Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 11, pp 3047–3053 | Cite as

Extensive gypsy moth defoliation in Southern New England characterized using Landsat satellite observations

  • Valerie J. PasquarellaEmail author
  • Joseph S. Elkinton
  • Bethany A. Bradley
Invasion Note


Southern New England is currently experiencing the first major gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) defoliation event in nearly 30 years. Using a novel approach based on time series of Landsat satellite observations, we generated consistent maps of gypsy moth defoliation for 2015 (first year of the outbreak), 2016 (second year of outbreak), and 2017 (third year of outbreak). Our mapped results demonstrate that the defoliation event continued through the 2017 growing season. Moreover, the affected area more than doubled in extent each year and expanded radially to encompass 4386 km2 of forested area in Rhode Island, eastern Connecticut, and central Massachusetts. The current gypsy moth outbreak is believed to be the result of a series of unusually dry springs in 2014, 2015, and 2016, which suppressed Entomophaga maimaiga, a fungal mortality agent that has historically reduced gypsy moth impacts in this region. The continuation and marked expansion of the outbreak in 2017 despite average spring rainfall suggests that caterpillars were active early in the growing season, and mortality from the fungus likely peaked after significant defoliation had already occurred. Our Landsat time series approach represents an important new source of data on spatial and temporal patterns in gypsy moth defoliation, and continued satellite-based monitoring will be essential for tracking the progress of this and other gypsy moth outbreaks.


Gypsy moth Lymantria dispar Defoliation Entomophaga maimaiga New England Remote sensing 



The project described in this publication was supported by Grant or Cooperative Agreement No. G12AC00001 from the United States Geological Survey. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center or the USGS. This manuscript is submitted for publication with the understanding that the United States Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes. The authors would like to thank Jeff Boettner, Emily Fusco, Brittany Laginhas, Eve Beaury, Caroline Curtis, and our three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.


  1. Asaro C, Chamberlin LA (2015) Outbreak history (1953–2014) of spring defoliators impacting oak-dominated forests in Virginia, with emphasis on gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) and fall cankerworm (Alsophila pometaria Harris). Am Entomol 61:174–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barron ES, Patterson WA III (2008) Monitoring the effects of gypsy moth defoliation on forest stand dynamics on Cape Cod, Massachusetts: sampling intervals and appropriate interpretations. For Ecol Manag 256:2092–2100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davidson CB, Gottschalk KW, Johnson JE (1999) Tree mortality following defoliation by the European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) in the United States: a review. For Sci 4:74–84Google Scholar
  4. De Beurs K, Townsend P (2008) Estimating the effect of gypsy moth defoliation using MODIS. Remote Sens Environ 112(10):3983–3990. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elkinton JS, Liebhold AM (1990) Population dynamics of gypsy moth in North America. Annu Rev Entomol 35:571–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elkinton J, Boettner J, Pasquarella V (2018) Gypsy moths in 2018: a pathogen epidemic. MassWildlife 68:30–35Google Scholar
  7. Fajvan MA, Wood JM (1996) Stand structure and development after gypsy moth defoliation in the Appalachian Plateau. For Ecol Manag 89:79–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foster JR, Townsend PA, Mladenoff DJ (2013) Spatial dynamics of a gypsy moth defoliation outbreak and dependence on habitat characteristics. Landsc Ecol 28:1307–1320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gandhi KJ, Herms DA (2010) Direct and indirect effects of alien insect herbivores on ecological processes and interactions in forests of eastern North America. Biol Invasions 12:389–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hajek AE, Roberts DW (1991) Pathogen reservoirs as a biological control resource: introduction of Entomophaga maimaiga to North American gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, populations. Biol Control 1:9–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hajek AE, Humber RA, Elkinton JS (1995) Mysterious origin of Entomophaga maimaiga in North America. Am Entomol 41:31–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liebhold A, Elkinton J, Williams D, Muzika RM (2000) What causes outbreaks of the gypsy moth in North America? Popul Ecol 42:257–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McShea WJ, Healy WM, Devers P, Fearer T, Koch FH, Stauffer D, Waldon J (2007) Forestry matters: decline of oaks will impact wildlife in hardwood forests. J Wildl Manag 71:1717–1728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morin RS, Liebhold AM (2004) Area-wide analysis of hardwood defoliator effects on tree conditions in the Allegheny Plateau. North J Appl For 21:31–39Google Scholar
  15. Morin RS, Liebhold AM (2016) Invasive forest defoliator contributes to the impending downward trend of oak dominance in eastern North America. Forestry 89:284–289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nelson RF (1983) Detecting forest canopy change due to insect activity using Landsat MSS. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 49(9):1303–1314Google Scholar
  17. Ostfeld RS, Jones CG (2010) The ecology of place in oak forests. In: Billick I, Price MV (eds) The ecology of place: contributions of place-based research to ecological understanding. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Pasquarella VJ, Bradley BA, Woodcock CE (2017) Near-real-time monitoring of insect defoliation using Landsat time series. Forests 8:275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rock BN, Vogelmann JE, Williams DL, Vogelmann AF, Hoshizaki T (1986) Remote detection of forest damage. Bioscience 36(7):439–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rullan-Silva CD, Olthoff AE, Delgado de la Mata JA, Pajares-Alonso JA (2013) Remote monitoring of forest insect defoliation—a review. For Syst 22(3):377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Senf C, Pflugmacher D, Wulder MA, Hostert P (2015) Characterizing spectral–temporal patterns of defoliator and bark beetle disturbances using Landsat time series. Remote Sens Environ 170(C):166–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spruce JP, Sader S, Ryan RE, Smoot J, Kuper P, Ross K, Prados D, Russell J, Gasser G, McKellip R, Hargrove W (2011) Assessment of MODIS NDVI time series data products for detecting forest defoliation by gypsy moth outbreaks. Remote Sens Environ 115(2):427–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Townsend PA, Singh A, Foster JR, Rehberg NJ, Kingdon CC, Eshleman KN, Seagle SW (2012) A general Landsat model to predict canopy defoliation in broadleaf deciduous forests. Remote Sens Environ 119:255–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Woodcock CE, Allen R, Anderson M et al (2008) Free access to Landsat imagery. Science 320:1011. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valerie J. Pasquarella
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Joseph S. Elkinton
    • 1
  • Bethany A. Bradley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental ConservationUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Department of the Interior’s Northeast Climate Adaptation Science CenterAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations