DOCSLIB.ORG

Insect-Rootworm-Resistant-Corn-Syngenta-Environmental-Assessement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Insect-Rootworm-Resistant-Corn-Syngenta-Environmental-Assessement Syngenta Company Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of SYN-05307-1 Rootworm Resistant Corn OECD Unique Identifier: SYN-Ø53Ø7-1 Final Environmental Assessment January 2013 Agency Contact Cindy Eck Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-8669 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... II 1 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Regulatory Authority............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Regulated Organisms ........................................................................................... 2 1.3 Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: Syngenta Event 5307 Corn 2 1.4 Purpose of Product ............................................................................................... 3 1.5 APHIS Response to Petition for Nonregulated Status ......................................... 3 1.6 Coordinated Framework Review ......................................................................... 4 1.6.1 Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................ 4 1.6.2 Food and Drug Administration ..................................................................... 5 1.7 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 5 1.8 Issues Considered ................................................................................................. 5 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 7 2.1 Corn Biology ........................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Persistence in the Environment/Weediness Potential ................................... 9 2.2 Corn Production ................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Production and Yield .................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 Agronomic Practices ................................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Specialty Corn Systems .............................................................................. 24 2.2.4 Raw and Processed Corn Commodities ...................................................... 26 2.3 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 26 2.3.1 Water Quality and Use ................................................................................ 27 2.3.2 Soil .............................................................................................................. 28 2.3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 29 2.3.4 Climate ........................................................................................................ 29 2.4 Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 29 2.4.1 Animals ....................................................................................................... 30 2.4.2 Plants ........................................................................................................... 30 2.4.3 Soil Microorganisms ................................................................................... 31 2.4.4 Biodiversity ................................................................................................. 31 2.4.5 Gene Movement in the Natural Environment ............................................. 32 2.5 Public Health ...................................................................................................... 32 2.5.1 Human Health ............................................................................................. 32 2.5.2 Animal (Livestock) Health ......................................................................... 33 2.5.3 Worker Safety ............................................................................................. 35 2.6 Socioeconomic ................................................................................................... 35 2.6.1 Domestic Economic Environment .............................................................. 35 2.6.2 Trade Economic Environment .................................................................... 36 2.6.3 Social Environment ..................................................................................... 37 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 3 ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................... 39 3.1 No Action Alternative: Continuation as a Regulated Article ............................ 39 3.2 Proposed Action: Determination That Event 5307 Corn Is No Longer a Regulated Article ................................................................................................................ 39 3.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Consideration .................. 39 3.3.1 Prohibit Any Event 5307 Corn from Being Released ................................. 40 3.3.2 Approve the Petition in Part ........................................................................ 40 3.3.3 Isolation Distance between Event 5307 Corn and Non-GE Corn Production and Geographical Restrictions .................................................................... 40 3.3.4 Requirement of Testing for Event 5307 Corn............................................. 41 3.4 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................... 41 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................... 43 4.1 Scope of Environmental Analysis ...................................................................... 43 4.1.1 Persistence in the Environment/Weediness Potential ................................. 44 4.2 Corn Production ................................................................................................. 44 4.2.1 Production and Yield .................................................................................. 44 4.2.2 Agronomic Practices ................................................................................... 45 4.2.3 Specialty Corn Systems .............................................................................. 51 4.2.4 Raw and Processed Corn Commodities ...................................................... 56 4.3 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 56 4.3.1 Water Quality and Use ................................................................................ 56 4.3.2 Soil .............................................................................................................. 58 4.3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 59 4.3.4 Climate ........................................................................................................ 59 4.4 Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 60 4.4.1 Animals ....................................................................................................... 61 4.4.2 Plants ........................................................................................................... 67 4.4.3 Soil Microorganisms ................................................................................... 67 4.4.4 Biodiversity ................................................................................................. 69 4.4.5 Gene Movement in the Natural Environment ............................................. 70 4.5 Public Health ...................................................................................................... 71 4.5.1 Human Health ............................................................................................. 71 4.5.2 Animal (Livestock) Health ........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan
    Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan March 2008 Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan BEXAR COUNTY KARST INVERTEBRATES DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico March 2008 Approved: ___DRAFT_______________________________________ Regional Director, Southwest Region Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concur: __DRAFT____________________________________________ Executive Director Date Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ii Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that the best available science indicates are necessary to recover or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), but are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only. Identification of an action to be implemented by any private or public party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act (U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after the plan has been signed by the Regional Director as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Dow Agrosciences Petitions (09-233- 01P, 09-349-01P, and 11-234-01P) for Determinations of Nonregulated Status for 2,4-D-Resistant Corn and Soybean Varieties
    Dow AgroSciences Petitions (09-233- 01p, 09-349-01p, and 11-234-01p) for Determinations of Nonregulated Status for 2,4-D-Resistant Corn and Soybean Varieties Draft Environmental Impact Statement—2013 Agency Contact: Sid Abel Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-6352 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly.
    [Show full text]
  • Consequences of Omnivory and Alternative Food Resources on the Strength of Trophic Cascades
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: CONSEQUENCES OF OMNIVORY AND ALTERNATIVE FOOD RESOURCES ON THE STRENGTH OF TROPHIC CASCADES Steven D. Frank, Doctor of Philosophy, 2007 Directed By: Associate Professor Paula M. Shrewsbury Department of Entomology & Professor Robert F. Denno Department of Entomology Omnivorous predators that feed on prey and plant resources are recognized as an important component of food webs but their impact on herbivore populations and trophic dynamics is unpredictable. Feeding on food items from multiple trophic levels increases the reticulate nature of food webs and the labile role of omnivores in promoting trophic cascades. Using carabid beetles in a corn agroecosystem, this research explored the interactive effects of predator guild (omnivore or carnivore) and the trophic origin of alternative food resources (seeds or fly pupae) on the control of herbivores (black cutworms) and plant survival. I demonstrated that the trophic guild and feeding performance of carabids can be predicted from their mandibular morphology. Carnivorous carabids, using mandibles with sharp points and a long shearing edge, kill and consume caterpillars more efficiently than omnivores that have mandibles with wide molar areas adapted for consuming prey and seeds. Omnivore preference for seeds and pupae further reduced their consumption of cutworms, which resulted in increased plant damage, ultimately dampening trophic cascades. In open field plots the abundance of omnivorous carabids and ants increased in response to seed but not pupae whereas neither subsidy affected the abundance of carnivorous predators. Pupae subsidies reduced predation of cutworms by carnivores and omnivores, consequently reducing seedling survival. However, in seed subsidized plots omnivorous predators switched from seeds to higher quality cutworm prey.
    [Show full text]
  • 210 Part 319—Foreign Quarantine Notices
    § 318.82–3 7 CFR Ch. III (1–1–03 Edition) The movement of plant pests, means of 319.8–20 Importations by the Department of conveyance, plants, plant products, and Agriculture. other products and articles from Guam 319.8–21 Release of cotton and covers after into or through any other State, Terri- 18 months’ storage. 319.8–22 Ports of entry or export. tory, or District is also regulated by 319.8–23 Treatment. part 330 of this chapter. 319.8–24 Collection and disposal of waste. 319.8–25 Costs and charges. § 318.82–3 Costs. 319.8–26 Material refused entry. All costs incident to the inspection, handling, cleaning, safeguarding, treat- Subpart—Sugarcane ing, or other disposal of products or ar- 319.15 Notice of quarantine. ticles under this subpart, except for the 319.15a Administrative instructions and in- services of an inspector during regu- terpretation relating to entry into Guam larly assigned hours of duty and at the of bagasse and related sugarcane prod- usual places of duty, shall be borne by ucts. the owner. Subpart—Citrus Canker and Other Citrus PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE Diseases NOTICES 319.19 Notice of quarantine. Subpart—Foreign Cotton and Covers Subpart—Corn Diseases QUARANTINE QUARANTINE Sec. 319.24 Notice of quarantine. 319.8 Notice of quarantine. 319.24a Administrative instructions relating 319.8a Administrative instructions relating to entry of corn into Guam. to the entry of cotton and covers into Guam. REGULATIONS GOVERNING ENTRY OF INDIAN CORN OR MAIZE REGULATIONS; GENERAL 319.24–1 Applications for permits for impor- 319.8–1 Definitions.
    [Show full text]
  • STORGARD Insect Identification Poster
    ® IPM PARTNER® INSECT IDENTIFICATION GUIDE ® Name Photo Size Color Typical Favorite Attracted Geographic Penetrate Product Recommendation (mm) Life Cycle Food to Light Distribution Packages MOTHS Almond Moth 14-20 Gray 25-30 Dried fruit Yes General Yes, Cadra cautella days and grain larvae only STORGARD® II STORGARD® III CIDETRAK® IMM Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ (Mating Disruptant) Angoumois 28-35 Yes, Grain Moth 13-17 Buff days Whole grain Yes General larvae only Sitotroga cerealella STORGARD® II STORGARD® III Casemaking 30-60 Wool, natural Yes, Clothes Moth 11 Brownish days fibers and hair Yes General larvae only Tinea pellionella STORGARD® II STORGARD® III European Grain Moth 13-17 White & 90-300 Grain Yes Northern Yes, Nemapogon granellus brown days larvae only STORGARD® II STORGARD® III Copper Indianmeal Moth Broken or 8-10 red & silver 28-35 processed Yes General Yes, Plodia interpunctella days larvae only gray grain STORGARD® II STORGARD® III CIDETRAK® IMM Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ (Mating Disruptant) Mediterranean Gray & Flour and Flour Moth 10-15 30-180 processed Yes General Yes, black days larvae only Ephestia kuehniella cereal grain STORGARD® II STORGARD® III CIDETRAK® IMM Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ (Mating Disruptant) Raisin Moth Drying and 12-20 Gray 32 days Yes General Yes, dried fruit larvae only Cadra figulilella STORGARD® II STORGARD® III CIDETRAK® IMM Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Carabidae)
    Zootaxa 4647 (1): 134–153 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4647.1.12 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:41BAFD61-40D1-446C-BE22-CA8C7FE54FC3 Two new species of Australian Eutarsopolipus (Acariformes: Podapolipidae) from Nurus medius (Coleoptera: Carabidae) OWEN D. SEEMAN Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane, Qld, 4101, Australia. Abstract Eutarsopolipus burwelli sp. nov. and E. echinatus sp. nov. (Acari: Podapolipidae) are described from Nurus medius Darlington, 1961 (Coleoptera: Carabidae), a large burrowing carabid beetle found in the rainforests of coastal central Queensland, Australia. Eutarsopolipus burwelli belongs to the ochoai species group, which is herein refined, and E. echinatus is placed tentatively in the pterostichi species group. A revised key to the species groups of Eutarsopolipus is provided. The synhospitalic species of Eutarsopolipus are reviewed and synhospitality within the genus is discussed. Key words: Heterostigmatina, key, insect parasites, species groups, synhospitality, taxonomy Introduction Eutarsopolipus Berlese, 1913 (Acariformes: Podapolipidae) is the largest genus of Podapolipidae with 71 described species (Katlav & Hajiqanbar 2018), all of which are subelytral parasites of carabid beetles. Regenfuss (1968) sepa- rated the genus into several species groups, subsequently augmented by other authors, with up to 14 species groups now recognised (Husband & Husband 2009). This informal classification aids identification and provides a useful means of discussing purported relatedness between species, but a phylogenetic test of these species groups has not yet been accomplished. The genus is widespread, being found on every continent where carabids exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • Food and Feed Safety and Nutritional Assessment of MON 88017 Corn
    and and regime. AG Bayer property protectionpublishing of contents its parties.data therefore and/oror affiliates. property intellectualthird may its as the of and is regulatory owner. a document any such its reproductiondocument Food and Feed Safety and Nutrit owner this of under of rightsthe this Conclusion Based on Data and Information Evaluated According to FDA’s Policy documentand/or rights to of fall use of the This may distribution,and rights owner subject be the violate copy of and may documentpublication, It exploitation this any permission on Foods from New Plant Varieties prohibited the commercial be ional Assessment of MON 88017 Corn Furthermore,any Consequently,without March 30, 2004 Monsanto # 04-CR-109F FDA BNF 97 Prepared by: Contributors : Submitted by: Monsanto Company 800 NorthMonsanto Lindbergh Company Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63167 # 04-CR-109F Page 1 of 223 and and regime. AG Bayer property protectionpublishing of contents its parties.data therefore and/oror affiliates. property intellectualthird may its as the of and is regulatory owner. a document any such its reproductiondocument owner this of PART I:…………………………………………………………………………… 2 under of this rightsthe Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………. 2 documentand/or of rights to of fall use List of Tables……………………………………………………………………... 6 the List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….. 8 This may distribution,and rights owner Certification………………………………………………………………………. 10 subject Release of Information……………………………………………………………. 11 the be violate Abbreviations and Definitions……………………………………………………. 12 copy of and Narrative Summary……………………………………………………………….. 16 may documentpublication, TABLE OF CONTENTS It exploitation this PART II: Synopsis of consultation summary……………………………………..PART 20 I: any Section 1. Name and address of the submitter…………………………….……... 20 permission prohibited Section 2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomic Study of Family Poaceae in Goa C7",D1wrickn
    A Taxonomic study of Family Poaceae in Goa Thesis submitted to Goa University for the award of degree of Doctor of Philosophy in SX C7",d1wrckNi 362 By Harshala S. Gad c,17 gflAeO_S lave. rd- es/e`' tor- C .V....1-00w1V.cmcom) Pokte -S • Gw4 e & co-0.41-N0A.er Department of Botany Goa University, Goa — 403 206 June 2007 6 z STATEMENT As required by the University Ordinance 0.19.8 (ii), I state that the present thesis "A Taxonomic Study of Family Poaceae in Goa" is my original contribution and the same has not been submitted on any occasion for any other degree or diploma of this University or any other University/ Institute. To the best of my knowledge, the present study is the first comprehensive work of its kind from the area mentioned. The literature related to the problem investigated has been cited. Due acknowledgments have been made wherever facilities and suggestions have been availed of. 6116 PO / Place: Goa University (Harshala S. Gad) Date: .20 / C /2-001 Candidate CERTIFICATE As required by the University Ordinance 0.19.8. (IV), this is to certify that the thesis entitled "A Taxonomic Study of Family Poaceae in Goa", submitted by Miss Harshala S. Gad for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Botany, is based on her original and independent work carried out by her during the period of study, under my supervision. The thesis or any part thereof has not been previously submitted for any other degree or diploma in any University or institute.
    [Show full text]
  • (Poaceae: Panicoideae) in Thailand
    Systematics of Arundinelleae and Andropogoneae, subtribes Chionachninae, Dimeriinae and Germainiinae (Poaceae: Panicoideae) in Thailand Thesis submitted to the University of Dublin, Trinity College for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) by Atchara Teerawatananon 2009 Research conducted under the supervision of Dr. Trevor R. Hodkinson School of Natural Sciences Department of Botany Trinity College University of Dublin, Ireland I Declaration I hereby declare that the contents of this thesis are entirely my own work (except where otherwise stated) and that it has not been previously submitted as an exercise for a degree to this or any other university. I agree that library of the University of Dublin, Trinity College may lend or copy this thesis subject to the source being acknowledged. _______________________ Atchara Teerawatananon II Abstract This thesis has provided a comprehensive taxonomic account of tribe Arundinelleae, and subtribes Chionachninae, Dimeriinae and Germainiinae of the tribe Andropogoneae in Thailand. Complete floristic treatments of these taxa have been completed for the Flora of Thailand project. Keys to genera and species, species descriptions, synonyms, typifications, illustrations, distribution maps and lists of specimens examined, are also presented. Fourteen species and three genera of tribe Arundinelleae, three species and two genera of subtribe Chionachninae, seven species of subtribe Dimeriinae, and twelve species and two genera of Germainiinae, were recorded in Thailand, of which Garnotia ciliata and Jansenella griffithiana were recorded for the first time for Thailand. Three endemic grasses, Arundinella kerrii, A. kokutensis and Dimeria kerrii were described as new species to science. Phylogenetic relationships among major subfamilies in Poaceae and among major tribes within Panicoideae were evaluated using parsimony analysis of plastid DNA regions, trnL-F and atpB- rbcL, and a nuclear ribosomal DNA region, ITS.
    [Show full text]
  • DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS: Danthonidium Gammiei Belongs to Tribe Danthonieae of Subfamily Pooideae
    DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Danthonidium gammiei belongs to tribe Danthonieae of subfamily Pooideae. Danthonieae consists of genera viz Centropodia, Danthonia, Danthonidium, Erichne, Schismus and Zenkaria. Danthonia gammiei described by Bhide (1912) was separated into a new genus Danthonidium (Hubbard 1936) which differs from Danthonia in its 1 flowered spikelet, lemma -2 lobed at the tip with very stout awn between the lobes. Leaf anatomy of Danthonidium gammiei shows similarities with genus Danthonia in having long cell with sinuous walls, Panicoid type of microhairs, absence of papillae, fan shaped bulliform cells, mesophyll non radiate form, mid rib conspicuous with single bundle and vascular bundle with sclerenchymatous girders. Danthonia and Danthonidium differ anatomically in some characters* /. Leaves of Danthonidium possess stomata and vertical dumbbell shaped ‘Oryza type’ silica bodies while stomata are absent in Danthonia and leaves possess dumbbell shaped or nodular Panicoid type of silica bodies. This supports separation of Danthonidium from Danthonia. Hubbardia heptaneuron belongs to tribe Hubbardieae of subfamily Pooideae. Bor 1951 described a new monotypic genus Hubbardia from India. The grass was collected However, the grass remained undescribed till father Santapau handed over it to Bor. This grass was collected only on two occasions from clinging rocks near the famous Gersoppa falls on the Sharawati river. The species disappeared from the fall and was declared as possibly extinct from the region (Ahmedullah and M.P.Nayer, 1987) after construction of dam on the Sharawati river and probably drying of Jog falls during summer. It was collected after about 80 years from Tilari Ghat of Kolhapur (Potdar et al 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape and Local Controls of Insect Biodiversity in Conservation Grasslands
    Land 2014, 3, 693-718; doi:10.3390/land3030693 OPEN ACCESS land ISSN 2073-445X www.mdpi.com/journal/land/ Article Landscape and Local Controls of Insect Biodiversity in Conservation Grasslands: Implications for the Conservation of Ecosystem Service Providers in Agricultural Environments Thomas O. Crist 1,2,* and Valerie E. Peters 1 1 Institute for the Environment and Sustainability, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-513-529-6187; Fax: +1-513-529-5814. Received: 3 May 2014; in revised form: 23 June 2014 / Accepted: 30 June 2014 / Published: 14 July 2014 Abstract: The conservation of biodiversity in intensively managed agricultural landscapes depends on the amount and spatial arrangement of cultivated and natural lands. Conservation incentives that create semi-natural grasslands may increase the biodiversity of beneficial insects and their associated ecosystem services, such as pollination and the regulation of insect pests, but the effectiveness of these incentives for insect conservation are poorly known, especially in North America. We studied the variation in species richness, composition, and functional-group abundances of bees and predatory beetles in conservation grasslands surrounded by intensively managed agriculture in Southwest Ohio, USA. Characteristics of grassland patches and surrounding land-cover types were used to predict insect species richness, composition, and functional-group abundance using linear models and multivariate ordinations. Bee species richness was positively influenced by forb cover and beetle richness was positively related to grass cover; both taxa had greater richness in grasslands surrounded by larger amounts of semi-natural land cover.
    [Show full text]