Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26037523›Full record

ArticleOecologia2015

Bacteria influence mountain pine beetle brood development through interactions with symbiotic and antagonistic fungi: implications for climate-driven host range expansion.

Janet Therrien, Charles J Mason, Jonathan A Cale, Aaron Adams, Brian H Aukema, Cameron R Currie, Kenneth F Raffa, Nadir Erbilgin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. How host species and body part determine the microbial communities of five ambrosia beetle species.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A New Perspective ofBiology · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Discovery of Phloeophagus Beetles as a Source ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Janet TherrienDepartment of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, USA.
Charles J MasonDepartment of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Jonathan A CaleDepartment of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, USA.
Aaron AdamsDepartment of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Brian H AukemaDepartment of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Cameron R CurrieDepartment of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Kenneth F RaffaDepartment of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Nadir ErbilginDepartment of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, USA. erbilgin@ualberta.ca.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bark beetles are associated with diverse communities of symbionts. Although fungi have received significant attention, we know little about how bacteria, and in particular their interactions with fungi, affect bark beetle reproduction. We tested how interactions between four bacterial associates, two symbiotic fungi, and two opportunistic fungi affect performance of mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) in host tissue. We compared beetle performance in phloem of its historical host, lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and its novel host recently accessed through warming climate, jack pine (Pinus banksiana). Overall, beetles produced more larvae, and established longer ovipositional and larval galleries in host tissue predominantly colonized by the symbiotic fungi, Grosmannia clavigera, or Ophiostoma montium than by the opportunistic colonizer Aspergillus and to a lesser extent, Trichoderma. This occurred in both historical and naïve hosts. Impacts of bacteria on beetle reproduction depended on particular fungus-bacterium combinations and host species. Some bacteria, e.g., Pseudomonas sp. D4-22 and Hy4T4 in P. contorta and Pseudomonas sp. Hy4T4 and Stenotrophomonas in P. banksiana, reduced antagonistic effects by Aspergillus and Trichoderma resulting in more larvae and longer ovipositional and larval galleries. These effects were not selective, as bacteria also reduced beneficial effects by symbionts in both host species. Interestingly, Bacillus enhanced antagonistic effects by Aspergillus in both hosts. These results demonstrate that bacteria influence brood development of bark beetles in host tissue. They also suggest that climate-driven range expansion of D. ponderosae through the boreal forest will not be significantly constrained by requirements of, or interactions among, its microbial associates.

Indexed as

ClimateAnimalsColeopteraHost SpecificityLarvaOphiostomatalesPinusPseudomonasSymbiosisBacteriaBark beetlesFungiHost colonizationInvasion biologyJack pine

Identifiers

PMID26037523
OpenAlexW2180771872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.