N82X
A NK >ine Weevil Attack
lation to Soils and Other Environmental Factors in New York
BY
Donald P. Connola and Earl C. Wixson
New York State Museum and Science Service
Bulletin Number 389
The University of the State of New York The State Education Department
Albany, N. Y.
August 1963
White Pine Weevil Attack
in Relation to Soils and Other Environmental Factors in New York
BY
Donald P. Connola
New York State Museum and Science Service
and
Earl C. Wixson
Bureau of Forest Pest Control New York State Conservation Department
New York State Museum and Science Service
Bulletin Number 389
The University of the State of New York The State Education Department
Albany, N. Y.
August 1963
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Regents of the University
With years when terms expire
1968 Edgar W. Couper, A.B., LL.D., L.H.D., Chancellor . Binghamton
1967 Thad L. Collum, C.E., Vice-Chancellor . Syracuse
1976 Mrs. Caroline Werner Gannett, LL.D., L.H.D., D.H . Rochester
1964 Alexander J. Allan, Jr., LL.D., Litt.D . Troy
1966 George L. Hubbell, Jr., A.B., LL.B., LL.D., Litt.D . Garden City
1973 Charles W. Millard, Jr., A. B . Buffalo
1970 Everett J. Penny, B.C.S., D.C.S . . White Plains
1972 Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr., A.B., M.B. A., D.C.S . . Purchase
1975 Edward M. M. Warburg, B.S., L.H.D . New York
1971 J. Carlton Corwith, B.S . Water Mill
1969 Joseph W. McGovern, A.B., LL.B., L.H.D. , LL.D . New York
1965 Allen D. Marshall, A. B., LL.D . .< . Scotia
1977 Joseph T. King, A. B., LL.B . Queens
President of the University and Commissioner of Education James E. Allen, Jr., Ed.M., Ed.D., LL.D., Litt.D., Pd.D., L.H.D.
Deputy Commissioner of Education Ewald B. Nyquist, B.S.
Associate Commissioner for Cultural Education and Special Services Hugh M. Flick, Ph.D., LL.D.
Assistant Commissioner for State Museum and Science Service William N. Fenton, A.B., Ph.D.
State Entomologist, State Museum and Science Service Donald L. Collins, M.S., Ph.D.
Copies of this publication may be bought at $2.50 each from the New York State Museum and Science Service, Education Building, Albany 1, N. Y. Remittances should be made payable to the New York State Education Department.
M586— FG3— 1500 (2H2-69)
Illustrations
Plates
PAGE
Plate lA, White pine with crooked bole caused by repeated white pine weevil attack. Tree has little or no commercial value for timber production. Note remnant weeviled leader (arrow), vi
Plate IB. White pine with straight bole, undamaged by white pine weevil. Tree has high commercial value for timber pro¬ duction . . . vii
Plate 2 A. White pine stand with heavy white pine weevil damage.
Sampling data showed no non weeviled (#1) trees present, weeviled trees heavily distorted, soil mottling and hardpan present within 3 feet of the soil surface. Trees were growing on heavy (clayey) soil with poor drainage . 10
Plate 2 8. White pine stand with little white pine weevil damage.
Sampling data showed less than 10 per cent of the trees with weevil damage, no soil mottling or soil hardpan present within 3 feet of the soil surface. Trees were growing on light (sandy) soil with good drainage . 11
Figures
Figure la. Percentage distribution of sample plots on heavy and light soils according to series a stand damage classes. Distribution provides for utilization of weeviled trees math at least 12 feet of butt with no weevil
damage (table 4 — series a) . . .
Figure lb. Percentage of distribution of sample plots on heavy and light soils according to series b stand damage classes. Distribution does not provide for the utilization of weeviled trees (table 4 — series b). . . Figure 2a. Stand damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series a. Graphs are based on percentage distribution of sample plots in each soil class (table 5 a). . . Figure 2b. Stand damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series b. Graphs are based on percentage distribution of sample plots in each soil class (table 5b'). . . Figure 3a. Stand damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series a. Graphs are based on percentage distribution of sample plots in each stand damage class (table 6a) . “ .
Figure 3b. Stand damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series h. Graphs are based on percentage distribution of sample plots in each stand damage class (table 6b) . , .
Figure 4a. White pine weevil damage as related to poor white pine growth, soil mottling, and soil hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series b (table la) . . .
14
15
18
19
20
21
24
m
iqfi4
iiffswwi
msttruaas
APR 8
PAGE
Figure 4b. White pine weevil damage as related to fair white pine growth, soil mottling, and soil hardpan. A comparison of stand damage
classes in series b (table lb') . 25
Figure 5. Distribution of plots with less than 100 #1 trees per acre . . 28 Figure 6. Distribution of plots with less than 200 #1, #2, and #3 trees
per acre . 29
Figure 7. Correlation of weevil attack with tree height by 5-foot bole sections to 50 feet, according to soil and stand damage classes. Data
from 266 sample plots (table 15) . 32
Figure 8. Correlation of weevil attack with tree height by 5-foot bole sections of 981 white pine trees, 50 or more feet tall. Measurements are
made to a 50-foot height on the boles (table 16) . 34
Figure 9. Map of New York State showing division into forest districts established and used at present by the New York State Conservation
Department, Division of Lands and Forests . *
Figure 10. Map of New York State showing State forest district boun¬ daries and location of sample plots. Symbols used are according to soil class and series b stand damage class (based on the number of #1 — ndn-
weeviled — trees per acre) . *
Figure 1 1. Map of New York State showing State forest district boun¬ daries and location of sample plots. Symbols used are according to soil class and series a stand damage class (based on the number of #1, #2, and
#3 trees per acre) . *
Figure 12. Map of New York State showing the important bedrock
areas (from Cline, 1955) . 36
Figure 13. Schematic drawing showing conditions for determining soil drainage class (from Cornell Recommends for Field Crops , 1961) . . 38
Tables
Table 1. Distribution of sample plots according to jf 1 tree distribution in stand damage classes (series b ) and soil classes, as associated with other
factors (total plots, 266) . 48
Table 2. Distribution of sample plots according to #1, § 2 , and #3 tree distribution in stand damage classes (series a) and soil classes, as associated
with other factors (total plots, 266) . 50
Table 3. Distribution of sample plots according to tree growth and soil
classes, as associated with other factors (total plots, 266) . 52
Table 4. Distribution of sample plots on heavy and light soils according to stand damage classes in series a and series b (figures la and lb) .... 53
Table 5a. White pine weevil damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series a (figure 2a) . . 54
Table 5 b. White pine weevil damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series b (figure lb) . . 55
Table 5c. White pine weevil damage as related to depth of soil mottling and hardpan. Comparison of stand damage classes in series b . 56
* In envelope at back of book.
iv
PAGE
Table 6a. White pine weevil damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. Comparison of stand damage classes in series a (figure 3 a). . . 57
Table 6b. White pine weevil damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. Comparison of stand damage classes in series b (figure 3 b'). . . 58
Table 7a. White pine weevil damage as related to poor white pine growth, soil mottling and soil hardpan. Comparison of stand damage
classes in series b (figure 4a). . . . 59
Table 7b. White pine weevil damage as related to fair white pine growth, soil mottling and soil hardpan. Comparison of stand damage
classes in series b (figure 4b) . ... 60
Table 8. White pine growth as related to white pine weevil damage . . 61
Table 9. White pine weevil damage as related to poor tree growth and
colloid content of soil . . . . 62
Table 10. Distribution of the 266 sample plots on heavy and light soils
according to various factors analyzed . 63
Table 1 1. Geographical distribution of sample plots according to stand
damage classes and tree growth (total plots, 266) . 64
Table 12. White pine weevil studies. Natural stands. Distribution of sample plots by soil class, as associated with other factors (total plots, 9). 65
Table 13. White pine weevil studies, 1954-58. Pertinent sample plot
data . 66
Table 14. Correlation of stand damage in the sample plots with the
number of weevil attacks per sampled tree . 67
Table 15. Correlation of weevil attacks with tree height by 5-foot bole sections according to plot soil classes and stand damage classes
(figure 7) . 68
Table 16. Correlation of weevil attack with tree height by 5-foot
bole sections of 981 white pines 50 or more feet tall (figure 8) . 70
Table 17. List of soil associations identified with sample plots .... 71
v
Plate 1A. White pine with crooked bole caused by repeated white pine weevil attack. Tree has little or no commercial value for timber production. Note remnant weeviled leader (arrow).
VI
Plate IB. White pine with straight bole, undamaged by white pine weevil. Tree has high commercial value for timber pro¬ duction.
vii
White Pine Weevil Attack
in Relation to Soils and Other Environmental Factors in New York
By Donald P. Connola1 and Earl C. Wixson2
Abstract
A study was made of white pine weevil attack occurring on 266 one-tenth acre sample plots of white pine over 16 feet tall distributed throughout most of New York. Stands sampled included 144 on heavy (clayey) soils and 122 on light (sandy) soils.
Analysis of the data showed there was significantly more weevil damage in stands where soil mottling and hardpan occurred in a 3-foot soil profile, regardless of whether the soil was heavy or light (soil class). Also, there was a direct correlation between weevil attack on the main stem and tree height at time of attack. A study of 981 trees 50 feet or more tall taken from a state-wide distribution of sample plots showed that, up to a height of 50 feet, weevil attack on the main stem began at a low incidence at 5 feet or less, reached a peak at between 10 and 20 feet, and then steadily declined to a lower incidence at 50 feet. Weevil attack as related to tree height in association with stand damage showed the same rise and fall of attack, but the intensity of attack at various height levels was greater where stand damage was greater, particularly at the 10- to 20-foot level, regardless of soil class.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgment is made to C. J. Yops, Superintendent, Bureau of Forest Pest Control, New York State Conservation Department, who suggested the study; to E. L. Stone, Department of Agronomy, Cornell University, who instructed project personnel in the collection of soil data; and to W. E. Malmberg, who assisted on the project. The statistical analysis was done by Joseph Lev, Associate Statistician, Bureau of Statistical Services, New York State Education Department.
1 Senior Scientist, Entomology, New York State Museum and Science Service.
2 Forest Pest Control Representative, New York State Conservation Department.
1
2
New York State Museum and Science Service
Introduction
The white pine weevil, Pissodes strohi (Peck), is a native insect of the United States. It is the most destructive insect pest of eastern white pine, Pinus strobus L., in northeastern United States. Attack by the insect results in the death of the terminal tip or leader and destruction of 2, 3, or as many as 5 years of terminal growth. Such damage results in a lateral shoot or shoots below the attack taking the lead, thus producing a crooked or forked tree. Repeated attacks may render a tree worthless for timber production (plate 1).
Although the growing of eastern white pine for timber production in northeastern United States has met with discouragement because of attack by the white pine weevil, foresters continue to agree that eastern white pine is the most desirable tree for reforestation purposes and lumber production in the Northeast.
This opinion is reflected in recent market prices for eastern white pine lumber, which have more than tripled since 1939. Fedkiw and Stout (I960), reporting in the Northeastern Logger , state that the 1937- 59 average prices per thousand board feet, as derived from weekly quotations from the Boston Commercial Bulletin , show that lumber grade d, select and better, rose from $71.13 to $234.79 and grade jf 4 common rose from $29-36 to $88.62.
In view of the high market value of white pine, loss from weevil attack assumes great importance. Studies by Ostrander and Stolten- berg (1957) at the Pack Demonstration Forest, Warrensburg, N. Y., showed that each weevil injury per log resulted in a 2-dollar reduction per thousand board feet in lumber value. Waters et al. (1955), in their studies of volume losses due to white pine weevil attack in New Hampshire, found that the average loss by diameter class of trees up to 24 inches d.b.h. was 13 per cent of cubic volume for pole- size trees 5" to 8.9" d.b.h., 40 per cent of board foot volume for the saw-log portion of saw timber trees 9" d.b.h. and over, and 70 per cent of cubic volume in the portion above saw-log limits of merchantability.
Studies of the weevil and its damage have been made by several workers over the years. Although studies of the life history are in agreement, there are a number of habits of the weevil as related to host and environment which are not yet thoroughly understood and upon which there is some confusion and contradiction in the literature. It is not the purpose of this bulletin to explain any of the weevil’s habits, but rather to describe weevil damage in New York in terms of where and under what environmental conditions it was found and the extent of damage under the varying conditions. The practical purpose of the study was to determine where in New York, and under
White Pine Weevil Attack
3
what conditions, white pine could be planted and expected to grow with a minimum amount of weevil damage.
The studies are reported here in two parts. Part 1 deals with the study of stand damage as related to soils and other environmental conditions. Part 2 deals with the study of weevil attack as related to tree height exclusively and in association with soil class and stand damage. The procedure used in collecting data relative to each part is described separatelv.
4
New York State Museum and Science Service
Form 1
FOREST DISTRICT-- . PLOT § .
WHITE PINE PLANTATION STUDY PLOT NO . .
Date : . . . . . . . County : . . .
Crew : _ _ _ _ _ Township : . __ . . . . .
Ownership and Location : (Show Area and Proposal on State Reforestation Lands)
Spacing... _ _ _ _ _ ..Plantation Evaluation: Good _ Fair _ Poor . .
Age of Trees.. . . . . Average Height _ * _ Exposure . . . .
Average D.B.H — . Slope: Gentle _ Medium _ Sharp . None _ (Check One)
Soil: Heavy _ Medium... . ..Light.. . ...Elevation (From U.S.G.S.) .
(Check One)
(Check One): Sand _ Gravel _ Loam _ Clay _ Gravel-Loam. . Sandy-Loam .
Clay-Loam _ Other _
Soil Depth: Thin . .Medium . Deep . Site Drainage: Good . ..Fair _ Poor .
(Check One)
Total Number of Trees With Current Weeviling . . . . . . . .
Remarks: (Include information on pruning and thinning operations, poisoning, girdling, pest control operations, border growth, etc.)
On the attached cross-section paper, at a scale of 1 inch equals 10 feet, plot tree locations according to the following classifications :
1 — Total length of bole undamaged and of good form
2 — Bole damaged, or deformed, above 16 ft. level
3 — Bole damaged, or deformed, below 16 ft. level to 12 ft. level
4 — Trees missing from original stocking
5 — Trees dead but present on location
6 — Bole damaged, or deformed, below 12 ft. level
List below the number of trees in each classification and calculate percentages of total in each classification.
Classification No. Trees "Percentage
1 2
3
4
5
6 . . .
Total Trees (121 on 6 x 6 spacing; 174 on 5 x 5 spacing)
Show plot number at the top, right hand comer of the cross section sheet. Take one pound cross section samples of soil.
White Pine Weevil Attack
5
Part 1
Stand Damage as Related to Soils and Other Environmental Conditions
Procedure
Prior to field operations, two forms were composed for use in the collection of field data. These forms are reproduced on pages 4 and 6.
It was decided that, although a few natural stands of eastern white pine would be included for comparison, the study would be of eastern white pine plantations with spacings of 5 feet x 5 feet or 6 feet x 6 feet and tree heights of more than 16 feet. The reason for the latter was to establish any damage to the butt log which, for the purpose of this study, was the first 16 feet of stem. This portion of the tree is con¬ sidered the most valuable for the production of lumber, containing two-thirds of the board foot volume and three-quarters of the tree’s lumber value when mature (Stone, 1958). Damage to it by the weevil can result in serious loss. Also, the first 16 feet of stem was used as a guide in establishing the tree classifications used in this study with respect to weevil damage. These are shown in form 1. As may be seen, a #1 tree was one with total length of bole undamaged and of good form; a #2 tree, one with bole damaged or deformed above the 16-foot level; a #3 tree, one with bole damaged or deformed below the 16-foot level but above the 12-foot level; a jf4 tree, one missing from the original stocking; a #5 tree, one dead but present on location; and a #6 tree, one with bole damaged or deformed below the 12-foot level. It must be pointed out that, although it is difficult at times to distinguish weevil damage from other types of damage several years after the damage has occurred, it is certain that damage reported in these studies was, for the most part, weevil damage and it was treated as such.
Although the established height requirement was over 16 feet, selection of sample trees was made on a stand basis. That is, if the average height of trees in an even age stand was over 16 feet, the height requirement for study purposes was satisfied, even though there were a few suppressed individuals in the stand which did not qualify. Another requirement was that the selected stand to be sampled had to be at least 1 acre in size. The unit sampled, however, was a tenth acre. This was selected well within the stand to avoid any edge effect. All trees in the tenth acre plot were classified according to
6
New York State Museum and Science Service
Form 2
SOIL PROFILE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS (Cline)
Association:
Site history:
Drainage:
Texture:
Fragipan horizon:
pH readings:
Colloid readings:
Suitability of site:
0"- -
6"- -
12"- -
18"- -
24"- -
30"- -
36"- -
LEGEND
Plow line zone . . .
Horizon zone -
Mottling zone x x x x x x
Fragipan zone - : -
Location of pH reading #1, #2, #3 Depth of root penetration R
White Pine Weevil Attack
7
the classification in form 1. Besides this classification, a scale size (1" = 10') sketch map was drawn on cross-section paper showing the location of all the trees on the sample plot designated by classifi¬ cation number. If a tree was subject to silvicultural treatment, this was designated by a letter following the number classification such as, P for pruned, G for girdled, F for felled, and A for poisoned.
The average age, height, and diameter (d.b.h.) of trees on the sample plot were obtained by direct measurements of 25 plot trees which made up rows or segments of rows. The same trees were used for other studies which will be explained in part 2 of this paper.
Other data recorded on form 1 are self-explained and were used m the part 1 studies. Form 2 was also used in the part 1 studies. The data recorded on it deal with the soil profile of the plot as found from examination of a dug pit 3 feet deep. Soil data collected are according to Cline (1955), QSoils and Soil Associations of New YorK). A mottling zone was one where the soil appeared grayish and stained with rust spots, indicating poor drainage. Fragipan, referred to here as hardpan, was a zone of very tight soil compaction slowly permeable to water, thus interfering with good drainage. Mottling and hard- pan commonly occurred together with the mottling zone just above the hardpan. Other data are self-explained. Soil profile sketches included not only data indicated in the legend but also soil colors of each horizon and nature of stones found. The location of pH readings indicated the location of 1 pound (estimated) soil samples taken. Soil samples, one from each horizon, were brought into the laboratory for and soil colloid determinations. The latter were made with a Cenco-Wilde soil colloid tester (Central Scientific Co., Chicago). The method utilizes a hydrometer to measure per cent soil colloids and is described by Wilde (1946). The determinations from each soil pit by this method were averaged and used to classify heavy and light soils. All soils with colloid percentages of 24 or less were classi¬ fied as light soils. All those above 24 were classified as heavy soils. The light soils were sandy soils, and the heavy soils were loams and clays. The pH determinations were made according to standard pro¬ cedures using colors of sulfonphthalein indicators, brom-cresol green, chlorphenol red, and brom-thymol blue mixed in a spot plate with a small amount of soil. A Hellige-Truog soil reaction tester (Hellige, Inc., Long Island City, N.Y.) was used to cross check any question¬ able determinations. The latter utilizes a color indicator mixture and a neutral barite powder to bring out the color the indicator mix¬ ture assumes when mixed with the soil. By both methods, the indicator colors assumed after mixture with the soil were referred to a respective color chart for gH determination. Since variations in
8
New York State Museum and Science Service
readings from the different horizons of a plot soil pit were usually small, the readings from each pit were averaged and used as such in the data analysis. The soil association of sample plots was deter¬ mined according to the soils map and key by Cline (1955). The associations are listed by plot number in table 17.
Other data recorded on form 2 are self-explanatory, and included site history prior to tree planting indicating whether or not the soil had been tilled. Also recorded was whether or not heavy distortion or forking of the trees occurred as a result of weevil damage. Suit¬ ability of site was based primarily on average internodal growth. This was an arbitrary classification, although the internodal growth was calculated from the age and average height of the stand and used to classify tree growth on the plot as poor, fair, or good. Average internodal growth of 1 foot or less was considered poor, 1.1 to 1.5 feet was considered fair, and 1.6 feet or more was considered good. The established measurements were based partly on growth and site quality studies made on New York State white pine plantations by Shearer and Ferree (1956). According to R. W. Wilson, publishing in 1959 in What s Known About Managing Eastern White Pine , North¬ eastern Forest Experiment Station Paper No. 121, dominant white pine between the ages of 10 and 40 years will average 1.8 feet in inter¬ nodal growth on the best white pine sites.
In order to utilize the tree classification data collected on form 1, stand damage classes were established based primarily on the studies of Cline and MacAloney (1931) in weeviled plantations in the north¬ east. Their recommendations for reclaiming severely weeviled white pine plantations at a profit (on a 50-to-55-year rotation) suggested, for management purposes, a minimum of 200 evenly spaced crop trees per acre. The crop trees in such a management would include salvable weeviled pines as well as nonwee viled pines. Using this recommenda¬ tion as a guide, the stand damage classes (series “a” and series “b”) established for the studies reported here were as follows:
la. Plots with 200 or more #1, #2, and #3 trees per acre with dis¬ tribution good
2a. Plots with 200 or more #1, #2, and #3 trees per acre with dis¬ tribution poor
3a. Plots with less than 200 # 1, #2, and #3 trees per acre with distribution good
4a. Plots with less than 200 jf 1, #2, and #3 trees per acre with distribution poor
5a. Plots with no § 1, #2, and #3 trees per acre
White Pine Weevil Attack
9
lb. Plots with 100 or more $ 1 trees per acre with distribution good
2b. Plots with 100 or more jf 1 trees per acre with distribution poor
3b. Plots with less than 100 jfl trees per acre with distribution good
4b. Plots with less than 100 ffl trees per acre with distribution poor
5b. Plots with no #1 trees per acre
The stand damage class of “plots with 100 or more #1 (non- weeviled) trees per acre with good distribution,” for the most part, fulfills the recommendation of Cline and MacAloney mentioned above, in the same manner as the stand damage class of “plots with 200 or more H 1, #2, and #3 trees per acre with distribution good.” This is because in such stands where 100 jfl trees per acre were found, it was generally easy to find another 100 trees which, although weeviled, were salvable and well-distributed. In our studies, this was true in 91 per cent of the sample plots examined.
The “a” series, which deals with both weeviled and nonweeviled trees, was established in order to guide foresters in management of salvage operations. The “b” series, which deals exclusively with nonweeviled (#1) trees, was established as a guide in measuring more precisely the effects of the various environmental factors on weeviling. However, both series were used in this study to measure the effects of the various environmental factors, and pertinent data, for the most part, are presented here using both series in the analyses. Thus, one series serves as a check on the other. Segregation of data on the basis of soil class is presented in each analysis so that any effect from this factor could be measured in relation to the others.
Distribution of nonweeviled and salvable weeviled trees was con¬ sidered important in these studies in order to obtain a more complete analysis of the effects of the environment on weeviling. Therefore, the stand damage classes are presented with this factor included. The tenth-acre sample plot maps mentioned above were used in determining distributions of trees. The determination of distribution was based on an arbitrary distribution guide selected for these studies. In con¬ sidering the #1, #2, and #3 trees on a 6' x 6' spacing, 14 of a minimum of 20 trees on a tenth-acre sample plot had to be well-distributed in order to qualify as having good distribution. On a 5' x 5' spacing, 11 of a minimum of 20 trees had to be well distributed. The difference in the required numbers in each case is because of the tree spacing. Many foresters prefer a minimal 18-foot spacing for crop trees in short
10
New York State Museum and Science Service
VI
-c2
*£ 73
^ a
<D
PS « <U S ID ^ ^
cu o
Vi
« (U *>^= 3
•3 .tj .2 w «
*-C U|
^ ^ B T3 ^ <3 > a>
been
.2 a
^ SL
cu ►b*
•rj <u J2
*S O
•H H W .
^ bo
G jj jjj §
fN S
% <u £ <u <u
- PS f»
c'cfl a>
^ n >
« *£ O
w
£ ^
s
oTjf-g g
<u G <u <u u % O * 73 & g § G « . _ ,
G o
D £j
a
b
Oh w
G 73
O u,
ffo
2 Oh
White Pine Weevil Attack
11
|
13 |
rG |
13 |
60 |
rG |
|
G |
V |
0) |
A k |
*0 |
|
ed ■M on |
a> a> !> |
0 |
Sh ■*-> |
60 |
|
> |
-G |
0) |
0 |
|
|
pine |
a) •2 |
V) 2 |
-G VM 0 |
c aT' |
|
Oh~ |
+_» |
&0 |
||
|
a> |
W) G |
G <U u |
a3 2’ |
|
|
12 |
12 |
Oh |
t-4 a> |
: 13 |
U V)
Oh_<
G *0 &
O-i o>
V -c
G T3 O O O
feO fedO G
'5 -a
2 *
*-* bJD
M-l *- H
O <u “S
*< W
« ^ 2 ’
o J!
60 <h_i
«h eO
0 G
&>12
-r
Ph £ 13
S ^ ”5 n *-»
03 «'£ a S
o
Qj V5
<» Ap
D 13 o> G ^ d •
Li M ^
“ W &JD
si
. +-» G <D X3 °G
^ &og
G3 13
12
New York State Museum and Science Service
rotation. Using this as a guide, the retention of every third tree in a 6' x 6' planting would leave more trees per acre than the retention of every fourth tree in a 5' x 5' planting.
In considering only the #1 trees, the distribution was based on 5 out of a minimum of 10 trees on the sample plot. If these were evenly distributed regardless of being spaced 5' x 5' or 6' x 6', the trees were considered well distributed. The latter distribution is based on a 30-foot spacing for the crop trees, which is a preference by many foresters for crop tree spacing, especially in a long rotation. It must be emphasized that the spacing guides used in these studies are purely arbitrary and although they may meet with criticism from some foresters, the authors feel that they have essentially served the purpose.
In order to analyze the data from sample plots recorded on forms 1 and 2 and sample plot maps, a key sort system of recording plot data was established. By this system, all data collected from each sample plot were recorded on a key sort card; 46 factors or combination of factors were used to record the data. If a particular factor applied to a specific key on the card, the key was retained. If it did not apply, it was removed. Each key card was identified by its plot number. By manipulating a metal rod through the key holes, the cards could be separated by the various factors and combination of factors and the data recorded in tables for analysis. Tables 1, 2, and 3 in appen¬ dix 1 were prepared for this purpose. They contain the plot data from 266 sample plots taken from all parts of the State where large plantings of white pine were made. It may be of interest to note here that every one of the 266 plots sampled had evidence of white pine weevil attack. This was incidental in the selection of the plots.
Explanation and Discussion of the Tables, Graphs, and Charts
Tables 1, 2, and 3 in appendix 1, described in the previous section, are the basis for most of the other tables appended and are considered, for the purpose of this study, the work tables from which trends in the data were further explored. Distribution of plots in the tables refers to the numerical and percentage distributions of the 266 plots sampled according to the factors listed. This is differentiated from tree distribution on individual sample plots as described and deter¬ mined above and used in the stand damage classifications.
Analysis of the data in tables 1 and 2 on pages 48 and 50 indicates that the only factors apparently strongly correlated with weevil dam¬ age intensity (indicated here by stand damage classes) were soil class (heavy or light), soil mottling (rust spots in the soil), soil hardpan
White Pine Weevil Attack
13
(fragipan), current weeviling, and heavy distortion of weeviJed trees (plate 2). Correlation of the latter factor may have been expected, and as the data in tables 1 and 2 show, the greater the weevil damage in the plots, as shown by the stand damage classes, the greater the occurrence of heavy distortion in weeviled trees. The factor also appears to be somewhat associated with growth as shown in table 3. The poorer the growth, especially on heavy soils, the greater the heavy tree distortion. This is supported by observations by Pierson (1922), who states ‘‘a thrifty, fast growing tree more readily overcomes the resulting crook due to the Joss of the leader.”
The relationship of current weeviling to stand damage is of little significance here since the data in tables 1, 2, and 3 indicate only the occurrence of current weeviling in sample plots without indication of its magnitude (per cent of trees) as related to stand damage. However, this factor is analyzed in a later table (table 14). Further analyses of soil class, mottling, and hardpan relationships are presented in the succeeding tables. However, before proceeding to those tables it would be desirable, at this point, to discuss some of the other factors in tables 1, 2, and 3 which appeared to be either weakly related, indi¬ rectly related, or not related to weeviling.
Root penetration appeared to be related to weeviling. However, root penetration is limited by soil mottling or hardpan or both, which, whenever present, limited root growth to a stratum at or just above them. Thus, generally, there was an indirect relationship between weeviling and root penetration. It may be of interest to note, however, from field sheets (form 2) that there were a few cases in which heavy weeviling was associated with poor root penetration in the absence of soil mottling or hardpan. Such cases may suggest nutritional or other factors which were not studied here.
Surface drainage appeared to be related to weeviling on heavy soils. Data in tables 1 and 2 show some indication that the poorer the surface drainage on heavy soils the greater the stand damage. However, poor surface drainage often involved soil mottling, an indi¬ cation of poor internal soil drainage. Thus, surface drainage could be considered to have an indirect relationship with weeviling.
Old tillage also appeared to be somewhat related to weeviling in that, percentagewise, there were more previously tilled plots which were associated with light weevil damage than with heavy weevil damage. However, this may be coincidental since generally and from an agricultural standpoint, the better soil sites would be the ones which had previously been tilled for farm crop production. Nevertheless, it appeared from field observations that many old tillage sites had soil mottling and hardpan which appeared to have resulted from improper
14
New York State Museum and Science Service
HEAVY SOILS
LIGHT SOILS
(122 plots)
LEGEND
Stand Damage Classes
□ No ttl & #2 & #3 trees per acre
Less than 200 #1 & # 2 & #3 trees per acre with distribution poor
Less than 200 #1 & #2 & #3 trees per acre with distribution good
200 or more #1 & #2 & #3 trees per acre with distribution poor
200 or more #1 & #2 & #3 trees per acre with distribution good
Figure la. Percentage distribution of sample plots on heavy and light soils according to series a stand damage classes. Distribution provides for utilization of weeviled trees with at least 12 feet of butt with no weevil damage (table 4— series a).
White Pine Weevil Attack
15
HEAVY SOILS
LIGHT SOILS
(144 plots)
0— i-lOQ
10„_ 90
20
30__ 70
40
50.
70
60
50
60 _ 40
30
20
90 _ 10
10Q_L 0
(122 plots)
LEGEND
Stand Damage Classes
No #1 trees per acre
Less than 100 #1 trees per acre with distribution poor
Less than 100 #1 trees per acre with distribution good
100 or more #1 trees per acre with distribution poor
100 or more #1 trees per acre with distribution good
Figure lb. Percentage of distribution of sample plots on heavy and light soils according to series b stand damage classes. Dis¬ tribution does not provide for the utilization of weeviled trees (table 4— series b).
16
New York State Museum and Science Service
soil management. These were compact, worn-out soils which appar¬ ently had been plowed when wet. The presence of such mottling and hardpan would tend to obscure the trend which showed that less weeviling occurred on soils which were previously tilled. Table 10, which will be referred to later, shows that 75 per cent of the heavy soil plots and 50 per cent of the light soil plots were old tillage.
Soil pH, within the range included in the study, was not related to weeviling; most plot soil samples in all of the stand damage classes had pH readings of 4.5 to 5-5- This was true on both heavy and light soils, and according to Wilde (1958), the range in is generally suitable for white pine growth. He states that the optimum range is 4.7 to 7.5.
Although less than one-fifth of the sampJe plots had soil litter of less than 1 inch, the data in tables 1 and 2 (appendix 1) indicate that the depth of soil litter had no relation to weeviling.
There were insufficient numbers of plots with suppressed #1 trees to determine accurately if any correlation existed between weeviling and suppressed jf 1 trees. However, it may be of interest to note in table 1 that 8 of the 14 plots with suppressed #1 trees are represented in the sample plots with minimum weeviling (plots with 100 or more #1 trees per acre). This appears to support the belief that sheltered or shaded trees are not generally weeviled.
Elevation and exposure data in tables 1 and 2 indicate that these two factors have no effect on weeviling. MacAloney (1943) suggested that exposure may have a direct bearing on the degree of weevil in¬ festation. He stated that stands with southern and eastern exposures are usually more heavily attacked than stands with northern and western exposures. Our data do not support this hypothesis with any significance.
Thinning and pruning data in tables 1 and 2 indicate that, per¬ centagewise, there was less thinning and pruning done among the most heavily weeviled plots than among the more lightly weeviled ones. This may be a reflection of human reaction to stand improvement on the basis of merit; that is, in proportionately more cases, no labor was spent trying to improve heavily weeviled stands. However, the data suggest a possibility that silvicultural treatment may have some effect on weevil attack, but such effect would have to be measured by special studies.
Although the data in tables 1 and 2 indicate that white pine growth is not correlated with stand damage, the question of plant growth as related to insect attack generally remains an important one. Therefore, it appeared desirable to explore further the factor of tree growth and its possible relationship to weevil attack. This is done
White Pine Weevil Attack
17
in some of the following tables. The data in table 3 show no appre¬ ciable relationship between growth and other factors , except tree distortion as mentioned above.
It will be noted in table 1 that there were no plots with 100 or more ft 1 trees per acre with poor distribution. In other words, the distribution of the ft 1 trees was good in all the plots with 100 or more ftl trees per acre. Tree distribution will be referred to later in this report, where it will be discussed in greater detail.
Figures la. and lb. (from data in table 4) show the distribution of the sample plots on heavy and light soils according to stand damage classes of both the “a” series and the “b” series. The distribution in the “a” series, which deals with ftl and ftl and #3 trees, provides for the utilization of weeviled trees with at least 12 feet of butt with no weevil damage. The distribution in the “b” series, which deals with only ftl or nonweeviled trees, does not provide for the utilization of weeviled trees. It will be noted that of the 266 sample plots taken throughout the State, 144 were on heavy soils and 122 on light soils. Analysis of the data in figure lb. shows that, percentagewise on light soils, there were more plots with 100 or more ftl trees per acre with good distribution than there were plots with no ftl trees per acre. The reverse was true on heavy soils. The proportions of plots with less than 100 ftl trees per acre (both good and poor distribution) re¬ mained the same on both heavy and light soils. In figure la., there were more plots with 200 or more ftl , #2, and #3 trees per acre with good distribution than plots with no ftl, ftl , and ft3 trees per acre, re¬ gardless of soil class. However, the contrast is greater on the light soils. The proportions of plots with less than 200 ftl, ftl, and ft3 trees per acre (except for a slight difference in the good distribution plots) remained practically the same on both heavy and light soils. Inspection of figures la. and lb. indicates that greater stand damage occurred on heavy soils than on the light soils.
Figures 2a. and 2b. (from tables 5a. and 5b.) deal with the rela¬ tionship of stand damage to soil mottling and soil hardpan on both light and heavy soils. Inspection of both the series “b” distribution (figure 2b.) and the series “a” distribution (figure 2a.) shows not only more stand damage occurring on heavy soils, but also more mottling and hardpan on heavy soils.
Table 5c. (see appendix) shows that there was not only a greater incidence of mottling and/or hardpan on heavy soils as compared to light soils, but also an increased occurrence of mottling and/or hardpan on both heavy and light soils as stand damage increased (see par¬ ticularly totals of combined totals). The data also show that the incidence of mottling and/or hardpan, particularly on heavy soils, at
18
New York State Museum and Science Service
HEAVY SOILS (144 plots)
LIGHT SOILS (122 plots)
With no #1 & #2 & #3
trees per acre
With less than 200 n 1 & #2 & #3 trees per acre
With 200 or more #1 & #2 & #3 trees per acre
0 100
|
/ |
|||||
|
m |
J |
||||
|
< |
10- |
-90 |
\ |
||
|
? |
20 _ |
80 |
|||
|
30- |
-70 |
flH M |
|||
|
( |
40 _ |
_6° |
m 81$ 8 |
< |
|
|
50_ |
50 |
||||
|
PUP / i |
|||||
|
V |
HH |
60_ |
_40 |
r-f V- |
|
|
/ |
70_ |
_ 30 |
nm |
► |
|
|
- |
80_ on |
_ 20 - 10 0 |
"III/; up m xssiSi M «spi®3 |
||
|
V |
HI |
yu- 100_ |
y |
With no #1 & #2 & #3 trees per acre
With less than 200 ttl & #2 & tt 3 trees per acre
With 200 or more #1 & #2 & #'3
trees per acre
LEGEND
With soil mottling and/or hardpan
With neither soil mottling nor hardpan
Figure 2a. Stand damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series a. Graphs are based on percentage distribution of sample plots in each soil class (table 5a).
White Pine Weevil Attack
19
HEAVY SOILS LIGHT SOILS
(144 plots) (122 plots)
|
r |
10 _ |
_90 |
|||
|
With no #1 |
20 _ |
80 |
| -A p |
||
|
trees per acre < |
30 _ |
70 |
|||
|
'•vV: $ |
|||||
|
V |
mu |
40 _ |
_60 |
||
|
With less than 100 ft 1 trees per acre < |
r |
50_ 60_ |
_50 _40 |
:• : 00$ WM |
|
|
70 _ |
_ 30 |
% ■ : •-/ |
|||
|
V |
gUj W |
80_ |
_ zU |
||
|
With 100 or more #1 trees per acre < |
90_ |
_10 |
ggl * |
||
|
V |
SWgtt |
100 |
0 |
With no #1 trees per acre
With less than 100 #1 trees per acre
With 100 or more #1 trees per acre
LEGEND
With soil mottling and/or hardpan
With neither soil mottling nor hardpan
Figure 2 b. Stand damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series b. Graphs are based on percentage distribution of sample plots in each soil class (table 5b).
HEAVY SOILS LIGHT SOILS
20
New York State Museum and Science Service
00
fa H O O J fa
P
Z
w
b
w
p
j
>>
e
o
bC
c
o
e
mm
ooooooooo g
o >-h cm m ''r i^\or^ooo\ <—<
I — t — I — I — I - 1 — f — f — I - 1 - 1
OOOOOOQQQO O
o osoo itn ^ on cn -~i
<u
u
V)
a> ^
V)
w
C<J 0)
<U £
bJD'w' 2 « G 2
Ij
~0 1>
C W>
o3 &
to S
c'a
si
5-c
Oh <j
G cd
o "
U G
^ C/i
G Oh
ed
a,i> T3 a,
£ £
JG cd
V5
*"0 <-1-1
G 0
G
bJD O
£ ’-m
-G G S -O
o-C
e3 QJ
^ G
c/5 O
03 ns <u 0) bJD *> cd cd
cd <L>
^ s
T3 w
g-fl 2 g<
^ 2
O
ed
cO .
« 55
BS j»
D .3i o *o
hh a> fal C/5
HEAVY SOILS LIGHT SOILS
White Pine Weevil Attack
21
j
o
00
•a
us
c
ca
cm
pH
o ca w _e
<u o us e
o
be E
1. With no #1 trees per acre
2. With less than 100 #1 trees per acre
3. With 100 or more #1 trees per acre
Figure 3b. Stand damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series b. Graphs are based on percentage distribution of sample plots in each stand damage class (table 6h).
22
New York State Museum and Science Service
the various depths in the soil profile (within 12", 12" to 18", and beyond 18" to 36") generally remained about the same within each stand damage class (see combined totals), except on heavy soil plots with no #1 trees per acre where most of the mottling and/or hardpan occurred in the first 18" of soil depth. This may indicate that depth to soil mottling and/or hardpan in a soil profile may also be important to weevil damage. Thus, the occurrence of the mottling and/or hard- pan on heavy soils at shallower depths in plots with no jfl trees per acre may indicate that this condition strongly favors weeviling. Only stand damage classes concerned with the distribution of ft 1 trees were used in this analysis, since this distribution gave a more precise measure of weevil damage in relation to other factors.
Figures 3a. and 3b. (from tables 6a. and 6b.) show the relationship of weevil damage to soil mottling and/or hardpan within stand damage classes. It will be noted that, regardless of the stand damage series, there were, percentagewise, fewer plots with neither mottling nor hardpan in stand damage classes with the greatest amount of weevil damage. This was true on both the heavy and the light soils. Thus, it may be stated that, regardless of soil class, heavy or light, the gen¬ eral relationship of mottling and/or hardpan to weevil damage re¬ mained the same. The data presented do not show which of the two factors, mottling or hardpan, is more important in this relationship. In most cases, they occurred together in the soil profile — particularly on heavy soils. However, occurring separately they could produce the same effects as when occurring together, that is, restriction of root penetration into the soil, and limited soil volume in which roots can grow. A statistical analysis of the data in figure 3a. (table 6a.), pre¬ sented in the appendix, clarifies the above relationship of factors. This will be referred to later.
Figures 4a. and 4b. (from tables 7a. and 7b.) deal with the same factors as figure 3b. (table 6b.), except that tree growth is included for possible relationship to soil class, soil mottling, hardpan, and stand damage. The data show that the relationship between soil mottling and/or hardpan and stand damage on both heavy and light soils re¬ mains the same, as shown in figure 3b., regardless of tree growth. In other words, tree growth, whether it be poor or fair, had no direct correlation with stand damage. Also, the relationship between soil mottling and/or hardpan and soil class remained the same, with more plots with neither soil mottling nor hardpan on the light soils, regard¬ less of tree growth.
Table 8 shows the distribution of sample plots according to soil class, growth class, and stand damage. The data show that the percentages of plots with the heaviest stand damage were about
White Pine Weevil Attack
23
the same within each soil class, regardless of tree growth. The same was true of plots with the least stand damage. Table 9 gives further support to the hypothesis that growth is not related to inci¬ dence of weeviling. The data presented in the table show the rela¬ tionship of stand damage to poor growth and soil colloid content. It may be noted that, percentagewise, there was no consistent trend which showed any relationship between stand damage and poor growth. Average percentages of plots with poor growth were close in magnitude in all stand damage classes. It may also be noted with interest that percentages of plots with poor growth increased, gen¬ erally, with increase in soil colloid content. This is in agreement with Wilde (1946), who does not recommend the planting of white pine on soils with colloid contents of over 35 per cent.
Because of the interrelationship of the data in the graphs and tables presented above, it may be desirable at this point to recapitulate important findings in the data and clarify their meaning; also, to point out the relationship of one set of graphs or tables with another. Thus, beginning with figures la. and lb. (from table 4), it is apparent that more stand damage occurred on heavy soils than on light soils. Figures 2a. and 2b. (from tables 5a. and 5b.) show not only more stand damage on heavy soils than on light soils, as in figures la. and lb., but also show that there was more mottling and/or hardpan on heavy soils than on light soils. Stand damage appeared to be correlated with soil mottling and/or hardpan. The data in table 5c. support this hypothesis and show an increased incidence of soil mottling and/or hardpan on both heavy and light soils as stand damage increased. Figures 3a. and 3b. (from tables 6a. and 6b.) are rearrangements of the data in figures 2a. and 2b., presented in greater detail. The per¬ centages show, as in figures 2a. and 2b., that there was more mottling and/or hardpan on heavy soils than on light soils and also show mot¬ tling and/or hardpan to be directly associated with stand damage, regardless of soil class. As stand damage increased, as shown by the stand damage classes, so also the occurrence of mottling and/or hard- pan increased within each soil class. Figures 4a. and 4b. (tables 7a. and 7b.) show the same relationship between soil mottling and/or hardpan and stand damage as in figure 3b., regardless of tree growth. Thus, the data indicate that tree growth is not related to weeviling. Tables 8 and 9 support this hypothesis. The data in table 8 show that, percentagewise, the magnitude of stand damage within a particular soil class remained about the same, regardless of tree growth. The data in table 9 show that the average percentage of plots with poor growth remained about the same, regardless of stand damage. Thus, on a percentage basis, there were about as many plots with poor growth
HEAVY SOILS POOR GROWTH LIGHT SOILS
24
New York State Museum and Science Service
£ o o
A
0 2 2 2, ^ 2 S 2 §
^ — l — i — i — i — i — I — i — i
g g § i? $ R ° S 8
o
ON
o
o
o
o
X
•M
o
u
feC
OS
e
‘Sh
0)
^ ge gfe
<u
w a. u E S
tH I''
§
OhX
qJ!
s 8
M vs vs
s3 A
vs
0> w, feJQ as eS vs vs
2 e3 T3 °
_H V
•£ fee
as 2 as g
^ '-0 a» _, c ^3
•S G
Ah C3
•M 0) VS
<-w X o
* §
V3
Ul
e3
Ah
a w
X *<
% OF HEAVY SOILS FAIR GROWTH LIGHT SOILS
PLOTS
1. With no #1 trees per acre
2. With less than 100 #1 trees per acre
3. With 100 or more #1 trees per acre
Figure 4b. White pine weevil damage as related to fair white pine growth, soil mottling, and soil hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series h (table lb).
26
New York State Museum and Science Service
and heaviest stand damage as there were plots with poor growth and lightest stand damage.
Data in table 10 are taken from tables 1 and 2, but with the asso¬ ciated factors listed according to soil class only. The distribution of the sample plots within each soil class, as presented in table 10, support the data in previous tables and the conclusions drawn from them. It is of interest to note in table 10 that most of the stands on light soils were making fair growth.
The data presented in the preceding tables and figures were sub¬ jected to statistical analysis. Details of the analysis are presented in an appended report (appendix 2) by Dr. Joseph Lev, associate statis¬ tician, Bureau of Statistical Services. The analysis supports the con¬ clusions derived from the tables and figures presented above.
Chi-square tests on the distribution of soil mottling and hardpan in light and heavy soils showed that the more frequent occurrence of mottling and hardpan in heavy soils could not be attributed to an effect of random sampling. In other words, mottling and hardpan truly occur more frequently in heavy soils than in light soils in New York. Also, mottling is more likely to occur in plots with hardpan than in plots without hardpan. This is in agreement with field observations.
Analysis of variance of the relationship between soil mottling and/or hardpan and the occurrence of undamaged plus lightly damaged trees (f 1, #2, and #3 trees) on the sample plots was made. Results of these tests showed the following:
1. There is a significant effect on weevil damage caused by soil mottling and hardpan.
2. This effect is the same on light soil as on heavy soil.
3. With data from sample plots on both heavy and light soil brought together, analysis of variance shows that the effect on weevil damage caused by mottling and/or hardpan was significant at the one billionth level.
4. Further analysis showed also that, although the effect caused by mottling and hardpan together was no greater than that caused by either alone, it is hardpan which is the more important factor. In fact, the effect caused by it alone was significant at the two hundredth level.
It may be explained that the statistical analysis of the data was confined to series “a” because of the large number of zeros in the series “b” data. Thus series “a” provided a better analysis, even though the effect on weevil damage caused by hardpan and mottling is empha¬ sized to a greater degree in the series “b” data.
A geographical distribution of sample plots according to stand damage classes and tree growth is presented in table 11. The dis-
White Pine Weevil Attack
27
tribution is on the basis of the forest districts of the State, as established and presently administered by the New York State Conservation Department (figure 9). It will be noted from this table that in all the forest district groupings, generally speaking, there were, percentage¬ wise, more plots with 100 or more §1 trees per acre on light soils than on heavy soils, and more plots with no #1 trees per acre on heavy soils than on light soils. This indicates that the condition was general and not influenced by geographical location. It is of interest also to note that most plots in forest districts 4 and 5 had poor tree growth.
Data presented in table 12 are similar to those presented in tables 1 and 2, except that they are from nine natural stands. The purpose of the natural stand sampling was to provide a basis for the evaluation of the data from the plantation samples and to provide standards against which to check. As may be noted in table 12, of the three plots with mottling and/or hard pan (190N, 217N, and 238N), two had no Jfl trees and the third had only one § 1 tree. They also had the largest numbers and percentages of #6 trees (48, 97, and 82 per cent respec¬ tively); jt 6 trees were generally heavily weeviled throughout their entire length. Plot 190N was on heavy soil and plots 217N and 23 8N were on light soils. The plots with no mottling and/or hard pan all had larger numbers and percentages of #1 trees and lower numbers and percentages of $6 trees. All data presented in table 12 are in direct agreement with data and conclusions presented in the previous tables.
Pertinent plot data presented in table 12 as average age, height, and diameter (d.b.h.) of plot trees showed most of the natural stands to be older and with larger trees than the plantation stands. This may be seen by comparing the data in table 12 with similar data in table 13- The latter shows that the plantation trees averaged 29 years in age, 35 feet in height, and 6.2 inches in diameter. The data in both tables were collected by sampling 25 trees in each sample plot as was men¬ tioned previously.
Other data collected from the 25 sample trees in each sample plot were the total number of weevil attacks per sampled tree, including the new attacks (current weeviling). These data, which are utilized in relation to stand damage and presented in table 14, show that the greater the stand damage, the greater the average number of attacks per sampled tree regardless of soil class. In fact, the average numbers of weevil attacks per sampled tree on light soils were comparable to those on heavy soils in each of the respective stand damage classes, indicating that soil class was not correlated with frequency of attack. This means that although the frequency of heavy stand damage was greater on heavy soils than on light soils, as has been shown in previous data (figures la. and lb.), the frequency of weevil attack on trees in
28
New York State Museum and Science Service
SSV1D 3I0S H0V3 NI SlOld 30 XN30 H3d
#1 TREE DISTRIBUTION PER ACRE
HEAVY SOILS _ (69 plots)
1 . . 1
o
m
White Pine Weevil Attack
R &
R
29
<L>
u
u
03
VO
w
(A
D
0
£
SSVTD 1I0S HDVH HI SI01H 30 1H3D H3d
Distribution of plots with less than 200 #1, #2, and #3 trees per
30
New York State Museum and Science Service
plots of the same stand damage class remained the same, regardless of soil class. Thus, it must be concluded that texture of the soil (soil class) is not correlated with stand damage. Also of interest was the effect of jf 1 tree distribution in plots with less than 100 jf 1 trees. Plots with good distribution of #1 trees had less attack per sampled tree than plots with poor distribution of jf 1 trees. Current weeviling followed the same pattern, with this factor (attack) increasing as stand damage increased. In other words, the greater the stand damage — the more trees with current weeviling.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of #1 trees in plots with less than 100 jf 1 trees per acre. There were more plots on both heavy and light soils with the number of #1 trees per acre approaching zero rather than 100. The same trend, although less pronounced, is shown in figure 6, which deals with the #1, #2, and #3 tree distribution on the same basis as in figure 5- This would indicate that this weevil damage class is closer to that of no jfl trees per acre than that of 100 or more jf 1 trees per acre. Data in table 14 on the number of attacks per sampled tree by stand damage classes tend to support this indication.
White Pine Weevil Attack
31
Part 2
Weevil Attack as Related to Tree Height in Association With Soil Class and Stand Damage
This portion of the study is discussed separately, since there has been controversy as to the relationship between tree height and weevil attack.
The data are presented in table 15 and in figure 7. These data were collected from the 25 sample trees in each of the 266 sample plots. Each tree was examined for evidence of weevil attack, and the number of attacks per 5-foot section of bole (beginning at the base of the tree and proceeding to the top) was recorded by section. The sections were numbered consecutively beginning with number 1 for the first 5-foot section at the base, number 2 for the section from the 5-foot level to the 10-foot level, number 3 for the 10- to 15-foot level, and so forth until the top of the tree was reached. It may be noted from the table that all points plotted in the graphs in figure 7 were based on from over 100 to over 1,000 5-foot bole sections except two, one of which had 98 sections and the other 81 sections.
Table 15 and figure 7 show a correlation between weevil attack and height of tree. In all stand damage classes, as shown by the curves, attack by the weevil began at a low level from 0 to 5 feet, reached its peak at between 10 and 20 feet, and then steadily diminished to a very low level at 50 feet. The slopes of the curves, which were deter¬ mined by the number of attacks per section, however, differed between each stand damage class. The slope was less where there was less stand damage.
Attack on trees in plots in the same stand damage class was of about the same intensity whether the trees were growing on heavy or light soil. In other words, the curves for heavy and light soils were close enough to each other to indicate that attack was not influenced by soil class. Thus, the data in table 15 and the curves in figure 7 show that (1) soil class was not correlated with weevil attack; (2) after reaching a peak between 10 and 20 feet, weevil attack diminished as the trees grew taller, regardless of stand damage class; (3) stand damage was correlated with weevil attack. Weevil attack (average number of weevil attacks per section) was at the highest levels where stand damage was greatest and lowest where stand damage was the least.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
New York State Museum and Science Service
/X
Plots with 100 or more #1 trees per acre with distribution good
5-FOOT BOLE SECTIONS (0-50 feet )
7.
jctio
rom
Correlation of weevil attack with tree height by 5-foot ns to 50 feet, according to soil and stand damage classes. 266 sample plots (table 15).
White Pine Weevil Attack
33
Distribution of the jjl trees also appeared to be correlated with weevil attack. In the stand damage class of less than 100 #1 trees per acre, there were more attacks per section, particularly below 30 feet where distribution of the #1 trees was poor — as is shown in the two sets of curves in figure 7 based on tree distribution. The correlation, however, is a result of sampling technique. The fewer the #1 trees present, the poorer the chance of good distribution. This is proven in the fact that on heavy soils in this damage class, the 22 plots with good #1 tree distribution averaged 50 to 59 #1 trees per acre. The 38 plots with poor #1 tree distribution averaged 19 to 28 #1 trees per acre. On light soils in this damage class, the 17 plots with good #1 tree distribution averaged 56 to 65 #1 trees per acre, and the 33 plots with poor jf 1 tree distribution averaged 27 to 36 #1 trees per acre. These data are in agreement with those in figures lb. and 5 in that, regardless of soil class, there were more plots with poor fj 1 tree dis¬ tribution and more plots with low jjl tree counts. Therefore, since stand damage is correlated with weevil attack and is based on the number of jjl trees present on the sample plots, it is the number of jjl trees per acre which actually has provided the correlation and not the distribution of the jjl trees.
Table 16 and its graphic presentation in figure 8 show the corre¬ lation between weevil attack and tree height of 981 white pine 50 or more feet tall. The sample trees, as is shown at the bottom of table 16, were taken from all forest districts of the State except districts 14 and 15, which were not included in these studies because of lack of sufficient white pine. Measurements of attack per 5-foot bole section were made to the 50-foot height level. As may be seen from these data, weevil attack studied on a state-wide basis was directly correlated with tree height. Attack began at a low level when trees were up to 5 feet tall, reaching a peak when trees were 15 to 20 feet tall and then steadily diminishing to a very low level at 50 feet.
Figure 10 is a map of New York State divided into forest districts as shown in figure 9, and showing the distribution of the tenth-acre sample plots with their numbers and symbols as indicated in the key. The distribution is based on the number of jjl or nonweeviled trees on the plots. Figure 11 is a similar map with the distribution of plots based on the number of jjl , jjl , and #3 trees on the plots. The dis¬ tribution of plots with 200 or more jjl, jjl , and jj3 trees per acre (as may be seen from the map) is fairly general throughout the State, indicating that, on the basis of this distribution, white pine may be grown regardless of weevil damage in practically any part of the State. However, distribution of the sample plots on the basis of 100 or more jjl trees per acre, as shown in figure 10, indicates that the least amount
34
New York State Museum and Science Service
White Pine Weevil Attack
35
of weevil damage (as represented by this stand damage class) was found on the light soils in the Adirondack area of the northern part of the State. Some of the heavy soil plots in the western part of the State, and also the eastern part in the Taconic Range bordering New England, fell in this stand damage class. These plots were, for the most part, on well-drained soils (11 out of 16 had no mottling or hardpan). The heaviest damage, indicated by the distribution of plots with no H 1 trees per acre, occurred on the heavy soils in the southern tier area of the southern part of the State (13 out of 16 plots had soil mottling and/or hardpan).
Table 17 is a numerical list of the 266 sample plots included in these studies showing the soil association of each according to Cline (1955). Figure 12 is a map showing the important bedrock areas of New York from which many of the soils were derived (from Cline, 1955). Figure 13 is a schematic drawing showing conditions for determining soil drainage class (from 1961 Cornell Recommends for Field Crops).
Discussion
In the literature concerning the white pine weevil, much has been written on its activities and the relationship of weevil attack to white pine growth, with few or no substantiating data to support the con¬ clusions. As might be expected, some of the conclusions are con¬ tradictory. It is the purpose of this discussion to consider some of these conclusions and others in the light of the findings reported here. There are many poorly understood factors which complicate the picture; some of these are also considered.
Of the various ecological factors considered in the studies reported here, the only outstanding ones which appear to favor weeviling are soil mottling and soil hardpan, either separately or combined. Al¬ though the two factors more commonly occur together, a statistical analysis of the data indicated that hardpan is the more important factor.
These soil conditions were found primarily on heavy (clayey) soils, although they also occurred on light (sandy) soils. However, regardless of soil texture, when studied on a state-wide basis, stand damage was directly correlated with soil mottling and/or hardpan. The greatest amount of stand damage was associated with the greatest occurrence of soil mottling or hardpan, or both (table 5c.). These soil conditions may be an expression of poor internal soil drainage which may in itself be a controlling factor. This will be discussed later.
Spurr and Cline (1942), in their paper on ecological forestry in
36
New York State Museum and Science Service
> 0)
> M CS 0) +3 0)
o.2^
Oh £ U
e<3 O
n
xi
W3 1)
a,-*
•M ■ -
ci
•M
IA
O
C\
w
D u O O
<U
«.s
So
o 6
Oh O
White Pine Weevil Attack
37
central New England, stated that “weeviling in white pine appears to be more severe on heavy soils than on light soils, where pure stands naturally occur.” They did not, however, present data to support their conclusions.
MacAloney (1943), in studying white pine weevil activity in the northeastern United States, states that the condition of the soil is an important factor in determining the degree of weevil infestation. He further states that stands on light sandy soils or medium agricul¬ tural soils show the greatest infestations. Also, stands on wet, cold soil have little infestation, but growth conditions are poor. He pre¬ sented no data to support his conclusions.
As suggested in the studies by MacAloney (1943), and other work¬ ers, plant growth has been considered in relation to weevil activity. Fitch (1857), in reporting the activities of the white pine weevil in New York, stated that ‘‘young thrifty growing pines are its favorite resort and among these it selects those that are most vigorous and whose topmost shoot has made the greatest advance the preceding year.” Plummer and Pillsbury (1929), in their studies of the white pine weevil in New Hampshire, observed from both cage experiments and field observations that the weevils attacked ‘‘trees of large tip diameter in preference to trees of small tip diameter.” Kriebel (1954), studying in Connecticut, found a relationship between weevil attack and bark thickness. His studies showed that thick-barked leaders were more susceptible to weevil attack than thin-barked leaders.
Although the observations cited imply that the weevils attack only trees making “good” growth, our data (see especially tables 1, 8, 9) show that this is not strictly true. The term “good” was evidently used, in a relative sense, in comparison with other trees in the same stand. However, the fact that weevils prefer leaders of large diameter to those of small diameter may actually be a preference for the thicker, more succulent bark which, more likely, would be found on leaders of large diameter. Since white pine is, by nature, a fast-growing species, what may be apparently good growth may not be the best growth. Also such apparently good growth may actually be succulent growth supported by a plentiful supply of ground water, especially in the spring, when the trees are growing actively and the weevil larvae are feeding in the bark tissues. Such a condition would be found especially on soils with impeded internal drainage, as indicated by mottling and hardpan.
Husch and Lyford (1956), studying the growth of white pine in relation to soil in southeastern New Hampshire, found that, barring permanently wet soils, white pine growth improved as internal soil
WELL MODERATE SOMEWHAT POOR DRAINED POOR
38
New York State Museum and Science Service
oj
Figure 1 3. Schematic drawing showing conditions for determining soil drainage class (from Cornell Recommends for Field Crops, 1961)
White Pine Weevil Attack 39
drainage became poorer (as measured by the depth to mottling). Their studies were made in even-aged natural stands.
Although the studies by Husch and Lyford would favor the grow¬ ing of white pine on poorly drained sites, our studies show that white pine growing on poorly drained sites is more susceptible to white pine weevil attack.
Stone (1955), studying white pine growth in New York planta¬ tions on abandoned farmlands, does not recommend the planting of white pine on very poorly drained sites nor on poorly drained sites which have a hardpan less than 16 inches below the surface. Also, he does not recommend the planting of white pine on infertile sands. The presence of the hardpan or infertile sands, according to Stone, is likely to result in slow growth or unsatisfactory development for timber. The hardpan would limit the soil volume in which roots could grow and limit root penetration to the hardpan level. Brown and Lacate (1961), studying the rooting habits of white pine, found many dead rootlets in the mottled layers of moist soil and a termination of root penetration at those levels. Thus the two factors, mottling and hardpan, can produce the same physical effect in that they restrict soil volume in which roots can grow and also restrict root penetration. Thus, restricted soil volume and restricted root penetration could also be important factors in relation to wee vi ling.
In examining root penetration in the field, there were numerous instances where white pine roots had penetrated the mottled soil area, apparently at a time when growing conditions were favorable, and then died when these conditions were changed. MacAloney (1944), in studying the management of jack pine, found that there is a definite relationship between the condition of the roots and the vigor of the trees. He also found that moisture deficiencies brought about by severe drought caused great mortality of feeding roots and played a major role in tree decadence. It is possible that in our studies, such mortality of roots, whether it was from drought or flooding, could have an important effect on weeviling.
Wilde (1958) recommends that a site considered for white pine planting should have a minimum depth to ground water table of 30 inches, a soil pH range of 4.7 and 7-5, and a minimum soil colloid content of 15 per cent. Even with optimum growing conditions, there is no guarantee that weevil damage can be averted. This is indicated by the fact that weevil damage was found on every one of the 266 sample plots, showing that the weevils are present generally over the entire State. However, time and extent of weevil attack depends on the presence and population of the weevil at a particular time and place. Thus, a white pine plantation may not be attacked until the
40
New York State Museum and Science Service
trees are fairly large or have passed the most susceptible height, simply because of the absence of the weevil in the immediate area for some time. The result, in such a case, is that a plantation with mottling or hardpan or both near the soil surface may escape considerable weevil damage.
There are other factors also which must be considered in relation to weevil damage — such as plant resistance, weevil parasites, predators, weather, and other environmental conditions which have not been investigated in these studies; any or all of which could alter the effects of soil mottling and hardpan in relation to weeviling. These may account for the exceptions or departures from the general trends found in our field investigations. Sullivan (I960), in his weevil studies, found that oviposition most commonly occurred at bark temperatures between 25° and 29° C., when this range is associated with relative humidities from 20 to 55 per cent. At lower temperatures and higher humidities the amount of oviposition is much reduced. This may explain the low weeviling occasionally found on moist or shaded sites, where humidities may be higher than those above and bark temperatures remain the same or may be lower.
Part 2 of the studies reported here deals with the relationship of tree height to weevil attack. Graham (1926) made a study in New York and Minnesota of this relationship and concluded that “the first attack of the white pine weevil usually occurs when the trees are from five to seven years old and from two to three feet in height. The infestation is generally rather light during the first year or so, but it steadily increases, reaching the maximum when the trees are from twelve to eighteen years old. From then on, the infestation declines rapidly in intensity, and it practically ceases to be economically impor¬ tant when the trees are twenty-five to thirty years old.” MacAJoney (1943) confirmed the observations by Graham (1926), and stated that “Beginning with a height of 2 or 3 feet, the rate of infestation in a widely spaced old field stand or a heavily infested plantation becomes progressively greater until at from 20 to 25 feet the peak is reached. From this point it gradually decreases until at a height of 60 feet it has practically ceased.”
Ostrander (1957), from a study of 5-foot stem sections of 97 white pines of uneven heights in the Pack Forest at Warrensburg in north¬ eastern New York, states “it is apparent that the degree of weeviling at heights over 60 feet was as great as that for trees 10 to 20 feet tall.” However, Ostrander had comparatively few tall trees (trees over 60 feet) represented in his counts. Thus, for example, only 3 of his 97 trees reached 85 feet in height, and since 1 of these showed weevil attack at 85 feet, this height class was rated as 33 per cent weeviled.
White Pine Weevil Attack
41
At 60 feet, 21 out of the 97 trees were represented, 10 of whose 5-foot sections showed weevil attack at the 60-foot level. Thus, the trees in this height class were reported as 48 per cent weeviled.
Marty (1959), using both his own studies in southeastern New Hampshire and those of Ostrander cited above, made calculations to predict weevil-caused volume loss in white pine in which he assumed that the rate of weevil attack on a tree 5 to 10 feet tall is a fairly reliable indicator of the rate of attack it will sustain at greater heights.
In contrast to Ostrander’s study, our study, which includes the analysis of data from 981 trees 50 or more feet tall collected throughout the State, showed that there is a direct correlation between height of tree and weevil attack. These data are presented in table 16 and figure 8. Attack began at a low level, from 0 to the 5-foot height, increasing and reaching a peak at the 15- to 20-foot level and then diminishing to a very low level at 50 feet. It may be argued that the effects of weeviling at higher levels may be “diluted” by the presence of multiple leaders on repeatedly weeviled trees and that the true incidence of weeviling is not reflected. However, we are concerned in this report with damage to the main stem, and our observations indicate decreasing stem damage as the trees grow beyond 20 feet in height.
Conclusions
The data suggest that the presence or absence of mottling (rust spots) or hardpan (fragipan) or both in the soil, as shown by soil examinations to a 3-foot depth, may be used as a guide in the planting of white pine for timber production. The studies indicate that white pine can be grown with a minimum of weevil damage when soil mot¬ tling and/or hardpan are not present, provided the other soil require¬ ments, as suggested by Wilde (1958), are satisfied. The further con¬ clusion is obvious, that these principles might well form the basis of a white pine weevil control program, even if additional control by artificial means such as spraying (see Connola, McIntyre, and Yops (1955), and Crosby (1954)) may be necessary at times to keep weevil damage at a level such as to insure an adequate supply and good dis¬ tribution of nonweeviled trees for crop tree selection.
Should the examination of soil profiles to a depth of 3 feet be adopted as a prerequisite to the consideration of planting white pine on a particular site, it is suggested that such soil profiles be examined in all parts of the site to ascertain the presence or absence of mottling and/or hardpan, since depth to such layers may vary considerably, even within small areas.
42
New York State Museum and Science Service
Summary
A study of white pine weevil attack in relation to soils and other environmental factors was begun in New York in 1954 and completed in 1958. During that time, studies were made in 266 one-tenth acre sample plots located in all parts of the State, except the southeast corner. Of the 266 plots studied, 144 were on heavy (clayey) soils and 122 were on light (sandy) soils. Data pertaining to 46 factors or combinations of factors were collected from the plots. These data were entered on punch cards to facilitate analysis.
In selecting the sample plots, only white pine stands at least one acre in size and with trees over 16 feet tall were selected so that weevil damage to the 16-foot butt logs could be measured; 25 sample trees from each plot were also selected for more precise measurements, includ¬ ing the number of weevil attacks per 5-foot bole sections. The selected trees from all sample plots averaged 29 years in age, 35 feet in height, and 6.2 inches d.b.h. Of the 266 sample plots, nine were natural stands which were included to provide checks and standards for evalu¬ ating data from the artificial stands.
The study was divided into two parts. Part 1 dealt with the study of weevil attack in terms of damage to the stand, as related to soils and other environmental conditions. Part 2 dealt with the study of weevil attack as related to tree height exclusively, in association with soil class (soil texture) and stand damage.
Of the various factors analyzed in part 1 in both the natural stands and the plantations, only two showed a direct relationship to stand damage, namely, soil mottling and soil hardpan, either separately or in combination. The fact that the two generally occurred in com¬ bination would indicate that the expressed factor may actually be poor internal soil drainage. This condition apparently favors weevil attack.
The analysis of the data on the 266 sample plots showed that mottling and hardpan, either separately or in combination, occurred primarily on heavy soils rather than on light soils. However, regard¬ less of soil class, when studied on a state-wide basis, the greater the stand damage, the more prevalent the soil mottling or hardpan, or both, within 3 feet. The reverse was also true, with the least amount of stand damage occurring in the absence of soil mottling or hardpan regardless of soil class. However, since more mottling and hardpan occurred on heavy soils, it followed that more stand damage occurred there also.
Other factors studied, such as current weeviling and heavy tree distortion, were also correlated with stand damage. In other words,
White Pine Weevil Attack
43
the more stand damage, the more current weeviJing and tree distortion. Root penetration into the soil also appeared to be correlated with stand damage, but since depth of penetration was usually limited to the stratum at or just above soil mottling or hardpan when the latter were present, the relationship to stand damage was indirect.
Surface drainage also appeared to be somewhat related to stand damage, but since this factor often reflected internal drainage, the correlation with stand damage was also indirect.
Previously tilled soils appeared to have less weeviling, probably because, in general, these were physically the better soils for growing plants. However, many of them had soil mottling and hardpan, which appeared to have resulted from improper soil management. Stand damage under those conditions was generally heavy.
Soil gH apparently was not related to stand damage, though most of the readings were between 4.5 and 5-5, a range suitable for white pine growth. Other factors which apparently had no effect on stand damage were elevation and exposure of the plots, tree growth, and depth of the soil litter.
There appeared to be more stand damage associated with stands which were not pruned or thinned, but this may be because where there was heavy weevil damage no labor was spent on stand improve¬ ment. However, since the data suggest there is a good possibility that silvicultural treatment may have some effect on weevil attack, such effect would have to be measured by special studies.
Distribution of the nonweeviled trees in the plots was dependent on the amount of weevil attack. The more weeviled trees, the poorer the chance for good distribution of nonweeviled trees.
Analysis of the data in part 2 of the study showed that weevil attack was directly correlated with stand damage and tree height. The greater the weevil attack per stem at various height levels the heavier the stand damage, regardless of soil class. A study of 981 trees 50 feet or more tall taken from the state-wide distribution of the sample plots showed that, up to a height of 50 feet, weevil attack began at a low level at 5 feet or less, reached a peak at between 15 and 20 feet, and then steadily declined to a lower level at 50 feet.
Maps of New York are presented showing the locations of the sample plots, the soil class, and extent of stand damage on each. It is evident from these maps that the least amount of stand damage occurred on the light soils of the Adirondack region, and that the greatest amount of stand damage occurred on the heavy soils of the southern tier. A list of the sample plots with soil associations is also given.
A consideration of the factors mentioned should contribute
44
New York State Museum and Science Service
materially to a planting policy which will minimize white pine weevil damage.
The data summarized above suggest that if a stand with a mini¬ mum of weevil damage is to be expected, white pine should not be planted on a site where soil mottling or hardpan occurs within 3 feet of the surface. This implies that an adequate soil survey of a pro¬ posed white pine plantation site must be a part of the planting program.
Literature Cited Brown, W. G. E. & D. S. Lacate
1961. Rooting habits of white and red pine. Canada Dept, of Forestry, Forest Research Branch, Tech. Note No. 108,
pp. 1-16
Cline, A. C. & H. J. MacAloney
1931. A method of reclaiming severely weeviled white pine planta- tations. Mass. Forestry Assn. Bull. 152, pp. 1-12
Cline, M. G.
1955- Soils and soil associations of New York. N. Y. State Coll, of Agric., Cornell Extension Bull. 930, pp. 1-72, map, key
Connola, D. P., T. M. McIntyre, & C. J. Yops
1955. White pine weevil control by aircraft spraying. Jour. For. 53(12): 889-891
Crosby, D.
1954. How to control the white pine weevil with a hand sprayer. Northeastern Forest Expt. Sta. Forest Res. Notes No. 30, pp. 1-3
Fedkiw, J. & N. J. Stout
1960. Eastern white pine lumber grade price trends and relation¬ ships. The Northeastern Logger, Jan., pp. 14-15, 42-43
Fitch, Asa
1857- Fourth report on the noxious and other insects of the State of New York. Trans. N. Y. S. Agric. Soc. XVII, pp. 687-753
Graham, S. A.
1926. Biology and control of the white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi Peck. Cornell Univ. Agric. Expt. Bull. 449
White Pine Weevil Attack
45
Husch, B. & W. H. Lyford
1956. White pine growth and soil relationship in southeastern New Hampshire. New Hampshire Univ. Agric. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 95, pp. 1-29
Kriebel, H. B.
1954. Bark thickness as a factor in resistance to white pine weevil injury. Jour. For. 52(11): 842-845
MacAloney, H. J.
1943- The white pine weevil. U. S. Dept, of Agric. Circular 221 (revision of 1932 edition), pp. 1-31
1944. Relation of root condition, weather and insects to manage¬ ment of jack pine. Jour. For. 42(2): 124-9
Marty, R. J.
1959. Predicting weevil-caused volume loss in white pine. Forest Sci. 5 (3): 269-274
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station
1959. What’s known about managing eastern white pine. Station paper No. 121, pp. 1-69
Ostrander, M. D.
1957. Weevil attack apparently unrelated to height of eastern white pine. Northeastern Forest Expt. Sta., Forest Research Notes 67, pp. 1-2
Ostrander, M. D. & C. H. Stoltenberg
1957. Value loss from weevil-caused defects in eastern white pine lumber. Northeastern Forest Expt. Sta., Forest Research Notes 73, pp. 1-2
Pierson, H. B.
1922. Control of the white pine weevil by forest management. Harvard Forest Bull. 5, pp. 1-42
Plummer, C. C. & A. E. Pillsbury
1929. The white pine weevil in New Hampshire. Univ. New Hampshire Expt. Sta. Bull. 247, pp. 1-31
46
New York State Museum and Science Service
Shearer, T. D. & M. J. Ferree
1956. Volume tables for New York State forest plantations. N. Y. S. Conservation Dept., Div. Lands and Forests, Bur. State Forests, pp. 1-7
Spurr, S. H. & A. C. Cline
1942. Ecological forestry in central New England. Jour. For. 49(5): 418-420
Stone, E. L.
1955- Soil conditions limiting choice of species for farm forest planting. N. Y. S. Coll. Agric., Dept, of Conservation, mimeo. Leaflet 15, 3 pp.
1958. Make mine white. What’s cropping up in agronomy, N. Y. S. Coll. Agric., Vol. 2, No. 13, 58-U-2
Sullivan, C. R.
1960. The effect of physical factors on the activity and develop¬ ment of adults and larvae of the white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi (Peck). Can. Entomologist 92(10): 732-745
Waters, W. E., T. McIntyre, & D. Crosby
1955- Loss in volume of white pine in New Hampshire caused by the white pine weevil. Jour. For. 53(4): 271-274
Wilde, S. A.
1946. Forest soils and forest growth. Chronica Botanica Co., Waltham, Mass., pp. 1-241
1958. Forest soils, their properties and relation to silviculture. The Ronald Press Co., New York, pp. 1-537
White Pine Weevil Attack
47
Appendix I
Tables
48
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 1. WHITE PINE WEEVIL STUDIES
Distribution of sample plots according to #1 tree distribution in stand damage
Plots with 100 or more #1 trees per acre
|
Associated factors |
Total Plots |
Distribution Good |
Distribution Poor |
|||||||||
|
heavy No. |
soils % |
light soils No. % |
heavy No. |
soils % |
light soils No. % |
heavy soils No. % |
light No. |
soils % |
||||
|
Total number of plots . |
22 |
100 |
48 |
100 |
22 |
100 |
48 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mottling none . |
13 |
59 |
46 |
96 |
13 |
59 |
46 |
96 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mottling within 12" . |
5 |
23 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
23 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mottling 12" to 18" . |
3 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mottling beyond 18" . |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hardpan none . |
12 |
55 |
43 |
90 |
12 |
55 |
43 |
90 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hardpan within 12" . |
2 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hardpan 12" to 18" . |
2 |
9 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
9 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hardpan beyond 18" . |
6 |
27 |
3 |
6 |
6 |
27 |
3 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Root penetration within 12". . . . |
4 |
18 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
18 |
3 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Root penetration 12" to 18". . . . |
5 |
23 |
7 |
15 |
5 |
23 |
7 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Root penetration beyond 18".... |
13 |
59 |
38 |
79 |
13 |
59 |
38 |
79 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Surface drainage good . |
15 |
68 |
18 |
37 |
15 |
68 |
18 |
37 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Surface drainage fair . |
1 |
4 |
11 |
23 |
1 |
4 |
11 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Surface drainage poor . |
6 |
27 |
19 |
40 |
6 |
27 |
19 |
40 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Soil pH less than 4.5 . |
5 |
23 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
23 |
3 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Soil pH 4.5 to 5.5 . |
16 |
73 |
41 |
85 |
16 |
73 |
41 |
85 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Soil pH 5.6 to 6.5 . |
1 |
4 |
4 |
8 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Old tillage . |
20 |
91 |
26 |
54 |
20 |
91 |
26 |
54 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Soil litter less than 1" . |
3 |
14 |
9 |
19 |
3 |
14 |
9 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Growth poor . |
10 |
45 |
12 |
25 |
10 |
45 |
12 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Growth fair . |
9 |
41 |
34 |
71 |
9 |
41 |
34 |
71 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Growth good . |
3 |
14 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
14 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
§1 trees suppressed . |
0 |
0 |
8 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Exposure — north . |
6 |
27 |
7 |
15 |
6 |
27 |
7 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Exposure — east . |
0 |
0 |
4 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Exposure — south . |
6 |
27 |
12 |
25 |
6 |
27 |
12 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Exposure — west . |
4 |
18 |
4 |
8 |
4 |
18 |
4 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Exposure — none . |
6 |
27 |
21 |
44 |
6 |
27 |
21 |
44 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Elevation less than 1,000' . |
10 |
45 |
24 |
50 |
10 |
45 |
24 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Elevation 1,000'-1,500' . |
6 |
27 |
15 |
31 |
6 |
27 |
15 |
31 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Elevation l,500'-2,000' . |
4 |
18 |
9 |
19 |
4 |
18 |
9 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Elevation over 2,000' . |
2 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Current weeviling . |
7 |
32 |
12 |
25 |
7 |
32 |
12 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Weeviled trees heavily distorted. |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Plot trees thinned . |
5 |
23 |
12 |
25 |
5 |
23 |
12 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Plot trees pruned . |
10 |
45 |
16 |
33 |
10 |
45 |
16 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
White Pine Weevil Attack
49
classes (series b) and soil classes, as sssociated with other factors (total plots, 266)
Plots with less than 100 #1 trees per acre
Plots with no #1 trees per acre
|
Total Plots |
Distribution Good |
Distribution Poor |
Total Plots |
||||||||||||
|
heavy soils No. % |
light No. |
soils % |
heavy soils No. % |
light No. |
soils % |
heavy soils No. % |
light No. |
soils % |
heavy soils No. % |
light No. |
soils % |
||||
|
60 |
100 |
50 |
100 |
22 |
100 |
17 |
100 |
38 |
100 |
33 |
100 |
62 |
100 |
24 |
100 |
|
30 |
50 |
44 |
88 |
12 |
55 |
14 |
82 |
18 |
47 |
30 |
91 |
18 |
29 |
13 |
54 |
|
20 |
33 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
27 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
37 |
1 |
3 |
33 |
53 |
4 |
17 |
|
5 |
8 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
14 |
2 |
12 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
16 |
5 |
21 |
|
5 |
8 |
3 |
6 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
6 |
4 |
11 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
|
11 |
18 |
40 |
80 |
6 |
27 |
13 |
76 |
5 |
13 |
27 |
82 |
10 |
16 |
13 |
54 |
|
7 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
|
21 |
35 |
4 |
8 |
6 |
27 |
3 |
18 |
15 |
39 |
1 |
3 |
31 |
50 |
5 |
21 |
|
21 |
35 |
6 |
12 |
10 |
45 |
1 |
6 |
11 |
29 |
5 |
15 |
15 |
24 |
6 |
25 |
|
20 |
33 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
42 |
1 |
3 |
23 |
37 |
3 |
13 |
|
24 |
40 |
12 |
24 |
11 |
50 |
4 |
24 |
13 |
34 |
8 |
24 |
29 |
47 |
11 |
46 |
|
16 |
27 |
37 |
74 |
7 |
32 |
13 |
76 |
9 |
24 |
24 |
73 |
10 |
16 |
10 |
42 |
|
27 |
45 |
24 |
48 |
12 |
55 |
7 |
41 |
15 |
39 |
17 |
52 |
21 |
34 |
8 |
33 |
|
13 |
22 |
7 |
14 |
4 |
18 |
2 |
12 |
9 |
24 |
5 |
15 |
16 |
26 |
5 |
21 |
|
20 |
33 |
19 |
38 |
6 |
27 |
8 |
47 |
14 |
37 |
11 |
33 |
25 |
40 |
11 |
46 |
|
4 |
7 |
6 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
4 |
11 |
5 |
15 |
11 |
18 |
2 |
8 |
|
S3 |
88 |
43 |
86 |
22 |
100 |
15 |
88 |
31 |
82 |
28 |
85 |
46 |
74 |
19 |
79 |
|
3 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
3 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
8 |
3 |
13 |
|
42 |
70 |
27 |
54 |
14 |
64 |
8 |
47 |
28 |
74 |
19 |
58 |
46 |
74 |
8 |
33 |
|
15 |
25 |
12 |
24 |
5 |
23 |
3 |
18 |
10 |
26 |
9 |
27 |
15 |
24 |
3 |
13 |
|
30 |
50 |
10 |
20 |
8 |
36 |
2 |
12 |
22 |
58 |
8 |
24 |
26 |
42 |
7 |
29 |
|
30 |
50 |
38 |
76 |
14 |
64 |
14 |
82 |
16 |
42 |
24 |
73 |
36 |
58 |
17 |
71 |
|
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
3 |
5 |
3 |
6 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
9 |
— |
— |
— |
- |
|
23 |
38 |
13 |
26 |
8 |
36 |
4 |
24 |
15 |
39 |
9 |
27 |
20 |
32 |
6 |
25 |
|
4 |
7 |
5 |
10 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
6 |
3 |
7 |
4 |
12 |
9 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
|
13 |
22 |
10 |
20 |
6 |
27 |
2 |
12 |
7 |
18 |
8 |
24 |
14 |
23 |
7 |
29 |
|
7 |
12 |
6 |
12 |
2 |
9 |
3 |
18 |
5 |
13 |
3 |
9 |
9 |
15 |
2 |
8 |
|
13 |
22 |
16 |
32 |
5 |
23 |
7 |
41 |
8 |
21 |
9 |
27 |
10 |
16 |
9 |
38 |
|
8 |
13 |
26 |
52 |
3 |
14 |
9 |
52 |
5 |
13 |
17 |
52 |
11 |
18 |
12 |
50 |
|
23 |
38 |
20 |
40 |
10 |
45 |
8 |
47 |
13 |
34 |
12 |
36 |
20 |
32 |
8 |
33 |
|
23 |
38 |
4 |
8 |
7 |
32 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
42 |
4 |
12 |
26 |
42 |
4 |
17 |
|
6 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
|
33 |
55 |
18 |
36 |
10 |
45 |
2 |
12 |
23 |
60 |
16 |
48 |
32 |
52 |
11 |
46 |
|
22 |
37 |
7 |
14 |
3 |
14 |
1 |
6 |
19 |
50 |
6 |
18 |
37 |
60 |
9 |
38 |
|
23 |
38 |
12 |
24 |
11 |
50 |
5 |
29 |
12 |
32 |
7 |
21 |
12 |
19 |
2 |
8 |
|
22 |
37 |
10 |
20 |
9 |
41 |
4 |
24 |
13 |
34 |
6 |
18 |
14 |
23 |
6 |
25 |
50
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 2. WHITE PINE WEEVIL STUDIES
Distribution of sample plots according to #1, #2, #3 tree distribution in stand damage
Plots with 200 or more jfl & #2 & #3 trees per acre
Total Plots
Distribution Good
Distribution Poor
|
Associated factors |
heavy No. |
soils % |
light soils No. % |
heavy No. |
soils % |
light No. |
soils % |
heavy No. |
soils % |
light No. |
soils % |
|
|
Total number of plots . |
51 |
100 |
70 |
100 |
47 |
100 |
62 |
100 |
4 |
100 |
8 |
100 |
|
Mottling none . |
25 |
49 |
65 |
93 |
24 |
51 |
58 |
94 |
1 |
25 |
7 |
88 |
|
Mottling within 12" . |
T9 |
37 |
2 |
3 |
18 |
38 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mottling 12" to 18" . |
5 |
10 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
50 |
1 |
12 |
|
Mottling beyond 18" . |
2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hardpan none . |
17 |
33 |
61 |
87 |
17 |
36 |
54 |
87 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
88 |
|
Hardpan within 12" . |
3 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hardpan 12" to 18" . |
18 |
35 |
4 |
6 |
16 |
34 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hardpan beyond 18" . |
13 |
25 |
5 |
7 |
11 |
23 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
50 |
1 |
12 |
|
Root penetration within 12". . . . |
12 |
24 |
4 |
6 |
10 |
21 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
|
Root penetration 12" to 18". . . . |
19 |
37 |
14 |
20 |
18 |
38 |
10 |
16 |
1 |
25 |
4 |
50 |
|
Root penetration beyond 18". . . . |
20 |
39 |
52 |
74 |
19 |
40 |
48 |
77 |
1 |
25 |
4 |
50 |
|
Surface drainage good . |
25 |
49 |
28 |
40 |
24 |
51 |
26 |
42 |
1 |
25 |
2 |
25 |
|
Surface drainage fair . |
5 |
10 |
15 |
21 |
5 |
11 |
10 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
63 |
|
Surface drainage poor . |
21 |
41 |
27 |
39 |
18 |
38 |
26 |
42 |
3 |
75 |
1 |
12 |
|
Soil pH less than 4.5 . |
6 |
12 |
6 |
9 |
4 |
9 |
5 |
8 |
2 |
50 |
1 |
12 |
|
Soil pH 4.5 to 5.5 . |
42 |
82 |
59 |
84 |
40 |
85 |
52 |
84 |
2 |
50 |
7 |
88 |
|
Soil pH 5.6 to 6.5 . |
3 |
6 |
5 |
7 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Old tillage . |
43 |
84 |
37 |
53 |
41 |
87 |
31 |
50 |
2 |
50 |
6 |
75 |
|
Soil litter less than 1" . |
6 |
12 |
11 |
16 |
5 |
11 |
11 |
18 |
1 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
|
Growth poor . |
22 |
43 |
14 |
20 |
20 |
43 |
13 |
21 |
2 |
50 |
1 |
12 |
|
Growth fair . |
26 |
51 |
52 |
74 |
24 |
51 |
45 |
73 |
2 |
50 |
7 |
88 |
|
Growth good . |
3 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
#1 trees suppressed . |
0 |
0 |
10 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Exposure — north . |
17 |
33 |
12 |
17 |
16 |
34 |
8 |
13 |
1 |
25 |
4 |
50 |
|
Exposure — east . |
2 |
4 |
7 |
10 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
12 |
|
Exposure — south . |
12 |
24 |
17 |
24 |
11 |
23 |
15 |
24 |
1 |
25 |
2 |
25 |
|
Exposure — west . |
5 |
10 |
9 |
13 |
5 |
11 |
8 |
13 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
12 |
|
Exposure — none . |
15 |
29 |
25 |
36 |
13 |
28 |
25 |
40 |
2 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
|
Elevation less than 1,000' . |
10 |
20 |
32 |
46 |
10 |
21 |
30 |
48 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
25 |
|
Elevation 1,000'-1,500' . |
18 |
35 |
24 |
34 |
14 |
30 |
20 |
32 |
4 |
100 |
4 |
50 |
|
Elevation l,500'-2,000' . |
19 |
37 |
14 |
20 |
19 |
40 |
12 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
25 |
|
Elevation over 2,000' . |
4 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Current weeviling . |
24 |
47 |
13 |
19 |
23 |
49 |
12 |
19 |
1 |
25 |
1 |
12 |
|
Weeviled trees heavily distorted. |
11 |
22 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
21 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
|
Plot trees thinned . |
21 |
41 |
18 |
26 |
19 |
40 |
17 |
27 |
2 |
50 |
1 |
12 |
|
Plot trees pruned . |
24 |
47 |
22 |
31 |
23 |
49 |
18 |
29 |
1 |
25 |
4 |
50 |
White Pine Weevil Attack
51
classes (series a) and soil classes, as associated with other factors (total plots, 266)
Plots with less than 200 #1 & #2 & #3 trees per acre
Total Plots
Distribution Good
Distribution Poor
Plots with no §1 & Jfl & #3 trees per acre
Total Plots
|
heavy soils No. % |
light No. |
soils % |
heavy soils No. % |
light soils No. % |
heavy soils No. % |
light soils No. % |
heavy soils No. % |
light soils No. % |
|||||||
|
69 |
100 |
43 |
100 |
38 |
100 |
19 |
100 |
31 |
100 |
24 |
100 |
24 |
100 |
9 |
100 |
|
31 |
45 |
32 |
74 |
16 |
42 |
15 |
79 |
15 |
48 |
17 |
71 |
5 |
21 |
6 |
66 |
|
22 |
32 |
3 |
7 |
9 |
24 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
42 |
3 |
12 |
17 |
71 |
2 |
22 |
|
11 |
16 |
5 |
12 |
9 |
24 |
2 |
11 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
12 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
|
5 |
7 |
3 |
7 |
4 |
11 |
2 |
11 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
11 |
|
14 |
20 |
30 |
70 |
9 |
24 |
15 |
79 |
5 |
16 |
15 |
63 |
2 |
8 |
5 |
55 |
|
7 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
13 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
21 |
0 |
0 |
|
24 |
35 |
5 |
12 |
12 |
32 |
2 |
11 |
12 |
39 |
3 |
12 |
12 |
50 |
2 |
22 |
|
24 |
35 |
8 |
19 |
14 |
37 |
2 |
11 |
10 |
32 |
6 |
25 |
5 |
21 |
2 |
22 |
|
21 |
30 |
2 |
5 |
10 |
26 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
35 |
2 |
8 |
14 |
58 |
1 |
11 |
|
31 |
45 |
13 |
30 |
16 |
42 |
3 |
16 |
15 |
48 |
10 |
42 |
8 |
33 |
3 |
33 |
|
17 |
25 |
28 |
65 |
12 |
32 |
16 |
84 |
5 |
16 |
12 |
50 |
2 |
8 |
5 |
55 |
|
33 |
48 |
19 |
44 |
19 |
50 |
7 |
37 |
14 |
45 |
12 |
50 |
5 |
21 |
3 |
33 |
|
17 |
25 |
7 |
16 |
11 |
29 |
4 |
21 |
6 |
19 |
3 |
12 |
8 |
33 |
1 |
11 |
|
19 |
28 |
17 |
40 |
8 |
21 |
8 |
42 |
11 |
35 |
9 |
38 |
11 |
46 |
5 |
55 |
|
8 |
12 |
4 |
9 |
4 |
11 |
2 |
11 |
4 |
13 |
2 |
8 |
6 |
25 |
1 |
11 |
|
57 |
83 |
37 |
86 |
34 |
89 |
17 |
89 |
23 |
74 |
20 |
83 |
16 |
67 |
7 |
77 |
|
4 |
6 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
13 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
11 |
|
49 |
71 |
21 |
49 |
25 |
66 |
10 |
53 |
24 |
77 |
11 |
46 |
16 |
67 |
3 |
33 |
|
20 |
29 |
12 |
28 |
13 |
34 |
5 |
26 |
7 |
23 |
7 |
29 |
7 |
29 |
1 |
11 |
|
31 |
45 |
12 |
28 |
15 |
39 |
1 |
5 |
16 |
52 |
11 |
46 |
13 |
54 |
3 |
33 |
|
38 |
55 |
31 |
72 |
23 |
61 |
18 |
95 |
15 |
48 |
13 |
54 |
11 |
46 |
6 |
66 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
- |
— |
- |
— |
|
22 |
32 |
11 |
26 |
15 |
39 |
6 |
32 |
7 |
23 |
5 |
21 |
10 |
42 |
3 |
33 |
|
8 |
12 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
11 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
13 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
|
15 |
22 |
11 |
26 |
9 |
24 |
3 |
16 |
6 |
19 |
8 |
33 |
6 |
25 |
1 |
11 |
|
13 |
19 |
3 |
7 |
7 |
18 |
1 |
5 |
6 |
19 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
|
11 |
16 |
16 |
37 |
3 |
8 |
8 |
42 |
8 |
26 |
8 |
33 |
3 |
13 |
5 |
55 |
|
15 |
22 |
26 |
60 |
10 |
26 |
11 |
58 |
5 |
16 |
15 |
63 |
4 |
17 |
4 |
44 |
|
21 |
30 |
14 |
32 |
10 |
26 |
7 |
37 |
11 |
35 |
7 |
29 |
10 |
42 |
5 |
55 |
|
24 |
35 |
3 |
7 |
12 |
32 |
1 |
5 |
12 |
39 |
2 |
8 |
10 |
42 |
0 |
0 |
|
9 |
13 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
33 |
48 |
23 |
53 |
17 |
45 |
8 |
42 |
16 |
52 |
15 |
62 |
15 |
62 |
5 |
55 |
|
31 |
45 |
11 |
26 |
13 |
34 |
5 |
26 |
18 |
58 |
6 |
25 |
18 |
75 |
5 |
55 |
|
17 |
25 |
8 |
19 |
12 |
32 |
4 |
21 |
5 |
16 |
4 |
17 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
|
18 |
26 |
9 |
21 |
14 |
37 |
5 |
26 |
4 |
13 |
4 |
17 |
4 |
17 |
1 |
11 |
52
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 3. WHITE PINE WEEVIL STUDIES
Distribution of sample plots according to tree growth and soil classes, as associated with other factors (total plots, 266)
|
Plots with poor growth |
Plots with fair growth |
Plots with good growth |
||||||||||
|
Associated factors |
heavy No. |
soils % |
light No. |
soils % |
heavy No. |
soils % |
light soils No. % |
heavy No. |
soils % |
light No. |
soils % |
|
|
Total number of plots . |
66 |
100 |
29 |
100 |
. 75 |
100 |
89 |
100 |
3 |
100 |
4 |
100 |
|
Mottling none . |
24 |
36 |
22 |
76 |
36 |
48 |
78 |
88 |
1 |
33 |
3 |
75 |
|
Mottling within 12" . |
31 |
47 |
4 |
14 |
26 |
35 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mottling 12" to 18" . |
9 |
14 |
3 |
10 |
9 |
12 |
4 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
33 |
1 |
25 |
|
|
Hardpan none . |
16 |
24 |
21 |
72 |
15 |
20 |
72 |
81 |
2 |
66 |
3 |
75 |
|
9 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
24 |
36 |
4 |
14 |
30 |
40 |
7 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
17 |
26 |
4 |
14 |
24 |
32 |
10 |
11 |
1 |
33 |
1 |
25 |
|
|
Root penetration within 12". . . . |
27 |
41 |
4 |
14 |
20 |
27 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Root penetration 12" to 18". . . . |
23 |
35 |
7 |
24 |
34 |
45 |
22 |
25 |
1 |
33 |
1 |
25 |
|
Root penetration beyond 18". . . . |
16 |
24 |
18 |
62 |
21 |
28 |
64 |
72 |
2 |
66 |
3 |
75 |
|
Surface drainage good . |
25 |
38 |
11 |
38 |
37 |
49 |
39 |
44 |
1 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
|
Surface drainage fair . |
16 |
24 |
3 |
10 |
14 |
19 |
18 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
50 |
|
Surface drainage poor . |
25 |
38 |
15 |
52 |
24 |
32 |
32 |
36 |
2 |
66 |
2 |
50 |
|
Soil pH less than 4.5 . |
7 |
11 |
2 |
7 |
12 |
16 |
9 |
10 |
1 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
|
Soil pH 4.5 to 5.5 . |
56 |
85 |
23 |
79 |
57 |
76 |
76 |
85 |
2 |
66 |
4 |
100 |
|
Soil pH 5.6 to 6.5 . |
3 |
5 |
4 |
14 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Old tillage . |
54 |
82 |
13 |
45 |
52 |
69 |
44 |
49 |
2 |
66 |
4 |
100 |
|
Soil litter less than 1" . |
17 |
26 |
8 |
28 |
15 |
20 |
15 |
17 |
1 |
33 |
1 |
25 |
|
§ 1 trees suppressed . |
2 |
3 |
5 |
17 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
25 |
|
Exposure — north . |
20 |
30 |
6 |
21 |
28 |
37 |
20 |
22 |
1 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
|
Exposure — east . |
6 |
9 |
3 |
10 |
7 |
9 |
5 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
25 |
|
Exposure — south . |
12 |
18 |
3 |
10 |
20 |
27 |
23 |
26 |
1 |
33 |
3 |
75 |
|
Exposure — west . |
10 |
15 |
1 |
3 |
9 |
12 |
11 |
12 |
1 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
|
Exposure — none . |
18 |
27 |
16 |
55 |
11 |
15 |
30 |
34 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Elevation less than 1,000' . |
9 |
14 |
21 |
72 |
20 |
27 |
40 |
45 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
25 |
|
Elevation 1,000'-1,500' . |
23 |
35 |
6 |
21 |
24 |
32 |
34 |
38 |
2 |
66 |
3 |
75 |
|
Elevation l,500'-2,000' . |
26 |
39 |
2 |
7 |
26 |
35 |
15 |
17 |
1 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
|
Elevation over 2,000' . |
8 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Current weeviling . |
38 |
58 |
13 |
45 |
33 |
44 |
27 |
30 |
1 |
33 |
1 |
25 |
|
Weeviled trees heavily distorted. |
33 |
50 |
3 |
10 |
27 |
36 |
13 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Plot trees thinned . |
14 |
21 |
3 |
10 |
26 |
35 |
22 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
25 |
|
Plot trees pruned . |
22 |
33 |
6 |
21 |
24 |
32 |
25 |
28 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
25 |
White Pine Weevil Attack
53
Table 4. Distribution of sample plots on heavy and light soils according to stand damage classes (Fig. la and lb)
Series a*
Plots
|
heavy soils |
light soils |
|||
|
Stand damage class |
No. |
% of total |
No. |
% of total |
|
No jf 1 + #2 + #3 trees per acre . |
24 |
17 |
9 |
7 |
|
Less than 200 Jfl + §2 + #3 trees per |
||||
|
acre with distribution poor . |
31 |
21 |
24 |
20 |
|
Less than 200 #1 + #2 + #3 trees per |
||||
|
acre with distribution good . |
38 |
26 |
19 |
16 |
|
200 or more #1 + #2 + #3 trees per acre |
||||
|
with distribution poor . |
4 |
3 |
8 |
6 |
|
200 or more jfl + #2 + #3 trees per acre |
||||
|
with distribution good . |
47 |
33 |
62 |
51 |
|
Totals . |
144 |
100 |
122 |
100 |
* Distribution provides for the utilization of weeviled trees with at least 12 feet of butt with no weevil damage.
Series &**
|
Plots |
||||
|
heavy soils |
light soils |
|||
|
Stand damage class |
No. |
% of total |
No. |
% of total |
|
No #1 trees per acre . |
62 |
43 |
24 |
20 |
|
Less than 100 #1 trees per acre with dis¬ tribution poor . |
38 |
27 |
33 |
27 |
|
Less than 100 #1 trees per acre with dis¬ tribution good . |
22 |
15 |
17 |
14 |
|
100 or more #1 trees per acre with dis¬ tribution poor . |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
100 or more #1 trees per acre with dis¬ tribution good . |
22 |
15 |
48 |
39 |
|
Totals . |
144 |
100 |
122 |
100 |
** Distribution does not provide for utilization of weeviled trees.
54
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 5a. White pine weevil damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series a (Fig. 2a)
Plots
|
heavy soils (144) |
light soils (122) |
|||
|
Stand damage class |
No. |
% of 144 |
No. |
% of 122 |
|
With no #1 + #2 + #3 trees per acre. . . . |
24 |
17 |
9 |
7 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hard- |
||||
|
pan . |
18 |
12 |
3 |
2 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
4 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor |
||||
|
hardpan . |
1 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
|
With less than 200 #1 + #2 + #3 trees |
||||
|
per acre . |
69 |
48 |
43 |
35 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hard- |
||||
|
pan . |
34 |
24 |
8 |
7 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
21 |
14 |
5 |
4 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor |
||||
|
hardpan . |
10 |
7 |
27 |
22 |
|
With 200 or more #1 + #2 + #3 trees |
||||
|
per acre . |
51 |
35 |
70 |
57 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hard- |
||||
|
pan . |
24 |
17 |
5 |
4 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
10 |
7 |
4 |
3 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor |
||||
|
hardpan . |
15 |
10 |
61 |
50 |
White Pine Weevil Attack
55
Table 5b. White pine weevil damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. A comparison of stand damage classes in series b (Fig. 2b)
|
Plots |
||||
|
heavy soils (144) |
light soils (122) |
|||
|
Stand damage class |
No. |
% of 144 |
No. |
% of 122 |
|
With no #1 trees per acre . (a) with both soil mottling and hard- |
62 |
43 |
24 |
20 |
|
pan . |
40 |
28 |
9 |
7 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
12 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . (d) with neither soil mottling nor |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
hardpan . |
6 |
4 |
11 |
9 |
|
With less than 100 #1 trees per acre . (a) with both soil mottling and hard- |
60 |
42 |
50 |
41 |
|
pan . |
29 |
20 |
5 |
4 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
20 |
14 |
5 |
4 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . (d) with neither soil mottling nor |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
hardpan . |
10 |
7 |
39 |
32 |
|
With ICO or more # 1 trees per acre . (a) with both soil mottling and hard- |
22 |
15 |
48 |
39 |
|
pan . |
7 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . (d) with neither soil mottling nor |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
hardpan . |
10 |
7 |
43 |
35 |
56
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 5c. White pine weevil damage as related to depth of soil mottling and hardpan. Comparison of stand dam¬ age classes in series b
|
Factor incidence |
||||||
|
1 heavy soil |
light soil |
|||||
|
Stand damage class |
mot¬ tling |
hard- pan |
com¬ bined total |
mot¬ tling |
hard- pan |
com¬ bined total |
|
Plots with no #1 trees per acre (a) mottling and/or hard- pan within 12" depth. . |
33 |
6 |
39 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
|
(b) mottling and/or hard- pan 12" to 18" depth. . |
10 |
31 |
41 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
(c) mottling and/or hard- pan beyond 18" depth. . |
1 |
15 |
16 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
|
Totals . |
44 |
52 |
96 |
11 |
11 |
22 |
|
Plots with less than 100 ff\ trees per acre (a) mottling and/or hard- pan within 12" depth. . |
20 |
7 |
27 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
(b) mottling and/or hard- pan 12" to 18" depth. . |
5 |
21 |
26 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
(c) mottling and/or hard- pan beyond 18" depth. . |
5 |
21 |
26 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
|
Totals . |
30 |
49 |
79 |
6 |
10 |
16 |
|
Plots with 100 or more #1 trees per acre (a) mottling and/or hard- pan within 12" depth. . |
5 |
2 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
(b) mottling and/or hard- pan 12" to 18" depth. . |
3 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
|
(c) mottling and/or hard- pan beyond 18" depth . . |
1 |
6 |
7 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
|
Totals . |
9 |
10 |
19 |
2 |
5 |
7 |
White Pine Weevil Attack
57
Table 6a. White pine weevil damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. Comparison of stand damage classes in series a (Fig. 3a)
Heavy Soils
|
Plots |
||
|
No. in |
% of |
|
|
Stand damage class |
class |
class |
|
With no #1 + #2 -j- $3 trees per acre . |
24 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
18 |
75 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
4 |
17 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
1 |
4 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
1 |
4 |
|
With less than 200 #1 + #2 -f- #3 trees per acre . |
69 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
34 |
49 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
21 |
30 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
4 |
6 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
10 |
15 |
|
With 200 or more #1 + #2 + #3 trees per acre . |
51 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
24 |
47 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
10 |
20 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
2 |
4 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
15 |
29 |
Light Soils
|
With no § 1 + #2 + #3 trees per acre . |
9 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
3 |
33 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
1 |
11 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
5 |
56 |
|
With less than 200 #1 -j- #2 + #3 trees per acre . |
43 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
8 |
19 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
5 |
11 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
3 |
7 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
27 |
63 |
|
With 200 or more #1 + #2 + #3 trees per acre . |
70 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
5 |
7 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
4 |
6 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
61 |
87 |
58
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 6b. White pine weevil damage as related to soil mottling and hardpan. Comparison of stand damage classes in series b (Fig. 3b)
Heavy Soils
|
Plots |
||
|
No. in |
% of |
|
|
Stand damage class |
class |
class |
|
With no #1 trees per acre . |
62 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
40 |
65 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
12 |
19 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
4 |
6 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
6 |
10 |
|
With less than 100 #1 trees per acre . |
60 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
29 |
48 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
20 |
33 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
1 |
2 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
10 |
17 |
|
With 100 or more Jf\ trees per acre . |
22 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
7 |
32 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
3 |
14 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
2 |
9 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
10 |
45 |
Light Soils
|
With no #1 trees per acre . |
24 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
9 |
38 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
2 |
8 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
2 |
8 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
11 |
46 |
|
With less than 100 #1 trees per acre . |
50 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
5 |
10 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
5 |
10 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
1 |
2 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
39 |
78 |
|
With 100 or more #1 trees per acre . . |
48 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
2 |
4 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
3 |
6 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
43 |
90 |
White Pine Weevil Attack
59
Table 7a. White pine weevil damage as related to poor white pine growth, soil mottling, and soil hardpan. Com¬ parison of stand damage classes in series b (Fig. 4a)
Poor Growth
|
Plots |
||
|
No. in |
%oi |
|
|
Heavy Soils (66 plots) |
class |
class |
|
With no #1 trees per acre . |
26 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
18 |
69 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
3 |
12 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
4 |
15 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
1 |
4 |
|
With less than 100 #1 trees per acre . |
30 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
17 |
57 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
7 |
23 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
6 |
20 |
|
With 100 or more § 1 trees per acre . |
10 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
3 |
30 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
2 |
20 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
5 |
50 |
Light Soils (29 -plots')
|
With no #1 trees per acre . |
7 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
3 |
43 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
1 |
14 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
3 |
43 |
|
With less than 100 jfl trees per acre . |
10 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
1 |
10 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
2 |
20 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
7 |
70 |
|
With 100 or more #1 trees per acre . |
12 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
2 |
17 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
10 |
83 |
60
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 7b. White pine weevil damage as related to fair white pine growth, soil mottling, and soil hardpan. Com¬ parison of stand damage classes in series b (Fig. 4b)
Fair Growth
|
Plots |
||
|
Heavy Soils (75 plots ) |
No. in class |
%of class |
|
With no #1 trees per acre . |
36 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
22 |
61 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
9 |
25 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
5 |
14 |
|
With less than 100 jfl trees per acre . |
30 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
12 |
40 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
13 |
43 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
1 |
3 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
4 |
13 |
|
With 100 or more jfl trees per acre . |
9 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
3 |
33 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
1 |
11 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
1 |
11 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
4 |
44 |
Light Soils (89 plots')
|
With no #1 trees per acre . |
17 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
6 |
35 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
2 |
12 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
1 |
6 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
8 |
47 |
|
With less than 100 Jfl trees per acre . |
38 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . |
3 |
8 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
3 |
8 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
1 |
3 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
31 |
82 |
|
With 100 or more #1 trees per acre . |
34 |
100 |
|
(a) with both soil mottling and hardpan . ' . |
0 |
0 |
|
(b) with hardpan only . |
3 |
9 |
|
(c) with soil mottling only . |
0 |
0 |
|
(d) with neither soil mottling nor hardpan . |
31 |
91 |
White Pine Weevil Attack
61
Table 8. White pine growth as related to white pine weevil damage
Heavy Soils
Plots
Growth Class
No. in % of class class
Poor growth .
1. Plots with no #1 trees per acre .
2. Plots with less than 100 jf 1 trees per acre
3. Plots with 100 or more #1 trees per acre.
66
26
30
10
100
39
46
15
Fair growth .
1. Plots with no #1 trees per acre .
2. Plots with less than 100 #1 trees per acre
3. Plots with 100 or more #1 trees per acre.
75
36
30
9
100
48
40
12
Light Soils
|
Poor growth . 1. Plots with no jfl trees per acre . |
29 7 10 12 |
100 24 35 41 |
|
2. Plots with less than 100 #1 trees per acre . 3. Plots with 100 or more #1 trees per acre . |
||
|
Fair growth . |
89 17 38 34 |
100 19 43 38 |
|
1. Plots with no jfl trees per acre . |
||
|
2. Plots with less than 100 jfl trees per acre . 3. Plots with 100 or more jfl trees per acre . |
Table 9. White pine weevil damage as related to poor tree growth and colloid content of soil
62
New York State Museum and Science Service
* Percentages are weighted. Averages are based on sum total of all plots in each stand damage class.
White Pine Weevil Attack
63
Table 10. Distribution of the 266 sample plots on heavy and light soils according to the various factors analyzed
|
Associated factor |
Heavy soil plots (total plots = 144) |
Light soil plots (total plots =122) |
||
|
No. plots |
%of total |
No. plots |
%of total |
|
|
Mottling none . |
61 |
42 |
103 |
84 |
|
Mottling within 12" . |
58 |
40 |
7 |
6 |
|
Mottling 12" to 18" . |
18 |
13 |
7 |
6 |
|
Mottling beyond 18" . |
7 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
|
Hardpan none . |
33 |
23 |
96 |
79 |
|
Hardpan within 12" . |
15 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hardpan 12" to 18" . |
54 |
38 |
11 |
9 |
|
Hardpan beyond 18" . |
42 |
29 |
15 |
12 |
|
Root penetration within 12" . |
47 |
33 |
7 |
6 |
|
Root penetration 12" to 18" . |
58 |
40 |
30 |
24 |
|
Root penetration beyond 18" . |
39 |
27 |
85 |
70 |
|
Surface drainage good . |
63 |
44 |
50 |
41 |
|
Surface drainage fair . |
30 |
21 |
23 |
19 |
|
Surface drainage poor . |
51 |
35 |
49 |
40 |
|
Soil pH less than 4-5 . |
20 |
14 |
11 |
9 |
|
Soil pH 4.5 to 5-5 . |
115 |
80 |
103 |
84 |
|
Soil pH 5-6 to 6.5 . |
9 |
6 |
8 |
7 |
|
Old tillage . |
108 |
75 |
61 |
50 |
|
Soil litter less than 1" . |
33 |
23 |
24 |
20 |
|
Growth poor . |
66 |
46 |
29 |
24 |
|
Growth fair . |
75 |
52 |
89 |
73 |
|
Growth good . |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
|
#1 trees suppressed . |
3 |
2 |
11 |
9 |
|
Exposure — north . |
49 |
34 |
26 |
21 |
|
Exposure — east . |
13 |
9 |
9 |
7 |
|
Exposure — south . |
33 |
23 |
29 |
24 |
|
Exposure — west . |
20 |
14 |
12 |
10 |
|
Exposure — none . |
29 |
20 |
46 |
38 |
|
Elevation less than 1,000' . |
29 |
20 |
62 |
51 |
|
Elevation 1,000-1,500' . |
49 |
34 |
43 |
35 |
|
Elevation l,500'-2,000' . |
53 |
37 |
17 |
14 |
|
Elevation over 2,000' . |
13 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
|
Current weeviling . |
72 |
50 |
41 |
34 |
|
Weeviled trees heavily distorted . |
60 |
42 |
16 |
13 |
|
Plot trees thinned . |
40 |
28 |
26 |
21 |
|
Plot trees pruned . |
46 |
32 |
32 |
26 |
Table 11. WHITE PINE WEEVIL STUDIES
Geographical distribution oj sample plots according to stand damage classes and tree growth {total plots, 266)
64
New York State Museum and Science Service
.S3
c/3 <N HJ r— (
O ^
Pp
o
5/3
||
8 9
|
soils % |
100 28 |
39 44 |
50 28 11 22 72 6 |
|
heavy No. |
18 5 |
P" 00 |
ON cTi <N 'if cO i— l |
M
y o'
u =£
o
5/3
-G o
■Si
ca 0
■M </*^
.S3 ^
Q
c/3 'tT
O =tt=
in
o
Ph
.s ^
s ^
s ^
Ph ^
8 8
rt 0
li
>>
sz
m </"> <N
o n tuO 2
fi o
<U
nj 2 TJ
=fe
<N
=#=
%
<U
Sh
O
6
<2 <u o fc
43
%
o
wo
3
43
43
S
O
wo
-O
o
o
wo
* Too few sample plots for percentages to be considered.
Note — Percentages are based on the total in each soil class of each group of districts.
White Pine Weevil Attack
65
Table 12. WHITE PINE WEEVIL STUDIES
Natural stands. Distribution oj sample plots by soil classes as associated with other factors {total plots, 9)
|
Associated factors |
Heavy Soils |
Light Soils |
|||||||
|
plot number |
plot number |
||||||||
|
190N |
191 N |
216N |
217N |
238N |
239N |
265 N |
266N |
A* |
|
|
Mottling none . |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||
|
Mottling within 12" . |
X |
||||||||
|
Mottling 12" to 18" . |
X |
X |
|||||||
|
Mottling beyond 18" . |
|||||||||
|
Hardpan none . |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Hardpan within 12" . |
|||||||||
|
Hardpan 12" to 18" . |
|||||||||
|
Hardpan beyond 18" . |
X |
||||||||
|
Root penetration within 12". . . |
X |
X |
|||||||
|
Root penetration 12" to 18". . . |
X |
||||||||
|
Root penetration beyond 18". . |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||
|
Surface drainage good . |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||
|
Surface drainage fair . |
X |
||||||||
|
Surface drainage poor . |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
|
Soil pH less than 4.5 . |
|||||||||
|
Soil pH 4.5 to 5.5 . |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Soil pH 5.6 to 6.5 . |
|||||||||
|
Old tillage . |
|||||||||
|
Soil litter less than 1" . |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
|
Growth poor . |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||
|
Growth fair . |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||
|
Growth good . . |
|||||||||
|
#1 trees suppressed . |
t |
t |
|||||||
|
Exposure — north . |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
|
Exposure — east . . |
X |
||||||||
|
Exposure — south . |
X |
||||||||
|
Exposure — west . |
X |
||||||||
|
Exposure — none . |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
|
Elevation less than 1,000' . |
X |
X |
|||||||
|
Elevation 1,000'-1,500' . |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
|
Elevation l,500'-2,000' . |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
|
Elevation over 2,000' . |
X |
||||||||
|
Current weeviling . |
|||||||||
|
Weeviled trees heavily distorted |
X |
||||||||
|
Plot trees thinned . |
X |
||||||||
|
Plot trees pruned . |
X |
||||||||
|
Average age (yrs.) . |
55 |
64 |
56 |
31 |
29 |
53 |
48 |
40 |
62 |
|
Average height (ft.) . |
45 |
57 |
50 |
35 |
33 |
60 |
55 |
48 |
62 |
|
Average d.b.h. (in.) . |
14.5 |
14.3 |
13.9 |
10.1 |
9.0 |
13.4 |
14.5 |
9.9 |
10.2 |
|
Tree classification** |
|||||||||
|
n . |
0(0) |
6(27) |
5(16) |
0(0) |
1(3) |
7(19) |
10(35) |
17(53) |
23(36) |
|
#2 . |
7(33) |
14(64) |
12(38) |
1(3) |
0(0) |
13(36) |
11(38) |
2(6) |
14(22) |
|
#3 . |
3(14) |
0(0) |
2(6) |
0(0) |
2(5) |
1(3) |
3(10) |
4(13) |
7(11) |
|
#4 . |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
|
#5 . |
1(5) |
2(9) |
5(16) |
0(0) |
4(11) |
8(22) |
1(4) |
4(13) |
18(28) |
|
#6 . . . |
10(48) |
0(0) |
8(25) |
31(97) |
31(82) |
7(19) |
4(14) |
5(16) |
2(3) |
|
Total plot trees** . |
21(100) |
22(100) |
32(100) |
32(100) |
38(100) |
36(100) |
29(100) |
32(100) |
64(100) |
* Plot data incomplete; therefore, not included in general survey, t No #1 trees present.
** Figures in parentheses are percentages of the total number of trees in plot.
66
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 13. WHITE PINE WEEVIL STUDIES, 1954-58
|
Pertinent sample plot data |
Heavy soils |
Light soils |
Co7nhined plots |
|
Number of plots . |
144 |
122 |
266 |
|
Average age of trees (yrs.) . |
28 |
30 |
29 |
|
Average height of trees (ft.) . |
33 |
38 |
35 |
|
Average d.b.h. of trees (in.) . |
6.1 |
6.4 |
6.2 |
|
Average No. live original stock trees per tenth acre. . |
81 |
79 |
81 |
Table 14. Correlation of stand damage in the sample plots with the number of weevil attacks per
White Pine Weevil Attack
<u
<u
u
+->
O
v
Oh
a
</5
O o
r-t co G M <U
O * S
V
<U oS
P'S .H
^ £
Ph
a
w>
ot!
Cl ^ co h
£§U
< * a
|
G |
|
|
-d |
O |
|
co <U |
|
|
-d o |
|
|
<u ^-"s' |
4-J |
|
bjQ rj |
"d |
|
<pS -G |
<u |
|
<h v_y u |
'o. |
|
> |
a |
|
< |
a
o
co
O 5h
o tj
Oh
a
>
PS
4>
M
JS
t>0
0
CO
>s
►
pJ
4>
JS
to
to
o
CO
>>
>
PS
0>
-C
cS
Tj
<u
tJO
OS
PCS
--d
~d
c
<rS
''fe-TJ tu O
% o O bo
8 c
u. O
o •£
gj
•d -o o £
Ph
8 § 8
X -C «‘C
M HD
<u -r
•d -a
• d 'O £ ^ (A -d
o £
o £
s
68
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 15
Correlation of weevil attacks with tree height by 5-foot bole sections
5-foot hole
|
2 |
3 |
4 |
||||||
|
Soil and stand damage classes |
No. of sec¬ tions |
Av. no. attacks per section |
No. of sec¬ tions |
Av. no. attacks per section |
No. of sec¬ tions |
Av. no. attacks per section |
No. of sec¬ tions |
Av. no. attacks per section |
|
Plots on heavy soils with 100 or more jfl trees per acre with dis¬ tribution good . |
550 |
0.18 |
550 |
0.28 |
546 |
0.27 |
535 |
0.28 |
|
Plots on light soils with 100 or more #1 trees per acre with dis¬ tribution good . |
1,200 |
0.18 |
1,192 |
0.36 |
1,166 |
0.40 |
1,132 |
0.36 |
|
Plots on heavy soils with less than 100 § 1 trees per acre with dis¬ tribution good . |
550 |
0.35 |
550 |
0.53 |
550 |
0.60 |
543 |
0.56 |
|
Plots on light soils with less than 100 #1 trees per acre with dis¬ tribution good . |
425 |
0.35 |
425 |
0.66 |
425 |
0.63 |
420 |
0.44 |
|
Plots on heavy soils with less than 100 #1 trees per acre with dis¬ tribution poor . |
950 |
0.74 |
950 |
0.86 |
950 |
0.90 |
923 |
0.63 |
|
Plots on light soils with less than 100 jfl trees per acre with dis¬ tribution poor . |
825 |
0.48 |
825 |
1.00 |
821 |
0.85 |
807 |
0.62 |
|
Plots on heavy soils with no #1 trees per acre . |
1,550 |
0.81 |
1,550 |
1.10 |
1,547 |
1.01 |
1,474 |
0.71 |
|
Plots on light soils with no jfl trees per acre . |
575** |
0.63 |
600 |
1.06 |
598 |
1.05 |
591 |
0.81 |
* Bole section numbers indicate the height level represented on the boles of sample trees. Thus, Section #1 is 0 to 5 ft., Section #5 is 20 to 25 ft., etc.
** Figure is lower than for Section §2 because of data lacking from 25 trees.
There were no plots with 100 or more jfl trees per acre with poor distribution.
White Pine Weevil Attack
69
according to plot soil classes and stand damage classes (figure 7) section no*
|
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
||||||
|
No. of sec¬ tions |
Av. no. attacks per section |
No. of sec¬ tions |
Av. no. attacks per section |
No. of sec¬ tions |
Av. no. attacks per section |
No. of sec¬ tions |
Av. no. attacks per section |
No. of sec¬ tions |
Av. no. attacks per section |
No. of sec¬ tions |
Av. no. attacks per section |
|
497 |
0.26 |
432 |
0.21 |
354 |
0.20 |
270 |
0.096 |
177 |
0.034 |
113 |
0.018 |
|
1,046 |
0.23 |
915 |
0.18 |
789 |
0.11 |
580 |
0.076 |
418 |
0.022 |
261 |
0.011 |
|
503 |
0.34 |
388 |
0.30 |
261 |
0.18 |
159 |
0.28 |
129 |
0.11 |
118 |
0.008 |
|
404 |
0.37 |
366 |
0.30 |
318 |
0.17 |
251 |
0.064 |
174 |
0.034 |
121 |
0.017 |
|
801 |
0.41 |
585 |
0.31 |
314 |
0.32 |
208 |
0.29 |
129 |
0.19 |
98 |
0.092 |
|
751 |
0.42 |
642 |
0.26 |
475 |
0.20 |
346 |
0.13 |
204 |
0.069 |
127 |
0.031 |
|
1,215 |
0.51 |
846 |
0.45 |
570 |
0.43 |
409 |
0.31 |
251 |
0.12 |
108 |
0.080 |
|
552 |
0.53 |
488 |
0.43 |
386 |
0.25 |
295 |
0.11 |
190 |
0.01 |
81 |
0.00 |
70
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 16. Correlation of weevil attack with tree height by 5-foot bole sections of 981 white pine, 50 or more feet tall (figure 8)
|
Bole section number |
Height level on bole (ft.) |
Average number weevil attacks per section |
|
1 |
0- 5 |
0.22 |
|
2 |
5-10 |
0.42 |
|
3 |
10-15 |
0.50 |
|
4 |
15-20 |
0.51 |
|
5 |
20-25 |
0.41 |
|
6 |
25-30 |
0.41 |
|
7 |
30-35 |
0.30 |
|
8 |
35-40 |
0.24 |
|
9 |
40-45 |
0.085 |
|
10 |
45-50 |
0.03 |
Distribution oj the 981 trees in table 16 by forest districts New York State Forest District Number
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 & 13 |
|
|
No. of trees sampled |
67 |
30 |
26 |
134 |
118 |
110 |
113 |
18 |
139 |
58 |
98 |
70 |
White Pine Weevil Attack
71
Table 17. List of soil associations identified with sample plots*
Plot Plot
no. Soil association no. Soil association
1 Lacka wanna- Wellsboro
2 Lackawanna-Wellsboro
3 Oquaga-Lackawanna
4 Oquaga-Lackawanna
5 Lackawanna-Wellsboro
6 Lordstown
7 Lordstown
8 Lackawanna-Wellsboro
9 Lordstown
10 Lordstown
11 Lordstown-Volusia
12 Langford -Erie
13 Langford-Erie
14 Lordstown
15 Lordstown-Volusia
16 Langford-Erie
17 Langford-Erie
18 Lackawanna-Wellsboro
19 Lordstown
20 Lordstown
21 Lordstown
22 Oquaga-Lackawanna
23 Oquaga-Lackawanna
24 Lackawanna-Wellsboro
25 Lackawanna-Wellsboro
26 Oquaga-Lackawanna
27 Lordstown-Volusia
28 Lordstown-Volusia
29 Lordstown
30 Lordstown-Volusia
31 Honeoye-Lima
32 Lordstown-Volusia
33 Langford-Erie
34 Langford-Erie
35 Odessa-Schoharie
36 Lordstown-Volusia
37 Lordstown-Volusia
38 Lordstown-Volusia
39 Palmyra, Kars, & Herkimer
40 Lordstown-Volusia
41 Lordstown-Volusia
42 Odessa-Schoharie
43 Chenango-Tioga & Howard-Chagrin
44 Lordstown-Volusia
45 Lordstown-Volusia
46 Lordstown-Volusia
47 Lordstown-Volusia
48 Lordstown-Volusia
49 Lordstown-Volusia
50 Lansing-Conesus
51 Langford-Erie
52 Lordstown-Volusia
53 Lansing-Conesus
54 Lordstown-Volusia
55 Lordstown
56 Lordstown-Volusia
57 Lordstown-Volusia
58 Lordstown-Volusia
59 Colton & Adams
60 Hermon-Becket-Rockland
61 Colton & Adams
62 Hermon-Becket-Rockland
63 Colton & Adams
64 Colton & Adams
65 Colton & Adams
66 Colton & Adams
67 Worth-Empeyville-Westbury
68 Elmwood-Swanton
69 Alton, Colosse, & Ottawa
70 Collamer-Dunkirk
71 Colton & Adams
72 Worth-Empeyville-Westbury
73 Worth-Empeyville-Westbury
74 Worth-Empeyville-Westbury
75 Sodus-Ira
76 Camroden-Marcy
77 Camroden-Marcy
78 Empeyville-Westbury
79 Nellis-Amenia
80 Camroden-Marcy
81 Camroden-Marcy
82 Camroden-Marcy
83 Camroden-Marcy
84 Colton & Adams
85 Empeyville-Westbury
86 Empeyville-Westbury
87 Colton & Adams
88 Colton & Adams
89 Hermon-Becket-Rockland
90 Hermon-Becket-Rockland
91 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
92 Alton, Colosse, Hinckley & Colton
93 Alton, Colosse, Hinckley & Colton
94 Colton & Adams
95 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
96 Camroden-Marcy
97 Worth-Empeyville-Westbury
98 Worth-Empeyville-Westbury
99 Camroden-Marcy
100 Farmington & Nellis
101 Langford-Erie
102 Cazenovia-Ovid
103 Erie-Langford
104 Erie-Langford
105 Erie-Langford
106 Sacandaga-Ballston
107 Sacandaga-Ballston
108 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
109 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
110 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
* Field identification based on Cline, 1955.
72
New York State Museum and Science Service
Table 17. List of soil associations identified with sample plots* ( Continued )
Plot Plot
no. Soil association no. Soil association
111 Hermon-Becket-Rockland
112 Hermon-Becket-Rockland
113 Gloucester-Essex-Rock 1 and
114 Sacandaga-Ballston
115 Sacandaga-Ballston
116 Nellis- — Amenia
117 Nellis— Amenia
118 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
119 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
120 Nellis — Amenia
121 Colonie & Otisville
122 Colonie & Otisville
123 Colonie & Otisville
124 Sacandaga-Ballston
125 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
126 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
127 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
128 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
129 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
130 Panton-Vergennes
131 Hoosic
132 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
133 Colonie & Otisville
134 Colonie & Otisville
135 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
136 Hermon-Becket-Rockland
137 Troy-Cossayuna
138 Windsor-Hinckley
139 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
140 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
141 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
142 Panton-Vergennes
143 Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
144 Pittsfield, Wassaic, & Stockbridge
145 Pittsfield, Wassaic, & Stockbridge
146 Hoosic
147 Hoosic
148 Rockland, steep
149 Pittsfield, Wassaic, & Stockbridge
150 Pittsfield, Wassaic, & Stockbridge
151 Rhinebeck-Madalin
152 Hoosic
153 Rhinebeck-Madalin
154 Pittsfield, Wassaic, & Stockbridge
155 Pittsfield, Wassaic, & Stockbridge
156 Hoosic
157 Pittsfield, Wassaic, & Stockbridge
158 Troy-Cossayuna
159 Troy-Cossayuna
160 Troy-Cossayuna
161 Oquaga-Lackawanna
162 Lackawanna-Wellsboro
163 Lackawanna-Wellsboro
164 Troy-Cossayuna
165 Catskill-Wurtsboro
166 Rhinebeck-Madalin
167 Lordstown-Volusia
168 Lordstown-Volusia
169 Lordstown-Volusia
170 Erie-Langford