Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:59:59.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF ENGRAVER BEETLES (SCOLYTIDAE: IPS SPECIES) ON MONTEREY PINES INFECTED WITH PITCH CANKER

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Joseph W. Fox ,
David L. Wood  and
Carlton S. Koehler
Joseph W. Fox
Affiliation:
Department of Entomological Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA 94720
David L. Wood
Affiliation:
Department of Entomological Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA 94720
Carlton S. Koehler
Affiliation:
Department of Entomological Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA 94720
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pitch canker, caused by Fusarium subglutinans (Wollenw. and Reink.) Nelson, Toussoun, and Marasas, a pine pathogen recently identified in California, may increase the distribution and abundance of Ips spp. on Monterey pines in Santa Cruz Co., CA. In all pine stands, Ips spp. tunneled into healthy branches and boles. Ips mexicanus (Hopkins) was the most abundant engraver beetle observed, followed by I. paraconfusus Lanier; I. plastographus (LeConte) was rare. Ips mexicanus was routinely captured in traps baited with racemic I. paraconfusus pheromone. During die winter, I. mexicanus excavated mass feeding cavities in shade-suppressed branches. In uninfected stands, 3% of the trees and only 0.3% of the branches were mass-attacked. In severely infected stands, 47% of the top one-third of the trees, 3% of all branches, and 91% of the branches declining due to infection by F. subglutinans were mass-attacked by Ips spp. On pitch canker-infected trees, I. mexicanus attacked cones and stems <1 cm in diameter. Sixty percent of the attacks on logs occurred inside or within 5 cm of the area covered with pitch canker-induced resin. When confined with logs, 45% of I. paraconfusus tunneled in or near pitch canker-induced resinous areas,21% near fresh chisel wounds, and 19% near resinous material produced by the Sequoia pitch moth. Synanthedon sequoiae (Hy. Edwards).

Résumé

Le chancre de poix, occasionné par Fusarium subglutinans (Wollenw. et Reink.) Nelson. Toussoun et Marasas, un champignon pathogène récemment identifié en Californie, pourrait augmenter la distribution et l’abondance d’Ips spp. sur les pins de Monterey au comté de Santa Cruz, CA. Dans tous les groupes de pins, Ips spp. ont creusé dans les branches saines et dans les troncs sains. Ips mexicanus (Hopkins) a été le scolyte les plus actif, suivi de I. paraconfusus Lanier; I. plastographus (LeConte) s’est avéré rare. Ips mexicanus a été pris régulièrement au pièges amorcés de la phéromone racémique d’I. paraconfusus. Pendant l’hiver, I. mexicanus a percé en masse des cavités d’alimentation dans les branches supprimées par l’ombrage. Pour les groupes non-infestés, 3% des arbres et seulement 0.3% des branches ont été attaqués par des masses d’insectes. Pour les groupes sévèrement infestés, 47% de la troisième partie de la cime des arbres, 3% de toutes les branches, et 91% des branches en diminution à cause d’affectation par F. subglutinans ont été attaquées en masse par Ips spp. Dans le cas des arbres infestés par le chancre de poix, I. mexicanus a attaqué les cônes et les tiges <1 cm en diamètre. Soixante pour cent des attaques des rondins ont eu lieu en dedans ou autour de 5 cm de l’étendue couverte de résine de poix provoquée par le chancre. Restreints aux rondins, 45% d’I. paraconfusus ont creusé en dedans ou près des étendues résineuses provoquée par le chancre de poix, 21% ont creusé près des blessures fraîches de ciseaux, et 19% ont creusé près de matériau résineux produit par le nodulier du sequoia, Synanthedon sequoiae (Hy. Edwards).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 122 , Issue 6 , December 1990 , pp. 1157 - 1166
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1990

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

Adams, D. 1989. Incidence of pine pitch canker in California, 1988–1989. Calif. Dept. Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 25 pp.Google Scholar
Barrows-Broaddus, J., and Dwinell, L.D.. 1985. Branch dieback and cone and seed infection caused by Fusarium moniliforme var. subglutinans in a loblolly pine seed orchard in South Carolina. Phytopath. 75: 1104–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakeslee, G.M., Dorset, R.D., and Oak, S.W.. 1979. Inoculum dispersal of the pine pitch canker fungus (Fusarium moniliforme var. subglutinans). Phytopath. 69: 1022.Google Scholar
Blakeslee, G.M., Kratka, S.H., Schmidt, R.A., and Moses, C.S.. 1978. Sporodochia of the pitch canker fungus (Fusarium moniliforme var. subglutinans) as found in diseased slash pine in Florida. Plant Dis. Rep. 62: 656–657.Google Scholar
Cobb, F.W. Jr., Parmeter, J.R. Jr., Wood, D.L., and Stark, R.W.. 1974. Root pathogens as agents predisposing ponderosa pine and white fir to bark beetles. Proc. 4th Intern. Conf. on Fomes annosus, Athens, GA. Intern. For. Res. Org. Sect. 24: Forest and Protection.Google 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
Furniss, R.L., and Carolin, V.M.. 1977. Western forest insects. USDA For. Serv. Misc. Publ. 1339. 654 pp.Google Scholar
Graham, K. 1967. Fungal–insect mutualism in trees and timber. A. Rev. Ent. 12: 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepting, G.H. 1961. Pinus radiata susceptible to pitch canker. Plant Dis. Rep. 45: 889–890.Google Scholar
Hepting, G.H., and Roth, E.R.. 1946. Pitch canker a new disease of some southern pines. J. For. 44: 742–744.Google Scholar
Hepting, G.H., and Roth, E.R.. 1953. Host relations and spread of the pine pitch canker disease. Phytopath. (Abst.) 43: 475.Google Scholar
Keen, F.P. 1933. A note on the hibernation habits of some engraver beetles of the genus Ips. J. econ. Ent. 26: 297–298.Google Scholar
Lanier, G.N., and Peacock, J.W.. 1981. Vectors of the pathogen. pp. 14–16 in Stipes, R.J., and Campana, R.J. (Eds.), Compendium of Elm Diseases. American Phytopathological Society.Google Scholar
Lanier, G.N., and Wood, D.L.. 1975. Specificity of response to phermones in the genus Ips (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 1: 9–23.10.1007/BF00987717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, B.S. 1983. A multiple funnel trap for scolytid beetles (Coleoptera). Can. Ent. 115: 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, F.R. 1962. Pitch canker-tip moth damage association on slash pine seedlings. J. For. 60: 825–826.Google Scholar
McCain, A.H., Koehler, C.S., and Tjosvold, S.A.. 1987. Pitch canker threatens California pines. Calif. Agric. 41(11): 22–23.Google Scholar
Ohmart, C.P. 1982. Insects associated with Pinus radiata throughout the world: an annotated bibliography. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Division of Forest Research, Divis. Report 9. 81 pp.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.A., Wilkinson, R.C., Moses, C.S., and Broerman, F.S.. 1976. Drought and weevils associated with severe incidence of pitch canker in Volusia County, Florida. Inst. Food and Agric. Sci., Univ. of Florida, Prog. Rep. 76–2. 4 pp.Google Scholar
Schultz, D.E., and Bedard, W.D.. 1987. California five-spined Ips. USDA For. Serv. For. Insect & Disease Leafl. 102. 8 pp.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J.. 1981. Biometry. The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
Struble, G.R. 1970. Monterey pine Ips. USDA For. Serv. For. Pest Leafl. 56. 8 pp.Google Scholar
Struble, G.R., and Hall, R.C.. 1955. The California five-spined engraver. Its biology and control. U.S.D.A. Circ. 964. 21 pp.Google Scholar
Weber, J.F., and Brasier, C.M.. 1984. The transmission of Dutch elm disease: a study of the processes involved. Br. Mycol. Soc. Symp. 6: 271–306.Google Scholar