Team:KU Leuven/Project/Ecological/wetlab

In order to validate the BanAphids model, we decided to investigate the effect of the two substances, E-β-farnesene (EBF) and methyl salicylate (MeS) on aphids. Once we started our project, we noticed that we were not the only ones approaching this agricultural problem from this angle. Research groups like Rothamsted are currently investigating the use of EBF to repel aphids as well, but in the form of GM crops. Other areas of the industry were also interested in our project such as Biobest, worldwide leader in sustainable crop protection and pcfruit, whose mission is to research prospects for biological fruit growing, new crop protection methods, etc. We were invited to perform our insect experiments at Biobest and pcfruit to validate our BanAphids model. We attempted to determine the working concentrations of our two substances in pure form and to examine the preference of aphids and their predators under different conditions and environments. With the data we have collected so far, we can observe that these two substances indeed do have an effect on aphids.

What we wanted the insects to do

Through many years of research, it has been found that E-β-farnesene (EBF) is the most common compound of the aphid's alarm pheromones. The general response to this signal is a change in gene expression that will agitate the aphids, causing them to leave the plant. We tried to prove this using the synthetic compound EBF (Sigma-Aldrich, farnesene, mixture of isomers). EBF also works as an insect attractant. We also tried to prove the kairomone effect of methyl salicylate (Sigma-Aldrich, methyl salicylate ≥99%) through the use of the synthetic compound. We experimented with three different set-ups to determine a range working concentrations of MeS and EBF on the insects. A description of the natural enemies (ladybugs, green lacewings and parasitic wasps) and aphids, we received from biobest and employed in our experiments, is given here.

Natural Enemies

1. The aphid's natural enemies were subjected to a choice experiment. Starting from a determined point on our set-up, the insects were released and given a choice between one of the five MeS concentrations and a control solution, which was the solvent used (in this case ethanol). The insects were given 1 to 3 mins to make a choice. After our first day at Biobest we had very disappointing results, there was no clear reaction to be seen to either the MeS or the control solution. This could be the result of performing the experiments under a fume hood, this might have resulted in the rapid elimination of MeS.

2. With advice from Biobest we tried some troubleshooting, we diluted MeS and EBF in other solvents, in particular, hexane and paraffin oil. We chose to use paraffin oil because MeS is a volatile and paraffin oil would allow the slow release of this volatile, giving the insects more time to respond to MeS. Under the advice from Prof. Felix Wäckers and dr. Veerle Mommaerts, we also tried to prime the insects first. Practically, priming the insects means that we let a few predator/parasitoid insects loose on a washed aphid-infested leaf. The insects that showed interest in the leaf, this means that the insect was walking around in search of aphids, were further used in the behavioural experiments. We also tried the experiment with a fan, mimicking a wind tunnel, that blows in the direction of the insects so that the MeS fumes are blown toward the insect. In these set of experiments we used an aphid infested leaf as a control compared to responses to the infested leaf introduced with one of the five MeS or EBF concentrations. This however did not demonstrate any clear behaviour form the insects other than random movement. We contemplated yet again which parameters we could change, we thought that the insects were maybe more interested in their new 'strange' environment, the set-up, than the substances but other than changing the set-up, the concentrations we used and the solvent, we didn't see many other variables that could have affected our results.

3. After talking to Tim Belien of pcfruit, he offered us their Y-tube olfactometer and their lab. We compared again all the five MeS concentrations with the control in a Y-tube olfactometer. The lady bug adults were first released into the Y-tube to become habituated with the set-up, before being exposed to MeS or EBF. We could see an obvious attraction of three ladybugs in a row at a MeS concentration of 0,1 ng/ml. But after changing the side of the Y-tube in which MeS was released, we could not see the attraction anymore. We think that the Y-tube olfactometer was not clean enough and that there was still some MeS on the other tube as well. We saw repulsion of all ladybugs at a MeS concentration of 100 ng/ml, demonstrating the upper limit of MeS concentrations. These experiments gave us an indication of the working MeS concentrations.

Repellent effect of EBF on Aphids

Several different EBF concentrations were released below an sweet pepper infested plant. The behaviour of the aphids was observed for an hour after the releas of the alarmpheromone. We first used pure EBF because we were afraid that there was no response. In the beginning of the experiment, we could se some movement of the aphids, but not for them all. After 20 min, they were again on the plant sucking sap. Probably, the high concentration of EBF made them all insensitive for other lower concentrations.

What we expected the plants to do

The effects of EBF on aphids are described thoroughly in different articles, in contrary to their responses to MeS. MeS is a critical signal molecule in the induction of plant defence mechanisms and therefore it should have a negative effect on the aphids. According to the optimal defence theory, a plant will protect its most valuable parts when under attack, for instance, their reproductive parts and terminal leaves. We therefore expected to see a redistribution of the aphids to the lower leaves after induction with MeS. A plant has different defence pathways depending on the site of infection, the roots or the leaves, we therefore used two different induction methods. We induced the plants with five different concentrations of MeS through the roots with water and via spraying with ethanol on the leaves. If you would like to find out how to practically induce a plant, please look at our protocol. 48h (day 2 of the experiment) post-MeS induction, 15 of the smallest aphids were placed on the head of the plant so that the following generation would be the F1 generation and the plants were placed individually in nets. The distribution and total number of aphids were examined on day 7 and day 10.

Total aphid population - root induced

On day 7 and 10, we examined the total amount of aphids on the plants and found that all the plants still had around 15 aphids. We expected to see no change in the total amount of aphids on the plants (15 aphids), since the aphids should not be able to reproduce yet. We see that the amount of aphids is around 15 aphids demonstrating that replication has not occurred yet amongst the control plants and the MeS induced plant. We see that amongst the plants induced with the highest MeS concentrations (0,4; 0,8 and 1 ng/ml) that there seems to be a trend of slightly higher amount of aphids. The aphids on the plants induced with the lowest MeS concentrations (0,01 and 0,1 ng/ml) seemed to show no difference when compared to the control. This needs to be compared to data from day 10 before we can draw any conclusions. On some plants there is much more than 15 aphids but this is probably the result of contamination while placing the aphids on the plant. On day 10 we see that now the lower concentrations of MeS contain more aphids than the higher MeS concentrations and the control.

Total aphid population - leaf induced

We see here approximately the same results as the total aphid population via root induction. On day 7 we see a slight increase in aphid population, again amongst the plants induced with the highest MeS concentrations (0,4; 0,8 and 1 ng/ml), but on day 10 we see that the aphid population seems to be the highest amongst plants induced with the lowest MeS concentrations (0,01 and 0,1 ng/ml). This is similar to what can be seen when the plants are induced via the roots.

Is the aphid population affected?

On day 7, there is a small variation in aphid population but not so different from the control. This is expected since reproduction should not be possible yet. On day 10, we see that the plants induced with highest MeS concentrations (0,4; 0,8 and 1 ng/ml) are less populated than the control plant. This could be a demonstration of the plant's defence against aphids, in reducing their reproductive capacity. We also noticed an increased amount of winged aphids on these highest MeS concentration induced plants compared to the lowest concentrations and the control. This indicates that the aphids were motivated to leave the plant. The plants induced with the lowest MeS concentrations (0,01 and 0,1 ng/ml) did not show much change in aphid population compared to the control. It is possible that these concentrations of MeS were too low to induce the plant's defence mechanisms so that these results don't differ much from the control. These conclusions don't differ much between the two different induction methods.

Aphid distribution on the plant - root induced

After counting all the aphids on the plant, we calculated the number of aphids in the head of the plant. Normally, aphids prefer the head of the plant, on the young leaves. According to the optimal defence theory, we expect the MeS induced plant to protect it's most valuable parts, this includes the head of the plant, so that these parts become unattractive for aphids and they redistribute themselves. We can see that the control has the highest percentage of aphids in the top of the plant, but the difference is the most clear with the plants induced through the roots.

Aphid distribution on the plant - leaf induced

Induction of the plants with MeS results in a redistribution of the aphids to the lower leaves, just like the optimal defence theory predicts. The younger leaves are more valuable for the plants and are therefore better provided with defence mechanisms. The redistribution of the aphids is more clear in the plants induced through the roots, in contrary to the plants induced via spraying on the leaves. The percentage of aphids in the head of the plant in leaf induced control plants is significantly less than in root induced control plants. It is difficult to explain why this is, this also means that amongst the leaf-induced plants, the distribution doesn't differ much from the control. We see in the root-induced plants that the percentage of aphids in the head of the plant is less than in the control plant. This acts as a good control in this case.

Fitness impact of the MeS induction

During the experiment we noticed a clear difference in plant growth rates between the two methods of induction. The plants induced via their leaves were much bigger than the plants induced through their roots, even though the plants induced via the leaf suffered actual ethanol damage.