DOCSLIB.ORG

Life History and Evaluation of Arzama Densa, Walker, for Control of Waterhyacinth, Eichornia Crassipes (Mart.) Solms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Life History and Evaluation of Arzama Densa, Walker, for Control of Waterhyacinth, Eichornia Crassipes (Mart.) Solms Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1968 Life History and Evaluation of Arzama Densa, Walker, for Control of Waterhyacinth, Eichornia Crassipes (Mart.) Solms. Everardo Vogel Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Vogel, Everardo, "Life History and Evaluation of Arzama Densa, Walker, for Control of Waterhyacinth, Eichornia Crassipes (Mart.) Solms." (1968). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 1422. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/1422 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 68-10,764 VOGEL, Everardo, 1924- LIFE HISTORY AND EVALUATION OF ARZAMA DENSA WALKER, FOR CONTROL OF WATER HYACINTH, EICHORNIA CRASSIPES (MART.) SOLMS. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Ph.D., 1968 Entomology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan LIFE HISTORY AND EVALUATION OF ARZAMA DBNSA WALKER, FOR CONTROL OF WATER HYACINTH, EICHORNIA CRASSIPES (HART.) SOLMS. A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Xjouisiana state University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Entomology by Everardo Vogel M.S., Colorado State University, 1965 January, 1963 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer expresses special appreciation to Dr. A.D. Oliver, Jr., under whose supervision this study was conducted. Gratitude is expressed for assistance and con­ structive suggestions to Dr. L.D. Newsom, Head of the Entomology Department, to Dr. E.C. Burns and Dr. S.D. Hensley, professors of Entomology at L.S.U., and to Dr. W. Birchfield, research nematologist of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Special thanks are due to Dr. J.H. Roberts and to Mr. Rafael vides for the photographic illustrations and to Mrs. Joan B. Chapin for her assistance in identifying some of the insects. Finally, for her thoughtfulness, encouragement, and devoted assistance the writer expresses warm gratitude to his wife Helen. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page acknowledgment : ............................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS................................... iii LIST OF TABLES..................................... V LIST OF FIGURES................................... Vi ABSTRACT.............................................viii INTRODUCTION....................................... 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.............................. 3 Control of Water Hyacinth ................... 4 Classification of Arzama...................... 5 METHODS AND MATERIALS ............................ 9 Rearing . ■..................................... S Oviposit ion studies........................ 10 Larval periods ............................ 11 Prepupal stage ............................ 12 Pupal stage................................ 12 Adult stage................................ 12 Insect Surveys................... 12 Water hyacinth as food for Arzama densa W a l k e r ....................................... 13 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................ 16 Life History Studies.......................... 16 Oviposit ion................................ 16 Characteristics of developmental stages . 16 E g g s ....................................... 16 First instar larvae........................ 19 Second in star larvae ............... 19 Third instar larvae........................ 21 Fourth instar larvae ...................... 21 Fifth in star larvae........................ 21 Sixth in star larvae................. 25 Seventh in star larvae. ............. 25 prepupal stage ............................ 27 Pupae....................................... 27 A d u l t s ..................................... 27 iii Page Duration of developmental stages............. 29 Parasites and predators of Arzama densa Wallcer.............................. 37 Seasonal appearance of host plants .... 40 Seasonal occurrence of Arzama infestations in water hyacinth........... 45 The effect of infestation by Arzama on growth of water hyacinth.................... 49 Arzama as a possible control agent of water hyacinth..................................... 56 SUMMARY................................ 58 LITERATURE CITED................................... 62 VITA 65 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page I. Number of eggs laid by each of ten mated female Arzama densa Walker. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1967 .............................. 17 II. Measurements of Arzama densa Walker in millimeters during different developmental stages............... 32 III. Duration in days of developmental stages of Arzama densa Walker reared at 70 P. and 14 hour photoperiod. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1966-67............................ 33 IV. Duration in days of developmental stages Arzama densa Walker reared in the laboratory under ambient conditions ..... 34 V. List of predators and parasites found associated with Arzama densa Walker at Bayou Sorrel and Bayou Pigeon, Louisiana in 1967 ..................... 39 VI. Occurrence of Arzama densa Walker on water hyacinth in the Bayou Sorrel and Bayou Pigeon areas of Louisiana, 1966-1967......... 46 VII. Number of plants per 100 fed on by 0, 25, 50 and 100 larvae placed in water tanks . 53 VIII. Number of plants per 100 killed by 0, 25, 50 and 100 larvae placed in water tanks . 53 IX. Total buds produced by 100 plants infested with 0, 25, 50 and 100 larvae placed in water tanks ................................... 54 X. Dry weight of water hyacinth plants in ounces after being infested with 0, 25, 50 and 100 larvae for seven w e e k s ..............54 XI. Stages of Arzama recovered from 100 plants of four infestation levels seven weeks after infestation was begun ........................ 5 5 ’ XII. Effects of feeding by Arzama larvae on the plants as manifested in color changes of leaves and buds............................... 55 v LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Arrangement of tanks for experiment to determine the amount of injury which larvae of A. densa Walker are capable of causing to water hyacinth/ Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 19S7..... .......... 15 2. Egg masses on sections of water hyacinth l e a f ....................................... 18 3. First instar larvae feeding on pickerel weed, Pontederia cordata L ................ 20 4. Second instar larva of Arzama densa W a l k e r ..................................... 22 5. Fourth instar larva showing caudal spiracles................................... 23 6. Fifth instar larva ........................ 24 7. Field collected larva 62 mm l o n g ......... 26 8.• Empty pupal cases showing the smaller size of the male pupal skin and the four spines on the cremaster............. 28 9. Dorsal view of female (top) and male moth (bottom) of Arzama densa Walker . 30 10. Ventral view of female (top) and male moth (bottom) of Arzama densa Walker . 31 11. Arzama larva feeding on a terminal bud of water hyacinth, Eichornia erassipes (1‘lart.) Solms............................... 38 .12. Dorsal view of a tachinid fly whose larva parasitized Arzama larva ................. 41 13. Large ichneumonid wasp and the empty Arzama pupal case from which it emerged. 42 vi FIGURE Page 14. A hymenopterous pupal parasite, Eupteromalus viridescens (Walsh) (Family Pterornalidae) ............ 43 15. A hymenopterous egg parasite, Telenomus arzamae Riley, (Family Scelionidae). 44 16. ’ Monthly occurrence of Arzama densa Walker on water hyacinth in Iberville and St. Martin Parishes, Louisiana . .'. 47 17. Time of year of water hyacinth examination for Arzama larval feeding s i g n .............. 48 ABSTRACT The larvae of Arzama densa Walker (Lepidoptera-. Noctuidae) feed extensively on the crown and tore into the primary root of water hyacinth Bichornia crassipes (Mart.) Solrns. Their feeding results in the destruction of the seed stalks and apical bud. This insect has some potential as a biological control agent of this aquatic weed. Six or seven larval instars develop during a two month period. Some larvae enter diapause after the fifth instar and remain in diapause from one to four months during the winter. The insect has at least two generations each year. The insects also feed on pickerel weed, Pontederia cordata L. Seven parasites and three predators were found to attack the immature stages. The parasitic wasps, Telenomus arzamae Riley, (Scelionidae), and Anastatus sp. (Eupelmiclae) parasitize the eggs. An ichneumonid wasp, Campo letis sp. and two undetermined species of tachinia flies parasitise the larvae. A pteromalid wasp, Bupteromalus viridescens (Walsh), and an undetermined species of ichneumonid wasp parasitize the pupae. A lady beetle, Coleomegilla maculata DoGeer, (Coccinellidae) feeds on eggs and young larvae. A ground beetle, Chlaenius pulsillus viii Say# (Carabidae) and a bush cricket# Phyllopalpus pulchelus (Uhler)# (Grillidae) feed on larvae. All parasites and predators were collected in the Bayou Pigeon and Bayou Sorrel areas of Louisiana. INTRODUCTION The introduction of several species of aquatic plants into the United States has resulted in weed • problems in lakes, canals and rivers. V7ater hyacinth, Eichornia crassipes (Mart.) Solrns.,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware's Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    CHAPTER 1 DELAWARE’S WILDLIFE SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED CHAPTER 1: Delaware’s Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Delaware’s Animal Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 10 State of Knowledge of Delaware’s Species ................................................................................................... 10 Delaware’s Wildlife and SGCN - presented by Taxonomic Group .................................................................. 11 Delaware’s 2015 SGCN Status Rank Tier Definitions................................................................................. 12 TIER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mammals ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control of Water Hyacinth with Arthropods: a Review to 2000
    Biological Control of Water Hyacinth with Arthropods: a Review to 2000 M.H. Julien* Abstract Water hyacinth, native to the Amazon River, invaded the tropical world over the last century and has become an extremely serious weed. The search for biological control agents began in the early 1960s and continues today. Six arthropod species have been released around the world. They are: two weevils, Neochetina bruchi and N. eichhorniae; two moths, Niphograpta albiguttalis and Xubida infusellus; a mite Orthogalumna terebrantis; and a bug Eccritotarsus catarinensis. The mite and X. infusellus have not contributed to control and the bug is under evaluation following recent releases in Africa. The two weevils and the moth N. albiguttalis have been released in numerous infestations since the 1970s and have contributed to successful control of the weed in many locations. It is timely to assess their impact on water hyacinth and, to help in planning future strategies, to identify the factors that contribute to or mitigate against successful biological control. Although the search for new agents continues, and as a result biological control will likely be improved, this technique alone is unlikely to be successful in all of the weed’s habitats. It is important that whole-of-catchment management strategies be developed that integrate biological control with other control techniques. The aims of such strategies should be to achieve the best possible control using methods that are affordable and sustainable; hence the need to develop strategies using biological control as the base component. WATER hyacinth apparently became a problem in the sation of the weed for commercial and subsistence USA following its distribution to participants in the purposes has also been widely considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Negative Per Capita Effects of Two Invasive Plants, Lythrum Salicaria and Phalaris Arundinacea, Volume 99 on the Moth Diversity of Wetland Communities 229 Issue 3 L.L
    Online submission at: www.editorialmanager.com/ber Bulletin of Entomological Volume 99 Issue 3 Research June 2009 Bulletin of Research Papers Bulletin of K. Kishimoto-Yamada, T. Itioka, S. Sakai, K. Momose, T. Nagamitsu, H. Kaliang, P. Meleng, L. Chong, A.A. Hamid Karim, S. Yamane, M. Kato, C.A.M. Reid, T. Nakashizuka and T. Inoue Population fluctuations of light-attracted chrysomelid beetles in relation to supra-annual Entomological Research environmental changes in a Bornean rainforest 217 Entomological S.S. Schooler, P.B. McEvoy, P. Hammond and E.M. Coombs Negative per capita effects of two invasive plants, Lythrum salicaria and Phalaris arundinacea, Volume 99 on the moth diversity of wetland communities 229 Issue 3 L.L. Stelinski and L.J. Gut June 2009 Delayed mating in tortricid leafroller species: simultaneously aging both sexes prior to mating Research is more detrimental to female reproductive potential than aging either sex alone 245 Z. Lei, T.-X. Liu and S.M. Greenberg Feeding, oviposition and survival of Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) on Bt and non-Bt cottons 253 99 Issue 3 June 2009 Volume S.J. Castle, N. Prabhaker, T.J. Henneberry and N.C. Toscano Host plant influence on susceptibility of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) to insecticides 263 M. Jonsson, S.D. Wratten, K.A. Robinson and S.A. Sam The impact of floral resources and omnivory on a four trophic level food web 275 R. Kahuthia-Gathu, B. Löhr, H.M. Poehling and P.K. Mbugua Diversity, distribution and role of wild crucifers in major cabbage and kale growing areas of Kenya 287 J.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Biological Control of Invasive
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States Roy Van Driesche Bernd Blossey Mark Hoddle Suzanne Lyon Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2002-04 Department of Service August 2002 Agriculture BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES Technical Coordinators Roy Van Driesche and Suzanne Lyon Department of Entomology, University of Massachusets, Amherst, MA Bernd Blossey Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Mark Hoddle Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the authors of the individual chap- We would also like to thank the U.S. Depart- ters for their expertise in reviewing and summariz- ment of Agriculture–Forest Service, Forest Health ing the literature and providing current information Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West on biological control of the major invasive plants in Virginia, for providing funding for the preparation the Eastern United States. and printing of this publication. G. Keith Douce, David Moorhead, and Charles Additional copies of this publication can be or- Bargeron of the Bugwood Network, University of dered from the Bulletin Distribution Center, Uni- Georgia (Tifton, Ga.), managed and digitized the pho- versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, (413) tographs and illustrations used in this publication and 545-2717; or Mark Hoddle, Department of Entomol- produced the CD-ROM accompanying this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Results of a Fall and Spring Bioblitz at Grassy Pond Recreational Area, Lowndes County, Georgia
    Georgia Journal of Science Volume 77 No. 2 Scholarly Contributions from the Membership and Others Article 17 2019 Results of a Fall and Spring BioBlitz at Grassy Pond Recreational Area, Lowndes County, Georgia. Emily Cantonwine Valdosta State University, [email protected] James Nienow Valdosta State University, [email protected] Mark Blackmore Valdosta State University, [email protected] Brandi Griffin Valdosta State University, [email protected] Brad Bergstrom Valdosta State University, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.gaacademy.org/gjs Part of the Biodiversity Commons Recommended Citation Cantonwine, Emily; Nienow, James; Blackmore, Mark; Griffin, andi;Br Bergstrom, Brad; Bechler, David; Henkel, Timothy; Slaton, Christopher A.; Adams, James; Grupe, Arthur; Hodges, Malcolm; and Lee, Gregory (2019) "Results of a Fall and Spring BioBlitz at Grassy Pond Recreational Area, Lowndes County, Georgia.," Georgia Journal of Science, Vol. 77, No. 2, Article 17. Available at: https://digitalcommons.gaacademy.org/gjs/vol77/iss2/17 This Research Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ the Georgia Academy of Science. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia Journal of Science by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ the Georgia Academy of Science. Results of a Fall and Spring BioBlitz at Grassy Pond Recreational Area, Lowndes County, Georgia. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following scientists,
    [Show full text]
  • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Michigan Department of Natural Resources appreciates the valuable contributions made by many agencies, organizations and individuals during the development of this plan. In particular, we thank the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for providing funding and technical support. We also thank the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, who helped draft this Habitat Conservation Plan. Finally, we thank the members of the public who helped shape the content of this plan by offering input during public meetings and public-comment periods. lll A contribution of the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Grants Program, Michigan Project E-17-HCP and State Wildlife Grant F12AF01114. Equal Rights for Natural Resource Users The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and access to Michigan’s natural resources. Both State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, height, weight or marital status under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended (MI PA 453 and MI PA 220, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire additional information, please write the MDNR, HUMAN RESOURCES, PO BOX 30028, LANSING MI 48909-7528, or the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS, STATE OF MICHIGAN PLAZA BUILDING, 1200 6TH STREET, DETROIT MI 48226, or the OFFICE FOR DIVERSITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS, US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 4040 NORTH FAIRFAX DRIVE, ARLINGTON VA 22203. For information or assistance on this publication, contact: MDNR, WILDLIFE DIVISION, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moth Fauna at Pierce Cedar Creek Institute with Special Emphasis on the Noctuidae (S.L.) (Lepidoptera)
    The Moth Fauna at Pierce Cedar Creek Institute with Special Emphasis on the Noctuidae (s.l.) (Lepidoptera) By Robin Redemsky and John H. Wilterding Department of Natural and Physical Sciences Olivet College Olivet, MI Abstract Biological inventories of plants and animals are important data for long range habitat management and ecological monitoring in research natural areas. There are a number of ways in which the biodiversity of an area might be examined, but for the purpose of this study we attempted to only sample, and then determine as many species as we could that occur at PCCI from mid-May through mid-August. Previous work, conducted from 2006-2009, found 308 species of Lepidoptera occurring at the Institute. The current study brings the total number of identified moths from all families Lepidoptera to 433 species. Of that number, more than 242 species are presently known to occur from the largest moth superfamily of Lepidoptera, the Noctuioidea. Two species on the State of Michigan‘s list of special concern insects, Papaipema speciosissima and Meropleon ambifuscum have been discovered as a result of this survey. In addition to providing the species identities of the 433 species of moths found during this study, host associations and habitat affiliations are presented in the discussion. 2 Introduction and Background Biological inventories are an important component in the management at research natural areas and can be useful in guiding research projects that may occur within their boundaries. They can serve as the foundation for research by providing biologists with information on the composition of biotic communities and occurrence of plant and animal species that occur there.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide for the Biological Control of Weeds in Eastern North America
    US Department TECHNOLOGY of Agriculture TRANSFER FIELD GUIDE FOR THE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WEEDS IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA Rachel L. Winston, Carol B. Randall, Bernd Blossey, Philip W. Tipping, Ellen C. Lake, and Judy Hough-Goldstein Forest Health Technology FHTET-2016-04 Enterprise Team April 2017 The Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 by the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ Cover photos: Purple loosestrife (Jennifer Andreas, Washington State University Extension), Galerucella calmariensis (David Cappaert, Michigan State University, bugwood.org), tropical soda apple ((J. Jeffrey Mullahey, University of Florida, bugwood.org), Gratiana boliviana (Rodrigo Diaz, Louisiana State University), waterhyacinth (Chris Evans, University of Illinois, bugwood.org), Megamelus scutellaris (Jason D. Stanley, USDA ARS, bugwood.org), mile-a-minute weed (Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut, bugwood.org), Rhinoncomimus latipes (Amy Diercks, bugwood.org) How to cite this publication: Winston, R.L., C.B. Randall, B. Blossey, P.W. Tipping, E.C. Lake, and J. Hough-Goldstein. 2017. Field Guide for the Biological Control of Weeds in Eastern North America. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West Virginia. FHTET-2016-04. In accordance with
    [Show full text]
  • Insects and Other Arthropods That Feed on Aquatic and Wetland Plants
    Insects and Other United States Arthropods That Feed on Department of Agriculture Aquatic and Wetland Agricultural Research Plants Service Technical Bulletin 1870 October 2002 Cover: Adult salvinia weevils on Salvinia minima United States Department of Agriculture Insects and Other Agricultural Research Arthropods That Feed on Service Technical Aquatic and Wetland Bulletin 1870 Plants Ted D. Center, F. Allen Dray, Jr., Greg P. Jubinsky, and Michael J. Grodowitz Center is research entomologist and Dray is ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Plant Research Laboratory, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Jubinsky is environmental administrator, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. Grodowitz is research entomologist, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Abstract Center, T.D., F.A. Dray Jr., G.P. Jubinsky, and M.J. Grodowitz. 1999. Insects and Other Arthropods That Feed on Aquatic and Wetland Plants. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Technical Bulletin No. 1870. Plant-feeding insects play an often unappreciated but important role in the dynamics of aquatic and wetland ecosystems. Natural resource managers, scientists, and others working in such ecosystems need to be able to recognize these insects and the damage they cause. This manual provides photographs and descriptions of the life stages and feeding damage of about 50 of the most common native plant-feeding insects and naturalized biological control insects found in aquatic and wetland ecosystems in the United States. Keywords: Biological control, herbivory, insect-plant interaction, insects, phytophagous, weeds. While supplies last, single copies of this publication can be obtained at no cost from USDA–ARS, Invasive Plant Research Laboratory, 3205 College Ave., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Macrolepidopteran Moths of Turkey Run and Great Falls National Parks, Fairfax County, Virginia
    Banisteria, Number 29, pages 17-31 © 2007 Virginia Natural History Society A Survey of Macrolepidopteran Moths of Turkey Run and Great Falls National Parks, Fairfax County, Virginia Brent W. Steury 700 George Washington Memorial Parkway Turkey Run Park Headquarters McLean, Virginia 22101 John Glaser 116 Hickory Hollow Road Berkeley Springs, West Virginia 25411 Christopher S. Hobson Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 217 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 ABSTRACT National park sites at Turkey Run Park and Great Falls Park, Fairfax County, Virginia, were surveyed intermittently from April 1999 through March 2007 for macrolepidopteran moths. A total of 480 taxa from 281 genera in 13 families was documented, including the first known record of Abrostola urentis Guenée (Noctuidae) from Virginia. Eleven of the taxa recorded are included on the watch list of rare animals in Virginia. Relationships of uncommon moths to their host plants are discussed. Extensions to the known physiographic ranges and periods of adult flight activity are noted for some species. Key words: Abrostola urentis, biodiversity, Lepidoptera, moths, national parks, Potomac River Gorge, Virginia. INTRODUCTION rare species (Ward, 1881; Cohn, 2004), and determine whether any federally or state-listed rare, threatened or Although the Lepidoptera have long been esteemed endangered macro-moths occur within the study sites. among collectors of insects (Morrison, 1875; Packard, 1895; Holland, 1903), few systematic studies of the STUDY SITES moths of Virginia have been published (Skinner, 1921; Stein, 1993; Ludwig, 2000, 2001, 2002; Butler et al., The study sites are located within the Virginia 2001). Thus, there has been little dissemination of portions of Great Falls Park and in Turkey Run Park, information on the distribution of macro-moth species Fairfax County, Virginia (Fig.
    [Show full text]