4.1 Article

Effects of various densities of Ophiostoma ips inoculations on Pinus sylvestris in north-western Spain

Journal

FOREST PATHOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 213-223

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0329.2004.00360.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim was to determine the inoculation density above which Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) is overcome by the blue-stain fungus Ophiostoma ips that is associated with the bark beetle Ips sexdentatus. In north-western Spain, stems of 16 Scots pines were inoculated at various densities (0, 400, 800 or 1600 inoculi/m(2)) along circumferential 100 or 150 cm wide inoculation belts. Each inoculum consisted of a 5 mm diameter cylinder of malt extract agar colonized by the fungus. Three months later, all trees ere harvested and trunk resinosis and foliage colour were visually assessed. The percentage of healthy, desiccated, resin soaked, and blue-stained sapwood, as well as growth productivity indices, were calculated from stem disks cut from within the inoculated zone of each tree. Sad-specific hydraulic conductivity (Ks) of each tree was measured in the middle of the inoculated zone. All parameters of tree vigour changed dramatically to the worse when inoculation densities were above 400 inoculi/m(2), and foliage changed from green to yellow-green or yellow when an inoculation density of 800 instead of 400 was used. The percentage loss of sapwood-specific conductivity (PLC) increased from 30 to 90% and the percentage of healthy, conductive sapwood dropped from 85 to 35% at 800 inoculi/m(2). No effect of the width of the inoculation belt was observed, and there was no relationship between tree productivity indices and the level of resistance. A non-linear negative relationship was found between PLC and the percentage of healthy sapwood. It is concluded that tree resistance was overcome and that trees were going to die when the inoculation density was >800 inoculi/m(2).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available