Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41054270›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2026

From beginning to end: the synecology of tree-killing bark beetles, fungi, and trees.

Diana L Six, Almuth Hammerbacher, Amy Trowbridge, Lorinda Bullington

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Diana L SixDepartment of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT, 59812, USA.
Almuth HammerbacherDepartment of Zoology and Entomology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-0262-2634
Amy TrowbridgeDepartment of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
Lorinda BullingtonDepartment of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT, 59812, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4132-2762

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over a century of research has revealed an amazing complexity of behaviours and physiological adaptations that allow tiny bark beetles to overcome large trees, sometimes resulting in outbreaks that kill millions of trees. Turning a tree into a home and successfully raising offspring involves constant interactions among the beetles, the tree, its microbiome, and the beetles' associated microbes, all influenced by abiotic factors that can determine success or failure. While we have learned much about these systems, substantial knowledge gaps remain. This synthesis aims to clarify and integrate current understanding, identify gaps, challenge long-held assumptions, and address interpretative issues that impede progress toward a holistic understanding of these systems. We advocate for expanding perspectives using synecological approaches to understand these complex systems better. We encourage expanding research into how colonization by the bark beetle-fungi complex influences subsequent tree decay and forest carbon dynamics. An explicit goal is to provide a comprehensive resource for new researchers while encouraging them to question established hypotheses and to explore new avenues of enquiry.

Indexed as

ColeopteraFungiTreesAnimalsDendroctonusIpsmicrobiomemutualismPinaceaeScolytinaesymbiosistree defencetree physiology

Identifiers

PMID41054270
PMCPMC12783442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.