Emerald Ash Borer Detection Efforts: From Girdled Trees to Purple Traps

1. Emerald Ash Borer Detection Efforts: From Girdled Trees to Purple Traps

2. Therese M. Poland, Deborah G. McCullough, Deepa Pureswaran, Cesar Rodriguez, Andrea Anulewicz, and David Cappaert

3. The Problem • Early detection & delimitation are virtually impossible • Signs and symptoms do not appear for 1+ years after attack • By then adults may have spread • New tools for detection are desperately needed!

4. Trap Tree Studies

6. 2003 Trap Tree Study 3 Sites (6 reps/trt/site) Healthy ash Girdled ash Hypo-hatchet + herbicide ash 6 ft trap logs: green, white, black ash

7. 2003 Results

8. 2004 Trap Tree Study Is it the wound itself or stress causedby girdling that increases attraction?

10. 2004 Results a b b b

11. 2005 Trap Tree Study Stress Agents and Trap Height • Girdled • Healthy • Herbicide • Methyl Jasmonate (stress hormone) • 4 sites, 18 replicates total • Half in open sites • Half in closed canopy

12. 2005 Trap Tree Study Girdled – open Girdled - closed

13. 2005 Trap Tree Study Herbicide – open Herbicide - closed

14. 2005 Trap Tree Study Purple panel High band Low band MeJA dispenser Girdle

15. 2005 Trap Tree Study Methyl-Jasmonate bubble caps strungin canopy 10 per tree

16. 2005 Results Mean number of EAB, 4 sites (N=20) bc ab a b b b

17. 2005 ResultsMean Number of EAB per Treeby Trap Type

18. 2005 Results Open-grown trees are more attractive to EAB 2005

19. 2006 Trap Tree Study • 40 Replicates of 4 treatments at 4 sites: • Control untreated ash trees • Girdled ash trees • Ash trees with 6 Manuka oil clusters on trunk • Ash trees exposed to 20 MeJA bubble caps in canopy

20. 2006 Results Mean Number of EAB, 4 Sites (N=40) a b b b a b b b

21. 2006 Results Open-grown trees are more attractive to EAB 2006

22. Trap Tree Studies Conclusions • 5 years , 122 replicates • 14 field sites (variable EAB populations & tree shading) • Girdled trees consistently the best treatment • Girdled trees captured significantly more EAB than healthy trees (approx. 10x) at low density sites • Larval densities were significantly higher in girdled than healthy trees • Low sticky bands caught as many or more EAB as high bands or traps in the canopy • Open-grown trees catch more EAB

23. Analysis of Ash Volatiles to Identify Attractants for EAB

24. Volatile Collection • Insect feeding damage 10 EAB in screen cages for 5 days • Methyl Jasmonate (MeJA) stress hormone spray 50ml of 0.03% solution • Mechanical damage 20% of leaf area removed with scissors • Healthy control

25. Insect Damage E-B-ocimene nonatriene linalool Z-3hexenylacetate indolizine Methyl Jasmonate E,E-a-farnesene Control Retention Time (min)

26. Control Insect Damage MeJA 400 200 0 E,E-a-farnesene Z3-hexenyl acetate nonatriene linalool E2-hexenal Quantity of volatile (ng/g/h + SE) Z3-hexenol Eb-ocimene Z-jasmone 3-Methylbutyl- aldoxime indole 2-methylbutyl-aldoxime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Compound Number

27. EAB Antennal Responses FID nonatriene hexenal E2methylbutyl- aldoxime E,E-a-farnesene Z3-hexenyl- acetate linalool hexenol Eb-ocimene Z3-hexenol Z3methylbutylaldoxime GC-EAD

28. EAB Antennal Dose Response Profiles * * * * * * Males * * Females * * * * * EAG Amplitude (mV ± SEM) * * 2-Methyl- butylaldoxime * * * Cartridge Dosage

29. EAB Antennal Dose Response Profiles Males * Females * * * * EAG Amplitude (mV ± SEM) (Z)-jasmone Cartridge Dosage

30. Attraction of EAB to Stressed or HealthyAsh Seedlings in Olfactometer Bioassay % No Choice N Clean Air Treatment * 52 55.7 InsectDamage 38 23.6 n.s. * 32 21.8 MeJA 41 29.3 n.s. 57 44.0 n.s. Healthy 30 26.7 n.s. 77 36.4 Clean Air n.s. 75 25 0 25 75 100 50 50 100 Percent Response

31. Field Trapping Studies

32. a ab ab b b

34. A Multi-Component Trap for EAB • Overall Visual Silhouette • 10’ tall pole simulates tree bole • Panels simulate tree crown • Purple color is attractive to EAB • Traps in sunny open locations Top panel baited with Leaf Blend Bottom panel baited with Bark Blend

35. Highly apparent placement may reduce competition between trap & nearby ash trees • Can install traps along roadsides, in open areas or just outside forested area • Logistically simple & efficient to monitor

36. Experimental Design - 2006 • 6 Field Sites • 40 Replicates (5-10 per site) • 4 Treatments: • Leaf Blend + Bark Blend + Texture • Leaf Blend + Texture • Bark Blend + Texture • Leaf Blend + Bark Blend

37. Trapping Results - 2006 • Captured 4,060 EAB • Leaving off Leaf Blend reduced attraction • Leaving off Bark Blend or Texture did not reduce attraction

38. Experimental Design - 2007 8 sites: moderate to very low EAB densities: forest edge, roadside, open field 2 - 7 blocks per site, 31 traps per treatment • 5 Treatments: • DD: no lures • DD: Leaf + Manuka • DD: Leaf + Manuka + Extracts • Tower: Leaf + Bark + Extracts • Single: Leaf + Bark + Extracts

39. x Girdled trees x Ash plantation Conifers Kellogg Forest – EAB Detection Site EAB not known to be present 4 EAB caught on DD-L+M trap 28 Jun, 11 July, 17 July No EAB adults or larvae on 2 girdled trees ≈ 150 m away

40. Conclusions • Girdled trees are consistently the most attractive trap trees • Girdled trap trees and purple traps can catch EAB at low-density sites and can detect new infestations • Purple traps are more attractive than green traps • Baited traps are more attractive than unbaited traps • Large silhouette traps at the ground are at least as attractive or more attractive than canopy traps • Double decker traps are more attractive than single panel or tower traps

41. Using traps operationally - Issues to consider… • Pestick was re-applied after heavy rain(s). • Traps need to be checked fairly often (e.g. 2 wk intervals?) or beetles may fall off. • Accumulation of flies (esp. green traps) or other insects may require panel to be scraped & Pestick re-applied.

42. Acknowledgements MSU:Kaeli Chambers, Tara Dell, Erin Burkett, Chenin Limbach, Bob McDonald, Ben Schmidt, James Wieferich US Forest Service:Stephen Burr, Alison Wroblewski, Tina Kuhn, Toby Petrice Funding: USDA Forest Service MSU’s Project GREEEN