Reception of bark beetle pheromone in the predaceous clerid beetle,Thanasimus formicarius (Coleoptera: Cleridae)

1983 ◽  
Vol 150 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Bark Beetle ◽  
Thanasimus Formicarius

scholarly journals Ips sexdentatus Mass-Trapping: Mitigation of Its Negative Effects on Saproxylic Beetles Larger Than the Target

Forests ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Matteo Bracalini ◽  
Francesco Croci ◽  
Emanuele Ciardi ◽  
Giulio Mannucci ◽  
Emanuele Papucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bark Beetle ◽  
Natural Enemies ◽  
Bark Beetles ◽  
Mass Trapping ◽  
Beetle Species ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Thanasimus Formicarius ◽  
Mesh Screen ◽  
Ips Sexdentatus ◽  
Average Size

Research Highlights: We investigated the negative effects of bark beetle mass trapping, especially non-target catches among the target’s natural enemies. Slot traps modified with mesh screen and escape windows were tested to improve their selectiveness. Background and Objectives: Two of the main natural enemies of bark beetles, Thanasimus formicarius (L.) and Temnoscheila caerulea (Olivier), are frequently trapped in high numbers in Ips sexdentatus (Böerner) pheromone traps, along with other saproxylic insects; this may lead to much larger pest populations in the successive 4–20 beetle generations. From 2016–2019, during I. sexdentatus mass-trapping in a pine forest of Tuscany (Italy), non-target catches were tallied. Trap modifications were evaluated to mitigate non-target catches, especially those concerning bark beetles’ natural enemies. Materials and Methods: A total of 25 bark-beetle slot traps were placed about 75 m apart in a pine stand infested by I. sexdentatus. Traps were baited with I. sexdentatus aggregation pheromone, whose main components are ipsenol, ipsdienol, and 2-methyl-3-buten-2-ol. Catches were collected every 10 days from March to December. In 2019, 13 traps were modified by applying a 6-mm mesh screen on top of the collection container and by providing three 60 mm × 8 mm escape windows immediately above the screen. These “modified traps” and their captures were considered separately from the 12 remaining “standard traps.” All bark beetle species were recorded, as well as all beetle species > 8 mm. Results: Overall, target catches amounted for <10% of the total beetle catches. The most-collected species was the bark beetle Orthotomicus erosus Wollaston. Trap modification allowed the escape of larger species, resulting in the reduction of the average size of caught specimens. Even though non-target catches among predators were still high, the proportion of major predators (T. formicarius and T. caerulea) to bark beetles showed a statistically significant reduction of predator catches in modified traps, an encouraging outcome. Conclusions: Trap modifications may mitigate the problem of non-target catches during mass trapping, especially reducing catches of beetle species larger than the target. However, the key is to schedule mass trapping only during those seasons when the target adults are more active than the main predator adults, thus limiting their catches and, consequently, the negative effects on pest management and biodiversity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document