Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T06:57:43.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 32 - Gypsy moth IPM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2010

By
Michael L. McManus  and
Andrew M. Liebhold
Edited by
Edward B. Radcliffe ,
William D. Hutchison  and
Rafael E. Cancelado
Edward B. Radcliffe
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
William D. Hutchison
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access

Summary

Over the last 50 years, North American forests have been inundated by a multitude of alien pest invasions. Among these, noteworthy invaders include the hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae), emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), chestnut blight and Dutch elm disease. These species have greatly altered both the ecological and economic values associated with forests and their management, representing perhaps the most demanding challenge facing state and federal forest pest management personnel. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) problem and describe the various approaches to managing this species, which serve as a model system for understanding the management of non-indigenous forest pests.

Gypsy moth in North America

Gypsy moth was accidentally introduced to North America over 130 years ago, but it has spread relatively slowly, currently occupying less than one-third of its potential habitat in the eastern USA. It is possible to observe at any time areas where the species has not yet established, where introduced populations are occasionally eradicated, areas at the leading edge of the expanding range where concerted efforts are directed to slow its spread, and areas where the species has been established for many years and where considerable resources are expended to suppress defoliating populations. Because the gypsy moth has a dramatic and continuing impact on the public, this species has been the target for many intense research and management programs.

Type
Chapter
Information
Integrated Pest Management
Concepts, Tactics, Strategies and Case Studies
 , pp. 414 - 423
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Dwyer, G., Dushoff, J. & Yee, S. H. (2004). The combined effects of pathogens and predators on insect outbreaks. Nature, 430, 341–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elkinton, J. S. & Liebhold, A. M. (1989). Population dynamics of gypsy moth in North America. Annual Review of Entomology, 35, 571–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbush, E. H. & Fernald, C.H. (1896). The Gypsy Moth. Boston, MA: Wright & Potter.Google Scholar
Gansner, D. A., Herrick, O. W. & Ticehurst, M. (1985). A method for predicting gypsy moth defoliation from egg mass counts. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 2, 78–79.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. M., Liebhold, A. M., Bjornstad, O. N. & McManus, M. L. (2005). Circumpolar variation in periodicity and synchrony among gypsy moth populations. Journal of Animal Ecology, 74, 882–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. M., Liebhold, A. M. & Bjornstad, O. N. (2006). Geographical variation in the periodicity of gypsy moth outbreaks. Ecography, 29, 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leuschner, W. A., Young, J. A., Walden, S. A. & Ravlin, F. W. (1996). Potential benefits of slowing the gypsy moth's spread. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 20, 65–73.Google Scholar
Liebhold, A. M. & Bascompte, J. (2003). The allee effect, stochastic dynamics and the eradication of alien species. Ecology Letters, 6, 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebhold, A., Mastro, V. & Schaefer, P. W. (1989). Learning from the legacy of Leopold Trouvelot. Bulletin of the Entomological Society America, 35, 20–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebhold, A. M., Twardus, D. & Buonaccorsi, J. (1991). Evaluation of the timed-walk method of estimating gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), egg mass densities. Journal of Economic Entomology, 84, 1774–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebhold, A. M., Halverson, J. & Elmes, G. (1992). Quantitative analysis of the invasion of gypsy moth in North America. Journal of Biogeography, 19, 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebhold, A. M., Simons, E. E., Sior, A. A. & Unger, J. D. (1993). Forecasting defoliation caused by the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, from field measurements. Environmental Entomology, 22, 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebhold, A., Thorpe, K., Ghent, J. & Lyons, D. B. (1994). Gypsy Moth Egg Mass Sampling for Decision-Making: A Users' Guide, USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Management, NA-TP-94-04. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Liebhold, A. M., Gottschalk, K. W., Muzika, R.et al. (1995). Suitability of North American Tree Species to the Gypsy Moth: A Summary of Field and Laboratory Tests, General Technical Report No. NE-211. Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Google Scholar
Liebhold, A., Luzader, E., Reardon, R. C., et al. (1996). Use of a geographical information system to evaluate regional treatment effects in a gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) management program. Journal of Economic Entomology, 17, 560–566.Google Scholar
Liebhold, A. M., Gottschalk, K. W., Mason, R. R. & Bush, R. R. (1997). Evaluation of forest susceptibility to the gypsy moth across the conterminous USA. Journal of Forestry, 95, 20–24.Google Scholar
Liebhold, A. M., Sharov, A. A. & Tobin, P. C. (2007). Population biology of gypsy moth spread. In Slow the Spread: A National Program to Manage the Gypsy Moth, General Technical Report NRS-06, eds. Tobin, P. C. & Blackburn, L. M., pp. 15–32. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service.Google Scholar
McFadden, M. W. & McManus, M. E. (1991). An insect out of control? The potential for spread and establishment of the gypsy moth in new forest areas in the United States. In Forest Insect Guilds: Patterns of Interaction with Host Trees, General Technical Report No. NE 153, eds. Baranchikov, Y. N., Mattson, W. J., Hain, F. P., & Payne, T. L., pp. 172–186. Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Google Scholar
Morin, R. S., Liebhold, A. M., Luzader, E. R.et al. (2004). Mapping Host-Species Abundance of Three Major Exotic Forest Pests, Research Paper No. NE-726. Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.Google Scholar
Myers, J. H., Simberloff, D., Kuris, A. M. & Carey, J. R. (2000). Eradication revisited: dealing with exotics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 316–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltonen, M., Liebhold, A. M., Bjornstad, O. N. & Williams, D. W. (2002). Spatial synchrony in forest insect outbreaks: roles of regional stochasticity and dispersal. Ecology, 83, 3120–3129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravlin, F. W., Bellinger, R. G. & Roberts, E. A. (1987). Gypsy moth management programs in the United States: status, evaluation, and recommendations. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 33, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharov, A. A. & Liebhold, A. M. (1998). Model of slowing the spread of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) with a barrier zone. Ecological Applications, 8, 1170–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharov, A. A., Leonard, D., Liebhold, A. M., Roberts, E. A. & Dickerson, W. (2002). “Slow the Spread”: a national program to contain the gypsy moth. Journal of Forestry, 100, 30–36.Google Scholar
Tobin, P. C. & Blackburn, L. M. (eds.) (2007). Slow the Spread: A National Program to Manage the Gypsy Moth, Forest Service, General Technical Report No. NRS-06. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.CrossRef
Tobin, P. C., Sharov, A. A., Liebhold, A. M.et al. (2004). Management of the gypsy moth through a decision algorithm under the STS Project. American Entomologist, 50, 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twery, M. J. (1991). Effects of defoliation by gypsy moth. In Proceedings of the US Department of Agriculture Interagency Gypsy Moth Research Review 1990, Technical Report No. NE-146, eds. Gottschalk, K. W.. Twery, M. J. & Smith, S. I., pp. 27–39. Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Google Scholar
,US Department of Agriculture (1995). Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: A Cooperative Approach – Final Environmental Impact Statement 1995, 5 vols. Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.Google Scholar
,US Department of Agriculture (2006). Gypsy Moth Program Manual 05/2001–01. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. Available at www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/domestic/downloads/gypsy_moth.pdf.Google Scholar
,US Department of Agriculture (2007). Gypsy Moth Digest. Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. Available at www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/gm.Google Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. (1996). Developing and validating a model for predicting gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) defoliation in Connecticut. Journal of Economic Entomology, 89, 1546–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×