4.4 Review

Evolutionary ecology of the bark beetles Ips typographus and Pityogenes chalcographus

Journal

BULLETIN OF ENTOMOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 113, Issue 1, Pages 1-10

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007485321000353

Keywords

Bark beetle; diapause; forest pest; fungal symbionts; Pleistocene ice ages; Scolytinae

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article provides a comprehensive and comparative summary of selected life-history traits of Ips typographus and Pityogenes chalcographus, two common bark beetle species on Norway spruce in Eurasia. The study highlights the similarities and differences in biotic and abiotic factors that shape the ecology and evolution of these beetles. The article also discusses future research directions to deepen our understanding of their ecological and evolutionary pathways.
Ips typographus (L.) and Pityogenes chalcographus (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) are two common bark beetle species on Norway spruce in Eurasia. Multiple biotic and abiotic factors affect the life cycles of these two beetles, shaping their ecology and evolution. In this article, we provide a comprehensive and comparative summary of selected life-history traits. We highlight similarities and differences in biotic factors, like host range, interspecific competition, host colonization, reproductive behaviour and fungal symbioses. Moreover, we focus on the species' responses to abiotic factors and compare their temperature-dependent development and flight behaviour, cold adaptations and diapause strategies. Differences in biotic and abiotic traits might be the result of recent, species-specific evolutionary histories, particularly during the Pleistocene, with differences in glacial survival and postglacial recolonization. Finally, we discuss future research directions to understand ecological and evolutionary pathways of the two bark beetle species, for both basic research and applied forest management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available