Both synergism and interaction diversity explain the mixtures of defensive monoterpenes in spruce oleoresin

dc.contributor.authorZaman, Rashaduz
dc.contributor.authorJain, Akanksha
dc.contributor.authorHammerbacher, Almuth
dc.contributor.authorGershenzon, Jonathan
dc.contributor.authorKandasamy, Dineshkumar
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-12T04:50:05Z
dc.date.available2026-03-12T04:50:05Z
dc.date.issued2025-09
dc.descriptionSUPPORTING INFORMATION : TABLE S1. List of fungi used in this study. TABLE S2. List of monoterpenes used in bioassays along with their purities and suppliers. TABLE S3. Composition of constitutive and induced blends used in bioassays. TABLE S4. Toxicity of Norway spruce monoterpenes to Ips typographus. TABLE S5. Toxicity of Norway spruce monoterpenes to Ips typographus males and females. TABLE S6. IC50 values of Norway spruce monoterpenes for Grosmannia penicillata. TABLE S7. IC50 values of Norway spruce monoterpenes for Endoconidiophora polonica. TABLE S8. IC50 values of Norway spruce monoterpenes for Ophiostoma bicolor. TABLE S9. Concentrations (ng mg−1 of fresh bark) of monoterpenes identified within bark lesions caused by different fungal and control treatments (wounded and unwounded bark without fungus) (n = 5 or 10). TABLE S10. Vector fitting analysis of monoterpenes that strongly correlate with NMDS axes. TABLE S11. List of monoterpene concentration ranges tested on fungi. APPENDIX S1. Supplementary methods.
dc.description DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT : The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26495 722.v1 (Kandasamy et al., 2024).
dc.description NOTE : Correction added on 1 July 2025 after first online publication: Tables 1 and 2 have been relabelled and citations have been updated.
dc.description.abstract1. Chemical defences, such as the monoterpenes of conifer oleoresin, frequently occur as complex blends of many components, but the selective pressures that maintain these mixtures are not yet known. Several theories attempt to explain the existence of chemical defence mixtures in plants. However, due to limited empirical evidence, it is unclear which theories might best apply. 2. Here, we tested the vapour phase activity of 12 individual Norway spruce monoterpenes and their naturally occurring mixtures to two types of natural spruce enemies, the adult Eurasian spruce bark beetles, Ips typographus, and their three major symbiotic fungi, using survival and growth bioassays. Next, we evaluated whether spruce trees could alter their monoterpene profile in response to fungal infection. 3. Individual monoterpenes had generally opposite effects on bark beetles compared to symbiotic fungi. The compounds that were most toxic to beetles were the least inhibitory to fungal growth and vice versa. The least abundant monoterpenes had the strongest activity against beetles or fungi, while the most abundant monoterpenes showed intermediate activity against both groups of enemies. Additionally, the activity of monoterpene mixtures was significantly stronger against beetles and some symbiotic fungi than the additive effects of individual compounds. Among the symbiotic fungi tested, one (Grosmannia penicillata) exhibited high tolerance to monoterpenes, and its growth was even stimulated by the monoterpenes most toxic to the beetle. Interestingly, spruce bark responded to G. penicillata inoculation by accumulating higher concentrations of specifically fungistatic monoterpenes. 4.Our results support the predictions of the interaction diversity hypothesis, which posits that defence mixtures are maintained in plants because the individual components target different attackers, as well as the synergy hypothesis, which predicts that mixtures will exhibit stronger activity than single compounds. Thus, these two theories may deserve increased emphasis in explaining the widespread occurrence of mixtures in plant chemical defence.
dc.description.departmentZoology and Entomology
dc.description.departmentForestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI)
dc.description.librarianam2026
dc.description.sdgSDG-15: Life on land
dc.description.sponsorshipOpen Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
dc.description.urihttps://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/13652435
dc.identifier.citationZaman, R., Jain, A., Hammerbacher, A., Gershenzon, J., & Kandasamy, D. (2025). Both synergism and interaction diversity explain the mixtures of defensive monoterpenes in spruce oleoresin. Functional Ecology, 39, 2539–2551. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.70077.
dc.identifier.issn0269-8463 (print)
dc.identifier.issn1365-2435 (online)
dc.identifier.other10.1111/1365-2435.70077
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2263/108906
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWiley
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
dc.subjectSynergism
dc.subjectMonoterpenes
dc.subjectComponents
dc.subjectVapour phase activity
dc.titleBoth synergism and interaction diversity explain the mixtures of defensive monoterpenes in spruce oleoresin
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Zaman_Both_2025.pdf
Size:
1.85 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Zaman_BothSuppl_2025.docx
Size:
70.48 KB
Format:
Microsoft Word XML
Description:
Supplementary Material

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: