140 Noukoun et al.: Effect of Sticky Bands on Cankerworm Abundance and Defoliation in Urban Trees prevented more than 900 moths per tree from lay- ing eggs in the crown. This led to small differences in larval abundance and had no effect on defolia- tion between treatments. It is impossible to know if blocking crevices under the sticky bands would have reduced the number of moths traversing the bands, larval abundance, or defoliation. Studies that blocked crevices beneath bands also found that bands did not reduce larval abundance or defoliation (Blumenthal and Hoover 1986; Otvos and Hunt 1986; Thorpe et al. 1993; Thorpe and Ridgway 1994; La France and Westwood 2006). Estimating defoliation in 10% increments was probably not sensitive enough when the aver- age tree was less than 25% defoliated. However, since larval density and defoliation are positively correlated, the study authors predict that sticky bands may have more benefit when populations are large and defoliation is high. This is sup- ported by the only study to find that sticky bands reduced defoliation by a lepidopteran pest. Blu- menthal (1983) found that bands reduce gypsy moth defoliation of oaks by up to 47% when defoliation of unbanded trees was close to 100%. This study is only the second study to test sticky bands specifically for cankerworm man- agement. Although researchers did not find direct reductions in defoliation due to band- ing, larval abundance, which is correlated with defoliation, was reduced. Despite having little scientific support, municipalities often deploy thousands of sticky bands to help reduce can- kerworm damage and insecticide applications (La France and Westwood 2006; Eirich 2008). Sticky bands may have benefits when deployed on a citywide or landscape scale that cannot be detected in small-scale studies. Future stud- ies should investigate how the geographic scale of banding programs and outbreak severity affect sticky band efficacy against cankerworms. Acknowledgments. The authors thank George Washburn, Allie Stewart, Uchenna Nwoko, and Andrew Ernst for field help and Robert Bradley from NCSU Grounds Maintenance for his coop- eration. Comments from two anonymous reviewers and the editor improved the clarity of this manuscript. This work was funded, in part, by a North Carolina State University, Undergraduate Research Grant to Noukoun Chanthammavong and North Carolina State University Department of Entomology. LITERATURE CITED Baker, W.L. 1972. Eastern Forest Insects. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service miscellaneous publication no. 1175. Blumenthal, E.M. 1983. Gypsy moth defoliation reduction using mechanical barrier devices. Melsheimer Entomological Series 33:21–30. Blumenthal, E.M., and C.R. Hoover. 1986. Gypsy moth (Lepidop- tera: Lymantriidae) population control using mechanical bar- riers and contact insecticides applied to tree stems. Journal of Economic Entomology 79:1394–1396. Britton, W.E. 1900. On the banding of trees to prevent injury by the fall cankerworm. Report of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. Cole, H., D. Barry, and D.E.H. Frear. 1967. DDT levels in fish, streams, stream sediments, and soil before and after DDT aerial spray application for fall cankerworm in northern Pennsylvania. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology 2:127–146. Collins, C.W., and C.E. Hood. 1920. Gipsy (sic) moth tree banding material: How to make, use, and apply it. Bulletin 899 of the United States Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. Deane, S. 1797. The New England Farmer or Georgical Dictionary, 2nd Edition. Worcester, Massachusetts, U.S. Eirich, R. 2008. Establishing action thresholds for control of can- kerworms in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:66–73. Feeny, P. 1970. Seasonal changes in oak leaf tannins and nutrients as a cause of spring feeding by winter moth caterpillars. Ecology 51:565–581. Feeny, P. 1976. Plant apparency and chemical defense. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 10:1–40. Haukioja, E., P. Niemela, and S. Siren. 1985. Foliage phenols and nitrogen in relation to growth, insect damage, and ability to recover aſter defoliation in the mountain birch Betula pubescens ssp. tortuosa. Oecologia (Berlin) 65:214–222. Haukioja, E., P. Niemela, L. Iso-Iivari, H. Ojala, and E. Aro. 1978. Birch leaves as a resource for herbivores. I. Variation in the suitability of leaves. Reports from the Kevo Subarctic Research Station 14:5–12. Hiratsuka, Y., D.W. Langor, and P.E. Crane. 1995. A field guide to forest insects and diseases of the Prairie Provinces. Special report 3. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. 297 pp. Johnson, W.T., and H.H. Lyon. 1991. Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs, 2nd Edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, U.S. pp. 142–143. Kegg, J.D. 1967. Sampling techniques for predicting fall cankerworm defoliation. Journal of Economic Entomology 60:889–890. Kulman, H.M. 1971. Effects of insect defoliation on growth and mortality of trees. Annual Review of Entomology 16:289–234. La France, K.R., and A.R. Westwood. 2006. An assessment of tree banding techniques to capture cankerworm defoliators of elm and ash trees in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 1:11–17. ©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2014
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
