Search

We tested 3-methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one (MCH) and novel semiochemicals as potential spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) repellents over multiple years in Utah and Colorado trapping bioassays. MCH is a known spruce beetle repellent and our testing revealed Acer kairomone blend (AKB) and isophorone plus sulcatone as repellents. We subsequently tested these semiochemicals for area and single tree protection to prevent spruce beetle attacks at locations in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Alaska. Individual tree protection trials found MCH-AKB provided significant protection against spruce beetle attacks in the southern Rocky Mountains but not in Alaska. Adding sulcatone or doubling MCH-AKB pouches did not further enhance protection. A degree of protection was extended to spruce at least 10 m distant from the repellents, including in Alaska. Tree diameter was not a significant covariate among treated trees but was positively correlated with the probability of infestation for surrounding spruce. In area protection trials, spruce in control plots were 2.4 times more likely to be in a higher severity attack class compared with spruce in plots treated with MCH-AKB pouches deployed at 30 sets per hectare. Tree diameter had a significant, positive relationship to the probability of infestation. We found MCH-AKB to offer a high degree of protection against beetle attack in Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.) (Pinales: Pinaceae) (Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.) (Pinales: Pinaceae), especially for single tree protection (66% of control trees were strip- or mass-attacked compared with 6% of repellent-treated trees). AKB requires registration and labeling, however, before this economical and environmentally benign semiochemical can be used operationally., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America 2019.)

We tested lethal trap trees and repellent semiochemicals as area treatments to protect host trees from spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby) attacks. Lethal trap tree treatments ("spray treatment") combined a spruce beetle bait with carbaryl treatment of the baited spruce. Repellent treatments ("spray-repellent") combined a baited lethal trap tree within a 16-m grid of MCH (3-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one) and two novel spruce beetle repellents. After beetle flight, we surveyed all trees within 50 m of plot center, stratified by 10-m radius subplots, and compared attack rates to those from baited and unbaited control plots. Compared to the baited controls, spruce in the spray treatment had significantly reduced likelihood of a more severe attack classification (e.g., mass-attacked over strip-attacked or unsuccessful-attacked over unattacked). Because spruce in the spray treatment also had significantly heightened probability of more severe attack classification than those in the unbaited controls, however, we do not recommend lethal trap trees as a stand-alone beetle suppression strategy for epidemic beetle populations. Spruce in the spray-repellent treatment were slightly more likely to be classified as more severely attacked within 30 m of plot center compared to unbaited controls but, overall, had reduced probabilities of beetle attack over the entire 50-m radius plots. The semiochemical repellents deployed in this study were effective at reducing attacks on spruce within treated plots despite the presence of a centrally located spruce beetle bait. Further testing will be required to clarify operational protocols such as dose, elution rate, and release device spacing., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America 2016. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

We compared naturally baited trapping systems to synthetically baited funnel traps and fallen trap trees for suppressing preoutbreak spruce beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby, populations. Lures for the traps were fresh spruce (Picea spp.) bolts or bark sections, augmented by adding female spruce beetles to create secondary attraction. In 2003, we compared a naturally baited system ("bolt trap") with fallen trap trees and with synthetically baited funnel traps. Trap performance was evaluated by comparing total beetle captures and spillover of attacks into nearby host trees. Overall, the trap systems did not significantly differ in spruce beetle captures, although bolt traps caught 6 to 7 times more beetles than funnel traps during the first 4 wk of testing. Funnel traps with synthetic lures had significantly more spillover than either trap trees or bolt traps. The study was repeated in 2004 with modifications including an enhanced blend synthetic lure. Again, trap captures were generally similar among naturally and synthetically baited traps, but naturally baited traps had significantly less spillover. Although relatively labor-intensive, the bolt trap could be used to suppress preoutbreak beetle populations, especially when spillover is undesirable. Our work provides additional avenues for management of spruce beetles and suggests that currently used synthetic lures can be improved.