Matthew Hansen E, Steven Munson A, Blackford Darren C, Wakarchuk David, Scott Baggett L
US-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 860 North 1200 East, Logan, UT 84321 (
US-Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, 4746 South 1900 East, Ogden, UT 84403 (
J Econ Entomol. 2016 Oct;109(5):2137-44. doi: 10.1093/jee/tow172. Epub 2016 Aug 11.
We tested lethal trap trees and repellent semiochemicals as area treatments to protect host trees from spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby) attacks. Lethal trap tree treatments ("spray treatment") combined a spruce beetle bait with carbaryl treatment of the baited spruce. Repellent treatments ("spray-repellent") combined a baited lethal trap tree within a 16-m grid of MCH (3-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one) and two novel spruce beetle repellents. After beetle flight, we surveyed all trees within 50 m of plot center, stratified by 10-m radius subplots, and compared attack rates to those from baited and unbaited control plots. Compared to the baited controls, spruce in the spray treatment had significantly reduced likelihood of a more severe attack classification (e.g., mass-attacked over strip-attacked or unsuccessful-attacked over unattacked). Because spruce in the spray treatment also had significantly heightened probability of more severe attack classification than those in the unbaited controls, however, we do not recommend lethal trap trees as a stand-alone beetle suppression strategy for epidemic beetle populations. Spruce in the spray-repellent treatment were slightly more likely to be classified as more severely attacked within 30 m of plot center compared to unbaited controls but, overall, had reduced probabilities of beetle attack over the entire 50-m radius plots. The semiochemical repellents deployed in this study were effective at reducing attacks on spruce within treated plots despite the presence of a centrally located spruce beetle bait. Further testing will be required to clarify operational protocols such as dose, elution rate, and release device spacing.
我们测试了致死诱捕树和驱避性信息化学物质作为区域处理方法,以保护寄主树免受云杉甲虫(Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby)的侵害。致死诱捕树处理(“喷雾处理”)将云杉甲虫诱饵与诱饵云杉的西维因处理相结合。驱避处理(“喷雾驱避剂”)在MCH(3-甲基环己-2-烯-1-酮)的16米网格内结合了一棵诱饵致死诱捕树和两种新型云杉甲虫驱避剂。甲虫飞行后,我们对样地中心50米范围内的所有树木进行了调查,按10米半径的子样地分层,并将攻击率与诱饵和未诱饵对照样地的攻击率进行了比较。与诱饵对照相比,喷雾处理中的云杉遭受更严重攻击分类(例如,大量攻击超过条带攻击或未成功攻击超过未受攻击)的可能性显著降低。然而,由于喷雾处理中的云杉遭受更严重攻击分类的概率也比未诱饵对照中的云杉显著提高,因此我们不建议将致死诱捕树作为流行甲虫种群的单一甲虫抑制策略。与未诱饵对照相比,喷雾驱避处理中的云杉在样地中心30米范围内被分类为遭受更严重攻击的可能性略高,但总体而言,在整个50米半径样地内遭受甲虫攻击的概率降低。尽管存在位于中心的云杉甲虫诱饵,但本研究中部署的信息化学驱避剂在减少处理样地内对云杉的攻击方面是有效的。需要进一步测试以阐明操作方案,如剂量、洗脱率和释放装置间距。