DOCSLIB.ORG

Lantana Camara L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lantana Camara L Crop Protection Compendium - Lantana camara L. Pierre Binggeli 2005 NAMES AND TAXONOMY Preferred scientific name Lantana camara L. Taxonomic position Other scientific names Domain: Eukaryota Lantana aculeata Kingdom: Viridiplantae Lantana scabrida Ait. Phylum: Spermatophyta Lantana antidotalis Thonning (1827) Subphylum: Angiospermae Camara vulgaris Benth. Class: Dicotyledonae Lantana camara var. aculeata Order: Lamiales Family: Verbenaceae BAYER code LANCA (Lantana camara) Common names English: Cambodia: puchengan lantana ach mann puyengan red-flowered sage Fiji: saliara white sage kauboica saliyere tickberry Germany: sliyara prickly lantana wandelroeschen tahi agam Spanish: Guinea: tai hayam venturosa boulé kogno tai kotok mora de caballo kogno porto telekan cinco negritos Haiti: tembelek cariaquillo bonbonier tembelekan camar herbe au diable teterapan corroncho herbe bourrique waung comida de paloma herbe à plomb wileran santo negrito Hawaii: Kiribati: cinco cincos lakana te kaibuaka frutilla India: Madagascar: palo del diablo bands fankatavinakoho morita nagaairi fotatra jarrila phullaki mandadrieko jaral putus radredreka soterre tantbi rajejeka French: Indonesia: ramity lantanier boenga pagar Malaysia: boenga pagar bunga asam senyur Assam: chente bunga pagar guphul kembang satik bunga tahi anjing Brazil: kembang telek bunga tahi asu cambara de espinho oblo bunga tahi ayam busok Binggeli 2005 Crop Protection Compendium - Lantana camara L. 1 bunga tahi ayam Lantana genda-pana tahi ayam munai latana katu-hinguru Mauritius: South Africa: rata-guru vieille fille boesmandruiwe ton-kinna Nicaragua: cherry-pie Thailand: cuasquito common lantana kamkung Philippines: gewone lantana paka krawng bahug-bahug gomdagga pha-ka-krong sapinit sumba Tonga: Puerto Rico: voelbrandewyn Talamoa cariaquillo wild lantana talatala Ryukyu Archipelago: wilderoosmaryn Vietnam: shichi-henge yellow sage thom oi Saint Helena: Sri Lanka: Zimbabwe: wild currant ganda-pana chiponiwe Samoa: garda-pana Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature L. camara is a highly variable species which has been widely cultivated for over 300 years. Hundreds of cultivars and hybrids exist (Howard, 1969) and most of them belong to the Lantana camara complex (Stirton, 1979). Cultivars can be distinguished morphologically (flower size, shape and colour; leaf size, hairiness and colour; stem thorniness; height and branch architecture), physiologically (growth rates, toxicity to livestock) and by their chromosome number and DNA content (Gujral and Vasudevan, 1983; Scott et al., 1997; Stirton, 1979). Two groups are often recognized: one with few or no spines commonly found in the neotropics and with spines in other parts of the world where the species is troublesome (Howard, 1970; Swarbrick, 1986). In the Pacific Islands the commonest variety is the prickly L. camara var. aculeata (Thaman, 1974). HOST RANGE List of hosts plants Major hosts Ananas comosus (pineapple), Camellia sinensis (tea), Cocos nucifera (coconut), Coffea (coffee), Durio zibethinus (durian), Elaeis guineensis (African oil palm), Gossypium (cotton), Hevea brasiliensis (rubber), Musa x paradisiaca (plantain), Oryza sativa (rice), pastures , Poaceae (grasses), Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane), Santalum album (Indian sandalwood), Shorea robusta (sal) HABITAT Habitat descriptors Principal weed in: managed forests; natural forests; wastelands Binggeli 2005 Crop Protection Compendium - Lantana camara L. 2 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Notes on distribution L. camara is native to Central and South America but its original distribution is unclear due to the introduction of a number of ornamental varieties. The species has also been poorly investigated in its native range, where it is not usually considered to be a serious pest, and the extent of its original native range is unclear. In the West Indies it is found in dry thickets (Adams, 1976). The weed is noted to be present in the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador (Cruz et al., 1986). Distribution List Europe introduced Europe (as a whole) present Burkill, 1935 (1692) Italy present introduced Tutin et al., 1972 [Portugal] Azores localized introduced Tutin et al., 1972 Madeira localized introduced invasive Press & Short, 1994 not Spain localized introduced Sobrino et al., 2002 invasive Asia Bangladesh present introduced invasive Islam et al., 2001 Holm et al., 1979; Waterhouse, Brunei Darussalam present introduced invasive 1993 Cambodia present introduced invasive Waterhouse, 1993 China present introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979; Corlett, 1992 present, few introduced (ca Hong Kong invasive Holm et al., 1979 occurrences 1851) Taiwan widespread introduced invasive Xie Yan et al., 2001 introduced India present invasive Burkill, 1935 (1809) Andhra Pradesh present introduced invasive Rawat, 1997 Assam widespread introduced invasive Gujral & Vasudevan, 1983 Bihar widespread introduced invasive Gujral & Vasudevan, 1983 Delhi widespread introduced invasive Gujral & Vasudevan, 1983 Himachal Pradesh widespread introduced invasive Gujral & Vasudevan, 1983 Indian Punjab widespread introduced invasive Gujral & Vasudevan, 1983 Jammu and Kashmir widespread introduced invasive Gujral & Vasudevan, 1983 Karnataka widespread introduced invasive Gujral & Vasudevan, 1983 Madhya Pradesh widespread introduced invasive Gujral & Vasudevan, 1983 Maharashtra present introduced invasive Sinha & Sharma, 1984 Orissa present introduced invasive Sinha & Sharma, 1984 Rajasthan widespread introduced invasive Gujral & Vasudevan, 1983 Tamil Nadu widespread introduced invasive Nair & Henry, 1983 Uttar Pradesh widespread introduced invasive Gujral & Vasudevan, 1983 Binggeli 2005 Crop Protection Compendium - Lantana camara L. 3 West Bengal present introduced invasive Sinha & Sharma, 1984 Indonesia present introduced invasive Waterhouse, 1993 Java widespread introduced invasive Smiet, 1992 Kalimantan widespread introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Sulawesi widespread introduced invasive Whitten et al., 2002 present, few Israel introduced Holm et al., 1979 occurrences [Japan] Ryukyu Archipelago localized introduced invasive Walker, 1976 Holm et al., 1979; Waterhouse, Malaysia localized introduced invasive 1993 Myanmar present introduced invasive Waterhouse, 1993 introduced (ca Burkill, 1935; Holm et al., 1979; Philippines widespread invasive 1840) Waterhouse, 1993 Saudi Arabia present introduced Day et al., 2003 Waterhouse, 1993; Baretto et al., Singapore present introduced invasive 1995 introduced (ca Sri Lanka widespread invasive Morton, 1994; Evans, 1999 1826) Holm et al., 1979; Waterhouse, Thailand present introduced invasive 1993 Timor-Leste widespread introduced invasive McWilliam, 2000 Turkey widespread introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Holm et al., 1979; Waterhouse, Vietnam present introduced invasive 1993 Africa Angola present introduced invasive Day et al., 2003 introduced (ca Cape Verde present invasive Chevalier, 1935 1851) Comoros widespread introduced invasive Roby & Dossar, 2000 Congo Democratic present introduced invasive Day et al., 2003 Republic Côte d'Ivoire present introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Binggeli & Desalegn Dessissa, Ethiopia widespread introduced invasive 2002 Gabon present introduced invasive Barreto et al., 1995 Gambia present introduced invasive Robinson, 2001 Ghana widespread introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Guinea present introduced invasive Schnell, 1950 Kenya widespread introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Liberia present introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Holm et al., 1979; Binggeli, Madagascar widespread introduced invasive 2003 Mauritius widespread introduced invasive Macdonald et al., 1991 Rodriguez Island widespread introduced invasive Strahm, 1989 Binggeli 2005 Crop Protection Compendium - Lantana camara L. 4 Mozambique widespread invasive Holm et al., 1979 Namibia present introduced invasive Bromilow, 1995 Nigeria widespread introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Saint Helena widespread introduced invasive Cronk, 1989 Senegal present introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Seychelles present introduced invasive Gerlach, 1993 South Africa widespread introduced invasive Erasmus et al., 1993 Sudan present introduced invasive Barreto et al., 1995 Swaziland present introduced invasive Robertson et al., 2001 Tanzania widespread introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Uganda widespread introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Zambia present introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Zimbabwe widespread introduced invasive Holm et al., 1979 Central America & Caribbean Antigua and Barbuda present native Francis et al., 1994 Gooding et al., 1965; Morton, Barbados widespread native 1994 Costa Rica widespread native Schemske, 1983 Cuba present native Sharma et al., 1988 Dominican Republic present native Barreto et al., 1995 El Salvador present native Day et al., 2003 Guatemala present native Holm et al., 1979 Haiti present native Day et al., 2003 Honduras present native Holm et al., 1979 Jamaica widespread native Adams, 1976 Nicaragua widespread native Holm et al., 1979 Panama present native Holm et al., 1979 Puerto Rico localized native Holm et al., 1979 Trinidad and Tobago widespread native Holm et al., 1979 United States Virgin present native Morton, 1994 Islands North America [USA] Alabama present introduced Doren et al., 2002 California present introduced Morton, 1994 Georgia (USA) present introduced Doren et al., 2002 introduced Hawaii widespread invasive Davis et al., 1992 (1859) Louisiana present introduced Doren et al., 2002 Mississippi present introduced Doren et al.,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 1 DNA Barcodes Reveal Deeply Neglected Diversity and Numerous
    Page 1 of 57 1 DNA barcodes reveal deeply neglected diversity and numerous invasions of micromoths in 2 Madagascar 3 4 5 Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde1,2, Lucas Sire2, Bruno Rasmussen2, Rodolphe Rougerie3, 6 Christian Wieser4, Allaoui Ahamadi Allaoui 5, Joël Minet3, Jeremy R. deWaard6, Thibaud 7 Decaëns7, David C. Lees8 8 9 1 INRA, UR633, Zoologie Forestière, F- 45075 Orléans, France. 10 2 Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l’Insecte, UMR 7261 CNRS Université de Tours, UFR 11 Sciences et Techniques, Tours, France. 12 3Institut de Systématique Evolution Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 13 CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, 57 rue Cuvier, CP 50, 75005 Paris, France. 14 4 Landesmuseum für Kärnten, Abteilung Zoologie, Museumgasse 2, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria 15 5 Department of Entomology, University of Antananarivo, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar 16 6 Centre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON 17 N1G2W1, Canada 18 7Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS–Université de Genome Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV GUELPH on 10/03/18 19 Montpellier–Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier–EPHE), 1919 Route de Mende, F-34293 20 Montpellier, France. 21 8Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD, UK. 22 23 24 Email for correspondence: [email protected] For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from final official version of record. 1 Page 2 of 57 25 26 Abstract 27 Madagascar is a prime evolutionary hotspot globally, but its unique biodiversity is under threat, 28 essentially from anthropogenic disturbance.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Barcodes Reveal Deeply Neglected Diversity and Numerous Invasions of Micromoths in Madagascar
    Genome DNA barcodes reveal deeply neglected diversity and numerous invasions of micromoths in Madagascar Journal: Genome Manuscript ID gen-2018-0065.R2 Manuscript Type: Article Date Submitted by the 17-Jul-2018 Author: Complete List of Authors: Lopez-Vaamonde, Carlos; Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), ; Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l’Insecte (IRBI), Sire, Lucas; Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l’Insecte Rasmussen,Draft Bruno; Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l’Insecte Rougerie, Rodolphe; Institut Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Wieser, Christian; Landesmuseum für Kärnten Ahamadi, Allaoui; University of Antananarivo, Department Entomology Minet, Joël; Institut de Systematique Evolution Biodiversite deWaard, Jeremy; Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Decaëns, Thibaud; Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS–Université de Montpellier–Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier–EPHE), , CEFE UMR 5175 CNRS Lees, David; Natural History Museum London Keyword: Africa, invasive alien species, Lepidoptera, Malaise trap, plant pests Is the invited manuscript for consideration in a Special 7th International Barcode of Life Issue? : https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/genome-pubs Page 1 of 57 Genome 1 DNA barcodes reveal deeply neglected diversity and numerous invasions of micromoths in 2 Madagascar 3 4 5 Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde1,2, Lucas Sire2, Bruno Rasmussen2, Rodolphe Rougerie3, 6 Christian Wieser4, Allaoui Ahamadi Allaoui 5, Joël Minet3, Jeremy R. deWaard6, Thibaud 7 Decaëns7, David C. Lees8 8 9 1 INRA, UR633, Zoologie Forestière, F- 45075 Orléans, France. 10 2 Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l’Insecte, UMR 7261 CNRS Université de Tours, UFR 11 Sciences et Techniques, Tours, France.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Release of the Leaf-Feeding Moth, Hypena Opulenta (Christoph)
    United States Department of Field release of the leaf-feeding Agriculture moth, Hypena opulenta Marketing and Regulatory (Christoph) (Lepidoptera: Programs Noctuidae), for classical Animal and Plant Health Inspection biological control of swallow- Service worts, Vincetoxicum nigrum (L.) Moench and V. rossicum (Kleopow) Barbarich (Gentianales: Apocynaceae), in the contiguous United States. Final Environmental Assessment, August 2017 Field release of the leaf-feeding moth, Hypena opulenta (Christoph) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), for classical biological control of swallow-worts, Vincetoxicum nigrum (L.) Moench and V. rossicum (Kleopow) Barbarich (Gentianales: Apocynaceae), in the contiguous United States. Final Environmental Assessment, August 2017 Agency Contact: Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Rd., Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action.
    [Show full text]
  • RECORDS of the HAWAII BIOLOGICAL SURVEY for 1995 Part 2: Notes1
    RECORDS OF THE HAWAII BIOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR 1995 Part 2: Notes1 This is the second of two parts to the Records of the Hawaii Biological Survey for 1995 and contains the notes on Hawaiian species of plants and animals including new state and island records, range extensions, and other information. Larger, more compre- hensive treatments and papers describing new taxa are treated in the first part of this Records [Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 45]. New Hawaiian Pest Plant Records for 1995 PATRICK CONANT (Hawaii Dept. of Agriculture, Plant Pest Control Branch, 1428 S King St, Honolulu, HI 96814) Fabaceae Ulex europaeus L. New island record On 6 October 1995, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife employee C. Joao submitted an unusual plant he found while work- ing in the Molokai Forest Reserve. The plant was identified as U. europaeus and con- firmed by a Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) nox-A survey of the site on 9 October revealed an infestation of ca. 19 m2 at about 457 m elevation in the Kamiloa Distr., ca. 6.2 km above Kamehameha Highway. Distribution in Wagner et al. (1990, Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai‘i, p. 716) listed as Maui and Hawaii. Material examined: MOLOKAI: Molokai Forest Reserve, 4 Dec 1995, Guy Nagai s.n. (BISH). Melastomataceae Miconia calvescens DC. New island record, range extensions On 11 October, a student submitted a leaf specimen from the Wailua Houselots area on Kauai to PPC technician A. Bell, who had the specimen confirmed by David Lorence of the National Tropical Botanical Garden as being M.
    [Show full text]
  • Pu'u Wa'awa'a Biological Assessment
    PU‘U WA‘AWA‘A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PU‘U WA‘AWA‘A, NORTH KONA, HAWAII Prepared by: Jon G. Giffin Forestry & Wildlife Manager August 2003 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. ii GENERAL SETTING...................................................................................................................1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 Land Use Practices...............................................................................................................1 Geology..................................................................................................................................3 Lava Flows............................................................................................................................5 Lava Tubes ...........................................................................................................................5 Cinder Cones ........................................................................................................................7 Soils .......................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Chrysanthemoides Monilifera Ssp
    MANAGEMENT OF BONESEED (CHRYSANTHEMOIDES MONILIFERA SSP. MONILIFERA) (L.) T. NORL. USING FIRE, HERBICIDES AND OTHER TECHNIQUES IN AUSTRALIAN WOODLANDS Rachel L. Melland Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Agriculture, Food and Wine University of Adelaide August 2007 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... II ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ VI DECLARATION ................................................................................................................ VIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. IX CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 AIMS OF THIS THESIS .......................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 5 2.1 PROCESSES OF NATIVE ECOSYSTEM DEGRADATION ............................................................ 5 2.2 GLOBAL PLANT INVASIONS – ECOSYSTEM DEGRADING PROCESSES .................................... 6 2.3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL WEED PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA ..................................................... 10 2.4 CAUSES AND PROCESSES OF INVASIVENESS .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Agr. Nat. Resour. 54 (2020) 499–506 AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Journal homepage: http://anres.kasetsart.org Research article Checklist of the Tribe Spilomelini (Lepidoptera: Crambidae: Pyraustinae) in Thailand Sunadda Chaovalita,†, Nantasak Pinkaewb,†,* a Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand b Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture at Kamphaengsaen, Kasetsart University, Kamphaengsaen Campus, Nakhon Pathom 73140, Thailand Article Info Abstract Article history: In total, 100 species in 40 genera of the tribe Spilomelini were confirmed to occur in Thailand Received 5 July 2019 based on the specimens preserved in Thailand and Japan. Of these, 47 species were new records Revised 25 July 2019 Accepted 15 August 2019 for Thailand. Conogethes tenuialata Chaovalit and Yoshiyasu, 2019 was the latest new recorded Available online 30 October 2020 species from Thailand. This information will contribute to an ongoing program to develop a pest database and subsequently to a facilitate pest management scheme in Thailand. Keywords: Crambidae, Pyraustinae, Spilomelini, Thailand, pest Introduction The tribe Spilomelini is one of the major pests in tropical and subtropical regions. Moths in this tribe have been considered as The tribe Spilomelini Guenée (1854) is one of the largest tribes and the major pests of economic crops such as rice, sugarcane, bean belongs to the subfamily Pyraustinae, family Crambidae; it consists of pods and corn (Khan et al., 1988; Hill, 2007), durian (Kuroko 55 genera and 5,929 species worldwide with approximately 86 genera and Lewvanich, 1993), citrus, peach and macadamia, (Common, and 220 species of Spilomelini being reported in North America 1990), mulberry (Sharifi et.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Information Files
    Supporting Information Files Appendix S1 Definitions of the metrics used in this study to describe network structure. Network level parameters: (1) Species richness. Total number of plants and animals in the bipartite network. (2) Connectance. Realized proportion of possible links: sum of links divided by number of cells in the matrix (the latter being the product between the number of higher trophic level species –animals, in our case- and the number of lower trophic level species –plants, in our case). (3) Interaction asymmetry (or interaction strength asymmetry). Difference between the interaction strength (i.e. the relative frequency) of each animal species i on each plant species j and its reverse from the plant perspective, standardized by the sum of interaction strength values of species i on j and of species j on i (Bascompte et al. 2006; extended by Blüthgen 2010). Values vary between −1 and 1, where positive values indicate a high dependence of animal on plant species and negative values indicate the opposite. Given that this variable, by its mathematical definition, is closely associated with web asymmetry, this correlation is accounted with null models (see further details in Blüthgen 2010). Thus, for each network in the data set, we computed 1000 randomized interaction matrices simulated with the Patefield algorithm, which randomly redistributes interaction events among all cells of the matrix while holding the number of interaction events per species constant. Thus, web asymmetries were held constant in all simulated networks, while interactions were reallocated between pairs of species according to species interaction frequencies. The difference between observed asymmetries of interaction strength and the mean asymmetry of interaction strength across the 1000 simulations gives the null- model-corrected asymmetry of interaction strength.
    [Show full text]
  • Autographa Gamma
    1 Table of Contents Table of Contents Authors, Reviewers, Draft Log 4 Introduction to the Reference 6 Soybean Background 11 Arthropods 14 Primary Pests of Soybean (Full Pest Datasheet) 14 Adoretus sinicus ............................................................................................................. 14 Autographa gamma ....................................................................................................... 26 Chrysodeixis chalcites ................................................................................................... 36 Cydia fabivora ................................................................................................................. 49 Diabrotica speciosa ........................................................................................................ 55 Helicoverpa armigera..................................................................................................... 65 Leguminivora glycinivorella .......................................................................................... 80 Mamestra brassicae....................................................................................................... 85 Spodoptera littoralis ....................................................................................................... 94 Spodoptera litura .......................................................................................................... 106 Secondary Pests of Soybean (Truncated Pest Datasheet) 118 Adoxophyes orana ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Current and Potential Use of Phytophagous Mites As Biological Control Agent of Weeds
    Chapter 5 Current and Potential Use of Phytophagous Mites as Biological Control Agent of Weeds Carlos Vásquez, Yelitza Colmenárez, José Morales-Sánchez, Neicy Valera, María F. Sandoval and Diego Balza Additional information is available at the end of the chapter http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/59953 1. Introduction Biological control of weeds by using phytophagous mites may help to contain infestations and reduce their spread in time. Although, eradication is not the goal due to the vastness of the areas, the most desirable scenario is achieved when weeds are no longer a concern and no other control is necessary. However, biological control should not be considered the unique strategy to face weed problems, thus commonly; other methods are still required to attain the desired level of control. There is an increasingly interest in using mites for biological control of weeds, primarily those belonging to Eriophyidae because of they are host-specific and often weaken the host plant affecting plant growth and reproduction. Although eriophyid mite species impact the fitness of their host plant, it is not clear how much they have contributed to reduction of the population of the target weed. In some cases, natural enemies, resistant plant genotypes, and adverse abiotic conditions have reduced the ability of eriophyid mites to control target weed popula‐ tions. Besides, susceptibility of eriophyids to predators and pathogens may also prevent them from achieving population densities necessary to reduce host plant populations. In addition to eriophyid mites, tetranychid mites are also being considered as an alternative for weed control. The gorse spider mite, Tetranychus lintearius Dufour, has shown to reduce shoot growth on gorse (Ulex europaeus L.) by around 36% in impact studies conducted over 2.5 years in Tasmania.
    [Show full text]
  • Hemiptera: Membracidae Rafinesque, 1815) Del Sendero Principal De La Quebrada La Vieja (Colombia: Bogotá D.C.)
    Algunas anotaciones sobre la biología de las espinitas (Hemiptera: Membracidae Rafinesque, 1815) del sendero principal de la Quebrada La Vieja (Colombia: Bogotá D.C.) Mario Arias Universidad Pedagógica Nacional Facultad de Ciencia y Tecnología Licenciatura en Biología Bogotá D.C., Colombia 2018 Algunas anotaciones sobre la biología de las espinitas (Hemiptera: Membracidae Rafinesque, 1815) del sendero principal de la Quebrada La Vieja (Colombia: Bogotá D.C.) Mario Arias Trabajo de grado presentado como requisito parcial para optar al título de: Licenciado en Biología Director: Martha Jeaneth García Sarmiento MSc Línea de investigación: Faunística y conservación con énfasis en los artrópodos Universidad Pedagógica Nacional Facultad de Ciencia y Tecnología Licenciatura en Biología Bogotá D.C., Colombia 2018 Agradecimientos Agradezco particularmente a la profesora Martha García por guiar este trabajo de grado y por sus valiosos aportes para la construcción del mismo, sus correcciones, sugerencias, paciencia y confianza fueron valiosas para cumplir esta meta. Al estudiante de maestría de la Universidad CES Camilo Flórez Valencia por la bibliografía y corroboración a nivel especifico de los membrácidos. Al estudiante de maestría del Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) Nicolás Quijano por su invaluable ayuda en la obtención de libros en Costa Rica. Al licenciado en Biología Santiago Rodríguez por sus reiterados ánimos para llevar a cabo este trabajo. Al estudiante Andrés David Murcia por el préstamo de la cámara digital. Al M.Sc Ricardo Martínez por el préstamo de los instrumentos de laboratorio. Agradezco especialmente a mi familia, la confianza y creencia que depositaron en mí, ha sido el bastón con el cual he logrado sobreponerme a malos momentos, por eso este pequeño paso es una dedicación a Edilma Arias y Ángela Mireya Arias, indudablemente son personas trascendentales e irrepetibles en mi vida.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera Recorded for Imperial County California Compiled by Jeffrey Caldwell [email protected] 1-925-949-8696 Note
    Lepidoptera Recorded for Imperial County California Compiled by Jeffrey Caldwell [email protected] 1-925-949-8696 Note: BMNA = Butterflies and Moths of North America web site MPG = Moth Photographers Group web site Most are from the Essig Museum’s California Moth Specimens Database web site Arctiidae. Tiger and Lichen Moths. Apantesis proxima (Notarctia proxima). Mexican Tiger Moth. 8181 [BMNA] Ectypia clio (clio). Clio Tiger Moth. 8249 Estigmene acrea (acrea). Salt Marsh Moth. 8131 Euchaetes zella. 8232 Autostichidae (Deoclonidae). Oegoconia novimundi. Four-spotted Yellowneck Moth. 1134 (Oegoconia quadripuncta mis-applied) Bucculatricidae. Ribbed Cocoon-maker Moths. Bucculatrix enceliae. Brittlebrush Moth. 0546 Cossidae. Goat Moths, Carpenterworm Moths, and Leopard Moths. Comadia henrici. 2679 Givira mucida. 2660 Hypopta palmata. 2656 Prionoxystus robiniae (mixtus). Carpenterworm or Locust Borer. 2693 Depressariidae. Pseudethmia protuberans. 1008 [MPG] Ethmiidae. Now assigned to Depressariidae. Ethmiinae. Ethmia timberlakei. 0984 Pseudethmia protuberans. 1008 Gelechiidae. Twirler Moths. Aristotelia adceanotha. 1726 [Sighting 1019513 BMNA] Chionodes abdominella. 2054 Chionodes dentella. 2071 Chionodes fructuaria. 2078 Chionodes kincaidella. 2086 (reared from Atriplex acanthocarpa in Texas) Chionodes oecus. 2086.2 Chionodes sistrella. 2116 Chionodes xanthophilella. 2125 Faculta inaequalis. Palo Verde Webworm. 2206 Friseria cockerelli. Mesquite Webworm. 1916 Gelechia desiliens. 1938 Isophrictis sabulella. 1701 Keiferia lycopersicella. Tomato Pinworm. 2047 Pectinophora gossypiella. Pink Bollworm. 2261 Prolita puertella. 1895 Prolita veledae. 1903 Geometridae. Inchworm Moths, Loopers, Geometers, or Measuring Worms. Archirhoe neomexicana. 7295 Chesiadodes coniferaria. 6535 Chlorochlamys appellaria. 7073 Cyclophora nanaria. Dwarf Tawny Wave. W 7140 Dichorda illustraria. 7055 Dichordophora phoenix. Phoenix Emerald. 7057 Digrammia colorata. Creosote Moth. 6381 Digrammia irrorata (rubricata). 6395 Digrammia pictipennata. 6372 Digrammia puertata.
    [Show full text]