Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 37, Issue 11, pp 1184–1192 | Cite as

Fire Injury Reduces Inducible Defenses of Lodgepole Pine against Mountain Pine Beetle

Article

Abstract

We examined the effect of wildfire injury on lodgepole pine chemical defenses against mountain pine beetle. We compared the constitutive phloem chemistry among uninjured, lightly-, moderately-, and severely-injured trees, and the induced chemistry elicited by simulated beetle attack, among these same categories. We also compared the entry rates of caged female beetles into trees of these categories. The volatiles we studied included thirteen monoterpene hydrocarbons, four allylic monoterpene alcohols, one ester, and one phenyl propanoid, of which the monoterpene hydrocarbons always comprised 96% or more of the total. Fire injury reduced the total concentration of these compounds in the induced but not constitutive phloem tissue of lodgepole pines. Fire injury also affected the relative composition of some volatiles in both induced and constitutive phloem. For example, increased fire injury reduced 4-allylanisole, a host compound that inhibits mountain pine beetle aggregation. Increased fire injury also increased (−) α-pinene, which can serve as precursor of pheromone communication. However, it also reduced myrcene and terpinolene, which can serve as stimulants and synergists of pheromone communication. Beetle entry did not show statistical differences among fire injury categories, although there was a trend to increased entry with fire injury. These results suggest that the reduced ability of trees to mobilize induced chemical defenses is an important mechanism behind the higher incidence of attack on fire-injured trees in the field. Future studies should concentrate on whether beetles that enter fire-injured trees are more likely to elicit aggregation, based on the differences we observed in volatile composition.

Key Words

Volatiles Monoterpenes Induction Lodgepole pine Fire Mountain pine beetle Plant defense Semiochemicals 

Supplementary material

10886_2011_31_MOESM1_ESM.doc (116 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 116 kb)

References

  1. Abbott, B., Stennes, B., and Van Kooten, G. C. 2009. Mountain pine beetle, global markets, and the British Columbia forest economy. Can. J. For. Res. 39:1313–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle, pp. 267–281, in B. N. Petrov and F. Csadki (eds.), 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.Google Scholar
  3. Amman, G. D., and Ryan, K. C. 1991. Insect infestation of fire-injured trees in the greater Yellowstone area. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT. Research Note INT-398.Google Scholar
  4. Blomquist, G. J., Figueroa-Teron, R., Aw, M., Song, M. M., Gorzalski, A., Abbott, N. L., Chang, E., and Tittiger, C. 2010. Pheromone production in bark beetles. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 40:699–712.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohlmann, J., and Gershenzon, J. 2009. Old substrates for new enzymes of terpenoid biosynthesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106:10402–10403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonello, N. E., Gordon, T. R., Wood, D. L., Herms, D. A., and Erbilgin, N. 2006. Nature and ecological implications of pathogen-induced systemic resistance in conifers: A novel hypothesis. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 68:95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boone, C. K., Aukema, B. H., Bohlmann, J., Carroll, A. L., and Raffa, K. F. 2011. Efficacy of tree defense physiology varies with bark beetle population density: A basis for positive feedback in eruptive species. Can. J. For. Res. 41:1174–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Bradley, T., and Tueller, P. 2001. Effects of fire on bark beetle presence on Jeffrey pine in the Lake Tahoe Basin. For. Ecol. Manage. 142:205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, E. S., and Taylor, C. A. 2007. Monoterpene production in redberry juniper foliage following fire. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 60:104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christiansen, E., Waring, R. H., and Berryman, A. A. 1987. Resistance of conifers to bark beetle attack – Searching for general relationships. For. Ecol. Manage. 22:89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Coyne, J. F., and Lott, L. H. 1976. Toxicity of substances in pine oleoresin to southern pine beetles. J. GA Entomol. Soc. 11:301–305.Google Scholar
  14. Diguistini, S., Wang, Y., Liao, N. Y., Taylor, G., Tanguay, P., Feau, N., Henrissat, B., Chan, S. K., Hesse-Orce, U., Alamouti, S. M., Tsui, C. K. M., Docking, R. T., Lavasseur, A., Haridas, S., Robertson, G., Birol, I., Holt, R. A., Marra, M. A., Hamelin, R. C., Hirst, M., Jones, S. J. M., Bohlmann, J., and Breuil, C. 2011. Genome and transcriptome analyses of the mountain pine beetle-fungal symbiont Grosmannia clavigera, a lodgepole pine pathogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108:2504–2509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elkin, C. M., and Reid, M. L. 2004. Attack and reproductive success of mountain pine beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in fire-damaged lodgepole pines. Environ. Entomol. 33:1070–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erbilgin, N, Christiansen, E., and Krokene, P. 2007. A host monoterpene influences Ips typographus responses (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) to its aggregation pheromone: Implications for host colonization of bark beetles. Agric. For. Entomol. 9:135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flamm, R. O., Pulley, P. E., and Coulson, R. N. 1993. Colonization of disturbed trees by the southern pine bark beetle guild (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Environ. Entomol. 22:62–70.Google Scholar
  18. Franceschi, V. R., Krokene, P., Christiansen, E., and Krekling, T. 2005. Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytol. 167:353–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geils, B. W., and Jacobi, W. R. 1984. Incidence and severity of comandra blister rust on lodgepole pine in northwest Wyoming. Plant Dis. 68:1049–1051.Google Scholar
  20. Geiszler, D. R., Gara, R. I., Driver, C. H., Gallucci, V. F., and Martin, R. E. 1980. Fire, fungi, and beetle influences on a lodgepole pine ecosystem of south-central Oregon. Oecologia 46:239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geiszler, D. R., Gara, R. I, and Littke, W. R. 1984. Bark beetle infestations of lodgepole pine following a fire in south central Oregon. Z. Angew Entomol. 98:389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawksworth, F. G. 1979. The 6-class dwarf rating system. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-48, p.7.Google Scholar
  23. Hayes, J. L., and Strom, B. L. 1994. 4-Allylanisole as an inhibitor of bark beetle (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) aggregation. J. Econ. Entomol. 87:1586–1594.Google Scholar
  24. Hood, S., and Bentz, B. 2007. Predicting postfire Douglas-fir beetle attacks and tree mortality in the northern Rocky Mountains. Can. J. For. Res. 37:1058–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jakubas, W. J., Garrott, R. A., White, P. J., and Mertens, D. R. 1994. Fire-induced changes in the nutritional quality of lodgepole pine bark. J. Wildl. Manage. 58:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keeling, C. I., and Bohlmann, J. 2006. Genes, enzymes, and chemicals of terpenoid diversity in the constitutive and induced defense of conifers against insects and pathogens. New Phytol. 170:657–675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Kline, J. D., Azuma, D. L., and Alig, R. J. 2004. Population growth, urban expansion, and private forestry in western Oregon. For. Sci. 50:33–43.Google Scholar
  29. Knebel, L., and Wentworth, T. R. 2007. Influence of fire and southern pine beetle on pine-dominated forests in the Linville Gorge Wilderness, North Carolina. Castanea 72:214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kurz, W. A., Dymond, C. C., Stinson, G., Rampley, G. J., Neilson, E. T., Carroll, A. L., Ebata, T., and Safranyik, L. 2008. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452:987–990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis, K. J., and Lindgren, B. S. 2002. Relationship between spruce beetle and tomentosus root disease: Two natural disturbance agents of spruce. Can. J. For. Res. 32:31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindgren, B. S. 1983. A multiple funnel trap for scolytid beetles (Coleoptera). Can. Entomol. 115:229–302.Google Scholar
  33. Lombardero, M. J., Ayres, M. P., and Ayres, B. D. 2006. Effects of fire and mechanical wounding on Pinus resinosa resin defenses, beetle attacks, and pathogens. For. Ecol. Manage. 225:349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin, R. E., and Mitchell, R. G. 1980. Possible, potential, and proven fire-insect interactions, pp. 138–144, in Society of American Foresters (ed.), Land-use allocation: process, people, politics, professions. Society of American Foresters, Spokane, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Martin, D. M., Gershenzon, J., and Bohlmann, J. 2003. Induction of volatile terpene biosynthesis and diurnal emission by methyl jasmonate in foliage of Norway spruce. Plant Physiol. 132:1586–1599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mchugh, C. W., Kolb, T. E., and Wilson, J. L. 2003. Bark beetle attacks on ponderosa pine following fire in northern Arizona. Environ. Entomol. 32:510–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paine, T. D., and Stephen, F. M. 1988. Induced defenses of loblolly pine, Pinus taeda – Potential impact on Dendroctonus frontalis within-tree mortality. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 46:39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Powell, E. N., Townsend, P. A., and Raffa, K. F. 2012. Wildfire provides refuge from local extinction but is an unlikely driver of outbreaks by mountain pine beetle. Ecol. Monogr. In press.Google Scholar
  39. Raffa, K. F., and Berryman, A. A. 1982. Physiological differences between lodgepole pines resistant and susceptible to the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) and associated microorganisms. Environ. Entomol. 11:486–492.Google Scholar
  40. Raffa, K. F., and Berryman, A. A. 1983. Physiological aspects of lodgepole pine wound responses to a fungal symbiont of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Can. Entomol. 115:723–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Raffa, K. F., and Steffeck, R. J. 1988. Computation of response factors for quantitative analysis of monoterpenes by gas-liquid chromatography. J. Chem. Ecol. 14:1385–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Raffa, K. F., Aukema, B. H., Erbilgin, N., Klepzig, K. D., and Wallin, K. F. 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. 39:80–118.Google Scholar
  44. Raffa, K. F., Aukema, B. H., Bentz, B. J., Carroll, A. L., Hicke, J. A., Turner, M. G., and Romme, W. H. 2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: The dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. Bioscience 58:501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rasmussen, L. A., Amman, G. D., Vandygriff, J. C., Oakes, R. D., Munson, A. S., and Gibson, K. E. 1996. Bark beetle and wood borer infestation in the Greater Yellowstone area during four postfire years. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Research Paper no. INT-RP-487.Google Scholar
  46. R Core Development Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 2.7.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  47. Robert, J. A., Madilao, L. L., White, R., Yanchuk, A., King, J., and Bohlmann, J. 2010. Terpenoid metabolite profiling in Sitka spruce identifies association of dehydroabietic acid, (+)-3-carene, and terpinolene with resistance against white pine weevil. Botany 88:810–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Romme, W. H., Knight, D. H., and Yavitt, J. B. 1986. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the Rocky Mountains – Regulators of primary productivity? Am. Nat. 129:234–262.Google Scholar
  49. Ryan, K. C. 1982. Techniques for assessing fire damage to trees, pp. 1–11, in J. Lotan (ed.), Fire, its Field Effects. Intermountain Fire Council. Missoula, Montana, and Jackson, Wyoming, USA.Google Scholar
  50. Ryan, K. C., and Amman, G. D. 1996. Bark beetle activity and delayed tree mortality in the greater Yellowstone area following the 1988 fires, pp. 151–158, in R. E. Keane, K. C. Ryan and S.W. Running (eds.), The Ecological Implications of Fire in Greater Yellowstone. Proceedings of the Second Biennial Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA, 19–21 September, 1993. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairland, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  51. Safranyik, L., Carroll, A. L., Regniere, J., Langor, D. W., Riel, W. G., Shore, T. L., Peter, B., Cooke, B. J., Nealis, V. G., and Taylor, S. W. 2010. Potential for range expansion of mountain pine beetle into the boreal forest of North America. Can. Entomol. 142:415–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santoro, A. E., Lombardero, M. J., Ayres, M. P., and Ruel, J. J. 2001. Interactions between fire and bark beetles in an old growth pine forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 144:245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seybold, S. J., Huber, D. P. W., Lee, L. C., and Bohlmann, J. 2006. Pine monoterpenes and pine bark beetles: A marriage of convenience for defense and chemical communication. Phytochem. Rev. 5:143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Six, D. L., and Skov, K. 2009. Response of bark beetles and their natural enemies to fire and fire surrogate treatments in mixed-conifer forests in western Montana. For. Ecol. Manage. 258:761–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sullivan, B. T., Fettig, C. J., Otrosina, W. J., Dalusky, M. J., and Berisford, C. W. 2003. Association between severity of prescribed burns and subsequent activity of conifer-infesting beetles in stands of longleaf pine. For. Ecol. Manage. 185:327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Turner, M. G., Romme, W. H., and Gardner, R. H. 1999. Prefire heterogeneity, fire severity, and early postfire plant reestablishment in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Int. J. Wildland Fire 9:21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turtola, S., Manninen, A. M., Rikala, R., and Kainulainen, P. 2003. Drought stress alters the concentration of wood Terpenoids in Scots pine and Norway spruce seedlings. J. Chem. Ecol. 29:1981–1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Upadhyay, H. P. 1981. A monograph of Ceratocystis and ceratocystiopsis, 176pp. University of Georgia Press. Athens, Georgia.Google Scholar
  59. Wallin, K. F., and Raffa, K. F. 1999. Altered constitutive and inducible phloem monoterpenes following natural defoliation of jack pine: Implications to host mediated Interguild interactions and plant defense theories. J. Chem. Ecol. 25:861–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Wallin, K. F., Kolb, T. E., Skov, K. R., and Wagner, M. R. 2003. Effects of crown scorch on ponderosa pine resistance to bark beetles in northern Arizona. Environ. Entomol. 32:652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Westerling, A. L., Hidalgo, H. G., Cayan, D. R., and Swetnam, T. W. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wood, D. L. 1982. The role of pheromones, kairomones, and allomones in the host selection and colonization behavior of bark beetles. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 27:411–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zulak, K. G., and Bohlmann, J. 2010. Terpenoid biosynthesis and specialized vascular cells of conifer defense. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 52:86–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations