Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T22:49:04.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Insecticide Tests on the Douglas-Fir Cone Midge, Contarinia oregonensis Foote

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Thomas W. Koerber
Thomas W. Koerber
Affiliation:
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Berkeley, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three insecticides — lindane, dieldrin, and Sevin — were tested for control of the Douglas-fir cone midge, Contarinia oregonensis Foote (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). They were applied to infested duff samples at the rate of 1.5 pounds of insecticide in 15 gallons of diesel oil per acre. Lindane was the most effective, causing a 98.5% reduction in the number of midges emerging from the duff. Dieldrin also caused a significant reduction in emergence, but Sevin was no more effective than diesel oil alone.

The results of this test suggest that oil-based sprays applied to the duff before the cone midges emerge might give satisfactory control more consistently than the water-based sprays which are usually applied to the trees. The test procedure would avoid the timing and formulation problems involved in treating developing cones on the trees.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 95 , Issue 6 , June 1963 , pp. 640 - 646
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1963

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

Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fick, L. R. 1960. Field test for control of seed and cone insects of Douglas-fir. Ore. State Bd. Forestry Rep., 8 pp.Google Scholar
Foote, R. H. 1956. Gall midges associated with the cones of western forest trees. Wash. Acad. Sci. Jour. 46: 48–57.Google Scholar
Greathouse, T. E., Allen, V. E., and Wright, K. H.. 1960. Results of a field test to reduce insect damage to cones and seeds of Douglas-fir. U.S. Forest Serv. Pacific NW. Forest and Range Expt. Sta., 5 pp.Google Scholar
Hedlin, A. F. 1958. Insects causing seed losses in Douglas-fir on Vancouver Island in 1957. Proc. Ent. Soc. Brit. Columbia 1958: 37–39.Google Scholar
Hedlin, A. F. 1961. The life history and habits of a midge, Contarinia oregonensis Foote (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), in Douglas-fir cones. Can. Ent. 93: 952–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. E. 1958. Insect damage to the 1957 Douglas-fir seed crop on Weyerhaeuser Timber Company tree farms. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. Forestry Res. Center, 9 pp.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. E. 1962. Tests of Guthion for the control of the Douglas-fir cone midge. Jour. Econ. Ent. 55: 613–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. E. and Heikkenen, H. J.. 1958. Damage to the seed of Douglas-fir by the Douglas-fir cone midge. Forest Sci. 4: 274–282.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. E. and Winjum, J. K.. 1960. Douglas-fir cone and seed insect biological and control studies: progress in 1958, 1959. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. Forestry Res. Note 22, 23 pp.Google Scholar
Koerber, T. W. 1960. Insects destructive to the Douglas-fir seed crop in California. U.S. Forest Serv. Pacific SW. Forest and Range Expt. Sta. Tech. Paper 45, 36 pp.Google Scholar
Koerber, T. W. 1962. Douglas-fir cone and seed insect research, progress report 1959. U.S. Forest Serv. Pacific SW. Forest and Range Expt. Sta., 37 pp.Google Scholar
Lyon, R. L. and Bushing, R. W.. 1961. The construction and performance of a portable precision spray chamber. Can. Ent. 93: 785–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudinsky, J. A. 1955. Douglas-fir cone and seed insects. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. Forestry Res. Note, 6 pp.Google Scholar