Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine
Analysis of intensity of cockchafer distribution in Ukraine and Poland is carried out. Methods and ways of pest control are evaluated. Complex approaches to application of means and methods of forest stands protection are presented. Attention is paid to wider introduction of forestry methods for the...
Saved in:
| Date: | 2009 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Український ордена "Знак Пошани" НДІ лісового господарства та агролісомеліорації ім. Г.М. Висоцького Держкомлісгоспу та НАН України
2009
|
| Online Access: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/16462 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Journal Title: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Cite this: | Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine / M. Niemczyk, I. Neyko // Лісівництво і агролісомеліорація: Зб. наук. пр. — Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. — Вип. 116. — С. 24-31. — Бібліогр.: 36 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-16462 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
Niemczyk, M. Neyko, I. 2011-02-11T14:20:22Z 2011-02-11T14:20:22Z 2009 Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine / M. Niemczyk, I. Neyko // Лісівництво і агролісомеліорація: Зб. наук. пр. — Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. — Вип. 116. — С. 24-31. — Бібліогр.: 36 назв. — англ. 0459-1216 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/16462 630*453 Analysis of intensity of cockchafer distribution in Ukraine and Poland is carried out. Methods and ways of pest control are evaluated. Complex approaches to application of means and methods of forest stands protection are presented. Attention is paid to wider introduction of forestry methods for the restriction of pest distribution. Приведен анализ интенсивности распространения майского хруща в Украине и Польше. Оценены методы и способы борьбы с вредителем. Предложены комплексные подходы к применению средств и методов защиты лесных насаждений. Акцентировано внимание на более широком внедрении биологических и лесоводственных методов ограничения распространения вредителя. Наведено аналіз інтенсивності поширення травневого хруща в Україні та Польщі. Оцінено методи та способи його контролювання. Запропоновані комплексні підходи до застосування засобів і методів захисту лісових насаджень. Акцентовано увагу на ширшому запровадженні біологічних і лісівничих методів обмеження поширення шкідника. en Український ордена "Знак Пошани" НДІ лісового господарства та агролісомеліорації ім. Г.М. Висоцького Держкомлісгоспу та НАН України Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine Методы ограничения численности популяций майского хруща в лесном хозяйстве Польши и Украины Методи обмеження чисельності популяцій травневого хруща у лісовому господарстві Польщі та України Article published earlier |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| title |
Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine |
| spellingShingle |
Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine Niemczyk, M. Neyko, I. |
| title_short |
Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine |
| title_full |
Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine |
| title_fullStr |
Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine |
| title_sort |
methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of poland and ukraine |
| author |
Niemczyk, M. Neyko, I. |
| author_facet |
Niemczyk, M. Neyko, I. |
| publishDate |
2009 |
| language |
English |
| publisher |
Український ордена "Знак Пошани" НДІ лісового господарства та агролісомеліорації ім. Г.М. Висоцького Держкомлісгоспу та НАН України |
| format |
Article |
| title_alt |
Методы ограничения численности популяций майского хруща в лесном хозяйстве Польши и Украины Методи обмеження чисельності популяцій травневого хруща у лісовому господарстві Польщі та України |
| description |
Analysis of intensity of cockchafer distribution in Ukraine and Poland is carried out. Methods and ways of pest control are evaluated. Complex approaches to application of means and methods of forest stands protection are presented. Attention is paid to wider introduction of forestry methods for the restriction of pest distribution.
Приведен анализ интенсивности распространения майского хруща в Украине и Польше. Оценены методы и способы борьбы с вредителем. Предложены комплексные подходы к применению средств и методов защиты лесных насаждений. Акцентировано внимание на более широком внедрении биологических и лесоводственных методов ограничения распространения вредителя.
Наведено аналіз інтенсивності поширення травневого хруща в Україні та Польщі. Оцінено методи та способи його контролювання. Запропоновані комплексні підходи до застосування засобів і методів захисту лісових насаджень. Акцентовано увагу на ширшому запровадженні біологічних і лісівничих методів обмеження поширення шкідника.
|
| issn |
0459-1216 |
| url |
https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/16462 |
| citation_txt |
Methods of restrictions in the number of cockchafer population in the forestry of Poland and Ukraine / M. Niemczyk, I. Neyko // Лісівництво і агролісомеліорація: Зб. наук. пр. — Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. — Вип. 116. — С. 24-31. — Бібліогр.: 36 назв. — англ. |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT niemczykm methodsofrestrictionsinthenumberofcockchaferpopulationintheforestryofpolandandukraine AT neykoi methodsofrestrictionsinthenumberofcockchaferpopulationintheforestryofpolandandukraine AT niemczykm metodyograničeniâčislennostipopulâciimaiskogohruŝavlesnomhozâistvepolʹšiiukrainy AT neykoi metodyograničeniâčislennostipopulâciimaiskogohruŝavlesnomhozâistvepolʹšiiukrainy AT niemczykm metodiobmežennâčiselʹnostípopulâcíitravnevogohruŝaulísovomugospodarstvípolʹŝítaukraíni AT neykoi metodiobmežennâčiselʹnostípopulâcíitravnevogohruŝaulísovomugospodarstvípolʹŝítaukraíni |
| first_indexed |
2025-11-26T16:43:57Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-11-26T16:43:57Z |
| _version_ |
1850628788007731200 |
| fulltext |
ЛІСІВНИЦТВО І АГРОЛІСОМЕЛІОРАЦІЯ
Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. – Вип. 116
24
UDK 630*453
M. NIEMCZYK1, I. NEYKO2 *
METHODS OF RESTRICTIONS IN THE NUMBER OF COCKCHAFER POPULATION
IN THE FORESTRY OF POLAND AND UKRAINE
1. Forest Research Institute (Poland)
2. State Enterprise "Vinnitsa Forest Research Station" of URIFFM
Analysis of intensity of cockchafer distribution in Ukraine and Poland is carried out. Methods and ways of pest control
are evaluated. Complex approaches to application of means and methods of forest stands protection are presented.
Attention is paid to wider introduction of forestry methods for the restriction of pest distribution.
K e y w o r d s : cockchafer, methods and means of forest protection.
Introduction. Problem of forest protection from pests and diseases and issues of forest
pathology are growing in importance for forestry and forest regeneration. In many countries of the
world the forestry can observe big damages from various diseases. Only in the last decades the
areas of damaged forest stands have increased in tens and hundreds times. Intensive distribution of
diseases and forest pests demands development and introduction of the most effective methods of
their control.
As a result of the alliance of many European countries of the European Union, general
European standards concerning methods and ways of plant protection are applied more and more
often. They demand coordinated approach from the EU member countries. At the same time, the
new states which have acceded to EU have a number of complications. These complications are
connected with unification of the legal statuses concerning application of the means of protection
and restrictions in application of chemical control methods. In this case new EU members appeared
not to be ready for the change of rules and principles of application of plant protection means. Some
uncertainty concerning application of preparations of plant protection has led to intensive
distribution of pests and diseases in the environment. New normative and legal regulations of the
EU stipulate essential reduction of the list of chemical preparations that can be applied and
development of biological control methods.
In the last decades much attention have been paid to biological control methods. The
application of biological means of protection demands significant time for their testing. It is caused
by the fact that their introduction in environment can lead to unexpected consequences in
ecosystems. To coordinate efforts of researchers from different countries as well as to exchange
experience in the development and application of biological methods, the International organization
on biological control has been created. In 2001, at the 8-th session of General Assembly in Poznan
(Poland) a new structure of the constant commissions, including biological protection of forests has
been formed [5].
Integration of new countries into the structures of the European Community demands
acceptance of certain measures on development and introduction of new methods of pest control.
These questions are equally urgent for countries which strive for integration into EU, and Ukraine is
one of them.
Today in Poland only one chemical preparation which can be applied in natural habitat against
harmful insects control is registered. Forests in Poland are certified under the program FSC.
Regulations of FSC forbid application of chemical means of protection in forests. In Ukraine the list
of preparations which can be applied in forest protection remains very short in spite of long-term
researches carried out by scientists. Chemical preparations which reduce damage of roots by
Cockchafer grubs in forest plantations are not included as well. Today in Ukraine there are no
registered preparations for Cockchafer control. Therefore, preventive maintenance and protection of
pine stands from Cockchafer is possible on the basis of knowledge of biological features of the pest
[26].
* © M. Niemczyk, I. Neyko, 2009
ЛІСІВНИЦТВО І АГРОЛІСОМЕЛІОРАЦІЯ
Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. – Вип. 116
25
Essential reduction of applied chemical preparations in forestry has led to mass development of
forest pests. The latter is represented by Cockchafer, which distribution is of great danger. Today
the fifth part of the general area of the damaged forest stands consists of forest stands damaged by
Cockchafer. In Europe Cockchafer is the most dangerous pest of forest ecosystems. Cockchafer is
distributed in the most parts of Europe and Asia. The most frequent are the Common Cockchafer
(Melolontha melolontha L.), and Forest Cockchafer (Melolontha hippocastani F.).
The Common Cockchafer (Melolontha melolontha) can be found almost everywhere in
Europe: Albany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Macedonia,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Serbia and Montenegro, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus,
Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. It can be found also in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. In the north it
is distributed up to the south of Sweden. In Poland it is widely distributed in the lowland and at
lower elevations in the mountains. It occurs in the forests and fields, most abundantly in the South
and West of the country. In Poland it is as common as M. melolontha although not as frequent. It is
more abundant in the forested areas than in the agricultural lands, mainly in the North and Southeast
of the country [4, 32].
Forest Cockchafer (Melolontha hippocastani) is distributed in central and northern Europe, and
in Siberia and Manchuria. Ecology of Forest Cockchafer is quite difficult due to wide diversity of
climatic and soil zones constituting wide natural habitat of the beetle. The boundary of intensive
distribution of Forest Cockchafer during the last years has moved further to the north. It can be
found even in the northern areas of the Arkhangelsk region [4].
Expansion of an area of Cockchafer distribution is caused by global climatic changes. The rise
in temperature leads to increase in territories having optimum climatic conditions for this pest.
Another reason of Cockchafer area expansion is connected with intensive forest management.
Continuous deforestation in large areas has led to intensive population by Cockchafer grubs. In the
southern and middle taiga Cockchafer grubs significantly damage the growth of young trees and
plantations in the areas of continuous forest cutting and fire-sites in pine forests and other types of
forests. Even in middle taiga there are areas having 8 – 10 or more Cockchafer grubs per 1 m2. In
some areas in water basin of the river Northern Dvina Cockchafer grubs damage not only roots of a
pine (Pinus), but of Populus tremula, a heather and some other plants as well [2, 4].
The adult feed most willingly on the leaves of Quercus, especially Q. robur which develops
earlier. Besides, they may be found on the leaves of Salix caprea, Betula verrucosa, Sorbus
aucuparia, Fagus sylvatica, Carpinus betulus, Acer platanoides, Populus tremula, some other
species of Populus, and Aesculus hippocastanum. The leaves of Tilia, Alnus, Caragana, Euonymus,
Padus racemosa, Prunus communis, Viburnum, Fraxinus, Sambucus nigra, and other species of
broadleaf trees and shrubs are fed upon only in the exceptional cases. The adults readily feed on the
needles of Larix and occasionally on the flowers of Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, and Abies alba.
The white grubs of Melolontha melolontha and Melolontha hippocastani during their first year of
life consume humus and small tender roots, mainly of grasses. The older grubs injure the roots of
seedlings and young saplings of almost all species of trees and shrubs [4].
Common Cockchafer and Forest Cockchafer are widely distributed in Ukraine too. Forest
stands are mostly damaged by Common Cockchafer. Forest in the western part of Ukraine is
damaged the most intensively. The areas of intensive forest stand damages by Forest Cockchafer
are much smaller, but its distribution over the territory is wider. The center of forest damage by
Forest Cockchafer are concentrated mainly in central and eastern parts of Ukraine (Fig. 1).
Common Cockchafer is the most dangerous one out of 29 species of insects that damage roots
in Ukraine. Due to researches carried out in Ukraine, the increase of Cockchafer role in damage of
young pine plantations is caused by extension of non-forested lands, existence of deserted fields
which are located near large forests, weather conditions (especially dry and hot weather during
vegetative period which occurred in Ukraine during last years) [3].
ЛІСІВНИЦТВО І АГРОЛІСОМЕЛІОРАЦІЯ
Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. – Вип. 116
26
Fig. 1 – Intensity of forest damages caused by Common Cockchafer and Forest Cockchafer in Ukraine [35]
The most dangerous pest insects of Polish forests are the same two species as in Ukraine: the
common cockchafer (Melolontha melolontha) and the forest cockchafer (Melolontha hippocastani).
In spite of the fact that the issue of mass incidence of scarab beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaidae) has
been broadly discussed in Polish and European literature for a long time, no effective methods have
yet been developed to reduce their number.
The area of mass incidence of cockchafers increases with every next swarming of imagines. A
particularly strong race swarmed in the years 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007 increasing its area of
occurrence in Poland by hundred times for less than 17 years (Fig. 2). The pest affected not only
tree seedlings in forest nurseries, but also seedlings in plantations and even young stands. The
restocking of the failed areas such as fill planting or underplanting carried out by foresters do no
bring the anticipated results. In consequence, the complete feeding by imagines causes the
weakening of mature stands.
With the increasing threat to forest sustainability, temporary actions are being undertaken
aimed to reduce the risk of cockchafer spreading. During the recent big swarm of cockchafers in
2007, the State Forests National Forest Holding decided to mechanically collect adult insects in the
territory of four Regional Directorates of the State Forests (Fig. 3). As a result, 24.1 tonnes of
cockchafers were collected which cost the State Forest administration PLN 358,000. The expenses
for aircraft sprays containing the mixture of insecticides Mospilan 20SP and Decis 2.5EC conducted
during the same swarming period were still higher. The permission to carry out a one-time
treatment covered a total area of 52,200 hectares (in the territory of the Łódź, Radom and Krosno
Regional Directorates). However the conditions of use of a mixture of insecticides included in the
permission provided additional restrictions causing a reduction in the area of aerial control
treatment. The cost of the carried out treatment totalled PLN 3.75 million of which 78 percent was
covered by the Łódź Regional Directorate [27].
ЛІСІВНИЦТВО І АГРОЛІСОМЕЛІОРАЦІЯ
Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. – Вип. 116
27
In addition, Forest Districts which every year report damage from grubs spend much more
money on restocking the failed areas. On a national scale, the total costs incurred by the State
Forests in 2006 amounted to PLN 300 million (after Sukovata, unpublished; the estimates made by
the State Forests were based on the results of the inventories of the failed and damaged stands using
the methodology resulting from the Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment of 20 June 2002,
Dz.U. no. 99, item 905).
Fig. 2 – The area of occurrence and control of cockchafer adults in the years 1991 – 2007 in Poland [11]
Fig. 3 – A map of areas with the highest threat from scarab beetles in Poland on which mechanical and aerial
treatments against cockchafer adults were performed in 2007
ЛІСІВНИЦТВО І АГРОЛІСОМЕЛІОРАЦІЯ
Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. – Вип. 116
28
The causes of insect outbreak which currently has its peak in Poland, are to be sought in the
past land management. In fact, the present numerous occurrences of cockchafers are observed in the
same areas which a hundred years ago reported losses of economic nature. This situation may have
been caused by the abandoning of the use of plant protection agents, as well as by the increased, by
the end of the 1980s and at the beginning of the 1990s, area of wastelands becoming a favourable
habitat for depositing eggs by cockchafers females. Therefore, it should be of no surprise that today,
like hundred years ago, efforts are made to solve the problem of the damage caused by cockchafers.
The first records on biology of cockchafers and methods of reducing their number date back to
the 19th century, when the idea of planned forest management was introduced. As early as in the
eighties and the nineties of the 19th century, the Galician Forest Society called for preparing a draft
act on the management of common cockchafers to be presented at a Parliamentary Session. (the act
never came into force) [28]. After Poland had gained independence (in 1918), this issue was tackled
by Kozikowski and Nunberg [20 – 23]. The methods of combating the pest at that time consisted of
hand collection of adult insects during the swarming season and of grubs during field tillage.
Attention was drawn to the need for protecting birds and mammals as natural enemies of the pest. In
1951, M. Nunberg [23] prepared the characteristic of races of both cockchafer species in Poland and
determined the years of their swarming.
The 1950s saw a large-scale use of pesticides (DDT and HCH). At first, the application of plant
protection agents brought positive results [6, 33]. The pest management process was effective, with
a relatively low labour input involved. However with the passing of time, there were increasingly
more doubts, mainly in connection with the non-selective activity of pesticides, their long
disintegration time in the environment and accumulation in the living organisms. The public
protests and opposition from ecological organizations finally led to the withdrawal of these
chemicals from use.
Parallel to the strong protests of ecological organizations, attempts were made to develop a
new concept of integrated plant protection. First, the term integrated protection was meant as a
concurrent use of chemical and biological methods with the emphasis on selective pesticides and
use of other protection agents in such a way as not to destroy the natural enemies of pests [14]. The
studies on selective plant protection agents are still continued in Poland. Although the UE
Commission withdrew the selective preparations such as Diazinon 10 GR, Furadan 5 GR and
Marshal Suscon 10 CG from use in forest protection and the only preparation placed at the disposal
of the Polish foresters is Dursban 480 EC, the demand for preparations of this type is still high.
Therefore studies are being carried out on new preparations based on active substances that will be
acceptable in the EU countries. The research conducted by the Forest Research Institute in Warsaw
[15] shows their high effectiveness. A few-minute dipping of seedling roots in water emulsions
containing insecticides Regent 200 S.C., Apacz 50 WG and Mospilan 20 SP efficiently protect
seedlings from even the most voracious third (L3) instar grubs [15].
Studies on the introduction of biological preparations to forest protection have recently
intensified. The preparations are based on the spores of the fungi of the genus Beauveria although
the history of research concerning their use in cockchafer control is very long [13]. Under natural
conditions, this fungus attacks cockchafers in all larval stages. The Beauveria brongniartii-based
preparations are already applied in countries like Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium and France
[7]. However, the effectiveness of this fungus depends on a number of abiotic and biotic factors.
The major ones are soil temperature and moisture, as well as soil pH, dispersal of the fungus in soil
and antagonistic activity of certain soil microorganisms (mycorrhizal fungi and possibly
Trichoderma spp. producing secondary metabolites with fungistatic activity). Unlike soils in Europe
to which B. brongniartii has been applied, most forest soils in Poland are acidic, with a pH ranging
between 3.5 – 5.5 [8]. Besides, no fungi which are typical for forest habitats occur in these soils (or
occur in amounts which are insignificant to its activity).
Parasitic nematodes of genera Steinernema and Heterorhabditis [9] and bacteria Riketsiella
melolonhae and Bacillus thuringiensis can also be used in the biological control of cockchafers. In
ЛІСІВНИЦТВО І АГРОЛІСОМЕЛІОРАЦІЯ
Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. – Вип. 116
29
this group of methods which reduce the pest population rather than completely destroy it, the age of
grubs and their physiological condition is of great importance. Unlike in the case of chemical agents
for plant protection, the use of entomopathogenic nematodes has better effects on older grubs [10].
The most negative feature of nematode preparations is the low survival of nematodes which are
particularly susceptible to temperature and soil type. In turn, the use of pathogenic bacteria against
cockchafer grubs causes the so-called milky disease. Regrettably, the infectivity of these types of
bacteria in field conditions has so far proved insignificant [34]. Active biological substances
obtained from the seeds of plants of the family Meliaceae showing antifeedant activity are also used
in the control of cockchafers [34]. Experiments in respect of silviculture were few. One of the few
studies was carried out by Satkowski (1899), Różyński (1926) and Ulatowski (1932) [25] who used
buckwheat in forest nurseries. Sawing buckwheat was also applied with various results in forest
plantation ([14] Niemczyk, unpublished), agriculturally utilised areas and horticulture. There are no
methodological studies related to stand tending. Some silvicultural observations were described in
1938 by Puster who for 25 years was the Manager of a Forest District where grub colonisation of
soil was high. He recommended avoiding thinning of stands, promoted high planting density
(25,000 pine seedlings per hectares) in order to obtain quick crown closure and shadowing of soil
surface. He recommended interplanting in the fourth year of grub’s life because the 4-year-old grub
feeding is shortest, dense underplanting of beech or beech with spruce in oak and pine poletimber
stands. In timber and pre-commercial stands, especially in the stands with loose structure, he
proposed to carry out underplanting with species such as beech, fir and spruce. In his opinion, the
precondition to enter with tending treatments should be only when the planted species ensured
necessary protection of soil. Puster also paid much attention to production of sufficient number of
pine, spruce, fir and other tree species seedlings in forest nurseries to have them at hand when
needed.
The recommendations included in the silvicultural-protection programs prepared for those
Forest Districts which are colonised by Melolontha, are almost identical to those proposed by Puster
in 1938 [24]. In addition to hand grub collection in forest nursery soils, buckwheat sowing and
chemical protection, he promoted narrow planting density, correction of species composition,
restocking of failed areas to reach satisfactory results or shifting the restocking time from spring to
autumn in the years when the main race is in the third (L3) larvae instar [1].
In scientific studies, the main focus is on the experiments with biological methods of reducing
pest population. It seems, however, that only an integrated method combining silvicultural and
forest protection methods can both increase the natural resistance of the forest environment and
reduce the population of this dangerous pest to a level which the economy can withstand.
REFERENCES
1. Długołecki T., Kania K., Choromańska J., Otrębska M., Czopowicz W., Pachniewicz A., Socha W. Kompleksowy
program postępowania hodowlano-ochronnego dla Nadleśnictwa Spała na obszarach zagroŝenia trwałości lasu przez
chrabąszczowate na lata 2007 – 2011. – Spała, 2006. – Ss. 23.
2. Dmitriev G. V. Bases for protection of green plantings from the pestiferous arthropods. Family Scarabaeidae. –
K.: Naukova dumka, 1969. – P. 279, 377 (in Russian).
3. Gamajunova S. G., Novak L. V. Insects damaging pine plantations in the age up to 8 years old // Forestry &
Forest Melioration. – Kharkiv: URIFFM, 2004. – Iss. 107. – P. 207 – 211 (in Russian).
4. Gavyalis V. Distribution of beetles of the Melolontha genus in Lithuanian SSR and its flight years // In:
Ozolin.sh, V.Ya., ed. Pests of agricultural and forest plants and their control measures. Proc. 7th Baltic Conf. Plant
Protection. P. 2. – Elgava: Pribaltiiskii filial VIZR, 1970. – P. 68 – 71 (in Russian).
5. Gninenko Yu., Meshkova V. L. Achievements and perspectives of biological control in forests // Forestry &
Forest Melioration. – Kharkiv: URIFFM, 2003. – Iss. 104. – P. 207 – 212 (in Russian).
6. Häfliger E., Geigy J. R., Basel A. G. Beitrag zur Frage der Maikäferbekämpfung // Zeitschrift für
Pflanzenkrankheiten (Pflanzenpatologie) und Planzenschutz. – 1951. – Band 58, Zeszyt 5/6. – S. 171 – 178.
7. Keller S., David-Hanriet A. I., Schweitzer C. Insect pathogenic soil fungi from Melolontha melolontha control
sites in the canton Thurgau // IOBC WPRS Bulletin. – 2000. – Vol. 23, №8. – S. 73 – 78.
ЛІСІВНИЦТВО І АГРОЛІСОМЕЛІОРАЦІЯ
Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. – Вип. 116
30
8. Konecka-Betley K., Czępińska-Kamińska D., Janowska E. Systematyka i kartografia gleb. – Warszawa, Wydaw.
SGGW, 1999. – 250 р.
9. Kowalska J. Chrabąszczowate – zagrożenie i możliwości zwalczania // Sylwan. – 2001. – R. 145, nr 7. – S. 97 –
105.
10. Kowalska J. Próba zastosowania nicieni owadobójczych oraz metody integrowanej w zwalczaniu pędraków
chrabąszcza majowego Melolontha melolontha L. w uprawie leśnej // Sylwan. – 2001. – R. 145, nr 2. – S. 89 – 95.
11. Krótkoterminowa prognoza występowania ważniejszych szkodników i chorób infekcyjnych drzew leśnych w
Polsce w 2008 r. (red. A. Kolk). – IBL, Analizy i raporty, 2008. – S. 10, 161.
12. Lavrov M. T. Impact of wood type and associated mechanical and chemical soil composition on the distribution
of Common and Forest Cockchafer in the region of its areal contact //Bei-Bienko G.Ya., ed. Proc. 4th Congr. All-Union
Entomol. Soc. Agricultural and forest entomology, biological pest control, apiculture and sericulture. P. 2. – Moscow,
Leningrad: Akademiya nauk SSSR, 1959. – P. 128 – 131 (in Russian).
13. Luterek R., Szmidt A. Entomologia leśna z zarysem ekologii owadów. – Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej im.
A. Cieszkowskiego w Poznaniu. – 1997. – Rozdział VII. – S. 233 – 285.
14. Malinowski H. Możliwości stosowania integrowanych metod w ochronie lasu na przykładzie ochrony szkółek i
upraw leśnych przed szkodnikami korzeni // Sylwan. – 1997. – Vol. 141, nr 12. – S.85 – 94.
15. Malinowski H. Badania nad nowymi insektycydami do ochrony szkółek i upraw leśnych przed szkodnikami
korzeni // Notatnik Naukowy Instytutu Badawczego Leśnictwa. – 2009. – Vol.3 (83). – Р. 1 – 19.
16. Merzeewska E. Biological control for Melolontha melolontha grubs using a preparation of Beauveria bassiana
in eastern Poland // In: Soroka, S.V., ed. Plant protection at the threshold of 21st century. Proc. Sci. Practic. Conf.
devoted to 30th anniversary of BelNIIZR. – Minsk: Belbiznespress, 2001. – P. 465 – 466 (in Russian).
17. Meshkova V. L., Stovbunenko D. V. Distribution of cockchafers in the pine plantation in the bors near S. Donec
river. // // Forestry & Forest Melioration. – Kharkiv, 2000. – Iss. 97. – P 112 – 115 (in Ukrainian).
18. Mishnev A. K., Gorbunov A. F. Harmfulness of Common Cockchafer in Sumsk Region // Tsygankova E.N., ed.
Proc. 9th Congr. All-Union Entomol. Soc. P. 2. – Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1984. – P. 49 – 50 (in Russian).
19. Negrobov S. O. On the fauna and ecology of stag-beetles and scarabs (Coleoptera: Lucanidae, Scarabaeidae) of
Voronezh Region // Entomologicheskoe obozrenie. – 1960. – Vol. 79, No 1. – P. 89 – 95 (in Russian).
20. Nunberg M. (1934): Chrabąszcz i jego zwalczanie. Warszawa, ss. 20.
21. Nunberg M. Do walki z chrabąszczami. – Warszawa, 1935. – 15 s.
22. Nunberg M. Chrabąszcz i jego zwalczanie. – Poznań, 1946 – 22 s.
23. Nunberg M. Występowanie chrabąszcza na terenach Polski. – Warszawa, 1951. – 42 s.
24. Puster. Pielęgnowanie zapasu w nadleśnictwach opanowanych przez chrabąszcza // Las Polski. – 1938. – Nr 3,
XVIII. – S. 97 – 108.
25. Różyński F. W sprawie walki z chrabąszczem majowym (Melolontha vulgaris) // Przegląd Leśniczy. – 1926. –
III. – S. 32 – 38.
26. Sklarova Z. A., Meshkova V. L., Nazarenko S. V., Bezvesilnij V. A. Biological peculiarities of Scarabaeidae – the
pests of tree species in the left-bank steppe of Ukraine // Forestry & Forest Melioration. – Kharkiv, 1999. – Iss. 96. –
P. 96 – 104 (in Ukrainian).
27. Stocki (2007): Podsumowanie akcji Chrabąszcz 2007. Las Pol., nr 19, 2007, s. 16 – 17,
28. Szczerbowski I. Pamiętnik dwudziestopięcioletniej działalności Galicyjskiego Towarzystwa Leśnego 1882 –
1907 // Nakładem prezesa Galicyjskiego Towarzystwa Leśnego, Jerzego hr. Dunin-Borkowskiego, Lwów. 1907. –
Reprint, Krosno 2007. – S. 105 – 106.
29. Tanskii V. I. Application of economical harmfulness thresholds of most important pests of major agricultural
crops // Methodical guidelines. – Leningrad: VIZR, 1985. – 28 p. (in Russian).
30. Telnov D. Ziemelgauja. Protected nature area. Latvija N., Valka dist. – 2005. – V. 29. –
http://www.zin.ru/ANIMALIA/COLEOPTERA/rus/melmelte.htm (in Russian)
31. Tsinovskii Ya. P. Biological bases for the forecasting of scarabeid beetles pupation // In: Bei-Bienko, G.Ya., ed.
Proc. 3rd Congr. All-Union Entomol. Soc. Tbilisi. – Moscow, Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1957.– P.
38 – 39 (in Russian).
32. Vasiljev V. P., Livshits I. Z. Fruit crop pests. Common Cockchafer (Melolontha melolontha L.). – Moscow:
Kolos, 1984. – P. 128 – 129 (in Russian).
33. Wiesmann R., Gasser R. Fünf Jahre Erfahrungen in der Bekämpfung des Maikäfers (Melolontha melolontha L.)
und Beobachtungen zu seiner Ökologie // Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten (Pflanzenpatologie) und Planzenschutz. –
1950. – Band 57, Heft 1/ 2. – S. 37.
34. Woreta D. MoŜliwości ograniczania szkód powodowanych przez pędraki chrabąszczowatych (Melolonthinae)
metodami niechemicznymi // Sylwan. – 1997. – R.141, nr. 5. – S. 29 – 39.
35. http://www.agroatlas.spb.ru/ru/content/pests/Melolontha_hippocastani/map/
36. Zotsenko L. N. Pests and diseases of fruit crops. Forecast of emergence and estimation of number of pests and
diseases of agricultural crops. – Moscow: Izdatelstvo selskogo hozyaistva SSSR, 1958. – 461 р. (in Russian).
ЛІСІВНИЦТВО І АГРОЛІСОМЕЛІОРАЦІЯ
Харків: УкрНДІЛГА, 2009. – Вип. 116
31
Нємчик М.1, Нейко І.2
МЕТОДИ ОБМЕЖЕННЯ ЧИСЕЛЬНОСТІ ПОПУЛЯЦІЙ ТРАВНЕВОГО ХРУЩА У ЛІСОВОМУ
ГОСПОДАРСТВІ ПОЛЬЩІ ТА УКРАЇНИ
1. Научно-дослідний інститут лісу (Польща)
2. ДП "Вінницька лісова науково-дослідна станція" УкрНДІЛГА
Наведено аналіз інтенсивності поширення травневого хруща в Україні та Польщі. Оцінено методи та
способи його контролювання. Запропоновані комплексні підходи до застосування засобів і методів захисту
лісових насаджень. Акцентовано увагу на ширшому запровадженні біологічних і лісівничих методів обмеження
поширення шкідника.
К лю ч о в і с л о в а : травневий хрущ, методи та способи захисту лісу.
Немчик М.1, Нейко И.2
МЕТОДЫ ОГРАНИЧЕНИЯ ЧИСЛЕННОСТИ ПОПУЛЯЦИЙ МАЙСКОГО ХРУЩА В ЛЕСНОМ
ХОЗЯЙСТВЕ ПОЛЬШИ И УКРАИНЫ
1. Научно-исследовательский институт леса (Польша)
2. Государственное предприятие "Винницкая лесная опытная станция" УкрНИИЛХА
Приведен анализ интенсивности распространения майского хруща в Украине и Польше. Оценены методы и
способы борьбы с вредителем. Предложены комплексные подходы к применению средств и методов защиты
лесных насаждений. Акцентировано внимание на более широком внедрении биологических и лесоводственных
методов ограничения распространения вредителя.
К лю ч е в ы е с л о в а : майский хрущ, методы и средства защиты леса.
Одержано редколегією 7.10.2009 р.
|