This report analyzes the gypsy moth's impact as a pest in collaborating states, suggesting ongoing control measures.
On April 15, 1940, the chief of the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Dr. Lee A. Strong, with the approval of the institutions with which they are affiliated, requested Dr. C. F. Korstian, dean, School of Forestry, Duke University, and Professor A. G. Ruggles, Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, to serve as a special committee of the bureau and make a study of the gypsy moth and the work carried on to combat this introduced insect by the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine and cooperating states. The committee was asked thoroughly to study the work being done on this insect, to analyze it, and procedures used in carrying out all phases of work. It was asked to give particular attention to the questions of the importance of this introduced insect as a pest and the needs of continuing active work against it. They were authorized to carry on their studies in a manner of their own choosing and advised that a report of their findings should be submitted in due time, together with such recommendations as they would care to make. The committee submitted its report to the chief of the bureau on February 3, 1941. Shortly thereafter copies of their report were transmitted by the chief of the bureau to cooperating and interested officials in certain federal and state organizations for consideration and comment. Subsequently, copies of their report were sent to other officials for their information and later, with the approval of the bureau, it was presented for discussion to the New England Section of the Society of American Foresters at its meeting held at Durham, N. H. In response to a request made at that meeting approval is given for its publication. The full report follows. AVERY S. HOYT, U. S. Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Korstian et al. (1941) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: