Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 188, Issue 2, pp 395–404 | Cite as

Ectomycorrhizal fungal species differentially affect the induced defensive chemistry of lodgepole pine

  • Sanat S. Kanekar
  • Jonathan A. CaleEmail author
  • Nadir Erbilgin
Physiological ecology - original research

Abstract

Plants interact simultaneously with multiple organisms, including ectomycorrhizal (EM) fungal symbionts which benefit plants by facilitating resource acquisition. Yet, their role in induced plant defenses that rely on the allocation of plant resources has received little attention. We investigated whether EM fungi can affect the induction of defense-related monoterpenes in greenhouse-grown lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) seedlings, and whether such effects differed between EM fungal species occurring alone or in combination. Fungal interactions on growth media were also assessed to complement the greenhouse study. Our study revealed that the production of certain monoterpenes is influenced by the fungal species colonizing pine roots. Furthermore, pine seedlings did not necessarily benefit from having associations with multiple EM fungi, as we found contrasting effects of single vs. multiple species of fungi on induced monoterpene responses. Finally, monoterpene responses were altered when early-colonizing species inhibited the colonization or development of later-arriving species. We conclude that the presence of EM fungi can impact host susceptibility to insect and pathogen attack, suggesting that seedlings establishing in areas lacking fungi that promote the induction of tree defense chemicals may suffer from increased susceptibility to future pest damage.

Keywords

Cenococcum geophilum Dendroctonus ponderosae Laccaria bicolor Pinus contorta 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)—Discovery Award to N.E. We thank Drs. Justine Karst and Janusz Zwiazek for their feedback on the methodology used in the experiments. We also acknowledge that all research presented in the manuscript was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and rules set forth by the provincial (Alberta) and federal governments and the University of Alberta, and all necessary permits were in hand when the research was conducted.

Author contribution statement

SSK, JAC, and NE conceived and designed the experiments. SSK performed the experiments and SSK and JAC analyzed the data. SSK, JAC, and NE wrote the manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4231_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

References

  1. Abramoff MD, Magalhaes PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophoton Intern 11:36–42Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA (2011) Current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence. Funct Ecol 25:420–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter JW, Dighton J (2001) Ectomycorrhizal diversity alters growth and nutrient acquisition of grey birch (Betula populifolia) seedlings in host–symbiont culture conditions. New Phytol 152:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett AE, Bever JD (2007) Mycorrhizal species differentially alter plant growth and response to herbivory. Ecology 88:210–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett AE, Alers-Garcia J, Bever JD (2006) Three-way interactions among mutualistic mycorrhizal fungi, plants, and plant enemies: hypotheses and synthesis. Am Nat 167:141–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett AE, Bever JD, Bowers MD (2009) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal species suppress inducible plant responses and alter defensive strategies following herbivory. Oecologia 160:771–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradbury SM, Danielson RM, Visser S (1998) Ectomycorrhizas of regenerating stands of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Can J Bot 76:218–227Google Scholar
  8. Cale JA, Muskens M, Najar A, Ishangulyyeva G, Hussain A, Kanekar SS, Klutsch JG, Taft S, Erbilgin N (2017) Rapid monoterpene induction promotes the susceptibility of a novel host pine to mountain pine beetle colonization but not to beetle-vectored fungi. Tree Physiol 37:1597–1610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Erbilgin N, Colgan LJ (2012) Differential effects of plant ontogeny and damage type on phloem and foliage monoterpenes in jack pine (Pinus banksiana). Tree Physiol 32:946–957CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Erbilgin N, Ma C, Whitehouse C, Shan B, Najar A, Evenden M (2014) Chemical similarity between historical and novel host plants promotes range and host expansion of the mountain pine beetle in a naïve host ecosystem. New Phytol 201:940–950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Erbilgin N, Cale JA, Lusebrink I, Najar A, Klutsch JG, Sherwood P, Bonello PE, Evenden ML (2017a) Water-deficit and fungal infection can differentially affect the production of different classes of defense compounds in two host pines of mountain pine beetle. Tree Physiol 37:338–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Erbilgin N, Cale JA, Hussain A, Ishangulyyeva G, Klutsch JG, Najar A, Zhao S (2017b) Weathering the storm: how lodgepole pine trees survive mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Oecologia 184:469–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Forrest GI (1981) Geographical variation in oleoresin monoterpene composition of Pinus contorta from natural stands and planted seed collections. Biochem Syst Ecol 9:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franceschi VR, Krokene P, Christiansen E, Krekling T (2005) Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytol 167:353–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gershenzon J (1994) Metabolic costs of terpenoid accumulation in higher plants. J Chem Ecol 20:1281–1328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodman DM (1996) A manual of concise descriptions of north american ectomycorrhizae. Mycologue Publications, and the Canada-BC Forest Resource Development Agreement, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, B.C., SidneyGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodsman DW, Lusebrink I, Landhäusser SM, Erbilgin N, Lieffers VJ (2013) Variation in carbon availability, defense chemistry and susceptibility to fungal invasion along the stems of mature trees. New Phytol 197:586–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Henry RJ (2005) Plant diversity and evolution: genotypic and phenotypic variation in higher plants. CABI Pub, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howe GA, Jander G (2008) Plant immunity to insect herbivores. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:41–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Huber DPW, Ralph S, Bohlmann J (2004) Genomic hardwiring and phenotypic plasticity of terpenoid-based defenses in conifers. J Chem Ecol 30:2399–2418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Karst J, Randall MJ, Gehring C (2014) Consequences for ectomycorrhizal fungi of the selective loss or gain of pine across landscapes. Botany 92:855–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karst J, Erbilgin N, Pec GJ, Cigan PW, Najar A, Simard SW, Cahill JF (2015) Ectomycorrhizal fungi mediate indirect effects of a bark beetle outbreak on secondary chemistry and establishment of pine seedlings. New Phytol 208:904–914CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Keeling CI, Bohlmann J (2006) Genes, enzymes and chemicals of terpenoid diversity in the constitutive and induced defence of conifers against insects and pathogens. New Phytol 170:657–675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennedy P (2010) Ectomycorrhizal fungi and interspecific competition: species interactions, community structure, coexistence mechanisms, and future research directions. New Phytol 187:895–910CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy PG, Hortal S, Bergemann SE, Bruns TD (2007) Competitive interactions among three ectomycorrhizal fungi and their relation to host plant performance. J Ecol 95:1338–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kennedy PG, Peay KG, Bruns TD (2009) Root tip competition among ectomycorrhizal fungi: are priority effects a rule or an exception? Ecology 90:2098–2107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kernaghan G, Hambling B, Fung M, Khasa D (2002) In vitro selection boreal ectomycorrhizal fungi for use in reclamation of saline-alkaline habitats. Restor Ecol 10:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lehto T, Zwiazek JJ (2011) Ectomycorrhizas and water relations of trees: a review. Mycorrhiza 21:71–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ludley KE, Robinson CH, Jickells S, Chamberlain PM, Whitaker J (2008) Differential response of ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungal mycelium from coniferous forest soils to selected monoterpenes. Soil Biol Biochem 40:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ludley KE, Jickells S, Chamberlain PM, Whitaker J, Robinson CH (2009a) Distribution of monoterpenes between organic resources in upper soil horizons under monocultures of Picea abies, Picea sitchensis and Pinus sylvestris. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1050–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ludley KE, Robinson CH, Jickells S, Chamberlain PM, Whitaker J (2009b) Potential for monoterpenes to affect ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungal activity in coniferous forests is revealed by novel experimental system. Soil Biol Biochem 41:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marschner H, Dell B (1994) Nutrient uptake in mycorrhizal symbiosis. Plant Soil 159:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin F, Selosse MA (2008) The Laccaria genome: a symbiont blueprint decoded. New Phytol 180:296–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Moore BD, Andrew RL, Külheim C, Foley WJ (2013) Explaining intraspecific diversity in plant secondary metabolites in an ecological context. New Phytol 201:733–750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ott DS, Yanchuk AD, Huber DPW, Wallin KF (2011) Genetic variation of lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta var. latifolia, chemical and physical defenses that affect mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae, attack and tree mortality. J Chem Ecol 37:1002–1012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Phillips MA, Croteau RB (1999) Resin-based defenses in conifers. Trends Plant Sci 4:184–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. version 3.3.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/
  38. Raffa KF, Aukema BH, Erbilgin N, Klepzig KD, Wallin KF (2005) Interactions among conifer terpenoids and bark beetles across multiple levels of scale: an attempt to understand links between population patterns and physiological processes. Recent Adv Phytochem 39:79–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Raffa KF, Mason CJ, Bonello P, Cook S, Erbilgin N, Keefover-Ring K, Klutsch JG, Villari C, Townsend PA (2017) Defence syndromes in lodgepole—whitebark pine ecosystems relate to degree of historical exposure to mountain pine beetles. Plant Cell Environ 40:1791–1806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sequeira AS, Normark BB, Farrell BD (2000) Evolutionary assembly of the conifer fauna: distinguishing ancient from recent associations in bark beetles. Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci 267:2359–2366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simard SW, Perry DA, Jones MD, Myrold DD, Durall DM, Molina R (1997) Net transfer of carbon between ectomycorrhizal tree species in the field. Nature 388:579–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith SE, Read DJ (2008) Mycorrhizal Symbiosis, 3rd edn. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu B, Nara K, Hogetsu T (1999) Competition between ectomycorrhizal fungi colonizing Pinus densiflora. Mycorrhiza 9:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanat S. Kanekar
    • 1
  • Jonathan A. Cale
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nadir Erbilgin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Renewable ResourcesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations