High-resolution kinetics of herbivore-induced plant volatile transfer reveal tightly clocked responses in neighboring plants

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors of the manuscript "High-resolution kinetics of herbivore-induced plant volatile transfer reveal tightly clocked responses in neighboring plants" assessed the effects of herbivory-induced maize volatiles on receiver plants over a period of time in order to assess the dynamics of the responses of receiver plants. Different volatile compound classes were measured over a period of time using PTR-ToF-MS and GC-MS, under both natural light:dark conditions, and continuous light. They also measured gene expression of related genes as well as defense-related phytohormones. The effects of a secondary exposure to GLVs on primed receiver plants were also measured.

The paper addresses some interesting points, however, some questions arise regarding some of the methods employed. Firstly, I am wondering why VOCs (as measured by GC-MS) were not quantified. While I understand that quantification is time-consuming and requires more work, it allows for comparisons to be made between lines of the same species, as well as across other literature on the subject. As experiments with VOC dispensers were also used in this experiment, I find it even more baffling that the authors didn't confirm the concentration of the emission from the plants they used to make sure they matched. The references cited justifying the concentration used (saying it was within the range of GLVs emitted by their plants) to prepare the dispenser were for either a different variety of maize (delprim versus B73) or arabidopsis. Simply relying on the area under the curve and presenting results using arbitrary units is not enough for analyses like these.

With regards to the correlation analyses shown in Figure 6, the results presented in many of the correlation plots are not actually informative. By blindly reporting the correlation coefficient important trends are being ignored, as there are clearly either bimodal relationships (e.g. upper left panel, HAC/TMTT, HAC/MNT) or even stranger relationships (e.g. upper left panel, IND/SQT, IND/MNT) that are not being well explained by a correlation plot. It is not appropriate to discuss the correlation factors presented here and to draw such strong conclusions on emission kinetics. The comparison between plants under continuous light and normal light:dark conditions is interesting, but I think there are better ways to examine these relationships, for example, multivariate analysis might reveal some patterns.

In Figure 2, the elevated concentrations of beta-caryophyllene found in the control plants at 8h and 16.75h measurement timepoints are curious. Is this something that is commonly seen in B73? While there can be discrepancies between emissions and compounds actually present within leaf tissue, it is a little bit odd that such high levels of b-caryophyllene were found at these timepoints, however, this is not reflected in the PTR-ToF-MS measurements of sesquiterpenes. It would be beneficial to include an overview of the mechanism of production and storage of sesquiterpenes in maize leaves, which would clarify why high amounts were found only in the GC-MS analysis and not the PTR-ToF-MS analysis, which is a more sensitive analytical tool. It is possible that the amounts of b-caryophyllene present in the leaf are actually extremely low, however as the values are not given as a concentration but rather arbitrary units, it is not possible to tell. I would include a line explaining what is seen with b-caryophyllene. Additionally, it seems like the amounts of TMTT within the leaf are extraordinarily high (judging only by the au values given for scale), far higher than one would expect from maize.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The exact dynamics of responses to volatiles from herbivore-attacked neighbouring plants have been little studied so far. Also, we still lack evidence of whether herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) induce or prime plant defences of neighbours. The authors investigated the volatile emission patterns of receiver plants that respond to the volatile emission of neighbouring sender plants which are fed upon by herbivorous caterpillars. They applied a very elegant approach (more rigorous than the current state-of-the-art) to monitor temporal response patterns of neighbouring plants to HIPVs by measuring volatile emissions of senders and receivers, senders only and receivers only. Different terpenoids were produced within 2 h of such exposure in receiver plants, but not during the dark phase. Once the light turned on again, large amounts of terpenoids were released from the receiver plants. This may indicate a delayed terpene burst, but terpenoids may also be induced by the sudden change in light. A potential caveat exists with respect to the exact timing and the day-night cycle. The timing may be critical, i.e. at which time-point after onset of light herbivores were placed on the plants and how long the terpene emission lasted before the light was turned off. If the rhythm or a potential internal clock matters, then this information should also be highly relevant. Moreover, light on/off is a rather arbitrary treatment that is practical for experiments in the laboratory but which is not a very realistic setting. Particularly with regard to terpene emission, the sudden turning on of light instead of a smooth and continuous change to lighter conditions may trigger emission responses that are not found in nature. As one contrasting control, the authors also studied the time-delay in volatile emission when plants were just kept under continuous light (just for the experiment or continuously?). Here they also found a delayed terpenoid production, but this seemed to be lower compared to the plants exposed to the day-night-cycle. Another helpful control would be to start the herbivory treatment in the evening hours and leave the light on. If then again plants only release volatiles after a 17 h delay, the response is indeed independent of the diurnal clock of the plant.

Interestingly, internal terpene pools of one of the leaves tested here remained more comparable between night and day, indicating that their pools stay higher in plants exposed to HIPVs. In contrast, terpene synthases were only induced during the light-phase, not in the dark-phase. Moreover, jasmonates were only significantly induced 22 h after the onset of the volatile exposure and thus parallel with the burst of terpene release.

An additional experiment exposing plants to the green leaf volatile (glv) (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate revealed that plants can be primed by this glv, leading to a stronger terpene burst. The results are discussed with nice logic and considering potential ecological consequences. Some data are not discussed, e.g. the jasmonate and gene induction pattern.

Overall, this study provides intriguing insights into the potential interplay between priming and induction, which may co-occur, enhancing (indirect and direct) plant defence. Follow-up studies are suggested that may provide additional evidence.