Next Article in Journal
Effect of Maize Canopy Structure on Light Interception and Radiation Use Efficiency at Different Canopy Layers
Previous Article in Journal
Inconsistent Yield Response of Forage Sorghum to Tillage and Row Arrangement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/agronomy14071512
agronomy-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:
Communication

Effects of Conventional and Organic Fertilization on the Chemical Profile of Sorghum bicolor and the Preference of Sugarcane Aphids (Melanaphis sacchari)

by
Ericka Nieves-Silva
1,
Engelberto Sandoval-Castro
1,*,
Ma. D. Castañeda-Antonio
2,
Adriana Delgado-Alvarado
1,
Arturo Huerta-De la Peña
1 and
Ignacio Ocampo-Fletes
1
1
Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Puebla, Boulevard Forjadores de Puebla No. 205, Santiago Momoxpan, Municipio de San Pedro Cholula, Puebla 72760, Mexico
2
Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias Microbiológicas del Instituto de Ciencias, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla 72490, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(7), 1512; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071512
Submission received: 30 May 2024 / Revised: 5 July 2024 / Accepted: 8 July 2024 / Published: 12 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Melanaphis sacchari is a cosmopolitan pest that causes losses in sorghum crops, so new management methods are needed. In addition, the type of fertilization used influences plant compositions and pest infestation, and allelochemicals are a promising method for the possible management of M. sacchari. In this work, we measured the preference of M. sacchari through chemical stimuli towards sorghum plants grown under greenhouse conditions without fertilization (F0), conventional fertilization (CF), and organic fertilization (OF). Leaves were collected from sorghum plants fertilized with 200 kg N ha−1 using ammonium sulfate and poultry manure. Extracts were obtained using Soxhlet extraction, and the compounds were identified using a gas chromatograph coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Sorghum extracts were individually tested through bioassays to determine M. sacchari preference. The abundance and number of compounds in sorghum differed depending on the type of fertilization used. M. sacchari showed a preference for the extract from CF sorghum plants (76.66%) over the extract from OF plants (23.34%). Therefore, the type of fertilization can be used as a tactic to prevent higher infestations of M. sacchari. The biological activity of the compounds identified here with M. sacchari should be determined for future pest management strategies using allelochemicals, given that the sugarcane aphid uses chemical signals to locate its host plant.

1. Introduction

Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench, commonly called sorghum, originated in Africa approximately 8000 years ago, later distributed to countries in the Middle East and Asia, and finally in the 19th Century to the American continent [1]. This crop is considered the fifth most important grain crop in the world [2]. Mexico contributes 10.6% of the world’s production and imports 5.01 million tons of this grain and it is utilized mainly as feed for cattle, pigs, and poultry [3]. However, currently, this crop has taken relevance as a food source in African, Asian, and South American countries [4]. A recurrent problem in sorghum crops is the sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari), a pest that is distributed worldwide [5]. It was introduced to the American continent in 2013, mainly affecting sorghum crops in the United States and Mexico, being distributed in the latter in 27 states [5,6]. This insect negatively affects sorghum and other important crops. Sugarcane aphids are economically important due to the fact that they feed on plant sap, leading to reduced yields and, in some cases, total sorghum losses [5,7]. Pest management strategies proposed for M. sacchari include biological control, determination of optimal planting dates, elimination of alternative hosts, and use of pesticides, with the latter being the primary control measure for this insect [8]. Pesticides can potentially enter the environment, contaminating both the environment and food, thereby affecting biodiversity and human health [9]. Therefore, it is crucial to implement new strategies, such as utilizing insect behavior to compounds emitted by plants or also called allelochemicals [10]. These compounds serve as chemical signals for insects to identify their host plants and can be used for crop protection and productivity as part of pest management [11,12]. Still, their potential benefits in M. sacchari management remain poorly explored. On the other hand, nitrogen (N) fertilization practices, particularly of a synthetic or conventional origin, are essential for crop yields [13]. However, this practice causes contamination, similar to the use of pesticides; it generates several environmental problems such as greenhouse gas emissions, soil acidification and degradation, groundwater contamination, and loss of biological diversity, among others [14]. In addition, it is also a practice that is related to a higher incidence of pests and aphid species, such as Brachycaudus cardui, Myzus persicae, and Toxoptera aurantii, which showed increased attraction to fertilized host plants [15,16,17,18]. On the contrary, there is evidence that aphids such as M. persicae and Rhopalosiphum maidis have a lower preference for organically fertilized plants [19,20]. Organic fertilization (OF) has recently gained importance because it is considered an alternative fertilization that can help improve environmental sustainability, due to its advantages such as improving soil organic matter, soil structure, and moisture; improving soil microbial activity; and showing less nutrient loss than conventional fertilization (CF) [21,22]. In line with the above, it has been reported that the type of fertilization used affects plant chemical compounds [23,24].
Based on the above, it is hypothesized that the type of fertilization affects the compounds of sorghum plants and the preference of the aphid M. sacchari. The aim of the present study was to identify the compounds of S. bicolor and to perform bioassays to evaluate the behavior of M. sacchari to sorghum extracts as a chemical stimulus, which could serve as another important factor for the management of this pest.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material

In October 2023, S. bicolor seeds (Dekalb 45) were sown in 4 L polyethylene bags in a greenhouse of the Colegio de Postgraduados (COLPOS), Campus Puebla (19°04′26.5″ N; 98°15′41.3″ W). Plants were grown for 60 days at 20–25 °C and 60 ± 10% humidity and 16:8 photoperiod and watered every 3 days. The experiment followed a completely randomized design consisting of 3 treatments, with 3 replicates (Table 1).

2.2. Insect Breeding

In August 2023, sugarcane aphid nymphs were obtained from sorghum plots in the municipality of Izúcar de Matamoros, Puebla (18°36′10″ N; 98°27′5″ W). The nymphs were transported to the greenhouse and maintained on healthy sorghum plants in cages made of wood and polyethylene mesh (50 cm × 50 cm × 80 cm) (under the above-mentioned conditions) for reproduction during 5 generations until their use in bioassays with the extracts [25].

2.3. Extraction and Identification of Compounds

The third and fourth alternate leaves of sorghum plants were rinsed with sterile distilled water and weighed (300 g). Then, they were ground using a mill, wrapped in filter paper, and then placed in a Soxhlet extractor mounted atop a distillation flask containing 150 mL of 90% ethanol (Sigma Aldrich, Seelze, Germany). The extraction process was carried out for 3 h [26]. Then, 1 µL of the extract was injected into an Agilent Technologies (Santa Clara, CA, USA) 7890A gas chromatograph coupled with an Agilent Technologies 5975C mass spectrometer (Santa Clara, CA, USA). The system was equipped with a 30 m × 0.25 mm HP-5MS column with a film thickness of 0.50 µm (Agilent J&W, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The GC-MS parameters were as follows: helium as the carrier gas, injector temperature of 250 °C in the splitless mode, and initial oven temperature of 36 °C for 1 min and then increased by 10 °C per min until reaching 250 °C, which was maintained for 3 min. Compounds were identified through comparison with mass spectra from the National Institute of Standards and Technology library (NIST 8 and NIST 11) [27].

2.4. Bioassays Using Extracts from S. bicolor

Healthy-looking, 1.2 mm long, 13-day-old females of M. sacchari were fasted for 1 h prior to individual bioassays. A glass Petri dish (10 cm in diameter) was used as the behavioral arena (Figure 1). Bioassays were performed under laboratory conditions (22 ± 3 °C and 60 ± 10% RH) between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Briefly, 10 µL of the extract was placed on 1 cm × 1 cm filter paper pieces (Whatman No. 1) and allowed to evaporate for 30 s [25]. For the control (C), an equivalent volume of solvent (ethanol) was used, following the same procedure [28]. Each piece of filter paper was placed end to end of the Petri dish randomly and the Petri dish was closed in each bioassay. A 5 min response time was given, or until it moved towards the extract (past the response line). A total of 30 individual bioassays were conducted. After 3 bioassays, the Petri dish used was replaced by a clean one. The extracts tested were C, F0 (unfertilized plant), CF, and OF. Six combinations of extracts were made, as described in Table 2.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The frequencies of behavioral responses were analyzed through an exact binomial test using R Studio software (version 4.4.0).

3. Results

3.1. Extraction and Identification of Compounds

The numbers of compounds identified in sorghum leaf extracts were 12 in F0, 34 in CF, and 16 in OF (Table 3). Butanedioic acid, 1-tetradecene, (Z)-7-hexadecene, and phenol were found in leaves from all three treatments. Butanedioic acid and 1-tetradecene were most abundant in F0, followed by CF and OF. In contrast, phenol was most abundant in CF (23.35%), followed by F0 (22.64%) and OF (14.01%). The abundances of (E)-5-octadecene and benzophenone were higher in CF than in OF. On the other hand, 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid was more abundant in OF (1.62%) than in CF (0.77%). The most abundant compound in F0 and OF was (4-methoxy-phenyl)-(5-p-tolyl-furan-2-ylmethylene)-amine (46.89% and 68.02%, respectively). In CF, 5-[[[3,4,5-trimethoxyphenyl]imino]methyl]-2,4-pyrimidinediamine was the most abundant compound (37.73%). The least abundant compounds were (2,2-dichlorocyclopropyl) methanol in F0 (0.06%), 5,6-dihydro-2-(4-nitrophenyl)-4H-1,3-oxazin-5-one in CF (0.11%), and 3-methyl-1-(4-toluidino)pyrido[1,2 -a]benzimidazole-4-carbonitrile in OF (0.2%). A total of 28 compounds were found exclusively in CF sorghum plants.

3.2. Bioassays Using Extracts from S. bicolor

M. sacchari females showed a statistically significant preference (p < 0.0001) for S. bicolor extracts compared to the control (C), with higher response in F0 (93.34%), CF (86.66%), and OF (76.66%). However, bioassays comparing F0 (20%) with CF (80%) and F0 (26.67%) with OF (73.33%) exhibited a statistically significant (p < 0.05) preference for fertilized extracts of S. bicolor (CF and OF). Finally, when comparing CF (76.66%) with OF (23.34%) extracts, M. sacchari showed a statistically significant preference (p < 0.05) for the CF extract (Figure 2).

4. Discussion

The type of fertilization affected the abundance and number of compounds found in sorghum plants. This is in agreement with observations in Rubus idaeus plants, where the type of fertilization had both qualitative and quantitative effects on the compounds emitted [13]. In other plants such as willow, strawberry, and tomato, the compounds were affected by CF with N [24,29,30]. In addition, OF has been shown to modify the abundance of compounds compared to unfertilized tomato plants [30]. In line with previous reports for other species, we found that the number of compounds in S. bicolor was higher in CF, followed by OF and F0. These results are attributed to the availability of N, which leads to increased protein synthesis and, therefore, increased synthesis of secondary metabolites that affect plant defense [31]. CF has been associated with a higher abundance of compounds [24,32], as evinced by the results obtained here for (E)-5-octadecene, benzophenone, and phenol. However, said trend was not observed when comparing F0 with CF. Butanedioic acid, 1-tetradecene, and (Z)-7-hexadecene were more abundant in F0. In this regard, it has been reported that compounds exhibit individual responses to fertilization, which could be attributed to different biosynthetic pathways and environmental factors [24]. Eleven of the compounds exclusively identified in CF were aromatic compounds, which act as chemical signals involved in the attraction of insects, such as Drosophila melanogaster, Eupeodes corolla, and Sitona humeralis [33,34,35]. Also, eight of the compounds only identified in the FO are alkaloids, which are associated with nutrient availability and also function as an indicator for host plant acceptance by insects such as Manduca sexta and Formica polyctena [36,37]. Likewise, these compounds are used by aphids such as Macrosiphum euphorbiae, Macrosiphum albifrons, Aphis cytisorum, and Aphis jacobeae to detect their food [38]. Another way that aphids use alkaloids is through feeding on plants with high levels of these compounds to accumulate them in their bodies (sequestration) and serve as a defense against predators [38]. These compounds, which were not common to other treatments, could be a key factor in the attraction of M. sacchari to extracts from CF sorghum plants.
Some of the compounds identified in this study have been reported to have biological activity in certain insects, including some found exclusively in CF plants, such as acetic acid. Acetic acid has been related to high-dose N fertilization in Brassica napus plants and serves as a potential attractant of Meligethes aeneus and D. melanogaster [23,33]. Butyric acid is a key attractant of pests such as Holotrichia paralela and Bubas bison [39,40]. A compound induced by herbivory, 2-octanol, has been reported as an attractant of Spilosoma obliqua [41]. In Camellia sinensis plants, 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid has been related to N fertilization doses and the infestation of the aphid T. aurantii [18]. The most abundant compound in CF was phenol, which acts as an attractant of beetles of the species B. bison [40].
In OF, we found butanedioic acid, a component of the silkworm cocoon, which may be involved in its protection [42]. Likewise, higher levels of butanedioic acid were found in chickpea plants and were linked to increased resistance to the leaf miner Liriomyza cicerina [43]. Another compound that could have repellent activity against M. sacchari is 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, which has potential as a natural insecticide [44]. In Capsicum spp. plants infested with Aphis gossypii aphids, 1-undecanol has been identified as a compound involved in the plant’s defense [45]. In the present study, 1-undecanol was exclusively found in F0 and OF sorghum plants, suggesting its potential role as a repellent against M. sacchari. Finally, 1-tetradecene exhibits repellent activity against the aphids Acyrthosiphon pisum and M. persicae [46], while showing attractant activity towards Apolygus lucorum, Adelphocoris suturalis, and Megalurothrips sjostedti [47,48]. Although previous reports on the compounds identified in this study may provide an indication of their activity against or towards M. sacchari, further research is needed to confirm their biological activity.
Based on our results, M. sacchari has a preference for CF and OF treatments. In this regard, it has already been reported that there is a preferential relationship of M. sacchari for plants fertilized with higher levels of N [8]. Here, we compared the preference for CF or OF plants. The release of nutrients in organic fertilization is slower compared to chemical fertilizers. This differential rate impacts sap-sucking insects, as leaf sap composition is affected by fertilizer sources and dosages [49,50]. To date, only M. persicae has been tested using chemical stimuli. Olfactometer tests revealed that this species was more attracted to volatile compounds from cabbage plants with higher N doses [15]. A higher incidence and preference for fertilized plants has also been observed in other aphids, such as M. persicae, which preferred capsicum plants with higher N doses [16]. Similarly, the aphids T. aurantii, Lipaphis erysimi, Bemisia tabaci, Rhopalosiphum padi, and Sitobion avenae were more attracted to host plants fertilized with high N doses compared to unfertilized plants and this preference affected their fecundity and longevity [17,18,51,52,53].
Insect preference for fertilized plants is attributed to physiological changes in the plants, which cause changes in their metabolites and consequently in the chemical signals they emit [53]. Likewise, the growth and reproduction of aphids is influenced by the quality of the sap obtained from the host plants, which translates into a higher concentration of amino acids and, as a consequence, aphids attack these plants to a greater extent [54]. In addition, M. persicae showed a preference for white clover CF plants over plants fertilized with poultry manure [19]. It has also been reported that maize plants fertilized with synthetic fertilizers had a higher percentage of infestation by a R. maidis aphid than plants fertilized with animal manure [20]. In this regard, chemical nitrogen fertilizers enhance the vigorous qualities of plants, making them attractive to insects [55,56]. On the other hand, organic fertilization, characterized by the slow release of nutrients and consequently a lower N dose, may affect the production of toxic compounds, helping to maintain pest populations at low levels and to enhance plant resistance [57,58,59].
There are no reports indicating the existence of a chemical signal involved in the interaction between M. sacchari and S. bicolor. Moreover, it has been claimed that this insect relies primarily on visual signals to orient themselves to their host plant, because plant color indicates the food value of the plant [60,61,62]. However, aphid antennae are as large as their bodies and are provided with sensilla that have olfactory neurons, suggesting that olfactory signals must be important factors in locating host plants [61,63]. Our findings confirm the above, as chemical signals were used to evaluate the preference of M. sacchari for S. bicolor extracts.

5. Conclusions

The type of fertilization used affected the compounds extracted from S. bicolor plants, which is related to the attractant activity shown by the extracts from fertilized sorghum plants. The sugarcane aphid showed a preference for extracts from CF plants, confirming that M. sacchari uses chemical stimuli to locate its host plant, and that CF makes sorghum plants susceptible to an attack by this aphid. Therefore, OF is a sustainable alternative that should be considered as part of a method for pest prevention or to alternatively start combining both types of fertilization.
The type of fertilization and its relationship with the chemical compounds of sorghum plants should be taken into account when devising management strategies for M. sacchari. It is evident that sugarcane aphids rely on allelochemicals to locate the sorghum plant. However, having demonstrated the above, and in order to have a broader picture, we recommend further studies to determine the biological activity of the compounds identified here against M. sacchari. It is necessary to conduct tests at the physiological level with aphids of M. sacchari and also take into account other environmental factors that may influence the M. sacchari–S. bicolor interaction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.N.-S. and E.S.-C.; methodology, E.N.-S. and M.D.C.-A.; software, E.N.-S.; validation, E.S.-C., M.D.C.-A., A.D.-A., A.H.-D.l.P., and I.O.-F.; formal analysis, E.N.-S.; investigation, E.N.-S.; resources, E.N.-S. and M.D.C.-A.; data curation, E.N.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.N.-S.; writing—review and editing, E.N.-S., M.D.C.-A., A.D.-A., A.H.-D.l.P., and I.O.-F.; visualization, E.N.-S. and E.S.-C.; supervision, E.N.-S. and M.D.C.-A.; project administration, E.N.-S., E.S.-C., and M.D.C.-A.; funding acquisition, E.N.-S., M.D.C.-A., and E.S.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is a product of the doctoral dissertation of the first author, who is grateful to the Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencias y Tecnologías (CONAHCyT) for grant number 814396 in support of her doctoral studies.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kadzo, F.; Mwende, E.; Muema, J. Overview of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.), its economic importance, ecological requirements and production constraints in Kenya. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2023, 35, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sihag, N.; Shrotria, P.; Pandey, K. Correlation and path analysis of sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Curr. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2023, 42, 32–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Garay, I.; Díaz, A.; Herrera, J.; Rubio, A.; Vázquez, C. Evaluación de cuatro híbridos de sorgo (Sorghum bicolor L), abonados con vermicompost en Úrsulo Galván, Ver. Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res. 2021, 4, 1910–1919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Desta, K.; Choi, Y.M.; Shin, M.J.; Yoon, H.; Wang, X.; Lee, Y.; Yi, J.; Jeon, Y.; Lee, S. Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional components, bioactive metabolites, and antioxidant activities in diverse sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) landraces. Food Res. Int. 2023, 173, 113390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Peña-Martínez, R.; Brujanos-Muñiz, R.; Muñoz-Viveros, A.; Vanegas-Rico, J.; Salas, R.; Hernández-Torres, O.; Marín-Jarillo, A.; Ibarra, J.; Lomeli-Flores, R. Pulgón amarillo del sorgo, (PAS), Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner, 1897), Interrogantes Biológicas y Tablas de Vida, 1st ed.; Fundación Produce Guanajuato A. C.: Celaya Gto, Mexico, 2018; pp. 1–47. [Google Scholar]
  6. Peña-Martínez, R.; Lomeli-Flores, J.; Bujanos-Muñiz, R.; Salas-Monzón, R.; Hernández-Torres, O.; Marín-Jarillo, A.; Ibarra, J.; Vanegas-Rico, J.; Muñoz-Viveros, A. Comparative biology and life tables of sorghum aphid Melanaphis sorghi (Theobald) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) from Mexico, at diferent temperatures. Phytoparasitica 2024, 52, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Xoconostle-Cázares, B.; Ramírez-Pool, J.A.; Núñes-Muñoz, L.A.; Calderón-Pérez, B.; Vargas-Hernández, B.Y.; Bujanos-Muñiz, R.; Ruiz-Medrano, R. The Characterization of Melanaphis sacchari Microbiota and antibiotic treatment effect on insects. Insects 2023, 14, 807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Schlickmann-Tank, J.; Morales-Galván, O.; Pineda-Pineda, J.; Espinosa-Vásquez, G.; Colinas-León, M.; Vargas-Hernández, M. Relationship between chemical fertilization in sorghum and Melanaphis sacchari/sorghi (Hemiptera: Aphididae) populations. Agron. Colomb. 2020, 38, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tudi, M.; Ruan, H.; Wang, L.; Lyu, J.; Sadler, R.; Connell, D.; Chu, C.; Phung, D. Agriculture development, pesticide application and its impact on the environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Arora, S.; Husain, T.; Prasad, S. Allelochemicals as biocontrol agents: Promising aspects, challenges and opportunities. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2024, 166, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Caballero-Vidal, G.; Bouysset, C.; Gévar, J.; Mbouzid, H.; Nara, C.; Delaroche, J.; Golebiowski, J.; Montagné, N.; Fiorucci, S.; Jacquin-Joly, E. Reverse chemical ecology in a moth: Machine learning on odorant receptors identifies new behaviorally active agonists. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2021, 78, 6593–6603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Razo-Belman, R.; Ozuna, C. Volatile organic compounds: A review of their current applications as pest biocontrol and disease management. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yang, Q.; Ma, J.; Yang, F.; Zheng, H.; Lu, Z.; Qiao, F.; Zhang, K.; Gong, H.; Men, X.; Li, J.; et al. The hidden indirect environmental effect undercuts the contribution of crop nitrogen fertilizer application to the net ecosystem economic benefit. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 426, 139204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Amirahmadi, E.; Moudrý, J.; Konvalina, P.; Hörtenhuber, S.; Ghorbani, M.; Neugschwandtner, R.; Jiang, Z.; Krexner, T.; Kopecký, M. Environmental life cycle assessment in organic and conventional rice farming systems: Using a cradle to farm gate approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ahmed, N.; Darshanee, H.; Khan, I.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, T. Host selection behavior of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae, in response to volatile organic compounds and nitrogen contents of cabbage cultivars. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kamnqa, U.; Etsassala, N.; Akinpelu, E.; Nchu, F. Effects of varying nitrogen fertilization on growth, yield and flowering of Capsicum annuum (California wonder). In Proceedings of the 18th SOUTH AFRICA Int’l Conference on Agricultural, Chemical, Biological and Environmental Sciences (ACBES-20), Johannesburg, South Africa, 16–17 November 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lescano, M.; Quintero, C.; Farji, A.; Balseiro, E. Excessive nutrient input an ecological cost for aphids by modifying their attractiveness toward mutualist ants. Funct. Ecol. 2022, 36, 2661–2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pokharel, S.; Zhong, Y.; Changning, L.; Shen, F.; Likun, L.; Parajulee, M.; Fang, W.; Chen, F. Influence of reduced N-fertilizer application on foliar chemicals and functional qualities of tea plants under Toxoptera aurantii infestation. BMC Plant Biol. 2022, 22, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Staley, J.; Stewar, A.; Pope, T.; Wright, D.; Leather, S.; Hadley, P.; Rossiter, J.; Emden, H.; Poppy, G. Varying responses of insect herbivores to altered plant chemistry under organic and conventional treatments. Proc. R. Soc. 2010, 277, 779–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Naroz, M.; Mahmoud, H.; El-Rahman, S. Influence of fertilization and plant density on population of some maize insects pests yield. J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2021, 12, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fabroni, S.; Bontempo, L.; Campanelli, G.; Canali, S.; Montmurro, F. Innovative tools for the nitrogen fertilization traceability of organic farming products. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, Y.; Lan, X.; Hou, H.; Ji, J.; Liu, X.; Lv, Z. Multifaceted ability of organic fertilizers to improve crop productivity and abiotic stress tolerance: Review and perspectives. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Veromann, E.; Toome, M.; Kännaste, A.; Kaasik, R.; Copolovici, L.; Flink, J.; Kovács, G.; Narits, L.; Luik, A.; Niinemets, Ü. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on insect pests, their parasitoids, plant diseases and volatiles organic compounds in Brassica napus. Crop Prot. 2013, 43, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hu, B.; Jarosch, A.; Gauder, M.; Graeff-Hönninger, S.; Schnitzler, J.; Grote, R.; Rennenberg, H.; Kreuzwieser, J. VOC emissions and carbon balance of two bioenergy plantations in response to nitrogen fertilization: A comparison of Miscanthus and Salix. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 237, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ali, J.; Covaci, A.; Roberts, J.; Sobhy, I.; Kirk, W.; Bruce, T. Effects of cis-Jasmone treatment of Brassicas on interactions with Myzus persicae aphids and their parasitoid Diaeretiella rapae. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 711896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Mecenas, H.; Ambrogi, B.; Souto, L. Repellent effect of leaf-cutting ant waste against the aphid Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach). Arch. Agri. Res. Technol. 2023, 4, 1049. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ahmad, S.; Zafar, R.; Khan, I.; Javaid, A.; Iqbal, M. Control of khapra beetle by leaf extract of Melia azedarach and identification of possible insecticidal compounds through GC-MS analysis. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 2022, 28, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Girardi, J.; Berķe-Ļubinska, K.; Mežaka, I.; Nakurte, I.; Skudriņš, G.; Pastare, L. In vivo bioassay of the repellent activity of caraway essential oil against green peach aphid. Insects 2023, 14, 876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Estrada, A.; Salas, N.; Parra, R.; González, A.; Soto, M.; Rodriguez, M.; Flores, M.; Chavez, A. Effect of conventional and organic fertilizers on volatile compounds of raspberry fruit. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. 2020, 48, 862–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pasković, I.; Soldo, B.; Ban, S.; Radić, T.; Lukić, M.; Urlić, B.; Mimica, M.; Bubola, K.; Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y.; et al. Fruit quality and volatile compound composition of processing tomato as affected by fertilisation practices and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi application. Food Chem. 2021, 359, 129961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ibrahim, M.; Jaafar, H.; Rahmat, A.; Rahman, Z. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on synthesis of primary and secondary metabolites in three varieties of Kacip Fatimah (Labisia Pumila Blume). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2011, 12, 5238–5254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Campos, F.; Ribeiro, M.; Esteves, A.; delaCruz-Chacón, I.; Mayo, M.; Ferreira, G.; Fernandes, B. Nitrogen in the defense system of Annona emarginata (Schltdl.) H. Rainer. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0217930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Becher, P.; Hagman, A.; Verschut, V.; Chakraborty, A.; Rozpedowska, E.; Lebreton, S.; Bengtsson, M.; Flick, G.; Witzgall, P.; Piskur, J. Chemical signaling and insect attraction is a conserved trait in yeast. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 2962–2974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Li, H.; Liu, W.; Yang, L.; Cao, H.; Pelosi, P.; Wang, G.; Wang, B. Aromatic volatiles and odorant receptor 25 mediate attraction of Eupeodes corollae to flowers. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 12212–12220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lohonyai, Z.; Vuts, J.; Kárpáti, Z.; Koczor, S.; Domingue, M.; Fail, J.; Birkett, M.; Tóth, M.; Imrei, Z. Benzaldehyde: An alfalfa related compound for the spring attraction of pest weevil Sitona humeralis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Pest. Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 3153–3159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Adler, L.; Wink, M.; Distl, M.; Lentz, A. Leaf herbivory and nutrients increase nectar alkaloids. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 960–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mogensen, A.; Andersen, L.; Sørensen, J.; Offenberg, J. Manipulated ants: Inducing loyalty to sugar feeders with an alkaloid. Pest Manag. Sci. 2024, 80, 3445–3450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Züst, T.; Agrawal, A. Mechanisms and evolution of plant resistance to aphids. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 16206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Nyamwasa, I.; Li, K.; Zhang, S.; Yin, J.; Li, X.; Liu, J.; Li, E.; Sun, X. Overlooked side effects of organic farming inputs attract soil insect crop pests. Ecol. Appl. 2020, 30, e02084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Perera, N.; Weston, P.; Barrow, R.; Weston, L.; Gurr, G. Contrasting volatilomes of livestock dung drive preference of the dung beetle Bubas bison (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Molecules 2022, 27, 4152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mobarak, S.; Koner, A.; Debnath, R.; Barik, A. The role of gram plant volatile blends in the behavior of arctiid moth, Spilosoma obliqua. J. Chem. Ecol. 2022, 48, 802–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Zhang, Y.; Zhao, D.; Meng, Z.; Dong, Z.; Lin, Y.; Chen, S.; Xia, Q.; Zhao, P. Wild silkworm cocoon contains more metabolites than domestic silkworm cocoon to improve its protection. J. Insect Sci. 2017, 17, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chrigui, N.; Sari, D.; Sari, H.; Eker, T.; Cengiz, M.; Ikten, C.; Toker, C. Introgression of resistance to Leafminer (Liriomyza cicerina Rondani) from Cicer reticulatum Ladiz. to C. arietinum L. and relationships between potential biochemical selection criteria. Agronomy 2021, 11, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chidambaram, K.; Alqahtani, T.; Alghazwani, Y.; Aldahish, A.; Annadurai, S.; Venkatesan, K.; Dhandapani, K.; Thilagam, E.; Venkatesan, K.; Paulsamy, P.; et al. Medicinal plants of Solanum species: The promising sources of phyto-insecticidal compounds. J. Trop. Med. 2022, 2022, 4952221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Gomes, J.; Vieira, E.; Riffel, A.; Birkett, M.; Bleicher, E.; Goulart, A. Differential preference of Capsicum spp. cultivars by Aphis gossypii is conferred by variation in volatile semiochemistry. Euphytica 2010, 177, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dancewicz, K.; Kordan, B.; Gabrys, B.; Szumny, A.; Wawrzenczyk, C. Feeding deterrent activity of α-methylenelactones to pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) and green peach aphid Myzus persicae (Sulzer). Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2006, 20, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yin, H.; Li, W.; Xu, M.; Xu, D.; Wan, P. The role of tetradecane in the identification of host plants by the mirid bugs Apolygus lucorum and Adelphocoris suturalis and potential application in pest management. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 1061817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Alabi, O.; Onochie, I. Repellence and attraction properties of selected synthesized volatile organic compounds to flower bud thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom). Adeleke Univ. J. Eng. Technol. 2023, 6, 142–150. [Google Scholar]
  49. Barrios, M.; García, J.; Basso, C. Efecto de la fertilización nitrogenada sobre el contenido de nitrato y amonio en el suelo y la planta de maíz. Bioagro 2012, 24, 213–220. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hsu, C.; Lai, H. Comprehensive assessment of the influence of applying two kinds of chicken-manure-processed organic fertilizers on soil properties, mineralization of nitrogen, and yields of three crops. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Aqueel, M.; Leather, S. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on the growth and survival of Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) and Sitobion avenae (F.) (Homoptera: Aphididae) on different wheat cultivars. Crop Protec. 2011, 30, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhao, Z.; Hui, C.; He, D.; Li, B. Effects of agricultural intensification on ability of natural enemies to control aphids. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 8024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fallahpour, F.; Ghorbani, R.; Nassiri, M.; Hosseini, M. Plant fertilization helps plants to compensate for aphid damage, positively affects predator efficiency and improves canola yield. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 93, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Singh, H.; Baliyan, S.; Singh, V.; Kumar, N. Insights into biointensive management of aphids: A broad perspective. Biol. Forum Int. J. 2023, 15, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Figueroa, R.; Villa, P.; López, J.; Huerta, A.; Pacheco, J.; Ramos, M. Nitrogen fertilization sources and insecticidal activity of aqueous seeds extract of Carica papaya against Spodoptera frugiperda in maize. Cienc. Invest. Agrar. 2013, 40, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Blundell, R.; Schmidt, J.; Igwe, A.; Cheung, A.; Vannette, R.; Gaudin, C.; Casteel, C. Organic management promotes natural pest control through altered plant resistance to insects. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Rowen, E.; Tooker, J.; Blubaugh, C. Managing fertility with animal waste to promote arthropod pest suppression. Biol. Control 2019, 134, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Parizad, S.; Bera, S. The effect of organic farming on water reusability, sustainable ecosystem, and food toxicity. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 30, 71665–71676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gao, H.; Xu, R.; Du, Z.; Ye, H.; Tian, J.; Huang, W.; Xu, S.; Xu, F.; Hou, M.; Zhong, F. Molecular regulation of volatile organic compounds accumulation in tomato leaf by different nitrogen treatments. Plant Growth Regul. 2023; in preprint. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Holopainen, J.; Peltonen, P. Bright autumn colours of deciduous trees attract aphids: Nutrient retranslocation hypothesis. Oikos 2002, 99, 184–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Holopainen, J. Importance of olfactory and visual signals of autumn leaves in the coevolution of aphids and trees. Bioessays 2008, 30, 889–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Guerrieri, E.; Digilio, M. Aphid-plant interactions: A review. J. Plant Interact. 2012, 3, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pickett, J.A.; Wadhams, L.; Woodcock, C.; Hardie, J. The chemical ecology of aphids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1992, 37, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 14 01512 g001
Figure 1. Behavioral arena for bioassays with sorghum extracts. RL: Response line; E: Extract.
Figure 1. Behavioral arena for bioassays with sorghum extracts. RL: Response line; E: Extract.
Agronomy 14 01512 g001
Agronomy 14 01512 g002
Figure 2. Behavioral bioassays of M. sacchari in response to S. bicolor extracts. C (control), F0 (plant without fertilization), CF (plant fertilized with ammonium sulfate), and OF (plant fertilized with poultry manure). * denotes significant differences (binomial test: p < 0.05); ** denotes significant differences (binomial test: p < 0.0001).
Figure 2. Behavioral bioassays of M. sacchari in response to S. bicolor extracts. C (control), F0 (plant without fertilization), CF (plant fertilized with ammonium sulfate), and OF (plant fertilized with poultry manure). * denotes significant differences (binomial test: p < 0.05); ** denotes significant differences (binomial test: p < 0.0001).
Agronomy 14 01512 g002
Table 1. Fertilization treatments in S. bicolor.
Table 1. Fertilization treatments in S. bicolor.
TreatmentsDescription
F0Soil (4.4% organic matter; nitrogen at 100 ppm; phosphorus at 0.80 ppm; potassium at 5.50 ppm; and pH 7.4)
CF200 kg ha−1 N (ammonium sulfate) + soil
OF200 kg ha−1 N (poultry manure: 57% organic matter; nitrogen at 400 ppm; phosphorus at 230 ppm; potassium at 200 ppm; and pH 7.8) + soil
F0: Plant without fertilization; CF: Conventional fertilization; OF: Organic fertilization.
Table 2. Combinations for behavioral bioassays.
Table 2. Combinations for behavioral bioassays.
BioassayCombinations Extracts
1CF vs. OF
2F0 vs. OF
3F0 vs. CF
4C vs. OF
5C vs. CF
6C vs. F0
C: Control (ethanol); F0: Plant without fertilization; CF: Conventional fertilization; OF: Organic fertilization.
Table 3. Compounds detected in S. bicolor leaves.
Table 3. Compounds detected in S. bicolor leaves.
NumberRetention TimeCompoundPeak Area
F0 (%)		Peak Area
CF (%)		Peak Area
OF (%)
13.95butyric acidND0.33ND
23.96tridecyl trifluoroacetateND0.15ND
33.98(R)-2-octanol ND0.21ND
44.00propanoic acidND0.36ND
54.141-methyldecylamine1.43NDND
65.38ethylamineND0.28ND
75.594-methyl-2-pentanamineND0.33ND
85.664-fluorohistamineND0.61ND
96.041-undecanol7ND2.69
106.052H-pyran-2-oneND5.48ND
116.402-heptanolND0.35ND
126.93acetic acidND0.63ND
137.00(2,3-dimethyloxiranyl) methanolND0.39ND
147.082,3-diethoxy-propionic acid, ethyl esterND0.42ND
157.552-nonanolND0.24ND
167.77butanedioic acid2.241.831.09
178.141-tetradecene6.365.472.5
188.631-(1-propynyl)-cyclohexeneND0.42ND
1910.12(Z)-7-hexadecene 3.42.851.46
2010.88phenol22.6423.3514.01
2111.214-(2-methylamino)ethyl)pyridineND0.04ND
2211.412-fluoro-2′,4,5-trihydroxy-N-methyl-benzenethanamineND0.89ND
2311.99(E)-5-octadecene ND0.930.55
2411.99N,N′-dimethyl-2-butene-1,4-diamine0.68NDND
2512.271-dodecanamineND1.53ND
2612.734-hydroxy-benzeneacetonitrileND5.29ND
2712.91N,N-dimethyl-dimethylphosphoric amideND0.39ND
2813.232-octyl benzoateND0.72ND
2914.20benzophenoneND1.060.69
3014.21N-(3-pyridinylmethylene)benzenamine 1.09NDND
3114.374-amino-2-oxy-furazan-3-carboxylic acidND0.20ND
3214.85piperidin-4-ol, 1,3,3-trimethyl-4phenylND0.37ND
3316.16benzene, 4-bromo-1,3-dimethoxy-6-(4-acetylphenyliminomethyl)NDND0.93
3416.17phthalic acid, isobutyl 4-isopropylphenyl esterND0.24ND
3516.589-hydroxy-3,4-dihydro-2H-1,4-ethanoquinoline-9-carboxylic acidNDND1.14
3616.845,6-dihydro-2-(4-nitrophenyl)-4H-1,3-oxazin-5-oneND0.11ND
3716.861H-pyrrolo[1,2-a]benzimidazolium,2,3-dihydro-4-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-6-hydroxy-1,3-dimethyl-2,4-dioxo-5-pyrimidinyl)-, hydroxideNDND1.07
3817.215-[[[3,4,5-trimethoxyphenyl]imino]methyl]-2,4-pyrimidinediamineND37.73ND
3917.21(4-methoxy-phenyl)-(5-p-tolyl-furan-2-ylmethylene)-amine46.89ND68.02
4017.421,2-benzenedicarboxylic acidND0.771.62
4117.422-methyl-benzothiazole0.55NDND
4217.612-bromo-N-methyl-2-propen-1-amine ND0.35ND
4321.474-methyl-2-pentanamine0.83NDND
4421.51(2,2-dichlorocyclopropyl)methanol0.06NDND
4522.041,3-benzenedicarboxylic acidND0.34ND
4622.054-phenoxy-2-phenyl-1-naphthalenolNDND1.06
4723.603-methyl-1-(4-toluidino)pyrido[1,2-a]benzimidazole-4-carbonitrileNDND0.2
4826.965-(p-aminophenyl)-4-(p-nitrophenyl)-2-thiazolaminNDND0.3
4927.022-oxo-1,4,5-triphenyl-4-imidazolinNDND0.68
Number of compounds detected per treatment123416
ND: Not detected; F0: Plant without fertilization; CF: Conventional fertilization; OF: Organic fertilization.
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

Nieves-Silva, E.; Sandoval-Castro, E.; Castañeda-Antonio, M.D.; Delgado-Alvarado, A.; Huerta-De la Peña, A.; Ocampo-Fletes, I. Effects of Conventional and Organic Fertilization on the Chemical Profile of Sorghum bicolor and the Preference of Sugarcane Aphids (Melanaphis sacchari). Agronomy 2024, 14, 1512. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071512

AMA Style

Nieves-Silva E, Sandoval-Castro E, Castañeda-Antonio MD, Delgado-Alvarado A, Huerta-De la Peña A, Ocampo-Fletes I. Effects of Conventional and Organic Fertilization on the Chemical Profile of Sorghum bicolor and the Preference of Sugarcane Aphids (Melanaphis sacchari). Agronomy. 2024; 14(7):1512. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071512

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nieves-Silva, Ericka, Engelberto Sandoval-Castro, Ma. D. Castañeda-Antonio, Adriana Delgado-Alvarado, Arturo Huerta-De la Peña, and Ignacio Ocampo-Fletes. 2024. "Effects of Conventional and Organic Fertilization on the Chemical Profile of Sorghum bicolor and the Preference of Sugarcane Aphids (Melanaphis sacchari)" Agronomy 14, no. 7: 1512. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071512

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