Free Access
Ann. For. Sci.
Volume 63, Number 3, April 2006
Page(s) 301 - 308
Published online 04 April 2006
References of Ann. For. Sci. 63  301- 308
  1. Anonyme, Predicting Southern Pine Beetle Trends (Cooperative Efforts Provide a Better Crystal Ball), Forest Landowner (1997) 36-37.
  2. Bakke A., Kvamme T., Kairomone response in Thanasimus predators to pheromone components of Ips typographus, J. Chem. Ecol. 7 (1981) 305-312 [CrossRef].
  3. Balachowsky A., Faune de France. 50: Coléoptères Scolytides, Editions Paul Lechevalier, Paris, 1949, 320 p.
  4. Billings R.F., Forecasting southern pine beetle infestation trends with pheromone traps, in: Payne T.L., Saarenmaa H. (Eds.), IUFRO Symposium: Integrated Control of Scolytid Bark Beetles, Vancouver, B.C. Canada, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1988, pp. 295-306.
  5. Dippel C., Heidger C., Nicolai V., Simon M., The influence of four different predators on bark beetles in European forest ecosystems (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), Ent. Gen. 21 (1997) 161-175.
  6. Dunning J.B., Banielson B.J., Pulliam H.R., Ecological processes that affect population in complex landscapes, Oikos 65 (1992) 169-175.
  7. Faccoli M., Stergulc F., Ips typographus (L.) pheromone trapping in south Alps: spring catches determine damage thresholds, JEN 128 (2004) 307-311.
  8. Franklin A., De Cannière C., Grégoire J.C., Can sales of infested timber be used to quantify attacks by Ips typographus (Coleoptera, Scolytidae)? A pilot study from Belgium, Ann. For. Sci. 61 (2004) 477-480 [EDP Sciences] [CrossRef].
  9. Gauss R., Der Ameisenbuntkäfer Thanasimus (Clerus) formicarius Latr. als Borkenkäferfeind, in: Wellenstein G. (Ed.), Die grosse Borkenkäferkalamität in Südwest-Deutschland 1944-1951, Forstschutzstelle Südwest/Ringingen, 1954, pp. 417-429.
  10. Gilben M., Nageleisen L.M., Franklin A., Grégoire J.C., Post-storm surveys reveal large-scale spatial patterns and influences of site factors, forest structure and diversity in endemic bark-beetle populations, Landsc. Ecol. (2005) 35-49.
  11. Grégoire J.C., Piel F., De Proft M., Gilbert M., Spatial distribution of ambrosia-beetle catches: a possibly useful knowledge to improve mass-trapping, IPM Reviews 6 (2001) 237-242.
  12. Grégoire J.C., Evans H.F., Damage and control of BAWBILT organisms - an overview, in: Lieutier F., Day K., Battisti A., Grégoire J.C., Evans H. (Eds.), Bark and Wood Boring Insects in Living Trees in Europe, a Synthesis, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2004, pp. 19-37.
  13. Hérard F., Mercadier G., Natural enemies of Tomicus piniperda and Ips acuminatus (Col., Scolytidae) on Pinus sylvestris near Orléans, France: temporal occurrence and relative abundance, and notes on eight predatory species, Entomophaga 41 (1996) 183-210.
  14. Kohnle U., Vité J.P., Bark beetle predators: strategies in the olfactory perception of prey species by clerid and trogositid beetles, Z. Angew. Entomol. 98 (1984) 504-508.
  15. McGarigal K., Marks B.J., FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1995.
  16. Mills N.J., The natural enemies of scolytids infesting conifer bark in Europe in relation to the biological control of Dendroctonus spp. in Canada, Biocontrol News and Information 4 (1983) 305-328.
  17. Mills N.J., Some observations on the role of predation in the natural regulation of Ips typographus populations, Z. Angew. Entomol. 99 (1985) 209-215.
  18. Mills N.J., A preliminary analysis of the dynamics of within tree populations of Ips typographus (L.) (Col. : Scolytidae), J. Appl. Entomol. 102 (1986) 402-416.
  19. Nagendra H., Opposite trends in response for the Shannon and Simpson indices of landscape diversity, Appl. Geogr. 22 (2002) 175-186 [CrossRef].
  20. økland B., Berryman A., Resource dynamic plays a key role in regional fluctuations of the spruce bark beetles Ips typographus, Agric. For. Entomol. 6 (2004) 141-146 [CrossRef].
  21. Pfeffer A., Zentral- und Westpaläarktische Borken- und Kernkäfer (Coleoptera, Scolytidae, Platypodidae), Entomologica Basiliensia 17 (1994) 5-310.
  22. Pulliam H.R., Sources, sinks, and population regulation, Am. Nat. 132 (1988) 652-661 [CrossRef].
  23. Pulliam H.R., Danielson B.J., Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics, Am. Nat. 137 (1991) S50-S66 [CrossRef].
  24. Reeve J.D., Predation and bark-beetle dynamics, Oecologia 112 (1997) 48-54 [CrossRef].
  25. Shannon C.E., A mathematical theory of communication, ATT Tech. J. (1948) 27: 379-423; 623-656.
  26. Shannon C.E., Weaver W., The mathematical theory of communication, University of Illinois Press, 1949.
  27. Tømmerås B.A., The clerid beetle Thanasimus formicarius is attracted to the pheromone of the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum, Experientia 44 (1988) 536-537 [CrossRef].
  28. Turchin P., Taylor A.D., Reeve J.D., Dynamical role of predators in population cycles of a forest insect: an experimental test, Science 285 (1999) 1068-1071 [CrossRef].
  29. Weslien J., The arthropod complex associated with Ips typographus (L.) (Col., Scolytidae): species composition, phenology, and impact on bark beetle productivity, Entomol. Fenn. 3 (1992) 205-213.
  30. Weslien J., Regnander J., The influence of natural enemies on brood production in Ips typographus (Col.: Scolytidae) with special reference to egg-laying and predation by Thanasimus formicarius (Col.: Cleridae), Entomophaga 37 (1992) 333-342.