Resistance of Eight Species of Ash Trees to Emerald Ash Borer and their Mechanisms
American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
Volume 2, Issue 6, November 2014, Pages: 302-308
Received: Dec. 11, 2014; Accepted: Dec. 23, 2014; Published: Dec. 29, 2014
Views 2548      Downloads 124
Authors
Shixiang Zong, Key Laboratory of Beijing for the Control of Forest Pests, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100 083, China
Jianqiang Lin, Ao Yang Ecology and Agroforestry Limited Company, Jiangsu 215 623, China
Tao Wang, Mentougou Forestry Station, Beijing 102 300, China
Youqing Luo, Key Laboratory of Beijing for the Control of Forest Pests, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100 083, China
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
Ash tree, Fraxinus (Oleaceae), is a fine species of timber, shelter and scenic tree used for afforestation in China. Emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, an important trunk borer of ash trees, have caused great damage to ash trees in China, the United States, Canada and other countries. First, adult EAB lays eggs in the bark crevices, then the newly hatched larvae feed on the superficial layers of the bark, and enter the xylem when approaching maturity, causing great damage. Therefore, bark is an important location for the adult oviposition, egg development and larval feeding of EAB. In order to understand the resistance of different species of ash trees and their mechanisms, eight ash trees with varying degrees of resistance to EAB were chosen to further investigate the morphological characteristics of the bark, anatomical structure of the tissue, main nutrients and secondary metabolites. The following results were observed: (1) The resistance of different tree species to EAB was not correlated with the bark color, but was inversely proportional to bark thickness, roughness, lenticel size, and compactness. The thicker, rougher and more compact the bark was, the larger the lenticels were, and in turn the greater the EAB-induced damage was. (2) In the anatomical structure of the bark tissues, the vessel size, wood cell number, wood cell area and stone cell number were shown to be the most important resistance factors, among which vessel area and wood cell area were both negatively correlated with insect resistance, and stone cell number and wood cell number were positively correlated. (3) Among the main nutrients and secondary metabolites, polyphenols, soluble sugars, reducing sugars and flavonoids were shown to be the most important resistance factors, the contents of which in tree species with high resistance were generally higher than those in susceptible tree species. These results provide a theoretical basis and practical guidance for revealing the resistance of different species of ash trees to EAB, and selecting suitable insect resistant tree species.
Keywords
Emerald Ash Borer, Ash Tree, Bark, Resistance Mechanism
To cite this article
Shixiang Zong, Jianqiang Lin, Tao Wang, Youqing Luo, Resistance of Eight Species of Ash Trees to Emerald Ash Borer and their Mechanisms, American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. Vol. 2, No. 6, 2014, pp. 302-308. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20140206.22
References
[1]
Anulewicz AC, McCullough DG, Cappaert DL (2007) Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) density and canopy dieback in three North American ash species. Arboriculture Urban Forest. 33(5): 338–349.
[2]
Bosu PP, Wagner MR (2008) Anatomical and nutritional factors associated with susceptibility of elms (Ulmus spp.) to the elm leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 101(3): 944-954.
[3]
Ballabeni P, Gottbard K, Kayumba A et al. (2003) Local adaptation and ecological genetics of host-plant specialization in a leaf beetle. Oikos. 101(1): 70-78.
[4]
Cao B, Xu X (2004) Insect resistance of trees and its chemical mechanism. J. Ningxia Agri. College 25(4): 53-57.
[5]
Etges W, Ahrens M (2001) Premating isolation is determined by larval-rearing substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis.V. Deep geographic variation in epicuticular hydrocarbons among isolated populations. Am. Nat. 158: 585-598.
[6]
Ge F, Wu KM, Chen XX (2011) Major advance on the interaction mechanism among plants, pest insects and natural enemies in China. Chinese Bull. Entomol. 48(1): 1-6.
[7]
Hou TQ (1986) Emerald Ash Borer. Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Agricultural Insects of China (Vol.1). Beijing: China Agr. Press 445.
[8]
Huang JS, Ding M, Gao ML (1993) An investigation on the insect resistant sequence of 51casuarina provenances to Anoplophora chinesis (Forester). J. Fujian Forest. Sci. Technol. 20(03): 29-33.
[9]
Herms D, Rebek E, Smitley D et al. (1993) Interspecific variation in ash resistance to emerald ash borer. Emerald ash borer research and technology development meeting, Michigan 2004: 33.
[10]
Haack RA, Jendek E, Liu HP et al. (2002) The emerald ash borer: a new exotic pest in North America. Newsletter of the Michigan Entomological Society 47(3&4): 1-5.
[11]
Jednek E (1994) Studies in the east palaearctic species of the genus Agrilus Dahl, 1823 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Entomol. Probl. 25(1): 9-25.
[12]
Kessler A, Halitschke R, Baldwin IT (2004) Silencing the jasmonate cascade: Induced plant defenses and insect populations. Science 305: 665-668.
[13]
Kathleen SK, John PB, Robert PL (2013) Factors affecting the survival of ash (Fraxinus spp.) trees infested by emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Biol. Invasions 15: 371-383.
[14]
Liu JL, Wen JB, Ma FY et al. (1999) Timber Anatomical Structure of 9 Tree Species and Their Resistance to Longicorn Beetles. J. Beijing Forest. Univ. 21(4): 18-26.
[15]
Li HP, Huang DZ, Wang ZG et al. (2004) Relationships between Morphological Characteristics and Tissue Structure of Poplars and Damage by Anophora glabripennis Motsch. J Northeast Forest. Univ. 32 (6): 111-112.
[16]
Li JD, Sang YQ, Bi HT et al. (2007) Study on the relationship between bark inclusion of 4 tree species with the resistance to Apriona germari (Hope). Henan Sciences 25(4): 578-581.
[17]
Marshall JM, Storer AJ, Fraser I Mastro VC (2010) Efficacy of trap and lure types for detection of Agrilus planipennis (Col., Buprestidae) at low density. J. Appl. Entomol. 134: 296-302.
[18]
Qin JD (1995) Studies on insect-plant relationships: recent trends and prospect [J]. Acta Zool. Sinica 41(01): 12-20.
[19]
Raghu S, Drew R, Clarke AR (2004) Influence of host plant structure and microclimate on the abundance and behavior of a tephritid fly. J. Insect Behav. 17(2): 179-190.
[20]
Seung CH, Williamson RC, David WH (2005) Leaf biomechanical properties as mechanisms of resistance to black cutworm (Agrotis ipsilon) among Poa species. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 145: 201-208.
[21]
Wei X, Dick R, Wu Y, Sun JH (2004) Emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in China: a review and distribution survey. Acta Entomol. Sinica 47(5):679-685.
[22]
Wang ZZ (2010) Study on resistance of different tree species (variety) to Holcocerus hippophaecolus (Lepidoptera: Cossidae). Beijing Forestry University Master’s thesis.
[23]
Yu CM (1992) Emerald Ash Borer. Xiao GR. Forest Insects of China (2nd edition). Beijing: China Forestry Press 400-401.
[24]
Yang XY, Yan XH, Zhou XB (1992) Effect of Nutrients in Poplars on Resistance to Anoplophora nobilis Ganglbauer. J. Northwest Forest. College 7(03): 26-32.
[25]
Zhao TH, Chi CG, Gao RT et al. (2005) Supplementary study on life history of emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis, in different areas of China. Forest Pest and Disease 24 (06): 17-20.
[26]
Zhao TH, Gao RT, Liu HP et al. (2005) Host range of emerald ash borer, Agrilius planipennis Fairmaire, its damage and the countermeasures. Acta Entomol. Sinica 48(04): 594-599.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186