DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects of Diflubenzuron on Nontarget Organisms in Broadleaf Forested Watersheds in the Northeast

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects of Diflubenzuron on Nontarget Organisms in Broadleaf Forested Watersheds in the Northeast Effects of Diflubenzuron On Nontarget Organisms In Broadleaf Forested Watersheds In The Northeast Richard C. Reardon Handbook Coordinator FHM-NC-05-95 Acknowledgments This handbook was prepared as part of the USDA Forest Service’s program to improve aerial application of insecticides, specifically, to apply insecticides more effectively and efficiently to eastern broadleaf forests while minimizing environmental impacts. This program is supported through the efforts of the Northeast Forest Aerial Application Technology Group and the USDA Forest Service’s National Center of Forest Health Management. Richard C. Reardon thanks the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Appalachian Integrated Pest Management Gypsy Moth Project for funding this effort; Duphar B.V. and Uniroyal Chemical Company for technical advice and technical grade diflubenzuron; the staff of the USDA Forest Service’s Fernow Experimental Forest -- the main study site; and other staff of the West Virginia University Experimental Forest -- the preliminary study site on diflubenzuron persistence; Roberta Burzynski for editing; Lisa Cress and Linda Kent for typing the final draft; and the contributors for their time and efforts in preparing the individual sections in this handbook. Contributors Edward M. Barrows Tara Dubey Georgetown University P.O. Box 411 Department of Biology Elizabeth, IL 61028 Washington, DC 20057 Pamela J. Edwards Denise Biion USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection P.O. Box 404 - Nursery Bottom NA State and Private Parsons, WV 26287 Forestry USDA Forest Service Patricia Gundrum 180 Canfield Street Forest Health Protection Morgantown, WV 26505 NA State and Private Forestry USDA Forest Service Linda Butler 180 Canfield Street West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26505 P.O. Box 6108 Morgantown, WV 26506- Felton Hastings 6108 North Carolina State University Department of Entomology Matt Cochran Box 7626 WV Dept. of Agriculture Raleigh, NC 27695 State Capitol Building Charleston, WV 25305 Alan Iskra Forest Health Management Dan Downey NA State and Private Forestry James Madison University USDA Forest Service Department of Chemistry 180 Canfield Street Harrisonburg, VA 22807 Morgantown, WV 26505 V John C. Landolt Richard C. Reardon Shepherd College National Center of Forest Health Mgmt. Division of Science and Math NA State and Private Forestry Shepherdstown, WV 25443 USDA Forest Service 180 Canfield Street Morgantown, WV 26505 Thomas K. Pauley Marshall University Alan Sexstone Dept. of Biological Sciences West Virginia University Huntington, WV 25701 Plant and Soil Sciences P.O. Box 6057 Morgantown, WV 26506-6057 William B. Peny West Virginia University Steven L. Stephenson P.O. Box 6125 Fairmont State College Morgantown, WV 26506-6 125 Department of Biology Fainnont, WV 26554 Sue A. Perry Mary J. Wimmer National Biological Service West Virginia University Coop Fish and Wildlife Research Department of Biochemistry Unit Health Sciences Center West Virginia University P.O. Box 9142 P.O. Box 6125 Morgantown, WV 26506-9 142 Morgantown, WV 26506-6 125 He Thong North Carolina State University Paul Poling Department of Entomology WV Department of Agriculture Box 7626 Route 1 Box 46 Raleigh, NC 27695 Hambleton, WV 26269 Mention of trade, firm, or corporation names is for information only, and does not constitute endorsement by the authors or the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Information about insecticides appears in this handbook. Publication of this information does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nor does it imply that all uses discussed have been registered. Use of most insecticides is regulated by State and Federal law. Applicable regulations must be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies. CAUTION: Insecticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, plants, fish, or other wildlife if not handled or applied properly. Use all insecticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices given on the label for use and disposal of insecticides and insecticide containers. vi Table of Contents Acknowledgments … v Contributors … v Part A. Project Description … 1 Chapter 1. Introduction … 2 Introduction … 3 Diflubenzuron … 3 The Nontarget Project … 4 Objectives … 4 Study Location … 4 Study Design … 5 References … 5 Chapter 2. Site Characteristics … 6 Climate … 7 Study Watersheds … 7 References … 9 Part B. Aquatic Organisms … 13 Chapter 3. Aquatic Salamanders … 14 Introduction … 15 Laboratory Study Methods and Costs … 15 Field Study Methods and Costs … 16 Advantages and Disadvantages … 16 Results … 17 Laboratory Study … 17 Field Study … 17 Discussion … 17 Recommendations for Future Studies … 18 References … 18 Chapter 4. Macroinvertebrates … 23 Introduction … 24 Laboratory Study Methods … 24 Field Study Methods … 25 Results … 26 Laboratory Study … 26 Field Study … 26 Discussion of the Laboratory Study … 27 Recommendations for Future Studies … 27 References … 28 Chapter 5. Aquatic Fungi … 31 Introduction … 3 Field Study Methods … 32 Results … 33 Pretreatment 1991 … 33 Treatment 1992 … 33 Discussion … 34 Recommendations For Future Studies … 35 References … 36 Part C. Terrestrial Organisms … 41 Chapter 6. Terrestrial Salamanders … 42 Introduction … 43 Laboratory Study Methods … 43 Field Study Methods and Costs … 43 Advantages and Disadvantages … 44 Results … 44 Laboratory Study … 44 Field Study … 45 Discussion … 45 Recommendations for Future Studies … 46 References … 46 Chapter 7. Canopy Arthropods … 53 Introduction … 54 Laboratory Study Methods … 56 Field Study Methods and Costs … 56 Advantages and Disadvantages … 57 Results … 58 Discussion … 59 Recommendations for Future Studies … 59 References … 60 Chapter 8. Pollinating Insects – Native Species … 66 Introduction … 67 Field Study Methods … 67 Results … 69 Discussion … 70 Recommendations for Future Studies … 71 References … 71 Chapter 9. Pollinating Insects – Honey Bees … 77 Introduction … 78 Field Study Methods … 78 Methods for Diflubenzuron Extraction and Analysis … 79 Results … 80 References … 80 Chapter 10. Invertebrates in Leaf Litter and Soil … 81 Introduction … 82 Field Study Methods … 82 Results … 85 Core Samples … 85 Bag Samples … 85 Discussion and Recommendations … 86 References … 86 Chapter 11. Soil Bacteria and Fungi … 93 Introduction … 94 Laboratory Study Methods … 94 Field Study Methods … 94 Results … 94 Laboratory Study … 95 Field Study … 95 Discussion … 96 References … 96 Chapter 12. Decomposer and Ectomycorrhizal Fungi … 106 Introduction … 107 Field Study Methods … 107 Results and Discussion … 108 Conclusions … 110 References … 111 Chapter 13. Terrestrial Fungi In Leaf Litter … 121 Introduction … 122 Laboratory Study Methods … 122 Results … 124 Discussion … 125 References … 126 Chapter 14. Microorganisms In Soil … 130 Introduction … 131 Laboratory Study Methods … 131 Results … 132 Discussion … 133 References … 133 Part D. Residue Levels and Persistence … 140 Chapter 15. Aquatic Environment … 141 Introduction … 142 Laboratory and Field Study Methods … 142 Results … 143 Discussion … 144 References … 145 Chapter 16. Terrestrial Environment … 146 Introduction … 147 Methods … 148 Reporting of Diflubenzuron Analysis Data … 151 Results … 151 References … 155 Chapter 17. Breakdown Products of Diflubenzuron … 161 Introduction … 162 Methods … 162 Results and Discussion … 163 Conclusions … 164 References … 164 Part E. Summary … 168 Introduction … 169 Aquatic Organisms … 169 Terrestrial Organisms … 170 Residue Levels and Persistence … 172 Conclusion … 174 Part A. Project Description Chapter 1. Introduction Richard C. Reardon Introduction Aerial application of insecticides is one of the control methods used for the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.) (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), an important defoliating pest in broadleaf forests. The synthetic arthropod growth regulator diflubenzuron (DFB) is one of the insecticides used in the Federal and State cooperative gypsy moth program. The others are the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and the nucleopolyhedrosis virus product Gypchek®. From 1975 when this program began, to 1994, approximately 4 million acres infested with the gypsy moth were treated with DFB (NOTE: DFB wasn’t registered until 1976). From 1991 through 1994, approximately 1.1 million acres were treated with DFB, 2.1 million acres with B. t., and 26,000 acres with Gypchek (Machesky 1995). DFB is also used to control a wide variety of other insect pests on agricultural crops (cotton and soybeans), ornamentals in nurseries, and conifers and hardwoods in forests. Numerous studies, conducted before and after the registration of DEB by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1976, have examined the potential impacts on selected nontarget species (Onken 1995, USDA 1995). One data gap identified by the Appalachian Integrated Pest Management (AIPM) Gypsy Moth Project, however, was potential impacts on nontarget organisms when DFB is applied to an entire broadleaf forested watershed, as can happen when spraying for the gypsy moth. An entire watershed can encompass stream headwaters and adjacent major streams. Diflubenzuron DFB, N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]2,6-difluorobenzamide] was discovered by scientists at Philip Duphar B.V., Weesp, Holland, and was developed by the Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company for marketing in the United States. It is distributed in the United States by Uniroyal Chemical Company. DFB breaks down into either 2,6-difluorobenzoic acid (DFBA) or 4- chlorophenylurea
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Moths of Ohio Guide
    MOTHS OF OHIO field guide DIVISION OF WILDLIFE This booklet is produced by the ODNR Division of Wildlife as a free publication. This booklet is not for resale. Any unauthorized INTRODUCTION reproduction is prohibited. All images within this booklet are copyrighted by the Division of Wildlife and it’s contributing artists and photographers. For additional information, please call 1-800-WILDLIFE. Text by: David J. Horn Ph.D Moths are one of the most diverse and plentiful HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE groups of insects in Ohio, and the world. An es- Scientific Name timated 160,000 species have thus far been cata- Common Name Group and Family Description: Featured Species logued worldwide, and about 13,000 species have Secondary images 1 Primary Image been found in North America north of Mexico. Secondary images 2 Occurrence We do not yet have a clear picture of the total Size: when at rest number of moth species in Ohio, as new species Visual Index Ohio Distribution are still added annually, but the number of species Current Page Description: Habitat & Host Plant is certainly over 3,000. Although not as popular Credit & Copyright as butterflies, moths are far more numerous than their better known kin. There is at least twenty Compared to many groups of animals, our knowledge of moth distribution is very times the number of species of moths in Ohio as incomplete. Many areas of the state have not been thoroughly surveyed and in some there are butterflies. counties hardly any species have been documented. Accordingly, the distribution maps in this booklet have three levels of shading: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies and Moths of New Brunswick, Canada
    Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail
    [Show full text]
  • Intraspecific Body Size Variation in Macrolepidotera
    7272 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 61(2), 2007, 72–77 INTRASPECIFIC BODY SIZE VARIATION IN MACROLEPIDOPTERA AS RELATED TO ALTITUDE OF CAPTURE SITE AND SEASONAL GENERATION J. BOLLING SULLIVAN 200 Craven St., Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 U. S. A., [email protected] AND WILLIAM E. MILLER Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota 55108 U. S. A., [email protected] Abstract. As a proxy for body size, forewing lengths of individual geometrids and noctuids were measured with respect to altitude of capture site in five species in North Carolina and one in Costa Rica. Number of specimens ranged 48–373 per species, number of capture sites 2–15 per species, and site altitudes ranged 2–2209 m. Forewing length in all six species increased significantly with increasing altitude at rates of ≈ 0.3–≈ 1.1 mm/500 m. These relations held where investigated for both first and second annual generations and for both sexes even though second-generation individuals were smaller-bodied. Thus examples of Geometridae and Noctuidae are added to a list mainly of micromoths previously known to exhibit positive size–altitude relations. Some adaptive and nonadaptive body-size hypotheses are discussed as possible explanatory factors, but thus far no explanation is fully satisfactory. In contrast to measurement results in these six macromoths, other moths known to be widely dispersive appeared to display flat size–altitude relations, and published butterfly size–altitude data varied irregularly. Degree of dispersiveness is hypothesized as a condition to the manifestation of size–altitude phenomena in lepidopterans. Many more minimally dispersive moths will likely be found to increase in body size with increasing altitude.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Ennominae) Based on Skeleton-Muscular Anatomy of the Male Genitalia
    ISSN 1026-051X (print edition) Number 420: 1-13 ISSN 2713-2196 (online edition) December 2020 https://doi.org/10.25221/fee.420.1 http://zoobank.org/References/F8FBF14B-6855-47F5-A997-C2EF7933CF45 NEW CONTRIBUTION INTO CONCEPT OF THE TRIBE DEVENILIINI (LEPIDOPTERA: GEOMETRIDAE, ENNOMINAE) BASED ON SKELETON-MUSCULAR ANATOMY OF THE MALE GENITALIA E. A. Beljaev Federal Scientific Center of the East Asia Terrestrial Biodiversity Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, 690022, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Summary. Skeleton-muscular anatomy of the male genitalia of Devenilia corearia (Leech, 1891), Synegia ichinosawana (Matsumura, 1925), Platycerota incertaria (Leech, 1891), Lomographa bimaculata (Fabricius, 1775), and Cabera pusaria (Linnaeus, 1758) is described. Probable synapomorphies of Deveniliini, its generic composition and relations to Baptini and Caberini are discussed. Presumably, Deveniliini is separate lineage of ennomies, basal to Baptini and Caberini. Key words: geometrid moth, Geometridae, Ennominae, Deveniliini, Baptini, Caberini, skeleton-muscular anatomy, phylogeny. Е. А. Беляев. Новый вклад в концепцию трибы Deveniliini (Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Ennominae) на основе скелетно-мышечной анатомии гениталий самцов // Дальневосточный энтомолог. 2020. N 420. С. 1-13. Резюме. Описана скелетно-мышечная анатомия гениталий самцов Devenilia corearia (Leech, 1891), Synegia ichinosawana (Matsumura, 1925), Platycerota incertaria (Leech, 1891), Lomographa bimaculata (Fabricius, 1775) и Cabera 1 pusaria (Linnaeus,1758). Обсуждаются возможные синапоморфии трибы Deve- niliini, ее родовой состав и отношения с Baptini и Caberini. Предположительно, Deveniliini являются отдельной ветвью энномин, базальной для Baptini и Caberini. INTRODUCTION Tribe Deveniliini was established based on the unique features in the male genitalia musculature of the enigmatic East Asian species, the Devenilia corearia (Leech, 1891), the type and single member of the genus Devenilia Wehrli, 1937 (Beljaev, 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Moth Records from Burkes Garden, Virginia
    14 BANISTERIA NO.2,1993 Banis~ria. Number 2, 1993 iCl 1993 by the Virginia Natural History Society Moth Records from Burkes Garden, Virginia Kenneth J. Stein Department of Entomology Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 In contrast to butterflies (Clark & Clark, 1951; Covell, and an average annual rainfall of about 119 cm (47 1972), the species composition and distribution of moths inches) (Cooper, 1944). The region was formerly charac­ have not been well-studied in Virginia. The proceedings terized by oak-chestnut forest, but the chestnut (extirpat­ of a recent (1989) symposium (Terwilliger, 1991) detailed ed in Virginia) is now replaced largely by hickory. the biological and legal status of numerous plants and Remnants of relict boreal forest persist at elevations animals found in the Commonwealth. Nine species of above 1100 m; Beartown Mountain on the western rim Lepidoptera were reported, with only one moth (Cato­ retains a vestige of the red spruce forest that occurred cala herodias gerhardi Barnes & Benjamin) designated there prior to intensive lumbering in the early decades as threatened (Schweitzer, in Hoffman, 1991). Covell of this century. Above 1050 m occurs a northern hard­ (1990) suggested that baseline data are needed to woods forest with a mixture of spruce (Picea rubens understand the diversity and population dynamics of Sarg.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia Erhr.), and both moths and butterflies. He urged that more resourc­ yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt) (Woodward & es be appropriated in order to develop regional lepidop­ Hoffman, 1991). The valley floor has been largely teran checklists, and to learn how best to preserve these deforested and converted into pastureland.
    [Show full text]
  • Noorntaztesa AMERICAN MUSEUM PUBLISHED by the AMERICAN MUSEUM of NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST at 79TH STREET NEW YORK, N.Y
    Noorntaztesa AMERICAN MUSEUM PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET NEW YORK, N.Y. 10024 U.S.A. NUMBER 2673 MARCH 23, 1979 FIREDERICK H. RINDGE A Revision of the North American Moths of the Genus Lomographa (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) AMERICAN MUSEUM No iltates PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10024 Number 2673, pp.1-18, figs. 1-20, maps 1-3 March 23, 1979 A Revision of the North American Moths of the Genus Lomographa (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) FREDERICK H. RINDGE' ABSTRACT The members of this genus have been referred to keys are given for them. Each one is redescribed; the name Bapta for many years; however, the correct both the adults and their genitalia are illustrated. generic assignment is Lomographa Hubner. Both Distributional maps show the known range for each genera have the same type species; Lomographa was species. One change in synonymy is made: virginalis published four years before Bapta. The four North Cassino and Swett is placed as a synonym of American species are revised for the first time, and glomneraria Grote. INTRODUCTION For more than 60 years the North American two generic terms was incorrect. Bapta has members of this genus have been placed under been utilized by such workers as Barnes and the name Bapta. However, Lomographa was McDunnough (1917, p. 111); McDunnough published before Bapta and is the correct ge- (1938, p. 156) and Forbes (1948, p. 274) in neric name. The four North American species North America; Inoue (1956, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropods of Public Health Significance in California
    ARTHROPODS OF PUBLIC HEALTH SIGNIFICANCE IN CALIFORNIA California Department of Public Health Vector Control Technician Certification Training Manual Category C ARTHROPODS OF PUBLIC HEALTH SIGNIFICANCE IN CALIFORNIA Category C: Arthropods A Training Manual for Vector Control Technician’s Certification Examination Administered by the California Department of Health Services Edited by Richard P. Meyer, Ph.D. and Minoo B. Madon M V C A s s o c i a t i o n of C a l i f o r n i a MOSQUITO and VECTOR CONTROL ASSOCIATION of CALIFORNIA 660 J Street, Suite 480, Sacramento, CA 95814 Date of Publication - 2002 This is a publication of the MOSQUITO and VECTOR CONTROL ASSOCIATION of CALIFORNIA For other MVCAC publications or further informaiton, contact: MVCAC 660 J Street, Suite 480 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 440-0826 Fax: (916) 442-4182 E-Mail: [email protected] Web Site: http://www.mvcac.org Copyright © MVCAC 2002. All rights reserved. ii Arthropods of Public Health Significance CONTENTS PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................ v DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS.............................................................................................. vii 1 EPIDEMIOLOGY OF VECTOR-BORNE DISEASES ..................................... Bruce F. Eldridge 1 2 FUNDAMENTALS OF ENTOMOLOGY.......................................................... Richard P. Meyer 11 3 COCKROACHES ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Beginner S Guide to Moths of the Midwest Geometers
    0LGZHVW5HJLRQ86$ %HJLQQHU V*XLGHWR0RWKVRIWKH0LGZHVW*HRPHWHUV $QJHOOD0RRUHKRXVH ,OOLQRLV1DWXUH3UHVHUYH&RPPLVVLRQ Photos: Angella Moorehouse ([email protected]). Produced by: Angella Moorehouse with the assistance of Alicia Diaz, Field Museum. Identification assistance provided by: multiple sources (inaturalist.org; bugguide.net) )LHOG0XVHXP &&%<1&/LFHQVHGZRUNVDUHIUHHWRXVHVKDUHUHPL[ZLWKDWWULEXWLRQEXWFRPPHUFLDOXVHRIWKHRULJLQDOZRUN LVQRWSHUPLWWHG >ILHOGJXLGHVILHOGPXVHXPRUJ@>@YHUVLRQ $ERXWWKH%(*,11(5¶6027+62)7+(0,':(67*8,'(6 Most photos were taken in west-central and central Illinois; a fewDUH from eastern Iowa and north-central Wisconsin. Nearly all were posted to identification websites: BugGuide.netDQG iNaturalist.org. Identification help was provided by Aaron Hunt, Steve Nanz, John and Jane Balaban, Chris Grinter, Frank Hitchell, Jason Dombroskie, William H. Taft, Jim Wiker,DQGTerry Harrison as well as others contributing to the websites. Attempts were made to obtain expert verifications for all photos to the field identification level, however, there will be errors. Please contact the author with all corrections Additional assistance was provided by longtime Lepidoptera survey partner, Susan Hargrove. The intention of these guides is to provide the means to compare photographs of living specimens of related moths from the Midwest to aid the citizen scientists with identification in the field for Bio Blitz, Moth-ers Day, and other night lighting events. A taxonomic list to all the species featured is provided at the end along with some field identification tips. :(%6,7(63529,',1*,'(17,),&$7,21,1)250$7,21 BugGuide.net LNaturalist.org Mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu Insectsofiowa.org centralillinoisinsects.org/weblog/resources/ :+,&+027+*8,'(7286( The moths were split into 6 groups for the purposes of creating smaller guides focusing on similar features of 1 or more superfamilies.
    [Show full text]
  • Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a Cooperative Approach
    Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Volume II of IV Chapters 1-8 and Appendixes A-E United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Newtown Square, PA NA–MB–01–12 August 2012 Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Type of Statement: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Area covered by statement: The 50 United States and District of Columbia Lead agency: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Responsible official: James R. Hubbard, Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry Sidney R. Yates Federal Building 201 14th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20250 For more information: Noel F. Schneeberger, Forest Health Program Leader Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry 11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200 Newtown Square, PA 19073 610–557–4121 [email protected] Joint lead agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Responsible official: Rebecca A. Bech, Deputy Administrator for Plant Protection and Quarantine 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 302-E Washington, DC 20250 For more information: Julie S. Spaulding, Gypsy Moth Program Coordinator Emergency and Domestic Programs 4700 River Road, Unit 137 Riverdale, MD 20737 301–851–2184 [email protected] Abstract: The USDA Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are proposing an addition to the gypsy moth management program that was described in the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement—Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach—and chosen in the 1996 Record of Decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, and Trichoptera of Great Smoky Mountains National Park
    The Great Smoky Mountains National Park All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory: A Search for Species in Our Own Backyard 2007 Southeastern Naturalist Special Issue 1:159–174 Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, and Trichoptera of Great Smoky Mountains National Park Charles R. Parker1,*, Oliver S. Flint, Jr.2, Luke M. Jacobus3, Boris C. Kondratieff 4, W. Patrick McCafferty3, and John C. Morse5 Abstract - Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), situated on the moun- tainous border of North Carolina and Tennessee, is recognized as one of the most highly diverse protected areas in the temperate region. In order to provide baseline data for the scientifi c management of GSMNP, an All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory (ATBI) was initiated in 1998. Among the goals of the ATBI are to discover the identity and distribution of as many as possible of the species of life that occur in GSMNP. The authors have concentrated on the orders of completely aquatic insects other than odonates. We examined or utilized others’ records of more than 53,600 adult and 78,000 immature insects from 545 locations. At present, 469 species are known from GSMNP, including 120 species of Ephemeroptera (mayfl ies), 111 spe- cies of Plecoptera (stonefl ies), 7 species of Megaloptera (dobsonfl ies, fi shfl ies, and alderfl ies), and 231 species of Trichoptera (caddisfl ies). Included in this total are 10 species new to science discovered since the ATBI began. Introduction Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) is situated on the border of North Carolina and Tennessee and is comprised of 221,000 ha. GSMNP is recognized as one of the most diverse protected areas in the temperate region (Nichols and Langdon 2007).
    [Show full text]