The Beech Scale

  • David Wainhouse
  • Imogen M. Gate
Part of the Population Ecology book series (POPE)

Abstract

Scale insects are among our most important pests, but relatively few have been studied in detail. These insects are often small and inconspicuous, and identification is usually a highly specialized activity. The beech scale Cryptococcus fagisuga Lindinger is to some extent an exception because the white wax secreted by this insect makes it highly conspicuous and the absence of any similar coccid on beech largely eliminates the chore of identification. Nevertheless, during the nineteenth century, this organism was described as a fungus (Psilonia nivea), the curly wax threads being taken for fungal hyphae.8,20

Keywords

Beech Tree Scale Population Infested Tree American Beech Susceptible Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adeli, E., 1975, Insects on Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis ssp. macrophylla) in Iran and their importance for forestry practices and wood utilisation, Second World Technical Consultation on Forest Diseases and Insects, New Delhi, April 7–12, 1975. F.A.O. special paper No. 8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anonymous, 1984, Great Britain. Census of Woodlands and Trees 1979–82,Forestry Commission publications, pp. 1–61.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barter, G. W., 1947, The beech scale, Bi-mon. Prog. Rep. Forest Insect Invest. 3 (4): 1.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barter, G. W., 1953, Additional observations on the beech scale, Bi-mon. Prog. Rep. Forest Insect Invest. 9 (3): 1–2.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baylac, M., 1980, Faune associée à Cryptococcus fagi (Baer) (Homoptera: Coccoidea) dans quelques hêtraies du nord de la France, Acta Oecol. Oecol. Appl. 1: 199–208.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berryman, A. A., 1981, Population systems. A General Introduction, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bogenschutz, H., 1983, Management of beech stands infected by Cryptococcus fagisuga in West Germany, in: Proceedings, of the I.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 115–119, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boodle, L. A., and W. Dallimore, 1911, Report on investigations made regarding “Beech coccus” (Cryptococcus fagi, Bärensprung), Kew Ry. Bot. Gard. Bull. Misc. Inform. 8: 332–343.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braun, H. J., 1976, Das Rindensterben der Buche, Fagus sylvatica L, verursacht durch die Buchenwollschildlaus Cryptococcus fagi Bar. I. Die Anatomie der Buchenrinde als Basis-Ursache, Eur. J. Forest Pathol. 6: 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braun, H. J., 1977, Das Rindensterben der Buche, Fagus sylvatica L, verursacht durch die Buchenwollschildlaus Cryptococcus fagi Bar. II. Ablauf der Krankeit, Eur. J. Forest Pathol. 7: 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brower, A. E., 1949, The beech scale and beech bark disease in Acadia national park, J. Econ. Entomol. 42: 226–228.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Butin, H., 1977, Taxonomy and morphology of Ascodichaena rugosa gen. et. sp. nov, Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 69: 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Camp, W. H., 1950, A biogeographic and paragenetic analysis of the American beech (Fagus), Acad. Natl. Sci. Philos. Am. Philos. Yearbk. 166–169.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Camp, W. H., 1951, A study of relative virulence of beech bark disease on the several types of forest beech present in eastern Canada and Maine, Acad. Natl. Sci. Phil. Am. Philos. Ybk. 180–183.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carpenter, G. H., 1903, Woolly scales of the beech. Cryptococcus fagi Bärensp. in Injurious insects and other animals observed in Ireland during the year 1902, R. Dublin Soc. Econ. Proc. 1: 207.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Covassi, M., 1975, Nuovi reperti sulla corologia de Cryptococcus fagisuga Lndgr. in Italia e in Corsica (Homoptera, Cryptococcidae), Redia 56: 555–564.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crosby, D., and Jones, T. W., 1950, Beech scale—Nectria. Tree pest leaflets No.4, 4pp. Committee on tree pest leaflets, New England section, Society of American Foresters.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crosby, D., and Bjorkbom, J. C., 1958, Timely salvage can reduce losses from beech scale-Nectria attack, For. Res. Notes, NE For. Exp. Sta. No. 82, 4 pp.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edmunds, G. F., and Alstad, D. N., 1978, Coevolution in insect herbivores and conifers, Science 199: 94 1945.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ehrlich, J., 1934, The beech bark disease. A Nectria disease of Fagus following Cryptococcus fagi (Baer), Can. J. Res. 10: 593–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feeny, P., 1975, Biochemical coevolution between plants and their insect herbivores, in: Coevolution of Animals and Plants ( L. E. Gilbert and P. H. Raven, eds.), pp. 3–19, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Filip, S. M., 1978, Impact of beech bark disease on uneven-aged management of a northern hardwood forest (1952 to 1976). For Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-45. 1–7.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fink, S., and Braun, H. J., 1980, Die Bedeutung anatomischer Veränderungen bei der Buchenrindennekrose, Ann. Sci. Forest. 37: 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gate, I. M., 1988, Population ecology of the beech scale (Cryptococcus fagisuga Lind.),doctoral thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Green, E. E., 1915, Cryptococcus fagi Baerensp, in: Observations on British coccidae in 1914, with descriptions of new species. Entomologist’s Mon. Mag. 51: 180–181.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gregory, P. H., 1961, The Microbiology of the Atmosphere, Plant Science Monographs, Leonard Hill Publ, London.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hartig, R., 1880, Die Buchen-Wollaus, Chermes fagi Kltb, in: Untersuchungen aus dem Forstbotanischen Institut zu Munchen, 1: 156–162.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hawboldt, L. S., 1944, History of the spread of the beech scale Cryptococcus fagi (Baerensprung), an insect introduced into the maritime provinces, Acad. Natl. Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. N. Bruns. 1: 137–146.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Holstener-Jorgensen, H., and Eiselstein, L. M., 1969, Investigation into the possibility of root drowning as a cause of Cryptococcus fagi attacks and other diseases in beech stands, Det forstlige Forsogsvaesen. 32: 250.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Houston, D. R., 1975, Beech bark disease, the aftermath forests are structured for a new outbreak, J. For. 73: 660–663.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Houston, D. R., 1983, American beech resistance to Cryptococcus fagisuga, in: Proceedings of the I. U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 3842, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Houston, D. R., 1983, Influence of lichen species on colonisation of Fagus grandifolia by Cryptococcus fagisuga: Preliminary observations from certain Nova Scotian forests, in: Proceedings of the I.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 105–108, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Houston, D. R., Parker, E. J., and Lonsdale, D., 1979, Beech bark disease: Patterns of spread and development of the initiating agent.Cryptococcus fagisuga, Can. J. For. Res. 9: 336–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Houston, D. R., Parker, E. J., Perrin, R., and Lang, K. J., 1979, Beech bark disease: A comparison of the disease in North America, Great Britain, France, and Germany, Eur. J. Forest Pathol. 9: 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kelty, M. J., and Nyland, R. K., 1981, Regenerating Adirondack northern hardwoods by shelterwood cutting and control of deer density, J. For. 79: 22–26.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kunkel, H., 1968, Untersuchungen über die Buchenwollschildlaus Cryptococcus fagisuga Bär. (Insecta Coccina), einen Vertreter der Rindenparenchymsauger, Z. Angew. Entomol. 61: 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kuthe, K., and Kramer, K., 1961. Zur Bekämpfung der Buchenwollschildlaus (Cryptococcus fagi Bär) mit chemischen Mitteln, Anz. Schadlingsk. 34: 42–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lachance, D., 1983, Status of beech bark disease in the province of Quebec, in: Proceedings, I.U.F.R.O. beech bark disease working party conference. (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, Eds.), pp. 18–20, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lang, K. J., 1983, Present state of beech bark disease in Germany, in: Proceedings of the I.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 10–12, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lang, K. J., 1983, Development of beech bark disease during a seven year period on two plots in northern Bavaria, in: Proceedings of the I. U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference. (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 120–126, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lonsdale, D., 1980, Nectria infection of beech bark in relation to infestation by Cryptococcus fagisuga Lindinger, Eur. J. Forest Pathol. 10: 161–168.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lonsdale, D., 1983, Wood and bark anatomy of young beech in relation to Cryptococcus attack, in: Proceedings of the I.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference. (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 43–49, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lonsdale, D., and Parker, E. J., 1981, Forest Pathology: Beech bark disease, Rep. Forest Res. Edin. 1981: 34–35.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lonsdale, D., and Sherriff, C., 1983, Some aspects of the ecology of Nectria on beech, in: Proceedings of the I.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference, (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.) pp. 59–68, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Malphettes, C. B., 1977, Cryptococcus fagi (Barspr.) et dépérissement du hêtre en foret domaniale de Lyons (departements de l’Eure et de Seine-Maritime (France)), Ann. Sci. Forest. 34: 159–173.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Magasi, L. P., and Newell, W. R., 1983, The status of beech bark disease in the Maritime Provinces of Canada in 1980, in: Proceedings of the I.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference, (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.) pp. 13–17, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mayer, M., and Allen, D. C., 1983, Chilocorus stigma (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and other predators of beech scale in central New York, in: Proceedings of the I.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference,(D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.) pp. 89–98, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mielke, M. E., and Houston, D. R., 1983, Beech bark disease in West Virginia: status and impact on the Monongahela national forest, in: Proceedings of the I.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference, (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.) pp. 27–30, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Newstead, R., 1901, Monograph of the Coccidae of the British Isles, Ann. Vol. Ray. Soc. 1900 1: 1, 4, 2829, 41.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ostrofsky, W. D., and Blanchard, R. 0., 1983, Characteristics and development of necrophylactic periderms in mature bark of American beech, in: Proceedings of the I.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference, (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 69–79, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Parker, E. J., 1975, Some investigations with Beech bark disease Nectria in southern England, Eur. J. Forest Pathol. 5: 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Paucke, H., 1966, Stand der Problematic der Buchenrindennekrose, Soz. Forstwirtsch. 16: 179–181.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Perrin, R., 1977, Le dépérissement du hêtre, Rev. For. Fr. 29: 103–126.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Perrin, R., 1979, Contribution à la connaissance de l’étiologie de la maladie de l’ecorce du hetre. I. Etat sanitaire des hetraies francaises. Rôle de Nectria coccinea (Pers ex Fries) Fries, Eur. J. Forest Pathol. 9: 148–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Perrin, R., 1980, Contribution à la connaissance de l’étiologie de la maladie de l’écorce du hetre. II. Etude experimentale de l’association Cryptococcus fagisuga lind-Nectria coccinea (Pers ex Fries) Fries. Rôle respectif des deux organismes, Ann. Sci. Forest. 37: 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Perrin, R., 1983, Current status of beech bark disease in France, in: Proceedings of the I.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference, (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 7–9, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rhumbler, L., 1914, Die Buchenrinden-Wollaus (Cryptococcus fagi) und ihre Bekampfung, J. Neumann, Neudamm, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schenk, P. J., 1924, De Beukenwolluis, Floralia 45: 508.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schimitschek, E., 1980, Cryptococcus fagi Barensp. und die Buchen-Rindennekrose, Anz. Schadlingskde., Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz. 53: 97–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schindler, U., 1960, Einige Ergebnisse mehrjahriger Beobachtungen uber Buchensterben und Buchenwollaus (Cryptococcus fagi Baer.) Der Forst-u. Holzwirt 15: 196–198.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Schindler, U., 1962, Erfahrungen mit der Buchenwollschildlaus, Der Forst-u. Holzwirt 17: 290–294.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Shigo, A. L., 1972, The beech bark disease today in the Northeastern U.S., J. For. 70: 286–289.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Thomsen, M., Buchwald, N. F., and Hauberg, P., 1949, Angreb of Cryptococcus fagi, Nectria galligena og andre parasiter paa bog i Danmark 1939–43, Det. forstlige Forsogsvaesen. 18: 97–326.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Towers, B., 1983, Status of beech bark disease in Pennsylvania, in: Proceedings of the 1.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference, (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 24–26, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Twery, M. J., and Patterson, W. A., 1984, Variations in beech bark disease and its effects on species composition and structure of northern harwood stands in central New England, Can. J. For. Res. 14: 565–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wainhouse, D., 1976, Forest Entomology: beech scale Cryptococcus fagisuga, Rep. Forest Res. Edin. 1976: 36–37.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wainhouse, D., 1983, Interaction between beech and beech scale, in: Proceedings of the 1. U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference, (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 31–32, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wainhouse, D., 1980, Dispersal of first instar larvae of the felted beech scale, Cryptococcus fagisuga, J. Appl. Ecol. 17: 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wainhouse, D., and Deeble, R., 1980, Variation in susceptibility of beech (Fagus spp) to beech scale (Cryptococcus fagisuga), Ann. Sci. Forest. 37: 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wainhouse, D., and Howell, R. S., 1983, Intraspecific variation in beech scale populations and in susceptibility of their host Fagus sylvatica, Ecol. Ent. 8: 351–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wainhouse, D., and Howell, R. S., 1983, Distribution of attack by beech scale Cryptococcus fagisuga in beech progeny trials, in: Proceedings of the I. U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference, (D. Houston and D. Wainhouse, eds.), pp. 33–37, U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wainhouse, D., Gate, I. M., and Lonsdale, D., 1987, Host resistance to beech scale; a variety of defences, I. U.F.R.O. Working Party Conference. Plant resistance mechanisms to insects and pathogens (in press), Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wilkes, W., 1902, The beech tree in England, J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 26: 598–599.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wujciak, R., 1976, Buchenschleimfluss und Holzqualitat, Forstarchiv 47: 71–78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Wainhouse
    • 1
  • Imogen M. Gate
    • 1
  1. 1.Forest Research StationBritish Forestry CommissionWrecclesham, Farnham, SurreyEngland

Personalised recommendations