Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:46:12.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of the Bronze Birch Borer, Agrilus anxius Gory, in New Brunswick1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

G. W. Barter
G. W. Barter
Affiliation:
Forest Biology Laboratory, Fredericton, N.B.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Agrilus anxius was described by Gory (1841), and later given the name “bronze birch borer” by Chittenden (1898). It was recently separated from a closely allied species attacking poplar, A. liragus (Barter and Brown, 1949; Smith, 1949). The borer is native to North America and occurs apparently throughout most of the range olf birch from Newfoundland to British Columbia, and south to New Jersey, Ohio, and Colorado (Barter and Brown, 1949; Fisher, 1928).

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 89 , Issue 1 , January 1957 , pp. 12 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1957

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

Anderson, R. F. 1944. The relation between host condition and attacks by the bronze birch borer. J. Econ. Ent. 37(5): 588–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, R. E. 1944. The dieback of birch in the Maritime region. Can. Dept. Agr. Div. Ent. Mimeo. Contrib. No. 3.Google Scholar
Balch, R. E. and Prebble, J. S.. 1940. The bronze birch borer and its relation to the dying of birch in New Brunswick forests. Forestry Chron. 16: 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barter, G. W. 1953. Work on the “dieback” problem in the Maritime region. The report on the Symposium on Birch Dieback. Contrib. Div. Forest Biol. Can. Dept. Agr., Ottawa.Google Scholar
Barter, G. W. and Cameron, D. G.. 1955. Some effects of defoliation by the forest tent caterpillar. Can. Dept. Agr. Div. For. Biol., Bi-Mon. Progr. Rept. 11(6): 1.Google Scholar
Barter, G. W. and Brown, W. J.. 1949. On the identity of Agrilus anxius Gory and some allied species (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Can. Ent. 81: 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britton, W. E. 1923. 22nd Report of the State Entomologist for 1922. Conn. Agr. Sta. Bull. No. 247. 269–381.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. N. 1915. Observations on the life history of Agrilus bilineatus. J. Agr. Res. 3(4).Google Scholar
Chittenden, F. H. 1898. A destructive borer enemy of birch trees, with notes on related species. U.S. Dept. Agr., Div. Ent. Bull. 18 (new series): 44–51.Google Scholar
Curtis, O. F. 1935. Translocation of solutes in plants. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Felt, E. P. and Bromley, S. W.. 1930. Shade tree insects in 1929. J. Econ. Ent. 23: 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, W. S. 1928. A revision of the North American species of Buprestid beetles belonging to the genus Agrilus. Smithsonian Inst. Bull. 145.Google Scholar
Gibson, A. 1909. Reports on insects of the year. 40th Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ont. pp. 9–15.Google Scholar
Gory, H. L. 1841. Description of Agrilus anxius. Hist. Nat. des Coléoptères, Monog. des Buprestides 4: 226.Google Scholar
Hall, R. C. 1933. Post-logging decadence in northern hardwoods. Univ. of Mich. School of Forestry and Conservation, Bull. 3.Google Scholar
Hawboldt, L. S. and Skolko, A. J.. 1948. Investigations of yellow birch dieback in Nova Scotia in 1947. J. Forestry 46: 659–671.Google Scholar
Hutchings, C. B. 1923. Some biologic observations on the bronze birch borer. 15th Ann. Rept. Que. Soc. Prot. Plants, pp. 89–92.Google Scholar
Jack, J. G. 1896. Garden and forest 9: 269.Google Scholar
Larsen, J. 1901. A disease of the white birch. 3rd Rept. Michigan Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters, pp. 46–49.Google Scholar
Maheux, G. 1919. Rept. Minister of Agr. Quebec, pp. 109–114.Google Scholar
Nash, R. W., Duda, E. J., and Gray, N. H.. 1951. Studies on extensive dying, regeneration, and management of birch. Maine For. Serv. Bull. 15.Google Scholar
Peterson, A. 1953. Larvae of insects, Part II. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Edwards Bros., Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich.Google Scholar
Pierson, H. B. 1927. Control of the bronze birch borer by forest management. J. Forestry 25: 68–72.Google Scholar
Quirke, D. A. 1953. The role of insects in the deterioration of birch in Ontario. The Report on the Symposium on Birch Dieback. Contrib. Div. For. Biol. Can. Dept. Agr., Ottawa.Google Scholar
Schwarz, E. A. 1890. Notes on the breeding habits of some Scolytids. Ent. Soc. Washington 2: 77–80.Google Scholar
Slingerland, M. V. 1906. The bronze birch borer. Cornell Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 234: 63–78.Google Scholar
Smith, S. G. 1949. Evolutionary changes in the sex chromsomes of Colepoptera. I. Woodborers of the genus Agrilus. Evolution 3(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. C. and Barter, G. W.. 1951. Effectiveness of DDT against the bronze birch borer, Agrilus anxius Gory. Can. Dept. Agr., Div. For. Biol. Bi-Mon. Progr. Rept. 7(1).Google Scholar
Spaulding, P. and MacAloney, H. J.. 1931. A study of organic factors concerned in the decadence of birch on cut-over lands in northern New England. J. Forestry 29: 1134–1149.Google Scholar
Swaine, J. M. 1915. Shade tree insects in Quebec. 7th Ann. Rept. Que. Soc. Prot. Plants 1915: 91–115.Google Scholar
Swaine, J. M. 1917. Some features of interest in connection with our studies of forest and shade tree insects. Ont. Ent. Soc. Rept. 47: 95–106.Google Scholar
Swaine, J. M. 1918. A new forest insect enemy of white birch. Can. J. Forestry 14: 1928–1929.Google Scholar
West, A. S. Jr., 1947. The California flat-headed borer (Melanophila californica Van Dyke) in ponderosa pine stands in northeastern California. Can. J. Research 25: 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar