Advertisement

Biotic Interactions Between Saproxylic Insect Species

  • Antoine Brin
  • Christophe Bouget
Chapter
Part of the Zoological Monographs book series (ZM, volume 1)

Abstract

A better understanding of biotic interactions in species-rich saproxylic insect communities can provide essential information for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem functioning enhancement. Evidence in the literature mainly relates to beetle species, in particular scolytines, at tree—or even smaller—spatial scales and mostly refers to antagonistic interactions. We here present an overview of competition, predation/parasitism and facilitation among saproxylic insects. We first underline segregation patterns between wood consumers, resulting from competition processes, such as spatial and temporal resource partitioning, competitive displacement via interference and even enemy-mediated “apparent competition.” Considering natural history facts about prey-predator and host-parasitoid relationships, we then emphasize processes regulating the pressure of top-down influences on prey/host population dynamics. Facilitative interactions, including mechanisms of habitat location, creation, and improvement, are thereafter considered. The implications of some findings for pest management strategies (biocontrol, semiochemical-based methods) and for ecosystem functioning (deadwood decomposition) are highlighted meanwhile. Approaches based on life-history traits or indirect mediated interactions finally move the focus from the responses of paired species to multispecific community-level changes. Ecological network analysis should help increase our understanding of biotic interactions and investigate the consequences of environmental changes for those interactions and ecosystem functioning.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to F. Laroche, M. Ulyshen, and three anonymous reviewers for offering helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We thank V. Moore who checked the English language.

References

  1. Abell KJ, Duan JJ, Bauer L, Lelito JP, Van Driesche RG (2012) The effect of bark thickness on host partitioning between Tetrastichus planipennisi (hymen: Eulophidae) and Atanycolus spp. (hymen: Braconidae), two parasitoids of emerald ash borer (Coleop: Buprestidae). Biol Control 63(3):320–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison JD, Borden JH, McIntosh RL, de Groot P, Gries R (2001) Kairomonal response by four Monochamus species (Coleoptera : Cerambycidae) to bark beetle pheromones. J Chem Ecol 27(4):633–646.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010353315939CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison JD, McKenney JL, Miller DR, Gimmel ML (2013) Kairomonal responses of natural enemies and associates of the southern Ips (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) to Ipsdienol, Ipsenol and Cis-Verbenol. J Insect Behav 26(3):321–335.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-012-9349-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amarasekare P (2002) Interference competition and species coexistence. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 269(1509):2541–2550.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amarasekare P (2003) Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecol Lett 6(12):1109–1122.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00530.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amezaga I, Rodríguez MÁ (1998) Resource partitioning of four sympatric bark beetles depending on swarming dates and tree species. For Ecol Manag 109(1–3):127–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00229-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amman GD (1984) Mountain pine-beetle (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) mortality in 3 types of infestations. Environ Entomol 13:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Araújo MB, Rozenfeld A (2014) The geographic scaling of biotic interactions. Ecography 37(5):406–415.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00643.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atkinson WD, Shorrocks B (1981) Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource: a simulation model. J Anim Ecol 50:461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aukema BH, Raffa KF (2002) Relative effects of exophytic predation, endophytic predation, and intraspecific competition on a subcortical herbivore: consequences to the reproduction of Ips pini and Thanasimus dubius. Oecologia 133:483–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Aukema B, Raffa KF (2004) Does aggregation benefit bark beetles by diluting predation? Links between a group-colonisation strategy and the absence of emergent multiple predator effects. Ecol Entomol 229:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Aukema BH, Raffa KF (2005) Selective manipulation of predators using pheromones: responses to frontalin and ipsdienol pheromone components of bark beetles in the Great Lakes region. Agric For Entomol 7:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Aukema BH, Dahlsten DL, Raffa KF (2000) Improved population monitoring of bark beetles and predators by incorporating disparate behavioral responses to semiochemicals. Environ Entomol 29(3):618–629.  https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-29.3.618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ayres B, Ayres M, Abrahamson M, Teale S (2001) Resource partitioning and overlap in three sympatric species of Ips bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Oecologia 128(3):443–453.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Azeria ET, Ibarzabal J, Hebert C (2012) Effects of habitat characteristics and interspecific interactions on co-occurrence patterns of saproxylic beetles breeding in tree boles after forest fire: null model analyses. Oecologia 168(4):1123–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2180-0CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bartomeus I, Gravel D, Tylianakis JM, Aizen MA, Dickie IA, Bernard-Verdier M (2016) A common framework for identifying linkage rules across different types of interactions. Funct Ecol 30(12):1894–1903.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bergvinson DJ, Borden JH (1991) Glyphosate-induced changes in the attack success and development of the mountain pine beetle and impact of its natural enemies. Entomol Exp Appl 60:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Berlow EL, Dunne JA, Martinez ND, Stark PB, Williams RJ, Brose U (2009) Simple prediction of interaction strengths in complex food webs. PNAS 106(1):187–191.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806823106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Birch LC (1957) The meanings of competition. Am Nat 91(856):5–18.  https://doi.org/10.1086/281957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Birch MC, Svihra P, Paine TD, Miller JC (1980) Influence of chemically mediated behavior on host tree colonization by four cohabiting species of bark beetles. J Chem Ecol 6(2):395–414.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01402917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Boone CK, Six DL, Raffa KF (2008a) The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy: competitors add to predator load of a tree-killing bark beetle. Agric For Entomol 10(4):411–421.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2008.00402.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Boone CK, Six DL, Zheng Y, Raffa KF (2008b) Parasitoids and dipteran predators exploit volatiles from microbial symbionts to locate bark beetles. Environ Entomol 37:150–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Borkowski A, Skrzecz I (2016) Ecological segregation of bark beetle (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae) infested scots pine. Ecol Res 31(1):135–144.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-015-1322-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Boucher J, Hébert C, Ibarzabal J, Bauce É (2016) High conservation value forests for burn-associated saproxylic beetles: an approach for developing sustainable post-fire salvage logging in boreal forest. Insect Conserv Divers 9(5):402–415.  https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bouget C, Nusillard B, Pineau X, Ricou C (2012) Effect of deadwood position on saproxylic beetles in temperate forests and conservation interest of oak snags. Insect Conserv Divers 5(4):264–278.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00160.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Breznak JA, Brill WJ, Mertins JW, Coppel HC (1973) Nitrogen fixation in termites. Nature 244(5418):577–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Breznak JA, Mertins JW, Coppel HC (1974) Nitrogen fixation and methane production in the wood-eating cockroach, Cryptocercus punctulatus scudder (Orthoptera: Blattidae). Univ Wis For Res Notes 184:1–2Google Scholar
  28. Bridges JR (1981) Nitrogen-fixing bacteria associated with bark beetles. Microb Ecol 7(2):131–137.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02032495CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Brin A, Bouget C, Brustel H, Jactel H (2011) Diameter of downed woody debris does matter for saproxylic beetle assemblages in temperate oak and pine forests. J Insect Conserv 15(5):653–669.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9364-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Brin A, Bouget C, Valladares L, Brustel H (2013) Are stumps important for the conservation of saproxylic beetles in managed forests?—insights from a comparison of assemblages on logs and stumps in oak-dominated forests and pine plantations. Insect Conserv Divers 6(3):255–264.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00209.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Brophy C, Dooley Á, Kirwan L, Finn JA, McDonnell J, Bell T, Cadotte MW, Connolly J (2017) Biodiversity and ecosystem function: making sense of numerous species interactions in multi-species communities. Ecology 98(7):1771–1778.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1872CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18(3):119–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00045-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Buchler ER, Wright TB, Brown ED (1981) On the functions of stridulation by the passalid beetle Odontotaenius disjunctus (Coleoptera: Passalidae). Anim Behav 29(2):483–486.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(81)80108-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Buse J, Ranius T, Assmann T (2008) An endangered longhorn beetle associated with old oaks and its possible role as an ecosystem engineer. Conserv Biol 22(2):329–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Bußler H, Müller J (2008) Vacuum cleaning for conservationists: a new method for inventory of Osmoderma eremita (Scop., 1763) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) and other inhabitants of hollow trees in Natura 2000 areas. J Insect Conserv 13(3):355–359.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-008-9171-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Bybee LF, Millar JG, Paine TD, Campbell K, Hanlon CC (2004) Seasonal development of Phoracantha recurva and P. semipunctata (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Southern California. Environ Entomol 33(5):1232–1241.  https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-33.5.1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Byers JA (1993) Avoidance of competition by spruce bark beetles, Ips typographus and Pityogenes chalcographus. Experientia 49(3):272–275.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01923539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Byers JA (2004) Chemical ecology of bark beetles in a complex olfactory landscape. In: Lieutier F, Day KR, Battisti A, Grégoire J-C, Evans HC (eds) Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe, a synthesis. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 89–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Byers JA, Wood DL (1980) Interspecific inhibition of the response of the bark beetles, Dendroctonus brevicomis and Ips paraconfusus, to their pheromones in the field. J Chem Ecol 6(1):149–164.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00987534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Byers JA, Wood DL, Craig J, Hendry LB (1984) Attractive and inhibitory pheromones produced in the bark beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis, during host colonization: regulation of inter- and intraspecific competition. J Chem Ecol 10(6):861–877.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00987969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Calcagno V, Mouquet N, Jarne P, David P (2006) Coexistence in a metacommunity: the competition-colonization trade-off is not dead. Ecol Lett 9(8):897–907.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00930.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Calderón-Cortés N, Quesada M, Escalera-Vázquez LH (2011) Insects as stem engineers: interactions mediated by the twig-girdler Oncideres albomarginata chamela enhance arthropod diversity. PLoS One 6(4):e19083.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019083CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Carlsson S, Bergman K-O, Jansson N, Ranius T, Milberg P (2016) Boxing for biodiversity: evaluation of an artificially created decaying wood habitat. Biodivers Conserv:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1057-2
  44. Chamberlain SA, Bronstein JL, Rudgers JA (2014) How context dependent are species interactions? Ecol Lett 17(7):881–890.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Chaneton EJ, Bonsall MB (2000) Enemy-mediated apparent competition: empirical patterns and the evidence. Oikos 88(2):380–394.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880217.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Chase JM (2003) Community assembly: when should history matter? Oecologia 136(4):489–498.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1311-7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Chesson P (2000) General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially-varying environments. Theor Popul Biol 58(3):211–237.  https://doi.org/10.1006/tpbi.2000.1486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Chiari S, Zauli A, Audisio P, Carpaneto GM (2014) Interactions between larvae of the threatened saproxylic beetle Osmoderma Eremita and other flower chafers in Mediterranean woodlands: implications for conservation. Insect Conserv Divers 7(5):462–469.  https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Citernesi U, Neglia R, Seritti A, Lepidi AA, Gilippi C, Bagnoli G, Nuti MP, Galluzzi R (1977) Nitrogen fixation in the gastro-enteric cavity of soil animals. Soil Biol Biochem 9:71–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Colwell RK, Futuyma DJ (1971) On the measurement of niche breadth and overlap. Ecology 52(4):567–576.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1934144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Connell JH (1975) Some mechanisms producing structure in natural communities: a model and evidence from field experiments. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 460–490Google Scholar
  52. Connell JH, Slatyer RO (1977) Mechanisms ofsuccession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am Nat 111(982):1119–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Connell JH (1980) Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35(2):131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Connor EF, Simberloff D (1986) Competition, scientific method, and null models in ecology. Am Sci 74:155–162Google Scholar
  55. Cornelius ML, Osbrink WLA (2009) Bioassay design and length of time in the laboratory affect intercolonial interactions of the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera, Rhinotermitidae). Insect Soc 56(2):203–211.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-009-0014-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Costa A, A M BCK, Kendrick AP, Murphy RJ, Sharpee WC, Raffa KF, Reeve JD (2013) Dispersal and edge behaviour of bark beetles and predators inhabiting red pine plantations. Agric For Entomol 15(1):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2012.00585.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Coulson RN, Mayyasi AM, Foltz JL, Hain FP (1976) Interspecific competition between Monochamus titillator and Dendroctonus frontalis. Environ Entomol 5(2):235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Coulson RN, Pope DN, Gagne JA, Fargo WS, Pulley PE, Edson LJ, Wagner TL (1980) Impact of foraging by Monochamus titillator (col: Cerambycidae) on within-tree populations of Dendroctonus frontalis (col: Scolytidae). Entomophaga 25:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Cronin JT, Reeve JD, Wilkens R, Turchin P (2000) The pattern and range of movement of a checkered beetle predator relative to its bark beetle prey. Oikos 90(1):127–138.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900113.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Davis TS, Hofstetter RW (2009) Effects of gallery density and species ratio on the fitness and fecundity of two sympatric bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environ Entomol 38(3):639–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Dejean A, Orivel J, Rossi V, Roux O, Lauth J, Malé P-JG, Céréghino R, Leroy C (2013) Predation success by a plant-ant indirectly favours the growth and fitness of its host myrmecophyte. PLoS One 8:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Diamond JM (1978) Society niche shifts and the rediscovery of interspecific competition: why did field biologists so long overlook the widespread evidence for interspecific competition that had already impressed Darwin? Am Sci 66(3):322–331Google Scholar
  63. Dickie IA, Fukami T, Wilkie JP, Allen RB, Buchanan PK (2012) Do assembly history effects attenuate from species to ecosystem properties? A field test with wood-inhabiting fungi. Ecol Lett 15(2):133–141.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01722.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Dodds KJ, Graber C, Stephen FM (2001) Facultative intraguild predation by larval Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) on bark beetle larvae (Coleoptera : Scolytidae). Environ Entomol 30(1):17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Drake JA (1991) Community-assembly mechanics and the structure of an experimental species ensemble. Am Nat 137(1):1–26.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2462154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Duan JJ, Abell KJ, Bauer LS, Gould J, Van Driesche R (2014) Natural enemies implicated in the regulation of an invasive pest: a life table analysis of the population dynamics of the emerald ash borer. Agric For Entomol 16(4):406–416.  https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Duan JJ, Bauer LS, Abell KJ, Ulyshen MD, Van Driesche RG (2015) Population dynamics of an invasive forest insect and associated natural enemies in the aftermath of invasion: implications for bio control. J Appl Ecol 52(5):1246–1254.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Eisner T, Schroeder FC, Snyder N, Grant JB, Aneshansley DJ, Utterback D, Meinwald J, Eisner M (2008) Defensive chemistry of lycid beetles and of mimetic cerambycid beetles that feed on them. Chemoecology 18(2):109–119.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-007-0398-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Elton CS (1966) Dying and dead wood. In: Elton CS (ed) The pattern of animal communities. Wiley, New York, pp 279–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Erbilgin N, Gillette NE, Mori SR, Stein JD, Owen DR, Wood DL (2007) Acetophenone as an anti-attractant for the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis LeConte (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J Chem Ecol 33(4):817.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-007-9267-4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Everaerts C, Grégoire J, Merlin J (1988) The toxicity of Norway spruce monoterpenes to two bark beetle species and their associates. In: Mattson W, Levieux J, Bernard-Dagan C (eds) Mechanisms of woody plant defenses against insects. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Feicht E (2004) Parasitoids of Ips typographus (Col., Scolytidae), their frequency and composition in uncontrolled and controlled infested spruce forest in Bavaria. J Pest Sci 77(3):165–172.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-004-0047-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Flamm RO, Wagner TL, Cook SP, Pulley PE, Coulson RN, Mcardle TM (1987) Host colonization by cohabiting Dendroctonus frontalis, Ips avulsus, and I. calligraphus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environ Entomol 16(2):390–399.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/16.2.390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Flamm RO, Coulson RN, Beckley P, Pulley PE, Wagner TL (1989) Maintenance of a phloem-inhabiting guild. Environ Entomol 18(3):381–387.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/18.3.381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Floren A, Krüger D, Müller T, Dittrich M, Rudloff R, Hoppe B, Linsenmair KE (2015) Diversity and interactions of wood-inhabiting fungi and beetles after deadwood enrichment. PLoS One 10(11):e0143566.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143566CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Fontaine C, Guimarães PR, Kéfi S, Loeuille N, Memmott J, van der Putten WH, van Veen FJF, Thébault E (2011) The ecological and evolutionary implications of merging different types of networks. Ecol Lett 14(11):1170–1181.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01688.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Forister ML, Jenkins SH (2017) A neutral model for the evolution of diet breadth. Am Nat 190(2):E40–E54.  https://doi.org/10.1086/692325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Forsse E, Solbreck CH (1985) Migration in the bark beetle Ips typographus L.: duration, timing and height of flight. J Appl Entomol 100(1–5):47–57.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1985.tb02756.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Fukami T (2015) Historical contingency in community assembly: integrating niches, species pools, and priority effects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46(1):1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Fukami T, Dickie IA, Paula Wilkie J, Paulus BC, Park D, Roberts A, Buchanan PK, Allen RB (2010) Assembly history dictates ecosystem functioning: evidence from wood decomposer communities. Ecol Lett 13(6):675–684.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01465.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Fürstenau B, Hilker M (2017) Cuticular hydrocarbons of Tribolium confusum larvae mediate trail following and host recognition in the ectoparasitoid Holepyris sylvanidis. J Chem Ecol 43(9):858–868.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-017-0885-1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Gardiner LM (1957) Deterioration of fire-killed pine in Ontario and the causal wood-boring beetles. Can Entomol 98:241–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Garrick RC, Bouget C (2018) Molecular tools for assessing saproxylic insect diversity. In: Ulyshen MD (ed) Saproxylic insects: diversity, ecology and conservation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 849–884Google Scholar
  84. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Gessner MO, Swan CM, Dang CK, McKie BG, Bardgett RD, Wall DH, Hattenschwiler S (2010) Diversity meets decomposition. Trends Ecol Evol 25(6):372–380.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Gilman SE, Urban MC, Tewksbury J, Gilchrist GW, Holt RD (2010) A framework for community interactions under climate change. Trends Ecol Evol 25(6):325–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.03.002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Godsoe W, Harmon LJ (2012) How do species interactions affect species distribution models? Ecography 35(9):811–820.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07103.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Gotelli NJ, Graves GR (1996) Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  89. Gouix N (2011) Gestion forestière et Biodiversité, les enjeux de conservation d’une espèce parapluie : Limoniscus violaceus (Coleoptera). Université Pierre et Marie Curie, ParisGoogle Scholar
  90. Graham SA (1925) The felled tree trunk as an ecological unit. Ecology 6(4):397–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Grégoire J-C, Baisier M, Merlin J, Naccache Y (1989) Interactions between Dendroctonus micans and Rhizophagus grandis in the field and laboratory: their application for the bio control of D. micans in France. In: Kulhavy D, Miller MC (eds) The potential for bio control of dendroctonus and Ips bark beetles. The Stephen Austin University Press, Nagocdoches, pp 95–108Google Scholar
  92. Grégoire JC, Baisier M, Drumont A, Dahlsten DL, Meyer H, Francke W (1991) Volatile compounds in the larval frass of Dendroctonus valens and Dendroctonus micans (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in relation to oviposition by the predator, Rhizophagus grandis (Coleoptera: Rhizophagidae). J Chem Ecol 17:2003–2019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Grunwald M (1986) Ecological segregation of bark beetles (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) of spruce1,2. J Appl Entomol 101(1–5):176–187.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1986.tb00846.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Guevara R, Hutcheson KA, Mee AC, Rayner ADM, Reynolds SE (2000) Resource partitioning of the host fungus Coriolus versicolor by two Ciid beetles: the role of odour compounds and host ageing. Oikos 91(1):184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Hammond HEJ, Langor DW, Spence JR (2004) Saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) using Populus in boreal aspen stands of western Canada: spatiotemporal variation and conservation of assemblages. Can J For Res 34(1):1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X03-192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Hanks LM, Paine TD, Millar JG, Campbell C (1997) Another tree killing pest of eucalyptus invades California. Calif Plant Pest Dis Rep 16:19–21Google Scholar
  97. Heard S (1994) Processing chain ecology: resource condition and interspecific interactions. J Anim Ecol 63:451–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Hedgren PO (2004) The bark beetle Pityogenes chalcographus (L.) (Scolytidae) in living trees: reproductive success, tree mortality and interaction with Ips typographus. J Appl Entomol 128(3):161–166.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0418.2003.00809.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Hespenheide H (1976) Patterns in the use of single plant hosts by wood-boring beetles. Oikos 27:61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Hilszczański J, Jaworski T, Plewa R, Jansson N (2014) Surrogate tree cavities: boxes with artificial substrate can serve as temporary habitat for Osmoderma barnabita (Motsch.) (Coleoptera, Cetoniinae). J Insect Conserv 18(5):855–861.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9692-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Hofstetter RW, Gaylord ML, Martinson S, Wagner MR (2012) Attraction to monoterpenes and beetle-produced compounds by syntopic Ips and Dendroctonus bark beetles and their predators. Agric For Entomol 14(2):207–215.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2011.00560.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Holt BG, Hochberg ME (1998) The coexistence of competing parasites. Part II: hyperparasitism and food chain dynamics. J Theor Biol 193:485–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Hongo Y (2014) Interspecific relationship between the Japanese horned beetle and two Japanese stag beetle species. Entomol Sci 17(1):134–137.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ens.12040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Hortal J, Roura-Pascual N, Sanders NJ, Rahbek C (2010) Understanding (insect) species distributions across spatial scales. Ecography 33(1):51–53.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06428.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Hougardy E, Grégoire J-C (2001) Bark-beetle parasitoids population surveys following storm damage in spruce stands in the Vosges region (France). Integr Pest Manag Rev 6(3):163–168.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025727503264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Hougardy E, Grégoire J-C (2003) Cleptoparasitism increases the host finding ability of a polyphagous parasitoid species, Rhopalicus tutela (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:184–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Hövemeyer K, Schauermann J (2003) Succession of Diptera on dead beech wood: a 10-year study. Pedobiologia 47(1):61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Hui Y, Xue-Song D (1999) Impacts of Tomicus minor on distribution and reproduction of Tomicus piniperda (Col., Scolytidae) on the trunk of the living Pinus yunnanensis trees. J Appl Entomol 123(6):329–333.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0418.1999.00353.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Hunt DWA, Borden JH (1988) Response of mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, and pine engraver, Ips pini (say), to ipsidienol in southwestern British Columbia. J Chem Ecol 14(1):277–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Hunter MD, Price PW (1992) Playing chutes and ladders: heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73:724–732Google Scholar
  111. Ives AR, May RM (1985) Competition within and between species in a patchy environment: relations between microscopic and macroscopic models. J Theor Biol 115:65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Jacobsen RM, Birkemoe T, Sverdrup-Thygeson A (2015) Priority effects of early successional insects influence late successional fungi in dead wood. Ecol Evol 5(21):4896–4905.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1751CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  113. Jacobsen RM, Kauserud H, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Bjorbækmo MM, Birkemoe T (2017) Wood-inhabiting insects can function as targeted vectors for decomposer fungi. Fungal Ecol 29:76–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2017.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Joensuu J, Heliövaara K, Savolainen E (2008) Risk of bark beetle (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) damage in a spruce forest restoration area in central Finland. Silva Fenn 42(2):233–245.  https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Jones CG, Gutiérrez JL, Byers JE, Crooks JA, Lambrinos JG, Talley TS (2010) A framework for understanding physical ecosystem engineering by organisms. Oikos 119(12):1862–1869.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18782.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Jonsson M, Nordlander G (2006) Insect colonisation of fruiting bodies of the wood-decaying fungus Fomitopsis pinicola at different distances from an old-growth forest. Biodivers Conserv 15(1):295–309.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-1536-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Jönsson N, Méndez M, Ranius T (2004) Nutrient richness of wood mould in trees hollows with the scarabaeid beetle Osmoderma eremita. Anim Biodiv Conserv 27:79–82Google Scholar
  118. Jonsson M, Kaartinen R, Straub CS (2017) Relationships between natural enemy diversity and bio control. Curr Opin Insect Sci 20(Suppl. C):1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2017.01.001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Jordano P (2016) Chasing ecological interactions. PLoS Biol 14(9):e1002559.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002559CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  120. Kadowaki K (2010) Species coexistence patterns in a mycophagous insect community inhabiting the wood-decaying bracket fungus Cryptoporus volvatus (Polyporaceae: Basidiomycota). Eur J Entomol 107(1):89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Kadowaki K, Leschen RAB, Beggs JR (2011) Competition–colonization dynamics of spore-feeding beetles on the long-lived bracket fungi Ganoderma in New Zealand native forest. Oikos 120(5):776–786.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19302.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Kaplan I, Denno RF (2007) Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects revisited: a quantitative assessment of competition theory. Ecol Lett 10(10):977–994.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01093.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Kenis M, Mills NJ (1994) Parasitoids of European species of the genus Pissodes (col: Curculionidae) and their potential for the bio control of Pissodes strobi (peck) in Canada. Biol Control 4(1):14–21.  https://doi.org/10.1006/bcon.1994.1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Kenis M, Wegensteiner R, Griffin C (2004) Parasitoids, predators, nematodes and pathogens associated with bark weevil pests. In: Lieutier F, Day K, Battisti A, Grégoire J-C, Evans HC (eds) Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe, a synthesis. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 395–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Komonen A, Penttila R, Lindgren M, Hanski I (2000) Forest fragmentation truncates a food chain based on an old-growth forest bracket fungus. Oikos 90:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Kroll JC, Fleet RR (1979) The impact of woodpecker predation on over-wintering within-tree populations of the southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis). In: Dickson JG, Conner RN, Fleet RR, Jackson JA, Kroll JC (eds) The role of insectivorous birds in forest ecosystems. Academic, New York, pp 269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Kudon LH, Berisford CW (1980) Influence of brood hosts on host preferences of bark beetle parasites. Nature 283(5744):288–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Kuranouchi T, Nakamura T, Shimamura S, Kojima H, Goka K, Okabe K, Mochizuki A (2006) Nitrogen fixation in the stag beetle, Dorcus (Macrodorcus) rectus (Motschulsky) (Col., Lucanidae). J Appl Entomol 130(9–10):471–472.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2006.01080.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Lawlor LR (1980) Overlap, similarity and competition coefficients. Ecology 61(2):245–251.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1935181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Leach JG (1937) Further studies on the interrelationship of insects and fungi in the deterioriation of felled Norway pine logs. J Agric Res 55:129–140Google Scholar
  131. Lee JC, Seybold SJ (2010) Host acceptance and larval competition in the banded and European elm bark beetles, Scolytus schevyrewi and S. multistriatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): potential mechanisms for competitive displacement between invasive species. J Insect Behav 23(1):19–34.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-009-9192-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Letourneau DK, Jedlicka JA, Bothwell SG, Moreno CR (2009) Effects of natural enemy biodiversity on the suppression ofarthropod herbivores in terrestrial ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Li HF, Yang RL, Su NY (2010) Interspecific competition and territory defense mechanisms of Coptotermes formosanus and Coptotermes gestroi (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Environ Entomol 39(5):1601–1607.  https://doi.org/10.1603/en09262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Li H-F, Lan Y-C, Fujisaki I, Kanzaki N, Lee H-J, Su N-Y (2015) Termite assemblage pattern and niche partitioning in a tropical forest ecosystem. Environ Entomol 44(3):546–556.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. Light DM, Birch MC, Paine TD (1983) Laboratory study of intraspecific and interspecific competition within and between two sympatric bark beetle species, Ips pini and I. paraconfusus. J Appl Entomol 96(1–5):233–241.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1983.tb03664.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Lindgren BS, Miller DR (2002) Effect of Verbenone on attraction of predatory and woodboring beetles (Coleoptera) to kairomones in Lodgepole pine forests. Environ Entomol 31(5):766–773.  https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-31.5.766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Luhring KA, Millar JG, Paine TD, Reed D, Christiansen H (2004) Ovipositional preferences and progeny development of the egg parasitoid Avetianella longoi: factors mediating replacement of one species by a congener in a shared habitat. Biol Control 30(2):382–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2004.01.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Marini L, Lindelöw Å, Jönsson AM, Wulff S, Schroeder LM (2013) Population dynamics of the spruce bark beetle: a long-term study. Oikos 122(12):1768–1776.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00431.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Martin K, Norris A, Drever M (2006) Effects of bark beetle outbreaks on avian biodiversity in the British Columbia interior: implications for critical habitat management. BC J Ecosyst Manag 7(3):10–24Google Scholar
  140. Martinson SJ, Ylioja T, Sullivan BT, Billings RF, Ayres MP (2013) Alternate attractors in the population dynamics of a tree-killing bark beetle. Popul Ecol 55(1):95–106.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-012-0357-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Matthewman WG, Pielou DP (1971) Arthropods inhabiting the sporophores of Fomes fomentarius (Polyporaceae) in Gatineau Park, Quebec. Can Entomol 103(6):775–847.  https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent103775-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Maynard DS, Crowther TW, King JR, Warren RJ, Bradford MA (2015) Temperate forest termites: ecology, biogeography, and ecosystem impacts. Ecol Entomol 40(3):199–210.  https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Micó E, Juárez M, Sánchez A, Galante E (2011) Action of the saproxylic scarab larva Cetonia aurataeformis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea: Cetoniidae) on woody substrates. J Nat Hist 45(41–42):2527–2542.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2011.596953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Miller MC (1985) The effect of Monochamus titillator (F.) (Col., Cerambycidae) foraging on the emergence of Ips calligraphus (germ.) (Col., Scolytidae) insect associates. J Appl Entomol 100(1–5):189–197.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1985.tb02771.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Mills NJ (1991) Searching strategies and attack rates of parasitoids of the ash bark beetle (Leperisinus vurius) and its relevance to bio control. Ecol Entomol 16:461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Mills NJ, Krüger K, Schlup J (1991) Short-range host location mechanisms of bark beetle parasitoids. J Appl Entomol 111(1–5):33–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1991.tb00292.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Mitchell RF, Curkovic T, Mongold-Diers JA, Neuteboom L, Galbrecht H-M, Tröger A, Bergmann J, Francke W, Hanks LM (2017) Evidence that Cerambycid beetles mimic Vespid wasps in odor as well as appearance. J Chem Ecol 43(1):75–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0800-1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. Morales-Jiménez J, Zúñiga G, Villa-Tanaca L, Hernández-Rodríguez C (2009) Bacterial community and nitrogen fixation in the red turpentine beetle, Dendroctonus valens LeConte (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Microb Ecol 58(4):879–891.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-009-9548-2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. Müller J, Bußler H, Goßner M, Rettelbach T, Duelli P (2008) The European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus in a national park: from pest to keystone species. Biodivers Conserv 17(12):2979–3001.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9409-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Økland B, Skarpaas O, Kausrud K (2009) Threshold facilitations of interacting species. Popul Ecol 51(4):513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Paine TD, Birch MC, Švihra P (1981) Niche breadth and resource partitioning by four sympatric species of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Oecologia 48(1):1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00346980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. Pajares JA, Ibeas F, Díez JJ, Gallego D (2004) Attractive responses by Monochamus galloprovincialis (Col., Cerambycidae) to host and bark beetle semiochemicals. J Appl Entomol 128(9–10):633–638.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2004.00899.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Paviour-Smith K (1968) A population study of Cis bilamellatus wood (Coleoptera, Ciidae). J Anim Ecol 37(1):205–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Peralta G, Frost CM, Rand TA, Didham RK, Tylianakis JM (2014) Complementarity and redundancy of interactions enhance attack rates and spatial stability in host–parasitoid food webs. Ecology 95(7):1888–1896.  https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1569.1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. Perdereau E, Dedeine F, Christidès J-P, Dupont S, Bagnères A-G (2011) Competition between invasive and indigenous species: an insular case study of subterranean termites. Biol Invasions 13(6):1457–1470.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9906-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Peres-Neto PR, Olden JD, Jackson DA (2001) Environmentally constrained null models: site suitability as occupancy criterion. Oikos 93(1):110–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Petchey OL, Downing AL, Mittelbach GG, Persson L, Steiner CF, Warren PH, Woodward G (2004) Species loss and the structure and functioning of multitrophic aquatic systems. Oikos 104(3):467–478.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13257.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Pettersson EM (2001a) Volatile attractants for three Pteromalid parasitoids attacking concealed spruce bark beetles. Chemoecology 11(2):89–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00001837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Pettersson EM (2001b) Volatiles from potential hosts of Rhopalicus tutela a bark beetle parasitoid. J Chem Ecol 27(11):2219–2231.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012226820035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. Poisot T, Stouffer DB, Kéfi S (2016) Describe, understand and predict: why do we need networks in ecology? Funct Ecol 30(12):1878–1882.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:297–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Polizzi JM, Forschler BT (1998) Intra- and interspecific agonism in Reticulitermes flavipes (Kollar) and R. virginicus (banks) and effects of arena and group size in laboratory assays. Insect Soc 45(1):43–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s000400050067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Quinto J, Marcos-García MÁ, Díaz-Castelazo C, Rico-Gray V, Brustel H, Galante E, Micó E (2012) Breaking down complex saproxylic communities: understanding sub-networks structure and implications to network robustness. PLoS One 7(9):e45062.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045062CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  164. Quinto J, Marcos-García MÁ, Díaz-Castelazo C, Rico-Gray V, Galante E, Micó E (2015) Association patterns in saproxylic insect networks in three Iberian mediterranean woodlands and their resistance to microhabitat loss. PLoS One 10(3):e0122141.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  165. Raffa KF (2001) Mixed messages across multiple trophic levels: the ecology of bark beetle chemical communication systems. Chemoecology 11(2):49–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00001833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Raffa KF, Dahlsten DL (1995) Differential responses among natural enemies and prey to bark beetle pheromones. Oecologia 102:17–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. Raffa KF, Aukema BH, Bentz BJ, Carroll AL, Hicke JA, Turner MG, Romme WH (2008) Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. Bioscience 58(6):501–517.  https://doi.org/10.1641/B580607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Raffa KF, Grégoire J-C, Lindgren BS (2015) Natural history and ecology of bark beetles. In: Vega FE, Hofstetter RW (eds) Bark beetles: biology and ecology of native and invasive species. Academic, New York, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  169. Ranius T (2002) Osmoderma eremita as an indicator of species richness of beetles in tree hollows. Biodivers Conserv 11(5):931–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Ranius T, Nilsson S (1997) Habitat of Osmoderma eremita Scop. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), a beetle living in hollow trees. J Insect Conserv 1(4):193–204.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018416000766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Ranius T, Aguado LO, Antonsson K, Audisio P, Ballerio A, Carpaneto GM, Chobot K, Gjurašin B, Hanssen O, Huijbregts H, Lakatos F, Martin O, Neculiseanu Z, Nikitsky NB, Paill W, Pirnat A, Rizun V, Ruicănescu A, Stegner J, Süda I, Szwałko P, Tamutis V, Telnov D, Tsinkevich V, Versteirt V, Vignon V, Vögeli M, Zach P (2005) Osmoderma eremita (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Cetoniinae) in Europe. Anim Biodivers Conserv 28(1):1–44Google Scholar
  172. Rankin LJ, Borden JH (1991) Competitive interactions between the mountain pine beetle and the pine engraver in Lodgepole pine. Can J For Res 21(7):1029–1036.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x91-141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Reid RW (1955) The bark beetle complex association with lodgepole pine slash in Alberta. I. Notes on the biologies of some Scolytidae attacking lodgepole pine slash. Can Entomol 87:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Richerson JV, Borden JH (1972) Host finding behavior of Coeloides brunneri (Hymenomera: Braconidae). Can Entomol 104:1235–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Rose O (2011) Response of the fungivore beetle guild associated to Fomes fomentarius (L.:Fr.) Kickx. to habitat fragmentation in beech forests (France, Vosges). Master thesis, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 61p (in French)Google Scholar
  176. Ryall KL, Fahrig L (2005) Habitat loss decreases predator–prey ratios in a pine-bark beetle system. Oikos 110(2):265–270.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13691.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Ryan RB, Rudinsky JA (1962) Biology and habits of the Douglas-fir beetle parasite, Coeloides brunneri Viereck (hymenoptera: Braconidae), in western Oregon. Can Entomol 94:748–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Ryan K, de Groot P, Smith SM (2012) Evidence of interaction between Sirex noctilio and other species inhabiting the bole of Pinus. Agric For Entomol 14(2):187–195.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2011.00558.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Saint-Germain M, Drapeau P, Buddle CM (2007) Occurrence patterns of aspen-feeding wood-borers (Coleoptera : Cerambycidae) along the wood decay gradient: active selection for specific host types or neutral mechanisms? Ecol Entomol 32(6):712–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Sánchez-Galván IR, Quinto J, Micó E, Galante E, Marcos-García MA (2014) Facilitation among saproxylic insects inhabiting tree hollows in a Mediterranean forest: the case of Cetonids (Coleoptera: Cetoniidae) and Syrphids (Diptera: Syrphidae). Environ Entomol 43(2):336–343.  https://doi.org/10.1603/EN13075CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  181. Sanderson JG (2004) Null model analysis of communities on gradients. J Biogeogr 31(6):879–883.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01054.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Satoh T, Yoshida T, Koyama S, Yamagami A, Takata M, Doi H, Kurachi T, Hayashi S, Hirobe T, Hata Y (2016) Resource partitioning based on body size contributes to the species diversity of wood-boring beetles and arboreal nesting ants. Insect Conserv Divers 9(1):4–12.  https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Savely HE (1939) Ecological relations between animals in dead pine and oak logs. Ecol Monogr 9(3):321–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Schlyter F, Anderbrant O (1993) Competition and niche separation between two bark beetles: existence and mechanisms. Oikos 68(3):437–447.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3544911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Schoeller EN, Husseneder C, Allison JD (2012) Molecular evidence of facultative intraguild predation by Monochamus titillator larvae (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on members of the southern pine beetle guild. Naturwissenschaften 99(11):913–924.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-012-0973-6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  186. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122(2):240–285.  https://doi.org/10.1086/284133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Schoener TW (1986) Resource partitioning. In: Kikkawa I, Anderson DJ (eds) Community ecology—pattern and process. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 91–126Google Scholar
  188. Schroeder LM (1997) Oviposition behavior and reproductive success of the cerambycid Acanthocinus aedilis in the presence and absence of the bark beetle Tomicus piniperda. Entomol Exp Appl 82(1):9–17.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.1997.00108.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Schroeder LM (1999) Prolonged development time of the bark beetle predator Thanasimus formicarius (Col.: Cleridae) in relation to its prey species Tomicus piniperda (L.) and Ips typographus (L.) (Col.: Scolytidae). Agric For Entomol 1:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Schroeder LM (2007) Escape in space from enemies: a comparison between stands with and without enhanced densities of the spruce bark beetle. Agric For Entomol 9(2):85–91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2007.00323.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Schroeder LM, Weslien J (1994) Interactions between the phloem-feeding species Tomicus piniperda (Col.: Scolytidae) and Acanthocinus aedilis (Col.: Cerambycidae), and the predator Thanasimus formicarius (Col.: Cleridae) with special reference to brood production. Entomophaga 39(2):149–157.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02372353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Schultheis EH, Berardi AE, Lau JA (2015) No release for the wicked: enemy release is dynamic and not associated with invasiveness. Ecology 96(9):2446–2457.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2158.1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  193. Seibold S, Bässler C, Brandl R, Gossner MM, Thorn S, Ulyshen MD, Müller J (2015) Experimental studies of dead-wood biodiversity—a review identifying global gaps in knowledge. Biol Conserv 191:139–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Shelton TG, Grace JK (1996) Review of agonistic behaviors in the Isoptera. Sociobiology 28:155–176Google Scholar
  195. Smith MT, Goyer RA (1980) Relative abundance and seasonal occurrence of Corticeus glaber and Corticeus parallelus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), associates of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can Entomol 112:515–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Smith GD, Carroll AL, Lindgren BS (2011) Facilitation in bark beetles: endemic mountain pine beetle gets a helping hand. Agric For Entomol 13(1):37–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2010.00499.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Soberón JM (2010) Niche and area of distribution modeling: a population ecology perspective. Ecography 33(1):159–167.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06074.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Springhetti A, Amorelli M (1982) Competitive behavior between 2 species of Isoptera—Kalotermes-flavicollis (Kalotermitidae) and Reticulitermes lucifugus (Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology 7:155–164Google Scholar
  199. Stachowicz JJ (2001) Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. Bioscience 51(3):235–246.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0235:mfatso]2.0.co;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Staniczenko PPA, Sivasubramaniam P, Suttle KB, Pearson RG (2017) Linking macroecology and community ecology: refining predictions of species distributions using biotic interaction networks. Ecol Lett:n/a–n/a. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12770CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  201. Stephen FM, Lih MP, Browne LE (1997) Augmentation of Dendroctonus frontalis parasitoid effectiveness by artificial diet. In: Grégoire JC, Liebhold AM, Stephen FM, Day KR, Salom SM (eds) Integrating cultural tactics into the management of bark beetle and reforestation pests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-236, pp 15–22Google Scholar
  202. Strid Y, Schroeder M, Lindahl B, Ihrmark K, Stenlid J (2014) Bark beetles have a decisive impact on fungal communities in Norway spruce stem sections. Fungal Ecol 7:47–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2013.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Svensson GP, Larsson MC, Hedin J (2004) Attraction of the larval predator Elater ferrugineus to the sex pheromone of its prey, Osmoderma eremita, and its implication for Conserv biol. J Chem Ecol 30(2):353–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  204. Thébault E, Fontaine C (2010) Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329(5993):853–856.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  205. Thompson JN (2009) The coevolving web of life. Am Nat 173(2):125–140.  https://doi.org/10.1086/595752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  206. Thorne BL, Haverty MI (1991) Review of inter colony, infraspecific and interspecific agonism in termites. Sociobiology 19:115–145Google Scholar
  207. Tømmerås BÅ (1988) The clerid beetle, Thanasimus formicarius, is attracted to the pheromone of the ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron lineatum. Experientia 44(6):536–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Turchin P, Taylor AD, Reeve JD (1999) Dynamical role of predators in population cycles of a forest insect: an experimental test. Science 285(5430):1068–1071.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5430.1068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  209. Tylianakis JM, Laliberté E, Nielsen A, Bascompte J (2010) Conservation of species interaction networks. Biol Conserv 143(10):2270–2279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Uchima SY, Grace KJ (2009) Interspecific agonism and foraging competition between Coptotermes formosanus and Coptotermes gestroi (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology 54(3)Google Scholar
  211. Ulrich W, Jabot F, Gotelli NJ (2017) Competitive interactions change the pattern of species co-occurrences under neutral dispersal. Oikos 126(1):91–100.  https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.03392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Ulyshen MD (2016) Wood decomposition as influenced by invertebrates. Biol Rev 91(1):70–85.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12158CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  213. Ulyshen MD (2018) Saproxylic diptera. In: Ulyshen MD (ed) Saproxylic insects: diversity, ecology and conservation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 167–192Google Scholar
  214. Ulyshen MD, Duan JJ, Bauer LS (2010) Interactions between Spathius agrili (hymenoptera: Braconidae) and Tetrastichus planipennisi (hymenoptera: Eulophidae), larval parasitoids of Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Biol Control 52(2):188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. Unkiewicz-Winiarczyk A, Gromysz-Kałkowska K (2013) Ethological defence mechanisms in insects. III. Chemical defence. Bio Bratislava 67:63–74Google Scholar
  216. van Averbeke A, Gregoire JC (1995) Establishment and spread of Rhizophagus grandis Gyll (Coleoptera: Rhizophagidae) 6 years after release in the Foret domaniale du Mezenc (France). Ann Sci For 52:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Vance-Chalcraft HD, Rosenheim JA, Vonesh JR, Osenberg CW, Sih A (2007) The influence of intraguild predation on prey suppression and prey release : a meta-analysis. Ecology 88(11):2689–2696.  https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1869.1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  218. Vanderwel MC, Malcolm JR, Smith SA, Islam N (2006) Insect community composition and trophic guild structure in decaying logs from eastern Canadian pine-dominated forests. For Ecol Manag 225(1–3):190–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Victorsson J (2012) Semi-field experiments investigating facilitation: arrival order decides the interrelationship between two saproxylic beetle species. Ecol Entomol 37(5):395–401.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2012.01377.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. Vindstad OPL, Schultze S, Jepsen JU, Biuw M, Kapari L, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Ims RA (2014) Numerical responses of saproxylic beetles to rapid increases in dead wood availability following geometrid moth outbreaks in sub-Arctic mountain birch forest. PLoS One 9(6):e99624.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099624CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  221. Wagner T, Flamm R, Coulson R (1985) Strategies for cohabitation among the southern pine bark beetle species: comparisons of life-process biologies. Paper presented at the integrated pest management research symposium, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  222. Wallace HR (1953) The ecology of the insect fauna of pine stumps. J Anim Ecol 22(1):154–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. Wang X-Y, Yang Z-Q, Gould JR, Wu H, Ma J-H (2010) Host-seeking behavior and parasitism by Spathius agrili Yang (hymenoptera: Braconidae), a parasitoid of the emerald ash borer. Biol Control 52(1):24–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. Warren RJ, Bradford MA (2012) Ant colonization and coarse woody debris decomposition in temperate forests. Insect Soc 59(2):215–221.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-011-0208-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. Weed AS, Ayres MP, Liebhold AM, Billings RF (2017) Spatio-temporal dynamics of a tree-killing beetle and its predator. Ecography 40:221–234.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. Wei J-R, Yang Z-Q, Hao H-L, Du J-W (2008) (R)-(+)-limonene, kairomone for Dastarcus helophoroides, a natural enemy of longhorned beetles. Agric For Entomol 10(4):323–330.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2008.00384.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. Williams KS, Smith KG, Stephen FM (1993) Emergence of 13-yr periodical Cicadas (Cicadidae: Magicicada): phenology, mortality, and predators satiation. Ecology 74(4):1143–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. Wende B, Gossner MM, Grass I, Arnstadt T, Hofrichter M, Floren A, Linsenmair KE, Weisser WW, Steffan-Dewenter I (2017) Trophic level, successional age and trait matching determine specialization of deadwood-based interaction networks of saproxylic beetles. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 284(1854).  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  229. Wermelinger B (2002) Development and distribution of predators and parasitoids during two consecutive years of an Ips typographus (Col., Scolytidae) infestation. J Appl Entomol 126(10):521–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. Weslien J (1994) Interactions within and between species at different densities of the bark beetle Ips typographus and its predator Thanasimus formicarius. Entomol Exp Appl 71(2):133–143.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1994.tb01779.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. Weslien J, Schroeder LM (1999) Population levels of bark beetles and associated insects in managed and unmanaged spruce stands. For Ecol Manag 115(2–3):267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. Weslien J, Djupstrom LB, Schroeder M, Widenfalk O (2011) Long-term priority effects among insects and fungi colonizing decaying wood. J Anim Ecol 80(6):1155–1162.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01860.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  233. Wisz MS, Pottier J, Kissling WD, Pellissier L, Lenoir J, Damgaard CF, Dormann CF, Forchhammer MC, Grytnes J-A, Guisan A, Heikkinen RK, Høye TT, Kühn I, Luoto M, Maiorano L, Nilsson M-C, Normand S, Öckinger E, Schmidt NM, Termansen M, Timmermann A, Wardle DA, Aastrup P, Svenning J-C (2013) The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling. Biol Rev 88(1):15–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00235.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  234. Yoshimoto J, Nishida T (2009) Factors affecting behavioral interactions among SAP-attracted insects. Ann Entomol Soc Am 102(2):201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. Yoshimoto J, Kakutani T, Nishida T (2007) Do battles lead to coexistence? Role of interference competition in structuring the insect community on fermented tree sap. Ecol Entomol 32(5):552–558.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2007.00900.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. Yousuf F, Carnegie AJ, Bashford R, Bedding RA, Nicol HI, Gurr GM (2014a) Bark beetle (Ips grandicollis) disruption of woodwasp (Sirex noctilio) biocontrol: direct and indirect mechanisms. For Ecol Manag 323:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  237. Yousuf F, Gurr GM, Carnegie AJ, Bedding RA, Bashford R, Gitau CW, Nicol HI (2014b) The bark beetle, Ips grandicollis, disrupts bio control of the woodwasp, Sirex noctilio, via fungal symbiont interactions. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 88(1):38–47.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6941.12267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  238. Zuo J, Cornelissen JHC, Hefting MM, Sass-Klaassen U, van Logtestijn RSP, van Hal J, Goudzwaard L, Liu JC, Berg MP (2016) The (w)hole story: facilitation of dead wood fauna by bark beetles? Soil Biol Biochem 95(Suppl C):70–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.12.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection.  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering School of Purpan, UMR 1201 INRA-INPT DynaforUniversity of ToulouseToulouse Cedex 3France
  2. 2.National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture (IRSTEA), Domaine des BarresNogent-sur-VernissonFrance

Personalised recommendations