title: Why do distance limitations exist on plant-plant signaling via airborne volatiles?
abstract: Plant volatiles are known to mediate many important ecological interactions between plants and insects. Plants themselves have also been shown to perceive volatile signals, but the short transmission distances documented thus far in nature raise questions about the ecological significance of plant-to-plant signaling. Recently, we reported that herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) can function within an individual plant to overcome vascular constraints on systemic wound signaling. Within-plant signaling is consistent with the limited distances over which HIPVs have been shown to be perceived by plants. However, it remains unclear why these distance limitations should exist. Such limitations cannot be explained by volatile transport distance alone, since parasitoids respond to HIPVs over much greater distances. Thus, we suggest that the apparent distance limitations on plant-to-plant volatile signaling may arise from the mechanisms by which volatile signals are received by plants. These limitations may reflect physiological constraints on plants' ability to perceive volatiles or an adaptive mechanism to avoid responding to signals from other plants. Distinguishing between these possibilities will require additional research into the mechanisms of signal reception, about which little is currently known. Deciphering the ecological significance of HIPVs as phytohormones depends on understanding the mechanisms of HIPV reception.
authors.affiliation: Center for Chemical Ecology; Pennsylvania State University; University Park; Pennsylvania USA.
authors.forename: Christopher J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Frost
authors.forename: Mark C
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: Mescher
authors.forename: John E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Carlson
authors.forename: Consuelo M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: De Moraes
references.citation: Nature. 2000 Aug 3;406(6795):512-5
references.pmid: 10952311
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 2005 May;31(5):1023-38
references.pmid: 16124230
references.citation: Science. 2006 Sep 29;313(5795):1964-7
references.pmid: 17008532
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2007 Jun;10(6):490-8
references.pmid: 17498148
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 2005 Oct;31(10):2231-42
references.pmid: 16195841
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 27;104(13):5467-72
references.pmid: 17360371
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Nov 1;15(11):446
references.pmid: 11050342
references.citation: Plant Cell. 2004 Feb;16(2):523-32
references.pmid: 14729912
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 2004 Aug;135(4):1893-902
references.pmid: 15326281
references.citation: Science. 2006 Feb 10;311(5762):812-5
references.pmid: 16469918
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Mar 29;410(6828):577-80
references.pmid: 11279494
references.citation: Z Naturforsch C J Biosci. 2005 Sep-Oct;60(9-10):743-56
references.pmid: 16320618
references.citation: Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2002 Aug;5(4):351-4
references.pmid: 12179970
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Apr;87(4):922-30
references.pmid: 16676536
references.citation: Oecologia. 2006 Jun;148(2):280-92
references.pmid: 16463175
references.citation: Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2006 Oct;19(10):1062-71
references.pmid: 17022170
references.citation: Science. 1983 Jul 15;221(4607):277-9
references.pmid: 17815197
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Nov 7;103(45):16672-6
references.pmid: 17075049
references.citation: Science. 1990 Nov 30;250(4985):1251-3
references.pmid: 17829213
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Feb 10;101(6):1781-5
references.pmid: 14749516
references.citation: Plant J. 1998 Dec;16(5):561-9
references.pmid: 10036774
references.citation: Nat Chem Biol. 2007 Jul;3(7):408-14
references.pmid: 17576428
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Jun 14;411(6839):854-6
references.pmid: 11459069
references.citation: Plant J. 2008 Jan;53(2):197-213
references.pmid: 17971036