Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:41:27.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

POST-ATTACK INJECTION OF SILVISAR 510 (CACODYLIC ACID) IN SPRUCE BEETLE (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE) INFESTED TREES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. H. Frye ,
J. M. Schmid ,
C. K. Lister  and
P. E. Buffam
R. H. Frye
Affiliation:
Branch of Forest Pest Control, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado 80225
J. M. Schmid
Affiliation:
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
C. K. Lister
Affiliation:
Branch of Forest Pest Control, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado 80225
P. E. Buffam
Affiliation:
Environmental Quality Evaluation, Southeastern Area State and Private Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Post-attack injections of full- and half-strength Silvisar 510 (cacodylic acid) appear to inhibit populations of Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby) more effectively than quarter- and tenth-strength dilutions. Arsenic concentrations in the phloem were highest in the full-strength treatments and progressively decreased in the lesser strength treatments. Arsenic concentrations in the phloem were generally highest just above the frill while concentrations at 20 ft and higher above the frill were significantly lower than those just above the frill. Arsenic concentrations in the needles were highest in the full- and half-strength treatments and decreased progressively in the lesser strength treatments. Concentrations in the needles were essentially equal in the upper and lower portions of the crown. Arsenic concentrations in the soil were not affected by the treatments.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 109 , Issue 9 , September 1977 , pp. 1221 - 1225
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1977

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

Bowen, H. J. M. 1967. Activation analysis in botany and agriculture, pp. 287–299. In Nuclear activation techniques in life sciences. Int. Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
Buffam, P. E. 1971. Spruce beetle suppression in trap trees treated with cacodylic acid. J. econ. Ent. 64: 958–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffam, P. E. et al. 1973. Fall cacodylic acid treatments to produce lethal traps for spruce beetles. Environ. Ent. 2: 259–262.Google Scholar
Canutt, P. R. and Norris, L. A.. 1974. Distribution of arsenic in vegetation, forest floor, soil and streamwater after the injection of forest trees with MSMA and cacodylic acid, pp. 26–35. In The behavior and impact of organic arsenical herbicides in the forest. Final report on cooperative studies. Pacif. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Covallis, Ore.Google Scholar
Chansler, J. F. et al. 1970. Cacodylic acid field tested for control of mountain pine beetles in ponderosa pine. Res. Note U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. RM-161. 3 pp. Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.Google Scholar
Chansler, J. F. and Pierce, D. A.. 1966. Bark beetle mortality in trees injected with cacodylic acid (herbicide). J. econ. Ent. 59(6): 1357–1359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, F. B. 1958. The effects of woodpeckers on populations of the Engelmann spruce beetle. J. econ. Ent. 51(5): 603–607.Google Scholar
Lister, C. K. et al. 1976. Refinement of the lethal trap tree method for spruce beetle control. J. econ. Ent. 69: 415–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, R. E. et al. 1974. Timing cacodylic acid treatments for control of mountain pine beetles in infested ponderosa pines. Res. Note U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. RM-262. 4 pp. Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.Google Scholar
Wakita, H. et al. 1970. Elemental abundance of major, minor, and trace elements in Apollo II lunar rocks, soil and core samples. Proc. Apollo II Lunar Sci. Conference. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. Sublimit 1 Vol. 2, pp. 1685–1717. Pergamon.Google Scholar