proceedings of a facilitated workshop august 11-14, 2003 ... proceedings.pdf · proceedings of a...
TRANSCRIPT
Proceedings of a Facilitated WorkshopAugust 11-14, 2003Mountain Lake, VA.
Sponsored by the Southern State Agricultural Experiment Stations,the USDA Forest Service, the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education,
Extension Service; and the Southern State Forestry Agencies.
Edited by:
Robert N. CoulsonProfessor, Departments of Entomology and Forest Science,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Kier D. KlepzigProject Leader, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station,
Pineville, LA
T. Evan NebekerProfessor, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology,
Mississippi State University, and Pest Management Specialist with theMississippi Forestry Commission, Starkville, MS
Forrest L. Oliveria Field Office Representative, USDA Forest Service,
Forest Health Protection, Pineville, LA
Scott M. Salom Associate Professor, Department of Entomology, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA
Frederick M. Stephen University Professor and Acting Head, Department of Entomology,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
and
Hendrik J. MeyerNational Program Leader, USDA, CSREES, Washington, DC.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................................6
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................................................8
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT AS THE ORGANIZING THEMEFOR THE SPB NEEDS ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP ..........................................................................................................9
Overview of Integrated Pest Management ............................................................................................................9IPM Activities: Working Definitions ........................................................................................................................11
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................................................................17Planning and Organization............................................................................................................................................17Venue............................................................................................................................................................................................18Constituency of the Stakeholder Participants ....................................................................................................19
APPROACH ..............................................................................................................................................................................................20Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................................20Defining the Agenda for a SPB RD&A Program..............................................................................................20Implementation Planning................................................................................................................................................21
AN EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS AGENDA FOR A SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE IPM PROGRAM -Products of the Workshop ............22
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................................22The Scope and Bounds of the IPM Activities ....................................................................................................22The Research Development and Applications Questions ........................................................................23The Research Development and Applications Priorities............................................................................23
Summary of RD&A Priorities. ......................................................................................................................23The RD&A Agenda for the SPB IPM Program. ................................................................................27
The Deliverable Products From a SPB IPM RD&A Program ..................................................................28The Products Needed From an RD&A Program for SPB IPM. ..............................................29
Epilog to Needs Assessment..........................................................................................................................................30
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR A SPB RD&A PROGRAM ............................................................................................31Funding........................................................................................................................................................................................31Organization............................................................................................................................................................................31Management ............................................................................................................................................................................31
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................................33
ACTION REQUESTED ......................................................................................................................................................................34
APPENDIX I: The Scope and Bounds of the IPM Activities – Topic outlines ............................................36
APPENDIX II: The Research Development and Applications Questions ....................................................42
APPENDIX III: Background information on IPM ..........................................................................................................52
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe economic, social, and ecological impact of
the southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis)
(SPB)1 is catastrophic across the Southern US.
Since the 1960’s six major outbreaks have
occurred. Timber losses alone from these
outbreaks exceed $2.5 billion. Recent damage
caused by this destructive insect surpasses all
historical records. The geographic range of the
SPB continues to expand and new host tree
species are being infested. The existing
knowledge base for the insect is inadequate to
explain the causes for epidemics or provide
insight into how they can be managed. Outbreaks
cycle within the Southern region and we cannot
anticipate when or where they will occur or
predict their severity. Consequently, when
outbreaks do occur the effects on forest health are
devastating. Because of the persistent impact of
the SPB on public and private forests throughout
the South, this insect is a specific target of the
Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act, which President George W. Bush
signed into law on December 3, 2003.
Managing the impact of the SPB within
tolerable limits is realistic expectation that can be
accomplished through a focused research, devel-
opment, and applications (RD&A) program. To
this end representatives from the Southern State
Agricultural Experiment Stations, USDA Forest
Service, State Forestry Agencies, and technical
specialists from the research community partici-
pated in a three day workshop (held in Mountain
Lake, VA, August 11 - 14, 2003). The objectives
of the workshop were (1) to define in detail the
agenda for a SPB RD&A program and (2) to
develop a plan for implementing the RD&A
program. The organizing theme for the RD&A
program was Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
The modern IPM concept includes the practices,
technologies, and legal statutes of forest
protection, forest management, and environmental
management.
In developing the agenda for the RD&A
program, a facilitation approach was used to elicit
four types of information from the workshop
participants: (1) an evaluation of the scope and
bounds of each of ten separate IPM activities, (2)
a definition of the RD&A questions for each of
the activities, (3) a prioritization of the RD&A
questions, and (4) a definition of the deliverable
products that would follow from a SPB RD&A
program. This Proceedings provides a systematic
account of the accomplishments of the workshop
and includes a detailed agenda for a SPB RD&A
program, as envisioned by a broad cross-section
of the stake-holder community. Specific deliv-
erable products that would follow from the
RD&A program are identified.
The issue of how to implement a SPB RD&A
program was considered in an open discussion of
all workshop participants. Emphasis in the
discussion centered on the issues associated with
funding, organization, and management of the
program. The Healthy Forests Initiative and the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act were identified as
promising sources of funds directly linked to the
SPB. Participants supported a centralized
3
approach to organization that featured a program
director and support staff to deal with domain
specific issues and interaction with project partic-
ipants. Participants also supported a management
approach that was both efficient and cost
effective. The Southern Regional Integrated Pest
Management Center at NC State University was
identified as an organization that could provided
the infrastructure needed for the complex RD&A
program. The Center would manage the peer
review grant-based program for RD&A contracts
and provide fiscal accounting for the program.
These services would be on a direct-cost basis
which would greatly reduce administrative
overhead for the program.
The workshop resulted in the following conclu-
sions and recommendations:
1. The persistent impact of the SPB on public
and private forests throughout the South places
this destructive pest species at the forefront of the
Healthy Forest Initiative. The Healthy Forestry
Restoration Act provides the means for addressing
the depredations caused by the insect through a
comprehensive RD&A program directed to SPB
IPM.
2. The significant economic, ecological, and
social impact of the SPB on the forests resources
of the South can be reduced and losses caused by
the insect managed within tolerable limits.
However, the current knowledge base for the
insect is inadequate and significant new
technologies are not being used in the context of
contemporary forest and environmental
management practices. A substantial and targeted
RD&A program will address these issues.
3. The IPM concept and methodology provides
a framework suitable for structuring a SPB
RD&A program that will lead to clearly defined
products and procedures needed to reduce
economic, ecological, and social impacts.
4. Participants in the SPB workshop (scientists,
practitioners, and technical specialists from state,
federal, and private agencies and organizations)
critically and systematically examined and
defined the agenda needed for a SPB RD&A
program organized around the IPM approach.
This activity resulted in the four products reported
in this Proceedings: (1) an evaluation of each of
the ten IPM activities, (2) a definition of RD&A
questions for each activity, (3) a prioritization of
the RD&A activities, and (4) a list of deliverable
products that will follow from a SPB IPM
program. These products provide an objective
and consensus-based agenda for the RD&A
program.
5. The technical expertise needed to conduct a
SPB RD&A program is dispersed among a variety
of state, federal, and private agencies and organi-
zation. A centrally organized and specifically
targeted RD&A program will provide the
mechanism needed to coordinate and focus
human resources needed to address IPM of the
SPB.
6. There is solidarity among the scientists,
practitioners and technical specialists from the
various agencies and organizations in state,
4
federal, private sectors regarding the need for a
centralized RD&A program to address SPB IPM.
Participants in the SPB workshop acknowledged
that implementation of a program could be
accomplished using a model that included a high
degree of coordination, peer-reviewed evaluation
The stakeholder community defined the agenda
and developed and implementation plan for a SPB
RD&A program. The Agricultural Experiment
stations from the Southern and adjacent regions
are requesting $30 million (6 million per year for
5 years) through the USDA Forest Service to fund
a centrally managed RD&A program to Address
IPM of the SPB. This program will include the
stakeholder community in state, federal and
private sectors.
5
INTRODUCTIONThe economic, social, and ecological impact of
the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis
Zimn. (SPB) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), is
catastrophic across the Southern US. Since the
1960’s six major outbreaks have occurred.
Timber losses alone from these outbreaks exceed
$2.5 billion. Recent damage caused by this
destructive insect surpasses all historical records.
The geographic range of the SPB continues to
expand and new host tree species are being
infested. The existing knowledge base for the
insect is inadequate to explain the causes for
epidemics or provide insight into how they can be
managed. Outbreaks cycle within the Southern
region and we cannot anticipate when or where
they will occur or predict their severity (Figures
1a & b).
Consequently, when outbreaks do occur the
effects on forest health are devastating. Because
of the persistent impact of the SPB on public and
private forests throughout the South, this insect is
a specific target of the Healthy Forests Initiative
and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which
President George W. Bush signed into law on
December 3, 2003.
Managing the impact of the SPB within
tolerable limits is a realistic expectation that can
be accomplished through a focused research,
development, and applications (RD&A) program.
There has not been a substantial organized RD&A
effort focused on the SPB for more than 15 years.
Consequently, the agenda for such a program has
not been objectively evaluated in the context of
contemporary forest protection and investigative
technologies. To this end, representatives of the
stakeholder community in the South from state,
federal, and private sectors and technical
specialists from across the Nation participated in a
three day workshop (held in Mountain Lake, VA,
August 11 - 14, 2003), targeted to address the
agenda and implementation plan for a SPB
6
Figure 1a: Infestation of the southern pine beetle illus-trating the damaged caused by this pest species onforest resources (Photo by Robert Coulson).
Figure 1b (insert on 1a): Adult southern pine beetle(2003 University of Florida. D.T. Almquist, photog-rapher.”
RD&A program. The resulting products from this
workshop will serve to implement the Healthy
Forests Initiative and provide a framework and
mechanism for addressing integrated pest
management (IPM) of the SPB.
Following is an account of the proceedings of
the workshop. Provided herein is (1) a statement
of the goal and objectives of the workshop, (2) the
rational and explanation for using IPM as the
organizing theme for the workshop, (3) the
background materials provided to support the
workshop, (4) a description of the approach used
to conduct the workshop, (5) a summary of the
deliverable products that resulted from the
workshop, (6) an outline of the program
management plan, (7) a statement of conclusions
and recommendations, and (8) a call for action.
7
GOAL AND OBJECTIVESThe goal of the workshop was to formulate a
plan for a SPB IPM program. The specific objec-
tives were (1) to define in detail the RD&A
agenda for a SPB IPM program and (2) to develop
a plan for implementing the RD&A program. A
basic premise of this undertaking was that a
functional IPM program can be developed from a
combination of (1) the discovery of new domain
specific information about the SPB (research), (2)
the integration and interpretation of new and
existing knowledge (development), and (3) the
directed use of knowledge for planning, problem
solving, decision support (application). Because
of the persistent impact of the SPB on forest
resources of the South, this pest insect has been
the focus of considerable RD&A work in the past.
A substantial knowledge base for the SPB exists
and it will serve as the starting point for a contem-
porary IPM program.
8
INTEGRATED PESTMANAGEMENT AS THEORGANIZING THEME FORTHE SPB NEEDSASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
In planning the SPB needs assessment
workshop, the fundamental assumption was made
that integrated pest management (IPM) would
serve as the framework for a program directed at
reducing the impact of the SPB on forest
resources of the South. The concept and practice
of IPM have evolved over the last two decades.
There is an existing solid foundation of
knowledge from which to launch an inquiry into
the RD&A activities needed for a practical IPM
program. Following is a brief overview of IPM
which served as a preface to the workshop.
Overview of Integrated Pest Management 2
The major impetus that fueled the development
of concepts of IPM came from concern for
managing forest insect pest outbreaks on inten-
sively managed public and private forest lands.
The research and development projects of the
1970’s and 1980’s and subsequent investigations
have provided a well formulated IPM concept and
approach. However, the issue of implementation
of IPM within the managerial hierarchy of forest
protection—>forest management—> environ-
mental management remains a challenging task.
The concepts, practices, technologies, and legal
statutes of forest protection, forest management,
and environmental management have changed
significantly since the architects of IPM crafted
the initial principles. In this section, an overview
of the basic activities associated with the practical
application of IPM in forests is presented.
IPM in forests can be defined as follows: the
maintenance of destructive agents, including
insects, at tolerable levels by the planned use of a
variety of preventive, suppressive, or regulatory
tactics and strategies that are ecologically and
economically efficient and socially and politically
acceptable. It is explicit that the actions taken are
fully integrated into the total forest and environ-
mental management process -in both planning and
operation.
From a functional perspective IPM consists of a
number of specific, but related, activities as illus-
trated in Figure (1) (Saarenmaa 1992). This
“activity model” is a concise overview of the
concept and practice of IPM. Figure 2 represents
IPM to consist of nine separate activities that are
related as illustrated by connections and direc-
tions of arrows. The basic activities include the
following: assessment of pest population
dynamics, assessment of tree and forest dynamics,
impact assessment, evaluation of control alterna-
tives, monitoring, database management,
diagnosis, environmental assessment,
management planning, and decision and
execution. This activities model (Figure 2) is a
significant advancement over previous representa-
tions of the IPM concept, as it integrates the
RD&A components of IPM and establishes the
functional relation of forest protection, forest
management, and environmental management.
9
The model provides a general framework within
which pest managers can plan and execute their
activities in a “real world” forest environment.
There are eight fundamental principles of IPM
in forests that are conveyed in Figure 2:
1. The basic premise of IPM is that there is a
resource or forest condition in need of protection
from pests. From a management perspective, the
state of the resource is evaluated through an
examination of tree and forest dynamics. This
examination usually involves use of a simulation
model that approximates the expected growth and
yield of a valued tree species over at least a
rotation period. The condition of the forest is
evaluated by integration and interpretation of
spatially referenced tabular databases that
describe a specific environment. The types of data
needed for this purpose include themes such as
tree species composition, age, and density; terrain
elevation and slope; soil type, etc.
10
Figure 2: Activities associated with integrated pest management (Saarenmaa, H. 1992. Integrated pest managementin forests and information technology. Proc. IUFRO S.207-05. In Dimitri, L. (Ed.) Integrated Control of ScolytidBark Beetles. Hann. Munden, Germany, 19-22 August 1991.)
2. Insect species are periodically pests because
they become sufficiently numerous to damage a
valued resource or desired forest condition in
some way. Generally, there is a direct relation
between population size and impact on forest
resources and conditions. IPM, therefore,
requires evaluation of pest population dynamics.
Again this evaluation can be facilitated through
the use of a simulation model.
3. The actual or potential importance of a pest
species is judged by evaluating its economic,
ecological, social, or political impact on values we
associate with the resource or forest condition.
4. In order to assess the actual or potential
impact of a pest species, it is necessary to gather
contemporary information about the state of
insect populations and the resources and condi-
tions of the forest environment. This activity
requires monitoring. To monitor is to observe
critically in ways that do not affect the resources
and conditions of the forest environment. The
information collected during the monitoring
activity becomes a part of the forest database. The
forest database contains spatially referenced and
tabular data that describe the forest resources and
condition.
5. The contemporary information gained
through the monitoring activity is used in
diagnosis of the cause and extent of a pest
problem. This diagnosis is used to establish the
need for directed suppression or prevention
actions. Human judgment by experienced
individuals is often an important component of the
diagnosis.
6. Pest population size can be modified (e.g.,
pesticides) or regulated (e.g., natural enemies) by
the application of treatment tactics. The proce-
dures may be targeted to suppression of existing
populations or prevention of forest conditions that
lead to pest outbreaks.
7. Decisions to consider application of specific
control tactics must be evaluated for their effect
on the forest management plan and their environ-
mental impact. These activities link forest
protection to the higher levels of the management
hierarchy, i.e., to forest management planning and
environmental assessment.
8. Decision and execution of an IPM program
follows from interpretation of the environmental
assessment and an evaluation of the effects on the
forest management plan. Typically, this activity
(decision and execution) requires integration and
interpretation of both qualitative and quantitative
information and computer based decision support
is often a necessity. The results of the decision
and execution activity directly affect the pest
population and forest tree dynamics.
IPM Activities: Working Definitions
The following working definitions and
dependency networks served to launch and guide
discussion of the IPM activities. A detailed expla-
nation of each IPM activity was provided to
participants prior to the workshop (see Appendix I).
Pest Population Dynamics.—Pest population
dynamics (Figure 3) is the study of change in the
distribution and abundance of an organism
through space and time
11
12
Figure 4: Dependency network for the Tree and Forest Dynamics IPM activity.
Figure 3: Dependency network for the Pest Population Dynamics IPM activity.
Figure 5: Dependency network for the Impact Assessment IPM activity.
13
Figure 6: Dependency network for the Monitoring IPM activity.
Figure 7: Dependency network for the Diagnosis IPM activity.
Figure 8: Dependency network for the Treatment Tactics IPM activity.
14
Figure 11: Dependency network for the Environmental Assessment IPM activity.
Figure 9: Dependency network for the Forest Database IPM activity.
Figure 10: Dependency network for the Management Planning IPM activity.
15
Tree and Forest Dynamics.—Tree and forest
dynamics (Figure 4) includes consideration of
causes for changes in the distribution, abundance,
and size of a host tree species through space and
time.
Impact Assessment.—Impact (Figure 5) is
broadly defined to mean any effect on the forest
environment resulting from the activities of
insects.
Monitoring.—To monitor is to observe criti-
cally in ways that do not affect the resources and
conditions of the forest environment. Monitoring
(Figure 6) involves collecting data about the forest
environment.
Diagnosis.—To diagnose is to recognize and
identify by examination and observation. There
are two aspects of diagnosis (Figure 7): the first
involves identification of the cause of the pest
problem and the second involves evaluation of the
extent damage.
Treatment Tactics.—Treatment tactics (Figure
8) are planned procedures that are used to modify
or regulate the distribution and abundance of a
pest species. We are interested in ways and means
of suppression of an existing pest population and
in prevention of potential pest population
outbreaks.
Forest Database.—The data that provide infor-
mation about the forest environment are
collectively referred to as the forest database
(Figure 9). The database contains numerical data
that describe different attributes of the biotic and
abiotic forest environment. The database can also
include data on the condition of the atmosphere.
Management Planning.—The goals of forest
management vary among the different types of
forest environments and ownerships. The
management plan (Figure 10) for a specific forest
environment will be based on accomplishing
defined goals. For example, the management plan
for a commercial seed orchard would emphasize
profitability. The management plan employed by
a city government for an urban forest might
emphasize scenic beauty as its management goal.
Figure 12: Dependency network for the Decision and Execution IPM activity.
Environment Assessment.—Environmental
assessment (Figure 11) deals with evaluating
change to the environment resulting from human
actions. In the context of IPM, assessment centers
on evaluating change in the environment resulting
from suppression or prevention activities
associated with forest protection.
Decision and Execution.—Decision and
execution (Figure 12). involves both judgment
and directed action. The judgment (decision)
component of IPM is an integrative step. The
directed action (execution) component of IPM
involves application of one or more of the tactics
available for pest population suppression or
prevention of damage.
16
BACKGROUNDThe duration and extent of the latest SPB
outbreak generated unified concern and a call for
an organized effort to protect the forests of the
South. To this end, and in response to a request
for information on management of the SPB
problem by the Honorable Zach Wamp (US
House of Representatives [R], TN), the USDA
Forest Service prepared a report outlining a
strategy for suppression, prevention, restoration of
damaged areas, research and development activ-
ities, economic action programs, conservation
education, and interagency consultation on
NFMA, NEPA, and ESA3. The agenda for
research and development was envisioned to
support suppression, prevention, and restoration
activities. It included a variety of subjects ranging
through improving control techniques, remote
sensing of damage, spatial modeling of popula-
tions, interaction of SPB with other organisms,
etc. While this initiative was not funded, the
general goals of the proposed program were
advanced to some extent. With the support and
leadership of the Honorable Charles Taylor (US
House of Representatives [R], NC) some
increased funding was provided to the USDA
Forest Service, specifically for SPB research and
development activities.
An explicit plan for a coordinated program
directed to reducing the impact of the SPB on
forest of the Southern region was beyond the
scope of the Forest Service evaluation. This
circumstance, coupled with the persistent recur-
rence and catastrophic impact of the SPB,
provided the rationale to proceed with developing
the agenda and implementation plan for a compre-
hensive RD&A program targeted to IPM.
Planning and Organization
The SPB workshop was jointly sponsored by the
Southern State Agricultural Experiment Stations,
the USDA Forest Service, the USDA CSREES,
and the Southern State Forestry Agencies. The
planning, organization and expenses for
conducting the workshop were supported by a
grant from CSREES (NI 2003-51140-02001)
awarded to the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station. Travel support for participants was
provided by their employers, i.e., the Southern
State Agricultural Experiment Stations; the
USDA, Forest Service and CSREES, and the
Southern State Forestry Organizations. The
USDA Forest Service provided resources to
publish the proceedings from the workshop.
The task of planning and organization of the
SPB workshop was taken on by a steering
committed that included the following
individuals:
Kier D. Klepzig - Project Leader, USDA Forest
Service, Southern Research Station, Pineville,
LA,
T. Evan Nebeker - Professor, Department of
Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi
State University, and Pest Management
Specialist with the Mississippi Forestry
Commission, Starkville, MS,
17
Forrest L. Oliveria - Field Office Representative,
USDA Forest Service, Region 8, Forest Health
Protection, Pineville, LA,
Scott M. Salom - Associate Professor, Department
of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA,
Frederick M. Stephen - University Professor and
Acting Head, Department of Entomology,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.
These individuals are recognized authorities on
SPB, forest protection, forest management, and
environmental management and are active partici-
pants in the SPB Information Exchange Group
(IEG) - 74 of the Southern Association of
Agricultural Experiment Station Directors.
Robert N. Coulson (Professor, Departments of
Entomology and Forest Science, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX) served as project
manager. Hendrik J. (Rick) Meyer, National
Program Leader, USDA, CSREES, Washington,
DC, served as an exofficio member of the steering
committee.
This committee
(1) selected the meeting site and date for the
workshop,
(2) defined the constituency of a stakeholder
group who would be invited to participate in the
workshop,
(3) approved the approach for conducting the
workshop,
(4) participated in the workshop,
(5) edited the proceedings of the workshop, and
(6) provided oversight and guidance in fiscal
management for the workshop.
Venue
The SPB workshop was held at the Mountain
Lake Hotel, Mountain Lake, VA, August 11-14,
2003 (Figure 13). This site was selected because
it provided a suitable facility and secluded
environment conducive to an interactive
workshop format. It was also the location for a
previous planning workshop on SPB held in
October of 1989.
18
Figure 13: Mountain Lake Hotel, site of the SPB workshop (Photo byRonald Billings).
Constituency of the Stakeholder
Participants
The stakeholder community affected by the SPB
is broad and includes a variety of public and
private agencies, organizations, and forest
landowners. The steering committed took on the
task of identifying a representative cross-section
of stakeholders to participate in the workshop.
Individuals from the Southern State Agricultural
Experiment Stations, the USDA Forest Service,
the Southern State Forestry Organizations, and
industry were identified and invited. In addition
technical specialists from other regions of the US
and Canada, with domain-specific knowledge
needed for the workshop, were invited. The
workshop format placed a constraint on the
number of individuals who could effectively
interact. Participants in the Southern Pine Beetle
Needs Assessment Workshop included the
following individuals: Judy Adams (USDA,
Forest Service), Matthew Ayres (Dartmouth
College), Gregory Amacher (Virginia Tech),
Barbara Bentz (USDA, Forest Service) Wayne
Berisford (U. GA), Ronald Billings (Texas Forest
Service), Andrew Boone (SC Forestry
Commission), Wayne Brewer (Auburn U.), Lloyd
Brown: (Entopath Inc.), John Borden (Phero Tech
Inc. and Simon Fraser University), Harold
Burkhart, (Virginia Tech), Richard Conner
(USDA, Forest Service), Mary Ellen Dix (USDA,
Forest Service), Donald Duerr (USDA, Forest
Service), John Foltz (U. FL.), Frank Gillstrap
(Texas A&M U.), Richard Goyer (LSU.), Fred
Hain (NC State U.), Bruce Jewell (USDA, Forest
Service), Kier Klepzig (USDA, Forest Service),
Loren Iverson: (USDA, Forest Service), David
Kulhavy (Stephen F. Austin State U.), Fredrick
Limp (U.AR), Albert Mayfied (FL Division of
Forestry), James Meeker (USDA Forest Service),
Hendrick (Rick) Meyer (USDA, CSREES), Evan
Nebeker (MS State U.), Forrest Oliveria (USDA,
Forest Service), Thomas Payne (U. MO), Terry
Price (GA Division of Forestry), Phillup Radtke
(Virginia Tech), Kenneth Raffa (U. WI.), Lynne
Rieske-Kinney (U. KY), Scott Salom (Virginia
Tech), Daniel Sloan, (USDA, Forest Service), C.
T. (Tat) Smith (Texas A&M University), Frederick
Stephen (U. AR), Brian Strom (USDA Forest
Service), Jay Sullivan (Virginia Tech), Harold
Thistle (USDA Forest Service). John Waldron
(Texas A&M University), David Wear (USDA
Forest Service), Steve Williams (USDA Forest
Service), David Wood (U.CA, Berkeley), and
Robert Coulson, (Texas A&M University).
19
APPROACHIntroduction
A facilitation approach was used to organize the
activities of the workshop. Michael Saunders
(Professor, Department of Entomology, Penn
State University) and Maria Tchakerian (Research
Associate, Knowledge Engineering Laboratory,
Department of Entomology, Texas A&M
University) served as facilitators. Bruce Miller
(President, Rules of Thumb Inc. assisted in
summarizing results). The goal of the approach,
in the context defining the agenda for a SPB
RD&A program, was to elicit four types of infor-
mation from the workshop participants: (1) an
evaluation of the scope and bounds of each of the
IPM activities (Figure 2), (2) a definition of the
RD&A questions for each of the activities, (3) a
prioritization of the RD&A questions, and (4) a
definition of the deliverable products that would
follow from a SPB RD&A program directed to
IPM. Implementation planning was considered in
an open discussion by participants. The goal of
this activity was to identify views and concerns of
the stakeholders regarding how to organize and
conduct a SPB RD&A program.
Defining the Agenda for a SPB RD&A
Program
The IPM activities model (Figure 2) served as
the fundamental organizing framework for the
workshop. The components of the model were
reorganized, using Netweaver® knowledge
engineering software, to illustrate the dependency
network for the various activities (Figure 3).
The problem analysis component of the
workshop, which addressed the RD&A agenda,
was conducted as a series of break-out sessions.
Each of the sessions addressed one of the 10 activ-
ities associated with SPB IPM. The break-out
sessions were structured as working groups
consisting of a sub-set of the participants who were
knowledgeable about the specific IPM activity.
Each working group analyzed the current state of
knowledge associated with a specific IPM activity.
This analysis was broad-based in scope and guided
by the specific dependency network for the IPM
activity. The workshop participants were provided
with a brief written overview that described each
of the IPM activities (see above). Output was
captured as a topic outline, which was prepared by
a “scribe” assigned to each working group (Figure
14). The scribes performed an essential function
in the workshop in that they were charged with
capturing the output from the discussion of each of
the IPM activities. The scribes for each of the
activities were as follows: Fred Hain (pest
population dynamics), Harold Burkhart (tree and
forest dynamics), Donald Druerr (impact
assessment), Ronald Billings (monitoring), Forrest
Oliveria (forest database), Brian Strom (treatment
tactics), Lynne Reiske-Kinney (diagnosis),
Fredrick Limp (environmental assessment), Steven
Williams (management planning) and Loren
Iverson (decision and execution).
Three IPM activities were addressed concur-
rently. When the sessions were completed, all
participants were assembled and the results of the
workshop were presented to the group at large for
20
discussion (Figure 15). Using the outlines as a
guide, working group participants were asked to
develop a set of RD&A questions for each of the
IPM activities. Again, following the break-out
sessions, the results of this activity were presented
to the group at large and discussed.
Next, the working group participants were asked
to develop a set of RD&A priorities for each of the
IPM activities. The RD&A priorities for each of
the IPM activities were presented to the group at
large for discussion.
Finally, the working group participants were
asked to define the deliverable products for each
IPM activity that would follow from a SPB
RD&A program. Once again, the deliverable
products were presented to the group at large for
discussion.
Implementation Planning
The issue of how to implement a SPB RD&A
program was considered in an open discussion of
all workshop participants. Given the complexity
of the agenda, the workshop participants were
clear in their understanding of the challenge
associated with managing an RD&A program.
Such a program will require a substantial budget
and coordination of activities distributed among a
variety of state, federal, and private agencies and
organizations. As there were several possible
funding scenarios for a SPB RD&A program,
emphasis in the discussion was directed to consid-
eration of technical issues associated with
conducting the RD&A activities, rather than a
definition of a specific mechanism for organizing
the program (Figure 16).
21
Figure 14: Scribe, Lynne Reiske-Kinney, and assistant,C. T. (Tat Smith) capturing output from breakoutworking group discussion of the Diagnosis IPMactivity (Photo by Robert Coulson).
Figure 16: Open discussion among workshop partici-pants of approaches to implementation planning for aSPB RD&A program (Photo by Ron Billings).
Figure 15: Workshop participants assembled toconsider output from a breakout session on a specificIPM activity (Photo by Ron Billings).
AN EVALUATION OF THERESEARCH, DEVELOPMENTAND APPLICATIONSAGENDA FOR A SOUTHERNPINE BEETLE IPM PROGRAM-PRODUCTS OF THEWORKSHOP By
Judy Adams (USDA, Forest Service), Matthew
Ayres (Dartmouth College), Gregory Amacher
(Virginia Tech), Barbara Bentz (USDA, Forest
Service) Wayne Berisford (U. GA), Ronald
Billings (Texas Forest Service), Andrew Boone
(SC Forestry Commission), Wayne Brewer
(Auburn U.), Lloyd Brown: (Entopath Inc.), John
Borden (Simon Fraser University), Harold
Burkhart, (Virginia Tech), Richard Conner
(USDA, Forest Service), Mary Ellen Dix (USDA,
Forest Service), Donald Duerr (USDA, Forest
Service), John Foltz (U. FL.), Frank Gillstrap
(Texas A&M U.), Richard Goyer (LSU.), Fred
Hain (NC State U.), Loren Iverson (USDA, Forest
Service), Bruce Jewell (USDA, Forest Service),
Kier Klepzig (USDA, Forest Service), David
Kulhavy (Stephen F. Austin State U.), Fredrick
Limp (U. AR), Albert Mayfied (FL Division of
Forestry), James Meeker (USDA Forest Service),
Hendrick (Rick) Meyer (USDA, CSREES), Evan
Nebeker MS State U.), Forrest Oliveria (USDA,
Forest Service), Thomas Payne (U. MO), Terry
Price (GA Division of Forestry), Phillup Radtke
(Virginia Tech), Kenneth Raffa (U. WI.), Lynne
Rieske-Kinney (U. KY), Scott Salom (Virginia
Tech), Daniel Sloan, (USDA, Forest Service), C.
T. (Tat) Smith (Texas A&M University), Frederick
Stephen (U. AR), Brian Strom (USDA Forest
Service), Jay Sullivan (Virginia Tech), Harold
Thistle (USDA Forest Service). John Waldron
(Texas A&M University), David Wear (USDA
Forest Service), Steve Williams (USDA Forest
Service), David Wood (U.CA, Berkeley), and
Robert Coulson, (Texas A&M University)
Introduction
The detailed results of the SPB workshop are
summarized in four documents: (1) a topic outline
of the discussion of each of the ten IPM activities
(Figure 2) [Appendix I], (2) a listing of the RD&A
questions associated with each of the IPM activ-
ities [Appendix II], (3) a listing of the RD&A
priorities associated with each of the IPM activ-
ities, and (4) a listing of the deliverable products
that would follow from a SPB RD&A Program.
These summaries were developed by consensus
among a diverse and knowledgeable cross-section
of the stakeholder community. The process,
which required three days of concentrated effort,
resulted in a thorough evaluation of the agenda
needed for a SPB RD&A Program. Results from
each of the four activities are discussed below.
The Scope and Bounds of the IPM
Activities
The first task undertaken by the working groups
was to examine the scope and bounds of the IPM
activities. The scribes moderated the sessions. A
“brainstorming” approach was used to evaluate
22
IPM activity. The results were captured in topic
outlines, which are reproduced in Appendix II.
The outlines follow the stream of the discussion,
as it took place in the breakout session, and they
have not been reorganized or consolidated.
Consequently, the outlines tend to be long and
somewhat disjointed but inclusive of the subject
content for each IPM activity. The strength and
utility of the outlines is that they provided a
framework for identification of RD&A questions.
The Research Development and
Applications Questions
Following the general discussion of the topic
outlines by all participants, the working groups
reconvened to define the RD&A questions
associated with each of the IPM activities. The
working groups were asked to frame their
discussion in the context of the question: “what do
we need to know about the IPM activity that we
do not know at the present time?”. Again, the
scribes moderated the sessions. The results were
captured as a set of questions for each IPM
activity. At this stage, no attempt was made to
distinguish among research, development, or
application questions. Further, the participants
did not make any judgments about the relative
importance of the questions. There was consid-
erable range in the complexity of the questions
defined. In some instances the questions dealt
with an incremental addition of new knowledge
about a topic already well-studied, e.g., “how do
associated organisms affect SPB population
abundance?”. In other instances the questions
dealt with a fundamental lack of knowledge on a
topic, e.g., “How does climate change affect
population abundance?”. The results of this
activity are reproduced in Appendix III.
The Research Development and
Applications Priorities
Following the general discussion of the RD&A
questions, the working groups reconvened once
again, but this time the charge was to filter and
prioritize the question set for each IPM activity.
Essentially, the question the participants
addressed was “Given that the agenda is large and
complex, what are the most important RD&A
questions that must be considered for an opera-
tional SPB IPM program?”. Once the filtering
was accomplished, remaining questions were
rephrased as declarative statements. The results
are presented below and catalogued by each IPM
activity.
Summary of RD&A Priorities
Following is a listing of the RD&A priorities
identified by the workshop participants. The
priorities are catalogued by IPM activity. Next to
each statement is a label that classifies each
priority as research (R), development (D), and/or
application (A). These labels are somewhat
subjective and subject to individual interpretation.
Decision and Execution
1. We lack integrated knowledge bases and
models from multiple disciplines for
effective use in SPB IPM. (R, D, A)
2. We lack the ability to implement SPB
prevention and timely control across
ownerships and scales. (D, A)
23
3. We lack a comprehensive technology
transfer program to inform stakeholders in
the use of new information and
management technologies. (D, A)
4. We lack an administrative infrastructure for
long term maintenance and support of IPM
support systems. (D, A)
5. We lack the markets to utilize SPB killed
and small diameter timber. (D, A)
6. We lack adequate QA/QC for evaluation of
management decision outcomes. (D)
Environmental Assessment
1. We lack the means to automate the NEPA
process.(D, A)
2. We lack the means for environmental
assessment on non-industrial private lands
(NIPL). (D)
3. We lack the means to conduct region-wide
environmental assessments. (R, D)
4. We lack the involvement of liaison groups
to affect the assessment process. (A)
Management Planning
1. We lack an adequate plan and procedure for
emergency response to SPB outbreaks (as
exist for fire control). (D, A)
a. What are the elements of an action plan
with protocols and supervision for SPB
suppression activities.
2. We lack a consistent protocol and
procedure for SPB management that
include all the stakeholder groups. (R, D,
A)
a. What kinds of new policy instruments can
be developed to encourage landowner
cooperation?
b. How can public awareness of SPB
management plan development, e.g.,
NIPFs, be increased?
c. How can an area-wide management
plan that includes all stakeholders be
developed?
d. How can regulatory statutes be
standardized to eliminate conflicting
goals, e.g., local, state and federal
compliance issues?
e. How can economic, environmental, and
social values be applied to sustainable
forest stewardship?
3. Key stakeholders responsible for managing
SPB lack access to needed information and
decision support tools. (D, A)
a. How can the Internet be used to deliver
information on SPB management?
4. We lack adequate markets to utilize small
diameter and SPB killed trees. (D, A)
a. Are there new opportunities for
utilizing beetle-killed trees in primary
and secondary manufacturing?
Forest Database
1. We do not have adequate access to private
and public databases needed for effective,
consistent, and comprehensive SPB
management at all decision making levels.
(D, A)
24
2. We cannot effectively integrate and use
existing and accessible data needed for
SPB management because of inconsistent
data formats and structures. (D)
3. We cannot effectively use existing data on
SPB management because there are large
gaps and variation in the level of detail of
existing data. (D)
Treatments
1. We lack adequate knowledge on the appli-
cation and efficacy of SPB suppression
treatments. (R, D)
2. We lack adequate knowledge on the appli-
cation and efficacy of semiochemical-based
monitoring and treatment tactics. (R, D)
3. We lack adequate knowledge on the appli-
cation and efficacy of SPB prevention
tactics. (R, D)
4. We lack adequate understanding of the
social incentives for landowner partici-
pation in SPB management programs. (R)
5. We lack adequate knowledge of how to
protect individual high value trees from
SPB attack. (R)
Diagnosis
1. Field staff, managers, and landowners lack
ready access to tools and data needed for
making timely and accurate diagnosis. (D)
a. What Internet-based tools are useful?
b. What GIS-based tools are useful?
c. What information support networks are
available?
2. There is a lack of tools to help determine
where and when to apply preventive actions
to reduce forest susceptibility to SPB attack
on all land ownership types. (R, D)
a. Does the SPB:clerid ratio provide a
reliable means for prediction of
population change?
b. How reliable are the existing hazard
and risk assessment procedures?
c. How can forest stand information at the
landscape scale be used in population
prediction?
3. We lack the ability to prioritize
management response to multiple infesta-
tions across landscapes and multiple
ownerships. (D, A)
Monitoring
1. We have inadequate knowledge to monitor
and predict pre- and post-SPB outbreak
populations in both the short and long term.
(R, D)
2. We have inadequate knowledge of the
usefulness of remote sensing technologies
to detect SPB infestations and identify
susceptible forest conditions. (R)
3. We are unable ability to communicate,
utilize, and deliver monitoring information
in a timely manner across multiple owner-
ships and scales. (D, A)
Impact Assessment
1. We lack adequate knowledge to predict the
pattern of forest regeneration that follows
from SPB outbreaks. (R)
25
2. We lack adequate knowledge to quantify
SPB impacts on fire hazard, watersheds,
landscape structure, urban environments,
and biodiversity. (R)
3. We lack adequate knowledge about how
invasive and emerging species interact with
SPB prevention, suppression, forest
restoration activities. (R)
4. We lack knowledge about the social and
economic impacts of the SPB on non-
industrial private forest landowners and
homeowners. (R)
a. What are the direct and indirect
economic affects at various time scales?
b. What are the affects on rural
community development?
5. We lack adequate understanding of public
perception of SPB outbreaks through a
normal epidemic cycle (pre-outbreak,
outbreak, post-outbreak). (R)
a. What are the state and federal
legislative perceptions and awareness of
issues and impacts?
b. Is there public confidence in SPB
management, research, and extension
institutions and agencies?
Forest Database
1. We lack documented knowledge of the
current and future impact of anthropogenic
and cultural influences of tree and forest
dynamics. (R)
a. What is the impact of urbanization on
forest and tree dynamics?
b. How does climate change affect forest
and tree dynamics?
c. How does land use change affect forest
and tree dynamics?
d. How does landscape fragmentation
affect forest and tree dynamics?
2. We lack sufficient understanding of the
relationship between current and emerging
silvicultural practices and SPB population
dynamics. (R)
3. We lack sufficient understanding of the
relationship between forest composition
and structure and SPB outbreaks. (R)
a. What is the relation of landscape
structure and outbreaks of the SPB?
b. What is the relation of forest stand
structure to hazard and risk rating of
SPB outbreaks?
4. We lack sufficient understanding of the
relationship between host and stand quality
and SPB population dynamics. (R)
Pest Population Dynamics
1. We lack adequate knowledge to predict
short and long term patterns of SPB distri-
bution and abundance. (R)
a. What are the key drivers in the
prediction of short term SPB abundance?
b. What are the key drivers in determining
the long term probability of SPB
outbreaks?
c. What is the strength and form of
endogenous feedbacks in SPB
dynamics?
26
2. We lack adequate knowledge of the factors
responsible for maintaining low population
densities and permitting the transition to
outbreak status. (R)
a. Population monitoring tools at low
population levels are insufficient.
b. What effects do root diseases and other
predisposing factors have on popula-
tions?
c. How do forest attributes affect popula-
tions?
d. What are the effects of changing
climate conditions on populations?
3. We lack adequate knowledge of the process
of host selection and colonization. (R)
a. Is there a potential shift in the role of
semiochemicals?
b. How susceptible are RCW trees to
colonization?
4. We lack adequate knowledge of the inter-
action of local populations and immigrating
beetles in originating or sustaining
outbreaks. (R)
a. Is there long distance movement
between infestations?
b. Is there short distance movement within
infestations?
c. Are there genetic shifts in populations?
The RD&A Agenda for the SPB IPM
Program
The identification of specific RD&A priorities
associated with each IPM activity was a signif-
icant accomplishment of the SPB workshop.
These priorities represent direct actions that
should be considered in a comprehensive SPB
IPM program.
Proposed actions, and distribution among
RD&A activities identified at the workshop,
include the following:
27
Proportion of Effort Needed in Integrated SPB RD&A ProgramResearch Acquisition of new knowledge 38%Development Integration and interpretation of existing knowledge 40%Application Use of knowledge for planning, problem solving, decision support 22%
28
Figure 17: Summary of the priorities for research, development, and applications. Ca. 60% of the priorities involveactions associated with development and applications and ca. 40% of the agenda deals specifically with researchissues.
In the view of the workshop participants, the
priorities were distributed among RD&A activ-
ities as illustrated in Figure 17.
Given the substantial existing knowledge base for
the SPB and the past efforts directed to suppression
and prevention of damage caused by the insect, it is
not surprising that ca. 60% of the priorities involve
actions associated with development and applica-
tions. However, ca. 40% of the agenda deals
specifically with research issues. The IPM activ-
ities associated with treatments, impact assessment,
pest population dynamics and tree and forest
dynamics each contained a substantial research
component. The IPM activities associated with
decision and execution, environmental assessment,
and management planning each contained
substantial applications and development compo-
nents. The remaining IPM activities included a
blend of research, development, and applications
actions.
The Deliverable Products From a SPB IPM
RD&A Program
Following the general discussion of the RD&A
priorities, the working groups reconvened for a
final time, in the needs assessment part of the
workshop, to identify the deliverable products that
would result from a targeted SPB IPM program.
As the goal of the IPM program is to measurably
reduce the economic, social, and ecological
impact of the SPB on forests of the South, the
RD&A activities should lead to products that
directly contribute to this end point.
29
The Products Needed From an RD&A
Program for SPB IPM
The specific deliverable products from the
RD&A program, needed for SPB IPM, were
carefully considered by the workshop partici-
pants. Again, each of the ten IPM program
activities was independently examined and the
results are summarized below.
Decision and Execution
1. Effective delivery of a SPB integrated pestmanagement program across ownershipsand scales, including consideration of:
a. Improved management systems.
b. Meta-knowledge about southern pinemanagement.
c. Improved decision support systems.
d. Improved delivery and availability ofknowledge and tools.
e. Enhanced linkages among key agencies.
Environmental Assessment
1. A NEPA DSS to interface with e-NEPA.
2. Web-based and hard copy protocols forEA’s on NIPL.
3. Protocols for regional-wide environmentalassessments.
4. A model for involving all interested partiesin the environmental assessment process.
Management Planning
1. Silvicultural systems to establish desirableforest composition.
2. New validated quantitative measures ofSPB impacts on environmental quality.
3. Protocols to manage the impacts of invasivespecies.
4. SPB management programs that willimprove the socio-economic conditions ofcommunities in forested regions.
5. Technology transfer programs that increasepublic awareness and involvement indecision making and minimize SPBimpacts.
Forest Database
1. Protocols for accessing and using bothprivate and public databases needed forSPB management.
2. Consistent data recording protocols andstructures.
3. Standard inter-operability methods.
4. Cost effective data collection method-ologies.
5. Methodologies for leveraging existing datasets (e.g., other vegetation and land usesets).
Treatments
1. Improved and new tactics to prevent attackand suppress SPB populations.
2. New markets and/or products for SPBkilled and small diameter timber.
3. Programs and incentives for integratedparticipation by stakeholders in SPBmanagement.
Diagnosis
1. Decision support tools with adequatebreadth, depth and simplicity to provide forproper and timely diagnosis.
2. Analytical tools to help determine whereand which silvicultural protocols should beapplied to prevent or reduce SPB-causedimpact across all land ownerships.
3. Spatially explicit decision support systemtools for prioritizing management response.
Monitoring
1. New and improved methods for monitoringand predicting SPB populations.
2. More efficient and effective communicationmethods among all stakeholders.
3. More effective methods for monitoringsusceptible forest conditions.
Impact Assessment
1. Silvicultural systems to establish desirableforest composition.
2. Validated quantitative measures of SPBimpacts on environmental quality.
3. Protocols to manage the impacts of invasivespecies.
4. SPB management programs that willimprove the socio-economic conditions ofcommunities in forested regions.
5. Technology transfer programs to increasepublic awareness and involvement indecision making and minimize SPBimpacts.
Forest Dymanics
1. Improved SPB risk assessment andmanagement capacity based on under-standing of the effects of urbanization,climate change, land use change, and forestfragmentation.
2. Specific validated silvicultural alternativesto reduce SPB impacts.
3. SPB hazard and risk assessment protocolsimproved to enable application at allrelevant spatial and temporal scales.
4. Increased capacity to use geneticimprovement and silvicultural practices tolessen SPB impacts.
Pest Population Dynamics
1. Improved ability to mitigate and predictrisks from SPB to high value trees andforests.
2. Improved ability to manage forests in thelong-term to limit catastrophic treemortality.
3. Improved ability to evaluate the efficacy ofwide area treatments.
4. Improved ability to efficiently allocateresources and funding for SPBmanagement.
Epilog to Needs Assessment
The four progressive steps followed in theworkshop ([1]definition of the scope and boundsof the IPM activities, [2]definition of the RD&Aquestions associated with each activity, [3] priori-tization of the RD&A questions) and [4]definition of deliverable products from an RD&Aeffort) lead to a consensus-based agenda for anRD&A program targeted to SPB IPM. Theagenda was developed by a representative cross-section of the stakeholder community from state,federal, and private sectors. The agenda providesan objective plan for the development of a SPBIPM system that will directly and measurablyreduce economic, social, and ecological impact ofthe insect. By defining the deliverable productsthat would follow from an RD&A program, theworkshop participants also identified the objec-tively verifiable indicators of performanceessential for monitoring a project directed todevelopment of a SPB IPM system.
30
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ASPB RD&A PROGRAM
A SPB RD&A program of the magnitude
envisioned and defined by the workshop partici-
pants is a substantial undertaking. As most of the
participants were scientists and practitioners,
emphasis in the discussion of an implementation
approach centered on the issues associated with
funding, organization, and management of the
program.
Funding
A variety of funding strategies for a SPB RD&A
program are possible and the participants
discussed potential benefits to be derived from
different approaches. The Healthy Forests
Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
(which President George W. Bush subsequently
signed into law on December 3, 2003) were
identified as promising sources of funds directly
linked to the SPB. The negative impact of bark
beetles in general and the SPB in particular, as
well as other damaging forest insect pests, are
specifically addressed in both the Initiative and
the Act.
Organization
In the 1970s and 1980s there were several
research and development programs directed to
forest insect pests, e.g., the ESPBRAP and IPM
programs (for the SPB), the Douglas-fir tussock
moth program, the gypsy moth program, the
spruce budworm program, etc.). Although, there
was some variation in the specific approach used
to manage the individual programs, all were
successful ventures. Each program featured
centralized organization with a program manager
and support staff to deal with domain specific
issues and interaction with project participants.
The following general approach, which is based
on consideration of the issues of concern
expressed by the workshop participants, is
proposed for administering the SPB RD&A
program. A program manager and staff will be
responsible for the technical aspects of the SPB
IPM program. A steering committee (including
representatives of the stakeholder community, the
USDA Forest Service, State Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and State Forestry organiza-
tions) will provide oversight and guidance for the
program. The goals of program management will
be (1) to attract quality scientists and practitioners
to participate in the program, (2) to conduct a peer
reviewed grant-based program targeted specifi-
cally to the research priorities identified, (3) to
ensure a high degree of performance accounta-
bility among program participants, (4) to facilitate
a high degree of coordination among program
participants, (5) to provide fiscal accountability
for the program, and (6) to deliver a SPB IPM
system within the specified time frame and
budget.
Management
Several different management models were
considered by program participants. A primary
issue of the discussion was the concern for
minimizing the overhead costs associated with
management of the program. The following
31
approach, which is based on consideration of the
issues of concern expressed by the workshop
participants, is proposed for managing the SPB
RD&A program. The SPB IPM program would
be administered through the Southern Regional
Integrated Pest Management Center at NC State
University. The center, which is directed by Dr.
Ronald Stinner and funded by CSREES, would
provide the infrastructure needed for the complex
RD&A program. The Center would manage the
peer review grant-based program for RD&A
contracts and provide fiscal accounting for the
program. These services would be on a direct-
cost basis and thereby greatly reduce
administrative overhead for the program.
32
CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS
1. The persistent impact of the SPB on public
and private forests throughout the South places
this destructive pest species at the forefront of the
Healthy Forest Initiative. The Healthy Forestry
Restoration Act provides the means for addressing
the depredations caused by the insect through a
comprehensive RD&A program directed to SPB
IPM.
2. The significant economic, ecological, and
social impact of the SPB on the forests resources
of the South can be reduced and losses caused by
the insect managed within tolerable limits.
However, the current knowledge base for the
insect is inadequate and significant new
technologies are not being used in the context of
contemporary forest and environmental
management practices. A substantial and targeted
RD&A program will address these issues.
3. The IPM concept and methodology (Figure
2) provides a framework suitable for structuring a
SPB RD&A program that will lead to clearly
defined products and procedures needed to reduce
economic, ecological, and social impacts.
4. Participants in the SPB workshop (scientists,
practitioners, and technical specialists from state,
federal, and private agencies and organizations)
critically and systematically examined and
defined the agenda needed for a SPB RD&A
program organized around the IPM approach.
This activity resulted in the four products reported
in this Proceedings: (1) an evaluation of each of
the ten IPM activities, (2) a definition of RD&A
questions for each activity, (3) a prioritization of
the RD&A activities, and (4) a list of deliverable
products that will follow from a SPB IPM
program. These products provide an objective
and consensus-based agenda for the RD&A
program.
5. The technical expertise needed to conduct a
SPB RD&A program is dispersed among a variety
of state, federal, and private agencies and organi-
zation. A centrally organized and specifically
targeted RD&A program will provide the
mechanism needed to coordinate and focus
human resources needed to address IPM of the
SPB.
6. There is solidarity among the scientists,
practitioners and technical specialists from the
various agencies and organizations in state,
federal, private sectors regarding the need for a
centralized RD&A program to address SPB IPM.
Participants in the SPB workshop acknowledged
that implementation of a program could be
accomplished using a model that included a high
degree of coordination, peer-reviewed evaluation
of project proposals, and impeccable fiscal
management.
33
ACTION REQUESTEDThe Agricultural Experiment stations from the
Southern and adjacent regions are requesting $30
million (6 million per year for 5 years) through the
USDA Forest Service to fund a centrally managed
RD&A program to Address IPM of the SPB. This
program will include the stakeholder community
in state, federal and private sectors.
34
ACRONYMSCISC: Continuous Inventory of Stand
Conditions (a database)
CSREES: Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service
DSS: Decision Support System
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
ESBPRAP: Expanded Southern Pine Beetle
Research and Applications Program
FIA: Forest Inventory Assessment
FLMP: Forest Land Management Plan
FS: USDA Forest Service
GIS: Geographic Information System
FIA: Forest Inventory Assessment
FLEP: Forestland Enhancement Program
FLMP: Forest Land Management Plan
ICS: Incident Command System
IPM: Integrated Pest Management
ISO: International Standards Organization
LANDIS: Landscape Disturbance Succession
Model
LIDAR: Laser-Based Elevation Measuring
System
MRLC: Multi Resolution Landcover
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA: National Forest Management Act
NIPF: Non Industrial Private Forest
NIPL: Non Industrial Private Land
NRI: National Resource Inventory
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
QA/QC: Quality Assurance/Quality Control
PETS: Protected, Endangered, Threatened,
Sensitive Species
RD&A: Research, Development and
Applications
RCW: Red Cockaded woodpecker
SAF: Society of American Foresters
SIP: Stewardship Incentive Program
SMZ: Stream Side Management Zone
SPB: Southern Pine Beetle
SPBIS: Southern Pine Beetle Information
System (a database)
USDA: United States Department of
Agriculture
35
APPENDIX I COMPONENTACTIVITIES OF IPMRobert N. Coulson
Participants in the workshop included scientists andpractitioners with specific technical knowledge andexperience on the SPB. Development of a RD&A agendafor a SPB IPM program goes beyond the individualexpertise of any participant. To accommodate this fact,background information for each of the IPM activities wasprovided to participants prior to and at the workshop. Thedescriptions of the IPM activities are generic.
Pest Population Dynamics.—Pest population dynamics(Figure 3) is the study of change in the distribution andabundance of an organism through space and time. Thespatial framework for pest species encompasses a range ofsquare centimeters to hectares and the temporal frameworkmay vary from minutes to years. Within this spatial-temporal framework, it is possible to focus attention onpopulations within a unit of habitat, within a stand, or withina forest landscape (Coulson and Wunneburger 2000).
Pests are of major importance in forest managementbecause they are the agents that consume resources, alter theconditions of the forest landscape, and disrupt managementplans and schedules. Our interest in managing pestsincludes immediate short-term response to outbreak condi-tions involving current population levels and damage as wellas long-term planning to anticipate and prevent populationlevels that lead to outbreaks. Obviously, the approachesused in population management under these two circum-stances are quite different.
When one considers all the variables that affect birth,death, immigration, and emigration in a population of forestinsects, it is not surprising to find that mathematical modelsof population systems are utilized to abstract key elements(Gutierrez 1996). The accuracy and precision of predictivemodels of population dynamics are related to space-timeresolution. Both accuracy and precision diminish as thespace-time framework is enlarged, primarily because of thedifficulties in forecasting weather over long periods of time.Therefore, best results in modeling populations have beenobtained at the stand level of organization and in a period oftime ranging from several weeks to several months. Inmanagement planning for potential pest problems, variablessuch as stand age, species composition and density,localized site conditions, physiographic conditions, andclimatic zones within the range of a particular pest speciesare used in predicting the likelihood of pest problemsoccurring at various age intervals of forest growth.
Tree and Forest Dynamics.—The forest stand is oftenthe focal point of IPM because it is the basic unit used byforesters for inventory, planning, and operations. Tree andforest dynamics (Figure 4) includes consideration of causesfor changes in the distribution, abundance, and size of a hosttree species through space and time. In the context of IPM,we may be interested in either (1) the role of pests (insects,diseases, etc.) in the population dynamics of the host treespecies or (2) the role of the host in the population dynamicsof the pest. In the first case, where interest is in the role ofpests in the population dynamics of the host, the temporalframework spans the rotation time for a particular treespecies, which can range from ca. 6 to 200 years. Thespatial framework will normally be in hectares. We empha-sized earlier that specific pests are associated with aparticular tree species, age-class, and plant anatomic parts.Therefore, during the period from seed to mature tree, manypest species, as well as other biotic and abiotic agents, havethe opportunity to affect tree growth rate and survival. Inthe second case, where we are interested in the role of thehost in the population dynamics of the pest, the spatialframework can range from a single tree, to stands, and toforests comprised of stands in different age classes. Thetemporal framework can span from hours to several years.Host trees vary in susceptibility to colonization by insectsand suitability as food and habitat. Tree species, age, andgeneral vigor are variables that influence both susceptibilityand suitability. Furthermore, many tree species possessdefense mechanisms that deter insects; for instance, theresin system of pines is considered to be a primary defenseagainst certain bark beetle species.
Foresters have developed mathematical models to predictforest stand growth and yield for many of the commerciallyimportant tree species. Data for these models are collectedas part of the normal forestry inventory conducted on federal,state, and private lands. Growth and yield models haveproved to be useful in IPM, particularly when we are inter-ested in defining costs associated with tree mortality orgrowth reduction resulting from the activities of pest species.
Significant advances in both the theory and practice ofspatial modeling of forest landscapes have been made inrecent years (Gustafson 1998, Mladenoff and Baker 1999,and Rauscher 2000). Major emphasis has centered onadvancing scientific understanding of forest landscapes(e.g., forest succession and disturbance, vegetationdynamics, impact of deforestation, harvesting effects onlandscape structure, etc. (Mladenoff and Baker 1999) and onapplications to enhance forest management practice (e.g.,forest management decisions for wildlife, decision analysisfor forest ecosystem management, assessment of watershedcondition, etc. (Rauscher 2000).
36
Impact Assessment.—The concept of pest impact onforest resources and conditions is a central issue of IPM.Impact (Figure 5) is broadly defined to mean any effect on theforest environment resulting from the activities of insects.From an ecological perspective forest insects can act as herbi-vores, carnivores, or detritivores. Through these activitiesinsects can cause changes in forest conditions (the abioticenvironment, biotic environment, and forest configuration)and valued forest resources (timber production, hydrology,fish and wildlife, recreation, grazing, real estate, biodiversity,endangered species, cultural resources, and non-wood forestproducts). The degree of insect impact is evaluated usingecological, economic, social and political criteria.
Typically, for an insect (or other arthropod) to beconsidered a pest, in a forest management context, theimpact must be substantial, i.e., of sufficient magnitude tocause a human reaction. Because any reaction will involveexpenditure of capital (human or monitory), pestmanagement programs are often associated with high valueforest environments, i.e., intensively managed forest,specialized forestry settings, and urban/suburban forests. Inthese environments, the reaction is to suppress or prevent theactivities of phytophages or anthropophages.
Evaluating impacts can be extremely complicated. Aparticular insect can have both negative and positive impactsdepending on the criteria used in judgment and theparticular forest management goal. For example, a defoli-ating insect could, at the same time, reduce incrementalgrowth of a host tree species, provide nutrient enrichment tothe forest, and serve as food for fish. The first impact wouldusually be considered negative, whereas the second andthird would be positive. Because of the difficulties involvedin assessing impacts, it is not surprising to find, again, thatmathematical models are used for interpretative as well aspredictive purposes.
In the activity dependency diagram for IPM (Figure 2),impact evaluation involves a reciprocal interaction with thepest population dynamics and tree and forest dynamicscomponents. The results of the impact evaluation feeddirectly to the environmental assessment component. Thisflow illustrates how forest protection activities link directlyto the upper echelons of the management hierarchy.
Monitoring.—Recall that to monitor is to observe criti-cally in ways that do not affect the resources and conditionsof the forest environment. Monitoring (Figure 6) involvescollecting data about the forest environment. Forestlandscapes are monitored for a variety of reasons, e.g., (1) toinventory the resources and conditional states of the forestenvironment, (2) to demonstrate compliance with legalforest management statutes, (3) to evaluate the impact ofdisturbance events, (4) to survey the activities of pestorganisms, etc.
In the context of IPM, surveys involve monitoring treeand forest dynamics and the distribution and abundance ofactual or potential pest insects or the damage they cause.There are several types of insect surveys that can be appliedin intensively managed forests, specialized forestry setting,and urban/suburban forests. Forest surveys can be quanti-tative or qualitative with regard to the type of data collected.Surveys are often classed according to their purpose in thefollowing way: (1) detection surveys, (2) biological evalua-tions, (3) loss or damage surveys, (4) pest controlevaluations. The specific procedures used depend on thetype of forest situation being sampled, the type of surveybeing conducted, and the intended use of the data collected.
The data collected in a survey are used for two purposes:to diagnose the nature and extent of the pest problem and toenrich the forest data base. Because of the importance ofcorrect and contemporary information for use in IPMdecisionmaking and the high costs associated withsurveying pest populations, advanced technologies are oftenused to capture (remote sensing), analyze (spatial statisticalprocedures) (Gustafson 1998), display (geographic infor-mation systems - GIS), and interpret (decision supportsystems - DSS) (Coulson et al. 1999) survey data.
Diagnosis.—To diagnose is to recognize and identify byexamination and observation. There are two aspects ofdiagnosis (Figure 7): the first involves identification of thecause of the pest problem and the second involves evalu-ation of the extent damage. Monitoring forest insects,through the various types of surveys, provides basic infor-mation about the activities of pest species. The surveys areoften routinely scheduled for important pest species. Forexample, most of the States in the southern US conductaerial surveys to detect the presence and estimate theabundance of the southern pine beetle, D. frontalis. Thesesurveys are usually initiated in April and May. Diagnosis isclosely coupled with monitoring. It involves inspectinginfestations on the ground (ground checking) and verifyingthe causal agent after pest activity has been detected. Thepest species could be D. frontalis or another bark beetlespecies. Verifying the pest to be D. frontalis is important, asthis insect is capable of causing significant tree mortality.However, there are other instances where unexpectedoutbreaks of pest insects occur. For example in 2000-2001,the red oak borer, Enaphalodes rufulus (Halderman)(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) was found infesting large areasof hardwood forests in Arkansas and Missouri, US. Thisinsect normally is considered to be a minor pest, but, in thisinstance the population size was sufficient to cause wide-spread mortality to a variety of red oak species. Diagnosisinvolved examination of the host material to identify thecausal agent and an appraisal of the extent of damage thatoccurred.
37
Forest entomologists (and forest pathologists) diagnosethe cause and extent of pest problems. Their diagnoses arebased on fundamental understanding of insect pests and thedamage they cause. This understanding is founded onknowledge of the natural history of the pest species.
Diagnosis often includes consideration of experientialknowledge provided by foresters who are familiar with aparticular forest environment, i.e. diagnosis is a collaborativeactivity that may involve the technical expertise of more thanone specialists. Because it is often difficult to assembletechnical specialists to address each forest pest problem,computer-based technologies have been employed to capturethe heuristic knowledge of experts. Expert systems, whichare computer programs designed to mimic the reasoningprocess of human experts, are suitable for this purpose(Coulson and Saunders 1987, Saarenmaa 1992, Saarenmaaet al. 1994, Saunders et al. 1993, Stone et al. 1986).
Treatment Tactics.—One outcome of the diagnosisactivity can be that an insect pest is causing sufficientimpact to warrant human intervention. Treatment tactics(Figure 8) are planned procedures that are used to modify orregulate the distribution and abundance of a pest species. Aswith the other elements of IPM, treatments have time andspace components. That is, we are interested in ways andmeans of suppression of an existing pest population and inprevention of potential pest population outbreaks. In thecase of suppression the time frame may range from severalweeks to months and the space framework from single treesto stands. However, more than one stand within a forestlandscape can be affected. In the case of prevention ourtime framework may span the rotation period for a treespecies and the space framework includes stands withinforest landscapes. Obviously the procedures used insuppression and prevention are quite different.
Historically, a great deal of attention has been given todevelopment of treatments for specific pest problems.Conceptually, these tactics affect reproduction, mortality,immigration, and emigration. There are numerous ways tomanipulate these population system components. Thespecific procedure is often referred to as a control procedureor control tactic. It is not our intention here to review all theprocedures used against forest insects. Following areseveral examples that illustrate various tactics used insuppression and prevention.
Suppression tactics are directed to existing pest popula-tions. Examples of tactics are: (1) biological control,including augmentation of insect parasitoids, insectpredators, avian predators, and disease; (2) chemicals,including various pesticides and herbicides; (3) behaviorchemicals, including compounds that result in attraction anddispersal; (4) utilization, which involves harvesting ofinfested host materials; (5) various mechanical procedures,
including felling infested hosts and burning infested hosts,and (6) use of genetically altered (transgenic) host plants.
Techniques used in prevention of insect outbreaks include(1) regulatory controls, which are designed to prevent intro-duction of pests into uninfested forests or contain them(through quarantine) in localized areas and (2) cultural orsilvicultural controls that include management of standcharacteristics such as species composition, age, anddensity; site maintenance; and avoidance of disturbances toboth stands and sites.
The concept of IPM stresses that a variety of tactics canbe used simultaneously to manage pest populations. Thesetactics collectively constitute a strategy. It is possible todevelop strategies for both suppression and preventiongoals. For a particular treatment tactic to be included as partof a strategy, it must be efficacious, safe, cost-effective,legal, and socially acceptable. Reference to Figure 8indicates that treatment strategies are directly linked toenvironmental assessment.
Forest Database.—Accurate information on the state ofthe environment is a critical component of all forestmanagement programs. The data that provide informationabout the forest environment are collectively referred to asthe forest database (Figure 9). The database containsnumerical data that describe different attributes of the bioticand abiotic forest environment. The database can alsoinclude data on the condition of the atmosphere.Historically, forest landscapes have been organized formanagement purposes using a hierarchical system. Forexample on national forests in the US, the basic unit oforganization is the stand. Stands are aggregated intocompartments. Compartments are combined to form aranger district. Ranger districts are combined to form anational forest. Commercial timber companies use a similarsystem for private forest lands. The basic unit of forestmanagement does not have to be the stand. Landscapemanagement practices could, for example, use the bound-aries of a watershed to delimit a management unit. Multiplewatersheds could be clustered in manner analogous to thecompartment configuration. However, the specificnumerical data comprising the various themes of thedatabase are associated with a basic management unit.
Because the forest database is complex, GIS and databasemanagement technologies are used to organize, integrate,and display information. Typical spatially referencedthemes represented in the database include: a base map,vegetation types, forest tree inventory, terrain features,hydrography, road corridors, etc. Very detailed data aboutthe management unit can be stored in a separate databasemanagement system and accessed, manipulated anddisplayed in the GIS. The forest database is used to store theresults of monitoring and to guide management planning.
38
Management Planning.—The goals of forestmanagement vary among the different types of forestenvironments. The management plan (Figure 10) for aspecific forest environment will be based on accomplishingdefined goals. For example, the management plan for acommercial seed orchard would emphasize profitability.The details of the plan to achieve this end include ways tomaximize production of high quality seed (which thecustomers require) while minimizing the coasts associatedwith the operation. The management plan employed by acity government for an urban forest might emphasize scenicbeauty as its management goal. The details of the plan toachieve this end would be substantially different from thoseused by the seed orchard manager. In the US, themanagement goal for public forests is sustainability whileproviding goods and services to citizens. The NationalForest Management act of 1976 (as amended) specifies thisgoal. How to achieve this goal is defined by the NationalForest System Land and Resource Management Planningrule (as revised). The current rule describes the frameworkfor National Forest System land and natural resourceplanning (Federal Register 2000). The principal goal forprivately owned intensively managed forest properties isprofit from the sales of goods and services. The plan toachieve this goal typically will emphasize ways to maximizegrowth and yield, minimize taxation liability, and minimizenegative environmental impacts. The certification programsfor sustainable forest management and legal statutes provideboundaries that constrain the management plan.
Pest insects are associated with all of the forest environ-ments and, therefore, management plans must consider theirimpact. In production forests, insect consumers directlycompete with humans for resources. IPM is the approachused to deal with insect pests when they disrupt our planneduses of the forest environment.
Environment Assessment.—Environmental assessment(Figure 11) deals with evaluating change to the environmentresulting from human actions. In the context of IPM,assessment centers on evaluating change in the environmentresulting from suppression or prevention activitiesassociated with forest protection. In particular we are inter-ested in the effects of proposed IPM actions on the forestenvironment. The terms effect, impact, and consequence areused interchangeably.
In the US, the substance of environmental assessment isdefined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(as amended) - (NEPA). This act requires that federalagencies assess the environmental impact of implementingtheir major programs and actions. For projects or actionsthat are expected to have a significant effect on the qualityof the environment, the responsible agency is required to file
a formal environmental impact statement (EIS) (Jain et al.1993). The EIS is a substantial undertaking and involves thepreparation of a document that addresses the following keyissues for a proposed action (Jain et al. 1993):
1. The environmental impact of the proposed actions.2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implemented.3. The alternatives to proposed actions.4. The relationship between local short-term uses of the
environment and the maintenance of enhanced long termproductivity.
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments ofresources which would be involved in the proposed actionshould it be implemented.
The environmental assessment activity follows from theselection of specific treatment tactics and consideration ofthe impact of the pest species on forest resources and condi-tions (Figure 11). The need for IPM actions is often a resultof an insect outbreak which was not anticipated or predicted.In these instances, it is difficult for the responsible federalagency to develop an EIS and provide for protection ofvalued forest conditions or resources in a timely manner.This dilemma is one of the challenges of forest protection.Environmental assessment is a complex, costly, and slowprocess.
It is noteworthy that the initial models of IPM did notexplicitly address the issue of environmental assessment.This activity is a key component of the contemporary viewof IPM that is addressed formally for public lands throughthe NEPA - EIS mechanism. It is dealt with directly onprivate forest lands through the sustainable forestry certifi-cation programs and specific environmental statutes.
Decision and Execution.—The final component of theIPM activities model is decision and execution (Figure 12).This activity involves both judgment and directed action.The issues associated with these two components are quitedifferent and we discuss each in turn.
The judgment (decision) component of IPM is anintegrative step. To reach this position in the IPM model wehave had to participate in nine other activities (see Figure12). The data and information that form the knowledge basefor a specific forest management problem involving pestinsects (and diseases) often come from several differentdomain specialties, such as, entomology, forestry, ecology,geography, sociology, and economics. The knowledge basecan exist in several forms: (1) tabular information (usuallystored in a database management system, (2) spatially refer-enced data themes (usually associated with a geographicinformation system, (3) numerical output from simulationmodels and mathematical evaluation functions, (4) unstruc-tured paper and hypertext documents, and (5) heuristics of
39
experts (based on corporate experiences of humans(Coulson et al. 1996). Given this complexity, integrativecomputer-based technologies have been used to aid insupporting the decisionmaking process of the forestmanager (Coulson and Saunders 1987). A variety ofapproaches have been employed and Schmoldt (2001)reviews applications developed specifically for insects anddiseases, e.g., Potter et al. 2000 - (gypsy moth), Power andSaarenmaa (1995) - eastern hemlock looper, Reynolds andHolsten (1994) - spruce beetle. Synthesis for planning,problem-solving, and decision support involves the use ofboth qualitative and quantitative information. It is achallenging task that is the focus of considerable ongoingresearch and development.
The directed action (execution) component of IPMinvolves application of one or more of the tactics availablefor pest population suppression or prevention of damage.The arsenal of weapons includes chemical pesticides,biological control with natural enemies, mechanical orphysical methods (e.g., trapping, habitat destruction, etc.),silvicultural practices, and regulatory (legal) procedures(e.g., quarantines). These actions can be combined to forma strategy for protection that can be integrated into the forestmanagement plan. In some instances the evaluation phasemay suggest that the best response to the pest activity is noaction. For example, the cost of an insecticide applicationmay exceed the value of the trees in the forest stand or theenvironmental impact may be greater than desirable.
Literature CitedCoulson, R. N. and M. C. Saunders. (1987) Computer-
assisted decision-making as applied to entomology.Annu. Rev. Entomol. 32: 415-38.
Coulson, R. N., W. C. Daugherity, E. J. Rykiel, H.Saarenmaa, and M. C. Saunders. 1996. The pragmatismof ecosystem management: planning, problem-solving,and decisionmaking with knowledge based systems.Proc. EcoInforma ‘96 Global Networks forEnvironmental Information 10: 342-50.
Coulson, R. N., M. C. Saunders, Hannu Saarenmaa, W. C.Daugherity, and E. J. Rykiel. 1999. A Knowledgesystem environment for ecosystem management. InKlopatek, J. and R. Gardner (Eds.). LandscapeEcological Analysis. Springer-Verlag, NY.
Coulson, R. N. and D. F. Wunneburger 2000. Inpact ofinsects on human-dominated and natural forestlandscapes. In Coleman, D. C. and P. F. Hendrix (Eds.).Invertebrates as Webmasers of Ecosystems. CABInternational, Wallingford, UK.
Federal Register. 2000. National Forest System Land andResource Management Planning, USDA, Forest Service,Final Rule. Vol. 65, No. 18.
Gustafson, E. J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatialpattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1: 143-56.
Gutierrez, A. P. 1996. Population Ecology. John Wiley andSons. NY.
Jain, R. K., L. V. Urban, G. S. Stacey, and H. E. Balbach.1993. Environmental Assessment. McGraw-Hill, Inc. NY.
Mladenoff, D. J. and W. L. Baker (Eds.). 1999. SpatialModeling of Forest Landscape Change. CambridgeUniversity Press. NY.
Potter, W. D., X. Deng, J. Li, M. Xu, Y. Wei, I. Lappis, M. J.Twery, and D. J. Bennett. 2000. A web-based expertsystem for gypsy moth risk assessment. Computers andElectronics in Agriculture 27: 95-103.
Power, J. M. and H. Saarenmaa. 1995. Object-orientedmodeling and GIS integration in a decision supportsystem for the management of the eastern hemlocklooper in Newfoundland. Computers and Electronics inAgriculture 22: 1-18.
Rauscher, M. (Ed.). 2000. Computers and Electronics inAgriculture. 27: vol 1-3.
Reynolds, K. M. and E. H. Holsten. 1994. Classification ofspruce beetle hazard in Lutz and Sitka spruce stands inthe Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Forest Ecology andManagement 84: 215-262.
Saarenmaa, H. 1992. Integrated pest management in forestsand information technology. Proc. IUFRO S.207-05. InDimitri, L. (Ed.) Integrated Control of Scolytid BarkBeetles. Hann. Munden, Germany, 19-22 August 1991.
Saarenmaa, H., J. Perttunen, J. Väkevä, and A. Nikula.1994. Object-oriented modeling of the tasks and agentsin integrated forest health management. AmericanAssociation for Artificial Intelligence, NationalConference `92 Workshop on AI in Natural Resources.San Jose, California, July 12-17, 1992. AI Applicationsin Natural Resource Management 8: 43-59.
Saunders, M. C., R. N. Coulson, and L. J. Folse. 1993.Natural resource management and agriculture, applica-tions of artificial intelligence. Encyclopedia ofMicrocomputers, Vol. 12: 149-162.
Schmoldt, D. L. 2001. Application of artificial intelligenceto risk analysis for forested ecosystems. In von Gadow,K. (Ed.). 2000. Risk Analysis in Forest Management.Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston.
40
Stone, N. D., R.N. Coulson, R. E. Frisbie, and D. K. Loh.1986. Expert systems in entomology: three approachesto problem solving. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 32:161-166.
41
APPENDIX I: TOPICOUTLINES FOR THEDISCUSSION OF THERESEARCH AGENDA FOREACH OF THE TEN IPMACTIVITIES
DECISION AND EXECUTIONENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTMANAGEMENT PLANNINGFOREST DATABASETREATMENTSDIAGNOSISMONITORINGIMPACT ASSESSMENTFOREST STAND DYNAMICSPEST POPULATION DYNAMICS
DECISION AND EXECUTIONI. Pest Management Systems and Decision MakingFramework
A. Prevention Driven Priorities For Management andResource AllocationB. Suppression Activities
1. Land Ownership, Adjacency, ScaleConsiderations
C. Emergency ResponseD. Types of Forest Ownership and ManagementDecision Making Authority
1. Strengthen Effectiveness of Links AmongLocal, Private, State, Federal Expertise andAuthorities2. Reduce Complexity of Decision MakingSystems and Number of Agencies Involved
a. Federal(1) Framework for Decision Making
(a) Links Between KnowledgeDevelopment and TechnologyTransfer(b) NEPA Driven Framework(c) Emergency Vs Non-EmergencyDriven Priorities for Managementand Resource Allocation(d) Links Between State & PrivateForestry and State Forestry AgenciesNeed to be Efficient
b. State(1) Ensure State Forestry Agencies CanAllocate Adequate and Timely Resourcesto SPB Management and SuppressionActivities (vs. other priorities)
(a) Implementation Plans Need toBe in Place(b) Real-Time Considerations(c) Area-Wide Activities Across AllOwnerships(d) Role of Local People/Institutionsin Declaring SPB SuppressionEmergency Condition (e.g., Role ofGrass Roots Expertise [CityArborists, Technical AdvisoryCommittees, Extension Specialistsand Agents] vs. Reliance on Federaland State Agencies.(e) Defendable SPB SuppressionPlans(f) Efficacy of Resource AllocationSystems (e.g., for Manpower, etc.)(g) Consider Role of PrivateContractors in Detection andSuppression Activities
c. Privated. Urban and Community Forests
3. Links Between New Knowledge Developmentand Technology Transfer
a. Research Programsb. Extension and Outreach Programs
(1) Strengthen Links to Federal Programs(a) Prevention Activities (e.g., FLMP[Forest Land Management Plan],Pre-Commercial Thinning, CostIncentives, Hazard Reduction)
(2) Strengthen Awareness of InstitutionalCapability
(a) State Forestry Institutions,National Association of StateForesters, Southern Group of StateForesters, SAF (Society of AmericanForesters)
c. Strength and Adequacy of Tools Availableand Utilized by States
(1) Develop New, Validated Tools forSuppression and Prevention Activities(2) Determine Types of Tools Required
(a) Computer-Based DecisionSupport Systems(b) Highly Integrated Functionalityand Capability
42
(c) Internet Delivery Capability(d) Updated Handbooks, Manuals, etc. d. Marketing Opportunities
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTI. Public Lands (NEPA Compliance)
A. Development of Procedures to Automate the NEPA(National Environmental Policy Act) Process
1. E-NEPA2. DSS (decision support system) for NEPA3. Prevention
a. Thinningb. Effects on Adjacent Properties
4. Suppressiona. Site Specific Location of InfestationForecastingb. Evaluation for Various Tactics
(1) Cut and Leave(2) Insecticides(3) Salvage
c. Effects on Adjacent Properties5. Restoration
a. Effects on Adjacent Propertiesb. Effects of Replantingc. Effects on Forest Management and Plans
B. Liaison Groups1. Local Governments2. Industry3. Special Interest
II. Private LandsA. Develop Web-based Guidelines for EnvironmentalAssessment
1. Prevention2. Suppression3. Restoration
B. Environmental Assessment of Local Prevention,Suppression, and Restoration Practices
III. Industrial LandsA. Sustainable Forest Initiative Compliance
1. Prevention2. Suppression3. Restoration
IV. Region WideA. Landscape Assessments
1. Assessment Tools/Methodologies2. Forest Models
a. Forest Vegetation Simulatorb. SPB Event Monitorc. LANDIS (Landscape DisturbanceSuccession Model)
3. Remote Sensing Approaches
MANAGEMENT PLANNINGI. Ensure Comparability with Fire Management Programs
A. Identify Key New Policy InstrumentsB. Consider Landowner AdjacencyC. Ensure SPB Outbreaks Considered as Emergencies
1. Develop Associated Emergency Management PlansII. Use Adaptive Forest Management Approaches
A. Consider ISO14001 (International StandardsOrganization) Environmental Management PlansB. System (EMS - Ecosystem Management)Framework
1. Plan-do-check Review Cycle to Planning2. Seek Continual Improvement
C. Incorporate Incident Command System (ICS)compatibility
1. Logistics2. Finance3. Planning4. Operations5. Command
D. Full Confederation of Sustainable ForestManagement by Considering Economic (Includingcost-Benefit for Taxpayer, Environmental and SocialValues in Stewardship Context
III. Assure Funding SecurityA. DetectionB. Sustainable ManagementC. Emergency Response
IV. Land Ownership and Management SpecificA. Public
1. National Forests2. National Parks3. Military4. State
B. Private1. Industrial2. NIPF (Non Industrial Private Forest)
C. Urban and Community ForestsV. Coordinated Management for Planning at NationalLevel which Links Across All Scales and Ownership
A. Increase Speed of Timber Movement from HarvestBlock to Landing to Mill, Including Processing andDisposal SitesB. Develop Effective Service Capacity for Planningand Management of Responses to SPB OutbreakC. Develop Necessary GIS (geographic informationsystem) Capability and Databases (Link to ForestDatabase and Diagnosis Activities.D. Coordinate with Key Relevant Programs Across allState and Federal Agencies (e.g., FLMP, SIP[Stewardship Incentive Program], etc.)
43
E. Provide Incentives for Management Activities andCoordinationF. Reduced Constraints Across Diverse ManagementauthoritiesG. Improve Regulatory Authority to AccomplishGoals.
1. Utilize Existing Management Plans Until SuchTime as New Plans Are Approved (To PreventDelays and Gridlock).
H. Examine Regulatory Statutes for Parallel andConflicting Goals
1. Local, State, and Federal compliance IssuesI. Add Public Information Component (Link to ForestDatabase and Diagnosis Activities)
1. Pre-Infestation Data2. Internet Based
J. Consider International (e.g., Mexico)K. Increased Public Awareness of SPB in ManagementPlan Development (NIPSs)
VI. Consider Coordination and Review of Impact andConsequences of Management Plans and Activity
A. Landowner AdjacencyB. Industry Impacts (Including IndustryConsolidation)C. Management Plan EfficacyD. Survey Stakeholder Management Objectives
VII. Increase Effectiveness of Links Between Research andManagement Programs
A. New Knowledge, Technology Dissemination andUptake
VIII. Coordinated RD&A Program ManagementIX. Link Management Planning with Decision andExecution
FOREST DATABASEI. Data InteroperabilityII. Collection Consistency
A. Coordinated1. State2. Federal3. Private
B. Data StandardsIII. Legal and Policy Constraint
A. e-Gov.B. OMB (Office of Management and Budget)RegulationsC. Business Plan
IV. InputA. Suitability of Data Structures
1. Forest Service Corporate Databases2. FIA (Forest Inventory Assessment)
3. SPBIS (Southern Pine Beetle InformationSystem4. NRI
B. Existing Data Sources1. Legacy and Historic (e.g., CISC [ContinuousInventory of Stand Conditions])
C. Data Availability1. Remote Sensing
a. Improve Inventoryb. Detectionc. New Technologies
(1) Sensors(2) Hyperspectral(3) LIDAR(4) Visualization(5) Object Classification(6) Most Closest Neighbor
2. Inventory3. Characterize Data
D. Minimum Data Requirements for IPMV. Output
A. Users1. State2. Private
B. Trend AnalysisC. SuppressionD. Risk RatingE. Hazard Rating
1. Areawide across All OwnershipsF. DetectionG. PreventionH. RestorationI. Impact AssessmentJ. Forecasting
VI. Storage and ManagementA. How to AccessB. Where to Put ItC. How to Sore ItD. Maintenance
1. Interface2. Structure3. Reference Tables4. Documentation5. Training
44
TREATMENT STRATEGIESI. Let Nature Take Its CourseII. Maintain at Tolerable Levels
A. Matching Tree Species to SiteIII. Prevention
A. Directed at the Tree1. Monitoring
a. Pestb. Natural Enemies
2. Insecticides3. Behavior-based Tactics
a. Seriocomicalb. Visual and Other Cues
B. Directed at the Stand1. Seriocomical
a. Trap Outb. Disruption
2. Augmentation and Conservation of NaturalEnemies
a. Habitat Retentionb. Inundative Releasec. Augmentation Via Food Supplementsd. Augmentation With Pheromones
3. Monitoringa. Pestb. Natural Enemies
4. Species Composition5. Shortened Harvest Rotations6. Age Diversity7. Trap Trees8. Sanitation Thinning and Removals9. Hazard Rating10. Risk Rating11. Optimizing Stand Density
a. Planting Densityb. Thinning
C. Directed at the Forest1. Semiochemicals
a. Trap Outb. Disruption
2. Monitoringa. Pestb. Natural Enemies
3. Augmentation and Conservation of NaturalEnemies
a. Habitat Retentionb. Inundative Releasec. Augmentation Via food Supplementsd. Augmentation With Pheromones
4. Matching Tree Species to Site5. Hazard Rating6. Risk Rating
D. Directed at the Landscape1. Semiochemicals
a. Trap Outb. Semiochemicals
2. Augmentation and Conservation of NaturalEnemies
a. Habitat Retentionb. Inundative Releasec. Augmentation Via Food Supplementsd. Augmentation With Pheromones
3. Monitoringa. Pestb. Natural Enemies
IV. SuppressionA. Directed at the Tree
1. Monitoringa. Pestb. Natural Enemies
2. Insecticides3. Behavioral-based Tactics
a. Semiochemicalsb. Visual Cure and Others
B. Directed at the Stand1. Indirect Control
a. Augmentation and Conservation of NaturalEnemies
(1) Habitat retention(2) Inundative Release(3) Augmentation Via Food Supplements(4) Augmentation with Pheromones
2. Monitoringa. Pestb. Natural Enemies
3. Direct Controlsa. Cut and Leaveb. Cut and Removec. Pile and Burnd. Cut and Hand Spraye. Semiochemicals
(1) Trap Out(2) Disruption
4. Hazard Rating5. Risk Rating
C. Directed at the Forest1. Indirect Control
a. Augmentation and Conservation of NaturalEnemies
(1) Habitat Retention(2) Inundative Release(3) Augmentation Via Food Supplements(4) Augmentation with Pheromones
b. Bait and Remove
45
2. Detection and Monitoringa. Aerial Detectionb. Ground Checkingc. Natural Enemies
3. Direct Controla. Cut and Leaveb. Cut and Removec. Pile and Burnd. Cut and Hand Spraye. Semiochemicals
(1) Trap Out(2) Disruption
D. Directed at the Landscape1. Coordination of Applications of Strategies andTactics
a. Communication Systemsb. Record Keepingc. Administrationd. Funding Supporte. Market Development
V. Efficacy EvaluationA. At All treatment Scales
VI. Directed at the StakeholdersA. Extension/Education ProgramsB. Creation of New MarketsC. Incentives for Beetle Management on SmallWoodlotsD. Regulatory Options for SPB Management
DIAGNOSISI. Identification of Causal Organism(s)
A. Real Time RequirementB. Consider Knowledge of SPB EcologyC. Relevant To Scale of Event Detection
1. Tree2. Stand3. Forest4. Region
D. Field-Based Work1. Considers Ownership and ManagementResponsibility and Authority (e.g., AccessPermission)
a. Publicb. Privatec. Industriald. Urban and Community Forestse. Other Public Land
2. Associates (Predator, Parasite, Prey)3. Taxonomic Expertise Requirement (Trainingand Education priority)
E. Laboratory-Based Work1. Taxonomic Expertise
II. EvaluationA. Relevant to Scale of Event Detection
1. Treea. Ground Verification
2. Spota. Evaluation Model (Including List ofCritical Factors Essential for Predictionb. Tree Status [Dead, Active (e.g., brood),Non Infected]
3. Standa. SPB: Clerid Ratiob. Pheromone Traps
4. Forest5. Region
B. Hazard Assessment (Scale Relevant)1. Process to Prioritize Infestations to Treat forPublic and Non-Public Lands2. Evaluation of Alternate Systems
C. Risk Assessment (Scale Relevant)1. Location-Related Risks as Related to DiverseOwnership in Highly Fragmented Landscapes
D. Systems to Diagnose Need for Preventative ActionsTo be Taken to Reduce Susceptibility to SPB AttackE. Computer-Aided Decision Support Tools
1. Includes GIS Componentsa. Spatially Explicitb. Scale Linkage Functionality (Tree-Stand-Forest-Region)
2. Spot Evaluation, Prioritization and Treatmenta. Rules for Prioritization
3. Enable Treatment Recommendationa. Evaluate Applicability of SPBIS Data Setsto Private Landsb. Improve SPBIS Functionality AddEvaluate Opportunities of Simplification
4. Consider Ownership and ManagementResponsibility and Authority
a. Public(1) State and Federal Lands, Wildernessand Other Set Asides (e.g. SMZs [streamside management zones[)
b. Privatec. Industriald. Urban and Community Forestse. Other Public Land
5. Operational LogisticsIII. Prediction
A. Relevant to Scale of Event Detection (as forEvaluation)B. Computer-Aided Decision Support ToolsC. Include GIS componentsD. Enable Treatment Recommendations
46
E. Consider Ownership and ManagementResponsibility and AuthorityF. Develop Capacity for Using Population and ForestStand Information to Predict Pest PopulationDynamics and Movement and Potential Implicationsfor Forest Impacts
MONITORINGI. Insects
A. Tree1. Sampling2. Ground Check
B. Stand1. Pheromone Trapping2. Distribution of Brood Stages
C. Forest1. Passive Monitoring of Flying SPB in Non-Lethal Treatments2. Pheromone Trapping
D. Landscape1. Pheromone Trapping2. Regional Movement
II. HostsA. Tree
1. Sampling2. Ground Check3. Remote Sensing
a. Higher Spatial and Spectral Resolutionb. Object Classification Methods
B. Stand1. Ground Inspection2. Remote Sensing
a. Higher Spatial and Spectral Resolutionb. Object Classification Methods
3. Hazard Rating4. Post Suppression Monitoring
C. Forest1. Aerial Survey2. Remote Sensing
D. Landscape/Region1. Aerial Survey2. Remote Sensing3. Standardized Record Keeping Systems4. Standardized Methodologies for Monitoring
III. Inciting FactorsA. High Resolution Weather Data
IV. Natural EnemiesV. Associated Species
A. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker1. Foraging Habitat Loss2. Cavity Tree Loss
IMPACTI. Ecological
A. Impacts on Wildlife and Biodiversity1. Effects on Other Arthropods2. Effects on Other Fauna
a. Deerb. Turkeyc. Song birdsd. Reptiles and Amphibianse. PETS (Protected, Endangered, Threatened,Sensitive) Species
3. Effects on Corridors4. Effects on Flora
a. Herbsb. Shrubsc. Treesd. Effects on Sensitive Plant Communities
B. Impacts on Forest Composition1. What Regenerates in Various Forest Impactedby SPB
a. Natural Regenerationb. Restoring to Desired Conditions
(1) Ecological(2) Economic(3) Restoration: What is Feasible
2. Landscape Perforation, Fragmentation, andDissection
a. Positive Effectsb. Negative Effects
C. Impacts on the Environment1. Watershed
a. Erosionb. Water Qualityc. Stream Flow
2. Air Quality3. Increased Fire Hazard4. Soil Quality5. Urban Impact6. Shade7. Heat Index8. Air Pollution
II. EconomicA. Direct Loss
1. Effects on NIPF (non industrial privatelandowners) Landowners
a. Ability/Willingness to Restore DesiredConditionsb. Decreased Revenues from Timber =Poverty/Less Prosperityc. Consideration of Adjacent Properties
47
2. Effects on Public Landsa. Decreased Revenue from Timberb. Decreased Revenues from Recreationc. Cost of Restorationd. Cost of Suppression
3. Effects on Industrial Forest Managersa. Decreased Profitsb. Less Wood to Mills
4. Effects on Homeownersa. Property Valuesb. Removal/Replanting Costsc. Consideration of Adjacent Properties
B. Indirect Effects1. Mill Communities2. Wood Supply and Prices3. Forestry in America4. Value-Added Wood Related Industries5. Cost of Maintaining Rights of Way
a. Highwaysb. Power Linesc. Gas Lines
C. Short and Long Term Effects1. Intra-regional2. Inter-regional
III. SocialA. Aesthetic
1. Recreation2. Scenic Beauty
B. Socioeconomic1. Effects on People Who Rely on Forest Income
a. Effects on Mill/Processing Communities(1) Depressed Areas(2) Loss of Forestry Culture
2. Effects on Tax Revenue to Countiesa. Schoolsb. Roads
3. Effects on Land Usea. Loss May Lead to Change in Land Use
4. Environmental QualityC. Human Health
1. Hazard Trees2. Psychological
a. Economic Stressb. Emotional Stress
D. Cultural1. Spiritual2. Historic and Pre-historic Stress
IV. PoliticalA. Public Perception
1. Confidence in Science Community2. SPB Driving Forest to a Natural State
3. Negative and Positive Funding Levels4. Education
B. Special Interest GroupsC. LitigationD. Loss of Tax RevenueE. Lack of synchronization Between Political andBiological Time ScalesF. Evaluating Pest vs. Treatment Impacts
V. Measuring ImpactsA. SPBIS
1. Database for States?B. Losses and Conditions Reports
1. Need to Make More AccurateC. Units of Measure
VI. Impacts of Invasive and Emerging Species
TREE AND FOREST DYNAMICSI. Tree
A. Tree Attributes1. Genetics2. Resin Chemistry
a. Crystallization Rateb. Induced Chemistryc. Constitutive Chemistry
3. Resin Yielda. Rateb. Volume
4. Tree Age5. Live Crown Ratio6. Species7. Tree Phenotype8. Bark Thickness9. Radial Growth10. Nutrient content11. Root and Shoot Ratio12. Inciting Agents
a. Root Fungib. Intraspecific Associations
B. Site Attributes1. Soila. Moistureb. Typec. Chemical Factorsd. Biological Factorse. Physical Factors2. Slope3. Aspect4. Elevation5. Presence of other Organisms6. Microclimate
48
II. StandA. Definition of StandB. Natural vs. ManagedC. DensityD. Structure
1. Competition2. Spatial Distribution3. Midstory Vegetation4. Understory Vegetation
E. Composition1. Diversity2. Homogeneity
F. Age1. Distribution
G. ExtentH. Canopy ClosureI. EdgesJ. Basal AreaK. HistoryL. GeneticsM. Site QualityN. Measurements
1. GIS2. Remote Sensing3. Geographical and Temporal Synchronization
O. Growth Models1. Availability2. Adequate3. Linking
P. Hazard RatingQ. Risk RatingR. Susceptibility
1. Shift in Relation to Climate2. Change in Species Comp.3. Threshold for Outbreaks
S. ProductivityT. Site Attributes
1. Soila. Moistureb. Typec. Chemical factorsd. Physical Factorse. Biological Factors
2. Slope3. Aspect4. Presence of Other Organisms5. Microclimate
III. ForestA. Scope and Bounds
1. Riparian Zones2. Roads3. Rights of Way
B. Growth Models1. Available2. Adequate3. Linking
C. History of Use and SPB EffectsD. Susceptibility
1. Shift Relative to Climate2. Change in Species Composition3. Thresholds for Outbreak
E. Post Outbreak1. Natural Succession2. Artificial Regeneration
a. Genotypeb. Site Preparationc. Competition Controld. Initial Planting Densitye. Fertilization
F. Edge EffectsG. Hazard ratingH. Risk Rating
IV. RegionA. Regional Variation
1. Productivity2. Growth3. Susceptibility
a. Threshold for Outbreakb. Shifting Hazard in Relation to Climatec. Shifting Hazard in Relation to SpeciesComposition
B. Historic, Contemporary and Future ChangeV. Scale Integration
A. Time FrameB. Data AvailabilityC. Data ResolutionD. Linkages Among Scales
PEST POPULATION DYNAMICSI. Individuals
A. Communication1. Mechanism 2. Function
B. SPB Physiology1. Phenology2. Fecundity and Development
a. Nutritionb. Vectored Symbiotic Fungi
II. PopulationsA. Population Characterization
1. Population Sizea. Phenology
(1) Temperature(2) Development
49
(3) Seasonality(4) # Generations
b. Fecundity and Development(1) Interspecific Competition
(a) Vectored Symbiotic Fungi(2) Intraspecific Competition
c. Immigration/Emigration2. Sub-Outbreak Population Dynamics
a. Detectionb. Response to Semiochemicalsc. Persistenced. Co-habitation with Other Speciese. Life Tablesf. Natural Enemiesg. Density Dependence
B. Population Measurement1. Spatial Scale
a. Tree(1) Bark Sampling(2) Non-destructive sampling
b. Spot(1) Tools
(a) Aerial (b) Sketch Mapping(c) Satellite imagery
(2) On-ground Evaluation(a) SPB Brood Stage(b) Infested Tree Count(c) Associated Organisms
c. Stand(1) Pheromone Trapping(2) Stand Pop. Measure.
d. Forest(1) Forest Pop. Measure.(2) Tools
(a) Aerial Photo.(b) Sketch Mapping(c) Satellite Imagery
(3) Data Visualization for Pops.(4) Pheromone Detection (remote)(5) Pheromone Trapping
e. Region (Area-Wide)(1) Pheromone Trapping
2. Temporal Scale3. Method
a. Pheromone Trap-based Monitoringb. Remote Sensing
4. Sex Ratio5. Mortality
a. Mitesb. Nematodes
c. Parasitesd. Weathere. Predatorsf. Phloem Competitorsg. Tree Induced Mortalityh. Fungii. Virusesj. Direct Control measuresk. Fire
6. DNA Variabilitya. Genetic Shift Pre- to Outbreakb. Across Geo. Rangec. Within-tree
C. Local Population Movement1. Human Assisted Transport2. Temporal Pattern of Movement3. Spatial Pattern of Movement
D. Host Resource Interactions1. Host Availability
a. Tree Susceptibility(1) Genetics(2) Resin Chemistry(3) Resin Yield(4) Tree Age(5) Soil Moisture(6) Live Crown Ratio(7) Species(8) Bark Thickness(9) Tree Phenotype(10) Inciting Agents
(a) Root Fungi(b) Interspecific Associations
2. Species Composition3. Hazard Determination
a. Stand Ageb. Site Qualityc. Species Compositiond. Evaluatione. Densityf. Crown Closureg. Life Tablesh. Natural Enemies
III. CommunitiesA. Interspecific Interactions
1. Vectored Symbiotic Fungia. Mutualistic Tree Killersb. Interaction Between SPB and Fungic. Mycangial Fungi
2. Density Dependent Interactions
50
3. Natural Enemiesa. Predatorsb. Parasitoidsc. Pathogens
4. Competitorsa. Other Bark Beetlesb. Cerambycids
B. Communication1. Mechanisms
a. Chemicalb. Soundc. Visual
2. Functiona. Interspecificb. Intraspecific
IV. LandscapesA. Historic, Contemp., and Future Change
1. Anthropogenica. Management Practices
(1) Harvesting practices(a) Residual Stand Damage
(2) Thinning(a) Residual Stand Damage
(3) Pruning(4) Burning(5) Fire Suppression(6) Fertilization(7) Herbicides(8) Insecticides(9) Semiochemicals(10) Regeneration Practices
(a) Root Distortion(b) Density(c) Off-site Planting(d) Planting Quality
b. Rights of Wayc. Rural Urban Interface
(1) Construction(2) House Location(3) Highway Construction(4) Recreation
d. Air-borne Pollutants(1) Ozone(2) Acid Deposition
e. Laws and Policies(1) Special Use Forests
(a) Wilderness Areas(b) Research Natural Areas(c) Endangered Species(d) Parks(e) Riparian Zones (SMZ)
(2) Land Ownership
f. Industrializationg. Urbanizationh. Fragmentationi. Public Perceptionj. Land-use Change
2. Naturala. Fireb. Lightningc. Droughtd. Floodse. Defoliationf. Ageg. Windh. Hurricanesi. Tornadoesj. Icek. Secondary Species
B. Landscape Level Movement1. Human Assisted Transport2. Temporal Patterns of Movement3. Dispersal4. Corridor Movement
a. Internationalb. National
5. Immigration/EmigrationC. Landscape StructureD. Gene Flow (Geographic Differences)E. SeasonalityF. Sources and SinksG. Climate Change
1. Persistence of SPB Populations2. Range Extent
a. Host Species Rangeb. SPB Geographic Range
51
APPENDIX II: RESEARCHQUESTIONS ASSOCIATEDWITH EACH OF THE IPMACTIVITIES
DECISION AND EXECUTIONENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTMANAGEMENT PLANNINGFOREST DATABASETREATMENTSDIAGNOSISMONITORINGIMPACT ASSESSMENTFOREST STAND DYNAMICSPEST POPULATION DYNAMICS
DECISION AND EXECUTION1. How can we reconcile different land ownership,management authority, adjacency and scale considerations,when implementing suppression recommendations? 2. How can we improve landowner confidence in therecommendations associated with management tactics andtools for prevention and suppression (e.g., what is theefficacy for spot treatments)?
a. What are the pros and cons of decision alternatives?b. What degree of certainty can be associated with aspecific treatment?c. We need to develop uniform decision supportsystem tools to standardize treatment recommenda-tions.d. We need to ensure adequate service support systemsfor DSS users.
3. What QA/QC (Quality Assurance/Quality Control) isassociated with decision making input information?4. What are the needs and priorities of key user groups thatshould be included in RD&A activities, e.g., in DSS tooldevelopment?5. What kinds of marketing opportunities are available thatwill encourage use of southern pine beetle prevention andsuppression tactics and strategies?
a. Are there new products that could be developed tohelp market small trees and low-value biomass -bioenergy and bio-based products?b. Are there new marketing ideas that are not beingused?
c. Are there non-market incentives that supportprevention objectives?
6. How can we improve dissemination, uptake, andutilization of outputs from RD&A programs? What is therole of:
a. Workshops.b. Urban councils.c. Training courses, materials, and tools.e. Demonstrations.f. State and Congressional legislator and legislativestaff education.g. State foresters and related agencies.h. University administrators.
7. How can we sharpen focus on types of deliverablesanticipated to come from RD&A programs proposed?
a. How will improved management systems improveplanning, problem-solving and decision support forIPM?b. How will new knowledge improve IPM?c. Will improved delivery and availability ofknowledge and tools enhance IPM goals and objec-tives?e. How can enhanced linkages among key agencies beachieved?
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT1. How can we conduct environmental assessments of thesouthern pine beetle IPM practices on public, private, andindustrial forest lands at multiple spatial scales?2. How can the NEPA process be automated to addresssouthern pine beetle prevention, suppression, andrestoration on public lands?3. How can the stakeholder community participation in theNEPA process be increased?4. What are the guidelines for environmental assessment ofsouthern pine beetle prevention, suppression, andrestoration on private lands?5. How can environmental assessment on private forestlands be automated? 6. What environmental assessment guidelines are appli-cable to industrial forest lands and how could they beimplemented?7. How can environmental assessment guidelines beapplied and evaluated at landscape and regional scales?
a. What kinds of tools are applicable?b. What kinds of forest simulation models are appli-cable?c. How can remote sensing technologies be used?
52
MANAGEMENT PLANNING1. How can we ensure comparability with fire managementprograms?
a. What are the key new policy instruments?b. What is the importance of landowner adjacency?c. How can we ensure that southern pine beetleoutbreaks are considered emergencies?d. What should be included in the development ofemergency management plans?e. What kind of administrative structure is needed toensure management plans are carried out andmonitored?
2. What types of policy instruments are needed toencourage landowner cooperation?3. How can we increase public awareness of southern pinebeetle in management plan development, e.g. NIPFs?4. How can we identify parallel and conflicting goals inregulatory statutes at local, state and federal levels toensure compliance in management actions?5. How can sustainable forest management plans bedeveloped that include full consideration of economic(including cost-benefit for taxpayer), environmental, andsocial values in a stewardship context?6. What internet based tools can be developed to facilitatedelivery of uniform quality information to all stakeholders?7. What GIS-based utilities can be used for managementplanning?8. We need to develop an area-wide management plan withownership of and commitment to the plan by all stake-holders.9. What new opportunities exist for utilizing southern pinebeetle killed trees in primary and secondary manufacturing.
FOREST DATABASE1. What data sources are available for southern pine beetlethat can aid in IMP planning, problem-solving anddecision support?2. Are southern pine beetle data sources associated withvarious agencies and organizations accessible for use inIPM?3. How can we integrate and use existing data sources thatoccur in different formats and data structures?4. How can we identify gaps in data needed for effectivesouthern pine beetle IPM?
TREATMENT STRATEGIES1. Are we influencing southern pine beetle populations viapheromone based monitoring?2. What level of suppression is needed to terminate anoutbreak?
3. How do we adequately assess the efficacy of silvicul-tural treatments at various scales?
a. Thinning.b. Manipulation of species composition and agestructure.c. Reduction of competing vegetation.d. Fertilization.
4. How do we adequately assess the efficacy of indirecttreatments at the forest level?5. Can semiochemical-based disruption be improved, e.g.,by improving release devices and identifying new behav-iorally active chemicals?6. What is the economic return from application oftreatment strategies and tactics?7. Can parasitoid augmentation be improved by improvingrelease, formulation, and application methodologies?8. Can we reduce southern pine beetle populations by masstrapping?9. What is the influence of season on efficacy ofcontrol/prevention tactics?10. Is bait and remove an effective tactic?11. How can we enhance private landowner participation inbark beetle management?
a. Can we develop new markets and/or products forsouthern pine beetle- killed and small diametertimber?
12. How can we protect individual trees from southernpine beetle attack?13. Can we improve early detection with satellite imagery?14. Will increase in coarse woody debris help controlsouthern pine beetle populations?15. Can we develop southern pine beetle resistant pinetrees?
a. Planting strategies for resistant trees.b. Resistance management for southern pine beetle.
16. Can we protect stands by application of methyljasmonate or methyl salicylate?
a. Investigation of new insecticide chemistries forsuppression and prevention (e.g. Imidacloprid, Neem)?
DIAGNOSIS1. What kinds of Internet based tools can be used to deliverdiagnosis information?2. Is southern pine beetle:clerid ratio a predictor ofpopulation change?3. How do ownership and land tenure issues affect ourability to treat southern pine beetle infestations?4. How can we develop decision support models to aid indiagnosis that have simplicity and robust capacity to dealwith variable spatial scales and multiple forest ownerships?
53
5. How can we develop information support networks toprovide input to decision support models with multiplerepresentations of knowledge (spatial data, textural data,etc.)?6. How can we evaluate alternate diagnostic systems (e.g.,hazard and risk assessment) for prediction purposes onpublic and non-public lands?7. How can we develop systems to diagnose need forpreventative actions to be taken to reduce susceptibility tosouthern pine beetle attack on all land ownership types?8. How can we evaluate site specific risks in diverse forestownerships?9. How can we develop a means for using population andforest stand information to predict pest populationdynamics and movement and potential implications forforest impacts at multiple scales?10. How can we integrate spot evaluation, prioritization,and treatment recommendation techniques for diagnosticpurposes?
MONITORING1. Can we improve pheromone trapping technology?
a. What is the optimal density of pheromone traps formonitoring a given area?b. How can numerical response to trap deploymentapproaches be interpreted?c. What is the area effectively sampled by apheromone trap?d. How can we improve our ability to correlate trapcatch with population trends?e. How can we improve pheromonetrapping/monitoring in southern pine beetle fringeareas?
2. What is the optimal monitoring approach for southernpine beetle at different population levels?3. How can we detect sub-outbreak levels of southern pinebeetle?
a. How can we systematically survey for southern pinebeetle in lightning struck trees?b. How can we systematically survey for southern pinebeetle in trees killed by associated bark beetles?
4. Can we monitor southern pine beetle from above thecanopy?5. Are there surrogates for monitoring southern pine beetletrends, e.g., associated organisms?6. Can we use remote sensing for pre-visual detection ofsouthern pine beetle infested trees (e.g., aerial photog-raphy, pheromones, satellite imagery)?7. Can we improve our ability to remotely sense southernpine beetle in infested trees?
8. Can we improve our ability to provide monitoringreports to the field in a more timely manner?9. Can we use remote sensing for detection of high hazardtrees and/or stands?10. How can we improve our ability to monitor, predict, andevaluate southern pine beetle infestations in non-typical hosts?11. Can LIDAR (Laser-Based Elevation MeasuringSystem) ground and canopy returns detect southern pinebeetle infestations in symptomatic and green trees?12. How can we improve monitoring on private land?13. How can we enhance the geographic scope, utility andavailability of SPBIS (the southern pine beetle informationsystem)?14. Can we use FIA (Forest Inventory Assessment), NRI(National Resource Inventory), MRLC (MultiresolutionLandcover), and statewide land cover data to monitorhazard on a regional basis (e.g. host stand location)? 15. How do you monitor for patterns of contagion insouthern pine beetle outbreaks?
IMPACT ASSESSMENT1. What are the impacts of southern pine beetle on wildlifeand biodiversity?
a. Effects on other arthropods.b. Effects on other fauna (deer, turkey, song birds,reptiles and amphibians, PETS species e.g., Red-cockaded woodpeckers).c. Effects or corridors.d. Effects on flora (herbs, shrubs, trees, sensitive plantcommunities).
2. What is the impact of the southern pine beetle on forestcomposition?
a. What is the process of natural regeneration inforests impacted by the southern pine beetle? b. What types of regeneration scenarios can be used inforest restoration?c. What are the positive and negative effects of forestlandscape perforation, fragmentation, and dissectionfollowing southern pine beetle outbreaks?
3. What are the impacts of southern pine beetle on theforest environment?a. How does the southern pine beetle effect, landscapestructure, air quality, heat index, fire hazard, soil quality? 4. What are the direct economic impacts of southern pinebeetle?
a. Effects on NIPF landowners.b. Effect on public lands.c. Effects on industrial forest managers.d. Effects on homeowners.
54
5. What are the indirect economic effects of the southernpine beetle?
a. Effects on mill communities.b. Effects on wood supply and prices.c. Effects on value-added wood related industries.d. Costs of maintaining rights of way.
6. What are the short and long term economic impacts ofthe southern pine beetle?
a. Intra-regional effects.b. Inter-regional effects.
7. What are the impacts of the southern pine beetle onaesthetic values of forests (e.g., recreation, scenic beauty)?8. What are the socio-economic effects of southern pinebeetle on people who rely on forest-based income?9. What are the socio-economic impacts of southern pinebeetle on tax revenue to counties (e.g., schools, roads)?10. What are the impacts of southern pine beetle on land-use planning practices? 11. What are the impacts of southern pine beetle on humanhealth?
a. Hazard trees.b. Psychological effects.
12. What are the impacts of southern pine beetle oncultural values of forests?
a. Spiritual.b. Historic and pre-historic sites.
13. What are the political impacts of southern pine beetle?a. What is the public perception of southern pinebeetle?b. What are the concerns for special interest groups?c. Does southern pine beetle impact lead to litigation?d. How does southern pine beetle impact tax revenue?
14. How can ecological, economic, social, and politicalimpact of the southern pine beetle be measured and inter-preted?15. What is the impact of southern pine beetle on invasiveand emerging species?
TREE AND FOREST DYNAMICS1. What aspects of climate change are most critical in theirreal or potential capacity to alter the susceptibility of trees,stands and forest to southern pine beetle infestation?2. How do trees, stands, and forests respond to criticalaspects of climate change with respect to altered suscepti-bility to the southern pine beetle?3. What are the current and future impacts of climatechange on southern pine beetle population dynamics andimpact at the regional level?4. In what ways and to what extent have past silviculturalpractices affected the population dynamics and impact ofthe southern pine beetle at the tree, stand, forest, andregional level?
5. How could silvicultural treatments alter the futuresusceptibility of trees, stands and forests to the southernpine beetle?6. How could genetic selection and silvicultural treatmentsbe used to ameliorate the adverse effects of climate changeat the tree, stand, forest, and regional level?7. In what ways and to what extent have past culturalchanges, e.g., urbanization, laws and policies, airbornepollutants, affected the susceptibility of trees, stands, andforest to the southern pine beetle?8. What will be the future impact of selected culturalchanges on the population dynamics and impact of thesouthern pine beetle, and if adverse, how can these beameliorated?9. How can cultural changes affect the populationdynamics and impact of the southern pine beetle at theregional level, and how could laws, policy and resourcemanagement practices be used to alter these effects?10. Given a certain species, site, and climatic region, whatare the optimal silvicultural approaches for creating beetle-resistant stands regarding:
a. Planting densities.b. Thinning (type, seasonal timing, intensity).c. Prescribed burning and mechanical vegetationreduction (time, timing, intensity).d. Final harvest age.
11. At a landscape level, what special distribution andabundance of stand conditions are required to supportoutbreak?12. Do accurate southern pine beetle hazard rating modelsexist for all regions of the South? If not, what are thoseregions, and what variables should be incorporated intoinitial model development testing.13. Do hazard rating models exists for residential/urbaninterface environments? How do factors affecting hazardand its measurements differ from traditional “forested”sites?14. What forest characteristics influence occurrence ortime of outbreak/epidemic situations at a regional level,i.e., what forest influences contribute to switch fromendemic to epidemic conditions?
a. Land ownership.b. Stand conditions.c. Management activities
15. What is the relationship of variability in regionalsouthern pine beetle activity in regards to:
a. Species.b. Offsite vs. onsite.c. Land management practices.d. History.
55
16. How is tree genetics related to southern pine beetlesusceptibility and can southern pine beetle damage bemitigated through application of appropriate genotypes?
a. Seed orchard stock.b. Clones.
17. How do laws and policies affect southern pine beetleoutbreaks and severity?
a. Forests.b. Landscape.c. Regional
18. How has southern pine beetle affected foreststructure/composition in the past?19. How does forest/landscape structure/composition affectthe spread of southern pine beetle?20. What is/are the best approaches to re-vegetation areasaffected by southern pine beetle?21. Can we move between scales (tree-> landscape) or dowe need to look at each scale individually? What is theeffect of scale on tree and forest dynamics?22. How can we better integrate tree and forest dynamicmodels with southern pine beetle models?23. What are the effects of southern pine beetle infestationon forest dynamics at the landscape scale?24. How do we define a stand?25. What are the effects of tree attributes on resinchemistry and yield?
PEST POPULATION DYNAMICS1. To what extent do outbreaks occur as a consequence oflocal population or immigration?
a. Is there a potential shift in the role of semiochem-icals?b. Does movement between populations occur (longdistance)?c. Does movement within populations occur (shortdistance)?d. Are there potential genetic shifts in populationstructure?e. Does gene flow occur across regions?
2. What are the key drivers in the prediction of short-term(months) southern pine beetle abundance?
a. Is there regional variation?b. What does regional pheromone trapping provide?c. How do associated organisms affect populationabundance (e. g., cerambycids, bluestain fungi, clerid beetles)? d. How does climate change affect populationabundance?
3. What are the key drivers in determining the long-term(decades) probability of southern pine beetle outbreaks?
a. What attributes of the forest contribute to thisprobability?b. What is the nature of the interaction of climatechange-induced drought and attack by the southernpine beetle, i.e., would pines survive drought in theabsence of bark beetles?
4. What is the strength and form of endogenous feedbacksin southern pine beetle dynamics? Intermittent or cyclicalin nature:
a. Direct control.b. Specialist predators.c. Parasitoids.d. Fungal complex.e. Cerambycids.f. Tree defenses.g. Other bark beetles.h. Potential shift in role of semiochemicals. i. Southern pine beetle physiology.
5. To what extent are various factors responsible formaintaining low density populations of southern pinebeetle?
a. To what extent does the lack of insects makemonitoring of southern pine beetle populationsproblematic?b. Do root diseases play a role in regulating populationsize?c. How do forest attributes affect southern pine beetlepopulation size?d. How does variation in climatic regime affectsouthern pine beetle populations?
6. Are pheromone and within-tree based sampling andmonitoring effective at sub-outbreak population levels?
a. What is the role of semiochemicals in southern pinebeetle population dynamics?b. How host selection occurs? c. How does semiochemical selection occur?d. Can RCW cavity trees be useful in sorting out thechemical basis of host selection by southern pinebeetle?
7. Why do southern pine beetle outbreaks occur?8. Why do southern pine beetle outbreaks end?
56
Edited by:
Robert N. CoulsonProfessor, Departments of Entomology and Forest Science,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Kier D. KlepzigProject Leader, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station,
Pineville, LA
T. Evan NebekerProfessor, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology,
Mississippi State University, and Pest Management Specialist with theMississippi Forestry Commission, Starkville, MS
Forrest L. Oliveria Field Office Representative, USDA Forest Service,
Forest Health Protection, Pineville, LA
Scott M. Salom Associate Professor, Department of Entomology, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA
Frederick M. Stephen University Professor and Acting Head, Department of Entomology,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
and
Hendrik J. MeyerNational Program Leader, USDA, CSREES, Washington, DC.
Proceedings of a Facilitated WorkshopAugust 11-14, 2003Mountain Lake, VA.
Sponsored by the Southern State Agricultural Experiment Stations,the USDA Forest Service, the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education,
Extension Service; and the Southern State Forestry Agencies.