Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T00:14:40.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFECT OF ENGLISH, SIBERIAN, AND CHINESE ELMS ON THE ATTACK BEHAVIOR AND BROOD SURVIVAL OF SCOLYTUS MULTISTRIATUS (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Pavel Švihra  and
W. Jan A. Volney
Pavel Švihra
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension, University of California, Berkeley, California94720
W. Jan A. Volney
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology and Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scolytus multistriatus female adults demonstrated a distinct preference for English and Siberian elm over Chinese elm in attacking bolts and establishing egg galleries. Density of attacks appeared related to bark roughness of the exposed bolt. A ranking of elm species suitability for S. multistriatus is thus possible. Some of the females forced to attack Chinese elm died after making nuptial chambers but before establishing egg galleries. Egg production by females was unaffected by attack densities observed, elm species, or the place where the trial was conducted. In the laboratory, survival from egg to adult was lower in Chinese elm than in English or Siberian elm. Ability of the larvae to mine outer bark at high densities is believed to be a response to intraspecific competition and probably enhances survival. The first estimates of subcortical population parameters are presented for this species in North America. Adaptive value of variations in relationships between the beetle and various elm species is discussed.

Résumé

Les femelles adultes de Scolytus multistriatus ont montré une préférence nette pour Ulmus procera et U. pumila comparées à U. parvifolia, révélée par l'attaque des billes et l'établissement de galeries de ponte. La densité des attaques est apparue liée à la rugosité de l'écorce de la bille exposée, permettant ainsi une classification de la convenance des espèces d'orme pour S. multistriatus. Une partie des femelles forcées à attaquer U. parvifolia sont mortes après la construction de chambres nuptiales, avant la construction des galeries de ponte. La production des oeufs par les femelles n'a pas été affectée par l'espèce d'orme ou le site d'observation, ceci aux densités d'attaque observées. Au laboratoire, la survie entre l'oeuf et l'adulte s'est avérée plus faible sur U. parvifolia que sur les deux autres espèces d'orme. La capacité des larves de miner l'écorce externe à haute densité est possiblement un effet d'interaction interspécifique qui améliorerait la survie. Les premiers estimés de paramètres démographiques relatifs aux populations sous-corticales de cette espèce en Amérique du Nord sont présentés. La discussion traite de la valeur adaptative des variations observées des relations du scolyte avec différentes espèces d'orme.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 115 , Issue 5 , May 1983 , pp. 513 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armitage, H. M. 1951. Current insect notes. Bull. St. Calif. Dep. Agric. XL: 111–118.Google Scholar
Bartels, J. M. and Lanier, G. N.. 1974. Emergence and mating of Scolytus multistriatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 67: 365–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, R. A. 1966. The development and expression of population tables for the bark beetle, Scolytus scolytus (F.). J. Anim. Ecol. 35: 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, R. A. 1967. Notes on the biology of the bark beetles attacking elm in Wytham Wood, Berk. Entomologist's mon. Mag. 102: 156–162.Google Scholar
Beaver, R. A. 1974. Intraspecific competition among bark beetle larvae. J. Anim. Ecol. 43: 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, W. B. and Mankowsky, R. A.. 1965. Twig feeding by the smaller European elm bark beetle on different kinds of trees. J. econ. Ent. 58: 132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berryman, A. A. and Pienaar, L. V.. 1973. Simulation of intraspecific competition and survival of Scolytus ventralis broods. Environ. Ent. 2: 447–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, L. R. 1965. Seasonal development of the smaller European elm bark beetle in Southern California. J. econ. Ent. 48: 176–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, L. E. 1972. An emergence cage and refrigerated collector for wood-boring insects and their associates. J. econ. Ent. 65: 1499–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. W. 1910. The introduction of a European scolytid, the smaller elm bark beetle, Scolytus multistriatus (Marsh.) into Massachusetts. Psyche, Camb. 17: 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, R. N. 1979. Population dynamics of bark beetles. A. Rev. Ent. 24: 417–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkinton, J. S. and Wood, D. L.. 1980. Feeding and boring behavior of the bark beetle Ips paraconfusus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) on the bark of a host and non-host tree species. Can. Ent. 112: 797–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheperd, R. F. 1965. Distribution of attacks by Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopk. on Pinus contorta Dougl. var. latifolia Engelm. Can. Ent. 97: 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, W. A. 1978. Range, suspects, losses. pp. 6–8in Sinclair, W. A. and Campana, R. J. (Eds.), Dutch Elm Disease Perspectives After 60 years. Search, Agriculture 8, No. 5. Plant Pathology 1978. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn., Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
Struble, G. R. 1957. The fir engraver, a serious enemy of western true firs. Res. Rep. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Prod. 11. 9 pp.Google Scholar
Švihra, P. and Koehler, C. S.. 1981. Attraction of flying Scolytus multistriatus to cut wood of three elm species in California. Environ. Ent. 10: 565–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Švihra, P. and Koehler, C. S.. 1982. Attack and development of Scolytus multistriatus in small-diameter elm branches. Environ. Ent. 11: 59A–59F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar