Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014 of the studies, which makes it possible to evaluate the findings. However, the international reviews included within the present study (Lingafelter and Hoebeke 2002; Hu et al. 2009; Haack et al. 2010) based much of their host-related information on Chinese studies, written in Chinese (Appendix 3). Furthermore, it is important to know the envi- ronments in which the beetles have been studied. In forest types, where very good hosts are absent, the beetles use more “non-traditional” species and genera to a much larger amount than when more suitable host trees are available. This scenario can lead to one author reporting that a species or genus is a very good host and another concluding that the same species or genus is rarely or never infested. Among the publications reviewed, eight based their host-related information for ALB and CLB on natural environments or plantations (Appendix 3) but provided no information on the species composition, structure, or succession phase of the habitat or plantations studied. This makes it difficult to analyze the results presented. Studies in habitats reported larger numbers of highly susceptible species than those in homoge- neous sites or plantations. This scenario of includ- ing more suitable species is exploited in practice in China, where ‘trap trees’ that are more utilized by ALB are included to protect other species. No studies concerning ‘trap trees’ for CLB were found. Furthermore, Williams et al. (2004) concluded that the varying dynamics of ALB populations across its geographical range may indicate that it is an ‘edge specialist’ that evolved in riparian habi- tats. This aspect of understanding the preferred habitat or ecosystem of the beetle was seldom evaluated in the literature reviewed. Instead, the information reported originated from different kinds of plantations with quantitative observa- tions mainly in urban areas of China or North America (Hu et al. 2009; Haack et al. 2010), with- out further evaluation of ecosystem preferences. CONCLUSIONS The wood-boring Asian longhorned beetle and cit- rus longhorned beetle may pose serious threats to the tree landscape worldwide since they have many host species and genera. It is therefore important to identify susceptible tree species and genera in order to produce future tree loss scenarios and 149 plan future urban forests (e.g., by selecting less sus- ceptible urban trees). This literature review found many tree species and genera that are liable to be attacked by ALB and CLB, but further informa- tion is needed. There is a lack of transparency in published studies listing susceptible tree species for ALB and CLB. It is important to know where and how these studies obtained their informa- tion—especially the older studies. Later studies use a much more transparent approach, but more information from the natural environment of the beetles in China and Japan is highly important in understanding why some species and genera are resistant or rarely affected. Another area where more information is needed regarding host trees for ALB and CLB is whether the tree species sup- port the complete life cycle of the beetles or just feeding by adult beetles. An accepted and interna- tionally used conceptual ranking system is needed, describing what exactly makes a tree species a very good host or just a host. Without this system, there is a risk of incorrectly labeling species with mod- erate host qualities as a very good host and hence banned from use as an urban tree. Another impor- tant aspect is to thoroughly evaluate host trees on species level and not include the whole genus, even if many species within the genus are susceptible. LITERATURE CITED Adachi, I. 1994. Development and life cycle of Anoplophora mala- siaca (Thomson) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on citrus trees under fluctuating and constant temperature regimes. Applied Entomology and Zoology 29(4):485–497. APHIS. 2012. USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. Asian Longhorned Beetle: Annotated Host List. Accessed 09/26/2012. Auclair, A.N.D., G. Fowler, M.K. Hennessey, A.T. Hogue, M. Keena, D.R. Lance, R.M. McDowell, D.O. Oryang, and A.J. Sawyer. 2005. Assessment of the risk of introduction of Anoplophora gla- bripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in municipal solid waste from the quarantine area of New York City landfills outside of the quarantine area: A pathway analysis of the risk of spread and establishment. Journal of Economic Entomology 98(1):47–60. Bancroſt, J.S., M.T. Smith, E.K. Chaput, and J. Tropp. 2002. Rapid test of the suitability of host-trees and the effects of larval his- tory on Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 75:308–316. Bao, S., F. Li, Z. Li, and T. Wu. 1999. The resistance of fourteen poplar species to Anoplophora glabripennis (Motsch). Journal of Beijing Forestry University 21:97–100 (Chinese). CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. Accessed on 09/26/2012. Cao, C., H. Ma, and H. Wu. 2003. Investigation and assessment on resistance to Anoplophora glabripennis by 17 poplar species. ©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2014
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
