DOCSLIB.ORG

Field Guide for the Biological Control of Weeds in the Northwest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

US Department of Agriculture FOR THE BIOLOGICALFIELD GUIDECONTROL OF WEEDS IN THE NORTHWEST Rachel Winston, Carol Bell Randall, Rosemarie De Clerck-Floate, Alec McClay, Jennifer Andreas and Mark Schwarzländer Forest Health Technology FHTET-2014-08 Enterprise Team Reprinted August 2016 he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 by the TDeputy 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/ Cover photos: Aphthona nigriscutis (R. Richard, USDA APHIS), Mecinus spp. (Bob Richard, USDA APHIS PPQ), Chrysolina hypericic quadrigemina, Eustenopus villosus (Laura Parsons & Mark Schwarzländer, University of Idaho), Cyphocleonus achates (Jennifer Andreas, Washington State University Extension) In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. Federal Recycling Program Printed on recycled paper BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WEEDS IN THE NORTHWEST Rachel L. Winston Carol Bell Randall Environmental Consultant Entomologist, Forest Health Protection MIA Consulting, LLC USDA Forest Service Sandpoint, ID, USA Coeur d’Alene, ID, USA [email protected] [email protected] Rosemarie A. De Clerck-Floate Alec S. McClay Weed Biocontrol, Lethbridge Research Centre McClay Ecoscience Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada [email protected] [email protected] Mark Schwarzländer Jennifer E. Andreas Associate Professor for Entomology Integrated Weed Control Project University of Idaho, Department of Plant, Washington State University Extension Soil and Entomological Sciences Puyallup, WA Moscow, ID, USA [email protected] [email protected] For additional copies of this publication, contact: Mark Schwarzländer Richard Reardon University of Idaho USDA Forest Service PSES Department 180 Canfield Street Morgantown, WV 26505 Moscow, ID 83844 304.285.1566 208.885.9319 [email protected] [email protected] Acknowledgments Significant help in reviewing and compiling the content in this field guide was provided by Eric Coombs (Oregon Department of Agriculture), Jeffrey Littlefield (Montana State University), Dan Bean (Colorado Department of Agriculture), Robert Bourchier (Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada), and Susan Turner (British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range). We would like to thank all of the photographers who granted permission for the use of photos. We also extend our gratitude to Denise Binion, Forest Service-Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) for help with editing, layout and graphics, and Richard Reardon (FHTET) for producing this guide. Field Guide Components About This Field Guide 10 Biological Control of Weeds 12 Weed Botanical Traits 14 Life Cycle 14 Duration 14 Leaf Arrangement and Margination 15 Flower heads 15 Biological Control Agent Life Cycles 16 Insects 16 Butterflies and Moths (Order Lepidoptera) 17 Beetles (Order Coleoptera) 17 Table of Contents of Table Flies (Order Diptera) 17 Aphids (Order Hemiptera) 18 Mites 18 Nematodes 18 Fungi 18 Scientific Name Changes 19 Collection Methods 20 Sweep netting 20 Aspirating 20 Hand-picking/Tapping 21 Vacuuming 21 Light trap 21 Transport Considerations 22 Containers 22 Transporting Biological Control Agents 22 Shipping long distances 22 Other factors to consider 23 Releasing Biocontrol Agents 24 Select release site 24 Establish permanent location marker 24 Record geographical coordinates at release point using GPS 24 Prepare map 24 Complete relevant paperwork at site 25 Set up photo point 25 Release as many agents as possible 25 Table of Contents of Table Monitoring Biocontrol Agents 26 Assessing biocontrol agent populations 26 Assessing the status of the target weed and co-occurring plants 27 Qualitative (descriptive) vegetation monitoring 27 Quantitative vegetation monitoring 28 Assessing impacts on nontarget plants 28 Additional Considerations 29 Avoiding Parasitism 29 Pinkish-Purple Flowers 30 Houndstongue, Cynoglossum officinale 30 Houndstongue Biological Control 32 Longitarsus quadriguttatus (Pontoppidan) 34 Mogulones crucifer (Pallas) 36 Knapweed species comparison (Centaurea) 38 Diffuse knapweed, Centaurea diffusa 40 Spotted knapweed, Centaure stoebe 42 Knapweed Biological Control 44 Agapeta zoegana 46 Bangasternus fausti 48 Chaetorellia acrolophi 50 Cyphocleonus achates 52 Larinus minutus 54 Larinus obtusus 56 Metzneria paucipunctella 58 Pelochrista medullana 60 Pterolonche inspersa 62 Sphenoptera jugoslavica 64 Terellia virens 66 Urophora affinis 68 Urophora quadrifasciata 70 Russian knapweed, Rhaponticum repens 72 Russian Knapweed Biological Control 74 Aulacidea acroptilonica 76 Jaapiella ivannikovi 78 Subanguina picridis 80 Russian Knapweed, Unapproved Agents 82 Puccinia acroptili. 82 Purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria 84 Purple Loosestrife Biological Control 86 Galerucella calmariensis 88 Hylobius transversovittatus 90 Table of Contents of Table Nanophyes marmoratus 92 Saltcedar, Tamarix chinensis & T. ramosissima 94 Smallflower tamarisk,Tamarix parviflora 96 Saltcedar Biological Control 98 Saltcedars, Unapproved Agents 99 Coniatus splendidulus 99 Diorhabda spp. 100 Thistle species comparison 102 Bull thistle, Cirsium vulgare 104 Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense 106 Musk thistle, Carduus nutans 108 Thistle Biological Control 110 Cheilosia grossa 112 Hadroplontus litura 114 Rhinocyllus conicus 116 Trichosirocalus horridus 118 Urophora cardui 120 Urophora stylata 122 Thistles, Non-Established Agents 124 Altica carduorum 124 Lema cyanella 124 Table of Contents of Table Psylliodes chalcomera 125 Urophora solstitialis 125 Thistles, Unapproved Agents 126 Puccinia punctiformis 126 Aceria anthocoptes 127 Cassida rubiginosa 127 Cleonis pigra 128 Larinus carlinae (=L. planus) 128 Puccinia carduorum 129 Terellia ruficauda 129 Yellow Flowers 130 Scotch broom, Cytisus scoparius 130 Broom Biological Control 132 Bruchidius villosus 134 Exapion fuscirostre 136 Leucoptera spartifoliella 138 Broom, Unapproved Agents 140 Aceria genistae 140 Agonopterix nervosa 141 Arytainilla spartiophila 141 Gorse, Ulex europaeus 142 Gorse Biological Control 144 Exapion ulicis 146 Tetranychus lintearius 148 Gorse, Unapproved Agents 150 Agonopterix nervosa 150 Orange hawkweed, Pilosella aurantiaca 152 Whiplash hawkweed, Pilosella flagellaris 154 Hawkweed Biological Control 156 Aulacidea subterminalis 158 Puncturevine, Tribulus terrestris 160 Puncturevine Biological Control 162 Microlarinus lareynii 164 Microlarinus lypriformis 166 Tansy ragwort, Jacobaea vulgaris 168 Tansy Ragwort Biological Control 170 Botanophila seneciella 172 Cochylis atricapitana 174 Longitarsus jacobaeae 176 Tyria jacobaeae 180 Tansy Ragwort, Unapproved Agents 182 Table of Contents of Table Longitarsus spp. 182 Rush skeletonweed, Chondrilla juncea 184 Rush Skeletonweed Biological Control 186 Aceria chondrillae 188 Bradyrrhoa gilveolella 190 Cystiphora schmidti 192 Puccinia chondrillina 194 Yellow starthistle, Centaurea solstitialis 196 Yellow Starthistle Biological Control 198 Bangasternus orientalis 200 Chaetorellia australis & C. succinea 202 Eustenopus villosus 204 Larinus curtus 206 Puccinia jacea var. solstitialis 208 Urophora sirunaseva 210 Common St. Johnswort, Hypericum perforatum 212 Common St. Johnswort Biological
Recommended publications
  • Overcoming the Challenges of Tamarix Management with Diorhabda Carinulata Through the Identification and Application of Semioche

    Overcoming the Challenges of Tamarix Management with Diorhabda Carinulata Through the Identification and Application of Semioche

    OVERCOMING THE CHALLENGES OF TAMARIX MANAGEMENT WITH DIORHABDA CARINULATA THROUGH THE IDENTIFICATION AND APPLICATION OF SEMIOCHEMICALS by Alexander Michael Gaffke A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology and Environmental Sciences MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana May 2018 ©COPYRIGHT by Alexander Michael Gaffke 2018 All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without the unconditional support of my family, Mike, Shelly, and Tony Gaffke. I must thank Dr. Roxie Sporleder for opening my world to the joy of reading. Thanks must also be shared with Dr. Allard Cossé, Dr. Robert Bartelt, Dr. Bruce Zilkowshi, Dr. Richard Petroski, Dr. C. Jack Deloach, Dr. Tom Dudley, and Dr. Dan Bean whose previous work with Tamarix and Diorhabda carinulata set the foundations for this research. I must express my sincerest gratitude to my Advisor Dr. David Weaver, and my committee: Dr. Sharlene Sing, Dr. Bob Peterson and Dr. Dan Bean for their guidance throughout this project. To Megan Hofland and Norma Irish, thanks for keeping me sane. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 Tamarix ............................................................................................................................1 Taxonomy ................................................................................................................1 Introduction
  • 2013 Draft Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Recovery Plan

    2013 Draft Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Recovery Plan

    DRAFT Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Recovery Plan Derek W. Stinson Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, Washington January 2013 In 1990, the Washington Wildlife Commission adopted procedures for listing and de-listing species as endangered, threatened, or sensitive and for writing recovery and management plans for listed species (WAC 232-12-297, Appendix A). The procedures, developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies, require preparation of recovery plans for species listed as threatened or endangered. Recovery, as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or reversed, and threats to its survival are neutralized, so that its long-term survival in nature can be ensured. This is the Draft Washington State Status Update and Recovery Plan for the Mazama Pocket Gopher. It summarizes what is known of the historical and current distribution and abundance of the Mazama pocket gopher in Washington and describes factors affecting known populations and its habitat. It prescribes strategies to recover the species, such as protecting populations and existing habitat, evaluating and restoring habitat, and initiating research and cooperative programs. Target population objectives and other criteria for down-listing to state Sensitive are identified. As part of the State’s listing and recovery procedures, the draft recovery plan is available for a 90-day public comment period. Please submit written comments on this report by 19 April 2013 via e-mail to: [email protected], or by mail to: Endangered Species Section Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 This report should be cited as: Stinson, D.
  • Invasive Species: a Challenge to the Environment, Economy, and Society

    Invasive Species: a Challenge to the Environment, Economy, and Society

    Invasive Species: A challenge to the environment, economy, and society 2016 Manitoba Envirothon 2016 MANITOBA ENVIROTHON STUDY GUIDE 2 Acknowledgments The primary author, Manitoba Forestry Association, and Manitoba Envirothon would like to thank all the contributors and editors to the 2016 theme document. Specifically, I would like to thank Robert Gigliotti for all his feedback, editing, and endless support. Thanks to the theme test writing subcommittee, Kyla Maslaniec, Lee Hrenchuk, Amie Peterson, Jennifer Bryson, and Lindsey Andronak, for all their case studies, feedback, editing, and advice. I would like to thank Jacqueline Montieth for her assistance with theme learning objectives and comments on the document. I would like to thank the Ontario Envirothon team (S. Dabrowski, R. Van Zeumeren, J. McFarlane, and J. Shaddock) for the preparation of their document, as it provided a great launch point for the Manitoba and resources on invasive species management. Finally, I would like to thank Barbara Fuller, for all her organization, advice, editing, contributions, and assistance in the preparation of this document. Olwyn Friesen, BSc (hons), MSc PhD Student, University of Otago January 2016 2016 MANITOBA ENVIROTHON STUDY GUIDE 3 Forward to Advisors The 2016 North American Envirothon theme is Invasive Species: A challenge to the environment, economy, and society. Using the key objectives and theme statement provided by the North American Envirothon and the Ontario Envirothon, the Manitoba Envirothon (a core program of Think Trees – Manitoba Forestry Association) developed a set of learning outcomes in the Manitoba context for the theme. This document provides Manitoba Envirothon participants with information on the 2016 theme.
  • Are All Flea Beetles the Same?

    Are All Flea Beetles the Same?

    E-1274 Are All Phyllotreata cruciferae Flea Beetles Crucifer Flea Beetle Versus the Same? Leafy Spurge Flea Beetles Denise L. Olson Assistant Professor, Entomology Dept. Janet J. Knodel Extension Crop Protection Specialist, NCREC, NDSU Aphthona lacertosa “FLEA BEETLE” is a common name describing many species of beetles that use their enlarged hind legs to jump quickly when disturbed. The adults feed on the leaves of their host plants. Heavily fed-on leaves have a shot-hole appearance. The larvae (wormlike immature stage) usually feed on the roots of the same host plants as adults. Common flea beetles that occur in North Dakota include the Flea beetles crucifer flea beetle (Phyllotreata cruciferae) and the leafy spurge have enlarged flea beetles (Aphthona species). The crucifer flea beetle is a hind legs that non-native insect pest that accidentally was introduced into they use to jump North America during the 1920s. Phyllotreata cruciferae now quickly when can be found across southern Canada and the northern Great disturbed. Plains states of the United States. The leafy spurge flea beetles are non-native biological control agents and were introduced for spurge control beginning in the mid-1980s. These biological control agents have been released in the south-central prov- inces of Canada and in the Upper Great Plains and Midwest Crucifer flea beetle is states of the United States. Although P. cruciferae and Aphthona an exotic insect pest. species are both known as flea beetles and do look similar, they differ in their description, life cycle and preference of host plants. Leafy spurge flea beetle species are introduced biological control North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105 agents.
  • The Curculionoidea of the Maltese Islands (Central Mediterranean) (Coleoptera)

    The Curculionoidea of the Maltese Islands (Central Mediterranean) (Coleoptera)

    BULLETIN OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MALTA (2010) Vol. 3 : 55-143 The Curculionoidea of the Maltese Islands (Central Mediterranean) (Coleoptera) David MIFSUD1 & Enzo COLONNELLI2 ABSTRACT. The Curculionoidea of the families Anthribidae, Rhynchitidae, Apionidae, Nanophyidae, Brachyceridae, Curculionidae, Erirhinidae, Raymondionymidae, Dryophthoridae and Scolytidae from the Maltese islands are reviewed. A total of 182 species are included, of which the following 51 species represent new records for this archipelago: Araecerus fasciculatus and Noxius curtirostris in Anthribidae; Protapion interjectum and Taeniapion rufulum in Apionidae; Corimalia centromaculata and C. tamarisci in Nanophyidae; Amaurorhinus bewickianus, A. sp. nr. paganettii, Brachypera fallax, B. lunata, B. zoilus, Ceutorhynchus leprieuri, Charagmus gressorius, Coniatus tamarisci, Coniocleonus pseudobliquus, Conorhynchus brevirostris, Cosmobaris alboseriata, C. scolopacea, Derelomus chamaeropis, Echinodera sp. nr. variegata, Hypera sp. nr. tenuirostris, Hypurus bertrandi, Larinus scolymi, Leptolepurus meridionalis, Limobius mixtus, Lixus brevirostris, L. punctiventris, L. vilis, Naupactus cervinus, Otiorhynchus armatus, O. liguricus, Rhamphus oxyacanthae, Rhinusa antirrhini, R. herbarum, R. moroderi, Sharpia rubida, Sibinia femoralis, Smicronyx albosquamosus, S. brevicornis, S. rufipennis, Stenocarus ruficornis, Styphloderes exsculptus, Trichosirocalus centrimacula, Tychius argentatus, T. bicolor, T. pauperculus and T. pusillus in Curculionidae; Sitophilus zeamais and
  • CDA Leafy Spurge Brochure

    CDA Leafy Spurge Brochure

    Frequently Asked Questions About the Palisade Insectary Mission Statement How do I get Aphthona beetles? You can call the Colorado Department of We are striving to develop new, effective Agriculture Insectary in Palisade at (970) ways to control non-native species of plants 464-7916 or toll free at (866) 324-2963 and and insects that have invaded Colorado. get on the request list. We are doing this through the use of biological controls which are natural, non- When are the insects available? toxic, and environmentally friendly. We collect and distribute adult beetles in June and July. The Leafy Spurge Program In Palisade How long will it take for them to control my leafy spurge? The Insectary has been working on leafy Biological Control You can usually see some damage at the spurge bio-control since 1988. Root feeding point of release the following year, but it flea beetles are readily available for release of typically takes three to ten years to get in early summer. Three other insect species widespread control. have been released and populations are growing with the potential for future Leafy Spurge What else do the beetles feed on? distribution. All of the leafy spurge feeding The beetles will feed on leafy spurge and insects are maintained in field colonies. cypress spurge. They were held in Additional research is underway to explore quarantine and tested to ensure they would the potential use of soilborne plant not feed on other plants before they were pathogens as biocontrol agents. imported and released in North America What makes the best release site? A warm dry location with moderate leafy spurge growth is best.
  • Field Release of the Gall Mite, Aceria Drabae

    Field Release of the Gall Mite, Aceria Drabae

    United States Department of Field release of the gall mite, Agriculture Aceria drabae (Acari: Marketing and Regulatory Eriophyidae), for classical Programs biological control of hoary Animal and Plant Health Inspection cress (Lepidium draba L., Service Lepidium chalapense L., and Lepidium appelianum Al- Shehbaz) (Brassicaceae), in the contiguous United States. Environmental Assessment, January 2018 Field release of the gall mite, Aceria drabae (Acari: Eriophyidae), for classical biological control of hoary cress (Lepidium draba L., Lepidium chalapense L., and Lepidium appelianum Al-Shehbaz) (Brassicaceae), in the contiguous United States. Environmental Assessment, January 2018 Agency Contact: Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Rd., Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action.
  • Petition for the Release of Aphthona Cyparissiae Against Leafy Spurge in the United States1

    Petition for the Release of Aphthona Cyparissiae Against Leafy Spurge in the United States1

    Reprinted with permission from: USDA-ARS, March 19, 1986, unpublished. Petition for the release of Aphthona cyparissiae against leafy spurge in the 1 United States ROBERT W. PEMBERTON Part I TO: Dr. R. Bovey, Dept. of Range Science USDA/ARS/SR Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843 U.S.A. Enclosed are the results of the research on the flea beetle Aphthona cyparissiae (Chrysomelidae). This petition is composed of two parts. The first is the report “Aph- thona cyparissiae (Kock) and A. flava Guill. (Coleopera: Chrysomelidae): Two candi- dates for the biological control of cypress and leafy spurge in North America” by G. Sommer and E. Maw which the Working Group reviewed on Canada’s behalf. Copies of this report should be in the Working Group’s files. This research, which was done at the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control’s Delémont, Switzerland lab, showed A. cyparissiae to be specific to the genus Euphorbia of the Euphorbiaceae. This result agrees with the literature and field records for A. cyparissiae, which recorded it from: Euphorbia cyparissias, E. esula, E. peplus, E. seguieriana, and E. virgata. The Sommer and Maw report also included information on A. cyparissiae’s taxonomic position, life history, laboratory biology, mortality factors, feeding effects on the host plants, the Harris scoring system, as well as a brief description of the target plant – leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula complex), a serious pest of the rangelands of the Great Plains of North America. Based on this research, the Working Group gave permission to release A. cyparissiae in Canada and to import it into the USDA’s Biological Control of Weeds Quarantine in Al- bany, California, for additional testing.
  • Milk Thistle

    Milk Thistle

    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control BIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF EXOTIC T RU E T HISTL E S RACHEL WINSTON , RICH HANSEN , MA R K SCH W A R ZLÄNDE R , ER IC COO M BS , CA R OL BELL RANDALL , AND RODNEY LY M FHTET-2007-05 U.S. Department Forest September 2008 of Agriculture Service FHTET 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/ On the cover: Italian thistle. Photo: ©Saint Mary’s College of California. 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. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for information only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S.
  • (Coleoptera) from European Eocene Ambers

    (Coleoptera) from European Eocene Ambers

    geosciences Review A Review of the Curculionoidea (Coleoptera) from European Eocene Ambers Andrei A. Legalov 1,2 1 Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Frunze Street 11, 630091 Novosibirsk, Russia; [email protected]; Tel.: +7-9139471413 2 Biological Institute, Tomsk State University, Lenina Prospekt 36, 634050 Tomsk, Russia Received: 16 October 2019; Accepted: 23 December 2019; Published: 30 December 2019 Abstract: All 142 known species of Curculionoidea in Eocene amber are documented, including one species of Nemonychidae, 16 species of Anthribidae, six species of Belidae, 10 species of Rhynchitidae, 13 species of Brentidae, 70 species of Curcuionidae, two species of Platypodidae, and 24 species of Scolytidae. Oise amber has eight species, Baltic amber has 118 species, and Rovno amber has 16 species. Nine new genera and 18 new species are described from Baltic amber. Four new synonyms are noted: Palaeometrioxena Legalov, 2012, syn. nov. is synonymous with Archimetrioxena Voss, 1953; Paleopissodes weigangae Ulke, 1947, syn. nov. is synonymous with Electrotribus theryi Hustache, 1942; Electrotribus erectosquamata Rheinheimer, 2007, syn. nov. is synonymous with Succinostyphlus mroczkowskii Kuska, 1996; Protonaupactus Zherikhin, 1971, syn. nov. is synonymous with Paonaupactus Voss, 1953. Keys for Eocene amber Curculionoidea are given. There are the first records of Aedemonini and Camarotini, and genera Limalophus and Cenocephalus in Baltic amber. Keywords: Coleoptera; Curculionoidea; fossil weevil; new taxa; keys; Palaeogene 1. Introduction The Curculionoidea are one of the largest and most diverse groups of beetles, including more than 62,000 species [1] comprising 11 families [2,3]. They have a complex morphological structure [2–7], ecological confinement, and diverse trophic links [1], which makes them a convenient group for characterizing modern and fossil biocenoses.
  • Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO

    Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO

    Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area August 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491-7331 Report Prepared for: United States Air Force Academy Department of Natural Resources Recommended Citation: Smith, P., S. S. Panjabi, and J. Handwerk. 2015. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Front Cover: Documenting weeds at the US Air Force Academy. Photos courtesy of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program © Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area El Paso County, CO Pam Smith, Susan Spackman Panjabi, and Jill Handwerk Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, orders, and policies require land managers to control noxious weeds. The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide to manage, in the most efficient and effective manner, the noxious weeds on the US Air Force Academy (Academy) and Farish Recreation Area (Farish) over the next 10 years (through 2025), in accordance with their respective integrated natural resources management plans. This plan pertains to the “natural” portions of the Academy and excludes highly developed areas, such as around buildings, recreation fields, and lawns.
  • Factors Influencing Wheat Curl Mite <I>Aceria Tosichella</I> Keifer

    Factors Influencing Wheat Curl Mite <I>Aceria Tosichella</I> Keifer

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Dissertations and Student Research in Entomology Entomology, Department of 4-2020 Factors Influencing Wheat Curl Mite Aceria tosichella Keifer Dispersal Lindsay M. Overmyer University of Nebraska - Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologydiss Part of the Entomology Commons Overmyer, Lindsay M., "Factors Influencing Wheat Curl Mite Aceria tosichella Keifer Dispersal" (2020). Dissertations and Student Research in Entomology. 65. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologydiss/65 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Entomology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Student Research in Entomology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. FACTORS INFLUENCING WHEAT CURL MITE ACERIA TOSICHELLA KEIFER DISPERSAL by Lindsay M. Overmyer A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfilment of Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Major: Entomology Under the Supervision of Professor Gary L. Hein Lincoln, Nebraska May 2020 FACTORS INFLUENCING WHEAT CURL MITE ACERIA TOSICHELLA KEIFER DISPERSAL Lindsay M. Overmyer, M.S. University of Nebraska, 2020 Advisor: Gary L. Hein The wheat curl mite (Aceria tosichella Keifer) (WCM) is a vector of three plant viruses to wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) including: Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV), Triticum mosaic virus (TriMV), and High Plains wheat mosaic virus. This wheat-mite- virus complex causes significant yield loss in winter wheat across the Great Plains. Management of WCM host plants during the time between wheat harvest and planting of the new wheat crop (the green bridge) is critical in reducing potential risk and loss from this complex.