DOCSLIB.ORG

The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station state of aonnecticut The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station NEW HAVEN, CONN. / Bulletin 247 BEING THE TWENTY- SECOND REPORT OF THE STATE ENTOMOLOGIST FOR 1922 W. E. BRITTON, PH.D. I TWENTY-SECOND REPORT OF THE STATE ENTOMOLOGIST OF CONNECTICUT R THE YEAR 1922 (Being Bulletin 247, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station) BY W. E. BRITTON, Pn.D. State Entomologist CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OFACERS AND STAFF February, 1923 BOARD OF CONTROL. His. Excellency, Charles A. Templeton, ex-officio, President. James H. Webb, Vice President ................................Hamden George A. Hopson, Secretary ...: ...........................Mt. Carmel E. H. Jenkins, Director and Trcastcrer ......................New Haven Joseph W. Alsop ................................................. Avon Charles R. Treat .............................................. .Orange Elijah Rogers ........................................... :. Southington Edward C. Schneider ..................................... .Middletown - STAFF. Administration. E. H. JENKINS,PH.D., Director and Trearurer. W. L. SLATE,B.Sc., Vice Director. MISS L. M. BRAUTLECHT,Librarian and Bookkeeper. MISS J. V. BERGER,Stenograplrer and Bookkeeper. WILLIAMVEITCH, In charge of Buildings and Grounds. Chemistry: ... Analytical Laboratory. E. MONROEBAILEY, PH.D., Chemist in Charge. 11. E. ANDICEW,M.A. \ C. E. SHEPARD, Assista~rt Che~nists. OWENL. WOLAN, HARRYJ. FISHER,A.B. FRANKSHELDON, Laboratory Assistant. \I. L. CHURCHILL,Sanrplitzg Agent. hf~3.B. P. STORRS,Clerk. Biochemical Laboratory. T. B. OSBORNE,PH.D., D.Sc., Chemist in Charge. Botany. G. P. CLINTON,Sc.D., BotaaiSt in Charge. E. AI. STO~DARD,B. S., Pot~zologisl. MISS FLORENCEA; MCCORMICK,PH.D., Pathologist. G. E. GRAHAM,Ge+teral Assistant. MRS. \Ir. Mr. I<ELSEY,Secretary. Entomology. W. E. BRITTON,PH.D., Entomologist in Charge; State Ento- titologist. B. H. WALDEN,B.AGR., M. P. ZAPPE, B.S., ,gbsiStaRt PHILIPGARMAN, PH.D. 1 Enton~ologists, JOHNT. I\SH\VOBTH. Dep~~tyin Charge of Gipsy .lIoth Work. SAMUELT. SEALY,Deputy in Clrorge of Alosqfrito Control. A,11ss GLADYSXI. FINLEY,Ste~tographer. 'Forestry. WALTEK0. FILLEY,Forester irr Clrarge. A. E. hloss, 1.1. F., Assi.ctant. H. W. HICOCK,hf.F., Assistant. MISS PAULINEA. MERCHANT,Stenographer. Plad Breeding. DONALDF. JONES,S.D.. Plant Breeder. P. C. ~~ANGEL~D~RF,B.S., Assistant. Tobacco Sub-station . G. H. CHAPMAN,PH.D., in Clrarge. at Windsor. , . CONTENTS PACE Twenty-second Report of the State Entomologist ................... 269 Report of Receipts and Expenditures ............................. 270 Summary of Inspection and Office Work .......................... 270 Publications of Entomological Department ........................ 271 Department Staff and Work ...................................... 272 Enton~ological Features of 1922 .................................. 274 Fruit Insects ................................................ 2fl Vegetable Insects ............................................ 276 Shade Tree and Forest Insects .............! .................. 277 Miscellaneous Insects .............................. 278 Inspection of Nurseries ................................ 279 Pests ............................................. 279 Nursery Firms Receiving Certificates in 1922 ......... 280 Inspection of Imported Nursery Stock ............................3 282 Pests Found on Imported Nursery Stock ...................... 284 Inspection of Apiaries ............................................ 284 Summary ................................................... 289 Report of Work in Suppressing the Gipsy and Brown-tail Moths .... 290 Extensive Wind-spread ....................................... 290 Methods of Work ............................................ 291 Scouting .................................................... 291 Marking Trees .............................................. 292 Spraying and Banding Trees .................................. 293 Labor Conditions ............................................ 293 Equipment .................................................. 294 Details of \?lark in Each Town ................................ 294 Statistics of Infestations ..................................... 310 Summary of Infestations ..................................... 313 Towns in the Infested Area Which Were Not Scouted .......... 313 Parasites .................................................... 313 The Gipsy Moth Quarantine .................................. 317 Financial Statement .......................................... 321 Cost of Moth Suppression Work ............................. 321 Increased Appropriation Needed .............................. 322 Infestations in Other States ................................... 323 Future Outloolc .............................................. 324 Recommendations ............................................ 326 Mosquito Control Work. 1922 ..................................... 326 Tests of Sprays to Control the San JosC Scale .................... 329 Tests of Paradichlorobenzene as a Remedy for the Peach Borer ...... 331 Cabbage Root Maggot Experiments ............................... 332 Work with the European Red Mite in 1922 ......................... 333 The Occurrence of Several New Spider Mites in Connecticut ...... 3.18 Notes on the Life History of the Spruce Mite ..................... 340 Does the Corn Ear Worm Live Over Winter in Connecticut? ...... 343 Notes on the Egg Stage of the Euonymu~Scale .................... 344 An Asiatic Beetle in Connecticut .................................. 346 Xisotine Dust as a Control for the Turnip Aphid .................. 346 The Rhododendron Borer ......................................... 347 Life History ................................................ 340 Natural Enemies ............................................ 349 . Descriptions ................................................. 350 Control ..................................................... QjI PAGE The Maple Borer ................................................ Character of Injury .......................................... Life History and Habits ...................................... Description .................................................. Control Measures ............................................ The Maple Sesian ............................................... Life History and Habits ...................................... Description ................................................. Natural Enemies ............................................. Control ..................................................... The Spruce Gall Aphid ........................................... Life History and Habits .................................... Control Measures ............................................ The Bronze Birch Borer ......................................... Character of Injury .......................................... Life History and Habits ........... ........ Description ........................ ........ Control Measures .................. ........ Control of Ant Invasions ............... ........ ~he'~uro~cancorn Borer ........................................ Miscellaneous Insect Notes ....................................... Chinch Bugs Injuring Lawn ................................. The Sour Gum Leaf-miner ................................... The Blue Elm Beetle ......................................... Scolytid Bcetles in Pine Trees ............... ........ Leaf-miner in Cultivated Sorrel .............. ........ Beetles Boring in the Timbers of an Old Hous ....... A Rare ant1 Curious Horn Worm ........... ....... Galls on European Willows .................................. The Cottony Cushion Scale in a Connecticut Greenhouse ........ Maggots Appearing in Factory ............................... A Borer in Rose Stems ....................................... Rose Midge ill Connecticut ................................... Cut-worms Injuring Strawberries ........... ....... Larvae Fccding upon Pansies ............... ....... A New House Fly in Connecticut ............ ....... The Hemlock Web-worm .................... ....... Rose Chafers in Vineyard .................. ....... Cut-worms Attacking Raspberries and Asparagus ....... Cabbage Worms Controlled by Sulphur-Lcad-Arser~ate DI Springtails Injuring Vegetable Seedlings ............. Clothes Moths ..................................... Note Regarding Authorship ..................... Illustrations ................. Indcx ....................... TWENTY-SECOND REPORT OF THE State Entomologist of Connecticut To tlze Director avd Board of Coutrol of the Coratlecticut Agri- ct.~lturalEx fierimen f Statio.rt : I transmit, herewith, my twenty-second annual report as State Entomologist of Connecticut. The financial statements cover the State fiscal year ending June 30, 1922, but in other respects this report deals with the activities of the department for the calendar year of 1922. One of its features is the remarkable wind-spread of the gipsy moth which we thought was well under control until the beginning of the year 1922. All regulatory matters, such as inspection of nurseries, imported nursery stock, and apiaries, mos- quito elimination and gipsy moth control, are described in detail. Two important papers describing work done in part by this department have been published. as follows: Results of Dusting versus Spraying in Connecticut Apple and Peach Orchards in 1922, Bulletin 245: The Apple and Thorn Skeletonizer, Bulletin 246. These papers,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Integrated Pest Management for Raspberry Beetle
    Integrated Pest Management for Raspberry Beetle Order: Coleoptera Family: Byturidae Species: Byturus unicolor The raspberry beetle, also known as the raspberry fruitworm, is a product contaminant pest found in raspberry fields in Washington. The larvae, or fruitworm, may fall off with the fruit during machine harvest. This pest has often been controlled by a diazinon treatment at 5% bloom, before pollinators are brought into the field. The United States Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to reduce the use of organophosphates, such as diazinon, through higher restrictions and cancellations. New monitoring tools for the raspberry beetle have been developed and tested in Whatcom County. The Rebell® Bianco white sticky trap can be used to detect raspberry beetle levels in a field. This may help in determining what treatment, if any, is Figure 1: Adult raspberry required for control of the pest. beetle on a raspberry bud Biology: The adult raspberry beetle is between 0.15 and 0.2” in length, a reddish brown color with short hairs covering its whole body (see figure 1). Overwintering in the soil, the adult emerges in the spring between mid-April and mid-May depending on soil temperatures. The adults feed on leaves, often on the new primocane leaves, but in areas of high populations they will also feed on upper floricane leaves. Adults are then attracted to flower buds and blooms where mating and, subsequently, ovipositing occurs. Larvae (or fruitworm) emerge from the eggs on the flower or immature fruit and begin feeding on the receptacle. The larvae are between 0.1” and 0.25” in length depending on the time of season.
    [Show full text]
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)
    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Responses of Hymenopteran Parasitoids to the Emerald Ash Borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Recently Invaded Areas in North Central United States
    BioControl (2012) 57:199–209 DOI 10.1007/s10526-011-9408-0 Population responses of hymenopteran parasitoids to the emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in recently invaded areas in north central United States Jian J. Duan • Leah S. Bauer • Kristopher J. Abell • Roy van Driesche Received: 1 July 2011 / Accepted: 17 September 2011 / Published online: 11 October 2011 Ó International Organization for Biological Control (outside the USA) 2011 Abstract Populations of hymenopteran parasitoids and 58% in 2010 (a year later after field releases). associated with larval stages of the invasive emerald ash Low levels (1–5%) of parasitism of EAB larvae by borer (EAB) Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleop- T. planipennisi were consistently detected at surveysites tera: Buprestidae) were surveyed in 2009 and 2010 in in both years. Separately, the abundance of the native the recently invaded areas in north central United States parasitoid, Atanycolus spp., increased sharply, resulting (Michigan), where two introduced EAB larval parasit- in an average parasitism rate of EAB larvae from\0.5% oids, Tetrastichus planipennisi Yang and Spathius agrili in 2009 to 19% in 2010. Other parasitoids such as Yang were released for classical biological control. Phasgonophora sulcata Westwood, Spathius spp., Bal- Results from two years of field surveys showed that cha indica Mani & Kaul, Eupelmus sp., and Eurytomus several hymenopteran parasitoids have become associ- sp. were much less abundant than T. planipennisi and ated with EAB in Michigan. Among these parasitoids, Atanycolus spp., and each caused \1% parasitism. the gregarious species T. planipennisi was the most Besides hymenopteran parasitoids, woodpeckers con- abundant, accounting for 93% of all parasitoid individ- sumed 32–42% of the immature EAB stages present uals collected in 2009 (immediately after field release) at our study sites, while undetermined biotic factors (such as microbial disease and host tree resistance) caused 10–22% mortality of observed EAB larvae.
    [Show full text]
  • Pruning of Small Fruit Crops Can Affect Habitat Suitability for Drosophila Suzukii
    Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 294 (2020) 106860 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee Pruning of small fruit crops can affect habitat suitability for Drosophila T suzukii Torsten Schöneberga,1, Arielle Arsenault-Benoita,1, Christopher M. Taylora, Bryan R. Butlerb, Daniel T. Daltonc, Vaughn M. Waltonc, Andrew Petrand, Mary A. Rogersd, Lauren M. Diepenbrocke, Hannah J. Burrackf, Heather Leachg, Steven Van Timmereng, Philip D. Fanningg, Rufus Isaacsg, Brian E. Gressh, Mark P. Boldai, Frank G. Zalomh, Craig R. Roubosj, Richard K. Evansj, Ashfaq A. Sialj, Kelly A. Hambya,* a Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA b Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, College Park, MD, 20742, USA c Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA d Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, 55108, USA e Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Lake Alfred, FL, 33850, USA f Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA g Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA h Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA i University of California Cooperative Extension, Santa Cruz County, Watsonville, CA, 95076, USA j Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Insect activity, survival, and development are affected by climatic conditions that elicit effects at multiple scales. Spotted-wing drosophila Pruning small fruit crop canopies alters the microclimate, which in turn may influence insect pest activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)
    November - December 2008 633 ECOLOGY, BEHAVIOR AND BIONOMICS Wolbachia in Two Populations of Melittobia digitata Dahms (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) CLAUDIA S. COPELAND1, ROBERT W. M ATTHEWS2, JORGE M. GONZÁLEZ 3, MARTIN ALUJA4 AND JOHN SIVINSKI1 1USDA/ARS/CMAVE, 1700 SW 23rd Dr., Gainesville, FL 32608, USA; [email protected], [email protected] 2Dept. Entomology, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA; [email protected] 3Dept. Entomology, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843-2475, USA; [email protected] 4Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Ap. postal 63, 91000 Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico; [email protected] Neotropical Entomology 37(6):633-640 (2008) Wolbachia en Dos Poblaciones de Melittobia digitata Dahms (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) RESUMEN - Se investigaron dos poblaciones de Melittobia digitata Dahms, un parasitoide gregario (principalmente sobre un rango amplio de abejas solitarias, avispas y moscas), en busca de infección por Wolbachia. La primera población, provenía de Xalapa, México, y fue originalmente colectada y criada sobre pupas de la Mosca Mexicana de la Fruta, Anastrepha ludens Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae). La segunda población, originaria de Athens, Georgia, fue colectada y criada sobre prepupas de avispas de barro, Trypoxylon politum Say (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae). Estudios de PCR de la región ITS2 confi rmaron que ambas poblaciones del parasitoide pertenecen a la misma especie; lo que nos provee de un perfi l molecular taxonómico muy útil debído a que las hembras de las diversas especies de Melittobia son superfi cialmente similares. La amplifi cación del gen de superfi cie de proteina (wsp) de Wolbachia confi rmó la presencia de este endosimbionte en ambas poblaciones.
    [Show full text]
  • IOBC/WPRS Working Group “Integrated Plant Protection in Fruit
    IOBC/WPRS Working Group “Integrated Plant Protection in Fruit Crops” Subgroup “Soft Fruits” Proceedings of Workshop on Integrated Soft Fruit Production East Malling (United Kingdom) 24-27 September 2007 Editors Ch. Linder & J.V. Cross IOBC/WPRS Bulletin Bulletin OILB/SROP Vol. 39, 2008 The content of the contributions is in the responsibility of the authors The IOBC/WPRS Bulletin is published by the International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants, West Palearctic Regional Section (IOBC/WPRS) Le Bulletin OILB/SROP est publié par l‘Organisation Internationale de Lutte Biologique et Intégrée contre les Animaux et les Plantes Nuisibles, section Regionale Ouest Paléarctique (OILB/SROP) Copyright: IOBC/WPRS 2008 The Publication Commission of the IOBC/WPRS: Horst Bathon Luc Tirry Julius Kuehn Institute (JKI), Federal University of Gent Research Centre for Cultivated Plants Laboratory of Agrozoology Institute for Biological Control Department of Crop Protection Heinrichstr. 243 Coupure Links 653 D-64287 Darmstadt (Germany) B-9000 Gent (Belgium) Tel +49 6151 407-225, Fax +49 6151 407-290 Tel +32-9-2646152, Fax +32-9-2646239 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Address General Secretariat: Dr. Philippe C. Nicot INRA – Unité de Pathologie Végétale Domaine St Maurice - B.P. 94 F-84143 Montfavet Cedex (France) ISBN 978-92-9067-213-5 http://www.iobc-wprs.org Integrated Plant Protection in Soft Fruits IOBC/wprs Bulletin 39, 2008 Contents Development of semiochemical attractants, lures and traps for raspberry beetle, Byturus tomentosus at SCRI; from fundamental chemical ecology to testing IPM tools with growers.
    [Show full text]
  • THE INFLUENCE of CULTIVAR and NATURAL ENEMIES on RASPBERRY BEETLE (Byturus Tomentosus De Geer) LIINA ARUS
    THE INFLUENCE OF CULTIVAR AND NATURAL ENEMIES ON RASPBERRY BEETLE (Byturus tomentosus De Geer) SORDI JA LOODUSLIKE VAENLASTE MÕJU VAARIKAMARDIKALE (Byturus tomentosus De Geer) LIINA ARUS A Thesis for applying for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology Väitekiri filosoofiadoktori kraadi taotlemiseks entomoloogia erialal Tartu 2013 EESTI MAAÜLIKOOL ESTONIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES THE INFLUENCE OF CULTIVAR AND NATURAL ENEMIES ON RASPBERRY BEETLE (Byturus tomentosus De Geer) SORDI JA LOODUSLIKE VAENLASTE MÕJU VAARIKAMARDIKALE (Byturus tomentosus De Geer) LIINA ARUS A Th esis for applying for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology Väitekiri fi losoofi adoktori kraadi taotlemiseks entomoloogia erialal Tartu 2013 Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Estonian University of Life Sciences According to verdict No 149 of August 28, 2013, the Doctoral Commitee of Agricultural and Natural Sciences of the Estonian University of Life Sciences has accepted the thesis for the defence of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology. Opponent: Prof. Inara Turka Latvia University of Agriculture Jelgava, Latvia Supervisor: Prof. Emer. Anne Luik Estonian University of Life Sciences Defense of the thesis: Estonian University of Life Sciences, Karl Ernst von Baer house, Veski st. 4, Tartu on October 4, 2013 at 11.00 The English language was edited by PhD Ingrid Williams. The Estonian language was edited by PhD Luule Metspalu. Publication of the thesis is supported by the Estonian University of Life Sciences and by the Doctoral School of Earth Sciences and Ecology created under the auspices of European Social Fund. © Liina Arus, 2013 ISBN 978-9949-484-93-5 (trükis) ISBN 978-9949-484-94-2 (pdf) CONTENTS LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS ..........................................7 ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Classical Biological Control of Invasive Plants in North America
    Evaluating and Regulating Biological Control Agents: A North American Perspective P.G. Mason Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada North American Plant Protection Organization, Ottawa, Ontario EPPO / COST - SMARTER / IOBC / IBMA / CABI WORKSHOP ON EVALUATION AND REGULATION OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS 23-24 November 2015 North American history … Entomophagous biological control agents • United States – first release in 1888: Cryptochetum iceryae against Icerya purchasi (cottony cushion scale) in citrus; Rodalia cardinalis was released in 1889 • Canada – first release in 1885: Trichogramma minutum against Nematus ribesii (imported currantworm); 1910 Mesoleius tenthredinis against Pristiphora erichsonii (larch sawfly) • Mexico – first release in 1922: Lixiphaga diatraeae against Diatraea saccharalis (sugarcane borer) Phytophagous biological control agents • United States – first release in 1945: Chrysolina hyperici against Hypericum perforatum (Klamath weed, St. John’s wort) • Canada – first release in 1951 : C. hyperici against H. perforatum • Mexico – first release in 1977: Neochetina eichhorniae against Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) … North American history … United States • 1957 - Subcommittee on Biological Control of Weeds established [U.S. Department of the Interior’s (USDI) Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service; and from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service and Agricultural Research Service]. • 1971 - name changed to Working Group on Biological Control of Weeds. Canadian and Mexican comments were invited because the Working Group knew that an introduced organism recognizes no political boundaries and its introduction needed to be considered on a continental basis. [+ Environmental Protection Agency, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (now the National Institute of Food and Agriculture), and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Order Hymenoptera, Family Chalcididae
    Arthropod fauna of the UAE, 6: 225–274 (2017) Order Hymenoptera, family Chalcididae Gérard Delvare INTRODUCTION The Chalcididae belong to a medium-sized family of parasitoids with 96 genera and 1469 species in the World (Aguiar et al., 2013). Their size ranges from 1.5 to 15 mm and their body is hard with surface sculpture consisting of umbilic punctures. They are predominantly black, sometimes with yellow and/or red markings, rarely with metallic reflections. The sexual dimorphism is minimal except in Haltichellinae, where the flagellum of the male is thicker and the scape possibly modified (Plates 18–21). Recognition: The family belongs to the huge superfamily Chalcidoidea, which now includes 22 families (Heraty et al., 2013). In this group the mesosoma exhibits a special triangular sclerite – the prepectus – which separates the pronotum from the tegula (Plates 7, 8). This plate is also present in Chalcididae but is quite reduced here (Plates 5, 29). The family is mostly recognized by the enlarged metafemur, which is toothed or serrulate on the ventral margin, and the strongly curved metatibia (Plates 26, 48, 57, 94, 131). Some representatives of other chalcid families (Torymidae: Podagrionini and some Pteromalidae: Cleonyminae) also have an enlarged metafemur (Plate 9) but here the prepectus is expanded as usual and well visible as a triangular plate (Plate 8); in addition the relevant groups exhibit metallic reflections (Plate 7). Finally the sculpture of the propodeum is quite different: it is almost always areolate in the Chalcididae (Plate 3), but never exhibits such ornamentation in the non-chalcidid families (Plate 6) The Leucospidae, with the single genus Leucospis Fabricius, 1775, would also be mixed with the Chalcididae as they also share their character states.
    [Show full text]
  • Beneficial Insects of Utah Guide
    BENEFICIAL INSECTS OF UTAH beneficial insects & other natural enemies identification guide PUBLICATION COORDINATORS AND EDITORS Cami Cannon (Vegetable IPM Associate and Graphic Design) Marion Murray (IPM Project Leader) AUTHORS Cami Cannon Marion Murray Ron Patterson (insects: ambush bug, collops beetle, red velvet mite) Katie Wagner (insects: Trichogramma wasp) IMAGE CREDITS All images are provided by Utah State University Extension unless otherwise noted within the image caption. CONTACT INFORMATION Utah State University IPM Program Dept. of Biology 5305 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322 (435) 797-0776 utahpests.usu.edu/IPM FUNDING FOR THIS PUBLICATION WAS PROVIDED BY: USU Extension Grants Program CONTENTS PREFACE Purpose of this Guide ................................................................6 Importance of Natural Enemies ..................................................6 General Practices to Enhance Natural Enemies ...........................7 Plants that will Enhance Natural Enemy Populations ..................7 PREDATORS Beetles .....................................................................................10 Flies .........................................................................................24 Lacewings/Dustywings .............................................................32 Mites ........................................................................................36 Spiders .....................................................................................42 Thrips ......................................................................................44
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Methods to Detect and Monitor North American Larval Parasitoids of the Emerald Ash Borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae)
    The Canadian Entomologist (2020), page 1 of 10 Published on behalf of the doi:10.4039/tce.2020.8 Entomological Society of Canada NOTE Evaluating methods to detect and monitor North American larval parasitoids of the emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) Justin M. Gaudon1*,† , D. Barry Lyons2, Gene C. Jones2, Jeremy D. Allison2, and Sandy M. Smith1 1Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3B3, Canada and 2Natural Resources Canada-Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre, 1219 Queen Street East, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, P6A 2E5, Canada *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] †Present addresses: School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada; rare Charitable Research Reserve, 1679 Blair Road, Cambridge, Ontario, N3H 4R8, Canada. (Received 22 July 2019; accepted 3 January 2020; first published online 18 March 2020) Abstract Populations of native North American parasitoids attacking Agrilus Curtis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) species have recently been considered as part of an augmentative biological control programme in an attempt to manage emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, a destructive wood-boring beetle discovered in North America in 2002. We evaluate trapping methods to detect and monitor populations of two important native larval parasitoids, Phasgonophora sulcata Westwood (Hymenoptera: Chalcididae) and Atanycolus Förster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) species, attacking emerald ash borer in its introduced range. We found that purple prism traps captured more P. sulcata than green prism traps, yellow pan traps, and log samples and thus were considered better for detecting and monitoring P. sulcata populations. Trap type did not affect the number of captures of Atanycolus species.
    [Show full text]
  • Augmentation of Native North American Natural Enemies for the Biological Control of the Introduced Emerald Ash Borer in Central Canada
    BioControl https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-019-09986-6 (0123456789().,-volV)( 0123456789().,-volV) Augmentation of native North American natural enemies for the biological control of the introduced emerald ash borer in central Canada Justin M. Gaudon . Sandy M. Smith Received: 22 July 2019 / Accepted: 28 November 2019 Ó International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) 2019 Abstract Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Col: Chalcididae) (16.67 ± 16.67%) and Atanycolus spp. Buprestidae) (EAB) has been spreading rapidly Foerster (Hym: Braconidae) (48.18 ± 4.29 %) was throughout North America, killing millions of ash observed in all plots over three years after native trees, Fraxinus spp. L. (Oleaceae). Eradication is not parasitoids were released. However, no reduction was viable, so biological control using natural enemies is seen in EAB density between the treatment and control now the leading management strategy. Little infor- plots or over time. There was no significant relation- mation is available on whether native parasitoids and ship found between predation by woodpeckers and predators can be manipulated to increase EAB mor- year or between control and parasitoid-release plots. tality. We moved freshly cut ash logs infested with However, woodpecker predation increased signifi- EAB parasitoids to field sites where there was no cantly with EAB density. Movement of ash logs record of EAB mortality by native North American containing native parasitoids to sites newly infested by natural enemies. Changes in EAB parasitism, EAB EAB, but with low native natural enemy populations, density, and woodpecker predation were monitored can increase long-term EAB mortality as an added over the following three years.
    [Show full text]