Abstract

The jack pine tip beetle, Conophthorus banksianae McPherson (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and the red pine cone beetle, C. resinosae Hopkins, are doubtful sibling species. However, it is possible that these two taxa are valid species that maintain reproductive isolation because they accept different hosts. In a series of laboratory and field cage experiments, the host acceptance behaviours of these two species under choice and no choice conditions were compared. The field experiments demonstrated that the two species have a similar propensity to accept jack pine cones and shoots for feeding, but differ consistently in their acceptance of red pine cones, and variably in their acceptance of red pine shoots. However, the laboratory experiments did not indicate a difference between the two species in their propensity to accept red pine cones for feeding. In field cages, C. resinosae accepted significantly more red pine cones for oviposition than C. banksianae; the situation was reversed for jack pine shoots. In comparison to C. banksianae, C. resinosae is a more generalist feeder. The results from this study suggest that host acceptance behaviour is a permeable barrier unable to ensure reproductive isolation between the two species. Although there are differences in the host acceptance behaviours between C. banksianae and C. resinosae, we conclude that these differences do not necessarily support their designation as distinct species.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.