ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of The Push-Pull Tactic for Mitigation of Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Damage in Lodgepole and Whitebark PinesDownload the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3959CF5K

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Renewable Resources, Department of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Journal Articles (Renewable Resources)

The Push-Pull Tactic for Mitigation of Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Damage in Lodgepole and Whitebark Pines Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Gillette, N.E.
Mehmel, C.J.
Mori, S.R.
Webster, J.N.
Wood, D.L.
Erbilgin, N.
Owen, D.R.
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
Pinus contorta
Semiochemicals
Green leaf volatiles
Pinus albicaulis
Verbenone
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
In an attempt to improve semiochemical-based treatments for protecting forest stands from bark beetle attack, we compared push-pull versus push-only tactics for protecting lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas ex Loudon) and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) stands from attack by mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) in two studies. The first was conducted on replicated 4.04-ha plots in lodgepole pine stands (California, 2008) and the second on 0.81-ha plots in whitebark pine stands (Washington, 2010). In both studies, D. ponderosae population levels were moderate to severe. The treatments were 1) push-only (D. ponderosae antiaggregant semiochemicals alone); 2) push-pull (D. ponderosae antiaggregants plus perimeter traps placed at regular intervals, baited with four-component D. ponderosae aggregation pheromone); and 3) untreated controls. We installed monitoring traps baited with two-component D. ponderosae lures inside each plot to assess effect of treatments on beetle flight. In California, fewer beetles were collected in push-pull treated plots than in control plots, but push-only did not have a significant effect on trap catch. Both treatments significantly reduced the rate of mass and strip attacks by D. ponderosae, but the difference in attack rates between push-pull and push-only was not significant. In Washington, both push-pull and push-only treatments significantly reduced numbers of beetles caught in traps. Differences between attack rates in treated and control plots in Washington were not significant, but the push-only treatment reduced attack rates by 30% compared with both the control and push-pull treatment. We conclude that, at these spatial scales and beetle densities, push-only may be preferable for mitigating D. ponderosae attack because it is much less expensive, simpler, and adding trap-out does not appear to improve efficacy.
Date created
2012
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3959CF5K
License information
Rights
© 2012 Entomological Society of America. This article is the copyright property of the Entomological Society of America and may not be used for any commercial or other private purpose without specific written permission of the Entomological Society of America.
Citation for previous publication
Gillette NE, JM Constance, SR Mori, JN Webster, DL Wood, N Erbilgin, & DR Owen. (2012). The Push-Pull Tactic for Mitigation of Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Damage in Lodgepole and Whitebark Pines. Environmental Entomology, 41(6), 1575–1586. DOI: 10.1603/EN11315.
Source
Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2014-04-29T17:05:32.009+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (Portable Document Format)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 993581
Last modified: 2015:10:12 19:18:33-06:00
Filename: EE_41_2012_1575.pdf
Original checksum: 7fb4dba0072795499c5fb996daebd32e
Well formed: true
Valid: true
Page count: 12
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date