Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T09:46:13.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFECTIVENESS OF TRUNK-IMPLANTED ACEPHATE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CONES AND SEEDS FROM INSECT DAMAGE IN FRANCE AND CHINA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Alain Roques ,
Jiang-Hua Sun ,
Xu-Dong Zhang ,
Gwennael Philippe  and
Jean-Paul Raimbault
Alain Roques
Affiliation:
INRA, Station de Zoologie Forestière, Ardon, F-45160 Olivet, France
Jiang-Hua Sun
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Northeast Forestry University, 150040 Harbin, China
Xu-Dong Zhang
Affiliation:
Da Xingganling Forestry Administration, 165000 Jagedaqi, China
Gwennael Philippe
Affiliation:
CEMAGREF, Graines et plants forestiers, F-45290 Nogent/Vernisson, France
Jean-Paul Raimbault
Affiliation:
INRA, Station de Zoologie Forestière, Ardon, F-45160 Olivet, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From 1989 to 1993, trunk implants of acephate were tested for the control of seed and cone insect damage to conifer species in France and northeastern China. The treatments were promising for the control of the major pests that feed on cone and seed tissues, including cone flies, coneworms, and seedworms, in European and Siberian larch, Norway spruce, Scots and mountain pine. In contrast, acephate implants did not prevent seed chalcid damage nor that of gall midges in Douglas-fir, European larch, and Siberian larch. Treatment generally increased seed yield, but a significant increase in the number of filled seeds was seen only when chalcids and midges were absent. The 2-year effect of implants seemed limited. Acephate implantation did not seem to affect seed germination.

Résumé

L’implantation de capsules d’acéphate dans le tronc a été testée de 1989 à 1993 dans le but de réduire les dégâts causés par les insectes ravageurs des cônes et graines sur diverses espèces de conifères français et chinois. Les principaux ravageurs s’attaquant à la fois aux tissus du cône et aux graines, notamment les mouches des cônes, les pyrales et les tordeuses, ont vu leur impact significativement réduit dans le cas des mélèzes d’Europe et de Sibérie, des pins sylvestre et à crochets, et de l’Epicéa. En revanche, les implants n’ont pas eu d’effet sur l’attaque des chalcidiens des graines, ni sur celle des cécidomyiides dans le cas du sapin de Douglas, du mélèze d’Europe et du mélèze de Sibérie. La production de graines a généralement augmenté avec les traitements, mais le nombre de graines pleines par cône n’a augmenté que lorsque les chalcidiens ou les cécidomyiides étaient absents. La production à long terme offerte par les implants a paru limitée. Aucun effet néfaste sur la germination n’a été noté chez les graines des arbres traités.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 128 , Issue 3 , June 1996 , pp. 391 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1996

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

Amirault, P.A., and Brown, N.R.. 1986. Cone and seed insects of tamarack, Larix laricina (Du Roi) Koch, and attempts to control damage using chemical insecticides. The Canadian Entomologist 118: 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annila, E. 1977. Control of the pine cone weevil, Pissodes validirostris Gyll. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in pine seed orchards. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae 90: 1–14.Google Scholar
Annila, E., and Heliövaara, K.. 1991. Chemical control of cone pests in a Norway spruce seed orchard. Silva Fennica 25: 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bramlett, D.L. 1987. Protection of pine and seed orchards in the Southeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 19: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candau, J.N., Roux, G., Jarry, M., and Roques, A.. 1995. Dynamics of invasion of Douglas-fir seed orchards by non-resident seed chalcid populations in western Europe. pp. 587–610 in Proceedings of the IUFRO International Conference “Behaviour, Population Dynamics and Control of Forest Insects”, Maui, Hawaii, February 1994. 644 pp. [Available from the Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7626.]Google Scholar
Dumcius, O. 1989. Injection of insecticides into Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) trunk to protect seed yield from insects. pp. 225–239 in Proceedings of the 3rd Cone and Seed Insects Working Party Conference, Victoria, 26–30 June 1988. 242 pp. [Available from Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, B.C.]Google Scholar
Fogal, W.H., and Lopushanski, S.M.. 1989. Stem incorporation of systemic insecticides to protect white spruce seed trees. Forestry Chronicle: 359–364.Google Scholar
Fogal, W.H., and Plowman, V.C.. 1989. Systemic insecticides for protecting northern spruce and pine seed trees. Petawawa National Forestry Institute, Forestry Canada, Information Report PI-X-92: 16 pp.Google Scholar
Gao, B.Q. 1991. [Larch Cone and Seed Insects in Da Xingganling Mountains.] Northeast Forestry University Press, Harbin, China. 77 pp. [In Chinese.]Google Scholar
Grijpma, P. 1992. [Pests of cones and seeds.] Jaarverslag 1991 Institut voor Bosten Natuuronderzoek. p. 28. [Available from De Dorschkamp Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands.] [In Dutch.]Google Scholar
International Seed Testing Association. 1985. International rules for seed testing annexes 1985. Seed Sciences and Technology 13: 356–513.Google Scholar
Olenici, N. 1996. Stem injection of dimethoate for control of European larch (Larix decidua Mill.) cone and seed insects. Proceedings of the Cone and Seed Insects Symposium, XIX International Congress of Entomology, Beijing, China, 30 June 1992. In press. [Available from USDA, Forest Service, Southeastern Station, 320 Green Street, Athens, Georgia 30602.]Google Scholar
Rappaport, N.G., Mori, S., and Roques, A.. 1993. Estimating impact of a seed chalcid, Megastigmus spermotrophus Wachtl (Hymenoptera: Torymidae) on Douglas-fir seed production: The new paradigm. Journal of Economic Entomology 83: 845–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reardon, R.C., Barrett, L. J., Koerber, T.W., Stipe, L.E., and Dewey, J.E.. 1985. Implantation and injection of systemics to suppress seed and cone insects in Douglas-fir in Montana. The Canadian Entomologist 117: 961–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roques, A. 1983. Les insectes ravageurs des cônes et graines de coniferes en France. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Versailles, France. 135 pp.Google Scholar
Roques, A. 1989. Impact des insectes ravageurs des cônes et graines sur les potentialités de régénération naturelle des principales essences constituant les forêts d'altitude du Briançonnais. pp. 17–28 in Gensac, P. (Ed.), Régénération des forêts d'altitude. 168 pp. [Available from Université de Savoie, Chambéry, France.]Google Scholar
Sandquist, R.E., Overhulser, D.L., and Stein, J.D.. 1993. Aerial applications of esfenvalerate to suppress Contarinia oregonensis (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) and Megastigmus spermotrophus (Hymenoptera: Torymidae) in Douglas-fir seed orchards. Journal of Economic Entomology 86: 470–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadnitskii, G.V., Grebenshychikova, V.P., Naumov, F.V., and Bortnik, A.M.. 1978. [Protection of Reproductive Organs of Coniferous Species in Seed Sites and Plantations.] Leningrad Scientific Research Institute of Forestry, Leningrad, Russia. 66 pp. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Stein, J.D., Koerber, T.W., and Frank, C.L.. 1988. Trunk-implanted acephate to protect Douglas-fir seed crops on individual trees in northern California. Journal of Economic Entomology 81: 1668–1671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, J.D., Sandquist, R.E., Koerber, T.W., and Frank, C.L.. 1993. Response of Douglas-fir cone and seed insects to implants of systemic insecticides in a northern California forest and a southern Oregon seed orchard. Journal of Economic Entomology 86: 466–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, D., and Miller, G.E.. 1986. Experience with systemic insecticides for control of cone and seed insects in Douglas-fir seed orchards in coastal British Columbia, Canada. pp. 276–283 in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the Cone and Seed Insects IUFRO Working Party. 312 pp. [Available from Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Versailles, 78000, France.]Google Scholar
Sun, J.H., Roques, A., Zhang, X.D., and Xu, S.H.. 1994 a. [Larch and spruce cone and seed insect damage in northeastern China.] Journal of Northeast Forestry University 22: 1–5. [In Chinese.]Google Scholar
Sun, J.H., Roques, A., Zhang, X.D., Xu, X.B., Xu, Y.B., Wang, H.P., and Li, H.. 1994 b. Effectiveness of acephate implants in protecting cones from insect damage in some conifer forests of Northeastern China. Journal of Northeast Forestry University (English Edition) 5: 28–31.Google Scholar
Szmidt, A., and Banaszak, R.. 1991. Chemical control of Megastigmus spermotrophus (Hymenoptera: Torymidae), a seed pest of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii F.). Folia Forestalia Polonica A 22: 35–44.Google Scholar
Turgeon, J.J., Roques, A., and de Groot, P.. 1994. Insect fauna of coniferous seed cones: Diversity, host plant interactions and management. Annual Review of Entomology 39: 179–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, R. J., and Sundaram, K.M.S.. 1992. First- and second-year effects of acecap implants against cone insects of black spruce. The Canadian Entomologist 124: 577–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yue, S.K. 1992. [Scots Pine Cone and Seed Insect Study.] Northeast Forestry University Press, Harbin, China. 230 pp. [In Chinese.]Google Scholar
Zhang, X.D., and Zhou, Y. J.. 1990. [Megastigmus pictus, a new seed pest in Daxinggangling Mountains.] Forest Pests and Diseases 2: 20–21. [In Chinese.]Google Scholar