Forest Insects pp 167-192 | Cite as

Control of Insect Outbreaks

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


In the previous chapter we discussed methods for preventing insect populations from reaching outbreak levels. If these practices fail, or if they are not implemented, the forest manager will probably have to face pest outbreaks from time to time. Once insect populations have attained levels that cause serious damage to forest resources, the manager has three options: (1) do nothing and allow the outbreak to run its course; (2) attempt to limit the spread of the outbreak; and (3) attempt to reduce the insect population to nondamaging levels. In this chapter we will discuss the basic principles of outbreak containment and suppression and then explore the tactics that can be employed to achieve these ends.


Bark Beetle Gypsy Moth Pest Population Aggregation Pheromone Forest Insect 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Selected Readings

  1. Alfaro, R. I., Borden, J. H., Harris, L. H., Nijholt, W. W., and McMullen, L. H., 1984, Pine oil, a feeding deterrent for the white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Can. Entomol. 116:41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annila, E., and Hiltunen, R., 1977, Damage by Pissodes validirostris (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) studied in relation to the monoterpene composition in Scots pine and lodgepole pine, Ann. Entomol. Fenn. 43:87–92. (repellent or deterrant).Google Scholar
  3. Auer, C., Roques, A., Goussard, F., and Charles, P.-J., 1981, Effets de l’accroissement provoqué du niveau de population de la tordeuse du mélèze Zeiraphera diniana Guéneé (Lep., Tortricidae) au cours de la phase de régression dans une massif forestière du Brianconnais, Z. Angew. Entomol. 92:286–303. (suppression of population cycles)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakke, A., 1981, The utilization of aggregation pheromone for the control of the spruce bark beetle, in: Insect Pheromone Technology: Chemistry and Applications (B. A. Leonhardt and M. Beroza, eds.), pp. 219–229, American Chemical Society Symposium Series No. 190, ACS.Google Scholar
  5. Bakke, A., Saether, T., and Kvamme, T., 1983, Mass trapping of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus: Pheromone and trap technology, Rep. Norwegian For. Res. Inst. 38(3): 1–35.Google Scholar
  6. Berryman, A. A., Amman, G. D., Stark, R. W., and Kibbee, D. L., 1978, Theory and practice of mountain pine beetle management in lodgepole pine forests, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow. (see papers by W. H. Klein on chemical and mechanical tactics, H. S. Whitney, L. Safranyik, S. J. Muraro, and E. D. A. Dyer on explosives and burning, G. B. Pitman, M. W. Stock, and R. C. McKnight on pheromones, D. B. Cahill and D. R. Hamel on cutting strategies)Google Scholar
  7. Billings, R. F., 1982, Direct control, in: The Southern Pine Beetle (R. C. Thatcher, J. L. Searcy, J. E. Coster, and G. D. Hertel, eds.), pp. 179–192, U.S. Forest Service Technical Bulletin 1631. (suppressing “hot spots” with buffer strips)Google Scholar
  8. Bordasch, R. P., and Berryman, A. A., 1977, Host resistance to the fir engraver beetle, Scolytus ventralis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). 2. Repellency of Abies grandis resins and some monoter-penes, Can. Entomol. 109:95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borden, J. H., 1971, Changing philosophy in forest-insect management, Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 17:268–273. (examples of secondary pest outbreaks and a selective, nonpersistent insecticides)Google Scholar
  10. Borden, J. H., 1982, Aggregation pheromones, in: Bark Beetles in North American Conifers: A System for the Study of Evolutionary Biology (J. B. Mitton and K. B. Sturgeon, eds.), pp. 74–139, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  11. Borden, J. H., Chong, L. J., and Fuchs, M. C., 1983, Application of semiochemicals in post-logging manipulation of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), J. Econ. Entomol. 76:1428–1432.Google Scholar
  12. Borden, J. H., Chong, J. L., Pratt, K. E. G., and Gray, D. R., 1983, The application of behavior-modifying chemicals to contain infestations of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus pon-derosae, For. Chron. 59:235–239.Google Scholar
  13. Borden, J. H., and McLean, J. A., 1981, Pheromone-based suppression of ambrosia beetles in industrial timber processing areas, in: Management of insect Pests with Semiochemicals (E. R. Mitchell, ed.), pp. 133–154, Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burgess, H. D. (ed.), 1981, Microbial Control of Pests and Plant Diseases 1970–1980, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Cameron, E. A. (and others), 1981, The use of disparlure to disrupt mating, in: The Gypsy Moth: Research towards Integrated Pest Management (C. C. Doane and M. L. McManus, eds.), pp. 554–572, U.S. Forest Service Technical Bulletin 1584.Google Scholar
  16. Cole, W. E., and McGregor, M. D., 1985, Reducing or preventing mountain pine beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine stands by selective cutting, in: The Role of the Host in the Population Dynamics of Forest Insects, Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference, Banff, Canada (L. Safranyik, ed.), pp. 175–185, Pacific Forest Research Centre, Victoria, British Columbia.Google Scholar
  17. Cunningham, J. C., Tonks, N. V., and Kaupp, W. J., 1981, Viruses to control winter moth, Operophtera bramata (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), J. Entomol. Soc. BC 78:17–24.Google Scholar
  18. Daterman, G. E., 1982, Control of western pine shoot borer damage by mating disruption—A reality, in: Insect Suppression with Controlled Release Pheromone Systems (A. F. Kydonieus, M. Beroza, and G. Zweig, eds.), pp. 155–163, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  19. Fellin, D. G., 1983, Chemical insecticide vs the western spruce budworm: After three decades, what’s the score?, West. Wildl. 9:8–12.Google Scholar
  20. Furniss, M. M., Clausen, R. W., Markin, G. P., McGregor, M. D., and Livingston, R. L., 1981, Effectiveness of Douglas-fir beetle antiaggregative pheromone applied by helicopter, U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-101.Google Scholar
  21. Hamel, D. R., 1981, Forest-management chemicals: A guide to use when considering pesticides for forest management, U.S. Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 585.Google Scholar
  22. Harper, J. D., 1974, Forest Insect Control with Bacillus thuringiensis: Survey of Current Knowledge, University Printing Service, Auburn University, Auburn.Google Scholar
  23. Dceda, T., Matsumura, F., and Benjamin, D. M., 1977, Mechanism of feeding discrimination between matured and juvenile foliage by two species of pine sawflies, J. Chem. Ecol. 3:677–694. (deterrents)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kurstak, E. (ed.), 1982, Microbial and Viral Pesticides, Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Kydonieus, A. F., Beroza, M., and Zweig, G., 1982, Insect Suppression with Controlled Release Pheromone Systems, Vols. 1 and 2, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  26. Lanier, G. N., 1981, Pheromone-baited traps and trap trees in the integrated management of bark beetles in urban areas, in: Management of Insect Pests with Semiochemicals (E. R. Mitchell (ed.), pp. 115–131, Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leonhardt, B. A., and Beroza, M. (eds.), 1982, Insect Pheromone Technology: Chemistry and Applications, American Chemical Society Symposium Series No. 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis, F. B., McManus, M. L., and Schneeberger, N. F., 1979, Guidelines for the use of GYPCHEK to control the gypsy moth, U.S. Forest Service Research Paper NE-441. (virus insecticide)Google Scholar
  29. Lindgren, S., and Borden, J. H., 1983, Survey and mass trapping of ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in timber processing areas on Vancouver Island, Can. J. For. Res. 13:481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martouret, D., and Auer, C., 1977, Effets de Bacillus thuringiensis chez une population de tordeuse grise du Mélèze, Zeiraphera diniana (Lep.: Tortricidae) en culmination gradologigue, Ento-mophaga 22:37–44.Google Scholar
  31. McGregor, M. D., Furniss, M. M., Oakes, R. D., Gibson, R. E., and Meyer, H. E., 1984, MCH pheromone for preventing Douglas-fir beetle infestation in windthrown trees, J. For. 82:613–615.Google Scholar
  32. McLean, J. A., and Borden, J. H., 1977, Suppression of Gnathotrichus sulcatus with sucatol-baited traps in a commercial sawmill and notes on the occurrence of G. retusus and Trypodendron lineatum, Can. J. For. Res. 7:348–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mitchell, E. R. (ed.), 1981, Management of Insect Pests with Semiochemicals, Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morris, O. N., 1980, Entomopathogenic viruses: Strategies for use in forest insect pest management, Can. Entomol. 112:573–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morris, O. N., Dimond, J. B., and Lewis, F. B., 1984, Guidelines for the operational use of Bacillus thuringiensis against the spruce budworm, U.S. Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 621.Google Scholar
  36. National Academy of Sciences, 1972, Pest Control Strategies for the Future, National Academy of Sciences (USDA), Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  37. Niemelä, P., Mannila, R., and Mantasla, P., 1982, Deterrent in Scots pine, Pinus sylvestris, influencing feeding behavior of the larvae of Neodiprion sertifer (Hymenoptera, Diprionidae), Ann. Entomol. Fenn. 48:57–59.Google Scholar
  38. Nijholt, W. W., 1980, Pine oil and oleic acid delay and reduce attacks on logs by ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), Can. Entomol. 112:199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nijholt, W. W., McMullen, L. H., and Safranyik, L., 1981, Pine oil protects living trees from attack by three bark beetle species, Dendroctonus spp., Can. Entomol. 113:337–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Norris, D. M., 1970, Quinol stimulation and quinone deterrency of gustation by Scolytus multi-striatus, Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 63:476–478.Google Scholar
  41. Payne, T. L., and Richerson, J. V., 1979, Management implications of inhibitors for Dendroctonus frontalis (Col., Scolytidae), Bull. Soc. Entomol. Suisse 52:323–331.Google Scholar
  42. Peacock, J. W., Cuthbert, R. A., and Lanier, G. N., 1981, Deployment of traps in a barrier strategy to reduce populations of the European elm bark beetle, and the incidence of Dutch elm disease, in: Management of Insect Pests with Semiochemicals (E. R. Mitchell, ed.), pp. 155–174, Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prebble, M. L. (ed.), 1975, Aerial Control of Forest Insects in Canada, Department of the Environment, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  44. Retnakaran, A., Grant, G. G., Ennis, T. J., Fast, P. G., Arif, B. M., Tyrrell, D., and Wilson, G., 1982, Development of environmentally acceptable methods for controlling insect pests of forests, Canadian Forestry Service Information Report FRM-X-62.Google Scholar
  45. Ritter, F. T. (ed.), 1979, Chemical Ecology: About Communication in Animals, Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, R. H., 1976, Low concentration of lindane plus induced attraction traps mountain pine beetle, U.S. Forest Service Research Note PSW-316.Google Scholar
  47. Sower, L. L., Daterman, G. E., Orchard, R. D., and Sartwell, C., 1979, Reduction of Douglas-fir tussock moth reproduction with synthetic pheromone, J. Econ. Entomol. 72:739–742.Google Scholar
  48. Wood, D. L., 1979, Development of behavior modifying chemicals for use in forest pest management, in: Chemical Ecology: About Communication in Animals (F. T. Ritter, ed.), pp. 261–279, Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations