A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A Comment on “Management for Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Suppression: Does Relevant Science Support Current Policy?”
There are two general approaches for reducing the negative impacts of mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, on forests. Direct control involves short-term tactics designed to address current infestations by manipulating mountain pine beetle populations, and includes the use of fire, insecticides, semiochemicals, sanitation harvests, or a combination of these treatments. Indirect control is preventive, and designed to reduce the probability and severity of future infestations within treated areas by manipulating stand, forest and/or landscape conditions by reducing the number of susceptible host trees through thinning, prescribed burning, and/or alterations of age classes and species composition. We emphasize that “outbreak suppression” is not the intent or objective of management strategies implemented for mountain pine beetle in the western United States, and that the use of clear, descriptive language is important when assessing the merits of various treatment strategies.
A Comment on “Management for Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Suppression: Does Relevant Science Support Current Policy?”
There are two general approaches for reducing the negative impacts of mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, on forests. Direct control involves short-term tactics designed to address current infestations by manipulating mountain pine beetle populations, and includes the use of fire, insecticides, semiochemicals, sanitation harvests, or a combination of these treatments. Indirect control is preventive, and designed to reduce the probability and severity of future infestations within treated areas by manipulating stand, forest and/or landscape conditions by reducing the number of susceptible host trees through thinning, prescribed burning, and/or alterations of age classes and species composition. We emphasize that “outbreak suppression” is not the intent or objective of management strategies implemented for mountain pine beetle in the western United States, and that the use of clear, descriptive language is important when assessing the merits of various treatment strategies.
A Comment on “Management for Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Suppression: Does Relevant Science Support Current Policy?”
Christopher J. Fettig (author) / Kenneth E. Gibson (author) / A. Steven Munson (author) / Jose F. Negrón (author)
2014
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
| DOAJ | 2014
Subwatershed-Level Lodgepole Pine Attributes Associated with a Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak
| DOAJ | 2018
Impact of a Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak on Young Lodgepole Pine Stands in Central British Columbia
| DOAJ | 2015
Modeling a Historical Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Using Landsat MSS and Multiple Lines of Evidence
| Online Contents | 2014