Feeding by Scolytus bark beetles to test for differently susceptible elm varieties

Journal of Applied Entomology

Volumn 141, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 417-420

  Anderbrant, O ^a   Yuvaraj, J K ^a   Martin, J A ^b   Gil, L ^b   Witzell, J ^c,d  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Technical University of Madrid   (Spain)

^c SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

bioassay; elm bark beetle; feeding preference; Ophiostoma; Scolytus laevis; Scolytus multistriatus

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; BIOASSAY; DECIDUOUS TREE; DISEASE SEVERITY; DISEASE TRANSMISSION; DISEASE VECTOR; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FOOD PREFERENCE; FUNGAL DISEASE; FUNGUS; HOST PLANT; INFECTIOUS DISEASE; POPULATION DECLINE;

EUROPE; NORTH AMERICA;

COLEOPTERA; FUNGI; HEXAPODA; OPHIOSTOMA; OPHIOSTOMA ULMI; SCOLYTINAE; SCOLYTUS; SCOLYTUS LAEVIS; SCOLYTUS MULTISTRIATUS; ULMUS; ULMUS GLABRA;

EID: 84994519928     PISSN: 09312048     EISSN: 14390418     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jen.12354     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Anderbrant O, Schlyter F, 1987a. Ecology of the Dutch elm disease vectors Scolytus laevis and S. scolytus in southern Sweden. J Appl Ecol, 24, 539–550.
2. Anderbrant O, Schlyter F, 1987b. Differences in morphology and sexual size dimorphism between the Dutch elm disease vectors Scolytus laevis and S. scolytus (Col., Scolytidae). J Appl Entomol, 103, 378–386.
3. Buhroo AA, 2012. Host selection behavior and incidence of the bark beetle Scolytus kashmirensis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) attacking elm (Ulmus spp.) trees in Kashmir. For Stud China, 14, 224–228.
4. Buiteveld J, Van Der Werf B, Hiemstra JA, 2015. Comparison of commercial elm cultivars and promising unreleased Dutch clones for resistance to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. iForest, 8, 158–164. doi: 10.3832/ifor1209-008.
5. Klepzig KD, Schlyter F, 1999. Laboratory evaluation of plant derived antifeedants against European pine weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J Econ Entomol, 92, 644–650.
6. Martín JA, Solla A, Coimbra MA, Gil L, 2008. Metabolic fingerprinting allows discrimination between Ulmus pumila and U. minor, and between U. minor clones of different susceptibility to Dutch elm disease. Forest Pathol, 38, 244–256. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0329.2007.00542.x.
7. Martín JA, Solla A, Venturas M, Collada C, Domínguez J, Miranda E, Fuentes P, Burón M, Iglesias S, Gil L, 2015. Seven Ulmus minor clones tolerant to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi registered as forest reproductive material in Spain. iForest, 8, 172–180. doi: 10.3832/ifor1224-008
8. Martín-Benito D, García-Vallejo MC, Pajares JA, López D, 2005. Triterpenes in elms in Spain. Can J Forest Res, 35, 199–205. doi:10.1139/x04-158.
9. Pajares JA, 2004. Elm breeding for resistance against bark beetles. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For, 13, 207–215.
10. Pajares JA, García S, Díez JJ, Martín D, García-Vallejo MC, 2004. Feeding responses by Scolytus scolytus to twig bark extracts from elms. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For, 13, 217–225.
11. Santini A, Faccoli M, 2015. Dutch elm disease and elm bark beetles: a century of association. iForest, 8, 126–143.
12. Santini A, Pecori F, Pepori A, Brookes A, 2012. ‘Morfeo’ elm: a new variety resistant to Dutch elm disease. Forest Pathol, 42, 171–176.
13. Solla A, Bohnens J, Collin E, Diamandis S, Franke A, Gil L, Burón M, Santini A, Mittempergher L, Pinon J, Broeck AV, 2005. Screening European elms for resistance to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. For Sci, 51, 134–141.
14. Spessivtseff P, 1922. Bestämningstabell över svenska barkborrar. Meddelanden från Statens Skogsförsöksanstalt, Häfte 19, N:r 6, Centraltryckeriet, Stockholm
15. Webber JF, 2004. Experimental studies on factors influencing the transmission of Dutch elm disease. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For, 13, 197–205.
16. Webber JF, Kirby SG, 1983. Host feeding preference of Scolytus scolytus. Forestry Commission Bulletin, 60, 47–49.