Emission of alarm pheromone in aphids: a non-contagious phenomenon.

Department of Functional and Evolutionary Entomology, Gembloux Agricultural University, Passage des Déportés 2, Gembloux, Belgium.
Journal of Chemical Ecology (Impact Factor: 2.24). 10/2008; 34(9):1146-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-008-9528-x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In response to attack by natural enemies, most aphid species release an alarm pheromone that causes nearby conspecifics to cease feeding and disperse. The primary component of the alarm pheromone of most species studied is (E)-beta-farnesene. We recently demonstrated that the production and accumulation of (E)-beta-farnesene during development by juvenile aphids is stimulated by exposure to odor cues, most likely by (E)-beta-farnesene emitted by other colony members. Here, we tested whether the release of (E)-beta-farnesene can be triggered by exposure to the alarm pheromone of other individuals, thereby amplifying the signal. Such contagious emission might be adaptive under some conditions because the amount of (E)-beta-farnesene released by a single aphid may not be sufficient to alert an appropriate number of individuals of the colony to the presence of a potential threat. By using a push-pull headspace collection system, we quantified (E)-beta-farnesene released from Acyrthosiphon pisum aphids exposed to conspecific alarm signals. Typical avoidance behavior was observed following exposure to (E)-beta-farnesene (i.e., aphids ceased feeding and dropped from host-plant); however, no increase in alarm pheromone amount was detected, suggesting that contagious release of (E)-beta-farnesene does not occur.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aphids are the major pests of arable crops, mostly in temperate regions. They are monophagous as well as polyphagous. They inflict damage in brassica, potato, cotton, vegetable and fruit crops. They damage their host plant directly by feeding upon their phloem sap, or indirectly by transmitting pathogens to them. Their life cycle can be autoecious as well as heteroecious. Aphids use semiochemicals for various purposes, in gathering information from their environment and for communication among themselves. They protect themselves from predators and parasitoids by escape response which is arbitrated by use of alarm pheromone signalling. When alarm pheromone, (E)-ß-farnesene, is released, nearby aphids exhibit a variety of behaviours like moving away, running, dropping off the plant and even attacking the predator. Previous studies of integrated pest management strategies have been aimed at the usage of alarm pheromone. However, scientists require complete knowledge of aphid ecology as well as aphid interaction with its natural enemies to establish efficient and viable biological control. This review presents analysis of the existing aphid pest management methodologies and effectiveness of alarm pheromone on aphids and their natural enemies.
    Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection 01/2014; 47(13). DOI:10.1080/03235408.2013.851331
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Collective fleeing is a complex process resulting from a network of environmental stimuli and inter-individual interactions. Studies on fleeing behaviour have focused on the information spread initiated by a few stimulated individuals. Our goal was to link individuals’ responses to the collective fleeing dynamics for gregarious insects simultaneously exposed to a stimulus. We found that an information cascade process occurs in groups of cockroaches, Periplaneta americana, simultaneously exposed to a light stimulus. Moreover, the global fleeing pattern depended on group size. The steps of the response (reacting to the stimulus, finding an opening and leaving the shelter) differed in their sensitivity to group size. First, immobile individuals inhibited the fleeing response, while moving individuals amplified it. Second, once individuals had reacted, they reached an opening and stopped. Their low probability per unit time of finding this opening was constant regardless of group size or the mobility level of group members. Finally, the individual probability of leaving the shelter increased with the number of moving individuals still inside. We integrated the different behavioural steps, analysed independently, into a stochastic model. The results based on this model are in agreement with our experimental observations. This model constitutes a template that enables the exploration of the influence of environmental and social factors at work in other species and situations.
    06/2013; 85(6-6):1271-1285. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.03.014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Natural enemies have long been used in biological control programs to mitigate the damage caused by herbivory. Many herbivorous insect species also act as plant virus vectors, enabling virus transmission from plant to plant and hence disease development in a plant population. Whilst an intuitive assumption would be to expect a decrease in vector numbers to lead to subsequent reductions in virus transmission, recent evidence suggests that introduction of natural enemies (parasitoids and predators) may in some cases increase plant virus transmission while at the same time reducing vector numbers. In this paper we review the evidence for plant-virus-vector-natural enemy interactions, the signalling mechanisms involved and their implications for virus transmission, and show how a modelling approach can assist in identifying the key parameters and relationships involved in determining the disease outcome. A mathematical model linking the population dynamics of a vector-parasitoid system with virus transmission was used to investigate the effects of virus inoculation and acquisition rates, parasitoid attack rate and vector aggregation on disease dynamics across a wide range of parameter value combinations. Virus spread was found to increase with enhanced inoculation, acquisition and parasitoid attack rate but decrease with high levels of vector aggregation.
    European Journal of Plant Pathology 01/2012; 133(1). DOI:10.1007/s10658-011-9913-0 · 1.71 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 16, 2014