Forestry Studies in China

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 224–228 | Cite as

Host selection behavior and incidence of the bark beetle Scolytus kashmirensis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) attacking elm (Ulmus spp.) trees in Kashmir

Research Article


The status of the incidence of the bark beetle Scolytus kashmirensis Schedl on elm (Ulmus spp.) trees was determined in four districts of the Kashmir Valley in 2009. The incidence of the borer was higher in the Anantnag (25.93%) and Shopian (22.35%) districts of the Kashmir Valley, followed by the Ganderbal (17.14%) and Baramulla (16.67%) districts. The overall infestation recorded in these districts was 20.52%. The beetle under study chewed the scars on twigs of both the host and tentative non-host plants supplied to them in cages but bored and laid eggs in only one of them (the host plant). Both species of elm, Ulmus wallichiana and U. villosa, were susceptible to borer attacks; however, U. villosa showed low susceptibility and high resistance compared to U. wallichiana. Older, taller elms were preferred for feeding by bark beetles and are therefore much more susceptible to its infestation compared to younger elms. This bark beetle species also preferred to oviposit in branches of the host plants with diameters of 9-12 mm.

Key words

bark beetle Ulmus spp. host selection incidence oviposition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atkins M D. 1966. Behavioral variation among scolytids in relation to their habitat. Can Entomol, 98: 285–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blight M M, Fielding N J, King C J, Ottridge A P, Wadhams L J, Wenham M J. 1983. Field response of the Dutch elm disease vectors, Scolytus multistriatus (Marsham) and S. scolytus (F.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to 4-methyl-3-heptanol baits containing α-, β-, γ-, or δ-multistriatin. J Chem Ecol, 9: 67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borden J H. 1989. Semiochemicals and bark beetle populations: Exploitation of natural phenomena by pest management strategists. Ecography, 12(4): 501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brasier C M, Mehrotra M D. 1995. Ophiostoma himal-ulmi sp. nov., a new species of Dutch elm disease fungus epidemic to the Himalayas. Mycol Res, 99: 205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brasier C M. 1991. Ophiostoma nova-ulmi sp. nov., causative agent of current Dutch elm disease pandemics. Mycopathologia, 115: 151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrière Y. 1998. Constraints on the evolution of host choice by phytophagous insects. Oikos, 82: 401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cates R G, Alexander H. 1982. Host resistance and susceptibility to bark beetles, Scolytidae. In: Mitton J B, Sturgeon K E, eds. Bark Beetles in North American Conifers. Austin: University of Texas Press, 212–263Google Scholar
  8. Chénier J V R, Philogéne B J R. 1989. Field responses of certain forest Coleoptera to conifer monoterpenes and ethanol. J Chem Ecol, 15: 1729–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Courtney S P, Hard J J. 1990. Host acceptance and life-history traits in Drosophila busckii: tests of the hierarchy-threshold model. Heredity, 64: 371–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drumont A, Gonzaléz R, De Windt N, Gregoire J C, De Proft M, Seutin E. 2009. Semiochemicals and the integrated management of Ips typographus (L.) (Col., Scolytidae) in Belgium. J Appl Entomol, 114(1–5): 333–337Google Scholar
  11. Fitt G P. 1986. The influence of a shortage of hosts on the specificity of oviposition behavior in species of Dacus (Diptera, Tephritidae). Physiol Entomol, 11: 133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fransen J J. 1939. The tastiness of different elm species for the elm bark beetle. Rapport 359. Rijksinstituut De Dorschkamp, 1–51Google Scholar
  13. Futuyma D J. 1983. Selective factors in the evolution of host choice by phytophagous insects. In: Ahman S, ed. Herbivorous Insects: Host Seeking Behavior and Mechanisms. New York: Academic Press, 227–244Google Scholar
  14. Gibbs J N, Brasier C M. 1973. Correlation between cultural characteristics and pathogenicity in Ceratocystis ulmi from Britain, Europe and North America. Nature, 241: 381–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grune S. 1979. Brief Illustrated Key to European Bark Beetles. Hannover: Verlag M. & H. SchaperGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison G D. 1987. Host-plant discrimination and evolution of feeding preference in the Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata. Physiol Entomol, 12: 407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heybroek H M. 1963. Diseases and lopping for fodder as possible causes of a prehistoric decline of Ulmus. Acta Bot Neerl, 12(1): 1–11Google Scholar
  18. Hynum B G, Berryman A A. 1980. Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): Pre-aggregation landing and gallery initia tion on lodgepole pine. Can Entomol, 112: 185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaenike J, Holt R D. 1991. Genetic variation for habitat preference: evidence and explanations. Am Nat, 137: 67–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jaenike J. 1990. Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 21: 243–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lekander B, Bejer-Petersen B, Kangas E, Bakke A. 1977. The distribution of bark beetles in the Nordic countries. Acta Entomol Fenn, 32: 1–37Google Scholar
  22. Maslov A D. 1970. Insects Harmful to Elm Species and Their Control. Moscow, Russia: Forest Industries PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  23. Mendel Z, Boneh O, Riov J. 1992. Some foundations for the application of aggregation pheromone to control pine bark beetles in Israel. J Appl Entomol, 114(1–5): 217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moeck H A, Wood D L, Lindahl K Q 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
  25. Nebeker T E, Hodges J D, Blanche C A. 1993. Host response to bark beetle and pathogen colonization. In: Schowalter T D, Filip G M, eds. Beetle-pathogen Interactions in Conifer Forests. New York: Academic Press, 157–178Google Scholar
  26. Raffa K F, Smalley E B. 1995. Interactions of pre-attack and induced monoterpene concentrations in host conifer defense against bark beetle-fungal complexes. Oecologia, 102: 285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rausher M D. 1983. Conditioning and genetic variation as causes of individual variation in the oviposition behavior of the tortoise beetle, Deloyala guttata. Anim Behav, 31: 743–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodríguez E, Campos M, Raya A J S, Peña A. 2003. Effect of the combined treatment of insecticides and an attractant for the control of Phloeotribus scarabaeoides, a pest of Olea europea. J Pest Manage Sci, 59(3): 339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rudinsky J A. 1962. Ecology of Scolytidae. Annu Rev Entomol, 7: 327–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sacchetti P, Tiberi R, Mittempergher L. 1990. Preference of Scolytus multistriatus (Marsham) during the gonad maturation phase between two species of elm. Redia, 73: 347–354 (in Italian with English abstract)Google Scholar
  31. Safranyik L, Shrimpton D M, Whitney H S. 1975. An interpretation of the interaction between lodgepole pine, the mountain pine beetle and its associated blue stain fungi in western Canada. In: Baumgartner D M, ed. Management of Lodgepole Pine Ecosystems. Pullman: Washington State University Press, 406–428Google Scholar
  32. Sahota T S, Peet F G, Ibaraki A. 1987. Manipulations of egg-gallery length to vary brood density in spruce beetle Dendroctonus rufipennis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): effects on brood survival and quality. J Entomol Soc BC, 84: 59–63Google Scholar
  33. Santamour F S Jr. 1979. Resistance of Himalayan small-leaved elm to Dutch elm disease. J Arbor, 5(5): 110–112Google Scholar
  34. Schedl K E. 1957. Indian bark and timber beetles I. Indian Forest Rec Entomol, 9: 165–169Google Scholar
  35. Sengonca C, Leisse N. 1984. Significance of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in the spread of the Dutch elm disease in the area of Euskirchen. Z Angew Entomol, 98: 413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sinclair W A, Lyon H H, Johnson W T. 1987. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
  37. Singer M C, Parmesan C. 1993. Sources of variations in patterns of plant-insect association. Nature, 361: 251–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Svihra P. 1982. The behavior of Scolytus multistriatus in California. Proceedings of the Dutch Elm Disease Workshop. Winnipeg, Manitoba, 395–405Google Scholar
  39. Thompson J N, Wehling W, Podolsky R. 1990. Evolutionary genetics of host use in swallowtail butterflies. Nature, 344: 148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Via S. 1991. The genetic structure of host plant adaptation in a spatial patchwork: demographic variability among reciprocally transplanted pea aphid clones. Evolution, 45: 827–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vité J P, Baadar E. 1990. Present and future use of semiochemicals in pest management of bark beetles. J Chem Ecol, 16(11): 3031–3041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walter A J, Kells S A, Venette R C, Seybold S J. 2010. Boring in response to bark and phloem extracts from North American trees does not explain host acceptance behavior of Orthotomicus erosus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environ Entomol, 39(2): 661–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Webber J F, Kirby S G. 1983. Host feeding preference by Scolytus scolytus. Research on Dutch elm disease in Europe. Forestry Commission Bulletin 60, 47–49Google Scholar
  44. Webber J F. 1990. Relative effectiveness of Scolytus scolytus, S. multistriatus and S. kirschi as vectors of Dutch elm disease. Eur J Forest Pathol, 20: 184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webber J F. 2004. Experimental studies on factors influencing the transmission of Dutch elm disease. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur Forest, 13(1): 197–206Google Scholar
  46. Wood D L. 1982. The role of pheromones, kairomones, and allomones in the host selection and colonization behavior of bark beetles. Ann Rev Entomol, 27: 411–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Beijing Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.P. G. Department of ZoologyUniversity of KashmirHazratbalIndia

Personalised recommendations