Advertisement

Forest Insects pp 125-144 | Cite as

Assessing the Risk of Insect Outbreaks

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

Abstract

In the preceding chapter we discussed methods for monitoring ongoing forest insect infestations and for making short-term forecasts. These procedures address the manager’s concern with current conditions—where damage is occurring at present, how much damage is being done, and whether this damage will increase or decrease in the near future. By contrast, risk assessment methods are intended to predict the likelihood of insect problems in the more distant future—where and under what conditions insect outbreaks are likely to occur in the future.

Keywords

Bark Beetle Insect Population Stand Basal Area Insect Outbreak Mountain Pine Beetle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Selected Readings

  1. Amman, G. D., McGregor, M. D., Canili, D. B., and Klein, W. H., 1977, Guidelines for reducing losses of lodgepole pine to the mountain pine beetle in unmanaged stands in the Rocky Mountains, U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-36, 19 pp. (risk classification)Google Scholar
  2. Belanger, R. P., Porterfield, R. L., and Rowell, C.E., 1981, Development and validation of systems for rating the susceptibility of natural stands in the Piedmont of Georgia to attack by the southern pine beetle, in: Hazard-rating systems in forest pest management (R. L. Hedden, S. J. Barras, and J. E. Coster, eds.), U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-27, pp. 79–86. (discriminant analysis)Google Scholar
  3. Berryman, A. A., 1970, Overwintering populations of Scolytus ventralis (Coleoptera.Scolytidae) reduced by extreme cold temperatures, Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 63:1194–1196.Google Scholar
  4. Berryman, A. A., 1980, General constructs for risk decision models, Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, Spokane, pp. 123–128. (threshold risk models)Google Scholar
  5. Berryman, A. A., 1981, Effects of site characteristics on insect population dynamics, Proc. XVII IUFRO World Congr. Kyoto 2:541–549.Google Scholar
  6. Berryman, A. A., 1982, Biological control, thresholds, and pest outbreaks. Environ. Entomol. 11:544–549. (threshold concepts)Google Scholar
  7. Berryman, A. A., and Stark, R. W., 1985, Assessing the risk of forest insect outbreaks, Z. Angew. Entomol. 99:199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bevan, D., and Stoakley, J. T. (eds.), 1985, Site Characteristics and Population Dynamics of Lepidopteran and Hymenopteran Forest Pests, Forestry Commission Research and Development Paper 135, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  9. Blais, J. R., and Archambault, L., 1982, Rating vulnerability of balsam fir to spruce budworm attack in Quebec, Canadian Forest Service, Information Report LAU-X-51, 19 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Dimond, J. B., and Bishop, R. H., 1968, Susceptibility and vulnerability of forests to the pine leaf aphid, Pineus pinifoliae (Fitch) (Adelgidae), Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 658, Orono, 16 pp. (regression analysis)Google Scholar
  11. Ferrell, G. T., 1980, Risk-rating systems for mature red fir and white fir in Northern California, U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-39, 19 pp. (penalty-point system)Google Scholar
  12. Ferrell, G. T., and Hall, R. C., 1975, Weather and tree growth associated with white fir mortality caused by fir engraver and roundheaded fir borer, U.S. Forest Service, Research Paper PSW-109, 11 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Furniss, M. M., Livingston, R. L., and McGregor, M. D., 1981, Development of a stand susceptibility classification for Douglas-fir beetle, in: Hazard-Rating Systems in Forest Pest Management (R. L. Hedden, S. J. Barras, and J. E. Coster, eds.), U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-27, pp. 115–128.Google Scholar
  14. Greenbank, D. O., 1956, The role of climate and dispersal in the initiation of outbreaks of the spruce budworm in New Brunswick. I. The role of climate, Can. J. Zool. 34:453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamilton, D. A., Jr., 1974, Event probabilities estimated by regression, U.S. Forest Service, Research Paper INT-152, 18 pp. (fitting logistic function)Google Scholar
  16. Hamilton, D. A., Jr., and Wendt, D. L. R., 1975, SCREEN: A computer program to identify predictors of dichotomous dependent variables, U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-22, 19 pp. (screening out significant variables)Google Scholar
  17. Heikkenen, H. J., 1981, The influence of red pine site quality on damage by the European pine shoot moth, in: Hazard-rating systems in forest insect pest management (R. L. Hedden, S. J. Barras, and J. E. Coster, eds.), U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-27, pp. 35–44. (regression analysis)Google Scholar
  18. Heller, R. C., and Sader, S. A., 1980, Rating the risk of tussock moth defoliation using aerial photographs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 569, 21 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Hertert, H. D., Miller, D. L., and Partridge, A. D., 1975, Interaction of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and root-rot pathogens in grand fir in northern Idaho, Can. Entomol. 107:899–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ku, T. T., Sweeney, J. M., and Shelburne, V. B., 1981, Hazard rating of stands for southern pine beetle attack in Arkansas, in: Hazard-rating systems in forest insect pest management (R. L. Hedden, S. J. Barras, and J. E. Coster, eds.), U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-27, pp. 145–148. (discriminant analysis)Google Scholar
  21. Kushmaul, R. J., Cain, M. D., Rowell, C. E., and Porterfield, R. L., 1979, Stand and site conditions related to southern pine beetle susceptibility, For. Sci. 25:656–664. (discriminant analysis)Google Scholar
  22. Lejeune, R. R., McMullen, L. M., and Atkins, M. D., 1961, The influence of logging on Douglas-fir beetle populations, For. Chron. 37:308–314.Google Scholar
  23. Lorio, P. L., Jr., 1978, Developing stand risk classes for the southern pine beetle, U.S. Forest Service, Research Paper SO-144, 9 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Lorio, P. L., Jr., Mason, G. N., and Autry, G. L., 1982, Stand risk rating for the southern pine beetle: Integrating pest management with forest management. J. For. 80:212–214. (discriminant analysis)Google Scholar
  25. Mahoney, R. L., 1978, Lodgepole pine/mountain pine beetle risk classification methods and their application, 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. 106–113,Google Scholar
  26. Forest Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, 224 pp. (risk classifications, regression analysis, threshold models)Google Scholar
  27. Miller, J. M., and Keen, F. P., 1960, Biology and control of the western pine beetle, U.S. Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 800, 381 pp. (risk classifications and penalty point systems)Google Scholar
  28. Morris, R. F., and Bishop, R. L., 1951, A method of rapid forest survey for mapping vulnerability to spruce budworm damage, For. Chron. 27:1–8. (risk classification)Google Scholar
  29. Page, G., 1975, The impact of balsam woolly aphid damage on balsam fir stands in Newfoundland, Can. J. For. Res. 5:195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Safranyik, L., Shrimpton, D. M., and Whitney, H. S., 1974, Management of lodgepole pine to reduce losses from the mountain pine beetle, Environment Canada, Forest Service, Technical Report 1, 24 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Sartwell, C., and Stevens, R. E., 1975, Mountain pine beetle in ponderosa pine: Prospects for silvicultural control in second-growth stands, J. For. 73:136–140. (risk variables)Google Scholar
  32. Schenk, J. A., Mahoney, R. L., Moore, J. A., and Adams, D. L., 1976a, Understory plants as indicators of grand fir mortality due to the fir engraver, J. Entomol. Soc. BC 73:21–24. (regression analysis)Google Scholar
  33. Schenk, J. A., Moore, J. A., Adams, D. L., and Mahoney, R. L., 1976b, A preliminary hazard rating of grand fir stands for mortality by the fir engraver, For. Sci. 23:103–110. (regression analysis)Google Scholar
  34. Schenk, J. A., Mahoney, R. L., Moore, J. A., and Adams, D. L., 1980, A model for hazard rating lodgepole stands for mortality by mountain pine beetle, For. Ecol. Manage. 3:57–68. (regression analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmid, J. M., and Frye, R. H., 1976, Stand ratings for spruce beetle, USDA Forest Service, Research Note RM-309, 4 pp. (risk classification)Google Scholar
  36. Smith, R. H., Wickman, B. E., Hall, R. C., DeMars, C. J., and Ferrell, G. T., 1981, The California pine risk-rating system: Its development, use, and relationship to other systems, in: Hazard-rating systems in forest insect pest management (R. L. Hedden, S. J. Barras, and J. E. Coster, eds.), U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-27, pp. 53–69. (risk classification and penalty point systems)Google Scholar
  37. Stage, A. R., and Hamilton, Jr., D. A., 1981, Sampling and analytical methods for developing risk rating systems for forest pests, in: Hazard-rating systems in forest insect pest management (R. L. Hedden, S. J. Barras, and J. E. Coster, eds.), U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-27, pp. 87–92. (logistic function)Google Scholar
  38. Stoszek, K. J., Mika, P. G., Moore, J. A., and Osborne, H. L., 1981, Relationships of Douglas-fir tussock moth defoliation to site and stand characteristics in Northern Idaho, For. Sci. 27:431–442. (regression analysis)Google Scholar
  39. Waring, R. H., and Pitman, G. B., 1980, A simple model of host resistance to bark beetles, Oregon State University, School of Forestry (Corvallis), Forest Research Laboratory, Research Note 65, 2 pp. (threshold model)Google Scholar
  40. Worrell, R., 1983, Damage by the spruce bark beetle in South Norway 1970–80: A survey, and factors affecting its occurrence, Reports of the Norwegian Forest Research Institute 38.6, 34 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Wright, L. C., Berryman, A. A., and Wickman, B. E., 1984, Abundance of fir engraver, Scolytus ventralis, and the Douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonuspseudotsugae, following tree defoliation by the Douglas-fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata, Can. Entomol. 116:293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations