Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:29:15.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semiochemicals for management of the southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae): successes, failures, and obstacles to progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2020

Brian T. Sullivan Open the ORCID record for Brian T. Sullivan [Opens in a new window]  and
Stephen R. Clarke
Brian T. Sullivan*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2500 Shreveport Highway, Pineville, Louisiana, 71360, United States of America
Stephen R. Clarke
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, 2221 North Raguet Street, Lufkin, Texas, 75904, United States of America
*
*Corresponding author. Email: brian.sullivan2@usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), is among the most destructive bark beetle pests of pines (Pinaceae) of the southeast and mid-Atlantic United States of America, Mexico, and Central America. Numerous volatile compounds can stimulate or reduce attraction of the beetle, but efforts to incorporate these into effective, practical technologies for pest management have yielded mixed results. Attractants have been incorporated into lures used in monitoring traps that are employed operationally to forecast outbreaks and detect emerging populations. The attraction inhibitor, verbenone, shows efficacy for suppressing southern pine beetle infestations but has not yet been adopted operationally. No effective semiochemical tree protectant has been developed for the beetle. We discuss complexities in the chemical ecology of the beetle that likely have impeded research and development of semiochemical management tools, and we describe basic science gaps that may hinder further progress if not addressed. We also report some supporting, original experimental data indicating (1) that a verbenone device can inhibit the beetle’s response to sources of attractant in a radius of at least several metres, (2) similar olfactory responses by the beetle to both enantiomers of verbenone, and (3) that pheromone background can cause conflicting results in semiochemical field tests.

Type
Research Papers
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 153 , Issue 1: Managing bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) with semiochemicals , February 2021 , pp. 36 - 61
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
To the extent this is a work of the US Government, it is not subject to copyright protection within the United States
Copyright
© The Author(s) and United States Department of Agriculture 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of Canada

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.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: Michael Stastny

References

Amman, G.D., Thier, R.W., McGregor, M.D., and Schmitz, R.F. 1989. Efficacy of verbenone in reducing lodgepole pine infestation by mountain pine beetles in Idaho. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 19: 60–64.10.1139/x89-008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, M.P., Martinson, S.J., and Friedenberg, N.A. 2011. Southern pine beetle ecology: populations within stands. In The Southern Pine Beetle II. Edited by R.N. Coulson and K.D. Klepzig. General Technical Report SRS-140. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina, United States of America. Pp. 75–89.Google Scholar
Billings, R.F. 1985. Southern pine bark beetles and associated insects: effects of rapidly-released host volatiles on response to aggregation pheromones. Journal of Applied Entomology, 99: 483–491.Google Scholar
Billings, R.F. 2011a. Mechanical control of southern pine beetle infestations. In The Southern Pine Beetle II. Edited by R.N. Coulson and K.D. Klepzig. General Technical Report SRS-140. United States Department of Agriculature Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Pp. 399–413.Google Scholar
Billings, R.F. 2011b. Aerial detection, ground evaluation, and monitoring of the southern pine beetle: states perspectives. In The Southern Pine Beetle II. Edited by R.N. Coulson and K.D. Klepzig. General Technical Report SRS-140. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina, United States of America. Pp. 245–261.Google Scholar
Billings, R.F., Berisford, C.W., Salom, S.M., and Payne, T.L. 1995. Applications of semiochemicals in the management of southern pine beetle infestations: current status of research. General Technical Report INT-GTR-318. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, United States of America. Pp. 30–38.Google Scholar
Billings, R.F. and Pase, H.A., III. 1979. Spot proliferation patterns as a measure of the area-wide effectiveness of southern pine beetle control tactics. In Evaluating control tactics for the southern pine beetle. Edited by J.E. Coster and J.L. Searcy. Technical Bulletin 1613. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington D.C., United States of America. Pp. 86–97.Google Scholar
Billings, R.F. and Upton, W.W. 2010. A methodology for assessing annual risk of southern pine beetle outbreaks across the southern region using pheromone traps. In Advances in Threat Assessment and Their Application to Forest and Rangeland Management. Edited by J.M. Pye, H.M. Rauscher, Y. Sands, D.C. Lee, and J.S. Beatty. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-802. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest and Southern Research Stations, Portland, Oregon, United States of America. Pp. 73–85.Google Scholar
Birt, A. 2011. Regional population dynamics. In Southern Pine Beetle II. Edited by R. N. Coulson and K. D. Klepzig. General Technical Report SRS-140. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina, United States of America. Pp. 109–128.Google Scholar
Bjostad, L.B. 1998. Electrophysiological methods. In Methods in Chemical Ecology, Volume 1: Chemical Methods. Edited by J.G. Millar and K.F. Haynes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts. United States of America. Pp. 339–375.Google Scholar
Bookwalter, J., Riggins, J., Dean, J., Mastro, V., Schimleck, L., Sullivan, B., and Gandhi, K. 2019. Colonization and development of Sirex noctilio (Hymenoptera: Siricidae) in bolts of a native pine host and six species of pine grown in the southeastern United States. Journal of Entomological Science, 54: 1–18.10.18474/JES18-05CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, J.H. 1974. Aggregation pheromones in the Scolytidae. In Frontiers of Biology. Edited by A. Neuberger and E.L. Tatum. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Pp. 135–160.Google Scholar
Borden, J.H. 1993. Uncertain fate of spot infestations of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins. The Canadian Entomologist, 125: 167–169.10.4039/Ent125167-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, J.H. 1995. From identifying semiochemicals to developing a suppression tactic: a historical review. In Application of semiochemicals for management of bark beetle infestations – proceedings of an informal conference. Edited by S.M. Salom and K.R. Hobson. General Technical Report INT-GTR-318. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America. Pp. 3–10.Google Scholar
Borden, J.H. 1997. Disruption of semiochemical-mediated aggregation in bark beetles. In Insect Pheromone Research: New Directions. Edited by R.T. Cardé and A.K. Minks. Chapman and Hall, New York, United States of America. Pp. 421–438.10.1007/978-1-4615-6371-6_37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, J.H., Birmingham, A.L., and Burleigh, J.S. 2006. Evaluation of the push–pull tactic against the mountain pine beetle using verbenone and non-host volatiles in combination with pheromone-baited trees. The Forestry Chronicle, 82: 579–590.10.5558/tfc82579-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, J.H., Chong, L.J., Earle, T.J., and Huber, D.P.W. 2003. 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. The Forestry Chronicle, 79: 685–691.10.5558/tfc79685-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, J.H., Chong, L.J., and Fuchs, M.C. 1983. Application of semiochemicals in post-logging manipulation of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 76: 1428–1432.10.1093/jee/76.6.1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brand, J.M., Bracke, J.W., Britton, L.N., Markovetz, A.J., and Barras, S.J. 1976. Bark beetle pheromones: production of verbenone by a mycangial fungus of Dendroctonus frontalis . Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2: 195–199.10.1007/BF00987742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brand, J.M., Bracke, J.W., Markovetz, A.J., Wood, D.L., and Browne, L.L. 1975. Production of verbenol pheromone by a bacterium isolated from bark beetles. Nature, 254: 136–137.10.1038/254136a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byers, J.A. 1989. Behavioral mechanisms involved in reducing competition in bark beetles. Holarctic Ecology, 12: 466–476.Google Scholar
Byers, J.A., Lanne, B.S., and Lofqvist, J. 1989. Host tree unsuitability recognized by pine shoot beetles in flight. Experientia, 45: 489–492.10.1007/BF01952042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, E., Waring, R.H., and Berryman, A.A. 1987. Resistance of conifers to bark beetle attack: searching for general relationships. Forest Ecology and Management, 22: 89–106.10.1016/0378-1127(87)90098-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, S.R. and Billings, R.F. 2003. Analysis of the southern pine beetle suppression program on the national forests in Texas in the 1990s. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 27: 122–129.10.1093/sjaf/27.2.122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, S.R., Salom, S.M., Billings, R.F., Berisford, C.W., Upton, W.W., McClellan, Q.C., and Dalusky, M.J. 1999. A Scentsible approach to controlling southern pine beetles. Journal of Forestry, 97: 26–31.Google Scholar
Cook, S.M., Khan, Z.R., and Pickett, J.A. 2006. The use of push–pull strategies in integrated pest management. Annual Review of Entomology, 52: 375–400.10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conner, R.N. and Rudolph, D.C. 1995. Losses of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees to southern pine beetles. The Wilson Bulletin, 107: 81–92.Google Scholar
Conner, R.N., Saenz, D., Rudolph, D.C., and Coulson, R.N. 1998. Southern pine beetle-induced mortality of pines with natural and artificial red-cockaded woodpecker cavities in Texas. The Wilson Bulletin, 110: 100–109.Google Scholar
Conner, R.N., Saenz, D., Rudolph, D.C., Ross, W.G., Kulhavy, D.L., and Coulson, R.N. 2001. Does red-cockaded woodpecker excavation of resin wells increase risk of bark beetle infestation of cavity trees? The Auk, 118: 21–224.10.1093/auk/118.1.219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copony, J.A. and Morris, C.L. 1972. Southern pine beetle suppression with frontalure and cacodylic acid treatments. Journal of Economic Entomology, 65: 754–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coster, J.E., Hicks, R.R., Jr., and Watterston, K.G. 1978. Directional spread of southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infestations in East Texas. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society, 13: 315–321.Google Scholar
Coster, J.E., Payne, T.L., Hart, E.R., and Edson, L.J. 1977a. Seasonal variations in mass attack behavior of southern pine beetle. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society, 12: 204–211.Google Scholar
Coster, J.E., Payne, T.L., Hart, E.R., and Edson, L.J. 1977b. Aggregation of the southern pine beetle in response to attractive host trees. Environmental Entomology, 6: 725–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, R.N., Feldman, R.M., Sharpe, P.J.H., Pulley, P.E., Wagner, T.L., and Payne, T.L. 1989. An overview of the Tambeetle model of Dendroctonus frontalis population dynamics. Holarctic Ecology, 12: 445–450.Google Scholar
Coulson, R.N., Flamm, R.O., Wagner, T.L., Rykiel, E.J., Sharpe, P.J.H., Payne, T.L., and Lin, S.K. 1985. Population dynamics of initiation and growth of southern pine beetle infestations. In Proceedings of the Integrated Pest Management Symposium. Edited by S.J. Branham and R.C. Thatcher. General Technical Report SO-56. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States of America. Pp. 136–151.Google Scholar
Coulson, R.N., Foltz, J.L., Mayyasi, A.M., and Hain, F.P. 1975. Quantitative evaluation of frontalure and cacodylic acid treatment effects on within-tree populations of the southern pine beetle. Journal of Economic Entomology, 68: 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, R.N., Hennier, P.B., Flamm, R.O., Rykiel, E.J., Hum, L.C., and Pa, T.L. 1983. The role of lightning in the epidemiology of the southern pine beetle. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 96: 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, R.N., Oliveria, F.L., Payne, T.L., and Houseweart, M.W. 1973a. Variables associated with use of frontalure and cacodylic acid in supression of the southern pine beetle. 1. Factors influencing manipulation to prescribed trap trees. Journal of Economic Entomology, 66: 893–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, R.N., Oliveria, F.L., Payne, T.L., and Houseweart, M.W. 1973b. Variables associated with use of frontalure and cacodylic acid in suppression of the southern pine beetle. 2. Brood reduction in trees treated with cacodylic acid. Journal of Economic Entomology, 66: 897–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, R.N., Pulley, P.E., Foltz, J.L., and Martin, W.C. 1976. Procedural guide for quantitatively sampling within-tree populations of Dendroctonus frontalis. Miscellaneous Publication MP-1267. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, United States of America. Pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Cronin, J.T., Turchin, P., Hayes, J.L., and Steiner, C.A. 1999. Area-wide efficacy of a localized forest pest management practice. Environmental Entomology, 28: 496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickens, J.C., Billings, R.F., and Payne, T.L. 1992. Green leaf volatiles interrupt aggregation pheromone response in bark beetles infesting southern pines. Experientia, 48: 523–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds, K.J., Aoki, C.F., Arango-Velez, A., Cancelliere, J., D’Amato, A.W., DiGirolomo, M.F., and Rabaglia, R.J. 2018. Expansion of southern pine beetle into northeastern forests: management and impact of a primary bark beetle in a new region. Journal of Forestry, 116: 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigenbrode, S.D., Birch, A.N.E., Lindzey, S., Meadow, R., and Snyder, W.E. 2016. A mechanistic framework to improve understanding and applications of push–pull systems in pest management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53: 202–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Sayed, A., Suckling, D., Byers, J., Jang, E., and Wearing, C. 2009. Potential of “lure and kill” in long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species. Journal of Economic Entomology, 102: 815–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Sayed, A.M., Suckling, D.M., Wearing, C.H., and Byers, J.A. 2006. Potential of mass trapping for long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species. Journal of Economic Entomology, 99: 1550–1564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fargo, W.S., Coulson, R.M., Pulley, P.E., Pope, D.N., and Kelley, C.L. 1978. Spatial and temporal patterns of within-tree colonization by Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). The Canadian Entomologist, 110: 1213–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fettig, C.J., Dabney, C.P., McKelvey, S.R., and Borys, R.R. 2006. An assessment of re-randomization methods in bark beetle (Scolytidae) trapping bioassays. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 8: 267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fettig, C.J., McKelvey, S.R., Dabney, C.P., and Huber, D.P. 2012. Responses of Dendroctonus brevicomis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in behavioral assays: implications to development of a semiochemical-based tool for tree protection. Journal of Economic Entomology, 105: 149–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fettig, C.J., Munson, A.S., Reinke, M., and Mafra-Neto, A. 2015. A novel semiochemical tool for protecting Pinus contorta from mortality attributed to Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 108: 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, J.W., Coulson, R.N., Pulley, P.E., Flamm, R.O., Oliveria, F.L., Swain, K.M., and Drummond, D.B. 1994. Suppression tactics for Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): an examination of the occurrence of infestations adjacent to treatment sites. Journal of Economic Entomology, 87: 417–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flamm, R.O., Pulley, P.E., and Coulson, R.N. 1993. Colonization of disturbed trees by the southern pine bark beetle guild (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Environmental Entomology, 22: 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, R.T. 1970. Southern pine beetle population behavior. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society, 5: 175–182.Google Scholar
Gara, R.I. 1967. Studies on the attack behavior of the southern pine beetle. I. The spreading and collapse of outbreaks. Contributions to the Boyce Thompson Institute, 23: 349–354.Google Scholar
Gara, R.I. and Coster, J.E. 1968. Studies on the attack behavior of the southern pine beetle. III. Sequence of tree infestation within stands. Contributions to the Boyce Thompson Institute, 24: 77–85.Google Scholar
Gara, R.I., Vité, J.P., and Cramer, H.H. 1965. Manipulation of Dendroctonus frontalis by use of a population aggregation pheromone. Contributions to the Boyce Thompson Institute, 23: 55–66.Google Scholar
Geiszler, D.R., Gallucci, V.F., and Gara, R.I. 1980. Modeling the dynamics of mountain pine beetle aggregation in a lodgepole pine stand. Oecologia, 46: 244–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosman, D.M., Clarke, S.R., and Upton, W.W. 2009. Efficacy of two systemic insecticides injected into loblolly pine for protection against southern pine bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 102: 1062–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosman, D.M., Salom, S.M., Ravlin, F.W., and Young, R.W. 1997. Geographic and gender differences in semiochemicals in emerging adult southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 90: 438–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J.L., Meeker, J.R., Foltz, J.L., and Strom, B.L. 1996. Suppression of bark beetles and protection of pines in the urban environment: a case study. Journal of Arboriculture, 22: 67–74.Google Scholar
Hayes, J.L., Strom, B.L., Roton, L.M., and Ingram, L.L. 1994. Repellent properties of the host compound 4-allylanisole to the southern pine beetle. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 20: 1595–1615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, J.L., Strom, B.L., Roton, L., and Ingram, L. Jr 1995. Scolytid repellant. United States Patent US 5,403,863.Google Scholar
Hedden, R.L. and Billings, R.F. 1979. Southern pine beetle: factors influencing the growth and decline of summer infestations in East Texas. Forest Science, 25: 547–556.Google Scholar
Hodges, J.D. and Pickard, L.S. 1971. Lightning in the ecology of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). The Canadian Entomologist, 103: 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, D.W.A., Borden, J.H., Lindgren, B.S., and Gries, G. 1989. The role of autoxidation of alpha-pinene in the production of pheromones of Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 19: 1275–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P.C. and Coster, J.E. 1978. Probability of attack by southern pine beetle in relation to distance from an attractive host tree. Forest Science, 24: 574–580.Google Scholar
Kinzer, G.W., Fentiman, A.F. Jr, Page, T.F. Jr, Foltz, R.L., and Vité, J.P. 1969. Bark beetle attractants: identification, synthesis and field bioassay of a new compound isolated from Dendroctonus . Nature, 221: 477–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesk, C., Coffel, E., D’Amato, A.W., Dodds, K., and Horton, R. 2017. Threats to North American forests from southern pine beetle with warming winters. Nature Climate Change, 7: 7–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindgren, B.S. 1983. A multiple funnel trap for scolytid beetles. The Canadian Entomologist, 115: 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, B. and Borden, J. 1993. Displacement and aggregation of mountain pine beetles, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), in response to their antiaggregation and aggregation pheromones. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23: 286–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mafra-Neto, A., de Lame, F.M., Fettig, C.J., Munson, A.S., Perring, T.M., Stelinski, L.L., et al. 2013. Manipulation of insect behavior with specialized pheromone and lure application technology (SPLAT®). In Pest Management with natural products. ACS Publications, Washington D.C., United States of America. Pp. 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinson, S.J., Ylioja, T., Sullivan, B.T., Billings, R.F., and Ayres, M.P. 2013. Alternate attractors in the population dynamics of a tree-killing bark beetle. Population Ecology, 55: 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, F.A., Billings, P.M., Richerson, J.V., Payne, T.L., and Edson, L.J. 1980. Response of the southern pine beetle to behavioral chemicals in the laboratory. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society, 15: 307–317.Google Scholar
McCullough, D.G., Poland, T.M., and Lewis, P.A. 2016. Lethal trap trees: a potential option for emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) management. Pest Management Science, 72: 1023–1030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCravy, K.W., Nowak, J.T., Douce, G.K., and Berisford, C.W. 2000. Evaluation of multiple-funnel and slot traps for collection of southern pine bark beetles and predators. Journal of Entomological Science, 35: 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNichol, B.H. 2018. Population dynamics of four bark beetle species (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytidae) on southern pines. Masters’ thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States of America.Google Scholar
Mirov, N.T. 1961. Composition of gum turpentines of pines. Technical Bulletin No. 1239. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pp. 158.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.G. and Preisler, H.K. 1991. Analysis of spatial patterns of lodgepole pine attacked by outbreak populations of the mountain pine beetle. Forest Science, 37: 1390–1408.Google Scholar
Mooneyham, K. 2019. Forest Health Pest Update [online]. Virginia Department of Forestry, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America. Available from https://www.vaforestry.org/assets/ForestHealthUpdates19.pdf [accessed 5 September 2020].Google Scholar
Moser, J.C. and Browne, L.E. 1978. A nondestructive trap for Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 4: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, H.L., Gandhi, K.J.K., Barnes, B.F., Montes, C.R., Nowak, J., Shepherd, W.P., et al. 2020. Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of two bark beetles, Dendroctonus frontalis and D. terebrans (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), to resin odors of host pines (Pinus spp.) [online]. Chemoecology, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049–020–00311–7.Google Scholar
Negron, J.F., Cain, R., Cadenhead, A., and Waugh, B. 2019. A test of lethal trap trees for control of spruce beetles. Research Note RMRS-RN-83. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America. P. 83.Google Scholar
Niemeyer, H., Schröder, T., and Watzek, G. 1983. Eine neue Lockstoff-Falle zur Bekämpfung von rinden-und holzbrütenden Borkenkäfern. Der Forst- und Holzwirt, 38: 105–112.Google Scholar
Niño-Domínguez, A., Sullivan, B.T., López-Urbina, J.H., and Macías-Sámano, J.E. 2015. Pheromone-mediated mate location and discrimination by two syntopic sibling species of Dendroctonus bark beetles in Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 41: 746–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niño-Domínguez, A., Sullivan, B.T., Lopez-Urbina, J.H., and Macías-Sámano, J.E. 2018. Discrimination of odors associated with conspecific and heterospecific frass by sibling species Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and Dendroctonus mesoamericanus. Environmental Entomology, 47: 1532–1540.Google ScholarPubMed
Payne, T.L. 1986. Olfaction and vision in host finding by a bark beetle. In Mechanisms in Insect Olfaction. Edited by T.L. Payne, M.C. Birch, and C.E. Kennedy. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Pp. 111–116.Google Scholar
Payne, T.L. and Billings, R.F. 1989. Evaluation of (S)-verbenone applications for suppressing southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infestations. Journal of Economic Entomology, 82: 1702–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, T.L., Billings, R.F., Berisford, C.W., Salom, S.M., Grosman, D.M., Dalusky, M.J., and Upton, W.W. 1992. Disruption of Dendroctonus frontalis (Col., Scolytidae) infestations with an inhibitor pheromone. Journal of Applied Entomology, 114: 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, T.L., Coster, J.E., and Johnson, P.C. 1977. Effects of slow-release formulation of synthetic endo- and exo-brevicomin on southern pine beetle flight and landing behavior. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 3: 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, T.L., Coster, J.E., Richerson, J.V., Edson, L.J., and Hart, E.R. 1978a. Field response of the southern pine beetle to behavioral chemicals. Environmental Entomology, 7: 578–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, T.L., Coster, J.E., Richerson, J.V., Hart, E.R., Hedden, R.L., and Edson, L.J. 1978b. Reducing variation in field tests of behavioral chemicals for the southern pine beetle. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society, 13: 85–90.Google Scholar
Payne, T.L., Kudon, L.H., Walsh, K.D., and Berisford, C.W. 1985a. Influence of infestation density on suppression of D. frontalis infestations with attractant. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 99: 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, T.L., Kudon, L.H., Berisford, C.W., O’Donnel, B.P., and Walsh, D.K. 1985b. Effects of frontalure in suppressing southern pine beetle spot growth under endemic and epidemic population levels. In Integrated Pest Management Research Symposium: The Proceedings. Edited by S.J. Branham and R.C. Thatcher. General Technical Report SO-56. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States of America. Pp. 28–287.Google Scholar
Payne, T.L. and Richerson, J.V. 1979. Management implications of inhibitors for Dendroctonus frontalis (Col. Scolytidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique Suisse, 52: 323–331.Google Scholar
Payne, T.L. and Richerson, J.V. 1985. Pheromone-mediated competitive replacement between two bark beetle populations: influence on infestation suppression. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 99: 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, T.L., Richerson, J.V., Dickens, J.C., West, J.R., Mori, K., Berisford, C.W., et al. 1982. Southern pine beetle: olfactory receptor and behavior discrimination of enantiomers of the attractant pheromone frontalin. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 8: 873–881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkins, D.L., Jorgensen, C.L., and Rinella, M.J. 2015. Verbenone decreases whitebark pine mortality throughout a mountain pine beetle outbreak. Forest Science, 61: 747–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progar, R., Blackford, D., Cluck, D., Costello, S., Dunning, L., Eager, T., et al. 2013. Population densities and tree diameter effects associated with verbenone treatments to reduce mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of lodgepole pine. Journal of Economic Entomology, 106: 221–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pureswaran, D.S., Hofstetter, R.W., and Sullivan, B.T. 2008. Attraction of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis, to pheromone components of the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), in an allopatric zone. Environmental Entomology, 37: 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pureswaran, D.S. and Sullivan, B.T. 2012. Semiochemical emission from individual galleries of the southern pine beetle, (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), attacking standing trees. Journal of Economic Entomology, 105: 140–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pureswaran, D.S., Sullivan, B.T., and Ayres, M.P. 2006. Fitness consequences of pheromone production and host selection strategies in a tree-killing bark beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Oecologia, 148: 720–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffa, K.F., Phillips, T.W., and Salom, S.M. 1993. Strategies and mechanisms of host colonization by bark beetles. In Beetle-pathogen interactions in conifer forests. Edited by R.D. Schowalter and G.M. Filip. Academic Press, London, United Kingdom. Pp. 103–128.Google Scholar
Reeve, J.D. and Strom, B.L. 2004. Statistical problems encountered in trapping studies of scolytids and associated insects. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 30: 1575–1590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renwick, J.A.A. 1967. Identification of two oxygenated terpenes from the bark beetles Dendroctonus frontalis and Dendroctonus brevicomis . Contributions to the Boyce Thompson Institute, 23: 355–360.Google Scholar
Renwick, J.A.A., Hughes, P.R., and Ty, T.D. 1973. Oxidation products of pinene in the bark beetle Dendroctonus frontalis . Journal of Insect Physiology, 19: 1735–1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, J.V., McCarthy, F.A., and Payne, T.L. 1980. Disruption of southern pine beetle infestations with frontalure. Environmental Entomology, 9: 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, J.V. and Payne, T.L. 1979. Effects of bark beetle inhibitors on landing and attack behavior of the southern pine beetle and beetle associates. Environmental Entomology, 8: 360–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renwick, J.A.A. and Vité, J.P. 1969. Bark beetle attractants: mechanism of colonization by Dendroctonus frontalis . Nature, 224: 1222–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renwick, J.A.A. and Vité, J.P. 1970. Systems of chemical communication in Dendroctonus . Contributions to the Boyce Thompson Institute, 24: 283–292.Google Scholar
Roe, A.L. and Amman, G.D. 1970. The mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests. Research Paper INT-71. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, United States of America. Pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Ross, D.W. and Daterman, G.E. 1998. Pheromone-baited traps for Dendroctonus pseudotsugae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): influence of selected release rates and trap designs. Journal of Economic Entomology, 91: 500–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, D.W. and Niwa, C.G. 1997. Using aggregation and antiaggregation pheromones of the Douglas-fir beetle to produce snags for wildlife habitat. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 12: 52–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudinsky, J.A. 1973a. Multiple functions of the Douglas fir beetle pheromone 3-methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one. Environmental Entomology, 2: 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudinsky, J.A. 1973b. Multiple functions of the southern pine beetle pheromone verbenone. Environmental Entomology, 2: 511–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safranyik, L., Shrimpton, D.M., and Whitney, H.S. 1974. Management of lodgepole pine to reduce losses from the mountain pine beetle. Canadian Forest Service Technical Report 1. Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Salom, S.M., Billings, R.F., Upton, W.W., Dalusky, M.J., Grosman, D.M., Payne, T.L., et al. 1992. Effect of verbenone enantiomers and racemic endo-brevicomin on response of Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) to attractant-baited traps. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 22: 925–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlyter, F., Byers, J.A., and Löfqvist, J. 1987. Attraction to pheromone sources of different quantity, quality, and spacing: density-regulation mechanisms in bark beetle Ips typographus . Journal of Chemical Ecology, 13: 1503–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schowalter, T.D., Pope, D.N., Coulson, R.N., and Fargo, W.S. 1981. Patterns of southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis Zimm.) infestation enlargement. Forest Science, 27: 837–849.Google Scholar
Seybold, S.J. 1993. Role of chirality in olfactory-directed behaviour: aggregation of pine engraver beetles in the genus Ips (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 19: 1809–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seybold, S.J., Bentz, B.J., Fettig, C.J., Lundquist, J.E., Progar, R.A., and Gillette, N.E. 2018. Management of western North American bark beetles with semiochemicals. Annual Review of Entomology, 63: 407–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shea, P.J., McGregor, M.D., and Daterman, G.E. 1992. Aerial application of verbenone reduces attack of lodgepole pine by mountain pine beetle. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 22: 436–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, W.P. and Sullivan, B.T. 2013. Southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis, antennal and behavioral responses to nonhost leaf and bark volatiles. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 39: 481–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepherd, W.P. and Sullivan, B.T. 2017. Spatial displacement of a lure component can reduce catches of two nontarget species during spring monitoring of southern pine beetle. Journal of Insect Science, 18: 1–4. Available from https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/55622 [accessed 5 September 2020].Google Scholar
Shepherd, W.P. and Sullivan, B.T. 2018. Southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) pheromone component trans-verbenol: enantiomeric specificity and potential as a lure adjuvant. Environmental Entomology, 48: 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shore, T.L., Safranyik, L., Hawkes, B.C., and Taylor, S.W. 2006. Effects of the mountain pine beetle on lodgepole pine stand structure and dynamics. In The mountain pine beetle: A synthesis of biology, management and impacts on lodgepole pine. Edited by L. Safranyik and B. Wilson. Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Pp. 94–114.Google Scholar
Smith, M.T., Salom, S.M., and Payne, T.L. 1993. The southern pine bark beetle guild: a historical review of the research on the semiochemical-based communication system of the five principal species. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 93–94: 1–106.Google Scholar
Staeben, J.C., Sullivan, B.T., Nowak, J.T., and Gandhi, K.J. 2015. Enantiospecific responses of southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) and its clerid predator, Thanasimus dubius, to α-pinene. Chemoecology, 25: 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, F.M. and Lih, M.P. 1985. A Dendroctonus frontalis infestation growth model: organization, refinement, and utilization. In Proceedings, integrated pest management research symposium. Edited by S.J. Branham and R.C. Thatcher. General Technical Report SO-56. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States of America. Pp. 186–194.Google Scholar
Strom, B.L. and Clarke, S.R. 2011. Use of semiochemicals for southern pine beetle infestation management and resource protection. In Southern Pine Beetle II. Edited by R.N. Coulson and K.D. Klepzig. General Technical Report SRS-140. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina, United States of America. Pp. 381–397.Google Scholar
Strom, B.L., Clarke, S.R., and Shea, P.J. 2004. Efficacy of 4-allylanisole-based products for protecting individual loblolly pines from Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34: 659–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, B.L. and Goyer, R.A. 2001. Effect of silhouette color on trap catches of Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 94: 948–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, B.L., Goyer, R.A., and Hayes, J.L. 1995. Naturally occuring compound can protect pines from the southern pine beetle. Louisiana Agriculture, 38: 5–7.Google Scholar
Strom, B.L., Roton, L.M., Goyer, R.A., and Meeker, J.R. 1999. Visual and semiochemical disruption of host finding in the southern pine beetle. Ecological Applications, 9: 1028–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, B., Smith, S., and Brownie, C. 2013. Attractant and disruptant semiochemicals for Dendroctonus jeffreyi (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Environmental Entomology, 42: 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, B.T. 2005. Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) to volatiles isolated from conspecifics. Journal of Economic Entomology, 98: 2067–2078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, B.T. 2011. Southern pine beetle behavior and semiochemistry. In Southern Pine Beetle II. Edited by R.N. Coulson and K.D. Klepzig. General Technical Report SRS-140. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina, United States of America. Pp. 25–50.Google Scholar
Sullivan, B.T. 2016. Chapter Four. Semiochemicals in the natural history of southern pine beetle Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann and their role in pest management. Advances in Insect Physiology, 50: 129–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, B.T., Brownie, C., and Barrett, J.P. 2016. Intra-annual variation in responses by flying southern pine beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) to pheromone component endo-brevicomin. Journal of Economic Entomology, 109: 1720–1728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, B.T., Dalusky, M.J., Mori, K., and Brownie, C. 2011. Variable responses by southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann, to the pheromone component endo-brevicomin: influence of enantiomeric composition, release rate, and proximity to infestations. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 37: 403–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, B.T., Dalusky, M.J., Wakarchuk, D., and Berisford, C.W. 2007a. Field evaluations of potential aggregation inhibitors for the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Entomological Science, 42: 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, B.T. and Mori, K. 2009. Spatial displacement of release point can enhance activity of an attractant pheromone synergist of a bark beetle. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 35: 1222–1233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, B.T., Pettersson, E.M., Seltmann, K.C., and Berisford, C.W. 2000. Attraction of the bark beetle parasitoid Roptrocerus xylophagorum (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to host-associated olfactory cues. Environmental Entomology, 29: 1138–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, B.T., Shepherd, W.P., Pureswaran, D.S., Tashiro, T., and Mori, K. 2007b. Evidence that (+)-endo-brevicomin is a male-produced component of the southern pine beetle aggregation pheromone. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 33: 1510–1527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thatcher, R.C. and Pickard, L.S. 1964. Seasonal variations in activity of the southern pine beetle in east Texas. Journal of Economic Entomology, 57: 840–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thistle, H.W., Peterson, H., Allwine, G., Lamb, B., Edburg, S., and Strom, B. 2005. The influence of stand thinning on surrogate pheromone plumes. In Proceedings, 16th US Department of Agriculture interagency research forum on gypsy moth and other invasive species 2005. Edited by K.W. Gottschalk. General Technical Report NE-337. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Newtown Square, Pennyslvania, United States of America. Pp. 83–85.Google Scholar
Tilden, P.E., Bedard, W.D., Lindahl, K.Q., Jr., and Wood, D.L. 1983. Trapping Dendroctonus brevicomis: changes in attractant release rate, dispersion of attractant, and silhouette. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 9: 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Notice of pesticide registration, Verbenone, Reg. No. 56261–3, 6 December 1999. Available from https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/056261–00003–19991206.pdf [accessed 10 October 2020].Google Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Notice of pesticide registration, 4-allyl anisole, Reg. No. 72098–4, 28 September 2001. Available from https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/072098–00004–20010928.pdf [accessed 10 October 2020].Google Scholar
Vité, J.P. 1970. Pest management systems using synthetic pheromones. Contributions to the Boyce Thompson Institute, 24: 343–350.Google Scholar
Vité, J.P., Billings, R.F., Ware, C.W., and Mori, K. 1985. Southern pine beetle: enhancement or inhibition of aggregation response mediated by enantiomers of endo-brevicomin. Naturwissenschaften, 72: 99–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vité, J.P. and Crozier, R.G. 1968. Studies on the attack behavior of the southern pine beetle. IV. Influence of host condition on aggregation pattern. Contributions to the Boyce Thompson Institute, 24: 87–93.Google Scholar
Vité, J.P. and Francke, W. 1976. The aggregation pheromones of bark beetles: progress and problems. Naturwissenschaften, 63: 550–555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vité, J.P., Hughes, P.R., and Renwick, J.A.A. 1976. Southern pine beetle: effect of aerial pheromone saturation on orientation. Naturwissenschaften, 63: 44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vité, J.P. and Renwick, J.A.A. 1971. Inhibition of Dendroctonus frontalis response to frontalin by isomers of brevicomin. Naturwissenschaften, 58: 418–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vité, J.P. and Williamson, D.L. 1970. Thanasimus dubius: prey perception. Journal of Insect Physiology, 16: 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, S.L. 1982. The bark and ambrosia beetles of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic monograph. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs, 6: 1–1359.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Sullivan and Clarke supplementary material

Sullivan and Clarke supplementary material 1

Download Sullivan and Clarke supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 110.3 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Sullivan and Clarke supplementary material

Sullivan and Clarke supplementary material 2

Download Sullivan and Clarke supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 110.1 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Sullivan and Clarke supplementary material

Sullivan and Clarke supplementary material 3

Download Sullivan and Clarke supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 130 KB