Integration of visual and olfactory cues of hosts and non-hosts by three bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)

被引:71
作者
Campbell, Stuart A.
Borden, John H.
机构
[1] Simon Fraser Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
[2] Phero Tech Inc, Delta, BC, Canada
关键词
bark beetles; Coleoptera; foraging behaviour; host-non-host discrimination; host selection; olfactory cues; Scolytidae; sensory integration; visual cues;
D O I
10.1111/j.1365-2311.2006.00809.x
中图分类号
Q96 [昆虫学];
学科分类号
摘要
1. There has been a long-standing pre-occupation with how phytophagous insects use olfactory cues to discriminate hosts from non-hosts. Foragers, however, should use whatever cues are accurate and easily assessed, including visual cues. 2. It was hypothesised that three bark beetles, the mountain pine beetle (MPB), Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, the Douglas-fir beetle (DFB), D. pseudotsugae Hopkins, and the western balsam bark beetle (WBBB), Dryocoetes confusus Swaine, integrate visual and olfactory information to avoid non-host angiosperms (e.g. paper birch, trembling aspen), that differ in visual and semiochemical profile from their respective host conifers (lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, interior fir), and tested this hypothesis in a series of field trapping experiments. 3. All three species avoided attractant-baited, white (non-host simulating) multiple-funnel traps, and preferred attractant-baited black (host-simulating) traps. In experiments combining white, non-host traps with non-host angiosperm volatiles, bark beetles were repelled by these stimuli in an additive or redundant manner, confirming that these species could integrate visual and olfactory information to avoid non-host angiosperms while flying. 4. When antiaggregation pheromones were released from white traps, the DFB and MPB were repelled in an additive-redundant manner, suggesting that beetles can integrate diverse and potentially anomalous stimuli. 5. The MPB demonstrated the most consistent visual preferences, suggesting that it may be more of a 'visual specialist' than the DFB or WBBB, for which visual responses may be more contingent on olfactory inputs.
引用
收藏
页码:437 / 449
页数:13
相关论文
共 84 条
[41]  
LIN JT, 1992, B I ZOOL ACAD SINICA, V31, P81
[42]   A MULTIPLE FUNNEL TRAP FOR SCOLYTID BEETLES (COLEOPTERA) [J].
LINDGREN, BS .
CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 1983, 115 (03) :299-302
[43]   FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFICIENCY OF PHEROMONE-BAITED TRAPS FOR 3 SPECIES OF AMBROSIA BEETLES (COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE) [J].
LINDGREN, BS ;
BORDEN, JH ;
CHONG, L ;
FRISKIE, LM ;
ORR, DB .
CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 1983, 115 (03) :303-313
[44]  
LYON R. L., 1958, CANADIAN ENT, V90, P582
[45]   Primary attraction of the fir engraver, Scolytus ventralis [J].
Macias-Samano, JE ;
Borden, JH ;
Gries, R ;
Pierce, HD ;
Gries, G ;
King, GGS .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY, 1998, 24 (06) :1049-1075
[46]   Trapping of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei Ferr (Col, Scolytidae) within a mesh-enclosed environment: interaction of olfactory and visual stimuli [J].
Mathieu, F ;
Brun, LO ;
Marchillaud, C ;
Frerot, B .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGEWANDTE ENTOMOLOGIE, 1997, 121 (03) :181-186
[47]   PRIMARY ATTRACTION OF IPS-LATIDENS (LECONTE) AND HYLASTES-GRACILIS LECONTE (COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE) TO HIGH-GIRDLED LODGEPOLE PINE, PINUS-CONTORTA VAR LATIFOLIA ENGELMANN [J].
MILLER, DR ;
MADDEN, JL ;
BORDEN, JH .
CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 1986, 118 (02) :85-88
[48]   Dose-dependent and species-specific responses of pine bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to monoterpenes in association with pheromones [J].
Miller, DR ;
Borden, JH .
CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 2000, 132 (02) :183-195
[49]   PRIMARY ATTRACTION OF MOUNTAIN PINE-BEETLE, DENDROCTONUS-PONDEROSAE HOPK (COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE), TO BOLTS OF LODGEPOLE PINE [J].
MOECK, HA ;
SIMMONS, CS .
CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 1991, 123 (02) :299-304
[50]   HOST SELECTION BEHAVIOR OF BARK BEETLES (COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE) ATTACKING PINUS-PONDEROSA, WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE WESTERN PINE-BEETLE, DENDROCTONUS-BREVICOMIS [J].
MOECK, HA ;
WOOD, DL ;
LINDAHL, KQ .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY, 1981, 7 (01) :49-83