Comparative efficacy of five types of trap for woodborers in the Cerambycidae, Buprestidae and Siricidae

By R. Mcintosh, P. J. Katinic, Jeremy D. Allison, J. H. Borden, D. Downey. 2001

114 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Attractive responses by Monochamus galloprovincialis (Col., Cerambycidae) to host and bark beetle semiochemicals (2004, background): “For example, estimated degrade losses caused by cerambycid larvae in Canada have been set at $43 million annually in British Columbia (Phero Tech Inc. unpublished report, 1997, in McIntosh et al., 2001) or as high as 30% in log yards in Alberta (Safranyik and Raske, 1970).”
An improved trap for large wood-boring insects, with special reference to Monochamus scutellatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). (2002, background): “In addition, large woodborers may contact a multiple funnel trap and then fall outside of the funnel column, rather than inside, and thus avoid being captured in the collecting cup (McIntosh et al. 2001).”
A review of the chemical ecology of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) (2004, unknown): “Recent advances in trap designs for coniferophagous woodborers (de Groot & Nott 2001; McIntosh et al. 2001; Morewood et al. 2002a) should also improve the efficacy of mass trapping programs.”