FIELD RESPONSES OF CERTAIN FOREST COLEOPTERA TO CONIFER MONOTERPENES AND ETHANOL
FIELD RESPONSES OF CERTAIN FOREST COLEOPTERA TO CONIFER MONOTERPENES AND ETHANOL
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/bf01012261
复制
发表时间：
1989-06-01
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
PHILOGENE, BJR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
CHENIER, JVR;PHILOGENE, BJR
在Chalk River，安大略，加拿大附近进行了使用带诱饵的粘性烟囱捕集器和Lindgren多漏斗捕集器的田间实验，以确定针叶树单萜（α-蒎烯，β-松油烯、月桂烯、柠檬烯、香叶烯和香叶烯）和乙醇对捕获的甲虫数量的影响。几种以针叶树为食的甲虫被单萜类或单萜类和乙醇所吸引，包括Cerambychiae（Asemum striatum，Acmaeops proteus，Xylotrechus undulatus，Monochamus scutellatus），Pissodes strobi，Hylobius pales）和Scolytidae（Dryocotelus autographus，Ips grandicollis）。蟾蜍科的物种一般不响应的单萜或乙醇。单萜类化合物对针叶树小蠹的捕食性天敌石蛾科（Thanasimusangulus，Enocleusnigresrufiventris，Enocleusnigrifronsgerhardi）有明显的引诱作用，乙醇对针叶树小蠹有明显的引诱作用。scutellatus、盾叶甲H. pales和D.亲笔签名而α-对于大多数甲虫物种，蒎烯是最有效的引诱剂，除了α-单萜以外的单萜是最有效的引诱剂。蒎烯对乙醇有协同引诱作用。亲笔签名吸引甲虫的商业turalum和乙醇没有显着不同的吸引力，纯单萜混合物和乙醇。
Field experiments using baited sticky stovepipe traps and Lindgren multiple funnel traps were done near Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, to determine the effects of conifer monoterpenes (.alpha.-pinene, .beta.-pinene, myrcene, limonene, camphene and caene) and ethanol on the number of beetles captured. Several species of conifer-feeding beetles were attracted to the monoterpenes or to monoterpenes and ethanol, including species in the families Cerambycidae (Asemum striatum, Acmaeops proteus, Xylotrechus undulatus, Monochamus scutellatus), Curculionidae (Pissodes strobi, Hylobius pales), and Scolytidae (Dryocoetes autographus, Ips grandicollis). Species of Buprestidae generally did not respond to the monoterpenes or to ethanol. Species of Cleridae (Thanasimus dubius, Enocleus nigres rufiventris, Enoclerus nigrifrons gerhardi) which are predators of conifer bark bettles were attracted to the monoterpenes and ethanol was evident for M. scutellatus, H. pales and D. autographus. While .alpha.-pinene was the most potent attractant for most beetle species, monoterpenes other than .alpha.-pinene synergized attraction to ethanol for D. autographus. Attraction of beetles to commercial turpentine and ethanol did not differ significantly from attraction to a pure monoterpene blend and ethanol.