Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:46:22.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REDUCTION OF PROGENY AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE FOLLOWING REMOVAL OF SYMBIOTIC FUNGI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Stanley J. Barras
Stanley J. Barras
Affiliation:
Southern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pineville, Louisiana 7 1360
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In four studies with loblolly pine bolts over a 2-year period, absence of the normal complement of mycangial and ectodermal fungi, or absence of mycangial fungi alone, caused a significant decrease in number of progeny, progeny/gallery, progeny/cm of gallery, and ratio of increase of Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman. Initial emergence of progeny was delayed 13 to 24 days. Absence of fungi had no effect on number of successful attacks, length of ovipositional gallery, and number of egg niches/cm of gallery.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 105 , Issue 10 , October 1973 , pp. 1295 - 1299
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1973

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

Barras, S. J. 1970. Antagonism between Dendroctonus frontalis and the fungus Ceratocystis minor. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 63: 1187–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barras, S. J. 1972. Improved White's solution for surface sterilization of pupae of Dendroctonus frontalis. J. econ. Ent. 65: 1504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barras, S. J. and Perry, T.. 1972. Fungal symbionts in the prothoracic mycangium of Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Z. agnew. Ent. 71: 95–104.Google Scholar
Bennett, W. H. and Kile, B. W.. 1970 (unpub.). Population studies of the southern pine beetle in north-central Louisiana. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Sth. For. Exp. Stn, Prog. Rep. FS-SO-2203–1.18.Google Scholar
Hodges, J. D., Barras, S. J., and Mauldin, J. K.. 1968. Amino acids in inner bark of loblolly pine as affected by the southern pine beetle and associated microorganisms. Can. J. Bot. 46: 1467–1472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, V. K. et al. , 1971. The role of microorganisms in the attractiveness of lightning-struck pines to southern pine beetles. West. Ill. Univ. Ser. biol. Sci. 9: 1–44.Google Scholar
Thatcher, R. C. 1960. Bark beetles affecting southern pines: a review of current knowledge. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Sth. For. Exp. Stn, Occas. Pap. 180. New Orleans, La.Google Scholar
Thatcher, R. C. and Pickard, L. S.. 1964. Seasonal variations in activity of the southern pine beetle in east Texas. J. econ. Ent. 57: 840–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yearian, W. C., Gouger, R. J., and Wilkinson, W. C.. 1972. Effects of the bluestain fungus, Ceratocystis ips, on development of Ips bark beetles in pine bolts. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 65: 481–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar