The Relative Abundance of Mountain Pine Beetle Fungal Associates Through the Beetle Life Cycle in Pine Trees

Abstract

The mountain pine beetle (MPB) is a native bark beetle of western North America that attacks pine tree species, particularly lodgepole pine. It is closely associated with the ophiostomatoid ascomycetes Grosmannia clavigera, Leptographium longiclavatum, Ophiostoma montium, and Ceratocystiopsis sp.1, with which it is symbiotically associated. To develop a better understanding of interactions between beetles, fungi, and host trees, we used target-specific DNA primers with qPCR to assess the changes in fungal associate abundance over the stages of the MPB life cycle that occur in galleries under the bark of pine trees. Multivariate analysis of covariance identified statistically significant changes in the relative abundance of the fungi over the life cycle of the MPB. Univariate analysis of covariance identified a statistically significant increase in the abundance of Ceratocystiopsis sp.1 through the beetle life cycle, and pair-wise analysis showed that this increase occurs after the larval stage. In contrast, the abundance of O. montium and Leptographium species (G. clavigera, L. longiclavatum) did not change significantly through the MPB life cycle. From these results, the only fungus showing a significant increase in relative abundance has not been formally described and has been largely ignored by other MPB studies. Although our results were from only one site, in previous studies we have shown that the fungi described were all present in at least ten sites in British Columbia. We suggest that the role of Ceratocystiopsis sp.1 in the MPB system should be explored, particularly its potential as a source of nutrients for teneral adults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

References

  1. 1.

    Bright D, Stock M (1982) Taxonomy and geographic variation. In: Mitton JB, Sturgeon KB (eds) Bark beetles in North American conifers: a system for the study of evolutionary biology. University of Texas Press, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Six DL, Wingfield MJ (2011) The role of phytopathogenicity in bark beetle–fungus symbioses: a challenge to the classic paradigm. Annu Rev Entomol 56:255–272

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Harrington TC (2005) Ecology and evolution of mycophagous bark beetles and their fungal partners. In: Vega FE, Blackwell M (eds) Insect–fungal associations: ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 257–291

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    BC MOF (2011) Mountain pine beetle. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/. Accessed 29 Oct 2011

  5. 5.

    Safranyik L, Carroll A (2007) The biology and epidemiology of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests. In: The mountain pine beetle: a synthesis of biology, management and impacts on lodgepole pine. Natural Resources Canada, Pacific Forest Service, Victoria

  6. 6.

    Whitney HS (1971) Association of Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) with blue stain fungi and yeasts during brood development in lodgepole pine. Can Entomol 103:1495–1503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bentz B, Logan J, Amman G (1991) Temperature-dependent development of the mountain pine-beetle (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) and simulation of its phenology. Can Entomol 123:1083–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Paine TD, Raffa KF, Harrington T (1997) Interactions among scolytid bark beetles, their associated fungi, and live host conifers. Annu Rev Entomol 42:179–206

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Lee S, Kim J-J, Breuil C (2006) Diversity of fungi associated with the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae and infested lodgepole pines in British Columbia. Fungal Divers 22:91–105

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Yamaoka Y, Hiratsuka Y, Maruyama P (1995) The ability of Ophiostoma clavigerum to kill mature lodgepolepine trees. Eur J Forest Pathol 25:401–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lee S, Kim J, Breuil C (2006) Pathogenicity of Leptographium longiclavatum associated with Dendroctonus ponderosae to Pinus contorta. Can J Forest Res 36:2864–2872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Rumbold C (1941) A blue stain fungus, Ceratostomella montium n. sp., and some yeasts associated with two species of Dendroctonus. J Agric Res 62:589–601

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Robinson R (1962) Blue stain fungi in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. var. latifolia Engelm.) infested by the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus monticolae Hopk.). Can J Bot 40:609–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Whitney HS, Farris SH (1970) Maxillary mycangium in mountain pine beetle. Science 167:54–55

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Six DL (2003) Bark beetle–fungus symbioses. In: Bourtzis K, Miller TA (eds) Insect symbiosis. CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Six DL (2003) A comparison of mycangial and phoretic fungi of individual mountain pine beetles. Can J Forest Res 33:1331–1334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kim J, Allen E, Humble L, Breuil C (2005) Ophiostomatoid and basidiomycetous fungi associated with green, red, and grey lodgepole pines after mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) infestation. Can J Forest Res 35:274–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Plattner A et al (2009) Resolving taxonomic and phylogenetic incongruence within species Ceratocystiopsis minuta. Mycologia 101:878–887

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Plattner A (2008) Pathogenicity and taxonomy of fungi associated with the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. University of British Columbia, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hsiau PTW, Harrington TC (2003) Phylogenetics and adaptations of basidiomycetous fungi fed upon by bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Symbiosis 34:111–131

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    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 27:1393–1401

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Reid RW (1961) Moisture changes in lodgepole pine before and after attack by the mountain pine beetle. Forestry Chronicle 368–375

  23. 23.

    Clayton RB (1964) The utilization of sterols by insects. J Lipid Res 15:3–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Norris DM, Baker JM, Chu HM (1969) Symbiotic interrelationships between microbes and ambrosia beetles. III. Ergosterol as the source of sterol to the insect. Ann Entomol Soc Am 62:413–414

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Bentz B, Six DL (2006) Ergosterol content of fungi associated with Dendroctonus ponderosae and Dendroctonus rufipennis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 99:189–194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bleiker KP, Six DL (2007) Dietary benefits of fungal associates to an eruptive herbivore: potential implications of multiple associates on host population dynamics. Environ Entomol 36:1384–1396

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ayres M, Wilkens R, Ruel J, Lombardero M, Vallery E (2000) Nitrogen budgets of phloem-feeding bark beetles with and without symbiotic fungi. Ecology 81:2198–2210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Adams AS, Six DL (2007) Temporal variation in mycophagy and prevalence of fungi associated with developmental stages of Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environ Entomol 36:64–72

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Luchi N, Capretti P, Pinzani P, Orlando C, Pazzagli M (2005) Real-time PCR detection of Biscogniauxia mediterranea in symptomless oak tissue. Lett Appl Microbiol 41:61–68

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bahnweg G et al (2000) Controlled inoculation of Norway spruce (Picea abies) with Sirococcus conigenus: PCR-based quantification of the pathogen in host tissue and infection-related increase of phenolic metabolites. Trees-Struct Funct 14:435–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Schena L, Nigro F, Ippolito A, Gallitelli D (2004) Real-time quantitative PCR: a new technology to detect and study phytopathogenic and antagonistic fungi. Eur J Plant Pathol 110:893–908

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Karlsson M, Hietala A, Kvaalen H, Solheim H (2007) Quantification of host and pathogen DNA and RNA transcripts in the interaction of Norway spruce with Heterobasidion parviporum. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 70:99–109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Schweigkofler W et al (2005) Detection and quantification of Leptographium wageneri, the cause of black-stain root disease, from bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Northern California using regular and real-time PCR. Can J For Res 35:1798–1808

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Carroll A, Taylor S, Régnière J, Safranyik L (2003) Effects of climate change on range expansion by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. In: Mountain pine beetle symposium: challenges and solutions Oct. 30–31. Kelowna, BC

  35. 35.

    Khadempour L, Massoumi Alamouti S, Hamelin RC, Bohlmann J, Breuil C (2010) Target-specific PCR primers can detect and differentiate ophiostomatoid fungi from microbial communities associated with the mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae. Fungal Biol 114:825–833

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Cullings KW (1992) Design and testing of a plant-specific PCR primer for ecological and evolutionary studies. Mol Ecol 1:233–240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    West BT, Welch KB, Galecki AT (2006) Two-level models for clustered data: the rat pup example. In: West BT, Welch KB, Galecki AT (eds) Linear mixed models: a practical guide using statistical software. Chapman Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, p 376

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Blom G (1958) Statistical estimates and transformed beta-variables. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Raffa KF, Berryman A (1983) The role of host plant resistance in the colonization behavior and ecology of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ecological Monographs 53:27–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Bleiker KP, Six DL (2009) Competition and coexistence in a multi-partner mutualism: interactions between two fungal symbionts of the mountain pine beetle in beetle-attacked trees. Microb Ecol 57:191–202 http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s00248-008-9395-6.

  42. 42.

    Lee S (2006) Fungi associated with the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonous ponderosae. University of British Columbia, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Upadhyay H (1981) A monograph of Ceratocystis and Ceratocystiopsis. University of Georgia Press, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Gil-Serna J, González-Salgado A (2009) ITS-based detection and quantification of Aspergillus ochraceus and Aspergillus westerdijkiae in grapes and green coffee beans by real-time quantitative PCR. Int J Food Microbiol 131:162–167

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Suarez MB et al (2005) Development of real-time PCR (TaqMan) assays for the detection and quantification of Botrytis cinerea in planta. Plant Physiol Biochem 43:890–899

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Berbee ML, Taylor JW (1993) Dating the evolutionary radiations of the true fungi. Can J Bot 71:1114–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Massoumi Alamouti S et al (2011) Gene genealogies reveal cryptic species and host preferences for the pine fungal pathogen Grosmannia clavigera. Mol Ecol 20:2581–2602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Heid CA, Stevens J, Livak KJ, Williams PM (1996) Real time quantitative PCR. Genome Res 6:986–994

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Gamper HA, Young JPW, Jones DL, Hodge A (2008) Real-time PCR and microscopy: are the two methods measuring the same unit of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal abundance? Fungal Genet Biol 45:581–596

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Solheim H (1995) Early stages of blue-stain fungus invasion of lodgepole pine sapwood following mountain pine-beetle attack. Can J Bot 73:70–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Butler M, Day A (1998) Fungal melanins: a review. Can J Microbiol 44:1115–1136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Six DL, Bentz BJ (2007) Temperature determines symbiont abundance in a multipartite bark beetle–fungus ectosymbiosis. Microb Ecol 54:112–118

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. J. McLean for insightful discussion on MPB physiology and ecology, and Siew Law, Lynette Lim, Heather Jack, and Renee Morton for technical assistance. This work was supported by grants to CB and JB from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and funds to CB and JB for the Tria Project (www.thetriaproject.ca) provided by the Province of British Columbia through Genome Canada, Genome British Columbia and by the Government of Alberta through Genome Alberta.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colette Breuil.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Cop. sp.1 described in this manuscript is probably the same as the one isolated in BC by Robinson (Bright and Stock 1982), we could not confirm this because, to our knowledge, the Robinson culture has not been preserved in a culture collection. Japanese C. minuta isolates from bark beetle galleries in spruce or pine have been shown to be non-pathogenic and to produce very small or no lesions in hosts (Lee et al. 2006). It is likely that Cop. sp.1 is not pathogenic to pine trees because it shows similar growth characteristics to the Japanese C. minuta, including, for example, slow growth, similar temperature requirements, cycloheximide sensitivity and mainly colonizing bark beetle galleries rather than phloem and sapwood. Compared to the MPB-associated staining fungi, Cop. sp.1 is difficult to detect using fungal isolation, since, on 1% MEA, this species grows at about 1mm/day in contrast to 25 mm/day for G. clavigera. Thus, Cop. sp.1 may have been considered unimportant in the MPB ecosystem, where fungal associates have been studied largely in relation to their effects on host trees (Yamaoka et al. 1995).

Fig. 1

(JPEG 48 kb)

Fig. 2

(JPEG 1522 kb)

Fig. 3

(JPEG 45 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Khadempour, L., LeMay, V., Jack, D. et al. The Relative Abundance of Mountain Pine Beetle Fungal Associates Through the Beetle Life Cycle in Pine Trees. Microb Ecol 64, 909–917 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-012-0077-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bark Beetle
  • British Columbia
  • Host Tree
  • Ambrosia Beetle
  • Mountain Pine Beetle