Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 253–265 | Cite as

Trap height considerations for detecting two economically important forest beetle guilds in southeastern US forests

  • Michael D. UlyshenEmail author
  • Thomas N. Sheehan
Original Paper


Wood-infesting beetles continue to be introduced into new areas at high rates through global trade. Once established, these species can be difficult or impossible to eradicate and can be extremely damaging to both ecosystems and economies. Efforts to detect newly arrived species before they become widespread represent an important early line of defense against these threats. There is considerable interest in optimizing trapping methods to best detect taxa of greatest concern. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of trap height in influencing detection rates for two economically important guilds of forest Coleoptera [phloem/wood feeders (Buprestidae, Cerambycidae and some scolytine Curculionidae) and ambrosia beetles (scolytine Curculionidae)]. We examine this question using three datasets from southeastern US forests. In general, we found phloem/wood feeders and ambrosia beetles to exhibit contrasting vertical distribution patterns. Whereas phloem/wood feeders generally became more species-rich and abundant with increasing trap height, the opposite pattern was found for ambrosia beetles. Moreover, all species found to be significantly associated with the highest traps were phloem/wood feeders, whereas all but one of the species significantly associated with the lowest traps were ambrosia beetles. It is clear from these findings that detection efforts targeting both guilds will be most effective when traps are deployed at multiple heights in southeastern US forests.


Bark beetles Invasive Saproxylic Vertical stratification Woodborers Xylophagous 



We thank Bob Rabaglia, Dan Miller and Rick Hoebeke for helping with scolytine identifications; Scott Horn, Jim Hanula and Mike Cody for assisting with field work; and Cavell Brownie for providing help with the analyses. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10340_2017_883_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (102 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 102 kb)
10340_2017_883_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (108 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 107 kb)
10340_2017_883_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (98 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 98 kb)


  1. Allison JD, Redak R (2017) The impact of trap type and design features on survey and detection of bark and woodboring beetles and their associates: a review and meta-analysis. Annu Rev Entomol 62:127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aukema JE, McCullough DG, Holle BV, Liebhold AM, Britton K, Frankel SJ (2010) Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental US. Bioscience 60:886–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brockerhoff EG, Jones DC, Kimberley MO, Suckling DM, Donaldson T (2006) Nationwide survey for invasive wood-boring and bark beetles (Coleoptera) using traps baited with pheromones and kairomones. For Ecol Manag 228:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chénier JVR, Philogéne BJR (1989) Evaluation of three trap designs for the capture of conifer-feeding beetles and other forest Coleoptera. Can Entomol 121:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colwell RK (2013) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples version 9 persistent.
  6. Dodds KJ (2014) Effects of trap height on captures of arboreal insects in pine stands of northeastern USA. Can Entomol 146:80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dodds KJ, Allison JD, Miller DR, Hanavan RP, Sweeney J (2015) Considering species richness and rarity when selecting optimal survey traps: comparisons of semiochemical baited flight intercept traps for Cerambycidae in eastern North America. Agric For Entomol 17:36–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernandes GW, Price PW (1992) The adaptive significance of insect gall distribution: survivorship of species in xeric and mesic habitats. Oecologia 90:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fettig CJ, McKelvey SR, Borys RR, Dabney CP, Hamud SM, Nelson LJ, Seybold SJ (2009) Efficacy of verbenone for protecting ponderosa pine stands from western pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) attack in California. J Econ Entomol 102:1846–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flechtmann CAH, Ottati ALT, Berisford CW (2000) Comparison of four trap types for ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) in Brazilian Eucalyptus stands. J Econ Entomol 93:1701–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraedrich SW et al (2008) A fungal symbiont of the redbay ambrosia beetle causes a lethal wilt in redbay and other Lauraceae in the southeastern US. Plant Dis 92:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurment and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham EE, Mitchell RF, Reagel PF, Barbour JD, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2010) Treating panel traps with a flouropolymer enhances their effiency in capturing cerambycid beetles. J Econ Entomol 103:641–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graham EE, Poland TM, McCullough DG, Millar JG (2012) A comparison of trap type and height for capturing cerambycid beetles (Coleoptera). J Econ Entomol 105:837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haack RA (2006) Exotic bark- and wood-boring Coleoptera in the US: recent establishments and interceptions. Can J For Res 36:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanks LM, Paine TD, Millar JG, Campbell CD, Schuch UK (1999) Water relations of host trees and resistance to the phloem-boring beetle Phoracantha semipunctata F. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Oecologia 119:400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanks LM, Millar JG, Mongold-Diers JA, Wong JCH, Meier LR, Reagel PF, Mitchell RF (2012) Using blends of cerambycid beetle pheromones and host plant volatiles to simultaneously attract a diversity of cerambycid species. Can J For Res 42:1050–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanula JL, Ulyshen MD, Horn S (2011) Effect of trap type, trap position, time of year, and beetle density on captures of redbay ambrosia beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytidae). J Econ Entomol 104:501–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardersen S et al (2014) Spatio-temporal analysis of beetles from the canopy and ground layer in an Italian lowland forest. Bull Insectol 67:87–97Google Scholar
  20. Kendra PE, Montgomery WS, Deyrup MA, Wakarchuk D (2016) Improved lure for redbay ambrosia beetle developed by enrichment of α-copaene content. J Pest Sci 89:427–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirkendall LR, Biedermann PHW, Jordal BH (2015) Evolution and diversity of bark and ambrosia beetles. In: Vega FE, Hofstetter RW (eds) Bark beetles: biology and ecology of native and invasive species. Elsevier, New York, pp 85–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee CJ, Baxt A, Castillo S, Berkov A (2014) Stratification in French Guiana: cerambycid beetles go up when rains come down. Biotropica 46:302–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maguire DY, Robert K, Brochu K, Larrivee M, Buddle CM, Wheeler TA (2014) Vertical stratification of beetles (Coleoptera) and flies (Diptera) in temperate forest canopies. Environ Entomol 43:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCune B, Mefford MJ (2011) PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 6. MjM Software, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  25. McIntosh RL, Katinic PJ, Allison JD, Borden JH, Downey DL (2001) Comparative efficacy of five types of trap for woodborers in the Cerambycidae, Buprestidae and Siricidae. Agric For Entomol 3:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller DR (2002) Short-range horizontal disruption by verbenone in attraction of mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to pheromone-baited funnel traps in stands of lodgepole pine. J Entomol Soc Brit Columbia 99:103–105Google Scholar
  27. Miller DR, Rabaglia RJ (2009) Ethanol and (−)-alpha-pinene: attractant kairomones for bark and ambrosia beetles in the Southeastern US. J Chem Ecol 35:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morewood WD, Hein KE, Katinic PJ, Borden JH (2002) An improved trap for large wood-boring insects, with special reference to Monochamus scutellatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Can J For Res 32:519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rabaglia R, Duerr D, Acciavatti R, Ragenovich I (2008) Early detection and rapid response for non-native bark and ambrosia beetles. USDA FS Forest Health and Protection, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Rassati D, Faccoli M, Petrucco Toffolo E, Battisti A, Marini L (2015) Improving the early detection of alien wood-boring beetles in ports and surrounding forests. J Appl Ecol 52:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reding ME, Schultz PB, Ranger CM, Oliver JB (2011) Optimizing ethanol-baited traps for monitoring damaging ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) in ornamental nurseries. J Econ Entomol 104:2017–2024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roling MP, Kearby WH (1975) Seasonal flight and vertical distribution of Scolytidae attracted to ethanol in an oak-hickory forest in Missouri. Can Entomol 107:1315–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. SAS Institute (1999) SAS system for windows, Version 8, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmeelk TC, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2016) Influence of trap height and bait type on abundance and species diversity of cerambycid beetles captured in forests of East-Central Illinois. J Econ Entomol 109:1750–1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ulyshen MD (2011) Arthropod vertical stratification in temperate deciduous forests: implications for conservation-oriented management. For Ecol Manag 261:1479–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ulyshen MD, Hanula JL (2007) A comparison of the beetle (Coleoptera) fauna captured at two heights above the ground in a North American temperate deciduous forest. Am Midl Nat 158:260–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ulyshen MD, Horn S, Hanula JL (2010) Response of beetles (Coleoptera) at three heights to the experimental removal of an invasive shrub, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), from floodplain forests. Biol Invasions 12:1573–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vance CC, Kirby KR, Malcolm JR, Smith SM (2003) Community composition of longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in the canopy and understorey of sugar maple and white pine stands in south-central Ontario. Environ Entomol 32:1066–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vodka S, Cizek L (2013) The effects of edge-interior and understorey-canopy gradients on the distribution of saproxylic beetles in a temperate lowland forest. For Ecol Manag 304:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weiss M, Procházka J, Schlaghamerský J, Cizek L (2016) Fine-scale vertical stratification and guild composition of saproxylic beetles in lowland and montane forests: similar patterns despite low faunal overlap. PLoS ONE 11:e0149506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wermelinger B, Flückiger PF, Obrist MK, Duelli P (2007) Horizontal and vertical distribution of saproxylic beetles (Col., Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Scolytinae) across sections of forest edges. J Appl Entomol 131:104–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wong JCH, Hanks LM (2016) Influence of fermenting bait and vertical position of traps on attraction of cerambycid beetles to pheromone lures. J Econ Entomol 109:2145–2150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wylie FR, Griffiths M, King J (2008) Development of hazard site surveillance programs for forest invasive species: a case study from Brisbane, Australia. Aust For 71:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (outside the USA) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA Forest ServiceAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations