Advertisement

Research on Parasitoids and Predators of Scolytidae – A Review

  • M. Kenis
  • B. Wermelinger
  • J.-C. Grégoire

Keywords

Natural Enemy Bark Beetle Pheromone Trap Ical Control Spruce Bark Beetle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achterberg, C. van, & Quicke, D. 2000. The palaeotropicalspecies of the tribe Cosmophorini Capek (Hymenoptera: Braconidae:Euphorinae) with descriptions of twenty-two new species. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden, 74, 283-338.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, A.J.W. 1975. Aulonium trisulcum Fourc. (Col., Colydiidae) in Gloucestershire. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 111, 39.Google Scholar
  3. Amman, G.D. 1984. Mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)mortality in three types of infestations. EnvironmentalEntomology, 13, 184-91.Google Scholar
  4. Aukema, B.H., Dahlsten, D.L., & Raffa, K.F. 2000. Exploitingbehavioral disparities among predators and prey to selectivelyremove pests: maximizing the ratio of bark beetles to predatorsremoved during semiochemically based trap-out. EnvironmentalEntomology, 29, 651-60.Google Scholar
  5. Baier, P. 1991. Zur Biologie des Borkenkäferräubers Nemosoma elongatum (L.) (Col.: Ostomidae). Zeitschrift fürAngewandte Zoologie, 78, 421-31.Google Scholar
  6. Baier, P. 1994. Untersuchungen zur abundanzdynamischen Relevanzder Beifänge von Nemosoma elongatum(L.) (Col., Ostomidae) in Chalcoprax® beködertenFlugbarrierefallen für Pityogenes chalcographus(L.)(Col., Scolytidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 117, 51-57.Google Scholar
  7. Baisier, M. 1990. Biologie des stades immatures du prédateurb Rhizophagus grandis Gyll. (Coleoptera: Rhizophagidae).Doctoral dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  8. Baisier, M., Deneubourg, J.-L., & Grégoire, J.-C. 1984.Death due to interaction between Rhizophagus grandislarvae.A theoretical and experimental evaluation. In. BiologicalControl of Bark Beetles(Dendroctonus micans.), J.-C.Grégoire, J.M. Pasteels (Eds.)., Proceedings of the EECSeminar, Brussels, 3-4/10/1984.Google Scholar
  9. Bakke, A., & Kvamme, T. 1978. Kairomone response by thepredators Thanasimus formicarius and Thanasimus rufipesto the synthetic pheromone of Ips typographus. Norwegian Journal of Entomology, 25, 41-43.Google Scholar
  10. Bakke, A., & Kvamme, T. 1981. Kairomone response in Thanasimus predators to pheromone components of Ipstypographus. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 7, 305-12.Google Scholar
  11. Balazy, S., & Michalski, J. 1962. Die parasitischenHymenopteren der Borkenkäfer (Coleoptera Scolytidae) in Polen.Prace Komisji Nauk Rolniczych i Lesynch, Poznan, 13, 71-141.Google Scholar
  12. Balazy, S., Michalski, J., & Katajczak, E. 1987. Contributionto the knowledge of natural enemies of Ips acuminatus Gyll.(Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 57, 735-45.Google Scholar
  13. Ball, J.C., & Dahlsten, D.L. 1973. Hymenopterous parasites of Ips paraconfusus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) larvae and their contribution to mortality I. Influence of host tree and tree diameter on parasitization. Canadian Entomologist, 105, 1453-64.Google Scholar
  14. Beaver, R.A. 1966a. The biology and immature stages of Entedon leucogramma(Ratzeburg) (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), a parasite of bark beetles. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London (A), 41, 37-41.Google Scholar
  15. Beaver, R.A. 1966b. The development and expression of population tables for the bark beetle Scolytus scolytus (F.). Journal of Animal Ecology, 35, 27-41.Google Scholar
  16. Beaver, R.A. 1966c. The biology and immature stages of two species of Medetera (Diptera: Dolichopodidae) associated with the bark beetle Scolytus scolytus (F.). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London (A), 41, 145-54.Google Scholar
  17. Beaver R.A. 1967a. Hymenoptera associated with elm bark beetles in Wytham Wood, Berks. Transactions of the British Entomological Society, 17, 141-50.Google Scholar
  18. Beaver, R.A. 1967b. The regulation of population density in the bark beetle Scolytus scolytus(F.) Journal of Animal Ecology, 36, 435-51.Google Scholar
  19. Beaver, R.A. 1967c. Notes on the biology of the parasitic mite Pyemotes scolytiOud. (Acari: Pyemotidae). Entomologist, 100, 9-12.Google Scholar
  20. Bergmiller, F. 1903. Dendroctonus micansund Rhizophagus grandis. Zentralblatt für das gesamte Forstwesen, 29, 252-56.Google Scholar
  21. Berryman, A.A. 1976. Theoretical explanation of mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. Environmental Entomology, 5, 1225-33.Google Scholar
  22. Bevan, D., & King, C. J. 1983. Dendroctonus micans Kug., a new pest of spruce in U.K. Commonwealth Forestry Review 62 (1), 41-51.Google Scholar
  23. Billings, R.F., & Cameron, R.S. 1984. Kairomonal responses of Coleoptera, Monochamus titillator(Cerambycidae), Thanasimus dubius (Cleridae), and Temnochila virescens (Trogositidae), to behavioral chemicals of southern pine bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environmental Entomology, 13, 1542-48.Google Scholar
  24. Bombosch, S. 1954. Zur Epidemiologie des Buchdruckers (Ips typographus L.). In. Die Grosse Borkenkäferkalamität in Sudwestdeutschland 1944-1951.G. Wellenstein (Ed.). Ringingen, Germany: Forstschutzstelle Sudwest.Google Scholar
  25. Byers, J. A. 1992. Attraction of Bark Beetles, Tomicus piniperda Hylurgops palliatus, and Trypodendron domesticum and Other Insects to Short-Chain Alcohols and Monoterpenes. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 18, 2385-402.Google Scholar
  26. Campos, M., & Gonzàlez, R. 1990. Influence of breeding conditions on longevity and fecundity of Rhaphitelus maculatus (Hym.: Pteromalidae) reared under standard laboratory conditions. Entomophaga, 35, 411-20.Google Scholar
  27. Campos, M., & Gonzàlez, R. 1991. Effect of parent density on fecundity of two parasitoids (Hym., Pteromalidae) of the olive beetle, Phloeotribus scarabaeoides(Col., Scolytidae). Entomophaga, 36, 473-80.Google Scholar
  28. Campos, M., & Lozano, C. 1994. Observations on the reproductive biology of two parasites of Hylesinus variusand Phloeotribus scarabaeoides (Col.: Scolytidae): Cheiropachus quadrum(Hym.: Pteromalidae) and Dendrosoter protuberans(Hym: Braconidae). Entomophaga, 39, 51-59.Google Scholar
  29. Capek, M., & Capecki, Z. 1979. A new genus and a new species of Euphorinae (Braconidae, Hymenoptera) from Southern Poland. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 49, 215-221 (in Polish).Google Scholar
  30. Capek, M. 1957. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Entomophagen von Pityokteines vorontzovi Jac. und anderen Tannenborkenkäfern. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 41, 277-84.Google Scholar
  31. Chandler, P.J. 1991. Attraction of Palloptera ustaMeigen (Diptera: Pallopteridae) to recently cut conifer wood and other notes on Pallopteridae. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 4, 85-86.Google Scholar
  32. Clausen, C.P. (Ed.) 1978. Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: A world review. Agricultural Handbook No. 480. USDA Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar
  33. Dennis, D.S. 1979. Ethology of Holcocephala fuscain Virginia (Diptera: Asilidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 81, 366-78.Google Scholar
  34. Dippel, C. 1995. Zur Bionomie des Borkenkäferantagonisten Nemosoma elongatumL. (Col., Ostomidae). Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Allgemeine und Angewandte Entomologie, 10, 67-70.Google Scholar
  35. Dippel, C. 1996. Investigations on the life history of Nemosoma elongatumL. (Col., Ostomidae), a bark beetle predator. Journal of Applied Entomology, 120, 391-95.Google Scholar
  36. Dippel, C., Heidger, C., Nicolai, V., & Simon, M. 1997. The influence of four different predators on bark beetles in European forest ecosystems (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Entomologia Generalis, 21, 161-75.Google Scholar
  37. Doberski, J.W. 1980. Mite populations on elm logs infested by European elm bark beetles. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 89, 13-22.Google Scholar
  38. Eichhorn, O.. & Graf, P. 1974. Über einige Nutzholzborkenkäfer und ihre Feinde. Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz, 47, 129-35.Google Scholar
  39. Erbilgin, N. & Raffa, K.F. 2001. Modulation of predator attraction to pheromones of two prey species by stereochemistry of plant volatiles. Oecologia, 127, 444-53.Google Scholar
  40. Evans, H. F., & Fielding, N. J. 1994. Integrated management of Dendroctonus micansin the UK. Forest Ecology and Management, 65, 17-30.Google Scholar
  41. Faccoli, M. 2000a. Osservazioni bio-ecologiche relative a Tomicobia seitneri (Ruschka) (Hymenoptera Pteromalidae), un parassitoide di Ips typographus (L.) (Coleoptera Scolytidae). Frustula Entomologica, 23, 47-55.Google Scholar
  42. Faccoli, M. 2000b. Considerazioni bio-ecologiche sui coleotteri scolitidi dell’abete bianco (Abies albaMiller) in Italia. Redia, 83, 33-46.Google Scholar
  43. Faccoli, M. 2001a. Tomicobia seitneri(Ruschka), Ropalophorus clavicornis (Wesmael) and Coeloides bostrychorumGiraud: three hymenopterous parasitoids of Ips typographus(L.) (Col., Scolytidae) new to Italy. Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 133, 237-46.Google Scholar
  44. Faccoli, M. 2001b. Catture di coleotteri ‘‘non-target’’ mediante alberi esca allestiti contro Ips typographus(L.) (Coleoptera Scolytidae). Redia, 84, 105-18.Google Scholar
  45. Faccoli, M. 2002. Winter mortality in sub-corticolous populations of Ips typographus(Coleoptera, Scolytidae) and its parasitoids in the south eastern Alps. Anzeiger für Schädlingskünde, 75, 62-68.Google Scholar
  46. Faulds, W. 1989. Hylastes ater(Paykull), black pine bark beetle and Hylurgus ligniperda (Fabricius), golden haired bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). In. A Review of Biological Control of Invertebrate Pests and Weeds in New Zealand 1874 to 1987. Cameron, P.J., Hill, R.L., Bain, J. Thomas, W.P. (Eds.). CAB International Institute of Biological Control. Technical Communication.Google Scholar
  47. Fielding, N. J., Evans, H. F, Williams, J., & Evans, B. 1991a. Distribution and spread of the great European spruce bark beetle, Dendroctonus micans, in Britain - 1982 to 1989. Forestry, 64, 345-58.Google Scholar
  48. Fielding, N. J., O’Keefe, T., & King, C. J. 1991b. Dispersal and host-finding capability of the predatory beetle Rhizophagus grandis Gyll (Col, Rhizophagidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 112, 89-98.Google Scholar
  49. Fielding, N.J., & Evans, H.F. 1997. Biological control of Dendroctonus micans (Scolytidae) in Great Britain. Biocontrol News and Information, 18, 51-60.Google Scholar
  50. Freude, H., Harde, K.W., & Lohse, G.A. 1965-1998. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas Vol. 1-15. Krefeld, Germany: Goecke and Evers Verlag.Google Scholar
  51. Gäbler, H. 1947. Milbe als Eiparasit des Buchdruckers. Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes, 1, 113-15.Google Scholar
  52. Gargiullo, P.M., & Berisford, C.W. 1981. Effects of host density and bark thickness on the densities of parasites of the southern pine beetle. Environmental Entomology, 10, 392-99.Google Scholar
  53. Gauss, R. 1954. Der Ameisenbuntkäfer Thanasimus (Clerus) formicarius Latr. als Borkenkäferfeind. In. Die Grosse Borkenkäferkalamität in Südwest-Deutschland 1944-51. G. Wellenstein [Ed.]. Ulm. Gonzàlez, R., & Campos, M. 1990a. Evaluation of natural enemies of the Phloeotribus scarabaeoides(Bern.) (Col: Scolytidae) in Granada Olive Groves. Acta Horticulturae, 286, 355-58.Google Scholar
  54. Gonzàlez, R., & Campos, M. 1990b. Rearing of Cheiropachus quadrum(Hym.: Pteromalidae) from the Olive beetle, Phloeotribus scarabaeoides (Col.: Scolytidae). Potential biological control agent. Redia, 73, 495-505.Google Scholar
  55. Gonzàlez, R., & Campos, M. 1991. Relaciones entre la fenologìa de Phloeotribus scarabaeoides (Col., Scolytidae) y sus parasitoides (Hym., Chalcidoidea). Boletìn de la Asociaciòn Española de Entomologìa, 15, 131-43.Google Scholar
  56. Gonzàlez, R., Gàzquez, P., & Pajares, J.A. 1999. La Grafiosis del Olmo, Programa de Control en la Alhambra (1994-1998)Jaén, Spain: Universidad de Jaén.Google Scholar
  57. Gonzalez, R., Grégoire, J.-C., Drumont, A., & De Windt, N. 1996. A sampling technique to estimate within-tree populations of preemergent Ips typographus (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 120, 569-76.Google Scholar
  58. Goyer, R.A., & Smith, M.T. 1981. The feeding potential of Corticeus glaber and Corticeus parallelus(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), facultative predators of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis(Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist, 113, 807-11.Google Scholar
  59. Grégoire, J.C. 1976. Note sur deux ennemis naturels de Dendroctonus micans Kug. en Belgique (Col. Scolytidae). Bulletin Annuel de la Société Royale d’Entomologie de Belgique, 112, 208-12.Google Scholar
  60. Grégoire, J.-C., Merlin, J., Pasteels, J.M., Jaffuel, R., Vouland, G., & Schvester, D. 1985. Biocontrol of Dendroctonus micansby Rhizophagus grandisin the Massif Central (France). Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie, 99, 182-90.Google Scholar
  61. Grégoire, J.-C., Baisier, M., Drumont, A., Dahlsten, D.L., Meyer, H., & Francke, W. 1991. Volatile compounds in the larval frass of Dendroctonus valens and Dendroctonus micans (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in relation to oviposition in the predator, Rhizophagus grandis(Coleoptera: Rhizophagidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 17, 2003-19Google Scholar
  62. Grégoire, J.-C., Couillien, D., Drumont, A., Meyer, H., & Francke, W. 1992. Semiochemicals & the management of the predator Rhizophagus grandis for the biological control of Dendroctonus micansZeitschrift für angewante Entomologie, 114, 110-12Google Scholar
  63. Grégoire, J.-C., Couillien, D., Krebber, R., König, W. A., Meyer, H., & Francke, W. 1992. Orientation of Rhizophagus grandis(Coleoptera : Rhizophagidae) to oxygenated monoterpenes in a species-specific predator-prey relationship. Chemoecology, 3, 14-18.Google Scholar
  64. Grodzki, W. 1997. Parasitoids, predators & commensales of thecambiophagous insects on Norway spruce in the conditions ofreduced biodiversity of forest ecosystems in the Sudety Mountains.Prace Instytutu Badawczego Lesnictwa, Seria A, 841, 193-213 (inPolish).Google Scholar
  65. Haack, R. A., Lawrence, R. K., McCullough, D. G., & Sadof , C. S. 1997. Tomicus piniperda in North America: An Integrated Response to a New Exotic Scolytid. In. Integrating cultural tactics into the management of bark beetle and reforestation pests. J.C. Grégoire, A.M. Liebhold, F.M. Stephen, K.R. Day, S.M. Salom (Eds.). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-236.Google Scholar
  66. Hanson, H. S. 1937. Notes on the ecology and control of pine beetles in Great Britain. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 28, 185-241.Google Scholar
  67. Harz, B., & Topp, W. 1999. Totholz im Wirtschaftswald: eine Gefahrenquelle zur Massenvermehrung von Schadinsekten? Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 118, 302-13.Google Scholar
  68. Hedqvist, K.J. 1963. Die Feinde der Borkenkäfer in Schweden, 1. Erzwespen (Chalcidoidea) Studia Forestalia Suecica, 11, 1-176.Google Scholar
  69. Hedqvist, K.J. 1998. Bark beetle enemies in Sweden 2. Braconidae (Hymenoptera). Entomologica Scandinavica, Supplement, 52, 1-86.Google Scholar
  70. Heidger, C.M. 1994. Die Ökologie und Bionomie der Borkenkäfer-Antagonisten Thanasimus formicariusL. (Cleridae) und Scoloposcelis pulchellaZett. (Anthocoridae): Daten zur Beurteilung ihrer prädatorischen Kapazität und der Effekte beim Fang mit Pheromonfallen. Dissertation Philipps-Universität Marburg.Google Scholar
  71. Hérard, F., & Mercadier, G. 1996. Natural enemies of Tomicus piniperda and Ips acuminatus(Col., Scolytidae) on Pinus sylvestrisnear Orléans, France: temporal occurrence and relative abundance, and notes on eight predatory species. Entomophaga, 41, 183-210.Google Scholar
  72. Herting, B. 1973. A Catalogue of Parasites and Predators of Terrestrial Arthropods, Section A, Volume III, Coleoptera to Strepsiptera. Farnham Royal, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
  73. Hintze-Podufal, C., & Druschke, A. 1988. Untersuchungen zur Besiedlungsdichte und Parasitierung des kleines bunten Eschenbastkäfers Leperisinus varius(F.) Mitteilungen der Schweitzerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 61, 241-45.Google Scholar
  74. Hirschmann, W. 1971. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes. Teil 88. Subcorticale Parasitiformes, Biotop -Arten - Fundstellen. Acarologie, 15, 29-42.Google Scholar
  75. Hirschmann, W., & Wisniewski, J. 1983. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes. Teil 30. Lebensräume der Dendrolaelaps- und Longoseius-Arten. Acarologie, 30, 21-33.Google Scholar
  76. Hopping, G.R. 1947. Notes on the seasonal development of Medetera aldrichiiWheeler (Diptera, Dolichopodidae) as a predator of the Douglas fir bark- beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugaeHopkins. Canadian Entomologist, 79, 150-53.Google Scholar
  77. Hostetler, B.B., & Brewer, J.W. 1976. Survival of Dendrosoter protuberans, a parasitoid of Scolytus multistriatusin Colorado. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 69, 85-88.Google Scholar
  78. Hougardy, E. 2003. Host sharing in bark beetle parasitoids.Doctoral dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  79. Hougardy, E., & Grégoire, J.-C. 2000. Spruce stands providenatural natural food sources to adult hymenopteran parasitoids ofbark-beetles. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 96, 253-63.Google Scholar
  80. Hougardy, E., & Grégoire, J.-C. 2001. Bark beetleparasitoid population surveys following storm damage in sprucestands in the Vosges region (France). tegrated Pest ManagementReviews, 6, 163-68.Google Scholar
  81. Hougardy, E., & Grégoire, J.-C. 2003. Cleptoparasitismincreases host finding abilities in the polyphagous parasitoidspecies Rhopalicus tutela(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae).j Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 55, 184-89.Google Scholar
  82. Hougardy, E., Pernet, P., Warnau, M., Delisle, J., &Grégoire, J.-C. 2003. Marking bark beetle parasitoids withinthe j host plant with rubidium for dispersal studies. EntomologiaExperimentalis et Applicata, 108, 107-14.Google Scholar
  83. Kenis, M., & Mills, N.J. 1994. Parasitoids of European speciesof the genus Pissodes(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and theirpotential for biological control of Pissodes strobi(Peck) in Canada. Biological control, 4, 14-21.Google Scholar
  84. Kenis, M., & Mills, N.J. 1998. Evidence for the occurrence ofsibling species in Eubazusspp. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), parasitoids of Pissodes weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).j Bulletin of Entomological Research, 88, 149-63.Google Scholar
  85. Kennedy, B.H. 1970. Dendrosoter protruberans(Hymenoptera:Braconidae) an introduced larval parasitoid of Scolytusmultistriatus. Annales of the Entomological Society of America, 63, 351-358.Google Scholar
  86. Kennedy, B.H. 1984. Effect of multilure and its components onparasites of Scolytus multistriatus(Coleoptera:Scolytidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 10, 373-85.Google Scholar
  87. Kfir, R. 1986. Release of natural enemies against the pine barkbeetle Orthotomicus erosus(Wollaston) in South Africa.Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa, 49, 391-92.Google Scholar
  88. Kielczewski, B., Moser, J.C., & Wisniewski, J. 1983. Surveyingthe acarofauna associated with Polish Scolytidae. Bulletin de laSociété des Amis des Sciences et des Lettres de Poznan, Série D, 22, 151-59.Google Scholar
  89. King, C. J., Fielding, N. J., & O’Keefe, T. 1991. Observationson the Life-Cycle and Behaviour of the Predatory Beetle, Rhizophagus grandis Gyll (Col., Rhizophagidae) in Britain.Journal of Applied Entomology, 111, 286-96.Google Scholar
  90. Kobakhidze, D. N. 1965. Some results and prospects of theutilization of beneficial entomophagous insects in the control ofinsect pests in Georgian SSR (USSR). Entomophaga, 10, 323-30.Google Scholar
  91. Köhnle, U., & Vité, J.P. 1984. Bark beetle predators:strategies in the olfactory perception of prey species by cleridand trogositid beetles. Zeitschrift für AngewandteEntomologie, 98, 504-08.Google Scholar
  92. Kolomiets, N. G., & Bogdanova, D. A. 1980. Parasites and Predators of Xylophagous Insects of Siberia(in russian).Novosibirsk: Siberian Branch of the Ussr Akademy of Science, Sukachev Institute of Forest and Wood.Google Scholar
  93. Kopf, A., & Funke, W. 1998. Borkenkäfer undBorkenkäferfeinde. In. Die Entwicklung vonWald-Biozönosen nach Sturmwurf. A. Fischer (Ed.). Landsberg:Ecomed.Google Scholar
  94. Kroll, J.C., & Fleet, R.R. 1979. Impact of woodpecker predationon over-wintering within-tree populations of the southern pinebeetle (Dendroctonus frontalis). In. The role ofInsectivorous Birds in Forest Ecosystems. J.G. Dickson, R.N.Connor, R.R. Fleet, J.C. Kroll, J.A. Jackson (Eds.). London:Academic Press.Google Scholar
  95. Krüger, K., & Mills, N.J. 1990. Observations on the biologyof three parasitoids of the spruce bark beetle, Ipstypographus (Col., Scolytidae), Coeloides bostrichorumDendrosoter middendorffii(Hym., Braconidae) and Rhopalicustutela (Hym., Pteromalidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 110, 281-91.Google Scholar
  96. Kubisz, D. 1992. Occurrence of predators from the genus Rhizophagus Herbst (Col., Rhizophagidae) in pheromone traps. Journal of Applied Entomology, 113, 525-31.Google Scholar
  97. Labedzki, A. 1989. Dragonflies (Odonata: Anisoptera) of Scots pinestands and their potential for regulating numbers of harmfulforest insects. Prace Komisji Nauk Rolniczych I Komisji NaukLesnych, 68, 39-45 (in Polish).Google Scholar
  98. Lawson, S.A., Furuta, K., & Katagiri, K. 1997. Effect ofnatural enemy exclusion on mortality of Ips typographusjaponicusNiijima (Col, Scolytidae) in Hokkaido, Japan. Journalof Applied Entomology, 121, 89-98.Google Scholar
  99. Lévieux, J., Lieutier, F., Moser, J.C., & Perry, T.J. 1989.Transportation of phytopathogenic fungi by the bark beetle Ips sexdentatus Boerner and associated mites. Journal of AppliedEntomology, 108, 1-11.Google Scholar
  100. Lichtenstein, J.L., & Picard, F. 1920. Notes sur les Proctotrypides (Hym.). Bulletin de la SociétéEntomologique de France, 25, 54-55.Google Scholar
  101. Lieutier, F. 1979. Les diptères associés á Ipstypographuset Ips sexdentatus(Coleoptera: Scolytidae) enrégion parisienne, et les variations de leurs populations aucours du cycle annuel. Bulletin d’Ecologie, 10, 1-13.Google Scholar
  102. Lindgren, B.S., & Miller, D.R. 2002. Effect of verbenone onattraction of predatory and woodboring beetles (Coleoptera) tokairomones in lodgepole pine forests. Environmental Entomology, 31: 766-73.Google Scholar
  103. Lindquist, E.E. 1969. Mites and the regulation of bark beetlepopulations. Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress ofAcarology 1967, 389-99.Google Scholar
  104. Lindquist, E.E. 1970 Relationships between mites and insects inforest habitats. Canandian Entomologist, 102, 978-984.Google Scholar
  105. Linit, M.J. & Stephen, F.M. 1983. Parasite and predatorcomponent of within-tree southern pine beetle (Coleoptera:Scolytidae) mortality. Canadian Entomologist, 115, 679-88.Google Scholar
  106. Lipa, J.J., & Chmielewski, W. 1977. Parasitisation of Scolytus pygmaeusFabr. (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) by a mite Pyemotes scolyti Oud. (Acarina, Pyemotidae). Polskie PismoEntomologiczne, 47, 345-49 (in Polish).Google Scholar
  107. Lobinger, G., & Feicht, E. 1999. Schwarmverhalten undAbundanzdynamik der Erzwespe Karpinskiella pityophthori(Boucek) (Hym., Pteromalidae), eines Parasitoiden desKupferstechers (Pityogenes chalcographusL., Col., Scolytidae). Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, 72, 65-71.Google Scholar
  108. Lozano, C., & Campos, M. 1991. Preliminary study aboutentomofauna of the bark beetle Leperisinus varius(Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Redia, 74, 241-43.Google Scholar
  109. Lozano, C., Kidd, N.A.C., & Campos, M. 1993. Studies on thepopulation dynamics of the bark beetle Phloeotribusscarabaeoides(Col., Scolytidae) on European olives (Oleaeuropaea). Journal of Applied Entomology, 120, 193-98.Google Scholar
  110. Lozano, C., Campos, M., Kidd, N.A.C., & Jervis, M.A. 1994. The role of parasitism and intra-specific competition in the population dynamics of the bark beetle Leperisinus varius(Fabr.) (Col., Scolytidae) on European olives (Oleaeuropaea). Journal of Applied Entomology, 117, 182-89.Google Scholar
  111. Lozano, C., Campos, M., Kidd, N.A.C., & Jervis, M.A. 1996a. The role of parasitism in the population dynamics of the bark beetle Phloeotribus scarabaeoides(Col., Scolytidae) on Europeanolives (Olea a). Journal of Applied Entomology, 120, 347-51.Google Scholar
  112. Lozano, C., Kidd, N.A.C., & Campos, M. 1996b. The population dynamics of the bark beetle Leperisinus varius(Fabr.)(Col., Scolytidae) on European olive (Olea europaea). Journal of Applied Entomology, 116, 118-26.Google Scholar
  113. Lozano, C., Gonzàlez, E., Pena, A., mpos, M., aza, M.T., Rodriguez, M., Izquierdo, I., & Tamayo, J. 2000. Response of parasitoids Dendrosoter protuberans and Cheiropachusquadrumto attractants of Phloeotribus scarabaeoidesin an olfactometer. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 26, 791-99.Google Scholar
  114. Maksimovic, M. 1979 Influence of the density of bark beetles and their parasites on dieback of elm in some woods of Yugoslavia. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 88, 283-91.Google Scholar
  115. Manojlovic, B., Zabel, A., Stankovic, S., & Kostic, M. 2000a. Ecphylus silesiacus(Ratz.) (Hymenoptera, Braconidae), an important elm bark beetle parasitoid. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 2, 63-67.Google Scholar
  116. Manojlovic, B., Zabel, A., Kostic, M., & Stankovic, S. 2000b. Effect of nutrition of parasites with nectar of melliferous plantson parasitism of the elm bark beetles (Col., Scolytidae). Journalof Applied Entomology, 124, 155-61.Google Scholar
  117. Markovic, C., & Stojanovic, A. 1996. Parasitoid complex of Scolytus intricatus Ratz. (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) in the region of Serbia. Zastita Bilja, 47, 255-66 (in Serbian)Google Scholar
  118. Martinek, V. 1977. Species of genus PallopteraFallen, 1820(Dipt., Pallopteridae) in Czechoslovakia. Studia Entomologica Forestalia, 2, 203-20.Google Scholar
  119. Massey, C.L. & Wygant, N.D. 1973. Woodpeckers: most important predators of the spruce beetle. Colorado Field Ornithologists, 15, 4-8.Google Scholar
  120. Matile, L. 1993. Les Diptères d’Europe occidentale Vol.I.Paris: Société Nouvelle Èditions Boubée.Google Scholar
  121. Mazur, S. 1973. Contribution to the knowledge of the fauna of predatory beetles inhabiting feeding-places of Tomicus =Blastophagus piniperdaL. Sylwan, 117, 53-59 (in Polish).Google Scholar
  122. Mazur, S. 1975. Appraisal of economic significance of predators: Paromalus parallelepipedus Herbst and Plegaderus vulneratus Panz. (Col., Histeridae) - persecutors of Tomicus piniperda L. Sylwan, 119, 57-60 (in Polish).Google Scholar
  123. Mazur, S. 1979. Beetle succession in feeding sites of the pineshoot beetle (Tomicus piniperda L., Coleoptera Scolytidae) in one-species and mixed pine stands. Memorabilia Zoologica, 30, 63-87.Google Scholar
  124. Mendel, Z. 1985. Predation of Orthotomicus erosus(Col., Scolytidae) by the Syrian woodpecker (Picoides syriacus,Aves, Picidae). Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 100, 355-60.Google Scholar
  125. Mendel, Z. 1986. Hymenopterous parasitoids of bark beetles (Scolytidae) in Israel: Relationships between host and parasitoid size, and sex ratio. Entomophaga, 31, 127-37.Google Scholar
  126. Mendel, Z. 1987. Major pests of man-made forests in Israel:Origin, biology, damage and control. Phytoparasitica, 15, 131-37.Google Scholar
  127. Mendel, Z. 1988. Attraction of Orthotomicus erosusand Pityogenes calcaratusto a synthetic aggregation pheromone of Ips typographus. Phytoparasitica, 16, 109-17.Google Scholar
  128. Mendel, Z.; Podoler, H., & Livne, H. 1989. Establishment sequence and seasonal development of Aulonium ruficorne Olivier (Coleoptera: Colydiidae), a predator of bark beetles in pine plantations in Israel. Acta Œcologica / Œcologia Applicata, 10, 103-14.Google Scholar
  129. Mendel, Z., Podoler, H., & Livne, H. 1990. Interactions between Aulonium ruficorne(Coleoptera: Colydiidae) and othernatural enemies of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Entomophaga, 35, 99-105.Google Scholar
  130. Merlin, J. 1984. Elm bark beetles and their main parasitoids in Belgium: emergence and some aspects of their ecological relations. Mededelingen Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Gent, 49/3a, 857-65.Google Scholar
  131. Merlin, J., Grégoire, J.-C., Baisier, M., & Pasteels, J. M. 1984. Some new data on the biology of Rhizophagus grandis(Col.: Rhizophagidae). In. Biological Control of BarkBeetles, J. -C. Grégoire, J. M. Pasteels (Eds.), Proceedingsof the EEC Seminar, Brussels, October 3-4, 1984.Google Scholar
  132. Merlin, J., Parmentier, C., & Grégoire, J.-C. 1986. The feeding habits of Rhizophagus dispar(Col., Rhizophagidae), an associate of bark beetles. Mededelingen Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Gent, 51/3a, 915-23.Google Scholar
  133. Michalski, J., & Seniczak, S. 1974. Trichogramma semblidis (Chalcidoidea: Trichogrammatidae) as a parasite of the bark beetle eggs (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Entomophaga, 19, 237-42.Google Scholar
  134. Miller, M., Moser, J. C., McGregor, M., Grégoire, J.-C., Baisier, M., Dahlsten, D. L., & Werner, R. A. 1987. Potential for biological control of native North American Dendroctonus beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 80, 417-28.Google Scholar
  135. Mills, N.J. 1983. The natural enemies of scolytids infesting conifer bark in Europe in relation to the biological control of Dendroctonus spp. in Canada. Biocontrol News and Information, 4, 305-28.Google Scholar
  136. Mills, N.J. 1986. A preliminary analysis of the dynamics of within tree populations of Ips typographus(L.) (Coleoptera:Scolytidae). Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 102, 402-16.Google Scholar
  137. Mills, N.J. 1991. Searching strategies and attack rates of parasitoids of the ash bark beetle (Leperisinus varius) and its relevance to biological control. Ecological Entomology, 16, 461-70.Google Scholar
  138. Mills, N.J. 1994. Parasitoid guilds: Defining the structure of the parasitoid communities of Endopterygote insect hosts. Environmental Entomology, 23, 1066-83.Google Scholar
  139. Mills, N.J., & Krüger, K. 1989. Host location: an important factor in the use of exotic natural enemies for the biocontrol of native scolytids. In. Integrated Control of Scolytid Bark Beetles. T.L. Payne, H. Saarenmaa (Eds.). Blacksburg, USA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
  140. Mills, N.J., & Schlup, J. 1989. The natural enemies of Ips typographusin Central Europe: Impact and potential use in biological control. In. Potential for Biological Control of Dendroctonus and Ips Bark Beetles. Kulhavy, D.L., Miller, M.C. (Eds.). Nacogdoches, Texas, USA: Cent. Appl. Study, School of For. S. F. Austin State Univ.Google Scholar
  141. Mills, N.J., Krüger, K., & Schlup J. 1991. Short-range host location mechanisms of bark beetles parasitoids. Journal of Applied Entomology, 111, 33-43.Google Scholar
  142. Moeck, H. A., & Safranyik, L. 1984. Assessment of predator and parasitoid control of bark beetlesEnvironment Canada. Canadian Forestry Service, Pacific Forest Research Centre, Information Report Bc-X-248.Google Scholar
  143. Moor, H., & Nyffeler, M. 1983. Eine Notiz über borkenkäfertötende Spinnen. Mitteilungen der Schweitzerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 56, 195-99.Google Scholar
  144. Moore, G. 1972. Southern pine beetle mortality in North Carolina caused by parasites and predators. Environmental Entomology, 1, 58-65.Google Scholar
  145. Morge, G. 1961. Die Bedeutung der Dipteren im Kampf gegen die Borkenkäfer. Archiv für Forstwesen, 10, 505-11.Google Scholar
  146. Morge, G. 1963. Die Lonchaeidae und Pallopteridae Österreichs und der angrenzenden Gebiete 1.Teil: Die Lonchaeidae. Naturkundliches Jahrbuch der Stadt Linz , 9, 123-312.Google Scholar
  147. bMorge, G. 1967. Die Lonchaeidae und Pallopteridae Österreichs und der angrenzenden Gebiete 2.Teil: Die Pallopteridae. Naturkundliches Jahrbuch der Stadt Linz 13, 141-88.Google Scholar
  148. Moser, J.C. 1975. Mite predators of the southern pine beetle. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 68, 1113-16.Google Scholar
  149. Moser, J.C., & Bogenschütz, H. 1984. A key to the mites associated with flying Ips typographus in South Germany. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 97, 437-50.Google Scholar
  150. Moser, J.C., Eidmann, H.H., & Regnander, J.R. 1989. The mites associated with Ips typographus in Sweden. Annales Entomologici Fennici, 55, 23-27.Google Scholar
  151. Nagel, W.P., & Fitzgerald, T.D. 1975. Medetera aldrichii larval feeding behavior and prey consumption (Dipt.:Dolichopodidae). Entomophaga, 20, 121-27.Google Scholar
  152. Nebeker, T.E., Mizell, R.F.I., Bedwell, N.J., Garner, W.Y., & Harvey, J.J. 1984. Management of bark beetle populations. Impact of manipulating predator cues and other control tactics. In. Chemical and Biological Controls in Forestry, Proceedings of a Conference Seattle.Google Scholar
  153. Nicolai, V. 1995a. Der Einfluss von Medetera dendrobaena (Diptera, Dolichopodidae) auf Borkenkäferpopulationen. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Allgemeine und Angewandte Entomologie, 9, 465-69.Google Scholar
  154. Nicolai, V. 1995b. Ermittlungen der Totholzfauna mittels Borkeneklektoren. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Allgemeine und Angewandte Entomologie, 9, 755-61.Google Scholar
  155. Nicolai, V. 1995c. The impact of Medetera dendrobaena Kowarz (Dipt., Dolichopodidae) on bark beetles. Journal of Applied Entomology, 119, 161-66.Google Scholar
  156. Nicolai, V. 1996. Bark beetles and their natural enemies at lowland stands of beech forests and of spruce forests in Central Europe. Zoologische Beitraege, N. F. 37, 135-56.Google Scholar
  157. Nicolai, V., Heidger, C., Dippel, C. & Strohmenger, T. 1992. Bark beetles and their predators in bark beetle pheromone traps. Zoologische Jahrbuecher Systematik, 119, 315-38.Google Scholar
  158. Noyes, J.S. 2001. Interactive Catalogue of World Chalcidoidea 2001. CD Rom. Vancouver, Canada: Taxapad.Google Scholar
  159. Nuorteva, M. 1956. Über den Fichtenstamm-Bastkäfer, Hylurgops palliatus Gyll., und seine Insektenfeinde. Acta Entomologica Fennica, 13, 1-116.Google Scholar
  160. Nuorteva, M. 1957. Zur Kenntnis der parasitischen Hymenopteren der Borkenkäfer Finnlands. Annales Entomologici Fennici, 23, 118-21.Google Scholar
  161. Nuorteva, M. 1959. Untersuchungen über einige in den Frassbildern der Borkenkäfer lebende MedeteraArten (Dipt., Dolichopodidae). Suomen Hyönteistieteellinen Aikakauskirja, 25, 192-210.Google Scholar
  162. Nuorteva, M., & Saari, L. 1980. Larvae of Acanthocinus, Pissodes and Tomicus(Coleoptera) and the foraging ehaviour of woodpeckers (Picidae). Annales Entomologici Fennici, 6, 107-10.Google Scholar
  163. Nuorteva, M., & Saari, L. 1980. Larvae of Acanthocinus, Pissodes and Tomicus(Coleoptera) and the foraging behaviour of woodpeckers (Picidae). Annales Entomologici Fennici, 46, 107-10.Google Scholar
  164. Ohmart, C.P., & Voigt, W.G. 1982. Temporal and spatial arrival of Ips plastographus maritimus(Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and its insect associates on freshly felled Pinus radiatain California. Canadian Entomologist, 114, 337-48.Google Scholar
  165. Otvos, I.S. 1979. The effects of insectivorous bird activities in forest ecosystems: an evaluation. In. The role of Insectivorous Birds in Forest Ecosystems. J.G. Dickson, R.N. Connor, R.R. Fleet, J.C. Kroll, J.A. Jackson (Eds.) London: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  166. Otvos, I.S., & Stark, R.W. 1985. Arthropod food of some forest-inhabiting birds. Canadian Entomologist, 117, 971-90.Google Scholar
  167. Ounap, H. 1992a. Laboratory studies of the food selection of some predators of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised, Bioloogia, 41, 131-40.Google Scholar
  168. Ounap, H. 1992b. Species composition of the Diptera predators of bark beetles of conifers in Estonia. Metsanduslikud Uurimused, 24, 143-51.Google Scholar
  169. Pavlik, S. 1999. Predation of overwintering larvae of the European oak bark beetle (Scolytus intricatusRatz.) by woodpeckers at logging residues in oak forests. Acta Facultatis Forestalis Zvolen-Slovakia, 41, 305-13 (in Slovak).Google Scholar
  170. Pechacek, P. 1994. Reaktion des Dreizehenspechts aufeine Borkenkäfergradation. Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift, 49, 661.Google Scholar
  171. Pettersen, H. 1976a. Chalcid-flies (Hym., Chalcidoidea) reared from Ips typographus L. and Pityogenes chalcographusL. at some Norwegian localities. Norwegian Journal of Entomology, 23, 47-50.Google Scholar
  172. Pettersen, H. 1976b. nParasites (Hym., Chalcidoidea) associated with bark beetles in Norway. Norwegian Journal of Entomology, 25, 75-78.Google Scholar
  173. Pettersson, E.M. 2001a. Volatiles from potential hosts of Rhopalicus tutela, a bark beetle parasitoid. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 27, 2219-31.Google Scholar
  174. Pettersson, E.M. 2001b. Volatile attractants for three pteromalid parasitoids attacking concealed spruce bark beetles. Chemoecology, 11, 89-95.Google Scholar
  175. Pettersson, E.M., Sullivan, B.T., Anderson, P., Berisford, C.W., & Birgersson, G. 2000. Odor perception in bark beetle parasitoid Roptrocerus xylophagorum(Ratzeburg) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) exposed to host associated volatiles. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 26, 2507-25.Google Scholar
  176. Pettersson, E.M., Birgersson, G., & Witzgall, P. 2001a. Synthetic attractants for the bark beetle parasitoid Coeloides bostrichorum Giraud (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Naturwissenschaften, 88, 88-91.Google Scholar
  177. Pettersson, E.M., Hallberg, E., & Birgersson, G. 2001b. Evidence for the importance of odor-perception in the parasitoidRhopalicus tutela (Walker) (Hymenoptera : Pteromalidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 125, 293-301.Google Scholar
  178. Pishchik, A.A. 1980. An insect predator of Blastophagus[Tomicus] piniperdaand B. [T.] minor. Lesnoe Khozyaistvo, 11, 55-57.Google Scholar
  179. Podoler, H., , Mendel, Z. & Livne, H. 1990. Studies on thebiology of a bark beetle predator, Aulonium ruficorne(Coleoptera: Colydiidae). Environmental Entomology, 19, 1010-16.Google Scholar
  180. Raffa, K.F. 1991. Temporal and spatial disparities among barkbeetles, predators, and associates responding to synthetic barkbeetle pheromones: Ips pini(Coleoptera: Scolytidae) inWisconsin. Environmental Entomology, 20, 1665-79.Google Scholar
  181. Rauhut, B., Schmidt, G.H., & Schmidt, L. 1993. DasColeopteren-Spektrum in Borkenkäfer-Pheromonfallen einesheterogenen Waldgebietes im Landkreis Hannover. BraunschweigerNaturkundliche Schriften, 4, 247-78.Google Scholar
  182. Richerson, J, V., & Borden, J.H. 1972. Host finding by heatperception in Coeloides brunneri(Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Canadian Entomologist, 104, 1877-81.Google Scholar
  183. Riley, M.A., & Goyer, R.A. 1986. Impact of beneficial insectson Ips spp. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) bark beetles in felledloblolly and slash pines in Louisiana. Environmental Entomology, 15, 1220-24.Google Scholar
  184. Ruschka F. 1916. Hymenopteren - Parasiten istrianischer Borkenkäfer. Entomologische Blatter für Biologie unSystematik der Käfer, 11, 25-29.Google Scholar
  185. Russo, G. Z 1938. Contributto alla conoscenza dei Coleotteri Scolitidi Fleotribi: Phloeotribus scarabaeoides(Bern.)Fauv. II Biografia, simbionti, danni e lotta. Bollettino delLaboratorio di Entomologia Agraria, 2, 3-420.Google Scholar
  186. Ryan, R.B., & Rudinsky, J.A. 1962. Biology and habits of theDouglas-fir beetle parasite, Coeloides brunneriViereck(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Western Oregon. CanadianEntomologist, 94, 748-63.Google Scholar
  187. Sachtleben, H. 1952. Die parasitischen Hymenopteren desFichtenborkenkäfers Ips typographus L. Beitrage zurEntomologie, 2, 137-89.Google Scholar
  188. Safranyik, L., Shore, T.L., Moeck, H.A., & Whitney, H.S. 2002. Dendroctonus ponderosaeHopkins, Mountain Pine Beetle(Coleoptera: Scolytidae). In. Biological Control Programmesagainst Insects and Mites, Weeds, and Pathogens in Canada1981-2000. P. Mason, J. Huber (Eds.). Wallingford, UK: CABI.Google Scholar
  189. Samson, P.R. 1984. The biology of Roptrocerus xylophagorum(Hym., Torymidae), with a note on its taxonomic status.Entomophaga, 29, 287-98.Google Scholar
  190. Schimitschek, E. 1931. Forstentomologische Untersuchungen aus demGebiete von Lunz. I. Standortsklima und Kleinklima in ihrenBeziehungen zum Entwicklungsablauf und zur Mortalität vonInsekten. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomoogie, 18, 460-91.Google Scholar
  191. Schimitschek, E. 1940. Beiträge zur Forstentomologie derTürkei III. Die Massenvermehrung des Ips sexdentatusBoerner im Gebiete der orientalischen Fichte. Zeitschrift fürAngewandte Entomologie, 27, 84-113.Google Scholar
  192. Schopf, R., & Köhler, U. 1995. Untersuchungen zurPopulationsdynamik der Fichtenborkenkäfer im NationalparkBayerischer Wald. In: Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald - 25Jahre auf dem Weg zum Naturwald. Neuschönau, Nationalparkverwaltung Bayerischer Wald. Google Scholar
  193. Schröder, D. 1974. Untersuchungen über die Aussichteneiner biologischen Bekämpfung von Scolytiden an Ulmen alsMittel zur Einschränkung des "Ulmensterbens". Zeitschriftfür Angewandte Entomologie, 76, 150-59.Google Scholar
  194. Schroeder, L. M. 1996. Interactions between the predators Thanasimus formicarius (Col.: Cleridae) and Rhizophagus depressus (Col.: Rhizophagidae), and the barkbeetle Tomicus piniperda (Col.: Scolytidae). Entomophaga, 41, 63-75.Google Scholar
  195. Schroeder, L. M. 1997. Impact of natural enemies on Tomicuspiniperda offspring production. In. Integrating culturaltactics into the management of bark beetle and reforestationpests, Vallombrosa, 1-4 September 1996. J.-C. Grégoire, A.M.Liebhold, F.M. Stephen, K.R. Day, S.M. Salom (Eds.). Proceedingsof the IUFRO conference, USDA, Forest Service General TechnicalReport NE-236.Google Scholar
  196. Schroeder, L. M. 1999a. Prolonged development time of the barkbeetle predator Thanasimus formicarius(Col.: Cleridae) inrelation to its prey species Tomicus piniperda(L.) and Ips typographus(L.) (Col.: Scolytidae). Agricultural and ForestEntomology, 1, 127-35.Google Scholar
  197. Schroeder, L.M., 1999b. Population levels and flight phenology ofbark beetle predators in stands with and without previousinfestations of the bark beetle TomicuSchroeder, L. M. 1996. Interactions between the predators Thanasimus formicarius (Col.: Cleridae) and Rhizophagus depressus (Col.: Rhizophagidae), and the barkbeetle Tomicus piniperda (Col.: Scolytidae).Google Scholar
  198. Schroeder, L. M. 1997. Impact of natural enemies on Tomicuspiniperda offspring production. In. Integrating culturaltactics into the management of bark beetle and reforestationpests, Vallombrosa, 1-4 September 1996. J.-C. Grégoire, A.M.Liebhold, F.M. Stephen, K.R. Day, S.M. Salom (Eds.). Proceedingsof the IUFRO conference, USDA, Forest Service General TechnicalGoogle Scholar
  199. Schroeder, L. M. 1999a. Prolonged development time of the barkbeetle predator Thanasimus formicarius(Col.: Cleridae) inrelation to its prey species Tomicus piniperda(L.) and Ips typographus(L.) (Col.: Scolytidae). Agricultural and Forest s piniperda. Forest Ecology and Management, 123, 31-40.Google Scholar
  200. Schroeder, L.M. & Weslien, J. 1994. Reduced offspringproduction in bark beetle Tomicus piniperdain pine boltsbaited with ethanol and alpha-pinene, which attract antagonisticinsects. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 20, 1429-44.Google Scholar
  201. Schumacher, J., & Pohris, V. 2000. Der KleineBuchenborkenkäfer als relevanter Rindenbrüter inSchwarzerlen-Beständen. Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift/Der Wald, 55, 760-63.Google Scholar
  202. Seitner, M., 1924. Beobachtungen und Erfahrungen aus dem Auftretendes achtzähnigen Fichtenborkenkäfers Ips typographusL. in Oberösterreich und Steiermark in den Jahren 1921 biseinschl. 1923. 5. Parasiten und Räuber. Centralblatt fürdas Gesamte Forstwesen, 50, 2-23.Google Scholar
  203. Shaw, M.R. 1994. Parasitoid host ranges. In ParasitoidCommunity Ecology. B.A. Hawkins, W. Sheehan (Eds.). New York:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  204. Shook, R.S., & Baldwin, P.H. 1970. Woodpecker predation on barkbeetles in Engelmann spruce logs as related to stand density. Canadian Entomologist, 102, 1345-54.Google Scholar
  205. Smith, M.T., & Goyer, R.A. 1982. The life cycle of Corticeus glaber (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), a facultativepredator of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis(Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist, 114, 535-37.Google Scholar
  206. Stephen, F.M., & Dahlsten, D.L. 1976. The arrival sequence ofthe arthropod complex following attack by Dendroctonusbrevicomis(Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in ponderosa pine. CanadianEntomologist, 108, 283-304.Google Scholar
  207. Strube, H.G.R., & Benner, A. 1984. Über die mit demGestreiften Nutzholzborkenkäfer Trypodendron lineatumOlivier (Coleoptera, Ipidae) vergesellschafteten Milben (Acari).Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 98, 103-09.Google Scholar
  208. Sullivan, B.T., Seltmann, K.C. & Berisford, C.W. 1999. A simplecontinuous-rearing technique for the bark beetle parasitoid, Roptrocerus xylophagorum (Ratzeburg). Journal of EntomologicalScience, 34, 260-64.Google Scholar
  209. Thalenhorst, W. 1958. Grundzüge der Populationsdynamik desgrossen Fichtenborkenkäfers Ips typographus L.Schriftenreihe der Forstlische Fakultät der UniversitätGöttingen und Mitteilungen der NiedersächsischesForstlisches Versuchsanstalt, 21, 1-126.Google Scholar
  210. Thompson, W.R. 1943. A catalogue of the parasites and predators of insect pests. Section 1 Parasite host catalogue. Part1 Parasites of the Arachnida and Coleoptera. Belleville, Canada:Imperial Parasite Service.Google Scholar
  211. Tømmerås, B. A. 1985. Specialization of the olfactoryreceptor cells in the bark beetle Ips typographusand itspredator Thanasimus formicariusto bark beetle pheromonesand host tree volatiles. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 15, 335-41.Google Scholar
  212. Tømmerås, B. A. 1988. The Clerid beetle, Thanasimusformicarius, is attracted to the pheromone of the ambrosiabeetle, Trypodendron lineatum. Experientia, 44, 536-37.Tømmerås, B. A., Mustaparta, H. & Grégoire, J.-C.1984. Electrophysiological recordings from olfactory receptorcells in Dendroctonus micansand Rhizophagus grandis.In. Biological Control of Bark Beetles, J. -C. Grégoire, J.M. Pasteels (Eds.)., Proceedings of the EEC seminar, Brussels, October 3-4, 1984.Google Scholar
  213. Tribe, G.D., & Kfir, R 2001. The establishment of Dendrosoter caenopachoides(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) introducedinto South Africa for the biological control of Orthotomicuserosus(Coleoptera: Scolytidae), with additional notes on D sp.nr. labdacus. African Entomology, 9, 195-98.Google Scholar
  214. Turcani, M. & Capek, M. 2000. "The results of study ofparasitoids and insect predators of bark beetles in native Scotchpine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands in Slovensky raj Mts." Lesnicky Casopis – Forestry Journal, 46, 381-92 (in Slovak, English summary).Google Scholar
  215. Turchin, P. Taylor, A.D., & Reeve, J.D. 1999. Dynamical role ofpredators in population cycles of a forest insect: an experimentaltest. Science, 285, 1068-71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  216. Tvaradze, M. S. 1976. On the acclimatisation of Rhizophagusgrandis for control of Dendroctonus micans (in Russian).Sb. Nauch. Rabot po Izuch. B. E. Luboeda v Gruzii, Tbilisi, 2, 76-90.Google Scholar
  217. Van averbeke, A., & Grégoire, J.-C. 1995. Establishment and spread of Rhizophagus grandis Gyll(Coleoptera:Rhizophagidae) six years after release in theForêt domaniale du Mézenc (France). Annales des SciencesForestières, 52, 243-50.Google Scholar
  218. Van Driesche, R.G., Healy, S., & Reardon, R.C. 1996. Biological Control of Arthropod Pests of the Northeastern and North Central Forests in the United Sates: a Review and RecommendationsMorgantown, WV, USA: Forest Health TechnicalEnterprise Team.Google Scholar
  219. Vogt, H. 1966. Rhizophagidae. Pp. 80-83. In. Die KäferMitteleuropas Vol. 9. Freude H., Harde K.W., Lohse, G.A. (Eds.).Krefeld, Germany: Goecke and Evers Verlag.Google Scholar
  220. Voolma, K. 1986. "Entomophages of Dendroctonus micans inEstonia" Metsabduslikud Uurimused, Estonian SSR 21, 89-97 (inRussian).Google Scholar
  221. Wainhouse, D., Beech-Garwood, P. A., Howell, R. S., Kelly, D., & Orozco, M. P. 1992. Field Response of Predator Rhizophagus grandisto Prey Frass and Synthetic Attractants. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 18, 1693-1705.Google Scholar
  222. Wegensteiner, R., & Führer, E., 1991. Zurhöhenabhängigen Aktivitätsdynamik einigerNadelholz-Borkenkäfer (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Anz.Schädl.kd. Pflanzenschutz Umweltschutz, 64, 25-34.Google Scholar
  223. Wermelinger, B., 2002. Development and distribution of predatorsand parasitoids during two consecutive years of an Ipstypographus (Col., Scolytidae) infestation. Journal of AppliedEntomology, 126, 521-27.Google Scholar
  224. Weslien, J., 1992. The arthropod complex associated with Ipstypographus (L.) (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): species composition, phenology, and impact on bark beetle productivity. EntomologicaFennica, 3, 205-13.Google Scholar
  225. Weslien, J., & Schroeder, L.M. 1999. Population levels of barkbeetles and associated insects in managed and unmanaged sprucestands. Forest Ecology and Management, 115, 267-75.Google Scholar
  226. Wichmann, H.E. 1956. Untersuchungen über Ips typographusL. und seine Umwelt - Asilidae, Raubfliegen. Zeitschrift fürAngewandte Entomologie, 39, 58-62.Google Scholar
  227. Wichmann, H.E. 1957. Untersuchungen an Ips typographusL.und seiner Umwelt - Die Kamelhalsfliegen. Zeitschrift fürAngewandte Entomologie, 40, 433-40.Google Scholar
  228. Wigger, H. 1993. Ökologische Bewertung vonRäuber-Beifängen in Borkenkäfer-Lockstoffallen.Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz, 66, 68-72.Google Scholar
  229. Wigger, H. 1994. Die Reaktion der Frasskapazität desBorkenkäferräubers Nemosoma elongatum L. (Col., Ostomidae) im Imaginalstadium aufunterschiedliches Beuteangebotin künstlichen Gängen. Anzeiger fürSchädlingskunde, Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz, 67, 8-13.Google Scholar
  230. Wigger, H. 1996. Populationsdynamik und Räuber-Beute-Beziehungzwischen dem Borkenkäfer-Räuber Nemosoma elongatumund dem Kupferstecher Pityogenes chalcographus(Coleoptera:Ostomidae, Scolytidae). Entomolia Generalis, 21, 55-67.Google Scholar
  231. Wilkinson, R.C., Bhatkar, A.P., Kloft, W.J., Whitcomb, W.H., &Kloft, E.S. 1978. Formica integra Feeding, trophallaxis, and interspecific confrontation behavior. Florida Entomologist, 61, 179-87.Google Scholar
  232. Wyatt, T. D., Phillips, A. D. G., & Grégoire, J.-C. 1993. Turbulence, trees and semiochemicals: wind-tunnel orientation ofthe predator, Rhizophagus grandis, to its barkbeetle prey, Dendroctonus micansPhysiological Entomology, 18, 204-10.Google Scholar
  233. Yates, M.G. 1984. The biology of the oak bark beetle, Scolytus intricatus (Ratzeburg) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), insouthern England. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 74, 569-79.Google Scholar
  234. Zumr, V. 1983. Effect of synthetic pheromones Pheroprax on thecoleopterous predators of the spruce bark beetle Ipstypographus (L.). Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 95, 47-50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kenis
    • 1
  • B. Wermelinger
    • 2
  • J.-C. Grégoire
    • 3
  1. 1.CABI Bioscience Switzerland Centre2800 DelémontSwitzerland
  2. 2.Swiss Federal Institute for ForestSnow and Landscape Research WSL8903 BirmensdorfSwitzerland
  3. 3.Université Libre de Bruxelles50 avenue F.D. RooseveltBelgium

Personalised recommendations