Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T17:29:37.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVALUATION OF FOUR CHEMICAL INSECTICIDES REGISTERED FOR CONTROL OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR CONE GALL MIDGE, CONTARINIA OREGONENSIS (DIPTERA: CECIDOMYIIDAE), AND THE DOUGLAS-FIR SEED CHALCID, MEGASTIGMUS SPERMOTROPHUS (HYMENOPTERA: TORYMIDAE), IN DOUGLAS-FIR SEED ORCHARDS1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

John D. Stein  and
George P. Markin
John D. Stein
Affiliation:
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, California, USA 97401
George P. Markin
Affiliation:
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, California, USA 97401
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Oxydemeton-methyl, azinphosmethyl, dimethoate, and acephate were evaluated in Douglas-fir seed orchards for control of Douglas-fir cone gall midge, Contarinia oregonensis Foote, and Douglas-fir seed chalcid, Megastigmus spermotrophus Wachtl. Results varied with infestation levels and specific chemicals. There was no significant reduction of infestation levels of either insect with the application of acephate. Oxydemeton-methyl injections, oxydemeton-methyl spray, and dimethoate significantly reduced cone gall midge damage. All four chemicals were ineffective against the seed chalcid for infestations of less than 10% of extractable seed. Oxydemeton-methyl injections, azinphosmethyl, and dimethoate significantly reduced the incidence of seed chalcid when the infestation was high (61%). There was no statistically significant difference (α = 0.05) for pairwise comparisons between chemicals which significantly reduced the infestation levels of either insect.

Résumé

On a testé l’oxydéméton-méthyle, l’azinphosméthyle, le diméthoate et l’acéphate dans des plantations de semence du sapin Douglas, contre la cécidomie des cônes du Douglas, Contarinia oregonensis Foote, et le chalcis du Douglas, Megastigmus spermotrophus Wachtl. Les résultats ont varié selon les niveaux d’infestation et les produits utilisés. Aucune réduction significative des niveaux d’infestation de l’un ou l’autre nuisible n’a été observée avec l’acéphate. Des injections d’oxydéméton-méthyle, un arrosage à l’oxydéméton-méthyle, et le diméthoate ont réduit significativement les dommages causés par la cécidomie des cônes du Douglas. Les quatre produits se sont avérés inefficaces contre le chalcis aux niveaux d’infestation inférieurs à 10% des graines extractibles. Des injections d’oxydéméton-méthyle, l’azinphosméthyle et le diméthoate ont réduit significativement l’incidence du chalcis lorsque l’infestation était sévère (61%). On n’a pas observé de différence significative (α = 0.05) entre les produits qui ont réduit significative ment les infestations de l’un ou l’autre insecte, sur la base de comparaisons pairées.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 118 , Issue 11 , November 1986 , pp. 1185 - 1191
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, B.J.R. 1977. Tables of the Bonferroni “t” statistic. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 72: 469–478.Google Scholar
Dobbs, R.C., Edwards, D.G.W., Konishi, J., and Wallinger, D.. 1976. Guideline to collecting cones of B.C. conifers. British Columbia Forest Service/Canadian Forestry Service. Joint Report No. 3. 98 pp.Google Scholar
Hedlin, A.F., Yates, H.O. III, Tovar, D.C., Ebel, B.H., Koerber, T.W., and Merkel, E.P.. 1980. Cone and seed insects of North American conifers. Canadian Forestry Serv., U.S. For. Serv., and Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos, México. 122 pp.Google Scholar
Hussey, N.W. 1955. The life histories of Megastigmus spermotrophus Wachtl (Hymenoptera: Chalcididae) and its principal parasite, with descriptions of the developmental stages. Trans. R. ent. Soc. 106: 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N.E., and Hedlin, A.F.. 1967. Douglas-fir cone insects and their control. Can. Dep. For. Rural Devel. Publ. 1168k. 11 pp.Google Scholar
Johnson, N.E., and Heikkenen, H.J.. 1958. Damage to the seed of Douglas-fir by the Douglas-fir cone midge. For. Sci. 4: 274–282.Google Scholar
Koerber, T.W. 1979. Bole injected systemic insecticides for control of Douglas-fir cone insects. pp. 295–302 in Proceedings of a Symposium on Systemic Chemical Treatments in Tree Culture; 9–11 Oct. 1978; East Lansing, Michigan. 357 pp.Google Scholar
Koerber, T.W., and Markin, G.P.. 1984. Metasystox-R injections increase seed yield of Douglas-fir in California; Oregon, and Washington. pp. 137–146 in Yates, H.O. III, (Ed.), Proceedings of the Cone and Seed Insects Working Party Conference; 31 July – 6 August 1983; Athens, GA, Asheville, NC; U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Southeastern For. Exp. Stn. 214 pp.Google Scholar
Meso, S.W. 1979. Douglas-fir cone and seed insects. pp. 245–262 in Rudinsky, J.A. (Ed.), Forest Insect and Survey and Control, a Syllabus. Oregon State University Bookstore Inc., Corvallis. 472 pp.Google Scholar
Miller, R.J. Jr., 1981. Simultaneous statistical inference, 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York. 299 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overhulser, D.L., and Sandquist, R.E.. 1985. Protecting Douglas-fir seed orchard crops from insect damage. Tree Improvement News 47. 7 pp.Google Scholar
Overhulser, D.L., and Tanaka, Y.. 1983. Insect damage to noble fir and the feasibilty of protecting cone crops in natural stands. For. Sci. 29: 112–116.Google Scholar
Scurlock, J.H., Mitchell, R.G., and Ching, K.K.. 1982. Insects and other factors affecting noble fir seed production at two sites in Oregon. Northwest Sci. 56: 101–107.Google Scholar
Schowalter, T.D., Haverty, M.I., and Koerber, T.W.. 1985. Cone and seed insects in Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, seed orchards in the western United States: distribution and relative impact. Can. Ent. 117: 1223–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silen, R.P. 1978. Genetics of Douglas-fir. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. WO-35. 34 pp.Google Scholar
Sutherland, J.R., Woods, T.A.D., and Miller, G.E.. 1984. Effect of selected insecticides and fungicides on germination of Douglas-fir and white spruce pollen. Tree Planter's Notes 35: 22–24.Google Scholar
Wheat, J., and Bordelon, M.. 1980. Seed orchards of western Oregon, western Washington, northern California and British Columbia. Industrial Forestry Association, Olympia, WA. 49 pp.Google Scholar