Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-16T01:57:10.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing monitoring protocols for Scolytinae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): influence of trapping intensity and lure type

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2025

Robert A. Haack Open the ORCID record for Robert A. Haack [Opens in a new window] ,
Therese M. Poland Open the ORCID record for Therese M. Poland [Opens in a new window] ,
Toby R. Petrice Open the ORCID record for Toby R. Petrice [Opens in a new window]  and
Xindi Bian Open the ORCID record for Xindi Bian [Opens in a new window]
Robert A. Haack*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, East Lansing, Michigan, 48823, United States of America
Therese M. Poland
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, East Lansing, Michigan, 48823, United States of America
Toby R. Petrice
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, East Lansing, Michigan, 48823, United States of America
Xindi Bian
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, East Lansing, Michigan, 48823, United States of America
*
Corresponding author: Robert A. Haack; Emails: haack@msu.edu, robert.haack@usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We studied the effects of trapping intensity and lure combinations on Scolytinae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) collections, using funnel traps at 16 sites including forests and Christmas tree farms near Erie, Pennsylvania and Toledo, Ohio, United States of America. In 2002, using 16 or 64 traps per site, all baited with α-pinene + ethanol, we collected 146 627 specimens from 40 species altogether. With 16 traps, 15–24 scolytine species were collected per site, whereas 28–31 species were collected with 64 traps. On average, 55% of all scolytine species collected with 16 traps were collected when subsampling with one trap per site, 78% with four traps, 89% with eight traps, and 95% with 12 traps. A bootstrapping analysis indicated that relatively few new species were gained by subsampling more than six traps per site. On average, similar numbers of species were collected in forests and Christmas tree farms. In 2003, we compared scolytine captures in traps baited with α-pinene, ethanol, α-pinene + ethanol, a three-component exotic Ips lure, chalcogran + methyl 2,4-decadienoate, or lineatin, or in unbaited control traps at eight sites. Overall, 31 977 scolytine specimens from 38 species were collected. Traps baited with α-pinene + ethanol captured the most scolytine species and individuals per trap in absolute terms.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 157 , 2025 , e48
Check for updates
Creative Commons
This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of Canada.
Copyright
© USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 2025

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Subject editor: Jon Sweeney

References

Allison, J.D., Johnson, C.W., Meeker, J.R., Strom, B.L., and Butler, S.M. 2011. Effect of aerosol surface lubricants on the abundance and richness of selected forest insects captured in multiple-funnel and panel traps. Journal of Economic Entomology, 104: 1258–1264. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC11044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allison, J.D. and Redak, R.A. 2017. The impact of trap type and design features on survey and detection of bark and woodboring beetles and their associates: a review and meta-analysis. Annual Review of Entomology, 62: 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-010715-023516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, T.H. 2025. Bark and ambrosia beetles of the Americas [online]. Available from https://www.barkbeetles.info/ [accessed 1 August 2025].Google Scholar
Augustin, S., Boonham, N., De Kogel, W.J., Donner, P., Faccoli, M., Lees, D.C., et al. 2012. A review of pest surveillance techniques for detecting quarantine pests in Europe. EPPO Bulletin, 42: 515–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.2600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockerhoff, E.G., Corley, J.C., Jactel, H., Miller, D.R., Rabaglia, R.J., Sweeney, J., et al. 2023. Monitoring and surveillance of forest insects. In Forest Entomology and Pathology. Volume 1. Edited by Allison, J.D., Paine, T.D., Slippers, B., and Wingfield, M.J.. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. Pp. 669–705.10.1007/978-3-031-11553-0_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockerhoff, E.G., Jones, D.C., Kimberley, M.O., Suckling, D.M., and Donaldson, T. 2006. Nationwide survey for invasive wood-boring and bark beetles (Coleoptera) using traps baited with pheromones and kairomones. Forest Ecology and Management, 228: 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.02.046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronson, G. 1992. Modern Fortran 77/90: The Alternate Edition. Scott/Jones Inc., El Granada, California, United States of America. 595 pp.Google Scholar
Cavaletto, G., Faccoli, M., Marini, L., Spaethe, J., Magnani, G., and Rassati, D. 2020. Effect of trap color on captures of bark- and wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera; Buprestidae and Scolytinae) and associated predators. Insects, 11: 749. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11110749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colwell, R.K. 2013. EstimateS, Version 9.1: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples. User’s Guide and Application. Available from https://www.robertkcolwell.org/pages/1407-estimates [accessed 1 August 2025].Google Scholar
Dodds, K.J. 2011. Effects of habitat type and trap placement on captures of bark (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and longhorned (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) beetles in semiochemical-baited traps. Journal of Economic Entomology, 104: 879–888. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC10358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dodds, K.J., Sweeney, J., Francese, J.A., Besana, L., and Rassati, D. 2024. Factors affecting catches of bark beetles and woodboring beetles in traps. Journal of Pest Science, 97: 1767–1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-024-01774-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, J.T., Denux, O., Courtin, C., Bernard, A., Javal, M., Millar, J.G., et al. 2019. Multi-component blends for trapping native and exotic longhorn beetles at potential points-of-entry and in forests. Journal of Pest Science, 92: 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0997-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, H., Caton, B.P., Manoukis, N.C., and Pallipparambil, G.R. 2022. Simulation-based evaluation of two insect trapping grids for delimitation surveys. Scientific Reports, 12: 11089. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14958-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flaherty, L., Gutowski, J.M.G., Hughes, C., Mayo, P., Mokrzycki, T., Pohl, G., et al. 2019. Pheromone-enhanced lure blends and multiple trap heights improve detection of bark and woodboring beetles potentially moved in solid wood packaging. Journal of Pest Science, 92: 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-1019-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, K.J., Cognato, A.I., Lightle, D.M., Mosley, B.J., Nielsen, D.G., and Herms, D.A. 2010. Species composition, seasonal activity, and semiochemical response of native and exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in northeastern Ohio. Journal of Economic Entomology, 103: 1187–1195. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC10026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haack, R.A. 2001. Intercepted Scolytidae (Coleoptera) at US ports of entry: 1985–2000. Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 6: 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025715200538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, R.A. 2006. Exotic bark- and wood-boring Coleoptera in the United States: recent establishments and interceptions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36: 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1139/x05-249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, R.A., Britton, K.O., Brockerhoff, E.G., Cavey, J.F., Garrett, L.J., Kimberley, M., et al. 2014. Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on reducing woodborer infestation rates in wood packaging material entering the United States. PLOS One, 9: e96611. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haack, B. and Kucera, D. 1993. New Introduction: Common Pine Shoot Beetle, Tomicus piniperda (L.). Northeastern Area Pest Alert NA-TP-05-93. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, Radnor, Pennsylvania, United States of America. Available from https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/292436#page/3/mode/1up [accessed 1 August 2025].Google Scholar
Haack, R.A. and Lawrence, R.K. 1995a. Attack densities of Tomicus piniperda and Ips pini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) on Scotch pine logs in Michigan in relation to felling date. Journal of Entomological Science, 30: 18–28. https://doi.org/10.18474/0749-8004-30.1.18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, R.A. and Lawrence, R.K. 1995b. Spring flight of Tomicus piniperda in relation to native Michigan pine bark beetles and their associated predators. In Proceedings: Behavior, Population Dynamics and Control of Forest Insects. Edited by Hain, P., Salom, S.M., Ravlin, W.F., Payne, T.L., and Raffa, K.F.. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America. Pp. 524–535.Google Scholar
Haack, R.A. and Poland, T.M. 2001. Evolving management strategies for a recently discovered exotic forest pest: the pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda (Coleoptera). Biological Invasions, 3: 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015298114837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, R.A., Poland, T.M., and Heilman, W.E. 1998. Using historical temperature records to adjust the federal quarantine of the pine shoot beetle. In 13th Conference on Biometeorology and Aerobiology, 2–6 November 1998, Albuquerque, New Mexico. American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. Pp. 319–322.Google Scholar
Haack, R.A. and Rabaglia, R.J. 2013. Exotic bark and ambrosia beetles in the USA: potential and current invaders. In Potential Invasive Pests of Agricultural Crop Species. Edited by Pena, J.. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. Pp. 48–74.10.1079/9781845938291.0048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartshorn, J.A., Coyle, D.R., and Rabaglia, R.J. 2021. Responses of native and non-native bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) to different chemical attractants: insights from the USDA Forest Service early detection and rapid response program data analysis. Journal of Economic Entomology, 114: 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toaa309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoebeke, E.R. 2001. Hylurgus ligniperda: a new exotic pine bark beetle in the United States. Newsletter of the Michigan Entomological Society, 46: 1–2. Available from https://michiganentsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/vol46no1-2.pdf [accessed 1 August 2025].Google Scholar
Kennedy, A.A. and McCullough, D.G. 2002. Phenology of the larger European pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda (L.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), in relation to native bark beetles and natural enemies in pine stands. Environmental Entomology, 31: 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-31.2.261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkendall, L.R., Biedermann, P.H., and Jordal, B.H. 2015. Evolution and diversity of bark and ambrosia beetles. In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species. Edited by Vega, F.E. and Hofstetter, R.W.. Academic Press, New York, New York, United States of America. Pp. 85–156.10.1016/B978-0-12-417156-5.00003-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkendall, L.R. and Faccoli, M. 2010. Bark beetles and pinhole borers (Curculionidae, Scolytinae, Platypodinae) alien to Europe. ZooKeys, 56: 227–251. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.56.529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantschner, V., Gomez, D.F., Vilardo, G., Stazione, L., Ramos, S., Eskiviski, E., et al. 2024. Distribution, invasion history, and ecology of non-native pine bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in southern South America. Neotropical Entomology, 53: 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-023-01125-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Y., Johnson, A.J., Gao, L., Wu, C., and Hulcr, J. 2021. Two new invasive Ips bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in mainland China and their potential distribution in Asia. Pest Management Science, 77: 4000–4008. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebhold, A.M., Berec, L., Brockerhoff, E.G., Epanchin-Niell, R.S., Hastings, A., Herms, D.A., et al. 2016. Eradication of invading insect populations: from concepts to applications. Annual Review of Entomology, 61: 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-010715-023809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, D.G., Bohne, M.J., Lee, J.C., Flint, M.L., Penrose, R.L., and Seybold, S.J. 2007. New Introduction in California: The Redhaired Pine Bark Beetle, Hylurgus ligniperda Fabricius. Pest Alert R5-PR-07. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, California, United States of America. Available from https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/48536 [accessed 1 August 2025].Google Scholar
Manoukis, N.C. and Hill, M.P. 2021. Probability of insect capture in a trap network: low prevalence and detection trapping with Trapgrid. arXiv, 2110.11432. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.11432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchioro, M., Rassati, D., Faccoli, M., Van Rooyen, K., Kostanowicz, C., Webster, V., et al. 2020. Maximizing bark and ambrosia beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) catches in trapping surveys for longhorn and jewel beetles. Journal of Economic Entomology, 113: 2745–2757. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toaa181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mas, H., Santoiemma, G., Lencina, J.L., Gallego, D., Pérez-Laorga, E., Ruzzier, E., and Rassati, D. 2023. Investigating beetle communities in and around entry points can improve surveillance at national and international scale. NeoBiota, 85: 145–165. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.85.103904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D.R. and Rabaglia, R.J. 2009. Ethanol and (−)-α-pinene: attractant kairomones for bark and ambrosia beetles in the southeastern US. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 35: 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-009-9613-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrice, T.R., Haack, R.A., and Poland, T.M. 2004. Evaluation of three trap types and five lures for monitoring Hylurgus ligniperda (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and other local scolytids in New York. The Great Lakes Entomologist, 37: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.22543/0090-0222.2094.Google Scholar
Pfammatter, J.A., Coyle, D.R., Journey, A.M., Pahs, T.L., Luhman, J.C., Cervenka, V.J., and Koch, R.L. 2011. Bark beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) community structure in northeastern and central Minnesota. The Great Lakes Entomologist, 44: 163–176. https://doi.org/10.22543/0090-0222.2230.Google Scholar
Phillips, T.W., Wilkening, A.J., Atkinson, T.H., Nation, J.L., Wilkinson, R.C., and Foltz, J.L. 1988. Synergism of turpentine and ethanol as attractants for certain pine-infesting beetles (Coleoptera). Environmental Entomology, 17: 456–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/17.3.456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poland, T.M. and Rassati, D. 2019. Improved biosecurity surveillance of non-native forest insects: a review of current methods. Journal of Pest Science, 92: 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-1004-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabaglia, R.J. and Cavey, J.F. 1994. Note on the distribution of the immigrant of bark beetle, Hylastes opacus, in North America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Entomological News, 105: 277–279. Available from http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/20581 [accessed 1 August 2025].Google Scholar
Rabaglia, R.J., Cognato, A.I., Hoebeke, E.R., Johnson, C.W., LaBonte, J.R., Carter, M.E., and Vlach, J.J. 2019. Early detection and rapid response: a 10-year summary of the USDA Forest Service program of surveillance for non-native bark and ambrosia beetles. American Entomologist, 65: 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/tmz015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabaglia, R., Duerr, D., Acciavatti, R., and Ragenovich, I. 2008. Early Detection and Rapid Response for Non-native Bark and Ambrosia Beetles. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. Washington, D.C., United States of America. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265311290_Early_Detection_and_Rapid_Response_for_Non-Native_Bark_and_Ambrosia_Beetles [accessed 18 September 2025].Google Scholar
Raffa, K.F., Grégoire, J.C., and Lindgren, B.S. 2015. Natural history and ecology of bark beetles. In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species. Edited by Vega, F.E. and Hofstetter, R.W.. Academic Press, New York, New York, United States of America. Pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Rassati, D., Faccoli, M., Petrucco Toffolo, E., Battisti, A., and Marini, L. 2015. Improving the early detection of alien wood-boring beetles in ports and surrounding forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52: 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rassati, D., Petrucco Toffolo, E., Roques, A., Battisti, A., and Faccoli, M. 2014. Trapping wood boring beetles in Italian ports: a pilot study. Journal of Pest Science, 87: 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-013-0499-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roques, A., Ren, L., Rassati, D., Shi, J., Akulov, E., Audsley, N., et al. 2023. Worldwide tests of generic attractants, a promising tool for early detection of non-native cerambycid species. NeoBiota, 84: 169–209. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.84.91096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santoiemma, G., Battisti, A., Courtin, C., Curletti, G., Faccoli, M., Feddern, N., et al. 2024. Testing a trapping protocol for generic surveillance of wood-boring beetles in heterogeneous landscapes. NeoBiota, 95: 77–95. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.95.129483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute. 2012. SAS/STAT User’s Manual. Version 9.4. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, United States of America.Google Scholar
Schlyter, F. 1992. Sampling range, attraction range, and effective attraction radius: estimates of trap efficiency and communication distance in coleopteran pheromone and host attractant systems. Journal of Applied Entomology, 114: 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1992.tb01150.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, D.C. and Simberloff, D. 1997. Biological invasions: a growing threat. Issues in Science and Technology, 13: 33–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43313801 [accessed 1 August 2025].Google Scholar
Schroeder, L.M. and Lindelöw, Å. 1989. Attraction of scolytids and associated beetles by different absolute amounts and proportions of α-pinene and ethanol. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 15: 807–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01015179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweeney, J., Gao, W., Gutowski, J.M., Hughes, C., Kimoto, T., Kostanowicz, C., et al. 2025. Diversity in trap color and height increases species richness of bark and woodboring beetles detected in multiple funnel traps. PLOS One, 20: e0322412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurston, G.S., Slater, A., Nei, I., Roberts, J., Hamilton, K.M., Sweeney, J.D., and Kimoto, T. 2022. New Canadian and provincial records of Coleoptera resulting from annual Canadian Food Inspection Agency surveillance for detection of non-native, potentially invasive forest insects. Insects, 13: 708. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13080708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turchin, P. and Odendaal, F.J. 1996. Measuring the effective sampling area of a pheromone trap for monitoring population density of southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environmental Entomology, 25: 582–588. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/25.3.582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, S.L. 1982. The bark and ambrosia beetles of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic monograph. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs, 6: 1–1359. Available from https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbnm/vol6/iss1/ [accessed 1 August 2025].Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Haack et al. supplementary material

Haack et al. supplementary material
Download Haack et al. supplementary material(File)
File 19.7 KB