Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T14:36:36.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ATTRACTION AND REPRESSION OF DENDROCTONUS PSEUDOTSUGAE (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE) BY THREE SYNTHETIC PHEROMONES IN TRAPS IN OREGON AND IDAHO1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. A. Rudinsky ,
M. M. Furniss ,
L. N. Kline  and
R. F. Schmitz
J. A. Rudinsky
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis
M. M. Furniss
Affiliation:
USDA, Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Moscow, Idaho
L. N. Kline
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, State of Oregon, Salem
R. F. Schmitz
Affiliation:
USDA, Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Moscow, Idaho
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparative tests were made in Oregon and Idaho employing sticky traps with three synthetic pheromones of Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins, frontalin, 3-methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one, and trans-verbenol, and the host attractants Douglas-fir resin, alpha-pinene, and camphene. The attractiveness of frontalin combined with host volatiles reported earlier from Idaho was confirmed. The combination of trans-verbenol with frontalin plus camphene in Oregon brought the highest response among synthetic treatments, but the addition of trans-verbenol to other treatments with frontalin sometimes decreased beetle response.3-Methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one almost nullified the attractiveness of all baits tested. The practical use of such a compound to prevent beetle aggregation and protect susceptible Douglas-fir trees as well as to regulate the "spillover" from attractive baits is considered as a possible new method of protection against bark beetles.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 104 , Issue 6 , June 1972 , pp. 815 - 822
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

Furniss, M. M. and Schmitz, R. F.. 1971. Comparative attraction of Douglas-fir beetles to frontalin and tree volatiles. U.S. Dep. Agric. Forest Serv. Res. Pap. INT-96, 16 p.Google Scholar
Furniss, M. M., Kline, L. N., Schmitz, R. F., and Rudinsky, J. A.. Tests of 3 pheromones to induce or disrupt aggregation of Douglas-fir beetles on live trees. (In preparation.)Google Scholar
Heikkenen, H. J. and Hrutfiord, B. F.. 1965. Dendroctonus pseudotsugae: a hypothesis regarding its primary attractant. Science 150: 1457–1459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinzer, G. W., Fentiman, A. W. Jr., Foltz, R. L., and Rudinsky, J. A.. 1971. Bark beetle attractants: 3-methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one isolated from Dendroctonus pseudotsugae. J. econ. Ent. 64: 970–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullen, L. H. and Atkins, M. D.. 1962. On the flight and host selection of Douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopk. (Col.: Scol.). Can. Ent. 94: 1309–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitman, G. B. and Vité, J. P.. 1970. Field response of Dendroctonus pseudotsugae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to synthetic frontalin. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 63: 661–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renwick, J. A. A. 1970. Chemical aspects of bark beetle aggregation. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. Pl. Res. 24: 337–341.Google Scholar
Rudinsky, J. A. 1963. Response of Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopk. to volatile attractants. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. Pl. Res. 22: 23–38.Google Scholar
Rudinsky, J. A. 1966. Host selection and invasion by the Douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins, in coastal Douglas-fir forests. Can. Ent. 98: 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudinsky, J. A. 1968. Pheromone-mask by the female Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopk., an attractant regulator. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 44: 248–250.Google Scholar
Rudinsky, J. A. 1969. Masking of the aggregation pheromone in Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopk. Science 166: 884–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudinsky, J. A., Kinzer, G. W., Fentiman, A. W. Jr., and Foltz, R. L.. Trars-verbenol isolated from Douglas-fir beetle: Laboratory and field bioassays in Oregon. J. econ. Ent. (in press).Google Scholar
Rudinsky, J. A. and Michael, R. R.. 1972. Sound production in Scolytidae: I. Chemostimulus of sonic signal by the Douglas-fir beetle. Science 175: 1386–1390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverstein, R. M., Rodin, J. O., and Wood, D. L.. 1966. Sex attractants in frass produced by male Ips confusus in ponderosa pine. Science 154: 509–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Forest Service. 1960. A. Rep., Intermountain For. Range Exp. Stn, Ogden, Utah, p. 15.Google Scholar
Wright, R. H., Chambers, D. L., and Keiser, I.. 1971. Insect attractants, anti-attractants, and repellents. Can. Ent. 103: 627–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zethner-Møller, O. and Rudinsky, J. A.. 1967. Studies on the site of sex pheromone production in Dendroctonus pseudotsugae (Col: Scol). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 60: 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar