Tag Archives: bark beetle

Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Hylesinus cingulatus Blandford

California Pest Rating for
Hylesinus cingulatus Blandford
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Hylesinus cingulatus is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Like most bark beetles, Hylesinus species develop in the phloem (inner bark).   Hylesinus cingulatus has been reported to feed on Fraxinus mandshurica and F. longicuspis.  According to one source, it breeds in windthrown trees and does not cause significant damage in forests (Kurenzov, 1941).  In at least some (possibly most) species of Hylesinus, adults feed on healthy trees prior to reproduction; this is referred to as maturation feeding.  Other species of Hylesinus are known to attack live, but stressed (through drought, for instance) trees.

Worldwide Distribution: Found in China, Korea, Japan, and the Primorye region of the Russian Far East.

Official Control: This species does not appear to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  This species is not known to be present in California.

California Interceptions: Hylesinus cingulatus has apparently never been intercepted in California.

The risk Hylesinus cingulatus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The climate represented by the native distribution of Hylesinus cingulatus suggests that it could become established in some parts of California.  Ash trees (Fraxinus) are widely distributed in California. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: This species apparently is only known to feed on two species of Fraxinus. Assuming it is likely restricted to this genus of host tree, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Hylesinus cingulatus is capable of sustained flight. The species could be moved in firewood or wood products, although the apparently limited host range might reduce the chances of such movement.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Hylesinus cingulatus has a fairly limited host range, at least in its native range.  The species apparently feeds on trees that are already damaged or in decline, although limited information on the biology of this species was obtained.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

Economic Impact:

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 1

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Hylesinus cingulatus does not appear to have much potential for environmental impact. The species apparently feeds on dead or stressed trees, although limited information on the biology of this species was obtained.  One California species of Fraxinus is rare ( parryi), but it occurs in a desert area that is unlikely to be invaded by H. cingulatus.  Therefore, H. cingulatus receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact: 

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score: 1

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Hylesinus cingulatus: Low (7)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Hylesinus cingulatus is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Low (7)

Uncertainty:

There may be information on the biology of this species that was not accessible to this author because it is not in English, although an attempt was made to translate the available literature.  If this species was established in California, it could have a broader host range here than it does in Asia.  If Hylesinus cingulatus species behaved differently in California, for instance, by feeding on trees that were not already killed or damaged, there would be potential for environmental impact.  In addition, newly-emerged adults of some species in the genus are known to feed (“maturation feeding”) on healthy trees.  If this is the case with H. cingulatus, there is greater potential for economic and environmental impacts, especially when it is considered that fungi are associated with bark beetles and maturation feeding could possibly vector pathogenic fungi to healthy trees.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Although H. cingulatus does not behave as a serious pest in its native range, and it is perhaps likely that it would have no more serious an impact in California if it were introduced here, there are reasons to be cautious.  Maturation feeding by adults could damage trees and could result in the transmission of pathogenic fungi.  In addition, it is possible that this beetle could feed on new host trees in California.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

 Blackman, M.W.  1922.  Mississippi bark beetles.  Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin.  11: 1-130.

Kurenzov, A.I.  1941.  Bark-beetles of the Far East, USSR.  Academy of Sciences of the USSR.  Moscow. http://libarch.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/GenofondUA/24318/d58a7531c60e960ba7eb551b93c67d51.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Niijima, Y.  1909.  Die Scolytiden Hokkaidos unter Berücksichtigung ihrer Bedeutung für Forstschäden.  The Journal of the College of Agriculture, Tohoku Imperial University.  3: 109-179.

Park, S.  2016.  Taxonomic review of Scolytinae and Platypodinae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Korea.  Ph.D. thesis.  Seoul National University.

Pfister, A.  2012.  Aktuelle Schäden durch Eschenbastkäfer in der Steieremark.  Forstschutz Aktuell.  54: 22-25.

Wood, S.L.  2007.  Bark and ambrosia beetles of South America.  Brigham Young University.  900 pp.

Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks Drive, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Comment Period:* CLOSED

1/17/2018 – 3/3/2018

*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.

Pest Rating: A

 

Posted by ls

Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Bark Beetle | Coccotrypes rutschuruensis Eggers

California Pest Rating for
Bark Beetle | Coccotrypes rutschuruensis Eggers
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

 

Initiating Event:

In 1987, beetles were found mining the bases of seedlings of the palm, Howea forsteriana, in Orange County (PDR # 821414).  The beetles were identified as Coccotrypes rutschuruensis (misspelled in the PDR as rutshuruensis).  This apparently represents the only detection of the species in the United States.

History & Status:

Background: This species has been found associated with the following plants: Annona sp. (Annonaceae), Astrocaryum murumura, Howea forsteriana, Phoenix reclinata (Arecaceae), and Triplochiton scleroxylon (Malvaceae).  Wood (2007) considered it possible that what he treated as C. rutschuruensis could have been two or more species.  Therefore, the biological data of multiple species may have been combined and the specific identification of members of this genus may be problematic.  Regardless, little biological information is available for the beetles that have been referred to by this name except for reports of feeding on the bases of seedlings of Howea forsteriana and in Astrocaryum palm nuts.  For both of these reasons (doubtful species identity and poorly-known biology), a cautious approach must be taken and the biology of the entire genus Coccotrypes will be drawn upon in this proposal.

Worldwide Distribution: Coccotrypes rutschuruensis was described from material collected in Rutshuru, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and it is presumably native to that continent.  The 1987 Orange County find is apparently the only record of this species in the United States, and it is presumed that this species is not established in this country (Haack and Rabaglia 2013).  There are reports that this species has been introduced to Brazil and Suriname (Wood, 2007).  Unfortunately, these records may represent one or more different species due to the confused taxonomy.

Official Control: Coccotrypes rutschuruensis is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution: This species is not known to occur in the United States.

California Interceptions: The above-mentioned detection in Orange County is apparently the only record of this species in California (and the United States).

The risk Coccotrypes rutschuruensis would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The available distribution records suggest that the species is primarily tropical but may also be capable of establishment in temperate climates, although this depends on the specimens identified as rutschuruensis in South America actually being that species. Because of the lack of biological information available on this species and the doubt regarding the species identities, the broad, collective climatic tolerance of the entire genus Coccotrypes is considered.  Regarding host plants, this beetles appears to be mostly restricted to palms.  There is only one native palm in California, but many species are planted as ornamentals in the southern half of the state.  Therefore, C. rutschuruensis receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: The available feeding records for Coccotrypes rutschuruensis all involve palms, although there is little biological information available. The feeding habits of the entire genus Coccotrypes are considered.  Therefore, Coccotrypes rutschuruensis receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Coccotrypes species are inbreeding and can reproduce via arrhenotokous parthenogenesis. This means that a single, unfertilized female is capable of founding a population by producing males from unfertilized eggs and mating with them.  In addition, Coccotrypes species are known to fly.  Therefore, Coccotrypes rutschuruensis receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: The beetles identified as rutschuruensis were reported feeding on palm seeds and seedlings. It is possible that if it were to become established in California, this beetle could impact the date and ornamental palm industries, including lowering yield and disrupting markets and increasing production costs.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 3

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Coccotrypes rutschuruensis is reported to feed on palm seeds and seedlings. Another species of Coccotrypes, carpophagus, has been reported to feed on Washingtonia filifera and W. robusta.  If introduced into California, C. rutschuruensis could impact the regeneration of the native Washingtonia filifera palm in southern California.  This beetle could also impact ornamental palm plantings and trigger treatment programs if planted palms were attacked.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact: A, D, E

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score: 3

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Coccotrypes rutschuruensis: High (14)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Coccotrypes rutschuruensis been found only once in California (the Orange County find cited above).  Because there is no further evidence of this species in the state, it receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (14)

Uncertainty:

Coccotrypes is diverse (129 described species) and the body size is minute.  This makes identification challenging even in a best-case scenario (i.e., if the systematics of the group have been well-studied, or a modern revision existed).  In many cases, specimens of Coccotrypes are only identified to the level of genus.  This means that, even if C. rutschuruensis was established in the United States, it may not have been identified as that species.  In addition, the sparseness of biological data available for this species, along with the doubt regarding its identity, leads the author to consider the biology of the entire genus Coccotrypes in developing a rating.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

The beetles historically identified as C. rutschuruensis have been reported feeding on palm seeds and seedlings.  This raises the possibility of economic and environmental damage if this species became established.  There is apparently a possibility that other Coccotrypes species may be referred to as C. rutschuruensis, which means that a specimen intercepted in California and identified as C. rutschuruensis may be a different species with a different biology (including feeding habits and climatic tolerances).  For this reason, a cautious approach has been taken.  Coccotrypes rutschuruensis deserves an “A” rating.

References:

Atkinson, T.H.  2017.  Bark and ambrosia beetles of North and Central America. http://www.barkbeetles.info

Haack, R.A.  2001.  Intercepted Scolytidae (Coleoptera) at U.S. ports of entry: 1985-2000.  Integrated Pest Management.  6: 253-282.

Haack, R.A. and R.J. Rabaglia.  2013.  Exotic bark and ambrosia beetles in the USA: Potential and current invaders.  In (J. Peña, ed.): Potential pests of agricultural crops (pp. 48-74).  CAB International.

Vega, F.E. and R.W. Hofstetter.  2014.  Bark beetles: Biology and ecology of native and invasive species.  Academic Press.  640 pp.

Wood, S.L.  2007.  Bark and ambrosia beetles of South America.  Brigham Young University.  900 pp.

Wood, S.L. and D.E. Bright.  1992.  A catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera), Part 2: Taxonomic index.  Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs.  13: 1-1553.

Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks Drive, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Comment Period:* CLOSED

1/16/2018 – 3/2/2018

*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.

Pest Rating: A

 

Posted by ls

Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

A Bark Beetle | Pycnarthrum hispidum (Ferrari)

California Pest Rating for
A Bark Beetle | Pycnarthrum hispidum (Ferrari)
Coleoptera
Pest Rating: C

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Pycnarthrum hispidum is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Pycnarthrum hispidum is a neotropical bark beetle that occurs at low elevations below 1300 meters above sea level.  The feeding behavior is apparently restricted to the phloem of cut, injured, or fallen limbs and trunks of fig trees (Ficus spp.).  No reports were found suggesting that it attacks living, healthy trees.  The species has been associated with the following Ficus species: F. lyrata, F. elastica, and F. retusa.

Worldwide Distribution:  Pycnarthrum hispidum occurs in the United States (south Texas and south Florida), Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, Venezuela, and Guyana.

Official Control: Pycnarthrum hispidum does not appear to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Pycnarthrum hispidum is not known to occur in California.

California Interceptions: Pycnarthrum hispidum was intercepted on Artemisia sp., Ficus sp., and Ceratonia silique from Florida (PDR # 010P06660363, 010P06660369, 010P06660366, and 010P06660375).

The risk Pycnarthrum hispidum would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pycnarthrum hispidum occurs in tropical/subtropical areas. There is a possibility that it could become established in a limited portion of California.  Ficus species are grown as ornamental trees in California and could serve as host plants.  Therefore, Pycnarthrum hispidum receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Pycnarthrum hispidum is apparently restricted to the genus Ficus. Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Pycnarthrum hispidum is capable of sustained flight, and is attracted to light.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: The available information suggests that Pycnarthrum hispidum does not impact living trees.  The two most obvious concerns regarding the possible establishment of a species that feeds on Ficus are ornamental trees and commercial fig fruit, but these concerns are not supported by evidence.  In 2016, figs were grown in 32 Mexican states and the harvest was worth approximately 514 million pesos.  Yet, there do not appear to be any reports of P. hispidum as a pest of figs there, or anywhere else.  Ficus species are also widely planted as ornamental trees, and again, no reports were found of P. hispidum as a pest.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

Economic Impact:

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 1

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Pycnarthrum hispidum is only known to feed on Ficus species, and there are no species in this genus (or even the family Moraceae) native to California. Additionally, as explained above in Economic Impact, there does not appear to be significant potential for hispidum to become an economic pest.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact. Score: 1

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Pycnarthrum hispidum: Low (7)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Pycnarthrum hispidum is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not Established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Low (7)

Uncertainty:

There appears to be little uncertainty regarding the possible impact of Pycnarthrum hispidum in California.  The species is widely distributed and common and not a single report was found of it attacking live trees.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Pycnarthrum hispidum is a common, Neotropical insect that apparently feeds on cut branches and trunks of Ficus spp.  No reports were found suggesting it is a pest in any situation.  It does not appear to pose a threat to California’s agriculture or environment.  For these reasons, a “C” rating is justified.

References:

Atkinson, T.H. and A.E. Martínez.  1985.  Notes on biology and distribution of Mexican and Central American Scolytidae (Coleoptera).  I.  Hylesininae, Scolytinae except Cryphalini and Corthylini.  The Coleopterists Bulletin.  39(3): 227-238.

Atkinson, T.H., Martínez-Fernández, E., Saucedo-Céspedes, E., and A. Burgos-Solorio.  1986.  Scolytidae y Platypodidae (Coleoptera) asociados a selva baja y comunidades derivadas en el estado de Morelos.  Folia Entomolόgica Mexicana.  69: 41-82.

Martínez, A.E. and T.H. Atkinson.  1986.  Annotated checklist of bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae and Platypodidae) associated with a tropical deciduous forest at Chamela, Jalisco, Mexico.  Florida Entomologist.  69(4): 619-635.

Servicio de Informaciόn Agroalimentaria y Pesquera.  Anuario Estadístico de la Producciόn Agrícola.  http://nube.siap.gob.mx/cierre_agricola/

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network (SCAN).  http://symbiota4.acis.ufl.edu

Valencia, A.E. and T.H. Atkinson.  1988.  Scolytidae y Platypodidae (Coleoptera) de escárcega, Campeche, México.  Biogeografia, biología, importancia econόmica y una lista comentada de especies.  Anales del Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autόnoma de México.  58: 199-220.

Wood, S.L.  1982.  The bark and ambrosia beetles of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic monograph.  Brigham Young University.  1359 pp.

Wood, S.L.  2007.  Bark and ambrosia beetles of South America.  Brigham Young University.  900 pp.

Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks Drive, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Comment Period:* CLOSED

1/16/2018 – 3/2/2018

*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.

Pest Rating: C

 

Posted by ls