Mpbep 2012 04 prsnttn howfertilizationthinningmayimpacttreedefensempboverwintering
Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine
-
Upload
fri-research -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine
![Page 1: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Mountain pine beetle phenology and success in whitebark pine in
Alberta
Evan Esch1, A. Rice1 , D. W. Langor2,& J.R. Spence1
1 University of Alberta
2 NRCAN Northern Forestry Center
![Page 2: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis)
![Page 3: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis)
![Page 4: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis)
?
![Page 5: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
White Pine Blister Rust (Cronartium ribicola Fisher)
![Page 6: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
White Pine Blister Rust in Alberta
Stand level infection cab be 100% Some suggest 90% decline in abundance of this species during past century due to wpbr
From: Smyth et al 2008
![Page 7: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Recent history of mountain mine beetle in whitebark pine
From: Western Regional Climate Center
![Page 8: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Status
• Listed as endangered in AB
• Recently COSEWIC has recommended endangered status and protection under SARA
• Recovery strategy for WPB to be released in coming months
• Procedures to list WBP in USA underway under Endangered Species Act, but are moving slowly
![Page 9: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Status
• Listed as endangered in AB
• Recently COSEWIC has recommended endangered status and protection under SARA
• Recovery strategy for WPB to be released in coming months
• Procedures to list WBP in USA underway under Endangered Species Act, but are moving slowly
![Page 10: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Status
• Listed as endangered in AB
• Recently COSEWIC has recommended endangered status and protection under SARA
• Recovery strategy for WPB to be released in coming months
• Procedures to list WBP in USA underway under Endangered Species Act, but are moving slowly
![Page 11: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Status • Listed as endangered in AB
• Recently COSEWIC has recommended
endangered status and protection under SARA
• Recovery strategy for WPB to be released in coming months
• Procedures to list WBP in USA under Endangered Species Act in motion, but are moving slowly
![Page 12: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Determine the quality of whitebark pine as a host for the mountain pine beetle (MPB) relative to lodgepole pine in terms of:
Objective
![Page 13: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Determine the quality of whitebark pine as a host for the mountain pine beetle (MPB) relative to lodgepole pine in terms of:
1. Reproductive rates (Rn)
Objective
![Page 14: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Determine the quality of whitebark pine as a host for the mountain pine beetle (MPB) relative to lodgepole pine in terms of:
1. Reproductive rates (Rn)
2. Brood condition
Objective
![Page 15: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Determine the quality of whitebark pine as a host for the mountain pine beetle (MPB) relative to lodgepole pine in terms of:
1. Reproductive rates (Rn)
2. Brood condition
3. Development time (phenology)
Objective
![Page 16: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Determine the quality of whitebark pine as a host for the mountain pine beetle (MPB) relative to lodgepole pine in terms of:
1. Reproductive rates (Rn)
2. Brood condition
3. Development time (phenology)
4. Performance of fungal symbionts
Objective
![Page 17: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Determine the quality of whitebark pine as a host for the mountain pine beetle (MPB) relative to lodgepole pine in terms of:
1. Reproductive rates (Rn)
2. Brood condition
3. Development time (phenology)
4. Performance of fungal symbionts
5. Other host characteristics (resin blisters, phloem thickness, etc.)
Objective
![Page 18: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Determine the quality of whitebark pine as a host for the mountain pine beetle (MPB) relative to lodgepole pine in terms of:
1. Reproductive rates
2. Brood condition
3. Development time (phenology)
4. Performance of fungal symbionts
5. Other host characteristics (resin blisters, phloem thickness, etc.)
Objective
Management Recommendations
![Page 19: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Determine the quality of whitebark pine as a host for the mountain pine beetle (MPB) relative to lodgepole pine in terms of:
1. Reproductive rates
2. Brood condition
3. Development time (phenology)
4. Performance of fungal symbionts
5. Other host characteristics (resin blisters, phloem thickness, etc.)
Objective
Management Recommendations Do we need to change our MPB strategy when stands
contain whitebark pine and if so how?
![Page 20: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
What we expected to find
South of the border
![Page 21: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
What we expected to find
South of the border Limber pine
![Page 22: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
What we expected to find
South of the border Limber pine
ASRD forest health officers
![Page 23: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
What we expected to find
South of the border Limber pine
ASRD forest health officers Library
![Page 24: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
What we expected to find
South of the border Limber pine
ASRD forest health officers Library
![Page 25: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Grosmannia clavigera
Leptographium longiclavatum
Ophiostoma montium
Agar control
Exp.1: Fungal symbionts Whitebark Pine Distribution
MPB activity No MPB data
![Page 26: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Lesion Length
Control Om Ll Gc
0
50
100
150
200
Lesi
on
len
gth
(m
m)
+ SE
Inoculum
*
*
Whitebark n=10
Lodgepole n=10
![Page 27: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Conclusions
• Strength of the induced defense response is largely similar between the two species
![Page 28: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Conclusions
• Strength of the induced defense response is largely similar between the two species
• WBP may have a slightly stronger induced defense response, though this is not consistent for all fungal species
![Page 29: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusions
• Strength of the induced defense response is largely similar between the two species
• WBP may have a slightly stronger induced defense response, though this is not consistent for all fungal species
• The most important fungal symbiont (L. longiclavatum) does well in both host species
![Page 30: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Exp.2: Laboratory Rearing
25 Lodgepole bolts
25 Whitebark bolts 2 galleries initiated/bolt
![Page 31: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Measuring MPB life-history traits
1. Gallery success
2. Brood production
3. Brood adult
condition:
-Size
-Weight
-Fat Content
![Page 32: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Results • Beetles were more likely to establish galleries
in LPP than WBP
![Page 33: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Results • Beetles were more likely to establish galleries in LPP than
WBP
• Brood production was low in WBP with thin phloem, but similar to LPP in thicker phloem bolts
![Page 34: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Results • Beetles were more likely to establish galleries in LPP than WBP
• Brood production was low in WBP with thin phloem, but similar to LPP in thicker phloem bolts
• Beetles were larger and heavier in WBP bolts with thick phloem and smaller and lighter in bolts with thinner phloem relative to beetles from LPP
![Page 35: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Results • Beetles were more likely to establish galleries in LPP than
WBP
• Brood production was low in WBP with thin phloem, but similar to LPP in thicker phloem bolts
• Beetles were larger and heavier in WBP bolts with thick phloem and smaller and lighter in bolts with thinner phloem relative to beetles from LPP
• Fat content was higher in beetles from LPP
![Page 36: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Conclusions • Neither host species was better than the other
in all measured traits
![Page 37: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Conclusions • Neither host species was better than the other
in all measured traits
• The quality of each individual tree (i.e. phloem thickness) had a greater impact on MPB success than the identity of the host species
![Page 38: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Conclusions • Neither host species was better than the other
in all measured traits
• The quality of each individual tree (i.e. phloem thickness) had a greater impact on MPB success than the identity of the host species
• Quality of WBP varied greatly with phloem thickness, more so than LPP. Only WBP bolts with thicker phloem were good host for the MPB
![Page 39: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Whitebark Pine Distribution
MPB activity No MPB data
Exp.3:Rn and Phenology
![Page 40: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Whitebark Pine Distribution
MPB activity No MPB data
Exp.3:Rn and Phenology
![Page 41: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
X 3
X 3
6
2008-2009 Whitebark Pine Distribution
MPB activity No MPB data
![Page 42: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
X 6
X 6
12
2009-2010 Whitebark Pine Distribution
MPB activity No MPB data
![Page 43: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Exp.3:Rn and Phenology
![Page 44: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Results • Mortality high 2008-2009 and complete 2009-
2010 in experimental stands
![Page 45: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Results • Mortality high 2008-2009 and complete 2009-
2010 in experimental stands
• Mortality of egg and larval stages were greater in greater in WBP, though did not translate into large differences in Rn
![Page 46: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Results • Mortality high 2008-2009 and complete 2009-
2010 in experimental stands
• Mortality of egg and larval stages were greater in greater in WBP, though did not translate into large differences in Rn
• Unlike limber pine WBP phloem was not thicker than LPP phloem
![Page 47: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Results • Mortality high 2008-2009 and complete 2009-
2010 in experimental stands
• Mortality of egg and larval stages were greater in greater in WBP, though did not translate into large differences in Rn
• Unlike limber pine WBP phloem was not thicker than LPP phloem
• 1/3 of brood reached adult stage by early July, 1/3 might emerge later flight in the season, and 1/3 would definitely not emerge that year
![Page 48: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Conclusions • Given the MPB population collapse we cannot
be sure if Rn differ between the hosts
![Page 49: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Conclusions • Given the MPB population collapse we cannot
be sure if Rn differ between the hosts
• Presence of a 1 year life cycle at upper latitudes and elevations is outside the historical envelope for the MPB and will likely mean more MPB in the near and distant future
![Page 50: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Synthesis
![Page 51: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Synthesis South of the border
![Page 52: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Synthesis South of the border
![Page 53: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Synthesis South of the border
J. Logan
D. Six
![Page 54: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Synthesis South of the border
B. Bentz
![Page 55: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Constitutive defenses:
WBP > LPP
Induced defenses:
WBP < LPP
Net Reproductive Rate
WBP < LPP
Synthesis South of the border
B. Bentz
![Page 56: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Synthesis Local Sages
![Page 57: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Synthesis Local Sages
![Page 58: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Synthesis Local Sages
X10 squillion
![Page 59: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Conclusions • The quality of WBP as a host for the MPB
varies geographically
![Page 60: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Conclusions • The quality of WBP as a host for the MPB
varies geographically
• There was NOT strong evidence that host species was the most important factor in determining host quality for the MPB, instead quality of a given tree was more important (i.e. Phloem thickness)
![Page 61: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Conclusions • The quality of WBP as a host for the MPB
varies geographically
• There was NOT strong evidence that host species was the most important factor in determining host quality for the MPB, instead quality of a given tree was more important (i.e. Phloem thickness)
• We are confident that WBP does not have thicker phloem than a LPP of similar DBH
![Page 62: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Conclusions continued • WBP’s with thick phloem were excellent hosts
for the MPB and were better than LPP with thick phloem in some but not all regards
![Page 63: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Conclusions continued • WBP’s with thick phloem were excellent hosts
for the MPB and were better than LPP with thick phloem in some but not all regards
• In years prior to my study in northern AB immigrant beetles were able to locate the highest quality WBP’s and did exceptionally well. The presence of decadent, mature WBP in a stand may encourage establishment of MPB populations
![Page 64: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Conclusions continued • Favorable climate has expanded the envelope
of univoltinism to new latitudes and elevations. This will likely mean more WBP mortality in near and distant future. However, MPB will still have to overcome high mortality rates in these areas to grow.
![Page 65: Mpbep 2011 04 prsnttn mpbphenologysuccesswhitebarkpine](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081604/568bdd701a28ab2034b5d38c/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Acknowledgements • D. W. Langor, J.R. Spence, &
N. Erbilgin
• Dr. U. Silins & Crew
• P. Hoffman, C. Twerdoclib, S. Bourassa, & B. Esch
• Brad, Brooks, & Rupert @ ASRD
• Joyce Gould @ Parks