# When ‘Calls for Help’ Backfire: Induced Plant Volatiles Reduce the Attraction of a Nocturnal Predator in Sugarcane

**Authors:** Marvin Pec, Paolo Salazar-Mendoza, Kamila E. X. Azevedo, Diego M. Magalhães, Italo Delalibera, José Maurício S. Bento

PMC · DOI: 10.1007/s10886-025-01682-3 · Journal of Chemical Ecology · 2026-01-13

## TL;DR

This study shows that certain plant responses to pests and fungi can actually repel a nocturnal predator, complicating efforts to use plant signals for pest control.

## Contribution

The study reveals that induced plant volatiles can reduce, rather than increase, attraction of a nocturnal predator in sugarcane.

## Key findings

- Spodoptera frugiperda infestation and Metarhizium robertsii colonization reduced the attraction of Doru luteipes.
- Changes in volatile emissions and phytohormone levels led to decreased predator attraction compared to controls.

## Abstract

While herbivore-induced plant volatiles are well-established cues that guide natural enemies to herbivores in ecosystems, microbe-induced plant volatiles have recently gained attention as promising tools for achieving similar outcomes. However, how nocturnal predators respond to volatile cues induced by herbivory and/or endophytic fungal remains poorly understood, particularly in systems where the predator and plant do not share a tightly co-evolved or highly specialized relationship. To explore this, we investigated whether Spodoptera frugiperda infestation and Metarhizium robertsii endophytic colonization in sugarcane plants could enhance the olfactory attraction of the nocturnal earwig predator Doru luteipes by modifying nocturnal volatile emissions and altering endogenous levels of jasmonic acid and salicylic acid. Unexpectedly, the changes in volatile emissions and phytohormone levels induced by herbivory and microbial colonization led to a reduced attraction of the predator compared with undamaged control plants and with the no-plant control. These findings highlight the complexity of D. luteipes’ responses to induced indirect defenses in sugarcane, suggesting that such strategies may not consistently enhance the recruitment of natural enemies.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10886-025-01682-3.

## Linked entities

- **Chemicals:** jasmonic acid (PubChem CID 105087), salicylic acid (PubChem CID 338)
- **Species:** Spodoptera frugiperda (taxon 7108), Metarhizium robertsii (taxon 568076), Doru luteipes (taxon 1514967)

## Full-text entities

- **Chemicals:** jasmonic acid (MESH:C011006), salicylic acid (MESH:D020156), Volatiles (-)
- **Species:** Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm, species) [taxon 7108], Doru luteipes (species) [taxon 1514967], Metarhizium robertsii (species) [taxon 568076]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12799659/full.md

## Figures

3 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12799659/full.md

## References

1 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12799659/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12799659