4.6 Article

Complex interactions among host pines and fungi vectored by an invasive bark beetle

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 187, Issue 3, Pages 859-866

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03316.x

Keywords

bark beetle-fungi-host interactions; chemical ecology; complex interactions; invasive species; invasive symbiotic complex

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30525009, 30621003]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2009CB119204]
  3. TPCP (Tree Protection Co-operation Programme)
  4. USDA Forest Service, Western Wildlands Environmental Threats Assessment Center (Prineville, Oregon, USA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Recent studies have investigated the relationships between pairs or groups of exotic species to illustrate invasive mechanisms, but most have focused on interactions at a single trophic level. Here, we conducted pathogenicity tests, analyses of host volatiles and fungal growth tests to elucidate an intricate network of interactions between the host tree, the invasive red turpentine beetle and its fungal associates. Seedlings inoculated with two strains of Leptographium procerum isolated from Dendroctonus valens in China had significantly longer lesions and higher mortality rates than seedlings inoculated with other fungal isolates. These two strains of L. procerum were significantly more tolerant of 3-carene than all other fungi isolated there, and the infection of Chinese pine (Pinus tabuliformis) seedlings by these two strains enhanced the production and release of 3-carene, the main attractant for D. valens, by the seedlings. Our results raise the possibility that interactions among the fungal associates of D. valens and their pine hosts in China may confer advantages to these strains of L. procerum and, by extension, to the beetles themselves. These interactions may therefore enhance invasion by the beetle-fungal complex.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available