The Natural Evolutionary Potential of Tree Populations to Cope with Newly Introduced Pests and Pathogens—Lessons Learned From Forest Health Catastrophes in Recent Decades
详细信息    查看全文
  • 作者：Katharina B. Budde ; Lene Rostgaard Nielsen ; Hans Peter Ravn…
  • 关键词：Pests ; Pathogens ; Host resistance ; Coevolution ; Invasive species ; Forest trees
  • 刊名：Current Forestry Reports
  • 出版年：2016
  • 出版时间：March 2016
  • 年：2016
  • 卷：2
  • 期：1
  • 页码：18-29
  • 全文大小：682 KB
  • 参考文献：1.Dale VH, Joyce LA, McNulty S, Neilson RP, Ayres MP, Flannigan MD, et al. Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience. 2001;51:723–34.CrossRef
    2.Sexton JP, Hangartner SB, Hoffmann AA. Genetic isolation by environment or distance: which pattern of gene flow is most common? Evolution. 2014;68:1–15.CrossRef
    3.Hoffmann AA, Sgrò CM. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature. 2011;470:479–85.CrossRef
    4.Pautasso M, Schlegel M, Holdenrieder O. Forest health in a changing world. Microb Ecol. 2015;69:826–42.CrossRef
    5.Boyd IL, Freer-Smith PH, Gilligan CA, Godfray HCJ. The consequence of tree pests and diseases for ecosystem services. Science. 2013;342:1235773.CrossRef
    6.Santini A, Ghelardini L, De Pace C, Desprez-Loustau ML, Capretti P, Chandelier A, et al. Biogeographical patterns and determinants of invasion by forest pathogens in Europe. New Phytol. 2013;197:238–50.CrossRef
    7.Brasier C. Intercontinental spread and continuing evolution of the Dutch elm disease pathogens. In: Dunn C, editor. Elms. US: Springer; 2000. p. 61–72.CrossRef
    8.Rizzo DM, Garbelotto M, Hansen EM. Phytophthora ramorum: integrative research and management of an emerging pathogen in California and Oregon forests. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2005;43:309–35.CrossRef
    9.Elliott K, Swank W. Long-term changes in forest composition and diversity following early logging (1919–1923) and the decline of American chestnut (Castanea dentata). Plant Ecol Springer Netherlands. 2008;197:155–72.
    10.Pautasso M, Aas G, Queloz V, Holdenrieder O. European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) dieback—a conservation biology challenge. Biol Conserv. 2013;158:37–49.CrossRef
    11.Maloy OC. White pine blister rust control in North America: a case history. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1997;35:87–109.CrossRef
    12.Villari C, Herms DA, Whitehill JGA, Cipollini D, Bonello P. Progress and gaps in understanding mechanisms of ash tree resistance to emerald ash borer, a model for wood-boring insects that kill angiosperms. New Phytol. 2015; doi: 10.​1111/​nph.​13604
    13.Davidson CB, Gottschalk KW, Johnson JE. Tree mortality following defoliation by the European Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar L) in the United States: Annu. Rev For Sci. 2006;45:74–84.
    14.Mota M, Vieira P. Pine wilt disease a worldwide threat to forest ecosystems. Springer Netherlands. 2008. 405 pp
    15.Kizlinski ML, Orwig DA, Cobb RC, Foster DR. Direct and indirect ecosystem consequences of an invasive pest on forests dominated by eastern hemlock. J Biogeogr. 2002;29:1489–503.CrossRef
    16.••
Ennos R. Resilience of forests to pathogens: an evolutionary ecology perspective. Forestry. 2014;88:41–52. This paper reviews the factors that determine the levels of pathogen damage experienced in forest trees and the conditions which enable or preclude a stable co-existence of host and pathogen.CrossRef
17.Beck S. Resistance of plants to insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 1965;10:207–32.CrossRef
18.Sieber TN. Endophytic fungi in forest trees: are they mutualists? Fungal Biol Rev. 2007;21:75–89.CrossRef
19.Hardoim PR, van Overbeek LS, Berg G, Pirttilä AM, Compant S, Campisano A, et al. The hidden world within plants: ecological and evolutionary considerations for defining functioning of microbial endophytes. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2015;79:293–320.CrossRef
20.Raghavendra AKH, Newcombe G. The contribution of foliar endophytes to quantitative resistance to Melampsora rust. New Phytol. 2013;197:909–18.CrossRef
21.Arnold AE, Mejía LC, Kyllo D, Rojas EI, Maynard Z, Robbins N, et al. Fungal endophytes limit pathogen damage in a tropical tree. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2003;100:15649–54.CrossRef
22.Conrath U, Thulke O, Katz V, Schwindling S, Kohler A. Priming as a mechanism in induced systemic resistance of plants. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2001;107:113–9.CrossRef
23.Delaye L, García-Guzmán G, Heil M. Endophytes versus biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens-are fungal lifestyles evolutionarily stable traits? Fungal Divers. 2013;60:125–35.CrossRef
24.Dawkins R, Krebs JR. Arms races between and within species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 1979;205:489–511.CrossRef
25.De Meaux J, Mitchell-Olds T. Evolution of plant resistance at the molecular level: ecological context of species interactions. Heredity. 2003;91:345–52.CrossRef
26.Gebhardt C, Valkonen JP. Organization of genes controlling disease resistance in the potato genome. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2001;39:79–102.CrossRef
27.Carson SD, Carson MJ. Breeding for resistance in forest trees—a quantitative genetic approach. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1989;27:373–95.CrossRef
28.••
Telford A, Cavers S, Ennos RA, Cottrell JE. Can we protect forests by harnessing variation in resistance to pests and pathogens? Forestry. 2014;88:3-12. This paper reviews and explains the resistance mechanisms in trees and the effect of genetical and environmental factors on resistance trait variation.
29.Petit RJ, Hampe A. Some evolutionary consequences of being a tree. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2006;37:187–214.CrossRef
30.Ganley RJ, Sniezko RA, Newcombe G. Endophyte-mediated resistance against white pine blister rust in Pinus monticola. For Ecol Manage. 2008;255:2751–60.CrossRef
31.Barrett RDH, Schluter D. Adaptation from standing genetic variation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23:38–44.CrossRef
32.••
McKinney L V, Nielsen LR, Collinge DB, Thomsen IM, Hansen JK, Kjær ED. The ash dieback crisis: genetic variation in resistance can prove a long-term solution. Plant Pathol. 2014;63:485–499. This paper reviews the subsequent spread of ash dieback in Europe and points to the importance of naturally occurring resistance to non-native pathogens as basis for natural or assisted selection.
33.Kuparinen A, Savolainen O, Schurr FM. Increased mortality can promote evolutionary adaptation of forest trees to climate change. For Ecol Manage. 2010;259:1003–8.CrossRef
34.Gilbert GS, Webb CO. Phylogenetic signal in plant pathogen-host range. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104:4979–83.CrossRef
35.Gould S, Vrba E. Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology. 1982;8:4–15.CrossRef
36.Drenkhan R, Sander H, Hanso M. Introduction of Mandshurian ash (Fraxinus mandshurica Rupr.) to Estonia: is it related to the current epidemic on European ash (F. excelsior L.)? Eur J For Res. 2014;133:769–81.CrossRef
37.Lobo A, Hansen JK, McKinney LV, Nielsen LR, Kjær ED. Genetic variation in dieback resistance: growth and survival of Fraxinus excelsior under the influence of Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus. Scand J For Res. 2014;29:519–26.CrossRef
38.Husson C, Caël O, Grandjean JP, Nageleisen LM, Marçais B. Occurrence of Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus on infected ash logs. Plant Pathol. 2012;61:889–95.CrossRef
39.McKinney LV, Nielsen LR, Hansen JK, Kjær ED. Presence of natural genetic resistance in Fraxinus excelsior (Oleraceae) to Chalara fraxinea (Ascomycota): an emerging infectious disease. Heredity. 2011;106:788–97.CrossRef
40.McKinney LV, Thomsen IM, Kjær ED, Bengtsson SBK, Nielsen LR. Rapid invasion by an aggressive pathogenic fungus (Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus) replaces a native decomposer (Hymenoscyphus albidus): a case of local cryptic extinction? Fungal Ecol. 2012;5:663–9.CrossRef
41.Kjær ED, McKinney LV, Nielsen LR, Hansen LN, Hansen JK. Adaptive potential of ash (Fraxinus excelsior) populations against the novel emerging pathogen Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus. Evol Appl. 2012;5:219–28.CrossRef
42.Pliūra A, Lygis V, Suchockas V, Bartkevicius E. Performance of twenty four European Fraxinus excelsior populations in three Lithuanian progeny trials with a special emphasis on resistance to Chalara fraxinea. Balt For. 2011;17:17–34.
43.Pliūra A, Lygis V, Marciulyniene D, Suchockas V, et al. Genetic variation of Fraxinus excelsior half-sib families in response to ash dieback disease following simulated spring frost and summer drought treatments. iForest - Biogeosciences For. 2015; doi: 10.​3832/​ifor1514-008
44.Lobo A, McKinney LV, Hansen JK, Kjær ED, Nielsen LR. Genetic variation in dieback resistance in Fraxinus excelsior confirmed by progeny inoculation assay. For. Pathol. 2015; doi: 10.​1111/​efp.​12179
45.Stener LG. Clonal differences in susceptibility to the dieback of Fraxinus excelsior in southern Sweden. Scand J For Res. 2013;28:205–16.CrossRef
46.Kirisits T, Freinschlag C. Ash dieback caused by Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus in a seed plantation of Fraxinus excelsior in Austria. J Agric Ext Rural Dev. 2012;4:184–91.
47.Clark SL, Schlarbaum SE, Pinchot CC, Anagnostakis SL, Saunders MR, Thomas-Van Gundy M, et al. Reintroduction of American chestnut in the National Forest System. J For. 2014;112:502–12.
48.Griffin GJ. Blight control and restoration of the American Chestnut. J For. 2000;98:22–7.
49.•
Sniezko RA. Resistance breeding against nonnative pathogens in forest trees—current successes in North America. Can J Plant Pathol. 2006;28:S270–9. This paper highlights the importance of naturally occurring resistant trees in forests threatened by non-native pests and pathogens and provides examples of successful breeding programs in North America.CrossRef
50.Alexander MT, Worthen LM, Craddock JH. Conservation of Castanea dentata germplasm of the southeastern United States. 693rd ed. Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS); 2005. p. 485–90.
51.Hebard FV, Fitzsimmons SF, Gurney KM, Saielli TM. The breeding program of the American Chestnut Foundation. 1019th ed. Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS); 2014. p. 135–9.
52.Milgroom MG, Cortesi P. Biological control of Chestnut blight with hypervirulence: a critical analysis. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2004;42:311–38.CrossRef
53.Anagnostakis SL. Chestnut breeding in the United States for disease and insect resistance. Plant Dis. 2012;96:1392–403.CrossRef
54.Merkle SA, Andrade GM, Nairn CJ, Powell WA, Maynard CA. Restoration of threatened species: a noble cause for transgenic trees. Tree Genet Genomes. 2007;3:111–8.CrossRef
55.Miranda-Fontaina ME, Fernández-López J, Vettraino AM, Vannini A. Resistance of Castanea Clones to Phytophthora cinnamomi: testing and genetic control. Silvae Genet. 2007;56:11.
56.Cuenca B, Ocaña L, Salinero C, Pintos C, Mansilla JP, Rial C. Selection of Castanea sativa Mill. for resistance to Phytophthora cinnamomi: Micropropagation and testing of selected clones. In: ISHS Acta Hortic. Leuven, Belgium: 866 I Eur. Congr. Chestnut - Castanea 2009; 2010. p. 111–9.
57.Shearer BL, Crane CE, Cochrane JA, Dunne CP. Variation in susceptibility of threatened flora to Phytophthora cinnamomi. Australas Plant Pathol Springer Netherlands. 2013;42:491–502.CrossRef
58.Frampton J, Isik F, Benson DM. Genetic variation in resistance to Phytophthora cinnamomi in seedlings of two Turkish Abies species. Tree Genet Genomes. 2013;9:53–63.CrossRef
59.Dunn CP. The elms: breeding, conservation, and disease management. Springer US. 2000.
60.Nielsen LR, Kjær ED. Gene flow and mating patterns in individuals of wych elm (Ulmus glabra) in forest and open land after the influence of Dutch elm disease. Conserv Genet. 2010;11:257–68.CrossRef
61.Brasier CM. Rapid evolution of introduced plant pathogens via interspecific hybridization is leading to rapid evolution of Dutch elm disease and other fungal plant pathogens. Bioscience. 2001;51:123–33.CrossRef
62.Mittempergher L, Santini A. The history of elm breeding. For Syst. 2004;13:161–77.
63.Heybroek H. The Dutch elm breeding program. In: Sticklen M, Sherald J, editors. Dutch Elm Dis. Res. US: Springer; 1993. p. 16–25.CrossRef
64.Collin E, Bozzano M. Implementing the dynamic conservation of elm genetic resources in Europe: case studies and perspectives. iForest - Biogeosciences For. 2015;8:143–8.CrossRef
65.McLachlan JS, Hellmann JJ, Schwartz MW. A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:297–302.CrossRef
66.Martín JA, Solla A, Venturas M, Collada C, Domínguez J, Miranda E, et al. Seven Ulmus minor clones tolerant to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi registered as forest reproductive material in Spain. iForest - Biogeosciences For. 2015;8:172–80.CrossRef
67.Venturas M, López R, Martín JA, Gascó A, Gil L. Heritability of Ulmus minor resistance to Dutch elm disease and its relationship to vessel size, but not to xylem vulnerability to drought. Plant Pathol. 2014;63:500–9.CrossRef
68.Townsend AM, Bentz SE, Douglass LW. Evaluation of 19 American elm clones for tolerance to Dutch elm disease. Enviornmental Hortic. 2005;23:21–4.
69.Siegert NW, McCullough DG, Liebhold AM, Telewski FW. Resurrected from the ashes: a historical reconstruction of emerald ash borer dynamics through dendrochronological analysis. Emerald ash borer Asian longhorned beetle Res. Dev. Rev. Meet. Cincinnatti, OH. FHTET 2007–04. Morgantown, WV U.S.: For. Serv. For. Heal. Technol. Enterp. Team; 2007. p. 18–9.
70.Haack R, Jendek E, Liu H, Marchant K. The emerald ash borer: a new exotic pest in North America. Newsl Michigan Entomol Soc. 2002;47:1–5.
71.Xia W, Reardon D, Wu Y, JiangHua S. Emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in China: a review and distribution survey. Acta Entomol Sin. 2004;47:679–85.
72.Poland TM, McCullough DG. Emerald ash borer: invasion of the urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resource. J For. 2006;104:118–24.
73.Anulewicz AC, McCullough DG, Cappaert DL. Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) density and canopy dieback in three North American ash species. Arboric Urban For. 2007;33:338–49.
74.Klooster WS, Herms DA, Knight KS, Herms CP, McCullough DG, Smith A, et al. Ash (Fraxinus spp.) mortality, regeneration, and seed bank dynamics in mixed hardwood forests following invasion by emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Biol Invasions. 2014;16:859–73.CrossRef
75.Rebek EJ, Herms DA, Smitley DR. Interspecific variation in resistance to emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) among North American and Asian ash (Fraxinus spp.). Environ Entomol. 2008;37:242–6.CrossRef
76.Anulewicz AC, McCullough DG, Cappaert DL, Poland TM. Host range of the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in North America: results of multiple-choice field experiments. Environ Entomol. 2008;37:230–41.CrossRef
77.Tanis SR, McCullough DG. Host resistance of five Fraxinus species to Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) and effects of Paclobutrazol and fertilization. Environ Entomol. 2015;44:287–99.CrossRef
78.Koch JL, Mason ME, Carey DW, Knight K, Poland T, Herms DA, et al. Survey for tolerance to emerald ash borer within North American ash species. Proc. Symp. ash North Am In: Gen. Tech. Rep., Northern Research Station, US. 2010. p. 60.
79.Koch JL, Carey DW, Mason ME, Poland TM, Knight KS. Intraspecific variation in Fraxinus pennsylvanica responses to emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). New For. Springer Netherlands; 2015; doi: 10.​1007/​s11056-015-9494-4
80.Baranchikov Y, Mozolevskaya E, Yurchenko G, Kenis M. Occurrence of the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis in Russia and its potential impact on European forestry. EPPO Bull. 2008;38:233–8.CrossRef
81.Straw NA, Williams DT, Kulinich O, Gninenko YI. Distribution, impact and rate of spread of emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in the Moscow region of Russia. Forestry. 2013;86:515–22.CrossRef
82.Havill NP, Montgomery ME, Yu G, Shiyake S, Caccone A. Mitochondrial DNA from Hemlock woolly adelgid (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) suggests cryptic speciation and pinpoints the source of the introduction to Eastern North America. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2006;99:195–203.CrossRef
83.Spaulding HL, Rieske LK. The aftermath of an invasion: structure and composition of Central Appalachian hemlock forests following establishment of the hemlock woolly adelgid. Adelges tsugae Biol Invasions. 2010;12:3135–43.CrossRef
84.Domec JC, Rivera LN, King JS, Peszlen I, Hain F, Smith B, et al. Hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) infestation affects water and carbon relations of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana). New Phytol. 2013;199:452–63.CrossRef
85.Orwig D, Foster D. Forest response to the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid in southern New England, USA. J Torrey Bot Soc. 1998;125:60–73.CrossRef
86.Orwig D, Foster D. Stand, landscape, and ecosystem analyses of hemlock woolly adelgid outbreaks in southern New England: an overview. Proc Symp Sustain Manag Hemlock Ecosyst East North Am. 2000;267:123–5.
87.Griffin S. Hemlock Woolly Adelgids in Georgia. Georgia forestry commission. 2007. Online: http://​www.​gfc.​state.​ga.​us/​forest-management/​forest-health/​hemlock-woolly-adelgid/​HWAinGeorgiaFact​sheet07r.​pdf
88.Cheah C, Montgomery M, Salem S, Parker B, Skinner M, Costa S. Biological control of hemlock woolly adelgid. For. Heal. Technol. Enterp. Team. 2004. 1–19
89.Orwig DA, Foster DR, Mausel DL. Landscape patterns of hemlock decline in New England due to the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid. J Biogeogr. 2002;29:1475–87.CrossRef
90.Stadler B, Müller T, Orwig D, Cobb R. Hemlock woolly adelgid in New England forests: canopy impacts transforming ecosystem processes and landscapes. Ecosystems. 2005;8:233–47.CrossRef
91.Mcclure MS. Reshaping the ecology of invading populations of hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae (Homoptera: Adelgidae), in eastern North America. Biol. Invasions. 1999; 247–54
92.Caswell T, Casagrande R, Maynard B, Preisser E. Production and evaluation of eastern hemlocks potentially resistant to the hemlock woolly adelgid. United States, Hartford: 4th Symp. hemlock woolly adelgid East; 2008. p. 124–34.
93.Ingwell L, Preisser E. Using citizen science programs to identify host resistance in pest‐invaded forests. Conserv Biol Blackwell Publishing Inc. 2011;25:182–8.CrossRef
94.Pontius JA, Hallett RA, Jenkins JC. Foliar chemistry linked to infestation and susceptibility to hemlock woolly adelgid (Homoptera: Adelgidae). Environ Entomol. 2006;35:112–20.CrossRef
95.McKenzie EA, Elkinton JS, Casagrande RA, Preisser EL, Mayer M. Terpene chemistry of eastern hemlocks resistant to hemlock woolly adelgid. J Chem Ecol. 2014;40:1003–12.CrossRef
96.Dukes JS, Pontius J, Orwig D, Garnas JR, Rodgers VL, Brazee N, et al. Responses of insect pests, pathogens, and invasive plant species to climate change in the forests of northeastern North America: what can we predict? This article is one of a selection of papers from NE Forests 2100: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts o. Can J For Res. 2009;39:231–48.CrossRef
97.Mamiya Y. Pathology of the pine wilt disease caused by Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1983;21:201–20.CrossRef
98.Zhao T, Krokene P, Hu J, Christiansen E, Björklund N, Långström B, et al. Induced terpene accumulation in Norway spruce inhibits bark beetle colonization in a dose-dependent manner. PLoS One. 2011;6:e26649.CrossRef
99.Burgermeister W, Sousa E, Mota M, Penas AC, Bravo MA, Metge K, et al. First report of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus in Portugal and in Europe. Nematology. 1999;1:727–34.CrossRef
100.Rodrigues J. National eradication programme for the Pinewood nematode. In: Pine wilt disease—A worldwide threat to forest ecosystems. Springer Netherlands. 2008. p. 5–14
101.Vicente C, Espada M, Vieira P, Mota M. Pine wilt disease: a threat to European forestry. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2012;133:89–99.CrossRef
102.Sousa E, Bravo M, Pires J, Naves P, Penas A, Bonifácio L, et al. Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Nematoda; Aphelenchoididae) associated with Monochamus galloprovincialis (Coleoptera; Cerambycidae) in Portugal. Nematology. 2001;3:89–91.CrossRef
103.Shi J, Luo Y, Xia N, Wu H, Song J. Suggestions on management measures of pine forest ecosystems invaded by Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. For Stud China. 2008;10:45–8.CrossRef
104.Nose M, Shiraishi S. Comparison of the gene expression profiles of resistant and non-resistant Japanese black pine inoculated with pine wood nematode using a modified LongSAGE technique. For Pathol. 2011;41:143–55.CrossRef
105.Zhang F, Kajiwara J, Mori Y, Ohira M, Tsutsumi Y, Kondo R. Metabolites from resistant and susceptible Pinus thunbergii after inoculation with pine wood nematode. Am J Plant Sci. 2013;4:512–8.CrossRef
106.Nose M, Shiraishi S. Breeding for resistance to pine wilt disease. In: Pine wilt disease. Springer Japan. 2008. p. 334–50.
107.Da Silva M, Solla A, Sampedro L, Zas R, Vasconcelos MW. Susceptibility to the pinewood nematode (PWN) of four pine species involved in potential range expansion across Europe. Tree Physiol. 2015;35:987–99.CrossRef
108.Zas R, Moreira X, Ramos M, Lima MRM, Nunes da Silva M, Solla A, et al. Intraspecific variation of anatomical and chemical defensive traits in Maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) as factors in susceptibility to the pinewood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus). Trees. 2015;29:663–73.CrossRef
109.Rutherford TA, Webster JM. Distribution of pine wilt disease with respect to temperature in North America, Japan, and Europe. Can J For Res. 1987;17:1050–9.CrossRef
110.Evans H, McNamara D, Braasch H, Chadoeuf J, Magnusson C. Pest risk analysis (PRA) for the territories of the European Union (as PRA area) on Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and its vectors in the genus Monochamus. Bull OEPP/EPPO. 1996;26:199–249.CrossRef
111.Santini A, Fagnani A, Ferrini F, Ghelardini L, Mittempergher L. Variation among Italian and French elm clones in their response to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi inoculation. For Pathol. 2005;35:183–93.CrossRef
112.Ghelardini L, Santini A. Avoidance by early flushing: a new perspective on Dutch elm disease research. IForest. 2009;2:143–53.CrossRef
113.Hamilton M. Chapter 3. Genetic drift and effective population size. Popul. Genet. Wiley & Blackwell; 2009. p. 424.
114.Dodd RS, Hüberli D, Mayer W, Harnik TY, Afzal-Rafii Z, Garbelotto M. Evidence for the role of synchronicity between host phenology and pathogen activity in the distribution of sudden oak death canker disease. New Phytol. 2008;179:505–14.CrossRef
115.Parker A, Goudie AS, Anderson DE, Robinson MA, Bonsall C. A review of the mid-Holocene elm decline in the British Isles. Prog Phys Geogr. 2002;26:1–45.CrossRef
116.Rajala T, Velmala SM, Vesala R, Smolander A, Pennanen T. The community of needle endophytes reflects the current physiological state of Norway spruce. Fungal Biol. 2014;118:309–15.CrossRef
117.Gennaro M, Gonthier P, Nicolotti G. Fungal endophytic communities in healthy and declining Quercus robur L. and Q. cerris L. trees in Northern Italy. J Phytopathol. 2003;151:529–34.CrossRef
118.Martín JA, Witzell J, Blumenstein K, Rozpedowska E, Helander M, Sieber TN, et al. Resistance to Dutch elm disease reduces presence of xylem endophytic fungi in Elms (Ulmus spp.). PLoS One. 2013;8:e56987.CrossRef
119.Díaz G, Córcoles AI, Asencio AD, Torres MP. In vitro antagonism of Trichoderma and naturally occurring fungi from elms against Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. For Pathol. 2013;43:51–8.
120.•Witzell J, Martín JA, Blumenstein K. Ecological aspects of endophyte-based biocontrol of forest diseases. In: Advances in Endophytic Research. 2014. Springer India. p. 321–33. This book chapter provides insights on the role of endophytes in tree resistance to pests and pathogens and highlights the urgent need for research on endophyte-based biocontrol of forest tree diseases.
121.IUFRO. Montesclaros Declaration. 2011, http://​www.​iufro.​org/​science/​divisions/​division-7/​70000/​publications/​montesclaros-declaration/​
122.Wingfield MJ, Brockerhoff EG, Wingfield BD, Slippers B. Planted forest health: the need for a global strategy. Science. 2015;349:832–6.CrossRef
123.Nielsen LR, Kjær ED. Fine-scale gene flow and genetic structure in a relic Ulmus laevis population at its northern range. Tree Genet Genomes. 2010;6:643–9.CrossRef
124.Bacles CFE, Ennos RA. Paternity analysis of pollen-mediated gene flow for Fraxinus excelsior L. in a chronically fragmented landscape. Heredity. 2008;101:368–80.CrossRef
125.Lowe AJ, Cavers S, Boshier D, Breed MF, Hollingsworth PM. The resilience of forest fragmentation genetics—no longer a paradox—we were just looking in the wrong place. Heredity. 2015;115:97–9.CrossRef
126.Cavers S. Evolution, ecology and tree health: finding ways to prepare Britain’s forests for future threats. Forestry. 2015;88:1–2.CrossRef
127.Gil L, Fuentes-Utrillo P, Soto A, Cervera MT, Collada C. Phylogeography: English elm is a 2,000-year-old Roman clone. Nature. 2004;431:1053.CrossRef
128.Alexander J, Lee CA. Lessons learned from a decade of sudden oak death in California: evaluating local management. Environ Manage. 2010;46:315–28.CrossRef
129.Meentemeyer RK, Dorning MA, Vogler JB, Schmidt D, Garbelotto M. Citizen science helps predict risk of emerging infectious disease. Front Ecol Environ. 2015;13:189–94.CrossRef
130.Haack RA, Hérard F, Sun J, Turgeon JJ. Managing invasive populations of Asian longhorned beetle and citrus long-horned beetle: a worldwide perspective. Annu Rev Entomol. 2010;55:521–46.CrossRef
131.Schröder T. Zur aktuellen Situation des Kiefernholznematoden Bursaphelenchus xylophilus in der EU- Sachstand, Risikobewertung und Managementoptionen. Julius-Kuhn-Archiv. 2010;428:234.
132.Vannatta AR, Hauer RH, Schuettpelz NM. Economic analysis of emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) management options. J Econ Entomol. 2012;105:196–206.CrossRef
133.Foster D, Orwig D. Preemptive and salvage harvesting of New England forests: when doing nothing is a viable alternative. Conserv Biol. 2006;20:959–70.CrossRef
134.Havill N, Montgomery M. The role of Arboreta in studying the evolution of host resistance to the hemlock woolly adelgid. Arnoldia. 2008;65:2–9.
135.COST action FP1401 “A global network of nurseries as early warning system against alien tree pests (Global warning)”, webpage: http://​www.​cost.​eu/​COST_​Actions/​fps/​FP1401
136.REINFFORCE - REsource INFrastructure for monitoring and adapting European Atlantic FORests under Changing climate, webpage: http://​www.​forestry.​gov.​uk/​fr/​reinfforce
137.Drenkhan R, Hanso M. New host species for Chalara fraxinea. New Dis Reports. 2010;22:16.CrossRef
138.Koskela J, Lefèvre F, Schueler S, Kraigher H, Olrik DC, Hubert J, et al. Translating conservation genetics into management: Pan-European minimum requirements for dynamic conservation units of forest tree genetic diversity. Biol Conserv. 2013;157:39–49.CrossRef
139.Graudal LOV, Kjær ED, Thomsen A, Larsen B. Planning national programmes for conservation of forest genetic resources. Humlebæk, Denmark: Danida For. Seed Centre, Tech. notes 46. Danida Forest Seed Centre; 1997.
140.Frankham R, Bradshaw CJA, Brook BW. Genetics in conservation management: revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Biol Conserv. 2014;170:56–63.CrossRef
141.Graudal L, Kjær ED, Canger S. A systematic approach to the conservation of genetic resources of trees and shrubs in Denmark. Forest Ecol Manag. 1995;73:117–34.CrossRef
142.Kjær E, Amaral W, Yanchuk A, Graudal L. Strategies for conservation of forest genetic resources. For Genet Resour Conserv Manag. 2004;1:5–24. FAO, Rome.
  • 作者单位：Katharina B. Budde (1)
    Lene Rostgaard Nielsen (1)
    Hans Peter Ravn (1)
    Erik Dahl Kjær (1)

    1. IGN Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958, Frederiksberg, Denmark
  • 刊物类别：Sustainable Development; Environmental Management; Nature Conservation; Forestry; Forestry Managemen
  • 刊物主题：Sustainable Development; Environmental Management; Nature Conservation; Forestry; Forestry Management; Ecology;
  • 出版者：Springer International Publishing
  • ISSN：2198-6436
    • 文摘
    Emerging diseases often originate from host shifts of introduced pests or pathogens. Genetic resistance of the host to such diseases might be limited or absent due to the lack of coevolutionary history. We review six examples of major disease outbreaks on native tree species caused by different introduced pests and pathogens that led to large ecological and economical losses. In all six cases, high tree mortality was observed in natural populations with some surviving individuals exhibiting varying levels of genetic resistance. The abundance and distribution of resistant individuals and the heritability of resistance traits varies substantially among the cases. While chestnut blight wilt combined with ink disease has virtually eliminated mature Castanea dentata trees from North America, other severe emerging diseases, such as the ash dieback, have left many surviving trees and genetic variation in resistance to such diseases has been documented. We argue that the evolutionary potential of tree species to respond to new emerging diseases should not be underestimated. However, the risk of increased levels of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity caused by low population sizes is a major concern. Maintenance of broad genetic diversity is an important issue in conservation and forestry management. We expect that future research targeting the genetic background of biotic resistance towards emerging diseases and the role of endophytic communities in protecting trees will facilitate the informed and science-based guidance required to manage and maintain forests with high resilience. International cooperation on limiting disease spread and the provision of early invasive pest or pathogen detection systems are essential.

    © 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

    地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083

    电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700