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
Article Menu

Export Article

Comment of Forests 2014, 5(1), 103-133.

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

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

1
Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 1731 Research Park Drive, Davis, CA 95618, USA
2
Forest Health Protection, USDA Forest Service, 200 East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59807, USA
3
Forest Health Protection, USDA Forest Service, 4746 South 1900 East, Ogden, UT 84403, USA
4
Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 240 West Prospect Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 12 March 2014 / Revised: 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. View Full-Text
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 (CC BY 3.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

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.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Forests EISSN 1999-4907 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top