appalachian forests
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

65
(FIVE YEARS 7)

H-INDEX

24
(FIVE YEARS 1)

Author(s):  
Nina Wurzburger ◽  
Jessie I. Motes ◽  
Chelcy Ford Miniat ◽  
Lindsay R. Boring ◽  
Katherine J. Elliott

2021 ◽  
Vol 496 ◽  
pp. 119398
Author(s):  
Ernest D. Osburn ◽  
Chelcy F. Miniat ◽  
Katherine J. Elliott ◽  
J.E. Barrett

2021 ◽  
pp. 105-147
Author(s):  
Mary A. Arthur ◽  
J. Morgan Varner ◽  
Charles W. Lafon ◽  
Heather D. Alexander ◽  
Daniel C. Dey ◽  
...  

Insects ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
M. Camille Hopkins ◽  
Steven D. Zink ◽  
Sally L. Paulson ◽  
Dana M. Hawley

Forest disturbance effects on La Crosse virus (LACV) are currently unknown. We determined the abundance of three LACV accessory vectors (Aedes albopictus, Ae. canadensis, and Ae. vexans) and the primary amplifying host (Eastern chipmunk; Tamias striatus), and tested for LACV prevalence in both vectors and chipmunks, across a gradient of experimental forest disturbance treatments in southwest Virginia. Forest disturbance significantly affected the abundance of LACV accessory vectors, with a higher abundance on disturbed sites for Ae. canadensis and Ae. vexans. However, there was no significant disturbance effect on chipmunk abundance. Forest disturbance significantly affected LACV prevalence in mosquito vectors, with most (80%) detections on unlogged control sites, which past work showed harbor the highest abundance of the two most common LACV vectors (the primary vector Aedes triseriatus, and Ae. japonicus). Interestingly, LACV nucleic acid was only detected in Ae. japonicus and Culex pipiens/restuans, with no detections in the primary vector, Ae. triseriatus. In contrast to the vector results, antibodies were only found in chipmunks on logged sites, but this result was not statistically significant. Overall, our results suggest that human LACV risk should generally decline with logging, and reveal the potential importance of accessory vectors in LACV maintenance in Appalachian forests.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A Maigret ◽  
John J Cox ◽  
Jian Yang
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 127 ◽  
pp. 50-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest D. Osburn ◽  
Katherine J. Elliottt ◽  
Jennifer D. Knoepp ◽  
Chelcy F. Miniat ◽  
J.E. Barrett

2018 ◽  
Vol 151 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly A. Wantuch ◽  
Nathan P. Havill ◽  
E. Richard Hoebeke ◽  
Thomas P. Kuhar ◽  
Scott M. Salom

AbstractThe pine bark adelgid, Pineus strobi (Hartig) (Hemiptera: Adelgidae), is an herbivore native to eastern North America that specialises on eastern white pine, Pinus strobus Linnaeus (Pinaceae). Little is known about P. strobi, especially in its southern range in the Appalachian Mountains, United States of America, and the composition of its predator complex has not yet been documented in this region. The current study identifies arthropod predators associated with P. strobi in Appalachian forests of Virginia based on a two-year survey. Predators were identified using morphology and DNA barcoding. Predator species include: Laricobius rubidus LeConte (Coleoptera: Derodontidae), Leucopis piniperda Malloch (Diptera: Chamaemyiidae), and Leucopis argenticollis Zetterstedt (Diptera: Chamaemyiidae), that are known adelgid specialists. Also found were predators from the families Cecidomyiidae (Diptera), Coccinellidae (Coleoptera), Chrysopidae (Neuroptera), Hemerobiidae (Neuroptera), and Syrphidae (Diptera). The Cecidomyiidae were especially diverse, with 14 different species inferred from their DNA barcodes. Knowledge of this predator complex is particularly valuable for anticipation and detection of potential interactions between native predator species and those that are being considered for the introduction for biological control of invasive adelgid pests within the southern Appalachian ecosystem.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document