Foliage Larch Sawfly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

FOLIAGE LARCH SAWFLY Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig) Hosts-- Western larch. Distribution-- Range of host. Damage-- Larvae eat chunks out of needles (fig. 198) on older twigs; shoots curl due to oviposition. Heavy populations can completely strip trees. Epidemics seldom last more than two years and permanent damage to trees is uncommon. Identification-- Colonies of larvae may be seen on needles from late June through August. Small larvae are cream-colored with brown heads. Mature larvae are gray-green along the back and white beneath with shiny, jet black heads (fig. 199). They are wasps about three-fourths inch long. During the winter tough, papery, brown cocoons may be found in the duff. Adult sawflies appear in early spring. They are about three-eighths inch long with a characteristic orange band around the abdomen. Eggs are laid in new shoots causing them to curl. Similar damages-- Defoliation is similar to that caused by the larch looper. Light damage may be confused with that of larch needle cast, larch needle blight, larch casebearer, or larch budmoth. Close examination will reveal distinct differences. References-- See full guide. Figure 198. Larch sawfly removes large chunks from needles the needles may turn yellow or red. Fig 199. Larch sawfly larvae feed in groups. These are mature larvae. 125 FOLIAGE LARCH DEFOLIATORS COmpaRED Figure 201. This stand of western larch may have been damaged by any of four likely agents. To determine the cause, look closely at the foliage (Table 9). Table 9. Important defoliators of western larch. DISEASE OR INSECT DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS APPEARANCE Needles red or gray; all needles Needle blight on fascicle droop; round black fruiting bodies on gray needles. Needles yellow- and red- Needle cast spotted; do not droop but will be cast by late summer. Tips of needles droop or kink; Casebearer straw-yellow or red-brown tips; cases of feeding insects on needles or twigs. Needles yellow or red-brown; chunks of needles removed Sawfly by chewing; green larvae with shiny black heads may be present. 127 Identification Keys Figure 2. Comparison of three common types of defoliating insect larvae. 25.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
[Show full text]
Northern Fen Communitynorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1
Northern Fen CommunityNorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1 Community Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Overview: Northern fen is a sedge- and rush-dominated 8,000 years. Expansion of peatlands likely occurred wetland occurring on neutral to moderately alkaline following climatic cooling, approximately 5,000 years saturated peat and/or marl influenced by groundwater ago (Heinselman 1970, Boelter and Verry 1977, Riley rich in calcium and magnesium carbonates. The 1989). community occurs north of the climatic tension zone and is found primarily where calcareous bedrock Several other natural peatland communities also underlies a thin mantle of glacial drift on flat areas or occur in Michigan and can be distinguished from shallow depressions of glacial outwash and glacial minerotrophic (nutrient-rich) northern fens, based on lakeplains and also in kettle depressions on pitted comparisons of nutrient levels, flora, canopy closure, outwash and moraines. distribution, landscape context, and groundwater influence (Kost et al. 2007). Northern fen is dominated Global and State Rank: G3G5/S3 by sedges, rushes, and grasses (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). Additional open wetlands occurring on organic Range: Northern fen is a peatland type of glaciated soils include coastal fen, poor fen, prairie fen, bog, landscapes of the northern Great Lakes region, ranging intermittent wetland, and northern wet meadow. Bogs, from Michigan west to Minnesota and northward peat-covered wetlands raised above the surrounding into central Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec) groundwater by an accumulation of peat, receive inputs (Gignac et al. 2000, Faber-Langendoen 2001, Amon of nutrients and water primarily from precipitation et al.
[Show full text]
Comparison of Insect, Fungal, and Mechanically Induced Defoliation of Larch: Effects on Plant Productivity and Subsequent Host Susceptibility
Oecologia (1992) 90:411-416 Oecologia Springer-Verlag 1992 Comparison of insect, fungal, and mechanically induced defoliation of larch: effects on plant productivity and subsequent host susceptibility Steven C. Krause and Kenneth F. Raffa Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA Received October 16, 1991 / Accepted in revised form January 9, 1992 Summary. Larch sawfly, Pristiphora erichsonii Hartig, pathogens can also induce systemic antibiosis against and larch needlecast fungus, Mycosphaerella laricinia insect folivores (McIntyre et al. 1981), (R. Hartig) Neg., are early season defoliators restricted Fungal induced resistance to species of Coleoptera only to Larix host trees. Larch defoliation (100%) by (Ahmad et al. 1985), Hemiptera (Mathias et al. 1990), either the fungus or insect, but not mechanical removal, and Lepidoptera (Funk et al. 1983) has been demon- induced systemic responses that reduced sawfly con- strated for agronomic crops (Clay 1988). Trees infected sumption and digestion rates one year later. In a feeding with fungi may also be less susceptible to herbivory from behavior assay, larvae quickly abandoned seedlings gall-making species of Diptera (Bergdahl and Massola previously defoliated by M. laricinia. Adult female ovi- 1985), Homoptera (Lasota et al. 1983) and Hymenoptera position choice and egg deposition were unaffected. (Taper et al. 1986). Little is known, however, on the Seedling growth was not affected during the year of effects of fungal induced defoliation on free-feeding in- defoliation by M. laricinia, but was significantly reduced sect folivores and the productivity of host trees. one year later. Defoliation by M. laricinia reduced stem European larch, Larix decidua Miller, is a shade in- volume, radial growth, root biomass and new shoot tolerant, winter deciduous conifer (Olaczek 1986).
[Show full text]
Non-Native and Invasive Animals of Alaska: a Comprehensive List and Select Species Status Reports
NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE ANIMALS OF ALASKA: A COMPREHENSIVE LIST AND SELECT SPECIES STATUS REPORTS FINAL REPORT Jodi McClory Tracey Gotthardt NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE ANIMALS OF ALASKA: A COMPREHENSIVE LIST AND SELECT SPECIES STATUS REPORTS FINAL REPORT Jodi McClory and Tracey Gotthardt Alaska Natural Heritage Program Environment and Natural Resources Institute University of Alaska Anchorage 707 A Street, Anchorage AK 99501 January 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 5 METHODOLOGY 5 RESULTS 6 DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTION 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7 LITERATURE CITED 8 APPENDICES I: LIST OF NON-NATIVE ANIMAL SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN ALASKA 9 II: LIST OF NON-NATIVE ANIMAL SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR INVASION IN ALASKA 17 III: STATUS REPORTS FOR SELECT NON-NATIVE ANIMAL SPECIES OF ALASKA 21 PACIFIC CHORUS FROG.......................................................................................................................... 22 RED-LEGGED FROG ................................................................................................................................24 ATLANTIC SALMON................................................................................................................................. 27 NORTHERN PIKE ..................................................................................................................................... 30 AMBER-MARKED BIRCH LEAFMINER .................................................................................................... 33 BIRCH LEAFMINER ................................................................................................................................
[Show full text]
CONRAD CLOUTIER and LOUISE FILION Abstract Introduction In
RECENT OUTBREAK OF THE LARCH SAWFLY, Pl?ZSTZPHORA ERICHSONII (HARTIG), IN SUBARCTIC QUEBEC CONRADCLOUTIER and LOUISEFILION Centre d'ktudes nordiques, Universitk Laval, Qukbec, Qu6bec, Canada G1K 7P4 Abstract Can. Ent. 123: 611-619 (1991) Larch sawfly oviposition activity as revealed by scarring of long shoots of eastern larch, Larix laricina (DuRoi) K. Koch, was measured at various locations in the high boreal forest and forest tundra in Quebec in 1988 and 1989. The data show that larch sawfly is established up to the tree line, even on isolated larch growing under climatic con- ditions that are extreme for this tree. Frequency distributions of scarred shoots as a function of time suggest that larch sawfly populations reached outbreak levels in the 1980s, with peak numbers in 1981 for the high boreal, and in 1985 for the subarctic regions sampled. Trends in long shoot production by larch trees started to Ructuate simultaneously with the sudden increase in larch sawfly populations along the Grande Rivitre de la Baleine in 1984. In this region in 1985, the proportion of long shoots used by Pristiphora erichsonii averaged 20-35%, which may have limited further pop- ulation increase. Although foliage reduction and branch mortality were observed, mor- tality of whole trees was not a general characteristic of this outbreak. Cloutier, C., et L. Filion. 1991. Cycle 6pidkmique &ent de la tenmedu rnklkze, Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig), en milieu subarctique qukbecois. Can. Ent. 123: 611-619. L'activitk de la tenthrkde du mClkze, signalee par la presence de cicatrices de ponte sur les pousses longues du mCltze laricin, Larix laricina (DuRoi) K.
[Show full text]
1 Modern Threats to the Lepidoptera Fauna in The
MODERN THREATS TO THE LEPIDOPTERA FAUNA IN THE FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM By THOMSON PARIS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011 1 2011 Thomson Paris 2 To my mother and father who helped foster my love for butterflies 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank my family who have provided advice, support, and encouragement throughout this project. I especially thank my sister and brother for helping to feed and label larvae throughout the summer. Second, I thank Hillary Burgess and Fairchild Tropical Gardens, Dr. Jonathan Crane and the University of Florida Tropical Research and Education center Homestead, FL, Elizabeth Golden and Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park, Leroy Rogers and South Florida Water Management, Marshall and Keith at Mack’s Fish Camp, Susan Casey and Casey’s Corner Nursery, and Michael and EWM Realtors Inc. for giving me access to collect larvae on their land and for their advice and assistance. Third, I thank Ryan Fessendon and Lary Reeves for helping to locate sites to collect larvae and for assisting me to collect larvae. I thank Dr. Marc Minno, Dr. Roxanne Connely, Dr. Charles Covell, Dr. Jaret Daniels for sharing their knowledge, advice, and ideas concerning this project. Fourth, I thank my committee, which included Drs. Thomas Emmel and James Nation, who provided guidance and encouragement throughout my project. Finally, I am grateful to the Chair of my committee and my major advisor, Dr. Andrei Sourakov, for his invaluable counsel, and for serving as a model of excellence of what it means to be a scientist.
[Show full text]
Assessment of Invasive Species in Alaska and Its National Forests August 30, 2005
Assessment of Invasive Species in Alaska and its National Forests August 30, 2005 Compiled by Barbara Schrader and Paul Hennon Contributing Authors: USFS Alaska Regional Office: Michael Goldstein, Wildlife Ecologist; Don Martin, Fisheries Ecologist; Barbara Schrader, Vegetation Ecologist USFS Alaska Region, State and Private Forestry/Forest Health Protection: Paul Hennon, Pathologist; Ed Holsten, Entomologist (retired); Jim Kruse, Entomologist Executive Summary This document assesses the current status of invasive species in Alaska’s ecosystems, with emphasis on the State’s two national forests. Lists of invasive species were developed in several taxonomic groups including plants, terrestrial and aquatic organisms, tree pathogens and insects. Sixty-three plant species have been ranked according to their invasive characteristics. Spotted knapweed, Japanese knotweed, reed canarygrass, white sweetclover, ornamental jewelweed, Canada thistle, bird vetch, orange hawkweed, and garlic mustard were among the highest-ranked species. A number of non-native terrestrial fauna species have been introduced or transplanted in Alaska. At this time only rats are considered to be causing substantial ecological harm. The impacts of non-native slugs in estuaries are unknown, and concern exists about the expansion of introduced elk populations in southeast Alaska. Northern pike represents the most immediate concern among aquatic species, but several other species (Atlantic salmon, Chinese mitten crab, and New Zealand mudsnail) could invade Alaska in the future. No tree pathogen is currently damaging Alaska’s native tree species but several fungal species from Europe and Asia could cause considerable damage if introduced. Four introduced insects are currently established and causing defoliation and tree mortality to spruce, birch, and larch.
[Show full text]
Arthropod Sampling Methods in Ornithology
Studies in Avian Biology No. 13:29-37, 1990. ARTHROPOD SAMPLING METHODS IN ORNITHOLOGY ROBERTJ.COOPER AND ROBERT C. WHITMORE Abstract. We review common methods used by entomologistsand ornithologists for sampling ter- restrial arthropods. Entomologists are often interested in one speciesor family of insects and use a trapping method that efficiently samplesthe target organism(s).Ornithologists may use those methods to sample a single type of insect or to compare arthropod abundancebetween locations or over time, but they are often interested in comparing abundancesof different types of arthropods available to birds as prey. Many studies also seek to examine use of prey through simultaneousanalyses of diets or foraging behavior. This presents a sampling problem in that different types of prey (e.g., flying, foliage dwelling) must be sampled so that their abundances can be compared directly. Sampling methods involving direct observation and pesticide knockdown overcome at least some of these problems. Trapping methods that give biased estimates of arthropod abundance can sometimes be related to other methods that are lessbiased (but usuallymore expensive)by means of a ratio estimator or estimation of the biased selection function. Key Words: Arthropods; insects;prey abundance;prey availability; sampling. Numerous techniques exist for sampling in- area will be eaten by the bird. The size, life stage, sects (e.g., Southwood 1978); many have been palatability, coloration, activity patterns, and used in ornithology. Most ornithological studies other characteristics of arthropods influence the use insect sampling to determine types, numbers, degree to which they are located, captured, and and distribution of insects available to birds as eaten.
[Show full text]
The Larch Sawfly: Its Biology and Control
I~ /III' 2.8 /////2 5 2 8 • li.'l 11111== . :~ 11111 . ",,/2.5 I 0 3 2 1.0 ~ m1 . 22 I~ ~11~3. I I:.l . I" I~ I:.ii'"" I~ .zI!.l :f B~ :f m~ 2.0 II .1 !:i... :: ~ I 1.1 ~"' IIIII L8 "'" 1.25 ""'1.4 111111.6 1111,1.25 ""'1.4 111111.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A '?~. -, i dii,f • // / :~J The Larch Sawfly Its Biology and Control Technical Bulletin No. 1212 • By A. T. Drooz Forest Service U. S. Department of Agriculture • • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to ackn;)rdedge gratefully the -advice and assistance received from other workers in forest and insect re search during the course of the investigations discussed in this bulletin. Acknowledgment is due particularly to: Two former em ployees of the Department, L. C. Beckwith, who assisted on many of the experiments, and J. W. Butcher, who initiated larch sawfly studies during the most recent outbreak; the Insect Pathology Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., for determining the pathogenic organisms affecting Minnesota larch sawflies; the Forest Biology Laboratory at Winnipeg, Manitoba, for important exchange of information on research studies; the Insect Pathology Pioneering Research Laboratory, Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, for identifying sawfly disease organisms and supplying nematodes for control investigations; and • the Insect Identification and Parasite Introduction Research Branch, also of the Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, for determining larch sawfly parasites and predators. The author is indebted to S.
[Show full text]
A Field Guide to Diseases and Insect Pests of Northern and Central
2013 Reprint with Minor Revisions A FIELD GUIDE TO DISEASES & INSECT PESTS OF NORTHERN & CENTRAL ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONIFERS HAGLE GIBSON TUNNOCK United States Forest Service Department of Northern and Agriculture Intermountain Regions United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service State and Private Forestry Northern Region P.O. Box 7669 Missoula, Montana 59807 Intermountain Region 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r4/forest-grasslandhealth Report No. R1-03-08 Cite as: Hagle, S.K.; Gibson, K.E.; and Tunnock, S. 2003. Field guide to diseases and insect pests of northern and central Rocky Mountain conifers. Report No. R1-03-08. (Reprinted in 2013 with minor revisions; B.A. Ferguson, Montana DNRC, ed.) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Northern and Intermountain Regions; Missoula, Montana, and Ogden, Utah. 197 p. Formated for online use by Brennan Ferguson, Montana DNRC. Cover Photographs Conk of the velvet-top fungus, cause of Schweinitzii root and butt rot. (Photographer, Susan K. Hagle) Larvae of Douglas-fir bark beetles in the cambium of the host. (Photographer, Kenneth E. Gibson) FIELD GUIDE TO DISEASES AND INSECT PESTS OF NORTHERN AND CENTRAL ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONIFERS Susan K. Hagle, Plant Pathologist (retired 2011) Kenneth E. Gibson, Entomologist (retired 2010) Scott Tunnock, Entomologist (retired 1987, deceased) 2003 This book (2003) is a revised and expanded edition of the Field Guide to Diseases and Insect Pests of Idaho and Montana Forests by Hagle, Tunnock, Gibson, and Gilligan; first published in 1987 and reprinted in its original form in 1990 as publication number R1-89-54.
[Show full text]
HTG.) (HYMENOPTERA: TENTHREDINIDAE), in BRITISH Columbial J
ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, PROC. (1951), VOL. 48, AUG. 15, 1952 81 NOTES ON THE POPULATION AND PARASITISM OF THE LARCH SAWFLY, PRISTIPHORA ERICHSONII (HTG.) (HYMENOPTERA: TENTHREDINIDAE), IN BRITISH COLUMBIAl J. H. McLEO02 Diological Control Investigations Laboratory, Vancouver, B.C. In British Columbia the larch saw a thorough search of the infested area, fly, Pristiphora rrichsonii (Htg.), was only 2,500 cocoons were obtained. The first reported in 1930 in an area about numbers of cocoons colIected in the 30 miles north of Fernie. In 1933 a 3 years do not accurately represent survey showed that the infestation the change in population, but there covered a large area in and around was a reduction in 1950. All avail Fernie. Cocoon samples were obtain able data have been examined to de ed at that time and were examined at termine the factor or factors respon the Forest Insect Laboratory, Vernon, sible for the reduction in host popula B.C., and at the Dominion Parasite tion and its effect on M. aulietls. Laboratory, Belleville, Ont. No evi In 1949 many of the larch trees in dence of "parasitism was found, and the infested area were affected with parasites were released in the infested needle cast, the symptoms of which area. The first colony of parasites, are a premature yellowing and early comprising 393 males and 280 females dropping of the needles. This caused of Mesoleills aulicus (Gra v.), was re some larval mortality during the feed leased in July, 1934, at Lizard Creek, ing period, but no significant reduc 2 miles from Fernie.
[Show full text]
22. Sawflies John T
Conifer Insects 22. Sawflies John T. Nowak Hosts and Distribution Table 22.1—Common species, hosts, and distribution of sawflies in North America. Species Hosts Distribution Several sawfly species (families: Redheaded pine sawfly Scots, jack, red, shortleaf, Eastern United States and Diprionidae and Tenthredinidae) are com Neodiprion lecontei loblolly, longleaf, and slash southeastern Canada mon pests of young conifers, including pine several introduced species. The more White pine sawfly Eastern white pine Throughout the range of its host common species, hosts, and distribution Neodiprion pinetum are listed in table 22.1. Introduced pine sawfly Eastern white pine is Eastern United States introduced Neodiprion similis preferred, also Scots, jack, Damage and red pine European pine sawfly Scots, red, jack, and Northeastern and Midwestern Although sawflies are common pests, Neodiprion sertifer eastern white pine United States; parts of Ontario they rarely cause seedling mortality. Larch sawfly Tamarack and western larch Great Lake States, eastern Defoliation is generally light, although Pristiphora erichsonii Canada, Washington, Oregon, localized epidemics have been reported. Idaho, and Montana Sawflies are often divided into two Hemlock sawfly Hemlock and Pacific silver fir Coastal Oregon, Washington, groups: spring and summer sawflies. Neodiprion tsugae and British Columbia; also interior forests of Montana, Idaho, and Spring sawflies generally feed on older British Columbia foliage, and summer sawflies feed on both Lodgepole sawfly Lodgepole pine Montana and Wyoming old and new foliage. The summer sawflies Neodiprion burkei are the most destructive. Two-lined larch sawfly Western larch Northwestern United States Anoplonyx occidens Diagnosis Yellowheaded spruce Most species of spruce Alaska, southern Canada, and sawfly Northern United States Pine sawflies generally feed gregari Pikonema alaskensis ously (fig.
[Show full text]