A history of southern pine beetle outbreaks in the southeastern United States by the Southeastern Forest Insect Working Group

A History Of Southern Pine Beetle Outbreaks In The Southeastern United States
By the Southeastern Forest Insect Working Group
An uncontrolled southern pine beetle infestation on Turkey Hill Wilderness, San Augustine County, Texas. Photographed on July 27,1993 by Dr. Ronald F. Billings, Texas
Forest Service.
GEORGIA
FORESTRY
~~MIS~"~
J. Frederick Allen
Director

Patrick J. Barry, retired forest entomologist, U.S. Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Asheville, N.C. This edition is dedicated to "Pat" by the Southern Forest Insect Working Group for his outstanding service to forest entomology. Pat spent most of his career assisting the southern states with southern pine beetle programs and projects. He has truly earned the title of "Mr. Pine Beetle."

A mSTORY OF SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE OUTBREAKS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
Edited and Compiled By
Terry S. Price II , Coleman Doggett 2/ , John M. Pye 11
and Bryan Smith ~I For The
Southern Forest Insect Working Group ~/
The southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimm., is the most destructive
insect killer of pines in the southeastern United States. This native bark beetle attacks
and kills southern pines in an area roughly approximating the geographical range of
shortleaf pine (See Appendix). For poorly under~tood reasons, the insect periodically
increases to epidemic proportions, causing severe timber losses. For many years, a vast
amount of data on the beetle have accumulated in files and archives. Some of the early
information is very sketchy, but data collected since 1960 are reasonably accurate. This
publication summarizes historical information on the southern pine beetle and documents
damage and spread of the beetle since the 1960's.
METHODS
The data shown in Table 1 and Maps 1960 - 1996 were collected to provide a
regional record of long term patterns of southern pine beetle outbreak. Such broad scale
datasets are crucial to proper understanding of factors which control episodically varying
II Forest Entomologist, Georgia Forestry Commission, Macon, GA. 21 Pest control Forester, N. C. Division of Forest Resources, Raleigh, NC. 'J./ Ecologist and Research Forester, respectively, USFS, Southeastern Forest Experiment
Station, Research Triangle Park, NC. ~I Research Associate, Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, N. C. ~I The SFIWG consists of state and federal forest health specialists. Individual
contributors are listed in the Appendix.

2
pests, yet are rare for forest insects. However, it is important to recognize the limitations of the data presented here. These data were collected by state and federal pest control specialists to assist their own pest control objectives as well as to fulfill federal costsharing reporting requirements. Fundamental differences in methodology are inevitable particularly in light of the regional coverage and lengthy period described. Such difference necessarily limit the comparability of the data.
The two types of data presented in this publication, county-level outbreak intensities (Map Figures 1960- 1996) and state-level damage estimates (Table 1), are derived from three sources of information: aerial spot detection surveys, ground checks of detected spots, and surveys of host forest extent. This section defines the data presented and describes how it was assembled.
Aerial surveys: Because host damage and reproduction by southern pine beetles occur primarily in well defined patches called spots, locating and enumerating spots are fundamental to estimating their population and impact. Active spots are principally identified through detection flights (Rain, 1980). Flights are conducted periodically throughout the active season, with flight timing dependent on expected level of beetle activity, season, objectives, and operational capabilities (Billings, 1979). States do not record very small spots, less than five or ten trees in size, because of their limited potential for damage 5, and for programmatic reasons some states do not surveyor report spots on federal lands. Survey efforts may historically have been less intensive during years of limited beetle activity or in counties thought to be at low risk, leading to under
'if For example, Texas increased its detection threshold to ten active trees in 1974 (Billings, 1979).

3
reporting of spot numbers. Dull (1980) discusses some of the sources of error associated with aerial spot detection.
Ground checks: Pockets of mortality observed in the air may be caused by other agents than southern pine beetle. Ground checks allow confirmation of the beetle's role and permit improved estimation of spot size for subsequent damage estimates (Mayyasi et aI., 1975). States may prioritize detected spots by their damage potential, restricting ground checks to those spots most likely to benefit from control (Billings, 1979t
Host surveys: Because southern pine beetle only attacks certain species of pine, measures of spot frequency are typically,' expressed relative to the amount of potential host available. For the maps in this publication, spot'number-s'ln each county have been divided by that county's acres of susceptible forest, producing "spots per thousand acres of susceptible host type."
"Susceptible host type" refers to forests dominated by suitable host species. Loblolly and shortleaf pines are the most common host species of southern pine beetle, although pitch and Virginia pines are also susceptible. White, slash and longleaf pines are rarely attacked by southern pine beetle and thus are not treated as susceptible. Pines within mixed forests can be attacked, although less frequently than in stands with high pine basal areas (Lorio 1980).
All the states in the survey obtain their county-level estimates of acreage by forest type from the U. S. Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) survey. States combine the acres in the FIA forest type categories "loblolly-shortleaf' and "oak-pine" as
6/ Because beetle activity was light in 1989 and 1990, SC performed no ground checks.

4

their estimate of susceptible acres7. The FIA survey is conducted approximately every

ten years, with states apparently using the most recent survey data available for their calculations8. Thus, estimates of susceptible acres can be up to ten years out of date.

Levels of infestation: The above descriptions suggest that the states forwarded to

us estimatesof spots per thousand acres. This is generally not the case. Rather, most

state infestation levels have been reported by broad categories. For the years prior to

1978, data are only available on whether a county was in outbreak status or not, where

one spot per thousand acres or greater serves as the definition of outbreak. Starting in

1978, infestation levels have been divided into three ranges: '

Category

Spots per thousand acres susceptible host type

Low

0.1 to just under 1

Middle

1 to just under 3

High

3 and greater

The new "low" category captures less intense infestations than were reported in

earlier periods - only the middle and high categories fit the previous definition of

"outbreaks. "

Damage estimates: State-level damage estimate (Table 1) are .divided into

pulpwood and sawlog volumes killed and estimated amounts salvaged, with volumes

valued using that year's statewide prices. Estimates of amounts killed and salvaged are

derived from spot counts, ground checks, and other available information. Estimates of

1/ For GA, prior to 1972, only one-half of all mixed oak-pine acres were included as
susceptible. ~/ For 1972-1990, GA estimates were based on linear interpolations between survey
years.

5

that year's statewide stumpage values are then simply applied to the volumes killed to

produce estimates of total value of loss.

Update: This publication updates data found in an earlier publication (price et al

Doggett, 1990) which presented similarly collected data on outbreaks from 1960 through

1990. These older data are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader. Only data

for Georgia from 1972 to 1990 were revised, based on improved estimates of susceptible host acres9. Data for all states after 1990 were solicited for this publication from the state

and federal pest control specialists listed in the Contributors section and maps were

proofed by the responsible contributor fo,r accuracy. Their assistance has been essential

to this effort and is gratefully acknowledged.

".

DISCUSSION

Even prior to the time the southern pme beetle was first described by

Zimmermann in 1868, pine mortality was described by early writers which may be

attributed to the beetle. The first outbreak on record was reported by several writers in

the late 1700's and early 1800's. Since it was reported in east Tennessee, coastal plain

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and piedmont North Carolina, it was probably

statewide.

The Moravians, who immigrated from Austria, settled in the central piedmont of

North Carolina around Winston-Salem. They were extremely interested in their forests

and enacted forest management regulations and appointed foresters for their settlement as

9/ The previous version had used more dated estimates of host acres and had included one-half of the mixed oak-pine acres.

6
early as the 1750's. In October 1796, their records report the "loss of many pines near Hope" (Fries, 1943). Since this area has frequently been the center of southern pine beetle activity in North Carolina during the last several decades, it is probable that the dying trees were a result of beetle attack. It is significant that the report was entered in October which is one of the months in which beetle damage is most noticeable in North Carolina.
The Moravian report was followed by several reports of damage in the early 1800's that was most certainly southern pine beetle. F. Andrew Michaux reported dying longleaf pines in the .coastal plain of Georgia and the Carolihas and yellow pine mortality in east Tennessee. His description leaves not doubt as to cause of mortality.
" ... From the diversified uses of the wood, an idea may be formed of the consumption: to which may be added a waste of a more disastrous kind which seems impossible to arrest. Since the year 1804, extensive tracts of the finest pines are seen covered only with dead trees. In 1802, I remarked a similar phenomenon among the yellow pines in east Tennessee. This catastrophe is also felt among the Scotch firs which people the forests of the north of Europe and is wrought by swarms of small insects which lodge in different parts of the stock, insinuate themselves under the bark, penetrate into the body of the tree and cause it to perish in the course ofa year" (Michaux, 1857).
The severity of the outbreak which was the subject of Michaux's report is further documented by contemporary South Carolina writers. The Charleston newspaper on January 7, 1804, reports: "It is now upwards of two years since it was observed that an unusual disease had made its appearance amongst the pine trees in the northern and eastern parts of this state... in many places there are thousands of acres where nine-tenths

7
of the best trees are killed. The cause of the evil has been carefully sought after and found to proceed from a small black winged bug ... No attempt has yet been made to remedy the evil which if it continues threatens to destroy the most valuable timber this country possesses. A gentleman lately from the county asserts that on a tract of two thousand acres of pine land which he owns on the Sampit River near Georgetown at least ninety trees in every hundred have been destroyed by this pernicious insect ... "
John Drayton of Cp~rleston in a letter to the American Philosophical Society dated October 9, 1803, reported the loss of hundreds of acres of pines on his plantation on the Santee River. His analysis of the prob, lem shows some knowledge of the life cycle of the beetle. He reports, " ... this mischief is affecteclby a bug which flying from tree to tree perforates a hole in the bark to the sap and lays an egg which in a little time originates a worm which feeding on the sap immediately destroys the life of the tree (Drayton, 1803).
A letter from General Charles C. Pinckney read to the Philadelphia Philosophical Society on October 5, 1804, reported the formation of a committee by the South Carolina Agricultural Society to investigate the causes of the problem. No final report of the committee has been located, but this is probably the first attempt at research on the southern pine beetle. He also states: "We are very uncertain whether the worms you allude to are the cause or the effect of the death of the trees... " (Pickney, 1804).
Pinckney also commented on the strength and useability of recently killed timber and advocated its use. He predicted a short term market glut followed by shortages. In his letter, Pickney illustrated the severity of the problem by reporting the loss of 5,000 acres of7,000 acres on a plantation 26 miles north of Charleston.

8
James Madison in a letter to Judge Peters in 1818 said, "Now, all our red field, long unplowed, are overspread with pines, as thick as they can grow; whilst the adjacent grey lands, originally clothed with a pine forest, are gradually losing that kind of tree under the depredation of a particular worm." This is the earliest recording of pine mortality in Virginia. It was probably southern pine beetle.
From the time of the first reports in the late 1700's and early 1800's until the late 1800's there is very little information on the damage caused by the southern pine beetle. Although it is possible that no damage was incurred from the beetle during this time period, it is probably that damage was occurring but was not noted because of poor survey methods or indifference. Table 2 (See Appendix) is a brief summary of survey data that was available from 1882-1959.
It does not appear, as some writers have suggested, that outbreaks of southern pine beetle occur periodically with a dearth of beetle activity between outbreaks. Some very severe outbreaks occur in the southeast almost every year. Periodically, the localized outbreaks combine to produce a southwide outbreak.
Beginning in the early 1960' s, improved survey detection techniques and expanded pest control organizations allowed improved detection and damage data collection. Table 1 and Map Figures 1960 - 1996 summarize survey data collected since 1960.
mSTORY OF SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE CONTROL
The first attempts to control bark beetles were probably European and involved
W spp. Disastrous bark beetle outbreaks occurred in Germany during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries. So severe was the problem that a special prayer for the

9
protection of forests from wind and insects was included in a prayer book printed in 1705. Gmelin (1787) reported that over a million-and-a-half trees were killed in the Hercynian Mountains alone between 1781 and 1787. Gmelin collected data from these seventeenth and eighteenth century outbreaks and in 1787 published a treatise on bark beetles. In addition to biological data, the treatise contained comprehensive detection and control recommendations. As a first step, Gmelin recommended an intensive survey to locate infested trees.
His major recommendation for beetle control was prompt salvage or burning of infested trees. Emphasis was placed on selecting trees still containing brood and ignoring
trees from which beetles had already eJIlerged. ~er trees V{e~e salvaged, bark removed
from trees during the milling process was burned. Gmelin also detailed the use of trap trees as a control measure. This consisted of
cutting healthy trees at specified intervals. After the trees were attacked by beetles, they were burned to eliminate the brood.
In addition to direct control measures, Gmelin recommended thinning and sanitation measures to prevent attack. He also suggested that careless logging and weather and soil condition may predispose stands to attack.
He astutely attempted to correlate resin flow of individual trees with attack success and suggested that seed from resistant trees be used to propagate future beetle resistant stands. Gmelin reported that seventeenth and eighteenth century attempts to control beetles with chemicals were generally unsuccessful and were com dered dangerous because of the

10
available chemicals: arsenic, smoke of heather, sulfur and straw. He also toyed with the notion of using electricity for beetle control.
Gmelin looked at reasons for population collapse and attributed collapses to weather or to "the increasing number of enemies which limits unusual and tremendous overpopulation of the beetle". Although Gmelin's recommendations were made for and European species, we will see the same basic suggestions appear in American literature on southern pine beetle.
After the German control measures for bark beetles, the next attempt and probably the first in the United States was instigated by the.Moravians in piedmont North Carolina (Fries et aI., 1922). In 1797 they made a concerted attempt to salvage dead and dying beetle-attacked timber. Their salvage program appears to have been aimed more at loss minimization than at beetle control.
Hopkins (1909) observed an extensive southern pine beetle outbreak in Virginia and West Virginia in 1891-1892. He recommended salvage with subsequent destruction of bark by burning as a control measure. He believed that control action would be most effective during the winter months when beetle development is slow. He suggested water immersion of bark as an alternative to burning.
Hopkins also made sanitation recommendations designed to mInImIZe beetle problems. These included removal of lightning struck trees and restricting cutting to winter months in areas of known occurrence.
During an epidemic which occurred in North and South Carolina in 1911-1912, Hopkins' recommendations were used in organized control projects in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties, North Carolina (pratt, 1912). In 1912 the US. Bureau of Entomology

11
established a branch office in Spartanburg, South Carolina to supply technical expertise for support of the SPB control projects (Pratt, 1911).
The use of chemicals for SPB control has been investigated since the first quarter of the twentieth century. Surprisingly, a major investigation was made of systemic chemicals by US. Forest Service researchers in the 1920's and 30's. St. George and Caird (1929) and St. George and Huckenpahlyer (1933) injected a wide range of chemicals into SPB infested trees hoping to kill the insect brood. They found that denatured alcohol, wood alcohol, carbon bisuplhide, ammonium fluoride, and hydrocyanic gas provided adequate brood control. Mercuris chloride, zinc chloride and zinc meta arsenite injections not only killed beett~..brood, ~b~t were found to be good wood preservatives.
Chemically pure nicotine injected into recently-infested trees by US. Forest Service researchers in 1933 (anon., 1933) was found to kill SPB without causing tree mortality. Eleven other materials were found either to kill host trees or were not effective agents for beetle control. Although several of the systemic chemicals appeared effective, subsequent research revealed that the chemicals must be applied within five to seven days of attack to be successfully translocated (Craighead and St. George, 1938). After this time period the blue stain fungus blocks chemical movement. This information led to the abandonment of systemic use in the Southeast at that time.
The same research group used several chemicals to control SPB in logs. Stainless creosote, pine oil (termex) and a mixture of one part orthodichlorobenzene to ten parts kerosene were found to control brood. Spraying recently attacked standing trees failed to increase survival rates of the infested trees. St. George (1932) attempted to apply both

12
kerosene and orthodichlorobenzene as a prophylactic measure. He hoped that these materials would repel attacks. While he thought that the orthodichlorobenzene treatment was effective, the kerosene was a failure. Researchers at the Southern Forest Experiment Station tested benzene hexachloride (BHC), orthodichlorobenzene, chlordane, and DDT against SPB. BHC proved to be most effective and 0.5% BHC in fuel oil became the standard chemical for SPB control in the South. BHC was first recommended for SPB to combat a 1950 outbreak in east Texas (Billings, 1989). BHC was further tested in 1955 (Speers et aI., 1955) and was found to be more effective than either ethylene dibromide or orthodichlorobenzene for beetle control. This further reinforced the use of BHC as the predominant chemical control agent in the southeast. Accordingly, BHC mixed as a 0.5 percent active ingredient in fuel oil was the principal, direct control method used throughout the South from 1959 through 1970.
Interest in systemics resurfaced when Ollieu (Ollieu 1969) investigated the use of cacodylic acid, a fast acting herbicide, and found successful brood reduction. From 1963-1974, Texas forest industry leaders organized and founded the Southern Forest Research Institute, under the direction of Dr. 1. P. Vite. This Institute studied SPB attack behavior and infestation dynamics (Billings, 1989) and eventually isolated and identified several SPB behavioral chemicals, including frontalin, trans-verbenol and verbenone (Kinzer et aI., 1969: Renwick, 1967). Alpha pinene and frontalin were subsequently mixed to form an attractant called frontalure. This was placed on cacodylic acid-treated trees in an attempt to trap and kill beetles in a single operation. A widespread test of the technique in Texas in 1970 met with variable success (Coulson et aI., 1975) and the

13
technique is no longer used. Research is still continuing toward developing new control tactics using SPB behavioral chemicals. In recent tests in several southern states, the beetle-produced inhibitor verbenone has been effectively used to halt spot growth without need for felling uninfested trees (Payne and Billings, 1989; Billings, 1990).
After comprehensive testing, the chemicals chlorpyrifos (Dursban 4E) and fenitrothion (pestroy) were registered with the EPA in 1979 for both prophylactic and remedial treatment. These chemicals along with lindane are the chemicals currently registered (199) for SPB control. In addition to chemical control, mecha!1ical control has undergone an evolution since Gmelin recommended salvage and burning of infested materIal' and. Hopkins added water immersion.
During an outbreak in Texas in 1938-39, control consisted of cutting a half mile swath around the infested areas (Billings, 1989). By 1945, the recommendation for swath width had been reduced to a quarter mile. By the early 1960's, mechanical control recommendations consisted of salvage of actively infested trees plus a buffer strip to ensure that recently attacked trees would not be overlooked in the salvage operation. Thatcher, et al. (1982) summarized current salvage recommendations. Salvage remains the most recommended direct control method for treating SPB infestations (Swain and Remion, (1981).
In addition to salvage control, a second mechanical option IS cut-and-Ieave (Billings, 1980). An early version of the cut-and-Ieave treatment was described by Patterson (1930) as the solar heat method. Originally, control consisted of felling limbing trees. The boles were then exposed to the sun for a few days to kill brood and

14
then the boles were rolled to expose the other side to the sun's rays. By 1969, Texas personnel had modified the technique (Olliew, 1969) to take advantage of known limitations in SPB attack behavior. Actively-infested trees along with a 40-60 foot wide green buffer strip were simply felled and left in the forest. The treatment eliminates natural sources of attraction (pheromone production), causing emerging beetles to disperse (billings, 1980). This was found to effectively halt spot growth, particularly when small spots (10-100 trees) were treated. Treatment of active SPB infestations by salvage or cut-and-Ieave during summer months in east Texas also was found to reduce the frequency of new spot proliferation in the vicinity of treated spots (Billings and Pase, 1979b). An analysis of cut and leave in the Georgia Piedmont in 1980 was conducted by the Georgia Forestry Commission. Treatment effects were evaluated for ten replicates established in eight infestations. Nine of ten replicates showed a mean net reduction in brood production. Spot proliferation did not occur following cut and leave but SPB populations were clearly on the decline (GFC 1980).
Although the individual tactics currently used for direct control of SPB have been around for many decades, the rationale or general approach to suppression has been revised in recent decades. During the era of chemical insecticides (1950-1970), the goal of most state and federal forestry agencies in the South was to detect and chemically treat each and every suspected SPB infestation, regardless of its size. Clearly, the ultimate goal was to solve the pest problem by eradicating the insect, if at all possible. The Georgia Forestry Commission cut and sprayed over 1 million SPB infested trees in 1962 (GFC Internal Report 1963). Despite thousands of dollars of chemicals and countless

15
manhours dedicated to suppression activities, the SPB declined in counties where control had not been instigated as well as in counties receiving control.
Large scale insecticide control was voluntarily discontinued around 1970 due to the increasing cost of materials and persistence of the pest population. In addition, research findings by the Southern Forest Research Institute (Williamson and Vite, 1971) provided evidence that use of chemical treatments in east Texas may have contributed to the unprecedented 20-year SPB outbreak selectively eliminating populations of natural enemies. Since 1970, mechanical control methods (salvage removal and cut-and-Ieave) have largely replaced insecticides in oper,ational control programs. The current control strategy no longer attempts to" eradicate the beetle by treating all infestations, but focuses on those infestations likely to expand and cause the greatest resource losses. Accordingly, only multiple-tree infestations are recorded by aerial observers. Each spot that exceeds a detection threshold (5 - 10 trees) is assigned a ground-check priority, based on the presence and abundance of trees with freshly-fading crowns (Billings and Doggett, 1979). To aid ground-check crews, a field guide (Billings and Pase 1979a) was developed for rating individual SPB infestations and assigning a control priority, based on the potential for expansion (Billings, 1979). For use in critical situations, spot growth models are now available to predict actual tree losses that will occur if no control is applied (Billings and Hynum, 1980: Stephen and Lih, 1985). Small, non-expanding spots are monitored from the ground or air until they go inactive, without need for control (Billings, 1979). This approach has greatly reduced work loads of control crews and increased the efficacy of control efforts.

16
Area-wide SPB control efforts have long been hampered by such factors as the multitude of small landowners, poor access, lack of markets for beetle-killed timber, and landowner apathy (Billings, 1980). In addition, new constraints have developed during the last decade to further limit the extent to which area-wide SPB outbreaks can be prevented or controlled. The establishment of wilderness areas in various southern states in recent years hinders area-wide control efforts. No direct control or preventive treatments are allowed in these areas unless the infestation occurs within one-fourth mile of the boundary, endangered species are threatened, and/or several other specific criteria are met. As a result, these unmanaged areas have become increasingly prone to severe and persistent SPB outbreaks and threaten to become breeding grounds for perennial SPB populations.
Control efforts on certain National Forests are now routinely hampered by environmental activists who effectively use legal appeals and lawsuits to halt or delay suppression activities. The Four Notch experience in each Texas provides testimony to the destructive potential of SPB if no control is taken. Due to actions by environmentalists which caused delays in direct control, SPB infestations on this proposed wilderness area killed more than 2,000 acres of sawtimber in less than one year, drastically increased the frequency and severity of timber losses on adjacent commercial forest lands, and eliminated several colonies of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Miles, 1987).
The 1988 court-mandated requirement to manage National Forest lands so as to promote survival of the red cockaded woodpecker may serve to aggravate the SPB problem. Rotation ages have been extended and hardwood mid-story trees eliminated in

17
foraging areas and in colony sites; these manipulations may increase susceptibility to SPB infestations in the long run. Direct control may thus be required more frequently to protect cavity trees and critical foraging areas from SPB infestations.
Silvicultural methods have been recommended to prevent SPB damage. Beal and Massey (1945) recommended fire prevention, slash disposal, thinning and regulating stand composition and density as beetle reduction measures. They also suggested shorter rotation lengths as a measure to avoid beetle problems. Bennett (1971) made comprehensive silvicultural recommendations. These included increasing the resistance of stands by promoting rapid growth, av, oiding unnecessary site and stand disturbance, sanitation cutting, particularly when lightning struck trees are 'involved and drainage to relieve soil moisture stress.
The Expanded Southern Pine Beetle Research and Applications Program (19741980) developed several hazard rating systems for SBP and identified further silvicultural recommendations to minimize beetle damage (Thatcher, et aI., 1980). The latter included favoring resistant species (slash, longleaf, Virginia and white pines over loblolly, shortleaf, or pitch), sanitation, maintaining rapid radial growth, promoting mixed hardwood-pine stands, minimizing logging damage, harvesting over mature stands, and site protection.
There has long been interest in biological control of bark beetles. Gmelin (1787) recognized the importance of natural control agents in the cyclic nature of bark beetle infestations. Although he indicated that ""we may become suspicious that the reduction of such enemies...may be one of the causes of the tremendous overpopulations of bark beetles," he apparently did not try to supplement biological control factors.

18
Hopkins (1899) was a strong supporter of biological control of SPB. During an outbreak in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland in the latter part of the nineteenth century, he attempted biological control of the insect. He traveled to Germany and imported over 3,000 living specimens of a clerid beetle (Clerus fromicarius) which he hoped would function as a biological control agent. These were released at a number of SPB spots in West Virginia in 1892 - 1894. As with many other studies, shortly after Hopkins introduced this imported clerid, the SPB population collapsed. However, there is no evidence that this clerid became established as a result of these introductions. It is of interest that this collection of predators was largely financially supported by the timber companies in the stricken areas (as was the Southern Forest Research Institute in east Texas).
Although a substantial body of research exists on natural enemies of SPB, there has been surprisingly little research done on utilization of these natural control measures since Hopkins' early work. Some of the direct control measures currently used are timed to minimize impact on natural control factors, but otherwise there appears to be little interest in this potentially valuable area. The fact that SPB is a native insect has discouraged entomologists from pursuing this approach.
Although outbreaks of the southern pine beetle have been reported for several hundred years and extensive research and control efforts have been aimed at this small insect, it continues to be one of the most destructive pests of southern forests.

REFERENCES
Anon. 1933. Report of studies conducted at Asheville, NC. USDA, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Forest Insect Investigations, 31 pp.
Anon. 1950. Southern Forest Experiment Station Quarterly Report (Oct. - Dec.).
Beal,1. A. 1929. Tree injection.
Beal, James A. and Calvin L. Massey. 1945. Bark beetles and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Solytoidea). Duke University School of Forestry Bulletin 10.
Billings, R. F. 1979. Detecting and aerially evaluating southern pine outbreaks. South. 1. Appl. for. 3:50-54.
Bennett, W. H. 1971. Silvicultural techniques will help control bark beetles. Proceedings, 1971 Southern Regional Technical Conference. Society of American Foresters, pp. 289-295.
Billings, Ronald F. 1990. Insect behavioral-c. hemic~'l~: promising new
approaches for forest pest management. Forest Farmer 49 (3): 13-15.
Billings, R. F. 1979. Detecting and aerially evaluating southern pine beetle outbreaks - operational guides. South. 1. Applied Forestry 3: 50-54.
Billings, R. F. and B. G. Hynum. 1980. Southern pine beetle: guide for predicting timber losses from expanding spots in east Texas. Texas For. Ser. Cir. 249. 2 pp.
Billings, Ronald F. 1989. Old friends, old enemies. Texas Forestry 30 (10).
Billings, R. F. 1980. Direct control. Chapter 10 in "The southern pine beetle." R. C. Thatcher, 1. L. Searcy, 1. E. Coster, and G. O. Hertel, eds. USDA Tech. Bull. 1631. pp. 179-192.
Billings, R. F. and H. A. pase III. 1979. spot proliferation patters as a measure of the are-wide effectiveness of southern pine beetle control tactics. In, "Evaluating control tactics for the southern pine beetle." 1. E. coster and 1. L. Searcy, eds. USDA Forest Service Tech. Bull. 1613, pp. 86-97.
Billings, R. F. and H. A. Pase, III. 1979a. A field guide for ground checking southern pine beetle spots. USDA Agric. Handbook No. 550. 19 pp.
Billings, R. F. and C. Doggett. 1980. An aerial observer's guide to recognizing and reporting southern pine beetle spots. USDA Agric. Handbook No. 560. 19 pp.

Coulson, R. N., 1. L. Foltz, A. M. Mayyasi, F. P. Hain. 1975. Quantitative evaluation of frontalure and cacodylic acid treatment effect on within-tree populations of the southern pine beetle. 1. Econ. Entomol. 68: 671-678.
Craighead, F. C. and R. A. St. George. 1938. Experimental work with the introduction of chemicals into the sap stream of trees for control on insects. 1. For. 36: 26-34.
Dull, C. W. 1980. Loran-C radio navigation systems as an aid to southern pine beetle surveys. USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 567. Combined Forest Pest Research Development Program, Pineville, LA.
Fries, A. L., L. G. HaJ;I1ilton, D. L. Rights, and M. 1. Smith, eds. 1943. Records of the Moravians in North Carolina. North Carolina Historical Comm., Raleigh. p.2593.
Gmelin,1. F. 1787. Abhandlung uber bie WurmtroGknis. Verlay Crusius, Liepzig. Quoted in Southern Forest Research Institute Progress report, July-August 1972.
Hain, F. P. 1980. Sampling and predicting population trends. Pages 107-135 In Thatcher, R. C., 1. L. Searcy, 1. E. Coster and G. D. Hertel (eds.). The Southern Pine Beetle. USDA Technical Bulletin 1631.
Hastings, Felton L. and Jack E. Coster. 1981. Field and laboratory evaluations of insecticides for southern pine beetle control. USDA Forest Service, SE Forest Experiment Sta. Gen. Tech. Report SE-21, p. 39.
Hopkins, A. D. 1899. Report on investigations to determine the cause of unhealthy conditions of the spruce and pine from 1880-1893. West Virginia Ag. Exp. Sta. Bull. 56. 461 pp.
Hopkins, A. D. 1909. Bark beetles of the Genus Dendroctonus. USDA Bureau ofEnt. Bull. 83. 169 pp.
Kinzer, G. W., A. F. Fentiman, T. F. Page, R. L. Folte, 1. P. Vite, G. B. Pitman. 1969. Bark beetle attractants: identification, synthesis and field bioassay of a new compound isolated from Dendroctonus. Nature 221: 477-478.
Lorio, P. L., Jr. 1980. Rating stands for susceptibility to SPB. Pages 153-163 In
Thatcher, R. c., 1. L. Searcy, 1. E. Coster and G. B. Hertel (eds.). The Southern Pine
Beetle. USDA Technical Bulletin 1631.
Mayyasi, A. M., R. N. Coulson, 1. L. Foltz and A. E. Harvey. 1975. A quality control approach to the evaluation of survey sampling procedures for the southern pine beetle. Journal of Economic Entomology 68: 336-338.

Miles, B. R. 1987. Tragedy of the Four Notch. American Forests 93 (3&4): 2629, 76-78.

Ollieu, M. M; 1969. Evaluation of alternative southern pine beetle control techniques. Texas Forest Service, Pub. 204, 6 pp.

Patterson, 1. C. 1930. Control ofthe mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine by use of solar heat. USDA Tech. Bull. 198.

Payne, T. L. andR. F. Billings. 1989. Evaluation of(s) -verbenone applications for suppressing southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infestations. 1. Econ. Entomol. 82: 1702-1708.

Pratt, 1. H. 1911. Planning to control the bark beetle. N. C. Geol. and Econ. Survey Pres. Bull. 52,4 pp.

Pratt,1. H. 1912. The southern pine beetleJfnd its control. N. C. Geol. and Econ.

Survey Bull, 4 pp.

'

<' -

~.

Price,T. S. and C. A. Doggett, 1. M. Pye and T. P. Holmes. 1990. A History of Southern Pine Beetle Outbreaks in the Southern United States. The Georgia Forestry Commission, Macon, GA. 35 pp.

Renwick,1. A. 1967. Identification of two oxygenated terpenes from the bark beetles Dendroctonus frontalis and Dendroctonus.

Speers, C. F.,E. P. Merkel, and B. Ebel. 1955. Tests of insecticides for the control of the southern pine beetle in North Carolina Assoc. South. Ag. Workers Prec. 52:100. beevicomis. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Instit. 23 (10): 355-360.

Stephen, F. M. and M. P. Lih. 1985. A Dendroctonus frontalis infestation growth model: organization, refinement, and utilization, pp. 186-199. In, S. 1. Branham and R. C. Thatcher (eds.) Proc. Integrated Pest Management Research Symposium. USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-56, Asheville, NC.

St. George, R. H. and R. W. Caird. 1929. Report on tree medication studies. USDA Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Forest Insect Investigations. 13 pp.

St. George, R. H. 1932. Progress report of experiments to control the southern pine beetle under shade tree conditions. USDA, Bureau ofEntomology and Plant Quarantine, -Forest Insect Investigations. 11 pp.

St. George, R. H. and Huckenpahler. 1933. Progress report on tree injection studies. USDA, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Forest Insect Investigations.

o(I>

S-

(I)

-3-e.=~.:

='
(I)

~ p)

0"8

(I) (I>

~o

-(I):

: v

s

'o" 00 '"s:O:: t"."l

~p)

Co .

::s 0..

::s ~

S' ""d
< g.(.I.>.. ._ .....
~~
-~p) \0
(I> -.....)
-.

~ .....
m8
8]
?~

t::'sr1g_,.

..... ::s
o (I> 8 (I)

o
~

~ o

O\~ ~a

()
-0
t a 0I""'
-~o
~,~::.:s..:.r.
(I)

(I>
~
(I)
3~
'"_O.p::)r
g. ::s .....
(I)

0(&I)"(~1v")"
(I).
. (j

C:::,;
oo~
0;lt>"."l o"Tjo(Io)
..., ~ (I) ()
~~
(oIo).'-l
n ~ m
o'
(I) 0 ~~
(I) (I) () ...,

?"p)

ttl 5.

So

- ( I..).,

-a

0\0..

~o

v



'"~O~::t:
-0 0\(\1_) \0 o00

:~:r
(I)

8a 2-
:::s=::~:r
(JQ p)
ago o () (I> .....
::r v""
(I) ~
s3p
(I) 0
z 0" .
.~.....
~~ oo o~0 !==? O'~
~~
-G'"::t:
'".0 ;(4I).
"Tj!!.. o p)
:"'1 ::s 0\0..
,,-..,~
~~
_00 VI (I)
wp)
--.Q t ...,
VI .
.00 \0 00 tv
o
~
(I)
~
S'
(JQ

0..

'"0 ~.

0" (I) ~oo
.CD~p)
c::: p'

o oo~

;l>~

~.o.., '~0::s. .
.~
::t:.

(j

0..'

a Oo

"~
(I)

oi:";" _.

ZO
9 ::s

- -VI-
-.....)\0 VI 00
VlO
'"0 ::;.
'".0 (.(.I.))..
g()
[

8
So-
0..
(I>
(..3.,i .:.:..r.
(I)
o(I>
S-
(I)
3

8-
""d
a~o,.o.
~~
~0
o'a
..... (1)
v~v~
"Tj::t:
o .(.I.), _
~ :..:..S. o~~
(I>
(~I) .~..,
:.:..s.. ~_.
~ 2. c. ~_(.I())
(JQ
~ _.:o:s
o ...,
::s (I)
~'"oO
-\0;4. .
''"?OOco:O:: )>
ttl ~
(I)
~
g,
m
S
8o 0' ~

TABLE 1.--DAMAGE ESTIMATES OF SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1960-1996.!/

STATE

CALENDAR
YEAR Y

ESTIMATED
VOLUME SALVAGED II

CORDS

MBF

ESTIMATED

VOLUME NOT SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

STUMPAGE VALUES
TOTAL VOLUME KILLED PULPWOOD SAWTIMBER '!./

CORDS

MBF

$/CORDS $/MBF

TOTAL 51 VALUE -
($ )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AL

1972

220,027

62,575

217,792

58,860

437,819

121,435

7.50

70

11,784,092

AL

1973

298,930

49,441

293,048

44,428

591,978

93,869

7.50

70

11,010;665

AL

1974

332,785

33,607

110,363

11,106

443,148

44,713

7.50

70

6,453,520

AL

1975

120,607

25,666

192,360

25,277

312,967

50,943

7.50

70

5,913,262

AL

1976

36,408

2,373

35,880

2,185

72,288

4,558

7.50

70

861,220

AL

1977

69

39

46

17

115

56

7.00

55

3,885

AL AL

1978 1979

0 326,590

31,282

0 489,885

0 43,646

0 816,475

0

.00

0

74,928

15.75

172

0 25,747,097

AL

1980

487,839

15,278

487,114

14,489

974,953

29,767

16.00

110

18,873,618

AL

1981

1,992

150

1,992

150

3,984

300 17.00

157

114,828

AL

1982

4,597

1,500

4,397

600

8,994

2,100

17.00

152

472,098

AL

1983

15,396

1,999

13,688

3,619

29,084

7,618

17.00

178

1,850,432

AL

1984

1,183

0

3,421

658

4,604

658

18.00

166

193,416

AL

1985

39,857

9,686

30,797

3,428

70,654

13,114

19.00

143

3,217,728

AL

1986

152,705

17,874

64,309

5,124

217,014

22,998

19.00

142

7,388,982

AL

1987

38,651

7,882

57,331

5,113

95,982

12,995 16.00

131

3,238,057

AL

1988

55,123

7,918

123,689

4,481

178,812

12,399 15.00

146

4,492,434

AL

1989

2,067

2,819

10,335

1,151

12,402

3,970 15.37

146

770,238

AL

1990

2,117

412

10,589

501

12,706

913 20.17

152

395,056

AL

1991

163,472

16,448

490,416

49,344

663,888

65,792

20.00

200

26,436,160

AL

1992

181,341

30,515

120,341

203,343

301,682

50,858

20.00

200

16,205,240

AL

1993

86,408

11,615

46,530

6,250

132,938

17,865 22.00

200

6,497,636

AL

1994

26,380

25,607

26,380

25,607

52,760 ,

51,214

25.00

200

11,561,800

AL

1995

180,705

47,196

153,933

40,204

334,638

87,400 25.00

200

25,845,950

AL

1996

96,812

4,754

19,362

951

116,174

5,705 25.00

200

4,045,350

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AR

1973

1,700

504

5,100

1,512

6,800

2,016

7.00

90

229,040

AR

1974

1,600

336

4,800

1,000

6,4'09

1,336

7.00

90

165,040

AR

1975

3,800

642

7,600

1,284

11,400

1,926

7.00

90

253,140

AR

1976

13,000

21,988

6,500

10,000

19,500

31,988

7.00

90

3,015,420

AR

1977

7,399

18,137

1,029

517

8,428

18,654

6.25

122

2,328,463

AR

1978

1,166

123

400

40

1,566

163

7.85

140

35,113

AR

1979

AR

1980

10

10

300

0

30

0

5 5

. 3,10

15

9.00

170

35 10.00

141

5,340 4,935

AR

1981

0

0

0

0

0

0

11. 50

190

0

AR

1982

1,083

690

1,050

445

2,133

1,135

14.00

170

222,812

AR AR AR

1983 1984 1985

0
0 12,440

1,120
7,380

100
3,110

0
10 4,920

0
100 15,550

1,120 15.50

182

10 17.00

176

12,300

13.00

140

203,840
3,460 1,924,150

AR

1986

24,600

28,600

2,500

3,000

27,100

31,600 12.50

175

5,868,750

AR

1987

7,900

7,003

1,000

1,000

8,900

8,003

13.00

175

1,516,225

AR

1988

5,820

2,046

750

880

6,570

2,926

14.00

167

580,622

AR

1989

800

822

250

200

1,050

1,022

13.25

160

177,433

AR

1990

25

376

50

191

75

567

12.00

180

102,960

AR

1991

40

601

24

145

64

746

18.50

203

152,622

AR

1992

1,344

965

790

531

2,134

1,496 63.57

240

494,698

AR

1993

4,687

10,004

2,752

1,589

7,439

11,593 76.91

274

3,748,615

AR

1994

2,703

2,959

2,122

1,486

4,189

4,445 105.23

392

2,183,248

AR

1995

37,863

48,709

16,123

19,436

53,986

68,145

17.50

409

27,871,305

-A-R-

---

---

---1-9-9-6-------

---4-,4-9-2---

-----1-6-,2-3-5----

---

--1-,8-7-1---------4-,9-0-9--

---

---

--6-,3-6-4-----

21,144
---------

92.28
-------------

345
---

---

7,881,949
---------------

TABLE 1.--DAMAGE ESTIMATES OF SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1960-1996

STATE

CALENDAR YEAR

ESTIMATED

VOLUME SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

ESTIMATED

VOLUME NOT SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

STUMPAGE VALUES

TOTAL VOLUME KILLED PULPWOOD SAWTIMBER

CORDS

MBF

$/CORDS $/MBF

TOTAL VALUE
($ )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FL FL
FL FL
FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL
FL FL FL FL FL
FL FL FL FL FL FL FL

1972
1973 1974 1975
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1985
1986 1987
1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
1994 1995 1996

0 50
550 2,002
260 89 0 0
3,100 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
500 8
0 0 2,362 24,230 3,559

0 55 2,000
0 0 269 0 0 90,000 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 594
1,221 0
2,694 35,328
3,508

10 0
0 0 0 38
0 800
0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
50 125
59 57 229
590 6,396
395

50 0 0 0 0
115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 148 0 493 673 8,987
390

10 50 550 2,002 260 127
0 800 3,100
0 6,603 2,855
100 9,360
5,170
4,250 0
50
625 67 57
229 2,952 30,626
3,954

50

15.00

50

55

10.00

50

2,000

10.00

50

0

10.00

50

0

20.00

50

384

7.00

55

0

.00

0

0

18.50

148

90,000

24.00

96

0

.00

0

0

.00

0

99

.00

0

0

.00

0

0

.00

0

0

.00

0

0

.00

0

0

.00

0

0

24.00

0

0

25.00

0

742

28.00

180

1,221

30.00

200

493

32.00

210

3,367

42.00

320

44,315

35.00

265

3,898

40.00

285

2,650 3,250 105,500 20,020 5,200 22,009
0 14,800
8,714,400 0
392,120 28,000 2,100
240,000
155,100 136,000
0 1,200 3,125 135,436 245,910
110,858 1,201,425 12,815,385 1,269,090

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GA GA GA
GA GA GA GA
GA GA GA
GA GA GA
GA GA GA GA GA
GA GA GA
GA GA GA GA

1962 1972 1973
1974 1975 1976 1977
1978 1979
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992
1993 1994 1995

0 13,976 124,527 179,736 46,413
15,609 5,614
1,682 390,285 384,194
3,475 16,611
8,193
3,726 47,274
150,199 4,573
206,675
45,548 6,322
23,198 35,831 18,596
3,845 130,617

0 1,785,240 Y

958

1,785,240 Y

958

5.00

40

10,532

21,860

1,095

35,836

11,627

6.00

65

20,904

265,213

39,900

389,740

60,804

6.00

65

22,386

222,518

21,314

402,254

43,700

10.00

70

7,441

6,252

202

52,665

7,643

15.00

70

3,446

6,068

775

21,677

4,221

15.00

70

481

10,301

155

15,915

636

15.00

107

180

4,805

402

6,487

582

16.00

118

71,592

152,706

33,462

542,991

105,054

18.00

147

57,169

144,122

21,406

528,316

78,575

21. 00

110

29

1,489

12

4,964

41

18.00

140

1,559

8,953

460

25,564

2,019

21. 00

155

9,334

5,462

65

13,655

9,399

19000

160

0

18,192

0

21,918

0

20.00

0

7,101

70,911

3,986

118,185

11,087

26.00

163

18,530

169,521

4,243

319,720

22,773

20.00

144

10;614

16,213

3,404

20,786

14,018

15.00

142

8,376

691,912

7,000

898,587

15,376

13.00

158

28

73,822

4

119,370

32,521

24.89

153

6,524

35,824

1,731

42,146

8,255

33.50

193

215

92,792

11

115,990

226

24.50

162

1,979

61,009

276

96,840

2,255

31.25

217

1,121

61,987

613

80,583

1,734

34.00

102

623

14,355

185

18,200

808

26.43

359

17,167

221,818

29,110

352,435

46,277

36.00

328

8,964,520 970,771
6,290,700 7,081,540 1,324,985
620,625 306,777
172,468 25,216,776
19,737,886 95,092
849,789 1,763,285
438,360 4,879,991 9,673,712 2,302,346 14,111,039
8,405,832 3,005,106 2,878,367
3,515,585 2,916,690
771,098 27,866,516

SSZ'09S'L

~SI

SZ'ZI SEZ'SE

L9E'Zn

EES'ZI

E9S'Z01

SOO'EZ

~OS'6

LS61

SW

9SZ 'szv '91

ZLl

00' Zl

L09'~S

HO'9S1

60E'SE

S99 '9n

S6Z'6~

EO~'6E

9S61

SW

LSS'SZL'n

091

SL" ZI

L9E'69

66E'6~

SI6'~Z

LOS'O~

6H'H

Z6S'S

.SS61

SW

ZLS'9Ll'Z

L91

OS' Zl

ZSS'ZI

LH'Z

ns

LSO'Z

6EO'Z1

09E

~S61

SW

OE6'6SL'1

~Ll

OS'ZI

EE6'S

LH'91

6LZ'S

OOE'n

~S9'E

LVI'S

ES61

SW

~0~'L~9'Z

E91

00' Zl OZS'VI

LSE'EZ

ZZ~'9

~60'ZZ

S60'S

E6Z'1

ZS61

SW

HL 'ESS'I

EOZ

oS'n

LS6'S

OZI'SS

6L6'S

ZS~'LS

S

SE9

IS61

SW

9LE'09L'VI

SZI

oO'n

EE6'S6

ZE9'061

96L'~9

ZOO 'En

Ln' ~E

OE9'LL

OS61

SW

OSE'E6S'S

SSI

00'6

~SL'6Z

O~S'SOI

SS6'S1

~6Z'S9

66L 'n

9~Z'O~

6L61

SW

ZO~'OLl'l

OVI

SZ'S

ESO'S

LSI'S

096'E

OZ6'S

E60'~

Lgz 'z

SL61

SW

ZZE'606'1

sn

OO'S

OL9'S1

60~'El

610'L

ZlS '~

IS9'S

L6S'S

LL61

SW

L~E'S9E'Z

09

00'6

6~6'LE

EZS'6

000 'IZ

OOS'S

6~6'91

EZO'~

9L61

SW

~06'6LS

09

Ooos

009'6

SS~

0

0

009'6

SS~

SL61

SW

ZEE'9LE

OS

OO'S

H~'L

6ZE

0

0

H~'L

6ZE

H61

SW

ZSO'99E

OS

OO'S

6ZZ'L

6LS

0

0

6ZZ'L

6LS

EL61

SW

ZZS'19E

OS

00'9

ZL I' L

LES

0

0

ZL I' L

LES

ZL61

SW

OOO'OSI

OS

00'

OOO'E

0

0

0

OOO'E

0

H61

SW

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EOO'6SS

6~E

S6'EZ

OSE'Z

EL6'Z

OL~

S6S

OSS'I

SLE'Z

9661

\l'I

H~ '~9S'VI

19E

~S'EZ

9S0'6E

01S'1E

V6L'L

OH'9

ZSO'IE

001'SZ

S661

\l'I

U:S 'OEZ'I

E6Z

SE'~Z

SLS'E

VIS'E

9~S

690'1

ZEO'E

SH'Z

~661

\l'I

SIZ' Z~E ' ZI

6~Z

OZ'~Z

9ES'O

LLZ'6S

SlE'L

sss'n

S1S'9E

ZZ~'L~

E661

\l'I

~EZ'SS9'Ll

ZIZ

SS'gz

9S9'9L

EOZ'ES

lZS'S

H9 ~01

S9S'OL

S9S'Z~

Z661

\l'I

9LL 'SES' L

Z61

ES'IZ

S~~'9E

09~'SE

lZL'S

Z69'L

LZL'OE

S9L'OE

1661

\l'I

OS9'LSE

OLl

OO'Ll

~09'1

OOO'S

IZI

0

ES~

0

0661

\l'I

0~O'E9S

OLl

OO'Ll

L9~'Z

OS~'S

ZOI

0

SL9

0

6S61

\l'I

SIS'SH

SVI

00 on L9Z'Z

00L'9

~SI'1

OOL'~

En'l

OOO'Z

SS61

\l'I

00~'~9L'E

Ozl

OO'Ll OLl'IZ

000' ZL

00S'6

OOO'S~

OL9'n

OOO'~Z

LS61

\l'I

SH'nl'99

ZVI

OsoLl

HI' ~6E

009'6LS

6Z1'6S

Z9E'~ZZ

S10'SEE

SEZ'SSE

9S61

\l'I

9S~ 'EZ9 '01

SSI

OO'SI

SOS'9L9

661'016

IS6'ZOZ

000 !0:9E

LSS 'EL~

661'OSS

SS61

\l'I

16~'9S~'~

9Ll

OO'Ll

EOZ'~Z

6EE'n

009'S

000 ',g"

E09'S1

6EE'L

~S61

\l'I

Z~S'VIZ'Z

~91

OO'SI

EO~'ZI

OSO' zl

OOs'~

OOo'~

E06'L

OSO'S

ES61

\l'I

lZL'LSO'Z

~ZZ

OO'El

S~9'L

LSS 'gz

99E'Z

~E9'9

6LZ'S

EZE'OZ

ZS61

\l'I

ZS6 'IZ

ZIZ

OZ'OI OOE'OI

H6'1

0

L6S'I'

OOE'OI

H

IS61

\l'I

EL~ 'IZ

SSI

OE'6

~n

60~

SE

SE '-.

9L

HE

OS61

\l'I

00S'9VI'1

091

SL"S

001'L

OOZ'I

OOS'E

009

OOE'E

009

6L61

\l'I

ESS '9VI

Ln

OO'S

6S6

OZ~'1

OEE

9LS '

6S9

HS

SL61

\l'I

SZZ'ESS'I

Szl

OE'L

ZlS'ZI

E6S'SE

OLS'S

HE'L

Z~6'9

ZSZ'IE

LL61

\l'I

900'L96'1

001

00'9

EEL '91

1S6'S~

6LS'S

~H'IZ

~SS'Ol

LES'LZ

9L61

\l'I

OSO'1E9

001

00'9

LE9'S

szz'n

600'Z

SS9'~

SZ9'E

L9S'9

SL61

\l'I

ZZ9'E09

001

00'9

H9'S

LEO'9

LSZ'I

66L'1

LH'~

SEZ'~

H61

\l'I

9ES'LES

001

00'9

610'L

9S9'ZZ

LS9'Z

LSE'6

ZEE'~

6gz'n

EL61

\l'I

SLO'ZSE'9

001

00'9

S19'SS

EH '9S

10Z'SZ

H~'Z~

LH'EE

ZLZ'H

ZL61

\l'I

SZ1'S06'1

001

00'9

066' Ll

SSI'SI

S66'8

v60'6

S66'S

~60'6

H61

\l'I

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OOS '6n

ES

OO'E

SES'Z

ESS'I

S10'1

IVL

EZS'l

zn'l

LL61

1.)1

SZ9'H

SI

OO'E

~EL'Z

90Z

000'1

0

~EL 'I

90Z

9L61

1.)1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vE6'1S9'S

SlE

OO'vE 9LL '91

169 'n

10~'9

91E'9

SSO'S

SLE'S

9661

\l8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

($ )
30'I\lA 'I\l.L0.L

38W/$ SOCIOJ/$

38W

SOCIO;)

CI38WI.LM\lS OOOMd'IOd o 3'I'I I)1 3WO'IOA 'I\l.L0.L

S30'I\lA 38\ldWO.LS

38W

SOCIO;)

o 38\lA'I\lS .LON 3WO'IOA

03.L\lWI.LS3

38W

SOCIO;)

038\fA'I\lS 3WO'IOA

03.L\lWI.LS3

CI\l31. CI\lON3'I\l;)

3.L\l.LS

9661-0961 'S3.L\l.LS 03.LINO NCI3.LS\l3H.L00S 3H.L NI 3'I.L338 3NId NCI3H.L00S 30 S3.L\lWI.LS3 38\lW\lO--'1 3'I8\l.L

TABLE 1.--DAMAGE ESTIMATES OF SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1960-1996

STATE

CALENDAR YEAR

ESTIMATED

VOLUME SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

ESTIMATED

VOLUME NOT SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

STUMPAGE VALUES

TOTAL VOLUME KILLED PULPWOOD SAWTIMBER

CORDS

MBF

$!CORDS $!MBF

TOTAL
VALUE ($ )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SC

1962

11,400

400

31,600

89,600

43,000

90,000

5.00

36

3,455,000

SC

1963

250

324

1,400

1,838

1,650

2,162

7.00

32

80,734

SC

1964

50

46

310

409

360

455

7.00

32

17,080

SC

1967

834

701

7,506

6,308

8,340

7,009

7.00

37

317,713

SC

1968

1,352

1,009

12,165

9,084

13,517

10,093

7.00

40

498,339

SC

1969

1,604

629

14,440

5,663

16,044

6,292

6.00

35

316,484

SC

1971

400

30

1,070

112

1,470

142

6.00

30

13,080

SC

1972

15,500

7,918

234,500

4,300

250,000

12,218

7.00

52

2,385,.336

SC

1973

120,135

7,640

164,200

116,800

284,335

124,440

8.00

89

13,349,840

SC

1974

193,310

16,911

54,000

97,630

247,310

114,541

7.00

70

9,749,040

SC

1975

85,214

10,606

0

20,629

85,214

31,235

7.00

60

2,470,598

SC

1976

19,274

510

0

0

19,274

510

7.00

60

165,518

SC

1977

236

25

157

17

393

42

7.00

54

5,000

SC

1978

0

0

0

0

0

0

.00

0

0

SC

1979

41,800

6,722

5,015

21,288

46,815

28,010

12.00

160

5,043,380

SC SC

1980 1981

173,095 142,296

1,474 977

'11.,,0040

22,112 48,050

184,099 100,858

23,586

13.00

106

49,024

11. 00

100

4,893,403 6,018,966

SC

1982

3,422

6

'11,560

8,559

14,982

8,565

12.00

100

1,036,284

SC

1983

38,420

2,781

0

10,672

9,594

13,453

12.00

150

2,133,078

SC

1984

31,236

90

0

0

31,236

90 12.00

150

388,332

SC

1985

48,968

4,887

1.;3,296

44,371

62,264

49,258

12.00

150

8,135,868

SC

1986

46,693

7,117

39',970

61,228

86,663

68,345

12.00

150

11,291,70

SC

1987

0

400

5,958

3,920

5,958

4,320

12.00

150

719,496

SC

1988

12,698

1,325

53,822

32,749

66,520

34,074

15.00

150

6,108,900

SC

1989

1,995

2,080

10,848

6,267

12,843

8,377

15.00

150

1,449,264

SC

1990

8,625

385

18,540

262

27,165

647

15.00

150

25,899,449

SC

1991

25,000

650

0

11,427

8,187

12,077

15.00

150

1,934,536

SC

1992

57,412

0

6,045

31,891

63,457

31,891

15.00

150

6,742,692

SC

1993

17,020

0

23,077

19,818

40,097

19,818

20.00

195

4,666,641

SC

1994

6,394

358

12,495

8,984

18,889

9,342

19.00

237

2,573,151

SC

1995

180,875

12,868

299,019

313,992

479,894

326,860 24.00

291

107,237,189

SC

1996

59,825

5,270

31,837

59,212

91,662

64,482

23.00

294

21,065,389

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TN

1972

0

128

0

109

0

237

.00

25

5,925

TN

1973

1,567

386

438

0

2,005

386

6.00

30

23,610

TN

1974

10,465

1,857

693

324

11,158

2,181

6.00

35

143,283

TN

1975

19,967

5,587

419,600

103,659

439,567

109,246

3.00

30

4,596,081

TN

1976

5,974

3,830

37,644

20,397

43,618

24,227

6.00

30

988,518

TN

1977

659

651

1,486

214

2,145

865

5.83

48

54,025

TN

1978

0

0

19

29

19

29

6.00

65

1,999

TN

1979

0

204

38

29

38

233

5.75

66

15,596

TN

1980

105

2,548

217

217

322

2,765

5.25

52

145,470

TN

1981

0

0

17

3

17

3

5.50

65

289

TN

1982

0

0

10

10

10

10

3.00

58

610

TN

1983

0

0

20

95

20

95

7.50

101

9,745

TN

1984

0

0

4

45

4

45

7.50

101

4,575

TN

1985

0

0

0

1

0

1

8.75

74

74

TN

1986

900

21

1,103

1,403

2,003

1,424

8.50

90

145,186

TN

1987

913

1,898

4,557

4,212

5,470

6,110

9.15

63

434,981

TN

1988

4,736

2,362

15,841

6,869

20,577

9,231 10.67

64

810,341

TN

1989

963

2,594

2,890

1,431

3,853

4,025 10.50

79

358,440

TABLE 1.--DAMAGE ESTIMATES OF SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1960-1996

STATE

CALENDAR YEAR

ESTIMATED

VOLUME SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

ESTIMATED

VOLUME NOT SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

STUMPAGE VALUES

TOTAL VOLUME KILLED PULPWOOD SAWTIMBER

CORDS

MBF

$!CORDS $!MBF

TOTAL VALUE
($)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MS

1988

15,537

9,494

18,132

11,237

33,669

20,731 12.00

187

4,280,725

MS

1989

3,468

7,143

8,179

2,985

11,647

10,128

11. 50

188

2,038,004

MS

1990

529

1,140

545

499

1,074

1,639 18.25

257

440,823

MS

1991

913

877

23,927

30,355

24,840

31,232

20.00

109

3,903,272

MS

1992

176

330

19,269

9,245

19,445

9,575

20.00

198

2,288,937

MS

1993

1,004

59

14,074

876

15,078

935

22.00

298

611,097

MS

1994

2,140

420

190

41

2,330

461

25.00

466

273,140

MS

1995

4,647

2,988

53,442

34,368

58,089

37,356 25.00

369

15,230,379

MS

1996

20,230

1,787

0

0

20,230

1,787 25.00

223

904,960

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC

1960

0

0

0

200

0

200

5.00

35

7,000

NC

1961

0

0

0

5

0

5

5.00

35

175

NC

1962

10,000

5,000

10,000

5,000

20,000

10,000

5.00

35

45.0,000

NC

1963

20,408

10,121

3,600

1,800

24,008

11,921

5.00

35

537,275

NC

1964

5,565

4,740

1,000

1,000

6,565

5,740

5.00

35

233,725

NC

1965

28,108

19,281

15,000

12,000

43,108

31,2~1

5.00

40

1,466,780

NC

1966

28,758

26,485

4,000

3,000

32,758

29,485

5.00

40

1,343,190

NC

1967

2,876

2,008

2,000

1,500

4,876

3,508

5.00

40

164,700

NC

1968

26,037

10,776

30,000

10,000

56,037

20,776

5.00

40

1,111,225

NC

1969

35,867

15,197

30,000

15,000

65,867

30,197

5.00

40

1,537,215

NC

1970

26,579

16,558

25,000

15,000

51,579

31,558

5.00

40

1,520,215

NC

1971

6,388

600

1,000

10

7,388

610

5.00

45

64,390

NC

1972

31,415

8,622

1,200

2,500

32,615

11,122

6.00

80

1,085,450

NC

1973

79,414

41,573

59,200

32,000

138,614

73,573

6.00

80

6,717,524

NC

1974

198,331

82,949

155,000

65,000

353,331

147,949

6.00

50

9,517,436

NC

1975

213,004

92,160

188,000

72,000

401,004

164,160

6.00

50

10,614,024

NC

1976

77,615

26,248

25,549

8,523

103,164

34,771

6.00

50

2,357,534

NC

1977

53,665

6,169

25,075

3,026

78,740

9,195

7.35

100

1,498,239

NC

1978

37

0

500

20

537

20

7.25

97

5,833

NC

1979

1,578

589

62,834

38,330

64,416

38,919

7.50

140

5,931,780

NC

1980

5,815

1,354

236,007

57,412

241,822

58,766

7.50

105

7,984,095

NC

1981

1,185

307

600

0

1,785

307

8.00

152

60,944

NC

1982

32

7

85

0

117

7

9.00

134

1,991

NC

1983

128

67

390

0

518

67

9.00

155

15,047

NC

1984

151

51

1,500

0

1,651

51 10.00

155

24,415

NC

1985

1

0

50

0

51

0 10.00

132

510

NC

1986

401

371

600

66

1,001

437

11. 40

133

69,532

NC

1987

25,094

8,219

30,000

1,506

55,094

9,725

11. 50

127

1,868,656

NC

1988

3,148

4,766

3,500

3,003

6,648

7,769

11.72

121

1,017,964

NC

1989

5,192

12,585

75,068

23,095

80,260

35,630

11.38

132

5,617,366

NC

1990

5,485

13,636

2,742

4,119

8,227

17,755 12.79

140

2,590,969

NC

1991

18,470

3,265

1,000

2,008

19,470

5,273 16.00

128

986,464

NC

1992

11,549

1,818

20,000

15,079

31,549

16,847

16.00

187

3,694,523

NC

1993

19,877

7,756

19,000

7,051

38,877

14,807

18.00

180

3,365,046

NC

1994

27,905

8,941

13,472

4,164

41,377

13,105

16.00

178

2,994,544

NC

1995

32,022

16,187

37,000

16,200

69,022

32,387

16.00

170

6,610,142

NC

1996

24,190

13,775

12,004

7,004

37,194

20,779

14.00

180

4,260,936

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SC

1960

SC

1961

0

390

0

221

0

3,510

0

1,989

0

3,900

.00

32

0

2,210

.00

34

124,800 75,140

------- ---

--------------.------.--

TABLE 1.--DAMAGE ESTIMATES OF SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1960-1996

STATE

CALENDAR YEAR

ESTIMATED

VOLUME SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

ESTIMATED

VOLUME NOT SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

STUMPAGE VALUES

TOTAL VOLUME KILLED PULPWOOD SAWTIMBER

CORDS

MBF

$/CORDS- $/MBF

TOTAL VALUE
($)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------

VA

1973

4,843

14,485

1,403

13,956

6,247

28,441

6.00

40

1,175,122

VA

1974

4,843

14,485

1,403

13,956

6,247

28,441

6.00

40

1,175,122

VA

1975

4,843

14,485

1,403

13,956

6,247

28,441

6.00

40

1,175,122

VA

1976

4,843

14,485

1,403

13,956

6,247

28,441

6.00

40

1,175,122

VA

1977

15 9

0

106

0

2 65

0

6. 79

0

1, 800

VA

1979

50

0

150

0

200

0

6.70

91

1,339

VA

1 98 0

90

0

2 99

0

389

0

8 . 25

69

3, 209

VA

1981

500

30

200

20

700

50

9 . 00

100

11 , 300

VA

1982

210,000

33,200

200,000

13,000

410,000

46,200

9.00

120

9,234,000

VA

1983

7,100

22,200

6,400

14,800

13,500

37,000

9.00

125

4,746,500

VA

1984

3,200

4,200

2,400

3,700

5,600

7,900 10.00

100

846,000

VA

1985

410

57

500

30

910

87 10 . 00

100

17, 800

VA

1986

4,417

1,036

3,276

267

7,693

1,303 11.00

110

227,953

VA

1987

5,075

1,006

4,675

947

9,750

1,953 11.00

125

351,375

VA

1988

522

63

200

30

722

93 11.00

125

19,567

VA

1989

20

20

30

10

50

30 12.00

125

4,350

VA

1990

50

50

70

20

120

70 12.00

125

10,190

VA

1991

1, 100

20

1, 300

10

2, 400

30

9. 00

100

24, 600

VA

1992

14,550

8,575

33,950

3,675

48,500

12,250

9.00

100

1,561,500

VA

1993

79,059

88,662

191,456

24,330

270,515

112,992

9.00

100

13,733,835

VA

1994

12,110

11,245

h,781

928

18,891

12,173 10.00

110

1,527,940

VA

1995

1,900

61

3;300

1,050

5,200

1,111 11.00

125

196,075

VA

1 996

2 , 35 0

64 7

800

50

3, 150

697 12 . 00

150

142 , 350

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1/ Infonnation collected from each state and federal pest control specialist.

2/ Beginning year is based on available state records.

'J/ Includes estimates on federal, state, and private lands.

1/ Stumpage prices are estimates from each state pest specialist, and the same values are assigned to timber salvaged and not salvaged.

'J/ Total value may change when columns are multiplied by stumpage values due to rounding off. Also, this value reflects stumpage values only and not delivered prices or other aesthetic values.

Q/ Actual volume of timber chemically treated plus estimated volume killed with no treatment.

1/ A total of3l,230 cords and 142,205 MBF was reported killed from 1972 - 1976. To provide uniformity within the table, these figures were divided by 5 years to show an average by year.

TABLE 1.--DAMAGE ESTIMATES OF SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1960-1996

STATE

CALENDAR YEAR

ESTIMATED

VOLUME SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

ESTIMATED

VOLUME NOT SALVAGED

CORDS

MBF

STUMPAGE VALUES

TOTAL VOLUME KILLED PULPWOOD SAWTIMBER

CORDS

MBF

$/CORDS $/MBF

TOTAL VALUE
($)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TN

1990

16

751

64

214

80

965

9.50

64

62,555

TN

1991

3

3

26

24

29

27 11.00

77

2,398

TN

1992

113

996

1,020

966

1,133

1,073 11.75

97

203,627

TN

1993

193

185

1,733

1,667

1,926

1,852 12.78

108

224,630

TN

1994

55

55

494

495

549

550 14.75

115

71,348

TN

1995

18

16

71

65

89

81 15.33

181

16,025

TN

1996

32

27

105

133

137

160 28.14

146

24,504

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TX

1960

3,648

3,744

4,352

4,256

8,000

8,000

3.54

27

244,320

TX

1961

10,944

8,371

13,056

9,516

24,000

17,887

3.54

19

424,813

TX

1962

50,666

43,544

60,444

49,499

111,110

93,043

3.54

19

2,161,146

TX

1963

876

1,911

1,044

2,173

1,920

4,084

3.54

18

80,309

TX

1964

648

1,170

772

1,331

1,420

2,501

3.54

21

57,548

TX

1965

3,531

1,777

4,212

2,020

7,743

3,797

3.54

25

122,335

TX

1966

3,160

2,928

3,770

3,328

6,930

6,256

4.09

30

216,024

TX

1967

3,906

3,367

4,660

3,827

8,566

7,194

4.09

30

250,855

TX

1968

10,049

8,257

11,988

9,387

22,037

17,644

4.09

33

672,338

TX

1969

3,410

3,436

4,068

3,905

7,478

7,341

4.09

40

324,225

TX

1970

6,717

2,021

8,013

2,297

14,730

4,318

4.09

34

207,058

TX

1971

30,521

1,812

36,412

2,062

66,933

3,872

4.09

38

420,892

TX

1972

25,528

15,013

27,414

13,146

52,942

28,159

4.09

47

1,540,006

TX

1973

21,973

30,047

28,327

18,607

50,300

48,654

4.23

62

3,229,317

TX

1974

42,497

45,219

21,346

22,446

63,843

67,665

4.81

57

4,163,990

TX

1975

16,750

15,661

19,826

30,262

36,576

45,923

5.22

66

3,221,845

TX

1976

98,840

131,614

123,544

98,172

222,384

229,786

6.15

72

17,912,254

TX

1977

41,636

35,814

29,512

22,660

71,148

58,474

6.50

110

6,894,602

TX

1978

138

634

262

408

400

1,042

7.35

135

143,610

TX

1979

0

1,311

201

25

201

1,336

9.00

175

235,608

TX

1980

0

50

2

5

2

55

9.25

160

8,818

TX

1981

0

0

0

0

0

0

.00

0

0

TX

1982

1,657

3,780

33

124

1,690

3,904 16.00

160

651,680

TX

1983

2,218

8,065

545

15,772

2,763

23,837 16.00

150

3,619,758

TX

1984

34,688

74,030

12,277

17,921

46,965

91,951 16.00

140

13,624,580

TX

1985

135,028

363,196

97,583

108,310

232,611

471,506 18.00

125

63,125,248

TX

1986

42,550

42,096

95,676

38,281

138,199

80,377 13.00

115

11,039,942

TX

1987

785

3,200

1,830

899

2,615

4,099 15.00

115

510,610

TX

1988

653

1,976

1,598

784

2,251

2,760 15.00

130

392,565

TX

1989

4,162

35,599

1,770

6,873

5,932

33,472 18.00

156

6,732,408

TX

1990

1,679

11,654

2,132

4,219

3,829

15,873 22.00

163

2,671,537

TX

1991

5,647

20,199

1,412

2,932

7,059

23,131 16.00

175

4,160,869

TX

1992

22,439

60,038

4,675

8,880

27,114

68,918 28.00

252

18,126,528

TX

1993

17,092

38,483

15,293

11,427

32,385

49,910 28.00

300

15,879,780

TX

1994

282

605

232

454

514

1,059 22.50

382

416,102

TX

1995

459

627

102

134

561

751 24.00

400

313,867

TX

1996

416

398

304

89

720

487 25.00

350

188,450

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VA

1961

18,000

0

12,000

0

30,000

0

5.00

0

150,000

VA

1964

63,000

0

27,000

0

90,000

0

6.00

0

540,000

VA

1970

0

9,000

0

6,000

0

15,000

.00

40

600,000

VA

1972 7/

4,843

14,485

1,403

13,956

6,247

28,441

6.00

40

1,175,122

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1961
at least 1 spot per thousand acres' host type
Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1960
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type

Location of southern pine beetle infestations In the Southeast
1963
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type
Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1962
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type

Location of southern pine beetle infestations In the Southeast
1965
,..
.- ~"~" t
.\
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type
Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1964
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1967
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type
Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1966
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1969
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type
Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1968
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the South.east
1971
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type
Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1970
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type

Location of southern pine beetle infestations In the Southeast
1973
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type
Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1972
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type

Location of southern pine beetle infestations In the Southeast
1975
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type
Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1974
at .least 1 spot per thousand acres host type

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1977
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type
Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1976
at least 1 spot per thousand acres host type

Location of southern pine beetle infestations In the Southeast
1979

spots per 1,000 acres host type:

D

0.1 to 0.99

- - ----

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast

1978

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99 D 1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1981

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1980

I spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above I
- ----

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1983

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations In the Southeast
1982

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1985

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1984

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99 D 1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations In the Southeast
1987

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1986

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99 0

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations In the Southeast
1989

spots per 1,000 acres host type: 0

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1988

spots per 1,000 acres host type: 0

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1991

spots per 1,000 acres host type: 0

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1990

spots per 1,000 acres host type: 0

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1993

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1992

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1995

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1994

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

,"

.i

-><

C

Z

LI.I

,"

Q.

Q.

<

Location of southern pine beetle infestations in the Southeast
1996

spots per 1,000 acres host type: D

0.1 to 0.99

1.00 to 2.99 3.0 and above

Date
1882-85 1890-92 1902-05 1906-08 1911-24 1926 1929 1931-32 1937 1938 1939 1945-48 1947 1949 1950 1951
1952
1953

Table 2.--Southern Pine Beetle Damage in the Southeast. (Based on sketchy data from 1882-1960)

Area
Texas Central Atlantic States North Carolina, Georgia
Eastern &Western Virginia
Southwide Texas North Carolina, Virginia Southwide Virginia Virginia, East Tennessee Virginia, East Tennessee, Texas East Tennessee Flori da North Carolina, East Tennessee North Carolina, East Texas North Carolina East Texas Mississippi South Carol ina Virginia North Carolina Kentucky Mountains-Tennessee Florida Georgi a Alabama Texas Western North Carolina Mountains-Tennessee Georgia

Vo 1ume Kill ed

Cords

Bd. Ft.

$ Value

758,000

4,000

3,200,000

300,000

50,000

55,000,000

30,000,000

10,000

25,000

Minor

30,000

Minor

Minor ,

300,000

Minor

Minor

12,200,000

1,300,000

300,000

9,279
4,500 925,000 450,000
150 375 450
4,500
180,000 20,000 4,500

Source*
2 2, 10 2 10 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 2 2 2, 7 2 2, 8 2, 8 8 3 8 2 1 1 1, 5 1 1 1 1 7 1, 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 2 - Continued

Date

Area

Volume Killed Cords : Bd. Ft.

$ Value

Source*

1954

North Carolina, Mountains-Tennessee,

Virginia

60,600 30,000,000 450,000

1, 8

Alabama, Mississippi

Minor

1

1955

Piedmont N.C. and S.C., N. Georgia

and Central Virginia

42,100 15,500,000 513,800

1, 7

Kentucky, Alabama, Mountains-Tennessee,

and Mississippi

Minor

1, 8

1956

Mountains &Piedmont of North Carolina

1,700,000

42,500

1

Northern South Carolina

600,000

15,000

1, 7

Northern Georgi a

150,000

3,750

1

Mountains-Tennessee

3,300,000

82,500

1

Mountains-Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama

and Texas

1957

Western N.C., East Tennessee, N.E.

Mino,r

Georgia, N.W. South Carolina

6,000,000 150,000

1, 7

S.W. Mississippi

1,204,000

30,100

1

Alabama, Louisiana

Minor

4

1958

East North Carolina

150,000

4,500

1

S. E. Texas

,\ , ',j

10,000

300

1, 9

N. Central Alabama, Mountains-Tennessee

Minor

1, 8

1959

South Carolina

80,000

2,400

1

East Texas

144 Spots

1

Mountains-Tennessee

Minor .

8

1960

East Texas

30,000 10,000,000

1

Mountains-Tennessee

Minor

8

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

USDA, Forest Service, 1951-1960. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Annual Reports. Thatcher, Robert C., 1960. Bark Beetles Affecting Southern Pines: A Review of Current Knowledge. Southern Forest Experiment Station Occasional Paper 180. Chellman, Charles. Personal correspondence. Southern pine beetle in Florida State Records. Nachod, L. H. Personal correspondence. Southern pine beetle in Louisiana State Records. Cook, Joe. Personal correspondence. Southern pine beetle in Mississippi State Records.
Doggett, C. A. Personal correspondence. Southern pine beetle in North Carolina State Records.
Remion, Michael. Personal correspondence. Southern pine beetle in South Carolina State Records. Kauffman, Bruce. Personal correspondence. Southern pine beetle in Tennessee State Records. Billings, Ronald. Persona~ correspondence. Southern pine beetle in Texas State Records. Morris, Caleb. Personal C' ~respondence. Southern pine beetle in Virginia State Records.

..,". '-.~
\'
,

----------'- - - - - - - - - -

RANGE OF SHORTLEAF PINE (Pinus echinata Mill.)

-r,O
0\ -'
1..')

(>

.... (

)(".\\..".-to1'.:1)
.., , . '
).

'" "-:=,=\-...J~ l(--...\:\)\

r\ <..)': "0: 0 ~':"'.J

_0 ... I

,-, I ..., 1 . ,

/

'.....

1 .... /



I

.0 '\ __- -

I

' 'I

.... .... \..
/,\..

.. :: ' -.:":

) (

v .--/ .:~.:.:\~.it:::: \)

;~;1ji~til.}t(:}~~!J~) "~t/,..../. .:.-'.:A:..,.,/';;.":.;"-'..:.:."'...'~:,"..0:=":...".-.:~;:,-:"I::r::',.~''"l.:./;.:,-\:.'",'.:',:~:<::i:/{:~.':~,lJ.:.~:!:".:)~-t":".,-,..:~''.,'!'.;.":'I"c.,~:'\.o:l."C:.:;;~~",:.,,~0:~'.::~.~~...,~~...:.\:/.'\.

,_."./:=-'.-.J,: : :: :.' ::.:l:\\~l

.... (.

"

;:.:'::

.. '. (':

..:".

:::":.'..:.:.

'

; /

/

'

. --_/ II,/,\~~I.~\::'::".''.;.':':''

.,
:": ' :'


:. '

/ /

"- -_/

-f;'

?

Reprinted from A FOREST ATLAS OF THE SOUTH, USDA. Forest Service.

(
I .J
/
t
/-
\.
\

CONTRIBUTORS

STATE PEST CONTROL SPECIALISTS

Alabama

Jim Hyland

Arkansas

Doug Akin

Florida

Jim Meeker

Georgia

Terry Price

Kentucky

Tom Gilmour

Louisiana

Rich Goyer

Mississippi

. Evan Nebeker

North Carolina

. Coleman Doggett

,. '..

South Carolina

. Mike Remion, Andy Boone

Tennessee

. Bruce Kauffman

Texas

. Joe Pase

Virginia

. Tim Tigner

FEDERAL PEST CONTROL SPECIALISTS

USDA, Forest Service State and Private Forestry

. Vallie Peacher, Pat Barry, Wes Nettleton, Roberta Fitzgibbon