Abstract
have highlighted an error in their article. In Fig. 5(b), the scale of values provided on the y-axis was incorrect. The corrected Fig. 5 is shown below. We apologize to our readers for this mistake. 5 Fig. (Figure presented.) Indirect plant defenses in leaves in response to tetranins. (a) The olfactory response of Phytoseiulus persimilis when offered volatiles released by plants treated with mechanical damage (MD) + tetranin or green fluorescent protein (GFP) solution (3 μM) for 24 h or plants infested with 100 mites for 24 h vs untreated control plants (Ct). The figures in parentheses represent the numbers of predators that did not choose either odor source (‘no choice’ subjects). A replicated G-test was conducted to evaluate the significance of the attraction in each experiment (***, P < 0.001; **, 0.001 ≤ P < 0.01; *, 0.01 ≤ P < 0.05; ns, P > 0.05). (b) Headspace volatiles released from plants treated with MD + GFP, Tet1 (T1) or Tet2 (T2) were collected after 24–27 h. Data are means ± SE (n = 4–5). The means were not significantly different (ns, P > 0.05), on the basis of an ANOVA. (E)-DMNT, (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene; MeSA, methyl salicylate; (E,E)-TMTT, (E,E)-4,8,12-trimethyltrideca-1,3,7,11-tetraene.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 2698-2699 |
Number of pages | 2 |
Journal | New Phytologist |
Volume | 238 |
Issue number | 6 |
DOIs |
|
Publication status | Published - Jun 2023 |
Keywords
- Phaseolus vulgaris
- defense response
- elicitor
- tetranin (Tet)
- two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae)