Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:56:24.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of attack by Amblypelta cocophaga China (Hemiptera:Coreidae) on growth of Eucalyptus deglupta in the Solomon Islands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. Bigger
Affiliation:
Tropical Development Research Institute, College House, Wrights Lane, London, W8 5SJ, UK

Abstract

Reduction in growth of saplings of Eucalyptus deglupta resulting from die-back caused by Amblypelta cocophaga China was studied in forestry plantations in the Solomon Islands. At a standard spacing of 10 × 3 m, a comparison was made of tree growth and incidence of A. cocophaga attack on saplings planted in strips 2 m wide cut through secondary forest, with those from which all inter-row vegetation was cut back prior to planting. Initially, a greater proportion of trees was infested on the cleared than the uncleared plots, but at the end of the first year, at which time the attack was at its peak, no differences could be detected. From the fifth to the thirteenth month after planting out, uninfested trees on the cleared plots increased in height at an average rate of 60 cm per month. For every week that at least one A. cocophaga was recorded on a tree, this rate was depressed by 1·3 cm. On the uncleared plots, the average rate of increase of uninfested trees was only 42 cm per month and this was reduced by 1·0 cm for every week that an insect was recorded. By the end of the first year, an estimated 37% (in cleared plots) and 41% (in uncleared plots) of the potential stand was rendered useless for future timber production due to A. cocophaga damage. In terms of total stem volume (not log production), about 1 m3/h out of a potential 3 m3/h was lost in the uncleared plots and 0·2 m3/h out of a potential 0·6 m3/h in the uncleared ones. Whilst clearing did not reduce the incidence of A. cocophaga attack, the advantage of clearing in terms of increased tree growth was considerable.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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.)

References

Bacon, P. S. (1982). The chemical control of Merremia spp. in forestry plantations on the Solomon Islands.—Tropical Pest Management 28, 355358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigger, M. (1982). Insect pests associated with forestry plantations in the Solomon Islands.— Commonw. For. Rev. 61, 249257.Google Scholar
Brown, E. S. (1958). Injury to cacao by Amblypelta Stål; (Hemiptera, Coreidae) with a summary of food-plants of species of this genus.—Bull. ent. Res. 49, 543554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. (1972). Variation, association and inheritance of morphological and wood characters in an improvement programme for Eucalyptus deglupta Blume.—263 pp. Papua New Guinea, Department of Forests.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, R., Jackson, G. V. H. & Marten, K. D. (1976). Die-back of eucalyptus in the Solomon Islands.—Commonw. For. Rev. 55, 133139.Google Scholar
Miller, F. (1982). Evaluation of glyphosate for use against Merremia spp. in the Solomon Islands.— Tropical Pest Management 28, 347354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neil, P. E. (1982 a). Herbicides and Merremia species control6 pp. Solomon Islands Forest Dept. Research Note no. 1/82. (Cyclostyled.)Google Scholar
Neil, P. E. (1982 b). The use of fire for Merremia species control.—4 pp. Solomon Islands Forest Dept., Research Note no. 4/82. (Cyclostyled.)Google Scholar
Neil, P. E. (1982 c). The use of cattle for Merremia species control5 pp. Solomon Islands Forest Dept., Research Note no. 5/82. (Cyclostyled.)Google Scholar
Neil, P. E. (1982 d). The use of cover crops in Merremiaspecies control5 pp. Solomon Islands Forest Dept., Research Note no. 6/82. (Cyclostyled.)Google Scholar
Stuart, A. & Kendall, M. G. (1968). The advanced theory of statistics. Vol. III.—557 pp. London, Griffin.Google Scholar