Synergistic effects of amides from two piper species on generalist and specialist herbivores.
Plants use a diverse mix of defenses against herbivores, including multiple secondary metabolites, which often affect herbivores synergistically. Chemical defenses also can affect natural enemies of herbivores via limiting herbivore populations or by affecting herbivore resistance to parasitoids. In this study, we performed feeding experiments to examine the synergistic effects of imides and amides (hereafter "amides") from Piper cenocladum and P. imperiale on specialist (Eois nympha, Geometridae) and generalist (Spodoptera frugiperda, Noctuidae) lepidopteran larvae. Each Piper species has three unique amides, and in each experiment, larvae were fed diets containing different concentrations of single amides or combinations of the three. The amides from P. imperiale had negative synergistic effects on generalist survival and specialist pupal mass, but had no effect on specialist survival. Piper cenocladum amides also acted synergistically to increase mortality caused by parasitoids, and the direct negative effects of mixtures on parasitoid resistance and pupal mass were stronger than indirect effects via changes in growth rate and approximate digestibility. Our results are consistent with plant defense theory that predicts different effects of plant chemistry on generalist versus adapted specialist herbivores. The toxicity of Piper amide mixtures to generalist herbivores are standard bottom-up effects, while specialists experienced the top-down mediated effect of mixtures causing reduced parasitoid resistance and associated decreases in pupal mass.
Richards
Lora A
LA
Department of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 N. Virginia Street, Reno, NV 89557, USA. lorar@unr.edu
Dyer
Lee A
LA
Smilanich
Angela M
AM
Dodson
Craig D
CD
D000577:Amides / Q000494:pharmacology*; D000818:Animals; D005247:Feeding Behavior; D007094:Imides / Q000494:pharmacology; D007814:Larva / Q000187:drug effects / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism; D007915:Lepidoptera / Q000145:classification / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism; D031701:Piper / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000145:classification / Q000502:physiology*; D010945:Plants, Edible; D013045:Species Specificity; D018411:Spodoptera / Q000187:drug effects / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism
D000577:Amides; D007094:Imides
J Chem Ecol. 2001 Mar;27(3):581-92
11441447
Oecologia. 1978 Jan;33(1):71-86
28309267
J Chem Ecol. 2008 Feb;34(2):132-43
18231835
J Insect Sci. 2009;9:28
19613860
Annu Rev Entomol. 2006;51:163-85
16332208
J Chem Ecol. 2003 Nov;29(11):2499-514
14682530
J Chem Ecol. 1991 Jan;17(1):207-15
24258446
J Chem Ecol. 2005 Feb;31(2):287-302
15856784
J Chem Ecol. 2008 Apr;34(4):558-74
18317843
J Chem Ecol. 1981 Nov;7(6):927-46
24420821
Oecologia. 2005 May;143(4):548-57
15791428
J Chem Ecol. 1986 Jun;12(6):1319-28
24307111
Ecol Lett. 2009 Jul;12(7):612-21
19392713
J Chem Ecol. 2007 May;33(5):1013-23
17415626
Oecologia. 2003 Apr;135(2):258-67
12698348
J Chem Ecol. 1995 May;21(5):507-23
24234247
Ecol Lett. 2007 Jun;10(6):499-511
17498149
Trends Ecol Evol. 1994 Jun;9(6):214-7
21236825
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Feb 15;97(4):1433-7
10677479
Phytochemistry. 2000 Jan;53(1):51-4
10656407
J Chem Ecol. 1985 Oct;11(10):1349-58
24311178
PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4796
19274098
Phytochemistry. 2009 May;70(7):880-8
19476960
Oecologia. 2009 May;160(2):299-308
19271243