DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of the Efficacy of Baits Used for Ant Control and Eradication

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of the Efficacy of Baits Used for Ant Control and Eradication Review of the efficacy of baits used for ant control and eradication Margaret C. Stanley Landcare Research Private Bag 92170 Auckland New Zealand Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0405/044 PREPARED FOR: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry PO Box 2526 WELLINGTON DATE: November 2004 Reviewed by: Approved for release by: Richard Harris Phil Cowan Scientist Biosecurity and Pest Management Perth, Australia Science Manager Landcare Research © Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd 2004 No part of this work covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, information retrieval systems, or otherwise) without the written permission of the publisher. Disclaimer The findings in this report are specific to this project. Landcare Research accepts no responsibility where information in the report is used for any other purpose, and will not be liable for any loss or damage suffered as a result of such other use. 2 Summary Final Report - Operational Research 2004/2005 Project Code: MBS356 Business/Institution: Landcare Research Ltd Programme Leader: Margaret Stanley Programme Title: Review of ant bait efficacy Goal: To identify information gaps on the efficacy of baits used to attract and kill invasive ant species. Context of the project: Biosecurity New Zealand is currently responding to a series of incursions of exotic invasive ant species. To date, Biosecurity New Zealand has relied heavily on a small number of baits and toxins for control of incursions. The success of responses to new incursions of invasive ants may be compromised in the absence of effective baits. As a first step to ensuring effective incursion response, Biosecurity New Zealand has commissioned Landcare Research to review international information on baits and toxins used for ant control. The next step is to test the most promising of these against a selected group of high risk invasive ant species. Approach: Information was obtained by: searching computer databases (CAB abstracts, Current Contents, Agricola, Biological Abstracts) for relevant scientific papers, and technical reports; checking internet sites; cross-referencing; and contact with and querying of international ant researchers and biosecurity workers. Outcomes: There is a lack of rigorous research testing toxins and baits against pest ant species. Most research has focussed on Solenopsis invicta and the development of commercial baits with lipid attractants for the management of this species. Hydramethylnon and fipronil are toxins that give effective control of ant populations for several different species. Amdro® (hydramethylnon) is very effective at controlling S. invicta and Wasmannia auropunctata. Presto® (fipronil) and Xstinguish® (fipronil) appear to be highly effective baits and the protein-based matrices of these baits make them highly attractive to species previously thought difficult to attract with baits. The Australian-manufactured insect growth regulator (IGR) baits developed for S. invicta control – Engage® (methoprene) and Distance® (pyriproxyfen) – appear to be the most effective IGR ant baits available. However, they have a lipid attractant and are unlikely to be attractive to species such as Linepithema humile, Tapinoma melanocephalum and Paratrechina longicornis. Indoxacarb is a new ‘reduced risk’ 3 toxin that gives excellent suppression of S. invicta populations when used in the commercial ant bait Advion®. ERMA approval and registration should be sought for: Distance®; Engage®; Amdro® (high priority baits) and also Presto 01®; Advion®; Chipco Firestar® (lower priority). For S. invicta, S. richteri, Monomorium destructor, W. auropunctata and Anoplolepis gracilipes, baiting strategies exist overseas (albeit not in temperate climates), and if the recommended baits are registered, control strategies could be implemented rapidly. For S. geminata, the S invicta strategy may be applicable but this has not been tested. P. longicornis, T. melanocephalum, and A. gracilipes are likely to have highly restricted distributions in New Zealand and Lasius neglectus has a low likelihood of arrival. We recommend focussing research efforts on the species that lack effective strategies and pose some risk to New Zealand (P. longicornis, T. melanocephalum and L. neglectus) to determine which baits can be used to effectively manage them. In an incursion event now, Xstinguish® should be used, but research is required to determine the most effective baits. Given the frequency of incursions around New Zealand, highest research priority should be given to identifying effective baits with which to manage P. longicornis incursions. Field trials are required for several species to determine food preferences and the efficacy of various commercial baits (bait acceptability + toxin efficacy). Testing food preferences and bait acceptability can be achieved through choice tests reasonably quickly. Bait efficacy testing, however, is more complex and requires long-term monitoring. Summary: The success of responses to new incursions of invasive ants may be compromised in the absence of effective baits. As a first step to ensuring effective incursion response, Biosecurity New Zealand has commissioned Landcare Research to review international information on baits and toxins used for ant control. Information was obtained by searching the databases for relevant scientific papers, and technical reports; checking internet sites; cross-referencing; and and querying of international ant researchers. Hydramethylnon and fipronil are toxins that give effective control of ant populations for several different species. Amdro® (hydramethylnon) is very effective at controlling S. invicta and Wasmannia auropunctata. Presto® (fipronil) and Xstinguish® (fipronil) appear to be highly effective baits and the protein-based matrices of these baits make them highly attractive to several species. The Australian-manufactured insect growth regulator (IGR) baits developed for S. invicta control – Engage® (methoprene) and Distance® (pyriproxyfen) – appear to be the most effective IGR ant baits available. ERMA approval and registration should be sought for: Distance®; Engage®; Amdro® (high priority) and also Presto 01®; Advion®; Chipco Firestar® (lower priority). If these baits are registered, baiting strategies could be implemented rapidly for S. invicta, S. richteri, M. destructor, W. auropunctata and A. gracilipes. For S. geminata, the S invicta strategy may be applicable but this has not been tested. In an incursion event, Xstinguish® should be used on P. longicornis, T. melanocephalum, and A. gracilipes, but research is required to determine the most effective baits for incursion management. Publications: Stanley, M.C. 2004. Review of Efficacy of Baits Used for Ant Control and Eradication. Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0405/044. 4 5 Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................... 9 1.1 Rationale............................................................................................................ 9 1.2 Background – ant control using toxic baits....................................................... 9 2. Objectives................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Scope ............................................................................................................... 10 3. Methods.................................................................................................... 11 4. Results ...................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Toxins............................................................................................................... 12 4.1.1 Rapid mortality toxins...................................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Insect growth regulators................................................................................... 15 4.2 Bait efficacy: ant species.................................................................................. 17 4.2.1 Priority ant species: high threat risk to New Zealand ...................................... 17 4.2.2 Introduced ant species of concern established in New Zealand: baits for management ..................................................................................................... 28 5. Conclusions.............................................................................................. 40 5.1 Bait acceptance................................................................................................. 40 5.2 Toxins............................................................................................................... 40 5.3 Commercial ant baits........................................................................................ 41 5.4 Bait efficacy research....................................................................................... 42 5.5 New Zealand environment ............................................................................... 43 5.6 Ant control and eradication programmes ......................................................... 44 6. Recommendations ................................................................................... 44 7. Acknowledgements ................................................................................. 46 8. References...............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Characterization of Residential Pest Control Products Used in Inner City Communities in New York City
    Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2010), 1–11 r 2010 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved 1559-0631/10 www.nature.com/jes Characterization of residential pest control products used in inner city communities in New York City MEGAN K. HORTONa, J. BRYAN JACOBSONb, WENDY MCKELVEYb, DARRELL HOLMESa, BETTY FINCHERc, AUDREY QUANTANOc, BEINVENDIDA PAEZ DIAZc, FAYE SHABBAZZc, PEGGY SHEPARDc, ANDREW RUNDLEa AND ROBIN M. WHYATTa aColumbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA bNew York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, New York, USA cWest Harlem Environmental Action, New York, New York, USA The Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH) previously reported widespread residential insecticide use in urban communities in New York City. Research suggests that pyrethroids are replacing organophosphates (OPs) in response to 2000–2001 US EPA pesticide regulations restricting OP use. A systematic assessment of active ingredients used for residential pest control is lacking. We queried a database of pesticide applications reported by licensed applicators between 1999 and 2005 and surveyed pest control products available in 145 stores within 29 zip codes in the CCCEH catchment area including Northern Manhattan and the South Bronx. Pyrethroids, pyrethrins, piperonyl butoxide, and hydramethylnon were the most common insecticide active ingredients reported as used by licensed pesticide applicators within the 29 zip codes of the CCCEH catchment area between 1999 and 2005. Use of certain pyrethroids and some non-spray insecticides such as fipronil and boric acid increased significantly by year (logistic regression, OR41.0, Po0.05), whereas use of OPs, including chlorpyrifos and diazinon decreased significantly by year (logistic regression, ORo1.0, Po0.05).
    [Show full text]
  • 2.13 Fipronil Effect on the Frequency of Anomalous Brood in Honeybee Reared in Vitro Carina A.S
    Hazards of pesticides to bees - 12th International Symposium of the ICP-PR Bee Protection Group, Ghent (Belgium), September 15-17, 2014 2.13 Fipronil effect on the frequency of anomalous brood in honeybee reared in vitro Carina A.S. Silva1, Elaine C.M. Silva-Zacarin2, Caio E.C. Domingues2, Fábio C. Abdalla2, Osmar Malaspina3, Roberta C.F. Nocelli1*. 1CCA - Centro de Ciências Agrarias, UFSCar - Universidade Federal de São Carlos. Rod. Anhanguera, SP 330, Km. 174, Araras – SP, Brasil. Email: [email protected]; Email: [email protected], *Phone: +55 (19) 3543- 2595 2LABEF – Laboratório de Biologia Estrutural e Funcional. Universidade Federal de São Carlos – UFSCar. Rodovia João Leme dos Santos (SP-264), Km. 110, Bairro Itinga, Sorocaba – SP, Brasil. 3CEIS – Centro de Estudos de Insetos Sociais. Universidade Estadual “Julio de Mesquita Filho” - UNESP. Av. 24 A, 1515, Bela Vista, Rio Claro – SP, Brasil. Abstract Larvae of honeybee workers were exposed to the insecticide fipronil during the feeding phase. To evaluate the effect of fipronil in the post-embryonic development of africanized Apis mellifera, bioassays of toxicity were done. The bioassays were performed by acute exposure applying 1μL of distilled water for control (I) and for experiments: 0.5 ng a.i./µL of fipronil; 5 ng a.i./µL of fipronil and 20 ng a.i./ µL of fipronil. Triplicates were performed for all treatments. The results showed that the rate of anomalous pupae in exposed honeybees was statistically significant in relationship to the control (p <0:03). The most frequent abnormalities were: high pigmentation on the proximal and distal larval body and body malformation, such as absence of head and limbs.
    [Show full text]
  • ACTION: Original DATE: 08/20/2020 9:51 AM
    ACTION: Original DATE: 08/20/2020 9:51 AM TO BE RESCINDED 3745-100-10 Applicable chemicals and chemical categories. [Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications, publications of recognized organizations and associations, federal rules, and federal statutory provisions referenced in this rule, see paragraph (FF) of rule 3745-100-01 of the Administrative Code titled "Referenced materials."] The requirements of this chapter apply to the following chemicals and chemical categories. This rule contains three listings. Paragraph (A) of this rule is an alphabetical order listing of those chemicals that have an associated "Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)" registry number. Paragraph (B) of this rule contains a CAS registry number order list of the same chemicals listed in paragraph (A) of this rule. Paragraph (C) of this rule contains the chemical categories for which reporting is required. These chemical categories are listed in alphabetical order and do not have CAS registry numbers. (A) Alphabetical listing: Chemical Name CAS Number abamectin (avermectin B1) 71751-41-2 acephate (acetylphosphoramidothioic acid o,s-dimethyl ester) 30560-19-1 acetaldehyde 75-07-0 acetamide 60-35-5 acetonitrile 75-05-8 acetophenone 98-86-2 2-acetylaminofluorene 53-96-3 acifluorfen, sodium salt [5-(2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy)-2- 62476-59-9 nitrobenzoic acid, sodium salt] acrolein 107-02-8 acrylamide 79-06-1 acrylic acid 79-10-7 acrylonitrile 107-13-1 [ stylesheet: rule.xsl 2.14, authoring tool: RAS XMetaL R2_0F1, (dv: 0, p: 185720, pa:
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,852,618 B2 Clough (45) Date of Patent: Oct
    USOO8852618B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,852,618 B2 Clough (45) Date of Patent: Oct. 7, 2014 (54) INSECTICIDAL MIXTURE CONTAINING CA 2429218 A1 6, 2002 GAMMA-CYHALOTHRN CH 689326 A5 4f1995 EP O237227 A1 9, 1987 EP 0771526 A2 5, 1997 (75) Inventor: Martin Stephen Clough, Bracknell EP O988788 A1 3f2000 (GB) FR 272O230 A1 12/1995 JP 63. 126805 A2 5, 1988 (73) Assignee: Syngenta Limited, Guildford (GB) JP 63126805 A2 5, 1988 JP 63126805 5, 1998 c - r WO WO 86 O7525 A1 12, 1986 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this WO WO 93 03618 A2 3, 1993 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 WO WO95 229O2 A1 8/1995 U.S.C. 154(b) by 824 days. WO WO9533380 A1 12, 1995 WO WO 96 16543 A2 6, 1996 (21) Appl. No.: 12/633,063 WO WO97 06687 A1 2/1997 WO WO974O692 A1 11, 1997 (22) Filed: Dec.a V88, 2009 WO WOOOO2453 A1 1, 2000 OTHER PUBLICATIONS (65) Prior Publication Data US 201O/OO81714 A1 Apr. 1, 2010 Canadian Office Action (Applin. No. 2,452,515 filed: Jul. 10, 2002) mailing date Oct. 1, 2010 (pp. 1-2). Related U.S. Application Data Allen et al. Transgenic & Conventional Insect & Weed Control Sys tems; Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, vol. 2, 1065 (62) Division of application No. 10/484.745, filed as 1068 (1999), USA. application No. PCT/GB02/03181 on Jul. 10, 2002, Anonymous; Pesticide Mixtures for Control of Insect and Acarid now Pat. No.
    [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]
  • Validation Report 28
    EURL for Cereals and Feeding stuff National Food Institute Technical University of Denmark Validation Report 28 Determination of pesticide residues in hay by LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS (QuEChERS method) Susan Strange Herrmann Mette Erecius Poulsen February 2018 Page 2 of 67 CONTENT: 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Principle of analysis......................................................................................................................... 3 3. Validation design ............................................................................................................................. 4 4. Calibration curves............................................................................................................................ 4 5. Validation parameters...................................................................................................................... 4 6. Criteria for the acceptance of validation results ............................................................................. 5 7. Results and conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 6 9. References ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix 1a. GCMSMS transitions used for validation of pesticides in Hay ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Organization of the Ground Foraging Ant Faunas of Forest, Grassland and Tree Crops in Papua New Guinea
    - - -- Aust. J. Zool., 1975, 23, 71-89 Diversity and Organization of the Ground Foraging Ant Faunas of Forest, Grassland and Tree Crops in Papua New Guinea P. M. Room Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries, Papua New Guinea; present address: Cotton Research Unit, CSIRO, P.M.B. Myallvale Mail Run, Narrabri, N.S.W. 2390. Abstract Thirty samples of ants were taken in each of seven habitats: primary forest, rubber plantation, coffee plantation, oilpalm plantation, kunai grassland, eucalypt savannah and urban grassland. Sixty samples were taken in cocoa plantations. A total of 156 species was taken, and the frequency of occurrence of each in each habitat is given. Eight stenoecious species are suggested as habitat indicators. Habitats fell into a series according to the similarity of their ant faunas: forest, rubber and coffee, cocoa and oilpalm, kunai and savannah, urban. This series represents an artificial, discontinuous succession from a complex stable ecosystem to a simple unstable one. Availability of species suitably preadapted to occupy habitats did not appear to limit species richness. Habitat heterogeneity and stability as affected by human interference did seem to account for inter-habitat variability in species richness. Species diversity was compared between habitats using four indices: Fisher et al.; Margalef; Shannon; Brillouin. Correlation of diversity index with habitat hetero- geneity plus stability was good for the first two, moderate for Shannon, and poor for Brillouin. Greatest diversity was found in rubber, the penultimate in the series of habitats according to hetero- geneity plus stability ('maturity'). Equitability exceeded the presumed maximum in rubber, and was close to the maximum in all habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Ants in the Home Fact Sheet No
    Ants in the Home Fact Sheet No. 5.518 Insect Series|Home and Garden by W.S. Cranshaw* Almost anywhere in the state one the nest, tend the young and do other Quick Facts travels, ants will be the most common necessary colony duties. Many kinds of insects that can be found in yards, gardens, ants produce workers that are all the • Most ants that are found in fields and forests. Tremendous numbers same size (monomorphic); some, such as homes nest outdoors and of ants normally reside in a typical house field ants, have workers that vary in size enter homes only to search lot, although most lead unobserved lives (polymorphic). for food or water. underground or otherwise out of sight. Each colony contains one or, sometimes, Often it is only when they occur indoors or a few queens (Figure 1). These are fertile • Almost all ants are workers, produce their periodic mating swarms that females that are larger than workers and wingless females that search they come to human attention. dedicated to egg production. The minute for food and maintain the Overall, the activities of ants are quite eggs are taken from the queen and tended colony. beneficial. Many feed on other insects, by the workers. Upon egg hatch, the • A small proportion of an including pest insects. Ant scavenging pale-colored, legless larvae are fed and helps to recycle organic matter and their protected by the workers. When full-grown, ant colony are winged tunneling is useful in aerating and mixing ant larvae produce a smooth silken cocoon reproductive forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquid Baits Control Argentine Ants Sustainably in Coastal Vineyards
    UC Agriculture & Natural Resources California Agriculture Title Liquid baits control Argentine ants sustainably in coastal vineyards Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/64z229kw Journal California Agriculture, 62(4) ISSN 0008-0845 Authors Cooper, Monica L Daane, Kent M Nelson, Erik H et al. Publication Date 2008-10-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California REVIEW ARTICLE ▼ Liquid baits control Argentine ants sustainably in coastal vineyards by Monica L. Cooper, Kent M. Daane, Erik H. Nelson, Lucia G. Varela, Mark C. Battany, Wild Alex Neil D. Tsutsui and Michael K. Rust Liquid ant baits are an alterna- tive to broad-spectrum insecticide sprays conventionally used to con- trol Argentine ants. We review the development of liquid ant baits, which capitalize on the ants’ sugar- feeding requirements and social structure to deliver small doses of toxicant throughout the colony. The ant bait program described here, developed for commercial vine- yards, also has the potential to fa- cilitate the use of biological controls for mealybug and scale pests. The implementation of an Argentine ant bait program will enable grape growers to target other pests more selectively with insecticides, further contributing to their sustainable An Argentine ant tends an adult mealybug. A drop of honeydew, the sugar-rich viticulture practices. mealybug excretion, can be seen in the ant’s mouthparts. he Argentine ant is an invasive pest grape mealybug (Pseudococcus maritimus out the colony. We also discuss future that has spread throughout Cali- [Ehrhorn]), obscure mealybug (P. viburni avenues of study to further control forniaT since it was fi rst reported from [Signoret]) (Daane et al.
    [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]
  • Ingleby Prohibited Pesticides May 2018
    1[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Acaricides Cyhexatin Acaricide Parathion-ethyl Acaricide/Insecticide Tetradifon Acaricide Tebufenpyrad Acaricide Fumigants 1,2-Dibromoethane Fumigant 1,2-dichloroethane Fumigant Fungicides 2-Aminobutane (aka sec-butylamine) Fungicide Allyl alcohol Fungicide Benomyl Fungicide Binapacryl Fungicide Bitertanol Fungicide Blasticidin-S Fungicide Cadmium Fungicide Captafol Fungicide Chloranil Fungicide Chloromethoxypropyl-mercuric-acetate (CPMA) Fungicide Chlozolinate Fungicide Di(phenylmercury)dodecenylsuccinate (PMDS) Fungicide Diammonium ethylenebis Fungicide DNOC Fungicide / Herbicide /Insecticide Edifenphos Fungicide Fenarimol Fungicide Fentin acetate Fungicide Flusilazole Fungicide Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Fungicide Hexaconazole Fungicide Iminoctadine Fungicide Leptophos Fungicide Maneb Fungicide Mercuric oxide Fungicide Mercurous chloride (calomel) Fungicide Mercury compounds Fungicide Nickel bis Fungicide Nuarimol Fungicide Oxadixyl Fungicide Penconazole Fungicide Ingleby Farms & Forests May 2018 Prohibited Active Ingredients 2[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Fungicides (continued) Phenylmercury acetate Fungicide/Herbicide Phenylmercuric oleate [PMO] Fungicide Prochloraz Fungicide Procymidone Fungicide Propineb Fungicide Pyrazophos Fungicide Pyrifenox Fungicide Tecnazene Fungicide Tricyclazole Fungicide Tridemorph Fungicide Vinclozolin Fungicide Zineb Fungicide Herbicides 2,4,5-T Herbicide Acifluorfen Herbicide Alachlor Herbicide Arsenic
    [Show full text]
  • Hymenoptera: Formicidae
    16 The Weta 30: 16-18 (2005) Changes to the classification of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Darren F. Ward School of Biological Sciences, Tamaki Campus, Auckland University, Private Bag 92019, Auckland ([email protected]) Introduction This short note aims to update the reader on changes to the subfamily classification of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Although the New Zealand ant fauna is very small, these changes affect the classification and phylogeny of both endemic and exotic ant species in New Zealand. Bolton (2003) has recently proposed a new subfamily classification for ants. Two new subfamilies have been created, a revised status for one, and new status for four. Worldwide, there are now 21 extant subfamilies of ants. The endemic fauna of New Zealand is now classified into six subfamilies (Table 1), as a result of three subfamilies, Amblyoponinae, Heteroponerinae and Proceratiinae, being split from the traditional subfamily Ponerinae. Bolton’s (2003) classification also affects several exotic species in New Zealand. Three species have been transferred from Ponerinae: Amblyopone australis to Amblyoponinae, and Rhytidoponera chalybaea and R. metallica to Ectatomminae. Currently there are 28 exotic species in New Zealand (Table 1). Eighteen species have most likely come from Australia, where they are native. Eight are global tramp species, commonly transported by human activities, and two species are of African origin. Nineteen of the currently established exotic species are recorded for the first time in New Zealand as occurring outside their native range. This may result in difficulty in obtaining species-specific biological knowledge and assessing their likelihood of becoming successful invaders. In addition to the work by Bolton (2003), Phil Ward and colleagues at UC Davis have started to resolve the phylogenetic relationships among subfamilies and genera of all ants using molecular data (Ward et al, 2005).
    [Show full text]