, Volume 147, Issue 4, pp 679–691 | Cite as

Antagonisms, mutualisms and commensalisms affect outbreak dynamics of the southern pine beetle

  • Richard W. HofstetterEmail author
  • James T. Cronin
  • Kier D. Klepzig
  • John C. Moser
  • Matthew P. Ayres
Community Ecology


Feedback from community interactions involving mutualisms are a rarely explored mechanism for generating complex population dynamics. We examined the effects of two linked mutualisms on the population dynamics of a beetle that exhibits outbreak dynamics. One mutualism involves an obligate association between the bark beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis and two mycangial fungi. The second mutualism involves Tarsonemus mites that are phoretic on D. frontalis (“commensal”), and a blue-staining fungus, Ophiostoma minus. The presence of O. minus reduces beetle larval survival (“antagonistic”) by outcompeting beetle-mutualistic fungi within trees yet supports mite populations by acting as a nutritional mutualist. These linked interactions potentially create an interaction system with the form of an endogenous negative feedback loop. We address four hypotheses: (1) Direct negative feedback: Beetles directly increase the abundance of O. minus, which reduces per capita reproduction of beetles. (2) Indirect negative feedback: Beetles indirectly increase mite abundance, which increases O. minus, which decreases beetle reproduction. (3) The effect of O. minus on beetles depends on mites, but mite abundance is independent of beetle abundance. (4) The effect of O. minus on beetles is independent of beetle and mite abundance. High Tarsonemus and O. minus abundances were strongly correlated with the decline and eventual local extinction of beetle populations. Manipulation experiments revealed strong negative effects of O. minus on beetles, but falsified the hypothesis that horizontal transmission of O. minus generates negative feedback. Surveys of beetle populations revealed that reproductive rates of Tarsonemus, O. minus, and beetles covaried in a manner consistent with strong indirect interactions between organisms. Co-occurrence of mutualisms embedded within a community may have stabilizing effects if both mutualisms limit each other. However, delays and/or non-linearities in the interaction systems may result in large population fluctuations.


Feedback Fungi Mites Mutualism Population dynamics 



We thank Matt Babineau, Dan Braden, Julia Brant, Debbie Cronin, Johnny Fryar, Dan Hogan, Karen London, Sharon Martinson, Jason Moan, Chris Steiner, Erich Vallery, Jessica Veysey and Tiina Ylioja for their assistance in the field and laboratory. Thanks to the researchers and staff at the US Forest Service in Pineville LA, and Bankhead, Homochitto and Oakmulgee Ranger Districts. The manuscript benefited from comments by Anurag Agrawal, Bill Mattson, Mark McPeek, David Peart, and Tiina Yliola. Research was supported by the US Forest Service, NRI CGPs #9835302, #2001-35302-09921, Dartmouth College Graduate Fellowship to R.W. Hofstetter, and National Science Foundation grant DEB 950923 to P. Turchin and J. D. Reeve.

Supplementary material

442_2005_312_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (64 kb)
Supplementary material


  1. Addicott JF (1986) On the population consequences of mutualism. In: Diamond J, Case T (eds) Community ecology. Harper and Row, New York, pp 425–436Google Scholar
  2. Ayres MP, Wilkens RT, Ruel JJ, Lombardero MJ, Vallery E (2000) Nitrogen budgets of phloem feeding bark beetles with and without symbiotic fungi (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ecology 81:2198–2210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barras SJ (1970) Antagonism between Dendroctonus frontalis and the fungus Ceratocystis minor. Annu Entomol Soc Am 63:1187–1190Google Scholar
  4. Barras SJ (1972) Improved White’s solution for surface sterilization of pupae of Dendroctonus frontalis. J Econ Entomol 65:1504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barras SJ (1973) Reduction of progeny and development in the southern pine beetle following removal of symbiotic fungi. Can Entomol 105:1295–1299Google Scholar
  6. Barras SJ, Perry TJ (1975) Interrelationships among microorganisms, bark or ambrosia beetles, and woody plant tissue: an annotated bibliography, 1965–1974. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Gen Tech Report SO−10Google Scholar
  7. Berryman AA (1972) Resistance of conifers to invasion of bark beetle-fungus associations. BioScience 22:598–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berryman AA (2002) Populations: a central concept for ecology? Oikos 97:439–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bridges JR (1983) Mycangial fungi of Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and their relationship to beetle population trends. Environ Entomol 12:858–861Google Scholar
  10. Bridges JR, Moser JC (1983) Role of two phoretic mites in transmission of bluestain fungus, Ceratocystis minor. Ecol Entomol 8:9–12Google Scholar
  11. Clark EW, Richmond JA (1977) Variations of free and triglyceride fatty acids in phloem of Pinus taeda infected by Ceratocystis minor. Turrialba 27:377–383Google Scholar
  12. Coulson RN (1980) Population dynamics. In: Thatcher RC, Searcy J, Coster J, Hertel G (eds) The southern pine beetle. USDA Tech Bull 1631, pp 71–105Google Scholar
  13. Craighead FC (1925) Bark beetle epidemics and rainfall deficiency. J Econ Entomol 18:557–586Google Scholar
  14. Crawly MJ (1990) The population dynamics of plants. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 330:125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cronin JT, Reeve JD, Wilkens R, Turchin P (2000) The pattern and range of movement of a checkered beetle predator relative to its bark beetle prey. Oikos 90:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeAngelis JD, Hodges JD, Nebeker TE (1986) Phenolic metabolies of Ceratocystis minor from laboratory cultures and their effects on transpiration in loblolly pine seedlings. Can J Bot 64:151–155Google Scholar
  17. Dean AM (1983) A simple model of mutualism. Am Nat 121:409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dickman CR (1992) Commensal and mutualistic interactions among terrestrial vertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 7:194–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eckhardt LG, Jones JP, Klepzig KD (2004) Pathogenicity of Leptographium species associated with loblolly pine decline. Plant Dis 88:1174–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ewald P (1995) The evolution of virulence: a unifying link between parasitology and ecology. J Parasitol 81:659–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fargo WS, Coulson RN, Gagne JA, Foltz JL (1979) Correlation of southern pine beetle attack density, oviposition, and generation survival with host tree characteristics and preceding beetle life stage within the host. Environ Entomol 8:624–628Google Scholar
  22. Foltz JL, Mayyasi AM, Hain FP, Coulson RN, Martin WC (1976) Egg-gallery length relationship and within-tree analysis for southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis. Zimm (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can Entomol 108:341–352Google Scholar
  23. Goldhammer DS, Stephen FM, Paine TD (1989) Average radial growth rate and chlamydospore production of Ceratocystis minor, Ceratocystis minor var. barrasii, and SJB 122 in culture. Can J Bot 67:3498–3505Google Scholar
  24. Goldhammer DS, Stephen FM, Paine TD (1990) The effect of the fungi Ceratocystis minor Hunt, Ceratocystis minor. Hunt var Barrasii Taylor, and SJB 122 on reproduction of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can Entomol 122:407–418Google Scholar
  25. Hain FP (1980) Sampling and predicting population trends. In: Thatcher RC, Searcy J, Coster J, Hertel G (eds) The southern pine beetle. USDA Tech Bull 1631, pp 107–135Google Scholar
  26. Happ GM, Happ CM, Barras SJ (1976) Bark beetle-fungal symbiosis. II. Fine structure of a basidiomycetous ecosymbiont of the southern pine beetle. Can J Bot 54:1049–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hemingway RW, McGraw GW, Barras SJ (1977) Polyphenols in Ceratocystis minor infected Pinus taeda: Fungal metabolites, phloem and xylem phenols. Agric Food Chem 25:717–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herre EA, Knowlton N, Mueller UG, Rehner SA (1999) The evolution of mutualisms: exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. Trends Ecol Evol 14:49–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hofstetter RW, Klepzig KD, Moser JC, Ayres MP (2005a) Seasonal dynamics of mites and fungi and their interaction with southern pine beetle. Env Ent (in press)Google Scholar
  30. Hofstetter RW, Mahfous J, Klepzig KD, Ayres MP (2005b) Effects of tree phytochemistry on the interactions between endophloedic fungi associated with the southern pine beetle. J Chem Ecol 31:551–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ (2004) Population dynamics of a damselfish: effects of a competitor that also is an indirect mutualist. Ecology 85:979–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holland JN, DeAngelis DL (2001) Population dynamics and the stability of obligate pollination mutualisms. Oecologia 126:575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hsiau PTW (1996) The taxonomy and phylogeny of the mycangial fungi from Dendroctonus brevicomis and Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacobs K, Wingfield MJ (2001) Leptographium Species: tree pathogens, insect associates and agents of blue-stain. American Phytopathological Society Press, St PaulGoogle Scholar
  35. Jacobs K, Kirisits T (2003) Ophiostoma kryptum sp. nov. from Larix decidua and Picea abies in Europe, similar to O. minus. Mycol Res 107:1231–1242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones CG, Ostfeld RW, Richard MP, Schauber EM, Wolff JO (1998) Chain reactions linking acorns to gypsy moth outbreaks and Lyme disease risk. Science 279:1023–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kalkstein LS (1976) Effects of climatic stress on outbreaks of the southern pine beetle. Environ Entomol 5:653–658Google Scholar
  38. Kearns CA, Inouye DW, Waser NM (1998) Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:83–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klepzig KD (1998) Competition between a biological control fungus, Ophiostoma piliferum, and symbionts of the southern pine beetle. Mycologia 90:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klepzig KD, Wilkens RT (1997) Competitive interactions among symbiotic fungi of the southern pine beetle. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:621–627PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Klepzig KD, Moser JC, Lombardero MJ, Hofstetter RW, Ayres MP (2001) Symbiosis and competition: complex interactions among beetles, fungi, and mites. Symbiosis 30:83–96Google Scholar
  42. Klepzig KD, Flores-Otero J, Hofstetter RW, Ayres MP (2004) Effects of available water on growth and competition of southern pine beetle associated fungi. Mycol Res 108:183–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Klepzig KD, Six DL (2004) Bark beetle-fungal symbiosis: context dependency in complex associations. Symbiosis 37:189–205Google Scholar
  44. Kopper BJ, Klepzig KD, Raffa KF (2004) Components of antagonism and mutualism in Ips pini-fungal interactions: relationship to a life history of colonizing highly stressed and dead trees. Environ Entomol 33:28–34Google Scholar
  45. Krokene P, Solheim H (1998) Pathogenicity of four blue-stain fungi associated with aggressive and nonaggressive bark beetles. Phytopathology 88:39–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Leach JG, Orr LW, Christensen C (1934) The interrelationships of bark beetles and blue-staining fungi in felled Norway pine timber. J Agric Res 49:315–342Google Scholar
  47. Levins R, Schultz BB (1996) Effects of density dependence, feedback and environmental sensitivity on correlations among predators, prey and plant resources: models and practical implications. J Anim Ecol 65:802–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lima M, Jaksic FM (1999) Population dynamics of three Neotropical small mammals: time series models and the role of delayed density-dependence in population irruptions. Aust J Ecol 24:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lombardero MJ, Klepzig KD, Moser JC, Ayres MP (2000) Biology, demography and community interactions of Tarsonemus (Acrina: Tarsonemidae) mites phoretic on Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Agric For Entomol 2:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lombardero MJ, Ayres MP, Hofstetter RW, Moser JC, Klepzig KD (2003) Strong indirect interactions of Tarsonemus mites (Acrina: Tarsonemidae) and Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Oikos 102:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. May RM (1976a) Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics. Nature 261:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. May RM (1976b) Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. May RM (1982) Mutualistic interactions among species. Nature 296:803–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Menge BA (2000) Testing the relative importance of positive and negative effects on community structure. Trends Ecol Evol 15:46–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moser JC (1985) Use of sporothecia by phoretic Tarsonemus mites to transport ascospores of coniferous bluestain fungi. Trans Br Mycol Soc 84:750–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moser JC, Bridges JR (1986) Tarsonemus (Acarina: Tarsonemidae) mites phoretic on the southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): attachment sites and numbers of bluestain (Ascomycetes: Ophiostomataceae) ascospores carried. Proc Entomol Soc Wash 88:297–299Google Scholar
  57. Moser JC, Perry TJ, Bridges JR, Yin H-F (1995) Ascospore dispersal of Ceratocystiopsis ranaculosus, a mycangial fungus of the southern pine beetle. Mycologia 87:84–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moser JC, Macias-Samano JE (2000) Tarsonemid mite associates of Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): implications for the historical biogeography of D. frontalis. Can Entomol 132:765–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Owen DR, Lindahl KQ, Wood DL (1987) Pathogenicity of fungi isolated from Dendroctonus valens, D. brevicomis and D. ponderosae to ponderosa pine seedlings. Phytopathology 77:631–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Perry TJ (1991) A synopsis of the taxonomic revisions in the genus Ceratocystis including a review of blue-staining species associated with Dendroctonus bark beetles. Gen Tech Report SO-86, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  61. Price TS, Dogget HC, Pye JM, Smith B (1997) A history of southern pine beetle outbreaks in the southeastern US. Georgia Forestry Commission, MaconGoogle Scholar
  62. Reeve JR (1997) Predation and bark beetle dynamics. Oecologia 112:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reeve JR, Turchin P (2002) Evidence for predator-prey cycles in a bark beetle. In: Berryman AA (ed) Population cycles the case for trophic interactions. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 92–108Google Scholar
  64. Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D’Antonio CM, Milton SJ, Rejmanek M (2000) Plant invasions—the role of mutualisms. Biol Rev 75:65–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ringel MS, Hu HH, Anderson G (1996) The stability and persistence of mutualisms embedded in community interactions. Theor Popul Biol 50:281–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seifert KA (1993) Sapstain of commercial lumber by species of ophiostoma and ceratocystis. In: Wingfield MJ, Seifert KA, Webber JF (eds) Ceratocystis and ophiostoma: taxonomy, ecology and pathogenicity. American Phytopathology Press, St. Paul, pp 141–151Google Scholar
  67. Six DL, Paine TD (1998) Effects of mycangial fungi and host tree species on progeny survival and emergence of Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environ Entomol 27:1393–1401Google Scholar
  68. Solheim H (1986) Species of Ophiostomataceae isolated from Picea abies infested by the bark beetle Ips typographus. Nord J Bot 6:199–207Google Scholar
  69. Stanton ML (2003) Interacting guilds: moving beyond the pairwise perspective of mutualisms. Am Nat 162:S10–S23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Strobel GA, Lanier GN (1981) Dutch elm disease. Sci Am 245:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thatcher RC, Searcy JL, Coster JE, Hertel GD (1980) The southern pine beetle. Technical Bulletin 1631, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Combined Forest Pest Reserch and Development Program, Pineville, LA. 267 ppGoogle Scholar
  72. Turchin P, Lorio PL, Taylor AD, Billings RF (1991) Why do populations of southern pine beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) fluctuate? Environ Entomol 20:401–409Google Scholar
  73. Turchin P, Taylor AD (1992) Complex dynamics in ecological time series. Ecology 73:289–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Turchin P, Taylor AD, Reeve JD (1999) Dynamical role of predators in population cycles of a forest insect: an experimental test. Science 285:1068–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ungerer MJ, Ayres MP, Lombardero MJ (1999) Climate and the northern distribution limits of Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J Biogeog 26:1133–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Waser NW, Price MV, Brody AK, Campbell DR (2000) Pollination success and plant population size: how strong are the links? Bull Ecol Soc Am 85:S227Google Scholar
  77. Wilson DS (1986) Adaptive indirect effects. In: Diamond J, Case T (eds) Community ecology. Harper and Row, New York, pp 437–444Google Scholar
  78. Wootton JT (1993) Indirect effects and habitat use in an intertidal community: interaction chains and interaction modifications. Am Nat 141:71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wullschlager SD, McLaughlin SB, Ayres MP (2004) High-resolution analysis of stem increment and sap flow for loblolly pine trees attacked by southern pine beetle. Can J For Res 34: (in press)Google Scholar
  80. Yearian WC, Gouger RJ, Wilkinson RC (1972) Effects of the bluestain fungus, Ceratocystis ips, on development of Ips bark beetles in pine bolts. Annu Entomol Soc Am 65:481–48Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard W. Hofstetter
    • 1
    Email author
  • James T. Cronin
    • 2
  • Kier D. Klepzig
    • 3
  • John C. Moser
    • 3
  • Matthew P. Ayres
    • 4
  1. 1.School of ForestryNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  3. 3.Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServicePinevilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biological SciencesDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations