Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T11:34:29.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early patterns of heterotroph activity in conifer logs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

Steven E. Carpenter ,
Mark E. Harmon ,
Elaine R. Ingham ,
Rick G. Kelsey ,
John D. Lattin  and
Timothy D. Schowalter
Steven E. Carpenter
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Mark E. Harmon
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Science
Elaine R. Ingham
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Rick G. Kelsey
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology
John D. Lattin
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology
Timothy D. Schowalter
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A.
Get access

Synopsis

Findings from the first two years of a long-term study of conifer log decomposition are presented. Log decomposition is regulated by the physical and chemical states, and development of decomposer foodwebs. The functional group with the greatest initial effect on the log is the channelisers, represented in our study by ambrosia and bark beetles. They not only create multitudes of channels into the logs but vector the initial decomposer community. Ambrosia beetles exclude certain elements of the decomposer community from channels until they vacate the log, at the end of their reproductive phase. The foodweb during the early stages of decomposition includes nitrogen-fixing and other bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, and arthropods. Seasonal fluctuations of temperature and moisture are hypothesised to work in tandem to modulate the activities of the decomposer community.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 94: Fungi and Ecological Disturbance , 1988 , pp. 33 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1988

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.)

References

Ausmus, B. S. 1977. Regulation of wood decomposition rates by arthropod and annelid populations. Ecological Bulletin (Stockholm) 25, 180–192.Google Scholar
Babiuk, L. A. & Paul, E. A. 1970. The use of fluorescein isothiocyanate in the determination of the bacterial biomass of grassland soil. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 16, 57–62.Google Scholar
Barton, G. M. & MacDonald, B. F. 1971. The chemistry and utilization of western redcedar. Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Canadian Forestry Service, Publication 1023.Google Scholar
Batra, L. R. 1966. Ambrosia fungi: Extent of specificity to ambrosia beetles. Science 153, 193–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batra, L. R. 1985. Ambrosia beetles and their associated fungi: Research trends and techniques. Proceedures of the Indian Academy of Sciences (Plant Science) 94, 137–148.Google Scholar
Bauer, J. & Vite, J. P. 1975. Host selection by Trypodendron lineatum. Naturwissenschaften 62, 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchette, R. A. & Shaw, C. G. 1978. Associations among bacteria, yeasts, and basidiomycetes during wood decay. Phytopathology 68, 631–637.Google Scholar
Boddy, L. 1983. Microclimate and moisture dynamics of wood decomposing in terrestrial ecosystems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 15, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boddy, L. 1986. Water and decomposition processes in terrestrial ecosystems. In Water, Plants and Fungi, eds. Ayres, P. G. & Boddy, L., pp. 375–398. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borden, J. H., King, C. J., Lindgren, S., Chong, L., Gray, D. R., Oehlschlager, A. C., Slessor, K. N. and Pierce, H. D. Jr., 1982. Variation in response of Trypodendron lineatum from two continents to semiochemicals and trap form. Environmental Entomology 11, 403–408.Google Scholar
Boyce, J. S. 1932. Decay and other losses in Douglas-fir in Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Technical Bulletin 286.Google Scholar
Bridges, J. R. 1981. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria associated with bark beetles. Microbial Ecology 7, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bright, D. E. Jr. 1976. The Insects and Arachnids of Canada. Part 2. The Bark Beetles of Canada and Alaska. Coleoptera: Scolytidae. Canada Department of Agriculture Publication 1576. Ottawa: Canada Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Chapela, I., Boddy, L. & Rayner, A. D. M. 1988. Fungal community structure and development in beech logs four and a half years after felling. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 53, 59–70.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. A. 1963. Field selection of different log odors by scolytid beetles. Canadian Entomologist, 95, 673–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowling, E. B. & Merrill, W. 1966. Nitrogen in wood and its role in wood deterioration. Canadian Journal of Botany 44, 1539–1554.Google Scholar
Darbyshire, J. F., Wheatley, R. F., Greaves, M. P. & Ineson, R. H. E. 1974. A rapid micromethod for estimating bacterial and protozoan populations in soil. Revue d'Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol 11, 465–475.Google Scholar
Davidson, R. W. 1953. Two common lumber-staining fungi in the Western United States. Mycologia 45, 579–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, P. 1974. Effects of felling time and insecticide treatment on the interrelationships of fungi and arthropods in pine logs. Oikos 24, 422–429.Google Scholar
Dowding, P. 1984. The evolution of insect-fungus relationships in the primary invasion of forest timber. In Invertebrate microbial interactions, eds. Anderson, J. M., Rayner, A. D. M. & Walton, D. W. H., British Mycological Society Symposium 6, pp. 135–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engleberth, G. H. 1942. Decay of western hemlock in Western Oregon and Washington. Yale School of Forestry Bulletin 50. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University.Google Scholar
Francke-Grosmann, H. 1963. Some new aspects in forest entomology. Annual Review of Entomology 8, 415–438.Google Scholar
Frankland, J. C., Hedger, J. N. & Swift, M. J. 1982. Decomposer basidiomycetes, their biology and ecology. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frey, J., McClellan, J. F., Ingham, E. R. & Coleman, D. C. 1985. Filter-Out-Grazers (FOG): A filtration experiment for separating protozoan grazers in soil. Biology and Fertility of Soil 1, 73–79.Google Scholar
Graham, R. L. 1982. Biomass dynamics of dead Douglas-fir and western hemlock boles in mid-elevation forests of the Cascade Range. Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Gratowski, H. J. 1956. Windthrow around staggered settings in old-growth Douglas-fir. Forest Science 2, 60–74.Google Scholar
Haanstad, J. D. & Norris, D. M. 1985. Microbial symbiotes of the ambrosia beetle Xyloterinus politus. Microbial Ecology 11, 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcombe, P. A. 1987. Tree life tables. Bioscience 37, 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmon, M. E., Franklin, J. F., Swanson, F. J., Sollins, P., Gregory, S. V., Lattin, J. D., Anderson, N. H., Cline, S. P., Alumen, N. G., Sedell, J. R., Lienkaemper, G.W., Cromack, K. Jr., & Cummins, K.W. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Recent Advances in Ecological Research. 15, 135–305.Google Scholar
Haynes, R. W. 1986. Inventory and value of old-growth in the Douglas-fir region. USDA Forest Service. Research Note PNW–437. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Ingham, E. R. & Klein, D. A. 1984. Soil fungi: Relationships between hyphal activity and staining with fluorescein diacetate. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 16, 273–278.Google Scholar
Kåårik, A. A. 1974. Decomposition of wood. In Biology of Plant Litter Decomposition Vol. 1, eds. Dickson, C. H. & Pugh, G. J. E., pp. 129–174. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, R. W. 1956. Fungicidal toxicity of certain extraneous components of douglas-fir heartwood. Forest Products Journal 6, 80–84.Google Scholar
Kinghorn, J. M. & Chapman, J. A. 1959. The ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.). Forest Science 5, 81–92.Google Scholar
Klimetzek, D., Kohler, J., Vité, J. P. & Kohnle, U. 1986. Dosage response to ethanol mediates host selection by “secondary” bark beetles. Nalurwissenschaften 73, 270–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, G. W. 1965. A new species of Macrocheles associated with bark beetles of the genera Ips and Dendroctonus. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 38, 145–153.Google Scholar
Levy, J. F. 1982. The place of basidiomycetes in the decay of wood in contact with the ground. In Decomposer basidiomycetes. Their biology and ecology, eds. Frankland, J. C., Hedger, J. N. & Swift, M. J., pp. 161–178. Bath: Pitman Press.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. 1967. Mites and the regulation of bark beetle populations. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Acorology, ed. Evans, G. O., pp. 389–399. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. 1970. Relationships between mites and insects in forest habitats. Canadian Entomologist 102, 978–984.Google Scholar
MacRae, W. D. & Towers, G. H. N. 1984. Biological activities of lignans. Phytochemistry 23, 1207–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, C. L. 1966. The influence of nematode parasites and associates on bark beetles in the United States. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America. 12, 384–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, C. L. 1974. Biology and Taxonomy of Nematode Parasites and Associates of Bark Beetles in the United States. USDA Forest Agricultural Service Handbook 446. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
McFee, W. W. & Stone, E. L. 1966. The persistance of decaying wood in humus layers of northern forests. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. 30, 513–516.Google Scholar
Merchant, V. A. & Crossley, D. A. Jr., 1970. An inexpensive high efficiency tullgren extractor for soil microarthropods. Georgia Entomological Society Journal 5, 83–87.Google Scholar
Moeck, H. A. 1970. Ethanol as the primary attractant for the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist 102, 985–995.Google Scholar
Page, A. L., Miller, R. H. & Keeney, D. R. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd edn. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A. & White, P. S. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rennerfelt, E. 1948. Investigations of thujaplicin, a fungicidal substance in the heartwood of Thuja plicata D. Don. Physiologia Planatarum 1, 245–254.Google Scholar
Roff, J. W. & Atkinson, J. M. 1954. Toxicity tests of water-soluble phenolic fraction (thujaplicin-free) of western redcedar. Canadian Journal of Botany 32, 308–309.Google Scholar
Rudman, P. 1962. The causes of natural durability in timber. IX. The antifungal activity of heartwood extractives in a wood substrate. Holzforschung 16, 14–77.Google Scholar
Rudman, P. 1963. The causes of natural durability in timber. Part XI. Some tests on the fungal toxicity of wood extractives and related compounds. Holzforschung 17, 54–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savely, H. E. 1939. Ecological relations of certain animals in dead pine and oak logs. Ecological Monographs 9, 321–385.Google Scholar
Shore, T. L., McLean, J. A. & Zanuncio, J. C. 1987. Reproduction and survival of the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Douglas-fir and western hemlock logs. Canadian Entomologist 119, 131–139.Google Scholar
Sollins, P. 1982. Input and decay of coarse woody debris in coniferous stands in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 12, 18–28.Google Scholar
Sollins, P., Grier, C. C., McCorison, F. M., Cromack, K. Jr., Fogel, R. & Fredriksen, R. L. 1980. The internal element cycles of an old-growth Douglas-fir ecosystem in western Oregon. Ecological Monographs 50, 261–285.Google Scholar
Swain, T. 1979. Tannins and Lignins. Secondary Plant Metabolites, eds. Rosenthal, G. A. & Janzen, D. H., pp. 657–682. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Swift, M. J. & Boddy, L. 1984. Animal-microbial interactions, eds. Anderson, J. M., Rayner, A. D. M. & Walton, D. W. H., pp. 89–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tate III, R. L. & Klein, D. A. (eds.) 1983. Soil reclamation processes: microbiological analysis and applications. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Triska, F. J. & Cromack, K. Jr. 1980. The role of wood debris in forests and streams. In Forests: Fresh Perspectives from Ecosystem Analysis. Proceedings of the 40th Biology Colloquium (1979), ed. Waring, R. H., pp. 171–190.Google Scholar
U.S. Forest Products Laboratory 1967. Comparative decay resistance of heartwood of native species. USDA Forest Products Laboratory Research Note FPL–0153. Madison, Wisconsin: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Watt, A. S. 1947. Pattern and process in the plant community. Journal of Ecology 13, 27–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar