Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 49–83 | Cite as

Host selection behavior of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) attackingPinus ponderosa, with special emphasis on the western pine beetle,Dendroctonus brevicomis

  • Henry A. Moeck
  • David L. Wood
  • Kenneth Q. LindahlJr.


Detection of weakened hosts from a distance by bark beetles through olfaction was investigated in field experiments. No significant numbers of Scolytidae were attracted to anaerobically treated pine bolts, stem disks, or sugar and ponderosa pine bark including phloem. Treatment of living trees with cacodylic acid induced attacks byDendroctonusbrevicomis, D. ponderosae, Ips latidens, Gnathotrichus retusus, andPityophthorus scalptor, beginning two weeks after treatment. There was no significant difference between landing rates ofD. brevicomis andD.ponderosae on screened treated trees and screened controls. There was a significant increase in landing rates ofG. retusus andI. latidens, because both species had penetrated the screen and produced pheromones. Tree frilling alone did not increase the landing rate of bark beetles. Freezing of the lower trunk with dry ice did not increase significantly the landing rate ofD. brevicomis, D. ponderosae, G. retusus, orI. latidens on screened trees, whereas unscreened frozen trees were attacked by all four species. There was no significantly higher landing rate byD. brevicomis, D. ponderosae, I.paraconfusus, I. latidens, G. retusus, orHylurgops subcostulatus on screened trees evidencing symptoms of severe infection by the root pathogenVerticicladiella wagenerii, than on symptornless trees. These experiments show thatD. brevicomis, D. ponderosae, I. paraconfusus, I.latidens, andG. retusus land, apparently indiscriminately, on healthy and stressed hosts. Thus, in these species host discrimination must occur after landing and prior to sustained feeding.

Key words

Primary attraction tree predisposition Dendroctonus Ips Gnathotrichus Pityophthorus Coleoptera Scolytidae Buprestidae Verticicladiella Pinus ponderosa 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adlung, K.G. 1958. Die Lockwirkung von Methylestern der Leinölfettsäuren auf Borkenkäfer.Naturwissenschaften 45:626–627.Google Scholar
  2. Adlung, K.G. 1960. Über die Ergebnisse der im Schwarzwald 1958 und 1959 durchgeführten Freilandversuche zur Anlockung von Borkenkäfern mit Lockstoffen.Z. Angew. Entomol. 45:430–435.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, N.H., andAnderson, D.B. 1968.Ips bark beetle attacks and brood development on a lightning-struck pine in relation to its physiological decline. Fla. Entomol. 51:23–30.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R.F. 1948. Host selection by the pine engraver.J. Econ. Entomol. 41:596–602.Google Scholar
  5. Annila, E. 1975. Effect of felling date of trees on the attack density and flight activity ofTrypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) (Col., Scolytidae).Comm. Inst. For. Fenn. 86(6):1–16.Google Scholar
  6. Bakke, A. 1967. Pheromon (sic) in the bark beetle,Ips acuminatus Gyll.Z. Angew. Entomol. 59:49–53.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, J., andVité, J.P. 1975. Host selection byTrypodendron lineatum.Naturwissenschaften. 62:539.Google Scholar
  8. Bedard, W.D., andBrowne, L.E. 1969. A delivery-trapping system for evaluating insect chemical attractants in nature.J. Econ. Entomol. 62:1202–1203.Google Scholar
  9. Bedard, W.D., Tilden, P.E., Wood, D.L., Silverstein, R.M., Brownlee, R.G., andRodin, J.O. 1969. Western pine beetle: Field response to its sex pheromone and a synergistic host terpene, myrcene.Science 164:1284–1285.Google Scholar
  10. Bega, R. V., Dotta, D., Miller, D.R., andSmith, R.S., Jr. 1966. Root disease survey at Boggs Mountain State Forest, California.Plant Dis. Rep. 50:439–440.Google Scholar
  11. Bennett, W.H. 1965. Silvicultural control of southern forest insects, pp. 51–63,in: Insects in Southern Forests. Proc. 14th Ann. Forestry Symp., Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
  12. Blackman, M.W. 1924. The effect of deficiency and excess of rainfall upon the hickory bark beetle.J Econ. Entomol. 17:460–470.Google Scholar
  13. Borden, J.H., andStokkink, E. 1973. Laboratory investigation of secondary attraction inGnathotrichus sulcatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).Can. J. Zool. 51:469–473.Google Scholar
  14. Borden, J.H., Brownlee, R.G., andSilverstein, R.M. 1968. Sex pheromone ofTrypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): Production, bioassay, and partial isolation.Can. Entomol. 100:629–636.Google Scholar
  15. Borden, J.H.,Vandersar, T.J., andStokkink, E. 1975. Secondary attraction in the Scolytidae: An annotated bibliography. Simon Fraser University, Pest Management Papers No. 4, 102 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Bright, D.E., Jr., andStark, R.W. 1973. The bark and ambrosia beetles of California. Coleoptera: Scolytidae and Platypodidae.Bull. Calif. Insect Survey 16:1–169.Google Scholar
  17. Browne, L.E. 1978. A trapping system for the western pine beetle using attractive pheromones.J. Chem. Ecol. 4:261–275.Google Scholar
  18. Buffam, P.E. 1971. Spruce beetle suppression in trap trees treated with cacodylic acid.J. Econ. Entomol. 64:958–960.Google Scholar
  19. Buffam, P.E., andYasinski, P.M. 1971. Spruce beetle hazard reduction with cacodylic acid.J. Econ. Entomol. 64:751–752.Google Scholar
  20. Buffam, P.E., Lister, C.K., Stevens, R.E., andFrye, R.H. 1973. Fall cacodylic acid treatments to produce lethal traps for spruce beetles.Environ. Entomol. 2:259–262.Google Scholar
  21. Byrne, K.J., Swigar, A.A., Silverstein, R.M., Borden, J.H., andStokkink, E. 1974. Sulcatol: Population aggregation pheromone in the scolytid beetle,Gnathotrichus sulcatus. J. Insect Physiol. 20:1895–1900.Google Scholar
  22. Cade, S.C., Hrutfiord, B.F., andGara, R.I. 1970. Identification of a primary attractant forGnathotrichus sulcatus isolated from western hemlock logs.J. Econ. Entomol. 63:1014–1015.Google Scholar
  23. Chansler, J.F.,Cahill, D.B.,andStevens, R.E. 1970. Cacodylic acid field tested for control of mountain pine beetles in ponderosa pine. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mtn. For. Rge. Exp. Sta. Research Note RM-161, 3 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Chapman, J.A. 1962. Field studies on attack flight and log selection by the ambrosia beetleTrypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Entomol. 94:74–92.Google Scholar
  25. Chapman, J.A. 1964. Studies on chemical attraction of the Douglas-fir beetle,Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopk., and other forest Coleoptera. Can. Dept. For., For. Ent. Path. Branch, Victoria, B.C. Interim Rept. (unpublished).Google Scholar
  26. Chapman, J.A. 1966. The effect of attack by the ambrosia beetleTrypodendron lineatum (Olivier) on log attractiveness. Can. Entomol. 98:50–59.Google Scholar
  27. Chararas, C. 1959. L'attractivité exercée par less conifères a l'égard des Scolytides et le role des substances terpéniques extraites des oléorésines.Rev. Pathol Veg. Entomol. Agric. Fr. 38:113–129.Google Scholar
  28. Clements, V.A. 1953. Possible means of reducing mountain pine beetle attacks in young sugar pine. USDA For. Serv., Calif. For. Rge. Exp. Sta., Forest Research Note 89, 5 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Cobb, F.W., Jr.,Parmeter, J.R., Jr.,Wood, D.L., andStark, R.W. 1974, Root pathogens as agents predisposing ponderosa pine and white fir to bark beetles, pp. 8–15,in E.G. Kuhlman, (ed.) Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. onFomes annosus Sept. 17–22, 1973, Athens, Georgia.Google Scholar
  30. Coulson, R.N., Hain, F.P., andPayne, T.L. 1974. Radial growth characteristics and stand density of loblolly pine in relation to the occurrence of the southern pine beetle.Environ. Entomol. 3:425–428.Google Scholar
  31. Craighead, F.C. 1925. Bark beetle epidemics and rainfall deficiency.J. Econ. Entomol. 18:577–588.Google Scholar
  32. Dässler, H.G., andHenker, W. 1959. Über Lockstoffe beim grossen Kiefernborkenkäfer (Ips sexdentatus).Anz. Schädlingsk. 32:74–76.Google Scholar
  33. Davidson, A.G. (ed.) 1964. Dutch elm disease. Dept. For. Rural Dev. Bi-mo. Progr. Rept. 20(4).Google Scholar
  34. Dewey, J.E., Ciesla, W.M., andMeyer, H.E. 1974. Insect defoliation as a predisposing agent to a bark beetle outbreak in eastern Montana. Environ. Entomol. 3:722.Google Scholar
  35. Drew. J. 1977. Pine beetle attack as a result of paraquat treatment, pp. 4–11,in Proc. Lightwood Research Co-ord. Council Jan. 18–19, 1977, Atlantic Beach, Florida.Google Scholar
  36. Drouin, J.A., andTurnock, W. J. 1967. Occurrence of the eastern larch beetle in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.Manitoba Entomol. 1:18–20.Google Scholar
  37. Dyer, E.D.A. 1967. Relation of attack by ambrosia beetle (Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.)) to felling date of spruce in central British Columbia. Can. Dept. For., Bi-mo. Res. Notes 23:11.Google Scholar
  38. Dyer, E.D.A., andChapman, J.A. 1965. Flight and attack of the ambrosia beetle,Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) in relation to felling date of logs. Can. Entomol. 97:42–57.Google Scholar
  39. Felix, L.S., Uhrenholdt, B., andParmeter, J.R., Jr. 1971. Association ofScolytus ventralis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) andPhoradendron bolleanum subspeciespauciflorum onAbies concolor.Can. Entomol. 103:1697–1703.Google Scholar
  40. Ferrell, G.T. 1974. Moisture stress and fir engraver (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) attack in white fir infected by true mistletoe. Can. Entomol. 106:315–318.Google Scholar
  41. Ferrell, G.T. 1978. Moisture stress threshold of susceptibility to fir engraver beetles in pole-size white firs.For. Sci. 24:85–92.Google Scholar
  42. Ferrell, G.T., andSmith, R.S. 1976. Indicators ofFomes annosus root decay and bark beetle susceptibility in sapling white fir.For. Sci. 22:365–369.Google Scholar
  43. Francia, F.C., andGraham, K. 1967. Aspects of orientation behavior in the ambrosia beetleTrypodendron lineatum (Olivier).Can. J. Zool. 45:985–1002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Francke, W., andHeemann, V. 1974. Lockversuche beiXyloterus domesticus L. andX. lineatus Oliv. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) mit 3-hydroxy-3-methylbutan-2-on.Z. Angew. Entomol. 75:67–72.Google Scholar
  45. Frye, R.H., andWygant, N.D. 1971. Spruce beetle mortality in cacodylic acid-treated Engelmann spruce trap trees.J. Econ. Entomol. 64:911–916.Google Scholar
  46. Furniss, M.M. 1965. Susceptibility of fire-injured Douglas-fir to bark beetle attack in southern Idaho.J For. 63:8–11.Google Scholar
  47. Furniss, M.M., andSchmitz, R.F. 1971. Comparative attraction of Douglas-fir beetles to frontalin and tree volatiles. USDA For. Serv. Res. Paper INT-96, 16 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Gara, R.I., andHolsten, E.H. 1975. Preliminary studies on arctic bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) of the Noatak River drainage.Z. Angew. Entomol. 78:248–254.Google Scholar
  49. Goeden, R.D., andMorris, D.M., Jr. 1964. Attraction ofScolytus quadrispinosus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) toCarya spp. for oviposition,Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 57:141–146.Google Scholar
  50. Goheen, D.J. 1976.Verticicladiella wagenerii onPinus ponderosa: Epidemiology and interrelationships with insects. PhD thesis, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Berkeley, 118pp.Google Scholar
  51. Goheen, D.J., andCobb, F. W., Jr. 1978. Occurrence ofVerticicladiella wagenerii and its perfect state,Ceratocystis wageneri sp. nov., in insect galleries. Phytopathology. 68:1192–1195.Google Scholar
  52. Goldman, S.E., Cleveland, G.D., andParker, J.A. 1978. Beetle response to slash pines treated with Paraquat to induce lightwood formation. Environ. Entomol. 7:372–374.Google Scholar
  53. Graham, K. 1968. Anaerobic induction of primary chemical attractancy for ambrosia beetles.Can. J. Zool. 46:905–908.Google Scholar
  54. Hall, R.C. 1958. Environmental factors associated with outbreaks by the western pine beetle and the California five-spined engraver in California.Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Entomol. 4:341–347.Google Scholar
  55. Hall, R.C., andEaton, C.B. 1961. Trials with lindane for protecting fire-injured trees from insects. USDA For. Serv., Pacific Southwest For. Rge. Exp. Sta. Rept., 19 pp. (unpublished).Google Scholar
  56. Heikkenen, H.J., andHrutfiord, B.F. 1965.Dendroctonus pseudotsugae: A hypothesis regarding its primary attractant.Science 150:1457–1459.Google Scholar
  57. Hertert, H.D., Miller, D.L., andPartridge, A.D. 1975. Interaction of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and root-rot pathogens in grand fir in northern Idaho. Can. Entomol. 107:899–904.Google Scholar
  58. Hetrick, L.A. 1949. Some overlooked relationships of southern pine beetle.J Econ. Entomol. 42:466–469.Google Scholar
  59. Hines, J.W., andHeikkenen, H.J. 1977. Beetles attracted to severed Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana Mill.). Environ. Entomol. 6:123–127.Google Scholar
  60. Hodges, J.D., andPickard, L.S. 1971. Lightning in the ecology of the southern pine beetle,Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Entomol. 103:44–51.Google Scholar
  61. Jantz, O.K., andRudinsky, J.A. 1966. Studies of the olfactory behavior of the Douglas-fir beetle,Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins. Oregon State Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta., Corvallis, Ore., Tech. Bull. 94, 38 pp.Google Scholar
  62. Johnson, N.E. 1964. Effects of different drying rates and two insecticides on beetle attacks in felled Douglas-fir and western hemlock. Weyerhaeuser Co. Forestry Research Note 58, 16 pp.Google Scholar
  63. Johnson, N.E., andNielsen, D.G. 1969. Pressure chamber measurements of water stress in individual pine fascicles.For. Sci. 15:452–453.Google Scholar
  64. Johnson, N.E., andZingg, J.G. 1969. Transpirational drying of Douglas-fir: Effect on log moisture content and insect attack.J. For. 67:816–819.Google Scholar
  65. Johnson, P.C. 1966a. Attractiveness of lightning-struck ponderosa pine trees toDendroctonus brevicomis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 59:615.Google Scholar
  66. Johnson, P.C. 1966b. Some causes of natural tree mortality in old-growth ponderosa pine stands in western Montana. USDA For. Serv. Intermountain For. Rge. Exp. Sta. Res. Note INT-51,4pp.Google Scholar
  67. Johnson, P.C. 1972. Bark beetle risk in mature ponderosa pine forests in western Montana. USDA For. Serv. Intermountain For. Rge. Exp. Sta. Res. Paper INT-119, 32 pp.Google Scholar
  68. Jørgensen, E., andPetersen, B.B. 1951. Angreb afFomes annosus (Fr.) Cke. ogHylesinus piniperda L. påPinus silvestris i Djurslands plantager.Dan. Skovforen. Tidsskr. 36:453–479.Google Scholar
  69. Kalkstein, L. S. 1976. Effects of climatic stress upon outbreaks of the southern pine beetle. Environ. Entomol. 5:653–658.Google Scholar
  70. Kangas, E., Perttunen, V., Oksanen, H., andRinne, M. 1967. Laboratory experiments on the olfactory orientation ofBlastophagus piniperda L. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to substances isolated from pine rind.Acta Entomol. Fenn, 22:1–87.Google Scholar
  71. Keen, F.P. 1936. Relative susceptibility of ponderosa pines to bark beetle attack.J. For. 34:919–927.Google Scholar
  72. Keen, F.P. 1943. Ponderosa pine tree classes redefined.J. For. 41:249–253.Google Scholar
  73. Keen, F.P. 1946. Entomology in western pine silviculture. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 22:1–8.Google Scholar
  74. Keen, F. P., andSalman, K.A. 1942. Progress in pine beetle control through tree selection.J. For. 40:854–858.Google Scholar
  75. Kerck, K. 1972. Äthylalkohol und Stammkontur als Komponenten der Primäranlockung beiXyloterus domesticus L. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).Naturwissenschaften. 59:423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. King, E.W. 1972. Rainfall and epidemics of the southern pine beetle. J. Environ. Entomol. 1:279–285.Google Scholar
  77. Lehmann, E.L. 1975. Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks. Holden-Day, Inc., San Francisco, 457 pp.Google Scholar
  78. Lister, C.K., Schmid, J.M., Minnemeyer, C.D., andFrye, R.H. 1976. Refinement of the lethal trap tree method for spruce beetle control.J. Econ. Entomol. 69:415–418.Google Scholar
  79. Lorio, P.L., Jr. 1966.Phytophthora cinnamomi andPythium species associated with loblolly pine decline in Louisiana.Plant Dis. Rep. 50:596–597.Google Scholar
  80. Lorio, P.L., Jr., andHodges, J.D. 1968. Oleoresin exudation pressure and relative water content of inner bark as indicators of moisture stress in loblolly pines.For. Sci. 14:392–398.Google Scholar
  81. Lorio, P.L., andYandle, D.O. 1978. Distribution of lightning-induced southern pine beetle infestations.South. Lumberman 235(2920):12–13.Google Scholar
  82. Massey, C.L., andWygant, N.D. 1954. Biology and control of the Englemann spruce beetle in Colorado. USDA For. Serv. Circ. No. 944, 35 pp.Google Scholar
  83. McGhehey, J.H., andNagel, W.P. 1967. Bark beetle mortality in precommerical herbicide thinnings of western hemlock.J. Econ. Entomol. 60:1572–1574.Google Scholar
  84. Merker, E. 1952. Das Wetter der Jahre 1939 bis 1950 und sein Einfluss auf die Massenvermehrung des grossen Fichtenborkenkäfers in Südbaden.Allg. Forst. Jagdztg. 123:213–233; 124:1-22.Google Scholar
  85. Merker, E. 1955. Der Massenwechsel des grossen Fichtenborkenkäfers (Ips typographus L.) und seine Abhängigkeit vom Standort. Beitr. Entomol. 5:245–275.Google Scholar
  86. Miller, J.M., andKeen, F.P. 1960. Biology and control of the western pine beetle. USDA Misc. Publ. 800, 381 pp.Google Scholar
  87. Miller, J.M., andPatterson, J.E., 1927. Preliminary studies on the relation of fire injury to bark beetle attack in western yellow pine.J Agric. Res. 34:597–613.Google Scholar
  88. Miller, R.G. 1966. Simultaneous Statistical Inference. McGraw-Hill Co., New York, 272 pp.Google Scholar
  89. Moeck, H.A. 1970a. An olfactometer for the bio-assay of attractants for scolytids. Can. Entomol. 102:792–796.Google Scholar
  90. Moeck, H.A. 1970b. Ethanol as the primary attractant for the ambrosia beetleTrypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Entomol. 102:985–995.Google Scholar
  91. Moeck, H.A. 1971. Field test of ethanol as a scolytid attractant. Can. Dept. Fish. For. Bi-mo. Res. Notes 27:11–12.Google Scholar
  92. Moeck H.A. 1978. Field test for primary attraction of the spruce beetle. Environ. Can. For. Serv. Bi-mo. Res. Notes 34:8.Google Scholar
  93. Mogren, E.W. 1955. Silvical factors influencing resistance of ponderosa pine to Black Hills beetle attack.Proc. Soc. Am. For. 50:61–63.Google Scholar
  94. Morley, P.M. 1939. Time of cut as a factor influencing infestation of coniferous logs.Can. Entomol. 71:243–248.Google Scholar
  95. Nagel, R. H., McComb, D., andKnight, F.B. 1957. Trap tree method for controlling the Engelmann spruce beetle in Colorado.J. For. 55:894–898.Google Scholar
  96. Newton, M.,andHolt, H.A. 1971. Scolytid and Buprestid mortality in ponderosa pines injected with organic arsenicals.J. Econ. Entomol. 64:952–958.Google Scholar
  97. Nijholt, W.W., andSchönherr, J. 1976. Chemical response behavior of scolytids in West Germany and western Canada. Environ. Can. For. Serv. Bi-mo. Res. Notes 32:31–32.Google Scholar
  98. Nuorteva, M., andLaine, L. 1968. Über die Möglichkeiten der Insekten als Überträger des Wurzelschwamms (Farnes annosus (Fr.) Cooke).Ann. Entomol. Fenn. 34:113–135.Google Scholar
  99. Oliver, W.W. 1970. Cacodylic acid for precommercial thinning in mixed-conifer stands shows erratic results. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PSW-224, 3 pp.Google Scholar
  100. Partridge, A.D., andMiller, D.L. 1972. Bark beetles and root rots related in Idaho conifers.Plant Dis. Rep. 56:498–500.Google Scholar
  101. Peacock, J.W., Lincoln, A.C., Simeone, J.B., andSilverstein, R.M. 1971. Attraction ofScolytus multistriatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to a virgin-female-produced pheromone in the field.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 64:1143–1149.Google Scholar
  102. Person, H.L. 1928. Tree selection by the western pine beetle.J. For. 26:564–578.Google Scholar
  103. Person, H.L. 1931. Theory in explanation of the selection of certain trees by the western pine beetle.J. For. 29:696–699.Google Scholar
  104. Pfeffer, A. 1957. Der Verlauf des Borkenkäferbefalles und der Holzfeuchtigkeit von künstlich zum Eintrocknen gebrachten Fichtenstämmen.Z. Angew. Entomol. 41:196–207.Google Scholar
  105. Rudinsky, J. A. 1962. Ecology of Scolytidae.Annv. Rev. Entomol. 7:327–348.Google Scholar
  106. Rudinsky, J.A. 1966. Scolytid beetles associated with Douglas-fir: Response to terpenes.Science 152:218–219.Google Scholar
  107. Rudinsky, J.A., andZethner-Møller, O. 1967. Olfactory responses ofHylastes nigrinus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to various host materials.Can. Entomol. 99:911–916.Google Scholar
  108. Rudinsky, J.A., Novak, V., andŠvihra, P. 1971. Attraction of the bark beetleIps typographus L. to terpenes and a male-produced pheromone.Z Angew. Entomol. 67:179–188.Google Scholar
  109. Salman, K.A., andBongberg, J.W. 1942. Logging high-risk trees to control insects in the pine stands of northeastern California.J. For. 40:533–539.Google Scholar
  110. Sartwell, C., andStevens, R.E. 1975. Mountain pine beetle in ponderosa pine—prospects for silvicultural control in second-growth stands.J. For. 73:136–140.Google Scholar
  111. Schenk, J.A., andBenjamin, D.M. 1964. A tentative classification of jack pine susceptible to bark beetle attack in central Wisconsin.J. For. 62:570–574.Google Scholar
  112. Schmitz, R.F., andTaylor, A.R. 1969. An instance of lightning damage and infestation of ponderosa pines by the pine engraver beetle in Montana. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note INT-88, 8 pp.Google Scholar
  113. Schönherr, J. 1970. Evidence of an aggregating pheromone in the ash-bark beetle,Leperisinus fraxini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 24:305–307.Google Scholar
  114. Schultz, D.E., andAllen, D.C. 1977. Characteristics of sites with high black cherry mortality due to bark beetles following defoliation byHydria prunivorata.Environ. Entomol. 6:77–188.Google Scholar
  115. Sedlaczek, W. 1921. Fangbaummethoden für die verschiedenen Borkenkäferarten.Z. Angew. Entomol. 7:334–339.Google Scholar
  116. Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, McGraw-Hill Co., New York, 312 pp.Google Scholar
  117. Silverstein, R.M., Brownlee, R.G., Bellas, T.E., Wood, D.L., andBrowne, L.E. 1968. Brevicomin: principal sex attractant in the frass of the female western pine beetle.Science 159:889–891.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Souto, D.J. 1974. Studies on the intial host selection behavior of scolytids associated with a second growth Douglas-fir forest. MS thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, 99 pp.Google Scholar
  119. Stark, R.W., andCobb, F.W., Jr. 1969. Smog injury, root diseases, and bark beetle damage in ponderosa pine.Calif. Agric. 23:13–15.Google Scholar
  120. Stark, R.W., andDahlsten, D.L. (eds.). 1970. Studies on the Population Dynamics of the Western Pine Beetle,Dendroctonus brevicomis LeConte (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, 174 pp.Google Scholar
  121. Stark, R.W., Miller, P.R., Cobb, F.W., Jr., Wood, D.L., andParmeter, J.R., Jr. 1968. Photochemical oxidant injury and bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infestation of ponderosa pine. I. Incidence of bark beetle infestation in injured trees.Hilgardia 39:121–126.Google Scholar
  122. Stelzer, M.J. 1970. Mortality ofIps lecontei attracted to ponderosa pine trees killed with cacodylic acid.J. Econ. Entomol. 63:956–959.Google Scholar
  123. Stephen, F.M., andDahlsten, D.L. 1976a. The temporal and spatial arrival pattern ofDendroctonus brevicomis in ponderosa pine.Can. Entomol. 108:271–282.Google Scholar
  124. Stephen, P.M., andDahlsten, D.L. 1976b. The arrival sequence of the arthropod complex following attack byDendroctonus brevicomis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in ponderosa pine.Can. Entomol. 108:283–304.Google Scholar
  125. St. George, R.A. 1929. Weather, a factor in outbreaks of the hickory bark beetle.J. Econ. Entomol. 22:573–580.Google Scholar
  126. St. George, R.A. 1930. Drought affected and injured trees attractive to bark beetles.J. Econ. Entomol. 23:825–828.Google Scholar
  127. Stoszek, K.J. 1973. A contribution to the biology ofPseudohylesinus nebulosus (LeConte) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), especially in relation to the moisture stress of its host, Douglas-fir. PhD thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 121 pp.Google Scholar
  128. Struble, G.R. 1965. Attack pattern of mountain pine beetle in sugar pine stands. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PSW-60, 7 pp.Google Scholar
  129. Švihra, P. 1968. [The efficacy of trap trees covered with their own branches]. (Czech., English Summary).Lesn. Cas. 14:363–374.Google Scholar
  130. Švihra, P. 1974. The change of the chemical information by bark beetleIps typographus L. in a phloem treated with cacodylic acid.Z. Angew. Entomol. 75:247–254.Google Scholar
  131. Swain, K.M. 1968. Protecting ponderosa pine from bark beetle attack by use of a lindane-water emulsion spray. USDA For. Serv. Div. Timber Management Rept., 13 pp.Google Scholar
  132. Thatcher, R.C. 1960. Bark beetles affecting southern pines: a review of current knowledge. USDA For. Serv., South. For. Exp. Sta., Occasional Paper 180, 25 pp.Google Scholar
  133. Thomas, G. M. 1957. Climate and growth rate as related to an outbreak of silver fir beetles. USDA For. Serv., Pac. Northwest For. Rge. Exp. Sta. Res. Note 150, 5 pp.Google Scholar
  134. Vité, J.P. 1961. The influence of water supply on oleoresin exudation pressure and resistance to bark beetle attack inPinusponderosa.Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 21:37–66.Google Scholar
  135. Vité, J.P. andGara, R.I. 1962. Volatile attractants from ponderosa pine attacked by bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 21:251–273.Google Scholar
  136. Vité, J.P., andPitman, G.B. 1968. Bark beetle aggregation effects of feeding on the release of pheromones inDendroctonus andIps.Nature 218:169–170.Google Scholar
  137. Vité, J.P., Gara, R.I., andVon Scheller, H.D. 1964. Field observations on the response to attractants of bark beetles infesting southern pines.Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 22:461–470.Google Scholar
  138. Wagener, W.W., andCave, M.S. 1946. Pine killing by the root fungus,Fomes annosus, in California.J. For. 44:47–54.Google Scholar
  139. Wagener, W. W., andMielke, J.L. 1961. A staining fungus root disease in ponderosa, Jeffrey, and pinyon pines.Plant Dis. Rep. 45:831–835.Google Scholar
  140. Walters, J. 1955. Douglas-fir beetle associated with winter injury. CDA Science Service, For. Biol. Div., Bi-mo. Prog. Rep. 11(4):2–3.Google Scholar
  141. Whitten, R.R., andBaker, W.C. 1939. Tests with various elm-wood traps for bark beetles.J. Econ. Entomol. 22:630–634.Google Scholar
  142. Wickman, B.E. 1963. Mortality and growth reduction of white fir following defoliation by the Douglas-fir tussock moth. USDA For. Serv. Res. Paper PSW-7, 15 pp.Google Scholar
  143. Wilkinson, R.C. 1964. Attraction and development ofIps bark beetle populations in artificially infested pine bolts exposed on fire towers and turntables in Florida.Fla. Entomol. 47:57–64.Google Scholar
  144. Wood, D. L. 1962. Experiments on the interrelationship between oleoresin exudation pressure inPinus ponderosa and attack byIps confusus (LeC.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).Can. Entomol. 94:473–477.Google Scholar
  145. Wood, D.L. 1963. Studies on host selection byIps confusus (LeConte) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) with special reference to Hopkins' host selection principle.Univ. Calif. Publ. Entomol. 27:241–282.Google Scholar
  146. Wood, D.L. 1972. Selection and colonization of ponderosa pine by bark beetles, pp. 101–117,in H.F. van Emden (ed.). Insect/Plant Relationships. Symp. R. Entomol. Soc. London No. 6, Blackwell, London.Google Scholar
  147. Wood, D.L. 1976. Host selection by bark beetles in the mixed-conifer forests of California (summary only).Symp. Biol. Hung. 16:301.Google Scholar
  148. Wood, D.L., andBushing, R.W. 1963. The olfactory response ofIps confusus (LeConte) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to the secondary attraction in the laboratory.Can. Entomol. 95:1066–1078.Google Scholar
  149. Wood, D.L., andVité, J.P. 1961. Studies on host selection ofIps confusus (LeConte) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) attackingPinus ponderosa.Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 21:79–95.Google Scholar
  150. Wright, E., Coulter, W.K.,andGruenfeld, J.J. 1956. Deterioration of beetle-killed Pacific silver fir.J. For. 54:322–325.Google Scholar
  151. Wright, L.C. 1976. The effect of defoliation of grand fir on its moisture stress and resistance to the fir engraver beetle. MS thesis. Washington State University, Pullman, 25 pp.Google Scholar
  152. Yasunaga, K. 1962. [Studies on attractants of the pine bark beetles. Part II. Field tests on the attractability of benzoic acid]. (Japanese, English abstract).J. Jpn. For. Soc. 44:197–200.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry A. Moeck
    • 1
  • David L. Wood
    • 2
  • Kenneth Q. LindahlJr.
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of the EnvironmentCanadian Forestry Service, Pacific Forest Research CentreVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Entomological SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley
  3. 3.Group in BostalisticsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations