Talk:Emerald ash borer/Archive 1

Untitled
I'm sorry I suck at the whole wikipedia editing thing, but the first sentence of this article made me lol. hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.92.67 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of date
I am not an expert on this topic - but a quck check of readily available online sources shows the following claims in this articel are so out of date to be false:
 * It has spread to seven states (more than 7)
 * It has killed at least 25 million (too low)
 * The U.S. Department of Agriculture is attempting to exterminate all of these beetles on the continent, and has taken the unusual measure of destroying every ash tree within a half-mile (800 m) radius of known infested trees (not any more)

- Davodd (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

http://plantsciences.utk.edu/klingeman/pdf/TGT8(3)Emerald-Ash-Borer.pdf http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166994.html These articles state that they can fly SUSTAINED distances of 3 miles and can fly up to 6 miles when flown to exhaustion. This is often mis-stated as most sources say .5 to 1 mile annually. Saltcedar (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Info on the Emerald Ash Borer can be found at, Canadian Food Inspection Agency —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.33.158 (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

2012 updates
I'm adding info to a number of sections. I have the information correct, but my writing flow can be improved. I also need more citations which I will get up. Please feel free to edit what i wrote to say it betterTreeguyenvironmentalist (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * None of these new additions are sourced nor are they written in an encyclopedic manner. I am deleting them. Gandydancer (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I put back much of my original information with a better more encyclopedic writing manner and added sources that collaborate. If you do not like the writing please edit with the proper manner as you refer to. But do not erase as this is important information that needs to get out. This is the single most destructive tree disease in history.Tcpro52 (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ash borer in connecticut
http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?Q=508244&A=4173 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.212.4 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Native Habitat
Is there any information about this insect in its native habitat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.152.123 (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an error: "The larvae are approximately 1 mm long and .6 in (15 mm) in diameter". Should this be "The larvae are approximately .6 in (15 mm) long and 1 mm in diameter"? Seuraza (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

15 mm length for larvae may be an approximate average, but realistically they often do grow up to one inch or 30 mm long. From the ones I have personally seen, I would suggest 15 mm is a little on small size unless only partially grown.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-protection/insects/emerald-ash-borer/faq/eng/1337355937903/1337356019017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.86 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Globalize
The emerald ash borer page should be mostly about the borer, its biology, etc. This page is more about an infestation in the US and Canada, rather than the borer itself. Either the infestation info should be restricted to a specific section on the topic, or this should be moved out of the article into a new article. -- cmhTC 02:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, move the detailed info about the infestation to a new article about the event, and turn the "emerald ash borer" article into a biological species article. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Globalize & Split boxes have been added to the page. This needs to be a biological species article. Riesling (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We have had a problem with both this article and the imidicloprid article because an editor has used both articles to promote his business. I spent a fair amount of time on both articles but have pretty much given up on this one because I have rec'd no support. In fact, it was the only time I've been banned...and had my roll back function removed to boot. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, that editor is "Treeguy..." and Tcpro" plus at about four other alternate personalities. Gandydancer (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, although the Emerald Ash Borer was only named after the infestation in North America. Before that the insect had no common name, and was known only as Agrilus planipennis. Therefore you may have difficulty finding a lot of material about it before the infestation in North America if searching using the common name of Emerald Ash Borer.

It is native to Eastern Asia, and nobody in North America could initially identify it. It is found in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia and the Eastern parts of Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.86 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources about insect specifically
Here are some sources specifically (more or less) about the insect and not the infestation:
 * http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=722
 * http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166994.html
 * (<-- happens to be licensed CC-BY 3.0)
 * Chris857 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo
It would be very useful if the photo indicated the size of this adult insect in centimeters / millimeters. I saw a bug like this, but did not know if it was the Emerald ash borer or not due to size uncertainty. Oldspammer (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikivertisement?
I'm sorry, I came here to find out about a bug, but the bulk of this article reads like a PR pamphlet for a website called emeraldashborer.info. It is certainly not encylopedic in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.192.1 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

emeraldashborer.info. is learned info from official governmental and state university sources, not a pamphlet representing private products.CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ads
There is at least one ad from StopTheBeetle.info circulating the Internet regarding this insect. Would someone with some time update the page? Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

StopTheBeetle.info web page is not an "Ad" and it is from United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service basically trying to get people to promise not to move firewood.CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Complex and confusing because it is 2 different articles smashed together
I came to take a look at this topic because of this article: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/viewart/20130511/NEWS01/305110008 What a mess! The article's name suggests it is about a particular insect, but instead nearly the entire article is about US infestation of trees by the insect.

Somebody has already suggested dividing the article --very sensible idea. I looked for examples elsewhere and found that "Bedbug" is an article that talks about bedbugs themselves. while "Bed bug infestation" is a separate article and "Bed bug control techniques" is another. That is what somebody should do with this article. Signed, KerrMudgeonMT
 * OK hearing no objection, I split the confusing articles up, creating a new article Emerald ash borer infestation and removing the non-biology-about-the-damn-species info from this one. Let the talkback if any commence. Signed, KerrMudgeonMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by KerrMudgeonMT (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been questioning the decision to split the article for awhile now. The main issue is that the infestation page is really just a mishmash of bloated information that really should be summarized or cut. It should be quite feasible to parse that article down in integrate it into this one. When it comes to invasive insect species, wikipedia articles are not split up into a biology and separate invasion article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymantria_dispar_dispar). With that it would make more sense to keep everything as a single article, but keep it concise. I'm going to try to work up a sandbox article when I have time for folks to look at, but I thought I'd get folks thoughts on this while I put things together Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits by nbabb2
I am a stundet at Louisiana State University enrolled in a semester long course whose mission is to educate students on the consequences of natural disturbances on society and the ecosystem. Our cumulative project is making substantial edits to an already existing page. In this case, I have heavily researched the EAB and included various references for this already existing page. I have added sections on how the eab reacted to the polar vortex of 2014, its impact on economies and ecosystems, and edited minor problems found in the already existing page.Nbabb2 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Before making edits, I would suggest looking over some of the discussion about how the article was split between the actual species and the North America infestation. Basically, there was so much information specifically for North America that it was making the article too bulky. If you look at the EAB infestation page, you'll see why that became an issue as it really is just a hodgepodge of information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_ash_borer_infestation).


 * I will forewarn you that this may be a difficult page for a student to work on, although I definitely am not discouraging working in improving the page at all. I research EAB and the set up of these pages has been bothering me as well. Personally I think the two pages should be merged back together again as no other insect page is set up like this (e.g., gypsy moth), but the information needs to be kept concise and relevant to a general reader. This page suffered from too much bloated information and current events like the polar vortex section you added (in that case I'd suggest discussing the cold tolerance of EAB instead of focusing on the polar vortex). The main focus of this page should be on the species itself and information pertinent to a general reader instead of just listing as much information as possible. If that general guideline is adhered to, we should be able to keep the article from degenerating again. Here's a general outline I've been working on for a merged page, but I haven't had the time to work on edits for some time now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingofaces43/sandbox. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The argument that the addition of content to an article over time is "degeneration" is completely wrong. That's the goal of a Wikipedia article — to continue to be built by the contributions of many people over time. It's easier to destroy, though, than to create — especially if one fancies himself/herself a monarch. Wikipedia elected you king of this article? There is a difference between the pursuit of concision and relevance and acting like this is your personal article. Believe it or not, your personal interests, as they relate to the borer, are your own. They are not universal. There is a lot you don't know about the subject and a lot you could care about more. For instance, you could have made the effort to learn about the phenolic content of North American ash trees' leaves and how their loss may threaten amphibian populations — rather than blithely deleting the content because you didn't think of it yourself or because it's not in your research purview. The effect on amphibians from the loss of ash trees is important and laymen can understand it, too. Wikipedia is not merely a site for children or dullards — nor is the impact of the borer limited to how much it will inconvenience people or their pocketbooks. There is high-level sophisticated scientific information on this site, like complex chemical formulas. Should all that be scrubbed, so that the "general public" won't be distressed by something they can't understand or which doesn't interest them personally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.7.76 (talk • contribs) 23:04, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Merge Emerald ash borer infestation to this page
Awhile back, this page was split into the current page and the Emerald ash borer infestation. This mainly appeared to be due to too much content based on EAB in North America. However, most of the information in the infestation page either could be made much more concise, or is not relevant for Wikipedia readers. Honestly, the pages on EAB here seem to need a good dose of WP:ISNOT, namely in that the EAB pages are not meant to list as many details as possible, but present a clear summary for readers, and if they want more in-depth information they can follow the references. Most of the content explosion seemed to be from describing where EAB has been found in North America and how it's managed. A lot of that information can be summarized. That and the infestation page honestly looks like a mishmash of different loose topics, and those that are relevant seem too stand alone when not in the context of the main EAB page. I've cut a lot of information out of that page already, but there just doesn't seem to be a coherent topic that really makes it stand out as a separate article when you get into the relevant details. I think there's still a lot of information that should be cut from the infestation page or sections that could be reduced to a single sentence, but I think decisions on those edits would be more productive if we had them all under the context of a single page with the overall goal of concisely describing what emerald ash borer is and how it is of interest (while avoiding a lot of the how-to information that's snuck in).

With that I'm proposing a merge of the two pages. We should be able to have an article that first discusses relevant biology in general in the first sections, and then leading into a subsection of EAB in North America (substantially parsed down of course). Two main reasons I see for this action are:

1. Other invasive insect pages do not take the approach of splitting the general biology and invasive/spread sections into different pages. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymantria_dispar_dispar. The bed bug pages were unique because of medical terms, biology topics, etc. that had clearly defined boundaries, but that does not seem to apply here.

2. The splitting has resulted in a content fork WP:CFORK where information was shunted out of this page that really should have been either deleted or made more concise. I completely understand the thought of removing the tough to deal with information from this page, but keeping all the material manageable on one page should be quite doable. I did a rough merged draft of what I'd envision a concise page should look like we do merge here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingofaces43/sandbox. Keep in mind it's primarily an outline at this point, as I mainly wanted to see if other editors thought this was a good approach for a doing the merge.

If folks agree that a merge would be a worthwhile option to pursue, I can just move the content from the infestation page to this page under the the North America section temporarily so we have a record of what content was in both pages, and then work the entire page down to sections and relevant information similar to my sandbox. That way we can have a record of both the merge and individual edits to work on. That way we can save the discussion of actual content for another day. I think it's worth a shot since I'm willing to put time into the merge right now, and we should be able to stick to single page in the future if we stick to the guideline that we keep the page concise.Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of neutral on this. Both the EAB and EAB infestation pages do need a lot of work, including reducing the overlap between the two. At the same time, I don't have a problem with the principle of there being two pages. The spread of EAB in North America is very much noteworthy, and it would make sense to separate the topic as a new page if it takes up too much space on the main page. I guess to me the right path would be to clean up both the articles and then, if there is not enough material to justify splitting the two, to merge them together. Tdslk (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinions are that 1) the North America infestation has enough potential material for an article that it would detract from/overwhelm an article on the species and 2) there seems to be rather less biological information available on the insect itself, including native habitat, than I would expect. Either way, both need a lot of cleanup, and preferably from someone familiar with writing about species or insects. Chris857 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , the main reason I starting thinking about the merge was that the infestation largely has a lot of information that can either be deleted or made to be much more concise. There is a lot of potential information, but our job as editors is to summarize that information well. I recently cut the infestation page down from 27k words to 17k words, and I'm seeing a lot of information that could be summarized in a single line or use more reliance of sources for more tangential information. As an entomologist who worked with EAB, I look at the infestation page and don't see anything there that can't be concisely summarized. However, I don't think I could concisely summarize the page into a coherent standalone page. That's the issue I see with the original split. I'll see what I can do on the infestation page in the meantime though and try to parse it down to something that could be transferred over if we do move towards a merge. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Chris857, this is not the scientific page regarding the Agrilus planipennis, but the "Infestation event" of Americanized version called EAB, and this continents ongoing control methods of said Asian invesive. Wiki needs an "Infestation" fork because everything on this page has been deleted from main EAB one. Now with this warning "article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content" tag, Wiki-bots want nothing covering details of insecticide applications on this page because it sounds like a How to use product. Details regarding whats involved for each application method to succeed documents technical factual details not even included within insecticides official instruction page, but scientifically observed from field studies. Not "How to", but "What it takes" to control infestation. We are documenting factual history produced from official reference sources in order for future generations to comprehend this Wiki subject. My fear is public searching for EAB info will never see this "Infestation" page, but only main Emerald Ash Borer Wiki. I agree it would be much tidier to keep details such as insecticides to their respective Wikipedia pages, and we will do our best to produce within Wiki guidelines. But don't just erase our referenced facts. Anyone for an "Interaction of EAB/Ash" for a Wiki page?CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

After editing both pages a bit, I think it's time to revive the idea. I've parsed down a lot of redundant info on the infestation page, and removed most references on this page to EAB as an invasive or in North America. At this point we can see there's not a whole lot of information on this page which is largely because most research on it is done in North America, so most info is currently over at the infestation page. After the cleanup, a merge looks pretty straightforward and seems like it would fit the material together into a good coherent article without any disjointing. Keeping them separate also seems to lead to confusion with some editors adding North American/invasive info to the species page rather than the infestation page. With all that in mind, I put together a version of what a merge would look like if I went ahead with it right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kingofaces43/sandbox&diff=622291219&oldid=622289200

Before the original split, this page was around 40k bytes, while this proposed one is at 29k. That seems like a manageable size for a reader now. There is a lot of information on this topic, so we will need to be careful about not adding information that's not pertinent to a general reader (e.g. detailed insecticide info that someone could find in the sources if they really wanted to know it), or wordy information that could be easily said in a few words or sentence. There are some additional improvements I'd like to make (still thinking about what to do with the Polar Vortex content), but for now are we at a good point to do a merge and make any future edits under a single article? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Seeing no comments yet, I decided to go ahead with the merge. Let's see what we can do to work up the page from a single article with conciseity in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "That seems like a manageable size for a reader now." Fallacious. Articles are made clear via clearly-written subject headings. There is no arbitrary length limit, especially not one based on kilobyte count. That's utterly asinine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.7.76 (talk • contribs) 23:06, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Information on local infestations
I see CHICAGOCONCERTMAN added a section on local infestations and removed it. I think this was a good move to remove the section, but I just wanted to give a little info on where such info should probably go. Generally, having a list of events (first finds in this case) is feasible when you only have a few notable occurrences for an article. However, we're at the point now where we could potentially list 20+ locations (1 for each state/province) or potentially even more. At that point, any town with a find could also potentially be justified in such a list. We'd definitely be reaching a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list even just including the first find for each state, so that's why it would be best to avoid such a section. That's also why I didn't include state names since we'd have so many to list here too. How this can be approached though is to use the references to our advantage. We currently use to describe which states have EAB without actually listing them in the Range section. Similarly, we have this map used as well. The red dots show the first county level detection, so that's probably about as fine tuned as we want to get here. If we find a similar source that documents those finds in text, that would be a good source to add to the Range section. We wouldn't want to add individual sources for each find though because that's just going to be way too many references. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Host-plant resistance
This is one area I would usually like to write up a section in herbivorous pest articles. From what I've seen in reviews so far, some Chinese species may have resistance, and folks are working on figuring it out and breeding for resistance in North America. That isn't enough for its own section yet, but it could be if more developments come up in the field. I don't envision anything really happening now, but I'm just putting this here as a reminder in case anyone comes upon new developments in the area. Right now we just mention resistance here, but if things move beyond the "we're working on it" stage, it'd be good to give it more focus. For now though, probably too crystal bally to give it more prominence. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of date? American focused?
There is a lot to be said about the EAB, and this article attempts to capture some of it.

One comment was it is out of date, and unfortunately most of the information on the Internet about the EAB is out of date. I just returned from an ISA Ontario Annual conference in Niagara Falls, and one of the educational sessions was on the EAB. The ISA ( International Society of Aboriculture ) International Conference is in Toronto this year, and another whole day session will focus on the EAB.

One reader pointed to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the data and information there is dated as well! Even their map is several years old and they admit it. The fact is we are learning so much about the EAB that what is 5 years old is likely at least partially wrong, and 5 years from now what we are telling people will be wrong again!

But how does one keep up, and the most current information is not even available to the public in timely manner. Even most arborists do not have it, partially because they do not take the necessary time or spend the necessary money to get it. Many as an example are still telling people that removal is the only option, or most cost effective. We used to think so, yet now that the real costs and benefits are now known, and better understood we now know that in many cases treatment is more cost effective, assuming all is factored in. Many are unaware of the increased serious health related issues (respiratory and cardiovascular ) in areas where trees were all removed, as reported in peer reviewed article in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

It is also very American focused, although it states North America. The principal treatment in Canada is TreeAzin by BioForest, although a couple of others are now becoming available. I do not intend to promote a product, simply stating the pesticide approval is much more rigorous in Canada, and many pesticides in use in America are not approved in Canada. The article focuses on those widely available in America only, yet states itself to be North American content. Public Education is necessary! Do not wait, by the time you realize your tree is infected it "will" be too late to save it. Because the EAB destroys the vascular system of the ash tree, it is important to treat early.

Another comments on cutting down trees, in Canada we never did that, and it is not performed anywhere now other than when a municipality chooses that as their strategy for dealing with the pending infestation. Also noting travel, the biggest method of travel is as a hitchhiker, we move it around. Naturally it would move quite slowly, but by tranortimg infected wood we can move it several dozen or hundreds of miles in a single season. The most important area here is to control human transport, the natural movement is very small compared to what we do in helping the translocation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.86 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good software exists for municipalities now to perform cost benefit analysis, but many still struggle as they are run by engineers and architects who do not understand trees as anything other than a liability, and lack the knowledge or understanding of benefits. Benefits to air, benefits to storm water run off, etc. the cost to the municipality will far exceed that of removal and replacement, as some are now finding out.

Yes I am an ISA Certified Arborist, an iSA Certified Tree Risk Assessor, a Consulting Arborist, a licensed EAB treatment professional and soon writing my Master Arborist exam. Does that make me an expert, I think not. There are few experts in this area as we are learning so much so fast.

Having said that I am writing a white paper on the EAB, which will be peer reviewed, so do have some understanding of the topic.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.94 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree, history will record how misinformation was part of this event. That's why myself and others supplying factual proven information regarding this WIKI subjectCHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
WikiPrtoject Insects really needs to go. Can we invite user ? I tried to pursue her to join the project, but no avail.--Mishae (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained image
I don't know if this is an appropriate place to comment, but the image of a purple trap in section Monitoring and Management led me to wonder what is the significance of the colour, and if it is, in fact significant, as there is no direct reference to it in the adjoining text. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's better to comment directly on the article talk page (it looks like this was posted to the GA review), but no worries. The source following discussion of the traps in the text mentions a bit more, and the text already says that certain colors are attractive. I fleshed out the details on color a bit more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of extraneous images
There are three photos of the same insect, which is redundant and unnecessary. I've removed two of them. I have also removed an extraneous image of a damaged elm, there is no need for two photos of the same tree. GregJackP  Boomer!   05:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not make things up and purposely vandalize the page as part of a content dispute on an entirely unrelated page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO the photos were all helpful and should be kept in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree. The spread wing image and picture from below illustrates the body structure underneath the wings. The tree damage picture clearly illustrates the extent of damage to the tree beyond the "D-holes" picture more so than the text conveys (especially to a layman such as myself). These are three very relevant public domain images that should be in the article. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources and original research
During the GA nomination process, citations to primary sources were cleaned up and removed since we have multiple reviews and other secondary sources to tell us what's sufficient weight. An IP recently added content about amphibians, but no mention is made of emerald ash borer in the source, so this addition was pretty clearly violating WP:SYNTH. Even if that content were sourced, this topic is at a point where we have plenty of secondary sources, and we're not in a position to determine for ourselves which primary sources merit mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)