Evaluating High Release Rate MCH (3-Methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one) Treatments for Reducing Dendroctonus pseudotsugae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Infestations

• Published in: Journal of economic entomology 2016-12, Vol.109 (6), p.2424-2427
• Main Authors: Brookes, Harrison M, Ross, Darrell W, Strand, Tara M, Thistle, Harold W, Ragenovich, Iral R, Lowrey, Laura L
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Cyclohexanes - pharmacology; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Forestry - economics; Forestry - methods; Insect Control - economics; Insect Control - methods; Pheromones - pharmacology; Pseudotsuga - growth & development; Weevils - drug effects
• ISSN: 0022-0493; 1938-291X
• DOI: 10.1093/jee/tow208

Current recommendations for applying the antiaggregation pheromone 3-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one (MCH) to protect live trees from Douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins, infestation are to space individual passive releasers (MCH bubble capsules) on a 12- by 12-m grid throughout areas to be protected. Previous field studies and a theoretical study using a puff dispersion model to predict pheromone concentrations have shown that releasers emitting higher rates of MCH spaced farther apart may be as effective as the established standard treatment. During 2012 and 2013, we tested higher release rates of MCH at correspondingly wider spacings to keep the total amount of MCH released per unit area equal in all treatments. In 2012 near Challis, ID, treatments included the established standard release rate and spacing, four and six times the standard release rate at correspondingly wider spacings, and an untreated control. In 2013 near Ketchum, ID, treatments included the established standard release rate and spacing, five and seven times the standard release rate at correspondingly wider spacings, and an untreated control. Results from both years indicated that all MCH treatments were equally effective in reducing Douglas-fir beetle infestation. Using higher release rate formulations at wider spacings will reduce labor costs of installing MCH treatments, and, in cases where it is necessary, retrieving the releasers as well. In addition to reducing labor costs, the revised treatment protocol may increase the feasibility of treating areas that currently may not be possible due to treatment costs.