Next Article in Journal
Culturable Endophytic Fungi in Fraxinus excelsior and Their Interactions with Hymenoscyphus fraxineus
Next Article in Special Issue
Association of the Female Flight Ability of Asian Spongy Moths (Lymantria dispar asiatica) with Locality, Age and Mating: A Case Study from China
Previous Article in Journal
Soil Aggregate Stability and Carbon Density in Three Plantations in the Loess Plateau, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Microarthropods Living on the Endemic Tree Zelkova abelicea (Ulmaceae) with Particular Attention to Collembola Diversity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/f13071097
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Potential European Geographical Distribution of Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) under Current and Future Climate Conditions

by
Radosław Witkowski
1,*,
Marcin K. Dyderski
2,
Marta Bełka
1 and
Andrzej Mazur
1
1
Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Department of Forest Entomology and Pathology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-625 Poznań, Poland
2
Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Parkowa 5, 62-035 Kórnik, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2022, 13(7), 1097; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071097
Submission received: 4 May 2022 / Revised: 5 July 2022 / Accepted: 10 July 2022 / Published: 13 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diversity and Distribution of Forest Insects)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) is an alien ambrosia beetle from North America, that has been spreading across Europe since the 1930s. The species infests coniferous trees, excavating galleries in sapwood. However, to date very few studies have predicted changes in ambrosia beetle habitat suitability under changing climate conditions. To fill that gap in the current knowledge, we used the MaxEnt algorithm to estimate areas potentially suitable for this species in Europe, both under current climate conditions and those forecasted for the years 2050 and 2070. Our analyses showed areas where the species has not been reported, though the climatic conditions are suitable. Models for the forecasted conditions predicted an increase in suitable habitats. Due to the wide range of host trees, the species is likely to spread through the Balkans, the Black Sea and Caucasus region, Baltic countries, the Scandinavian Peninsula, and Ukraine. As a technical pest of coniferous sapwood, it can cause financial losses due to deterioration in quality of timber harvested in such regions. Our results will be helpful for the development of a climate-change-integrated management strategy to mitigate potential adverse effects.

1. Introduction

Biological invasions are among the most important phenomena affecting not only biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, but also the economy [1,2,3]. Invasive species can lead to shifts in species composition, affecting the course of succession, as well as modifying nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, and water balance in ecosystems [4]. In terms of the impact on economy in the last 50 years, invasive species have been responsible globally for financial losses of over 1.288 trillion USD [5].
Bark beetles and ambrosia beetles are arboreal organisms, and are represented in large numbers among alien species due to introduction events in numerous regions [6,7]. These insects are associated with wood, where they develop. Microsites under the bark of round wood and wood products protect insects against unfavourable conditions during transport. Therefore, these insects can survive long journeys and become introduced far from their natural ranges [8]. Global trade development, leading to increases in the quantity and speed of long-distance transport, has been the main cause of accidental introductions of bark and ambrosia beetles worldwide [6,9,10,11], classified as a contaminant pathway [12]. Europe is a target area of bark and ambrosia beetle introductions, mainly from Asia and North America [10,13].
Ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera, Scolytinae, and Platypodinae) are a polyphyletic group covering numerous species from the Scolytinae subfamily, mainly Xyleborini and Xyloterini tribes, and from the Platypodinae subfamily [14]. Ambrosia beetles differ from bark beetles in foraging type: bark beetles feed on phloem, while ambrosia beetles feed on fungi growing in tunnels created within a host plant [15,16,17]. The wide range of host plants and the ability to carry fungal spores in their mycangia (unique structures on the insects’ bodies adapted for the transport of symbiotic fungi) are life-history traits that are particularly important for the success of their naturalisation and spread. Furthermore, the possibility of asexual reproduction of Xyleborini, allowing individual females to produce offspring outside a natural range where their population was previously absent or very sparse and scattered, is a crucial aspect in promoting the spread of this group [14]. Alien species from the Scolytinae subfamily naturalized in Europe represent over 12% of all European Scolytinae, of which most are ambrosia beetles [6,10,13]. These species usually infect weakened or dead trees and rarely kill healthy plants [18]. However, fungi carried in their mycangia might be pathogenic to particular host species, leading to economic losses [19,20,21,22,23]. Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) (Figure 1) is one of the alien ambrosia beetles spreading across Europe [11,24,25]. In Europe, it was recorded for the first time in France in the 1930s [26]. It has since spread eastward and currently occurs in Austria [27,28], Belgium [29], Czechia [30], Finland [31], Spain [32], Netherlands [33], Germany [34], Poland [35], Slovenia [36], Switzerland [24], Sweden [37], Great Britain [11], and Italy [38]. The species was also reported during phytosanitary inspections of products imported to New Zealand [39]. Gnathotrichus materiarius (Coleoptera, Scolytinae) is an ambrosia beetle from the Corthylini tribe [27]. It is a monogamous species, with a sex ratio of 1:1, with no sibling mating nor asexual reproduction, which distinguishes G. materiarius from the Xyleborini tribe species [25,40,41,42]. Larvae and imagines of G. materiarius feed on a symbiotic fungus Ambrosiozyma monospora (Saito) van der Walt (1972) (syn. Endomycopsis fasciculata Batra) [43,44,45], recorded both in the native and secondary range of G. materiarius [43,46]. Imagines of the studied species occur during the whole growing period, with flight culmination in May or June [38,45,47]. Gnathotrichus materiarius is a technical pest of coniferous wood in the USA and Europe [38,48,49]. It prefers Pinus, while also infesting numerous genera of conifers: Abies, Larix, Picea, Pinus, Pseudotsuga, Thuja, or Tsuga [25,33,50]. Due to excavation galleries in the lower part of the trunk, it is of economic importance as a pest, decreasing the technical quality and economic value of affected timber [25,51,52]. Moreover, fungi growing in the tunnels can cause wood staining [25,31], although this phenomenon is not very common. So far, G. materiarius has not caused significant losses to forest management in areas beyond its natural range, as evidenced mainly by the relatively limited attention devoted to this species in scientific studies of these regions.
The progression rate of climate change intensifies its impact on ecosystems [31,52,53,54,55,56]. One of the predicted impacts of climate change on forest ecosystems is the increasing frequency and intensity of insect outbreaks, including alien species [57]. Due to their short life cycles and their strict dependence on temperature, insects are exceptionally responsive to climate change [58,59]. Moreover, increasing temperatures and drought intensity lead to physiological stress in trees, decreasing their resistance to bark and ambrosia beetle infestation [60,61,62,63]. The poor overall condition and lack of vigour among host plants favour the naturalisation and spread of alien species and increases their population size [18].
Previously published models predicting the future distribution of Scolytinae under changing climate conditions were created primarily for phloeophagous bark beetles of high economic importance [64,65,66,67,68,69]. In contrast, among alien ambrosia beetle species occurring in Europe, such models have been developed only for Xylosandrus compactus and X. crassiusculus [70]. For other parts of the world, data on their distributions are scarce [70,71]. Due to information deficiency and differences in the biology and ecology of bark and ambrosia beetles [49], the need to develop species distribution models is urgent and increasingly pressing.
Gnathotrichus materiarius differs from two Xylosandrus spp. for which distribution models have already been developed. Xylosandrus compactus and X. crassiusculus infest broadleaved as well as coniferous tree species, and have different sex determination systems. Gnathotrichus materiarius is a diploidal species, while Xylosandrus spp. are haplodiploid inbreeders, with beetles sib-mating before the new generation of females emerges from the gallery system [40,41,42]. Xyleoborini males do not cover long distances and sometimes do not even leave galleries [40]. The mating behaviour of outbreeding G. materiairus with a balanced sex ratio is different. Males and females leave galleries and spread by active flight to find both a mate and substrate to infest [41]. Thus, G. materiarius is an ideal candidate for a model species, exemplifying trends for other invasive ambrosia beetles [72,73,74], and our results can serve as a proxy for other species sharing similar life-history traits, either already present or potentially appearing in Europe in the future. Therefore, we aimed to develop a G. materiarius distribution model to assess which areas will be suitable for its spread under various climate change scenarios. We hypothesized that (1) the current climatic conditions support further spread of G. materiarius in Europe (unsaturated climatic niche), and (2) under climate change scenarios for the 2050s and 2070s, the area of climatic suitability for G. materiarius (climatically suitable area) will expand.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

We compiled all available records of G. materiarius from public databases [47,75,76] containing data from peer-reviewed publications [77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91], peer-reviewed publications not included in datasets [11,25,35,92,93], and previously unpublished communications included in a PhD dissertation [94], as along with observations collected by the authors of this paper between 2017 and 2020, (Supplementary Table S1). After data compilation, we excluded observations with incorrect coordinates or metadata suggesting a mismatch between locality description and coordinates. After excluding duplicated coordinates, we obtained 1448 data points. To reduce over-sampling in some regions and under-sampling in others, we randomly selected only one occurrence from each 0.25° grid raster cell [95]. This stratified downsampling prevented overestimation of species occurrence in regions with higher sampling effort and decreased spatial autocorrelation of data. As a result, we obtained 807 single observations that were used for analysis.
We downloaded a dataset of 19 bioclimatic variables from the WorldClim 2.1 database [96]. These variables, derived from monthly temperature and precipitation records, are widely used when modelling species distributions [97,98,99]. To avoid including highly correlated predictors, we checked the Pearson correlation coefficients for the pairs of bioclimatic variables. We removed the variables that were most strongly correlated with others, assuming r > |0.7| as the threshold value. The final set of variables used for model development included six bioclimatic variables (Table 1).
We used future climate projects provided by the IPCC 6th Assessment Report, based on Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) [100]. These scenarios reflect uncertainties in possible trajectories of climate change mitigation. We chose four scenarios available in the WorldClim 2.1 database [96]: SSP126 (sustainability, the most optimistic scenario reflecting RCP2.6 from the fifth report), SSP245 (middle of the road, moderate scenario reflecting RCP4.5), SSP370 (regional rivalry, not used in the fifth report) and SSP585 (fossil-fuel based development or business-as-usual, reflecting RCP8.5). We used each SSP outcomes for four global circulation models (GCMs): IPSL-CM6A-LR (France), MRI-ESM2-0 (Japan), CanESM5 (Canada), and BCC-CSM2-MR (China), representing half of eight available GCMs for all the four SSPs. We prepared predictions for two timelines: 2041–2060 and 2061–2080. We decided to use these timelines as they are the most common frameworks for species distribution models [101,102,103].

2.2. Modelling Species Distribution

Before analyses, we divided the datasets into a training set (80% of observations), used for model development, and an independent validation set (20% of observations). The use of an independent dataset for model evaluation prevents model overfitting, which could limit our conclusions to the dataset range. Due to the presence-only character of distributional data, we used the MaxEnt algorithm to develop species distribution models. MaxEnt has been developed to process presence-only data [104,105]; in contrast to parametric models and other classification tools, it does not need absence data in the theoretical assumptions, instead using background data (the so-called pseudoabsences). We used default MaxEnt settings. For the species, we randomly selected 10,000 pseudoabsence points (background points). Thus, MaxEnt analysed patterns of presence distinct from the background data. Therefore, the prevalence of background points makes the model more conservative, requiring a stronger signal than would be the case for equal proportions of presences and pseudoabsences [105]. We assessed model quality using the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) as a metric depending on true positive and true negative rates (i.e., positive and negative rates overlapping the real and predicted occurrence). The output of the MaxEnt model is the probability that a particular species can occur in a particular raster cell. To obtain presence–absence information, we calculated the threshold—the probability value with the highest sum of sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity (true negative rate). Such an approach balances false negatives and false positives [106]. The MaxEnt model also provides information about variable importance, expressed as per cent contribution to the model, as well as response curves, showing how the model output changes along with studied variables. We used the “dismo” package [107] for MaxEnt model development, and the “raster” [108] and “sf” [109] packages for spatial data processing. According to the model, we calculated potential range saturation as a proportion of sampled points and the number of pixels suitable for particular species occurrence.
We applied models to maps of current and future climatic scenarios to obtain predictions of G. materiarius distribution. For each SSP we averaged predicted species occurrence probability across the four GCMs, to reduce uncertainty connected with particular GCMs [110,111,112]. Then, maps with threshold values (true/false) were used to estimate the changes in the potential range, changing the values on maps with the future potential range from 1 to 2 [113]. As a result of the calculations presented below, four different variants of change in the range of the species were estimated: (i) areas still unsuitable for colonisation (0 − 2 × 0 = 0)—no changes, the species was not present, and the prevailing conditions will remain unsuitable for colonisation; (ii) range expansion (0 − 2 × 1 = −2)—areas potentially suitable for colonisation; (iii) range contraction (1 − 2 × 0 = 1)—areas where the species is currently present but will fall outside the future optimal climate; (iv) persistence (1 − 2 × 1 = −1)—areas where the species is currently present and will remain within the optimal climate [113].

3. Results

3.1. G. materiarius Distribution Model

The Maxent models produced reliable G. materiarius distributions with a very high AUC value (0.98). The predicted threshold of presence was 0.2548. Precipitation of the driest quarter (bio17) was the most important predictor, with an average contribution of 58.7%, whilst less critical were the annual temperature range (bio7) and the precipitation seasonality (bio15) (Figure 2). Individual response curves of the two strongest bioclimatic variables showed that the predicted probability of the presence of G. materiarius was positively correlated with these factors (Figure 2).

3.2. Current Potential Distribution

The MaxEnt model developed for current climate conditions reported habitat suitability for 98% of localities where G. materiarius was already documented. Furthermore, it identified areas where G. materiarius was not noted, but climate conditions allow for its development. In Europe, such highly suitable areas are concentrated in the Balkans (Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia), the Black Sea and Caucasus region (Armenia, Georgia, Turkey, Russia), the Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia), the Scandinavian Peninsula and Ukraine (Figure 3). Our model indicated that currently G. materiarius can find suitable climate conditions across 13.1% of Europe.

3.3. Predicted Range Shifts

The model predicted an increase in habitat suitability for G. materiarius in European countries for all the scenarios in both periods (Figure 4.). For each subsequent SSP, from the most optimistic (SSP126) to the least (SSP585), an increase was obtained in the number of cells where G. materiarius can find suitable conditions (Table 2). In the period 2041–2060 predicted habitat suitability increases to approx. 20.4%–25.2%, while in the period 2041–2060 it increases to ca. 20.8%–31.2% of the area in Europe. Predictions for the most pessimistic SSP585 in the period 2061–2080 indicate that with changing climate, the range of the species will increase mainly eastward to the Ural Mountains and northward almost to the Arctic Circle on the Scandinavian peninsula. Only slight shifts in the western and southern range of the species were forecasted.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Our results indicate that the species has not yet already reached its maximum extent within the climatically suitable area. The study indicates that the species can spread and reach more sites, because a low level of niche saturation is typical of the beginning of the second stage of invasion—the ‘log phase’, which comes after the ‘lag phase’ [114]. Our prediction developed for current climate conditions (Figure 1) pointed out the most likely areas where the species can spread. The Balkans and the Baltic countries are highly suitable regions situated a short distance from the known locations of G. materiarius, and there are no natural barriers that would prevent the colonisation of this area. Although the Black Sea region is a considerable distance from these places, the natural spread of G. materiarius from the Balkans along the coastline to the Caucasus cannot be excluded. It should be remembered that trade plays an essential role in the spread of species, and was the probable source of the appearance of G. materiarius in Europe. Another factor that supports our prediction is a wide range of host tree species for G. materiarius, which would not limit the colonization process [115].
Climate change has a natural effect on the distribution of species and can also affect some aspects of their biology. Shortening the development cycle of beetles and thus increasing the number of generations during the year may have serious economic effects, as has already been observed in the case of other bark and ambrosia beetles [58,116]. In south-western Poland, where the species has been present since 2015 [35], it causes economic losses as a technical pest. However, additional studies are necessary to determine the exact scale of the phenomenon. Changes in precipitation patterns can significantly impact trees, triggering stress-induced ethanol accumulation [117]. Therefore, higher susceptibility to ambrosia beetle infestations and thus an increase in their economic importance may be reliably inferred.
We have sparse occurrence data including coordinates for most alien bark and ambrosia beetle species present in Europe. The distribution of G. materiarius is one of the better-documented, and has allowed us to develop a high-accuracy model. Developing such models is economically crucial because results can be used to design more detailed surveys in future, and thus facilitate better planning for the usage of limited funds and human resources. Furthermore, such models can be used to estimate the rate and direction of invasions of ambrosia beetle species with similar ecological habitats, but with less well recognised distributions.
However, it should be taken into account that climate change affects species and their populations directly (temperature, precipitation) and indirectly (by affecting antagonistic and symbiotic organisms or food bases) [118,119]. Therefore the effects of climate change are difficult to predict precisely. Moreover, the studied species has not colonised all suitable habitats within the study area. Consequently, it is not in equilibrium, which also affects the reliability of estimations for the studied species. In order to improve the model it will be necessary to collect coordinates of the places of occurrence, and make these available in the databases. Additionally, especially in high-risk areas, monitoring with dedicated or wide-range lures [41,120] is indicated for the rapid identification of threats, which may be crucial to ensure their reduction or control.
Our study provided a species distribution model based on climatic variables and presence-only data. Due to its correlative nature, our model explains patterns in data and does not reflect physiological processes [105,106]. Moreover, our model allows only conclusions for the predicted climatic niche, not actual occurrences that would be affected by other factors, especially dispersal limitation and land-use patterns.
The presence of a suitable host plant is also essential for beetle development. Models for Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies predict shifts to the north in their ranges, with potential contraction in the south [118]. However, it is hard to anticipate which species will replace them. So far, such models have been developed only for a subset of native and a few alien tree species, neglecting those with relatively small ranges. However, such species can become widespread and increase in economic importance [121]. The climate is the primary determinant of species distributions on a large spatial scale, affecting other interactions [122]. Another source of uncertainty in our model is the dependence on GCMs used in the study [110,111,112]. We decreased this uncertainty by averaging model predictions for four different GCMs.
Nevertheless, the results obtained in the study indicate which regions are more vulnerable to the occurrence of G. materiarius (Figure 4.), and thus the area where phytosanitary services need to focus to this species. Such actions could slow down the spread of the species in Europe through transported wood and wood products, which have been the major source of alien bark and ambrosia beetle invasions [123]. Phytosanitary measures including heating and fumigation may reduce the probability of invasions, although due to the depth of the galleries, which may cover the entire sapwood, they do not guarantee the neutralisation of all specimens. Another threat is related to ornamental plants, mainly Thuja and Tsuga, which are transported alive, thus limiting the range of the methods used for treating raw wood (e.g., heating and drying).
Our study provides the first assessment of G. materiarius potential current and future ranges in Europe. This study, together with models obtained for two Xylosandrus species, are the only predictions of the potential spread of ambrosia beetles. Therefore, our study provides quantitative foundations for spread prevention and risk assessments necessary for conservation biogeography [124].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f13071097/s1, Table S1: Coordinates used to develop the model of the occurrence of Gnathotrichus materiarius.

Author Contributions

Concept of the study: R.W., A.M. and M.B. Data collection: R.W. Data analysis methodology: M.K.D. Data analysis: M.K.D., R.W. All authors participated in manuscript preparation: A.M., M.B., M.K.D., R.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Publication was co-financed within the framework of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education’s program: “Regional Excellence Initiative” in the years 2019–2022, project no. 005/RID/2018/19, financing amount 1,200,000,000 PLN. The study was partially supported by the Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kórnik, Poland.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are included in the text and the Supplementary Material.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and remarks and employees of the Polish State Forests for their help in field work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Perrings:, C. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for the control of biological invasions. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lenzner, B.; Leclère, D.; Franklin, O.; Seebens, H.; Roura-Pascual, N.; Obersteiner, M.; Dullinger, S.; Essl, F. A framework for global twenty-first century scenarios and models of biological invasions. BioScience 2019, 69, 697–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Brondizio, E.S.; Settele, J.; Díaz, S.; Ngo, H.T. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019; pp. 1–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liebhold, A.M.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Kalisz, S.; Nuñez, M.A.; Wardle, D.A.; Wingfield, M.J. Biological invasions in forest ecosystems. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3437–3458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zenni, R.D.; Essl, F.; García-Berthou, E.; McDermott, S.M. The economic costs of biological invasions around the world. NeoBiota 2021, 67, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kirkendall, L.R.; Faccoli, M. Bark beetles and pinhole borers (Curculionidae, Scolytinae, Platypodinae) alien to Europe. ZooKeys 2010, 56, 227–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Faccoli, M.; Gallego, D.; Branco, M.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Corley, J.; Coyle, D.R.; Hurley, B.P.; Jactel, H.; Lakatos, F.; Lantschner, V.; et al. A first worldwide multispecies survey of invasive Mediterranean pine bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae). Biol. Invasions 2020, 22, 1785–1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Grégoire, J.-C.; Raffa, K.F.; Lindgren, B.S. Economics and politics of bark beetles. In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species; Vega, F.E., Hofstetter, R.W., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 585–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kirkendall, L.R. Invasive bark beetles (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae) in Chile and Argentina, including two species new for South America, and the correct identity of the Orthotomicus species in Chile and Argentina. Diversity 2018, 10, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Barnouin, T.; Soldati, F.; Roques, A.; Faccoli, M.; Kirkendall, L.R.; Mouttet, R.; Daubree, J.B.; Noblecourt, T. Bark beetles and pinhole borers recently or newly introduced to France (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae and Platypodinae). Zootaxa 2020, 4877, 51–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Inward, D.J.G. Three new species of ambrosia beetles established in Great Britain illustrate unresolved risks from imported wood. J. Pest Sci. 2020, 93, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hulme, P.E. Invasion pathways at a crossroad: Policy and research challenges for managing alien species introductions. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 1418–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sauvard, D.; Branco, M.; Lakatos, F.; Faccoli, M.; Kirkendall, L. Weevils and Bark Beetles (Coleoptera, Curculionoidea). Chapter 8.2. BioRisk 2010, 4, 219–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Knížek, M.; Beaver, R. Taxonomy and systematics of bark and ambrosia beetles. In Bark and Wood Boring Insects in Living Trees in Europe, A Synthesis; Lieutier, F., Day, K.R., Battisti, A., Grégoire, J., Evans, H.F., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 41–54. [Google Scholar]
  15. Beaver, R.A.; Wilding, N.; Collins, N.; Hammond, P.; Webber, J. Insect-fungus relationships in the bark and ambrosia beetles. In Insect-Fungus Interactions; Wilding, N., Collins, N.M., Hammond, P.M., Webber, J.F., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1989; pp. 121–143. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hulcr, J.; Mogia, M.; Isua, B.; Novotny, V. Host specificity of ambrosia and bark beetles (Col.; Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae) in a New Guinea rainforest. Ecol. Entomol. 2007, 32, 762–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gomez, D.F.; Lin, W.; Gao, L.; Li, Y. New host plant records for the Euwallacea fornicatus (Eichhoff) species complex (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) across its natural and introduced distribution. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2019, 22, 338–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ranger, C.M.; Schultz, P.B.; Frank, S.D.; Chong, J.H.; Reding, M.E. Non-native ambrosia beetles as opportunistic exploiters of living but weakened trees. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, 97–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tisserat, N.; Cranshaw, W.; Putnam, M.L.; Pscheidt, J.; Leslie, C.A.; Murray, M.; Hoffman, J.; Barkley, Y.; Alexander, K.; Seybold, S.J. Thousand cankers disease is widespread in black walnut in the western United States. Plant Health Prog. 2011, 12, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Carrillo, D.; Duncan, R.E.; Ploetz, J.N.; Campbell, A.F.; Ploetz, R.C.; Peña, J.E. Lateral transfer of a phytopathogenic symbiont among native and exotic ambrosia beetles. Plant Pathol. 2014, 63, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ploetz, R.C.; Hulcr, J.; Wingfield, M.J.; De Beer, Z.W. Destructive tree diseases associated with ambrosia and bark beetles: Black swan events in tree pathology? Plant Dis. 2013, 97, 856–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Kasson, M.T.; O’Donnell, K.; Rooney, A.P.; Sink, S.; Ploetz, R.C.; Ploetz, J.N.; Geiser, D.M. An inordinate fondness for Fusarium: Phylogenetic diversity of fusaria cultivated by ambrosia beetles in the genus Euwallacea on avocado and other plant hosts. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2013, 56, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vannini, A.; Contarini, M.; Faccoli, M.; Valle, M.D.; Rodriguez, C.M.; Mazzetto, T.; Guarneri, D.; Vettraino, A.M.; Speranza, S. First report of the ambrosia beetle Xylosandrus compactus and associated fungi in the Mediterranean maquis in Italy, and new host–pest associations. EPPO Bull. 2017, 47, 100–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hirschheydt, J. Der amerikanische Nutzholz-borkenkäfer Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch) hat die Schweiz erreicht. Entomol. Gesellsch. 1992, 65, 33–37. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mazur, A.; Witkowski, R.; Góral, J.; Rogowski, G. Occurrence of Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae) in South-Western Poland. Folia For. Pol. 2018, 60, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Balachowsky, A. Faune de France, Volume 50: Coléoptères scolytides; Lechevalier: Paris, France, 1949; pp. 1–320. [Google Scholar]
  27. Knížek, M. Scolytinae. In Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera; Löbl, I., Smetana, A., Eds.; Apollo Books: Stenstrup, Denmark, 2011; Curculionoidea I; pp. 204–251. [Google Scholar]
  28. Aurenhammer, S.; von Komposch, C.; Holzer, E.; Holzschuh, C.; Holzinger, W.E. Xylobionte Käfergemeinschaften (Insecta: Coleoptera) im Bergsturzgebiet des Dobratsch (Schütt, Kärnten). Carinth. II 2015, 205, 439–502. [Google Scholar]
  29. Moucheron, B.; Warzee, N. Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858): Un scolyte nordamericain a surveiller, nouveau pour la faune Belge (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Lambillionea 2006, 106, 610–612. [Google Scholar]
  30. Knížek, M. Faunistic records from the Czech Republic—272. Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae. Klapalekiana 2009, 45, 22. [Google Scholar]
  31. Valkama, H.; Martikainen, P.; Räty, M. First record of North American ambrosia beetle Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch) (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) in Finland—A new potential forest pest? Entomol. Fenn. 1997, 8, 193–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. López, S.; Iturrondobeitia, J.C.; Goldarazena, A.A. Primera cita de la Península Ibérica de Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) y Xylosandrus germanus (Blandford, 1894) (Coleoptera: Scolytinae). Boletín de La SEA 2007, 40, 527–532. [Google Scholar]
  33. Doom, D. Notes on Gnathotrichus materiarius (Col. Scolytidae), a timber beetle new to the Netherlands. Entomol. Ber. 1967, 27, 143–148. [Google Scholar]
  34. Schedl, K.E. Ein für Deutschland und Holland neuer Borkenkäfer. Anzeig. Schädling. 1966, 39, 118–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Witkowski, R.; Góral, J.; Nowik, K.; Rogowski, G.; Skałecka, K.; Mazur, A. Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) new species of beetle in the Polish fauna. Acta Sci. Pol. Silv. Colendar. Ratio Ind. Lignar. 2016, 15, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Jurc, M.; Bojovic, S.; Fernández, M.F.; Jurc, D. The attraction of cerambycids and other xylophagous beetles, potential vectors of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, to semiochemicals in Slovenia. Phytoparasitica 2012, 40, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gillerfors, G. Skalbaggar införda till Sverige med importerad massaved. Entomol. Tidskr. 1988, 9, 42–45. [Google Scholar]
  38. Faccoli, M. The North American Gnathotricus materiarius (Fitch) (Coleoptera Scolytidae): An ambrosia beetle new to Italy. Redia 1998, 81, 151–154. [Google Scholar]
  39. Brockerhoff, E.G.; Bain, J.; Kimberley, M.; Knížek, M. Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kirkendall, L.R. The evolution of mating systems in bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae and Platypodidae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 1983, 77, 293–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Flechtmann, C.A.H.; Berisford, C.W. Identification of sulcatol, a potential pheromone of the ambrosia beetle Gnathotrichus materiarius (Col.; Scolytidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 2003, 127, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jordal, B.H.; Cognato, A.I. Molecular phylogeny of bark and ambrosia beetles reveals multiple origins of fungus farming during periods of global warming. BMC Ecol. Evol. 2012, 12, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Batra, L.R. Contributions to our knowledge of ambrosia fungi II. Endomycopsis fasciculate nom. nov. Am. J. Bot. 1963, 50, 481–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Batra, L.R. Habitat and Nutrition of Dipodascus and Cephaloascus. Mycologia 1963, 55, 508–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Postner, M. Scolytidae, Borkenkäfer. In Die Forstschädlinge Europas: Ein Handbuch in 5 Bänden; Band 2: Käfer; Schwenke, W., Ed.; Verlag Paul Parey: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1974; pp. 334–482. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kirschner, R. Diversität mit Borkenkäfern Assoziierter Filamentser Mikropilze. Fakultät für Biologie. Ph.D. Thesis, Eberhard-Karls Universität, Tübingen, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  47. Bleich, O.; Gürlich, S.; Köhler, F. Verzeichnis und Verbreitungsatlas der Käfer Deutschlands. Available online: http://www.coleoweb.de/ (accessed on 19 June 2019).
  48. Dengler, K. Bemerkenswerte Baumschädlinge vor und in der Stadt Rottenburg. Allg. Forst 1990, 45, 361–365. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lindgren, B.S.; Fraser, R.G. Control of ambrosia beetle damage by mass trapping at a dryland log sorting area in British Columbia. For. Chron. 1994, 70, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Raffa, K.F.; Gregoire, J.C.; Lindgren, B.S. Natural history and ecology of bark beetles. In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species; Vega, F.E., Hofstetter, R.W., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shore, T.L. Ambrosia beetles. In Forest Pest Leaflet; Forestry Canada: Burnaby, BC, Canada; BC Ministry of Forests: Victoria, BC, Canada, 1998; Volume 72, pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  52. Daterman, G.E.; Overhulser, D.L. Forest Insect Disease Leaflet; USDA Forest Service: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2002; pp. 1–8.
  53. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press & Assessment: Cambridge, UK; UKNY: Westbury, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Barnosky, A.D.; Garcia, A.; Pringle, R.M.; Palmer, T.M. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1400253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Steffen, W.; Broadgate, W.; Deutsch, L.; Gaffney, O.; Ludwig, C. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. Anthr. Rev. 2015, 2, 81–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Steinbauer, M.J.; Grytnes, J.-A.; Jurasinski, G.; Kulonen, A.; Lenoir, J.; Pauli, H.; Rixen, C.; Winkler, M.; Bardy-Durchhalter, M.; Barni, E.; et al. Accelerated increase in plant species richness on mountain summits is linked to warming. Nature 2018, 556, 231–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Seidl, R.; Schelhaas, M.-J.; Rammer, W.; Verkerk, P.J. Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 806–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Bale, J.S.; Masters, G.J.; Hodkinson, I.D.; Awmack, C.; Bezemer, T.M.; Brown, V.K.; Butterfield, J.; Buse, A.; John, C.; Coulson, J.C.; et al. Herbivory in global climate change research: Direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2002, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Robinet, C.; Roques, A. Direct impacts of recent climate warming on insect populations. Integr. Zool. 2010, 5, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Berg, E.E.; Henry, J.D.; Fastie, C.L.; De Volder, A.D.; Matsuoka, S.M. Spruce beetle outbreaks on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, and Kluane National Park and Reserve, Yukon Territory: Relationship to summer temperatures and regional differences in disturbance regimes. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 227, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Allen, C.D.; Macalady, A.K.; Chenchouni, H.; Bachelet, D.; McDowell, N.; Vennetier, M.; Kitzberger, T.; Rigling, A.; Breshears, D.D.; Hogg, E.H.; et al. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 660–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Ranger, C.M.; Reding, M.E.; Persad, A.B.; Herms, D.A. Ability of stress-related volatiles to attract and induce attacks by Xylosandrus germanus and other ambrosia beetles. Agric. For. Entomol. 2010, 12, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gely, C.; Laurance, S.G.W.; Stork, N.E. How do herbivorous insects respond to drought stress in trees? Biol. Rev. 2020, 95, 434–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Evangelista, P.H.; Kumar, S.; Stohlgren, T.J.; Young, N.E. Assessing forest vulnerability and the potential distribution of pine beetles under current and future climate scenarios in the Interior West of the US. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 262, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Preisler, H.K.; Hicke, J.A.; Ager, A.A.; Hayes, J.L. Climate and weather influences on spatial temporal patterns of mountain pine beetle populations in Washington and Oregon. Ecology 2012, 93, 2421–2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Creeden, E.P.; Hicke, J.A.; Buotte, P.C. Climate, weather, and recent mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the western United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 312, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lantschner, M.V.; Atkinson, T.H.; Corley, J.C.; Liebhold, A.M. Predicting North American Scolytinae invasions in the Southern Hemisphere. Ecol. Appl. 2017, 27, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Sarikaya, O.; Karaceylan, I.B.; Sen, I. Maximum entropy modeling (maxent) of current and future distributions of Ips mannsfeldi (Wachtl, 1879) (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in Turkey. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018, 16, 2527–2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Økland, B.; Flø, D.; Schroeder, M.; Zach, P.; Cocos, D.; Martikainen, P.; Siitonen, J.; Mandelshtam, M.Y.; Musolin, D.L.; Neuvonen, S.; et al. Range expansion of the small spruce bark beetle Ips amitinus: A newcomer in northern Europe. Agric. For. Entomol. 2019, 21, 286–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Urvois, T.; Auger-Rozenberg, M.A.; Roques, A.; Rossi, J.P.; Kerdelhue, C. Climate change impact on the potential geographical distribution of two invading Xylosandrus ambrosia beetles. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Koch, F.H.; Smith, W.D. Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera: Circulionidae: Scolytinae) Invasion in Eastern U.S. Forests. Environ. Entomol. 2008, 37, 442–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ge, X.; Jiang, C.; Chen, L.; Qiu, S.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, T.; Zong, S. Predicting the potential distribution in China of Euwallacea fornicatus (Eichhoff) under current and future climate conditions. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Kirkendall, L.R.; Dal Cortivo, M.; Gatti, E. First record of the ambrosia beetle, Monarthrum mali (Curculionidae, Scolytinae) in Europe. J. Pest Sci. 2008, 81, 175–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tremblay, E.; Espinosa, B.; Mancini, D.; Caprio, G. Un coleottero proveniente dal Sudamerica minaccia i pioppi. Inf. Agrar. 2000, 56, 89–90. [Google Scholar]
  75. Atkinson, T.H. Bark and Ambrosia Beetles. Available online: https://www.barkbeetles.info/regional_chklist_target_species.php?lookUp=3080#table (accessed on 23 November 2018).
  76. GBIF. GBIF Occurrence download for Gnathotrichus materiarius Fitch. Retrieved from Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Available online: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.3yenre (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  77. Atkinson, T.H.; Rabaglia, R.J.; Peck, S.B.; Foltz, J.L. New records of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera) from the United States and the Bahamas. Coleopt. Bull. 1991, 45, 152–164. [Google Scholar]
  78. Coyle, D.R.; Booth, D.C.; Wallace, M.S. Ambrosia beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) species, flight, and attack on living eastern cottonwood trees. J. Econ. Ent. 2005, 98, 2049–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dodge, H.R. The bark beetles of Minnesota (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. Tech. Bull. 1938, 132, 60. [Google Scholar]
  80. Goldarazena, A.; Bright, D.E.; Hishinuma, S.M.; López, S.; Seybold, S.J. First record of Pityophthorus solus (Blackman, 1928) in Europe. EPPO Bull. 2014, 44, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Helm, C.; Molano-Flores, B. New records of native and non-native bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in Illinois. Great Lakes Entomol. 2015, 48, 137–149. [Google Scholar]
  82. Hines, J.W.; Heikkenen, H.J. Beetles attracted to severed Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana Mill.). Environ. Entomol. 1977, 6, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. LaBonte, J.R.; Mudge, A.D.; Johnson, K.J.R. Nonindigenous woodboring Coleoptera (Cerambycidae, Curculionidae: Scolytinae) new to Oregon and Washington, 1999-2002: Consequences of the intracontinental movement of raw wood products and solid wood packing materials. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 2005, 107, 554–564. [Google Scholar]
  84. Mudge, A.D.; LaBonte, J.R.; Johnson, K.J.R.; LaGasa, E.H. Exotic woodboring Coleoptera (Micromalthidae, Scolytidae) and Hymenoptera (Xiphydriidae) new to Oregon and Washington. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 2001, 103, 1011–1019. [Google Scholar]
  85. Oliver, J.B.; Mannion, C.M. Ambrosia beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) species attacking chestnut and captured in ethanol-baited traps in middle Tennessee. Environ. Entomol. 2001, 30, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rabaglia, R.J.; & Valenti, M.A. Annotated list of the bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) of Delaware, with new distribution records. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 2003, 105, 312–319. [Google Scholar]
  87. Reed, S.E.; Muzika, R.M. The influence of forest stand and site characteristics on the composition of exotic dominated ambrosia beetle communities (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 1482–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Roeper, R.A.; Hazen, C.R.; Helsel, D.K.; Bunce, M.A. Studies on Michigan ambrosia fungi. Michigan Bot. 1980, 19, 69–73. [Google Scholar]
  89. Weber, B.C.; MacPherson, J.E. Seasonal Flight Patterns Of Scolytidae (Coleoptera) In Black-Walnut Plantations In North-Carolina And Illinois. Coleopt. Bull. 1991, 45, 4556. [Google Scholar]
  90. Wood, S.L. The Bark and Ambrosia Beetles of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a Taxonomic Monograph; Brigham Young University: Provo, UT, USA, 1982; pp. 1–1356. [Google Scholar]
  91. Wood, S.L.; Bright, D.E. A Catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera), Part 2. Taxonomic Index (Volumes A, B); Brigham Young University: Provo, UT, USA, 1992; pp. 1–1553. [Google Scholar]
  92. Szołtys, H.; Plewa, R.; Grzywocz, J. Nowe stanowiska Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) w południowej Polsce. Acta Entomol. Sil. 2019, 27, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  93. Bernabo, E. Osservazione sulla presenza in Italia di Xylosandrus germanus (Blandford, 1894) e Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858)(Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Riv. Piemont. Di Stor. Nat. 2000, 21, 255–262. [Google Scholar]
  94. Witkowski, R. Ecology and Phenology of Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) (Coleoptera, Scolytinae) in Conditions of Expansion in Poland. Ph.D. Thesis, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poznań, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  95. Rocchini, D.; Garzon-Lopez, C.X. Cartograms tool to represent spatial uncertainty in species distribution. Res. Ideas Outcomes 2017, 3, e12029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Fick, S.E.; Hijmans, R.J. WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 37, 4302–4315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. O’Donnell, M.S.; Ignizio, D.A. Bioclimatic Predictors for Supporting Ecological Applications in the Conterminous United States; U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–10.
  98. Booth, T.H. Why understanding the pioneering and continuing contributions of BIOCLIM to species distribution modelling is important. Austral Ecol. 2018, 43, 852–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Booth, T.H.; Nix, H.A.; Busby, J.R.; Hutchinson, M.F. Bioclim: The first species distribution modelling package, its early applications and relevance to most current MaxEnt studies. Divers. Distrib. 2014, 20, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Riahi, K.; Vuuren, D.P.; van Kriegler, E.; Edmonds, J.; O’Neill, B.C.; Fujimori, S.; Bauer, N.; Calvin, K.; Dellink, R.; Fricko, O.; et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Change 2017, 42, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Anibaba, Q.A.; Dyderski, M.K.; Jagodziński, A.M. Predicted range shifts of invasive giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 825, 154053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Polaina, E.; Soultan, A.; Pärt, T.; Recio, M.R. The future of invasive terrestrial vertebrates in Europe under climate and land-use change. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 044004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Seidl, R.; Klonner, G.; Rammer, W.; Essl, F.; Moreno, A.; Neumann, M.; Dullinger, S. Invasive alien pests threaten the carbon stored in Europe’s forests. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Phillips, S.J.; Anderson, R.P.; Schapire, R.E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. 2006, 190, 231–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Elith, J.; Phillips, S.J.; Hastie, T.; Dudík, M.; Chee, Y.E.; Yates, C.J. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 2011, 17, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Fielding, A.H.; Bell, J.F. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 1997, 24, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hijmans, R.J.; Phillips, S.; Leathwick, J.; Elith, J. Dismo: Species Distribution Modeling. Version 1.3-3URL. 2020. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dismo (accessed on 17 December 2020).
  108. Hijmans, R.J.; van Etten, J.; Sumner, M.; Cheng, J.; Baston, D.; Bevan, A.; Bivand, R.; Busetto, L.; Canty, M.; Fasoli, B.; et al. Raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. Version 3.3-13. 2020. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (accessed on 17 December 2020).
  109. Pebesma, E. Simple Features for R: Standardized Support for Spatial Vector Data. R J. 2018, 10, 439–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Goberville, E.; Beaugrand, G.; Hautekèete, N.-C.; Piquo, Y.; Luczak, C. Uncertainties in the projection of species distributions related to general circulation models. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 5, 1100–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Thuiller, W.; Guéguen, M.; Renaud, J.; Karger, D.N.; Zimmermann, N.E. Uncertainty in ensembles of global biodiversity scenarios. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Paź-Dyderska, S.; Jagodziński, A.M.; Dyderski, M.K. Possible changes in spatial distribution of walnut (Juglans regia L.) in Europe under warming climate. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2021, 21, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Puchałka, R.; Dyderski, M.K.; Vítková, M.; Sádlo, J.; Klisz, M.; Netsvetov, M.; Prokopuk, Y.; Matisons, R.; Mionskowski, M.; Wojda, T.; et al. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) range contraction and expansion in Europe under changing climate. Global Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 1587–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Kowarik, I. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. In Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems; Pyšek, P., Prach, K., Rejmánek, M., Wade, M., Eds.; SPB Academic Publishing: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995; pp. 15–38. [Google Scholar]
  115. Rassati, D.; Faccoli, M.; Battisti, A.; Marini, L. Habitat and climatic preferences drive invasions of non-native ambrosia beetles in deciduous temperate forests. Biol. Invasions 2016, 18, 2809–2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Bentz, B.J.; Jönsson, A.M. Modeling Bark Beetle Responses to Climate Change. In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species; Vega, F.E., Hofstetter, R.W., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 533–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Kelsey, R.G.; Gallego, D.; Sánchez-García, F.J.; Pajares, J.A. Ethanol accumulation during severe drought may signal tree vulnerability to detection and attack by bark beetles. Can. J. For. Res. 2014, 44, 554–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Dyderski, M.K.; Paź, S.; Frelich, L.E.; Jagodziński, A.M. How much does climate change threaten European forest tree species distributions? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 1150–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Jactel, H.; Koricheva, J.; Castagneyrol, B. Responses of forest insect pests to climate change: Not so simple. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2019, 35, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Dodds, K.J. Effects of trap height on captures of arboreal insects in pine stands of northeastern United States of America. Can. Entomol. 2014, 146, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Thurm, E.A.; Hernandez, L.; Baltensweiler, A.; Ayan, S.; Rasztovits, E.; Bielak, K.; Zlatanov, T.M.; Hladnik, D.; Balic, B.; Freudenschuss, A.; et al. Alternative tree species under climate warming in managed European forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 430, 485–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Pearson, R.G.; Dawson, T.P. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: Are bioclimate envelope models useful? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2003, 12, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Hlásny, T.; Krokene, P.; Liebhold, A.; Montagné-Huck, C.; Müller, J.; Qin, H.; Raffa, K.; Schelhaas, M.-J.; Seidl, R.; Svoboda, M.; et al. Living with Bark Beetles: Impacts, Outlook and Management Options; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2019; pp. 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  124. Richardson, D.M.; Whittaker, R.J. Conservation biogeography–foundations, concepts and challenges. Divers. Distrib. 2010, 16, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 13 01097 g001 550
Figure 1. Dorsal and lateral view of an adult male Gnathotrichus materiarius (R. Witkowski).
Figure 1. Dorsal and lateral view of an adult male Gnathotrichus materiarius (R. Witkowski).
Forests 13 01097 g001
Forests 13 01097 g002 550
Figure 2. Response curves present how predicted niche suitability for Gnathotrichus materiarius changed along particular predictor gradients. Numbers in parentheses indicate the relative importance of variables. Variable importance, i.e., the proportion of variation, explained by particular variable based on AUC [113] gain for a single feature.
Figure 2. Response curves present how predicted niche suitability for Gnathotrichus materiarius changed along particular predictor gradients. Numbers in parentheses indicate the relative importance of variables. Variable importance, i.e., the proportion of variation, explained by particular variable based on AUC [113] gain for a single feature.
Forests 13 01097 g002
Forests 13 01097 g003 550
Figure 3. Predicted habitat suitability for Gnathotrichus materiarius under current climate conditions (green area), localities of known occurrence records (violet points), and crucial new potential sites that have not been colonised yet.
Figure 3. Predicted habitat suitability for Gnathotrichus materiarius under current climate conditions (green area), localities of known occurrence records (violet points), and crucial new potential sites that have not been colonised yet.
Forests 13 01097 g003
Forests 13 01097 g004 550
Figure 4. Maps of predicted shifts of Gnathotrichus materiarius climatic suitability, averaged across four GCMs in Europe for SSP126 (A,E) SSP245 (B,F) SSP370 (C,G) SSP585 (D,H) in two timelines: 2041–2060 (A–D), 2061–2080 (E–H). Green—persistence, blue—range expansion, red—range contraction.
Figure 4. Maps of predicted shifts of Gnathotrichus materiarius climatic suitability, averaged across four GCMs in Europe for SSP126 (A,E) SSP245 (B,F) SSP370 (C,G) SSP585 (D,H) in two timelines: 2041–2060 (A–D), 2061–2080 (E–H). Green—persistence, blue—range expansion, red—range contraction.
Forests 13 01097 g004
Table
Table 1. Bioclimatic variables used in the study.
Table 1. Bioclimatic variables used in the study.
AbbreviationParameter
BIO2Mean Diurnal Range (Mean of monthly (max–temp–min temp)) (°C)
BIO7Temperature Annual Range (BIO5-BIO6) (°C)
BIO11Mean Temperature of Coldest Quarter (°C)
BIO15Precipitation Seasonality (Coefficient of Variation: mean/SD × 100) (%)
BIO16Precipitation of Wettest Quarter (mm)
BIO17Precipitation of Driest Quarter (mm)
Table
Table 2. Predicted shifts of Gnathotrichus materiarius range size under analyzed SSP and timelines related to actual habitat suitability.
Table 2. Predicted shifts of Gnathotrichus materiarius range size under analyzed SSP and timelines related to actual habitat suitability.
Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) and TimelineRange Expansion (Absent/Present) (%)Persistence (Present/Present) (%)Range Contraction (Present/Absent) (%)Net Shift (Expansion–Contraction)
SSP126 2041–20607.5311.350.257.28
SSP245 2041–20609.0911.270.328.77
SSP370 2041–206010.3911.150.459.94
SSP585 2041–206012.5311.130.4712.06
SSP126 2061–20808.0411.290.317.73
SSP245 2061–208011.8811.140.4611.43
SSP370 2061–208016.2711.050.5515.72
SSP585 2061–208018.8610.870.7218.14
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Witkowski, R.; Dyderski, M.K.; Bełka, M.; Mazur, A. Potential European Geographical Distribution of Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) under Current and Future Climate Conditions. Forests 2022, 13, 1097. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071097

AMA Style

Witkowski R, Dyderski MK, Bełka M, Mazur A. Potential European Geographical Distribution of Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) under Current and Future Climate Conditions. Forests. 2022; 13(7):1097. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071097

Chicago/Turabian Style

Witkowski, Radosław, Marcin K. Dyderski, Marta Bełka, and Andrzej Mazur. 2022. "Potential European Geographical Distribution of Gnathotrichus materiarius (Fitch, 1858) (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) under Current and Future Climate Conditions" Forests 13, no. 7: 1097. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071097

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop