Next Article in Journal
Stag Beetle Elytra: Localized Shape Retention and Puncture/Wear Resistance
Next Article in Special Issue
A Review of Interactions between Insect Biological Control Agents and Semiochemicals
Previous Article in Journal
The Association between Virus Prevalence and Intercolonial Aggression Levels in the Yellow Crazy Ant, Anoplolepis Gracilipes (Jerdon)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Trapping Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs: “The Nazgȗl” Lure and Kill Nets
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Oviposition-Induced Volatiles Affect Electrophysiological and Behavioral Responses of Egg Parasitoids

by
Panagiotis G Milonas
*,
Eirini Anastasaki
and
Georgios Partsinevelos
Laboratory of Biological Control, Department of Entomology & Agricultural Zoology, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, 8 S. Delta Street, 14561 Kifissia, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2019, 10(12), 437; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10120437
Submission received: 30 October 2019 / Revised: 29 November 2019 / Accepted: 29 November 2019 / Published: 5 December 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Semiochemicals and Insect Behavior)

Abstract

:
In response to an attack by herbivores, plants emit a variety of compounds that may act as semiochemicals. Oviposition-induced volatiles (OIPVs) have been shown to mediate interactions between plants and natural enemies. Here, we investigated the role of OIPVs by Tuta absoluta towards two egg parasitoids, Trichogramma cordubense and T. achaeae. We collected headspace volatiles from tomato plants at 24, 48, and 72 h after oviposition by T. absoluta females and tested the antennographic response of Trichogramma parasitoids to them by means of gas chromatography- electro-antennographical detection (GC-EAD). The response of the parasitoids was also tested in behavioral experiments using a Y-tube olfactometer. Oviposition by T. absoluta females induced qualitative and quantitative changes in the volatiles emitted by tomato plants. Antennae of Trichogramma parasitoids responded to several of the induced volatiles in GC-EAD. T. cordubense females were attracted to tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs 24 h after oviposition. The elucidation of the behavior of egg parasitoids towards OIPVs enhances the development of sustainable management strategies either by selecting species that exploit OIPVs or by manipulating their foraging behavior by utilizing specific OIPVs that are used by parasitoids as a host location.

1. Introduction

Plants under attack by herbivorous insects produce semiochemicals. These may directly protect the plant either by their toxic properties or by being repellent to conspecific or heterospecific herbivorous species. Indirectly, they may attract natural enemies antagonistic to the herbivores [1,2,3,4,5,6]. The production of herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) that act as foraging cues for parasitoids and predators is known to be triggered by the feeding activity of insects on host plants [1]. Recently, the oviposition of herbivorous insects alone or in combination with feeding has been proven to induce the emission of oviposition-induced volatiles (OIPVs) that act as synomones [7,8,9]. Plants benefit by responding to oviposition as they switch on defense mechanisms early before any damage occurs to the plant [10,11]. Several studies have shown that egg deposition alone induced the emission of OIPVs that attracted egg parasitoids that eventually kill their hosts [12,13,14,15,16].
The tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), is a major pest of tomato, Solanum lycopersicon L. (Solanacae), throughout South and Central America and has invaded Europe, causing substantial economic damage [17]. Feeding larvae produce galleries in leaves and green and ripe fruits, causing considerable damage and ultimately yield losses [18].
Natural enemies are used worldwide for the management of T. absoluta in tomato open fields and greenhouses [19,20]. Among them, mirid predators, such as Nesidiocoris tenuis (Reuter) and Macrolophus pygmaeus Rambour (Hemiptera: Miridae), and Trichogramma egg-parasitoids are the most promising for successful biological control of T. absoluta [20,21,22].
In tomato, infestation by T. absoluta has been demonstrated to induce the emission of HIPVs [23,24]. In addition, egg deposition by T. absoluta seems to induce the release of OIPVs by tomato plants [25]. The utilization of HIPVs emitted by tomato plants has been shown to occur for mirid predators [26] and larval parasitoids [27] as part of their foraging behavior. Although the nature of HIPVs for T. absoluta larval feeding has been studied in detail [24], there is limited knowledge on the OIPVs by egg deposition of T. absoluta females [25,28]. In addition, the role of these OIPVs in the foraging behavior of egg parasitoids, such as Trichogramma, which have great potential as a biocontrol agent for T. absoluta, has not been elucidated yet. Recently, Gontijo et al. [28] reported behavioral studies for T. achaeae to OIPVs and HIPVs emitted by tomato plants.
In the present study, we aimed to address in detail the nature of OIPVs emitted by tomato plants and perceived by the antenna of Trichogramma parasitoids. Specifically, we identified electrophysiologically active compounds in the headspace extracts of tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs and conducted behavioral tests using a Y-tube olfactometer to investigate the choices of naïve Trichogramma parasitoids on OIPVs from tomato plants.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insects and Plants

The initial population of T. absoluta originated from a greenhouse tomato culture at the premises of Benaki Phytopathological Institute (Kifisia, Attica, Greece). Rearing was maintained on tomato plants (S. lycopersicon cv. “Missouri” ASGROW®), under controlled environmental conditions at 25 ± 1 °C, RH 65 ± 5%, and a photoperiod of 16:8 (L:D). Tomato plants (3–5-week-old plants) were provided to larvae three times a week until pupation. Two Trichogramma species were used in the current study, T. achaeae Nagaraja and Nagarkatti and T. cordubense Vargas and Cabello, with the former obtained from a local commercial company (Anthesis Ltd., Kifisia, GR) and the later from Dr Annette Herz (Julius Kuhn Institute Darmstadt, Germany). Both parasitoid species were reared on sterile Ephestia kuehniella eggs obtained from a laboratory colony maintained on semolina flour [29].

2.2. Y-Tube Olfactometer Behavioral Experiments

Olfactometer behavioral bioassays were carried out to test the response of the two Trichogramma species to the volatile compounds of the tomato. The responses were assessed in a glass Y-tube olfactometer with a 1-cm internal diameter, 10-cm main arm length, and side arms 8 cm long. The olfactometer was lined underneath with filter paper and lightened from above with three 18-W cool fluorescent tubes providing uniform lighting. Air was pumped (Dymax 5, Charles Austen Pumps Ltd., West Byfleet, UK) through an active charcoal filter and re-humidified by passing it through a bottle with tap water before being directed into the two arms of the olfactometer. The air flow rate was adjusted to 30 mL/min. Female parasitoids of both species were subjected to the following tests: (i) Tomato plant with T. absoluta eggs 24 h after oviposition versus clean air; (ii) tomato plant with T. absoluta eggs 48 h after oviposition versus clean air; and (iii) tomato plant with T. absoluta eggs 72 h after oviposition versus clean air. Trichogramma parasitoids were released individually at the entrance of the main arm and left for 5 min to make a choice. A single potted tomato plant was placed inside a 10-L glass chamber, which was connected to an arm of the olfactometer. The pot of the plant was covered with aluminum. In all bioassays, after each run, the olfactometer was rotated by 90° to avoid any directional bias. After five replicates, the olfactometer was thoroughly washed with soap and water and rinsed with acetone before being oven-dried at 120 °C. A choice was recorded when a parasitoid crossed 2 cm within the side arm and stayed there for 15 s. At least 30 replicates were performed for each treatment combination on at least 5 different days.

2.3. Oviposition-Induced Volatiles

Oviposition-induced volatiles were provoked by placing a tomato plant at the stage of 4 fully grown leaves into cubic cages (60 × 60 × 60 cm) covered by organdy gauze (BugDorm, Taichung, Taiwan) with approximately 30 T. absoluta females and removed 24 h later. The cages with tomato plants and T. absoluta females were kept under the same experimental conditions as described above. On average, each plant had 12 T. absoluta eggs on its leaves. Tomato plants with eggs 24, 48, and 72 h after oviposition were used for the collection of volatiles. Clean tomato plants were used as controls and were maintained in similar experimental conditions but in a separate room to avoid any plant–plant interaction [30]. Five plants were used in each treatment.

2.4. Headspace Collection and Identification

The collection of volatiles was done as described by Anastasaki et al. [31]. A single potted tomato plant was placed in a glass container (10 L), with the pot and soil covered with aluminum foil to prevent interaction with VOCs from the soil and roots, and was left for 30 min for acclimatization prior to volatile collection. Purified air, through an activated charcoal filter (10-cm length x 1.5-cm id), was passed through the glass container. Plant volatiles were drawn by a vacuum pump (Dymax 5, Charles Austen Pumps Ltd., West Byfleet, UK) at a rate of 360 mL/min onto a Teflon-made trap (5-cm length x 4-mm id) containing 75 mg Porapak Q (80/100 mesh, Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA) tapped with a 2-mm glass wool and 3-mm Teflon tubes in each end. Prior to the analysis, traps were sequentially washed with 1 mL of methanol, diethyl ether, and n-pentane (Fisher Chemicals, Bishop, UK) and blown dry with N2. The collection of headspace volatiles was done for 6 h. Immediately after volatile collection, traps were extracted with 500 μL of n-pentane. Sample volumes were reduced to 100 μL and stored in a freezer (at −20 °C) in a sealed vial with a conical inserter until use.

2.5. Gas Chromatography-Flame-Ionization-Electroantennographic Detection (GC-FID-EAD)

Plant headspace extracts were subjected to coupled gas chromatography-electroantennogram detection. The system consisted of a Thermo Scientific TRACE 1300 Series GC chromatograph (Milan, Italy) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and coupled to an electroantennogram recording Syntec IDAC-2 (Syntec, Kirchzarten, Germany). Two microliters of each extract were injected manually in the splitless mode. A TG-1 ms capillary column (30 m, 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25-μm film thickness) with helium as the carrier gas at 1 mL/min was used for the analysis of the samples. The column temperature was initially kept for 1 min at 50 °C, then gradually increased to 170 °C at a rate of 3 °C/min, and then at a rate 10 °C/min to 250 °C. The injector and detector temperatures were set at 220 and 250 °C, respectively. The column effluent was mixed with 30 mL/min make-up helium and then spilt at a ratio 1:1 into two branches,—one leading to the FID and the other one through a heated (250 °C) transfer line (Syntec, Kirchzarten, Germany) leading to a glass tube—mixed with a charcoal-filtered, humidified, and constant airstream directed to the antenna controlled by a stimulus controller (CS 55, Syntec, Kirchzarten, Germany). Glass capillaries filled with 0.1 M KCl were used as electrodes. Silver wires were used for electrical contact. The base of the abdomen of a female wasp was mounted on the reference electrode and the top of the antennae placed in the recording electrode. Electrodes were put in the appropriate holder and connected to the probe (Syntec, Kirchzarten, Germany). The mounted insect was placed 0.5 cm from the end of the glass tube. Five successful GC–EAD recordings with different female antennae were performed. Data acquisition was analyzed with GcEad 32software (Syntec, Kirchzarten, Germany). For the quantification, the external standard method was performed (IOFI, 2011). The peak areas of analytes were quantified through external standard calibration curves with standard synthetic compounds. Calibrations curves relating peak areas and concentrations were constructed and expressed in units of μg/h. In the cases where no standard samples were available, the quantification was done with standards of a similar molecular structure. Unknown compounds were quantified in terms of n-alkane with similar retention times. Peak areas for each compound were integrated using Chromeleon 7 software version 7.2.1.5537 (Thermo Scientific, Milan, Italy).
The identification of volatiles from headspace extracts was performed in terms of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). One microliter of the extract was used for the analysis. It was injected in a Varian CP-3800 GC, with a 1079 injector coupled with a 1200-L quardpupole mass spectrometer. Separation of the analytes was performed with a Varian VF5ms capillary column (30 m, 0.25 mm i.d, 0.25-μm film thickness). The splitless mode was set for 0.75 min. Then, the injector split ratio was set at 80:1. At 5 min, the split ratio was set at 70:1. The flow rate of the carrier gas, helium, was 1 mL/min. The oven temperature was maintained at 40 °C for 1 min, increased at a rate of 1.2 °C/min to 65 °C, and at a rate at 3 °C/min to 180 °C. The column was heated at a rate of 15 °C/min to the final temperature of 250 °C. The mass spectrometer was operated in electron ionization mode (EI) at an ion energy of −70 eV, filament current of 50 μA, and source temperature of 200 °C. Data acquisition was performed in full scan (MS) with the scanning range 40–300 amu. Tentative identification was achieved by comparing the elution order, mass spectra from Adams 2007, NIST 2005, and Wiley 275 mass spectra libraries, and the literature data [32]. We also used retention indices (RI) of a series of n-alkane (C8–C20). Wherever possible, the retention time and mass spectra were compared with commercial standards.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Chi square test was used for the analysis of the olfactometer data using SPSS [33].
Volatile compounds, measured as peak area and quantified using the external calibration curve, were tested for significant differences between treatments with the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis H test. The resulting data were log-transformed and processed by projections to latent structures-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) using SIMCA14.1 software (Umetrics, Umeå, Sweden). The Pareto scaling method was applied to the dataset before PLS-DA processing.

3. Results

3.1. Response to Olfactometer

Headspace volatiles from tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs 24 h after oviposition were attractive to the egg parasitoid T. cordubense2 = 4.26, df = 1, p = 0.039) (Figure 1). Headspace volatiles from tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs 48 and 72 h post-oviposition were not found to be attractive for T. cordubense females (χ2 = 1.46, df = 1, p = 0.23; df = 1, χ2 = 0.22, p = 0.64) (Figure 1). Although 61.5% of T. achaeae females were attracted to the headspace volatiles from tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs 24 h after oviposition, this was not statistically significant (χ2 = 2.10, df = 1, p = 0.15) (Figure 2). Trichogramma achaeae females were not attracted by the headspace volatiles of tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs 48 and 72 h post-oviposition (χ2 = 1.49, df = 1, p = 0.22; χ2 = 1.19, df = 1, p = 0.274) (Figure 2).

3.2. Headspace Volatiles

Oviposition by T. absoluta induced the emission of a different profile of headspace volatiles by tomato plants compared to tomato plants without eggs of T. absoluta (Table 1). T. absoluta oviposition significantly enhanced the total emission of VOCs by tomato plants between the different egg treatments (χ2 =12.783, df = 3, p = 0.005). In total, 68 compounds were identified from the tomato plants, with 9 compounds being isolated only from oviposited tomato plants (Table 1). Major components that were identified in all plant treatments were β-phellandrene, 2-δ-carene, α-phellandrene, and β-caryophyllene. In addition, the emission of 19 compounds differed significantly between the control and tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs (Table 1).
Projection to latent structures discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) revealed a clear separation between T. absoluta egg treatments and control plants (Figure 3). The first two principal components explained 27.2% and 24.6% of the variance, respectively. The PLS-DA analysis identified 28 compounds with a variable importance for the projection (VIP) value higher than 1 (Table 2). A variable with a VIP value close to or greater than 1 can be considered important in a given model. VIP values estimate the importance of each variable (compound) in the projection used in a PLS model and are often used for variable selection. These compounds in decreasing VIP values were: α-phellandrene, 2-δ-carene, β-phellandrene, benzyl alcohol, verbenene, α-terpinene, β-caryophyllene, β-myrcene, δ-elemene, nonanal, α-pinene, p-cymene, (E)-β-ocimene, allo-aromadendrene epoxide, γ-terpinene, α-humulene, germacrene B, (E)-isocitral, terpinolene, muurola-4,10 (14)-dien-1b-ol, β-elemene, sabinene, unknown 5, p-xylene, terpene 1, hydrocarbon 1, camphor, and unknown 2. In addition, nonanal, p-cymene, and germacrene B contributed the most to the separation of tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs 24 h after oviposition.

3.3. Identification of EAD Active Compounds

Gas chromatography coupled with electro-antennographical detection (GC-EAD) was employed to test the headspace volatiles of oviposited tomato plants. The results showed that parasitoids gave responses to volatiles from tomato plants after the oviposition of T. absoluta. Terpenes like β-pinene, β-myrcene, γ-terpinene, γ-elemene, and guaidiene-6, 9; aldehydes like nonanal and decanal; and alcohols like 3-(Z)-hexen-1-ol were EAD-active compounds (Figure 4). Additionally, unknown compound 5 was found to be EAD active. Parasitoids’ antennae responded to compounds that were relatively small components of these tomato plant extracts. Parasitoids did not respond to the main compounds β-phellandrene, 2-δ-carene, and β-caryophyllene of the tomato volatile blend.

4. Discussion

Our study revealed that oviposition-induced volatiles by T. absoluta affect the behavior of egg parasitoids. The behavioral response of the parasitoids depends on the species and on the time since oviposition. Trichogramma cordubense was attracted to volatiles from tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs 24 h after oviposition whereas T. achaeae did not discriminate between egg-infested tomato plants. Similarly, Gontijo et al. [28], did not find any attraction of T. achaea to tomato plants with eggs of T. absoluta. They did find, however, an attraction of T. achaea females to the pheromone of T. absoluta. It has been shown that egg parasitoids utilize the pheromone of their host as a kairomone to locate patches with hosts’ eggs [29,36]. Nevertheless, a number of studies have shown that OIPVs serve as cues for foraging parasitoids [7,8,37]. Although it was first considered as a plant’s response to wound oviposition [7], later studies have shown that oviposition itself is responsible for the induction of qualitative and quantitative changes in the volatile profile of egg-infested plants [15,25]. Plants definitely benefit by an early activation of defense mechanisms by egg deposition, which enhances their defense before any damage can occur [7,38].
In our GC-EAD experiments, several compounds were found to be detectable by female parasitoids’ antennae. Electrophysiological studies on Trichogramma are rare and to our knowledge, no study performing GC-EAD has been conducted. A single study has shown that, using EAG recordings, T. chilonis female antennae responded to several compounds belonging to diverse chemical groups, including monoterpenes and the sesquiterpene β-caryophyllene [39]. In the current study, Trichogramma females responded to OIPVs, such as 3-(Z)-hexen-1-ol. Electrophysiological analyses revealed that Trichogramma females responded mostly to the minor compounds and they did not, however, respond to the main compounds of β-phellandrene, 2-δ-carene, and β-caryophyllene of the tomato volatile blend. Small qualitative differences are usually more important than obvious quantitative differences in volatiles that affect insect behavior [38] Recently, we showed [31] that T. absoluta female antennae can perceive compounds that interfere in oviposition behavior. Compounds, such as β-myrcene and 3-(Z)-hexen-1-ol, were found to also be detectable by T. absoluta females’ antennae. The first one was found to be significantly increased in infested tomato plants while the latter only in infested plants. These compounds seem to have a function in tritrophic interactions. This dual perception by both herbivores and parasitoids confirms that egg deposition produces VOCs that act either as a deterrent for conspecifics or attractant for their natural enemies.
This study confirmed that oviposition by T. absoluta induces changes in the volatiles emitted by tomato plants. In the current study, as many as 68 compounds were isolated from T. absoluta oviposited tomato plants whereas, in a previous study using another technique for volatile collection, 20 compounds were isolated from the same tomato variety [25]. Here, the 68 compounds were isolated from tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs 72 h after oviposition. In a recent study [28], a total of 15 compounds were identified from tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs. The profile reported here is similar to other reported data for tomato plants [40,41,42]. The main components were β-phellandrene, 2-δ-carene, α-phellandrene, and β-caryophyllene. It should be noted that nine compounds were isolated only from tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs and they were not detected on clean plants. In addition, the emission of several compounds differed significantly between control and tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs due to the higher emission rates from oviposited plants. For instance, (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol and methyl-salicylate, which are known HIPVs, were isolated only from tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs. Gontijo et al. [28] found methyl-salicylate in large amounts from tomato plants with eggs but not (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol.
Tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs 72 h after oviposition were found to emit a higher number of volatile compounds and also had increased emission of volatiles compared to tomato plants with T. absoluta eggs at 24 and 48 h as well as to clean tomato plants. It is known that herbivory enhances the emission of plant volatiles, which is used by natural enemies to locate their hosts [43]. In our conditions, egg hatching occurred within 5 days after oviposition. It is likely that eggs were already not suitable for oviposition and the development of Trichogramma larvae. For instance, Trichogramma species parasitized more young eggs than older eggs and even when eggs 4 days old were parasitized, no adults finally emerged from them [44]. This could partly explain the absence of an observed attraction of Trichogramma females in our study towards tomato plants bearing relatively old T. absoluta eggs. Enhanced emission of volatiles by plants as a response to oviposition has been found to be utilized not only by egg parasitoids but also by early larval parasitoids. Larval parasitoids, by distinguishing oviposited plants, have the advantage of locating their hosts at an early developmental stage, which is probably more susceptible to parasitism. Koinobiont parasitoids that attack early larval instars would benefit from being able to identify a plant with eggs close to hatching by saving time and avoiding patches with older host larvae [45].

5. Conclusions

Egg parasitoids distinguish oviposition by T. absoluta tomato plants and respond to individual compounds identified in these plants based on OIPVs. Understanding the plant–insect interactions and elucidating the behavior of egg parasitoids Trichogramma would allow us to manipulate certain interactions to our advantage for proper insect population management with a view to sustainable and biological control of the T. absoluta pest in the cultivation of tomato plants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.G.M.; methodology, E.A. and G.P.; resources, P.G.M.; data curation, E.A., P.G.M., G.P.; writing—original draft preparation, P.G.M.; writing—review and editing, E.A.; supervision, P.G.M.; funding acquisition, P.G.M.

Funding

This research was funded by the General Secretariat Research and Technology of the Greek Ministry of Education within the action “EXCELLENCE II” under the Operational Programme “Education and Lifelong Learning” 2007-2013 that is co-funded by the European Social Fund and National funds.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank N. Papanikolaou and M. Tsipi for technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Dicke, M.; Baldwin, I.T. The evolutionary context for herbivore-induced plant volatiles: Beyond the “cry for help”. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Turlings, T.C.J.; 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Howe, G.A.; Jander, G. Plant Immunity to Insect Herbivores. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 41–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Heil, M. Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytol. 2008, 178, 41–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Agrawal, A.A. Induced plant defense: Evolution of induction and adaptive phenotypic plasticity. Inducible Plant Defenses Against Pathogens and Herbivores: Biochemistry, Ecology, and Agriculture; American Phytopathological Society Press: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1999; pp. 251–268. [Google Scholar]
  6. Agrawal, A.A. Current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence. Funct. Ecol. 2011, 25, 420–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hilker, M.; Fatouros, N.E. Plant responses to insect egg deposition. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2015, 60, 493–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Colazza, S.; McElfresh, J.S.; Millar, J.G. Identification of volatile synomones, induced by Nezara viridula feeding and oviposition on bean spp., that attract the egg parasitoid: Trissolcus basalis. J. Chem. Ecol. 2004, 30, 945–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Colazza, S.; Fucarino, A.; Peri, E.; Salerno, G.; Conti, E.; Bin, F. Insect oviposition induces volatile emission in herbaceous plants that attracts egg parasitoids. J. Exp. Biol. 2004, 207, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Fatouros, N.E.; Bukovinszkine’Kiss, G.; Dicke, M.; Hilker, M. The response specificity of Trichogramma egg parasitoids towards infochemicals during host location. J. Insect Behav. 2007, 20, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Salerno, G.; De Santis, F.; Iacovone, A.; Bin, F.; Conti, E. Short-range cues mediate parasitoid searching behavior on maize: The role of oviposition-induced plant synomones. Biol. Control 2013, 64, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fatouros, N.E.; Cusumano, A.; Danchin, E.G.J.; Colazza, S. Prospects of herbivore egg-killing plant defenses for sustainable crop protection. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 6, 6906–6918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ponzio, C.; Cascone, P.; Cusumano, A.; Weldegergis, B.T.; Fatouros, N.E.; Guerrieri, E.; Dicke, M.; Gols, R. Volatile-mediated foraging behaviour of three parasitoid species under conditions of dual insect herbivore attack. Anim. Behav. 2016, 111, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cusumano, A.; Weldegergis, B.T.; Colazza, S.; Dicke, M.; Fatouros, N.E. Attraction of egg-killing parasitoids toward induced plant volatiles in a multi-herbivore context. Oecologia 2015, 179, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tamiru, A.; Bruce, T.J.A.; Woodcock, C.M.; Caulfield, J.C.; Midega, C.A.O.; Ogol, C.K.P.O.; Mayon, P.; Birkett, M.A.; Pickett, J.A.; Khan, Z.R. Maize landraces recruit egg and larval parasitoids in response to egg deposition by a herbivore. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 1075–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Frati, F.; Cusumano, A.; Conti, E.; Colazza, S.; Peri, E.; Guarino, S.; Martorana, L.; Romani, R.; Salerno, G. Foraging behaviour of an egg parasitoid exploiting plant volatiles induced by pentatomids: The role of adaxial and abaxial leaf surfaces. PeerJ 2017, 5, e3326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Biondi, A.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Wan, F.-H.; Desneux, N. Ecology, Worldwide Spread, and Management of the Invasive South American Tomato Pinworm, Tuta absoluta: Past, Present, and Future. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2018, 63, 239–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Desneux, N.; Wajnberg, E.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G.; Burgio, G.; Arpaia, S.; Narváez-Vasquez, C.A.; González-Cabrera, J.; Ruescas, D.C.; Tabone, E.; Frandon, J.; et al. Biological invasion of European tomato crops by Tuta absoluta: Ecology, geographic expansion and prospects for biological control. J. Pest Sci. 2010, 83, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zappalà, L.; Biondi, A.; Alma, A.; Al-Jboory, I.J.; Arnò, J.; Bayram, A.; Chailleux, A.; El-Arnaouty, A.; Gerling, D.; Guenaoui, Y.; et al. Natural enemies of the South American moth, Tuta absoluta, in Europe, North Africa and Middle East, and their potential use in pest control strategies. J. Pest Sci. 2013, 86, 635–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Urbaneja, A.; González-Cabrera, J.; Arnó, J.; Gabarra, R. Prospects for the biological control of Tuta absoluta in tomatoes of the Mediterranean basin. Pest Manag. Sci. 2012, 68, 1215–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Oliveira, L.; Durão, A.C.; Fontes, J.; Roja, I.S.; Tavares, J. Potential of Trichogramma achaeae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) in Biological Control of Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in Azorean Greenhouse Tomato Crops. J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 2010–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cascone, P.; Carpenito, S.; Slotsbo, S.; Iodice, L.; Sørensen, J.G.; Holmstrup, M.; Guerrieri, E. Improving the efficiency of Trichogramma achaeae to control Tuta absoluta. BioControl 2015, 60, 761–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. De Backer, L.; Megido, R.C.; Fauconnier, M.L.; Brostaux, Y.; Francis, F.; Verheggen, F. Tuta absoluta-induced plant volatiles: Attractiveness towards the generalist predator Macrolophus pygmaeus. Arthropod. Plant. Interact. 2015, 9, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Silva, D.B.; Weldegergis, B.T.; Van Loon, J.J.A.; Bueno, V.H.P.; Van Loon, J.J.A.; Bueno, V.H.P. Qualitative and Quantitative Differences in Herbivore-Induced Plant Volatile Blends from Tomato Plants Infested by Either Tuta absoluta or Bemisia tabaci. J. Chem. Ecol. 2017, 43, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Anastasaki, E.; Balayannis, G.; Papanikolaou, N.E.; Michaelakis, A.N.; Milonas, P.G. Oviposition induced volatiles in tomato plants. Phytochem. Lett. 2015, 13, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Silva, D.B.; Bueno, V.H.P.; Van Loon, J.J.A.; Peñaflor, M.F.G.V.; Bento, J.M.S.; Van Lenteren, J.C. Attraction of Three Mirid Predators to Tomato Infested by Both the Tomato Leaf Mining Moth Tuta absoluta and the Whitefly Bemisia Tab. J. Chem. Ecol. 2018, 44, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bodino, N.; Ferracini, C.; Tavella, L. Is host selection influenced by natal and adult experience in the parasitoid Necremnus tutae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)? Anim. Behav. 2016, 112, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gontijo, L.; Cascone, P.; Giorgini, M.; Michelozzi, M.; Rodrigues, H.S.; Spiezia, G.; Iodice, L.; Guerrieri, E. Relative importance of host and plant semiochemicals in the foraging behavior of Trichogramma achaeae, an egg parasitoid of Tuta absoluta. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 1479–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Milonas, P.G.; Martinou, A.F.; Kontodimas, D.C.; Karamaouna, F.; Konstantopoulou, M.A. Attraction of different Trichogramma species to Prays oleae sex pheromone. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2009, 102, 1145–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zakir, A.; Bengtsson, M.; Sadek, M.M.; Hansson, B.S.; Witzgall, P.; Anderson, P. Specific response to herbivore-induced de novo synthesized plant volatiles provides reliable information for host plant selection in a moth. J. Exp. Biol. 2013, 216, 3257–3263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Anastasaki, E.; Drizou, F.; Milonas, P.G. Electrophysiological and Oviposition Responses of Tuta absoluta Females to Herbivore-Induced Volatiles in Tomato Plants. J. Chem. Ecol. 2018, 44, 288–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Adams, R.P. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, 4th ed.; Allured Pub Corp: Carol Stream, IL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  33. Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis, 3rd ed.; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  34. Song, C.; Lai, W.C.; Reddy, K.M.; Wei, B. Temperature-programmed retention indices for GC and GC-MS of hydrocarbon fuels and simulated distillation GC of heavy oils. In Analytical Advances for Hydrocarbon Research; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 147–210. [Google Scholar]
  35. Maselou, D.A.; Anastasaki, E.; Milonas, P.G. The role of host plants, alternative food resources and herbivore induced volatiles in choice behavior of an omnivorous predator. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 6, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Fatouros, N.E.; Dicke, M.; Mumm, R.; Meiners, T.; Hilker, M. Foraging behavior of egg parasitoids exploiting chemical information. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19, 677–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tamiru, A.; Bruce, T.J.A.; Midega, C.A.O.; Woodcock, C.M.; Birkett, M.A.; Pickett, J.A.; Khan, Z.R. Oviposition Induced Volatile Emissions from African Smallholder Farmers’ Maize Varieties. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 231–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Bruce, T.J.A.; Midega, C.A.O.; Birkett, M.A.; Pickett, J.A.; Khan, Z.R. Is quality more important than quantity? Insect behavioural responses to changes in a volatile blend after stemborer oviposition on an African grass. Biol. Lett. 2009, 6, 314–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Sen, A.; Raina, R.; Joseph, M.; Tungikar, V.B. Response of Trichogramma chilonis to infochemicals: An SEM and electrophysiological investigation. BioControl 2005, 50, 429–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ángeles López, Y.I.; Martínez-Gallardo, N.A.; Ramírez-Romero, R.; López, M.G.; Sánchez-Hernández, C.; Délano-Frier, J.P. Cross-Kingdom Effects of Plant-Plant Signaling via Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Plants Infested by the Greenhouse Whitefly (Trialeurodes vaporariorum). J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 1376–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Buttery, R.G.; Ling, L.C.; Light, D.M. Tomato leaf volatile aroma components. J. Agric. Food Chem 1987, 35, 1039–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kant, M.R.; Ament, K.; Sabelis, M.W.; Haring, M.A.; Schuurink, R.C. Differential timing of spider mite-induced direct and indirect defenses in tomato plants. Plant Physiol. 2004, 135, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Dicke, M. Behavioural and community ecology of plants that cry for help. Plant. Cell Environ. 2009, 32, 654–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Du, W.M.; Xu, J.; Hou, Y.Y.; Lin, Y.; Zang, L.S.; Yang, X.; Zhang, J.J.; Ruan, C.C.; Desneux, N. Trichogramma parasitoids can distinguish between fertilized and unfertilized host eggs. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 771–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fatouros, N.E.; Lucas-Barbosa, D.; Weldegergis, B.T.; Pashalidou, F.G.; van Loon, J.J.A.; Dicke, M.; Harvey, J.A.; Gols, R.; Huigens, M.E. Plant volatiles induced by herbivore egg deposition affect insects of different trophic levels. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e43607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Response of Trichogramma cordubense females towards OIPVs from tomato plants induced by T. absoluta at 24, 48, and 72 h after oviposition. N, the number of replicates, NC, number of individuals with no choice, NS, not significant, * p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Response of Trichogramma cordubense females towards OIPVs from tomato plants induced by T. absoluta at 24, 48, and 72 h after oviposition. N, the number of replicates, NC, number of individuals with no choice, NS, not significant, * p < 0.05.
Insects 10 00437 g001
Figure 2. Response of T. achaeae females towards OIPVs from tomato plants induced by T. absoluta at 24, 48, and 72 h after oviposition. N, the number of replicates, NC, number of individuals with no choice, NS, not significant.
Figure 2. Response of T. achaeae females towards OIPVs from tomato plants induced by T. absoluta at 24, 48, and 72 h after oviposition. N, the number of replicates, NC, number of individuals with no choice, NS, not significant.
Insects 10 00437 g002
Figure 3. Projection to latent structures discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) score plot of the quantities of volatile compounds emitted from Tuta absoluta oviposited plants (24, 48, and 72 h) or control (CO) plants, where the structure of the samples according to the first two PLS components with the explained variance in brackets are visualized. The ellipse defines Hotelling’s T2 confidence region (95%).
Figure 3. Projection to latent structures discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) score plot of the quantities of volatile compounds emitted from Tuta absoluta oviposited plants (24, 48, and 72 h) or control (CO) plants, where the structure of the samples according to the first two PLS components with the explained variance in brackets are visualized. The ellipse defines Hotelling’s T2 confidence region (95%).
Insects 10 00437 g003
Figure 4. Representative GC-EAD response of female T. achaea antenae to volatiles collected from the T. absoluta oviposited tomato plant headspace. There are five successful replicates for each extract. For the number interpretation, please refer to Table 1.
Figure 4. Representative GC-EAD response of female T. achaea antenae to volatiles collected from the T. absoluta oviposited tomato plant headspace. There are five successful replicates for each extract. For the number interpretation, please refer to Table 1.
Insects 10 00437 g004
Table 1. Volatile emissions of compounds emitted from Tuta absoluta oviposited plants and control plants in μg/h ± SE.
Table 1. Volatile emissions of compounds emitted from Tuta absoluta oviposited plants and control plants in μg/h ± SE.
NoRI 1RIL 2CompoundIdentificationControlHours after Ovipositionp Value
24 h48 h72 h
1800800 AoctaneSTD, MS, RI0.004 ± 0.0040.003 ± 0.002nd0.003 ± 0.0030.584
2853853 B(Z)-3-hexen-1-olSTD, MS, RInd 3ndnd0.394 ± 0.3810.097
3858858 Bp-xyleneMS, RI0.003 ± 0.0010.008 ± 0.0050.001 ± 0.0010.008 ± 0.0050.404
4864864 Bm-xyleneMS, RI0.004 ± 0.0020.009 ± 0.0040.002 ± 0.0010.003 ± 0.0030.404
5887890 Bo-xyleneMS, RInd0.003 ± 0.002nd0.006 ± 0.0060.171
6921924 Aa-thujeneMS, RI0.001 ± 0.000 a,50.001 ± 0.000 and a0.005 ± 0.002 b0.018
7932932 Aa-pineneSTD, MS, RI0.553 ± 0.0420.541 ± 0.0380.465 ± 0.0240.727 ± 0.1240.128
8955 Unk 1 4m/z:105, 120, 910.002 ± 0.0020.004 ± 0.0020.004 ± 0.0020.005 ± 0.0020.672
9958 Unk 2m/z:105, 120, 106, 770.005 ± 0.0030.002 ± 0.001nd0.010 ± 0.0070.195
10970970 CverbeneneMS, RI0.381 ± 0.007a0.461 ± 0.055 a,b0.338 ± 0.022 a0.570 ± 0.052 b0.020
11973974 CsabineneSTD, MS, RI0.016 ± 0.0050.036 ± 0.0120.011 ± 0.0040.038 ± 0.0130.199
12978980 Aβ-pineneSTD, MS, RI0.001 ± 0.0010.001 ± 0.001nd0.001 ± 0.00000.498
13990988 Aβ-myrceneSTD, MS, RI0.153 ± 0.0170.181 ± 0.0400.103 ± 0.0140.176 ± 0.0160.091
1410001001 A2-δ-careneMS, RI2.731 ± 0.220 a,b2.435 ± 0.137 a2.190 ± 0.358 a3.883 ± 0.643 b0.032
1510051002 Aα-phellandreneSTD, MS, RI0.462 ± 0.041 a,b0.446 ± 0.009 a0.380 ± 0.047 a0.700 ± 0.086 b0.010
1610151014 Aα-terpineneSTD, MS, RI0.166 ± 0.021 a,b0.161 ± 0.020 a,b0.117 ± 0.027 a0.237 ± 0.027 b0.034
1710241020 Ap-cymeneSTD, MS, RI0.041 ± 0.0170.042 ± 0.0150.012 ± 0.0020.025 ± 0.0080.146
1810291031 Cβ-phellandreneMS, RI7.556 ± 0.358 a8.333 ± 0.419 a,b6.995 ± 0.980 a11.402 ± 0.987 b0.011
1910351032 Ebenzyl alcoholMS, RInd and a0.002 ± 0.001 a,b0.089 ± 0.041 b0.011
2010381037 A(Z)-β-ocimeneMS, RI0.017 ± 0.0030.020 ± 0.0040.006 ± 0.0020.025 ± 0.0090.060
2110491044 A(E)-β-ocimeneSTD, MS, RI0.073 ± 0.004 b0.048 ± 0.010 a0.047 ± 0.006 a0.083 ± 0.017 b0.047
2210591054 Aγ-terpineneSTD, MS, RI0.025 ± 0.001 a0.021 ± 0.002 a0.029 ± 0.006 a,b0.037 ± 0.003 b0.035
2310851086 AterpinoleneSTD, MS, RI0.032 ± 0.004 a,b0.039 ± 0.010 a,b0.026 ± 0.004 a0.049 ± 0.004 b0.029
2411081108 CnonanalSTD, MS, RI0.027 ± 0.0150.095 ± 0.0420.036 ± 0.0160.025 ± 0.0090.336
251115 Terpene 1m/z:93, 136, 121, 91, 790.008 ± 0.002 a,b0.004 ± 0.002 a0.010 ± 0.001 a,b0.017 ± 0.003 b0.011
2611221118 Acis-p-menth-2-en-1-olMS, RIndnd0.001 ± 0.0010.002 ± 0.0010.061
2711241119 Atrans-p-mentha-2,8-dien-1-olMS, RI0.001 ± 0.000nd0.001 ± 0.0010.015 ± 0.0140.102
2811331133 Acis-p-mentha-2,8-dien-1-olMS, RI0.002 ± 0.0010.002 ± 0.0010.002 ± 0.0010.006 ± 0.0020.177
2911411141 AcamphorSTD, MS, RI0.007 ± 0.005nd0.007 ± 0.0050.001 ± 0.0000.357
301173 Unk 3m/z:109,79,910.005 ± 0.004nd0.001 ± 0.0010.007 ± 0.0040.107
3111751177 A(E)-isocitralMS, RI0.004 ± 0.0010.007 ± 0.0040.003 ± 0.0020.019 ± 0.0060.211
3211851184 Adill etherMS, RI0.008 ± 0.0020.007 ± 0.0050.008 ± 0.0020.014 ± 0.0030.151
3311951195 Cmethyl salicylateSTD, MS, RIndanda0.002 ± 0.001a0.025 ± 0.009 b0.001
3412001200 AdodecaneSTD, MS, RI0.022 ± 0.0100.039 ± 0.0180.020 ± 0.0070.031 ± 0.0170.902
3512081208 CdecanalSTD, MS, RI0.014 ± 0.0070.032 ± 0.0130.019 ± 0.0080.015 ± 0.0070.417
3612311232 A(Z)-3-hexenyl-2-methyl butanoateSTD, MS, RInd and a0.004 ± 0.002 b0.003 ± 0.002 a,b0.017
3712371234 Aascaridole 0.003 ± 0.001 bnd a0.001 ± 0.000 a,b0.003 ± 0.001 b0.023
3812471244 Acar-3-en-2-oneMS, RI0.001 ± 0.001ndnd0.001 ± 0.0000.095
3913001300 AtridecaneSTD, MS, RI0.022 ± 0.0100.011 ± 0.0060.015 ± 0.0080.007 ± 0.0020.478
401304 Unk 4m/z:97, 54, 690.003 ± 0.0010.001 ± 0.0010.001 ± 0.0010.004 ± 0.0020.112
4113331335 Aδ-elemeneMS, RI0.132 ± 0.0160.173 ± 0.0270.111 ± 0.0200.195 ± 0.0440.448
421349 Ester 1m/z: 71, 830.001 ± 0.001ndnd0.010 ± 0.0070.100
431355 Unk 4m/z:57, 71, 850.001 ± 0.001ndnd0.017 ± 0.0150.100
441370 Ester 2m/z:71, 89, 560.001 ± 0.0010.001 ± 0.001nd0.002 ± 0.0020.265
4513741374 Aα-copaeneMS, RI0.013 ± 0.0070.002 ± 0.0020.001 ± 0.0010.010 ± 0.0020.053
4613871389 Aβ-elemeneSTD, MS, RI0.016 ± 0.0020.034 ± 0.0120.014 ± 0.0030.038 ± 0.0120.126
4714001400 AtetradecaneSTD, MS, RI0.059 ± 0.0280.061 ± 0.0280.034 ± 0.0170.033 ± 0.0100.763
4814171417 Aβ-caryophylleneSTD, MS, RI0.367 ± 0.0280.341 ± 0.0330.263 ± 0.0450.517 ± 0.1150.164
4914271432 Dγ-elemeneMS, RI0.005 ± 0.0020.002 ± 0.0020.002 ± 0.0000.007 ± 0.0020.056
5014391442 Aguaidiene-6,9MS, RI0.010 ± 0.0010.020 ± 0.0060.008 ± 0.0020.014 ± 0.0040.179
5114471448 Amuurola-3,5-dieneMS, RI0.005 ± 0.0020.001 ± 0.001nd0.003 ± 0.0010.085
5214591459 Dα-humuleneSTD, MS, RI0.077 ± 0.0080.075 ± 0.0060.050 ± 0.0080.103 ± 0.0230.114
5314811484 Agermacrene DMS, RI0.011 ± 0.0000.009 ± 0.0030.010 ± 0.0030.016 ± 0.0030.281
5414951500 Aα-muuroleneMS, RI0.006 ± 0.002 b0.001 ± 0.001 a0.001 ± 0.001 a0.005 ± 0.001 b0.008
5515001500 ApentadecaneSTD, MS, RI0.011 ± 0.0060.018 ± 0.0060.009 ± 0.0030.014 ± 0.0050.207
5615041508 Αgermacrene ΑMS, RI0.001 ± 0.001 bnd and a0.004 ± 0.003 b0.020
571524 Terpene 2m/z:121, 93, 91, 105, 1610.001 ± 0.000 a0.001 ± 0.000 and a0.003 ± 0.001 b0.003
581552 Unk 5m/z:55, 83, 690.005 ± 0.002 b0.001 ± 0.001 a0.001 ± 0.000a0.005 ± 0.002 b0.007
5915571559 Agermacrene BMS, RI0.008 ± 0.002 b0.016 ± 0.005 b0.002 ± 0.001a0.008 ± 0.002 b0.018
6015621561 AnerolidolSTD, MS, RI0.007 ± 0.003 c0.001 ± 0.001 bnd a,b0.008 ± 0.002 c0.002
6115741573 C(Ε-Ε)-TMTTMS, RI0.016 ± 0.0040.014 ± 0.0070.003 ± 0.0010.004 ± 0.0010.152
6215811582 Acaryophyllene oxideSTD, MS, RI0.008 ± 0.0020.003 ± 0.0020.006 ± 0.0010.013 ± 0.0050.229
631598 Terpene 3m/z:93, 80, 121, 149nd and and a0.017 ± 0.015 b0.003
6416001600 AhexadecaneSTD, MS, RI0.278 ± 0.1450.136 ± 0.0550.117 ± 0.0560.146 ± 0.0680.831
6516081608 AHumulene epoxide IIMS, RI0.004 ± 0.004ndnd0.044 ± 0.0310.222
661621 Terpene 4 m/z: 81, 161, 105, 119, 93ndnd0.016 ± 0.0110.080 ± 0.0680.195
6716301630 Amuurola-4,10 (14)-dien-1b-olMS, RI0.004 ± 0.0010.002 ± 0.001nd0.011 ± 0.0060.078
6816411639 AAllo-aromadendrene epoxideMS, RIndndnd0.081 ± 0.0800.222
Total 13.40 ± 0.43 a13.90 ± 0.41 a11.51 ± 1.35 a20.08 ± 1.91 b0.005
1 Retention Index relative to C8–C20 n-alkanes on a VF5ms column. 2 Retention Index obtained from [32] A, [34] B, [31] C, [25] D, [35] E. 3 not detected. 4 Unknown. 5 Means followed by different letter (a, b, c) within a row, are significantly differ based on the Kruskal–Wallis test (p = 0.05).
Table 2. Values of variable importance to the projection (VIP) of volatiles.
Table 2. Values of variable importance to the projection (VIP) of volatiles.
No.CompoundVIP Value
1α-phellandrene1.97
22-δ-carene1.92
3β-phellandrene1.88
4benzyl alcohol1.84
5verbenene1.75
6α-terpinene1.70
7β-caryophyllene1.54
8β-myrcene1.52
9δ-elemene1.42
10nonanal1.40
11α-pinene1.39
12p-cymene1.29
13(E)-β-ocimene1.28
14allo-aromadendrene epoxide1.26
15γ-terpinene1.24
16α-humulene1.23
17germacrene B1.22
18(E)-isocitral1.18
19terpinolene1.14
20muurola-4,10 (14)-dien-1b-ol1.14
21β-elemene1.13
22sabinene1.13
23unknown 51.10
24p-xylene1.09
25terpene 11.07
26hydrocarbon 11.06
27camphor1.03
28unknown 21.00

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Milonas, P.G.; Anastasaki, E.; Partsinevelos, G. Oviposition-Induced Volatiles Affect Electrophysiological and Behavioral Responses of Egg Parasitoids. Insects 2019, 10, 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10120437

AMA Style

Milonas PG, Anastasaki E, Partsinevelos G. Oviposition-Induced Volatiles Affect Electrophysiological and Behavioral Responses of Egg Parasitoids. Insects. 2019; 10(12):437. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10120437

Chicago/Turabian Style

Milonas, Panagiotis G, Eirini Anastasaki, and Georgios Partsinevelos. 2019. "Oviposition-Induced Volatiles Affect Electrophysiological and Behavioral Responses of Egg Parasitoids" Insects 10, no. 12: 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10120437

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