The cost of gypsy moth sex in the city

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 459-468

  Bigsby, Kevin M ^a   Ambrose, Mark J ^a   Tobin, Patrick C ^b   Sills, Erin O ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHERN RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Biological invasions; Economic assessment; Lymantria dispar; Non native forest pests; Residential impacts; Urban forestry

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; HOST PLANT; MOTH; PEST OUTBREAK; TREE; URBAN AREA;

BALTIMORE; MARYLAND; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84905675441     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Allen V.T., Miller O.F., Tyler W.B. Gypsy moth caterpillar dermatitis-revisited. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 1991, 24:979-981.
2. Aukema J.E., McCullough D.G., Von Holle B., Liebhold A.M., Britton K., Frankel S.J. Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental US. Bioscience 2010, 60:886-897.
3. Aukema J.E., Leung B., Kovacs K., Chivers C., Britton K.O., Englin J., Frankel S., Haight R., Holmes T., Liebhold A., McCullough D., Von Holle B. Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(9):e24587. 10.1371/journal.pone.0024587.
4. Baltimore Tree Trust (2013) Last accessed August, 2013. http://www.baltimoretreetrust.org/.
5. BES LTER Baltimore Ecosystem Study - Long Term Ecological Research 2009, http://www.beslter.org/data_browser.asp (accessed August 2011).
6. Bigsby K.M., Tobin P.C., Sils E.O. Anthropogenic drivers of gypsy spread. Biol. Invasions 2011, 13:2077-2090.
7. Brockerhoff E.G., Bain J., Kimberley M., Knížek M. Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Can. J. For. Resour. 2006, 36:289-298.
8. Cadenasso M.L., Pickett S.T.A., Schwarz K. Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 5:80-88.
9. California Environmental Protection Agency Compliance Offset Protocol Urban Forest Projects 2011, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/copurbanforestfin.pdf (accessed May 2013).
10. Campbell R.W., Sloan R.J. Natural regulation of innocuous gypsy moth populations. Environ. Entomol. 1977, 6:315-322.
11. Colunga-Garcia M., Haack R.A., Magarey R.A., Margosian M.L. Modeling the spatial establishmen patterns of exotic forest insects in urban areas in relation to tree cover and propagule pressure. J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103:108-118.
12. Consumer Price Index Inflacion Calculator 2013, http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (accessed June 2013).
13. Cumming A.B., Galvin M.F., Rabaglia R.J., Cumming J.R., Twardus D.B. Forest health monitoring protocol applied to roadside trees in Maryland. J. Arboric. 2001, 3:126-138.
14. Cumming A.B., Twardus D.B., Smith W.D. National Forest Health Monitoring Maryland and Massachusetts street tree monitoring pilot projects. NA-FR-01-06 2006, 23. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, Newtown Square, PA.
15. Dwyer J., McPherson E., Schroeder H., Rowntree R. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J. Arboric. 1992, 18:227-234.
16. Elkinton J.S., Liebhold A.M. Population dynamics of gypsy moth in North America. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1990, 35:571-596.
17. Forbush E.H., Fernald C.H. The Gypsy Moth 1896, Wright and Potter, Boston.
18. Gansner D.A., Herrick O.W. Guides for estimating forest stand losses to gypsy moth. North J. Appl. For. 1984, 1:21-23.
19. Gansner D.A., Herrick O.W., White W.B. Economic analysis of the gypsy moth problem in the Northeast. IV. Forest stand hazard ratings for gypsy moth.USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-410 1978.
20. Gansner D.A., Herrick O.W. Estimating the benefits of gypsy moth control on timberland. USDA Forest Service Research Note NE-337 1987.
21. Gottschalk K.W. Silvicultural guidelines for forest stands threatened by the gypsy moth. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-171 1993.
22. Haight R.G., Homans F.R., Horie T., Mehta S.V., Smith D.J., Venette R.C. Assessing the cost of an invasive forest pathogen: a case study with oak wilt. Environ. Manag. 2011, 47:506-517.
23. Hajek A.E., Humber R.A., Elkinton J.S. The mysterious origin of Entomophaga maimaiga in North America. Am. Entomol. 1995, 41:31-42.
24. Haynes K.J., Liebhold A.M., Johnson D.M. Spatial analysis of harmonic oscillation of gypsy moth outbreak intensity. Oecologia 2009, 159:249-256.
25. Heichel G.H., Turner N.C. Phenology and leaf growth of defoliated hardwood trees. Perspective in Forest Entomology 1976, 31-40. Academic Press, New York. J.F. Anderson, H.K. Kaya (Eds.).
26. Herrick O.W. Forest pest management economics - application to the gypsy moth. For. Sci. 1981, 27:128-138.
27. Herrick O.W., Gansner D.A. Rating forest stands for gypsy moth defoliation. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-583 1986.
28. Herrick O.W., Gansner D.A. Mortality risks for forest trees threatened with gypsy moth infestation. USDA Forest Service Research Note NE-338 1987.
29. Holmes T.P., Aukema J.E., Von Holle B., Liebhold A., Sills E. Economic impacts of invasive species in forests past, present, and future. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2009, 1162:18-38.
30. Homer C., Huang C., Yang L., Wylie B., Coan M. Development of a 2001 National Land Cover Database for the United States. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2004, 70:829-840.
31. Hulme P.E., Bacher S., Kenis M., Klotz S., Kühn I., Minchin D., Nentwig W., Olenin S., Panov V., Pergl J., Pyšek P., Roques A., Sol D., Solarz W., Vilà M. Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45:403-414.
32. Jakus P.M. Averting behavior in the presence of public spillovers - household control of nuisance pests. Land Econ. 1994, 70:273-285.
33. Johnson D.M., Liebhold A.M., Bjørnstad O.N., McManus M.L. Circumpolar variation in periodicity and synchrony among gypsy moth populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 2005, 74:882-892.
34. Johnson D.M., Liebhold A.M., Tobin P.C., Bjørnstad O.N. Allee effects and pulsed invasion of the gypsy moth. Nature 2006, 444:361-363.
35. Koch F.H., Yemshanov D., Magarey R.D., Smith W.D. Dispersal of invasive insects via recreational firewood: a quantitative analysis. J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105:438-450.
36. Kokotovich A.E., Zeilinger A.R. Exploring social and institutional variation across oak wilt management in Minnesota, USA. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10:39-45.
37. Lard C., Willis D.B., Salin V., Robison S. Economic assessments of red imported fire ant on Texas' urban and agricultural sectors. Southwest. Entomol. 2002, 25:123-137.
38. Leuschner W.A., Young J.A., Waldon S.A., Ravlin F.W. Potential benefits of slowing the gypsy moth's spread. South. J. Appl. For. 1996, 20:65-73.
39. Liebhold A.M., Gottschalk K.W., Muzika R.M., Montgomery M.E., Young R., O'Day K., Kelley B. Suitability of North American tree species to the gypsy moth: a summary of field and laboratory tests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-211 1995.
40. Liebhold A.M., MacDonald W.L., D.Bergdahl D., Mastro V. Invasion by exotic forest pests: a threat to forest ecosystems. For. Sci. Monogr. 1995, 30:1-49.
41. Ludsin S.A., Wolfe A.D. Biological invasion theory: Darwin's contributions from The Origin of Species. Bioscience 2001, 51:780-789.
42. Mack R.N., Simberloff D., Lonsdale W.M., Evans H., Clout M., Bazzaz F.A. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10:689-710.
43. Mayo J.H., Straka T.J., Leonard D.S. The cost of slowing the spread of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2003, 96:1448-1454.
44. McCay R.E., White W.B. Economic analysis of the gypsy moth problem in the Northeast. I. Applied to commerical stands. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-275 1973.
45. McCullough D.G., Work T.T., Cavey J.F., Liebhold A.M., Marshall D. Interceptions of nonindigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossings over a 17-year period. Biol. Invasions 2006, 8:611-630.
46. McPherson E.G., Nowak D., Heisler G., Grimmond S., Souch C., Grant R., Rowntree R. Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosyst. 1997, 1:49-61.
47. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Maco S.E., Xiao Q. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. J. For. 2005, 103:411-416.
48. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Xiao Q.F., Wu C.X. Million trees Los Angeles canopy cover and benefir assessment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 99:40-50.
49. Moeller G.H., Marler R.L., McCay R.E., White W.B. Economic analysis of the gypsy moth problem in the Northeast. III. Impacts on homeowners and managers of recreation areas. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-360 1977.
50. Morales D.J. The contribution of trees to residential property value. J. Arboric. 1980, 6:305-308.
51. Murray F.J., Marsh L., Bradford P.A. New York State Energy Plan, Volume II: Issue Reports 1994, New York State Energy Office, Albany, NY.
52. Niemelä P., Mattson W.J. Invasion of North American forests by European phytophagous insects. Bioscience 1996, 46:741-753.
53. Nowak D.J., Rowntree R.A., McPherson E.G., Sisinni S.M., Kerkmann E.R., Stevens J.C. Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1996, 36:49-57.
54. Nowak D.J., Crane D.E. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model: quantifying urban forest structure and functions. Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century. USDA Forest Service General Tecnical Report NC-212 2000, 714-720. St. Paul, MN. M. Hansen, T. Burk (Eds.).
55. Nowak D.J., Pasek J.E., Sequeira R.A., Crane D.E., Mastro V.C. Potential effect of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on urban trees in United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 2001, 94:116-122.
56. Nowak D.J., Crane D.E., Dwyer J.F. Compensatory value of urban trees in the United States. J. Arboric. 2002, 28:194-199.
57. Nowak D.J., Kuroda M., Crane D.E. Tree mortality rates and tree population projections in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Urban For. Urban Green. 2004, 2:139-147.
58. Nowak D.J., Crane D.E., Stevens J.C., Hoehn R.E., Walton J.T., Bond J. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboric. Urban For. 2008, 34:347-358.
59. Onstad D.W., Nowak D.J., Jeffords M.R. Potential defoliation of trees by outbreak populations of gypsy moth in the Chicago area. J. Arboric. 1997, 23:57-64.
60. Payne B.R., White W.B., McCay R.E., McNichols R.R. Economic analysis of the gypsy moth problem in the Northeast. II. Applied to residential property.USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-285 1973.
61. Pimentel D., Lach L., Zuniga R., Morrison D. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 2000, 50:53-65.
62. Pimentel D., Zuniga R., Morrison D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52:273-288.
63. Redman A.M., Scriber J.M. Competition between the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, and the northern tiger swallowtail, Papilio canadensis: interactions mediated by host plant chemistry, pathogens, and parasitoids. Oecologia 2000, 125:218-228.
64. Ruiz G.M., Rawlings T.K., Dobbs F.C., Drake L.A., Mulladay T., Huq A., Colwell R.R. Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature 2000, 408:49-50.
65. Simberloff D., Gibbons L. Now you see them, now you don't! - Population crashes of established introduced species. Biol. Invasions 2004, 6:161-172.
66. Sydnor T.D., Bumgardner M., Todd A. The potential economic impacts of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) on Ohio, U.S., communities. Arboric. Urban For. 2007, 33:48-54.
67. Thurber D.K., McClain W.R., Whitmore R.C. Indirect effects of gypsy-moth defoliation on nest predation. J. Wildl. Manag. 1994, 58:493-500.
68. Tobin P.C., Whitmire S.L., Johnson D.M., Bjørnstad O.N., Liebhold A.M. Invasion speed is affected by geographic variation in the strength of Allee effects. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10:36-43.
69. Tobin P.C., Robinet C., Johnson D.M., Whitmire S.L., Bjørnstad O.N., Liebhold A.M. The role of Allee effects in gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), invasions. Popul. Ecol. 2009, 51:373-384.
70. Tobin P.C., Van Stappen J., Blackburn L.M. Human visiatation rates to the Apostle Islands national Lakeshore and the introduction of the non-native species Lymantria dispar (L.). J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91:1991-1996.
71. Tobin P.C., Bai B.B., Eggen D.A., Leonard D.S. The ecology, geopolitics, and economics of managing Lymantria dispar in the United States. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2012, 58:195-210.
72. Troy A.R., Grove J.M., O'Neil-Dunne J.P.M., Cadenasso M.L. Predicting opportunities for greening and patterns of vegetation on private lands. Environ. Manage. 2007, 40:394-412.
73. Tuthill R.W., Canada A.T., Wilcock K., Etkind P.H., O'Dell T.M., Shama S.K. An epidemiologic study of gypsy moth rash. Am. J. Public Health 1984, 74:799-803.
74. USDA Forest Service Gypsy Moth Digest, Maryland 2007, 2008 and 2009 Gypsy Moth Suppression Projection Summary 2013, http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/gm/ (accessed July 2013).
75. US Census Bureau Census of population and housing 2011, http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html (accessed January 2011).
76. US Environmental Protection Agency Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon 2013, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/scc-fact-sheet.pdf (accessed February 2014).
77. Webb R.E., Ridgway R.L., Thorpe K.W., Tatman K.M., Wieber A.M., Venables L. Development of a specialized gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) management program for suburban parks. J. Econ. Entomol. 1991, 84:1320-1328.
78. Work T.T., McCullough D.G., Cavey J.F., Komsa R. Arrival rate of nonindigenous insect species into the United States through foreign trade. Biol. Invasions 2005, 7:323-332.