Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:00:23.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND SEASONAL MATING ACTIVITY OF TRYPODENDRON LINEATUM (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

C. E. Fockler  and
John H. Borden
C. E. Fockler
Affiliation:
Pestology Centre, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia
John H. Borden
Affiliation:
Pestology Centre, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mating frequency and behavior of five color-coded adults of each sex of Trypodendron lineatum (Olivier) were observed for 1 hour periods in petri dish arenas. Mating activity was evaluated by recording each incident in which a male assumed the "precopulatory" position on a female for a minimum of 10 seconds. Newly emerged brood adults mated with very low frequency. The mating activity of revived overwintering beetles increased throughout the winter. In February there was a sudden rise in activity to an intensity approaching that of sexually active "spring" populations of March and April. This pattern, as well as the recovery of locomotion upon warming throughout the winter, provides evidence that overwintering populations undergo only a reproductive diapause, or hibernation. Mating activity of excavating parents fell to one-half that of spring beetles within 2 weeks of host invasion and declined further after 4 weeks. Parents that had recently emerged from brood logs had negligible mating activity. Flight was not an essential prerequisite to mating. There was no prolonged delay between initial contact of the sexes and mounting, and no observable courtship. Behaviorally, the male was the aggressive partner; the female was passive and nonresisting. Multiple matings by both sexes, with the same or different partners, and mounting of mating couples and other males by males were observed. The average duration of mounting was 1.75 minutes and, when copulation occurred, 3.35 minutes; dissections showed that this period was sufficient for insemination. Pronounced reduction of mounting and copulation activity occurred within 30 to 40 minutes of initial contact with the opposite sex. Mating frequency depended primarily on the maturity and vigor of the male, although the maturity of females had a slight effect.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 104 , Issue 12 , December 1972 , pp. 1841 - 1853
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1972

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

Atkins, M. D. 1966. Behavioural variation among scolytids in relation to their habitat. Can. Ent. 98: 285–288.Google Scholar
Beck, S. D. 1968. Insect photoperiodism. Academic Press, New York and London. 288 pp.Google Scholar
Borden, J. H. and Slater, C. E.. 1969. Sex pheromone of Trypodendron lineatum: production in the female hindgut-malpighian tubule region. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 62: 454–455.Google Scholar
Castek, K. L., Barbour, J. F., and Rudinsky, J. A.. 1967. Isolation and purification of the attractant of the striped ambrosia beetle. J. econ. Ent. 60: 658–660.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. A. 1954 (unpub. rep.). Physiological and biological studies on the ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) and the Douglas fir beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopk. Forest Biology Laboratory, Victoria, B.C.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. A. 1955. Interpretation of adult history in the ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron. Can. Dep. Agric., Forest Biol. Div., Bi-mon. Prog. Rep. 11(6): 3–4.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. A. 1958. Studies on the physiology of the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron in relation to its ecology. Proc. Tenth int. Congr. Ent., Vol. 4, pp. 375–380.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. A. 1959. Forced attacks by the ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron. Can. Dep. Agric., Forest Biol. Div., Bi-mon. Prog. Rep. 15(5): 3.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. A. 1962. Field studies on attack flight and log selection by the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Ent. 94: 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. A. 1966. The effect of attack by the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) on log attractiveness. Can. Ent. 98: 50–59.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. A. and Nijholt, W. W.. 1965. Proportion of old and young adults in an overwintering population of the ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.). Can. Dep. Forest Ent. Path., Bi-mon. Prog. Rep. 21: 3–4.Google Scholar
Danilevskii, A. S. 1965. Photoperiodism and seasonal development in insects. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and London. 283 pp.Google Scholar
Daterman, G. E., Rudinsky, J. A., and Nagel, W. P.. 1965. Flight patterns of bark and timber beetles associated with coniferous forests of Western Oregon. Tech. Bull. Oregon St. Univ. agrie. Exp. Stn 87: 3–46.Google Scholar
Davey, K. G. 1965. Reproduction in the insects. Freeman, San Francisco. 96 pp.Google Scholar
Engelmann, F. 1970. The physiology of insect reproduction. Pergamon Press Inc. 307 pp.Google Scholar
Ferkovich, S. M., Wellso, S. G., and Wilson, W. T.. 1967. Mating behaviour of the bigheaded grasshopper, Aulocara elliotti (Orthoptera: Acrididae) under caged conditions in the greenhouse and outdoors. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 60: 972–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, L. I. 1964. Physiology of growth and development: endocrine aspects. In The physiology of Insecta I (Ed., Rockstein, M.). Academic Press, New York and London, pp. 149–225.Google Scholar
Hadorn, C. 1933. Recherches sur la morphologie, les stades évolutifs et l'hivernage du bostryche liseré (Xyloterus lineatus Oliv.). Supplaux. org. de la Soc. forest. Suisse, Bern (11), 120 pp.Google Scholar
Highnam, K. C. 1958. Activity of the brain/corpora cardiaca system during pupal diapause “break” in Mimas tiliae (Lepidoptera). Q. Jl microsc. Sci. 99: 73–88.Google Scholar
LeCato, G. L. and Pienkowski, R. L.. 1970. Laboratory mating behavior of the alfalfa weevil, Hypera postica. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 63: 1000–1007.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. M. 1969. Mating behaviour of five species of Lucanidae (Coleoptera: Insecta). Can. Ent. 101: 1054–1062.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. S. and Brazzel, J. R.. 1963. The mating behaviour of the boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis. J. econ. Ent. 56: 605–609.Google Scholar
Nakamura, H. 1969. Comparative studies on the mating behaviour of two species of Callosobruchus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Jap. J. Ecol. 19: 20–26.Google Scholar
Nijholt, W. W. 1970. The effect of mating and the presence of the male ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron lineatum, on “secondary attraction”. Can. Ent. 102: 894–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, R. L. 1963. Introductory insect physiology. Saunders, Philadelphia and London. 245 pp.Google Scholar
Richards, O. W. 1927. Sexual selection and allied problems in insects. Biol. Rev. 2: 298–364.Google Scholar
Rudinsky, J. A. and Daterman, G. E.. 1964 a. Field studies on flight patterns and olfactory responses of ambrosia beetles in Douglas fir forests of Western Oregon. Can. Ent. 96: 1339–1352.Google Scholar
Rudinsky, J. A. and Daterman, G. E.. 1964 b. Response of the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.), to a femaleproduced pheromone. Z. angew. Ent. 54: 300–303.Google Scholar
Schneider, I. and Rudinsky, J. A.. 1969 a. Anatomical and histological changes in internal organs of adult Trypodendron lineatum, Gnanthotrichus retusus and G. sulcatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 62: 995–1003.Google Scholar
Schneider, I. and Rudinsky, J. A.. 1969 b. The site of pheromone production in Trypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): Bioassay and histological studies of the hindgut. Can. Ent. 101: 1181–1186.Google Scholar
de Wilde, J. 1964. Reproduction-endocrine control. In The physiology of Insecta I (Ed., Rockstein, M.). Academic Press, New York. pp. 67–90.Google Scholar
Williams, C. M. 1946. Physiology of insect diapause: the role of the brain in the production and the termination of pupal dormancy in the giant silkworm. Platysamia cecropia. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 90: 234–243.Google Scholar