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