DOCSLIB.ORG

Indiana Forests 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Indiana Forests 2013 United States Department of Agriculture Indiana Forests 2013 Forest Service Northern Resource Bulletin Publication Date Research Station NRS-107 December 2016 Abstract This report summarizes the third full annualized inventory of Indiana forests conducted from 2009 to 2013 by the Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the Northern Research Station in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. Indiana has nearly 4.9 million acres of forest land with an average of 454 trees per acre. Forest land is dominated by the white oak/red oak/hickory forest type, which occupies 72 percent of the total forest land area. Most stands are dominated by large trees. Seventy-eight percent of forest land consists of sawtimber, 15 percent contains poletimber, and 7 percent contains saplings/seedlings. Growing-stock volume on timberland has been rising since the 1980s and currently totals 9.1 billion cubic feet. Annual growth outpaced removals by a ratio of 3.3:1. Additional information on forest attributes, changing land use patterns, timber products, and forest health is included in this report. Detailed information on forest inventory methods and data quality, a glossary of terms, tabular estimates for a variety of forest characteristics, and additional resources are available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.2737/NRS- RB-107. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank numerous individuals who contributed both to the inventory and analysis of Indiana’s forest resources. Primary field crew and QA staff for the 2009-2013 field inventory cycle included: Josh Anderson, Craig Blocker, Lance Dye, Jake Florine, Matt Goeke, Aaron Hawkins, Justin Herbaugh, Jacob Hougham, Pete Koehler, Greg Koontz, Kasey Krouse, Dominic Lewer, Derek Luchik, Sally Malone, Andy Mason, Will Smith, Jason Stephens, Glen Summers, Tom Thake, Mark Webb, and Greg Yapp. Pre-field production staff included: Daniel Kaisershot, Cassandra Olson, Rebekah Price, Lucretia Stewert, and Jeff Wazenegger. Data management personnel included: James Blehm, Mark Hatfield, and Jay Solomakos. Report reviewers included John R. Seifert, Philip T. Marshall, Jeff Settle, and Scott Haulton of Indiana’s Department of Natural Resources. Cover: Beautiful autumn view of Clark State Forest in Indiana from the fire tower. Photo by Indiana Department of Natural Resources, used with permission. Manuscript received for publication October 2015. Published by: For additional copies: U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015-8640 December 2016 Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us Printed on recycled paper Indiana Forests, 2013 Dale D. Gormanson, Joey Gallion, Charles J. Barnett, Brett J. Butler, Susan J. Crocker, Cassandra M. Kurtz, Tonya W. Lister, William Luppold, William McWilliams, Patrick D. Miles, Randall S. Morin, Mark D. Nelson, Barbara M. O’Connell, Charles H. Perry, Rachel I. Riemann, Ronald J. Piva, James E. Smith, Paul A. Sowers, James A. Westfall, and Christopher W. Woodall Contact Author: Dale D. Gormanson [email protected] 651-649-5126 About the Authors Dale D. Gormanson and Ronald J. Piva are Tonya W. Lister, William McWilliams, Randall S. foresters with the Forest Inventory and Analysis Morin, and James A. Westfall are research (FIA) program, Northern Research Station, foresters with the FIA program, Northern St. Paul, MN. Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. Charles J. Barnett is a biological scientist with William Luppold is an economist with the the FIA program, Northern Research Station, FIA program, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. Princeton, WV. Brett J. Butler is a research forester with the Barbara M. O’Connell is a forester with the FIA program, Northern Research Station, FIA program, Northern Research Station, Amherst, MA. Newtown Square, PA. Susan J. Crocker, Patrick D. Miles, Mark Charles H. Perry is a research soil scientist with D. Nelson, and Christopher W. Woodall are the FIA program, Northern Research Station, research foresters with the FIA program, St. Paul, MN. Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN. Rachel I. Riemann is a research forester/ Joey Gallion is a forest inventory program geographer with the FIA program, Northern manager with the Indiana Department of Natural Research Station, Troy, NY. Resources, Brownstown, IN. James E. Smith is a research plant physiologist Cassandra M. Kurtz and Paul A. Sowers with the FIA program, Northern Research are natural resource specialists with the FIA Station, Durham, NH. program, Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN. Foreword Welcome to Indiana Forests 2013, the latest results of our statewide forest inventory. This inventory is an ongoing joint venture between the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry and the Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the U.S. Forest Service. Results from this seventh inventory show Indiana forests continue to grow more wood than is being harvested, providing an important and essential element to Indiana’s economy, the wood industry, and individual woodland owners. Indiana forests have expanded to nearly 4.9 million acres with an average volume of over 2,000 cubic feet per acre. These productive forests provide homes and food for wildlife; clean our water and air; protect soil that would otherwise disappear due to erosion; and provide fine quality hardwood products to Hoosiers, Americans, and the world. Indiana is fortunate to have a productive and high quality stand of forest land, yet the industry is vulnerable to economic cycles. Eleven percent of all exported agricultural products are wood products, but that has not kept pace with other agriculture exports. Opportunities abound to further enhance the value of Indiana wood products to the economy through its export channels as well as by providing employment. Every 1,000 acres of forest land directly supports nearly eight manufacturing jobs in the primary, secondary, and ancillary wood-using industry. While Indiana forests continue to be resilient and are actually expanding, there are concerns. Regeneration of some shade intolerant species such as oaks and hickories could be better. Average tract size continues to decrease with indications these holdings may also be changing ownership. Ash tree mortality resulted in a loss of 11 million cubic feet of volume per year, mostly attributed to the emerald ash borer, a nonnative insect accidentally introduced in Michigan that has spread to other states. There are a growing number of invasive plant species outcompeting native vegetation for sunlight and nutrients. In addition, white-nose syndrome is deadly to many of our beneficial forest- and cave-dwelling bats. All of these issues need to be monitored, and future management decisions may need to be altered to address such concerns. I invite you to read and interpret the results of Indiana Forests 2013. Hopefully you enjoy perusing the information. As a result, perhaps you will become more interested in our State’s forests and then participate in the discussions about the future of forests and forestry in Indiana. John Seifert, State Forester Contents Highlights . 1 Background . 3 Forest Features . 17 Forest Indicators . 67 Forest Economics . 121 Future Forests . 129 Literature Cited . 138 Appendixes . 152 Statistics, Methods, and Quality Assurance . Online at http://dx .doi .org/10 .2737/NRS-RB-107 Indiana Forests Summary Tables . Online at http://dx .doi .org/10 .2737/NRS-RB-107 Additional Resources . Online at http://dx .doi .org/10 .2737/NRS-RB-107 The one-mile loop trail at Tall Timbers Nature Preserve passes by a stand of old growth forest along Big Walnut Creek. Photo by Indiana Department of Natural Resources, used with permission. Highlights On the Plus Side • Eighty-four percent of Indiana’s forest land is privately owned by corporations and family forest owners. The vast majority, an estimated 3.6 million acres (73 percent), are owned by family forest owners. An estimated 85,000 family forest ownerships across Indiana each own at least 10 acres of forest land. • The statewide increase in timberland area between 1986 and 2013 may be attributed to farmland reversion; approximately 750,000 acres, nearly 20 percent, of privately owned forest land are enrolled in the Classified Forest and Wildlands Program (CFW). More than 13,000 landowners participate in the CFW program, and it appears conservation and stewardship measures are affecting the extent and quality of Indiana forests. • Over the past six decades, the area of Indiana timberland increased slightly from 4 to 4.7 million acres. Over that same period, the volume of growing-stock timber nearly quadrupled from 2.6 to 9.5 billion cubic feet. • Yellow-poplar continues to be the most voluminous species followed by sugar maple and white oak. Black cherry had the greatest percentage increase in volume—17 percent. • The mortality rate in Indiana (1.1 percent) is similar to that in the neighboring states of Ohio (1.1 percent), Kentucky (1.0 percent), Illinois (1.6 percent), and Michigan (1.1 percent). • During the recent recession, the number of employees working in the forest products industry hit its lowest level in 2010, while annual payroll (actual dollars) and the total value of shipments (actual dollars) bottomed out in 2009. After decreasing by 44 percent between 2004 and 2010, the number of employees working in the forest products industry increased by 13 percent between 2010 and 2013. Issues to Watch • Indiana forests are being affected by urbanization and fragmentation. Only 21 to 45 percent of the forest land in Indiana meets the definition of core forest statewide, and between 24 and 41 percent of the forest land is in unconnected fragments. | 1 • Future changes in Indiana’s forest land will depend on the pace of land development and, to a great extent, the economics of farming since idle farm land has been the source of much of the increase in forest land.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cravens Peak Scientific Study Report
    Geography Monograph Series No. 13 Cravens Peak Scientific Study Report The Royal Geographical Society of Queensland Inc. Brisbane, 2009 The Royal Geographical Society of Queensland Inc. is a non-profit organization that promotes the study of Geography within educational, scientific, professional, commercial and broader general communities. Since its establishment in 1885, the Society has taken the lead in geo- graphical education, exploration and research in Queensland. Published by: The Royal Geographical Society of Queensland Inc. 237 Milton Road, Milton QLD 4064, Australia Phone: (07) 3368 2066; Fax: (07) 33671011 Email: [email protected] Website: www.rgsq.org.au ISBN 978 0 949286 16 8 ISSN 1037 7158 © 2009 Desktop Publishing: Kevin Long, Page People Pty Ltd (www.pagepeople.com.au) Printing: Snap Printing Milton (www.milton.snapprinting.com.au) Cover: Pemberton Design (www.pembertondesign.com.au) Cover photo: Cravens Peak. Photographer: Nick Rains 2007 State map and Topographic Map provided by: Richard MacNeill, Spatial Information Coordinator, Bush Heritage Australia (www.bushheritage.org.au) Other Titles in the Geography Monograph Series: No 1. Technology Education and Geography in Australia Higher Education No 2. Geography in Society: a Case for Geography in Australian Society No 3. Cape York Peninsula Scientific Study Report No 4. Musselbrook Reserve Scientific Study Report No 5. A Continent for a Nation; and, Dividing Societies No 6. Herald Cays Scientific Study Report No 7. Braving the Bull of Heaven; and, Societal Benefits from Seasonal Climate Forecasting No 8. Antarctica: a Conducted Tour from Ancient to Modern; and, Undara: the Longest Known Young Lava Flow No 9. White Mountains Scientific Study Report No 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Forests 2014
    United States Department of Agriculture Michigan Forests 2014 Forest Service Northern Resource Bulletin Publication Date Research Station NRS-110 April 2017 Abstract The eighth inventory of Michigan’s forests, completed in 2014, describes more than 20.3 million acres of forest land. The data in this report are based on visits to 4,289 forested plots from 2009 to 2014. Timberland accounts for 95 percent of this forest land, and 62 percent is privately owned. The sugar maple/beech/yellow birch forest type accounts for 19 percent of the State’s forest land, followed by aspen (12 percent) and white oak/red oak/hickory (7 percent). Balsam fir, red maple, and sugar maple are the three most common species by number of trees. Growing-stock volume on timberland has continued to increase and now totals about 30.2 billion cubic feet (ft3). The associated net growth, harvest removals, and mortality totaled 674, 313, and 303 million ft3/ year, respectively. In addition to information on forest attributes, this report includes data on forest health, land use change, family forest owners, timber-product outputs, and future forests. Detailed information on forest inventory methods, data quality estimates, and important resource statistics can be found online at https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-RB-110. Acknowledgments We thank the field crew for their hard work and dedication while collecting the information that is the basis for this report. Special thanks also go to Mark Hatfield, Paul Sowers, John Vissage, Barry Wilson, Barb O’Connell, Charles Barnett, and Dale Gormanson who also contributed to this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods and Work Profile
    REVIEW OF THE KNOWN AND POTENTIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF PHYTOPHTHORA AND THE LIKELY IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES JANUARY 2011 Simon Conyers Kate Somerwill Carmel Ramwell John Hughes Ruth Laybourn Naomi Jones Food and Environment Research Agency Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ 2 CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Review of the potential impacts on species of higher trophic groups .................... 16 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 44 3. Review of the potential impacts on ecosystem services .......................................
    [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]
  • 1998 Forest Health Highlights
    The Resource Over 5 percent (2.1 million acres) of Iowa is covered by trees and forests. Our forests have significant impacts on our agricultural-based economy, protection of our drinking water supply, critical wildlife habitat and overall enjoyment of the place that we call Iowa. Wood industries employ over 7,000 Iowans, producing lumber and high quality wood products. Trees in our small and large communities, our “urban forests,” increase property values and conserve cooling and heating energy. Our forests are vital to our state’s future. Because our forest resources are valuable to the citizens of Iowa, the Forestry Division of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) began monitoring forest and tree health conditions in the late 1970’s. This monitoring effort today is used to determine overall forest and tree health conditions, the status of natural and exotic insect and disease problems, and to provide up-to-date information for private and public managers to aid in the sustained management of Iowa’s forest resources. Monitoring Efforts for 1998 Estimates of serious forest and tree insects, diseases, and weather impacts, were determined by aerial surveys of over 141,832 acres of representative forested areas across the state conducted during the Summer of 1998. Visual surveys from DNR Foresters, municipal foresters, and trained volunteers were also evaluated, as well as aerial survey assistance from the USFS , in determining forest and tree health conditions and locations of pest problems. Potentially the greatest threat to our forests is from the famous “Gypsy Moth,” (not yet established in our state, but potentially serious) which required placement of 6,000 pheromone survey traps by the IDALS State Entomologist's Office and selected volunteers to determine infestation areas and sites in need of quick eradication efforts.
    [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]
  • Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States 2000
    United States Department Forest Insect and Of Agriculture Forest Service Disease Conditions Forest Health Protection in the United States March 2002 2000 Healthy Forests Make A World of Difference United States Department Of Agriculture Forest Insect and Forest Service Disease Conditions Forest Health Protection in the United States March 2002 2000 PREFACE This is the 50th annual report prepared by the U.S. • seed orchard insects and diseases; Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA • nursery insects and diseases; and Forest Service) of the insect and disease conditions of • abiotic damage. the Nation's forests. This report responds to direction in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, as These categories are listed in the table of contents; amended, to conduct surveys and report annually on there is no index. insect and disease conditions of major national significance. Insect and disease conditions of local The information in this report is provided by the Forest importance are reported in regional and State reports. Health Protection Program of the USDA Forest Service. This program serves all Federal lands, The report describes the extent and nature of insect- including the National Forest System and the lands and disease-caused damage of national significance in administered by the Departments of Defense and 2000. As in the past, selected insect and disease Interior. Service is also provided to tribal lands. The conditions are highlighted in the front section of the program provides assistance to private landowners report. Maps are provided for some pests showing through the State foresters. A key part of the program affected counties in the East and affected areas in the is detecting and reporting insect and disease epidemics West.
    [Show full text]
  • Pear Sawfly Caliroa Cerasi Order Hymenoptera, Family Tenthredinidae; Common Sawflies Introduced Pest
    Pests of Trees and Shrubs Pear sawfly Caliroa cerasi Order Hymenoptera, Family Tenthredinidae; common sawflies Introduced pest Host plants: Cherry, cotoneaster, hawthorn, mountain- ash, pear and plum Description: Adult sawflies are 5–8 mm long, black and yellow, and stout bodied. Larvae are slimy, slug-like, and shiny olive-green to blackish in color. They are 12 mm long when full grown. Life history: Adults emerge early in June and lay single eggs on leaf undersides. Larvae appear in June, feed for about a month, then drop to the soil to pupate. A second generation can begin in early August. Overwintering: Prepupae in the soil. Damage symptoms: Larvae feed on upper leaf surfaces, Scorched leaves caused by pear sawfly larva defoliation leaving only the leaf veins. Heavy defoliation gives the damage. (189) tree a scorched appearance, and leaves may drop prema- Photo: Jeff Hahn turely. Severe defoliation can adversely affect tree health. Monitoring: Look for black, slug-like larvae feeding on the upper surface of leaves in June and again in August, and look for their damage on the leaves. Physical control: Small populations of larvae can be removed by hand and destroyed. Chemical control: Horticultural oils and insecticidal soaps are very effective against larvae. Biological control: No reports of natural enemies Plant mortality risk: Low Biorational pesticides: azadirachtin, horticultural oil, insecticidal soap, pyrethrins, spinosad Conventional pesticides: acephate, bifenthrin, carbaryl, Leaf damage caused by pear sawfly larvae. (188) chlorpyrifos (nursery only), cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, Photo: Whitney Cranshaw fluvalinate, imidacloprid, lambda-cyhalothrin, malathion, permethrin Leaf damage caused by young, pear sawfly larvae.
    [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]
  • Lista De Especies De Curculionoidea Depositadas En La Colecci.N De
    Acta Zool. Mex. (n.s.) 87: 147-165 (2002) LISTA DE LAS ESPECIES DE CURCULIONOIDEA (INSECTA: COLEOPTERA) DEPOSITADAS EN LA COLECCIÓN DEL MUSEO DE ZOOLOGÍA "ALFONSO L. HERRERA", FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS, UNAM (MZFC) Juan J. MORRONE1, Raúl MUÑIZ2, Julieta ASIAIN3 y Juan MÁRQUEZ1,3 1 Museo de Zoología, Departamento de Biología Evolutiva, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, Apdo. postal 70-399, CP 04510 México D.F., MÉXICO 2 Lago Cuitzeo # 144, CP 11320. México, D. F. MÉXICO 3 Laboratorio Especializado de Morfofisiología Animal, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, Apdo. postal 70-399, CP 04510 México D.F., MÉXICO RESUMEN La colección del Museo de Zoología "Alfonso L. Herrera" incluye 1,148 especímenes de Curculionoidea, que pertenecen a 397 especies, 217 géneros y 14 familias. La familia mejor representada es Curculionidae, con 342 especies, seguida de Dryophthoridae (12), Erirhinidae (8), Belidae (7), Oxycorynidae (6), Brentidae (4), Nemonychidae (4), Rhynchitidae (4), Anthribidae (3), Apionidae (2), Brachyceridae (2), Attelabidae (1), Ithyceridae (1) y Raymondionymidae (1). Muchos de los especímenes provienen de otros países (Argentina, Chile, Brasil y E.U.A., entre otros). La mayoría de los ejemplares mexicanos son de los estados de Hidalgo (44 especies), Morelos (13), Nayarit (12) y Veracruz (12). Palabras Clave: Coleoptera, Curculionoidea, Curculionidae, colección. ABSTRACT The collection of the Museo de Zoología "Alfonso L. Herrera" includes 1,148 specimens of Curculionoidea, which belong to 397 species, 217 genera, and 14 families. The best represented family is Curculionidae, with 342 species, followed by Dryophthoridae (12), Erirhinidae (8), Belidae (7), Oxycorynidae (6), Brentidae (4), Nemonychidae (4), Rhynchitidae (4), Anthribidae (3), Apionidae (2), Brachyceridae (2), Attelabidae (1), Ithyceridae (1), and Raymondionymidae (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Responses of Oaks to Mammal and Insect Herbivory A
    RESPONSES OF OAKS TO MAMMAL AND INSECT HERBIVORY A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Cynthia Lynn Perkovich May 2021 © Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials Dissertation written by Cynthia Lynn Perkovich B.S., Kent State University, 2013 M.S., University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2016 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2021 Approved by David Ward, Ph.D. , Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Oscar Rocha, Ph.D., Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Matthew Lehnert, Ph.D. Don Cipollini, Ph.D. Edgar Kooijman, Ph.D. Accepted by Laura G. Leff, Ph.D. , Chair, Department of Biological Sciences Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Ph.D. , Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... xi I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1 REFERENCES....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pear Sawfly (Caliroa Cerasi) Vincent P
    Published by Utah State University Extension and Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory ENT-150-11 Revised September 2011 Pear Sawfly (Caliroa cerasi) Vincent P. Jones, Extension Specialist and Ryan S. Davis, Arthropod Diagnostician DID YOU KNOW? • Pear sawfly hosts include pear, cherry, hawthorn, plum, buttonbrush, Juneberry, mountain ash, coto- neaster, and quince. a • There are 2 generations of pear sawfly each year; second generation larvae cause the majority of the damage. • Damage from pear sawfly feeding rarely warrants control. • If control is needed, hand removal or spraying with a strong stream of water can be effective. • Low toxicity chemical controls include insecticidal soap and products containing spinosad A&B. Fig. 2. Young pear sawfly larvae covered in dark, gelati- INTRODUCTION nous secretion.1 The pear sawfly, which is actually a wasp, is a common pest on pear, cherry, and hawthorn in Utah. GENERAL BIOLOGY The slug-like appearance of the larval stage has prompt- Pear Sawfly ed this insect to also be referred to as the pear or cherry slug in various parts of the country. Although cherry and Scientific Name: Caliroa cerasi. pear are the preferred hosts, the pear sawfly will also Range: North Atlantic states to California; Canada, Eu- attack plum, buttonbrush, Juneberry, mountain ash, rope. cotoneaster and quince. On fruit trees which are treated Hosts: Cherry and pear are primary hosts; secondary hosts for other pests, the pear sawfly is rarely a problem, but in include plum, buttonbrush, Juneberry, mountain ash, untreated situations the entire tree may be defoliated. cotoneaster, and quince. Identification of Adult:The adults have four wings, are black-and-yellow and slightly larger than a common house fly (Fig.
    [Show full text]