DOCSLIB.ORG

Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Sampling Methods Sampling Methods for Forest and Shade Tree Insects of North America, Volume 2 Theresa A. Dellinger Jeffrey G. Fidgen Scott M. Salom Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team — Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2010-03 Department of Service Agriculture April 2010 he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 Tby the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. CAUTION: PESTICIDES References to pesticides appear in this publication. Publication of these statements does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of them by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, nor does it imply that uses discussed have been registered. Use of most pesticides is regulated by state and federal laws. Applicable regulations must be obtained from the appropriate regulatory agency prior to their use. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and other wildlife if they are not handled and applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices given on the label for use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Federal Recycling Program Printed on recycled paper. Sampling Methods for Forest and Shade Tree Insects of North America, Volume 2 Theresa A. Dellinger Jeffrey G. Fidgen and Scott M. Salom Acknowledgements We are grateful to Ryan Mays of Virginia Tech for support in locating journal articles for this project, and to Carrie Jubb and Kara Tourje for helping assemble the glossary. In addition, we thank Eric Day of Virginia Tech and Drs. John L. Foltz of the University of Florida and T. Evan Nebeker of Mississippi State University for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We also acknowledge the authors and journals who freely granted us permis- sion to reproduce graphs and tables from the original articles. This review was supported with funding to Scott M. Salom from the USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enter- prise Team (FHTET) and Region 8 agreement #05-CA-11244225-051 and a follow-up Region 8 agreement 09-DG-11083150-014. We also thank Denise Binion for editing the manuscript in preparation for printing and FHTET for providing funds for printing. Contents Preface --------------------------------------- ix Introduction --------------------------------- xi Bud, Shoot, and Root Insects Coleoptera: Curculionidae ------------------------------- 3 Seedling Debarking Weevil, Hylobius congener Dalla Torre, Shenkling, & Mar- shall Adult survey, pheromone-baited traps, hazard rating ............................... 3 Black Vine Weevil, Otiorhynchus sulcatus (F.) Adult survey, board and pitfall traps ........................................................ 5 Cranberry White Grub, Phyllophaga anxia (LeConte) Larval survey, control decision-making ................................................... 7 White Grubs, Phyllophaga spp. Larval survey, regression equations, damage prediction .......................... 9 White Pine Weevil, Pissodes strobi (Peck) Damage survey on spruce, sequential sampling plan ............................. 11 Preliminary damage survey on spruce, optimum sample sizes ...............14 Lodgepole Terminal Weevil, Pissodes terminalis Hopkins Preliminary damage survey on spruce, optimum sample sizes .............. 14 Diptera: Cecidomyiidae ---------------------------------16 Spruce Gall Midge, Mayetiola piceae (Felt) Gall survey, sequential sampling plan, damage prediction .................... 16 Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae ------------------------------20 Jeffrey Pine Needle Miner, Coleotechnites sp. Larval and pupal survey with known precision, optimum sample sizes ....20 Lepidoptera: Tortricidae ---------------------------------23 European Pine Shoot Moth, Rhyacionia buoliana (Denis & Schiffermüller) Adult survey, pheromone-baited trap ..................................................... 23 Degree-day monitoring to predict cumulative adult trap catch .............. 25 Nantucket Pine Tip Moth, Rhyacionia frustrana (Comstock) Pheromone-baited traps, degree-day monitoring, control decision-making ....27 Adult survey, pheromone-baited traps, hypothetical damage prediction .. 29 Adult survey, pheromone-baited traps, control decision-making ........... 32 Defoliating Insects Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae -----------------------------37 Cottonwood Leaf Beetle, Chrysomela scripta F. Egg mass survey, damage prediction, control decision-making ............. 37 Egg mass survey, economic injury level, control decision-making ....... 39 i Elm Leaf Beetle, Pyrrhalta (=Xanthogaleruca) luteola (Müller) Egg mass survey, degree-day monitoring, optimum sample sizes, control decision-making ..................................................................................... 42 Egg mass survey with known precision, damage prediction, control decision-making ..................................................................................... 45 Degree-day monitoring for peak density of young instars, control decision-making ..................................................................................... 48 Egg mass survey with known precision, degree-day monitoring, control decision-making ..................................................................................... 49 Hymenoptera: Diprionidae ------------------------------51 Balsam Fir Sawfly, Neodiprion abietis (Harris) Egg mass survey, control decision-making ............................................ 51 European Pine Sawfly, Neodiprion sertifer (Geoffroy) Adult survey, pheromone-baited trap, monitoring population trends ..... 52 Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae --------------------------54 Yellowheaded Spruce Sawfly, Pikonema alaskensis (Rohwer) Adult survey, pheromone-baited trap, control decision-making ............ 54 Larch Sawfly, Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig) Damage survey, sequential sampling plan, damage prediction .............. 56 Lepidoptera: Geometridae -------------------------------60 Fall Cankerworm, Alsophilia pometaria (Harris) Adult survey, oviposition trap ................................................................ 60 Eastern Hemlock Looper, Lambdina fiscellaria fiscellaria(Guenée) Egg survey, oviposition trap ................................................................... 62 Western Hemlock Looper, Lambdina fiscellaria lugubrosa (Hulst) Adult survey, pheromone-baited trap, monitoring system ..................... 64 Larval and adult survey, pheromone-baited trap, cut-branch samples, road- side sampling .......................................................................................... 66 Pupal survey, burlap band method .......................................................... 68 Egg survey, processing moss and bark samples ..................................... 70 Egg survey, processing lichen samples................................................... 72 Bruce Spanworm, Operophtera bruceata (Hulst) Adult survey, pheromone-baited trap, differentiation between congeneric males ....................................................................................................... 74 Adult survey, pheromone-baited trap, exclusion of O. bruceata............ 76 Adult survey, pheromone-baited trap, inhibition of O. bruceata ........... 78 Adult survey, oviposition trap ................................................................ 80 ii Winter Moth, Operophtera brumata (L.) Adult survey, pheromone-baited trap, differentiation between congeneric males ....................................................................................................... 74 Adult survey, pheromone-baited trap, exclusion of O. bruceata............ 76 Adult survey, pheromone-baited trap, inhibition of O. bruceata ............ 78 Adult survey, oviposition trap ................................................................ 82 Larval survey, sequential sampling plan, damage prediction ................. 84 Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae ----------------------------86 Forest Tent Caterpillar, Malacosoma
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Regeneration Methods to Reduce Pine Weevil Damage to Conifer Seedlings
    Regeneration Methods to Reduce Pine Weevil Damage to Conifer Seedlings Magnus Petersson Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre Alnarp Doctoral thesis Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Alnarp 2004 Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae Silvestria 330 ISSN: 1401-6230 ISBN: 91 576 6714 4 © 2004 Magnus Petersson, Alnarp Tryck: SLU Service/Repro, Alnarp 2004 Abstract Petersson, M. 2004. Regeneration methods to reduce pine weevil damage to conifer seedlings. ISSN: 1401-6230, ISBN: 91 576 6714 4 Damage caused by the adult pine weevil Hylobius abietis (L.) (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) can be a major problem when regenerating with conifer seedlings in large parts of Europe. Weevils feeding on the stem bark of newly planted seedlings often cause high mortality in the first three to five years after planting following clear-cutting. The aims of the work underlying this thesis were to obtain more knowledge about the effects of selected regeneration methods (scarification, shelterwoods, and feeding barriers) that can reduce pine weevil damage to enable more effective counter-measures to be designed. Field experiments were performed in south central Sweden to study pine weevil damage amongst planted Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.) seedlings. The reduction of pine weevil damage by scarification, shelterwood and feeding barriers can be combined to obtain an additive effect. When all three methods were used simultaneously, mortality due to pine weevil damage was reduced to less than 10%. Two main types of feeding barriers were studied: coatings applied directly to the bark of the seedlings, and shields preventing the pine weevil from reaching the seedlings. It was concluded that the most efficient type of feeding barrier, reduced mortality caused by pine weevil about equally well as insecticide treatment, whereas other types were less effective.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine State Legislature
    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) FOREST & SHADE TREE INSECT & DISEASE CONDITIONS FOR MAINE A Surrmary of the 1988 Situation Insect & Disease Management Division Maine Forest Service Surrmary Report No. 3 MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION March 1989 Augusta, Maine C O N T E N T S Page Introduction 1 Highlights of Division Activities for 1988 .............................. 1 Organizational Chart (I & DM) ••••••••• 2 Entomology Technician Districts (Map) ••• 3 Publications ....................................... 4 1988 Pest Summary 5 (A) Forest Pests - Softwoods 6 Insects ............... ~ .......... ~ ................................ 6 Diseases 10 (B) Forest Pests Hardwoods 12 Insects ......................................................... 12 Diseases ........................................................... 19 (C) Plantation, Regeneration, Nursery and Christmas Tree Pests (Conifers Only) ............................................................... 21 Insects .............................................. • ............. 21 Diseases and Miscellaneous Problems ....... •........................ 25 (D) Shade Tree, Ornamental and Miscellaneous Pests 26 Insects and Ticks .................................................. 26 Diseases and Miscellaneous Problems
    [Show full text]
  • Zoogeography of the Holarctic Species of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera): Importance of the Bering Ian Refuge
    © Entomologica Fennica. 8.XI.l991 Zoogeography of the Holarctic species of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera): importance of the Bering ian refuge Kauri Mikkola, J, D. Lafontaine & V. S. Kononenko Mikkola, K., Lafontaine, J.D. & Kononenko, V. S. 1991 : Zoogeography of the Holarctic species of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera): importance of the Beringian refuge. - En to mol. Fennica 2: 157- 173. As a result of published and unpublished revisionary work, literature compi­ lation and expeditions to the Beringian area, 98 species of the Noctuidae are listed as Holarctic and grouped according to their taxonomic and distributional history. Of the 44 species considered to be "naturall y" Holarctic before this study, 27 (61 %) are confirmed as Holarctic; 16 species are added on account of range extensions and 29 because of changes in their taxonomic status; 17 taxa are deleted from the Holarctic list. This brings the total of the group to 72 species. Thirteen species are considered to be introduced by man from Europe, a further eight to have been transported by man in the subtropical areas, and five migrant species, three of them of Neotropical origin, may have been assisted by man. The m~jority of the "naturally" Holarctic species are associated with tundra habitats. The species of dry tundra are frequently endemic to Beringia. In the taiga zone, most Holarctic connections consist of Palaearctic/ Nearctic species pairs. The proportion ofHolarctic species decreases from 100 % in the High Arctic to between 40 and 75 % in Beringia and the northern taiga zone, and from between 10 and 20 % in Newfoundland and Finland to between 2 and 4 % in southern Ontario, Central Europe, Spain and Primorye.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List of Noctuid Moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae And
    Бiологiчний вiсник МДПУ імені Богдана Хмельницького 6 (2), стор. 87–97, 2016 Biological Bulletin of Bogdan Chmelnitskiy Melitopol State Pedagogical University, 6 (2), pp. 87–97, 2016 ARTICLE UDC 595.786 CHECK LIST OF NOCTUID MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE AND EREBIDAE EXCLUDING LYMANTRIINAE AND ARCTIINAE) FROM THE SAUR MOUNTAINS (EAST KAZAKHSTAN AND NORTH-EAST CHINA) A.V. Volynkin1, 2, S.V. Titov3, M. Černila4 1 Altai State University, South Siberian Botanical Garden, Lenina pr. 61, Barnaul, 656049, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Tomsk State University, Laboratory of Biodiversity and Ecology, Lenina pr. 36, 634050, Tomsk, Russia 3 The Research Centre for Environmental ‘Monitoring’, S. Toraighyrov Pavlodar State University, Lomova str. 64, KZ-140008, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan. E-mail: [email protected] 4 The Slovenian Museum of Natural History, Prešernova 20, SI-1001, Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: [email protected] The paper contains data on the fauna of the Lepidoptera families Erebidae (excluding subfamilies Lymantriinae and Arctiinae) and Noctuidae of the Saur Mountains (East Kazakhstan). The check list includes 216 species. The map of collecting localities is presented. Key words: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Erebidae, Asia, Kazakhstan, Saur, fauna. INTRODUCTION The fauna of noctuoid moths (the families Erebidae and Noctuidae) of Kazakhstan is still poorly studied. Only the fauna of West Kazakhstan has been studied satisfactorily (Gorbunov 2011). On the faunas of other parts of the country, only fragmentary data are published (Lederer, 1853; 1855; Aibasov & Zhdanko 1982; Hacker & Peks 1990; Lehmann et al. 1998; Benedek & Bálint 2009; 2013; Korb 2013). In contrast to the West Kazakhstan, the fauna of noctuid moths of East Kazakhstan was studied inadequately.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTHS and BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed Distributional Information Has Been J.D
    MOTHS AND BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed distributional information has been J.D. Lafontaine published for only a few groups of Lepidoptera in western Biological Resources Program, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Scott (1986) gives good distribution maps for Canada butterflies in North America but these are generalized shade Central Experimental Farm Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6 maps that give no detail within the Montane Cordillera Ecozone. A series of memoirs on the Inchworms (family and Geometridae) of Canada by McGuffin (1967, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1987) and Bolte (1990) cover about 3/4 of the Canadian J.T. Troubridge fauna and include dot maps for most species. A long term project on the “Forest Lepidoptera of Canada” resulted in a Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre (Agassiz) four volume series on Lepidoptera that feed on trees in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada and these also give dot maps for most species Box 1000, Agassiz, B.C. V0M 1A0 (McGugan, 1958; Prentice, 1962, 1963, 1965). Dot maps for three groups of Cutworm Moths (Family Noctuidae): the subfamily Plusiinae (Lafontaine and Poole, 1991), the subfamilies Cuculliinae and Psaphidinae (Poole, 1995), and ABSTRACT the tribe Noctuini (subfamily Noctuinae) (Lafontaine, 1998) have also been published. Most fascicles in The Moths of The Montane Cordillera Ecozone of British Columbia America North of Mexico series (e.g. Ferguson, 1971-72, and southwestern Alberta supports a diverse fauna with over 1978; Franclemont, 1973; Hodges, 1971, 1986; Lafontaine, 2,000 species of butterflies and moths (Order Lepidoptera) 1987; Munroe, 1972-74, 1976; Neunzig, 1986, 1990, 1997) recorded to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated List of the Lepidoptera of Alberta Bowman 1951
    AN ANNOTATED LIST OF THE LEPIDOPTERA OF ALBERTA1.* Abstract This list consists of 1825 species and varieties of Lepidoptera which have been taken in Alberta. Of these, 657 are records of captures in the hitherto almost completely neglected Microlepidoptera. Though few specialists on this continent have studied the taxonomy of this large group, those who have done so in certain families have generously assisted in classifying the species which are recorded. Unfortunately, in a few families it has been ilnpossible to obtain this assistance. Despite the omissions this necessitates, the list constitutes the most comprehensive catalogue of Microlepidoptera which has, up to the present, been attempted for any province in the Donlinion. Arrangement and nomenclature are based on McDunnough's Check List of the Lepidoptera of Catzada alzd the United States, published in 1938 and 1939. Proposed modifications in nomenclature, presented in subsequent publications, are substituted if they appear to be gaining general acceptance. Locality records for captures are presented by a system of ecological areas of which the chief climatological and biological characteristics are briefly described. Introductory Professional entomologists are very greatly aided in the pursuit of their lifeworlc with its practical objectives by the unstinted and critical industry of competent amateurs. Such amateurs have gathered a vast mass of data upon the distribution and the relative abundance of various insects and have recorded valuable information on the biology of the groups to which they For personal use only. have devoted their particular attention. In no field of entbmological endeavor has this been more in evidence than it is in the study of Lepidoptera.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Christmas Tree Pest Management Guide 2017
    Michigan Christmas Tree Pest Management Guide 2017 The information presented here is intended as a guide for Michigan Christmas tree growers in selecting pesticides for use on trees grown in Michigan and is for educational purposes only. The efficacies of products listed may not been evaluated in Michigan. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by Michigan State University Extension or bias against those not mentioned. Information presented here does not supersede the label directions. To protect yourself, others, and the environment, always read the label before applying any pesticide. Although efforts have been made to check the accuracy of information presented (February 2017), it is the responsibility of the person using this information to verify that it is correct by reading the corresponding pesticide label in its entirety before using the product. Labels can and do change–greenbook.net, cdms.com, and agrian.com are free online databases for looking up label and MSDS information. TABLE OF CONTENTS SEASONAL PEST CALENDAR ............................................................ 3 INSECT PESTS ................................................................................... 5 REGISTERED INSECTICIDES AND MITICIDES .................................. 10 DISEASES ....................................................................................... 16 REGISTERED FUNGICIDES .............................................................. 22 The information presented here is intended as a guide for Michigan Christmas tree growers in selecting pesticides for use on trees grown in Michigan and is for educational purposes only. The efficacies of products listed may not been evaluated in Michigan. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by Michigan State University Extension or bias against those not mentioned. Information presented here does not supersede the label directions. To protect yourself, others, and the environment, always read the label before applying any pesticide.
    [Show full text]
  • Pest Update (September 11, 2019) Vol
    Pest Update (September 11, 2019) Vol. 17, no. 31 John Ball, Forest Health Specialist SD Department of Agriculture, Extension Forester SD Cooperative Extension Email: [email protected] Phone: office 605-688-4737, cell 605-695-2503 Samples sent to: John Ball Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science Department rm 314, Berg Agricultural Hall, Box 2207A South Dakota State University Brookings, SD 57007-0996 Note: samples containing living tissue may only be accepted from South Dakota. Please do not send samples of dying plants or insects from other states. If you live outside of South Dakota and have a question, instead please send a digital picture of the pest or problem. Available on the net at: http://sdda.sd.gov/conservation-forestry/forest-health/tree-pest-alerts/ Any treatment recommendations, including those identifying specific pesticides, are for the convenience of the reader. Pesticides mentioned in this publication are generally those that are most commonly available to the public in South Dakota and the inclusion of a product shall not be taken as an endorsement or the exclusion a criticism regarding effectiveness. Please read and follow all label instructions and the label is the final authority for a product’s use on a particular pest or plant. Products requiring a commercial pesticide license are occasionally mentioned if there are limited options available. These products will be identified as such but it is the reader’s responsibility to determine if they can legally apply any products identified in this publication. Plant Development…………………..………………………………………….. 1 Timely topic The Sioux Falls tornadoes – lessons learned…..……………………. 2 Siberian elm – what to do when it’s a weed…………………………… 3 E-samples Marssonina leaf blight on cottonwood...……………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Life Stages of Pine Spittle Bug Ocoaxo Assimilis Walker (Hemiptera: Cercopidae)
    insects Article Biology and Life Stages of Pine Spittle Bug Ocoaxo assimilis Walker (Hemiptera: Cercopidae) Raquel Cid-Muñoz 1, David Cibrián-Tovar 1, Ernestina Valadez-Moctezuma 2, Emma Estrada-Martínez 1 and Francisco Armendáriz-Toledano 3,* 1 División de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Carretera Federal Mexico-Texcoco Km 38.5, Texcoco 56230, Mexico; [email protected] (R.C.-M.); [email protected] (D.C.-T.); [email protected] (E.E.-M.) 2 Departamento de Fitotecnia, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Carretera Federal Mexico-Texcoco Km 38.5, Texcoco 56230, Mexico; [email protected] 3 Colección Nacional de Insectos, Departamento de Zoología, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cto. Zona Deportiva S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, CDMX 04510, Mexico * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.:+ 55-56-247833 Received: 13 December 2019; Accepted: 28 January 2020; Published: 1 February 2020 Abstract: The first records of outbreaks of the Pine Spittle bug Ocoaxo assimilis Walker were recently identified from Puebla, Mexico, which promoted more than 2600 ha of forest foliar fall. Beyond the taxonomic and distribution information of this species, the basic traits of its biology remain unknown. This study aims to describe some biological aspects of O. assimilis, in a natural pine forest at Nicolás Bravo, Puebla (NB). Using morphological characteristics and a phylogenetic analysis of a fragment of cytochrome oxidase subunit I mtDNA (COI), immature instars with adults were studied; the instar number was determined by means of a multivariate analysis of 19 morphological characteristics of 121 specimens. The systematic sampling to evaluate the occurrence of nymphal specimens during a year, plus host selection experiments, allowed for determination of the abundance over time, voltism, and host preferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Liimikatte Mõju Hariliku Männikärsaka (Hylobius Abietis) Toitumiskäitumisele
    EESTI MAAÜLIKOOL Metsandus- ja maaehitusinstituut Carmen Lääne LIIMIKATTE MÕJU HARILIKU MÄNNIKÄRSAKA (HYLOBIUS ABIETIS) TOITUMISKÄITUMISELE THE EFFECT OF GLUE LAYER ON THE LARGE PINE WEEVIL (HYLOBIUS ABIETIS) FEEDING BEHAVIOUR Bakalaureusetöö Metsanduse õppekava Juhendaja: dotsent Ivar Sibul, PhD Tartu 2018 Eesti Maaülikool Bakalaureusetöö lühikokkuvõte Kreutzwaldi 1, Tartu 51014 Autor: Carmen Lääne Õppekava: Metsandus Pealkiri: Liimikatte mõju hariliku männikärsaka (Hylobius abietis) toitumiskäitumisele Lehekülgi: 39 Jooniseid: 6 Tabeleid: 2 Lisasid: 0 Osakond: Metsakasvatuse osakond Uurimisvaldkond: Metsakaitse, putukate käitumine Juhendaja(d): Ivar Sibul, PhD Kaitsmiskoht ja aasta: Tartu, 2018 Harilik männikärsakas (Hylobius abietis) on olulisem ja ohtlikum metsauuenduste putukkahjur Euroopas, kelle valmikud tekitavad tõsist metsamajanduslikku kahju noorte okaspuutaimede tüvel koort laiguti närides. Sünteetilistest insektisiididest tulenev keskkonna saastatuse oht on kaasajal tinginud männikärsakate tõrjel kasutama üha rohkem looduslikke ja samas uudseid tõrjemehhanisme, sealhulgas taime tüve katmist erinevate tehismaterjalist kaitsebarjääridega. Käesoleva bakalaureusetöö eesmärgiks oli uurida, kuidas mõjutavad mõnede mehhaaniliste kaitsekihtide (liim, liim ja kvartsliiv) kasutamine männikärsaka toitumiskäitumist labortingimustes. Eesmärgiks oli hinnata preparaatide söömist pärssivat mõju männikärsakate mõlemast soost valmikutele. Uuringu tulemusena selgus, et tõhusamateks söömispärssijateks putukatele olid liimi ja liivaga (AFI=1)
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Section 1 Eastern White Pine (Pinus
    SECTION 1 EASTERN WHITE PINE (PINUS STROBUS L.) 1. General Information This consensus document addresses the biology of Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus L.), referred to hereafter simply as Eastern White Pine (pin blanc in French Canada). Eastern White Pine is one of the most valuable tree species in eastern North America where its easily machined, uniform-textured wood is unsurpassed for doors, windows, panelling, mouldings and cabinet work (Mullins and McKnight, 1981; Farrar, 1995). The species played a major role in the settlement and economic development of New England and the Atlantic Provinces as England reserved all large Eastern White Pine suitable for masts under the "Broad Arrow" policy, starting in the late 1600's (Johnson, 1986). Eastern White Pine also responds well to nursery culture and is commonly used for reforestation, urban forestry and Christmas tree plantations. The general biology of Eastern White Pine is described in the context of the species’ role in natural forests and its domestication in planted stands. Taxonomic and evolutionary relationships with other Pinus species are described. Reproductive biology is described with a focus on aspects of mating system, gene flow, seed production and natural stand establishment. The current knowledge of genetic variation within the species is reviewed, highlighting the importance of geographic variation patterns and the potential for improvement by means of recurrent selection breeding strategies. The tremendous biological diversity and the complexity of ecological interactions with higher and lower flora and fauna are discussed. While Eastern White Pine has been commonly planted within its natural range, the extent of reforestation has been limited by susceptibility to white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi) and blister rust (Cronartium ribicola).
    [Show full text]