Chemical Responses of Nicotiana tabacum (Solanaceae) Induced by Vibrational Signals of a Generalist Herbivore

Developmental programming by prenatal sounds: insights into possible mechanisms

In recent years, the impact of prenatal sound on development, notably for programming individual phenotypes for postnatal conditions, has increasingly been revealed. However, the mechanisms through which sound affects physiology and development remain mostly unexplored. Here, I gather evidence from neurobiology, developmental biology, cellular biology and bioacoustics to identify the most plausible modes of action of sound on developing embryos. First, revealing often-unsuspected plasticity, I discuss how prenatal sound may shape auditory system development and determine individuals' later capacity to receive acoustic information. I also consider the impact of hormones, including thyroid hormones, glucocorticoids and androgen, on auditory plasticity. Second, I review what is known about sound transduction to other - non-auditory - brain regions, and its potential to input on classical developmental programming pathways. Namely, the auditory pathway has direct anatomical and functional connectivity to the hippocampus, amygdala and/or hypothalamus, in mammals, birds and anurans. Sound can thus trigger both immediate and delayed responses in these limbic regions, which are specific to the acoustic stimulus and its biological relevance. Third, beyond the brain, I briefly consider the possibility for sound to directly affect cellular functioning, based on evidence in earless organisms (e.g. plants) and cell cultures. Together, the multi-disciplinary evidence gathered here shows that the brain is wired to allow multiple physiological and developmental effects of sound. Overall, there are many unexplored, but possible, pathways for sound to impact even primitive or immature organisms. Throughout, I identify the most promising research avenues for unravelling the processes of acoustic developmental programming.

Is plant acoustic communication fact or fiction?

In recent years, the idea has flourished that plants emit and perceive sound and could even be capable of exchanging information through the acoustic channel. While research into plant bioacoustics is still in its infancy, with potentially fascinating discoveries awaiting ahead, here we show that the current knowledge is not conclusive. While plants do emit sounds under biotic and abiotic stresses such as drought, these sounds are high-pitched, of low intensity, and propagate only to a short distance. Most studies suggesting plant sensitivity to airborne sound actually concern the perception of substrate vibrations from the soil or plant part. In short, while low-frequency, high-intensity sounds emitted by a loudspeaker close to the plant seem to have tangible effects on various plant processes such as growth - a finding with possible applications in agriculture - it is unlikely that plants can perceive the sounds they produce, at least over long distances. So far, there is no evidence of plants communicating with each other via the acoustic channel.

The plant is neither dumb nor deaf; it talks and hears

Animals and insects communicate using vibrations that are frequently too low or too high for human ears to detect. Plants and trees can communicate and sense sound. Khait et al. used a dependable recording system to capture airborne sounds produced by stressed plants. In addition to allowing plants to communicate their stress, sound aids in plant defense, development, and resilience. It also serves as a warning that danger is approaching. Demey et al. and others discussed the audit examinations that were conducted to investigate sound discernment in plants at the atomic and biological levels. The biological significance of sound in plants, the morphophysiological response of plants to sound, and the airborne noises that plants make and can hear from a few meters away were all discussed.

Understanding the mechanobiology of phytoacoustics through molecular Lens: Mechanisms and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

How plants emit, perceive, and respond to sound vibrations (SVs) is a long-standing question in the field of plant sensory biology. In recent years, there have been numerous studies on how SVs affect plant morphological, physiological, and biochemical traits related to growth and adaptive responses. For instance, under drought SVs navigate plant roots towards water, activate their defence responses against stressors, and increase nectar sugar in response to pollinator SVs. Also, plants emit SVs during stresses which are informative in terms of ecological and adaptive perspective. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying the SV perception and emission in plants remain largely unknown. Therefore, deciphering the complexity of plant-SV interactions and identifying bonafide receptors and signaling players will be game changers overcoming the roadblocks in phytoacoustics.

AIM OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to provide an overview of recent developments in phytoacoustics. We primarily focuss on SV signal perception and transduction with current challenges and future perspectives.

KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW

Timeline breakthroughs in phytoacoustics have constantly shaped our understanding and belief that plants may emit and respond to SVs like other species. However, unlike other plant mechanostimuli, little is known about SV perception and signal transduction. Here, we provide an update on phytoacoustics and its ecological importance. Next, we discuss the role of cell wall receptor-like kinases, mechanosensitive channels, intracellular organelle signaling, and other key players involved in plant-SV receptive pathways that connect them. We also highlight the role of calcium (Ca2+), reactive oxygen species (ROS), hormones, and other emerging signaling molecules in SV signal transduction. Further, we discuss the importance of molecular, biophysical, computational, and live cell imaging tools for decoding the molecular complexity of acoustic signaling in plants. Finally, we summarised the role of SV priming in plants and discuss how SVs could modulate plant defense and growth trade-offs during other stresses.

Sound perception in plants: from ecological significance to molecular understanding

In addition to positive effects on plant growth and resilience, sound alerts plants of potential danger and aids in defense. Sound guides plants towards essential resources, like water, through phonotropic root growth. Sound also facilitates mutualistic interactions such as buzz pollination. Molecularly, sound induces Ca2+ signatures, K+ fluxes, and an increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels in a mechanosensitive ion channel-dependent fashion. We review the two major open questions in the field of plant acoustics: (i) what is the ecological relevance of sound in plant life, and (ii) how is sound sensed and transduced to evoke a morphophysiological response? We highlight the clear need to combine the ecological and molecular perspectives for a more holistic approach to better understand plant behavior.

Plant ecoacoustics: a sensory ecology approach

Many interactions of plants with the environment have an acoustic component, including the actions of herbivores and pollinators, wind and rain. Although plants have long been tested for their response to single tones or music, their response to naturally occurring sources of sound and vibration is barely explored. We argue that progress in understanding the ecology and evolution of plant acoustic sensing requires testing how plants respond to acoustic features of their natural environments, using methods that precisely measure and reproduce the stimulus experienced by the plant.

Plant Communication

Communication occurs when a sender emits a cue perceived by a receiver that changes the receiver's behavior. Plants perceive information regarding light, water, other nutrients, touch, herbivores, pathogens, mycorrhizae, and nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Plants also emit cues perceived by other plants, beneficial microbes, herbivores, enemies of herbivores, pollinators, and seed dispersers. Individuals responding to light cues experienced increased fitness. Evidence for benefits of responding to cues involving herbivores and pathogens is more limited. The benefits of emitting cues are also less clear, particularly for plant–plant communication. Reliance on multiple or dosage-dependent cues can reduce inappropriate responses, and plants often remember past cues. Plants have multiple needs and prioritize conflicting cues such that the risk of abiotic stress is treated as greater than that of shading, which is in turn treated as greater than that of consumption. Plants can distinguish self from nonself and kin from strangers. They can identify the species of competitor or consumer and respond appropriately. Cues involving mutualists often contain highly specific information.

Impact of exogenous nicotine on the morphological, physio-biochemical, and anatomical characteristics in Capsicum annuum

Nicotine is an alkaloid which only highly exists in tobacco plants. It accounts for 95% of its total alkaloid content. Nicotine is synthesized in the roots and transported via the xylem to the shoot. This study aimed to investigate the morphological, physio-biochemical, structural, and ultrastructural impacts of different nicotine concentrations in bell pepper. Capsicum annuum seedlings were grown hydroponically in a growth chamber with different nicotine concentrations (0, 100, 400, 700, 1,000, 3,000, and 5,000 µM). Nicotine-treated leaves (3,000 and 5,000 µM) exhibited severe chlorosis and necrosis. Moreover, nicotine-treated seedlings (1,000, 3,000, and 5,000 µM) exhibited severe reduction in leaf area (p < 0.0001) and photosynthetic efficiency (p < 0.0001), which significantly reduce the photosynthetic rate (p < 0.0001). Also, the drop in the photosynthetic rate was associated with significant drop in stomatal conductance (p < 0.0001). The electron transmission micrographs revealed that nicotine-treated seedlings (3,000 and 5,000 µM) exhibited deformed chloroplasts with numerous plastoglobules reducing the photosynthetic rates.

Making Sense of the Way Plants Sense Herbivores

Plants are constantly threatened by herbivore attacks and must devise survival strategies. Some plants sense and respond to elicitors including specific molecules secreted by herbivores and molecules that are innate to plants. Elicitors activate diverse arrays of plant defense mechanisms that confer resistance to the predator. Recent new insights into the cellular pathways by which plants sense elicitors and elicit defense responses against herbivores are opening doors to a myriad of agricultural applications. This review focuses on the machinery of herbivory-sensing and on cellular and systemic/airborne signaling via elicitors, exemplified by the model case of interactions between Arabidopsis hosts and moths of the genus Spodoptera.

Oral cues are not enough: induction of defensive proteins in Nicotiana tabacum upon feeding by caterpillars

MAIN CONCLUSION

The study challenges the general belief that plants are highly sensitive to oral cues of herbivores and reveals the role of the damage level on the magnitude of defense induction. Many leaf-feeding caterpillars share similar feeding behaviors involving repeated removal of previously wounded leaf tissue (semicircle feeding pattern). We hypothesized that this behavior is a strategy to attenuate plant-induced defenses by removing both the oral cues and tissues that detect it. Using tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and the tobacco hornworm (Manduca sexta), we found that tobacco increased defensive responses during herbivory compared to mechanical wounding at moderate damage levels (30%). However, tobacco did not differentiate between mechanical wounding and herbivory when the level of leaf tissue loss was either small (4%) or severe (100%, whole leaf removal). Higher amounts of oral cues did not induce higher defenses when damage was small. Severe damage led to the highest level of systemic defense proteins compared to other levels of leaf tissue loss with or without oral cues. In conclusion, we did not find clear evidence that semicircle feeding behavior compromises plant defense induction. In addition, the level of leaf tissue loss and oral cues interact to determine the level of induced defensive responses in tobacco. Although oral cues play an important role in inducing defensive proteins, the level of induction depends more on the level of leaf tissue loss in tobacco.