Preventing Establishment of the Gypsy Moth in Kentucky
6
150 American Entomologist • Fall 2008 S ince its introduction from France in 1869, the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar L., has be- come one of the most destructive forest pests in eastern North America (USDA Forest Service 1981, Drooz 1985, USDA 1995). Lacking natural co-evolved population regulators, North American gypsy moths are prone to population eruptions that lead to extensive defoliation in highly susceptible, oak-dominated forests. Immediately following its escape from a captive population in Medford, MA (Liebhold et al. 1989), sporadic defoliation was evident, and within a few years, this species became problematic in eastern Massachusetts. Over the next 130 years, populations radiated from the point of introduction to become established in many northeast, mid-Atlantic, and north-central states (Lovett et al. 2006). Currently, the gypsy moth’s range extends from Maine to North Carolina and west to Wisconsin (Tobin et al. 2004, Johnson et al. 2006). In spite of intermittent introductions, gypsy moth populations have not yet become established in Kentucky; however, they are established in the adjoining states of Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana (APHIS 2003, Lovett et al. 2006). High fecundity, eruptive populations, and extreme polyphagy give the gypsy moth its status as one of the most ecologically and economically significant North American forest pests (Drooz 1985, Elkinton and Liebhold 1990). More than 500 trees and shrubs can serve as hosts, with oaks (Quercus spp.) preferred (Liebhold et al. 1995). Apple, sweetgum, basswood, gray and white birch, poplar, willow, and hawthorn are also favored trees for all instars, whereas only older larvae feed on hemlock, pines, and spruce (Elkinton 1982, Mc- Manus et al. 1989, Douce et al. 1994, Liebhold et al. 1995, APHIS 2003). Since 1924, more than 32.8 million forested ha have been defoliated, and since 1970, more than 4.9 million ha have been treated to suppress gypsy moth populations (USDA 1995). In 1981, a record 5.2 million ha were defoliated (APHIS 2003). An area of West Virginia directly east of Kentucky had record defoliations from 2000 to 2002 total- ing more than 428,000 ha (Haynes et al. 2005). Average sawtimber and pulpwood volume losses in West Virginia were ~20% each, with oaks making up 94.2% of the volume lost (Haynes et al. 2005). The estimated value for timber killed on the 22,906 ha that were heavily defoliated twice in West Vir- ginia during this 3-yr period was more than $18 million (Haynes et al. 2005). The economic impacts associated with ecological effects of gypsy moth defoliation are less tangible, but include losses in revenue associated with recreation, tourism, hunt- ing, and angling. In the United States, ~126 million forested ha are at risk of defoliation by gypsy moth, in addition to thousands of hectares of urban and rural forested areas (Powell et al. 1993). Adult females are flightless, and wind-borne dispersal of newly hatched larvae results in an- nual range expansions of 2–3 km (Liebhold et al. 1992). However, from 1960 to 1990, populations demonstrated an alarming spread rate averaging 150 American Entomologist • 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 Background photos courtesy Tom Coleman, USFS. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ae/article/54/3/150/2474874 by guest on 01 April 2022
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
1 -
download
0
Transcript of Preventing Establishment of the Gypsy Moth in Kentucky
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
