Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T00:58:43.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FIELD RESPONSE OF THE SPRUCE BUDWORM, CHORISTONEURA FUMIFERANA (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE), TO DOSAGE AND VOLUME RATES OF COMMERCIAL BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

O. N. Morris
O. N. Morris
Affiliation:
Forest Pest Management Institute, Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, OntarioP6A 5M7
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Thuricide and Dipel, formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.), were applied aerially against the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.), in forest stands of balsam fir, Abies balsamea L. A dosage of 30 Billion International Units (BIU) of B.t./ha applied in 2.4 to 4.7 L of spray/ha was most effective. Application of 20 BIU/ha was marginally effective against a population of 12 to 36 larvae/45 cm of branch.

Résumé

L'efficacité contre la tordeuse des bourgeons de l'épinette (Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.)), de doses et de volume étalonnees de produits commerciaux à base de Bacillus thuringiensis (Thuricide et Dipel) épandus par voie aerienne sur des peuplements de sapins baumiers (Abies balsamea L.) à été étudiée. Les résultats indiquent qu'une dose de 20 milliards d'unités internationales (U.I.) des produits testés n'avait qu'une efficacité marginale lorsque la densité de la population était de 12 à 35 larves sur 45 cm de branches. Une dose opérationnelle de 30 × 109 U.I. dans 2.4 à 4.7 L à l'hectare est souhaitable pour mieux assurer l'efficacité de la repression de cet insecte ravageur.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 116 , Issue 7 , July 1984 , pp. 983 - 990
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1984

References

Barry, J. W. and Ekblad, R. B.. 1978. Deposition of insecticide drops on coniferous foliage. Transactions ASAE 21: 438–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, J. W., Ekblad, R. B., Markin, G. P., and Trostley, G. C.. 1978. Methods of sampling and assessing deposits of insecticidal sprays released over forests. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1596. 162 pp.Google Scholar
Fettes, J. J. 1950. Investigation 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. 163–401.Google Scholar
Maksymiuk, B. 1974. The drop size spectra method for estimating mass median diameter for aerial sprays. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. W01. Beltsville, Md.Google Scholar
Morris, O. N. 1980. Report of the 1979 CANUSA cooperative Bacillus thuringiensis B.t. spray trials. Can. For. Serv. Rep. FPM-X-40. 75 pp.Google Scholar
Morris, O. N. 1981. Report on the 1980 cooperative Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) spray trials. Can. For. Service Rep. FPM-X-48. 75 pp.Google Scholar
Morris, O. N. 1982. Report of the 1981 cooperative Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) spray trials. Can. For. Serv. Rep. FPM-X-58. 86 pp.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H.. 1970. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw Hill, N.Y., pp. 158–159.Google Scholar