Effectiveness of Esfenvalerate, Cyfluthrin, and Carbaryl in Protecting Individual Lodgepole Pines and Ponderosa Pines from Attack by &lt;i&gt;Dendroctonus&lt;/i&gt; spp.

Haverty, Michael I.; Shea, Patrick J.; Hoffman, James T.; Wenz, John M.; Gibson, K. E.

doi:10.2737/psw-rp-237

Cited by 27 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Insecticides are available for protecting individual, highvalue trees from bark beetle attack (Haverty et al, 1998). Some solar treatments are effective for reducing adult and brood (several species) survival in infested logs (Buffam and Lucht, 1968;Negrón et al, 2001) and may influence the number of newly attacked trees on a localized basis.…”

Section: Integrating Silvicultural Treatments With Other Bark Beetle mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States

Fettig

Klepzig

Billings

et al. 2007

Forest Ecology and Management

470

419

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Integrating Silvicultural Treatments With Other Bark Beetle mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States

Fettig

Klepzig

Billings

et al. 2007

Forest Ecology and Management

470

419

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…According to Hall et al (1982) and Hastings et al (2001), previous studies have concluded that residual activity of many of the carbaryl-based products may last anywhere from 3 to 27 mo. Third, because there is uncertainty regarding the reregistration of carbaryl products, new insecticides need to be tested (Haverty et al 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Insecticides for Protecting Southwestern Ponderosa Pines from Attack by Engraver Beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae)

DeGomez¹,

Hayes²,

Anhold³

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insecticides that might protect pine trees from attack by engraver beetles (Ips spp.) have not been rigorously tested in the southwestern United States. We conducted two field experiments to evaluate the efficacy of several currently and potentially labeled preventative insecticides for protecting high-value ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa Dougl ex. Laws., from attack by engraver beetles. Preventative sprays (0.19% permethrin [Permethrin Plus C]; 0.03, 0.06, and 0.12% bifenthrin [Onyx]; and 1.0 and 2.0% carbaryl [Sevin SL] formulations) and systemic implants (0.875 g per capsule acephate [Acecap] and 0.650 g per capsule dinotefuran) were assessed on bolts (sections of logs) as a surrogate for live trees for a period of 13 mo posttreatment. The pine engraver, Ips pini (Say), was the most common bark beetle found attacking control and treated bolts, but sixspined ips, Ips calligraphus (Germar), and Ips lecontei Swain also were present. After approximately 13 mo posttreatment in one experiment, the spray treatments with 2.0% carbaryl, 0.19% permethrin, and 0.06 or 0.12% bifenthrin prevented Ips attack on the bolts at a protection level of > or = 70%. The acephate and dinotefuran systemic insecticides, and the 0.03% bifenthrin spray, provided inadequate (< or = 36%) protection in this experiment. For the other experiment, sprayed applications of 1.0% carbaryl, 0.19% permethrin, and 0.06% bifenthrin prevented beetle attack at protection levels of > or = 90, > or = 80, and > or = 70%, respectively, when bolts were exposed to Ips beetle attack for approximately 9-15 wk posttreatment. The sprays with 0.19% permethrin and 0.06% bifenthrin also provided > or = 90% protection when bolts were exposed for approximately 15-54 wk posttreatment. We concluded that under the conditions tested, 1.0 and 2.0% carbaryl, 0.19% permethrin, and 0.06 and 0.12% binfenthrin were acceptable preventative treatments for protecting ponderosa pine from successful engraver beetle attack for one entire flight season in the U.S. Southwest.

show abstract

“…The D. brevicomis bait [Phero Tech Inc.; 3.0 mg/24 h frontalin (racemic), 3.0 mg/24 h exo-brevicomin (racemic), 18.0 mg/24 h myrcene] is effective for capturing large numbers of D. brevicomis ( Table 2 ), and for initiating D. brevicomis attack on apparently healthy P. ponderosa ( Haverty et al , 1998 ), and often on trees adjacent to these baited trees (C. J. Fettig, personal observation). The original hypothesis was that multiple funnel traps containing this potent bait for lengthy periods of time (30 and 90 days) would be more attractive to D. brevicomis than unbaited traps (0 days).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An assessment of re‐randomization methods in bark beetle (Scolytidae) trapping bioassays

Fettig

Dabney

McKelvey

et al. 2006

Agri and Forest Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1 Numerous studies have explored the role of semiochemicals in the behaviour of bark beetles (Scolytidae). 2 Multiple-funnel traps are often used to elucidate these behavioural responses.Sufficient sample sizes are obtained by using large numbers of traps to which treatments are randomly assigned once, or by frequent collection of trap catches and subsequent re-randomization of treatments. 3 Recently, there has been some debate about the potential for trap contamination to occur when semiochemical treatments (baits), and not trap-treatment units (traps and baits), are re-randomized among existing traps. Due to the volatility of many semiochemicals, small levels of contamination could potentially confound results. 4 A literature survey was conducted to determine the frequency of re-randomizing semiochemical treatments (baits) vs. trap-treatment units (traps and baits) in scolytid trapping bioassays. An experiment was then conducted to determine whether differences in the response of Dendroctonus brevicomis LeConte to attractant-baited traps exist between the two methods. 5 The majority of papers examined reported use of a large number of fixed replicates (traps) rather than re-randomization of treatments at frequent intervals. Seventy-five percent of papers for which re-randomization methods could be determined reported relocation of semiochemical treatments (baits) only. 6 No significant differences in trap catch were observed among multiple-funnel traps aged with D. brevcomis baits (Phero Tech Inc., Canada) for 0, 30 and 90 days, suggesting that contamination did not influence the results. 7 It is concluded that re-randomizing baits is a viable cost-effective option to re-randomizing trap and bait units. A trapping bioassay was conducted at McCloud Flats, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Siskiyou Co., California (41.35°N, 121.95°W; 1150 m elevation) during 10 -21 JuneRe-randomizing treatments in bark beetle trapping bioassays 269

show abstract

Effectiveness of Esfenvalerate, Cyfluthrin, and Carbaryl in Protecting Individual Lodgepole Pines and Ponderosa Pines from Attack by <i>Dendroctonus</i> spp.

Cited by 27 publications

References 9 publications

The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States

The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States

Evaluation of Insecticides for Protecting Southwestern Ponderosa Pines from Attack by Engraver Beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae)

An assessment of re‐randomization methods in bark beetle (Scolytidae) trapping bioassays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About