Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:27:45.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS OF INSECT GROWTH REGULATORS ON THE WHITE PINE WEEVIL, PISSODES STROBI (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Arthur Retnakaran  and
Larry Smith
Arthur Retnakaran
Affiliation:
Forest Pest Management Institute, Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 5M7
Larry Smith
Affiliation:
Forest Pest Management Institute, Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 5M7
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi Peck, is a serious pest of several pines, Pinus sp. and spruces, Picea sp., and is an exceptionally difficult insect to control because its entire life, except for the adult stage, is spent inside the terminal leader of the host tree (Harman and Kulman 1968; MacAloney 1930; Rose and Lindquist 1973; Sullivan 1957). To protect the trees, the weevil must be controlled prior to oviposition; this has been thus far accomplished only by massive, repeated applications of insecticides such as methoxychlor (DeBoo and Campbell 1971, 1972). Application of such a conventional insecticide, however, may have adverse effects on beneficial insects such as pollinators, predators, and parasites as well as some of the non-insect fauna.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 114 , Issue 4 , April 1982 , pp. 381 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1982

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

DeBoo, R. F. and Campbell, L. M.. 1971. Plantation research IV. Field evaluation of insecticides for control of white-pine weevil (Pissodes strobi) in Ontario, 1971. Can. For. Serv. Inf. Rep. CC-X-24. 15 pp.Google Scholar
DeBoo, R. F. and Campbell, L. M.. 1972. Experimental aerial applications of methoxychlor for control of white-pine weevil (Pissodes strobi in Ontario in 1972. Can. For. Serv. Inf. Rep. CC-X-25. 31 pp.Google Scholar
Grosscurt, A. C. 1978. Diflubenzuron: Some aspects of its ovicidal and larvicidal mode of action and an evaluation of its practical possibilities. Pestic. Sci. 9: 373–386.Google Scholar
Harman, D. M. and Kulman, H. M.. 1968. Biology and natural control of the white-pine weevil in Virginia. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 61: 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, W., van Hes, R., Grosscurt, A. C., and Deul, D. H.. 1980. Benzoylphenylurea insecticides. Chemie der Pflanzenschutzund Schadlingsbekampfungsmittel 6: 423–470.Google Scholar
MacAloney, H. J. 1930. The white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi Peck). Its biology and control. N.Y. St. Univ. Coll. For. Bull. 3.Google Scholar
Retnakaran, A. 1973. Ovicidal effect in the white pine weevil Pissodes strobi (Coleoptera; Curculionidae), of a synthetic analogue of juvenile hormone. Can. ent. 105: 591–594.Google Scholar
Rose, A. H. and Lindquist, O. H.. 1973. Insects of eastern pines. Dep. Environ., Can. For. Serv. Publ. 1313. 126 pp.Google Scholar
Sullivan, C. R. 1957. A biological study of the white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi Peck, with special reference to the effect of physical factors on its activity and behavior. Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University. 225 pp.Google Scholar
Taft, H. M. and Hopkins, A. R.. 1975. Boll weevil: field populations controlled by sterilizing emerging overwintered females with a TH-6040 sprayable bait. J. econ. Ent. 68: 551–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar