Field Tests of Insecticides to Protect Ponderosa Pine from the Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)1

McCambridge, W. F.

doi:10.1093/jee/75.6.1080

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Management recommendations already exist for using insecticides to protect high-value trees in recreation sites or in ornamental settings from various species of Dendroctonus bark beetles (Smith et al 1977;Hall et al 1982;McCambridge 1982;Shea et al 1984;Shea and McGregor 1987;Haverty et al 1996Haverty et al , 1998Hastings et al 2001). Our results suggest that the proper use of insecticides also will help prevent attack from Ips spp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Insecticides for Protecting Southwestern Ponderosa Pines from Attack by Engraver Beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae)

DeGomez¹,

Hayes²,

Anhold³

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insecticides that might protect pine trees from attack by engraver beetles (Ips spp.) have not been rigorously tested in the southwestern United States. We conducted two field experiments to evaluate the efficacy of several currently and potentially labeled preventative insecticides for protecting high-value ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa Dougl ex. Laws., from attack by engraver beetles. Preventative sprays (0.19% permethrin [Permethrin Plus C]; 0.03, 0.06, and 0.12% bifenthrin [Onyx]; and 1.0 and 2.0% carbaryl [Sevin SL] formulations) and systemic implants (0.875 g per capsule acephate [Acecap] and 0.650 g per capsule dinotefuran) were assessed on bolts (sections of logs) as a surrogate for live trees for a period of 13 mo posttreatment. The pine engraver, Ips pini (Say), was the most common bark beetle found attacking control and treated bolts, but sixspined ips, Ips calligraphus (Germar), and Ips lecontei Swain also were present. After approximately 13 mo posttreatment in one experiment, the spray treatments with 2.0% carbaryl, 0.19% permethrin, and 0.06 or 0.12% bifenthrin prevented Ips attack on the bolts at a protection level of > or = 70%. The acephate and dinotefuran systemic insecticides, and the 0.03% bifenthrin spray, provided inadequate (< or = 36%) protection in this experiment. For the other experiment, sprayed applications of 1.0% carbaryl, 0.19% permethrin, and 0.06% bifenthrin prevented beetle attack at protection levels of > or = 90, > or = 80, and > or = 70%, respectively, when bolts were exposed to Ips beetle attack for approximately 9-15 wk posttreatment. The sprays with 0.19% permethrin and 0.06% bifenthrin also provided > or = 90% protection when bolts were exposed for approximately 15-54 wk posttreatment. We concluded that under the conditions tested, 1.0 and 2.0% carbaryl, 0.19% permethrin, and 0.06 and 0.12% binfenthrin were acceptable preventative treatments for protecting ponderosa pine from successful engraver beetle attack for one entire flight season in the U.S. Southwest.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…1 ern United States (Smith et al 1977, Hall et al 1982, McCambridge 1982, Shea et al 1984, Gibson and Bennett 1985, Haverty et al 1985, Shea and McGregor 1987, Hastings et al 2001. However, several questions and uncertainties remain regarding the use of preventative sprays for bark beetles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Insecticides for Protecting Southwestern Ponderosa Pines from Attack by Engraver Beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae)

DeGomez¹,

Hayes²,

Anhold³

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…interspecific communication and the exploitation of semiochemicals in pest management (Borden 1982a). Several authors have synthesized information on various subsystems to elueidate the role of semiochemicals in the host seleetion process (Wood 1970, 1973. 1982, Wood and Bedard 1977, Renwick and Vite 197(1, Borden 1974.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semiochemicals and bark beetle populations: Exploitation of natural phenomena by pest management strategists

Borden

1989

Ecography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An analysis of semiochemical communication between host trees, bark beetles and commensal or entomophagous insects discloses five principal means by which semiochemicals can influence the population dynamics of bark beetles. These are: mediation of aggregation and mass attack on new hosts, cessation of aggregation and shifting of attack to uninhabited hosts, induction of aggregation by competing species, inhibition of aggregation by competing species, and mediation of host finding by commensal and entomophagous insects. Further analysis suggests major points of natural vulnerability which lead to six fundamental strategies for potential pest management: prevention of production of aggregation pheromones, sabotage of olfactory perception, exploitation of semiochemical‐based secondary attraction, exploitation of antiaggregation pheromones, exploitation of repellent allomones, and exploitation of the kairomonal response by entomophagous insects. Investigations of the many possible tactics arising from these strategies have led to three types of operational pest management programs: prevention of pheromone production by excluding bark beetles from their hosts; suppression of bark beetle populations through the utilization of semiochemical‐baited traps, trees or logs; and the use of antiaggregation pheromones to protect vulnerable hosts from attack.

show abstract

“…It also establishes the efÞcacy of bifenthrin (Onyx) for this important use. We hope that forest health professionals and other resource managers use these data and other published reports to make informed, judicious decisions concerning the application of these tools on the basis of efÞcacy and persistence (Hall et al 1982;McCambridge 1982;Shea et al 1984;Gibson and Bennett 1985;Haverty et al 1985Haverty et al , 1997Haverty et al , 1998Page et al 1985;Werner et al 1986;Shea and McGregor 1987;Zhong et al 1995b;Hastings et al 2001;DeGomez et al 2006;Fettig et al 2006), toxicity (Ware 1994, Hastings et al 2001, safety , environmental concerns (Hoy and Shea 1981;Hastings et al 1998Hastings et al , 2001Dwyer et al 2005), and cost.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The effectiveness of 2.0% carbaryl also was conÞrmed for protecting P. contorta from D. ponderosae attack (Gibson and Bennett 1985, Page et al 1985, Shea and McGregor 1987. These and other studies (Smith et al 1977, McCambridge 1982 led to the registration of 2.0% Sevimol as a preventive spray. A 1.0% suspension of carbaryl (Sevimol and Sevin SL) was effective for protecting P. contorta from D. ponderosae attack in Montana for at least 1 yr. A 2.0% suspension was effective in protecting P. ponderosa from D. brevicomis attack in southern Idaho for 1 yr (Haverty et al 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Effectiveness of Bifenthrin (Onyx) and Carbaryl (Sevin SL) for Protecting Individual, High-Value Conifers from Bark Beetle Attack (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in the Western United States

Fettig¹,

Allen²,

Borys³

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-value trees, such as those located in residential, recreational, or administrative sites, are particularly susceptible to bark beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) attack as a result of increased amounts of stress associated with drought, soil compaction, mechanical injury, or vandalism. Tree losses in these unique environments generally have a substantial impact. The value of these individual trees, cost of removal, and loss of esthetics may justify protection until the main thrust of a bark beetle infestation subsides. This situation emphasizes the need for ensuring that effective insecticides are available for individual tree protection. In this study, we assess the efficacy of bifenthrin (Onyx) and carbaryl (Sevin SL) for protecting: ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex. Laws., from western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis LeConte, in California; mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins in South Dakota; and Ips spp. in Arizona; lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud., from D. ponderosae in Montana; pinyon, Pinus edulis Engelm. in Colorado and Pinus monophylla Torr. and Frem. in Nevada from pinyon ips, Ips confusus (LeConte); and Engelmann spruce, Picea engelmannii Parry ex. Engelm. from spruce beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby) in Utah. Few trees were attacked by Ips spp. in Arizona and that study was discontinued. Sevin SL (2.0%) was effective for protecting P. ponderosa, P. contorta, and P. monophylla for two field seasons. Estimates of efficacy could not be made during the second field season in P. edulis and P. engelmannii due to insufficient mortality in untreated, baited control trees. Two field seasons of efficacy was demonstrated in P. ponderosa/D. brevicomis and P. monophylla for 0.06% Onyx. We conclude that Onyx is an effective individual tree protection tool, but repeated annual applications may be required in some systems if multiyear control is desired.

show abstract

Field Tests of Insecticides to Protect Ponderosa Pine from the Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)1

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluation of Insecticides for Protecting Southwestern Ponderosa Pines from Attack by Engraver Beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae)

Evaluation of Insecticides for Protecting Southwestern Ponderosa Pines from Attack by Engraver Beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae)

Semiochemicals and bark beetle populations: Exploitation of natural phenomena by pest management strategists

Effectiveness of Bifenthrin (Onyx) and Carbaryl (Sevin SL) for Protecting Individual, High-Value Conifers from Bark Beetle Attack (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in the Western United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About