Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 267–279 | Cite as

Developing trapping protocols for wood-boring beetles associated with broadleaf trees

  • Davide RassatiEmail author
  • Lorenzo Marini
  • Matteo Marchioro
  • Pierpaolo Rapuzzi
  • Gianluca Magnani
  • Riccardo Poloni
  • Filippo Di Giovanni
  • Peter Mayo
  • Jon Sweeney
Original Paper


Longhorn and jewel beetles are often moved intercontinentally within woody materials. The common use of hardwoods in solid wood-packaging requires efficient trapping protocols for broadleaf-associated species. We tested the effect of lure (ethanol vs multi-lure), trap color (green vs purple), and trap height (understory vs canopy) on the longhorn and jewel beetle species trapped in multi-funnel traps set up in both seminatural forests and reforested forests in Italy. Traps were deployed in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial scheme, and the eight different treatments were replicated 17 times in a randomized complete block design, in which each block was a different site. Thirty-five longhorn beetle species (2 non-native) and 15 jewel beetle species (all native) were trapped. The multi-lure was more effective than ethanol at detecting most longhorn beetles at both the species and subfamily level (except Lepturinae), but had no effect on the detection of jewel beetles. Trap color affected both jewel (green better than purple) and longhorn beetles with mixed responses among subfamilies. Species richness and/or abundance of both families was greater in the canopy than the understory, but trends were more heterogeneous at lower taxonomic levels (i.e., significant effect on Cerambycinae and Lepturinae but not on Lamiinae). In general, we showed that green multi-funnel traps baited with multi-lure, and setup in the canopy may be an efficient trapping protocol for European longhorn and jewel beetles associated with broadleaf trees. This information can increase efficacy of early-detection programs carried out both inside and outside of Europe.


Buprestidae Cerambycidae Early-detection Multi-lure Trap height Trap color 



The authors thank Franco Rassati and Carlo del Fabbro for field assistance, Cory Hughes and Deepa Abeysekera for technical assistance in the laboratory, Peter Silk, Troy Kimoto, and Joe Francese for logistical support, Andrea Battisti and three anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This study was supported by funding from Natural Resources Canada, US Department of Agriculture—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service—Plant Protection Quarantine, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources through SERG International, and by the University of Padua (ex-60%).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10340_2018_984_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1120 kb)
10340_2018_984_MOESM2_ESM.docx (229 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 228 kb)
10340_2018_984_MOESM3_ESM.docx (1.3 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 1316 kb)
10340_2018_984_MOESM4_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 17 kb)
10340_2018_984_MOESM5_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 13 kb)
10340_2018_984_MOESM6_ESM.docx (58 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (DOCX 57 kb)


  1. Allison JD, Redak RA (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. Allison JD, Borden JH, Seybold SJ (2004) A review of the chemical ecology of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera). Chemoecology 14:123–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison JD, Bhandari BD, McKenney JL, Millar JG (2014) Design factors that influence the performance of flight intercept traps for the capture of longhorned beetles. PLoS ONE 9:e93203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison JD, Graham EE, Poland TM, Strom BL (2016) Dilution of fluon before trap surface treatment has no effect on longhorned beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) captures. J Econ Entomol 109:1215–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Álvarez G, Etxebeste I, Gallego D, David G, Bonifacio L, Jactel H, Sousa E, Pajares JA (2015) Optimization of traps for live trapping of pine wood nematode vector Monochamus galloprovincialis. J Appl Entomol 139:618–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Augustin S, Boonham N, Kogel WJ, Donner P, Faccoli M, Lees DC, Marini L, Mori N, Toffolo EP, Quilici S, Yart A, Battisti A (2012) A review of pest surveillance techniques for detecting quarantine pests in Europe. EPPO Bull 42:515–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Soft 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bense U (1995) Longhorn beetles: illustrated key to the Cerambycidae and Vesperidae of Europe. Margraf Verlag, WeikersheimGoogle Scholar
  9. Brockerhoff EG, Jones DC, Kimberley MO, Suckling DM, Donaldson T (2006) Nationwide survey for invasive wood-boring and bark beetles (Coleoptera) using traps with pheromones and kairomones. For Ecol Manag 228:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bush RJ, Araman PA (2009) Material use and production changes in the US Wood pallet and container industry: 1992 to 2006. Pallet Enterp. Accessed 25 Sept 2017
  11. Campbell SA, Borden JH (2009) Additive and synergistic integration of multimodal cues of both hosts and non-hosts during host selection by woodboring insects. Oikos 118:553–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman TW, Chen Y, Graves AD, Hishinuma SM, Grulke NE, Flint ML, Seybold SJ (2014) Developing monitoring techniques for the invasive goldspotted oak borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in California. Environ Entomol 43:729–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collignon RM, Swift IP, Zou YF, McElfresh JS, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2016) The influence of host plant volatiles on the attraction of longhorn beetles to pheromones. J Chem Ecol 42:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colwell RK (2016) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9. User’s Guide and application. Accessed 23 July 2017
  15. Colwell RK, Mao CX, Chang J (2004) Interpolating, extrapolating and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85:2717–2727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Curletti G, Rastelli M, Rastelli S, Tassi F (2003) Coleotteri Buprestidi d’Italia. Piccole Faune. Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Carmagnola (Torino) e Progetto Biodiversità Comitato Parchi—Centro Studi (Roma), CDRom. ISBN 88-901201-9-3Google Scholar
  17. Dodds KJ (2014) Effects of trap height on captures of arboreal insects in pine stands of northeastern United States of America. Can Entomol 146:80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Domingue MJ, Csóka G, Tóth M, Vétek G, Pénzes B, Mastro V, Baker TC (2011) Field observations of visual attraction of three European oak buprestid beetles toward conspecific and heterospecific models. Entomol Exp Appl 140:112–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Domingue MJ, Imrei Z, Lelito JP, Muskovits J, Janik G, Csóka G, Mastro V, Baker TC (2013) Trapping of European buprestid beetles in oak forests using visual and olfactory cues. Entomol Exp Appl 148:116–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunn E, Hough-Goldstein J, Hanks LM, Millar JG, D’Amico V (2016) Range of attraction of pheromone lures and dispersal behavior of cerambycid beetles. Ann Entomol Soc Am 109:872–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eyre D, Haack RA (2017) Invasive cerambycid pests and biosecurity measures. In: Wang Q (ed) Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 563–618Google Scholar
  23. Flaherty L, Gutowski JM, Mayo P, Mokrzycki T, Pohl G, Silk P, Sweeney J (2018) Pheromone-enhanced lure blends and multiple trap heights improve detection of bark and wood-boring beetles potentially moved in solid wood-packaging. J Pest Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Francese JA, Oliver JB, Fraser I, Lance DR, Youssef N, Sawyer AJ, Mastro VC (2008) Influence of trap placement and design on capture of the emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). J Econ Entomol 101:1831–1837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Francese JA, Crook DJ, Fraser I, Lance DR, Sawyer AJ, Mastro VC (2010) Optimization of trap color for emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). J Econ Entomol 103:1235–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Francese JA, Fraser I, Lance DR, Mastro VC (2011) Efficacy of multifunnel traps for capturing emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae): effect of color, glue, and other trap coatings. J Econ Entomol 104:901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fürstenau B, Quero C, Riba JM, Rosell G, Guerrero A (2015) Field trapping of the flathead oak borer Coroebus undatus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) with different traps and volatile lures. Insect Sci 22:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gallego D, Galián J, Diez JJ, Pajares JA (2008) Kairomonal responses of Tomicus destruens (Col., Scolytidae) to host volatiles α-pinene and ethanol. J Appl Entomol 132:654–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Haack RA (2017a) Cerambycid pests in forests and urban trees. In: Wang Q (ed) Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 351–408Google Scholar
  31. Haack RA (2017b) Feeding biology of cerambycids. In: Wang Q (ed) Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 105–132Google Scholar
  32. Hanks LM, Millar JG (2013) Field bioassays of cerambycid pheromones reveal widespread parsimony of pheromone structures, enhancement by host plant volatiles, and antagonism by components from heterospecifics. Chemoecology 23:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanks LM, Millar JG (2016) Sex and aggregation-sex pheromones of cerambycid beetles: basic science and practical applications. J Chem Ecol 42:631–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Hardersen S, Curletti G, Leseigneur L, Platia G, Liberti G, Leo P, Cornacchia P, Gatti E (2014) Spatio-temporal analysis of beetles from the canopy and ground layer in an Italian lowland forest. Bull Insectol 67:87–97Google Scholar
  36. Hayes RA, Griffiths MW, Nahrung HF, Arnold PA, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2016) Optimizing generic cerambycid pheromone lures for Australian biosecurity and biodiversity monitoring. J Econ Entomol 109:1741–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hughes CC, Johns RC, Sweeney JD (2014) A technical guide to installing beetle traps in the upper crown of trees. J Acad Entomol Soc 10:12–18Google Scholar
  38. Hughes GP, Meier LR, Zou Y, Millar JG, Hanks LM, Ginzel MD (2016) Stereochemistry of fuscumol and fuscumol acetate influences attraction of longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of the subfamily Lamiinae. Environ Entomol 45:1271–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kerr JL, Kelly D, Bader MKF, Brockerhoff EG (2017) Olfactory cues, visual cues, and semiochemical diversity interact during host location by invasive forest beetles. J Chem Ecol 43:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kovacs KF, Mercader RJ, Haight RG, Siegert NW, McCullough DG, Liebhold AM (2011) The influence of satellite populations of emerald ash borer on projected economic costs in U.S. communities, 2010-2020. J Environ Manag 92:2170–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kubáň V, Volkovitsh MG, Kalashian MJ, Jendek E (2016) Buprestidae. In: Löbl I, Löbl D (eds) Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, vol 3. Revised and updated edition. Scarabaeoidea, Scirtoidea, Dascilloidea, Buprestoidea and Byrrhoidea. Brill, Leiden, Boston, pp 432–574Google Scholar
  43. Lelito JP, Fraser I, Mastro VC, Tumlinson JH, Böröczky K, Baker TC (2007) Visually mediated ‘paratrooper copulations’ in the mating behavior of Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), a highly destructive invasive pest of North American ash trees. J Insect Behav 20:537–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Li Y, Meng Q, Silk P, Gao W, Mayo P, Sweeney J (2017) Effect of semiochemicals and trap height on catch of Neocerambyx raddei in Jilin province, China. Entomol Exp Appl 164:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liebhold AM, Brockerhoff EG, Kalisz S, Nuñez MA, Wardle DA, Wingfield MJ (2017) Biological invasions in forest ecosystems. Biol Invasions 19:3437–3458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maguire DY, Robert K, Brochu K, Larrivée M, Buddle CM, Wheeler EA (2014) Vertical stratification of beetles (Coleoptera) and flies (Diptera) in temperate forest canopies. Environ Entomol 43:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Malmusi M, Saltini L, Poloni R (2017) Nuovo contributo alla redazione di un catalogo dei Vesperidae e dei Cerambycidae dell’Emilia. Atti Soc Nat Mat Modena 148:239–272Google Scholar
  48. Millar JG, Hanks LM (2017) Chemical ecology of cerambycid beetles. In: Wang Q (ed) Cerambycidae of the world: biology and management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 161–208Google Scholar
  49. Millar JG, Mitchell RF, Mongold-Diers AJ, Zou Y, Bográn CE, Fierke MK, Ginzel MD, Johnson CW, Meeker JR, Poland TM, Ragenovich I, Hanks LM (2017) Identifying possible pheromones of cerambycid beetles by field testing known pheromone components in four widely separated regions of the United States. J Econ Entomol 111:252–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miller DR (2006) Ethanol and (−)-α-pinene: attractant kairomones for some large wood-boring beetles in southeastern USA. J Chem Ecol 32:779–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller DR, Rabaglia RJ (2009) Ethanol and (−)-α-pinene: Attractant kairomones for bark and ambrosia beetles in the southeastern US. J Chem Ecol 35:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miller DR, Crowe CM, Mayo PD, Silk PJ, Sweeney JD (2015) Responses of Cerambycidae and other insects to traps baited with ethanol, 2,3-hexanediol, and 3,2-hydroxyketone lures in north-central Georgia. J Econ Entomol 108:2354–2365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller DR, Allison JD, Crowe CM, Dickinson DM, Eglitis A, Hofstetter RW, Munson AS, Poland TM, Reid LS, Steed BE, Sweeney JD (2016) Pine sawyers (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) attracted to α-pinene, monochamol, and ipsenol in North America. J Econ Entomol 109:1205–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller DR, Crowe CM, Mayo PD, Reid LS, Silk PJ, Sweeney JD (2017) Interactions between ethanol, syn-2, 3-hexanediol, 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one, and 3-hydroxyoctan-2-one lures on trap catches of hardwood longhorn beetles in southeastern United States. J Econ Entomol 110:2119–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mitchell RF, Graham EE, Wong JC, Reagel PF, Striman BL, Hughes GP, Paschen MA, Ginzel MD, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2011) Fuscumol and fuscumol acetate are general attractants for many species of cerambycid beetles in the subfamily Lamiinae. Entomol Exp Appl 141:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mitchell RF, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2013) Blends of (R)-3-hydroxyhexan-2-one and alkan-2-ones identified as potential pheromones produced by three species of cerambycid beetles. Chemoecology 23:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mitchell RF, Reagel PF, Wong JCH, Meier LR, Silva WD, MongoldDiers J, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2015) Cerambycid beetle species with similar pheromones are segregated by phenology and minor pheromone components. J Chem Ecol 41:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Monnè ML, Monnè MA, Wang Q (2017) General morphology, classification, and biology of Cerambycidae. In: Wang Q (ed) Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–70Google Scholar
  59. Paoletti MG, Lorenzoni GG (1989) Agroecology patterns in northeastern Italy. Agric Ecosyst Environ 27:139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Development Core Team (2013) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–111Google Scholar
  61. R Development Core Team (2015) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  62. Rabaglia RJ, Duerr D, Acciavatti RE, Ragenovich I (2008) Early detection and rapid response for non-native bark and ambrosia beetles. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  63. Rassati D, Petrucco Toffolo E, Roques A, Battisti A, Faccoli M (2014) Trapping wood boring beetles in Italian ports: a pilot study. J Pest Sci 87:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rassati D, Faccoli M, Petrucco Toffolo E, Battisti A, Marini L (2015a) Improving the early detection of alien wood-boring beetles in ports and surrounding forests. J Appl Ecol 52:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rassati D, Faccoli M, Marini L, Haack RA, Battisti A, Petrucco Toffolo E (2015b) Exploring the role of wood waste landfills in early detection of non-native wood-boring beetles. J Pest Sci 88:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rassati D, Lieutier F, Faccoli M (2016) Alien wood-boring beetles in Mediterranean regions. In: Paine TD, Lieutier F (eds) Insects and diseases of Mediterranean forest systems. Springer, Cham, pp 293–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rassati D, Haack RA, Knížek M, Faccoli M (2018) National trade can drive range expansion of bark- and wood-boring beetles. J Econ Entomol 111:260–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rhainds M, Kimoto T, Galko J, Nikolov C, Ryall K, Brodersen G, Webster V (2017) Survey tools and demographic parameters of Slovakian Agrilus associated with beech and poplar. Entomol Exp Appl 162:328–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sama G (2002) Atlas of the Cerambycidae of Europe and Mediterranean Area. Northern, Western, Central and Eastern Europe, British Isles and Continental Europe from France (excl. Corsica) to Scandinavia and Urals. Nakladatelstvi Kabourek, ZlinGoogle Scholar
  70. Sama G, Rapuzzi P (2011) Una nuova Checklist dei Cerambycidae d’Italia (Insecta Coleoptera Cerambycidae). Quad Studi Nat Romagna 32:121–164Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE et al (2017) No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat Commun 8:14435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE et al (2018) Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:E2264–E2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Silk P, Ryall K (2015) Semiochemistry and chemical ecology of the emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Can Entomol 147:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Silva WD, Millar JG, Hanks LM, Costa CM, Leite MOG, Tonelli M, Bento JMS (2018) Interspecific cross-attraction between the South American cerambycid beetle Cotyclytus curvatus and Megacyllene acuita is averted by minor pheromone components. J Chem Ecol 44:268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Skvarla MJ, Dowling AP (2017) A comparison of trapping techniques (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, and Curculionoidea excluding Scolytinae). J Insect Sci 17:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Su JC, Woods SA (2014) Importance of sampling along a vertical gradient to compare the insect fauna in managed forests. Environ Entomol 30:400–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Suckling DM (2015) Can we replace toxicants, achieve biosecurity, and generate market position with semiochemicals? Front Ecol Evol 3:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sweeney J, Gutowski JM, Price J, De Groot P (2006) Effect of semiochemical release rate, killing agent, and trap design on detection of Tetropium fuscum (F.) and other longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Environ Entomol 35:645–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sweeney JD, Silk PJ, Grebennikov V (2014) Efficacy of semiochemical-baited traps for detection of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in the Russian Far East. Eur J Entomol 111:397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ulyshen MD (2011) Arthropod vertical stratification in temperate deciduous forests: implications for conservation-oriented management. For Ecol Manag 261:1479–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ulyshen MD, Sheehan TN (2017) Trap height considerations for detecting two economically important forest beetle guilds in southeastern US forests. J Pest Sci. Google Scholar
  83. Vance CC, Kirby KR, Malcolm JR, Smith SM (2003) Community composition of longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in the canopy and understory of sugar maple and white pine stands in south-central Ontario. Environ Entomol 32:1066–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vodka Š, Cizek L (2013) The effects of edge-interior and understory-canopy gradients on the distribution of saproxylic beetles in a temperate lowland forest. For Ecol Manag 304:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vuts J, Woodcock CM, Sumner ME, Caulfield JC, Reed K, Inward DJ, Leather SR, Pickett JA, Birkett MA, Denman S (2016) Responses of the two-spotted oak buprestid, Agrilus biguttatus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), to host tree volatiles. Pest Manag Sci 72:845–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wickham JD, Harrison RD, Lu W, Guo Z, Millar JG, Hanks LM, Chen Y (2014) Generic lures attract cerambycid beetles in a tropical montane rain forest in southern China. J Econ Entomol 107:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wong JC, 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
  88. Wong JC, Mitchell RF, Striman B, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2012) Blending synthetic pheromones of cerambycid beetles to develop trap lures that simultaneously attract multiple species. J Econ Entomol 105:906–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wu Y, Trepanowski NF, Molongoski JJ, Reagel PF, Lingafelter SW, Nadel H, Myers SW, Ray AM (2017) Identification of wood-boring beetles (Cerambycidae and Buprestidae) intercepted in trade-associated solid wood packaging material using DNA barcoding and morphology. Sci Rep 7:40316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc., TorontoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE)University of PadovaLegnaroItaly
  2. 2.PaduaItaly
  3. 3.PrepottoItaly
  4. 4.CesenaItaly
  5. 5.FormigineItaly
  6. 6.Department of Agriculture, Food and EnvironmentUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  7. 7.Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service - Atlantic Forestry CentreFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations