FHTET-2008-07

April 2008

Forest Health Technology

Enterprise Team

Technology 

Transfer

Emerald Ash Borer

Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service

U.S. Department Forest Service

of Agriculture
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, 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 USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, 

Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 

202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

On the cover: year-old emerald ash borer galleries. Photo by David Cappaert, 

available at www.forestryimages.org as UGA1460075.

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for information only 

and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Abstracts were submitted in an electronic form and were edited to achieve a uniform 

format. Contributors are responsible for the accuracy of their abstract’s content. 

Statements of the contributors from outside of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

may not necessarily reflect the policy of the Department. Some participants did not 

submit abstracts, and so their presentations are not represented here.

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information 

and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement 

or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service to the 

exclusion of others that may be suitable.

Remarks about pesticides appear in some technical papers represented by these 

abstracts. Publication of these statements does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation of them by the conference sponsors, nor does it imply that 

uses discussed have been registered. Use of most pesticides is regulated by state 

and federal laws. Applicable regulations must be obtained from the appropriate 

regulatory agency prior to their use.

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

plants, and fish and other wildlife if they are not handled and applied properly. Use 

all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices given on the 

label for use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers.
Emerald Ash Borer

Research and Development Meeting

October 23-24, 2007

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Compiled by:

Victor Mastro1

, David Lance1, Richard Reardon2, and Gregory Parra3

1

USDA APHIS, PPQ, Otis ANGB, Massachussetts

2

USDA Forest Service, FHTET, Morgantown, West Virginia

3

USDA APHIS, PPQ, Raleigh, North Carolina

For additional copies of this or the previous proceedings (2003: FHTET-2004-02, 2004: FHTET-2004-15, 

2005: FHTET-2005-16, and 2006: FHTET-2007-04), contact Lenora MacNevin in Otis ANGB, Massachussetts, at (508) 563-9303 (email: Lenora.MacNevin@aphis.usda.gov) or Richard Reardon in Morgantown, West 

Virginia, at (304) 285-1566 (email: rreardon@fs.fed.us).

__________________________________________________________________________________ iii

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Meeting—2007

Foreword

Damage caused by the emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, has increased dramatically since it was first discovered in June of 2002 near Detroit, Michigan. Parts of seven states 

now have known infestations: Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and, most 

recently, West Virginia. The infested area also extends into Ontario, Canada, where EAB has been 

found as far east as Toronto. Tens of millions of ash trees are either now infested or have already 

been killed. According to a USDA Forest Service report, projected impacts on urban areas and forest 

settings are estimated to be in the billions of dollars. The EAB program currently is doing a more 

in-depth economic assessment. 

When the EAB was first discovered in North America, there was little information on this 

insect. Within its native range, when feeding on indigenous species of ash, EAB behaves similar to 

many of the North American buprestid species, attacking only weakened or dying trees. Its natural 

range is still not completely known, and there was a general lack of knowledge about the behavior and 

biology of this species in particular and of the other Agrilus species and buprestids in general. 

The current management approach of the USDA and affected states is to limit artificial movement of EAB with focused, aggressive regulatory and public-outreach programs. Given the limitation 

of monitoring tools and the size of the area that needs to be surveyed, the limits of the infestation were 

only beginning to be understood in 2006. In 2007, new populations were discovered in Pennsylvania 

and West Virginia. Active management has attempted to eradicate outlying infestations, focusing on 

those farthest from the core. The attempts to survey and delimit infestations have clearly pointed out 

the critical need for more effective survey tools. The program moved from visual survey to the use of 

trap trees in 2005. In 2008, the program will adopt a trap and lure based on visual cues and compounds 

released by stressed trees. Traps will be deployed in a systematic survey covering a 100-mile-wide band 

encircling the area known to be infested. In addition, most of the remainder of the United States will 

be surveyed using traps placed at sites that pose a risk of introduction. Control options have also been 

limited; to date, only ash tree removal has been applied on a large scale as a management tool. This 

approach is expensive, and its success is compromised by the limitations of past survey techniques.

Research support has been provided by federal and state agencies from the time EAB was discovered. The urgency of the need and the size of the mountain that had to be scaled, however, were 

brought into focus in 2005 at the annual EAB research meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At that 

meeting, a large number of scientists from many disciplines were brought together to produce a compilation of researchable topics that could provide products useful to support the control program.

The Deputy Administrator of APHIS-PPQ provided $1.3 million in additional funding to 

support eight of the highest priority EAB projects. In the current report, we can see the first fruits of 

this expanded research program as well as preliminary products of ongoing research. These include 

better characterization of the insect’s host-finding, mate-finding, and dispersal behaviors; discovery 

and evaluation of natural enemies and efficacious pesticides; design of a first-generation attractant and 

trap; and development of effective regulatory treatments. The program is adopting several of these 

findings. As noted above, a comprehensive survey will be carried out using an attractant-baited trap. 

After experimental releases of three species of parasitoids in 2007, the program is constructing a parasite production facility. In 2008, both the USDA forest Service and APHIS are adding an additional 

$1 million to the existing funds to further accelerate the process. Useful products of these combined 

efforts will follow in the years to come; meanwhile, EAB continues its onslaught on Fraxinus in our 

forest and urban areas.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Meeting—2007

iv _________________________________________________________________________________

Although research on the Asian longhorned beetle and other invasive forest pests was not 

included in the most recent review, we plan to take advantage of this gathering of researchers and 

managers to exchange information as appropriate in the future. It is only by this type of exchange, 

the adoption of new techniques, and innovation that we can hope to keep pace with the introductions 

threatening our forests.

 Vic Mastro
___________________________________________________________________________________ v

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Meeting—2007

Contents

Emerald Ash Borer Program Reports

Emerald Ash Borer in Pennsylvania .................................................................................1

Sven-Erik Spichiger

Managing the Emerald Ash Borer in Canada...................................................................2

Kenneth R. Marchant

Modeling Emerald Ash Borer Spread in Ohio and Michigan ............................................3

Anantha Prasad, Louis Iverson, Matthew Peters, Jonathan Bossenbroek, Davis Sydnor, 

and Mark Schwartz

Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer

Dendrochronological Reconstruction of the Establishment and Spread of Emerald Ash

Borer ......................................................................................................................4

Nathan W. Siegert, Deborah G. McCullough, Andrew M. Liebhold, and Frank W. Telewski

Modeling the Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Isolated Emerald Ash Borer Populations .6

Nathan W. Siegert, Andrew M. Liebhold, and Deborah G. McCullough

Modeling Emerald Ash Borer Dispersal Using Percolation Theory: Estimating the Rate

of Range Expansion in a Fragmented Landscape ..........................................................7

Robin A. J. Taylor, Daniel A. Herms, and Louis R. Iverson

Impacts of Emerald Ash Borer-Induced Gap Formation on Forest Communities................10

Daniel A. Herms, Kamal J.K. Gandhi, John Cardina, Robert P. Long, Kathleen S. Knight, 

Annemarie Smith, and Deborah G. McCullough

Emerald Ash Borer Genetics: An Update........................................................................11

BAlicia M. Bray, Leah S. Bauer, Robert A. Haack, Therese Poland, and James J. Smith

Putative Pheromone for the Emerald Ash Borer.............................................................12

BAllard A. Cossé, Robert J. Bartelt, Bruce W. Zilkowski, and Ivich Fraser

Effects of Cuticular Chemistry on Male Mating Behavior in the Emerald Ash Borer........13

Jonathan P. Lelito, Katalin Böröczky, Ivich Fraser, Victor Mastro, James H. Tumlinson, 

and Thomas C. Baker

How Emerald Ash Borer Facilitates a Secondary Spread of Invasive Plant Species: Impacts

of Emerald Ash Borer Eradication and Tree Mortality..............................................14

Constance E. Hausman, Oscar J. Rocha, and John F. Jaeger

Genetic Structure of Green Ash: Implications for the Establishment of Ex Situ

Conservation Protocols .........................................................................................16

Michelle Lang, Constance E. Hausman, Oscar J. Rocha, and John F. Jaeger
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Meeting—2007

vi _________________________________________________________________________________

Emerald Ash Borer Regulatory and Outreach

Survey of Emerald Ash Borer Distribution in China.......................................................19

Baode Wang, Zhichu Xu, Youqing Luo, and Vic Mastro

Evaluation of Heat Treatments for Quarantine Use with Emerald Ash Borer

in Firewood ...........................................................................................................21

Scott W. Myers and Victor C. Mastro

Evaluation of Firewood Bagging and Vacuum Treatment for Regulatory Control

of Emerald Ash Borer.............................................................................................24

Therese M. Poland and Tina M. Kuhn, Chen Zhangjing, Andrea Diss-Torrance, and Erin L. Clark

Emerals Ash Borer-Host Relations

Three-Year Progression of Emerald Ash Borer-Induced Decline and Mortality

in Southeastern Michigan.......................................................................................27

Kamal J.K. Gandhi, Annemarie Smith, Robert P. Long, Robin A.J. Taylor, and Daniel A. Herms

How Fast Will Trees Die? A transition Matrix Model of Ash decline in Forest Stands

Infested by Emerald Ash Borer ...............................................................................28

Kathleen S. Knight, Robert P. Long, Joanne Rebbeck, Annemarie Smith, Kamal Gandhi, 

and Daniel A. Herms

Regenerative Capacity of Ash Following Mortality of Canopy Trees Caused

by Emerald Ash Borer.............................................................................................30

Daniel M. Kashian and John A. Witter

Effects of Host Stress on Emerald Ash Borer Development: What Make a Good Home?..32

Andrew R. Tluczek, Deborah G. McCullough, Therese M. Poland, and Andrea C. Anulewicz

Interspecific Variation in Resistance of Ash to Emerald Ash Borer ...................................34

Daniel A. Herms, David Smitley, Eric J. Rebek, Pierluigi Bonello, and Don Cipolinni

Development of Novel Ash Hybrids to Introgress Resistance to Emerald Ash Borer

into North American Ash Species .............................................................................36

Jennifer L. Koch, David W. Carey, and Mary E. Mason

Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer

Potential of Spinosad Applications for Emerald Ash Borer Control ...............................38

Phillip A. Lewis, David M. Cowan, and Ivich Fraser

Evaluation of Non-Invasive Trunk Sprays and Trunk-Injected Emamectic Benzoate ..........40

Deborah G. McCullough, D.L. Cappaert, T.M. Poland, A.C. Anulewicz, P. Lewis, and J. Molongoski

Imidacloprid Concentration Effects on Adult Emerald Ash Borer: A Greenhouse Study...43

David Cappaert, Deborah G. McCullough, Therese M. Poland, Phil Lewis, and John Molongoski

Distribution of Trunk-Injected 14C Imidacloprid in Ash Trees: Variation Between Spring

and Fall Injections .................................................................................................45

S. R. Tanis, B. M. Cregg, D. Mota-Sanchez, D. G. McCullough, T. M. Poland, 

and R. M. Hollingworth
_________________________________________________________________________________ vii

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Meeting—2007

Biopesticides for Emerald Ash Borer

Emerald Ash Borer Microbial Control with the Entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana

GHA Formulated as Botanigard® ...........................................................................48

Houping Liu and Leah S. Bauer

Impact of Beauveria bassiana and Imidacloprid, Alone and in Combination, for Control

of Emerald Ash Borer in a Newly Infested Ash Nursery ............................................50

J.D. Vandenberg, L.A. Castrillo, H. Liu, M. Griggs and L.S. Bauer

Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer

The Anticipated Host Switch: A New Braconid Parasitoid in Michigan ...........................51

David Cappaert and Deborah G. McCullough

Progress on Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer ................................................56

Leah S Bauer, Houping Liu, and Juli Gould

Population Biology of Emerald Ash Borer and its Natural Enemies in China...................59

Houping Liu, Leah S Bauer, Tonghai Zhao, and Ruitong Gao

Field Host Range Testing of Spathius agrili, a Parasitoid of Emerald Ash Borer: 

Evaluating Nontarget Impacts.................................................................................61

John S. Strazanac, Juli R. Gould, Robert A. Haack, and Ivich Fraser

Emerald Ash Borer Survey

Accuracy Assessment of Remote Sensing Imagery for Mapping Hardwood Trees

and Stressed Ash Trees ............................................................................................63

David Bartels, David Williams, Jim Ellenwood, and Frank Sapio

Hyperspectral Remote Sensing for Early Detection of Invasive Pests ................................66

Jennifer Pontius, Mary Martin, Lucie Plourde, and Richard Hallett

The Practical Utility of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing for Early Detection

of Emerald Ash Borer.............................................................................................67

Richard Hallett, Jennifer Pontius, Mary Martin, and Lucie Plourde

Comparing Emerald Ash Borer-Detection Tools ............................................................69

Jordan M. Marshall, Andrew J. Storer, Ivich Fraser, Jessica A. Beachy, and Victor C. Mastro

The ‘06 trap Trees in ‘07 ..............................................................................................71

Andrea C. Anulewicz, Deborah G. McCullough, Therese M. Poland, and David Cappaert

Double-Deckers and Towers: Emerald Ash Borer Traps in 2007......................................73

Deborah G. McCullough, Therese M. Poland, Andrea C. Anulewicz, and David L. Cappaert

Lab and Field Responses of Emerald Ash Borer to Selected Wavelength Regions

of the Visible Spectrum............................................................................................76

D. Crook, J. Francese, K. Zylstra, D. Lance, I. Fraser, and V. Mastro

Field Responses of Emerald Ash Borer to Multicomponent Lures ....................................78

Damon Crook, Joe Francese, Ashot Khrimian, Ivich Fraser, and Victor Mastro
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Meeting—2007

viii ________________________________________________________________________________

Further Investigations in Developing a Trap for Emerald Ash Borer: How Trap Height

Affects Capture Rates .............................................................................................79

Joseph A. Francese, Damon J. Crook, Ivich Fraser, David R. Lance, Alan J. Sawyer, 

and Victor C. Mastro

Identification and Antennal Electrophysiology of Ash Bark Volatiles for the Emerald

Ash Borer .............................................................................................................81

Allard A. Cossé, Robert J. Bartelt, Bruce W. Zilkowski, and Ivich Fraser

Chemical Ecology and Behavioral Studies on the Emerald Ash Borer: An Update ............83

Deepa Pureswaran and Therese Poland

Visual Trapping of the Emerald Ash Borer and Related Buprestids ..................................85

Jonathan P. Lelito, Ivich Fraser, Victor Mastro, James H. Tumlinson, and Thomas C. Baker

Biosurveillance: Utilizing Cerceris fumipennis to Detect Infestations of Emerald

Ash Borer .............................................................................................................86

Philip Careless, Steve Marshall and Bruce D. Gill

Appendices

2007 Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Review Meeting ...............................91

2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting Attendees..................................................................95

2006 Emerald Ash Borer and Asian Longhorned Beetle Research and Technology

Review Meeting ....................................................................................................100

2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting Attendees .........................105

2005 Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting ....................110

2004 Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting ....................113

2004 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting Attendees................................................................116

2003 Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting ....................120

2003 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting Attendees................................................................122
Abstracts

__________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Program Reports 1

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Emerald Ash Borer in Pennsylvania

Sven-Erik Spichiger

Pennsylvania Emerald Ash Borer Task Force

Entomology Program Manager, PA Department of Agriculture 

2301 North Cameron St., Harrisburg, PA 17110 

sspichiger@state.pa.us

ABSTRACT

Confirmation of adult specimens of emerald ash borer was received by the Pennsylvania Emerald Ash Borer Task Force June 26, 2007. The specimens were collected by USDA-APHIS 

inspectors as part of the state’s cooperative emerald ash borer (EAB) survey activities. The 

initial detection site is located in Cranberry Township, Butler County. The Task Force responded with a one-mile by one-mile survey grid extending in a five-mile radius from the 

initial detection. Additional detections were made in multiple grids, with a total of 28 of 98 

grids containing positive detections. Several of the positive grids were located in Allegheny 

County, south of the initial detection. Detection in Allegheny County was confirmed June 

29, 2007.

The Task Force received excellent media cooperation, which spawned numerous public 

referrals from across the state. The Task Force divided up public referrals and investigated 

these reports, resulting in 10 additional positive detections. Two of the positive detections 

were outside of the original delimiting grid, but both were in counties already known to be 

infested.

In addition to regularly scheduled surveillance, the Task Force implemented a survey 

of major highways in western Pennsylvania and performed visual and destructive sampling 

in one-mile intervals. Two additional positive detections were recorded, but both were in 

the original delimiting grids.

Task Force cooperators continued planned survey activities, including trap tree removal, 

visual sampling, and destructive sampling at high-risk sites. As of October 19, 2007, Task 

Force cooperators inspected 1,062 sites and recorded 114 positive detections.

Regulatory actions included a quarantine of four western Pennsylvania counties, (Allegheny, Butler, Beaver, and Lawrence counties). Beaver and Lawrence counties were included 

due to their proximity to the Allegheny and Butler counties’ infestations and a Mahoning 

County, Ohio, infestation. Simultaneously, a quarantine banning transportation of firewood 

out-of-state was also implemented. 

Emergency funding was received to support survey and outreach efforts. Increased 

survey and outreach activities are planned for 2008.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

2 Emerald Ash Borer Program Reports __________________________________________________

Managing the Emerald Ash Borer in Canada

Kenneth R. Marchant

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

174 Stone Rd. W., Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 4S9

marchantk@inspection.gc.ca

ABSTRACT

The emerald ash borer (EAB) continues to pose an extreme risk to Canada’s environment and 

valuable ash resource, with heavy mortality being observed throughout southwestern Ontario 

in 2007. With the recent confirmation of EAB in Norfolk County, six Ontario counties are 

now regulated for EAB in Canada by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Canada’s strategy is to slow the spread of EAB through effective quarantine, regulatory, and communications strategies. Tree removal at and around infested outliers is no longer 

considered a cost-effective, sustainable strategy and has been discontinued other than for 

research purposes. The CFIA still considers the primary obstacle to effective control to be 

the relative paucity of accurate surveillance tools, and until such time as EAB can be detected 

at low population levels around outliers and the leading edge can be accurately determined, 

large-scale control actions cannot be considered as a viable strategy.

Canada’s survey strategy is focused on the detection of outlier EAB populations and, to 

a lesser extent, the leading edge of infestation. This is accomplished by conducting detection 

and delimitation surveys. Throughout 2007, detection surveys were conducted at high-risk 

sites such as campgrounds, nurseries, parks, and sawmills across Ontario and in other areas of 

Canada to provide assurance that EAB does not occur in these areas. While the CFIA continues 

to focus its survey efforts on the detection of signs and symptoms and does not currently use 

girdled trap trees, wounded and banded sentinel trees were established for research purposes 

in infested areas in 2007 to assess the potential effectiveness of these as survey tools. Results 

from these trials are pending.

Quarantine of infested and high risk areas, in conjunction with public outreach and 

communications initiatives, are key elements of Canada’s slow-the-spread strategy for EAB. 

As outlined in its EAB Management Plan, Canada establishes regulated areas in two ways: 

through the declaration of an area (usually at the county level) as infested by way of a federal 

Ministerial Order and through the issuance of legal notices to all property owners within a 

5-km radius of a known positive detection. Both methods of quarantine may be in place in 

the same area concurrently where it is deemed desirable to slow intra-county spread. Quarantines are seen as instrumental to the CFIA in meeting its domestic and international regulatory obligations.
____________________________________Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer 3

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Modeling Emerald Ash Borer Spread 

in Ohio and Michigan

Anantha Prasad1, Louis Iverson1, Matthew Peters1, Jonathan Bossenbroek2, 

Davis Sydnor3, and Mark Schwartz4

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station 

359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015 

aprasad@fs.fed.us

University of Toledo, Lake Erie Center 

Oregon, OH 43618

Ohio State University 

School of Environment and Natural Resources

Columbus, OH 43210

University of California-Davis

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

Davis, CA 95616

ABSTRACT

Our group has been modelling the spread of emerald ash borer (EAB) in Ohio using a spatially explicit cell-based model that takes into account the insect’s flight characteristics (Insect 

Flight Model) as well as external factors that enable the insects to travel passively (Insect Ride 

Model). 

To accomplish this, we calculated the available ash from Forest Inventory Analysis 

data and created estimates for an EAB infestation “front” and years since colonization. The 

Insect Flight Model calculates the probability of colonization in each cell based on the basal 

area of ash (ash abundance) and EAB abundance by assuming an 11-year cycle starting with 

initial colonization of a site and ending when all ash at the site are dead. The Insect Ride 

Model weights the road network, wood products, population density, and campground information in a GIS and calculates an ash abundance multiplier that alters the ash abundance 

input to the Insect Flight Model. The modelled EAB colonization probability yields a map 

of colonization potential. 

When the actual EAB finds were overlaid to determine the accuracy of our predicted 

spread, we found that 83% of the infections fell within a zone of high probability of colonization. In addition, 69% of the EAB finds (2004-2007) in the outlier zone (i.e., the zone beyond 

the immediate infestation front) occurred within 2 km of major Ohio roads. For campgrounds 

and wood products that are located farther from major roads, we are seeing more EAB positive detections beyond the immediate vicinity (2-10 km) of the major roads. This shows that 

these potential sources of infection are more likely to contribute to EAB finds as we move 

away from the roads. We found no significant relationship between ash basal area and EAB 

positive detections in either the occupied or the outlier zones. This analysis may contribute 

to more reasoned placement of detection trees.

We are currently applying the model to test EAB spread in Michigan, where campgrounds rather than roads are implicated as the major spread factor.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

4 Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer____________________________________

Dendrochronological Reconstruction of the

Establishment and Spread of Emerald Ash Borer

Nathan W. Siegert1, Deborah G. McCullough1, 2, 

Andrew M. Liebhold3, and Frank W. Telewski4

1

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University

243 Natural Science Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

siegert1@msu.edu

2

Department of Forestry, Michigan State University

243 Natural Science Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

3

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

180 Canfield Street, Morgantown, WV 26505

4

Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University

166 Plant Biology Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

ABSTRACT

Since emerald ash borer was discovered in southeastern lower Michigan in July 2002, it has 

been found to be responsible for the death or decline of several million ash trees. We used 

dendrochronological analyses to reconstruct where emerald ash borer originally became established and how it spread throughout southeastern lower Michigan. The area sampled was 

approximately 15,000 km2 in size and encompassed the original six-county emerald ash borer 

quarantine area established in 2002. Two to four increment cores and/or cross-sections from 

emerald ash borer-killed green ash were preferentially collected over declining or non-stressed 

ash trees on a sampling grid of at least 4.8 × 4.8 km and on a sampling grid of 2.4 × 2.4 km 

throughout the heart of the core infestation. Samples were dried, mounted, and surfaced in 

the laboratory prior to measuring annual growth rings to the nearest 0.01 mm using a Velmex 

measuring system. Skeleton-plots depicting annual relative growth rates for each sample were 

generated and used to visually cross-date samples to a known master chronology compiled 

from ash trees surrounding the sample area. 

Preliminary cross-dating analyses of ash trees in the sample area suggest that emerald 

ash borer initially became established and began to kill trees in the greater Westland-Garden 

City vicinity by 1997-1998. Additional analyses are currently in progress to verify the accuracy of the preliminary cross-dating analyses. In related research conducted at several emerald 

ash borer outlier sites, we have found that an area is typically infested for three to four years 

before tree mortality occurs. In turn, this suggests that emerald ash borer was introduced and 

became established in southeastern lower Michigan in the early to mid-1990s.
____________________________________Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer 5

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Preliminary measurements of the reconstructed spread of emerald ash borer in southeastern lower Michigan indicate that the emerald ash borer population exhibited a biphasic 

expansion following an initial establishment phase. This type of expansion is fairly characteristic of invasive species in which nearby expanding satellite colonies coalesce with their primary 

core infestation. The core emerald ash borer infestation initially radiated from the epicenter 

by about 6.5 km each year, then increased to 30 km per year as nearby satellite emerald ash 

borer colonies started to coalesce. Jump distances of new satellite colonies of emerald ash 

borer averaged 20 km from the nearest edge of the core infestation (95% core infestation = 

15 to 24 km). In five years (1998 to 2003), the area occupied by the core emerald ash borer 

infestation increased 170-fold.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

6 Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer____________________________________

Modeling the Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of 

Isolated Emerald Ash Borer Populations

Nathan W. Siegert1, Andrew M. Liebhold2, 

and Deborah G. McCullough1,3

1

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University

243 Natural Science Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

siegert1@msu.edu

2

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

180 Canfield Street, Morgantown, WV 26505

3

Department of Forestry, Michigan State University

243 Natural Science Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

ABSTRACT

The ability to predict the distance and rate of emerald ash borer (EAB) spread in outlier populations is needed to continue development of effective management strategies for improved EAB 

control. We have developed a coupled map lattice model to estimate the spread and dispersal 

of isolated emerald ash borer populations. This model creates an artificial environment in 

which several iterations of emerald ash borer dynamics may be performed to represent the 

spatial spread of EAB over time. 

The general spread model involves initial dispersal of adult beetles (e.g., from infested 

firewood), population growth (potentially constrained by the availability of suitable ash 

phloem), loss of the ash phloem resource by pre-reproductive emerald ash borer numbers (i.e., 

larval feeding), and subsequent dispersal of the next generation of emerald ash borer adults. 

The shift from two-year to one-year development of emerald ash borer larvae with increasing 

tree stress has been incorporated into the model. Also, the density and distribution of ash and 

initial emerald ash borer infestation levels can be varied to estimate emerald ash borer spread 

and dispersal according to site-specific conditions. To develop realistic estimates of emerald 

ash borer spread and dispersal, model parameters have been fit to match EAB dynamics observed at several outlier sites. In addition, model calibration via large-scale field sampling in 

forested areas is currently in progress.

Potential applications of this model include: 1) evaluating management techniques and 

strategies at distinctly different sites (e.g., forest, urban, and riparian sites); 2) determining ash 

removal zones at emerald ash borer eradication sites given ash distribution, infestation levels, 

and number of years infested; 3) predicting emerald ash borer dynamics following varying 

degrees of ash removal; and 4) evaluating the effectiveness of biological control agents. Implications of this research were discussed in relation to future management guidelines.
____________________________________Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer 7

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Modeling Emerald Ash Borer Dispersal Using 

Percolation Theory: Estimating the Rate of Range

Expansion in a Fragmented Landscape

Robin A. J. Taylor1, Daniel A. Herms1, and Louis R. Iverson2

1

Department of Entomology, OARDC/OSU 

1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691

RAJT@osu.eduH

2

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station 

359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015

ABSTRACT

The dispersal of organisms is rarely random, although diffusion processes can be useful models 

for movement in approximately homogeneous environments. However, the environments 

through which all organisms disperse are far from uniform at all scales. The emerald ash borer 

(EAB), Agrilus planipennis, is obligate on ash (Fraxinus spp.) in a widespread but slightly aggregated and spatially correlated pattern at landscape scales. Figure 1 shows the distribution of 

ash in Southeast Michigan and North Ohio. Modeling random dispersal through a landscape 

with pattern at a range of scales cannot be done with diffusion processes alone: a mechanism 

is required to model the spatial structure of the habitat itself. 

Whereas diffusion processes ascribe the 

random, “drunkard’s” walk or ‘Polya process’ 

to the quantity moving, in percolation processes, the random movement is determined 

by the structure of the medium—for example 

,water “percolating” through ground coffee 

in a percolator or filter. 

The structure of square lattices, such as 

the 1-km2 cell map of ash density in Figure 1, 

are defined by the probability, p, that adjacent 

cells are connected. This probability is a good 

measure of the degree of fragmentation of the 

landscape: at low p, the landscape is made up of 

a large number of disconnected clusters, while 

at high p, the landscape is nearly uniform, with 

a small number of small voids. A characteristic of square lattices is that, at the critical value 

of p = pc ≈ 0.6, a large number of clusters coalesce into a single “super-cluster” that spans the 

lattice. The appearance of the spanning cluster occurs very rapidly near p = 0.6 in a “phase 

transition” (Figure 2) that permits percolation across the lattice.

Figure 1. Percolation on a 320 x 400 quadratic 

lattice representing ash distribution in 

1-square-kilometer cells.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

8 Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer____________________________________

For organisms capable of moving between clusters, a population can span lattices 

with p well below the critical value of 0.6. Thus, the speed with which organisms can cross 

landscapes will depend on their ability to cross the gaps in the landscape as well as the degree 

of fragmentation of the landscape. Their ability to cross the gaps is determined by the shape 

of the relationship between dispersal distance (D) and numbers dispersing (N). A general 

function relating N and D is exp( ) C N = a + b ⋅ D , where a specifies the source population, b

defines the distance scale, and c defines the curvature. When c = 2, dispersal is pure diffusion 

by the Polya or drunkard’s walk, and as c → 0, the dispersal curves become increasingly steep, 

with very long tails representing a small number traveling extreme distances. The diffusion 

function was fitted to flight endurance data of gravid female EAB obtained from flight mills 

(Figure 3), and an estimate of c = 1.7 was obtained.

To model EAB dispersal through the 

fragmented ash landscape of southeast Michigan and north Ohio, we have combined transport between cells defined by the diffusion 

function with percolation processes in a cellular 

automaton model that “flies” EAB between 

1 km2 cells with ash basal area represented in 

Figure 1. Population growth was proportional 

to the ash basal area in each cell. Simulations 

were run for 90 combinations of c and p with 

the population origin at Canton Township, 

Michigan, for one gravid female having a net 

reproduction rate of r = 10 and an offspring sex ratio of 50%. Flight mill data show that 

mated females are most likely to fly long distances and thereby found new populations; thus, 

the net production of migrants rm = 5. To reduce the intense computational requirements of 

the simulation, only the flights of females were modelled. Ash trees were assumed dead four 

generations following invasion. Simulations were run until EAB had spanned the map either 

north-south or east-west. The time in generations taken to span the map and the proportion 

of ash-populated cells invaded were then recorded. 

Figure 2. Increasing the occupation probability p from 0.58 (left) to 0.62 (right), many clusters combine 

in a “phase transition” at p = pc ≈ 0.6 (center) to span the lattice. The parameter p is a useful 

variable to quantify landscape fragmentation.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Estimated Flight Distance (km)

Number of Beetles

Observed

Fitted

N = exp(4.0-0.036D1.70)

Figure 3. Observed and fitted flight range of gravid 

female emerald ash borer on flight mills.
____________________________________Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer 9

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

In general, the longer it took to span the map, the more cells were occupied (Figure 4). 

In particular, the lower the habitat fragmentation (high p) at high c, the more rapidly spanning 

occurred, while at high p and low c, the longer it took to span the map. Unfortunately, the 

most rapid spanning occurred at c = 1.7, the empirical estimate for EAB (Figures 3 and 4a). 

Most ash cells are invaded at low c and low p (high fragmentation), suggesting that increasing 

fragmentation by clear-cutting ash is unlikely to slow the spread and may result in higher 

proportion of unoccupied cells being invaded per generation. This does not mean that manipulation of the distribution of ash at the landscape scale cannot help slow the spread, but 

the strategy will require new approaches. 

It must be noted that spread in this model is strictly due to the beetles’ flight; it does 

not take into account automobile phoresy or transport by other human agencies. Also, the 

results presented should not be interpreted quantitatively, although the qualitative results 

are useful and agree broadly with experience. To develop a quantitatively predictive model, 

EAB’s reproductive rate and relationship between EAB density and ash morbidity must be 

better quantified and modeled.

Figure 4. The rate of map spanning. a) The number of EAB generations required to span the ash map 

in Figure 1 depends strongly on c, with most rapid population expansion occurring at c = 

1.7; b) the percentage of cells invaded at spanning is highest at low p and low c.

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Curvature (c)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

F 0.7

0.8

0.9

ragmentation (p)

20 40 80 60 100

120

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Curvature (c)

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fragmentation (p)

5%

10%

15%

20%

a b
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

10 Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer___________________________________

Impacts of Emerald Ash Borer-Induced 

Gap Formation on Forest Communities

Daniel A. Herms1, Kamal J.K. Gandhi1, John Cardina2, 

Robert P. Long3, Kathleen S. Knight3, 

Annemarie Smith4, and Deborah G. McCullough5

1

Department of Entomology, OARDC/OSU 

1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691

herms.2@osu.edu 

2

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, OARDC/OSU

1680 Madison Ave., Wooster, OH 44691

3

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

359 Main Road, Delaware, Ohio 43015

4

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry

359 Main Road, Delaware, Ohio 43015

5

Departments of Entomology and Forestry, 243 Natural Science Building

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

ABSTRACT

We have initiated a series of studies to investigate effects of ash mortality and associated gap 

formation on forest community structure, composition, and succession. To do so, we established 99 plots within the Huron River watershed in southeast Michigan across a gradient of 

emerald ash borer (EAB) impact ranging from zero to 100% ash mortality. Objectives include 

quantifying: 1) patterns and rates of ash mortality in relation to tree community composition, 

2) successional trajectories in relation to gap size and tree community composition, 3) ash 

seed bank and seedling regeneration, 4) response of native understory vegetation, 5) spread 

and establishment of invasive plants, and 6) responses of native arthropod fauna, including 

ground beetle (Carabidae) assemblages. Once infested, ash decline and mortality progressed 

rapidly in all stands regardless of basal area, density, species composition, or other stand variables. Ash was the most common woody seedling, which could facilitate ash regeneration 

but also provide a continued host for EAB. The ash seedbank was limited, which suggests 

that long-term perpetuation of ash is precarious. Preliminary data suggests that EAB-induced 

gap formation will facilitate the spread of invasive plants. Ground beetle species richness was 

reduced in stands impacted by EAB, at least initially. These studies suggest that EAB will 

have substantial, long-term effects on forest communities.
___________________________________Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer 11

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Emerald Ash Borer Genetics: An Update

BAlicia M. Bray1

, Leah S. Bauer1,2, Robert A. Haack1,2, 

Therese Poland1,2, and James J. Smith1,3

1

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University 

243 Natural Science Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

kingalic@msu.edu

2

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station 

1407 S. Harrison Rd., East Lansing, MI 48823

3

Lyman Briggs College, Michigan State University 

East Holmes Hall, East Lansing, MI 48825

ABSTRACT

Emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, samples were collected from introduced sites in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ontario, Canada, as well 

as native sites in China, Japan, and South Korea with the help of a network of collaborators. 

The beetles were analyzed using DNA sequences from mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I 

(COI) and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) DNA fingerprinting. 

EAB individuals from introduced sites in North America all had a mitochondrial COI 

haplotype identical in more than 450 nucleotides to the haplotype found in most individuals from our collection sites in China and in six individuals from three sites in South Korea. 

However, haplotypes from individuals from two collection sites in Liaoning Province, China, 

differed from this main haplotype by one base pair; five individuals from two populations 

in South Korea differed from the main haplotype by two to four base pairs; and a Japanese 

sample differed from the main haplotype by 22 base pairs. Interestingly, one individual from 

Ontario, Canada, differed from all other North American samples by three base pairs. 

Two individuals collected in Moscow, Russia, were also analyzed by mtDNA COI and 

were found to be identical to the main haplotype. EAB is only native to Russia in the Far East 

north of North Korea; therefore, the population in Moscow was the result of an introduction 

from the beetles’ native range. 

AFLP analyses have been carried out using four selective primer pairs, which yielded 

139 scoreable bands (loci). In neighbor-joining analysis, samples from throughout the introduced range in North America grouped more often with individuals from China than with 

individuals from South Korea and the individual from Japan. However, support for hypothesized AFLP relationships was weak. Therefore, microsatellite markers are being developed 

that we hope will provide the information necessary to identify the geographic origin of the 

North American EAB populations (and possibly the Moscow, Russia, population) and enabled us to reconstruct the invasion history of EAB in North America (including the separate 

introductions). 

EAB from Lansing, Michigan, were used to develop 96 clones for evaluation. Fortyone primer pairs have been designed and tested for amplification, with 32 of these providing 

successful amplification. These primers are currently being tested for variability in EAB 

populations. 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

12 Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer___________________________________

Putative Pheromone for the Emerald Ash Borer*

BAllard A. Cossé1

, Robert J. Bartelt1, 

Bruce W. Zilkowski1, and Ivich Fraser2

1

National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research

USDA/ARS, 1815 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61604

Allard.Cosse@ars.usda.gov

2

USDA/APHIS-PPQ, Emerald Ash Borer Project 

5936 Ford Ct., Brighton, MI 48116

ABSTRACT

The emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), is an 

invasive beetle species from Asia that has caused extensive mortality of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) 

since arriving in the United States in 2002. Monitoring its rapid spread has been difficult, and 

improved monitoring methods are urgently needed. Pheromones have been used to detect pest 

insects; however, none have so far been identified in the Buprestidae. We analyzed volatiles 

from adult EAB feeding on ash foliage to identify compounds with pheromonal characteristics 

that are sex-specific, consistently present, and readily sensed by antennae.

The macrocyclic lactone (3Z)-dodecen-12-olide (stereochemistry at left) was identified 

from the emissions of the emerald ash borer feeding on ash foliage. The lactone was observed 

in 129 of the 135 volatile collections from females and in 52 of the 119 

collections from males (the compound was near the limit of detection 

in male samples). The lactone was never detected in volatile collections 

from ash foliage controls. The amount of lactone from females exceeded 

that from males by a factor of at least 10. It was consistently present in 

the initial collections when beetles were received from Michigan. There 

was a decrease in amount over time, but this may have been related to a 

general decline in beetle health; mortality was 60% at five days after adult 

emergence. Both male and female antennae readily sensed the compound. 

The identification of the lactone was verified by synthesis. 

EAB reaches sexual maturity approximately seven days after emergence. However, 

our initial mating observations showed two-day-old (two out of six) and three-day-old (four 

out of 10) females readily mating with seven- to eight-day-old males, a time window which 

coincide with the observed higher emissions of the lactone by younger females.

The behavioral effects of the lactone were tested at ground level using purple sticky 

traps, but no pheromonal function of the lactone could be verified in this field test. Future 

field studies will test the behavioral activity of the lactone when placed in the tree canopy, 

well-exposed to sunlight and closer to the area of mating activity. 

* Full paper published as Bartelt et al. (2007), Journal of Chemical Ecology 33:1299-1302.

O

O
___________________________________Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer 13

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Effects of Cuticular Chemistry on Male Mating 

Behavior in the Emerald Ash Borer

Jonathan P. Lelito1, Katalin Böröczky1, Ivich Fraser2, 

Victor Mastro2, James H. Tumlinson1, and Thomas C. Baker1

1

Chemical Ecology Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University 

University Park, PA 16802

jpl207@psu.edu

2

USDA/APHIS-PPQ, Emerald Ash Borer Project 

5936 Ford Ct., Brighton, MI 48116

ABSTRACT

The invasive emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis, was examined for behaviors related 

to mate location and identification. Previous research by our group indicates that EAB males 

locate conspecifics first visually and then discriminate between the sexes after contact based 

on some unknown chemical cue. Our laboratory focuses on behavior and chemical ecology, 

and one of our major objectives is to understand the contact cue that feral male emerald ash 

borers use to identify a female conspecific. 

Currently, we have isolated at least one major and consistent sex difference in the cuticular compounds present on the beetle. In field experiments with EAB, dead female beetles 

were used to assess behavior involving this potential contact cue. These dead females were 

either unwashed, washed in solvent, or coated with varying concentrations (including less 

than one beetle-equivalent, one beetle-equivalent, and greater than one beetle-equivalent) of 

a twenty-three carbon compound that we isolated from the cuticle of female EAB. Feral male 

EAB spent the most time examining unwashed dead females, as shown previously. However, 

males spent significantly more time examining dead females to which the highest concentration 

of cuticular compound had been applied than those merely washed in solvent. 

Future work will focus on isolating and identifying other cuticular substances differing 

between the sexes in an effort to re-create a precise ‘blend’ of cuticular compounds that feral 

males use to identify beetles that they have mounted as female conspecifics. Furthermore, 

this refined ‘blend’ will be field tested to determine what, if any, increases in trap catch it may 

generate when applied to a variety of currently used trapping regimes for EAB. 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

14 Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer___________________________________

How Emerald Ash Borer Facilitates a Secondary 

Spread of Invasive Plant Species: Impacts of Emerald 

Ash Borer Eradication and Tree Mortality

Constance E. Hausman1, Oscar J. Rocha1, and John F. Jaeger2

Department of Biological Sciences, Kent State University 

Kent, OH 44242 

chausman@kent.edu

Metropolitan Park District of the Toledo Area

Fallen Timbers Battlefield Field Office

6101 Fallen Timbers Lane, Maumee, OH 43537

ABSTRACT

Ever since the discovery of the emerald ash borer (EAB) in 2002, eradication efforts have been 

implemented in an attempt to eliminate or contain the spread of this beetle. At the time, the 

eradication protocol called for the removal of every ash tree within a half-mile radius around 

an infested tree. In 2005, this study was established to identify the environmental changes 

attributed to the eradication program and measure subsequent shifts in forest community 

composition and structure. 

The project design compares areas that received the eradication treatment (all ash 

trees cut down) to areas that were left uncut (control: ash trees still standing). This study is 

conducted in Pearson Metropark, located in Lucas County, Ohio. Emerald ash borer was 

not completely eradicated from this park, and therefore, those areas that were uncut in 2005 

now represent the impact of the natural spread of EAB. These “uncut-control” areas are 

now experiencing EAB-induced ash tree dieback. The goal of this project is to identify how 

the plant community is responding in these two areas. Specifically, it is designed to describe 

the successional stages of plant colonization after a disturbance event, such as the eradication 

protocol, and to determine the potential for a secondary spread of invasive plant species. 

Fourteen 20m x 25m plots (eight uncut and six cut) were established within Pearson 

Metropark. The plant community assessment included measurements of the canopy composition and structure and herbaceous understory. The light environment was assessed using 

hemispherical photographs, and soil compaction was measured with a soil penetrometer. 

Environmental changes in light and soil compaction were immediately detected in 2005 and 

were similar in 2006. 

The eradication protocol accelerated the formation and size of gaps within the forest 

and thus increased the duration and intensity of light penetrating through to the forest floor. 

In addition, the vehicles used during the eradication efforts caused significant soil compaction. 

The degree of soil compaction in 2005 and 2006 was greater in the cut versus uncut plots, with 

those results detectable at each depth of the soil profile (P<0.0001). 
___________________________________Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer 15

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

These abiotic changes to the environment have impacted the composition of the plant 

community. Shannon’s Diversity Index (H') was used to detect differences between cut and 

uncut plots (P<0.001). Cut plots in the West forest had greater diversity (H'=0.58) than 

the uncut plots (H'=0.30); however, no differences were detected between treatments in the 

East forest (uncut plots H'=0.47, cut plots H'=0.56). In 2006, a Canonical Correspondence 

Analysis (CCA) was performed to identify species-specific distribution patterns. In Figure 

1, 89 species are graphed based on their percent cover. The following non-natives Alliaria 

petiolata, Cirsium arvense, Rhamnus cathartica, and two Lonicera spp. (black stars) are found 

in cut plots.

One coclusion was that the spread of 

EAB increases the light environment. However, 

do eradication efforts cause a further compounding negative effect by increasing the light 

environment and creating physical disturbance? 

In 2007, an additional treatment was added to 

isolate the impact of an increased light environment without the effects of soil compaction. Six 

new plots, designated as ‘cut without soil compaction’, had all ash trees removed within them 

without the use of vehicles: by cutting these 

trees by hand and removing them with minimal 

impact, we eliminated soil compaction. In addition, soil cores were collected to determine the 

composition of species in the seed bank available 

for revegetation. 

The treatments in this study represent 

three possible scenarios for the spread of EAB, 

and results will be measured over time. The cut 

plots in the eradication zone reflect an intense 

level of anthropogenic disturbance resulting 

in the greatest sensitivity to a secondary spread of invasive plant species. The ‘cut without 

compaction’ plots are designed to reflect a moderate level of anthropogenic disturbance with 

less susceptibility to invasive plant species predicted. The uncut plots exhibit signs of infestation with some ash tree dieback from the continued spread of EAB and, therefore, reflect a 

natural disturbance with successional stages of plant colonization. The seed bank study will 

tell us whether species in the seed bank are the same as the species in the existing plant community and allow us to determine whether, and at what proportion, invasive species exist in 

the seed bank. 

Figure 1. A CCA detected differences between 

the uncut and cut plots of the West 

forest. The West uncut plots are correlated with Axis 1 (R2=0.989) and the 

West cut plots were strongly correlated 

with Axis 2 (R2=0.806). 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

16 Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer___________________________________

Genetic Structure of Green Ash: Implications for the

Establishment of Ex Situ Conservation Protocols

Michelle Lang1, Constance E. Hausman1, 

Oscar J. Rocha1, and John F. Jaeger2

1

Department of Biological Sciences, Kent State University 

Kent, OH 44242 

chausman@kent.edu

2

Metropolitan Park District of the Toledo Area

Fallen Timbers Battlefield Field Office

6101 Fallen Timbers Lane, Maumee, OH 43537

ABSTRACT

Ex situ conservation strategies—in the form of seed banks, greenhouses, or botanical gardens—can be used to successfully preserve the genetic diversity of populations under threat. 

Understanding the genetic structure of such populations is vital to maximizing the amount 

of genetic diversity collected and preserved by these strategies. 

Since its identification in 2002, the emerald ash borer (EAB) has been determined to be 

a severe threat to native ash tree populations. Once a tree is infested with EAB larvae, there 

is a 100% mortality rate within 3-5 years. Due to the spread and efficiency with which this 

beetle can attack, there is great concern about the future of ash trees and thus, the need for ex 

situ conservation. In this study, we describe the genetic structure of nine populations of green 

ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) located in the Toledo Metroparks of Lucas County, Ohio. 

Leaf tissue was collected from fourteen to fifteen trees from nine metroparks in northwest Ohio. Genetic structure was analyzed using five microsatellite loci. These markers are 

specific to the genus Fraxinus and were developed for the European ash (Fraxinus excelsior). 

Genetic diversity was quantified by calculating the number of alleles per locus (A), the effective number of alleles per locus (AE), observed heterozygosity (HO), and Nei’s expected 

heterozygosity (HE) (Nei 1987) for each locus and averaged over all loci. In addition, genetic 

differentiation was determined using the infinite allele model (Fst). 

Our data revealed that the observed number of alleles was quite high from 12 to 22 per 

locus, but the effective number of alleles was comparatively smaller: 3.3-6.7 per locus. Therefore, even though common alleles are shared among all parks, there are also rare alleles unique 

to each of the parks. Based on the high number of alleles per locus, one would expect a higher 

level of heterozygosity; however, this is not the case (Figure 1). The observed heterozygosity 

was actually lower than expected according to Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, suggesting that 

there is a significant deficiency in heterozygosity. Genetic differentiation among the parks 

was also detected by F-statistics. The average Fis (genetic inbreeding within parks) was 0.475. 

The average Fit (reduction in heterozygosity of an individual relative to whole population) 

was 0.529. These results indicate a deficiency in heterozygosity and support the notion that 
___________________________________Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer 17

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

inbreeding has occurred in these parks. Furthermore, an Fst measurement of 0.1015 indicates 

that there is a moderate level of genetic differentiation between the parks. 

Figure 2 is a cladogram based on Nei’s genetic distance that shows how closely related 

the parks are to each other. While there are distinct groups of parks that are more closely related 

than others, there is no correlation between genetic distance and geographic distance between 

the parks (Table 1, next page). Therefore, a conservation protocol cannot be constructed based 

on geographic distance alone. Further analyses of individual park characteristics are required 

to determine patterns of genetic diversity.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

12345

Locus 1 Locus 4 Locus 11 Locus 16 Locus 19 

Average Heterozygosity

Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

12345

Locus 1 Locus 4 Locus 11 Locus 16 Locus 19 

Average Heterozygosity

Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs

Figure 1. Relationship between expected 

(Exp) and observed (Obs) 

heterozygosity for five microsatellite loci. 

Figure 2. Degree of relatedness between ash populations based 

on Nei’s genetic distance. 

Ultimately, these results will be used to create a conservation protocol that includes the 

establishment of an ash seed bank collection that maximizes the amount of genetic diversity 

preserved. The potential implications for this work include future ash tree replantings based 

on genetic diversity and the survival of ash populations. 

Reference

Nei, Masatoshi 1987. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia University Press, New York, 

NY.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

18 Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer___________________________________

Wildwood 0.14 0.12 0.63 0.17 0.27 0.17 0.31 0.53

Swan Creek 0.59 0.41 0.18 0.47 0.25 0.47 0.41 5.17

Secor 0.55 0.32 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.40 8.49 6.26

Side Cut 0.24 0.21 0.44 0.34 0.36 10.3 4.47 9.22

Providence 0.28 0.24 0.35 0.32 9.35 14.98 13.49 17.28

Pearson 0.24 0.18 0.46 21.97 12.95 18.02 10.42 12.19

Oak 0.59 0.40 22.11 8.44 9.98 8.16 11.75 12.95

Openings

Fallen 0.10 8.47 14.39 8.27 1.54 9.54 5.23 9.45

Timbers

Blue Creek 6.81 5.11 21.17 3.37 8.21 11.81 11.72 14.76

Swan Wildwood

Creek

Oak Pearson Providence Side Cut Secor

Openings

Fallen 

Timbers

Blue 

Creek

Population

Wildwood 0.14 0.12 0.63 0.17 0.27 0.17 0.31 0.53

Swan Creek 0.59 0.41 0.18 0.47 0.25 0.47 0.41 5.17

Secor 0.55 0.32 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.40 8.49 6.26

Side Cut 0.24 0.21 0.44 0.34 0.36 10.3 4.47 9.22

Providence 0.28 0.24 0.35 0.32 9.35 14.98 13.49 17.28

Pearson 0.24 0.18 0.46 21.97 12.95 18.02 10.42 12.19

Oak 0.59 0.40 22.11 8.44 9.98 8.16 11.75 12.95

Openings

Fallen 0.10 8.47 14.39 8.27 1.54 9.54 5.23 9.45

Timbers

Blue Creek 6.81 5.11 21.17 3.37 8.21 11.81 11.72 14.76

Swan Wildwood

Creek

Oak Pearson Providence Side Cut Secor

Openings

Fallen 

Timbers

Blue 

Creek

Population

Table 1. Pairwise comparison of all nine parks based on Nei’s genetic distance 

(below line) and their geographic distance in miles (above line).
__________________________________________Emerald Ash Borer Regulatory and Outreach 19

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Survey of Emerald Ash Borer Distribution in China

Baode Wang1, Zhichu Xu2, Youqing Luo2, and Vic Mastro1

1

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory

Bldg. 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542

baode.wang@aphis.usda.gov

2

College of Forestry, Beijing Forestry University 

Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

ABSTRACT

The goal of the project is to determine the distribution areas of emerald ash borer (EAB) in 

China in order to help: 1) identify other possible infested areas, 2) characterize the possible 

impacts in areas that are not currently infested, 3) prevent further spread of the beetle, 4) 

identify locations for collecting EAB natural enemies, 5) determine potential pathways, and 

6) provide insights on how to control EAB in both countries. 

Emerald ash borer distribution was recorded in areas outside of North America: in 

China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Russia (Far East), and Taiwan. Host tree species included in 

this survey were primarily ash, Fraxinus spp., but also included Ulmus davidiana var. japonica, 

Juglans mandshurica var. sieboldiana, Pterocarya rhoifolia, and Ulmus propinqua. 

The project involves a literature review and numerous site surveys performed using 

girdle trees, visual traps, visual inspection, and dissection of infested trees. The locations of 

all visited trees were recorded via GPS coordinates. In provinces where EAB infestation has 

been reported, all counties in the affected prefecture or city were surveyed; in provinces adjacent to those where EAB host tree species occur, 10 evenly distributed sites were established 

for survey. If subsequent EAB or EAB infestations were found at those sites, five to 10 additional sites would be surveyed in each county of the prefecture or city where the infestation 

occurred and in all counties adjacent to the prefecture. For all other provinces, at least five 

sites, evenly distributed in the province, will be surveyed for EAB occurrence or infestation. 

This is an ongoing project, and an updated summary of EAB distribution in China is shown 

in the following map (next page). 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

20 Emerald Ash Borer Regulatory and Outreach__________________________________________

EAB Positive

EAB negative

EAB exited previously, but not found at the survey

Suspected EAB infestation
__________________________________________Emerald Ash Borer Regulatory and Outreach 21

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Evaluation of Heat Treatments for Quarantine Use

with Emerald Ash Borer in Firewood

Scott W. Myers and Victor C. Mastro

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory

Bldg. 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542

scott.w.myers@aphis.usda.gov

ABSTRACT

The goal of this project was to determine the thermo-tolerance of emerald ash borer (EAB) 

larvae and develop a quarantine heat treatment that will allow ash logs, firewood, and pallet 

material to be safely moved from EAB-infested areas.

Separate experiments were conducted at the USDA APHIS Emerald Ash Borer Laboratory in Brighton, Michigan, to evaluate the thermo-tolerance of EAB using both infested 

firewood and prepupae removed from infested wood.

Three laboratory heat treatment experiments were conducted during the fall and winter of 2006-2007 with EAB-infested firewood. The initial two experiments used standard 

laboratory drying ovens (Precision Econotherm, 70 L capacity) and the third used a Blue-M 

Environmental Chamber using moist heat (0o C wet bulb depression).

Heat treatments were established based on the internal wood temperature at a depth of 

3.5 cm from the outer bark surface. In the drying oven experiments, the treatments were 50, 

55, 60, and 65° C for 30 minutes. In the environment chamber experiment, treatments were 

50 and 55o C for 30 and 60 minutes, each. Six pieces of firewood (cut to ~40 cm lengths and 

split) were heated together with a thermocouple in each piece to monitor temperatures. 

All treatments were replicated a minimum of four times, and wood was placed in emergence barrels after heating. Treatments were evaluated based on emergence of adult beetles. 

Adult emergence was standardized among treatments by measuring the bark surface area of 

each piece of firewood and calculating the number of adults per meter of bark surface. 

To evaluate the effect of heat treatments on naked larvae, EAB prepupae were removed 

from logs and subjected to 12 time–temperature combinations. EAB prepupae were obtained 

from freshly cut (<7 days) green ash logs. Prepupae were acclimated to 23° C for 24 hours 

prior to heat treatment. Heat treatments were 50, 55, and 60° C for 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes, 

each, plus an untreated control. Ten prepupae were used for each treatment, and each test 

was replicated four times. Prepupae were heated on wet filter paper in a closed Petri dish to 

avoid desiccation. A calibrated T-type thermocouple was placed in the Petri dish to monitor 

temperature. After prepupae were removed from the ovens they were allowed to cool and 

then stored undisturbed at 23° C, 80% relative humidity (RH) for 10 weeks. The number of 

hatched adults was then counted in each Petri dish to determine survival to adulthood.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

22 Emerald Ash Borer Regulatory and Outreach__________________________________________

Results from the firewood experiments were fairly consistent between the first two 

experiments (Figure 1). Emergence data indicates that EAB prepupae are capable of surviving a time-temperatures combination up to 60° C for 30 minutes in wood. The 65° C for 30 

minutes treatment was, however, effective in preventing EAB emergence on both experiments. 

The third experiment, using moist heat, showed no EAB survival at either of the 50 or 55 °C 

treatments (Table 1). Results from the prepupae experiment showed EAB survivorship in 

time-temperature combinations up to 55° C for 30 minutes or 50° C for 60 minutes (Table 

2). The treatments at 60 °C, which did not prevent EAB adult emergence in firewood, were 

effective in preventing pupation in naked prepupae across all four time durations. Overall, 

results suggest that EAB survival is variable depending on heating conditions, and that an 

internal wood temperature of 60° C for 60 minutes should be considered the minimum for 

safe treatment for EAB in firewood. 

Figure 1. Adult emerald ash borer emergence in firewood heated to four 

temperatures at a depth of 3.50 cm for 30 minutes in two identical studies conducted in December 2006 (A) and January 2007 

(B). Treatments within the same letter did not differ significantly 

(Tukey HSD1 α = 0.05).
__________________________________________Emerald Ash Borer Regulatory and Outreach 23

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Table 1. Comparison of heat treatment parameters and adult EAB emergence (n = 4, mean ± SEM) following 

heat treatment at four time–temperature combinations during June 2007.

Target Temperature (°C) Time at Target (Min) Adult EAB emerged EAB/m2 bark surface

50 30 0 0

50 60 0 0

55 30 0 0

55 60 0 0

Control 18.5 ± 5.1 42.0 ±11.8

Table 2. Mortality of 10 EAB prepupae following heat treatments at 12 time–temperature combinations (n = 

4, mean ± SEM ) during March 2007. 

Temperature (°C) Time (Min) Mortality (%)

Schneider-Orelli 

Adjusted Mortality 

(%)

60 60 100 ± 0.0 a 100 ± 0.0 a

60 45 100 ± 0.0 a 100 ± 0.0 a

60 30 100 ± 0.0 a 100 ± 0.0 a

60 15 100 ± 0.0 a 100 ± 0.0 a

55 60 100 ± 0.0 a 100 ± 0.0 a

55 45 100 ± 0.0 a 100 ± 0.0 a

55 30 90.0 ± 4.1 ab 87.5 ± 5.1 ab

55 15 92.5 ± 2.5 ab 90.6 ± 3.1 ab

50 60 72.5 ± 11.1 abc 65.6 ± 13.9 abc

50 45 55.0 ± 6.5 cd 43.8 ± 43.8 cd

50 30 37.5 ± 12.5 de 25.0 ± 13.5 de

50 15 67.5 ± 13.8 bcd 59.4 ± 17.2 bcd

Control 20 ± 10.0 -

Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSMeans, α = 0.05, Tukey HSD).
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

24 Emerald Ash Borer Regulatory and Outreach__________________________________________

Evaluation of Firewood Bagging and 

Vacuum Treatment for Regulatory Control 

of Emerald Ash Borer

Therese M. Poland1 and Tina M. Kuhn2, Chen Zhangjing3, 

Andrea Diss-Torrance4, and Erin L. Clark1,5

1

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station 

1407 S. Harrison Rd., Rm. 220,E. Lansing, MI 48823

tpoland@fs.fed.usH

2

Departments of Entomology and Forestry 

Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824

3

Virginia Tech, Department of Wood Science and Forest Products 

Blacksburg, VA 24060

4

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 53703

5

University of Northern British Columbia 

Ecosystem Science and Management Program 

Prince George, B.C., Canada V2N 4Z9 

ABSTRACT

Since its discovery in Detroit, Michigan, in 2002, the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis 

Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), has caused extensive mortality of ash (Fraxinus spp.) as it 

has spread across southeast Michigan, Ohio, and Ontario, Canada (Haack et al. 2002, Poland 

and McCullough 2006). In addition to this core infested area, numerous outlier populations 

have been found throughout Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, Ohio, Indiana, and Ontario, Canada, 

as well as isolated infestations in Maryland, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Spread 

of A. planipennis is a result of natural dispersal and human-assisted movement of infested 

materials, including movement of ash nursery stock, logs, and firewood. Agrilus planipennis 

can survive and emerge from logs cut from infested trees; therefore, movement of ash logs 

from infested to uninfested counties is regulated by a federal quarantine (USDA APHIS 2003). 

In the case of firewood, all hardwood species are regulated because inspectors cannot easily 

identify the species of tree that was cut. Nevertheless, A. planipennis has continued to spread, 

and new outlier infestations, possibly due to human-assisted movement of infested material 

prior to enactment of the quarantine, have been detected each year. 

Movement of firewood is extremely difficult to regulate and enforce. Unlike nursery 

trees and wood products that are produced and moved by licensed businesses, firewood is 

often moved by the general public. Despite extensive outreach efforts, many individuals are 

unaware of regulations prohibiting movement of firewood from infested areas. It is estimated 

that, of outlying infestations in Michigan with known origins, approximately 80% originated 
__________________________________________Emerald Ash Borer Regulatory and Outreach 25

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

in campgrounds, state parks, lakes and recreational areas, or cottage communities, suggesting 

they were the result of firewood movement. In order to prevent the spread of A. planipennis 

through movement of firewood, state regulatory and natural resource agencies are enforcing 

quarantine regulations by conducting inspections for firewood at campgrounds, rest areas, 

and key transportation gateways. Guidelines for treating and certifying wood to allow safe 

movement and for storage and handling of confiscated firewood are urgently needed to prevent 

new establishments of A. planipennis. We evaluated two regulatory treatments for infested 

logs: 1) bagging firewood to prevent emergence and escape of A. planipennis, and 2) vacuum 

treatment to kill A. planipennis inside infested wood and logs. 

We conducted two experiments to evaluate the efficacy of bagging firewood to prevent 

emergence of A. planipennis. In the first experiment, 30 infested logs were randomly assigned 

to one of three treatments: 1) unbagged control logs placed in horizontal rearing tubes, 2) logs 

sealed inside two plastic bags and then placed in horizontal rearing tubes, and 3) logs sealed 

inside two plastic bags and then placed in vertical rearing cans. For the second experiment, 

16 infested logs were randomly assigned to one of two treatments: 1) unbagged control logs 

in horizontal rearing tubes, or 2) logs that were sealed inside two plastic bags and held in the 

open on a bench top in the laboratory. Plastic bags used were clear, 24 × 48-inch, 4-ml-thick 

poly bags (BrownCor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin). For both experiments, logs were held in the 

laboratory and checked every other day for emerging adults. The bagged logs were examined 

by carefully inspecting the bag for holes and looking through the transparent bag wall to note 

any beetles inside. 

Once beetle emergence was complete (i.e., no new beetles were collected for six days), 

the experiments were ended and the results noted. Logs were removed from their rearing 

containers and/or bags. All dead adults found inside the rearing containers and bags were 

tallied. The number of new emergence holes on each log was also tallied. A subset of logs 

were dissected to determine the number of dead adults and larvae that remained inside (N = 

4 replicates for Experiment 1, and N = 2 replicates for Experiment 2). In both experiments, 

several new emergence holes were found and many live A. planipennis adults emerged from 

the control logs; however, no adults escaped from the double-bagged logs. 

There were no significant differences among treatments in log length, log diameter, 

number of exit holes at the start, number of new exit holes at the end, and number of dead 

adults and larvae found inside the logs at the end of the experiment. All of the A. planipennis 

that emerged from the unbagged control logs were collected live in the rearing tube or collection jar, whereas all of the A. planipennis that emerged from the double-bagged logs held in 

rearing tubes, rearing cans, or in the open on laboratory benches were found dead in the bags 

by the end of the experiment. There was no evidence of beetles attempting to chew through 

the inner or outer bags.

We evaluated vacuum treatment for efficacy in killing A. planipennis larvae either exposed or inserted into wood. Exposed larvae were placed individually in open Petri dishes 

inside the vacuum oven. Ten larvae were treated in the vacuum oven at a time and all larvae 

were weighed before and after treatment. One larva from each treatment group was placed on 

the load cell of an analytical balance inside the vacuum oven that was connected to a datalogger 

and recorded weight every 5 seconds. Larvae were subjected to different temperatures and 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

26 Emerald Ash Borer Regulatory and Outreach__________________________________________

pressures to determine desiccation rates and lethal percentage weight loss. Some A. planipennis larvae died at 26% weight loss, and all were dead at approximately 40% weight loss, the 

latter of which required at least 15 hours at 20 mmHg and 20° C. The desiccation rate of A. 

planipennis larvae under vacuum at 20 mmHg and 20° C was 2.395% weight loss per hour. 

Temperature, pressure, and relative humidity affected desiccation rate. Larvae desiccated slower at cold temperatures; no larvae had died after 36 hours of vacuum treatment at 

-10° C and 20 mmHg, and weight loss was approximately 5%. Desiccation and mortality 

were also lower for larvae when inserted into blocks of wood (10 cm wide by 10 cm long 

by 2.5 cm thick) made from 5.1 cm × 10.2 cm (2” × 4”) Douglas fir lumber with a moisture 

content of 16.6%. After 28 hours of vacuum treatment at 20 mmHg and 20° C, mortality of 

larvae inside wooden blocks was only 13% and weight loss was only 26%. We also evaluated vacuum treatment of naturally-infested logs with greater than 30% moisture content. 

Infested logs were approximately 15 cm in diameter and 60 cm long. For each replicate, five 

infested logs were placed inside a vacuum treatment bag at 20 mmHg and 20° C, and one log 

was held in the laboratory at ambient conditions. The experiment was replicated four times. 

Logs were checked every day, and a small area was dissected to determine if larvae inside 

were dead or alive. If a live larva was found, the logs were returned to the vacuum bag for 

continued treatment. 

After 10 days, the treatment was ended, and all logs were completely dissected to determine the total number of live and dead larvae remaining. After 10 days of vacuum treatment, 

mortality of A. planipennis larvae inside the logs was greater than 98%. The final moisture 

content of logs following treatment was 18.7%. The conclusion was that at least 10 days of 

vacuum treatment would be required to kill A. planipennis in infested logs.

References

Haack, R.A., E. Jendek, H. Liu, K.R. Marchant, T.R. Petrice, T.M. Poland, and H. Ye. 2002. The 

emerald ash borer: a new exotic pest in North America. Newsletter of the Michigan Entomological Society 47(3&4):1-5.

Poland, T.M. and D.G. McCullough. 2006. Emerald ash borer: invasion of the urban forest and the 

threat to North America’s ash resource. Journal of Forestry 104(3):118-124.

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA 

APHIS). 2003. Emerald ash borer, quarantine and regulations. Federal Register. 7 CFR Part 

301, 68(198):59082-59091. 
___________________________________________________Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations 27

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Three-Year Progression of Emerald Ash BorerInduced Decline and Mortality 

in Southeastern Michigan

Kamal J.K. Gandhi1, Annemarie Smith2, Robert P. Long3, 

Robin A.J. Taylor1, and Daniel A. Herms1

1

Department of Entomology, OARDC/OSU 

1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691

gandhi.42@osu.eduH

2

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry

359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015

3

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station 

359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015

ABSTRACT

We monitored the progression of ash (Fraxinus spp.) decline and mortality due to emerald 

ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis, in 38 forest stands in the upper Huron River watershed 

region of southeastern Michigan from 2004-2007. Black ash (F. nigra), green ash (F. pennsylvanica), and white ash (F. americana) were most common species in hydric, mesic, and xeric 

stands, respectively. A transect was established within each forest stand consisting of three 

0.1-ha circular plots (114 plots total). Within each plot, all ash trees were identified to species 

and assigned a crown dieback rating on a scale of 1-5, with ‘1’ representing ‘no decline’ and 

‘5’ indicating a dead tree. 

Ash decline significantly increased over time, from a mean dieback rating of 3.5 in 

2004-2005 to 4.8 in 2007. Although black ash initially experienced greater decline and mortality than white or green ash in 2004-2005, this trend was absent in 2006 and 2007, indicating 

that all species were declining at equal rates. A significant negative relationship was detected 

between percent ash tree mortality and distance from the epicenter of the infestation in the 

township of Canton, Michigan, from 2004 to 2006, with mortality decreasing 2% with each 

kilometer away from the epicenter. On average, percent mortality of ash increased 30% over 

the three year study period; however, the slope of line describing this relationship (2% decrease 

in mortality per kilometer away from the epicenter) remained unchanged. This relationship, 

however, was not significant in 2007, as stands farther away from the epicenter of infestation 

were approaching 100% ash mortality. 

Cumulative survival distributions calculated for a subset of individual trees from 

2003-2007 showed that white ash had the highest survival rate of the three species (~three 

times greater) followed by green and black ash, respectively. Over three years, survival for 

all species decreased 30-50%. The life expectancy of surviving white ash in summer 2007 

was found to be 1.3 +U U 0.01 (mean U+U SE) years, 0.92 U+U 0.04 years for green ash, and 0.79 U+U 0.05 

years for black ash. 

Overall, our results indicate that as EAB is causing large-scale mortality of the three 

major ash species in the upper Huron River watershed region. Thus, EAB has the potential 

to drastically and irreversibly alter the structure and composition of these North American 

central hardwood forests. 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

28 Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations __________________________________________________

How Fast Will Trees Die? A transition Matrix Model 

of Ash decline in forest stands infested 

by Emerald Ash Borer

Kathleen S. Knight1, Robert P. Long1, Joanne Rebbeck1, 

Annemarie Smith2, Kamal Gandhi3, and Daniel A. Herms3

1

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015

ksknight@fs.fed.usH

2

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry

359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015

3

Department of Entomology, OARDC/OSU 

1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691

ABSTRACT

We recorded Fraxinus spp. tree health and other forest stand characteristics for 68 plots in 

21 EAB-infested forest stands in Michigan and Ohio in 2005 and 2007. Fraxinus spp. were 

a dominant component of these stands, with more than 900 ash trees (including Fraxinus 

americana, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Fraxinus profunda, and Fraxinus nigra) monitored at different sites. Ash condition was rated on a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ represented a healthy tree, 

‘5’ represented a dead tree, and ‘2’ to ’4’ indicated stages of dieback. Individual trees were 

tracked through time by matching tree diameter and position in the plot. 

A general linear multivariate mixed model was used to test the effect of ash condition 

in 2005 (ordinal), tree diameter, ash species, stand condition in 2005 (average ash condition), 

habitat, ash density, stand average ash diameter, and ash composition on ash condition in 2007 

(ordinal), with individual ash trees as the unit of replication. Ash condition in 2005 was correlated with ash condition in 2007, which showed that trees that were in poor condition in 

2005 were likely to be in poor condition or dead in 2007. Smaller-diameter trees underwent 

more rapid changes in ash condition within the two-year period than did larger-diameter trees. 

Stand condition in 2005, the average of the ash condition for all ash trees in the stand, was 

a strong predictor of ash condition in 2007. As the average condition of the stand declined, 

individual ash trees declined more rapidly.

Stands were separated into four groups based on stand condition in 2005, and these 

data were used to create four transition matrix models of ash decline, which show the probability of a tree transitioning from each ash condition in 2005 to each ash condition in 2007. 

In newly infested stands with a stand condition between 1.5 and 1.8, most of the healthy trees 

remained healthy over the two-year period. In slightly stressed stands and declining stands 

with stand condition of 2.0-2.5 and 2.6-3.3, mortality and decline increased, but some healthy 

trees remained healthy. In dying stands with stand condition between 3.7 and 4.1, almost all 
___________________________________________________Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations 29

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

trees died within the two-year period. Trees that were healthy in 2005 were either dead or in 

severe stages of decline by 2007. 

A test of the transition matrix model, using 13 stands in Michigan that had not been 

used to create the model, showed that the model accurately predicts the future conditions 

of stands. The model can be used to forecast the future conditions of forest stands in newly 

infested areas. For one hypothetical stand that begins with mostly healthy trees in 2007, the 

model predicts a 5% increase in mortality by 2009, 50% mortality by 2011, and 98% mortality 

by 2013. This shows that a healthy stand can be nearly completely killed within six years. We 

plan to improve and further test the model before making it available to forest managers. 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

30 Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations __________________________________________________

Regenerative Capacity of Ash Following Mortality 

of Canopy Trees Caused by Emerald Ash Borer

Daniel M. Kashian1 and John A. Witter2

1

Department of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University

Detroit, MI 48202

dank@biology.biosci.wayne.eduH

2

School of Natural Resources and Environment 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

ABSTRACT

In an era in which the rate of ecological change is unprecedented, understanding the effects 

of introduced species is critical for predicting the consequences for native biodiversity. Introduced in the Detroit area in the late 1990s, emerald ash borer (EAB) has spread to Ohio, 

Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ontario, Canada, and killed over 

98% of healthy ash trees greater than 2.5 cm in diameter. Despite aggressive quarantine and 

eradication efforts, extensive tree mortality suggests that EAB impact on North American ash 

species may be comparable to the devastation of chestnut blight on chestnut trees and Dutch 

elm disease on American elm. 

Ecological research on this exotic insect has emphasized monitoring ash mortality and 

modelling EAB dispersal. Little information exists, however, to describe the regenerative 

capacity of ash following EAB outbreaks—notable because EAB do not attack ash saplings 

and seedlings. Our objectives were to describe the spatial variability of ash regeneration 

within the core area of the outbreak in southeastern lower Michigan, to assess the potential 

for ash trees to replace themselves following the outbreak, and to predict future changes in 

ash distribution within the outbreak area. 

The first step was to resample previous study sites established to monitor ash mortality 

and the spread of EAB. We conducted extensive field surveys, employing long belt transects 

to sample ash regeneration and overstory composition in 45 natural areas in southeastern 

lower Michigan during the summer of 2007. Mortality of overstory ash trees is typically 

97-99% within forty miles of an EAB introduction point; nevertheless, preliminary results 

suggest that, although ash seedling and sapling density varies greatly across the study area, 

there is sufficient ash regeneration to withstand competition from other woody species and to 

replace killed overstory trees. Regeneration was most common on mesic to dry-mesic sites, 

suggesting that site quality is an important explanatory variable in ash recovery. Seedlings 

and saplings of green ash and black ash in river floodplains and wetlands, respectively, were 

far less common than white ash regeneration on uplands, suggesting a strong reduction in 

overstory ash dominance in wetland and bottomland ecosystems resulting from EAB mortality. Ash regeneration on uplands was higher near forest edges than forest interiors, indicating 

a displacement of the ash component from interior forests towards the forest edge. 
___________________________________________________Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations 31

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

The current ash component has been limited to only a few relict overstory trees that 

have not yet been killed by EAB. Current levels of ash regeneration are promising for future 

replacement and recovery of ash as an overstory species, but its ability to reoccupy to the 

overstory will ultimately determine whether ash will be restored to the forest canopy. The 

future of the ash component of midwestern hardwood forests will depend strongly on future 

EAB population dynamics—specifically, whether EAB will attack regeneration once those 

trees have grown to sufficient size for infestation.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

32 Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations __________________________________________________

Effects of Host Stress on Emerald Ash Borer

Development: What Make a Good Home?

Andrew R. Tluczek1, Deborah G. McCullough1,2, 

Therese M. Poland3, and Andrea C. Anulewicz1

1

Department of Entomology and 

2

Department of Forestry 

Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824

tluczek@msu.eduH

3

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station

1407 S. Harrison Rd., Rm. 220, E. Lansing, MI 48823

ABSTRACT

Background. Since 2003, we have documented a two-year larval development of emerald ash 

borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, at a number of newly infested outlier sites. For 

example, we debarked over 100 ash trees in February 2004 at an outlier site that was infested 

when nursery trees were planted in 2003. We found a total of 22 larvae in eight relatively 

healthy trees growing within 800 m of the origin of the infestation; of those 22 larvae, at least 

75% were first, second, or third instars and would likely have required an additional summer of feeding to complete development (a 2-year life cycle). A ninth tree, which was highly 

stressed, contained a total of 36 larvae; all of the larvae on this tree were prepupae or fourth 

instars and would likely have emerged as adults the following summer (a 1-year life cycle). If 

the prolonged development of EAB larvae documented at this site is typical, it would strongly 

influence EAB spread, population dynamics, and survey activities of program managers.

Methods. In 2006, we began to examine the role of tree stress on the development, mortality 

and within-tree distribution of EAB larvae. Our study involved a randomized block design 

with 90 healthy green ash trees (average DBH of 12.3 ± 0.3 cm) in a 15-year-old, well-stocked 

ash plantation. There were 30 trees receiving one of three treatments: 1) girdling, 2) exposure 

to methyl jasmonate (MeJa), a stress-elicitor, or 3) untreated controls. This site had a very 

low, nearly undetectable population of EAB. An average of 0.9 ± 1.8 adult beetles per tree 

were trapped on sticky bands during the summer; nearly all of the 81 beetles were trapped on 

girdled trees. All 90 trees were felled between January and March 2007 and bucked into 1 m 

sections to height of 7 m. Each section was debarked and larvae identified to instar. Fourth 

instars and prepupae were recorded as one-year larvae, while first, second, or third instars 

were classified as 2-year larvae because they would likely have fed for an additional year to 

complete development. When dead larvae were encountered, they were assigned to one of 

three categories: predation by woodpeckers, cannibalism, or death from unknown causes 

(most likely a pathogen or desiccation).
___________________________________________________Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations 33

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Larval density and within-tree distribution. Larval density varied greatly among treatments. 

Girdled trees had an average of 57.62 ± 13.13 larvae per m2, while control and MeJa trees had 

an average of 3.92 ± 1.60 larvae per m2 and 5.76 ± 5.06 larvae per m2, respectively. Larval density was consistently highest at 3 to 4 m aboveground regardless of treatment. Woodpecker 

predation was the most common cause of death, causing 61% of all larval mortality. We also 

found that 70% of woodpecker attacks occurred at least 4 m aboveground.

Tree Stress and Larval Development. A significantly greater proportion of larvae on girdled 

trees were 1-year larvae (57.3%) compared to larvae on control trees (18.9%) and MeJa-treated 

trees (11.9%). When calculated by height and treatment, about 90% of larvae below the girdle 

(0 – 1 m) were 1-year larvae, while about 50% of larvae above the girdle (1 – 7 m) were 1-year 

larvae. The pattern of larval feeding was also different below the girdle than above the girdle. 

The horizontal distance that a larva traveled (the furthest horizontal distance that the gallery 

extended) averaged 10 cm below the girdle compared with 3 cm above the girdle. The average 

horizontal distance traveled for larva on control and MeJa-treated trees was also 3 cm at all 

heights. Only galleries made by larvae that had reached the prepupal stage were measured.

We repeated the study in 2007 with 90 new trees and applied the same three treatments. 

The number of adult EAB captured on sticky bands during the summer increased by a factor 

of ten over the 2006 results. We expect to see a similar increase in larval density: debarking 

of these study trees is in progress.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

34 Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations __________________________________________________

Interspecific Variation in Resistance of Ash 

to Emerald Ash Borer

Daniel A. Herms1, David Smitley2, Eric J. Rebek3, 

Pierluigi Bonello4, and Don Cipolinni5

Department of Entomology, OARDC/OSU 

1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691

herms.2@osu.edu

2

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University

243 Natural Science Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

3

Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, 

Oklahoma State University, 127 NRC, Stillwater, OK 74078

4

Department of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University

201 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH 43210

5

Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University

3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, Ohio 45435

ABSTRACT

We conducted a three-year study to compare the susceptibility of selected North American 

ash and an Asian ash species to emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis. We hypothesized that Manchurian ash, an Asian ash species, would be more resistant to the beetle than its 

North American congeners because of a coevolutionaty relationship between Asian ash species 

and EAB. Consistent with our hypothesis, Manchurian ash exhibited far less mortality and 

yielded far fewer adult beetles than several cultivars of North American green and white ash. 

Surprisingly, a hybrid of North American black ash and Manchurian ash was highly susceptible 

to EAB, indicating that this cultivar did not inherit EAB resistance from its Asian parent. A 

corollary study examined the efficacy of soil-applied imidacloprid (a systemic, neonicotinoid 

insecticide) for controlling EAB in each of the five cultivars. Imidacloprid had no effect on 

EAB colonization of Manchurian ash, which exhibited low susceptibility in untreated as well 

as treated trees. In contrast, imidacloprid did enhance survival of the North American and 

hybrid cultivars and significantly reduced the number of EAB adults emerging from green 

and white ash cultivars. 

Host phloem chemistry, both constitutive and induced, might partly explain this interspecific variation in resistance. We analyzed the constitutive phloem chemistry of Manchurian, 

white, and green ash trees. Analysis of the crude phloem extracts revealed the presence of 

an array of phenolic compounds, including hydroxycoumarins, a monolignol, lignans, phenylethanoids, and secoiridoids. Both qualitative and quantitative differences were observed 

among the three ash species. Hydroxycoumarins and the phenylethanoids, calceloariosides A 
___________________________________________________Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations 35

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

and B, were present only in the phloem of Manchurian ash and might represent a mechanism 

of resistance against EAB. 

To further examine interspecific biogeographical variation in ash resistance/susceptibility to EAB, the experiment plantation was expanded in April 2004 to include the additional 

North American ash species F. quadrangulata (blue ash), F. nigra (black ash), and F. latifolia

(Oregon ash), the Asian species, F. chinensis, and the European species, F. ornus, F. excelsior, 

and F. oxycarpa.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

36 Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations __________________________________________________

Development of Novel Ash Hybrids to Introgress 

Resistance to Emerald Ash Borer into 

North American Ash Species

Jennifer L. Koch1, David W. Carey1, and Mary E. Mason2

1

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015

jkoch@fs.fed.usH

2

Department of Entomology, OARDC/OSU

1680 Madison Ave., Wooster, OH 44691

ABSTRACT

Currently, there is no evidence that any of the native North American ash species have any 

resistance to the emerald ash borer (EAB). This means that the entire ash resource of the 

eastern United States and Canada is at risk of loss due to EAB. In contrast, outbreaks of 

EAB in Asian ash species are rare and appear to be isolated responses to stress (Bauer et al. 

2005, Schaefer 2005, Gould et al. 2005). Our work is based on the hypothesis that there are 

resistance mechanisms and thus resistance genes that have evolved within Asian ash species 

that allow them to coexist with the EAB. This hypothesis is supported by a common garden 

study (Rebek et al., in press) that demonstrated that a cultivar of the Asian species Fraxinus 

mandshurica exhibits a higher level of resistance to EAB than several cultivars of North 

American green ash and white ash. It is our long-term goal to introgress, or introduce, these 

genes through the development of novel ash hybrids and, through subsequent rounds of 

backcrossing, retain all of the characteristics of the native North American species in addition 

to EAB-resistance.

Over the past three years, 31 different combinations of ash species have been used to 

perform controlled cross-pollinations. Nine different species were used as the maternal parent; eight different species were used as pollen donors. A total of 1,619 seeds were produced, 

but only four different species combinations germinated, producing a total of 44 seedlings. 

Genetic markers such as AFLPs and SSRs are being used to confirm the parentage of the 

resulting hybrid progeny, which will be supplemented through grafting and tested for EAB 

resistance. An estimation of relatedness of the species based on a phylogram generated by 

comparison of ITS sequences (Wallander 2001) indicates that the successful hybridizations 

occurred between species that were closely related. 

In addition to genetic relatedness, there are many other potential barriers to successful 

interspecies hybridization, including differences in ploidy, phenology, and breeding systems. 

Ploidy levels in some Asian and North American species can vary depending on the region 

of origin. Ploidy levels of a few species remain unknown, including F. quadrangulata (blue 

ash) and F. mandshurica (Manchurian ash). Ash cytogenetics experiments are being initiated 

to determine the ploidy level of these species as well as to confirm that parent pairs used in 

hybridizations have compatible ploidy levels.
___________________________________________________Emerald Ash Borer–Host Relations 37

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Equally significant barriers to a successful breeding program are the lack of species 

with known resistance to EAB and the need for well-defined, genetically diverse resistant trees 

for use as parents. To address these issues, efforts are being made in conjunction with various 

arboreta throughout the United States to obtain accessions of Asian ash species with diverse 

geographic origins. Information on genetic variation has been limited by the use of clonal 

horticultural cultivars in recent studies (Rebek et al., in press). In order to allow estimation 

of genetic variation in EAB resistance both within and between species, plantings are being 

established. These plantings include four North American ash species, three Asian ash species, and three European ash species. All material included in this planting is of seed origin, 

with one to three provenances represented per species.

References

Bauer, L.S., H. Liu, R.A. Haack, R. Gao, T. Zhao, D.L. Miller, and T.R. Petrice. 2005. Update on 

emerald ash borer natural enemy surveys in Michigan and China. Pp. 71-72 in V. Mastro, and R. 

Reardon (compilers), Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting. 5-6 

Oct. 2004. Romulus, MI. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2004-15, Morgantown, WV.

Gould, J., J. Tanner, D. Winograd, and S. Lane. 2005. Initial studies on the laboratory rearing of 

emerald ash borer and foreign exploration for natural enemies. Pp. 73-74 in V. Mastro, and R. 

Reardon (compilers), Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting. 5-6 

Oct. 2004. Romulus, MI. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2004-15, Morgantown, WV.

Rebek, E.J., D.A. Herms, and D.R. Smitley. Interspecific variation in resistance to emerald ash 

borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) among North American and Asian ash (Fraxinus spp.). Environmental Entomology, in press.

Schaefer, P.W. 2005. Foreign exploration for emerald ash borer and its natural enemies. Pp. 67-68 

in V. Mastro, and R. Reardon (compilers), Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting, 5-6 Oct. 2004. Romulus, MI. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2004-15, 

Morgantown, WV.

Wallander, E. 2001. Evolution of wind-pollination in Fraxinus (Oleaceae) – an ecophylogenetic approach. PhD thesis. Göteborg University, Sweden. ISBN 91-88896-37-4.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

38 Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer ______________________________________________

Potential of Spinosad Applications 

for emerald Ash Borer Control

Phillip A. Lewis1, David M. Cowan1, and Ivich Fraser2

1

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory

Bldg 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542 

Phillip.A.Lewis@aphis.usda.gov

2

USDA/APHIS-PPQ, Emerald Ash Borer Project 

5936 Ford Ct., Brighton, MI 48116

ABSTRACT

One of the pressing needs for effective management of the emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus 

planipennis Fairmaire, is an insecticide that can be used over large, wooded acreages where 

this insect has been identified as recently introduced or where it is found at low population 

densities. Spinosad, a biological insecticide produced by a soil bacterium, has been shown 

to be toxic to the adult life stage of the EAB and is a superior candidate for use in aerial applications.

Spinosad is in common use by organic growers and was granted a Green Chemistry 

award by the EPA, which classifies it as “reduced risk” because of its good environmental 

profile. On an acute basis, spinosad is slightly to moderately toxic to fish and toxic to aquatic 

invertebrates; however, spinosad’s half short-life in the environment mitigates this acute toxicity to a large degree. Spinosad is practically non-toxic to avian and mammalian species and 

exhibits large margins of safety to many beneficial insects. Spinosad has short half-lives in soil 

(9-17 days), on foliage (4-16 days), and in water (hours to 2 days), and has very low potential 

for run-off or leaching as it binds strongly to soil.

Technical spinosad and spinetoram were tested for toxicity to EAB adults by topical 

application. Adult insects were also exposed to foliage from field-grown plants treated with 

spinosad formulated as GF-976 (Tracer; 480SC) and SPLAT® 30M-1 to determine if the latter 

formulation could prolong foliar residue. Plant foliage was collected for residue analysis and 

adult EAB exposure at 0, 1, 2, 7, 14, 28, 56, and 84 days post-treatment. Residue analysis of 

spinosad will be performed using an ELISA kit manufactured by Strategic Diagnostics.

Adults exhibited mortality in a dose-dependent manner when technical spinosads 

were applied topically. LC50 and LC90 estimates generated at 24 and 48 hours after exposure 

were similar to those previously reported; LC50 = 59 ppm and LC90 = 373 ppm at 24 hours 

post-exposure and LC50 = 20 ppm and LC90 = 82 ppm at 48 hours post-exposure. EAB adults 

ingesting or coming into contact with treated foliage were similarly impacted, with near 

100% mortality for both formulations tested at 7 days after application (DAA) and 2 days 

of exposure. Mortality declined slightly to between 60% and 70% in foliage aged 14 DAA. 

Activity was apparently retained beyond 60 DAA, with 30% mortality observed for GF-976 

and 60% for the SPLAT formulation. 
______________________________________________ Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer 39

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

The retention of insecticide activity of the field applications is in contrast to previous 

observations during an aerial application in 2006, when leaf residues rapidly declined 2 DAA 

and were almost non-existent 13 DAA. Foliage residue analysis should provide additional 

information on actual levels of field degradation of spinosad.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

40 Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer ______________________________________________

Evaluation of Non-Invasive Trunk Sprays and 

Trunk-Injected Emamectic Benzoate

Deborah G. McCullough1,2, D.L. Cappaert1, T.M. Poland3, 

A.C. Anulewicz1, P. Lewis4, and J. Molongoski4

1

Dept. of Entomology and 

2

Dept. of Forestry 

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

mccullo6@msu.eduH

3

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station 

1407 S. Harrison Rd., Rm. 220, E. Lansing, MI 48823

4

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory

Bldg 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542

ABSTRACT

In 2007, we continued to evaluate two neo-nicotinoid insecticides, imidacloprid and dinotefuron, applied as non-invasive trunk sprays to control emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire. Neo-nicotinoid products are widely used to protect landscape ash trees 

because they are relatively safe for humans and non-target species. These systemic products 

generally applied annually to the soil or via trunk injection and the insecticide is translocated to 

the canopy. Adult EAB, which must feed on ash leaves for at least two weeks and often longer 

before oviposition occurs, encounter the insecticide in the foliage. Although these products 

can be effective, concerns have arisen about the long-term effects of repeated wounding associated with trunk injection, the time required to apply or monitor trunk-injected products, 

and possible negative consequences of applying insecticides to soil at some sites.

Background. In 2006, we evaluated a non-invasive, efficient, and simple method of applying imidacloprid and dinotefuron to the trunk of ash shade trees. This application method 

involves mixing the insecticide with PentraBarkTM, a non-toxic, bark-penetrating surfactant 

(Agrichem, Medina, Ohio). The formulated solution was applied directly to the bark on the 

lower trunk of a tree with a common garden sprayer. PentraBarkTM, originally developed as 

an agricultural surfactant, has recently been used to carry fungicide products through the 

bark and into the xylem tissue of trees, through which the product is then translocated to 

the canopy. We sprayed the bark on the trunk of the trees from 20 cm to 1.6 m aboveground 

until it was wet. 

In our 2006 study, we used a randomized block design with 6 to 12 trees per treatment, 

replicated at four sites; average DBH of trees ranged from 5 to 15.5 inches. Each block consisted of five trees treated with: 1) a non-invasive trunk spray of Macho® 2F (imidacloprid) + 

PentraBarkTM; 2) a non-invasive trunk spray of Safari® (dinotefuron) + PentraBarkTM; 3) a soil 

application of Merit® 75WP (imidacloprid) applied at the base of the tree with a Davey wand; 

4) a trunk injection of Imicide® (imidacloprid) applied with Mauget capsules (e.g., a positive 

control); or 5) left as an untreated control. 
______________________________________________ Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer 41

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Data from 2006 showed that the trunk sprays of imidacloprid + PentraBarkTM and dinotefuron + PentraBarkTM effectively moved the insecticides into the vascular tissue of trees 

and that the insecticides were translocated to the canopy. Dinotefuron, which is highly soluble 

in water, appeared to translocate relatively rapidly into the canopy. Residue levels peaked in 

mid-June, and then declined by roughly 40-50% over the next three weeks, suggesting that the 

product may break down relatively quickly. Residue levels in imidacloprid trees from trunk 

sprays and soil applications continued to increase from mid-June to July to August, suggesting 

that the product moved relatively slowly into the canopy or foliage. In contrast, foliar imidacloprid residues peaked in mid June in trees treated with the trunk injection (Mauget capsules). 

In bioassays, beetle mortality (control-corrected) after four days of exposure ranged from 

27-55% among imidacloprid-treated trees and 56-77% on dinotefuron-treated trees. Larval 

density varied considerably among treatments and sites, but was generally lower on treated 

than untreated trees. Differences among treatments were statistically significant at one site, 

where larval density was roughly 50 to 75% lower on treated trees than on control trees. 

2007 Study. In 2007, we continued to work with neo-nicotinoids trunk sprays to assess the 

consistency of results, determine whether adjusted application timing would enhance EAB 

control, and evaluate whether the PentraBarkTM product improved efficacy of the insecticide 

products. In addition, we evaluated the efficacy of emamectin benzoate applied via trunk 

injection. Although emamectin benzoate is used in a variety of pesticide products, it is not 

yet registered for use on ornamental trees. 

We established a total of 25 blocks at three different sites, each consisting of seven trees 

with an average DBH of 6.6 to 13.2 inches. The seven treatments represented in each block 

included: 1) untreated control; 2) trunk injection with Imicide® (10%, 3 ml Mauget capsules); 

3) trunk injection with emamectin benzoate; 4) a non-invasive trunk spray of Macho® 2F 

(imidacloprid) + PentraBarkTM; 5) a non-invasive spray of Macho® 2 without PentraBarkTM; 6) a 

non-invasive trunk spray of Safari® (dinotefuron) + PentraBarkTM; and 7) a non-invasive trunk 

spray of Safari® without PentraBarkTM. Application rates for the Mauget trunk injections and 

trunk sprays were the same as those used in 2006 (McCullough et al. 2007). The emamectin 

benzoate was applied as a 4% solution with an Arborjet micro-injector. Application dates 

were May 4 for trunk sprays of Macho® 2F, May 22 for trunk injections of Imicide® (Mauget 

capsules) and emamectin benzoate, and May 31 for trunk sprays with Safari®. 

Foliage residues. Translocation of insecticides to leaves in the canopy was evaluated by collecting composite foliage samples from eight locations in each tree in mid-June, early July, 

late July, and mid-August. Foliage samples were individually bagged and frozen for eventual 

residue analysis with ELISA (imidacloprid, dinotefuron) or MS/HPLC (emamectin benzoate). Analysis of foliage samples is in progress. 

Adult EAB bioassays. Bioassays were conducted in mid-June, early July and late July, to assess survival of EAB beetles caged with leaves from each study tree. On each date, two leaves 

were collected from opposite sides of each tree and three beetles were placed on each leaf for 

four days. In the 15 June bioassay, no EAB survived on leaves from emamectin benzoatetreated trees. Beetle survival on trees treated with Safari® (dinotefuron) dropped to less than 

15% by Day 4. Beetle survival on leaves from trees treated with Mauget capsules and Macho®

2F (no PentraBarkTM) was also significantly lower than survival on control trees. In the early 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

42 Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer ______________________________________________

July and late July bioassays, we again observed 100% mortality of EAB on the emamectin 

benzoate-bearing leaves. Beetle survival was generally lower on other treated trees than on 

controls in July bioassays; however, at least, 40% of the beetles survived on the imidaclopridand dinotefuron-treated trees. 

Larval density. We assessed larval density in late September by felling and debarking areas on 

the trunk and canopy of trees. We felled three blocks of trees at the 7-L site and four blocks 

of trees at the IS site (49 total trees) to estimate larval density in 2007. The remaining blocks 

of trees will be re-treated and monitored through 2008. 

At the 7-L site, we removed bark from at least 9 to 12 bark windows (each ≥ 500 cm2 in 

area) per tree on the 21 trees that were felled. At the IS site, we examined at least 32 windows 

per tree on the 28 trees that were felled. All seven trees treated with emamectin benzoate, 

however, were completely debarked. Larval density, stage, and viability were recorded and 

standardized per m2 of phloem. 

Larval density varied considerably within and among treatments, as expected. The 

untreated control trees at the 7-L site and the IS site averaged 132 and 68 EAB per m2, respectively. Trees treated with imidacloprid applied either as a trunk injection (Mauget capsules) 

or as a trunk spray had an average of 14 to 62 EAB per m2 at the 7-L site and 14 to 75 EAB 

per m2 at the IS site. The trees sprayed with dinotefuron had an average of 41 to 51 EAB per 

m2 at both sites. 

The efficacy of the emamectin benzoate, however, was striking. When we completely 

debarked the seven emamectin benzoate trees, we found only eight live larvae, equivalent to 

0.19 larvae per m2. There were no more than three live larvae on any of the trees, and two of 

the trees had zero live larvae. Overall, emamectin benzoate provided greater than 99% control 

of EAB. We recovered a total of 81 dead EAB larvae on the seven trees, most of which were 

late instars. Results from the larval sampling and the adult bioassays indicate that emamectin 

benzoate probably acts primarily on adult EAB and/or neonate larvae; otherwise, we would 

have expected to find hundreds of dead late stage larvae on the trees. Moreover, because emamectin benzoate affected adults and neonate larvae, the trees sustained little injury. 

We plan to continue this project to evaluate product persistence, application rates, 

application timing, and other factors. The remainder of the trees treated in 2007 will be held 

and either re-treated or monitored in 2008. The notable control provided by the emamectin 

benzoate may provide a new tool, both for urban ash tree protection and perhaps for use in 

an integrated EAB management strategy. We expect to work with industry representatives 

and state regulatory officials to consider special registration for emamectin benzoate, perhaps 

as early as 2008. 

Reference

McCullough, D.G., D.A. Cappaert, T.M. Poland, P. Lewis, and J. Molongoski. 2007. Evaluation of 

neo-nicotinoid insectidies applied as non-invasive trunk sprays. Pp. 52-54 in: V. Mastro, D. Lance, 

R. Reardon, and G. Parra (compilers), Proceedings of the Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology 

Development Meeting, October 31-November 1, 2006. Cincinnati, Ohio. USDA Forest Service, FHTET 

Publ. 2007-04.
______________________________________________ Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer 43

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Imidacloprid Concentration Effects on Adult

Emerald Ash Borer: A Greenhouse Study

David Cappaert1, Deborah G. McCullough1,2, 

Therese M. Poland3, Phil Lewis4, and John Molongoski4

1

Department of Entomology, and

2

Department of Forestry

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

cappaert@comcast.netH

3

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station 

1407 S. Harrison Rd., Rm. 220, East Lansing, MI 48823

4

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory 

Bldg 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542

ABSTRACT

Imidacloprid is the active ingredient of many widely used products applied to control the emerald 

ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, in valuable urban trees. Systemic treatment with 

imidacloprid is typically made in the spring to reduce the number of larvae that would otherwise 

be generated by oviposition during the summer. Substantial evidence suggests that imidacloprid 

suppresses larval density indirectly by its effects on survival and/or reproductive performance 

of adults interacting with treated foliage. This conclusion is based on findings from five years 

of research, in which we have observed: 1) far greater toxicity of imidacloprid on adult EAB 

than on larvae, 2) little evidence of larval mortality or growth suppression when treated trees 

are debarked, and 3) significant reductions in survival and feeding of adults exposed to treated 

foliage. In this study, we sought to more precisely quantify the effects of foliar imidacloprid 

on adult EAB survival and feeding. The results will suggests the relative importance of lethal 

and sublethal effects and define the residue range at which these effects occur.

The experiment. We planted bare-root green ash whips in 1-gallon pots in a greenhouse. To 

create a range of imidacloprid residue levels, we treated the pots at leaf flush with a soil drench 

of Bayer AdvancedTM (1.5%) applied at rates that varied from minimal to very high. In Trial 1, 

there were seven replicates for each of six treatments, ranging from 0.8 to 2500 mg AI of imidacloprid in 5X increments. In Trial 2, there were 11 replicates of eight treatments, with 6.25 to 

800 mg imidacloprid applied in 2X increments. When leaves were fully expanded (6-8 weeks 

post-planting), two leaves from each plant were collected. Leaf area was measured, and each leaf 

was placed in a petri dish with three EAB adults. Beetle survival in each dish was monitored for 

four days. Leaf area was then re-measured, and foliage was transferred to the USDA APHIS 

PPQ CPHST Otis lab for ELISA analysis.

Results. We found a linear relationship between log(treatment dose) and log(imidacloprid 

residue) in both trials (Figure 1). For Trial 1, mean leaf residues ranged from 0.75 ppm (for 

0.8 mg/pot) to 141 ppm (for 2500 mg/pot). In Trial 2, leaves contained far lower residues for a 

given treatment dose. Mean leaf residues ranged from 0.03 ppm (for 6 mg/pot) to 25 ppm (for 

800 mg/pot).
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

44 Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer ______________________________________________

For both trials, we determined thresholds for leaf consumption and beetle survival. We found that beetle leaf consumption was significantly affected at lower residue levels than was 

four-day survival (Figures 2 and 3). In Trial 1, no feeding occurred 

at residues >3.5 ppm, and no beetles survived exposure to >33 

ppm imidacloprid. In Trial 2, thresholds for feeding cessation 

and survival were 3.8 ppm and 40 ppm, respectively. 

In a related experiment, we evaluated the fate of individual 

beetles exposed to the 25 ppm treatment in Trial 2 to determine 

whether beetles receiving a sublethal dose sufficient to inhibit 

feeding recover if removed to clean foliage. We found that, 48 

hours after being removed from leaves containing imidacloprid and placed on clean foliage, half 

of the initially intoxicated beetles (unable to walk or feed) recovered.

To provide a basis for comparison between results of this 

greenhouse trial and actual imidacloprid treatment of trees, we 

compiled a summary of peak foliar imidacloprid residues observed 

in 2006 field trials. For two treatments (trunk injection of Imicide® 

via Mauget capsules and soil injection of Macho® 2F) used at three 

sites, mean residue levels in foliage ranged from 2.1 to 10.6 ppm 

(Table 1). 

Discussion. In this experiment we found that imidacloprid strongly 

affects beetle feeding at levels well below those that cause mortality. 

Further, we established an approximate range of leaf imidacloprid 

concentration where lethal and sublethal effects are observed. In 

practice, the leaf residues that we found to inflict high EAB mortality are not typically achieved in field applications of imidacloprid. It 

appears likely that the benefits of treatments are primarily attributable to sublethal effects on EAB adults. Our experiment evaluates 

only one such effect: feeding inhibition. Other effects associated 

with feeding inhibition might be physiological (long-term mortality, 

reduced fecundity), behavioral (increased dispersal), and/or ecological (exposure of intoxicated beetles to predation or desiccation). A 

true understanding of the mechanism for imidacloprid efficacy will 

require investigation of these effects.

Foliar Imidacloprid Residue, ppm

Site Treatment Max Mean

7L Mauget 8.8 3.5

Soil Merit 6.5 2.1

7s Mauget 38.9 10.6

Soil Merit 14.4 5.2

LA Mauget 14.3 4.3

Soil Merit 7.3 3.3

Figure 1. Relationship between 

treatment level (log(mg/pot) 

and leaf residue (log(ppm 

imidacloprid).

R2 = 0.8711

R2

 = 0.9925

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

Log dose

Log residue

Trial 1

Trial 2

Figure 2. Emerald ash borer 

response to leaf residue, 

Trial 1. For treatments 

>2.6 ppm, survival differs 

from control. For treatments >0.8 ppm, leaf 

consumption differs from 

control.

% Survival 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Leaf Consumption

cm2/beetle

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.4 0.7 0.8 2.6 76.0 91.1 141.5

Mean leaf imidacloprid, ppm

Figure 3. Emerald ash borer 

response to leaf residue, 

Trial 2. For treatments >10.2 

ppm, survival differs from 

control. For treatments 

>0.42 ppm, leaf consumption differs from control.

% Survival 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Leaf Consumption

cm2/beetle

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.01

0.03

0.07

0.24

0.42

1.04

2.55

10.24

25.39

Mean leaf imidacloprid, ppm

Table 1. Foliar imidacloprid residues. Values determined for July samples in 

2006 MSU pesticide trials.
______________________________________________ Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer 45

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Distribution of Trunk-Injected 14C Imidacloprid in 

Ash Trees: Variation Between Spring and 

Fall Injections

S. R. Tanis1, B. M. Cregg1,2, D. Mota-Sanchez3, 

D. G. McCullough2,3, T. M. Poland4, and R. M. Hollingworth3

1

Department of Horticulture 

2

Department of Forestry 

3

Department of Entomology 

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

tanissar@msu.edu

4

USDA Forest Service, Nisbet Building

1407 S Harrison Rd, Ste 220, East Lansing, MI 48823

ABSTRACT

Trunk-injected applications of imidacloprid are an effective but variable means of control 

for emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire. There is some evidence that a 

single application of imidacloprid can provide two years of EAB control, but the mechanism 

and overall length of control remains unknown. Arborists usually perform trunk injections 

of imidacloprid in either the spring or fall of the year. Two questions remain: 1) Can fall 

imidacloprid trunk injections provide adequate EAB control the following spring? and 2) 

Can a single spring or fall trunk injection provide more than a single season of EAB control? 

This portion of the 14C imidacloprid trunk injection experiment examines the differences in 

Imidacloprid equivalent concentrations between trees injected during the spring and trees 

injected during the fall. 

On June 27, 2006 and September 5, 2006, we trunk injected 32 trees (16 Fraxinus americana and 16 F. pennsylvanica) and eight trees (4 Fraxinus americana and four F. pennsylvanica), 

respectively, with 25 μCi 14C labeled imidacloprid and Imicide® imidacloprid at a ratio of 

1:1300 labeled to unlabeled compound. The trees were 1.5 – 2.0” caliper bare root and were 

planted in pure sand in 25-gallon containers. The single injection point was determined by the 

first whorl of branches. We injected trees at either 0o to the first whorl of branches or 90o to 

the first whorl of branches. Preliminary analysis presented here examines trees injected at 0o 

to the first whorl of branches (Figure 1). Trees were injected at 10 cm above the graft union. 

Holes were drilled in the trunk using a 5/16” drill bit. Stem injection tubes were inserted into 

the holes, and the trees were injected at 30 PSI using a bicycle pump. Stem injection tubes 

were removed after the trees took up all fluid. Each branch of the first three whorls of the 

tree was labeled 0o/180o or L90o/R90o depending on the location of the branch in relation to 

the injection point. Each branch was sampled separately. 

Leaf samples of trees injected in June were taken at 0, 2, 7, 21, 60, 98, 336, 350, and 429 

days after treatment (DAT). Leaf samples of trees injected in September were taken at 0, 2, 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

46 Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer ______________________________________________

7, 21, 267, 280, and 360 DAT. Preliminary analysis presented 

here examines leaf samples 21 DAT for both the spring and fall 

injections and 350 and 280 DAT for spring and fall injected 

trees, respectively. Days 350 and 280 corresponded to peak 

flight of EAB adults in 2007. 

All leaf samples were oven dried, ground with a mortar 

and pestle and oxidized in a biological tissue oxidizer. The 

resultant CO2 was trapped in scintillation cocktail and the 

amount of radioactivity was determined by using a scintillation 

counter. Counts per minute were recorded for each sample. 

Total “imidacloprid equivalents” per microgram of dry weight 

were calculated from activity counts after accounting for 

oxidizer efficiency (97%) and scintillation counter efficiency 

(97%).

Imidacloprid equivalent concentration in leaves varied with time, orientation to the injection point, and whorl 

height. Leaves on branches opposite the injection point (180o) 

had lower imidacloprid-equivalent concentrations than the 

leaves on branches in the same plane as the injection point 

(0o). Leaves on branches of trees injected during the fall had 

a lower imidacloprid-equivalent concentration 21 DAT when 

compared to leaves of trees injected during the spring 21 DAT 

(Figure 2.A): this could be a result of lower air temperatures and 

decreased rates of transpiration. Leaves of trees sampled 350 

DAT for the spring injection and 280 DAT for the fall injection had greatly reduced imidacloprid-equivalent concentrations following 2006 litterfall and overwintering (Figure 2.B). 

However, there is still evidence of straight sectored flow when 

leaves of branches 0o to the injection point are compared to 

leaves on branches 180o to the injection point. The results of 

the current study indicate decreased imidacloprid-equivalent 

concentrations in the leaves of trees injected in the fall when 

compared to the leaves of trees injected during the spring. In 

addition, imidacloprid-equivalent concentration in the leaves 

is greatly reduced following the first season’s litterfall.

Figure 1. Tree injected at 0o 

to the first whorl 

of branches. 

Mean distance 

from injection 

point to the first 

whorl = 1.28 m. 

Mean distance 

between whorls 

= .18 m.
______________________________________________ Chemical Control of Emerald Ash Borer 47

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Figure 2.A Imidacloprid equivalent concentration in leaves of spring and fall 14C imidacloprid trunk-injected Fraxinus trees injected at 0o to the first whorl of branches, 21 

days after treatment (DAT) (July 18, 2006 and September 26, 2006). 

Figure 2.B Imidacloprid equivalent concentration in leaves of 14C imidacloprid trunk-injected 

Fraxinus trees on June 12, 2007 (350 DAT spring-injected trees and 280 DAT fallinjected trees).
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

48 Biopesticides for Emerald Ash Borer _________________________________________________

Emerald Ash Borer Microbial Control with 

the Entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana GHA 

formulated as Botanigard®

Houping Liu1 and Leah S. Bauer1, 2

1

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University 

East Lansing, MI 48824

liuho@msu.edu

2

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

1407 S. Harrison Rd., East Lansing, MI 48823

ABSTRACT

The emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), a sporadic wood-boring pest native to northeastern Asia, was found attacking ash trees (Fraxinus 

spp.) in southeastern Michigan in 2002. Despite regulatory efforts to quarantine and eradicate 

EAB, this invasive beetle has continued to spread throughout Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and 

Ontario, Canada, and caused the death of millions of ash trees. Infestations have also been 

found in Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. EAB adversely impacts our 

forest biodiversity, ash resources, and urban areas as ash species are widely distributed in 

forested ecosystems and planted as shade trees and ornamentals. While eradication may be a 

viable option for small, outlier infestations, effective and environmentally sound management 

measures are clearly needed for containment and suppression of dense EAB populations over 

large areas to help protect our ash resources in other areas in North America.

Entomopathogenic fungi were determined to be the major mortality factor of EAB 

in Michigan field populations during a survey of EAB natural enemies in 2002. We found 

localized fungal epizootics and isolated more than 100 strains from five fungal species. Fungal 

infections were most prevalent among mature larvae or prepupae, which are found near the 

bark surface during winter. From 2003-2005, we evaluated insect-pathogenic fungi for management of EAB by 1) screening potential fungal isolates for virulence using laboratory bioassays, 

2) evaluating the most virulent strain for efficacy against EAB using different treatments in 

greenhouse and caged-field trials, and 3) expanding efficacy studies using fungal applications 

on infested ash trees in the field. The results of these studies are summarized below.

Laboratory bioassays showed adult EAB were susceptible to Beauveria bassiana and 

Metarhizium anisopliae. Significant time-mortality response was found for each isolate tested. 

Isolate B. bassiana GHA killed EAB adults at a faster rate when compared to other isolates 

tested, with the lowest average time-to-death values. Significant concentration-mortality responses were also observed for two registered B. bassiana GHA bioinsecticide formulations, 

BotaniGard® ES and Mycotrol® O, which were applied as foliar sprays using a spray tower. 

The LC50 values ranged from 114.5 to 309.6 conidia/cm2 and 18.4 to 797.3 conidia/cm2 for 

BotaniGard® and Mycotrol®, respectively (Liu and Bauer 2006). 
_________________________________________________ Biopesticides for Emerald Ash Borer 49

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Subsequent greenhouse and field trials with formulated B. bassiana GHA demonstrated 

its lethal and sublethal effects on emerging EAB adults as well as active larvae. Adult infection rates ranged from 27.7 to 37.7% for the application rate of 25-75 × 1013 conidia/ha under 

greenhouse conditions and 58.5 to 83% for the application rate of 10 and 100 × 1013 conidia/

ha in the field. The sublethal effects of B. bassiana GHA was observed on adult longevity, 

female fecundity, and larval development. The longevity of adult EAB surviving the fungus 

was reduced from approximately 22 days to 13 days in females and from approximately 28 

days to 14 days in males. In addition, fewer eggs were produced by B. bassiana GHA-treated 

adults, and surviving EAB larvae took longer to develop than controls. We also evaluated 

the efficacy of B. bassiana GHA impregnated fungal bands, which were wrapped around 

the trunks of infested trees during the period of peak EAB emergence. Adult mortality was 

31.6% from fungal infection on treated trees compared to 1.1% on control trees. During the 

fall, B. bassiana GHA was also found effective against EAB larvae overwintering under the 

bark when applied through trunk application. A total of 7.9% of the larvae were infected 

in the treated trunk sections compared with 1.6% in the controls. Larval infection rate was 

positively correlated with larval density in the field. 

Finally, the effects of B. bassiana GHA on newly colonized and well-established EAB 

populations were evaluated in the field using foliar and trunk sprays. We found B. bassiana

GHA applications on leaves and trunk reduced EAB colonization on relatively healthy green 

ash trees. Results from our trials carried out at one site showed a 40.7% reduction in new 

EAB colonization in fungal treated trees compared with that of untreated controls. B. bassiana GHA was also responsible for reducing the larval population from the previous year by 

19.6%. For the well-established EAB population at the other site, larval density was reduced 

by 46.7% for trees treated with B. bassiana GHA compared to the controls, in which 20.9% 

hatched larvae of the current generation died of fungal infection. Fungal-treated ash trees also 

produced fewer adults the following year, with a 63.3% reduction in adult density observed 

from treated trees compared to the controls. As a result, fungal-treated trees sustained 41.5% 

less crown defoliation than the controls. Beauveria bassiana GHA conidia persisted well 

under field conditions, with EAB adult mortality of 100, 96, 88, and 78% observed on leaves 

collected at 0, 4, 7, and 11 days after the treatment, respectively. 

Our results demonstrated that BotaniGard® was capable of reducing EAB populations 

and slowing ash decline in the field through trunk and foliar applications. Thus, this bioinsecticide may be useful for treatment of heavily infested ash trees in the core zones, slowing the 

spread of EAB. BotaniGard® may also be useful for the treatment of healthy trees surrounding 

outlier infestations to facilitate containment and possibly eradication. The ultimate role of 

this fungal pathogen in the overall EAB management in North America, however, will depend 

on further research on optimizing application methods, rates, frequency, environmental and 

nontarget effects, as well as management decisions made by program managers in the field. 

Reference

Liu, H-P. and L.S. Bauer. 2006. Susceptibility of Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) to 

Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae. Journal of Economic Entomology 99:1096-1103. 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

50 Biopesticides for Emerald Ash Borer _________________________________________________

Impact of Beauveria bassiana and Imidacloprid, 

Alone and in Combination, for Control of 

Emerald Ash Borer in a Newly Infested 

Ash Nursery

J.D. Vandenberg1, L.A. Castrillo2, H. Liu3, 

M. Griggs1, and L.S. Bauer4

1

USDA Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Plant, Soil & Nutrition Lab

Tower Road, Ithaca, NY 14853

John.Vandenberg@ars.usda.govH

2

Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

3

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University 

East Lansing MI 48824

4

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

1407 S. Harrison Rd., East Lansing, MI 48823

ABSTRACT

We are investigating the potential of the fungus Beauveria bassiana (strain GHA), alone and 

in combination with imidacloprid, for use against the emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis. We treated approximately 400 Fraxinus pennsylvanica and F. americana (height ca. 

5-6 m) at a commercial tree nursery with fungus alone, imidacloprid alone at two rates, fungus 

plus the lower rate of imidacloprid, or a formulation blank as control. Imidacloprid (Bayer) 

was applied as an early season drench in late May, and the fungus (BotaniGard® ES, Laverlam) 

and formulation blank were applied biweekly three times between mid-June and mid-July. 

Initial EAB infestation was low. However, in 2007, more than half the trees had beetle exit 

holes. We monitored spore deposition and estimated spore persistence on leaves and bark. 

At least four genotypes of B. bassiana were present in soil before any sprays, and none of 

them was identified as the GHA strain. After sprays, we readily reisolated strain GHA from 

leaves (up to 6 weeks post-spray), bark, and soil. A drop in fungal persistence with time was 

less pronounced on bark than on leaves. We have developed a real-time polymerase chain 

reation (PCR) method to quantify fungal DNA from environmental samples. We found that 

efficacy of 1-, 4-, and 24-hour adult exposures to freshly GHA-treated leaves and bark to be 

high. Beetles exposed to leaves and bark sampled one and two weeks after fungal application showed much lower mortality. Mortality of beetles exposed to leaves treated with both 

imidacloprid and the fungus was equal to, or greater than, that of beetles exposed to leaves 

treated with fungus alone. We have completed two seasons of a multi-year study. 
______________________________________________Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer 51

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

The Anticipated Host Switch: 

A New Braconid Parasitoid in Michigan

David Cappaert1 and Deborah G. McCullough1,2

1

Department of Entomology and 

2

Department of Forestry

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

cappaert@comcast.netH

ABSTRACT

Since the discovery of emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, in the United 

States, researchers have hoped to identify native natural enemies that might mitigate the impact of EAB. Formal studies conducted in Michigan demonstrated the presence of a suite of 

pathogens and parasitoids associated with EAB. Unfortunately, none of these were abundant; 

fungi accounted for 2% and parasitoids counted for less than 0.5% EAB mortality (Bauer et 

al. 2005). Woodpecker predation can have a greater impact, causing over 50% mortality in 

some sites but varying considerably within and among sites (Cappaert et al. 2005, Lindell et 

al. 2007). However, there is no evidence that these predators have the capacity to regulate 

EAB populations. 

Over time, as EAB populations build and expand, predators or parasitoids native to 

North America could potentially develop into significant natural enemies of EAB. Exotic pest 

species are frequently attacked by native natural enemies (Cornell and Hawkins 1993). For 

example, a native ichneumonid, Lathrolestes luteolater, has become an effective biocontrol of 

Profenusa thomsoni, the introduced birch leafmining sawfly (Digweed et al. 2003), and pine 

shoot beetle, an exotic scolytid, is attacked by several native predators and parasitoids that are 

adapted to locate prey in bark and phloem (Kennedy and McCullough 2002). 

A natural enemy could shift or expand its host range under several scenarios. For 

example, a parasitoid of a phloem or wood-boring beetle on a non-ash host could become 

abundant and then encounter EAB in stands where infested ash co-occur with the non-ash 

host. Alternately, populations of EAB may expand into an area where there is overlap with 

the range of a previously allopatric buprestid parasitoid that is highly compatible with EAB. 

In this paper, we document the discovery of an established parasitoid of EAB. This currently 

unknown species is either a heretofore unobserved EAB parasitoid or has recently expanded 

its host range to include EAB. 

The site. Seven Lakes State Park is 3 miles west of Fenton, Michigan. The park encompasses 

600 ha of old field, mature oak-hickory forest, and early successional hardwoods. Since 2004, 

scientists from Michigan State University have conducted several EAB studies at the park, 

owing to the exceptional abundance of green and white ash. Because the ash are in numerous discrete stands, the degree of EAB infestation is patchy; the majority of trees are dead or 

heavily infested, but uninfested trees also occur.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

52 Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer _____________________________________________

The discovery. While dissecting trees at Seven Lakes in September 2007, we began to encounter 

the cocoons of parasitoid wasps in EAB galleries. Wasp larvae were also present (Figure 1), 

feeding externally on fourth instar larvae. 

We followed this initial 

observation with a broader survey throughout the park to 

determine the distribution and 

prevalence of the parasitoid. A 

minimum of three ash trees were 

dissected within ash stands at 

each of 10 sites. Each tree was 

evaluated by removing the bark 

from four sections on the main 

stem, each 40 cm long. All live 

EAB larvae were tallied by life 

stage and the number of parasitoid cocoons and larvae recorded. The proportion of parasitism was calculated as the number of parasitized EAB larvae divided by the total number of 

EAB larvae encountered; all four sample sections were weighted equally in determining the 

average for a tree. 

Distribution at Seven Lakes. The locations of sites, which represent most of the significant 

ash stands in the park, are indicated in Figure 2. Rates of parasitism for each site are given in 

Table 1. Overall, EAB larval density in dissected trees averaged 60 larvae per m2 (range 0-280 

per m2). The parasitoid was found at 9 of 10 sites, indicating it is broadly distributed within 

the park. Parasitism within individual trees reached 83% (excluding a tree at site 2, which had 

a single cocoon and no live EAB; i.e., 100% parastism). The highest parasitism rates were clustered at sites 1-3, an area 

of densely stocked, nearly 

pure ash forest.

Further observations. 

We observed parasitoid 

feeding externally and 

cocoons that were located 

in the terminus of the 

Figure 1. Larva (L) and cocoons 

(R) of Atanycolus sp. in 

galleries of emerald ash 

borer. 

Figure 2. Parasitoid survey 

sites at Seven Lakes 

State Park. Circles 

define 100m zones. 

Number labels for 

circles are keyed to 

data presented in 

Table 1.
______________________________________________Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer 53

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

host gallery. In every case, the hosts were fourth instar larvae and parasitoids were solitary. 

By October18, 95% of parasitoids had formed cocoons. Less than 10% of cocoons observed 

had been vacated: i.e., we found little evidence of the parasitoid generation that had produced 

the larvae and cocoons present during the fall. 

We made a cursory exploration of stressed or dead elm, oak, and quaking aspen trees 

to evaluate other phloem or wood-boring larvae that might serve as hosts of the parasitoid. 

We observed several cerambycid larvae in elm and Agrilus liragus in aspen, but there was no 

clear evidence of parasitism among those species. 

Identity and origin of the parasitoid. A few live adults of the parasitoid were collected from 

beneath the bark of dissected trees in September. These were sent to Paul M. Marsh (U.S. 

National Museum, ret.), a braconid specialist. He identified the genus as Atanycolus, which 

includes species that attack buprestids native to Michigan (e.g., Atanycolus charus on A. anxius [Loerch and Cameron, 1983] and Atanycolus sp. on Melanophila fulvoguttata [Graham, 

1943]). However, our specimens did not appear to be a known North American species and 

may be nonindigenous. Further taxonomic work is ongoing. 

We propose three explanations for the origin of this unknown species at Seven 

Lakes: 

1. An Asian parasitoid of EAB was introduced to the United States, either simultaneously with the introduction of EAB or later. This hypothesis appears unlikely, 

given the absence of evidence of this Atanycolus species in five years of intensive 

research by many groups. Furthermore, Seven Lakes State Park is a considerable 

distance from international ports of entry, industrial areas, warehouses, or other 

likely locations for introduction, where its presence has not been noted. 

2. A rare (and previously undescribed) native or nonindigenous Atanycolus species 

became abundant during a population surge of a non-EAB primary host. The 

parasitism of EAB that we observed was incidental. This idea is implausible given 

the abundance and dominance of ash and EAB at Seven Lakes Park. It is likely 

that EAB outnumbers other similar hosts by several orders of magnitude; thus the 

Table 1. Parasitism rates of EAB larvae at survey sites in Seven Lakes Park.

Site No. trees % positive1 Percent of larvae parasitized2

1 12 75 50 83 21

2 4 75 73 100 42

3 4 75 42 84 19

4 7 71 25 54 3

5 3 100 17 40 2

6 3 67 18 35 2

7 1 100 3 --- ---

8 2 100 2 3 2

9 12 8 2 --- ---

10 3 0 0 --- --- 1

Refers to percent of trees surveyed where Atanycolus sp. was present. 2

Data from positive trees where Atanycolus sp. was present.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

54 Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer _____________________________________________

prevalence of the parasitoid can only be accounted for if EAB is now the primary 

host.

3. A rare (and thus undescribed) native or nonindigenous Atanycolus species has overcome an ecological or genetic barrier and adopted EAB as a host. This explanation 

seems most likely, and we consider it most likely that the Atanycolus species is 

now a defacto parastioid of EAB. It is not a known parasitoid of other common 

cerambycid or buprestid hosts. It has established among tens of thousands of trees 

distributed over several kilometers. It is present in numbers that suggest EAB has 

been a host for multiple generations.

Future directions. Our preliminary observations suggest that the Seven Lakes Atanycolus 

parasitoid has the potential to contribute to control of EAB. We are planning a program of 

research to include these topics:

1. Identification and origin. We are rearing additional specimens to aid systematists with 

identification. If the Atanycolus is not identified as an Asian EAB specialist, we will 

investigate whether there are alternate hosts that might have brought the species into 

contact with EAB. Given the size of the wasps and the known host range and searching behavior of Atanycolus, cerambycids and buprestids are the likeliest candidates 

(Kenis and Hilszczanski 2004). Studies will involve surveying stressed and dead trees 

at Seven Lakes and introducing the Atanycolus to borer-infested material in the lab 

and field. We will also begin to survey other areas near Seven Lakes Park to establish 

the population level of the parasitoid in the region.

2. Basic biology. Assuming that the Atancolus is a new or little-studied species, we will 

need to describe its basic biology: life cycle and phenology, reproductive capacity (M:F 

ratio, fecundity), environmental requirements, and other factors that affect its potential 

for affecting EAB populations.

3. Biocontrol potential. A better understanding of the parasitoid biology and empirical 

data related to parasitism rates are needed to assess its potential as a biocontrol agent. 

Further surveys at Seven Lakes (and other sites, if discovered) will suggest how rates 

of parasitism vary with habitat features, EAB density and other factors. Options such 

as controlled release of the parasitoid at other sites may be useful to determine dynamics of the parasitoid populations and interactions between the parasitoid and EAB at 

varying densities.

Summary. A braconid parasitoid of EAB, an Atanycolus sp. heretofore unknown in North 

America is well established within a 600-ha site near Fenton, Michigan. Average rates of 

parasitism at nine locations varied between 2% and 73%. Given the ubiquity and prevalence 

of this parasitoid at the site, we advocate further research to assess the biological control potential of this species.

Acknowledgements. Thanks to Houping Liu, USDA Forest Service, and Paul M. Marsh for 

assistance with species identification.
______________________________________________Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer 55

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

References

Bauer, L.S., H-P. Liu, R.A. Haack, R-T. Gao, T-H. Zhao, D.L. Miller, and T.R. Petrice. 2005. Update on emerald ash borer natural enemies in Michigan and China. Pp. 71-72 in: V. Mastro and R. Reardon (compilers), Proceedings of the Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Meeting, Romulus, MI. USDA Forest 

Service FHTET Publ. 2004-15.

Cornell, H.V. and B.A. Hawkins. 1993. Accumulation of native parasitoid species on introduced herbivores: 

a comparison of hosts as natives and hosts as invaders. American Naturalist 141:847-865.

Cappaert, D., D.G. McCullough, T.M. Poland, and N.W. Siegert. 2005. Emerald ash borer in North America: a research and regulatory challenge. American Entomologist 51:152–165.

Digweed, S.C., R.L. McQueen, J.R. Spence, and D.W. Langor. 2003. Biological control of the ambermarked 

birch leafminer, Profenusa thomsoni (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), in Alberta. Nat. Resour. Can., Can. 

For. Serv., Inf. Rep. NOR-X-389.

Graham, S.A. 1943. Causes of hemlock mortality in northern Michigan. Bull. Sch. For. Mich. 1943; (10): 63.

Kenis, M. and J. Hilszczanski. 2004. Natural enemies of Cerambycidae and Buprestidae infesting living trees. 

In: Lieutier, Day, Battisti, Gregoire, and Evans (eds.), Bark and Wood Boring Insects in Living Trees in 

Europe, a Synthesis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, NY.

Kennedy, A.A. and D.G. McCullough. 2002. Phenology of the exotic pine shoot beetle (Tomicus piniperda

[L.]) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in relation to native bark beetles and natural enemies in red pine stands. Environmental Entomology 31:261-272.

Lindell, C., D.G. McCullough, D. Cappaert, N.M. Apostolou, and M.B. Roth. 2007. Factors influencing 

woodpecker predation on emerald ash borer. American Midland Naturalist (in press). 

Loerch, C.R. and E.A. Cameron. 1983. Natural enemies of immature stages of the bronze birch 

borer Agrilus anxius (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Pennsylvania USA. Environmental Entomology 12(6):1798-1801. 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

56 Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer _____________________________________________

Progress on Biological Control 

of Emerald Ash Borer

Leah S Bauer1,2, Houping Liu2, and Juli Gould3

1

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station 

East Lansing, MI 48823

lbauer@fs.fed.us 

2

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

3

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory

Bldg. 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542

ABSTRACT

The emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis, a buprestid native to northeastern Asia, was 

determined as the cause of ash tree (Fraxinus spp.) mortality in areas of southern Michigan and 

Ontario, Canada, in 2002. Infestations have been found since in Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, 

Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Regulatory agencies have shifted from a 

tactic of eradication to one of management for this pest in North America. This change resulted 

in part from increasingly large infestations and limited capability to detect and control EAB. 

Classical biological control, the introduction and establishment of exotic natural enemies for 

sustained control of an invasive species, is being considered for management of EAB.

Considerable progress has been made since 2002 in developing an EAB biological 

control program. Natural enemy surveys of EAB in Michigan during 2003-2004 revealed less 

than 1% of immature EAB were parasitized and EAB eggs contained no parasitoids (Bauer 

and Liu, unpublished data). This level of parasitism was much lower than parasitism of EAB 

observed in China (Liu et al. 2007) and levels reported in the literature for a native species of 

Agrilus (Loerch and Cameron 1983). The lack of native natural enemies attacking EAB in the 

United States supports the need for biological control of EAB in North America.

In 2003, we began studying EAB and its natural enemies in ash stands in China. We 

found three hymenopteran parasitoids for possible use as EAB biocontrol agents in North 

America: a gregarious larval braconid ectoparasitoid, Spathius agrili (Liu and Liu 2002; Liu et 

al. 2003; Yang et al. 2005), a gregarious larval eulophid endoparasitoid, Tetrastichus planipennisi

(Liu et al. 2003; Yang et al. 2006), and a solitary, parthenogenic encyrtid egg parasitoid, Oobius 

agrili (Zhang et al. 2005). Studies on the population biology of O. agrili and T. planipennisi

parasitizing EAB attacking F. pennsylvanica planted in Jilin Province reveal the importance of 

natural enemies in maintaining EAB population densities below a tolerance threshold for this 

ash species, which is a common tree throughout eastern North America (Liu et al. 2007).

Oobius agrili was discovered in 2004 in Jilin Province, China (Zhang et al. 2005). In 

China, O. agrili is a solitary and parthenogenic egg parasitoid with at least two generations 

per year. This minute encyrtid wasp spends the winter and spring as a mature larva in EAB 

eggs, and adult emergence is synchronized with the EAB oviposition period during July and 
______________________________________________Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer 57

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

August in the field. We developed laboratory rearing methods and recorded the life cycle 

of O. agrili parasitizing EAB eggs at 25o C (Bauer and Liu 2007). Using these methods, we 

performed no-choice assays with eggs of six Agrilus spp., two cerambycid beetles, and four 

lepidopterans. Overlap in physiological host range was found for three native Agrilus spp. 

with eggs of similar size to EAB. For these three species, paired choice assays revealed O. 

agrili strongly preferred to oviposit in EAB eggs laid on ash than in eggs of other Agrilus spp. 

on their respective host plants (Bauer and Liu 2007). 

Tetrastichus planipennisi was discovered in 2003 in Jilin and Liaoning Provinces of 

China (Liu et al. 2003) and later in Heilongjiang Province (Yang et al. 2006). Tetrastichus 

planipennisi oviposits into the haemocoel of actively feeding third- and fourth-instar EAB 

larvae. In China, this tiny eulophid wasp completes at least four generations per year and 

overwinters as mature larvae inside the host gallery. After chewing a small emergence hole in 

the tree bark, adults emerge the following spring, with an average of 35 (range 5 to 122) adults 

emerging from a single host larva. We developed laboratory rearing methods and recorded 

the life cycle of T. planipennisi parasitizing EAB larvae at 25oC (Liu and Bauer 2007). Using 

no-choice assays, groups of female and male T. planipennisi were exposed to actively-feeding 

larvae of eight buprestid species, five cerambycid species, and a wood-boring sawfly, all implanted in small branches of their host plant. We also assayed larvae of a tenebrionid beetle 

and two lepidopteran species by implantation in small ash branches and sphingid larvae by 

exposure on host leaves. Tetrastichus planipennisi rejected all species except actively-feeding 

EAB larvae implanted in ash branches (Liu and Bauer 2007). 

Spathius agrili was first reported in Tianjin, China (Liu and Liu 2002), where it is a 

prevalent parasitoid of EAB in stands of F. velutina, an ash species native to southwestern 

United States and parts of Mexico. In Tianjin, the emergence of S. agrili adults is well synchronized with the availability of third- and fourth-instar EAB larvae, its preferred host stages, 

and completes three generations per year (Yang et al. 2005). Females oviposit through the tree 

bark, paralyzing the larva and laying a clutch of eggs on the integument. At maturity, larvae 

of S. agrili spin a cocoon and pupate within the host gallery. No-choice laboratory assays 

of larval wood-boring insects from China and North America showed some overlap in the 

physiological host range of S. agrili, although successful parasitism was significantly lower in 

non-hosts than in EAB; no borers in genera other than Agrilus were attacked. Therefore, we 

evaluated the ecological host range of S. agrili using an olfactometer to determine the attractiveness of certain host plants. We found S. agrili was attracted to F. pennsylvanica, F. velutina, 

and a willow (Salix babylonica) only in Y-tube olfactometer tests. In nature, if parasitoids are 

not attracted to the host tree, they are unlikely to encounter and parasitize non-target larvae. 

In China, no S. agrili or T. planipennisi were reared from six species of field-collected Agrilus

larvae (n = 2,074). Considering the combination of evidence from no-choice and olfactometer 

tests, the lack of S. agrili reared from other Agrilus spp. in China, and that native Spathius 

spp. were rarely reared from EAB in North America, we predict only incidental non-target 

parasitism (Gould et al. 2007). 

Given the known risk of EAB to North American ash resources, the high potential 

benefit of these parasitoids in suppressing EAB populations, and the relatively low potential 

risk to native Agrilus spp., we submitted permit requests in January 2007 to USDA APHIS 

for release of each species in Michigan. After extensive review by federal and state scientists, 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

58 Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer _____________________________________________

land managers, and university faculty members during a 60-day public comment period, it 

was agreed that the potential benefits outweighed the potential risks, and APHIS issued a 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Release permits were issued at the end of July, and 

field releases began in central and southeastern Michigan. In 2007, adult O. agrili (female n 

= 1406) were released in July and August at two sites in Ingham Co., Michigan; adult T. planipennisi (female n = 1360) were released from July through October at two sites in Ingham 

Co., Michigan; adult S. agrili (female n = 311) were released in August and September at one 

site each in Gratiot, Shiawasee, and Oakland counties, Michigan. We will evaluate the sites 

for establishment and dispersal of the parasitoids over the next five years or more. Additional 

research sites will be determined this winter for 2008 parasitoid releases. 

References

Bauer, L.S. and H-P. Liu. 2007. Oobius agrili (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), a solitary egg parasitoid of emerald ash borer from China. Pp. 63-64 in: V. Mastro, D. Lance, R. Reardon, and G. 

Parra (compilers), Proceedings of the Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development 

Meeting, October 31-November 1, 2006. Cincinnati, Ohio. USDA Forest Service, FHTET Publ. 

2007-04.

Gould, J., J. Ayer, Z-Q. Yang, and X-Y. Wang. 2007. Host specificity of Spathius agrili, a parasitoid 

of the emerald ash borer. Pp. 65-66 in: V. Mastro, D. Lance, R. Reardon, and G. Parra (compilers), Proceedings of the Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting,

October 31-November 1, 2006. Cincinnati, Ohio. USDA Forest Service, FHTET Publ. 2007-04.

Liu, H-P and L.S. Bauer. 2007. Tetrastichus planipennisi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), a gregarious 

larval endoparasitoid of emerald ash borer from China. Pp. 61-62 in: V. Mastro, D. Lance, R. 

Reardon, and G. Parra (compilers), Proceedings of the Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting, October 31-November 1, 2006. Cincinnati, Ohio. USDA Forest 

Service, FHTET Publ. 2007-04.

Liu, H-P., L.S. Bauer, R-T. Gao, T-H. Zhao, T. R. Petrice, and R. A. Haack. 2003. Exploratory 

survey for the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), and its natural 

enemies in China. Great Lakes Entomologist 36:191–204.

Liu, H-P., L.S. Bauer, D. L. Miller, T-H. Zhao, R-T. Gao, L-W. Song, Q-S. Luan, R-Z. Jin, and 

C-Q. Gao. 2007. Seasonal abundance of Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) and its 

natural enemies Oobius agrili (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and Tetrastichus planipennisi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in China. Biological Control 42:61–71. 

Liu, G-J. and E-S. Liu. 2002. Preliminary report on control of EAB. An internal report of Orna Preliminary report on control of EAB. An internal report of Ornamental Tree Management of Guangang Area, Tianjin City, Peoples Republic of China.

Loerch, C.R. and E.A. Cameron. 1983. Natural enemies of immature stages of the bronze birch 

borer, Agrilus anxius (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), in Pennsylvania. Environmental Entomology

12:1798-1801.

Yang, Z., J.S. Strazanac, P.M. Marsh, C. van Achterberg, and W. Choi. 2005. First recorded parasitoid from China of Agrilus planipennis: a new species of Spathius (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: 

Doryctinae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 98:636-642.

Zhang, Y-Z., D-W. Huang, T-H. Zhao, H-P. Liu, and L.S. Bauer. 2005. Two new egg parasitoids 

(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) of economic importance from China. Phytoparasitica 33:253–260.
______________________________________________Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer 59

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Population Biology of Emerald Ash Borer

and its Natural Enemies in China

Houping Liu1, Leah S Bauer1, 2, Tonghai Zhao3, and Ruitong Gao3

1

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

liuho@msu.edu

2

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station 

1407 S. Harrison Rd., East Lansing, MI 48823

3

Research Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment, and Protection

Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT

Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), also known as emerald ash borer 

(EAB), was first discovered in Michigan and Ontario, Canada, in 2002 following investigations 

of declining and dying ash trees (Fraxinus spp.). Agrilus planipennis has also spread to Ohio, 

Indiana, Maryland, Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia by natural dispersal and 

transport of infested ash materials. As of 2007, over 25 million ash trees have been killed by 

this pest in Michigan alone. The adverse effects of A. planipennis on forest biodiversity, ash 

resources, and urban areas in North America are high as ash trees are widely distributed and 

planted throughout North America. 

In its native country of China, A. planipennis was considered only a minor and periodic 

pest of ash trees—presumably due the presence of natural enemies and host resistance. The 

introduction of North America ash species in recent decades, however, elevated A. planipennis 

to pest status in some areas and increased its distribution to additional locations in northern 

China. 

In 2003, we initiated a classical biological control project for A. planipennis by studying 

its population dynamics and natural enemy complex in China. During our initial exploratory 

surveys for ash trees and A. planipennis in northeastern China, including Jilin and Liaoning Provinces, we found two parasitoid species attacking third- and fourth-instar larvae on 

Manchurian ash (F. mandshurica) (Liu et al. 2003). One of these parasitoids was a previously 

unknown gregarious larval endoparasitoid, Tetrastichus planipennisi Yang (Hymenoptera: 

Eulophidae), which we found in both provinces during the course of our study (Liu et al. 

2003). The other parasitoid was a gregarious larval ectoparasitoid, Spathius agrili Yang (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). This finding expanded the known range for S. agrili, which was 

previously known only from the more southerly Tianjin City, where it attacks A. planipennis 

larvae in stands of Arizona ash (F. velutina Torr.). In 2004, we discovered Oobius agrili Zhang 

and Huang (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), a previously unknown solitary and parthenogenic 

parasitoid that attacks the eggs of A. planipennis (Zhang et al. 2005), in Jilin Province.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

60 Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer _____________________________________________

For this study, we surveyed field populations of A. planipennis in Jilin Province, China, 

during 2004 and 2005 and studied: 1) the seasonal dynamics of A. planipennis; 2) seasonal 

abundance of its egg parasitoid, O. agrili; 3) seasonal abundance of its larval endoparasitoid, T.

planipennisi; and 4) impact of these two parasitoids on host populations in the field. Results 

showed that in our field site in Jilin Province, A. planipennis had an asynchronous, one-year 

life cycle in green ash trees (F. pennsylvanica), with larvae overwintering in all four instars. 

At least two generations of O. agrili were observed on A. planipennis during the egg period 

in 2005, with parasitism reaching 56.3% in July and 61.5% in August. A portion of the O. 

agrili population diapaused within host eggs in the fall and winter months and emerged the 

following spring and summer, resulting in post-season parasitism of 28.6% in June of 2004, 

12.0% in May of 2005, and 43.8% in November of 2005. Up to four generations of T. planipennisi emerged from host larvae, with an average larval parasitism of 22.4% within a range 

of 0 to 40.4%. Tetrastichus planipennisi overwinter as larvae within the host or host galleries 

and emerge the following spring. 

These two parasitoids were important in the population dynamics of A. planipennis

on green ash, with an estimated 73.6% reduction of EAB population densities during 2005 

(Liu et al. 2007). The characteristics of these parasitoids—such as high parasitism rates, short 

generation time, high reproduction rate, parthenogenesis in O. agrili, and life-cycle synchrony 

with host—suggest these parasitoids may prove useful in the management of A. planipennis

in North America as biocontrol agents. 

References

Liu, H-P., L.S. Bauer, R-T. Gao, T-H. Zhao, T.R. Petrice, and R.A. Haack. 2003. Exploratory 

survey for the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), and its natural 

enemies in China. Great Lakes Entomologist 36:191-204.

Liu, H-P., L.S. Bauer, D.L. Miller, T-H. Zhao, R-T. Gao, L-W. Song, Q-S. Luan, R-Z. Jin, and C-Q. 

Gao. 2007. Seasonal abundance of Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) and its natural 

enemies Oobius agrili (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and Tetrastichus planipennisi (Hymenoptera: 

Eulophidae) in China. Biological Control 42:61–71. 

Zhang, Y-Z., D-W. Huang, T-H. Zhao, H-P. Liu, and L.S. Bauer. 2005. Two new egg parasitoids 

(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) of economic importance from China. Phytoparasitica 33:253–260.
______________________________________________Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer 61

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Field Host Range Testing of Spathius agrili, 

a Parasitoid of Emerald Ash Borer: 

Evaluating Nontarget Impacts

John S. Strazanac1, Juli R. Gould2, 

Robert A. Haack3, and Ivich Fraser4

1

Plant and Soil Sciences & Entomology

West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26505

jstrazan@wvu.eduH

2

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory

Building 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542

3

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

1407 S. Harrison Road, Room 220, East Lansing, MI 48823

4

USDA APHIS PPQ, Emerald Ash Borer Project

5936 Ford Court, Suite 200, Brighton, MI 48116

ABSTRACT

The introduction of the emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilis planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), into the Midwest from Asia has had a devastating affect on ash (Fraxinus spp.). As 

the emerald ash borer’s ability to spread became better understood and its distribution in 

the Midwest increased, biocontrol became an increasingly important option. Prior to the 

identification of emerald ash borer in Michigan, Spathius agrili Yang (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) was discovered attacking EAB in its native range in China. Subsequent laboratory 

host specificity testing with North American woodborers and olfactory testing of various 

tree volatiles, including ash, indicate S. agrili is not predicted to have a significant impact on 

native North American fauna.

Field releases of S. agrili at three sites in Michigan were initiated in the late summer of 

2007 to determine ability to establish and to monitor the predicted minimal nontarget impacts. 

Three woodborers native to North America are being monitored: the twolined chestnut borer 

(Agrilus bilineatus [Weber]), the bronze birch borer (A. anxius Gory), and the redheaded ash 

borer (Neoclytus acuminatus [Say]). 

Host trees (diameter at breast height ~15 cm) for the nontarget Agrilus species were 

moved to the release sites: pin oak (Quercus palustris) for the twolined chestnut borer and 

European paper birch (Betula pendula) for the bronze birch borer. In the laboratory, bolts of 

host trees infested with these species were placed in rearing tubes and adults collected upon 

emergence. Adults were held for 10 days, fed with foliage and honey:water, and then released 

into containment cages around the trunks of the host trees, where it was anticipated that they 

would lay eggs. The cages also included a sapling of the host tree with foliage and small twigs 

of foliage with their stems in a moist bag. After two weeks, the cages were removed.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

62 Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer _____________________________________________

Larvae of the redheaded ash borer were brought to the release sites as larvae feeding 

in ash logs of 1m long. Three logs were brought to each release site as well as three ash logs 

infested with emerald ash borer larvae. Pairs of redheaded ash borer-infested and emerald ash 

borer-infested logs were strapped 1 m high to the trunks of emerald ash borer-infested trees 

in the immediate area of the planned S. agrili releases. 

After a sufficient cold period, the transplanted oaks and birches will be cut into sections. These sections and the ash logs infested with EAB and red-headed ash borers will be 

placed in individual rearing tubes to monitor Spathius emergence. A subset of the wood will 

be debarked to confirm the presence of nontargets and possible parasitism.
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 63

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Accuracy Assessment of Remote Sensing Imagery for

Mapping Hardwood Trees and Stressed Ash Trees

David Bartels1, David Williams2, 

Jim Ellenwood3, and Frank Sapio3

1

USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST PDDML, Moore Air Base, Bldg. 6414

22675 N. Moorefield Rd., Edinburg, TX 78541

david.w.bartels@aphis.usda.govH

2

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory

Bldg. 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542

3

USDA Forest Service, S&PF, FHTET 

2150 Centre Ave, Building A, Ste. 331

Fort Collins, CO 80526

ABSTRACT

The emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, was first identified near the Detroit, 

Michigan, area in July 2002. Through natural dispersal and human-assisted spread, the lower 

peninsula of Michigan is now considered generally infested, along with portions of Illinois, 

Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and Ontario, Canada. Currently, 

detection methods rely heavily on visual surveys and labor-intensive trap-tree surveys. The 

ability to identify ash trees and stressed ash trees from airborne imagery would greatly assist regulatory efforts aimed at stopping the spread of this pest. Remote sensing can be a 

useful tool for mapping vegetation, and advances in sensor technology and image analysis 

continually improve the information content of the imagery. This study investigates the use 

of hyperspectral imagery, LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging) data, and high-resolution 

panchromatic imagery in conjunction with ground-based spectral data to: 1) differentiate ash 

trees from other northern hardwood species, 2) differentiate stressed ash trees from healthy 

ash trees, and 3) establish what time during the growing season is optimal for identifying ash 

trees and their health status. 

In 2006, we were able to collect hyperspectral imagery over 150 square kilometers at 

locations in northern Michigan (Lower Peninsula), southern Michigan, and northern Ohio in 

both early June and late August. We also collected LIDAR data and high-resolution panchromatic imagery during early June. Analysis of the 2006 airborne data set is in progress, and we 

have four different groups examining the data with diverse objectives. Remote Measurement 

Services, LLC (Houston, Texas), is looking at the data with a proprietary analysis technique that 

isolates geologic and biologic component data through a fusion of the hyperspectral imagery 

with the LIDAR and panchromatic datasets. Clark Labs at Clark University (Worcester, Massachusetts) is using traditional hyperspectral analysis techniques for vegetation classification 

and segmentation technology to identify individual tree crowns. The USDA Forest Service 

(Durham, New Hampshire) is analyzing data to examine chemical ecology. Finally, ITT Space 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

64 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

Sciences Division (Rochester, New York) is developing sub-band engineering approaches to 

vegetation classification. Our objective in comparing the different analytical methodologies 

is to identify a system that can process hyperspectral data in a timely fashion in an effort to 

make remote sensing technology operationally useful in program management.

Preliminary analysis results by Remote Measurement Services guided an assessment 

of their classification process. The process uses GBC-HealthTM and GBC-ClassTM transformations to differentiate betweeen levels of vegetation stress and identify species differences. 

Panchromatic imagery and LIDAR data were used to segment the tree canopy into individual 

tree crowns. Classification was then performed on individual trees. An average overall accuracy of 77% for all flight areas was achieved for differentiating ash trees from all other tree 

species. However, there are several issues regarding over- and under-segmenting the imagery 

that can lead to confusion in classification of some tree canopy types. Further analysis is being done to address segmentation issues.

Classifying ash into five separate health categories based on canopy was done on a pixel 

level using only the hyperspectral imagery for both June and August. Health classes were 

defined as: H1 = 100% canopy, H2 = 76-95% canopy, H3 = 51-75% canopy, H4 = 26-50% 

canopy, and H5 = 5-25% canopy. Tables 1 and 2 list the average correctly classified ash trees at 

both a pixel level and at a complete tree level for both the June and August data. Our ground 

reference data set was divided into two sets: one set was made available to the analysts for 

training purposes and a second, verification set was retained for accuracy assessment.

An interesting result of analysis indicates that higher classification accuracies might be 

achieved using late August data rather than early June data. Accuracy of 60-70% in several 

of the flight areas and in ash health classes show the promise of this type of survey methodology. With further refinement of analysis methods, including definition of the extent of ash 

variability, accuracy of 70-80% is quite possible. Remote Measuring Systems will continue 

their analysis, and a complete classification accuracy assessment will be conducted for their 

results. 

Table 1. Average correct ash health score classification using GBC-ClassTM analysis for the June 2006 

hyperspectral data.

Training Data # Trees Pixels Correct Min Max Trees Correct Min Max

Green Ash H=1 88 60.80% 33.50% 82.10% 63.00% 38.50% 75.00%

White Ash H=1 28 58.28% 0.00% 97.10% 47.56% 0.00% 100.00%

Black Ash H=1 1 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Ash H=2 60 57.44% 13.80% 94.90% 52.11% 0.00% 100.00%

Ash H=3 21 58.26% 0.00% 78.10% 58.34% 0.00% 100.00%

Ash H=4 15 74.40% 61.50% 93.80% 87.77% 80.00% 100.00%

Ash H=5 7 85.23% 75.80% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Verification Data

Green Ash H=1 84 36.59% 7.70% 61.30% 38.81% 0.00% 70.00%

White Ash H=1 18 66.30% 46.70% 100.00% 69.03% 50.00% 100.00%

Black Ash H=1 0

Ash H=2 38 39.05% 0.00% 67.70% 33.46% 0.00% 70.00%

Ash H=3 29 42.80% 9.70% 76.20% 50.63% 0.00% 100.00%

Ash H=4 15 30.03% 18.00% 48.50% 8.33% 0.00% 25.00%

Ash H=5 8 49.93% 0.00% 87.50% 66.67% 0.00% 100.00%
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 65

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Table 2. Average correct ash health score classification using GBC-ClassTM analysis for the August 2006 

hyperspectral data.

Training Data # Trees Pixels Correct Min Max Trees Correct Min Max

Green Ash H=1 88 61.26% 27.70% 76.60% 66.49% 30.80% 100.00%

White Ash H=1 25 62.66% 10.80% 93.80% 63.98% 0.00% 100.00%

Black Ash H=1 1 85.70% 85.70% 85.70% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Ash H=2 59 66.90% 44.40% 88.90% 67.89% 33.30% 100.00%

Ash H=3 16 83.06% 75.20% 100.00% 78.34% 50.00% 100.00%

Ash H=4 11 71.27% 53.80% 100.00% 77.77% 50.00% 100.00%

Ash H=5 5 87.90% 64.70% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Verification Data

Green Ash H=1 84 48.30% 0.00% 87.80% 52.91% 0.00% 100.00%

White Ash H=1 15 71.33% 54.10% 85.70% 72.23% 50.00% 100.00%

Black Ash H=1 0

Ash H=2 51 63.87% 26.90% 96.30% 78.10% 33.30% 100.00%

Ash H=3 27 49.66% 5.40% 86.40% 50.14% 0.00% 100.00%

Ash H=4 10 23.73% 8.00% 37.60% 8.33% 0.00% 25.00%

Ash H=5 6 69.60% 41.70% 93.80% 100.00% 66.70% 100.00%
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

66 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

Hyperspectral Remote Sensing for Early Detection 

of Invasive pests

Jennifer Pontius1, Mary Martin2, 

Lucie Plourde2, and Richard Hallett1

1

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station 

271 Mast Road, Durham, NH 03824

jennifer.pontius@unh.eduH

2

Complex Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire

Morse Hall, Durham, NH 03824

ABSTRACT

Use of hyperspectral technologies to assess vegetation stress has been well-documented over 

the past several decades. However, taking these technologies from research to management 

applications has proven challenging. A multi-agency effort was conducted in 2006 to examine 

the capability of a commercially available sensor (SpecTIR VNIR) to map ash decline due to 

the exotic emerald ash borer (EAB) in Michigan and Ohio. Previously successful calibration 

techniques involved relating detailed decline measurements on the ground to known stresssensitive indices and wavelengths from airborne hyperspectral imagery. Following these 

methods, a six-term linear regression model based on chlorophyll and stress-sensitive indices 

predicted a 0-10 continuous decline rating with an R2 = 0.71 and an average jackknifed residual 

of 0.61. Translation of this continuous rating to a five-class variable (commonly used in forest health assessment) resulted in 97% accuracy. The ability of this instrument to assess early 

decline is based upon calibration with field measurements of photosynthetic activity, a drop 

in which is typically the first symptom of forest stress. Use of this measurement enables early 

identification of infestations and could be used to improve the efficacy of control and monitoring efforts. While this decline prediction is not stress- or species-specific, it will enable land 

managers to target field efforts and monitor forest health across larger geographic scales.
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 67

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

The Practical Utility of Hyperspectral Remote

Sensing for Early Detection of Emerald Ash Borer

Richard Hallett1, Jennifer Pontius1, 

Mary Martin2, and Lucie Plourde2

1

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

271 Mast Road, Durham, NH 03824

rhallett@fs.fed.usH

2

Complex Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire

Morse Hall, Durham, NH 03824

ABSTRACT

Hyperspectral remote sensing technology has been used in forest ecology research for the last 

decade to examine landscape scale patterns of foliar chemistry (nitrogen, cellulose, and lignin) 

(Martin and Aber 1997), stand productivity (Smith et al. 2002), and soil nitrogen dynamics 

(Ollinger et al. 2002). More recently, techniques have been developed to map the location 

of eastern hemlock stands and tree stress along the hemlock wooly adelgid infestation front 

(Pontius et al. 2005). To date, all of these efforts have relied on a NASA-operated sensor that 

is dedicated to support research projects. 

Commercially available hyperspectral remote sensing imagery has become operationally viable. A successful demonstration project (jointly sponsored by APHIS and USFS) was 

conducted in 2006 over EAB infested areas of Michigan and Ohio (see the previous abstract, 

this publication, by Pontius et al.). It is possible to create detailed maps showing the location 

of Fraxinus spp. and to map pre-visual stress for forest tree species, including Fraxinus spp. 

Early detection of EAB infestation is an important aspect of any management or eradication strategy. Hyperspectral remote sensing data in existing detection and management 

strategies to enhance our efforts in dealing with this pest. Complications include the expense 

of imagery, complex image processing techniques that require a high level of analyst expertise, 

and the time required to produce final maps.

In order to examine whether this technology is ready for integration into existing survey 

and detection efforts, we outlined a framework for a hypothetical project to be accomplished 

during the summer of 2008, with resulting species and stress maps available by January of 

2009. The hypothetical project would map 2 million acres at 4-meter spatial resolution along 

the infestation front. In order for a project of this scope to be successful, it would require 

input from field personnel familiar with the targeted areas (Figure 1). The other variable to 

be considered when evaluating operational viability is cost. Currently, the imagery is commercially available, but the process for analyzing it is still in development and consequently 

not available on a commercial basis. The cost of this hypothetical project is approximately 

$350,000, or about 18 cents per acre. 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

68 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

We have documented the conceptual framework along with all the relevant variables in 

order for a land management agency to evaluate the practicality of using hyperspectral remote 

sensing imagery to facilitate early detection of EAB infestation.

References

Martin, M.E and J.D. Aber. 1997. High spectral resolution remote sensing of forest canopy lignin, 

nitrogen, and ecosystem processes. Ecological Applications 7:431-443.

Ollinger, S.V., M.L. Smith, M.E. Martin, R.A. Hallett, C.L. Goodale, and J.D. Aber. 2002. Regional 

variation in foliar chemistry and soil nitrogen status among forests of diverse history and composition. Ecology 83:339-355.

Pontius, J., R. Hallett, and M. Martin. 2005. Using AVIRIS to assess hemlock abundance and early 

decline in the Catskills, New York. Remote Sensing of Environment 97:163-173.

Smith, M.L., S.V. Ollinger, M.E. Martin, J.D. Aber, R.A. Hallett, and C.L. Goodale. 2002. Direct 

estimation of aboveground forest productivity through hyperspectral remote sensing of canopy 

nitrogen. Ecological Applications 12:1286-1302.

Figure 1. A conceptual model for integrating local knowledge and existing survey techniques into the selection of areas to map. Existing survey techniques and local 

knowledge are also integrated into species and stress maps in order maximize 

the usefulness of the data products.

Map Species Map Health

Existing Survey 

Techniques

Select areas 

to map Local knowledge Information

Information

Information Information

Local knowledge Existing Survey 

Techniques

Map Species Map Health

Existing Survey 

Techniques

Select areas 

to map Local knowledge Information

Information

Information Information

Existing Survey 

Techniques Local knowledge
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 69

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Comparing Emerald Ash Borer-Detection Tools

Jordan M. Marshall1, Andrew J. Storer1, Ivich Fraser2, 

Jessica A. Beachy1, and Victor C. Mastro3

1

Ecosystem Science Center

School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science

Michigan Technological University 

1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931

jmmarsha@mtu.edu

2

USDA APHIS PPQ, Emerald Ash Borer Project

5936 Ford Court, Suite 200, Brighton, MI 48116

3

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory

Bldg. 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542

ABSTRACT

Since the discovery of emerald ash borer (EAB) in southeastern Michigan in 2002, this exotic 

wood-boring pest has spread to neighboring states. Low adult beetle density has limited the 

ability to detect EAB at the leading edge of its spread. If detected early, different response 

strategies may allow resources managers to reduce the spread rate of EAB. The objective of 

this study was to identify the effectiveness of different trapping techniques for detection of 

EAB at low adult density.

Trapping techniques for EAB were tested in 2007 at 57 sites in Michigan (38), Indiana 

(10), and Ohio (9). Eight detection tools were selected and a single replicate of each trap type 

was utilized at each site. Traps included an ash tree girdled within the lower 1.5 m of the stem 

with a clear sticky band wrapped above the wound, an ash trap tree girdled as above during 

the previous (2006) field season with a clear sticky band above the wound, an ash trap tree 

girdled as above with a purple sticky band wrapped above the wound, a large ash tree with 

a DBH of approximately 30 cm girdled as above with a clear sticky band wrapped above the 

wound, un-girdled ash trap trees wrapped with a clear sticky band at breast height, an ash 

trap tree girdled 3 m above the ground and wrapped with a clear sticky band at breast height, 

a purple prism trap hung 3 m above the ground from the base of an ash tree canopy, and an 

un-girdled non-ash trap tree wrapped with a clear sticky band at breast height. Of the sites 

located in each state, twelve sites with trap trees girdled in 2006 were also used for the 2007 

study in Michigan, six in Indiana, and seven in Ohio, though six of these sites did not have 

trees of suitable size for a girdled large ash trap tree.

After establishment in April to May, 2007, traps were monitored bi-weekly, and all 

EAB adults were collected and sexed during the summer flight season. During mid-flight 

season, trap tree species were identified, and basal area was measured at each site and calculated for each tree species. For analysis, sites that captured fewer than 200 adult EAB were 

considered low-density sites, and sites that captured 200 or more adult EAB were considered 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

70 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

high-density sites. Mean capture rate per day was calculated for each trap, and differences in 

the ranks of each trap type within the two density categories were analyzed with an ANOVA. 

A Chi-squared test was used to test for the independence of the species of ash selected for the 

trap type and the detection of EAB at low density. A logistic regression was used to identify 

the relationship between the detection of EAB at low density and live ash basal area for each 

trap type.

At low adult EAB density, the capture rate per day for girdled large trap trees was 

significantly higher than the other trap types. At high adult EAB density, girdled large ash 

trap trees had the highest capture rate per day, but was not significantly higher than the purple 

prism trap. For sites categorized as high adult EAB density, the mean diameter ar breast height 

(DBH) for the ash trees associated with the hanging purple prism trap was not significantly 

different than the DBH for the girdled large ash trap tree. However, at low density, the mean 

DBH was significantly different between the two trap types. This suggests that at both low 

and high adult EAB density, the size of the trap tree is important, with trees approximately 

30 cm DBH capturing more adult EAB per day.

Emerald ash borer detection was independent of the species of ash selected for the trap 

tree at low EAB adult densities. Trap tree selection for detection surveys may not need to 

focus on a single species as EAB at low population densities may not seek out a single species 

of ash. The odds of detecting EAB at low adult densities were reduced by 5.3 percent with 

each increase of 1 m2/ha of live ash basal area. Current-year-girdled ash trap trees, high-girdled 

ash trap trees, and un-girdled ash trap trees had the greatest reduction in the odds of detecting 

EAB as the live ash basal area increased. For the current-year-girdled trap trees, the mean 

DBH was approximately half of the girdled large ash trees, and they were a much smaller 

proportion of the ash resource available to EAB as live ash basal area increased. However, at 

low densities of EAB adults, the odds of detecting EAB with a girdled large ash trap tree increased by 5.4 percent with each increase of live ash basal area by 1 m2

/ha. Also, as total forest 

basal area increased and the ratio of live ash basal area to total forest basal area increased, only 

the large trap trees increased in the odds of detecting EAB. These girdled large ash trap trees 

capture more EAB adults per day, and the odds of detection increase because they are still a 

large component of the available ash resource for EAB even as the live ash basal area and the 

total forest basal area increases. In addition, for trap trees above 25 cm DBH, increases of 1 

cm/DBH resulted in an increase of nearly 9 percent in the odds of detecting EAB. 

Capture rates of EAB adults are variable and detection of adults is still limited; however, 

utilizing large ash trees with diameters approximately 30 cm may provide a more effective 

detection tool for EAB adults. Adult EAB may be more attracted to these large trees, which 

may be experiencing size-related declines in growth rates and a reduced ability to respond to 

attack.
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 71

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

The ‘06 Trap Trees in ‘07

Andrea C. Anulewicz1, Deborah G. McCullough1,2, 

Therese M. Poland2, and David Cappaert1

1

Department of Entomology and 

2

Department of Forestry

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

andreaa@msu.eduH

2

U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station

1407 S. Harrison Rd., East Lansing, MI 48823

ABSTRACT 

To date, use of girdled trap trees remain the most effective method employed by regulatory 

and resource management agencies for detecting low-density populations of emerald ash 

borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire. Locating suitable trees can be difficult, and 

felling and debarking trap trees is expensive. Alternative options for EAB detection could 

include enhancing the attraction of adult EAB to ash trees without requiring destruction of 

the trees. Preliminary studies with ash seedlings showed that the stress-eliciting compound 

methyl jasmonate (MeJa) caused changes in foliar volatiles similar to those induced by insect 

feeding and physical stress, which attracts beetles. In addition, blends of volatile compounds 

associated with ash leaves or bark elicit a positive response by adult EAB. Manuka oil contains 

many of the same volatile compounds present in ash bark and has been found to be attractive 

to EAB in trapping experiments. 

In 2006, we initiated a study to compare adult EAB capture rates and larval densities 

on trees that were a) girdled, b) exposed to MeJa, c) had Manuka oil dispensers attached to the 

trunk, or d) left as untreated controls. We used a randomized incomplete block design and 

implemented the study at five sites with EAB densities that varied from relatively high (more 

than 35 EAB captured per tree) on control trees to very low (fewer than three EAB captured 

per tree). All treatments were included at four sites (n=40 trees per treatment). At the fifth 

site, three of the four treatments (girdle, MeJa, and control) were included (n=30 trees per 

treatment). Blocks of trees were selected to represent a range of sun exposure. Exposure of 

each individual tree was ranked as a) fully exposed, b) super dominant tree/canopy mostly 

exposed, c) 2-3 sides open, d) 1 side open/edge, or e) closed canopy/shaded. Sticky bands, 30 

cm wide, were placed 1 m aboveground on the trunk of each tree. 

Adult EAB were removed from sticky bands weekly throughout the summer to monitor adult beetle activity. Results showed that beetle activity peaked in early July, consistent 

with results from previous years’ studies. Girdled trees captured significantly more EAB than 

control trees at all sites, regardless of EAB density. The number of EAB captured on the trees 

treated with MeJa or Manuka oil tended to be slightly higher than the number on the control 

trees; however, the differences were not significant. 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

72 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

Half of the blocks of trees at each site were felled and peeled to assess larval densities. 

Girdled trees at all sites had significantly more EAB larvae per m2 than the other trees; trees 

treated with MeJa or Manuka oil did not differ significantly from the controls. 

The amount of exposure to sun, as predicted, significantly affected adult beetle capture 

and larval density. Trees that were fully exposed to sun, had two or three sides exposed to 

sunlight, or were dominant above the canopy captured significantly more adult EAB (34.0 

± 7.9, 13.1 ± 2.7, and 9.4 ± 3.0, respectively) than trees that were only open on one side or 

were in a closed canopy (3.2 ± 1.1 and 2.1 ± 0.8, respectively). Open and partly-open grown 

trees also had significantly higher larval densities than trees grown in closed or partly-closed 

canopies. 

We compiled data from 237 trees used in trap tree studies we conducted over the past 

four years (2003-2006) and analyzed them to determine if adult capture on sticky bands could 

be used as a predictor of larval density in trees. Larval density increased linearly as adult 

capture rates increased (y=1.8x + 24.0; R2=0.45). 

We continued to evaluate the remaining trees in 2007 at four of the sites used in 2006; 

at the fifth site, new trees were selected. Trees used as controls in 2006 remained as control 

trees in 2007, trees girdled in 2006 now represented a two-year girdle treatment, and trees 

previously treated with Manuka oil were girdled in the spring of 2007 (one-year girdle). Trees 

treated with MeJa in 2006 were wounded by removing a vertical strip of bark of the same 

area of bark as a standard girdle, leaving most of the phloem around the circumference of the 

tree intact. 

Results show that beetle activity peaked in mid-June in 2007, slightly earlier than 

previous years. Beetle densities increased three- to 10-fold between 2006 and 2007 at all five 

sites. Seven of the 20 trees girdled in 2006 died by early summer in 2007. High numbers of 

adult EAB were captured on all trees remaining from 2006. We plan to fell and dissect the 

remaining trees this winter to quantify the increase in larval density from 2006 to 2007 among 

treatments. 
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 73

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Double-Deckers and Towers: 

Emerald Ash Borer Traps in 2007

Deborah G. McCullough1,2, Therese M. Poland3, 

Andrea C. Anulewicz1, and David L. Cappaert1

1

Department of Entomology and 

2

Department of Forestry 

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

mccullo6@msu.edu

3

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station

1407 S. Harrison Rd., E. Lansing, MI 48823

ABSTRACT

Effective and efficient methods to detect and monitor emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, have been a high priority for scientists since this invasive pest was identified 

in 2002. In 2006, our objectives included development of a practical trap design suitable for 

operational programs and evaluation of lures. In 2007, we continued this work and assessed 

additional trap designs. Here we briefly review results from 2006 and present data from our 

2007 research. 

In 2006, we designed a multi-component “double-decker” trap that incorporates both 

visual factors and olfaction. The double-decker trap consists of two of the purple plastic 

panel traps used by USDA APHIS. Panels are attached at 6 feet and 10 feet to a 10-foot-tall 

purple PVC pipe 4 inches in diameter. The pipe slides over the top of a t-post pounded into 

the ground (4-5 feet tall). No additional support is required. The three-sides of each panel 

trap are coated with clear Pestick and checked weekly from late May through August to collect EAB adults. 

Visual factors integrated in the trap include a tall, vertical silhouette similar to that of 

a tree and the color purple, which has consistently been shown in numerous studies to attract 

EAB. In addition, the traps are set in the open, at least 10 m from the edge of a wooded area. 

This placement ensures that traps are highly visible to beetles and that the traps are exposed 

to full sun for all or nearly all of the day. Our observations of beetle activity plus data from 

previous studies have consistently shown that adult EAB are more active in sunny conditions 

than in the shade. For example, in a previous trap tree study, an average of 31 beetles per tree 

were captured on sticky bands on ash trees fully exposed to sun compared to less than three 

beetles per tree on ash trees in the same stand but growing under shade. Moreover, placing 

traps in the open away from nearby trees reduces potential competition between our lures 

and volatiles emitted by adjacent ash trees with varying but unknown levels of stress. 

Like other buprestids, EAB are not known to use long-range pheromones. Lures for 

EAB are comprised of compounds associated with foliage or bark/wood from stressed ash 

trees. Placing traps in full sun and away from the edge of wooded areas provides a highly vis-
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

74 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

ible physical target for EAB beetles that is associated with a relatively unique volatile plume 

unlikely to be overwhelmed by those of nearby ash trees. 

We initially tested the double-decker trap design in 2006 at six sites where EAB density ranged from moderate to low. Lures evaluated in 2006 included a four-component leaf 

blend lure (cis-3-hexanol, trans-2-hexanol, trans-2-hexanal, hexanal) (Poland et al. 2006) and 

Manuka oil, a commercially available product chemically similar to ash bark/wood volatiles 

(Poland and McCullough 2007, Crook et al. 2007). We also applied rough texture to some 

of the panels to simulate rough bark. Previous studies have shown EAB density is generally 

higher on ash trees with rough bark than on adjacent smooth-barked trees (Anulewicz et al. 

2007a, 2007b). Five to ten randomized blocks were established at each site and checked weekly. 

We calculated the average number of EAB captured per trap on traps with all three baits (leaf 

blend lure, Manuka oil, and texture), with the leaf blend + texture, Manuka oil + texture, and 

with the leaf blend + Manuka oil. More than 4,060 EAB were collected from the 40 blocks 

of traps in 2006. Results showed that the leaf blend lure and the leaf blend lure plus Manuka 

oil caught significantly more EAB than traps with Manuka oil alone. Texture did not affect 

trap catch (see Poland and McCullough 2007). 

In 2007, we again used the double-decker traps, leaf blend lure, and Manuka oil; however, we also evaluated a tower trap design, a single-panel trap design, and crude extracts of 

ash foliage and of bark/wood as lures. The tower trap consisted of two purple panels, 16 and 

20-foot-high, on a 20-foot-tall purple PVC pipe braced against a t-post and supported by 

guy wires. Single panel traps were suspended from rebar poles 5 to 6 feet high. On June 7, 

we baited some traps with a crude extract made from foliage collected from ash trees girdled 

in May 2006. This extract was replaced on July 2 with an extract made from foliage of trees 

girdled in May 2007. A crude extract of ash wood/bark removed from the trees girdled in 

May 2007 was also added to traps in early July. 

Using a randomized block design, we monitored EAB attraction to five different trap/

lure combinations, including 1) an unbaited double-decker trap; 2) a double-decker with leaf 

blend and Manuka lures; 3) a double-decker with leaf blend, Manuka oil and crude extracts; 

4) a tower trap with leaf blend, Manuka oil, and crude extracts; and 5) a single-panel trap 

suspended from a 4-foot-tall rebar with leaf blend, Manuka oil and crude extracts. A total of 

31 blocks were established at eight sites; EAB densities were moderate at one site and low or 

very low at six sites. At one site, in Michigan State University’s W.K. Kellogg Forest, EAB 

was not known to be present. 

We collected a total of 4,172 EAB from the 155 traps used in 2007. Activity of EAB 

peaked in mid- to late June, roughly 1 to 2 weeks earlier than in previous years. We captured 

80% of the beetles between June 15 and June 28, which corresponded to roughly 780 to 1,040 

accumulated degree-days (base 50° F). 

The double-decker traps baited with the leaf blend and Manuka oil lures captured significantly more EAB than any of the other trap/lure combinations. On average, double-decker 

traps that included the leaf blend lure and Manuka oil captured 39 to 46 EAB per trap. In 

comparison, the tower traps, unbaited double-decker traps, and baited single panels captured 

≤ 20 EAB per trap on average. The crude extracts did not significantly increase EAB capture. 

There was little difference in EAB capture between the upper and lower panels of any of the 
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 75

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

traps. Average EAB capture was similar among the single panel traps, the lower panels of 

unbaited double-decker traps, and individual panels on the tower traps. Individual panels 

on the baited double-decker traps, however, captured significantly more EAB per panel than 

individual panels on any of the other traps. 

At the Kellogg Forest site, where EAB was not known to be established, a baited 

double-decker trap captured four EAB. This represents the first recorded “detection event” 

of EAB with traps and lures at this site. Two girdled trap trees roughly 150 m away from this 

trap were felled, debarked, and found to be uninfested. 

In addition, at another site, one block of traps were installed on a slight rise 300 m 

away from the nearest ash tree. Despite this distance, we collected a total of 67 EAB on the 

two baited double-decker traps (one with and one without crude extracts), 25 EAB on the 

tower trap, 15 EAB on the unbaited double-decker trap, and three EAB on the single panel 

trap. These results show that the traps effectively attracted dispersing EAB from at least 

300 m away.

In summary, our 2007 results demonstrate that trap catch is enhanced by both visual 

and olfactory elements. The double-decker traps (positioned in full sun) baited with the fourcomponent leaf blend lure and Manuka oil detected EAB in very-low-density settings and attracted EAB from roughly 300 m away. Some operational issues should be considered if traps 

are to be used programmatically for EAB detection or monitoring. Pestick was re-applied to 

several traps following heavy rains and occasionally when an accumulation of flies or other 

insects obscured a panel and had to be scraped off. We noticed that EAB occasionally fell 

off the panels, especially after rains. Checking traps at two-week intervals may be desirable 

during peak EAB activity periods if resources permit. 

References

Anulewicz, A.C., D.G. McCullough, and D.L. Cappaert. 2007a. Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) 

density and canopy dieback in three North American ash species. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 

33:338-349. 

Anulewicz, A.C., D.G. McCullough, D.L. Cappaert, and T.M. Poland. 2007b. Host range of the emerald 

ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in North America: results of multiplechoice field experiments. Environmental Entomology (in press).

Crook, D.J., A. Khrimian, J.A. Francese, I. Fraser, T.M. Poland, and V.C. Mastro. 2007. Chemical ecology 

of emerald ash borer. P. 79 in: V. Mastro, D. Lance, R. Reardon, and G. Parra (compilers), Proceedings of 

the Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting, October 31-November 1, 2006. 

Cincinnati, Ohio. USDA Forest Service, FHTET Publ. 2007-04.

Poland, T.M. and D.G. McCullough. 2007. Evaluation of a multicomponent trap for emerald ash borer 

incorporating color, silhouette, height, texture and ash leaf and bark volatiles. Pp. 74-76 in: V. Mastro, D. 

Lance, R. Reardon, and G. Parra (compilers), Proceedings of the Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting, October 31-November 1, 2006. Cincinnati, Ohio. USDA Forest Service, 

FHTET Publ. 2007-04.

Poland, T.M., C. Rodriguez-Sanoa, G. Grant, L. Buchan, J.E. Miller and D.G. McCullough. 2006. Trapping 

and detection of emerald ash borer: identification of stress-induced volatiles and tests of attraction in the 

field and lab. Pp. 64-65, in V. Mastro, R. Reardon, and G. Parra (compilers), Proceedings of the Emerald 

Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting, September 26-27, 2005, Pittsburg, PA. USDA 

Forest Service, FHTET Publ. 2005-16.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

76 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

Lab and Field Responses of Emerald Ash Borer to 

Selected Wavelength Regions of the Visible Spectrum

D. Crook1, J. Francese1, K. Zylstra2, D. Lance1, 

I. Fraser3, and V. Mastro1

1

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory 

Bldg. 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542

damon.j.crook@aphis.usda.gov

2

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Syracuse Work Station

374 Northern Lights Drive, North Syracuse NY 13212

3

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, Emerald Ash Borer Project

5936 Ford Ct., Suite 200, Brighton, MI 48116

ABSTRACT

The main aims of this research were to:

•	 Measure reflectance and wavelengths of ash leaves and purple coroplast as well as adult

emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis, elytra and abdomen surfaces.

•	 Measure retinal responses of A. planipennis to a range of different wavelengths in the 

200-900 nm spectrum using electroretinogram methods.

•	 Select several colors based on above measurements and study A. planipennis attraction 

to them in field tests.

An ASD FieldSpec Pro contact probe spectrophotometer set to full range scan mode 

was used for measuring all reflectance curves. Green ash leaves had a wavelength of between 

540-560 nm with 10% reflectance. Previous research has shown that girdled and herbicide 

treated trees tended to have a slightly higher reflectance than healthier trees. We, therefore, 

wanted to examine differences in reflectance in addition to wavelength as it affects EAB attractance to visual traps. Male and female elytra were measured at 540 nm and had a 5 percent 

reflectance. The abdomens of males and females were both seen to have a 650 nm wavelength 

and 6-7% reflectance. Coroplast purple was seen to have a 430nm wavelength and a 20 percent reflectance. 

Electrophysiological retinogram recordings from the eyes of male and female adults 

showed that both sexes were most sensitive to 340 nm (Ultraviolet), 430 nm (in the purple 

range), 450-460 nm (in the blue range) and 540 nm (in the green range). Females were seen to 

be particularly sensitive to 650 nm (red), whereas males were not. Based on these measurements, light and dark blue, purple, green, and red colors were selected for field testing alongside purple coroplast controls. In a study that had all these colors individually painted on 

translucent coroplast prism traps and hung at 1.5 m above ground level outside of an infested 

ash stand, no significant differences were seen between green, red, or purple treatments. Dark 
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 77

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

blue had the lowest trap catch and was significantly lower than red, light green, or dark purple. 

When purple and green treatments were hung at 13 m above ground level, a clear difference 

between treatments was observed: we saw that both dark and light green traps had a mean 

trap catch of approximately 300 insects. Purple coroplast controls averaged approximately 70 

insects. At 13 m height, there was no significant difference in catch between the two different 

reflectances of 540 nm green tested.

For traps hung at 1.5 m height, control purple coroplast and dark purple traps averaged 

between 40-50 insects per trap, and catches were significantly higher than light purple traps. 

No differences were seen between green and purple traps. Glue on traps was seen to increase 

reflectance by only 2.5 percent.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

78 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

Field Responses of Emerald Ash Borer

to Multicomponent Lures

Damon Crook1, Joe Francese1, Ashot Khrimian2, 

Ivich Fraser3, and Victor Mastro1

1

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory 

Otis ANGB, MA 02542

damon.j.crook@aphis.usda.gov

2

USDA-ARS, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center

Plant Sciences Institute, Beltsville, Maryland, 20705

3

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, Emerald Ash Borer Project 

5936 Ford Ct., Suite 200, Brighton, MI 48116-8511

ABSTRACT

During 2007, the efficiency of purple prism traps baited with several different ash volatile 

lure treatments was investigated for emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis, with respect to 

the number of adult beetles captured. Two natural oil distillates (Manuka and Phoebe oil) 

previously shown to contain high concentrations of green ash bark volatiles that are antennally active to A. planipennis were compared and combined with a four-component leaf lure 

developed by the U.S. Forest Service. 

In three separate field studies, Manuka oil-baited traps caught significantly more adult 

beetles than unbaited control traps. Manuka oil in the release rates of 5 mg, 50 mg, and 500 mg 

all caught more insects than unbaited control traps. Catch did improve with increased dosage 

but was not significant between the three release rates tested. On traps placed at 1.5 m height, 

Manuka oil lures combined with a four-component leaf lure caught significantly more beetles 

than leaf lure-baited traps or unbaited traps. On traps placed at 13 m height in the tree canopy, 

Manuka oil lures increased trap catch significantly by itself or when used in combination with 

the four-component leaf lure. Unbaited traps, leaf lure-baited traps, and a 50 mg Manuka 

oil-baited trap all caught significantly more beetles when placed at 13 m height.

In a field test comparing and combining Phoebe oil with Manuka oil, Phoebe oil-baited 

traps caught significantly more beetles than either Manuka oil baited traps or unbaited control 

traps. We hypothesize that Phoebe oil’s improved attractancy to A. planipennis over Manuka 

oil is due to the additional presence of 7-epi-sesquithujene. 
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 79

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Further Investigations in Developing a Trap

for Emerald Ash Borer: How Trap Height Affects 

Capture Rates

Joseph A. Francese1, Damon J. Crook1, Ivich Fraser2, 

David R. Lance1, Alan J. Sawyer1, and Victor C. Mastro1

1

USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory 

Bldg 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542

joe.francese@aphis.usda.gov

2

USDA APHIS PPQ, Emerald Ash Borer Project

5936 Ford Court, Suite 200, Brighton, MI 48116

ABSTRACT

The key to an effective pest management program for the emerald ash borer is a survey program equipped with tools for detecting and delimiting populations. Traps placed at 13 m (in 

the mid-canopy) had previously been shown to catch more beetles than traps placed at lower 

heights. Studies in 2007 focused on the interactions between 1) trap height and placement in 

relation to an ash woodlot, 2) trap height and trap color, and 3) trap height and host-produced 

volatiles.

To study the interaction between trap height and placement in relation to an ash woodlot, we placed traps at one of five locations: 1) 13 m high, 15 m inside an ash woodlot; 2) 13 

m high along the edge of the woodlot; 3) 1.5 m high, inside the woodlot (directly below 1); 4) 

1.5 m high along the edge (directly below 2); and 5) 1.5 m high, 15 m outside of the woodlot 

in an adjacent field. Overall, traps placed at 13 m height caught more beetles than traps placed 

at 1.5 m height. Traps placed inside the woodlot and along the edge caught significantly more 

EAB than traps placed in the field, but were not significantly different from each other. This 

differed from studies conducted in previous years, in which traps placed in the field and along 

the edge caught more beetles than traps placed inside the woodlot. Woodlots this year had 

more open canopies with sparse foliage; the amount of light entering these stands may not 

have been substantially different than the amount reflecting off of traps placed along the edge 

or in the field. Beetles tended to accumulate later in the season on traps placed in the woodlot 

or along the edge. This may be an indicator of beetles dispersing from the woodlot to other 

locations later in the season.

Four colors were painted onto translucent prism traps and tested at two heights (13 m 

and 1.5 m) and compared with catches from a Coroplast stock purple control. The five colors 

were: 1) Coroplast purple, 2) dark green, 3) light green, 4) lavender, and 5) dark purple. Trap 

catch at 13 m height was significantly higher than at 1.5 m height for the two green colors but 

not for any of the shades of purple. Accumulation of beetles on traps was slower for all colors 

on traps placed at 1.5 m than at 13 m height. This was especially true of dark green traps.
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

80 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

Three lure treatments were compared with a blank control on purple prism traps, again 

placed at 13 m and 1.5 m height above ground level. The lures were 1) Manuka oil, 2) a leaf 

blend developed by the U.S. Forest Service, and 3) a combination of Manuka oil and the leaf 

blend. There was no significant difference between traps placed at 13 m or 1.5 m height when 

baited with the combination lure. Traps baited with the other lures and the unbaited control 

caught more beetles when placed at 13 m than at 1.5 m height.

Total trap catch from a trap height study conducted in 2006 (over 3,600 EAB caught) 

and the color height interaction study from 2007 (over 9,600 EAB caught) were fit to degreeday models (base 50o

F) to help determine the best time to hang traps in order to catch the 

earliest flight. Based on the model, 5%, 50% and 95% of the total number of beetles caught 

on traps occurred at 537, 737, 1,009 and 579, 795, 1,082 growing degree-days, respectively, 

for 2006 and 2007.
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 81

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Identification and Antennal Electrophysiology of 

Ash Bark Volatiles for the Emerald Ash Borer

Allard A. Cossé1, Robert J. Bartelt1, 

Bruce W. Zilkowski1, and Ivich Fraser2

1

National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research 

USDA/ARS, 1815 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61604

Allard.Cosse@ars.usda.govH

2

USDA APHIS PPQ, Emerald Ash Borer Project 

5936 Ford Ct., Brighton, MI 48116

ABSTRACT

Biologically active bark volatiles from ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) might be used as tools in 

monitoring the presence of the invasive emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Two compounds identified from the volatile emissions from white 

ash bark were readily sensed by both male and female EAB antennae. The key isolation 

procedure was silver nitrate/silica HPLC. Identification was by GC-MS, NMR, polarimetry, 

and micro-chemical reactions, the results compared to literature data and standards obtained 

from natural plant sources. 

One of the compounds was identified as eremophilene (absolute stereochemistry at left). This sesquiterpene is present as a trace constituent in the essential 

oil of the Manuka tree (Leptospermum scoparium), and 

sesquiterpene-enriched Manuka oil fractions have been 

reported to be attractive to EAB in the field (Crook et 

al. 2005, 2006).

The second compound was 7-epi-sesquithujene, reported previously from the bark 

of green ash and obtainable from the essential oil of Phoebe porosa. Phoebe oil distillates are 

reported to be attractive to EAB in the field (Crook et al. 2005, 2006 ).

The current EAB lures are mixtures of sesquiterpines that are derived from natural 

oils. The presence of non-host compounds in these lures might negatively affect the efficacy 

of the current lures. However, none of the biologically active sesquiterpines are commercially 

available, and chemical synthesis of these compounds is not practical.

CH3

CH3 CH3

CH2

eremophilene
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

82 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

Eremophilene (absolute stereochemistry at left) 

can be obtained in relatively large amounts through 

the simple chemical conversion of the natural ketone, 

eremophilone. This ketone is the most abundant compound in the commercially available oil of Buddha wood 

(Eremophila mitchelli) and can be easily isolated in high 

purity.

References

Crook, D.J., I. Fraser, J.A. Francese, and V.C. Mastro. 2005. Chemical Ecology of the Emerald Ash 

Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), in Relation to Tree Volatiles. P. 

63 (abstract) in V. Mastro, R. Reardon and G. Parra, compilers, Proceedings of the Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting, September 26-27, 2005, Pittsburg, PA. USDA Forest Service, 

FHTET Publ. 2005-16.

Crook, D.J., A. Khrimian, J.A. Francese, I. Fraser, T.M. Poland, and V.C. Mastro. 2006. Chemical Ecology of Emerald Ash Borer. P. 79 (abstract) in: V. Mastro, D. Lance, R. Reardon and G. Parra, 

compilers. Proceedings of the Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Development Meeting, October 

31-November 1, 2006. Cincinnati, Ohio. USDA Forest Service, FHTET Publ. 2007-04.

CH3

CH3 CH3

CH2

O

eremophilone
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 83

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Chemical Ecology and Behavioral Studies 

on the Emerald Ash Borer: An Update

Deepa Pureswaran1,2 and Therese Poland2

1

Atlantic Forestry Centre

P.O. Box 4000, 1350 Regent Street South

Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 5P7

dpureswa@nrcan-rncan.gc.caH

2

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station 

1407 S. Harrison Rd., East Lansing, MI 48823

ABSTRACT

In 2006, we tested host selection and feeding preference of the emerald ash borer (EAB) on 

four species of ash species (green, black, white, and blue ash) that are native to North America 

but exotic to the beetle. For comparison, we also included Manchurian ash (which is native 

to the beetle) and European ash (which is exotic to the beetle) in the test. Beetles were given 

a choice among the six species of foliage. 

Leaves were placed in screen cages and 30 beetles (males and females separately) were 

released in the middle of the cage. We counted the number of beetles that landed on each ash 

species and measured the amount of foliage they consumed. Males landed in highest numbers 

on green ash, followed by black ash and then white ash. Blue, European, and Manchurian ash 

foliage attracted fewer male beetles equally. For females, there was no significant difference 

in landing among green, black, and white ash foliage. Female landing on blue ash results were 

not significantly different from green, white, European, or Manchurian ash; however, there 

were significantly fewer landings on European and Manchurian compared to green, black 

and white. 

When feeding, males did not discriminate among green, black, and white ash foliage, 

or among black, blue, European, or Manchurian ash foliage. Females fed almost equally on 

green, black, white, and European ash foliage but significantly less on blue and Manchurian 

ash foliage. 

In 2007, following up on these results, we tested beetle feeding behavior on green ash 

compared to Manchurian ash. Beetles consumed foliage from both species, but they consumed 

significantly more green ash foliage than Manchurian ash foliage. One possible explanation is 

that Manchurian ash foliage might have higher nutritive value than green ash foliage, and so 

beetles might require lower consumption to achieve similar fitness. Alternatively, Manchurian ash might contain compounds that limit beetle consumption. If the alternate hypothesis 

is true, and if larval feeding responsible for tree mortality follows a similar pattern as adult 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

84 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

feeding, then it may partly explain why Manchurian ash in the beetle’s native range is not as 

extensively damaged by herbivory as North American ash species. 

Having established that EAB prefer North American ashes to Chinese ash, the next 

question was what would happen if the two were hybridised. Koch et al. (this volume) crossed 

white ash (the pollen donor) with Chinese ash (the flower) to obtain two putative hybrids, 

‘chiam 1’ and ‘chiam 2’, which are siblings. We had four tree genotypes in these hybrids, and 

we tested beetle landing and feeding on all four of them. We also compared the profiles of 

volatiles the hybrids emitted to those of their parent species. 

There was no statistical difference among the number of beetles that landed on the 

four genotypes nor among the amounts of foliage they consumed. With respect to amounts 

consumed, it appears that the hybrids have taken on some characteristics of the American 

parent. In their volatile profiles, the two hybrids were similar to each other but different from 

both parents; volatile composition may be a trait that is not directly inherited. 
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 85

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Visual Trapping of the Emerald Ash Borer

and Related Buprestids

Jonathan P. Lelito1, Ivich Fraser2, Victor Mastro2, 

James H. Tumlinson1, and Thomas C. Baker1

1

Chemical Ecology Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802

jpl207@psu.eduH

2

USDA APHIS PPQ, Emerald Ash Borer Project 

5936 Ford Ct., Brighton, MI 48116

ABSTRACT

We investigated various trapping methods to determine the visual mate-finding cues used by 

feral male emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis, to locate conspecifics. The results 

were used to detect and monitor populations of EAB under field conditions. 

The most efficient method of detection of EAB by visual trapping thus far appears to 

be applying spray-on Tanglefoot to leaves on naturally growing ash trees (leaf-sticky-trapping, 

LST) and mounting an EAB (of either sex) to the leaf with a pin or fixative. Feral male EAB 

will approach these “dummy” beetles, land on them, and attempt to copulate with them, thus 

becoming entangled in the sticky surface of the trap. Feral female EAB make up a markedly 

small percentage of beetles captured by this method (approximately 3%), supporting the 

hypothesis that male EAB locate conspecifics through visual cues. 

The LST method is more effective when such traps are placed high (at least 4 m above 

ground level) in ash trees, and still 11-36% effective (expressed as traps catching EAB versus 

total traps deployed at a given height), depending on height, in low-density EAB populations. 

At high EAB population densities, traps are 34% effective at 2 m height and 87% effective 

at 4 m height. 

Future efforts to improve EAB LST should enable low-cost, minimal-effort monitoring 

of EAB even at a low population density. Further, this technique allows field personnel to 

detect EAB in real-time (i.e., during the current field season), as opposed to other currently 

available and reliable methods (such as girdled trees) that require extended periods of time to 

examine trees and collect EAB. 

Other, but less efficient methods for capturing EAB using visual cues alone include 

the use of sticky colored cards, again modified by mounting EAB on the trap. Feral EAB 

males do not appear to discriminate between such traps based on color (yellow or blue), but 

preferentially approach traps with EAB mounted on them versus blank control traps.

During this study, other feral buprestids (Agrilus subcinctus and A. cyanescens, among 

others) were also examined in relation to any color/position preferences they may have. Agrilus 

cyanescens and an unidentified buprestid in particular were found to be preferentially trapped 

on blue cards bearing mounted EAB. (It is noteworthy that A. cyanescens is similarly colored 

to EAB and so may provide another ‘trap-baiting’ option.) These results lend support to the 

potential for a broad role of vision as the primary mate-location among the Buprestidae. 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

86 Emerald Ash Borer Survey __________________________________________________________

Biosurveillance: Utilizing Cerceris fumipennis to 

Detect Infestations of Emerald Ash Borer

Philip Careless1, Steve Marshall1 and Bruce D. Gill2

1

University of Guelph, Insect Systematics Lab

Department of Environmental Biology, Edmund C. Bovey Building 

University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2W1

pcareles@uoguelph.ca

2

Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Bldg. 18

960 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada 

ABSTRACT

Although the term “biosurveillance” is typically used to refer to disease outbreak detection, 

it also aptly describes the use of live organisms for the surveillance of other organisms. The 

use of the wasp Cerceris fumipennis (Hymentoptera: Craboronidae) to survey for infestations of emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), 

represents an example of biosurveillance in this sense. Cerceris fumipennis is a native eastern 

North American wasp that stocks its underground nests with buprestid beetles. This wasp 

occurs throughout the current and projected North American range of EAB, where it can be 

found nesting in loose colonies. Recent research into foraging range and the development of 

mobile colonies suggest that this wasp has potential as a powerful tool for the biosurveillance 

of EAB.

Surveillance work involves observing female wasps as they return to their nest with 

prey. Covering nest entrances with clear plastic cups temporarily confuses incoming preyladen female wasps, giving the observer time to visually identify the prey carried by each 

female. Once the prey has been identified the cup can be removed, allowing the wasp to enter its nest. Cerceris fumipennis can also be caught and relieved of their prey; a female wasp 

without prey will return to the forest and collect another beetle. This form of monitoring 

for EAB (observing the wasps at their colony) apparently does not interfere with the female 

wasp’s nesting behavior. Unlike the use of girdled trap trees, this form of monitoring does 

not have a negative impact on the surrounding forest. 

Cerceris fumipennis is a solitary wasp (one female per nest), but the nests are clustered 

together in groups or ‘colonies’ of between 10 and 500 nests. Throughout the wasp’s flight 

season of late-June to late-August, each female will provision her nest with an average of two 

beetles a day. These naturally established colonies represent an efficient pre-existing tool for 

surveying EAB.

While investigating wasp flight range in 2007, we developed a simple equation that 

allows us to estimate the maximum foraging distance of a successful wasp (a female returning with prey). We calculated how quickly a female could navigate a known distance. The 

quickest wasp (out of 28 females tested) navigated an average of 33.4 meters per minute. This 
__________________________________________________________ Emerald Ash Borer Survey 87

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

navigation rate can be used to estimate the distance covered during a round trip foraging flight 

and applied to successful wasp forays. For example, on July 3 in Windsor, Ontario, wasp 

number 47 was away from its nest for 57 minutes and returned with an EAB. Based on the 

navigation rate experiment, we can now estimate that the beetle was caught within 950 m of 

the nest site. The foraging flight distance is a conservative overestimate because it does not 

take into account the time need to locate prey and the reduced flight speed of a female returning with prey.

Prior to 2007, EAB surveying with C. fumipennis wasps was restricted to forests adjacent to naturally established wasp colonies; however, in 2007, we experimented with mobile 

colonies to survey forests distant from naturally established colonies. Mobile colonies consist 

of a series of one meter-square steel scoops containing blocks of soil, including wasp nests, 

cut from a small part of a naturally established wasp colony. These scoops containing wasp 

colonies can be loaded onto an open trailer and moved to various locations. The female wasps 

spend the night in their nests so, provided that the cutting and moving takes place at night, 

the wasps will not be separated from their nests.

During testing of the mobile colonies in 2007, one trial involved cutting and moving 

active nests 350 km in a single night. No wasps were damaged in the move, and after only 

24 hours at the new location, the adults had reoriented to the new surrounding and began to 

provision their nests with buprestids. 

Results with the first experimental mobile colonies in 2007 suggest that C. fumipennis

colonies can now be moved to areas where and when they are needed. Mobile Cerceris colonies 

can be moved to high risk sites (firewood dealers, tree nurseries, campgrounds, eradication 

sites, edges of quarantine zones, transects, etc.) during the night while female wasps are inactive in their nests. Once the mobile colony has been parked at the new survey site, all wasps 

should be observed as they come and go from their nests, with records taken for both flight 

times and prey items. Finally, the monitor should ensure that the colony collects at least 40 

buprestid beetles (a minimum based on observation made at the Woodland Trails and Rondeau 

Provincial Park colonies). [Note: a quantitative minimum can be established by calculating 

the onset of diminishing returns from a graph that compares species diversity to the number 

of samples taken.]

If EAB is collected by one or more of the wasps, the flight time of the successful wasp 

can be used to calculate the insect’s maximum foraging range. These data can then be confirmed with visual surveys for infested host material within the search areas suggested by the 

maximum foraging range of EAB-carrying wasps.

For further information on working with C. fumipennis or locating local wasp colonies, 

contact Philip Careless or Dr. Bruce Gill.

Appendices

Meeting Agendas, 2007-2003

Attendees, 2007-2003

____________________________________________________2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 91

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

2007 Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology 

Review Meeting

October 23, and 24, 2007

Emerald Ash Borer Program Reports

U.S. National perspective P. Bell

Michigan G. Davis

Ohio T. Harrison

Indiana P. Marshall

Maryland R.A. Bean, and C.A. Holko

Illinois W.D. Goetsch

Pennsylvania S.-E. Spichiger

The EAB program in Canada K. Marchant

Research and Development Reports

Behavior, Biology, and Ecology of EAB Moderators: Barry Lyons and Dave Lance

Modeling EAB spread in Ohio and Michigan A. Prasad, L. Iverson, and M. Peters

Dendrochronological reconstruction of the 

establishment, and spread of emerald ash 

borer

N.W. Siegert, D.G. McCullough, 

A.M. Liebhold, and F. Telewski

Modeling the spatial, and temporal dynamics of 

isolated emerald ash borer populations

N.W. Siegert, A.M. Liebhold, and 

D.G. McCullough

Modeling EAB dispersal using percolation 

theory: estimating the rate of range expansion 

in a fragmented landscape

R.A.J. Taylor, D.A. Herms, and L.R. Iverson

Impacts of emerald ash borer-induced gap 

formation on forest communities

D.A. Herms, K.J.K. Gandhi, J. Cardina, 

R.P. Long, K.S. Knight, A. Smith, and 

D.G. McCullough

Emerald ash borer genetics: an update A. Bray, T. Poland, L. Bauer, and J. Smith

Putative pheromone for the emerald ash borer A.A. Cossé, R.J. Bartelt, B.W. Zilkowski, a

nd I. Fraser

Effects of cuticular chemistry on male mating 

behavior in the emerald ash borer

J.P. Lelito, K. Böröczky, T.H. Jones, I. Fraser, 

V.C. Mastro, J.H. Tumlinson, and T. C. Baker

How EAB facilitates a secondary spread of 

invasive plant species: impacts of EAB eradication and tree mortality

C.E. Hausman, J.F. Jaeger, and O.J. Rocha

Genetic structure of green ash: implications 

for the establishment of ex situ conservation 

protocols

M. Lang, C.E. Hausman, J.F. Jaeger, and 

O.J. Rocha
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

92 2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting ___________________________________________________

EAB Regulatory and Outreach Moderator: Dave Lance

Survey of EAB distribution in China B. Wang, Z. Xu, and V.C. Mastro

Evaluation of heat treatments for quarantine use 

with emerald ash borer in firewood

S.W. Myers, and V.C. Mastro

Evaluation of firewood bagging and vacuum 

treatment for regulatory control of the emerald ash borer

T. Poland, T. Kuhn, Z. Chen, A. Diss-Torrence, 

and E. Clark

EAB Host–Relations Moderator: Andrew Storer

Emerald ash borer: a classification of tree health 

and degree of infestation

M.P. Peters, L.R. Iverson, and T.D. Sydnor

Three-year progression of emerald ash borer 

induced ash decline and mortality in southeastern Michigan

K.J.K. Gandhi, A. Smith, R.P. Long, 

R.A.J. Taylor, and D.A. Herms

How fast will the trees die? A transition matrix 

model of ash decline in forest stands infested 

by emerald ash borer

K.S. Knight, R.P. Long, A. Smith, K. Gandhi, 

and D.A. Herms

Regenerative capacity of ash following mortality of canopy trees created by the emerald ash 

borer

D. Kashian, and J. Witter

Effects of host stress on EAB larval development: what makes a good home?A.R. Tluczek, D.G. McCullough, T.M. Poland, 

and A.C. Anulewicz

Interspecific variation in resistance of ash to 

EAB

D.A. Herms, D. Smitley, E.J. Rebek, P. Bonello, 

and D. Cipolinni

Development of novel ash hybrids to introgress emerald ash borer resistance into North 

American ash species

J. Koch, M. Mason, and D. Carey

Chemical Control of EAB Moderator: Ivich Fraser

Potential of spinosad applications for EAB 

control

P.A. Lewis, D.M. Cowan, and I. Fraser

Evaluation of non-invasive trunk sprays, and 

trunk injection of emamectin benzoate

D.G. McCullough, D. Cappaert, T.M. Poland, 

P. Lewis, J. Molongoski, and A.C. Anulewicz

Imidacloprid concentration effects on adult 

EAB: a greenhouse study

D. Cappaert, P. Lewis, J. Molongoski, 

D.G. McCullough, and T. Poland

Effect of tree size and initial infestation on 

efficacy of annual imidacloprid applications 

against emerald ash borer

D. Smitley, R. Royalty, and E. Rebek

Distribution of trunk injected 14C imidacloprid in ash trees: temporal variation between 

spring and fall injection

S.R. Tanis, B.M. Cregg, D. Mota-Sanchez, 

D.G. McCullough, and T.M. Poland
____________________________________________________2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 93

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Acute toxicity and feeding reduction effects of 

imidacloprid and its metabolites in emerald 

ash bore adults

D. Mota-Sanchez, B.M. Cregg, S.R. Tanis, 

D.G. McCullough, T.M. Poland,, 

and R.M. Hollingworth

Biopesticides for EAB Moderator: Juli Gould

Emerald ash borer microbial control with the 

entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana GHA 

formulated as BotaniGard®

H. Liu, and L. Bauer

Impact of Beauveria bassiana and imidacloprid 

for control of emerald ash borer in an ash 

nursery

J.D. Vandenberg, L.A. Castrillo, H. Liu, 

M. Griggs,, and L.S. Bauer

Biological Control of EAB Moderator: Juli Gould

The anticipated host switch: new evidence of a 

braconid parasitoid of EAB in Michigan

D. Cappaert, and D.G. McCullough

Progress on emerald ash borer biocontrol L. Bauer, H. Liu, and J. Gould

Population biology of emerald ash borer and its 

natural enemies in China

H. Liu, L. Bauer, T. Zhao, and R. Gao

Field host range testing of Spathius agrili, a 

parasitoid of emerald ash borer: evaluating 

nontarget impacts

J.S. Strazanac, J.R. Gould, R.A. Haack, 

and I. Fraser

EAB Survey Moderators: Damon Crook and Joe Francese

Accuracy assessment of remote sensing imagery 

for mapping of hardwood trees and stressed 

ash trees

D. Bartels, D. Williams, J. Ellenwood, and 

F. Sapio

Hyperspectral remote sensing for early detection of invasive pestsJ. Pontius, R. Hallett, M. Martin, and 

L. Plourde

The practical utility of hyperspectral remote 

sensing for early detection of EAB

R. Hallett, J. Pontius, M. Martin, and 

L. Plourde

Comparing emerald ash borer-detection tools J.M. Marshall, A.J. Storer, I. Fraser, J.A. Beachy, 

and V.C. Mastro

The ‘06 trap trees in ’07 A.C. Anulewicz, D.G. McCullough, 

T.M. Poland, and D. Cappaert

Double-deckers and towers: EAB traps in 2007 D.G. McCullough, T.M. Poland, 

A.C. Anulewicz, and D. Cappaert

Lab and field responses of emerald ash borer 

to selected wavelength regions of the visible 

spectrum

D.J. Crook, J.A. Francese, K.E. Zylstra, 

D.R. Lance, I. Fraser, and V.C. Mastro 

Field responses of emerald ash borer to multicomponent luresD.J. Crook, J.A. Francese, A. Khrimian, 

I. Fraser, and V.C. Mastro 
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

94 2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting ___________________________________________________

Further investigations in developing a trap for 

emerald ash borer: how trap height affects 

capture

J.A. Francese, D.J. Crook, I. Fraser, D.R. Lance, 

and V.C. Mastro

Identification and antennal electrophysiology of 

ash bark volatiles for the emerald ash borer

A.A. Cossé, R.J. Bartelt, B.W. Zilkowski, and 

I. Fraser

Chemical ecology and behavioral studies on the 

emerald ash borer: an update

D.S. Pureswaran, and T. Poland

Visual trapping of the emerald ash borer and 

related buprestids

J.P. Lelito, I. Fraser, V.C. Mastro, 

J.H. Tumlinson, and T.C. Baker

Biosurveillance: utilizing Cerceris fumipennis to 

detect infestations of emerald ash borer

P. Careless, S.A. Marshall, B.D. Gill, and 

G. Otis
____________________________________________________2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 95

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Name Affiliation State E-mail address

Abrahamson, Mark MN Dept of Agriculture MN mark.abrahamson@state.mn.us

Adams, Judy

Antipin, Judity

Anulewicz, Andrea Michigan State University MI agiusand@msu.edu

Arnold, Mike WV Dept. of Agriculture WV marnold@ag.state.wv.us

Baker, Jake MI bakejaker@gmail.com

Barta, Adrian WI Dept. of Agriculture WI adrian.barta@datcp.state.wi.us

Bartels, David USDA APHIS, PPQCPHSTTX david.w.bartels@aphis.usda.gov

Bauer, Leah USDA Forest Service 

NRS

MI lbauer@fs.fed.us

Bean, Dick MD Dept. of Agriculture MD beanra@mda.state.md.us

Bell, Philip USDA APHIS, PPQ-EAB NC philip.d.bell@aphis.usda.gov

Bernick, Shawn Rainbow Treecare 

Scientific

MN sbernick@treecarescience.com

Blosser, Walt PA wblosser@state.pa.us 

Bonello, Pierluigi Ohio State University OH bonello.2@osu.edu

Boroczky, Katalin Penn. State University PA kub13@psu.edu

Bray, Alicia Michigan State University MI kingalic@msu.edu

Braud, Rachel Rachel.A.Braud@aphis.usda.gov

Broden-Campbell, 

Sarah

Michigan Tech. University MI sebrodeu@mtu.edu

Bullington, Stephen USDA APHIS PA Stephen.W.Bullington@aphis.usda.

gov

Campbell, Julian KY julian.campbell@insightbb.com

Cappaert, David Michigan State University MI cappaert@comcast.net

Cardina, John Ohio State University OH cardina.2@osu.edu

Careless, Philip CFIA Canada pcareles@uoguelph.ca

Carlson, Jerry NY-DEC NY jacarlso@gw.dec.state.ny.us 

Carlson-Cummings, 

Jane

WI Jane.CummingsCarlson@Wisconsin.

gov

Carnes, Kennoth NY Dept. of Ag. & Mkts. NY kennoth.carnes@agmkt.state.ny.us

Carter, Maureen 

Elaine

Cornell University NY med8@cornell.edu

Cinnamon, Mark IL Mark.Cinnamon@Illinois.gov

Cippollini, Don Wright State University OH don.cipollini@wright.edu

Cory, Jenny jenny.cory@algomau.ca

2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting Attendees
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

96 2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting ___________________________________________________

Coath, Jeffrey USDA APHIS, PPQ-EAB IL jeffrey.t.coath@aphis.usda.gov

Cregg, Bert Michigan State University MI cregg@msu.edu

Crook, Damon USDA APHIS, PPQCPHSTMA damon.j.crook@aphis.usda.gov

Cruse, Joann USDA APHIS, PPQ WI joann.m.cruse@aphis.usda.gov

Danielson, Donna ddanielson@mortonarb.org 

Darnell, Stephanie NC stephanie.darnell@bayercropscience.com 

Davis, Gina MI davisg9@michigan.gov

Dix, Mary USDA Forest Service

Eggen, Donald PA deggen@state.pa.us

Elliston, Roeland USDA, APHIS, PPQ CO roeland.j.elliston@aphis.usda.gov

Ernst, Crystal CFIA Canada ernstc@inspection.gc.ca

Fausey, Jason Valent USA OH jason.fausey@valent.com

Francese, Joe USDA APHIS PPQCPHST

MA joe.francese@aphis.usda.gov

Fraser, Ivich USDA APHIS, PPQ-EAB MI ivich.fraser@aphis.usda.gov

Frappier, Susan USDA APHIS, PPQ-EAB IN Susan.Frappier@aphis.usda.gov

Frederick, Janet Michigan Tech. University MI jfrederi@mtu.edu

French, Darla Purdue University IN dgfrench@purdue.edu

Fuester, Roger USDA ARS DE roger.fuester@ars.usda.gov

Gandhi, Kamal Ohio State University OH gandhi.42@osu.edu

Geib Scott Penn State University PA smg283@psu.edu

Goetsch, Warren IL Dept. of Agriculture IL warren.goetsch@illinois.gov

Gould, Juli USDA APHIS PPQ 

CPHST

MA juli.r.gould@aphis.usda.gov

Gray, Rebecca WI Rebecca.Gray@Wisconsin.gov

Griggs, Mike USDA ARS NY Mike.Griggs@ars.usda.gov

Hansel, James Great Lakes IPM, Inc. MI glipm@nethawk.com

Harcz, Jody USDA APHIS, PPQ-EAB MI jody.k.harcz@aphis.usda.gov

Hartzler, Diane Ohio State University OH hartzler.1@osu.edu

Harrison, Tom OH Dept. of Agriculture OH tharrison@mail.agri.state.oh.us

Hausman, Constance Kent State University OH chausman@kent.edu

Healy, Anna WI Anna.Healy@Wisconsin.gov

Herms, Daniel Ohio State University OH herms.2@osu.edu

Hille, Andrea

Hoover, Charles PA chhoover@state.pa.us

Hoover, Greg

Hoover, Kelli Penn State University PA kxh25@psu.edu
____________________________________________________2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 97

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Isaacson, Ron OH

Iverson, Louis USDA Forest Service OH liverson@fs.fed.us

Jackson, Lisa USDA APHIS, PPQCPHSTNC lisa.d.jackson@aphis.usda.gov

Kashian, Dan Wayne State University MI dank@biology.biosci.wayne.edu

Katovich, Steve USDA Forest Service MN skatovich@fs.fed.us

Keena, Melody USDA Forest Service CT mkeena@fs.fed.us

Khrimian, Ashot USDA ARS MD ashot.khrimian@ars.usda.gov

Klooster, Wendy Michigan State University MI kloost15@msu.edu 

Knight, Kathleen USDA Forest Service OH ksknight@fs.fed.us

Knight, Stephen USDA APHIS, PPQ IL stephen.a.knight@aphis.usda.gov

Koch, Jennifer USDA Forest Service OH jkoch@fs.fed.us

Kuehn, Stuart

Lance, David USDA APHIS, PPQCPHSTMA david.r.lance@aphis.usda.gov

Lensing, Janet

Lelito, Jon Penn State University PA jpl207@psu.edu

Lettau, Christopher WI Christopher.Lettau@Wisconsin.gov

Lewis, Phil USDA, APHIS, PPQCPHSTMA phillip.a.lewis@aphis.usda.gov

Light, Danielle Ohio State University OH lightle.20@osu.edu

Limback, Chenin limbackc@msu.edu

Liu, Houping Michigan State University MI liuho@msu.edu

Long, Bob USDA, Forest Service OH rlong@fs.fed.us

Lyons, Barry Canadian Forest Service Canada blyons@nrcan.gc.ca

MacDonald, Janet CFIA Canada macdonaldje@inspection.gc.ca

Makra, Edith Morton Arboretum IL Emakra@mortonarb.org

Marchant, Ken CFIA Canada marchantk@inspection.gc.ca

Marshall, Jordan Michigan Tech. University MI jmmarsha@mtu.edu

Marshall, Phil Indiana Dept. of Natural 

Resources

IN pmarshall@dnr.in.gov

Martin, Debra VA Debra.Martin@vdacs.virginia.gov

Mason, Mary

Mastro, Vic USDA APHIS, PPQCPHSTMA vic.mastro@aphis.usda.gov

McCarthy, Dawn

McCullough, Deb Michigan State University MI mccullo6@msu.edu

McDill, Terry teresa.mcdill@state.mn.us

McPartlan, Deb USDA APHIS, PPQEDP

MD deborah.l.mcpartlan@aphis.usda.

gov
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

98 2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting ___________________________________________________

Melichar, Mike Dow AgroSciences IN mwmelichar@dow.com

Miller, Fredric

Moore, Chris

Moser, Susan

Mota-Sanchez, 

David

Michigan State University MI motasanc@msu.edu

Myers, Scott USDA APHIS, PPQCPHSTMA scott.w.myers@aphis.usda.gov

Nehme, Maya PA men151@psu.edu

Nixon, Philip IL

O’Hern, Coanne USDA APHIS, PPQ-PA 

SPHD

PA coanne.e.o’hern@aphis.usda.gov

Oehlschlager, Dr 

Cam

Chem Tica Costa 

Rica

Pentico, Elizabeth USDA APHIS, PPQ-EAB MI elizabeth.pentico@aphis.usda.gov

Peters, Mattew OH scalandfire_mpeters@yahoo.com

Persad, Anand OH Apersad@davey.com

Peirson, D’Wight PSP Enterprises OH psp@ctcn.net

Picanco, Rui Bayer NC rui.picanco@bayercropscience.com

Poland, Therese USDA, Forest Service MI tpoland@fs.fed.us

Porter, Kevin

Prasad, Anantha USDA Forest Service OH aprasad@fs.fed.us

Pureswaran, Deepa 

Shankar

CFIA/CFS Canada pureswar@msu.edu

Raimo, Bernard USDA Forest Service NH braimo@fs.fed.us

Ranger, Chris USDA ARS OH ranger.1@osu.edu

Rauscher, Ken MI Dept. of Agriculture MI rauscherk@michigan.gov

Reardon, Richard USDA Forest Service WV rreardon@fs.fed.us

Reding, Michael USDA ARS OH reding.2@osu.edu

Regester, Bradley PA bregester@state.pa.us

Rietz, Mike USDA APHIS, PPQ-EAB MI Michael.L.Rietz@aphis.usda.gov

Rocha, Oscar Kent State University OH orocha@kent.edu

Royalty, Nate Bayer NC nate.royalty@bayercropscience.com

Sapio, Frank USDA Forest Service CO

Schneeberger, Noel USDA Forest Service PA nschneeberger@fs.fed.us

Siegert, Nathan Michigan State University MI siegert1@msu.edu

Skwarok, Michael WI DATCP WI michael.skwarok@datcp.state.wi.us

Smith, Annemarie OH DNR OH annemarie.smith@dnr.state.oh.us

Smith, Beatrice USDA APHIS, PPQ-ER NC Beatrice.F.Smith@aphis.usda.gov

Smith, James, Dr. Michigan State University MI jimsmith@msu.edu
____________________________________________________2007 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 99

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Smith, Nicole USDA APHIS, PPQ-EAB MI Nicole.J.Smith@aphis.usda.gov

Souto, Dennis USDA Forest Service NH

Spichiger, Sven-Erik Pennsylvania Dept. of 

Agriculture

PA sspichiger@state.pa.us

Staples, Jonathan NY jonathan.staples@aphis.usda.gov

Stefan, Mike USDA APHIS, PPQ MD michael.b.stefan@aphis.usda.gov

Stone, Amy

Strazanac, John WV Dept. of Agriculture WV jstrazan@wvu.edu

Stringfellow, Bill Quest Products Corp. KS wstringfellow@earthlink.net

Storer, Andrew Michigan Tech. University MI storer@mtu.edu

Subburayalu, Sakthi OH

Tanis, Sara Michigan State University MI tanissar@msu.edu

Taylor, Robin Ohio State University OH RAJT@osu.edu

Thaxton, Justin USDA APHIS PPQ WV Justin.B.Thaxton@aphis.usda.gov

Tichenor, Robert

Tluczek, Andrew Michigan State University MI tluczek@msu.edu

Tumeo, Maria OH maria.tumeo@gmail.com

Usborne, Robin M. Michigan State University MI robinu1@msu.edu

Vandenberg, John USDA ARS NY john.vandenberg@ars.usda.gov

Wakarchuk, David Synergy Semiochemicals Canada synergy@semiochemical.com

Wallner, William Consultant CT williamwallner@comcast.net

Walker, Melody WI Dept. of Agriculture WI melody.walker@datcp.state.wi.us

Walock, Scott USDA APHIS, PPQ-EAB OH scott.walock@aphis.usda.gov

Waltz, Bob IN Dept. of Nat. Res. IN bwaltz@dnr.IN.gov

Wang, Boade USDA APHIS, PPQCPHSTMA baode.wang@aphis.usda.gov

Watkins, Jason USDA APHIS, PPQ WV jason.watkins@aphis.usda.gov

Werner, Shahla PA shaweerner@state.pa.us

Whitehill, Justin Ohio State University OH whitehill.5@osu.edu

Williams, David USDA APHIS, PPQCPHSTMA David.W.Williams@aphis.usda.gov

Williamson, Bruce NY DEC NY bewillia@gw.dec.state.ny.us 

Williamson, Chris WI rcwillie@entomology.wisc.edu

Williamson, Robert

Xu, Zhichun Beijing Forestry University China zhchxu@bjfu.edu.cn
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

100 2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting ____________________________

2006 Emerald Ash Borer and Asian Longhorned 

Beetle Research and Technology Review Meeting

October 29–November 2, 2006

Emerald Ash Borer Program Reports

U.S. National Prospective C. Kellogg

Michigan K. Rauscher

Ohio L. Hunt

Indiana R. Waltz

Maryland R. Bean

Illinois S. Knight

The EAB Program in Canada K. Marchant

Research and Technology Development Reports

EAB Biology, Behavior, and Ecology Moderator: B. Lyons

Expanded explorations for emerald ash borer 

in Asia and implication for genetic analysis 

Alicia Bray, Leah Bauer, Roger Fuester, 

Ho Yul Choo, Dong Woon Lee, 

Naoto Kamata, and James Smith

Host selection by the emerald ash borer: 

chemical ecology and behavioral studies

Deepa Pureswaran, Therese Poland, and 

Gary Grant

Visually mediated paratrooper copulations in 

the mating behavior of Agrilus planipennis

Jonathan Lelito, James Tumlinson, and 

Thomas Baker

Emerald ash borer flight estimates revised Robin Taylor, Therese Poland, Leah Bauer, 

Keith Windell, and James Kautz

Dispersal behavior of Agrilus planipennis 

(Fairmaire): release-recapture studies

Ivich Fraser, Victor Mastro, David Lance, and 

Douglas Bopp

Modeling potential movements of the emerald 

ash borer in Ohio

Louis Iverson, Anantha Prasad, 

Jon Bossenbroek, Davis Syndor, and 

Mark Schwartz

Defining the “edge” of isolated EAB 

infestations: simulation results and 

implications for survey and host removal

Alan Sawyer

Resurrected from the ashes: a historical 

reconstruction of emerald ash borer 

dynamics through dendrochronological 

analyses

Nathan Siegert, Deborah McCullough, 

Andrew Liebhold, and Frank Telewski

Two years under the bark: towards 

understanding multiple-year development 

of emerald ash borer larvae

Nathan Siegert, Deborah McCullough, and 

Andrew Tluczek
____________________________ 2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting 101

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

EAB Host Relationships Moderator: D. Herms

Constitutive and wound-inducible defense 

responses of ash phloem

Don Cipollini, Eusondia Barto, Alieta Eyles, 

Pierluigi Bonello, and Daniel Herms

Evaluation of rural ash resources in Upper 

Michigan and Lower Michigan threatened 

by the exotic emerald ash borer

Sarah Brodeur-Campbell, Jessica Metzger, 

Andrew Storer, and John Witter

Living with emerald ash borer: development 

and implementation of an ash reduction 

model to reduce population potential of 

emerald ash borer

Tara Eberhart, Andrew Storer, and Linda Nagel

Predicting emerald ash borer-induced changes 

in forest tree species composition

Kathleen Knight, Robert Long, and Joanne 

Rebbeck

Patterns of emerald ash borer induced ash 

decline and mortality in the forests of 

southeastern Michigan

Kamal Gandhi, Annemarie Smith, Robert Long, 

and Daniel Herms

Ash dieback survey in Michigan David Smitley, Terrance Davis, and Eric Rebek

The EAB eradication protocol: environmental 

impacts and native plant community 

responses

Constance Hausman, Oscar Rocha, and John 

Jaeger

Chemical Control of EAB Moderator: D. McCullough

Distribution of trunk-injected 14C imidacloprid in Fraxinus trees: a test of the 

sectored-flow hypothesis

Sara Tanis, Bert Cregg, David Mota-Sanchez, 

Deborah McCullough, Therese Poland, and 

Robert Hollingworth

Mortality, feeding, and behavior of male and 

female emerald ash borer adults in response 

to ingestion of imidacloprid and application 

of imidacloprid

David Mota-Sanchez, Bert Cregg, Deborah 

McCullough, Therese Poland, Sara Tanis, 

Rufus Isaacs, and Robert Hollingworth

Update on comparison of insecticides for 

emerald ash borer control

Baode Wang, Ruitong Gao, Victor Mastro, 

Guijan Liu, Enshan Liu, Phillip Lewis, 

Tonghai Zhao, and Hongyan Wang

Imidacloprid basal soil drench for protection 

of ash trees from emerald ash borer

David Smitley, Eric Rebek, and Daniel Herms

Evaluation of insecticide products for control 

of emerald ash borer

David Smitley, Terrance Davis, Kevin 

Newhouse, and Eric Rebek

Effects of trunk injection on emerald ash borer 

density and ash survival: a four-year study

David Cappaert, Deborah McCullough, and 

Therese Poland

Evaluation of neo-nicotinoid insecticides 

applied as non-invasive trunk sprays

Deborah McCullough, David Cappaert, 

Therese Poland, Phillip Lewis, and John 

Molongoski
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

102 2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting ____________________________

Biopesticides for EAB Moderator: R. Reardon

Use of Beauveria bassiana and imidacloprid 

for control of emerald ash borer in an ash 

nursery

John Vandenberg, Louela Castrillo, Houping 

Liu, Michael Griggs, and Leah Bauer

Aerial application of spinosad for emerald ash 

borer control in woodlots

Phillip Lewis, David Smitley, Richard Reardon, 

and Victor Mastro

Biological Control of EAB Moderator: J. Gould

Host preferences of Chinese EAB parasitoid 

wasp genera currently being considered for 

release in North America

John Strazanac

Tetrastichus planipennisi (Hymenoptera: 

Eulophidae), a gregarious larval 

endoparaistoid of emerald ash borer from 

China

Houping Liu and Leah Bauer

Oobius agrili (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), a 

solitary egg parasitoid of emerald ash borer 

from China

Leah Bauer and Houping Liu

Host specificity of Spathius agrili Yang, a 

parasitoid of the emerald ash borer

Juli Gould, Jennifer Ayer, Yang Zhong-qi, and 

Wang Xiao-yi 

Explorations for natural enemies of emerald ash 

borer in China in 2006

Roger Fuester, Deyu Zou, Alicia Bray, Tonghai 

Zhao, Leah Bauer, Houping Liu, and Zhongqi Yang

EAB Survey Moderators: T. Poland and D. Crook

Three years of a risk-based emerald ash borer 

detection survey and firewood survey in 

Michigan and Wisconsin

Andrew Storer, Jessica Metzger, Robert Heyd, 

Steven Katovich, and Michael Hyslop

Developing survey techniques for emerald ash 

borer: the role of trap height and design

Joseph Francese, Ivich Fraser, David Lance, and 

Victor Mastro

A multistate comparison of emerald ash borer 

(Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) detection 

tools

Jessica Metzger, Ivich Fraser, Andrew Storer, 

Damon Crook, Joseph Francese, and Victor 

Mastro

Evaluation of a multicomponent trap for 

emerald ash borer incorporating color, 

silhouette, height, texture, and ash leaf and 

bark volatiles

Therese Poland and Deborah McCullough

Activity and microhabitat-selection patterns of 

emerald ash borer and their implications for 

the development of trapping systems

David Lance, Ivich Fraser, and Victor Mastro

Chemical ecology of the emerald ash borer Damon Crook, Ashot Khrimian, Joseph 

Francese, Ivich Fraser, Therese Poland, and 

Victor Mastro
____________________________ 2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting 103

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Field attraction of emerald ash borer to 

antennally and behaviorally active ash 

volatiles

Therese Poland, Deepa Pureswaran, Gary 

Grant, and Peter deGroot

EAB attraction to girdled trees: effect of 

placement and timing on attraction

Ivich Fraser and Victor Mastro

Attraction of EAB to trap trees: can MeJa or 

Manuka oil compete with girdling?

Andrea Anulewicz, Deborah McCullough, 

Therese Poland, and David Cappaert

Application of remote sensing technology for 

detection and mapping of hardwood tree 

species and emerald ash borer-stressed ash 

trees

David Bartels, David Williams, Jim Ellenwood, 

and Frank Sapio

The biology of Cerceris fumipennis

(Hymenoptera: Crabronidae) in southern 

Ontario and its potential for monitoring the 

distribution of Agrilus planipennis

Philip Careless, Stephen Marshall, Bruce Gill, 

and Gard Otis

EAB Regulations and Outreach Moderator: W. Wallner

Estimating emerald ash borer density at local, 

landscape or regional scales

Deborah McCullough and Nathan Siegert

Sinks, bark, and Garlon: applied studies for 

emerald ash borer management

Deborah McCullough, Nathan Siegert, Therese 

Poland, and Robert McDonald

Evaluation of public awareness of issues 

relating to firewood movement and the exotic 

emerald ash borer in Michigan

Janet Frederick and Andrew Storer

Asian Longhorned Beetle Program Reports

U.S. eradication program update Christine Markham

Toronto ALB eradication program update Ben Gasman and Janet Mcdonald

Research on Asian longhorned beetle in Canada Jean Turgeon, Ben Gasman, Michael Smith, 

Peter de Groot, Blair Helson, Dean Thompson, Mamdouh Abou-Zaid, and Dave Kreutzweizer

Research and Technology Development Reports

ALB Research Reports: Survey, Regulatory, 

and Control

Moderator: D. Lance

Detection of the Asian longhorned beetle: 

Update on sentinel tree, attract-and-kill and 

artificial lure studies

Michael Smith, Jinquan Wu, Weizhi He, Xuenong Xu, Gerhard Gries, Regine Gries, John 

Borden, Jean Turgeon, and Peter de Groot

Incidence of ALB infestation among treated 

trees in New York

Alan Sawyer
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

104 2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting ____________________________

Femmes fatales: pathogen transmission during mating and reduction in reproduction 

of Asian longhorned beetle females infected 

with Metarhizium anisopliae

Ann Hajek

Natural enemies of native woodborers: potential as biological control agents for the Asian 

longhorned beetle

Michael Smith, Roger Fuester, Joseph Tropp, 

Ellen Aparicio, Daria Tatman, and Jeff Wildonger

Efficacy of lambda-cyhalothrin for control of 

the Asian longhorned beetle

Michael Smith, Jinquan Wu, Joseph Tropp, 

Weizhi He, Hongtian Su, Guoliang Zhang, 

Xuenong Xu, and Jiuning Li

Research update on the systemic insecticides 

for the control of the Asian longhorned 

beetle

Baode Wang, Ruitong Gao, Victor Mastro, 

Bingjie Wei, Junlei Liu, Ailing Zhao,and Zhichun Xu

Pesticide distribution, sampling, and residue 

analysis: employment of ELISA for 

imidacloprid detection

Phillip Lewis and John Molongoski

Post-treatment insecticide residue levels in 

trees following trunk and soil applications

Phillip Lewis

ALB Research Reports: Biology, Rearing, and 

Program Management

Moderator: C. Markham

Microbial community composition and wood 

digestion in the gut of the Asian longhorned 

beetle

Scott Geib, Ming Tien, and Kelli Hoover

Reproductive behaviors of Asian longhorned 

beetle

Melody Keena and Vicente Sánchez

Factors that influence Asian longhorned beetle 

pupation

Melody Keena

A controlled study of the healing response of 

host trees to simulated ALB damage

Alan Sawyer

Spatial and temporal dynamics of ALB infestations in Carteret and Linden, New JerseyAlan Sawyer

Modeling the spread of Asian longhorned 

beetle in New York City: incorporating host 

species information

Jacqueline Lu and Gareth Russell

Update on the host range studies of the Asian 

longhorned beetle in a common-garden 

experiment

Baode Wang, Victor Mastro, Ruitong Gao, Yan 

Wang, and Yanfang Jin
____________________________ 2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting 105

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Name Affiliation State E-mail address

Al’s Aerial Spraying Al’s Aerial Spraying MI mike502b@aol.com

Ait Oumyjour, 

Naima

CFIA Canada ailn@inspection.gc.ca

Anulewicz, Andrea Michigan State University MI agiusand@msu.edu

Barta, Adrian WI Dept. of Agriculture WI adrian.barta@datcp.state.wi.us

Bartels, David USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

TX david.w.bartels@aphis.usda.gov

Bartelt, Bob USDA ARS–NCAUR IL bartelrj@ncaur.usda.gov

Bauer, Leah USDA Forest Service–

NRS

lbauer@fs.fed.us

Bean, Dick MD Dept. of Agriculture MD beanra@mda.state.md.us

Bell, Philip USDA APHIS, PPQ–EAB NC philip.d.bell@aphis.usda.gov

Bernick, Shawn Rainbow Treecare 

Scientific

MN sbernick@treecarescience.com

Bonello, Pierluigi Ohio State University OH bonello.2@osu.edu

Boroczky, Katalin Penn State University PA kub13@psu.edu

Bray, Alicia Michigan State University MI kingalic@msu.edu

Broden-Campbell, 

Sarah

Michigan Tech. University 

(SFRES)

MI sebroden@mtu.edu

Burand, John University of 

Massachusetts–Amherst

MA jburand@microbio.umass.edu

Cappaert, David Michigan State University MI cappaert@comcast.net

Cardina, John Ohio State University OH cardina.2@osu.edu

Careless, Philip CFIA Canada pcareles@uoguelph.ca

Chanelli, Thomas USDA APHIS, PPQ NC thomas.j.chanelli@aphis.usda.gov

Cippollini, Don Wright State University OH

Coath, Jeffrey USDA APHIS, PPQ–EAB IL jeffrey.t.coath@aphis.usda.gov

Cregg, Bert Michigan State University MI cregg@msu.edu

Crook, Damon USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

MA damon.j.crook@aphis.usda.gov

Cruse, Joann USDA APHIS, PPQ WI joann.m.cruse@aphis.usda.gov

Drosselmeyer, 

Wesley

USDA APHIS, PPQ WV wesley.l.drosselmeyer@aphis.usda.

gov

Duffie, Laura USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

NC laura.e.duffie@aphis.usda.gov

2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle

 Meeting Attendees
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

106 2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting ____________________________

Durlam, Jennifer USDA APHIS, PPQ–EAB NC jennifer.l.durlam@aphis.usda.gov

Edmundson, Jack USDA APHIS, PPQ MD jack.p.edmundson@aphis.usda.gov

Ellenwood, Jim USDA Forest Service, 

FHTET

jellenwood@fs.fed.us

Elliston, Roeland USDA APHIS, PPQ CO roeland.j.elliston@aphis.usda.gov

Eberhart, Tara Michigan Tech. University MI tleberha@mtu.edu

Eyles, Alieta Ohio State University OH eyles.1@osu.edu

Fausey, Jason Valent USA OH jason.fausey@valent.com

Francese, Joe USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

MA joe.francese@aphis.usda.gov

Fraser, Ivich USDA APHIS, PPQ–EAB MI ivich.fraser@aphis.usda.gov

Frederick, Janet Michigan Tech. University MI jfrederick@mtu.edu

French, Darla Purdue University IN dgfrench@purdue.edu

Frontz, Tim PA Dept. of Agriculture PA tfrontz@state.pa.us

Fuester, Roger USDA ARS DE roger.fuester@ars.usda.gov

Gandhi, Kamal Ohio State University OH ghandi.42@osu.edu

Garrett, Lynn USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

NC lynn.j.garrett@aphis.usda.gov

Gill, Bruce CFIA Canada gillbd@inspection.gc.ca

Ginzer, Matthew Purdue University IN mginzer@purdue.edu

Gittleman, Joe USDA APHIS, PPQ–ALB NY joe.p.gittleman@aphis.usda.gov

Goetsch, Warren IL Dept. of Agriculture IL warren.goetsch@illinois.gov

Gomez, Ilka Ohio State University OH gomez.62@osu.edu

Gould, Juli USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

MA juli.r.gould@aphis.usda.gov

Hajek, Ann Cornell University NY aeh4@cornell.edu

Hansel, James Great Lakes IPM, Inc. MI glipm@nethawk.com

Harcz, Jody USDA APHIS, PPQ–

EAB

MI jody.k.harcz@aphis.usda.gov

Hartzler, Diane Ohio State University OH hartzler.1@osu.edu

Harrison, Tom OH Dept. of Agriculture OH tharrison@mail.agri.state.oh.us

Hausman, Constance Kent State University OH chausman@kent.edu

Herms, Daniel Ohio State University OH herms.2@osu.edu

Hillmer, Jennifer

Hines, Nila MN Dept. of Agriculture MN nhines@mda.state.mn.us

Hunt, Lucia OH Dept. of Agriculture OH lhunt@mail.agri.state.oh.us

Iverson, Louis USDA Forest Service liverson@fs.fed.us

Katovich, Steve USDA Forest Service skatovich@fs.fed.us
____________________________ 2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting 107

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Keena, Melody USDA Forest Service CT mkeena@fs.fed.us

Khrimian, Ashot USDA ARS MD khrimiaa@ra.ars.usda.gov

Kellogg, Craig USDA APHIS, PPQ–EAB MI craig.kellogg@aphis.usda.gov

King, Gary MI Dept. of Agriculture MI kingg1@michigan.gov

Knight, Kathleen USDA Forest Service OH ksknight@fs.fed.us

Knight, Stephen USDA APHIS, PPQ IL stephen.a.knight@aphis.usda.gov

Koch, Jennifer USDA Forest Service jkoch@fs.fed.us

Koch, Robert MI Dept. of Agriculture MN robert.koch@state.mn.us

Krause, Charles USDA ARS OH charles.kraus@ars.usda.gov

Lance, David USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

MA david.r.lance@aphis.usda.gov

Leary, Molly Rainbow Treecare 

Scientific

mleary@treecarescience.com

Lelito, Jon Penn State PA jpl207@psu.edu

Lewis, Phil USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

MA phillip.a.lewis@aphis.usda.gov

Liu, Houping Michigan State University MI liuho@msu.edu

Long, Bob USDA Forest Service OH rlong@fs.fed.us

Lyons, Barry Canadian Forest Service Canada blyons@nrcan.gc.ca

Macdonald, Janet CFIA Canada macdonaldje@inspection.gc.ca

Mann, Fred USDA APHIS, PPQ MD cfredric.mann@aphis.usda.gov

Marchant, Ken CFIA Canada marchantk@inspection.gc.ca

Markham, Chris USDA APHIS, PPQ–ALB NC christine.markham@aphis.usda.gov

Marshall, Phil IN Dept. of Nat. Res. IN pmarshall@dnr.in.gov

Mastro, Vic USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

MA vic.mastro@aphis.usda.gov

McCullough, Deb Michigan State University MI mccullo6@msu.edu

McDonald, Robert Michigan State University MI mcdon182@msu.edu

McPartlan, Deb USDA APHIS MD deborah.l.mcpartlan@aphis.usda.

gov

Medina, Jennifer USDA APHIS, PPQ–ALB IL jennifer.medina@aphis.usda.gov

Meilan, Rick Purdue University IN rmeilan@purdue.edu

Melichar, Mike Dow AgroSciences IN mwmelichar@dow.com

Mota-Sanchez, 

David

Michigan State University MI motasanc@msu.edu

Moughler, Gary USDA APHIS, PPQ–EAB IN gary.b.moughler@aphis.usda.gov

Muilenburg, Vanessa Ohio State University OH muilenburg.l@osu.edu
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

108 2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting ____________________________

Opalka-Myers, 

Tiffany

USDA APHIS, PPQ–EAB MI tiffany.opalka@aphis.usda.gov

Parra, Greg USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

NC greg.r.parra@aphis.usda.gov

Pentico, Elizabeth USDA APHIS, PPQ–EAB MI elizabeth.pentico@aphis.usda.gov

Peirson, D’Wight PSP Enterprises OH psp@ctcn.net

Picanco, Rvi Bayer Advanced rvi.picanco@bayercropscience.com

Poland, Therese USDA Forest Service tpoland@fs.fed.us

Prasad, Anantha USDA Forest Service aprasad@fs.fed.us

Pureswaran, Deepa 

Shankar

CFIA/CFS Canada pureswar@msu.edu

Radtke, Bria WI Dept. of Nat. Res. WI bria.radtke@dnr.state.wi.us

Raimo, Bernard USDA Forest Service NH braimo@fs.fed.us

Ranger, Chris USDA ARS ranger.1@osu.edu

Rauscher, Ken MI Dept. of Agriculture MI rauscherk@michigan.gov

Reding, Michael USDA ARS OH reding.2@osu.edu

Riess, Angela MI Dept. of Agriculture MI riessa@michigan.gov

Royalty, Nate Bayer

Sawyer, Alan USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

MA alan.j.sawyer@aphis.usda.gov

Schiffer, Al Al’s Aerial Spraying MI al400@aol.com

Siegert, Nathan Michigan State University MI siegert1@msu.edu

Simon, Gary USDA APHIS, PPQ IN gary.w.simon@aphis.usda.gov

Skwarok, Michael WI DATCP WI michael.skwarok@datcp.state.wi.us

Smith, James USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

NC james.w.smith@aphis.usda.gov

Smith, John Bayer IN john.a.smith@bayercropscience.

com

Smitley, David Michigan State University MI smitley@msu.edu

Spichiger, Sven-Erik PA Dept. of Agriculture PA sspichiger@state.pa.us

Stefan, Mike USDA APHIS, PPQ MD michael.b.stefan@aphis.usda.gov

Strazanac, John WV Dept. of Agriculture WV jstrazan@wvu.edu

Stringfellow, Bill Quest Products Corp. KS wstringfellow@earthlink.net

Storer, Andrew Michigan Tech. University MI storer@mtu.edu

Sydnor, T. Davis sydnor.1@osu.edu

Tanis, Sara Michigan State University MI tanissar@msu.edu

Taylor, Robin Ohio State University OH RAJT@osu.edu

Tluczek, Andrew Michigan State University MI tluczek@msu.edu
____________________________ 2006 Emerald Ash Borer/Asian Longhorned Beetle Meeting 109

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Topa, Mary The Holden Arboretum mtopa@holdenarb.org

Vandenberg, John john.vandenberg@ars.usda.gov

Wallner, William Consultant CT williamwallner@comcast.com

Walker, Melody WI Dept. of Agriculture WI melody.walker@datcp.state.wi.us

Walock, Scott USDA APHIS, PPQ–EAB OH scott.walock@aphis.usda.gov

Waltz, Bob IN Dept. of Nat. Res. IN bwaltz@dnr.IN.gov

Wang, Boade USDA APHIS, PPQ–

CPHST

MA baode.wang@aphis.usda.gov

Watkins, Jason USDA APHIS, PPQ WV jason.watkins@aphis.usda.gov

Whitehill, Justin Ohio State University OH

Wright, Andrew USDA APHIS, PPQ–EAB OH andrew.wright@aphis.usda.gov
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

110 2005 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting __________________________________________________

2005 Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology 

Development Meeting

September 26 and 27, 2005

Program Reports

National Prospective P. Bell

Indiana B. Waltz

Ohio T. Harrison

Michigan K. Rauscher

Canada K. Marchant

Research and Technology Development Reports

EAB Biology, Behavior, and Ecology Moderators: B. Gill and B. Lyons

Invasion genetics of EAB Alicia Bray

Gut microflora of the emerald ash borer and 

other wood boring insects

A. Vasanthakumar, J. Handelsman, and 

K.F. Raffa

Emerald ash borer dispersal – a release and 

recapture study 

Ivich Fraser, Dave Lance, and Vic Mastro

Spread and dispersal of emerald ash borer: 

a dendrochronological approach 

Nathan Siegert, Deb McCullough, 

Andrew Liebhold, and Frank Telewski

Spread and dispersal of emerald ash borer: 

a coupled map lattice model approach 

Nathan Siegert, Deb McCullough, 

Andrew Liebhold, and Frank Telewski

Modeling potential EAB spread through GIS/

cell-based/gravity models with data bolstered by web-based inputs

Louis Iverson, Anantha Prasad, Davis Syndor, 

Jonathan Bossenbroek, and Mark Schwartz

Is emerald ash borer an obligate migrant? Robin Taylor, Leah Bauer, Therese Poland, and 

Robert Haack

EAB–Host Relationships: 

Responses of EAB to Hosts

Moderator: D. Herms

EAB host range and preference: lab and field 

studies 

Andrea Anulewicz

Interspecific variation in ash resistance to EAB Eric Rebek, Daniel Herms, David Smitley, 

Pierluigi Bonello, Alieta Eyles, and Don 

Cipollini
__________________________________________________ 2005 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 111

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

EAB–Host Relationships: Forest Impacts Moderator: D. Herms

Living with emerald ash borer: modeling ash 

phloem removal from forests 

Andrew Storer

Biological cost of eradication: consequences 

on the native plant community

Constance Hausman

Impact of EAB and other disturbances on 

rural and urban forests in Michigan 

John Witter

The impact of emerald ash borer on forests 

within the Huron River watershed 

AnneMarie Smith, Daniel Herms, and Robert 

Long

Chemical Control of EAB Moderator: D. McCullough

Distribution and persistence of trunk-injected 14C imidacloprid in ash treesBert Cregg, David Mota-Sanchez, Deb 

McCullough, Robert Hollingworth, and 

Therese Poland

Evaluation of several nicotinoids and spinosad 

for EAB control 

Baode Wang

Insecticide control of EAB (title yet to be 

determined)

Dave Smitley

Long-term (3 years!) results of trunk injections for EAB control in landscape ash trees Deb McCullough, David Cappaert, and Therese 

Poland

Noninvasive neonicontinoid treatments for 

ash logs and trees 

David Cappaert, Deb McCullough, and Therese 

Poland

Biopesticides for EAB Moderator: D. Lance 

Efficacy of spinosad to adult emerald ash 

borer 

Phillip Lewis

Potential uses for Bt in the management of 

EAB 

Leah Bauer

The development of resistant ash to facilitate 

the eradication of emerald ash borer 

Richard Meilan

Potential of Beauveria bassiana GHA for 

management of EAB

Leah Bauer, and Houping Liu

Simulated aerial application of Beauveria 

bassiana

Dave Smitley

Biological Control of EAB Moderators: D. Reardon and J. Gould

Survival of emerald ash borer in chipped and 

ground ash 

Ivich Fraser, Deb McCullough, Therese Poland, 

Dave Cappaert, and Vic Mastro

Egg and larval parasitoids of EAB from China: 

potential for biocontrol in North America 

Leah Bauer, and Houping Liu

Progress on collecting, studying, and rearing 

parasitoids of the EAB from China 

Juli Gould
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

112 2005 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting __________________________________________________

Overview of Hymenoptera genera currently 

considered for EAB biocontrol release 

John Strazanac

Exploration for EAB and its natural enemies 

in South Korea in 2005

Dave Williams

Research on parasitoids of buprestids in progress at the ARS Beneficial Insects Introduction Research Unit Roger Fuester, and Paul Schaefer

EAB Survey Moderator: T. Poland 

Cerceris fumipennis – a useful adjunct to the 

EAB monitoring programs 

Steve Marshall, S. Paiero, and M. Buck

Effects of trap design and placement on capture of emerald ash borer Joseph Francese, Jason Oliver, Ivich Fraser, 

Nadeer Youssef, Dave Lance, Damon Crook, 

and Vic Mastro

Effects of tree wounding and banding on emerald ash borer capture Ivich Fraser, Joe Francese, Jason Oliver, Nadeer 

Youssef, Dave Lance, Damon Crook, and Vic 

Mastro

Attraction of EAB to trap trees: effects of 

stress agents and trap height 

Deb McCullough, Therese Poland, and David 

Cappaert

Chemical ecology of EAB in relation to bark 

volatiles 

Damon Crook, Ivich Fraser, Joe Francese, and 

Vic Mastro

Identification of stress-induced plant volatiles 

and tests of attraction in the lab and field 

Therese Poland, Cesar Rodriguez-Saona, Gary 

Grant, Linda Buchan, Peter de Groot, James 

Miller, and Deborah McCullough

Progress on EAB survey using remote sensing 

technology in 2004-2005

Dave Williams

Visual survey of EAB damage in Michigan Dave Smitley

Living with emerald ash borer: detection of 

outlier populations 

Andrew Storer, Jessica Metzger, and Robert 

Heyd

[A list of attendees for the 2005 meeting is not available.]
__________________________________________________ 2004 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 113

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

2004 Emerald Ash Borer 

Research and Technology Development Meeting

October 5-6, 2004

Program Reports

Canadian Program K. Marchant

Canadian EAB Science and Survey Committee H. Frazer

National EAB Management Plan P. Bell

National EAB Survey Plan D. McPartlan

Ash Reduction Strategy N. Schneeberger

FHTET Assistance with Reduced Ash Zone J. Adams and F. Sapio

Michigan Program Update G. King and T. Flint

Migican Statewide EAB Survey A. Storer

Ohio Program Update T. Harrisson

Indiana Program Update B. Waltz

Maryland program Update D. Bean

Virginia Program Update D. Martin

Research and Technology Development Reports

EAB Biology, Behavior, and Ecology Moderator: B. Lyons

Phenology D. Brown-Rytlewski

EAB flight potential R. Taylor

mtDNA sequences and AFL fingerprints for 

EAB

A. Bray

EAB life cycle: a reassessment D. Cappaert

EAB development and dynamics in black ash in 

an outlier site

N. Siegert

Monitoring and evaluationg the health of ash 

trees in Migican’s rural forests

J. Witter and A. Storer

EAB Host Range Moderator: D. Herms

Interspecific variation in ash resistance/

susceptibility to EAB

D. Herms, P. Bonello, D. Smitley, E. Rebek, and 

D. Cipollini

Effects of community composition of forest 

susceptibility and response to EAB

A. Smith, D. Herms, and R. Long

Host range testing-laboratory choice test R. Haack and T. Petrice

Host range for EAB in North America and 

elsewhere

A. Agius
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

114 2004 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting __________________________________________________

Tree physiology and site factors affecting 

preferences and suitability

D. McCullough

Host range A. Agius

Ovservations o the within-tree distribution of 

EAB in southwestern Ontario

S. Smith, P. de Groot, and L. Timms

Do purple traps, magenta and green objects 

improve EAB trapping efficacy?

G. Otis, M. Youngs, and G. Umphrey

Chemical Control of EAB Moderator: Deb McCullough

Trunk surface treatments and 2003 systemic 

studies

R. Haack and T. Petrice

EAB survival in stumps with/without treatment R. Haack and T. Petrice

Surface treatments and systemics D. McCullough and D. Cappaert

Imidacloprid residues from soil-injected ash 

trees

P. Lewis

BotaniGard® evaluation L. Bauer

Efficacy of trunk injection of imidacloprid and 

azadirachtin

N. McKenzie

Fate and metabolism of 14C imidacloprid B. Cregg and D. Mota-Sanchez

EAB Survey Moderator: David Lance

Remote sensing D. Williams

Remote sensing D. Bartels

Effectiveness of visual survey and enhancements D. McCullough

Trapping and trap trees T. Poland, D. McCullough, P. de Groot, 

D. Cappaert, D. Grant, and L. McDonald

Cuticular hydrocarbons and contact 

pheromones

L. Hanks

Exporing the use of spatially stratified ash host 

distribution maps for improving the efficiency 

of emerald ash borer detectors

D. MacFarlane, B. Rubin, and S. Friedman

Ecological spatial patterns of ash in southern 

Michigan

S. Friedman, D. MacFarlane, and B. Rubin

Trap designs and colors J. Francese

Effectiveness of tree bands I. Fraser

Visual clues for beetle attraction D. McCullough

Distribution of infested trees in an outlier site L. Bauer, H. Liu, and D. Miller

Problematic Agrilus identifications in trap tree 

buprestic identifications

J. Zablotny
__________________________________________________ 2004 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 115

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Biological Control of EAB Moderators: Richard Reardon and Juli Gould

Exploration in Korea for natural enemies D. Williams

Woodpecker predation D. McCullough

Insect natural enemies in SE Michigan and 

China

L. Bauer, H. Liu, and D. Miller

Exploration in China and rearing development J. Gould and J. Tanner

Taxonomy of parasites J. Strazanac

Foreign exploration for EAB natural enemies P. Schaefer

Regulatory Treatment of EAB Moderator: Therese Poland

EAB survival in firewood R. Haack and T. Petrice

EAB survival in chips with different heat 

treatments

D. McCullough
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

116 2004 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting __________________________________________________

Name Agency Phone Email

Adams, Judy USDA Forest Service, 

FHTET

970-295-5846 jadams04@fs.fed.us

Agius, Andrea Michigan State University 517-432-3494 agiusand@msu.edu

Anderson, Don USDA APHIS 810-844-2709 donald.anderson@aphis.

usda.gov

Armstrong, Katie USDA Forest Service 651-649-5243 karmstrong@fs.fed.us

Bartels, David USDA APHIS 956-580-7217 david.w.bartels@aphis.

usda.gov

Bauer, Leah USDA Forest Service 517-355-7740x103 lbauer@fs.fed.us

Bean, Dick MD Dept. of Agriculture 410-841-5920 beanra@mda.state.md.us

Bell, Phil USDA APHIS 919-855-7312 philip.d.bell@aphis.usda.

gov

Borotsik, Greg CFIA 519-691-1306x116 borotsikg@inspection.

gc.ca

Bray, Alicia Michigan State University 517-432-2029 kingalic@msu.edu

Brewer, Melissa OH Dept. of Agriculture 614-728-6404 mbrewer@mail.agri.state.

oh.us

Brown-Rytlewski, 

Diane

Michigan State University 517-432-0480 rytlews1@msu.edu

Brumbaugh, Anicca OH Dept. of Agriculture 614-728-6437 abrumbaugh@mail.agri.

state.oh.us

Bullington, Stephen USDA APHIS 717-241-2465 stephen.w.bullington@

aphis.usda.gov

Caister, Ches CFIA 519-691-1306x114 caisterc@inspection.gc.ca

Clore, Sarah USDA APHIS 734-942-9005 sarah.c.clore@aphis.usda.

gov

Courter, Tony USDA Forest Service, 

FHTET

970-295-5864 acourter@fs.fed.us

Cregg, Bert Michigan State University 517-355-5191 cregg@msu.edu

Dehn, Dave USDA APHIS 734-942-9005 david.a.dehn@aphis.usda.

gov

Dutton, Todd USDA APHIS 734-942-9005 todd.dutton@aphis.usda.

gov

Eggen, Don PA Dept. of Nat. Res. 717-948-3941 deggen@state.pa.us

Flint, Tim MI Dept. of Agriculture 517-323-1087 flintt@michigan.gov

Francese, Joe USDA APHIS 508-563-9303x238 joe.francese@aphis.usda.

gov

2004 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting Attendees
__________________________________________________ 2004 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 117

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Fraser, Hannah OMAF 905-562-1674 hannah.fraser@omaf.gov.

on.ca

Fraser, Ivich USDA APHIS 810-844-2717 Ivich.Fraser@aphis.usda.

gov

Friedman, Steve Michigan State University 517-353-9230 friedm69@msu.edu

Gill, Bruce CFIA 613-759-1842 gillbd@inspection.gc.ca

Gould, Juli USDA APHIS 508-563-9303 Juli.R.Gould@aphis.usda.

gov

Haack, Bob USDA Forest Service 517-355-7740 

x108

rhaack@fs.fed.us

Hackett, Kevin USDA ARS 301-504-4680 kjh@ars.usda.gov

Harrison, Tom OH Dept. of Agriculture 614-728-6400 tharrison@mail.agri.state.

oh.us

Herms, Daniel Ohio State University 330-202-3506 herms.2@osu.edu

Heyd, Bob MI Dept. of Nat. Res. 906-228-6561 heydr@michigan.gov

Hofacker, Tom USDA Forest Service 703-605-5338 thofacker@fs.fed.us

Holmes, Stacie USDA APHIS 810-844-2712 stacie.a.holmes@aphis.

usda.gov

Hopkin, Anthony Canada Forest Service 705-541-5612 ahopkin@nrcan.gc.ca

Hunt, Lucia ODA 614-728-6402 lhunt@mail.agri.state.

oh.us

Iverson, Louis USDA Forest Service 740-368-0097 liverson@fs.fed.us

Jones, Bill USDA Forest Service 414-297-1898 bjones02@fs.fed.us

Katovich, Steve USDA Forest Service 651-649-5264 skatovich@fs.fed.us

Lance, Dave USDA APHIS 508-563-9303 david.r.lance@aphis.usda.

gov

Lewis, Phil USDA APHIS 508-540-3090 phillip.a.lewis@aphis.

usda.gov

Liu, Houping Michigan State University 517-432-1203 liuho@msu.edu

Long, Bob USDA Forest Service 740-368-0052 rlong@fs.fed.us

Lyons, Barry CFS 205-541-8617 blyons@nrcan.gc.ca

MacFarlane, Dave MSU 517-355-2399 macfar24@msu.edu

Mann, Fred USDA APHIS 410-224-3452 cfredric.mann@aphis.

usda.gov

Manor, James USDA APHIS 734-942-9005 james.r.manor@aphis.

usda.gov

Marchant, Ken CFIA 519-826-2878 marchantk@inspection.

gc.ca

Marshall, Phil IN Dept. of Agriculture 812-358-3621 pmarshal@hsonline.net
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

118 2004 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting __________________________________________________

Mastro, Vic USDA APHIS 508-563-9303 vic.mastro@aphis.usda.

gov

McCullough, Deb Michigan State University 517-355-7445 mccullod@msue.msu.edu

McKay, David USDA APHIS 734-942-9005 david.r.mckay@aphis.

usda.gov

McKenzie, Nicole University of Guelph 519-824-4120 

x58548

nmckenzi@uoguelph.ca

Meating, Joe BioForest Tech 705-942-5824 jmeating@bioforest.ca

Mech, Roger MI Dept. of Nat. Res. 517-335-4408 mechr@michigan.gov

Miller, Deborah USDA Forest Service 517-355-7740x112 debmiller@fs.fed.us

Mota-Sanchez, 

David

Michigan State University 517-432-8701 motasanc@msu.edu

Mouland, Gary Parks Canada 519-322-5700 gary.mouland@pc.gc.ca

Murray, Ron MI Dept. of Nat. Res. 517-335-3353 murray@michigan.gov

Oliver, Jason Tennessee State University 931-668-3572 joliver@tnstate.edu

Otis, Gard University of Guelph 519-824-4120 gotis@uoguelph.ca

Pentico, Elizabeth USDA APHIS 810-844-2737 elizabeth.w.pentico@

aphis.usda.gov

Petrice, Toby USDA Forest Service 517-355-7740 tpetrice@fs.fed.us

Philip, Michael MDA 517-335-0730 philipm@michigan.com

Poland, Therese USDA Forest Service 517-355-7740 tpoland@fs.fed.us

Prasad, Anantha USDA Forest Service 740-368-0097 aprasad@fs.fed.us

Rausher, Ken MDA 517-373-1087 rauscherk@michigan.gov

Raymond, Insa Michigan State University 517-279-4311 raymondi@msue.msu.edu

Reardon, Richard USDA FS 304-285-1566 rreardon@fs.fed.us

Rubin, Ben Michigan State University 517-355-3475 rubinb@msu.edu

Schaefer, Paul W. USDA ARS 302-731-7330 pschaefer@biir.ars.usda.

gov

Schneeberger, Noel USDA Forest Service 610-552-4121 nschneeberger@fs.fed.us

Siegert, Nathan Michigan State University 517-432-3495 siegert1@msu.edu

Smith, AnneMarie Ohio State University 614-688-4296 smith.3746@osu.edu

Smith, Sandy University of Toronto 416-978-5482 s.smith.a@utoronto.ca

Smitley, Dave Michigan State University 517-355-3385 smitley@msu.edu

Stefan, Mike USDA APHIS 301-734-4387 michael.stefan@aphis.

usda.gov

Stone, Amy Ohio State University 419-578-6783 stonea@ag.osu.edu

Storer, Andrew Michigan Tech. University 906-887-3470 storer@mtu.edu

Sullivan, Brian USDA APHIS 734-942-9005 brian.sullivan@aphis.usda.

gov
__________________________________________________ 2004 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 119

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Tanner, John Allen USDA APHIS 508-563-9303 

x230

john.tanner@aphis.usda.

gov

Taylor, Robin Ohio State University 330-263-3961 rajt@osu.edu

Timms, Laura University of Toronto 416-531-9205 laura.timms@utoronto.ca

Walock, Scott USDA APHIS, PPQ-ALB 312-742-3385 scott.c.walock@usda.gov

Waltz, Bob IN Dept. of Nat. Res. 317-232-4120 bwaltz@dnr.in.gov

Williams, Dave USDA APHIS 508-563-9303 david.w.williams@aphis.

usda.gov

Wilson, Mary Michigan State University 810-244-8531 wilsonm1@msu.edu

Windell, Keith USDA Forest Service, 

MTDC

406-329-3956 kwindell@fs.fed.us

Witter, John University of Michigan 734-276-2764 jwitter@umich.edu

Yanity, Ellen USDA APHIS 810-844-2733 ellen.k.yanity@aphis.usda.

gov

Zablotny, Jim USDA APHIS 734-941-8695 James.E.Zablotny@aphis.

usda.gov
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

120 2003 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting __________________________________________________

2003 Emerald Ash Borer 

Research and Technology Development Meeting

September 30-October 1, 2003

EAB Program Review Facilitator: Victor Mastro 

U.S. Programs Craig Kellogg, Deb Parland, Philip Bell, Ken 

Rauscher, Tim Flint, Gary King, and Frank 

Sapio

Canadian Program Ken Marchant

Summary of Research Needs Mike Stefan and Victor Mastro

Biology and Behavior of EAB Facilitator: Deb McCullough

Overview Barry Lyons

Life Cycle David Roden

Dispersal Deb McCullough

Population Dynamics Leah Bauer, Bob Haack and Toby Petrice, Paul 

Schaefer, Gard Otis, Tanya Turk, and Nichole 

McKenzie

Survey of EAB Facilitator: Jason Oliver

Characteriszation of Visual Techniques Bob Haack and Toby Petrice

Semiochemicals Therese Poland

Other Cues Jason Oliver

Development of Traps for Survey Dave Williams

Remote Sensing Dave Bartells, Houping Liu, David MacFarlane, 

Deb McCullough, Dave Cappaert, and Joe 

Fancese

EAB Regulatory Treatment and Mechanical 

Control

Facilitator: Bob Haack

Presentations Boob Haack and Toby Petrice

Deb McCullough

Chemical Control of EAB Facilitator: Bill Wallner

Systemics Bob Haack and Toby Petrice

Cover Sprays Phil Lewis

Application Techniques Deb McCullough and Dave Cappaert
__________________________________________________ 2003 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 121

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Biological Control of EAB Facilitator: Richard Reardon

Pathogens Leah Bauer

Parasites Amy Roda and Juli Gould

Predators Bob Haack

Other Techniques: EAB Rearing Facilitator: Juli Gould

Presentation Leah Bauer

EAB Host Range Testing Facilitator: Dan Merms

Overview Bob Haack

Suitability of Trees to Attack Dan Herms

Site Factors L.L.Timms

Stress Factors Deb McCullough

Age/Size of Trees Dave Cappaert
Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

122 2003 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting __________________________________________________

Name Organization Phone Email

Bartels, David USDA APHIS, PPQ 956-580-7301 david.w.bartels@aphis.usda.gov

Bauer, Leah USDA Forest Service, 

NCRS

517-355-7740 

ext: 34

lbauer@fs.fed.us

Bean, Dick MD Dept. of Agriculture 410-841-2743 beanra@mda.state.md.us

Bell, Philip USDA APHIS 919-716-5590 philip.d.bell@aphis.usda.gov

Bullington, Stephen USDA APHIS, PPQ 717-241-2465 swb@key-net.net

Cappaert, David Michigan State University 734-635-7750 cappaert@comcast.net

Clark, Erin USDA Forest Service 517-355-7740 elclark@fs.fed.us

Cregg, Bert Michigan State University 517-353-9226 cregg@pilot.msu.edu

Duer, Donald USDA FHP 404-347-3541 dduerr@fs.fed.us

Evans, Hugh CFS 705-541-5543 hevans@nrcan.gc.ca

Flint, Tim MI Dept. of Agriculture 517-335-7390 flintt@michigan.gov

Francese, Joe USDA APHIS, PPQ 508-563-9303 

ext: 238

joe.francese@aphis.usda.gov

Friedman, Steve Michigan State University 517-353-9320 friedm69@msu.edu

Gill, Bruce CFIA-CPQP 613-759-1842 gillbd@inspection.gc.ca

Gould, Juli APHIS 508-563-9303 

ext: 220

 juli.r.gould@aphis.usda.gov

Haack, Bob USDA Forest Service 517-355-7740 

ext: 36

rhaack@fs.fed.us

Heltzel, Dennis USDA APHIS-PPQ 540-265-6071 dheltzel@aphis.usda.gov

Herms, Dan Ohio State U 330-202-3506 herms.2@osu.edu

Hofacker, Tom USDA Forest Service 703-605-5338 thofacker@fs.fed.us

Hunt, Lucia ODA 614-271-7764 luciah@yahoo.com

Kaplan, David USDA APHIS, PPQCPHST919-513-5090 david.t.kapha@aphis.usda.gov

Kellogg, Craig USDA APHIS, PPQ 810-844-2705 craig.kellogg@aphis.usda.gov

Klein, Michael USDA ARS 330-263-3896 klein.10@osu.edu

Lance, Dave USDA APHIS, PPQ 508-563-9303 david.r.lance@aphis.usda.gov

Lewis, Phil USDA APHIS 508-563-9303 

ext: 215 

phillip.a.lewis@aphis.usda.gov

Lyons, Barry CFS 705-541-5617 blyons@nrcan.gc.ca

MacFarlane, David Michigan State University 517-355-2399 macfar24@msu.edu

Man, Gary USDA Forest Service, IP 202-273-4740 gman@fs.fed.us

Mann, Fred USDA APHIS, PPQ 410-224-3452 cfredric.mann@aphis.usda.gov

Marchant, Ken CFIA-Ontario 519-837-9400 

ext: 2111 

marchantk@inspection.gc.ca

2003 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting Attendees
__________________________________________________ 2003 Emerald Ash Borer Meeting 123

Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Review Meeting—2007

Markham, Christine USDA APHIS, PPQ 919-716-5535 christine.markham@aphis.usda.gov

Mastro, Vic USDA APHIS, PPQ 508-563-9303 

ext: 212 

vic.mastro@aphis.usda.gov

McCullough, Deb Michigan State University 517-355-7445 mccullod@msu.edu

McKay, David USDA APHIS, PPQ 734-942-9005 david.r.mckay@aphis.usda.gov

McKenzie, Nicole U of Guelph 519-823-1147 nmckenzi@uoguelph.ca

McPartlan, Deb USDA APHIS, PPQ 301-734-5356 deborah.l.mcpartlan@usda.gov

Merten, Paul USDA FHP 828-257-4845 pmerten@fs.fed.us

Morgan, Ryan University of Toronto 519-744-2572 ryan.morgan@utoronto.ca

Oliver, Jason Tennessee State Univ. 931-668-3572 joliver@tnstate.edu

Onken, Amy USDA Forest Service 304-285-1565 aonken@fs.fed.us

Otis, Gard University of Guelph 519-824-4120 

ext: 52478 

gotis@evb.uoguelph.ca

Poland, Therese USDA Forest Service 517-355-7740 tpoland@fs.fed.us

Reardon, Rich USDA Forest ServiceFHTET304-285-1566 rreardon@fs.fed.us

Reding, Michael USDA ARS 330-263-3629 reding.2@osu.edu

Roda, Amy APHIS 269-683-3563 amy.l.roda@aphis.usda.gov

Roden, Dave CFS 705-541-5666 droden@nrcan.gc.ca

Rytlewski, Diane Michigan State University 517-432-0480 rytlews1@msu.edu

Schaefer, Paul USDA ARS 302-731-7330 

ext: 226 

pschaefer@biir.ars.usda.gov

Schneeberger, Noel USDA Forest Service 610-557-4121 nschneeberger@fs.fed.us

Simon, Gary USDA APHIS, PPQ 765-446-0267 gary.w.simon@aphis.usda.gov

Smith, Jim Michigan State University 517-432-2029 jimsmith@msu.edu

Smith, Sandy University of Toronto 416-978-5482 s.smith.a@utoronto.ca

Smitley, Dave Michigan State University 517-355-3385 smitley@msu.edu

South, Mike USDA APHIS, PPQ 772-334-4035 michael.south@aphis.usda.gov

Stefan, Mike USDA APHIS, PPQ 301-734-7338 michael.b.stefan@usda.gov

Taylor, Robin Ohio State University 330-263-3961 Rajt@osu.edu

Timms, Laura University of Toronto 416-531-9205 laura.timms@utoronto.ca

Wallner, Bill USDA 203-453-6870 amandawbw@earthlink.com

Waltz, Robert IN Dept. of Nat. Res. 317-232-4120 bwaltz@dnr.state.in.us

Wang, Baode USDA APHIS 508-563-9303 

ext: 224 

baode.wang@aphis.usda.gov

Williams, Dave USDA APHIS 508-563-9303 

ext: 217 

david.w.williams@aphis.usda.gov

Williams, John PA Forest Service 814-765-0810 johnwill@state.pa.us

Writer, Jim USDA APHI, PPQ 301-734-7121 james.v.writer@aphis.usda.gov

Zablotny, Jim USDA APHIS, PPQ 734-942-8695 james.e.zablotny@aphis.usda.gov