Xylem monoterpenes of pines: distribution, variation, genetics, function

Smith, Richard H.

doi:10.2737/psw-gtr-177

Cited by 69 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This compound also has a direct defensive role as an inhibitor of fungal associates of bark beetles (39). In addition to these behavioral modulators, whitebark pines also contained lower concentrations of limonene, which generally has the most negative effects among conifer monoterpenes on bark beetles and their fungal symbionts in bioassays (18,40), and has been correlated with reduced rates of attack in some field studies (33). Finally, whitebark pines exude relatively less resin when entered than lodgepole pines, and its supply is more readily depleted by mass attacks (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temperature-driven range expansion of an irruptive insect heightened by weakly coevolved plant defenses

Raffa¹,

Powell²,

Townsend

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

187

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Warming climate has increased access of native bark beetles to high-elevation pines that historically received only intermittent exposure to these tree-killing herbivores. Here we show that a dominant, relatively naïve, high-elevation species, whitebark pine, has inferior defenses against mountain pine beetle compared with its historical lower-elevation host, lodgepole pine. Lodgepole pines respond by exuding more resin and accumulating higher concentrations of toxic monoterpenes than whitebark pine, where they co-occur. Furthermore, the chemical composition of whitebark pine appears less able to inhibit the pheromonal communication beetles use to jointly overcome tree defenses. Despite whitebark pine's inferior defenses, beetles were more likely to attack their historical host in mixed stands. This finding suggests there has been insufficient sustained contact for beetles to alter their complex behavioral mechanisms driving host preference. In no-choice assays, however, beetles readily entered and tunneled in both hosts equally, and in stands containing less lodgepole pine, attacks on whitebark pines increased. High-elevation trees in pure stands may thus be particularly vulnerable to temperature-driven range expansions. Predators and competitors were more attracted to volatiles from herbivores attacking their historical host, further increasing risk in less coevolved systems. Our results suggest cold temperatures provided a sufficient barrier against herbivores for high-elevation trees to allocate resources to other physiological processes besides defense. Changing climate may reduce the viability of that evolutionary strategy, and the life histories of high-elevation trees seem unlikely to foster rapid counter adaptation. Consequences extend from reduced food supplies for endangered grizzly bears to altered landscape and hydrological processes.climate change | coevolution | disturbance | plant-insect interactions | forest insects

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temperature-driven range expansion of an irruptive insect heightened by weakly coevolved plant defenses

Raffa¹,

Powell²,

Townsend

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

187

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within a tree species, different genotypes result in differing levels of resistance and susceptibility [57,58]. Genetic differences are even more pronounced when considering differences in defenses among Pinus species [59,60].…”

Section: A Mountain Pine Beetle Primermentioning

confidence: 99%

Management for Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Suppression: Does Relevant Science Support Current Policy?

Six

Biber

Long

2014

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the use of timber harvests is generally accepted as an effective approach to controlling bark beetles during outbreaks, in reality there has been a dearth of monitoring to assess outcomes, and failures are often not reported. Additionally, few studies have focused on how these treatments affect forest structure and function over the long term, or our forests' ability to adapt to climate change. Despite this, there is a widespread belief in the policy arena that timber harvesting is an effective and necessary tool to address beetle infestations. That belief has led to numerous proposals for, and enactment of, significant changes in federal environmental laws to encourage more timber harvests for beetle control. In this review, we use mountain pine beetle as an exemplar to critically evaluate the state of science behind the use of timber harvest treatments for bark beetle suppression during outbreaks. It is our hope that this review will stimulate research to fill important gaps and to help guide the development of policy and management firmly based in science, and thus, more likely to aid in forest conservation, reduce financial waste, and bolster public trust in public agency decision-making and practice.

show abstract

“…In lodgepole pine, β-phellandrene has been found to be the most abundant compound in oleoresin, but β-phellandrene is proportionally low to non-existent in ponderosa pine [19,20]. β-phellandrene's role as a defensive compound against mountain pine beetle is not yet known.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Host Defense Mechanisms against Bark Beetle Attack Differ between Ponderosa and Lodgepole Pines

West

Bernklau

Bjostad

et al. 2016

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Conifer defenses against bark beetle attack include, but are not limited to, quantitative and qualitative defenses produced prior to attack. Our objective was to assess host defenses of lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine from ecotone stands. These stands provide a transition of host species for mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae; MPB). We asked two questions: (1) do the preformed quantitative host defenses (amount of resin) and (2) the preformed qualitative host defenses (monoterpene constituents) differ between lodgepole and ponderosa pines. We collected oleoresins at three locations in the Southern Rocky Mountains from 56 pairs of the pine species of similar size and growing conditions. The amount of preformed-ponderosa pine oleoresins exuded in 24 h (mg) was almost four times that of lodgepole pine. Total qualitative preformed monoterpenes did not differ between the two hosts, though we found differences in all but three monoterpenes. No differences were detected in α-pinene, γ-terpinene, and bornyl acetate. We found greater concentrations of limonene, β-phellandrene, and cymene in lodgepole pines, whereas β-pinene, 3-carene, myrcene, and terpinolene were greater in ponderosa pine. Although we found differences both in quantitative and qualitative preformed oleoresin defenses, the ecological relevance of these differences to bark beetle susceptibility have not been fully tested.

show abstract

Xylem monoterpenes of pines: distribution, variation, genetics, function

Cited by 69 publications

References 25 publications

Temperature-driven range expansion of an irruptive insect heightened by weakly coevolved plant defenses

Temperature-driven range expansion of an irruptive insect heightened by weakly coevolved plant defenses

Management for Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Suppression: Does Relevant Science Support Current Policy?

Host Defense Mechanisms against Bark Beetle Attack Differ between Ponderosa and Lodgepole Pines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About