DOCSLIB.ORG

A Guide to Insect Injury of Conifers in the Lake States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Guide to Insect Injury of Conifers in the Lake States :W.m^^"--j) A Guide to Insect Injury of Conifers in the Lake States U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 501 A GUIDE TO INSECT INJURY OF CONIFERS IN THE LAKE STATES by Louis F. Wilson, Principal Insect Ecologist North Central Forest Experiment Station Agriculture Handbook No. 501 Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. May 1977 FOREWORD This booklet updates and replaces the popular 1962 bulletin "Identification of Conifer Insects by Type of Tree Injury, Lake States'' by H. J. MacAloney and D. C. Schmiege, published as Sta- tion Paper 100 of the Lake States Forest Experiment Station. The original publication included about 60 major insect pests important primarily to several forest conifers in the Lake States. This fully revised and expanded version includes descriptions of more than 165 insect pests and several important diseases (that could be easily confused v^ith insect damage) found on 19 conifers in the Lake States. It is basically a pictorial key of conifer injury to assist Extension entomologists, forest managers, and plant inspectors in identifying insect and disease problems. Cover: Red pine with severe post-horn injury from European pine shoot moth. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfRce Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.15 (paper cover) stock Number 001-000-03611-4 Class A 1.76:501 11 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 Tree Damage 1 How To Use This Manual 1 INJURY DIAGNOSIS 2 Symptoms and Signs 2 Types of Injury 2 IDENTIFICATION KEY TO CONIFEROUS TREES OF THE LAKE STATES 4 DEFOLIATING INSECTS 9 Sawflies 9 Leaf Beetles 24 Grasshoppers and Walkingsticks 25 Webless Moths 26 Budworms, Tubeworms, and Webworms 28 Budworm Moths 30 Needle Miners 33 SAPSUCKING INSECTS, MIDGES, AND MITES 36 Spittlebugs 37 Scales 41 Plant Lice 44 Gall Aphids 46 Thrips 49 Midges 49 Mites 51 SHOOT, STEM, AND ROOT INSECTS 53 Shoot and Bud Moths 53 Pitch-Mass and Blister Makers 56 Weevils 58 Bark and Ambrosia Beetles 67 Wood Borers 73 Ants and Termites 77 White Grubs -_ 78 CONE INSECTS 80 Cone Beetles 81 Cone Moths 82 Coneflies 84 111 Page NONINSECT MALADIES EASILY CONFUSED WITH INSECT DAMAGE 84 Diseases 85 Animals 89 Other Agents - 91 PLATES 95 PLATE PHOTO CREDITS 204 INDEX TO INSECTS, BY HOST PLANTS 207 GLOSSARY 214 GENERAL INDEX 215 IV PLATES Page Plate 1.—Conifers 96 Plate 2.—Conifers 98 Plate 3.—Conifers 100 Plate 4.—Foliage injury without webbing 102 Plate 5.—Foliage injury without webbing 104 Plate 6.—Foliage injury without webbing 106 Plate 7.—Foliage injury without webbing 108 Plate 8.—Foliage injury with webbing 110 Plate 9.—Foliage injury with webbing 112 Plate 10.—Foliage injury and webbed concealments 114 Plate 11.—Foliage injury and webbed concealments 116 Plate 12.—Foliage discolored 118 Plate 13.—Foliage discolored 120 Plate 14.—Foliage malformed 122 Plate 15.—Foliage spotted or discolored 124 Plate 16.—Foliage spotted 126 Plate 17.—Scales and aphids 128 Plate 18.—Scales and aphids 130 Plate 19.—Scales and scalelike fruit 132 Plate 20.—Woolly aphids and scales - 134 Plate 21.—Aphids 136 Plate 22.—Frothy concealments 138 Plate 23.—Galls 140 Plate 24.—Galls 142 Plate 25.—Galls 144 Plate 26.—Galls 146 Plate 27.—Galls 148 Plate 28.—Galls 150 Plate 29.—Bud injury 152 Plate 30.—Shoot injury 154 Plate 31.—Shoot injury 156 Plate 32.—Shoot injury 158 Plate 33.—Shoot injury 160 Plate 34.—Shoot injury 162 Plate 35.—Branch injury 164 Plate 36.—Branch injury 166 Plate 37.—Pitch exudates (tubes) 168 Plate 38.—Pitch exudates (blisters) 170 Plate 39.—Pitch exudates 172 Plate 40.—Pitch exudates 174 Plate 41.—Pitch exudates 176 Page Plate 42.—Stem injury 178 Plate 43.—Stem injury 180 Plate 44.—Stem injury 182 Plate 45.—Stem injury 184 Plate 46.—Stem injury 186 Plate 47.—Root and bark injury 188 Plate 48.—Root collar injury 190 Plate 49.—^Wood injury 192 Plate 50.—Wood injury 194 Plate 51.—Wood injury 196 Plate 52.—Wood injury 198 Plate 53.—Cone injury 200 Plate 54.—Cone injury (red pine) 202 VI INTRODUCTION Tree Damage Insects, abundant and important members of natural communi- ties, often feed and live on trees, sometimes damaging them. Coni- fers have economic value for lumber, paper, and Christmas trees, as well as aesthetic value around homes, along roadsides, and in parks. Insects and disease can reduce the value of this resource. The term damage often connotes an undesirable condition that requires remedial action, but this is not alv^ays the case. Trees and insects have evolved together through eons of time and are adapted to one another. Trees can tolerate surprising amounts of insect damage v^ith little or no effect on grov^th and survival. The damage described in this guide does not always imply the need for insect suppression or control, but insect damage does sometimes become intolerable ; remedial action is then indeed required. The insects and the host conifers treated in this publication are confined principally to the three Lake States—Minnesota, Wiscon- sin, and Michigan. A few insects from bordering States and adja- cent Canadian Provinces are included because they injure the same conifers and are therefore potential Lake States pests. Most insects that inhabit conifers can be identified easily by entomologists, but because insects are elusive and secretive crea- tures, they are not always available for identification when the injury is discovered. More often than not, the Extension entomol- ogist, forest manager, or plant inspector is confronted with an injured conifer but no visible insect; thus, a practical guide is needed to help identify conifer insects by the damage they do. This manual attempts to be that guide. How to Use This Manual Read the first part for background information about injury diagnosis, then go to the next section on identifying the host tree, if you do not know what species it is. After identification, either turn to the section of the guide that is appropriate for the part of the tree that is injured or examine the plates, generally arranged by the part of the tree that is injured, until something appears similar to the injury. Compare the symptoms and signs given in the text or shown on the plate with those observed on the host to determine if they match. If the injury appears serious, consult a specialist to determine the course of action. Do not rely on this guide alone where high values or costs are of concern, unless you are experienced with the pests involved. INJURY DIAGNOSIS Symptoms and Signs Accurate diagnosis of tree injury and identification of the cause are based on skillful observation and interpretation of available information. When the causal agent is not present or is difficult to observe, the diagnostician must rely entirely on symptoms and signs. Experience is the greatest asset in diagnosis. The symptoms of an injury, such as unusual color, missing fol- iage, malformations, etc., are signals that something is v^rong v^ith a tree. Symptoms are helpful in diagnosis and often give some clue to the probable causes, but are seldom relied on entirely because many insects, diseases, and other agents produce similar symp- toms and one agent may produce several different symptoms. Symptoms also change; yellov^ foliage may give v^ay to brown foliage and then later to missing foliage if the tree or affected part dies. Furthermore, two or more agents may injure the tree simul- taneously, producing not only their usual symptoms but also new ones from their interactions. Sometimes a primary agent that has unrecognizable symptoms may weaken the host; then secondary insects or diseases invade and destroy the host while showing only their symptoms. Signs of attack, on the other hand, are more useful for identifica- tion than symptoms and are often the only way to distinguish and separate one type of agent from another. Signs include artifacts (webs, cases, bags), debris (cast skins), excretions, pitch exuda- tions, galleries, associated insects or fungi such as ants and sooty mold, colored streaks, etc. Of course, if two insects have the same symptoms and signs, the agents themselves must be identified. The primary agent becomes more and more difficult to identify as time elapses after injury because both symptoms and signs change. If vigorous, a tree will attempt to heal itself and may mask or outgrow the injury; if weak, it will suffer attack from other insects and fungi. Signs such as webs, excrement, cast skins, etc., also deteriorate with time, but some may remain intact for a year or more. The descriptions and illustrations presented here are mostly for fresh symptoms and signs; whenever feasible, later symptoms and signs are also given. Types of Injury Discolored foliage.—Discolored foliage is a symptom that can be caused by injury anywhere in the tree—roots, trunk, branches, or needles. Discolored single needles or small groups of needles usually indicate that the injury is on the needle itself. When a cluster of needles is discolored (flagging), the injury is likely to be found within or at the base of the discolored section of the twig or branch. Sometimes flagging is also caused by nutrient deficien- cies or root injury from certain insects and diseases. Blackened foliage and bark are indicative of soft scales, aphids, or spittlebugs, and are caused by a sooty mold fungus that grows on the sugary honeydew and spittle of these insects. Discoloration of needles or shoots can also be due to the eggs or bodies of the insects them- selves; that is, there may be yellow eggs or red-brown scale in- sects present.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2015 Summary of Changes to Endangered, Threatened, And
    2015 Update to State Listed Species The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) is required to review, at least every five years, the designation of species as endangered, threatened, or of special concern to determine whether species should be: (1) added or removed from the list; or, if necessary, (2) change the designation from one category to another. The following is a summary of the changes to the State Endangered Species list (DEEP Regulations Sections 26‐306‐4, 26‐306‐5, and 26‐306‐6) that became effective on August 5, 2015. The complete list can be found on the DEEP website. Summary of Amphibian Changes New species added Necturus maculosus, Mudpuppy added as Special Concern Summary of Reptile Changes New species added Clemmys guttata, Spotted turtle added as Special Concern Malaclemys terrapin terrapin, Northern diamondback terrapin added as Special Concern Taxonomic Changes Eumeces fasciatus, Five‐lined skink changed to Plestiodon fasciatus Liochlorophis vernalis, Smooth green snake changed to Opheodrys vernalis Summary of Bird Changes Northern diamondback terrapin Status Changes Falco sparverius, American kestrel downlisted to Special Concern Progne subis, Purple martin downlisted to Special Concern Sturnella magna, Eastern meadowlark uplisted to Threatened New species added Accipiter gentilis, Northern goshawk added as Threatened Setophaga cerulea, Cerulean warbler added as Special Concern Species delisted Anas discors, Blue‐winged teal Laterallus jamaicensis, Black rail Cerulean warbler Taxonomic changes Parula americana, Northern parula changed to Setophaga americana 1 Summary of Mammal Changes Status Changes Myotis leibii, Eastern small‐footed bat uplisted to Endangered New Species Added Myotis lucifugus, Little brown bat added as Endangered Myotis septentrionalis, Northern long‐eared bat added as Endangered (also Federally Threatened) Perimyotis subflavus, Tri‐colored bat added as Endangered Taxonomic Changes Phocoena phocoena, Harbor porpoise changed to Phocoena Northern long‐eared bat phocoena ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Edgartown Produced in 2012
    BioMap2 CONSERVING THE BIODIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS IN A CHANGING WORLD Edgartown Produced in 2012 This report and associated map provide information about important sites for biodiversity conservation in your area. This information is intended for conservation planning, and is not intended for use in state regulations. BioMap2 Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World Table of Contents Introduction What is BioMap2 – Purpose and applications One plan, two components Understanding Core Habitat and its components Understanding Critical Natural Landscape and its components Understanding Core Habitat and Critical Natural Landscape Summaries Sources of Additional Information Edgartown Overview Core Habitat and Critical Natural Landscape Summaries Elements of BioMap2 Cores Core Habitat Summaries Elements of BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscapes Critical Natural Landscape Summaries Natural Heritage Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Rd., Westborough, MA 01581 & Endangered phone: 508-389-6360 fax: 508-389-7890 Species Program For more information on rare species and natural communities, please see our fact sheets online at www.mass.gov/nhesp. BioMap2 Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World Introduction The Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game, through the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), and The Nature Conservancy’s Massachusetts Program developed BioMap2 to protect the state’s biodiversity in the context of climate change. BioMap2 combines NHESP’s 30 years of rigorously documented rare species and natural community data with spatial data identifying wildlife species and habitats that were the focus of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife’s 2005 State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Appendix 3. Thousand Islands National Park Taxonomy Report
    Appendix 3. Thousand Islands National Park Taxonomy Report Class Order Family Genus Species Arachnida Araneae Agelenidae Agelenopsis Agelenopsis potteri Agelenopsis utahana Anyphaenidae Anyphaena Anyphaena celer Hibana Hibana gracilis Araneidae Araneus Araneus bicentenarius Larinioides Larinioides cornutus Larinioides patagiatus Clubionidae Clubiona Clubiona abboti Clubiona bishopi Clubiona canadensis Clubiona kastoni Clubiona obesa Clubiona pygmaea Elaver Elaver excepta Corinnidae Castianeira Castianeira cingulata Phrurolithus Phrurolithus festivus Dictynidae Emblyna Emblyna cruciata Emblyna sublata Eutichuridae Strotarchus Strotarchus piscatorius Gnaphosidae Herpyllus Herpyllus ecclesiasticus Zelotes Zelotes hentzi Linyphiidae Ceraticelus Ceraticelus atriceps 1 Collinsia Collinsia plumosa Erigone Erigone atra Hypselistes Hypselistes florens Microlinyphia Microlinyphia mandibulata Neriene Neriene radiata Soulgas Soulgas corticarius Spirembolus Lycosidae Pardosa Pardosa milvina Pardosa moesta Piratula Piratula canadensis Mimetidae Mimetus Mimetus notius Philodromidae Philodromus Philodromus peninsulanus Philodromus rufus vibrans Philodromus validus Philodromus vulgaris Thanatus Thanatus striatus Phrurolithidae Phrurotimpus Phrurotimpus borealis Pisauridae Dolomedes Dolomedes tenebrosus Dolomedes triton Pisaurina Pisaurina mira Salticidae Eris Eris militaris Hentzia Hentzia mitrata Naphrys Naphrys pulex Pelegrina Pelegrina proterva Tetragnathidae Tetragnatha 2 Tetragnatha caudata Tetragnatha shoshone Tetragnatha straminea Tetragnatha viridis
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • GIS Handbook Appendices
    Aerial Survey GIS Handbook Appendix D Revised 11/19/2007 Appendix D Cooperating Agency Codes The following table lists the aerial survey cooperating agencies and codes to be used in the agency1, agency2, agency3 fields of the flown/not flown coverages. The contents of this list is available in digital form (.dbf) at the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/id/id_guidelines.html 28 Aerial Survey GIS Handbook Appendix D Revised 11/19/2007 Code Agency Name AFC Alabama Forestry Commission ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AZFH Arizona Forest Health Program, University of Arizona AZS Arizona State Land Department ARFC Arkansas Forestry Commission CDF California Department of Forestry CSFS Colorado State Forest Service CTAES Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station DEDA Delaware Department of Agriculture FDOF Florida Division of Forestry FTA Fort Apache Indian Reservation GFC Georgia Forestry Commission HOA Hopi Indian Reservation IDL Idaho Department of Lands INDNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources IADNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources KDF Kentucky Division of Forestry LDAF Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry MEFS Maine Forest Service MDDA Maryland Department of Agriculture MADCR Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation MIDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MFC Mississippi Forestry Commission MODC Missouri Department of Conservation NAO Navajo Area Indian Reservation NDCNR Nevada Department of Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies and Moths of Dorchester County, Maryland, United States
    Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail
    [Show full text]
  • Zimmerman Pine Moth Phil Pellitteri, UW Insect Diagnostic Lab
    XHT1164 Provided to you by: Zimmerman Pine Moth Phil Pellitteri, UW Insect Diagnostic Lab Zimmerman pine moth (Dioryctria zimmermani) was first detected in the US in 1879, and has subsequently been found and is established throughout the northern US east of the Rocky Mountains. Austrian and Scots pines are preferred hosts of Zimmerman pine moth. However Eastern white and mugo pines are also attacked. Symptoms of Zimmerman pine moth. Tunneling by larvae in branch whorls leads to formation of masses of pitch (left). Sap from feeding sites often runs down branches and trunks (right). Left photo courtesy of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Archive, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Bugwood.org Appearance: Adult Zimmerman pine moths are midsized with gray and red- brown wings, marked with zigzag lines. Larvae are generally dirty white to light grey and up to one inch long. They can only be found in pitch masses, under bark or in new shoots. Symptoms and Effects: Zimmerman pine moth larvae tunnel into new growth causing shoot dieback, or into whorl areas causing masses of pitch to form at the wound site. Repeated attacks by the larvae cause a weakening at the area of the infestation and make the branches and trunk susceptible to breakage. Life Cycle: Zimmerman pine moth has a one-year life cycle and spends the winter as a young caterpillar underneath bark scales of infested trees. In mid to late April, larvae become active and they migrate to the base of branches or shoots and burrow inside. Larvae continue to feed into July and then pupate within a chamber in a mass of pitch.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 2. Jack Pine (Pinus Banksiana)
    SECTION 2. JACK PINE - 57 Section 2. Jack pine (Pinus banksiana) 1. Taxonomy and use 1.1. Taxonomy The largest genus in the family Pinaceae, Pinus L., which consists of about 110 pine species, occurs naturally through much of the Northern Hemisphere, from the far north to the cooler montane tropics (Peterson, 1980; Richardson, 1998). Two subgenera are usually recognised: hard pines (generally with much resin, wood close-grained, sheath of a leaf fascicle persistent, two fibrovascular bundles per needle — the diploxylon pines); and soft, or white pines (generally little resin, wood coarse-grained, sheath sheds early, one fibrovascular bundle in a needle — the haploxylon pines). These subgenera are called respectively subg. Pinus and subg. Strobus (Little and Critchfield, 1969; Price et al., 1998). Occasionally, one to about half the species (20 spp.) in subg. Strobus are classified instead in a variable subg. Ducampopinus. Jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) and its close relative lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. Ex Loud.) are in subg. Pinus, subsection Contortae, which is classified either in section Trifoliis or a larger section Pinus (Little and Critchfield, 1969; Price et al., 1998). Additionally, subsect. Contortae usually includes Virginia pine (P. virginiana) and sand pine (P. clausa), which are in southeastern USA. Jack pine has two quite short (2-5 cm) stiff needles per fascicle (cluster) and lopsided (asymmetric) cones that curve toward the branch tip, and the cone scales often have a tiny prickle at each tip (Kral, 1993). Non-taxonomic ecological or biological variants of jack pine have been described, including dwarf, pendulous, and prostrate forms, having variegated needle colouration, and with unusual branching habits (Rudolph and Yeatman, 1982).
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan
    Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan June 2005 Martin Nugent, Chair Wildlife Diversity Coordinator Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 (503) 872-5260 x5346 FAX: (503) 872-5269 [email protected] Kev Alexanian Dan Hilburn Sam Chan Bill Reynolds Suzanne Cudd Eric Schwamberger Risa Demasi Mark Systma Chris Guntermann Mandy Tu Randy Henry 7/15/05 Table of Contents Chapter 1........................................................................................................................3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 What’s Going On?........................................................................................................................................ 3 Oregon Examples......................................................................................................................................... 5 Goal............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Invasive Species Council................................................................................................................. 6 Statute ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Functions .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Insect Conditions in the United States 1966
    FOREST INSECT CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 1966 FOREST SERVICE ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreword This report is the 18th annual account of the scope, severity, and trend of the more important forest insect infestations in the United States, and of the programs undertaken to check resulting damage and loss. It is compiled primarily for managers of public and private forest lands, but has become useful to students and others interested in outbreak trends and in the location and extent of pest populations. The report also makes possible n greater awareness of the insect prob­ lem and of losses to the timber resource. The opening section highlights the more important conditions Nationwide, and each section that pertains to a forest region is prefaced by its own brief summary. Under the Federal Forest Pest Control Act, a sharing by Federal and State Governments the costs of surveys and control is resulting in a stronger program of forest insect and disease detection and evaluation surveys on non-Federal lands. As more States avail themselves of this financial assistance from the Federal Government, damage and loss from forest insects will become less. The screening and testing of nonpersistent pesticides for use in suppressing forest defoliators continued in 1966. The carbamate insecticide Zectran in a pilot study of its effectiveness against the spruce budworm in Montana and Idaho appeared both successful and safe. More extensive 'tests are planned for 1967. Since only the smallest of the spray droplets reach the target, plans call for reducing the spray to a fine mist. The course of the fine spray, resulting from diffusion and atmospheric currents, will be tracked by lidar, a radar-laser combination.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinus Contorta Dougl
    Unclassified ENV/JM/MONO(2008)32 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 05-Dec-2008 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English - Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE JOINT MEETING OF THE CHEMICALS COMMITTEE AND Unclassified ENV/JM/MONO(2008)32 THE WORKING PARTY ON CHEMICALS, PESTICIDES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY Cancels & replaces the same document of 04 December 2008 Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology No. 44 CONSENSUS DOCUMENT ON THE BIOLOGY OF LODGEPOLE PINE (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex. Loud.) English - Or. English JT03257048 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format ENV/JM/MONO(2008)32 Also published in the Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology: No. 1, Commercialisation of Agricultural Products Derived through Modern Biotechnology: Survey Results (1995) No. 2, Analysis of Information Elements Used in the Assessment of Certain Products of Modern Biotechnology (1995) No. 3, Report of the OECD Workshop on the Commercialisation of Agricultural Products Derived through Modern Biotechnology (1995) No. 4, Industrial Products of Modern Biotechnology Intended for Release to the Environment: The Proceedings of the Fribourg Workshop (1996) No. 5, Consensus Document on General Information concerning the Biosafety of Crop Plants Made Virus Resistant through Coat Protein Gene-Mediated Protection (1996) No. 6, Consensus Document on Information Used in the Assessment of Environmental Applications Involving Pseudomonas (1997) No. 7, Consensus Document on the Biology of Brassica napus L. (Oilseed Rape) (1997) No. 8, Consensus Document on the Biology of Solanum tuberosum subsp. tuberosum (Potato) (1997) No. 9, Consensus Document on the Biology of Triticum aestivum (Bread Wheat) (1999) No.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs
    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    [Show full text]