DOCSLIB.ORG

Management Options for Mealybug in Persimmon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management Options for Mealybug in Persimmon Scoping study: management options for mealybug in persimmon Dr Lara Senior The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, QLD Project Number: PR11000 PR11000 This report is published by Horticulture Australia Ltd to pass on information concerning horticultural research and development undertaken for the persimmon industry. The research contained in this report was funded by Horticulture Australia Ltd with the financial support of the persimmon industry. All expressions of opinion are not to be regarded as expressing the opinion of Horticulture Australia Ltd or any authority of the Australian Government. The Company and the Australian Government accept no responsibility for any of the opinions or the accuracy of the information contained in this report and readers should rely upon their own enquiries in making decisions concerning their own interests. ISBN 0 7341 3021 X Published and distributed by: Horticulture Australia Ltd Level 7 179 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) 8295 2300 Fax: (02) 8295 2399 © Copyright 2012 Scoping study: management options for mealybug in persimmon (FINAL REPORT) Project Number: PR11000 (1st December 2012) Dr Lara Senior Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Scoping study: management options for mealybug in persimmon HAL Project Number: PR11000 1st December 2012 Project leader: Dr Lara Senior Entomologist Agri-Science Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Gatton Research Station Locked Bag 7, Mail Service 437 Gatton, QLD 4343 Tel: 07 5466 2222 Fax: 07 5462 3223 Email: [email protected] Key personnel: Grant Bignell1, Bob Nissen2, Greg Baker3 1. 1 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Nambour Qld 2. 2 Formerly Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Nambour Qld; currently Ag-Hort International, Tin Can Bay Qld 3. 3 South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide SA Purpose of the report: This final report reviews research and management options for mealybug in persimmon. Funding sources: This project has been funded by HAL using the persimmon industry levy and matched funds from the Australian Government. Any recommendations contained in this publication do not necessarily represent current HAL Limited policy. No person should act on the basis of the contents of this publication, whether as to matters of fact or opinion or other content, without first obtaining specific, independent professional advice in respect of the matters set out in this publication. CONTENTS Media summary ............................................................................................................. 3 Technical summary ........................................................................................................ 4 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6 2. Method ....................................................................................................................... 8 3. Mealybug biology .................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Description ......................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Distribution ........................................................................................................ 12 3.3 Life-cycle ........................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Population dynamics and phenology ................................................................. 13 4. Current control methods .......................................................................................... 16 4.1 Chemical control ................................................................................................ 16 4.2 Biological control............................................................................................... 17 4.2.1 Commercially available biocontrols ........................................................... 17 4.2.2 Natural enemies .......................................................................................... 18 4.2.2.1 Parasitoids ............................................................................................ 18 4.2.2.2 Predators .............................................................................................. 19 4.3 Cultural control .................................................................................................. 20 4.4 Control of ants.................................................................................................... 21 4.5 Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 21 4.6 Limitations of current control methods.............................................................. 22 5. Potential control methods: chemical control............................................................ 24 5.1 Insecticides with potential for mealybug control in persimmon ........................ 24 5.1.1 Spirotetramat ............................................................................................... 24 5.1.2 Neonicotinoid insecticides .......................................................................... 25 5.1.3 Sulfoxaflor .................................................................................................. 26 5.1.4 High grade petroleum and paraffinic oils ................................................... 27 5.1.5 New chemistries .......................................................................................... 27 5.1.5.1 Flonicamid ........................................................................................... 27 5.1.5.2 Pyrifluquinazon .................................................................................... 27 5.1.5.3 Tolfenpyrad .......................................................................................... 28 5.1.6 Carbamates, organophosphates and synthetic pyrethroids ......................... 28 5.1.7 Azadirachtin ................................................................................................ 28 5.2 Optimisation of spray application ...................................................................... 28 5.2.1 Coverage ..................................................................................................... 28 5.2.2 Adjuvants .................................................................................................... 29 5.2.3 Timing of applications ................................................................................ 29 5.3 Resistance management ..................................................................................... 31 6. Potential control methods: biological control .......................................................... 32 6.1 Predators and parasitoids ................................................................................... 32 6.2 Entomopathogens ............................................................................................... 32 6.3 Techniques to enhance biological control.......................................................... 33 6.3.1 Reduction of non-selective insecticide use ................................................. 33 6.3.2 Control of ants............................................................................................. 34 6.3.3 Augmentative releases of natural enemies .................................................. 37 6.3.4 Use of behaviour-modifying chemicals to manipulate natural enemy populations ........................................................................................................... 37 6.3.5 Habitat manipulation ................................................................................... 38 1 7. Potential control methods: cultural control .............................................................. 40 7.1 Nutrition and tree health .................................................................................... 40 7.2 Varietal differences ............................................................................................ 40 7.3 Alternative hosts for mealybug .......................................................................... 41 7.4 Other cultural control methods .......................................................................... 42 8. Potential control methods: post harvest disinfestation............................................. 43 8.1 Hot water immersion.......................................................................................... 43 8.2 Heat treatment and cold storage ......................................................................... 43 8.3 Metabolic stress disinfection and disinfestation (MSDD) ................................. 44 8.4 Irradiation ........................................................................................................... 44 8.5 Modified or controlled atmosphere .................................................................... 45 8.6 Fumigants and volatiles ..................................................................................... 45 8.7 High pressure washing ....................................................................................... 46 8.8 Oils and surfactants ............................................................................................ 46 9. Potential control methods: sex pheromones as management
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Antagonistic Interactions Between the African Weaver Ant Oecophylla
    Article Antagonistic Interactions between the African Weaver Ant Oecophylla longinoda and the Parasitoid Anagyrus pseudococci Potentially Limits Suppression of the Invasive Mealybug Rastrococcus iceryoides Chrysantus M. Tanga 1,2, Sunday Ekesi 1,*, Prem Govender 2,3, Peterson W. Nderitu 1 and Samira A. Mohamed 1 Received: 7 August 2015; Accepted: 7 December 2015; Published: 23 December 2015 Academic Editors: Michael J. Stout, Jeff Davis, Rodrigo Diaz and Julien M. Beuzelin 1 International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi 00100, Kenya; [email protected] (C.M.T.); [email protected] (P.W.N.); [email protected] (S.A.M.) 2 Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa; [email protected] 3 Faculty of Health Sciences, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (SMU), P.O. Box 163, Ga-Rankuwa 0221, South Africa * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +254-20-863-2150; Fax: +254-20-863-2001 or +254-20-863-2002 Abstract: The ant Oecophylla longinoda Latreille forms a trophobiotic relationship with the invasive mealybug Rastrococus iceryoides Green and promotes the latter’s infestations to unacceptable levels in the presence of their natural enemies. In this regard, the antagonistic interactions between the ant and the parasitoid Anagyrus pseudococci Girault were assessed under laboratory conditions. The percentage of parasitism of R. iceryoides by A. pseudococci was significantly higher on “ant-excluded” treatments (86.6% ˘ 1.27%) compared to “ant-tended” treatments (51.4% ˘ 4.13%). The low female-biased sex-ratio observed in the “ant-tended” treatment can be attributed to ants’ interference during the oviposition phase, which disrupted parasitoids’ ability to fertilize eggs.
    [Show full text]
  • Bias in the Effect of Habitat Structure on Pitfall Traps: an Experimental Evaluation
    Australian Journal of Ecology (1999) 24, 228–239 Bias in the effect of habitat structure on pitfall traps: An experimental evaluation BRETT A. MELBOURNE Division of Botany and Zoology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia ([email protected]) Abstract Habitat structure has been implicated as a source of bias for pitfall-trap data but most evidence is observational or anecdotal. This study used an experimental approach to quantify biases due to habitat structure. In a randomized block design, I manipulated native grassland to create three types of habitat structure and measured pitfall-trap catches of grassland ants. Small patches of modified habitat were surrounded by otherwise unmodified grassland with the assumption that population density remained unaffected by the modification and that the effects observed were due to changes in trappability. I assessed magnitude, direction, predictability, and consistency of bias for the following types of data: population abundance for single species, relative abundance among species, species composition of assemblages, and species richness. The magnitude of the bias in population abundance was large for most species. However, since the direction of the bias varied predictably with habitat structure, pitfall- trap data can be used to judge differences in population abundance in some situations. The magnitude of the bias in relative abundance was less than for abundance. However, there was inconsistency in the direction and magnitude of bias among species. Thus, interpretation of relative abundance data in pitfall-trap studies may be compromised. Species richness and species composition were biased by habitat structure but were affected significantly only when the groundcover was very dense, suggesting a threshold effect of habitat structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control of the Native Shrubs Cassinia Spp. Using the Native Scale Insects Austrotachardia Sp. and Paratachardina
    64 Plant Protection Quarterly VoI.9(2) 1994 similar scales were described by Froggatt Biological control of the native shrubs Cassinia spp. (1903), no data on their biology were available. Thus observations began on using the native scale insects Austrotachardia sp. and Austrotachardia sp. in 1988 and Para­ Paratachardina sp. (Hemiptera: Kerriidae) in New tachardina sp. in 1991 to record their biol­ ogy and to ascertain whether they could South Wales be used for the biological control of Cassinia spp. M.H. Campbell', R.H. Holtkamp', L.H. McCormick', P.J. Wykes', J.F. Donaldson', P.J. Gulian' and P.S. Gillespie'. Life cycle of Austrotachardia sp. and Para tach ardin a sp. Austrotachardia sp. was s tudied at 1 NSW Agriculture, Agricultural Research and Veterinary Centre, Forest "0aydawn", Kerrs Creek and at the Agri­ Road, Orange, New South Wales 2800, Australia. cultural Research and Veterinary Centre, ' NSW Agriculture, Agricultural Research Centre, Tamworth, New South Orange. Paratachardina sp. was studied in Wales 2340, Australia. the Tamworth and Manilla districts. ' NSW Agriculture, Manilla, New South Wales 2346, Australia. Fi rs t-instar nymphs (crawlers) of • "Daydawn", Kerrs Creek, New South Wales 2741, Australia. Austrotachardia sp. (Figure 1) (orange in ' Department of Primary Industries, lndooroopilly, Queensland 4068, colour and 0.5 mm long) emerged in De­ Australia. cember 1990 and established on stems of ' Division of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, C. arcuata. Initially, all second-instar ACT 2600, Australia. nymphs appeared identical. However, by February 1991, the red, oblong (1.5 x 0.6 ' Biological and Chemical Research Institute, Rydalmere, New South Wales mm) male tests were distinguishable 2116, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Control Update
    Insect Control Update Diane Alston Utah State University Extension 2006 Pesticide Recertification Workshops Topics ◘ Pest – Japanese Beetle ◘ Insect Diagnostics – Recognizing Common Insects & Plant Injury ◘ Examples of Insect Pests ◘ Woody Ornamentals ◘ Greenhouse ◘ Turf Japanese Beetle Popillia japonica Scarab Beetle First found in U.S. in 1916 Orem, Utah: July 2006 >600 adults Mating pair of adults Trap: Sex pheromone/ Floral lure Adult feeding injury to Virginia Creeper Japanese Beetle Primarily a turf pest – Larvae or grubs feed on grass roots Adults have a broad host range – Skeletonize leaves – rose, fruit trees, shade trees, grape, etc. Injury to rose Injury to crabapple Japanese Beetle Management ◘ Eradication is extremely difficult ◘ Don’t panic – it’s unlikely to have a large impact ◘ Keep plants healthy ◘ Plant non-attractive plants (lilac, forsythia, dogwood, magnolia, American Holly) ◘ If detected in turf, control larvae with insecticides (imidacloprid, carbaryl, permethrin) ◘ Traps can provide some adult suppression (75% catch; but can attract them into an area) ◘ Contact local Utah Dept. of Agriculture and Food Office Japanese Beetle Fact Sheet on USU Extension Web Site http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/ENT-100-06PR-A.pdf Insect Diagnosis Insect is present Injury is present What type of injury? Friend or Foe? What life stage is present? Insect Feeding Types Borers Chewing Piercing-Sucking Gall Formers Diagnosis Scouting for Pests ◘ Look at the big picture ◘ Pattern of plant decline/injury ◘ Pest injury
    [Show full text]
  • MF3001 Mealybug
    i Mealybug Management in Greenhouses and Interiorscapes Mealybugs are major insect pests of greenhouse and interiorscape environments (including conservatories) where they feed on a wide range of plants and are difficult to manage (suppress) with insecticides. Host plant range depends on the particular mealybug species but includes herbaceous annuals or perennials, foliage plants, orchids, vegetables, and herbs. Specific plants include aglaonema, begonia, chrysanthemum, coleus (Solenostemon scutel- larioides), croton (Codiaeum variegatum), dracaena, false aralia (Dizygotheca elegantissima), ficus, grape ivy (Cissus rhombifolia), marigold, poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima), pothos (Epipremnum aureum), and transvaal daisy (Gerbera jamesonii). A number of mealybug species may be found in green- Figure 3. Mealybug life cycle houses and interiorscapes, but the predominant species are the citrus mealybug, Planococcus citri and the longtailed (Figure 4), and do not mealybug, Pseudococcus longispinus. In addition to these have to mate to repro- two species, which feed aboveground, root mealybugs duce (this is referred (Rhizoecus spp.) are of concern because they are extremely to as parthenogen- difficult to detect and manage with available insecticides. esis). Eggs hatch into Biology and Damage crawlers that actively move around seeking Mealybugs are elliptical in shape with white, waxy protru- places to settle and feed. sions extending from the body (Figure 1). Females are Crawlers are yellow- white, wingless and 2 to 5 mm long when full-grown, Figure 4. Long-tailed mealybugs orange (Figure 5), even- (Figure 2). Males are tually turning white af- typically smaller. Most ter each successive molt. mealybug species Once settled, mealybugs reproduce asexually progress through several (lay eggs). The typi- growth stages before cal female mealybug becoming adults.
    [Show full text]
  • Honeydew Collecting in Malagasy Stingless Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) and Observations on Competition with Invasive Ants
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232669144 Honeydew Collecting in Malagasy Stingless Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) and Observations on Competition with Invasive Ants Article in African Entomology · April 2011 DOI: 10.4001/003.019.0111 CITATIONS READS 6 127 3 authors, including: Hauke Koch Marlotte Jonker University of Texas at Austin University of Freiburg 33 PUBLICATIONS 891 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: TBA course View project ConFoBi - Conservation of Forest Biodiversity in Multiple-use Landscapes of Central Europe View project All content following this page was uploaded by Hauke Koch on 17 August 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Honeydew collecting in Malagasy stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) and observations on competition with invasive ants H. Koch1*, C. Corcoran2 & M. Jonker3 1Experimental Ecology, Institute for Integrative Biology, ETH Zurich, Universitätsstrasse 16, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland 2Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland 3Resource Ecology Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, 6708PB Wageningen, Netherlands We present the first record of honeydew feeding in Malagasy stingless bees. Two species of stingless bees, Liotrigona mahafalya and L. madecassa, collected honeydew produced by mealybugs on an Albizia perrieri (Fabaceae) tree in the dry deciduous forest of Kirindy, Madagascar. Honeydew might represent an important part of the diet of Malagasy stingless bees, especially in times of scarce floral resources in the highly seasonal environment of western Madagascar. The interaction between the bees and two species of invasive ants, Monomorium destructor and Paratrechina longicornis, in competition for the honeydew resource, was studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of RNA Interference for Control of the Grape Mealybug Pseudococcus Maritimus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)
    insects Article Evaluation of RNA Interference for Control of the Grape Mealybug Pseudococcus maritimus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Arinder K. Arora 1, Noah Clark 1, Karen S. Wentworth 2, Stephen Hesler 2, Marc Fuchs 3 , Greg Loeb 2 and Angela E. Douglas 1,4,* 1 Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA; [email protected] (A.K.A.); [email protected] (N.C.) 2 Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456, USA; [email protected] (K.S.W.); [email protected] (S.H.); [email protected] (G.L.) 3 School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456, USA; [email protected] 4 Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 19 September 2020; Accepted: 26 October 2020; Published: 28 October 2020 Simple Summary: RNA interference (RNAi) is a defense mechanism that protects insects from viruses by targeting and degrading RNA. This feature has been exploited to reduce the expression of endogenous RNA for determining functions of various genes and for killing insect pests by targeting genes that are vital for insect survival. When dsRNA matching perfectly to the target RNA is administered, the RNAi machinery dices the dsRNA into ~21 bp fragments (known as siRNAs) and one strand of siRNA is employed by the RNAi machinery to target and degrade the target RNA. In this study we used a cocktail of dsRNAs targeting grape mealybug’s aquaporin and sucrase genes to kill the insect. Aquaporins and sucrases are important genes enabling these insects to maintain water relations indispensable for survival and digest complex sugars in the diet of plant sap-feeding insects, including mealybugs.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation Into the Integrated Pest Management of The
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Stellenbosch University SUNScholar Repository An investigation into the integrated pest management of the obscure mealybug, Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), in pome fruit orchards in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. Pride Mudavanhu Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Entomology), in the Faculty of AgriSciences. at the University of Stellenbosch Supervisor: Dr Pia Addison Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology Faculty of AgriSciences University of Stellenbosch South Africa December 2009 DECLARATION By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the owner of the copyright thereof (unless to the extent explicitly otherwise stated) and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. December 2009 Copyright © 2009 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved i ABSTRACT Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) (obscure mealybug), is a common and serious pest of apples and pears in South Africa. Consumer and regulatory pressure to produce commodities under sustainable and ecologically compatible conditions has rendered chemical control options increasingly limited. Information on the seasonal occurrence of pests is but one of the vital components of an effective and sustainable integrated pest management system needed for planning the initiation of monitoring and determining when damage can be expected. It is also important to identify which orchards are at risk of developing mealybug infestations while development of effective and early monitoring tools for mealybug populations will help growers in making decisions with regards to pest management and crop suitability for various markets.
    [Show full text]
  • ACT, Australian Capital Territory
    Biodiversity Summary for NRM Regions Species List What is the summary for and where does it come from? This list has been produced by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPC) for the Natural Resource Management Spatial Information System. The list was produced using the AustralianAustralian Natural Natural Heritage Heritage Assessment Assessment Tool Tool (ANHAT), which analyses data from a range of plant and animal surveys and collections from across Australia to automatically generate a report for each NRM region. Data sources (Appendix 2) include national and state herbaria, museums, state governments, CSIRO, Birds Australia and a range of surveys conducted by or for DEWHA. For each family of plant and animal covered by ANHAT (Appendix 1), this document gives the number of species in the country and how many of them are found in the region. It also identifies species listed as Vulnerable, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act. A biodiversity summary for this region is also available. For more information please see: www.environment.gov.au/heritage/anhat/index.html Limitations • ANHAT currently contains information on the distribution of over 30,000 Australian taxa. This includes all mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, 137 families of vascular plants (over 15,000 species) and a range of invertebrate groups. Groups notnot yet yet covered covered in inANHAT ANHAT are notnot included included in in the the list. list. • The data used come from authoritative sources, but they are not perfect. All species names have been confirmed as valid species names, but it is not possible to confirm all species locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Sucrose Triggers Honeydew Preference in the Ghost Ant, Tapinoma Melanocephalum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) A
    Sucrose triggers honeydew preference in the ghost ant, Tapinoma melanocephalum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) A. M. Zhou1, 2,*, B. Q. Kuang2, Y. R. Gao2, and G. W. Liang2 Abstract Honeydew produced by hemipterans mediates mutualistic interactions between ants and hemipterans. Previous studies demonstrated that the mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and the aphid Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) produce abundant honeydew and attract a large number of tending ants. Ghost ants, Tapinoma melanocephalum (F.) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), show a significant preference for mealybug honeydew over aphid honeydew. Although many studies have indicated that the honeydew produced by hemip- terans plays an important role in ant–hemipteran interactions, we know little about what triggers ants’ foraging preferences. Our results showed that the honeydew produced by both mealybugs and aphids contained fructose, sucrose, trehalose, melezitose, raffinose, and rhamnose. There were no significant difference in the concentrations of the various sugars between mealybugs and aphids, except sucrose. Xylose was present only in mealy- bug honeydew, and glucose was present only in aphid honeydew. We also found no substantial difference in the excretion frequency and the total weight of honeydew produced per 24 h between mealybugs and aphids. Ghost ants preferred sucrose. In addition, attractiveness of sucrose solutions increased significantly with increasing concentration. These results suggest that sucrose is the trigger for ghost ants’ honeydew preference. Key Words: ant–hemipteran mutualism; sugar composition; sugar concentration Resumen La mielcilla producida por hemípteros regula las interacciones mutualistas entre las hormigas y los hemípteros. Los estudios anteriores demostraron que la cochinilla harinosa Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) y el áfido Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) producen mielcilla abundante y atraen a un gran número de hormigas que atienden.
    [Show full text]
  • Worldwide Spread of the Difficult White-Footed Ant, Technomyrmex Difficilis (Hymeno- Ptera: Formicidae)
    Myrmecological News 18 93-97 Vienna, March 2013 Worldwide spread of the difficult white-footed ant, Technomyrmex difficilis (Hymeno- ptera: Formicidae) James K. WETTERER Abstract Technomyrmex difficilis FOREL, 1892 is apparently native to Madagascar, but began spreading through Southeast Asia and Oceania more than 60 years ago. In 1986, T. difficilis was first found in the New World, but until 2007 it was mis- identified as Technomyrmex albipes (SMITH, 1861). Here, I examine the worldwide spread of T. difficilis. I compiled Technomyrmex difficilis specimen records from > 200 sites, documenting the earliest known T. difficilis records for 33 geographic areas (countries, island groups, major islands, and US states), including several for which I found no previously published records: the Bahamas, Honduras, Jamaica, the Mascarene Islands, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Africa, and Washington DC. Almost all outdoor records of Technomyrmex difficilis are from tropical areas, extending into the subtropics only in Madagascar, South Africa, the southeastern US, and the Bahamas. In addition, there are several indoor records of T. dif- ficilis from greenhouses at zoos and botanical gardens in temperate parts of the US. Over the past few years, T. difficilis has become a dominant arboreal ant at numerous sites in Florida and the West Indies. Unfortunately, T. difficilis ap- pears to be able to invade intact forest habitats, where it can more readily impact native species. It is likely that in the coming years, T. difficilis will become increasingly more important as a pest in Florida and the West Indies. Key words: Biogeography, biological invasion, exotic species, invasive species. Myrmecol. News 18: 93-97 (online 19 February 2013) ISSN 1994-4136 (print), ISSN 1997-3500 (online) Received 28 November 2012; revision received 7 January 2013; accepted 9 January 2013 Subject Editor: Florian M.
    [Show full text]
  • Bauxite Mining Restoration with Natural Soils and Residue Sands: Comparison of the Recovery of Soil Ecosystem Function and Ground-Dwelling Invertebrate Diversity
    School of Molecular and Life Sciences Bauxite Mining Restoration with Natural Soils and Residue Sands: Comparison of the Recovery of Soil Ecosystem Function and Ground-dwelling Invertebrate Diversity Dilanka Madusani Mihindukulasooriya Weerasinghe This thesis is presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Curtin University May 2019 Author’s Declaration To the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published by any other person except where due acknowledgement has been made. This thesis contains no material that has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university. Signature………………………………………………… Date………………………………………………………... iii Statement of authors’ contributions Experimental set up, data collection, data analysis and data interpretation for Chapter 2, 3,4 and 5 was done by D. Mihindukulasooriya. Experimental set up established by Lythe et al. (2017) used for experimental chapter 6. Data collection, data analysis and data interpretation for long term effect of woody debris addition was done by D. Mihindukulasooriya. iv Abstract Human destruction of the natural environment has been identified as a global problem that has triggered the loss of biodiversity. This degradation and loss has altered ecosystem processes and the resilience of ecosystems to environmental changes. Restoration of degraded habitats forms a significant component of conservation efforts. Open cut mining is one activity that can dramatically alter local communities, and successful vascular plant restoration does not necessarily result in restoration of other components of flora and fauna or result in a fully functioning ecosystem. Therefore, restoration studies should focus on improving ecological functions such as nutrient cycling and litter decomposition, seed dispersal and/ or pollination, and assess community composition beyond vegetation to attain fully functioning systems.
    [Show full text]