Advertisement

Chemoecology

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 39–49 | Cite as

Scents in orchards: floral volatiles of four stone fruit crops and their attractiveness to pollinators

  • Ashraf M. El-Sayed
  • Andrew Sporle
  • Kate Colhoun
  • Jess Furlong
  • Robyn White
  • David M. Suckling
Original Article

Abstract

Stone fruit crops grow in various regions around the world and are highly valued for their nutritional content, delicious taste, and economic importance, with an annual worldwide production of up to 42 million tonnes. In spite of their importance as a food resource, little is known about the chemistry of the floral volatiles of these crops, especially in relation to plant–pollinator interactions. In this study, the floral volatiles from four major stone fruit crops (apricot, Prunus armeniaca L.; plum, Prunus domestica L.; cherry, Prunus avium L.; and peach, Prunus persica L.) were collected and analysed by coupled gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). This was followed by several field trials, where selected floral volatiles were tested for attractiveness to flower visitors and pollinators. Twenty-six floral volatile compounds were identified in the headspace of the four Prunus spp. Benzaldehyde was present in the headspace of all four species. The norisoprenoid 4-oxoisophorone and lilac aldehyde were the main compounds in the headspace of P. armeniaca, P. domestica, and P. avium. The floral headspace of P. persica was distinct from the other three Prunus species, with 3,5-dimethoxytoluene being the most prominent compound (> 95%). In the field trapping trials, 4-oxoisophorone was attractive to various flower visitor species in a number of habitats when tested alone or in combination with benzaldehyde. Similarly, 3,5-dimethoxytoluene attracted several flower visitor species when tested alone or in combination with benzaldehyde. Our finding suggests that chemical cues are an important signal in plant–pollinator interactions in the four stone fruit species. This work provides the first detailed analysis of the floral volatiles of these important crops, especially in the context of plant–pollinator interactions. The floral compounds identified in this study could be used to enhance pollination of these important crops, either by direct application in the field (i.e. slow-release device) to enhance pollinator foraging or by training pollinators on such signature compounds to enhance flower visitation.

Keywords

Plant–pollinator interactions Inflorescences Prunus domestica Prunus armeniaca Prunus avium Prunus persica 2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexene-1,4-dione 4-Oxoisophorone, 3,5-Dimethoxytoluene 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited with core funds from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.

References

  1. Andersson S (2003) Antennal responses to floral scents in the butterflies Inachis io, Aglais urticae (Nymphalidae), and Gonepteryx rhamni (Pieridae). Chemoecology 13:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burger H, Dötterl S, Ayasse M (2010) Host-plant finding and recognition by visual and olfactory floral cues in an oligolectic bee. Funct Ecol 24:1234–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clare G, Suckling DM, Bradley SJ, Walker JTS, Shaw PW, Daly JM, McLaren GF, Wearing CH (2000) Pheromone trap colour determines catch of non-target insects. New Zealand Plant Protection 53:216–220Google Scholar
  4. Dötterl S, Füssel U, Jürgens A, Aas G (2005) 1,4-Dimethoxybenzene, a floral scent compound in willows that attracts an oligolectic bee. J Chem Ecol 31:2993–2998CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dötterl S, Gluck U, Jürgens A, Woodring J, Aas G (2014) Floral reward, advertisement and attractiveness to honey bees in dioecious Salix caprea. PLoS ONE 9:e93421CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. El-Sayed AM (2018) The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. http://www.pherobase.com
  7. El-Sayed AM, Suckling DM (2005) Behavioural observations of mating disruption in three lepidopteran pests. Behaviour 142:717–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. El-Sayed AM, Cole L, Revell J, Manning L-A, Twidle A, Knight AL, Bus VGM, Suckling DM (2013) Apple volatiles synergize the response of codling moth to pear ester. J Chem Ecol 39:643–652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. El-Sayed AM, Unelius RC, Suckling DM (2018) Honey norisoprenoids attract bumblebees, Bombus terrestris, in New Zealand mountain beech forest margins (Submitted)Google Scholar
  10. Erber J (1978) Response characteristics and after effects of multimodal neurones in the mushroom body area of the honeybee. Physiol Entomol 3:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giurfa M, Vorobyev M, Kevan P, Menzel R (1996) Detection of coloured stimuli by honeybees: minimum visual angles and receptor specific contrasts. J Comp Physiol A 178:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hahn M, Bruhl CA (2016) The secret pollinators: an overview of moth pollination with a focus on Europe and North America. Arthropod Plant Interact 10:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hao R, Du D, Wang T, Yang W, Wang J, Zhang QA (2014) A comparative analysis of characteristic floral scent compounds in Prunus mume and related species. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 78:1640–1647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Heine EM (1938) Observations on the pollination of New Zealand flowering plants. Trans R Sac Soc NZ 67:133–148Google Scholar
  15. Hermansen TD, Britton DR, Ayre DJ, Minchinton TE (2014) Identifying the real pollinators? Exotic honeybees are the dominant flower visitors and only effective pollinators of Avicennia marina in Australian temperate mangroves. Estuar Coast 37:621–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howlett BG, Donovan BJ, Mccallum JA, Newstrom LE, Teulon DAJ (2005) Between and within field variability of New Zealand indigenous flower visitors to onion. NZ Plant Protection 58:213–218Google Scholar
  17. Howlett BG, Walker MK, Newstrom-Lloyd LE, Donovan BJ, Teulon DAJ (2009) Window traps and direct observations record similar arthropod flower visitor assemblages in two mass flowering crops. J Appl Entomol 133:553–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jürgens A, Glück U, Aas G, Dötterl S (2014) Diel fragrance pattern correlates with olfactory preferences of diurnal and nocturnal flower visitors in Salix caprea (Salicaceae). Bot J Linn Soc 175:624–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kevan PG, Baker HG (1983) Insects as flower visitors and pollinators. Ann Rev Entomol 28:407–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knudsen JT, Andersson S, Bergman P (1999) Floral scent attraction in Geonoma macrostachys, an understorey palm of the Amazonian rain forest. Oikos 85:409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kunze J, Gumbert A (2001) The combined effect of color and odor on flower choice behavior of bumble bees in flower mimicry systems. Behav Ecol 12:447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landolt PJ, Cha D, Davis TS (2014) Attraction of the orange mint moth and false celery leaftier moth (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) to floral chemical lures. J Econ Entomol 107:654–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Molet M, Chittka L, Raine NE (2009) Potential application of the bumblebee foraging recruitment pheromone for commercial greenhouse pollination. Apidologie Springer Verlag 40:608–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newstrom L, Robertson AW (2005) Progress in understanding pollination systems in New Zealand. NZ J Bot 43:1–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newstrom-Lloyd LE (2013) Pollination in New Zealand. In: Dymond JR (ed) Ecosystem services in New Zealand—conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, pp 408–431Google Scholar
  26. Omura H, Honda K (2005) Priority of color over scent during flower visitation by adult Vanessa indica butterflies. Oecologia 142:588–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Paldi N, Zilber S, Shafir S (2003) Associative olfactory learning of honeybees to differential rewards in multiple contexts: effect of odor component and mixture similarity. J Chem Ecol 29:2515–2538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Primante C, Dötterl SA (2010) Syrphid fly uses olfactory cues to find a non-yellow flower. J Chem Ecol 36:1207–1210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rader R, Howlett BG, Cunningham SA, Westcott DA, Newstrom-Lloyd LE, Walker M, Teulon DA, Edwards W (2009) Alternative pollinator taxa are equally efficient but not as effective as the honeybee in a mass flowering crop. J Appl Ecol 46:1080–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Radulovic NS, Dordevic AS, Zlatkovic BK, Palic RM (2009) GC–MS analyses of flower ether extracts of Prunus domestica L. and Prunus padus L. (Rosaceae). Chem Pap 63:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rapparini F, Baraldi R, Facini O (2001) Seasonal variation of monoterpene emission from Malus domestica and Prunus avium. Phytochemistry 57:681–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Reinhard J, Sinclair M, Srinivasan MV, Claudianos C (2010) Honeybees learn odour mixtures via a selection of key odorants. PLoS One 5:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reverte S, Retana J, Gomez JM, Bosch J (2016) Pollinators show flower colour preferences but flowers with similar colours do not attract similar pollinators. Ann Bot 118:249–257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. SAS Institute Inc (1998) Statview. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  35. Suckling DM, Stringer LD, Jiménez-Pérez A, Walter GH, Sullivan NJ, El-Sayed AM (2018) With or without pheromone habituation: possible differences between insect orders? Pest Manag Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4828 Google Scholar
  36. Watanabe I, Takazawa O, Warita Y, Awano KI (1993) Volatile components of apricot flowers. In: Teranishi R, Buttery RG, Sugisawa H (eds) Bioactive volatile compounds from plants. American Chemical Society, Washington, pp. 220–228.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-1993-0525.ch016

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashraf M. El-Sayed
    • 1
  • Andrew Sporle
    • 1
  • Kate Colhoun
    • 2
  • Jess Furlong
    • 1
  • Robyn White
    • 1
  • David M. Suckling
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research LimitedLincolnNew Zealand
  2. 2.The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research LimitedAlexandraNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations