Journal of Chemical Ecology

, 20:3307 | Cite as

Ethanol and ambrosia beetles in Douglas fir logs with and without branches

  • Rick G. Kelsey
Article

Abstract

November-felled Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) logs with and without branches were left lying on the forest floor through August. In May, as the logs were being colonized by ambrosia beetles,Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) andGnathotrichus retusus (LeConte), the ethanol, acetaldehyde, and water concentrations in the delimbed logs were significantly higher than in the branched logs. Since both log types received the same rainfall, lower water contents in branched logs was probably the result of absorbed water being transported through the branches via capillary movement and evaporation. Lower tissue water levels could have prevented the establishment and maintenance of anaerobic conditions, thus limiting the synthesis of acetaldehyde and ethanol in the branched logs. By late August, the beetle densities in delimbed logs were 9–16 times greater than in the branched logs. Log ethanol concentrations could be a key chemical factor affecting the ambrosia beetle attack densities. Acetaldehyde concentrations in the logs also may have affected the attack densities.

Key Words

Pseudotsuga menziesii Trypodendron lineatum Gnathotrichus retusus Coleoptera Scolytidae anaerobic respiration volatile attractants host selection 

References

  1. Borden, J.H., Lindgren, B.S., andChong, L. 1980. Ethanol andα-pinene as synergists for the aggregation pheromones of twoGnathotrichus species.Can. J. For. Res. 10:290–292.Google Scholar
  2. Cade, S.C. 1970. The host selection behavior ofGnathotrichus sulcatus LeConte. PhD dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  3. Cade, S.C., Hrutfiord, B.F., andGara, R.I. 1970. Identification of a primary attractant forGnathotrichus sulcatus isolated from western hemlock logs.J. Econ. Entomol. 63:1014–1015.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, S.E., Harmon, M.E., Ingham, E.R., Kelsey, R.G., Lattin, J.D., andSchowalter, T.D. 1988. Early patterns of heterotroph activity in conifer logs.Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. 94B:33–43.Google Scholar
  5. Chapman, J.A. 1961. A note on felling date in relation to log attack by the ambrosia beetleTrypodendron.Can. Dep. For. Bi-Mon. Prog. Rep. 17:3–4.Google Scholar
  6. Crawford, R.M.M. andBaines, M.A. 1977. Tolerance of anoxia and the metabolism of ethanol in tree roots.New Phytol. 79:519–526.Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, R.M.M., andFinegan, D.M. 1989. Removal of ethanol from lodgepole pine roots.Tree Physiol. 5:53–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, D.D. 1980. Anaerobic metabolism and the production of organic acids, pp. 581–611,in D.D. Davies (ed.). The Biochemistry of Plants, Vol. 2, Metabolism and Respiration. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Dowding, P. 1984. The evolution of insect-fungus relationships in the primary invasion of forest timber, pp. 135–153,in J.M. Anderson, A.D.M. Rayner, and D.W.H. Walton (eds.). Invertebrate Microbial Interactions. British Mycological Society Symposium 6. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Dyer, E.D.A. 1963. Distribution ofTrypodendron attacks around the circumference of logs.Can. Dep. For. Bi-Mon. Prog. Rep. 19:3–4.Google Scholar
  11. Dyer, E.D.A., andChapman, J.A. 1965. Flight and attack of the ambrosia beetle,Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) in relation to felling date of logs.Can. Entomol. 97:42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham, K. 1968. Anaerobic induction of primary chemical attractancy for ambrosia beetles.Can. J. Zool. 46:905–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harry, D.E., andKimmerer, T.W. 1991. Molecular genetics and physiology of alcohol dehydrogenase in woody plants.For. Ecol. Manage. 43:251–272.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, N.E. 1958. Ambrosia beetle infestation of coniferous logs on clearcuttings in northwestern Oregon.J. For. 56:508–511.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, N.E. 1961. Ambrosia beetle attacks in young-growth western hemlock.Can. Dep. For. Bi-Mon. Prog. Rep. 17:3.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, N.E. 1964. Effects of different drying rates and two insecticides on beetle attacks in felled Douglas fir and western hemlock. Weyerhaeuser Company Forestry Research Note 58. Weyerhaeuser Company Forestry Research Center, Centralia, Washington.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, N.E. andZingg, J.G. 1969. Transpirational drying of Douglas-fir: Effect on log moisture content and insect attack.J. For. 67:816–819.Google Scholar
  18. Kelsey, R.G. 1994. Ethanol synthesis in Douglas-fir logs felled in November, January, and March and its relationship to ambrosia beetle attack.Can. J. For. Res. 24:In press.Google Scholar
  19. Kimmerer, T.W. andMacDonald, R.C. 1987. Acetaldehyde and ethanol biosynthesis in leaves of plants.Plant Physiol. 84:1204–1209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kimmerer, T.W., andStringer, M.A. 1988. Alcohol dehydrogenase and ethanol in the stems of trees.Plant Physiol. 87:693–697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kinghorn, J.M. 1957. Two practical methods of identifying types of ambrosia beetle damage.J. Econ. Entomol. 50:213.Google Scholar
  22. Klimetzek, D., Köhler, J., Vité, J.P., andKohnle, U. 1986. Dosage response to ethanol mediates host selection by “secondary” bark beetles.Naturwissenschaften 73:270–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolb, B. 1982. Multiple headspace extraction-A procedure for eliminating the influence of the sample matrix in quantitative headspace gas chromatography.Chromatographia 15:587–594.Google Scholar
  24. Kolb, B., Pospisil, P., andAuer, M. 1984. Quantitative headspace analysis of solid samples; a classification of various sample types.Chromatographia 19:113–122.Google Scholar
  25. Lindelöw, Å., Risberg, B., andSjödin, K. 1992. Attraction during flight of scolytids and other bark- and wood-dwelling beetles to volatiles from fresh and stored spruce wood.Can. J. For. Res. 22:224–228.Google Scholar
  26. Lindgren, B.S., Borden, J.H., Gray, D.R., Lee, P.C., Palmer, D.A., andChong, L. 1982. Evaluation of two trap log techniques for ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in timber processing areas.J. Econ. Entomol. 75:577–586.Google Scholar
  27. Liu, Y.-B., andMcLean, J.A. 1989. Field evaluation of responses ofGnathotrichus sulcatus andG. retusus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to semiochemicals.J. Econ. Entomol. 82:1687–1690.Google Scholar
  28. MacDonald, R.C., andKimmerer, T.W. 1991. Ethanol in the stems of trees.Physiol. Plant. 82:582–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLean, J.A., andBorden, J.H. 1977. Attack byGnathotrichus sulcatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) on stumps and felled trees baited with sulcatol and ethanol.Can. Entomol. 109:675–686.Google Scholar
  30. Moeck, H.A. 1970. Ethanol as the primary attractant for the ambrosia beetleTrypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).Can. Entomol. 102:985–995.Google Scholar
  31. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., andKutner, M.H. 1989. Applied Linear Regression Models, 2nd ed. Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois.Google Scholar
  32. Nijholt, W.W., andShönherr, J. 1976. Chemical response behavior of scolytids in west Germany and western Canada.Environ. Canada For. Serv. Bi-Mon. Res. Notes 32:31–32.Google Scholar
  33. Prebble, M.L., andGraham, K. 1957. Studies of attack by ambrosia beetles in softwood logs on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.For. Sci. 3:90–112.Google Scholar
  34. Roberts, J.K.M., Callis, J., Wemmer, D., Walbot, V., andJardetzky, O. 1984. Mechanism of cytoplasmic pH regulation in hypoxic maize root tips and its role in survival under hypoxia.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 81:3379–3383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Salom, S.M., andMcLean, J.A. 1990. Flight and landing behavior ofTrypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in response to different semiochemicals.J. Chem. Ecol. 16:2589–2604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SASInstitute Inc. 1988. SAS/STAT user's guide. Release 6.03 Ed. Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  37. Schroeder, L.M., andLindelöw, Å. 1989. Attraction of scolytids and associated beetles by different absolute amounts and proportions of α-pinene and ethanol.J. Chem. Ecol. 15:807–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schowalter, T.D., Caldwell, B.A., Carpenter, S.E., Griffiths, R.P., Harmon, M.E., Ingham, E.R., Kelsey, R.G., Lattin, J.D., andMoldenke, A.R. 1992. Decomposition of fallen trees: Effects of initial conditions and heterotroph colonization rates, pp. 371–381,in K.P. Singh and J.S. Singh (eds.). Tropical Ecosystems: Ecology and Management. Wiley Eastern, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  39. Shore, T.L., andMcLean, J.A. 1983. A further evaluation of the interactions between the pheromones and two host kairomones of the ambrosia beetleTrypodendron lineatum andGnathotrichus sulcatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).Can. Entomol. 115:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vité, J.P., andBakke, A. 1979. Synergism between chemical and physical stimuli in host colonization by an ambrosia beetle.Naturwissenschaften 66:528–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhong, H., andSchowalter, T.D. 1989. Conifer bole utilization by wood-boring beetles in western Oregon.Can. J. For. Res. 19:943–947.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rick G. Kelsey
    • 1
  1. 1.USDA Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research StationCorvallis

Personalised recommendations