The Effect of Sticky Bands on Cankerworm Abundance and Defoliation in Urban Trees

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Baker, W.L.

   1972. Eastern Forest Insects. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service miscellaneous publication no. 1175.
2. ↵
   1. Blumenthal, E.M.

   1983. Gypsy moth defoliation reduction using mechanical barrier devices. Melsheimer Entomological Series 33:21–30.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Blumenthal, E.M., and
   2. C.R. Hoover

   . 1986. Gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) population control using mechanical barriers and contact insecticides applied to tree stems. Journal of Economic Entomology 79:1394–1396.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. ↵
   1. Britton, W.E.

   1900. On the banding of trees to prevent injury by the fall cankerworm. Report of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.
5. ↵
   1. Cole, H.,
   2. D. Barry, and
   3. D.E.H. Frear

   . 1967. DDT levels in fish, streams, stream sediments, and soil before and after DDT aerial spray application for fall cankerworm in northern Pennsylvania. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology 2:127–146.

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Collins, C.W., and
   2. C.E. Hood

   . 1920. Gipsy (sic) moth tree banding material: How to make, use, and apply it. Bulletin 899 of the United States Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.
7. ↵
   1. Deane, S.

   1797. The New England Farmer or Georgical Dictionary, 2nd Edition. Worcester, Massachusetts, U.S.
8. ↵
   1. Eirich, R.

   2008. Establishing action thresholds for control of cankerworms in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:66–73.

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Feeny, P.

   1970. Seasonal changes in oak leaf tannins and nutrients as a cause of spring feeding by winter moth caterpillars. Ecology 51:565–581.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. ↵
    1. Feeny, P.

    1976. Plant apparency and chemical defense. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 10:1–40.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Haukioja, E.,
    2. P. Niemela, and
    3. S. Siren

    . 1985. Foliage phenols and nitrogen in relation to growth, insect damage, and ability to recover after defoliation in the mountain birch Betula pubescens ssp. tortuosa. Oecologia (Berlin) 65:214–222.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Haukioja, E.,
    2. P. Niemela,
    3. L. Iso-Iivari,
    4. H. Ojala, and
    5. E. Aro

    . 1978. Birch leaves as a resource for herbivores. I. Variation in the suitability of leaves. Reports from the Kevo Subarctic Research Station 14:5–12.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Hiratsuka, Y.,
    2. D.W. Langor, and
    3. P.E. Crane

    . 1995. A field guide to forest insects and diseases of the Prairie Provinces. Special report 3. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. 297 pp.
14. ↵
    1. Johnson, W.T., and
    2. H.H. Lyon

    . 1991. Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs, 2nd Edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, U.S. pp. 142–143.
15. ↵
    1. Kegg, J.D.

    1967. Sampling techniques for predicting fall cankerworm defoliation. Journal of Economic Entomology 60:889–890.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. ↵
    1. Kulman, H.M.

    1971. Effects of insect defoliation on growth and mortality of trees. Annual Review of Entomology 16:289–234.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
17. ↵
    1. La France, K.R., and
    2. A.R. Westwood

    . 2006. An assessment of tree banding techniques to capture cankerworm defoliators of elm and ash trees in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 1:11–17.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Liebhold, A.M., and
    2. J.S. Elkinton

    . 1988. Techniques for estimating the density of late-instar larval gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), populations using frass drop and frass production measurements. Environmental Entomology 17:381–384.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
19. ↵
    1. Lyttle, S.

    2012. Cankerworms infestation worst in a generation? Charlotte Observer. Accessed 08/05/2013. <www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/03/28/3134480/cankerworms-return-worse-outside.html>
20. ↵
    1. Miller, J.C.

    1990. Field assessment of the effects of a microbial pest control agent on nontarget Lepidoptera. American Entomologist 36:135–140.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
21. ↵
    1. Miller, K.K., and
    2. M.R. Wagner

    . 1989. Effects of Pandora moth (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) defoliation on growth of ponderosa pine in Arizona. Journal of Economic Entomology 82:1682–1686.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
22. ↵
    1. Minott, C.W., and
    2. I.T. Guild

    . 1925. Some results of defoliation of trees. Journal of Economic Entomology 18:345–348.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
23. ↵
    1. Naidoo, R., and
    2. M.J. Lechowicz

    . 2001. Effects of gypsy moth on radial growth of deciduous trees. Forest Science 47:338–348.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Otvos, I.S., and
    2. R.S. Hunt

    . 1986. Evaluation of three types of barriers to trap winter moth Lepidoptera: Geometridae) adults. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 83:27–30.

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Porter, L.A., and
    2. C.H. Alden

    . 1924. The cankerworms. Bulletin 1238 of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.
26. ↵
    1. Potter, D.A., and
    2. C.T. Redmond

    . 1989. Early spring defoliation, secondary leaf flush, and leafminer outbreaks on American holly. Oecologia 81:192–197.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. R.F. Denno and
    2. M.S. McClure

    1. Rhoades, D.F.

    1983. Herbivore population dynamics and plant chemistry. pp. 155–220. In: R.F. Denno and M.S. McClure (Eds.). Variable plants and herbivores in natural and managed systems. Academic Press, New York City, New York, U.S.
28. ↵
    1. Riley, C.V,
    2. A.S. Packard, and
    3. C. Thomas

    . 1883. Canker worms (sic): Being an account of the two species injurious to fruit and shade trees, with practical suggestions. Third Report of the United State Entomological Commission. United States Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.
29. ↵
    1. Shaffer, J.

    2012. Bumper crop of inchworms coats the Triangle. Raleigh News and Observer. Accessed 08/05/2013. <www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/28/1963991/bumper-crop-of-inchworms-coats.html>
30. ↵
    1. Thorpe, K.W., and
    2. R.L. Ridgway

    . 1994. Effects of trunk barriers on larval gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) density in isolated and contiguous oak trees. Environmental Entomology 23:832–836.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
31. ↵
    1. Thorpe, K.W.,
    2. R.E. Webb,
    3. R.L. Ridgway,
    4. L. Venables, and
    5. K.M. Tatman

    . 1993. Sticky barrier bands affect density of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) and damage in oak canopies. Journal of Economic Entomology 86(5):1497–1501.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
32. ↵
    1. Tobin, P.C.,
    2. B.B. Bai,
    3. D.A. Eggen, and
    4. D.S. Leonard

    . 2012. The ecology, geopolitics, and economics of managing Lymantria dispar in the United States. International Journal of Pest Management 58:195–210.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Turner, N.

    1963. Effect of defoliation by the gypsy moth. Bulletin 658 of the Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station. 30 pp.
34. ↵
    1. White, J.A., and
    2. T.G. Whitham

    . 2000. Associational susceptibility of cottonwood to box elder herbivore. Ecology 81:1795–1803.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
35. ↵
    1. White, T.C.R.

    1984. The abundance of invertebrate herbivores in relation to the availability of nitrogen in stressed food plants. Oecologia 63:90–105.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
36. ↵
    1. Wright, S.L.,
    2. R.W. Hall, and
    3. J.W. Peacock

    . 1989. Effect of simulated insect damage on growth and survival of northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) seedlings. Environmental Entomology 18:235–239.

    OpenUrlCrossRef