Next Article in Journal
Impact of Global Change on Nutrient Dynamics in Mangrove Forests
Next Article in Special Issue
Anatomical and Chemical Responses of Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus L.) to Blue-Stain (Ophiostoma minus) Inoculation
Previous Article in Journal
Screening Potential Bioenergy Production of Tree Species in Degraded and Marginal Land in the Tropics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Subwatershed-Level Lodgepole Pine Attributes Associated with a Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 9
Issue 10
10.3390/f9100595
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Is Resistance to Mountain Pine Beetle Associated with Genetic Resistance to White Pine Blister Rust in Limber Pine?

by
Christine T. Holtz
1,2 and
Anna W. Schoettle
2,*
1
Mountain Studies Institute, 1315 Snowden Street, Suite 305, Silverton, CO 81433, USA
2
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2018, 9(10), 595; https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100595
Submission received: 21 August 2018 / Revised: 18 September 2018 / Accepted: 19 September 2018 / Published: 25 September 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Causes and Consequences of Bark Beetle Epidemics on Tree, Forest and Ecosystem Processes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Limber pine (Pinus flexilis James) co-evolved with the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins; MPB) and is now also challenged by the non-native pathogen Cronartium ribicola (J.C. Fisch.) that causes the lethal disease white pine blister rust (WPBR). Previous research suggests that trees infected with WPBR can be preferred hosts for MPB. Using resin duct traits associated with MPB resistance, we tested for a relationship between resistance to MPB and WPBR in limber pine, in the absence of either biological agent. These analyses will help evaluate if MPB historically may have contributed to natural selection for WPBR resistance in advance of WPBR invasion, and could help explain the unusually high frequency of the dominant Cr4 allele for complete resistance to WPBR in limber pine populations of the Southern Rocky Mountains. Resin duct production, density and relative duct area did not differ between healthy trees previously inferred to carry the dominant Cr4 allele and trees that lack it at 22 sites, though some duct traits varied with elevation. MPB resistance does not appear to have played an evolutionary role in contributing to the high frequency of Cr4 in naïve populations, however, MPB may affect the future evolution of resistance to WPBR in the pines where the two pests coincide and WPBR will affect forest recovery after MPB epidemics. MPB-WPBR interactions in a changing climate will affect the future trajectory of limber pine.

1. Introduction

The southern Rocky Mountains are being challenged by both native and invasive pests and pathogens with increasing intensity as temperatures continue to rise and drought increases [1]. As a native pest, the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, MPB) has evolved alongside its hosts colonizing all native pines within its range except Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi Balf) [2,3]. With suitable host species to the north and south of the current MPB geographic range, there is speculation that climate (minimum temperature) has been a main determinant in preventing range expansion [4]. Within the MPB distribution in the western United States, the coldest night of the year has warmed approximately 4 °C since 1960 [5,6]. Since air temperatures have been increasingly more favorable for MPB overwinter survival, recent outbreaks are putting high elevation pines such as limber pine and whitebark pine at risk of population decline [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Limber pine is a preferred host of MPB for reproduction, development, and survival [13]. Not only does limber pine have a thicker phloem which is desirable in a suitable host, but limber pine phloem may also have more nutritional value than other species [14,15,16,17]. As a native species, MPB is an important driver of ecosystem dynamics and the recent outbreak was more severe than any documented over the past century [9,17,18].
Through the coevolution of pest and host, certain pine species colonized by MPB have developed resistance mechanisms and resin duct traits are proving to be of more influence on inhibiting herbivores than previously thought [19,20,21]. Resin can be both toxic to attacking beetles and can physically encumber them [22], and trees with higher resin duct numbers are considered to be more highly defended [21,23]. Similarly, constitutive resin flow is a first line of defense against attacks in pines, and the best predictor of resin flow is resin duct number, size and total duct area [24]. In limber pine, MPB resistant trees (those trees that survived recent mass attack) were found to have an average of 37% more resin ducts in their most recent 5 years of radial growth than susceptible trees (those trees that were killed by recent mass attack) [21].
The non-native pathogen, Cronartium ribicola (J.C. Fisch), which causes the lethal disease white pine blister rust (WPBR), was introduced to western North America over a century ago, and all nine North American five-needle white pine species are highly susceptible [25]. The spreading WPBR infection front is now in the Southern Rocky Mountains on limber pine (Pinus flexilis James) and Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata Engelm.) with some infections further south in New Mexico and Arizona on southwestern white pine (Pinus strobiformis Engelm.) [26,27,28,29]. Limber pine has been listed as endangered in Alberta Canada [30]; conservation strategies are in place for the Southern Rockies [31,32], and populations continue to decline due to this invasive fungus, MPB and a changing climate [33,34,35].
Introduced pests and pathogens can have devastating effects on native tree species. Some host species have genetic resistance to the invader while others have little and are now functionally extinct [36,37,38]. Although North American five-needle pines did not co-evolve with C. ribicola, genetic disease resistance has been identified in each of the nine pine host species [25]. Qualitative resistance to WPBR is conferred by a dominant R gene allele (aka major gene resistance or Cr alleles) and imparts immunity to the disease. Qualitative resistance has been reported in sugar pine (P. lambertiana Dougl.; Cr1), western white pine (P. monticola Dougl. ex D. Don; Cr2), southwestern white pine (P. strobiformis Engelm.; Cr3), and, most recently, limber pine (Cr4) [39,40,41,42,43]. Cr1, Cr2 and Cr4 are unique and occur on different chromosomes in their respective hosts [44]. The Cr4 allele has been inferred to be present in limber pine stands not yet infected with WPBR and at unexpectedly high frequencies [39]. In the Southern Rocky Mountains the frequency of the Cr4 allele in limber pine is estimated at 5.0% and shows greater range among sites (0% to 13.9%) [39] than current data on Cr2 in western white pine (<0.1%; range of 0% to 0.8%) [45] and Cr1 in sugar pine range-wide (2.2%; range of 0% to 8.9%) [46]. Without past exposure to and selection pressure by WPBR, the origins of the Cr alleles remain enigmatic [39,40,45,47,48].
There is evidence to suggest that MPB preferentially attack trees with WPBR and that the likelihood of MPB attack increases with the severity of WPBR infection [49,50]. It is possible that trees weakened by other agents are simply easier for MPB to colonize [51] yet not all studies have shown a linear relationship between MPB infestation and WPBR infection. Dooley and Six [52] demonstrated that whitebark pine (P. albicaulis Engelm.) trees with very high WPBR disease severity were less likely to be attacked by MPB, even when baited, while Schwandt and Kegley [53] observed that MPB preferences vary with MPB population levels. One hypothesis is that once disease severity is high, the monoterpene profile emitted by the tree is altered and less attractive to the beetle [52].
It is unknown whether or not MPB selects WPBR infected trees because they have been weakened by the disease, or if there are underlying resistance mechanisms that deter both pest and pathogen. Here we test the latter case. Prior off-site controlled C. ribicola inoculation studies have identified forest trees inferred to have or lack the Cr4 resistance allele to WPBR in stands that have not yet been invaded by WPBR [39,54]. Using resin duct traits associated with MPB resistance (e.g., [20,21,24]), we tested for a relationship between susceptibility to WPBR and MPB in limber pine in the absence of either biological agent. We sampled healthy trees previously inferred to carry the dominant Cr4 allele for complete resistance to WPBR and trees that lack the dominant allele. All trees had been treated with an anti-aggregate pheromone (verbenone) to deter MPB attack during the recent epidemic; none of the trees showed signs or symptoms of WPBR. If trees that lack the dominant Cr4 resistance allele have traits that make them more susceptible to mortality by MPB than those trees with the dominant Cr4 allele, MPB could have historically contributed to natural selection against WPBR susceptibility in advance of WPBR’s invasion, and could help explain the unusually high frequency of Cr4 resistance in the southern Rocky Mountains. We also discuss how MPB may affect the future evolution of resistance to WPBR in the pines where the two pests coincide and how WPBR may affect post-MPB epidemic forest recovery processes.

2. Materials and Methods

In 2016, 93 trees were sampled at 22 sites in Southern Wyoming and Colorado with elevations ranging from approximately 2350 to 3350 m (Table 1). As stated above, we sampled healthy trees formerly inferred to carry the dominant Cr4 allele for complete resistance to WPBR (R trees) and WPBR susceptible trees that lack the dominant allele (S trees). Mean stem diameter at 1.3 m (DBH) was 27.1 cm (2.0 cm standard error (SE)) and 23.6 cm (1.1 cm SE) for R and S trees, respectively. Progeny from each tree sampled had been previously tested for genetic resistance to WPBR as described by Schoettle et al. [39]. Two 5 cm long xylem cores were extracted from each tree—one from the west side and one from the east side—at DBH using a 4 mm diameter increment borer; metrics from the two cores were combined for each sample tree. At two sites a 5 mm diameter increment borer was used—these trees are omitted from non-standardized calculations resulting in different sampling values for these metrics. Cores were prepared using techniques described in Kane and Kolb [20]. Each core was mounted on a wooden block and sanded with a belt sander to create a flat cross-section for analysis.

2.1. Resin Duct Measurements

Using a combination of traits and methods described by Ferrenberg et al. [21] and Hood and Sala [24], extracted cores were analyzed using a Dino-lite pro digital microscope model AM-413ZT (AnMo Electronics Corporation, New Taipei, Taiwan, 2000). We counted the number of resin ducts (no. year−1) (Figure 1) and measured resin duct size (mm2), ring width (mm), and ring area (area of ring on the core; mm2) for 20 years of growth on the core; previous research suggests that vertical resin ducts produced over 25 years continue to contribute to resin production [23]. We calculated total duct area (sum of duct size per annual ring; mm2 yr−1), duct density (total number of ducts per annual ring divided by ring area; no. mm2 yr−1), and relative duct area (total duct area divided by ring area × 100) for each tree. In addition to analyzing all 20 years of rings (Table S1), we analyzed a 10-year interval from 2001 to 2010 which captures dates of a significant drought both before and during the recent MPB epidemic. We also calculated the metrics for the entire 10- or 20-year period following Ferrenberg et al. [21] methods; the results yielded the same conclusions as the annual averages so we report the averages by year as recommended by Hood and Sala [24], unless otherwise stated.

2.2. Data Analysis

Resin duct metrics were compared between R and S trees using t-tests; to improve normality, metrics were log-transformed prior to analyses. To adjust for multiple comparisons, we used a Benjamin-Hotchburg adjusted p-value for significance. Regression analyses were used to examine relationships between growth and duct traits with elevation. All analyses were computed in the statistical software package R version 3.4.3 [55].

3. Results

There were no significant differences between limber pine trees previously inferred to carry the dominant Cr4 allele for complete resistance to WPBR (R trees) and those susceptible to WPBR (S trees) with respect to mean radial ring width, number of vertical resin ducts, total duct area, duct density or relative duct area averaged per year over the 2001–2010, 10-year interval in the sampled wood cores (Table 2, Figure 2).
The values of each metric ranged approximately four-fold among the sample trees (see Figure 3). The total number of resin ducts produced during the 10-year period and the duct area was positively correlated with radial growth during the same period; the relationships were the same for R and S trees (Figure 3A,B). Resin duct density and relative duct area significantly decreased with radial growth and again were the same for R and S trees (Figure 3C,D).
Radial growth (p = 0.0003, n = 93), duct production (p < 0.0001, n = 83), and duct area (p = 0.0011, n = 83; data in Table S2) decreased with increasing source elevation (Figure 4A,B); the relationships were significant for R, S and all of the trees (Table S2). Duct density (p = 0.2072, n = 93) and relative duct area (p = 0.3599, n = 93) were not significantly correlated with source elevation (Figure 4C,D) when all sample trees were included. Relative duct density was positively correlated with source elevation for S trees (p = 0.0303, n = 44) and not for R trees (p = 0.1650, n = 49) (Table S2).

4. Discussion

Genetic resistance in a species to a novel biotic stress for which it has not co-evolved may be neutral or carry a benefit to the host via a function that offers adaptive benefit for environmental factor(s), biotic or abiotic, under which it co-evolved [47]. Knowing the complete resistance status of trees in populations naïve to WPBR enables us to assess if adaptations to other stresses are associated with complete resistance and may provide insights into the evolutionary history of this resistance trait [47,48]. We hypothesized that MPB may be such a stress for limber pine, however, our data on resin duct traits suggest otherwise. Resin duct traits of mature limber pine trees that are inferred to carry the dominant Cr4 allele for complete resistance to WPBR did not constitutively differ from those of trees susceptible to WPBR. We conclude that the Cr4 allele does not predispose the trees to be more or less resistant to MPB (when predicted by resin duct traits) in the absence of WPBR. Consequently, these findings suggest historical selection imposed on limber pine by MPB, prior to the invasion of C. ribicola, which was neutral with respect to the Cr4 status of the tree and, therefore, is not likely to have contributed to the unusually high frequency of Cr4 in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Further study of resin chemistry and the induction response of duct traits and chemistry to MPB attack could provide other insights.
The density of vertical ducts observed here are similar to those reported by Ferrenberg et al. [21] for limber pine and lodgepole pine (P. contorta var. latifolia Dougl. ex Loudon). Likewise, the positive correlation between duct number and total duct area with radial growth is consistent with previously reported patterns in this species and ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa Lawson & C. Lawson) [21,24]. We found a significant negative correlation of duct density and relative duct area with radial growth in limber pine while Hood and Sala [24] found this relationship was less reliable in ponderosa pine.
Resin duct number decreased and relative duct area increased in the wood of trees growing at increasing elevation (Figure 4) consistent with Wimmer and Grabner’s [56] report of fewer resin ducts of Norway spruce from cooler habitats (Picea abies L.). Likewise, the increase in relative duct area with increasing elevation (and therefore lower air temperature; [57]), is similar to the linear relationship between relative duct area in needles and minimum air temperature in Scots pine (P. sylvestris L.) [58] yet different from the curvilinear response of needle duct traits to elevation of P. taiwanensis Hayata [59]. Limber pine invests more in resin duct defenses per unit radial wood growth with increasing elevation, however, resin flow is better predicted by resin duct number and area [24] which decreased in our study with increasing elevation. Furthermore, monoterpene concentration and diversity in resin decreased with increasing elevation in limber pine [60]. In total, these findings suggest that high elevation limber pine may be structurally and chemically less defended against MPB than those trees from lower elevations. This is consistent with the elevation gradient in the plant defense hypothesis [60] that posits greater pest pressure, and therefore evolution of greater defense, at lower elevations. However, these results are only partially consistent with the resource availability and plant defense hypothesis [61] that suggests an evolutionary response to low resource availability selects for slow growth rates and larger investments in defense. This discrepancy may be an outcome of the historical thermal limitation of MPB to lower elevations in limber pine ecosystems and, therefore, selection for defense to MPB has not been a significant force in the evolution of the high elevation populations. Both genetic and environmental factors contribute to constitutive and inducible vertical resin duct and chemical defenses [62,63]. The relative sensitivity and plasticity of the (1) defense response in limber pine and (2) MPB population dynamics to climate change will contribute to the outcome of the continued limber pine—MPB interaction in mountain-top forests.
Our data suggest that MPB has not historically selected directly for or against genetic resistance to WPBR, and therefore the current field observations of MPB preference for WPBR infected trees is likely because the trees have been weakened by the disease, and not because of underlying resistance mechanisms that deter both pest and pathogen. However, MPB preference for WPBR weakened trees, and therefore WPBR susceptible trees, can accelerate the selection against WPBR susceptibility thereby increasing the proportion of the remaining trees that may have resistance to WPBR [64]. This may occur in populations with trees with complete resistance but is less likely for trees with quantitative resistance. Complete (qualitative) resistance (i.e., Cr4) prevents WPBR from developing, however, there is still a carbon cost to the tree for expressing the immunity response upon infection by C. ribicola [48] which may be sufficiently high to affect MPB attack. Trees with quantitative resistance still develop the WPBR disease, albeit more slowly [65], and may therefore be preferentially attacked by MPB. It is unknown if trees that are susceptible to WPBR and trees with quantitative WPBR resistance that have a similar disease severity are equally attractive to MPB attack and mortality. Quantitative resistance mechanisms are polygenic and therefore are less likely to be overcome and rendered ineffective by mutation in the rust fungi (i.e., is more durable) than qualitative resistance. Increasing the frequency of quantitative resistance to WPBR in five-needle pine populations is a cornerstone of restoration and conservation strategies to sustain five-needle pine populations [32,66,67]. In the presence of WPBR, MPB may (1) accelerate selection against trees fully susceptible to and symptomatic with WPBR and for trees with complete resistance to WPBR, and (2) be neutral or select against infected trees with quantitative resistance to WPBR.
The five-needle pines are early seral species and the canopy openings generated in a post-MPB epidemic landscape can provide regeneration opportunities for the pines (e.g., [68,69]). However, if mature tree mortality is too high due to both pest and pathogen, the surviving population may be too few to support forest recovery [70,71]. Furthermore, WPBR kills trees of all ages and kills young seedlings especially rapidly [72], so even if sufficient seed sources persist, forest regeneration and development in the presence of WPBR is likely to be slowed due to seedling and sapling mortality by WPBR. If the frequency of heritable resistance is high enough in the surviving overstory population to generate viable seedling and sapling cohorts, the rapid mortality by WPBR in young age classes may accelerate selection for genetic resistance to WPBR [73]. If the surviving overstory population lacks heritable resistance, the population could be at risk for extirpation if supplemental planting of seedlings with genetic resistance is not implemented [74]. The regeneration dynamic of these species is already slow (e.g., References [75,76]) and a further delay in site occupation may change forest succession trajectories.

5. Conclusions

These findings suggest historical selection imposed on limber pine by MPB, prior to the invasion of C. ribicola, was neutral with respect to the Cr4 status of the tree and therefore is not likely to have contributed to the unusually high frequency of Cr4 resistance to WPBR in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Therefore, the current field observations of MPB preference for WPBR infected trees is likely because the trees have been weakened by the disease, and not because of underlying resistance mechanisms that deter both pest and pathogen. However, MPB and WPBR impacts on five-needle pine populations together are likely to be greater than additive. MPB may affect the future evolution of resistance to WPBR in the pines where the two pests coincide and WPBR will affect forest recovery after MPB epidemics. The interactive effects of MPB and WPBR in a changing climate put the health of high elevation western North American ecosystems at risk.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/9/10/595/s1, Table S1: Mean metrics per year over a 20 year interval from 1996 to 2015 for R and S trees from the extracted limber pine cores, Table S2: Regression statistics for growth and resin duct traits over a 10 year interval from 2001 to 2010 for R and S trees from the extracted limber pine cores as a function of elevation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W.S.; Methodology, C.T.H., A.W.S.; Validation, A.W.S., C.T.H.; Formal Analysis, C.T.H., A.W.S.; Investigation, C.T.H.; Resources, A.W.S.; Data Curation, C.T.H., A.W.S.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, C.T.H., A.W.S.; Writing-Review & Editing, A.W.S., C.T.H.; Visualization, A.W.S., C.T.H.; Supervision, A.W.S.; Project Administration, A.W.S.; Funding Acquisition, A.W.S.

Funding

This work was funded in part by a grant award to AWS from USDA Forest Service’s Climate Change Program and an agreement between USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and Mountain Studies Institute (12-CS-11221633-153).

Acknowledgments

We thank Robert Hubbard (USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS)) for the invitation to contribute this manuscript to this Special Issue of Forests. We also thank Shannon Kay (Colorado State University) for statistical assistance, Laurie Huckaby (USDA Forest Service RMRS) for guidance on tree core processing, Jane Stewart’s lab personnel (Colorado State University) for assistance with field work, and two reviewers whose comments improved the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Krist, F.J.; Ellenwood, J.R.; Woods, M.E.; McMahan, A.J.; Cowardin, J.P.; Ryerson, D.E.; Sapio, F.J.; Zweifler, M.O.; Romero, S.A. 2013–2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment; United States Forest Service: Missoula, MT, USA, 2014; pp. 1–199. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wood, D.L. The role of pheromones kairomones, and allomones in the host selection and colonization behavior of bark beetles. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1982, 27, 411–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Six, D.L.; Bracewell, R. Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (mountain pine beetle). In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Insect; Fernando, E.V., Richard, W.H., Eds.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2015; pp. 305–350. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hicke, J.A.; Logan, J.A.; Powell, J.; Ojima, D.S. Changing temperatures influence suitability for modeled mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreaks in the western United States. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bentz, B.; Campbell, E.; Gibson, K.; Kegley, S.; Logan, J.; Six, D. Mountain pine beetle in high-elevation five-needle white pine ecosystems. In The Future of High-Elevation, Five-Needle White Pines in Western North America, Proceedings of the High Five Symposium, Missoula, MT, USA, 28–30 June 2010; Keane, R.E., Tomback, D.F., Murray, M.P., Smith, C.M., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2011; pp. 78–84. [Google Scholar]
  6. Weed, A.S.; Bentz, B.J.; Ayres, M.P.; Holmes, T.P. Geographically variable response of Dendroctonus ponderosae to winter warming in the western United States. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 1075–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gibson, K.; Slov, K.; Kegley, S.; Jorgensen, C.; Smith, R.; Witcosky, J. Mountain Pine Beetle Impacts in High-Elevation Five-Needle Pines: Current Trends and Challenges; USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Northern Region: Missoula, MT, USA, 2008; pp. 1–32.
  8. Logan, J.A.; Macfarlane, W.W.; Willcox, L. Whitebark pine vulnerability to climate-driven mountain pine beetle disturbance in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ecol. Appl. 2010, 20, 895–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Fettig, C.J.; Gibson, K.E.; Munson, A.S.; Negron, J.F. Cultural practices for prevention and mitigation of mountain pine beetle infestations. For. Sci. 2014, 60, 450–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Buotte, P.C.; Hicke, J.A.; Preisler, H.K.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Raffa, K.F.; Logan, J.A. Climate influences on whitebark pine mortality from mountain pine beetle in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ecol. Appl. 2016, 26, 2507–2524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Van de Gevel, S.L.; Larson, E.R.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. Separating trends in whitebark pine radial growth related to climate and mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Forests 2017, 8, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shepherd, B.; Jones, B.; Sissons, R.; Cochrane, J.; Park, J.; Smith, C.M.; Stafl, N. Ten years of monitoring illustrates a cascade of effects of white pine blister rust and focuses whitebark pine restoration in the Canadian Rocky and Columbia Mountains. Forests 2018, 9, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Langor, D.W. Host effect on the phenology, development, and mortality of field populations of the mountain pine beetle. Can. Entomol. 1989, 121, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Amman, G.D.; Pace, V.E. Optimum Egg Gallery Densities for The Mountain Pine Beetle in Relation to Lodgepole Pine Phloem Thickness; USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: Ogden, UT, USA, 1976; pp. 1–8, Research Note INT–209.
  15. Langor, D.W.; Spence, J.R.; Pohl, G.R. Host effects on fertility and reproductive success of Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera:Scolytidae). Evolution 1990, 44, 609–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cerezke, H.F. Egg gallery, brood production, and adult characteristics of mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera:Scolytidae), in three pine hosts. Can. Entomol. 1995, 127, 955–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Negron, J.F.; Fettig, C.J. Mountain pine beetle, a major disturbance agent in U.S. western coniferous forests: A synthesis of the state knowledge. For. Sci. 2014, 60, 409–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Raffa, K.F.; Aukema, B.H.; Bentz, B.J.; Carroll, A.L.; Hicke, J.A.; Turner, M.G.; Romme, W.H. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: The dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. Bioscience 2008, 58, 501–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. O’Neill, G.A.; Aitken, J.N.; Alfaro, R.I. Geographic variation in resin canal defenses in seedlings from the Sitka spruce x white spruce introgression zone. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 32, 390–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kane, J.M.; Kolb, T.E. Importance of resin ducts in reducing ponderosa pine mortality from bark beetle attack. Oecologia 2010, 164, 601–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Ferrenberg, S.; Kane, J.M.; Mitton, J.B. Resin duct characteristics associated with tree resistance to bark beetles across lodgepole and limber pines. Oecologia 2014, 174, 1283–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Seybold, S.J.; Huber, D.P.W.; Lee, J.C.; Graves, A.D.; Bohlmann, J. Pine monoterpenes and pine bark beetles: A marriage of convenience for defense and chemical communication. Phytochem. Rev. 2006, 5, 143–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Reid, R.W.; Whitney, H.S.; Watson, J.A. Reactions of lodgepole pine to attack by Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins and blue stain fungi. Can. J. Bot. 1967, 45, 1115–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hood, S.; Sala, A. Ponderosa pine resin defenses and growth: Metrics matter. Tree Physiol. 2015, 35, 1223–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. King, J.N.; Noshad, D.D.; Smith, J.A. review of genetic approaches to the management of blister rust in white pines. For. Pathol. 2010, 40, 292–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Looney, C.E.; Waring, K.M.; Fairweather, M.L. Monitoring the health of Pinus strobiformis: Early impacts of white pine blister rust invasion. In Forest Health Monitoring: National Status, Trends, and Analysis 2013; Kevin, M.P., Barbara, L.C., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Missoula, MT, USA, 2015; pp. 167–174, General Technical Report SRS-207. [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnson, D.W.; Jacobi, W.R. First report of white pine blister rust in Colorado. Plant Dis. 2000, 84, 595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Blodgett, J.T.; Sullivan, K.F. First Report of white pine blister rust on rocky mountain bristlecone pine. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kearns, H.S.; Jacobi, W.R. The distribution and incidence of white pine blister rust in Central and Southeastern Wyoming and Northern Colorado. Can. J. For. Res. 2007, 37, 462–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Government of Alberta. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Limber Pine Pinus flexilis in Canada; Species at Risk Public Registry: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2014.
  31. Burns, K.S.; Schoettle, A.W.; Jacobi, W.R.; Mahalovich, M.F. Options for the Management of White Pine Blister Rust in The Rocky Mountain Region; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2008; pp. 1–26, RMRS-GTR-206.
  32. Schoettle, A.W.; Burns, K.S.; Cleaver, C.M.; Connor, J.J. Proactive Limber Pine Conservation Strategy for the Greater Rocky Mountain National Park Area; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2018; pp. 1–81, RMRS-GTR-379.
  33. Tomback, D.F.; Achuff, P. Blister rust and western forest biodiversity: Ecology, values and outlook for white pines. For. Pathol. 2010, 40, 186–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Smith, C.M.; Langor, D.W.; Myrholm, C.; Weber, J.; Gillies, C.; Stuart-Smith, J. Changes in white pine blister rust infection and mortality in limber pine over time. Can. J. For. Res. 2013, 43, 919–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cleaver, C.M.; Jacobi, W.R.; Burns, K.S.; Means, R.E. Limber pine in the central and southern Rocky Mountains: Stand conditions and interactions with blister rust, mistletoe, and bark beetles. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 358, 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hebard, F.V.; Griffin, G.J.; Elkins, J.R. Summary of research on biology of hypovirulent and virulent Endothia parasitica on blight-resistant and blight-susceptible Chestnut trees at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In American Chestnut Proceedings; USDA Forest Service American Chestnut Cooperators’ Meeting: Morgantown, WV, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  37. Griffin, G.J.; Hebard, F.V.; Wendt, R.W.; Elkins, J.R. Survival of American chestnut trees: Evaluation of blight resistance and virulence in Endothia parasitica. Phytopathology 1983, 73, 1084–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ellison, A.M.; Bank, M.S.; Clinton, B.D.; Colburn, E.A.; Elliot, K.; Ford, C.R.; Foster, D.R.; Kloeppel, B.D.; Knoepp, J.D.; Lovett, G.M.; et al. Loss of foundation species: Consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2005, 3, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schoettle, A.W.; Sniezko, R.A.; Kegley, A.; Burns, K.S. White pine blister rust resistance in limber pine: Evidence for a major gene. Phytopathology 2014, 104, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Kinloch, B.B., Jr.; Dupper, G.E. Genetic specificity in the white pine-blister rust pathosystem. Phytopath. 2002, 92, 278–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kinloch, B.B., Jr; Littlefield, J.L. White pine blister rust: Hypersensitive resistance in sugar pine. Can. J. Bot. 1977, 55, 1148–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kinloch, B.B., Jr.; Parks, G.K.; Fowler, C.W. White pine blister rust: Simply inherited resistance in sugar pine. Science 1970, 167, 193–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kinloch, B.B., Jr.; Sniezko, R.A.; Barnes, G.D.; Greathouse, T.E. A major gene for resistance to white pine blister rust in western white pine from the Cascade Range. Phytopathology 1999, 89, 861–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Liu, J.-J.; Schoettle, A.W.; Sniezko, R.A.; Sturrock, R.N.; Zamany, A.; Williams, H.; Ha, A.; Chan, D.; Danchok, B.; Savin, D.P.; et al. Genetic mapping of Pinus flexilis major gene (Cr4) for resistance to white pine blister rust using transcriptome-based SNP genotyping. BMC Genomics 2016, 17, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kinloch, B.B., Jr.; Sniezko, R.A.; Dupper, G.E. Origin and distribution of Cr2, a gene for resistance to white pine blister rust in natural populations of western white pine. Phytopathology 2003, 93, 691–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kinloch, B.B., Jr. Distribution and frequency of a gene for resistance to white pine blister rust in natural populations of sugar pine. Can. J. Bot. 1992, 70, 1319–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vogan, P.J.; Schoettle, A.W. Selection of resistance to white pine blister rust affects the abiotic stress tolerances of limber pine. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 344, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vogan, P.J.; Schoettle, A.W. Carbon costs of constitutive and expressed resistance to a non-native pathogen in limber pine. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Bockino, N.K.; Tinker, D.B. Interactions of white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle in whitebark pine ecosystems in the southern Greater Yellowstone Area. Nat. Area J. 2012, 32, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Six, D.L.; Adams, J. White pine blister rust severity and selection of individual whitebark pine by the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae). J. Entomol. Sci. 2007, 42, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Boone, C.K.; Aukema, B.H.; Bohlmann, J.; Carroll, A.L.; Raffa, K.F. Efficacy of tree defense physiology varies with bark beetle population density: A basis for positive feedback in eruptive species. Can. J. For. Res. 2011, 41, 1174–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dooley, E.M.; Six, D.L. Severe white pine blister rust infection in whitebark pine alters mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) attack density, emergence rate, and body size. Environ. Entomol. 2015, 44, 1384–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Schwandt, J.; Kegley, S. Mountain Pine Beetle, Blister Rust, and Their Interaction on Whitebark Pine at Trout Lake and Fisher Peak in Northern Idaho; United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Missoula, MT, USA, 2004; pp. 1–6, Region 1 Report No. 04-9.
  54. Schoettle, A.W.; Sniezko, R.A.; Kegley, A.; Burns, K.S. Preliminary overview of the first extensive rust resistance screening tests of Pinus flexilis and Pinus aristata. In The Future of High-Elevation, Five-Needle White Pines in Western North America, Proceedings of High Five Symposium, Missoula, MT, USA, 28–30 June 2010; Keane, R.E., Tomback, D.F., Murray, M.P., Smith, C.M., Eds.; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2011; pp. 265–269, RMRS-P-63. [Google Scholar]
  55. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wimmer, R.; Grabner, M. Effects of climate on vertical resin duct density and radial growth of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Trees 1997, 11, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schoettle, A.W.; Rochelle, S.G. Morphological variation of Pinus flexilis (Pinaceae), a bird-dispersed pine, across a range of elevation. Am. J. Bot. 2000, 87, 1797–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Jankowski, A.; Wyka, T.P.; Zytkowiak, R.; Nihlgard, B.; Reich, P.B.; Oleksyn, J. Cold adaptation drives variability in needle structure and anatomy in Pinus sylvestris L. along a 1900 km temperate-boreal transect. Funct. Ecol. 2017, 31, 2212–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sheue, C.-R.; Yang, Y.-P.; Kuo-Huang, L.-L. Altitudinal variation of resin ducts in Pinus taiwanensis Hayata (Pinaceae) needles. Bot. Bull. Acad. Sin. 2003, 44, 305–313. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ferrenberg, S.; Langenhan, J.M.; Loskot, S.A.; Rozal, L.M.; Mitton, J.B. Resin monoterpene defenses decline within three widespread species of pine (Pinus) along a 1530-m elevational gradient. Ecosphere 2017, 8, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Coley, P.D.; Bryant, J.P.; Chapin III, F.S. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 1985, 230, 895–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Werker, E.; Fahn, A.F.L.S. Resin ducts of Pinus halepensis Mill.—Their structure, development and pattern of arrangement. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 1969, 62, 379–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Six, D.L.; Vergobbi, C.; Cutter, M. Are survivors different? Genetic-based selection of trees by mountain pine beetle during a climate change-driven outbreak in a high-elevation pine forest. Front. Plant. Sci. 2018, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Larson, E.R. Influences of the biophysical environment on blister rust and mountain pine beetle, and their interactions, in whitebark pine forests. J. Biogeogr. 2011, 38, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sniezko, R.A.; Mahalovich, M.F.; Schoettle, A.W.; Vogler, D.R. Past and Current investigations of the genetic resistance to Cronartium ribicola in high-elevation five-needle pines. In The Future of High-Elevation, Five-Needle White Pines in Western North America, Proceedings of High Five Symposium, Missoula, MT, USA, 28–30 June 2010; Keane, R.E., Tomback, D.F., Murray, M.P., Smith, C.M., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2011; pp. 246–264, RMRS-P-63. [Google Scholar]
  66. Keane, R.E.; Schoettle, A.W. Strategies, tools, and challenges for sustaining and restoring high elevation five-needle white pine forests in western North America. In The Future of High-Elevation, Five-Needle White Pines in Western North America, Proceedings of High Five Symposium, Missoula, MT, USA, 28–30 June 2010; Keane, R.E., Tomback, D.F., Murray, M.P., Smith, C.M., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2011; pp. 276–294, RMRS-P-63. [Google Scholar]
  67. Keane, R.E.; Tomback, D.F.; Aubry, C.A.; Bower, A.D.; Campbell, E.M.; Cripps, C.L.; Jenkins, M.B.; Mahalovich, M.F.; Manning, M.; McKinney, S.T.; et al. A Range-Wide Restoration Strategy for Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2012; pp. 1–108, RMRS-GTR-279.
  68. McCaughey, W.; Scott, G.L.; Izlar, K.L. Whitebark pine planting guidelines. West. J. Appl. Forest. 2009, 24, 163–166. [Google Scholar]
  69. Larson, E.R.; Kipfmueller, K.F. Patterns in whitebark pine regeneration and their relationships to biophysical site characteristics in southwest Montana, central Idaho, and Oregon, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 2010, 40, 476–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Keane, R.E.; Parsons, R.A. Restoring whitebark pine forests of the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Ecol. Restor. 2010, 28, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. McKinney, S.T.; Fiedler, C.E.; Tomback, D.F. Invasive pathogen threatens bird-pine mutualism: Implications for sustaining a high-elevation ecosystem. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. McDonald, G.I.; Hoff, R.J. Blister rust: An introduced plague. In Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration; Tomback, D.F., Arno, S.F., Keane, R.E., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 193–220. [Google Scholar]
  73. Schoettle, A.W.; Sniezko, R.A. Proactive intervention to sustain high-elevation pine ecosystems threatened by white pine blister rust. J. For. Res. 2007, 12, 237–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Schoettle, A.W.; Jacobi, W.R.; Waring, K.M.; Burns, K.S. Regeneration for resilience framework to support regeneration decisions for species with populations at risk of extirpation by white pine blister rust. New For. 2018, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tomback, D.F.; Kendall, K.C. Rocky road in the Rockies: Challenges to biodiversity. In Rocky Mountain Futures: An Ecological Perspective; Baron, J.S., Ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 153–180. [Google Scholar]
  76. Coop, J.D.; Schoettle, A.W. Regeneration of Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis) three decades after stand-replacing fires. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 893–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 09 00595 g001 550
Figure 1. Image of two vertical resin ducts in the latewood of a limber pine growth ring.
Figure 1. Image of two vertical resin ducts in the latewood of a limber pine growth ring.
Forests 09 00595 g001
Forests 09 00595 g002 550
Figure 2. Limber pine vertical resin duct metrics averaged per year from the 10-year interval 2001 to 2010 for R and S trees. All metrics were calculated using the extracted cores, not the entire tree stem. Boxes show medians and 1st and 3rd quartiles, and whiskers indicate 1.5 inter-quartile range of untransformed data.
Figure 2. Limber pine vertical resin duct metrics averaged per year from the 10-year interval 2001 to 2010 for R and S trees. All metrics were calculated using the extracted cores, not the entire tree stem. Boxes show medians and 1st and 3rd quartiles, and whiskers indicate 1.5 inter-quartile range of untransformed data.
Forests 09 00595 g002
Forests 09 00595 g003 550
Figure 3. Limber pine vertical resin duct metrics for the 10-year interval from 2001 to 2010 as a function of the 10-year radial growth increment. Resin duct production (A) and resin duct area (B) were positively correlated with radial growth. Resin duct density (C) and relative duct area (D) significantly decreased with radial growth. All metrics were calculated using the extracted cores, not the entire tree stem. Black circles are trees inferred in previous studies to carry the dominant Cr4 allele for complete resistance to WPBR; red triangles are for trees that lack the dominant Cr4 allele. Regression lines are shown for those relationships that are significant (p < 0.05); regression relationships for each metric did not differ between R and S trees.
Figure 3. Limber pine vertical resin duct metrics for the 10-year interval from 2001 to 2010 as a function of the 10-year radial growth increment. Resin duct production (A) and resin duct area (B) were positively correlated with radial growth. Resin duct density (C) and relative duct area (D) significantly decreased with radial growth. All metrics were calculated using the extracted cores, not the entire tree stem. Black circles are trees inferred in previous studies to carry the dominant Cr4 allele for complete resistance to WPBR; red triangles are for trees that lack the dominant Cr4 allele. Regression lines are shown for those relationships that are significant (p < 0.05); regression relationships for each metric did not differ between R and S trees.
Forests 09 00595 g003
Forests 09 00595 g004 550
Figure 4. Limber pine vertical resin duct metrics averaged per year for the 10-year interval from 2001 to 2010 as a function of elevation. Radial growth (A) and resin duct production (B) significantly decreased with increasing source elevation. Duct density (C) was not significantly correlated with elevation and only relative duct area (D) of susceptible trees was significantly correlated with source elevation. All metrics were calculated using the extracted cores, not the entire tree stem. Symbols are as shown in Figure 3. Black circles are trees inferred in previous studies to carry the dominant Cr4 allele for complete resistance to WPBR; red triangles are for trees that lack the dominant Cr4 allele. Regression lines are shown for those relationships that are significant (p < 0.05; see Table S2).
Figure 4. Limber pine vertical resin duct metrics averaged per year for the 10-year interval from 2001 to 2010 as a function of elevation. Radial growth (A) and resin duct production (B) significantly decreased with increasing source elevation. Duct density (C) was not significantly correlated with elevation and only relative duct area (D) of susceptible trees was significantly correlated with source elevation. All metrics were calculated using the extracted cores, not the entire tree stem. Symbols are as shown in Figure 3. Black circles are trees inferred in previous studies to carry the dominant Cr4 allele for complete resistance to WPBR; red triangles are for trees that lack the dominant Cr4 allele. Regression lines are shown for those relationships that are significant (p < 0.05; see Table S2).
Forests 09 00595 g004
Table
Table 1. Limber pine sites and trees sampled for core extraction in the Southern Rocky Mountains.
Table 1. Limber pine sites and trees sampled for core extraction in the Southern Rocky Mountains.
State, Study Site, Land Ownership aSite Elevation (m)Mean Stem Diameter b (cm)Number of Trees Sampled
R cS c
Colorado
Brown′s Lake (Roosevelt NF)323026.122
Cow Creek (Rocky Mountain NP)276317.911
Crown Point (Roosevelt NF)312335.422
Deer Mountain (Rocky Mountain NP)303514.611
Estes Cone (Rocky Mountain NP)325030.532
Gem Lake (Rocky Mountain NP)267919.244
Geneva (Pike NF)315226.622
Hunter (Rocky Mountain NP)322518.911
Jenny Lake (Roosevelt NF)332524.333
Lake John (Medicine Bow-Routt NF)264018.003
Lily Lake (Rocky Mountain NP)276124.133
MacGregor Falls (Rocky Mountain NP)275826.422
Mosca Pass (Great Sand Dunes NP)289734.401
Pine Ridge (Rocky Mountain NP)322720.722
Rainbow Curve (Rocky Mountain NP)331220.433
Sourdough (Roosevelt NF)281912.111
Steep Mountain (Rocky Mountain NP)263019.022
Switzerland Trail (Roosevelt NF)308624.631
Twin Sisters (Rocky Mountain NP)322825.833
Upper Ute (Rocky Mountain NP)327321.033
Wyoming
Pilot Hill (Medicine Bow NF)265443.652
Middle Crow Creek (Medicine Bow NF)237628.422
a NP, USDI National Park; NF, USDA Forest Service National Forest. b Mean stem diameter at breast height (1.3 m) of sampled limber pine trees. c R, trees inferred to carry major gene resistance (Cr4) to WPBR; S, trees susceptible to WPBR.
Table
Table 2. Mean radial growth and resin duct metrics per year over a 10-year interval from 2001 to 2010 for R and S trees from the extracted limber pine cores. Means did not differ between R and S trees (p > 0.05).
Table 2. Mean radial growth and resin duct metrics per year over a 10-year interval from 2001 to 2010 for R and S trees from the extracted limber pine cores. Means did not differ between R and S trees (p > 0.05).
VariablenMean (SE)
RSRS
Radial ring width (mm)49440.840 (0.064)0.723 (0.065)
No. Vertical Resin Ducts (no. yr−1)43403.847 (0.248)3.303 (0.200)
Total Duct Area (mm2 yr−1)43400.068 (0.004)0.057 (0.004)
Duct Density (no. mm−2 yr−1)49440.847 (0.040)0.925 (0.048)
Relative Duct Area (% annual ring)49441.422 (0.044)1.509 (0.069)

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Holtz, C.T.; Schoettle, A.W. Is Resistance to Mountain Pine Beetle Associated with Genetic Resistance to White Pine Blister Rust in Limber Pine? Forests 2018, 9, 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100595

AMA Style

Holtz CT, Schoettle AW. Is Resistance to Mountain Pine Beetle Associated with Genetic Resistance to White Pine Blister Rust in Limber Pine? Forests. 2018; 9(10):595. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100595

Chicago/Turabian Style

Holtz, Christine T., and Anna W. Schoettle. 2018. "Is Resistance to Mountain Pine Beetle Associated with Genetic Resistance to White Pine Blister Rust in Limber Pine?" Forests 9, no. 10: 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100595

APA Style

Holtz, C. T., & Schoettle, A. W. (2018). Is Resistance to Mountain Pine Beetle Associated with Genetic Resistance to White Pine Blister Rust in Limber Pine? Forests, 9(10), 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100595

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop