Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T01:42:08.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing for trade-offs between flight and reproduction in the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on two pine (Pinaceae) hosts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2019

Asha Wijerathna ,
Caroline Whitehouse ,
Heather Proctor  and
Maya Evenden Open the ORCID record for Maya Evenden [Opens in a new window]
Asha Wijerathna
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E9, Canada
Caroline Whitehouse
Affiliation:
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Forestry Division, Edmonton, Alberta, T5K 2M4, Canada
Heather Proctor
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E9, Canada
Maya Evenden*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E9, Canada
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: mevenden@ualberta.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), adults fly to disperse before host colonisation. The effect of flight on reproduction was tested by comparing the number and quality of offspring from beetles flown on flight mills to that of unflown control beetles. Beetles reproduced in bolts of their native host, lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelmann (Pinaceae)), or a novel host, jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lambert (Pinaceae)). Bolts infested by control beetles produced more offspring overall than bolts with flown beetles. The effect of pine species on the number of offspring produced per bolt varied by individual tree. Flown adults produced fewer offspring compared to control parents in all bolts in jack pine regardless of the tree, but tree-level variation was visible in lodgepole pine. An interaction between flight treatment and tree host affected beetle body condition. More offspring emerged from jack pine, but higher quality offspring emerged from lodgepole pine. The offspring sex ratio was female-biased regardless of parental flight treatment. This study reveals trade-offs between flight and reproduction in mountain pine beetle as measured at the level of the bolt.

Type
Behaviour and Ecology
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 151 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 298 - 310
Copyright
© Entomological Society of Canada 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: Therese Poland

References

Amman, G.D. 1982. Characteristics of mountain pine beetles reared in four pine hosts. Environmental Entomology, 11: 590–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amman, G.D. 1984. Mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) mortality in three types of infestations. Environmental Entomology, 13: 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amman, G.D. and Bartos, D.L. 1991. Mountain pine beetle offspring characteristics associated with females producing 1st and 2nd broods, male presence, and egg gallery length. Environmental Entomology, 20: 1562–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amman, G.D. and Pasek, J.E. 1986. Mountain pine beetle in Ponderosa pine: effects of phloem thickness and egg gallery density. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, United States of America.Google Scholar
Atkins, M.D. 1966. Laboratory studies on the behaviour of the Douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins. The Canadian Entomologist, 98: 953–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, M.D. 1969. Lipid loss with flight in the Douglas-fir beetle. The Canadian Entomologist, 101: 164–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67: 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biedermann, P.H.W., Klepzig, K.D., and Taborsky, M. 2011. Costs of delayed dispersal and alloparental care in the fungus-cultivating ambrosia beetle Xyleborus affinis Eichhoff (Scolytinae: Curculionidae). Behavioural fEcology and Sociobiology, 65: 1753–1761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, D.E. and Benton, T.G. 2005. Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 80: 205–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cale, J.A., Taft, S., Najar, A.J.G., Hughes, C., Sweeney, J., and Erbilgin, N. 2015. Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) can produce its aggregation pheromone and complete brood development in naïve red pine (Pinus resinosa) under laboratory conditions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 45: 1873–1877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerezke, H. 1995. Egg gallery, brood production, and adult characteristics of mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), in three pine hosts. The Canadian Entomologist, 127: 995–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, H., Li, Z., Bu, S.H., and Tian, Z.Q. 2011. Flight of the Chinese white pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in relation to sex, body weight and energy reserve. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 101: 53–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chubaty, A.M., Roitberg, B.D., and Li, C. 2009. A dynamic host selection model for mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins. Ecological Modelling, 220: 1241–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E.L., Pitt, C., Carroll, A.L., Lindgren, B.S., and Huber, D.P.W. 2014. Comparison of lodgepole and jack pine resin chemistry: implications for range expansion by the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Curculion-idae). PeerJ, 2: e240. http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullingham, C.I., Cooke, J.E.K., Dang, S., Davis, C.S., Cooke, B.J., and Coltman, D.W. 2011. Mountain pine beetle host-range expansion threatens the boreal forest. Molecular Ecology, 20: 2157–2171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de la Giroday, H.M.C., Carroll, A.L., and Aukema, B.H. 2012. Breach of the northern Rocky Mountain geoclimatic barrier: initiation of range expansion by the mountain pine beetle. Journal of Biogeography, 39: 1112–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Giroday, H.M.C., Carroll, A.L., Lindgren, B.S., and Aukema, B.H. 2011. Incoming! Association of landscape features with dispersing mountain pine beetle populations during a range expansion event in western Canada. Landscape Ecology, 26: 1097–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duthie, A.B., Abbott, K.C., and Nason, J.D. 2014. Trade-offs and coexistence: a lottery model applied to fig wasp communities. American Naturalist, 183: 826–841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elkin, C.M. and Reid, M.L. 2005. Low energy reserves and energy allocation decisions affect reproduction by mountain pine beetles, Dendroctonus ponderosae. Functional Ecology, 19: 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, C.G. and Evenden, M.L. 2012. The effect of flight on reproduction in an outbreaking forest lepidopteran. Physiological Entomology, 37: 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erbilgin, N., Ma, C., Whitehouse, C., Shan, B., Najar, A., and Evenden, M. 2014. Chemical similarity between historical and novel host plants promotes range and host expansion of the mountain pine beetle in a naïve host ecosystem. New Phytologist, 201: 940–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esch, E.D., Langor, D.W., and Spence, J.R. 2016. Gallery success, brood production and condition of mountain pine beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) reared in whitebark and lodgepole pine from Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 46: 557–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evenden, M.L., Whitehouse, C.M., and Sykes, J. 2014. Factors influencing flight capacity of the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Environmental Ecology, 43: 187–196.Google Scholar
Fox, C.W. and Czesak, M.E. 2000. Evolutionary ecology of progeny size. Annual Review of Entomology, 45: 341–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, C.I., Brahy, O., Mardulyn, P., Dohet, L., Mayer, F., and Grégoire, J.C. 2014. Flying the nest: male dispersal and multiple paternity enables extrafamilial matings for the invasive bark beetle Dendroctonus micans. Heredity, 113: 327–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, M. and Dyck, H.V. 2010. Butterfly flight activity affects reproductive performance and longevity relative to landscape structure. Oecologia, 163: 341–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graf, M., Reid, M.L., Aukema, B.H., and Lindgren, B.S. 2012. Association of tree diameter with body size and lipid content of mountain pine beetles. The Canadian Entomologist, 144: 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, H., Hughes, J., and Dorn, S. 2006 Trade-off between mobility and fitness in Cydia pomonella L. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Ecological Entomology, 31: 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerra, P.A. 2011. Evaluating the life-history trade-off between dispersal capability and reproduction in wing dimorphic insects: a meta-analysis. Biological Reviews, 86: 813–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanski, I., Saastamoinen, M., and Ovaskainen, O. 2006. Dispersal-related life-history trade-offs in a butterfly metapopulation. Journal of Animal Ecology, 75: 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harshman, L.G. and Zera, A.J. 2007. The cost of reproduction: the devil in the details. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22: 80–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartig, F. 2018. DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.2.0. Available from: http://florianhartig.github.io/DHARMa [accessed 14 January 2019].Google Scholar
Isaacs, R. and Byrne, D.N. 1998. Aerial distribution, flight behaviour and eggload: their inter-relationship during dispersal by the sweetpotato whitefly. Journal of Animal Ecology, 67: 741–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishangulyyeva, G., Najar, A., Curtis, J.M., and Erbilgin, N. 2016. Fatty acid composition of novel host jack pine do not prevent host acceptance and colonization by the invasive mountain pine beetle and its symbiotic fungus. Public Library of Science One, 11: e0162046. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162046.Google Scholar
Jackson, P.L., Straussfogel, D., Lindgren, B.S., Mitchell, S., and Murphy, B. 2008. Radar observation and aerial capture of mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopk. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in flight above the forest canopy. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 38: 2313–2327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jactel, H. 1993. Individual variability in the flight potential of Ips sexdentatus Boern. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in relation to day of emergence, sex, size, and lipid content. The Canadian Entomologist, 125: 919–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, P.M., Janes, J.K., Roe, A.D., and Cooke, B.J. 2016. Modeling landscape-level spatial variation in sex ratio skew in the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environmental Entomology, 45: 790–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, C.D., Tawes, B.R., and Worthington, A.M. 2014. Evaluating indices of body condition in two cricket species. Ecology and Evolution, 4: 4476–4487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkendall, L.R. 1983. The evolution of mating systems in bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae and Platypodidae). Zoological Journal of Linnean Society, 77: 293–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachowsky, L.E. and Reid, M.L. 2014. Developmental mortality increases sex-ratio bias of a size-dimorphic bark beetle. Ecological Entomology, 39: 300–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langor, D.W. 1989. Host effects on the phenology, development, and mortality of field populations of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). The Canadian Entomologist, 121: 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latty, T.M. and Reid, M.L. 2009. First in line or first in time? Effects of settlement order and arrival date on reproduction in a group-living beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae. Journal of Animal Ecology, 78: 549–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latty, T.M. and Reid, M.L. 2010. Who goes first? Condition and danger dependent pioneering in a group-living bark beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 64: 639–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardero, M.J., Ayres, M.P., Ayres, B.D., and Reeve, J.D. 2000. Cold tolerance of four species of bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in North America. Environmental Entomology, 29: 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusebrink, I., Erbilgin, N., and Evenden, M.L. 2013. The lodgepole × jack pine hybrid zone in Alberta, Canada: a stepping stone for the mountain pine beetle on its journey east across the boreal forest? Journal of Chemical Ecology, 39: 1209–1220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lusebrink, I., Erbilgin, N., and Evenden, M.L. 2016. The effect of water limitation on volatile emission, tree defense response, and brood success of Dendroctonus ponderosae in two pine hosts, lodgepole and jack pine. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 4: 1–13. http://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, R.L. 1958. A useful secondary sex character in Dendroctonus bark beetles. The Canadian Entomologist, 90: 582–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, C.G. and Reid, M.L. 2013. Sub-lethal effects of monoterpenes on reproduction by mountain pine beetles. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 15: 262–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michon, G.P. 2009. Final answers: surface area of an ellipsoid [online]. Available from www.numericana.com/answer/ellipsoid.htm#spheroid [accessed 11 January 2019].Google Scholar
Niitepõld, K. and Boggs, C.L. 2015. Effects of increased flight on the energetics and life history of the butterfly Speyeria mormonia. Public Library of Science One, 10: e0140104.Google ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical analysis. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Reid, M.L. and Purcell, J.R.C. 2011. Condition-dependent tolerance of monoterpenes in an insect herbivore. Arthropod Plant Interactions, 5: 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, M.L., Sekhon, J.K., and LaFramboise, L.M. 2017. Toxicity of monoterpene structure, diversity and concentration to mountain pine beetles, Dendroctonus ponderosae: beetle traits matter more. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 43: 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, R.W. 1958. Internal changes in the female mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus monticolae Hopk., associated with egg laying and flight. The Canadian Entomologist, 90: 464–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, C., Nelson, T.A., and Boots, B. 2007. Mountain pine beetle dispersal: the spatial–temporal interaction of infestations. Forest Science, 53: 395–405.Google Scholar
Safranyik, L. 1976. Size- and sex-related emergence, and survival in cold storage, of mountain pine beetle adults. The Canadian Entomologist, 108: 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safranyik, L., Carroll, A.L., Régnière, J., Langor, D.W., Riel, W.G., and Shore, T.L. 2010. Potential for range expansion of mountain pine beetle into the boreal forest of North America. The Canadian Entomologist, 142: 415–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, M., Gorzalski, A., Nguyen, T.T., Liu, X., Jeffrey, C., Blomquist, G.J., and Tittiger, C. 2014. exo-brevicomin biosynthesis in the fat body of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 40: 181–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steenman, A., Lehmann, A.W., and Lehmann, G.U.C. 2013. Morphological variation and sex-biased frequency of wing dimorphism in the pygmy grasshopper Tetrix subulata (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). European Journal of Entomology, 110: 535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, S., Najar, A., Godbout, J., Bousquet, J., and Erbilgin, N. 2015. Variations in foliar monoterpenes across the range of jack pine reveal three widespread chemotypes: implications to host expansion of invasive mountain pine beetle. Frontiers in Plant Science, 6: 1–12. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, V.G. 1988. Body condition, ovarian hierarchies, and their relation to egg formation in anseriform and galliform species. In Acta XIX Congressus Internationalis Ornithologici. Edited by Quellet, H.. National Museum of Natural Science, University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Pp. 353–363.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.N. and Bennett, R.B. 1971. Oxidation of fat during flight of male Douglas-fir beetles, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae. Journal of Insect Physiology, 17: 1555–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W.I. and Robertson, I.C. 2008. Using automated flight mills to manipulate fat reserves in Douglas-fir beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environmental Entomology, 37: 850–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D.L. 1982. The role of pheromones, kairomones, and allomones in the host selection behaviour of bark beetles. Annual Review of Entomology, 27: 411–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, D., Cui, J., Bansal, R., Hao, X., Liu, J., Chen, W., and Petersen, B.S. 2009. The ellipsoidal area ratio: an alternative anisotropy index for diffusion tensor imaging. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 27: 311–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zera, A.J. 2009. Wing polymorphism in Gryllus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): proximate endrocine, energetic and biochemical mechanisms underlying morph specialization for flight vs. reproduction. In Phenotypic plasticity insects mechanisms and consequences. Edited by Whitman, D.W. and Ananthakrishnan, T.N.. Science Publishers, Enfield, New Hampshire, United States of America. Pp. 609–653.Google Scholar
Zera, A.J. and Harshman, L.G. 2001. The physiology of life history trade-offs in animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 32: 95–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Wu, K., Wyckhuys, K.A.G., and George, E. 2009. Trade-offs between flight and fecundity in the soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 102: 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar