Mississippi State University Scholars Junction Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Bulletins Experiment Station (MAFES) 3-1-1983 Southern pine beetle : the host dimension C. A. Blanche J. D. Hodges T. E. Nebeker D. M. Moehring Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/mafes-bulletins Recommended Citation Blanche, C. A.; Hodges, J. D.; Nebeker, T. E.; and Moehring, D. M., "Southern pine beetle : the host dimension" (1983). Bulletins. 764. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/mafes-bulletins/764 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES) at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletins by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hitotin 917 Harch 1981 ^OUfHERN PINE BEETLE: THE HOST DIHENSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by the Integrated Pest Manage- ment Research, Development and AppHcation Program, Pineville, Louisiana, through USFS Grant #19-82-023, Mississippi State University and Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. The findings, opinions, and conclusions are the responsibility of the authors. We gratefully appreciate the reviews by Drs. Alan A. Berryman, Gerard D. Hertel, Garland Mason, and Robert C. Thatcher. Their comments and suggestions greatly im- proved this manuscript. We thank Dr. Mark Brown for his input on the flow diagram of the attack process. SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE: THE HOST DIMENSION C. A. Blanche, Research Associate, Mississippi State University, Department of Forestry J. D. Hodges, Professor and Forester, Mississippi State University, Department of Forestry T. E. Nebeker, Associate Professor, Mississippi State University, Department of Entomology D. M. Moehring (Deceased), Professor and Forester, Mississippi State University, Department of Forestry I I II Ml i CONTENT Introduction 1 Host and Host Characteristics 1 Hosts 1 Host Characteristics 3 Host Resistance/SusceptibiUty to SPB 3 What Constitutes Host Resistance 3 Criteria for Assessment 4 Host Physiology and Conditions under Stress 5 Under Deficient Moisture 5 Water Stress and Host Attractiveness 5 Oleoresin Exudation Pressure and Oleoresin Exudation Flow ... 6 Water Stress and Bark Moisture Content 7 Water Stress, Vigor and Growth 8 Water Stress and Host Chemistry 8 Water Stress in Relation to Stand Density and Thinning 9 Under Excessive Moisture 10 Effects of Excessive Moisture on SPB 10 Effect on the Host and Host Characteristics 10 Effects of Flooding on the Soil and Microorganisms 11 Lightning-struck Trees 11 Lightning and Extent of Damage 11 Attractiveness of Lightning-struck Trees to Bark Beetles 12 Chemical and Physiological Changes in Struck Trees 14 Role in Brood Development and Population Dynamics 14 Under Biotic Stress (Diseases and Other Pests) 15 Other Stress Forms (Harvesting, Wind, Fire, Etc) 15 (Continued) (Continued) Host Physiology and Conditions in Relation to Brood Development 16 Requirements for Brood Development 16 Host Conditions Affecting Brood Development and Mortality 16 Host-SPB-Microorganism Complex: The Role of Associated Microorganisms 17 The Beetle-Microorganism Association 17 Effects of the Associated Microorganisms on the Host 18 Host Response to Invasion by Associated Fungi 18 State of Knowledge Analysis and Research Needs 19 References 21 SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE: THE HOST DIMENSION INTRODUCTION Jhe southern pine beetle (SPB), dynamics (Coulson, 1980), sampl- The review was done in a com- [^ndroctonus frontalis Zimmer- ing and predicting population bined time sequence and topical iimn (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) is trends (Hain, 1980), impacts of the organization approach. In other iisidered one of the most serious SPB (Leuschner, 1980) rating of situations the approach was dic- )sts of southern pines. The first stands for susceptibility (Lorio, tated by developmental logic. )tbreak formally recorded in the 1980), silvicultural guidelines for In analyzing the literature we ;uthern United States occurred reducing losses (Belanger, 1980), used the following terms as defin- llring 1882 in southeast Texas direct control (BilHngs, 1980) and ed: lopkins, 1903). Since then, in- integrated management strategies 'ijitations have recurred extensive- (Coster, 1980). Intensive treatment Susceptibility = degree of spreading to areas roughly of the host as it influences the SPB resistance of the host to insect nnciding with the geographic is non-existent, except for the colonization. We visualize Istribution of loblolly pine (Pinus initial efforts of McAndrews (1926) resistance as a spectrum with one lleda L.). A historic account of and Caird (1935). Hanover (1975) extreme described as susceptible ibse outbreaks has been compiled reviewed the physiology of tree and the other extreme as immune. Price and Doggett (1978) for the resistance to insects with some Suitability = host quality in 3j 5utheastern United States. emphasis on the mechanisms of relation to brood development and Pomprehensive reviews on this resistance and host terpene resultant brood quality. cjetle were done by Thatcher physiology but with little reference Vigor = the overall state of the ;)60), Dixon and Osgood (1961) to the SPB. This review is therefore host as reflected in the different 3.d Coulson et al (1972). An in- aimed at consolidating scattered degrees of metabolic activities t^ated presentation edited by host-related information, par- (synthetic and degradative l^atcher et al (1980) covered the ticularly the physiological aspect, processes). Radial growth is one Le history and habits (Payne, analyzing and synthesizing such example of a manifestation of the 180), natural enemies and information and identifying degree of synthetic processes. ssociated organisms (Berisford, knowledge gaps with the ultimate Attractiveness - the quality of 180), climatic, site and stand objective of prioritizing research on the host that draws the beetles to fetors (Hicks, 1980), population the host-bark beetle relationship. attack or go near. HOSTS AND HOST CHARACTERISTICS bsts Che SPB can potentially attack loblolly pine is the other most the southern Appalachians, id kill all pine species within its susceptible species in the Coastal shortleaf and pitch (P. rigida Mill.) rage (St. George and Beal, 1929; Plain (Bfelanger and Malac, 1980). pines are the preferred hosts Cxon and Osgood, 1961). Payne In Arkansas, shortleaf pine is the (Belanger and Malac, 1980; !'i80) suggested that loblolly pine preferred host (Ku et al, 1980), Belanger and Hatchell, 1981) with 15 so highly preferred that the probably because of its abundance. pitch pine considered more suscep- ?3graphic distribution of the SPB In the (Borgia Piedmont, shortleaf tible (Belanger et al, 1979). In LJ roughly approximated by the pine is again the preferred host another report, Kowal (1960) cited litribution of this pine species. despite the fact that it is not the shortleaf, loblolly and Virginia {P. Fliwever, in the three geographic most abundant pine species in the virginiana Mill.) pines as the n^ions of the South (Coastal Plain, area (Belanger et al, 1977). This preferred hosts, and slash (P. Fidmont and Southern Ap- latter preference for shortleaf pine elliotti Engel.), longleaf (P. plachians), shortleaf pine (P. has been attributed to the palustris Mill.) and spruce (P. e iinata MUl.) has been reported predisposing effect of littleleaf glabra Walt.) pines as the less t( be the most susceptible, while disease (Belanger et al, 1979). In desirable hosts. Earlier, St. George — — and Beal (1929) reported loblolly and shortleaf pine to be much more Table 1. Comparison of the four major southern pines. susceptible than longleaf and slash pine. The apparent preference for Longleaf Slash Shortleaf Lobloll;' specific host species appears to be Features Pine Pine Pine Pine related to variation in oleoresin 1/ properties. In comparing the four Turpentine...density— 0.8618 0.8533 0.8452 0.8525 major southern pines (loblolly, longleaf, slash and shortleaf). Turpentlne^^ index of refraction- 1 . 4657 1 .4631 1.4728 1,4700 Hodges et al (1977, 1979) identified total resin flow as the most dis- Optical rotation of criminating variable in classifying turpentine— +7.89° -30.78° +103.49° +46.2° the least desirable (most resistant) % turpentine from host. Belanger et al (1979) observed oleoresir>~ 22-23 22 16-20 14-19 that white pine (P. strobus L.) was 1/ . the least preferred host in the d, dl oe-pinene— (%) (based on turpentine) 64 75 85 71 southern Appalachians and this has been attributed to the ability of 1- 6-pinene^^(%) this species to "pitch out" the SPB. (based on turpentine) 31 21 11 22 To test if there was any 2/ Oleoresin viscosity— preference for loblolly over (stokes) 60 306 24 18 shortleaf pine, Thomas et al (1981) 9 / assayed for biting responses of Total flow (ml)- 18 11 9 12 SPB to bark extracts of different Rate of flow (ml/hr)-^ 1 . 55 0.56 0. 78 1. 12 polarities. Judging from the bioassay responses, there seems to Flow at 8 hrs. (%)-^ 66 38 67 77 be no preference for loblolly over Time to initial shortleaf. However, when inner crystallization (hrs) HO/ft 0.98 bark and outer bark extracts were separated, extracts from the outer a-pinene (mg/lOOmg bark of shortleaf pine eUcited the oleoresin)- 21. 18 16.44 14.30 16.56 greatest number of biting Camphene (mg/lOOmg responses. In loblolly pine. White oleoresin)— 0. 18 0.22 0. 18 0.20 (1981) demonstrated, through a bioassay, that diethyl ether and Myrcene (m|/100mg oleoresin)— 0. 70 U. 48 U. OU 1.56 methanol extracts of inner and outer bark influenced beetle tunnel- 6-pinene f mg / 1 OOmg ing. The positive and negative oleoresin)— 5.23 4.22 12.06 8.58 responses of SPB to the bark Limonene (mg/lOOmg extractives were attributed to tree- oleoresin) 0.49 0. 25 0.93 1.68 to-tree variation in extractive con- centrations. White viewed these 0.22 2.86 0. 90 1.04 positive and negative responses as indicative of responses to Total monoterpene . gustatory stimulants and (mg/lOOmg oleoresin)— 28.00 24.47 28.96 29.63 deterrents.