Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractTryptamine-induced resistance in tryptophan decarboxylase transgenic poplar and tobacco plants against their specific herbivores    Next AbstractPermeability of acetic acid through organic films at the air-aqueous interface »

Environ Entomol


Title:The push-pull tactic for mitigation of mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) damage in lodgepole and whitebark pines
Author(s):Gillette NE; Mehmel CJ; Mori SR; Webster JN; Wood DL; Erbilgin N; Owen DR;
Address:"USDA Forest Service, Pacific SW Research Station, 800 Buchanan St., Albany, CA 94710, USA. ngillette2@fs.fed"
Journal Title:Environ Entomol
Year:2012
Volume:41
Issue:6
Page Number:1575 - 1586
DOI: 10.1603/EN11315
ISSN/ISBN:1938-2936 (Electronic) 0046-225X (Linking)
Abstract:"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"
Keywords:Animal Distribution Animals Bicyclic Monoterpenes California Coleoptera/*physiology *Herbivory Insect Control/*methods Pheromones/pharmacology *Pinus Population Density Terpenes/pharmacology Washington;
Notes:"MedlineGillette, Nancy E Mehmel, Constance J Mori, Sylvia R Webster, Jeffrey N Wood, David L Erbilgin, Nadir Owen, Donald R eng Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. England 2013/01/17 Environ Entomol. 2012 Dec; 41(6):1575-86. doi: 10.1603/EN11315"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 05-12-2024