Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:05:06.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVALUATION OF THE RE-EMERGENCE PROCESS OF PARENT ADULT DENDROCTONUS FRONTALIS (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Robert N. Coulson ,
W. Scott Fargo ,
Paul E. Pulley ,
John L. Foltz ,
Don N. Pope ,
Jim V. Richerson  and
Thomas L. Payne
Robert N. Coulson
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
W. Scott Fargo
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
Paul E. Pulley
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
John L. Foltz
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
Don N. Pope
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
Jim V. Richerson
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
Thomas L. Payne
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The process of re-emergence of Dendroctonus frontalis parent adults was investigated using emergence traps placed systematically along the bole of infested loblolly pine, Pinus taeda. Daily collections of the traps showed the re-emergence pattern by height through time. Re-emergence/100 cm2 (Y) was described as a function of time (X) by the model Y = C(18X)B−1 exp (−A(18X)B) + ɛε for intervals along the infested bole. Peak re-emergence occurred shortly after peak attack density and continued 16–20 days. Highest re-emergence density occurred at the midportion of the infested bole and tapered to the ends. The same model was used to describe re-emergence as an average process for the entire tree. For convenience in evaluating expected re-emergence totals over a time span, the cumulative form of the model was fit to the data. The proportion of re-emergence was studied using bark samples taken at the beginning and end of the process and was found to be 97% of the attacking adult population. An empirical distribution function was developed and the probability of re-emergence described using the function Y = ABCXB−1 exp (−AXB) + ɛε, where Y = the probability of re-emergence at a time X in days given that a beetle was present on day 1 of the process. The cumulative form of this model was also provided.

Using laboratory bioassays parent adults were tested and found to respond to the attractant mixture of frontalin, trans-verbenol, and loblolly pine turpentine.

Re-emergence may play several functions in the population dynamics of D. frontalis: conditioning host trees through mass colonization; establishing brood populations through multiple re-emergence, thereby efficiently allocating egg populations; identifying new hosts and aggregating populations through pheromone production; and maintenance of continuity in pheromone production at the active portion of the infestation, thereby identifying the location of trees under colonization. The prolonged re-emergence period was suggested to be of survival value to the insect in that local short term disasters would affect only a small proportion of the re-emerging population. The number of re-emergences and proportions of re-emergence were suggested to be related to oviposition per parent adult and hence attack density.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 110 , Issue 5 , 01 May 1978 , pp. 475 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1978

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

REFERENCES

Clark, E. W. and Osgood, E. A. Jr., 1964. Mass rearing the southern pine beetle and the coarse writing engraver. U.S. For. Serv. Res. Note SE-30. 4 pp.Google Scholar
Clark, E. W. and Osgood, E. A. Jr., 1966. Southern pine beetle, pp. 305–310. In Insect colonization and mass production. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coster, J. E. 1970. Production of aggregating pheromones in reemerged parent females of the southern pine beetle. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 63: 1186–1187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulson, R. N., Payne, T. L., Coster, J. E., and Houseweart, M. W.. 1972. The southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Texas For. Serv. Publ. 108. 38 pp.Google Scholar
Coulson, R. N., Hain, F. P., Foltz, J. L., and Mayyasi, A. M.. 1975. Techniques for sampling the dynamics of southern pine beetle populations. Misc. Publ. Texas agric. Exp. Stn 1185. 18 pp.Google Scholar
Coulson, R. N., Mayyasi, A. M., Foltz, J. L., Hain, F. P., and Martin, W. C.. 1976. Resource utilization by the southern pine beetle. Can. Ent. 108: 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, R. N., Pulley, P. E., Foltz, J. L., Martin, W. C., and Kelley, C. L.. 1977. Survival models for within-tree populations of Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Ent. 109: 1071–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLeon, D., Bedard, W. D., and Terrell, T. T.. 1934. Recent discoveries concerning the biology of the mountain pine beetle and their effects on control in western white pine stands. J. For. 32: 430–436.Google Scholar
Franklin, R. T. 1969. Southern pine beetle influences on the pine-hardwood forest in the Georgia Piedmont. Proc. Tall Timber Conf. on Ecological Animal Control by Habitat Management. 1: 117–125.Google Scholar
Franklin, R. T. 1970. Southern pine beetle population behavior. J. Ga ent. Soc. 5: 175–182.Google Scholar
Miller, J. M. and Keen, F. P.. 1960. Biology and control of the western pine beetle. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Ser. Misc. Publ. 800. 381 pp.Google Scholar
MacAndrews, A. H. 1926. The biology of the southern pine beetle. Unpub. M.S. Thesis, Syracuse Univ. 103 pp.Google Scholar
Payne, T. L., Hart, E. R., Edson, J. L., McCarty, F. A., Billings, P. M., and Coser, J. E.. 1976. Olfactometer for assay of behavioral chemicals for the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 2: 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulley, P. E., Foltz, J. L., Mayyasi, A. M., and Coulson, R. N.. 1976. Topological mapping to estimate numbers of bark inhabiting insects. Environ. Ent. 5: 640–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thatcher, R. C. and Pickard, L. S.. 1964. Seasonal variations in activity of the southern pine beetle in East Texas. J. econ. Ent. 57: 840–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, C. C. and Tsao, C. H.. 1967. Gallery construction and sexual behavior in the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimm. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J. Ga ent. Soc. 2: 95–98.Google Scholar