ECONOMTC I

OF SOME TMPORTANT SAWFLTES
ATTACKING CONIFERS TN
EASTER!!! NORTH AMERTCA

Thesis for the Degree 0? M. S.
MECHTGAN STATE COLLEGE

Robert Louis Gallun
195.0

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Distribution and
Economic Importance
of Some Important Sawfliea

EastefitfigfiflgAgfiliégra in

presen

 

Robert Louis Gallun

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

1 ML degree in mm

/\" = * ~+~——-
\\-/ -11/14 %/" ‘f' L/L M".
Majg“ professor

\

Date M—

0-169

 

DISTRIBUTION AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE
OF SOME IMPORTANT SAWFLIFS ATTACKING CONIFERS

IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA

By

Robert Louis Gallun
;>

'A THEIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Entomology

1950

TH Eats

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The writer wishes to express his sincere thanks and
gratitude to Professor Ray Hutson whose guidance and help-
ful suggestions made possible the completion of this study.

Grateful acknowledgment is extended to Messers. Charles
B. Eaton and Daniel M. Benjamin of the Forest Insect Labora-
tory, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, United
States Department of Agriculture, who have given much valu-
able aid and advice. Both these men have had wide experience
in the field and laboratories and their cooperation has been
greatly appreciated.

The writer is also glad to acknowledge his indebtedness
to the following workers in the field of entomology whose
prompt replies to letters of inquiry were invaluable in the
compilation of data for this paper: J. A. Beal, W. B. Becker,
G. M. Bentley, A. W. Buzicky, J. G. Conklin, E. N. Cory,
L. Daviault, J. J. Davis, G. C. Decker, J. J. de Gryse,
M. Dupree, W. R. Enns, P. W. Fattig, F. L. Gambrell, C. C.
Hamilton, H. M. Harris, A. C. Hodson, H. E. Jaques, '1‘. W.
Kerr, F. H. Lathrop, C. Lyle, A. H. MacAndrews, H. Menusan, Jr.,
Do Do Millspaugh, Ce Fe We mesebOCk, W. C. Rattles, L. M.
Peairs, G. H. Plumb, J. B. Polivka, H. H. Ross, J. V. Sohaffner,
Jr. Re Do Shenefelt. Me Ee smith, Co E. Smith, Lo Lo Steam,
A. No T188013, and Ge Se Walley.

*Ittittttt
*****t#*
##tit‘
tit.
it
*

{Rani-u":

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION...........................................
METHODS AND PROCEDURE..................................
DISCUSSION OF SAWFLY SPECIES...........................
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................
LITERATURE CITED.......................................
APPENDICES
A SYNOPTIC LIST OF SAWFLY SPECIES................
B DISTRIBUTION OF SAWFLY SPECIES BY STATES,
PROVINCES, AND COUNTIES...................
C TEST OF SAWFLIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE CONIFERP
OUS HOSTS.................................
D ECONOMIC VALUE OF IMPORTANT CONIPEPS ATTACHED
BY SAWFLIES...............................
E LIST OP SAWFLIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE PARASITES

F DISTRIBMION MSOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

24

28

32

34

49

52

56

59

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade, Sawflies of both native and European
origin have become increasingly important throughout eastern North
America.

A review of literature has shown that subsequent to the begin-
ning of the twentieth century at least ten sawflies have become
thoroughly established, and have been responsible for considerable
damage to both forest and ornamental coniferous plantings throughout
northeastern United States and Canada. Six of these sawflies were
introduced from Europe; undoubtedly prior to the federal quarantine
regulations in 1912.

Only recently have any extensive measures been instituted for
the control of these defoliators. Both the governments of the United
States and Canada have appropriated large sums of money toward the
biological and chemical control of these insects. Numerous publica-
tions are available on the life histories and taxonomic features of
sawflies, but there has been very little presented on the complete
distribution and resulting effects of sawfly epidemics.

The lack of complete North American distribution records by
counties, and the increasing importance of these sawflies in our con-
iferous forests and plantings has prompted the writer to present the
complete distribution, by counties, of some of the more important
sawflies attacking conifers in eastern North America, and to indicate,
where possible, the economic importance attached to the insects dis-

cussed in this paper.

METHODS AN D PROCEDURE

The sawflies reviewed in.this paper as important coniferous
defoliators in.eastern.North America were selected on.the'basis of
host preference, magnitude of distribution, and the amount of avail-
able literature.

Individual letters were written to workers in the field of en-
tomology throughout eastern.United States and Canada requesting
information on county distribution, host preference, percentage of
infestation, and control measures instituted. Besides replies from
personal correspondence, all literature available on the subject of
sawflies was reviewed, and established distribution and other perti-
nent information was recorded.

Individual maps of eastern.North.America were then drawn, estab-
lishing the distribution of the sawflies discussed in this paper.
See appendix F. All counties with established distribution records
were indicated by solid marking, whereas cross hatching was used to
present these states having sawflies present, but lacking county
records. In this paper, eastern.North.America includes the following
territory: in the United States, all states east of the Mississippi
River plus Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana; in
Canada, all provinces east of Nanitoba.

In.addition to establishing distribution, the review of litera-
ture and personal correspondence made possible the listing of conif-
erous hosts and the parasites of sawflies dealt with in this thesis.

See appendices C and E.

DISCUSSION OF SAWFLY SPECIES

The distribution maps included as appendix F give a vivid
picture of the distribution of each sawfly discussed, but they do
not provide the reader with authorities for records and the economic
importance attached to each species as is included in the discus-
sion. A general description of the life cycles is also included in
the following discussion.

That there may'be no misunderstanding as to the species of sawb
flies being discussed, a synoptic list has been prepared and included

as appendix A.

INTRODUCED PINE SAWFLY

Diprion simile (Hartig)

The introduced pine Sawfly, a native of Europe, was first dis-
covered on this continent near New'Haven, Connecticut in 1914. (6)
(8) It is now recorded in most of the states along the Atlantic
coast from.Maine to Virginia, the majority of the infestations occur-
ring in the New England states. This sawfly has also established
itself in the Lake States, being particularly destructive to eastern
white pine in.Minnesota during the year 1942. (21) The following
states have been recorded as having this sawfly present: Connecticut,
Indiana, Nassachusetts, maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New'Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia (P)* (7) (a) (29). See appendix B.

The introduced pine sawfly has been of very little importance
in.Quebec since its discovery in Montreal.(8) Reports from.0ntario
Show'little activity, a medium.infestation in.Toronto being all that
is recorded. There are no reports of this sawfly being active in
the maritime provinces or in Newfoundland.

Eastern white pine is the preferred host of this sawfly, al-
though most all of the five-needled pines are recorded as being
attacked, (6) (7) (B) (29). Those forest conifers recorded as hosts
of the introduced pine sawfly are listed as appendix C. Injury is
usually confined to trees up to l4-years of age, with severe infes-

tations occurring on.nursery stock, (42).

 

I"(15.) Hereinafter refers to personal correspondence.

In Canada parasites have played an important role in the control
of this sawfly. At least five species of parasites have been reared
from Diprion 552$}: (Hartig), Microplectron fuscipennis Zett. being
the most widely distributed. .A further listing of the parasites of
this sawfly may'be found in.appendix E.

In the United States, chemical control has played an important
role in.keeping the population of the introduced pine sawfly in an
endemic state. Arsenate of load has been the standard insecticide in
the past, but with the introduction of the war-time DDT, it was renp
dered obsolete. DDT is less expensive, and has proven more satis-
factory as a poison.

‘Winter is passed in the prepupal stage among the litter on the
ground beneath the infested tree. The adults emerge during.April and
on through may, there being two broods a year. The eggs are usually
deposited in the needle base of the previous years growth. The larvae
of the first brood feed on the old growth and the second brood larvae
feed on both the old and current seasons growth during August and

September. (6) (42).

PLANTATION PINE SAWFLY

Gilpinia frutetorum (Hartig)

 

The plantation pine Sawfly, native to Europe, first became es-
tablished in North America at Niagara Falls, Ontario, during 1934.(21)
At the present Schaffner reports this species occurring quite common-
1y throughout the New England states and southern Ontario, with a few
cases cited in the Lake States.(P) Daviault reports it being unknown
in Quebec, but definitely extending throughout the Niagara Falls area
to Fort Erie, Ontario.(P) States recorded as having this sawfly at
present are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. (P) (26) (42)
see appendix B.

The preferred hosts of the plantation pine sawfly are Scotch
and Norway red pine, and occasionally it is found on the white pines.
(10) (42) see appendix C. This species of sawfly has only recently
been noticed in the eastern states, an outbreak in Connecticut caus-
ing complete defoliation and death to several acres of pine, as re-
ported by Plumb. (P) In Minnesota Hodson has reported its occurrence,
but only in one area and with no conspicuous defoliation. (26)

There are no records of measures instituted in the chemical con-
trol of the plantation pine sawfly, but ecological studies have been
made and rodents and parasites have proven a major factor in the bio-

logical control. (44) Microplectron fuscipennis Zett., has been the

 

mjor parasite in the biological control of this sawfly.

-6-

Winter is passed as a prepupa in the form of a paper-like cocoon
spun in the litter on the ground, or occasionally among the needles
of the infested tree. The adults are present during early and late
summer, there usually being two broods a year. The eggs are deposited
in the needles of the host tree, one egg per needle. The larvae are
present from June until August, the second brood hatching from late

July until early fall. (21) (42)

-7-

EUROPEAN SPRUCE SAWFLY

Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig)

 

The European spruce sawfly, originally established in Europe,
was first introduced into this country during the year 1930, result-
ing in approximately 100 acres of spruce becoming infested in the
Gaspe penninsula, Quebec, Canada. (17) (19) (37)

By 1937, 9800 square miles of spruce were infested, many trees
killed and the insect widely spread throughout Canada. (3) The in-
vasion of spruce came to a stand-still during 1940, with the appear-
ance of a virus malady, which decimated the larval population. (15)
At present this sawfly is well established in an endemic state through-
out the United States where spruce is found growing, particularly in
the Lake States. In 1941 Hodson reported this sawfly to be the most
important insect attacking spruce in Minnesota, this report being the
first record of the European spruce sawfly in the Lake States. (25)
The Canadian distribution of this sawfly extends over most of Nova
Scotia and Prince Edward Island, all of New Brunswick, north to cen-
tral Newfoundland, a large portion of northeast Quebec, and two iso-
lated areas in Ontario.

States recorded as having Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig) within
them are: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hamp-
shire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. (P) (17)
(25) see appendix B.

The European spruce sawfly's host preference is spruce and

balsam fir. Black, red, white, and Norway spruce have been

recorded as being as infested by this sawfly. (12) (17) (25) (42)
see appendix C.

The importance of this sawfly may be fully realized after re-
viewing records stating the total amount of timber destroyed in the
Gaspe peninsula during the years 1930 to 1941. In the neighborhood
of 325,579,000 cubic feet of wood was destroyed - an average of
53,000,000 cubic feet a year. (15) Other studies have shown.that as
a result of defoliation there is a marked decline in.the rate of
growth of the infested trees. (33)

The outbreaks that have occurred in.the United States and Canada
can readily be explained by the absence of natural parasites which
keep the sawfly population in.an endemic state. In view of this fact,
there is at present much work being done in the liberation of para-
sites throughout Canada where the European spruce sawfly shows evi-
dence of being in an epidemic form. During a period of five years
the Bellville laboratory liberated approximately 240 million species

of the parasite Microplectron fuscipennis zett. (2) The release of

 

this parasite and a virus disease attacking the larvae resulted in.a
progressive decline in the sawfly population. For a listing of other
species of insects parasitizing this sawfly, the reader is referred
to appendix E.

Balch in.his suggestions for biological control of this insect
has recommended clearcutting of all species of conifers in heavily
infested areas. This type of cutting should be done during the egg
stage in the life cycle of the sawfly, the theory being that the egg

population will be destroyed, removing the threat of severe

infestation. Clearcutting the balsam would eliminate the possibility
of loss from windblow if spruce alone were taken out. Each spruce
tree over six inches in.diameter is able to support from.3000 to 5000
larvae, and by clearcutting in heavily infested areas this potential
population would be eliminated. (19)

The European spruce sawfly overwinters in the prepupal stage,
the larvae pupating during May and the first of June. There are from
one to three broods a year. The adults deposit their eggs in slits
cut in the needles sometime during May. The first breed of larvae
hatches soon after egg deposition and feeds on the old growth; the

second brood feeds on the current season's growth. (3) (33) (37) (42).

-10-

BAISAM FIR SAWFLY

Neodiprion abietis (Harris)

The earliest record of the balsam.fir sawfly in eastern North
America was established in 1909 at Goffstown, New Hampshire. (P)
This sawfly has been thought to be responsible for infestations in
Connecticut as early as 1858, but specimem were not collected.

The present distribution of this sawfly extends throughout the
New England states as well as the Lake States and all of Canada where
balsam grows naturally. In Canada a belt of infested balsam.is bor-
dered on the east by Lake Superior, and on the north by Lake Huron
Channel, reoccurring from Ottawa down the river to Hawksbury. (32)

It iS'very common in the province of Quebec, it being intercepted in
Alberta during 1946. (19) (32) Scattered infestations have been re-
ported in.James Bay and in Newfoundland. (12) (15)

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New’
Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and‘Wisconsin.are states
recorded as having the balsam fir sawfly present. (P) (24) (38)

(42) see appendix B.

Balsam.fir and black spruce are the preferred hosts of the bal-
sam fir sawfly. (24) Other recorded hosts are included as appendix C.
There have been records of this sawfly feeding on pine both by Bird
and Ruggles, but Atwood has not yet been able to find any evidence of
this, and all attempts to rear the sawfly from.eggs on pines have

fall“. (1)

-11-

In the New England States, Schaffner attaches little economic
importance to this sawfly due to the limited plantings of balsam
fir; but in the Lake States Hodson reports the balsam fir sawfly to
have been the most important and destructive insect on spruce during
1939. (24) (42)

Both chemical and biological measures have played an important
role in the control of this sawfly. DDT has been used in a number of
cases in the United States, and in Canada the liberation of parasites
has decreased the sawfly population to some degree. At least twenty-

four parasites have been reared from Neodiprion abietis (Harris),

 

the genus Exenterus being most prevalent. (12) For a complete list
of insects parasitizing the balsam fir sawfly, the reader is referred
to appendix E.

The eggs of the balsam fir sawfly are deposited in the needles
of the host tree during the months of August through September, the
insect overwintering in this stage. The larvae feed during the months
of August through October. The paper-like cocoom are spun by the
larvae and are attached to the needles or they may be buried in the
litter at the base of the tree. Pupation occurs in the fall, the
adults emerging and immediately laying their eggs. There is but one

breed a year. (12) (42)

JACK PINE SAWFLI

Neodiprion,banksianae(Rohwer)

 

The jack pine sawfly a native to North.America, is generally
distributed throughout the Great Lakes region and New England, ex-
tending northward through the jack pine range from.New Brunswick to
eastern Manitoba, Canada. (1) This species of sawfly has been re—
ported by Daviault as very rare in the province of Quebec. (P)

States having records of infestation.are Massachusetts, Michi-
gan, Minnesota, Ohio, and‘Wisconsin. (P) (29) (42) see appendix B.

The preferred host of the jack pine sawfly is jack pins as
evidenced by its common name, although occasionally it may feed on
shortleaf, pitch, and Norway red pine. (P) (29) see appendix C. This
insect is a serious defoliator of jack pine throughout the Lake States
where it has been responsible for considerable injury during the re-
cent years. Hodson.has reported complete defoliation of jack pine
and considerable damage to red pine in Minnesota. (29) In other
parts of the jack pine range it is not of great economic importance
except for localized attacks on ornamentals.

The jack pine sawfly like the balsam fir sawfly spends the winter
in the egg stage. Three to five eggs are placed in slits cut into
the needles by the adult sawfly during August and September. The lar-
vae appear in.the spring and may be found feeding on the old growth
during June and July. There is one generation annually, pupation
occurring during August and September. The cocoons are spun in.the

duff beneath the host tree. (42)

-13...

RED-BEADED PINE SAWFLI

Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch)

 

The red-headed pine sawfly appears to be the most widely spread
of all our native sawflies and has been recorded in most every state
east of the Mississippi River. It is most prevalent in the Lake
States, extending eastward to the New England States, and then south
throughout the length of the Appalachains to Florida. In Canada
this sawfly's range of distribution extends from.Sau1t Ste. Marie
east to New Brunswick, and as far north as Lake Kipava, Quebec. (1)
There are scattered infestations along the St. Lawrence River'Valley
fram Port Hope, Ontario to Rimouski, Quebec. (10)

The preferred hosts of the red-headed pine sawfly vary with the
regions in.which the sawfly is established. In the Lake States jack
pine and red pine are preferred, whereas in the south and the east
preference is shown for shortleaf and loblolly pine. (P) (27) There
are many other conifers on.which this sawfly has been recorded, but
feeding occurs only on these if the preferred hosts are not available.
.A more complete listing of host trees of the red-headed pine sawfly
is entered in appendix C.

J. A. Beal of Duke University has made a study of the mortality
of reproduction defoliated by the red-headed pine sawfly. (4) using
loblolly and shortleaf pine as host trees, Beal observed that open
growth pines appeared to withstand defoliation better than pines comp
peting with hardwoods. Observations made by the writer during the

summer of 1949, indicated the possibility of host selection rather

-14-

than hardwood competition. The red-headed pine sawfly appeared to
select jack and red pine partially or fully shaded by hardwoods for
egg deposition rather than trees growing in.the open. A forthcoming
paper by D. M. Benjamin on the ecology of this sawfly will discuss
host selection in.more detail.* If this condition of host selection
or hardwood competition applies to conifers throughout eastern North
America, it is a matter of great importance to plantation owners, and
the forest services, state and federal. It is possible that those
plantings having an overstory will be infested to a greater degree
than those growing in pure stands.

The red-headed pine sawfly has been of great importance in
Minnesota, Hedson reporting complete defoliation.to Jack pine planta-
tions in certain areas during 1944 and 1945. (28) In Maryland it is
the only sawfly of importance and in New York and Vermont airplane
spraying of several hundred acres of red pine has been instituted. (P)

Spraying for the control of this sawfly has been done'with DDT,
it proving to be the most satisfactory and economical insecticide at
the present. In Canada and in certain sections of Nfichigan.parasites
have been released as a possible means of controlling this sawfly.

In the Lake States a species of Exenterus and a dipterous parasite
have commonly been found parasitizing the larvae of the red-headed
pine sawfly. A listing of some parasites of this insect is in appenp

d1: Es

 

*D. Nu Benjamin, Entomologist, Forest Insect Laboratory, Bureau
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U.S.D.A. Milwaukee,‘Wisconr
sin.

-15-

The red-headed pine sawfly passes the winter in the prepupal
stage in the litter beneath the infested tree, or occasionally at-
tached to the needles at the base of the tree. The number of genera-
tions a year vary. In the south there are three broods, whereas in
the northern limits of its range there is but one. The eggs are de-
posited in slits cut in the needle during June. The larvae imme-
diately after hatching begin to feed on the current season's growth,
and continue during the summer months on into fall. The silken co-

coons are spun in most cases during late summer. (P) (l) (42)

WHITE PINE SAWFLY

Neodiprion pinetum (Norton)

 

The white pine sawfly, a native of America, occurs throughout
the white pine belt of the United States as far south as Mississippi
and west as far as Iowa and Minnesota. The Canadian distribution of
this sawfly ranges from the United States border to Lake Baskatong
and the Gaspe penninsula, and from lake Superior to Newfoundland.

It has been known to be present in the province of Quebec during the
last decade, but of very little importance. (P) States recorded as
having this sawfly present are: Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, mssachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
and Vermont. (P) (28) (42) see appendix B.

The preferred host of the white pine sawfly is eastern white
pine, although this sawfly has been recorded on Scotch pine, pitch
pine, shortleaf pine, and Mugho pine. (1) (42) Available records
show that outbreaks are infrequent and extremely local, confined to
single or small groups of trees as exemplified by feeding on twelve
large white pine in Monticello, Indiana. (40)

Winter is passed in the prepupal stage, the adults emerging
early in spring. The eggs are deposited in slits cut in the needles
by the adults during July and September. The larvae are gregarious
feeders usually being active during the months of July through Septem-
ber. The larvae of the white pine sawfly are somewhat similar to the
larvae of the red-headed pine sawfly and there is often confusion

when differentiating betwaen the two. (1) (42)

RED PINE SKWFLY

Neodiprion sertifer (Geoffroy)

 

The red pine sawfly, originally from Europe, entered the United
States at Sommerset, New Jersey, during May, 1925. (41) (42) At the
present this sawfly has established itself in Michigan, Ohio, and
the eastern states, where defoliation occurs in forest and watershed
plantations. (42) The first Canadian record was at Windsor, Canada,
in 1939. It has not spread any appreciable distance from its place
of establishment. States in which this sawfly have been reported as
present area Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio.
(P) (41) (42) (43) see appendix B.

The preferred hosts of the red pine sawfly are red pine, Scotch
pine, and jack pine. (32) Other important forest conifers recorded
as being infested are: ponderosa pine, eastern white pine, and shor-
1eaf pine. (P) (41) (42) see appendix C. The nature foliage of the
infested tree is fed upon resulting in serious defoliation when heav-
ily infested. Over 100 acres of red, Scotch, and western yellow pine,
planted on private estates in Somerset, New Jersey were heavily in-
fested in 1939. In the same year the owners of five estates in the
East cooperated in helicopter spraying, and a total of 110 acres. of
pine were sprayed with excellent results. (42)

There have been a few species of parasites reared from the red

pine sawfly, but their occurrence has not neen recorded as decreasing

the sawfly population to am appreciable extent. A listing of the

insects parasitizing this sawfly has. been compiled in appendix E.

The red pine sawfly passes the winter in the egg stage, the eggs
being deposited in slits cut into the needles by the adult. There
are usually 3-5 eggs per needle. The larvae are active from May to

August, there being but one generation a year. Pupation occurs in

late August, the adults emerging during September and October. (41)
(42)

YELLOW-HEADED SPRUCE SAWFLY

Pikonema alaskensis (Rohwer)

 

The yellow-headed spruce sawfly, a native to North America,
occurs throughout the spruce range in Canada and northern United
States. In Canada this sawfly is found from British Columbia to
New Brunswick and extends north as far as Newfoundland. The yellowb
headed spruce sawfly was first recorded in the United States at
Forest Hills, Massachusetts, during the year 1915, and since then has
been reported in Connecticut, mains, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire,
‘New fork, Rhode Island, Vermont, and‘Wisconsin. (35) see appendix B.

The preferred host of this sawfly is spruce, being recorded on
white, black, red, Engelman, Sitka, Norway, and Colorado blue spruce.
(15) (42) see appendix C. The first outbreak of this species in
mains occurred on red spruce in 1947. At that time over'1400 acres
of red spruce natural reproduction were sprayed by airplane, lead
arsenate being the insecticide. The rate of application.was four
pounds to one hundred gallons of water plus sixteen ounces of linseed
oil. (35) In the Lake States, Hodson reports serious defoliation in
a number of plantations in Minnesota, the heaviest in 1942 and grad-
ually decreasing to date. New growth is preferred, and at present
this sawfly is a menace to all young open growth plantations and re-
production. (26) .A sample of 100 trees of four foot Norway spruce,
and white spruce, taken in 1937 showed 40 dead, 41 defoliated seventy-
five percent or more, and 19 defoliated less than twenty-five

(percent. (35)

The yellowbheaded spruce sawfly is subject to a large amount of
parasitism, Brown reporting at least 16 parasites attacking this
sawfly with pupal parasitism.amcunting to 6-11 percent. (12) For fur-
ther reference to the parasites of this insect see appendix E.

There is but one generation.a year, the winter being passed in
the prepupal stage. The adults emerge early in the spring, and lay
their eggs in the needles of the host tree. The larvae soon after
hatching feed on the new growth, completely defoliating the tree.
The larvae are most abundant on.young trees in plantations and in

open growth natural stands. (35) (42)

-21-

LARCH SAWFLY

Pristiphora erichs onii (Hartig)

 

The larch sawfly is described from Europe, although there exists
some difference of opinion among entomologists as to its exact ori-
gin. (20) The first record of this sawfly in eastern.North.America
occurred in Quebec during 1853, and later in 1881 it was noticed in
Mhssachusetts. (20) (34) The present range of this sawfhy is
throughout the Lake States, New England States, and all of Canada
where larch grows naturally. It has also been recorded in the Mari-
time provinces and Newfoundland. The following states have records
establishing the larch sawfly within them: Connecticut, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New'Hampshire, New'Iork,
Pennsylvania, and‘Wisconsin. (28) (37) (39) (42) see appendix B.

The preferred hosts of the larch sawfly are eastern larch and
Biropean larch. Both plantations and natural reproduction are attack-
ed with serious outbreaks occurring occasionally which result in '
heavy mortality. Trees infested with this insect have their terminal
twigs killed or permanently distorted by egg ovoposition.from.the
adult sawfly. Hopkins has estimated that the larch sawfly has killed
fifty to one hundred percent of the mature larch in the northeastern
United States and southern Canada during extensive outbreaks since
1880. (5) It is only recently that larch in the Lake States has re-
turned tc a climax condition. However, a current builddup of this
sawfly in.Minnesota is a serious threat unless control measures are

undertaken.

-22-

Parasites released in central Quebec, southern Manitoba, and
northern Michigan during 1929, have checked infestations greatly.

In New Brunswick 80 percent parasitism by Mesoleius tenthredinis

 

Mcr. has greatly reduced the occurrence of this sawfly. (45)
A further listing of parasites is included as appendix B.

Chemical control measures have been instituted to combat this
insect. Lead arsenate has been used on small areas, and DUI spread
by airplane has proven satisfactory over larger areas.

Winter is passed in the prepupal stage in a cocoon spun in the
litter beneath the infested tree. The adults emerge during May and
June, and begin to lay their eggs in two alternate rows in the termi-
nal growth. The larvae are gregarious, usually becoming full grown
the middle of July or August, some maturing as late as September.

There is usually one generation a year. (20) (42)

-23-

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Ten species of sawflies have been shown as important feeders
on conifers in eastern North America. Five species, Dipricn simile

(Hartig) Gilpinia frutetorum (Hartig). Gilpinia hemiae (Hartig),

 

Neodiprion sertifer (Geoffroy), and Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig)

 

 

are of European origin; whereas Neodiprion abietis (Harris),

Neodiprign banksianae Rohwer, Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch), Neodiprion

 

 

 

pinetum (Norton), and Pikonem alaskensis (Rohwsr) are native to North

 

America.

The discussion of species, appendaged maps, lists of parasites,
and coniferous hosts, give an up-tc-date count of the distribution
and economic importance of the sawflies treated in this paper.

Of the ten insects discussed it is evident that the sawfly having
the most extensive distribution is the red-headed pine sawfly,

Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch). With its repeated attacks on jack and

 

red pine in the Lake States and shortleaf and loblolly pine in the
eastern and southern states, this insect appears to be the most seri-
ous sawfly defoliator in the United States.

' Serious defoliation of larch has occurred throughout Canada and
the northern part of the United States as a result of extensive feed-

ing by the larch sawfly, Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig). This saw»-

 

fly has accounted for a serious loss of larch during the last decade,
but a sudden decrease in numbers, probably as a result of parasitism,
has prevented the complete loss of our native larch.

Two species of sawflies attacking spruce, Gilpinia hercEiae

(Hartig) the European spruce sawfly, and Pikonema alaskensis (Rohwer),

 

the yellow-headed spruce sawfly, have been responsible for the loss

of black, white, and red spruce throughout Canada and the northern
part of the United States. The European spruce sawfly has been partic-
ularly destructive in the Gaspe penninsula, eastern Quebec, New Bruns-
wick, and northeastern United States; whereas the yellow-headed spruce
sawfly is prevalent in great numbers throughout the Lake States,
western Quebec, and Manitoba.

The balsam fir sawfly, Neod_i.pricn abietis (Harris), is estab-

 

lished in the lake States, parts of Ontario, and most of Quebec and
New Brunswick where balsam fir and spruce grow native.

The jack pine sawfly, Neodiprion banksianae Rohwer, a destructive

 

defoliator of jack pine in the Lake States, has new extended its range
into Canada throughout the jack pine belt.

Neodiprion pinetum (Norton), the white pine sawfly, and Diprion

 

simile (Hartig), the introduced pine sawfly, are important as white
pine feeders throughout the northern United States; and Gilpinia

frutetorum (Hartig), the plantation pine sawfly, and Neodiprion _s_e_1_:-

 

 

EEE (Geoffroy), the red pine sawfly are important pests attacking
red pine in the Lake States and New England States.

Control measures, both biological and chemical, have been in-
stituted by the governments of the United States and Canada for the
purpose of preventing severe epidemics by these saw-flies. A list in-
cluded in this paper establishes the parasites known to be active in
the control of the sawflies discussed. Chemical control has con-

sisted ef airplane spraying over extensive areas, and hand spraying

-25-

 

 

 

~. r ' ‘ "
.lna-

-34

for isolated infestations. DDT is the recognized and approved
insecticide at present, it being most satisfactory and economical.

The life cycles of the ten species of sawflies presented are
approximately the same, except for the fact that the jack pine, red
pine, and balsam fir sawflies overwinter in the egg stage; whereas the
others discussed winter in the prepupal stage. The number of genera-
tions a year vary, the balsam fir sawfly, jack pine sawfly, red pine
sawfly, yellow-headed spruce sawfly, and the larch sawfly having one.
The introduced pine sawfly, plantation pine sawfly, European spruce
sawfly, red-headed pine sawfly, and the white pine sawfly have one
or more generations a year depending upon that part of North America
in which they are established.

The distribution records presented in this study, as well as
information concerning the economic value and range of the preferred
coniferous hosts, provide a useful index to the degree of signifi-e
canoe attached to some of the important sawflies attacking conifers
in eastern North America.

The expanding distribution of the sawflies discussed, as evi-
denced by new locality records every year, indicates an increasing
threat to coniferous plantings and mature trees throughout the United
States and Canada. The limit to which the threat of sawfly ingres-
sion is able to extend is dependent upon the native range of the
preferred hosts, possible parasitism, and climatic conditions. It
appears that these sawflies will eventually spread to the very limit
of the hosts' natural growing range regardless of biological or

chemical control that may be applied. The limits of the sawfly range

are so extensive now that may isolated pockets of sawfly infesta-
tions are overlooked, and it seems that not'until a severe infesta-
tion occurs, are any control measures instituted.

Parasitism does keep a check on the sawfly population, but the
parasites rate of build-up, over a period of years, is slow, and
severe infestations occur before the sawfly population is reduced.

Apparently thorough surveys should be performed, and the loca-
tion of all endemic population levels recorded. These areas should
be constantly observed and when a build-up in population occurs, con-

l

trol measures should be initiated.

—2 7-

2.

3.

10.

11.

12.

LITERATURE CITED

Atwood, C. E. and O. Peck, 1943. Some native sawflies of the
genus Neodiprion attacking pines in eastern Canada.

Canadian Journal of Research D (21): 109-123

Baird, A. B., 1939. Biological control of the insect pests in
Canada with special reference to the control of the European
spruce sawfly, Gil inia polytoma Hartig. Seventienth annual
report of the En omo ogical Society of Ontario. p. 51

.Balch, R. E., 1939. The outbreak of the European spruce sawfly

in Canada and some important features of its bionomics.
Journal of Economic Entomology. 32:412-418

Beal, J. A., 1942. Mortality of reproduction defoliated by the
red-headed pine sawfly, Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch). Jouru
nal of Forestry. 4O(7)2532-563

Britton,‘W. E., 1915. The larch sawfly. Connecticut Experiment
Station Record. p. 127

1915. A destructive pine sawfly introduced from
Efirope. Journal of Economic Entomology. 83379-382

1916. Further notes on.Diprion simile Hartig.
Journal of Economic Entomology. 9:

 

and M. P. Zappe, 1917. The imported pine sawfly,

 

Dfprion (Lophyrus) simile Hartig. Seventienth report of
the State Entomologist of Connecticut for the year 1917.
p. 273

Brown,.A.'W; A., 1937. Forest insect survey. Sixty-eightuan-
nual report of Ontario Entomological Society. p. 17 “'

1939. The Canadian forest insect survey in

 

1939. ESeventienth annual report of the Entomological
Society of Ontario. pp.97—lOO

and H. S. Fleming, 1939. Recent extensions of

 

the—known distribution of the European spruce sawfly.
Sixty-ninth annual report of the Entomological Society of
Ontario. PP. 22-24

1941. Foliage insects of spruce in Canada.

 

Dominion of Canada Department of Agriculture Publication.

172. Bul. 3125-6

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Brown, H. P. and A. J. Panshin, 1940. Commercial timbers of
the United States. First edition. McGraw-Hill Book Com-

pany, Inc. 544 pages.

Dalla Torre, C. G. De., 1892. Catalogue hymenopterorum Vol. 1
Tenthredinidae incl. Uroceridae. 459 pages

Daviault, L., 1949. Epidemics d'insectes dans 1e Quebec. Bur-
eau d'Entomologie. Circulaire 18:2, 3-6 -

Dowden, P. B., 1937. Parasites of Larch sawfly in western Mani-
toba and Great Lakes Region. Journal of Economic Entomology
30:381

1939. Present status_of the European spruce saw-
fly, Diprion polytomum (Hartig), in the United States.
Journal of Economic Efitomology 32:619-624

 

Furniss, R. L. and P. B. Dowden, 1941. 'Western hemlock sawfly,
Neodiprion tsugae Midd., and its parasites. Journal of
EboncmictEmtomology 34:50

 

Gobeil, A. R., 1938. Dcmmages causes aux forsts de la Gaspesie
par les insectes. Service d'Entomologie. Bulletin 2:13-14

Graham, S. A., 1921. The influence of small mammals and other
factors upon the larch sawfly survival. Journal of Economic
Entomology. 21:301

Gray, S. E., 1937 (1938). Notes on the occurrence of Diprion
fruitetorum Fabr. in S. Ontario. Sixty-ninth annual report
of the Eitomological Society of Ontario. :50-51

Greene, C. T., 1921. Dipterous parasites of sawflies. Proclama-
tion.Entomological Society of washington. 23:41-43

Harlow, W. M. and E. S. Harrar, 1941. Textbook of dendrology.
Sec. Ed. McCraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 542 pages

Hodson, A. C., 1939. Minnesota forest insect survey for 1939.
Paper 430, Miscellaneous Journal Series, Minnesota.Agri-
culture Experiment Station. 3-8

and C. M. Christensen, 1941. Paper 1997, Scien-
tific Journal Series, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment
Station. :1,4-7

1942. Mflnnesota forest
insect and disease survey. *PEper 2084 Scientific Journal
Series, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 1, 3-5

 

-29-

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

3B.

39.

Hodson,.A. C. and C. M. Christensen, 1943. Minnesota forest
insect and disease survey. Paper 2194 Scientific Journal
Series, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 3-5

1944-45. Mflnnesota for-

 

est insect and disease survey. Paper 2296 Scientific
Journal Series, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station
:4-5

fi__ 1946-47. Minnesota forest
insect and disease survey. Paper 634 Miscellaneous Jour-
nal Series, Minnesota.Agricultural Experiment Station:

1, 4-6

 

Houser, J. S., 1939. ‘Forest and shade tree insects. New'Jersey.
Insect pest survey bulletin 19:334

little, E. L., 1949. To know'the trees. Trees, The Yearbook
of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture.
944 pages

MacNay, C. G., 1946. .A summary of the more important insect
infestations and occurrences in Canada in 1946. Seventy-
seventh annual report of the Entomological Society of
Ontario. pp. 53-54

Martineau, R., 1943. Population studies of the European spruce
sawfly, Gil inia herc iae Htg. in Quebec. Entomological
Service Contri ution. 9: ,2-3

McDaniel, E. I., 1939. Suggestions for the control of sawflies
on conifers. Reprint from Michigan.Agricultural Experi-
ment Station Quarterly Bulletin. 21 (3):161-164

Nash, R.'W;, 1939. The yellow-headed spruce sawfly in Maine.
Journal of Economic Entomological Society. 32:330-334

Palmer, E. L., 1950. Some common woods. Nature Magazine
43(1) 25-32

Paquet, G., 1943. Bioclimatic study of the European spruce saw-
fly in Quebec. Entomological Service Contribution.
20:1-4

Peirson, H. B., 1932. Forest and shade tree insects. Maine.
Insect pest survey bulletin. 12(5):239

1932. Forest and shade tree insects. Maine.

 

Insect pest survey bulletin 12(6):285

it‘ll IIIIIVllI'

40.

41.

42.

43.

45.

46.

47.

(P)

Schaffner, J. V. Jr., 1939. Neodiprion sertifer (Qeoff.), a
pine sawfly accidentally introduced into New'Jersey from
Europe. Journal of Economic Entomology. 32:887

 

1937. Forest and shade tree insects.
New Jersey. Insect pest survey bulletin. 18(5):300

 

p___ 1943. Sawflies injurious to conifers in
the northeastern states. Journal of Forestry. 41(8):
580-588

 

Soraci, F. A., 1938. Forest and shade'tree insects. New Jersey.
Insect pest survey bulletin 19(3):90

Twinn, C. R., 1936. .A summary of the insect pest situation in
Canada in 1936. Sixty-seventh annual report of the Ento-
mological Society of Ontario p. 84

1940. A summary statement concerning some of the
more important insect pests in Canada in 1940. Seventy-
first annual report of the Ontario Entomological Society.
:60

 

hfilkes, A., 1941. Notes cn.the laboratory propagation of three
European species of Exenterus (Ichneumonidae) parasites
on sawflies. Seventy-secofid annual report of the Ontario
Entomological Society.‘ p. 41

Department of agriculture Canada. Annual reports of the forest
insect survey forest insect investigations for’the'years
1943-1946 inclusive.

Personal correspondence

APPENDIX A

SYNONYMY

Introduced pine sawfly, Diprion simile (Hartig)

Dolerus similis Norton
Ilophyrus erimita Andre
Lophyrus Eimilis Hartig
Elotoma simflfs Kirby
Tenthredo simiIfs Ratzeburg
Diprion simile (Hartig)

 

 

 

 

 

Plantation pine sawfly, Gilpinia frutetorum (Hartig)

 

Tenthredo frutetorum Fabricius
Hrylotom frutetorum (Fabricius)
FEeronus frutetorum Herrich-Schaeffer
1:3me frutetorum Hartig

Diprion frutetorum (Hartig)

Gilpinia ru orum (Hartig)

 

 

 

European spruce sawfly, Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig)

Gilpinia polytom (Hartig)
Diprion o tomum (Hartig)

EH‘TT pnaEEe-ga—i— ynae (Hartig)

 

Balsam fir sawfly, Neodiprion abietis (Harris)
Lo hyrus abietis Harris
Eeodiprion asietis (Harris)

Jack pine sawfly, Neodiprion banksianae Rohwer

 

 

 

Neodiprion n. sp.‘

tNeodipri'on banksianae Rohwer

Neodiprion (Neodiprion) ontarioensis Middleton
Neodiprion banksiana (sic) Rohwer

Eejodiprion nanulus Schedl.

 

 

 

 

Red-headed pine sawfly, Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch)

 

Mphy s Lecontei Fitch
eod pr on (Neodiprion) lecontei (Fitch)

Neodiprion lecontei (Fitc

 

‘White pine sawfly, Neodiprion pinetum (Norton)

Lop rus 1e Contii (sic) Kirkpatrick (Nec Fitch)
Lop rus pinetum.Norton

Lophyrus abboti Riley (nee Leach)

Ephy'ms pinetorum Dalle Torre

Neodiprion pinetum.(Norton)

 

Red pine sawfly, Neodiprion sertifer (Rohwer)

 

Neodiprion sertifer (Rohwer)

 

Yellow-headed spruce sawfly, Pikonema alaskensis (Rohwsr)

Nematus ocreatus (Harrington)
Pachynematus piceae (Harrington)
Pachynematus ocreatus (Harrington)
Piéhynematus alaskensis Rbhwer

Pik konema alaskensis (Rohwer)

 

 

 

 

Larch sawfly, Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig)

Nematus Erichsonii (Hartig)
Nematus eac

Tenthredo (N mtus)1Erichsonii Ratzberg
Lgaeonematus erichsonii (HaFEig)
Pristiphora erichsonii—(Hartig)

 

The proceeding synonymy has been compiled from: (1) (14)

-33-

APPENDIX B

DISTRIBUTION OF SA‘M‘LY SPECIES

BY STATES PROVINCES AND COUNTIES

Diprion simile (Hartig)

Connecticut New Jersey
1. Fairfield 1. Bergen
2. Hartford 2. Essex
3. New Haven 3. Morris
4. New London 4. Somerset
5. Union
Indiana (no county records)
New'York
Maine
1. Monroe
1. Hancock 2. Nassau
3. Queens
Massachusetts ‘ 4.'Westchester
1. Essex ' Pennsylvania
Nfichigan l. Dauphin
2. Philadelphia
1. Allegan
2. Berrien - Virginia (no county records)
3. Hillsdale
4. Ingham
5. Isabella Ontario
6. Kalamazoo
7. Midland l. Halton
8. Menroe 2. York
9. Oceana
Quebec
Minnesota
1. Chambly
1..Aitkin
20 AnOka
3. Goodhue
4. Hennepin
5. Isanti
6. Ram!!!
7. Sherburne

8. washington

-34-

Gilpinia frutetorum.(Hartig)

 

Connecticut

1. Fairfield
Massachusetts (no county records)
Minnesota

1. Ramsey
New'Hampshire (no county records)
New'Jersey (no county records)
New'York (no county records)
Pennsylvania (no county records)

Rhode Island (no county records)

Ontario

1. Carleton
2. Elgin

3. Essex

4. Lincoln
5. Norfolk
6. Prescott
7. Simooe
8. Welland

Quebec

1. Abitibi
2. Gaspe

Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig)

Connecticut

1.
Maine

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Fairfield

Aroostook
Hancock
Piscataquis
Somerset
washington

Massachusetts (no county records)

Minnesota

1.

St. Louis

New’Hampshire

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Carroll
Chesire
Coos
Grafton
Hillsboro
Merrimack
Sullivan

New Jersey (no county records)

New York

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

Chenango
Clinton

Columbia
Delaware
Dutchess
Essex
‘Franklin
Freene
Hamilton
Oneida
Otsego
Schoharie
Rensselaer
St. Lawrence
Ulster
washington

Rhode Island (no county records

-36-

Vermont

1.
2.
3.
4.

Ontario

1.
20
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

Quebec

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Addison
Bennington
washington
Windham

Bruce
Carleton
Dufferin
Dundas

Durham
Grenville
Grey
Haliburton
Hastings
Huron

Lanark

Lennox & Addington
Nipissing
Norfolk
Northumberland
Ontario

Parry Sound
Peel
Peterborough
Prescott
Prince Edward
Simooe
'Victoria
Welland
Wellington

Abitibi
Argenteuil
Beauce
Berthier
Bonaventure
Champlain
Charlevoix
Chicoutime
Compton
Dorchester
Frontenac
Gaspe

Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig) cont.

Quebec cont.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

Hull
Joliette
Kamouraska
Labelle
Lake St. John
Levis
L'Islet
Lotbiniere
maskinonge
matane
Megant ic
Montcalm
Montmagny
Montmorency
Papineau
Pontiac
Portneuf
Quebec
Rimouski
St. Maurice
Saguenay
Terrebonne
Timiscaming
‘Wolfe
Wright

New'Brunswick

9.
10.
11.
12.
l3.
14.
15.

Carleton
Charlotte
Albert

Kent

Kings
Glaucester
Medawaska
Northumberland
Pestigouche
Queens

St. John
Sunbury
Westmorland
York
Victoria

Nova Scotia

1.
2.

Annopolis
Astigonish

-3 7-

Nova Scotia cont.

3. Colchester
4. Cumberland
5. Digby

6. Guysborough
7. Halifax

8. Manta

9. Juneburg
10. Kings

11. Pictou

12. Yarmouth

Prince Edward Island
1. Kings
2. Prince
3. Queens

Cape Breton Island
1. Cape Breton

2. Inverness
3. Victoria

Neodiprion abietis (Harris)

 

Connecticut (no county records)
Haine

1. Cumberland
2. Sagadahoc
3. York

Massachusetts (no county records)
Michigan

1. Benzie

2. Gogebic

3. Grand Traverse
4. mnistee

Minnesota

1. Beltrami

2. Carlton

3. Clearwater
4. Cook

5. Hubbard

6. Itasca

7. Koochiching
8. Lake

9. Lake of the Woods
10. Roseau
11. St. Louis

New Hampshire
1. Belknap
2. Hillsboro
3. Merrimac

New‘Yonk

1.‘Warren
2. Washington

Rhode Island (no county records)
Vermont (no county records)
finsconsin

1. Ashland

2. Price
3. Sawyer

-38...

Ontario

1. Algoma
2. Carleton
3. Dundas
4.hmm
5. Prescott
6. Reni'rew
7. Victoria

Quebec

1. Abitibi
20 Berthier
3. Bonaventure
4. Champlain
5. Charlevoix
6. Chicoutime
7. Compton
B. Frontenac
9. Gaspe
10. Joliette
ll. Kamouraska
12. Lake St. John
13. Maskinonge
14. Matane
15. Montcalm
16. Montmagny
17. Pontiac
18. Quebec
19. St. Maurice
20. Saguenay
21. Timiscaming
22. Wright

‘New Brunswick

1. Charlotte
2. St. John

Nova Scotia (no county
records)

Neodiprion.banksianae Rohwer

 

Massachusetts (no county records)

Nflchigan

1. Nayne

Minnesota

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Ohio (no

Aitkin
Becker
Cass

Crow Wing
Clearwater
Hubbard
Itasca

county records)

Ifisconsin

1.
2.
3.

Ontario

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Ashland
Price
Sawyer

Carleton
Grenville
Russell
Simooe
Sudbury

-39—

Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch)

 

Alabama

1. Barbour

2. Colbert

3. Houston

4. Lauderdale
5. Lee

6. Londea

7. Randolph

Arkansas

1. Pope
2.'Washington

Connecticut

1. Fairfield
2. Hartford
3. Litchfield
4. Middlesex
5. New'Haven
6. New London
7. Talland
8.'Windham

Delaware
1. New Castle
Florida

1. Alachua
24 Duval

3. Franklin
4. Lake

5. Liberty
6. Manatee
7. Marion
8. Orange
9. Okaloosa
10. Polk
ll. Putnam

Georgia

1. Berrien
2. Clarke
3. Colquitt
4. Fannin
5. Fulton

Georgia cont.

6. Miller

7. Paulding

B. Peach

90 Rabun
10. Richmond

Illinois

1. Alexander
2. Gallatin
3. Hardin

4. Johnson

5. Massac

6. Pope

7. Saline

8. Williamson

Inuisiana

l. Beauregard
2. Bienville
3. Grant

4. Morehouse
5. Rapides

6. Union

7. washington

Maine

1. Cumberland
2. Hancock

3. Sagadohoc
4. York

Maryland

1. Anne Arundel
2. Baltimore

3. Dorchester

4. Frederick

5. Prince Georges
6. Ste mrys

Massachusetts

1. Barstable
2. Berkshire
3. Bristol
4. Essex

Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch) cont.

 

Massachusetts cont.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Franklin
Hamps hi re
Middles ea:
Norfolk
Plymouth
'Wbrcester

Michigan

10
2.
3.
4o
50
60
7.
Be
9.
10.
ll.
12.
130
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

Alcoma
Alger
Alpena
Antrim
Charlevoix
Chippewa
Delta
Emmet
Gogebic
Grand Travers e
Iosco
Kalamazoo
Kalkaska
lake
Livingston
Manistee
Mason
Mecosta
Menominee
Ogemaw
Oscoda
Ottawa
Saginaw'
Schoolcraft
wayne
Wexford

Minnesota

1.
2.
3.
4e
5.
60
7.
B.
9.
10.
11.

Aitkin
Anoka
Isanti
Carlton
Cass
Clearwater
Cook
Crowawing
Hubbard
Itasca
Lake

Minnesota cont.

12. Pine

13. Ramsey
14. Sherburne
15. St. Louis

Mississippi

10 Calhoun
2. Choctaw

3. Copiah

4. Covington
5. Forrest

6. Hancock

7. Harrison
8. Hinds

9. Holmes
10. Jackson
11. Jasper
12. Jefferson
13. Jones

14. Lincoln
15. Lauderdale
16. Marshall
17. Panola
18. Pear River
19. Pike
20. Pontotoc
22. Stone
23. Tishomingo
24. Yazoo

Missouri

1. Barny
2. MCDonald

New'Hampshire

1 o B 61kmp

2. Carroll

3. Cheshire
4. Coos

5. Grafton

6. Hillsboro
7. Merrimack
8. Rockingham
9. Strafford
10. Sullivan

Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch) cont.

 

New Jersey

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Bergen
Burlington
Mercer
Morris
Union

New'York

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Delaware
Dutchess
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Hamilton
Jefferson
Madison
Oneida
Oswego
Rockland
St. Lawrenc e
Suffolk
Tompkins

North Carolina

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Ohio

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.

Beaufort
Edgecombe
Meore
Pender
Perquimans
Richmond

Fulton
Hocking
Huron
Richland
Ross
Sandusky
Scioto
Vinton
flashington

Pennsylvania

1.
2.
3.

Berks
Bradford
Chester

-42-

Pennsylvania cont.

4. Clearfield
5. Dauphin

6. Montgomery
7. Philadelphia
8. Potter

9. Tioga

Rhode Island

1. HMO”
2. washington

South Carolina

1. Colleton
2. Horny

Tennessee

10 Benton
2. Decatur
3. Hardin
4. Henry

5. Houston
6. Humphreys
7. Perry

8. Stewart
9.‘Wayne

Vermont

1. Bennington
20 Windham
3. Windsor

Virginia

1. Fairfax

3. King and Queen
4. King William
5. Mathews ,

6. New Kent

7. Norfolk

8. Princess Anne
9. Richmond

Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch) cont.

 

“fisconsin

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
l3.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Ontario

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Ashland
Bayfield
Door
Florence
Forest
Iron
Langlade
Lincoln
Oneida
Price
Rusk
Sawyer
Shawano
Taylor
Vilas
washburn
Maushara
‘Wood

Algoma
Carleton
Dundas
Glengarry
Grey
Hastings
Lambton
Lanark
Leeds
Muskoka
Nipissing
Parry Sound
Prescott
Prince Edward
Russell
Simooe
Sudbury

-43-

Qu eb es

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Argenteuil
Champlain
Labelle
Maskinonge
Montcalm
Papineau
St. Maurice
Saguenay
Terrebonne
Timiscaming

Neodiprion‘pinetum.(Norton)

 

Connecticut New Jersey
1. Fairfield 1. Morris
2. New Haven
3. New London New'York
Georgia (no county records) 1. Albany
' 2. Essex
Illinois (no county records) 3. Franklin
4. Herkimer
Indiana 5. Livingston
6. Saratoga
1. White 7.'Warren

‘ B. Westchester
Iowa (no county records)

Ohio
Maine
10 Knox
1. Hancock
2. Kennebec Pennsylvania
Massachusetts 1. Berks
1. Hampshire ‘ Rhode Island (no county
records)
Michigan
Vermont (no county
1. Ingham, ‘ records)
20 Kent
3. Lenawee
4. wayne
Ontario
Minnesota
1. Algoma
1. Fillmore 2. Elgin
2. Hennepin 3. Grey
4. Muskoka
Mississippi
Quebec
1. Jackson
2. Oktibbeha l. Gaspe
2. Quebec
New Hampshire 3. Rimouski
1. Belknap
2. Carroll
3. Cheshire
4. COOS
5. Grafton
6. Hillsboro
7. Merrimark

-44-

Neodiprion sertifer (Geoffroy)

 

Connecticut (no county records)
Michigan

1. Crawford
New'Jersey

l. Bergen

2. Essex '
3. Hunterdon
4. Mercer

50 Morris

6. Passiac
7. Somerset
8. Union

9. Warren

New York

10 Kings
2. New York

Ohio

1. Allen
2. Lucas
3. Sandusky

Ontari o

1. Essex

2. Kent

3. Lambton
4. Middlesex
5. Welland

Pikonema alaskensis (Rohwer)

 

Connecticut (no county records)

Maine (no county records)

massachusetts (no county records)

Michigan (no county records)

Minnesota

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Beltrami

Carlton
Clearwater

Cook

Itasca
Koochiching

Lake

Lake of the Woods
Roseau

St. Louis

New Hampshire (no county records)

New'York (No county records)

Rhode Island (no county records)

Vermont

(no county records)

Wisconsin

1.

Ontario

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Quebec

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Oneida

Algoma
Bruce

Pary Sound
Patricia
Thunder Bay

Chambly

Gaspe
Jacques-Cartier
Lotbiniere
Pontiac
Saguenay
Yamasca

-46-

New'Brunswick

1. St. John
20 York

 

Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig)
- Connecticut

1. New Haven

v-Is

Georgia

1. Rabun

v— n

\-

Maine

1. Sagadahoc
2 . Somers et
‘ \ 3. washington

t Massachusetts

1 1. Essex
f 2. Middlesex

Nfichigan

1. Alger
2 . Ant rim
' 3. Benzie

Minnesota

1. Beltrami

2. Carlton

3. Cass

4. Clearwater
5. Cook

6. Grant

7. Hennepin

Be HUbbard

9. Itasca
lO. Koochiching
11. Lake
12. Lake of the'Woods
13. Marshal
14. Roseau

15. St. Louis
16. Wright

New'Hampshire

1. Carroll
2. Cheshire

-47...

New'Hampshire cont.

3. COOS

4. Rockingham
5. Strafford
6. Sullivan

NeW’York

1. Essex

2. Oneida

3. Otsego

4. St. Lawrence
5. Tompkins

6. Warren

7. Yates

Pennsylvania

1. Iackawanna
2. Nb Kean
3. Tiogo

Wflsconsin

1 o ABhlan-d
2. Oneida
3. Price

4. Sawyer

Ontario

1. Algom

2. Kenora

3. WBEOIQ

4. Pary Sound
5. Nipissing
6. Patricia
7. Simooe

8. Pontiac

9. Rainy River
10. Simooe
11. Thunderbay

Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig) cont.
Quebec
1. Abitibi
2. Iake St. John
3. Pontiac
4. Saguenay
5. Timiscaming
Nova Scotia
1. Cumberland
2. Ghalchester
3. Halifax

Labrador (no county records)

The proceeding state, province, and county records ware compiled
from.persona1 correspondence as indicated in Mathods and Procedure,

and from literature. (1)(lO)(12)(17)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(42)

(43)(44)(45) etc.

-43-

APPENDIX C

LIST OF SAWFLIES
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE
CONIFEROUS HOSTS

Diprion simile (Hartig)

Austrian Pine
Eastern'White Pine
Jack pine

Limber pine

Mugho pine

Pitch pine
Ponderosa pine
Norway Red pine
Scotch pine

Gilpinia frutetorum.(Hartig)

 

Jack pine
Norway red pine
Scotch pine
Black spruce
White spruce
Balsam.fir

Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig)

Black spruce
Norway spruce
Red spruce
White spruce
Balsam.fir

Neodiprion abietis (Harris)

 

Balsam fir

Black spruce
Engelman spruce
Red spruce

Sitka spruce

Jack pine
Eastern.white pine
Pitch pins

-49-

Pinus nigra Arnott
Finns strobus Linnaeus.

Finns Banksiana Lambert
Finns flexilis James
TEEMs montana

Pinus Figida Miller
‘Fifihs ponderosa Douglas
Finns resinosa.Aiton
Finns syIvestris Linnaeus

 

 

 

 

Pinus banksiana Lambert
Finns resinosa Aiton

Pinus sylvestris Linnaeus
'Pfeea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.
‘Fitea lauca (Moench.) Vbss.
A ies a samea (L.) Miller

 

 

 

Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.

. Ficea abies (Linnaeus)

 

Picea rubens Sarg.
Picea Iauca (Muench.) Voss.

IBIes a canoe (L.) Miller

Abies balsamea (L.) Miller

m Mai—(Mind B.S.P.
FIE... egelmanni (Parry) Engelmnn
Picea rubens Sargent

1533a sitchensis (Bong) Carrieve
Finns banksianawLambert

‘Pinus strobus Linnaeus

Pinus Figida Miller

 

 

 

 

Neodiprion‘banksianaw'Rohwer

 

Jack pine
Pitch pine
Shortleaf pine
Norway red pine

Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch)

 

Austrian pine
Jack pine
Loblolly pine
Lodgepole pine
Longleaf pine
Mugho pine
Norway red pine
Pitch pine
Ponderosa pine
Scotch pine
Scrub pine
Shortleaf pine
Slash pine
Tamarack

Neodiprion pinetum.(Nort.)

 

Eastern white pine
Mugho pine

Pitch pine

Scotch pine
Shortleaf pine

Neodiprion sertifer (Geoffroy)

Austrian pine
Eastern'white pine
Jack pine

Mugho pine

Norway red pine
Ponderosa pine
Scotch pine
Shortleaf pins

-50..

Pipus banksiana Lambert
Pinus rigida Miller
Pinus echinata Mfiller
Pinus resinosa Aiton

 

 

 

Pinus ni ra Arnold

Pinus Bagksiana Lambert

Pinus taeda Linnaeus ,3.
Pinus contorta_Douglas l
FIEH. palustris Miller

Pinus montana

Pinus resinosa.Aiton

Pinus Figida Miller

Pinus Epiderosa Douglas

Pinus s IvestHs Linmeus
PEI-u? v rg_in ana Miller

Pinus cohinata Miller

Pi'n‘n'? m Mar.

13:71? W (DuRoi) K. Koch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pinus strobus Linnaeus
Pinus montana
Pinus rigida Miller

Pinus s Ivestris Linnaeus
Pinus echinata Miller

 

 

Pinus ni ra Arnott
P3353'35535us Linnaeus
Pfibus Sankiiina Lambert
Tfinus montana

FEE? We Aiton
Pinus ponderosa Douglas
Pinus sylvestris Linnaeus
TWEMs echinata Miller

 

 

 

 

 

Pikonema alaskensis (Rohwer)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Black spruce Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.
Engelman spruce Picea engelmanni (Parry) Engelmann
Norway spruce Picea abies (Linnaeus)

Red spruce PTcea rubens Sargent

Sitka spruce v Eicea sitchensis (Bong) Carriers
White spruce Picea giauca (Muench) Voss.

Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig)

 

Eastern larch Larix laricina (DuRoi) K. Koch
Ehropean larch Erix decidua Miller

 

The preceeding information was compiled from literature and
personal correspondence as indicated in Methods and Procedure. *-

-51-

APPENDIX D
ECONOMIC VALUE OF IMPORTANT CONIFERS

ATTACKED BY SKWFLIES

 

Eastern white pine -=—=— - £122§_strobus Linneaus

Eastern white pine is noted for its rapid growth after the
first two seasons, and the high quality of wood. Because of the
demand for its wood, the ease in handling nursery stock, and the
high percent of survival when properly planted, this species has
been established by the millions throughout the northeastern.United
States, in fact it has been the principle species used in reforesta-
tion for many years.

Uses........ Boxes and crates, patterns, millwork, toys, woodenp

ware, novelties, signs, caskets, building construction, and

matches.

 

Jack pine — - —- 2.193.”. banksiana Lambert
Jack pine is essentially a Canadian species reaching best de-
velopment north and west of Lake Superior. In the Lake States it
is one of the most important second growth species, and used to re-
forest lands in which the humas layer has been destroyed by fire,
leaving only bare sand. It serves as a valuable pioneer tree on
such areas but eventually will be replaced by red or white pine.
Uses........ Primarily a pulpdwood species, but may be used
for lumber. Is increasing in its use for poles after a preser-
vative treatment. Also used for fuel, ties, boxes and crates,

and '31]. board.

-52..

 

Loblolly pine ——---- 21222.22323 Linneaus
Loblolly pine, probably the most tolerant species of southern
pine, has spread to a remarkable degree in cut-over lands in the
south and is especially aggressive in forming pure stands on old
fields.
Uses........ An.important timber species. The lumber is used
chiefly for building materials, including millwork. Also
used for boxes and crates. A leading'wood in the production
of pulp and slack cooperage. Railroad ties, piling, mine

timbers, excelsior, and veneer.

 

Norway red pine - — — Ping: resinosa Aiton

Red pine is grown in large numbers for reforestation purposes,
and also has its place in ornamental plantings. It is a fast growb
ing tree of many uses, and of a greater demand than any other
species grown in state forest nurseries.

Uses........ Pulpwood, railroad ties, poles, posts, building

construction, boxes, crates, and planing mill products.

Shortleaf pine ------—------- Ping: echinata Miller

Shortleaf pine is a moderately rapid growing tree of the south-
ern pine group, having the ability to sprout after the main stem
has been.destrqyed by fire. It is capable of enduring suppression
and showing greatly accelerated growth.

Uses........ Same as loblolly pine.

-53-

Black spruce — —-- Picea mariana (Mi11.) B.S.P.

 

 

Black spruce is a very tolerant tree, recovering after long
periods of suppression. This tree is especially interesting in
marking the northern limit of tree growth.

Uses........ Principle use is pulpwood. Also used in box

making, crates, cooperage, paddles, oars, canoes, woodenware,

and light construction.work. Important as a christmas tree.

 

Red spruce ——— Picga_rubggg_8argent

Red spruce is one of the most important of the northeast con-
ifers. The young trees are very tolerant, more so than their
associated species, but they grow slowly under forest cover and
even in the open do not make rapid growth.

Uses........ Principle use is pulpwood. Also used in the con-

struction of boxes, crates, furniture, millwork, ladder rails.

Important as christmas'trees.

 

White spruce - — — — Picga_glaugg_(Moench) Voss.

This tree is the most important and the most widely distributed
conifer in Canada, but in the United States it is found only in
limited areas. 'White spruce is being used extensively for reforesta-
tion both in the United States and Canada because of its fast growth
and valuable wood. It is excellent for windbreaks and shelter belts.

Uses........ Pulpwood. Cooperage, boxes, crates, refrigerator,

general building purposes, planing mill products, kitchen cabi-

nets, musical instruments, car construction, ship and boat build-

ing, furniture and woodwork, ladder rails, paddles and cars.

-54-

Balsam fir -------------—- Abies balsamea (L.) Miller

 

Balsam fir is a moderately fast growing tree in youth, and
aggressive in restocking cutover land even under old stands of
spruce and fir. Reproduction is plentiful, and in a great demand
for its use as christmas trees.

Us‘es........ Christms trees. Packing cases, boxes, crates,

sheathing, and in pulp.

Eastern larch --------------- £35115 laricina (DuRoi) K. Koch
Tamarack, eastern larch, is well noted for its rapid growth
on favorable sites, and not damaged by fire due to its wet sur-
roundings.
Uses........ Used in making railroad ties, poles, posts,

telephone poles, ship building, heavy construction timbers.

The preceeding information has been compiled from (13)(23)
(31) (36)

APPENDIX E
LIST OF SAWFLIES

AND THEIR RESPECTIVE PARASITES

Diprion simile (Hartig)

l. Cerambycobius sp.

2. Enterus abruptorius Thb.

3. finterus claTIpennis Thom.

4. Econterus marginatorius Fabricius

5. mist} pfiolata Cog.

6. Hemiteles utilis Norton

'7. Hicroflectron fuscipennis Zett.

8. Monodontomers dentTpes (Beh.)

9. PachyneuronTDibrachys) nigrocyaneus Norton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O

Gilpinia frutetorum (Hartig)

 

l. Microplectrgn fuscipennis Zett.

Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig)

l. Aenoplex sp. .

2. Iptesis indistincta (Provancher)
3.. Bessa seféctalig.

4. Exenterus abruptorius Thb.

5. finterus cfaripennis Thom.

6. Enterus marginitofius Fabricius
'7. fintems tricolor Rom.

8. 'fix‘enterus vellicatus Cush.

9. IRpTecHs montana

10. IIamachus contortions Dav.

ll. 1MiEEropIecfron fuscipennis Zett.
12. Pfiorocera (nearjhmata

13. Spathi'meigenia auriui'rons Curran
l4. §pathimeigenia spinigera Tns.
15. Wmfa sp.

16. Stylocryptus subclavatus (Say)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neodiprion abiet is (Harri s)

 

l. Aleiodes parasiticus Norton
2. Amblymerus verditer (Norton)
3. Bessa selecta Mg.

4. Crampopfix genuinis Norton

 

 

 

Neodiprion abietis (Harris) cont.

 

5. Cheiropachus nigro-cyaneus

6. Crryptus Lophyri

7. falomerisja diprionis Cush.

8. finterus abuptorius Thom.

9. finterus Effinis Rohwer

10. finfims canadensis Provancher
ll. fkenterus claripennis Thom.

12. finterus marginatofius Fabricius
13. 63113 8P0

l4. Hemiteles tenellos Say

15. Hemiteles utilis

16. Iéhneumon fungor Norton

1?. Iaineumon mbicuncmi Cress.

18. Lamachus contortiofis Dav.

19. Lamchus Iophyri Ashm.

20. Eamachus ruficoxa Cush.

21. Mesocfiorus sp.

22. Misca carnor}:

23. Phorocera (near hamata)

24. Pimpla inquisitor Say

25. Pteromalus verditer

26. §pathimeigenia aurTfrons Curran
27. fithimei’genia spinigera Tns.
28. Tifneptis diprionis (Tush.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neodiprion banksianae Rohwer (no records)

 

Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch)

 

l. Admontia lglotomae

2. Wtemsibruptorius Thb.

3. FESnterus claripennis Them.

4. Enterus marginatofius Fabricius
5. Masicera sp. (near erxilis)

6. Pfiorocera claripennis Macq.

7. fithimifgenia spinigera Tns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neodiprion pinetum (Norton) (no records)

 

 

Neodiprion sertifer (Geoffroy)

1. Delomerista diprionis Cush.
2. Eranterus ibruptorius Thb.

3. Eenterus cTaripenniE Thom.
4. :Eienterug marginatorius Thb.

 

 

 

 

Pikonema alaskensis (Rohwer)

 

1. BBssa selecta Mg.

2. Weria compsilurae (wad.)
3. fir—omenus Tedardi Provancher

4. ficeros sp.

5. Folocremnus sp.

6. gypopteromalus tobacum Fitch
7. 0 11:0 1.8 c 3.]511 “blue

8. Mesochorus spp.

9. MesoIeius sp.

10. HonoBIast'us 1 varifrons Cress
11. Urthostigm spw. ‘-

12. PRrocera Tnear haunts)

13. §copiorus quebecensis Provancher
l4. §microplectms velEx My.

15. firmia sp. fill-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig)

l. Aenopl-ex sp. .
2. A_poteticus (Podisus) modestus
3. A tesis nigrocinctor

40 0383 we 1 he

5. HesoIeius tenthredinis Morley

6. Callopisthis (Pteromalus) nematicida Pack
7. CoéIichneumon fuscipes Grov.
8. Civpfis fiat” Erov.

9. D rac s n. sp.

10. g oc s 3p.

11. Eclytus ornatus Holm.

12. ma?—

13. Frontina (Masicera) tenthredinidorum Tns.
l4. Giolichneumon annulamibficiue

15. Iiaria Tasinosa (Deans7 Fr. (Fungus)
16. Hesoleius tenthredinis Morley

l7. Wcrocryptus Iabrafls Grav.

18. Wire asteT 8.137....

19. may
20. Pezopoms indistinctus (Provancher)

21. FeriIaanus sp.

22. SpIIocrypt'us incubitor Stron.

23. fichogramn Wley

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compiled from: (2)(5)(6)(lO)(16)(lB)(22)(35)(46)(47)

-58-

APPENDIX F

DISTRIBUTION MAPS

The following maps present the known eastern.North.American
distribution of the sawflies discussed in this paper.

Solid marking is used to indicate county records of distri-
bution and cross-hatching indicates states having the sawfly
present but with no records of their establishment within counties.
Labrador and Manitoba are not included in the maps, but distribu-
tion in these sections of North America are included in the discus-

sion of sawfly species.

-59-

 

 

NORTH AIIIERIcAN DISTRIBUTION OF
RED-HEADED PINE SAWFLY ‘ .

 

 

 

 

    

Legend
United States I
Canadian I

Courtesy of Forest Insect Laboratory,
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

"-22-4’ on

 

~65-

ooMusE ONLY

if!

A

u
it}
. u“

I J,

 

.Ir

 

""IITIITIQI’IIIIIJMII(“Luigfiiiflififiufifliflmllms