Differences in defence responses of Pinus contorta and Pinus banksiana to the mountain pine beetle fungal associate Grosmannia clavigera are affected by water deficit

56Citations
Citations of this article
74Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We tested the hypotheses that responses to the mountain pine beetle fungal associate Grosmannia clavigera will differ between the evolutionarily co-evolved host lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) and the naïve host jack pine (Pinus banksiana) and that these responses will be influenced by water availability. G.clavigera inoculation resulted in more rapid stem lesion development in lodgepole than in jack pine water deficit delayed lesion development in both species. Decreased hydraulic conductivity was observed in inoculated lodgepole pine seedlings, likely because of tracheid occlusion by fungal hyphae and/or metabolite accumulation. Drought but not inoculation significantly impacted bark abscisic acid levels. Jasmonic and salicylic acid were implicated in local and systemic responses of both species to G.clavigera, with salicylic acid appearing to play a greater role in jack pine response to G.clavigera than lodgepole pine. Water deficit increased constitutive levels and/or attenuated induced responses to G.clavigera for several monoterpenes in lodgepole but not jack pine. Instead, inoculation of well-watered but not water deficit jack pine resulted in a greater number of xylem resin ducts. These findings reveal mechanisms underlying differences in G.clavigera-induced responses between lodgepole and jack pine hosts, and how water availability modulates these responses.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Arango-Velez, A., El Kayal, W., Copeland, C. C. J., Zaharia, L. I., Lusebrink, I., & Cooke, J. E. K. (2016). Differences in defence responses of Pinus contorta and Pinus banksiana to the mountain pine beetle fungal associate Grosmannia clavigera are affected by water deficit. Plant Cell and Environment, 39(4), 726–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12615

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free