ArticleAnnals of botany2016
Something in the air? The impact of volatiles on mollusc attack of oilseed rape seedlings.
Article in Annals of botany, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Semiochemical applications for managing the grey field slug (Deroceras reticulatum Müller), a major pest of arable crops.Pest management science · 2025Review
- Attraction of cabbage stem flea beetle (Psylliodes chrysocephala) to host plant odors.Pest management science · 2025Article
- Plant-herbivore interactions: Experimental demonstration of genetic variability in plant-plant signalling.Evolutionary applications · 2023Article
- The protein and volatile components of trail mucus in the Common Garden Snail, Cornu aspersum.PloS one · 2021Article
- Riding on the wind: volatile compounds dictate selection of grassland seedlings by snails.Annals of botany · 2018Article
- Plants eavesdrop on cues produced by snails and induce costly defenses that affect insect herbivores.Oecologia · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMounting concerns about balancing food security with the environmental impacts of agro-chemical use underpin the need to better understand the mechanisms by which crop plants, particularly during the vulnerable seedling stage, attract or repel herbivores.
methodsThe feeding preferences of the mollusc Helix aspersa were determined for several oilseed rape (Brassica napus) cultivars and a rank order of acceptability was established. This was compared with glucosinolate concentrations and volatile organic compound (VOC) profiles to determine whether seedling acceptability to molluscs was linked to either form of defence. KEY
resultsWhile VOC profiles for each oilseed rape cultivar could be separated by canonical discriminant analysis and associated with mollusc feeding preferences, glucosinolate profiles were unrelated to snail feeding behaviour. A mixture of monoterpenes (α-pinene, β-myrcene and δ-3-carene) was identified as a putative attractant, while a blend of the green leaf volatiles 3-hexen-1-ol, 3-hexen-1-ol acetate and the monoterpene α-terpinene was identified as a putative repellent mix. Added to the VOC profile of oilseed rape seedlings, the 'repellent' mix reduced mollusc selection, while the 'attractant' mix had no effect.
conclusionsDespite the widespread assumption that seedling selection by generalist herbivores is governed by chemical defence and taste, we show that olfactory cues may be more important. Oilseed rape may be atypical of wild plants, but our ability to identify repellent volatile organic compounds that can influence snail olfactory selection points to new methods for crop protection using modified VOC profiles during the vulnerable seedling stage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.