United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Southern 

Research Sation 

Research Paper 

SRW2 

Nantucket Pine Tip Moth Pheno 

and Timing of Insecticide Spray 

ications in the Western Gu f Region 

Christopher J. Fettig, John T. Nowak, 

Donald M. Grosman, and C. Wayne Berisford 
The Authors 

Christopher J. Fettig, Research Entomologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1107 Kennedy Place, Suite 8, Davis, CA 95616; 

John T. Nowak, Entomologist, USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, 

Southern Region, RO. Box 2680, Asheville, NC 28802; Donald M. Grosman, 

Entomologist, Texas Forest Service, P.O. Box 3 10, Lufiin, TX 75902; and 

C. Wayne Berisford, Professor, Department of Entomology, The University of 

Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. 

Cover: 

An adult Nantucket pine tip moth (Rhyacioniafrustrana [Cornstock] [Lepidoptera; Tortrieidae]). Photo by 

Christopher Asaro, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. 

DISCLAIMER 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. 

PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENT 

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain 

recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been 

registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and Federal 

agencies before they can be recommended. 

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants and 

fish or other wildlife-if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides 

selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus 

pesticides and pesticide containers. 

July 2003 

Southern Research Station 

P.0. Box 2680 

Asheville, NC 28802 
Nantucket Pine Tip Moth Phenology and 

Timing of Insecticide Spray Applications 

in the Western Gulf Region 

Christopher J. Fettig, John T. Nowak, Donald Me Grosman, 

and C. Wayne Berisford 

Abstract others 2003). Two to five generations occur annually, 

depending on the prevailing climate (Berisford 1988, Fettig 

The Nantucket pine tip moth, Rhyncionia frustrana (Comstock) and others 2000a, Yates and others 198 1). Generations are 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), is a common pest of pine plantations usually distinct, but considerable overlap may occur in throughout the Southern United States. The objectives of this study 

were to predict the phenology of R. frustrana populations regions with as few as three generations (Berisford 1988). 

throughout the Western Gulf region, and to provide optimal spray 

periods for locations that have three or four generations annually. Bivoltine populations are found in most locations north of 

The thermal requirements necessary to complete a generation were ~ar~land(~ashomb and others 1978, Powell and Miller obtained from published data, and used in conjucrion with historical 

temperature data to model phenology throughout the region. Four 1978, Uates 1960), and throughout the mountain province 

generations were predicted to occur annually throughout many of of Virginia and North Carolina (Berisford and Kulman 1967, 

the pine producing regions of Louisiana, northeastern Texas, and Fettig and others 2000a, Lewis and others 1970). Three 

southern Arkansas. Three generations were predicted for the Ozark generations occur in much of the southern Piedmont 

and Ouachita hfountain ranges in Arkansas. Five generations were 

predicted for extreme southern portions of Louisiana and Plateau (Berisford and others 1992, Fettig and others 

throughout southeastern Texas. Spray timing prediction values were 2000a), and in the Coastal Plain of Virginia and parts of 

also obtained from published data and used to predict optimal spray North Carolina (Berisford and I(u1man 1967, Fettig and 

periods based on 5-day increments for each location where either Berisford 1999, Fettig and others 2000a). Four 

three or four generations occurred. Tables containing the predicted 

optimal spray dates are provided for numerous locations within each are reported for the Coastal Plain of Georgia (Berisford and 

state. Validations were conducted in Lousiana and east Texas to others 1992), South Carolina (Berisford and others 1992, 

determine the effectiveness of this technique to achieve adequate Gargiullo and others 1985, Moreira and others 19941, 

spray timing. There was 57 percent agreement between the optimal Alabama (Fettig and others 2000a), Mississippi (Fettig and spray periods and field-determined spray dates based on insecticide 

efficacy studies. Land managers who use contact insecticides, such others 2000a), and in southern California, where the insect 

as pyrethroids, can use these data for optimizing spray effectiveness was accidentally introduced (Malinoski and Paine 1988). --- 

within the Western Gulf region. This paper serves as a companion to Apparently, five generations occur in extreme southern 

a previously published work for the Southeastern United States ~ibrgia (Fettig and others 2000a, Ross and others 1989), (Fettig and others 2000a). and thus completes phenology and 

optimal spray period descriptions for R, frustrana throughout the extreme southern Alabama and Mississippi (Fettig and 

Southern United States. others 2000a), perhaps along the Gulf Coast (Uates and 

others 1981), and in northern Florida (Yates and others 

Keywords: Chemical control, Nantucket pine tip moth, phenology, 198 1). htes (1960) speculated that six generations may Rhyacio~zia frtdstrana, spray timing. occur at the extreme southern edge of the range, but this has 

Introduction 

The Nantucket pine tip moth, RIzjlacionla frustrana 

(Comstock) (Lepidoptera: nrtricidae), is a multivottine 

insect that commonly infests seedling and sapling stages of 

southern yellow pines, particularly loblolly (Pinzcs tag& 

L.), shortleaf (P. eclzinata Mill.), and Virginia (P. virgirziana 

&%ill.) pines (Berisford 1988). The life cycle is synchronized 

to produce a new generation of egg laying adults with each 

growth flush of the primary host. This phenomenon is 

thought to provide each generation of developing larvae 

with high quality host tissues on which to feed (Asaro and 

never been substantiated through field evaluations. Fettig 

and others (2000a) have provided a complete description of 

R. frustrana phenology throughout seven Southeastern 

States. 

In regions where R, fncstrana has been studied extensively, 

boundaries delineating phenology are fairly well 

established. tIowever, in other areas such as the Western 

Gulf region (including Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas), this 

information is lacking or poorly defined. Wallis and 

Stephen 11980) observed three complete generations per 

year in south central Arkansas. They observed a few moths 

emerging in September, but the majority remained in the 

pupal stage and emerged the subsequent spring. Trlvoltine 

populations have also been reported to occur near 
El Dorado in south central Arkansas (Warren 1964). Clarke 

and others (1990) reported that three complete generations 

per year occurred throughout Arkansas. Foil and others 

(1 962) reported that four to five generations occurred 

annually in Louisiana. Sun and others (2000) suggested 

four generations per year occurred throughout most areas of 

east Texas, with a fifth generation occurring during some 

years based on a report by Lewis (1976). Meeker and 

Kulhavy (1992) reported that five generations occurred in 

1986 in the vicinity of Nacogdoches, TX, based on 

pheromone-baited trap catches. While all of these data are 

available, a complete, thorough description of phenology 

in the Western Gulf region is lacking, but would be useful 

for both management and research purposes. 

Ambient temperature is the abiotic factor of greatest 

influence on the developmental rates of poikilothermic 

animals (Chapman 1982). Development of all R. frustrana 

life stages occurs above 9.5 "C (Haugen and Stephen 1984, 

Richmond and Becheler 1989). The developmental rate 

curve is a characteristic sigmsid shape similar to that of 

many other insects (Chapman 1982). Egg and pupal 

development times decrease as temperature increases until a 

threshold of 34 "C is reached, above which both 

developmental rate and survivorship decrease (Haugen and 

Stephen 1984). Development ceases at temperatures above 

36 "C. Most researchers have used lower and upper 

developmental thresholds of 9.5 "C and 33.5 "C, 

respectively (Gargiullo and others 1985, Ross and others 

1989). Humidity has little effect on R. frustrana 

development (Haugen and Stephen 1984). 

Estimates of the number of thermal units required to 

complete one R. frustrana generation range from 580 to 

818 degree-days "C (Fettig and Berisford 1999, Gargiullo 

and others 1983, Gargiullo and others 1985, Haugen and 

Stephen 1984, Ross and others 1989). However, Ross and 

others (1989) detemined that division of the annual 

number of cumulative degree-days by 754 degree-days "6, 

using lower and upper developmental thresholds of 9.5 and 

33.5 "6, resulted in phenology predictions that correlated 

well with field observations in Georgia, where the moth has 

been studied most extensively. Likewise, Fettig and others 

(2000a) used the same method to map phenology in 

Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, 

Ec,1[ississippi, and northern Flo~da, and reported agreement 

with all known published studies describing R. frustrarza 

phenology in the Southeastern United States. 

Insecticide applications may be justified if tip moth attacks 

cause substantial pine growth or form losses. There have 

been a number of spray timing techniques developed for R. 

frustram based on the sequencing of phenological events. 

Asaro and others (2003) have provided a complete listing of 

degree-day spray timing models available for R. fmstrana 

management. In general, the procedure involves 

accumulating degree-day summations starting on the date 

of first catch in pheromone-baited traps for each generation, 

and continuing until an experimentally determined sum is 

attained. This sum indicates the optimal spray date for each 

generation, and corresponds with an abundance of first and 

second instars (Berisford and others 1984). These stages 

appear most susceptible to control due to their small size, 

and their movement over sprayed areas while in search of 

new feeding sites. Spray timing models have helped to 

increase insecticide efficacy, reduce application frequency, 

and decrease the growth and form losses associated with 

late instar larval feeding. Pyrethroid insecticides are most 

commonly used in tip moth management today (Asaro and 

others 2003), but alternatives may be available that provide 

adequate control with less impact to natural enemy 

communities (Nowak and others 2001). 

httig and others (2000a) have developed a system that has 

eliminated most of the problems and costs associated with 

using spray timing models. Resource managers applying 

contact insecticides to control R. frlcstrana infestations can 

simply reference a table to determine the corresponding 

optimal spray period (5 days) predicted for their location 

months or years in advance. Validation studies comparing 

optimal spray period predictions with those determined on 

site using spray timing models exceed 80 percent + one 

spray period agreement (Fettig and others 2000a). 

The objectives of this study were to predict the phenology 

of R. frustrana populations throughout the Western Gulf 

region, and to provide optimal spray periods for locations 

that have three or four generations annually. This paper 

serves as a companion to a previously published work for 

the Southeastern United States (Fettig and others 2000a), 

and thus completes phenology and optimal spray period 

descriptions for R. frustrana throughout the Southern 

United Stares. 

Materials and Methods 

We obtained daily temperatures from the Southern Regional 

Climate Center for all weather stations located in Arkansas, 

Louisiana, and Texas. Stations with < 30 years of climatic 

data were excluded from further analyses. From the 

remaining data, the mean daily maximum and minimum 

temperatures were calculated for select weather stations in 

Arkansas (a = 631, Louisiana (n = 451, and east Texas 

(n = 42). We chose a distribution of weather stations that 

would provide a complete description of phenology within 
each state, but we were limited by the availability of data. 

Analyses were restricted to the portions of Texas that are 

located within the natural range of R. frustrana (Berisford 

19881, which, in general, coincides with that of the loblolly 

pine, the primary host of R. frastrana. 

Daily mean maximum and minimum temperatures for 

each weather station were placed in a spreadsheet program 

(Microsoft Excela, Microsoft Corporation, Seattle, WA) and 

then transferred to a degree-day computational program 

(Degree-Day Utility, University of California Statewide 

Integrated Pest Management Program, Davis, CA; 

www.ipm.ucdavis.edu). Degree-days were accumulated 

using the single-sine, intermediate cutoff computation 

method (Seaver and others 1990), incorporating lower and 

upper developmental thresholds of 9.5 and 33.5 "C, 

respectively. The cumulative annual degree-days total was 

then divided by 754 degree-days "C, and rounded to the 

next lowest whole number to estimate the number of 

generations occurring annually at that location (Fettig and 

others 2000a, Ross and others 1989). The weather station 

locations and numbers of corresponding generations were 

then mapped for each state. 

There appears to be a facultative diapause mechanism for 

the last R. frustrana generation that remains unintempted 

even when temperatures are artificially kept above the 

development threshold (Wallis and Stephen 1980). 

Unfortunately, little is known about the length of time or 

conditions required to terminate diapause in R, frustrana, 

and temperatures in the Western Gulf region may exceed the 

lower developmental threshold throughout the year. 

Therefore, spray timing values were accumulated from an 

arbitrarily established biofix of January 7 where four 

generations occur annually, and March 1 where three 

generations occur annually (Fettig and others 2000a). 

Although actual initial emergence dates may vary from year 

to year, the effect on spray date predictions is negligible, 

since few degree-days are initially accumulated prior to the 

biofix date. In three-generation phenologies, the spray 

timing values used for modeling optimal spray period 

predictions were 204,968, and 1,787 degree-days "C (Fettig 

and Berisford 1999), and 237, 899, 1,757, and 2,s 13 

degree-day s "C for four-generation phenologies (Fettig and 

others 1998). Spray timing values are not available for 

controlling R. frustram populations with five-generation 

phenologies, and therefore are not provided for such 

locations. Degree-days were accumulated continuously for 

each weather station from the assigned biofix until the 

appropriate spray timing value was reached. The 

corresponding date was designated the optimal spray date. 

Each optimal spray date was then located in an optimal 

spray period established by dividing the calendar year into 

5-day increments (tables 1,2, and 3). 

To test the validity of our optimal spray period predictions, 

we selected two 2-year old loblolly pine plantations in 

Louisiana (Ll: N3 1" 9.8", W92O 14.0"; L2: N3 lo 11.7", 

W92" 13.7") and Texas (Tl: N3 1" 49.4"', W95" 18.5"; T2: 

N3 lo 30.6", W94" 3 1.7") as validation sites. Insecticide 

applications were scheduled according to the optimal spray 

period predictions provided in tables 2 (Louisiana) and 3 

(Texas) for the weather station nearest to each validation 

site: L 1 and L2: Alexandria N3 1" 1 1.4"', W92" 28.8'" 

(approximately 29 km northwest of sites); T1: Jacksonville 

N31° 34.8"' W9S0 16.2" (approximately 16 km north of 

site); T2: LuRin N31° 8.4", W94" 45.0"; T2: 

(approximately 26 km south-southwest of site). Insecticide 

treatments were applied to 50 trees at the midpoint of the 

predicted optimal spray period, the midpoint of the prior 

optimal spray period, and the midpoint of the following 

optimal spray period. Dates were the same for all 

generations and sites: March 19,24,29 (generation l), May 

18,23,28 (generation 2), July 7. 12, 17 (generation 3), and 

August 16,2 1,25 (generation 4). The study was designed as 

a randomized complete block (RCB) with four blocks and 

four treatments (including an untreated control group) for 

each generation. Treatments were made with hand-pump 

backpack sprayers applying permethrin (Pounce 3.2@EC, 

FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA) at a rate of 0.6 ml of 

fomulated product per liter of water [O. 17 kg (AI)lha] to 

individual trees until the foliage was moist. 

Damage estimates were collected on each tree during the 

pupal stage of each generation. The total number of shoots, 

i.e., > 10 linear cm of apical stem containing foliage, and 

number of R. frustrana infested shoots were recorded. 

Damage was expressed as the percentage of infested shoots. 

Means were initially computed on a per-site basis, and 

insecticide efficacy was calculated as percent control 

(control group - treatment group)/control group) * 100. The 

early, optimal, and late spray treatments within a generation 

and site were compared. If the most effective treatment 

resulted in < 50-percent control, that combination was 

excluded from analysis. The optimal spray period was 

considered most efficacious, i.e., optimal among treatments 

within a generation, when (1) efficacy was greatest, or (2) 

efficacy was 2 75 percent and damage averaged c 1.5 

percent. We established these criteria based on the known 

efficacy of permethrin, and the normal variation inherent in 

these types of studies (Nowak and others 2000). 

Furthermore, damage estimates were arcsine square root 

(angular) transfomed, and subjected to an analysis of 

variance using the Tukey test for separation of treatment 

means (Sokal and Rohlf 1995). 
TaMe l-Site number, location, phenol~y, and optimal spray period predictions at 63 weather stations located throughout the 

natural range of Rhyacionia flushrrna (Cornstock) in Arkansas 

Optimal spray period intervals 

a 

Site no. Location Phenol% y 1 2 

1 Alicia 3 April 16-20 June 15-19 

2 Arkansas Post 4 April 6-10 May 3 1 -June 4 

3 Beedeville 3 April 16-20 June 15-19 

4 Benton 4 April 4-10 June 5-9 

5 Blakeley Mhl. 3 April 16-20 June 25-29 

6 Cabot 3 April 16-20 June 20-24 

7 Calion 4 April 6-10 June 5-9 

8 Camden 4 April 6-10 June 5-9 

9 Clarendon 3 April 16-20 June 15-19 

10 Conway 4 April 11-15 June 10-14 

11 Corning 3 April 21-25 June 20-24 

12 Crossett 4 April 6-10 June 5-9 

13 Dardanelle 4 April 11-15 June 10-14 

14 Demott 4 April 11-15 June 5 -9 

15 Des Arc 4 April 16-20 June 10-14 

16 Dierks 3 April 16-20 June 20-24 

17 Durnas 4 April 6-10 May 3 1 -June 4 

18 Eldorado 4 April 6-10 June 5-9 

19 Eudora 4 April 6-10 June 5-9 

20 Eureka Springs 3 April 21-25 June 25-29 

2 1 Fayetteville 3 April 26-30 June 30-July 4 

22 Fordyce 4 April 11-15 June 5-9 

23 Fort Smith 3 April 16-20 June 20-24 

24 Gilbert 3 April 16-20 June 25-29 

25 Gravette 3 April 21-25 June 25-29 

26 Greenbrier 3 April 16-20 June 20-24 

27 Greenville, MS 4 April6-10 May 3 1 -June 4 

28 Helena 3 April 16-20 June 15-19 

29 Hope 4 April 11-15 June 10-14 

30 Hot Springs 4 April 16-20 June 10-14 

3 1 Jonesboro 3 April 16-20 June 15-19 

32 Keiser 3 April 21-25 June 20-24 

3 3 Keo 4 April 11-15 June 10-14 

34 Leadhill 3 April 21-25 June 25-29 

35 Leola 4 April 11-15 June 5-9 

36 Little Rock 4 April 16-20 June 10-14 

37 Magnolia 4 April 1-5 May 3 1 -June 4 

38 Malvern 4 April 6-10 June 5-9 

39 Mammoth Springs 3 April 21-25 June 25-29 

40 Marianna 3 April 16-20 June 20-24 

41 Mafshall 3 April 26-30 June 30-July 4 

42 Mensa 3 April 21-25 June 25-29 

43 Monticello 4 April 11-15 June 10- 14 

44 Momlton 4 April 11-15 June 5-9 

45 Mountainburg 3 April 16-20 June 25-29 

46 Mountain Home 3 April 21-25 June 30-July 4 

47 Mount Ida 3 April 21-25 June 30-July 4 

48 Newport 3 Apri121-25 June 20-24 

49 Paragould 3 April 21-25 June 20-24 

50 pew 3 April 16-20 June 20-24 

5 1 Pocahontas 3 April 16-20 June 20-24 

52 Portland 4 April6-10 May 3 1-June 4 

53 ~'~~SCOM 4 April6-10 May 3 1 -June 4 

54 Rohwer 4 April 16-20 June 10-14 

55 St. Charles 4 April 16-20 June 10- 14 

56 Searcy 4 April 16-20 June 10-14 

57 Stuttgart 4 April 6-10 June 5-9 

5 8 Subiaco 4 April 11-15 June 10-14 

59 Texarkana 4 April 1-5 May 26-30 

60 Tunica, MS 3 April 16-20 June 15-19 

61 Waldron 4 April11-15 June 10-14 

62 Warren 4 April 11-15 June 10- 14 

63 West Memphis 3 April 16-20 June 20-24 

- = Optimal spray period interval is not applicable to three-generation phenologies. a 

All locations are in Arkansas except those marked as Mississippi. 

Aug. 4-8 

July 20-24 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 30-Aug. 3 

Aug. 9-1 3 

Aug. 4-8 

July 25-29 

July 25-29 

Aug. 4-8 

July 30-Aug. 3 

Aug. 9-13 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 25-29 

July 30-Aug. 3 

Aug. 9-1 3 

July 20-24 

July 25-29 

July 20-24 

Aug. 14-18 

Aug. 24-28 

July 25-29 

Aug. 9-1 3 

Bug. 14- 18 

Aug. 14-18 

Aug. 4-8 

July 20-24 

Aug. 4-8 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 30-Aug. 3 

Aug. 4-8 

July 25-29 

Aug. 9-1 3 

July 25-29 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 25-29 

July 30-Aug. 3 

Aug. 14-18 

Aug. 4-8 

Aug. 19-23 

Aug. 14- 18 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 25-29 

Aug. 14-18 

Aug. 14- 18 

Aug. 14-18 

Aug. 4-8 

Aug. 4-8 

Aug. 4-8 

Aug. 4-8 

July 20-24 

July 20-24 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 20-24 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 15-19 

Aug. 4-8 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 30-Aug. 3 

Aug. 4-8 

- 

Sept. 3-7 

- 

Sept. 13-17 - 

- 

Sept. 8-12 

Sept. 8-12 - 

Sept. 13-17 - 

Sept, 13-17 

Sept. 13-17 

Sept. 8-12 

Sept. 13-17 - 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

Sept. 3-7 

Sept. 3-7 

- 

Sept. 8-12 

- 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 - 

Sept. 13-17 

Sept. 13-17 

- 

Sept. 13-17 

Sept. 13-17 

Sept. 3-7 

Sept. 13-17 

Sept. 13-17 

Sept. 8-12 

- 

Sept. 3-7 

Sept. 3-7 

Sept. 13-17 

Sept. 13-17 

Sept. 13-17 

Sept. 3-7 

Sept. 13-17 

Aug. 24-28 - 

Sept. 13-17 

Sept. 13-17 
Table 24ite number, location, phenolom, and optbal spray period predictions at 45 weather statiarrs 

located throughout the natural range of R;ky.aczbnlafi.ustram (Comtock) in Louisiama 

Optimal spray period intervals 

Site no, ~ocation" Pinenology 1 2 3 

Alexandria 

Ashland 

Bastrop 

Baton Rouge 

Bienville 

Bogalusa 

Bunkie 

Carville 

Clinton 

Cotton Valley 

Crow ley 

DeQuinc y 

DeRidder 

Donaldsville 

Elizabeth 

Franklin 

Corum Fort 

Grand Coteau 

Hackberry 

Homer 

Hourna 

Jeanerette 

Jena 

Jennings 

Lafeyette 

Lake Charles 

Lake 

Providence 

Leesville 

Minden 

Monroe 

Morgan City 

Nantchez, MS 

Natchitoches 

New Orleans 

New Roads 

Oberlin 

Olla 

Paradis 

Plain Dealing 

Ruston 

St. Joseph 

Shreveport 

Tallulah 

Winnfield 

Winnsboro 

March 22-26 

April 1-5 

April 1-5 

May 2 1-25 

May 3 1 -June 4 

May 26-30 A 

May 3 1-June 4 

July 10- 14 

July 20-24 

July 15-19 

Aug. 19-23 

Sept. 3-7 

Au~. 24-28 

April 1-5 

- 

July 20-24 

- 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 - 

March 22-26 

- 

May 2 1-25 

A 

July 10- 14 

- 

Aug. 19-23 - 

Aug. 19-23 

Sept. 3-7 

- 

Aug. 19-23 

Aug. 19-23 - 

Au~. 19-23 

- 

March 17-21 

April 6- 10 

- 

July 10-14 

July 25-29 

May 16-20 

June 5-9 A 

March 17-21 

March 22-26 

A 

May 21-25 

May 2 1-25 

- 

July 10- 14 

July 10- 14 - 

March 17-21 

- 

March 17-21 

- 

May 2 1-25 

A 

July 10- 14 - 

May 21-25 

A 

July 10-14 

April 6- 10 A 

A 

June 5-9 

- 

July 25-29 

A 

Sept. 3-7 

- 

March 27-3 1 A 

A 

May 26-30 

- 

July 15- 19 

A 

Aug. 24-28 

- 

April 6- 10 

A 

May 3 1 -June 4 

- 

July 20-24 

- 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

March 22-26 

April 1-5 

April 1-5 

- 

March 17-21 

March 27-3 1 

May 2 1-25 

May 3 1 -June 4 

May 3 1 -June 4 

July 15-19 

July 20-24 

July 15-19 

Aug. 24-28 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 - 

July 10-14 

July 10- 14 

- 

Au~. 24-28 

Aug. 19-23 

May 2 1-25 

May 2 1-25 

- 

May 26-30 July 15-19 Aug. 29-Sept. 2 A 

April 6- 10 

April 1-5 

April 1-5 

March 27-3 1 

April 1-5 

March 22-26 

April 1-5 

A 

June 5-9 

May 3 1 -June 4 

May 26-30 

May 26-30 

May 3 1 -June 4 

May 26-30 

May 26-30 

A 

July 25-29 

July 20-24 

July 15-19 

July 15-19 

July 20-24 

July 15-19 

July 15-19 

- 

Sept. 8- 12 

Sept. 3-7 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

- = Spray tirning values are not available for areas with five-generation phenologies. D 

All locations are in Louisiana except those marked as Missifsippi. 
Table Wite number, loeation, phenology, and optimal spray period predictions at 42 weather stations located 

throughout the natural range of RhyacioniafrusPana (Comtoek) in Texas 

-- 

Optimal spray period intervals 

Site no. Location Phenol ogy 1 2 3 4 

1 Anahuac 5 - - 

2 Angleton 5 - - 

3 Aransas 5 A - 

4 Athens 4 March 22-26 May 2 1-25 

5 Austin 5 - - 

6 Bay City 5 - - 

7 Beaumont 5 - 

8 Beeville 5 - - 

9 Brenham 5 A - 

10 Broaddus 4 March 27-3 1 May 26-30 

11 Cameron 5 - - 

12 Carthage 4 March 27-3 1 May 26-30 

13 Center 4 March 27-3 1 May 26-30 

14 Centerville 4 March 22-26 May 26-30 

15 Clarksville 4 April 11-15 June 10- 16 

16 Cleveland 4 March 17-21 May 21-25 

17 Coldspring 4 March 22-26 May 2 1-25 

18 College Station 5 - - 

19 Columbus 5 - 

20 Corpus Christi 5 - - 

21 Corsicana 4 April 1-5 May 3 1-June 4 

22 Crockett 4 March 27-3 1 May 26-30 

23 Cuero 5 - 

24 Daingerfield 5 - - 

25 Emory 4 April 6- 10 June 5-9 

26 Evadale 4 March 17-2 1 May 2 1-25 

27 Fairfield 4 March 22-26 May 21-25 

28 Gilmer 4 April 6- 10 June 5-9 

29 Greenville 4 April 11-15 June 5-9 

30 Groveton 4 March 17-2 1 May 2 1-25 

31 Hallettsville 5 - 

32 Henderson 4 April 1-5 May 3 1-June 4 

3 3 Houston 5 - - 

34 Huntsville 5 - - 

35 Jacksonville 4 March 22-26 May 21-25 

36 Jasper 4 March 22-26 May 2 1-25 

37 Kaufman 4 March 27-3 1 May 3 1 -June 4 

38 Lufitin 4 March 22-26 May 2 1-25 

39 Marlin 5 - - 

40 Mexia 4 March 27-3 1 May 26-30 

41 Mt. Pleasant 4 April 6- 10 June 5-9 

42 Paris 4 April 11-15 June 5-9 

- = Spray timing values are not available for areas with five-generation phenologies. 

- 

July 10-14 

- 

July 15-19 

- 

July 15-19 

July 20-24 

July 15-19 

July 30-Aug. 3 

July 10- 14 

July 10-14 

- 

July 15-19 

July 15-19 

- 

July 20-24 

July 10-14 

July 10- 14 

July 25-29 

July 25-29 

July 10-14 

- 

July 20-24 

A 

July 10-14 

July 15-19 

July 20-24 

July 10-14 

- 

July 15-19 

July 25-29 

July 20-24 

- 

- 

Aug. 19-23 - 

- 

- 

Aug. 24-28 - 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

Aug. 24-28 

Sept. 8-12 

Aug. 19-23 

Aug. 24-28 

- 

Aug. 24-28 

Aug. 24-28 

- 

- 

Sept. 3-7 

Aug. 24-28 

Aug. 14-18 

Sept. 3-7 

Sept. 8-12 

Aug, 19-23 - 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 A 

- 

Aug. 19-23 

Aug. 24-28 

Aug. 29-Sept. 2 

Aug. 19-23 - 

Aug. 24-28 

Sept. 3-7 

Sept. 3-7 
Results and Discussion 

Rilyacionia frrkstrana completes three to five generations 

annually in the Western Gulf region (figs, 1,2, and 3), 

Predictions of the number of generations generally 

increased from northern to southem latitudes, and varied 

with elevation only in the Ouachita and Ozark Mountain 

ranges in Arkansas (fig. I). Unlike portions of the 

Southeastern United States, bivoltine populations 

apparently do not exist in the Western Gulf region. 

Arkansas 

Rhyacionia fmstrana populations in Arkansas were 

projected to have three or four generations annually (fig. 1). 

In many cases, phenology predictions were split along the 

lat. 35" N.; most locations north of that latitude having 

trivoltine populations, and locations south having four 

generations per year. Three generations were predicted for 

the Ouachita and Qzark Mountain ranges. However, 

trivoltine populations were not limited to these locations 

(fig. I). The literature contains few references describing R. 

frustrana phenology in this state. Warren (1964) and Wallis 

and Stephen (1980) reported trivoltine populations in south 

central Arkansas. Clarke and others (1990) reported that 

trivoltine populations occurred throughout Arkansas. 

However, our data suggests that there are four generations 

per year in most of the southern half of Arkansas. This 

agrees with Foil and others (1962) who reported four 

generations in adjacent northern Louisiana. Fettig and 

others (2000a) have shown that phenology can vary with 

changes in elevation in the Southeast. Given the increases 

in elevation associated with the Ouachita and Ozarlc 

Mountain ranges, it is highly unlikely that trivoltine 

populations would exist throughout kkansas (Fettig and 

others 2000a). In this study, where three generations 

occunred annually, the predicted first-generation optimal 

spray period generally occurred in mid- to late April, the 

second in mid-June, and the third in early August (table 1). 

In locations where a fourth generation occurred, the 

predicted first-generation optimal spray period typically 

occurred in early April, the second in earfy June, the third in 

late July, and the fourth in early to mid-September (table I). 

Louisiana 

Most R. frustrana populations in Louisiana were projected 

to complete four generations annually (fig. 2). In general, 

locations north and west of Baton Rouge had four 

generations, while areas south and east of this location were 

predicted to have five generations per year (fig. 2). Foil and 

others (1962) reported that four to five generations wcwed 

annually in north central Louisiana. Uates and others (1981) 

suggested that a fifth generation might occur in southern 

portions of the Gulf States. Our predictions for populations 

along the Mississippi border agreed with estimates 

provided by Fettig and others (2000a) for adjacent 

locations in the western portion of that State. Where four 

generations occurred annually, the predicted firstgeneration optimal spray period generally occurred in midMarch to early April, the second in late May to early June, 

the third in mid- to late July, and the fourth in late August to 

early September (table 2) 

Texas 

The majority of R.frustram populations in Texas were 

predicted to have four generations per year (fig. 3). In 

general, populations located north of the lat. 30' 30'". had 

four generations annually, and populations south of this 

latitude had five generations annually. This phenology 

boundary agrees closely with that observed in adjacent 

Louisiana (fig. 2). Our predictions agreed with suggestions 

by Lewis (1976) and Sun and others (2000) that fourgeneration phenologies occur most frequently in 

northeastern Texas. The Daingenfield, TX station (station 

24, fig. 3) is presumed to be an outlier. Five generations per 

year were predicted to occur at that location, but to our 

knowledge, this station is not asswiated with any particular 

topographic feature that would explain its warmer 

temperatures relative to adjacent stations. It is unknown 

whether this location represents a real w 

whether errors have occurred at the recording station. Where 

four generations occurred annually, the predicted firstgeneration optimal spray period generally occurred in lateMarch to early April, the second in late May to early June, 

the third in mid- to late July, and the fourth in mid-August 

to early September (table 3). 

Transition zones between phenology boundasies are not 

precise, and considerable deviation from temperature noms 

may cause slight, temporary shifs in distsibution (Asaro 

and others 2003). Reeent trapping studies as far nodh as 

Lufkin, TX, suggested that perhaps a fifth adult emergence 

may occur during warm years" It is thought that these 

parent adults contribute little, if anything, to the 

subsequent generation. Kudon and others (1988) examined 

the possibility of a fourth generation in 1984 in the Georgia 

"rosman, D. 2002. Unpublished data. On file with: Donald M. 

Grosman, Entomologist, Texas Forest Service, P.O. Box 3 10, 

Lufiin, Texas 75902. 
r Three generations annually 

II Four generations annually 

530 0 100 200 300 400 km 

29. - 

Figure I-Rhyacionia frustrana phenology in Arkansas based on analysis of historical temperature data. 

Numbers correspond to weather station locations in table 1. 

Piedmont where only &ivoltine populations were thought 

to occur. They reported that although some additional 

mating and ovipsition occurred, no damage was observed 

that could be atbributed to the fourth emergence. Any such 

emergence would therefore likely be of minor consequence 

from a pest management perspective. 

Validity of Predictions 

Mean zt~: SEM damage levels (untreatd control) ranged from 

3.4 1 +. 0.89 percent to 53.47 ii- 3.20 percent (table 4). 

Overall, damage levels were considerably lower in Rxas 

&an Louisiana. There was 57 percent agreement (8 of 14) 

between the optimal spray periods and field-determined 

spray dates based on insecticide eficacy, At one of the 

Texa validation sites (TI), the optimal spray priods were 

most efflicacious during all four generations. It is interesting 

to note that this site was also the closest of the four to the 

weather station from which our predictions were generated. 

Dah trends suggested that insecticide applications may 

have been more efficacious if applied Z to 2 weeks prior to 

the early spray date for the third and foufih generations in 

Louisiana (table 4). Several factors could have contributed 

to this discrepancy. The closest weather station (Alexandria 

1) was approximately 29 h distant, and predictions from 

this location simply may not have been accurate for 

describing temperature regimes at the field sites, 

particularly during the summer. Secondly, although June 

and July temperatures were at or near nomal, May 

temperatures deviated + 1.2 "C from normal (Alexandria, 

LA, Louisiana Office of Climatology, Baton Rouge). Suck 

deviations were not accounted for in our model, and would 

cause increases in R. frustrana development rates that 

would generate earlier spray dates. Howevm, we suggest 

that this relatively slight increase in temperature could not 

be the sole cause for these discrepancies. Thirdly, although 

a decrease in spray efficacy is commonly observed 

throughout the year due to increased asynchrony among 

susceptible R. frustrana life stages (Fettig and Berisford 

2002), such large decreases are rare (table 4). This suggests 

that perhaps the insecticide treatments applied during the 

third and fowrth generation only achieved partial control. 

For example, two of these comparisons (table 4) did not 

meet the minimum criteria for inclusion in the agreement 

comparison, i.e., 50 percent control. However, the above 

may be of limited concern since two recent studies suggest 

that limiting insecticide applications to the first 
Four generations annually 

* Five generations annually 

Figure 2-Rlzyacionia frustrana phenology in Louisiana based on analysis of historical 

temperature data. Numbers correspond to weather station locations in table 2. 

R. frustrana generation only may be the most ecologically 

and economically beneficial method (Fettig and Berisford 

2002, Fettig and others 2000b). Optimal spray period 

predictions were most efficacious among all treatments 

during the first generation at each site (table 4). 

In this study, insecticide efficacy exceeded 75 percent 

during 57 percent of the optimal spray periods (table 4). 

These data compare favorably with other studies 

determining the efficacy of permethrin for controlling R. 

frustrana infestations. Mowak and others (2000) developed 

degree-day spray timing models for permethrin in the 

Georgia Piedmont, and reported 62.3-percent control based 

on analysis of all three generations and for the three most 

efficacious treatment dates per generation. In a more 

extensive study (3,7 12 trees), kttig and others (2000b) 

reported mean efficacy values of 90.4 percent, 77.6 prcent, 

and 55.5 percent for permethrin for each of three 

generations. Unfortunately, it is difficult to compare the 

results of Fettig and others (2000a) to the current study, as 

the former was based on agreement between predicted and 

field-determined spray dates, and not on the effectiveness of 

insecticide treatments. Fettig and others (2000a) reported 

380 percent +: one spray period agreement in that study. 

We found a significant treatment effect during one of the 

four generations (B < 0.05; table 5). The early, optimal, and 

late insecticide applications were significantly different 

from the contfol, although no significant differences were 

detected among their treatment means (table 5). A lack of 

furlher significant difkrences was probably a result of our 

small sample size (df = 3,9) and the large amount of 

variation in the data. 

Management Implications 

Although largely effective, improper use of various R. 

frlrlstrana spray timing models has led to errors in spray date 

predictions. These models require a detailed knowledge of 

tip moth biology; proper pheromone trap deployment; 

intensive trap monitoring; knowledge of degree-day 
II Four generations annually 0 100 200 300 400 km 

@ Five generations annually I I I I I 

Figure 3-Rhyacionia frustrana phenology in Texas based on analysis of historical 

temperature dab. Numbers correspond to weather station locations in table 3. 

calculations, conversions and utility; and the ability to 

acquire daily maximum and minimum temperatures on or 

near the site. Although the collection of data required to use 

timing models is costly and laborious, these costs can be 

mitigated by increased insecticide efficacy and reduced 

application frequency. Scheduling problems may still arise 

from short-term advance notice of approaching optimal 

spray dates; yet degree-day spray timing models still 

provide the best overall control providing workers invest 

the braining, time, and resomes in learning how to use 

them proprly. 

When considering these difficulties, the optimal spray 

period predictions presented here are a viable alternative to 

using spray timing models. Land managers applying 

contact insecticides, such as pyrethroids, can simply locate 

the nearest weather station to their pine plantation (figs. I, 

2, and 31, and use the optimal spray periods listed to time 

insecticide applications accordingly (tables 1, 2, and 3). 

During extended periods of inclement weather, it is 

advisable to adjust spray period predictions by one period 

depending on the prevailing temperature deviation from 

normal. 
Table &Mean percent damage (& SSEM) of loblolly pines (n = 50) 

treated with permethrin to control Rhyacionia frustrarta at four sites in Texas 

and Louisiana 2002" 

Spray periodi 

Site 

generation Early Optimal Late Control 

a TI, T2 = two sites in Texas; L1, L2 = two sites in Louisiana. 

'~eans in bold denote the most efficacious treatment within each gmeration based on the criteria in this 

research paper. 

c~ornparisons did not meet minimum criteria to indicate a most efficacious treatment. 

Table 5-&lean percent damage (3 !:EM) of loblolly pine plantations 

treated with permethrin to control R.frustmna infeshtions at four sites iin Texas 

and Loukiana, 2002. Means followed by the same letter within a row are mot 

signi&antly diflerent (RGBD; P > 0.05, Tukey's test) 

Spray period 

Generation Earlv Optimal Late Control 
Acknowledgments 

We thank Leah Barnes (The University of Georgia) for 

support with data entry, Martha Shibata (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station) for assistance with graphics, and Jay Grymes 

(Southern Regional Climate Center) for providing 

temperature data, We also thank Scott Bertrand, Dennis and 

Debbie Stevens, Roy 0. Martin Lumber Company, and the 

Texas Forest Service for providing access to the field sites 

where validations were conducted. Christopher Asaro (The 

University of Georgia) and David Coyle (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station) 

provided helpful comments and insights on an earlier 

version of this manuscript. We also thank John W. Taylor, 

Jr., for providing advice and serving as Forest Health 

Protection lead contact. This research was supported by a 

grant funded through the U.S. 'Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Special Technology De-ielopment Program 

(m-STDP-R8-2001-2). 

Literature Cited 

Asaro, C.; Fettig, C.J.; McCravy, K.W. [and others]. 2003. The 

Nantucket pine tip moth: a literature review with management 

implications. Journal of Entomological Science. 38: 1-40. 

Berisford, C.W. 1988. The Nantucket pine tip moth. In: Berryman, 

A.A., ed. Dynamics of forest insect populations: patterns, causes, 

and implications. New York: Plenum Publication Corporation: 

141-161. 

Berisford, C.W.; Canalos, C.G.; Godbee, J.F., Jr.; Yates H.O., 111. 1992. 

Occurrence and seasonal activity of pine tip moths in Georgia. 

For. Res. Pap. 87. Macon, GA: Georgia Forestry Commission. 

11 p. 

Berisford, C.W.; Gargiullo, P.M.; Canalos, C.G. 1984. Optimum 

timing for insecticidal control of the Nantucket pine tip moth 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 

77: 174-177. 

Berisford, C.W.; Kulman W.M. 1967. Infestation rate and damage by 

the Nantucket pine tip moth in six loblolly pine categories. Forest 

Science. 13: 428-438. 

Chapman, R.E 1982. The insects-structure and function. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press. 919 p. 

Clarke, S.R.; Stephen, F.M.; Dunn, J.E. 1990. Spatial distribution of 

the Nantucket pine tip moth (Lepidoptera: Toftricidae) in newly 

established loblolly pine plantations. Journal of Entomological 

Science. 25: 209-2 15. 

Rttig, G.J.; Berisford, C.W. 1999, Nantucket pine tip moth phenology 

in eastern North Carolina and Virginia: implications for effective 

tirning of insecticide applications. Southern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 23: 30-38. 

Fettig, C.J.; Berisford, C.W. 2002. Use of historical temperature data 

for timing insect-icide applications of the Nantucket pine tip moth 

(Lepidoptera: Tbrtricidae): evaluation of damage and volume 

increment. Journal of Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 4: 1-5. 

Fettig, C.J.; Berisford, C.W.; Dalusky, 14.J. 1998. Revision of a timing 

model for chemical control of the Nantucket pine tip moth 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in the southeastern Coastal Plain. 

Journal of Entomological Science. 33: 334-342. 

Fettig, C.J.; Dalusky, M.J.; Berisford, C.W 2000a. Nantucket pine tip 

moth phenology and spray timing of insecticide applications in 

seven southeastern states. Res. Pap. SRS-18. Ashetille, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 21 p. 

Fettig, C.J.; McCravy, K.W.; Berisford, C.W. 2000b. Effects of 

Nantucket pine tip moth insecticide spray schedules on loblolly 

pine seedlings. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 24: 

106-1 11. 

Foil, R.R.; Hansbrough, T.; Merrifield, R.G. 1962. Researchers 

studying tip moth in loblolly pine. Louisiana Agriculture. 5: 3-4. 

Gargiullo, P.M.; Berisford, C.W.; Canalos, C.G.; Richmond, J.A. 

1983. How to time dimethoate sprays against the Nantucket pine 

tip moth. For. Res. Pap. 44. Macon, CA: Georgia Forestry 

Commission. 1 l p. 

Gargiullo, P.M.; Berisford, C.W.; Godbee, J.F., Jr. 1985. Prediction of 

optimal timing for chemical control of the Nantucket pine tip 

moth, Rhyacionia frustrana (Comstock) (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae), in the southeastern Coastal Plain. Journal of 

Economic Entomology. 78: 148- 154. 

Haugen, D.A.; Stephen, F.M. 1984. Development rates of Nantucket 

pine tip moth, Rhyacionia frustrana (Comstock) (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae) life stages in relation to temperature. Environmental 

Entomology. 13: 56-60. 

Kudon, L.H.; Berisford, C.W.; Dalusky, M.J. 1988. Refinement of a 

spray timing technique for the Nantucket pine tip moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Entomological Science. 23: 

180- 186. 

Lashomb, J.H.; Steinhauer, A.L.; Douglas, L. 1978. Impact studies of 

Nantucket pine tip moth populations on loblolly pine. Environmental Entomology. 7: 9 10-9 12. 

Lewis, K.R. 1976. The Nantucket pine tip moth. Fact Sheet IOM. 

College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, Texas Agicultural 

Experiment Station. 6 p. 

Lewis, K.R.; Kulman, H.M.; Heikkenen, H.J. 1970. Parasites of the 

Nantucket pine tip moth in Virginia with notes on ecological 

relationships. Journal of Economic Entomology. 63: 1 135- I 139, 

Malinoski, M.K.; Paine, T.D. 1988. A degree-day model to predict 

Nantucket pine tip moth, RIzyarionia frustrana (Comstock) 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), flights in southern California. 

Environmental Entomology. 17: 75-79, 

Meeker, J.R.; Kulhavy, D.L. 1992. Pine tip moth (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae) infestation rates as influenced by site and stand 

characteristics in loblolly pine plantations in East Texas. Environmental Entomology. 2 1 : 534-54 1. 
Moreira, A.F.C.; Berisford, C.W.; Hedden, R.L.; Silva, J.A.A.D. 1994. 

Methodology for rating Pinus taeda stands for pine tip moth, 

Rhyacionia spp. infestation (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Anais da 

Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil. 23: 227-236. 

Nowak, J.T.; Fettig, C.J.; McCravy, K.W.; Berisford, C.W. 2000. 

Efficacy tests and deternrination of optiml spray timing values to 

control Nantucket pine tip moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) 

infestations. Journal of Economic Entomology. 93: 1708-1713. 

Nowak, J.T.; McCravy, K.W.; Fettig, C.J.; Berisford, C.W. 2001. 

Susceptibility of adult hymenopteran parasitoids of the Nantucket 

pine tip moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to broad-spectrum and 

biorational insecticides in a laboratory study. Journal of Economic 

Entomology. 94: 1122-1 129. 

Powell, J.A.; Miller. W.E. 1978. Nearctic pine tip moths of the genus 

Rhyacionia: biosystematic review (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae, 

Olethreutidae). Agric. Handb. 514. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 33 p. 

Richmond, J.A.; Becheler, J.E. 1989. A comparison of two temperature-dependent development models for immature stages of the 

Nantucket pine tip moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of 

Entomological Science. 24: 1 17-1 23. 

Ross, D.W.; Pickering, J.; Berg, J.D.; Berisford, C.W 1989. Mapping 

Nantucket pine tip moth (Lepidoptera: Tortldcidae) phenollogy in 

Georgia. Journal of Entomological Science. 24: 405-412. 

Seaver, D.; Strand, J.; Strawn, A.J. 1990. Degree-day utility user's 

guide. Version 2. Davis, CA: University of California. 86 p. 

Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometq. 3"' ed. New York: W.H. 

Freeman and Co. 887 p. 

Sun, J.D.; Kuthavy, D.L.; Roques, A. 2000. Effects of fertilizer and 

herbicide application on Nantucket pine tip moth infestation 

(Lep., Tortricidae). Journal of Applied Entomology. 124: 

191-195. 

University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 1990. Degree-day utility user's guide. Version 2. Davis, 

CA: University of California Statewide Integrated Pest ManageWallis, G.W.; Stephen, F.M. 1980. Diapause of the Nantucket pine tip 

moth, Rhyacionia frustrana (Comstoek), in Arkansas. Journal of 

the Georgia Entomological Society. 15: 454-455. 

Warren, L.O. 1964. Growth of pine trees protected from attack by 

Nantucket pine tip moth. Arkansas Farm Research. 13: 1 1. 

Yates, H.O., 111. 1960. The Nantucket pine tip moth: a literature 

review. Stn. Pap. 115. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 19 p. 

Yates, H.O., 111; Overgaard, N.A.; Koeber, T.W. 1981. Nantucket pine 

tip moth. For. Insect and Dis. Leafl. 70. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 7 p. 
Fettig, Christopher J.; Nowak, John T.; Grosman, Donald M.; Berisford, C. Wayne 2003. Nantucket pine tip 

moth phenology and timing of insecticide spray applications in the Western Gulf Region. Res. Pap. SRS-32. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 13 p. 

The Nantucket pine tip moth, Rhyacionia frustrana (Gomstock) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), is a common pest 

of pine plantations throughout the Southern United States. The objectives of this study were to predict the 

phenology of R. frustrana populations throughout the Western Gulf region, and to provide optimal spray 

periods for locations that have three or four generations annually. The thermal requirements necessary to 

complete a generation were obtained from published data, and used in conjuction with historical temperature 

data to model phenology throughout the region. Four generations were predicted to occur annually 

throughout many of the pine producing regions of Louisiana, northeastern Texas, and southern Arkansas. 

Three generations were predicted for the Ozark and Ouachita Mountain ranges in Arkansas. Five generations 

were predicted for extreme southern portions of Louisiana and throughout southeastern Texas. Spray timing 

prediction values were also obtained from published data and used to predict optimal spray periods based on 

5-day increments for each location where either three or four generations occurred. Tables containing the 

predicted optimal spray dates are provided for numerous locations within each state. Validations were 

conducted in Lousiana and east Texas to determine the effectiveness of this technique to achieve adequate 

spray timing. There was 57 percent agreement between the optimal spray periods and field-determined spray 

dates based on insecticide efficacy studies. Land managers who use contact insecticides, such as pyrethroids, 

can use these data for optimizing spray effectiveness within the Western Gulf region. This paper serves as a 

companion to a previously published work for the Southeastern United States (Fettig and others 2000a), and 

thus completes phenology and optimal spray period descriptions for R. frustrana throughout the Southern 

United States. 

Keywords: Chemical control, Nantucket pine tip moth, phenology, Rhyacionia frrrstrana, spray timing. 
The krest Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation's forest resources 

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. 

Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private 

foli.est owners, and management of the National Forests and 

National Grasslands, it strives-as directed by Congress--to 

provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. 

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis sf race, color, national origin, sex, rejigion, age, 

disability, political beliefs9 sexual orientation, or marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc,) should 

contact USDAk TARGET Center at (282) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD). 

TO file a complaint of discrirninati6.ig.i. write USDA, Director9 Office 

of Givib Rights, Room 326-W9 Whitten Building, I400 

Independence Avenue, $W9 Washington, DOC, 20250-94 10 or call 

(202) 928-5964 (voice and TDD), USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.