↓ Skip to main content

Weathering the storm: how lodgepole pine trees survive mountain pine beetle outbreaks

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Weathering the storm: how lodgepole pine trees survive mountain pine beetle outbreaks
Published in
Oecologia, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3865-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadir Erbilgin, Jonathan A. Cale, Altaf Hussain, Guncha Ishangulyyeva, Jennifer G. Klutsch, Ahmed Najar, Shiyang Zhao

Abstract

Recent mountain pine beetle outbreaks in western North America killed millions of lodgepole pine trees, leaving few survivors. However, the mechanism underlying the ability of trees to survive bark beetle outbreaks is unknown, but likely involve phytochemicals such as monoterpenes and fatty acids that can drive beetle aggregation and colonization on their hosts. Thus, we conducted a field survey of beetle-resistant lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) trees to retrospectively deduce whether these phytochemicals underlie their survival by comparing their chemistry to that of non-attacked trees in the same stands. We also compared beetle attack characteristics between resistant and beetle-killed trees. Beetle-killed trees had more beetle attacks and longer ovipositional galleries than resistant trees, which also lacked the larval establishment found in beetle-killed trees. Resistant trees contained high amounts of toxic and attraction-inhibitive compounds and low amounts of pheromone-precursor and synergist compounds. During beetle host aggregation and colonization, these compounds likely served three critical roles in tree survival. First, low amounts of pheromone-precursor (α-pinene) and synergist (mycrene, terpinolene) compounds reduced or prevented beetles from attracting conspecifics to residual trees. Second, high amounts of 4-allyanisole further inhibited beetle attraction to its pheromone. Finally, high amounts of toxic limonene, 3-carene, 4-allyanisole, α-linolenic acid, and linoleic acid inhibited beetle gallery establishment and oviposition. We conclude that the variation of chemotypic expression of local plant populations can have profound ecological consequences including survival during insect outbreaks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 28%
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 52%
Environmental Science 11 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 19 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2017.
All research outputs
#7,755,290
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,720
of 4,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,870
of 311,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#17
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.