Possibilities to Utilize Tree Resistance to Insects in Forest Pest Management in Central and Western Europe

  • C. M. Heidger
  • F. Lieutier
Chapter

Keywords

Natural Enemy Bark Beetle Pinus Sylvestris Broad Leaved Tree Tree Resistance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altenkirch W. 1966. Zum Vorkommen von Tortrix viridana L. in Portugal. Z Angew Zool 53, 403–415Google Scholar
  2. Auger M.A., Jay-Allemand, Bastien C., Geri C. 1991. Comestibilité du feuillage de differents clones de pin sylvestre par Diprion pini. II. Relations entre le contenue phenolique des aiguilles et la mortalité des larves. J Appl Ent 111:78–85Google Scholar
  3. Auger M.A., Jay-Allemand C., Bastien C., Geri C. 1994. Quantitative variations of taxifolin and i’s glucoside in Pinus sylvestris needles consumed by Diprion pini larvae. Ann Sci For 51:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baier P., Bader R., Rosner S. 1999. Monoterpene content and monoterpene emission of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) bark in relation to primary attraction of bark beetles (Col. Scolytidae). Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90:249–259Google Scholar
  5. Bannan M.W. 1936. Vertical resin ducts in the secondary wood of the Abietineae. New Phytologist 35:11–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastien C. 1999. Improvement to tree resistance to biotic aggressions: the geneticists point of view. Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90, 13–28Google Scholar
  7. Beres C. 1984. Phenol and non-structural carbohydrate contents in the leaves of Quercus petraea. Acta Bot Hung 30:247–254 and 461–467Google Scholar
  8. Berryman A.A. 1969. Responses of Abies grandis to attack by Scolytus ventralis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist 101:1033–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berryman A.A. 1972. Resistance of conifers to bark beetle-fungus associations. BioScience 22:598–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Björkman C., Kytö M., Larsson S., Niemela P. 1998. Different responses of two carbon-based defenses in Scots pine needles to nitrogen fertilization. Ecoscience 5:502–507Google Scholar
  11. Björkman C., Larsson S. 1999. Insects on drought stressed trees:four feeding guilts in one experiment. Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90, 323–336Google Scholar
  12. Bois E., Lieutier F. 1997. Phenolic response of Scots pine clones to inoculation with Leptographium wingfieldii, a fungus associated with Tomicus piniperda. Plant Physiol Biochem 35:819–825Google Scholar
  13. Bois E., Lieutier F. 2000. Resistance level in Scots pine clones and artificial introductions of Tomicus piniperda (Col., Scolytidae) and Leptographium wingfieldii (Deuteromycetes). J Appl Ent 123Google Scholar
  14. Brignolas F., lacroix B., Lieutier F., Sauvard D., Drouet A., Claudot A-C., Yart A., Berrymann A.A., Christiansen E. 1995. Induced responses in phenolic metabolism in two Norway spruce clones after wounding and inoculations with Ophiostoma polonicum, a bark beetle associated fungus. Plant Physiology 109:821–827PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Brignolas F., Lieutier F., Sauvard D., Christiansen E., Berryman A.A. 1998. Phenolic predictors for Norway spruce resistance to the bark beetle Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and an associated fungus, Ceratocystis polonica. Can J For Res 28:720–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Birgerson G. 1989. Host tree resistance influencing pheromone production in Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Holarctic Ecol 12:451–456Google Scholar
  17. Bogenschütz H., König E. 1976. Relationships between fertilization and tree resistance to forest insects. Proceedings of the 12th Colloquium of the International Potash Institute Bern:281–289Google Scholar
  18. Bombosch S. 1972. Zur Nahrungsqualität von Fichtennadeln für forstliche Schadinsekten. 1. Zur Problematik der Beeinflussung von Insektenpopulationen durch Veränderung der Nahrungsqualität. Z Ang Ent 70:277–281Google Scholar
  19. Bouvarel, Lemoine 1957. cited in: Lévieux J. 1986. Exemples détudes de la résistance génétique des arbres forestiers aux attaques d’insectes. Rev For Fr 38:234–239Google Scholar
  20. Büttner H. 1961. Der Einfluβ von Düngestoffen auf Mortalität und Entwicklung forstlicher Schadinsekten über deren Wirtspflanzen. Schriftenr Landesforstverw Baden-Württ. 11,69 pGoogle Scholar
  21. Charles P.J. 1976. Incidence des attaques de la tordeuse des pousses Rhyacionia (Evetria) buoliana Schiff. sur le choix des espéces de Pins susceptibles d’être plantées en région méditerranéene. C.R. IVéme journées Phytiatrie. Phytopharmacie circumméditerranéennes, Montpellier, 468–471Google Scholar
  22. Charles P.J., Deplanque A., Marpeau A., Bernard-Dagan C., Arbez M. 1982. Susceptibility of European black pine (Pinus nigra) to the European pine shoot moth (Rhyacionia buoliana): variations of susceptibility at the provenance and individual tree level of the pine and effect of terpene composition. In: Resistance to diseases and pests in forest trees. Proceedings of the 3th international workshop on the genetics of host-parasite interactions in forestry (ed: Heybroek H.M., Stephan B.R.. von Weissenberg K.) Wageningen, 206–212Google Scholar
  23. Chiron H., Drouet A., Lieutier F., Payer H.D., Ernst D., Sandermann Jr. H. 2000. Gene induction of stilbene biosynthesis in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in response to ozone treatment, wounding and fungal infection. Plant Physiol. 124:865–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Christiansen E., Waring R.H., Berryman A.A. 1987. Resistance of conifers to bark beetle attack: Searching for general relationships. For Ecol Management 22:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Christiansen E., Glosli A.M. 1996. Mild drought enhances the resistance of Norway spruce to a bark beetle-transmitted blue-stain fungus. In: Dynamics of forest herbivory: Quest for pattern and principle. Eds: Mattson W.J., Niemela P, Rousi M., USDA gen. tech. Rep. NC-183, 192–199Google Scholar
  26. Christiansen E., Franceschi V.R., Nagy N.E., Krekling T., Berryman A.A., Krokene P., Solheim H. 1999. Traumatic resin duct formation in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) after wounding or infection with a bark beetle associated blue-stain fungus, Ceratocystis polonica Siem.. Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90:79–90Google Scholar
  27. Croisé L., Dreyer E., Lieutier F. 1998. Effects of drought stress and severe pruning on the reaction zone induced by single inoculations with a bark beetle associated fungus (Ophiostoma ips) in the phloem of young Scots pines. Can J For Res 28:1814–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Davies J.M., WU H., Tignor M.E. 1999. Inducible defense responses: Mechanisms of general aggressor perception are conserved in plants. Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90:345–352Google Scholar
  29. Day K.R., Armour H.L., Henry C.J. 1999. The performance of the green spruce aphid (Elatobium abietinum WALCKER) on provenances of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.). Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90:199–210Google Scholar
  30. Doudrick R.L., Schmidtling R.C., Nelson C.D. 1996. Host relationships of fusiform rust desease. I. Infection and pycnical production on slash pine and nearby tropical relatives. Silvae Genetica, 45(2/3):142–149Google Scholar
  31. Du Merle P. 1983. Phenologies comparées du chêne pubescent, du chêne vert et de Tortrix viridana L (Lep., Tortiricidae). Mise en evidence chez l insecte de deux populations sypatriques adaptées chacune a lúne des chênes. Acta Oecologica, Oecol Applic 4:55–74Google Scholar
  32. Du Merle P. 1988. Phenological resistance of oaks to the green oak leafroller, Tortrix viridana (Lepidpotera: Tortricidae). in: Mechanisms of Woody Plant Defenses Against Insects. Eds: Mattson W.J.; Lévieux J.; Bernard-Dagan, C., Springer Verlag, 215–226Google Scholar
  33. Eidmann H., Ingestad T. 1963. Ernährungszustand, Zuwachs und Insektenbefall in einer Kiefernkultur. Studia Fores Suec 12, 12 p.Google Scholar
  34. Ellenberg H. 1996. Die Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen Ulmer, Stuttgart 1094 p.p.Google Scholar
  35. Elliger C.A., Chan B.G., Waiss A.C. 1980. Flavonoids as larval growth inhibitors. Naturwiss 67:358–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ewald D. 1997. Aspekte der Pappelzüchtung in China. AFZ 18:970–973Google Scholar
  37. Ewald D., Li L., Li M, Han Y. 1999. Attempts to transform hybrid larch with a Bacillus thuringensis gene. Poster presented at the conference Forest Biotechnology 99 in Oxford, Book of AbstractsGoogle Scholar
  38. Franceschi V.R., Krekling T., Berryman A.A., Christiansen E. 1998. specialized pholem parenchyma cells in Norway spruce (Pinaceae) bark are an important site of defense reactions. Am Jour Bot 85(5):601–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Funke W. 1990. Tiere als Indikatoren von Veränderungen in unserer Umwelt. Inform. zentr. Umweltschutz 6:1–20Google Scholar
  40. Führer E. 1975. Überlegungen zur Wirkung resistenzsteigernder Maβnahmen im Wald auf den Massenwechsel forstlicher Schadinsekten. Forstarchiv 46:228–233Google Scholar
  41. Geri C., Auger M.A., Goussard F. 1994. Incidence de la consommation des aiguilles de clones de Pin sylvestre défavorables a Diprion pini L. (Hym., Diprionidae) sur le developpement de Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff. (Lep. Thaumetopoeidae) et de Graellsia isabellae Graells (Lep. Attacidae). J Appl Ent 117:248–256Google Scholar
  42. Granier A., Brèda N., Biron P., Vilette S. 1999. A lumped water balance model to evaluate duration and intensity of drought constraints in forest stands. Ecol Modeling 116:269–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Guèrard N., Lieutier F., Dreyer E. (in prep.) Origin of the carbohydrates implicated in the phloem reaction of Scots pine induced by artificial inoculations with Ophiostoma brunneo-ciliatum, a fungus associated with Ips bark beetles.Google Scholar
  44. Habermann M., Bester R. 1997. Influence of stand structure and needle physiology on the development of outbreaks of the nun moth (Lymantria monacha L.) in pine stands (Pinus sylvestris L.) in a permanently damaged area of Lower Saxony. Allg Forst-u Jagd Ztg 168:157–162Google Scholar
  45. Harborne J.B. 1985. Phenolica and plant defense. In: The Biochemistry of Plant Phenolics. Eds.: Van Sumere C.F., Lea P.J.), Clarenton Press and Ann Proc Phyto Soc Eur, Oxford, 25:393–408Google Scholar
  46. Hard J. 1985. Spruce beetles attack slowly growing spruce. For Sci 31:839–850Google Scholar
  47. Hättenschwiler S., Schafellner C. 1999. Opposing effects of elevated Co2 and N deposition on Lymantria monacha larvae feeding on spruce trees. Oecologia 118:210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Heidger C. 1994. Die Ökologie und Bionomie der Borkenkäfer-Antagonisten Thanasimus formicarius L (Cleridae) and Scoloposcelis pulchella Zett. (Anthocoridae): Daten zur Beurteilung ihrer prädatorischen Kapazität und der Effekte beim Fang in Pheromonfallen. Dissertation am FB Biologie der Philipps Universität MarburgGoogle Scholar
  49. Herms D.A., Mattson W.J. 1992. The dilemma of plants: to grow or to defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hertel H., Kaetzel R. 1999. Susceptibility of norway spruce clones (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) to insects and Roe Deer in relation to genotype and foliar Phytochemistry. Phyton Special issue: “Eurosilva” 39: 65–72Google Scholar
  51. Holubcik M. 1978. Possibilities of forest tree breeding for resistance against biotic and abiotic factors. Vedecke prace Vyskumneho Ustavu Lesneho Hospodarstva vo Zoolene 26:213–232Google Scholar
  52. IUFRO 1999. Forest Biotechnology makes its position now. Nature Biotechnology 17:1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jactel H., Kleinhentz M., Raffin A., Menassieu P. 1999. Comparison of different selection methods for the resistance to Dioryctria sylvestrella Ratz. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Pinus pinaster Ait. Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90:137–152Google Scholar
  54. Kalandra A. 1962. Beitrag zur Gradologie des achtzähnigen Fichten-borkenkäfers, Ips typographus L. im Erzgebirge (Krusne Hory). Verhandlungen XI. International Congress of Entomology 2:276Google Scholar
  55. Kytö M., Niemela P., Annila E. 1998. Effects of vitality fertilization on the resin flow and vigor of Scots pine in Finnland. For. Ecol. Manag. 102:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kytö M., Niemela P., Annila E., Varama M. 1999. Effects of forest fertilization on the radial growth and resin exudation of insect defoliated Scots pines. J Appl Ecol 36:763–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Langström B., Hellquvist C., Ericsson A., Gref R. 1992. Induced defence reaction in Scots pine following stem attacks by Tomicus piniperda. Ecography 15, 318–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Larsson S. 1989. Stressful times for plant-stress-insect performance hypothesis. Oikos 56:277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lavallee R., Daoust G., Rioux D. 1999. Screening Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.)Karst.) for resistance to white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi Peck). Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90:41–5OGoogle Scholar
  60. Lebreton P., Laracine-Pittett C., Bayet C., Lauranson J. 1990. Variabilité phénolique et systématique du pin sylvestre Pinus sylvestris L.. Ann Sci For 47:117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Levée V., Lelu M.-A., Jouanin L., Cornu D. 1997. Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of hybrid larch (Larix kaempferi X Larix decidua) and transgenic plant regeneration. Plant Cell Rep 16:680–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lévieux J. 1986. Exemples détudes de la résistnce génétique des arbres forestiers aux attaques d’insectes. Rev For Fr 38:234–239Google Scholar
  63. Lieutier F., Garcia J., Yart A., Romary P. 1995. Wound reactions of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) to attacks by Tomicus piniperda L. and Ips sexdentatus Boern. (Coleoptera: Scolytiodae). Journal of Applied Entomology 119:591–600Google Scholar
  64. Lieutier F., Sauvard D., Brignolas F., Picron V., Yart A., Bastien C., Jay-Allemand C. 1996. Changes in phenolic metabolites of Scots pine phloem induced by Ophiostoma brunneociliatum, a bark beetle associated fungus. European Journal of Forest Pathology 26:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lorio P.L., Hodges J.D. 1968. Oleoresin exudation pressure and relative water content of inner bark as indicators of moisture stress in loblolly pine. For Sci 14:392–398Google Scholar
  66. Lorio P.L. 1986. Growth-differentiation balance: a basis for understanding southern pine beetle-tree interactions. For Ecol Manage 14:259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lunderstädt J. 1976. Isolation and analysis of plant phenolics from foliage in relation to species characterization and to resistance against insects and pathogens. In: Modern Methods for genetics. Ed.: Miksche J.P.). Springer Verlag, Berlin, 158–164Google Scholar
  68. Lunderstädt J. 1999. Induced resistance against insects in European forest ecosystems. Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90:363–368Google Scholar
  69. Luterek R. 1969. Investigations on the mortality of Denrolimus pini L., Bupalus pinarius L. and Gilpidia pallida Kl. (Diprion pallidum Kl.) larvae feeding on pine growing on fertilized soil. Prace Kom Nauk Roln i Kom Nauk Lesynch PTPN 28:231–279Google Scholar
  70. Mattson J.W., Haak R.A. 1987. The role of drought in outbreaks of plant eating insects. BioScience 2: 110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mc Cambridge W.F., Stevens R.E. 1982. Effectiveness of thinning ponderosa pine stands in reducing mountain pine beetle-caused losses in the Black Hills-preliminary observations. USDA For Serv Res Note RM-414, 3pGoogle Scholar
  72. Merker E. 1956. Die Abhängigkeit des biologischen Gleichgewichtes der groβen Fichtenborkenkäfer vom Wasserhaushalt des Waldes. Waldhygiene 1:173–187Google Scholar
  73. Merker E. 1962. Studien über unmittelbare und mittelbare verhängnisvolle Wirkungen der Bestandesdüngung auf Waldverderber. Anz Schädlingskunde 35:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Merker E., Müller H. 1951. Die Abhängigkeit des Fraβes der Fichtenborkenkäfer vom Bodenklima. Allg Forst-u Jagdzeitung 122(0): 16–20Google Scholar
  75. Mullock P., Christiansen E. 1986. The threshold of successful attack by Ips typographus on Picea abies: a field experiment. For Ecol Manag 14:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Niemann G.J. 1979. Some aspects of the chemistry of Pinaceae needles. Acta Bot Neerl 28:73–88Google Scholar
  77. Otto D. 1970. Zur Bedeutung des Zuckergehaltes der Nahrung für die Entwicklung nadelfressender Kieferninsekten. Arch Forstwes 19:135–150Google Scholar
  78. Otto D. 1971. Untersuchungen zur Wirtspflanzendisposition für nadelfressende Kieferninsekten in Abhängigkeit vom Standort. Proc 13 Int Congr Entom Moscow 1 (1968), 536–537Google Scholar
  79. Paine T.D., Millar J.G., Bellows L.M., Hanks L.M., Gould J.R. 1993. Integrating classical biological control with plant health in the urban forest. J of Arboriculture 19(3): 125–130Google Scholar
  80. Pasquier-Barre F., Auger-Rozenberg M.A. 1999. Effects of foliage quality of different Pinus sylvestris L. clones on Diprion pini L. biology (Hymenoptera, Diprionidae). Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90:13–28Google Scholar
  81. Parry W.H. 1982. cited in Lévieux 1986. Exemples détudes de la résistance génétique des arbres forestiers aux attaques d’insectes. Rev. For. Fr. 38:234–239Google Scholar
  82. Plachter H. 1991. Naturschutz, Gustav Fischer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  83. Popoff T., Theander O. 1977. The constituents of conifer needles. VI. Phenolic glycosides from Pinus sylvestris. Acta Chem Scand B 314:329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Raffa K.F., Berryman A.A. 1982. Accumulation of monoterpenes and associated volatiles following inoculation of grand fir with a fungus transmitted by fir the engraver, Scolytus ventralis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist 114:797–810Google Scholar
  85. Reid R.W., Whitney H.S., Watson J.A. 1967. Reactions of lodgepole pine to attack by Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins and blue stain fungi. Canadian Journal of Botany 45:1115–1126Google Scholar
  86. Rohfritsch O. 1988. A resistance response of Picea excelsa to the aphid Adelges abietis (Homoptera: Aphidoidea). Mechanisms of Woody Plant Defense Against Insects. Search for Pattern. Springer, 253–266Google Scholar
  87. Rohmeder E. 1954. Erreichtes und Erreichbares in der forstlichen Resistenzzüchtung. Allg Forstz, 12 pGoogle Scholar
  88. Roques A. 1983. Les insectes ravageurs des cones et graines de conifères en France. Institut national de la recherche agronomique Paris, 129 p.Google Scholar
  89. Rubtsova N.N. 1977. Reducing the injuriousness of the oak tortrix. Zashchita Rastenii 5:44–45Google Scholar
  90. Rubtsova N.N. 1981. Tortrix viridiana L. in stands of late leafing oak. Lesovedenie 1:83–88Google Scholar
  91. Scherzinger W. 1996. Naturschutz im Wald. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  92. Schimitschek E. 1953. Forstentomologische Studien im Urwald Rotwald Teil I., II.. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie 34:178–215, 513–542Google Scholar
  93. Schimitschek E. 1954. Forstentomologische Studien im Urwald Rotwald Teil III.. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie 35, 1–54Google Scholar
  94. Schimitschek E. 1969. Grundzüge der Waldhygiene. 1. Aufl. Hamburg-BerlinGoogle Scholar
  95. Schopf A., Hoch G., Klaus A., Novotny J., Zubrick M. 1999. Influence of food quality of two oak species on the development and growth of gypsy moth larvae. Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90:231–248Google Scholar
  96. Schulte F. 1957. Untersuchungen über die Populationsdynamik des Eichenwicklers (Tortrix viridiana L.). Z Ang Ent 40:1–36, 285–331Google Scholar
  97. Schvester D., Ughetto F. 1986. Differences de sensiblité a Matsucoccus feytuadi Duc. (Homoptera:Margarodidae) selon des provenances de pin maritime (Pinus pinaster Ait.) Ann. Sci. For. 43:459–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Schwenke W. 1960. Über die Wirkung der Walddüngung auf die Massenvermehrung der Kiefernbuschhornblattwespe (Diprion pini L.) in Mittelfranken und die hieraus ableitbaren gradologischen Folgerungen. Z Ang Ent 46:371–378Google Scholar
  99. Shin D.I, Podial G.K., Huang Y., Karnosky D.F. 1994. Transgenic larch expressing genes for herbicide and insect resistance. Can J For Res 24:2059–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sueron 1982. cited in Lévieux 1986. Exemples détudes de la résistance génétique des arbres forestiers aux attaques dínsectes. Rev. For. Fr. 38:234–239Google Scholar
  101. Thalenhorst W. 1958. Grundzüge der Populationsdynamik des groβen Fichtenborkenkäfers Ips typographus L.. Schriftenreihe der Forstlichen Fakultät der Universität Göttingen 21:1–126Google Scholar
  102. Thalenhorst W. 1972. Düngung, Wuchsmerkmale der Fichte und Arthroprodenbefall. Aus dem Walde, Mitt Nds Landesforstverw H.18, 248 pGoogle Scholar
  103. Thielges B.A. 1968. Altered polyphenol metabolism in the foliage of Pinus sylvestris associated with European sawfly attack. Can J Bot 46:724–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Thielges B.A., Campbell R.L. 1972. Selection and breeding to avoid the eastern spruce gall aphid. Am Christmas Tree J. May, 3–6Google Scholar
  105. Triggiani O. 1984. Tomicus (Blastophagus) piniperda (Coleoptera, Scolytidae, Hylesininae): Biology, damage and control on the Ionic coast. Entmologia 19:5–21Google Scholar
  106. Tuomi J., Niemela P., Chapin F.S., Bryant J.P., Sirin S. 1988. Defensive responses of trees in relation to their carbon / nutrient balance. In: Mattson W.J. et al. (eds) Mechanisms for woody plant defenses against insects. Search for pattern. Springer, 57–72Google Scholar
  107. Viiri H., Kytö M., Niemela P. 1999. Resistance of fertilized Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) (Karst.)) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Physiology and Genetics of Tree-Phytophage Interactions. Ed. INRA, Les Colloques N°90:337–344Google Scholar
  108. Viiri H., Annila E., Kitunen V., Niemela P. 2001. Induced responses in stilbenes and terpenes in fertilized Norway spruce after inoculation with blue-stain fungus, Ceratocystis polonica. Trees 15:112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Vité J.P. 1984. Erfahrungen und Erkenntnisse zur akuten Gefährdung des mitteleuropäischen Fichtenwaldes durch Käferbefall. A F Z 39:249–254Google Scholar
  110. Wang G., Castiglione S., Chen Y., Li L., Han Y., Mang K., Sala F. 1996. Poplar (Populus nigra L.) plants transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin gene: insecticidal activity and genomic analysis. Transgenic Resarch 5:289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wagner M.R. 1988. Influence of moisture stress and induced resistance in Ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa Dougl ex Laws, on the pine sawfly, Neodiprion aurumnalis. Smith. For Ecol Manag 15:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Waring R.H., Pitman G.B. 1983. Physiological stress in lodgepole pine as a precursor for mountain pine beetle attack. Z ang Ent 96:265–270Google Scholar
  113. Worrell R. 1983a. Damage by the spruce bark beetle in South Norway 1970–1980: A survey, and factors affecting its occurrence. Medd Nor Inst Skogforsoeksves 38, 34 pGoogle Scholar
  114. Worrell R. 1983b. Skoglige bestandsfaktorer som pavirker omfanget av granbarkbilleskade i Sor-Norge. (Eng. summary: Stand factors affecting the occurrence of damage by Ips typographus in South Norway. Rapp Nor Inst Skogforsoeksves 18, 9pGoogle Scholar
  115. Wright J.W., Wilson L.F., Randall W.K. 1967. Differences among Scotch pine varieties in susceptibility to European sawfly. For. Sci. 13:175–181Google Scholar
  116. Wright J.W. 1976. Introduction to Forest Genetics. New York, Academic Press 463 p.Google Scholar
  117. Yazdani R., Lebreton P. 1991. Inheritance pattern of the flavonnic compounds in Scots pine(Pinus sylvestris L.). Silvae Genetica 40:57–59Google Scholar
  118. Ye H., Lieutier F. 1997. Shoot aggregation by Tomicus piniperda L. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in southern China. Ann Sci For 54:635–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. M. Heidger
    • 1
  • F. Lieutier
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept.of Ecology and Environmental ManagementHochschule Zittau/Goerlitz (FH) Univ.of Applied SciencesZittauGermany
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Biologie des Ligneux et des Grandes CulturesUniv. OrléansOrléans CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations