Advertisement

Biologia

, Volume 72, Issue 7, pp 807–813 | Cite as

Occurrence of Tomicobia seitneri (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) and Ropalophorus clavicornis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Ips typographus adults (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) from Austria, Poland and France

  • Rudolf Wegensteiner
  • Cezary Tkaczuk
  • Marc KenisEmail author
  • Bernard Papierok
Section Zoology
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

The presence of hymenopteran parasitoids in adult Ips typographus was investigated in the years 2005 to 2010 in three different European countries (Austria, France and Poland). A total of 5,708 living adult beetles were dissected: 3,564 from Austria, 1,439 from Poland and 705 from France. Larvae of two parasitic Hymenoptera, Tomicobia seitneri and Ropalophorus clavicornis, were detected. Tomicobia seitneri was found in beetles from Austria, Poland and, for the first time, from France, and R. clavicornis was found only in Austria and Poland. No beetle was found infected by the two species simultaneously and there was no significant difference in parasitism between sexes in any of the two parasitoids. Parasitism rates for the two species were in general lower than 10%. However parasitism by T. seitneri reached 19.3% at a site in France and the highest parasitism by R. clavicornis was found at Polish sites, with up to 18.4% parasitism. The occurrence and prevalence of these two parasitic Hymenoptera are discussed with regard to the data in the literature.

Key words

Hymenoptera parasitoids prevalence European spruce bark beetle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balazy S. 1968. Analysis of bark beetle mortality in spruce forests in Poland. Ekologia Polska, Ser. A 16: 657–687.Google Scholar
  2. Bombosch S. 1954. Zur Epidemiologie des Buchdruckers (Ips typographes L.), pp. 239–283. In: Wellenstein G. (ed.), Die Groβe Borkenkäferkalamität in Süddeutschland 1944–1951, Berichte und Studien zur Lebensweise, Epidemiologie und Bekämpfung der rindenbrütenden Käfer an Fichte und Tanne, Riningen Forstschutzstelle Südwest, Ebner, Ulm, 496. pp.Google Scholar
  3. Bouček Z., Půlpán J. & Šedivý J. 1953. Poznámky o blanokříd-lých cizopasnících kůrovce smrkového, Ips typographus L. v CSR. Zool. Entomol. Listy 2 (16): 145–158.Google Scholar
  4. Chararas C. 1962. Étude Biologique des Scolytides des Conifčres. Encyclopédie Entomologique 38. Paul Lechevalier, Paris, 556. pp. ISBN: 2720504408. 9782720504402Google Scholar
  5. Ciesla W.M. (ed.). 2011. Forest Entomology. A Global Perspective. J. Wiley & Sons Ltd., Oxford, 416. pp. ISBN: 9781444333145. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444397895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faccoli M. 2000. Osservazioni bioecologiche relative a TomAcobio, seitneri (Ruschka) (Hymenoptera Pteromalidae), un parassitoide di Ips typographus (L.) (Coleoptera Scolytidae) [Notes on the biology and ecology of Tomicobio, seitneri (Ruschka) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), a parasitoid of Ips typographus (L.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)]. Frustula Entomol. 23: 47–55.Google Scholar
  7. Faccoli M. 2001. TomAcobio, seitneri, Ropalophorus clavicornis and Coeloides bostrychorum: three hymenopterous parasitoids of Ips typographus new to Italy. Boll. Soc. Entomol. Ital. 133 (3): 237–246.Google Scholar
  8. Fauna Europaea 2015. Tomicobio, seitneri, and Ropalophorus clavicornis.https://doi.org/www.fauna-eu.org/ (accessed 15.12.2015).Google Scholar
  9. Feicht E. 2004. Parasitoids of Ips typographus (Col., Scolytidae), their frequency and composition in uncontrolled and controlled infested spruce forest in Bavaria. J. Pest Sci. 77 (3): 165–172. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-004-0047-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fora C.G., Banu C.M., Chisăliţă I., Moatăr M.M. & Oltean I. 2014. Parasitoids and predators of Ips typographus (L.) in unmanaged and managed spruce forests in natural park Apuseni, Romania. Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobo. Cluj-Napoca 42: 270–274. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha4219430Google Scholar
  11. Gabler H. 1953. Dipterenlarven als Parasiten und Synoken des Buchdruckers, Ips typographus L. Z. Angew. Entomol. 35: 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Georgiev G. & Takov D. 2005. Impact of TomAcobio, seitneri (Ruschka) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) and Ropalophorus clavicornis (Wesmael) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) on Ips typographus (Linnaeus) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) populations in Bulgaria. For. Sci. 4: 61–68.Google Scholar
  13. Hedqvist K.-J. 1963. Die Feinde der Borkenkäfer in Schweden. I. Erzwespen (Chalcidoidea). Stud. For. Suec. 11: 1–176.Google Scholar
  14. Karpiński J.J. 1935. Przyczny ograniezające rozmnazanie się korników drukarzy (Ips typographus L. i Ips duplicatus Sahlb.) w lesie pierwotnym [Les causes qui limitent la reproduction de bostryches typographes (Ips typographus L. et Ips duplicatus Sahlb.) dans la forêt primitive]. Instytut Badawczy Lasów Państwowych, Warszawa, Pologne, Rozprawy i sprawozdania, Ser. A 15: 1–86.Google Scholar
  15. Kenis M., Wermelinger B. & Grégoire J.C. 2004. Research on parasitoids and predators of Scolytidae — a review. Chapter II, pp 237–290. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2241-8.11. In: Lieutier F., Day K., Battisti A., Grégoire J.-C. & Evans H. (eds), Bark and Wood Boring Insects in Living Trees in Europe: a Synthesis. Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht/Boston/London, 570. pp. ISBN: 978-1-4020-2240-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kereselidze M., Wegensteiner R., Goginashvili N., Tvaradze M. & Pilarska D. 2010. Further studies on the occurrence of natural enemies in Ips typographus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae) from Georgia. Acta Zool. Bulg. 62 (2): 131–139.Google Scholar
  17. Mokrzecki Z. 1933. Rabusie i pasorzyty kornika drukarza Ips typographus L. na ziemiach polskich [Predators and parasites of Ips typographus L. in Poland]. Pol. Pismo Entomol. 12: 275–289.Google Scholar
  18. Noyés J.S. 2016. Universal Chalcidoidea Database. World Wide Web electronic publication, https://doi.org/www.nhm.ac.uk/chalci-doids (accessed 16.02.2016).Google Scholar
  19. Pfeffer A., Knizek M., Zumr V. & Zuber M. 1995. Zentral- und Westpaläarktische Borken- und Kernkäfer. Pro Entomologica, c/o Naturhistorisches Museum Basel, 310. pp. ISBN: 3-9520840-6-9Google Scholar
  20. Postner M. 1974. Scolytidae (= Ipidae), Borkenkäfer, pp. 334–487. In: Schwenke W. (ed.), Die Forstschädlinge Europas, Bd. 2 Käfer, Paul Parey, Hamburg Berlin, 500. pp. ISBN: 3490112164Google Scholar
  21. Sachtleben H. 1952. Die parasitischen Hymenopteren des Fichtenborkenkäfers Ips typographus L. Beitr. Entomol. 2: 137–189.Google Scholar
  22. Thorn S., Bässler C., Buβler H., Lindenmayer D.B., Schmidt S., Scibold S., Wende B. & Müller J. 2016. Bark-scratching of storm-felled trees preserves biodiversity at lower economic costs compared to debarking. For. Ecol. Manage. 364: 10–16. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wegensteiner R. 2004. TomAcobio, seitneri (Hymenoptera, Pteromalidae) und Ropalophorus clavicornis (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) in Ips typographus (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Mitt. Dtsch. Ges. Allg. Angew. Entomol. 14 (1-6): 291–295.Google Scholar
  24. Wegensteiner R., Tkaczuk C., Balazy S., Griesser S., Rouffaud M.A., Stradner A., Steinwender B., Hager H. & Papierok B. 2015a. Occurrence of pathogens in populations of Ips typographus, Ips sexdentatus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae) and Hylobius spp. (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Curculioninae) from Austria, Poland and France. Acta Protozool. 54: 219–232. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4467/16890027AP.15.018.3215Google Scholar
  25. Wegensteiner R., Wermelinger B. & Herrmann M. 2015b. Natural enemies of bark beetles: predators, parasitoids, pathogens and nematodes. Chapter 7. pp. 247–304. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417156-5.00007-1. In: Vega F.E. & Hofstetter R.W. (eds), Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 620. pp. ISBN: 978-0-12-417156-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weiser J. 1954. Přispěvek k znalosti cizopasniků kůrovce Ips typographus L., I. [Contributions to the knowledge of Ips typographus parasites I.]. Věstnik Českoslov. Zool. Společ. [Acta Soc. Zool. Bohemoslov.] 18: 217–224.Google Scholar
  27. Wermelinger B. 2002. Development and distribution of predators and parasitoids during two consecutive years of an Ips typographus (Col., Scolytidae) infestation. J. Appl. Entomol. 126 (10): 521–527. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0418.2002.00707.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wermelinger B., Epper C., Kenis M., Ghosh S. & Holdenrieder O. 2012. Emergence patterns of univoltine and bivoltine Ips typographus (L.) populations and associated natural enemies. J. Appl. Entomol. 136 (3): 212–224. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2011.01629.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wermelinger B., Obrist M.K., Baur H., Jakoby O. & Duelli P. 2013. Synchronous rise and fall of bark beetle and parasitoid populations in windthrow areas. Agric. For. Entomol. 15 (3): 301–309. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weslien J. 1992. The arthropod complex associated with Ips typographus (L.) (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): species composition, phenology, and impact on bark beetle productivity. Entomol. Fenn. 3: 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Slovak Academy of Sciences 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rudolf Wegensteiner
    • 1
  • Cezary Tkaczuk
    • 2
  • Marc Kenis
    • 3
    Email author
  • Bernard Papierok
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of Plant Protection and BreedingSiedlce UniversitySiedlcePoland
  3. 3.CABIDelémontSwitzerland
  4. 4.Institut PasteurParisFrance

Personalised recommendations