / Tiller
15-May
cis‐jasmone
3 2.5 2 1.5
P = 0.007
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
1
0.05 0.5
0
0 21-May
30-May
04-Jun
11-Jun
20-Jun
25-Jun
02-Jul
09-Jul
01-May
Bruce et al. (2003) Pest Management Science 59: 1031‐1036
08-May
16-May
23-May
30-May
11-Jun
18-Jun
25-Jun
01-Jul
The plant activator cis‐jasmone Response to cis‐jasmone differed between wheat cultivars Solstice
Consort
350
CJ
140
250 total aphids/400 tillers
total aphids/400 tillers
160
control
300
200 150 100
control CJ
120 100 80 60 40
50
20
0
0 01‐Jun
7
12
20
29
06‐Jul
01‐Jun
7
12
20
29
06‐Jul
Welford
Hereward 200 250 control CJ total aphids/400 tillers
total aphids/400 tillers
200
150
100
180
control
160
CJ
140 120 100 80 60 40
50
20 0
0 01‐Jun
7
12
20
29
06‐Jul
01‐Jun
7
12
20
• Suggests genetic variation in inducible traits
29
06‐Jul
The plant activator cis‐jasmone 2 unreplicated plots, both approximately 2ha, of spring peas cv. Ragtime Treatment applied by tractor mounted sprayer Samples taken weekly by Vortis suction sampler on a 6 x 6 grid within each plot and numbers of Acyrthosiphon pisum and natural enemies recorded
The plant activator cis‐jasmone Distribution of Acyrthosiphon pisum on 30 May 2008 34 6
28
5
4
22
3
16
2
10
1 1
2
3
4
5
Plot 1 pre‐treatment
Golden software, Inc. Surfer
6
7
8
9
10
11
Plot 2 pre‐treatment
12
4
-2
The plant activator cis‐jasmone Distribution of Acyrthosiphon pisum on 19 June after treatment on 13 June 2008. 120
6
110 100
5
90 80
4
70 60
3
50 40
2
30 20
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
10 0
Plot 1 cis‐jasmone treated Plot 2 untreated
Aphid Alarm Pheromone (E)‐β‐farnesene
Produced by many aphid species when attacked by predators
Aphid Alarm Pheromone Apply 1µl of a 0.1% solution of synthetic Eßf in hexane and a Myzus persicae colony will disperse in less than 1 minute. Eßf is very unstable and therefore difficult to formulate for field use.
Aphid Alarm Pheromone Essential oil of Hemizygia petiolata, wild mountain sage, contains 70% Eßf in a stabilised form. Pest aphid species were repelled by the oil in laboratory assays, but it did not elicit the alarm response. Results in the field with a slow release dispenser formulation were promising against a range of target aphid pests.
Bruce et al, (2005) Pest Management Science 61: 1115‐1121.
Aphid Alarm Pheromone Acyrthosiphon pisum on beans
Aphis fabae on sugar beet 60
20 15 control H. petiolata 10 5 0 03-Jul
total aphids / 300plants
400
10
16
23
mean no. aphids / plant
mean no./20 plants/plot
25
50 40 control H. petiolata
30 20 10 0
31
10-Jun
17
25
02-Jul
8
16
Sitobion avenae on wheat
350 300 250
control H. petiolata
200 150 100 50 0 31- 05- 12 May Jun
18
26
03Jul
9
16
24
Slow release dispenser
Aphid Alarm Pheromone Transgenic Arabidopsis producing Eßf
wild type
transgenic line
Beale et al, (2006) PNAS 103: 10509‐13
Eßf
Aphid Alarm Pheromone A
alarm response to transformed plant volatiles
120 1 min b
100
% response
b
b
80 60 40 20 a
a
0
hexane Eßf1mg/ml
Eßf 0.01mg/ml
FS12-4
wild type
Aphid Alarm Pheromone We are now developing a transgenic wheat emitting Eßf Constitutive defence these traits are always expressed
Induced defence these traits need a signal to elicit them ‐attacking organism ‐volatile surrogate (e.g. plant activator such as cis‐ jasmone)
Push‐pull in Africa The Problem Stem boring Lepidoptera are responsible for the loss of 15% of the maize yield in Sub‐ Saharan Africa, but damage is severe in localised areas.
Chilo partellus
Busseola fusca
Push‐pull in Africa The collaborative project with ICIPE Kenya identified wild host plants, more attractive to the moths than maize or sorghum, which could be used as trap crops. It also identified non‐ host plants, which could be used as repellent intercrops. Both trap and intercrop 6 x 6 quasi‐complete Latin square at Mbita Point Research Station could be used for animal forage.
Push‐pull in Africa Main Crop
Trap Crop
Attract moths Attract natural enemies Moths are pushed away Cook et al. (2007), Ann. Rev. Ent. 52: 375
Desmodium intercrop
Push‐pull in Africa The semiochemicals involved in the attraction of moths to the trap crop and the repellency of the intercrop have been identified and are monitored to prevent any breakdown in the system.
Push‐pull in Africa
Total farmers in 2008 = 16,197 Hassanali et al. (2008), Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. B 363: 611
Push‐pull in Africa Striga hermonthica damage to maize before emergence 24% of Sub‐ Saharan Africa is infested with striga
Push‐pull in Africa
Desmodium No Desmodium Maize
Striga
A
B
Leaching experiment
Push‐pull in Africa Proposed mode of action Germination of Striga hermonthica is stimulated Guchu et al. (2007), Phytochem. 68: 646
Subsequent development of striga and host colonisation is disrupted
Push‐pull in Africa 30
% stemborer damaged plants
Maize monocrop fields Push-pull fields
25 20 15
*
10
*
500
*
*
5
No. of emerged striga/63 maize plants
400
On‐farm evaluation of push‐ pull technology (n=420)
300 200
*
100 0
*
*
*
Maize Yields (t/ha)
4 3
*
*
2
*
*
1 0
2003
2004
2005
Khan et al. (2008), Field Crops Research 106: 224
2006
Acknowledgements Members of the Chemical Ecology Group BCH Shakoor Ahmad Toby Bruce * Mike Birkett John Caulfield Keith Chamberlain James Cook Sarah Dewhirst Ruth Gordon-Weeks Mary Hamilton Tony Hooper James Logan Janet Martin * Patrick Mayon Sunday Oluwafemi John Pickett Barry Pye * Lesley Smart * Nina Stanczyk Jurriaan Ton Emma Weeks Christine Woodcock Yuhua Zhang
* The UK Field Team
Ex-Members Esayas Amosa Margaret Blight Haruna Briamah Samuel Dufour Lynda Ireland Carol Moraes Lester Wadhams Ben Webster
Collaborators Sam Cook * Ahmed Hassanali Huw Jones Zeyaur Khan Michaela Matthes Johnathan Napier Matthew Skellern * Nigel Watts *
Semiochemicals in field experiments aiming at improved insect pest control Lesley Smart, Rothamsted, UK
Outline • Introduction to field trials with semiochemicals • Three examples of the use of semiochemical based control of pests in the field – The plant activator cis‐jasmone – Aphid alarm pheromone – Push‐pull in Africa, a complete strategy
Introduction • Develop new strategies, incorporating semiochemicals, to minimise or replace the need for the use of conventional insecticides in integrated pest management (IPM)
Push‐Pull Strategy P U S H
Main crop • Less attractive crop cultivars • Repellents (non‐host volatiles, alarm pheromones, antifeedants, intercrops)
Trap crop • More attractive cultivars / related hosts •Attractants (aggregation / sex pheromones; visual stimuli)
+ Selective control agents
P U L L
Introduction Standard conditions in the field
Introduction Pests
Introduction Trial design 6
5.5
5
A2
B1
C4
D3
D4
C3
B2
A1
10
C1
A3
D2
B4
8
12
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
6
2
B3
1.5
D4
A2
C1
1 1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
4
Quasi‐complete Latin square
The plant activator cis‐jasmone •
Stress related volatile plant activator that induces plant defence mechanisms
•
Emitted by insect infested plants: – cotton plants damaged by Spodoptera – potato plants infested with potato aphid
•
Biological effects observed >24h after exposing plants to cis‐jasmone
• •
Non‐toxic No residue as it is volatile
cis‐jasmone Birkett et al. (2000) PNAS 97: 9329‐9334.
The plant activator cis‐jasmone In laboratory and semi‐field studies we have shown that: • cis‐jasmone is directly repellent to many aphid species and attractive to aphid parasitoids and predators • Aphids are repelled by the volatiles emitted by treated plants and settlement is reduced • Aphid parasitoids are attracted by the volatiles from treated plants and parasitism is increased • Aphid development and fecundity is reduced on treated plants
Bruce et al, (2003) Outlook on Pest Management 14: p96‐98; Pickett et al, (2007) Phytochemistry 68: 2937‐ 2945; Moraes et al, (2008) Phytochemistry 69: 9‐17.
The plant activator cis‐jasmone 12 x 12m plots; treatment applied at the onset of cereal aphid immigration in the autumn and spring. Sampling points on a grid, visual counts of aphids on 100 plants or tillers per plot made weekly.
The plant activator cis‐jasmone Reduction in colonisation in the field is not always significant, but trends are consistent 1.2
0.5
control
*
0.45
P = 0.036
P = 0.001
1 0.4
* Mean No. Aphids / Tiller
Mean No. Aphids / Tiller
cis‐jasmone 0.8
0.6
* 0.4
0.35 0.3 0.25
*
0.2 0.15 0.1
0.2
0.05 0
0 28-May
08-Jun
16-Jun
24-Jun
10-May
06-Jul
22-May
31-May
06-Jun
12-Jun
26-Jun
0.35
4.5
*
4
P = 0.063
control
3.5
Mean No. of Aphids / Tiller
Mean No. of Aphids / Tiller
15-May
cis‐jasmone
3 2.5 2 1.5
P = 0.007
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
1
0.05 0.5
0
0 21-May
30-May
04-Jun
11-Jun
20-Jun
25-Jun
02-Jul
09-Jul
01-May
Bruce et al. (2003) Pest Management Science 59: 1031‐1036
08-May
16-May
23-May
30-May
11-Jun
18-Jun
25-Jun
01-Jul
The plant activator cis‐jasmone Response to cis‐jasmone differed between wheat cultivars Solstice
Consort
350
CJ
140
250 total aphids/400 tillers
total aphids/400 tillers
160
control
300
200 150 100
control CJ
120 100 80 60 40
50
20
0
0 01‐Jun
7
12
20
29
06‐Jul
01‐Jun
7
12
20
29
06‐Jul
Welford
Hereward 200 250 control CJ total aphids/400 tillers
total aphids/400 tillers
200
150
100
180
control
160
CJ
140 120 100 80 60 40
50
20 0
0 01‐Jun
7
12
20
29
06‐Jul
01‐Jun
7
12
20
• Suggests genetic variation in inducible traits
29
06‐Jul
The plant activator cis‐jasmone 2 unreplicated plots, both approximately 2ha, of spring peas cv. Ragtime Treatment applied by tractor mounted sprayer Samples taken weekly by Vortis suction sampler on a 6 x 6 grid within each plot and numbers of Acyrthosiphon pisum and natural enemies recorded
The plant activator cis‐jasmone Distribution of Acyrthosiphon pisum on 30 May 2008 34 6
28
5
4
22
3
16
2
10
1 1
2
3
4
5
Plot 1 pre‐treatment
Golden software, Inc. Surfer
6
7
8
9
10
11
Plot 2 pre‐treatment
12
4
-2
The plant activator cis‐jasmone Distribution of Acyrthosiphon pisum on 19 June after treatment on 13 June 2008. 120
6
110 100
5
90 80
4
70 60
3
50 40
2
30 20
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
10 0
Plot 1 cis‐jasmone treated Plot 2 untreated
Aphid Alarm Pheromone (E)‐β‐farnesene
Produced by many aphid species when attacked by predators
Aphid Alarm Pheromone Apply 1µl of a 0.1% solution of synthetic Eßf in hexane and a Myzus persicae colony will disperse in less than 1 minute. Eßf is very unstable and therefore difficult to formulate for field use.
Aphid Alarm Pheromone Essential oil of Hemizygia petiolata, wild mountain sage, contains 70% Eßf in a stabilised form. Pest aphid species were repelled by the oil in laboratory assays, but it did not elicit the alarm response. Results in the field with a slow release dispenser formulation were promising against a range of target aphid pests.
Bruce et al, (2005) Pest Management Science 61: 1115‐1121.
Aphid Alarm Pheromone Acyrthosiphon pisum on beans
Aphis fabae on sugar beet 60
20 15 control H. petiolata 10 5 0 03-Jul
total aphids / 300plants
400
10
16
23
mean no. aphids / plant
mean no./20 plants/plot
25
50 40 control H. petiolata
30 20 10 0
31
10-Jun
17
25
02-Jul
8
16
Sitobion avenae on wheat
350 300 250
control H. petiolata
200 150 100 50 0 31- 05- 12 May Jun
18
26
03Jul
9
16
24
Slow release dispenser
Aphid Alarm Pheromone Transgenic Arabidopsis producing Eßf
wild type
transgenic line
Beale et al, (2006) PNAS 103: 10509‐13
Eßf
Aphid Alarm Pheromone A
alarm response to transformed plant volatiles
120 1 min b
100
% response
b
b
80 60 40 20 a
a
0
hexane Eßf1mg/ml
Eßf 0.01mg/ml
FS12-4
wild type
Aphid Alarm Pheromone We are now developing a transgenic wheat emitting Eßf Constitutive defence these traits are always expressed
Induced defence these traits need a signal to elicit them ‐attacking organism ‐volatile surrogate (e.g. plant activator such as cis‐ jasmone)
Push‐pull in Africa The Problem Stem boring Lepidoptera are responsible for the loss of 15% of the maize yield in Sub‐ Saharan Africa, but damage is severe in localised areas.
Chilo partellus
Busseola fusca
Push‐pull in Africa The collaborative project with ICIPE Kenya identified wild host plants, more attractive to the moths than maize or sorghum, which could be used as trap crops. It also identified non‐ host plants, which could be used as repellent intercrops. Both trap and intercrop 6 x 6 quasi‐complete Latin square at Mbita Point Research Station could be used for animal forage.
Push‐pull in Africa Main Crop
Trap Crop
Attract moths Attract natural enemies Moths are pushed away Cook et al. (2007), Ann. Rev. Ent. 52: 375
Desmodium intercrop
Push‐pull in Africa The semiochemicals involved in the attraction of moths to the trap crop and the repellency of the intercrop have been identified and are monitored to prevent any breakdown in the system.
Push‐pull in Africa
Total farmers in 2008 = 16,197 Hassanali et al. (2008), Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. B 363: 611
Push‐pull in Africa Striga hermonthica damage to maize before emergence 24% of Sub‐ Saharan Africa is infested with striga
Push‐pull in Africa
Desmodium No Desmodium Maize
Striga
A
B
Leaching experiment
Push‐pull in Africa Proposed mode of action Germination of Striga hermonthica is stimulated Guchu et al. (2007), Phytochem. 68: 646
Subsequent development of striga and host colonisation is disrupted
Push‐pull in Africa 30
% stemborer damaged plants
Maize monocrop fields Push-pull fields
25 20 15
*
10
*
500
*
*
5
No. of emerged striga/63 maize plants
400
On‐farm evaluation of push‐ pull technology (n=420)
300 200
*
100 0
*
*
*
Maize Yields (t/ha)
4 3
*
*
2
*
*
1 0
2003
2004
2005
Khan et al. (2008), Field Crops Research 106: 224
2006
Acknowledgements Members of the Chemical Ecology Group BCH Shakoor Ahmad Toby Bruce * Mike Birkett John Caulfield Keith Chamberlain James Cook Sarah Dewhirst Ruth Gordon-Weeks Mary Hamilton Tony Hooper James Logan Janet Martin * Patrick Mayon Sunday Oluwafemi John Pickett Barry Pye * Lesley Smart * Nina Stanczyk Jurriaan Ton Emma Weeks Christine Woodcock Yuhua Zhang
* The UK Field Team
Ex-Members Esayas Amosa Margaret Blight Haruna Briamah Samuel Dufour Lynda Ireland Carol Moraes Lester Wadhams Ben Webster
Collaborators Sam Cook * Ahmed Hassanali Huw Jones Zeyaur Khan Michaela Matthes Johnathan Napier Matthew Skellern * Nigel Watts *
Related Documents
Lesley Smarts Semiochemicals.pdf
July 2020 4
Smarts Newsletter Issue 12
May 2020 8
Smarts Newsletter Issue 18
May 2020 8
Smarts Newsletter Issue 13
May 2020 9
Arts Smarts Excerpt
June 2020 1
Lesley Yearbook, 1928
June 2020 0More Documents from ""
Lesley Smarts Semiochemicals.pdf
July 2020 4
Degallier Evol Aspec Ecol Arbovirus.pdf
June 2020 6
Roman Casa De Roman.docx
November 2019 29