DOCSLIB.ORG

Control of Pest Grasshoppers in North America "2279

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Control of Pest Grasshoppers in North America insects Review y Control of Pest Grasshoppers in North America Wahid H. Dakhel 1,* , Stefan T. Jaronski 2 and Scott Schell 3 1 Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA 2 Department of Agriculture, USDA, Agriculture Research Service (ARS), Sidney, MT 59270, USA; [email protected] 3 Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Laramie, WY 82071, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing y specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture. Received: 16 July 2020; Accepted: 20 August 2020; Published: 24 August 2020 Simple Summary: Grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) population outbreaks occur frequently and consume damaging amounts of livestock forage and crops on millions of hectares of the western USA. The main method of controlling grasshopper outbreaks there consists of aerially applied spray with chemical insecticides. Although it is relatively cheap, fast, and efficient, broad spectrum insecticides can pose a threat serious risks to human health, and non-target organism populations which impacts the environment. As an alternative, the use biological control organisms more specific to pest grasshoppers is a less environmentally hazardous alternative to traditional, synthetic insecticides. This paper reviews the many different (viral, bacterial, fungal) insect pathogens and application methods that have been tested as alternatives to synthetic insecticide sprays to manage pest grasshopper populations. Abstract: Grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) frequently inflict damage on millions of hectares of western rangelands and crops. The main method of controlling grasshopper outbreaks consists of covering their infestations with chemical insecticides. Although it is relatively cheap, fast, and efficient, chemical control bears serious risks to human health, non-target organisms, and the environment. To overcome this challenge, biological control is a less environmentally hazardous alternative to traditional, synthetic insecticides. This paper reviews strategies that could be used as effective ways to control such pests with a special focus on effective bait formulations that might provide a key model in developing biological control strategies for the grasshopper population. Keywords: grasshopper; biological control; chemical control; bait formulation; entomopathogenic fungi 1. Introduction Grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) are the dominant herbivores in grassland ecosystems worldwide [1]. In the western United States (US), grasslands comprise nearly 262 million hectares. Around 400 described species of grasshoppers inhabit the 17 contiguous western states [2], with over 100 species in Wyoming [3,4]. Most grasshopper species are either harmless or beneficial to us. Although grasshoppers can negatively affect other herbivores by outcompeting with them for forage, grasshoppers also increase rangeland productivity by stimulating plant growth and accelerating nutrient cycling [5]. Grasshoppers are also a food source for many rangeland predators [6]. However, from time to time, some species may reach extremely high densities and cause economic injury to rangeland forage Insects 2020, 11, 566; doi:10.3390/insects11090566 www.mdpi.com/journal/insects Insects 2020, 11, 566 2 of 18 Insects 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 19 and cultivatedfrom time to crops time, [ 4some], to thespecies extent may that reach grasshoppers extremely high are densities the most and important cause economic agricultural injury to pests in rangelandrangeland habitats forage and across cultivated the western crops [4], United to the States extent (US) that [grasshoppers7]. Currently, are the the primary most important control tools agricultural pests in rangeland habitats across the western United States (US) [7]. Currently, the are chemical insecticides, especially carbaryl, malathion, and diflubenzuron [3]. These chemical primary control tools are chemical insecticides, especially carbaryl, malathion, and diflubenzuron [3]. insecticides have a potently serious effect on non-target insects, mainly pollinators, environmentally These chemical insecticides have a potently serious effect on non-target insects, mainly pollinators, sensitiveenvironmentally areas, and sensitive endangered areas,/threatened and endangered/threatened species [5]. Biological species [5 control]. Biological would control be awould particularly be valuablea particularly tool for usevaluable on rangeland tool for use and on rangeland natural habitats and natural due habitats to the minimaldue to the e ffminimalect on effect humans on and livestockhumans health and [3livestock]. This reviewhealth [3]. will This describe review control will describe strategies control that strategies focus on that chemical focus on and chemical biological controland with biological an emphasis control onwith the an use emphasis of effective on the bait use formulation of effective forbait grasshopperformulation for control. grasshopper control. 2. Rangeland Grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) and Their Economic Importance 2. Rangeland Grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) and Their Economic Importance Approximately 15 of the 400 western US grasshopper species are considered major economic pests of eitherApproximately range or 15 croplands of the 400 [ 8western]. Nationwide, US grassh fouropper grasshoppers’ species are considered species major are responsible economic for pests of either range or croplands [8]. Nationwide, four grasshoppers’ species are responsible for about 90% of all grasshopper crop damage [2,9], Melanoplus sanguinipes, M. bivittatus, M. differentialis, about 90% of all grasshopper crop damage [2,9], Melanoplus sanguinipes, M. bivittatus, M. differentialis, and M. femurrubrum (Figures1–4). Most grasshoppers are highly polyphagous and feed on a wide and M. femurrubrum (Figures 1–4). Most grasshoppers are highly polyphagous and feed on a wide varietyvariety of plant of plant species species [10 ].[10]. FigureFigure 1. Female 1. FemaleMelanoplus Melanoplus sanguinipes sanguinipesgrasshopper. grasshopper. (Wahid (Wahid Dakhel, Dakhel, 2014). 2014). University University of Wyoming, of Wyoming, USA. Laramie,Insects 2020 WY,, 11 USA., x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19 Figure 2.FigureFemale 2. FemaleMelanoplus Melanoplus bivittatus bivittatus. (Wahid. (Wahid Dakhel, Dakhel, 2014). 2014). University University of Wyoming, of Wyoming, Laramie, Laramie, WY, USA. WY, USA. Figure 3. Female Melanoplus differentialis. (Wahid Dakhel, 2014). University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA. Insects 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19 Insects 2020, 11, 566 . 3 of 18 Figure 2. Female Melanoplus bivittatus. (Wahid Dakhel, 2014). University of Wyoming, USA. FigureInsects 2020 3.Figure,Female 11, x 3.FOR FemaleMelanoplus PEER MelanoplusREVIEW differentialis differentialis. (Wahid. (Wahid Dakhel, Dakhel, 2014). 2014). University University of Wyoming, of Wyoming, Laramie, USA. WY,USA. 4 of 19 FigureFigure 4. Female 4. Female of Melanoplusof Melanoplus femurrubrum. (Wahid. (Wahid Dakhel, Dakhel, 2014). 2014).University University of Wyoming, of USA. Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA. They can consume as much as their total body weight per day, but this amount varies with the Theyspecies can and consume developmental as much stage as [11]. their Annually, total body forage weight losses per to grasshoppers day, but this in amount the western varies US withare the speciesaround and developmental25%, which exceeds stage damage [11]. Annually,from all other forage rangeland losses arthropod to grasshoppers families [3,9,12]. in the western Historical US are records of severe grasshopper damage in North America are documented from the second half of the around 25%, which exceeds damage from all other rangeland arthropod families [3,9,12]. Historical 19th century, when devastating Rocky Mountain locust (Melanoplus spretus) swarms decimated crops recordsand of rangelands severe grasshopper from Central damageCanada to in Texas North [13]. America From 1874 are to documented 1877, M. spretus from infestations the second were half of the 19thextremely century, expansive when devastatingand severe over Rocky large Mountain areas of the locust Great ( MelanoplusPlains, which spretus led to )the swarms institution decimated of cropsthe and United rangelands States Entomological from Central Commission Canada to by Texas Congress [13]. to From study 1874 and tocontrol 1877, grasshopperM. spretus plaguesinfestations were[14]. extremely Later on, expansive in the 1930s, and severegrasshopper over largeoutbreak areass covered of the Great millions Plains, of hect whichares ledof federally to the institution and of theprivately-owned United States land Entomological in 17 western Commission states [14]. In by1972, Congress the implementation to study andof publicly control supported grasshopper plaguescontrol [14 ].programs Later on, on in rangelands the 1930s, was grasshopper authorized outbreaks by the United covered States millions Department of hectares of Agriculture, of federally Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) [15]. One of its functions was to prevent severe grasshopper rangeland damage [15]. Forage losses to grasshoppers could be overwhelming: for example, in 1985, grasshopper populations damaged about 22.2 hectares of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reptile Pets Shuttle Grasshopper Allergy and Asthma Into Homes Erika Jensen-Jarolim1,2*, Isabella Pali-Schöll1,2, Sebastian A.F
    Jensen-Jarolim et al. World Allergy Organization Journal (2015) 8:24 DOI 10.1186/s40413-015-0072-1 journal REVIEW Open Access Caution: Reptile pets shuttle grasshopper allergy and asthma into homes Erika Jensen-Jarolim1,2*, Isabella Pali-Schöll1,2, Sebastian A.F. Jensen3, Bruno Robibaro3,4 and Tamar Kinaciyan5 Abstract The numbers of reptiles in homes has at least doubled in the last decade in Europe and the USA. Reptile purchases are increasingly triggered by the attempt to avoid potentially allergenic fur pets like dogs and cats. Consequently, reptiles are today regarded as surrogate pets initiating a closer relationship with the owner than ever previously observed. Reptile pets are mostly fed with insects, especially grasshoppers and/or locusts, which are sources for aggressive airborne allergens, best known from occupational insect breeder allergies. Exposure in homes thus introduces a new form of domestic allergy to grasshoppers and related insects. Accordingly, an 8-year old boy developed severe bronchial hypersensitivity and asthma within 4 months after purchase of a bearded dragon. The reptile was held in the living room and regularly fed with living grasshoppers. In the absence of a serological allergy diagnosis test, an IgE immunoblot on grasshopper extract and prick-to-prick test confirmed specific sensitization to grasshoppers. After 4 years of allergen avoidance, a single respiratory exposure was sufficient to trigger a severe asthma attack again in the patient. Based on literature review and the clinical example we conclude that reptile keeping is associated with introducing potent insect allergens into home environments. Patient interviews during diagnostic procedure should therefore by default include the question about reptile pets in homes.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Study on the Various Species of Locusts with Special
    Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2016; 4(6): 38-45 E-ISSN: 2320-7078 P-ISSN: 2349-6800 Comparative study on the various species of locusts JEZS 2016; 4(6): 38-45 © 2016 JEZS with special reference to its population fluctuation Received: 07-09-2016 Accepted: 08-10-2016 from Thar Desert, Sindh Ahmed Ali Samejo Department of Zoology, University of Sindh, Jamshoro- Ahmed Ali Samejo and Riffat Sultana Pakistan Abstract Riffat Sultana Thar Desert is most favorable for life of human throughout the deserts of the world. It is rain fed land, Department of Zoology, some patches are cultivated by farmers in the form of fields for producing sources of economy, other University of Sindh, Jamshoro- Pakistan large part of desert remains untouched for natural vegetation for livestock, but unfortunately little yield of desert is also affected by variety of insect including locusts. During present study four species of locusts; belonging to four genera Anacridium, Cyrtacanthacris, Locusta and Schistocerca, two subfamilies Cyrtacanthacridinae and Oedipodenae and one family Acrididae were reported from Thar Desert from June 2015 to May 2016. Comparative study revealed that two species Schistocerca gregaria and Locusta migratoria are swarming and destructive while, Anacridium aegyptium and Cyrtacanthacridinae tatarica are non-swarming but are larger in body size and graze more vegetation than both swarming species. Though these four species have ecological and morphological difference but the nature of damage is almost similar. All these species were recorded as pest of foliage of all crops and natural vegetation. Keywords: Comparative morphology, geographic distribution, locusts, Thar Desert, damage to useful plants 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Locusts in Queensland
    LOCUSTS Locusts in Queensland PEST STATUS REVIEW SERIES – LAND PROTECTION by C.S. Walton L. Hardwick J. Hanson Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the many people who provided information for this assessment. Clyde McGaw, Kevin Strong and David Hunter, from the Australian Plague Locust Commission, are also thanked for the editorial review of drafts of the document. Cover design: Sonia Jordan Photographic credits: Natural Resources and Mines staff ISBN 0 7345 2453 6 QNRM03033 Published by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Qld. February 2003 Information in this document may be copied for personal use or published for educational purposes, provided that any extracts are fully acknowledged. Land Protection Department of Natural Resources and Mines GPO Box 2454, Brisbane Q 4000 #16401 02/03 Contents 1.0 Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Taxonomy.................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 History ....................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Outbreaks across Australia ........................................................................................ 3 3.2 Outbreaks in Queensland........................................................................................... 3 4.0 Current and predicted distribution ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Entomopathogenic Fungi for Fruit Fly Control in Area-Wide SIT Programmes
    Use of Entomopathogenic Fungi for Fruit Fly Control in Area-Wide SIT Programmes Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna, 2019 DISCLAIMER The material in this document has been supplied by the authors. The views expressed remain the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the government(s) or the designating Member State(s). In particular, the FAO, IAEA, nor any other organization or body sponsoring the development of this document can be held responsible for any material reproduced in the document. The proper citation for this document is: FAO/IAEA. 2019. Use of Entomopathogenic Fungi for Fruit Fly Control in Area-Wide SIT Programmes, A. Villaseñor, S. Flores, S. E. Campos, J. Toledo, P. Montoya, P. Liedo and W. Enkerlin (eds.), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna, Austria. 43 pp. Use of Entomopathogenic Fungi for Fruit Fly Control in Area- wide SIT Programmes Antonio Villaseñor IAEA/IPCS Consultant San Pedro La Laguna, Nayarit, México Salvador Flores Programa Moscafrut SADER-SENASICA, Metapa, Chiapas, México Sergio E. Campos Programa Moscafrut SADER-SENASICA, Metapa, Chiapas, México Jorge Toledo El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Tapachula, Chiapas, México Pablo Montoya Programa Moscafrut SADER-SENASICA, Metapa, Chiapas, México Pablo Liedo El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Tapachula, Chiapas, México Walther Enkerlin Joint FAO/IAEA Programme of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, Vienna, Austria Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna, 2019 FOREWORD Effective fruit fly control requires an integrated pest management approach which may include the use of area-wide sterile insect technique (SIT).
    [Show full text]
  • Integration of Entomopathogenic Fungi Into IPM Programs: Studies Involving Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) Affecting Horticultural Crops
    insects Review Integration of Entomopathogenic Fungi into IPM Programs: Studies Involving Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) Affecting Horticultural Crops Kim Khuy Khun 1,2,* , Bree A. L. Wilson 2, Mark M. Stevens 3,4, Ruth K. Huwer 5 and Gavin J. Ash 2 1 Faculty of Agronomy, Royal University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 2696, Dangkor District, Phnom Penh, Cambodia 2 Centre for Crop Health, Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia; [email protected] (B.A.L.W.); [email protected] (G.J.A.) 3 NSW Department of Primary Industries, Yanco Agricultural Institute, Yanco, New South Wales 2703, Australia; [email protected] 4 Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (NSW Department of Primary Industries and Charles Sturt University), Wagga Wagga, New South Wales 2650, Australia 5 NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wollongbar Primary Industries Institute, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2477, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +61-46-9731208 Received: 7 September 2020; Accepted: 21 September 2020; Published: 25 September 2020 Simple Summary: Horticultural crops are vulnerable to attack by many different weevil species. Fungal entomopathogens provide an attractive alternative to synthetic insecticides for weevil control because they pose a lesser risk to human health and the environment. This review summarises the available data on the performance of these entomopathogens when used against weevils in horticultural crops. We integrate these data with information on weevil biology, grouping species based on how their developmental stages utilise habitats in or on their hostplants, or in the soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Mycology
    INTRODUCTION TO MYCOLOGY The term "mycology" is derived from Greek word "mykes" meaning mushroom. Therefore mycology is the study of fungi. The ability of fungi to invade plant and animal tissue was observed in early 19th century but the first documented animal infection by any fungus was made by Bassi, who in 1835 studied the muscardine disease of silkworm and proved the that the infection was caused by a fungus Beauveria bassiana. In 1910 Raymond Sabouraud published his book Les Teignes, which was a comprehensive study of dermatophytic fungi. He is also regarded as father of medical mycology. Importance of fungi: Fungi inhabit almost every niche in the environment and humans are exposed to these organisms in various fields of life. Beneficial Effects of Fungi: 1. Decomposition - nutrient and carbon recycling. 2. Biosynthetic factories. The fermentation property is used for the industrial production of alcohols, fats, citric, oxalic and gluconic acids. 3. Important sources of antibiotics, such as Penicillin. 4. Model organisms for biochemical and genetic studies. Eg: Neurospora crassa 5. Saccharomyces cerviciae is extensively used in recombinant DNA technology, which includes the Hepatitis B Vaccine. 6. Some fungi are edible (mushrooms). 7. Yeasts provide nutritional supplements such as vitamins and cofactors. 8. Penicillium is used to flavour Roquefort and Camembert cheeses. 9. Ergot produced by Claviceps purpurea contains medically important alkaloids that help in inducing uterine contractions, controlling bleeding and treating migraine. 10. Fungi (Leptolegnia caudate and Aphanomyces laevis) are used to trap mosquito larvae in paddy fields and thus help in malaria control. Harmful Effects of Fungi: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Impact of Desert Locust to Nutrition Security in SOMALIA
    POTENTIAL IMPACT OF DESERT LOCUST Emma Apo Ouma TO NUTRITION SECURITY IN SOMALIA WHAT IS THE CURRENT SITUATION? •Triple threat of Desert Locust, Gu flooding and COVID-19, •April and June 2020, an estimated 2.7 million people across Somalia are expected to face Crisis and deteriorate to 3.5 million between July and September 2020 WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR NUTRITION SECURITY? CROP AND PASTURE DAMAGE Threat to current Gu season crop production and may also threaten pasture availability and crop cultivation across Somalia through the following 2020 Deyr (October-December A swarm can eat enough food in one day to feed 34 million people. FALLING LIVESTOCK PRICES •Livestock diseases •Poor livestock nutrition; increased price of livestock feed •Reduced quality of livestock products eg milk, meat LOSS OF LIVELIHOODS •Disruption of food systems; critical value chains have been affected e.g. livestock, cereals such as sorghum, maize •Loss of wage and employment opportunities e.g. labor in the fields, value chain actors •Increase in livelihood based coping strategy: eg selling last breeding animal, spent savings, begging, reduced expenditure on livestock and agriculture •Reduced spending on non-food needs health care, education FOOD CONSUMPTION AND DIETARY DIVERSITY •With poor harvests, there is likelihood of poor food consumption at hhd level •Depletion of food stocks •Food Prices have increased •A majority if households rely on markets for food: increased reliance on purchased and processed foods •Compromise the nutrition of the most vulnerable: children less than 5, PLW, elderly, adolesents •Increased rates of acute malnutrition ONGOING EFFORTS Household Level Screening and referral of acute malnutrition cases Targeting of the most vulnerable (UCT) Community level ▪Burying locusts, setting fires, and making noise to scare them off.
    [Show full text]
  • What Are Fungi?
    Medical Mycology (BIOL 4849) Summer 2007 Dr. Cooper What are Fungi? Fungi in the Tree of Life • Living organisms on earth first arose about 3.5 billion years ago – Prokaryotic – Anaerobic • Oldest fossils of fungi are about 460 million years old • Coincides with the rapid expansion of multi-cellular organisms • Major multicellular eukaryotes are divided into Kingdoms – Animals – Plants – Fungi • Each of these three kingdoms differ in their basic cellular structure and mode of nutrition (defined by Whittaker, 1969) – Plants - photosynthetic, cellulosic cell walls – Animals - digestive systems, wall-less cells – Fungi - absorptive nutrition, chitinous walls • The estimates for the expansion of multicellular organisms are based upon phylogenetic analyses of Carl Woese – Examined ribosomal RNA (rRNA) • Present in prokaryotes and eukaryotes • Relatively stable, but changes occur over time; thereby acting as a chronometer – Distinguished three separate groups (Domains) of living organisms • Domains - rRNA sequence differences correlate with differences in cellular structure and physiology – Bacteria - “true bacteria” – Archaea - “ancient prokaryotes” – Eucarya - eukaryotes • Taxonomic grouping of “Kingdom” lies beneath that of “Domain” • Though the fossil evidence suggests fungi were present on earth about 450 million years ago, aquatic fungi (Phylum Chytridiomycota) most likely were present about a million years before this time Page 1 of 15 Copyright © 2007 Chester R. Cooper, Jr. Medical Mycology (BIOL 4849) Lecture 1, Summer 2007 • About
    [Show full text]
  • Two New Species of Entomophthoraceae (Zygomycetes, Entomophthorales) Linking the Genera Entomophaga and Eryniopsis
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Sydowia Jahr/Year: 1993 Band/Volume: 45 Autor(en)/Author(s): Keller Siegfried, Eilenberg Jorgen Artikel/Article: Two new species of Entomophthoraceae (Zygomycetes, Entomophthorales) linking the genera Entomophaga and Eryniopsis. 264- 274 ©Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne Ges.m.b.H., Horn, Austria, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Two new species of Entomophthoraceae (Zygomycetes, Entomophthorales) linking the genera Entomophaga and Eryniopsis S. Keller1 & J. Eilenberg2 •Federal Research Station for Agronomy, Reckenholzstr. 191, CH-8046 Zürich, Switzerland 2The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Department of Ecology and Molecular Biology, Bülowsvej 13, DK 1870 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark Keller, S. & Eilenberg, J. (1993). Two new species of Entomophthoraceae (Zygomycetes, Entomophthorales) linking the genera Entomophaga and Eryniopsis. - Sydowia 45 (2): 264-274. Two new species of the genus Eryniopsis from nematoceran Diptera are descri- bed; E. ptychopterae from Ptychoptera contaminala and E. transitans from Limonia tripunctata. Both produce primary conidia and two types of secondary conidia. The primary conidia of E. ptychopterae are 36-39 x 23-26 urn and those of E. transitans 32-43 x 22-29 um. The two species are very similar but differ mainly in the shape of the conidia and number of nuclei they contain. Both species closely resemble mem- bers of the Entomophaga grilly group and probably form the missing link between Eryniopsis and Entomophaga. Keywords: Insect pathogenic fungi, taxonomy, Diptera, Limoniidae, Ptychop- teridae. The Entomophthoraceae consists of mostly insect pathogenic fun- gi whose taxonomy has not been lully resolved. One controversial genus is Eryniopsis which is characterized by unitunicate, plurinucleate and elongate primary conidia usually produced on un- branched conidiophores and discharged by papillar eversion (Hum- ber, 1984).
    [Show full text]
  • Spur-Throated Grasshoppers of the Canadian Prairies and Northern Great Plains
    16 Spur-throated grasshoppers of the Canadian Prairies and Northern Great Plains Dan L. Johnson Research Scientist, Grassland Insect Ecology, Lethbridge Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, [email protected] The spur-throated grasshoppers have become the most prominent grasshoppers of North Ameri- can grasslands, not by calling attention to them- selves by singing in the vegetation (stridulating) like the slant-faced grasshoppers, or by crackling on the wing (crepitating) like the band-winged grasshoppers, but by virtue of their sheer num- bers, activities and diversity. Almost all of the spur-throated grasshoppers in North America are members of the subfamily Melanoplinae. The sta- tus of Melanoplinae is somewhat similar in South America, where the melanopline Dichroplus takes the dominant role that the genus Melanoplus pated, and hiding in the valleys?) scourge that holds in North America (Cigliano et al. 2000). wiped out so much of mid-western agriculture in The biogeographic relationships are analysed by the 1870’s. Chapco et al. (2001). The grasshoppers are charac- terized by a spiny bump on the prosternum be- Approximately 40 species of grasshoppers in tween the front legs, which would be the position the subfamily Melanoplinae (mainly Tribe of the throat if they had one. This characteristic is Melanoplini) can be found on the Canadian grass- easy to use; I know elementary school children lands, depending on weather and other factors af- who can catch a grasshopper, turn it over for a fecting movement and abundance. The following look and say “melanopline” before grabbing the notes provide a brief look at representative next.
    [Show full text]
  • Entomopathogens of Anacridium Aegyptium L. in Crete1
    I-NTOMOl.OGIA HEI.I.F.NICA 14 (2001-2002): 5-10 Entomopathogens of Anacridium aegyptium L. in Crete1 N. E. RODITAKIS2, D. KOLLAROS3 and A. LEGAKIS3 2NAGREF-Plant Protection Institute Heraclion Crete, 710 03 Katsabas, Heraclion -'Department of Biology University of Crete ABSTRACT The entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria tassiana (Bals.) Vuil. was recorded for the first time on Anacridium aegyptium L. in Crete. The insects were fed on pieces of leaf subjected to a serial dilution of spores over three to four orders of magnitute. Comparative studies on the virulence of ß. bassiana (I 91612 local isolate) and Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum (IMI 330189 standard isolate of IIBC) showed that M. anisopliae var. acridum was more virulent than B. bassiana at a conidial concentration lower or equal to 106 per ml while they were similarly virulent on first stage nymphs at 107 conidia per ml. Introduction 40 ind./ha) in winter that reaches much higher lev­ els during some summers. The reasons of these A three year study ( 1990-1992) was started on lo­ sporadic outbreaks remain unknown. By contrast custs in Crete aiming to study Cretan acridofauna, it is always harmful on field vegetables in Chan­ including species composition and their seasonal dras, Sitia (East Crete) so the local Agricultural abundance on main crops, harmful species and Advisory Services suggests extensive control native biological agents. Grapes are the second measures based on insecticides. crop in order of importance of Cretan agriculture. Crop losses dued to locust Anacridium aegyptium It is known that microbial agents such as the had been noticed on certain locations in Crete in entomopathogenic fungi cause epizootics affect­ the past (Roditakis 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 3 Life Cycles of Insects
    Praying Mantis 3A-1 Hi, boys and girls. It’s time to meet one of the most fascinating insects on the planet. That’s me. I’m a praying mantis, named for the way I hold my two front legs together as though I am praying. I might look like I am praying, but my incredibly fast front legs are designed to grab my food in the blink of an eye! Praying Mantis 3A-1 I’m here to talk to you about the life stages of insects—how insects develop from birth to adult. Many insects undergo a complete change in shape and appearance. I’m sure that you are already familiar with how a caterpillar changes into a butterfly. The name of the process in which a caterpillar changes, or morphs, into a butterfly is called metamorphosis. Life Cycle of a Butterfly 3A-2 Insects like the butterfly pass through four stages in their life cycles: egg, larva [LAR-vah], pupa, and adult. Each stage looks completely different from the next. The young never resemble, or look like, their parents and almost always eat something entirely different. Life Cycle of a Butterfly 3A-2 The female insect lays her eggs on a host plant. When the eggs hatch, the larvae [LAR-vee] that emerge look like worms. Different names are given to different insects in this worm- like stage, and for the butterfly, the larva state is called a caterpillar. Insect larvae: maggot, grub and caterpillar3A-3 Fly larvae are called maggots; beetle larvae are called grubs; and the larvae of butterflies and moths, as you just heard, are called caterpillars.
    [Show full text]