Forest Pathology. 2020;00:e12640.
|
1 of 11 https://doi.org/10.1111/efp.12640wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/efp
1 | INTRODUCTION
Conifers are long-lived trees that face many threats during their lifetime. Norway spruce (Picea abies), ecologically and
economically the most important conifer species in Europe, is often threatened by the spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) and its associated fungi including Endoconidiophora polonica (Ep), which causes huge economic losses (Wermelinger, 2004). Bark Received: 28 October 2019
|
Revised: 18 September 2020|
Accepted: 22 September 2020DOI: 10.1111/efp.12640 O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E
Chemical defence responses of Norway spruce to two fungal
pathogens
Karolin Axelsson
1| Amene Zendegi-Shiraz
1,2| Gunilla Swedjemark
3|
Anna-Karin Borg-Karlson
1,4| Tao Zhao
51Department of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
2Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran 3Skogforsk, Ekebo, Svalöv, Sweden 4Department of Chemical Engineering, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden 5School of Science & Technology, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden Correspondence Tao Zhao, School of Science & Technology, Örebro University, Örebro SE-701 82, Sweden. Email: tao.zhao@oru.se Funding information Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas, Grant/ Award Number: 229-2011-890 Editor: Ari Mikko Hietala
Abstract
Constitutive and inducible terpene production is involved in conifer resistance against insects and fungal infestations. To gain knowledge about local defence responses of Norway spruce bark against pathogens and to find potential chemical markers for re-sistance breeding, we inoculated the stem of 8-year-old Norway spruce (Picea abies) clonal trees with both Endoconidiophora polonica (Ep, a common fungal pathogen asso-ciated with the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus) and Heterobasidion parviporum (Hp, a severe pathogen causing root and stem rot disease). Three weeks after inoculation, the fungal-inoculated and intact bark from each tree was sampled. The terpenes in tree bark were extracted with hexane and characterized by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The two fungi induced varied terpene responses in the four spruce clones used. Three of the clones showed a 2.3-fold to 5.7-fold stronger terpene response to Hp relative to Ep inoculation, while one clone responded similarly to inocu-lation with the two fungal pathogens. The amount of the diterpenes thunbergol and geranyllinalool varied between the clones. The level of thunbergol was higher in both intact and fungal-inoculated bark from the less susceptible clones compared with the more susceptible clones. Geranyllinalool was present in higher amounts in the suscep-tible clones and is thus a possible marker for susceptibility. Our observations show that Norway spruce employs a similar chemical mechanism against the two fungal patho-gens. Based on the present and earlier published data, we suggest that certain Norway spruce genotypes have a strong defence reaction against these two pathogens. The diterpenes thunbergol and geranyllinalool might be useful markers of susceptibility in tree-breeding programmes and should be the focus of further detailed investigations. K E Y W O R D S
Endoconidiophora polonica, Heterobasidion parviporum, induced response, Picea abies clone, terpenes
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
beetle-associated fungi are usually vectored to trees by bark beetles (Kirisits, 2004), and the actions of both bark beetles and their associated fungi contribute to tree mortality. In addition, the Heterobasidion species complex represents some of the most se-rious pathogens of Norway spruce in Scandinavia by causing root and stem rot and rendering the timber defective for sawing and pulping (Thor, 2005). These decay fungi are commonly spread by airborne spores that upon landing on freshly cut stump surfaces give rise to mycelia that grow further to the neighbouring living trees through root contacts.
The ability of conifers to react to various stressors by production of high amounts of defence chemicals likely contributes to their long survival. Norway spruce relies on both constitutive and induced de-fences to repel invading insects and restrict the spread of invading fungal pathogens. The first line of defence in Norway spruce trees is the bark, where the constitutive defence chemicals deter inva-sion by their physical properties and chemical toxicity (Franceschi et al., 2005). Once an injury or an infection is recognized by the tree, induced defences, including the formation of traumatic resin ducts and polyphenolic parenchyma cells (Franceschi et al., 2005), are ac-tivated. The trees may increase terpene concentrations a hundred times or more, which can dose-dependently inhibit the colonization of the spruce bark beetle (Zhao, Borg-Karlson, et al., 2011a; Zhao, Krokene, et al., 2011b) and its associated fungi (Novak et al., 2014; Zeneli et al., 2006). Certain terpenes inhibit the growth of decay fungi (Kusumoto et al., 2014).
Several studies have shown that genetically controlled host characteristics partly determine the susceptibility of Norway spruce to Heterobasidion infection (Arnerup et al., 2010; Gorriz et al., 2016). Some genotypes are less infected by root rot fungi than others (Karlsson & Swedjemark, 2006; Skrøppa et al., 2015; Steffenrem et al., 2016; Swedjemark & Karlsson, 2004; Swedjemark et al., 1998). Interestingly, the genetic components appear to play an even larger role in resistance to E. polonica than H. parviporum in Norway spruce (Skrøppa et al., 2015; Skrøppa et al., 2015; Steffenrem et al., 2016), and lesion length following inoculation with E. polonica varied extensively between Norway spruce genotypes (Skrøppa et al., 2015; Steffenrem et al., 2016; Zeneli et al., 2006). These results indicate Norway spruce has ge-netic resistance against the two fungi, which can be used to se-lect genotypes with resistance to both pathogens for a breeding programme.
By investigating natural infections and performing artificial inoculations in clonal trees, the susceptibility of a large number of Norway spruce genotypes to Heterobasidion spp. has been de-termined in Sweden (Swedjemark & Karlsson, 2004; Swedjemark et al., 1998). However, the susceptibility of these genotypes to bark beetles and their associated fungal pathogens has not been investi-gated. A deeper understanding of conifer defence responses to both Heterobasidion species and the bark beetle–fungi complex is needed to select optimal Norway spruce genotypes with resistance to mul-tiple pests.
In this pilot study, we investigated clone-specific terpene de-fence against two fungal pathogens. The primary aim of the study was to test whether Norway spruce has a similar chemical defence against the two major pathogens. In addition, we also aimed to search for potential biomarkers that could assist tree-breeding programmes in selecting Norway spruce genotypes with less sus-ceptibility to bark beetle–fungi complex and Heterobasidion spe-cies. Four spruce clones, two showing the highest and two showing the lowest susceptibility to Heterobasidion in field inoculations in prior studies (for details, see Materials and Methods), were cho-sen for the experiment. Six ramets of each clone were inoculated with Heterobasidion parviporum and Endoconidiophora polonica. The production of terpenes in intact and fungi-inoculated bark was analysed using GC-MS. The chemical differences found be-tween the more and the less susceptible trees in this study could stimulate further investigation to verify the relationship between putative-resistant markers and individual tree performance when subjected to multiple stressors.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 | Plant and fungal materials
The experiments were carried out in the nursery at Ekebo, Sweden, on potted 8-year-old Norway spruce clonal trees with 100–150 cm in height and ca 30 mm stem diameter at the inocula-tion sites. The parents of the clones come from Germany and were used in controlled crosses to generate 15 families. The experi-mental clones are rooted cuttings of representative plants from these families (Rosvall, 1999). The susceptibility of the clones to Heterobasidion infection has beenevaluated by measuring fungal
Clone number Fungal growth (mm) Selected from family Mother Father
S21K9220132 86.6 S21H9020001 S02L2033 S02N2022
S21K9220329 70.7 S21H9020009 S02L2001 S02L2009
S21K9220457 44.7 S21H9020013 S02N2027 S02L1001
S21K9220393 38.0 S21H9020011 S02M2020 S02M2016
The fungal growth in sapwood was measured 34 days after inoculating Heterobasidion annosum on the stem of 4-year-old Picea abies clonal trees (Swedjemark et al., 1998).
TA B L E 1 Origin and fungal growth of
growth after inoculation of Heterobasidion annosum in tree stem (Swedjemark & Karlsson, 2004; Swedjemark et al., 1998). In this study, four clones with different susceptibility were used. Two clones (132 and 329) with the most fungal growth and two clones (393 and 457) with the least fungal growth in previous studies (Swedjemark & Karlsson, 2004; Swedjemark et al., 1998) were as-sumed to be representative of trees with high and low susceptibil-ity to Heterobasidion, respectively (Table 1).
Two fungal strains, Heterobasidion parviporum Sä 159–5 (Hp) and Endoconidiophora polonica NFLI 1993-208/115-2 (Ep), were used in the inoculation experiment. The Hp isolate was obtained from SLU, Uppsala, and it has previously shown a good ability in phytotoxin production (Hansson et al., 2014) and wood degradation (Clergeot et al., 2019). The Ep strain was collected from a Norway spruce log infested by the bark beetle Polygraphus poligraphus L. (Krokene & Solheim, 1996). The strain has been used in several inoculation studies (Zhao, Borg-Karlson, et al., 2011a; Zhao et al., 2010; Zhao, Krokene, et al., 2011b). Both strains showed a good ability to grow in Norway spruce.
2.2 | Inoculation procedure
Trees were inoculated with fungi in July 2014. Six ramets of each clone were inoculated with H. parviporum on one side and with E. polonica on the other side of the stem, with a vertical distance of ca 30 cm between the inoculation sites. Fungal inoculations were performed using two 4-mm cork borers, one for Ep inoculation and the other for Hp inoculation to avoid any cross-contamination. The inoculum consisted of mycelium that had been growing on malt agar (2% malt, 1.5% agar) for 1 week. After removing the tree bark, a fun-gal plug with agar inoculum was inserted into the hole, and then par-afilm® M (Bemis Company) was wrapped around the stem to close
the wound.
Three weeks after inoculation, two bark plugs were taken from the border (one from the upper and one from the lower border) of each inoculation hole using a 4-mm cork borer. The two plugs were then pooled as one sample to characterize the induced terpene re-sponse as well as possible fungal metabolites in the different clones. An additional sample was taken 30 cm below the Ep inoculation to measure the constitutive terpene level in the clones. Previous trials have shown that no terpene induction occurs in this area after inoc-ulation (unpublished data). After sampling, the bark samples were individually wrapped in aluminium foil, frozen and stored in liquid nitrogen until processing in the laboratory. In the laboratory, the bark plugs were cut into 1 × 1 mm pieces and extracted at room temperature in 0.5 ml n-hexane containing 0.158 mg/ml pentade-cane (Lancaster Synthesis) as an internal standard and 0.12 mg/ml 3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-anisol (Fluka, Switzerland) as an antioxidant. After 24h, the extracts were transferred to new vials and stored at −25°C before GC-MS analyses. The bark samples were dried at 80°C for 6 hr and then weighed on a Sartorius electronic balance for cal-culation of absolute amounts of the terpenes.
2.3 | GC-MS analyses
The terpenes and fomannoxin (a volatile toxin produced by Heterobasidion species) in the hexane extracts were separated, iden-tified and quantified using a Varian 3,400 GC connected to a Finnigan SSQ 7,000 MS and a DB-wax column (J&W USA, 30 m, 0.25 mm id, 0.25 µm film thickness). The temperature program was set to 40°C for 1 min, followed by an increase of 4°C/min to 235°C, and held at the final temperature for 29 min. One-microlitre hexane extract was injected into a split/splitless injector with a 30-s splitless injec-tion at 230°C. The Aux temperature was set to 240°C. Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow of 1 ml/min. The temperature of the ion source was 150°C, the mass detector was operated with a mass range of 30–350 m/z, and the electron impact ionization was 70 eV. The compounds were identified by comparing retention times and mass spectra with available authentic standards, or by comparing re-tention indexes (RIs) and mass spectra with MassFinder 3 (Hochmuth Scientific Consulting, Germany) and the reference libraries of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). Most terpene standards were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, Lancaster Synthesis or Bedoukian, but a few were received as gifts from Firmenich, or isolated from Norway spruce and Scots pine turpentine at KTH. Thunbergol was identified by comparing with a sample isolated and characterized from Norway spruce (Kimland & Norin, 1968). The ab-solute amounts of terpenes were calculated relative to the internal standards and expressed as mg/g dry wt. The relative amounts of terpenes were calculated as the ratio of the area of each peak to the sum of all the areas of the volatiles in a defined GC fraction and expressed as percentages.
2.4 | Statistical analyses
All the statistics were carried out using Statistica 9.0 software (StatSoft Inc.). One-way ANOVA was used to test the differences in terpene levels in intact or fungal-infested bark between clones. If the treatments were significantly different (p < 0.05), means were separated using LSD at p = 0.05. Terpene quantities were log(y + 1)-transformed, and proportional data were arcsin-trans- formed before ANOVA to correct for unequal variance and depar-tures from normality.
3 | RESULTS
3.1 | Terpene profile in intact bark
The six ramets within each clone had similar terpene profiles. However, the four experimental clones showed clearly different terpene hy-drocarbon composition in the intact bark (Figure A1; Table A1). The constitutive levels of ß-phellandrene in clones 132 and 329, limonene in clones 393 and 457, ß-pinene in clones 132 and 393, myrcene in clones 132 and 457, and (+)-3-carene and sabinene in clone 393, were
significantly higher than those of the other clones (p = 0.012–0.048) (Figure 1; Table A1). In addition, the total terpene amounts were higher in the two clones regarded as less susceptible to H. parviporum (clone 393 and 457) compared with the two more susceptible clones (329 and 132) (Figure 2). Interestingly, the less susceptible clones (393 and 457) also had a higher proportion of diterpenes in their terpene profile than the susceptible ones (329 and 132) (Figure 2). The level of thunbergol was significantly higher in the two less susceptible clones compared with the two susceptible clones (p <0.02, Figure 1).
3.2 | Clonal-specific terpene response of Norway
spruce to the two fungi
Three weeks after fungal inoculation, most experimental clones showed clear terpene responses to inoculation by the two fungal pathogens. In general, the trees showed a stronger response to Hp in-oculation compared with Ep inin-oculation. The level of monoterpenes,
sesquiterpenes and diterpenes in tree bark increased threefold, 4.4-fold and 6.4-4.4-fold 3 weeks after Ep inoculation, whereas these three classes of terpenes showed ninefold, 6.9-fold and 16.6-fold increase, respectively, in Hp-inoculated bark.
The six ramets within each clone responded similarly to either Hp or Ep inoculation, indicating consistency in inoculation, sam-pling and chemical analysis. The four experimental clones showed a different terpene response to the inoculation of the two patho-gens (Table A1). All the clones responded strongly to Hp infection. However, the responses of the four experimental clones to Ep were highly variable. One clone (457) showed a strong response, two clones (393 and 132) only showed an intermediate response, and the last clone (329) did not show a clear quantitative terpene response to Ep inoculation (Figure 2).
Whereas the levels of all the three-terpene classes (monoterpene, sesquiterpene and diterpene) were elevated after fungal inoculation, the increase in diterpenes in response to fungal inoculation was the most pronounced. The proportion of diterpenes in the terpene mixture
F I G U R E 1 The amount of 3-carene,
thunbergol and geranyllinalool in tree bark of the four tested Norway spruce clones with differential susceptibility to Heterobasidion. The levels of thunbergol in the bark of the two less susceptible clones were higher than in the two more susceptible clones, both in intact bark (CT) bark or bark inoculated with Heterobasidion parviporum (Hp) and Endoconidiophora polonica (Ep). Geranyllinalool, a diterpene detected only in Hp-inoculated bark, showed an opposite pattern. Error bars denote standard error (n = 6). Bars with different letters donate significant difference within each treatment at p = 0.05 level
increased from 36.3% in control bark to 54.3 and 51.9%, respectively, in Ep- and Hp-inoculated bark. Interestingly, fungal inoculations induced variable increases in the proportion of different diterpene hydrocar-bons, and extensive differences in diterpene content were observed between clones after fungal inoculation. The amount of thunbergol in the bark of the two less susceptible clones (clones 393 and 457) was
clearly higher than in the two susceptible clones (clones 329 and 132), both in Ep- and Hp-inoculated bark (Figure 1). The most susceptible clone (clone 132) did not produce thunbergol, while the least suscep-tible clone (457) produced high quantities of thunbergol in both intact and fungal-inoculated bark. Geranyllinalool was not present in the control bark but was highly induced by Hp but not Ep inoculation. The level of geranyllinalool was much higher in the two susceptible clones after Hp inoculation (Figure 1), suggesting that it might be a marker of Heterobasidion spp. susceptibility in Norway spruce.
3.3 | Clonal differences in fomannoxin content
In addition to the plant-produced chemicals, the reactive fungal toxin fomannoxin was detected in living Hp-inoculated bark. There were only small amounts of fomannoxin in the infested bark of the clones, with the lowest amount in the most susceptible clone 132 and the highest amount in the less susceptible clone 457 (p < 0.05) (Figure 3).4 | DISCUSSION
Norway spruce relies heavily on terpenes and phenolics in de-fence against bark beetles and pathogens (Danielsson et al., 2011;
F I G U R E 2 The absolute amount
(top) and relative proportion (bottom) of monoterpenes (MT), sesquiterpenes (ST) and diterpenes (DT) in the intact bark (CT), or bark inoculated with Endoconidiophora polonica (Ep) and Heterobasidion parviporum (Hp) of the four tested Norway spruce clones with differential susceptibility to Heterobasidion, 3 weeks after fungal inoculation. Error bars denote standard error (n = 6). Bars with different letters donate significant differences across all treatments at p = 0.05 level
F I G U R E 3 The amounts of fomannoxin present in the phloem
of the four Norway spruce clones, 3 weeks after Heterobasidion parviporum inoculation (n = 6). Error bars denote standard error. Bars with different letters donate significant difference at p = 0.05 level
Franceschi et al., 2005; Keeling & Bohlmann, 2006). Terpenes, mainly consisting of monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes and diterpenes, include compounds that are toxic to insects and microorganisms (e.g. monoterpenes such as limonene and 3-carene). The semi-crystalline diterpene acids can polymerize to form a hardened barrier that seals wounds, traps insect invaders (Keeling & Bohlmann, 2006; Phillips & Croteau, 1999) and inhibits the growth of fungal pathogens (Kopper et al., 2005; Kusumoto et al., 2014). The terpenes work synergis-tically to discourage attacking insects and to kill pathogens. Since less susceptible trees usually show stronger terpene responses upon infection (Schiebe et al., 2012; Zeneli et al., 2006; Zhao, Krokene, et al., 2011b), terpene increases following experimental fungal inoc-ulation are often used as a measure to evaluate tree susceptibility to-wards bark beetles and pathogens (Fäldt et al., 2006; Krokene, 2015). The six ramets within each clone showed a very similar chemical profile in intact control bark. Each ramet within a clone also demon-strated a surprisingly similar defence response towards either Ep or Hp inoculation, indicating reliable inoculation, sample extraction and chemical analysis. However, the four selected clones had different chemical composition in intact bark and exhibited a varied terpene accumulation after fungal inoculation. The two less susceptible clones had higher total terpene concentrations as well as a larger di-terpene proportion in the intact bark than the two more susceptible clones. Terpenes were strongly induced by Hp in all the clones, but only the clone 457 showed a similar response to both Hp and Ep in-oculation, whereas the clone 329 only responded to Hp inoculation. Our observations suggest that Norway spruce has both clone- and fungi-specific terpene responses to Ep and Hp inoculation.
(+)-3-Carene and terpinolene were found to be associated with resistance in Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) genotypes originating from an area that may have been subject to high weevil pressure (Hall et al., 2011; Robert, 2010; Robert et al., 2010). In a feeding bioassay, an extremely resistant clone with a high (+)-3-carene con-tent reduced white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi) feeding by 50% com-pared with an extremely susceptible clone with trace (+)-3-carene (Robert & Bohlmann, 2010). In Norway spruce, (+)-3-carene was observed to be highly induced by Ep and Hp inoculation (Danielsson et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2010). Increased levels of (+)-3-carene in Norway spruce trees are correlated with decreased larval survival of the great spruce bark beetle (Storer & Speight, 1996) and inhibited growth of E. polonica in malt agar medium (Novak et al., 2014). In this study, (+)-3-carene was one of the characteristic monoterpenes for the least susceptible clone 393. These observations suggest that 3-carene might be involved in conifer resistance against insects and pathogens, and that the high 3-carene content in clone 393 bark may contribute to its low susceptibility to Heterobasidion fungi.
Several diterpene acids, including abietic and dehydroabietic acids, are known to have a significant impact on the growth of Hp (Kusumoto et al., 2014) and bark beetle-associated fungal pathogens (Kopper et al., 2005). Dehydroabietic acid has also been identified as a strong indicator of resistance of Sitka spruce against white spruce weevil (Robert, 2010; Robert et al., 2010). Here, we note that the two less susceptible clones (393 and 457) had higher constitutive
diterpene levels in the intact bark, and higher induced levels of thun-bergene, thunbergol and a few other diterpenes after fungal infec-tion compared with the two susceptible clones. These findings are in accordance with the observation from maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) genotypes with a varied resistance against the pine weevil (Hylobius abietis). Higher amounts of diterpenes were detected in the stem bark of more resistant genotypes after methyl jasmonate treatment (López-Goldar et al., 2014). Thus, the variation in diterpene profiles might also correlate with the degree of resistance to pathogens.
In a previous study, we found that the absolute amount of thun-bergol and the total amount of all the quantified diterpenes were significantly higher in putatively resistant trees with shorter lesions compared with putatively susceptible trees with long lesions after Ep inoculation (Zhao et al., 2010). We discovered a similar pattern here. The amount of thunbergol was much higher in the two less suscep-tible clones compared with the two more suscepsuscep-tible clones, both in intact bark and in bark inoculated with Ep or Hp. It is also note-worthy that the production of thunbergol was absent in the most susceptible clone 132. In contrast, the amount of geranyllinalool, a diterpene that only appeared in Hp-infected Norway spruce bark, was significantly higher in the two most susceptible clones com-pared with the two less susceptible clones. Thus, these observations suggest that these two diterpenes are of interest when searching for chemical markers that are associated with differential susceptibility of Norway spruce clones to fungal infection.
It is known that Hp can produce a complex mixture of toxic compounds related to fomannoxin (Hansson et al., 2012,2014). Fomannoxin is volatile and less polar than those compounds iden-tified by HPLC (Hansson et al., 2012,2014) and could be detected using GC-MS. Kusumoto et al. (2014) found that the fungus pro-duced a significantly lower amount of fomannoxin when growing in a medium with a high concentration of diterpene (abietic acid or dehy-droabietic acid). Here, we found the highest amount of fomannoxin in the least susceptible clone, but only trace amounts of this compound in the most susceptible clone. This finding is not in agreement with Kusumoto et al. (2014). The reason for this difference is not known, but a possible explanation could be that the fungus produced more phytotoxin to counteract the stronger defence when inoculated on a less susceptible tree, or H. parviporum has strain-specific variation in phytoxin production.
In conclusion, and in accordance with earlier observations (Danielsson et al., 2011; Zeneli et al., 2006), we found differing chemical responses among Norway spruce clones towards Hp and Ep inoculation. Induced defence in Norway spruce includes a vari-ety of chemical compounds, but their effects on fungi and insects are only partly understood (Biedermann et al., 2018). Our observa-tions suggest that Norway spruce has both clone- and fungi-spe-cific terpene responses to Ep and Hp inoculation. Tree-breeding programmes should include trees with strong defence response to a variety of fungi and other stressors. Our results demonstrate that certain Norway spruce clones can develop resistance to several pathogens—further studies with larger experimental material are necessary to improve the understanding of underlying traits.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Bo Karlsson is greatly acknowledged for providing space at Ekebo for the experiment and necessary information about the clonal material used in this study. The study was funded by Ferdowski University of Mashhad, Iran, to AZ; Formas grant to TZ (grant 229-2011-890); the Department of Chemistry, KTH to KA; SSF (Paretree) and Mobilitas top researcher grant MT4 Chemical Ecology Estonia to AKBK. We thank Dr. Douglas Jones for linguis-tic revision. PEER RE VIEW
The peer review history for this article is available at https://publo ns.com/publo n/10.1111/efp.12640.
ORCID
Tao Zhao https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5909-2841
REFERENCES
Arnerup, J., Swedjemark, G., Elfstrand, M., Karlsson, B., & Stenlid, J. (2010). Variation in growth of Heterobasidion parviporum in a full-sib family of Picea abies. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25(2), 106–110.
Biedermann, P. H., Henrik, H., & Rohlfs, M. (2018). Evolutionary che-mo-ecology of insect-fungus interactions: Still in its infancy but advancing. Fungal Ecology, 38, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. funeco.2018.11.010
Clergeot, P. H., Rode, N. O., Sylvain Glémin, S.., Durling, M. B., Ihrmark, K., & Olson, Å. (2019). Estimating the fitness effect of deleterious mutations during the two phases of the life cycle: A new method applied to the root-rot fungus Heterobasidion parviporum. Genetics,
211(3), 963–3976.
Danielsson, M., Lundén, K., Elfstrand, M., Hu, J., Zhao, T., Arnerup, J., Ihrmark, K., Swedjemark, G., Borg-Karlson, A.-K., & Stenlid, J. (2011). Chemical and transcriptional responses of Norway spruce genotypes with different susceptibility to Heterobasidion spp. infection. BMC
Plant Biology, 11(1), 154. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-11-154
Fäldt, J., Solheim, H., Långström, B., & Borg-Karlson, A.-K. (2006). Influence of fungal infection and wounding on contents and en-antiomeric compositions of monoterpenes in phloem of Pinus
syl-vestris. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 32(8), 1779–1795. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10886-006-9109-9
Franceschi, V. R., Krokene, P., Christiansen, E., & Krekling, T. (2005). Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark bee-tles and other pests. New Phytologist, 167(2), 353–375. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01436.x
Gorriz, M. N., Hammerbacher, A., Ihrmark, K., Källman, T., Olson, Å., Lascoux, M., Stenlid, J., Gershenzon, J., & Elfstrand, M. (2016). Different alleles of a gene encoding leucoanthocyanidin reductase (PaLAR3) influence resistance against the fungus Heterobasidion
parviporum in Picea abies. Plant Physiology, 171, 2671–2681.
Hall, D. E., Robert, J. A., Keeling, C. I., Domanski, D., Quesada, A. L., Jancsik, S., Hamberger, B., Borchers, C. H., & Bohlmann, J. (2011). An integrated genomic, proteomic and biochemical analysis of (+)-3-carene biosyn-thesis in Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) genotypes that are resistant or susceptible to white pine weevil. The Plant Journal, 65(6), 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04478.x
Hansson, D., Menkis, A., Olson, Å., Stenlid, J., Broberg, A., & Karlsson, M. (2012). Biosynthesis of fomannoxin in the root rotting pathogen
Heterobasidion occidentale. Phytochemistry, 84, 31–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.phyto chem.2012.08.008
Hansson, D., Wubshet, S., Olson, Å., Karlsson, M., Staerk, D., & Broberg, A. J. P. (2014). Secondary metabolite comparison of the species within the Heterobasidion annosum sl complex. Phytochemistry, 108, 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phyto chem.2014.08.028
Karlsson, B., & Swedjemark, G. (2006). Genotypic variation in natural in-fection frequency of Heterobasidion spp. in a Picea abies clone trial in southern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 21(2), 108–114.
Keeling, C. I., & Bohlmann, J. (2006). Diterpene resin acids in conifers.
Phytochemistry, 67(22), 2415–2423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phyto
chem.2006.08.019
Kimland, B., & Norin, T. (1968). Thunbergol, a new macrocyclic diter-pene alcohol. Acta Chemica Scandinavica, 22, 943–948. https://doi. org/10.3891/acta.chem.scand.22-0943
Kirisits, T. (2004). Fungal associates of European bark beetles with spe-cial emphasis on the ophiostomatoid fungi. In F. Lieutier, K. R. Day, A. Battisti, J. C. Gregoire, & H. Evans (Eds.), Bark and wood-boring insects
in living trees in Europe, a synthesis (pp. 181–235). Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Kopper, B. J., Illman, B. L., Kersten, P. J., Klepzig, K. D., & Raffa, K. F. (2005). Effects of diterpene acids on components of a conifer bark beetle-fungal interaction: Tolerance by Ips pini and sensitivity by its associate Ophiostoma ips. Environmental Entomology, 34(2), 486–493. Krokene, P. (2015). Conifer defense and resistance to bark beetles. In F.
E. Vega, & R. W. Hofstetter (Eds.), Bark beetles: Biology and ecology
of native and invasive species (pp. 177–207). Elsevier Academic Press.
Krokene, P., & Solheim, H. (1996). Fungal associates of five bark bee-tle species colonizing Norway spruce. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research, 26(12), 2115–2122. https://doi.org/10.1139/x26-240
Kusumoto, N., Zhao, T., Swedjemark, G., & Borg-Karlson, A. (2014). Antifungal properties of terpenoids from Picea abies against
Heterobasidion parviporum. Forest Pathology, 44, 353–361.
López-Goldar, X., Villari, C., Bonello, P., Borg-Karlson, A. K., Grivet, D., Zas, R., & Sampedro, L. (2014). Inducibility of plant secondary me-tabolites in the stem predicts genetic variation in resistance against a key insect herbivore in maritime pine. Frontiers in Plant Science, 133, 573–583.
Novak, M., Krajnc, A. U., Lah, L., Zupanec, N., Kraševec, N., Križman, M., Bohlmann, J., & Komel, R. (2014). Low-density Ceratocystis
polonica inoculation of Norway spruce (Picea abies) triggers
accu-mulation of monoterpenes with antifungal properties. European
Journal of Forest Research, 133, 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10342-013-0772-4
Phillips, M. A., & Croteau, R. B. (1999). Resin-based defenses in coni-fers. Trends in Plant Science, 4(5), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1360-1385(99)01401-6
Robert, J. A. (2010). Terpenoid profiling and biosynthesis in Sitka spruce
(Picea sitchensis) genotypes that are susceptible or resistant to attack by the white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi) (PhD Thesis, University of British
Columbia, Canada).
Robert, J. A., & Bohlmann, J. (2010). Behavioral and reproductive re-sponse of white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi) to resistant and sus-ceptible sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Insects, 1(1), 3–19. https://doi. org/10.3390/insec ts101 0003
Robert, J. A., Madilao, L. L., White, R., Yanchuk, A., King, J., & Bohlmann, J. (2010). Terpenoid metabolite profiling in Sitka spruce identifies association of dehydroabietic acid, (+)-3-carene, and terpinolene with resistance against white pine weevil. Botany-Botanique, 88(9), 810–820. https://doi.org/10.1139/B10-049
Rosvall, O. (1999). Enhancing gain from long-term forest tree breeding
while conserving genetic diversity (PhD Thesis, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Umea, Sweden).
Schiebe, C., Hammerbacher, A., Birgersson, G., Witzell, J., Brodelius, P. E., Gershenzon, J., & Schlyter, F. (2012). Inducibility of chemical defenses in Norway spruce bark is correlated with unsuccessful
mass attacks by the spruce bark beetle. Oecologia, 170(1), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2298-8
Skrøppa, T., Solheim, H., & Hietala, A. (2015). Variation in phloem resis-tance of Norway spruce clones and families to Heterobasidion
parvi-porum and Ceratocystis polonica and its relationship to phenology and
growth traits. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 30(2), 103–111. Skrøppa, T., Solheim, H., & Steffenrem, A. (2015). Genetic variation, in-heritance patterns and parent–offspring relationships after artificial inoculations with Heterobasidion parviporum and Ceratosystis
polon-ica in Norway spruce seed orchards and progeny tests. Silva Fennpolon-ica, 49(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14214/ sf.1191
Steffenrem, A., Solheim, H., & Skrøppa, T. (2016). Genetic parameters for wood quality traits and resistance to the pathogens Heterobasidion parviporum and Endoconidiophora polonica in a Norway spruce breeding population. European Journal of Forest Research, 135(5), 815–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-016-0975-6
Storer, A. J., & Speight, M. R. (1996). Relationships between Dendroctonus
micans Kug. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) survival and development
and biochemical changes in Norway Spruce, Picea abies (L.) Karst., phloem caused by mechanical wounding. Journal of Chemical Ecology,
22(3), 559–573.
Swedjemark, G., & Karlsson, B. (2004). Genotypic variation in suscepti-bility following artificial Heterobasidion annosum inoculation of Picea
abies clones in a 17-year-old field test. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19(2), 103–111.
Swedjemark, G., Stenlid, J., & Karlsson, B. (1998). Genetic variation among clones of Picea abies in resistance to growth of Heterobasidion
annosum. Silvae Genetica, 46, 369–373.
Thor, M. (2005). Heterobasidion root rot in Norway spruce (PhD Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden). Wermelinger, B. (2004). Ecology and management of the spruce bark
beetle Ips typographus: A review of recent research. Forest Ecology
and Management, 202(1–3), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2004.07.018
Zeneli, G., Krokene, P., Christiansen, E., Krekling, T., & Gershenzon, J. (2006). Methyl jasmonate treatment of mature Norway spruce (Picea
abies) trees increases the accumulation of terpenoid resin
compo-nents and protects against infection by Ceratocystis polonica, a bark beetle-associated fungus. Tree Physiology, 26(8), 977–988. https:// doi.org/10.1093/treep hys/26.8.977
Zhao, T., Borg-Karlson, A.-K., Erbilgin, N., & Krokene, P. (2011a). Host re-sistance elicited by methyl jasmonate reduces emission of aggregation pheromones by the spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus. Oecologia,
167, 691–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2017-x
Zhao, T., Krokene, P., Björklund, N., Långström, B., Solheim, H., Christiansen, E., & Borg-Karlson, A.-K. (2010). The influence of Ceratocystis polonica inoculation and methyl jasmonate ap-plication on terpene chemistry of Norway spruce. Picea Abies.
Phytochemistry, 71(11–12), 1332–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
phyto chem.2010.05.017
Zhao, T., Krokene, P., Hu, J., Christiansen, E., Björklund, N., Långström, B., Solheim, H., & Borg-Karlson, A.-K. (2011b). Induced terpene accumulation in Norway spruce inhibits bark beetle colonization in a dose-dependent manner. PLoS One, 6(10), e26649. https://doi. org/10.1371/journ al.pone.0026649
How to cite this article: Axelsson K, Zendegi-Shiraz A,
Swedjemark G, Borg-Karlson A-K, Zhao T. Chemical defence responses of Norway spruce to two fungal pathogens. Forest Pathology 2020;00:e12640. https://doi.org/10.1111/ efp.12640
APPENDIX
F I G U R E A 1 PCA plot based on the amounts of all the
quantified terpenes in control Norway spruce phloem without fungal inoculation. The distance between the samples/trees in the plot indicates their similarity in terpenoid composition. The positions of the terpenes indicate their contribution to the principal components. The first principal component (PC1) explained 61.5% and the second component (PC2) 27.5% of the sample variation
TA B L E A 1 Absolute amounts of major terpene hydrocarbons (μg/g.dry wt equivalent to pentadecane) in control Norway spruce
bark, or bark inoculated with either Heterobasidion parviporum or Endoconidiophora polonica, 3 weeks after fungal inoculation. Data are expressed as means ± 1 SE (n = 6 trees)
Treatments Control Ep inoculation Hp inoculation
Clones 393 457 132 329 393 457 132 329 393 457 132 329 α-Thujene 0.3 ± 0.1 - 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 9.1 ± 3.5 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 280.8 ± 63.4 526.2 ± 30.9 350.8 ± 77.4 648.5 ± 160.6 α-Pinene 509.1 ± 155.3 1,067.2 ± 241.2 771.4 ± 70.6 733.7 ± 108.1 1761.2 ± 266.6 7,345.6 ± 1,347.0 3,995.5 ± 960.3 854.7 ± 293.6 6,173.9 ± 595.6 10,495.8 ± 628.6 7,549.6 ± 628.6 13,285.8 ± 2,924.9 α-Fenchene 0.3 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 12.1 ± 5.8 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 20.9 ± 2.2 12.5 ± 2.8 11.1 ± 3.6 13.1 ± 3.4 Camphene 27.2 ± 9.0 21.0 ± 9.0 20.1 ± 4.9 15.4 ± 3.6 96.9 ± 15.6 168.5 ± 28.7 97.2 ± 33.0 15.9 ± 5.2 469.8 ± 54.3 232.9 ± 20.3 161.0 ± 31.0 209.2 ± 46.1 ß-Pinene 1,262.0 ± 393.4 743.8 ± 180.6 1906.6 ± 198.4 884.6 ± 143.7 2,346.4 ± 505.4 4,200.5 ± 472.8 6,833.6 ± 1634.7 771.3 ± 307.1 8,172.0 ± 682.0 6,848.4 ± 625.5 14,436.5 ± 2,674.7 12,292.5 ± 2,646.3 Sabinene 99.3 ± 34.6 10.4 ± 2.8 15.7 ± 4.7 12.3 ± 1.4 93.4 ± 22.8 53.8 ± 6.2 35.8 ± 10.2 7.7 ± 1.4 341.5 ± 31.0 61.8 ± 6.9 284.5 ± 74.7 111.4 ± 32.2 3-Carene 1,234.3 ± 391.0 16.9 ± 8.9 77.3 ± 53.6 19.4 ± 4.8 1,321.7 ± 365.8 333.5 ± 70.0 135.3 ± 26.2 28.6 ± 11.9 3,955.4 ± 404.9 467.2 ± 80.1 2,332.1 ± 688.3 46.7 ± 14.2 Myrcene 87.0 ± 30.2 106.5 ± 30.2 104.4 ± 11.4 90.9 ± 19.4 50.0 ± 20.2 250.1 ± 42.6 103.2 ± 30.5 23.8 ± 6.6 323.5 ± 78.1 467.2 ± 80.1 714.2 ± 197.1 897.8 ± 238.2 Limonene 260.6 ± 78.3 547.3 ± 142.1 111.0 ± 26.9 146.4 ± 26.4 286.8 ± 82.0 2,541.7 ± 485.7 364.7 ± 84.0 135.6 ± 52.1 1,077.8 ± 135.4 2,794.3 ± 437.6 774.0 ± 169.0 4,360.2 ± 971.8 β-Phellandrene 153.1 ± 47.4 220.0 ± 55.9 355.6 ± 32.1 333.3 ± 61.3 177.2 ± 53.0 733.1 ± 95.8 571.3 ± 173.9 106.2 ± 34.8 1,190 ± 138.8 850.8 ± 264.8 2,713.6 ± 626.7 2,299.8 ± 534.9 p-Cymene 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 20.9 ± 5.4 19.1 ± 5.3 14.7 ± 3.0 3.8 ± 2.3 48.5 ± 10.8 15.0.1 ± 1.9 30.2 ± 5.4 17.3 ± 1.6 α-Terpinolene 161.0 ± 50.6 15.7 ± 3.0 17.5 ± 6.4 12.3 ± 1.3 75.8 ± 33.5 55.0 ± 10.4 65.8 ± 41.2 2.4 ± 1.0 397.5 ± 61.1 64.0 ± 9.4 374.6 ± 102.8 112.6 ± 29.5 4-Terpineol 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 - - 0.1 ± 0.1 0.239303 - 62.2 ± 10.4 33.9 ± 3.6 27.0 ± 6.9 20.5 ± 4.5 Pinocarveol 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 31.4 ± 5.3 65.2 ± 12.8 106.8 ± 39.1 6.8 ± 2.7 117.8 ± 20.1 0.1 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 α-Terpineol 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 - 37.1 ± 15.2 347.5 ± 107.3 152.5 ± 90.2 0.3 ± 0.1 154.4 ± 41.5 168.5 ± 31.8 113.9 ± 35.6 128.3 ± 25.6 p-Cymen−8-ol 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 - - - - 58.8 ± 9.3 15.0 ± 1.7 26.4 ± 2.9 8.5 ± 1.7 3-Pinanone 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 - - 0.2 ± 0.1 - 37.8 ± 7.3 28.9 ± 3.1 29.6 ± 3.4 55.7 ± 7.6 Longifolene 49.8 ± 13.5 49.1 ± 13.0 17.2 ± 3.0 6.2 ± 2.6 118.8 ± 65.3 456.1 ± 55.2 61.6 ± 29.7 32.1 ± 9.8 580.3 ± 45.7 638.7 ± 73.9 353.5 ± 32.6 78.6 ± 10.6 α-Bergamotene 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 - 31.5 ± 7.6 27.0 ± 7.1 - - 99.8 ± 15.1 52.7 ± 4.3 98.9 ± 14.2 102.2 ± 66.6 Caryophyllene 70.5 ± 18.0 17.1 ± 5.4 7.4 ± 1.8 96.8 ± 26.8 122.8 ± 31.9 168.2 ± 33.5 17.1 ± 7.1 128.1 ± 39.7 304.1 ± 36.7 131.2 ± 16.3 98.9 ± 14.2 434.4 ± 287.3 β-Farnesene 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 - 52.0 ± 9.4 179.7 ± 45.8 12.9 ± 12.6 - 97.2 ± 10.8 91.8 ± 11.1 61.9 ± 7.6 85.5 ± 31.5 β-Cubebene 221.1 ± 75.5 60.5 ± 17.8 24.0 ± 10.6 - 71.7 ± 10.1 97.3 ± 28.0 - - 360.4 ± 48.5 217.2 ± 43.8 56.0 ± 11.8 0.1 ± 0.0 α-Longipinene 0.3 ± 0.1 - - - 136.4 ± 37.0 42.4 ± 3.6 174.3 ± 24.5 41.0 ± 8.8 Cedr−8-ene 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 - - - 252.9 ± 35.7 306.4 ± 38.3 250.0 ± 36.7 54.0 ± 9.5 Cadinene 25.0 ± 6.7 18.4 ± 11.1 18.0 ± 2.6 - 76.9 ± 6.4 328.6 ± 35.9 56.6 ± 14.0 - 241.3 ± 30.0 306.4 ± 38.3 136.4 ± 20.9 -Germacrene D−4-ol 82.6 ± 28.8 0.2 ± 0.0 123.8 ± 70.0 15.2 ± 2.9 - - 0.239303 - 105.4 ± 14.8 29.6 ± 4.0 132.7 ± 37.1 15.9 ± 4.2 Cubenol 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 11.0 ± 0.9 30.0 ± 4.8 4.0 ± 2.0 - 25.5 ± 3.2 39.9 ± 4.0 10.4 ± 1.1 0.1 ± 0.0 Thunbergene 197.3 ± 65.1 363.3 ± 98.9 0.2 ± 0.0 45.5 ± 7.7 430.9 ± 58.1 3,361.303 - 108.1 ± 28.7 1,256.5 ± 121.4 2,752.0 ± 386.0 817.1 ± 111.9 919.7 ± 144.8 Unknown diterpene 93.8 ± 27.9 179.5 ± 49.4 0.2 ± 0.0 20.8 ± 3.3 223.9 ± 31.6 2,295.4 ± 243.1 - 43.8 ± 11.2 853.5 ± 174.4 2013.0 ± 305.7 675.1 ± 51.9 681.5 ± 135.8 Unknown diterpene 0.3 ± 0.1 - 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 98.0 ± 12.5 152.0 ± 26.1 101.1 ± 22.1 20.1 ± 4.7 159.9 ± 39.7 118.7 ± 14.2 147.1 ± 15.8 147.8 ± 22.4 Unknown diterpene 36.1 ± 5.5 22.0 ± 5.5 26.2 ± 6.0 17.4 ± 2.9 88.7 ± 16.8 108.1 ± 19.3 156.5 ± 27.2 70.0 ± 12.7 221.1 ± 53.3 240.8 ± 17.8 448.5 ± 48.8 238.6 ± 62.0 Geranyllinalool - - - - - - - - 974.0 ± 294.8 3,677.2 ± 411.8 7,937.2 ± 2,506.1 7,253.8 ± 2,430.1 Thunbergol 1,208.8 ± 296.8 2,313.1 ± 626.0 - 333.2 ± 43.3 2,983.3 ± 293.2 16,029.9 ± 2,581.7 - 737.0 ± 128.4 8,088.6 ± 918.4 19,239.9 ± 2,272.3 - 5,716.2 ± 885.6 Pimara−7–15-dien−3-one 0.3 ± 0.1 - 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 147.3 ± 39.5 606.8 ± 56.3 389.9 ± 82.9 78.4 ± 10.4 417.8 ± 49.3 764.6 ± 94.9 1,147.5 ± 201.7 874.2 ± 335.0 Unknown diterpene 0.3 ± 0.1 - - - 331.2 ± 51.4 350.2 ± 12.7 733.6 ± 98.3 915.8 ± 231.9 Podocarpa−8 11 13-trien−15-oic acid 13-isopropyl-0.3 ± 0.1 - 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2598936 215.3 ± 18.6 501.3 ± 43.6 328.3 ± 79.0 170.6 ± 50.8 214.9 ± 42.8 432.5 ± 73.4 398.6 ± 98.2 556.8 ± 87.2 Unknown diterpene 0.3 ± 0.1 -- 0.3 ± 0.2 0.3 ± 0.1 - - 0.2 ± 0.1 - 180.0 ± 29.5 208.7 ± 12.9 310.7 ± 39.0 371.6 ± 93.4 Abietic acid 129.1 ± 34.3 37.3 ± 19.0 70.4 ± 19.4 96.8 ± 13.7 287.8 ± 22.3 186.4 ± 12.7 322.8 ± 54.5 209.5 ± 43.9 82.1 ± 16.7 111.5 ± 13.0 107.1 ± 14.4 100.2 ± 6.8 Methyl−7.13.15-abietatrienoate 0.3 ± 0.1 -- - - 94.6 ± 11.7 109.3 ± 21.8 82.3 ± 25.2 39.2 ± 9.1 141.5 ± 23.7 93.3 ± 13.0 92.3 ± 8.1 76.2 ± 9.1
TA B L E A 1 Absolute amounts of major terpene hydrocarbons (μg/g.dry wt equivalent to pentadecane) in control Norway spruce
bark, or bark inoculated with either Heterobasidion parviporum or Endoconidiophora polonica, 3 weeks after fungal inoculation. Data are expressed as means ± 1 SE (n = 6 trees)
Treatments Control Ep inoculation Hp inoculation
Clones 393 457 132 329 393 457 132 329 393 457 132 329 α-Thujene 0.3 ± 0.1 - 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 9.1 ± 3.5 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 280.8 ± 63.4 526.2 ± 30.9 350.8 ± 77.4 648.5 ± 160.6 α-Pinene 509.1 ± 155.3 1,067.2 ± 241.2 771.4 ± 70.6 733.7 ± 108.1 1761.2 ± 266.6 7,345.6 ± 1,347.0 3,995.5 ± 960.3 854.7 ± 293.6 6,173.9 ± 595.6 10,495.8 ± 628.6 7,549.6 ± 628.6 13,285.8 ± 2,924.9 α-Fenchene 0.3 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 12.1 ± 5.8 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 20.9 ± 2.2 12.5 ± 2.8 11.1 ± 3.6 13.1 ± 3.4 Camphene 27.2 ± 9.0 21.0 ± 9.0 20.1 ± 4.9 15.4 ± 3.6 96.9 ± 15.6 168.5 ± 28.7 97.2 ± 33.0 15.9 ± 5.2 469.8 ± 54.3 232.9 ± 20.3 161.0 ± 31.0 209.2 ± 46.1 ß-Pinene 1,262.0 ± 393.4 743.8 ± 180.6 1906.6 ± 198.4 884.6 ± 143.7 2,346.4 ± 505.4 4,200.5 ± 472.8 6,833.6 ± 1634.7 771.3 ± 307.1 8,172.0 ± 682.0 6,848.4 ± 625.5 14,436.5 ± 2,674.7 12,292.5 ± 2,646.3 Sabinene 99.3 ± 34.6 10.4 ± 2.8 15.7 ± 4.7 12.3 ± 1.4 93.4 ± 22.8 53.8 ± 6.2 35.8 ± 10.2 7.7 ± 1.4 341.5 ± 31.0 61.8 ± 6.9 284.5 ± 74.7 111.4 ± 32.2 3-Carene 1,234.3 ± 391.0 16.9 ± 8.9 77.3 ± 53.6 19.4 ± 4.8 1,321.7 ± 365.8 333.5 ± 70.0 135.3 ± 26.2 28.6 ± 11.9 3,955.4 ± 404.9 467.2 ± 80.1 2,332.1 ± 688.3 46.7 ± 14.2 Myrcene 87.0 ± 30.2 106.5 ± 30.2 104.4 ± 11.4 90.9 ± 19.4 50.0 ± 20.2 250.1 ± 42.6 103.2 ± 30.5 23.8 ± 6.6 323.5 ± 78.1 467.2 ± 80.1 714.2 ± 197.1 897.8 ± 238.2 Limonene 260.6 ± 78.3 547.3 ± 142.1 111.0 ± 26.9 146.4 ± 26.4 286.8 ± 82.0 2,541.7 ± 485.7 364.7 ± 84.0 135.6 ± 52.1 1,077.8 ± 135.4 2,794.3 ± 437.6 774.0 ± 169.0 4,360.2 ± 971.8 β-Phellandrene 153.1 ± 47.4 220.0 ± 55.9 355.6 ± 32.1 333.3 ± 61.3 177.2 ± 53.0 733.1 ± 95.8 571.3 ± 173.9 106.2 ± 34.8 1,190 ± 138.8 850.8 ± 264.8 2,713.6 ± 626.7 2,299.8 ± 534.9 p-Cymene 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 20.9 ± 5.4 19.1 ± 5.3 14.7 ± 3.0 3.8 ± 2.3 48.5 ± 10.8 15.0.1 ± 1.9 30.2 ± 5.4 17.3 ± 1.6 α-Terpinolene 161.0 ± 50.6 15.7 ± 3.0 17.5 ± 6.4 12.3 ± 1.3 75.8 ± 33.5 55.0 ± 10.4 65.8 ± 41.2 2.4 ± 1.0 397.5 ± 61.1 64.0 ± 9.4 374.6 ± 102.8 112.6 ± 29.5 4-Terpineol 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 - - 0.1 ± 0.1 0.239303 - 62.2 ± 10.4 33.9 ± 3.6 27.0 ± 6.9 20.5 ± 4.5 Pinocarveol 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 31.4 ± 5.3 65.2 ± 12.8 106.8 ± 39.1 6.8 ± 2.7 117.8 ± 20.1 0.1 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 α-Terpineol 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 - 37.1 ± 15.2 347.5 ± 107.3 152.5 ± 90.2 0.3 ± 0.1 154.4 ± 41.5 168.5 ± 31.8 113.9 ± 35.6 128.3 ± 25.6 p-Cymen−8-ol 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 - - - - 58.8 ± 9.3 15.0 ± 1.7 26.4 ± 2.9 8.5 ± 1.7 3-Pinanone 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 - - 0.2 ± 0.1 - 37.8 ± 7.3 28.9 ± 3.1 29.6 ± 3.4 55.7 ± 7.6 Longifolene 49.8 ± 13.5 49.1 ± 13.0 17.2 ± 3.0 6.2 ± 2.6 118.8 ± 65.3 456.1 ± 55.2 61.6 ± 29.7 32.1 ± 9.8 580.3 ± 45.7 638.7 ± 73.9 353.5 ± 32.6 78.6 ± 10.6 α-Bergamotene 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 - 31.5 ± 7.6 27.0 ± 7.1 - - 99.8 ± 15.1 52.7 ± 4.3 98.9 ± 14.2 102.2 ± 66.6 Caryophyllene 70.5 ± 18.0 17.1 ± 5.4 7.4 ± 1.8 96.8 ± 26.8 122.8 ± 31.9 168.2 ± 33.5 17.1 ± 7.1 128.1 ± 39.7 304.1 ± 36.7 131.2 ± 16.3 98.9 ± 14.2 434.4 ± 287.3 β-Farnesene 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 - 52.0 ± 9.4 179.7 ± 45.8 12.9 ± 12.6 - 97.2 ± 10.8 91.8 ± 11.1 61.9 ± 7.6 85.5 ± 31.5 β-Cubebene 221.1 ± 75.5 60.5 ± 17.8 24.0 ± 10.6 - 71.7 ± 10.1 97.3 ± 28.0 - - 360.4 ± 48.5 217.2 ± 43.8 56.0 ± 11.8 0.1 ± 0.0 α-Longipinene 0.3 ± 0.1 - - - 136.4 ± 37.0 42.4 ± 3.6 174.3 ± 24.5 41.0 ± 8.8 Cedr−8-ene 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 - - - 252.9 ± 35.7 306.4 ± 38.3 250.0 ± 36.7 54.0 ± 9.5 Cadinene 25.0 ± 6.7 18.4 ± 11.1 18.0 ± 2.6 - 76.9 ± 6.4 328.6 ± 35.9 56.6 ± 14.0 - 241.3 ± 30.0 306.4 ± 38.3 136.4 ± 20.9 -Germacrene D−4-ol 82.6 ± 28.8 0.2 ± 0.0 123.8 ± 70.0 15.2 ± 2.9 - - 0.239303 - 105.4 ± 14.8 29.6 ± 4.0 132.7 ± 37.1 15.9 ± 4.2 Cubenol 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 11.0 ± 0.9 30.0 ± 4.8 4.0 ± 2.0 - 25.5 ± 3.2 39.9 ± 4.0 10.4 ± 1.1 0.1 ± 0.0 Thunbergene 197.3 ± 65.1 363.3 ± 98.9 0.2 ± 0.0 45.5 ± 7.7 430.9 ± 58.1 3,361.303 - 108.1 ± 28.7 1,256.5 ± 121.4 2,752.0 ± 386.0 817.1 ± 111.9 919.7 ± 144.8 Unknown diterpene 93.8 ± 27.9 179.5 ± 49.4 0.2 ± 0.0 20.8 ± 3.3 223.9 ± 31.6 2,295.4 ± 243.1 - 43.8 ± 11.2 853.5 ± 174.4 2013.0 ± 305.7 675.1 ± 51.9 681.5 ± 135.8 Unknown diterpene 0.3 ± 0.1 - 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 98.0 ± 12.5 152.0 ± 26.1 101.1 ± 22.1 20.1 ± 4.7 159.9 ± 39.7 118.7 ± 14.2 147.1 ± 15.8 147.8 ± 22.4 Unknown diterpene 36.1 ± 5.5 22.0 ± 5.5 26.2 ± 6.0 17.4 ± 2.9 88.7 ± 16.8 108.1 ± 19.3 156.5 ± 27.2 70.0 ± 12.7 221.1 ± 53.3 240.8 ± 17.8 448.5 ± 48.8 238.6 ± 62.0 Geranyllinalool - - - - - - - - 974.0 ± 294.8 3,677.2 ± 411.8 7,937.2 ± 2,506.1 7,253.8 ± 2,430.1 Thunbergol 1,208.8 ± 296.8 2,313.1 ± 626.0 - 333.2 ± 43.3 2,983.3 ± 293.2 16,029.9 ± 2,581.7 - 737.0 ± 128.4 8,088.6 ± 918.4 19,239.9 ± 2,272.3 - 5,716.2 ± 885.6 Pimara−7–15-dien−3-one 0.3 ± 0.1 - 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 147.3 ± 39.5 606.8 ± 56.3 389.9 ± 82.9 78.4 ± 10.4 417.8 ± 49.3 764.6 ± 94.9 1,147.5 ± 201.7 874.2 ± 335.0 Unknown diterpene 0.3 ± 0.1 - - - 331.2 ± 51.4 350.2 ± 12.7 733.6 ± 98.3 915.8 ± 231.9 Podocarpa−8 11 13-trien−15-oic acid 13-isopropyl-0.3 ± 0.1 - 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2598936 215.3 ± 18.6 501.3 ± 43.6 328.3 ± 79.0 170.6 ± 50.8 214.9 ± 42.8 432.5 ± 73.4 398.6 ± 98.2 556.8 ± 87.2 Unknown diterpene 0.3 ± 0.1 -- 0.3 ± 0.2 0.3 ± 0.1 - - 0.2 ± 0.1 - 180.0 ± 29.5 208.7 ± 12.9 310.7 ± 39.0 371.6 ± 93.4 Abietic acid 129.1 ± 34.3 37.3 ± 19.0 70.4 ± 19.4 96.8 ± 13.7 287.8 ± 22.3 186.4 ± 12.7 322.8 ± 54.5 209.5 ± 43.9 82.1 ± 16.7 111.5 ± 13.0 107.1 ± 14.4 100.2 ± 6.8 Methyl−7.13.15-abietatrienoate 0.3 ± 0.1 -- - - 94.6 ± 11.7 109.3 ± 21.8 82.3 ± 25.2 39.2 ± 9.1 141.5 ± 23.7 93.3 ± 13.0 92.3 ± 8.1 76.2 ± 9.1
