Insect-Plant Interrelationships

1
Ramesh Arora and Surinder Sandhu

Abstract
The green plants and insects represent the two dominant groups of living organ-
isms on Earth. The green plants occupy the most capacious segment among all
biological organisms, whereas the insects are the most specious group. These
two ‘empires’ are interconnected as well as interdependent. Green plants are the
primary producers of food, and all animals being heterotrophs depend directly or
indirectly on plant-produced food. In turn, nearly three fourths of all angio-
sperms require the services of insect pollinators. The entomophilic flowering
plants and their insect pollinators thus represent the most evident and widely
applicable example of mutualism among living organisms. But a wide variety of
phytophagous insects also flourishes, diversifies and sustains on these plants.
Consequently, the plants have evolved a dizzying array of morphological and
biochemical (constitutive as well as induced) barriers for protection against
insects and other herbivores. Evolutionary interactions between plants and
insects may have contributed to the increased biodiversity and success of both
these groups. The study of these interrelationships, as outlined in this chapter, is
of great practical significance for the future agricultural production. The devel-
opment of pest-resistant cultivars of crop plants and progress in integrated pest
management both require an intricate understanding of insect-plant relationships.

R. Arora (*)
Department of Entomology & Zoology, Eternal University,
Baru Sahib, Himachal Pradesh 173101, India
e-mail: arorarame@gmail.com
S. Sandhu
Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004, India
e-mail: surindersandhu@pau.edu

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 1

R. Arora, S. Sandhu (eds.), Breeding Insect Resistant Crops for Sustainable
Agriculture, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-6056-4_1
2 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

State-of-the-art techniques such as mutant analysis, metabolomics, RNAi and

proteomics developed during the last three decades have been instrumental in
providing improved insight into these interrelationships.

Keywords
Coevolution • Pollinators • Insect pests • Flowering plants • Mutualism • Plant
defences

1.1 Introduction

The ‘plant kingdom’ and the ‘class Insecta’ represent the two dominant groups of
living organisms, in terms of the abundance of species as well as in the amount of
biomass. Green plants are the primary producers of food, and all animals being
heterotrophs depend directly or indirectly on plant-produced food (Schoonhoven
et al. 2005). In turn, a majority of the 300,000 plant species require the services of
insect pollinators for reproduction. Colourful, scented flowers and floral nectarines
were in all probability developed by plants for attracting insect pollinators. Flower
anatomy ensured that while feeding, the insects also picked up the pollen (Kearns
et al. 1998). Consequently, to prevent over-exploitation, the plants have also evolved
a dizzying array of structural and biochemical barriers for protection against insects
and other herbivores. While some of these barriers are synthesized by plants regard-
less of the presence of herbivores (constitutive defences), many others are produced
only in response to herbivory (induced defences). Only those insect species, which
are able to overcome these barriers in one or more plant species by avoidance,
detoxification, etc., can access that plant species as food. The insects which damage
the economically important plants have been termed as ‘insect pests’ by humans.
The important mutualistic and antagonistic interactions between plants and insects
are introduced hereunder.

1.2  utualistic Interactions: Flowering Plants-Insect

M
Pollinators

The most evident and widely applicable example of mutualism is that between
insect-pollinated flowering plants and their insect pollinators. Nearly 80% of all
flowering plants are bisexual and bear flowers with stamen and pistils in the same
flower. This promotes self-fertilization and consequently inbreeding. The plants
avoid self-fertilization either by separating the sexes in time and space (differences
in the timing of maturation) or by self-incompatibility. Both mechanisms promote
cross-pollination, which is assisted by various agencies e.g. wind, water, and ani-
mals, etc. More than three fourths of all flowering plants are wholly or partially
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 3

insect-pollinated (Faegri and Pijl 1971). The economic value of insect pollinators is
enormous. Most of the important oilseeds, pulses, fruits, vegetables, nuts, spices
and ornamentals (Hill 1997; Atwal 2000) show improved yields with animal polli-
nation (Klein et al. 2007). It has been estimated that animal pollination has an eco-
nomic value of €153 billion annually, which is nearly one tenth of global agricultural
production (Galai et al. 2009).
Some of the widely accepted estimates of the number of angiosperms pollinated
by animals vary from 67% to 96% of all angiosperm species (Axelrod 1960; Nabhan
and Buchmann 1997). Ollerton et al. (2011) observed that these estimates are not
based on firm data. They compiled data on published and unpublished community
level surveys of plant-pollinator interactions and concluded that proportion of
animal-­pollinated species was 78% in temperate-zone communities and 94% in
tropical communities, with a global mean of 87.5% of all flowering plants. The pol-
linators benefit from rewards in the form of nectar and pollen. Both are nutrient-rich
foods with nectar containing 50% sugars and pollen 15–60% proteins and other
essential elements (Proctor et al. 1996; Roulston et al. 2000). Together, they provide
nourishment for the bees, which are the most important among insect pollinators
(Schoonhoven et al. 2005).
The entomophilous flowering plants and the pollinating insects constitute an
example par excellence of mutualism. However, the degree of mutualism varies
among various plant-pollinator combinations (Schoonhoven et al. 2005). In some
cases, there is obligate mutualism, and a species of plant can only be pollinated by
a single species of pollinator, which depends on it for food. For instance, figs (Ficus
spp., Moraceae) are dependent upon fig wasps (Agaonidae, Chalcidoidea) for pol-
lination (Wiebes 1979). Every species of fig is pollinated by a specific wasp species,
e.g. the pollination in Ficus carica Linnaeus is carried out by the fig wasp,
Blastophaga psenes (Linnaeus) (Ramirez 1970). Another example of obligate
mutualism is observed between yucca moths (Prodoxidae) and yucca plants
(Agavaceae). The yucca moths are the sole pollinators for yucca flowers and deposit
their eggs in the locule of the ovary of flowers so that the young caterpillars can feed
on the developing seeds (Pellmyr and Krenn 2002).
Another interesting example is based on the great naturalist Charles Darwin’s
prediction. In 1862, while doing research on orchids, Darwin found that the astound-
ing Christmas orchid, Angraecum sesquipedale Thouars, had nearly a foot-long
green nectary. As this group of orchids was moth pollinated, Darwin predicted that
there must be a gigantic moth species with extended proboscis capable of feeding
on the long nectary. More than four decades later, Rothshild and Jordan in 1903
described the Morgan’s sphinx moth, Xanthopan morganii Walker with an extended
proboscis length of >12 in., as the only known pollinator of A. sesquipedale, which
is endemic to Madagascar (Kritsky 2001). However, such reciprocal evolution in
plant-pollinator relationships is not widespread. Burkle and Alarcon (2011)
observed that most plant-pollinator relationships have a fairly broad range with a
high degree of annual turnover of pollinator species, and the relative importance
4 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

of a pollinator species may vary in different years for pollination of the same
plant species.
Insect pollination has undoubtedly contributed to the evolutionary success of
angiosperms. The fossil records show that pollination originated around 250 Myr
ago (Labandeira 2013). The early angiosperms were probably pollenized both by
the wind and animals. In view of the advantages conferred by entomophily, its
importance increased over evolutionary time (Cox 1991; Crepet et al. 1991).
Entomophilic angiosperms display a diversity of flower size, shape, colour and fra-
grance which may have been determined by the requirements of the pollinators. The
pollen in flowers of such plants may have a sculptured structure and/or is covered
with sticky substances which help it to easily adhere to the insect body. The hairs on
the insect legs and other body parts also aid in pollen transfer. The bumble bee pol-
linated flowers in foxglove, Digitalis purpurea Linnaeus are bell shaped, while the
butterfly pollinated flowers of Calopheria spp. have tubular corolla, which is an
adaptation to the long probocis (Schoonhoven et al. 2005). In addition, the latter
contain higher levels of amino acids than flowers fed on by flies (Baker and Baker
1986). In order to attract pollinators, some plant species produce sterile ‘reward
anthers’ which are brightly coloured (Nepi et al. 2003). Flowers of the orchid Mirror
of Venus, Ophrys speculum Link, imitate the virgin female wasps of their pollinator,
Dasyscolia ciliata (Fabricius), by releasing the female sex pheromone to entice the
male wasps. The attracted male wasps try to mate with the flowers and in doing so
act as pollination vectors (Ayasse et al. 2003).
Hymenopterans, especially the Apoidea, are the most important group involved
in flower pollination at present, but other groups have been equally important in the
past. Basal angiosperms are even now primarily pollenized by the beetles and flies
(Thien et al. 2000). Bees are closely adapted to a floral diet (Atwal 2000) and are
able to assimilate pollen grains despite the presence of an almost impermeable cuti-
cle (Velthius 1992). Individual honeybees often exhibit flower constancy by prefer-
ably visiting flowers of a single species. It improves pollinator efficiency and also
helps in reproductive isolation of plant species. The insects’ ability to remember
combinations of flower odours and colours plays a central role in flower constancy.
Honeybees have been reported to have the capacity to distinguish at least 700 differ-
ent floral aromas (Schoonhoven et al. 2005).

1.3  ntagonistic Interactions: Herbivorous Insects-Green

A
Plants

Insects are the most diverse and a tremendously successful group of organisms on
Earth. The members of a number of insect orders infest plants and obtain food from
them. Species in some of the insect orders are almost exclusively (Lepidoptera,
Orthoptera, Phasmida) or predominantly (Hemiptera, Thysanoptera) herbivorous.
But Coleoptera, Hymenoptera and Diptera are only partly herbivorous and also
include numerous carnivorous species (Schoonhoven et al. 2005). Every vascular
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 5

plant species usually harbours several insect species. There are insect species feed-
ing on all parts of the plant including the roots, stem, bark, shoots, leaves, flowers
and fruits. While solid feeders chew plant tissues externally (defoliators) or inter-
nally (borers), others suck the sap (aphids, jassids), reduce plant vigour and even act
as vectors of plant pathogens, e.g. whitefly.
Most insects usually exhibit a high degree of specialization in their choice of
food plants. The monophagous insects feed on only a single or a few closely related
species of plants, while oligophagous ones feed on a number of plant species, all of
which belong to the same family. In contrast, the polyphagous insects use a wide
range of plants from different plant families as food (Panda and Khush 1995). But
most insects exhibit some degree of specialization in their host plant choice.
Investigation on herbivorous insects has revealed that only around one tenth of these
insects have the ability to feed on plants of more than three plant families. The host
range of each insect species is constrained by several structural, biochemical and
ecological factors. As a generalization, it may be stated that, except for Orthoptera,
all other orders of herbivorous insects are largely composed of species specialized
to feed on particular plant species (Schoonhoven et al. 2005). According to Bruce
(2015), the herbivores have evolved over time to become specialized feeders, even
though some of polyphages continue to be important agricultural pests. Insects have
the ability to recognize and respond to host cues for feeding and oviposition.
Despite the antagonistic relationships between plants and phytophagous insects
presumed to operate in all cases, herbivory has been observed to increase plant
growth and fitness in some cases (Owen 1980; Vail 1994; Sadras and Felton 2010).
Yield decreases due to arthropod feeding are quite common, but there are examples
of increased yield recorded in insect-damaged as compared to undamaged plants
(Harris 1974). The compensatory responses to herbivore damage may in some cases
more than offset the damage caused. It basically depends on how plants respond to
attack by insects or other herbivores.

1.3.1 Plant Defences Against Herbivores

Plants are immobile organisms and have to defend themselves against insects and
other herbivores. Most plants in natural ecosystems show little or no obvious dam-
age in spite of the presence of wide variety of phytophagous insects in large num-
bers. Complete defoliation by phytophagous insects is an exception rather than a
rule. It has been estimated that on an average, insects consume only around 10% of
all annually produced plant biomass (Barbosa and Schulz 1987). This is primarily
due to the fact that plants have evolved a diverse range of structural and biochemical
characteristics to protect themselves from herbivores. In contrast, insect pest’s dam-
age is usually higher in agroecosystem as many of these characteristics have been
lost while breeding plants more palatable to human taste and/or outyielding the
traditional plant genotypes. There is a need to study these plant defences to exploit
them optimally in commercial agriculture.
6 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

1.3.1.1 Structural Defences

1.3.1.1.1 Surface Wax Layer(s)

Surface waxes over the epicuticle protect the plant against desiccation, herbivore
feeding and pathogen invasion. Wax layers are variable in thickness and structure,
and their amount may reach up to several percent of the dry weight of a plant. Wax
crystals often act as structural barriers to insect feeding (Jeffree 1986). Further, the
mechano- and chemoreceptors on the insect tarsi and mouth parts receive negative
tactile and chemical stimuli from the plant surface covered with a wax layer. For
instance, leaf epicuticular wax in Brassicaceae results in non-preference for feeding
by the flea beetle, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze) in (Bodnaryk 1992).
But wax layer may also have the opposite effect by favouring some insects. In
several instances, plants with glossy leaf surfaces (reduced wax layer) have also
been shown to be less susceptible to insect pests (Eigenbrode and Espelie 1995). As
an indirect effect, wax crystals and wax blooms may also impair the adhesion,
mobility and effectiveness of predatory insects resulting in an increase of herbivore
populations (Eigenbrode et al. 1999).

1.3.1.1.2 Trichomes
The epidermal surface in plant is usually covered with hair-like structures, which
are variable in shape, size, location and function (Werker 2000). The hairs present
on the aerial parts of a plant are commonly referred to as trichomes, while the term
pubescence refers to the collective trichome cover of a plant surface. The trichomes
range in size from a few microns to several centimetres, and the shape varies greatly
in different species. The trichomes are of two types: non-glandular and glandular
(Payne 1978). Non-glandular trichomes may act as physical barriers against the
movements of insects over the plant surface or prevent the herbivores’ mouth parts
from accessing the feeding tissues of the plant (Ram et al. 2004). Glandular tri-
chomes are specialized to secrete a variety of chemicals (Fahn 2000), which act as
important chemical barriers against pests and pathogens (Glas et al. 2012). Hooked
trichomes of black bean, Phaseolus vulgaris Linnaeus, were found to impale the
aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch (Johanson 1953), and the leafhopper, Empoasca
fabae (Harris), leading to wounding and death (Pillemer and Tingey 1978).
Interestingly, in some cases, trichome density has been observed to be induced in
response to insect feeding. Feeding by the cabbage-white butterfly, Pieris rapae
(Linnaeus), and the cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni (Hubner), on young black mus-
tard, Brassica nigra (Linnaeus) W. D. J. Koch, plants resulted in increased trichome
density on newly expanded leaves (Traw and Dawson 2002). Some insect pests have
also been reported to have developed morphological or biochemical adaptations to
neutralize the effect of trichomes. Trichomes may also have indirect effects on plant
resistance by limiting the searching capacity of natural enemies of herbivores. The
parasitic wasp, Encarsia formosa Gahan, is considerably more efficient in finding
its host – whitefly nymphs – on glabrous cultivars than on hairy leaves (van Lenteren
et al. 1995).
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 7

1.3.1.1.3 Plant Toughness

Coley (1983) observed that leaf toughness was the best predictor of interspecific
variation in herbivory rates, in a lowland tropical forest. Plant cell walls strength-
ened by deposition of macromolecules such as cellulose, lignin, suberin and callose
together with sclerenchymatous fibres make a plant resistant to penetration by
mouth parts (piercing sucking) and ovipositors (adult females) of insects as well as
tearing action of mandibles of chewing insects. In wheat, solid-stemmed cultivars
were resistant to stem sawfly, Cephus cinctus Norton (Platt and Farstad 1946). In
sugarcane, rind hardness was an important factor in reducing internode borer
Diatraea saccharalis (Fabricius) damage (Martin et al. 1975). Seed damage due to
the seed chalcid Bruchophagus roddi (Gussakovsky) in alfalfa was less in geno-
types with highly lignified pod walls (Springer et al. 1990).

1.3.1.1.4 Plant Architecture

The suitability of a plant to serve as a host for phytophagous insects may vary with
plant size and architecture. Plant characteristics such as canopy spacing; stem, leaf
and bud shapes and dimensions; and branching angles may affect insect preferences
and survival. The increasing size and architectural complexity of plants from mono-
cots through herbs, to bushes and trees, is correlated with an increase in the diversity
of the associated insect fauna (Lawton 1983). Indirect effects of plant architecture
on herbivores are also mediated through their influence on the natural enemies. In
cotton, okra-leaved cultivars suffer less damage by a number of insect pests includ-
ing bollworms, whitefly and boll weevil as compared to normal-leaved cultivars
(Ram et al. 2004). In soybean, cultivars with smaller cotyledons and unifoliate
leaves were resistant to the legume seedling fly, Ophiomyia phaseoli (Tryon), and
these are the parts where the insect lays eggs (Talekar and Tengkano 1993).

1.3.1.2 Biochemical Defences

Plants have evolved a plethora of chemical structures to prevent colonization by
insects and other herbivores. While a limited number of chemicals are involved in
primary metabolism, many other compounds have been found to repel, deter, kill or
prevent insects and other herbivores from utilizing these plants as food sources
(Chapman 1974; Harborne 1993; Mithofer and Boland 2012). As phytophagous
insects have developed the ability to exploit their hosts, the plants have responded
by evolving defensive biochemicals to counteract herbivore attack (Johnson 2011).
The chemicals produced by plants, thus, fall into two broad categories: nutrients and
allelochemicals.

1.3.1.2.1 Nutrients
The suitability of a plant as a host for one or more insect species is dependent on its
ability to supply holistic nutrients for development and multiplication of these
insects. From an insect’s perspective, the plants usually supply a mixture of nutri-
ents at suboptimal concentrations, which are combined with indigestible structural
compounds, such as cellulose and lignin, and a variety of allelochemicals
(Schoonhoven et al. 2005). The latter may exert a wide range of behavioural,
8 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

physiological and growth-inhibiting effects, some of which may even lead to insect
mortality.
Most insects have qualitatively similar nutritional requirements, consisting of
carbohydrates, amino acids, fatty acids, sterols and a number of micronutrients.
Host plants are often nutritionally suboptimal per se. The main groups of primary
plant metabolites – amino acids, carbohydrates and lipids involved in fundamental
plant physiological processes – serve as essential nutrients for herbivores. Therefore,
changes in primary plant metabolites and nutrients greatly affect the survival and
multiplication of phytophagous insects (Berenbaum 1995).
Nitrogen is especially important as insects are unable to exploit inorganic nitro-
gen, and organic nitrogen content of plants is suboptimal for the insects (Schoonhoven
et al. 2005). This may constitute a major barrier to successful exploitation of plants
by a majority of insect taxa (orders). Interestingly, the herbivorous taxa include
nearly half of the total arthropod fauna in less than one-third of insect orders, indi-
cating that once the nitrogen deficiency barrier is breached, these organisms are able
to access an abundant supply of food (Strong et al. 1984).

1.3.1.2.2 S elected Examples of Nutritional Factors in Plant Defence

Against Insects
The host plant, which is deficient in one or more essential nutrients required by the
insect, may prove insect resistant by causing antibiotic and antixenotic effects on
the insect. Such effects could also result from an imbalance of available nutrients
(Arora and Dhaliwal 2004).

Cotton Cotton genotypes with inbuilt defence based on nutritional factors have
been evolved for insects such as the leafhopper, Amrasca biguttula (Ishida); white-
fly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius); stem weevil, Pempherulus affinis (Faust); and the
thrips complex (Uthamasamy 1996). The whitefly B. tabaci-resistant genotypes
showed higher contents of K, P and Mg and lower of N and Fe as compared to sus-
ceptible ones. But the other parameters like sugars, proteins, Ca and Cu did not
show significant relationship with whitefly buildup. In another study, it was reported
that total sugar content of cotton cultivars was positively correlated with whitefly
incidence during the vegetative phase but negatively correlated with it after flower-
ing of the crop (Rao et al. 1990). In the case of leafhopper, A. biguttula, highly
susceptible genotype Acala 4–42 had higher amount of reducing sugars (2.55%),
proteins (18.49%) and free amino acids (10.15 mg/g) as compared to highly resis-
tant BJR 741 containing 1.63% reducing sugar, 13.45% proteins and 6 mg/g free
amino acids (Singh and Agarwal 1988).

Rice The thrips, Stenchaetothrips biformis (Bagnall)-resistant rice genotypes pos-

sessed significantly less reducing sugars and free amino acids in comparison with
the susceptible genotypes (Thayumanavan et al. 1990). The occurrence of aspara-
gine in minute quantities in rice variety ‘Mudgo’ was considered to be the primary
cause of resistance to brown plant hopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal). Young females
of brown plant hopper caged on variety Mudgo had underdeveloped ovaries con-
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 9

taining few eggs, while those caged on susceptible varieties had normal ovaries full
of eggs (Sogawa and Pathak 1970). The gall midge Orseolia oryzae (Wood-Mason)-
resistant varieties PTB 18, PTB 21 and Leuang 152 had higher content of free amino
acids and less sugar in their shoot apices than susceptible varieties Jaya and IR8. In
the case of stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker), stems of both the resistant
(TKM6) and moderately resistant (Ratna) genotypes had less amino acids and sug-
ars than susceptible genotype (IR8) (Vidyachandra et al. 1981).

Legumes The importance of amino acid concentration in the pea plant on suscep-
tibility to aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris), was revealed by Auclair (1963). He
observed that the concentrations of amino acids in the sap of susceptible genotypes
were significantly higher than those in the resistant genotypes. It has been reported
that high percentage of non-reducing sugars and low percentage of starch in the
seeds of chickpea genotype GL 645 might be responsible for the low incidence of
the pod borer H. armigera in the test cultivar as compared to the infestor (Chhabra
et al. 1990).
Low amino acid, protein and sugar contents and high phenol content induced
resistance in pigeon pea cultivars against pod borers. Sugar content was high both
in seeds (3.64–4.82%) and in the pod coat (3.66–4.92%) of susceptible cultivars
(ICPLI, ICPLS7 and UP AS20). In the resistant cultivars, the total sugar content
ranged between 2.86 (ICPLS3024) and 3.51% (HS9–2) in the seeds and 2.91
(ICPLS3024) and 3.44% (HS9–2) in the pod coat. The amino acid content was low
in the pod coat (1.40–1.52 mg/g) and seed (1.39–1.55 mg/g) of resistant pigeon pea
cultivars tested as compared to the susceptible cultivars (1.89–2.57 mg/g in pod
coat; 2.04–2.62 mg/g in seed). Highly significant positive correlation observed
between amino acid content and incidence of individual borer species supported the
possible role of amino acids in offering resistance to the pod borers (Sahoo and
Patnaik 2003).

1.3.1.2.3 Allelochemicals
The plant-produced allelochemicals are mainly secondary metabolites which do not
play major role in primary metabolic pathways of plants. While the primary meta-
bolic pathways are common in almost all flowering plants, these secondary sub-
stances vary widely in different plant species (Schoonhoven et al. 2005). It was
Fraenkel (1959) who first postulated that these substances act to deter insects and
other herbivores. It has been observed that the plant produce a dazzling variety of
secondary metabolites, and more than 200,000 of these have been identified (Dixon
and Strack 2003).
The allelochemicals have been functionally classified into two categories: allo-
mones which benefit the producing organism, i.e. the host plant, and kairomones –
which benefit the organism perceiving it, i.e. the phytophagous insect. The
involvement of allelochemicals in various types of insect-plant relationships can
determine the status of a plant either as a host (presence of kairomone) and non-host
(absence of kairomone) or as resistant (presence of allomone) and susceptible
(absence of allomone) (Panda and Khush 1995). Allomones are considered a major
10 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

Table 1.1 Major groups of phytochemicals utilized in plant defences

Phytochemical Typical plant Approximate number
group Example source of compounds known
Terpenoids (E)-β-Farnesene Ubiquitous >30,000
cucurbitacins
Steroids Phytoecdysteroids Ranunculaceae ~200
Cardenolides Digoxigenin Plantaginaceae ~200
Alkaloids Nicotine Solanaceae >12,000
Fatty acid (3Z)-Hexenylacetate Ubiquitous Not available
derivatives
Glucosinolates Sinigrin Capparales ~150
Cyanogenic Dhurrin Rosaceae, Fabaceae ~60
glucosides
Phenolics Simple phenols, coumarins, Ubiquitous >9000
lignin, tannin
Polypeptides Trypsin inhibitor Ubiquitous Not available
Nonprotein γ-Aminobutyric acid Fabaceae >200
amino acids
Silica SiO2 Poaceae 1
Latex Undefined emulsion Euphorbiaceae Not available
Modified from Mithofer and Boland (2012)

factor responsible for plant defence against insects, and these have been exploited to
increase levels of resistance in several agricultural crops (Green and Hedin 1986).
The various groups of secondary plant metabolites implicated in plant defence
against insects (Table 1.1) are briefly discussed here (Rosenthal and Berenbaum
1991; Arora and Dhaliwal 2004; Schoonhoven et al. 2005; Iason et al. 2012).

Nonprotein Amino Acids The nonprotein or unusual amino acids are common in
a number of unrelated families of higher plants as well as in some lower plants. At
least 600 such amino acids have been elucidated from various plants especially
legumes. Nonprotein amino acids may afford protection against predators and
pathogens due to their structural analogy to the common nutritionally important
amino acids. The biological effects on insects are partly due to the fact that the ana-
logue molecule gets misincorporated into protein synthesis of the insect or through
inhibition of biosynthetic pathways (Rosenthal 1991; Huang et al. 2011; Yan et al.
2015). Among these, canavanine, azetidine-2-carboxylic acid, 2,4-diaminobutyric
acid, mimosine, 3-hydroxyproline, 5-hydroxynorvaline, β-cyanoalanine and pipe-
colic acid are significant in causing insect growth disruption (Parmar and Walia
2001, Yan et al. 2015).

Terpenoids Terpenoids are the largest and most diverse class of organic com-
pounds found in plants. They exhibit enormous chemical variety and complexity,
but all are formed by fusion of five-carbon isopentane units, and most of them are
lipophilic substances (Ruzicka 1953). Terpenoids achieve their greatest structural
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 11

and functional diversity in the plant kingdom. Nearly 30,000 terpenoids are known
in plants, and a majority of them serve as defences against herbivores and pathogens
or as attractants for pollinators and fruit-dispersing animals. The terpenoids are con-
stituted of two or more five-carbon units in their structures: monoterpenoids (2xC5),
sesquiterpenoids (3xC5) diterpenoids (4x C5), triterpenoids (6xC5), tetraterpenoids
(8xC5) and polyterpenoids [(C5) n where n>8] (Gershenzon and Croteau 1991).
Monoterpenoids have been demonstrated to work as toxins and as feeding/ovipo-
sition deterrents against a large number of insects. The best known insect toxin
among monoterperoids is the botanical insecticide pyrethrum, found in the flowers
and leaves of certain Chrysanthemum species. The active ingredient in pyrethrum is
a mixture of monoterpene esters collectively known as pyrethroids (Casida 1973).
Cotton and related malvaceous plants possess spherical pigment glands in leaves,
flowers and most other parts of the plants. In addition to anthocyanin pigments,
these pigment glands contain high concentrations of a variety of mono- and sesqui-
terpenoids especially gossypol. Gossypol is a phenolic, sesquiterpene dimer with
two aldehyde residues. Gossypol is toxic to a variety of herbivorous insects, causing
significant decrease in the survival, growth and development of a number of impor-
tant lepidopterous and coleopterous pests. The toxicity of gossypol to herbivores is
supposed to result from its binding to proteins in the gastrointestinal tract, causing
a reduction in the rate of protein digestion. The proteins in the gastrointestinal tract
may be the ingested dietary proteins or the digestive enzymes produced by the
insect (Meisner et al. 1977). The sesquiterpene lactone, beta-D-glucopyranosyl
ester (TA-G), a major secondary metabolite of the common dandelion, Taraxacum
officinale G. H. Weber ex Wiggers, protects the plant against its major native root
herbivore, the common European cockchafer, Melolontha melolontha Linnaeus, by
deterring larval feeding (Huber et al. 2016).
Triterpenoids (C30) with six-C5 isoprene units are the largest of terpenoid com-
pounds. The three major groups of triterpenes which have significant roles in plant-­
herbivore interactions are the cucurbitacins, limonoids and saponins. Cucurbitacins
are a group of about 20 extremely bitter and toxic tetracyclic triterpenes, confined
mainly to plants in the Cucurbitaceae family. These compounds serve as toxicants
and feeding deterrents against a wide range of phytophagous insects (Tallamy et al.
1997). Some specialist insects feeding on cucurbits are, however, able to metabolize
or avoid these toxic compounds and even use cucurbitacins as host recognition cues
(Abe and Matsuda 2000).
The limonoids are a large group of highly oxygenated substances with a basic
skeleton of 26 carbon atoms. Limonoids are found in three closely related families,
the Rutaceae, Meliaceae and Cneoraceae. Limonoids are powerful feeding deter-
rents against insects. Over 100 triterpenoids have been isolated from the neem
(Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) seeds, and a number of these are active as insect feed-
ing deterrents and antifeedants. Most important of these is the azadirachtin, which
is effective at dosages as low as 50 parts per billion. More than 400 species of
insects have been reported to be susceptible to neem preparations at various concen-
trations. In addition to antifeedant effects, neem is reported to affect the survival,
12 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

growth, development, vigour and fecundity of insects (Schumutterer 1995; Dhaliwal

and Arora 2001).
Saponins are common constituents of a large number of plant species and consist
of a sugar moiety (glycoside) linked to a hydrophobic aglycone, which may be a
triterpene or a steroid, both of which originate from the C30 precursor, squalene.
Triterpenoid saponins have been detected in common legumes such as soybeans,
beans, peas, tea, spinach, sugar beet and quinoa. Steroidal saponins are found in
oats, capsicum, peppers, aubergine, tomato seed, allium and asparagus (Francis
et al. 2002). Saponins exert a strong insecticidal action against several orders and
cause increased mortality, lowered food intake, weight reduction, growth retarda-
tion and moulting defects (Geyter et al. 2007).

Alkaloids The alkaloids are a heterogeneous class of natural products that occur in
all classes of living organisms but are most common in plants. Alkaloids generally
include basic substances that contain one or more nitrogen atoms, usually in combi-
nation as part of a cyclic system. Most of them are derivatives of common amino
acids, such as lysine, tyrosine, tryptophan, histidine and ornithine (Facchini 2001).
Alkaloids are found in some 20% of the species of flowering plants. Generally, each
alkaloid-bearing species displays its own unique, genetically defined alkaloid pat-
tern. Numerous alkaloids have been reported to be toxic or deterrent to insects.
Because of their nitrogenous nature, many alkaloids interfere with the key compo-
nents of acetylcholine transmission in the nervous system. Nicotine and nornicotine
derived from tobacco plant were popular as botanical insecticides before the advent
of synthetic organic insecticides (Dhaliwal and Arora 2001). Several groups of
structurally unrelated alkaloids such as pyrrolizidines, quinolizidines, indole alka-
loids, benzylisoquinolines, steroid alkaloids and methylxanthines are feeding deter-
rents to many insects and other herbivores at dietary concentrations over 0.1%
(Schoonhoven et al. 2005).

Glucosinolates Glucosinolates form a small group of about 100 sulphur- or

nitrogen-­containing distinctive secondary compounds, which act as precursors of
mustard oils. Glucosinolates occur commonly in the order Brassicales, including
the commercially important family Brassicaceae. Glucosinolates appear to contrib-
ute to effective chemical defences against a majority of non-adapted phytophagous
insects (Fahey et al. 2001). In the thale cress Arabidopsis thaliana (Linnaeus)
Heynhold genome, at least 52 genes are involved in glucosinolate biosynthesis
(Arabidopsis Genome initiative 2000, Halkier and Gershenzon 2006). When herbi-
vores attack plant tissues, glucosinolates are hydrolysed by the enzyme myrosinase
into several herbivore-deterring metabolites (Hopkins et al. 2009). On the other
hand, a small minority of adapted (Brassica-feeding) insects are able to utilize glu-
cosinolates in host seeking and host recognition behaviour. Glucosinolates and their
volatile hydrolysis products are also used as cues by natural enemies of Brassica-­
feeding insects (Louda and Mole 1991).
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 13

Insect Hormone Mimics and Antagonists The endocrine system is critical for the
development, growth, survival and multiplication of insects. Although many insect
hormones are known, two powerful hormones, the juvenile hormone (JH) and the
ecdysone or moulting hormone (MH), are recognized to play a major role in these
processes. The analogues of these hormones are called juvenoids and ecdysteroids,
respectively. It is presumed that plants may have developed juvenoids and ecdyster-
oids as subtle defences against insect pests. Plant species having high ecdysteroid
content (> 1000 ppm) are avoided by insects. Farnesol, sesamin, juvabione, s­ terculic
acid, bakuchiol and thujic acid are some of the important juvenoids isolated from
plants and are known to disrupt metamorphosis, moulting and reproduction in
insects (Bowers 1991).

Proteinase Inhibitors Protease inhibitors (PIs) constitute an abundant and impor-

tant group of compounds in plants, which have a defensive function against herbi-
vores, especially insect pests (Dunaevsky et al. 2005). Recent studies using
microarrays and proteomic approaches have revealed that the protein-based plant
defences play a more important role against herbivores then previously realized
(Felton 2005; Zhu-Salzman et al. 2008). Defence-related proteins such as arginases,
polyphenol oxidases and peroxidases may have antimicrobial properties; others
such as chitinases, cysteine proteases, lectins and leucine amino peptidases may be
toxic (Zhu-Salzman et al. 2008). However, the anti-insect action of plant proteins is
easily inactivated by proteases. These proteolysis-susceptible proteins can be pro-
tected with PIs (Mithofer and Boland 2012).
The PIs inhibit the activities of various enzymes in insects especially insect pep-
tidases including serine, cysteine and aspartate proteinases and metallo-­
carboxypeptidases, which are involved in insect growth and development. The PIs
also reduce the digestive ability of the insect pests, thus leading to the shortage of
important food constituents such as amino acids resulting in slow development and/
or starvation. A large number of PIs have been reported in plants (De Leo et al.
2002), which are effective against many lepidopteran and hemipteran insect pests
(War and Sharma 2014). For instance, in tomato plants, PIs were positively tested
for their trypsin- and H. armigera gut proteinase-inhibitory activity in different
parts of the plant (Damle et al. 2005).

Lectins Lectins or phytohaemagglutinins are proteins with a capacity to reversibly

bind to the carbohydrate moieties of complex carbohydrates without altering the
covalent structure of any of the recognized glycosyl legends. Lectins are distributed
universally throughout the plant kingdom, where they constitute 6–11% of the total
plant proteins. The cotyledons of the seeds of legumes are especially rich in lectins.
Lectins are associated with the defence of plants against insects and phytopathogens
(Liener 1991). Arisaema helleborifolium Schott lectin exhibited anti-insect activity
towards the second instar larvae of melon fruit fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett)
(Kaur et al. 2006).
14 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

Phenolics Phenolics are aromatic compounds with one or more hydroxyl groups
and are ubiquitous in plants (Harborne 1994). Examples of relatively simple pheno-
lics include hydroxybenzoic acids like vanillic acid, the hydroxycinnamic acids like
caffeic acid and the coumarins (Schoonhoven et al. 2005). Coumarins possess a
5,6-benz-2-pyrone skeleton and may be variously hydroxylated, alkylated, alkoxyl-
ated or acylated. Coumarins can deter feeding as well as interfere with development
of insects. The simple coumarin, bergamottin, is ovicidal to the Colorado potato
beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), while mammein is toxic to the mustard
beetles. Coumarins appear to act as kairomones for certain insects that are special-
ized for feeding on coumarin-containing plants (Berenbaum 1991b).
Among the phenolics, flavonoids are found in nearly all higher plants, and most
plants show their own distinctive flavonoid profile. The flavonoids share a basic C6-­
C3-­C6 structure, which is linked to a sugar moiety to form a water soluble glycoside.
Common examples of flavonoids isolated from plants are catechin, botanical insec-
ticide rotenone and phaseolin, all of which act as feeding deterrents against insects
(Schoonhoven et al. 2005).
Tannins are polyphenolic compounds commonly found in higher plants. The
phenolic hydroxyl groups of tannins bind to almost all soluble proteins, producing
insoluble copolymers. Proteins bound to tannins are indigestible and thus decrease
the nutritional value of plant tissues (Schoonhoven et al. 2005).

Latex Latex is present in specialized cells called laticifers and consists of chemi-
cally undefined milky suspensions or emulsions of particles in an aqueous fluid
(Agrawal and Konno 2009). Laticifers have a defensive function. Small insects may
be physically trapped in latex or their mouthparts may get glued together, and chem-
ical constituents in latex including proteins and toxins affect insect development
(Dussourd 1995). Wounding of laticifers by insects results in leakage at wound site
(Mithofer and Boland 2012). In the milkweed, Hoodia gordonii (Masson) Sweet ex
Decne, both larval feeding and adult oviposition by T. ni was deterred when latex
was added to artificial diet or painted on the leaves of the host plant (Chow et al.
2005).

1.3.1.2.4 S elected Examples of Allelochemicals in Plant Defence Against

Insects
Maize Maize, the world’s most productive grain crop, is attacked by a diverse
range of insect pests. Well-studied anti-herbivore defences in maize include small
molecules such as benzoxazinoids (Frey et al. 2009), chlorogenic acid (Cortes-Cruz
et al. 2003) and maysin (Rector et al. 2003) in addition to defence-related proteins
(Chuang et al. 2014). Xie et al. (1992) analysed several maize lines resistant to
western corn rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera Le Conte, for hydroxamic acid
levels. All the root extracts were found to contain four major hydroxamic acids:
2,4-dihydroxy-7methoxy-l,4-benzoxazin-3-(4H)-one (DIMBOA), 2,4-dihydroxy-­
7,8dimethoxy-l,4-benzoxazin-3(4H)-one (DIM2BOA), 2-hydroxy,7-methoxy,1,4-
benzoxazin-­ 3(4H)-one (HMBOA) and 6-methoxy-benzoxazolinone (MBOA).
These chemicals adversely affected the survival development, weight and head
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 15

capsule width of rootworm larvae. Wiseman et al. (1992) reported a highly signifi-
cant negative relationship between weights of corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea
(Boddie), as well as the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda J. E. Smith, larvae
and maysin concentration in the silks of a large number of corn entries.

Cotton The allelochemical compounds known to exert adverse effects on insect

pests in cotton include gossypol, gossypurin, heliocides, hemigossypolone, tannins,
anthocyanins, flavonoids and phenolics. Gossypol was first reported to confer resis-
tance to cotton bollworm Heliothis zea by Bottger et al. (1964). Most commercial
cotton cultivars have a gossypol content of about 0.5% in squares. Vilkova et al.
(1988) reported that high gossypol cotton cultivars (No.1 6482, 6501 and Termez-14)
had detrimental effects on insect development, viz. increasing incubation period,
causing greater mortality among young larvae and lowering larval weight compared
with low gossypol cultivars. They further stated that antibiotic effect of high gos-
sypol reduced the fecundity of H. armigera by more than 50%. Gossypol is known
to adversely affect the nutritional quality of bolls by forming complexes with amino
acids, proteins and enzymes. The tree cotton Gossypium arboreum Linnaeus geno-
types with high gossypol-gland density on ovary surface suffered lower incidence of
bollworm complex including H. armigera, Earias vittella (Fabricius) and
Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Mohan et al. 1994).
In the case of cotton stem weevil, P. affinis, when the healthy test plants were
assayed, the concentration of tannins was low in susceptible MCU5 and high in the
resistant accessions. The concentration increased in the gall region when the plants
were infested, and the increase was more in resistant accessions compared to the
susceptible MCU5. There was no variation in the total phenolic content in the
healthy stem of resistant and susceptible accessions. However, when infested,
the concentration of total phenolics increased in the gall regions significantly, the
increase being more in resistant accessions. It could thus be inferred that increased
tannin and phenolic concentrations might provide a protective mechanism against
the stem weevil (Uthamasamy 1996).

Vegetables Potato glycoalkaloids are known to act as natural resistance factors in

Solanum species against the Colorado potato beetle (CPB), L. decemlineata, and the
potato leafhopper, E. fabae. Several wild Solanum species have shown a positive
correlation between total leaf glycoalkaloid content and resistance to species of
Leptinotarsa. Leptine is a very effective feeding deterrent totally inhibiting feeding,
while tomatine and demissine are intermediate in activity, followed by solanine and
chaconine (Tingey 1984). The field resistance of tetraploid potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) selection ND 2858-1 and its backcross progeny against the Colorado
potato beetle is caused by antibiosis. Neonates of CPB developed slowly in
detached-leaf assays on resistant genotypes, and larval weight gain after 4 days was
inhibited by 75% relative to larval development and weight gain on susceptible
genotypes. Foliar glycoalkaloids of resistant genotypes included low levels of lepti-
nes I and II (Lorenzen et al. 2001).
16 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

The wild species of tomato, Lycopersicon hirsutum and L. hirsutum f. glabratum,

showed antibiosis against the tomato fruit borer H. zea. The chemicals responsible
for antibiosis were identified as L-tomatine, 2-tridecanone, phenolics and iron and
zinc (Ferry and Cuthbert 1975; Dimock and Kennedy 1983; Kashyap 1983). The
allelochemic 2-tridecanone was acutely toxic to H. zea, Manduca sexta Linnaeus
and L. decemlineata. High phenolic content has also been reported to confer resis-
tance to the related species, H. armigera (Banerjee and Kalloo 1989), while high
tomatine content is inimical to the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum
(Westwood) (Steehius and van Gelder 1985).
The protease inhibitor and chlorogenic acid were responsible for aphid resis-
tance in tomato (Felton et al. 1989). The sesquiterpene carboxylic acids (SCA), (+)
E-α-santalen-12-oic, (−)-E-endo-α-bergamoten-12-oic and (+)-E endo-β-­
berqamoten-12-ion acids were produced in glandular trichomes of Lycopersicon
hirsutum f. typicum accession (LA) 1777, which is highly resistant to pests com-
monly damaging commercial tomato, L. esculentum. Both the tomato fruitworm, H.
zea, and the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hubner), larvae exhibited reduced
feeding, slow development rates and low survival in presence of these compounds.
Sublethal effects were observed at concentrations as low as 2 mg SCA/g of diet, and
a concentration of 60 mg SCA/g in diet proved lethal to the larvae (Frelichowski and
Juvik 2001).

1.3.1.3 Types of Plant Defences

The plant defences may be classified into: constitutive, which are always present in
the host plant irrespective of the presence of insect or noninsect pests, and induced,
which are produced in response to various abiotic and biotic stressors.

1.3.1.3.1 Constitutive Defences

Plants have evolved a plethora of structural and chemical defences that are incorpo-
rated into their tissues irrespective of the presence or absence of herbivores. These
constitutive defences can deter, repel, intoxicate or disrupt the feeding, development
or multiplication of insects (Arora and Dhaliwal 2004; Ram et al. 2004; Mithofer
and Boland 2012). These defences include the texture and composition of the plant
surface (Johnson 1975); the presence of anatomical structures such as thin veins,
thorns, silica, trichomes or resin ducts (Hanover 1975); the absence of essential
nutrients (House 1961); the presence of hormone-like substances that disrupt insect
development (Williams 1970); unsuitable pH or osmotic pressure (Beck 1965); or
the accumulation of secondary metabolites (Chapman 1974). The secondary metab-
olites are diverse, ranging from amino acids to alkaloids, terpenes, phenolics, steroi-
dal, cyanogenic and mustard oil glycosides (Mithofer and Boland 2012). In addition
plants may also convert nitrogen to compounds which are not available to insects
(White 1978). The advantage of such constitutive defences to insects is that these
are produced during high metabolic periods and can be utilized over an extended
period of time. Such defences work well against a diverse group generalist herbi-
vores, but continuous exposure to these chemicals exerts strong selective pressure
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 17

on the phytophagous insects, which may result in evolution of specialist feeders.

Thus, even the best defended species are attacked by a few specialist herbivores.

1.3.1.3.2 Induced Defences

Induced defence is activated in presence of herbivores and enables the plant to resist
pest feeding and colonization (Sadras and Felton 2010). Initiation of insect feeding
activates several defence signals, leading to suitable defence responses (Wu and
Baldwin 2010; Hogenhout and Bos 2011; Bruce 2015). The plants have also been
reported to respond to insect oviposition in a similar fashion (Hilker and Meiners
2006). Plant-released volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) have been found to attract
natural enemies of pests (Tamiru et al. 2011; Fatouros et al. 2012) or induce direct
defences so that insect growth rates are reduced on plants harbouring eggs
(Gieselhardt et al. 2013).
Plants respond to elicitors derived from oral secretion of insect herbivores,
mechanical damage and/or the exogenous application of inducers. Insect oral secre-
tion/regurgitant contains a number of elicitors of plant defence, the important ones
being fatty acid conjugates (FACs). The FACs are composed of two moieties: a fatty
acid and an amino acid. It has been observed that the fatty acid and amino acid origi-
nate from the plant and the insect, respectively, and are synthesized in the insects’
midgut. Expressing the unique insect-plant interaction, the FACs not only serve as
important elicitors for plants to perceive insect attack but are also involved in insect
nitrogen metabolism. The first FAC isolated from oral secretion of the beet army-
worm S. exigua larvae was N-(17-hydroxylinolenoyl)-L-glutamine (volicitin), and
it stimulates maize plants to produce volatiles, which attract natural enemies of the
pest (Alborn et al. 1997). Similarly, regurgitant of the tobacco hornworm, M. sexta,
contains N-linolenoyl-glu, a potential elicitor of volatile emissions in tobacco
plants. In addition, some FACs activate mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)
pathway, producing a number of plant defensive compounds having a role in signal-
ling transduction in response to various stresses including drought, pathogen and
insect attacks. MAPK signalling is a well-conserved pathway in eukaryotes, and its
critical role in plant signalling especially for pathogen stresses is well established.
The central role of MAPK in regulating plant transcriptomes has been demonstrated
(Wu and Baldwin 2010). Some FACs induce accumulation of 7-epi-jasmonic acid,
which activates herbivore-defence genes in tobacco plants. Furthermore, FACs also
induce nicotine and proteinase inhibitors (PI) in the coyote tobacco, Nicotiana
attenuata (Torr. ex S. Watson) (Wu and Baldwin 2010; War and Sharma 2014).
The plant plasma membrane is exposed to the environment and initiates a cas-
cade of events following recognition of pest attack. The changes in cell membrane
potential (Vm) induced by herbivory are followed by fast electrical signals, which
are systematic in nature. Calcium ions (Ca+2) function as a second messenger in
several plant signalling pathways. The signal may appear a few seconds after herbi-
vore attack as a single transient oscillation or repeated spikes with specific subcel-
lular localisation lag time, amplitude and frequency. The Ca+2 signals activate
calmodulin and other calcium-sensing proteins. This promotes a cascade of
18 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

downstream effects, like altered protein phosphorylation and gene expression

patterns (Furstenberg-Hagg et al. 2013).
Herbivory leads to the accumulation of phytohormones in plants, the important
ones being salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene. The phytohor-
mones mediate various signal transduction pathways involved in plant defence
against various biotic and abiotic stresses. The main transduction pathways involved
in plant defence against herbivorous insects are phenylpropanoid and octadecanoid
pathways mediated by SA and JA, respectively. These pathways lead to synthesis
and accumulation of toxins at the feeding site or in other parts, which are then trans-
ported to the feeding site. In addition, antioxidative enzymes involved in plant
defence accumulate in plant tissues on account of insect damage (Wu and Baldwin
2010). Yan et al. (2015) reported accumulation of nonprotein amino acid
5-hydroxynorvaline in leaves of maize inbred line B73 following herbivory by the
corn leaf aphid Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) and the beet armyworm S. exigua, as
well as in response to treatment with methyl jasmonate, salicylic acid and abscisic
acid.
Both constitutive and induced defences can be either direct or indirect. Direct
defences target the herbivores, while indirect defences act via recruitment of natural
enemies of insect pests in the aid of plants. Certain volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), containing terpenoids, fatty acid derivatives and a few aromatic com-
pounds, serve to attract natural enemies of phytophagous insects (Mithofer and
Boland 2012).

1.3.2 Counter-Defences of Insects to Plant Defences

Plants defend themselves from herbivore damage through a plethora of structural

and chemical defences. These defences may have exerted enormous selection pres-
sure on the insects resulting in evolution of counter-defences (adaptations) in her-
bivorous insects. The insect adaptations to plant defences can be physical,
behavioural or biochemical and comprise of various mechanisms such as penetra-
tion barriers, special excretions, sequestrations, temporary binding with carrier pro-
teins and storage of toxins in adipose tissue, enzymatic detoxifications and target-site
mutation. It is important to gain an understanding of these insect adaptations to
plant defence to minimize their effects on stability of resistance in plants to insects.
The important counter-defence strategies of insects to plant defences are briefly
introduced hereunder (War and Sharma 2014; Bruce 2015).

1.3.2.1 Adaptations to Physical and Structural Defences

The slippery wax layer presents a serious obstacle to the movement of insects on
plants, and many insects have developed special devices to overcome the problem.
For instance, the minute setae on tarsal pulvilli of some chrysomelids excrete an
adhesive material for good attachment (Gorb and Gorb 2002). Leafhoppers of
Empoasca species can use their tarsal pulvilli as suction cups (Lee et al. 1986),
while many lepidopteran caterpillars glue a silk thread ‘rope ladder’ to the plant
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 19

surface to serve as a ‘foot hold’ (Eigenbrode 2004). To overcome the problem of

trichomes on the plant surface, the aphid Myzocallis schreiberi Hille Ris Lambers
& Stroyan has specialized structure in the form of claws and flexible empodia that
serve to get a good grip on the short woolly trichomes on the leaves of its host, the
Holm oak, Quercus ilex Linnaeus (Kennedy 1986).
Leaf toughness has been found to reduce herbivory. As an adaptation to food
hardness, in caterpillars of Pseudaletia unipuncta Haworth, the head and chewing
musculature are twice as large when fed on hard grass as on soft artificial food, even
though body mass is similar (Bernays 1986). Water lily beetles Galerucella nym-
phaeae (Linnaeus) feeding on the ‘hard’ water lily have disproportionally bigger
mandibles than conspecifics feeding on the great water dock grin, Rumex hydro-
lapathum Huds., another host plant with softer leaf tissues (Pappers et al. 2001).

1.3.2.2 Adaptations to Protease Inhibitors

Production of protease inhibitors is induced in some plants in response to insect
damage. Herbivore attack on N. attenuata rapidly increases the production and
accumulation of trypsin PIs; M. sexta and S. exigua larvae performed better on
Trypsin PI-deficient plants as compared to similar plants producing PIs (Zavala
et al. 2004; Steppuhn and Baldwin 2007). However, many insect pests have adapted
to plant PIs, which increases damage to the host plants. This counter-defence of PIs
by insect pests is a major barrier to the manipulation and utilization of PIs for a
stable plant defence and thus warrants an understanding of the mechanisms by
which insects counteract the PI-based plant defence. Two types of resistance or
adaptation to protease inhibitors have been observed in insect pests. One of these
depends on having the alternative proteases that are resistant to PIs (Parde et al.
2010). These insensitive proteases can occur constitutively in the plant and/or are
induced when the other proteases are inhibited to compensate their loss (Jongsma
et al. 1995; Parde et al. 2012). S. exigua has been reported to adapt to potato protein-
ase inhibitor II by induced gut proteinase activity, which is not inhabited by the PIs.
Further, when fed on the soybean proteinase inhibitor (SPI)-containing diet, larval
proteases showed insensitivity to the inhibitor (Brioschi et al. 2007). Trypsins insen-
sitive to plant PIs have been characterized from Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel), T. ni and
H. zea (Volpicella et al. 2003).
The second mechanism of resistance to PIs in insects involves the synthesis of
specific proteases, which are able to degrade the protease inhibitors so as to reduce
their inhibitory activity. Proteolytic inactivation is an important adaptation devel-
oped by insects to withstand the proteolytic inhibition by PIs. A new trypsin-like
enzyme is produced by S. frugiperda (J.E. Smith) larvae when fed on artificial diet
with soybean PIs (Brioschi et al. 2007). The diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella
Linnaeus, larvae have been found to be insensitive to mustard trypsin inhibitor 2
(MTI2). This insensitivity has been attributed to degradation of MTI2 by the pest,
thus avoiding the effect of the PI (Yang et al. 2009).
20 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

1.3.2.3 Adaptations to the Glucosinolate-Myrosinase System

The glucosinolate-myrosinase system, also known as the ‘mustard oil bomb’, pres-
ent in Brassicales (Brassicaceae, Capparidaceae, Tropaeolaceae) constitutes the
most effective and well-studied defence system in these plants against insect pests.
Under normal conditions, glucosinolates are compartmentalized and thus protected
from their hydrolysing enzyme – a thioglucosidase – myrosinase. While the gluco-
sinolates are distributed in many plant tissues, the myrosinase is localized in scat-
tered cells only. Upon tissue damage, the myrosinase and glucosinolate come into
contact producing the unstable aglycones, which spontaneously rearrange into vari-
ous active compounds, mainly nitriles and isothiocyanates (Li et al. 2000; Hopkins
et al. 2009).
It has been revealed that high glucosinolate- and myrosinase-containing lines of
Brassica juncea (Linnaeus) Czern. are more defensive against Spodoptera eridania
(Cramer) larvae than the ones with lower content of these two chemicals (Li et al.
2000). The larvae of T. ni, a lepidopteran generalist, avoided A. thaliana ecotypes
that produced isothiocyanates upon glucosinolate hydrolysis and, instead, fed on
ecotypes that produced nitriles (Lambrix et al. 2001). Further, certain parasitoids
use glucosinolates that are released by feeding herbivores to detect their host insects.
In such cases, glucosinolates have a dual function for the attacked host plant, in
direct as well as in indirect defence (Hopkins et al. 2009).
Some insect pests even use glucosinolates for their own defence. Myzus persicae
(Sulzer), Athalia rosae (Linnaeus) and P. rapae sequester glucosinolates into their
hemolymph and body tissues (Muller and Brakefield 2003; Kazana et al. 2007;
Bridges et al. 2002). When a predator attacks, the haemolymph oozes out gluco-
sinolates that deter the predators such as ants and predatory wasps (Muller and
Brakefield 2003). Some aphids especially Brevicoryne brassicae (Linnaeus) and
Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach) sequester glucosinolates from the phloem sap
(Kazana et al. 2007, Bridges et al. 2002). Furthermore, Pierinae caterpillars such as
P. rapae detoxify the glucosinolates from their host plants by converting these oth-
erwise toxic breakdown products to inert metabolites through a nitrile-specifier pro-
tein (NSP). The NSP activity in the gut of P. rapae modulates the hydrolysis of
glucosinolates and leads to the formation of nitriles instead of toxic isothiocyanates
(Wittstock et al. 2004).

1.3.2.4 Adaptations to Tannins

Tannins are the polyphenolic compounds that strongly bind to proteins or to diges-
tive enzymes in the gut, thereby reducing their digestibility by insect pests and thus
affecting insect growth and development. In addition, tannins also act as feeding
deterrents to many insects because of their astringent (mouth puckering) nature
(Barbehenn and Constabel 2011). Tannins form hydrogen or covalent bonds with
the protein amino groups, which leads to precipitation of proteins and the digestive
enzymes of herbivores. Furthermore, chelation of metal ions in insects by tannins
reduces their availability to the insect pests, thus affecting growth and development.
Tannins have also been reported to inhibit feeding and cause midgut lesions and
pharmacological toxicity (Bernays and Chamberlain 1980). However, insects have
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 21

developed several adaptive mechanisms to avoid the toxicity of tannins. The poten-
tial mechanisms insects use to avoid toxicity of tannins include alkaline gut pH,
tannin absorption through peritrophic membrane, polymerization and excretion of
the polyphenols after concentration (War and Sharma 2014). The surfactants formed
as products of lipid digestion in the gut lumen prevent precipitation of proteins
(Martin et al. 1987). Oxygen levels in foregut also play an important role in toxicity
of tannins. At higher pH, oxygen levels are low and reduce autoxidation of tannins,
thereby lowering their toxicity. The antioxidative system of insects also plays an
important role in reducing the tannin toxicity. For example, ascorbate reduces the
oxidation of tannins and formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in insect gut
(Krishnan and Sehnal 2006). The grasshoppers possess a strong midgut antioxida-
tive defence, which enables them to withstand tannins. This antioxidative defence
mainly comprises of glutathione, α-tocopherol and ascorbate. The tolerance to tan-
nins, and its association with peritrophic membrane in S. gregaria, has been attrib-
uted to the ultrafiltration of tannins. In some species including Melanoplus
sanguinipes (Fabricius), tannic acid does not bind to the peritrophic membrane. In
addition, peritrophic membrane protects the insect epithelium against lesions and
damage by ROS by adsorbing highly reactive ferrous ions (Barbehenn 2003).

1.3.2.5 Detoxification of Plant Metabolites

Enzymatic detoxification of toxic chemicals mediates the adaptation of insects to
plant allelochemicals and thus helps the herbivores to overcome plant chemical
defences. Insects react strongly to the toxic allelochemicals, when provided with the
natural host plant diet or incorporated in the artificial diet, by increasing the meta-
bolic mechanisms that result in the production of detoxifying enzymes, such as
monooxygenases and glutathione-S-transferases (GST) (Nitao 1989, Wadleigh and
Yu Wadleigh and Yu 1988). The mechanisms of detoxification that operate in insects
depend on the host plant chemistry, and its levels are generally influenced by con-
centration of the allelochemicals in the plant (War and Sharma 2014). Insects deploy
various enzymes for detoxification of pesticides and plant allelochemicals, and
some systems are thought to be ubiquitous (Francis et al. 2005; Scott et al. 2010).
The best known is the system of polysubstrate monooxygenases (also called mixed-­
function oxidases). The terminal component of this system is cytochrome P-450, so
called because it absorbs light maximally at around 450 nm when complexed with
carbon monoxide. Cytochrome P-450 combines with the substrate (which may be a
toxin) and with molecular oxygen, catalysing the oxidation of the substrate.
Cytochrome can combine with many different lipophilic substrates and exists as
several isozymes that vary in their substrate specificity (Feyereisen 2006).
The P450s are regarded as one of the important players in insect-plant coevolu-
tion, since these are used by the plants to produce toxins and by the insects for
detoxification of phytochemicals (Schuler 1996). The desert dwelling species of
Drosophila mettleri Heed feeding on cactus containing toxic allelochemicals pos-
sess inducible amounts of P450 involved in the metabolism of these toxins
(Danielson et al. 1997). The metabolism of isothiocyanates such as
2-­phyenylethylisothiocyanate, indole-3-carbinol and indole-3-acetonitrile in
22 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

S. frugiperda midgut microsomes is Cyt P450 dependent (Yu 2000). Adaptation of

lepidopteran insects to plant secondary metabolites such as furanocoumarins has
been attributed to P450s. Black swallowtail, Papilio polyxenes Fabricius, feeding on
plants containing furanocoumarins tolerates up to 0.1% xanthotoxin in diet
(Berenbaum 1991a), which is detoxified by P450 monooxygenases (Bull et al.
1986). A clearer picture of involvement of P450 in detoxification of plant allelo-
chemicals came after the sequencing of CYP6B1 from P. polyxenes, which codes for
P450s. Expression of CYP6B161 and CYP6B162 coding for P450s is induced in
lepidopteran cell lines, indicating the involvement of P450s in metabolism of linear
furanocoumarins, such as xanthotoxin and bergapten (Ma et al. 1994). A number of
P450s involved in detoxification of phytochemicals have been isolated from herbi-
vores, for instance, from parsnip webworm, Depressaria pastinacella Duponchel
(Cianfrogna et al. 2002), M. sexta (Stevens et al. 2000) and Helicoverpa species.
Furthermore, the conversion of dihydrocamalexic acid to camalexin, which are the
major Arabidopsis phytoalexins, is catalysed by cytochrome P450 PAD3
(Schuhegger et al. 2006). Aphid resistance to glucosinolates is attributed to the
CYP81F2, which is a downstream part of the indolic glucosinolate pathway (Pfalz
et al. 2009).
P450s have also been characterized from many other insects where they serve to
metabolize the host chemicals. For example, in Musca domestica Linnaeus,
CYP6A1 metabolizes the terpenoids (Andersen et al. 1997); in H. armigera, P450
monooxygenase CYP6AE14 detoxifies gossypol (Mao et al. 2007); in Anopheles
gambiae Giles, CYP6Z1 metabolizes xanthotoxin and bergapten (furanocouma-
rins), furanochromones and natural myristicin, safrole and isosafrole (Chiu et al.
2008), while CYP6Z2 metabolizes xanthotoxin, lignin, piceatannol and resveratrol
(McLaughlin et al. 2008); and in Diploptera punctata Eschscholtz, CYP4C7
hydroxylates sesquiterpenoids (Sutherland et al. 1998). Bark beetles such as Ips pini
Wood & Bright and Ips paraconfusus Lanier detoxify the monoterpenes, sesquiter-
penes and diterpenoid resin acids by P450s (Seybold et al. 2006).
The glutathione-S-transferase (GST) is another enzyme system involved in
insect resistance to host plant defence by detoxification of xenobiotics and catalysa-
tion of the conjugation of electrophilic molecules with the thiol group of reduced
glutathione, which results in their rapid excretion and degradation (Francis et al.
2005). This family of enzymes has been implicated in neutralizing the toxic effects
of insecticides that are neurotoxic and/or affect insect growth and development.
These include spinosad, diazinon, DDT, nitenpyram, lufenuron and dicyclanil
(Sintim et al. 2009). Several studies have advocated the role of GST in insect adap-
tation to plant glucosinolates or other plant secondary metabolites incorporated into
the artificial diet in S. frugiperda, S. litura, T. ni, M. persicae, Aulacorthum solani
(Kaltenbach) and A. pisum (Enayati et al. 2005). The overproduction of GST in M.
persicae has been attributed to insect adaptation to glucosinolates and isothiocya-
nates in members of Brasicaceae, although there is no direct confrontation of iso-
thiocyanates, because aphids directly insert their stylets into the phloem (Francis
et al. 2005; Kim et al. 2008).
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 23

1.3.2.6 Insect Gut Symbionts in Counter-Defence

The induction of plant defences in response to herbivore attack has been observed
to be modulated by crosstalk between jasmonic acid (JA)- and salicylic acid (SA)-
signalling pathways. Herbivores possess diverse microbes in their digestive tracts,
and these symbionts can modify plant-insect interactions (Hogenout et al. 2009).
Chung et al. (2013) reported that Colorado potato beetle, the L. decemlineata, grubs
exploited gut bacteria in their oral secretions to overcome anti-herbivore defences in
tomato. The antibiotic-untreated larvae decreased the production of JA and
JA-responsive anti-herbivore defences but increased SA accumulation and
SA-responsive gene expression. The downregulation or plant defences resulted in
enhanced larval growth. The gut bacteria belonging to three genera
(Stenotrophomonas, Pseudomonas and Enterobacter) were implicated for defence
suppression in this study.
Hammer and Bowers (2015) recently proposed the ‘gut microbial facilitation
hypothesis’, which proposes that variation among herbivores in their ability to con-
sume chemically defended plants can be due, in part, to variation in their associated
microbial communities. These hypotheses have drawn support from molecular stud-
ies on gut bacteria. The gut bacteria in Japanese common stink bug, Megacopta
punctatissima (Montandon), is capable of decarboxylating oxalate, a common plant
secondary metabolite (Nikoh et al. 2011). The mountain pine beetles harbour gut
bacteria associated with terpene detoxification (Adams et al. 2013) and are capable
of metabolizing terpenes in vitro (Boone et al. 2013). The Acinetobacter species
from the midguts of gypsy moth larvae are capable of metabolizing dietary phenolic
glycosides (Mason et al. 2014). Given the widespread occurrence of gut bacteria in
oral secretions of insects, these may be associated with hijacking of plant defence
responses in other cases of insect-plant interactions as well.

1.4  uman-Induced Plant Defences and Insect Counter-­

H
Defences: Case Study of Hessian Fly-wheat Interactions

The Hessian fly (HF), Mayetiola destructor (Say) (Cecidomyiidae: Diptera), is a

serious pest of wheat with a long history of pestilence in the USA. The HF is dis-
tributed in North Africa, Europe, West and Central Asia, North America and New
Zealand (Buntin and Chapin 1990). The pest has been successfully managed through
release of a series of insect-resistant cultivars carrying HF-specific R-gene(s).
However virulent biotypes of HF are capable of overcoming resistance in about
6–8 years (Chen et al. 2009; Stuart et al. 2012). Following egg hatch, the neonate
HF larva on the upper surface of leaf crawls to the base of the seedling, wherein it
establishes a sustained feeding site in susceptible genotypes but fails to do so in
resistant ones. Virulent HF biotypes on a susceptible cultivar result in a compatible
interaction favouring pest establishment, while a virulent biotype on the resistant
cultivar results in incompatible interactions and pest mortality in 3–5 days
(Subramanyam et al. 2015) (Table 1.2).
24 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

Table 1.2 Variations in responses of wheat and Hessian fly during compatible and incompatible
interactions
Compatible interaction Incompatible interaction
Larval growth completed in 10–12 days Larvae die within 5 days of attack
No larval growth
Gut shows signs of toxin exposure
Seedling apical shoot meristem death Seedling survival
Shorter plants, fewer heads, fewer seeds
Increased cell permeability at attack sites Localized cell death
Accumulation of reactive oxygen species
Creation of nutritive cells Adjacent living cells fortified
Cell wall breakdown Transient increase in permeability
Epicuticular waxes accumulate
Membrane permeability increases Toxin production increases
Stress-related proteins increase Class III peroxidases increases
C/N ratio shift favours N (52% change) Phenylpropanoid metabolism increases
Nutrient metabolism and transport
increases
Cell wall metabolism decreases Cell wall and lipid metabolism increases. Nutrient
metabolism and transport suppressed
Basal defence response suppressed Fatty acid degradation suppressed
Phenylpropanoid metabolism suppressed Phospholipid metabolism suppressed
Histones and structural proteins decrease Stress-related protein decrease
Modified from Stuart et al. (2012)

As many as 35 distinct resistance genes (H1-H3, h4, H5-H34 and Hdic) from
wheat and related plants have been characterized and incorporated in commercial
wheat cultivars (Chen et al. 2006; Stuart et al. 2012). The HF-wheat system is con-
sidered a model system for study of gene-for-gene (GNG) interaction between host
plants and insect pests (Hatchett and Gallun 1970; Subramanyam et al. 2015). In the
case of resistant cultivars carrying R genes, the plants respond to attack of HF larvae
by accumulation of reactive oxygen species (Liu et al. 2010) and production of
enzyme inhibitors (Wu et al. 2008), lectins (Williams et al. 2002; Subramanyam
et al. 2008) and secondary substances (Liu et al. 2007). On the other hand, the com-
patible interactions are characterized by increased nutrient availability at the site of
attack along with an accumulation of nitrogen-rich molecules (Liu et al. 2007;
Williams et al. 2011). It has been revealed that the HF is able to overcome resistance
through recessive mutations in corresponding avirulence (HFAvr) genes (Aggrawal
et al. 2014). The HFAvr genes code for proteins (called effectors) that are injected
with the saliva in to the plant tissue during feeding (Hogenhout et al. 2009). The
plants carrying R genes are able to recognize these secretions and stimulate the
defence pathways (Chisholm et al. 2006). In virulent HF biotypes, the Avr proteins
are modified to avoid either detection by the plant or a failure to trigger the defence
pathway (Chen et al. 2016).
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 25

1.5  heories on Evolution of Insect-Plant Interrelationships

T
and Their Role in Diversification

As early as 1859, Darwin in his magnum opus On the Origin of Species wrote of
‘Coadaptations of organic beings to each other…’. Every living organism interacts
with others of the same as well as another kind. Coevolution refers to genetic change
in two interacting species. In other words, coevolution is reciprocal evolutionary
change in interacting species. The term was originally used by C.J. Mode in 1958
for the coevolution of obligate parasites and their hosts. Ehrlich and Raven (1964)
were the first to extend its relevance to insect-host plant coevolution based on their
study of Monarch butterfly-milkweed (host plant) interactions.
A plant is neither susceptible to all the phytophagous insects nor any insect spe-
cies is a pest on all the species of plants it encounters in nature. Further, less than
one third of all insect orders contain exclusively (Lepidoptera, Orthoptera,
Phasmida), predominantly (Hemiptera, Thysanoptera) or partially (Coleoptera,
Diptera, Hymenoptera) phytophagous species. But such species comprise nearly
half of all insect species. This is attributed to the fact that all plants have developed
a dazzling array of structural and biochemical defences (constitutive as well as
induced) against herbivores. Only those species which are able to breach these
defences in one or more plant species can access such plants for food (Arora 2012).
The insects thus keep on developing strategies for detoxifying or otherwise over-
coming these defensive mechanisms.
The extant phytophages and their host plants are the result of a coevolutionary
process that has been ongoing for nearly 400 Myr (Labandeira 2013). Insects have
acquired a sensitive system for perceiving their external environment, analysing the
sensory input and responding to it suitably (Martin et al. 2011). Successful host
finding and acceptance are primarily controlled by chemical cues. The insect
responses are dependent on a combination of host and environmental cues (Riffell
et al. 2009; Webster et al. 2010). Concomitantly, the plants have also evolved numer-
ous structural and chemical defences for protection against insects and other herbi-
vores. The insects in turn have evolved to avoid or overcome these defences. A
number of theories have been propounded to explain this evolutionary arms race
between these two interdependent groups of organisms.

1.5.1 Theory of Coevolution

This theory was elaborated by Ehrlich and Raven (1964) and later supported by
Berenbaum (1983). According to this theory, many plant taxa manufacture a proto-
typical phytochemical that is mildly noxious to phytophages and that may have an
autecological or physiological function in the plant. Some insect taxa feed upon
plants with only this and other, similarly mild, phytochemicals, thus reducing plant
fitness. Plant mutation and recombination cause novel, more noxious phytochemi-
cals to appear in the plants. The same chemical can appear independently in dis-
tantly related plant groups. Insect feeding is reduced because of toxic or repellent
26 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

properties of the novel phytochemical; thus plants with more and more potent
defences are preferred by the pressure of insect herbivory. In response, the insects
have evolved the capacity to avoid or neutralize the effective chemical and even
utilize the same compound as well as the plant producing it for their own benefit. An
insect can specialize in feeding upon plants with the novel compound. Here it would
be free to diversify due to a lack of competition from non-adopted herbivores. The
cycle may be repeated, resulting in more phytochemicals and further specialization
of insects.
Some supporting evidence for the theory is available from species-level studies
on taxa of selected insects and their host plants. Closely related Phyllobrotica spe-
cies feed monogamously on closely related Scutellaria species as revealed by the
cladograms of the two groups (Farrell and Mitter 1990). Evidence is also available
at the level of populations. An analysis of different populations of wild parsnip,
Pastinaca sativa Linnaeus, and its specialist herbivore pest the parsnip webworm,
Depressaria pastinacella Duponchel, revealed trait matching between
furanocoumarin-­ based chemical defences in the plants and cytochrome P450
monooxygenase-­ based insects’ detoxification profiles (Berenbaum and Zangerl
1998, Zangerl and Berenbaum 2003).
An interesting example of coevolution is that involving the brassicaceous plants
and the pierid butterflies. The glucosinolate-myrosinase system evolved by
Brassicales (Sect. 1.3.2.3) around 90 Myr represents a key step in anti-herbivore
defences by plants. But shortly thereafter, the Pierinae butterflies which utilized
Fabales as host plants came up with a detoxifying system in the form of nitrile-­
specific protein (NSP) and started colonizing the Brassicales. This resulted in
increasing the species diversification rates in Pierinae as compared with that of their
sister clade Coliadinae, whose members did not colonize Brassicales, thus lending
strong support to the coevolutionary theory (Wheat et al. 2007; Edger et al. 2015).

1.5.2 Theory of Sequential Evolution

The theory of sequential evolution (Jermy 1976, 1984) proposes that evolution of
herbivorous insects follows the evolution of plants, without however significantly
affecting plant evolution. According to this theory, reciprocal selective interactions
between plants and herbivorous insects have not been proved so far. Plants undeni-
ably cause evolutionary changes in phytophagous insects, whereas the latter exert
selective pressure on the plants only in rare cases and even in these only weakly. The
insects choose their host plants largely based on perception of chemical cues.
Therefore, any changes in chemical composition of host plants or their chemosen-
sory perception by insects may lead to emergence of new insect-host plant relation-
ships. However, contradictory paleontological evidence in the form of insect familial
diversification preceding the major diversification of angiosperms contradicts this
theory. As a consequence, speciation in herbivorous insects may be mediated by
plants, but speciation in plants has not been proved to occur as a consequence of
interaction with herbivorous insects.
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 27

Further evidence in support of the theory was presented by Labandeira (1998)

and Janz et al. (2006), who showed that species richness in butterfly family
Nymphalidae was strongly correlated with diversity of host use.

1.5.3 Theory of Diffuse Coevolution or Community Coevolution

The theory of diffuse coevolution proposes that, instead of the pairwise reciprocal
evolutionary interactions, coevolution must be considered in a community context
and not simply as a reciprocal two-species interaction. Every plant may be affected
by a diversity of herbivores, plant pathogens, competing conspecifics, plants of
other species including alternate host plants of insect pests and organisms at higher
tropic levels (Fox 1988). This theory is thus only an extension of the coevolutionary
theory.

1.5.4 The Geographic Mosaic Theory of Coevolution

This theory states that the coevolutionary process operates at the level of popula-
tions rather than at species level. Thompson (1994, 1999, 2005) propounded that
interspecific interactions commonly differ in outcome among populations. These
differences result from the combined effects of differences in the physical environ-
ment, the local genetic and demographic structure of populations and the commu-
nity context in which the interaction occurs. As a result of these differences in
outcomes, an interaction may coevolve some populations (coevolutionary hot spot),
affect the evolution of only one of the participants in other populations (coevolu-
tionary cold spot) and have no effect on evolution in yet another local population
(again coevolutionary cold spot). In addition, populations differ in the extent to
which they show extreme specialization to one or more species. Some populations
may specialize on and sometimes coevolve locally with only one other species,
other populations may specialize on and perhaps coevolve with different species
and yet others may coevolve simultaneously with multiple species. These inter-­
populational differences in outcome and specialization create a geographic mosaic
in interactions. Gene flow among populations, random genetic drift, selection for
novel traits and extinction of some demes reshape the geographic mosaic of coevo-
lution as the adaptations and patterns of specialization developed locally spread to
other population or are lost. The result is a dynamic geographic pattern of coevolu-
tion between any two or more species.
The coevolutionary relationship between the obligate seed predator, the camellia
weevil, Camellia japonica Linnaeus, and its host plant, the Japanese camellia,
Camellia japonica Linnaeus, represents an interesting example of geographic
mosaic across the Japanese islands (Toju and Sota 2006, Toju et al. 2011). The
thickness of camellia pericarp through which the female weevils bored to lay eggs
into seeds correlated with the length of rostrum in females. Further, the pericarp was
significantly thicker on islands with weevils than on islands devoid of weevils, and
the trait was heritable.
28 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

1.6  ractical Applications of Insect-Plant Interrelationships

P
Research

An intricate understanding of insect-plant relationships has immense practical sig-

nificance for future agricultural production. As consumers of plant products, humans
wish to minimize crop losses caused by all other organisms including insect pests
and maximize crop productivity. The mechanisms underlying insect-plant interac-
tions are the key to achieve these objectives in the following ways.

1.6.1 Breeding Insect-Pest-Resistant Crops

Insect-resistant cultivars represent one of the most environmentally benign, eco-

nomically feasible and ecologically sustainable options for management of insect
pests. The breeding of arthropod-resistant plants has been undertaken for more than
a century and blossomed as a field of research in the first half of the twentieth cen-
tury with the work of Prof R H Painter at Kansas State University, Manhattan,
Kansas, USA (Painter 1951). An outstanding early success in utilizing host plant
resistance in pest management was the control of the grape phylloxera Daktulosphaira
vitifoliae (Fitch) in France by grafting European grapevines onto resistant North
American rootstocks (Painter 1951). In India, the early work of Hussain and Lal
(1940) led to hairy cotton varieties resistant to jassid, and by 1943 resistant varieties
such as Punjab 4F, LSS and 289 F/43 covered extensive areas, where jassid had
posed a serious threat. Over the past 70 years, breeding stress-resistant crops has
gained increased importance with the involvement of national and international
agricultural research centres as well as private sector seed producers. Hundreds of
insect-resistant crop cultivars have been developed worldwide and are grown exten-
sively for increasing and stabilizing the crop productivity (Panda and Khush 1995).
In economic terms, the arthropod resistance genes deployed in global agriculture
currently save us more than US$2 billion annually (Smith and Clement 2012).
Identification of the mechanism of resistance to insect pests followed by isola-
tion and cloning of gene(s) responsible for production of the desired chemical/char-
acteristic is likely to fast-track the production of insect-resistant cultivars. An
improved understanding of plant defence responses to herbivory is also essential for
further exploitation of induced resistance and plant-released volatiles for develop-
ment of insect-resistant genotypes (Sandhu and Arora 2013). Exploitation of insect-­
resistant genes from unrelated organisms (mainly microbes) and their incorporation
into elite germplasm is another fruitful approach which has found widespread appli-
cation. A total of 20 Bt genes from the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis,
imparting resistance to lepidopteran and coleopteran pests have been incorporated
into cotton, corn, soybean, potato and other crop plants (Shera and Arora 2015).
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 29

1.6.2 Cultural Control of Insect Pests

The manipulation of crop production and management techniques for reducing or

avoiding pest damage is known as cultural control. An understanding of crop plant-­
insect pest relationship is useful to modify the crop environment against the pest or
in favour of the natural enemies. For instance, early sowing/planting has been found
to reduce gall midge and leaf folder damage in rice, shoot fly and headbug damage
in sorghum and millets, white grubs’ damage in groundnut and aphid damage in
crucifers in Northern India (Dhaliwal and Arora 2006).
Increasing intra-field diversity through intercropping, trap cropping or planting
of hedge rows results in reduced damage by several species. Tomato intercropped
with cabbage has been reported to reduce incidence of diamondback moth. Trap
crop of African marigold lowers the incidence of fruit borer H. armigera in tomato
(Srinivasan 1994). Napier grass and Napier millet serve as trap crops for lowering
the incidence of stem borer C. partellus in maize and sorghum (Khan 1999; Dhaliwal
and Arora 2006).
The parasitoids and predators of insect pests may attain higher population densi-
ties in polycultures than in monocultures, because polycultures often offer addi-
tional food sources, such as honeydew, nectar and pollen, and more refuges where
insects can shelter in the shade (Coll 1998). More than half among the 130 natural
enemy species surveyed reached higher population densities in polycultures, than in
monocultures, whereas in less than 10% of the cases, lower population densities
were observed (Andow 1991).

1.6.3 Botanical Insecticides

Plants have developed pathways to a diverse array of chemicals to prevent their

exploitation by insects and other herbivores over millions of years. These chemicals
exert behavioural, physiological and biochemical effects on insects, and some of
these may even cause mortality in susceptible insects. Botanicals insecticides, as
these plant-derived products are known, have been utilized by humans since ancient
times. Neem, pyrethrum, Tephrosia, tobacco, derris, Ryania, sabadilla and many
other plants have been used to protect agricultural crops, grains and other commodi-
ties from the ravages of insects and noninsect pests in different parts of the world for
centuries (Dhaliwal and Arora 2001).
Phytochemicals have also served as prototypes for synthesis and development of
novel groups of insecticides. For instance, pyrethrum, derived from the dried flow-
ers of Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium Linnaeus, has been used as an insecticide
since ancient times. It is a potent toxicant against insects and comparatively safe to
mammals. But it is highly photolabile (Casida 1973). Therefore, the chemical struc-
ture of pyrethrum was elucidated to develop synthetic analogues with improved
photostability. Many of these chemicals like fenvalerate, deltamethrin, fluvalinate
30 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

and cyfluthrin became popular insecticides during the 1980s (Dhaliwal and Arora
2006). Similarly synthetic analogues of nicotine, another popular botanical insecti-
cide obtained from tobacco, called neonicotinoids are currently widely used against
a broad range of sucking insect and mite pests (Simon-Delso et al. 2015). Thus,
botanical insecticides have not only proved useful directly in pest control but have
also served as models for generation of new classes of synthetic insecticides. Since
plants contain tens of thousands of such chemicals, the scope of their utilization in
insect pest management is almost endless.

1.6.4 Biological Control of Insect Pests

The importance of studies on tritrophic and multi-trophic interactions for enhancing

the efficiency of natural biological control and integrated pest management can
hardly be over-emphasized. Plant-produced volatiles are known to attract natural
enemies of insect pests (Weseloh 1981). Ramachandran et al. (1991) reported that
the parasitoid Microplitis demolitor Wilkinson was attracted by the volatile
3-­octanone released by the soybean plant which hosts the soybean looper, P.
includens. The parasitoid was markedly more arrested by the volatile guaiacol,
which was found only in its hosts’ frass. But all such interactions may not favour the
natural enemies. Hare (1992) found the spectrum of interactions between natural
enemies and crop resistance to range from synergistic, to additive, to none apparent,
through to disruptive or antagonistic. Dhaliwal et al. (2004) conducted a meta-­
analysis of 27 studies on interaction of resistant crop cultivars and biocontrol of
insect pests. Antagonism was recorded in 29.6%, synergism in 25.9% and additive
relationship in 33.3% of cases. In the remaining three cases, the form of relationship
varied with resistant level of the cultivars employed. As knowledge of these multi-­
trophic interactions expands, researchers and IPM practitioners need to exploit it for
management of insect pests (Verkerk 2004).

1.6.5 Behavioural Manipulation in Insect Pest Management

Insect behaviour is elicited in response to olfactory, visual, tactile, acoustic and

gustatory-sensory information from the host plant as well as the surrounding envi-
ronment. An improved understanding of cues utilized by insects for feeding and
oviposition preference on host plants can help in manipulation of such behaviour,
leading to reduced crop damage (Foster and Harris 1997).
The attract and kill method is by far the most popular behavioural manipulation
utilized in pest management. The Japanese beetle Popillia japonica Newman is suc-
cessfully managed by a combination of the female sex pheromone, with a food lure
(a mixture of phenethyl propionate, eugenol and geraniol) (Ladd et al. 1981).
Foods baits have also been found useful for monitoring and controlling tephritids.
Protein-­hydrolysate-­baited traps containing insecticides have been successful
against the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann, in the USA
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 31

(Chambers 1978). An innovation of the ‘attract-annihilate method’ has worked

against the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh). The female flies locate
host trees and suitable oviposition sites on apple through olfactory and visual stim-
uli. Wooden spheres in red colour and covered with a sticky substance at one trap
tree−1 afforded good protection of fruits from R. pomonella (Aluja and Prokopy
1993; Foster and Harris 1997).

1.6.6 Push-Pull Strategy for Management of Insect Pests

An innovative manipulation of the behavioural approaches is the push-pull IPM or

stimulo-deterrent approach in pest management. It involves utilization of attracting
(pull) and repelling (push) components in tandem to divert the pest away from the
main crop and towards the trap crop, from where these may be subsequently
removed (Khan et al. 1997; Cook et al. 2007). The technology has been successfully
applied for management of several species of stem borers (C. partellus, Eldana sac-
charina Walker, Busseola fusca Fuller, Sesamia inferens Hampson) infesting maize
and sorghum in Eastern and Southern Africa. The ovipositing female moths of bor-
ers are repelled from the main crop by repellent non-host intercrops, particularly
molasses grass, silverleaf desmodium or greenleaf desmodium (push), and prefer to
oviposit on attractive trap plants, primarily Napier grass or Sudan grass (pull).
Intercropping of molasses grass with maize increased parasitization by Cotesia
sesamiae Cameron in addition to lowering the incidence of stem borer (Khan et al.
2011). Push-pull strategies have also been effectively demonstrated against
Helicoverpa in cotton, L. decemlineata in potato, striped pea leaf weevil Sitona
lineatus (Linnaeus) in beans, rapeseed pollen beetle Brassicogethes aeneus
(Fabricius) in oilseed rape, onion maggot Anthomyia antiqua (Meigen) in onions,
western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) in chrysanthemum and
bark beetles (Scolitidae) in conifers, in addition to several veterinary and medical
pests (Cook et al. 2007).

1.6.7 Managing Insect Biotypes

The continuous growing of insect-resistant cultivars exerts selection pressure on the

targeted pest, which responds by developing new physiological and behavioural
mechanisms to enable feeding and development on the resistant cultivars. Insect
biotypes refer to populations within an insect species that can survive on and destroy
varieties that have genes for resistance (Heinrichs et al. 1985). Biotype selection is
one of the major constraints encountered in breeding programmes for varietal resis-
tance. The concept of biotypes involves gene-for-gene relationship between the
gene for resistance in the host plant and the gene for virulence in the insect pest.
Aphids comprise 18 of the 39 insect species in which 2 or more biotypes have been
reported (Sandhu and Arora 2013). Brown plant hopper, Nilaparvata lugens Stal, on
rice (Brar et al. 2015) and Hessian fly, M. destructor on wheat are the major pests in
32 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

which biotype development has led to breakdown of resistance in the field (Aggrawal
et al. 2014; Subramanyam et al. 2015). The durability of insect resistance can be
increased by sequential release of cultivars, gene pyramiding/stacking and gene
rotation (Sandhu and Arora 2013). An improved understanding of insect-plant inter-
actions is crucial for efficient management of insect biotypes resulting in greater
stability of resistant genotypes.

1.6.8 Biological Control of Weeds

The losses caused by weeds are estimated to be higher than those caused by insect
pests to agricultural crops and the global use of herbicides exceeds that of insecti-
cides in crop protection (Oerke 2006). In view of the widespread problems caused
by extensive use of herbicides, there is an urgent need to strengthen biological con-
trol of weeds. Exotic weeds may be successfully managed by introducing monopha-
gous or oligophagous insect species from the plants’ place of origin. Important
successful examples include management of shellmound prickly pear, Opuntia
stricta (Haworth) Haworth, in Australia through releases of the small Argentinian
moth, Cactoblastis cactorum Berg (Dodd 1940), and of giant salvinia, Salvinia
molesta D. S. Mitchell, in Papua New Guinea by releasing the weevil Cyrtobagous
salviniae Calder & Sands imported from Brazil (Room 1990). In Hawaii extensive
programmes on biological control of weeds through releases of herbivorous insects
as well as pathogens have been undertaken, resulting in complete control of 7 out of
21 target weed species and significant partial control of another 3 species (Gardner
et al. 1995; McFadyen 2003).
In some cases, the native insects have also been artificially multiplied and
released or otherwise manipulated for the control of native weeds. Native coccids,
Austrotachardia sp. and Tachardia sp., are used for the control of Cassinia sp.,
native woody shrubs in Australia (Holtkamp and Campbell 1995). Conservation/
augmentation of the stem-boring agromyzid, Phytomyza orobanchia Kaltenbach,
has been utilized for managing the parasitic weeds, Orobanche spp. in the southern
USSR (Kroschel and Klein 1999).

1.6.9 Pollinator Conservation for Improving Crop Productivity

Insect pollinators are essential for successful pollination and reproduction by a vast
majority of terrestrial flowering plants. Even self-pollinating crop species may show
yield enhancement in vicinity of a good pollinator habitat. Coffee shrubs, for
instance, show significant yield increases in regions with stable native or introduced
bee populations (Roubik 2002). Most studies on plant-pollinator systems have
focused on a single plant species and usually one or a few closely associated visitor
taxa. But recent studies have revealed that pollinator complexes are relatively gen-
eralized, due to spatiotemporal variation in pollinator visits (Herrera 1996; Waser
1998; Burkle and Alarcon 2011). It is important to understand the bases of spatial
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 33

and temporal variation in plant-pollinator interactions to answer questions in com-

munity structure and function. It will also help in formulating optimal conservation
strategies (Burkle and Alarcon 2011). Climate change may disrupt the synchrony
between the flower production season of plants and the activity period of pollinating
insects. A shortage of nectar and pollen during critical periods may also lead to a
decline in population of pollinators (Hoover et al. 2012; Sharma et al. 2014). A
precise understanding of the flowering plant-pollinator interactions may help in
arresting pollinator decline and maintaining agricultural productivity.

1.7 Conclusions

Insects and green plants, the two dominant life forms in the terrestrial ecosystem,
are bound together by intricate relationships. A majority of the angiosperms require
the services of pollinating insects for successful reproduction. The shape, size,
colour and scent of flowers all serve to attract pollinators, which mostly feed on
nectar and pollen produced by these plants. Further, nearly half of all insect species
are herbivorous and depend on plants for food, shelter (at least for a part of life
cycle) and oviposition sites. Consequently, the plants have evolved a staggering
variety of structural and biochemical barriers to protect themselves from insects and
other herbivores, as well as pathogens. The insects which are able to overcome these
barriers (through avoidance, detoxification, sequestration, etc.) can gain an abun-
dant supply of food with very little competition from other herbivores. Reciprocal
adaptation and counter-adaptation between plants and insects have, thus, been an
important mechanism driving a steady increase in biodiversity of both these groups
of organisms over the last more than 400 million years.
The study of these interrelationships between insects and flowering plants is of
great practical importance for future agricultural production. We are only just begin-
ning to understand the intricacies of these relationships. The new techniques of
molecular biology including genomics, proteomics and RNAi offer exciting oppor-
tunities for further exploration and precise understanding of insect-plant interac-
tions, which is essential for conserving ecosystem biodiversity and developing
insect-resistant crop plants, as well as for sustainable management of insect pests
and weeds.

References
Abe M, Matsuda K (2000) Feeding responses of four phytophagous lady beetle species (Coleoptera:
Coccinellidae) to cucurbitacins and alkaloids. Appl Entomol Zool 35:257–264
Adams AS, Aylward FO, Adams SM et al (2013) Mountain pine beetles colonizing historical and
native host trees are associated with a bacterial community highly enriched in genes contribut-
ing to terpene metabolism. Appl Environ Micobiol 79:3468–3475
Agrawal AA, Konno K (2009) Latex: a model for understanding mechanisms, ecology, and evolu-
tion of plant defence against herbivory. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:311–331
34 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

Aggrawal R, Subramanyam S, Zhao C et al (2014) Avirulence effector discovery in a plant galling

and plant parasitic arthropod, the Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor). PLoS One 9(6):e100958, 1
Alborn T, Turlings TCH, Jones TH et al (1997) An elicitor of plant volatiles from beet armyworm
oral secretion. Science 276:945–949
Aluja M, Prokopy RJ (1993) Host odour and visual stimulation interaction during intratree host
finding behaviour of Rhagoletis pomonella flies. J Chem Ecol 19:2671–2696
Andersen JF, Walding JK, Evans PH, Bowers WS, Feyereisen R (1997) Substrate specificity for
the epoxidation of terpenoids and active site topology of house fly cytochrome P450 6A1.
Chem Res Toxicol 10:156–164
Andow DA (1991) Vegetation diversity and arthropod population response. Annu Rev Entomol
36:561–586
Arabidopsis Genome Initiative (2000) Analysis of the genome sequence of the flowering plant
Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature 408(6814):796–815
Arora R (2012) Co-evolution of insects and plants. In: Arora R, Singh B, Dhawan AK (eds) Theory
and practice of integrated pest management. Scientific Publications, Jodhpur, pp 49–75
Arora R, Dhaliwal GS (2004) Biochemical bases of resistance in plants to insects. In: Dhaliwal GS,
Singh R (eds) Host plant resistance to insects: concepts and applications. Panima Publications,
New Delhi, pp 84–125
Atwal AS (2000) Essentials of beekeeping and pollination. Kalyani Publications, New Delhi
Auclair JC (1963) Aphid feeding and nutrition. Annu Rev Entomol 8:439–490
Axelrod DI (1960) The evolution of flowering plants. In: Tax S (ed) Evolution after Darwin, vol
I. The evolution of life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 227–305
Ayasse M, Schiesl FP, Paulus HF et al (2003) Pollinator attraction in a sexually deceptive orchid
by means of unconventional chemicals. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:517–522
Baker HG, Baker I (1986) The occurrence and significance of amino acids in floral nectars. Pl Syst
Evol 151:175–186
Banerjee MK, Kalloo G (1989) Role of phenols in resistance to tomato leaf curl virus, fusarium
wilt and fruit borer in Lycopersicon. Curr Sci 52:575–576
Barbehenn RV (2003) Antioxidants in grasshoppers: Higher levels defend the midgut tissues of a
polyphagous species than a graminivorous species. J Chem Ecol 29:683–702
Barbehenn RV, Constabel PC (2011) Tannins in plant herbivore interactions. Phytochemistry
72:1551–1565
Barbosa P, Schulz JC (1987) Insect outbreaks. Academic, San Diego
Beck SD (1965) Resistance of plants to insects. Annu Rev Entomol 10:207–232
Berenbaum MR (1983) Coumarins and caterpillars: A case for co-evolution. Evolution 37:163–179
Berenbaum MR (1991a) Comparative processing of allelochemicals in the papilionidae
(Lepidoptera). Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 17:213–221
Berenbaum MR (1991b) Coumarins. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their
interactions with secondary plant metabolites. Academic, London, pp 221–250
Berenbaum MR (1995) Turnabout is fairplay: Secondary roles for primary compounds. J Chem
Ecol 21:925–940
Berenbaum MR, Zangerl AR (1998) Chemical phenotype matching between a plant and its insect
herbivore. Proc Natn Acad Sci, USA 95:13743–13748
Bernays EA (1986) Diet-induced head allometry among foliage chewing insects and its impor-
tance for graminivores. Science 231:495–497
Bernays EA, Chamberlain DJ (1980) A study of tolerance of ingested tannin in Schistocerca
gregaria. J Insect Physiol 26:415–420
Bodnaryk RP (1992) Leaf epicuticular wax, an antixenotic factor in Brassicaceae that affects
the rate and pattern of feeding of flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae Goeze. Can J Pl Sci
72:1295–1303
Boone CK, Keefover-Ring K, Mapes AC et al (2013) Bacteria associated with a tree-killing insect
reduce concentrations of plant defence compounds. J Chem Ecol 39:1003–1006
Bottger GT, Sheechan ET, Lukefahr MJ (1964) Relation of gossypol of cotton plants to insect
resistance. J Econ Entomol 57:283–285
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 35

Bowers WS (1991) Insect hormones and antihormones in plants. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum
MR (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites. Academic, London,
pp 436–456
Brar DS, Sarao PS, Singh KS, Jena KK, Fujita D (2015) Biotechnological approaches for enhanc-
ing resistance to planthoppers in rice. In: Singh B, Arora R, Gosal SS (eds) Biological and
molecular approaches in pest management. Scientific Publications, Jodhpur, pp 13–38
Bridges M, Jones AME, Bones AM et al (2002) Spatial organization of the glucosinolate-­
myrosinase system in brassica specialist aphids is similar to that of the host plant. Proc R Soc
Lond B 269:187–191
Brioschi D, Nadalini LD, Bengtsonb MH et al (2007) General up regulation of Spodoptera frugi-
perda trypsins and chymotrypsins allows its adaptation to soybean proteinase inhibitor. Insect
Biochem Mol Biol 37:1283–1240
Bruce TJA (2015) Interplay between insects and plants: dynamic and complex interactions that
have coevolved over millions of years but act in milliseconds. J Exptl Bot 66:455–465
Bull DL, Ivie GW, Beier RC et al (1986) In vitro metabolism of a linear furanocoumarin
(8-methoxypsoralen, xanthotoxin) by mixed-function oxidases of larvae of black swallowtail
butterfly and fall armyworm. J Chem Ecol 12:885–892
Buntin DG, Chapin JW (1990) Biology of Hessian fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in the Southeastern
United States: Geographic variation and temperature-dependent phenology. J Econ Entomol
83:1015–1024
Burkle LA, Alarcon R (2011) The future of plant-pollinator diversity: understanding interaction
networks across time, space and global change. Am J Bot 98:528–538
Casida JE (ed) (1973) Pyrethrum: the natural insecticide. Academic, New York
Chambers DL (1978) Attractants for fruit fly survey and control. In: Shorey HH, Mckelvey JJ (eds)
Chemical control of insect behavior: theory and application. Wiley, New York, pp 327–344
Chapman RF (1974) The chemical inhibition of feeding by phytophagous insects. Bull Entomol
Res 64:339–363
Chen MS, Echegaray E, Whitworth RJ et al (2009) Virulence analysis of Hessian fly populations
from Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. J Econ Entomol 102:774–780
Chen MS, Fellers JP, Zhu YC et al (2006) A super-family of genes coding for secreted salivary
gland proteins from the Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor. J Insect Sci 6:12
Chen M-S, Liu S, Wang H et al (2016) Genes expressed differentially in Hussian fly larvae feeding
in resistant and susceptible plants. Internat J Mol Sci 14(8):1324. doi:10.3390/ijms17081324
Chhabra KS, Kooner BS, Sharma AK et al (1990) Sources of resistance in chickpea: Role of bio-
chemical components on incidence of gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Indian
J Entomol 52:423–430
Chisholm ST, Cooker G, Day B et al (2006) Host-microbe interactions: shaping the evolution of
the plant immune response. cell 124:803–814
Chiu TL, Wen Z, Rupasinghe SG et al (2008) Comparative molecular modelling of an Anopheles
gambiae CYP6Z1, a mosquito P450 capable of metabolizing DDT. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA
105:8885–8860
Chow JK, Akhtar Y, Isman MB (2005) The effects of larval experience with a complex plant
latex on subsequent feeding and oviposition by the cabbage looper moth: Trichoplusia ni
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Chemoecology 15:129–133
Chuang WP, Herde M, Ray S et al (2014) Caterpillar attack triggers accumulation of toxic maize
protein RIP2. New Phytol 201:928–939
Chung SH, Rosa C, Scully ED et al (2013) Herbivore exploits orally secreted bacteria to suppress
plant defences. Proc Natn Acad Sci, USA 110:15728–15733
Cianfrogna JA, Zangerl AR, Berenbaum MR (2002) Dietary and developmental influences on
induced detoxification in an oligophage. J Chem Ecol 28:1349–1364
Coley PD (1983) Herbivory and defensive characteristics of tree species in a lowland tropical for-
est. Ecol Monogr 53:209–233
36 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

Coll M (1998) Parasitoid activity and plant species composition in intercropped systems. In:
Pickett CH, Bugg RL (eds) Enhancing biological control: Habitat management to promote
natural enemies of agricultural pests. Univ California Press, Berkeley, pp 85–119
Cook SM, Khan ZR, Pickett JA (2007) The use of push-pull strategies in integrated pest manage-
ment. Annu Rev Entomol 52:375–400
Cortes-Cruz M, Snook M, McMullen MD (2003) The genetic basis of C-glycosyl flavone B-ring
modification in maize (Zea mays L.) silks. Genome 46:182–194
Cox PA (1991) Abiotic pollination: an evolutionary escape for animal-pollinated angiosperms.
Phil Trans Royal Soc B 333:217–224
Crepet WL, Friis EM, Nixon KC (1991) Fossil evidence for the evolution of biotic pollination. Phil
Trans Royal Soc B 333:187–195
Damle MS, Giri AP, Sainani MN et al (2005) Higher accumulation of proteinase inhibitors in flow-
ers than leaves and fruits as a possible basis for differential feeding preference of Helicoverpa
armigera on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill, Cv. Dhanashree). Phytochemistry
66:2659–2667
Danielson PB, Maclnytre RJ, Fogleman JC (1997) Molecular cloning of a family of xenobiotic-­
inducible drosophilid cytochrome P450s: evidence for involvement in host-plant allelochemi-
cal resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 94:10797–10802
De Leo F, Volpicella M, Licciulli F et al (2002) Plant-PIs: A database for plant protease inhibitors
and their genes. Nucleic Acid Res 30:347–348
Dhaliwal GS, Arora R (2001) Role of phytochemicals in integrated pest management. In: Koul O,
Dhaliwal GS (eds) Phytochemical biopesticides. Harwood, Amsterdam, pp 97–118
Dhaliwal GS, Arora R (2006) Integrated pest management: Concept and approaches. Kalyani
Publications, New Delhi
Dhaliwal GS, Singh R, Jindal V (2004) Host plant resistance and insect pest management: Progress
and potential. In: Dhaliwal GS, Singh R (eds) Host plant resistance to insects. Panima, New
Delhi, pp 517–558
Dimock MH, Kennedy GG (1983) The role of glandular trichomes in the resistance of Lycopersicon
hirsutum f. glabratum to Heliothis zea. Ent Exp Appl 33:263–268
Dixon RA, Strack D (2003) Phytochemistry meets genome analysis, and beyond. Phytochemistry
62:815–816
Dodd AP (1940) The biological campaign against prickly-pear. Commonwealth prickly pear
board, Brisbane
Dunaevsky YE, Elpidina EN, Vinokurov KS et al (2005) Protease inhibitors in improvement of
plant resistance to pathogens and insects. Mol Biol 39:702–708
Dussourd DE (1995) Entrapment of aphids and whiteflies in lettuce latex. Ann Entomol Soc Amer
88(2):163–172
Edger PP, Heidel-Fischer HM, Bekaert M et al (2015) The butterfly plant arms-race by gene and
genome duplications. Proc Natn Acad Sci, USA 112:8362–8366
Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: A study in co-evolution. Evolution 18:586–608
Eigenbrode SD (2004) The effects of plant epicuticular waxy blooms on attachment and effective-
ness of predatory insects. Arthrop Struct Develop 33:91–102
Eigenbrode SD, Espelie KE (1995) Effects of plant epicuticular lipids on insect herbivores. Annu
Rev Entomol 40:171–194
Eigenbrode SD, Kabalo NN, Stoner KA (1999) Predation, behavior and attachment by Chrysoperla
plarabunda larvae on Brassica oleracea with different surface waxblooms. Ent Exp Appl
90:225–235
Enayati AA, Ranson H, Hemingway J (2005) Insect glutathione transferases and insecticides resis-
tance. Insect Mol Biol 14:3–8
Facchini PJ (2001) Alkaloid biosynthesis in plants: Biochemistry, cell biology, molecular regula-
tion, and metabolic engineering applications. Annu Rev Pl Physiol 52:29–66
Faegri K, Pijl LV (1971) The principles of pollination ecology. Pergamon Press, New York
Fahey JW, Zalcmann AT, Talalay P (2001) The chemical diversity and distribution of glucosino-
lates and isothiocyanates among plants. Phytochemistry 56:5–51
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 37

Fahn A (2000) Structure and function of secretory cells. In: Hallahan DL, Gray JC (eds) Plant
trichomes. Academic, New York, p 37
Farrell B, Mitter C (1990) Phylogenesis of insect/plant interactions: have Phyllobrotica leaf bee-
tles (chrysomelidae) and the lamiales diversified in parallel? Evolution 44:1389–1403
Fatouros NE, Broekgaarden C, Bukovinszkine’Kiss G et al (2012) Plant volatiles induced by her-
bivore egg deposition affect insects of different trophic levels. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0043607
Felton GW (2005) Indigestion is a plant’s best defence. Proc Natn Acad Sci, USA 102:18771–18772
Felton GW, Broaduray RM, Duffey SS (1989) Inactivation of protease inhibitor activity by plant
derived quinones, complications for host-plant resistance against noctoid herbivore. J Insect
Physiol 35:981–990
Ferry RL, Cuthbert FP Jr (1975) A tomato fruit worm antibiosis in Lycopersicon. Hort Sci 10:46
Feyereisen R (2006) Evolution of insect P450. Biochem Soc Trans 34:1252–1255
Foster SP, Harris MO (1997) Behavioral manipulation methods for insect pest-management. Annu
Rev Entomol 42:123–146
Fox LR (1988) Diffuse co-evolution within complex communities. Ecology 69:906–907
Fraenkel GS (1959) The raison d’etre of secondary plant substances. Entomol Exp Appl 12:473–486
Francis F, Vanhaelen N, Haubruge E (2005) Glutathione S-transferases in the adaptation to plant
secondary metabolites in the Myzus persicae aphid. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 58:166–174
Francis G, Kerem Z, Makkar HPS et al (2002) The biological action of saponins in animal systems:
a review. Brit. J Nutr 88:587–605
Frelichowski Jr JE, Juvik JA (2001) Sesquiterpene carboxylic acids from a wild tomato spe-
cies affect larval feeding hehavior and survival of Helicoverpa zea and Spodoptera exigua
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Econ Entomol 94:1249–1259
Frey M, Schullehner K, Dick R et al (2009) Benzoxazinoid biosynthesis, a model for evolution of
secondary metabolic pathways in plants. Phytochemistry 70:1645–1651
Furstenberg-Hagg J, Zagrobelnby M, Bak S (2013) Plant defence against herbivores. Internat
J Mol Sci 14:10242–10297
Galai N, Salles J-M, Settele J et al (2009) Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agri-
culture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ 68:810–821
Gardner DE, Smith CW, Markin GP (1995) Biological control of alien plants in natural areas of
Hawaii. In: Delfosse ES, Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on
biological control of weeds. CSIRO, Melbourne, pp 35–40
Gershenzon J, Croteau R (1991) Terpenoids. In: Rosenthal GS, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores:
their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic, London, pp 165–220
Geyter ED, Lambert E, Geelen D et al (2007) Novel advances with plant saponins as natural insec-
ticides to control pest insects. Pest Technol 1:96–105
Gieselhardt S, Yoneya K, Blenn B et al (2013) Egg laying of cabbage white butterfly (Pieris bras-
sicae) on Arabidopsis thaliana affects subsequent performance of the larvae. PLOS ONE.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056991
Glas JJ, Schimmel BCJ, Alba JM et al (2012) Plant glandular trichomes as targets for breeding or
engineering of resistance to herbivores. Internat J Mol Sci 13:17077–17103
Gorb EV, Gorb SN (2002) Attachment ability of the beetle Chrysolina fastuosa on various plant
surfaces. Ent Exp Appl 105:13–28
Green MB, Hedin PA (1986) Natural resistance of plants to pests: Role of allelochemicals. ACS
Symp Ser 296. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC
Halkier BA, Gershenzon J (2006) Biology and biochemistry of glucosinolates. Annu Rev Pl Biol
57:303–333
Hammer TJ, Bowers MD (2015) Gut microbes may facilitate insect herbivory of chemically
defended plants. Oecologia 179:1–14
Hanover JW (1975) Physiology of tree resistance to insects. Annu Rev Entomol 20:75–95
Harborne JB (1993) Introduction to ecological biochemistry. Academic, London
38 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

Harborne JB (1994) Phenolics. In: Mann J, Davidson RS, Hobbs JB, Banthorpe DB, Harborne
JB (eds) Natural products: Their chemistry and biological significance. Longman, Harlow,
pp 362–388
Hare DJ (1992) Effects of plant variation on herbivore-enemy interactions. In: Fritz RS, Simms EL
(eds) Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens. Univ of Chicago press, Chicago, pp 278–298
Harris P (1974) A possible explanation of plant yield increases following insect damage. Agro
Ecosyst 1:219–225
Hatchett JH, Gallun RL (1970) Genetics of the ability of the Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor to
survive on wheat having different genes for resistance. Ann Entomol Soc Amer 63:1400–1407
Heinrichs EA, Medrano FG, Rapusas HR (1985) Genetic evaluation for insect resistance in rice.
International rice research institute, Los Banos
Herrera CM (1996) Floral traits and plant adaptation to insect pollinators: a devil’s advocate
approach. In: Lloyd DG, SCH B (eds) Floral biology: Studies on floral evolution in animal
pollinated plants. Champan & Hall, New York, pp 65–87
Hilker M, Meiners T (2006) Early herbivore alert: Insect eggs induce plant defence. J Chem Ecol
32:1379–1397
Hill DL (1997) The economic importance of insects. Chapman & Hall, London
Hogenhout SA, Bos JIB (2011) Effector proteins that modulate plant-insect interactions. Curr
Opin Pl Biol 14:422–428
Hogenout SA, Vabder Hoorn RAL, Terauchi R et al (2009) Emerging concepts in effector biology
of plant-associated organisms. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 22:115–122
Holtkamp RH, Campbell MH (1995) Biological control, of Cassinia spp. (Asteraceae). In: Delfosse
ES, Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on biological control of
weeds. CSIRO, Melbourne, pp 447–450
Hoover SER, Ladly JJ, Shchepetkine AR et al (2012) Warming, CO2, and nitrogen deposition
interactively affect a plant-pollinator mutualism. Ecol Lett 15:227–234
Hopkins RJ, Van Dam NM, Van Loon JJA (2009) Role of glucosinolates in insect-plant relation-
ships and multitrophic interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 54:57–83
House HL (1961) Insect nutrition. Annu Rev Entomol 6:13–26
Huang T, Jander G, De Vos M (2011) Non-protein amino acids in plant defence against insect her-
bivores: Representative cases and opportunities for further functional analysis. Phytochemistry
72:1531–1537
Huber M, Epping J, Gronover CS et al (2016) A latex metabolite benefits plant fitness under root
herbivore attack. PLOS Biol. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002332
Hussain MA, Lal KB (1940) The bionomics of Empoasca devastens (Distant) on some varieties of
cotton in the Punjab. Indian J Entomol 2:123–136
Iason GR, Dicke M, Hartley SE (2012) The ecology of plant secondary metabolites: From genes
to global processes. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge
Janz N, Nylin S, Wahlberg N (2006) Diversity begets diversity: Host expansions and the diversifi-
cation of plant-feeding insects. BMC Evol Biol. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-6-4
Jeffree CE (1986) The cuticle, epicuticular waxes and trichomes of plants, with reference to their
structure, functions and evolution. In: Juniper BE, Southwood TRE (eds) Insects and the plant
surface. E Arnold, London, pp 23–64
Jermy T (1976) Insect-host plant relationship-coevolution or sequential evolution? Symp Biol
Hung 16:109–113
Jermy T (1984) Evolution of insect/plant relationships. Amer Nat 124:609–630
Johanson B (1953) The injurious effects of the hooked epidermal hairs of the French beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) on Aphis craccivora Koch. Bull Entomol Res 44:779–788
Johnson HB (1975) Plant pubescence: An ecological perspective. Bot Rev 41:233–258
Johnson MT (2011) Evolutionary ecology of plant defences against herbivores. Funct Ecol
25:305–311
Jongsma MA, Bakker PL, Peters J et al (1995) Adaptation of Spodoptera exigua larvae to plant
proteinase-inhibitors by induction of gut proteinase activity insensitive to inhibition. Proc Natn
Acad Sci, USA 92:8041–8045
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 39

Kashyap RK (1983) Studies on resistance behavior of tomato genotypes against fruit borer.
Dissertation, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar
Kaur M, Singh K, Rup PJ et al (2006) A tuber lectin from Arisaema helleborifolium Schott with
anti-insect activity against melon fruit fly Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) and anti-cancer
effect on human cancer cell lines. Arch Biochem Biophy 445:156–165
Kazana E, Pope TW, Tibbles L et al (2007) The cabbage aphid: a walking mustard oil bomb. Proc
Royal Soc Lond B 274:2271–2277
Kearns CA, Inouye DW, Waser NM (1998) Endangered mutualisms: The conservation of plant-­
pollinator interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:83–112
Kennedy CEJ (1986) Attachment may be a basis for specialization in oak aphids. Ecol Entomol
11:291–300
Khan ZR (1999) Habitat management strategies for control of insect pests in Africa. In: Dhaliwal
GS, Arora R, Dhawan AK (eds) Emerging trends in sustainable agriculture. Commonwealth
Publications, New Delhi, pp 187–197
Khan ZR, Ampong-Nyarko K, Chiliswa P et al (1997) Inter-cropping increases parasitism of pests.
Nature 388:631–632
Khan ZR, Midega C, Pittchar J et al (2011) Push-Pull technology: A conservation agriculture
approach for integrated management of insect pests, weeds and soil health in Africa. Internat
J Agric Sustainab 9:162–170
Kim JH, Lee BW, Schroeder FC et al (2008) Identification of indole glucosinolate breakdown
products with antifeedant effects of Myzus persicae (green peach aphid). Plant J 54:1015–1026
Klein AM, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH et al (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes
for world crops. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:303–313
Krishnan N, Sehnal F (2006) Compartmentalization of oxidative stress and antioxidant defence in
the larval gut of Spodoptera littoralis. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 63:1–10
Kritsky G (2001) Darwin’s Madagascan hawk moth prediction. Am Entomol 37:206–210
Kroschel J, Klein O (1999) Biological control of Orobranche spp. with Phytomyza orobranchia
Kalt, a review. In: Kroschel J, Abderabihi M, Betz H (eds) Adavances in parasitic weed control
at on-farm level, vol 2. Joint action to control Orobranche in the WANA region. Mardarof-­
Verlag, Weikersheim, pp 135–159
Labandeira CC (1998) Early history of arthropod and vascular plant associations. Annu Rev Earth
Planet Sci 26:329–377
Labandeira CC (2013) A paleobiologic perspective on plant-insect interactions. Curr Opin Pl Biol
16:414–421
Ladd TL, Klein MG, Tumlison JH (1981) Phenethyl propionate+eugenol+geraniol (3: 7: 3) and
Japonilure: a highly effective joint lure for Japanese beetles. J Econ Entomol 74:665–667
Lambrix V, Reichelt M, Mitchell-Olds T et al (2001) The Arabidopsis epithiospecifier protein
promotes the hydrolysis of glucosinolates to nitriles and influences Trichoplusia ni herbivory.
Pl Cell 13:2793–2807
Lawton JH (1983) Plant architecture and the diversity of phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol
28:23–39
Lee YL, Kogan M, Larsen JR (1986) Attachment of the potato leafhopper to soybean plant surfaces
as affected by morphology of pretarsus. Ent Exp Appl 42:101–108
Li Q, Eigenbrode SD, Stringam GR et al (2000) Feeding and growth of Plutella xylostella and
Spodoptera eridania on Brassica juncea with varying glucosinolate concentrations and myros-
inase activities. J Chem Ecol 26:401–2419
Liener IE (1991) Lectins. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their interactions
with secondary plant metabolites. Academic, London, pp 327–354
Liu X, Bai J, Li H et al (2007) Gene expression of different wheat genotypes during attack by
virulent and avirulent Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor) larvae. J Chem Ecol 33:2171–2194
Liu X, Williams CE, Nemacheck JA et al (2010) Reactive oxygen species are involved in plant
defense against a gall midge. Plant Physiol 152:985–999
40 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

Lorenzen JH, Belbyshev NE, Lafta AM et al (2001) Resistant potato selections contain leptine and
inhibit development of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Econ Entomol
94:1260–1267
Louda S, Mole S (1991) Glucosinolates: chemistry and ecology. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum
MR (eds) Herbivores: Their interactions with secondary plant metabolites. Academic, London,
pp 124–164
Ma R, Cohen MB, Berenbaum MR et al (1994) Black swallowtail (Papilio polyxenes) alleles
encode cytochrome P450s that selectively metabolize linear furanocoumarins. Arch Biochem
Biophys 310:332–340
Mao YB, Cai WJ, Wang JW et al (2007) Silencing a cotton bollworm P450 monooxygenase gene
by plant-mediated RNAi impairs larval tolerance of gossypol. Nature Biotech 25:1307–1313
Martin FA, Richard CA, Hensley SD (1975) Host resistance to Diatraea saccharalis (F) relation-
ship of sugarcane internode hardness to larval damage. Environ Entomol 4:687–688
Martin JP, Beyerlein A, Dacks AM et al (2011) The neurobiology of insect olfaction: Sensory
processing in a comparative context. Prog Neurobiol 95:427–447
Martin JS, Martin MM, Bernays EA (1987) Failure of tannic acid to inhibit digestion or reduce
digestibility of plant protein in gut fluids of insect herbivores: Implications for theories of plant
defence. J Chem Ecol 13:605–621
Mason CJ, Couture JJ, Raffa KF (2014) Plant associated bacteria degrade defence chemicals and
reduce their adverse effects on an insect defoliator. Oecologia 175:901–910
McFadyen REC (2003) Biological control of weeds using exotic insects. In: Koul O, Dhaliwal GS
(eds) Predators and parasitoids. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 163–183
McLaughlin LA, Niazi U, Bibby J et al (2008) Characterization of inhibitors and substrates of
Anopheles gambiae CYP6Z2. Insect Mol Biol 17:125–135
Meisner J, Navon A, Zur M et al (1977) The response of Spodoptera littoralis larvae to gossypol
incorporated in artificial diet. Envir Entomol 6:243–244
Mithofer A, Boland W (2012) Plant defence against herbivores: chemical aspects. Annu Rev Pl
Biol 63:431–450
Mohan P, Singh R, Narayanan S et al (1994) Relation of gossypol-gland density with bollworm
incidence and yield in tree cotton (Gossypium arboreum). Indian J Agric Sci 64:691–696
Muller C, Brakefield PM (2003) Analysis of a chemical defence in sawfly larvae: Easy bleeding
targets predatory wasps in late summer. J Chem Ecol 29:2683–2694
Nabhan GP, Buchmann SL (1997) Services provided by pollinators. In: Daily GC (ed) Nature’s ser-
vices: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island press, Washington, DC, pp 133–150
Nepi M, Guarnieri M, Pacini E (2003) ‘Real’ and feed pollen of Lagerstroemia indica:
Ecophysiological differences. Plant Biol 5:311–314
Nikoh N, Hosokawa T, Oshima K et al (2011) Reductive evolution of bacterial genome in insect
gut environment. Genome Biol Evol 3:702–714
Nitao JK (1989) Enzymatic adaptation in a specialist herbivore for feeding on furanocoumarin
containing plants. Ecology 70:629–625
Oerke EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci 144:31–43
Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals?
Oikos 120:321–326
Owen DF (1980) How plants may benefit from the animals that eat them? Oikos 35:230–235
Painter RH (1951) Insect resistance in crop plants. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence
Panda N, Khush GS (1995) Host plant resistance to insects. CABI, Wallingford
Pappers SM, Van Dommelon H, Van der Velde G et al (2001) Differences in morphology and
reproductive traits of Galerucella nymphaeae from four host plant species. Ent Exp Appl
99:183–191
Parde VD, Sharma HC, Kachole MS (2010) In vivo inhibition of Helicoverpa armigera gut pro-­
proteinase activation by non host plant protease inhibitors. J Insect Physiol 56:1315–1324
Parde VD, Sharma HC, Kachole MS (2012) Potential of proteinase inhibitors in wild relatives of
pigeonpea against cotton bollworm/legume pod borers, Helicoverpa armigera. Am J Pl Sci
3:627–635
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 41

Parmar BS, Walia S (2001) Prospects and problems of phytochemical biopesticides. In: Koul O,
Dhaliwal GS (eds) Phytochemical biopesticides. Harwood, Amsterdam, pp 133–210
Payne WW (1978) A glossary of plant hair terminology. Brittonia 30:239–255
Pellmyr O, Krenn HW (2002) Origin of a complex key innovation in an obligate insect-plant mutu-
alism. Proc Nat Acad Sci, USA 99:5498–5502
Pfalz M, Vogel H, Kroymann J (2009) The gene controlling the Indole Glucosinolate Modifier 1
quantitative trait locus alters indole glucosinoalte structures and aphid resistance in Arabidopsis.
Plant Cell 21:985–999
Pillemer EA, Tingey WM (1978) Hooked trichomes and resistance of Phaseolus vulgaris to
Empoasca fabae (Harris). Ent Exp Appl 24:83–94
Platt AW, Farstad CM (1946) The reaction of wheat varieties to wheat stem sawfly attack. Sci Agr
26:231–247
Proctor M, Yeo F, Lack A (1996) The natural history of pollination. Harper Collins, London
Ram P, Singh R, Dhaliwal GS (2004) Biophysical bases of resistance in plants to insects. In:
Dhaliwal GS, Singh R (eds) Host plant resistance to insects: concepts and applications. Panima
Publications, New Delhi, pp 42–83
Ramachandran R, Norris DM, Phillips JK et al (1991) Volatiles mediating plant-herbivore-natural
enemy interactions: Soybean looper frass volatiles, 3-octanone and guaiacol, as kairomones for
the parasitoid, Microplitis demolitor. J Ag Fd Chem 39:2310–2317
Ramirez BW (1970) Host specificity of fig wasps (Agaonidae). Evolution 24:681–691
Rao NV, Reddy AS, Ankaish R et al (1990) Incidence of whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) in relation to
leaf characters of upland plant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Indian J Agric Sci 60:619–624
Rector BG, Liang GM, YY G (2003) Effect of maysin on wild –type, deltamethrin-resistant and
Bt-resistant Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Econ Entomol 96:909–913
Riffell JA, Lei H, Christensen TA et al (2009) Characterization and coding of behaviorally signifi-
cant odor mixtures. Curr Biol 19:335–340
Room PM (1990) Ecology of a simple plant-herbivore system: Biological control of Salvinia.
Trends Ecol Evol 5:74–79
Rosenthal GA (1991) Nonprotein amino acids as protective phytochemicals. In: Rosenthal
GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites.
Academic, London, pp 1–34
Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) (1991) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant
metabolites. Academic, London
Roubik DW (2002) The value of bees to the coffee harvest. Nature 417:708
Roulston TAH, Cane JH, Buckmann SL (2000) What governs protein content of pollen: Pollinator
preferences, pollen-pistil interactions, or phylogeny? Ecol Monogr 70:617–643
Ruzicka L (1953) Isoprene rule and biogenesis of terpenic compounds. Experientia 9:357–367
Sadras VO, Felton GW (2010) Mechanism of cotton resistance to arthropod herbivory. In: Stewart
JM, Oosterhius D, Heitholt JJ et al (eds) Physiology of cotton. Springer, London, pp 213–228
Sahoo BK, Patnaik MP (2003) Effect of biochemicals on the incidence of pigeonpea pod borers.
Indian J Plant Prot 31:105–108
Sandhu SK, Arora R (2013) Breeding for insect resistance in crop plants. In: Dhawan AK, Singh
B, Bhullar MB, Arora R (eds) Integrated pest management. Scientific Publications, Jodhpur,
pp 267–300
Schoonhoven LM, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2005) Insect-plant biology. Oxford University Press,
Oxford
Schuhegger R, Nafisi M, Mansourova M et al (2006) CYP71B15 (PAD3) catalyzes the final step
in camalexin biosynthesis. Pl Physiol 141:1248–1254
Schuler M (1996) The role of cytochrome P450 monooxygenases in plant-insect interactions. Pl
Physiol 112:1411–1419
Schumutterer H (ed) (1995) The neem tree, Azadirachta indica A. Juss and other meliaceous
plants: source of unique products for integrated pest management, medicine, industry and other
purposes. VCH, Weinheim
42 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

Scott MI, Thaler SJ, Scott GF (2010) Response of a generalist herbivore Trichoplusia ni to
jasmonate-­mediated induced defence in tomato. J Chem Ecol 36:490–499
Seybold SJ, Huber DPW, Lee JC et al (2006) Pine monoterpenes and pine bark beetles: A marriage
of convenience for defence and chemical communication. Phytochem Rev 5:143–178
Sharma S, Arora R, Singh B (2014) Impact of climate change on agriculturally important insects.
J Insect Sci 27:159–188
Shera PS, Arora R (2015) Biointensive integrated pest management for sustainable agriculture. In:
Singh B, Arora R, Gosal SS (eds) Biological and molecular approaches in pest management.
Scientific Publications, Jodhpur, pp 373–429
Simon-Delso N, Amaral-Rogers X, Belzunces LP et al (2015) Systemic insecticides (neonicot-
inoids and fipronil): Trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environ Sci Pollut Res
22:5–34
Singh R, Agarwal RA (1988) Role of biochemical components of resistant and susceptible cotton
and okra in ovipositional preference of cotton leafhopper. Proc Indian Acad Sci (Anim Sci)
97:545–550
Sintim HO, Tashiro T, Motoyama N (2009) Response of the cutworm Spodoptera litura to sesame
leaves or crude extracts in diet. J Insect Sci 9:52
Smith CM, Clement SL (2012) Molecular basis of plant resistance to arthropods. Annu Rev
Entomol 57:309–328
Sogawa K, Pathak MD (1970) Mechanisms of brown planthopper (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) resis-
tance of Mudgo variety of rice. Appl Ent Zool 5:145–148
Springer TL, Kindler SD, Sorenson EL (1990) Comparison of pod-wall characteristics with seed
damage and resistance to alfalfa seed chalcid (Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae) in Medicago spe-
cies. Envir Entomol 19:1614–1617
Srinivasan K (1994) Recent trends in insect pest management in vegetable crops. In: Dhaliwal GS,
Arora R (eds) Trends in agricultural insect pest management. Commonwealth Publications,
New Delhi, pp 345–372
Steehius NM, van Gelder WMJ (1985) Tomato with whitefly resistance is nutritionally safe.
Zaasbelangen 39:191–192
Steppuhn A, Baldwin IT (2007) Resistance management in a native plant: Nicotine prevents herbi-
vores from compensating for plant protease inhibitors. Ecol Lett 10:499–511
Stevens JL, Snyder MJ, Koener JF et al (2000) Inducible P450s of the CYP9 family from larval
Manduca sexta midgut. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 30:559–568
Strong DR, Lawton JH, Southwood TRE (1984) Insects on plants: Community patterns and mech-
anisms. Blackwell, London
Stuart JJ, Chen MS, Shukle R et al (2012) Gall midges (Hessian flies) as plant pathogens. Annu
Rev Phytopathol 50:339–357
Subramanyam S, Smith DF, Clemens JC et al (2008) Functional characterization of HFR1, a high
mannose N-glycan-specific wheat lectin induced by hessian fly larvae. Pl Physiol 147:412–426
Subramanyam S, Sardesai N, Minocha SC et al (2015) Hessian fly larval feeding trig-
gers enhanced polyamine levels in susceptible but not resistant wheat. BMC Pl Biol.
doi:10.1186/s/2870-014-0396-y
Sutherland TD, Unnithan GC, Anderson JF et al (1998) Cytochrome P450 terpenoid hydroxy-
lase linked to the suppression of insect juvenile hormone synthesis. Proc Natr Acad Sci, USA
95:12884–12889
Talekar NS, Tengkano W (1993) Mechanism of resistance to bean fly (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in
soybean. J Econ Entomol 86:981–985
Tallamy DW, Stull J, Ehresman NP et al (1997) Cucurbitacins as feeding and oviposition deter-
rents to insects. Env Entomol 26:678–683
Tamiru A, Bruce TJA, Woodcock CM et al (2011) Maize landraces recruit egg and larval parasit-
oids in response to egg deposition by a herbivore. Ecol Lett 14:1075–1083
Thayumanavan B, Velusamy R, Sadasivam S et al (1990) Phenolic compounds, reducing sugars
and free amino acids in rice leaves of varieties resistant to rice thrips. Internat Rice. Res Newsl
15:14–15
1 Insect-Plant Interrelationships 43

Thien LB, Azuma H, Kawano S (2000) New perspectives on the pollination biology of basal
angiosperms. Internat J Pl Sci 161:S225–S235
Thompson JN (1994) The co-evolutionary process. Chicago University Press, Chicago
Thompson JN (1999) Specific hypotheses on the geographic mosaic of co-evolution. Amer Nat
153:S1–S14
Thompson JN (2005) Co-evolution: The geographic mosaic of co-evolutionary arms race. Curr
Biol 15(24):R 992–R 994
Tingey WM (1984) Glycoalkaloids as pest resistance factors. Amer Potato J 61:157–167
Toju H, Abe H, Ueno S et al (2011) Climatic gradients of arms race coevolution. Am Natural
177:562–573
Toju H, Sota T (2006) Imbalance of predator and prey armament; Geographic clines in phenotypic
interface and natural selection. Amer Nat 167:105–117
Traw MB, Dawson TE (2002) Differential induction of trichomes by three herbivores of black
mustard. Oecologia 131:526–532
Uthamasamy S (1996) Biochemical basis of resistance to insects in cotton, Gossypium spp. In:
Ananthakrishnan TN (ed) Proceedings of national symposium on biochemical bases of host
plant resistance to insects. National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi, pp 15–37
Vail SG (1994) Overcompensation, plant-herbivre mutualism, and mutualistic co-evolution – A
reply to Mathews. Amer Nat 144:534–536
Van Lenteren JC, Hua LZ, Kamerman JW et al (1995) The parasite host relationship between
Encarsia Formosa (Hym., Aphelinidae) and Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Hom., Aleyrodidae).
XXVI. Leaf hairs reduce the capacity of Encarsia to control greenhouse whitefly on cucumber.
J Appl Entomol 119:553–559
Velthius HWW (1992) Pollen digestion and the evolution of sociality in bees. Bee World
127:1383–1389
Verkerk RHJ (2004) Manipulation of tritrophic interactions for IPM. In: Koul O, Dhaliwal GS,
Cuperus GW (eds) Integrated pest management: potential, constraints and challenges. CABI,
Wallingford, pp 55–72
Vidyachandra B, Roy JK, Bhaskar D (1981) Chemical difference in rice varieties susceptible or
resistant to gall midges and stem borers. Int Rice Res Newsl 6(2):7–8
Vilkova NA, Kunzetsova TL, Ismailov AL et al (1988) Effect of cotton cultivars with high content
of gossypol on development of cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae). Entomol Obozr 4:689–698
Volpicella M, Ceci LR, Cordewener J et al (2003) Properties of purified gut trypsin from
Helicoverpa zea adapted to proteinase inhibitors. Eur J Biochem 270:10–19
Wadleigh RW, Yu SJ (1988) Detoxification of isothiocyanate allelochemicals by glutathione-S-­
transferases in three lepidopterous species. J Chem Ecol 14:1279–1288
War AR, Sharma HC (2014) Induced resistance in plants and counter-adaptation by insect pests.
In: Chandrasekar R, Tyagi BK, Guri ZZ, Reeck GR (eds) Short views on insect biochemistry
and molecular biology, vol 2. International Book Mission South India, pp 533–547
Waser NM (1998) Pollination, angiosperm speciation and the nature of species boundries. Oikos
82:198–201
Webster B, Bruce T, Pickett J et al (2010) Volatiles functioning as host cues in a blend become
nonhost cues when presented alone to the black bean aphid. Anim Behav 79:451–457
Werker E (2000) Trichome density and development. Adv Bot Res 31:1–36
Weseloh RM (1981) Host location by parasitoids. In: Nordland DA, Jones RJ, Lewis WJ (eds)
Semiochemicals: Their role in pest control. Wiley, New York, pp 79–95
Wheat CW, Vogel H, Wittstock U et al (2007) The genetic basis of plant-insect coevolutionary key
innovation. Proc Natn Acad Sci USA 104(51):201427–220431
White TCR (1978) The importance of relative food shortage in animal ecology. Oecologia
33:71–86
Wiebes JT (1979) Co-evolution of figs and their insect pollinators. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 10:1–12
Williams CE, Collier CC, Nemcheck JA et al (2002) A lectin-like wheat gene responds systemically
to attempted feeding by avirulent first-instar Hessian fly larvae. J Chem Ecol 28:1411–1428
44 R. Arora and S. Sandhu

Williams CE, Nemacheck JA, Shukle JT et al (2011) Induced epidermal permeability modulates
resistance and susceptibility of wheat seedlings to herbivory be Hessian fly larvae. J Exptl Bot
62:4521–4531
Williams CM (1970) Hormonal interactions between plants and insects. In: Sondheimer E,
Simeone JB (eds) Chemical ecology. Academic, New York, pp 103–132
Wittstock U, Agerbirk N, Stauber EJ et al (2004) Successful herbivore attack due to metabolic
diversion of a plant chemical defence. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 101:4859–4864
Wiseman BR, Snook ME, Isenhour DJ et al (1992) Relationship between growth of corn earworm
and fall armyworm larvae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and maysin concentration in corn silks.
J Econ Ent 85:2473–2477
Wu J, Liu X, Zhang X et al (2008) Differential responses of wheat inhibitor-like genes to Hessian
fly, Mayetiola destructor, attacks during compatible and incompatible interactions. J Chem
Ecol 34:1005–1012
Wu JR, Baldwin IT (2010) New insights into plant responses to the attack from insect herbivores.
Annu Rev Genet 44:1–24
Xie Y, Arnason JT, Philogene BJR et al (1992) Variation of hydroxamic acid content in maize roots
in relation to geographic origin of maize germplasm and resistance to Western corn rootworm
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Econ Entomol 85:2478–2485
Yan J, Lipka AE, Schmelz EA, Buckler ES, Jander G (2015) Accumulation of 5-­hydroxynorvaline
in maize (Zea mays) leaves is induced by insect feeding and abiotic stress. J Exptl Bot
66:593–602
Yang L, Fang Z, Dicke M et al (2009) The diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, specifically
inactivates Mustard Trypsin Inhibitor 2 (MTI2) to overcome host plant defence. Insect Biochem
Mol Biol 33:55–61
Yu SJ (2000) Allelochemical induction of hormone-metabolizing microsomal monoxygenases in
the Fall armyworm. Zool Studies 39:243–249
Zangerl AR, Berenbaum MR (2003) Phenotype matching in the wild parsnip and parsnip web-
worms: causes and consequences. Evolution 57:806–815
Zavala JA, Patankar AG, Gase K et al (2004) Manipulation of endogenous trypsin proteinase inhib-
itor production in Nicotiana attenuata demonstrates their function as antiherbivore defences.
Pl Physiol 134:1181–1190
Zhu-Salzman K, Luthe DS, Felton GW (2008) Arthropod-inducible proteins: Broad spectrum
defences against multiple herbivores. Pl Physiol 146:852–858