Hylobius pine weevils adult host selection and antifeedants: feeding behaviour on host and non‐host woody scandinavian plants

Månsson, Per E.; Schlyter, Fredrik

doi:10.1111/j.1461-9563.2004.00217.x

Cited by 35 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Damage by the pine weevil is sometimes also recorded on seedlings of deciduous trees like birch even in the presence of conifer seedlings (Toivonen and Viiri 2006), but little feeding damage has been found on Populus spp. (Samuelsson 2001;Månsson and Schlyter 2004). However, since the demand for short-rotation plantation is increasing and hybrid aspen has proved to be one of the fastest growing deciduous tree species (Tullus et al 2012) and therefore highly interesting for biomass production it is important to determine the level of damage caused by pine weevils to this tree species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Damage by the pine weevil Hylobius abietis to seedlings of two native and five introduced tree species in Sweden

Wallertz¹,

Nordenhem²,

Nordlander³

2014

Silva Fenn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increasing interest in using introduced species in Swedish forestry in response to climate change, but it is important to assess their resistance to native pests. Thus, we compared the extent of pine weevil feeding on two dominant native conifers, Scots pine ( L.) and Norway spruce ( (L.) Karst.), the non-host deciduous broadleaf hybrid aspen ( Ã HÃ¤met-Ahti) and four introduced conifers: Douglas fir ( (Mirb.) Franco), hybrid larch ( Ã Coaz), Sitka spruce ( (Bong.) CarriÃ©re) and lodgepole pine ( Douglas ex Loudon). The extent of feeding damage on seedlings and its effect on their vitality were examined in a field study in south-central Sweden and a laboratory experiment, which gave largely consistent results. Generally, the species most heavily attacked by the pine weevil, in both experiments, were Douglas fir and Sitka spruce. In the field experiment pine weevils killed or severely damaged significantly higher proportions of Douglas fir and Sitka spruce seedlings (60%) than any other species except Norway spruce (49%). Among conifer seedlings the proportions of killed or severely damaged seedlings were lowest for Scots pine and hybrid larch (27%) and Lodgepole pine (36%). The results indicate that most conifer species planted on young clear-cuttings in Sweden need some kind of pine weevil protection, and the possibility that introducing new tree species might increase damage caused by pests must be considered. For instance, widespread use of hybrid aspen could reduce damage by pine weevils, but increase damage by other, untested pests or pathogens.Pinus sylvestrisPicea abiesPopuluswettsteiniiPseudotsuga menziesiiLarixmarschlinsiiPicea sitchensisPinus contorta

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Damage by the pine weevil Hylobius abietis to seedlings of two native and five introduced tree species in Sweden

Wallertz¹,

Nordenhem²,

Nordlander³

2014

Silva Fenn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The adult pine weevil accepts numerous non-host species for feeding but prefers Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) over most woody species of the Scandinavian flora (Manlove et al 1997;Månsson and Schlyter 2004). However, there are at least 11 woody species upon which the weevil will avoid feeding even in no-choice tests (Månsson and Schlyter 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there are at least 11 woody species upon which the weevil will avoid feeding even in no-choice tests (Månsson and Schlyter 2004). These are alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertner), aspen (Populus tremula L.), beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), guelder rose (Viburnum opulus L.), holly (Ilex aquifolium L.), horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum L.), linden (Tilia cordata Mill.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Antifeedants and Feeding Stimulants in Bark Extracts of Ten Woody Non-host Species of the Pine Weevil, Hylobius abietis

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bark of ten woody species, known to be rejected as a food source by the pine weevil, Hylobius abietis, were sequentially extracted by a Soxhlet apparatus with pentane followed by methanol. Species were alder (Alnus glutinosa), aspen (Populus tremula), beech (Fagus sylvatica), guelder rose (Viburnum opulus), holly (Ilex aquifolium), horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), lilac (Syringa vulgaris), spindle tree (Evonymus europaeus), walnut (Juglans regia), and yew (Taxus baccata). Bark of each species was collected in southern Scandinavia during the summer. Resulting extracts were tested for antifeedant activity against the pine weevil by a micro-feeding choice assay. At a dose corresponding to that in the bark, methanol extracts from Aesculus, Taxus, Ilex, and Populus were antifeedant active, while pentane extracts of Aesculus, Fagus, Syringa, and Viburnum were stimulatory. Four known antifeedants against H. abietis, the straight-chained carboxylic acids, hexanoic and nonanoic acid (C6 and C9), carvone, and carvacrol were identified by gas chromatography (GC)-mass spectrometry (MS) in several extracts. The major constituents were identified and tested for feeding deterrence. The aromatic compounds benzyl alcohol and 2-phenylethanol are new non-host plant-derived feeding deterrents for the pine weevil. Additionally, two feeding stimulants, β-sitosterol and 5-(hydroxymethyl)-2-furaldehyde, were identified. One active methanol extract of Aesculus bark was sequentially fractionated by liquid chromatography, and major compounds were tentatively identified as branched alcohols and esters of hexanoic acid. Five commercially available hexanoate esters and two commercially available branched alcohols were identified as new active antifeedants. Both stimulatory and inhibiting compounds were found in the same extracts and co-eluted in the same or adjacent fractions. The mix of semiochemicals of opposite activity in each extract or fraction could explain the stimulatory-, inhibitory-, or sometimes neutral activity. Generally, such co-occurrence confounds the isolation of antifeedants.

show abstract

“…Although adults are less susceptible to nematodes than earlier stages, treatment of seedlings to target adult H. abietis and related species has been contemplated (Pye & Pye 1985;Eidt et al 1995). Could behavioural deterrence help protect treated seedlings, encouraging the weevils to feed on alternative, noncrop, woody plants (Mansson & Schlyter 2004)? In our experiment, S. carpocapsae influenced the feeding behaviour of weevils, 'protecting' the bark disc on the contaminated substrate, but the effect did not last beyond 2 days (data not shown).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pine weevils modulate defensive behaviour in response to parasites of differing virulence

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grooming and avoidance of contaminated areas are among the behavioural defences employed by animals against parasites. Antiparasite defence behaviour is costly in terms of time, energy and/or food foregone and therefore animals are expected to modulate their defences depending on the risk of attack and/or the severity of the symptoms caused. We tested the hypothesis that an insect host invests more in defence against more virulent (more likely to cause death) than less virulent parasites. We tested avoidance and grooming of adult pine weevils, Hylobius abietis, in response to infective juveniles of two species of entomopathogenic nematodes, the more virulent Steinernema carpocapsae and less virulent Heterorhabditis downesi. Weevils avoided feeding on a substrate contaminated with S. carpocapsae but not H. downesi. Weevils also groomed more when their bodies were contaminated with S. carpocapsae than either H. downesi or water. We also made direct observations of nematodes on weevils. When equal numbers of nematodes were applied to weevils more S. carpocapsae than H. downesi moved actively on the weevil's cuticle. Thus, the differential response of weevils to the two nematode species can be explained by the weevils detecting the more aggressive behaviour of S. carpocapsae than H. downesi, which corresponds to a higher probability of death. Ó

show abstract

Hylobius pine weevils adult host selection and antifeedants: feeding behaviour on host and non‐host woody scandinavian plants

Cited by 35 publications

References 20 publications

Damage by the pine weevil <i>Hylobius abietis</i> to seedlings of two native and five introduced tree species in Sweden

Damage by the pine weevil <i>Hylobius abietis</i> to seedlings of two native and five introduced tree species in Sweden

Antifeedants and Feeding Stimulants in Bark Extracts of Ten Woody Non-host Species of the Pine Weevil, Hylobius abietis

Pine weevils modulate defensive behaviour in response to parasites of differing virulence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About