California Pest Rating for
Hylesinus cingulatus Blandford
Pest Rating: A
PEST RATING PROFILE
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.
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.
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.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Low (7)
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.
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.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
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
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.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
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