DOCSLIB.ORG

Asian Defoliators Sharpening Your Observation Skills Objectives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Asian Defoliators Sharpening Your Observation Skills Objectives Asian Defoliators Sharpening Your Observation Skills Objectives • To learn how to recognize key characteristics of Dendrolimus (lappet moths) and Lymantria (gypsy moths) • To learn how to recognize similar, native, look-alike species and distinguish them from the potential invaders Introduction • Defoliation = the removal of all or part of the foliage of a plant • Herbivore = an animal which eats only plants • Insect defoliators damage plants by eating leaves or needles Photo: tent and defoliation on aspen © William M. Ciesla, Forest Health Management International, Bugwood.org Introduction Classification based on • Insect order • Pattern • Feeding structure • Time of year • Host specificity Photos: katydid feeding on leaves (top) © Herbert Pase III, Bugwood.org and skeletonizing on European linden (bottom) © Steven Katovich, USDA-FS, Bugwood.org Defoliation clue: insect order Most common insect orders which defoliate plants • Lepidoptera—moths, butterflies • Hymenoptera— sawflies, wasps • Coleoptera—beetles • Orthoptera—katydids, grasshoppers, etc. • Diptera—flies Photos: pine sawfly (top) © USDA-FS Region 8 - Southern Archive, Bugwood.org and (bottom) viburnum leaf beetle adults © D.D. O’Brien, Cornell University, Bugwood.org Defoliation clue: pattern Defoliation by pattern • Complete leaf eaten • Individual holes • Mining • Skeletonizing Photo: complete defoliation on pine caused by spiny caterpillar © William M. Ciesla, Forest Health Management International, Bugwood.org Defoliation clue: pattern Complete defoliation Individual holes Skeletonizing Mining damage Photos: clockwise from top left © H. Ovidiu, University of Oradea; P. Weston, Cornell University; M. Zubrik, FRI – Slovakia; J. Solomon, US-FS. All images Bugwood.org. Defoliation clue: feeding structures Feeding structures • Tents • Rolled leaves • Casebearers • Free feeders Photos: eastern tent caterpillars (top) © David Cappaert, Michigan State Univ., Bugwood.org and orangestriped oakworms © Ryan St. Laurent, Cornell University Defoliation clue: feeding structure Tents Rolled leaves Free feeders Casebearers Photos: clockwise from top left © P. Sloderbeck, Kansas State University; DPIW, Tasmania Archive; W. Upham, KSU; B. McNee, WI-DNR. All images Bugwood.org Defoliation clue: time of year Insects cause damage at specific times of the year • Spring defoliators • Spring/summer • Summer Photo: fall webworm nests © Dawn Dailey O’Brien, Cornell University Asian defoliators featuring LYMANTRIA SPP. & DENDROLIMUS SPP. Asian defoliators (AD) vs native defoliators • Native defoliators and the established European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) frequently defoliate broadleaved trees • The AD belonging to the genus Lymantria may defoliate broadleaved or coniferous trees • The ADs in the genus Dendrolimus are conifer feeders • Total defoliation of conifers is uncommon to rare in the Eastern US―and should alert you that it could likely be an AD introduction AD vs native defoliators Native defoliating lappet moths (Lasiocampidae) – Same family as Dendrolimus – Forest tent caterpillar is common on oaks – Eastern tent caterpillar is common on black cherry Photos: forest tent caterpillar (top) © Franclemont larval slide collection, CUIC and eastern tent caterpillar (bottom) D. D. O’Brien, Cornell University AD vs native defoliators • Native defoliators feed primarily on broadleaved trees • Conifer defoliation is uncommon in the Eastern US – Pine sawflies (order: Hymenoptera) • In parts of the western US native Lepidoptera conifer defoliators include the pine silkmoths & Douglas fir tussock moth AD vs native defoliators • Defoliation of conifers in the Eastern US should be an instant red flag – Dendrolimus sibiricus, D. punctatus, and D. pini are obligate conifer feeders – Gypsy moths native to Asia (Lymantria spp.) will also feed on conifers • In the event of defoliation of coniferous trees, any Lepidoptera larvae should be collected and identified © John H. Ghent, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org Conifer defoliation facts • Coniferous trees are less tolerant of defoliation than deciduous trees. • Defoliation makes trees more vulnerable to secondary organisms. • Late season defoliation is less stressful than early season defoliation. Recognizing AD larvae • The larvae of the three Dendrolimus spp. are all similar to each other, but very recognizable when compared to native conifer feeders • Most AD Lymantria spp. larvae are very similar to each other and cannot always be readily differentiated from the already established European gypsy moth Larvae: Siberian silk moth (Dendrolimus sibiricus) Photo: © John Ghent, US-FS, Bugwood.org Larvae: Dendrolimus Pine-tree lappet moth Masson pine caterpillar (Dendrolimus pini) (Dendrolimus punctatus) Photos: © William M. Ciesla, Forest Health Management International, Bugwood.org Larvae: European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar dispar) Photos: © Franclemont larval slide collection, CUIC, Cornell University Sharpening Your Observation skills SOME NATIVE LYMANTRIA LARVAL LOOK-ALIKES Lymantria look-alike: Panthea furcilla (Noctuidae: Pantheinae) Photos: © Franclemont larval slide collection, CUIC, Cornell University Lymantria look-alike: Panthea spp. Lymantria look-alike: Orgyia spp. (Lymantriinae) Lymantria look-alike: Dasychira spp. (Lymantriinae) Sharpening Your Observation Skills SOME NATIVE DENDROLIMUS LARVAL LOOK-ALIKES Dendrolimus larval look-alike: Tolype sp. (Lasiocampidae) Tolype velleda Tolype laricis Photos: © David Cappaert, Michigan State University, Bugwood.org and Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Archive, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Bugwood.org Dendrolimus larval look-alike: Artace sp. (Lasiocampidae) Dot-lined white Artace cribrarius larva Artace colaria female Photos: Artace cribrarius larva, courtesy of Sean McCann, Bugguide.com and Artace colaria female © CUIC, Cornell University Dendrolimus larval look-alike: American lappet moth (Phyllodesma americana: Lasiocampidae) Photo courtesy of Andrée Reno Sanborn of Barton, Vermont Dendrolimus larval look-alike: Gloveria (Lasiocampidae) Gloveria gargamelle larvae Photos: Gloveria gargamelle courtesy of Valerie Bugh Dendrolimus larval look-alike: Olceclostera angelica (Apatelodidae) Photo courtesy of Colin Gillette Dendrolimus spp. ADULT IDENTIFICATION Siberian silk moth (Dendrolimus sibiricus) Males and females are similar but females are larger, with broader wings. Wingspan • male: 40–60 mm • female: 60–80 mm Key features • three dark, notched stripes on the wings • white spot usually present near center of forewing © Kent Loeffler, Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology, Cornell University Siberian silk moth (Dendrolimus sibiricus) Males and females are similar but females are larger, with broader wings. Wingspan • male: 40–60 mm • female: 60–80 mm Key features • three dark, notched ♀ stripes on the wings • white spot usually present near center of forewing Photo: Pest and Diseases Image Library, Bugwood.org Pine-tree lappet moth (Dendrolimus pini) Males and females are similar but females are larger, with broader wings. Wingspan • male: 50–70 mm • female: 70–90 mm Key features • prominent brown bands located at the base of the forewing • white spot usually present near center of forewing Pine-tree lappet moth: brown form Masson pine caterpillar (Dendrolimus punctatus) Males and females are similar but females are larger, with broader wings. Wingspan • male: 50–80 mm • female: larger Key features • wings mostly uniform brown • line nearest edge of wing unconnected • line discontinuous rather than mostly continuous as in D. sibiricus and D. pini Dendrolimus spp. ADULT LOOK-ALIKES Large look-alike, Southwestern lappet moths (Lasiocampidae) Caloecia juvenalis Caloecia entima Large look-alike, Southwestern lappet moths (Lasiocampidae) Dicogaster coronada Quadrina diazoma Large look-alike, Southwestern lappet moths (Lasiocampidae) Gloveria arizonensis Gloveria medusa Gloveria gargamelle Large native non-Lasiocampidae pine feeders Pandora pine moth (Coloradia pandora) Northern pine sphinx (Lapara bombycoides) Pine devil (Citheronia sepulcralis) Lymantria spp. ADULT IDENTIFICATION Lymantria (the similar species) The key feature to recognize: arc and dot • L. dispar asiatica • L. dispar japonica • L. umbrosa • L. albescens arc • L. postalba dot Lymantria (the similar species) Lymantria dispar dispar (EGM) L. d. asiatica L. d. japonica Lymantria (the similar species) L. postalba Lymantria umbrosa L. albescens Lymantria (the unique, easily identifiable species) • L. mathura — Rosy gypsy moth • L. monacha* — Nun moth • L. xylina Rosy gypsy moth (Lymantria mathura) Wingspan • male FW length: 21–24 mm • female ~38 mm Key features • males yellow hindwings • females whitish with pink – immediately recognizable from other AD Lymantria spp. – no native look-alike species Lymantria xylina Wingspan • male FW length: 25–28 mm • female: ~35 mm Key features • off-white coloration • single transverse, wavy band on forewing – No native look-alike species Nun moth (Lymantria monacha) Wingspan • male FW length: 18–20 mm • female: 27–29 mm Key features • white forewings with ziz- zagging lines • arc/dot not as pronounced • heavy maculation • hindwings are greyish Nun moth look-alikes Furcula scolopendrina Black zigzag moth (Panthea acronyctoides) Lichnoptera decora Native tussock moths (Erebidae: Lymantriinae) Orgyia spp. Key diagnostic features • white patch in lower corner of forewings, about a quarter of the way from edge (in most species) • dorsal abdominal tufts of
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]
  • United States National Museum Bulletin 276
    ,*f»W*»"*^W»i;|. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION MUSEUM O F NATURAL HISTORY UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 276 A Revision of the Genus Malacosoma Hlibner in North America (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae): Systematics, Biology, Immatures, and Parasites FREDERICK W. STEHR and EDWIN F. COOK SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS CITY OF WASHINGTON 1968 PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series. Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the field of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the various subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902, papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium. This work forms number 276 of the Bulletin series.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Native Animals of RI
    RARE NATIVE ANIMALS OF RHODE ISLAND Revised: March, 2006 ABOUT THIS LIST The list is divided by vertebrates and invertebrates and is arranged taxonomically according to the recognized authority cited before each group. Appropriate synonomy is included where names have changed since publication of the cited authority. The Natural Heritage Program's Rare Native Plants of Rhode Island includes an estimate of the number of "extant populations" for each listed plant species, a figure which has been helpful in assessing the health of each species. Because animals are mobile, some exhibiting annual long-distance migrations, it is not possible to derive a population index that can be applied to all animal groups. The status assigned to each species (see definitions below) provides some indication of its range, relative abundance, and vulnerability to decline. More specific and pertinent data is available from the Natural Heritage Program, the Rhode Island Endangered Species Program, and the Rhode Island Natural History Survey. STATUS. The status of each species is designated by letter codes as defined: (FE) Federally Endangered (7 species currently listed) (FT) Federally Threatened (2 species currently listed) (SE) State Endangered Native species in imminent danger of extirpation from Rhode Island. These taxa may meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Formerly considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Federal listing as endangered or threatened. 2. Known from an estimated 1-2 total populations in the state. 3. Apparently globally rare or threatened; estimated at 100 or fewer populations range-wide. Animals listed as State Endangered are protected under the provisions of the Rhode Island State Endangered Species Act, Title 20 of the General Laws of the State of Rhode Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
    [Show full text]
  • Saturniidae) of Rio Grande Do Sul State, Brazil
    214214 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 63(4), 2009, 214-232 ARSENURINAE AND CERATOCAMPINAE (SATURNIIDAE) OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL STATE, BRAZIL ANDERSONN SILVEIRA PRESTES Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] FABRÍCIO GUERREIRO NUNES Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] ELIO CORSEUIL Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] AND ALFRED MOSER Avenida Rotermund 1045, 93030-000 São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] ABSTRACT. The present work aims to offer a list of Arsenurinae and Ceratocampinae species known to occur in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The list is based on bibliographical data, newly collected specimens, and previously existing museum collections. The Arsenurinae are listed in the following genera (followed by number of species): Arsenura Duncan, 1841 (4), Caio Travassos & Noronha, 1968 (1), Dysdaemonia Hübner, [1819] (1), Titaea Hübner, [1823] (1), Paradaemonia Bouvier, 1925 (2), Rhescyntis Hübner, [1819] (1), Copiopteryx Duncan, 1841 (2). Cerato- campinae are listed in Adeloneivaia Travassos, 1940 (3), Adelowalkeria Travassos, 1941 (2), Almeidella Oiticica, 1946 (2), Cicia Oiticica, 1964 (2), Citheronia Hübner, [1819] (4), Citioica Travassos & Noronha, 1965 (1), Eacles Hübner, [1819] (4), Mielkesia Lemaire, 1988 (1), Neocarne- gia Draudt, 1930 (1), Oiticella Travassos & Noronha, 1965 (1), Othorene Boisduval, 1872 (2), Procitheronia Michener, 1949 (1), Psilopygida Michener, 1949 (2), Scolesa Michener, 1949 (3) and Syssphinx Hübner, [1819] (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats a Symposium
    Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats A Symposium y Edited b Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-145 DISCLAIMER The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. Papers published in these proceedings were submitted by authors in electronic media. Some editing was done to ensure a consistent format. Authors are responsible for content and accuracy of their individual papers and the quality of illustrative materials. Cover photos: Large photo: Craig W. Stihler; small left photo: Joseph S. Johnson; small middle photo: Craig W. Stihler; small right photo: Matthew J. Clement. December 2011 Southern Research Station 200 W.T. Weaver Blvd. Asheville, NC 28804 Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats: A Symposium Athens, Georgia March 9–10, 2010 Edited by: Susan C. Loeb U.S Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station Michael J. Lacki University of Kentucky Darren A. Miller Weyerhaeuser NR Company Sponsored by: Forest Service Bat Conservation International National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Offield Family Foundation ContEntS Preface . v Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats: An Introduction . 1 Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller Distribution and Status of Eastern Big-eared Bats (Corynorhinus Spp .) . 13 Mylea L. Bayless, Mary Kay Clark, Richard C. Stark, Barbara S.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Lepidoptera of the Wainwright Dunes Ecological Reserve
    SURVEY OF LEPIDOPTERA OF THE WAINWRIGHT DUNES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 159 SURVEY OF LEPIDOPTERA OF THE WAINWRIGHT DUNES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Doug Macaulay Alberta Species at Risk Report No.159 Project Partners: i ISBN 978-1-4601-3449-8 ISSN 1496-7146 Photo: Doug Macaulay of Pale Yellow Dune Moth ( Copablepharon grandis ) For copies of this report, visit our website at: http://www.aep.gov.ab.ca/fw/speciesatrisk/index.html This publication may be cited as: Macaulay, A. D. 2016. Survey of Lepidoptera of the Wainwright Dunes Ecological Reserve. Alberta Species at Risk Report No.159. Alberta Environment and Parks, Edmonton, AB. 31 pp. ii DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policies of the Department or the Alberta Government. iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... vi 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................. 2 3.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Mcguire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity
    Supplemental Information All specimens used within this study are housed in: the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity (MGCL) at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, USA (FLMNH); the University of Maryland, College Park, USA (UMD); the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris, France (MNHN); and the Australian National Insect Collection in Canberra, Australia (ANIC). Methods DNA extraction protocol of dried museum specimens (detailed instructions) Prior to tissue sampling, dried (pinned or papered) specimens were assigned MGCL barcodes, photographed, and their labels digitized. Abdomens were then removed using sterile forceps, cleaned with 100% ethanol between each sample, and the remaining specimens were returned to their respective trays within the MGCL collections. Abdomens were placed in 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tubes with the apex of the abdomen in the conical end of the tube. For larger abdomens, 5 mL microcentrifuge tubes or larger were utilized. A solution of proteinase K (Qiagen Cat #19133) and genomic lysis buffer (OmniPrep Genomic DNA Extraction Kit) in a 1:50 ratio was added to each abdomen containing tube, sufficient to cover the abdomen (typically either 300 µL or 500 µL) - similar to the concept used in Hundsdoerfer & Kitching (1). Ratios of 1:10 and 1:25 were utilized for low quality or rare specimens. Low quality specimens were defined as having little visible tissue inside of the abdomen, mold/fungi growth, or smell of bacterial decay. Samples were incubated overnight (12-18 hours) in a dry air oven at 56°C. Importantly, we also adjusted the ratio depending on the tissue type, i.e., increasing the ratio for particularly large or egg-containing abdomens.
    [Show full text]
  • NEWSLETTER• of the MICHIGAN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY
    NEWSLETTER• of the MICHIGAN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY Volume 38, Numbers 4 December, 1993 Impacts ofBt on Non-Target Lepidoptera John W. Peacock, David L. Wagner, and Dale F. Schweitzer USDA Forest Service, Hamden, CT; University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT; and The Nature Conservancy, Port Norris, NT, respectively Introduction gypsy moth in Oregon. Sample et a1. ing attempts bycertain birds. In another (1 993) have likewise reported a signifi­ study, Bellocq et al. (1992) showed that Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner var. cant reduction inspecies abundance and the use of Btk increased immigration kurstaki (Btk) is one of the pesticides richness in non-target Lepidoptera in rates andcaused d ietary shifts inshrews. most commonly employed against lepi­ field studies in eastern West Virginia. We report here a summary of our dopteran forest pests. In the eastern U.S., James et al. (1993) haveshown thatBtk is studies aimed at determining the effect where millionsofhectares of deciduous toxic to late, but not early, instar larvae of Btko n non-target Lepidoptera inboth forest have been defoliated by the ''Eu­ of the beneficial cinnabar moth, Tyria laboratoryand field studies. Laboratory ropean" gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar jacobaeae (L.). bioassays were conducted on larvae in (L.), Btk has been used extenSively to In addition to its direct effects on seven families of native eastern U.S. slow the spread of this pest and to re­ native Lepidoptera, Btk can indirectly Macrolepidoptera. Field studies were duce defoliation. In 1992 alone, over affect other animals that rely on lepi­ carried out in Rockbridge County, Vir­ 300,000 ha were treated with Btk, in­ dopterous larvae as a primary source of ginia, and were the first to evaluate non­ cluding gypsy moth suppression activi­ food.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Insect Conditions in the United States 1966
    FOREST INSECT CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 1966 FOREST SERVICE ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreword This report is the 18th annual account of the scope, severity, and trend of the more important forest insect infestations in the United States, and of the programs undertaken to check resulting damage and loss. It is compiled primarily for managers of public and private forest lands, but has become useful to students and others interested in outbreak trends and in the location and extent of pest populations. The report also makes possible n greater awareness of the insect prob­ lem and of losses to the timber resource. The opening section highlights the more important conditions Nationwide, and each section that pertains to a forest region is prefaced by its own brief summary. Under the Federal Forest Pest Control Act, a sharing by Federal and State Governments the costs of surveys and control is resulting in a stronger program of forest insect and disease detection and evaluation surveys on non-Federal lands. As more States avail themselves of this financial assistance from the Federal Government, damage and loss from forest insects will become less. The screening and testing of nonpersistent pesticides for use in suppressing forest defoliators continued in 1966. The carbamate insecticide Zectran in a pilot study of its effectiveness against the spruce budworm in Montana and Idaho appeared both successful and safe. More extensive 'tests are planned for 1967. Since only the smallest of the spray droplets reach the target, plans call for reducing the spray to a fine mist. The course of the fine spray, resulting from diffusion and atmospheric currents, will be tracked by lidar, a radar-laser combination.
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of Citheronia Regalis (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) Feeding on Cotinus Obovatus (Anacardiaceae) Author(S): Gary R
    First Record of Citheronia regalis (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) Feeding on Cotinus obovatus (Anacardiaceae) Author(s): Gary R. Graves Source: Florida Entomologist, 100(2):474-475. Published By: Florida Entomological Society https://doi.org/10.1653/024.100.0210 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1653/024.100.0210 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. Scientific Notes First record of Citheronia regalis (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) feeding on Cotinus obovatus (Anacardiaceae) Gary R. Graves1,2,* The regal moth (Citheronia regalis F.; Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) 2016) shows historic and recent records of C. regalis for only 11 of was historically distributed in eastern North America from southern the 34 counties in which natural populations of smoketree have been New England and southern Michigan, south to southern Florida, and documented (Davis & Graves 2016). west to eastern Nebraska and eastern Texas (Tuskes et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs
    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    [Show full text]