Trirachys holosericeus (apple stem borer)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Wood Packaging
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Trirachys holosericeus (Fabricius, 1787)
Preferred Common Name
- apple stem borer
Other Scientific Names
- Aeolesthes holosericea (Fabricius, 1787)
- Aeolesthes holosericeus (Fabricius, 1787)
- Aeolesthes velutina (Thomson, 1865)
- Cerambyx holosericeus Fabricius, 1787
- Hammaticherus holosericeus (Fabricius, 1787)
- Neocerambyx holosericeus (Fabricius, 1787)
- Pachydissus similis Gahan, 1890
- Pachydissus velutinus Thomson, 1865
Local Common Names
- India: apple tree borer; cherry tree borer
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
Trirachys holosericeus, a highly polyphagous longhorned beetle, is native to southern Asia from Pakistan to the Philippines. It is a stem-boring pest in natural and planted forests and fruit trees. It attacks primarily hardwoods, and at least one conifer. Both healthy and stressed trees are attacked, often leading to crown dieback and possibly tree death after one or more years of infestation. Cut logs can remain attractive to egg-laying adults for nearly a year after felling. T. holosericeus has not become established outside its native range of Asia, but it could be moved inadvertently in live plants, logs, and solid wood packaging. Chemical treatments, including injecting insecticides into active galleries, are often used on live trees, especially fruit trees. In forest stands, heavily infested trees are often cut and destroyed. For recently cut logs, rapid transport to sawmills and quick utilization, or at least debarking, are recommended.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Coleoptera
- Family: Cerambycidae
- Genus: Trirachys
- Species: Trirachys holosericeus
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
The scientific name Trirachys holosericeus was established by Vitali et al. (2017) when transferred from the binomial Aeolesthes holosericea, which was in general usage for over a century since it was proposed by Gahan (1906). Therefore, most scientific papers dealing with this insect refer to Aeolesthes holosericea, as well as most internet resources at the time of writing in 2019.
The genus Trirachys was originally described by Hope (1843) and the genus Aeolesthes by Gahan (1890). The type species selected for Trirachys had an armed prothorax, whereas the prothorax was unarmed in the type species selected for Aeolesthes. In addition, there were differences in the location of spines along the antennal segments between the two type species. Vitali et al. (2017), however, noted wide variation among the species of Trirachys and Aeolesthes in occurrence and placement of spines on the prothorax and antennae, and therefore conducted a major revision that resulted in transferring A. holosericea to Trirachys along with using the original species epithet used when this species was first described by Fabricius (1787) as Cerambyx holosericeus. It is important to note that Gahan (1891) synonymized Cerambyx holosericeus and three other binomials under the name Aeolesthes holosericeus in 1891, but later apparently misspelled the species epithet as holosericea in his later publication (Gahan 1906), which then continued in common usage until the recent revision by Vitali et al. (2017).
DescriptionTop of page
Trirachys holosericeus is a typical longhorned beetle (also called longhorn or longicorn beetles) in which the body is elongate and the antennae are as long as or longer than the beetle's body length, depending on the sex. Detailed descriptions of the adults and other life stages can be found in Stebbing (1914), Beeson (1941) and Duffy (1968). Vitali et al. (2017) provided a key for several genera of Oriental Cerambycini, including Aeolesthes and Trirachys, along with several characters that are possessed by T. holosericeus.
Eggs are white, shiny, oval and have a short stalk-like process at one end (Gardner, 1925). Typical egg length and width were reported, respectively, as 2.5 mm and 1.4 mm by Gardner (1925) and 2.2 mm and 0.8-1.2 mm by Gupta and Tara (2013). Drawings and photos of T. holosericeus eggs appear in Gardner (1925), Rahman and Khan (1942), Mamlayya (2011), and Gupta and Tara (2013).
Detailed descriptions of T. holosericeus larvae are given in Gardner (1925) and Duffy (1968). Larvae are yellowish-white in body colour, cylindrical, with a brown head, black mandibles, and a hard dorsal brown thoracic plate (Stebbing, 1914; Gardner, 1925). Reports on typical length of mature larvae vary from 45 mm (Gardner, 1925) to 75 mm by (Rahman and Khan, 1942). Gupta and Tara (2013) stated that T. holosericeus has seven larval instars, with final instars averaging 60 mm long. Therefore, it is likely that the larvae examined by Gardner (1925) were not final instars. The regions between abdominal segments of larvae are highly constricted, giving the abdomen a corrugated appearance (Stebbing, 1914). Larvae have very short, distinct 4-segmented legs (Gardner, 1925; Rahman and Khan, 1942). Drawings and photos of T. holosericeus larvae appear in Gardner (1925), Rahman and Khan (1942), Mamlayya (2011), Salve (2012) and Gupta and Tara (2013).
Pupae are yellowish-white in colour and 30-42 mm in length (Stebbings, 1914; Beeson, 1941; Gardner, 1925; Rahman and Khan, 1942; Gupta and Tara, 2013). The pupae are of the typical exarate type in which appendages are free from the body. Images of T. holosericeus pupae appear in Rahman and Khan (1942) and Gupta and Tara (2013).
Adults are elongate, parallel sided, dark brown to reddish brown in colour, with patches of grayish to light-brown pubescence on the elytra that give the beetle a silky appearance (Stebbing, 1914; Beeson, 1941; Duffy 1968). Most authors reported that adults are 20-36 mm long (Gahan, 1906; Stebbing, 1914; Duffy 1968; Wang 2017), however, a range of 38-45 mm was given by Gupta and Tara (2013). Females tend to be larger than males (Tara et al., 2009; Gupta and Tara, 2013). The sides of the prothorax are rounded, not armed, and the pronotum is highly wrinkled (rugose) (Stebbing, 1914; Beeson, 1941). Antennae tend to be about 1.5 times the length of the body in males, whereas in females the antennae are about the same length as the body (Beeson, 1941). Drawings and images of T. holosericeus adults appear in several publications, including Stebbing (1914), Rahman and Khan (1942), Duffy (1968), Sengupta and Sengupta (1981), Mamlayya (2011), and Gupta and Tara (2013), Salve (2014), Bhawane et al. (2015), Jiji et al. (2016), Kariyanna (2016), More et al. (2017) and Kariyanna et al. (2018).
DistributionTop of page
Trirachys holosericeus is native to several countries in South Asia (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), East Asia (China and Hong Kong), and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam). It occurs from sea level into sub-montane valleys of the Himalayas and in both moist and dry forests (Beeson, 1941; Rahman and Khan, 1942).
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.Last updated: 12 Feb 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Bhutan||Present||Native||Sengupta and Sengupta (1981)|
|China||Present||Native||CABI (2020)||Present based on regional distribution|
|-Anhui||Present||Native||Li LiYing et al. (1997)|
|-Fujian||Present||Native||Löbl and Smetana (2010); Kariyanna et al. (2018)|
|-Guangdong||Present||Native||Löbl and Smetana (2010); Kariyanna et al. (2018)|
|-Guangxi||Present||Native||Löbl and Smetana (2010); Kariyanna et al. (2018)|
|-Hainan||Present||Native||Löbl and Smetana (2010); Khan and Maiti (1983); Li LiYing et al. (1997); Kariyanna et al. (2018)|
|-Henan||Present||Native||Löbl and Smetana (2010); Kariyanna et al. (2018)|
|-Hubei||Present||Native||Li LiYing et al. (1997)|
|-Hunan||Present||Native||Li LiYing et al. (1997)|
|-Inner Mongolia||Present||Native||Li LiYing et al. (1997)|
|-Jiangsu||Present||Native||Li LiYing et al. (1997)|
|-Shaanxi||Present||Native||Löbl and Smetana (2010); Kariyanna et al. (2018)|
|-Shanxi||Present||Native||Löbl and Smetana (2010); Kariyanna et al. (2018)|
|-Sichuan||Present||Native||Li LiYing et al. (1997)|
|-Yunnan||Present||Native||Löbl and Smetana (2010); Kariyanna et al. (2018)|
|-Zhejiang||Present||Native||Li LiYing et al. (1997)|
|Hong Kong||Present||Native||Löbl and Smetana (2010); Kariyanna et al. (2018)|
|India||Present||Native||CABI (2020)||Present based on regional distribution|
|-Andaman and Nicobar Islands||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981); Khan and Maiti (1983)|
|-Andhra Pradesh||Present||Native||Stebbing (1914); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981); Tara et al. (2009)|
|-Arunachal Pradesh||Present||Native||Sengupta and Sengupta (1981); Mitra et al. (2017)|
|-Assam||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981); Mitra et al. (2017); Mitra et al. (2017a)|
|-Bihar||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981)|
|-Himachal Pradesh||Present||Native||Tara et al. (2009); Löbl and Smetana (2010); Mitra et al. (2015)|
|-Jammu and Kashmir||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981); Tara et al. (2009)|
|-Karnataka||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981)|
|-Madhya Pradesh||Present||Native||Sengupta and Sengupta (1981); Tara et al. (2009)|
|-Maharashtra||Present||Native||Gahan (1906); DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981); Salve (2014); More et al. (2017)|
|-Nagaland||Present||Native||Mitra et al. (2016); Mitra et al. (2017)|
|-Odisha||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981)|
|-Punjab||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981); Tara et al. (2009)|
|-Rajasthan||Present||Native||Tara et al. (2009)|
|-Sikkim||Present||Native||Löbl and Smetana (2010); Mitra et al. (2017)|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981); Tara et al. (2009)|
|-Uttar Pradesh||Present||Native||Stebbing (1914); DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981)|
|-Uttarakhand||Present||Native||Mukhopadhyay (2011); Tara et al. (2009)|
|-West Bengal||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Sengupta and Sengupta (1981)|
|Indonesia||Present||Native||Khan and Maiti (1983); Nga et al. (2014)|
|Laos||Present||Native||Khan and Maiti (1983); Mitra et al. (2016)|
|Malaysia||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Khan and Maiti (1983); Mitra et al. (2016)|
|-Sarawak||Present||Native||Vitali et al. (2017)|
|Myanmar||Present||Native||Gahan (1906); DUFFY (1968); Khan and Maiti (1983)|
|Pakistan||Present||Native||Sengupta and Sengupta (1981); Löbl and Smetana (2010); Mitra et al. (2016)|
|Sri Lanka||Present||Native||Gahan (1906); DUFFY (1968); Khan and Maiti (1983); Makihara et al. (2008); Mitra et al. (2016)|
|Thailand||Present||Native||Gahan (1906); Khan and Maiti (1983); Mitra et al. (2016)|
|Vietnam||Present||Native||DUFFY (1968); Nga et al. (2014)|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
There are no documented cases of T. holosericeus becoming established in countries outside its native range as of 2019.
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
Even though T. holosericeus has apparently not yet become established outside its native range, it could be moved internationally in large live plants, recently cut logs and milled lumber and solid wood packaging, all of which are known pathways for the inadvertent movement of cerambycids internationally (Haack, 2006; Cocquempot and Lindelöw, 2010; Haack et al., 2010; Eyre and Haack, 2017; Meurisse et al., 2019). Cerambycids are the second most commonly intercepted family of wood-infesting insects in solid wood packaging materials used in international trade (Haack, 2006; Haack et al., 2014). During 1984-2008, there were 3483 interceptions of Cerambycidae associated with wood packaging at ports of entry in the United States (Haack et al., 2014), including two interceptions of unidentified species of Aeolesthes, one from India and one from China. Given its wide host range, ability to infest both living and recently dead trees, and its adaptability to both moist and dry forests, T. holosericeus has the potential to become established in many countries worldwide, especially in the tropics and subtropics. Although T. holosericeus is seldom mentioned by name as a quarantine pest, many countries, such as the United States, take regulatory action against all interceptions of live Cerambycidae in wood packaging (USDA APHIS 2016). In a recent pest risk assessment for exotic forest insects and pathogens that could negatively impact Hawaii’s forest trees (DeNitto et al., 2015), T. holosericeus was evaluated and classified as a potential high-risk pest given that it had a high likelihood of introduction and, if established, would have high negative economic and environmental consequences.
HabitatTop of page
Trirachys holosericeus is primarily a forest pest of both natural and plantation forests, as well as fruit tree orchards. It occurs from sea level, where it has been reported as a pest of mangroves (Tiwari et al., 1980), to sub-montane valleys of the Himalayas (Beeson, 1941). It occurs in both moist and dry forests (Beeson, 1941), and has been collected up to elevations of about 2500 m in the Punjab region of India (Rahman and Khan 1942). Little information was found on its pest status in urban areas; however, given its wide host range and ability to infest live trees it would seem that T. holosericeus has the potential to be an urban pest as well as a forest pest.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural forests||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Mangroves||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
At least 68 species of trees have been reported as larval hosts for T. holosericeus (Stebbing, 1914; Beeson, 1919; 1941; Rahman and Khan, 1942; Duffy, 1968; Tiwari et al., 1980; Ahmed et al., 2004; Mamlayya et al., 2009; Prakash et al., 2010; Bhawane and Mamlayya, 2013; Gupta and Tara, 2013; Mitra, 2013; Salve, 2012; 2014; Bhawane et al., 2015; Kariyanna et al., 2017; Sundararaj et al., 2019). All of these host trees are broadleaf trees (dicots) except one conifer, Pinus roxburghii (Beeson, 1919), which should be reconfirmed. Many of these host trees are important commercially for products such as timber, fruit, fibre and chemical extractives, as well as ornamentals. In addition, several of these trees (e.g., species of Morus, Shorea and Terminalia) are also important as the food plants for various silk moth larvae used in silk production.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Acacia chundra||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Acacia nilotica (gum arabic tree)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Aegle marmelos (golden apple)||Rutaceae||Wild host|
|Albizia lebbeck (Indian siris)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Albizia procera (white siris)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Albizia saman (rain tree)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Alnus nitida (West Himalayan alder)||Betulaceae||Wild host|
|Anogeissus latifolia (axle-wood tree)||Combretaceae||Wild host|
|Artocarpus hirsutus (wild jack fruit)||Moraceae||Wild host|
|Azadirachta indica (neem tree)||Meliaceae||Wild host|
|Bauhinia acuminata||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Bauhinia semla (semla)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Bauhinia variegata (mountain ebony)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Bombax ceiba (silk cotton tree)||Bombacaceae||Wild host|
|Bridelia retusa||Euphorbiaceae||Wild host|
|Butea monosperma (flame of the forest)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Careya arborea (tummy wood)||Lecythidaceae||Wild host|
|Chloroxylon swietenia (satinwood)||Rutaceae||Wild host|
|Cynometra ramiflora||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Desmodium oojeinense||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Dracontomelon dao (Argus pheasant tree)||Anacardiaceae||Wild host|
|Duabanga grandiflora||Sonneratiaceae||Wild host|
|Eucalyptus robusta (swamp mahogany)||Myrtaceae||Wild host|
|Excoecaria agallocha||Euphorbiaceae||Wild host|
|Ficus benghalensis (banyan)||Moraceae||Wild host|
|Grewia optiva||Tiliaceae||Wild host|
|Hardwickia binata||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Juglans regia (walnut)||Juglandaceae||Wild host|
|Kydia calycina (Kydia)||Malvaceae||Wild host|
|Lagerstroemia parviflora||Lythraceae||Wild host|
|Lannea coromandelica||Anacardiaceae||Wild host|
|Mallotus philippensis (kamala tree)||Euphorbiaceae||Wild host|
|Malus baccata (siberian crab apple)||Rosaceae||Wild host|
|Malus domestica (apple)||Rosaceae||Main|
|Mangifera indica (mango)||Anacardiaceae||Main|
|Miliusa velutina||Annonaceae||Wild host|
|Morus alba (mora)||Moraceae||Wild host|
|Myristica andamanica||Myristicaceae||Wild host|
|Pinus roxburghii (chir pine)||Pinaceae||Wild host|
|Prosopis cineraria (screw-bean)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Prunus armeniaca (apricot)||Rosaceae||Main|
|Prunus avium (sweet cherry)||Rosaceae||Main|
|Prunus domestica (plum)||Rosaceae||Main|
|Prunus dulcis (almond)||Rosaceae||Main|
|Prunus persica (peach)||Rosaceae||Main|
|Psidium guajava (guava)||Myrtaceae||Wild host|
|Pterocarpus marsupium (andaman redwood)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Pterospermum acerifolium||Wild host|
|Pyrus communis (European pear)||Rosaceae||Main|
|Quercus incana||Wild host|
|Rhizophora apiculata (true mangrove)||Rhizophoraceae||Wild host|
|Santalum album (Indian sandalwood)||Santalaceae||Wild host|
|Shorea robusta (sal)||Dipterocarpaceae||Wild host|
|Soymida febrifuga||Meliaceae||Wild host|
|Tamarix aphylla (athel)||Tamaricaceae||Wild host|
|Tectona grandis (teak)||Lamiaceae||Wild host|
|Terminalia arjuna (arjun)||Combretaceae||Wild host|
|Terminalia bellirica (beleric myrobalan)||Combretaceae||Wild host|
|Terminalia catappa (Singapore almond)||Combretaceae||Wild host|
|Terminalia elliptica (laurel)||Combretaceae||Wild host|
|Terminalia myriocarpa||Combretaceae||Wild host|
|Toona ciliata (toon)||Meliaceae||Wild host|
|Triadica sebifera (Chinese tallow tree)||Euphorbiaceae||Wild host|
SymptomsTop of page
Signs of T. holosericeus infestation include zig-zag irregular galleries, often with broadened areas, constructed on the sapwood surface by early larval instars and also galleries that enter deep into the sapwood and heartwood that are constructed by late larval instars. The pupal chamber is formed at the end of the larval gallery and is usually parallel to the axis of the tree trunk or branch. Frass is ejected from the galleries through small holes in the bark as the larvae tunnel. In heavily infested trees, frass can accumulate at the base of the tree. Upon emergence from the trees, adults chew oval exit holes through the bark, with those produced by males being 0.6-0.9 cm wide and those made by females being 0.8-1.1 cm wide (Sinha et al., 2011). Given that borer infestation can occur over multiple years until the host tree dies, the typical symptoms include wilted foliage followed by crown dieback and eventual tree death.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / wilting|
|Stems / dieback|
|Stems / gummosis or resinosis|
|Stems / ooze|
|Stems / visible frass|
|Whole plant / frass visible|
|Whole plant / internal feeding|
|Whole plant / plant dead; dieback|
|Whole plant / wilt|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Physiology and Phenology
The most detailed studies on the life history of T. holosericeus have been conducted in India, and therefore most of the data reported here is based on those studies. Timing of events in the life cycle of T. holosericeus vary widely given that the geographic range of this beetle extends from near the equator to about 30°N latitude, and from sea level to about 2500 m elevation. For example, Khan (1989) reported adult emergence during February and March in central India (Madhya Pradesh), whereas Stebbing (1914) reported emergence primarily in June and July in northern India (Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand). Also in northern India (Jammu Province), Gupta and Tara (2013) stated that adults are active during April to June. And finally, although no details on where the observations were made, adults were reported to emerge from March to May by Beeson (1941) and April to July by Rahman and Khan (1942).
Reports on the time required for T. holosericeus to complete a single generation vary widely, which is to be expected given its broad latitudinal range and ability to infest live trees and cut logs. The shortest generation times reported of only 8-15 months were for the Andaman Islands, which are located at 10° to 14°N latitude (Khan and Maiti, 1983). Others, working in central and northern India, have reported generation times of 1 year (Khan, 1989), 1-2 years (Beeson, 1941), 2 years (Wang, 2017), and 2-3 years (Rahman and Khan, 1942).
Mating takes place on the host tree (Stebbing, 1914). Tara et al. (2009) reported that mating starts within 2-3 days of emergence. By contrast, Sinha et al. (2011) stated that males start to mate within 2 days post-emergence, compared with 6-8 days for females. No pheromones have been reported for T. holosericeus; however, known pheromones for all other Cerambycinae have all been male-produced aggregation pheromones (Millar and Hanks, 2017). T. holosericeus females usually chew a small slit in the outer bark, often in bark cracks and crevices, and then deposit one or more eggs into the slit (Rahman and Khan, 1942; Sinha et al., 2011; Gupta and Tara, 2013). The number of eggs laid at a single site was reported as 1-5 eggs by Gupta and Tara (2013), 2-4 by Wang (2017), and 4-8 by Rahman and Khan (1942). Sinha et al. (2011) reported that females appeared to seal the bark slit afterwards by rubbing their ovipositor over the slit for 3-5 minutes. Under laboratory conditions, Gupta and Tara (2013) reported that T. holosericeus lifetime fecundity averaged 63 eggs per female with a range of 45-83. However, Rahman and Khan (1942) stated that one female laid 92 eggs in her lifetime, while others reported that some females can lay 200-300 eggs each (Beeson, 1941; Khan, 1989; Wang, 2017).
Gupta and Tara (2013) stated that eggs hatched in 9-12 days, with an average incubation period of 11 days. By contrast, egg hatch was reported to occur in 2-3 days by Khan (1989), 7-12 days by Rahman and Khan (1942), and 18-20 days by Sinha et al. (2011).
Based on head capsule widths, Gupta and Tara (2013) estimated that T. holosericeus has seven larval instars. After hatching, first instar larvae tunnel directly through the bark and feed in the cambial region at the interface of the bark and wood, with later instars entering the sapwood and heartwood (Gupta and Tara, 2013). The larval galleries in the cambial region form a zig-zag pattern and at various locations broaden out into wide cavities that score deeply into both the bark and outer sapwood (Stebbing, 1914; Beeson, 1941). Stebbing (1914) stated that the portion of the larval gallery constructed on the sapwood surface is about 30 cm long and that the cavities are about 7.5 cm wide. Larvae usually chew 2-4 holes through the bark at various locations during their tunneling and use these holes to eject some of their frass and wood shavings (Stebbing, 1914; Beeson, 1941; Gupta and Tara, 2013). At times various tree exudates also drip from these frass-ejection holes (Rahman and Khan, 1942; Gupta and Tara, 2013). Gupta and Sharma (2015) noted active expulsion of frass from infested trees from April through November, peaking during August to October. When larvae are about two-thirds developed they tunnel somewhat horizontally (to the tree’s axis) into the sapwood and possibly heartwood for a distance of 6-7.5 cm and then tunnel downward, parallel to the tree’s axis, for about the same distance to form the eventual pupal chamber (Stebbing, 1914; Beeson, 1941). Prior to pupation, the larva returns to the near the bark surface and chews an area that will be used by the eventual adult as their exit hole. The larva then returns to the end of the gallery where it seals itself inside by capping the entrance to the pupal chamber with wood shavings and a calcium carbonate substance regurgitated by the larva to form an operculum (Stebbing, 1914; Beeson, 1941; Haack et al., 2017).
Pupation typically occurs in autumn or spring, and lasts 1-3 months depending on local conditions (Rahman and Khan, 1942; Duffy, 1968). For example, Beeson (1941) stated that pupation usually occurs in October and lasts only 3 weeks, whereas Gupta and Tara (2013) reported pupation usually starts in September or October and lasts about 8 weeks. Under ambient conditions indoors, Sinha et al. (2011) reported a 34-45 day pupation period. When pupation occurs in autumn the new adults remain in the pupal chambers until the following spring and then emerge from the tree.
Under laboratory conditions, adult longevity averaged 16 days for females and 33 days for males (Gupta and Tara, 2013).
Adults are mostly nocturnal and usually remain still in bark crevices or on the shady side of logs during the day (Beeson, 1941; Rahman and Khan, 1942). Adults feed on the bark of young twigs (Tara et al., 2009; Sinha et al., 2011; Gupta and Tara, 2013), but not on foliage (Rahman and Khan, 1942).
ClimateTop of page
|A - Tropical/Megathermal climate||Preferred||Average temp. of coolest month > 18°C, > 1500mm precipitation annually|
|Af - Tropical rainforest climate||Preferred||> 60mm precipitation per month|
|Am - Tropical monsoon climate||Preferred||Tropical monsoon climate ( < 60mm precipitation driest month but > (100 - [total annual precipitation(mm}/25]))|
|B - Dry (arid and semi-arid)||Preferred||< 860mm precipitation annually|
|BS - Steppe climate||Preferred||> 430mm and < 860mm annual precipitation|
|C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate||Preferred||Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C|
|Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers|
|Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter||Preferred||Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)|
|Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year|
|D - Continental/Microthermal climate||Preferred||Continental/Microthermal climate (Average temp. of coldest month < 0°C, mean warmest month > 10°C)|
|Ds - Continental climate with dry summer||Preferred||Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers)|
|Dw - Continental climate with dry winter||Preferred||Continental climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry winters)|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Euurobracon triplagiata||Parasite||Larvae||not specific|
|Iphiaulax immsi||Parasite||Larvae||not specific|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Few reports on the natural enemies of T. holosericeus have been published. For example, an unidentified species of ichneumonid wasp was reported as being reared from T. holosericeus (Stebbing, 1914), and similarly the braconid wasps Euurobracon maculipennis [Euurobracon triplagiata] (Chatterjee and Misra, 1974; Haider, 2002) and Iphiaulax immsi (Beeson, 1941; Chatterjee and Misra, 1974).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
The dispersal capability of T. holosericeus adults has not been reported. However, for other cerambycid species that have been carefully studied, season-long natural dispersal has often exceeded 1 km (Haack et al. 2017). The most likely method for long-distance spread of T. holosericeus would be through accidental introduction of infested products (live plants, logs and lumber) and solid wood packaging such as dunnage, crating and pallets. Although the author of this datasheet is not aware of any published interception records of T. holosericeus, there were two interceptions of unidentified species of Aeolesthes (the genus to which T. holosericeus was assigned until 2018) in the dataset used by Haack et al. (2014), which included 3483 cerambycid interception records made at US ports-of-entry during 1984-2008. One of these interceptions was from India and the other was from China, which are both countries within the natural range of T. holosericeus.
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||adults; eggs; larvae; pupae||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Wood||adults; larvae; pupae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
Wood PackagingTop of page
|Wood Packaging liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Timber type||Used as packing|
|Solid wood packing material with bark||Primarily hardwoods||Yes|
|Solid wood packing material without bark||Primarily hardwoods||Yes|
Impact SummaryTop of page
Economic ImpactTop of page
Trirachys holosericeus is a major pest of both forest and orchard trees throughout South, East, and Southeast Asia, and especially in India given the large number of published scientific papers from that country. T. holosericeus has an extremely wide host range, almost exclusively hardwood species, and can infest apparently healthy trees as well as stressed trees and recently cut logs. Tree mortality can occur in a single season, but usually several successive years of infestation are required before trees are killed.
In logging operations and at sawmills, Stebbing (1914) stated that 20-60% of stored logs could be infested by T. holosericeus, and similarly Khan (1989) stated that 40-60% of stored logs could be infested. The quality of lumber cut from infested logs is greatly reduced because of the large galleries that reach deep into the heartwood of the tree (Stebbing, 1914; Beeson, 1941; Khan and Maiti, 1983). In apple orchards, Gupta and Tara (2014) and Gupta and Sharma (2015) reported infestation levels could reach as high as 40% of all trees in an orchard. Gupta and Tara (2013) noted that larval densities can be as high as 65-70 larvae in a single branch of an apple tree. In plantations of Terminalia arjuna trees, where foliage is collected to feed to silkworms (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) used to produce tasar silk, Prakash et al. (2010) reported infestation levels of individual trees as high as 59%. Similarly, Singh et al. (1987) reported infestation rates as high as 24% for Terminalia arjuna trees and 39% for Terminalia tomentosa [Terminalia elliptica] trees growing in plantations maintained for tasar silk production. Besides T. holosericeus, there are many other insect borers that attack trees used in tasar culture, including the buprestid beetle Sphenoptera cupriventris [Sphenoptera barbarica] and the cossid moth Indarbela quadrinotata (Reddy et al., 1996; Tirkey et al., 2019).
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Given the broad host range of T. holosericeus and its ability to infest apparently healthy trees, stressed trees, and recently cut logs, it is likely that this beetle could cause great environmental damage wherever it becomes established. For these reasons and others, DeNitto et al. (2015) classified T. holosericeus as a high-risk pest to the forests of Hawai’i, and especially to the Hawaiian endemic tree species Acacia koa.
Social ImpactTop of page
Given the large numbers of people involved in tasar silk production, especially in rural areas of India (Singh et al., 1985; Gangopadhyay, 2010; Reddy, 2010), outbreaks of T. holosericeus can greatly impact local economies by weakening or killing the trees used to supply foliage to the silkworm caterpillars. Similarly, outbreaks of T. holosericeus in areas of high fruit production can reduce yields in the affected orchards and thereby impact farm economies.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Is a habitat generalist
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Host damage
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts forestry
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Damages animal/plant products
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult to identify/detect in the field
- Difficult/costly to control
Detection and InspectionTop of page
The most obvious signs of active T. holosericeus infestation on standing trees would be detection of frass being expelled from infested branch and trunk sections or piled at the base of the tree. Frass would also be obvious on cut logs that are currently infested. The characteristic larval galleries of T. holosericeus would be present under the bark where frass has been expelled from the tree. Note that frass is generally not expelled during the colder winter months and at times it can be washed away by heavy rains. In addition, various life stages of T. holosericeus would be present within the galleries if the infestation is active. If all individuals have become adults and exited the tree, then exit holes made by the adults and empty larval galleries would be present. Although no pheromone has yet been identified for T. holosericeus, detection surveys using traps baited with multiple known pheromones of other Cerambycinae could be tested in the field now (Millar and Hanks, 2017), and improved upon once the actual pheromone of T. holosericeus is discovered. In a recent trapping study in Italy, for example, Rassati et al. (2019) showed that more Cerambycinae species were collected in purple multiple-funnel traps (vs. green), baited with multiple cerambycid pheromones (vs. ethanol alone), and suspended in the canopy of trees (vs. in the understory).
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
There are many similarities between adults of T. holosericeus and adults of other species of the genera Trirachys and Aeolesthes. The keys and characters given in Vitali et al. (2017) will be helpful in distinguishing among the species, but confirmation by experts would be recommended. As for the larvae, Duffy (1968) reports that T. holosericeus larvae are very similar to those of the Cerambycinae species Hoplocerambyx spinicornis in general shape and size as well as gallery pattern. In addition, these two cerambycids have broadly similar geographic ranges and many host trees in common, such as species of Duabanga, Pentacme, and Shorea, and therefore both species can be found in the same tree or log. Although the larvae of these two species are similar, Gardner (1925) and Duffy (1968) point out several differences, and Gardner (1925) also provides a key to the larvae of the common Cerambycinae in India.
DNA barcoding could be used to positively identify T. holosericeus at all life stages, especially larvae and pupae, encountered in trees or traded products such as nursery stock, logs, lumber, and wood packaging. Wu et al. (2017) showed the value of this DNA technique for several buprestid and cerambycid borers collected from solid wood packaging. Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) is a public online reference library of DNA barcode data for tens of thousands of plant and animal species worldwide (BOLDS, 2019). As of 2019, DNA barcode data are available in BOLDS for T. holosericeus (currently listed as Aeolesthes holosericea), as well as three other species of Aeolesthes, Hoplocerambyx spinicornis, and nearly 2000 other cerambycid species.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
For logs that cannot be debarked or milled quickly, various insecticides can be applied to the bark surface of logs while in storage (Khan, 1989). For infested live trees, such as fruit trees, several insecticides have shown good results when applied by inserting insecticide-soaked cotton plugs into the galleries and sealing the area with mud (Sharma and Attri, 1969; Mandal et al., 1989; Gupta and Tara, 2014). Similar techniques have shown good control of the related cerambycid Aeolesthes sarta (Gaffar and Bhat, 1991).
Cultural control and sanitary measures
For forestry situations, logging during the colder months when T. holosericeus adults are not active and promptly moving and milling the logs would reduce opportunities for infestation. Alternatively, debarking logs in the field or when in storage would prevent oviposition. Debarking should be done before adult emergence begins in spring, such as by March or April, to avoid oviposition (Stebbing, 1914; Beeson, 1941; Khan, 1989). Stand sanitation after logging, such as chipping or burning of larger branches, would eliminate some breeding sites. Currently infested trees could also be targeted for cutting and burning during logging operations to lower beetle populations (Stebbing, 1914; Beeson 1941). Khan (1989) found that logs stored in full sunlight had lower infestation rates compared with logs held in shady areas.
In the insecticide study reported above by Gupta and Tara (2014), simply sealing the galleries with mud resulted in 10-11% larval mortality. In many countries, simply inserting a flexible wire into the larval gallery and attempting to injure the feeding larvae has shown good efficacy in controlling many cerambycid species (Rahman and Khan, 1942; Duffy, 1968; Wang, 2017).
No reports were found on efforts to control T. holosericeus with natural enemies.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
At time of writing in 2019, no information was found on T. holosericeus pheromones or long-distance dispersal, either as a single flight event or season-long spread. Similarly, no information was found on the minimum diameter of tree trunks or branches that are suitable for T. holosericeus oviposition. No detailed information was found on the pest status of T. holosericeus in urban areas or on ornamentals. For trees from which foliage is collected for tasar silk production, there was no information found on how the seasonality or degree of defoliation affects subsequent tree susceptibility to T. holosericeus infestation. Lastly, the early reports that the conifer Pinus roxburghii is a larval host of T. holosericeus should be confirmed.
ReferencesTop of page
Ahmed, S. I., Chaudhuri, K. K., Meeta Sharma, Shivesh Kumar, 2004. New insect pest records of Khejri and Rohida from Rajasthan and their possible management strategies. Indian Forester, 130(12), 1361-1374.
Bhawane GP, Mamlayya AB, 2013. Artocarpus hirsutus (Rosales: Moraceae): anew larval food plant of Aeolesthes holosericea (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Florida Entomologist, 96(1):274-277. http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/
Bhawane, G. P., Gaikwad, Y. B., Gaikwad, S. M., Mamlayya, A. B., 2015. Longicorn beetles and their diet breadth from forests of Kolhapur district, Northern Western Ghats, Maharashtra. The Bioscan, 10(2), 679-684. http://www.thebioscan.in/Journals_PDF/10238%20G.%20P.%20BHAWANE.pdf
Cocquempot, C., Lindelöw, Ǻ., 2010. Longhorn beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). BIORISK - Biodiversity and Ecosystem Risk Assessment, (No.4), 193-218. http://pensoftonline.net/biorisk/index.php/journal/article/view/56/57
DeNitto, G. A., Cannon, P., Eglitis, A., Glaeser, J. A., Maffei, H., Smith, S., 2015. General Technical Report - Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, USA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service (No.PSW-GTR-250), 171 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr250/psw_gtr250.pdf
Eyre D, Haack RA, 2017. Invasive Cerambycid pests and biosecurity measures. In: Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management, [ed. by Wang Q]. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press. 563–607.
Gahan CJ, 1890. Notes on longicorn Coleoptera of the group Cerambyciae, with descriptions of new genera and species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 6(32), 247–261.
Gahan CJ, 1891. Notes on longicorn Coleoptera of the group Cerambyciae, with descriptions of new genera and species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 7(37), 19-34.
Gangopadhyay D, 2010. Sericulture industry in India – a review. India Science and Technology (Online), https://ssrn.com/abstract=1473049
Gupta R, Sharma R, 2015. Seasonal incidence of Aeolesthes holosericea Fabricius (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on apple plantations (Malus domestica Borkh.) and it’s relation with important weather factors in Jammu Province, India. International Journal of Advanced Biological Research, 5(3), 216-219.
Gupta R, Tara JS, 2014. Management of apple tree borer, Aeolesthes holosericea Fabricius on apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh.) in Jammu Province, Jammu and Kashmir State, India. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 2(1), 96-98.
Haack RA, Keena MA, Eyre D, 2017. Life history and population dynamics of Cerambycidae. In: Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management, [ed. by Wang Q]. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press. 71-103.
Haack, R. A., Britton, K. O., Brockerhoff, E. G., Cavey, J. F., Garrett, L. J., Kimberley, M., Lowenstein, F., Nuding, A., Olson, L. J., Turner, J., Vasilaky, K. N., 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. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0096611 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096611
Haack, R. A., Hérard, F., Sun, J. H., Turgeon, J. J., 2010. Managing invasive populations of Asian longhorned beetle and citrus longhorned beetle: a worldwide perspective. Annual Review of Entomology, 55, 521-546. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085427 doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085427
Haider AA, 2002. Taxonomy of Indian Braconidae (Braconinae, Euphorinae and Hormiinae). DPhil Thesis. Aligarh, India: Aligarh Muslim University. 125 pp.
Hope, F. W., 1843. Descriptions of the coleopterous insects sent to England by Dr. Cantor from Chusan and Canton, with observations on the entomology of China. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 11, 62-66.
Jiji, T., Anitha, N., Aswathy Asokan, Akhila, G. V., 2016. Diversity of long horned beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) pests in southern Kerala. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, 22(1), 40-44. http://aapmhe.in/index.php/pmhe/article/view/702/655
Kariyanna B, 2016. An analysis of the species diversity and distribution of agriculturally important longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) from India. M.Sc. Thesis. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India: Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidyalaya. 774 pp.
Kariyanna B, Gupta R, Bakthavatchalam N, Mohan M, Nithish A, Dinkar NK, 2017. Host plants record and distribution status of agriculturally important longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) from India. Progressive Research–An International Journal, 12(1), 1195-1199.
Kariyanna B, Mohan M, Gupta R, Murali S, 2018. Longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) of Bihar, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, Special Issue 7, 576-583.
Khan, T. N., Maiti, P. K., 1983. Studies on the biotaxonomy, biology and ecology of some longicorn beetle borers (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of the Islands of Andaman, India. In: Occasional Paper, Records of the Zoological Survey of India , (No. 45) . 102 pp.
Li LiYing, Wang Ren, Waterhouse, D. F., 1997. The distribution and importance of arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture and forestry plantations in southern China. In: The distribution and importance of arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture and forestry plantations in southern China . Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).x + 185 pp.
Löbl I, Smetana A, 2010. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, Chrysomeloidae. Volume 6, Stenstrup, Denmark: Apollo Books.924 pp.
Makihara, H., Mannakkara, A., Fujimura, T., Ohtake, A., 2008. Checklist of longicorn coleoptera of Sri Lanka (1) Vesperidae and Cerambycidae excluding Lamiinae. Bulletin of the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Ibaraki, (No.407), 95-110. http://ss.ffpri.affrc.go.jp/labs/kanko/407-3.pdf
Mamlayya AB, 2011. Studies on insect pests of economically important forest trees from Kolhapur District. DPhil Thesis. Kolhapur, India: Shivaji University. 280 pp.
Mamlayya, A. B., Aland, S. R., Gaikwad, S. M., Bhawane, G. P., 2009. Incidence of a beetle Aeolesthes holosericea on Samanea saman and Albizia lebbeck trees at Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Bionotes, 11(4), 133.
Mandal, K. C., Singh, R. N., Bhengra, S. R., Dhar, S. L., Sinha, S. S., Sengupta, K., 1989. Control measure of round headed stem borer Aeolesthes holosericea Fabr. (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) in sericulture zones under tropical ecosystem. (Mesure de controle de l'insecte des tiges a tete ronde, Aeolesthes holosericea Fabr. (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) dans les zones sericicoles sous climat tropical). Sericologia, 29(1), 135-140.
Meurisse, N., Rassati, D., Hurley, B. P., Brockerhoff, E. G., Haack, R. A., 2019. Common pathways by which non-native forest insects move internationally and domestically. Journal of Pest Science, 92(1), 13-27. http://rd.springer.com/journal/10340 doi: 10.1007/s10340-018-0990-0
Millar JC, Hanks LM, 2017. Chemical ecology of cerambycids. In: Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management, [ed. by Wang Q]. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press. 161-208.
Mitra B, 2013. Biological diversity of cerambycid beetles infesting forest plants in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. DPhil Thesis. Santiniketan, India: Visva Bharti University. 205 pp.
Mitra B, Bhaumik S, Chakraborti U, Mallick K, 2017. An update on the diversity, distribution and zoo-geographical notes on longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) of North-East India. Biological Forum – an International Journal, 9(2), 61-80.
Mitra B, Chakraborti U, Mallick K, Bhaumik S, Das P, 2017. An updated list of cerambycid beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of Assam, India. Record of the Zoological Survey of India, 117(1), 78-90.
Mitra B, Das P, Chakraborti U, Mallick K, Chakraborty K, 2016. Long horn beetles (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) of Nagaland, India. Journal of Global Biosciences, 5(4), 3963-3969.
Mitra B, Majumder A, Chakraborti U, Das P, Mallick K, 2015. Longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) of Himachal Pradesh. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, 115(4), 405-409.
More SV, Prashant MS, Chandgadkar A, Surve J, 2017. Fauna of long horned beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) from Tilari forest, Chandgad, Kolhapur District of Maharashtra, a region of Western Ghats. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 5(6), 1684-1688.
Mukhopadhyay P, 2011. On a collection of Insecta: Coleopera: Cerambycidae and Curculionidae (Brachyderinae and Otiorrhynchinae) from Uttarakhand. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, 111(2), 75-88.
Nga CTQ, Long KD, Thinh TH, 2014. New Records of the Tribe Cerambycini (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) from Vietnam. Tap Chi Sinh Hoc (Academia Journal of Biology), 26(4), 428-443.
Prakash, P. J., Singh, R. S. J., Rao, B. V. S., Mahobia, G. P., Kumar, M. V., Prasad, B. C., 2010. Population dynamics of round headed stem borer, Aeolesthes holosericea Fabr. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in arjun ecosystem of Andhra Pradesh and its correlation with abiotic factors. Entomon, 35(2), 143-146.
RAHMAN, K. A. , ABDUL WAHID KHAN., 1942. Bionomics and Control of Aeolesthes holosericea F. (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of India, Section B. Biological Sciences, 15(4), 181-185 pp.
Rassati, D., Marini, L., Marchioro, M., Rapuzzi, P., Magnani, G., Poloni, R., Giovanni, F. di, Mayo, P., Sweeney, J., 2019. Developing trapping protocols for wood-boring beetles associated with broadleaf trees. Journal of Pest Science, 92(1), 267-279. http://rd.springer.com/journal/10340 doi: 10.1007/s10340-018-0984-y
Reddy KJ, Ram GM, Singh MK, Singh RN, 1996. Stem borer in primary tasar food plants. (Indian Silk). 39(9), 35-38.
Reddy, R. M., 2010. Conservation need of tropical tasar silk insect, Antheraea mylitta Drury (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) - strategies and impact. Journal of Entomology, 7(3), 152-159. http://scialert.net/qredirect.php?doi=je.2010.152.159&linkid=pdf doi: 10.3923/je.2010.152.159
Ruchie Gupta, Tara, J. S., 2013. First record on the biology of Aeolesthes holosericea Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), an important pest on apple plantations (Malus domestica Borkh.) in India. Munis Entomology & Zoology, 8(1), 243-251. http://www.munisentzool.org
Salve US, 2014. Neem, Azadirachta indica Juss. a new host plant of insect Aeolesthes holosericea Fabricius from Maharashtra, India. Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 4(1):199-203. http://www.oiirj.org/oiirj/jan-feb2014/24.pdf
Salve, U. S., 2012. Study of Neem trees from Beed District (Maharashtra) affected by stem borers. Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 2(6), 34-40. http://www.oiirj.org/oiirj/nov-dec2012/06.pdf
Singh RN, Krishna Rao JV, Samson MV, 2001. Role of parasitoids in pest management in tasar culture. In: Biocontrol potential and its exploitation in sustainable agriculture, Volume 2, Insect pests, [ed. by Upadhaya RK, Mukerji KG, Chamola BP]. New York, USA: Kluwer Academy. 379-387.
Singh RN, Mandal KC, Dhar SL, Sengupta K, 1987. Studies on the biology and extent of damage by stem borer, Aeolesthes holosericea. Sericologia, 27(3), 541-546.
Singh, A. K., Singh, M. K., Mascarenhas, O. A. J., 1985. Community forestry for revitalising rural ecosystems: a case study. Forest Ecology and Management, 10(3), 209-232. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(85)90116-1
Sinha RB, Debnath AK, Singh BMK, Prasad BC, 2011. Laboratory culture of stem borer, Aeolesthes holosericea F., method developed. Nature Precedings, http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5640/version/1
Sundararaj, R., Wilson, J. J., Vimala, D., 2019. Stem borers of Indian sandalwood (Santalum album Linn.) in Karnataka, India. Journal of the Indian Academy of Wood Science, 16(1), 31-35. doi: 10.1007/s13196-019-00232-1
Tara, J. S., Ruchie Gupta, Monika Chhetry, 2009. A study on Aeolesthes holosericea Fabricius, an important pest of apple plantations (Malus domestica Borkh.) in Jammu region. Asian Journal of Animal Science, 3(2), 222-224.
Tirkey P, Chandrashekharaiah M, Rathore MS, Singh RK, Sinha RB, Sahay A, 2019. Studies on level of infestation of flat headed borer and bark eating caterpillar on Terminalia arjuna and their management using insecticides. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 8(1)
Tiwari, K. K., Das, A. K., Roy, M. K. Dev, Khan, T. N., 1980. On the wood borers of mangroves of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India, with a note on the gallery pattern of some insect borers. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, 77(1/4), 357-362.
USDA APHIS, 2016. APHIS adopts international standards on wood packaging materials. US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/wood-packaging-material/sa_hot_topics/ct_wood_packing
Vitali F, Gouverneur X, Chemin G, 2017. Revision of the tribe Cerambycini: redefinition of the genera Trirachys Hope, 1843, Aeolesthes Gahan, 1890 and Pseudaeolesthes Plavilstshikov, 1931 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes, 26, 40-65.
Wang Q, 2017. Cerambycid pests in agricultural and horticultural crops. In: Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management, [ed. by Wang Q]. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press. 409-562.
Wu Y, Trepanowski NF, Molongoski JJ, Reagel PF, Lingafelter SW, Nadel H, Myers SW, Ray AM, 2017. Identification of wood-boring beetles (Cerambycidae and Buprestidae) intercepted in trade-associated solid wood packaging material using DNA barcoding and morphology. Nature Scientific Reports, 7
CABI, 2020. CABI Distribution Database: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Kariyanna B, Mohan M, Gupta R, Murali S, 2018. Longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) of Bihar, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, Special Issue 7. 576-583.
Khan T N, Maiti P K, 1983. Studies on the biotaxonomy, biology and ecology of some longicorn beetle borers (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of the Islands of Andaman, India. In: Occasional Paper, Records of the Zoological Survey of India, 102 pp.
Li LiYing, Wang Ren, Waterhouse D F, 1997. The distribution and importance of arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture and forestry plantations in southern China. In: The distribution and importance of arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture and forestry plantations in southern China. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). x + 185 pp.
Löbl I, Smetana A, 2010. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, Chrysomeloidae. Volume 6. Stenstrup, Denmark: Apollo Books. 924 pp.
Makihara H, Mannakkara A, Fujimura T, Ohtake A, 2008. Checklist of longicorn coleoptera of Sri Lanka (1) Vesperidae and Cerambycidae excluding Lamiinae. Bulletin of the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Ibaraki. 95-110. http://ss.ffpri.affrc.go.jp/labs/kanko/407-3.pdf
Mitra B, Bhaumik S, Chakraborti U, Mallick K, 2017. An update on the diversity, distribution and zoo-geographical notes on longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) of North-East India. Biological Forum – an International Journal. 9 (2), 61-80.
Mitra B, Chakraborti U, Mallick K, Bhaumik S, Das P, 2017a. An updated list of cerambycid beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of Assam, India. Record of the Zoological Survey of India. 117 (1), 78-90.
Mitra B, Das P, Chakraborti U, Mallick K, Chakraborty K, 2016. Long horn beetles (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) of Nagaland, India. Journal of Global Biosciences. 5 (4), 3963-3969.
Mitra B, Majumder A, Chakraborti U, Das P, Mallick K, 2015. Longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) of Himachal Pradesh. Records of the Zoological Survey of India. 115 (4), 405-409.
More SV, Prashant MS, Chandgadkar A, Surve J, 2017. Fauna of long horned beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) from Tilari forest, Chandgad, Kolhapur District of Maharashtra, a region of Western Ghats. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 5 (6), 1684-1688.
Mukhopadhyay P, 2011. On a collection of Insecta: Coleopera: Cerambycidae and Curculionidae (Brachyderinae and Otiorrhynchinae) from Uttarakhand. Records of the Zoological Survey of India. 111 (2), 75-88.
Nga CTQ, Long KD, Thinh TH, 2014. New Records of the Tribe Cerambycini (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) from Vietnam. Tap Chi Sinh Hoc (Journal of Biology). 36 (4), 428-443.
Salve U S, 2014. Neem, Azadirachta indica Juss. a new host plant of insect Aeolesthes holosericea Fabricius from Maharashtra, India. Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal. 4 (1), 199-203. http://www.oiirj.org/oiirj/jan-feb2014/24.pdf
Tara J S, Ruchie Gupta, Monika Chhetry, 2009. A study on Aeolesthes holosericea Fabricius, an important pest of apple plantations (Malus domestica Borkh.) in Jammu region. Asian Journal of Animal Science. 3 (2), 222-224.
Vitali F, Gouverneur X, Chemin G, 2017. Revision of the tribe Cerambycini: redefinition of the genera Trirachys Hope, 1843, Aeolesthes Gahan, 1890 and Pseudaeolesthes Plavilstshikov, 1931 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes. 40-65.
ContributorsTop of page
25/08/19 Original text by:
Robert A. Haack, Emeritus Research Entomologist, USDA Forest Service, Lansing, Michigan, USA
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/