Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 1133–1144 | Cite as

Acceptance and suitability of novel trees for Orthotomicus erosus, an exotic bark beetle in North America

Original Paper

Abstract

To predict whether an herbivorous pest insect will establish in a new area, the potential host plants must be known. For invading bark beetles, adults must recognize and accept trees suitable for larval development. The preference-performance hypothesis predicts that adults will select host species that maximize the fitness of their offspring. We tested five species of North American conifers and one angiosperm for adult acceptance and suitability for reproduction of the Mediterranean pine engraver, Orthotomicus erosus (Wollaston). Red pine, Pinus resinosa Aiton, and white spruce, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, were accepted by adult beetles and suitable for reproduction to the extent of adult replacement. Others, such as balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., eastern hemlock, Tsuga canagensis (L.) Carrière, and tamarack, Larix laricina (Du Roi) Koch, were acceptable but unsuitable. The presence of tree species that are acceptable to adults but unsuitable for reproduction may affect the ability of O. erosus to establish across North America.

Keywords

Mediterranean pine engraver Invasion biology Establishment Host range expansion Novel host association Pinaceae 

References

  1. Arias M, Robertson L, Garcia-Alvarez A, Arcos SC, Escuer M, Sanz R, Mansilla JP (2005) Bursaphelenchus fungivorus (Nematoda: Aphelenchida) associate with Orthotomicus erosus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Spain. For Pathol 35:375–383Google Scholar
  2. Badenes-Perez FR, Nault BA, Shelton AM (2006) Dynamics of diamondback moth oviposition in the presence of a highly preferred non-suitable host. Entomol Exp Appl 120:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barre F, Milsant F, Palasse C, Prigent V, Goussard F, Geri C (2002) Preference and performance of the sawfly Diprion pini on host and non-host plants of the genus Pinus. Entomol Exp Appl 102:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton Browne L, Withers TM (2002) Time-dependent changes in the host-acceptance threshold of insects: implications for host specificity testing of candidate biological control agents. Biocontrol Sci Technol 12:677–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bright DE, Skidmore RE (1997) A Catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera), supplement 1 (1990–1994). NRC Research Press, Ottawa, 368 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Brockerhoff EG, Bain J, Kimberley M, Knizek M (2006) Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Can J For Res 36:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Browne LE (1972) An emergence cage and refrigerated collector for wood-boring insects and their associates. J Econ Entomol 65:1499–1501Google Scholar
  8. Byers JA (1989) Behavioral mechanisms involved in reducing competition in bark beetles. Holarctic Ecology 12:466–476Google Scholar
  9. Byers JA, Zhang QH, Birgersson G (2000) Strategies of a bark beetle, Pityogenes bidentatus, in an olfactory landscape. Naturwissenschaften 87:503–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell SA, Borden JH (2006) Close-range, in-flight integration of olfactory and visual information by a host-seeking bark beetle. Entomol Exp Appl 120:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casagrande RA, Dacey JE (2007) Monarch butterfly oviposition on swallow-worts (Vincetoxicum spp.). Environ Entomol 36:631–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chew FS (1977) Coevolution of Pierid butterflies and their cruciferous foodplants. II. The distribution of eggs on potential foodplants. Evolution 31:568–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Courtney SP (1981) Coevolution of Pierid butterflies and their cruciferous foodplants III. Anthocharis cardamines (L.) survival, development and oviposition on different hostplants. Oecologia 51:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Courtney S, Kibota T (1990) Mother doesn’t know best: selection of hosts by ovipositing insects. In: Bernays EA (ed) Insect-plant interactions. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 161–188Google Scholar
  15. Dethier VG (1982) Mechanism of host-plant recognition. Entomol Exp Appl 31:49–56Google Scholar
  16. Eglitis A (2000) EXFOR Database pest reports: Orthotomicus erosus. USDA Forest Service. Available on-line at: http://spfnic.fs.fed.us/exfor/data/pestreports.cfm?pestidval=9&langdisplay=english. Accessed 21 Sep 2007
  17. Elkinton JS, Wood DL (1980) Feeding and boring behavior of the bark beetle Ips paraconfusus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) on the bark of a host and non-host tree species. Can Entomol 112:797–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elkinton JS, Wood DL, Hendry LB (1980) Pheromone production by the bark beetle, Ips paraconfusus, in the nonhost, white fir. J Chem Ecol 6:979–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Furniss MM (1976) Controlled breeding, comparative anatomy and bionomics of Dendroctonus simplex LeConte and Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). In: Barr WG (ed) Department of Entomology Anniversary Publication 15. University of Idaho, Moscow, pp 109–120Google Scholar
  20. Giesen VH, Kohnle U, Vité JP, Pan ML, Francke W (1984) Das aggregationspheromon des mediterranen Kiefernborken-käfers Ips (Orthotomicus) erosus. Z Angew Entomol 98:95–97Google Scholar
  21. Graves SD, Shapiro AM (2003) Exotics as host plants of the California butterfly fauna. Biol Conserv 110:413–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gripenberg S, Morrien E, Cudmore A, Salminen J-P, Roslin T (2007) Resource selection by female moths in a heterogenous environment: what is a poor girl to do? J Anim Ecol 76:854–865CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Haack RA (2006) Exotic bark- and wood-boring Coleoptera in the United States: recent establishments and interceptions. Can J For Res 36:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris M, Sandanayaka M, Griffin W (2001) Oviposition preferences of the Hessian fly and their consequences for the survival and reproductive potential of offspring. Ecol Entomol 26:473–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Houston DR, Valentine HT (1977) Comparing and predicting forest stand susceptibility to gypsy moth. Can J For Res 7:447–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huber DPW, Gries R, Borden JH, Pierce HDJ (2000) A survey of antennal responses by five species of coniferophagous bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to bark volatiles of six species of angiosperm trees. Chemoecology 10:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hynum BG, Berryman AA (1980) Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): Pre-aggregation landing and gallery initiation on lodgepole pine. Can Entomol 112:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Janz N (2002) Evolutionary ecology of oviposition strategies. In: Hilker M, Meiners T (eds) Chemoecology of insect eggs and egg deposition. Blackwell Publishing Company, Berlin, pp 349–376Google Scholar
  29. Jermy T (1984) Evolution of insect/host plant relationships. Am Nat 124:609–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jermy T (1988) Can predation lead to narrow food specialization in phytophagous insects? Ecology 69:902–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klepzig KD, Smalley EB, Raffa KF (1996) Combined chemical defenses against an insect-fungal complex. J Chem Ecol 22:1367–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee JC, Smith SL, Seybold SJ (2005) Mediterranean pine engraver. USDA Forest Service Pest Alert R5-PR-016Google Scholar
  33. Lee JC, Haack RA, Negron JF, Witcosky JJ, Seybold SJ (2007) Invasive bark beetles. USDA Forest Service, Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 176Google Scholar
  34. Lee JC, Flint ML, Seybold SJ (2008) Suitability of pines and other conifers as hosts for the invasive Mediterranean pine engraver (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in North America. J Econ Entomol 101:829–837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mendel Z (1983) Seasonal history of Orthotomicus erosus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Israel. Phytoparasitica 11:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mendel Z (1988) Attraction of Orthotomicus erosus and Pityogenes calcaratus to a synthetic aggregation pheromone of Ips typographus. Phytoparasitica 16:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mendel Z, Halperin J (1982) The biology and behavior of Orthotomicus erosus in Israel. Phytoparasitica 10:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mendel Z, Madar Z, Golan Y (1985) Comparison of the seasonal occurence and behavior of seven pine bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Israel. Phytoparasitica 13:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moeck HA, Wood DL, Lindahl KQ Jr (1981) Host selection behavior of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) attacking Pinus ponderosa, with special emphasis on the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis. J Chem Ecol 7:49–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pureswaran DS, Borden JH (2003) Test of semiochemical mediated host specificity in four species of tree killing bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environ Entomol 32:963–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pureswaran DS, Borden JH (2005) Primary attraction and kairomonal host discrimination in three species of Dendroctonus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Agric For Entomol 7:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pureswaran DS, Gries R, Borden JH (2004) Quantitative variation in monoterpenes in four species of conifers. Biochem Syst Ecol 32:1109–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raffa KF (1988) Host orientation behavior of Dendroctonus ponderosae: integration of token stimuli host and defenses. In: Mattson WJ, Levieux J, Bernard-Dagan C (eds) Mechanisms of woody plant defenses against insects: search for pattern. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 369–390Google Scholar
  45. Raffa KF, Berryman AA (1982) Gustatory cues in the orientation of Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to host trees. Can Entomol 114:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raffa KF, Phillips TW, Salom SM (1993) Strategies and mechanisms of host colonization by bark beetles. In: Schowalter TD, Filip GM (eds) Beetle-pathogen interactions in conifer forests. Academic Press, London/San Diego, pp 103–128Google Scholar
  47. Rodman JE, Chew FS (1980) Phytochemical correlates of herbivory in a community of native and naturalized Cruciferae. Biochem Syst Ecol 8:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. SAS Institute Inc. (2004) SAS version 9.1. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  49. Sauvard D (2004) General biology of bark beetles. In: Lieutier F, Day KR, Battisti A, Gregoire JC, Evans HF (eds) Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe, a synthesis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 63–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scheirs J, De Bruyn L (2002) Integrating optimal foraging and optimal oviposition theory in plant-insect research. Oikos 96:187–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schroeder LM (1992) Olfactory recognition of nonhosts aspen and birch by conifer bark beetles Tomicus piniperda and Hylurgops palliatus. J Chem Ecol 18:1583–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seybold SJ, Huber DPW, Lee JC, Graves AD, Bohlmann J (2006) Pine monoterpenes and pine bark beetles: a marriage of convenience for defense and chemical communication. Phytochem Rev 5:143–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Straatman R (1962) Notes on certain Lepidoptera ovipositing on plants which are toxic to their larvae. J Lepid Soc 16:99–103Google Scholar
  54. Tallamy DW (2000) Physiological issues in host range expansion. In: Van Driesche R (ed) X international symposium on biological control of weeds, Bozeman, Montana, USA, July 4–14, 1999: Proceedings: host specificity testing of exotic arthropod biological control agents: the biological basis for improvement in safety, pp 11–26, USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise TeamGoogle Scholar
  55. Tobin PC, Whitmire SL (2005) Spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) and its relationship to defoliation. Environ Entomol 34:1448–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wallin KF, Raffa KF (2000) Influences of host chemicals and internal physiology on the multiple steps of postlanding host acceptance behaviour of Ips pini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environ Entomol 29:442–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wallin KF, Raffa KF (2002) Prior encounters modulate subsequent choices in host acceptance behaviour by the bark beetle Ips pini. Entomol Exp Appl 103:205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wallin KF, Raffa KF (2004) Feedback between individual host selection behavior and population dynamics in an eruptive herbivore. Ecol Monogr 74:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiklund C (1975) The evolutionary relationship between adult oviposition preferences and larval host plant range in Papilio machaon L. Oecologia 18:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wood DL (1963) Studies on host selection by Ips confusus (LeConte) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) with special reference to Hopkins’ host selection principle. Univ Calif Publ Entomol 27:241–282Google Scholar
  63. Wood SL, Bright DE (1992) A catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae, part 2, taxonomic index, volume A and B. Great Basin Nat Mem 13:1–833Google Scholar
  64. Worner SP (2002) Predicting the invasive potential of exotic insects. In: Hallman GJ, Schwalbe CP (eds) Invasive arthropods in agriculture: problems and solutions. Science Publishers, Inc., Enfield, pp 119–137Google Scholar
  65. Zhang QH, Byers JA, Schlyter F (1992) Optimal attack density in the larch bark beetle, Ips cembrae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J Anim Ecol 29:672–678Google Scholar
  66. Zhang QH, Tolasch T, Schlyter F, Francke W (2002) Enantiospecific antennal response of bark beetles to spiroacetal (E)-conophthorin. J Chem Ecol 28:1839–1852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© U.S. Government 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.USDA Forest ServiceSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations