Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 897–920 | Cite as

The Role of Monoterpenes in Resistance of Douglas Fir to Western Spruce Budworm Defoliation


We conducted defoliation experiments with 7- to 8-year-old clones of Douglas fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. glauca] to assess the role of monoterpenes as a resistance mechanism to western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis Freeman) defoliation. The grafted clones were derived from mature trees that showed resistance or susceptibility to budworm defoliation in the forest. All clones were exposed to either budworm defoliation or nondefoliation treatments in 1998 and 1999 under greenhouse conditions. We found that the total concentration of monoterpenes in current-year foliage varied greatly between two consecutive years in clones in the greenhouse and in their corresponding mature trees in the forest. Fractional composition of different monoterpenes was similar between different years and between clones and mature trees, indicating genetic control of this trait. Two different defoliation experiments were conducted to assess the importance of budburst phenology as a factor determining host plant resistance. In the 1998 experiment, budworm feeding was matched to the budburst of each individual plant. Monoterpene concentration was high in 1998, and budworm potential fitness was greater on clones from the resistant mature trees that had lower concentrations of total monoterpenes. In the 1999 experiment, budworm feeding was matched to budburst of the whole population of plants in order to mimic conditions similar to insects feeding on trees in the field. The concentration of monoterpenes was low in 1999, and budworm fitness was not related to monoterpenes. Total monoterpene concentration was negatively related to foliar nitrogen concentration, suggesting that C/N balance may affect monoterpene synthesis in needles. However, tree growth was not related to total monoterpene concentration. We concluded that expression of differences in budworm resistance among Douglas fir genotypes might be caused by interactions among multiple resistance mechanisms such as needle monoterpenes and tree budburst phenology.

Budburst phenology Choristoneura occidentalis herbivory monoterpenes plant-insect interactions Pseudotsuga menziesii 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Annila, E., Hiltunen, R., and Loyttyniemi, R. 1984.Defoliation by Neodiprion sertifer (Hymenoptera,Diprionidae) in relation to the terpene composition of Pinus contorta.Ann. Entomol. Fenn. 50:33–36.Google Scholar
  2. Bryant, J. P., Chapin, F. S., and Klein, D. R. 1983.Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory.Oikos 40:357–368.Google Scholar
  3. Cates, R. G. and Redak, R. A.1988. Variation in the terpene chemistry of Douglas-fir and its relationship to western spruce budworm success, pp. 317–341, inK. C. Spencer (ed.).Chemical Mediation of Coevolution.Academic Press, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  4. Cates, R. G. and Zou, J. 1990.Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) terpene chemistry and its role in budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) dynamics, pp. 69–182, inA. Watt, S. Leatyer, M. Honter, and N. Kidd (eds.). Population Dynamics of Forest Insects. Intercept Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  5. Cates, R. G., Redak, R., and Henderson, C. 1983.Pattern in defensive natural product chemistry:Douglas-fir and western spruce budworm interaction.Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 208:3–19.Google Scholar
  6. Cates, R. G., Henderson, C., and Redak, R. 1987.Responses of western spruce budworm to varying levels of nitrogen and terpenes.Oecologia73:372–316.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, Z., Kolb, T. E., and Clancy, K. M. 2001a.Mechanisms of Douglas-fir resistance to western spruce budworm defoliation: Budburst phenology, photosynthetic compensation, and growth rate. Tree Physiol.21:1159–1169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, Z., Kolb, T. E., Clancy, K. M., Hipkins, V. D., and Dewald, L. E. 2001b. Allozyme variation in interior Douglas-fir: Association with growth and resistance to western spruce budworm herbivory.Can. J. For. Res. 31:1691–1700.Google Scholar
  9. Clancy, K. M. 1991a. Douglas-fir nutrients and terpenes as potential factors influencing western spruce budworm defoliation, pp. 124–134, in Y. N. Baranchikov, W. J. Mattson, F. Pain, and T. L. Payne (eds.).Forest Insect Guilds: Patterns of Interaction with Host Trees.USDA Forest Service General Technical Paper NE-153.Google Scholar
  10. Clancy, K. M.1991b. Multiple-generation bioassay for investigating western spruce budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) nutritional ecology.Environ. Entomol.20:1363–1374.Google Scholar
  11. Clancy, K. M.1992.Response of western spruce budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to increased nitrogen in artificial diets.Environ. Entomol.21:331–344.Google Scholar
  12. Clancy, K. M. 1993.Are terpenes defensive compounds for the western spruce budworm? Suppl. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am.74:193.Google Scholar
  13. Clancy, K. M.2001. Biochemical characteristics of Douglas-fir trees resistant to damage from the western spruce budworm: patterns from three populations, pp. 115–125, in R. I. Alfaro, K. Day, S. Salom, A. Liebhold, H. Evans, F. Lieutier, M. Wagner, K. Futai, K. Suzuki, and K. S. S. Nair (eds.). Protection of World Forests: Advances in Research.IUFRO World Series No.IUFRO Secretariat, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  14. Clancy, K. M., Wagner, M. R., and Tinus, R. W.1988a.Variations in nutrient levels as a defense:identifying key nutritional traits of host plants of the western spruce budworm, pp.203–213, in W. J. Mattson, J. Levieux, and C. Bernard-Dagan (eds.). Mechanisms of Woody Plant Defenses Against Insects: Search for Pattern.Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Clancy, K. M., Wagner, M. R., and Tinus, R. W. 1988b. Variation in host foliage nutrient concentrations in relation to western spruce budworm herbivory.Can. J. For. Res.18:530–539.Google Scholar
  16. Clancy, K. M., Foust, R. D., Huntsberger, T. G., Whitaker, J. G., and Whitaker, D. M.1992.Technique for using microencapsulated terpenes in lepidopteran artificial diets.J. Chem. Ecol. 18:543–560.Google Scholar
  17. Clancy, K. M., Itami, J. K., and Huebner, D. P. 1993. Douglas-fir nutrients and terpenes: potential resistance factors to western spruce budworm defoliation.For. Sci. 39:78–94.Google Scholar
  18. Clancy, K. M., Wagner, M. R., and Reich, P. B.1995.Ecophysiology and insect herbivory, pp. 125–180, in W. K. Smith and T. M. Hinckley (eds.). Ecophysiology of Coniferous Forests. Academic Press, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  19. Dodds, K. A., Clancy, K. M., Leyva, K. J., Greenberg, D., and Price, P. W. 1996.Effects of Douglas-fir foliage age class on western spruce budworm oviposition choice and larval performance. Great Basin Nat. 56:135–141.Google Scholar
  20. Felipe, B. L., Hasegawa, M., and Cedeno, A.1994.Mono-and sequisterpene variation in Pinus caribaea needles and its relationship to Atta laevigata herbivory.Biochem. Syst. Ecol.22:437–445.Google Scholar
  21. Gambliel, H. and Cates, R.1995. Terpene changes due to maturation and canopy level in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) flush needle oil.Biochem. Syst. Ecol.23:469–476.Google Scholar
  22. Gershenzon, J. 1994.The cost of plant chemical defense against herbivory: a biochemical perspective, pp.105–173, in E. A. Bernays (ed.). Insect–Plant Interactions, Vol.5.CRC Press, Boca Roton, Florida.Google Scholar
  23. Gershenzon, J. and Croteau, R. 1991. Terpenoids, pp. 165–219, in G. A. Rosenthal and M. R. Berenbaum (eds.). Herbivores, Their Interactions with Secondary Metabolites, the Chemical Participants. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Hanover, J. W.1992.Applications of terpene analysis in forest genetics.New For.6:159–178.Google Scholar
  25. Hanula, J. L., Berisford, C. W., and Debarr, G. L. 1985.Monoterpene oviposition stimulants of Dioryctria amatella in volatiles from fusiform rust galls and second-year loblolly pine cones. J. Chem. Ecol.11:943–952.Google Scholar
  26. Harborne, J. B. 1991.Recent advances in the ecological chemistry of plant terpenoids, pp.399–426, in J. B. Harborne and F. A. Tomes-Barberan (eds.). Ecological Chemistry and Biochemistry of Plant Terpenoids.Clarenden Press, Oxford. THE ROLE OF MONOTERPENES IN RESISTANCE OF DOUGLAS FIR 919Google Scholar
  27. Hartmann, H. T. and Kester, D. E. (eds.). 1983.Plant Propagation: Principles and Practices. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood, Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  28. Hedin, P. A., Maxwell, F. G., and Jekins, J. N.1974.Insect plant attractants, feeding stimulants,repellents, deterrents, and other related factors affecting insect behavior, pp. 497–557, in F. G. Maxwell and F. A. Harris (eds.).Proc. Summer Insect Biological Control of Plant Insects and Diseases. University of Mississippi Press, Jackson, Mississippi.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, R. H., Young, B. L., and Alstad, D. N.1997.Responses of ponderosa pine growth and volatile terpene concentrations to manipulation of soil water and sunlight availability.Can. J. For. Res.27:1794–1804.Google Scholar
  30. Kogan, M.1975. Plant resistance in pest management. pp. 103–146, inR. L. Metcalf and W. H. Luckman (eds.). Introduction to Insect Pest Management.Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Langenheim, J. H.1994.Higher plant terpenoids: A phytocentric overview of their ecological roles. J. Chem. Ecol. 20:223–1280.Google Scholar
  32. Larsson, S., Oren, R., Waring, R. H., and Barrett, J. W. 1983.Attacks of mountain pine beetle as related to tree vigor of ponderosa pine.For. Sci.29:395–402.Google Scholar
  33. Latta, R. G., Linhart, Y. B., Lundquist, L., and Snyder, M. A.2000.Patterns of monoterpene variation within individual trees in ponderosa pine.J. Chem. Ecol.26:1341–1357.Google Scholar
  34. Lerdau, M., Matson, P., Fall, R., and Monson, R.1995. Ecological controls over monoterpene emissions from Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).Ecology76:2640–2647.Google Scholar
  35. Leyva, K. J., Clancy, K. M., and Price, P. W. 1995.Performance of wild versus laboratory populations of western spruce budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) feeding on Douglas-fir foliage.Environ. Entomol.24:80–87.Google Scholar
  36. Manninen, A. M., Vuorinen, M., and Holopainen, J.K.1998.Variation in growth, chemical defense, and herbivore resistance in Scots pine provenances.J. Chem. Ecol.24:1315–1331.Google Scholar
  37. Mattson, W. J. and Haack, R. A. 1987.The role of drought stress in provoking outbreaks of phytophagus insects, pp. 365–407, inP. Barbosaand Schultz, J. C. (eds.). Insect Outbreaks. Academic Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  38. Mattson, W. J. and Scriber, J. M. 1987.Nutritional ecology of insect folivores of woody plants: water, nitrogen, fiber, and mineral considerations, pp.105–146, inF. Slansky,Jr., and J. Rodriguez (eds.). Nutritional Ecology of Insects, Mites, Spiders, and Related Invertebrates.Wiley, NewYork.Google Scholar
  39. McClure, M. S. and Hare, J. D. 1984.Foliar terpenoids in Tsuga species and the fecundity of scale insects.Oecologia63:185–193.Google Scholar
  40. McKinnon, M. L., Quiring, D. T., and Bauce, E. 1998.Influence of resource availability on growth and foliar chemistry within and among young white spruce trees.EcoScience5:295–305.Google Scholar
  41. Nault, J. R., Manville, J. F., and Sahota, T. S. 1999.Spruce terpenes: Expression and weevil resistance.Can. J. For. Res.29:761–767.Google Scholar
  42. Redak, R. and Cates, R. G. 1984.Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)–spruce budworm (Choristoneuraoccidentalis) interactions: The effect of nutrition, chemical defenses, tissue phenology, and tree physical parameters on budworm success.Oecologia62:61–67.Google Scholar
  43. SAS Institute. 1995.JMP Statistics and Graphics Guide,Version 3. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  44. Shepherd, R. F.1983.A technique to study phenological interactions between Douglas-fir buds and emerging second-instar western spruce budworm, pp. 17–20, inR. L. Talerico, and M. Montgomery (eds.) Forest Defoliator–Host Interactions: A Comparison between Gypsy Moth and Spruce Budworms.USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-85.Google Scholar
  45. Tomlin, E. S., Borden, J. H., and Pierce, H. D., Jr. 1997.Relationship between volatile foliar terpenes and resistance of Sitka spruce to the white pine weevil.For. Sci.43:501–508.Google Scholar
  46. vonRudloff, E. and Rehfeldt, G. E. 1980. Chemosystematics studies in the genus Pseudotsuga. IV. Inheritance and geographic variation in the leaf oil terpenes of Douglas-fir for the Pacific Northwest.Can. J. For. Res. 58:546–556.Google Scholar
  47. Wagner, M. R. and Zhang, Z. 1993.Host plant traits associated with resistance of ponderosa pine to the sawfly, Neodiprion fulviceps.Can. J. For. Res.23:839–845.Google Scholar
  48. Wagner, M. R., Clancy, K. M., and Kirkbride, D. M.1987. Predicting number of oocytes in adult western spruce budworm, Choristoneura occidentalis (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol.16:551–555.Google Scholar
  49. Wagner, M. R., Clancy, K. M., and Tinus, R.W.1989.Maturational variation in needle essential oils from Pseudotsuga menziesii, Abies concolor, and Picea engelmannii.Phytochemistry 28:765–770.Google Scholar
  50. Wilkinson, R. C. 1985.Comparative white-pine weevil attack susceptibility and cortical monoterpene composition of western and eastern white pines.For. Sci.31:39–42.Google Scholar
  51. Zobel, B. and Talbert, J. (eds.). 1984. Applied Forest Tree Improvement.Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.Google Scholar
  52. Zou. J. and Cates, R. G. 1995. Foliage constituents of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii): Their seasonal variation and potential role in Douglas-fir resistance and silviculture management.J. Chem. Ecol. 21:387–402.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ForestryNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaff
  2. 2.Rocky Mountain Research StationFlagstaff

Personalised recommendations