150 AmericanEntomologist•Fall 2008

Since its introduction from France in 1869,thegypsymoth,Lymantria dispar L.,hasbe-comeoneofthemostdestructiveforestpests

in easternNorthAmerica (USDAForest Service1981,Drooz1985,USDA1995).Lackingnaturalco-evolvedpopulationregulators,NorthAmericangypsymothsarepronetopopulationeruptionsthatleadtoextensivedefoliationinhighlysusceptible,oak-dominatedforests.ImmediatelyfollowingitsescapefromacaptivepopulationinMedford,MA(Liebhold et al. 1989), sporadic defoliationwasevident,andwithinafewyears,thisspeciesbecameproblematic in eastern Massachusetts. Over thenext130years,populationsradiatedfromthepointof introduction to become established in manynortheast,mid-Atlantic, andnorth-central states(Lovettetal.2006).Currently,thegypsymoth’srangeextendsfromMainetoNorthCarolinaandwesttoWisconsin(Tobinetal.2004,Johnsonetal.2006).Inspiteofintermittentintroductions,gypsymothpopulationshavenotyetbecomeestablishedinKentucky;however,theyareestablishedintheadjoiningstatesofVirginia,WestVirginia,Ohio,andIndiana(APHIS2003,Lovettetal.2006).

High fecundity, eruptive populations, andextremepolyphagygivethegypsymothitsstatusasoneofthemostecologicallyandeconomicallysignificant North American forest pests (Drooz1985,Elkinton andLiebhold1990).More than500treesandshrubscanserveashosts,withoaks(Quercus spp.)preferred (Liebhold et al. 1995).Apple,sweetgum,basswood,grayandwhitebirch,

poplar,willow,andhawthornarealsofavoredtreesforallinstars,whereasonlyolderlarvaefeedonhemlock,pines,andspruce(Elkinton1982,Mc-Manusetal.1989,Douceetal.1994,Liebholdetal.1995,APHIS2003).

Since1924,morethan32.8millionforestedhahavebeendefoliated,andsince1970,morethan4.9millionhahavebeentreatedtosuppressgypsymothpopulations(USDA1995).In1981,arecord5.2millionhaweredefoliated(APHIS2003).Anarea of West Virginia directly east of Kentuckyhadrecorddefoliationsfrom2000to2002total-ingmorethan428,000ha(Haynesetal.2005).AveragesawtimberandpulpwoodvolumelossesinWestVirginiawere~20%each,withoaksmakingup94.2%ofthevolumelost(Haynesetal.2005).Theestimatedvaluefortimberkilledonthe22,906hathatwereheavilydefoliatedtwiceinWestVir-giniaduringthis3-yrperiodwasmorethan$18million(Haynesetal.2005).Theeconomicimpactsassociatedwithecological effectsofgypsymothdefoliationarelesstangible,butincludelossesinrevenueassociatedwithrecreation,tourism,hunt-ing,andangling.IntheUnitedStates,~126millionforestedhaareatriskofdefoliationbygypsymoth,inadditiontothousandsofhectaresofurbanandruralforestedareas(Powelletal.1993).

Adult females are flightless, and wind-bornedispersal of newly hatched larvae results in an-nualrangeexpansionsof2–3km(Liebholdetal.1992).However,from1960to1990,populationsdemonstratedanalarmingspreadrateaveraging

150 AmericanEntomologist•Summer 2008

A Tale of Success: Preventing Establishment of the Gypsy Moth in Kentucky

A Tale of Success: Preventing Establishment of the Gypsy Moth in Kentucky

Janet R. Lensing, Lynne K. Rieske, Carl W. Harper, Joseph T. Collins, and John J. Obrycki

BackgroundphotoscourtesyTomColeman,USFS.

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/ae/article/54/3/150/2474874 by guest on 01 April 2022

151AmericanEntomologist•Volume 54, Number 3

21kmperyear(Sharovetal.2002)duetohuman-facilitated movement. Anthropogenic movementofimmobileeggmasses,pupae,andrelativelyim-mobileolderlarvaeoccursonvehicles,equipment,tools, and outdoor household articles (ElkintonandLiebhold1990,Liebholdetal.1992).Thus,Kentuckyandotheruninfestedstatesarethreatenedby anthropogenic spread, as well as the naturalspreadofexpandingpopulations.

Gypsy Moth Suppression TacticsSeveral tactics exist to suppress gypsy moth,

includingapplicationsofdiflubenzuron(Dimilin),Bacillus thuringiensisvar. kurstaki(Btk)(marketedasDipel,Foray,andThuricide),andanucleopoly-hedrosis virus (marketed as Gypchek) (Elkinton1982,USDA1995,APHIS2003).Diflubenzuronisaninsectgrowthregulatorthatdisruptsthefor-mationofnewcuticleduringmolting.Althoughit is extremely effective in causing gypsy mothmortality, it also negatively affects a variety ofotherchitinousarthropods.Nontargeteffectsareaconcern,particularlyinaquatichabitats(UDSA1995).Btkisanaturallyoccurringlepidopteran-specific,soil-bornebacteriumthatproducesatoxinthat,wheningested,killscaterpillars.Itiseffectiveagainstyounggypsymoth larvae,butsuccessiveapplicationsareusuallyneeded.Althoughithasnomammaliantoxicity,nontargetlepidopteransareaconcern(Elkinton1982,USDA1995,StrazanacandButler2005).Nucleopolyhedrosisvirus(NPV)isalsoanaturallyoccurringpathogenthatcausescellsepticemia,leadingtothecollapseofoutbreak-ing gypsy moth populations. It is nontoxic tovertebratesandmostotherinsects(Elkinton1982,APHIS2003,StrazanacandButler2005).Finally,forhighly localizedgypsymothpopulations, in-festedtreescanbebandedwithinsecticide-impreg-natedburlaptotraplargecaterpillarswhentheytraveldownthetreetrunktoseekshelterduringtheday(Elkinton1982),effectivelyeliminatingthefeedingcaterpillars.

Otheroptionsformanaginggypsymothpopula-tionsuseasyntheticfemalesexpheromone(dis-parlure).Pheromoneflakes(tinypiecesofplasticimpregnated with synthetic pheromone) can bebroadcastaeriallyoveraninfestation.Thistech-niqueworkswell fordisruptingmating inareaswith lowgypsymothpopulations (USDA1995,APHIS2003,Sadof2004).Masstrappingusesalargenumberofpheromone-baitedtrapsdeployedin a well-defined area to trap males intensively(USDA 1995, APHIS 2003). These pheromone-baitedtrapsareusedextensivelyinKentuckyandotherstatesandprovidethebasisforgypsymothmonitoringprograms.

Severalfederal,state,andlocalagencieshaveworkedcooperativelytopreventtheintroductionandspreadof thegypsymoth inKentucky.TheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,AnimalandPlantHealth Inspection Service, Plant Protection andQuarantine(USDA–APHIS–PPQ)hasacoopera-tiveagreementwiththeDepartmentofEntomologyat the University of Kentucky for management

ofinfestationsandgypsymothmonitoringusingpheromone traps. APHIS and the University ofKentucky have also collaborated with the Ken-tuckyDivisionofForestryintrappingeffortsandstatesurveys.FederalfundingforthegypsymothmonitoringprograminKentuckyhasrangedfrom$10,000intheearly1980stomorethan$100,000inrecentyears(M.Madryga,USDA–APHIS,per-sonalcommunication).

In1992,a“SlowtheSpread”(STS)pilotpro-gramwas initiatedby theUSDAForest Service,APHIS,theNationalParkService,andeightstateanduniversitycooperators.Thegoalwastoslowthenaturalrateofspreadofgypsymothpopula-tionsinacost-effectiveandenvironmentallysoundmanner.Afull-scaleprogramwasimplementedin2000 along a transition zone, a 1,900-km zonestretching fromNorthCarolina through theup-perpeninsulaofMichigan,which isadjacent tothegenerallyinfestedzone(Leuschneretal.1996,APHIS2003).Kentuckyisoneof10statesthatbe-ganparticipatinginthisprogramin2000becausethetransitionzoneincludesthenortheasternpartofthestate(STS2006;http://www.gmsts.org/op-erations/).STSusesthreetechniques:establishingpheromone traps on predetermined grids, sup-pressinginfestations,andimplementingregulatoryactivitiestopreventinterstatemovementofhostmaterialsandraisepublicawareness(APHIS2003).Trappinganderadicationeffortsareconcentratedinthetransitionzonetoslowtherateatwhichanareabecomespartofthegenerally infestedzone(Leuschneretal.1996).

The benefits of gypsy moth trapping anderadication efforts are substantial. Suppressingpopulationpeaksalongthetransitionzoneslowstheinvasionofmothsintouninfestedareas(John-sonetal.2006). STShas reduced the spreadofgypsymothby more than70%,preventing theestablishment of gypsy moth populations on anadditional estimated 12 million ha in 11 states(USDA2005,STS2006).Anotherestimateshowsthat STS will prevent infestation of more than60millionhaoverthenext20years(STS2006).Modelsofgypsymothspreadoverthenext20yearswiththeSTSprograminplacepredictinfestationsbarely extending into Kentucky’s northeasterncorner,whereasa20-yearprojectionwithoutSTSpredictsinfestationsthroughoutmostofthestate(STS2006).AlthoughtheSTSprogramiscostly,analyses have shown that the economic benefitsoutweighthecostsoftheprogram(Leuschneretal.1996)withabenefit-to-costratioofmorethan4to1(Sharovetal.1998,STS2006).Althougheconomicprojections focuson theSTSprograminparticular, the statewide trappingprogram inKentuckysupportedbyUSDA–APHIS–PPQisalsoessential because, in addition to natural spread,gypsymothcanbetransportedanthropogenically(ElkintonandLiebhold1990,Liebholdetal.1992)andmaybecomeestablishedalmostanywhereinthestate.

TheSTSandtheUSDA–APHIS–PPQtrappingprograms, in cooperationwith theUniversityof

A Tale of Success: Preventing Establishment of the Gypsy Moth in Kentucky Other options for

managing gypsy moth populations use a

synthetic female sex pheromone

(disparlure). Pheromone flakes (tiny pieces of

plastic impregnated with synthetic pheromone)

can be broadcast aerially over an infestation.

AmericanEntomologist•Volume 54, Number 3 151

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/ae/article/54/3/150/2474874 by guest on 01 April 2022

152 AmericanEntomologist•Fall 2008

KentuckyDepartmentofEntomology,arecriticaltools for keeping gypsy moth out of Kentucky.Inthisreport,wesummarizetheresultsofgypsymothtrappinganderadicationeffortsinthestateofKentuckyfrom1983to2007.

Gypsy Moth Trapping in KentuckyTriangular“delta”stylepheromonetrapsbaited

withdisparlureareusedinKentuckyindetectionsurveystolocateisolatedgypsymothinfestations.Thedetectionprogramuses1trap/mi2(a1×1grid,equivalentto1trap/2–3km2)inhigh-riskareas,and1trap/4mi2(a1×4grid;1trap/10km2)forlow-riskareas.Specialsitesareconsideredparticu-larlyhigh-riskforimportinggypsymoth,andtypi-callyhave6–12traps/mi2(2–5traps/km2).Whenalargenumberofmothsarecaughtinaparticularsite,adelimitingsurvey,inwhichmultipletrapsaresetinthatlocation,isconductedthefollowingyeartodeterminewhetheranactivebreedinginfestationispresentand,ifso,toassessitssizeandextent(Douceetal.1994).

Detection surveys have occurred annually inKentuckysince1983.ThenortheasternandeasterncountieswereincorporatedintotheSTSprogramin2000,whichledtoabout900additionaldetectiontrapsayear(Table1).Delimitingsurveysanderadi-cationprogramshavebeenimplementedasdeemed

necessarywhenmultiplecapturesoccurred.

Trapping ResultsInthe25yearsfrom1983through2007,anav-

erageof6,483(range1,868–10,498)pheromone-baited delta traps were set annually throughoutthestate,capturing1,775males in75Kentuckycounties. Three active gypsy moth populationswereeradicatedduringthoseyears.

The lowest numberofmales capturedwas6in1983andagainin1990;thehighestwas506in1999(Fig.1;Tables1and2).Thenumberofmothscapturedin1999wasbyfarthegreatest.Unusualweatherpatternsin1999,inwhichstormsand wind tended to enter Kentucky from thenortheastinsteadoffromthewest,maybealikelyexplanation for the increase incapturesbecausesuchweather couldhave carriedmoths into thestate (H. Hempfling, USDA–APHIS, and CWH,personalcommunication).

From1983to1989,127mothswerecapturedin24counties;from1990to1999,806mothswerecapturedin55counties;andfrom2000to2007,842mothswerecapturedin57counties(Tables1and2).Forthetotaltrappingperiod(1983–2007),17%ofthepositivecounties(13of75)hadonly1mothcaptured, 12%(9counties)had25mothsormorecapturedin1yr,andtheremaining71% (53counties)hadmothcapturesbetweenthesetwoextremes (Fig.2).Manyof thepositivecountiesborderinfestationsintheadjacentstatesofIndiana,Ohio,WestVirginia,andVirginia.

Sevenofthe10mostpopulatedKentuckycoun-tieswerepositiveatsomepointduringthetrappingprogram,suggestingthatthemostpopulatedareasareatriskforgypsymothestablishment.Manyofthe positive counties contain significant naturalareasthatcouldbeseriouslyaffectedbygypsymothdefoliation.Twenty-eightofthepositivecountiescontainastatepark,18containastatenaturepre-serve,and3containastateforest.TheCumberlandGapNationalHistoricalParkandRedRiverGorgeNationalGeologicalAreaarelocatedincountiesthathavehadgypsymothcaptures.

Eradication in Jefferson County: 1985–1988In1984,sixmaleswerecapturedatonetrapsite

inJeffersonCounty,whichincludestheLouisvillemetropolitan area (Fig. 3). A delimiting surveywas conducted in 1985 to determine whether abreedingpopulationwaspresent.A23.3km2(9mi2)gridwasoutlinedaroundtheactivetrapsite.Withinthegrid,thecentralareaof2.6km2(1mi2)contained36traps,andthesurrounding20.7km2(8 mi2) contained 200 traps. Twenty-nine maleswerecapturedinthisdelimitingsurvey,allwithinthecenter2.6km2area.

In response to the relatively largenumberofmoths detected, a mass trapping program using2,040trapswasimplementedthefollowingyear(1986)withinthesame23.3km2grid.Thecenter2.6km2areacontained1,880traps(~7traps/ha).Thesurrounding20.7km2weresampledat~14traps/km2.Themasstrappingyielded11single-cap-

Table 1. Summary of gypsy moth trapping program results (USDA–APHIS–PPQ and STS) in Kentucky, 1983–2007.

Year

No.USDATraps

No.STS

Traps

MothsCaptured(USDA)

MothsCaptured

(STS)

TotalMoths

Captured

PositiveCounties

1983 7,023 n/a 6 n/a 6 41984 4,844 n/a 14 n/a 14 61985 1,868 n/a 36 n/a 36 61986 5,452 n/a 15 n/a 15 41987 6,140 n/a 7 n/a 7 71988 4,301 n/a 8 n/a 8 31989 6,527 n/a 41 n/a 41 131990 6,779 n/a 6 n/a 6 41991 5,318 n/a 17 n/a 17 81992 5,250 n/a 16 n/a 16 81993 5,108 n/a 37 n/a 37 81994 3,433 n/a 46 n/a 46 81995 6,330 n/a 20 n/a 20 41996 6,224 n/a 24 n/a 24 81997 6,566 n/a 92 n/a 92 221998 6,593 n/a 42 n/a 42 191999 7,361 n/a 506 n/a 506 412000 5,852 792 139 73 212 432001 7,829 906 81 38 119 262002 7,558 809 64 1 65 142003 9,704 794 16 6 22 92004 8,728 782 34 2 36 92005 7,986 844 40 6 46 122006 6,755 979 116 14 130 202007 5,665 965 171 41 212 34Total 155,194 6,871 1,594 181 1,775 75a

STSdatafrom1983to1999arenotavailable(n/a)becausetheSTSprogramdidnotstartuntil2000.USDAnumbersincludedetectionsurveys,delimitingsurveys,andmasstrapping.aAtotalof75countieswerepositiveforgypsymothbecausemanywerepositiveinmorethanoneyear.

Many of the positive counties contain significant natural

areas that could be seriously affected

by gypsy moth defoliation.

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/ae/article/54/3/150/2474874 by guest on 01 April 2022

153AmericanEntomologist•Volume 54, Number 3

turemales.Inaddition,350treeswerebandedwithburlaptotraplargecaterpillars.Bandedtreeswerecheckeddailyformediumtolargelarvae(>3rdin-stars);11werecaught.Becausetwolifestageswerefound,thisareaofJeffersonCountywasdeclaredtohaveanactivegypsymothinfestation.

MasstrappinginJeffersonCountycontinuedin1987,with1,856trapsinthesame23.3km2grid.Thecenter2.6km2areacontained1,760traps,andthesurrounding20.7km2contained96traps(~5traps/km2). Ninetytreeswerebandedwithburlap.Fortunately, no males were caught in the traps,andtheburlapbandswereallnegativeforgypsymothcaterpillars.

In1988, the JeffersonCountymass trappingwasreducedto236trapsoverthe23.3km2.Nogypsymothswerecapturedforthesecondconsecu-tiveyear; therefore, the infestationwasdeclarederadicatedbystateandfederalofficials.In1989,adifferentgridof23.3km2wasestablishedand236trapswereset.Again,nomaleswerecaptured.

Eradication in Carroll County: 1994In 1992 and 1993, an isolated gypsy moth

infestationwasdiscoveredinCarrollCounty(Fig.3)throughpheromonetrapping.Ninemaleswererecovered in1992, and in1993,11maleswererecoveredfromsixtraps.Afalleggmasssurveyconductedin1993foundoneeggmassonabrokentreelimblocatedonprivateland(H.Hempfling,personalcommunication).InlateAprilandearlyMay 1994, two aerial applications of Gypchekwere applied at label rates to more than 20 hausingafixed-wingaircraft.Followingtheapplica-tion,40pheromonetrapsweresetinthisareaandchecked everyotherday throughout the season.Allwerenegativeformales.Inaddition,50treesin the treatment area were burlap banded andchecked17timesfromMay16toJune9,1994.Allbandswerenegativeforcaterpillars.In1995,furtherpheromonetrappingyieldednomales.Thisinfestationwasofficiallydeclarederadicatedafterthe1995trappingseason.

Eradication in Fleming County: 1994–1999FlemingCounty(Fig.3)hadalargenumberof

gypsymothcapturesinthe1993detectionsurvey.

One trap captured 10 males, and another trapcapturedeightmales.Consequently,in1994,72trapswere set inadelimiting survey.Thirty-fivemales were captured in eight traps. Delimitingsurveys with intensive trapping were used from1995 to 1999 to eliminate moths in this area.Fourteenmaleswerecapturedin1995.In1996,39delimitingtrapswereset,andsevenmaleswere

Fig. 1. Total num-bers of gypsy moths captured per year from 1983 to 2007.

Table 2. Gypsy moth captures by region of Kentucky 1983-2007 (USDA–APHIS–PPQ and STS).

Region Year(NumberofMothsCaptured)

Northeasterna 1984(1),1986(1),1987(1),1988(2),1989(16),1992(3),1993(20),1994(35),1995(14),1996(11),1997(51),1998(6),1999(284),2000(102),2001(45),2002(1),2003(6),2004(2),2005(7),2006(14),2007(50)

Easternb 1989(2),1990(2),1997(5),1999(22),2000(20),2001(16),2002(1),2003(3),2005(1),2006(1),2007(85)

KentuckyRiverc 1983(1),1998(2),1999(8),2000(9),2001(2),2002(1)

Southeasternd 1989(1),1991(1),1993(2),1996(1),1997(1),2000(2),2001(4),2002(41),2004(1)

Bluegrasse 1983(2),1984(5),1985(6),1986(2),1987(5),1989(13),1990(2),1991(11),1992(11),1993(14),1994(10),1995(1),1996(12),1997(31),1998(30),1999(172),2000(77),2001(51),2002(20),2003(11),2004(33),2005(37),2006(113),2007(74)

SouthCentralf 1988(1),1998(1),1999(3),2005(1),2006(1),2007(2)

Centralg 1983(3),1984(8),1985(30),1986(12),1987(1),1988(5),1989(9),1990(1),1991(5),1992(2),1993(1),1994(1),1995(5),1997(4),1998(3),1999(17),2000(2),2001(1),2002(1),2003(1),2006(1),2007(1)

GreenRiver 0mothscaptured

Westernh 1990(1),2003(1)

Thenumberofmothscapturedisshowninparenthesesaftertheyear.ThenineregionsarethedistrictsoftheKentuckyDivisionofForestry(Fig.3andhttp://www.forestry.ky.gov).Thefootnoteslistthecountiesineachregionwithpositivemothcaptures.Forlistsofmothdatabycounty,visitwww.KYStateEnt.org.

aBath,Boyd,Carter,Clark,Elliott,Fleming,Greenup,Lewis,Mason,Menifee,Montgomery,Morgan,Nicholas,Robertson,RowanbFloyd,Johnson,Lawrence,Magoffin,Martin,PikecBreathitt,Estill,Lee,Letcher,Perry,WolfedBell,Harlan,Jackson,Knox,Laurel,Leslie,Rockcastle,WhitleyeAnderson,Boone,Bourbon,Bracken,Campbell,Carroll,Fayette,Franklin,Gallatin,Garrard,Grant,Harrison,Henry,Jessamine,Kenton,Madison,Oldham,Owen,Pendleton,Scott,Shelby,Trimble,WoodfordfAdair,Boyle,Lincoln,Pulaski,Russell,Taylor,WaynegBarren,Bullitt,Edmonson,Hardin,Jefferson,Meade,Nelson,Spencerh:LyonMarshall

212 212

130

463622

65119

506

42

92

24204637

161767 8

4115

36146

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Year

No.

Mot

hs C

aptu

red

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/ae/article/54/3/150/2474874 by guest on 01 April 2022

154 AmericanEntomologist•Fall 2008

captured.Burlapbandingof treesand eggmasssurveysconductedin1995and1996werenega-tive for caterpillars and eggs (JTC, unpublisheddata). In1997, thedelimiting survey resulted inone trapped male, and in 1998 and 1999, thedelimitingsurveyyieldednomales.Theinfestationwasofficiallydeclarederadicatedafter the1999trappingseason.

ConclusionsThe cooperative efforts of state and federal

agencies,includingtheUniversityofKentuckyDe-partmentofEntomologyandUSDA–APHIS–PPQ,havepreventedtheestablishmentofthegypsymothinthestateofKentucky.Thelong-termtrappingprogram has provided information to identifyareas at high risk for gypsymoth establishment(i.e.,countieswithmothcaptureseveryyearand/or

largenumbersofmothscaptured).Thisprogramhas been critical in the early detection of gypsymothpopulationsthathadthepotentialtobecomeestablishedbreedingpopulations.Eradicationef-forts,whichhaveincludedmasstrapping,burlapbandingoftrees,andGypchekapplication,haveallcontributedtoeliminatingthesepopulations.Inaddition,thegypsymothsurveyshavefacilitatedcommunication and cooperation among manyfederal,state,andlocalagencies.ContinuationofstatedetectionsurveysandparticipationinSlowtheSpreadsurveysareintegralinpreventinggypsymothestablishmentinKentucky.

AcknowledgmentsMichael Madryga and Harold Hempfling of

USDA–APHISandPatriciaDillonfromtheUni-versityofKentuckyDepartmentofEntomology

Fig. 3. The nine outlined and labeled regions are the districts of the Kentucky Division of Forestry (Table 2; http://www.forestry.ky.gov). The number in parentheses is the total number of moths captured in the region from 1983 to 2007. Jefferson County: site of mass trap-ping eradication efforts from 1986 to 1988. Carroll County: site of Gypchek application eradication effort in 1994. Fleming County: site of intensive delimiting surveys from 1994 to 1999.

Fig. 2. Kentucky counties with gypsy moth captures: 1983–2007. Green counties had only one moth captured during the 25 yr of trapping. Red counties had >25 moths captured in 1 yr of trapping, and yellow counties had captures between these extremes.

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/ae/article/54/3/150/2474874 by guest on 01 April 2022

155AmericanEntomologist•Volume 54, Number 3

providedmuchof thegypsymothdata,aswellastrapnumbersanddetailsoftheeradicationef-forts.DeniseDoddprovideddatafromtheSlowtheSpread(STS)project.Thisispublication08-08-029 oftheKentuckyAgriculturalExperimentStation.

References CitedAPHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine. April 2003.

Gypsy moth: Slow the spread program. Factsheet.http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_no-tice/fs_phgmprogress.html

Douce, G. K., R. D. Hamilton, and G. L. Clement. 1994.1992GypsymothprogramsintheSoutheast.J.En-tomol.Sci.29:381–397.

Drooz, A. T.1985.Insectsofeasternforests.USDAForestServiceTechnicalPublication,Washington,DC.

Elkinton, J. S. 1982.ThebiologyandmanagementofthegypsymothinMassachusetts.Mass.Agric.Exp.Stn.Publication677.

Elkinton, J. S. and A. M. Liebhold. 1990. Populationdynamicsofgypsymoth inNorthAmerica.Annu.Rev.Entomol.35:571–596.

Haynes, S. C., Q. Sayers, S. McCauley, J. Judy, L. Car-nell, J. Hays, A. Onken, and J. Brooks. 2005.WestVirginiagypsymothdamageassessmentreport2005.WestVirginiaDepartmentofAgriculture.http://www.wvforestry.com

Johnson, D. M., A. M. Liebhold, P. C. Tobin, and O. N. Bjornstad. 2006.Alleeeffectsandpulsedinvasionbythegypsymoth.Nature444:361–363.

Leuschner, W. A., J. A. Young, S. A. Waldon, and F. W. Ravlin. 1996.Potentialbenefitsofslowingthegypsymoth’sspread.South.J.Appl.For.20:65–73.

Liebhold, A. M., V. Mastro, and P. W. Schaefer. 1989.LearningfromthelegacyofLeopoldTrouvelot.Bull.Entomol.Soc.Am.35:20–21.

Liebhold, A. M., J. A. Halverson, and G. A. Elmes. 1992. GypsymothinvasioninNorthAmerica:aquantitativeanalysis.J.Biogeogr.19:513–520.

Liebhold, A. M., K. W. Gottschalk, R.-M. Muzika, M. E. Montgomery, R. Young, K. O’Day, and B. Kelley. 1995.SuitabilityofNorthAmericantreespeciestothegypsymoth:Asummaryoffieldandlaboratorytests.USDAForestServiceNortheasternForestExp.Stn.Gen.Tech.Rep.NE-211.

Lovett, G. M., C. D. Canham, M. A. Arthur, K. C. Weathers, and R. D. Fitzhugh. 2006.Forestecosystemresponses to exoticpests andpathogens in easternNorthAmerica.Bioscience56:395–405.

McManus, M., N. Schneeberger, R. Reardon, and G. Mason. 1989. Gypsy moth. U.S. Department ofAgriculture,ForestService,Washington,DC.ForestInsectDis.Leafl.162.

Powell, D. S., J. L. Faulkner, D. R. Darr, Z. Zhu, and D. W. MacCleery. 1993. Forest resources of theUnitedStates,1992.U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,Forest Service,RockyMountainForest andRangeExperiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech.Rep.RM-234.

Sadof, C. 2004. Gypsy moth in Indiana: Q&A aboutpheromonesandcontrollinggypsymoth.PurdueUni-versityCooperativeExtensionpublicationGM-5.

Sharov, A. A., A. M. Liebhold, and E. A. Roberts. 1998.

Optimizingtheuseofbarrierzonestoslowthespreadofgypsymoth(Lepidoptera:Lymantriidae)inNorthAmerica.J.Econ.Entomol.91:165–174.

Sharov, A. A., D. Leonard, A. M. Liebhold, E. A. Rob-erts, and W. Dickerson. 2002. “Slow the Spread”:A national program to contain the gypsy moth. J.Forest.100:30–35.

Strazanac, J. S., and L. B. Butler [Eds.]. 2005.Long-termevaluation of the effects of Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki,gypsymothnucleopolyhedrosisvirusproductGypchek,andEntomophaga maimaigaonnontargetorganismsinbroadleaf-pineforestsinthecentralAp-palachians.FHTET-2004-14.ForestHealthTechnol-ogyEnterpriseTeam,Morgantown,WV.

STS (Slowing the Spread). 2006.TheSTSprogram:slow-ing the spreadof gypsymoth toprotectAmerica’shardwood forests. http://www.gmsts.org/docs/STS_Brief_Final.pdf.htm.

Tobin, P.C., A. A. Sharov, A. A. Liebhold, D. S. Leonard, E. A. Roberts, and M. R. Learn. 2004.Managementof the gypsy moth through a decision algorithmunder the Slow the Spread project. Am. Entomol.50:200–209.

USDA. 1995.Gypsymothmanagement in theUnitedStates:Acooperativeapproach.FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement.Washington,DC.

USDA. 2005.STSannualreport:2005accomplishmentsinslowingthespreadofthegypsymoth.U.S.Depart-mentofAgriculture,ForestService.http://www.gmsts.org/docs/Accomplishments_2005.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. 1981.Thegypsymoth:Researchtoward integrated pest management. Science andEducationAgencyTechnol.Bull.1584.

Janet R. Lensing,withtheOfficeoftheStateEnto-mologist,isKentucky’sStateSurveyCoordinatorandworkswiththeUSDAonexoticpestsurveys.Lynne K. RieskeisaprofessorintheDepartmentofEntomologyattheUniversityofKentucky.Herresearchfocusesoninsect-associateddisturbancesand management in forest ecosystems. Carl W. Harper and Joseph T. Collins are SeniorNurseryInspectorsintheOfficeoftheStateEntomologistwhohaveextensiveexperiencewiththegypsymothprograminKentucky.John J. ObryckiistheStateEntomologistandtheChairoftheDepartmentofEntomologyattheUniversityofKentucky. 7

Continue your membership with ESA

Renew for 2008 today!

vidit us at:

https://www.entsoc.org/forms/ renew.aspx

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/ae/article/54/3/150/2474874 by guest on 01 April 2022