Test von Monoterpenen als Zusatz zu Pheroprax® bzw. Chalcoprax® in Pheromonfallen zum Fang des Buchdruckers,Ips typographus L. bzw. des Kupferstechers,Pityogenes chalcographus L. (Col., Scolytidae)

  • H. Niemeyer
  • G. Watzek
Article

Abstract

Experiments on monoterpenes in combination with Pheroprax® and Chalcoprax® in pheromone traps for catching the bark beetlesIps typographus L. andPityogenes chalcographus L. (Col., Scolytidae)

It is highly evident that monoterpenes of the host tree serve as olfactory stimulants for “pioneer-beetles” colonizing first a tree before any bark-beetle-produced aggregation pheromones can lure those beetles to the host. The findings ofRedemann (1993) about a significant increase of spruce engraver catches by addition of both (−)-alpha-pinen and (+)-limonen simultaneously to pheroprax-baited bark beetle traps (PheropraxR being the aggregation pheromone ofIps typographus) induced us to conduct field experiments testing the same host volatiles in comparable bark beetle traps baited with either Pheroprax® or Chalcoprax® (aggregation pheromone ofPityogenes chalcographus). Despite we used methods considering the influence of place and time on the bark beetle flight activities, in 3 experiments with 30 repetitions in total no monoterpene-induced enhancement oftypographus-catches could be found; the same was true withP. chalcographus (2 experiments, 18 repetitions in total). With respect to the important role of host volatiles also from a practical point of view, it is strongly recommended to repeat experiments like these under different conditions to reveal the reasons of the different findings.

Literatur

  1. Austara, O.;Bakke, A.;Mitgaard, F., 1986: Response inIps typographus to logging waste odours and synthetic pheromones. J. Appl. Entom.101, 194–198.Google Scholar
  2. Bombosch, S., 1983: Einige Gedanken über die Grundlagen des Einsatzes von Fallen zur Überwachung und Bekämpfung des BuchdruckersIps typographus. J. Appl. Ent.96, 242–247.Google Scholar
  3. Bombosch, S., 1986: Zur Entwicklung der Borkenkäferbekämpfung. Allg. Forstz.41, 218–220.Google Scholar
  4. Führer, E.;Hausmann, B.;Wiener, L., 1991: Borkenkäferbefall und Terpenmuster der Fichtenrinde (Picea abies Karst.) an Fangbäumen. J. Appl. Entom.112, 113–129.Google Scholar
  5. Krawielitzki, S.;Vité, J. P.;Sturm, U.;Francke, W., 1983: Über die Rolle des Harzbalsams in der Besiedlung von Nadelbäumen durch rindenbrütende Käfer. J. Appl. Entom.96, 140–146.Google Scholar
  6. Niemeyer, H., 1985: Test und Effektivität von Borkenkäferfallen Forst- und Holzwirt40, 32–40.Google Scholar
  7. Reddemann, J. K. A., 1993: Monoterpenkohlenwasserstoffe in der Aggregation vonIps typographus L. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Diss. Forstwiss. Fak., München.Google Scholar
  8. Vité, J. P., 1965a: Die Wirkung pflanzen- und insekteneigener Lockstoffe aufPityophthorus undPityogenes (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Naturwiss.52, 167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Vité, J. P., 1965b: Ist die vorbeugende Begiftung von Fangbäumen zweckmäßig? Allg. Forstz.20, 438–440.Google Scholar
  10. Vité, J. P.;Francke, W., 1976: The aggregation pheromones of bark beetles: progress and problems. Naturwiss.63, 550–555.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Niemeyer
    • 1
  • G. Watzek
    • 1
  1. 1.Abt. WaldschutzNiedersächs. Forstliche VeruchsanstaltGöttingen

Personalised recommendations