DOCSLIB.ORG

Spruce Beetle in the Rockies J M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spruce Beetle in the Rockies J M Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Quinney Natural Resources Research Library, S.J. The aB rk Beetles, Fuels, and Fire Bibliography and Jessie E. 1-1-1977 Spruce Beetle in the Rockies J M. Schmid R H. Frye Recommended Citation Schmid, J. and Frye, R. (1977). Spruce beetle in the Rockies. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-49, 38 pp. This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Quinney Natural Resources Research Library, S.J. and Jessie E. at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in The aB rk Beetles, Fuels, and Fire Bibliography by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Spruce Beetle in the Rockies J. M. Schmid and R. H. Frye USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and General Technical Report RM-49 Range Experiment Station December 1977 Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Abstract This report summarizes the literature on the spruce beetle in the western United States, primarily in the Rocky Mountains. Information is presented on life history and behavior, host relationships, mortality agents and impacts of infestations. A section on suppression details the current status of chemicals, pheromones, trap trees and silvicultural treatments. The initial steps in managing spruce beetle populations are stated in the final section on beetle management policy. Although this report discusses research involving pesticides, such research does not imply that the pesticide has been registered or recommended for the use studied. Registration is necessary before any pesticide can be recom­ mended. If not handled or applied properly, pesticides can be injur­ ious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, fish, and wildlife. Always read and follow the tIN ?~..f++ directions on the pesticide con- -"'OWT........ ,I.HIII"IIIU"'II:"'III tainer. The use of trade and company names is for the benefit of the reader; such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of any service or product by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM49 December 1977 Spruce Beetle in the Rockies J. M. Schmid, Entomologist Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 1 and R. H. Frye, Forester San Juan National Forest, Colorado Dedication This paper is dedicated to Dr. Noel Wygant, one of the pioneers in spruce beetle research. Dr. Wygant's knowledge of the White River outbreak and the spruce beetle in general has been generously shared with those of us who followed his early work and pursued spruce beetle research. We consider ourselves privileged to know him. JCentral headquarters is maintained at Fort Collins in cooperation with Colorado State University. Contents Page Preface ............................................................................................................................. I Taxonomy ....................................................................................................................... I Previous Outbreaks ......................................................................................................... I Hosts ............................................................................................................................... 3 Life History and Behavior ............................................................................................... 3 Description of Stages ................................................................................................... 3 Life Cycle " ........................................................................................ '" .. , ..... , ...... '" ... ... 4 Emergence .................................. '" ...... '" ........................ '" ................ '" .......... ... ... ... ..... 4 Attack Period ............ '" ... ... ... ...... .... ... ... ........ ....... .................. ... ............... ............. .... ... 5 Density of Attacks . ..... ...... ......... .... ... ... ........ ..... ................ ............ ............... ... ... ....... ... 5 Egg Galleries and Eggs ., .......... , .......... , ..... ........ .... ............ ......... ......... ...... ..... .... ... ... .... 8 Hibernation .................................................................................................................. 10 Dispersal ......................................................................................... ,. '" ............... '" ... ... 10 Sound Production ........................................................................................................ II Host Relationships .......................................................................................................... II Susceptibility .............................. ,. '" ................................................ ,. .............. .... ......... I I Characteristics of Infested Trees .............................................. '" .... ,. '" ..... .... ........ ....... 12 Blue Staining Fungi ..................................................................................................... 13 Effects of Temperature and Biotic Factors ., .................................................................... 13 Temperature ................................................................................................................. 13 Woodpeckers ................................................................................................................ 14 Passerine Birds ........... '" ....................................... , ........... ....... ... ... ... ..... .... ...... ...... ....... 15 Insect Parasites and Predators ..................................................................................... 16 Insect Parasites ......................................................... , ........... '" ...... '" ............... '" ..... 16 Insect Predators ............. '" ... ...... ... ... .......... ... ........ ........ ..... ... ..... ........ ............... ... .... 17 Mites ............................................................................................................................ 17 Nematodes ................................................................................................................... 18 Associated Scolytids ..................................................................................................... 18 Effects of Infestations ... '" ...... '" ..... .... ... ........ ............ ..... ..... ....... ... .... ....... ...... ..... ... ... ....... 19 Stand Structure and Composition ............................................................................... 19 Succession ............................................. '" .................................................................... 20 Watershed Relationships .............................................................................................. 21 Forage Production ....................................................................................................... 22 Wildlife ............................... '" .... ,. '" .. ' ......... , .............. '" ............................................... 22 Fire Hazard .................................................................................................................. 23 Deterioration ................................................................................................................ 23 Wood Products ...................................................... '" ........................................... '" ..... 24 Detection ..........................................................................•............................................. 25 Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 26 Suppression ..................................................................................................................... 27 Chemicals ..................................................................................................................... 27 Protective Sprays ......................................................................................................... 29 Pheromones ................................................................................................................. 29 Trap Trees .................................................................................................................... 30 Silvicultural Treatments ............................................................................................... 31 Beetle Management Policy .............................................................................................. 32 References ........................................................................................................................ 34 Published ....................................................... '" ........................................................... 34 Unpublished ................................................................................................................. 37 Spruce Beetle in the Rockies J. M. Schmid and R. H. Frye Preface These recent name changes have created some confusion among foresters in the central Rockies. This report summarizes the available literature on Publications referring to D. engelmanni prior to 1963 the spruce beetle, Dendroctonus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24
    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Coleoptera Emergent from Various Decay Classes of Downed Coarse Woody Debris in Great Smoky Mountains Na- Tional Park, USA
    INSECTA A Journal of World Insect Systematics MUNDI 0260 Comparison of Coleoptera emergent from various decay classes of downed coarse woody debris in Great Smoky Mountains Na- tional Park, USA Michael L. Ferro Louisiana State Arthropod Museum, Department of Entomology Louisiana State University Agricultural Center 402 Life Sciences Building Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, U.S.A. [email protected] Matthew L. Gimmel Division of Entomology Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology University of Kansas 1501 Crestline Drive, Suite 140 Lawrence, KS, 66045, U.S.A. [email protected] Kyle E. Harms Department of Biological Sciences Louisiana State University 202 Life Sciences Building Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, U.S.A. [email protected] Christopher E. Carlton Louisiana State Arthropod Museum, Department of Entomology Louisiana State University Agricultural Center 402 Life Sciences Building Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, U.S.A. [email protected] Date of Issue: November 30, 2012 CENTER FOR SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY, INC., Gainesville, FL M. L. Ferro, M. L. Gimmel, K. E. Harms and C. E. Carlton Comparison of Coleoptera emergent from various decay classes of downed coarse woody debris in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA Insecta Mundi 0260: 1–80 Published in 2012 by Center for Systematic Entomology, Inc. P. O. Box 141874 Gainesville, FL 32614-1874 USA http://www.centerforsystematicentomology.org/ Insecta Mundi is a journal primarily devoted to insect systematics, but articles can be published on any non-marine arthropod. Topics considered for publication include systematics, taxonomy, nomenclature, checklists, faunal works, and natural history. Insecta Mundi will not consider works in the applied sciences (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations on the Biology of Dryocoetes Betulae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Paper Birch in Northern Idaho
    POPULATION ECOLOGY Observations on the Biology of Dryocoetes betulae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Paper Birch in Northern Idaho 1 2 MALCOLM M. FURNISS AND SANDRA J. KEGLEY Environ. Entomol. 35(4): 907Ð911 (2006) ABSTRACT We describe the biology and life stages of the birch bark beetle, Dryocoetes betulae Hopkins, and report its second known occurrence in Idaho. One annual generation was observed with broods overwintering as larvae and sexually immature adults. The species is polygamous with a ratio of 1.8 females per male. Two females (rarely three) joined a male after he entered the bark, and each female created a 3- to 4-cm-long egg gallery with short lateral spurs. Eggs were laid in niches along each side of the main gallery. Larvae have three instars. No hymenopterous parasitoid was found; however, two apparent predators, Rhizophagus dimidiatus Mannerheim, and a clerid, Thanasimus undatulus (Say), were present in galleries. Two mites, Histiostoma sp. and Proctolaelaps n. sp., also occurred in galleries, and a nematode of the Order Rhabditida occurred in the midgut of larvae and adult D. betulae. An ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron betulae Swaine, also infested the basal stems apart from D. betulae. Stems of infested trees were infected with a root rot fungus, Armillaria ostoyae (Romagnesi) Herink. Several generations of beetles infested the basal portion of stems of either decadent or recently dead paper birch. This behavior preserves a scarce host resource and is enhanced by a relatively low fecundity and ability to establish new galleries without ßight dispersal. KEY WORDS Scolytinae, Dryocoetes, paper birch The genus Dryocoetes Eichhoff is represented in North (Ratzburg) (as D.
    [Show full text]
  • Monotomidae (Coleoptera) of the Maritime Provinces of Canada
    J. Acad. Entomol. Soc. 6: 1-8 (2010) Monotomidae (Coleoptera) of the Maritime Provinces of Canada Christopher G. Majka and Yves Bousquet ABSTRACT The Monotomidae of the Maritime Provinces of Canada are surveyed. Nine species are found in the region in the genera Rhizophagus and Monotoma. Four species are adventive from the Palaearctic region; the other five are native to the Nearctic region. Five species have been recorded in New Brunswick, eight in Nova Scotia, and two in Prince Edward Island. Seven new provincial records are reported. The distribution of species in North America, and of adventive species, elsewhere in the world, is briefly summarized, as well as the bionomics of each species. RÉSUMÉ Nous avons effectué un relevé des Monotomidés dans les provinces Maritimes canadiennes. On trouve neuf espèces des genres Rhizophagus et Monotoma dans la région. Quatre d’entre elles sont des espèces adventices provenant de la région paléarctique; les cinq autres sont indigènes à la région néarctique. Nous avons répertorié cinq espèces au Nouveau-Brunswick, huit en Nouvelle- Écosse et deux à l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard. Dans sept des cas, c’est la première fois que l’espèce est signalée dans la province. Nous résumons brièvement la répartition des espèces en Amérique du Nord et des adventices ailleurs dans le monde, ainsi que la bionomie de chacune d’entre elles. INTRODUCTION The Monotomidae (the “root-eating beetles”) are a small family of Coleoptera, with 55 species recorded from North America (Bousquet 2002). The Canadian fauna consists of 24 species (Bousquet 1991). In Atlantic Canada monotomids include representatives of two genera; Rhizophagus Herbst, including six species that are generally found under bark in association with scolytine larvae and subcortical fungi on which they feed; and Monotoma Herbst, including four species that feed on fungi and are variously found in decomposing micro-habitats such as compost heaps and haystacks.
    [Show full text]
  • Lulu Island Bog Report
    A Biophysical Inventory and Evaluation of the Lulu Island Bog Richmond, British Columbia Neil Davis and Rose Klinkenberg, Editors A project of the Richmond Nature Park Society Ecology Committee 2008 Recommended Citation: Davis, Neil and Rose Klinkenberg (editors). 2008. A Biophysical Inventory and Evaluation of the Lulu Island Bog, Richmond, British Columbia. Richmond Nature Park Society, Richmond, British Columbia. Title page photograph and design: David Blevins Production Editor: Rachel Wiersma Maps and Graphics: Jose Aparicio, Neil Davis, Gary McManus, Rachel Wiersma Publisher: Richmond Nature Park Society Printed by: The City of Richmond Additional Copies: Richmond Nature Park 11851 Westminster Highway Richmond, BC V6X 1B4 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 604-718-6188 Fax: 604-718-6189 Copyright Information Copyright © 2008. All material found in this publication is covered by Canadian Copyright Laws. Copyright resides with the authors and photographers. Authors: Lori Bartley, Don Benson, Danielle Cobbaert, Shannon Cressey, Lori Daniels, Neil Davis, Hugh Griffith, Leland Humble, Aerin Jacobs, Bret Jagger, Rex Kenner, Rose Klinkenberg, Brian Klinkenberg, Karen Needham, Margaret North, Patrick Robinson, Colin Sanders, Wilf Schofield, Chris Sears, Terry Taylor, Rob Vandermoor, Rachel Wiersma. Photographers: David Blevins, Kent Brothers, Shannon Cressey, Lori Daniels, Jamie Fenneman, Robert Forsyth, Karen Golinski, Hugh Griffith, Ashley Horne, Stephen Ife, Dave Ingram, Mariko Jagger, Brian Klinkenberg, Rose Klinkenberg, Ian Lane, Fred Lang, Gary Lewis, David Nagorsen, David Shackleton, Rachel Wiersma, Diane Williamson, Alex Fraser Research Forest, Royal British Columbia Museum. Please contact the respective copyright holder for permissions to use materials. They may be reached via the Richmond Nature Park at 604-718-6188, or by contacting the editors: Neil Davis ([email protected]) or Rose Klinkenberg ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge's Species List
    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2017-06-30 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff June 30, 2017 2 Cover images represent changes to the checklist. Top left: Halobi- sium occidentale observed at Gull Rock, June 8, 2017 (https://www. inaturalist.org/observations/6565787). Image CC BY Matt Bowser. Top right: Aegialites alaskaensis observed at Gull Rock, June 8, 2017 (http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/6612922). Image CC BY Matt Bowser. Bottom left: Fucus distichus observed at Gull Rock, June 8, 2017 (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/6612338). Image CC BY Matt Bowser. Bottom right: Littorina subrotundata observed at Gull Rock, June 8, 2017 (http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/6612398). Image CC BY Matt Bowser. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 24 Vascular Plants........................................................ 47 Bryophytes .......................................................... 59 Chromista........................................................... 63 Fungi ............................................................. 63 Protozoa............................................................ 72 Non-native species 73
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Silvicultural Practices in Irregular Boreal Forests: Response of Beetle Assemblages
    Silva Fennica 45(5) research articles SILVA FENNICA www.metla.fi/silvafennica · ISSN 0037-5330 The Finnish Society of Forest Science · The Finnish Forest Research Institute Alternative Silvicultural Practices in Irregular Boreal Forests: Response of Beetle Assemblages Jean-Philippe Légaré, Christian Hébert and Jean-Claude Ruel Légaré, J.-P., Hébert, C. & Ruel, J.-C. 2011. Alternative silvicultural practices in irregular boreal forests: response of beetle assemblages. Silva Fennica 45(5): 937–956. In the process of implementing sustainable management in the eastern Canadian boreal forest, we tested two selection cutting methods and compared them with two widely used practices in the boreal forest: clearcutting with protection of the advanced growth and soils and irregular shelterwood cutting leaving small merchantable stems. We used old-growth irregular stands as references in comparing the impact of these silvicultural treatments on the diversity and abundance of beetles. Three groups were targeted: saproxylic flying beetles, epigaeic saproxylic beetles and epigaeic non-saproxylic beetles. A sampling design including 320 pitfall traps and 80 multidirectional flight-interception traps was deployed in 2007. A total of 26 906 beetles was captured including 407 taxa distributed among 52 families. We found that clearcutting with protection of the advanced growth and soils and irregular shelterwood cutting leaving small merchantable stems had a greater impact on beetle communities than both selection cuttings. Canopy opening as well as the presence of snags and downed woody debris appear as important attributes for several saproxylic and non-saproxylic species. Beetle communities in selection cuttings remained more similar to those found in controls; these silvicultural treatments are new tools to implement ecosystemic and sustainable management in irregular boreal forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2016-12-15
    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2016-12-15 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff December 15, 2016 2 Cover images represent changes to the checklist. Top left: Ligyrocoris sylvestris feeding on Rubus chamaemorus, Headquarters Lake wetland, July 15, 2013 (http://arctos.database.museum/media/10373139). Image CC0 Matt Bowser. Top right: Lecania dubitans collected off of Ski- lak Loop Road by Ed Berg on June 23, 2005 (http://arctos.database. museum/media/10419592). Image CC0 Matt Bowser. Bottom left: Pip- toporus betulinus observed on March 31, 2015 near Headquarters Lake (http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/1353794). Image CC BY Matt Bowser. Bottom right: Mimulus guttatus photographed on the Fuller Lake Trail, July 13, 2014 (http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/ 799839). Image CC BY-NC-ND Matt Muir. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Refuge checklist 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Phylum Chordata.................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 13 Phylum Annelida.................................................... 13 Phylum Arthropoda .................................................. 13 Phylum Cnidaria.................................................... 34 Phylum Mollusca...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Biophysical Inventory and Evaluation of the Lulu Island Bog Richmond, British Columbia
    PROJECT SPONSORS A Biophysical Inventory and Evaluation of the Lulu Island Bog Richmond, British Columbia Neil Davis and Rose Klinkenberg, Editors A project of the Richmond Nature Park Society Ecology Committee 2008 Recommended Citation: Davis, Neil and Rose Klinkenberg (editors). 2008. A Biophysical Inventory and Evaluation of the Lulu Island Bog, Richmond, British Columbia. Richmond Nature Park Society, Richmond, British Columbia. Title page photograph and design: David Blevins Production Editor: Rachel Wiersma Maps and Graphics: Jose Aparicio, Neil Davis, Gary McManus, Rachel Wiersma Publisher: Richmond Nature Park Society Printed by: The City of Richmond Additional Copies: Richmond Nature Park 11851 Westminster Highway Richmond, BC V6X 1B4 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 604-718-6188 Fax: 604-718-6189 Copyright Information Copyright © 2008. All material found in this publication is covered by Canadian Copyright Laws. Copyright resides with the authors and photographers. Authors: Lori Bartley, Don Benson, Danielle Cobbaert, Shannon Cressey, Lori Daniels, Neil Davis, Hugh Griffith, Leland Humble, Aerin Jacob, Bret Jagger, Rex Kenner, Rose Klinkenberg, Brian Klinkenberg, Karen Needham, Margaret North, Patrick Robinson, Colin Sanders, Wilf Schofield, Chris Sears, Terry Taylor, Rob Vandermoor, Rachel Wiersma. Photographers: David Blevins, Kent Brothers, Shannon Cressey, Lori Daniels, Jamie Fenneman, Robert Forsyth, Karen Golinski, Hugh Griffith, Ashley Horne, Stephen Ife, Dave Ingram, Mariko Jagger, Brian Klinkenberg, Rose Klinkenberg, Ian Lane, Fred Lang, Gary Lewis, David Nagorsen, David Shackleton, Rachel Wiersma, Diane Williamson, Alex Fraser Research Forest, Royal British Columbia Museum. Please contact the respective copyright holder for permissions to use materials. They may be reached via the Richmond Nature Park at 604-718-6188, or by contacting the editors: Neil Davis ([email protected]) or Rose Klinkenberg ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • BEETLES and SPIDERS AS INDICATORS of RECOVERY on PRINCE of WALES ISLAND, ALASKA RECOMMENDED: by Jill M. Stockbridge Dr. Diane Wa
    Beetles and spiders as indicators of forest recovery on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska Item Type Thesis Authors Stockbridge, Jill M. Download date 07/10/2021 08:46:20 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/4676 BEETLES AND SPIDERS AS INDICATORS OF RECOVERY ON PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND, ALASKA By Jill M. Stockbridge RECOMMENDED: Dr. Diane Wagner Advisory Committee Member Advisory Committee Member Dr. Derek S. Sikes Advisory Committee Chair k^ Dr. Diane Wagner Chair, Department of Biology and Wildlife APPROVED: Dr. Paul W. Layer Dean, College of Natjical Science and Mathematics John C. tichelberger Dean of Graduate School BEETLES AND SPIDERS AS INDICATORS OF FOREST RECOVERY ON PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND, ALASKA A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE By Jill M. Stockbridge, B.S Fairbanks, Alaska August 2014 Abstract Commercial logging is among the most important disturbance factors affecting forest biota. An indirect effect of commercial logging is minimal understory within young even-aged forests, which can decrease forest biodiversity. To improve management of young even-aged forest stands within the Tongass National Forest (TNF), foresters are testing alternative forestry practices under the Tongass-Wide Young-Growth Studies (TWYGS). However, little is known about how the new thinning treatments included in the TWYGS will affect forest biota and the recovery of young even-aged forest stands as they transition back into old growth forests. To investigate the effects of thinned secondary growth on forest biota in the TNF on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska, I compared spider and beetle biodiversity in thinned secondary growth to old growth forest stands, clearcuts, and un-thinned secondary growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Colonization of White Spruce Deadwood by Saproxylic Beetles in Aggregated and Dispersed Retention
    Canadian Journal of Forest Research Early colonization of white spruce deadwood by saproxylic beetles in aggregated and dispersed retention Journal: Canadian Journal of Forest Research Manuscript ID cjfr-2018-0104.R1 Manuscript Type: Article Date Submitted by the 09-Jul-2018 Author: Complete List of Authors: Lee, Seung-Il; Northern Forestry Centre, Spence, John; University of Alberta, Dept. of Renewable Resources Langor, David; NRCan - Canadian Forest Service retention forestry,Draft aggregated retention, dispersed retention, biodiversity Keyword: conservation, saproxylic beetles Is the invited manuscript for consideration in a Special Not applicable (regular submission) Issue? : https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs Page 1 of 44 Canadian Journal of Forest Research 1 1 Early colonization of white spruce deadwood by saproxylic 2 beetles in aggregated and dispersed retention 3 4 Seung-Il Lee, John R. Spence, and David W. Langor 5 6 7 S.-I. Lee* and J.R. Spence. DepartmentDraft of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, 8 442 Earth Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada 9 D.W. Langor. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry 10 Centre, 5320-122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5, Canada 11 12 13 14 Corresponding author: Seung-Il Lee (e-mail: [email protected]). 15 *Current address: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry 16 Centre, 5320-122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5, Canada https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs Canadian Journal of Forest Research Page 2 of 44 2 Abstract 17 Retention harvests may leave retention in aggregations, evenly dispersed, or in various 18 combinations. Although the relative efficacy of aggregated and dispersed retention for 19 biodiversity conservation is widely debated, there has been little study of combinations.
    [Show full text]
  • Sphindidae, Erotylidae, Monotomidae, and Cryptophagidae
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeysNew 179: Coleoptera 169–192 (2012) records from New Brunswick, Canada: Sphindidae, Erotylidae, Monotomidae...169 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.179.2466 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research New Coleoptera records from New Brunswick, Canada: Sphindidae, Erotylidae, Monotomidae, and Cryptophagidae Reginald P. Webster1, Jon D. Sweeney1, Ian DeMerchant1 1 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service - Atlantic Forestry Centre, 1350 Regent St., P.O. Box 4000, Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B 5P7 Corresponding author: Reginald P. Webster ([email protected]) Academic editor: J. Klimaszewski | Received 30 November 2011 | Accepted 27 January 2012 | Published 4 April 2012 Citation: Webster RP, Sweeney JD, DeMerchant I (2012) New Coleoptera records from New Brunswick, Canada: Sphindidae, Erotylidae, Monotomidae, and Cryptophagidae. In: Anderson R, Klimaszewski J (Eds) Biodiversity and Ecology of the Coleoptera of New Brunswick, Canada. ZooKeys 179: 169–192. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.179.2466 Abstract Two species of Sphindidae, Odontosphindus denticollis LeConte and Sphindus trinifer Casey, are reported for the first time for New Brunswick. Another species, Sphindus near americanus LeConte is reported from the province but may be an undescribed species, pending further study. Five species of Erotylidae are newly recorded for the province, including Tritoma humeralis Fabricius and Tritoma sanguinipennis (Say), which are new to the Maritime provinces. Three species of Monotomidae are added to the New Brunswick faunal list, including Pycnotomina cavicollis (Horn), which is newly recorded for the Maritime provinces. Six additional species of Cryptophagidae are reported for the province and the presence of Antherophagus convexulus LeConte in New Brunswick is confirmed.
    [Show full text]