Variation in carbon availability, defense chemistry and susceptibility to fungal invasion along the stems of mature trees

New Phytologist

Volumn 197, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 586-594

  Goodsman, Devin W ^a   Lusebrink, Inka ^b   Landhäusser, Simon M ^a   Erbilgin, Nadir ^a   Lieffers, Victor J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Beetle; Carbohydrate; Defense; Insect; Sink; Source

Indexed keywords

CARBON; STARCH; TERPENE;

BEETLE; CARBON SINK; CONIFEROUS TREE; FUNGUS; INFECTIOUS DISEASE; LESION; MOBILIZATION; PHLOEM; RESIN; STEM;

ARTICLE; ASCOMYCETES; CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM; IMMUNOLOGY; METABOLISM; MICROBIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PINE; PLANT STEM; SEASON; SOLUBILITY; TREE;

ASCOMYCOTA; CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM; CARBON; MONOTERPENES; PINUS; PLANT STEMS; SEASONS; SOLUBILITY; STARCH; TREES;

COLEOPTERA; FUNGI; HEXAPODA; PINUS CONTORTA;

EID: 84871343427     PISSN: 0028646X     EISSN: 14698137     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/nph.12019     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bonello P, Blodgett JJ. 2003. Pinus nigra-Sphaeropsis sapinea as a model pathosystem to investigate local and systemic effects of fungal infection of pines. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 63: 249-261.
2. Bonello P, Gordon TR, Herms DA, Wood DL, Erbilgin N. 2006. Nature and ecological implications of pathogen-induced systemic resistance in conifers: a novel hypothesis. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 68: 95-104.
3. Canty A, Ripley B. 2012. Boot: bootstrapping. R package version 1.3-4.
4. Chantuma P, Lacointe A, Kasemsap P, Thanisawanyangkura S, Gohet E, Clément A, Guillot A, Améglio T, Thaler P. 2009. Carbohydrate storage in wood and bark of rubber trees submitted to different level of C demand induced by latex tapping. Tree Physiology 29: 1021-1031.
5. Chapin FS III, Schulze ED, Mooney HA. 1990. The ecology and economics of storage in plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21: 423-427.
6. Chappell J. 2002. The genetics and molecular genetics of terpene and sterol origami. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 5: 151-157.
7. Chow PS, Landhäusser SM. 2004. A method for routine measurements of total sugar and starch content in woody plant tissues. Tree Physiology 24: 1129-1136.
8. Christiansen E, Waring RH, Berryman AA. 1987. Resistance of conifers to bark beetle attack: searching for general relationships. Forest Ecology and Management 22: 89-106.
9. Cole W, Amman G. 1983. Mounain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests part II: population dynamics. Ogden, UT, USA. United States Department of Agricutlture & Forest Service.
10. Cumming G, Finch S. 2005. Inference by eye - confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist 60: 170-180.
11. Franceschi VR, Krokene P, Christiansen E, Krekling T. 2005. Anatomical and chemical defenses in conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytologist 167: 353-375.
12. Goodsman DW, Lieffers VJ, Erbilgin N. 2012. The impact of phloem nutrients on overwintering mountain pine beetles and their fungal symbionts. Environmental Entomology 41: 478-486.
13. Goodsman DW, Lieffers VJ, Landhäusser SM, Erbilgin N. 2010. Fertilization of lodgepole pine trees increased diameter growth but reduced root carbohydrate concentrations. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 1914-1920.
14. 13C labeling approach with young Scots pines inoculated with a bark beetle-associated fungus (Ophiostomoa brunneo ciliatum). Annals of Forest Science 64: 601-608.
15. Hoch G, Richter A, Körner Ch. 2003. Non-structural carbon compounds in temperate forest trees. Plant, Cell and Environment 26: 1067-1081.
16. Honkanen T, Haukioja E. 1998. Intra-plant regulation of growth and plant-herbivore interactions. Écoscience 5: 470-479.
17. Honkanen T, Haukioja E, Kitunen V. 1999. Responses of Pinus sylvestis branches to simulated herbivory are modified by sink/source dynamics and by external resources. Functional Ecology 13: 126-140.
18. Jensen KH, Liesche J, Bohr T, Schulz A. 2012. Universality of phloem transport in seed plants. Plant, Cell and Environment 35: 1065-1076.
19. Keeling CI, Bohlmann J. 2006. Genes, enzymes and chemicals of terpenoid diversity in the constitutive and induced defence of conifers against insects and pathogens. New Phytologist 170: 657-675.
20. Kolb TE, Guérard N, Hofstetter RW, Wagner MR. 2006. Attack preference of Ips pini on Pinus ponderosa in northern Arizona: tree size and bole position. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 8: 295-303.
21. Krokene P, Nagy NE, Solheim H. 2008. Methyl jasmonate and oxalic acid treatment of Norway spruce: anatomically based defense responses and increased resistance against fungal infection. Tree Physiology 28: 29-35.
22. Landhäusser SM, Lieffers VJ. 2003. Seasonal changes in carbohydrate reserves in mature northern Populus tremuloides clones. Trees 17: 471-476.
23. Landhäusser SM, Lieffers VJ. 2012. Defoliation increases risk of carbon starvation in root systems of mature aspen. Trees 26: 653-661.
24. Lieutier F, Garcia J, Romary P, Yart A, Jactel H, Sauvard D. 1993. Inter-tree variability in the induced defense reaction of Scots pine to single inoculation by Ophiostoma bruenneo-ciliatum, a bark beetle associated fungus. Forest Ecology and Management 59: 257-270.
25. Lieutier F, Yart A, Salle A. 2009. Stimulation of tree defenses by Ophiostomoid fungi can explain attack success of bark beetles on conifers. Annals of Forest Science 66: 801p1-801p22.
26. McQueen JC, Minchin PEH, Thorpe MR, Silvester WB. 2005. Short-term storage of carbohydrate in stem tissue of apple (Malus domestica) a woody perennial: evidence for the involvement of the appoplast. Functional Plant Biology 32: 1027-1031.
27. Millard P, Sommerkorn M, Grelet G. 2007. Environmental change and carbon limitation in trees: a biochemical ecophysiological and system appraisal. New Phytologist 175: 11-28.
28. Minchin PEH, Lacointe A. 2005. New understanding on phloem physiology and possible consequences for modelling long-distance carbon transport. New Phytologist 166: 771-779.
29. Münch E. 1930. Die Stoffbewegungen in der Pflanze. Jena, Germany: Gustav, Fischer.
30. Pinheiro J, Bates D, Debroy S, Sarkar D, the R Core Team. 2011. Nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-102.
31. Pruyn ML, Gartner BL, Harmon ME. 2005. Storage versus substrate limitation to bole respiratory potential in two coniferous tree species of contrasting sapwood width. Journal of Experimental Botany 56: 2637-2649.
32. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
33. Raffa KF, Aukema BH, Erbilgin N, Klepzig KD, Wallin KF. 2005. Interactions among conifer terpenoids and bark beetles across multiple levels of scale: an attempt to understand links between population patterns and physiological processes. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 39: 80-118.
34. Safranyik L, Carroll A. 2006. The biology and epidemiology of Mountain Pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests. In: Safranyik L, Wilson B, eds. The Mountain Pine beetle: a synthesis of biology, management, and impacts on lodgepole pine. Pacific Forestry Centre: Victoria, BC, Canada, 3-66.
35. Sala A, Woodruff DR, Meinzer FC. 2012. Carbon dynamics in trees: feast or famine? Tree Physiology 32: 764-775.
36. Sevanto S, Vesala T, Peramaki M, Nikinmaa E. 2003. Sugar transport together with environmental conditions controls time lags between xylem and stem diameter changes. Plant Cell and Environment 8: 1257-1265.
37. Silpi U, Lacointe A, Kasempsap P, Thanysawanyangkura S, Chantuma P, Gohet E, Musigamart N, Clement A, Ameglio T, Thaler P. 2007. Carbohydrate reserves as a competing sink: evidence from tapping rubber trees. Tree Physiology 27: 881-889.
38. Six DL. 2003. A comparison of mycangial and phoretic fungi of individual mountain pine beetles. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 1331-1334.
39. Thompson MV. 2006. Phloem: the long and short of it. TRENDS in Plant Science 11: 26-32.
40. Vose JM, Ryan MG. 2002. Seasonal respiration of foliage, fine roots, and woody tissues in relation to growth, tissue N, and photosynthesis. Global Change Biology 8: 182-193.
41. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. 2009. Mixed effect models and extensions in ecology with R. New York, NY, USA: Springer.