Research Article
Print
Research Article
Worldwide tests of generic attractants, a promising tool for early detection of non-native cerambycid species
expand article infoAlain Roques§, Lili Ren|§, Davide Rassati, Juan Shi|§, Evgueni Akulov#, Neil Audsley¤, Marie-Anne Auger-Rozenberg§, Dimitrios Avtzis«, Andrea Battisti, Richard Bellanger», Alexis Bernard, Iris Bernadinelli˄, Manuela Branco˅, Giacomo Cavaletto, Christian Cocquempot¦, Mario Contariniˀ, Béatrice Courtial, Claudine Courtin, Olivier Denux, Miloň Dvořákˁ, Jian-ting Fan, Nina Feddern, Joseph Francese, Emily K. L. Franzen, André Garcia˅, Georgi Georgiev, Margarita Georgieva, Federica Giarruzzoˀ, Martin Gossner, Louis Gross, Daniele Guarneri, Gernot Hoch, Doris Hölling, Mats Jonsell, Natalia Kirichenko, Antoon Loomans, You-qing Luo§|, Deborah McCullough, Craig Maddox, Emmanuelle Magnoux, Matteo Marchioro, Petr Martinekˁ, Hugo Mas‡‡, Bruno Mériguet§§, Yong-zhi Pan||, Régis Phélut, Patrick Pineau, Ann M. Ray, Olivier Roques, Marie-Cécile Ruiz¶¶, Victor Sarto i Monteys##, Stefano Speranzaˀ, Jiang-hua Sun§¤¤, Jon D. Sweeney««, Julien Touroult»», Lionel Valladares˄˄, Loïs Veillat, Yuan Yuan|§, Myron P. Zalucki˅˅, Yunfan Zou¦¦, Alenka Žunič-Kosiˀˀ, Lawrence M. Hanksˁˁ, Jocelyn G. Millar¦¦
‡ INRAE URZF, Orléans, France
§ INRAE URZF and Beijing Forestry University, Orléans, France
| Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China
¶ University of Padua, Padova, Italy
# Russian Plant Quarantine Center, Krasnoyarsk Branch, Krasnoyarsk, Russia
¤ Fera Science Ltd., York, United Kingdom
« Forest Research Institute, Hellenic Agricultural Organization Demeter, Thessaloniki, Greece
» INRAE UEVT, Antibes, France
˄ Plant Health and Research service – ERSA, Pozzuolo Del Friuli, Italy
˅ University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal
¦ Unaffiliated, Plougonven, France
ˀ University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy
ˁ Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
₵ Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University, Lin'an, China
ℓ Forest Health and Biotic Interactions, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
₰ USDA APHIS PPQ S&T, Forest Pest Methods Laboratory, Buzzards Bay, United States of America
₱ Xavier University, Cincinnati, United States of America
₳ USDA APHIS PPQ S&T, Bethel, United States of America
₴ Forest Research Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
₣ Ente Parco Nazionale del Circeo, Sabaudia, Italy
₮ BFW – Austrian Research Centre for Forests, Vienna, Austria
₦ Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
₭ Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk, Russia
₲ Sukachev Institute of Forest, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Federal Research Center «Krasnoyarsk Science Center SB RAS», Krasnoyarsk, Russia
‽ Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, Division Agriculture and Nature (NPPO) National Reference Centre, Wageningen, Netherlands
₩ Michigan State University, East Lansing, United States of America
₸ NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wollongbar & Centre for Tropical Horticulture, Alstonville, Australia
‡‡ Laboratori de Sanitat Forestal – CIEF VAERSA- Generalitat Valenciana, Quart de Poblet, Spain
§§ Office pour les Insectes et leur Environnement (OPIE), Guyancourt, France
|| Southwest Forestry College, Kunming, China
¶¶ Office pour l’Environnement de la Corse (OEC), Corte, France
## Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain
¤¤ Hebei University, Baoding, China
«« Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Atlantic Forestry Center, Fredericton, Canada
»» PatriNat (OFB, CNRS, MNHN), Paris, France
˄˄ Toulouse University, Toulouse, France
˅˅ The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
¦¦ University of California, Riverside, United States of America
ˀˀ Department of Organisms and Ecosystems Research, National Institute of Biology, Ljubljana, Slovenia
ˁˁ University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States of America
Open Access

Abstract

A large proportion of the insects which have invaded new regions and countries are emerging species, being found for the first time outside their native range. Being able to detect such species upon arrival at ports of entry before they establish in non-native countries is an urgent challenge. The deployment of traps baited with broad-spectrum semiochemical lures at ports-of-entry and other high-risk sites could be one such early detection tool. Rapid progress in the identification of semiochemicals for cerambycid beetles during the last 15 years has revealed that aggregation-sex pheromones and sex pheromones are often conserved at global levels for genera, tribes or subfamilies of the Cerambycidae. This possibly allows the development of generic attractants which attract multiple species simultaneously, especially when such pheromones are combined into blends. Here, we present the results of a worldwide field trial programme conducted during 2018–2021, using traps baited with a standardised 8-pheromone blend, usually complemented with plant volatiles. A total of 1308 traps were deployed at 302 sites covering simultaneously or sequentially 13 European countries, 10 Chinese provinces and some regions of the USA, Canada, Australia, Russia (Siberia) and the Caribbean (Martinique). We intended to test the following hypotheses: 1) if a species is regularly trapped in significant numbers by the blend on a continent, it increases the probability that it can be detected when it arrives in other countries/continents and 2) if the blend exerts an effective, generic attraction to multiple species, it is likely that previously unknown and unexpected species can be captured due to the high degree of conservation of pheromone structures within related taxa. A total of 78,321 longhorned beetles were trapped, representing 376 species from eight subfamilies, with 84 species captured in numbers greater than 50 individuals. Captures comprised 60 tribes, with 10 tribes including more than nine species trapped on different continents. Some invasive species were captured in both the native and invaded continents. This demonstrates the potential of multipheromone lures as effective tools for the detection of ‘unexpected’ cerambycid invaders, accidentally translocated outside their native ranges. Adding new pheromones with analogous well-conserved motifs is discussed, as well as the limitations of using such blends, especially for some cerambycid taxa which may be more attracted by the trap colour or other characteristics rather than to the chemical blend.

Keywords

Cerambycidae, early detection, Holarctic, invasion, multi-pheromone blend, pheromone trapping

Introduction

During the last several decades, the unprecedented development of worldwide trade has resulted in increasing translocation and establishment of non-native insects outside their native ranges, with little evidence of saturation (Seebens et al. 2017, 2021). Insect herbivores, accidentally introduced as plant contaminants, appear to be mainly responsible for this sharp increase, at least in Europe (Roques 2010; Pergl et al. 2017). Amongst these non-native herbivores, species associated with woody plants largely dominate, accounting for 76.5% of all herbivore species newly recorded in Europe from 2000 to 2014, while species of importance to agricultural plants and products are a minority (Roques et al. 2016). The increased extent of trade in ornamental plants has been suggested as a major driver of this increase (Liebhold et al. 2012; Eschen et al. 2014; Essl et al. 2015; Roques et al. 2020). Additionally, wood packaging material (e.g. pallets, crating, dunnage) transported with international cargo shipments represents another significant pathway for introduction of non-native phloem- and wood-boring insects (Aukema et al. 2010; Haack et al. 2014; Lovett et al. 2016). An average of 6.1 non-native insect species attacking woody plants became newly established in Europe per year from 2000–2019, compared to 2.4 cases per year from 1950–1970 (Roques et al. 2020). Similar trends were observed in North America (Aukema et al. 2010), New Zealand (Brockerhoff and Liebhold 2017) and at a slower rate in China (Roques et al. 2020).

Another key attribute of this recently-arrived, non-native entomofauna is the increasing presence of “emerging” species, which have not been reported previously as invaders and are not considered to be pests in their native ranges. Arrival of these species probably results from evolving changes in trade routes and imported goods, which leads to accessibility to new pools of species (Seebens et al. 2018). For example, the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, was not considered a significant pest until it invaded North America, where it has caused massive damage (Dang et al. 2022). The same is true for a number of other xylophagous cerambycid beetle species which have recently invaded Europe, such as the Asian mulberry longhorned beetle, Xylotrechus chinensis (Chevrolat) (Sarto i Monteys and Torras i Tutusaus 2018), the round-headed apple-tree borer, Saperda candida Fabricius (Nolte and Krieger 2008) and the Asian redneck longhorned beetle Aromia bungii (Faldermann) (Russo et al. 2020). At first, such species were typically not subject to regulatory measures or strict phytosanitary inspections at borders because their invasive potential had not been recognised. For example, only seven of the 117 non-native insect species that infest woody plants that established in Europe during the period 1995–2012 had been intercepted in such inspections (Eschen et al. 2015). In Australia, 61 of the 135 non-native species established in forests during the period 2003–2016 had never been intercepted, despite relatively intensive border controls (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021). Therefore, the development of new strategies to detect such unanticipated and unregulated species as early as possible is essential to implement rapid and effective eradication or containment measures (Nahrung et al. 2023).

Deployment of traps baited with broad-spectrum semiochemical lures at ports-of-entry (Brockerhoff et al. 2006; Rassati et al. 2014, 2015a; Hoch et al. 2020) or other high-risk sites (e.g. urban wood-waste landfills and industrial sites, Rassati et al. 2015b; Rabaglia et al. 2019) could be one such early detection tool. Given the difficulty of predicting which species may arrive and in what numbers (i.e. propagule pressure), such lures should be efficient even at low population densities and should ideally attract multiple species from different taxa (family, subfamily, tribe). Combining pheromones of several species into blends could be expected to result in such a generic attraction when antagonistic effects amongst blend components are relatively minor, for example, reduced attraction of relatively few species, such that the net effect of blending multiple components is an increase in the number of target taxa detected. The addition of plant volatiles, acting as kairomones, may further enhance the attraction. For instance, a pine specialist, Monochamus galloprovincialis (Olivier), was significantly more attracted when its pheromone, monochamol, was combined with volatiles from its pine hosts (Alvarez et al. 2016). Similarly, ethanol had a synergist effect on the capture of species related to broadleaved trees in Eurasia (Phymatodes testaceus [L.]; Sweeney et al. 2014; Fan et al. 2019) and in southern USA (Miller et al. 2017). However, the addition of plant volatiles did not affect, either positively or negatively, the captures of several other cerambycid species (Fan et al. 2019). Overall, relationships between host volatiles and cerambycids are probably more dependent on the exploited host and less on insect taxonomy. Potential for using blended lures for detection would be further enhanced if each component of the blend was attractive to multiple related species, i.e. a pheromone or kairomone shared by species within a genus or tribe as occurs in the longhorned beetle family Cerambycidae.

This large family of Coleoptera includes between 34,000 and 38,000 described species (Rossa and Goczał 2021; Tavakilian and Chevillotte 2022). Although recent molecular studies using a multigene approach revealed that the phylogeny at the upper taxonomic levels is not completely resolved and still under debate (Lee and Lee 2020; Nie et al. 2020), Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2022) recognised 13 subfamilies. The subfamily Lamiinae is by far the most diverse with more than 21,000 species, 3,002 genera and 86 tribes, followed by Cerambycinae (> 12,000 species, 1,848 genera, and 119 tribes), Lepturinae (> 1,830 species, 232 genera, 11 tribes), Prioninae (> 1,250 species, 311 genera, 26 tribes) and Spondylidinae (> 150 species, 32 genera, seven tribes); other subfamilies are smaller and much less diverse. Cerambycid larvae of many species develop as endophytic borers concealed beneath the bark of woody plants or, much less frequently, within herbaceous plants. This cryptic lifestyle, coupled with the usual long duration of the hidden larval stages, facilitates the transport of these insects around the world in logs and wooden packing materials (Eyre and Haack 2017), but also via trade in living plants if the plants have a sufficiently large diameter. For example, larvae of the citrus longhorned beetle, Anoplophora chinensis (Forster), were detected in Japanese maples, Acer palmatum Thunb., shipped to Europe (Eschen et al. 2015). Thus, a steadily increasing number of cerambycid species have become globally important as invasive forest and orchard pests (Venette and Hutchison 2021).

Recent advances in the chemical ecology of cerambycids and, particularly, the identification of volatile pheromones that act as long-range attractants, have provided new tools and opportunities for monitoring invasive woodborers. In total, pheromones or likely pheromones have been identified for more than 400 cerambycid species worldwide (Millar and Hanks 2017). Furthermore, field experiments have shown that these pheromones can be deployed in blends, with a potential generic attraction for both native and non-native species (Hanks et al. 2012; Hanks and Millar 2016; Hanks et al. 2018; Fan et al. 2019; Flaherty et al. 2019; Rassati et al. 2019). Currently, the aggregated data suggest that species in the subfamilies Cerambycinae, Lamiinae and Spondylidinae use male-produced aggregation-sex pheromones to attract both sexes, whereas species in the subfamilies Prioninae and Lepturinae use female-produced pheromones that attract only males (Hanks and Millar 2016). This research has revealed striking patterns in pheromone chemistry. Pheromone components are frequently highly conserved amongst species within genera, tribes and even at the subfamily level (Hanks and Millar 2013, 2016). For example, in the subfamily Lamiinae, hydroxyethers are used as aggregation-sex pheromones by many species native to different continents. Thus, 2-(undecyloxy)ethanol, or monochamol, is a pheromone component shared by European, North American and Asian species in the genus Monochamus, all of which vector the pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus [Steiner & Buhrer]) (Pajares et al. 2010; Hanks and Millar 2016; Boone et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2018). In addition, field trials in southern China showed that four lamiine species in genera other than Monochamus were attracted to monochamol (Wickham et al. 2014). A number of other compounds are widely shared amongst species within a given subfamily in different world regions. For example, terpenoids such as fuscumol ([E]-6,10-dimethyl-5,9-undecadien-2-ol) and its acetate, are aggregation sex-pheromone components for many species in the subfamily Spondylidinae and Laminae (Mitchell et al. 2011; Hanks and Millar 2016). In contrast, many species in the subfamily Cerambycinae from different continents utilise short-chain (6–10 carbon) hydroxyketones, such as 3-hydroxyalkan-2-ones and 2-hydroxyalkan-3-ones and the corresponding syn- and anti-2,3-alkanediols as aggregation-sex pheromones (Hanks and Millar 2016). Prionic acid ([3R,5S]-3,5-dimethyldodecanoic acid) similarly appears to be shared as a sex pheromone by several genera of the subfamily Prioninae on different continents (Barbour et al. 2011; Wickham et al. 2016a). This sharing of pheromone components by species in different world regions suggests that traps baited with these compounds have a good chance of detecting non-native, phylogenetically-related invaders that are introduced to another continent. Moreover, combining several of these pheromone components in a single blend has the potential to detect a broader range of species.

During the last 10 years, the generic effectiveness of such multi-component blends has been tested on different continents, but using different pheromone combinations, either alone or in combination with kairomones, such as ethanol and α-pinene (e.g. Miller et al. 2017; Fan et al. 2019). In Illinois, USA, Hanks et al. (2012) first tested a six-component blend, which included racemic 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one, syn- and anti-2,3-hexanediols, fuscumol, fuscumol acetate, monochamol and racemic 2-methylbutan-1-ol. Ten cerambycid species were caught in significant numbers in these trials, including four species in the subfamily Cerambycinae and six in the subfamily Lamiinae. Hanks et al. (2018) then tested this 6-component blend at a larger scale in several regions of the USA, adding both prionic acid and plant volatiles to the traps. The pheromone blend attracted about twice as many species as any of the individual components and the species attracted by the blend included three subfamilies, whereas individual components attracted species within only one subfamily. The inclusion of prionic acid also resulted in the additional captures of Prionus spp. which were not trapped by the previous six-pheromone blend. In a natural reserve in Yunnan (China), Wickham et al. (2021) trapped 71 species with another generic lure comprised of six components, three of which were the same as those used in the USA (anti-2,3-hexanediol, racemic 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one and monochamol). In France, using an 8-pheromone blend consisting of the same compounds as Hanks et al. (2018) to which was added geranylacetone targeting Spondylininae (Halloran et al. 2018), Fan et al. (2019) trapped 118 species, of which 114 were native species that represented 48% of the French cerambycid fauna. Trapping more than 50% of the species in 25 of the 41 cerambycid tribes present in the country indicates a considerable generic attraction of this 8-pheromone blend, significantly higher than an earlier trial which tested a blend of four pheromones. By contrast, unbaited control traps deployed in the same French sites caught very few species. Other trials of potentially generic blends, including fewer or different compounds, were carried out in Russia (Sweeney et al. 2014), Australia (Hayes et al. 2016), Brazil (Silva et al. 2017), Poland, Italy and Canada (Flaherty et al. 2019; Rassati et al. 2019, 2021). Results from Australia differed from those reported in other continents because the tested blend attracted no more species than 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one alone (Hayes et al. 2016).

When using multi-pheromone blends, antagonistic effects might occur with either pheromone components or host plant volatiles (e.g. Hanks et al. 2018; Rassati et al. 2021). The North American species Neoclytus acuminatus acuminatus (F.), for example, was strongly attracted by syn-2,3-hexanediol, but the addition of racemic 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one to the latter pheromone interrupted attraction (Rassati et al. 2021). Addition of host plant volatiles, such as ethanol, significantly enhanced attraction of some cerambycid species (Sweeney et al. 2014; Miller et al. 2017; Hanks et al. 2018), but, with the exception of P. testaceus, had little effect on catch of cerambycid species in other studies (Fan et al. 2019). However, as long as inhibition did not completely prevent attraction, one trap with a multi-pheromone lure may still be somewhat more cost-effective than deploying multiple traps baited with individual lures. This can be assessed by a cost-benefit analysis, i.e. estimating the labour and materials costs of deploying and servicing a network of traps baited with single components, versus the costs of deploying and servicing a single trap baited with a blend of the same components.

Results of these different experiments on various continents stimulated us to propose a worldwide trapping programme using a standardised ‘generic’ 8-pheromone blend in all countries/trapping sites. The blend included the following compounds known to be widely shared amongst cerambycids of related taxa: fuscumol, fuscumol acetate, monochamol, geranylacetone, anti-2,3-hexanediol, 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one (C6-ketol), 2-methylbutan-1-ol and prionic acid. The programme relied on the following hypotheses: 1) if a species is attracted in significant numbers by the blend in a region, it increases the probability that it can be detected when it arrives at ports-of-entry in other regions and 2) if the blend exerts an effective, generic attraction to multiple species, it is likely that previously unknown and unexpected species can be captured due to the high degree of conservation of pheromone structures within related taxa, as described above. Our overarching objective was to build a global database of cerambycid species trapped by the 8-pheromone blend. To this end, field trials were conducted during 2018–2021 using operational protocols that were standardised as much as possible at all sites worldwide to cover simultaneously or sequentially 13 European countries, 10 Chinese provinces and some regions of the USA, Canada, Australia, Russia (Siberia) and the Caribbean. Over the course of the study, we also tested the possibility of adding new compounds to enlarge the pool of species trapped. Therefore, in 2020, two additional pheromones, the sex-aggregation pheromones trichoferone (a hydroxyketone pheromone of the velvet longhorned beetle, Trichoferus campestris (Faldermann) (Ray et al. 2019) and (E)-2-cis-6,7-epoxynonenal, the pheromone of the invasive species A. bungii (Xu et al. 2017), were added to the original 8-pheromone blend and tested in France and China. In addition, ethanol and α-pinene were included in most trials as synergists for some cerambycids.

Materials and methods

Study sites

The successive or parallel development of three European research projects (HOMED, MULTITRAP, SAMFIX) and two French projects (CANOPEE, PORTRAP) during 2018–2021 allowed us to carry out field trials at 302 sites distributed as follows: 244 in Europe (164 in France, 22 in Italy, 13 in Spain and Switzerland, 6 in Portugal, 5 in Austria and England, 4 in Greece and Slovenia, 3 in the Netherlands, 2 in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic and 1 in Sweden), 38 in Asia (35 in China and three in Siberia, Russia), 11 in North America (10 in the USA and one in Canada), five in the Caribbean (Martinique) and four in Australia (see Table 1 and Suppl. material 1 for details per country, coordinates and the relevant research project). A total of 1308 traps were deployed in stands of broadleaved and/or coniferous trees in natural or managed environments, but also within and nearby potential ports-of-entry (maritime and fluvial ports, airports, national markets). Experiments in these latter sites usually included two traps placed on trees planted within the port and two traps placed in woody areas located within a 1 km-radius from the port, except in 2019 when a larger experiment was carried out (see below).

Table 1.

Summary of the trapping design per country from 2018 to 2021. Research project: C: CANOPEE; H: HOMED; M: MULTITRAP; P: PORTRAP; S: SAMFIX. Blend: #8: 8-pheromone blend; #8+ET: 8-pheromone blend + ethanol UHR; #8+AP+ ET: 8-pheromone blend + α-pinene + ethanol UHR; #10+ AP+ET: 10- pheromone blend + α-pinene + ethanol UHR. Trap type: MF: multifunnel; CV: crossvane. Trap colour: B: black; G: Green; BG: Black base and green top; P: Purple; Y: Fluorescent yellow; others: brown, blue, red, grey (corresponding to data collected by Cavaletto et al. 2021). Collection type: W: wet; D: dry. Note that the sites could be similar in a country from one year to the next.

Region Year Country/ Province Project No Sites No Traps Blend Trap type Trap color Collection Type
#8 #8+ET #8+AP+ET #10+AP+ET MF CV B G BG P Y Other W D
Europe 2018 Austria M 3 20 10 0 10 0 10 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
Europe 2018 England M 3 8 4 0 4 0 6 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Europe 2018 France M,P 32 97 18 0 79 0 41 56 78 7 7 3 0 0 0 97
Europe 2018 Netherlands M 3 18 6 0 12 0 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 18 0
Europe 2019 Austria H 2 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Europe 2019 Bulgaria H 2 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Europe 2019 Czech Rep H 2 32 0 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 32 0
Europe 2019 England H 2 4 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Europe 2019 France C, H, P, S 26 170 0 0 170 0 164 6 89 59 13 9 0 0 88 82
Europe 2019 Greece H 2 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Europe 2019 Italy H, S 19 192 0 128 64 0 64 128 48 48 0 16 16 64 192 0
Europe 2019 Portugal H 2 32 0 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 32 0
Europe 2019 Spain H 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Europe 2019 Sweden H 1 16 0 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 0
Europe 2019 Switzerland H 2 64 0 0 64 0 64 0 32 32 0 0 0 0 64 0
Europe 2020 France C, H, P, S 48 166 2 0 64 100 160 6 77 35 17 17 17 0 18 148
Europe 2020 Greece H 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Europe 2020 Italy H 2 8 0 0 8 0 8 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 8
Europe 2020 Portugal H 2 8 0 0 8 0 8 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 8
Europe 2020 Spain H 6 22 0 0 22 0 22 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
Europe 2020 Switzerland H 2 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
Europe 2021 France C, H, P, S 58 165 2 0 58 105 162 3 98 42 0 14 11 0 30 135
Europe 2021 Greece H 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Europe 2021 Italy H 1 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 4
Europe 2021 Portugal H 2 8 0 0 8 0 8 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 8
Europe 2021 Slovenia H 4 18 0 0 18 0 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
Europe 2021 Spain H 6 16 0 0 16 0 16 0 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 16
Europe 2021 Switzerland H 9 19 8 0 11 0 19 0 8 11 0 0 0 0 11 8
Europe Total 244 1105 52 128 720 205 885 220 631 252 37 63 44 64 505 600
Asia 2019 China/Beijing H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2019 China/Hebei H 2 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Asia 2019 China/InnerMongolia H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2019 China/Liaoning H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2019 China/Yunnan H 1 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Asia 2019 China/Zhejiang H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2020 China/Hebei H 4 12 0 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
Asia 2020 China/Hunan H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2020 China/Inner Mongolia H 2 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Asia 2020 China/Jiangxi H 2 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Asia 2020 China/Liaoning H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2020 China/Shandong H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2020 China/Yunnan H 1 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Asia 2020 China/Zhejiang H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2021 China/Beijing H 1 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2021 China/Gansu H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2021 China/Hebei H 2 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Asia 2021 China/Hunan H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2021 China/Inner Mongolia H 2 6 0 0 3 3 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Asia 2021 China/Jiangxi H 2 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Asia 2021 China/Lioaning H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2021 China/Shandong H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2021 China/Yunnan H 3 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Asia 2021 China/Zhejiang H 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia 2021 Russia/Siberia H 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Asia Total 38 106 3 0 92 11 106 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 106
North America 2019 USA/ Michigan H 9 18 18 0 0 0 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 18 0
North America 2019 USA/ Ohio H 1 32 0 0 32 0 32 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 32 0
North America 2019 Canada/ Nova Scotia H 1 32 0 0 32 0 32 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 32 0
North America Total 11 82 18 0 64 0 82 0 50 32 0 0 0 0 82 0
The Caribbean 2020 France/ Martinique H 2 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
The Caribbean 2021 France/ Martinique H 3 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
The Caribbean Total 5 7 7 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Australia 2020 Australia H 2 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Australia 2021 Australia H 2 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Australia Total 4 8 0 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
0
Grand total 302 1308 80 128 884 216 1088 220 802 284 37 63 44 64 587 721

In 2018, trials were limited to four European countries (Austria, England, France, the Netherlands), including 41 sites with 143 traps. The 2019 trials were much more extensive and involved 12 European countries (the four from 2018, supplemented by Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland), five provinces of China (Beijing, Hebei, Liaoning, Yunnan and Zhejiang), two States of the USA (Michigan and Ohio) and one site in Canada (Nova Scotia), resulting in a total of 79 sites and 626 traps. These 2019 trials included a large trapping programme targeting semi-urban forests located close to ports-of-entry in Europe, USA and Canada where 16 (Czech Republic, Portugal, Sweden) or 32 traps (France, Italy, Nova Scotia, Ohio, Switzerland) were deployed at each target site. The 2020 trials were substantially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but were carried out for at least a part of the spring–summer season in six European countries (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland), eight provinces of China (those of 2019, except Beijing, to which were added Hunan, Inner Mongolia, Jiangxi and Shandong) and extended to Australia (New South Wales) and the Caribbean (Martinique), resulting in a total of 78 sites and 256 traps. The 2021 trials were deployed in the same countries as in 2020, supplemented by an additional European country (Slovenia), Russia (Siberia) and an additional province of China (Gansu), resulting in a total of 104 sites and 283 traps.

Trapping protocol and 8-pheromone blend

Trials at all sites used either multifunnel or cross-vane panel traps supplied by different companies depending on the country (Econex, Spain; ChemTica Internacional, S.A., Heredia, Costa Rica; Alpha Scents Inc., West Linn, Oregon, USA). Cross-vane traps used in Italy (Colli Euganei area) in 2019 were hand-made (see Cavaletto et al. 2021 for details). Black traps were generally deployed, but other colours were also used in France, Italy, Nova Scotia, Ohio and Switzerland (see Table 1). To improve trapping efficiency, all traps were coated with Fluon (AGC Chemicals Europe Ltd., Thornton Cleveleys, UK) diluted in 1:6 in water (Graham et al. 2010). In forests, traps were usually hung from tree branches or between two trees in the lower canopy, at ~ 3–5 m high. Exceptions are some of the countries involved in the 2019 trapping programme targeting semi-urban forests (i.e. Czech Republic, France, Canada, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA) where traps were placed both in the understory and in the upper canopy (> 20 m), the trial carried out in Italy (Colli Euganei area) in 2019 where traps were placed at 5–7 m above the ground and the trappings carried out in some forests of north-central France during 2019–2021 where traps were placed in the upper canopy (> 20 m). Each trap was separated from the next by 50 m at least and traps were preferentially placed at the forest edge. In ports-of-entry, the traps were attached to branches of available trees, at least 2 m above ground with a minimum distance between traps of 100 m. A similar design was used for the traps placed within the 1 km-radius from the ports-of-entry. Duration of trap deployments were variable amongst sites and years, but in the Northern Hemisphere, experiments were mostly conducted from mid-April at the earliest to mid-October at the latest, except in 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic delayed the onset of trapping until mid-June or mid-July. In Australia, traps were deployed from December to March, depending on the year. Detailed trap heights and trapping duration by site are provided in the Suppl. material 1.

All lures were prepared by INRAE before being shipped to all study participants. These lures consisted of a blend designed by Fan et al. (2019), which contains eight cerambycid pheromones (fuscumol, fuscumol acetate, monochamol, 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one, anti-2,3-hexanediol and 2-methylbutan-1-ol, all at 50 mg/ml; geranylacetone- 25 mg/ml; and prionic acid- 0.5 mg/ml; Table 2) dissolved in isopropanol as a carrier to a total volume of 1 ml per lure. The blend composition was expected to attract a large number of cerambycid subfamilies and tribes according to Hanks et al. (2012), (Table 2). Dispensers consisted of a cotton dental pad (to serve as a reservoir and stabilise release rate) placed into a polyethylene sachet (Minigrip, 4 cm × 6 cm × 60 μ; Dutscher, Brumath, France) and dosed with 1 ml of the lure solution. The release rate was estimated by Fan et al. (2019) as 0.0263 ± 0.002 g/d under 20 °C conditions. A dispenser was hung in the centre of each trap.

Table 2.

Composition of the 8-pheromone and 10-pheromone blends and targeted sex and cerambycid tribes.

Blend Compound Amount/lure (mg/ml) Target Sex Target subfamily Target tribe/genus References
Cerambycinae Lamiinae Aseminae Prioninae
8-pheromones Racemic 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one (C6-ketol) 50 M/F X Callidiini Millar et al. (2018)
X Clytini Hanks and Millar (2013), Wickham et al. (2014), Bobadoye et al. (2019)
X Hesperophanini unpub data JGM
X Hylotrupini Reddy et al. (2005)
8-pheromones Racemic 2-methylbutan-1-ol 50 M/F X Callidiini Hanks et al. (2018)
8-pheromones 2R*,3S*-2,3-hexanediol 50 M/F X Clytini Hanks and Millar (2013), Wickham et al. (2014)
8-pheromones Racemic fuscumol + fuscumol acetate 50+ 50 M/F X Obriini Millar et al. (2018)
X Acanthocinini Millar et al. (2018)
X Acanthoderini Hanks and Millar (2013)
X Asemini Millar et al. (2018)
8-pheromones Monochamol 50 M/F X Monochamini Hanks et al. (2018)
X Lamiini Wickham et al. (2014)
8-pheromones Geranylacetone 25 M/F X Acanthocinini Meier et al. (2016, 2019)
X Asemini Halloran et al. (2018)
8-pheromones Prionic acid (4 stereoisomers) 05 M X Prionini Barbour et al. (2011)
10-pheromones Racemic trichoferone 25 M/F X Trichoferus Ray et al. (2019)
10-pheromones (E)-2-cis-6,7-epoxynonenal 50 M/F X Aromia Xu et al. (2017)

All primary compounds were obtained from ChemTica Internacional, except prionic acid, which was purchased from Alpha Scents Inc. Commercial high release rate ethanol (100 ml dose, 96% purity, release rate 2 g/day at 20 °C; Econex, Spain) and α-pinene lures (25 ml dose, 98% purity, release rate 0.3 g/day at 20 °C; Econex, Spain) were added to traps in most trials (1076 of the 1308 traps; Table 1). These compounds are known to synergise attraction of some cerambycid species to their pheromones (e.g. Allison et al. 2012; Ryall et al. 2015; Collignon et al. 2016; Miller et al. 2017), but are mildly repellent for others (Collignon et al. 2016). Trap catches were tabulated every 3–4 wk, at which time the pheromone lures were replaced. The ethanol UHR and α-pinene lures, when added, were replaced every 6 wk.

In most cases, the trapped insects were killed using a section of mesh impregnated with α-cypermethrin insecticide (Storanet, BASF Pflanzenschutz Deutschland, Germany) placed into the trap basins, whose bottoms had been replaced with a wire mesh to allow drainage and to keep specimens dry. However, in the targeted 2019 experiment in forests near ports-of-entry and in the Colli Euganei area (Italy), “wet” trap basins were used, containing water-diluted propylene glycol (50%) to act as a surfactant and preservative. In the trials conducted in Ohio and Michigan, trap collection cups were filled with ~ 200–400 ml of undiluted propylene glycol.

Trapped cerambycids were identified to species by local specialists or sent to INRAE for identification. However, specimens trapped in Australia could not be sent due to restrictions by the customs agency and so most could only be identified to the genus level. Nomenclature used in this article follows the reference checklist of the world database Titan (Tavakilian and Chevillotte 2022).

Preliminary tests of a 10-pheromone blend

In 2020 and 2021, two additional pheromones, trichoferone (the pheromone of T. campestris) and (E)-2-cis-6,7-epoxynonenal (the pheromone of A. bungii), were added to the 8-pheromone lures used in France and China, to test for a possible increase in monitoring effectiveness with a 10-pheromone blend (Table 2). Both compounds were synthesised by YFZ and JGM at the University of California, Riverside, using previously-reported syntheses (Ray et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2017, respectively). Lure preparation and insect collection procedures were similar to those described above. Captures were compared with those of the 8-pheromone blend at six sites in France during 2020 by deploying five pairs of traps baited with each blend at each site. The traps were spaced ~ 100 m apart and rotated at each insect collection, which enabled the number of collection dates at each site to be used as replicates. The Student t-test for paired samples was then applied to compare the number of species trapped by each lure.

Results

A total of 78,321 longhorned beetles were trapped, representing 376 species, including 373 Cerambycidae, two Vesperidae and one Disteniidae species (Table 3). The cerambycids belonged to eight subfamilies, including 156 species of Cerambycinae, 102 species of Lamiinae, 78 species of Lepturinae, 21 species of Spondylidinae, 12 species of Prioninae, two species of Necydalinae and one species of Parandrinae (Fig. 1). Captures comprised 60 tribes, with 10 tribes including more than nine species trapped on different continents; in decreasing order the tribe Clytini (64 spp.), followed by Lepturini (44 spp.), Rhagiini (32 spp.), Acanthocinini (31 spp.), Callidiini (20 spp.), Monochamini (18 spp.), Saperdini (10 spp.) and Aseminii, Pogonocherini and Prionini (nine spp. each; Fig. 2). Generally, fewer species were trapped in the Caribbean and Australia, where only a limited number of traps had been deployed. Some of the captured species belonged to tribes other than those targeted, such as Callidiopini (Curtomerus flavus [F.] in Martinique and Bethelium sp. in Australia), Eburiini (Eburia spp. in Martinique) and Tillomorphini (Gourbeyrella madininae Chalumeau & Touroult in Martinique).

Table 3.

Names of trapped species, origin and specimen numbers captured per continent. Species in bold were trapped in non-native continents.

Subfamily Tribe Species Origin Europe Asia North America The Caribbean Australia Total
Cerambycinae Anaglyptini Anaglyptus gibbosus (Fabricius, 1787) Europe 105 0 0 0 0 105
Cerambycinae Anaglyptini Anaglyptus mysticus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 116 0 0 0 0 116
Cerambycinae Anaglyptini Cyrtophorus verrucosus (Olivier, 1800) North America 0 0 197 0 0 197
Cerambycinae Anaglyptini Microclytus compressicollis (Laporte de Castelnau & Gory, 1841) North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Cerambycinae Bothriospilini Chlorida festiva (Linnaeus, 1758) Caribbean 0 0 0 0 2 2
Cerambycinae Callichromatini Aromia bungii Faldermann, 1835 Asia 0 25 0 0 0 25
Cerambycinae Callichromatini Aromia moschata (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 30 0 0 0 0 30
Cerambycinae Callichromatini Aromia moschata orientalis Plavilstshikov, 1933 Asia 0 3 0 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Callidiini Callidium aeneum (Degeer, 1775) Holarctic 120 79 0 0 0 199
Cerambycinae Callidiini Callidium violaceum (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Callidiini Lioderina linearis (Hampe, 1870) Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes aereus (Newman, 1838) North America 0 0 14 0 0 14
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes alni (Linnaeus, 1767) Europe 2295 0 0 0 0 2295
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes amoenus (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 3100 0 0 3100
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes dimidiatus (Kirby, 1837) North America 0 0 55 0 0 55
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes fasciatus (Villers, 1789) Europe 6 0 0 0 0 6
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes glabratus (Charpentier, 1825) Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes lividus (Rossi, 1794) Europe 7 0 0 0 0 7
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes pusillus (Fabricius, 1787) Europe 37 0 0 0 0 37
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes rufipes (Fabricius, 1776) Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes testaceus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 15085 0 41 0 0 15126
Cerambycinae Callidiini Phymatodes varius (Fabricius, 1776) North America 0 0 29 0 0 29
Cerambycinae Callidiini Physocnemum brevilineum (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 4 0 0 4
Cerambycinae Callidiini Pyrrhidium sanguineum (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 4388 0 0 0 0 4388
Cerambycinae Callidiini Ropalopus clavipes (Fabricius, 1775) Europe 69 0 0 0 0 69
Cerambycinae Callidiini Ropalopus femoratus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 35 0 0 0 0 35
Cerambycinae Callidiini Ropalopus macropus (Germar, 1823) Europe 21 0 0 0 0 21
Cerambycinae Callidiini Ropalopus varini (Bedel, 1870) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Callidiopini Bethelium sp. Australasia 0 0 0 5 0 5
Cerambycinae Callidiopini Curtomerus flavus (Fabricius, 1775) Caribbean 0 0 0 0 7 7
Cerambycinae Callidiopini Stenodryas clavigera Bates, 1873 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Cerambycini Cerambyx cerdo Linnaeus, 1758 Europe 20 0 0 0 0 20
Cerambycinae Cerambycini Cerambyx miles Bonelli, 1812 Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Cerambycini Cerambyx scopolii Fueßlins, 1775 Europe 141 0 0 0 0 141
Cerambycinae Cerambycini Cerambyx welensii (Küster, 1845) Europe 22 0 0 0 0 22
Cerambycinae Cerambycini Nadezhdiella cantori (Hope, 1842) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus figuratus (Scopoli, 1763) Europe 42 0 0 0 0 42
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus glabromaculatus (Goeze, 1777) Europe 1391 0 0 0 0 1391
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus glaucus (Fabricius, 1781) Europe 36 0 0 0 0 36
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus herbstii (Brahm, 1790) Europe 6 0 0 0 0 6
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus miwai Gressitt, 1936 Asia 0 9 0 0 0 9
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus motschulskyi (Ganglbauer, 1887) Asia 0 7 0 0 0 7
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus ruficornis (Olivier, 1790) Europe 41 0 0 0 0 41
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus sartor (Müller, 1766) Europe 482 0 0 0 0 482
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus signaticollis (Laporte de Castelnau & Gory, 1836) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus tredecimmaculatus (Chevrolat, 1863) Asia 0 2 0 0 0 2
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus trifasciatus (Fabricius, 1781) Europe 33 0 0 0 0 33
Cerambycinae Clytini Chlorophorus varius (Müller, 1766) Europe 36 0 0 0 0 36
Cerambycinae Clytini Clytoleptus albofasciatus (Laporte de Castelnau & Gory, 1841) North America 0 0 6 0 0 6
Cerambycinae Clytini Clytus arietis (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 52 0 0 0 0 52
Cerambycinae Clytini Clytus lama Mulsant, 1850 Europe 123 0 0 0 0 123
Cerambycinae Clytini Clytus rhamni Germar, 1817 Europe 85 0 0 0 0 85
Cerambycinae Clytini Clytus ruricola (Olivier, 1800) North America 0 0 25 0 0 25
Cerambycinae Clytini Clytus tropicus (Panzer, 1795) Europe 73 0 0 0 0 73
Cerambycinae Clytini Cyrtoclytus capra (Germar, 1823) Asia 0 24 0 0 0 24
Cerambycinae Clytini Cyrtoclytus caproides (Bates, 1873) Asia 0 5 0 0 0 5
Cerambycinae Clytini Demonax diversefasciatus Pic, 1920 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Demonax nansenensis Pic 1903 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Demonax sp. 1 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Demonax sp. 2 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Glycobius speciosus (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Isotomus speciosus (Schneider, 1787) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Megacyllene caryae (Gahan, 1908) North America 0 0 22 0 0 22
Cerambycinae Clytini Neoclytus acuminatus acuminatus (Fabricius, 1775) North America 37 0 28 0 0 65
Cerambycinae Clytini Neoclytus caprea (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Clytini Neoclytus leucozonus (Laporte de Castelnau & Gory, 1841) North America 0 0 15 0 0 15
Cerambycinae Clytini Neoclytus mucronatus mucronatus (Fabricius, 1775) North America 0 0 323 0 0 323
Cerambycinae Clytini Neoclytus muricatulus (Kirby, 1837) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Neoclytus scutellaris (Olivier, 1790) North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Cerambycinae Clytini Perissus paulonotatus (Pic, 1902) Asia 0 21 0 0 0 21
Cerambycinae Clytini Plagionotus arcuatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 95 0 0 0 0 95
Cerambycinae Clytini Plagionotus christophi (Kraatz, 1879) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Plagionotus detritus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 299 0 0 0 0 299
Cerambycinae Clytini Pseudosphegesthes cinerea (Laporte de Castelnau & Gory, 1841) Europe 27 0 0 0 0 27
Cerambycinae Clytini Raphuma anongi Gressitt & Rondon, 1970 Asia 0 96 0 0 0 96
Cerambycinae Clytini Raphuma gracilipes (Faldermann, 1835) Asia 0 24 0 0 0 24
Cerambycinae Clytini Raphuma laosica Gressitt & Rondon, 1970 Asia 0 22 0 0 0 22
Cerambycinae Clytini Raphuma sp. Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Rhabdoclytus acutivittis (Kraatz, 1879) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Sarosesthes fulminans (Fabricius, 1775) North America 0 0 39 0 0 39
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus antilope (Schönherr, 1817) Europe 1303 0 0 0 0 1303
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus antilope var sekerai Podaný, 1970 Europe 16 0 0 0 0 16
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier, 1800) Europe 379 0 0 0 0 379
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus atronotatus Pic, 1917 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus buqueti (Laporte de Castelnau & Gory, 1841) Asia 0 38 0 0 0 38
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus chinensis (Chevrolat, 1852) Asia 41 3 0 0 0 44
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus clarinus Bates, 1884 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus colonus (Fabricius, 1775) North America 0 0 484 0 0 484
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus gratus Viktora, 2020 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus integer (Haldeman, 1847) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus latefasciatus ochroceps Gressitt, 1951 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus magnicollis (Fairmaire, 1888) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus pantherinus (Savenius, 1825) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus pekingensis Pic, 1939 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus rufilius Bates, 1884 Asia 0 27 0 0 0 27
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus rusticus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe/Asia 161 1 0 0 0 162
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus sagittatus (Germar, 1821) North America 0 0 34 0 0 34
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus stebbingi Gahan, 1906 Asia 6089 0 0 0 0 6054
Cerambycinae Clytini Xylotrechus undulatus (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 26 0 0 26
Cerambycinae Deilini Deilus fugax (Olivier, 1790) Europe 87 0 0 0 0 87
Cerambycinae Dryobiini Dryobius sexnotatus Linsley, 1957 North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Cerambycinae Eburiini Eburia dejeani Gahan, 1895 Caribbean 0 0 0 0 2 2
Cerambycinae Eburiini Eburia octomaculata Chevrolat, 1862 Caribbean 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cerambycinae Eburiini Eburia quadrigeminata (Say, 1827) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Elaphidiini Anelaphus pumilus (Newman, 1840) North America 0 0 531 0 0 531
Cerambycinae Elaphidiini Anelaphus villosus (Fabricius, 1793) North America 0 0 8 0 0 8
Cerambycinae Elaphidiini Elaphidion mucronatum (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 110 0 0 110
Cerambycinae Elaphidiini Parelaphidion aspersum (Haldeman, 1847) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Elaphidiini Parelaphidion incertum (Newman, 1840) North America 0 0 4 0 0 4
Cerambycinae Graciliini Axinopalpis gracilis (Krynicki, 1832) Europe 8 0 0 0 0 8
Cerambycinae Graciliini Gracilia minuta (Fabricius, 1781) Europe 12 0 0 0 0 12
Cerambycinae Graciliini Penichroa fasciata (Stephens, 1831) Europe 41 0 0 0 0 41
Cerambycinae Hesperophanini Gnatholea eburifera Thomson, 1861 Asia 0 10 0 0 0 10
Cerambycinae Hesperophanini Hesperophanes sericeus (Fabricius, 1787) Europe 8 0 0 0 0 8
Cerambycinae Hesperophanini Stromatium auratum (Böber, 1793) Europe 7 0 0 0 0 7
Cerambycinae Hesperophanini Trichoferus campestris (Faldermann, 1835) Asia 45 12 0 0 0 57
Cerambycinae Hesperophanini Trichoferus fasciculatus (Faldermann, 1837) Europe 135 0 0 0 0 135
Cerambycinae Hesperophanini Trichoferus guerryi (Pic, 1915) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Hesperophanini Trichoferus holosericeus (Rossi, 1790) Europe 187 0 0 0 0 187
Cerambycinae Hesperophanini Trichoferus pallidus (Olivier, 1790) Europe 145 0 0 0 0 145
Cerambycinae Hylotrupini Hylotrupes bajulus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 79 0 0 0 0 79
Cerambycinae Molorchini Dolocerus reichii Mulsant, 1862 Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Molorchini Molorchus bimaculatus Say, 1824 North America 0 0 122 0 0 122
Cerambycinae Molorchini Molorchus minor (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 15 0 0 0 0 15
Cerambycinae Molorchini Molorchus umbellatarum (Schreber, 1759) Europe 55 0 0 0 0 55
Cerambycinae Neoibidionini Neocompsa cylindricollis (Fabricius, 1798) Caribbean 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cerambycinae Obriini Obrium brunneum (Fabricius, 1793) Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Obriini Obrium cantharinum (Linnaeus, 1767) Europe 44 0 0 0 0 44
Cerambycinae Obriini Obrium maculatum (Olivier, 1800) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Phoracanthini Cordylomera spinicornis (Fabricius, 1775) Africa 4 0 0 0 0 4
Cerambycinae Phoracanthini Phoracantha recurva Newman, 1840 Australasia 8 0 0 0 0 8
Cerambycinae Phoracanthini Phoracantha semipunctata (Fabricius, 1775) Australasia 11 0 0 0 0 11
Cerambycinae Phoracanthini Thoris sp. Australasia 0 0 0 2 0 2
Cerambycinae Psebiini Nathrius brevipennis (Mulsant, 1839) Europe 649 0 0 0 0 649
Cerambycinae Pytheini Certallum ebulinum (Linnaeus, 1767) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Rhopalophorini Rhopalophora longipes (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Stenhomalini Stenhomalus fenestratus White,1855 Asia 0 3 0 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Stenoderini Syllitus sp. Australasia 0 0 0 2 0 2
Cerambycinae Stenopterini Callimoxys sanguinicollis (Olivier, 1800) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Stenopterini Callimus abdominalis (Olivier, 1800) Europe 11 0 0 0 0 11
Cerambycinae Stenopterini Callimus angulatus (Schrank, 1789) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Stenopterini Stenopterus ater (Linnaeus, 1767) Europe 20 0 0 0 0 20
Cerambycinae Stenopterini Stenopterus rufus (Linnaeus, 1767) Europe 83 0 0 0 0 83
Cerambycinae Tillomorphini Bonfilsia pejoti Chalumeau & Touroult, 2004 Caribbean 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cerambycinae Tillomorphini Euderces picipes (Fabricius, 1787) North America 0 0 9 0 0 9
Cerambycinae Tillomorphini Euderces pini (Olivier, 1800) North America 0 0 93 0 0 93
Cerambycinae Tillomorphini Gourbeyrella madininae Chalumeau & Touroult, 2004 Caribbean 0 0 0 0 3 3
Cerambycinae Trachyderini Anoplistes halodendri (Pallas, 1773) Asia 0 2 0 0 0 2
Cerambycinae Trachyderini Dicelosternus corallinus Gahan, 1900 Asia 0 3 0 0 0 3
Cerambycinae Trachyderini Purpuricenus budensis (Götz, 1783) Europe 18 0 0 0 0 18
Cerambycinae Trachyderini Purpuricenus globulicollis Dejean, 1839 Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Cerambycinae Trachyderini Purpuricenus kaehleri (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 261 0 0 0 0 261
Cerambycinae Trachyderini Purpuricenus lituratus Ganglbauer, 1887 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cerambycinae Trachyderini Purpuricenus temminckii (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) Asia 0 10 0 0 0 10
Cerambycinae Trachyderini Amarysius altajensis (Laxmann, 1770) Asia 0 20 0 0 0 20
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Acanthocinus aedilis (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe/Asia 6 24 0 0 0 30
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Acanthocinus griseus (Fabricius, 1793) Europe/Asia 114 106 0 0 0 220
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Acanthocinus pusillus (Kirby, 1837) North America 0 0 21 0 0 21
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Amniscus similis (Gahan, 1895) Caribbean 0 0 0 0 5 5
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Astyleiopus variegatus (Haldeman, 1847) North America 0 0 11 0 0 11
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Astylidius parvus (LeConte, 1873) North America 0 0 17 0 0 17
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Astylopsis macula (Say, 1827) North America 0 0 47 0 0 47
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Astylopsis sexguttata (Say, 1827) North America 0 0 19 0 0 19
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Astylopsis sp. North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Graphisurus despectus (LeConte, 1850) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Graphisurus fasciatus (Degeer, 1775) North America 0 0 86 0 0 86
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Graphisurus triangulifer (Haldeman, 1847) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Hyperplatys maculatus Haldeman, 1847 North America 0 0 4 0 0 4
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Lagocheirus araneiformis insulorum Dillon, 1957 Caribbean 0 0 0 0 4 4
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Leiopus fallaciosus Holzschuh, 1993 Asia 0 5 0 0 0 5
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Leiopus femoratus Fairmaire, 1859 Europe 3461 0 0 0 0 3461
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Leiopus linnei Wallin, Nýlander & Kvamme, 2009 Europe 548 0 0 0 0 548
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Leiopus nebulosus (Linneus, 1758) Europe 1473 0 0 0 0 1473
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Leptostylus transversus (Gyllenhal, 1817) North America 0 0 101 0 0 101
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Lepturges angulatus (LeConte, 1852) North America 0 0 20 0 0 20
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Lepturges confluens (Haldeman, 1847) North America 0 0 26 0 0 26
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Lepturges sp. North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Sternidius alpha (Say, 1827) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Sternidius punctatus (Haldeman, 1847) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Sternidius rusticus (LeConte, 1852) North America 0 0 19 0 0 19
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Styloleptus posticalis (Gahan, 1895) Caribbean 0 0 0 0 1 1
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Trypanidius spilmani Villiers, 1980 Caribbean 0 0 0 0 1 1
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Urgleptes cobbeni Gilmour, 1963 Caribbean 0 0 0 0 1 1
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Urgleptes querci (Fitch, 1859) North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Lamiinae Acanthocinini Urgleptes signatus (LeConte, 1852) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lamiinae Acanthoderini Aegomorphus clavipes (Schrank von Paula, 1781) Europe 1412 0 0 0 0 1412
Lamiinae Acanthoderini Aegomorphus francottei Sama, 1994 Europe 181 0 0 0 0 181
Lamiinae Acanthoderini Aegomorphus krueperi (Kraatz, 1859) Europe 7 0 0 0 0 7
Lamiinae Acanthoderini Aegomorphus modestus (Blais, 1817) North America 0 0 58 0 0 58
Lamiinae Acanthoderini Aegomorphus quadrigibbus (Say, 1831) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Lamiinae Acanthoderini Oplosia cinerea (Mulsant, 1839) Europe 63 0 0 0 0 63
Lamiinae Acanthoderini Oplosia nubila (LeConte, 1862) North America 0 0 4 0 0 4
Lamiinae Agapanthiini Agapanthia cardui (Linnaeus, 1767) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Agapanthiini Agapanthia villosoviridescens (Degeer, 1775) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Apomecynini Apomecyna saltator (Fabricius, 1787) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Ceroplesini Moechotypa diphysis (Pascoe, 1871) Asia 0 2 0 0 0 2
Lamiinae Ceroplesini Thysia wallichii tonkinensis (Kreische, 1924) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Desmiphorini Anaesthetis testacea (Fabricius, 1781) Europe 17 0 0 0 0 17
Lamiinae Desmiphorini Deroplia genei (Aragona, 1830) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Desmiphorini Deroplia troberti (Mulsant, 1843) Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Lamiinae Desmiphorini Eupogonius pauper LeConte, 1852 North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lamiinae Desmiphorini Eupogonius tomentosus (Haldeman, 1847) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Lamiinae Desmiphorini Psenocerus supernotatus (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 9 0 0 9
Lamiinae Dorcaschematini Dorcaschema cinereum (Olivier, 1800) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lamiinae Dorcaschematini Olenecamptus bilobus (Fabricius, 1801) Asia 0 3 0 0 0 3
Lamiinae Exocentrini Exocentrus adspersus Mulsant, 1846 Europe 5 0 0 0 0 5
Lamiinae Exocentrini Exocentrus lusitanus (Linnaeus, 1767) Europe 29 0 0 0 0 29
Lamiinae Exocentrini Exocentrus punctipennis Mulsant & Guillebeau, 1856 Europe 28 0 0 0 0 28
Lamiinae Lamiini Lamiomimus gottschei Kolbe, 1886 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Lamiini Pharsalia subgemmata (Thomson, 1857) Asia 0 375 0 0 0 375
Lamiinae Mesosini Mesosa curculionoides (Linnaeus 1761) Europe 37 0 0 0 0 37
Lamiinae Mesosini Mesosa myops (Dalman, 1817) Asia 0 29 0 0 0 29
Lamiinae Mesosini Mesosa nebulosa (Fabricius, 1781) Europe 132 0 0 0 0 132
Lamiinae Monochamini Anoplophora beryllina (Hope, 1840) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Monochamini Anoplophora chinensis (Forster, 1771) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Monochamini Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky, 1854) Asia 0 9 0 0 0 9
Lamiinae Monochamini Microgoes oculatus (LeConte, 1862) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus alternatus Hope, 1842 Asia 0 1246 0 0 0 1246
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus bimaculatus Gahan, 1888 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus carolinensis (Olivier, 1797) North America 0 0 77 0 0 77
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus galloprovincialis (Olivier, 1800) Europe/Asia 6209 87 0 0 0 6296
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus maculosus Haldeman, 1847 North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus notatus (Drury, 1773) North America 0 0 256 0 0 256
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus saltuarius Gebler, 1830 Asia/Europe 13 985 0 0 0 998
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus sartor (Fabricius, 1787) Europe 20 0 0 0 0 20
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus sartor urussovii (Fischer von Waldheim, 1806) Asia/Europe 1 41 0 0 0 42
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus scutellatus (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 216 0 0 216
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus sutor (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe/Asia 30 22 0 0 0 52
Lamiinae Monochamini Monochamus sutor longulus Pic, 1898 Asia 0 22 0 0 0 22
Lamiinae Monochamini Uraecha angusta (Pascoe, 1857) Asia 0 15 0 0 0 15
Lamiinae Obereini Oberea linearis (Linnaeus, 1761) Europe 8 0 0 0 0 8
Lamiinae Parmenini Mesolita sp. Australasia 0 0 0 3 0 3
Lamiinae Parmenini Parmena balteus (Linnaeus, 1767) Europe 7 0 0 0 0 7
Lamiinae Parmenini Parmena unifasciata (Rossi, 1790) Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Lamiinae Phytoeciini Phytoecia pustulata (Schrank von Paula, 1776) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Phytoeciini Phytoecia nigricornis (Fabricius, 1782) Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Lamiinae Pogonocherini Pogonocherus caroli Mulsant, 1862 Europe 5 0 0 0 0 5
Lamiinae Pogonocherini Pogonocherus decoratus Fairmaire, 1855 Europe 139 0 0 0 0 139
Lamiinae Pogonocherini Pogonocherus fasciculatus (Degeer, 1775) Europe 16 1 0 0 0 17
Lamiinae Pogonocherini Pogonocherus hispidulus (Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783) Europe 6 0 0 0 0 6
Lamiinae Pogonocherini Pogonocherus hispidus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 55 0 0 0 0 55
Lamiinae Pogonocherini Pogonocherus mixtus Haldeman, 1847 North America 0 0 8 0 0 8
Lamiinae Pogonocherini Pogonocherus ovatus (Goeze, 1777) Europe 19 0 0 0 0 19
Lamiinae Pogonocherini Pogonocherus penicillatus LeConte, 1850 North America 0 0 11 0 0 11
Lamiinae Pogonocherini Pogonocherus perroudi Mulsant, 1839 Europe 127 0 0 0 0 127
Lamiinae Pteropliini Niphona picticornis Mulsant, 1839 Europe 127 0 0 0 0 127
Lamiinae Pteropliini Sthenias gracilicornis Gressitt, 1937 Europe 0 3 0 0 0 3
Lamiinae Saperdini Menesia bipunctata (Zoubkoff, 1829) Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Lamiinae Saperdini Paraglenea fortunei (Saunders, 1853) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Saperdini Saperda alberti Plavilstshikov, 1915 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Saperdini Saperda hosokawai Hasegawa, 2017 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Saperdini Saperda octopunctata (Scopoli, 1772) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lamiinae Saperdini Saperda perforata (Pallas, 1773) Europe 21 0 0 0 0 21
Lamiinae Saperdini Saperda populnea (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 4 0 0 0 0 4
Lamiinae Saperdini Saperda scalaris (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 24 0 0 0 0 24
Lamiinae Saperdini Stenostola dubia (Laicharting, 1784) Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Lamiinae Saperdini Stenostola ferrea (Schrank von Paula, 1776) Europe 28 0 0 0 0 28
Lepturinae Lepturini Alosterna tabacicolor (Degeer, 1775) Europe 9 0 0 0 0 9
Lepturinae Lepturini Anastrangalia dubia (Scopoli, 1763) Europe 6 0 0 0 0 6
Lepturinae Lepturini Anastrangalia reyi (Heyden, 1889) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Anastrangalia sanguinolenta (Linnaeus 1761) Europe 13 0 0 0 0 13
Lepturinae Lepturini Anastrangalia scotodes continentalis (Plavilstshikov, 1936) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Anoplodera rufipes (Schaller, 1783) Europe 5 0 0 0 0 5
Lepturinae Lepturini Anoplodera sexguttata (Fabricius, 1775) Europe 9 0 0 0 0 9
Lepturinae Lepturini Brachyleptura brevis (Kirby, 1837) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Brachyleptura circumdata (Olivier, 1800) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Brachyleptura rubrica (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Leptura thoracica Creutzer, 1799 Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Leptura aethiops Poda von Neuhaus, 1761 Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Lepturinae Lepturini Leptura aurulenta Fabricius, 1793 Europe 7 0 0 0 0 7
Lepturinae Lepturini Leptura quadrifasciata Linnaeus, 1758 Europe 9 0 0 0 0 9
Lepturinae Lepturini Neoalosterna capitata (Newman, 1841) North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Lepturinae Lepturini Pachytodes erraticus (Dalman, 1817) Europe 232 0 0 0 0 232
Lepturinae Lepturini Paracorymbia fulva (Degeer, 1775) Europe 8 0 0 0 0 8
Lepturinae Lepturini Paracorymbia hybrida (Rey, 1885) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Pedostrangalia revestita (Linnaeus, 1767) Europe 12 0 0 0 0 12
Lepturinae Lepturini Pseudovadonia livida (Fabricius, 1776) Europe 5 0 0 0 0 5
Lepturinae Lepturini Rutpela maculata (Poda von Neuhaus, 1761) Europe 74 0 0 0 0 74
Lepturinae Lepturini Stenurella nigra (Linnaeus 1758) Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Lepturinae Lepturini Stenurella bifasciata (Müller, 1776) Europe 16 0 0 0 0 16
Lepturinae Lepturini Stenurella septempunctata (Fabricius, 1793) Europe 5 0 0 0 0 5
Lepturinae Lepturini Stenurella melanura (Linnaeus 1758) Europe 33 0 0 0 0 33
Lepturinae Lepturini Stictoleptura canadensis (Olivier, 1800) North America 0 0 8 0 0 8
Lepturinae Lepturini Stictoleptura cordigera (Fueßlins, 1775) Europe 203 0 0 0 0 203
Lepturinae Lepturini Stictoleptura erythroptera (Hagenbach, 1822) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Stictoleptura fontenayi (Mulsant, 1839) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Stictoleptura maculicornis (Degeer, 1775) Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Lepturinae Lepturini Stictoleptura rubra (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe/asia 11 1 0 0 0 12
Lepturinae Lepturini Stictoleptura scutellata (Fabricius, 1781) Europe 29 0 0 0 0 29
Lepturinae Lepturini Stictoleptura succedanea (Lewis, 1879) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Stictoleptura trisignata (Fairmaire, 1852) Europe 7 0 0 0 0 7
Lepturinae Lepturini Strangalepta abbreviata (Germar, 1823) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Strangalia attenuata (Linnaeus 1758) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Strangalia luteicornis (Fabricius, 1775) North America 0 0 4 0 0 4
Lepturinae Lepturini Strophiona nitens (Forster, 1771) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Lepturinae Lepturini Trachysida mutabilis (Newman, 1841) North America 0 0 4 0 0 4
Lepturinae Lepturini Trigonarthris proxima (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Trigonarthris subpubescens (Kirby, 1837) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Lepturinae Lepturini Typocerus lunulatus (Swederus, 1787) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Typocerus velutinus (Olivier, 1800) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lepturinae Lepturini Vadonia unipunctata (Fabricius, 1787) Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Lepturinae Oxymirini Anthophylax cyaneus (Haldeman, 1848) North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Lepturinae Oxymirini Anthophylax viridis LeConte, 1850 North America 0 0 6 0 0 6
Lepturinae Oxymirini Oxymirus cursor (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 4 0 0 0 0 4
Lepturinae Rhagiini Anisorus quercus (Götz, 1783) Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Lepturinae Rhagiini Brachyta interrogationis (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Lepturinae Rhagiini Carilia virginea (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Lepturinae Rhagiini Carilia virginea thalassina (Schrank von Paula, 1781) Asia 0 14 0 0 0 14
Lepturinae Rhagiini Centrodera decolorata (Harris, 1838) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Lepturinae Rhagiini Cortodera femorata (Fabricius, 1787) Europe 11 0 0 0 0 11
Lepturinae Rhagiini Cortodera flavimana (Waltl, 1838) Europe 8 0 0 0 0 8
Lepturinae Rhagiini Cortodera humeralis (Schaller, 1783) Europe 99 0 0 0 0 99
Lepturinae Rhagiini Dinoptera collaris (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Lepturinae Rhagiini Acmaeops marginatus (Fabricius, 1781) Europe/asia 3 11 0 0 0 14
Lepturinae Rhagiini Acmaeops pratensis (Laicharting, 1784) Europe 10 0 0 0 0 10
Lepturinae Rhagiini Acmaeops proteus (Kirby, 1837) North America 0 0 14 0 0 14
Lepturinae Rhagiini Acmaeops septentrionis (C G Thomson, 1866) Europe/asia 24 28 0 0 0 52
Lepturinae Rhagiini Acmaeops smaragdulus (Fabricius, 1793) Europe 6 0 0 0 0 6
Lepturinae Rhagiini Evodinellus borealis (Gyllenhal, 1827) Asia 0 2 0 0 0 2
Lepturinae Rhagiini Gaurotes cyanipennis (Say, 1824) North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Lepturinae Rhagiini Grammoptera abdominalis (Stephens, 1831) Europe 31 0 0 0 0 31
Lepturinae Rhagiini Grammoptera ruficornis (Fabricius, 1781) Europe 266 0 0 0 0 266
Lepturinae Rhagiini Grammoptera ustulata (Schaller, 1783) Europe 56 0 0 0 0 56
Lepturinae Rhagiini Pachyta mediofasciata Pic 1936 Asia 0 3 0 0 0 3
Lepturinae Rhagiini Pachyta quadrimaculata (Linnaeus, 1758) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Rhagiini Paragaurotes ussuriensis (Blessig, 1873) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Rhagiini Pidonia lurida (Fabricius, 1792) Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Lepturinae Rhagiini Pseudosieversia japonica (Ohbayashi, 1937) Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lepturinae Rhagiini Rhagium bifasciatum Fabricius, 1775 Europe 20 0 0 0 0 20
Lepturinae Rhagiini Rhagium inquisitor (Linnaeus, 1758) Holarctic 524 5 110 0 0 639
Lepturinae Rhagiini Rhagium japonicum Bates, 1884 Asia 0 21 0 0 0 21
Lepturinae Rhagiini Rhagium mordax (Degeer, 1775) Europe 41 0 0 0 0 41
Lepturinae Rhagiini Rhagium rugipenne Reitter, 1898 Asia 0 4 0 0 0 4
Lepturinae Rhagiini Rhagium sycophanta (Schrank von Paula, 1781) Europe 32 0 0 0 0 32
Lepturinae Rhagiini Stenocorus cinnamopterus (Randall, 1838) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lepturinae Rhagiini Stenocorus meridianus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 71 0 0 0 0 71
Necydalinae Necydalini Necydalis major Linnaeus 1758 Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Necydalinae Necydalini Necydalis ulmi (Chevrolat, 1838) Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Parandrinae Parandrini Neandra brunnea (Fabricius, 1798) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Prioninae Aegosomatini Aegosoma scabricorne (Scopoli, 1763) Europe 33 0 0 0 0 33
Prioninae Macrotomini Prinobius myardi Mulsant, 1842 Europe 3 0 0 0 0 3
Prioninae Meroscelisini Tragosoma harrisii LeConte, 1851 North America 0 0 236 0 0 236
Prioninae Prionini Dorysthenes sternalis (Fairmaire, 1902) Asia 0 25 0 0 0 25
Prioninae Prionini Dorysthenes paradoxus (Faldermann, 1833) Asia 0 22 0 0 0 22
Prioninae Prionini Dorysthenes sp. Asia 0 2 0 0 0 2
Prioninae Prionini Mesoprionus besikanus (Fairmaire, 1855) Europe 46 0 0 0 0 46
Prioninae Prionini Orthosoma brunneum (Forster, 1771) North America 0 0 1 0 0 1
Prioninae Prionini Prionus coriarius (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 4112 0 0 0 0 4112
Prioninae Prionini Prionus insularis Motschulsky, 1857 Asia 0 241 0 0 0 241
Prioninae Prionini Prionus laticollis (Drury, 1773) North America 0 0 3 0 0 3
Prioninae Prionini Prionus sp. Asia 0 1 0 0 0 1
Spondylidinae Anisarthrini Alocerus moesiacus (Frivaldszky, 1837) Europe 4 0 0 0 0 4
Spondylidinae Anisarthrini Anisarthron barbipes (Schrank von Paula, 1781) Europe 19 0 0 0 0 19
Spondylidinae Asemini Arhopalus ferus (Mulsant, 1839) Europe 338 0 0 0 0 338
Spondylidinae Asemini Arhopalus rusticus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe/Asia 4264 702 5 0 0 4971
Spondylidinae Asemini Asemum amurense Kraatz, 1879 Asia 0 5 0 0 0 5
Spondylidinae Asemini Asemum striatum (Linnaeus, 1758) Holarctic 21 181 289 0 0 491
Spondylidinae Asemini Asemum tenuicorne Kraatz, 1879 Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Spondylidinae Asemini Cephalallus oberthueri Sharp, 1905 Asia 0 14 0 0 0 14
Spondylidinae Asemini Cephalallus sp. Asia 0 3 0 0 0 3
Spondylidinae Asemini Cephalallus unicolor (Gahan, 1906) Asia 0 15 0 0 0 15
Spondylidinae Asemini Cephalocrius syriacus (Reitter, 1895) Europe 2024 0 0 0 0 2024
Spondylidinae Nothorhinini Nothorhina punctata (Fabricius, 1798) Europe 2 0 0 0 0 2
Spondylidinae Saphanini Oxypleurus nodieri Mulsant, 1839 Europe 25 0 0 0 0 25
Spondylidinae Spondylidini Spondylis buprestoides (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 2149 8 0 0 0 2157
Spondylidinae Tetropiini Tetropium castaneum (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 53 8 0 0 0 61
Spondylidinae Tetropiini Tetropium cinnamopterum Kirby, 1837 North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Spondylidinae Tetropiini Tetropium fuscum (Fabricius, 1787) Europe 100 0 0 0 0 100
Spondylidinae Tetropiini Tetropium gabrieli Weise, 1905 Europe 166 0 0 0 0 166
Spondylidinae Tetropiini Tetropium schwarzianum Casey, 1891 North America 0 0 2 0 0 2
Spondylidinae Tetropiini Tetrops praeustus (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe 7 0 0 0 0 7
Spondylidinae Tetropiini Tetrops starkii Chevrolat, 1859 Europe 23 0 0 0 0 23
Disteniidae Disteniini Elytrimitatrix undata (Fabricius, 1775) North America 0 0 6 0 0 6
Vesperidae Vesperini Vesperus conicicollis Fairmaire & Coquerel, 1866 Europe 1 0 0 0 0 1
Vesperidae Vesperini Vesperus strepens (Fabricius, 1793) Europe 6 0 0 0 0 6
Figure 1. 

Number of species trapped per subfamily and their region of origin.

Figure 2. 

Number of species trapped per tribe in decreasing order and their native region. Only the tribes where > 3 spp were captured are shown.

Most tribes included species from the same genera trapped on different continents (Fig. 2). For example, 19 species of the Clytini genus Xylotrechus were captured, including 10 in Asia, five in Europe and four in North America. In the same tribe, 12 species of Chlorophorus were captured, of which eight were caught in Europe and four in Asia. A total of 12 Monochamus species (Lamiinae, Monochamini) were trapped, including five species in Asia, four in North America and three in Europe. The Callidiini genus Phymatodes was represented by 11 species, including seven in Europe and four in North America. A number of these species had not been trapped before by any semiochemically-baited trap (e.g. X. chinensis, Chlorophorus glabromaculatus [Goeze] and Phymatodes pusillus [F.]).

In Europe, a total of 192 cerambycid species were trapped, of which seven were non-natives (three Clytini: the North American N. a. acuminatus and the Asian X. chinensis and Xylotrechus stebbingi Gahan; three Phoracanthini: the African Cordylomera spinicornis (F.) and the Australasian Phoracantha recurva Newman and P. semipunctata (F.); and one Hesperophanini: the Asian T. campestris). The captures amounted to about 20% of the total European cerambycid fauna (955 species, including apterous species, according to Vitali and Schmitt 2017). In North America, a total of 97 species were captured, including two non-native species originating from Europe: the Aseminii Arhopalus rusticus (L.) and the Callidiini P. testaceus. In contrast, no non-native species were trapped in Asia (95 total species), the Caribbean (12 total species; i.e. 18% of the 65 species known in Martinique; Touroult and Poirier 2021) and Australia. Three species with Holarctic distribution (the Aseminii Asemum striatum [L.], the Callidiini Callidium aeneum [Degeer] and the Rhagiini Rhagium inquisitor [L.]) were trapped in Europe, Asia and North America, whereas nine species with northern Palaeartic distribution were captured in both Europe and Asia (the Clytini Xylotrechus rusticus [L.], the Acanthocinini Acanthocinus griseus [F.], the Monochamini M. galloprovincialis and congeners M. saltuarius [Say] and M. sartor urussovii [Fischer von Waldheim], the Lepturini Stictoleptura rubra [L.], the Rhagiini congeners Acmaeops marginatus [F.] and A. septentrionis [C. G. Thomson] and the Asemini A. rusticus).

Three species were notably abundant with captures exceeding > 5,000, including the European native P. testaceus (which was also trapped in the USA as a non-native species), the Palaearctic M. galloprovincialis (trapped in Europe and Northern China) and the Asian X. stebbingi which has invaded Europe. Sixteen species were represented by more than 1,000 specimens, 58 species by more than 100 specimens (Fig. 3) and 84 species by more than 50 individuals. In contrast, 109 cerambycid species from the total of 374 species were represented by only one or two specimens. More than 1,000 individuals were caught for four of the Callidiini species, of which three were native European species (P. testaceus – 15,126 individuals, 41 of which were trapped in North America where they have been introduced; Pyrrhidium sanguineum [L.]- 4,388 individuals and Phymatodes alni [L.]- 2,295 individuals), along with the North American Phymatodes amoenus (Say) (3,100 individuals).

Figure 3. 

Cerambycid species with more than 100 inviduals captured, ranked by decreasing order and showing the continent of capture.

Some invasive species were trapped in both their native range and in invaded regions (Fig. 4). The Chinese Clytini X. chinensis was captured in its native range around Beijing as well as in the invaded European areas in Spain, Greece (Crete) and southern France. The European species P. testaceus (Callidiini) and A. rusticus (Asemini) were trapped in large numbers in their native Europe, but also as non-native species in North America. Conversely, the North American Clytini N. a. acuminatus was captured in its native range in the USA, but also in the invaded areas of Italy. A noticeable anomaly was the Himalayan Clytini X. stebbingi, which was caught in large numbers in southern Europe (6,089 specimens) where it is invasive, but not at all in the traps deployed in Asia. The African Phoracanthini C. spinicornis was regularly trapped within European ports-of-entry, but not in nearby woody areas.

Figure 4. 

Cerambycid species trapped in both their native range (circles) and invaded range (triangles). Each species is shown by a different colour.

Simultaneous captures of non-target Coleopteran species were mostly bark and ambrosia beetles (> 100,000 individuals), which are not yet identified to species, but also predators in the family Cleridae, essentially Clerus mutillarius Fabricius, 1775 (> 5,000 individuals) and Thanasimus spp. (> 2,000 individuals) and Trogossitidae (Temnoscheila spp.; > 500 individuals).

Additional captures resulting from the 10-pheromone blend

The addition of trichoferone and (E)-2-cis-6,7-epoxynonenal to the 8-pheromone blend in France and China in 2019 onwards, did not significantly change the previous trapping spectrum of the 8-pheromone blend (paired t-test; P = 0.750). However, the 10-pheromone blend resulted in trapping large numbers of four Trichoferus species, including the Asian T. campestris in its invasive range in Europe and native range in China (Table 3). In addition, large numbers of Aromia bungii were trapped in their native Chinese range. Only a few specimens of these five species had been previously trapped using the 8-pheromone blend.

Discussion

Capturing 376 species of cerambycid beetles from eight different subfamilies and 60 tribes on different continents, with 84 species captured in numbers greater than 50 individuals, clearly demonstrates the potential of the multi-pheromone lure to constitute an effective tool for the detection of ‘unexpected’ cerambycid invaders that are accidentally translocated outside their native ranges. Our hypothesis regarding the generic effectiveness of the blend was based on the evolutionary conservatism observed in many cerambycid pheromone structures. Pheromone constituents of the blend composition are shared by phylogenetically-related species on different continents (cf. references in Table 2). Therefore, their combination was expected to simultaneously attract multiple species of different tribes and subfamilies. These expected generic effects were largely supported for the targeted subfamilies, namely the Cerambycinae, Lamiinae, Spondylidinae and Prioninae.

The best represented tribe was Clytini (Cerambycinae). A total of 64 species were trapped overall, including catches in Asia (27 spp.), Europe (22 spp.) and North America (15 spp.). Two of these species were captured in both the native and invaded continents (X. chinensis- Asia/Europe, N. a. acuminatus- North America/Europe). This richness probably resulted from the presence in the blend of C6-ketol (3-hydroxyhexan-2-one) and anti-2,3-hexanediol. Both are known to be male-emitted attractants for a number of species in this tribe (Millar and Hanks 2017; Imrei et al. 2021). Furthermore, using these two compounds in a similar multipheromone blend in tropical China, Wickham et al. (2021) captured 26 Clytini species of which only four were in common with the present study (Rhaphuma anongi Gressit & Rondon, Rhaphuma laosica Gressit & Rondon, Xylotrechus buqueti [Laporte de Castelnau & Gory] and X. chinensis), thus suggesting an even larger potential of the blend. The Asian Clytini X. stebbingi, a native of the Himalayas (India, Pakistan), provides an illustrative example of the potential of detection of ‘unexpected’ cerambycid invaders, with a total of 6,089 specimens captured in the invaded countries of southern Europe. The species was trapped each year at more than 50 sites in southern France, Greece, Italy, Spain and Switzerland, but also in nurseries near Paris far from the invaded areas. However, it has apparently not invaded China. Somewhat surprisingly, the pheromone blend of this abundant invasive species has not yet been identified, although racemic 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one was suggested to be a key component of its pheromone (Rassati et al. 2021) and a number of other Xylotrechus species have pheromones comprised of 3-hydroxyalkan-2-ones, 2-hydroxyalkan-3-ones and/or 2,3-alkanediols (Millar and Hanks 2017). The richness in the trapped Xylotrechus species (19 spp.), a genus known to include a number of invasive species, is especially important for the early detection of new invaders.

In the same subfamily Cerambycinae, the tribe Callidiini was represented by 15 species trapped in Europe and five in North America, including a total of 11 species in the genus Phymatodes on the two continents. The very large number of captures (from ~ 2,000 to more than 15,000 individuals) of three Phymatodes species, two native to Europe (P. testaceus and P. alni) and one from North America (P. amoeneus) and those of the closely-related European P. sanguineum, probably reflects the inclusion in the blend of both C6-ketol and 2-methylbutan-1-ol, known to be attractants for a number of Phymatodes spp. (Millar and Hanks 2017). Hanks et al. (2019) had previously trapped P. testaceus and P. amoenus in large numbers using these compounds, but also confirmed that the attraction to C6-ketol is antagonised by 2-methylbutan-1-ol for another species of Phymatodes, P. aereus (Newman) (Mitchell et al. 2011). Probably for the same reason, few P. aereus (14 individuals) were trapped during our study. A species of the Callidiini, Callidium aeneum, was represented by more than 200 individuals, but is another example of a species for which pheromones have not yet been identified. However, the congeners C. antennatum hesperum Casey and C. pseudotsugae Fisher are known to use C6-ketol along with semanopyrrole as their aggregation-sex pheromone blend (Millar et al. 2019). The C6-ketol compound is also likely to be a pheromone component for Bethelium tillides (Pascoe), a representative of another Cerambycinae tribe, Callidiopini, in Australia (Hayes et al. 2016), as indicated by our captures of Bethelium sp. in Australia and another Callidiopini, C. flavus, in Martinique.

In the subfamily Lamiinae, large numbers of individuals of 12 species of Monochamini in the genus Monochamus were trapped in Europe, Russia (Siberia), China and North America. This likely resulted from the inclusion in the blend of monochamol (2-[undecyloxy]-ethanol), known as a sex-aggregation pheromone for at least 14 Monochamus species in Europe (M. galloprovincialis; Pajares et al. 2010), North America (e.g. M. carolinensis [Olivier] and M. scutellatus [Say]; Millar and Hanks 2017) and Asia (M. alternatus Hope; Lee et al. 2018). The captures included species such as M. sartor (F.) and M. sutor longulus Pic for which no attractant had previously been recorded (but known for M. sutor [L.], Pajares et al. 2013). These results confirmed those obtained by Boone et al. (2018), who trapped six Monochamus species in North America and M. alternatus in Asia using monochamol. Given the importance of Monochamus beetles in vectoring the lethal pinewood nematode, the multilure blend would be useful for early detection of such invading species in ports and other high-risk sites. Additionally, another Monochamini in a different genus, Uraecha angusta (Pascoe), was trapped in China in high numbers, further indicating that monochamol is not restricted to the genus Monochamus Dejean.

In the subfamily Spondylidinae, Žunič-Kosi et al. (2019) recently showed that (S)-fuscumol, with geranylacetone as a minor component, is a sex-aggregation pheromone for a European representative of the Asemini tribe, A. rusticus. They also suggested that the fuscumol motif is probably shared more broadly in this subfamily. Our trapping of 15 spondylidine species supports this assumption, as the blend included fuscumol, fuscumol acetate and geranylacetone. Besides the ~ 5,000 trapped A. rusticus individuals, other European Asemini were captured in substantial numbers as well, including Cephalocrius syriacus Sharp (> 2,000 individuals), Arhopalus ferus (Mulsant) and A. striatum in Europe, but also other Asemum and Cephalallus species in China (Table 3). High numbers of captures were also noted for several species in other spondylidine tribes, such as Spondylis buprestoides (L.) (Spondylidini, > 2,000 individuals) in both Europe and China, for which no attractants are yet known and the alpine Tetropium gabrieli Weise (Tetropiini), for which Schroeder et al. (2021) recently showed an attraction to (E)-fuscumol.

In the subfamily Prioninae, the inclusion of prionic acid, originally identified as a female-produced sex pheromone of the North American species Prionus californicus Motschulsky (Rodstein et al. 2009), but also as an attractant for most, if not all, other North American species of Prionus (Barbour et al. 2011; Millar and Hanks 2017) and for the Asian Prionini Dorysthenes granulosus (Thomson) (Wickham et al. 2016a), resulted in substantial catches (> 4,000 specimens) of the European Prionus coriarius (L.). Additional captures of other Prionini, such as the Balkanic Mesoprionus besikanus (Fairmaire), the Asian Prionus insularis Motschulsky, and three Chinese species of Dorysthenes (D. sternalis [Fairmaire], D. paradoxus [Faldermann] and an, as yet, unidentified species), suggest a broad attractive spectrum for prionic acid in this tribe.

Despite the general efficiency of our blend, a number of species, especially those trapped with less than 50 individuals, are likely either random catches or were attracted by physical characteristics (e.g. trap shape and/or colour). Based on the previous results of Fan et al. (2019), who showed highly significant differences in the number of species trapped by multipheromone blends and unbaited traps, we did not deploy any unbaited control traps in this study which could help in clarifying this point. However, it is noteworthy that, very unexpectedly, we trapped a total of 79 lepturine species, including 49 in Europe, 12 in Asia and 18 in North America, although few pheromones are known in the subfamily Lepturinae and none of them, such as cis-vaccenyl acetate (Ray et al. 2011) or (R)-desmolactone (Ray et al. 2014), was included in the blend. Most of these species were caught in small numbers, consistent with random captures of individuals. Only three species (Pachytodes erraticus [Dalman], Stictoleptura cordigera [Fueßlins] and Rutpela maculata [Poda von Neuhaus]) out of the 44 captured in the tribe Lepturini, were represented by more than 50 individuals (Table 3). For these species, we can only speculate that the beetles were attracted to the trap colour or silhouette, rather than to the lure (see details in Cavaletto et al. 2021). Analogous results were obtained for another Lepturine tribe, the Rhaginii, where more than 600 specimens of a species considered as Holarctic, R. inquisitor, were caught in Europe, Asia and North America, together with the closely-related R. japonicum Bates trapped in China.

Attraction of these lepturines may also have been a result of the addition of high release rate ethanol and α-pinene lures to traps, rather than attraction to the blend of synthetic pheromones. Plant volatiles can, in some cases, effectively enhance the attraction of cerambycids to pheromone lures (e.g. for Monochamus species; Pajares et al. 2010). Indeed, plant volatiles alone, such as turpentine, have long been used as generic attractants for wood-boring insects, including some species of cerambycids, but are not as effective as pheromone-baited traps for target species. For example, Rassati et al. (2019) showed that traps deployed in Italy with a multi-lure including most of the compounds of our blend (C6-ketol, racemic 3-hydroxyoctan-2-one, syn-2,3-hexanediols, [E/Z]-fuscumol and [E/Z]-fuscumol acetate) caught more than twice the number of cerambycid species as ethanol-baited traps.

Our results also provide leads to possible pheromone structures in new species (see also above), building on the previously-articulated concept of “pheromone identification by proxy”, in which identification of pheromones for one species may provide leads for the identification of pheromones of related taxa (Millar et al. 2019). For the 16 species caught in numbers > 1,000 individuals, it is likely that the major component(s) of their pheromones were present in the blend. Pheromones or possible pheromones had been identified from only about half of these species (M. alternatus, M. galloprovincialis and M. saltuarius, A. rusticus, P. amoenus and P. testaceus, P. sanguineum, P. coriarius, Xylotrechus antilope [Schönherr]; Millar and Hanks 2017). Thus, our data represent the first possible leads to the pheromone structures for a number of cerambycine species in the tribe Clytini (C. glabromaculatus, > 1,000 individuals), three Lamiinae in the tribes Acanthocinini (Leiopus femoratus Fairmaire, > 3,000 individuals; Leiopus nebulosus [L.], > 1,000 individuals) and Acanthoderini (Aegomorphus clavipes [Schrank von Paula], > 1,000 individuals) and two Spondylidinae in the tribes Asemini (C. syriacus, > 2,000 individuals) and Spondylidini (S. buprestoides, > 2,000 individuals). It is likely that the same could be true for at least some of the remaining 46 species caught in numbers > 100 individuals (and maybe even > 50), but for which pheromones have not been formally identified. For instance, Wickham et al. (2021) considered that their substantial captures of the Clytini R. anongi and R. laosica in tropical China suggested the presence of pheromone components in the blend that they tested, which was similar to ours. Our results further support this assumption because we trapped ~ 100 R. anongi and > 25 R. laosica with traps deployed at a single site of southern China.

Trapping of some invasive species in both the native and invaded ranges revealed the potential of the multilure blend for detecting invaders. Some of these non-native species have been present for a long time in the invaded areas (e.g. the European P. testaceus and A. rusticus in North America and the North American N. a. acuminatus in Europe). However, the trapping of very recent invaders within and near ports-of-entry is noteworthy and is indicative of the sensitivity of the blend for early detection at low population levels. For example, the Chinese Clytini X. chinensis was captured in its native range around Beijing, as well as in all the scattered European areas it has invaded and established in relatively recently (2013 in Spain-Catalonia; 2017 in Greece-Crete island and 2018 in southern France-Port of Sète; https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/XYLOCH/distribution/ES). Similarly, when the 10-pheromone blend including trichoferone was deployed, the Chinese Hesperophanini T. campestris was trapped in both its native range in China and in the river port of Huningue (France), where this invasive species had not yet been recorded. Interestingly, despite its presumably low abundance, our trapping studies allowed us to follow the dispersal of this invading species from the port. For example, in 2019 and 2020, specimens were only detected in traps placed within the Huningue Port but, in 2021, the species was captured in traps placed within a 1 km-radius from the Port. Numerous catches of X. stebbingi in ports-of-entry and nurseries of northern France, far from the known invaded southern area of France, also highlighted the sensitivity of the blend for its detection.

What possible improvements can be expected?

Is it possible and useful to continue increasing the number of pheromones included in the blend? The addition of trichoferone and the pheromone of Aromia bungii to the 8-pheromone blend in some field trials in France and China since 2020 resulted in relatively high numbers of captures of several Trichoferus species (three native European species and one native Chinese species invasive in Europe), as well as individuals of A. bungii in China, without reducing the trapping scope observed in nearby traps baited with the primary blend, especially the cerambycine P. testaceus. Millar et al. (2021) obtained analogous results in Pennsylvania, USA, where the responses of the major cerambycid species were not affected, except for the lamiine species Sternidius alpha (Say) whose catches were shut down by the addition of the pheromones of the two non-native species. Preliminary experiments (not detailed here) carried out in 2020 and 2021 in south-central France consisting of adding the sex-aggregation pheromone of Rosalia alpina (Linnaeus), an alkylated pyrone (Žunič-Kosi et al. 2017), to the 8-pheromone blend also resulted in captures of R. alpina without altering the cerambycid species richness. Tests of addition of the semanopyrrole structure (1-[1H-pyrrol-2-yl]-1,2-propanedione) could also be of interest, given that it occurs in pheromones of species from several continents. Wickham et al. (2016b) suggested that semanopyrrole may correspond to another well-conserved sex-aggregation pheromone motif within the subfamily Cerambycinae, being highly attractive in combination with C6-ketol for the Callidiini Callidiellum villosulum (Fairmaire) and as a single component for the Phoracanthini Allotraeus asiaticus (Schwarzer) in China. Silva et al. (2017) also identified semanopyrrole as a component of the sex-aggregation pheromone of two South American Cerambycinae in the tribe Elaphidiini, Ambonus distinctus (Newman) and Ambonus electus (Gahan). Recent work has also shown that 10-methyldodecanol, 11-methyltridecanol and their corresponding aldehydes may form another conserved structural motif, with examples of pheromones from South American (Silva et al. 2020) and North American cerambycid species (JGM and LMH, work in progress). As all these additional compounds exhibit chemical structures substantially different from the ones used in the 8-pheromone blend, it may be hypothesised that their addition will be unlikely to interfere with the attraction of species to the other eight pheromones.

For a more general approach of early detection of xylophagous invaders, targeting not only cerambycids, but also other groups, such as bark and ambrosia beetles (Curculionidae, Scolytinae), woodwasps (Siricidae) and jewel beetles (Buprestidae), represents a valuable opportunity. In fact, traps baited with some (e.g. Marchioro et al. 2020; Miller et al. 2022) or all (Cavaletto et al. 2020) the eight longhorn beetle pheromones used in this study, allowed us to catch a high number of other wood-boring beetle species and associated predators, especially when synergised by generic attractants, such as ethanol or α-pinene. The possibility of augmenting the blend with complementary attractants specific and/or generic to each of these groups is also of interest. Miller et al. (2016) already tested the combination of monochamol and α-pinene with ipsenol, a pheromone component of Ips bark beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and did not observe any negative effect nor synergy on catches of Cerambycidae or on any associated species of bark beetles, weevils or bark beetle predators. However, some of the cerambycid pheromones used in the 8-pheromone blend have been shown to have either positive or negative effects on catches of bark and ambrosia beetles, depending on the species (Marchioro et al. 2020).

The position of the trap also has rather to be carefully managed. In our study, standardisation of trap position was not possible due to the different trapping locations (ports-of-entry, urban parks, forests) and the variety of environments amongst the countries included in the study. However, several recent studies have confirmed that trap position can have a considerable influence on the captures of cerambycid beetles, on a vertical gradient from the forest understorey up to the canopy (Wermelinger et al. 2007; Graham et al. 2012; Flaherty et al. 2019; Rassati et al. 2019; Miller et al. 2020; Wickham et al. 2021), as well as on a horizontal gradient between the forest edge and forest interior (Allison et al. 2019; Sweeney et al. 2020). For instance, Monochamus maculosus Haldeman and M. scutellatus were more abundant in the clearing adjacent to the forest than in the forest, whereas the contrary was observed for M. carolinensis and M. titillator (F.). As most of our field trials did not consider the upper canopy and were not deployed along forest edge-interior gradients, except for the specific 2019 experiment, it is possible that a number of species with specific types of behaviour related to these micro-environments were not trapped at all. Moreover, weather conditions during trapping periods, as well as the size of the local populations, were also likely to influence the captures.

Another important point is the colour of the trap. Most traps used in the study were black multifunnel traps (1069 out of 1289; 83%). However, Cavaletto et al. (2021), using the same 8-pheromone blend, showed that trap colour had a considerable influence on cerambycid captures in both species’ richness and abundance for several subfamilies, but in different ways. For example, black traps caught significantly fewer species of Cerambycinae than yellow ones, whereas for Lamiinae, both brown and red traps caught significantly more species than black traps and colours in the portion of the visible electromagnetic spectrum (yellow, green, blue) attracted higher numbers of lepturine species than did black traps. A relationship with adult beetle behaviour could be hypothesised. Cavaletto et al. (2021) observed that the number of species of flower-visiting cerambycids was significantly lower in black traps than in yellow, blue and green ones, whereas yellow and green traps were significantly less efficient than black traps for non-flower-visiting species. Therefore, systematic tests of traps of different colours in different world regions could significantly enhance the efficiency of trapping species which respond to the multipheromone blend. Data obtained during the present study will be later merged with those of specifically-designed experiments to test for the influence of trap colour.

The impact of such trappings on local insect biodiversity could be questioned. As all specimens from non-target Coleopteran groups have not been identified yet, we cannot exclude that a few species other than cerambycids, bark and ambrosia beetles and beetle predators (clerids, trogossitids) have also been trapped in significant numbers (> 500 ind.). However, any trapping study, like our one, is necessarily limited in scope by cost and logistical factors. Thus, unless trappings are intensively conducted over a whole region or country, which is very unlikely, they are likely to affect local biodiversity in a very limited way.

In conclusion, we are delivering a database of nearly 400 species which were trapped during the course of our multiyear field trials with the multipheromone blend, and the two hypotheses of our study are strongly supported. First, the trapping of a species in significant numbers on a continent effectively increased the probability that it can be detected upon arrival in other countries/continents, as shown by the species trapped in large numbers in both native and invaded ranges, supporting hypothesis 1. Second, the multipheromone blend was shown to be an effective generic attractant for multiple species from several cerambycid subfamilies, including numerous species for which pheromones have not yet been identified, supporting hypothesis 2. In addition, some species, such as the lepturine species caught in large numbers, were probably trapped because of trap colour or the host plant lure, rather than as a result of the blend composition. However, regardless of cues used by beetles, trapping of non-native species when they arrive at ports-of-entry has the same value for phytosanitary officials. Antagonistic effects between compounds exist, but appear to be fairly limited and so should not compromise the overall detection potential. Finally, further advances in the effectiveness of detection of cerambycids by multipheromone lures can be expected as parameters, such as trap colour and height, are optimised and as the number of pheromone components which are found to be conserved within and across related taxa and continents expands.

Acknowledgements

We thank Filippo Giannone, Riccardo Poloni, Kate Van Rooyen, Chantelle Kostanowicz, Vincent Webster, Andrej Kapla, Matic Gabor, Mischa Giasson and Cory Hughes for technical assistance in the lab and field and for species identification. Paige Payter, Michigan State University (MSU), installed and monitored traps in Michigan and Page Payter and Gary Parsons (MSU) identified the captured cerambycids. We are indebted to Fréderic Delport, François-Xavier Saintonge, Jean-Baptiste Daubrée and all colleagues of the “Santé des Forêts” Department (DSF) and local offices (SRAL) of the French Ministry of Agriculture for the management of the traps in France. Marie-Pierre Dufresne from Fredon Centre - Val de Loire and Sylvain Amiot from the Direction Patrimoine végétal et Biodiversité of Tours-Métropole helped to settle traps in the Val de Loire area, France. We are also grateful to Eddy Poirier and Nicolas Moulin for the management of the traps in Martinique and to the forest health team of Vaersa and the forest management service (SOGF) of the Generalitat Valenciana (Spain). We thank very much Xing Zhong-Ping for his help in the trappings in Yunnan and Anastasia Knorre for helping us with field research in the State Nature Reserve “Stolby” (Krasnoyarsk, Russia). We also want to thank Prof. Ana Paula Ramos for enabling a connection with the administration of the municipalities of Lisbon and Setúbal for the trappings in Portugal. We are indebted to Eng. Rui Simão and Eng. Ana Júlia Francisco in CM- Lisboa, Dr. António Nobre from the administration board of Lisbon harbour, Eng. Sérgio Gaspar from CM-Setúbal for allowing us to conduct this work in their municipalities. The municipality of L’Argentière la Bessée provided invaluable assistance for the management of the traps in the southern French Alps. We thank Robert Haack, Nicolas Meurisse and a third anonymous reviewer for their very helpful comments and suggestions on the manuscript.

This work was essentially supported by the HOMED project (HOlistic Management of Emerging Forest Pests and Diseases) which received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 771271 (https://homed-projecteu/). We also acknowledge funding from the European project LIFE SAMFIX (SAving Mediterranean Forests from Invasions of Xylosandrus Beetles and associated Pathogenic Fungi, LIFE17 NAT/IT/000609, https://wwwlifesamfixeu/), from the EUPHRESCO project MULTITRAP (“Multi-lure and multi-trap surveillance for invasive tree pests”). Trappings in France were supported from funding by the French Ministry of Agriculture under the PORTRAP project “Test de l’efficacité de pièges génériques multicomposés pour la détection précoce d’insectes exotiques xylophages dans les sites potentiels d’entrée sur le territoire national” and by the Région Centre- Val de Loire under the CANOPEE project (“Biodiversité des insectes des canopées de chênes dépérissants“- Project No. 2018-00124136). Trapping in Austria was supported by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Management (Research Project 101183). Trapping in China was partially supported by a grant from the French Embassy in Beijing under the programme CaiYuanPei. LR, JS, YQL and YY are grateful for funding by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No 2021YFC2600400) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31770687). Research conducted in Nova Scotia, Canada, was funded by the Pest Risk Management Program of Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. Trapping in Michigan was supported by a grant from the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Research in Siberia (Russia) was supported by Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS (the basic project, grant No 0287-2021-0011) [field collection] and the Russian Science Foundation (grant No 22-16-00075) [species identification]. AMR and EKLF are grateful for the Robert Borcer Endowment and the Undergraduate Research Fund of Xavier University and USDA-APHIS cooperative agreement numbers AP19PPQS and T00C082 and AP20PPQS and T00C173. MZ and CM acknowledge funding by the New South Wales government and Hort Innovation project 16004 NSW DPI component of the Macadamia Integrated Pest Management. Trials in Martinique were part of a natural site inventory funded by the DEAL Martinique (French Ministry of Environment). The work in Slovenia was financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (Research Core Funding P1-0255). Trapping in England was supported by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). JGM and LMH gratefully acknowledge support from United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) grants 19- to 22-8130-1422-CA.

References

  • Allison JD, McKenney JL, Millar JG, McElfresh JS, Mitchell RF, Hanks LH (2012) Response of the woodborers Monochamus carolinensis and Monochamus titillator to known cerambycid pheromones in the presence and absence of the host plant volatile α-pinene. Environmental Entomology 41: 1587–1596. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN12185
  • Allison JD, Strom B, Sweeney J, Mayo P (2019) Trap deployment along linear transects perpendicular to forest edges: impact on capture of longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Pest Science 92(1): 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-1008-7
  • Alvarez G, Gallego D, Hall DR, Jactel H, Pajares GA (2016) Combining pheromone and kairomones for effective trapping of the pine sawyer beetle Monochamus galloprovincialis. Journal of Applied Entomology 140(1–2): 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12297
  • Aukema JE, McCullough DG, Von Holle B, Liebhold AM, Britton K, Frankel SJ (2010) Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental US. BioScience 60: 886–897. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.11.5
  • Barbour JD, Millar JG, Rodstein J, Ray AM, Alston DG, Rejzek M, Dutcher JD, Hanks LM (2011) Synthetic 3,5-dimethyldodecanoic acid serves as a general attractant for multiple species of Prionus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 104(3): 588–593. https://doi.org/10.1603/AN10182
  • Bobadoye B, Torto B, Fombong A, Zou Y, Adlbauer K, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2019) Evidence of aggregation-sex pheromone use by longhorned beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) species native to Africa. Environmental Entomology 48(1): 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvy164
  • Boone CK, Sweeney J, Silk PJ, Hughes CC, Webster RP, Stephen F, MacLauchlan L, Bentz B, Drumont A, Zhao B, Berkvens N, Casteels H, Gregoire JC (2018) Monochamus species from different continents can be effectively detected with the same trapping protocol. Journal of Pest Science 92(1): 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0954-4
  • Brockerhoff EG, Jones DC, Kimberley MO, Suckling DM, Donaldson T (2006) Nationwide survey for invasive wood-boring and bark beetles (Coleoptera) using traps baited with pheromones and kairomones. Forest Ecology and Management 228(1–3): 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.02.046
  • Cavaletto G, Faccoli M, Marini L, Spaethe J, Magnani G, Rassati D (2020) Effect of trap color on captures of bark-and wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera; Buprestidae and Scolytinae) and associated predators. Insects 11(11): 749. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11110749
  • Cavaletto G, Faccoli M, Marini L, Spaethe J, Giannone F, Moino S, Rassati D (2021) Exploiting trap color to improve surveys of longhorn beetles. Journal of Pest Science 94(3): 871–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-020-01303-w
  • Collignon RM, Swift IP, Zou Y, McElfresh JS, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2016) The influence of host plant volatiles on the attraction of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to pheromones. Journal of Chemical Ecology 42: 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0679-x
  • Dang Y, Wei K, Wang X, Duan JJ, Jennings DE, Poland TM (2022) Introduced plants induce outbreaks of a native pest and facilitate invasion in the plants’ native range: Evidence from the emerald ash borer. Journal of Ecology 110(3): 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13822
  • Eschen R, Holmes T, Smith D, Roques A, Santini S, Kenis M (2014) Likelihood of establishment of tree pests and diseases based on their worldwide occurrence as determined by hierarchical cluster analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 315: 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.12.021
  • Eschen R, Roques A, Santini A (2015) Taxonomic dissimilarity in patterns of interception and establishment of alien arthropods, nematodes and pathogens affecting woody plants in Europe. Diversity & Distributions 21(1): 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12267
  • Essl F, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Booy O, Brundu G, Brunel S, Cardoso AC, Eschen R, Gallardo B, Galil B, García-Berthou E, Genovesi P, Groom Q, Harrower C, Hulme PE, Katsanevakis S, Kenis M, Kühn I, Kumschick S, Martinou AF, Nentwig W, O’Flynn C, Pagad S, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Rabitsch W, Richardson DM, Roques A, Roy HE, Scalera R, Schindler S, Seebens H, Vanderhoeven S, Vilà M, Wilson JRU, Zenetos A, Jeschke JM (2015) Crossing frontiers in tackling pathways of biological invasions. Bioscience 65(8): 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv082
  • Eyre D, Haack RA (2017) Invasive cerambycid pests and biosecurity measures. In: Wang Q (Ed.) Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 563–618.
  • Fan JT, Denux O, Courtin C, Bernard A, Javal M, Millar JG, Hanks LM, Roques A (2019) Multipheromone blends for trapping native and exotic longhorn beetles at potential points-of-entry and in forests. Journal of Pest Science 92(1): 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0997-6
  • Flaherty L, Gutowski JMG, Hughes C, Mayo P, Mokrzycki T, Pohl G, Silk P, van Rooyen K, Sweeney J (2019) Pheromone-enhanced lure blends and multiple trap heights improve detection of bark and wood-boring beetles potentially moved in solid wood packaging. Journal of Pest Science 92(1): 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-1019-4
  • Graham EE, Mitchell RF, Reagel PF, Barbour JD, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2010) Treating panel traps with a fluoropolymer enhances their efficiency in capturing cerambycid beetles. Journal of Economic Entomology 103(3): 641–647. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC10013
  • Graham EE, Poland TM, McCullough DG, Millar JG (2012) A comparison of trap type and height for capturing cerambycid beetles (Coleoptera). Journal of Economic Entomology 105(3): 837–846. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC12053
  • Haack RA, Britton KO, Brockerhoff EG, Cavey J, Garrett LJ, Kimberley M, Lowenstein F, Nuding A, Olson LJ, Turner J, Vasilaky KN (2014) Effectiveness of the international phytosanitary standard ISPM no. 15 on reducing wood borer infestation rates in wood packaging material entering the United States. PLoS ONE 9(5): e96611. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096611
  • Halloran S, Collignon RM, McElfresh JS, Millar JG (2018) Fuscumol and geranylacetone as pheromone components of Californian longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in the subfamily Spondylidinae. Environmental Entomology 47(5): 1300–1305. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvy101
  • Hanks LM, Millar JG (2013) Field bioassays of cerambycid pheromones reveal widespread parsimony of pheromone structures, enhancement by host plant volatiles, and antagonism by components from heterospecifics. Chemoecology 23(1): 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-012-0116-8
  • Hanks LM, Millar JG (2016) Sex and aggregation-sex pheromones of cerambycid beetles: Basic science and practical applications. Journal of Chemical Ecology 42(7): 631–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0733-8
  • Hanks LM, Millar JG, Mongold-Diers JA, Wong JCH, Meier LR, Reagel PF, Mitchell RF (2012) Using blends of cerambycid beetle pheromones and host volatiles to simultaneously attract a diversity of cerambycid species. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42(6): 1050–1059. https://doi.org/10.1139/x2012-062
  • Hanks LM, Mongold-Diers JA, Atkinson TH, Fierke MK, Ginzel MD, Graham EE, Poland TM, Richards AB, Richardson ML, Millar JG (2018) Blends of pheromones, with and without host plant volatiles, can attract multiple species of cerambycid beetles simultaneously. Journal of Economic Entomology 111(2): 716–724. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tox373
  • Hanks LM, Mongold-Diers JA, Mitchell RF, Zou Y, Wong JCH, Meier LR, Johnson TD, Millar JG (2019) The role of minor pheromone components in segregating 14 species of longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of the subfamily Cerambycinae. Journal of Economic Entomology 112(5): 2236–2252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toz141
  • Hayes RA, Griffiths MW, Nahrung HF, Arnold PA, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2016) Optimizing generic cerambycid pheromone lures for Australian biosecurity and biodiversity monitoring. Journal of Economic Entomology 109(4): 1741–1749. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow100
  • Hoch G, Connell J, Roques A (2020) Testing multi-lure traps for surveillance of native and alien longhorn beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) at ports of entry and in forests in Austria. Management of Biological Invasions 11(4): 677–688. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2020.11.4.04
  • Imrei Z, Domingue MJ, Lohonyai Z, Moreira JA, Bálintné Csonka É, Fail J, Csóka G, Hanks LM, Tóth M, Millar JG (2021) Identification of pheromone components of Plagionotus detritus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), and attraction of conspecifics, competitors, and natural enemies to the pheromone blend. Insects 12(10): 899. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12100899
  • Lee S, Lee S (2020) Multigene phylogeny uncovers oviposition-related evolutionary history of Cerambycinae (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 145: 106707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2019.106707
  • Lee HR, Lee SC, Lee DH, Jung M, Kwon JH, Huh MJ, Kim DS, Lee JE, Park IK (2018) Identification of aggregation-sex pheromone of the Korean Monochamus alternatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) population, the main vector of pine wood nematode. Journal of Economic Entomology 111(4): 1768–1774. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toy137
  • Liebhold AM, Brockerhoff EG, Garrett L, Parke J, Britton K (2012) Live plant imports, the major pathway for the forest insect and pathogen invasions of the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10(3): 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1890/110198
  • Lovett GM, Weiss M, Liebhold A, Holmes TP, Leung B, Lambert KF, Orwig DA, Campbell FT, Rosenthal J, McCullough DG, Wildova R, Ayres MA, Canham CD, Foster DR, LaDeau SL, Weldy T (2016) Nonnative forest insects and pathogens in the US: Impacts and policy options. Ecological Applications 26(5): 1437–1455. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1176
  • Marchioro M, Rassati D, Faccoli M, Van Rooyen K, Kostanowicz C, Webster V, Mayo P, Sweeney JD (2020) Maximizing bark and ambrosia beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) catches in trapping surveys for longhorn and jewel beetles. Journal of Economic Entomology 113(6): 2745–2757. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toaa181
  • Meier LR, Zou Y, Millar JG, Mongold-Diers JA, Hanks LM (2016) Synergism between enantiomers creates species-specific pheromone blends and minimizes cross-attraction for two species of cerambycid beetles. Journal of Chemical Ecology 42(11): 1181–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0782-z
  • Meier LR, Millar JG, Mongold-Diers JA, Hanks LM (2019) (S)-sulcatol is a pheromone component for two species of cerambycid beetles in the subfamily Lamiinae. Journal of Chemical Ecology 45(5–6): 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-019-01071-7
  • Millar JG, Hanks LM (2017) Chemical ecology of cerambycids In: Wang Q (Ed.) Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, 161–208.
  • Millar JG, Mitchell RF, Mongold-Diers JA, Zou Y, Bográn CE, Fierke MK, Ginzel MD, Johnson CW, Meeker JR, Poland TM, Ragenovich IR, Hanks LM (2018) Identifying possible pheromones of cerambycid beetles by field testing known pheromone components in four widely separated regions of the United States. Journal of Economic Entomology 111(1): 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tox312
  • Millar JG, Richards AB, Halloran S, Zou YF, Boyd EA, Quigley KN, Hanks LM (2019) Pheromone identification by proxy: identification of aggregation-sex pheromones of North American cerambycid beetles as a strategy to identify pheromones of invasive Asian congeners. Journal of Pest Science 92: 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0962-4
  • Millar JG, Zou YF, Barringer L, Hanks LM (2021) Field trials with blends of pheromones of native and invasive cerambycid beetle species. Environmental Entomology 50: 1294–1298 .https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvab085
  • Miller DR, Allison JD, Crowe CM, Dickinson DM, Eglitis A, Hofstetter RW, Munson AS, Poland TM, Reid LS, Steed BE, Sweeney JD (2016) Pine sawyers (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) attracted to α-pinene, monochamol, and ipsenol in North America. Journal of Economic Entomology 109(3): 1205–1214. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow071
  • Miller DR, Crowe CM, Mayo PD, Reid LS, Silk PJ, Sweeney JD (2017) Interactions between ethanol, syn-2,3-hexanediol, 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one, and 3-hydroxyoctan-2-one lures on trap catches of hardwood longhorn beetles in Southeastern United States. Journal of Economic Entomology 110(5): 1119–1128. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tox188
  • Miller SR, Crowe CM, Sweeney JD (2020) Trap height affects catches of bark and woodboring beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Cerambycidae) in baited multiple-funnel traps in Southeastern United States. Journal of Economic Entomology 113: 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toz271
  • Miller DR, Crowe CM, Mayo PD, Silk PJ, Sweeney JD (2022) Interactions between syn-and anti-2, 3-hexanediol lures on trap catches of woodboring beetles and associates in southeastern United States. Environmental Entomology 51(1): 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvab111
  • Mitchell RF, Graham EE, Wong JC, Reagel PF, Striman BL, Hughes GP, Paschen MA, Ginzel MD, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2011) Fuscumol and fuscumol acetate are general attractants for many species of cerambycid beetles in the subfamily Lamiinae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 141(1): 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2011.01167.x
  • Nahrung HF, Carnegie AJ (2021) Border interceptions of forest insects established in Australia: intercepted invaders travel early and often. NeoBiota 64: 69–86. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.64.60424
  • Nie R, Vogler AP, Yang XK, Lin M (2021) Higher-level phylogeny of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomeloidea) inferred from mitochondrial genomes. Systematic Entomology 46: 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12447
  • Nolte O, Krieger D (2008) Nachweis von Saperda candida Fabricius 1787 auf Fehmarn – eine weitere, bereits in Ansiedlung befindliche, eingeschleppte Käferart im Mitteleuropa. DgaaE- Nachrichten 22: 133–136. http://wwwdgaaede/html/publi/nachrich/nach22_3pdf
  • Pajares JA, Álvarez G, Ibeas F, Gallego D, Hall DR, Farman DI (2010) Identification and field activity of a male-produced aggregation pheromone in the pine sawyer beetle, Monochamus galloprovincialis. Journal of Chemical Ecology 36(6): 570–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-010-9791-5
  • Pajares JA, Alvarez G, Hall DR, Douglas P, Centeno F, Ibarra N, Schroeder M, Teale SA, Wang Z, Yan S, Millar JG, Hanks LM (2013) 2-(Undecyloxy)-ethanol is a major component of the male-produced aggregation pheromone of Monochamus sutor. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 149: 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12113
  • Pergl J, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Essl F, Genovesi P, Harrower CA, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Kenis M, Kühn I, Perglová I, Rabitsch W, Roques A, Roy DB, Roy HE, Vilà M, Winter M, Nentwig W (2017) Troubling travellers: are ecologically harmful alien species associated with particular introduction pathways? NeoBiota 32: 1–20. https://doiorg/103897/neobiota3210199
  • Rabaglia RJ, Cognato AI, Hoebeke ER, Johnson CW, LaBonte JR, Carter ME, Vlach JJ (2019) Early detection and rapid response: A 10-year summary of the USDA Forest Service program of surveillance for non-native bark and ambrosia beetles. American Entomologist 65(1): 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/tmz015
  • Rassati D, Petrucco Toffolo E, Roques A, Battisti A, Faccoli M (2014) Trapping wood-boring beetles in Italian ports: A pilot study. Journal of Pest Science 87(1): 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-013-0499-5
  • Rassati D, Faccoli M, Petrucco Toffolo E, Battisti A, Marini L (2015a) Improving the early detection of alien wood‐boring beetles in ports and surrounding forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 52(1): 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12347
  • Rassati D, Faccoli M, Marini L, Haack RA, Battisti A, Petrucco Toffolo E (2015b) Exploring the role of wood waste landfills in early detection of non-native wood-boring beetles. Journal of Pest Science 88(3): 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-014-0639-6
  • Rassati D, Marini L, Marchioro M, Rapuzzi P, Magnani G, Poloni R, Di Giovanni F, Mayo P, Sweeney JD (2019) Developing trapping protocols for wood-boring beetles associated with broadleaf trees. Journal of Pest Science 92(1): 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0984-y
  • Rassati D, Marchioro M, Flaherty L, Poloni R, Edwards S, Faccoli M, Sweeney JD (2021) Response of native and exotic longhorn beetles to common pheromone components provides partial support for the pheromone-free space hypothesis. Insect Science 28(3): 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12790
  • Ray AM, Žunič-Kosi A, Alten RL, McElfresh JS, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2011) cis-Vaccenyl acetate, a female-produced sex pheromone component of Ortholeptura valida, a longhorned beetle in the subfamily Lepturinae. Journal of Chemical Ecology 37: 173–178. DOI 10.1007/s10886-011-9908-5
  • Ray AM, Francese JA, Zou Y, Watson K, Crook DJ, Millar JG (2019) Isolation and identification of a male-produced aggregation-sex pheromone for the velvet longhorned beetle, Trichoferus campestris (Faldermann). Scientific Reports 9(1): 4459. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41047-x
  • Ray AM, Arnold RA, Swift I, Schapker PA, McCann S, Marshall CJ, McElfresh JS, Millar JG (2014) (R)-Desmolactone is a sex pheromone or sex attractant for the endangered valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus and several congeners (Cerambycidae: Lepturinae). PLoS ONE 9(12): e115498. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115498
  • Reddy GVP, Fettköther R, Noldt U, Dettner K (2005) Enhancement of attraction and trap catch of the old–house borer, Hylotrupes bajulus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), by combination of male sex pheromone and monoterpenes. Pest Management News 61: 699–704. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1044
  • Rodstein J, McElfresh JS, Barbour JD, Ray AM, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2009) Identification and synthesis of a female-produced sex pheromone for the cerambycid beetle Prionus californicus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 35(5): 590–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-009-9623-7
  • Roques A (2010) Alien forest insects in a warmer world and a globalized economy: Impacts of changes in trade, tourism and climate on forest biosecurity. New Zealand Journal of Forestry 40: 77–94.
  • Roques A, Auger-Rozenberg M-A, Blackburn TM, Garnas JR, Pyšek P, Rabitsch W, Richardson DM, Wingfield MJ, Liebhold AM, Duncan RP (2016) Temporal and interspecific variation in rates of spread for insect species invading Europe during the last 200 years. Biological Invasions 18(4): 907–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1080-y
  • Roques A, Shi J, Auger-Rozenberg MA, Ren L, Augustin S, Luo YQ (2020) Are invasive patterns of non-native insects related to woody plants differing between Europe and China? Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 2: 91. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00091
  • Russo E, Nugnes F, Vicinanza F, Garonna AP, Bernardo U (2020) Biological and molecular characterization of Aromia bungii (Faldermann, 1835) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), an emerging pest of stone fruits in Europe. Scientific Reports 10(1): 7112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63959-9
  • Ryall K, Silk P, Webster RP, Gutowski JM, Meng Q, Li Y, Gao W, Fidgen J, Kimoto T, Scarr T, Mastro V, Sweeney JD (2015) Further evidence that monochamol is attractive to Monochamus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) species, with attraction synergised by host plant volatiles and bark beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) pheromones. Canadian Entomologist 147(5): 564–579. https://doi.org/10.4039/tce.2014.67
  • Sarto i Monteys V, Torras i Tutusaus G (2018) A new alien invasive longhorn beetle, Xylotrechus chinensis (Cerambycidae), is infesting mulberries in Catalonia (Spain). Insects 9(2): 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9020052
  • Schroeder M, Cocos D, Johansson H, Sweeney J (2021) Attraction of the cerambycid beetles Tetropium gabrieli, T. castaneum and T. fuscum to pheromones and host tree volatiles. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 23(2): 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12422
  • Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Pagad S, Pyšek P, Winter M, Arianoutsou M, Bacher S, Blasius B, Brundu G, Capinha C, Celesti-Grapow L, Dawson W, Dullinger S, Fuentes N, Jäger H, Kartesz J, Kenis M, Kreft H, Kühn I, Lenzner B, Liebhold A, Mosena A, Moser D, Nishino M, Pearman D, Pergl J, Rabitsch W, Rojas-Sandoval J, Roques A, Rorke S, Rossinelli S, Roy HE, Scalera R, Schindler S, Štajerová K, Tokarska-Guzik B, Van Kleunen M, Walker K, Weigelt P, Yamanaka T, Essl F (2017) No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications 8(1): 71314435. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435
  • Seebens A, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Pagad S, Pyšek P, Van Kleunen M, Winter M, Ansong M, Arianoutsou M, Bacher S, Blasius B, Brockerhoff EG, Brundu G, Capinha C, Causton CE, Celesti-Grapow L, Dawson W, Dullinger S, Economo EV, Fuentes N, Guénard B, Jäger H, Kartesz J, Kenis M, Kühn I, Lenzner B, Liebhold A, Mosena A, Moser D, Nentwig W, Nishino M, Pearman D, Pergl J, Rabitsch W, Rojas-Sandoval J, Roques A, Rorke S, Rossinelli S, Roy HE, Scalera R, Schindler S, Štajerová K, Tokarska-Guzik B, Walker K, Ward DF, Yamanaka T, Essl F (2018) Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 115(10): E2264–E2273. https://doiorg/101073/pnas1719429115
  • Seebens H, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Capinha C, Dawson W, Dullinger S, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, van Kleunen M, Kühn I, Jeschke JM, Lenzner B, Liebhold AM, Pattison Z, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Winter M, Essl F (2021) Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Global Change Biology 27: 970–982. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15333
  • Silva WD, Zou Y, Bento JMS, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2017) Aggregation-sex pheromones and likely pheromones of 11 South American cerambycid beetles, and partitioning of pheromone channels. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5: 101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00101
  • Silva WD, Hanks LM, Alvarez JCS, Madalon FZ, Bento JMS, Bello JE, Millar JG (2020) Variations on a theme: Two structural motifs create species-specific pheromone channels for multiple species of South American cerambycid beetles. Insects 11(4): 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11040222
  • Sweeney JD, Silk PJ, Grebennikov V (2014) Efficacy of semiochemical-baited traps for detection of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in the Russian Far East. European Journal of Entomology 111(3): 397–406. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2014.049
  • Sweeney JD, Hughes C, Webster V, Kostanowicz C, Webster R, Mayo P, Allison JD (2020) Impact of horizontal edge–interior and vertical canopy–understory gradients on the abundance and diversity of bark and woodboring beetles in survey traps. Insects 11(9): 573. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11090573
  • Tavakilian GL, Chevillotte H (2022) Titan: base de données internationales sur les Cerambycidae ou Longicornes.
  • Touroult J, Poirier E (2021) Nouvelles espèces et nouveaux signalements de longicornes des Petites Antilles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 126(1): 15–24. https://doi.org/10.32475/bsef_2161
  • Vitali F, Schmitt T (2017) Ecological patterns strongly impact the biogeography of western Palaearctic longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycoidea). Organisms, Diversity and Evolution 17: 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-016-0290-6
  • Wermelinger B, Flückiger PF, Obrist MK, Duelli P (2007) Horizontal and vertical distribution of saproxylic beetles (Col., Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Scolytinae) across sections of forest edges. Journal of Applied Entomology 131: 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2006.01128.x
  • Wickham JD, Harrison RD, Lu W, Guo Z, Millar JG, Hanks LM, Chen Y (2014) Generic lures attract cerambycid beetles in a tropical montane rain forest in southern China. Journal of Economic Entomology 107(1): 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC13333
  • Wickham JD, Lu W, Jin T, Peng Z, Guo D, Millar JG, Hanks LM, Chen Y (2016a) Prionic acid: an effective sex attractant for an important pest of sugarcane, Dorysthenes granulosus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Prioninae). Journal of Economic Entomology 109(1): 484–486. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tov266
  • Wickham JD, Lu W, Long-Wa Z, Chen Y, Zou Y, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2016b) Likely aggregation-sex pheromones of the invasive beetle species Callidiellum villosulum, and the related Asian species Allotraeus asiaticus, Semanotus bifasciatus, and Xylotrechus buqueti (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 109(5): 2243–2246. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow187
  • Wickham JD, Harrison RD, Lu W, Chen Y, Hanks LM, Millar JG (2021) Rapid assessment of cerambycid beetle biodiversity in a tropical rainforest in Yunnan Province, China, using a multicomponent pheromone lure. Insects 12: 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040277
  • Xu T, Yasui H, Teale SA, Fujiwara-Tsujii N, Wickham JD, Fukaya M, Hansen L, Kiriyama S, Hao D, Nakano A, Zhang L, Watanabe T, Tokoro M, Millar JG (2017) Identification of a male-produced sex-aggregation pheromone for a highly invasive cerambycid beetle, Aromia bungii. Scientific Reports 7(1): 7330. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-07520-1
  • Žunič-Kosi A, Zou YF, Hoskovec M, Vrezec A, Stritih N, Millar JG (2017) Novel, male-produced aggregation pheromone of the cerambycid beetle Rosalia alpina, a priority species of European conservation concern. PLoS ONE 12(8): e0183279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183279
  • Žunič-Kosi A, Stritih-Peljhan N, Zou Y, McElfresh JS, Millar JG (2019) A male-produced aggregation sex pheromone of the beetle Arhopalus rusticus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae, Spondylinae) may be useful in managing this invasive species. Scientific Reports 9: 19570 .https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56094-7

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 

Total trapping network

Alain Roques, Lili Ren, Davide Rassati, Juan Shi, Evgueni Akulov, Neil Audsley, Marie-Anne Auger-Rozenberg, Dimitrios Avtzis, Andrea Battisti, Richard Bellanger, Alexis Bernard, Iris Bernadinelli, Manuela Branco, Giacomo Cavaletto, Christian Cocquempot, Mario Contarini, Béatrice Courtial, Claudine Courtin, Olivier Denux, Miloň Dvořák, Jian-ting Fan, Nina Feddern, Joseph Francese, Emily K. L. Franzen, André Garcia, Georgi Georgiev, Margarita Georgieva, Federica Giarruzzo, Martin Gossner, Louis Gross, Daniele Guarneri, Gernot Hoch, Doris Hölling, Mats Jonsell, Natalia Kirichenko, Antoon Loomans, You-qing Luo, Deborah McCullough, Craig Maddox, Emmanuelle Magnoux, Matteo Marchioro, Petr Martinek, Hugo Mas, Bruno Mériguet, Yong-zhi Pan, Régis Phélut, Patrick Pineau, Ann Marie Ray, Olivier Roques, Marie-Cécile Ruiz, Victor Sarto i Monteys, Stefano Speranza, Jiang-hua Sun, Jon D. Sweeney, Julien Touroult, Lionel Valladares, Loïs Veillat, Yuan Yuan, Myron P. Zalucki, Yunfan Zou, Alenka Žunič-Kosi, Lawrence M. Hanks, Jocelyn G. Millar

Data type: site description (excel document)

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (46.51 kb)
login to comment