DOCSLIB.ORG

Creating a Somatic Embryogenic System to Study Resistance Traits to the White Pine Weevil (Pissodes Strobi Peck.) in Sitka Spruce (Picea Sitchensis (Bong.) Carr)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Creating a Somatic Embryogenic System to Study Resistance Traits to the White Pine Weevil (Pissodes Strobi Peck.) in Sitka Spruce (Picea Sitchensis (Bong.) Carr) Creating a somatic embryogenic system to study resistance traits to the white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi Peck.) in Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr). by Natalie Annastasia Prior B.Sc., University of Victoria, 2008 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in the Department of Biology Natalie Annastasia Prior, 2010 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Supervisory Committee Creating a somatic embryogenic system to study resistance traits to the white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi Peck.) in Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr). by Natalie Annastasia Prior B.Sc., University of Victoria, 2008 Supervisory Committee Dr. Patrick von Aderkas, (Department of Biology) Supervisor Dr. Barbara Hawkins, (Department of Biology) Departmental Member Dr. Jürgen Ehlting, (Department of Biology) Departmental Member iii Abstract Supervisory Committee Dr. Patrick von Aderkas, (Department of Biology) Supervisor Dr. Barbara Hawkins, (Department of Biology) Departmental Member Dr. Jürgen Ehlting, (Department of Biology) Departmental Member A somatic embryogenic system was created using material from the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range’s Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr) breeding program for resistance to the white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi Peck.). The goal was to provide a system that could aid in understanding the phenotypic and genotypic variation that exists in these traits. Embryogenic lines were derived from controlled crosses of parental genotypes previously ranked for the abundance of three physical bark traits: sclereid cells, constitutive resin canals and traumatic resin canals. The number of filled seeds per cone from controlled pollinations was low, with a mean of 9.4 ± 6.8 (mean ± SD), compared to open-pollinated material, which had greater than 40 seeds per cone. The mean induction rate (to embryogenic cultures) was 7 %, ranging from 0 % to 56 % by cross. Of 135 genotypes, 88.1 % produced mature embryos. The number of embryos produced varied by culture. Nearly all (44 of 45) genotypes germinated, with a mean germination rate of 80 %. The overall conversion rate of somatic embryos to plants was 5.5 %. A novel method of cryopreservation that used a temperature pretreatment but did not require dimethyl sulfoxide was tested. Embryogenic cultures were recovered from 31 % of genotypes (n = 112). Genotypic and phenotypic variation were observed during each stage of the somatic embryogenic process. This project demonstrated that somatic embryogenesis and cryopreservation can be used to create a system to study phenotypic and genotypic variation in Sitka spruce. iv Table of Contents Supervisory Committee.......................................................................................................ii Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................iv List of Tables......................................................................................................................vi List of Figures ...................................................................................................................vii List of Abbreviations..........................................................................................................ix Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................................x Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................1 Weevils and Resistance ...............................................................................................2 Tree Breeding for Weevil-Resistance .........................................................................5 Somatic Embryogenesis and Tree Breeding ...............................................................8 Introduction to Phenotypic Variation ........................................................................10 Causes of Phenotypic Variation ................................................................................12 Phenotypic Variation in Conifers ..............................................................................16 Project Aim................................................................................................................22 Chapter 2: Creating a Somatic Embryogenic System ......................................................23 Introduction ...................................................................................................................23 Methods and Materials ..................................................................................................26 Breeding ....................................................................................................................26 Induction....................................................................................................................27 Maturation .................................................................................................................28 Germination...............................................................................................................29 Acclimatization .........................................................................................................30 Growth.......................................................................................................................31 Cryopreservation .......................................................................................................32 Histology ...................................................................................................................33 Statistical Methods ....................................................................................................35 Results ...........................................................................................................................36 Breeding and Induction .............................................................................................36 Maturation .................................................................................................................52 Germination...............................................................................................................58 Acclimatization and Growth .....................................................................................63 Cryopreservation .......................................................................................................68 Developmental Series................................................................................................76 Discussion .....................................................................................................................86 Phenotypic and Genotypic Variation ........................................................................86 Breeding ....................................................................................................................89 Induction....................................................................................................................92 Maturation .................................................................................................................96 Germination.............................................................................................................100 Growth.....................................................................................................................102 Cryopreservation .....................................................................................................104 v Development ...........................................................................................................106 Conclusions .................................................................................................................108 Chapter 3: Perspectives ..................................................................................................110 Literature Cited................................................................................................................113 Appendix .........................................................................................................................126 vi List of Tables Table 1. Number of filled seeds per cone for controlled-pollinations of Sitka spruce.....37 Table 2. Number of seeds collected per cone for open-pollinated Sitka spruce...............40 Table 3. Induction rates for somatic embryogenic cultures from Sitka spruce................42 Table 4. Responses of individual genotypes to maturation treatment..............................53 Table 5. Observed responses of genotypes (n=112) to 5°C pretreatment and their survival responses to cryopreservation...............................................................74 vii List of Figures Figures 1 - 4. Responses of Sitka spruce genotypes to induction treatment............. 48 Figure 1. Successfully induced zygotic embryo explant with translucent aggregations of immature somatic embryos............................................ 48 Figure 2. Non-embryogenic green callus...............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alabama Forestry Invitational State Manual & Study Guide
    Alabama Forestry Invitational State Manual & Study Guide The Alabama Cooperative Extension System (Alabama A&M University and Auburn University) is an equal opportunity educator and employer. Everyone is welcome! Please let us know if you have accessibility needs. © 2020 by the Alabama Cooperative Extension System. All rights reserved. www.aces.edu 4HYD-2426 Alabama Cooperative Extension System Mission Statement The Alabama Cooperative Extension System, the primary outreach organization for the land grant mission of Alabama A&M University and Auburn University, delivers research-based educational programs that enable people to improve their quality of life and economic well-being. ALABAMA 4-H VISION Alabama 4-H is an innovative, responsive leader in developing youth to be productive citizens and leaders in a complex and dynamic society. Our vision is supported through the collaborative, committed efforts of Extension professionals, youth, and volunteers. ALABAMA 4-H MISSION 4-H is the youth development component of the Alabama Cooperative Extension System. 4-H helps young people from rural and urban areas explore their interests and expand their awareness of our world while providing opportunities to develop a greater sense of who they are and who they can become–as contributing citizens of our communities, our state, our nation, and our world. This mission is achieved through research-based educational programs of Alabama A&M and Auburn Universities and an ongoing tradition of applied, hands-on/minds-on experiences, which develop the heads, hearts, hands, and health of Alabama youth. 4-H is a community of young people across Alabama who are learning leadership, citizenship, and life skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of White Pine Weevil in Spruce by Robert C
    CIS 1133 Management of White Pine Weevil in Spruce by Robert C. Wilson and Edward J. Bechinski INTRODUCTION The white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi, is a native North American insect that poses a serious threat to spruce and pine trees transcontinentally across the northern regions of the U.S. and adjoining Canada. It infests and kills the main shoot (terminal leader) of young trees (Fig. 1), causing formation of multiple trunks and bushy-topped trees. The weevil is of major concern to commercial nurseries and landscape businesses as well as homeowners. It causes significant damage to the aesthetic and structural qualities of landscape trees and economic damage through loss of growth and marketability. White pine weevil also infests both natural and managed forest stands. This publication focuses on weevil management in commercial nurseries and home landscapes. HOST RANGE Pissodes strobi was named the white pine weevil because it first was found on eastern white pine. In the West the insect sometimes is called the spruce weevil because it almost exclusively attacks spruce rather than pine trees. It does not attack western white pine, our Idaho state tree, but readily infests native and non-native spruces. Colorado spruce, Norway spruce, Sitka spruce, Engelmann spruce, and Serbian spruce are preferred hosts, though it has been recorded rarely in certain pine species as well as Douglas fir. Some Figure 1. Top kill in Colorado blue spruce is caused by white spruces—like Lutz spruce (a natural hybrid of Sitka and pine weevil after it infests and kills a spruce tree’s main white spruce)—seem to have an innate resistance to the shoot.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Section 1 Eastern White Pine (Pinus
    SECTION 1 EASTERN WHITE PINE (PINUS STROBUS L.) 1. General Information This consensus document addresses the biology of Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus L.), referred to hereafter simply as Eastern White Pine (pin blanc in French Canada). Eastern White Pine is one of the most valuable tree species in eastern North America where its easily machined, uniform-textured wood is unsurpassed for doors, windows, panelling, mouldings and cabinet work (Mullins and McKnight, 1981; Farrar, 1995). The species played a major role in the settlement and economic development of New England and the Atlantic Provinces as England reserved all large Eastern White Pine suitable for masts under the "Broad Arrow" policy, starting in the late 1600's (Johnson, 1986). Eastern White Pine also responds well to nursery culture and is commonly used for reforestation, urban forestry and Christmas tree plantations. The general biology of Eastern White Pine is described in the context of the species’ role in natural forests and its domestication in planted stands. Taxonomic and evolutionary relationships with other Pinus species are described. Reproductive biology is described with a focus on aspects of mating system, gene flow, seed production and natural stand establishment. The current knowledge of genetic variation within the species is reviewed, highlighting the importance of geographic variation patterns and the potential for improvement by means of recurrent selection breeding strategies. The tremendous biological diversity and the complexity of ecological interactions with higher and lower flora and fauna are discussed. While Eastern White Pine has been commonly planted within its natural range, the extent of reforestation has been limited by susceptibility to white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi) and blister rust (Cronartium ribicola).
    [Show full text]
  • White Pine Weevil Fact Sheet No
    White PIne Weevil Fact Sheet No. 5.606 Insect Series|Trees and Shrubs by W. Cranshaw The white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi) appearance with multiple leaders. Presently, Quick Facts produces a conspicuous injury to the injury by white pine weevil is almost entirely terminal growth of spruce trees. In late limited to higher elevation areas of the state • Injury by white pine weevil spring, new growth wilts and dies back. The and foothills, although significant problems is almost entirely limited to affected terminals wilt into a ‘shepherd’s do extend into Colorado Springs. higher elevation areas of the crook’ form and the needles often become state and foothill areas. lighter colored before they ultimately die and drop. Because of this injury, affected trees Life History and Habits • The standard approach to have stunted growth and develop a bushy White pine weevil spends the winter in manage white pine weevil is the adult stage, under dropped needles and to spray insecticides in spring. other sheltering debris, usually very close to • A closely related species, previously infested trees. In spring, the adults Pissodes terminalis, causes crawl to trees, although some may fly when temperatures exceed 70 degrees F. Mating similar injury to lodgepole occurs on the bark of the tree. There is a pine in Colorado. This period of feeding on the bark of the terminal insect is sometimes called branches. Feeding wounds are often marked the lodgepole pine terminal by a point of resin. weevil. To lay eggs, female weevils chew small pits in the bark, beginning just below the unemerged bud of the new terminal.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranch Erminal Terminal Weevils
    BRANCH & TERMINAL TERMINAL WEEVILS White pine weevil: Pissodes strobi (Peck) Lodgepole terminal weevil: Pissodes terminalis Hopping Hosts-- Pissodes strobi: Blue spruce, Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine. Pissodes terminalis: lodgepole pine Distribution-- Pissodes strobi: throughout range of hosts. Pissodes terminalis: range of hosts in Idaho and Montana. Damage-- They attack and kill or badly injure terminals on spruce and lodgepole pine reproduction from 1 to 30 feet in height. Leader mortality results in deformity of the main stem or the production of multiple leaders. Lodgepole terminal weevil kills down to the first whorl but the white pine weevil will kill two years’ growth (fig. 154). Identification-- Overwintering is accomplished as adults or larvae. Adults complete development or become active and lay eggs in the latter part of June. Adults of both species are typical weevils with long, curved beaks (fig. 155). They are about one-fourth of an inch long and have rough wing covers adorned with red-brown and patches of lighter brown or gray scales. Feeding punctures and Figure 154. White pine weevil damage egg niches are made in the bark of terminal in Engelmann spruce. shoots. Newly hatched larvae initially feed in the terminal just under the bark. Leaders and terminals will begin to droop following girdling (figs. 154, 157), then die and turn gray or brown (fig. 156). Later, they bore into pith where they remain throughout the larval period (fig. 159). Look for oval pupal cells or “chip cocoons” of P. strobi under bark of spruce terminals in August (fig. 158). Figure 155. White pine weevil adults near exit holes in an Engelmann spruce terminal.
    [Show full text]
  • Pissodes Strobi
    EPPO quarantine pest Prepared by CABI and EPPO for the EU under Contract 90/399003 Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests Pissodes strobi IDENTITY Name: Pissodes strobi (Peck) Synonyms: Pissodes sitchensis Hopkins Pissodes engelmanni Hopkins Taxonomic position: Insecta: Coleoptera: Curculionidae Common names: White pine weevil, Sitka spruce weevil (English) Charançon du pin blanc, charançon de l'épinette de sitka (French/Canadian) Weymouthskiefern-Rüsselkäfer, Sitkafichtenrüssler (German) Gorgojo del pino de Weymouth (Spanish) Pissode del pino Weymouth (Italian) Bayer computer code: PISOST EPPO A1 list: No. 257 EU Annex designation: II/A1 - as Pissodes spp. (non-European) HOSTS P. strobi is confined to coniferous trees. It mainly attacks Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) along the Pacific coast of North America and eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) in eastern Canada and northeastern USA. Other important hosts are Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), white spruce (P. glauca) and Norway spruce (P. abies), a European species widely planted in Canada. Hamel et al. (1994) found that adult P. strobi in Quebec preferred P. abies for oviposition to the native species P. glauca or Pinus strobus. In Vancouver Island, the European Picea omorika proved as susceptible to P. strobi as P. sitchensis (Hulme & Dawson, 1992). Other recorded hosts are black spruce (Picea mariana), blue spruce (P. pungens), red spruce (P. rubens), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), lodgepole pine (P. contorta), table-mountain pine (P. pungens), red pine (P. resinosa), pitch pine (P. rigida), the introduced European Scots pine (P. sylvestris) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). A comprehensive list of host plants of North American Pissodes spp. can be found in Smith & Sugden (1969).
    [Show full text]
  • Using IPM Techniques for Control of White Pine Weevil Nipping The
    Nipping the Problem in the Bud! UsingUsing IPMIPM TechniquesTechniques forfor ControlControl ofof WhiteWhite PinePine WeevilWeevil Carleo, J.1, R. Cowles2, B. Oleksak3, P. Perdomo4, N. Polanin5, and M. Vodak6 Program Assistants of 1Atlantic and 3Sussex Counties, Agriculture and Resource Management Agents of 4Morris and 5Somerset Counties, 6Extension Specialist in Forestry, Rutgers Cooperative Research and Extension, 88 Lipman Drive, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8525 2Research Scientist, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor, CT 06095 Abstract Lifecycle Control A 2004 survey of New Jersey Christmas tree growers The white pine weevil adult is a rust-colored weevil For many years, lindane, an organochlorine insecticide, revealed an average yield loss of 10% to white pine about 4-6 mm long. Adults spend the winter in the leaf was the material of choice for controlling white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi. Since Lindane is no longer litter under or near host trees. On warm spring days weevils because of its long residual activity. Due to available, growers, landscapers and other sources they fly or crawl to the leaders of suitable hosts usually federal regulations, lindane is no longer available for have reported more damage from this pest than ever during the period from mid-March through April. Weevils purchase. As a result, replacement insecticides often before. White pine weevil (WPW) is known to emerge mate from mid-April through early May, and each female require multiple applications in early spring. Effective at 7 growing degree days (GDD50). Preliminary data deposits one to five eggs in feeding wounds. Hundreds management is often inconsistent and expensive, due from 2005 indicate that although WPW activity of eggs may be deposited in one terminal leader.
    [Show full text]
  • 136 Section 5 Sitka Spruce (Picea Sitchensis (Bong
    SECTION 5 SITKA SPRUCE (PICEA SITCHENSIS (BONG.) CARR.) 1. General Information This consensus document addresses the biology of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.). Sitka spruce is an ecologically important species of the north temperate coastal rain forest of western North America. It is a valuable species for both pulp and lumber. Its wood offers unique qualities for manufacture of the highest quality sounding boards and tops for many musical instruments. As well, an outstanding strength-to-weight ratio made Sitka spruce strategically important during both World Wars for construction of aircraft (Brazier, 1987). While its natural range is not extensive and the species' economic importance ranks far below that of other western conifers, it is a keystone species in some of the most productive ecosystems of North America, particularly in the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia (Peterson et al., 1997). Outside its natural range, Sitka spruce has played an important role in plantation forestry, particularly in Northern Europe (Hermann, 1987). In Great Britain, the species now accounts for almost 70% of the annual conifer planting stock (Malcolm, 1997) and plantations cover over 20% of the forest/woodland area (Cannell and Milne, 1995). Sitka spruce is also a primary plantation species in Brittany, where productivity of stands is similar to that in Britain (Vaudelet, 1982; Serrière-Chadoeuf, 1986; Guyon, 1995). The general biology of Sitka spruce is described in the context of the species' role in natural forests and its domestication in planted stands. Taxonomic and evolutionary relationships with other Picea species are described. Reproductive biology is described with a focus on aspects of mating system, gene flow, seed production and natural stand establishment.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science
    Three Pine Weevils New to Indiana^ Donald L. Schuder, Purdue University The pales weevil, Hylobius pales (Herbst)", and Pissodes affinis RandalP are serious pests of cutover pine land. The weevils are at- tracted by the odor of resin into areas where pine trees have been cut. They lay their eggs under the bark of recently cut stumps and weak trees where the larvae later develop (4). The adult weevils of both species feed on the bark of the trees. The external nibbling produces small round holes, usually in patches. These feeding areas often girdle small seedlings and lateral branches, which subsequently die. Damage is usually at its worst in early summer, although occasional seedlings may be killed throughout the entire growing season. The adults of both species are nocturnal. They normally feed at night or during cloudy weather. During the daytime the adults hide in the litter beneath the tree. Pales Weevil The pales weevil is an increasingly troublesome pest of pine plantings in southern Indiana. This robust weevil seems to prefer white pine, but red and scotch pines may also be severely damaged. All pine species can be attacked as well as fir, hemlock, spruce, cypress, juniper, arborvitae, birch and ash, according to Warner (6). The weevil is a dark reddish brown to black and marked irregularly with gray or yellowish hairs. It is about Vs to V2 inch long and has a prominent snout. The white eggs are laid at the base of stumps or seedlings. The grubs, which tunnel beneath the bark, are creamy white with brown heads.
    [Show full text]
  • NICHOLAS J. MILLS BIBLIOGRAPHY 2017 Hogg, B. N., Mills, N. J., And
    Nicholas J Mills Page 1 3/3/2017 NICHOLAS J. MILLS BIBLIOGRAPHY 2017 Hogg, B. N., Mills, N. J., and Daane, K. M. 2017. Temporal patterns in the abundance and species composition of spiders on host plants of the invasive moth Epiphyas postvittana. Environmental Entomology (in press) Heimpel, G. E., and Mills, N. J. 2017. Biological Control: Ecology and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Mace, K. C., and Mills, N. J. 2017. Connecting natural enemy metrics to biological control activity for aphids in California walnuts. Biological Control 106: 16-26. 2016 Andersen, J. C., and Mills, N. J. 2016. Geographic origins and post-introduction hybridization between strains of Trioxys pallidus introduced to western North America for the biological control of walnut and filbert aphids. Biological Control 103: 218-229. Hopper, J. V., and Mills, N. J. 2016. Novel multitrophic interactions among an exotic generalist herbivore, its host plants and resident enemies in California. Oecologia 182: 1117- 1128. Jones, V. P., Mills, N. J., Brunner, J. F., Horton, D. R., Beers, E. H., Unruh, T. R., Shearer, P. W., Goldberger, J. R., Castagnoli, S., Lehrer, N., Milickzy, E.,Steffan, S. A., Amarasekare, K. G., Chambers, U., Gadino, A. N., Gallardo, R. K., and Jones, W. E. 2016. From planning to execution to the future: An overview of a concerted effort to enhance biological control in apple, pear, and walnut orchards in the western U.S. Biological Control 102: 1-6. Amarasekare, K. G., Shearer, P. W., and Mills, N. J. 2016. Testing the selectivity of pesticide effects on natural enemies in laboratory bioassays.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting
    ECOLOGY AND METABOLIC ADAPTATIONS OF BARK BEETLE-ASSOCIATED FUNGI By YIN-TSE HUANG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2019 © 2019 Yin-Tse Huang To family and friends ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair Jiri Hulcr for guidance and support. I would also like to thank my committee members Jason Smith, Jeffrey Rollins, Matthew Smith, and Miroslav Kolařík for their time and feedback. My research work cannot be done without the help from my lab members: A. Simon Ernstsons, Allan Gonzalez, Andrew Johnson, Caroline Storer, Craig Bateman, Demian Gómez, Jackson Landers, James Skelton, Michelle Jusino, and You Li. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .....................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................8 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 13 2 TWO NEW GEOSMITHIA SPECIES IN G. PALLIDA SPECIES COMPLEX FROM BARK BEETLES IN EASTERN USA ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • White Pine Weevil
    WHITE PINE WEEVIL The white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi Peck), which kills the tops of conifers, is the most serious insect pest of the white pine (Pinus strobus), in Maine. HOST TREES: The weevil also attacks: Norway Spruce (Picea abies), Colorado Blue Spruce (Picea pungens), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), Scotch Pine (Pinus sylvestris), Swiss Mountain Pine (Pinus mugo), and native spruces. Weevils do not usually attack trees less than 4 or 5 years old, or less than 3 feet tall. LIFE CYCLE: The white pine weevil has one generation per year. In early spring, adults emerge, feed, mate, then lay eggs in the tree bark. Eggs hatch in about 10 days and the larvae feed on the inside of the leader. Pupation occurs in the leader and new adults emerge in August and September. Adults feed and by November, all weevils have entered the ground litter where they over-winter. SYMPTOMS OF ATTACK: The first symptom of weevil attack is resin oozing from small feeding punctures in May and June. Punctures are usually found near the top of the previous year’s leader. Wilting leaders may be detected in June and July. After that, needles on the dead portion of the leader will turn yellowish-green, then reddish, and fall off. Typically 1½-2 feet of the main stem is killed. Finally, adult exit holes (2-3 mm) will be left on the leader in August and September. CONTROL: Mechanical control may be achieved by prompt removal and burning of infested leaders before weevils emerge reduces the chance of population buildup.
    [Show full text]