Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:13:13.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFECTS OF SEMIOCHEMICAL BAITING ON THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF FELLED AND UNFELLED LETHAL TRAP TREES FOR SPRUCE BEETLE, DENDROCTONUS RUFIPENNIS (KIRBY) (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE), MANAGEMENT IN AREAS OF HIGH AND LOW BEETLE POPULATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

D.R. Gray ,
E. Holsten  and
M. Pascuzzo
D.R. Gray
Affiliation:
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Nelson Forest Region, British Columbia, Canada
E. Holsten
Affiliation:
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Nelson Forest Region, British Columbia, Canada
M. Pascuzzo
Affiliation:
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Nelson Forest Region, British Columbia, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A two by two factorial experiment in a randomized complete block design tested single and combined effects of tree felling and semiochemical baiting on the attractiveness of spruce (Picea spp.) trees treated with monosodium methanearsenate (MSMA) to Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby) in British Columbia and Alaska. In British Columbia, tree felling and semiochemical baiting had significant effects on attack density, but in Alaska only tree felling had a significant effect. Semiochemical baiting had a significant effect on within-tree attack distribution in British Columbia but cot in Alaska, regardless of the felling treatment. The felled treatment captured more beetles than the not-felled treatment regardless of the baiting treatment in British Columbia, but only in the absence of a semiochemical bait in Alaska. The differences between the two locations may have been caused by lower temperatures and beetle population density in Alaska. Effective spruce beetle management with MSMA-treated trees requires tree felling, and beetle capture can be improved with the use of a semiochemical bait.

Résumé

Une expérience factorielle deux par deux (randomized complete block design) a testé les effets de l’abbatage d’arbres et d’appâts semiochimiques sur l’attirance d’épinettes (Picea spp.) traitées au méthanearsenate monosodique (MSMA) pour Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby) en Colombie britannique et en Alaska. En Colombie britannique, l’abbatage et les appâts semiochimiques ont eu un effet significatif sur la densité des attaques, mais en Alaska seulement l’abbatage a eu un effet significatif. Les appâts semiochimiques ont eu un effet significatif sur la distribution intra-arbre des attaques en Colombie britannique mais pas en Alaska, quelque soit le traitement d’abbatage. Les arbres abbatus ont capturé plus de dendroctones que les arbres non-abbatus en présence ou en l’absence d’appât en Colombie britannique, mais seulement en l’absence d’appât en Alaska. Les différences entre les deux sites peuvent avoir été causées par les températures et niveaux de population plus bas en Alaska. Une régie efficace du dendroctone de l’épinette utilisant des arbres traités au MSMA requiert que les arbres soient abbatus. Les captures de dendroctoncs peuvent être améliorées par l’utilisation d’appâts semiochimiques.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 122 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 373 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1990

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

Buffam, P.E. 1971. Spruce beetle suppression in trap trees treated with cacodylic acid. J. econ. Ent. 64(4): 958–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, E.D.A., and Hall, P.M.. 1983. Effect of high density frontalin baiting on attack distribution of Dendroctonus rufipennis in spruce plots. J. ent. Soc. B.C. 80: 14–19.Google Scholar
Dyer, E.D.A., and Safranyik, L.. 1977. Assessment of pheromone-baited trees on a spruce beetle population (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Ent. 109: 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freund, R.J., Littel, R.C., and Spector, P.C.. 1986. SAS Systems for Linear Models. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. 209 pp.Google Scholar
Frye, R.H., Schmid, J.M., Lister, C.K., and Buffam, P.E.. 1977. Post-attack injection of silvisar 510 (cacodylic acid) in spruce beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infested trees. Can. Ent. 109: 1221–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsten, E.H. 1985 a. Evaluation of monosodium methanearsenate (MSMA) for lethal trap trees in Alaska. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., FPM Tech. Rep. R10-11. 12 pp.Google Scholar
Holsten, E.H. 1985 b. Evaluation of monosidium methanearsenate (MSMA) for lethal trap trees in Alaka. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., FPM Tech. Rep. R10-7. 20 pp.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, R.S. 1985. Use of trap trees for spruce beetle management in British Columbia, 1979–1984. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Pest Management Rep. 5. 39 pp.Google Scholar
Knight, F.B. 1960. Measurements of Engelmann spruce beetle populations. Ecology. 41: 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, C.K., Schmid, J.M., Minnemeyer, C.D., and Frye, R.H.. 1976. Refinement of the lethal trap tree method for spruce beetle control. J. econ. Ent. 69(3): 415–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, D. 1953. The use of trap trees for the control of the Engelmann spruce beetle, Dendroctonus engelmannii Hopkins. MS thesis, Utah State Agricultural College, Logan, UT. 34 pp.Google Scholar
Nagel, R.H., McComb, D., and Knight, F.B., 1957. Trap tree method for controlling the Engelmann spruce beetle in Colorado. J. Forest. 55(12): 894–898.Google Scholar
SAS. 1982. SAS User's Guide: Basics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Safranyik, L., Shrimpton, D.M., and Whitney, H.S.. 1983. The role of host-pest interaction in population dynamics of Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). In Isaev, AS. (Ed.), The Role of the Host in the Population Dynamics of Forest Insects. Proceedings of International Union of Forest Research Organizations/Man and Bioosphere Symposium, Irkutsk, USSR, August 1981.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G.. 1980. Statistical Methods, 7th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. 507 pp.Google Scholar
Schmid, J.M., and Frye, R.H.. 1977. Spruce beetle in the Rockies. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-49. 38 pp.Google Scholar
Stephens, M.A. 1977. EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. Technometrics 19: 205–210.Google Scholar
U.S.D.A. For. Serv. 1988. Forest insect and disease conditions in Alaska — 1988. FPM Rep. R10-88. 16 pp.Google Scholar
Wygant, N.D., and Lejeune, R.R.. 1967. Engelmann spruce beetle Dendroctonus obesus (Mann.). In Important Forest Insects and Diseases of Mutual Concern to Canada, the United States and Mexico. Canada Dept. For. Rural Development Publ. 1180.Google Scholar
Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 718 pp.Google Scholar