Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:22:31.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

COMPARATIVE EFFICACIES OF SINGLE AND DOUBLE APPLICATIONS OF COMMERCIAL BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS AGAINST THE SPRUCE BUDWORM CHORISTONEURA FUMIFERANA IN BALSAM FIR STANDS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

O. N. Morris
Affiliation:
Forest Pest Management Institute, Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 5M7

Extract

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (B.t.) is the most widely used biological control agent against the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.), a major defoliator of coniferous forests. The technology of applying the bacterium, however, is still not fully developed and the strategy of applying single or split applications of B.t. in unmixed stands is still in question. Double applications are generally accepted as necessary in mixed stands of white spruce, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, red spruce, P. rubens Sarg., black spruce, P. mariana (Mill.) BSP, and balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., due to difference in the phenological development of the host trees and of the budworm infesting them. Field trials were conducted at Mine Centre, Ontario, to compare the efficacies of double and single applications of B.t. against the budwonn infesting balsam fir stands.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1984

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

Fettes, J. J. 1950. Investigations of sampling techniques for population studies of the spruce budworm on balsam fir in Ontario. For. Insect Lab., Sault Ste. Marie, A. Tech. Rep. 4, pp. 163401.Google Scholar
Morris, O. N. 1980. Report of the 1979 CANUSA Cooperative Bacillus thuringiensis B.t. spray trials. Forest Pest Mang. Inst., Can. For. Serv. Rep. FPM-X-40, pp. 3541.Google Scholar