Chemical Ecology of Bark Beetles in Regard to Search and Selection of Host Trees

  • John A. Byers
  • Qinghe Zhang

Abstract

Bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), especially pests in the genera Dendroctonus, Ips, Scolytus, Trypodendron, Tomicus, and Pityogenes of the Northern hemisphere are reviewed regarding aspects of their chemical ecology during host finding and selection. Most of the species covered here feed on conifers, primarily pines (Pinus) in the Northern hemisphere and Norway spruce (Picea abies) of Europe and Asia. Bark beetles use a variety of olfactory strategies to discriminate suitable host trees from among less suitable, overcolonized, or decaying hosts as well as nonhosts. Bark beetles also use olfactory strategies to find mates and select attack sites. These strategies have implications for coevolution of trees and bark beetles. Knowledge of the chemical ecology of insect-insect and insect-plant relationships is necessary to develop improved methods for monitoring and controlling bark beetles that are predators of trees.

Keywords

host selection pheromones semiochemicals olfaction coleoptera scolytidae host finding mate location competition monoterpenes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderbrant O, Schlyter F. Causes and effects of individual quality in bark beetles. Holarctic Ecology, 1989, 12: 488–493.Google Scholar
  2. Anderbrant O, Schlyter F, Birgersson G. Intraspecific competition affecting parents and offspring in the bark beetle Ips typographus. Oikos, 1985, 45: 89–98.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson M N, Larsson M C, Schlyter F. Specificity and redundancy in the olfactory system of the bark beetle Ips typographus: Single-cell responses to ecologically relevant odors. Journal of Insect Physiology, 2009, Doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.Google Scholar
  4. Atkins M D. A study of the flight of the Douglas-fir beetle Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopk. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) III. Flight capacity. Canadian Entomologist, 1961, 93: 467–474.Google Scholar
  5. Atkins M D. Laboratory studies on the behavior of the Douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins. Canadian Entomologist, 1966, 98: 953–991.Google Scholar
  6. Atkins MD. Lipid loss with flight in the Douglas fir beetle. Canadian Entomologist, 1969, 101: 164–165.Google Scholar
  7. Austarå O, Annila E, Bejer B, et al. Insect pests in forests of the nordic countries 1977–1981. Fauna Norvegica, Series B, 1984, 31: 8–15.Google Scholar
  8. Bakke A. Dosage response of the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Oliver) (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) to semiochemicals. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie, 1983, 95: 158–161.Google Scholar
  9. Bakke A. The recent Ips typographus outbreak in Norway: Experiences from a control program. Holarctic Ecology, 1989, 12: 515–519.Google Scholar
  10. Bakke A, Frøyen P, Skattebøl L. Field response to a new pheromonal compound isolated from Ips typographus. Naturwissenschaften, 1977, 64: 98.Google Scholar
  11. Barclay H J. Models for combining methods of pest control: food-baited and pheromone-baited traps containing either insecticide or chemosterilant. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 1988, 78: 573–590.Google Scholar
  12. Barclay H J, Li C. Combining methods of pest control: Minimizing cost during the control program. Theoretical Population Biology, 1991, 40: 105–123.Google Scholar
  13. Bennett R B, Borden J H. Flight arrestment of tethered Dendroctonus pseudotsugae and Trypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in response to olfactory stimuli. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 1971, 64: 1273–1286.Google Scholar
  14. Berryman A A, Ashraf M. Effects of Abies grandis resin on the attack behavior and brood survival of Scolytus ventralis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist, 1970, 102: 1229–1236.Google Scholar
  15. Berryman A A, Dennis B, Raffa K F, et al. Evolution of optimal group attack with particular reference to bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ecology, 1985, 66: 898–903.Google Scholar
  16. Birch MC, Light DM, Wood D L, et al. Pheromonal attraction and allomonal interruption of Ips pini in California by the two enantiomers of ipsdienol. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1980a, 6: 703–717.Google Scholar
  17. Birch M C, Svihra P, Paine T D, et al. Influence of chemically mediated behavior on host tree colonization by four cohabiting species of bark beetles. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1980b, 6: 395–414.Google Scholar
  18. Birgersson G, Bergström G. Volatiles released from individual spruce bark beetle entrance holes: quantitative variations during the first week of attack. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1989, 15: 2465–2484.Google Scholar
  19. Birgersson G, Leufvén A. The influence of host tree response to Ips typographus and fungal attack on production of semiochemicals. Insect Biochemistry, 1988, 18: 761–770.Google Scholar
  20. Birgersson G, Schlyter F, Löfqvist J, et al. Quantitative variation of pheromone components in the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus from different attack phases. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1984, 10: 1029–1055.Google Scholar
  21. Birgersson G, Schlyter F, Bergström G, et al. Individual variation in aggregation pheromone content of the bark beetle, Ips typographus. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1988, 14: 1737–1762.Google Scholar
  22. Birgersson G, Byers J A, Bergström G, et al. Production of pheromone components, chalcogran and methyl (E,Z) 2,4 decadienoate, in the spruce engraver Pityogenes chalcographus. Journal of Insect Physiology, 1990, 36: 391–395.Google Scholar
  23. Bonello P, Mcnee W R, Storer A J, et al. The role of olfactory stimuli in the location of weakened hosts by twig-infesting Pityophthorus spp. Ecological Entomology, 2001, 26: 8–15.Google Scholar
  24. Borden J.H. Disruption of semiochemical-mediated aggregation in bark beetles. // A. K. Minks (ed.) Pheromone Research: New Directions. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1997: 421–438.Google Scholar
  25. Borden J H, Hunt DWA, Miller D R, et al. Orientation in forest Coleoptera: an uncertain outcome of responses by individual beetles to variable stimuli. // T.L. Payne, M.C. Birch and C.E.J. Kennedy (Eds.). Mechanisms in Insect Olfaction, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986: 97–109.Google Scholar
  26. Borden J H, Chong L J, Savoie A, et al. Responses to green leaf volatiles in two biogeoclimatic zones by striped ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron lineatum. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1997, 23: 2479–2491.Google Scholar
  27. Borden J H, Wilson I M, Gries R, et al. Volatiles from the bark of trembling aspen, Populus tremuloides Michx. (Salicaceae) disrupt secondary attraction by the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Chemoecology, 1998, 8: 69–75.Google Scholar
  28. Borden J H, Chong L J, Earle T J, et al. Protection of lodgepole pine from attack by the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) using high doses of verbenone in combination with nonhost bark volatiles. Forestry Chronicle, 2003, 79: 685–691.Google Scholar
  29. Borden J H, Sparrow G R, Gervan N L. Operational success of verbenone against the mountain pine beetle in a rural community. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 2007, 33: 318–324.Google Scholar
  30. Borg T K, Norris D M. Penetration of tritiated catechol: a feeding stimulant into chemo receptor sensilla of Scolytus multistriatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 1971, 64: 544–547.Google Scholar
  31. Botterweg P F. Dispersal and flight behavior of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus in relation to sex, size and fat content. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie, 1982, 94: 466–489.Google Scholar
  32. Brand J M, Bracke J W, Markovetz A J, et al. Production of verbenol pheromone by a bacterium isolated from bark beetles. Nature, 1975, 254: 136–137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Brand J M, Bracke J W, Britton L N, et al. Bark beetle pheromones: production of verbenone by a mycangial fungus of Dendroctonus frontalis. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1976, 2: 195–199.Google Scholar
  34. Byers J A. Male specific conversion of the host plant compound, myrcene, to the pheromone, (+) ipsdienol, in the bark beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1982, 8: 363–372.Google Scholar
  35. Byers J A. Influence of sex, maturity and host substances on pheromones in the guts of the bark beetles, Dendroctonus brevicomis and Ips paraconfusus. Journal of Insect Physiology, 1983a, 29: 5–13.Google Scholar
  36. Byers J A. Bark beetle conversion of a plant compound to a sex specific inhibitor of pheromone attraction. Science, 1983b, 220: 624–626.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Byers J A. Nearest neighbor analysis and simulation of distribution patterns indicates an attack spacing mechanism in the bark beetle, Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environmental Entomology, 1984, 13: 1191–2000.Google Scholar
  38. Byers J A. Chemical ecology of bark beetles. Experientia, 1989a, 45: 271–283.Google Scholar
  39. Byers J A. Behavioral mechanisms involved in reducing competition in bark beetles. Holarctic Ecology, 1989b, 12: 466–476.Google Scholar
  40. Byers J A. Simulation of mate finding behaviour in pine shoot beetles, Tomicus piniperda. Animal Behaviour, 1991, 41: 649–660.Google Scholar
  41. Byers J A. Attraction of bark beetles, Tomicus piniperda, Hylurgops palliatus, and Trypodendron domesticum and other insects to short chain alcohols and monoterpenes. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1992a, 18: 2385–2402.Google Scholar
  42. Byers J A. Optimal fractionation and bioassay plans for isolation of synergistic chemicals: the subtractive combination method. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1992b, 18: 1603–1621.Google Scholar
  43. Byers J A. Simulation and equation models of insect population control by pheromone-baited traps. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1993a, 19: 1939–1956.Google Scholar
  44. Byers J A. Avoidance of competition by spruce bark beetles, Ips typographus and Pityogenes chalcographus. Experientia, 1993b, 49: 272–275.Google Scholar
  45. Byers J A. Host tree chemistry affecting colonization in bark beetles. // W. J. Bell (ed.) Chemical Ecology of Insects 2. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1995: 54–213.Google Scholar
  46. Byers J A. An encounter rate model for bark beetle populations searching at random for susceptible host trees. Ecological Modelling, 1996a, 91: 57–66.Google Scholar
  47. Byers J A. Temporal clumping of bark beetle arrival at pheromone traps: Modeling anemotaxis in chaotic plumes. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1996b, 22: 2133–2155.Google Scholar
  48. Byers J A. Effects of attraction radius and flight paths on catch of scolytid beetles dispersing outward through rings of pheromone traps. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1999, 25: 985–1005.Google Scholar
  49. Byers J A. Wind-aided dispersal of simulated bark beetles flying through forests. Ecological Modelling, 2000, 125: 231–243.Google Scholar
  50. Byers J A. Correlated random walk equations of animal dispersal resolved by simulation. Ecology, 2001, 82: 1680–1690.Google Scholar
  51. Byers J A. Internet programs for drawing moth pheromone analogs and searching literature database. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2002, 28: 807–817.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Byers J A. Chemical ecology of bark beetles in a complex olfactory landscape. // F. Lieutier, K. R. Day, A. Battisti, et al. Bark and Wood Boring Insects in Living Trees in Europe, a Synthesis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004: 89–134.Google Scholar
  53. Byers J A. Simulation of mating disruption and mass trapping with competitive attraction and camouflage. Environmental Entomology, 2007, 36: 1328–1338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Byers J A. Active space of pheromone plume and its relationship to effective attraction radius in applied models. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2008, 34: 1134–1145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Byers J A. Modeling distributions of flying insects: Effective attraction radius of pheromone in two and three dimensions. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2009, 256: 81–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Byers J A, Löfqvist J. Flight initiation and survival in the bark beetle Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) during the spring dispersal. Holarctic Ecology, 1989, 12: 432–440.Google Scholar
  57. Byers J A, Wood D L. Interspecific inhibition of the response of the bark beetles, Dendroctonus brevicomis and Ips paraconfusus, to their pheromones in the field. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1980, 6: 149–164.Google Scholar
  58. Byers J A, Wood D L. Interspecific effects of pheromones on the attraction of the bark beetles, Dendroctonus brevicomis and Ips paraconfusus in the laboratory. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1981a, 7: 9–18.Google Scholar
  59. Byers J A, Wood D L. Antibiotic induced inhibition of pheromone synthesis in a bark beetle. Science, 1981b, 213: 763–764.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Byers J A, Wood D L, Craig J, et al. Attractive and inhibitory pheromones produced in the bark beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis, during host colonization: regulation of inter and intraspecific competition. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1984, 10: 861–877.Google Scholar
  61. Byers J A, Lanne B S, Schlyter F, et al. Olfactory recognition of host tree susceptibility by pine shoot beetles. Naturwissenschaften, 1985, 72: 324–326.Google Scholar
  62. Byers J A, Birgersson G, Löfqvist J, et al. Synergistic pheromones and monoterpenes enable aggregation and host recognition by a bark beetle. Naturwissenschaften, 1988, 75: 153–155.Google Scholar
  63. Byers J A, Anderbrant O, Löfqvist J. Effective attraction radius: a method for comparing species attractants and determining densities of flying insects. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1989a, 15: 749–765.Google Scholar
  64. Byers J A, Lanne B S, Löfqvist J. Host tree unsuitability recognized by pine shoot beetles in flight. Experientia, 1989b, 45: 489–492.Google Scholar
  65. Byers J A, Birgersson G, Löfqvist J, et al. Isolation of pheromone synergists of bark beetle, Pityogenes chalcographus, from complex insect plant odors by fractionation and subtractive combination bioassay. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1990a, 16: 861–876.Google Scholar
  66. Byers J A, Schlyter F, Birgersson G, et al. Emyrcenol in Ips duplicatus: an aggregation pheromone component new for bark beetles. Experientia, 1990b, 46: 1209–1211.Google Scholar
  67. Byers J A, Zhang Q H, Schlyter F, et al. Volatiles from nonhost birch trees inhibit pheromone response in spruce bark beetles. Naturwissenschaften, 1998, 85: 557–561.Google Scholar
  68. Byers J A, Zhang Q H, Birgersson G. Strategies of a bark beetle, Pityogenes bidentatus, in an olfactory landscape. Naturwissenschaften, 2000, 87: 503–507.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Byers J A, Zhang Q H, Birgersson G. Avoidance of nonhost plants by a bark beetle, Pityogenes bidentatus, in a forest of odors. Naturwissenschaften, 2004, 91: 215–219.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Campos M, Pena A. Response of Phloeotribus scarabaeoides (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) to ethylene in an olfactometer. Experientia, 1995, 51: 77–79.Google Scholar
  71. Campos M, Pena A, Sanchez-Raya A J. Release of ethylene from pruned olive logs: Influence on attack by bark beetles (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1994, 20: 2513–2521.Google Scholar
  72. Chénier J V R, Philogène B J R. Field responses of certain forest Coleoptera to conifer monoterpenes and ethanol. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1989, 15: 1729–1746.Google Scholar
  73. Deglow E K, Borden J H. Green leaf volatiles disrupt and enhance response to aggregation pheromones by the ambrosia beetle, Gnathotrichus sulcatus (LeConte) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 1998, 28: 1697–1705.Google Scholar
  74. Dethier V G. Mechanisms of host plant recognition. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1982, 31: 49–56.Google Scholar
  75. Dickens J C, Billings R F, Payne T L. Green leaf volatiles interrupt aggregation pheromone response in bark beetles infesting southern pines. Experientia, 1992, 48: 523–524.Google Scholar
  76. Du J W, Löfstedt C, Löfqvist J. Repeatability of pheromone emissions from individual female ermine moths Yponomeuta padellus and Yponomeuta rorellus. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1987, 13: 1431–1442.Google Scholar
  77. Duelli P, Zahradnik P, Knizek M, Kalinova B. Migration in spruce bark beetles (Ips typographus L.) and the efficiency of pheromone traps. Journal of Applied Entomology, 1997, 121: 297–303.Google Scholar
  78. Elkinton J S, Wood D L. Feeding and boring behavior of the bark beetle Ips paraconfusus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) on the bark of a host and non host tree species. Canadian Entomologist, 1980, 112: 797–809.Google Scholar
  79. Elkinton J S, Wood D L, Browne L E. Feeding and boring behavior of the bark beetle, Ips paraconfusus, in extracts of ponderosa pine phloem. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1981, 7: 209–220.Google Scholar
  80. El-Sayed AM, Byers J A. Inhibitory effect of monoterpenes on response of Pityogenes bidentatus to aggregation pheromone released by piezoelectric sprayer for precision release of semiochemicals. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2000, 26: 1795–1809.Google Scholar
  81. Faucheux M J. Morphology of the antennal club in the male and female bark beetles Ips sexdentatus (Boern.) and Ips typographus L. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Annales des Sciences Naturelles Zoologie et Biologie Animale, 1989, 10: 231–243.Google Scholar
  82. Fettig C J, McKelvey S R, Huber D P W. Nonhost angiosperm volatiles and verbenone disrupt response of western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), to attractant-baited traps. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2005, 98: 2041–2048.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Fettig C J, Dabney C P, McKelvey S R, et al. Nonhost angiosperm volatiles and verbenone protect individual ponderosa pines from attack by western pine beetle and red turpentine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae). Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 2008, 23: 40–45.Google Scholar
  84. Fettig C J, McKelvey S R, Dabney C P, et al. Response of Dendroctonus brevicomis to different release rates of nonhost angiosperm volatiles and verbenone in trapping and tree protection studies. Journal of Applied Entomology, 2009, 133: 143–154.Google Scholar
  85. Fisher M E, Van Den Driessche P, Barclay H J. A density dependent model of pheromone trapping. Theoretical Population Biology, 1985, 27: 91–104.Google Scholar
  86. Forsse E. Flight propensity and diapause incidence in five populations of the bark beetle Ips typographus in Scandinavia. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1991, 61: 53–57.Google Scholar
  87. Forsse E, Solbreck C. Migration in the bark beetle Ips typographus L.: duration, timing and height of flight. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie, 1985, 100: 47–57.Google Scholar
  88. Francke W, Heemann V, Gerken B, et al. 2-Ethyl-1-6-dioxaspiro[4.4]nonane, principal aggregation pheromone of Pityogenes chalcographus (L.). Naturwissenschaften, 1977, 64: 590–591.Google Scholar
  89. Francke W, Bartels J, Meyer H, et al. Semiochemicals from bark beetles: New results, remarks, and reflections. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1995, 21: 1043–1063.Google Scholar
  90. Gara R I. Studies on the flight behavior of Ips confusus (LeC.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in response to attractive material. Contributions of the Boyce Thompson Institute, 1963, 22: 51–66.Google Scholar
  91. Gillette N E, Stein J D, Owen D R, et al. Verbenone-releasing flakes protect individual Pinus contorta trees from attack by Dendroctonus ponderosae and Dendroctonus valens (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae). Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 2006, 8: 243–251.Google Scholar
  92. Gillette N E, Erbilgin N, Webster J N, et al. Aerially applied verbenone-releasing laminated flakes protect Pinus contorta stands from attack by Dendroctonus ponderosae in California and Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management, 2009, 257: 1405–1412.Google Scholar
  93. Goeden R D, Norris D M. The behavior of Scolytus quadrispinosus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) during the dispersal flight as related to its host specificities. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 1965, 58: 249–252.Google Scholar
  94. Gonzalez R, Campos M. A preliminary study of the use of trap-trees baited with ethylene for the integrated management of the olive beetle, Phloeotribus scarabaeoides (Bern.) (Col., Scolytidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 1995, 119: 601–605.Google Scholar
  95. Gonzalez R, Campos M. The influence of ethylene on primary attraction of the olive beetle, Phloeotribus scarabaeoides (Bern.) (Col., Scolytidae). Experientia, 1996, 52: 723–726.Google Scholar
  96. Graves A D, Holsten E H, Ascerno M E, et al. Protection of spruce from colonization by the bark beetle, Ips perturbatus, in Alaska. Forest Ecology and Management, 2008, 256: 1825–1839.Google Scholar
  97. Gries G, Nolte R, Sanders W. Computer simulated host selection in Ips typographus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1989, 53: 211–217.Google Scholar
  98. Gries G, Bowers WW, Gries R, et al. Pheromone production by the pine engraver Ips pini following flight and starvation. Journal of Insect Physiology, 1990, 36: 819–824.Google Scholar
  99. Groberman L J, Borden H J. Electrophysiological response of Dendroctonus pseudotsugae and Ips paraconfusus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to selected wave length regions of the visible spectrum. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 1982, 60: 2180–2189.Google Scholar
  100. Guerrero A, Feixas J, Pajares J, et al. Semiochemically induced inhibition of behaviour of Tomicus destruens (Woll.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Naturwissenschaften, 1997, 84: 155–157.Google Scholar
  101. Hagen B W, Atkins M D. Between generation variability in the fat content and behaviour of Ips paraconfusus Lanier. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie, 1975, 79: 169–172.Google Scholar
  102. Haniotakis G, Kozyrakis M, Fitsakis T, et al. An effective mass trapping method for the control of Dacus oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 1991, 84: 564–569.Google Scholar
  103. Hodges J D, Elam W W, Watson W R, et al. Oleoresin characteristics and susceptibility of four southern pines to southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) attacks. Canadian Entomologist, 1979, 111: 889–896.Google Scholar
  104. Hodges J D, Nebeker T E, DeAngelis J D, et al. Host resistance and mortality: a hypothesis based on the southern pine beetle microorganism host interactions. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 1985, 31: 31–35.Google Scholar
  105. Huber D PW. Responses of five species of coniferophagous bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to angiosperm bark volatiles. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University, Canada. 2001: 164.Google Scholar
  106. Huber D P W, Borden J H. Angiosperm bark volatiles disrupt response of Douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae, to attractant-baited traps. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2001a, 27: 217–233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Huber D P W, Borden J H. Protection of lodgepole pines from mass attack by mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae, with nonhost angiosperm volatiles and verbenone. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 2001b, 99: 131–141.Google Scholar
  108. Huber D PW, Gries R, Borden J H, et al. Two pheromones of coniferophagous bark beetles found in the bark of non-host angiosperms. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1999, 25: 805–816.Google Scholar
  109. Huber D PW, Borden J H, Jeans-Williams N L, et al. Differential bioactivity of conophthorin on four species of North American bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist, 2000, 132: 649–653.Google Scholar
  110. Huber D P W, Borden J H, Stastny M. Response of the pine engraver, Ips pini (Say) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), to conophthorin and other angiosperm bark volatiles in the avoidance of non-hosts. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 2001, 3: 225–232.Google Scholar
  111. Hynum B G, Berryman A A. Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) pre aggregation landing and gallery initiation on lodgepole pine. Canadian Entomologist, 1980, 112: 185–192.Google Scholar
  112. Jactel H, Brockerhoff E G. Tree diversity reduces herbivory by forest insects. Ecology Letters, 2007, 10: 835–848.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Jactel H, Gaillard J. A preliminary study of the dispersal potential of Ips sexdentatus Boern (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) with an automatically recording flight mill. Journal of Applied Entomology, 1991, 112: 138–145.Google Scholar
  114. Jactel H, Van Halder I, Menassieu P, et al. Non-host volatiles disrupt the response of the stenographer bark beetle, Ips sexdentatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to pheromone baited traps and maritime pine logs. Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 2001, 6: 197–207.Google Scholar
  115. Jakus R. A method for the protection of spruce stands against Ips typographus by the use of barriers of pheromone traps in northeastern Slovakia. Anzeiger für Schadlingskunde Pflanzenschutz Umweltschutz, 1998, 71: 152–158.Google Scholar
  116. Jakus R, Schlyter F, Zhang Q H, et al. Overview of development of anti-attractant based technology for spruce protection against Ips typographus. Journal of Pest Science, 2003, 76: 89–99.Google Scholar
  117. Kelsey R G, Joseph G. Ethanol and water in Pseudotsuga menziesii and Pinus ponderosa stumps. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1999, 25: 2779–2792.Google Scholar
  118. Klimetzek D, Köhler J, Vité J P, et al. Dosage response to ethanol mediates host selection by’ secondary’ bark beetles. Naturwissenschaften, 1986, 73: 270–272.Google Scholar
  119. Lier G N. Integration of visual stimuli, host odorants, and pheromones by bark beetles and weevils in locating and colonizing host trees. // S. Ahmad. Herbivorous Insects: Host Seeking Behavior and Mechanisms. New York: Academic Press, 1983: 161–71.Google Scholar
  120. Lanier G N, Classon A, Stewart T, et al. Ips pini: the basis for interpopulational differences in pheromone biology. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1980, 6: 677–687.Google Scholar
  121. Lanne B S, Schlyter F, Byers J A, et al. Differences in attraction to semiochemicals present in sympatric pine shoot beetles, Tomicus minor and T. Piniperdaf. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1987, 13: 1045–1067.Google Scholar
  122. Lindelöw A, Weslien J. Sex specific emergence of Ips typographus L. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and flight behavior in response to pheromone sources following hibernation. Canadian Entomologist, 1986, 118: 59–67.Google Scholar
  123. Lindelöw A, Risberg B, Sjodin K. Attraction during flight of scolytids and other bark and wood dwelling beetles to volatiles from fresh and stored spruce wood. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 1992, 22: 224–248.Google Scholar
  124. Magema N, Gaspar C, Séverin M. Efficacité de l’éthanol dans le piégeage du scolyte Trypodendron lineatum (Olivier, 1795) (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) et role des constituants terpeniques de l’epicea. Annales de la Societe Royale Zoologique de Belgique, 1982, 112: 49–60.Google Scholar
  125. Miller D R, Borden J H. β-Phellandrene: kairomone for pine engraver Ips pini (Say)(Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1990, 16: 2519–2531.Google Scholar
  126. Miller J M, Keen F P. Biology and Control of the Western Pine Beetle. USDA miscellaneous publication, 1960, 800: 381.Google Scholar
  127. Miller J R, Strickler K L. Finding and accepting host plants. // W.J. Bell and R.T. Cardé. Chemical Ecology, of Insects, London: Chapman and Hall. 1984: 127–157.Google Scholar
  128. Moeck H A. Ethanol as the primary attractant for the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist, 1970, 102: 985–994.Google Scholar
  129. Moeck H A, Wood D L, Lindahl Jr K Q. Host selection behavior of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) attacking Pinus ponderosa, with special emphasis on the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1981, 7: 49–83.Google Scholar
  130. Montgomery M E, Wargo P M. Ethanol and other host derived volatiles as attractants to beetles that bore into hardwoods. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1983, 9: 181–190.Google Scholar
  131. Mustaparta H. Olfaction. // W.J. Bell, R.T. Cardé. Chemical Ecology, of Insects. London: Chapman and Hall. 1984: 37–70.Google Scholar
  132. Nilssen A C. Development of a bark fauna in plantations of spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) in north Norway. Astarta, 1978, 11: 151–169.Google Scholar
  133. Paiva M R, Kiesel K. Field responses of Trypodendron spp. (Col., Scolytidae) to different concentrations of lineatin and pinene. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie, 1985, 99: 442–448.Google Scholar
  134. Payne T L. Pheromone and host odor perception in bark beetles. // T. Narahashi. Neurotoxicology of Insecticides and Pheromones, New York: Plenum Publishing Company. 1979: 27–57.Google Scholar
  135. Phillips T W. Responses of Hylastes salebrosus to turpentine, ethanol and pheromones of Dendroctonus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Florida Entomologist, 1990, 73: 286–292.Google Scholar
  136. Poland TM, Haack R A. Pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), responses to common green leaf volatiles. Journal of Applied Entomology, 2000, 124: 63–70.Google Scholar
  137. Poland T M, Borden J H, Stock A J, et al. Green leaf volatiles disrupt responses by the spruce beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis, and the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to attractant-baited traps. Journal of Entomological Society of British Columbia, 1998, 95: 17–24.Google Scholar
  138. Popp M P, Johnson J D, Lesney M S. Changes in ethylene production and monoterpene concentration in slash pine and loblolly pine following inoculations with bark beetle vectored fungi. Tree Physiology, 1995, 15: 807–812.Google Scholar
  139. Pureswaran D S, Gries R, Borden J H. Antennal responses of four species of tree-killing bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to volatiles collected from beetles, and their host and nonhost conifers. Chemoecology, 2004, 14: 59–66.Google Scholar
  140. Raffa K F, Berryman A A. Flight responses and host selection by bark beetles. // A.A. Berryman, L. Safranyik. Dispersal of Forest Insects: Evaluation, Theory and Management Implications. Proc. second IUFRO conf., Canadian and USDA Forest Service. 1979: 213–233.Google Scholar
  141. Raffa K F, Berryman A A. Gustatory cues in the orientation of Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to host trees. Canadian Entomologist, 1982, 114: 97–104.Google Scholar
  142. Raffa K F, Phillips TW, Salom SM. Strategies and mechanisms of host colonization by bark beetles. // T.D. Schowalter, G. M. Filip. Beetle-Pathogen Interactions in Conifer Forests. London: Academic Press. 1993: 103–128.Google Scholar
  143. Ramaswamy S B, Cardé R T. Rate of release of spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana pheromone from virgin females and synthetic lures. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1984, 10: 1–8.Google Scholar
  144. Renwick J A A, Vité J P. Systems of chemical communication in Dendroctonus. Contributions of the Boyce Thompson Institute, 1970, 24: 283–292.Google Scholar
  145. Richter D. Control of bark beetles in the five new states of the Federal Republic of Germany. // A. Wulf and R. Kehr. Bark Beetle Hazards Following Storm Damage: Possibilities and Limits of Integrated Control. Colloquium, Braunschweig, Germany. Communications from the Federal Biological Institute for Agriculture and Forestry, Berlin-Dahlem, No. 267. 1991: 28–36.Google Scholar
  146. Salom S M, Mclean J A. Influence of wind on the spring flight of Trypodendron lineatum Olivier (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in a second growth coniferous forest. Canadian Entomologist, 1989, 121: 109–120.Google Scholar
  147. Schlyter F, Birgersson G. Forest Beetles. // A. K. Minks. Pheromones of Non-Lepidopteran Insects Associated with Agricultural Plants. Wallingford: CAB International, 1999: 113–148.Google Scholar
  148. Schlyter F, Birgersson G, Byers J A, et al. Field response of spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus, to aggregation pheromone candidates. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1987a, 13: 701–716.Google Scholar
  149. Schlyter F, Byers J A, Löfqvist J. Attraction to pheromone sources of different quantity, quality, and spacing: density regulation mechanisms in bark beetle Ips typographus. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1987b, 13: 1503–1523.Google Scholar
  150. Schlyter F, Löfqvist J, Byers J A. Behavioural sequence in the attraction of the bark beetle Ips typographus to pheromone sources. Physiological Entomology, 1987c, 12: 185–196.Google Scholar
  151. Schlyter F, Byers J A, Löfqvist J, et al. Reduction of attack density of the bark beetles Ips typographus and Tomicus piniperda on host bark by verbenone inhibition of attraction to pheromone and host kairomone. // T. L. Payne and H. Saarenma, Integrated Control of Scolytid Bark Beetles. Blacksburg: Virginia Tech Press, 1988: 53–68.Google Scholar
  152. Schlyter F, Birgersson G, Leufven A. Inhibition of attraction to aggregation pheromone by verbenone and ipsenol: density regulation mechanisms in bark beetle Ips typographus. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1989, 15: 2263–2277.Google Scholar
  153. Schlyter F, Birgersson G, Byers J A, et al. The aggregation pheromone of Ips duplicatus and its role in competitive interactions with I. typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Chemoecology, 1992, 3: 103–112.Google Scholar
  154. Schlyter F, Löfqvist J, Jakus R. Green leaf volatiles and verbenone modify attraction of European Tomicus, Hylurgops, and Ips bark beetles.// F.P. Hain, S.M. Salom, W.F. Ravlin, et al. Behavior, Population Dynamics, and Control of Forest Insects, Proceedings IUFRO Working Party Conference. Ohio State Univ. 1995: 29–44.Google Scholar
  155. Schlyter F, Zhang Q H, Anderson P A, et al. Electrophysiological and behavioural responses of Tomicus piniperda and T. minor (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), to non-host leaf and bark volatiles. Canadian Entomologist, 2000, 132: 965–981.Google Scholar
  156. Schlyter F, Zhang Q H, Liu G T, et al. A successful case of pheromone mass trapping of the bark beetle Ips duplicatus in a forest island, analysed by 20-year time-series data. Integrated Pest Management Review, 2001, 6: 185–196.Google Scholar
  157. Schroeder L M. Attraction of the bark beetle Tomicus piniperda to Scots pine trees in relation to tree vigor and attack density. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1987, 44: 53–58.Google Scholar
  158. Schroeder L M. Attraction of the bark beetle Tomicus piniperda and some other bark and wood living beetles to the host volatiles pinene and ethanol. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1988, 46: 203–210.Google Scholar
  159. Schroeder L M. Olfactory recognition of nonhosts aspen and birch by conifer bark beetles Tomicus piniperda and Hylurgops palliatus. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1992, 18: 1583–1593.Google Scholar
  160. Schroeder L M, Eidmann H H. Gallery initiation by Tomicus piniperda (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) on Scots pine trees baited with host volatiles. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1987, 13: 1591–1599.Google Scholar
  161. Schroeder L M, Lindelöw A. Attraction of scolytids and associated beetles by different absolute amounts and proportions of pinene and ethanol. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1989, 15: 807–818.Google Scholar
  162. Scriber J M. Host plant suitability. // W.J. Bell, R.T. Cardé. Chemical Ecology, of Insects, London: Chapman and Hall. 1984: 159–202.Google Scholar
  163. Seybold S J, Tittiger C. Biochemistry and molecular biology of de novo isoprenoid pheromone production in the Scolytidae. Annual Review of Entomology, 2003, 48: 425–453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. Seybold S J, Bohlmann J, Raffa K F. The biosynthesis of coniferophagous bark beetle pheromones and conifer isoprenoids: evolutionary perspective and synthesis. Canadian Entomologist, 2000, 132: 697–753.Google Scholar
  165. Shepherd W P, Huber D P W, Seybold S J, et al. Antennal responses of the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), to stem volatiles of its primary host, Pinus ponderosa, and nine sympatric nonhost angiosperms and conifers. Chemoecology, 2007, 17: 209–221.Google Scholar
  166. Städler E. Contact chemoreception. //W.J. Bell, R.T. Cardé. Chemical Ecology, of Insects, London: Chapman and Hall. 1984: 3–35.Google Scholar
  167. Sternlicht M, Barzakay I, Tamim M. Management of Prays citri in lemon orchards by mass trapping of males. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1990, 55: 59–68.Google Scholar
  168. Thompson S N, Bennett R B. Oxidation of fat during flight of male Douglas fir beetles, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae. Insect Physiology, 1971, 17: 1555–1563.Google Scholar
  169. Thoss V, Byers J A. Monoterpene chemodiversity of ponderosa pine in relation to herbivory and bark beetle colonization. Chemoecology, 2006, 16: 51–58.Google Scholar
  170. Tilden P E, Bedard W D, Lindahl Jr K Q, et al. Trapping Dendroctonus brevicomis: changes in attractant release rate, dispersion of attractant, and silhouette. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1983, 9: 311–321.Google Scholar
  171. Tommerås B A, Mustaparta H, Gregoire J C. Receptor cells in Ips typographus and Dendroctonus micans specific to pheromones of the reciprocal genus. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1984, 10: 759–769.Google Scholar
  172. Vité J P. The European struggle to control Ips typographus: Past present and future. Holarctic Ecology, 1989, 12: 520–525.Google Scholar
  173. Vité J P, Bakke A. Synergism between chemical and physical stimuli in host selection by an ambrosia beetle. Naturwissenschaften, 1979, 66: 528–529.Google Scholar
  174. Vité J P, Volz H A, Paiva M R, Bakke A. Semiochemicals in host selection and colonization of pine trees by the pine shoot beetle Tomicus piniperda. Naturwissenschaften, 1986, 73: 39–40.Google Scholar
  175. Vrkoc J. Use of insect pheromone in integrated pest management examples from Czechoslovakia. Chem Scripta, 1989, 29: 407–410.Google Scholar
  176. Wilson I M, Borden J H, Gries R, Gries G. Green leaf volatiles as antiaggregants for the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1996, 22: 1861–1875.Google Scholar
  177. Witanachchi J P, Morgan F D. Behavior of the bark beetle, Ips grandicollis, during host selection. Physiological Entomology, 1981, 6: 219–223.Google Scholar
  178. Wood D L. Approach to research and forest management for western pine beetle control. // C.B. Huffaker (ed.). New Technology of Pest Control. New York: JohnWiley and Sons. 1980: 417–448.Google Scholar
  179. Wood D L. The role of pheromones, kairomones, and allomones in the host selection and colonization behavior of bark beetles. Annual Review of Entomology, 1982, 27: 411–446.Google Scholar
  180. Wood S L. The bark and ambrosia beetles of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic monograph. Great basin naturalist memoirs. Provo: Brigham Young Univ., 1982: 1359.Google Scholar
  181. Wood S L. Bark and ambrosia beetles of South America (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Provo: Brigham Young University, M.L. Bean Life Science Museum, 2007: 900.Google Scholar
  182. Zhang Q H. Olfactory recognition and behavioural avoidance of angiosperm non-host volatiles by conifer bark beetles. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden. 2001: 166Google Scholar
  183. Zhang Q H. Interruption of aggregation pheromone in Ips typographus (L.) (Col.: Scolytidae) by non-host bark volatiles. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 2003, 5: 145–153.Google Scholar
  184. Zhang Q H, Schlyter F. Redundancy, synergism and active inhibitory range of non-host volatiles in reducing pheromone attraction of European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus. Oikos, 2003, 101: 299–310.Google Scholar
  185. Zhang Q H, Schlyter F. Olfactory recognition and behavioural avoidance of angiosperm nonhost volatiles by coniferinhabiting bark beetles. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 2004, 6: 1–19.Google Scholar
  186. Zhang Q H, Birgersson G, Zhu J, et al. Leaf volatiles from nonhost deciduous trees: Variation by tree species, season, and temperature, and electrophysiological activity in Ips typographus. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1999a, 25: 1923–1943.Google Scholar
  187. Zhang Q H, Schlyter F, Anderson P. Green leaf volatiles interrupt pheromone response of spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1999b, 25: 2847–2861.Google Scholar
  188. Zhang Q H, Schlyter F, Birgersson G. Bark volatiles from nonhost angiosperm trees of spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus (L.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): Chemical and electrophysiological analysis. Chemoecology, 2000, 10: 69–80.Google Scholar
  189. Zhang Q H, Liu G T, Schlyter F, et al. Olfactory response of Ips duplicatus to nonhost leaf and bark volatiles in inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2001, 27: 955–1009.Google Scholar
  190. Zhang LW, Gillette N E, Sun J H. Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of Dendroctonus valens to non-host volatiles. Annals of Forest Science, 2007a, 64: 267–273.Google Scholar
  191. Zhang Q H, Schlyter F, Chen G, et al. Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of Ips subelongatus to semiochemicals from its hosts, non-hosts, and conspecifics in China. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2007b, 33: 391–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  192. Zhang Q H, Erbilgin N, Seybold S J. GC-EAD responses to semiochemicals by eight beetles in the subcortical community associated with Monterey pine trees in coastal California: similarities and disparities across three trophic levels. Chemoecology, 2008, 18: 243–254.Google Scholar
  193. Zolubas P, Byers J A. Recapture of dispersing bark beetles, Ips typographus L. (Col., Scolytidae) in pheromone-baited traps: regression models. Journal of Applied Entomology, 1995, 19: 285–289.Google Scholar
  194. Zumr V. Dispersal of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus (L.) (Col., Scolytidae) in spruce woods. Journal of Applied Entomology, 1992, 114: 348–352.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press, Beijing and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • John A. Byers
    • 1
  • Qinghe Zhang
    • 2
  1. 1.Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARSMaricopaUSA
  2. 2.Sterling International, Inc.SpokaneUSA

Personalised recommendations