Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, 37:1002 | Cite as

Genetic Variation of Lodgepole Pine, Pinus contorta var. latifolia, Chemical and Physical Defenses that Affect Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae, Attack and Tree Mortality

  • Daniel S. Ott
  • Alvin D. Yanchuk
  • Dezene P. W. Huber
  • Kimberly F. WallinEmail author
Article

Abstract

Plant secondary chemistry is determined by both genetic and environmental factors, and while large intraspecific variation in secondary chemistry has been reported frequently, the levels of genetic variation of many secondary metabolites in forest trees in the context of potential resistance against pests have been rarely investigated. We examined the effect of tree genotype and environment/site on the variation in defensive secondary chemistry of lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta var. latifolia, against the fungus, Grosmannia clavigera (formerly known as Ophiostoma clavigerum), associated with the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae. Terpenoids were analyzed in phloem samples from 887, 20-yr-old trees originating from 45 half-sibling families planted at two sites. Samples were collected both pre- and post-inoculation with G. clavigera. Significant variation in constitutive and induced terpenoid compounds was attributed to differences among families. The response to the challenge inoculation with G. clavigera was strong for some individual compounds, but primarily for monoterpenoids. Environment (site) also had a significant effect on the accumulation of some compounds, whereas for others, no significant environmental effect occurred. However, for a few compounds significant family x environment interactions were found. These results suggest that P. c. latifolia secondary chemistry is under strong genetic control, but the effects depend on the individual compounds and whether or not they are expressed constitutively or following induction.

Key Words

Dendroctonus ponderosae Disease Fungal associate Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC-FID) Grosmannia clavigera Heritability Lodgepole pine Plant defense Pinus contorta latifolia Plant pathology Resin secondary metabolites Terpenoids 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by British Columbia Forest Service grant to K.F.W. and A.D.Y.; support from Oregon State University and University of Vermont and USDA Forest Service to K.F.W. The authors thank Andrea Scott, Marco Hernandez, Matthew Klingenberg, Jeff Selesnic, Erin Clark, Dr. Staffan Lindgren, Dr. Ian Hartley (University of Northern British Columbia) and Bonnie Hooge, Dr. Michael Carlson, Bonnie E. Lee, Nicholas Ukrainetz, John Murphy (B.C. Forest Service) Carolyn Goodwin Kueffner, Marcia Caldwell, Dr. Alan Howard, Drew Cameron, Sarah Pears and Dan Comerford (University of Vermont, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources) and Dr. Paul Schaberg (USDA Forest Service) for assistance in the field and laboratory. The authors thank Clive Dawson and David Dunn (British Columbia Forest Service Analytical Chemistry lab) for assistance in processing all analytical chemistry samples.

References

  1. Alfaro, R. I., Lewis, K. G., King, J. N., El-Kassaby, Y. A., Brown, G., and Smith, L. D. 2000. Budburst phenology of Sitka spruce and its relationship to white pine weevil attack. For. Ecol. Manag. 127:19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, M. P. and Lombardero, M. J. 2000. Assessing the consequences of global change for forest disturbance from herbivores and pathogens. Sci. Total Environ. 262:263–286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, W. A. 1975. Manual of Quantitative Genetics. Washington State University, Pullman, WA.Google Scholar
  4. Borden, J. H. 1982. Aggregation pheromones, pp 74–139, in J. B. Mitton and K. B. Sturgeon (eds.), Bark Beetles in North American Conifers. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  5. Borden, J. H. and Pureswaran, D. S. 2006. Synergistic blends of monoterpenes for mountain pine beetle pheromones. From http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0198860.html.
  6. Borden, J. H., Pureswaran, D. S., and Lafontaine, J. P. 2008. Synergistic blends of monoterpenes for aggregation pheromones of the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 101:1266–1275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlow, S. J., Ayers, L., Bailey, A., John, B., Richardson, A., Shepard, B., Woosley, R. S., and Butcher, D. J. 2006. Determination of volatile compounds in foliage of Fraser fir (Abies fraseri) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea). Microchem. J. 83:91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, E. L., Carroll, A. C., and Huber, D. P. W. 2010. Differences in lodgepole pine constitutive terpene profile across a geographic range in British Columbia and the correlation to historical attack by mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Can. Entomol. 142:557–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, S. P. and Hain, F. P. 1986. Defensive mechanisms of loblolly and shortleaf pine against attack by southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman, and its fungal associate, Ceratocystis minor (Hedgecock) Hunt. J. Chem. Ecol. 12:1397–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, S. P. and Hain, F. P. 1988. Toxicity of host monoterpenes to Dendroctonus frontalis and Ips calligraphus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 23:287–292.Google Scholar
  11. Falconer, D. S. 1981. Heritability, pp 148–169, in D. S. Falconer (ed.), Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman, London, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Fäldt, J., Martin, D., Miller, B., Rawat, S., and Bohlmann, J. 2003. Traumatic resin defense in Norway spruce (Picea abies): Methyl jasmonate-induced terpene synthase gene expression, and cDNA cloning and functional characterization of (+)-3-carene synthase. Plant Mol. Biol. 51:119–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton, J. G., Zangerl, A. R., Delucia, E. H., and Berenbaum, M. R. 2001. The carbon-nutrient balance hypothesis: Its rise and fall. Ecol. Lett. 4:86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hampel, D., Mosandl, A., and Wust, M. 2005. Biosynthesis of mono- and sesquiterpenes in carrot roots and leaves (Daucus carota L.): Metabolic cross talk of cytosolic mevalonate and plastidial methylerythritol phosphate pathways. Phytochemistry 66:305–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanover, J. W. 1966. Genetics of terpenes. I. Gene control of monoterpene levels in Pinus monticola Dougl. Heredity 21:73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herms, D. A. and Mattson, W. J. 1992. The dilemma of plants: To grow or defend. Q. Rev. Biol. 67:283–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huber, D. P. W. and Bohlmann, J. 2006. The role of terpene synthases in the direct and indirect defense of conifers against insect herbivory and fungal pathogens, pp. 296–308, in S. Tuzun and E. Bent (eds.), Multigenic and Induced Systemic Resistance in Plants. Springer Science, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huber, D. P. W., Ralph, S., and Bohlmann, J. 2004. Genomic hardwiring and phenotypic plasticity of terpenoid-based defenses in conifers. J. Chem. Ecol. 30:2399–2418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King, J. N., Yanchuk, A. D., Kiss, G. K., and Alfaro, R. I. 1997. Genetic and phenotypic relationships between weevil (Pissodes strobi) resistance and height growth in spruce populations of British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 27:732–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klepzig, K. D., Smalley, E. B., and Raffa, K. F. 1996. Combined chemical defenses against an insect-fungal complex. J. Chem. Ecol. 22:1367–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klepzig, K. D., Robison, D. J., Fowler, G., Minchin, P. R., Hain, F. P., and Allen, H. L. 2005. Effects of mass inoculation on induced oleoresin response in intensively managed loblolly pine. Tree Physiol. 25:681–688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kopper, B. J., Illman, B. L., Kersten, P. J., Klepzig, K. D., and Raffa, K. F. 2005. Effects of diterpene acids on components of a conifer bark beetle-fungal interaction: Tolerance by Ips pini and sensitivity by its associate Ophiostoma ips. Environ. Entomol. 32:486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krokene, P. and Solheim, H. 1998. Pathogenicity of four blue-stain fungi associated with aggressive and nonaggressive bark beetles. Ecol. Popul. Biol. 88:39–44.Google Scholar
  24. Krokene, P., Solheim, H., and Långström, B. 2000. Fungal infection and mechanical wounding induce disease resistance in Scots pine. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 106:537–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindgren, B. S., Nordlander, G., and Birgersson, G. 1996. Feeding deterrence of verbenone to the pine weevil, Hylobius abietis (L.) (Col., Curculionidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 120:397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lombardero, M. J., Ayres, M. P., Lorio P. L JR., and Ruel, J. J. 2000. Environmental effects on constitutive and inducible resin defenses of Pinus taeda. Ecol. Lett. 3:329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ott, D. 2010. Characterizing genetic variation of resistance in lodgepole pine to attack by mountain pine beetle and one associated fungus. Thesis.Google Scholar
  28. Paine, T. D., Raffa, K. F., and Harrington, T. C. 1997. Interactions among scolytid bark beetles, their associated fungi, and live host conifers. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42:179–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pureswaran, D. S. and Borden, J. H. 2005. Primary attraction and kairomonal host discrimination in three species of Dendroctonus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Agric. For. Ent. 7:219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quencez, C. and Bastien, C. 2001. Genetic variation within and between populations of Pinus sylvestris L. (Scots pine) for susceptibility to Melampsora pinitorqua Rostr. (pine twist rust). Heredity 86:36–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raffa, K. F. 2001. Mixed messages across multiple trophic levels: The ecology of bark beetle chemical communication systems. Chemoecology 11:49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raffa, K. F. and Berryman, A. A. 1983. The role of host plant resistance in the colonization behavior and ecology of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ecol. Monogr. 53:27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raffa, K. F. and Smalley, E. B. 1988. Response of red and jack pines to inoculation with microbial associates of the pine engraver, Ips pini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. J. For. Res. 18:581–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raffa, K. F. and Smalley, E. B. 1995. Interaction of pre-attack and induced monoterpene concentrations in host conifer defense against bark beetle-fungal complexes. Oecologia 102:285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberds, J. H., Strom, B. L., Hain, F. P., Gwaze, D. P., Mckeand, S. E., and Lott, L. H. 2003. Estimates of genetic parameters for oleoresin and growth traits in juvenile loblolly pine. Can. J. For. Res. 33:2469–2476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rocchini, L. A., Lindgren, B. S., and Bennett, R. G. 2000. Effects of resin flow and monoterpene composition on susceptibility of lodgepole pine to attack by the Douglas-fir pitch moth, Synanthedon novaroensis (Lep., Sesiidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 124:87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Safranyik, L. and Carroll, A. L. 2006. The biology and epidemiology of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests, pp 3–66, in L. Safranyik and A. L. Carroll (eds.), The Mountain Pine Beetle: A Synthesis of its Biology, Management and Impacts on Lodgepole Pine. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forestry Service, Victoria, B.C., Canada.Google Scholar
  38. Safranyik, L., Shore, T. L., Carroll, A. L., and Linton, D. A. 2004. Bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) diversity in spaced and unmanaged mature lodgepole pine (Pinaceae) in southeastern British Columbia. For. Ecol. Manag. 200:23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seybold, S. J., Eager, T., Allen, K., Mcmillin, J., Munson, A. S., and Ross, D. 2004. An improved attractant pheromone for Rocky Mountain populations of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Presentation at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America, November 15, 2004, Salt Lake City, UT, http://esa.confex.com/esa/2004/techprogram/paper_16706.htm
  40. Stamp, N. 2003. Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q. Rev. Biol. 78:23–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strom, B. L., Goyer, R. A., Ingram, L.L., Jr., Boyd, G. D. L., and Lott, L. H. 2002. Oleoresin characteristics of progeny of loblolly pines that escaped attack by the southern pine beetle. For. Ecol. Manag. 158:169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wallin, K. F. and Raffa, K. F. 2001. Effects of folivory on subcortical plant defenses: Can defense theories predict interguild processes? Ecology 82:1387–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yanchuk, A. D., Murphy, J. C., and Wallin, K. F. 2007. Evaluation of genetic variation of attack and resistance in lodgepole pine in the early stages of a mountain pine beetle outbreak. Tree Genetics and Genomes 4:171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zangerl, A. R. and Berenbaum, M. R. 2004. Genetic variation in primary metabolites of Pastinaca sativa; Can herbivores act as selective agents? J. Chem. Ecol. 30:1985–2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel S. Ott
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alvin D. Yanchuk
    • 3
  • Dezene P. W. Huber
    • 2
  • Kimberly F. Wallin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.The Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.University of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  3. 3.British Columbia Forest ServiceVictoriaCanada
  4. 4.USDA Forest ServiceSouth BurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations