Next Article in Journal
Cultural Significance of Beetles in Sub-Saharan Africa
Previous Article in Journal
Reproductive Systems, Transfer and Digestion of Spermatophores in Two Asian Luciolinae Fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/insects12040367
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Biological Strategies of Invasive Bark Beetles and Borers Species

by
Denis A. Demidko
1,2,*,
Natalia N. Demidko
3,
Pavel V. Mikhaylov
2,* and
Svetlana M. Sultson
2
1
Sukachev Institute of Forest, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Science, 50, bil. 28, Akademgorodok, 660036 Krasnoyarsk, Russia
2
Scientific Laboratory of Forest Health, Reshetnev Siberian State University of Science and Technology, Krasnoyarskii Rabochii Prospekt. 31, 660037 Krasnoyarsk, Russia
3
Department of Medical and Biological Basics of Physical Education and Health Technologies, School of Physical Education, Sport and Tourism, Siberian Federal University, Svobodny ave. 79, 660041 Krasnoyarsk, Russia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2021, 12(4), 367; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040367
Submission received: 26 March 2021 / Revised: 6 April 2021 / Accepted: 17 April 2021 / Published: 20 April 2021
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Biological invasions are one of the most critical problems today. Invaders have been damaging tree- and shrub-dominated ecosystems. Among these harmful species, a notable role belongs to bark beetles and borers. Extensive phytosanitary measures are needed to prevent their penetration into new regions. However, the lists of quarantine pests should be reasonably brief for more effective prevention of invasion of potentially harmful insects. Our goal is to reveal the set of biological traits of invasive bark beetles and borers that are currently known. We identified four invasion strategies. Inbred, the first one is characterized by inbreeding, parthenogenesis, polyvoltinism, xylomycetophagy, flightless males, polyphagy, to less extent by association with pathogenic fungi. For the second, polyphagous, typical traits are polyphagy, feeding on wood, high fecundity, distance sex pheromones presence, development for one year or more. The third strategy, intermediate, possesses such features as mono- or olygophagy, feeding on inner-bark, short (one year or less) life cycle. Aggressive, the last one includes monophagous species using aggregation pheromones, associated pathogens, short life cycle, and consuming inner-bark. The main traits contributing to significant damage are high fecundity, polyvoltinism, symbiotic plant pathogens, long-range or aggregation pheromones.

Abstract

The present study attempts to identify the biological characteristics of invasive (high-impact in the secondary area) bark beetles and borers species, contributing to their success in an invaded area. We selected 42 species based on the CABI website data on invasive species and information on the most studied regional faunas. Four groups of species with different invasion strategies were identified based on the cluster and factor analysis. The first one (inbred strategy) is characterized by flightless males, xylomycetophagy, low fecundity (~50 eggs), inbreeding, polyvoltinism, and polyphagy. Species with an aggressive strategy are poly- or monovoltine, feeds on a limited number of hosts, larval feeding on the inner bark, are often associated with phytopathogens, and produce aggregation pheromones. Representatives of the polyphagous strategy have a wide range of hosts, high fecundity (~150 eggs), larval feeding on wood, and their life cycle is at least a year long. For the intermediate strategy, the typical life cycle is from a year or less, medium fecundity, feed on inner bark tissues, mono- or oligophagy. Comparison with low-impact alien species showed that the most significant traits from the viewpoint of the potential danger of native plant species are high fecundity, polyvoltinism, presence of symbiotic plant pathogens, long-range or aggregation pheromones.

1. Introduction

Biological invasions are one of the most crucial problems facing modern ecologists [1]. Research in this field is relevant because invasive species may cause socio-cultural, economic, and environmental damage or harm human health [2]. Hereafter, we use the term invasive only for alien species, demonstrating economic or ecologic impact in the new regions. If we use the term alien, we mean both invasive and non-invasive species. All terrestrial ecosystems, including biomes dominated by trees and shrubs, both natural and anthropogenic, suffer from invasive species to some extent [3].
The level of knowledge on the fauna of adventive species associated with trees and shrubs differs significantly from region to region. However, the available information allows one to get an idea of the contribution of different ecological groups of forest insects to the introduction process. Studies of forest insects in the USA, Europe, China, and Canada have shown that bark beetles and wood borers occupy 10–20% of adventive fauna species [4,5,6]. According to data for the USA and Canada, such insects also account for 12–20% of the species causing significant damage [5,7].
Even though bark beetles and borers occupy a relatively small proportion among other invaders damaging trees and shrubs, the damage they cause can be pretty significant. For example, the emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, a native of the Far East’s broad-leaved forests, damages ash-dominated stands outside its native range. In some United States regions, almost all ash trees with stems greater than 2.5 cm in diameter have had their canopies killed by the emerald ash borer. Both forest stands in settlements and natural forests suffer from this insect [8]. In the European part of Russia, this species is also widespread and highly harmful. For instance, in Moscow, this pest killed about a million ash trees [9].
The rate of alien species introductions outside their native range has been increasing since the late 19th–early 20th centuries, showing no signs of slowing down. It makes the threat to tree- and shrub-dominated biocenoses from invading insects even more dangerous. Growth in international trade volume, resulting in the unintentional import of living organisms into new regions, contributes to the increasing threat of invasions [10,11]. Even though international trade volume is forecasted to fall, it is unlikely to seriously slow down the invasion process (the decline for different groups of goods and services world trade is expected to fall by between 1.29% and 9.26%) [12]. Furthermore, the most significant group of goods from the perspective of bark beetles and borers invasion—Forest and Wood Products [10]—will suffer the least [12].
Even the implementation of phytosanitary measures in the future is unlikely to prevent the invasion of forest insects into new areas or reduce its rate since increase in global trade growth will offset the success of quarantine measures [11]. Identifying species that pose the most significant potential threat, may be a practical approach. However, the approach is challenging to implement due to a lack of knowledge about bark beetles and bores biological traits [13]. There are features that are considered to determine some species’ invasion success compared to others [11]. In the present research, we tried to identify such biological characteristics for insects that tunnel and feed under the bark in living wood and can cause significant damage in an introduced area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sources and Data Collection

The Center for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI) website was the source of information on invasive bark beetles and wood borers worldwide [14]. Moreover, we used data on their fauna in the regions where it is represented by a significant number of species and is particularly well studied: The European part of Russia (order Coleoptera only) [9], the USA [5], China [6] and New Zealand [15] (Table 1). In at least one of these or additional sources, the species was listed as causing severe ecological or socio-economic damage. Additionally, we used DAISIE data [16] for European and Mediterranean countries. As DAISIE does not contain any invasiveness information, we used additional sources for this purpose [17,18,19,20]. We included in the research those species that develop beneath the bark or inner tissues of lignified sections of trees and shrubs, including bamboos and palms, but excluding agaves, yuccas, and decaying wood. In total, we examined 47 species of insects.
When determining the type of nutrition, we did not consider the tunneling that was not accompanied by feeding on wood. For example, representatives of the tribe Xyleborini (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) are typical ambrosia beetles that tunnel into the wood to breed but feeding exclusively on their fungal symbiont [53]. Likewise, the larvae of many species of longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae) tunnel within wood before pupation, but do not actually eat it. Besides, the type of nutrition can change at different development stages, so each type was considered a Boolean variable, and the same species can have more than one type of nutrition.
For each species, we analyzed information about the traits that, according to the literature data [10] or relying on our assumptions, contribute to the invasion success: nutrition (type of nutrition, maturate feeding, food specialization), reproduction (fecundity, parthenogenesis and inbreeding, life cycle), aggregation or long-range sex pheromones, association with pathogens, ability to fly (Table 2). We filled the missing data in the main sources using additional data (Table 1; for more details, see Table S1).
We considered monophagous species that larval trophic behavior could be associated mainly with one plant genus and oligophages—species that widely use plants within the same family [11]. We referred to insects that typically live on species of more than one family of trees or shrubs as polyphages. The known, but rare, instances of feeding on plants outside the preferred taxon were not taken into account in the case of mono- and oligophagy. For example, the four-eyed bark-beetle P. proximus, which has always been considered a monophagous species on the genus Abies, in some cases, is still able to successfully reproduce on representatives of other genera of conifers [82].
When assessing fecundity, we used the arithmetic mean given in the data source. For the species that fecundity data was presented in several sources, we calculated the arithmetic mean for each separately and then averaged the results. If the fecundity study was carried out in several modes [14,65], we used the results for the conditions closest to natural.
Insect development rates, as well as those of other poikilothermic animals are dependent upon environmental conditions, mainly temperature [105]. As a result, the species life cycle may vary in different parts of the current range [9,106] and even on the same site in different years [82]. Therefore, we considered voltinism for each species (polyvoltine, monovoltine, and multi-year life cycles) as Boolean variables (as for the type of nutrition).
The release of aggregation pheromones facilitates individuals’ concentration in a limited area [107], weakening the Allee effect in the early invasion stages. Secondly, aggregation pheromones contribute to the mass attack and colonization of trees, so they are able to overcome tree defense mechanisms [11,53]. The presence of long-range sex pheromones also facilitates the Allee effect to be overcome [108]. We did not include other types of attractants, such as kairomones, as they help bark beetles and borers search for food [109], but do not provide the advantages described above. Contact sex pheromones [110] and sex pheromones of low volatility [103] were not considered in the present study because they influence behavior only at close-range.
We used the same sources and criteria when selecting non-invasive alien species (Table 3) for further comparison with invasive ones.
Analyzing data sources, we faced the data scarcity problem indicated in [13]. Therefore, in some cases, we used similar data obtained for closely related species (Table 4). If the information on some traits was absent, the missing values were modeled statistically for further calculations (for more information, see the Statistical processing) (Table 4). In the absence of data on three or more traits, the species were excluded from the research.

2.2. Statistical Processing

All calculations were performed in the R 4.0.2 software environment for statistical computing and graphics [138]. A preliminary step was filling in the missing data using the random forest method implemented in the mice 3.11.0 package [139]. Then we calculated a matrix of distances among species using Gower’s distance metric and performed clustering. The primary method of cluster analysis was partitioning around medoids (PAM). We carried out a fuzzy clustering to better understand the structure of the groups obtained. Fuzzy clustering results describe the probability of items falling into the identified clusters [140]. Such data allows one to understand the connections between groups better and consider the features of items located at the boundaries between them.
As a measure of the PAM between-cluster isolation, we used the silhouette width—a value calculated based on the average within-cluster distance and the average distance to the closest object from the other cluster. The more similar an item is to other within-cluster objects, the wider the silhouette. The high mean arithmetic silhouette index value for all objects included in it (W) indicates an isolated cluster. We determined the PAM clustering stability by cluster bootstrapping. Bootstrapping results (boot) represent the mean values of the Jaccard similarity coefficient for the initial clusters and clusters constructed after the classification of random samplings with replacement [141]. We used the cluster 2.1.0 package [140] to calculate the distances between species, the silhouette width, and cluster analysis. Bootstrapping estimates of stability for clusters were performed using the fpc 2.2–8 package [141].
The correlation between insects’ biological traits and their belonging to a particular cluster was evaluated using Fisher’s exact test for Boolean traits (almost all traits) or the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric method for quantitative traits (fecundity). We compared each cluster to the others for all the considered features. In all cases, we considered the differences as significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Moreover, we processed materials on the biological attributes of invasive insect pests using factor analysis of mixed data (FAMD) implemented in the FactoMineR 2.3 package [142]. FAMD helped us perform a more accurate interpretation of the traits data obtained in frames of cluster analysis, understand the structure of correlation between these traits and differences between invasive and non-invasive bark beetles and borers species.

3. Results

3.1. Taxonomic Analysis of Invasive Bark Beetles and Wood Borers

Almost all of the 47 invasive species that we classified as invasive are members of the order Coleoptera 59.6% (28 species) belong to the family Curculionidae (including species of Platypodinae and Dryophthorinae subfamilies, considered as distinct families in some taxonomic systems [53,143,144]). Notably, nine of them belong to one tribe Xyleborini of the subfamily Scolytinae. Another eleven species (23.4%) belong to the Cerambycidae family. The other families have significantly fewer species. Three species (6.4%) belong to the Bostrychidae family (including the Lyctidae family as a subfamily [144]). Two species belong to the Buprestidae family. Other orders are represented only by two species Hymenoptera (family Siricidae) and one species Lepidoptera (family Castniidae) (Table 5).
Generally, the regional faunas of alien bark beetles and borers correspond to the following pattern: Curculionidae represents a significant proportion of species; Cerambycidae takes somewhat less proportion (Table 5). Other families are represented by several species and not in all regions. To a certain extent, the Buprestidae and Siricidae families can be considered an exception to the pattern since its species, in small numbers, are indicated for three out of four local faunas (Table 5). Integrated lists of both invasive and alien bark beetles and borers generalized for four regions [5,6,9,15] also follow this pattern (we excluded DAISIE data due to the lack of information about food guilde and impact of the species).

3.2. Characteristics of the Studied Invasive Species

All three types of nutrition are widely represented among the species selected for the research. Feeding on inner-bark is more typical (27 species, 57.4%). Less often, larvae consume wood or mycelium of symbiotic fungi (14 and 15 species, 29.8 and 31.9% respectively). The food spectrum is also uniform; there are 15 (31.9%), 11 (23.4%), and 21 (44.72%) monophagous, oligophagous, and polyphagous species, respectively. Maturation feeding is known for most invasive bark beetles and borers (35 species, 74.5%). Eight species do not feed during the imaginal stage (17.0%). There is no nutrition data for four species available in the known sources.
A tendency to inbreed was indicated for twelve species (25.5%) considered in the present study. The mean fecundity of invasive bark beetles and borers’ species ranged between 15 and 340 eggs per female. However, in general, fecundity is not high: the median value for all species is 83 eggs; the quartile range is from 25 to 110 eggs.
Among the biological features affecting an insect’s aggression towards plants, the association with pathogens is relatively widespread. It was noted for 16 species (34.0%). There are numerous species using aggregation pheromones (12 species, 25.5%) and long-range sex pheromones (6 species, 12.8%).
The species included in the research, to one degree or another, are capable of active flight. However, for eleven (23.4%) species, wings are present in only females.
The life cycle of invasive bark beetles and borers can vary from several generations per year to 2–3 years. In general, species with a short life cycle are more widespread: 30 (63.8%) polyvoltine species and 31 monovoltine species (66.0%). However, there still are 16 species (34.0%) developing over many years.

3.3. Clustering

At the preliminary stage of the cluster analysis, we found that identifying four groups is optimal for the best interpretation. Such clustering avoids both the artificial splitting into a large number of slightly different clusters and the unjustified grouping of species into large, internally heterogeneous clusters. Further, for simplicity of presentation, we will use the selected groups and their strategies as synonyms.
The PAM clustering results are presented in Figure 1. The first of the identified clusters (13 species) was named the polyphagous-type. It is not distinctly isolated from other clusters but stable. Another large group, including 10 species (intermediate-type), has the smallest mean silhouette width and the stability value. The most isolated and stable cluster (inbred-type), which includes almost exclusively Xyleborini species, also consists of 13 ones. The aggressive-type cluster (11 species) is poorly isolated from the others and is the least stable (excluding the intermediate group). The presence in all clusters of species with small, up to negative silhouette width values indicates their intermediate position (see Biological characteristics of the identified strategies).
Before carrying out fuzzy clustering, we considered the issue of choosing the value of the parameter memb.exp (membership exponent), which determines the fuzziness of the membership assignments of the clustering. A deviation from the optimal value could lead, either to an almost equiprobable inclusion of a species in all clusters, or conversely, to an almost 100% probability of its assignment to only one cluster. The results obtained would obviously not make sense in either case. The best interpretation was achieved at memb.exp = 1.8.
The results of fuzzy clustering indicated significant heterogeneity of most of the identified clusters (Table S2). The probabilities of cluster membership, calculated based on fuzzy clustering, confirmed the inbred-type homogeneity and its distinct isolation from other groups. The probability of attributing its representatives to other clusters exceed 0.2 only for two species. Notably, this applies to species other than the tribe Xyleborini (D. micans and T. fuscicornis). Both species classified as polyphagous and aggressive types tend to intermediate-type traits. To a lesser extent, invasive bark beetles and borers were characterized by a set of features intervening between the polyphagous and intermediate strategies. Thus, in some cases, species have transitional sets of traits between the selected types.

3.4. Biological Characteristics of the Identified Strategies

Among the identified invasion strategies, the inbred-type is distinguished by the most apparent set of features. The following traits characterize the species of this group: males of most species are unable to fly, the absolute absence of aggregative pheromones and long-range sex pheromones (Figure 2), xylomycetophagy (Figure 3), inbreeding, and low fecundity (Figure 4). The inbred-type is close to some other strategies regarding polyvoltinism (Figure 4) and trophic diversity (Figure 3). Remarkably, a relatively high proportion of this group species is associated with pathogens (Figure 4).
The following traits characterize the species of the aggressive-type strategy: A short life cycle, medium fecundity values (Figure 2), narrow food specialization, phleophagy (Figure 3), most species are pathogen-associated and produce aggregation pheromones (Figure 2).
The following traits characterize the species of the aggressive-type strategy: A short life cycle, medium fecundity values (Figure 4), narrow food specialization, phleophagy (Figure 3), most species are pathogen-associated and produce aggregation pheromones (Figure 2).
The following traits characterize the species representing the polyphagous-type strategy: A wide range of host species, a significant proportion of species feeding exclusively or partially on wood at the larval stage (Figure 3), high mean fecundity, and long life cycle (Figure 4). A significant proportion of species do not feed during the imaginal stage (Figure 3) and produce long-range sex pheromones (Figure 2).
It is worth emphasizing that there is a high probability that some species are included in certain groups due to insufficient knowledge. For example, P. archon is supposed to produce aggregation pheromones [32]. The aggregation pheromones are probably used by D. minutus since it was discovered in the closely related Dinoderus bifolveolatus Woll. [145]. Association with plant pathogens (rust fungi) is possible for L. festiva [30]. Notably, the possibility of spreading Dutch elm disease was shown for S. schevyrevi [87], located between aggressive and intermediate types according to the available data.
Factor analysis results correspond well to the data obtained by comparing the selected groups. The first three dimensions are well interpreted in the resulting feature space, explaining about 60% of the total variance. The first dimension distinguished those characterized by xylomycetophagy and its attendant features (inbred-type) and fecundity (Figure 5; see also Table S3 and Figure S1). The second dimension has a complex nature: the coordinates on the corresponding axis are determined by food specialization (monophagy/polyphagia), type of nutrition, life cycle duration, and the presence of pheromones (Figure 5A; see also Table S3 and Figure S1). The third dimension separates oligophagous species from other ones. Monovoltine species and ones with symbiotic plant pathogens or long-range sex pheromones are located on the opposite end of this axis (Figure 5B; see also Table S3 and Figure S1).

3.5. Invasive vs. Non-Invasive Species Biological Traits

When we performed the factor analysis for invasive and non-invasive species together using invasiveness as a trait, it showed a high contribution of invasiveness to the third, fourth, and sixth dimensions (which explained 23.4% of total variance). Apart from invasiveness, the following traits turned out to be closely related with these dimensions: Presence of long-range sex pheromones and absence of maturation feeding (third dimension), presence of aggregation pheromones (fourth dimension), polyvoltinism (sixth dimension), presence of symbiotic plant pathogens (third and fourth), fecundity (third and sixth), and host plant specificity (fourth and sixth) (Figure 6; see also Table S4 and Figure S1).

4. Discussion

4.1. Taxonomic Structure of Invasive Species

The analysis of the representation of various bark beetles and borers families among invaders revealed that their taxonomic features are generally close to those for the entire set of alien species of the same food guild (Table 5). Feeding on the tissues of stems or branches of trees and shrubs is typical for most species (or at least a significant number of them) of the families listed as invaders (Table 1). However, the size of these families is very uneven. Only 570 species belong to the Bostrichidae family, while the rest are among the more prosperous taxa. A total of 14,700 species belong to the Buprestidae, 30,000 species to the Cerambycidae, and 51,000 species to the Curculionidae [143]. Remarkably, most of the Curculionidae family bark beetles and borers belong to the subfamily Scolytinae (5990 species) [53], which includes all but three species among invaders from the Curculionidae family. Families from other orders, Siricidae and Castniidae, are small: the first has 122 species [137], the second—170 species [146]. Longhorn beetles and jewel beetles are represented among invaders to a less extent than it might have been assumed according to a number of species in these families. Still, the representation of bark beetles, auger beetles, and horntails is disproportionately higher.
One of the obvious explanations for this disproportion is the confinement of the families to different zoogeographic regions. The non-native, secondary range of most studied invasive species is located in subtropical and temperate zones. Therefore, it seems logical to assume that the proportion of families widespread in the extratropical regions will be higher. However, these families’ greatest species diversity is concentrated in places with warmer climates [53,146,147,148], except for Siricidae [137]. Although it is hard to deny the role of zoogeographic patterns [10,149,150,151], we are forced to state that in this case, they do not allow us to understand the reason for the relatively high representation of some taxa in comparison with others. A possible exception is the Castniidae family, represented exclusively by tropical species [146] and predominantly Palaearctic and Nearctic Siricidae. However, both of these families are small and do not determine the taxonomic structure of invasive bark beetles and borers.
The relatively high representation of Bostrychidae and Scolytinae among alien xylophagous insect species in general and invasive species, in particular, can be explained by their biological characteristics. Some of their biological characteristics help mitigate the negative impact of the Allee effect in the early phases of invasion (see Reproductive traits of invasive bark beetles and borers); others provide food for newly formed populations (see Insect-plant interactions).

4.2. Reproductive Traits of Invasive Bark Beetles and Borers

One of the fundamental biological patterns affecting alien species populations is the Allee effect [11]. According to this biological phenomenon, a population at low density faces difficulties in maintaining its size until the population increases to a specific density threshold [152]. Allee effect in an invasive species may affect the mate-finding mechanism, which has been well-studied for forest insects using the example of the gypsy moth Lymantria dispar (L.) [153,154].
To mitigate the Allee effect on the early stages of invasion, the mechanisms of opposite-sex conspecific individuals meeting and mating must exist [155]. Allee effect can also be weakened if species reproduce parthenogenetically or inbreed [10]. Parthenogenesis is typical of the tribe Xyleborini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), characterized by haplodiploid sex determination [156]. Xyleborini species, as well as D. micans, are also capable of inbreeding [53,151]. Indeed, the proportion of the tribe Xyleborini among alien species is much higher than would be expected [157], considering the number of species included in it (about 1200 [53]). Females often fly away once their sib-mate has fertilized them within galleries, which removes the problem of finding opposite-sex individuals [151,156,157] and reduces the number of individuals required for a successful introduction [98].
Another trait helping to avoid the impact of the Allee effect during the early phase of invasion is aggregation pheromones and long-range sex pheromones [10]. Both of these semiochemicals groups attract conspecific individuals. Aggregation pheromones act irrespective of gender; sex pheromones mitigate mate-finding [158]. Modeling showed that individuals’ concentration at the introduction and establishment stages contributes to increased population size, thereby ensuring its success [156]. Among the studied species, aggregation pheromones were found in several bark beetle species and long-range sex pheromones—in species of all families of beetles. Even though insect pheromones have been known since 1959, their prevalence in the class Insecta and its taxa is still insufficiently examined even for relatively well-studied bark beetles and longhorn beetles [53,148]. However, the fact that such species make up about 40% (18 species) of the total number of invasive bark beetles and wood borers indicates a serious advantage of pheromone communication. Remarkably, their list does not include any inbreeding species using only short-range pheromone communication, which ensures interaction within the nest and prevents outbred crossing with closely related species [103].
Allee effect in an invader population also depends on the reproductive rate [159], which is directly related to fecundity. For example, according to a model describing mosquito population dynamics, the increase in abundance is positively related to fecundity and inversely related to the strength of Allee effect (see Equation (2) in [160]). High fecundity is also a competitive advantage over native species [161,162]. As a matter of interest, invasive bark beetles and borers (especially of species belonging to the inbred-type) (Figure 4) are characterized by relatively low fecundity compared to insects in general [163]. In can be explained based on the results obtained in the study of native and invasive ichthyofauna of Central Europe [164]. Almost all Central Europe invasive species are typical K-strategists. They provide care for their offspring, compensating for reduced fecundity compared to native species. This pattern is also correct for the present study since low-fecund inbred-type insects are characterized by advanced parental care [53]. Life cycle also influences a population growth rate: the larger number of generations developed and started reproduction per unit of time, the more rapid population growth is.

4.3. Insect-Plant Interactions

Along with the Allee effect, an essential factor for the newly established invasive population is host availability. Modeling an invasion process in imported wood storage has proved that the population establishment’s success depends on the amount of food available [159]. Although the model was created for specific storage conditions, it is based on the model of Ips typographus L. outbreak in forest areas [165] and is suitable for describing the processes occurring in stands. According to the model [165], the food available to bark beetles and borers includes dying and dead trees, which are unable to resist insect attacks and viable trees defense mechanisms of which can be overcome when aggressive insects population increases above a certain level.
Those invaders with no mechanisms to counteract plants’ defenses can only expand their host range by feeding on a wide range of trees and shrubs species [10]. Indeed, oligo- and polyphages predominate among the invasive bark beetles and borers’ species (see Characteristics of the studied invasive species). A significant part of polyphages is represented by species of the tribe Xyleborini, which typically develop on plants belonging to different families [166] due to their obligatory xylomycetophagy [53]. Different fungi species have different qualitative nutritional requirements of the feed substrate [167], and a wide diversity of symbionts allows ambrosia beetles to develop on taxonomically distant plant species [168] successfully. The same applies to other xylomycetophage species.
A broad spectrum of host plants also characterizes species of the Bostrichidae family. Most members of this group (except A. monachus) damage dry wood, including finished wood products [24,25,26], as well as non-wood objects [169,170,171]. The mentioned feature also facilitates the spread of the Bostrichidae family’s species, expanding the range of possible invasion pathways (live plants, freshly harvested wood, any other wood materials, or the surface of containers and vehicles) [9].
Oligophagy and polyphagy are widespread in other families as well. As a general rule, species of xylophagous insects with the broader range of host species have the lower ability to develop on viable trees [172]. However, one often has to deal with this pattern violation by analyzing the studied species list (Table 1). Indeed, many oligophages and polyphages in their native habitat are associated with dying or recently dead trees [38,44,64,148,173]. Such species’ high impact outside their native range may be related to an association with pathogenic microorganisms (Table 6). Others (L. festiva, A. glabripennis, P. rudis, R. rusticus) seem to occupy trees weakened by drought [30,78,174] or other abiotic factors [45]. Finally, C. lapathi causes serious harm primarily when feeding on the North American species of willow and poplar [52,175], which have no resistance to this insect.
Some invasive species ensure population growth by overcoming host-plant resistance. As a rule, aggressive-type species are vectors of pathogens (Figure 2, Table 6) and use aggregation pheromones at the same time (Figure 2). The pathogenic microorganism makes it easier to overcome plant defense against herbivory, ensuring mass establishment within a short time [53,184]. The aggregation creates an additional load on a tree, forcing it to consume more resources for plant resistance to herbivory [185]. This triggers the two competing induced signaling pathways in plants: Salicylic acid against insect attacks and jasmonic acid against biotrophic and hemibiotrophic fungi (for example, O. novo-ulmi [186]) [187]. Activation of the jasmonic acid signaling pathway reduces the salicylic acid signaling pathway’s effectiveness, which prevents the formation of host plant resistance. The association between aggressive bark beetle species and phytopathogenic symbionts is not a prerequisite for the successful attacks on living trees [188,189]. However, bark beetle–fungus symbiosis weakens trees and expands the invader host plant range [53,190], which is crucial at the introduction stage. Critics of the idea that phytopathogenic fungi are critical for a successful attack rightly point out that insect colonization is completed before the pathogens have time to weaken the tree significantly [189]. However, many species repeatedly attack a tree before it becomes established [191,192] or gradually colonize one [72]. In both cases, trees are repeatedly subjected to infection as pathogens enter into plant tissues, often leading to a critical decline of tree vitality. At the final stage of an invasion, symbiotic interactions between insects and pathogens cause severe damage in forest stands, for instance, in Polygraphus proximus-Grossmannia aoshimae-Abies sibirica [83] and Xyleborus glabratus-Raffalea lauricola-Persea borbonia [193,194] systems.
Host range expansion to healthy trees is also possible when native tree species do not have mechanisms to resist invasive pests’ attacks effectively. A typical example is A. planipennis, which is native to the Russian Far East and North-Eastern China. It successfully attacks North American and European ash species and causes mass damage in the USA, Canada, and the European part of Russia [195]. Remarkably, damage caused by A. planipennis in its natural range is much less [106]. Comparative analysis showed that defensive Far Eastern Fraxinus species have a set of specific alleles that provide adequate protection against A. planipennis [196]. These data are also confirmed at the physiological level [197].

4.4. Differences between Invasive and Non-Invasive Bark Beetles and Wood Borers

The results of factor analysis were unexpected. There was no association between invasiveness and the traits that define inbred strategy (in particular, xylomycetophagy and inbreeding) (Figure 6). A large number of species possessing these features demonstrate its great importance for establishing new populations [10], but do not guarantee the species will have a negative impact.
Two traits are associated with invasiveness: Fecundity and polyvoltinism (Figure 6). The high number of offspring and the ability to complete two or more life cycles per year (at least in regions with favorable climate) give bark beetles and borers the opportunity to increase their populations rapidly. Rapid population growth contributes to the cooperative effect [184] and overcoming natural enemy populations [172], leading to an outbreak. Notably, polyvoltine species are more prevalent in inbred-, intermediate- and aggressive-type, but high fecundity is more common in polyphagous-type (Figure 4).
The relationship between imaginal aphagia and invasiveness is indirect in nature. Relatively high fecundity is typical for both invasive species and aphages. We suppose that short-lived aphagous insects have the opportunity to allocate resources to reproduction, which acts as a detriment to maintenance (see the principal scheme of resource allocation in [198]). The maturation feeding (or its absence) does not affect the potential to cause damage.
It is easy to explain the role of pheromone communication and plant pathogens on invasiveness (Figure 6; for more details, see Insect-plant interactions). Long-range sex pheromones can help overcome Allee effect and facilitate cooperative effect in populations. It had been demonstrated in the phyllophagous species Dendrolimus sibiricus Chetverikov that the early stage of an outbreak is characterized by concentration of insects in the outbreak spot [172]. Apparently, the same mechanism mediated by long-range sex pheromones works in wood-boring invasive insect populations, which explained some polyphagous species’ invasiveness (Figure 2). Aggregation pheromones act similarly but also help overcome plant immunity by mass attacks, frequently in combination with plant pathogens [53]. Such a combination is typical for aggressive-type species (Figure 2).
We have no satisfactory explanation for the role of diet breadth in the ability to heavily damage trees and shrubs beyond the native range (Figure 6). Both mono- and polyphagy give some advantages in terms of the ability to cause environmental and socio-economic damage. Still, the nature of these advantages is unclear.
Some of these traits (voltinism, host specificity, fecundity, parthenogenesis) are used in pest risk analysis procedures, but not entirely [199,200]. It should be considered that such traits as pheromones and symbiotic plant pathogens are necessary for a more precise prognosis of potential damage in the secondary area.
In the non-invasive pool of species, there are specimens with no traits typical for invasive ones (for example, A. angustulus, C. violaceum, C. piceae). Interestingly, some potentially harmful species are included in this pool too. The most typical example of such species is the six-toothed bark beetle I. sexdentatus. This species is widely distributed throughout Extratropical Eurasia [64,201], but alien in Great Britain [16]. In our opinion, two factors prevent damage from I. sexdentatus. First, Scots pine, the main European host plant of I. sexdentatus, occupies a relatively small area in Great Britain [202], especially in its southern part, where established populations of this species are observed at present [203]. Second, the climate of Great Britain is humid with a relatively cool summer [204]. The six-toothed bark beetle is thermophilic species [64], and its outbreaks are related to droughts [205], which is typical for many other bark beetles [53]. Perhaps, the climatic conditions of the secondary area might prevent damage by I. sexdentatus.
In practice, the biological traits are not the only predictors of a potential invasion. Other factors should also be examined, for example, climatic conditions of pest risk analysis area [199] (or, as an approximation, biogeographic origin [151]), host range [151], and pheromone communication of native species that can complicate the establishment of alien species with similar semiochemicals [206,207].

4.5. Future Prospects

The features contributing to bark beetles and borers’ invasion success have been studied to varying degrees. Their diet breadth can be considered thoroughly investigated, at least for extratropical faunas. The same applies to the rate of development. Inbreeding and parthenogenesis have been studied sufficiently in the Xyleborini to recognize their usefulness in population establishment. In our opinion, since they may not have as great of an impact on their potential for damage as some other traits, there is no need to conduct any additional research. Although the data on many species’ fecundity requires clarification, information is often available for closely related taxonomic groups, which allows plausible assumptions to be made.
Despite significant advances, there are numerous knowledge gaps in pheromone communication in insects, including bark beetles and borers. Even for such a well-studied group as the subfamily Scolytinae, there is no data on aggregation pheromones presence/absence for many species [70], or the data are contradictory (an example of D. micans, see [53,54]). However, aggregation pheromones are widespread in the taxon and essential for insects and their host plants’ interactions [53]. Knowledge of sex pheromones is also fragmentary (an example of the Cerambycidae family, see [148]) or insufficient [28]. Reasons for the persistence of such knowledge gaps include the need for expensive equipment and laborious research. Nevertheless, information on insect pheromones is crucial for an adequate pest risk assessment.
There also is a research gap in pathogens associated with wood-boring insects. As in the case with pheromone identification, such work requires significant resources. Therefore, laboratory experiments on the possibility of insect-pathogen association may not be confirmed by field experiments [87]. The regional specificity of such associations creates additional difficulties. For example, the species of H. ligniperda-associated fungi, belonging to the genera Ophiostoma and Leptographium, differs significantly in New Zealand [67], Poland [208], and Ukraine [66]. It is likely leading to a lack of essential information. Such differences may also be the consequence of differences in research methods or the fungal communities’ specificity formed on different tree species. Finally, the pathogenicity of some associates remains controversial (see an example of O. minus in [60]), which additionally complicates pest risk assessment. There is also a problem predicting the consequences of forming new associations between insects and pathogens in the invaded site [83,177].
Alien species pose a severe threat if evolutionarily developed native plant defenses are not effective against them [196,209] or their associated pathogens [181,191,210]. Experiments on the interaction of potential invaders and their host species outside the primary insect range carry unreasonably high risks. However, such studies are possible using sentinel trees planted outside their native range (for example, in urban planting or botanical gardens) [211]. Such research is particularly valuable for species that do not cause significant damage in their native habitat [212]. We are not aware of any targeted attempts at pest risk assessment using sentinel trees for bark beetles and borers, excluding the study in [213]. However, similar studies were carried out in the secondary range of such insects as P. proximus [214] and A. planipennis [195,214] where both insects and plants were exotic.
Another issue is the ability of bark beetles and borers to overwhelm tree defense mechanisms. The aggressiveness of these species is directly linked to their tolerance to host defenses [53]. There are some advances in the understanding of this problem [215,216], but our knowledge in this field is still insufficient.

5. Conclusions

Forty-seven species were considered invasive according to the data on worldwide fauna of alien bark beetles and borers, as well as on the local faunas of the European part of Russia, the USA, China, and New Zealand. The taxonomic analysis of regional faunas at the family level showed their significant similarity, except for China. Cerambycidae and Curculionidae predominate in all regions for which there are complete data on the fauna of alien bark beetles and borers.
Feeding on the inner-bark is the most common among the invasive species (57.4%). Many species feed on wood (31.9%); some are xylomycetophagous (29.8%). The food spectra of different species vary from monophagy to polyphagy. Maturation feeding is known for 74.5% of species. Inbreeding is known for 25.5% of invasive bark beetles and borers, most of which are capable of parthenogenesis. Fecundity varies from 25 to 110 eggs; the median value for all species is 83 eggs. Association with plant-pathogenic microorganisms is known for 34.0% of species. Aggregation pheromones were found in 25.5% of species, long-range sex pheromones—in 12.8%. The typical development rate is several generations (63.8%) or one generation per year (66.0%). Less often, development takes several years (34.0%).
We identified four invasion strategies using multidimensional analysis. The polyphagous strategy is characterized by consuming a broad spectrum of host species, feeding on wood during the larval stage, and relatively high fecundity. Many species, using this strategy, produce long-range sex pheromones. Long-term development (one generation per year or developing over many years) of this strategy’ species prevent their establishment in the secondary range. A typical intermediate strategy representative is a monophagous or oligophagous, feeding on inner-bark at the larval stage, having medium fecundity, and one or several generations per year. Aggregation pheromones and associated plant pathogens provide the success of species with the aggressive strategy. This strategy’s other traits are monophagy, feeding on inner-bark, and a short life cycle (one or several generations per year). The inbred strategy is characterized by a set of features specific to the tribe Xyleborini, namely inbreeding, parthenogenesis, polyvoltinism, xylomycetophagy, flightless males, and polyphagy. Many of the inbred species are associated with pathogenic fungi. At the same time, they are distinguished by low fecundity and the absence of long-range sex pheromones. However, many species combine features of two or more invasion strategies, which leads to numerous transitions between them (excluding the inbred strategy). It should be mentioned that these results are preliminary because of the incomplete biological traits data for some species.
It is important to note that not all of these traits are necessary to cause damage to native trees and shrubs species. The most important ones are high fecundity (typical for polyphagous and, to a lesser extent, intermediate strategies), polyvoltinism (all but polyphagous), symbiotic plant pathogens presence (aggressive and, to a lesser extent, inbred), long-range sex (polyphagous) and aggregation pheromones (aggressive).
It is necessary to understand which bark beetles and borers’ biological traits are predictors of invasiveness to improve pest risk assessment. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on the potentially dangerous species with phytopathogenic symbionts, long-ranged or aggregation sex pheromones. However, further research on insect chemical communication and borer association with pathogenic microorganisms is necessary for more accurate forecasting. Studies using sentinel trees might help predict how alien species will interact with dendroflora in the secondary area.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/insects12040367/s1, Figure S1: Layout of species in the dimensions 1 and 2 of the factor space (FAMD of invasive species), Table S1: the main sources data, Table S2: Results of fuzzy clustering and its comparison with PAM clusters. The numbers are probabilities of membership for given cluster. Probabilities < 0.2 are omitted, Table S3: Contributions of traits to principal components for FAMD (invasive species only), Table S4: Contributions of traits to principal components for FAMD (invasive vs. non-invasive species).

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, D.A.D.; investigation, D.A.D., N.N.D., and P.V.M.; methodology, D.A.D. and S.M.S.; writing—original draft, D.A.D.; writing—review and editing, D.A.D. and P.V.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was carried out within the projects «Fundamentals of forest protection from entomo- and fittings pests in Siberia» (№ FEFE-2020-0014) within the framework of the state assignment, set out by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, for the implementation by the Scientific Laboratory of Forest Health, and within basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest «Reducing the risks of the increasing impact of diseases and pests on forest ecosystems in the context of global environmental changes», (№ 0287-2021-0011).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Krasnoyarsk center for collective use for the equipment provided.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Sutherland, W.J.; Freckleton, R.P.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Beissinger, S.R.; Benton, T.; Cameron, D.D.; Carmel, Y.; Coomes, D.A.; Coulson, T.; Emmerson, M.C.; et al. Identification of 100 fundamental ecological questions. J. Ecol. 2013, 101, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guide to Implementation of Phytosanitary Standards in Forestry; FAO Forestry Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; ISBN 978-92-5-106785-7.
  3. Lopez-Vaamonde, C.; Glavendekić, M.; Paiva, M.R. Invaded habitats. Chapter 4. BioRisk 2010, 4, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Langor, D.W.; DeHaas, L.J.; Foottit, R.G. Diversity of non-native terrestrial arthropods on woody plants in Canada. Biol. Invasions 2009, 11, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aukema, J.E.; McCullough, D.G.; Von Holle, B.; Liebhold, A.M.; Britton, K.; Frankel, S.J. Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental United States. Bioscience 2010, 60, 886–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Roques, A.; Shi, J.; Auger-Rozenberg, M.-A.; Ren, L.; Augustin, S.; Luo, Y. Are Invasive Patterns of Non-native Insects Related to Woody Plants Differing Between Europe and China? Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2020, 2, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Allen, E.A.; Humble, L.M. Nonindigenous species introductions: A threat to Canada’s forests and forest economy. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2002, 24, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Herms, D.A.; McCullough, D.G. Emerald Ash Borer Invasion of North America: History, Biology, Ecology, Impacts, and Management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2014, 59, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Inventory on Alien Beetles of European Russia; Orlova-Bienkowskaja, M.J. (Ed.) Mukhametov G.V.: Livny, Russia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  10. Brockerhoff, E.G.; Liebhold, A.M. Ecology of forest insect invasions. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3141–3159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liebhold, A.M.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Kalisz, S.; Nuñez, M.A.; Wardle, D.A.; Wingfield, M.J. Biological invasions in forest ecosystems. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3437–3458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Maliszewska, M.; Mattoo, A.; van der Mensbrugghe, D. The Potential Impact of COVID-19 on GDP and Trade: A Preliminary Assessment; Policy Research Working Papers; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  13. Liebhold, A.M.; Berec, L.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Epanchin-Niell, R.S.; Hastings, A.; Herms, D.A.; Kean, J.M.; McCullough, D.G.; Suckling, D.M.; Tobin, P.C.; et al. Eradication of Invading Insect Populations: From Concepts to Applications. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2016, 61, 335–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. CABI. Invasive Species Compendium. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/ISC (accessed on 20 April 2021).
  15. Brockerhoff, E.G.; Wood Borer and Bark Beetle Risk Analysis. Report to Forest Biosecurity Research Counsil. Available online: http://www.fbrc.org.nz/pdfs/Wood_borer_bark_beetle_risk_assessment_final_May_2009.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2021).
  16. DAISIE. Handbook of alien species in Europe; Springer: Dordrecht, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  17. Roy, H.E.; Bacon, J.; Beckmann, B.; Harrower, C.A.; Hill, M.O.; Isaac, J.B.; Preston, C.D.; Rathod, B.; Rorke, S.L.; Marchant, J.H.; et al. Non-Native Species in Great Britain: Establishment, Detection and Reporting to Inform Effective Decision Making; Defra: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rassati, D.; Lieutier, F.; Faccoli, M. Alien Wood-Boring Beetles in Mediterranean Regions. In Insects and Diseases of Mediterranean Forest Systems; Paine, T.D., Lieutier, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 293–327. ISBN 9783319247441. [Google Scholar]
  19. Barnouin, T.; Soldati, F.; Roques, A.; Faccoli, M.; Kirkendall, L.R.; Mouttet, R.; Daubree, J.B.; Noblecourt, T. Bark beetles and pinhole borers recently or newly introduced to France (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae and Platypodinae). Zootaxa 2020, 4877, 51–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pennacchio, F.; Danti, R.; Benassai, D.; Squarcini, M.; Marziali, L.; Di Lonardo, V.; Roversi, P.F. A new additional record of Phloeosinus armatus Reitter from Italy (Coleoptera Curculionidae Scolytinae). Redia 2013, 96, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zanardi, D.; Deligia, S.; Piras, S. Contributo alla conoscenza dell’Apate monachus Fabr. var. rufiventris Lucas della Sardegna e prime indicazioni di lotta. Atti Giornate Fitopatol. 1969, 1, 215–226. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bonsignore, C.P. Apate monachus (Fabricius, 1775), A bostrichid pest of pomegranate and carob trees in nurseries. Plant Prot. Sci. 2012, 48, 94–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Watanabe, H.; Yanase, Y.; Fujii, Y. Nondestructive evaluation of egg-to-adult development and feeding behavior of the bamboo powderpost beetle Dinoderus minutus using X-ray computed tomography. J. Wood Sci. 2017, 63, 506–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Peters, B.C.; Creffield, J.W.; Eldridge, R.H. Lyctine (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) pests of timber in Australia: A literature review and susceptibility testing protocol. Aust. For. 2002, 65, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Iwata, R. Mass Culture Method and Biology of the Wood Boring Beetle Lyctus brunneus (Stephens). Acta Coleopterol. Jpn. 1988, 1, 1–133. [Google Scholar]
  26. Liu, L.-Y.; Schönitzer, K.; Yang, J.-T. A review of the literature on the life history of Bostrichidae. Mitteilungen der Münchner Entomol. Gesellschaft 2008, 98, 91–97. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kartika, T.; Shimizu, N.; Yoshimura, T. Identification of esters as novel aggregation pheromone components produced by the male powder-post beetle, Lyctus africanus Lesne (Coleoptera: Lyctinae). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bartelt, R.J.; Cossé, A.A.; Zilkowski, B.W.; Fraser, I. Antennally active macrolide from the emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis emitted predominantly by females. J. Chem. Ecol. 2007, 33, 1299–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ruicănescu, A.; Stoica, A.-I. The distribution and behaviour studies on a new invasive Buprestid species (Lamprodila (Palmar) festiva festiva (Linnaeus, 1767), (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Romania. Trav. du Muséum Natl. d’Histoire Nat. “Grigore Antipa” 2019, 62, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Volkovich, M.G.; Karpun, N.I. A new invasive species of buprestid beetles in the Russian fauna—A pest of Cupressaceae Lamprodila (Palmar) festiva (L.) (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Entomol. Rev. 2017, 96, 235–248. [Google Scholar]
  31. Karpun, N.N.; Ignatova, Y.A.; Zhuravleva, E.N. Species of pests on ornamental woody plants in humid subtropics new for Krasnodar Kray (Russia). Izv. Sankt-Peterbg. Lesoteh. Akad. 2015, 211, 189–203. [Google Scholar]
  32. Delle-Vedove, R.; Beaudoin-Ollivier, L.; Hossaert-Mckey, M.; Frérot, B. Reproductive biology of the palm borer, Paysandisia archon (Lepidoptera: Castniidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 2012, 109, 289–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Adachi, I. Reproductive Biology of the White-Spotted Longicorn Beetle, Anoplophora malasiaca Thomson (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), in Citrus Trees. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2002, 23, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Hansen, L.; Xu, T.; Wickham, J.; Chen, Y.; Hao, D.; Hanks, L.M.; Millar, J.G.; Teale, S.A. Identification of a Male-Produced Pheromone Component of the Citrus Longhorned Beetle, Anoplophora chinensis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nehme, M.E.; Keena, M.A.; Zhang, A.; Baker, T.C.; Hoover, K. Attraction of Anoplophora glabripennis to male-produced pheromone and plant volatiles. Environ. Entomol. 2009, 38, 1745–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Aromia bungii. EPPO Bull. 2015, 45, 4–8. [CrossRef]
  37. Xu, T.; Yasui, H.; Teale, S.A.; Fujiwara-Tsujii, N.; Wickham, J.D.; Fukaya, M.; Hansen, L.; Kiriyama, S.; Hao, D.; Nakano, A.; et al. Identification of a male-produced sex-aggregation pheromone for a highly invasive cerambycid beetle, Aromia bungii. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Shibata, E. Population studies of Callidiellum rufipenne (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on Japanese cedar logs. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1994, 87, 836–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dhahri, S.; Lieutier, F.; Cheikhrouha, F.C.; Ben Jamaa, M.L. Distribution, preference and performance of Phoracantha recurva and Phoracantha semipunctata (Coleoptera cerambycidae) on Various Eucalyptus species in Tunisia. Redia 2016, 99, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Haddan, M.; Lieutier, F. Comparison of the length of the life cycle, population abundance and fecundity of Phoracantha semipunctata Fabricius and P. recurva Newman, two xylophagous pests of eucalyptus in Morocco. In Entomological research in Mediterranean forest ecosystems; Lieutier, F., Ghaioule, D., Eds.; INRA Editions: Paris, France, 2005; pp. 209–217. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lupi, D.; Jucker, C.; Colombo, M. Distribution and biology of the yellow-spotted longicorn beetle Psacothea hilaris hilaris (Pascoe) in Italy. EPPO Bull. 2013, 43, 316–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Jucker, C.; Tantardini, A.; Colombo, M. First record of Psacothea hilaris (Pascoe) in Europe (Coleoptera Cerambycidae Lamiinae Lamiini). Boll. di Zool. Agrar. e di Bachic. 2006, 38, 187–191. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lupi, D.; Jucker, C.; Rocco, A.; Cappellozza, S.; Colombo, M. Diet Effect on Psacothea hilaris hilaris (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) Performance under Laboratory Conditions. Int. J. Agric. Innov. Res. 2015, 4, 97–104. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cherepanov, A.I. Longhorn Beetles of Northern Asia (Cerambycinae: Clytini, Stenaspini); Nauka: Novosibirsk, Russia, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jing, T.; Hu, X.; Hu, C.; Li, C.; Liu, K.; Wang, Z. Life cycle and host preference of Xylotrechus rusticus (L., 1758) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in the Heilongjiang Province, China. J. Entomol. Res. Soc. 2017, 19, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sweeney, J.D.; Silk, P.J.; Gutowski, J.M.; Wu, J.; Lemay, M.A.; Mayo, P.D.; Magee, D.I. Effect of Chirality, Release Rate, and Host Volatiles on Response of Tetropium fuscum (F.), Tetropium cinnamopterum Kirby, and Tetropium castaneum (L.) to the Aggregation Pheromone, Fuscumol. J. Chem. Ecol. 2010, 36, 1309–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Xinming, Y.; Miao, G. Study on the reproductive behavior of Trichoferus campestris (Falbermann) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). In Proceedings of the 7th International Working Conference on Stored-Product Protection, Beijing, China, 14–19 October 1998; Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology: Chengdu, China, 1999; Volume 1, pp. 158–159. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ray, A.M.; Francese, J.A.; Zou, Y.; Watson, K.; Crook, D.J.; Millar, J.G. Isolation and identification of a male-produced aggregation-sex pheromone for the velvet longhorned beetle, Trichoferus campestris. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Sarto i Monteys, V.; Torras i Tutusaus, G. A new alien invasive longhorn beetle, Xylotrechus chinensis (Cerambycidae), is infesting mulberries in Catalonia (Spain). Insects 2018, 9, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Iwabuchi, K.; Takahashi, J.; Sakai, T. Occurrence of 2, 3-Octanediol and 2-Hydroxy-3-octanone, Possible Male Sex Pheromone in Xylotrechus chinensis Chevrolat (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1987, 22, 110–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Szalay-Marzso, V.L. Zur Morphologie, Biologie und Bekampfung des Erlenwurgers Cryptorrhynchus lapathi L. (Col. Curcul.) in Ungarn. Z. für Angew. Entomol. 1962, 169, 163–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Smith, B.D.; Stott, K.G. The life history and behaviour of the willow weevil Cryptorrhynchus lapathi L. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1964, 54, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bark Beetles. Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species; Vega, F.E., Hofstetter, R.W., Eds.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2015; ISBN 978-0-12-417156-5. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kolomiets, N.G.; Bogdanova, D.A. The Great European Spruce Bark Beetle. A Pest of Scots Pine in Siberia; Nauka: Novosibirsk, Russia, 1999; ISBN 5-02-031345-9. [Google Scholar]
  55. Liu, Z.; Xu, B.; Miao, Z.; Sun, J. The pheromone frontalin and its dual function in the invasive bark beetle Dendroctonus valens. Chem. Senses 2013, 38, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Yan, Z.; Sun, J.; Don, O.; Zhang, Z. The red turpentine beetle, Dendroctonus valens LeConte (Scolytidae): An exotic invasive pest of pine in China. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 1735–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Roberts, H. Observations on the biology of some tropical rain forest scolytidae (Coleoptera) from Fiji II. Subfamily Ipinae—Tribe Xyleborini. J. Nat. Hist. 1977, 11, 251–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Reay, S.D.; Thwaites, J.M.; Farrell, R.L.; Walsh, P.J. The role of the bark beetle, Hylastes ater (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), as a sapstain fungi vector to Pinus radiata seedlings: A crisis for the New Zealand forestry industry? Integr. Pest Manag. Rev. 2001, 6, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Reay, S.D.; Glare, T.R.; Brownbridge, M. Hylastes ater (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) affecting Pinus radiata seedling establishment in New Zealand. Psyche 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Pastirčáková, K.; Adamčíková, K.; Pastirčák, M.; Zach, P.; Galko, J.; Kováč, M.; Laco, J. Two blue-stain fungi colonizing Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) trees infested by bark beetles in Slovakia, Central Europe. Biologia 2018, 73, 1053–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jankowiak, R. Assessing the virulence of ophiostomatoid fungi associated with the pine-infesting weevils to scots pine Pinus sylvestris L. seedlings. Acta Agrobot. 2013, 66, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Wingfield, M.J.; Gibbs, J.N. Leptographium and Graphium species associated with pine-infesting bark beetles in England. Mycol. Res. 1991, 95, 1257–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Reay, S.D. Aspects of the Ecology and Behaviour of Hylastes ater (Paykull) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Second Rotation Pinus radiata forests in the Central North Island, New Zeland, and Options for Control. Doctor of. Philosophy Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  64. Stark, V.N. Fauna of USSR. Coleoptera. Vol. XXXI. Bark Beetles; USSR Academy of Science Publishing House: Moscow/Leningrad, Russia, 1952. [Google Scholar]
  65. Clare, G.K.; George, E.M. Life cycle and mass-rearing of Hylurgus ligniperda using a novel egg-collection method. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2016, 69, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Davydenko, K.; Vasaitis, R.; Meshkova, V.; Menkis, A. Fungi associated with the red-haired bark beetle, Hylurgus ligniperda (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in the forest-steppe zone in eastern Ukraine. Eur. J. Entomol. 2014, 111, 561–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Reay, S.D.; Thwaites, J.M.; Farrell, R.L. Survey of Ophiostomataceae associated with Hylurgus ligniperda (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in New Zealand. N. Z. Entomol. 2006, 29, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Balogun, R.A. The life-history and habits of the larch bark beetle, Ips cembrae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), in the north-east of Scotland. Can. Entomol. 1970, 102, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jankowiak, R.; Rossa, R.; Miśta, K. Survey of fungal species vectored by Ips cembrae to European larch trees in Raciborskie forests (Poland). Czech Mycol. 2007, 59, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. El-Sayed, A.M. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Available online: https://www.pherobase.com (accessed on 15 June 2020).
  71. Gatti Liguori, P.; Zerba, E.; Alzogaray, R.A.; Gonzalez Audino, P. 3-Pentanol: A new attractant present in volatile emissions from the ambrosia beetle, Megaplatypus mutatus. J. Chem. Ecol. 2008, 34, 1446–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Alfaro, R.I.; Humble, L.M.; Gonzalez, P.; Villaverde, R.; Allegro, G. The threat of the ambrosia beetle Megaplatypus mutatus (Chapuis) (=Platypus mutatus Chapuis) to world poplar resources. Forestry 2007, 80, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Megaplatypus mutatus. EPPO Bull. 2009, 39, 55–58. [CrossRef]
  74. Ceriani-Nakamurakare, E.; Slodowicz, M.; Gonzalez-Audino, P.; Dolinko, A.; Carmarán, C. Mycobiota associated with the ambrosia beetle Megaplatypus mutatus: Threat to poplar plantations. Forestry 2016, 89, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Zhou, X.D.; De Beer, Z.W.; Wingfield, B.D.; Wingfield, M.J. Infection sequence and pathogenicity of Ophiostoma ips, Leptographium serpens and Llundbergii to pines in South Africa. Fungal Divers. 2002, 10, 229–240. [Google Scholar]
  76. Mendel, Z. Life history of Phloeosinus armatus Reiter and Paubei Perris (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Israel. Phytoparasitica 1984, 12, 89–97. [Google Scholar]
  77. Belhabib, R.; Lieutier, F.; Ben Jamaa, M.L.; Nouira, S. Host selection and reproductive performance of Phloeosinus bicolor (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in indigenous and exotic cupressus in Tunisia. Can. Entomol. 2009, 141, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Moraal, L.G. Infestations of the cypress bark beetles Pholeosinus rudis, P bicolor and P. thujae in The Netherlands (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Entomol. Ber. 2010, 70, 140–145. [Google Scholar]
  79. Montecchio, L.; Faccoli, M. First record of thousand cankers disease Geosmithia morbida and walnut twig beetle Pityophthorus juglandis on Juglans nigra in Europe. Plant Dis. 2014, 98, 696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Audley, J. Assessment of Pityophthorus juglandis Colonization Characteristics and Implications for Further Spread of Thousand Cankers Disease. Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  81. Mayfield III, A.E.; Lambdin, P.L. Walnut Twig Beelte (Pityophthorus juglandis Blackman) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). In Tie Use of Classical Biological Control to Preserve Forests in North America. FHTET-2013-2; Van Driesche, R., Reardon, R., Eds.; USDA Forest Service: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2014; pp. 321–330. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kerchev, I.A. Ecology of for eyed fir bark beetle Polygraphus proximus Blandford (Coleoptera; Curculionidae, Scolytinae) in the West-Siberian region of invasion. Russ. J. Biol. Invasions 2014, 5, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pashenova, N.V.; Kononov, A.V.; Ustyantsev, K.V.; Blinov, A.G.; Pertsovaya, A.A.; Baranchikov, Y.N. Ophiostomatoid fungi associated with the four eyed fir bark beetle on the territory of Russia. Russ. J. Biol. Invasions 2017, 4, 80–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kerchev, I.A.; Pousheva, M.S. Olfactometric evidence for aggregation pheromone production by females of the four-eyed fir bark beetle Polygraphus proximus Blandf. (Coleoptera, Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Entomol. Rev. 2016, 96, 821–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Neumann, F.G.; Minko, G. Studies on the introduced smaller european elm bark beetle, Scolytus multistriatus, a potential vector of Dutch elm disease in Victoria. Aust. For. 1985, 48, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Svihra, P. An Unusual Attack Pattern of Scolytus multistriatus Beeetles in Chinese Elm. J. Arboric. 1998, 24, 322–332. [Google Scholar]
  87. Jacobi, W.R.; Koski, R.D.; Harrington, T.C.; Witcosky, J.J. Association of Ophiostoma novo-ulmi with Scolytus schevyrewi (Scolytidae) in Colorado. Plant Dis. 2007, 91, 245–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Lihua, F.; Huilin, N.; Jintong, Z.; Jinlong, L.; Meihong, Y.; Shixiang, Z. Extraction and identification of aggregation pheromone components of Scolytus schevyrewi Semenov (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and trapping test. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 892–899. [Google Scholar]
  89. Salonen, K. On the life cycle, especially on the reproduction biology of Blastophagus piniperda L. (Col., Scolytidae). Acta For. Fenn. 1973, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Haack, R.A.; Poland, T.M. Evolving management strategies for a recently discovered exotic forest pest: The pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda (Coleoptera). Biol. Invasions 2001, 3, 307–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Solheim, H.; Krokene, P.; Långström, B. Effects of growth and virulence of associated blue-stain fungi on host colonization behaviour of the pine shoot beetles Tomicus minor and T. piniperda. Plant Pathol. 2001, 50, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Roeper, R.A.; Bunce, M.A.; Harlan, J.E.; Bowker, R.G. Observations of Xyleborus affinis Eichhoff (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in Central Michigan. Gt. Lakes Entomol. 2015, 48, 111–113. [Google Scholar]
  93. Sobel, L.; Lucky, A.; Hulcr, J. Xyleborus affinis Eichhoff, 1868 (Insecta: Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). EENY 627. Available online: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/trees/beetles/xyleborus_affinis.htm/ (accessed on 4 March 2021).
  94. Mann, R.; Hulcr, J.; Peña, J.; Stelinski, L. Redbay Ambrosia Beetle Xyleborus glabratus Eichhoff (Insecta: Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae); U.S. Department of Agriculture; UF/IFAS Extension Service, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  95. Balasundaran, M.; Sankaran, K.V. Fusarium solani associated with stem canker and die-back of teak in southern India. Indian For. 1991, 117, 147–149. [Google Scholar]
  96. Bosso, L.; Senatore, M.; Varlese, R.; Ruocco, M.; Garonna, A.P.; Bonanomi, G.; Mazzoleni, S.; Cristinzio, G. Severe outbreak of Fusarium solani on Quercus ilex vectored by Xylosandrus compactus. J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 94, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pennacchio, F.; Santini, L.; Francardi, V. Bioecological notes on Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff) (Coleoptera Curculionidae Scolytinae), a species recently recorded into Italy. Redia 2012, 95, 67–77. [Google Scholar]
  98. Beaver, R.A. Biological studies on ambrosia beetles of the Seychelles (Col., Scolytidae and Platypodidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 1988, 105, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Joseph, S.V.; Hudson, W.; Pugliese, P.J. Granulate Ambrosia Beetle: Biology and Management; University of Georgia: Athens, GA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  100. Katovich, S. Insects Attacking Black Walnut in the Midwestern United States. In Black Walnut in a New Century, Proceedings of the 6th Walnut Council Research Symposium, Lafayette, IN, USA, 25–28 July 2004; Michler, C.H., Pijut, P.M., Van Sambeek, J.W., Coggeshall, M.V., Seifert, J., Woeste, K., Overton, R., Ponder, F.J., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2004; pp. 121–126. [Google Scholar]
  101. Stroganova, V.K. Horntails of Siberia; Nauka: Novosibirsk, Russia, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  102. Morgan, F.D.; Stewart, N.C. The biology and behaviour of the wood-wasp Sirex noctilio F. in New Zealand. Trans. Roy. Soc. N. Z. 1966, 7, 195–204. [Google Scholar]
  103. Cooperband, M.F.; Cosse, A.A.; Jones, T.H.; Carrillo, D.; Cleary, K.; Canlas, I.; Stouthamer, R. Pheromones of three ambrosia beetles in the Euwallacea fornicatus species complex: Ratios and preferences. PeerJ 2017, e3957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Pažoutová, S.; Šrůtka, P. Symbiotic relationship between Cerrena unicolor and the horntail Tremex fuscicornis recorded in the Czech Republic. Czech Mycol. 2007, 59, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Detlaf, T.A. The Temperature-Temporal Patterns of Development in Poikilothermic Animals; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 2001; ISBN 5-02-005190-X. [Google Scholar]
  106. Wang, X.-Y.; Yang, Z.-Q.; Gould, J.R.; Zhang, Y.-N.; Liu, G.-J.; Liu, E. The Biology and Ecology of the Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis, in China. J. Insect Sci. 2010, 10, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Imrei, Z.; Molander, M.A.; Winde, I.B.; Lohonyai, Z.; Csonka, É.B.; Fail, J.; Hanks, L.M.; Zou, Y.; Millar, J.G.; Tóth, M.; et al. Identification of the aggregation-sex pheromone of Plagionotus arcuatus ssp arcuatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) from two geographically separated European populations. Sci. Nat. 2019, 106, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Fauvergue, X. A review of mate-finding Allee effects in insects: From individual behavior to population management. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2013, 146, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Collignon, R.M.; Swift, I.P.; Zou, Y.; McElfresh, J.S.; Hanks, L.M.; Millar, J.G. The Influence of Host Plant Volatiles on the Attraction of Longhorn Beetles to Pheromones. J. Chem. Ecol. 2016, 42, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Lopes, O.; Marques, P.C.; Araújo, J. The role of antennae in mate recognition in Phoracantha semipunctata (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). J. Insect Behav. 2005, 18, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Jendek, E.; Nakládal, O. Taxonomic, distributional and biological study of the genus Agrilus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Part II. Zootaxa 2019, 4554, 401–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Gallardo, P.; Cárdenas, A.M. Long-term monitoring of saproxylic beetles from Mediterranean oak forests: An approach to the larval biology of the most representative species. J. Insect Conserv. 2016, 20, 999–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Jendek, E.; Grebennikov, V.V. Agrilus sulcicollis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), a new alien species in North America. Can. Entomol. 2009, 141, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wikars, L.-O. Effects of Forest Fire and the Ecology of Fire-Adapted Insects. Doctor of. Philosophy Thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  115. Scholtz, C.H.; Macrae, T.C. Melanophila unicolor Gory, 1841 (Buprestidae), the Furnace Beetle, in Southern Africa. Afr. Entomol. 2016, 24, 241–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Rihter, A.A. Fauna of USSR. Coleoptera. Vol. XII, iss. 2. Jevel beetles (Buprestidae). Part 2; USSR Academy of Science Publishing House: Moscow/Leningrad, Russia, 1949. [Google Scholar]
  117. Cherepanov, A.I. Longhorn Beetles of Northern Asia (Cerambycinae); Nauka: Novosibirsk, Russia, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  118. Plavilstshikov, N.N. Fauna of USSR. Coleoptera. Vol. XXII. Cerambycidae (P. 2); USSR Academy of Science Publishing House: Moscow/Leningrad, Russia, 1940. [Google Scholar]
  119. Cannon, K.F. Aspects of Hylotrupes bajulus (L.) Biology in Virginia (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Master of Sciense Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  120. Fettköther, R.; Dettner, K.; Schröder, F.; Meyer, H.; Francke, W.; Noldt, U. The male pheromone of the old house borer Hylotrupes bajulus (L.) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae): Identification and female response. Experientia 1995, 51, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Dojnov, B.; Vujčić, Z.; Božić, N.; Margetić, A.; Vujčić, M.; Nenadović, V.; Ivanović, J. Adaptations to captive breeding of the longhorn beetle Morimus funereus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae); application on amylase study. J. Insect Conserv. 2012, 16, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hardersen, S.; Bardiani, M.; Chiari, S.; Maura, M.; Maurizi, E.; Roversi, P.F.; Mason, F.; Bologna, M.A. Guidelines for the monitoring of Morimus asper funereus and Morimus asper asper. Nat. Conserv. 2017, 20, 205–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Hess, A.D. The Biology and Control of the Round-Headed Apple-Tree Borer, Saperda candida Fabricius. Bull. 688; New York State Agricultural Experiment Station: Geneva, NY, USA, 1940. [Google Scholar]
  124. Hanks, L.M. Influence of the larval host plant on reproductive strategies of cerambycid beetles. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1999, 44, 483–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Cherepanov, A.I. Longhorn Beetles of Northern Asia (Lamiinae: Saperdini–Tetraopini); Nauka: Novosibirsk, Russia, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  126. Jankowiak, R.; Kolařík, M. Diversity and pathogenicity of ophiostomatoid fungi associated with Tetropium species colonizing Picea abies in Poland. Folia Microbiol. 2010, 55, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Cherepanov, A.I. Longhorn Beetles of Northern Asia (Prioninae, Disteniinae, Lepturinae, Aseminae); Nauka: Novosibirsk, Russia, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  128. Hegazi, E.; Schlyter, F.; Khafagi, W.; Atwa, A.; Agamy, E.; Konstantopoulou, M. Population dynamics and economic losses caused by Zeuzera pyrina, a cryptic wood-borer moth, in an olive orchard in Egypt. Agric. For. Entomol. 2015, 17, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Terekhova, V.V.; Skrylnik, Y.Y. Peculiarities of biology of adventive for Europe ambrosia beetle Anisandrus maiche Stark (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in the territory of Ukraine. Russ. J. Biol. Invasions 2012, 1, 88–97. [Google Scholar]
  130. Jankowiak, R.; Kolařík, M. Fungi associated with the fir bark beetle Cryphalus piceae in Poland. For. Pathol. 2010, 40, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kohnle, U.; Denshorn, S.; Kölsch, P.; Meyer, H.; Francke, W. E-7-methyl-1,6-dioxaspiro[4.5]decane in the chemical communication of European Scolytidae and Nitidulidae (Coleoptera). J. Appl. Entomol. 1992, 114, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Jactel, H.; Lieutier, F. Effects of attack density on fecundity of the scots pine beetle Ips sexdentatus Boern (Col.; Scolytidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 1987, 104, 190–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Jankowiak, R. Ophiostomatoid fungi associated with Ips sexdentatus on Pinus sylvestris in Poland. Dendrobiology 2012, 68, 43–54. [Google Scholar]
  134. Sarikaya, O.; Avci, M.; Yildirim, S. Flight Activity And Biology of Ips sexdentatus Boerner in Black Pine (Pinus nigra Arnold) Forests of Isparta, Turkey. In Proceedings of the Forests in the Future—Sustainable Use, Risks and Challenges, Belgrade, Serbia, 4–5 October 2012; pp. 597–604. [Google Scholar]
  135. Byers, J.A.; Birgersson, G.; Francke, W. Aggregation pheromones of bark beetles, Pityogenes quadridens and P. bidentatus, colonizing Scotch pine: Olfactory avoidance of interspecific mating and competition. Chemoecology 2013, 23, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ayberk, H.; Cebeci, H. Scolytus rugulosus (Muller) (Coleoptera, Scolytidae)—A new pest of Acer undulatum Pojark in Turkey. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2010, 9, 2325–2326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Schiff, N.M.; Goulet, H.; Smith, D.R.; Boudreault, C.; Wilson, A.D.; Scheffler, B.E. Siricidae (Hymenoptera: Symphyta: Siricoidea) of the Western Hemisphere. Can. J. Arthropod Identif. 2012, 21, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 2 October 2020).
  139. van Buuren, S.; Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 45, 1–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Maechler, M.; Rousseeuw, P.; Struyf, A.; Hubert, M.; Hornik, K.; cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R package version 2.1.0. 2019. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cluster (accessed on 20 April 2021).
  141. Hennig, C.; fpc: Flexible Procedures for Clustering. R package version 2.2-5. 2020. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=fpc (accessed on 20 April 2021).
  142. Le, S.; Josse, J.; Husson, F. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2008, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Bouchard, P.; Smith, A.B.T.; Douglas, H.; Gimmel, M.L.; Brunke, A.J.; Kanda, K. Biodiversity of Coleoptera. In Insect Biodiversity; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 337–417. ISBN 9781118945568. [Google Scholar]
  144. Bouchard, P.; Bousquet, Y.; Davies, A.E.; Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A.; Lawrence, J.F.; Lyal, C.H.C.; Newton, A.F.; Reid, C.A.M.; Schmitt, M.; Ślipiński, S.A.; et al. Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta). Zookeys 2011, 88, 1–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Borgemeister, C.; Schäfer, K.; Goergen, G.; Awande, S.; Setamou, M.; Poehling, H.M.; Scholz, D. Host-finding behavior of Dinoderus bifoveolatus (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), an important pest of stored cassava: The role of plant volatiles and odors of conspecifics. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1999, 92, 766–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Heppner, J.B. Giant Butterfly Moths (Lepidoptera: Castniidae). In Encyclopedia of Entomology; Capinera, J.L., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, Germany, 2008; p. 1614. [Google Scholar]
  147. Jendek, E. Vademecum Buprestidorum. Available online: https://sites.google.com/view/vademecumbuprestidorum/home (accessed on 5 October 2020).
  148. Cerambycidae of the World. Biology and Pest Management; Wang, Q., Ed.; Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; ISBN 9788578110796. [Google Scholar]
  149. Eschen, R.; Holmes, T.; Smith, D.; Roques, A.; Santini, A.; Kenis, M. Likelihood of establishment of tree pests and diseases based on their worldwide occurrence as determined by hierarchical cluster analysis. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 315, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Yamanaka, T.; Morimoto, N.; Nishida, G.M.; Kiritani, K.; Moriya, S.; Liebhold, A.M. Comparison of insect invasions in North America, Japan and their Islands. Biol. Invasions 2015, 17, 3049–3061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Lantschner, M.V.; Corley, J.C.; Liebhold, A.M. Drivers of global Scolytinae invasion patterns. Ecol. Appl. 2020, 30, e02103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Taylor, C.M.; Hastings, A. Allee effects in biological invasions. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 895–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Tobin, P.C.; Whitmire, S.L.; Johnson, D.M.; Bjørnstad, O.N.; Liebhold, A.M. Invasion speed is affected by geographical variation in the strength of Allee effects. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Contarini, M.; Onufrieva, K.S.; Thorpe, K.W.; Raffa, K.F.; Tobin, P.C. Mate-finding failure as an important cause of Allee effects along the leading edge of an invading insect population. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2009, 133, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Kanarek, A.R.; Webb, C.T.; Barfield, M.; Holt, R.D. Allee effects, aggregation, and invasion success. Theor. Ecol. 2013, 6, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Jordal, B.H.; Beaver, R.A.; Kirkendall, L.R. Breaking taboos in the tropics: Incest promotes colonization by wood-boring beetles. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2001, 10, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Kirkendall, L.R.; Faccoli, M. Bark beetles and pinhole borers (Curculionidae, Scolytinae, Platypodinae) alien to Europe. Zookeys 2010, 56, 227–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  158. Nandagopal, V.; Prakash, A.; Rao, J. Know the Pheromones: Basics and Its Application. J. Biopestic. 2008, 1, 210–215. [Google Scholar]
  159. Skarpaas, O.; Økland, B. Timber import and the risk of forest pest introductions. J. Appl. Ecol. 2009, 46, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Walker, M.; Blackwood, J.C.; Brown, V.; Childs, L.M. Modelling Allee effects in a transgenic mosquito population during range expansion. J. Biol. Dyn. 2019, 13, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Kajita, Y.; Evans, E.W. Relationships of body size, fecundity, and invasion success among predatory lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) inhabiting alfalfa fields. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2010, 103, 750–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  162. Brousseau, D.J.; McSweeney, L. A comparison of reproductive patterns and adult dispersal in sympatric introduced and native marine crabs: Implications for species characteristics of invaders. Biol. Invasions 2016, 18, 1275–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Book of Insect Records. Available online: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/walker/ufbir/index.shtml (accessed on 28 October 2020).
  164. Grabowska, J.; Przybylski, M. Life-history traits of non-native freshwater fish invaders differentiate them from natives in the Central European bioregion. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2015, 25, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  165. Økland, B.; Bjørnstad, O.N. A resource-depletion model of forest insect outbreaks. Ecology 2006, 87, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Hulcr, J.; Mogia, M.; Isua, B.; Novotny, V. Host specificity of ambrosia and bark beetles (Col., Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae) in a New Guinea rainforest. Ecol. Entomol. 2007, 32, 762–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Roeper, R.A. Biology of Symbiotic Fungi Associated with Ambrosia Beetles of Western United States. Doctor of. Philosophy Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  168. Cruz, L.F.; Rocio, S.A.; Duran, L.G.; Menocal, O.; Garcia-Avila, C.D.J.; Carrillo, D. Developmental biology of Xyleborus bispinatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) reared on an artificial medium and fungal cultivation of symbiotic fungi in the beetle’s galleries. Fungal Ecol. 2018, 35, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Munro, J.W. Beetles injurious to Timber. For. Comm. Bull. 1928, 9, 4–29. [Google Scholar]
  170. Izhevsky, S.S.; Nikitsky, N.B.; Volkov, O.G.; Dolgin, M.M. Illustrated Guide to Coleopteran—Xylophagous Pests of Forests and Timber of Russia; Grif and Co.: Tula, Russia, 2005; ISBN 5-87317-085-6. [Google Scholar]
  171. Nikitsky, N.B.; Izhevsky, S.S. Xylophagous beetles—Pests of Arboreal Plants of Russia; Lesnaya Promyshlennost: Moscow, Russia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  172. Isaev, A.S.; Khlebopros, R.G.; Nedorezov, L.V.; Kondakov, Y.P.; Kiselev, V.V.; Soukhovolsky, V.G. Population Dynamics of Forest Insects; Isaev, A.S., Ed.; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 2001; ISBN 5-02-004270-6. [Google Scholar]
  173. Iwata, R.; Yamada, F. Notes on the biology of Hesperophanes campestris (Faldermann) (Col., Cerambycidae), a drywood borer in Japan. Mater. und Org. 1990, 25, 305–313. [Google Scholar]
  174. Hu, J.; Angeli, S.; Schuetz, S.; Luo, Y.; Hajek, A.E. Ecology and management of exotic and endemic Asian longhorned beetle Anoplophora glabripennis. Agric. For. Entomol. 2009, 11, 359–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Doom, D. The biology, damage and control of the poplar and willow borer, Crypthorrhinchus lapathi. Neth. J. Plant Pathol. 1966, 72, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Wingfield, M.J. Pathogenicity of Leptographium procerum and Lterebrantis on Pinus strobus seedlings and established trees. Eur. J. For. Pathol. 1986, 16, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Wingfield, M.J.; Barnes, I.; de Beer, Z.W.; Roux, J.; Wingfield, B.D.; Taerum, S.J. Novel associations between ophiostomatoid fungi, insects and tree hosts: Current status—Future prospects. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3215–3228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Davydenko, K.; Vasaitis, R.; Menkis, A. Fungi associated with Ips acuminatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Ukraine with a special emphasis on pathogenicity of ophiostomatoid species. Eur. J. Entomol. 2017, 114, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Demirci, F.; Maden, S. A severe dieback of box elder (Acer negundo) caused by Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc. in Turkey. Australas. Plant Dis. Notes 2006, 1, 13–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Nemec, S. Fusarium solani association with branch and trunk cankers on citrus weakened by cold weather in Florida. Mycopathologia 1987, 97, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Hulcr, J.; Dunn, R.R. The sudden emergence of pathogenicity in insect–fungus symbioses threatens naive forest ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 278, 2866–2873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Agnello, A.M.; Breth, D.I.; Tee, E.M.; Cox, K.D.; Villani, S.M.; Ayer, K.M.; Wallis, A.E.; Donahue, D.J.; Combs, D.B.; Davis, A.E.; et al. Xylosandrus germanus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Occurrence, Fungal Associations, and Management Trials in New York Apple Orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 2149–2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Mlonyeni, X.O.; Wingfield, M.J.; Greeff, J.M.; Wingfield, B.D.; Slippers, B. Genetic diversity of Amylostereum areolatum, the fungal symbiont of the invasive woodwasp Sirex noctilio in South Africa. For. Pathol. 2018, 48, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Goodsman, D.W.; Koch, D.; Whitehouse, C.; Evenden, M.L.; Cooke, B.J.; Lewis, M.A. Aggregation and a strong Allee effect in a cooperative outbreak insect. Ecol. Appl. 2016, 26, 2623–2636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Lahr, E.C.; Krokene, P. Conifer Stored Resources and Resistance to a Fungus Associated with the Spruce Bark Beetle Ips typographus. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e72405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Sherif, S.M.; Shukla, M.R.; Murch, S.J.; Bernier, L.; Saxena, P.K. Simultaneous induction of jasmonic acid and disease-responsive genes signifies tolerance of American elm to Dutch elm disease. Sci. Rep. 2016, 23, 21934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  187. Pieterse, C.M.J.; Van Der Does, D.; Zamioudis, C.; Leon-Reyes, A.; Van Wees, S.C.M. Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2012, 28, 489–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Paine, T.D.; Raffa, K.F.; Harrington, T.C. Interactions Among Scolytid Bark Beetles, Their Associated Funig, and Live Host Conifers. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1997, 42, 179–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. Six, D.L.; Wingfield, M.J. The Role of Phytopathogenicity in Bark Beetle–Fungus Symbioses: A Challenge to the Classic Paradigm. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2011, 56, 255–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  190. Lieutier, F.; Yart, A.; Salle, A. Stimulation of tree defenses by Ophiostomatoid fungi can explain attack success of bark beetles on conifers. Ann. For. Sci. 2009, 66, 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Harrington, T.C.; Yun, H.Y.; Lu, S.S.; Goto, G.; Aghayeva, D.N.; Fraedrich, S.W. Isolations from the redbay ambrosia beetle, Xyleborus glabratus, confirm that the laurel wilt pathogen, Raffaelea lauricola, originated in Asia. Mycologia 2011, 103, 1028–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Krivets, S.A.; Bisirova, E.M.; Kerchev, I.A.; Pashenova, N.V.; Demidko, D.A.; Petko, V.M.; Baranchikov, Y.N. Four-Eyed Bark Beetle in Siberian Forests (Distribution, Biology, Ecology, Detection and Survey of Damaged Stands); Krivets, S.A., Baranchikov, Y.N., Eds.; UMIUM: Krasnoyarsk, Russia, 2015; ISBN 978-5-9907381-0-2. [Google Scholar]
  193. Koch, F.H.; Smith, W.D. Spatio-temporal analysis of Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera: Circulionidae: Scolytinae) invasion in Eastern U.S. forests. Environ. Entomol. 2008, 37, 442–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Riggins, J.J.; Chupp, A.D.; Formby, J.P.; Dearing, N.A.; Bares, H.M.; Brown, R.L.; Oten, K.F. Impacts of laurel wilt disease on arthropod herbivores of North American Lauraceae. Biol. Invasions 2019, 21, 493–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Van Driesche, R.G.; Reardon, R.C. Biology and Control of Emerald Ash Borer; USDA Forest Service: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  196. Kelly, L.J.; Plumb, W.J.; Carey, D.W.; Mason, M.E.; Cooper, E.D.; Crowther, W.; Whittemore, A.T.; Rossiter, S.J.; Koch, J.L.; Buggs, R.J.A. Convergent molecular evolution among ash species resistant to the emerald ash borer. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Villari, C.; Herms, D.A.; Whitehill, J.G.A.; Cipollini, D.; Bonello, P. Progress and gaps in understanding mechanisms of ash tree resistance to emerald ash borer, a model for wood-boring insects that kill angiosperms. New Phytol. 2016, 209, 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Boggs, C.L. Understanding insect life histories and senescence through a resource allocation lens. Funct. Ecol. 2009, 23, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Guidelines on pest risk analysis: Check-list of information required for pest risk analysis (PRA). EPPO Bull. 1993, 23, 191–198. [CrossRef]
  200. Jeger, M.; Bragard, C.; Caffier, D.; Candresse, T.; Chatzivassiliou, E.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Gilioli, G.; Jaques Miret, J.A.; MacLeod, A.; Navajas Navarro, M.; et al. Pest categorisation of Ips sexdentatus. EFSA J. 2017, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  201. Balachowsky, A. Faune de France 50 Coléopterès Scolytides; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique: Paris, France, 1949. [Google Scholar]
  202. San-Miguel-Ayanz, J.; de Rigo, D.; Caudullo, G.; Houston Durrant, T.; Mauri, A. European Atlas of Forest Tree Species; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016; Volume 11, ISBN 9789279367403. [Google Scholar]
  203. UK Beetle Recording. Available online: https://www.coleoptera.org.uk/species/ips-sexdentatus (accessed on 15 March 2021).
  204. Isachenko, A.G.; Shlyapnikov, A.A. Nature of the World: Landscapes; Mysl: Moscow, Russia, 1989; ISBN 5-244-00177-9. [Google Scholar]
  205. Sukovatova, L.M. Chronic outbreaks of xylophagous insects in semi-artificial Siberian stone pine forests in south part of Tomsk region. In Issues of Invertebrates Ecology; Ostroverkhova, G.P., Ed.; Tomsk State University Publishing House: Tomsk, Russia, 1988; pp. 69–72. [Google Scholar]
  206. Hanks, L.M.; Millar, J.G. Conservation of Pheromone Chemistry within the Cerambycidae on a global scale, and implications for invasion biology. In Proceedings of the 29th USDA Interagency Research Forum on Invasive Species, Annapolis, MD, USA, 9–12 January 2018; pp. 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  207. Rassati, D.; Marchioro, M.; Flaherty, L.; Poloni, R.; Edwards, S.; Faccoli, M.; Sweeney, J. Response of native and exotic longhorn beetles to common pheromone components provides partial support for the pheromone-free space hypothesis. Insect Sci. 2020, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Jankowiak, R.; Bilański, P. Ophiostomatoid fungi associated with root-feeding bark beetles on Scots pine in Poland. For. Pathol. 2013, 43, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Mason, C.J.; Keefover-Ring, K.; Villari, C.; Klutsch, J.G.; Cook, S.; Bonello, P.; Erbilgin, N.; Raffa, K.F.; Townsend, P.A. Anatomical defences against bark beetles relate to degree of historical exposure between species and are allocated independently of chemical defences within trees. Plant Cell Environ. 2019, 42, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Astrakhantseva, N.V.; Pashenova, N.V.; Petko, V.M.; Baranchikov, Y.M. Abies sibirica Lebed. and A. nephrolepis (Trautv. ex Maxim.) Maxim. stem tissue reaction on inoculation by phytopatogenic fungus Grosmannia aoshimae (Ohtaka, Masuya et Yamaoka) Masuya et Yamaoka associated with four-eyed fir bark beetle. Izv. Sankt-Peterburgskoj Lesoteh. Akad. 2014, 207, 142–153. [Google Scholar]
  211. Mansfield, S.; McNeill, M.R.; Aalders, L.T.; Bell, N.L.; Kean, J.M.; Barratt, B.I.P.; Boyd-Wilson, K.; Teulon, D.A.J. The value of sentinel plants for risk assessment and surveillance to support biosecurity. NeoBiota 2019, 48, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Roques, A.; Fan, J.; Courtial, B.; Zhang, Y.; Yart, A.; Auger-Rozenberg, M.-A.; Denux, O.; Kenis, M.; Baker, R.; Sun, J. Planting Sentinel European Trees in Eastern Asia as a Novel Method to Identify Potential Insect Pest Invaders. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  213. Bertheau, C.; Salle, A.; Rossi, J.P.; Bankhead-dronnet, S.; Pineau, X.; Roux-morabito, G.; Lieutier, F. Colonisation of native and exotic conifers by indigenous bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) in France. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 1619–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Baranchikov, Y.N.; Pashenova, N.V.; Seraya, L.G. Botanical gardens and “sentinel trees” concept: Experimental evaluation of Far-Eastern pests threat for European fir and ash species. In Proceedings of the Modern Systems and Methods of Phytosanitary Expertise and Plant Protection Management, Moscow, Russia, 24–27 November 2015; VNIIF: Bolshie Vyazemy, Russia, 2015; pp. 194–200. [Google Scholar]
  215. Rozhkov, A.S.; Massel, G.I. Coniferous Resin Components and Xylophagous Insects; Isaev, A.S., Ed.; Наука: Novosibirsk, Russia, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  216. Bohlmann, J.; Way, D. Pine terpenoid defences in the mountain pine beetle epidemic and in other conifer pest interactions: Specialized enemies are eating holes into a diverse, dynamic and durable defence system. Tree Physiol. 2012, 32, 943–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 12 00367 g001 550
Figure 1. Groups of species identified by PAM clustering and characteristics of their compactness (W) and stability (boot).
Figure 1. Groups of species identified by PAM clustering and characteristics of their compactness (W) and stability (boot).
Insects 12 00367 g001
Insects 12 00367 g002 550
Figure 2. Biological traits characterizing aggressive behavior, communication, and the ability to fly. Axis abscissa label indicates the presence (p) or absence (a) of the feature. The same letters on the graphs indicate there are no differences between strategies at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 2. Biological traits characterizing aggressive behavior, communication, and the ability to fly. Axis abscissa label indicates the presence (p) or absence (a) of the feature. The same letters on the graphs indicate there are no differences between strategies at p ≤ 0.05.
Insects 12 00367 g002
Insects 12 00367 g003 550
Figure 3. Biological traits characterizing nutrition. Axis abscissa label for binary characteristics indicates the presence (p) or absence (a) of the feature. Axis abscissa label for food specialization—monophagy (m), oligophagy (o), and polyphagy (p). The same letters on the graphs indicate no differences between strategies at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 3. Biological traits characterizing nutrition. Axis abscissa label for binary characteristics indicates the presence (p) or absence (a) of the feature. Axis abscissa label for food specialization—monophagy (m), oligophagy (o), and polyphagy (p). The same letters on the graphs indicate no differences between strategies at p ≤ 0.05.
Insects 12 00367 g003
Insects 12 00367 g004 550
Figure 4. Biological traits characterizing reproduction. Axis abscissa label for binary characteristics indicates the presence (p) or absence (a) of the feature. The grey area’s width for fecundity indicates the probability density; dots show the species’ fecundity; circles represent the group’s mean fecundity. The same letters on the graphs indicate no differences between strategies at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 4. Biological traits characterizing reproduction. Axis abscissa label for binary characteristics indicates the presence (p) or absence (a) of the feature. The grey area’s width for fecundity indicates the probability density; dots show the species’ fecundity; circles represent the group’s mean fecundity. The same letters on the graphs indicate no differences between strategies at p ≤ 0.05.
Insects 12 00367 g004
Insects 12 00367 g005 550
Figure 5. Factor analysis of invasive species traits results: (A)—Dimensions 1, 2, (B)—Dimensions 1, 3. Triangles indicate the position of biological traits with the highest factorial loads in the factor space: PHL, XPH, XmPH—phleo-, xylo- and xylomycetophagy; INB—inbreeding; FEC—fecundity; PAT—plant pathogens; SxPH, AgPH—long-distant sex and aggregation pheromones; FlL—flightless males; PV, MV and LNG—mono-, polyvoltinism and long (multi-year) life cycle; m, o, p—mono-, oligo- and polyphagy. For binary characteristics, .p and .a indicate the presence or absence of the feature, respectively. Dots indicate the position of species in the factor space. The insets show the distribution of species with corresponding features within the coordinate plane. A variance explains the percentage in axis labels.
Figure 5. Factor analysis of invasive species traits results: (A)—Dimensions 1, 2, (B)—Dimensions 1, 3. Triangles indicate the position of biological traits with the highest factorial loads in the factor space: PHL, XPH, XmPH—phleo-, xylo- and xylomycetophagy; INB—inbreeding; FEC—fecundity; PAT—plant pathogens; SxPH, AgPH—long-distant sex and aggregation pheromones; FlL—flightless males; PV, MV and LNG—mono-, polyvoltinism and long (multi-year) life cycle; m, o, p—mono-, oligo- and polyphagy. For binary characteristics, .p and .a indicate the presence or absence of the feature, respectively. Dots indicate the position of species in the factor space. The insets show the distribution of species with corresponding features within the coordinate plane. A variance explains the percentage in axis labels.
Insects 12 00367 g005
Insects 12 00367 g006 550
Figure 6. Factor analysis of invasive vs. non-invasive species traits results: (A)—Dimensions 3, 4, (B)—Dimensions 3, 6. The additional axis on the coordinate plane shows the direction from non-invasive to invasive species. MF—maturation feeding; for more details, see Figure 5.
Figure 6. Factor analysis of invasive vs. non-invasive species traits results: (A)—Dimensions 3, 4, (B)—Dimensions 3, 6. The additional axis on the coordinate plane shows the direction from non-invasive to invasive species. MF—maturation feeding; for more details, see Figure 5.
Insects 12 00367 g006
Table
Table 1. Taxonomic identification of studied insect species and sources of information.
Table 1. Taxonomic identification of studied insect species and sources of information.
SpeciesFamilyMain SourcesAdditional Sources
Apate monachus FabriciusBostrychidae[6,16][21,22]
Dinoderus minutus (Fabricius)Bostrychidae[9,14,16][23]
Lyctus brunneus (Stephens)Bostrychidae[9,16][24,25,26,27]
Agrilus planipennis FairmaireBuprestidae[5,6,9,14,16][28]
Lamprodila festiva (Linnaeus)Buprestidae[9][29,30]
Paysandisia archon (Burmeister)Castniidae[6,14,16][31,32]
Anoplophora chinensis (Forster)Cerambycidae[6,16][33,34]
Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky)Cerambycidae[5,6,14,16][35]
Aromia bungii FaldermannCerambycidae[6,14][36,37]
Callidiellum rufipenne (Motschulsky)Cerambycidae[5,6,9,14,16][38]
Phoracantha recurva NewmanCerambycidae[5,6,14,16][39,40]
Phoracantha semipunctata (Fabricius)Cerambycidae[5,6,14,16][39,40]
Psacothea hilaris (Pascoe)Cerambycidae[6,16][41,42,43]
Rusticoclytus rusticus (Linnaeus)Cerambycidae[6][44,45]
Tetropium fuscum (Fabricius)Cerambycidae[14][46]
Trichoferus campestris (Faldermann)Cerambycidae[6,9][47,48]
Xylotrechus chinensis ChevrolatCerambycidae[6][44,49,50]
Anisandrus dispar (Fabricius)Curculionidae[14]
Cryptorrhynchus lapathi LinnaeusCurculionidae[5,6][51,52]
Dendroctonus micans (Kugelann)Curculionidae[14,16][53,54]
Dendroctonus valens LeConteCurculionidae[14][53,55,56]
Euwallacea destruens (Blandford)Curculionidae[14][53,57]
Hylastes ater (Paykull)Curculionidae[14,15,16][58,59,60,61]
Hylastes opacus ErichsonCurculionidae[5][62,63,64]
Hylurgus ligniperda (Fabricius)Curculionidae[5,15][65,66,67]
Ips cembrae (Heer)Curculionidae[14,16][68,69]
Megaplatypus mutatus (Chapius)Curculionidae[14,16][70,71,72,73,74]
Orthotomicus erosus (Wollaston)Curculionidae[5,14][60,70,75]
Phloeosinus armatus (Reitter)Curculionidae[5,16][20,76]
Phloeosinus rudis Blandford Curculionidae[6,16][77,78]
Pityophthorus juglandis BlackmanCurculionidae[6][79,80,81]
Polygraphus proximus BlandfordCurculionidae[6,9,16][82,83,84]
Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier)Curculionidae[6]
Scolytus multistriatus (Marsham)Curculionidae[5,15][7,64,85,86]
Scolytus schevyrewi SemenovCurculionidae[5][87,88]
Tomicus piniperda (Linnaeus)Curculionidae[5][70,89,90,91]
Xyleborinus saxesenii (Ratzeburg)Curculionidae[14,15,16]
Xyleborus affinis EichhoffCurculionidae[16][92,93]
Xyleborus glabratus EichoffCurculionidae[5][94]
Xyleborus perforans (Wollaston)Curculionidae[14,16]
Xyleborus similis FerrariCurculionidae[14][95]
Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff)Curculionidae[6,14][96,97]
Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky)Curculionidae[6,14,16][98,99]
Xylosandrus germanus (Blandford)Curculionidae[6,9,14,16][100]
Xylosandrus morigerus (Blandford)Curculionidae[14,16]
Sirex noctilio FabriciusSiricidae[5,14,15,16][101,102,103]
Tremex fuscicornis (Fabricius)Siricidae[14][101,104]
Table
Table 2. Studied aspects of the biology of invaders.
Table 2. Studied aspects of the biology of invaders.
TraitUnits/Categories
Type of nutritionPhloeophagy, Xylophagy, Xylomycetophagy
Maturate feedingYes, No
Food specializationMonophagy, Oligophagy, Polyphagy
FecundityNumber of eggs produced by a female
ParthenogenesisYes, No
InbreedingYes, No
Life cyclePolyvoltine, univoltine, Multi-year life cycle
Aggregation pheromonesYes, No
Long-range pheromonesYes, No
Associated pathogenYes, No
Ability to flyYes, No
Table
Table 3. Taxonomic identification of studied non-invasive insect species and sources of data.
Table 3. Taxonomic identification of studied non-invasive insect species and sources of data.
SpeciesFamilyMain SourcesAdditional Sources
Agrilus angustulus (Illiger)Buprestidae[16][111,112]
Agrilus sulcicollis LacordaireBuprestidae[5][113]
Melanophila acuminata (De Geer)Buprestidae[16][114,115,116]
Callidium violaceum (Linnaeus)Cerambycidae[5][117,118]
Hylotrupes bajulus (Linnaeus)Cerambycidae[5][118,119,120]
Morimus asper (Sulzer)Cerambycidae[16][121,122]
Saperda candida FabriciusCerambycidae[6,16][123,124]
Saperda populnea LinnaeusCerambycidae[5,14][125]
Tetropium castaneum (Linnaeus)Cerambycidae[5,14][46,126,127]
Tetrops praeusta (L.)Cerambycidae[5][127]
Zeuzera pyrina (Linnaeus)Cossidae[5,14][128]
Anisandrus maiche (Kurentsov)Curculionidae[9][129]
Cryphalus piceae (Ratzeburg)Curculionidae[16][64,130,131]
Hylurgops palliatus (Gyllenhal)Curculionidae[5,14]
Ips sexdentatus BoernerCurculionidae[5][64,132,133,134]
Pityogenes quadridens (Hartig)Curculionidae[5][64,135]
Scolytus rugulosus (Müeller)Curculionidae[5][64,136]
Uroceurs gigas (Linnaeus)Siricidae[5][101,137]
Table
Table 4. The data has been obtained for related species or statistically modelled (s.m.).
Table 4. The data has been obtained for related species or statistically modelled (s.m.).
SpeciesMaturation FeedingLife CycleFecundity Ability to Fly
X. chinensisXylotrechus pantherinus (Savenius), X. arvicola (Oliver)
H. opacusHylastes ater (Paykull)H. aters.m.H. ater
M. acuminataMelanophila unicolor Gory
C. piceaeCryphalus scopiger Berger s.m.
L. brunneus Lyctus spp.
A. chinensis Anoplophora malasiaca Thomson
P. rudis Phloeosinus bicolor (Brullé)
C. violaceums.m. Callidielum aeneum (De Geer), C. coriaceum Paykull
T. praeusta Tetrops elaeagni Plavilsthikov
P. quadridens Pityogenes chalcographus (Linnaeus)
L. festiva s.m.
T. fuscicorniss.m. s.m.
E.destruens s.m.
X.perforans s.m.
X. glabratuss.m. s.m.
A. angustulus s.m.
A. sulcicollis s.m.
A. maiche s.m.
U. gigas s.m.
M. mutatuss.m.
Table
Table 5. Distribution of alien bark beetles and borers’ species by families within a region and for the entire set of studied species, as well as the distribution of alien species, generalized for regional faunas.
Table 5. Distribution of alien bark beetles and borers’ species by families within a region and for the entire set of studied species, as well as the distribution of alien species, generalized for regional faunas.
FamilyThe European Part of Russia 1ChinaUSANew ZealandAll Invasive Bark Beetles and Borers 2All Alien Bark Beetles and Borers 3
Acanthocnemidae 1 1
Agonoxenidae 1 1
Anobiidae 11 2
Bostrychidae42 35
Buprestidae236 29
Cerambycidae2191391136
Cossidae 1 1
Curculionidae62243112878
Kalotermitidae 1 1
Rhinotermitidae 11 2
Sesiidae 2 2
Siricidae 32125
Castniidae 1 11
1 Only insects of the order Coleoptera. 2 From the species included in the present research. 3 Combined data [5,6,9,15].
Table
Table 6. Bark beetles and borers as pathogen vectors and their associated pathogens.
Table 6. Bark beetles and borers as pathogen vectors and their associated pathogens.
InsectPathogenData Source
T. fuscumGrosmannia piceiperda (Rumbold) Goid.[126]
D. valensLeptographium terebrantis S.J. Barras & T.J. Perry, Leptographium procerum (W.B. Kendr.) M.J. Wingf.[14,176,177]
H. aterOphiostoma minus (Hedgc.) Syd. & P. Syd.,[60,178]
I. cembraeCeratocystis laricicola Redfern & Minter[69]
M. mutatusRaffaelea santoroi Guerrero, Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc.[74,179,180,181]
P. armatusSeiridium cardinale (W.W. Wagener)[20]
P. juglandisGeosmithia morbida M. Kolařík, Freeland, C. Utley & Tisserat[81]
P. proximusGrosmannia aoshimae (Ohtaka et Masuya) Masuya et Yamaoka[83]
S. multistriatusOphiostoma ulmi (Buisman) Nannf.[7]
T. piniperdaLeptographium wingfieldii M. Morelet, O. minus[91]
X. affinisRaffaelea lauricola T.C. Harr., Fraedrich & Aghayeva[93]
X. glabratusR. lauricola[168]
X. similisF. solani[95]
X. compactusF. solani[96]
X. germanusF. solani[182]
S. noctilioAmylostereum areolatum (Chaillet ex Fr.) Biodin[183]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Demidko, D.A.; Demidko, N.N.; Mikhaylov, P.V.; Sultson, S.M. Biological Strategies of Invasive Bark Beetles and Borers Species. Insects 2021, 12, 367. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040367

AMA Style

Demidko DA, Demidko NN, Mikhaylov PV, Sultson SM. Biological Strategies of Invasive Bark Beetles and Borers Species. Insects. 2021; 12(4):367. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040367

Chicago/Turabian Style

Demidko, Denis A., Natalia N. Demidko, Pavel V. Mikhaylov, and Svetlana M. Sultson. 2021. "Biological Strategies of Invasive Bark Beetles and Borers Species" Insects 12, no. 4: 367. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040367

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop