Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index [621658]

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index
in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)
Interested in publishing with us?
Contact [anonimizat]
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.comOpen access books available
Countries delivered to Contributors from top 500 universitiesInternational authors and editors
Our authors are among th e
most cited scientistsDownloadsWe are IntechOpen,
the world’s leading publisher of
Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists
12.2%118,000 130M
TOP 1% 1544,500

Chapter 6
The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal
Interactions
Sneha Vissa and Richard William Hofstetter
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106
© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Sneha Vissa and Richard William Hofstetter
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
Abstract
Insects share complex interactions with mites and fungi that range from obligate mutualisms
to antagonistic relationships. These multitrophic interactions often result in changes to the
host environment and population dynamics of the insect. Here, we review Scolytidae and
Platypodidae beetles (bark beetles and ambrosia beetles, Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and
their micro-organismal interactions with mites and fungi. Many bark beetles and ambrosia
beetles are closely associated with mutualistic fungi used as a food source. These fungi are
carried by the beetles in specialized pockets called “mycangia.” In addition to beetle-specific
fungi, secondary fungi are often vectored by mite populations phoretic on the beetles. These
secondary introductions create a complex fungal micro-biome within the host tree of the
associated Scolytid beetles, with a myriad of consequences to beetle success and tree mortal –
ity. In this chapter, we provide a detailed review of specific beetle-fungal and mite-fungal
associations, mutualistic and antagonistic effects of these fungal relations, and ecological
and evolutionary consequences of beetle-fungal-mite relationships within the host complex.
Keywords: Scolytinae , phoresy, symbiosis, Acari , fungi, mycangia
1. Introduction
A wide diversity of symbionts has contributed to the success of bark and ambrosia beetles
(Curculionidae: Scolytinae) [ 1]. All ambrosia beetles and most bark beetles have mutualistic
fungi that serve as a nutrition source for young and adult beetles. However, some fungal (and
other) symbiotic associations may be detrimental to beetles. Other beetle symbionts include
mites that are frequently found traveling on adult beetles and live under the bark of beetle-
infested trees [ 2]. Similar to fungi, the impacts of mites on beetles vary widely. Mites too can be
beneficial or detrimental to beetles. Some mite species can contribute to the fungal diversity in
© 2017 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

beetle galleries by transporting spores within and between trees [ 3, 4] impacting the behavior,
development, and population dynamics of beetles [ 5, 6]. Such complex systems are evolution –
ary unique and can be considered principal factors in the success of Scolytid beetles.
Ambrosia beetles possess symbiotic mutualistic relationships with fungi ( Ambrosiella and
Raffaelea spp.) [ 7–9]. Ambrosia beetles excavate tunnels within the wood of host trees, termed
“galleries,” within which female beetles oviposit eggs. The symbiotic fungi are carried by the
female ambrosia beetle in a specialized pocket, termed “mycangium.” The fungal inoculate is
deposited along the walls of the gallery where it grows and serves as food for larval broods
and adult beetles [ 10, 11 ]. Fungi allow ambrosia beetles to exploit the wood that would have
otherwise been a nutritionally poor resource, as well as exploit living trees. In California and
Israel, an invasive ambrosia beetle poses a serious threat to avocado plantations via the intro –
duction of a Fusarium fungus species causing dieback, wilting, and ultimately host tree mor –
tality [ 12]. Similarly, adult leaf-cutter ants (Attini: Atta or Acromyremex ) use leaves to foster the
cultivation of fungi inside their colonies, which they in turn use as a food source [ 13], resulting
in large-scale defoliation of nearby trees [ 14]. Contradictory, fungi can serve an antagonistic
function in insect development or survival. Cordyceps is an obligate, directly transmitted fun –
gus that requires specific insects for reproduction [ 15], parasitizes tropical ants (among many
other insects), and results in colony collapse and mortality by taking control of the host ants
behavior [ 16]. Other fungal pathogens can result in the direct mortality of insects. For instance,
blue-staining fungi, such as Ophiostoma minus , can cause the mortality of southern pine beetle
larval broods by out-competing the beetle mycangial fungi [ 5]. Beauveria bassiana is a common
insect pathogenic fungi that kills insects in a variety of habitats and has been demonstrated as
an effective mortality agent against bark and ambrosia beetles such as the almond bark beetle,
Scolytus amygdali [17], responsible for the destruction of almond plantations.
Mites (Subphylum: Chelicerata, Class: Arachnida, Subclass: Acari) share a common, but
important relationship termed “phoresy” with insects and other organisms [ 18]. Phoresy
refers to an interspecific relationship between two species where one acts as a host and the
other acts as a “phoront,” attaching itself to the host for the purpose of dispersal or migration.
Consequently, Farish [ 19] explicitly defines “phoresy” as follows: a phenomenon in which
one animal actively seeks out and attaches to the outer surface of another animal for a lim –
ited time during which the attached animal (the “phoretic” animal or “phoront”) ceases both
feeding and ontogenesis, presumably resulting in dispersal from areas unsuited for further
development, either of the individual or its progeny. This sort of commensalism is common
in species that live in rapidly changing environments, and/or in species that have limited
mobility [ 20]. Mites are small-minute organisms ranging from 50 μm to 3 mm in body length
[21, 22 ] and thus have limited dispersal ability, other than being blown by the wind or car –
ried by other animals or objects. They generally feed on other small arthropods or larvae and
eggs of other arthropods, nematodes, fungi, bacteria, or dead organic matter [ 21]. Due to
their small size and limited mobility, mites are likely to be phoretic on insects that are able to
transport them quickly and efficiently, i.e., flying insects such as bees (Hymenoptera), beetles
(Coleoptera), and flies (Diptera). For instance, mites associated with ants tend to prefer alate
queens (i.e., flying queens) over workers or any other type of ant [ 23], presumably because
they are able to travel longer distances over a short span of time and can be introduced into
future ant nests. Mites are usually found attached to setae (i.e., external hairs), to grooves in Insect Physiology and Ecology 136

the tarsi, under the wings, under the elytra (hardened exoskeleton of beetles), or attached to
any part of an insect’s body that provides a firm holdfast ( Figure 1 ).
Phoretic mites may have either advantageous, disadvantageous, or no effect on their insect
host. During the act of phoresy itself, even though mites cease to feed, their mere presence
may be antagonistic/parasitic as insects can be weighed down by the presence of numer –
ous mites (e.g., southern pine beetles being weighed down by masses of Uropodine mites
[24]) slowing down flight speed and increasing energy expenditure ( Figure 2 ). The risk of
antagonistic effects increase when mites are deposited at the insect’s final destination. For
example, varroa mites ( Varroa destructor ) associated with honeybees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
are known to carry the deformed wing virus (Iflaviridae); this causes new bees to emerge
with crumpled dysfunctional wings rendering them useless to the colony, resulting in even –
tual colony collapse disorder [ 6]. Adult bees with varroa mites have also been shown to have
significantly less protein, lipid, carbohydrate, and water content [ 25]. Other destructive mites
are known to feed on insect larvae and eggs. For example, mites of the genus Iponemus are
predatory on beetle eggs and larvae [ 26]. Other mites, such as Tarsonemus ips vector fungi use –
ful for the development of southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) larvae
(i.e., associated mycangial fungi) [ 22, 27 ]. Much like beetles, mites in turn act as vectors of
microbes (fungi, bacteria, and viruses), which may present either a beneficial or a detrimental
consequence for the insect and/or host plant(s). For example, the mite Siteropsis reniformis is
associated with carrying the lint rot fungus, Nigrospora , which results in the rotting and death
of cotton bolls in California [ 28]. Some Tarsonemus mite species associated with bark beetles
(such as the southern pine beetle) carry the blue-stain fungus O. minus, which causes infection
of phloem, host tree death, and ultimately beetle mortality ( Figures 3 and 4) [2, 5, 29].
Figure 1. Scanning electron image of phoretic mites on Dryocoetes confusus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae ). Picture taken at
Northern Arizona University by R. Hofstetter; Nov. 2006. Image is 500× magnification.The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106137

Figure 2. Phoretic Trichuoropoda sp. mites on the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis . Picture taken by
R. Hofstetter, Dec. 2016. Flagstaff, AZ, USA.
Figure 3. Tarsonemus ips mite with O. minus ascospores (dark banana shape spores). Mite was collected from the southern
pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis in Alabama 2001 by R. Hofstetter.Insect Physiology and Ecology 138

2. Bark and ambrosia beetle-fungal interactions
Ambrosia beetles and bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) are known to
share intimate relationships with fungi. The subfamily Scolytinae consists of bark beetles
(~7000 species), ambrosia beetles (~3400 species), and other various seed and pith-feeding
beetles [ 8, 30 ]. A prominent characteristic of Scolytinae is a widespread association with fun –
gal species, particularly the bark beetles and ambrosia beetles. These fungal associations are
mutualistic or commensal (i.e., benefiting the fungi via dispersal by beetles) with beetles and
are primarily Ascomycetes in the genera Ophiostoma , Fusaria , Grosmannia , Ceratocystiopsis ,
and Ceratocystis [7, 31, 32 ]. Scolytinae are thought to have evolved in the late Jurassic—early
Cretaceous period with these fungi, historically switching back and forth from angiosperm
hosts to coniferous hosts [ 8]. The development of mutualisms with fungi helps explain diver –
sification of Scolytinae to inhabit coniferous habitats and exploit a limiting resource such as
living tree tissues by growing supplementary fungi within it.
2.1. Bark beetle-fungal associations
Bark beetles can be distinguished from ambrosia beetles and other Scolytinae by the fact that
they exclusively invade the bark and phloem of trees, and not the woody tissue. Fungi associ –
ated with bark beetles are carried/introduced to the host in one of two ways—mycangially or
nonmycangially—which indicate the specificity of the relationship between the fungus and
the beetle. Some bark beetles such as the southern pine beetle ( Dendroctonus frontalis ) and the
mountain pine beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae ) possess specialized structures called “mycan –
gia” or “mycetangia,” meaning “fungal vessel.” Mycangia are strictly defined as specialized
Figure 4. Proctolaelaps scoltyi mite with O. minus ascospores (dark banana shape spores). Mite was collected from the
southern pine beetle, D. frontalis by John Moser.The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106139

invagination of the integument lined with secretory glands used for the transport of fungi
[33]. However, the term “mycangia” is often loosely used to describe invaginations that carry
fungal spores [ 7]. These mycangial fungi (grown as a yeast-like structure or spores within
the mycangia) are introduced by the beetle into the tree phloem where it eventually provides
food for the developing offspring. The growth of fungi within the mycangia is supported by
the glandular secretions of the mycangia [ 34]. Nine bark beetle species are known to have
well-defined mycangia [ 32] (Table 1 ). There are several different kinds of mycangial fungal
species: bionectrotrophic blue-staining ascomycetes, saprophytic ascomycetes, or saprophytic
basidiomycetes [ 35]. For example, the southern pine beetle is associated with two types of
mycangial fungi: Ceratocystiosis ranaculosus (ascomycete) and Entomocorticium sp. A (basidio –
mycete) [ 4, 36], and the mountain pine beetle is associated with three Ophiostomatoid mycan –
gial fungi— Ophiostoma montium [37], Grosmania clavigera , and Leptographium longiclavatum
[38, 39 ] but are also known to harbor Ceratocystiopsis and Entomocorticium [40]. However, only
one fungal species exists within an individual beetle’s mycangium and is inherited from the
original parental pair [ 2, 41]. Other bark beetles such as (most) Ips spp. transport fungal spores
without using a mycangia; i.e., spores are present in grooves or pits found on the beetle’s
exoskeleton. For example, Ips typographus , the spruce beetle, which is responsible for extensive
Bark Beetle Tribe Principal plant
hostsMycangial type Ascomycete
associatesBasidiomycete
associates
Dendroctonus
frontalisTomicini Pinus spp. Prothoracic,
glandularCeratocysitis
ranacuosusEntomocorticium
sp. A
D. brevicomis Tomicini P. ponderosae, P.
coulteriProthoracic,
glandularC. brevicomis Entomocorticium
sp. B
D. approximatus Tomicini Pinus spp. Prothoracic,
glandularUnknown Phlebiopsis
gigantea
D. adjunctus Tomicini Pinus spp. Prothoracic,
glandularLeptographium
pyrinumUnknown
D. ponderosae Tomicini Pinus spp. Maxillary Ophiostoma
clavigerum, O.
MontiumEntomocorticium
dendroctoni, E.
sp. D,E,F,G,H, P.
gigantea
D. jeffreyi Tomicini P. jeffreyi Maxillary O. clavigerum Entomocorticium
sp. E
Tomicus minor Tomicini Pinus spp. Unknown O. canum,
Ambrosiella tingensUnknown
Ips acuminatus Ipini Pinus spp. Mandibular O. clavatum, A.
macrosporaUnknown
I. avulsus Ipini Pinus spp. Unknown O. ips Entomocorticium
sp. 1
Pityoborus comatus Corthylini Pinus spp. Prothoracic,
pubescentUnknown Entomocorticium
sp. C.
Table 1. Information adapted from Harrington, 2005 (Insect-fungal associations: ecology and evolution, p. 264)—Nine
species of bark beetles associated with well-defined mycangial, and their associated fungi.Insect Physiology and Ecology 140

tree damage in Europe and in Asia [ 42], is associated with fungal species of Ceratocystiopsis ,
Ceratocystis , and Grosmania as well as Pyxidiophora sp. carried externally in grooves on the sur –
face of the exoskeleton [ 43]. Ips perterbatus (the northern spruce engraver) is associated with
13 different Ophiostomatoid fungi [ 44] and thus also acts as a potential vector of tree-killing
Ophiostomatoid fungal pathogens. Ips sexdentatus (a highly prevalent species in Europe) is
associated with carrying a plethora of ascospores, some among the Ophiostoma genus [ 45].
Consequently, beetles that are mycangially associated with fungi seem to possess a stronger
fidelity to their allied fungi, whereas those that are not mycangially associated are less spe –
cific as they are merely vectors [ 8]. For example, western pine beetle ( Dendroctonus brevico –
mis ) is known to exhibit strong fidelity to one of two inherited mycangial fungal symbionts,
Ceratocystiopsis brevicomi and/or Entomocorticum sp. B, which is suggestive of coevolution of the
beetle with their associated fungi [ 35, 41 ]. Other fungi associated with the western pine beetle,
such as O. minus or O. ips , are not carried in the mycangia and are antagonistic to the beetle.
2.2. Ambrosia beetle-fungal associations
Ambrosia beetles (Family: Curculionidae; subfamily: Scolytinae) occur worldwide and share
close novel symbioses with fungi, such as Ambrosiella spp. and Raffaela spp. [ 7–9, 46], which
rely on arthropods for efficient dispersal. Beetle-fungal symbiosis in ambrosia beetles is one of
the earliest known associations of insect-fungal relationships, and this specific association is a
primary reason for their success [ 8, 30]. Ambrosia beetles are “xylomacetophagous” (feed on
fungi grown in the xylem), and their activity is easily recognized by the distinct staining of wood
by the inoculation of ectosymbiotic fungi, used as the sole nutrient source by both adults and
larvae [ 10, 11, 47, 48 ]. Like bark beetles, ambrosia beetles transport these fungi via specialized
mycangia [ 49], the location of which differs between beetle species [ 50]. Typically (as seen in
European ambrosia beetles), females tend to have more well-developed mycangia [ 49], i.e., large
and lined with glandular dermal cells containing a waxy substance [ 51] than males, and are
responsible for depositing the fungi along the tunnel walls [ 10, 50 ]. The waxy secretions of the
female mycangium contribute to the growth of ambrosia cells [ 52]. Ambrosia beetles may or
may not exhibit specificity to ambrosia fungi. Batra [ 10] suggests that ambrosia beetles rely on a
primary (mycangial) and auxiliary ambrosia fungi depending on the life stage and do not exhibit
mycangial specificity to ambrosia fungi. However, further study shows ambrosia beetles in the
genus Xylosandrus (which are exotic in the United States [ 46]) exhibit high specificity to a given
ambrosia fungus in the genus Ambrosiella [53]. This type of fungal specificity highlights a unique
obligate symbiosis between ambrosia beetles and ambrosia fungi and suggests coevolution of
the beetle with its fungal associate [ 8].
Ambrosia beetles are not typically associated with significantly damaging tree diseases in the
way bark beetles are, as they often attack trees that are already dead or severely stressed [ 41,
51, 54, 55 ]. Coevolution theory suggests that the ambrosia beetle-fungal association is adapt –
able to a given host environment. However, problems arise when atypical beetle-host rela –
tionships form, i.e., exotic ambrosia beetles attack foreign hosts [ 50, 51, 54 ]. A recent concern in
North America is an increase in exotic species of ambrosia beetles attacking living trees with.
In most cases, these beetles are inoculating trees with non-native ambrosia fungi, for which
native North American trees have little resistance [ 46]. For example, the redbay ambrosia The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106141

beetle ( Xyleborinus glabratus ) is an exotic beetle from southeast Asia, responsible for extensive
mortality of redbay trees ( Persea borbonia ) [46, 55, 56 ]. These beetles are closely associated with
a Raffaela lauricola , an asexually reproducing fungus, which grows within the xylem (wood)
and causes affected branches to wilt, exhibiting a symptomatic black staining of the sapwood
[55, 56 ]. In another example, an Euwallacea sp. ambrosia beetle is causing damage to more
than twenty tree species in California, with particular concern to avocado [ 12]. The damage is
caused by the spread of a novel Fusarium fungus causing tree wilting and dieback [ 12].
The full ecological potential of ambrosia beetle-fungal relationships for exotic invasives is still
unknown [ 55]. There is little available detail on phoretic mite populations of ambrosia beetles
as there is for bark beetles. Therefore, we are unaware of specific mite-fungal interactions for a
given species of ambrosia beetle. There is a potential for similar complex mite-fungal interac –
tions in ambrosia beetles as there are in bark beetles, particularly in situations with multiple
beetle species attacking one host tree(s).
2.3. Factors affecting beetle-fungal associations
Both mutualistic and antagonistic fungal associations are context-dependent and highly
affected on a combination of biotic and abiotic factors such as temperature, moisture, host
tree defenses, presence of other microbes (i.e., bacteria, yeast, etc.), and other arthropods.
Depending upon the beetle complex in question, such context-dependent conditions suggest
that some fungi benefit from multipartite relationships in bark beetles more than others, and
that the beetle’s ecological niche is determined by the external factors that govern it [ 57, 58].
Host tree type and conditions (moisture, phytochemical composition/concentrations, etc.) have
a significant influence on bark beetle-fungal associations. For instance, changes in the chemis –
try and nutritional content of the host tree have the ability to alter the distribution and relative
prevalence of fungal associates within the tree [ 8, 59–62]. A conifer tree’s primary defenses are
resins and other induced secondary chemical compounds, which vary between tree species [ 57,
60, 63, 64 ]. In their study of the effect of tree defenses against fungi associated with the southern
pine beetle, Hofstetter et al. [ 65] found that in general the phytochemistry of Pinus tree species
negatively impacted the growth-rate of O. minus fungi vectored by beetles (and their accom –
panying mites) but (bar a few exceptions) did not hinder growth of the mycangial fungi. This
indicates that the fungal microbiome of some bark beetles is dependent upon the geographi –
cally dominant host tree species and can accordingly benefit or pose a threat to beetle popula –
tion dynamics [ 57]. Other host tree factors like moisture content can determine the success of
a fungal inoculant as well (i.e., a moisture-rich tree typically serves as a better fungal host than
a dry tree [ 33]). Ayres et al. also found that presence of basic elements such as high nitrogen
concentration is dependent on the presence or absence of mycangial fungal associations [ 66].
Variations in temperature are one of the most vital factors affecting the relative abundance
and diversity of fungal species, in turn affecting the ecological associations of the fungus’ host
bark beetle [ 3, 67–69]. The mountain pine beetle, D. ponderosae, for example, is associated with
Grosmannia clavigera and O. montium mycangial fungi [ 37, 38 ]. The two fungi possess differential
optimal temperatures with G. clavigera ceasing to grow past 25°C and O. montium dominating
between 25 and 32°C [ 67]. Thus, the fungal association of D. ponderosae bark beetles is predictable Insect Physiology and Ecology 142

over changes in season; i.e., the beetle will vector G. clavigera in cooler climates and O. montium
in hotter climates. This in turn allows the beetle to occupy a wide geographical range (from
southwestern North America into Canada) due to its ability to exploit not one, but two symbiotic
resources that span a wide range of host environments. Hofstetter et al. [ 3] found that the growth
rate of the symbiotic fungi ( O.minus , C. ranaculosus , and Entomocorticium sp. A) of the southern
pine beetle, D. frontalis , differs within a range of temperatures [ 3]. While the growth rate of E. sp.
A. increased steeply between 8 and 22°C before reaching a stable constant, the growth rates of
O. minus and C. ranaculosus were much less up to 22°C and increased in growth rate past 22°C.
The growth of the two mycangial fungi associated with the western pine beetle, D. brevicomis
(C. brevicomi and Entomocorticum sp. B) is also similarly affected by temperature and can vary
between beetle populations [ 35]. C. brevicomi tends to thrive better than E sp. B. at cooler and
hotter temperatures, but fair similarly in intermediate temperatures. This differential growth
may thus potentially reduce competition between the two fungal symbionts and vary seasonally
with the beetle’s movement [ 69]. Such differential growth can also determine which associative
symbionts are lost with climate change [ 35].
For bark beetles associated with multiple mycangial symbionts, the prevalence of a specific
mycangial fungal associate depends upon the beetle’s environmental temperature and con –
sequently determines the beetle’s ability to survive in a given geographic location. Often,
the presence of multiple beetle-associated fungi results in competition between the different
fungal species with one species dominating the other. Changes in external factors (such as
host tree chemistry and temperature) can determine the competitive advantage of a resource
between multiple fungal symbionts, and also determine the success of antagonistic tree-killing
pathogens such as species of blue-stain ( O. minus , O. picae , O. penicillatum , etc.). As blue-stain
fungi thrive at higher temperature ranges (recall, O. minus growth rate increases past 22°C), the
prevalence of blue-stain will depend on climate change and its consequential temperature con –
ditions [ 70]). A thorough understanding of biotic and abiotic factors affecting pathogenic and
mycangial fungi can thus allow us to predict which species of fungi will potentially establish
itself within a major bark beetle’s niche, and what effects it may have on host tree conditions
and mortality. Thus, differential responses of mutualistic fungi to temperature could reduce
competition between fungal symbionts by allowing each to dominate at different times as tem –
peratures vary seasonally, annually, or geographically [ 69]. These differences are also likely to
determine the future symbiotic complex of beetle populations as warming increases. However,
mites have the potential to disrupt, alter, or magnify beetle-fungal symbiotic complexes.
3. Mite-fungal-beetle interactions
Mites are a prominent phoront of bark beetles and some ambrosia beetles [ 2, 58 ]. Mites
(Arachnida: Acari) are subdivided into two main super orders: Parasitiformes and
Acariformes [ 71]. The Parasitiformes are further divided into four orders—Ixodidae,
Holothyrida, Opilioacaridae, and Mesostigmata, and the Acariformes are divided into two
orders—Sarcoptiformes and Trombidiformes [ 22]. Mites phoretic on bark beetles are predom –
inantly species of the order Mesostigmata and Trombidiformes [ 62, 72, 73 ] and range from 80
μm (e.g., Iponemus sp.) to 5 mm ( Mexecheles sp.) in body length [ 22]. Mites are very efficient The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106143

phoronts, often having specialized structures, such as suckers and tenet hairs to cling on to
the host [ 20]. These organisms also have specialized adaptive stages/morphs for phoresy; e.g.,
many species (e.g., Acari: Astigmata) exhibit phoresy in the deutonymph (juvenile second-
stage nymph) stage, and only one life stage is specialized to be phoretic for a given species
of mite [ 21, 22 ]. Many mites phoretic on bark beetles predominantly tend to be female [ 26],
i.e., mites exhibit sexual dimorphism where one (the female) is termed the “phoretomorph”
(coined by Moser & Cross, 1975) and the other (the male) is “normal.” This phoretomorph
dimorphism is seen in Pyemotidae mite species (Acarina: Tarsonemoidea) [ 74] and (likely)
provides the opportunity for females to develop in a suitable environment for egg laying.
Mites can be found attached under the elytra, at the base of the elytra, within grooves in
the tarsi, on external setae, under the wings, etc. However, each mite species is specific in
the location on which they attach themselves to the beetle [ 75], depending upon what spe –
cialized clasping adaptations it may have (based on species). Like its host insect, mites also
share complex interactions with fungi; however, the details of most mite-fungal interactions
are relatively unknown and understudied [ 58]. Mycetophagous mites (mites which feed on
fungi) such as Tarsonemus krantzi (specifically feed on the blue-staining O. minus Ophiostomatid
fungus) and Histiogaster spp. (generalist fungal feeders) carry spores on their bodies to deposit
in their designated host environment (usually a medium such as the inner tissues of vascular
plants/trees from which the fungi may draw nutrition). Tarsonemus mites possess specialized
structures known as sporothecae in which they carry the fungal spores (see Figure 3 ) [62, 76].
The sporothecae are similar to the beetle’s mycangia except for the presence of gland cells.
The fungi also do not multiply within the sporothecae but do so once it has been deposited in
a suitable host environment [62].
The fungal symbionts of bark beetles often provide a food source for the mites, and the fungal
associations of the mites provide a food source for the beetle. Tarsonemus mites associated with
the southern pine beetle carry C. ranaculosus spores, which are mycangially associated with
the beetle [ 77]. This enhances the growth of C. ranaculosus as a food source for both the beetle
and the mite. However, between the southern pine beetle’s two mycangial fungi, C. ranacu –
losus and Entomocorticum sp. A., the latter is a more beneficial food source for the beetle. And
the presence of C. ranaculosus outcompeting Entomocorticum sp. as the dominant fungus [ 77],
resulting in a minor reduction of relative fitness for the beetle, but serves as a compromise for
both organisms. Inadvertently, not all mite-beetle interactions result in such harmonious coex –
istence between the two organisms. In many cases, the presence of mites results in decreased
fitness, changes in reproductive success, and even beetle mortality.
3.1. Role of mites in altering population dynamics of bark beetles
We know little of the potential impact of mites on beetle population dynamics. A few studies
indicate that mites may influence factors affecting beetle life history such as reproductive suc –
cess, development, and mortality, for example, Iponemus confuses L. parasitizes bark beetle eggs
resulting in mortality before the occurrence of the larval stage [ 26]. Resinosa mite spp. cause mor –
tality in Dendroctonus pseudotsugae eggs and early instars of larvae [ 36]. Cercoleipus coelonotus and
Dendrolaelaps quadrisetus have been known to feed on the eggs and larvae of I. typographus (pine
engraver) bark beetles. As mentioned earlier, Tarsonemus mites can cause beetle mortality by
introducing blue-stain fungi that outcompete the beetle’s mutualistic mycangial fungi, causing Insect Physiology and Ecology 144

host tree and beetle mortality [ 2, 5, 29, 77 ]. Similarly, Cercoleipus mites are known to carry strains
of Ophiostoma (specifically Ophiostoma bruneo-cilium and O. montium ) that cause damage to the
pine hosts of carrier bark beetles [ 78 ]. Conversely, Pfammatter and Raffa assessed the effects of
phoretic mites such as Dendrolaelaps spp., Iponemus spp., Histiogaster spp., Tarsonemus spp., etc.,
on the reproductive success of Ips grandicollis bark beetles (a nonmycangial beetle) and noticed a
weak positive relationship between the abundance of mites and emergence of I. grandicollis . This
suggests that there might also be a potential mutualistic relationship between the abundance of
mites and the reproductive performance of beetles. This may be due to mutual suitability of the
host substrate [ 36], but it is still uncertain whether mites truly encourage beetle performance.
Most of our understanding of mite-beetle-fungal interactions come from the widely studied
southern pine beetle. Tarsonemus mites carrying O. minus spores within sporothecae deposit the
fungi in the host environment of the beetle; where at first, the beetles are able to coexist and feed
on this fungus; however, over time the fungus outcompetes the beetles and invades the phloem
of the tree killing the beetle brood and the tree ( Figure 5 ). The presence or absence of a par –
ticular fungal species or strain can determine the success of development emergence of beetle
progeny in mountain pine beetles. Six (1998) found that mountain pine beetles associated with
O. montium mycangial fungi had a higher production of progeny adults with earlier emergence
than those associated with O. clavigerum fungi [ 79]. Adult southern pine beetle individuals that
developed with the presence of mycangial fungi were also found to be larger than individuals
that developed in the absence of mycangial fungi [ 66, 80, 81].
Figure 5. Models of interactions between the southern pine beetle, D. frontalis , phoretic mites of the genus Tarsonemus ,
and fungi. The fungal interaction includes either (a) the blue-stain fungus O. minus , which is not found associated with
the bark beetle mycangium and is an antagonist of D. frontalis , or (b) the mycangial fungus Ceratocystiopsis ranaculosus ,
which is a mutualist of both D. frontalis beetles and Tarsonemus mites. Model A represents an indirect negative-feedback
complex, and Model B represents an indirect positive-feedback complex.The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106145

The effect of mite-vectored fungi varies between mycangial and nonmycangial bark beetles. The
presence of symbiont specific mycangia (e.g., D. frontalis , D. ponderosae , and D. brevicomis ) indicates
specificity for a fungal resource and a lack of adaptability to foreign fungal competition, whereas
nonmycangial beetles (such as Ips spp.) are simply carriers and may possess greater adaptability to
a variety of potential fungal introductions. While there is no literature supporting this hypothesis,
it is a topic for future study to help us understand the role of mites in beetle life history.
3.2. Role of mites in spreading fungal pathogens
Bark and ambrosia beetles have been pinpointed as one of the primary vectors of tree dis –
ease-causing pathogens such as Fusarium dieback and Dutch elm disease. In some cases, tree
pathogenic fungi have been isolated from the external surface of beetles, i.e., they are not
mycangial fungi. Mite-beetle interactions suggest that it is more likely that the guilty party is
the mites vectored by the beetle than the beetle itself (e.g., Figure 6 ) [82, 83].
Bark beetles are associated with an array of mites. The southern pine beetle alone is associ –
ated with 96 different species of mites [ 73]. The mountain pine beetle is associated with 57
different phoretic mite species [ 83], and the spruce beetle ( Dendroctonus rufipennis ) is associ –
ated with up to 10 different species of mites [ 84]. Other bark beetles such as Ips beetles (pine
Figure 6. Hypothetical beetle-fungal-mite complex resulting in host tree disease or decline as seen in the Thousand
Cankers Disease and Hickory Decline and Mortality. Created by J. Moser 2012.Insect Physiology and Ecology 146

engravers) are also associated with mite species, though the diversity is less than that of
Dendroctonus species. Ips grandicollis , a bark beetle prevalent in the Great Lakes area, was
found to be associated with nine different phoretic mite species [ 36] and Ips pini is associated
with up to five different species of phoretic mites [ 85]. I. sexdentatus have been associated
with nine different mite species, which in turn were associated with ~16 morphologically
distinct fungi [ 45]. Not all of these bark-beetle-associated mites are carriers of fungal patho –
gens. However, there are specific genera of mites that are associated with the spread of fun –
gal pathogens and whose occurrence overlaps between the different species of bark beetles.
Dutch elm disease, a vascular wilt disease that affects elm trees, is caused by the introduc –
tion of the Ascomycete species (such as Ophiostoma novo-ulmi and Ceratocystis ulmi (Buis))
(Kinn, 1970). The spread of this deadly disease in Europe has been associated with elm bark
beetles in the genus Scolytus [72]— Scolytus multistriatus , Scolytus pygmaeus , and Scolytus
scolytus . However, like many other bark beetles, these elm bark beetles are associated with
phoretic mite species such as Elattoma fraxini , Proctolaelaps scolytii , Pseudotarsonemoides , and
Tarsonemus crassus [86]. Consequently, Moser et al. (2009) found that P. scolytii and T. crassus
carried O. novo-ulmi spores, with T. crassus carrying the most number of spores, indicating
that these beetles are only carriers of this disease because of its introduction by phoretic
mites—the true carriers of the pathogen. Such interactions could occur in other beetle-fungal-
mite complexes as well ( Figure 6 ). Likewise, studies have shown the O. minus- associated
southern pine beetle and the mountain pine beetle in North America [ 39, 87 ] are associated
with a Tarsonemus mite sp. similar to the one found on elm bark beetles, T. krantzi , which carry
the ascospores of O. minus [83, 88].
4. Conclusion
Complex interactions, particularly mutualisms like that of bark and ambrosia beetles and
mycangial fungi have vast implications on the ability to exploit marginal resources and deter –
mining habitat range, which in turn affect the host tree environment, spread of fungal patho –
gens, changes in fungal community structure, etc. Mite-beetle-fungal interactions are likely to
alter these ecological implications and effects. Phoretic mites (e.g., Cercoleipus, Dendroctonus , and
Iponemus spp.) may reduce bark beetle success/fitness via antagonistic ecological interactions
such as feeding on beetle eggs and beetle larvae [ 72], or feeding on other mutualist mites ben –
eficial for the beetle. Many other mites serve as vectors of pathogenic fungi, such as Histiostoma
ovalis (introduces Ophiostoma bruneo-ciliatum and O. montium (blue-stain fungi)) [ 78]. The intro –
duction of antagonistic fungi by mites may ameliorate the effect of beetle-fungus mutualisms by
outcompeting them. This has been documented in southern pine beetle populations in which
associated mites carry antagonistic fungi in sporothecae and outcompete the beetle’s mutualistic
mycangial fungi [ 89]. Scolytinae have evolutionarily jumped back and forth from angiosperm to
coniferous host types. The development of symbiotic associations with fungi has (potentially)
assisted in the transition of using a tough resource such as pine bark [ 8, 32]. The evolutionary
pressure exerted by a change in fungal environment introduced by mites (over time) may lead
to yet another change in the fungal symbiont of emerging beetles. Mountain pine beetle ( D.
ponderosae ), for example, are known to be associated with only one of three mycangial symbi -The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106147

onts passed on from parent to offspring. Increased fungal competition introduced by mites in
mountain pine beetle populations could cause an adaptive shift for the most successful fungal
species or strain [ 39]. Therefore, utilizing microorganismal interactions is a promising area for
future developments of biocontrol [ 62], particularly natural fungal inoculation via mite phoresy.
Scolytid beetles, mites, and fungi share a unique tripartite relationship that has the poten –
tial to affect entire ecosystems. Bark beetle-fungal relations are a primary cause for pine tree
mortality, and mite-induced fungal complexity may potentially alter the effects/progress of
such pathogenic fungi by either enhancing or diminishing them. For example, mites associ –
ated with the southern pine beetle cause blue-stain by vectoring C. minor (later renamed as
O.minus ). However, reference [ 81] indicates that the detrimental effect of C. minor naturally
occurring within the tree is inhibited in the phloem where it coexists with the beetle and other
microorganisms and is amplified when the fungus acts alone. It is very likely (though not
experimentally clarified) that this is due to competitive diversity of the fungal microbiome
being enhanced by spores that are introduced by the beetle and its associated mite popula –
tion. Consequently, the beetle-associated timber loss leads to the need for control/manage –
ment measures. Fungal associates and fungal biocontrol methods have been explored, such
as the potential use of B. bassiana as a natural insecticide [ 79, 90 ]. However, the role of mites
has generally been overlooked in these studies and thus the full ecological potential of bio –
logically controlling beetle outbreaks remains unknown. If mites have the potential to alter
beetle-fungal associations, factors such as optimal temperature range and geographic range
of specific beetle species may also change. Some fungi are adaptive to higher temperatures
and some to lower thus determining the geographic expansion of the beetle associated with
it. In the past decade, the mountain pine beetle has expanded in range across North America,
making its way into the northern forests of British Columbia [ 91], resulting in tree death.
Climate change is the foremost theory for this expansion, as changes in thermal regime has a
direct effect on factors such as host tree vigor, resource availability, etc. [ 91, 92 ]. However, it is
important for managers to understand the consequences of climate and temperature change
on bark beetle resource dependence. Mycangial (or other resource-dependent) association
with fungi adaptable to colder temperatures will extend beetle populations up north into
regions of colder climate and vice versa. The predominance of such a fungus may be influ –
enced by its abundant dispersal by phoretic mites that favor it as a nutritional resource.
While bark and ambrosia beetle populations are typically monitored, their mite and fungal
associations are not. We believe that geographic expansion, reproductive fitness, and other fac –
tors of beetle population dynamics rely on a thorough understanding of the mite and fungal
diversity associated with beetles. The mite-beetle-fungal tripartite relationship is a relatively
new realm of study in the field of multipartite symbioses, with a vast scope for new discover –
ies that expand or knowledge and understanding of ambrosia and bark beetle ecology.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge and thank Derek Uhey, PhD Student, Northern Arizona
University, Flagstaff AZ 86011, USA, for his assistance with initial editing and formatting of
the information presented.Insect Physiology and Ecology 148

Author details
Sneha Vissa and Richard William Hofstetter*
*Address all correspondence to: rich.hofstetter@nau.edu
School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
References
[1] K.F. Raffa, J. Gregoire and B.S. Lindgren. 2015. Natural history and ecology of bark beetles.
In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Invasive and Native Species. F.E. Vega and R.W.
Hofstetter (eds). Academic Press, Elsevier, Oxford, U.K. pp. 1–28.
[2] R.W. Hofstetter, J. Dinkins-Bookwalter, K.D. Klepzig and T.S. Davis. 2015. Symbiotic asso –
ciates of bark beetles. In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species.
F.E. Vega and R.W. Hofstetter (eds). Academic Press, Elsevier Publishing. pp. 209–246.
[3] R.W. Hofstetter, T.D. Dempsey, K.D. Klepzig and M.P. Ayres. 2007. Temperature-
dependent effects on mutualistic, antagonistic, and commensalistic interactions among
insects, fungi and mites. Community Ecology , 8(1): 47–56.
[4] R.W. Hofstetter and J.C. Moser. 2014. Role of mites in insect-fungus associations. Annual
Review of Entomology , 59(1): 537–557.
[5] R.W. Hofstetter, J.T. Cronin, K.D. Klepzig, J.C. Moser and M.P. Ayres. 2006. Antagonisms,
mutualisms and commensalisms affect outbreak dynamics of the southern pine beetle.
Oecologia , 147(4): 679–691.
[6] L. Wilfert, G. Long, H.C. Leggett, P. Schmid-Hempel, R. Butlin, S.J.M. Martin and M. Boots.
2016. Deformed wing virus is a recent global epidemic in honeybees driven by Varroa
mites. Science , 351: 594–597.
[7] H.S. Whitney. 1982. Relationships between bark beetles and symbiotic organisms.
In Bark Beetles in North American Conifers: A System for the Study of Evolutionary
Biology. J.B. Mitton and K.B. Sturgeon (eds). University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
pp. 183–211.
[8] D.L. Six. 2012. Ecological and evolutionary determinants of bark beetle—Fungus
symbioses. Insects , 3: 339–366.
[9] R.A. Beaver, N. Wilding, N. Collins, P. Hammond and J. Webber. 1989. Insect-fungus
relationships in the bark and ambrosia beetles. Insect-Fungus Interactions , 121–143.
[10] L.R. Batra. 1966. Ambrosia fungi: extent of specificity to ambrosia beetles. Science
(New York, N.Y.) , 153: 193–195.
[11] L. Batra. 1903. Ecology of ambrosia fungi and their dissemination. Transactions of the
Kansas Academy of Science , 66: 213–236.The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106149

[12] S. Freeman, M. Sharon, M. Maymon, Z. Mendel, A. Protasov, T. Aoki, et al. 2013. Fusarium
euwallaceae sp. nov—a symbiotic fungus of Euwallacea sp., an invasive ambrosia beetle in
Israel and California. Mycologia , 105: 1595–1606.
[13] E.O. Wilson. 1986. The defining traits of fire ants and leaf-cutting ants. In Fire Ants and
Leaf-Cutting Ants: Biology and Management. C.S. Lofgren and R.K. Van der Meer (eds).
Westview Press, Boulder, CO. pp. 1–9.
[14] R. Wirth, W. Beyschlag, R. Ryel, H. Herz and B. Holldobler. 2003. The Herbivory of
Leaf-Cutting Ants. A Case Study on Atta Columbia in the Tropical Rainforest of Panama.
Spring Verlag, Berlin. 230 pp.
[15] D.P. Hughes, S.B. Andersen, N.L. Hywel-Jones, J.B. Winanda Himaman and J.J.
Boomsma. 2011. Behavioral mechanisms and morphological symptoms of zombie ants
dying from fungal infection. BMC Ecology , 11: 13.
[16] H.C. Evans and R.A. Samson. 1982. Cordyceps species and their anamorphs pathogenic
on ants (Formicidae) in tropical forest ecosystems I. The Cephalotes (Myrmicinae) com –
plex. Transactions of the British Mycological Society , 79: 431–453.
[17] Y.A. Batta. 2007. Biocontrol of almond bark beetle ( Scolytus amygdali Geurin-Meneville,
Coleoptera: Scolytidae) using Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. (Deuteromycotina:
Hyphomycetes ). Journal of Applied Microbiology , 103: 1406–1414.
[18] R.A. Norton. 1980. Observations on phoresy by Oribatid mites (Acari: Oribatei).
International Journal of Acarology , 6(2): 121–130.
[19] D.J. Farish. 1965. Some aspects of the sensory and phoretic behavior of macrocheles mus –
caedomesticae (Scopoli, 1772)(Acarina: Macrochelidae) with a consideration of phoresy
as a phenomenon. Biological Reviews , 57(4).
[20] D.J. Farish and R.C. Axtell. 1971. Phoresy redefined and examined in Macrocheles muscae –
domesticae (Acarina: Macrochelidae). Acarologia , 13(1): 16–29.
[21] D.E. Walters and H.C. Proctor. 1999. Mites: Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. CABI,
Oxon, UK.
[22] R.W. Hofstetter. 2011. Mutualists and phoronts of the southern pine beetle. In Southern
Pine Beetle II. K.D. Klepzig and R. Coulson (eds). United States Dept. of Agriculture
Forest Service, Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-140, Asheville,
NC, USA. pp. 161–181.
[23] K.U. Campbell, H. Klompen and T.O. Crist. 2013. The diversity and host specificity of
mites associated with ants: the roles of ecological and life history traits of ant hosts.
Insectes Sociaux , 60(1): 31–41.
[24] D.N. Kinn and J.J. Witcosky. 1978. Variation in southern pine beetle attack height associ –
ated with phoretic uropodid mites. The Canadian Entomologist , 110: 249–251.Insect Physiology and Ecology 150

[25] P.L. Bowen-Walker and A. Gunn. 2001. The effect of the ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destruc –
tor on adult worker honeybee ( Apis mellifera ) emergence weights, water, protein, carbo –
hydrate, and lipid levels. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata , 101: 207–217.
[26] E. Lindquist. 1969. New species of Tarsonemus (Acarina:Tarsonemidae) associated with
bark beetles. Canadian Entomologist , 101: 1291–1314.
[27] K.D. Klepzig, J.C. Moser, F.J. Lombardero, M.P. Ayres, R.W. Hofstetter and C.J.
Walkinshaw. 2001. Mutualism and antagonism: ecological interactions among bark
beetles, mites and fungi. In Biotic Interactions in Plant-Pathogen Associations. M.J. Jeger
and N.J. Spence (eds). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. pp. 237–267.
[28] F.F. Laemmlen and D.H. Hall. 1972. Interdependence of a mite, Siteroptes reniformis , and
a fungus, Nigrospora oryzae , in the Nigrospora Lint Rot of Cotton. Phytopathology , 63:
308–315.
[29] M.J. Lombardero, M.P. Ayres, R.W. Hofstetter, J.C. Moser and K.D. Klepzig. 2003. Strong
indirect interactions of Tarsonemus mites (Acarine: Tarsonemidae) and Dendroctonus fron –
talis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae ). Oikos , 102: 243–252.
[30] B.D. Farrell, A.S. Sequeira, B.C. O’Meara, B.B. Normark, J.H. Chung and B.H. Jordal.
2001. The evolution of agriculture in beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae ).
Evolution , 55: 2011–2027.
[31] D.L. Six. 2003. The bark beetle holobiont: why microbes matter. Journal of Chemical
Ecology , 39: 989–1002.
[32] T.C. Harrington. 2005. Ecology and evolution of mycophagous bark beetles and their
fungal partners. In Insect-Fungal Associations: Ecology and Evolution. F.E. Vega and M.
Blackwell (eds). Oxford University Press, New York. p. 264.
[33] K.D. Klepzig and D.L. Six. 2004. Bark beetle-fungal symbiosis: context dependency in
complex associations. Symbiosis , 37: 189–205.
[34] C. Yuceer, C. Hsu, N. Erbilgin and K.D. Klepzig. 2011. Ultrastructure of the mycan –
gium of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae,
Scolytinae): complex morphology for complex interactions. Acta Zoologica , 224: 216–224.
[35] J.C. Dysthe, R. Bracewell, D.L. Six and A.E. Hajek. 2015. Temperature effects on growth
of fungal symbionts of the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis . Fungal Ecology ,
17: 62–68.
[36] J.A. Pfammatter and K.F. Raffa. 2015. Do phoretic mites influence the reproductive
success of Ips grandicollis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)? Environmental Entomology , 44:
1498–1511.
[37] C.T. Rumbold. 1941. A blue-stain fungus, Cerato.stomella monfium n. sp. and some yeasts
associated with two species of Dendroctonus . Journal of Agricultural Research , 62: 589–601.The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106151

[38] S. Lee, J. Kim and C. Breuil. 2005. Leptographium longiclavatum sp. nov., a new species
associated with the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae . Mycological Research ,
109(10): 1162–1170.
[39] J.E. Mercado, R.W. Hofstetter, D.M. Reboletti and J.F. Negrón. 2014. Phoretic symbi –
onts of the mountain pine beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins). Forest Science , 60(3):
512–526.
[40] D.L. Six and R. Bracewell. 2015. Dendroctonus. In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology
of Invasive and Native Species. F.E. Vega and R.W. Hofstetter (eds). Academic Press,
Elsevier, Oxford, U.K. pp. 305–350.
[41] R. Bracewell and D.L. Six. 2015. Experimental evidence of bark beetle adaptation to a
fungal symbiont. Ecology and Evolution , 5(21): 5109–5119.
[42] H. Solheim. 1992. Fungal succession in sapwood of Norway spruce infested by the bark
beetle Ips typographus . European Journal of Plant Pathology , 22: 136–148.
[43] H. Solheim. 1988. Pathogenicity of Some Ips typographus -Associated Blue-Stain Fungi to
Norway Spruce. Norsk Institutt for Skogforskning, Communications of the Norwegian
Forest Research Institute.
[44] S. Massoumi, A.E. Kim, L.M. Humble, E.A. Uzunovic and C. Breuil. 2007. Ophiostomatoid
fungi associated with the northern spruce engraver, Ips perturbatus , in western Canada.
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek , 91(1): 19–34.
[45] B.J. Levieux and T.J. Perry. 1989. Transportation of phytopathogenic fungi by the bark
beetle Ips sexdentatus Boerner and associated mites. Journal of Applied Entomology , 108:
1–11.
[46] C. Bateman, P.E. Kendra, R. Rabaglia and J. Hulcr. 2015. Fungal symbionts in three
exotic ambrosia beetles, Xylosandrus amputatus, Xyleborinus andrewesi , and Dryoxylon
onoharaense (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae: Xyleborini) in Florida. Symbiosis , 66:
141–148.
[47] J.M. Baker. 1963. Ambrosia beetles and their fungi, with particular reference to Platypus
cylindrus Fab. Symposium of the Society of General Microbiology , 13: 232–265.
[48] R.D. Beaver. 1989. Insect-fungus relation-ships in the bark and ambrosia beetles. In
Insect-Fungus Interactions. G. Meurant (ed). Academic, London. pp. 121–143.
[49] P. Cassier, J. Levieux, M. Morelet and D. Rougon. 1996. The mycangia of Platypus cyl –
indrus Fab. and P. oxyurus Dufour (Coleoptera: Platypodidae) structure and associated
fungi. Journal of Insect Physiology , 42: 171–179.
[50] H. Francke-Grosmann. 1963. Some new aspects in forest entomology. Annual Review of
Entomology , 8: 415–438.
[51] L.R. Batra. 1963. Ecology of ambrosia fungi and their dissemination by beetles. Transactions
of the Kansas Academy of Science , 66: 213–236.Insect Physiology and Ecology 152

[52] L.P. Abrahamson, H.M. Chu and D.M. Norris. 1967. Symbiotic interrelationships
between microbes and ambrosia beetles. The organs of microbial transport and perpet –
uation in Trypodendron betulae and T. retusum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Annuals of the
Entomological Society of America , 60: 1107–1110.
[53] T.C. Harrington, D. McNew, C. Mayers, S.W. Fraedrich and S.E. Reed. 2014. Ambrosiella
roeperi sp. nov. is the mycangial symbiont of the granulate ambrosia beetle, Xylosandrus
crassiusculus . Mycologia, 106(4): 835–845.
[54] R.C. Ploetz, J. Hulcr, M.J. Wingfield and Z.W. de Beer. 2013. Destructive tree diseases
associated with ambrosia and bark beetles: black swan events in tree pathology? Plant
Disease , 95: 856–872.
[55] D. Carrillo, C.A. Dunlap, P.B. Avery, J. Navarrete, R.E. Duncan, M.A. Jackson, et al.
2015. Entomopathogenic fungi as biological control agents for the vector of the laurel
wilt disease, the redbay ambrosia beetle, Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae ).
Biological Control , 81: 44–50.
[56] S.W. Fraedrich, T.C. Harrington, R.J. Rabaglia, M.D. Ulyshen, A.E. Mayfield, J.L. Hanula,
et al. 2008. A fungal symbiont of the redbay ambrosia beetle causes a lethal wilt in Redbay
and other Lauraceae in the southeastern United States. Plant Disease , 92: 215–224.
[57] T.S. Davis and R.W. Hofstetter. 2012. Plant secondary chemistry mediates the perfor –
mance of a nutritional symbiont associated with a tree-killing herbivore. Ecology , 93:
421–429.
[58] R.W. Hofstetter and J.C. Moser. 2013. The role of mites in insect-fungus association.
Annual Review of Entomology , 59: 537–557.
[59] J.A. Byers. 1995. Host tree chemistry affecting colonization in bark beetles. In Chemical
Ecology of Insects. R.T. Carde and W.J. Bell (eds). Springer, U.S. pp. 154–213.
[60] T.D. Paine, K.F. Raffa and T.C. Harrington. 1997. Interactions among Scolytid bark
beetles, their associated fungi, and live host conifers. Annual Review of Entomology , 42:
179–206.
[61] A.S. Adams, C.R. Currie, Y. Cardoza, K.D. Klepzig and K.F. Raffa. 2009. Effects of sym –
biotic bacteria and tree chemistry on the growth and reproduction of bark beetle fungal
symbionts. Canadian Journal of Forest Research , 39: 1133–1147.
[62] J.C. Moser. 1985. Use of sporothecae by phoretic Tarsonemus mites to transport asco –
spores of coniferous bluestain fungi. Transactions of the British Mycological Society , 84:
750–753.
[63] K.F. Raffa and E.B. Smalley. 1995. Interaction of pre-attack and induced monoterpene
concentrations in conifer defense against bark beetle-microbial complexes. Oecologia ,
102: 285–295.
[64] C.I. Keeling and J. Bohlmann. 2006. Genes, enzymes and chemicals of terpenoid diver –
sity in the constitutive and induced defence of conifers against insects and pathogens.
New Phytology , 170: 657–675.The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106153

[65] R.W. Hofstetter, J.B. Mahfouz, K.D. Klepzig and M.P. Ayres. 2005. Effects of tree phy –
tochemistry on the interactions among endophloedic fungi associated with the southern
pine beetle. Journal of chemical ecology , 31(3): 539–560.
[66] M.P. Ayres, R.T. Wilkens, J.J. Ruel, M.J. Lombardero and E. Vallery. 2000. Nitrogen
budgets of phloem-feeding bark beetles with and without symbiotic fungi. Ecology , 81:
2198–2210.
[67] D.L. Six and B.J. Bentz. 2007. Temperature determines symbiont abundance in a multi –
partite bark beetle-fungus ectosymbiosis. Microbial Ecology , 54: 112–118.
[68] L.M. Evans, R.W. Hofstetter, M.P. Ayres and K.D. Klepzig. 2011. Temperature alters the
relative abundance and population growth rates of species within the Dendroctonus fron –
talis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) community. Environmental Entomology , 40(4): 824–834.
[69] A.L. Addison, J.A. Powell, D.L. Six, M. Moore and B.J. Bentz. 2013. The role of tem –
perature variability in stabilizing the mountain pine beetle–fungus mutualism. Journal of
Theoretical Biology , 335: 40–50.
[70] B.S. Lindgren and K.F. Raffa. 2013. Evolution of tree killing in bark beetles (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae): trade-offs between the maddening crowds and a sticky situation.
Canadian Entomologist , 145: 471–495.
[71] G.W. Krantz, D. Evans and D.E. Walter. 2009. A Manual of Acarology (No. C/595.42
M35). Ed. 2.
[72] D.N. Kinn. 1970. The Life Cycle and Behavior of Cercoleipus coelonotus (Acarina:
Mesostigmata) Including a Survey of Phoretic Mite Associates of California Scolytidae.
University of California Publications in Entomology. p. 65.
[73] J.C. Moser and M. Rotom. 1971. Mites associated with southern pine bark beetles in
Allen Parish, Louisiana. The Canadian Entomologist , 103: 1775–1971.
[74] J.C. Moser and E.A. Cross. 1975. Phoretomorph: a new phoretic phase unique to the
Pyemotidae (Acarina: Tarsonemoidea). Annals of the Entomological Society of America , 68:
820–822.
[75] J.A. Pfammatter, K.M. Malas and K.F. Raffa. 2015. Behaviours of phoretic mites (Acari)
associated with Ips pini and Ips grandicollis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) during host-tree
colonization. Agricultural and Forest Entomology , 106(02): 1–11.
[76] R.W. Hofstetter, J.C. Moser and S. Blomquist. 2013. Mites associated with bark beetles
and their hypophoretic Ophiostomatoid fungi. In The Ophiostomatoid Fungi: Expanding
Frontiers. K.A. Seifert, Z. Wilhelm de Beer and M.J. Wingfield (eds). CBS Biodiversity
Series 12. KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 165–176.
[77] K.D. Klepzig and R.W. Hofstetter. 2011. From Attack to Emergence: Interactions between
the Southern Pine Beetle, Mites, Microbes, and Trees. Southern Pine Beetle II.USDA
Forest Service General Technical Reports, Asheville, NC, USA. SRS-140. pp. 141–152.Insect Physiology and Ecology 154

[78] M.L. Moraza, M. Fernández and M. Jurc. 2013. Phoretic mites of the six-spined engraver
beetle, Ips sexdentatus (Böerner, 1776)(Coleoptera, Scolytinae), on Pinus halepensis in
Slovenia. International Journal of Acarology , 39: 597–599.
[79] D.L. Six. 1998. Effects of mycangial fungi and host tree species on progeny survival
and emergence of Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environmental
Entomology , 27: 1393–1401.
[80] B.R. Coppedge, F.M. Stephen and G.W. Felton. 1995. Variation in female southern pine
beetle size and lipid content in relation to fungal associates. The Canadian Entomologist ,
127: 145–154.
[81] S.J. Barras. 1970. Antagonism between Dendroctonus frontalis and the fungus Ceratocystis
minor. Annals of the Entomological Society of America , 63: 1187–1190.
[82] F. Roets, M.J. Wingfield, P.W. Crous and L.L. Dreyer. 2007. Discovery of fungus-mite
mutualism in a unique niche. Environmental Entomology , 36: 1226–1237.
[83] M.J. Lombardero, K.D. Klepzig, J.C. Moser and M.P. Ayres. 2000. Biology, demogra –
phy and community interactions of Tarsonemus (Acarina: Tarsonemidae) mites phoretic
on Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Agricultural and Forest Entomology , 2:
193–202.
[84] Y.J. Cardoza, J.C. Moser, K.D. Klepzig and K.F. Raffa. 2008. Multipartite symbio –
ses among fungi, mites, nematodes, and the spruce beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis .
Environmental Entomology , 37: 956–963.
[85] J.A. Pfammatter, J.C. Moser and K.F. Raffa. 2013. Mites Phoretic on Ips pini (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in Wisconsin Red Pine Stands. Annals of the Entomological
Society of America , 106: 204–213.
[86] J.C. Moser, H. Konrad, S.R. Blomquist and T. Kirisits. 2010. Do mites phoretic on elm
bark beetles contribute to the transmission of Dutch elm disease? Naturwissenschaften ,
97: 219–227.
[87] A.V. Rice, M.N. Thormann and D.W. Langor. 2007. Mountain pine beetle associated
blue-stain fungi cause lesions on jack pine, lodgepole pine, and lodgepole  jack pine
hybrids in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany , 85: 307–315.
[88] R.W. Hofstetter, J.C. Moser and S.R. Blomquist. 2005. Mites associated with bark beetles
and their hypertrophic ophiostomatoid fungi. Biodiversity Series , 12: 165–176.
[89] K.D. Klepzig, J.C. Moser, F.J. Lombarder and R.W. Hofstetter. 2001. Review article sym –
biosis and competition: complex interactions among beetles, fungi and mites. Symbiosis ,
30: 83–96.
[90] J. Kreutz, O. Vaupel and G. Zimmermann. 2004. Efficacy of Beauveria bassiana (Bals.)
Vuill. against the spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus L., in the laboratory under various
conditions. Journal of Applied Entomology , 128: 384–389.The Role of Mites in Bark and Ambrosia Beetle-Fungal Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67106155

[91] A. Carroll, S. Taylor, J. Regniere and L. Safranyik. 2003. Effect of climate change on
range expansion by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. In Mountain Pine
Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions, Oct. 30–31, 2003. T.L. Shore, et al. (eds).
Kelowna, BC. Natural Resources Canada, Infromation Report BC-X-399, Victoria. pp.
223–232.
[92] B.J. Bentz, J. Régnière, C.J. Fettig, E.M. Hansen, J.L. Hayes, J.A. Hicke, R.G. Kelsey, J.F.
Negron and S.J. Seybold. 2010. Climate change and bark beetles of the western United
States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. BioScience , 60(8): 602–613.Insect Physiology and Ecology 156