Content uploaded by Henrik Sjöman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Henrik Sjöman on May 27, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
143
Henrik Sjöman, Johan Östberg, and Johan Nilsson
Review of Host Trees for the Wood-Boring Pests
Anoplophora glabripennis and Anoplophora
chinensis: An Urban Forest Perspective
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2014. 40(3): 143–164
Abstract. Two devastating insect pests have been introduced to North America and Europe – the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) (Ano-
plophora glabripennis) and the citrus longhorned beetle (CLB) (Anoplophora chinensis). ese two wood-boring beetles are argued to be
one of the most serious threats to the tree landscape since they have a large number of host species and genera. With the aim of creating
an up-to-date compilation of these hosts, a systematic review was made of the literature for information on tree species attacked and used
by ALB and CLB as hosts for complete life cycle or for feeding. is review revealed that a large number of tree species and genera are
liable to be attacked by ALB and CLB. However, based on the ndings, the whole picture is still unclear. One reason for this is the lack of
transparency in published studies regarding lists of susceptible tree species for ALB and CLB. Another factor that needs to be reported
is whether a tree species supports the complete life cycle of the beetles or just feeding by adult beetles. Without this information, spe-
cies possessing moderate host qualities are at risk of being incorrectly labelled as very good hosts and hence excluded as urban trees.
Key Words. Anoplophora chinesis; Anoplophora glabripennis; Asian Longhorned Beetle; Citrus Longhorned Beetle; Host; Pests; Review;
Tree Selection; Urban Trees; Wood-boring Pests.
Today, the urban forest and its constituent trees are
much more than an aesthetic green element in cit-
ies. Aspects such as biological diversity, stormwater
management, pollution relief, benecial and recre-
ational impacts on human well-being, and urban
heat island mitigation are some of the services ur-
ban tree vegetation provides for city dwellers (For-
man and Godron 1986; Grahn and Stigsdotter 2003;
Maco and McPherson 2003; Tyrväinen et al. 2005;
Geldof and Stahre 2006; Nowak et al. 2006; King
and Davis 2007). In the compact city, the quali-
ties provided in large parks and green areas will be
compressed into smaller scale units or alternative
green structures, increasing the demands on ca-
pacity load and performance level of future urban
green space and future urban trees (Sjöman et al.
2012a). Since trees are long-lived organisms and
their capacity to deliver ecosystem services is not
completely developed until they are fully grown
individuals, it is of the utmost importance that
the trees selected today last into the future. How-
ever, today’s urban trees and forests are facing great
diculties with pests and diseases and with a chang-
ing climate, which can compromise their future
development and functions. It is therefore important
to determine which species and genera of trees can
meet these future challenges (Sjöman et al. 2012b).
In the last decades, two important and devas-
tating insect pests have been introduced to North
America and Europe – the Asian longhorned beetle
(ALB) (Anoplophora glabripennis) and the citrus
longhorned beetle (CLB) (Anoplophora chinensis).
ese two wood-boring beetles are argued to be
one of the most serious threats to the tree landscape
since they have a large number of host species and
genera (e.g., MacLeod et al. 2002; Raupp et al. 2006;
Hu et al. 2009; Haack et al. 2010). Well-known hosts
for ALB in China include species of Acer, Alnus,
Betula, Eleagnus, Fraxinus, Malus, Platanus, Popu-
lus, Pyrus, Salix, Sophora, and Ulmus (Haack et al.
2010). In the United States, ALB has completed
development on species in the genera Acer, Betula,
Fraxinus, Pyrus, Salix, and Ulmus, but also in spe-
cies of Robinia (Haack et al. 2010), indicating that
this beetle is expanding its host range as it invades
new territories and encounters new potential host
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
144
species with devastating biological and economic
consequences. For example, Nowak et al. (2001)
used tree inventories to estimate potential mon-
etary losses resulting from ALB in nine cities in
the United States and reported an estimated loss of
approximately 1.2 billion trees, at a compensatory
value of USD $669 billion. To combat pests such as
the longhorned beetle, providing a large diversity of
tree species and genera is argued to be one of the
most important solutions. erefore, it is essential,
in the long-term planning of the urban treescape, to
use tree species and genera that face a minimal risk
of being attacked by these two wood-boring pests.
e aim of this study was to create an up-to-
date compilation of the tree species that ALB and
CLB attack and use as hosts for a complete life
cycle or for feeding. A systematic literature sur-
vey (Wright et al. 2007) was conducted to identify
relevant species and the ndings were assessed
in terms of origin, method used, and any weak-
nesses and limitations in the information provided.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Biology and Distribution of the
Longhorned Beetles
To understand the information presented in the re-
view and the following discussion, it is important
to understand the biology and distribution of the
two longhorned beetle species. e native range
of ALB includes China and Korea, while that of
CLB also includes Japan with occasional records
from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan,
and Vietnam (Lingafelter and Hoebeke 2002). e
life cycles of ALB and CLB are similar and well de-
scribed (Haack et al. 2010). Adult beetles undergo
a one- to two-week period of maturation, feeding
on foliage and tender bark on the twigs of host
trees before beginning to reproduce (Keena 2002;
Smith et al. 2002). e females of ALB chew slits
or funnel-shaped holes through the bark of host
trees and lay their eggs under the bark, while CLB
females only chew slits before laying the eggs. Only
a single egg is laid in each oviposition site (Lin-
gafelter and Hoebeke 2002; Hérard et al. 2006).
ALBs typically initiates oviposition along the upper
trunk and main branches (Haack, 2006), whereas
CLBs usually lay eggs along the lower trunk, root
collar region, and on exposed roots (Hérard et
al. 2006). Larvae feed in the cambium and then
bore into the wood, where they continue to feed,
eventually forming a pupal chamber. Larval bor-
ing produces structural weakness and disrupts
the ow of water and nutrients within host trees,
leading to death of branches and ultimately whole
trees. Adult feeding on twigs and foliage is con-
sidered of minor importance, except occasionally
on fruit-bearing trees. Most damage results from
larval tunneling in the cambial regions and wood.
Both species attack healthy and stressed trees,
varying in size from small bonsai and potted trees
(especially CLB) to mature trees (Haack et al. 2010).
Outside their native range, both ALBs and CLBs
have caused tree mortality and are ranked as high-
risk quarantine pests (MacLeod et al. 2002). Both
ALB and CLB have been intercepted in wood pack-
aging material associated with imports, such as
steel, ironware, pottery, and other materials, as well
as in living plants, such as bonsai or nursery stocks
originating primarily from China. e main intro-
duction of ALB into new regions has been through
wood packaging material, while CLB has mainly
been introduced through living plants (Haack
et al. 2010). e rst discovery of an established
population of ALB outside of its native range was
in North America in 1996 (Haack et al. 1997), and
that of CLB in Europe in 2000 (Hérard et al. 2006).
Host Tree Review
e literature reviewed to nd information con-
cerning host trees for ALB and CLB included sci-
entic articles and ocial documents concerning
invasive pests. e search included the Google
Scholar, Scopus, and CAB abstract databases (ISI
Web of Knowledge), and the reference lists within
the publications found in these databases. In the
initial search in the databases, the search terms
used were: Asian longhorn beetle, citrus longhorn
beetle, ALB, CLB, Anoplophora glabripennis, and
Anoplophora chinensis. Since Anoplophora mala-
siaca is argued to be a synonym of A. chinensis
(Lingafelter and Hoebeke 2002), researchers also
included this name in the search. In the compilation
of literature, the search was limited to publications
written in English, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish,
Dutch, French, German, and Italian. For publica-
tions written in Chinese and Japanese with an ab-
stract in English, only the abstract was included.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
145
In total, 35 publications were found with infor-
mation concerning host species for these two long-
horned beetles. e suitability of tree species as hosts
was ranked as: very good host, good host, host, and
rare/resistant based on information in the literature
reviewed—for denitions used to classify hosts, see
Table 1 (Yin and Lu 2005). In the publications stud-
ied (Appendix 1; Appendix 2; Table 2), there was
lack of consistent information on whether there is a
complete life cycle of the beetles in the trees or if the
adult beetles were simply feeding. When the infor-
mation was imprecise regarding how a beetle attacks
and feeds on a tree species, the species was ranked
provisionally as a host. Information regarding the
possibility for larva development by the beetles was
included for all species (Appendix 1; Appendix 2).
e information found in the review was then
further analyzed in terms of aspects such as the
origin of the ndings [i.e., whether the informa-
tion had been obtained through controlled green-
house studies or studies in natural environments
or plantations (Appendix 3)]. e geographical
focus of the study was also included, as were any
citations of the publication in the Scopus data-
base. Host-related information within the studies
was also analyzed to trace its origin (Appendix 3).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Of the 35 papers reviewed, 29 contained informa-
tion on host trees for ALB, while only 13 had cor-
responding information for CLB. e total number
of papers exceeded 35, since some studies covered
both ALB and CLB and were therefore counted twice
(Appendix 1; Appendix 2; Appendix 3; Table 2).
In the compilation of host trees for ALB, 36
species were mentioned as a host to some degree,
while 31 genera were described as being at risk of
attack—these genera obviously included many
more than 36 species. e species described
most frequently as a host to some degree was
Acer platanoides, followed by A. saccharum and
A. negundo. e genera described most compre-
hensively as a good host for ALB were Populus
spp., Salix spp., and Acer spp., followed by Betula
spp., Ulmus spp., and Platanus spp. (Appendix 1).
In the compilation of host trees for ALB, there
were also 31 species and 16 genera that were
described as resistant or rarely infested (Appendix
1). However, as can be seen from Appendix 1, there
were some clear contradictions concerning which
species and genera were susceptible. For example,
some publications described a particular genus
or species as a host to some degree, while oth-
ers described them as resistant or rarely infested.
Further, ve publications described Tilia spp. as a
host for ALB (Nowak et al. 2001; Ric et al. 2006;
Hu et al. 2009; Jordbruksverket 2010; APHIS 2012),
while two other publications stated that the genus
of lime trees is rarely aected or even resistant
(Haack et al. 1997; Raupp et al. 2006). is contra-
diction regarding which species can be character-
ized as hosts is even more pronounced in studies
focusing on poplar trees (Populus spp.) and their
susceptibility to ALB. Since there has been enor-
mous use of poplar trees to counteract deserti-
cation in northwestern China, several studies
evaluate these poplar plantations and outbreaks
of ALB (Lingafelter and Hoebeke 2002; Yin and
Lu 2005; Yang 2005; Hu et al. 2009 and references
therein). In these studies, it is obvious that not all
poplar species are classied as a very good host for
ALB, even if the genus is described as one of the
Table 1. Division of host susceptibility into: very good host, good host, host, and rare/resistant.
Host grade ALB and CLB feeding and life cycle features Impact on tree growth
Very good host Attracts longhorned beetles. Extensive feeding Dieback of whole tree crown
by adult beetles. Complete life cycle with population or entire tree
increase
Good host Moderate feeding. Can complete life cycle Dieback on some branches. Dieback
of whole tree crown or entire tree
if stressed
Host Limited feeding by adult beetles. Small number of Normal growth. Slight damage
eggs laid. Can escape attack if nearby trees are with recovery wounds
more susceptible
Resistant or No feeding activity by adult beetles; no eggs laid Normal growth
rarely aected
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
146
most susceptible (Appendix 1 and Table 2). In the
division between poplar species with diering sus-
ceptibility to ALB, it is obvious that there are dif-
ferences between sections in the genus, with species
within the sections Populus and Turanga even being
classied as resistant or rarely infested (Table 2).
e compilation on CLB included fewer publica-
tions describing host trees. However, the number of
host species described was much greater than for ALB.
In total, 108 species were described as a potential host
for CLB, while the number of genera was 73 (Appendix
2). In the literature reviewed, no species or genus was
described as resistant or rarely aected by CLB. e spe-
cies described most frequently as a host to some degree
were Acer palmatum and A. platanoides, followed by
A. pseudoplatanus and Aesculus hippocastanum. e
genera described most comprehensively as a good host
for CLB were Acer spp., Malus spp., and Citrus spp., fol-
lowed by Populus spp. and Platanus spp. (Appendix 2).
In an attempt to make an up-to-date compilation
of host trees for ALB and CLB, researchers identied
great confusion in the literature, which weakened
the information and may lead to incorrect conclu-
sions and recommendations. In host-related publi-
cations, there was much cross-referencing between
the papers, making it dicult to identify the origin
of the information and how it was obtained. Since
a large proportion of the publications on ALB are
in Chinese, it is even more dicult to evaluate
the background to the conclusions presented in
abstracts. Later publications, basing their informa-
tion on Chinese and Japanese studies (e.g., Haack et
al. 1997; Nowak et al. 2001; Lingafelter and Hoebeke
2002; Yin and Lu 2005; Yang 2005; Hu et al. 2009),
Table 2. Categorization of poplar species as hosts for ALB according to Gao et al. (1997), Ludwig et al. (2002), Wang
(2004), Yin and Lu (2005), Yang (2005), and Hu et al. (2009).
Category Species/hybrids Section
Very good hosts Populus nigra: ‘Pyramidalis’, ‘Italica’, ‘evestina’ Aigeiros
Populus deltoides ‘Brangarsi’ Aigeiros
Populus × euramericana: ‘Luisa Avanzo’, ‘Bellini’, ‘Guardi’ Aigeiros
Populus × xiaozhuannica, P. × xiaozhuannica: ‘Opera’, ‘Popularis’ Aigeiros × Tacamahaca
Good hosts Populus nigra Aigeiros
Populus deltoides Aigeiros
Populus lasiocarpa Leucoides
Populus pseudoglauca Leucoides
Populus cathayana Tacamahaca
Populus gansuensis Tacamahaca
Populus pseudosimonii Tacamahaca
Populus simonii Tacamahaca
Populus ussuriensis Tacamahaca
Populus simonii × P. nigra ‘Pyramidalis’: ‘Baichensis’, ‘Taiqing’, ‘Italica’ Aigeiros × Tacamahaca
Populus nigra × P. simonii Aigeiros × Tacamahaca
Populus × beijingensis Aigeiros × Tacamahaca
Populus × berolinensis Aigeiros × Tacamahaca
Populus × dakuanensis Tacamahaca
Populus × russki Aigeiros
Populus stalinetz Aigeiros
Populus × xiaohei, P. × xiaohei ‘Heilin-1’
Aigeiros
× Tacamahaca
Occasional hosts Populus deltoides: ‘Nankang’, ‘Qingji #1, 2’, ‘Shanhaiguan’, ‘pyramidalis’ Aigeiros
Populus balsamifera Tacamahaca
Populus alba ‘Pyramidalis’ Populus
Populus alba × Populus bolleana Populus
Populus alba × Populus tomentosa Populus
Populus deltoides × P. simonii Aigeiros × Tacamahaca
Populus × euramericana (= P. × canadensis) Aigeiros
Populus × euramericana ‘Veruirubens’, ‘Vegeherata 272’, ‘G-158’, ‘I-214’, Aigeiros
‘Triplo’, Gattoni’, ‘Cima’
Rare hosts or Populus euphratica, P. euphratica: ‘Pyramidalis’, ‘PE-214’ Turanga
resistant hosts Populus pruinosa Turanga
Populus alba Populus
Populus davidiana Populus
Populus hopeiensis Populus
Populus tomentosa, P. tomentosa ‘Hopeinica’, ‘Honanica’ Populus
Populus tremula Populus
Populus tremuloides Populus
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
147
mainly presented the ndings quantitatively with a
concluding list of susceptible species, and without
a qualitative description of how these conclusions
were reached. For example, Yang (2005) and Yin
and Lu (2005) reviewed Chinese research concern-
ing ALB but presented the ndings very briey and
without an introduction to the methodology and
approach used in the studies. is might be the rea-
son why there are some contradictions regarding the
suitability of dierent species and genera in Appen-
dix 1. Furthermore, it is oen unclear whether the
ndings listed in the appendices and Table 2 refer to
damage by adult beetles, as specied by Ludwig et al.
(2002), Morewood et al. (2003), and Morewood et
al. (2004a), or refer to use of the trees for oviposition
and larval development. Such information is rarely
presented in the publications reviewed, which weak-
ened the information and leads to further confusion.
In the compilation of host trees for the two long-
horned beetles, there was a rather large amount of
information concerning tree genera, which of course
include many more species than those listed in the
appendices and Table 2. Including whole genera as a
host, for example, CLB may cause the use of a whole
genus to be banned, even if there are just a few spe-
cies that are susceptible and the rest are resistant
or rarely aected. When interpreting information
from one study in another, it is tempting to simplify
the information. An example is Van der Gaag et al.
(2010), presenting a list of hosts for CLB based on
original data in Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002),
most of which was in turn based on information in
Chinese and Japanese studies (Appendix 3). Lin-
gafelter and Hoebeke (2002) listed a large number
of species as hosts for CLB, but in the compilation
by Van der Gaag (2010), much of this species infor-
mation was changed to whole genera, without fur-
ther information. is simplication of host-related
information can result in great confusion and mis-
understanding, especially if it is used by national
authorities to formulate recommendations on trees
to avoid in example urban environments. e pres-
ent review uncovered clear evidence that there are
species within highly susceptible genera that are
resistant or rarely aected. For example, Williams et
al. (2004) evaluated 12 maple species in native com-
munities of South Korea for ALB damage and found
that only ve species (three native and two invasive
exotic species) had visible damage or adult ALB,
leaving seven species with no observed damage.
Furthermore, even within the poplar genus, which
is considered the most susceptible to ALB, there is
evidence that sections within this genus are resis-
tant or rarely aected (Weilun and Wen 2005). In a
compilation by Hu et al. (2009) based on data from
Yin and Lu (2005) and Gao et al. (1997), poplar spe-
cies belonging to the section Turanga (e.g., Populus
pruinosa Schrenk) and Populus (e.g., Populus alba
L., P. tomentosa Carr., and P. tremula L.) were listed
as less susceptible or slightly resistant to ALB (Bao
et al. 1999; Table 2). ese examples of resistant spe-
cies within highly susceptible genera might indicate
that there has been generalization regarding the
species and genera classied as hosts. If several spe-
cies have been shown to be susceptible to ALB, it is
easy to conclude that the whole genus is susceptible.
e fact that the rst discovery of longhorned
beetles outside their native range took place in 1996
in New York (ALB) (Lingafelter and Hoebeke 2002)
is reected in the geographical focus of the publica-
tions reviewed. ALB host-related publications older
than 1996 were mainly produced in China, Japan,
and Taiwan (Appendix 3), while publications later
than 1996 had a greater focus on North America.
CLB host-related publications later than the year
2000 mainly had a European focus, following the
rst recognized outbreak in Europe (Appendix 3).
Information about whether a tree species is a
host, good host, or very good host was fairly com-
monly provided in the literature reviewed. However,
it was more dicult to nd clear denitions of the
terms used to describe the kind of damage done
by the beetles to the tree. Terms used commonly
in the literature were: infested, attacked, host, and
feeding. For the beetles to become established in
an area they not only need to nd food, but also to
be able to propagate, which means nding suitable
tree species for oviposition and larval development
into fully developed beetles. Ric et al. (2006) noted
that not all tree species are suitable for the whole
reproduction cycle. For example, some species are
suitable for oviposition but not larval development.
Other species are used for feeding by the adult
beetles but not for oviposition. e terms infested,
attacked, host, and feeding do not clearly describe
whether the tree is used for feeding by adults or
whether full larval development is possible. Haack
et al. (1997) used “primary host tree” and “occa-
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
148
sional host tree,” “attack primarily” and “complete
development” in the “Range and Life Cycle” section
for ALB. Hérard et al. (2006) mentioned infested
trees and host plants without specifying the mean-
ing, and stated that certain species were preferred
host plants, but not whether this meant feeding, ovi-
position, or full development. FAO (2007) explained
that the larvae injure the tree by tunnels under the
bark and bore into wood, but when listing trees spe-
cies it stated “the main genera of trees that it feeds
on are. . .” is is confusing, as adult beetles feed on
some trees but oviposition and larval development
do not always occur on the same species as adult
feeding. e Danish Natural Agency (Naturerh-
vervstyrelsen 2012) concluded that one should dis-
tinguish between host plants where the beetles can
undergo full development, and host plants where
the adults feed on the trees. ere are several exam-
ples of rating systems that include the possibility of
a reproductive cycle for the species. For example,
Yin and Lu (2005) used a scale from 1 to 5 to rate
tree species, where grades 3 to 5 included the ALB
being able to complete a life cycle. Ric et al. (2006)
used a three-point rating system, where 1 was suit-
able for the entire life cycle, 2 was where the bee-
tles had laid eggs but there was no evidence that a
whole cycle was possible, and 3 was for species with
unknown suitability for beetle larval development.
Among the studies concerning ALB, Lud-
wig et al. (2002), Smith et al. (2002), MacLeod et
al. (2002), Morewood et al. (2003; 2004a; 2004b;
2005), Auclair et al. (2005), and Hajek and Kalb
(2007) had obtained their host-related informa-
tion from greenhouse tests, while the remaining
publications appeared to refer to cases and obser-
vations in native communities or in public planta-
tions. Only one of the 13 studies of CLB reviewed
had obtained host-related information from
greenhouse tests (Adachi 1994; Appendix 3). To
develop more accurate species-related informa-
tion concerning susceptibility to ALB and CLB,
some authors point out that controlled laboratory
tests are needed (MacLeod et al. 2002; Morewood
et al. 2004a). However, when beetles are introduced
to one or few species in a controlled environment,
they may use less favorable species in the absence
of more susceptible species. erefore, host-related
conclusions from controlled laboratory or green-
house tests must be thoroughly analyzed. How-
ever, if a species in these tests shows resistance to
the beetles, this could be important information. In
the review by Yin and Lu (2005), a number of tree
species native to China were classied as resistant
or rarely aected by ALB (Appendix 1). In fact, the
majority of the species/genera classied as resistant
or rarely aected by ALB in Appendix 1 are native
to China and Japan, where they have been living for
generations, side-by-side with the beetle and might
have developed natural strategies to avoid attacks.
For example, there may be chemical substances
in the wood making it unattractive for feeding or
unsuitable to support complete development of
the ALB (Morewood et al. 2004a). Once the bio-
chemical basis of resistance against ALB and CLB
is elucidated, researchers may have a greater under-
standing of species that are superior to use, while
any biocidal compounds produced could perhaps
be manipulated to help protect more vulnerable
trees from these pests. In the study by Morewood
et al. (2004a), an evaluation of four tree species for
ALB in controlled greenhouse conditions showed
that the Chinese callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) was
most likely to cause adult mortality of the beetle.
No larvae survived, although eggs in callery pear
hatched and the neonates began to feed and con-
struct galleries in the wood. In work on ALB and
CLB, it is interesting to know not only which spe-
cies are resistant or rarely aected by these beetles,
but also why they are resistant or rarely aected.
Data on citations of host-related information
within the publications reviewed here clearly revealed
a large number of cross-references, especially among
recent studies. For example, the paper by Lingafelter
and Hoebeke (2002) was included in six other pub-
lications as a host-related reference, but they in turn
based their host-related information mainly on
older Chinese and Japanese studies (Appendix 3).
is pattern of much older host-related informa-
tion originating from Chinese studies, especially for
ALB, makes it dicult to analyze the methodology
and approach used in the studies or to evaluate from
where and how the conclusions were developed. e
most frequently cited publication within this review
(that by Nowak et al. 2001) used three Chinese stud-
ies (in Chinese) and two unpublished sources from
North America as the basis for a host-related evalu-
ation. More recent studies from North America and
Europe make a much more transparent presentation
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
149
of the studies, which makes it possible to evaluate
the ndings. However, the international reviews
included within the present study (Lingafelter and
Hoebeke 2002; Hu et al. 2009; Haack et al. 2010)
based much of their host-related information on
Chinese studies, written in Chinese (Appendix 3).
Furthermore, it is important to know the envi-
ronments in which the beetles have been studied.
In forest types, where very good hosts are absent,
the beetles use more “non-traditional” species and
genera to a much larger amount than when more
suitable host trees are available. is scenario
can lead to one author reporting that a species or
genus is a very good host and another concluding
that the same species or genus is rarely or never
infested. Among the publications reviewed, eight
based their host-related information for ALB
and CLB on natural environments or plantations
(Appendix 3) but provided no information on
the species composition, structure, or succession
phase of the habitat or plantations studied. is
makes it dicult to analyze the results presented.
Studies in habitats reported larger numbers of
highly susceptible species than those in homoge-
neous sites or plantations. is scenario of includ-
ing more suitable species is exploited in practice
in China, where ‘trap trees’ that are more utilized
by ALB are included to protect other species. No
studies concerning ‘trap trees’ for CLB were found.
Furthermore, Williams et al. (2004) concluded
that the varying dynamics of ALB populations
across its geographical range may indicate that it
is an ‘edge specialist’ that evolved in riparian habi-
tats. is aspect of understanding the preferred
habitat or ecosystem of the beetle was seldom
evaluated in the literature reviewed. Instead, the
information reported originated from dierent
kinds of plantations with quantitative observa-
tions mainly in urban areas of China or North
America (Hu et al. 2009; Haack et al. 2010), with-
out further evaluation of ecosystem preferences.
CONCLUSIONS
e wood-boring Asian longhorned beetle and cit-
rus longhorned beetle may pose serious threats to
the tree landscape worldwide since they have many
host species and genera. It is therefore important
to identify susceptible tree species and genera in
order to produce future tree loss scenarios and
plan future urban forests (e.g., by selecting less sus-
ceptible urban trees). is literature review found
many tree species and genera that are liable to be
attacked by ALB and CLB, but further informa-
tion is needed. ere is a lack of transparency in
published studies listing susceptible tree species
for ALB and CLB. It is important to know where
and how these studies obtained their informa-
tion—especially the older studies. Later studies
use a much more transparent approach, but more
information from the natural environment of the
beetles in China and Japan is highly important in
understanding why some species and genera are
resistant or rarely aected. Another area where
more information is needed regarding host trees
for ALB and CLB is whether the tree species sup-
port the complete life cycle of the beetles or just
feeding by adult beetles. An accepted and interna-
tionally used conceptual ranking system is needed,
describing what exactly makes a tree species a very
good host or just a host. Without this system, there
is a risk of incorrectly labeling species with mod-
erate host qualities as a very good host and hence
banned from use as an urban tree. Another impor-
tant aspect is to thoroughly evaluate host trees on
species level and not include the whole genus, even
if many species within the genus are susceptible.
LITERATURE CITED
Adachi, I. 1994. Development and life cycle of Anoplophora mala-
siaca (omson) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on citrus trees
under uctuating and constant temperature regimes. Applied
Entomology and Zoology 29(4):485–497.
APHIS. 2012. USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Center for Plant Health Science
and Technology. Asian Longhorned Beetle: Annotated Host
List. Accessed 09/26/2012. <www.uvm.edu/albeetle/hosts.htm>
Auclair, A.N.D., G. Fowler, M.K. Hennessey, A.T. Hogue, M. Keena,
D.R. Lance, R.M. McDowell, D.O. Oryang, and A.J. Sawyer.
2005. Assessment of the risk of introduction of Anoplophora gla-
bripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in municipal solid waste
from the quarantine area of New York City landlls outside of
the quarantine area: A pathway analysis of the risk of spread and
establishment. Journal of Economic Entomology 98(1):47–60.
Bancro, J.S., M.T. Smith, E.K. Chaput, and J. Tropp. 2002. Rapid
test of the suitability of host-trees and the eects of larval his-
tory on Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).
Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 75:308–316.
Bao, S., F. Li, Z. Li, and T. Wu. 1999. e resistance of fourteen
poplar species to Anoplophora glabripennis (Motsch). Journal of
Beijing Forestry University 21:97–100 (Chinese).
CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. Accessed on
09/26/2012. <www.cabi.org/compendia/cpc>
Cao, C., H. Ma, and H. Wu. 2003. Investigation and assessment on
resistance to Anoplophora glabripennis by 17 poplar species.
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
150
Forestry Science and Technology of Inner Mongolia 2:46–48
(Chinese).
Cavey, J.F., E.R. Hoebeke, S. Passoa, and S.W. Lingafelter. 1998. A
new exotic threat to North America hardwood forests: An Asian
longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky)
(Coleoptera; Cerambycidae). I. Larval description and diag-
nosis. Proceeding of the Entomological Society of Washington
100:373–381.
CFIA. 2005. Asian Longhorned Beetle Preferred Host Trees. Canadi-
an Food Inspection Agency. Accessed on 09/26/2012. <http://epe.
lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/cfia-acia/2011-09-21/www.inspec-
tion.gc.ca/english/plaveg/pestrava/anogla/alhbhostree.shtml>
Chang, S. 1960. New and unrecorded species of longicorn beetles
from Taiwan (I). Bulletin of the Society of Plant Pathology and
Entomology 11(3/4):1–7.
Chen, F., and F. Wang. 1935. A list of the known fruit insects of
China. Year Book of the Bureau of Entomology, Hangchow. Year
Book No. 5:82–140 (Chinese).
Cheo, M.T. 1935. A preliminary list of the insects and arachnids
injurious to economic plants in China. Peking Natural History
Bulletin 10(1):5–37.
Clausen, C.P. 1931. Insect injurious to agriculture in Japan. Circular
No. 168. United States Department of Agriculture. 115 pp.
Dodds, K.J., and D.A. Orwig. 2011. An invasive urban forest pest
invades natural environments – Asian longhorned beetle in
northeast U.S. hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 41(9):1729–1742.
Duy, E.A.J. 1968. A monograph of the immature stages of Oriental
timber beetles (Cerambycidae). British Museum (Natural His-
tory), London, England. 434 pp.
EPPO. 2012. EPPO Database on Quarantine Pests. European and
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Accessed on
09/26/2012. <www.eppo.int/DATABASES/databases.htm>
FAO. 2007. Overview of forest pests in People’s Republic of China.
Working Paper FBS/13E. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. Wiley &
Sons, New York City, New York, U.S.
Gao, H.Z., X.Y. Yang, J.N. Wei, and X.R. Lang. 1997. An investigation
on the resistance of major forestation species to Anoplophora gla-
bripennis and A. nobilis. Journal of Northwest Forestry College
12:42–46 (Chinese).
Gao, R. 1998. Control over three kinds of ALB by using the adults
feeding habit. Beijing Forestry University Journal 20(1):43–48
(Chinese).
Gao, R., and G. Li. 2002. Integrated pest management of poplar fast-
growing and high-yielding plantations. Proceeding, China-U.S.
workshop on Asian longhorned beetle Anoplophora glabripen-
nis. June 18–21, 2002, Yinchuan, China. State Forestry Admin-
istration, Beijing, China, 2002.
Gao, R., C. Liu, and Y. Lu. 1994. A preliminary study on the causes
and use of preference of Apriona germari adults supplementary
nutrition for mulberry and papermulberry. Scientia Silvae Sini-
cae 30(4):376–380 (Chinese).
Gao, R., X. Qin, D. Chen, and W. Chen. 1993. A study on the
damage of poplar caused by Anoplophora glabripennis. Forest
Research 6:189–193 (Chinese).
Geib, S.M., M.D.M. Jimenez-Gasco, J.E. Carlson, M. Tien, and K.
Hoover. 2009. Eect of host tree species on cellulose activity
and bacterial community composition in the gut of larval Asian
longhorned beetle. Environmental Entomology 38(3):686–699.
Geldof, G.D., and P. Stahre. 2006. On the road to a new stormwater
planning approach. Water Practice and Technology 1.
Gine, W., and M.M. Chein. 1986. Forest Diseases and Insect Pre-
vention. Cited in APHIS New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG)
report on Asian Longhorned Beetle. From an in-house trans-
lation by Millie Yang, CPA, USDA - OIG, provided by Dan
Kucera, USDA FS, Radnor, Pennsylvania, U.S. <www.aphis.
usda.gov/ppq/bbnpag.html>
Grahn, P., and A.U. Stigsdotter. 2003. Landscape Planning and
Stress. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2:1–18.
Gressit, J.L. 1940. Supplement to a study of the longicorn beetle of
Kwangtung Province, S. China (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).
Lingnan Science Journal 19:1–20.
Gressit, J.L. 1942. Destructive long-horned beetle borers at Canton,
China. Special Publication of Lingnan Natural History Survey
Museum 1:1–60.
Gressit, J.L. 1951. Longicorn beetles of China. In: P. Lepesme (Eds.).
Longicornia. Volume 2. Paris: Paul Lechevalier. 667 pp.
Guo, B. 1998. e control of Apriona germari (Hope). Anhui Forestry
6:1–15 (Chinese).
Haack, R.A. 2006. Exotic bark- and wood-boring Coleoptera in the
United States, recent establishments and interceptions. Cana-
dian Journal of Forest Research 36:269–88.
Haack, R.A., J.F. Cavey, E.R. Hoebeke, and K.R. Law. 1996. Ano-
plophora glabripennis: A new tree-investing exotic cerambycid
invades New York. Newsletter of the Michigan Entomological
Society 41(2–3):1–3.
Haack, R.A., J.J. Turgeon, F. Herard, and J. Sun. 2010. Managing
invasive populations of Asian longhorned beetle and citrus
longhorned beetle: A worldwide perspective. e Annual
Review of Entomology 55:521–546.
Haack, R.A., K.R. Law, V.C. Mastro, H.S. Ossenbruggen, and B.J.
Raimo. 1997. New York’s battle with the Asian long-horned
beetle. Journal of Forestry 95(12):11–15.
Haack, R.A., L.S. Bauer, R.T. Gao, J.J. McCarthy, and D.L. Miller.
2006. Anoplophora glabripennis within-tree distribution, sea-
sonal development, and host suitability in China and Chicago.
e Great Lakes Entomologist 102:1075–84.
Hajek, A.E., and D.M. Kalb, 2007. Suitability of Acer saccharum
and Acer pennsylvanicum (Aceraceae) for rearing Anoplophora
glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). e Canadian Ento-
mologist 139(5):751–755.
He, P., and J. Huang. 1993. Adult behavior of Anoplophora gla-
bripennis. Acta Entomologica Sinica 36:51–55 (Chinese).
Hérard, F., M. Ciampitti, M. Maspero, H. Krehan, U. Benker, C.
Boegel, R. Schrage, L. Bouhot-Delduc, and P. Bialooki. 2006.
Anoplophora species in Europe: Infestations and management
processes. EPPO Bulletin 36(3):470–74.
Hérard, F., M. Maspero, N. Ramualde, C. Jucker, M. Colombo, M.
Ciampitti, and B. Cavagna. 2009. Anoplophora glabripennis infes-
tation (col.: cerambycidae) in Italy. EPPO Bulletin 39:146–152.
Hu, J., K. Wang, and Y. Han. 1998. Research progress of breeding
pest-resistance woody plants. World Forestry Study 1998(3)
(Chinese).
Hu, J., S. Angeli, S. Schuetz, Y. Luo, and A.E. Hajek. 2009. Ecol-
ogy and management of exotic and endemic Asian longhorned
beetle Anoplophora glabripennis. Agricultural and Forest Ento-
mology 11:359–375.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
151
Hua, L. 1982. A checklist of the longicorn beetles of China (Coleop-
tera: Cerambycidae). Zhongshan University Press, Guangzhou,
China. 158 pp (Chinese).
Hua, L., H. Nara, and C. Yu. 1993. Longicorn Beetles of Hainan
and Guangdong. Muh-Sheng Museum of Entomology, Nantou
Hsien, Taiwan. 320 pp (Chinese).
Jordbruksverket. 2010. Asiatiska långhorningar. Accessed
09/26/2012. <www.jordbruksverket.se/amnesomraden/odling/
vaxtinspektion/vaxtskadegorare/tradochbuskar/asiatiskalangh
orningar.4.207049b811dd8a513dc8000782.html>
Keena, M.A. 2002. Anoplohora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Ceram-
bycidae) fecundity and longevity under laboratory conditions:
Comparison of populations from New York and Illinois on Acer
saccharum. Environmental Entomology 31:490–498.
King, V.J., and C. Davis. 2007. A case study of urban heat island in
the Carolinas. Environmental Hazards 7:353–359.
Kojima, K., and M. Hayashi. 1978. Insects’ Life in Japan. Volume 1.
Longicorn Beetles. Hoikusha Publishing Co, Osaka, Japan. 302
pp (Japanese).
Kojima, K., and M. Nakamura. 1986. Host trees records of Japanese
longicorn beetles. Hiba-Kagaku Kyoiku Shinkosha, Shobara.
Kojima, T. 1931. Further investigation on the immature stages of
some Japanese Cerambycid beetles, with notes on their habits.
Journal of the College of Agriculture of the Imperial University
of Tokyo 11:263–308.
Kucera, D. 1996. Risk assessment – Asian long-horned beetle
(ALB). USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Wash-
ington, D.C. (unpublished report).
Li, F., R.G. Liu, S. Bao, and T. Wu. 1999. Selection of trap trees for
controlling Anoplophora glabripennis and A. Nobilis. Journal of
Beijing Forestry University 21:85–89 (Chinese).
Li, J., H. Fan, and Y. Jin. 2003a. Behavior response of Anoplopho-
ra glabripennis to the mechanical wounded and herbivore fed
ashleaf maple. Journal of Beijing Forestry University 25(5):42–
46 (Chinese).
Li, S., Z. Zhang, J. Luo, C. He, Y. Pu, and X. An. 2005. Progress and
strategies in cross breeding of poplars in China. Forestry Studies
in China 7:54–60.
Li, W., and C. Wu. 1993. Integrated management of longhorned
beetles damaging poplar trees. China Forest Press, Beijing, Chi-
na (Chinese).
Li, H., D. Huang, M. Yang, and S. Zhang. 2003b. Selection of Super
Poplar Clones with High Resistance to Anoplophora glabripen-
nis. Journal of Northeast Forestry University 31(5) (Chinese).
Lieu, K.V. 1945. e study of wood borers in China. I. Biology and
control of the citrus-root cerambycid, Melanuaster chinensis
Forster. Florida Entomologist 27:62–101.
Lingafelter, S.W., and E.R. Hoebeke. 2001. Variation and homology
in elytral maculation in the Anoplophora malasiaca/macularia
species complex (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of Japan and Tai-
wan. Proceeding of the Entomological Society of Washington
103(3):757–769.
Lingafelter, S.W., and E.R. Hoebeke. 2002. Revision of Anoplophora
(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Entomological Society of Wash-
ington, Washington, D.C. 236 pp.
Liu, J., L. Zhou, and H. Song. 2002. Planting trap trees to control
Anoplophora glabripennis. Proceedings from a China-U.S.
Workshop in Asian Longhorned Beetle, Yinchuan 2002. pp.
46–48 (Chinese).
Ludwig, S.W., L. Lazarus, D.G. McCullough, K. Hoover, S. Montero,
and J.C. Sellmer. 2002. Methods to evaluate host tree sustainabil-
ity to the Asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis.
Journal of Environmental Horticulture 20(3):175–180.
Luo, Y., J. Wen, and Z. Xu. 2003. Current situation of research and
control on poplar longhorned beetle, especially for Anoplophora
glabripennis in China. Nachrichtenbl Deuts Panzenschutzd
55:68–70.
MacLeod, A., Evans, H.F., Baker, R.H.A. 2002. An analysis of pest
risk from an Asian longhorn beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis)
to hardwood trees in the European. Crop Protection 21:635–645.
Maco, S.E., and G. McPherson. 2003. A practical approach to
assessing structure, function, and value of street tree population
in small communities. Journal of Arboriculture 2984–97.
Maspero, M., C. Jucker, and M. Colombo. 2007. First record of Ano-
plophora glabripennis (Motschulsky) Coleoptera: Cerambycidae
Lamiinae, Lamiini) in Italy. Bolletino di Zoologia Agraria e di
Bachicoltura 39:161–164 (Italian).
Mattilsynet, 2012. Norwegian Food Safety Authority. Fact Sheet
of Anoplophora chinensis. Accessed 09/26/2012. <www.mat-
tilsynet.no/planter_og_dyrking/planteskadegjorere/citrustre-
bukk.825>
Morewood, W.D., K. Hoover, P.R. Neiner, and J.C. Sellmer. 2005.
Complete development of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleop-
tera: Cerambycidae) in northern red oak trees. Canadian Ento-
mologist 137(3):376–379.
Morewood, W.D., K. Hoover, P.R. Neiner, J.R. McNeil, and J.C.
Sellmer. 2004a. Host tree resistance against the polyphagous
wood-boring beetle Anoplophora glabripennis. Entomologia
Experimentalis et Applicata 110(1):79–86.
Morewood, W.D., P.R. Neiner, J.C. Sellmer, and K. Hoover. 2004b.
Behavior of adult Anoplophora glabripennis on dierent tree
species under greenhouse conditions. Journal of Insect Behav-
ior 17(2):215–226.
Morewood, W.D., P.R. Neiner, J.R. McNeil, J.C. Sellmer, and K.
Hoover. 2003. Oviposition Preference and Larval Performance
of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in
four eastern North American hardwood tree species. Environ-
mental Entomology 32(5):1028–1034.
Natur Erhvervstyrelsen. 2012. e Danish Natural Agency – Minstry
of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries in Denmark. Accessed
09/26/2012. <http://agrish.dk>
Netherlands Plant Protection Service. 2012. Pest Report: Ano-
plophora chinensis. Accessed 09/26/2012. <www.vwa.nl/onder-
werpen/english/dossier/pest-reporting-eng/pest-reports>
Nowak, D., D. Crane, and J. Stevens. 2006. Air pollution removal by
urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening 4:115–123.
Nowak, D.J., J.E. Pasek, R.A. Sequeira, D.E. Crane, and V.C. Mastro.
2001. Potential eect of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae) on urban trees in the United States. Journal of
Economic Entomology 94(1):116–122.
Ohga, S., S. Nomura, and S. Inoue. 1995. Survey of basidiomycete
and insect infested roadside trees. Bulletin of the Kyushu Uni-
versity Forests 72:203–216.
Qi, X. 1997. Habits of Anoplophora chinensis which causes harm to
Casuarina equisetifolia and its control. Forest Research 10:551–
555 (Chinese).
Qin, X. 1985. Study on resistance to Anoplophora glabripennis of
dierent poplar species. Forestry Science 21(3) (Chinese).
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
152
Qin, X., R. Gao, J. Li, and W. Hao. 1985. Preliminary investigation on
the resistance of dierent clones of poplars to Anoplophora gla-
bripennis (Motsch). Scientia Silvae Sinicae 21:310–314 (Chinese).
Raupp, M.J., A. Buckelew-Cumming, and E.C. Raupp. 2006. Street
tree diversity in eastern North America and its potential for
tree loss to exotic borers. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
32(6):297–304.
Ric, J., P. de Groot, B. Gasman, M. Orr, J. Doyle, M.T. Smith, L. Du-
mouchel, T. Scarr, and J.J. Turgeon. 2006. Detecting signs and
symptoms of Asian longhorned beetle injury. Natural Resources
Canada, Canadian Forest Service, and Canadian Food Inspec-
tion Agency. 121 pp.
Sæbø, A., B. Zelimir, C. Ducatillion, A. Hatzistathis, T. Lagerström,
J. Supuka, J.L. Garcis Valdecantos, F. Rego, and J. Slycken. 2005.
e selection of plant materials for street trees, park trees and
urban woodlands. In: C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T.B. Ran-
drup, and J. Schipperijn (Eds.). Urban Forests and Trees. pp.
257–280. Springer. G.A. Samuelson. 1965. e Cerambycidae
(Coleopt.) of the Ryukya Archippelago II. Lamiinae. Pacic
Insects 7:82–130.
Shao, Q., R. Tian, and P. Gao. 1997. Study on the trap trees to con-
trol A. glabripennis and its function. Inner Mongolia Science &
Technology 4:12–24 (Chinese).
Sjöman, H., A. Gunnarsson, S. Pauleit, and R. Bothmer. 2012b.
Selection approach of urban trees for inner-city environ-
ments: Learning from nature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
38(5):194–204.
Sjöman, H., J. Östberg, and O. Bühler. 2012a. Diversity and distri-
bution of the urban tree population in ten major Nordic cities.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11:31–39.
Smith, M.T., J. Bancro, and J. Tropp. 2002. Age-specic fecun-
dity of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycida)
on three tree species infested in United States. Environmental
Entomology 31:76–83.
Smith, M.T., J.J. Turgeron, P. de Groot, and B. Gasman. 2009. Asian
longhorned beetle Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky): Les-
sons learned and opportunities to improve the process of eradi-
cation and management. American Entomologist 55:21–25.
Sun, J.Z., Z. Zhao, and T. Ru. 1990b. Plant chinaberry and hard
maple as trap trees to control Anoplophora glabripennis. Forest
Pest 2:10–12 (Chinese).
Sun, J.Z., Z.Y. Zhao, T.Q. Ru, Z.G. Qian, and X.J. Song. 1990a. Con-
trol of Anoplophora glabripennis by using cultural methods.
Forest Pest and Disease 2:10–12 (Chinese).
Sun, W. 1995. e control of Apriona germari (Hope) on poplar.
China Forestry 7:10–12 (Chinese).
Tian, R., J. Yu, and W. Zhao. 2003. On the function of Elaeagnus
angustifolia L. to induce and control Anoplophora glabripennis
(Motsch.). Inner Mongolia Forestry Science & Technology
4:23–25 (Chinese).
Tomiczek, C., and U. Hoyer-Tomiczek. 2007. Der asiatische laub-
holzbockkäfer (Anoplophora glabripennis) und der citrusbock-
käfer (Anoplophora chinensis) in europa-ein situationsbericht.
Forstschultz Aktuell 38:2–5 (German).
Tyrväinen, L., L. Mäkinen, and J. Schipperijn. 2005. Tools for map-
ping social values for urban woodlands and of other green spac-
es. Landscape and Urban Planning 79(1):5–19.
Van der Gaag, D.J., G. Sinatra, P.F. Roversi, A. Loomans, F. Hérard,
and A. Vukadin. 2010. Evaluation of eradication measures
against Anoplophora chinensis in early stage infestations in
Europe. EPPO Bulletin 40:176–187.
Van der Gaag, D.J., M. Ciampitti, B. Cavagna, M. Maspero, and F.
Hérard. 2008. Pest risk analysis: Anoplophora chinensis. Plant
Protection Service, Wageningen, e Netherlands. 49 pp.
Vukadin, A., and B. Hrasovec. 2008. Anoplophora chinensis
(Forster) in Croatia. Forstschutz Aktuell 44.
Wang, B., V. Mastro, and R. Gao. 2005. Host range of Anoplophora
glabripennis: What we’ve learned from common-garden experi-
ment data. In the proceeding of the 16th U.S. Department of
Agriculture interagency research forum on gypsy moth and
other invasive species 2005. pp. 89. USDA Forestry Service.
Wang, Q., L.Y. Chen, W.Y. Zeng, and J.S. Li. 1996. Reproductive be-
havior of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) (Coleoptera: Ceram-
bycidae: Lamiinae), a serious pest of citrus. e Entomologist
115:40–49.
Wang, R. 1993. Study on resistance of P. × euroamericana ‘I-69’
and P. dakuanensis ‘Daguan’ to ALB. Beijing Forestry University
Journal 15(1):85–90 (Chinese).
Wang, T.Z., and D.P. Chen. 1984. Notes on the damage done by
Anoplophora chinensis to Cryptomeria japonica. Forest Science
and Technology Liney Keji Tongxun 6:26–27 (Chinese).
Wang, X., W. Lu, and Z. Zhang. 1987. e resistance of the poplar
species to the harmful eect of Anoplophora nobilis Ganglpauer.
Scientia Silvae Sinicae 1987-01 (Chinese).
Wang, Z.G. 2004. Study on the occurrence dynamics of Anoplophora
glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) and its control mea-
sures. Ph.D. thesis. Northeast Forestry University Harbin,
China. pp. 98 (Chinese).
Wen, J., Y. Luo, and J. Yue. 1999. e attracting eect of Acer
negundo Linn. on A. glabripennis (Motsch) adults. Forest Pest
and Disease 4:17–20 (Chinese).
Williams, D.W., H-P. Lee, and I-K. Kim. 2004. Distribution and
abundance of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Ceram-
bycidae) in natural Acer stands in South Korea. Environmental
Entomology 33(3):540–545.
Wright, R.W., R.A. Brand, W. Dunn, and K.P. Spindler. 2007. How
to write a systematic review. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research 455:23–29.
Wu, W., and S. Chiang. 1998. e glabripennis species group of the
genus Anoplophora in China (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Acta
Entomologica Sinica 41:284–290 (Chinese).
Xiao, G. 1992. Forest Insects of China. 2nd Edition. China Forestry
Press, Beijing, China. 1362 pp (Chinese).
Yan, Y.H., D.Z. Huang, and J.J. Yan. 1996. A preliminary study on the
relationship between amino acid composition in wood and sus-
ceptibility to Anoplophora glabripennis for several species in Sali-
caceae. Journal of Hebei Forestry College 11:259–262 (Chinese).
Yang, P.H. 2005. Review of the Asian Longhorned Beetle Research,
Biology, Distribution, and Management in China, Forest Health
& Biosecurity Working Papers FBS/6E. Forest Resources Devel-
opment Service, Forest Resources Division, FAO, Rome.
Yang, X. 2003. Relation between ALB severity and stands’ struc-
ture. Journal of Forestry Science and Technology of Gansu 28:3
(Chinese).
Yang, X., J. Zhou, F. Wang, and M. Cui. 1995. A study on the feeding
habits of the larvae of two species of longhorn (Anoplophora) to
dierent tree species. Journal of the Northwest Forestry College,
China 10(2):1–6 (Chinese).
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
153
Yin, W., and W. Lu. 2005. Review of Tree Selection and Aoresta-
tion for Control of Asian Longhorned Beetle in North China.
Food & Agriculture Organization, Forestry Department. FAO
Rome. Accessed 09/26/2012. <www.fao.org/forestry/9599-
058fddfef27dd6c45f4665cedfcb9648f.pdf>
Zhang, E., J. Zhou, and R. Liu. 1995. Investigation on ALB damage
to shelterbelts in Ningxia and stands’ structure arrangement.
Northwest Forestry College Journal 10(2):16–21 (Chinese).
Zhang, Y., and Q. Lu. 2003. Reection on control measures for Ano-
plophora glabripennis. Forestry Science and Technology of Inner
Mongolia 1(1) (Chinese).
Zhao, T.H., W.X. Gao, R.T. Zhang, Q.W. Li, X.X. Liu. 2007. Induced
outbreaks of indigenous insect species by exotic tree species.
Acta Entomologica Sinica 50:826–833 (Chinese).
Zhou, J.X. 1984. Behavior of adults of Anoplophora nobilis Gangl-
pauer and their selection of woody species. Northwest Forestry
College Journal 1(1):119–127 (Chinese).
Zhou, J.X., M.T. Liu, Y.Z. Lu, and X. Yang. 1981. A preliminary
study on Anoplophora nobilis Ganglbauer (Coleoptera: Ceram-
bycidae). Scientia Silvae Sinicae 17(4):413–418 (Chinese).
Henrik Sjöman (corresponding author)
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Faculty of Landscape Planning
Horticulture and Agricultural Science
Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management
Box 66, SE-23053
Alnarp, Sweden
henrik.sjoman@slu.se
Johan Östberg
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Faculty of Landscape Planning
Horticulture and Agricultural Science
Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management
Box 66, SE-23053
Alnarp, Sweden
johan.ostberg@slu.se
Johan Nilsson
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Faculty of Landscape Planning
Horticulture and Agricultural Science
Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management
Box 66, SE-23053
Alnarp, Sweden
Zusammenfassung. Zwei verheerend wirkende Schadinsekten
sind nach Nordamerika und Europa eingeschleppt worden: der
Asiatische Laubholzbock und der Zitrusbock. Diese beiden holz-
bohrenden Insekten werden als größte Gefahr für unsere Baum-
landscha betrachtet, da sie ein großes Wirtsspektrum von Arten
und Gattungen haben. Mit dem Versuch, eine aktuelle Zusammen-
stellung dieser Wirte zu kreieren, wurde eine systematische Über-
sicht über die Literatur mit Informationen zu den mit den beiden
Laubbockkäfern befallenen Arten, die den Käfern für ihren gesam-
ten Lebenszyklus als Wirt dienten oder als Fraßquelle genutzt wur-
den. Diese Übersicht enthüllte, dass eine sehr große Anzahl von
Arten und Gattungen von diesen Käfern attackiert und gefressen
werden. Dennoch bleibt der Eindruck nach diesen Ergebnissen un-
klar. Ein Grund dafür liegt in diesem Mangel an Transparenz in den
veröentlichen Studien bezüglich der bevorzugten Baumarten die-
ser beiden Käfer. Ein anderer Faktor, der erwähnt werden müsste,
ist der Umstand, ob der Baum den ganzen Entwicklungsprozess des
Bockkäfers unterstützt oder ob der nur von adulten Insekten gefres-
sen wird. Ohne diese Informationen können Bäume mit nur mod-
eraten Wirtseigenschaen als solche mit hervorragenden Wirtsei-
genschaen gekennzeichnet und somit als geeigneter Stadtbaum
ausgeschlossen werden.
Resumen. Dos devastadoras plagas de insectos se han intro-
ducido en América del Norte y Europa - el escarabajo asiático de
cuernos largos (ALB ) (Anoplophora glabripennis) y los escaraba-
jos cítricos (CLB ) (Anoplophora chinensis). Estos dos escarabajos
perforadores de la madera se argumentan ser una de las amenazas
más graves para los árboles urbanos, ya que tienen un gran núme-
ro de especies y géneros hospederos. Con el objetivo de crear una
compilación actualizada de estos hospederos, se hizo una revisión
sistemática de la literatura para obtener información sobre las espe-
cies de árboles atacados y utilizados por ALB y CLB como antrio-
nes para completar el ciclo de vida o para la alimentación. Esta re-
visión reveló que un gran número de especies de árboles y géneros
son susceptibles de ser atacados por ALB y CLB. Sin embargo, con
base en los resultados, el panorama aún es poco claro. Una razón
de esto es la falta de transparencia en los estudios publicados con
respecto a las listas de especies arbóreas susceptibles de ALB y CLB.
Otro factor que debe ser reportado es si una especie de árbol so-
porta el ciclo de vida completo de los escarabajos o simplemente
alimenta a los adultos. Sin esta información, las especies que poseen
cualidades moderadas de hospedaje están en riesgo de ser etiqueta-
dos incorrectamente como muy buenos hospederos y por lo tanto
excluidos como árboles urbanos.
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
154
APPENDIX 1.
Species/genera host grades for ALB according to the literature.
Full development means that a full beetle development can take place or that exit holes are present. Feeding means that the adult
beetles feed on the tree species but there is no claim that full development can take place or that exit holes are present. No informa-
tion means that there is no information on the type of development or investment is present.
is appendix is based on the following articles: Haack et al. 1997; Nowak et al. 2001; Lingafelter and Hoebeke 2002; Ludwig et al.
2002; MacLeod et al. 2002; Smith et al. 2002; Morewood et al. 2003; Morewood et al. 2004a; Morewood et al. 2004b; Williams et
al. 2004a; Auclair et al. 2005; CFIA 2005; Morewood et al. 2005; Weilun and Wen 2005; Yang 2005; Hérard et al. 2006; Raupp et al.
2006; Ric et al. 2006; FAO 2007; Hajek and Kalb 2007; Geib et al. 2009; Natur Erhvervstyrelsen 2008; Hérard et al. 2009; Hu et al.
2009; Haack et al. 2010; Jordbruksverket 2010; APHIS 2011; Dodds et al. 2011; EPPO 2012.
z A detailed description of the Populus genus is given in Table 2.
Numbers of articles Type of development
Species Total number Resistant/ Host Good Very good Full Feeding No
of studies resilient host host development information
Acer buergerianum 3 1 2 1 1
Acer ginnala 2 2 1
Acer mono 3 1 2 2 1
Acer negundo 9 3 6 1 8
Acer palmatum 2 2 1
Acer pensylvanicum 2 1 1 1 1
Acer platanoides 13 5 2 6 6 7
Acer pseudoplatanus 8 4 2 2 2 6
Acer pseudosieboldianum 1 1 1
Acer rubrum 7 2 1 4 4 3
Acer saccharinum 7 4 1 2 1 6
Acer saccharum 11 4 7 4 1 7
Acer spp. 18 6 1 11 4 1 13
Acer tegmentosum 1 1 1
Acer triorum 1 1
Acer truncatum 3 1 2 1 2
Aesculus hippocastanum 6 3 2 1 1 5
Aesculus ssp. 10 4 3 3 3 1 6
Ailanthus altissima 4 4
Albizia spp. 8 2 4 1 1 4 2
Alnus spp. 7 2 4 1 2 1 2
Amelanchier spp. 1 1
Betula nigra 2 2 1 1
Betula pendula 2 2 1 1
Betula spp. 13 5 6 2 5 8
Broussonetia papyrifera 3 2 1 1
Carpinus betulus 1 1 1
Carpinus spp. 2 1 1 1
Carya spp. 1 1
Catalpa bungei 2 2
Celtis spp. 5 4 1 2 3
Cercidiphyllum spp. 2 1 1 1 1
Cercis chinensis 2 2
Cercis spp. 1 1
Corylus spp. 1 1
Crataegus pinnatida 1 1
Crataegus spp. 1 1
Diospyros kaki 1 1
Elaeagnus angustifolia 2 1 1 1 1
Elaeagnus spp. 6 1 3 1 1 3 1 1
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
155
Numbers of articles Type of development
Species Total number Resistant/ Host Good Very good Full Feeding No
of studies resilient host host development information
Eucommia ulmoides 1 1
Euonymus spp. 1 1
Fagus spp. 3 2 1 1
Fagus sylvatica 2 2 2
Fraxinus americana 2 2
Fraxinus mandshurica 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanicum 3 3 1 2
Fraxinus sogdiana 2 2
Fraxinus spp. 10 8 2 3 1 6
Gleditsia spp. 2 1 1 1
Gleditsia triacanthos 1 1
Gingko biloba 1 1
Gymnocladus spp. 1 1
Hamamelis spp. 1 1
Hedysarum spp. 1 1 1
Hibiscus spp. 7 3 3 1 1 3
Hippophae spp. 1 1 1
Juglans regia 1 1
Juglans spp. 1 1
Koelreuteria spp. 4 2 1 1 2
Liquidambar styraciua 1 1
Liriodendron chinensis 1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera 4 3 1 1
Magnolia denudata 1 1
Magnolia spp. 1 1
Malus pumila 2 1 1 1
Malus spp. 6 1 5 1 1 3
Melia spp. 6 2 3 1 1 3
Melia azedarach 2 1 1 1
Metasequoia glyptostroboides 1 1
Morus spp. 8 2 5 1 2 4
Morus alba 4 1 3 3
Ostrya spp. 1 1
Pinus spp. 1 1
Platanus × hispanica 1 1
Platanus occidentalis 1 1
Paulownia tomentosa 1 1
Platanus spp. 15 2 6 7 5 8
Populus spp.z 19 8 2 9 7 12
Prunus armeniaca 1 1
Prunus cerasifera 1 1
Prunus salicina 1 1 1
Prunus spp. 13 2 9 2 2 1 8
Punica granatum 1 1
Pyrus calleryana 4 4
Pyrus spp. 9 2 6 1 1 6
Quercus alba 1 1 1
Quercus liaotungensis 1 1
Quercus palustris 1 1 1
Quercus rubra 4 3 1 3 1
Quercus spp. 8 7 1 1
Rhus typhina 1 1
Rhamnus spp. 1 1
Robinia pseudoacacia 5 2 3 3
Robinia spp. 6 2 3 1 1 3
Appendix 1 continued on page 156
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
156
Numbers of articles Type of development
Species Total number Resistant/ Host Good Very good Full Feeding No
of studies resilient host host development information
Rosa spp. 2 2 2
Salix babylonica 2 2 1 1
Salix matsudana 3 1 2 1 2
Salix nigra 1 1 1
Salix spp. 18 5 2 11 6 1 11
Sambucus spp. 1 1
Sophora japonica 1 1
Sophora ssp. 3 3 1 2
Sorbus spp. 6 4 2 3 3
Syringa spp. 1 1
Tilia paucicostata 1 1
Tilia spp. 7 2 5 2 3
Toona sinensis 1 1
Toxicodendron verniciuum 1 1
Ulmus americana 1 1 1
Ulmus pumila 3 1 2 2 1
Ulmus spp. 16 6 2 8 4 1 11
Vitis vinifera 1 1 1
Viburnum spp. 1 1
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
157
APPENDIX 2.
Species/genera host grades for CLB according to the literature.
Full development means that a full beetle development can take place or that exit holes are present. Feeding means that the adult
beetles feed on the tree species but there is no claim that full development can take place or that exit holes are present. No informa-
tion means that there is no information on the type of development or investment is present.
is appendix is based on the following articles: Adachi 1994; Lingafelter and Hoebeke, 2001; Lingafelter and Hoebeke 2002; Hérard
et al. 2006; Natur Erhvervstyrelsen 2008; van der Gaag et al. 2008; Vukadin and Hrasovec 2008; Haack et al. 2010; Jordbruksverket
2010; van der Gaag et al. 2010; EPPO 2012; Mattilsynet 2012; Netherlands Plant Protection Service 2012.
Numbers of articles Type of development
Species Total number Resistant/ Host Good Very good Full Feeding No
of studies resilient host host development information
Acacia decurrens 1 1 1
Acacia spp. 2 2 1 1
Acer campestre 2 2 2
Acer mono 1 1 1
Acer negundo 3 3 1 2
Acer oblongum 1 1 1
Acer palmatum 3 2 1 3 1
Acer platanoides 3 3 2 1
Acer pseudoplatanus 3 3 2 1
Acer saccharinum 2 1 1 1 1
Acer spp. 11 8 3 3 8
Aesculus hippocastanum 4 4 1 3
Aesculus ssp. 2 1 1 1 1
Albizia julibrissin 1 1 1
Albizia spp. 1 1 1
Aleurites fordii 1 1 1
Aleurites spp. 1 1 1
Alnus crispa subsp. Maximowiczii 1 1 1
Alnus rma 1 1 1
Alnus hirsuta 1 1 1
Alnus pendula 1 1 1
Alnus sieboldiana 1 1 1
Alnus spp. 6 5 1 1 5
Aralia cordata 1 1 1
Aralia spp. 1 1 1
Atalantia buxifolia 1 1 1
Atalantia spp. 1 1 1
Betula pendula 1 1 1
Betula platyphylla 1 1 1
Betula spp. 7 6 1 1 6
Broussonetia papyrifera 1 1 1
Broussonetia spp. 1 1 1
Cajanus cajan 1 1 1
Cajanus spp. 1 1 1
Camellia oleifera 1 1 1
Camellia spp. 1 1 1
Carpinus betulus 1 1 1
Carpinus laxiora 2 2 1 1
Carpinus spp. 5 4 1 1 4
Carya illinoensis 1 1 1
Carya spp. 1 1 1
Castanea crenata 1 1 1
Castanea spp. 1 1
Appendix 2 continued on page 158
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
158
Numbers of articles Type of development
Species Total number Resistant/ Host Good Very good Full Feeding No
of studies resilient host host development information
Castanopsis cuspidata var. sieboldii 1 1 1
Castanopsis spp. 1 1 1
Casuarina equisetifolia 1 1 1
Casuarina spp. 1 1 1
Casuarina stricta 1 1 1
Catalpa spp. 1 1 1
Cercis spp. 1 1 1
Chaenomeles spp. 2 2 2
Citrus aurantifolia 1 1 1
Citrus aurantium 1 1 1
Citrus grandis 1 1 1
Citrus limonia 1 1 1
Citrus maxima 1 1 1
Citrus nobilis 1 1 1
Citrus sinensis 1 1 1
Citrus spp. 9 5 2 2 5 4
Cornus spp. 3 2 1 1 2
Corylus avellana 2 2 1
Corylus spp. 7 6 1 1 6
Cotoneaster spp. 5 4 1 1 4
Crataegus spp. 5 4 1 2 3
Cryptomeria japonica 1 1 1
Cryptomeria spp. 5 5 1 4
Cydonia sinensis
Eleagnus multiora 1 1 1
Eleagnus spp. 2 2 2
Eleagnus umbellata 1 1 1
Eriobotrya japonica 1 1 1
Eriobotrya spp. 2 2 1 1
Fagus crenata 1 1 1
Fagus spp. 6 5 1 1 5
Fagus sylvatica 1 1 1
Ficus carica 2 2 2
Ficus spp. 4 4 1 3
Fortunella marginata 1 1 1
Fortunella spp. 1 1 1
Fraxinus americana 1 1 1
Fraxinus spp. 1 1 1
Grevillea spp. 1 1 1
Hedera rhombea 1 1 1
Hedera spp. 1 1 1
Hibiscus mutabilis 1 1 1
Hibiscus spp. 3 3 3
Ilex chinensis 1 1 1
Ilex spp. 1 1 1
Juglans mandshurica 1 1 1
Juglans spp. 1 1 1
Lagerstroemia indica 1 1 1
Lagerstroemia spp. 6 4 1 1 3 3
Lindera praecox 1 1 1
Lindera spp. 1 1 1
Litchi sinensis 1 1 1
Litchi spp. 1 1 1
Liquidambar spp. 2 1 1 1 1
Maakia amurensis subsp. buergeri 1 1 1
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
159
Numbers of articles Type of development
Species Total number Resistant/ Host Good Very good Full Feeding No
of studies resilient host host development information
Maakia spp. 1 1 1
Mallotus japonicus 1 1 1
Mallotus spp. 1 1 1
Malus asiatica 1 1 1
Malus pumila 1 1 1
Malus spp. 10 8 1 1 1 9
Malus sylvestris 1 1 1
Melia azedarach var. subtripinnata 1 1 1
Melia japonica 1 1 1
Melia spp. 1 1 1
Morus alba 1 1 1
Morus bombycis 1 1 1
Morus spp. 2 2 2
Olea europaea 1 1 1
Olea spp. 1 1 1
Ostrya spp. 1 1 1
Parrotis spp. 1 1 1
Persea spp. 1 1 1
Persea thunbergii 1 1 1
Pholinia benthamiana 1 1 1
Pholinia spp. 1 1 1
Pinus massoniana 1 1 1
Pinus spp. 3 3 1 2
Platanus hispanica 1 1 1
Platanus orientalis 1 1 1
Platanus spp. 9 8 1 2 7
Polygonum spp. 2 2 2
Poncitrus trifoliata 1 1 1
Poncitrus spp. 1 1 1
Populus alba 1 1 1
Populus maximowiczii 1 1 1
Populus nigra 2 2 2
Populus sieboldii 1 1 1
Populus spp. 8 8 8
Populus tomentosa 1 1 1
Prunus armeniaca 1 1 1
Prunus laurocerasus 2 2 2
Prunus mume 1 1 1
Prunus pseudocerasus 1 1 1
Prunus spp. 5 4 1 1 4
Prunus yedoensis 1 1 1
Psidium guajava 1 1 1
Psidium spp. 1 1 1
Pyracantha angustifolia 1 1 1
Pyracantha spp. 1 1 1
Pyrus hondoensis 1 1 1
Pyrus pyrifolia 1 1 1
Pyrus spp. 8 6 1 1 1 7
Quercus acutissima 1 1 1
Quercus glauca 1 1 1
Quercus robur 1 1 1
Quercus serrata 1 1 1
Quercus sessilifolia 1 1 1
Quercus spp. 5 4 1 1 4
Rhododendron spp. 3 2 1 1 2
Appenidix 2 continued on page 160
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
160
Numbers of articles Type of development
Species Total number Resistant/ Host Good Very good Full Feeding No
of studies resilient host host development information
Rhus javanica 1 1 1
Rhus spp. 2 2 2
Robinia pseudoacacia 1 1 1
Robinia spp. 2 2 1 1
Rosa multiora 1 1 1
Rosa spp. 6 5 1 1 5
Rubus microphyllus 1 1 1
Rubus palmatus 1 1 1
Rubus spp. 2 2 2
Sageretia spp. 2 2 2
Salix babylonica 1 1 1
Salix gracilistyla 1 1 1
Salix integra 1 1 1
Salix jessoensis 1 1 1
Salix koriyanagi 1 1 1
Salix sachalinensis 1 1 1
Salix spp. 8 7 1 1 7
Sambucus spp. 1 1 1
Sapium sebiferum 1 1 1
Sapium spp. 1 1 1
Sophora spp. 2 2 2
Sorbus spp. 2 1 1 1 1
Stranvaesia benthamiana 1 1 1
Stranvaesia spp. 1 1 1
Styrax japonica 1 1 1
Styrax spp. 1 1 1
Toona spp. 1 1 1
Toxicodendron verniciua 1 1 1
Ulmus davidiana var. japonica 1 1 1
Ulmus pumila 1 1 1
Ulmus spp. 5 4 1 1 4
Vernicia spp. 1 1 1
Viburnum spp. 2 2 1 1
Zelkova spp. 1 1 1
Ziziphus spp. 1 1 1
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
161
APPENDIX 3.
The origin of the information is divided between greenhouses/laboratories, natural environments,
review, or authority documents.
e number of citations is based on the Scopus database. Host-related information within the study is citations of tree suitability for ALB and CLB.
z Publications in Chinese with only an abstract in English
y Publications in German
x Publications in Italian
w Publications in Japanese
Origin of the study
Source Citations Beetle Green House/ Natural Plantations Review Authority Geographical focus Host-related information within
Laboratory environments document of the publication the study
Auclair et al. (2005) 9 ALB X New York & New 0
Jersey, U.S.
MacLeod et al. (2002) 37 ALB X Europe Li and Wu (1993)z, Yang et al.
(1995)z, Gine and Chein (1986)z
Morewood et al. (2005) 7 ALB X North America Bancro et al. (2002), Ludwig et
al. (2002)
Hu et al. (2009) 18 ALB X International Review Li and Wu (1993)z, Yan et al. (1996)z
Gao et al. (1997)z, Haack et al.
(1997), Bao et al. (1999)z, Li et al.
(1999)z, Lingafelter and Hoebeke
(2002), APHIS (2003); Morewood
et al. (2003), Li et al. (2005), Haack
et al. (2006), Hajek and Kalb
(2007), Maspero et al. (2007)x , Tomiczek
and Hoyer-Tomiczek (2007)y, Zhao et
al. (2007)z
Nowak et al. (2001) 107 ALB X North America Host-related information is based
on three Chinese sources and two
unpublished sources from North
America – He and Huang (1993)z,
Li and Wu (1993)z, Li et al. (1999)z
Morewood et al. (2004a) 28 ALB X North America Nowak et al. (2001)
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
162
Origin of the study
Source Citations Beetle Green House/ Natural Plantations Review Authority Geographical focus Host-related information within
Laboratory environments document of the publication the study
Haack et al. (2010) 40 ALB/CLB X International Review ALB–Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002),
Williams et al. (2004), Wang (2004)z,
Wang et al. (2005), Yin and Lu (2005),
Haack (2006), Haack et al. (2006),
Hérard et al. (2006), CABI (2007),
APHIS (2008), Hérard et al. (2009),
Smith et al. (2009). CLB–Lingafelter
and Hoebeke (2002), Hérard et al.
(2006), CABI (2007)
Geib et al. (2009) 12 ALB X New York, U.S. Morewood et al. (2004a), Morewood
et a l. (2004b), Morewood et al. (2005)
Raupp et al. (2006) 21 ALB X North America Nowak et al. (2001), APHIS (2003),
APHIS (2005)
Dodds and Orwig (2011) 1 ALB X North America Hu et al. (2009), APHIS (2011)
Morewood et al. (2004b) 16 ALB X North America Haack et al. (1997), Nowak et al.
(2001), Ludwig et al. (2002), Smith
et al. (2002)
Haack et al. (1997) 73 ALB X North America Qin et al. (1985)z, Sun et al. (1990a)z,
Gao et al. (1993)z, He and Huang
(1993)z, Kucera (1996)
Williams et al. (2004) 11 ALB X South Korea Luo et al. (2003), Haack et al. (1997),
Wu and Chiang (1998)z
EPPO (2012) Web page ALB/CLB X Europe ALB–Li and Wu (1993)z
CLB–Gressitt (1951)
Ric et al. (2006) - ALB X Canada Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002),
APHIS (2006)
CFIA (2012) Web page ALB X Canada 0
Yang (2005) - ALB X X China Sun et al. (1990b)z, Gao et al.
(1994)z, Sun (1995)z, Shao et al. (1997)z,
Guo (1998)z, Li et al. (1999)z, Wen
et al. (1999)z, Gao et al. (2002),
Liu et al. (2002)z, Li et al. (2003a)z,
Tian et al. (2003)z
Hérard et al. (2006) 17 ALB/CLB X X Europe 0
Jordbruksverket (2012) Web page ALB/CLB X Sweden 0
Mattilsynet (2012) Web page ALB/CLB X Norway 0
Natur Erhvervstyrelsen Web page ALB/CLB X Denmark Eppo (2012)
(2012)
Hérard et al. (2009) 5 ALB X X Italy Haack et al. (1996), Hérard et al.
(2006)
APHIS (2012) Web page ALB X North America Hu et al. (2009)
Ludwig et al. (2002) 7 ALB X North America Sawyer – personal communication
FAO (2007) - ALB X X China Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002)
Yin and Lu (2005) - ALB X X China Zhou (1984)z, Qin (1985)z, Wang
et al. (1987)z, Li and Wu (1992)z,
Wang (1993)z, Zhang et al. (1995)z,
Gao (1998)z, Hu et al. (1998)z,
Cao et al. (2003)z, Li et al. (2003b)z,
Yang (2003)z, Zhang and Lu (2003)z
Morewood et al. (2003) 22 ALB X North America Haack et al. (1997), Nowak et al.
(2001), Ludwig et al. (2002), Smith
et al. (2002)
Smith et al. (2002) 35 ALB X North America Xiao (1992)z, Nowak et al. (2001)
Hajek and Kalb (2007) 5 ALB X North America Haack et al. (1997), APHIS (2005),
Morewood et al. (2005)
Netherlands Plant Web page CLB X Holland 0
Protection Service (2012)
Lingafelter and Hoebeke 0 CLB X X Japan/Taiwan Chang (1960), Ohga et al. (1995)
(2001)
Van der Gaag et al. (2010) 2 CLB X Europe Wang and Cheng (1984)z, Qi (1997)z,
Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002),
CABI (2007), van der Gaag et al.
(2008), Vukadin and Hrasovec (2008),
Haack et al. (2010)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
163
Origin of the study
Source Citations Beetle Green House/ Natural Plantations Review Authority Geographical focus Host-related information within
Laboratory environments document of the publication the study
Haack et al. (2010) 40 ALB/CLB X International Review ALB–Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002),
Williams et al. (2004), Wang (2004)z,
Wang et al. (2005), Yin and Lu (2005),
Haack (2006), Haack et al. (2006),
Hérard et al. (2006), CABI (2007),
APHIS (2008), Hérard et al. (2009),
Smith et al. (2009). CLB–Lingafelter
and Hoebeke (2002), Hérard et al.
(2006), CABI (2007)
Geib et al. (2009) 12 ALB X New York, U.S. Morewood et al. (2004a), Morewood
et a l. (2004b), Morewood et al. (2005)
Raupp et al. (2006) 21 ALB X North America Nowak et al. (2001), APHIS (2003),
APHIS (2005)
Dodds and Orwig (2011) 1 ALB X North America Hu et al. (2009), APHIS (2011)
Morewood et al. (2004b) 16 ALB X North America Haack et al. (1997), Nowak et al.
(2001), Ludwig et al. (2002), Smith
et al. (2002)
Haack et al. (1997) 73 ALB X North America Qin et al. (1985)z, Sun et al. (1990a)z,
Gao et al. (1993)z, He and Huang
(1993)z, Kucera (1996)
Williams et al. (2004) 11 ALB X South Korea Luo et al. (2003), Haack et al. (1997),
Wu and Chiang (1998)z
EPPO (2012) Web page ALB/CLB X Europe ALB–Li and Wu (1993)z
CLB–Gressitt (1951)
Ric et al. (2006) - ALB X Canada Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002),
APHIS (2006)
CFIA (2012) Web page ALB X Canada 0
Yang (2005) - ALB X X China Sun et al. (1990b)z, Gao et al.
(1994)z, Sun (1995)z, Shao et al. (1997)z,
Guo (1998)z, Li et al. (1999)z, Wen
et al. (1999)z, Gao et al. (2002),
Liu et al. (2002)z, Li et al. (2003a)z,
Tian et al. (2003)z
Hérard et al. (2006) 17 ALB/CLB X X Europe 0
Jordbruksverket (2012) Web page ALB/CLB X Sweden 0
Mattilsynet (2012) Web page ALB/CLB X Norway 0
Natur Erhvervstyrelsen Web page ALB/CLB X Denmark Eppo (2012)
(2012)
Hérard et al. (2009) 5 ALB X X Italy Haack et al. (1996), Hérard et al.
(2006)
APHIS (2012) Web page ALB X North America Hu et al. (2009)
Ludwig et al. (2002) 7 ALB X North America Sawyer – personal communication
FAO (2007) - ALB X X China Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002)
Yin and Lu (2005) - ALB X X China Zhou (1984)z, Qin (1985)z, Wang
et al. (1987)z, Li and Wu (1992)z,
Wang (1993)z, Zhang et al. (1995)z,
Gao (1998)z, Hu et al. (1998)z,
Cao et al. (2003)z, Li et al. (2003b)z,
Yang (2003)z, Zhang and Lu (2003)z
Morewood et al. (2003) 22 ALB X North America Haack et al. (1997), Nowak et al.
(2001), Ludwig et al. (2002), Smith
et al. (2002)
Smith et al. (2002) 35 ALB X North America Xiao (1992)z, Nowak et al. (2001)
Hajek and Kalb (2007) 5 ALB X North America Haack et al. (1997), APHIS (2005),
Morewood et al. (2005)
Netherlands Plant Web page CLB X Holland 0
Protection Service (2012)
Lingafelter and Hoebeke 0 CLB X X Japan/Taiwan Chang (1960), Ohga et al. (1995)
(2001)
Van der Gaag et al. (2010) 2 CLB X Europe Wang and Cheng (1984)z, Qi (1997)z,
Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002),
CABI (2007), van der Gaag et al.
(2008), Vukadin and Hrasovec (2008),
Haack et al. (2010)
SjÖman et al.: Host Trees for Wood-Boring Pests: An Urban Forest Perspective
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
164
Origin of the study
Source Citations Beetle Green house/ Natural Plantations Review Authority Geographical focus Host-related information within
Laboratory environments document of the publication the study
Vukadin and Hrasovec 0 CLB Croatia Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002)
(2008)
Van der Gaag et al. (2008) Web page CLB X X Europe (Holland) Lingafelter and Hoebeke (2002),
CABI (2007), EPPO (2006)
Adachi (1994) 16 CLB X Japan Kojima and Hayashi (1978)w
Lingafelter and Hoebeke Book ALB/CLB X International Review ALB–Chen and Wang (1935)z, Zhou
et al. (1981)z, Qin et al. (1985)z,
(2002) Sun et al. (1990a)z, Xiao
(1992)z, Gao et al. (1993)z, He and
Huang (1993)z, Yang et al. (1995)z,
Haack et al. (1996), Kucera (1996),
Haack et al. (1997), Cavey et al.
(1998), Wu and Chiang (1998)z
CLB–Clausen (1931), Kojima
(1931), Cheo (1935), Gressit (1940),
Gressit (1942), Gressit (1951), Lieu
(1945), Samuelson (1965), Duy
(1968), Kojima and Hyashi (1978),
Hua (1982)z, Kojima and Nakamura
(1986), Gao et al. (1993)z, Hua et
al. (1993)z, Wang et al. (1996), Wu
and Chiang (1998)z
