DOCSLIB.ORG

Neonicotinoid Insecticides in New York State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neonicotinoid Insecticides in New York State Neonicotinoid Insecticides in New York State economic benefits and risk to pollinators Travis A. Grout, Phoebe A. Koenig, Julie K. Kapuvari & Scott H. McArt Copyright © 2020 Cornell University Travis A. Grout: [email protected] Scott McArt: [email protected] Dyce Lab for Honey Bee Studies https://pollinator.cals.cornell.edu Final report (June 23, 2020) Cover photo by Emma Walters, Cornell University. Table of contents photo and, unless otherwise attributed, chapter heading images courtesy of USDA Agricultural Research Service. 3 Acknowledgements This risk assessment would not have been possible without input from numerous subject matter experts. We a re particularly grateful to our colleagues below, all of whom took time from their own projects to edit and improve the information provided in the report. Government and community relations: Julie Suarez (Associate Dean for Land Grant Affairs, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) Pesticide management and regulation: Dan Wixted, Mary Centrella, and Mike Helms (Pesticide Management Education Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) Integrated pest management: Jennifer Grant (NYS Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Geneva, NY) Field crops: Matthew O’Neal (Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA) Jaime Cummings (NYS Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) Margaret Smith (Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) Matthew Ryan (Soil and Crop Sciences Section, Cornell Univeristy, Ithaca, NY) Fruit crops: Art Agnello, Peter Jentsch, and Greg Loeb (Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) Julie Carroll (NYS Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Geneva, NY) Vegetable crops: Brian Nault and Tony Shelton (Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) Abby Seaman (NYS Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Geneva, NY) Ornamentals: Dan Gilrein (Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, Riverhead, NY) Betsy Lamb (NYS Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) Turfgrass: Kyle Wickings (Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Geneva, NY) Jennifer Grant (NYS Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Geneva, NY) Conservation & forestry: Mark Whitmore (Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) Agricultural economics: Jennifer Ifft (Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) Proofreading and editing: Catherine Crosier and Lauren Cody (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) Contents 1 Executive Summary ............................................. 19 2 Scope and Methods ............................................. 27 2.1 Identifying neonicotinoid uses in New York 29 2.2 Assessing relative value of insecticides 30 2.2.1 Limitations of the economic analysis .................................... 32 2.3 Assessing risk of insecticides to pollinators 34 2.3.1 Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) ................................... 35 2.3.2 Hazard Quotient (HQ) ............................................... 39 2.3.3 Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC) ........................... 40 2.4 Neonicotinoids and human health 41 2.5 Key assumptions of this document 42 3 Introduction to Neonicotinoids ................................... 48 3.1 Federal and State regulation 51 3.2 Mode of action 54 3.3 Development and history 54 3.4 Neonicotinoids used in New York 56 3.4.1 Nitroguanidine neonicotinoids ........................................ 57 3.4.2 Cyanoamidine neonicotinoids ........................................ 62 3.5 Common application methods 63 3.5.1 Seed treatment .................................................... 64 3.5.2 Foliar sprays ....................................................... 66 3.5.3 Soil treatments and chemigation ...................................... 66 3.5.4 Trunk injection and basal application ................................... 67 4 Neonicotinoid Uses and Substitutes ............................... 69 4.1 Field crops 70 4.1.1 Corn ............................................................. 72 4.1.2 Soybean ......................................................... 81 4.1.3 Wheat ........................................................... 85 4.2 Fruit crops 85 4.2.1 Apples and tree fruits ................................................ 86 4.2.2 Grapes ........................................................... 88 4.2.3 Berries ............................................................ 91 4.3 Vegetable crops 94 4.3.1 Cabbage and other crucifers ......................................... 94 4.3.2 Potatoes .......................................................... 97 4.3.3 Snap bean ........................................................ 99 4.3.4 Sweet corn ....................................................... 101 4.3.5 Squash, pumpkin, and other cucurbits ................................. 103 4.4 Ornamentals, turf, and landscape management 106 4.4.1 Outdoor ornamentals .............................................. 107 4.4.2 Commercial turf management ....................................... 111 4.4.3 Private homes and gardens ......................................... 113 4.5 Conservation and forestry 114 4.5.1 Asian longhorned beetle ............................................ 115 4.5.2 Emerald ash borer ................................................. 115 4.5.3 Hemlock woolly adelgid ............................................ 117 5 Value of Neonicotinoids in New York ............................. 119 5.1 Methodology 121 5.1.1 Literature review .................................................. 122 5.1.2 Analysis ......................................................... 123 5.2 Field corn 127 5.2.1 Yield effects ...................................................... 129 5.2.2 Cost effectiveness relative to alternatives ............................... 141 5.3 Soybean 145 5.3.1 Yield effects ...................................................... 148 5.3.2 Cost effectiveness relative to alternatives ............................... 157 5.4 Fruit crops 162 5.4.1 Apples and tree fruits ............................................... 162 5.4.2 Grapes .......................................................... 167 5.4.3 Berries ........................................................... 170 5.5 Vegetable crops 171 5.5.1 Cabbage and crucifers ............................................ 171 5.5.2 Potatoes ......................................................... 174 5.5.3 Snap bean ....................................................... 176 5.5.4 Sweet corn ....................................................... 177 5.5.5 Squash, pumpkin, and other cucurbits ................................. 178 5.6 Ornamentals, turf, and landscape management 180 5.7 Conservation and forestry 183 6 Risks of Neonicotinoids to Pollinators ............................. 185 6.1 Introduction to New York’s pollinators 187 6.1.1 Wild bees and other insect pollinators ................................. 189 6.1.2 Insect pollinators and New York agriculture ............................. 190 6.2 Regulatory reviews of neonicotinoid risks 191 6.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment . 192 6.2.2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation reviews . 194 6.3 Environmental fate of neonicotinoid insecticides 195 6.3.1 Seed treatment dust and spray drift ................................... 195 6.3.2 Persistence/movement in soils and uptake by non-target plants . 197 6.4 Changes in loading of pesticides to the environment 198 6.5 Risk to pollinators: Hazard Quotient results 200 6.6 Risk to pollinators: LOEC results 203 6.6.1 Literature review and analysis methods ................................ 205 6.6.2 Hazard of neonicotinoids to bees ..................................... 207 6.6.3 Exposure of bees to neonicotinoids .................................... 210 6.6.4 Risk to bees from neonicotinoids ...................................... 220 6.7 Relative risk of neonicotinoid insecticides compared to alternatives 226 7 Conclusions, Data Gaps, and Further Research . 234 7.1 Field crops: Benefits, risks, and data gaps 234 7.2 Fruit crops: Benefits, risks, and data gaps 240 7.3 Vegetable crops: Benefits, risks, and data gaps 243 7.4 Ornamentals, turf & landscape: Benefits, risks, and data gaps 244 7.5 Conservation and forestry: Benefits, risks, and data gaps 246 Acronyms ...................................................... 247 A Studies contributing to benefits analysis .......................... 396 B Studies contributing to risk analysis .............................. 412 List of Figures 2.1 Example of hazard, exposure, and risk .............................. 35 2.2 Interpreting Field Use Environmental Impact Quotient (FUEIQ) . 37 3.1 Neonicotinoid use in New York, 1995-2014 ........................... 57 3.2 Chemical structure of common neonicotinoids ....................... 58 3.3 Coated soybean seeds .......................................... 64 3.4 Foliar application of a pesticide ................................... 66 3.5 Insecticidal trunk injection (left) and bark basal spray (right) . 67 4.1 Acres of field corn harvested in New York counties (in thousands), 2017 . 71 4.2 New York soybean production .................................... 82 5.1 States and provinces included in state-, regional-, and North American-level analysis, all commodities ........................................... 126 5.2 Number of corn field
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Conservation and Ecology of Native Bees and Other Pollinators
    The conservation and ecology of native bees and other pollinators Colleen Smith [email protected] Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey Outline • Overview of pollination and bee biodiversity • My research on forest bees at Rutgers University • What you can do to support native bees • Bee ID! Outline • Overview of pollination and bee biodiversity • My research on forest bees at Rutgers University • What you can do to support native bees • Bee ID! Pollination: Transfer of pollen grains from anther to stigma ~ 87% of all flowering plants Ollerton et al. 2011 Oikos >2/3 crop species use animal- mediated pollination Klein et al. 2006 J. Applied Ecology Bees Native bees are important pollinators for many crops globally Garibaldi et al 2013 Science 3 bee life history strategies Solitary Social Parasitic • 77% of bee species • 10% of bee • 13% of bee species species 3 bee life history strategies Solitary Social Parasitic • 77% of bee species • 10% of bee • 13% of bee species species Bee life histories: solitary The vast majority of bees! Andrena erigeniae Colletes inaequalis Augochlora pura Pupa Adult bee Egg winter spring fall summer Pre-pupa Pupa Adult bee Egg winter spring fall summer Pre-pupa Pupa Adult bee Only 2 to 3 weeks of a solitary bees’ life! Egg winter spring fall summer Pre-pupa Pupa Adult bee Egg winter spring fall summer Pre-pupa How a solitary bee spends most of its life 3 bee life history strategies Solitary Social Parasitic • 77% of bee species • 10% of bee • 13% of bee species species Cuckoo bees Nomada bee 3 bee life history strategies Solitary Social Parasitic • 77% of bee species • 10% of bee • 13% of bee species species Bombus, Lasioglossum, Halictus Bombus impatiens Lasioglossum spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensory and Cognitive Adaptations to Social Living in Insect Societies Tom Wenseleersa,1 and Jelle S
    COMMENTARY COMMENTARY Sensory and cognitive adaptations to social living in insect societies Tom Wenseleersa,1 and Jelle S. van Zwedena A key question in evolutionary biology is to explain the solitarily or form small annual colonies, depending upon causes and consequences of the so-called “major their environment (9). And one species, Lasioglossum transitions in evolution,” which resulted in the pro- marginatum, is even known to form large perennial euso- gressive evolution of cells, organisms, and animal so- cial colonies of over 400 workers (9). By comparing data cieties (1–3). Several studies, for example, have now from over 30 Halictine bees with contrasting levels of aimed to determine which suite of adaptive changes sociality, Wittwer et al. (7) now show that, as expected, occurred following the evolution of sociality in insects social sweat bee species invest more in sensorial machin- (4). In this context, a long-standing hypothesis is that ery linked to chemical communication, as measured by the evolution of the spectacular sociality seen in in- the density of their antennal sensillae, compared with sects, such as ants, bees, or wasps, should have gone species that secondarily reverted back to a solitary life- hand in hand with the evolution of more complex style. In fact, the same pattern even held for the socially chemical communication systems, to allow them to polymorphic species L. albipes if different populations coordinate their complex social behavior (5). Indeed, with contrasting levels of sociality were compared (Fig. whereas solitary insects are known to use pheromone 1, Inset). This finding suggests that the increased reliance signals mainly in the context of mate attraction and on chemical communication that comes with a social species-recognition, social insects use chemical sig- lifestyle indeed selects for fast, matching adaptations in nals in a wide variety of contexts: to communicate their sensory systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveillance of Grape Berry Moth, Paralobesia Viteana Clemens (Lepidoptera
    Surveillance of grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana Clemens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in Virginia vineyards by Timothy Augustus Jordan Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Entomology Douglas G. Pfeiffer, Chair J. Christopher Bergh Carlyle C. Brewster Thomas P. Kuhar Tony K. Wolf March 21, 2014 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Remote, Vitis, Sex pheromone trap, Infestation, Degree-day, Landscape Chapter 3*****by Entomological Society of America used with permission All other material © 2014 by Timothy A. Jordan Surveillance of grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana Clemens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in Virginia vineyards by Timothy Augustus Jordan ABSTRACT My research addressed pheromone lure design and the activity of the grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana, flight and infestation across three years of study. In my lure evaluations, I found all commercial lures contained impurities and inconsistencies that have implications for management. First, sex pheromone concentration in lures affected both target and non-target attraction to traps, while the blend of sex pheromones impacted attraction to P. viteana. Second, over the duration of study, 54 vineyard blocks were sampled for the pest in and around cultivated wine grape in Virginia. The trapping studies indicated earliest and sustained emergence of the spring generation in sex pheromone traps placed in a wooded periphery. Later, moths were detected most often in the vineyard, which indicated that P. viteana emerged and aggregated in woods prior to flying and egg-laying in vineyards. My research supports use of woods and vineyard trap monitoring at both the height of 2 meters and in the periphery of respective environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Transport of Dangerous Goods
    ST/SG/AC.10/1/Rev.16 (Vol.I) Recommendations on the TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS Model Regulations Volume I Sixteenth revised edition UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2009 NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. ST/SG/AC.10/1/Rev.16 (Vol.I) Copyright © United Nations, 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may, for sales purposes, be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the United Nations. UNITED NATIONS Sales No. E.09.VIII.2 ISBN 978-92-1-139136-7 (complete set of two volumes) ISSN 1014-5753 Volumes I and II not to be sold separately FOREWORD The Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods are addressed to governments and to the international organizations concerned with safety in the transport of dangerous goods. The first version, prepared by the United Nations Economic and Social Council's Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, was published in 1956 (ST/ECA/43-E/CN.2/170). In response to developments in technology and the changing needs of users, they have been regularly amended and updated at succeeding sessions of the Committee of Experts pursuant to Resolution 645 G (XXIII) of 26 April 1957 of the Economic and Social Council and subsequent resolutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Nation's Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds
    The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Birds The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds American Bird Conservancy, March 2013 Grasshopper Sparrow by Luke Seitz Cover photos: Horned Lark and chicks by Middleton Evans; Corn field, stock.xchng, sxc.hu; Calico Pennant dragonfly by David Cappaert, Michigan State University, Bugwood.org 1 Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Birds American Bird Conservancy would like to thank the Turner Foundation, Wallace Genetic Foundation, Jeff and Connie Woodman, Cornell Douglas Foundation and A.W. Berry Foundation for their ongoing support for American Bird Conservancy’s Pesticides Program. Written by Dr. Pierre Mineau and Cynthia Palmer Designed by Stephanie von Blackwood About the Authors Dr. Pierre Mineau began his long and distinguished scientific career studying the effects of persistent organochlorine compounds, like DDT and PCBs, on fish-eating birds. He then became responsible for the Canadian assessment of new and existing pesticides to determine their adverse impacts on wildlife. In 1994 he transitioned from regulatory reviews to full-time research on the environmental impacts of pesticides, achieving the rank of Senior Research Scientist at Environment Canada. Working with international collaborators and graduate students, he works on assessing globally the environmental footprint of pesticides. He also studies how birds are exposed to pesticides and how bird populations respond to pesticide use and agricultural practices. His work includes defining the ecological values of birds in cropland as well as estimating the incidental take of birds from various other human activities. He has written more than 100 peer-reviewed publications and has authored some 200 presentations.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantification of Neonicotinoid Pesticides in Six Cultivable Fish Species from the River Owena in Nigeria and a Template For
    water Article Quantification of Neonicotinoid Pesticides in Six Cultivable Fish Species from the River Owena in Nigeria and a Template for Food Safety Assessment Ayodeji O. Adegun 1, Thompson A. Akinnifesi 1, Isaac A. Ololade 1 , Rosa Busquets 2 , Peter S. Hooda 3 , Philip C.W. Cheung 4, Adeniyi K. Aseperi 2 and James Barker 2,* 1 Department of Chemical Sciences, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba Akoko P.M.B. 001, Ondo State, Nigeria; [email protected] (A.O.A.); [email protected] (T.A.A.); [email protected] (I.A.O.) 2 School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames KT1 2EE, UK; [email protected] (R.B.); [email protected] (A.K.A.) 3 School of Engineering and the Environment, Kingston University, Kingston-on-Thames KT1 2EE, UK; [email protected] 4 Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 17 June 2020; Accepted: 24 August 2020; Published: 28 August 2020 Abstract: The Owena River Basin in Nigeria is an area of agricultural importance for the production of cocoa. To optimise crop yield, the cocoa trees require spraying with neonicotinoid insecticides (Imidacloprid, Thiacloprid Acetamiprid and Thiamethoxam). It is proposed that rainwater runoff from the treated area may pollute the Owena River and that these pesticides may thereby enter the human food chain via six species of fish (Clarias gariepinus, Clarias anguillaris, Sarotherodon galilaeus, Parachanna obscura, Oreochromis niloticus and Gymnarchus niloticus) which are cultured in the river mostly for local consumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Studies on Boric Acid, Imidacloprid And
    TOXICOLOGICAL STUDIES ON BORIC ACID, IMIDACLOPRID AND FIPRONIL AND THEIR BINARY MIXTURES AS INSECTICIDES ON GERMAN COCKROACH Blattellagermanica (L.) (DICTYOPTERA: BLATTELLIDAE) By FATMA SHERIF AHMED B.Sc. Agric. Sci. (Pesticides), Fac. Agric., Cairo Univ., 2007 THESIS Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In Agricultural Sciences (Pesticides) Department of Economic Entomology and Pesticides Faculty of Agriculture Cairo University EGYPT 2015 ١ INTRODUCTION The German cockroaches, Blattellagermanica (L.), (Dictyoptera, Blattellidae) are the most common indoor pests, especially in multiple-family housing and the most significant pest in many parts of the world (Goddard, 2003). German cockroaches prefer warm, wet locations with high humidity such as kitchens, bathrooms and laundry areas. These conditions are available in several places as homes, apartments, restaurants, supermarkets, hospitals and other buildings where food are stored. Cockroaches are not only corrupt food but also transfer pathogens such as Salmonella, Shigella, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus cereus (Baumholtz et al., 1997 and Tachbeleet al., 2006). Medically important parasites such as bacteria, fungi and molds, protozoans, viruses were isolated from external and internal surface of cockroach (Brenner, 1995). Cockroaches can also transfer both gram-positive and negative bacteria (El-Sherbini and El- Sherbini, 2011). A large number of neurotoxic and non-neurotoxic insecticides were used for German cockroach control, as this pest has a considerable ability to develop resistance to a variety of chemical insecticides(Cochran, 1989 and 1995a; Scott et al., 1990; Rust and Reierson, 1991; Rust et al., 1993; Holbrook et al., 1999; Espinosa-Islas et al., 2002 and Rahayuet al., 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for Imidacloprid
    Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov Imidacloprid Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision Case Number 7605 January 2020 Approved by: Elissa Reaves, Ph.D. Acting Director Pesticide Re-evaluation Division Date: __ 1-22-2020 __ Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4 A. Summary of Imidacloprid Registration Review............................................................... 5 B. Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Risk Assessments and Agency Responses 7 II. USE AND USAGE ............................................................................................................... 14 III. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS ......................................................................................... 15 A. Human Health Risks....................................................................................................... 15 1. Risk Summary and Characterization .......................................................................... 15 2. Human Incidents and Epidemiology .......................................................................... 17 3. Tolerances ................................................................................................................... 18 4. Human Health Data Needs ......................................................................................... 18 B. Ecological Risks ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Native Bee Benefits
    Bryn Mawr College and Rutgers University May 2009 Native Bee Benefits How to increase native bee pollination on your farm in several simple steps For Pennsylvania and New Jersey Farmers In this pamphlet, Why are native bees important? Insect pollination services are a highly important you can find out… agricultural input. Two-thirds of crop varieties require animal pollination for production and many crops have higher quality after The most effective native bees insect pollination.1,2,3 Bees are the most important pollinators in in PA and NJ and how to most ecosystems. They facilitate reproduction and improve seed set for half of Pennsylvania’s and New Jersey’s top fruit and identify them 4,5,6 vegetable commodities. Estimated value of their pollination services range from $6 - 263 million each year.7 Their habitat and foraging Honeybee numbers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey have needs been declining over the past several years. Beekeepers recorded overwinter losses of 26- 48% and 17-40% respectively in PA and Strategies for encouraging NJ between 2006 and 2009.8,9,10 These losses are much higher than their presence on your farm the typical 15% losses seen in previous years.10 Although many farmers rent managed honeybees to increase crop yield and quality, Sources of funding surveys of small to medium size PA and NJ farms have shown that native bees provide a substantial portion of pollination services.11,12 By increasing the number and diversity of native bees, PA and NJ farmers may be able to counter rising costs of rented bee colonies while supporting sustainable native plant and pollinator communities.
    [Show full text]
  • TB129: Chemical Control of Balsam Gall Midge Paradiplosis Tumifex Gagne (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) R
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Technical Bulletins Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 11-1-1987 TB129: Chemical Control of Balsam Gall Midge Paradiplosis tumifex Gagne (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) R. L. Bradbury E. A. Osgood Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Bradbury, R.L., and E.A. Osgood. 1987. Chemical control of balsam gall midge Paradiplosis tumifex Gagne (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 129. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Bulletins by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSN 0734-9556 Chemical Control of Balsam Gall Midge Paradiplosts tumifex Gagne (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) R. L. Bradbury and E. A. Osgood MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPKRIMLNT STATION UNIVERSITY OF MAINE Technical Bulletin 129 November 1987 Chemical Control of Balsam Gall Midge Paradiplosis tumifex Gagne (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) R. L. Bradbury Entomologist, Maine Eorest Service and E. A. Osgood Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank Mr. Har\ev Sprague and Brigadier General Clayton Totman, retired, for the use of their plantations; Mr. Charles Bailev and Mr. Hamdi Akar for assistance in collection of data; Dr. John Dimond and Dr. William Halteman for critical review of the manuscript; and the Maine Forest Service and Mclntire-Stennis appropriations for funding this project. TABLE OF CON ENTS INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RI'.SLILTS AND DISCUSSION LITERATURE CITED INTRODUCTION The balsam gall midge, Paradiplosis tumifex Gagne is found throughout Maine and over most of the natural range of balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., and Fraser fir, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Lundiana 8-1 2007.P65
    Lundiana 8(1):53-55, 2007 © 2007 Instituto de Ciências Biológicas - UFMG ISSN 1676-6180 SHORT COMMUNICATION Nests of Phacellodomus rufifrons (Wied, 1821) (Aves: Furnariidae) as sleeping shelter for a solitary bee species (Apidae: Centridini) in southeastern Brazil Alexsander A. Azevedo1,2 & Luiz Roberto R. Faria Jr.1,3 1 Laboratório de Sistemática e Ecologia de Abelhas, Departamento de Zoologia & Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Conservação e Manejo da Vida Silvestre, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Cx. P. 486 - 30.123-970 - Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. 2 Instituto Biotrópicos de Pesquisa em Vida Silvestre. E-mail: [email protected] 3 Current Address: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Entomologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná. Caixa Postal 19.020, 81.531-980, Curitiba, PR, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Sleeping shelters for male Centris (Trachina) fuscata Lepeletier, 1841 (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Centridini) were found in nests of the ovenbird Phacellodomus rufifrons (Wied, 1821) (Furnariidae) in an area of Cerra- do (Brazilian savanna), in the state of Minas Gerais, southeastern Brazil, in September 2003. Each day, male bees departed from the shelter early in the morning, returning to them late in the afternoon. Interactions among males were aggressive when two or more males returned simultaneously to the shelter, and lasted until all of them had either occupied a shelter inside the nest stick-matrix or left the nest proximity. Nests occupied by bird families apparently were preferred by bees, as well as those located nearest to a massive food source, a flowering tree Bowdichia virgilioides Kunth, 1823 (Fabaceae).
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Classical Biological Control of Leek Moth
    ____________________________________________________________________________ Ateyyat This project seeks to provide greater coherence for the biocontrol knowledge system for regulators and researchers; create an open access information source for biocontrol re- search of agricultural pests in California, which will stimulate greater international knowl- edge sharing about agricultural pests in Mediterranean climates; and facilitate the exchange of information through a cyberinfrastructure among government regulators, and biocontrol entomologists and practitioners. It seeks broader impacts through: the uploading of previ- ously unavailable data being made openly accessible; the stimulation of greater interaction between the biological control regulation, research, and practitioner community in selected Mediterranean regions; the provision of more coherent and useful information to enhance regulatory decisions by public agency scientists; a partnership with the IOBC to facilitate international data sharing; and progress toward the ultimate goal of increasing the viability of biocontrol as a reduced risk pest control strategy. No Designated Session Theme BIOLOGY OF CIRROSPILUS INGENUUS GAHAN (HYMENOPTERA: EULOPHIDAE), AN ECTOPARASITOID OF THE CITRUS LEAFMINER, PHYLLOCNISTIS CITRELLA STAINTON (LEPIDOPTERA: GRACILLARIIDAE) ON LEMON 99 Mazen A. ATEYYAT Al-Shoubak University College, Al-Balqa’ Applied University, P.O. Box (5), Postal code 71911, Al-Shawbak, Jordan [email protected] The citrus leafminer (CLM), Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) in- vaded the Jordan Valley in 1994 and was able to spread throughout Jordan within a few months of its arrival. It was the most common parasitoid from 1997 to 1999 in the Jordan Valley. An increase in the activity of C. ingenuus was observed in autumn and the highest number of emerged C. ingenuus adults was in November 1999.
    [Show full text]