Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 309–325 | Cite as

Pheromone-enhanced lure blends and multiple trap heights improve detection of bark and wood-boring beetles potentially moved in solid wood packaging

  • L. FlahertyEmail author
  • J. M. G. Gutowski
  • C. Hughes
  • P. Mayo
  • T. Mokrzycki
  • G. Pohl
  • P. Silk
  • K. Van Rooyen
  • J. Sweeney
Original Paper


Exotic bark and wood-boring beetles [Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Curculionidae (Scolytinae)] are among the most damaging forest pests, and species of quarantine significance are frequently moved intercontinentally. Early detection of these potentially invasive species is critical for their effective management, and while current surveillance methods have intercepted many species, they failed to detect others that subsequently became significant pests. We evaluated the effects of trap height (canopy vs. understory) and lure type (host volatiles vs. blends of host volatiles and pheromones) on the efficacy of detecting bark and wood-boring beetles, with the objective of improving surveillance programs. Adding pheromones to host volatile-baited traps increased the number of species detected, but lure performance (mean catch and detection rate) varied among species. The effects of trap height also varied by taxa; some species were detected more often in the understory (e.g., Scolytinae), and others mainly in the canopy (e.g., Cerambycidae). Species assemblages in traps differed between the canopy and understory and also among lure types. The number of target species detected was increased by using combinations of different pheromone-enhanced lure blends and by placing traps in both the canopy and understory. Applying these results should improve early detection of exotic species commonly moved intercontinentally in wood packaging and products.


Invasive species surveillance Early detection Buprestidae Cerambycidae Scolytinae Generic lure blends Trap height 



We thank the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Science Branch; Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service Forest Invasive Alien Species program; United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service—Plant Protection & Quarantine; MacEwan University; Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency—Atlantic Innovation Fund; and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (through SERG International) for funds and in-kind support. We also thank the Canadian Department of National Defence and Alberta Transportation for field site access. We thank B Anderson, P Bouchard, D Bright, A Cognato, A Davies, H Douglas, S Laplante, and R Webster for taxonomic expertise, and C Alderson, L Flemming, J Francese, C Gomez, J Hammond, T Kimoto, JP Lafontaine, L Leachman, M Luco, C MacKay, T Nelson, K Sücko, D Tighe, V Webster, D Williams and H Young for technical or administrative support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest relevant to this study. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10340_2018_1019_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (58 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 58 kb)


  1. Allison JD, Redak RA (2017) The impact of trap type and design features on survey and detection of bark and woodboring beetles their associates: a review and meta-analysis. Annu Rev Entomol 62:127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison JD, Borden JH, Seybold SJ (2004) A review of the chemical ecology of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera). Chemoecology 14:123–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison JD, McKenney JL, Millar JG, McElfresh S, Mitchell RF, Hanks LM (2012) Response of the woodborers Moochamus carolinensis and Monochamus titillator (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to known cerambycid pheromones in the presence and absence of the host plant volatile α-pinene. Environ Entomol 41:1587–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison JD, McKenney JL, Miller DR, Gimmel ML (2013) Kairomonal responses of natural enemies and associates of the southern Ips (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) to Ipsdienol, Ipsenol and cis-verbenol. J Insect Behav 26:321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aukema JE, McCullough DG, Von Holle B, Liebhold AM, Britton K, Frankel SJ (2010) Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental United States. Bioscience 60:886–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aukema JE, Leung B, Kovacs K, Chivers C, Britton KO, Englin J et al (2011) Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 6(9):e24587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bashford R (2008) The development of a port surrounds trapping system for the detection of exotic forest insect pests in Australia. In: Oteng-Amoako AA (ed) New advances and contribution to forestry research. InTech, Rijeka, pp 85–100Google Scholar
  8. Bense U (1995) Illustrated key to the Cerambycidae and Vesperidae of Europe. Margraf Verlag, WeikersheimGoogle Scholar
  9. Boone CK, Sweeney J, Silk P, Hughes C, Webster RP, Stephen F et al (2018) Monochamus species from different continents can be effectively detected with the same trapping protocol. J Pest Sci. Google Scholar
  10. Brockerhoff EG, Jones DC, Kimberley MO, Suckling DM, Donaldson T (2006) Nationwide survey for invasive wood-boring and bark beetles (Coleoptera) using traps with pheromones and kairomones. For Ecol Manag 228:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brockerhoff EG, Liebhold AM, Richardson B, Suckling DM (2010) Eradication of invasive forest insects: concepts, methods, costs and benefits. NZ J For Sci 40(suppl):S117–S135Google Scholar
  12. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (2009).Plant protection survey reports 2009. CFIA, Ottawa. Accessed 15 Aug 2017
  13. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (2016) Plant protection survey report 2015–2016. CFIA, Ottawa. Accessed 15 Aug 2017
  14. Cappaert D, McCullough DG, Poland TM, Siegert NW (2005) Emerald ash borer in North America: a research and regulatory challenge. Am Entomol 51:152–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chénier JVR, Philogène BJR (1989) Field responses of certain forest Coleoptera to conifer monoterpenes and ethanol. J Chem Ecol 15:1729–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colwell RK (2013) EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9. User’s guide and application. Accessed Jan 2018
  17. Dodds KJ (2014) Effects of trap height on captures of arboreal insects in pine stands of northeastern United States of America. Can Entomol 146:80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fonseca MG, Vidal DM, Zarbin PH (2010) Male-produced sex pheromone of the cerambycid beetle Hedypathes betulinus: chemical identification and biological activity. J Chem Ecol 36:1132–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2013) Regulation of wood packing material in international trade. International standards for phytosanitary measures 15. International Plant Protection Convention of the FAO. Accessed 15 Aug 2017
  20. Francese JA, Fraser I, Lance DR, Mastro VC (2011) Efficacy of multifunnel traps for capturing emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae): effect of color, glue, and other trap coatings. J Econ Entomol 104:901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardiner L (1957) Collecting wood-boring beetle adults by turpentine and smoke. Can For Serv Bi Mon Res Note 13:2Google Scholar
  22. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2011) Estimating species richness. In: Magurran AE, McGill BJ (eds) Frontiers in measuring biodiversity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 39–54Google Scholar
  23. Graham EE, Poland TM, McCullough DG, Millar JG (2012) A comparison of trap type and height for capturing cerambycid beetles (Coleoptera). J Econ Entomol 105:837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haack RA (2006) Exotic bark- and wood-boring Coleoptera in the United States: recent establishments and interceptions. Can J For Res 36:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haack RA, Britton KO, Brockerhoff EG, Cavey JF, Garrett LJ, Kimberley M et al (2014) Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on reducing wood borer infestation rates in wood packaging material entering the United States. PLoS ONE 9(5):e96611. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanks LM, Millar JG (2013) Field bioassays of cerambycid pheromones reveal widespread parsimony of pheromone structures, enhancement by host plant volatiles, and antagonism by components from heterospecifics. Chemoecology 23:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanks LM, Millar JG (2016) Sex and aggregation-sex pheromones of cerambycid beetles: basic science and practical applications. J Chem Ecol 42:631–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanks LM, Millar JG, Mongold-Diers JA, Wong JCH, Meier LR, Reagel PF, Mitchell RF (2012) Using blends of cerambycid beetle pheromones and host plant volatiles to simultaneously attract a diversity of cerambycid species. Can J For Res 42:1050–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hughes CC, Johns RC, Sweeney JD (2014) A technical guide to installing beetle traps in the upper crown of trees. J Acad Entomol Soc 10:12–18Google Scholar
  30. Hughes GP, Meier LR, Zou Y, Millar JG, Hanks LM, Ginzel MD (2016) Stereochemistry of fuscumol and fuscumol acetate influences attraction of longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of the subfamily Lamiinae. Environ Entomol 45:1271–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ibeas F, Gallego D, Diez JJ, Pajares JA (2007) An operative kairomonal lure for managing pine sawyer beetle Monochamus galloprovincialis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). J Appl Entomol 131:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Juutinen P (1955) Zur Biologie und forstlichen Bedeutung der Fichtenböcke (Tetropium Kirby) in Finnland. Acta Entomol Fenn 11:1–112Google Scholar
  33. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MJM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  34. Menocal O, Kendra PE, Montgomery WS, Crane JH, Carrillo D (2018) Vertical distribution and daily flight periodicity of ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Florida avocado orchards affected by laurel wilt. J Econ Entomol 111:1190–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meurisse N, Rassati D, Hurley BP, Brockerhoff EG, Haack RA (2018) Common pathways by which non-native forest insects move internationally and domestically. J Pest Sci. Google Scholar
  36. Millar JG, Hanks LM (2016) Chemical ecology of cerambycid beetles. In: Wang Q (ed) Cerambycidae of the world: biology and management. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  37. Millar JG, Richards AB, Halloran S, Zou Y, Boyd EA, Quigley KN, Hanks LM (2018) Pheromone identification by proxy: identification of aggregation-sex pheromones of North American cerambycid beetles as a strategy to identify pheromones of invasive Asian congeners. J Pest Sci. Google Scholar
  38. Miller DR (2006) Ethanol and (–)-α-pinene: attractant kairomones for some large wood-boring beetles in southeastern USA. J Chem Ecol 32:779–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller DR, Rabaglia RJ (2009) Ethanol and (–)-α-pinene: attractant kairomones for bark and ambrosia beetles in the southeastern US. J Chem Ecol 35:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller DR, Crowe CM, Dodds KJ et al (2015a) Ipsenol, ipsdienol, ethanol, and a-pinene: trap lure blend for Cerambycidae and Buprestidae (Coleoptera) in pine forests of eastern North America. J Econ Entomol 108:1837–1851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller DR, Crowe CM, Mayo PD, Silk PJ, Sweeney JD (2015b) Responses of Cerambycidae and other insects to traps baited with ethanol, 2-3, hexanediol, and 3,2-hydroxyketone lures in North-Central Georgia. J Econ Entomol 108:2354–2365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller DR, Allison JD, Crowe CM et al (2016) Pine sawyers (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) attracted to α-pinene, monochamol, and ipsenol in North America. J Econ Entomol 109:1205–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mitchell RF, Graham EE, Wong JCH et al (2011) Fuscumol and fuscumol acetate are general attractants for many species of cerambycid beetles in the subfamily Lamiinae. Entomol Exp Appl 141:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Montgomery ME, Wargo PM (1983) Ethanol and other host-derived volatiles as attractants to beetles that bore into hardwoods. J Chem Ecol 9:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nealis VG, DeMerchant I, Langor D et al (2016) Historical occurence of alien arthropods and pathogens on trees in Canada. Can J For Res 46:172–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Payton ME, Greenstone MH, Schenket N (2003) Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: what do they mean in terms of statistical significance? J Insect Sci 3:34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rabaglia RJ, Duerr D, Acciavatti RE, Ragenovich I (2008) Early detection and rapid response for non-native bark and ambrosia beetles. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Washington, p 12Google Scholar
  48. Rassati D, Petrucco Toffolo E, Roques A, Battisti A, Faccoli M (2015) Trapping wood boring beetles in Italian ports: a pilot study. J Pest Sci 87:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rassati D, Marini L, Marchioro M, Rapuzzi P, Magnani G, Poloni R, Di Giovanni F, Mayo P, Sweeney J (2018) Developing trapping protocols for wood-boring beetles associated with broadleaf trees. J Pest Sci. Google Scholar
  50. Ryall K, Silk P, Webster RP et al (2015) Further evidence that monochamol is attractive to Monochamus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) species, with attraction synergized by host plant volatiles and bark beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) pheromones. Can Entomol 147:564–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmeelk TC, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2016) Influence of trap height and bait type on abundance and species diversity of cerambycid beetles captured in forests of east-central Illinois. J Econ Entomol 109:1750–1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schroeder LM, Lindelöw A (1989) Attraction of scolytids and associated beetles by different absolute amounts and proportions of α-pinene and ethanol. J Chem Ecol 15:807–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Silk PJ, Sweeney J, Wu J, Price J, Gutowski JM, Kettela EG (2007) Evidence for a male-produced pheromone in Tetropium fuscum (F.) and Tetropium cinnamopterum (Kirby) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Naturwissenschaften 94:697–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Skvarla MJ, Dowling AP (2017) A comparison of trapping techniques (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, and Curculionoidea excluding Scolytinae). J Insect Sci 17:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sweeney JD, Silk PJ, Gutowski JM et al (2010) Effect of chirality, release rate, and ost volatiles on response of Tetropium fuscum (F.), Tetropium cinnamopterum Kirby, and Tetropium castaneum (L.) to the aggregation perromone, fuscumol. J Chem Ecol 36:1309–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sweeney JD, Silk PJ, Grebennikov V (2014) Efficacy of semiochemicals-baited traps for detection of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in the Russian Far East. Eur J Entomol 111:397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sweeney JD, Silk PJ, Grebennikov V, Mandelshtam M (2016) Efficacy of semiochemicals-baited traps for detection of Scolytinae species (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in the Russian Far East. Eur J Entomol 113:84–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ulyshen MD, Hanula JL (2007) A comparison of the beetle (Coleoptera) fauna captured at two heights above the ground in a North American temperate deciduous forest. Am Mid Nat 158:260–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ulyshen MD, Sheehan TN (2017) Trap height considerations for detecting two economically important forest beetle guilds in southeastern US forests. J Pest Sci. Google Scholar
  60. Vance CC, Kirby KR, Malcolm JR, Smith SM (2003) Community composition of longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in the canopy and understorey of sugar maple and white pine stands in south-central Ontario. Environ Entomol 32:1066–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wermelinger B, Flückiger PF, Obrist MK, Duelli P (2007) Horizontal and vertical distribution of saproxylic beetles (Col., Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Scolytinae) across sections of forest edges. J Appl Entomol 131:104–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wickham JD, Lu W, Zhang LW, Chen Y, Zou Y, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2016) Likely aggregation-sex pheromones of the invasive beetle Callidiellum villosulum, and the related Asian species Allotraeus asiaticus, Semanotus bifasciatus, and Xylotrechus buqueti (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). J Econ Entomol 109:2243–2246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wong JCH, Mitchell RF, Striman BL, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2012) Blending synthetic pheromones of cerambycid beetles to develop trap lures that simultaneously attract multiple species. J Econ Entomol 105:906–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wood DL (1982a) The role of pheromones, kairomones, and allomones in the host selection and colonization behavior of bark beetles. Annu Rev Entomol 27:411–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wood SL (1982b) The bark and ambrosia beetles of North and Central America. Gt Basin Nat Mem 6:1–1359Google Scholar
  66. Wood SL, Bright DE (1992) A catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Co-leoptera), part 2: taxonomic index. Gt Basin Nat Mem 13:1–1553Google Scholar
  67. Wu Y, Trepanowski NF, Molongoski JJ, Reagel PF, Lingafelter SW, Nadel H, Myers SW, Ray AM (2017) Identification of wood-boring beetles (Cerambycidae and Buprestidae) intercepted in trade associated solid wood packaging material using DNA barcoding and morphology. Sci Rep 7:40316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yanega D (1996) Field guide to northeastern longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Illinois natural history survey manual 6, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  69. Zou Y, Rutledge CE, Nakamuta K et al (2016) Identification of a pheromone component and a critical synergist for the invasive beetle Callidiellum rufipenne (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Environ Entomol 45:216–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Flaherty
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. M. G. Gutowski
    • 2
  • C. Hughes
    • 3
  • P. Mayo
    • 3
  • T. Mokrzycki
    • 4
  • G. Pohl
    • 5
  • P. Silk
    • 3
  • K. Van Rooyen
    • 3
  • J. Sweeney
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMacEwan UniversityEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Natural ForestsForest Research InstituteBiałowieżaPoland
  3. 3.Natural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service - Atlantic Forestry CentreFrederictonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Forest Protection and EcologyWarsaw University of Life SciencesWarsawPoland
  5. 5.Natural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service - Northern Forestry CentreEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations