4.7 Article

How differential management strategies affect Ips typographus L. dispersal

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 360, 期 -, 页码 195-204

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.10.037

关键词

Bark beetle outbreaks; Management strategies; Dispersal; Population genetics

类别

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund, FWF
  2. European Territorial Co-operation Austria-Czech Republic
  3. European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7 [KBBE 2009-3, 245268 ISEFOR]
  4. Czech Science Foundation [P504/10/0843]
  5. Forests of the Czech Republic, state enterprises
  6. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Austria
  7. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [I 2604, P 26749] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [I2604, P26749] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bark beetle outbreaks have a devastating effect on economically important forests worldwide, thus requiring extensive application of management control strategies. The presence of unmanaged protected areas in close proximity to managed forests can instigate concerns that bark beetle infestations may spread from unmanaged into managed stands. We studied the impact of differential management of forest stands on the dispersal dynamics of the European spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus, making use of inferential population genetics on mitochondrial and nuclear genomes. Bayesian inferences of migration rates and a most parsimonious dispersal tree show that outgoing gene flow was consistently higher from managed to unmanaged areas. Reason for that is likely the thorough removal of potential breeding material in managed forests and thus the dispersal of the base stock beetles from these areas to unmanaged areas where breeding material is available. Our study suggests that the potential threat posed by unmanaged to managed forests in regard to I. typographus infestation needs to be carefully re-considered. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据