Tree diversity limits the impact of an invasive forest pest

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 9, 2015, Pages

  Guyot, Virginie ^a,d   Castagneyro, Bastien ^c,d   Vialatte, Aude ^a,b   Deconchat, Marc ^a   Selvi, Federico ^e   Bussotti, Filippo ^e   Jactel, Hervé ^c,d  

^a UMR 1201 Dynafor   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^d UMR 1202 BIOGECO   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CASTANEA SATIVA; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYNIPIDAE; DEFOLIATION; FOREST PEST; HEIGHT; ITALY; MONOCULTURE; SPECIES RICHNESS; ANIMAL; BIODIVERSITY; FOREST; HERBIVORY; INSECT; INTRODUCED SPECIES; TREE;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; FORESTS; HERBIVORY; INSECTS; INTRODUCED SPECIES; ITALY; TREES;

EID: 84947607477     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136469     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Clavero M, García-Berthou E. Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2005; 20(3):110.
2. Asner GP, Hughes RF, Vitousek PM, Knapp DE, Kennedy-Bowdoin T, Boardman J, et al. Invasive plants transform the three-dimensional structure of rain forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008; 105(11):4519-4523.
3. Liebhold AM, McCullough DG, Blackburn LM, Frankel SJ, Von Holle B, Aukema JE, et al. A highly aggregated geographical distribution of forest pest invasions in the USA. Diversity Distrib. 2013; 19 (9):1208-1216.
4. Elton CS. The ecology of invasions by plants and animals. London: Methuen; 1958.
5. Davies KF, Chesson P, Harrison S, Inouye BD, Melbourne BA, Rice KJ. Spatial heterogeneity explains the scale dependence of the native-exotic diversity relationship. Ecology. 2005; 86(6):1602-1610.
6. Kennedy TA, Naeem S, Howe KM, Knops JM, Tilman D, Reich P.Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature. 2002; 417(6889):636-638. PMID: 12050662
7. Tilman D. Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: A stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2004; 101(30):10854-10861. PMID: 15243158
8. Richardson DM, Holmes PM, Esler KJ, Galatowitsch SM, Stromberg JC, Kirkman SP, et al. Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects. Diversity Distrib. 2007; 13 (1):126-139.
9. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 2012; 486(7401):59-67. doi: 10.1038/nature11148 PMID: 22678280
10. Wilsey BJ, Polley HW. Reductions in grassland species evenness increase dicot seedling invasion and spittle bug infestation. Ecol Lett. 2002; 5(5):676-684.
11. Rigot T, van Halder I, Jactel H. Landscape diversity slows the spread of an invasive forest pest species. Ecography. 2014; 37(7):1-11.
12. Barbosa P, Hines J, Kaplan I, Martinson H, Szczepaniec A, Szendrei Z. Associational resistance and associational susceptibility: having right or wrong neighbors. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2009; 40:1-20.
13. Iverson AL, Marín LE, Ennis KK, Gonthier DJ, Connor-Barrie BT, Remfert JL, et al. Do polycultures promote win-wins or trade-offs in agricultural ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol. 2014; 51 (6):1593-1602.
14. Jactel H, Brockerhoff EG. Tree diversity reduces herbivory by forest insects. Ecol Lett. 2007; 10 (9):835-848. PMID: 17663717
15. Vehvilainen H, Koricheva J, Ruohomäki K. Tree species diversity influences herbivore abundance and damage: meta-analysis of long-term forest experiments. Oecologia. 2007; 152(2):287-298. PMID: 17356813
16. Castagneyrol B, Jactel H, Vacher C, Brockerhoff EG, Koricheva J. Effects of plant phylogenetic diversity on herbivory depend on herbivore specialization. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2014; 51(1):134-141.
17. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol. 2000; 88(3):528-534.
18. Hambäck PA, Inouye BD, Andersson P, Underwood N. Effects of plant neighborhoods on plant-herbivore interactions: resource dilution and associational effects. Ecology.2014; 95(5):1370-1383. PMID: 25000768
19. Underwood N, Inouye BD, Hambäck PA. A conceptual framework for associational effects: when do neighbors matter and how would we know? The Quarterly review of biology. 2014; 89(1):1-19. PMID: 24672901
20. Root RB. Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of col-lards (Brassica oleracea). Ecological monographs. 1973; 43(1):95-124.
21. Tahvanainen JO, Root RB. The influence of vegetational diversity on the population ecology of a specialized herbivore, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Oecologia. 1972; 10(4):321-346.
22. Jactel H, Brockerhoff E, Duelli P. A test of the biodiversity-stability theory: meta-analysis of tree species diversity effects on insect pest infestations, and re-examination of responsible factors. In:Forest Diversity and Function. Springer; 2005. pp. 235-262.
23. Keane RM, Crawley MJ. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2002; 17(4):164-170.
24. Mitchell CE, Power AG. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature. 2003; 421 (6923):625-627. PMID: 12571594
25. DeWalt SJ, Denslow JS, Ickes K. Natural-enemy release facilitates habitat expansion of the invasive tropical shrub Clidemiahirta. Ecology. 2004; 85(2):471-483.
26. Russell EP. Enemies hypothesis: a review of the effect of vegetational diversity on predatory insects and parasitoids. Environmental entomology. 1989; 18(4):590-599.
27. Scherber C, Eisenhauer N, Weisser WW, Schmid B, Voigt W, Fischer M, et al.Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature. 2010; 468(7323):553-556. doi: 10.1038/nature09492 PMID: 20981010
28. Castagneyrol B, Jactel H. Unraveling plant-animal diversity relationships: a meta-regression analysis. Ecology. 2012; 93(9):2115-2124. PMID: 23094383
29. Shea K, Chesson P. Community ecology theory as aframeworkfor biological invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2002; 17(4):170-176.
30. White JA, Whitham TG. Associational susceptibility of cottonwood to a box elder herbivore. Ecology. 2000; 81(7):1795-1803.
31. Pearse IS, Hipp AL. Native plant diversity increases herbivoryto non-natives. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2014; 281(1794):20141841. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1841 PMID: 25232143
32. Jactel H, Menassieu P, Vetillard F, Gaulier A, Samalens JC, Brockerhoff EG. Tree species diversity reduces the invasibility of maritime pine stands by the bast scale, Matsucoccus feytaudi (Homoptera: Margarodidae). Can. J. For. Res. 2006; 36(2):314-323.
33. Thompson JN. The evolution of species interactions. Science. 1999; 284(5423):2116-2118. PMID: 10381869
34. Moriya S, Shiga M, Adachi I. Classical biological control of the chestnut gall wasp in Japan. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on biological control of arthropods, Honolulu, Hawaii. 2003. pp. 14-18.
35. Quacchia A, Moriya S, Bosio G, Scapin I, Alma A. Rearing, release and settlement prospect in Italy of Torymus sinensis, the biological control agent of the chestnut gall wasp Dryocosmus kuriphilus. Bio-Control. 2008; 53(6):829-839.
36. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. First Report of Dryocosmus kuriphilus in Austria (2013/141); First Report of Dryocosmus kuriphilus in Germany (2013/142); Dryocosmus kuri-philus found in Hungary (2013/143); 2013. http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOReporting/2013/Rse-1307.pdf Accessed 23 September 2013.
37. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Dryocosmus kuriphilus. EPPO Bulletin. 2005; 35:422-424. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2338.2005.00849.x
38. Maltoni A, Mariotti B, Tani A. Case study of a new method for the classification and analysis of Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu damage to young chestnut sprouts. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry. 2012; 5(2):50.
39. Battisti A, Benvegnù I, Colombari F, Haack RA. Invasion by the chestnut gall wasp in Italy causes significant yield loss in Castanea sativa nut production. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 2014; 16(1):75-79.
40. Prospero S, Forster B. Chestnut gall wasp (Dryocosmus kuriphilus) infestations: new opportunities for the chestnut blight fungus Cryphonectria parasitica. New Disease Reports. 2011; 23(35):2044-0588.
41. Cooper WR, Rieske LK. A native and an introduced parasitoid utilize an exotic gall-maker host. BioCon-trol.2011; 56(5):725-734.
42. Aebi A, Schönrogge K, Melika G, Alma A, Bosio G, Quacchia A, et al. Parasitoid recruitmentto the globally invasive chestnut gall wasp Dryocosmus kuriphilus. In: Ozaki K, Yukawa J, Ohgushi T, Price P (eds) Galling arthropods and their associates. Springer Japan. 2006. pp. 103-121.
43. Aebi A, Schönrogge K, Melika G, Quacchia A, Alma A, Stone GN. Native and introduced parasitoids attacking the invasive chestnut gall wasp Dryocosmus kuriphilus. EPPO Bulletin. 2007; 37(1):166-171.
44. Santi F, Maini S. New association between Dryocosmus kuriphilus and Torymus flavipes in chestnut trees in the Bologna area (Italy): first results. Bulletin of Insectology. 2011; 64(2):275-278.
45. Panzavolta T, Bernardo U, Bracalini M, Cascone P, Croci F, Gebiola M, et al. Native parasitoids associated with Dryocosmus kuriphilus in Tuscany, Italy. Bulletin of Insectology. 2013; 66(2): 195-201.
46. Quacchia A, Ferracini C, Nicholls JA, Piazza E, Saladini MA, FedericaTota, et al. Chalcid parasitoid community associated with the invading pest Dryocosmus kuriphilus in north-western Italy. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2013; 6(2):114-123.
47. Acs Z, Melika G, Pénzes Z, Pujade-Villar J, Stone GN. The phylogenetic relationships between Dryocosmus, Chilaspis and allied genera of oak gallwasps (Hymenoptera, Cynipidae: Cynipini). Systematic Entomology. 2007; 32(1):70-80.
48. Baeten L, Verheyen K, Wirth C, Bruelheide H, Bussotti F, Finér L, et al. A novel comparative research platform designed to determine the functional significance of tree species diversity in European forests. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 2013; 15(5):281-291.
49. Castagneyrol B, Giffard B, Péré C, Jactel H. Plant apparency, an overlooked driver of associational resistance to insect herbivory. J Ecol.2013; 101(2):418-429.
50. Eichhorn J, Roskams P, Ferretti M, Mues V, Szepesi A, Durrant D. Visual assessment of crown condition and damaging agents. 49 pp. Manual Part IV. Manual on methods and criteria for harmonized sampling, assessment, monitoring and analysis of the effects of air pollution on forests. UNECE ICP Forests Programme Co-ordinating Centre, Hamburg. 2010. http://www.icp-forests.org/Manual.htm
51. Clarke KR, Warwick RM. A taxonomic distinctness index and its statistical properties. Journal of Applied Ecology. 1998; 35(4):523-531.
52. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O'Hara RB, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.0-10. 2013.
53. ESRI. Using ArcGis for Desktop version 10: The geographic information system for everyone. Red-lands: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 2012.
54. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2010; 1(1):3-14.
55. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7.2014.
56. Graham MH. Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology. 2003; 84 (11):2809-2815.
57. Ray-Mukherjee J, Nimon K, Mukherjee S, Morris DW, Slotow R, Hamer M. Using commonality analysis in multiple regressions: a tool to decompose regression effects in the face of multicollinearity. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2014; 5(4):320-328.
58. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer; 2002.
59. Giraudoux P. pgirmess: Data analysis in ecology. R package version 1.5.9. 2014.
60. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. R software version 3.1.2. 2014.
61. Feeny P. Seasonal Changes in Oak Leaf Tannins and Nutrients as a Cause of Spring Feeding by Wintr Moth Caterpillars. Ecology. 1970; 51(4):565-581.
62. Endara MJ, Coley PD. The resource availability hypothesis revisited: a meta-analysis. Functional Ecology. 2011; 25(2):389-398.
63. Floater GJ, Zalucki MP. Habitat structure and egg distributions in the processionary caterpillar Ochro-gasterlunifer: lessons for conservation and pest management. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2000; 37 (1):87-99.
64. DulaurentA-M, Porté AJ, van Halder I, Vetillard F, Menassieu P, Jactel H. Hide and seek in forests: colonization by the pine processionary moth is impeded by the presence of nonhost trees. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 2012; 14(1):19-27.
65. Wood DL. The role of pheromones, kairomones, and allomones in the host selection and colonization behaviorof bark beetles. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1982; 27(1):411-446.
66. Zhang A, Linn C Jr, Wright S, Prokopy R, Reissig W, Roelofs W. Identification of a new blend of apple volatiles attractive to the apple maggot, Rhagoletispomonella. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 1999; 25 (6):1221-1232.
67. Tasin M, Bäckman AC, Bengtsson M, Ioriatti C, Witzgall P. Essential host plant cues in the grapevine moth. Naturwissenschaften. 2006; 93(3):141-144. PMID: 16450082
68. Borden JH, Chong LJ, Savoie A, Wilson IM. Responses to green leaf volatiles in two biogeoclimatic zones by striped ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron lineatum. J Chem Ecol. 1997; 23(11):2479-2491.
69. Byers JA, Zhang Q-H, Schlyter F, Birgersson G. Volatiles from nonhost birch trees inhibit pheromone response in spruce bark beetles. Naturwissenschaften. 1998; 85(11):557-561.
70. Huber D, Borden J. Angiosperm bark volatiles disrupt response of douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae, to attractant-baited traps. J Chem Ecol. 2001; 27(2):217-233. PMID: 14768811
71. Zhang QH, Schlyter F. Olfactory recognition and behavioural avoidance of angiosperm nonhost volatiles by conifer-inhabiting bark beetles. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 2004; 6(1):1-20.
72. Jactel H, Birgersson G, Andersson S, Schlyter F. Non-host volatiles mediate associational resistance to the pine processionary moth. Oecologia. 2011; 166(3):703-711. doi: 10.1007/s00442-011-1918-z PMID: 21311911
73. Aluja M, Prokopy RJ. Host odor and visual stimulus interaction during intratree host finding behaviorof Rhagoletis pomonella flies. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 1993; 19(11):2671-2696. doi: 10.1007/BF00980700 PMID: 24248720
74. Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ. Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol Lett. 2004; 7(8):721-733.
75. Maron JL, Vilá M. When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence forthe natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos. 2001; 95(3):361-373.
76. Cooper WR, Rieske LK. Community associates of an exotic gallmaker, Dryocosmus kuriphilus (Hyme-noptera: Cynipidae), in eastern North America. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 2007; 100(2):236-244.
77. Andow DA. Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1991; 36 (1):561-586.
78. Gibbs M, Schönrogge K, Alma A, Melika G, Quacchia A, Stone GN, et al.Torymus sinensis: a viable management option for the biological control of Dryocosmus kuriphilus in Europe? BioControl. 2011; 56(4):527-538.
79. Schuldt A, Assmann T, Bruelheide H, Durka W, Eichenberg D, Härdtle W, et al. Functional andphylo-genetic diversity of woody plants drive herbivory in a highly diverse forest. New Phytologist. 2014; 202 (3):864-873. doi: 10.1111/nph.12695 PMID: 24460549
80. Fridley JD, Stachowicz JJ, Naeem S, Sax DF, Seabloom EW, Smith MD, et al. The invasion paradox: Reconciling patern and process in species invasions. Ecology. 2007; 88(1):3-17. PMID: 17489447
81. Whittaker RJ, Willis KJ, Field R. Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography. 2001; 28(4):453-470.