Estimating direct resistance in willows against a major insect pest, Phratora vulgatissima, by comparing life history traits

Many Salix species (Salicaceae) have a high energy quotum and efficient nitrogen use, resulting in a high and stable biomass production, making these plants suitable as bioenergy crops. However, Salix coppices are sensitive to herbivory by chrysomelid beetles, such as Phratora vulgatissima L. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), and to maintain high biomass yields over several years, durable plant resistance is necessary. We have developed a reliable and efficient bioassay that can be used as a tool for detection of resistance against P. vulgatissima in Salix. Screening of six clones of one susceptible (Salix viminalis L.) and one resistant (Salix dasyclados Wimm.) willow species, by the response of several life history traits of larval and adult P. vulgatissima, identified egg production as the most reliable trait for resistance. We show that a 2‐week bioassay of oviposition rate is sufficient for a trustworthy estimation of both total egg production and survival of adult leaf beetles. In addition, to elucidate the variation in resistance among the studied clones, leaf concentrations of various phenolic compounds were compared with the key life history traits of the beetles. Phenolic compounds, especially salicylates, have previously been reported as the main factor controlling Salix resistance against P. vulgatissima. Indeed we found higher levels of salicylates in the resistant clones and larval performance was negatively correlated to the concentration of salicylates in the leaves. In addition, we found indications of negative effects of a luteolin derivative and quercetin‐3‐glucoside on leaf beetle performance, but further studies are needed to elucidate the specific roles that the different phenolic compounds play in plant resistance.

[1]  R. Barbehenn,et al.  Tannins in plant-herbivore interactions. , 2011, Phytochemistry.

[2]  J. Stenberg,et al.  Uncoupling direct and indirect plant defences: Novel opportunities for improving crop security in willow plantations , 2010 .

[3]  Ioannis Dimitriou,et al.  Treatment of landfill leachate by irrigation of willow coppice--plant response and treatment efficiency. , 2010, Environmental pollution.

[4]  R. Julkunen‐Tiitto,et al.  Mother really knows best: host choice of adult phytophagous insect females reflects a within-host variation in suitability as larval food , 2010, Chemoecology.

[5]  Z. Kaczmarek,et al.  Accumulation of selected heavy metals by different genotypes of Salix , 2009 .

[6]  T. Tregenza,et al.  Costly sexual harassment in a beetle , 2009 .

[7]  O. Borggaard,et al.  The potential of willow for remediation of heavy metal polluted calcareous urban soils. , 2009, Environmental pollution.

[8]  M. López-Lázaro.  Distribution and biological activities of the flavonoid luteolin. , 2009, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry.

[9]  Ian Shield,et al.  Bioenergy from plants and the sustainable yield challenge. , 2008, The New phytologist.

[10]  M. Weih,et al.  Integrated agricultural research and crop breeding: Allelopathic weed control in cereals and long-term productivity in perennial biomass crops , 2008 .

[11]  L. Lepiniec,et al.  Flavonoid oxidation in plants: from biochemical properties to physiological functions. , 2007, Trends in plant science.

[12]  R. Bommarco,et al.  HARVESTING DISRUPTS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF HERBIVORES IN A SHORT-ROTATION COPPICE SYSTEM , 2004 .

[13]  M. Weih,et al.  Willow genotype, but not drought treatment, affects foliar phenolic concentrations and leaf‐beetle resistance , 2004 .

[14]  S. Powers,et al.  Effects of host variety on blue willow beetle Phratora vulgatissima performance , 2004 .

[15]  P. Hallgren,et al.  Inheritance Patterns of Phenolics in F1, F2, and Back-Cross Hybrids of Willows: Implications for Herbivore Responses to Hybrid Plants , 2003, Journal of Chemical Ecology.

[16]  R. Julkunen‐Tiitto,et al.  In Vitro Degradation of Willow Salicylates , 2003, Journal of Chemical Ecology.

[17]  R. Julkunen‐Tiitto,et al.  TESTING THE EFFECTS OF DRYING METHODS ON WILLOW FLAVONOIDS, TANNINS, AND SALICYLATES , 2001, Journal of Chemical Ecology.

[18]  S. Larsson,et al.  Slow larval growth on a suboptimal willow results in high predation mortality in the leaf beetle Galerucella lineola , 1995, Oecologia.

[19]  R. Julkunen‐Tiitto,et al.  Phenolic glycosides govern the food selection pattern of willow feeding leaf beetles , 1985, Oecologia.

[20]  M. Rowell‐Rahier.  The presence or absence of phenolglycosides in Salix (Salicaceae) leaves and the level of dietary specialisation of some of their herbivorous insects , 1984, Oecologia.

[21]  M. Sipura,et al.  Systemic Induction of Salicylates in Salix myrsinifolia(Salisb.) , 2001 .

[22]  S. Larsson,et al.  Effects of leaf beetle damage on stem wood production in coppicing willow , 2000 .

[23]  T. Hunter,et al.  Susceptibility of willow clones (Salix spp.) to herbivory by Phyllodecta vulgatissima (L.) and Galerucella lineola (Fab.) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) , 1996 .

[24]  R. Julkunen‐Tiitto,et al.  Phenolic glucosides as feeding cues for willow‐feeding leaf beetles , 1995 .

[25]  M. Kelly,et al.  The influence of phenolic compounds on the suitability of three Salix species as hosts for the willow beetle Phratora vulgatissima , 1991 .

[26]  R. Julkunen‐Tiitto,et al.  The Effect of the Sample Preparation Method of Extractable Phenolics of Salicaceae Species , 1989, Planta medica.

[27]  R. Julkunen‐Tiitto,et al.  A chemotaxonomic survey of phenolics in leaves of northern salicaceae species , 1986 .

[28]  B. G. Chan,et al.  The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin , 1985 .

[29]  K. Matsuda,et al.  A Flavonoid, Luteolin-7-Glucoside, as well as Salicin and Populin, Stimulating the Feeding of Leaf Beetles Attacking Salicaceous Plants , 1985 .