Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T13:06:25.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toxicity of two Engelmann spruce (Pinaceae) monoterpene chemotypes from the southern Rocky Mountains to North American spruce beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2020

Thomas Seth Davis Open the ORCID record for Thomas Seth Davis [Opens in a new window]
Thomas Seth Davis*
Affiliation:
Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523-1472, United States of America
*
*Corresponding author. Email: Seth.Davis@colostate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Engelmann spruce, Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm. (Pinaceae), in the southern Rocky Mountains is composed of two distinct phloem monoterpene chemotypes that differ in relative abundances of multiple monoterpenes, particularly α-pinene and Δ3-carene (hereafter, the “α-pinene chemotype” and the “Δ3-carene chemotype”). Here, relative toxicity of these chemotypes is tested on spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby) (Coleoptera: Scolytinae), a phloeophagous herbivore that colonises trees of both types. Synthetic monoterpene blends representing each chemotype were tested across a range of concentrations (0, 10, 50, 100, 200, and 500 µg/L) in the lab, and probability of survival of adult beetles exposed to each blend was modelled using a logit function. Logit curves were solved to determine LC25, LC50, and LC75 of each monoterpene blend. On average, probability of beetle survival was lower when exposed to the Δ3-carene chemotype than when exposed to the α-pinene chemotype. However, both chemotypes were completely lethal to beetles at concentrations exceeding 100 µg/L. Adult body mass did not affect survival probability. It is concluded that spruce phloem chemotypes may differ in their toxicity to spruce beetles, with potential consequences for patterns of host-tree colonisation by spruce beetle.

Type
Scientific Notes
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 152 , Issue 6 , December 2020 , pp. 790 - 796
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of Canada

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: Therese M. Poland

References

Chiu, C.C., Keeling, C.I., and Bohlmann, J. 2017. Toxicity of pine monoterpenes to mountain pine beetle. Scientific Reports, 7: 8858. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08983-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiansen, E., Waring, R.H., and Berryman, A.A. 1987. Resistance of conifers to bark beetle attack: searching for general relationships. Forest Ecology and Management, 22: 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colorado State Forest Service. 2017. 2017 Report on the health of Colorado’s forests: Meeting the challenge of dead and at-risk trees. Available from https://csfs.colostate.edu/media/sites/22/2018/01/2017_ForestHealthReport_FINAL.pdf [accessed 16 June 2020].Google Scholar
Cook, S.P. and Hain, F.P. 1988. Toxicity of host monoterpenes to Dendroctonus frontalis and Ips calligraphus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Entomological Science, 23: 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, T.S., Horne, F.B., Yetter, J.C., and Stewart, J.E. 2018. Engelmann spruce chemotypes in Colorado and their effects on symbiotic fungi associated with the North American Spruce Beetle. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 44: 601–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, T.S., Stewart, J.E., Mann, A., Bradley, C., and Hofstetter, R.W. 2019. Evidence for multiple ecological roles of Leptographium abietinum, a symbiotic fungus associated with the North American spruce beetle. Fungal Ecology, 38: 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, J.R., Bekker, M.F., and Long, J.N. 2017. Traumatic resin ducts as indicators of bark beetle outbreaks. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 47: 1168–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eidson, E.L., Mock, K.E., and Bentz, B.J. 2017. Low offspring survival in mountain pine beetle infesting the resistant Great Basin bristlecone pine supports the preference-performance hypothesis. PLOS One, 13: e0196732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fettig, C.J., Klepzig, K.D., Billings, R.F., Munson, S.A., Nebeker, T.E., Negrón, J.F., and Nowak, J.T. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 238: 24–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschi, V.R., Krokene, P., Christiansen, E., and Krekling, T. 2005. Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytologist, 167: 353–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammer, A.J., Bowser, N.W., Snyder, A.I., Synder, Z.N., Archila, F.L., and Snyder, M.A. 2020. Longitudinal study of Caribbean pine elucidates the role of 4-allylanisole in patterns of chemical resistance to bark beetle attack. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 36: 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, E.M. and Bentz, B.J. 2003. Comparison of reproductive capacity among univoltine, semivoltine, and re-emerged parent spruce beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). The Canadian Entomologist, 135: 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, S.J., Veblen, T.T., Eisenhart, K.S., Jarvis, D., and Kulakowski, D. 2014. Drought induces spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) outbreaks across northwestern Colorado. Ecology, 95: 930–939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, M.J., Hebertson, E.G., and Munson, S.A. 2014. Spruce beetle biology, ecology and management in the Rocky Mountains: An addendum to spruce beetle in the Rockies. Forests, 5: 21–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, T., Keefover-Ring, K., Burr, S.J., Hofstetter, R.W., Gaylord, M., and Raffa, K.F. 2019. Drought-mediated changes in tree physiological processes weaken tree defenses to bark beetle attack. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 45: 888–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieutier, F. 2002. Host resistance to bark beetles and its variations. In Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe: a synthesis. Edited by Lieutier, F., Day, K.R., Battisti, A., Grégoire, J.-C., and Evans, H.F.. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Pp. 135–180.Google Scholar
Lindgren, B.S. 1983. A multiple funnel trap for collecting scolytid beetles (Coleoptera). The Canadian Entomologist, 115: 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, C.G. and Reid, M.L. 2013. Sub-lethal effects of monoterpenes on reproduction by mountain pine beetles. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 15: 262–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, M.A. and Croteau, R.B. 1999. Resin-based defenses in conifers. Trends in Plant Science, 4: 184–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Raffa, K.F. and Berryman, A.A. 1983. The role of host plant resistance in the colonization behavior and ecology of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ecological Monographs, 53: 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffa, K.F. and Smalley, E.B. 1995. Interaction of pre-attack and induced monoterpene concentrations in host conifer defense against bark beetle fungal complexes. Oecologia, 102: 285–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, M.L., Sekhon, J.K., and LaFramboise, L.M. 2017. Toxicity of monoterpene structure, diversity, and concentration to mountain pine beetles, Dendroctonus ponderosae: Beetle traits matter more. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 43: 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocca, M.E. and Romme, W.H. 2009. Beetle-infested forests are not “destroyed”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7: 71–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, M., Hussain, A., Cale, J.A., and Erbilgin, N. 2018. Successful colonization of lodgepole pine trees by mountain pine beetle increased monoterpene production and exhausted carbohydrate reserves. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 44: 209–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seybold, S.J., Huber, D.P.W., Lee, J.C., Graves, A.D., and Bohlmann, J. 2006. Pine monoterpenes and pine bark beetle: a marriage of convenience for defense and chemical communication. Phytochemical Reviews, 5: 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Six, D.L. 2020. Niche construction theory can link bark beetle-fungus symbiosis type and colonization behavior to large scale causal chain-effects. Current Opinion in Insect Science, 39: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R.H. 1963. Toxicity of pine resin vapors to three species of Dendroctonus bark beetles. Journal of Economic Entomology, 56: 827–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.H. 1964. Effect of monoterpene vapors on the western pine beetle. Journal of Economic Entomology, 58: 509–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.H. 2000. Xylem monoterpenes of pines: Distribution, variation, genetics, function. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-177. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Albany, California. 454 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallin, K.F., Kolb, T.E., Skov, K.R., and Wagner, M. 2008. Forest management treatments, tree resistance, and bark beetle resource utilization in ponderosa pine forests of northern Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management, 255: 3263–3269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar