Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T13:51:00.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ATTACK BY GNATHOTRICHUS SULCATUS (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE) ON STUMPS AND FELLED TREES BAITED WITH SULCATOL AND ETHANOL1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. A. McLean  and
J. H. Borden
J. A. McLean
Affiliation:
Pestology Centre, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia
J. 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

Ethanol and sulcatol (6-methyl-5-hepten-2-ol), primary attractant and population aggregation pheromone, respectively, for Gnathotrichus sulcatus, were deployed alone or in combination on stumps and felled trees in the University of British Columbia Research Forest, Maple Ridge, B.C. On 18 April 1974, four Douglas-fir trees were felled at each of three locations, and four western hemlock trees were felled at each of three other locations. Felled trees and their respective stumps were baited on 26 April. Attacks by G. sulcatus and bark beetles were recorded at weekly intervals until 25 October. G. sulcatus attacks increased rapidly, reaching a maximum in June and July, followed by a steady decrease to October. Attacks by Dendroctonus pseudotsugae, Pseudohylesinus nebulosus, and P. tsugae showed characteristic seasonal trends, but were not correlated to any of the treatments. Over half the G. sulcatus attacks were on stumps, in which attack densities reached 683.5/m2. The greatest numbers of attacks were on stumps and logs baited with sulcatol or sulcatol plus ethanol. There was a significant interaction between sulcatol and ethanol on Douglas-fir but not on western hemlock. Significantly more G. sulcatus attacked ethanol-baited western hemlock stumps and logs than unbaited controls. However, there was no difference between the level of attack on ethanol-baited Douglas-fir and the controls. The role of ethanol is hypothesized to be more of a boring stimulant than a major attractant. Stumps baited with sulcatol and then treated with ethanolic solutions of systemic insecticide could be used to trap and kill field populations, thus reducing numbers of G. sulcatus being transported to log-booming grounds, dryland sorting areas, and sawmills.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 109 , Issue 5 , May 1977 , pp. 675 - 686
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1977

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

Anonymous. 1975. Synecological mapping of the U.B.C. Research Forest. Univ. Br. Columb. Res. For. News 2. 2 pp.Google Scholar
Bain, J. 1974. Overseas wood- and bark-boring insects intercepted at New Zealand ports. Tech. Pap. N.Z. For. Serv. 61. 24 pp.Google Scholar
Borden, J. H. 1974. Aggregation pheromones in the Scolytidae, pp. 135–160. In Birch, M. (Ed.), Pheromones. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Borden, J. H. and Stokkink, E.. 1973. Laboratory investigation of secondary attraction in Gnathotrichus sulcatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. J. Zool. 51: 469–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, J. H., VanderSar, T. J. D., and Stokkink, E.. 1975. Secondary attraction in the Scolytidae: an annotated bibliography. Simon Fraser Univ. Pest Mgt Pap. 4.Google Scholar
Bright, D. E. and Stark, R. W.. 1973. The bark and ambrosia beetles of California. Coleoptera: Scolytidae and Platypodidae. Bull. Calif. Insect Surv. 16. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Browne, F. G. 1952. Suggestions for future research in the control of ambrosia beetles. Malay. Forester 15: 198–206.Google Scholar
Byrne, K. J., Swigar, A. A., Silverstein, R. M., Borden, J. H., and Stokkink, E.. 1974. Sulcatol: population aggregation pheromone in the scolytid beetle, Gnathotrichus sulcatus. J. Insect Physiol. 20: 1895–1900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cade, S. C. 1970. The host selection behaviour of Gnathotrichus sulcatus LeConte (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Washington. 112 pp.Google Scholar
Cade, S. C., Hrutiford, B. F., and Gara, R. I.. 1970. Identification of a primary attractant for Gnathotrichus sulcatus isolated from western hemlock logs. J. econ. Ent. 63: 1014–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. A. and Dyer, E. D. A.. 1969. Characteristics of Douglas-fir logs in relation to ambrosia beetle attack. For. Sci. 15: 95–101.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. A. and Kinghorn, J. M.. 1958. Studies of flight and attack activity of the ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron lineatum (Olivier), and other scolytids. Can. Ent. 90: 326–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, J. D. and Green, L. R.. 1968. Slash treatment in the Douglas-fir region — trends in the Pacific Northwest. J. For. 66: 610–614.Google Scholar
Dyer, E. D. A. 1963 a. Attack and brood production of ambrosia beetles in logging debris. Can. Ent. 95: 624–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, E. D. A. 1963 b. Distribution of Trypodendron attacks around the circumference of logs. Can. For. Serv. Bi-mon. Res. Notes 19: 3–4.Google Scholar
Dyer, E. D. A. and Chapman, J. A.. 1962. Brood productivity of ambrosia beetles in watersoaked logs. Can. For. Serv. Bi-mon. Res. Notes 18(3): 3.Google Scholar
Dyer, E. D. A. and Chapman, J. A.. 1965. Flight and attack of the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) in relation to felling date of logs. Can. Ent. 97: 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, S. H. 1963. Ambrosia fungus storage in two species of Gnathotrichus Eichhoff (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Ent. 95: 257–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. C., Thompson, G. H., and Webb, W. E.. 1953. Ambrosia beetles in forest and sawmill. I: Biology and economic importance. For. Abstr. 14: 381–389.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. C., Thompson, G. H., and Webb, W. E.. 1954. Ambrosia beetles in forest and sawmill. II: Prevention and control. For. Abstr. 15: 3–15.Google Scholar
Gibson, C., Kinghorn, J. M., and Chapman, J. A.. 1958. Ambrosia beetle brood productivity. Can. For. Serv. Bi-mon. Res. Notes 14(5): 2.Google Scholar
Kerck, K. 1972. Athylalkohol und stammkontur als komponenten der primäranlockung bei Xyloterus domesticus L. (Col.: Scolytidae). Naturwissenschaften 59: 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathers, W. G. 1935. Time of felling in relation to injury from ambrosia beetles or pinworms. Br. Columb. Lumberm. 19: 11.Google Scholar
McBride, C. F. and Kinghorn, J. M.. 1960. Lumber degrade caused by ambrosia beetles. Br. Columb. Lumberm. 44(7): 40–52.Google Scholar
McLean, J. A. and Borden, J. H.. 1975 a. Gnathotrichus sulcatus attack and breeding in freshly-sawn lumber. J. econ. Ent. 68: 605–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, J. A. and Borden, J. H.. 1975 b. Survey of a sawmill population of Gnathotrichus sulcatus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) using the pheromone, sulcatol. Can. J. For. Res. 5: 586–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, R. H. 1970. Overseas wood- and bark-boring insects intercepted at New Zealand ports. Tech. Pap. N.Z. For. Serv. 57. 80 pp.Google Scholar
Moeck, H. A. 1970. Ethanol as the primary attractant for the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Ent. 102: 985–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeck, H. A. 1971. Field test of ethanol as a scolytid attractant. Can. For. Serv. Bi-mon. Res. Notes 27(2): 11–12.Google Scholar
Norris, D. M. and Baker, J. M.. 1969. Nutrition of Xyleborus ferrugineus. 1: Ethanol in diets as a tunneling (feeding) stimulant. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 62: 592–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prebble, M. L. and Graham, K.. 1957. Studies of attack by ambrosia beetles in softwood logs on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. For. Sci. 3: 90–112.Google Scholar
Richmond, H. A. 1968. The ambrosia beetle on the British Columbia Coast. Rept., B.C. Loggers Div., Coun. For. Ind. Br. Columb.Google Scholar
Richmond, H. A. and Radcliffe, D. N.. 1961. Ambrosia beetle attack of sawlogs in water storage. Br. Columb. Lumbm. 45(10): 28–32.Google Scholar
Roling, M. P. and Kearby, W. H.. 1975. Seasonal flight and vertical distribution of Scolytidae attracted to ethanol in an oak–hickory forest in Missouri. Can. Ent. 107: 1315–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudinsky, J. A. 1966. Scolytid beetles associated with Douglas-fir: Response to terpenes. Science 152: 218–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudinsky, J. A. and Schneider, I.. 1969. Effects of light intensity on the flight pattern of two Gnathotrichus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) species. Can. Ent. 101: 1248–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudinsky, J. A., Furniss, M. M., Kline, L. N., and Schmitz, R. F.. 1972. Attraction and response of Dencroctonus pseudotsugae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) by three synthetic pheromones in traps in Oregon and Idaho. Can. Ent. 104: 815–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, J. 1956. Biology and control of the Douglas-fir beetle in the interior of British Columbia. Can. Dep. Agric. Publ. 975.Google Scholar
Walters, J. and McMullen, L. H.. 1956. Life history and habits of Pseudohylesinus nebulosus (LeConte) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in the interior of British Columbia. Can. Ent. 88: 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar