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
Research ArticleArticles

Systemic Treatment with Acephate for Gypsy Moth Management: Population Suppression and Wound Response

R.C. Reardon and R.E. Webb
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) July 1990, 16 (7) 174-178; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1990.041
R.C. Reardon
Forest Pest Management, USDA Forest Service, 180 Can field Street, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
R.E. Webb
Forest Pest Management, USDA Forest Service, 180 Can field Street, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Densities of gypsy moth egg masses (geometric mean of egg masses + 1) on oak trees treated in 1984, 1985, or in both years with ACECAPs or Inject-A-Cide 0 units, Buchanan State Forest, Pennsylvania.

    Gypsy moth egg masses per tree
    TreatmentNPre-1984Post-1984Post-1985
    1A (Treated in 1984)1
    ACECAP1426.2abc12.9bcd7.6d
    Mauget528.5ab11 .Obcd10.2cd
    Control822.3abc51.9a25.1 abc
    1B (Treated in 1984 and in 1985)1
    ACECAP1436.labI5.7bcd5.7d
    Mauget516.8abcd8.2cd1,6e
    Control822.3abc51.9a25.1 abc
    1C (Treated in 1985)1
    ACECAP665.2ab10.2c
    Mauget592.3a12.2c
    Control85l.9ab25.!bc
    • ↵1 Means with the same letter in the same column or in the same row are not significant (P = .05, comparison-wise error rate; LSD test).

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Gypsy moth defolation as percent of oaks treated in 1984, 1985, or in both years with ACECAPS or Inject-A-Cide 0 units, Buchanan StateForest, Pennsylvania.

    Percent of trees in defoliation class1
    TreatmentN12 Post-1984312 Post-19853
    1A (Treated in 1984)
    ACECAP143565010000
    Mauget54060010000
    Control812761287130
    1B (Treated in 1984 and 1985)
    ACECAP145050010000
    Mauget56040010000
    Control812761287130
    1C (Treated in 1985)
    ACECAP610000
    Mauget510000
    Control887130
    • ↵1/ Class 1 trees had 0-20% defoliation, Class 2 trees had 21-50% defoliation, Class 3 trees had 51-100% defoliation.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Extent of wounding response on oaks treated once or treated twice with ACECAPS and Inject-A-Cide 0 Units, Buchanan State Forest, Pennsylvania and Elk Neck State Forest, Maryland.

    Treatmentno.Tree speciesTotal no. implant/inject sitesWound response (Percent of Implant/Inject) sites
    Classes*
    123
    closedopenclosedopenclosedopen
    Elk Neck State Forest
    Treated ACECAPs 19835Q. rubra5178104800
    5Q. alba67109513000
    Twice-treated ACECAPs (1983 and 1984)5Q. rubra5182122400
    5Q. alba672515392100
    Treated ACECAPs 198415Q. rubra2148066700
    15Q. alba185329233600
    Buchanan State Forest
    Treated ACECAPs (1984 or 1985)13Q. alba156321949000
    7Q. rubra7010000000
    Twice-treated ACECAPs (1984 and 1985)10Q. alba114183194200
    4Q. rubra3876024000
    Treated Inject-A-Cide 0 (1984 or 1985)10Q. alba1061010500300
    Twice-treated Inject-A-Cide 0 (1 984 and 1985)2Q. rubra2250050000
    3Q. alba2900340660
    • ↵* Classes of shakes 1 = less than 10 cm, 2 = 10 cm-1 m and 3 ≈ more than 1M

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 16, Issue 7
July 1990
  • 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.
Systemic Treatment with Acephate for Gypsy Moth Management: Population Suppression and Wound Response
(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
Systemic Treatment with Acephate for Gypsy Moth Management: Population Suppression and Wound Response
R.C. Reardon, R.E. Webb
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 1990, 16 (7) 174-178; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1990.041

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Systemic Treatment with Acephate for Gypsy Moth Management: Population Suppression and Wound Response
R.C. Reardon, R.E. Webb
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 1990, 16 (7) 174-178; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1990.041
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
    • Abstract
    • Methods and Materials
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • 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

  • Evaluating the Reproducibility of Tree Risk Assessment Ratings Across Commonly Used Methods
  • London Plane Bark Exfoliation and Tree-Ring Growth in Urban Environments
  • Green Infrastructure with Actual Canopy Parameterization: A Simulation Study for Heat Stress Mitigation in a Hot-Humid Urban Environment
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire