Turfgrass Insects Department of Entomology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Natural Products for Managing Landscape and Garden Pests in Florida1 Matthew A
ENY-350 Natural Products for Managing Landscape and Garden Pests in Florida1 Matthew A. Borden, Eileen A. Buss, Sydney G. Park Brown, and Adam G. Dale2 Pest control professionals and homeowners throughout Florida and the southeastern US are seeking effective options that are safer for people and the environment than some conventional synthetic pesticides. There is also rising interest in organic gardening, which relies on natural pesticides. See the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) website (https://www.omri.org/omri-lists/ download) for products that are acceptable in organic plant production. Natural or biological pesticides, also called biopesticides, can be used by themselves or in combination with conventional pesticide programs as valuable rotation options, thus delaying or preventing onset of resistance caused by repeated use of the same chemical controls. Figure 1. A brown lacewing larva, Micromus posticus, feeding on aphid This publication describes natural products for use in pests of a rose bush. This soft-bodied predator would likely be killed residential landscapes and gardens. They are generally by natural insecticides intended for the aphids. Credits: Lyle Buss, UF/IFAS less toxic to nontarget organisms and the environment and, when used correctly, can be effective tools for plant There is a general lack of knowledge about natural or protection. These products are most effective when used in biological pesticides, including commercial availability and an integrated pest management (IPM) program along with effective use. All pesticides, whether natural or synthetic, sanitation, proper cultural practices, mechanical control carry inherent risks and require safe and responsible use by tactics, use of resistant plant varieties, and biological the applicator. -
Synergistic Mixtures for Controlling Invertebrate Pests Containing An
(19) TZZ ¥__T (11) EP 2 263 461 B1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION (45) Date of publication and mention (51) Int Cl.: of the grant of the patent: A01N 43/56 (2006.01) A01N 61/00 (2006.01) 12.12.2012 Bulletin 2012/50 (21) Application number: 10009776.5 (22) Date of filing: 30.06.2005 (54) Synergistic mixtures for controlling invertebrate pests containing an anthanilamide compound and a lip biosynthesis inhibitor Synergistische Mischungen zur Bekämpfung von wirbelosen Lästlingen enthaltend ein Anthranilamid und einen Lipidbiosynthese-Hemmer Mélanges synergiques pour la lutte contre les invertébrés comprenant une anthranilamide et un inhibiteur de la biosynthèse lipidique (84) Designated Contracting States: • Lahm, Philip George AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR Wilmington, DE 19808 (US) HU IE IS IT LI LT LU MC NL PL PT RO SE SI SK TR • Stevenson, Thomas Martin Newark, DE 19702 (US) (30) Priority: 01.07.2004 US 584601 P • Portillo, Hector Eduardo 29.03.2005 US 666073 P Newark, Delaware 19702 (US) • Flexner, John Lindsay (43) Date of publication of application: Landenberg, Pennsylvania 19350 (US) 22.12.2010 Bulletin 2010/51 (74) Representative: Beacham, Annabel Rose (62) Document number(s) of the earlier application(s) in Dehns accordance with Art. 76 EPC: St Bride’s House 09002571.9 / 2 060 179 10 Salisbury Square 05770891.9 / 1 778 012 London EC4Y 8JD (GB) (73) Proprietor: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Wilmington, DE 19898 (US) (56) References cited: WO-A-03/015518 WO-A-03/015519 (72) Inventors: WO-A1-03/024222 • Annan, Isaac Billy Newark, Delaware 19711 (US) Remarks: • Selby, Thomas Paul Thefile contains technical information submitted after Hockessin, DE 19707 (US) the application was filed and not included in this specification Note: Within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin, any person may give notice to the European Patent Office of opposition to that patent, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. -
Hunting Billbug Sphenophorus Venatus (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae) Adult Feeding and Attraction to Warm- and Cool- Season Turfgrasses
The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 53 Numbers 1 & 2 - Spring/Summer 2020 Numbers Article 8 1 & 2 - Spring/Summer 2020 Hunting Billbug Sphenophorus venatus (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae) adult feeding and attraction to warm- and cool- season turfgrasses Alexandra Grace Duffy Brigham Young University, [email protected] Douglas S. Richmond Purdue University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Duffy, Alexandra Grace and Richmond, Douglas S. "Hunting Billbug Sphenophorus venatus (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae) adult feeding and attraction to warm- and cool-season turfgrasses," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 53 (1) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol53/iss1/8 This Scientific Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Hunting Billbug Sphenophorus venatus (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae) adult feeding and attraction to warm- and cool-season turfgrasses Cover Page Footnote We thank Danielle Craig and Garrett Price for field assistance. eW are grateful for the cooperation of superintendents and staff at Purdue Sports Turf and William H. Daniel Turfgrass Research and Diagnostic Center. We are grateful for the cooperation of Dr. Ian Kaplan and Ulianova Vidal Gómez for assistance with the olfactometry methods. Dr. Juli Carrillo, Dr. Laura Ingwell, and Dr. Elizabeth Long provided helpful insights on earlier versions of this manuscript. Dr. Diane Silcox Reynolds provided helpful insight and was integral in developing the initial questions during the A. -
Zoysiagrass Genotypes Differ in Susceptibility to the Bluegrass
HORTSCIENCE 46(9):1314–1316. 2011. Studies have evaluated the resistance of cultivars and blends of kentucky bluegrass to the bluegrass billbug (Ahmad and Funk, Zoysiagrass Genotypes Differ in 1982; Lindgren et al., 1981; Shearman et al., 1983). However, currently, there is minimal Susceptibility to the Bluegrass Billbug, information associatedwiththepresenceof bluegrass billbug in Kansas and the suscep- Sphenophorus parvulus tibility of zoysiagrass. Therefore, the objec- tives of this study were to monitor the Jack D. Fry1 presence of bluegrass billbug larvae at the Department of Horticulture, Forestry, and Recreational Resources, Kansas Rocky Ford Turfgrass Research Center State University, 2021 Throckmorton Plant Science Center, Manhattan, KS (Manhattan, KS) and determine the suscepti- 66506 bility of zoysiagrass progeny including re- ciprocal crosses between Z. japonica · Z. Raymond A. Cloyd matrella or between ‘Emerald’ · Z. japonica Department of Entomology, Kansas State University, 123 West Waters Hall, to the bluegrass billbug. Manhattan, KS 66506 Materials and Methods Additional index words. damage, infestation, insect pest, turfgrass, Zoysia spp. Dr. Raymond A. Cloyd (Department of Abstract. Zoysiagrass, in general, has few insect pest problems but may suffer significant Entomology, Kansas State University, damage from infestations of the bluegrass billbug (Sphenophorus parvulus Gyllenhal). Manhattan, KS) identified all the bluegrass This study evaluated ‘Meyer’ and DALZ 0102 zoysiagrass (both Zoysia japonica Steud.) billbug larvae collected from the study area and 31 experimental zoysiagrass progeny, including reciprocal crosses between Z. at the Rocky Ford Turfgrass Research Center japonica · Z. matrella (L.) Merr. or crosses between ‘Emerald’ (Z. japonica · Z. pacifica (Manhattan, KS) during the course of the Goudsw.) · Z. -
Turf Insects
Ants O & T Guide [T-#01] Carol A. Sutherland Extension and State Entomologist Cooperative Extension Service z College of Agriculture and Home Economics z October 2006 With over 100 ant species in New Mexico, nursery below ground in harvester and fire ants are probably the most familiar and ant colonies. These require 10-14 days to most numerous insects found in turf, complete development. Æ During the ornamental plantings and elsewhere. Only summer, most adult ants probably three species of this abundant group of complete development from egg to adult insects will be described here. Harvester in 6-8 weeks during the summer. and southern fire ants are common in our turf. Red imported fire ant (RIFA) is an invasive, exotic species and a threat to New Mexico agriculture, public health and safety. Metamorphosis: Complete Mouth Parts: Chewing (larvae, adults) Pest Stage: Adults Scientifically: Ants are members of the Red imported fire ant worker, Solenopsis insect order Hymenoptera, Family invicta. Photo: April Noble, www.antweb.org, Formicidae. www.forestryimages.org Typical Life Cycle: Eggs are incubated in Ants are social insects living in colonies of the nursery area of the mound, close to the several hundred to many thousands of surface where the soil is sun warmed. Æ individuals. In its simplest form, a single Larvae are kept in the nursery area where mated queen produces all of the eggs. growing conditions are maintained at Nearly all of these are devoted to optimal levels. All of these stages are production of workers, sterile females tended, fed and protected by worker ants. -
Natural* Pest Control in the Home Garden Why Go the Natural Route?
Natural* Pest Control in the Home Garden Why go the natural route? • Safety • Sustainability • Insect resistance • Cost considerations • $ • Time • Health Natural Controls • At least some natural forces act on all organisms, causing populations to rise and fall • Be aware of the influence of natural forces and whether or not you can harness them to balance the scales in your favor • Climate • Natural enemies • Geography/Environment • Sustenance • Shelter Disease Triangle So I want to go more natural. What are my strategies? First Thing’s First: Document everything. Plant/Variety Selection • Right plant, right place (think of the disease triangle) • Stressed plants emit pheromones that attract insect pests • Some plants resist pest attacks better than others • Heirlooms vs hybrids Timing • Time plantings so that majority of crop will avoid peak pest infestations Cultural/Mechanical Control • Spacing • Plant strength • Airflow/circulation • Pathogen dispersal • Plant Strength Cultural/Mechanical Control • Weeds, grass around garden may harbor harmful pests • Gardens started on formerly turfed area may contain harmful larvae and formidable weeds Cultural/Mechanical Control • Crop Rotation/Cover Crop • Soil health • Weed control Cultural/Mechanical Control • Row Covers Cultural/Mechanical Control Sanitation • Removal of sick, dying, dead plant material • Mulch • Know when to call it quits Trapping • Very practical, just require a threshold • Traps for wide range of pests available commercially Scouting • Not just what you see – context is -
Grubs / Scarab Beetles Know Thy Enemy: White Grubs / Scarab Beetles • Scarab Beetles (Scarabaeidae) Are Part of the Coleoptera Order (General Beetles)
A Novel, Effective Approach to Grub Control That is Safe for Pollinators, People, Animals and the Environment with EPA Exemptions in CT Joe Magazzi, MS President Outline WHAT? WHY? HOW? Know Thy Enemy: White Grubs / Scarab Beetles Know Thy Enemy: White Grubs / Scarab Beetles • Scarab Beetles (Scarabaeidae) are part of the Coleoptera order (General Beetles). • There are about 30,000 scarab species comprising about 10 percent of all known beetles. The term “white grub” is the immature or larval form of the scarab beetle. • Most consume live plants, fruits and vegetable and are considered agricultural pests with a large negative economic impact. In Connecticut, the most prevalent and damaging species are: Japanese beetles, European chafers, Asiatic garden beetles, Oriental beetles, Northern masked chafer Know Thy Enemy: White Grubs / Scarab Beetles Economic Impact • “White grubs are the most damaging group of turf grass insect pests in our region”…Connecticut IPM Annual Report from UCONN in 2013. • According to a USDA/APHIS report in 2000, about $156 million is spent in the US annually renovating or replacing damaged turf or ornamental plants. • That same report from 2000 estimated that $460 million is spent each year to control the grubs and adults. • Today, the economic impact is likely higher than it was 16 years ago. • These numbers are only for the Japanese beetle – total white grub & adult beetle damage is likely in the billions. Know Thy Enemy: Beetle Life Cycles From Cornell University Integrated Pest Management Program (www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/grubs/life.asp) beetleGONE! & grubGONE! (Bacillus thuringiensis) & The Cry Proteins: An Introduction & Mode of Action Against Grubs & Beetles “The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend” Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) • Bacteria first isolated in 1901 by Ishiwatari from diseased silkworms and again by Berliner from diseased flour moth larvae in 1911. -
Masked Chafer (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Grubs in Turfgrass
Journal of Integrated Pest Management (2016) 7(1): 3; 1–11 doi: 10.1093/jipm/pmw002 Profile Biology, Ecology, and Management of Masked Chafer (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Grubs in Turfgrass S. Gyawaly,1,2 A. M. Koppenho¨fer,3 S. Wu,3 and T. P. Kuhar1 1Virginia Tech, Department of Entomology, 216 Price Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0319 ([email protected]; [email protected]), 2Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected], and 3Rutgers University, Department of Entomology, Thompson Hall, 96 Lipman Drive, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8525 ([email protected]; [email protected]) Received 22 October 2015; Accepted 11 January 2016 Abstract Downloaded from Masked chafers are scarab beetles in the genus Cyclocephala. Their larvae (white grubs) are below-ground pests of turfgrass, corn, and other agricultural crops. In some regions, such as the Midwestern United States, they are among the most important pest of turfgrass, building up in high densities and consuming roots below the soil/thatch interface. Five species are known to be important pests of turfgrass in North America, including northern masked chafer, Cyclocephala borealis Arrow; southern masked chafer, Cyclocephala lurida Bland [for- http://jipm.oxfordjournals.org/ merly Cyclocephala immaculata (Olivier)]; Cyclocephala pasadenae (Casey); Cyclocephala hirta LeConte; and Cyclocephala parallela Casey. Here we discuss their life history, ecology, and management. Key words: Turfgrass IPM, white grub, Cyclocephala, masked chafer Many species of scarabs are pests of turfgrass in the larval stage southern Ohio, and Maryland. The two species have overlapping (Table 1). Also known as white grubs, larvae of these species feed distributions throughout the Midwest, particularly in the central on grass roots and damage cultivated turfgrasses. -
2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory
2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory ........................................................................................... 3 Alaska ... ........................................ ............................................................... 3 LEPIDOPTERISTS Zone 2: British Columbia .................................................... ........................ ............ 6 Idaho .. ... ....................................... ................................................................ 6 Oregon ........ ... .... ........................ .. .. ............................................................ 10 SOCIETY Volume 53 Supplement Sl Washington ................................................................................................ 14 Zone 3: Arizona ............................................................ .................................... ...... 19 The Lepidopterists' Society is a non-profo California ............... ................................................. .............. .. ................... 2 2 educational and scientific organization. The Nevada ..................................................................... ................................ 28 object of the Society, which was formed in Zone 4: Colorado ................................ ... ............... ... ...... ......................................... 2 9 May 1947 and formally constituted in De Montana .................................................................................................... 51 cember -
Managing Turfgrass Insects of the Northeast Part 3: Surface-Feeding Insect Pests (Updated 1-16-2020) Albrecht Koppenhöfer Rutgers Cooperative Extension Outline
Managing Turfgrass Insects of the Northeast Part 3: Surface-feeding insect pests (updated 1-16-2020) Albrecht Koppenhöfer Rutgers Cooperative Extension Outline • ID, BIOLOGY & SPECIAL CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS - Stem- and crown-burrowing pests (3-51) - Sucking pests (52-69) - Leaf- and stem-chewing pests (70-99) Turf Insect ID & Biology Stem & Crown Burrowing Pests • Billbugs • Annual bluegrass weevil • Frit fly Billbugs Sphenophorus spp. Snout (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) (‘bill’) 0.3 - 0.5” Adult Larva M. M. Johnson D. Shetlar Billbugs - Development Hunting BB, uneven BB, Small BB Probably similar in NE L3 L5 Pupa Adult from Brandenburg & Villani 1995 Billbugs Adults • Long snout (bill) with mouthparts at tip • Elbowed antennae attached at snout base • Length of snout+head+thorax ~ elytra • 0.3-0.5” long • Grayish to black D. Shetlar Billbugs Larvae • Cream colored body • Brown head • Body somewhat curved, fat through middle, pointed at tail • Like small white grubs but legless • 0.05 (L1) to 0.4” (L5) long • No differences between species from Univ. Nebraska from Univ. Billbugs – Important Species Bluegrass billbug, S. parvulus • Common in cool-season zones across USA • Prefers cool-season grasses Hunting billbug, S. venatus vestitus • Common in transition and southern turf areas where it prefers warm-season grasses, espec. Bermudagrass and zoysiagrass. • In NJ also common in cool-season grasses Other species more restricted in distribution. In NJ also small billbug and uneven billbug. Billbugs – Identification of Species D. Richmond D. Richmond J. Kalish D. Shetlar Small Uneven Bluegrass Hunting S. minimus S. inaequalis S. parvulus S. venatus vestitus Billbugs Injury • Young larvae feed inside grass stems, then burrow down to feed on crown. -
CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties. -
An Annotated List of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada
A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 38: 1–549 (2010) Annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada 1 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.38.383 MONOGRAPH www.pensoftonline.net/zookeys Launched to accelerate biodiversity research An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada Gregory R. Pohl1, Gary G. Anweiler2, B. Christian Schmidt3, Norbert G. Kondla4 1 Editor-in-chief, co-author of introduction, and author of micromoths portions. Natural Resources Canada, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320 - 122 St., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 3S5 2 Co-author of macromoths portions. University of Alberta, E.H. Strickland Entomological Museum, Department of Biological Sciences, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3 3 Co-author of introduction and macromoths portions. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, K.W. Neatby Bldg., 960 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6 4 Author of butterfl ies portions. 242-6220 – 17 Ave. SE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2A 0W6 Corresponding authors: Gregory R. Pohl ([email protected]), Gary G. Anweiler ([email protected]), B. Christian Schmidt ([email protected]), Norbert G. Kondla ([email protected]) Academic editor: Donald Lafontaine | Received 11 January 2010 | Accepted 7 February 2010 | Published 5 March 2010 Citation: Pohl GR, Anweiler GG, Schmidt BC, Kondla NG (2010) An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada. ZooKeys 38: 1–549. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.38.383 Abstract Th is checklist documents the 2367 Lepidoptera species reported to occur in the province of Alberta, Can- ada, based on examination of the major public insect collections in Alberta and the Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes.