Preference, Performance, and Selection of Historic and Novel Hosts by Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus Planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PREFERENCE, PERFORMANCE, AND SELECTION OF HISTORIC AND NOVEL HOSTS BY EMERALD ASH BORER, AGRILUS PLANIPENNIS FAIRMAIRE (COLEOPTERA: BUPRESTIDAE) A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by DONNIE L PETERSON MS, Entomology, Purdue University, 2014 BS, Forest Ecosystem Restoration and Management, University of Stevens Point, 2012 2019 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL November 1, 2019 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE DISSERTATION PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Donnie L Peterson ENTITLED Preference, performance, and selection of historic and novel hosts by emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy ______________________________ Don Cipollini, Ph.D. Dissertation Director Director, Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program ______________________________ Barry Milligan, Ph.D. Interim Dean of the Graduate School Committee on Final Examination: ________________________________ Don Cipollini, Ph.D. ________________________________ Pierluigi Bonello, Ph.D. ________________________________ Daniel A. Herms, Ph.D. ________________________________ John O. Stireman III., Ph.D. ________________________________ William Romine, Ph.D. Abstract Peterson, Donnie L. Ph D., Environmental Sciences PhD Program, Wright State University, 2019. Preference, performance, and selection of historic and novel hosts by emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). North American and European ash trees are highly susceptible to emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis). This buprestid kills hosts via larva feeding on vascular tissue which eventually kills the host plant. Two new hosts have recently been found to support larval development of EAB. White fringetrees (Chionanthus virginicus) were found attacked by EAB in 2014 and since then have been found to be attacked throughout other parts of the United States, while olive (Olea europaea) has only experimentally been found to support larvae to adulthood. Chemical profiles of these two plants were collected and analyzed to determine how their volatile emissions vary among susceptible and resistant ash trees. Additionally, larvae and adult beetles were tested for their performance on these novel plants. For white fringetree, wild populations were monitored to determine the impact of EAB during the attack wave. These studies find that white fringetree foliage supports adults, but when phloem is healthy it causes high larval morality in contrast to girdled or previously attacked by EAB where larvae survived by the end of assays. In the field, EAB began to use white fringetree quickly, within a couple of years after initial exposure. Female choice suggests white fringetree and susceptible ash are similarly preferred likely due to the similar volatile emissions. These chemicals likely caused host range expansion of EAB to this novel host. In contrast to ash, the impact of EAB on white fringetree is minimal. This plant mostly loses a branch or two from larval girdling, which in ornamentally planted fringetrees can be aesthetically displeasing. On olive, EAB is likely to be even less damaging because larvae take longer iii to develop than in ash and larvae die quickly in young, photosynthesizing stems. Adults did not perform well because oleuropein may cause them to compensatory feed and causing malnutrition. In North American forests, if EAB continues to destroy ash species at such high rates, EAB may be driven to use white fringetree more often. With continued use of this host, EAB is likely to adapt to better utilize white fringetree which could eventually lead to host switching. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Larval performance of a major forest pest on novel hosts and the effect of stressors. .............................................................................................................................. 1 Abstract: .......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction: .................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology: .................................................................................................................. 7 Emerald ash borer egg source and stem inoculation. .................................................. 7 Experiment 1. Larval performance in cut stems of olive vs ash. ................................ 8 Experiment 2. Larval performance on previously attacked vs healthy white fringetrees in the field. ................................................................................................ 9 Experiment 3: Larval performance on girdled, MeJA, and healthy white fringetrees in the field. ................................................................................................................ 10 Experiment 4: Larval performance on young live girdled and healthy olive trees. .. 11 Experiment 5: Larval performance on young live, previously infested olives. ........ 11 Data analysis: ............................................................................................................ 12 Results: .......................................................................................................................... 12 Experiment 1. Larval performance in cut stems of olive vs ash. .............................. 12 Experiment 2. Larval performance on previously attacked vs healthy white fringetrees in the field. .............................................................................................. 13 Experiment 3: Larval performance on girdled, MeJA, and healthy white fringetrees in the field. ................................................................................................................ 13 Experiment 4: Larval performance on young live girdled and healthy olive trees. .. 13 Experiment 5: Larval performance on young live, previously infested olives. ........ 14 Discussion: .................................................................................................................... 14 Acknowledgements: ...................................................................................................... 18 References cited: ........................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 2: Fitness and fecundity of adult emerald ash borer on two novel hosts and their influence on herbivore success. ........................................................................................ 31 Abstract: ........................................................................................................................ 31 Introduction. .................................................................................................................. 33 Material and Methods: .................................................................................................. 37 Research location and foliage sources. ..................................................................... 37 v Adult feeding and longevity bioassays. .................................................................... 38 Influence of adult diet on larval performance in white fringetree and green ash. .... 39 Statistical analysis. .................................................................................................... 39 Results: .......................................................................................................................... 40 Discussion. .................................................................................................................... 42 Acknowledgements: ...................................................................................................... 47 References cited: ........................................................................................................... 48 Chapter 3: Ecological fitting: chemical profiles of plant hosts provide insights on selection cues and preferences for a major Buprestid pest. .............................................. 63 Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 63 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 65 Methods......................................................................................................................... 71 Volatile collection and analysis. ............................................................................... 71 Olfactometer setup and host volatile profile preference. .......................................... 73 Statistical analysis. .................................................................................................... 74 Results ........................................................................................................................... 75 Identification and category assignment of compounds. ............................................ 75 Volatile profile differences between plant species. .................................................. 76 Individual volatile differences between species. ...................................................... 77 Random forest. .........................................................................................................