Next Article in Journal
Ectoparasitism of the Flightless Drosophila melanogaster and D. hydei by the Mite Blattisocius mali (Acari: Blattisociidae)
Previous Article in Journal
Genome Assembly and Comparative Analysis of the Egg Parasitoid Wasp Trichogramma dendrolimi Shed Light on the Composition and Evolution of Olfactory Receptors and Venoms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/insects14020145
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Methyl Jasmonate Fumigation on the Growth and Detoxification Ability of Spodoptera litura to Xanthotoxin

by
Lina Chen
1,
Jia Song
2,3,
Jun Wang
4,
Mao Ye
1,*,
Qianqian Deng
1,
Xiaobao Wu
1,
Xiaoyi Wu
1 and
Bing Ren
1
1
The Provincial Key Laboratory for Agricultural Pest Management of the Mountainous Region, Institute of Entomology, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550005, China
2
State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Green Pesticide and Agricultural Bioengineering, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
3
Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide and Agricultural Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
4
Guiyang Plant Protection and Quarantine Station, Guiyang 550081, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2023, 14(2), 145; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020145
Submission received: 17 November 2022 / Revised: 19 January 2023 / Accepted: 21 January 2023 / Published: 31 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Physiology, Reproduction and Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Methyl jasmonate (MeJA) is a volatile substance derived from jasmonic acid (JA), and it responds to biotic and abiotic stresses by participating in interplant communication. Because MeJA is hydrophobic and it can easily move between plant cells, it is considered a propagable form of JA, which can utilize this method to induce plant defenses. Pests are able to ‘eavesdrop’ on plant signal molecules as cues for activating the detoxification system to protect themselves from plant defenses, and insects have evolved a variety of mechanisms to metabolize, sequester, or detoxify plant toxins. Spodoptera litura is an omnivorous insect that damages a variety of crops worldwide. We analyzed the growth of S. litura and its detoxification ability against xanthotoxin after exposure to different concentrations of MeJA fumigation, and the effective role of MeJA in inducing insects’ defense response to the toxin was studied. We demonstrated that MeJA is effective at inducing S. litura defense response by increasing its detoxifying enzyme activities, but the enhanced detoxifying ability could not overcome the strong toxins.

Abstract

Methyl jasmonate (MeJA) is a volatile substance derived from jasmonic acid (JA), and it responds to interbiotic and abiotic stresses by participating in interplant communication. Despite its function in interplant communication, the specific role of MeJA in insect defense responses is poorly understood. In this study, we found that carboxylesterase (CarE) activities, glutathione-S-transferase (GSTs) activities, and cytochrome mono-oxygenases (P450s) content increased more after the feeding of diets containing xanthotoxin, while larvae exposed to MeJA fumigation also showed higher enzyme activity in a dose-dependent manner: lower and medium concentrations of MeJA induced higher detoxification enzyme activities than higher concentrations of MeJA. Moreover, MeJA improved the growth of larvae fed on the control diet without toxins and diets with lower concentrations of xanthotoxin (0.05%); however, MeJA could not protect the larvae against higher concentrations of xanthotoxin (0.1%, 0.2%). In summary, we demonstrated that MeJA is effective at inducing S. litura defense response, but the enhanced detoxifying ability could not overcome the strong toxins.

1. Introduction

Plants and herbivorous insects share a contradictory but everlasting relationship [1]; insects recognize host plants according to specific chemical clues while plants have evolved diverse strategies to survive and adapt to herbivory [2]. To cope with the herbivores, plants invest their energy in the production of various defensive chemicals, which are known as plant secondary metabolites [3,4]. These metabolite have the ability to aid plant defenses against insect pests through defense signaling pathways [5,6]. The secondary metabolites of plants such as phenols, alkaloids, and terpenes can directly inhibit herbivore growth and development or are even lethal to insects [7]. It has been reported that Spodoptera litura exposed to phytochemicals showed reduced survival and prolonged development [8]. Further, the pupal weights in Spodoptera exigua were significantly lower when they were fed on the high iridoidglycosides line [9]. In addition, some host plants, such as groundnuts, show higher phenolic induction when attacked by Helicoverpa armigera [10]. However, in the evolution of plants and insects, herbivores have been able to metabolize, isolate, and even detoxify plant toxins [11,12,13]. Herbivores are also able to use plant-signaling molecules to activate their own detoxification functions by ‘eavesdropping’, through which they can protect themselves from various plant defenses [14,15]. A recent study found that insects could modify plants’ secondary metabolites by detoxifying enzymes to neutralize plant toxins [16]. Some insects have even acquired the ability to horizontally transfer plant-derived genes to help them to circumvent the resistance traits of host plants [17]. Due to complex diets, the detoxification abilities among various kinds of insects are different, and omnivorous herbivores possess more detoxification gene families than monophagous herbivores [18].
The detoxification enzymes, including cytochrome P450 enzymes (P450s), carboxylesterase (CarE), and glutathione-S-transferases (GSTs), play important roles in insect adaptation and the detoxification defense against plant toxins [19,20,21]. These three detoxification enzymes in phytophagous insects can decompose lipophilic exogenous toxins into hydrophilic intrinsic substances and are widely used to detoxify secondary metabolites [22]. It was reported that the GST and P450 enzyme activities of Lymantria dispar larvae were significantly increased after consuming artificial feed containing plant secondary metabolites [12]. When the American white moth, Hyphantria cunea, feeds on the host plant with the highest flavonoid content, its CarE and P450 enzyme activities are the highest [23]. The GSTs of Anopheles gambiae and Nilaparvata lugens are also involved in the detoxification process of insecticides [24,25], indicating that the CarE, GST, and P450 enzymes play important roles in insect adaptation and the detoxification defense against plant secondary metabolites [20,21]. Additionally, although xanthotoxin, a linear furanocoumarin, is a phytotoxin, numerous studies have shown that it is able to induce detoxification enzyme activities in herbivores [26,27,28]. For example, the expression of P450 genes in the Spodoptera litura larvae was upregulated in response to xanthotoxin [29].
The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released by herbivores attacking plants are attractive to arthropod predators and parasitoids [30]. Interestingly, plants can also make use of VOCs released by herbivore-attacked neighbors to activate defenses before being attacked [31]. Phytohormone jasmonate (JA) and its derivatives are important plant hormones that mediate plant development and defend against herbivorous insects [32]. The JA pathway is usually related to the response of feeding of chewing herbivores and regulates the secondary metabolites to prevent feeding or inhibit the production of digestion, as well as to induce plant volatiles that can repel herbivores and attract their natural enemies [33,34,35,36]. However, herbivores have evolved multiple ways to avoid, resist, or manipulate plant defenses [37,38,39]. Zhang et al. (2016) showed that the peach aphid and corn earworm can directly use the defense response signal substance, JA or SA, as a signal molecule before the host plant produces secondary metabolites by upregulating the expression of related detoxification genes and salivary gland-related genes in vivo [15]. MeJA was originally identified in the jasmine flower of Jasminum grandiflorum and it is thought to be a volatile form of JA, which is a substance that is widely distributed in various plants [40]. MeJA is hydrophobic and it can easily move between plant cells as it is considered a propagable form of JA, which can utilize this method to induce plant defenses [41]. In addition, MeJA application can increase the production of a broad spectrum of toxic allelochemicals and proteinase inhibitors to repel herbivorous insects [42,43]. However, despite its function in interplant communication, the specific role of MeJA in insect defense responses is poorly understood. The tobacco cutworm, Spodoptera litura (Fabricius), is a major widespread and broadly polyphagous pest that feeds on a variety of important economic crops, such as tomato, cotton, soybean, tobacco, and peanut [44]. In this study, we analyzed the growth of S. litura and its detoxification ability against xanthotoxin after exposure to different concentrations of MeJA fumigation, and the effective role of MeJA in inducing insects’ defense responses to the toxin was studied.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insect Rearing

The population of S. litura was obtained from the Institute of Entomology, Guizhou University, China, and the larvae were raised on artificial feed in the laboratory. Feed formulations included soybean powder (40 g), yeast extract (40 g), wheat bran (40 g), ascorbic acid (3.2 g), casein (8 g), agar (8 g), sorbic acid (0.8 g), cholesterol (0.08 g), choline chloride (2 g), and water (400 mL) [45]. The larvae were reared at 27 °C under a light/dark photoperiod of 16:8 h and in 60% relative humidity. All samples were laboratory-bred offspring, and the rearing and feeding conditions of captive individuals were consistent. The 4th-instar larvae of S. litura were used for the experiments.

2.2. Methyl Jasmonate Fumigation Treatment

MeJA (≥98%, Sigma-Aldrich) was dissolved by 5% ethanol and was then configured to 20 µg/µL, 200 µg/µL, and 2000 µg/µL MeJA solutions using distilled water. The 4th-instar larvae of S. litura were transferred to a plastic cup (75 mm × 60 mm × 27 mm) containing an artificial diet, then 2 μL of each concentration of MeJA was added to the absorbent cotton fixed on the lid of the cup with a pipette, then an equal amount of 2 μL ethanol solution was added dropwise as control, and then the cup lid was quickly closed for MeJA exposure for 24 h.

2.3. Xanthotoxin Treatment

Xanthotoxin (≥98%, Yuanye, Shanghai, China) was dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and the xanthotoxin solution was stirred evenly with an artificial feed to prepare the xanthotoxin feed with concentrations of 0.05%, 0.1%, and 0.2%. These concentrations were based on previous studies on the relationship between xanthotoxin and insect detoxification [46,47]. The 4th-instar larvae of S. litura were fed on diets with different concentrations of xanthotoxin.

2.4. Determination of CarE, GSTs Activity and P450s Contents

S. litura larvae from 24 h 0.05% xanthotoxin and 24 h MeJA treatments were dissected on a PBS buffer. Midguts and fat body from five larvae were pooled to represent a sample. Midguts and fat body were homogenized in a precooled homogenization buffer (136.89 mM NaCl, 2.67 mM KCl, 8.1 mM Na2HPO4, 1.76 mM KH2PO4, pH 7.4) and were centrifuged at 8000× g for 10 min at 4 °C. Next, the supernatant was collected for enzymatic determination. Detection kits for the GSTs and CarE activity were bought from Beijing Solarbio Science & Technology Co., Ltd. Beijing, China. One unit (U) of CarE activity was defined as each increase of 1 in catalytic absorbance value per minute at 37 °C; one unit (U) of the GSTs’ activity was defined as 1 µmol of 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene (CDNB) conjugated with reduced glutathione (GSH) per minute at 37 °C; cytochrome P450s’ contents were detected by an ELISA assay kit, which were bought from Nanjing Jiancheng Bioengineering Institute, China. The total protein content was measured by the Bradford method following the kit instructions (Comin Biotech, Suzhou, China). All assays for enzyme activities were performed with 5 replications.

2.5. Developmental Parameters

The fourth-instar larvae were pre-exposed to different concentrations of MeJA as described above for 24 h and were then transferred to new cups with diets containing 0.05%, 0.1%, or 0.2% xanthotoxin or diets without toxin. The initial weight of each larva was recorded. All larvae were weighed again on the third day after transfer to toxic chow to determine weight gain. We observed daily larva survival and developmental stages until all larvae underwent pupation or died. In addition, the pupae were weighed when the larvae were pupated after 24 h. The experiment was conducted on 60 larvae with 3 replications of each concentration (20 larvae per replicate).

2.6. Statistics and Analysis

The SPSS 21.0 statistical package for Windows was used for the statistical analysis. Differences in enzyme activities between MeJA- and xanthotoxin-treated and untreated larvae were determined using the Student’s t-test. The differences between the developmental parameters among the treatments were evaluated by a one-way and a factorial ANOVA at P = 0.05 using the Duncan’s post hoc test.

3. Results

3.1. Increased Activities of Detoxifying Enzymes and P450 Contents in S. litura Larvae after Feeding on Xanthotoxin Diet

To determine the effect of xanthotoxin on S. litura, the enzyme activities of the larvae were analyzed (Figure 1). When fed on the diet containing 0.05% xanthotoxin, the CarE and GST activities in the midguts of larvae were 1.3-fold (Figure 1A) and 2.0-fold (Figure 1C) compared to the control larvae fed on a diet without the toxin, respectively. In the fat body, there was no significant difference in GST activity after eating the feed containing xanthotoxin (Figure 1D) while the P450 activity in the midguts of the larvae showed no significant difference from those fed on the non-toxin diet (Figure 1E). In the fat body, the CarE activity and P450 contents were induced about 1.7-fold (Figure 1B) and 1.8-fold (Figure 1F) by feeding on the diet containing 0.05% xanthotoxin relative to the control larvae, respectively. These results suggest that the CarE, GST activities, and P450 contents in the S. litura larvae significantly increased in response to the xanthotoxin.

3.2. S. litura Larvae Exposed to MeJA Showed Higher Detoxifying Enzyme Activities

We exposed the S. litura larvae to different concentrations of MeJA for 24 h and then analyzed the CarE, GST activities, and P450 contents in the midguts and fat body of the larvae. The results showed varying effects of the different concentrations of MeJA on the activities of the three tested enzymes. After exposure to the medium concentration of MeJA (200 µg/µL), the CarE activity in the midguts of the larvae significantly induced, by 2.8-fold, relative to that of the control larvae, while the CarE activity in the midguts exposed to lower (20 µg/µL) and higher (2000 µg/µL) concentrations of MeJA did not differ from that in the control larvae (Figure 2A). In the fat body, the larvae exposed to 2000 µg/µL MeJA showed 1.6-fold CarE activity than the control larvae, while the CarE activity in the larvae exposed to the lower and medium concentrations of MeJA did not differ from that of the controls (Figure 2B). The GSTs’ activity in the midgut of the larvae exposed to lower and higher concentrations of MeJA were 3.0-fold and 5.7-fold, respectively, than the control larvae (Figure 2C), while only the larvae exposed to lower concentrations of MeJA showed higher GST activity in their fat body relative to the control (Figure 2D). For the P450 contents, the larvae exposed to the medium (200 µg/µL) and high (2000 µg/µL) concentrations of MeJA showed 1.1-fold and 1.5-fold, respectively, relative to the control in the midguts (Figure 2E) and 1.9-fold and 2.6-fold contents, respectively, relative to the control in the fat body (Figure 2F).

3.3. Enhanced Detoxification Ability of S. litura after Exposure to Different Concentrations of MeJA

The S. litura larvae pre-exposed to different concentrations of MeJA were fed on diets containing 0.05%, 0.1%, and 0.2% xanthotoxin and diets without toxins. The two-way ANOVA showed that the effects of the MeJA treatment, the xanthotoxin treatment, and their interactions on weight gain, growth rate, prepupal instar, pupal stage, and pupal weight were significant (Table A1).
The S. litura larvae fed on the diet without toxins performed better than those fed on the toxic diet (Figure 3A,B). The toxic effect of xanthotoxin increased with the concentration and the weight gain of the S. litura larvae not pre-exposed to MeJA decreased 28.45%, 43.77%, and 68.93% after being fed on diets containing 0.05%, 0.1%, and 0.2% xanthotoxin, respectively (Figure 3A). Similarly, the pupal weight decreased by 11.35%, 18.85%, and 42.45% (Figure 3B) and durations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th were prolonged (Table 1).
Interestingly, the MeJA treatment improved the growth of the larvae without toxin stress. When fed on a diet without the toxin, the larvae pre-exposed to 200 µg/µL of MeJA exhibited a 19.85% higher weight gain compared to the control larvae without MeJA exposure (Figure 3A). When fed on the 0.05% xanthotoxin diet, the larvae pre-exposed to 20 µg/µL of MeJA showed a 42.18% higher weight gain and 8.03% higher pupal weights than the control larvae without MeJA exposure, respectively (Figure 3A,B). The duration of 4th-instar and the prepupal instar of the larvae were shortened, but the durations of the 5th- and 6th-instars were unaffected (Table 1). These results suggest that 20 µg/µL of MeJA could help the larvae to adapt to 0.05% xanthotoxin. However, the MeJA could not alleviate the toxic effect of the xanthotoxin on the larvae when they were fed on the 0.1% and 0.2% xanthotoxin diets. When fed on the 0.1% xanthotoxin diet, the larvae pre-exposed to 200 µg/µL of MeJA showed only a 22.19% higher weight gain than the control larvae (Figure 3A). Additionally, the weight gain and pupal weight of Spodoptera litura larvae decreased significantly when fed with a high concentration (0.2%) toxic feed (Figure 3A,B). The duration of the 4th-, 5th-, and 6th-instar and the prepupal instar of the larvae were prolonged (Table 1). The pupal weight increased significantly compared with the control when the larvae fumigated with MeJA after feeding on the nontoxic feed (Figure 3B). After feeding with a 0.1% feed, the pupal weight of S. litura was significantly increased by 5.63% with a high concentration (2000 µg/µL) of MeJA fumigation compared with the control, while other concentrations had no significant difference. MeJA fumigation had no effect on pupal weight when feeding a 0.5% feed. When fed on the 0.2% xanthotoxin diet, larvae pre-exposed to 20 µg/µL MeJA showed 6.88% higher pupal weights than those in the control larvae (Figure 3B).

4. Discussion

Plants and insects have co-evolved for about 400 million of years. The never-ending arm race between these two entities allows them to circumvent the defense mechanisms of each other. In addition to plants’ defense against insects, insects’ antidefense mechanisms are already common in plant-insect interactions [48]. In response to plant defenses, herbivorous insects have evolved a range of antidefense mechanisms, such as detoxification enzymes, including CarE, GSTs, and P450s [49,50,51]. CarE belongs to the major superfamily of α/β hydrolase proteins that catalyze the hydrolysis of carboxylate esters to alcohols and carboxylic acids [52]. GSTs are involved in the detoxification of endogenous and exogenous compounds; they are a common enzyme family in aerobic organisms [53]. In addition, they are also involved with intracellular transportation, hormone biosynthesis, and protection against oxidative stress, which play an important role in insect resistance [54]. Cytochrome P450 mono-oxygenase is the largest and most diverse enzyme superfamily; it is considered the main detoxification enzyme in insect resistance to plant allelochemicals [55]. Yang et al. (2017) found that phenolics induce GSTs or CarE activity in insects in the interaction of ferulic acid with glutathione S-transferase and carboxylesterase genes of the brown planthopper [54]. In the study of locusts, it was also proved that insects could produce a large amount of detoxification enzymes to deal with the damage of plant secondary metabolites. Huang et al. (2021) treated the short star-winged locust with quercetin and found that its CYP450 and GST activities increased [56]. GST and P450 activities significantly increased in the Lymantria dispar larvae after feeding on quercetin-treated artificial diets [12]. It was reported that CYP6B8 could metabolize various phytochemicals in the Helicoverpa zea, such as xanthotoxin and quercetin [57]; these results suggest that herbivorous insects increase their detoxification enzyme activities in the presence of plant allelochemicals [55,58]. In addition, insects can use these detoxification enzymes to inactivate a variety of toxins, including xanthotoxin [59,60,61]. Here, our results showed that CarE, GST activities, and P450 contents significantly increased in the S. litura larvae in response to xanthotoxin stress, and the three enzymes showed different activities in different tissues. Elevated activity of CarEs were expressed in the midgut and fat body of larvae after 24 h feeding; GSTs’ activity increased higher in the midgut while the P450s’ contents increased higher in the fat body (Figure 1). These results suggest that the three detoxification enzymes play active roles against xanthotoxin. The different induction effects on the three enzymes in different tissue may depend on their detoxifying functions to the toxin. In addition to the midgut tissue, the fat body is also a site of detoxifying enzyme metabolism [53,62,63].
Plant hormones, such as jasmonic acid (JA) and salicylic acid (SA), play important roles in regulating the signaling network of plant defenses against insect pests [64]. However, Li et al. (2002) found that both lower and higher concentrations of JA (2.9 or 290 μg g−1) and SA (12 μg g−1 or 12,000 μg g−1) could induce the expression of P450 genes (CYP6B8, CYP6B28, CYP6B9, and CYP6B27) in the midgut and fat body of corn earworms (Helicoverpa zea), and they pointed out that the ability to use plant signal molecules as cues for activating a detoxification system may be of particular value to a broadly polyphagous herbivore [14]. Additionally, herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) can considerably reduce caterpillar susceptibility to insecticide through induction-enhanced detoxification mechanisms. Luo et al. (2022) exposed S. litura larvae to volatiles from S. litura-damaged tomato plants. They found elevated activities of GSTs, P450s, and esterases (ESTs), and a higher expression of related genes in contrast to those exposed to volatiles from undamaged tomato plants, and these larvae were significantly less susceptible to the insecticides [65]. MeJA and methyl salicylate (MeSA) could act as airborne signaling molecules between damaged and undamaged neighboring plants [66]. Fan et al. (2014) have compared the effects of the feeding of MeJA and the exposure to MeJA fumigation on the growth and detoxifying abilities of Helicoverpa armigera larvae. They also found that larvae that experienced MeJA fumigation exhibited the highest P450 activity and increased detoxifying abilities in H. armigera against cotton defense responses induced by MeJA; moreover, MeJA fumigation did not exhibit the growth of H. armigera [19]. In our study, we exposed S. litura larvae to different concentrations of MeJA fumigation for 24 h. The results showed that the different concentrations of MeJA had different inducing effects on CarE, GSTs’ activities, and P450s’ contents: the lower and medium concentrations of MeJA induced higher detoxification-enzyme activity than the higher concentration of MeJA. Moreover, the MeJA exposure alleviated the toxic effects of the xanthotoxin on the larvae, the larvae pre-exposed to MeJA showed higher weight gain and pupal-weight, and the durations of the 5th- and 6th-instars were curtailed when certain concentrations were applied (Figure 3, Table 1). Our results collectively indicate that the broadly polyphagous herbivorous insects could ‘intercept’ plant communication to prepare for the upcoming danger.
Plants attacked by insects can perceive volatile organic compounds and warn neighboring plants to strengthen their defenses; plants growing close to herbivore-infested conspecifics expressed higher levels of resistance to herbivores than plants that grew farther away [67]. Our previous study also found that MeJA fumigation significantly induced neighboring tomato plants’ resistance, while the inductive effects of MeJA fumigation depended on its concentration and operating distance [68]. However, in nature, insects could freely move for feeding, allowing them to choose the most suitable host plants [69,70]. We have shown here that MeJA exposure improved the growth of larvae fed on a control diet without toxins and a diet with a lower concentration of xanthotoxin (0.05%), suggesting that larvae pre-exposed to MeJA could equip themselves before the accumulation of toxic concentrations of plant defence compounds and those larvae that experienced MeJA fumigation may benefit significantly when they transfer to feed on other plants with lower levels of defense. Thus, the adaptability of insects must be considered when jasmonic acid and its derivatives are applied to induce plant defense in the field.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.C., J.S. and M.Y.; methodology and software, X.W. (Xiaobao Wu), Q.D. and M.Y.; validation, Q.D., M.Y. and J.S.; formal analysis, X.W. (Xiaobao Wu) and J.W.; investigation, J.S. and X.W. (Xiaoyi Wu); resources, X.W. (Xiaobao Wu) and M.Y.; data curation, J.W. and L.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.C. and B.R.; writing—review and editing, M.Y.; visualization, M.Y. and J.W.; supervision, B.R., X.W. (Xiaoyi Wu) and X.W. (Xiaobao Wu); project administration, M.Y.; funding acquisition, M.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32060621, 31701801).

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper.

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Significance levels of effects of MeJA and xanthotoxin, and their interactions on the growth and development durations of S. litura larvae according to a two-way ANOVA analysis (*** p < 0.001).
Table A1. Significance levels of effects of MeJA and xanthotoxin, and their interactions on the growth and development durations of S. litura larvae according to a two-way ANOVA analysis (*** p < 0.001).
MeJA (P)Xanthotoxin (P)MeJA × Xanthotoxin (P)
Weight gain<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***
Pupal weight<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***
Duration of fourth instar<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***
Duration of fifth instar<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***
Duration of sixth instar<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***
Duration of prepupal instar<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***
Duration of pupal instar (d)<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***<0.0001 ***

References

  1. Sharma, G.; Malthankar, P.A.; Mathur, V. Insect–plant interactions: A multilayered relationship. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2021, 114, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Howe, G.A.; Jander, G. Plant immunity to insect herbivores. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 41–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Afroz, M.; Rahman, M.; Amin, R. Insect Plant Interaction with Reference to Secondary Metabolites: A Review. Agric. Rev. 2021, 42, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, W.H.; Liu, G.J. A review on plant secondary substances in plant resistance to insect pests. Chin. J. Bot. 2003, 20, 522. [Google Scholar]
  5. Divekar, P.A.; Narayana, S.; Divekar, B.A.; Divekar, A.B.; Kumar, R.; Gadratagi, B.G.; Ray, A.; Singh, A.K.; Rani, V.; Singh, V.; et al. Plant secondary metabolites as defense tools against herbivores for sustainable crop protection. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ling, S.; Rizvi, S.A.H.; Xiong, T.; Liu, J.; Gu, Y.; Wang, S.; Zeng, X. Volatile signals from guava plants prime defense signaling and increase jasmonate-dependent herbivore resistance in neighboring citrus plants. Front. Plant. Sci. 2022, 13, 833562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tlak Gajger, I.; Dar, S.A. Plant allelochemicals as sources of insecticides. Insects 2021, 12, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kaur, M.; Saraf, I.; Kumar, R.; Singh, I.P.; Kaur, S. Biological effects of secondary metabolites of Inula racemosa on the parasitoid. Bracon hebetor. Èntomol. Exp. Appl. 2021, 169, 743–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Harvey, J.A.; Van Nouhuys, S.; Biere, A. Effects of quantitative variation in allelochemicals in Plantago lanceolata on development of a generalist and a specialist herbivore and their endoparasitoids. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. War, A.R.; Paulraj, M.G.; Ignacimuthu, S.; Sharma, H.C. Induced resistance to Helicoverpa armigera through exogenous application of jasmonic acid and salicylic acid in groundnut. Arachis hypogaea. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Heidel-Fischer, H.M.; Vogel, H. Molecular mechanisms of insect adaptation to plant secondary compounds. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2015, 8, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, Z.; Nur, F.A.; Ma, J.Y.; Wang, J.G.; Cao, C.W. Effects of poplar secondary metabolites on performance and detoxification enzyme activity of Lymantria dispar. Comp. Biochem. Phys. C. 2019, 225, 108587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jiang, D.; Wu, S.; Tan, M.T.; Wang, Q.; Zheng, L.; Yan, S.C. The high adaptability of Hyphantria cunea larvae to cinnamic acid involves in detoxification, antioxidation and gut microbiota response. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2021, 174, 104805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Li, X.C.; Schuler, M.A.; Berenbaum, M.R. Jasmonate and salicylate induce expression of herbivore cytochrome P450 genes. Nature 2002, 419, 712–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, Y.; Fan, J.; Zhao, X.Y.; Liu, Y.; Sun, J.R.; Frederic, F.; Chen, J.L. The plant defense signal substance JA/SA induces the expression of the detoxification enzyme glutathione-S-transferase and salivary gland gene C002 in Myzus persicae. Sci. China Llfe Sci. 2016, 46, 665–672. [Google Scholar]
  16. Malka, O.; Easson, M.L.A.E.; Paetz, C.; Götz, M.; Reichelt, M.; Stein, B.; Luck, K.; Stanišić, A.; Juravel, K.; Santos-Garcia, G.; et al. Glucosylation prevents plant defense activation in phloem-feeding insects. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2020, 16, 1420–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xia, J.X.; Guo, Z.J.; Yang, Z.Z.; Han, H.L.; Wang, S.L.; Xu, H.F.; Yang, X.; Yang, F.S.; Wu, Q.J.; Wu, Q.J.; et al. Whitefly hijacks a plant detoxification gene that neutralizes plant toxins. Cell 2021, 184, 1693–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rane, R.V.; Ghodke, A.B.; Hoffmann, A.A.; Edwards, O.R.; Walsh, T.K.; Oakeshott, J.G. Detoxifying enzyme complements and host use phenotypes in 160 insect species. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2018, 31, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fan, Y.J.; Kang, Z.J.; Wang, Z.C.; Shi, X.Y.; Gao, X.W. Effects of methyl jasmonate treatment on growth and detoxification of cotton bollworm. Entomol. Res. 2014, 57, 315–322. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bansal, R.; Michel, A. Expansion of cytochrome P450 and cathepsin genes in the generalist herbivore brown marmorated stink bug. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Gu, T.Z.; Zhang, C.C.; Chen, C.Y.; Li, H.; Huang, K.R.; Tian, S.; Zhao, X.D.; Hao, D.J. Effects of exogenous methyl jasmonate-induced resistance in Populus× euramericana ‘Nanlin895′on the performance and metabolic enzyme activities of Clostera anachoreta. Arthropod-plant Interact. 2018, 12, 247–255. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jin, M.; Liao, C.; Fu, X.; Holdbrook, R.; Wu, K.; Xiao, Y. Adaptive regulation of detoxification enzymes in Helicoverpa armigera to different host plants. Insect Mol. Biol. 2019, 28, 628–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Li, L.S.; Yuan, Y.F.; Wu, L.; Chen, M. Effects of different host plants on feeding behavior and detoxification enzyme activities of white moth larvae. J. Entomol. 2018, 61, 232–239. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wang, Y.J.; Qiu, L.; Ranson, H.; Lumjuan, N.; Hemingway, J.; Setzer, W.N.; Meehan, E.J.; Chen, L. Structure of an insect epsilon class glutathione S-transferase from the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae provides an explanation for the high DDT detoxifying activity. J. Struct. Biol. 2008, 164, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhou, W.W.; Liang, Q.M.; Xu, Y.; Gurr, G.M.; Bao, Y.Y.; Zhou, X.P.; Zhang, C.X.; Cheng, J.A.; Zhu, Z.R. Genomic insights into the glutathione S-transferase gene family of two rice planthoppers, Nilaparvata lugens (Stål) and Sogatella furcifera (Horváth)(Hemiptera: Delphacidae). PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e56604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lu, K.; Cheng, Y.; Li, W.R.; Ni, H.F.; Chen, X.; Li, Y.; Tang, B.J.; Li, Y.M.; Chen, D.M.; Zeng, R.S.; et al. Copper-induced H2O2 accumulation confers larval tolerance to xanthotoxin by modulating CYP6B50 expression in Spodoptera litura. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2019, 159, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, C.; Wong, A.; Zhang, Y.L.; Ni, X.Z.; Li, X.C. Common and unique cis-acting elements mediate xanthotoxin and flavone induction of the generalist P450 CYP321A1. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Harrison, T.L.; Zangerl, A.R.; Schuler, M.A.; Berenbaumet, M.R. Developmental variation in cytochrome P450 expression in Papilio polyxenes in response to xanthotoxin, a hostplant allelochemical. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 2001, 48, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lu, K.; Li, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Li, W.; Zeng, B.; Gu, C.; Zeng, R.S.; Song, Y.Y. Activation of the ROS/CncC and 20-Hydroxyecdysone Signaling Pathways Is Associated with Xanthotoxin-Induced Tolerance to λ-Cyhalothrin in Spodoptera litura. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2021, 69, 13425–13435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kessler, A.; Baldwin, I.T. Defensive function of herbivore-induced plant volatile emissions in nature. Science 2001, 291, 2141–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Baldwin, I.T.; Halitschke, R.; Paschold, A.; Von Dahl, C.C.; Preston, C.A. Volatile signaling in plant-plant interactions: “talking trees” in the genomics era. Science 2006, 311, 812–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Wang, Y.; Mostafa, S.; Zeng, W.; Jin, B. Function and mechanism of jasmonic acid in plant responses to abiotic and biotic stresses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 8568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chen, H.; Wilkerson, C.G.; Kuchar, J.A.; Phinney, B.S.; Howe, G.A. Jasmonate-inducible plant enzymes degrade essential amino acids in the herbivore midgut. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 19237–19242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Chen, H.; Gonzales-Vigil, E.; Wilkerson, C.G.; Howe, G.A. Stability of plant defense proteins in the gut of insect herbivores. Plant. Physiol. 2007, 143, 1954–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. De Moraes, C.M.; Mescher, M.C.; Tumlinson, J.H. Caterpillar-induced nocturnal plant volatiles repel conspecific females. Nature 2001, 410, 577–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Turlings, T.C.; Tumlinson, J.H.; Lewis, W.J. Exploitation of herbivore-induced plant odors by host-seeking parasitic wasps. Science 1990, 250, 1251–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Haegeman, A.; Mantelin, S.; Jones, J.T.; Gheysen, G. Functional roles of effectors of plant-parasitic nematodes. Gene 2012, 492, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, P.J.; Xu, C.X.; Zhang, J.M.; Lu, Y.B.; Wei, J.N.; Liu, Y.Q.; Anja, D.; Wilhelm, B.; Turlings, T.C. Phloem-feeding whiteflies can fool their host plants, but not their parasitoids. Funct. Ecol. 2013, 27, 1304–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cao, H.H.; Wang, S.H.; Liu, T.X. Jasmonate-and salicylate-induced defenses in wheat affect host preference and probing behavior but not performance of the grain aphid, Sitobion avenae. Insect Sci. 2014, 21, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cheong, J.J.; Do Choi, Y. Methyl jasmonate as a vital substance in plants. Trends Genet. 2003, 19, 409–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Das, A.; Lee, S.H.; Hyun, T.K.; Kim, S.W.; Kim, J.Y. Plant volatiles as method of communication. Plant. Biotechnol. Rep. 2013, 7, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Farmer, E.E.; Ryan, C.A. Interplant communication: Airborne methyl jasmonate induces synthesis of proteinase inhibitors in plant leaves. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1990, 87, 7713–7716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Elzaki, M.E.A.; Xue, R.; Hu, L.; Wang, J.J.; Zeng, R.S.; Song, Y.Y. Bioactivation of aflatoxin B1 by a cytochrome P450, CYP6AE19 induced by plant signaling methyl jasmonate in Helicoverpa armigra (Hübner). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2019, 157, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shi, Y.; Li, W.; Zhou, Y.; Liao, X.; Shi, L. Contribution of multiple overexpressed carboxylesterase genes to indoxacarb resistance in Spodoptera litura. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 1903–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chen, Q.J.; Li, G.H.; Pang, Y. A simple artificial diet for mass rearing of some noctuid species. Entomol. Knowl. 2000, 37, 325–327. [Google Scholar]
  46. Cohen, M.B.; Berenbaum, M.R.; Schuler, M.A. Induction of cytochrome P450-mediated detoxification of xanthotoxin in the black swallowtail. J. Chem. Ecol. 1989, 15, 2347–2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Timmermann, S.E.; Zangerl, A.R.; Berenbaum, M.R. Ascorbic and uric acid responses to xanthotoxin ingestion in a generalist and a specialist caterpillar. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 1999, 42, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ramawat, K.G.; Goyal, S. Co-evolution of secondary metabolites during biological competition for survival and advantage: An overview. In Co-Evolution of Secondary Metabolites; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang, M.X.; Fang, T.T.; Pu, G.L.; Sun, X.Q.; Zhou, X.G.; Cai, Q.N. Xenobiotic metabolism of plant secondary compounds in the English grain aphid, Sitobion avenae (F.)(Hemiptera: Aphididae). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2013, 107, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. AlJabr, A.M.; Hussain, A.; Rizwan-ul-Haq, M.; Al-Ayedh, H. Toxicity of plant secondary metabolites modulating detoxification genes expression for natural red palm weevil pesticide development. Molecules 2017, 22, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Jin, R.H.; Mao, K.K.; Liao, X.; Xu, P.F.; Li, Z.; Ali, E.; Wan, H.; Li, J.H. Overexpression of CYP6ER1 associated with clothianidin resistance in Nilaparvata lugens (Stål). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2019, 154, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Li, Y.Q.; Bai, L.S.; Zhao, C.X.; Xu, J.J.; Sun, Z.J.; Dong, Y.L.; Li, D.X.; Liu, X.L.; Ma, Z.Q. Functional characterization of two carboxylesterase genes involved in pyrethroid detoxification in Helicoverpa armigera. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 3390–3402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Enayati, A.A.; Ranson, H.; Hemingway, J. Insect glutathione transferases and insecticide resistance. Insect Mol. Biol. 2005, 14, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Yang, J.; Sun, X.Q.; Yan, S.Y.; Pan, W.J.; Zhang, M.X.; Cai, Q.N. Interaction of ferulic acid with glutathione S-transferase and carboxylesterase genes in the brown planthopper. Nilaparvata lugens. J. Chem. Ecol. 2017, 43, 693–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wu, C.F.; Ding, C.H.; Chen, S.; Wu, X.Y.; Zhang, L.Q.; Song, Y.Y.; Li, M.; Zeng, R.S. Exposure of Helicoverpa armigera larvae to plant volatile organic compounds induces cytochrome P450 monooxygenases and enhances larval tolerance to the insecticide methomyl. Insects 2021, 12, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Huang, X.B.; Wang, X.C.; Li, H. Effects of quercetin on the growth, development and detoxification enzyme activities of the short star locust. North. Agric. J. 2021, 49, 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rupasinghe, S.G.; Wen, Z.; Chiu, T.L.; Schuler, M.A. Helicoverpa zea CYP6B8 and CYP321A1: Different molecular solutions to the problem of metabolizing plant toxins and insecticides. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2007, 20, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Danielson, P.B.; Macintyre, R.J.; Fogleman, J.C. Molecular cloning of a family of xenobiotic-inducible drosophilid cytochrome P450s: Evidence for involvement in host–plant allelochemical resistance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 10797–10802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sun, Z.X.; Lin, Y.B.; Wang, R.M.; Li, Q.L.; Shi, Q.; Baerson, S.R.; Chen, L.; Zeng, R.S.; Song, Y.Y. Olfactory perception of herbivore-induced plant volatiles elicits counter-defences in larvae of the tobacco cutworm. Funct. Ecol. 2021, 35, 384–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, W.; Schuler, M.A.; Berenbaum, M.R. Diversification of furanocoumarin-metabolizing cytochrome P450 monooxygenases in two papilionids: Specificity and substrate encounter rate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 14593–14598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Li, X.C.; Baudry, J.; Berenbaum, M.R.; Berenbaum, M.R.; Schuler, M.A. Structural and functional divergence of insect CYP6B proteins: From specialist to generalist cytochrome P450. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 2939–2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Lu, K.; Song, Y.; Zeng, R. The role of cytochrome P450-mediated detoxification in insect adaptation to xenobiotics. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2021, 43, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Feyereisen, R. Insect CYP genes and P450 enzymes. In Insect Molecular Biology and Biochemistry; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 236–316. [Google Scholar]
  64. Smith, J.L.; De Moraes, C.M.; Mescher, M.C. Jasmonate-and salicylate-mediated plant defense responses to insect herbivores, pathogens and parasitic plants. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2009, 65, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Luo, Y.S.; Abdellah, Y.A.Y.; Hafeez, M.; Yang, X.; Hou, W.T.; Kong, X.H.; Wang, R.L. Herbivore-induced tomato plant volatiles lead to the reduction of insecticides susceptibility in Spodoptera litura. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2022, 187, 105215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hu, Z.H.; Shen, Y.B.; Shen, F.Y.; Luo, Y.Q.; Su, X.H. Evidence for the signaling role of methyl jasmonate, methyl salicylate and benzothiazole between poplar (Populus simonii × P. pyramidalis Finding and accepting host plants ‘Opera 8277′) cuttings. Trees 2009, 23, 1003–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Heil, M.; Karban, R. Explaining evolution of plant communication by airborne signals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Song, J.; Wang, J.; Ye, M. Concentration and distance effects of methyl jasmonate in the induction of resistance to Spodoptera litura in adjacent tomato plants. Chin. J. Ecol. 2020, 40, 5433–5440. [Google Scholar]
  69. Miller, J.R.; Strickler, K.L.X. Finding and accepting host plants. Chem. Ecol. Insects 1984, 127–157. [Google Scholar]
  70. Knolhoff, L.M.; Heckel, D.G. Behavioral assays for studies of host plant choice and adaptation in herbivorous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2014, 59, 263–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 14 00145 g001 550
Figure 1. CarE (A,B), GST (C,D) activities, and P450 (E,F) contents in the midguts and fat body of Spodoptera litura larvae after feeding on a diet containing 0.05% xanthotoxin and a diet without toxin (control). Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Asterisks indicate significant differences between enzyme activities of larvae fed on diets with or without xanthotoxin, respectively (** p  <  0.01, Student’s t-test).
Figure 1. CarE (A,B), GST (C,D) activities, and P450 (E,F) contents in the midguts and fat body of Spodoptera litura larvae after feeding on a diet containing 0.05% xanthotoxin and a diet without toxin (control). Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Asterisks indicate significant differences between enzyme activities of larvae fed on diets with or without xanthotoxin, respectively (** p  <  0.01, Student’s t-test).
Insects 14 00145 g001
Insects 14 00145 g002 550
Figure 2. CarE (A,B), GST (C,D) activities and P450 (E,F) contents in midguts and fat body of Spodoptera litura larvae among different treatments. Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Asterisks indicate significant differences in enzyme activity in larvae exposed to different concentrations of MeJA compared to the controls (* p  <  0.05, ** p  <  0.01, Student’s t-test).
Figure 2. CarE (A,B), GST (C,D) activities and P450 (E,F) contents in midguts and fat body of Spodoptera litura larvae among different treatments. Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Asterisks indicate significant differences in enzyme activity in larvae exposed to different concentrations of MeJA compared to the controls (* p  <  0.05, ** p  <  0.01, Student’s t-test).
Insects 14 00145 g002
Insects 14 00145 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects of MeJA on growth of Spodoptera litura larvae under xanthotoxin stress. (A) weight gain and (B) pupal weight of Spodoptera litura larvae fed on xanthotoxin after fumigation with methyl jasmonate. Values are means ± SE (n = 60). The capital letters indicate the significant differences among different concentrations of MeJA in the same xanthotoxin concentrations; lowercase indicates the significant differences among different concentrations of xanthotoxin at the same MeJA concentrations. One-way ANOVA (Duncan’s, p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Effects of MeJA on growth of Spodoptera litura larvae under xanthotoxin stress. (A) weight gain and (B) pupal weight of Spodoptera litura larvae fed on xanthotoxin after fumigation with methyl jasmonate. Values are means ± SE (n = 60). The capital letters indicate the significant differences among different concentrations of MeJA in the same xanthotoxin concentrations; lowercase indicates the significant differences among different concentrations of xanthotoxin at the same MeJA concentrations. One-way ANOVA (Duncan’s, p < 0.05).
Insects 14 00145 g003
Table
Table 1. Effects of MeJA on developmental time of Spodoptera litura larvae under xanthotoxin stress. Values are means ± SE (n = 60). The capital letters in the same column indicate the significant differences among different concentrations of xanthotoxin at the same MeJA concentrations; the lowercases indicate the significant differences among different concentrations of MeJA at the same xanthotoxin concentrations. One-way ANOVA (Duncan’s, p < 0.05).
Table 1. Effects of MeJA on developmental time of Spodoptera litura larvae under xanthotoxin stress. Values are means ± SE (n = 60). The capital letters in the same column indicate the significant differences among different concentrations of xanthotoxin at the same MeJA concentrations; the lowercases indicate the significant differences among different concentrations of MeJA at the same xanthotoxin concentrations. One-way ANOVA (Duncan’s, p < 0.05).
MeJA Concentration (μg/μL)Xanthotoxin Concentration (%)Duration of Fourth Instar (d)Duration of Fifth Instar (d)Duration of Sixth Instar (d)Duration of Prepupal Instar (d)Duration of Pupal Instar (d)
Control03.10 ± 0.05 Bb2.08 ± 0.10 Ca1.98 ± 0.10 Aa1.12 ± 0.04 Bc9.71 ± 0.08 Ba
0.053.05 ± 0.04 Bb2.10 ± 0.11 Cb2.27 ± 0.13 Ab1.18 ± 0.06 Bb9.70 ± 0.08 Ba
0.13.12 ± 0.10 Bb2.37 ± 0.10 Ba1.49 ± 0.07 Bc1.28 ± 0.06 Bb10.00 ± 0.08 Aa
0.23.37 ± 0.06 Ab2.83 ± 0.05 Aa2.25 ± 0.10 Ab1.58 ± 0.08 Aa10.13 ± 0.06 Ab
2003.73 ± 0.06 Aa1.67 ± 0.08 Bc1.86 ± 0.07 Ca1.97 ± 0.07 Aa9.25 ± 0.06 Cc
0.053.23 ± 0.07 Ba1.60 ± 0.09 Bc1.87 ± 0.07 Cc1.77 ± 0.06 Ba9.69 ± 0.08 Ba
0.13.77 ± 0.05 Aa2.00 ± 0.10 Ab2.39 ± 0.09 Ba1.27 ± 0.06 Db10.08 ± 0.08 Aa
0.23.75 ± 0.10 Aa2.13 ± 0.08 Ac2.87 ± 0.09 Aa1.59 ± 0.06 Ca10.07 ± 0.07 Ab
20002.14 ± 0.04 Cc2.39 ± 0.09 ABb1.42 ± 0.07 Db1.61 ± 0.08 Bb9.10 ± 0.08 Cc
0.052.23 ± 0.07 Cc2.57 ± 0.09 Aa2.68 ± 0.13 Ba1.90 ± 0.09 Aa9.69 ± 0.07 Ba
0.12.69 ± 0.06 Bc2.22 ± 0.07 Bab1.88 ± 0.08 Cb1.25 ± 0.06 Cb9.24 ± 0.06 Bc
0.23.04 ± 0.13 Ac2.58 ± 0.07 Ab3.04 ± 0.04 Aa1.60 ± 0.07 Ba10.14 ± 0.06 Ab
200002.05 ± 0.03 Ac1.07 ± 0.03 Dd2.09 ± 0.07 Ba2.04 ± 0.09 Aa9.51 ± 0.08 Cb
0.052.06 ± 0.03 Ad1.39 ± 0.07 Cc2.24 ± 0.09 BCb1.82 ± 0.05 Ba9.76 ± 0.07 Ba
0.12.12 ± 0.04 Ad1.66 ± 0.07 Bc2.42 ± 0.09 Ba1.64 ± 0.07 Ba9.71 ± 0.07 Bb
0.22.12 ± 0.04 Ad2.02 ± 0.05 Ac2.87 ± 0.06 Aa1.75 ± 0.06 Ba10.43 ± 0.06 Aa
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, L.; Song, J.; Wang, J.; Ye, M.; Deng, Q.; Wu, X.; Wu, X.; Ren, B. Effects of Methyl Jasmonate Fumigation on the Growth and Detoxification Ability of Spodoptera litura to Xanthotoxin. Insects 2023, 14, 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020145

AMA Style

Chen L, Song J, Wang J, Ye M, Deng Q, Wu X, Wu X, Ren B. Effects of Methyl Jasmonate Fumigation on the Growth and Detoxification Ability of Spodoptera litura to Xanthotoxin. Insects. 2023; 14(2):145. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020145

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Lina, Jia Song, Jun Wang, Mao Ye, Qianqian Deng, Xiaobao Wu, Xiaoyi Wu, and Bing Ren. 2023. "Effects of Methyl Jasmonate Fumigation on the Growth and Detoxification Ability of Spodoptera litura to Xanthotoxin" Insects 14, no. 2: 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020145

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop