Effectiveness of Esfenvalerate, Cyfluthrin,

and Carbaryl in Protecting Individual

Lodgepole Pines and Ponderosa Pines

from Attack by Dendroctonus spp.

Michael I. Haverty Patrick J. Shea James T. Hoffman

John M. Wenz Kenneth E. Gibson

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Southwest

Research Station

Research Paper

PSW-RP-237

http://www.psw.fs.fed.us/
Abstract

Haverty, Michael I.; Shea, Patrick J.; Hoffman, James T.; Wenz, John M.; Gibson, Kenneth E. 1998.

Effectiveness of esfenvalerate, cyfluthrin, and carbaryl in protecting individual lodgepole pines and

ponderosa pines from attack by ponderosa pines from attack by Dendroctonus spp. Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. Albany, CA: Pacific spp.

Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 12 p.

The effectiveness of registered and experimental application rates of insecticides esfenvalerate (Asana XL),

cyfluthrin (Tempo WP and Tempo 2), and carbaryl (Sevimol and Sevin SL) was assessed for protection of

individual high-value lodgepole pines from mountain pine beetles in Montana and ponderosa pines from

western pine beetles in Idaho and California. This field test was conducted on the Deerlodge National Forest in

Montana, the Boise National Forest in Idaho, and the Eldorado National Forest in California. The boles of the

trees were treated with a candidate insecticide treatment to a height of about 10 m, the surface likely to be

attacked by the bark beetles. To challenge the treatments, beetle attack densities were enhanced by using

aggregation pheromones of the appropriate Dendroctonus species. One application of esfenvalerate at 0.025

percent protected lodgepole pines from mountain pine beetle for one summer, but not a second summer.

Cyfluthrin applied once at 0.025 percent protected lodgepole pines for one summer and at 0.05 percent was

effective for a second summer. One application of either carbaryl formulation at 1 percent protected lodgepole

pines for two summers. Esfenvalerate at 0.012 percent protected ponderosa pines in Idaho for one summer;

however, one application of esfenvalerate at 0.025 percent was ineffective in protecting trees for a second

summer. A single application of cyfluthrin at 0.025 percent was effective for one summer, whereas a similar

treatment with 0.1 percent cyfluthrin, in either the Tempo WP or Tempo 2 formulations, was effective for 16

months or two summers. One treatment with carbaryl at 2 percent was effective for the 4 summer months; only

the Sevin SL formulation appeared to be effective for the second summer in Idaho. Esfenvalerate was applied

once at 0.025 percent and 0.05 percent in California and protected ponderosa pines from western pine beetles

for a full summer. Neither esfenvalerate treatment was effective for a second summer. Cyfluthrin was applied to

ponderosa pines in California at the reduced concentrations of 0.0028 percent, 0.008 percent, and 0.025

percent. None of these treatments protected these trees from induced attack by western pine beetle for one summer.

Retrieval Terms: bark beetles, insecticides, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, tree protection

The Authors

Michael I. Haverty Michael I. Haverty and Michael I. Haverty Patrick J. Shea are chief research entomologist and principal research entomologist, Patrick J. Shea

respectively, in the Station’s Chemical Ecology of Western Forest Insects research unit headquartered at 800

Buchanan Street, Albany, CA 94710 (P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701). J ames T. Hoffman is a forest ames T. Hoffman

pathologist with the Intermountain Region’s Forest Health Protection Staff and is stationed at the Boise Field

Office, 1249 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709. John M. Wenz is a forest entomologist with the Pacific Southwest John M. Wenz

Region’s Forest Health Protection Staff and is stationed at the Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road,

Sonora, CA 95370. Kenneth E. Gibson is a forest entomologist with the Northern Region’s Forest Health Kenneth E. Gibson

Protection Staff and is stationed at the Regional Office, 200 East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59807.

Acknowledgments

Help in the installation, execution, and evaluation of the study was provided by Robert Borys, Dennis Hart, Dave

Holland, Steve Munson, Lori Nelson, Pat Pinkerton, Bob Oakes, Bruce Reay, Charles Richmond, Bruce

Roettgering, Jeffrey Schramm, Dave Shultz, Stacey Siebeneicher, Sheri Smith, and Mike Verdun. Statistical

advice in the evaluation of the treatments was provided by James Baldwin. Reviews of an earlier version of this

paper were provided by James Baldwin, Ed Holsten, and Richard Werner.

Pesticide Precautionary Statement

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply

that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal

agencies before they can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are

not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal

of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

Publisher:

Albany, California

Mailing address:

PO Box 245, Berkeley CA

94701-0245

510 559-6300

http://www.psw.fs.fed.us

August 1998

Pacific Southwest Research Station

Forest Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Effectiveness of Esfenvalerate, Cyfluthrin, and Carbaryl in

Protecting Individual Lodgepole Pines and Ponderosa Pines

from Attack by Dendroctonus spp.

Michael I. Haverty Patrick J. Shea James T. Hoffman

John M. Wenz Kenneth E. Gibson

Contents:

In Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Pacific Southwest

Research Station

USDA Forest Service

Research Paper

PSW-RP-237

August 1998

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998.

In Brief

Haverty, Michael I.; Shea, Patrick J.; Hoffman, James T.; Wenz, John M.; Gibson,

Kenneth E. 1998. Effectiveness of esfenvalerate, cyfluthrin, and carbaryl in

protecting individual lodgepole pines and ponderosa pines from attack by

Dendroctonus spp. Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest

Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 12 p.

Bark beetles are responsible for extensive mortality among many conifers throughout NorthAmerica. Two species, the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) and the

western pine beetle (D. brevicomis LeConte) cause extensive mortality in most locations where they

occur. Regardless of landowner objectives, tree losses generally have a catastrophic impact. The value

of a mountain home may be severely reduced by loss of shade and ornamental trees. Mortality of trees

in campgrounds or other administrative sites can have long-range management effects. Land managers

have few options for direct interventions to manage pine bark beetle infestations. Pine bark beetles can

be prevented from successfully attacking individual trees by the application of chemical insecticides to

the bole of the tree.

In 1989, only two formulations of carbaryl (Sevin SL and Sevimol), lindane, and injected metasystoxR were registered for protection of lodgepole pines from the mountain pine beetle and ponderosa pine

from the western pine beetle. Lindane remains a controversial insecticide and is not likely to be used on

federally managed Forest Service property. Metasystox-R has been shown to be ineffective in protecting

ponderosa pine from western pine beetle. If the registration for carbaryl were suspended or canceled, or if

the manufacturer decided to no longer support registration for this use, the public would be without

effective, registered insecticides for tree protection. This study was performed to evaluate two synthetic

pyrethroid insecticides, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, for protection of individual pines from attack by

either the mountain pine beetle or the western pine beetle. The objective of this study was to define the

effective concentrations of esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin for one or more seasons of protection of high-value

pines.

Three separate evaluations of esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin were conducted, one each in Montana,

Idaho, and California. In the Montana and Idaho tests, we evaluated the Sevin SL formulation of

carbaryl. In the California test we adjusted the concentrations. In Montana we tested esfenvalerate at

0.006, 0.012, and 0.025 percent (Asana XL Insecticide), cyfluthrin at 0.025, 0.05, and 0.1 percent

(Tempo 20WP Ornamental Insecticide), and two formulations of carbaryl at 1 percent (Sevimol and

Sevin SL). In Idaho we used the same concentrations and formulations of esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin

as we used in Montana. We added 0.1 percent cyfluthrin (Tempo 2), and increased the concentration

of Sevimol and Sevin SL to 2 percent. In California we tested 0.025 percent and 0.05 percent

esfenvalerate and 0.0028, 0.008, and 0.025 percent cyfluthrin. Insecticides were applied with a truckmounted or trailer-mounted hydraulic sprayer, which allowed us to treat the entire bole of each tree to

a height of at least 10 m.

To test the effectiveness of the insecticide treatments against mountain pine beetle, we enhanced

the attack densities by attaching mountain pine beetle aggregation pheromone (trans-verbenol,

frontalin) on the bole of each tree. To test the effectiveness of the insecticides against western pine

beetle in Idaho, all test trees were baited with western pine beetle aggregation pheromone (exobrevicomin, frontalin, and myrcene). Each insecticide treatment was applied to 30 to 35 randomly

assigned pine trees. The only criterion used to determine the effectiveness of the insecticide treatment

was whether individual trees succumbed to attack by mountain pine beetle or western pine beetle.

Insecticide treatments were considered efficacious if fewer than seven treated trees died as a result of

bark beetle attack.

Esfenvalerate at 0.006 percent and 0.012 percent was not judged to be effective in protecting

lodgepole pine from mountain pine beetle attack in Montana. In contrast, 0.025 percent esfenvalerate

was effective for protecting lodgepole pines for the season immediately after treatment, but did not

provide adequate protection for the second summer. All three of the cyfluthrin and both of the carbaryl

treatments were highly effective in protecting lodgepole pines from mountain pine beetle attack. All of

the cyfluthrin and both of the carbaryl treatments remained effective for a second season.

iii
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998.

All treatments appeared to be effective in protecting ponderosa pine in Idaho from western pine

beetles when challenged immediately after insecticide application. When challenged 3 months after

treatment, the 0.006 percent esfenvalerate treatment was ineffective. The other esfenvalerate

treatments were effective for a full summer. One year after treatment, all of the esfenvalerate treatments

were not effective. All three of the cyfluthrin and both of the carbaryl treatments were effective for 3

months. The lowest cyfluthrin treatment (0.025 percent) was ineffective in protecting ponderosa pine

beyond the summer of application, whereas the other concentrations remained effective. The carbaryl

treatments remained effective one year after application. Fifteen months after application, 0.1 percent

cyfluthrin and 2 percent Sevin SL remained effective, whereas the 2 percent Sevimol treatment did not.

Because of the results from our tests in Montana and Idaho, we decided to increase the

concentrations of esfenvalerate and decrease the concentrations of cyfluthrin for our test in California.

Both esfenvalerate treatments (0.025 and 0.05 percent) and all of the cyfluthrin treatments (0.0028,

0.008, and 0.025 percent) proved to be effective immediately after treatment. Four months after

treatment, both of the esfenvalerate treatments remained effective, whereas all of the cyfluthrin

treatments were not. Fourteen months after treatment, all esfenvalerate treatments were ineffective.

Clearly none of the treatments tested in California are likely to provide protection for a second season;

only the two esfenvalerate treatments (0.025 and 0.05 percent) can provide adequate protection for a

full summer.

Presently, the only tactic available to pest managers to protect individual trees from lethal attack

by bark beetles is to spray the bole of targeted trees with insecticides to kill attacking beetles before

they penetrate to the phloem and trigger a mass attack. This study extends our knowledge about the

persistence and efficacy of a known insecticide (carbaryl) as a preventative treatment and establishes

the efficacy of additional insecticides (cyfluthrin and esfenvalerate). Pest and land managers and

private property owners should take the results of this and similar experiments and combine them

with information on the pesticide labels, application and handling, safety, environmental

considerations, and cost information to make informed decisions regarding protection of individual

lodgepole or ponderosa pines from attack by mountain pine beetles or western pine beetles.

Retrieval Terms: bark beetles, insecticides, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, tree protection

iv
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998. 1

Introduction

Bark beetles are responsible for extensive mortality among many conifers throughout NorthAmerica. Two species, the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) and the

western pine beetle (D. brevicomis LeConte), are of particular interest because they occur in cyclical

outbreaks or epidemics and cause extensive mortality in most locations where they occur.

The mountain pine beetle is a native insect that causes extensive mortality throughout the lodgepole

(Pinus contorta Dougl.) ecosystem of the western United States and Canada (Amman and others 1977,

McGregor and Cole 1985, Safranyik and others 1974). Although lodgepole pine appears to be the

preferred host of mountain pine beetle, this insect can attack at least 13 species of pine (Furniss and

Carolin 1977, Wood 1963). This beetle attacks and kills proportionately more large-diameter than

small-diameter trees and, in each year of an infestation, kills the largest-diameter trees of those remaining

(Amman and Cole 1983, Amman and others 1985, Cole and Amman 1969). Infestations generally

subside as suitable host trees become depleted (Amman 1977).

During epidemics, millions of trees are killed, accounting for the loss of billions of board feet of

timber (Cole and Amman 1980) and degradation of wildlife habitat (Lyon 1976, Shea and McGregor

1987, Wellner 1978). A recent outbreak of the mountain pine beetle in the western United States

covered 4.5 million acres of lodgepole pine type, and infestations severely affected such resource values

as timber, watershed, wildlife, range, and recreation (Loomis and others 1985). In addition to extensive

stand mortality, the mountain pine beetle can have devastating effects on other forest amenities, such

as campgrounds, picnic areas, visitor centers, and permanent and summer home sites.

The western pine beetle is the most serious insect pest of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa

Dougl. ex Laws.) in the western United States (Stark and Dahlsten 1970). Severe droughts, such as

those in California from 1975 to 1977 and from 1988 to 1993, are accompanied by excessive mortality

of ponderosa pines in managed and unmanaged stands as a result of attacks by several bark beetle

species, especially the western pine beetle. As in the case with the mountain pine beetle, mortality of

high-value trees located in residential and recreational areas or administrative sites can occur as a

result of stress associated with drought, overcrowding, soil compaction, or injury due to construction,

logging activity, fire, or vandalism (Shea and McGregor 1987).

Regardless of landowner objectives, tree losses generally have a catastrophic impact, except in

firewood production. For example, the value of a mountain home may be severely reduced by mortality

of shade and ornamental trees (McGregor and Cole 1985). Mortality of trees located in campgrounds

or other administrative sites can have long-range management effects. The value of these individual

trees, the cost of removal, and the loss of esthetic values in campgrounds or in private residences may

justify protecting individual trees until the main thrust of an infestation subsides or the conditions

causing the stress abate. This situation emphasizes the need for assuring that effective insecticides are

available for individual tree protection.

Past attempts to suppress epidemics of mountain pine beetle with chemical insecticides have been

unsuccessful (Klein 1978). Recent research indicates that land managers have few options for direct

interventions to manage mountain pine beetle infestations on large or small tracts of land. At present,

the same situation exists for area-wide control of the western pine beetle. Mountain pine beetle and

western pine beetle can be prevented from successfully attacking individual trees by the application of

chemical insecticides to the bole of the tree.

Several formulations of carbaryl have been evaluated and found effective for protection of

individual trees from attack by bark beetles. The effectiveness and residual life of 1 percent and 2

percent suspensions of carbaryl (in the Sevimol1 formulation) for preventing successful attack of

ponderosa pine by western pine beetle have been demonstrated (Hall and others 1982, Haverty and

others 1985). The effectiveness and residual life of a 2 percent suspension of the same formulation of

carbaryl was confirmed for protecting lodgepole pine from attack by mountain pine beetle (Gibson

and Bennet 1985). These and other studies (McCambridge 1982, Smith and others 1977) led to

registration of 2 percent Sevimol as a preventative spray.

Evaluation of an additional formulation of carbaryl revealed that both Sevimol and Sevin XLR

formulations provided excellent protection (≥90 percent survival) of lodgepole pine from mountain

pine beetle for one season at 0.5 percent, one fourth the registered rate (Shea and McGregor 1987).

Furthermore, a 1 percent suspension of either formulation provided very good protection (≥80 percent

survival) for two seasons, while 2 percent provided excellent protection (≥90 percent survival) for two

seasons. A 2 percent carbaryl formulation (Sevimol) was empirically shown to provide excellent

1 The use of trade or firm names in

this publication is for reader information and does not imply

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product

or service.
2 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998.

protection of lodgepole pine from attack by mountain pine beetle in high elevations (ca. 3,000 m) in

the Rocky Mountains of Colorado (Page and others 1985).

In 1989, only two formulations of carbaryl, Sevin SL and Sevimol, lindane, and injected metasystoxR were registered for protection of lodgepole pines from the mountain pine beetle and ponderosa pine

from the western pine beetle. Lindane remains a controversial insecticide (Koerber 1976) and is not likely

to be used on federally managed Forest Service property. Metasystox-R has been shown to be ineffective

in protecting ponderosa pine from western pine beetle (Haverty and others 1997). If the registration for

carbaryl were suspended or canceled, or if the manufacturer decided to no longer support registration for

this use, the public would be without effective, registered insecticides for tree protection.

Given the uncertain future availability of any commercial insecticide, we felt it important to

develop alternative insecticides for this important use in forestry. This study was performed to evaluate

two synthetic pyrethroid insecticides for protection of individual pines from attack by either the

mountain pine beetle or the western pine beetle. Pyrethroid insecticides offer an excellent alternative

to lindane and carbaryl. They cause few environmental disruptions, except for their high toxicity to

cold-blooded vertebrates and aquatic invertebrates. Generally, pyrethroids have low toxicity to

mammals and require very small quantities to control insects. We selected esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin

to test for efficacy against mountain pine beetle and western pine beetle to protect individual, highvalue lodgepole or ponderosa pines because the former was registered for use in forestry and the latter

had potential for control of pests of ornamentals.

There are no published reports of efficacy of either of these insecticides against pine bark beetles.

Esfenvalerate (Asana XL Insecticide) is the S-isomer of fenvalerate (Pydrin); fenvalerate has been shown in

laboratory and field tests to be about as toxic as permethrin to another scolytid, the mountain pine cone

beetle (Conophthorus ponderosae Hopkins) (Haverty and Wood 1981, Shea and others 1984b). In

laboratory and cut-bolt bioassays, permethrin also has been shown to be more toxic than lindane to the

western pine beetle and the southern pine beetle (D. frontalis Zimmerman) (Hastings and Jones 1976,

Hastings and others 1981, Smith 1982). Three rates of permethrin were evaluated for protection of ponderosa

pine from western pine beetle; 0.2 percent and 0.4 percent provided excellent protection for at least one

summer (about 4 months), but would not last through the second field season (about 15 months) (Shea and

others 1984a). On the basis of comparative toxicities against other Coleoptera, especially scolytids, and the

greater residual life of esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, we expected these insecticides to provide protection

from mountain pine beetle and western pine beetle for the full summer season.

The objective of this study was to define the effective and ineffective concentrations of esfenvalerate

and cyfluthrin for use in protection of high-value pines from attack by either mountain pine beetle or

western pine beetle. Esfenvalerate (Asana XL Insecticide) is currently registered for several uses in

forestry. Cyfluthrin (Tempo 20WP Insecticide) is registered for control of pests of ornamentals and

structures/dwellings. If registered, these additional treatments will provide forest pest control specialists,

land managers, and private citizens with cost-effective and reasonably safe alternatives to lindane or

carbaryl. In addition, we evaluated the registered rate of a previously untested formulation of carbaryl,

Sevin SL, and reassessed the efficacy of Sevimol. Sevimol was included as a “positive control.”

Methods

Three separate evaluations of esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin were conducted, in succession, in Montana

(1989), Idaho (1989), and California (1990). In the Montana and Idaho tests, we evaluated the Sevin SL

formulation of carbaryl. In the California test we adjusted the concentrations used previously and the

number of treatments.

In Montana, the test was conducted on the Jefferson Ranger District of the Deerlodge National

Forest located in western Montana. In Idaho, the test was conducted on the Boise Basin Experimental

Forest of the Boise National Forest and adjacent property managed by the Idaho Department of Lands,

and by Boise Cascade Corporation. In California, the test was conducted on the western slope of the

Sierra Nevada between 750 and 1,700 m elevation on the Placerville and Amador Ranger Districts of

the Eldorado National Forest in central California.

Insecticide Treatments

In the Montana test there were 10 treatments: esfenvalerate at 0.006, 0.012, and 0.025 percent (Asana XL

Insecticide, E.I. du Pont du Nemours & Co.); cyfluthrin at 0.025, 0.05, and 0.1 percent (Tempo 20WP

Ornamental Insecticide, Mobay Corp.); carbaryl at 1 percent (for both the Sevimol and Sevin SL
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998. 3

formulations, Union Carbide Corp.); and two separate unsprayed controls, one to assess beetle pressure

immediately after treatment and one to assess beetle pressure one year later (table 1).

In the Idaho test there were 13 treatments. We used the same concentrations and formulations of

esfenvalerate (0.006, 0.012, and 0.025 percent Asana XL) and cyfluthrin (0.025, 0.05, and 0.1 percent

Tempo 20WP) as we used in Montana. We added one concentration of the emulsifiable concentrate

formulation of cyfluthrin (0.1 percent Tempo 2), and increased the concentration of Sevimol and Sevin SL

to 2 percent. We established a separate unsprayed control for two baitings in each of 2 years (table 1).

In the California test there were eight treatments. We eliminated the two lower concentrations

and added one higher concentration of esfenvalerate; the two concentrations that we used were 0.025

percent and 0.05 percent (Asana XL). We eliminated the two higher concentrations of cyfluthrin and

added two lower concentrations; the concentrations tested in California were 0.0028, 0.008, and 0.025

percent (Tempo 20WP). No carbaryl or “positive control” was included in the California test (table 1).

There was a separate unsprayed control for two pheromone baitings in 1990 and one baiting in 1991.

All insecticides were formulated in water buffered to pH 5. In Montana, sprays were applied to

lodgepole pines during the second week of June 1989, about 2 to 3 weeks before flight of the mountain

pine beetle. In Idaho, treatments were applied June 19 to 26, 1989, and in California from May 8 to 15,

1990, about 2 to 3 weeks before the second flight of the western pine beetle. Insecticides were applied with

a truck-mounted or trailer-mounted FMC Bean hydraulic sprayer (≈300 psi), which allowed us to treat

the entire bole of each tree until runoff to a height of at least 10 m. This application technique has been

shown to result in at least 80 percent of the insecticide being applied to the bole of the tree (Haverty and

others 1983). About 8 to 15 liters of formulated material were required per tree. All treatments were

applied between 0600 and ca. 1100 when winds were minimal.

Experimental Design and Treatment Evaluation

In Montana, test trees were located in an area with heavy mountain pine beetle activity and isolated

from other sample trees by at least 100 m. This was done to ensure that there would be a sufficient

beetle population in the vicinity of each tree to rigorously test the effectiveness of treatments. Trees

selected were 20 to 50 cm dbh (diameter breast height), 80 to 110 years old, and within 75 m of an

access road to facilitate treatment.

In Idaho and California, sample trees were ponderosa pine, 28 to 52 cm dbh. Trees were also

selected so that they were within 75 m of an access road to facilitate treatment. The spacing between

Table 1—Insecticide treatments evaluated for protection of lodgepole pine from attack by the mountain pine beetle in Montana an Table 1 d

protection of ponderosa pine from attack by the western pine beetle in Idaho and California.

Treatment Montana Idaho California

Esfenvalerate (Asana XL)

0.006 pct X X

0.012 pct X X

0.025 pct X X X

0.05 pct X

Cyfluthrin (Tempo 20WP)

0.0028 pct X

0.008 pct X

0.025 pct X X X

0.05 pct X X

0.1 pct X X

Cyfluthrin (Tempo 2)

0.1 pct X

Carbaryl (Sevimol)

1 pct X

2 pct X

Carbaryl (Sevin SL)

1 pct X

2 pct X

Untreated controls1 2 43

1

The number of groups of 30 to 35 trees that served as the untreated treatment for each baiting period.
4 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998.

trees, no less than 400 m, was selected to ensure that a sufficient number of western pine beetles would

be in the vicinity of each tree to rigorously test the efficacy of the treatments (Hall and others 1982,

Haverty and others 1985, Shea and others 1984a).

To test the effectiveness of the insecticide treatments against mountain pine beetle, we enhanced the

attack densities by attaching mountain pine beetle aggregation pheromone (trans-verbenol, frontalin;

MPB Tree Bait; PHEROTECH, Inc.) on the bole of each tree, 2 m above the ground. Baits were left on the

trees for the entire summer and were removed at the time of the first treatment evaluation. To test the

effectiveness of the insecticides against western pine beetle in Idaho, all test trees were baited with western pine

beetle aggregation pheromone (exo-brevicomin, frontalin, and myrcene; WPB Tree Bait; PHEROTECH, Inc.)

for 2 weeks in July and for 4 weeks in September 1989, and the surviving treated trees and check trees were

baited again, for the same length of time, in July and September 1990. In California, trees were baited with

WPB Tree Bait in May and September 1990; the surviving treated trees and untreated check trees were

baited again in July 1991. Baits remained on the trees for 4 weeks in May and for only one week in September.

Untreated check trees were monitored every week. If ≥60 percent of these trees showed signs of successful

attack, i.e. boring dust in bark crevices, the pheromone baits were removed from all trees.

Each insecticide treatment was applied to 30 to 35 randomly assigned pine trees; a similar number of

trees was used in each of the untreated checks. During the course of the experiment, several trees were lost

because of road building, wood cutting, logging, fire, or top-killing by Ips (Hall and others 1982, Haverty

and others 1985, Shea and McGregor 1987, Shea and others 1984a). These trees were deleted from the

analysis; our goal was to have at least 30 trees/treatment at the end of the experiment. Thus, sample sizes

were not always equal among all treatments.

The only criterion used to determine the effectiveness of the insecticide treatment was whether

individual trees succumbed to attack by mountain pine beetle or western pine beetle (Hall and others 1982,

Haverty and others 1985, Shea and McGregor 1987, Shea and others 1984a). Tree mortality was assessed in

August 1989 (ID), September 1989 (MT), October 1989 (ID), August 1990 (MT & ID), September 1990

(CA), October 1990 (ID), January 1991 (CA), and November 1991 (CA). The presence of mountain pine

beetle galleries and pitch tubes was verified in each lodgepole pine tree for it to be considered successfully

attacked. The period between pheromone removal and mortality assessment was sufficient for ponderosa

pines to “fade,” an irreversible symptom of pending mortality. Presence of western pine beetle galleries was

verified in each tree counted as dead or dying.

Treatments were considered to have sufficient beetle pressure if at least 60 percent of the untreated

control trees died after attack by beetles. Insecticide treatments were considered efficacious if fewer

Table 2—Effectiveness of two pyrethroid insecticides, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, and two formulations of carbaryl for preven Table 2 ting

lodgepole pine mortality resulting from attack by mountain pine beetle in Montana immediately after treatment.1

No attack2 Pitch out and strip attack3,4 Dead5

______________________ __________________________________________ ______________________________

Treatment6 N7 n pct n pct n pct

Esfenvalerate

0.006 pct 35 6 17.1 7 20.0 22 62.9

0.012 pct 35 15 42.9 9 25.7 11 31.4

0.025 pct 35 28 80.0 5 14.3 2 5.7

Cyfluthrin

0.025 pct 30 30 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

0.05 pct 35 35 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

0.1 pct 31 31 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Carbaryl

1.0 pct Sevimol 35 34 97.1 1 2.9 0 0.0

1.0 pct Sevin SL 35 34 97.1 1 2.9 0 0.0

Untreated 35 4 11.4 8 22.8 23 65.7

1 Trees were treated during the period of June 12 to 14, 1989. The baits were on the trees from June 14, 1989, through the beetle

flight period (early September 1989). Mortality was assessed on August or September 5 to 7, 1989.

2 Trees with no evidence of attack by mountain pine beetle.

3

 Trees with evidence of attack by mountain pine beetle, but no beetles were successful. All invading adults were pitched out.

4

 A portion of the tree was inadequately treated, and there was sccessful attack along a strip of bark that was apparently not

protected by the insecticide.

5

 Trees that were successfully attacked and showed evidence of infestation by mountain pine beetle parent adults.

6

 Esfenvalerate in Asana XL and cyfluthrin in Tempo 20WP formulations.

7

 Number of trees in the sample.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998. 5

than seven treated trees died as a result of bark beetle attack. These criteria were established on the basis

of a sample size of 30 to 35 trees/treatment and the test of the null hypothesis, H0:S (survival ≥90

percent). These parameters provide a conservative binomial test (α = 0.05) to reject H0 when more than

six trees die. The power of this test, that is, the probability of having made the correct decision in

rejecting H0, is 0.84 when the true protection rate is 70 percent. On the basis of consideration of the

above error rate, we will fail to reject the null hypothesis (90 percent survival) for any treatment in

which no more than six out of 30 trees die as a result of bark beetle attack (Shea and others 1984a).

Results and Discussion

Montana: Mountain Pine Beetle vs. Lodgepole Pine

Treated trees were evaluated over a 2-year period. Treatments were challenged during each of the two

mountain pine beetle flight periods after treatment. Beetle pressure was sufficient to adequately

challenge the treatments both years; 65.7 percent of the untreated trees succumbed to attack by the

beetles responding to the aggregation pheromone during the first season (table 2), and 70.6 percent

were successfully attacked during the second season (table 3).

The two lower concentrations of esfenvalerate (0.006 percent and 0.012 percent) were not judged

to be effective in protecting lodgepole pine from mountain pine beetle attack. After the first baiting,

22 and 11 trees, respectively, were successfully attacked, exceeding the threshold of six dead trees for a

successful treatment. In contrast, only two of the trees treated with the 0.025 percent treatment were

successfully attacked by mountain pine beetles (table 2). This treatment is considered effective for

protecting lodgepole pines for the season immediately after treatment.

All three of the cyfluthrin and both of the carbaryl treatments were highly effective in protecting

lodgepole pines from mountain pine beetle attack. None of the trees in these treatments was

successfully attacked when challenged shortly after treatment (table 2).

The one remaining esfenvalerate treatment (0.025 percent) did not provide adequate protection

for the second summer. Eighteen of the remaining 30 trees were successfully attacked when baited 12

months after insecticide application (table 3). This significantly exceeds the allowable threshold of six

dead trees to meet the criterion of 90 percent protection.

All of the cyfluthrin and both of the carbaryl treatments remained effective for a second season. No

more than three trees in these treatments succumbed to mountain pine beetle attack (table 3). There was,

Table 3—Effectiveness of two pyrethroid insecticides, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, and two formulations of carbaryl for Table 3

preventing mortality of lodgepole pine resulting from attack by mountain pine beetle in Montana one year after

treatment.1

No attack2 Pitch out and strip attack3,4 Dead5

______________________ __________________________________________ ______________________________

Treatment6 N7 n pct n pct n pct

Esfenvalerate

0.025 pct 30 1 3.3 11 36.6 18 60.0

Cyfluthrin

0.025 pct 25 10 40.0 12 48.0 3 12.0

0.05 pct 30 19 63.3 11 36.7 0 0.0

0.1 pct 27 27 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Carbaryl

1 pct Sevimol 31 31 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

1 pct Sevin SL 30 17 56.7 11 36.7 2 6.7

Untreated 34 1 2.9 9 26.5 24 70.6

1 Trees were treated during the period of June 12 to 14, 1989. The baits were on the trees in early June and were not removed

until mortality was assessed in early September 1990.

2 Trees with no evidence of attack by mountain pine beetle.

3 Trees with evidence of attack by mountain pine beetle, but no beetles were successful. All invading adults were pitched out.

4 A portion of the tree was inadequately treated, and there was successful attack along a strip of bark that was apparently not

protected by the insecticide.

5 Trees that were successfully attacked and showed evidence of infestation by mountain pine beetle parent adults.

6 Esfenvalerate in Asana XL and cyfluthrin in Tempo 20WP formulations.

7 Number of trees in the sample, excluding trees that were successfully attacked in 1989, missing (cut), or not found in 1990.
6 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998.

however, a tendency to display more “pitch outs” and “strip attacks” for the two lower concentrations of

cyfluthrin and the Sevin SL formulation of carbaryl during the second season after treatment (table 3).

This suggests that these treatments are on the verge of failure and would likely prove ineffective for a third

season. This was not tested and is only speculation at this point.

All of the treatments received a significant challenge by mountain pine beetle over two summers,

because mortality in the untreated controls exceeded the predetermined threshold of 60 percent mortality.

The two lowest concentrations of esfenvalerate (0.006 percent and 0.012 percent) provided no protection;

the highest concentration (0.25 percent) protected trees for the season immediately after treatment, but

not for the second summer. Probably one or two higher concentrations (i.e., 0.05 percent and/or 0.1

percent) should be tested in the future to determine whether one treatment of this insecticide can provide

two (or more) seasons of protection of lodgepole pine from mountain pine beetle attack.

All concentrations of cyfluthrin proved effective in protecting lodgepole pine from mountain pine

beetle for two summers or two full flight seasons. After the second year, there were indications of

weakening by the two lowest concentrations during the second summer. We still lack information on

the concentration that does not protect lodgepole pine for either one or two seasons. Perhaps future

evaluations should include the same concentrations as were tested for esfenvalerate to clearly delimit

the break between effective and ineffective treatments.

The evaluation of 1 percent carbaryl corroborates the earlier findings (Page and others 1985, Shea

and McGregor 1987) that this treatment provides protection of lodgepole pine from mountain pine

beetle attack for two full seasons. The previously untested formulation of carbaryl, Sevin SL, provided

protection similar to that of the Sevimol formulation.

Idaho: Western Pine Beetle vs. Ponderosa Pine

Treated trees were evaluated over a 2-year period. Trees were challenged with western pine beetle

aggregation pheromones twice during the first year (immediately after treatment and 3 months after

treatment) and twice during the second year (12 months after treatment and 15 months after

treatment). Beetle pressure was sufficient to adequately challenge treatments each time. Mortality of

the untreated control trees ranged from 69.4 percent to 80.6 percent (tables 4-7), well above our

threshold requirement of 60 percent.

All treatments appeared to be effective in protecting ponderosa pine from western pine

beetles when challenged immediately after insecticide application. Only two trees treated with

0.006 percent esfenvalerate died; no trees in the other treatments succumbed right after treatment

(table 4). When challenged at the end of the first summer, 3 months after treatment, additional

trees in the 0.006 percent esfenvalerate treatment were killed by western pine beetle (table 5).

Tree mortality exceeded the threshold of 6, and thus the 0.006 percent esfenvalerate treatment

should be considered ineffective for protecting ponderosa pine from western pine beetle for a full

summer. The other esfenvalerate treatments appeared to be effective for a full summer.

All four of the cyfluthrin and both of the carbaryl treatments appeared to be effective in protecting

ponderosa pine from western pine beetles for 3 months. Five trees in the 0.025 percent cyfluthrin

treatment and four trees in the 2 percent Sevimol treatment died (table 5). Both of these treatments were

below the threshold of six dead trees and appeared to remain effective 3 months after treatment. The

other cyfluthrin treatments and the other carbaryl treatment suffered minimal or no mortality (table 5).

One year after treatment, all of the esfenvalerate treatments experienced mortality in excess of

the threshold. Sixteen trees in the 0.006 percent treatment, seven in the 0.012 percent treatment, and

10 in the 0.025 percent treatment died when challenged one year after insecticide application (table 6).

Thus, we would not expect any of the levels of esfenvalerate that we tested to last over a winter and

protect ponderosa pines from western pine beetle attack.

The cyfluthrin treatments also showed signs of failure one year after application. Ten trees in the

0.025 percent cyfluthrin treatment, five trees in the 0.05 percent treatment, and two each in the 0.1

percent cyfluthrin treatments died when challenged one year after insecticide application (table 6).

Thus we consider the lowest cyfluthrin concentration ineffective in protecting ponderosa pine beyond

the summer of application. The other concentrations remained effective.

Mortality in the carbaryl treatments remained below the efficacy threshold. Only four trees in the

2 percent Sevimol treatment and two trees in the 2 percent Sevin SL treatment died when challenged

one year after treatment (table 6). These carbaryl treatments appeared to remain effective one year

after application.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998. 7

Table 4—Effectiveness of two pyrethroid insecticides, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, and two formulations of carbaryl for preven Table 4 ting

ponderosa pine mortality resulting from attack by western pine beetle in Idaho immediately after treatment.1

No attack2 Dead3

____________________________________ _______________________________

Treatment4 N5 n pct n pct

Esfenvalerate

0.006 pct 31 29 93.5 2 6.5

0.012 pct 28 28 100.0 0 0.0

0.025 pct 31 31 100.0 0 0.0

Cyfluthrin

0.025 pct 30 30 100.0 0 0.0

0.05 pct 30 30 100.0 0 0.0

0.1 pct 30 30 100.0 0 0.0

0.1 pct (EC) 28 28 100.0 0 0.0

Carbaryl

2 pct Sevimol 32 32 100.0 0 0.0

2 pct Sevin SL 29 29 100.0 0 0.0

Untreated 31 6 19.4 25 80.6

1 Trees were treated during the period of June 19 to 26, 1989. The baits were on the trees from June 28, 1989, to July 12, 1989.

Mortality was assessed from October 3 to 5, 1989.

2 Trees with no evidence of attack by western pine beetle.

3 Trees that were successfully attacked and showed evidence of infestation by western pine beetle parent adults.

4 Esfenvalerate in Asana XL and cyfluthrin in Tempo 20WP with one level of Tempo 2, the emulsifiable concentrate (EC)

formulation.

5

 Number of trees in the sample.

Table 5—Effectiveness of two pyrethroid insecticides, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, and two formulations of carbaryl for preven Table 5 ting

ponderosa pine mortality resulting from attack by western pine beetle in Idaho 4 months after treatment.1

No attack2 Dead3

____________________________________ _______________________________

Treatment4 N5 n pct n pct

Esfenvalerate

0.006 pct 31 24 77.4 7 22.6

0.012 pct 28 26 92.9 2 7.1

0.025 pct 31 29 93.5 2 6.5

Cyfluthrin

0.025 pct 30 25 83.3 5 16.7

0.05 pct 30 29 96.7 1 3.3

0.1 pct 30 30 100.0 0 0.0

0.1 pct (EC) 28 28 100.0 0 0.0

Carbaryl

2 pct Sevimol 32 28 87.5 4 12.5

2 pct Sevin SL 29 29 100.0 0 0.0

Untreated 32 8 25.0 24 75.0

1 Trees were treated during the period of June 19 to 26, 1989. The baits were on the trees from September 5, 1989, to October

3, 1989. Mortality was assessed from July 9 to 11, 1990.

2 Trees with no evidence of attack by western pine beetle.

3 Cumulative number of trees that were successfully attacked and showed evidence of infestation by western pine beetle parent

adults.

4 Esfenvalerate in Asana XL and cyfluthrin in Tempo 20WP with one level of Tempo 2, the emulsifiable concentrate (EC)

formulation.

5 Number of trees in sample.

Fifteen months after application, all esfenvalerate treatments were clearly ineffective; mortality

levels in the two lowest concentrations, 61.3 percent and 64.3 percent for the 0.006 percent and

0.012 percent concentrations, respectively, approached the mortality, 69.4 percent, of the untreated

control (table 7). The 0.1 percent cyfluthrin treatments remained effective with only four and five

trees dying in each of them, whereas 12 trees in the 0.025 percent treatment and seven trees in the

0.05 percent treatment succumbed (table 7), exceeding the threshold level of efficacy. One of the
8 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998.

Table 6—Effectiveness of two pyrethroid insecticides, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, and two formulations of carbaryl for preven Table 6 ting

ponderosa pine mortality resulting from attack by western pine beetle in Idaho one year after treatment.1

No attack2 Dead3

____________________________________ _______________________________

Treatment4 N5 n pct n pct

Esfenvalerate

0.006 pct 31 15 48.4 16 51.6

0.012 pct 28 21 75.0 7 25.0

0.025 pct 31 21 67.7 10 32.3

Cyfluthrin

0.025 pct 30 20 66.7 10 33.3

0.05 pct 30 25 83.3 5 16.7

0.1 pct 30 28 93.3 2 6.7

0.1 pct (EC) 28 26 92.9 2 7.1

Carbaryl

2 pct Sevimol 32 28 87.5 4 12.5

2 pct Sevin SL 29 27 93.1 2 6.9

Untreated 31 9 29.0 22 71.0

1 Trees were treated during the period of June 19 to 26, 1989. The baits were on the trees from June 25, 1990, to July 9,

1990. Mortality was assessed from October 2 to 4, 1990.

2 Trees with no evidence of attack by western pine beetle.

3 Cumulative number of trees that were successfully attacked and showed evidence of infestation by western pine beetle

parent adults.

4 Esfenvalerate in Asana XL and cyfluthrin in Tempo 20WP with one level of Tempo 2, the emulsifiable concentrate (EC)

formulation.

5 Number of trees in the sample.

Table 7—Effectiveness of two pyrethroid insecticides, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, and two formulations of carbaryl for preven Table 7 ting

ponderosa pine mortality resulting from attack by western pine beetle in Idaho 15 months after treatment.1

No attack2 Dead3

____________________________________ _______________________________

Treatment4 N5 n pct n pct

Esfenvalerate

0.006 pct 31 12 38.7 19 61.3

0.012 pct 28 10 35.7 18 64.3

0.025 pct 31 18 58.1 13 41.9

Cyfluthrin

0.025 pct 30 18 60.0 12 40.0

0.05 pct 30 23 76.7 7 23.3

0.1 pct 30 26 86.7 4 13.3

0.1 pct (EC) 28 23 82.1 5 17.9

Carbaryl

2 pct Sevimol 32 25 78.1 7 21.9

2 pct Sevin SL 29 25 86.2 4 13.8

Untreated 36 11 30.6 25 69.4

1 Trees were treated during the period of June 19 to 26, 1989. The baits were on the trees from September 4 to 6, 1990. Mortality

was assessed from July 8 to 10, 1991.

2 Trees with no evidence of attack by western pine beetle.

3 Cumulative number of trees that were successfully attacked and showed evidence of infestation by western pine beetle parent adults. 4 Esfenvalerate in Asana XL and cyfluthrin in Tempo 20WP with one level of Tempo 2, the emulsifiable concentrate (EC)

formulation.

5 Number of trees in the sample.

carbaryl treatments, 2 percent Sevimol exceeded the threshold with seven trees dying (table 7). The

2 percent Sevin SL treatment, however, appeared to remain effective; only four trees in this

treatment died (table 7).

All of the treatments received a significant challenge by western pine beetle over the two summers,

because mortality in the untreated controls exceeded the predetermined threshold of 60 percent
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998. 9

mortality. Only the lowest concentration of esfenvalerate, 0.006 percent, failed to provide sufficient

protection for the first summer. None of the esfenvalerate treatments could be expected to provide

protection for two full summers; they did not protect lodgepole pine from mountain pine beetle in

Montana for two summers either (tables 3 and 7). One or two higher concentrations of esfenvalerate

(i.e., 0.05 percent and/or 0.1 percent) should be tested in the future to determine whether one

treatment of this insecticide can provide protection of ponderosa pine from western pine beetle attack

for two seasons.

All concentrations of cyfluthrin proved effective in protecting ponderosa pine from western pine

beetle throughout the first summer. However, the lower concentrations did not prove efficacious for

the second summer in contrast to their performance with lodgepole pine and mountain pine beetles in

Montana (tables 3 and 7).

Both carbaryl treatments were effective in protecting ponderosa pines during the first summer

after treatment and even for the first 12 months. However, only the 2 percent Sevin SL treatment

provided what appeared to be adequate protection for the full second summer. In an earlier test of the

longevity of carbaryl on ponderosa pine, neither a 2 percent Sevimol nor a 2 percent Sevin XLR

treatment provided adequate protection for 9 or 12 months, respectively (Haverty and others 1985).

California: Western Pine Beetle vs. Ponderosa Pine

Because of the results from our tests in Montana and Idaho, we decided to increase the concentrations

of esfenvalerate and decrease the concentrations of cyfluthrin for our test in California. We did this for

two reasons. First, when we field-test an insecticide we think it is important to elucidate a range of

concentrations, dosages, or application rates that are effective and ineffective. This allows us to

determine the level at which the treatment is no longer effective or allows us to recommend a repeated

application when a low rate is effective for only a short period of time. In the Montana and Idaho tests,

all of the esfenvalerate treatments were judged ineffective after one year, and none of the cyfluthrin

treatments was ineffective after the first summer. Second, in California, the beetle flight season or

summer in ponderosa pine sites (ranging from ca. 200 to 3,000 m elevation) in the central Sierra

Nevada of California is longer than it is in either Idaho or Montana, and insecticides are more likely to

degrade faster in California. For this reason, we also thought it was necessary to increase the

concentrations of esfenvalerate.

Treated trees were evaluated over a 14-month period. Immediately after the treatments were

applied, 76.7 percent of the untreated trees were either dead or showed symptoms of impending death

(table 8). After the fall baiting, 4 months after treatment application, only 30.0 percent of the untreated

trees were mortally attacked (table 9). Fourteen months after treatment, 63.6 percent of the untreated

trees succumbed to western pine beetle attack (table 10). Our experience with western pine beetle in

California is that the number of western pine beetles in flight is higher during the summer than during

the fall (P.J. Shea, unpublished data).2 Nonetheless, beetle pressure was very high and provided a

worse-case test for the treatments during the first and third baiting period. After the second baiting

period, 12 of the 21 trees that were alive had suffered successful beetle attacks, but there was no

apparent change in color of the foliage.

Both esfenvalerate treatments appeared to be effective immediately after treatment; one tree in

each treatment succumbed during the first baiting (table 8). All of the cyfluthrin treatments proved to

be effective. Three trees in the lowest concentration sustained mortal wounds when challenged

immediately after treatment application, and 7 of the 27 live trees sustained successful western pine

beetle attacks (table 8). The middle concentration of cyfluthrin was also effective, suffering two dead

trees immediately after treatment. The highest rate of cyfluthrin was unaffected by western pine

beetles when challenged promptly after treatment.

Four months after treatment, both of the esfenvalerate treatments appeared to remain effective

with only four trees each dying from western pine beetle attack (table 9). In contrast, all of the

cyfluthrin treatments suffered mortality in excess of the threshold of six trees per treatment, even

though the beetle pressure was not as great as it was immediately after treatment (table 9).

Fourteen months after treatment, all esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin treatments appeared to be

ineffective. Tree mortality in the esfenvalerate treatments was 43.3 percent and 24.1 percent, whereas

mortality for the cyfluthrin treatments ranged from 33.3 percent to 63.3 percent. Clearly, none of the

treatments tested in California is likely to provide protection for a second season; only the two

esfenvalerate treatments can provide adequate protection for a full summer.

2 Unpublished data on file, Pacific

Southwest Research Station, Davis,

CA.
10 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998.

Table 9—Effectiveness of two pyrethroid insecticides, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, for preventing ponderosa pine mortality res Table 9 ulting

from attack by western pine beetle in California 4 months after treatment.1

Alive 2 Dead3

____________________________________ _______________________________

Treatment4 N5 n pct n pct

Esfenvalerate

0.025 pct 30 26 86.7 4 13.3

0.05 pct 30 26 86.7 4 13.3

Cyfluthrin

0.0028 pct 30 20 66.7 10 33.3

0.008 pct 30 23 76.7 7 23.3

0.025 pct 30 23 76.7 7 23.3

Untreated # 2 30 21 70.0 9 30.0

1 Trees were treated during the period of May 8 to 15, 1990. The baits were on the trees from September 4 to 11, 1990. Mortality

was assessed on January 10, 1991.

2 Trees with no evidence of significant attack by western pine beetle. Less than 10 “white” pitch tubes, no boring dust, and foliage

was still green. Also trees under attack by western pine beetle with numerous pitch tubes (>10) with boring dust present in

bark crevices, but no fading of foliage evident. These latter trees will likely survive.

3 Trees with numerous pitch tubes (>50) and abundant boring dust in the bark crevices; foliage beginning to fade from green

to yellow. Also trees that were successfully attacked with numerous pitch tubes, with abundant boring dust, and foliage had

faded over the entire crown, to yellow or straw color.

4 Esfenvalerate in the Asana XL and cyfluthrin in the Tempo 20WP formulations.

5 Number of trees in the sample.

Table 8—Effectiveness of two pyrethroid insecticides, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, for preventing ponderosa pine mortality res Table 8 ulting

from attack by western pine beetle in California immediately after treatment.1

Alive 2 Dead3

____________________________________ _______________________________

Treatment4 N5 n pct n pct

Esfenvalerate

0.025 pct 30 29 96.7 1 3.3

0.05 pct 30 29 96.7 1.

6 3.3

Cyfluthrin

0.0028 pct 30 27 90.0 3 10.0

0.008 pct 30 28 93.3 2 6.7

0.025 pct 30 30 100.0 0 0.0

Untreated #1 30 7 23.3 23 76.7

1 Trees were treated during the period of May 8 to 15, 1990. The baits were on the trees from May 11, 1990, to June 12, 1990.

Mortality was assessed on September 4 to 6, 1990.

2 Trees with no evidence of significant attack by western pine beetle. Less than 10 “white” pitch tubes, no boring dust, and

foliage was still green. Also trees under attack by western pine beetle with numerous pitch tubes (>10) with boring dust

present in bark crevices, but no fading of foliage evident. These latter trees will likely survive.

3 Trees with numerous pitch tubes (>50) and abundant boring dust in the bark crevices; foliage beginning to fade from green

to yellow. Also trees that were successfully attacked with numerous pitch tubes, with abundant boring dust, and foliage had

faded over the entire crown, to yellow or straw color.

4 Esfenvalerate in the Asana XL and cyfluthrin in the Tempo 20WP formulations.

5 Number of trees in the sample.

6 This tree was in the middle of a large group kill. We suspect that this tree was either not treated or was treated after it had

been under attack.

Conclusion

Periodically, severe outbreaks of various species of Dendroctonus occur throughout the western United

States, including Alaska (Hofacker and others 1991). These outbreaks can be very localized or

widespread. Area-wide droughts are often given as the stimulus for extensive outbreaks, whereas other

triggering events causing localized problems include winter blow-down, logging, fire-scorch, and

construction activity in forest environments. A long-term management strategy for bark beetles

includes thinning of overstocked stands to reduce susceptibility of the remaining trees to bark beetle

attacks. Obviously, large areas of overstocked forests cannot be thinned in response to the beginning of
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998. 11

Table 10—Effectiveness of two pyrethroid insecticides, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, for preventing ponderosa pine mortality re Table 10 sulting

from attack by western pine beetle in California 14 months after treatment.1

Alive 2 Dead3

____________________________________ _______________________________

Treatment4 N5 n pct n pct

Esfenvalerate

0.025 pct 30 17 56.7 13 43.3

0.05 pct 29 22 75.9 7 24.1

Cyfluthrin

0.0028 pct 30 12 40.0 18 60.0

0.008 pct 30 11 36.7 19 63.3

0.025 pct 30 20 66.7 10 33.3

Untreated #3 22 8 36.4 14 63.6

1 Trees were treated during the period of May 8 to 15, 1990.The baits were on the trees from late June to early July, 1991.

Mortality was assessed on November 12 to 19, 1991.

2 Trees with no evidence of significant attack by western pine beetle. Less than 10 “white” pitch tubes, no boring dust, and foliage

was still green. Also trees under attack by western pine beetle with numerous pitch tubes (>10) with boring dust present in

bark crevices, but no fading of foliage evident. These latter trees will likely survive.

3 Trees with numerous pitch tubes (>50) and abundant boring dust in the bark crevices; foliage beginning to fade from green

to yellow. Also trees that were successfully attacked with numerous pitch tubes, with abundant boring dust, and foliage had

faded over the entire crown, to yellow or straw color.

4 Esfenvalerate in the Asana XL and cyfluthrin in the Tempo 20WP formulations.

5 Number of trees in the sample.

a drought. Also, thinning is not always feasible or desirable depending upon management objectives,

i.e. watershed zones, wildlife areas, and lack of access. Another response to excessive bark beetlecaused mortality is salvage harvesting of dead trees. Salvage harvesting and thinning do not, however,

solve the problem of how to protect high-value trees from beetle attack. Such trees, those in parks,

campgrounds, visitor centers, rest and picnic areas, adjacent to private dwellings, and other

administrative sites, require short-term management tactics or strategies to prevent unwanted and

unnecessary mortality.

Presently, the only tactic available to pest managers to protect individual trees from lethal attack

by bark beetles is to spray the bole of targeted trees with insecticides to kill attacking beetles before

they penetrate to the phloem and trigger a mass attack. This study extends our knowledge about the

persistence and efficacy of a known insecticide (carbaryl) as a preventative treatment and establishes

the efficacy of additional insecticides (cyfluthrin and esfenvalerate). Lastly, pest and land managers

and private property owners should take the results of this and similar experiments (Gibson and

Bennett 1985, Hall and others 1982, Haverty and others 1985, McCambridge 1982, Shea and McGregor

1987, Shea and others 1984a, Smith and others 1977) and combine them with information on

application and handling (Haverty and others 1983), safety (Haverty and others 1983), environmental

considerations (Hoy and Shea 1981, Hastings and others 1998), and cost information (Gibson and

Bennett 1985, Shea and McGregor 1987) to make informed decisions regarding protection of individual

lodgepole or ponderosa pines from attack by mountain pine beetles or western pine beetles.

References

Amman, Gene D. 1977. The role of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine ecosystems; impact on succession. The role of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine ecosystems; impact on succession. In: Mattson, The role of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine ecosystems; impact on succession. 

William J., ed. Arthropods in forest ecosystems: Proceedings in life sciences. New York: Springer-Verlag; 3-18.

Amman, Gene D.; Cole, Walter E. 1983. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. Part II: Population

dynamics. dynamics. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-145. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. dynamics.

Department of Agriculture; 59 p.

Amman, Gene D.; McGregor, Mark D.; Cahill, Donn, B.; Klein, William H. 1977. Guidelines for reducing losses of lodgepole pine

to the mountain pine beetle in unmanaged stands in the Rocky Mountains. to the mountain pine beetle in unmanaged stands in the Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-36. Ogden, UT: Intermountain to the mountain pine beetle in unmanaged stands in the Rocky Mountains.

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 19 p.

Amman, Gene D.; McGregor, Mark D.; Dolf, Robert E., Jr. 1985. Mountain pine beetle. Mountain pine beetle. Forest insect and disease leaflet. Mountain pine beetle. 

Washington, DC: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 11 p.

Cole, Walter E.; Amman, Gene D. 1969. Mountain pine beetle infestations in relation to lodgepole pine diameters. Mountain pine beetle infestations in relation to lodgepole pine diameters. Res. Note Mountain pine beetle infestations in relation to lodgepole pine diameters.

INT-95. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 7 p.
12 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. 1998.

Cole, Walter E.; Amman, Gene D. 1980. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. Part I: source of an

infestation. infestation. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-84. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. infestation.

Department of Agriculture; 56 p.

Furniss, R.L.; Carolin, V.M. 1977. Western forest insects. Western forest insects. Misc. Publication No. 1339. Washington, DC: Forest Service, U.S. Western forest insects.

Department of Agriculture; 654 p.

Gibson, Kenneth E.; Bennett, Dayle D. 1985. Effectiveness of carbaryl in preventing attacks on lodgepole pine by the mountain

pine beetle. Journal of Forestry 83: 109-112. pine beetle

Hall, Richard W.; Shea, Patrick J.; Haverty, Michael I. 1982. Effectiveness of carbaryl and chlorpyriphos for protecting

ponderosa pine trees from attack by western pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). ponderosa pine trees from attack by western pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 75: ponderosa pine trees from attack by western pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).

504-508.

Hastings, Felton L.; Jones, Alice S. 1976. Contact toxicity of 29 insecticides to southern pine beetle adults. Contact toxicity of 29 insecticides to southern pine beetle adults. Res. Note SE-45. Contact toxicity of 29 insecticides to southern pine beetle adults.

Asheville, NC: Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 4 p.

Hastings, Felton L.; Jones, Alice S.; Franklin, C.K. 1981. Screening tests. In: Hastings, Felton L.; Coster, Jack E., eds. Field and

laboratory evaluations of insecticides for southern pine beetle control. laboratory evaluations of insecticides for southern pine beetle control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-21. Asheville, NC: Southeastern laboratory evaluations of insecticides for southern pine beetle control. 

Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1-2.

Hastings, Felton L.; Werner, Richard A.; Holsten, Edward H.; Shea, Patrick J. 1998. The persistence of carbaryl within boreal, The persistence of carbaryl within boreal,

temperate, and mediterranean ecosystems. temperate, and mediterranean ecosystems. Journal of Economic Entomology 91: 665-670. temperate, and mediterranean ecosystems. 

Haverty, Michael I.; Page, Marion; Shea, Patrick J.; Hoy, James B.; Hall, Richard W. 1983. Drift and worker exposure resulting

from two methods of applying insecticides to pine bark. from two methods of applying insecticides to pine bark. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Toxicology 30: 223-228. from two methods of applying insecticides to pine bark.

Haverty, Michael I.; Shea, Patrick J.; Hall, Richard W. 1985. Effective residual life of carbaryl for protecting ponderosa pine

from attack by the western pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). from attack by the western pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 78: 197-199. from attack by the western pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).

Haverty, Michael I.; Shea, Patrick J.; Wenz, John M. 1997. Metasystox-R, applied in Mauget injectors, ineffective in protecting

individual ponderosa pine from western pine beetles. individual ponderosa pine from western pine beetles. Res. Note PSW-420. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, individual ponderosa pine from western pine beetles. 

USDA Forest Service; 7 p.

Haverty, Michael I.; Wood, John R. 198l. Residual toxicity of eleven insecticide formulations to the mountain pine cone beetle, Residual toxicity of eleven insecticide formulations to the mountain pine cone beetle,

Conophthorus monticolae Hopkins. Hopkins. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society 16: 77-83. Hopkins.

Hofacker, Thomas H.; Loomis, Robert C.; Fowler, Richard F.; Turner, Lawrence; Webster, Keri. 1991. Forest insect and disease

conditions in the United States. 1990. conditions in the United States. 1990. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Forest Pest Management; 131 p. conditions in the United States. 1990.

Hoy, James B.; Shea, Patrick J. 1981. Effects of lindane, chlorpyrifos, and carbaryl on a California pine forest soil arthropod

community. community. Environmental Entomology 10: 732-740. community. 

Klein, W.H. 1978. Strategies and methods for reducing losses in lodgepole pine by the mountain pine beetle by chemical and

mechanical means. mechanical means. In: Proceedings of the theory and practice of mountain pine beetle management in lodgepole pine mechanical means.

forests sympopsium; 1978 April 25-27; Moscow, ID. University of Idaho; 148-158.

Koerber, T.W., compiler. 1976. Lindane in forestry...a continuing controversy. Lindane in forestry...a continuing controversy. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-14. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Lindane in forestry...a continuing controversy.

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 30 p.

Loomis, Robert C.; Tucker, Steven; Hofaker, Thomas H. 1985. Insect and disease conditions in the United States; 1979-1983. Insect and disease conditions in the United States; 1979-1983.

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-46. Washington, DC: Forest Pest Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 93 p.

Lyon, L.J. 1976. Elk use as related to characteristics of clearcuts in western Montana. Elk use as related to characteristics of clearcuts in western Montana. In: Proceedings of the elk logging-roads Elk use as related to characteristics of clearcuts in western Montana.

symposium; 1975 December 16-17; Moscow, ID. University of Idaho; 69-72.

McCambridge, William F. 1982. Field tests of insecticides to protect ponderosa pine from the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Field tests of insecticides to protect ponderosa pine from the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera:

Scolytidae). Scolytidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 75: 1080-1082. Scolytidae).

McGregor, Mark D.; Cole, Walter E. 1985. Integrating management strategies for the mountain pine beetle with multiple

resource management of lodgepole pine forests. resource management of lodgepole pine forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-174. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range resource management of lodgepole pine forests.

Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 68 p.

Page, Marion; Haverty, Michael I.; Richmond, Charles E. 1985. Residual activity of carbaryl protected lodgepole pine against

mountain pine beetle, Dillon, Colorado, 1982 and 1983. mountain pine beetle, Dillon, Colorado, 1982 and 1983. Res. Note PSW-375. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and mountain pine beetle, Dillon, Colorado, 1982 and 1983.

Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 4 p.

Safranyik, Les; Shrimpton, D. Malcolm; Whitney, H. Stu. 1974. Management of lodgepole pine to reduce losses from

mountain pine beetle. mountain pine beetle. Tech. Rep. 1. Victoria, BC; Pacific Forestry Research Centre, Forestry Service, Canadian Department mountain pine beetle.

of the Environment; 24 p.

Shea, Patrick J.; Haverty, Michael I.; Hall, Richard W. 1984a. Effectiveness of fenitrothion and permethrin for protecting

ponderosa pine from attack by western pine beetle. ponderosa pine from attack by western pine beetle. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society 19: 427-433. ponderosa pine from attack by western pine beetle.

Shea, Patrick J.; Jenkins, Michael J.; Haverty, Michael I. 1984b. Cones of blister rust-resistant western white pine protected

from Conophthorus ponderosae Hopkins (= Hopkins (= C. monticolae Hopkins). Hopkins). Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society 19: Hopkins).

129-138.

Shea, Patrick J.; McGregor, Mark D. 1987. A new formulation and reduced rates of carbaryl for protecting lodgepole pine from

mountain pine beetle attack. mountain pine beetle attack. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 2: 114-116. mountain pine beetle attack.

Smith, Richard H. 1982. Log bioassay of residual effectiveness of insecticides against bark beetles. Log bioassay of residual effectiveness of insecticides against bark beetles. Res. Paper PSW-168. Berkeley, CA: Log bioassay of residual effectiveness of insecticides against bark beetles.

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 8 p.

Smith, Richard H.; Trostle, Galen C.; McCambridge, William F. 1977. Protective spray tests on three species of bark beetles in

the western United States. the western United States. Journal of Economic Entomology 70: 119-125. the western United States.

Stark, Ronald W.; Dahlsten, Donald L., eds. 1970. Studies on the population dynamics of the western pine beetle, Studies on the population dynamics of the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus

brevicomis LeConte. LeConte. Berkeley, CA: Division of Agricultural Science, University of California; 179 p. LeConte.

Wellner, Charles A. 1978. Management problems resulting from mountain pine beetles in lodgepole pine forests. Management problems resulting from mountain pine beetles in lodgepole pine forests. In: Management problems resulting from mountain pine beetles in lodgepole pine forests.

Proceedings of the theory and practice of mountain pine beetle management in lodgepole pine forests sympopsium; 1978

April 25-27; Moscow, ID. University of Idaho; 9-15.

Wood, Stephen L. 1963. A revision of the bark beetle genus A revision of the bark beetle genus Dendroctonus Erickson (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Erickson (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Great Basin Erickson (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). 

Naturalist 23: 1-117.
Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper

The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for Federal

leadership in forestry.

It carries out this role through four main activities:

• Protection and management of resources on 191 million acres of National Forest System

lands

• Cooperation with State and local governments, forest industries, and private landowners

to help protect and manage non-Federal forest and associated range and watershed

lands

• Participation with other agencies in human resource and community assistance programs

to improve living conditions in rural areas

• Research on all aspects of forestry, rangeland management, and forest resources

utilization.

The Pacific Southwest Research Station

• Represents the research branch of the Forest Service in California, Hawaii, American

Samoa, and the western Pacific.

The United States Department

of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in its programs

on the basis of race, color,

national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs,

and marital or familial 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, write the

Secretary of Agriculture, U.S.

Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC 20250, or

call 1-800-245-6340 (voice) or

202-720-1127 (TDD). USDA

is an equal employment

opportunity employer.
PSW-RP-237

Research PaperResearch StationPacific SouthwestForest Serviceof AgricultureDepartmentUnited States

Pines from Attack by in Protecting Individual Lodgepole Pines and PonderosaEffectiveness of Esfenvalerate, Cyfluthrin, and Carbaryl

Dendroctonus spp.