Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
AbstractsAbstracts

Abstracts

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 1984, 10 (5) 142; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1984.10.5.142
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

WOLFE, R.D. 1983. The community vs. the gypsy. Am. Forests 89(6): 16-19, 52-53.

People, communities, and government agencies have reacted in various ways to the gypsy moth ever since it was unintentionally released in Massachusetts in 1869. Over the years, responses to the spread of the insect and the damage it causes have ranged from attempts at total eradication to no action at all, plus every level of activity in between. In the final analysis, the level of government action is controlled by the amount of public concern, and that, in turn, is controlled by the amount of damage that the gypsy moth causes or that people expect it to cause. As an illustration of how public concern influences local decisionmaking, we present this fictitious account of how Arborville, an imaginary small town in the Northeast, reacted to the threat. Though fictional, the story is typical and occurs annually in the heavily defoliated areas of the Northeast. Further, it illustrates the importance of a well-planned and coordinated county/state program in achieving realistic gypsy-moth-suppression objectives. Such coordinated programs are cost-effective, reduce unnecessary insecticide treatments, ensure proper timing of treatments, and minimize environmental damage.

VOLNEY, W.J.A., C.S. KOEHLER, L.E. BROWNE, L.W. BARCLAY, J.E. MILSTEAD, and V.R. LEWIS. 1983. Sampling for California oakworm on landscape oaks. California Agriculture 37(9 & 10): 8-9.

California oakworm populations periodically erupt, defoliating both deciduous and evergreen oaks over widespread areas of coastal California. Causes of oakworm population fluctuations are not well understood, but population declines have been variously attributed to natural enemies, naturally occurring diseases, starvation, and changes in genetic “quality” of larvae in the outbreak phase. Most lepidopterous larvae produce rather hard, ovoid to cylindrical fecal pellets whose appearance and shape are often quite specific to insect species, genus, or family, and whose size increases as larvae grow. It occurred to us that timely collections of larval feces on sticky cards placed beneath trees might accurately indicate oakworm activity above and facilitate control decisions. Most oakworm pellet collections in the field and laboratory followed predictable patterns, coinciding with the considerable literature and observations already accumulated on the biology of this insect in coastal California. Pending the outcome of additional field and laboratory trials already in progress, we believe the card device will become a practical, useful tool for homeowners and others in detecting and sampling oakworm larvae to decide whether, or when, treatment is needed.

  • © 1984, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 10, Issue 5
May 1984
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Abstracts
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Abstracts
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 1984, 10 (5) 142; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1984.10.5.142

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Abstracts
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 1984, 10 (5) 142; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1984.10.5.142
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Abstracts
  • Abstracts
  • Abstracts
Show more Abstracts

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire