Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 199–210 | Cite as

Some aspects of oviposition site selection inMonochamus notatus andM. scutellatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)

  • L. J. Dyer
  • W. D. Seabrook
Article

Abstract

The composition of monoterpene hydrocarbons and water content of freshly felled white pine logs (unattractive toMonochamus for oviposition) was compared to that of the same logs after aging long enough to become attractive toMonochamus. No significant differences were found. Variations between trees was the greatest source of variance in the data. If monoterpenes are used in host selection they are probably used to locate the host species and not to identify logs suitable for oviposition.

Key words

Host selection Monochamus terpenes oviposition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernard-Dagan, C., Fillon, C., Pauly, G., Baradat, Ph., andIlly, G. 1971. Les terpenes du pin maritime: Aspects biologiques et genetiques: I. Variabilité de la composition monoterpenique dans un individu, entre individus et entre provenances.Ann. Sci. For. 28:223–258.Google Scholar
  2. Borden, J.H.,Vander Sar, T.J., andStokkink, E. 1975. Secondary attraction in the Scolytidae: An annotated bibliography. Simon Fraser Univ. Pest Management Papers, No. 4, 97 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Chapman, J.A. 1963. Field selection of different log odors by Scolytid beetles.Can. Entomol. 95:673–676.Google Scholar
  4. Clemens, W.A. 1916. The pine bark beetle (Ips pini, Say). Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 383:293–297.Google Scholar
  5. Drew, J., andPylant, G.D., Jr. 1966. Turpentine from the pulpwoods of the United States and Canada.Tappi 49(10):430–438.Google Scholar
  6. Graham, S.A. 1925. The felled tree trunk as an ecological unit.Ecology 6:397–411.Google Scholar
  7. Heikkenen, H.K., andHrutfiord, B.F. 1965.Dendroctonus pseudotsugae: A hypothesis regarding its primary attractant.Science 150:1457–1459.Google Scholar
  8. Mirov, N.T. 1946. Pinus: A contribution of turpentine chemistry to dendrology and forest genetics.J. For. 44:13–16.Google Scholar
  9. Mirov, N.T. 1961. Composition of gum turpentines of pines. Tech. Bull. 1239, USDA. 158 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Moeck, H.A. 1970. Ethanol as the primary attractant for the amobrosia beetleTrypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)Can.Entomol. 102:985–995.Google Scholar
  11. Morgan, C.V.G. 1948. The biology ofMonochamus notatus Morgani (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).Entomol. Soc. B.C. 44:28–30.Google Scholar
  12. Nijholt, W.W., andSchonherr, J. 1976. Chemical response behaviour of Scolytids in West Germany and western Canada. Bi-Mon. Res. Notes 32(6):31–32.Google Scholar
  13. Oudin, A. 1958. L'individualite chimique chez le pin maritime (Pinus pinaster).C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 244:2854–2855.Google Scholar
  14. Perttunen, V. 1957. Reactions of two bark beetle species,Hylurgops palliatus Byll. andHylaster ater Payk. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to the terpene a-pinene.Ann. Entomol. Fenn. 23:101–110.Google Scholar
  15. Perttunen, V., Oksanen, H., andKangas, E. 1970. Aspects of the external and internal factors affecting the olfactor orientation ofBlastophagus piniperda (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 24:293–298.Google Scholar
  16. Raske, A.G. 1972. Biology and control ofMonochamus andTetropium, the economic wood borers of Alberta. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Int. Rep. NOR-9, For. Res. Lab. Edmonton, Alberta, (unpublished, cited with permission).Google Scholar
  17. Renwick, J.A.A., andVité, J.P. 1970. Systems of chemical communication inDendroctonus.Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 24:283–292.Google Scholar
  18. Rudinsky, J.A. 1966. Scolytid beetles associated with Douglas fir: Response to terpenes.Science 152:218–219.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, R.H. 1964a. Perennial constancy of the monoterpene systhesis in the wood oleoresin ofPinus ponderosa.Nature 202:107–108.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, R.H. 1964b. Variations in the monoterpenes ofPinus ponderosa Laws.Science 143:1337–1338.Google Scholar
  21. Sumimoto, M., Suzuki, T., Shiraga, M., andKondo, T. 1975. Further attractants for the scolytid beetleTaenoglyptes fulvus.J. Insect Physiol. 21:1803–1806.Google Scholar
  22. Tobolski, S.S. 1968. Variations in monoterpenes in scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  23. Vité, J.P. 1961. The influence of water supply on oleoresin exudation pressure and resistance to bark beetle attack inPinus ponderosa.Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 21:37–66.Google Scholar
  24. Werner, R.A. 1972. Aggregation behaviour of the beetleIps grandicollis in response to host-produced attractants.J. Insect. Physiol. 18:423–437.Google Scholar
  25. Wilson, L.F. 1961. Attraction of wood-boring insects to freshly cut pulpsticks. USDA For. Serv., Lake States For. Exp. Sta. Tech. Note No. 610, 2 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. J. Dyer
    • 1
  • W. D. Seabrook
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Division of PhysiologyUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations