Next Article in Journal
Interactions between Fine Wood Decomposition and Flammability
Next Article in Special Issue
Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth- and Douglas-Fir Beetle-Caused Mortality in a Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-Fir Forest in the Colorado Front Range, USA
Previous Article in Journal
Impacts of Frequent Burning on Live Tree Carbon Biomass and Demography in Post-Harvest Regrowth Forest
Previous Article in Special Issue
Resiliency of an Interior Ponderosa Pine Forest to Bark Beetle Infestations Following Fuel-Reduction and Forest-Restoration Treatments
This is a comment on Forests 2014, 5(1), 103-133.

Forests 2014, 5(4), 822-826; doi:10.3390/f5040822
Comment

A Comment on “Management for Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Suppression: Does Relevant Science Support Current Policy?”

1,* , 2
, 3
 and 4
Received: 12 March 2014; in revised form: 12 April 2014 / Accepted: 14 April 2014 / Published: 22 April 2014
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Interactions between Bark Beetles and Forests)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [472 KB, uploaded 22 April 2014]
Abstract: There are two general approaches for reducing the negative impacts of mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, on forests. Direct control involves short-term tactics designed to address current infestations by manipulating mountain pine beetle populations, and includes the use of fire, insecticides, semiochemicals, sanitation harvests, or a combination of these treatments. Indirect control is preventive, and designed to reduce the probability and severity of future infestations within treated areas by manipulating stand, forest and/or landscape conditions by reducing the number of susceptible host trees through thinning, prescribed burning, and/or alterations of age classes and species composition. We emphasize that “outbreak suppression” is not the intent or objective of management strategies implemented for mountain pine beetle in the western United States, and that the use of clear, descriptive language is important when assessing the merits of various treatment strategies.
Keywords: Dendroctonus ponderosae; direct control; indirect control; Pinus contorta; Pinus ponderosa; sanitation; thinning Dendroctonus ponderosae; direct control; indirect control; Pinus contorta; Pinus ponderosa; sanitation; thinning
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Export to BibTeX |
EndNote


MDPI and ACS Style

Fettig, C.J.; Gibson, K.E.; Munson, A.S.; Negrón, J.F. A Comment on “Management for Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Suppression: Does Relevant Science Support Current Policy?”. Forests 2014, 5, 822-826.

AMA Style

Fettig CJ, Gibson KE, Munson AS, Negrón JF. A Comment on “Management for Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Suppression: Does Relevant Science Support Current Policy?”. Forests. 2014; 5(4):822-826.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fettig, Christopher J.; Gibson, Kenneth E.; Munson, A. S.; Negrón, Jose F. 2014. "A Comment on “Management for Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Suppression: Does Relevant Science Support Current Policy?”." Forests 5, no. 4: 822-826.

Forests EISSN 1999-4907 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert