Advertisement

Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 93, Issue 1, pp 427–437 | Cite as

Associational resistance to a pest insect fades with time

  • Bastien CastagneyrolEmail author
  • Mikhail V. Kozlov
  • Charlotte Poeydebat
  • Maude Toïgo
  • Hervé Jactel
Original Paper

Abstract

Tree diversity is one of the drivers of forest resistance to herbivores. Most of the current understanding of the diversity resistance relationship comes primarily from short-term studies. Knowing whether tree diversity effects on herbivores are maintained over time is important for perennial ecosystems like forests. We addressed the temporal dynamics of the diversity resistance relationship by conducting a 6-year survey of pine attacks by the pine processionary moth Thaumetopoea pityocampa (PPM) in a tree diversity experiment where we could disentangle tree composition from host density effects. During the first years after planting the trees, PPM attacks on maritime pine Pinus pinaster were reduced in the presence of birch Betula pendula, a fast-growing non-host tree (i.e. associational resistance). This effect was maintained but faded with time as the pines eventually grew taller than neighbouring birches. The number of repeated attacks on individual pine trees also decreased in mixed pine–birch stands. Pine density had a positive effect on stand colonisation by PPM and a negative effect on the proportion of trees that were attacked. Pines were less likely to be repeatedly attacked as pine density increased, with attacks being spread over a larger number of host trees. Collectively, these results unravel the independent contribution of tree species composition and host density to tree resistance to herbivores. Both processes had directional changes over time. These results indicate that the resistance of planted forests to herbivores can be improved by carefully choosing the composition of mixed forests and the timing of species planting.

Keywords

Associational effects Forest ORPHEE experiment Plant–insect interactions Thaumetopoea pityocampa 

Notes

Acknowledgements

BC was supported by the GIP-ECOFOR programme from the French ministry of agriculture (Project BIOPICC ECOFOR-2014-15). MT, CP and HJ received support from the French National Research agency (Project DiPTiCC, ANR-16-CE32-0003-01). MVK was supported by the Academy of Finland (Projects 311929 and 316182). We thank people who contributed to count PPM nests since 2013 (with no particular order): Maxime Damien, Inge van Halder, Margot Régoloni, Céline Meredieu, Fabrice Vétillard, Lucile Perrot, Angelina Ceballos-Escalera, Yasmine Kadiri, Christophe Poilleux and Victor Rebillard. The authors acknowledge UEFP 0570, INRA, 69 route d’Arcachon, 33612, CESTAS, for the management of the ORPHEE experiment.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10340_2019_1148_MOESM1_ESM.zip (6.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (ZIP 6418 kb)

References

  1. Bañuelos M-J, Kollmann J (2011) Effects of host-plant population size and plant sex on a specialist leaf-miner. Acta Oecol 37:58–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2010.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbosa P, Hines J, Kaplan I et al (2009) Associational resistance and associational susceptibility: having right or wrong neighbors. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartoń K (2019) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.43.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
  4. Battisti A, Avcı M, Avtzis DN et al (2015) Natural history of the processionary moths (Thaumetopoea spp.): new insights in relation to climate change. In: Roques A (ed) Processionary moths and climate change: an update. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 15–79Google Scholar
  5. Bognounou F, De Grandpré L, Pureswaran DS, Kneeshaw D (2017) Temporal variation in plant neighborhood effects on the defoliation of primary and secondary hosts by an insect pest. Ecosphere 8:e01759.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1759 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bommarco R, Banks JE (2003) Scale as modifier in vegetation diversity experiments: effects on herbivores and predators. Oikos 102:440–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castagneyrol B, Giffard B, Péré C, Jactel H (2013) Plant apparency, an overlooked driver of associational resistance to insect herbivory. J Ecol 101:418–429.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castagneyrol B, Jactel H, Charbonnier Y et al (2014a) Egg mortality in the pine processionary moth: habitat diversity, microclimate and predation effects: egg mortality in Thaumetopoea pityocampa. Agric For Entomol 16:284–292.  https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castagneyrol B, Jactel H, Vacher C et al (2014b) Effects of plant phylogenetic diversity on herbivory depend on herbivore specialization. J Appl Ecol 51:134–141.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castagneyrol B, Régolini M, Jactel H (2014c) Tree species composition rather than diversity triggers associational resistance to the pine processionary moth. Basic Appl Ecol 15:516–523.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2014.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castagneyrol B, Jactel H, Moreira X (2018) Anti-herbivore defences and insect herbivory: interactive effects of drought and tree neighbours. J Ecol 106:2043–2055.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Damien M, Jactel H, Meredieu C et al (2016) Pest damage in mixed forests: disentangling the effects of neighbor identity, host density and host apparency at different spatial scales. For Ecol Manag 378:103–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.07.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dulaurent A-M, Porté AJ, van Halder I et al (2012) Hide and seek in forests: colonization by the pine processionary moth is impeded by the presence of nonhost trees. Agric For Entomol 14:19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2011.00549.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Wallace J, Mansell R (eds) Biochemical interaction between plants and insects. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  15. Fernandez-Conradi P, Jactel H, Hampe A et al (2017) The effect of tree genetic diversity on insect herbivory varies with insect abundance. Ecosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finch S, Collier RH (2000) Host-plant selection by insects—a theory based on ‘appropriate/inappropriate landings’ by pest insects of cruciferous plants. Entomol Exp Appl 96:91–102.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00684.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guyot V, Castagneyrol B, Vialatte A et al (2016) Tree diversity reduces pest damage in mature forests across Europe. Biol Lett 12:20151037.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.1037 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Hakes AS, Cronin JT (2012) Successional changes in plant resistance and tolerance to herbivory. Ecology 93:1059–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hambäck PA, Englund G (2005) Patch area, population density and the scaling of migration rates: the resource concentration hypothesis revisited: density-area relations in sources and sinks. Ecol Lett 8:1057–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00811.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hambäck PA, Inouye BD, Andersson P, Underwood N (2014) Effects of plant neighborhoods on plant–herbivore interactions: resource dilution and associational effects. Ecology 95:1370–1383.  https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0793.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Haynes KJ, Allstadt AJ, Klimetzek D (2014) Forest defoliator outbreaks under climate change: effects on the frequency and severity of outbreaks of five pine insect pests. Glob Change Biol 20:2004–2018.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hódar JA, Zamora R, Castro J (2002) Host utilisation by moth and larval survival of pine processionary caterpillar Thaumetopoea pityocampa in relation to food quality in three Pinus species. Ecol Entomol 27:292–301.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2002.00415.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50(3):346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacquet J-S, Bosc A, O’Grady AP, Jactel H (2013) Pine growth response to processionary moth defoliation across a 40-year chronosequence. For Ecol Manag 293:29–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jactel H, Birgersson G, Andersson S, Schlyter F (2011) Non-host volatiles mediate associational resistance to the pine processionary moth. Oecologia 166:703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jactel H, Barbaro L, Battisti A et al (2015) Insect—tree Interactions in Thaumetopoea pityocampa. In: Roques A (ed) Processionary moths and climate change: an update. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 265–310Google Scholar
  27. Jucker T, Bouriaud O, Coomes DA (2015) Crown plasticity enables trees to optimize canopy packing in mixed-species forests. Funct Ecol 29:1078–1086.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim TN, Underwood N (2014) Plant neighborhood effects on herbivory: damage is both density and frequency dependent. Ecology 96:1431–1437.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1097.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kostenko O, Bezemer TM (2013) Intraspecific variation in plant size, secondary plant compounds, herbivory and parasitoid assemblages during secondary succession. Basic Appl Ecol 14:337–346.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2013.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82(13):1–26.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li S, Daudin JJ, Piou D et al (2015) Periodicity and synchrony of pine processionary moth outbreaks in France. For Ecol Manag 354:309–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.05.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merwin AC, Underwood N, Inouye BD (2017) Increased consumer density reduces the strength of neighborhood effects in a model system. Ecology 98:2904–2913.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller AM, McArthur C, Smethurst PJ (2007) Effects of within-patch characteristics on the vulnerability of a plant to herbivory. Oikos 116:41–52.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.15331.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moreira X, Abdala-Roberts L, Rasmann S et al (2016) Plant diversity effects on insect herbivores and their natural enemies: current thinking, recent findings, and future directions. Curr Opin Insect Sci 14:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2015.10.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Otway SJ, Hector A, Lawton JH (2005) Resource dilution effects on specialist insect herbivores in a grassland biodiversity experiment. J Anim Ecol 74:234–240.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00913.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Régolini M, Castagneyrol B, Dulaurent-Mercadal A-M et al (2014) Effect of host tree density and apparency on the probability of attack by the pine processionary moth. For Ecol Manag 334:185–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.08.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Root RB (1973) Organization of a Plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica Oleracea). Ecol Monogr 43:95.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1942161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schiebe C, Blaženec M, Jakuš R et al (2011) Semiochemical diversity diverts bark beetle attacks from Norway spruce edges. J Appl Entomol 135:726–737.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2011.01624.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schuldt A, Baruffol M, Böhnke M et al (2010) Tree diversity promotes insect herbivory in subtropical forests of south-east China. J Ecol 98:917–926.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01659.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Setiawan NN, Vanhellemont M, Baeten L et al (2014) The effects of local neighbourhood diversity on pest and disease damage of trees in a young experimental forest. For Ecol Manag 334:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shaiek O, Loustau D, Trichet P et al (2011) Generalized biomass equations for the main aboveground biomass components of maritime pine across contrasting environments. Ann For Sci 68:443–452.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-011-0044-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strauss SY, Cacho NI, Schwartz MW et al (2015) Apparency revisited. Entomol Exp Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Schrojenstein Lantman IM, Hertzog LR, Vandegehuchte ML et al (2018) Leaf herbivory is more impacted by forest composition than by tree diversity or edge effects. Basic Appl Ecol 29:79–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2018.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Verschut TA, Becher PG, Anderson P, Hambäck PA (2016) Disentangling associational effects: both resource density and resource frequency affect search behaviour in complex environments. Funct Ecol 30:1826–1833.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wein A, Bauhus J, Bilodeau-Gauthier S et al (2016) Tree species richness promotes invertebrate herbivory on congeneric native and exotic tree saplings in a young diversity experiment. PLoS One 11:e0168751.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168751 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang QH, Schlyter F (2003) Redundancy, synergism, and active inhibitory range of non-host volatiles in reducing pheromone attraction in European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus. Oikos 101:299–310.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.111595.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang QH, Schlyter F (2004) Olfactory recognition and behavioural avoidance of angiosperm nonhost volatiles by conifer-inhabiting bark beetles. Agric for entomol 6:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9555.2004.00202.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BIOGECO, INRAUniv. BordeauxCestasFrance
  2. 2.Section of Ecology, Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.CEFE, CNRS, EPHE, IRDUniv Montpellier, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3MontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations