Acknowledgements:  We would like to thank the USDA Forest Service for funding this work, and USDA-APHIS for the flight intercept traps.  In addition we would like to thank all of the park managers who allowed us to work in their parks as well as Molly Cypher, Heather Johnson, Eric Van Wormer and Robert Benson for assistance in the field.
               Introduction
•Emerald ash borer (EAB) was first found July 2002 on ash trees in southeastern Michigan
•This wood- boring beetle is an exotic species from Asia and is capable of killing all major species of ash in North America
•To refine current trapping methods and gain insight into EAB landing behaviors, four studies were conducted in summer 2005 at six sites near Detroit where EAB populations are established
•Trapping will continue in 2006 to further refine our understanding of EAB detection tools
EXPERIMENT 1: Attractiveness of colored panel traps to EAB
EXPERIMENT 2: Comparing the number of EAB caught on ungirdled trap trees and trap trees girdled in 2004 or 2005
EXPERIMENT 3: Comparing the attractiveness of baited and unbaited  purple traps with girdled and ungirdled trap trees
EXPERIMENT 4: Using trap trees to examine landing behaviors of EAB
Methods
• 3 treatments of 4-6 trees (girdled in 2004, girdled in 2005 or ungirdled) were located at 4 sites in southeastern Michigan (Figure 1, Sites 2, 4, 5, 6)
•Trees were girdled approximately 0.5 m below dbh using a chainsaw
•Trees were wrapped at dbh with cellophane and coated with Tanglefoot®
•Trees were monitored weekly throughout the summer for EAB
Methods
•Colored sticky traps were placed along the edge of a forest at Kensington (Fig. 1, Site 5)
•In round 1, 4 different trap colors were tested: pink, yellow, clear, and purple.  In round 2, the yellow traps were replaced with fresh purple traps to test the effects of color fading due to sun exposure. Difference in overall catch in two studies is due to time of year of trapping
Left and Right: Colored sticky traps, each trap was a box mounted on a 1.3 m wooden stake.  Paper sheets were laminated, stapled to the box and coated with Tanglefoot ® 
Left: An EAB larva in typical serpentine feeding gallery
Right: Adult EAB on ash leaf
Left: Purple flight intercept  traps Right: Example of crushed leaf bait in trap center
Methods
•Traps were set at three sites (Fig. 1 Sites 1, 2, and 3) within the infested zone of southeast MI
•Girdled and ungirdled traps were as described in Exp. 2
•Purple flight intercept traps were assembled, coated with Tanglefoot® and hung from conduit pipes 2.1 meters above the ground. 
•The purple traps were baited with crushed ash leaves or scorched branches, or left unbaited
•Each treatment was replicated 5 times at each site
B
A
A
A
AB
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
Methods
•Every tree (regardless of species) greater than 2.5 cm dbh in a 0.2 ha area was set as an ungirdled trap tree at three sites in Southeastern Michigan (Fig. 1, Sites 1, 5, 6)
•Trees were monitored for EAB and measurements were taken to assess tree health
Average number of EAB caught on trap trees of different species
A
B
20.25
12
2.39
137
30.78
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1.00
4
-
0
-
0
Carya ovata
0.36
11
-
0
-
0
Carya glabra
0.29
31
-
0
-
0
Quercus rubra
-
0
2.50
10
-
0
Populus deltoides
-
0
-
0
0.09
34
Acer rubrum
0.05
21
-
0
0.04
47
Ulmus americana
0.09
32
0
13
0.38
39
Prunus serotina
Average EAB caught per tree
Total number of trees
Average EAB caught per tree
Total number of trees
Average EAB caught per tree
Total number of trees
 
Kensington
Stony Creek
Brighton
 SITE
Left: Girdled trap tree.  Blue signs were used to identify tree as part of a research study
A*
A*
B*
B*
*Letters indicate differences between treatments, not between years. 
Results and Conclusions
•Purple sticky panel traps were significantly more attractive (p<0.05) than pink, clear or yellow traps (Experiment 1)
•There was no difference in number of EAB caught on trap trees girdled in 2005 and ungirdled trap trees (p <0.05) (Experiment 2, 3)
•Trap trees girdled in 2004 caught more EAB than those girdled in 2005 or ungirdled trees (p<0.05) (Experiment 2)
•Significantly more EAB were caught on trap trees (both ungirdled and girdled in 2004) in 2005 than in 2004 (p<0.05) (Experiment 2)
•Purple flight intercept traps caught significantly fewer EAB than trap trees (p<0.05) and there was no difference between baited and unbaited traps (Experiment 3)
•EAB appear to land preferentially on ash trees (93% of total EAB caught were on caught ash), although they were captured on other tree species (Experiment 4)
Detection tools for Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Michigan
Jessica A. Metzger and Andrew J. Storer
 School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
B
Objectives 
•To evaluate current and novel trapping methods for EAB
•Experiment 1:  To determine if EAB preferentially lands on clear, pink, purple or yellow sticky traps
•Experiment 2: To determine how the time since girdling affects tree health and the number of EAB captured on trap trees
•Experiments 2 and 3:  To determine whether girdled ash trap trees and ungirdled ash trap trees capture the same number of EAB
•Experiment 3:  To determine whether girdled trap trees, ungirdled trap trees and purple flight intercept sticky traps (baited and unbaited) capture the same number of EAB
•Experiment 4:  To examine the landing behavior of EAB in a forest setting
•To use these results to develop trapping guidelines for use in EAB detection