Aspect influence on productivity when applying the deferment harvest method in mixed-oak hardwood forests in West Virginia

PARASITOIDS OF A LOOPER COMPLEX (LEPIDOPTERA: GEOMETRIDAE) IN WEST VIRGINIA

The Canadian Entomologist ◽

10.4039/ent1221041-9 ◽

1990 ◽

Vol 122 (5) ◽

pp. 1041-1043 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Linda Butler

Keyword(s):

West Virginia ◽

Hardwood Forests ◽

Fall Cankerworm ◽

Study Sites

From 1981 to 1984, a “looper” complex was responsible for the defoliation of approximately 648 000 ha of hardwood forests in several counties of eastern West Virginia. The complex consisted primarily of four species of Geometridae (Lepidoptera) with larval composition at three study sites in 1983 ranging from 77 to 94% for the half-wing geometer, Phigalia titea (Cramer); 2-13% for the linden looper, Erannis tiliaria (Harris); 8% for Phigalia strigataria (Minot); and 1–2% for the fall cankerworm, Alsophila pometaria (Harris) (Butler 1985a, 1985b, 1986).

Download Full-text

A comparison of four methods for determining leaf area index in successional hardwood forests

Canadian Journal of Forest Research ◽

10.1139/x85-187 ◽

1985 ◽

Vol 15 (6) ◽

pp. 1154-1158 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Thomas W. Jurik ◽

George M. Briggs ◽

David M. Gates

Keyword(s):

Leaf Area Index ◽

Leaf Area ◽

Hardwood Forests ◽

Litter Fall ◽

Area Index ◽

Tree Diameter ◽

Leaf Mass ◽

The Vertical Distribution ◽

Harvest Method ◽

Do So

Four methods of determining leaf area index of three successional hardwood forests in northern lower Michigan were compared. Direct harvests gave values for leaf area index ranging from 1.4 to 3.6. Estimates of leaf area index derived from litter fall data were consistently higher than the harvest values and were highly dependent on the ratio of leaf area to leaf mass, which had to be estimated. A visual method using sightings through a tube gave values consistently lower (by 27–42%) than the harvest values. Calculations of leaf area index based on regressions of leaf mass versus tree diameter gave results very close to the harvest values for each site as a whole; calculations for smaller plots were more variable. The harvest method allowed measurement of the vertical distribution of leaf area; the other methods could not do so.

Download Full-text