ArticlePest management science2025
Investigating the threat to Sitka spruce from Ips typographus: discrimination and colonization of Britain's principal commercial conifer by a damaging forest pest.
Article in Pest management science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency Control Strategies forInsects · 2026Article
- Host tree preference and performance of the Eurasian spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) on Scots pine.Pest management science · 2026Article
- Gallery Architecture and Reproductive Strategy ofInsects · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIps typographus (L.), the eight-toothed spruce bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytinae), has devastated European Norway spruce (Picea abies) forests in recent years. For the first time, I. typographus has established localized breeding populations in Britain, where Sitka spruce (P. sitchensis) is a critical component of plantation forestry. The interactions between Norway spruce and I. typographus are well understood, but relatively little is known about the susceptibility of Sitka spruce to the beetle. This study aimed to determine whether I. typographus would select Sitka, compared to Norway spruce, as a host for breeding, and to study the chemical ecology underlying these host preferences.
resultsHost choice assays were conducted in the laboratory using freshly cut spruce logs, and then verified in the field in an area with an endemic population of I. typographus. Overall, colonization and breeding success were found to be similar in cut Sitka and Norway spruce material. The response of I. typographus, reared on both Norway and Sitka spruce, to headspace extracts of aged and fresh Norway and Sitka spruce material was tested behaviorally using four-arm olfactometry. Odors of aged wood from the two species were equally attractive, and fresh Sitka was more attractive than fresh Norway spruce. Antennal responses to Norway Spruce and Sitka Spruce headspace extracts were located using GC-EAG and identified by coupled GC-mass spectrometry and GC co-injection with authentic standards. Norway- and Sitka spruce-reared beetles did not differentiate between synthetic Norway or Sitka spruce blends and responded similarly.
conclusionThese findings suggest I. typographus will select and colonize cut Sitka as readily as cut Norway spruce, with implications for its establishment risk in Sitka-growing regions. Whilst the susceptibility of live Sitka trees remains unclear, the study advances the understanding of the role of both host-emitted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in primary host location and induced host preference in host selection by I. typographus. © 2025 Crown copyright and The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the King's Printer for Scotland.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.