Forest Insects pp 193-207 | Cite as

Pest Management Decisions

  • Alan A. Berryman
Part of the Population Ecology: Theory and Application book series (POPE)


Management is the art of manipulating men, money, machines, and resources in order to attain certain predefined goals. Although management is essentially an art, like other art forms it should rest on a firm foundation of scientific knowledge. Architecture is also an art, but our bridges and towers would not stand long if the architect’s plans ignored physical laws and material properties. Thus, the failure of management planning is often due to ignorance or misinterpretation of the “laws” of nature rather than to ineffective application. The successful manager is an applied scientist who uses all the relevant results of scientific research to achieve his or her goals.


Pest Management Integrate Pest Management Timber Volume Insect Infestation Insect Outbreak 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Selected Readings

  1. Berryman, A. A., and Pienaar, L. V., 1974, Simulation: A powerful method of investigating the dynamics and management of insect populations, Environ. Entomol. 3:199–207.Google Scholar
  2. Berryman, A. A., 1978, A synoptic model of the lodgepole pine/mountain pine beetle interaction and its potential application in forest management, in: Theory and Practice of Mountain Pine Beetle Management in Lodgepole Pine Forests (A. A. Berryman, G. D. Amman, R. W. Stark and D. L. Kibbee, eds.), pp. 95–108, University of Idaho, Forestry, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow.Google Scholar
  3. Bethlahmy, N., 1975, A Colorado episode: Beetle epidemic, ghost forests, more streamflow, NW Sci. 49: 95–105. (watershed yields)Google Scholar
  4. Downing, K. B., and Williams, W. R., 1978, Douglas-fir tussock moth: Did it affect private recreational businesses in northeastern Oregon?, J. For. 76:29–30. (economic impact)Google Scholar
  5. Graham, K., 1963, Concepts of Forest Entomology, Reinhold Biological Sciences, New York, (see Chapter 5, Economic Evaluation)Google Scholar
  6. Holling, C. S. (ed.), 1978, Adaptive Environment Assessment and Management, International Series on Applied Systems Analysis, Wiley, Toronto, 377 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Klock, G. O., and Wickman, B. E., 1978, Ecosystem effects, in: The Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth: A Synthesis, (M. H. Brookes, R. W. Stark, and R. W. Campbell, eds.), pp. 90–95, Technical Bulletin 1585, U.S. Forest Service, (impact of Douglas-fir tussock moth)Google Scholar
  8. Kulman, H. M., 1971, Effects of insect defoliation on growth and mortality of trees, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 16:289–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leuschner, W. A., 1978, Elements of a typical IPM system: The socio-economic and decisionmaking model, Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters Convention, St. Louis, Missouri, pp. 263–267.Google Scholar
  10. Leuschner, W. A., and Berck, P., 1985, Decision analysis, in: Integrated Pest Management in Pine-Bark Beetle Ecosystems (W. E. Waters, R. W. Stark, and D. L. Wood, eds.), pp. 177–189, Wiley (Interscience), New York.Google Scholar
  11. Leuschner, W. A., Matney, T. G., and Burkhart, H. E., 1977, Simulating southern pine beetle activity for pest management decisions, Can. J. For. Res. 7:138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marshall, K. B., 1975, The spruce budworm and the dollar in New Brunswick, For. Chron. 51(4):9–12. (economic impact)Google Scholar
  13. May, D. M., Stozek, K. J., and Dewey, J. E., 1984, A demonstration to risk-rate stands to Douglas-fir tussock moth defoliation on the Palouse Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. 2. Predicting defoliation levels and evaluating alternative control treatments, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region, State and Private Forestry, Report Number 84–6.Google Scholar
  14. Monserud, R. A., 1978, Combining the stand prognosis and Douglas-fir tussock moth outbreak models, in: Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters Convention, St. Louis, Missouri, pp. 268–272.Google Scholar
  15. Monserud, R. A., and Crookston, N. L., 1982, A user’s guide to the combined stand prognosis and Douglas-fir tussock moth outbreak model, U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-127, 49 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Stage, A. R., 1973, Prognosis model for stand development, U.S. Forest Service Research Paper INT-137, 32 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Stage, A. R., Babcock, R. K., and Wykoff, W. R., 1980, Stand-orientated inventory and growth projection methods improve harvest scheduling on Bitterroot National Forest, J. For. 78:265–278.Google Scholar
  18. Stevens, R. E., and Jennings, D. T., 1975, Western pine-shoot borer: A threat to intensive management of ponderosa pine in the Rocky Mountain area and southwest, U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-45, 8 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Stoszek, K. J., 1973, Damage to ponderosa pine plantations by the western pine-shoot borer, J. For. 71:701–705. (measuring impact of height reduction due to shoot damage)Google Scholar
  20. Waters, W. E., and Stark, R. W., 1980, Forest pest management: Concept and reality, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 25:479–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Waters, W. E., Stark, R. W., and Wood, D. L., 1985, Integrated Pest Management in Pine-Bark Beetle Ecosystems, Wiley (Interscience), New York.Google Scholar
  22. Wykoff, W. R., Crookston, N. L., and Stage, A. R., 1982, User’s guide to the stand prognosis model, U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-133, 112 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan A. Berryman
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations