Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,120

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests

Franceschi, Vincent R., Krokene, Paal, Christiansen, Erik, Krekling, Trygve·2005·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: Conifers are long‐lived organisms, and part of their success is due to their potent defense mechanisms. This review focuses on bark defenses, a front line against organisms trying to reach the nutrient‐rich phloem. A major breach of the bark can lead to tree death, as evidenced by the millions of trees killed every year by specialized bark‐invading insects. Different defense strategies have arisen in conifer lineages, but the general strategy is one of overlapping constitutive mechanical and chemical defenses overlaid with the capacity to up‐regulate additional defenses. The defense strategy incorporates a graded response from ‘repel’, through ‘defend’ and ‘kill’, to ‘compartmentalize’, depending upon the advance of the invading organism. Using a combination of toxic and polymer chemistry, anatomical structures and their placement, and inducible defenses, conifers have evolved bark defense mechanisms that work against a variety of pests. However, these can be overcome by strategies including aggregation pheromones of bark beetles and introduction of virulent phytopathogens. The defense structures and chemicals in conifer bark are reviewed and questions about their coevolution with bark beetles are discussed.ContentsSummary353I.Introduction354II.Integrating defense strategies354III.Constitutive defense systems: first tier of defense356IV.Inducible defense systems: second tier of defense363V.Genetics and physiology of bark defense365VI.Bark beetles: diminutive but deadly367VII.The arms race: coevolution of conifer defense and bark beetle strategies367VIII.Bark‐beetle‐vectored blue‐stain fungi: multiple attacks against multiple defenses369IX.Conclusions370Acknowledgements371References371

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01436.x

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 82 references

Cited by

See all 1,120

Metadata

Authors
Franceschi, V. R., Krokene, P., Christiansen, E., & Krekling, T.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-05-03
Volume
167
Issue
2
Pages
353-376
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W1763779503
Cited by
1,120
References
82
FWCI
28.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01436.x
The paper
Franceschi, V. R., Krokene, P., Christiansen, E., & Krekling, T. (2005). Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01436.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.