4.4 Article

Test of semiochemical mediated host specificity in four species of tree killing bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 963-969

出版社

ENTOMOL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1603/0046-225X-32.5.963

关键词

bark beetles; host selection; semiochemicals; orientation; landing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We tested the hypothesis that nonhost conifers contain compounds that repel coniferophagous bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) during host selection in four experiments (n = 10) involving paired trees baited with aggregation pheromones. Mountain pine beetles, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, and Douglas-fir beetles, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins, were tested for discrimination between their respective hosts, lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir, and spruce beetles, Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby, and western balsam bark beetles, Dryocoetes confusus Swaine, for discrimination between interior spruce and interior fir. Both host and nonhost conifers in a pair were baited with the same aggregation pheromone. Most baited host trees were successfully attacked and contained galleries with eggs or young larvae. Neither D. rufipennis nor D. confusus attempted to establish galleries on nonhosts. A few attacks were initiated on nonhosts by D. pseudotsugae and D. ponderosae, but most did not reach the phloem tissue, and in no case were they numerous enough to have produced a significant source of aggregation pheromone. Thus employing pheromone-baited nonhost trap trees would not be an effective management tactic. Higher trap catches in unbaited multiple funnel traps within 1 m of nonhost trees than in control traps 12.5 m away also indicated that there was no strong long range repellence caused by nonhost volatiles. Although this study was not designed to evaluate primary attraction to host trees, the lack of strong repellence from nonhost conifers partly supports the hypothesis of random landing followed by close range olfactory or gustatory rejection of nonhosts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据