Advertisement

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 205–211 | Cite as

Hybrid aspen is not preferred by the large poplar borer (Saperda carcharias)

  • Sanna VälimäkiEmail author
  • Kari Heliövaara
Original Paper

Abstract

An industrially valuable tree, aspen, suffers from several fungal diseases and insect pests such as the large poplar borer (Saperda carcharias). The role of the beetle as a pest of aspen and hybrid aspen was investigated in five aspen and three hybrid aspen stands in Finland. Approximately 50% of the trees in the study had signs of the large poplar borer. Of these trees, 5% had insect exit holes. Approximately 70% of the trees with larval galleries had only one or two larval galleries. The trees with larval galleries were on average 2 m shorter than those without larval galleries. No significant difference could be detected in the diameter growth between these two groups. The proportion of decay was greater in hybrid aspen (27%) than in aspen (14%). These results show that the large poplar borer is an important pest of both aspen and hybrid aspen in Finland. No significant difference was observed between the aspen and hybrid aspen stands in the number of trees with larval galleries. Hybrid aspen therefore does not appear to be more sensitive to damage caused by the large poplar borer. Thus, a change from hybrid aspen to regular aspen in aspen cultivation is unnecessary, presuming that healthy saplings and an optimal rotation time are used.

Keywords

Decay Hybrid aspen Wood-boring insects Coleoptera Cerambycidae Saperda carcharias 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Pertti Pulkkinen, Hiski Aro, Raimo Jaatinen, Hannu Kylökäs, Michael Goncalves, Nicolas Alary and Jarkko Jokinen from The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Riika Kilpikari from University of Helsinki, Kyllikki Ihatsu and Jaana Ihatsu for their contributions.

References

  1. Blumenthal BE (1942) Studier angående aspens förekomst och egenskaper i Finland. (Referat: Untersuchungen über das Vorkommen und die Eigenschaften der Espe in Finnland). Silva Fenn 56:1–63Google Scholar
  2. Christersson L (2006) Biomass production of intensively grown poplars in the southernmost part of Sweden: observations of characters, traits and growth potential. Biomass Bioenerg 30:497–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cramer HH (1954) Untersuchungen über den Grossen Pappelbock Saperda carcharias L. Z Angew Entomol 35:425–458Google Scholar
  4. Dalin P, Björkman C (2006) Native insects colonizing introduced tree species—patterns and potential risks. In: Paine TD (ed) Invasive forest insects, introduced forest trees, and altered ecosystems. Springer, Berlin, p 189Google Scholar
  5. Ehnström B (2007) Saperda carcharias, p. 263. Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges flora och fauna. Skalbaggar: Långhorningar. Coleoptera: Cerambycidae. ArtDatabanken, SLU, Uppsala, p 302Google Scholar
  6. Evans H, Moraal L, Pajares J (2004) Biology, ecology and economic importance of Buprestidae and Cerambycidae. In: Lieutier F, Day K, Battisti A, Grégoire J, Evans H (eds) Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe, a synthesis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p 569Google Scholar
  7. Fritz RS, Moulia C, Newcombe G (1999) Resistance of hybrid plants and animals to herbivores, pathogens, and parasites. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:565–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hagman M (1951) Haavan kasvattaminen siemenestä. Metsätietoa 3:14–20Google Scholar
  9. Hagman M (1997) Kokemuksia hybridihaavasta. (Summary: Experience with hybrid aspen). Sorbifolia 28:51–59Google Scholar
  10. Hallaksela A (1999) Lahoisuus haavikossa. In: Hynynen J, Viherä-Aarnio (eds) Haapa-monimuotoisuutta metsään ja metsätalouteen, vol 725. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonsntoja, pp 49–55Google Scholar
  11. Heliövaara K, Mannerkoski I, Siitonen J (2004) Suomen sarvijäärät. Longhorn beetles of Finland (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Tremex Press, Helsinki, p 374Google Scholar
  12. Holm S (2004) Haavan viljely Suomessa ja Virossa. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 1/2004:117–118Google Scholar
  13. Kalischuk AR, Gom LA, Floate KD, Rood SB (1997) Intersectional cottonwood hybrids are particularly susceptible to the poplar bud gall mite. Can J Bot 75:1349–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kallio T (1972) Erään 10-vuotiaan hybridihaapametsikön lahovikaisuus. (Summary: Decay in a ten-year old stand of hybrid aspen). Silva Fenn 6:1–13Google Scholar
  15. Kangas Y (1942) Forstentomologische Studien an der Espe. Ann Entomol Fenn 8:49–71Google Scholar
  16. Karlsson K, Holm S (2002) Industrial aspen plantations in Finland. In: Pulkkinen P, Tigerstedt P, Viirros R (eds) Aspen in papermaking. University of Helsinki, Department of Applied Biology, 5Google Scholar
  17. Kemner NA (1922) Zur Kenntnis der Entwicklungsstadien und Lebensweise der Schwedischen Cerambyciden. Entomologisk Tidskrift 43:80–138Google Scholar
  18. Kerrigan J, Rogers JD (2003) Microfungi associated with the wood-boring beetles Saperda calcarata (poplar borer) and Cryptorhynchus lapathi (poplar and willow borer). Mycotaxon 86:1–18Google Scholar
  19. Löyttyniemi K (1972) Hybridihaavikoiden hyönteistuhoista. (Summary: Insect damages in hybrid aspen stands). Silva Fenn 6:187–192Google Scholar
  20. Mattson W, Lawrence R, Haack R, Herms D, Charles P (1988) Defensive strategies of woody plants against different insect-feeding guilds in relation to plant ecological strategies and intimacy of association with insects. In: Mattson W, Levieux J, Bernard-Dagan J (eds) Mechanism of woody plant defenses against insects, search for pattern. Springer, Berlin, p 416Google Scholar
  21. Moore LM, Wilson LF (1986) Impact of the poplar-gall saperda, Saperda inornata (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on a hybrid Populus plantation in Michigan. Great Lakes Entomol 19:163–167Google Scholar
  22. Palm T (1959) Die Holz- und Rinden-Käfer der süd- und mittelschwedischen Laubbäume. Opuscula Entomol 15–16:334–335Google Scholar
  23. Ritchie W (1921) The structure, bionomics, and economic importance of Saperda carcharias L., the large poplar longhorn. Rev Appl Entomol A IX:171–172Google Scholar
  24. Saalas U (1949) Suomen metsähyönteiset. WSOY, Helsinki, p 719Google Scholar
  25. Schneiderowa J (1961) Znaczenie gospodarcze i zwalczanie rzemlika topolowca (Saperda carcharias L.—Cerambycidae, Coleoptera). (Résume: Importance économique du problème de la grande Saperde (Saperda carcharias L.—Cerambycidae, Coleoptera) et la lutte contre ce ravageur). Prace IBL 234:3–98Google Scholar
  26. Šrot M (1962) Přispěvek k poznani bionomie kozlička topolového (Saperda carcharias L.). (Summary: Bionomics of poplar borer (Saperda carcharias L.)). Reports of the Forest Research Institutes of Czechoslovakia 25:85–114Google Scholar
  27. Tichý V (1963) Vliv ptactwa na sniženi populace kozlička topolového (Saperda carcharias L.). (Summary: The influence of birds on the reduction of large poplar longhorn beetle (Saperda carcharias L.) population). Reports of the Forest Research Institutes of Czechoslovakia 26:49–84Google Scholar
  28. Tikka PS (1955) Haapametsiköiden rakenteesta ja laadusta. II Laatu. (Summary: Structure and quality of aspen stands. II Quality). Commun Inst For Fenn 45:1–54Google Scholar
  29. Trägårdh I (1939) Sveriges skogsinsekter. Hugo Gebers Förlag, Stockholm, p 508Google Scholar
  30. Vadla K (1987) Skurtømmerandel, -dimensjon og -kvalitet hos ospevirke. (Summary: Portion of saw timber, dimension and quality in aspen timber.) Norsk institutt for skogforskning. Rapport 11/87, 37pGoogle Scholar
  31. Wall RE (1971) Variation in decay in aspen stands as affected by their clonal growth pattern. Can J For Res 1:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest EcologyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations