DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Report for the Review of Biosecurity Import Requirements for Fresh Apple Fruit from the Pacific Northwest States of the United States of America

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Report for the Review of Biosecurity Import Requirements for Fresh Apple Fruit from the Pacific Northwest States of the United States of America Support for Growth Draft report for the review of biosecurity import requirements for fresh apple fruit from the Pacific Northwest states of the United States of America Submission by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd January 2021 Draft report for the review of biosecurity import requirements for fresh apple fruit from the Pacific Northwest states of the United States of America Submission by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd 21 January 2021 Apple & Pear Australia Ltd. Suite G.02, 128 Jolimont Rd, ABN 55 490 626 489 East Melbourne, VIC 3002 Summary The Draft report for the review of biosecurity import requirements for fresh apple fruit from the Pacific Northwest states of the United States of America (the Review), has been reviewed by APAL and does not meet the benchmark of acceptable international standards for scientific analysis and risk assessment. Founded in places on misinterpreted or outdated science and containing both significant omissions of relevant information, and conflicting arguments, APAL argues that the Review unacceptably understates the risk posed by many of the pests listed. A full and comprehensive reassessment is required for both the pests for which a full pest risk assessment has been conducted and also for those listed in Appendix A and determined as requiring no further assessment. Furthermore, the proposed mitigation measures are vague, unsupported by data and in some cases conflict with those already in existence for the same pest for other trading partners. Specifically, APAL considers that the Unrestricted risk estimates for the following species are understated and require reassessment: • Spider mites (Tetranychus mcdanieli, T. pacificus and T. turkestani) • Apple curculio (Anthonomus quadrigibbus) • Apple fruit moth (Argyresthia conjugella) • Lygus bugs (Lygus hesperus) • Lacanobia fruit worm (Lacanobia subjuncta) • Coprinus and other postharvest fruit rots In addition, the ratings for spider mites, apple curculio, apple fruit moths and lygus bugs are inconsistent with those of Australia’s trading partners, including in some instances the United States (USA) itself. Mitigation measures for fruit moths are in direct conflict with existing Australian Import Biosecurity Conditions for New Zealand (NZ) fruit, and also with Western Australia’s entry requirements. The ratings and mitigation measures for a number of pests are also inadequately aligned with existing regulations or inadequately evidenced, including those for fire blight, leaf curling midge and European canker. The Review also notes a number of pests that are absent from Australia but were deemed to not warrant a Risk Analysis. This includes a number of pests which are of major concern in apple production and APAL requires a more detailed explanation as to the reason for their exclusion from further risk analysis. In some cases, these are restricted pests that warrant mitigation measures in the USA but for which Australia sees no need (eg. Plum curculio). These include: • Rust mite (Aculus malivagrans) • Apple blister mite (Eriophyes mali) • Plum curculio (Conotrachelus nenuphar) • Apple aphid (Aphis pomi) • Rosy apple aphid (Dysaphis plantaginea) • Double dart moth (Graphiphora augur) • Fisheye rot (Butlerelfia eustacei) • Apple decline (Valsa ceratophora) 02 Apple & Pear Australia Ltd. Suite G.02, 128 Jolimont Rd, ABN 55 490 626 489 East Melbourne, VIC 3002 Introduction This submission by APAL comprises: 1. General comments that apply throughout the Review. 2. Comments on Chapter 3 and its observations on apple production in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) of the USA. 3. A detailed examination of Chapter 4 with particular consideration of the Unrestricted risk estimates (URE) for those pests that the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (the Department) considered did not breach Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection (ALOP). 4. Consideration of pests that the Department determined were potential quarantine pests (Appendix A) but were not considered further for various reasons. 5. Other potential pests and diseases that were not covered in the Review, but which may pose a quarantine risk for Australia. 6. Proposed mitigation measures and trade. Wherever possible this submission follows a similar chronological order to that of the Review and relates comments to specific areas. However, where Review content is repeated under several sections, APAL comments have application across multiple areas and pests. 03 Apple & Pear Australia Ltd. Suite G.02, 128 Jolimont Rd, ABN 55 490 626 489 East Melbourne, VIC 3002 1. General comments APAL notes, that in framing this Review, the Department has drawn upon existing policy and evidence presented therein to support many of the arguments relating to risk. Secondly APAL acknowledges that the Department is also constrained for some pests (e.g. fire blight) by the ten-year-old rulings from the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2010. APAL recognises that once policy has been determined it can be difficult to change, however the failure to re-examine or update earlier assumptions risks drawing erroneous conclusions based on flawed, misinterpreted (see General Technical Comments) or outdated science and is an example of the systematic lack of rigour that is so evident in the current Review. With respect to the WTO, ten years have elapsed since the original decision and during that time there have been significant advances in science, orchard and post-harvest practices, and in genomics and diagnostics, all particularly relevant to risk analysis. This raises the question; at what point are such decisions reviewed or updated to reflect subsequent science and how is this process conducted? Furthermore, who has responsibility for ensuring WTO decisions remain contemporary? APAL submits that as the current Review draws heavily upon earlier Pest Risk Analyses that were informed by the WTO ruling these should have been re-examined with reference to contemporary science. In the current Review for PNW-USA apples, APAL finds substantial flaws that undermine many of the conclusions presented and the resultant Unrestricted risk estimates. The standard of the Review does not meet industry’s expectations of a robust and scientifically vigorous risk analysis. The major concerns are summarised below: a) Lack of rigour and consistency including inferences not supported by data and misinterpretation of scientific reports/papers b) Information about pests is not accurately reported and as a consequence the risk for many pests is understated or inadequately assessed c) Incomplete referencing and inadequate follow-up of contemporary science subsequent to the 2008 USA Import Risk Assessment (IRA) d) Lack of understanding of commercial orchard management e) Lack of data to support the efficacy of the standard orchard management protocols in the PNW when applied to meet Australia’s different MRLs f) The equivalencing of risk associated with stone fruit to that from apple has not been justified g) Equivalencing risk management from the USA with that from NZ and China requires better evidence for validity h) Lack of awareness of industry concern regarding certain exotic pests and the biosecurity threat they pose (and the significant eradication costs that would be incurred should they enter the country) i) Inconsistency in categorising risk within and between pests j) Evidence for or against risk is not clearly delineated k) Australia is accepting risks from the USA which the USA does not accept on its own imports l) Inconsistency between international trade and Australian interstate trade requirements. 04 Apple & Pear Australia Ltd. Suite G.02, 128 Jolimont Rd, ABN 55 490 626 489 East Melbourne, VIC 3002 General referencing and administrative comments The referencing is incomplete and inaccurate, a serious shortcoming that meant that, in considering this Review, a large amount of time had to be devoted to verifying and checking claims made in the Review. From this checking it was found that: • citations are incorrect when referencing a paper which quotes another paper. This gives the impression that author had made a claim when in fact he/she was merely repeating what someone had said elsewhere. A more correct method in such cases is as follows; Lowe (1993) in Smith and Chapman (1995). • many links provided for references, especially URLs, do not work. A random sample showed more than 50 per cent failed and the date on which they were accessed is not shown. It appears to the reader as though many references were not updated from the earlier (2008) Review and are either no longer available or may have been superseded by more recent publications raising the question of whether the Review is based on the most up-to-date available science. This would appear to be particularly the case for handbooks, manuals, extension materials, personal communications and such like. • remarks attributed to authors do not match the reference provided e.g. Mellot 2019 p. 61 • a number of instances were found where information critical to risk appears to have been overlooked in papers that were cited for other reasons. This conveys the impression of selective quotation. • more supporting evidence around existing measures and their efficacy could have been provided, for example for stone fruit or apple imports, both in terms of regulated and unregulated pests. Simple editorial mistakes also mar the credibility of the document including: • presenting pests in a different order in different tables and in text (cf. Table 4.1 and 5.1 and text in Ch 4.) • incorrect referencing of Table 3.1 on top of p. 31 where 3.2 is quoted • page 26 paragraph 4 – Pandemis hesperana (sic) is listed in the text but not in Table 3.1 Pests of apple trees in PNW. • should this be Pandemis heparana rather than Pandemis hesperana? • p. 31 Codling moth is a ‘lepidopteran’ not ‘lepidoperan’ General technical comments Australia’s stance on a number of pests differs from that of other trading partners including even the USA. New Zealand regards spider mites as requiring risk mitigation whereas the Review does not. Similarly, plum curculio is seen as a risk for apple producers in the PNW and there are control measures in place, according to the Review (p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Washington and Oregon Apple Orchards
    HORTICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY Phenology of Lacanobia subjuncta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Washington and Oregon Apple Orchards MICHAEL D. DOERR, JAY F. BRUNNER, AND VINCENT P. JONES Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, 1100 N. Western Avenue, Wenatchee, WA 98801 J. Econ. Entomol. 98(6): 2100Ð2106 (2005) ABSTRACT The phenology of Lacanobia subjuncta (Grote & Robinson) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) was investigated in 30 apple orchards in central Washington state and northeastern Oregon from 1998 to 2001 (57 total orchard-yr). Adult captures in pheromone-baited traps were Þt to a Weibull distribution to model emergence of the Þrst and second generations. Initial capture of Þrst generation adults was observed at 216.2 Ϯ 2.6 degree-days (DD) (mean Ϯ SEM) from 1 March by using a base temperature of 6.7ЊC. The model predicted that ßight was 5 and 95% complete by 240 and 700 degree-days (DD), respectively. Monitoring of oviposition and hatch was used to establish a protandry plus preoviposition degree-day requirement of 160.0 Ϯ 7.7 DD, as well as to provide data to describe the entire hatch period. Egg hatch was 5 and 95% complete by 395 and 630 DD, respectively. The start of the second ßight was observed at 1217.1 Ϯ 8.3 DD by using an upper threshold for development of 32ЊC and a horizontal cutoff. The model indicated that the second ßight was 5 and 95% complete by 1220 and 1690 DD, respectively. Second generation hatch was 5 and 95% complete by 1440 and 1740 DD, respectively. A discussion of the potential uses of these detailed phenology data in optimizing management strategies is presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Trapping Lacanobia Subjuncta, Xestia C-Nigrum, and Mamestra Configurata
    Trapping Lacanobia subjuncta, Xestia c-nigrum, and Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with Acetic Acid and 3-Methyl-1-butanol in Controlled Release Dispensers Author(s): Peter J. Landolt and Joshua F. Alfaro Source: Environmental Entomology, 30(4):656-662. 2001. Published By: Entomological Society of America DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-30.4.656 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1603/0046-225X-30.4.656 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. PHYSIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL ECOLOGY Trapping Lacanobia subjuncta, Xestia c-nigrum, and Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with Acetic Acid and 3-Methyl-1-butanol in Controlled Release Dispensers PETER J. LANDOLT AND JOSHUA F. ALFARO USDAÐARS, 5230 Konnowac Pass Road, Wapato, WA 98951 Environ. Entomol. 30(4): 656Ð662 (2001) ABSTRACT Both sexes of the noctuid moths Lacanobia subjuncta (Grote & Robinson), Mamestra configurata Walker (bertha armyworm) and Xestia c-nigrum (L.) (spotted cutworm) are attracted to the combination of acetic acid and 3-methyl-1-butanol (isoamyl alcohol).
    [Show full text]
  • 2017.12.26 12:09:36 -05'00'
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION PC Code: 099050 DP Barcode: 441940 Date: December 22, 2017 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Registration Review: Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Acetamiprid TO: Margaret Hathaway, Chemical Review Manager Nicole Zinn, Team Leader Kevin Costello, Branch Chief Risk Management and Implementation Branch 2 Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) FROM: Cameron Douglass, Ph.D., Biologist Katrina White, Ph.D., Senior Fate Scientist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) REVIEWED BY: Cheryl Sutton, Ph.D., Fate Scientist Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) APPROVED BY: Jean Holmes, DVM, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the preliminary environmental fate and ecological risk assessment in support of the Registration Review of the insecticide acetamiprid (N1- [(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]-N2-cyano-N1-methylacetamidine; USEPA PC Code: 099050; CAS Number: 135410-20-7). Attachment: Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment in Support of the Registration Review of Acetamiprid 1 Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment in Support of the Registration Review of Acetamiprid N1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]-N2-cyano-N1-methylacetamidine USEPA PC Code: 099050 CAS Number: 135410-20-7 Prepared by: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Cameron Douglass, Ph.D., Biologist Office of Pesticide Programs Katrina White, Ph.D., Senior Fate Scientist Environmental Fate and Effects Division Reviewed by: Environmental Risk Branch IV Cheryl Sutton, Ph.D., Fate Scientist 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor Mail Code 7507P Jean Holmes, D.V.M., Branch Chief Washington, DC 20460 December 22, 2017 2 Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Species on the Menu of a Generalist
    Molecular Ecology (2009) 18, 2532–2542 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04184.x SpeciesBlackwell Publishing Ltd on the menu of a generalist predator, the eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis): using a molecular approach to detect arthropod prey ELIZABETH L. CLARE,* ERIN E. FRASER,† HEATHER E. BRAID*, M. BROCK FENTON† and PAUL D. N. HEBERT* *Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G2W1, †Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada N6A 5B7 Abstract One of the most difficult interactions to observe in nature is the relationship between a predator and its prey. When direct observations are impossible, we rely on morphological classification of prey remains, although this is particularly challenging among generalist predators whose faeces contain mixed and degraded prey fragments. In this investigation, we used a poly- merase chain reaction and sequence-based technique to identify prey fragments in the guano of the generalist insectivore, the eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and evaluate several hypotheses about prey selection and prey defences. The interaction between bats and insects is of significant evolutionary interest because of the adaptive nature of insect hearing against echolocation. However, measuring the successes of predator tactics or particular prey defences is limited because we cannot normally identify these digested prey fragments beyond order or family. Using a molecular approach, we recovered sequences from 89% of the fragments tested, and through comparison to a reference database of sequences, we were able to identify 127 different species of prey. Our results indicate that despite the robust jaws of L. borealis, most prey taxa were softer-bodied Lepidoptera.
    [Show full text]
  • Giornale Di Zoologia
    ISSN 0370 - 4327 GIORNALE DI ZOOLOGIA PUBLISHED Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria CREA Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification Volume CI 101TERZA SERIE Rerum natura nusquam magis quam in minimis tota. PLINIO F I R E N Z E - 2 0 1 8 TIPOGRAFIA COPPINI I - Blank Page II - Blank Page ISSN 0370 - 4327 GIORNALE DI ZOOLOGIA PUBLISHED Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria CREA Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification Volume CI 101TERZA SERIE Rerum natura nusquam magis quam in minimis tota. PLINIO F I R E N Z E - 2 0 1 8 TIPOGRAFIA COPPINI Journal of Zoology Founded by Antonio Berlese, Firenze, 1903 Published by CREA Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification (formerly: Istituto Sperimentale per la Zoologia Agraria, Firenze) Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria Editor-in-Chief Roberto Nannelli Firenze, Italy Associate Editors Sauro Simoni Pio Federico Roversi Firenze, Italy Firenze, Italy Managing Editor Donatella Goggioli Firenze, Italy Editorial Board Ramon Albajes Giacinto Germinara Hervé Jactel Peter Schausberger Lleida, Spain Foggia, Italy Cestas, France Vienna, Austria Miguel Angel Altieri Andrew Paul Gutierrez Mariusz Lewandowski Stephan Scheurer Berkeley, USA Berkeley, USA Warszawa, Poland Berlin, Germany Sebastiano Barbagallo Keith M. Harris Francois Lieutier Thomas Schröder Catania, Italy Ripley, Woking, England Orleans, France Braunschweig, Germany Andrea Binazzi Sherif Hassan Evert E. Lindquist Ward Strong Firenze, Italy Darmstat, Germany Ottawa, Canada Veron, Canada Stefano Colazza Axel Hausmann Pietro Luciano Eustachio Tarasco Palermo, Italy München, Germany Sassari, Italy Bari, Italy Piero Cravedi Claudio Ioriatti Manuel Mota Stefano Turillazzi Piacenza, Italy S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F. List of Citations Accepted by ECOTOX Criteria and Database
    Appendix F. List of citations accepted by ECOTOX criteria and Database The citations in Appendices F and G were considered for inclusion in ECOTOX. Citations include the ECOTOX Reference number, as well as rejection codes (if relevant). The query was run in October, 1999 and revised March and June, 2000. References in Section F.1 include chlorpyrifos papers accepted by both ECOTOX and OPP and cited within this risk assessment. Sections F.2 through F.4. include the full list of chlorpyrifos papers from the 2007, 2008 and 2009 ECOTOX runs that were accepted by ECOTOX and OPP whether or not cited within the risk assessment and the full list of papers accepted by ECOTOX but not by OPP. ECOTOX Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes: Papers must meet minimum criteria for inclusion in the ECOTOX database as established in the Interim Guidance of the Evaluation Criteria for Ecological Toxicity Data in the Open Literature, Phase I and II, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 16, 2004. Each study must contain all of the following: • toxic effects from a single chemical exposure; • toxic effects on an aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal species; • biological effects on live, whole organisms; • concurrent environmental chemical concentrations/doses or application rates; and • explicit duration of exposure. Appendix G includes the list of citations excluded by ECOTOX and the list of exclusion terms and descriptions. For chlorpyrifos, hundreds of references were not accepted by ECOTOX for one or more reasons. OPP Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes for ECOTOX Data Studies located and coded into ECOTOX should also meet OPP criterion for use in a risk assessment (Section F.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Semiochemical Attractants of the Parasitic Fly Philornis Downsi in the Galapagos Islands
    SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry Digital Commons @ ESF Dissertations and Theses Summer 8-30-2018 Semiochemical Attractants of the Parasitic Fly Philornis Downsi in the Galapagos Islands Alejandro E. Mieles García SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.esf.edu/etds Part of the Biology Commons, and the Organic Chemistry Commons Recommended Citation Mieles García, Alejandro E., "Semiochemical Attractants of the Parasitic Fly Philornis Downsi in the Galapagos Islands" (2018). Dissertations and Theses. 222. https://digitalcommons.esf.edu/etds/222 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ ESF. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ ESF. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. SEMIOCHEMICAL ATTRACTANTS OF THE PARASITIC FLY PHILORNIS DOWNSI IN THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS by Alejandro E. Mieles Garcia A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry Syracuse, New York August 2018 Approved by: Stephen A. Teale, Major Professor Ruth D. Yanai, Chair, Examining Committee: James P. Gibbs Charlotte C. Causton Dong H. Cha Margaret A. Voss Neil H. Ringler, Interim Department Chair S. Scott Shannon, Dean, The Graduate School © 2018 Copyright A. E. Mieles Garcia All rights reserved ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the Galapagos Conservancy and the International Community Foundation (with a grant awarded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust) who supported this research with funding for studies in the field and laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Table: Pests Included in the Alert Lists
    DROPSA Summary table: pests included in the alert lists Pest species are listed in alphabetical order. Species written in bold are related to three or four of the examined pathways. Click on the links to access the datasheets that are stored in the EPPO Global Database (in the ‘Documents’ section). The colour of the cells indicates the rating attributed to each pest within the specific alert lists: • red = high economic importance and high likelihood of transfer • green = lower economic importance and high likelihood of transfer, or a high economic importance and lower likelihood of transfer • purple grey = possibly emerging pests (for Vaccinium berries only) Pathways Pest species Taxonomy Table grapes Apples Oranges and Mandarins Vaccinium berries Acalitus vaccinii Acarida: Eriophyidae Accuminulia buscki Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Acleris minuta Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Acrobasis vaccinii Lepidoptera: Pyralidae Adoxophyes cyrtosema Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Aegorhinus superciliosus Coleoptera: Curculionidae Aleurolobus taonabae Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae Alternaria viticola Ascomycota Amyelois transitella Lepidoptera: Pyralidae Archips argyrospilus Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Archips breviplicanus Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Archips fuscocupreanus Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Archips micaceana Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Archips pomivora Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Argyresthia assimilis Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae Argyrotaenia citrana Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Pest species Taxonomy Table grapes Apples Oranges and Mandarins Vaccinium berries Argyrotaenia pomililiana
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Moths of an Aspen Parkland
    1 MOTHS OF AN ASPEN PARKLAND AREA 3 KM SOUTH OF NEVIS, ALBERTA, 2001-2005, 2011 update Charles Durham Bird, 8 March 2012 Box 22, Erskine, AB, T0C 1G0 [email protected] The present paper incorporates a number of redeterminations and additions to the information in the reports of 2007, 2008 and 2009. It also follows the up-to-date order and taxonomy of Pohl et al. (2010), rather than that of Hodges et al. (1983). THE AREA An area of rolling Aspen Parkland 3 km south of Nevis, Alberta, was studied repeatedly from 2001 to 2005. It was an acreage owned by Allen and Laura Hall. GPS readings for the area rounded off to 52.31 N and 113.05 W with an elevation of 890 m, though Google Earth readings were 52.186 N, 113.017 W and 812 m. Moths were collected with ultraviolet light traps on 42 different collection nights, details of which appear in the Appendix. Voucher specimens are in the BIRD Collection. Map showing the location of Nevis, Erskine, Stettler and Buffalo Lake in south-central Alberta. The present study area and the Buffalo Lake Moraine Conservation Area, which is on the east side of Buffalo Lake, are both examples of native Aspen Parkland. 2 While the grass in the acreage proper is mowed, natural areas of shrub and bush remain in and around the acreage. The traps were in all cases set up on the edge of the property so that they would be able to sample the moths in the adjoining, lightly grazed, native aspen parkland on land owned by the Church family.
    [Show full text]
  • Areawide Pest Management
    AREAWIDE PEST MANAGEMENT Theory and Implementation This page intentionally left blank AREAWIDE PEST MANAGEMENT Theory and Implementation Edited by Opender Koul Insect Biopesticide Research Centre, Jalandhar, India Gerrit Cuperus Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA and Norman Elliott USDA-ARS Plant Science Research Laboratory Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA CABI is a trading name of CAB International CABI Head Office CABI North American Office Nosworthy Way 875 Massachusetts Avenue Wallingford 7th Floor Oxfordshire OX10 8DE Cambridge, MA 02139 UK USA Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 617 395 4056 Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 Fax: +1 617 354 6875 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cabi.org © CAB International 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Areawide pest management: theory and implementation/edited by Opender Koul, Gerrit Cuperus and Norman Elliott. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-84593-372-2 (alk. paper) 1. Pests--Integrated control. I. Koul, Opender. II. Cuperus, Gerrit W. III. Elliott, Norman. IV. Title. SB950.A74 2008 632'.9--dc22 ISBN-13: 978 1 84593 372 2 2007029243 Typeset by AMA DataSet Ltd, UK. Printed and bound in the UK by Biddles, King’s Lynn. Contents Contents About the Editors viii Contributors x Preface xiii 1. General Introduction to Areawide Pest Management 1 Robert M.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of the Pacific Northwest: Caterpillars and Adults
    Forest Health Technology Identification Enterprise Team of Caterpillars and Adults TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Forest FHTET-03-11 U.S. Department FHTET of Agriculture Service December 2003 he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 Tby the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ For Reprints, contact: Richard C. Reardon USDA Forest Service 180 Canfield Street Morgantown, WV 26505 (304) 285-1563 [email protected] Cover Photo Top left to bottom right: EPARGYREUS CLARUS, PAPILIO BAIRDII, LIMENITIS LORQUINI, GRAMMIA ORNATA, PHYLLODESMA AMERICANA, PAPILIO RUTULUS, PHYLLODESMA AMERICANA, ITAME COLATA, ATLIDES HALESUS, CHLOROSEA BANKSARIA, LOPHOCAMPA MACULATA, CISSEPS FULVICOLLIS, SYNAXIS FORMOSA, SPILOSOMA VIRGINICA, PAPILIO INDRA, CELASTRINA ARGIOLUS. 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, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to a Sex Attractant in Wheat-Growing Areas of Eastern Washington and Neighboring Oregon Author(S): Peter J
    Trap Response of Dargida terrapictalis (Buckett) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to a Sex Attractant in Wheat-Growing Areas of Eastern Washington and Neighboring Oregon Author(s): Peter J. Landolt, Diana Roberts, Mary Corp, and Silvia I. Rondon Source: Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 84(2):139-147. 2011. Published By: Kansas Entomological Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2317/JKES101029.1 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2317/JKES101029.1 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. JOURNAL OF THE KANSAS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 84(2), 2011, pp. 139–147 Trap Response of Dargida terrapictalis (Buckett) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to a Sex Attractant in Wheat-Growing Areas of Eastern Washington and Neighboring Oregon 1,2 3 4 5 PETER J. LANDOLT, DIANA ROBERTS, MARY CORP, AND SILVIA I. RONDON ABSTRACT: Traps in eastern Washington and northeast Oregon wheat fields, baited with a sex attractant for the moth of the wheat head armyworm Dargida diffusa (Walker), captured the congener moth Dargida terrapictalis (Buckett).
    [Show full text]