Connecting host physiology to host resistance in the conifer-bark beetle system
- 150 Downloads
Host defenses can generate Allee effects in pathogen populations when the ability of the pathogen to overwhelm the defense system is density-dependent. The host–pathogen interaction between conifer hosts and bark beetles is a good example of such a system. If the density of attacking beetles on a host tree is lower than a critical threshold, the host repels the attack and kills the beetles. If attack densities are above the threshold, then beetles kill the host tree and successfully reproduce. While the threshold has been found to correlate strongly with host growth, an explicit link between host physiology and host defense has not been established. In this article, we revisit published models for conifer-bark beetle interactions and demonstrate that the stability of the steady states is not consistent with empirical observations. Based on these results, we develop a new model that explicitly describes host damage caused by the pathogen and use the physiological characteristics of the host to relate host growth to defense. We parameterize the model for mountain pine beetles and compare model predictions with independent data on the threshold for successful attack. The agreement between model prediction and the observed threshold suggests the new model is an effective description of the host–pathogen interaction. As a result of the link between the host–pathogen interaction and the emergent Allee effect, our model can be used to better understand how the characteristics of different bark beetle and host species influence host–pathogen dynamics in this system.
KeywordsHost–pathogen models Attack threshold Allee effect Bark beetles Resin defenses Mountain pine beetles Carbon budget model
We would like to thank Alex Potapov and Frank Hilker for independently solving the phase-plane trajectories used in Appendix B, and two anonymous reviewers who helped improve the manuscript. This study was funded by Natural Resources Canada–Canadian Forest Service under the Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative. Publication does not necessarily signify that the contents of this report reflect the views or policies of Natural Resources Canada–Canadian Forest Service. Additional support was provided by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and Alberta Ingenuity Postdoctoral fellowships to WAN and NSERC Discovery grants and Canada Research Chairs to MAL.
- Allee W (1931) Animal aggregations. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Berryman A (1979) Dynamics of bark beetle populations: analysis of dispersal and redistribution. Bull Soc Entomol Suisse 52:227–234Google Scholar
- Berryman A, Stenseth N (1989) A theoretical basis for understanding and manaing biological populations with particular reference to the spruce bark beetle. Holarct Ecol 12:387–394Google Scholar
- Bouffier L, Gartner B, Domec J (2003) Wood density and hydraulic properties of ponderosa pine from the willamette valley vs. the cascade mountains. Wood Fiber Sci 35(2):217–233Google Scholar
- Logan J, Powell J (2001) Ghost forests, global warming, and the mountain pine beetle. Am Entomol 47:160–173Google Scholar
- Loomis W (1932) Growth-differentiation balance vs. carbohydrate-nitrogen ratio. Proc Am Soc Hortic Sci 29:240–245Google Scholar
- Penning de Vries F (1975) Use of assimilates in higher plants. In: Cooper JP (ed) Photosynthesis and productivity in different environments. Cambridge Unviersity Press, Cambridge, pp 459–480Google Scholar
- Stenseth N (1989) A model for the conquest of a tree by bark beetles. Holarct Ecol 12:408–414Google Scholar
- Waring R, Thies W, Muscato D (1980) Stem growth per unit of leaf area: a measure of tree vigor. For Sci 1:112–117Google Scholar