Next Article in Journal
Effects of Exogenous Isosteviol on the Physiological Characteristics of Brassica napus Seedlings under Salt Stress
Next Article in Special Issue
Spider–Plant Interaction: The Role of Extrafloral Nectaries in Spider Attraction and Their Influence on Plant Herbivory and Reproduction
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Phytotoxicity of Metallic Elements on Duckweed Lemna gibba L. Using Growth- and Chlorophyll Fluorescence Induction-Based Endpoints
Previous Article in Special Issue
Context-Dependent Ant-Pollinator Mutualism Impacts Fruit Set in a Hummingbird-Pollinated Plant
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/plants13020216
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chemical Camouflage Induced by Diet in a Pest Treehopper on Host Plants

by
Luan Dias Lima
1,*,
Amalia Victoria Ceballos-González
1,
Amanda Prato
1,
Adriano Cavalleri
2,
José Roberto Trigo
3,† and
Fábio Santos do Nascimento
1
1
Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade de São Paulo—USP, Ribeirão Preto 14040-901, SP, Brazil
2
Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande—FURG, Rio Grande 96203-900, RS, Brazil
3
Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas—UNICAMP, Campinas 13083-970, SP, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Author deceased 28 November 2017.
Plants 2024, 13(2), 216; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020216
Submission received: 24 November 2023 / Revised: 4 January 2024 / Accepted: 10 January 2024 / Published: 12 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant–Animal Interactions: Exploring Costs and Benefits in Highly Conditional Relationships)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ants patrol foliage and exert a strong selective pressure on herbivorous insects, being their primary predators. As ants are chemically oriented, some organisms that interact with them (myrmecophiles) use chemical strategies mediated by their cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) to deal with ants. Thus, a better understanding of the ecology and evolution of the mutualistic interactions between myrmecophiles and ants depends on the accurate recognition of these chemical strategies. Few studies have examined whether treehoppers may use an additional strategy called chemical camouflage to reduce ant aggression, and none considered highly polyphagous pest insects. We analyzed whether the chemical similarity of the CHC profiles of three host plants from three plant families (Fabaceae, Malvaceae, and Moraceae) and the facultative myrmecophilous honeydew-producing treehopper Aetalion reticulatum (Hemiptera: Aetalionidae), a pest of citrus plants, may play a role as a proximate mechanism serving as a protection against ant attacks on plants. We found a high similarity (>80%) between the CHCs of the treehoppers and two of their host plants. The treehoppers acquire CHCs through their diet, and the chemical similarity varies according to host plant. Chemical camouflage on host plants plays a role in the interaction of treehoppers with their ant mutualistic partners.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Plants exhibit a range of defenses, including chemical and physical mechanisms, as well as adaptations to attract predators and parasites of herbivores [1,2]. Ants are regarded as the most effective defensive strategy in plant biotic defense for plants lacking effective antiherbivore chemical defenses [1]. Ants primarily defend plants by collecting extrafloral nectar and honeydew, secreted by both plants and insects as rewards for ants, while consequently preying on herbivorous insects [3,4,5]. Herbivorous insects suffer a strong selective pressure on vegetation, where ants stand out as one of their main predators [6,7,8]. The cuticles of social insects, as well as those of other insects and plants, contain chemical cues called cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs). These compounds, composed solely of hydrogen and carbon atoms, serve the primary functions of preventing desiccation and providing protection, while they also carry information that can be perceived by insects [7,9,10]. The CHCs are complex mixtures of straight-chain alkanes and alkenes and methyl-branched hydrocarbons, and they are used by social insects for recognition and communication, influencing the life histories of insects [11,12,13]. There is evidence that CHCs may be acquired by insects through abiotic and biotic environmental factors, including diet [14,15,16,17]. This characteristic makes insects good models for studies of chemical ecology. Even though ants are dominant and act as predators, some organisms are able to use chemical strategies with their CHCs and thus are able to maintain specific interactions called myrmecophily. These organisms are called myrmecophiles, and at least part of their life history depends on interactions with ants [18,19,20]. These interactions occur since ants forage on substrates and can influence the life of herbivorous insects, with interactions including commensalism, mutualism, or parasitism depending on the cost for the ant colonies (e.g., [21,22,23]).
There are mutualistic interactions called trophobiosis where herbivorous myrmecophiles such as hemipterans and lepidopterans produce liquid rewards rich in sugar that attract and appease ants during interactions where ants offer protection and grooming in exchange [22,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. However, ants may prey on honeydew-producing mutualistic partners (e.g., [30,31,32]). Thus, even though treehoppers may be recognized by learning, their CHCs may play a role in avoiding ant attacks. Few studies have examined the possibility that treehoppers with gregarious habits may use an additional strategy called chemical camouflage to reduce ant aggression (i.e., [4,33]). Chemical camouflage is a strategy that decreases the detectability and recognition of an emitter by a receiver because the chemical cues of the emitter blend with a background, causing no reaction in the receiver [4,33,34,35]. Even though many studies have shown that insect, including agricultural pests, avoid aggression by providing honeydew to ants [30], none of these studies have considered how highly polyphagous insect pests of plants could avoid ant aggression using chemical strategies. Therefore, the precise recognition of the strategies is essential for a better understanding of the ecology and evolution of the mutualistic interactions between myrmecophiles pests of plants and ants.
Aetalion reticulatum (Linnaeus, 1767) (Hemiptera: Aetalionidae) is a facultative myrmecophilous honeydew-producing treehopper with gregarious habits and a polyphagous diet, being a pest of citrus plants in South America [36,37]. Recently, ref. [29] studied membracids and aetalionids in mutualistic interactions with ants and showed that a sugary reward attracts and reduces the risk of predation by ants. These authors also suggested that the CHCs of treehoppers may play a role in providing chemical camouflage in these interactions as they can blend with the background and go unrecognized as prey. Previous studies have demonstrated that the chemistry of plants influences multitrophic interactions and the behavior of ants [38,39]. Moreover, there is evidence for the plasticity of CHCs in herbivorous insects, indicating changes based on host plants [14,15,17]. This plasticity can serve as a chemical camouflage strategy [40,41,42]. Thus, we aimed to investigate whether there is a chemical similarity of CHC profiles of A. reticulatum treehoppers and their host plants that may protect the treehoppers against ant attacks. Our hypothesis was that the cuticular compounds of treehoppers would be diet-induced and resemble those of their host plants.

2. Results

The GC/MS analysis of cuticular compounds revealed a high degree of chemical similarity between A. reticulatum nymphs and their host plants (RANOSIM = 0.34; p < 0.001). In general, the treehoppers and their host plants had n-alkanes (C29 and C31) as their main components, and these compounds comprised between 33% and 78% of the relative abundance of the total compounds (Figure 1; Table 1). We found evidence for chemical camouflage (similarity > 80%) between A. reticulatum nymphs and their host plants F. clusiifolia (SI > 80%) and L. grandiflora (SI > 95%), but not between A. reticulatum nymphs and the host plant S. polyphylla (SI > 61%) (Figure 2).
The highest qualitative similarity was found between A. reticulatum nymphs and their host plant L. grandiflora, as the host plants showed 33 compounds and the nymphs feeding on this plant showed 37 compounds, with 19 being shared, representing 57.57% and 51.35% of the compounds on their respective cuticles (Figure 1; Table 1). Additionally, we found a significant positive correlation between the CHCs of L. grandiflora host plants and A. reticulatum nymphs (r = 0.9; p < 0.001). The F. clusiifolia host plants showed 16 compounds while the nymphs feeding on this plant showed 37 compounds, with 9 being shared, representing 56.25% and 24.32% of the compounds on their respective cuticles (Figure 1; Table 1). We also found a significant positive correlation between the CHCs of F. clusiifolia host plants and A. reticulatum nymphs (r = 0.7; p < 0.001). The S. polyphylla host plants showed 16 compounds, while the nymphs feeding on this plant showed 31 compounds, with 6 being shared, representing 37.5% and 19.35% of the compounds on their respective cuticles (Figure 1; Table 1). A significant positive correlation also emerged between the CHCs of S. polyphylla host plants and A. reticulatum nymphs (r = 0.4; p < 0.001). Moreover, the chemical profile of A. reticulatum feeding on the host plant S. polyphylla was more similar to the host plant than to the profiles of other treehoppers feeding on different host plants (Figure 2).

3. Discussion

We found a high degree of similarity (>80%) between the CHCs of A. reticulatum nymphs and some of their host plants in this study. Thus, our chemical analyses confirmed our initial hypothesis that the cuticular compounds of treehoppers would be diet-induced and resemble those of their host plants. It has been reported that host plants influence the CHC profile of herbivorous insects [11,14,15,17,43]. Moreover, certain insects acquire CHCs by feeding on host plants and blend with them as part of a chemical strategy called chemical camouflage, also known as chemical crypsis or phytomimesis [19]. Our results suggest that the studied treehoppers also employ chemical camouflage. This strategy was first suggested due to a possible similarity between the cuticular compounds of herbivorous insects and their host plants (see [34,35,43]), and it was later shown with chemical analyses and experiments in the caterpillar of Biston robustum Butler, 1879 (Geometridae) [40,41].
To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that chemical camouflage occurs in highly polyphagous pest insects. The treehopper studied belongs to the family Aetalionidae, and reports of this chemical strategy are still scarce for hemipterans. For example, the chemical camouflage strategy was also reported for the bug Piezogaster reclusus Brailovsky and Barrera, 2000 (Coreidae) [44,45] and treehoppers Guayaquila xiphias (Fabricius, 1803) [4] and Tricentrus sp. (Membracidae) [33]. Additionally, our results show that the proportion of n-alkanes, which are the main compounds on treehoppers, is similar to the host plants, although other compounds are not shared. The critical level of chemical similarity required for a chemical strategy to be effective remains unknown [46]. However, it is known that ants use plant hydrocarbons constituted mainly of n-alkanes to locate, identify, and protect plants [39,47]. Moreover, ants use n-alkanes to distinguish between myrmecophilous and nonmyrmecophilous partners to classify them into trophobionts and potential prey [48], and branched alkanes are used for recognition and may elicit aggression among non-nestmates [7]. Therefore, the treehoppers could be camouflaged in all the host plants studied here. Indeed, we did not conduct behavioral assays to confirm this in the field. However, the chemical similarities between treehoppers and the two host plants found in this study are higher than those already published, which have been demonstrated to function as a chemical strategy for treehoppers (i.e., [4]).
Moreover, it was recently reported that the myrmecophilous treehoppers Enchenopa concolor (Fairmaire, 1846) and Enchenopa gracilis (Germar, 1821) (Membracidae) have a chemical similarity with plants, and the latter also with the host plant L. grandiflora [49]. This similarity may trick butterflies to lay eggs directly on treehoppers instead of host plants [49], and it could also be used as a chemical camouflage strategy against ants. Chemical camouflage in treehoppers is diet-induced because they feed on their host plants and acquire their CHCs, resulting in a similar chemical profile that varies according to the host plant. Given that host plants influence the CHC profiles of herbivorous insects, which can be used as a chemical camouflage strategy [17,40,41,42], this is remarkable, considering that all ant-tended hemipterans are herbivorous [30]. The diet-induced chemical camouflage also occurs in other insects to avoid attacks from chemically oriented predators such as the larvae of the coleopteran Chelymorpha reimoseri Spaeth, 1928 (Chrysomelidae), lepidopteran caterpillars of Mechanitis polymnia (Linnaeus, 1758) (Nymphalidae), and four trophobiont species: Allosmaitia strophius (Godart, 1824), Parrhasius polibetes (Stoll, 1781), Rekoa marius (Lucas, 1857), and Rekoa stagira (Hewitson, 1867) (Lycaenidae) [42,46,50]. This kind of chemical camouflage may be widespread among herbivorous mutualistic insects due to its low cost [50], and the degree of chemical camouflage may change according to the plants they feed on (e.g., [4,40,41,42]). However, some insects may also acquire CHCs from plants at more than a trophic level [51], or they may biosynthesize their cuticular compounds and obtain a chemical similarity with their host plants [52]. Insects may also use physical contact to acquire compounds [16], but it has been reported that caterpillars that used chemical camouflage only acquired compounds through diet and not through physical contact [40].
Given that sugar rewards are used by trophobionts to attract predaceous ants that work as their bodyguards (e.g., [24,27,28,29,30]), our study showed the importance of chemical camouflage as an additional defensive mechanism for the herbivore mutualistic partners of ants to not become prey of their aggressive ant partners on plants. It has been shown that this strategy reinforces the mutualism of insects with ants on plants [4,33,42]. Moreover, as the trophobiont is chemically camouflaged, it may be perceived by ants as extrafloral nectaries (see [4]). Ants patrol plants with extrafloral nectaries and offer protection against herbivory [53], but most of the plants studied here do not possess extrafloral nectaries. In this context, ants would protect the herbivore that is chemically camouflaged, and this would influence in herbivory and consequently have a cost for plants. As the herbivore studied here is a pest of citrus plants [36,37], understanding chemical camouflage may be also important for integrated pest management strategies. Chemical camouflage may have allowed mutualistic insects to coexist with ants on plants despite the costs in the mutualistic interactions, and the cuticular composition of mutualistic partners plays a key role in decreasing attacks and increasing protection—and thus survival—in these insects [33,42].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Site and Organisms

We conducted collections during the dry season in the Ribeirão Preto campus of the University of São Paulo (21°16′37″ S, 47°85′92″ W), state of São Paulo, Brazil. Two seasons —a cold and dry season (April to September) and a warm and rainy season (October to March)—define the region’s climate [54]. The study site is in a transition between the Cerrado biome (Brazilian Savannah) and the Atlantic Forest and contains a reforestation site with several native and exotic trees and shrubs species [55].
We chose nymphs of the treehopper Aetalion reticulatum (Hemiptera: Aetalionidae) as these treehoppers usually engage in mutualistic interactions with ants on plants [29,36]. We opportunistically collected fourth-instar nymphs of the myrmecophilous treehopper with clean forceps and branches of three of their host plants: Ficus clusiifolia Schott (Moraceae), Luehea grandiflora Mart. and Zucc (Malvaceae), and Senegalia polyphylla (DC). Britton and Rose (Fabaceae) were used for chemical analyses. These host plants are frequently patrolled by dominant ant species on vegetation. This happens either because the host plants provide food or shelter for ants in exchange for protection in symbiotic relationships or because they show aggregations of honeydew-producing hemipterans which the ants interact with (see [56,57,58]).

4.2. Chemical Analyses

To determine whether polyphagous treehoppers acquired the CHCs through their diet, we compared the CHC profiles of nymphs and their host plants. We collected one A. reticulatum treehopper nymph from various aggregations and different branches of F. clusiifolia (n = 8 nymphs; n = 14 branches; not all branches contained treehoppers in this comparison), L. grandiflora (n = 10 nymphs; n = 10 branches), and S. polyphylla (n = 11 nymphs; n = 8 branches), which were also collected for analysis. After collection, the treehoppers samples were immediately frozen, and they were stored at a temperature of around −20 °C in a freezer until their cuticular components were extracted for chemical analyses the following day. The host plants samples were immediately brought to the laboratory for extractions. We assessed and identified the CHCs profiles of the studied treehopper nymphs and host plants via gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis (GC/MS), following [42]. We extracted the CHCs from individual treehopper nymphs and individual leaves of its host plant by immersing the samples for 1 min in 100 µL and 3 mL of hexane solvent, respectively (95% n-hexane, Macron Fine Chemicals, Radnor, PA, USA). To let the solvent evaporate, the extracts were stored in a flow chamber for 24 h. After that, the samples were resuspended in 40 µL of hexane, and 2 µL of this extract was injected (Splitless mode) in a gas chromatograph coupled with a mass spectrometer (Shimadzu, model QP2010, Kyoto, Japan), using a Rxi-1 column (Rxi-1 MS, 30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm, Restek Co., Bellefonte, PA, USA), with helium gas flow set at 1 mL/min. Initially set at 40 °C, the oven’s temperature increased by 15 °C/min until it reached 120 °C. The temperature then increased by 10 °C/min to 200 °C, 7 °C/min to 250 °C, and 5 °C/min to 320 °C for 6 min. The injector temperature was 250 °C. The detectors and the transfer lines had temperatures of 280 °C and 300 °C, respectively. We used the mass spectrometric fragmentation patterns (ion and molecular mass) [59] of the compounds, an alkane standard solution (C8-C20 and C21-C40, Fluka Analytical, Buchs, Switzerland), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) mass spectra search program (version 2.2) Library database to identify the compounds.

4.3. Statistical Analyses

Compounds that were not present in more than half of the individuals belonging to a group, as well as compounds that contributed less than 0.5% to the total relative abundance, were excluded from the statistical analysis. We calculated the relative abundance of the compounds present in the cuticular extracts by considering the compounds as 100%. The quantity of each separated compound, expressed as a percentage of the total occurrence of the substance class, was then calculated using these data to determine relative abundances. We performed a cluster analysis based on Morisita’s similarity index (SI) to compare the CHC profiles of the studied species, following [42]. This index varies from 0% (no similarity) to 100% (complete similarity) [60]. We tested the significance of differences based on the percentage of similarity of CHC profiles between species using analysis of similarity (ANOSIM). R values were calculated between the groups in these analyses, ranging roughly from 0 (total similarity) to 1 (total difference) (see [61]). To explore potential correlations between the CHCs of host plants and treehoppers, we conducted correlation analyses using Pearson’s method. This involved calculating the mean relative abundance of CHCs for each host plant and correlating it with the mean relative abundance of CHCs of the treehoppers that fed on these host plants. All analyses were performed with PAST software (Version 4.13) [62]. We considered values of similarity above 80% between treehoppers and host plants as putative cases of the chemical camouflage strategy, as bioassays carried out by [4] showed this value to be sufficient to significantly reduce the detection of chemically camouflaged treehoppers against ants.

5. Conclusions

We show that treehoppers acquire CHCs from host plants and that this can serve as chemical camouflage for a treehopper which engages in mutualistic interactions with ants and acts as a pest for plants, suggesting a key role of this diet-induced chemical strategy in multitrophic interactions. Future research could conduct behavioral assays to experimentally confirm the results found here. Studies considering this chemical strategy are still scarce and could illuminate how the evolutionary process shaped mutualist interactions mediated by chemical strategies in a multitrophic context.

Author Contributions

L.D.L.: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft; A.V.C.-G.: Data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, visualization, writing—review and editing; A.P.: data curation, formal analysis, validation, visualization, writing—review and editing; A.C.: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—review and editing; J.R.T.: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—review and editing; F.S.d.N.: funding acquisition, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) grants to L.D.L. (2021/00984-7), J.R.T. (2011/17708-0), and to F.S.d.N. (2021/05598-8 and 2018/10996-0). This study was funded by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) grants to A.V.C.-G. (140313/2020-6), A.P. (142285/2018-8), J.R.T. (2009/304473-0), and F.S.d.N. (05082/2018-5 and 307702/2018-9).

Data Availability Statement

All data underlying our study was deposited in the Figshare Digital Repository under the https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24288082.v1.

Acknowledgments

We thank Izabel C. C. Turatti for the assistance with identifying chemical compounds and Paulo Roberto Barbosa for host plant identification. We are grateful to the Sistema de Autorização e Informação em Biodiversidade (SISBIO) for authorizing the collection and transport of specimens (with license Nos. 81582-1 and 77537-1).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Massad, T.J.; Fincher, R.M.; Smilanich, A.M.; Dyer, L. A quantitative evaluation of major plant defense hypotheses, nature versus nurture, and chemistry versus ants. Arthropod-Plant Interact. 2011, 5, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yactayo-Chang, J.P.; Tang, H.V.; Mendoza, J.; Christensen, S.A.; Block, A.K. Plant defense chemicals against insect pests. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sendoya, S.F.; Freitas, A.V.L.; Oliveira, P.S. Egg-laying butterflies distinguish predaceous ants by sight. Am. Nat. 2009, 174, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Silveira, H.C.P.; Oliveira, P.S.; Trigo, J.R. Attracting predators without falling prey: Chemical camouflage protects honeydew-producing treehoppers from ant predation. Am. Nat. 2010, 175, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lange, D.; Calixto, E.S.; Rosa, B.B.; Sales, T.A.; Del-Claro, K. Natural history and ecology of foraging of the Camponotus crassus Mayr, 1862 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Nat. Hist. 2019, 53, 1737–1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Floren, A.; Biun, A.; Linsenmair, E.K. Arboreal ants as key predators in tropical lowland rainforest trees. Oecologia 2002, 131, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barbero, F. Cuticular lipids as a cross-talk among ants, plants and butterflies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Depa, Ł.; Kaszyca-Taszakowska, N.; Taszakowski, A.; Kanturski, M. Ant-induced evolutionary patterns in aphids. Biol. Rev. 2020, 95, 1574–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Blomquist, G.J.; Bagnères, A.-G. Insect Hydrocarbons: Biology, Biochemistry, and Chemical Ecology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; 506p. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chung, H.; Carroll, S.B. Wax, sex and the origin of species: Dual roles of insect cuticular hydrocarbons in adaptation and mating. BioEssays 2015, 37, 822–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Blomquist, G.J.; Ginzel, M.D. Chemical ecology, biochemistry, and molecular biology of insect hydrocarbons. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 2021, 66, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, Z.; Receveur, J.P.; Pu, J.; Cong, H.; Richards, C.; Liang, M.; Chung, H. Desiccation resistance differences in Drosophila species can be largely explained by variations in cuticular hydrocarbons. Elife 2022, 11, e80859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wang, Z.; Pu, J.; Richards, C.; Giannetti, E.; Cong, H.; Lin, Z.; Chung, H. Evolution of a fatty acyl–CoA elongase underlies desert adaptation in Drosophila. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eadg0328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Geiselhardt, S.; Otte, T.; Hilker, M. Looking for a similar partner: Host plants shape mating preferences of herbivorous insects by altering their contact pheromones. Ecol. Lett. 2012, 15, 971–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Otte, T.; Hilker, M.; Geiselhardt, S. Phenotypic plasticity of cuticular hydrocarbon profiles in insects. J. Chem. Ecol. 2018, 44, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sprenger, P.P.; Menzel, F. Cuticular hydrocarbons in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and other insects: How and why they differ among individuals, colonies, and species. Myrmecol. News 2020, 30, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  17. Li, D.-T.; Pei, X.-J.; Ye, Y.-X.; Wang, X.-Q.; Wang, Z.-C.; Chen, N.; Liu, T.-X.; Fan, Y.-L.; Zhang, C.-X. Cuticular hydrocarbon plasticity in three rice planthopper species. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 7733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hölldobler, B.; Wilson, E.O. The ants; The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, USA, 1990; 732p. [Google Scholar]
  19. Akino, T. Chemical strategies to deal with ants: A review of mimicry, camouflage, propaganda, and phytomimesis by ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and other arthropods. Myrmecol. News 2008, 11, 173–181. [Google Scholar]
  20. Brückner, A. Using weapons instead of perfume: Chemical association strategies of the myrmecophilous bug Scolopostethus pacificus (Rhyparochromidae). Chemoecology 2022, 32, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Oliveira, O.S.; Freitas, A.V.L.; Del-Claro, K. Ant foraging on plant foliage: Contrasting effects on the behavioral ecology of insect herbivores. In The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical Savanna; Oliveira, P.S., Marquis, R.J., Eds.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 287–305. [Google Scholar]
  22. Pierce, N.E.; Braby, M.F.; Heath, A.; Lohman, D.J.; Mathew, J.; Rand, D.B.; Travassos, M.A. The ecology and evolution of ant association in the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2002, 47, 733–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hughes, D.P.; Pierce, N.E.; Boomsma, J.J. Social insect symbionts: Evolution in homeostatic fortresses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23, 672–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gibernau, M.; Dejean, A. Ant protection of a Heteropteran trophobiont against a parasitoid wasp. Oecologia 2001, 126, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Choe, D.-H.; Rust, M.K. Homopteran chemical signatures reduce aggression of tending ants. Chemoecology 2006, 16, 175–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hayashi, M.; Nakamuta, K.; Nomura, M. Ants learn aphid species as mutualistic partners: Is the learning behavior species-specific? J. Chem. Ecol. 2015, 41, 1148–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Pierce, M.P. The ecological and evolutionary importance of nectar-secreting galls. Ecosphere 2019, 10, e02670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pringle, E.G. Ant-Hemiptera associations. In Encyclopedia of Social Insects; Starr, C., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  29. Camacho, L.F.; Avilés, L. Resource exchange and partner recognition mediate mutualistic interactions between prey and their would-be predators. Biol. Letters 2021, 17, 20210316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nelson, A.S.; Mooney, K.A. The evolution and ecology of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing hemipteran insects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S. 2022, 53, 379–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sakata, H. Density-dependent predation of the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on two attended aphids Lachnus tropicalis and Myzocallis kuricola (Homoptera: Aphididae). Res. Popul. Ecol. 1995, 37, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fischer, M.K.; Hoffmann, K.H.; Völkl, W. Competition for mutualists in an ant–homopteran interaction mediated by hierarchies of ant attendance. Oikos 2001, 92, 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, B.; Lu, M.; Cook, J.M.; Yang, D.-R.; Dunn, D.W.; Wang, R.-W. Chemical camouflage: A key process in shaping an ant-treehopper and fig-fig wasp mutualistic network. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. von Beeren, C.; Pohl, S.; Witte, V. On the use of adaptive resemblance terms in chemical ecology. Psyche 2012, 2012, 635761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lima, L.D.; Kaminski, L.A. Camouflage. In Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior; Vonk, J., Shackelford, T., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  36. Cavalleri, A.; Kaminski, L.A.; Mendonça Jr, M.D.S. Ectoparasitism in Aulacothrips (Thysanoptera: Heterothripidae) revisited: Host diversity on honeydew-producing Hemiptera and description of a new species. Zool. Anz. 2010, 249, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cavalleri, A.; Mendonca Jr, M.D.S. Ectoparasitic thrips affect the behaviour of their aetalionid treehopper hosts. Austral Entomol. 2020, 59, 794–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Züst, T.; Agrawal, A.A. Plant chemical defense indirectly mediates aphid performance via interactions with tending ants. Ecology 2017, 98, 601–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Nelson, A.S.; Acosta, N.C.; Mooney, K.A. Plant chemical mediation of ant behavior. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2019, 32, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Akino, T.; Nakamura, K.-i.; Wakamura, S. Diet-induced chemical phytomimesis by twig-like caterpillars of Biston robustum Butler (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Chemoecology 2004, 14, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Akino, T. Chemical and behavioral study on the phytomimetic giant geometer Biston robustum Butler (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2005, 40, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lima, L.D.; Trigo, J.R.; Kaminski, L.A. Chemical convergence between a guild of facultative myrmecophilous caterpillars and host plants. Ecol. Entomol. 2021, 46, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Espelie, K.E.; Bernays, E.A.; Brown, J.J. Plant and insect cuticular lipids serve as behavioral cues for insects. Arch. Insect Biochem. 1991, 17, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Whitehead, S.R.; Reid, E.; Sapp, J.; Poveda, K.; Royer, A.M.; Posto, A.L.; Kessler, A. A specialist herbivore uses chemical camouflage to overcome the defenses of an ant-plant mutualism. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Coronado-Rivera, J.; Solís-Del Valle, M.; Amador-Vargas, S. True bugs living on ant-defended acacias: Evasion strategies and ant species preferences, in Costa Rica and Panama. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2020, 68, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Portugal, A.H.A.; Trigo, J.R. Similarity of cuticular lipids between a caterpillar and its host plant: A way to make prey undetectable for predatory ants? J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 2551–2561. [Google Scholar]
  47. Weir, T.L.; Newbold, S.; Vivanco, J.M.; van Haren, M.; Fritchman, C.; Dossey, A.T.; Bartram, S.; Boland, W.; Cosio, E.G.; Kofer, W. Plant-inhabiting ant utilizes chemical cues for host discrimination. Biotropica 2012, 44, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lang, C.; Menzel, F. Lasius niger ants discriminate aphids based on their cuticular hydrocarbons. Anim. Behav. 2011, 82, 1245–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lima, L.D.; Ceballos-González, A.V.; Prato, A.; Kaminski, L.A.; Nascimento, F.S. Plant-treehopper convergence may trick butterflies into trophic oviposition mistakes. Biotropica 2023, 55, 292–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Massuda, K.F.; Trigo, J.R. Hiding in plain sight: Cuticular compound profile matching conceals a larval tortoise beetle in its host chemical cloud. J. Chem. Ecol. 2014, 40, 341–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Espelie, K.E.; Brown, J.J. Cuticular hydrocarbons of species which interact on four trophic levels: Apple, Malus pumila Mill.; codling moth, Cydia pomonella L.; a hymenopteran parasitoid, Ascogaster quadridentata Wesmael; and a hyperparasite, Perilampus fulvicornis Ashmead. Comp. Biochem. Phys. B. 1990, 95, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Piskorski, R.; Trematerra, P.; Dorn, S. Cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of codling moth larvae, Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), reflect those of their host plant species. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2010, 101, 376–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Del-Claro, K.; Rico-Gray, V.; Torezan-Silingardi, H.M.; Alves-Silva, E.; Fagundes, R.; Lange, D.; Dáttilo, W.; Vilela, A.A.; Aguirre, A.; Rodriguez-Morales, D. Loss and gains in ant–plant interactions mediated by extrafloral nectar: Fidelity, cheats, and lies. Insect. Soc. 2016, 63, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Aleixo, K.P.; Faria, L.B.; Groppo, M.; Castro, M.M.N.; Silva, C.I. Spatiotemporal distribution of floral resources in a Brazilian city: Implications for the maintenance of pollinators, especially bees. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2014, 13, 689–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pais, M.P.; Varanda, E.M. Arthropod recolonization in the restoration of a semideciduous forest in southeastern Brazil. Neotrop. Entomol. 2010, 39, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Maschwitz, U.; Fiala, B.; Saw, L.G.; Norma-Rashid, Y.; Idris, A.H. Ficus obscura var. borneensis (Moraceae), a new non-specific ant-plant from Malesia. Malay. Nature J. 1994, 47, 409–416. [Google Scholar]
  57. Melo, Y.; Machado, S.R.; Alves, M. Anatomy of extrafloral nectaries in Fabaceae from dry-seasonal forest in Brazil. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2010, 163, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rodrigues, D.; Kaminski, L.A.; Freitas, A.V.L.; Oliveira, P.S. Trade-offs underlying polyphagy in a facultative ant-tended florivorous butterfly: The role of host plant quality and enemy-free space. Oecologia 2010, 163, 719–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Carlson, D.A.; Bernier, U.R.; Sutton, B.D. Elution patterns from capillary GC for methyl-branched alkanes. J. Chem. Ecol. 1998, 24, 1845–1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Krebs, C.J. Ecological Methodology; Addison Wesley Longman: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1999; 624p. [Google Scholar]
  61. Clarke, K.R. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 1993, 18, 117–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hammer, Ø.; Harper, D.A.T.; Ryan, P.D. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
Plants 13 00216 g001aPlants 13 00216 g001b
Figure 1. Chromatograms of cuticular compounds of the host plants Ficus clusiifolia (Moraceae), Luehea grandiflora (Malvaceae), and Senegalia polyphylla (Fabaceae) (a,c,e), and nymphs of Aetalion reticulatum that fed on these host plants (b,d,f). Compound identities can be found in Table 1.
Figure 1. Chromatograms of cuticular compounds of the host plants Ficus clusiifolia (Moraceae), Luehea grandiflora (Malvaceae), and Senegalia polyphylla (Fabaceae) (a,c,e), and nymphs of Aetalion reticulatum that fed on these host plants (b,d,f). Compound identities can be found in Table 1.
Plants 13 00216 g001aPlants 13 00216 g001b
Plants 13 00216 g002
Figure 2. Hierarchical cluster analysis (Morisita’s similarity index) of the shared cuticular hydrocarbons of treehoppers and host plants.
Figure 2. Hierarchical cluster analysis (Morisita’s similarity index) of the shared cuticular hydrocarbons of treehoppers and host plants.
Plants 13 00216 g002
Table 1. Cuticular compounds found on nymphs of Aetalion reticulatum and their host plants Ficus clusiifolia (Moraceae), Luehea grandiflora (Malvaceae), and Senegalia polyphylla (Fabaceae) (mean relative abundance ± standard deviation (SD)). (-) = compound not detected.
Table 1. Cuticular compounds found on nymphs of Aetalion reticulatum and their host plants Ficus clusiifolia (Moraceae), Luehea grandiflora (Malvaceae), and Senegalia polyphylla (Fabaceae) (mean relative abundance ± standard deviation (SD)). (-) = compound not detected.
Species
CompoundsRetention TimeFicus clusiifoliaAetalion reticulatum on Ficus clusiifoliaLuehea grandifloraAetalion reticulatum on Luehea grandifloraSenegalia polyphyllaAetalion reticulatum on Senegalia polyphylla
n-C1814.2610.48 ± 0.23-0.10 ± 0.050.01 ± 0.01--
n-C1915.3760.27 ± 0.13-0.10 ± 0.050.02 ± 0.01--
Unknown 116.375--0.21 ± 0.090.02 ± 0.01--
n-C2016.5090.55 ± 0.240.06 ± 0.020.21 ± 0.100.05 ± 0.02--
n-C2117.855--0.18 ± 0.110.03 ± 0.01--
3MeC2118.715--0.16 ± 0.060.02 ± 0.01--
n-C2218.7850.49 ± 0.21-0.22 ± 0.110.05 ± 0.03--
z-C2320.008--0.43 ± 0.49---
n-C2320.106--1.51 ± 1.040.18 ± 0.070.59 ± 0.24-
n-C2421.0280.43 ± 0.34-0.25 ± 0.130.06 ± 0.030.09 ± 0.03-
C25:122.114--0.54 ± 1.23---
n-C2522.1651.09 ± 0.740.07 ± 0.031.30 ± 1.010.24 ± 0.221.77 ± 0.390.18 ± 0.10
n-C2623.3290.53 ± 0.31-0.77 ± 0.650.12 ± 0.060.15 ± 0.03-
C27:124.490--1.41 ± 2.80---
n-C2724.5165.38 ± 2.810.48 ± 0.2812.45 ± 4.632.62 ± 1.375.46 ± 0.430.68 ± 0.28
13,11MeC2724.923--0.10 ± 0.05-0.16 ± 0.08-
3MeC2725.418--0.15 ± 0.08-0.11 ± 0.05-
n-C2825.7052.20 ± 0.931.20 ± 0.243.18 ± 1.741.26 ± 0.273.56 ± 0.651.11 ± 0.24
Unknown 226.481-0.78 ± 0.56-1.52 ± 0.78-0.99 ± 0.32
z-C2926.215--0.76 ± 1.20-0.14 ± 0.03-
n-C2926.93841.50 ± 15.3223.00 ± 5.1043.89 ± 9.4639.27 ± 5.4336.10 ± 7.7123.97 ± 2.16
15-;13-;11-;9MeC2927.308-0.21 ± 0.09-0.38 ± 0.17-0.66 ± 0.47
7,11diMeC2927.762----0.25 ± 0.19-
3MeC2927.821---0.22 ± 0.440.08 ± 0.03-
n-C3028.0965.12 ± 1.862.73 ± 0.452.83 ± 1.443.14 ± 1.902.39 ± 0.252.57 ± 0.38
Unknown 328.860-0.86 ± 0.070.12 ± 0.060.52 ± 0.16-0.50 ± 0.12
C31:1 a29.0390.70 ± 1.28-0.64 ± 0.99---
C31:1 b29.422--0.32 ± 0.16---
n-C3129.54735.54 ± 10.6710.12 ± 3.5615.51 ± 6.8212.00 ± 3.811.45 ± 0.3611.86 ± 2.44
Unknown 429.607--2.94 ± 2.02---
15-;13-;9MeC3129.644-2.76 ± 0.87-2.08 ± 1.20-2.46 ± 0.94
7MeC3129.780-0.31 ± 0.27-0.16 ± 0.15--
11,15diMeC3129.960-0.89 ± 0.26-0.79 ± 0.26-1.54 ± 1.05
5,17diMeC3130.219-1.68 ± 0.69-1.62 ± 0.55-1.65 ± 0.94
n-C3230.4641.68 ± 1.170.33 ± 0.080.98 ± 1.250.24 ± 0.12-0.27 ± 0.11
16,15,14MeC3230.795-0.79 ± 0.17-0.38 ± 0.19-0.52 ± 0.18
3,11diMeC3231.109-0.71 ± 0.46---0.62 ± 0.45
3,10diMeC3231.540-----0.38 ± 0.49
z-C3331.3391.00 ± 1.01---9.03 ± 0.66-
n-C3331.6023.07 ± 2.181.20 ± 0.401.28 ± 0.910.94 ± 0.64-1.22 ± 0.62
Unknown 531.863--6.76 ± 4.35-38.67 ± 8.54-
17-;15-;13MeC3331.935-5.98 ± 0.68-5.38 ± 2.63-5.87 ± 1.52
15,19diMeC3332.240-7.42 ± 2.64-7.77 ± 5.11-9.00 ± 3.07
5,17diMeC3332.488-0.63 ± 0.21-0.54 ± 0.17-1.12 ± 0.66
15,14MeC3433.043-1.00 ± 0.15-0.38 ± 0.16-0.82 ± 0.19
14,XdiMeC3433.285---0.87 ± 0.42--
4,XdiMeC3433.313-1.58 ± 0.23---1.73 ± 0.30
3,10diMeC3433.766-0.48 ± 0.23---0.75 ± 0.28
Unknown 633.835-0.40 ± 0.14----
n-C3533.988-0.13 ± 0.040.19 ± 0.33---
17-;15MeC3534.136-6.19 ± 0.85-4.00 ± 0.60-5.78 ± 0.44
15,19diMeC3534.404-10.10 ± 1.82-8.12 ± 2.91-11.23 ± 1.91
Unknown 734.561--0.14 ± 0.07---
5,17diMeC3534.663-1.42 ± 0.50-0.66 ± 0.34-2.27 ± 1.23
n-C3635.217--0.27 ± 0.29---
13MeC3635.247-0.74 ± 0.18---0.54 ± 0.20
4,17diMeC3635.515-1.18 ± 0.30---0.64 ± 0.17
4,10diMeC3636.049-0.32 ± 0.11----
n-C3736.368--0.12 ± 0.16---
17-,15-,13MeC3736.487-4.47 ± 0.73-2.01 ± 0.45-3.79 ± 0.45
17,21diMeC3736.785-7.20 ± 0.56-2.33 ± 0.69-4.71 ± 1.39
Unknown 837.086-0.71 ± 0.45---0.58 ± 0.29
17-,15MeC3939.538-0.25 ± 0.08----
Unknown 939.923-1.67 ± 0.56----
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lima, L.D.; Ceballos-González, A.V.; Prato, A.; Cavalleri, A.; Trigo, J.R.; Nascimento, F.S.d. Chemical Camouflage Induced by Diet in a Pest Treehopper on Host Plants. Plants 2024, 13, 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020216

AMA Style

Lima LD, Ceballos-González AV, Prato A, Cavalleri A, Trigo JR, Nascimento FSd. Chemical Camouflage Induced by Diet in a Pest Treehopper on Host Plants. Plants. 2024; 13(2):216. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020216

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lima, Luan Dias, Amalia Victoria Ceballos-González, Amanda Prato, Adriano Cavalleri, José Roberto Trigo, and Fábio Santos do Nascimento. 2024. "Chemical Camouflage Induced by Diet in a Pest Treehopper on Host Plants" Plants 13, no. 2: 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020216

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop