DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Control Agents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Control Agents Ministry of Forests and Range Range Branch Biocontrol Development Group BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: AGAPETA ZOEGANA L. ................................................................................................................................ 4 Type of Agent: Root feeding moth ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Status: Secondary ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: APHTHONA CYPARISSIAE (KOCH) ................................................................................................................... 5 Type of agent: Root feeding flea beetle ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Status: Tertiary ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: BOTANOPHILA SENECIELLA (MEADE) .............................................................................................................. 7 Type of Agent: Seed feeding fly .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Status: Secondary ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: BRACHYPTEROLUS PULICARIUS L. .................................................................................................................. 8 Type of Agent: Seed feeding beetle ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Status: Tertiary ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: CHRYSOLINA HYPERICI (FORST.) .................................................................................................................... 9 Type of agent: Foliar feeding beetle ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Status: Tertiary ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: CHRYSOLINA QUADRIGEMINA (SUFFR.) ......................................................................................................... 10 Type of agent: Foliar feeding beetle ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Status: Tertiary ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: CHRYSOLINA VARIANS (SCHALLER) ............................................................................................................... 12 Type of agent: Foliar feeding beetle ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Status: Tertiary ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: CYPHOCLEONUS ACHATES (FAHR.) ............................................................................................................... 13 Type of agent: Root feeding beetle (weevil) ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Status: Secondary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: GALERUCELLA CALMARIENSIS (L.) ................................................................................................................ 15 Type of agent: Foliar feeding beetle ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Status: Secondary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: GALERUCELLA PUSILLA (DUFT.). .................................................................................................................. 17 Type of agent: Foliar feeding beetle ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Status: Secondary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: LARINUS MINUTUS GYLL. .......................................................................................................................... 19 Type of Agent: Seed feeding beetle (weevil) .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Status: Secondary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: LARINUS OBTUSUS GY .............................................................................................................................. 21 Type of Agent: Seed feeding beetle (weevil) .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Status: Secondary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: LARINUS PLANUS (F.) ............................................................................................................................... 23 Type of agent: Seed feeding beetle (weevil) ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 Status: Secondary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: MECINUS JANTHINUS GERMAR. .................................................................................................................. 25 Type of agent: Stem mining beetle (weevil) ......................................................................................................................................................... 25 Status: Secondary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: METZNERIA PAUCIPUNCTELLA ZELL. ............................................................................................................. 27 Type of agent: Seed feeding moth ........................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Status: Secondary on Meadow knapweed ......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Status: Tertiary on Spotted knapweed ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: MOGULONES CRUCIGER (HERBST) ............................................................................................................... 29 Type of agent: Root feeding beetle (weevil) ......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Status: Secondary ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Insecta: Lepidoptera) SHILAP Revista De Lepidopterología, Vol
    SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterología ISSN: 0300-5267 [email protected] Sociedad Hispano-Luso-Americana de Lepidopterología España Corley, M. F. V.; Rosete, J.; Gonçalves, A. R.; Nunes, J.; Pires, P.; Marabuto, E. New and interesting Portuguese Lepidoptera records from 2015 (Insecta: Lepidoptera) SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterología, vol. 44, núm. 176, diciembre, 2016, pp. 615-643 Sociedad Hispano-Luso-Americana de Lepidopterología Madrid, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=45549852010 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative SHILAP Revta. lepid., 44 (176) diciembre 2016: 615-643 eISSN: 2340-4078 ISSN: 0300-5267 New and interesting Portuguese Lepidoptera records from 2015 (Insecta: Lepidoptera) M. F. V. Corley, J. Rosete, A. R. Gonçalves, J. Nunes, P. Pires & E. Marabuto Abstract 39 species are added to the Portuguese Lepidoptera fauna and one species deleted, mainly as a result of fieldwork undertaken by the authors and others in 2015. In addition, second and third records for the country, new province records and new food-plant data for a number of species are included. A summary of recent papers affecting the Portuguese fauna is included. KEY WORDS: Insecta, Lepidoptera, distribution, Portugal. Novos e interessantes registos portugueses de Lepidoptera em 2015 (Insecta: Lepidoptera) Resumo Como resultado do trabalho de campo desenvolvido pelos autores e outros, principalmente no ano de 2015, são adicionadas 39 espécies de Lepidoptera à fauna de Portugal e uma é retirada.
    [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]
  • APHIS, State and R6 2005 FEIS, Approved Biological Control Agents
    APHIS, State and R6 2005 FEIS, Approved Biological Control Agents Agent Weed targeted Sites/ Recommendations Type Collection Notes Effectiveness Aceria malherbae Field bindweed Spotty,isolated sites, Unlikely on MITE Transfer infested leaves/galls Stunts plants, reduces (may attack USFS,doesn't do well in R6 during growing season, early flowering, reduces plant Calystegia spp.) climate,poss on Admin or Grasslands; season allows mite populations density in Texas. warm sites more time to expand. Agapeta zoegana knapweeds Widespread in OR, possible gaps; INSECT Adults with blacklights, early Reduces biomass and (prefers spotted, prefers large plants, scattered density, July-September, short adult density. also diffuse) cooler knapweed sites lifespan; or dig roots. Agrilus hyperici St. Johnswort Spotty in E OR & WA, disperses well; INSECT Sweep adults, June-July; Most infested plants die; would use on west side if could release 100 on well-established will attack plants in shade establish, prefers warm dry with large plants. undamaged by Chrysolina stems; prone to fungus on wet sites; hyperici. may want to redistribute Aphthona abdominalis leafy spurge Failed, never recovered in US INSECT Not needed Aphthona cyparissiae leafy spurge Widespread;moist, high humidity and INSECT Sweep adults June-July. Less effective than Mediterranean, dry summers with sun, A.lacertosa; when sand, rock; Avoid sites with Aphthona spp. establish depressions, N aspects, bare ground; reductions in cover, larvae need 4 months cold. Canadian density, aboveground and research sug. prefers: flowering plants root biomass occur in 3-5 >51 cm, 50-125 stems/sq m., 40-60% yrs. sand. Aphthona czwalinae leafy spurge Widespread; moist, high humidity and INSECT Sweep adults June-July.
    [Show full text]
  • Pyramica Boltoni, a New Species of Leaf-Litter Inhabiting Ant from Florida (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Dacetini)
    Deyrup: New Florida Dacetine Ant 1 PYRAMICA BOLTONI, A NEW SPECIES OF LEAF-LITTER INHABITING ANT FROM FLORIDA (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE: DACETINI) MARK DEYRUP Archbold Biological Station, P.O. Box 2057, Lake Placid, FL 33862 USA ABSTRACT The dacetine ant Pyramica boltoni is described from specimens collected in leaf litter in dry and mesic forest in central and northern Florida. It appears to be closely related to P. dietri- chi (M. R. Smith), with which it shares peculiar modifications of the clypeus and the clypeal hairs. In total, 40 dacetine species (31 native and 9 exotic) are now known from southeastern North America. Key Words: dacetine ants, Hymenoptera, Formicidae RESUMEN Se describe la hormiga Dacetini, Pyramica boltoni, de especimenes recolectados en la hoja- rasca de un bosque mésico seco en el área central y del norte de la Florida. Esta especie esta aparentemente relacionada con P. dietrichi (M. R. Smith), con la cual comparte unas modi- ficaciones peculiares del clipeo y las cerdas del clipeo. En total, hay 40 especies de hormigas Dacetini (31 nativas y 9 exoticas) conocidas en el sureste de America del Norte. The tribe Dacetini is composed of small ants discussion of generic distinctions and the evolu- (usually under 3 mm long) that generally live in tion of mandibular structure in the Dacetini. leaf litter where they prey on small arthropods, Dacetine ants show their greatest diversity in especially springtails (Collembola). The tribe has moist tropical regions. The revision of the tribe by been formally defined by Bolton (1999, 2000). Ne- Bolton (2000) includes 872 species, only 43 of arctic dacetines may be recognized by a combina- which occur in North America north of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guidecontrol of Weeds
    US Department of Agriculture FOR THE BIOLOGICALFIELD GUIDECONTROL OF WEEDS IN THE NORTHWEST Rachel Winston, Carol Bell Randall, Rosemarie De Clerck-Floate, Alec McClay, Jennifer Andreas and Mark Schwarzländer Forest Health Technology FHTET-2014-08 Enterprise Team May 2014 he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in T1995 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: Aphthona nigriscutis (R. Richard, USDA APHIS), Mecinus spp. (Bob Richard, USDA APHIS PPQ), Chrysolina hypericic quadrigemina, Eustenopus villosus (Laura Parsons & Mark Schwarzländer, University of Idaho), Cyphocleonus achates (Jennifer Andreas, Washington State University Extension) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control ASSESSING HOST RANGES FOR PARASITOIDS AND PREDATORS USED FOR CLASSICAL BIOLOGICAL CONTROL: A GUIDE TO BEST PRACTICE R. G. Van Driesche and R. Reardon, Editors Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2004-03 Department of Service September 2004 Agriculture __________________________________ ASSESSING HOST RANGES OF PARASITOIDS AND PREDATORS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION PREDICTING HOST RANGES OF PARASITOIDS AND PREDACIOUS INSECTS—WHAT ARE THE ISSUES? R. G. Van Driesche Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Science: Division of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA [email protected] GOALS FOR HOST RANGE TESTING Estimating the likely nontarget impacts of agents released to suppress invasive plants has been legally required, to one degree or another, for many decades. Similar predictions were not formally required for introductions of parasitoids or predators of pest arthropods. That is now beginning to change. This book has as its goal an exploration of how such estimates can best be made. This requires overcoming a series of problems, some logistical, some technical, some tied to an unclear theoretical framework for the activity. In this book, the editors and authors have tried to address many of these needs, in some chapters as essays on important tasks that need to be achieved, in other chapters as case history explorations of how the tasks were done in particular cases. This book will not be the final answer, but we hope it might propel the search for such an answer along. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Whether or not predicting the host ranges of parasitoids and predators is legally required varies among countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Agent Name Here)
    Pterolonche inspersa Strg. INVASIVE SPECIES ATTACKED: Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa Lam.) Spotted knapweed (C. biebersteinii auct.) TYPE OF AGENT: Root feeding moth COLLECTABILITY: Passive distribution ORIGIN: Hungary and Austria DESCRIPTION AND LIFE CYCLE Adult: Pterolonche inspersa moths measure 14-28 mm long, are grey-white coloured, and exhibit a silvery sheen on their wings. They have narrow wings spanning 1.9-2.5 cm and when at rest the wings are held close to their sides. The larvae create a 'chimney like' tube which the adults use to exit the root from June to early September while peak emergence occurs in mid-August. Mating begins immediately and 5-9 days later oviposition starts. Egg-laying occurs mainly from late afternoon through the night. An average 142 eggs are laid individually or up to six in a cluster on the underside of rosette leaves. Males live 10-12 days while females live 15-18 days. The male/female ratio is 1:1.5. Egg: The black oval eggs are 0.039 x 0.025 mm with a slight depressed centre. They incubate for 12 days at 24.60C. It is essential that the weather remain dry during this time to prevent the egg chorion (membrane around the yolk) from firming, which would prevent the larvae from emerging from the eggs. Larva: P. inspersa larvae are pearly white with inflated segments and small brown head capsules. New larvae instar mine down the root, feeding on the woody Fig. 1. P. inspersa adult (credit central portion or the soft tissue Powell et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to the Biological Control of Weeds in British Columbia
    forestryweeds7.qxd 11/14/99 7:42 PM Page 109 BEETLE Galerucella pusilla (Duftsschmid) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) DESCRIPTION AND LIFE CYCLE Adults, 2±4 mm long, and larvae very closely resemble G. calmariensis. Refer to G. calmariensis photos for identification. Adults emerge from hibernation and feed on shoot tips and young leaves in April. Mating begins immediately, with egg laying starting approximately 1 week later and continuing until the end of July. Larvae hatch 12 days after egg laying; larvae develop over the next 2 weeks feeding first on leaf and flower buds and then on all parts of the plant in the later stages of development. Mature larvae leave the plant and pupate in leaf litter and the upper portion of the soil. Adults emerge 9±11 days later. Adults that emerge before August mate and lay eggs for a 1 month period. Adults feed on foliage and hibernate in the soil before winter. WEED ATTACKED Purple loosestrife. HABITAT Egg laying is strongly curtailed by low temperatures. Tolerates the variety of habitat conditions in which purple loosestrife is found. COLLECTION, SHIPPING, AND HANDLING Collect with the sweep net technique and use standard shipping and handling procedures. RELEASE Follow standard release procedures for insects. Take precautions not to dump the beetles in the water. MONITORING Determine presence by looking for adults on foliage in April or August. REFERENCE Blossey, B. and D. Schroeder. 1991. Study of potential biological control agents of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.). Final Report. European Station Report. C.A.B. International Institute of Biological Control, Delemont, Switzerland.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 12. Biocontrol Arthropods: New Denizens of Canada's
    291 Chapter 12 Biocontrol Arthropods: New Denizens of Canada’s Grassland Agroecosystems Rosemarie De Clerck-Floate and Héctor Cárcamo Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre 5403 - 1 Avenue South, P.O. Box 3000 Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1 Abstract. Canada’s grassland ecosystems have undergone major changes since the arrival of European agriculture, ranging from near-complete replacement of native biodiversity with annual crops to the effects of overgrazing by cattle on remnant native grasslands. The majority of the “agroecosystems” that have replaced the historical native grasslands now encompass completely new associations of plants and arthropods in what is typically a mix of introduced and native species. Some of these species are pests of crops and pastures and were accidentally introduced. Other species are natural enemies of these pests and were deliberately introduced as classical biological control (biocontrol) agents to control these pests. To control weeds, 76 arthropod species have been released against 24 target species in Canada since 1951, all of which also have been released in western Canada. Of these released species, 53 (70%) have become established, with 18 estimated to be reducing target weed populations. The biocontrol programs for leafy spurge in the prairie provinces and knapweeds in British Columbia have been the largest, each responsible for the establishment of 10 new arthropod species on rangelands. This chapter summarizes the ecological highlights of these programs and those for miscellaneous weeds. Compared with weed biocontrol on rangelands, classical biocontrol of arthropod crop pests by using arthropods lags far behind, mostly because of a preference to manage crop pests with chemicals.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Rearing Procedures for Two Lepidopteran Weed Biocontrol Agents
    Scientific Notes 95 LABORATORY REARING PROCEDURES FOR TWO LEPIDOPTERAN WEED BIOCONTROL AGENTS ASHOK RAINA1*, DALE GELMAN2, CURTIS HUBER3 AND NEAL SPENCER4 1Formosan Subterranean Termite Research Unit, USDA-ARS, New Orleans, LA 70124 2Insect Biocontrol Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD 20705 3Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30333 4Plant Protection Research Unit, USDA-ARS, Ithaca, NY 14853 *Author for correspondence; e-mail: [email protected] Most noxious weeds infesting rangeland are univoltine, diapausing during the winter months exotic species (DiTomaso 2000). The genus Cen- as 3rd instars (Campobasso et al. 1994; Dunn at taurea which contains several species of knap- al. 1989). A. zoegana, which has six instars, can weed is the most abundant group in the western complete 2-3 generations per year in Europe United States (Skinner et al. 2000). In their na- (Müller et al. 1988), whereas in British Columbia, tive habitat of Eurasia, natural enemies have pre- it is restricted to only one generation (Muir & vented knapweed from becoming an economic Harris 1987). However, there is little information problem (Keane & Crawley 2002). However, in the on the nature of the diapause and no descriptions United States where they were accidentally intro- of rearing methodology for either of these species. duced more than 100 years ago, these weeds, in We report here that both species can be reared the absence of their natural enemies, have repro- from the egg to the adult stage on artificial diet duced unchecked and replaced many of the more and that diapause can be averted or shortened desirable rangeland vegetation. Biological control under our rearing conditions.
    [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]
  • United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012 Ranking Period 1
    United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012 Ranking Period 1 Water Quality Enhancement Activity – WQL01 – Biological suppression and other non-chemical techniques to manage brush, herbaceous weeds and invasive species Enhancement Description This enhancement is for the reduction of woody brush, herbaceous weeds and invasive plants using non- chemical methods. Physical methods include pulling, hoeing, mowing, mulching or other similar techniques. Biological methods include use of natural enemies either introduced or augmented. Use of chemicals is prohibited with this enhancement. Land Use Applicability Pastureland, Rangeland, Forestland Benefits Environmental benefits will be site specific. Benefits may include but are not limited to improved water quality achieved through eliminating the use of synthetic pesticides resulting in no chemicals in surface runoff or leaching into the soil profile. Air quality will see similar impacts by eliminating chemical drift and volatilization. Controlling invasive species, brush and weeds will allow native plant communities to return and improve wildlife habitat. Conditions Where Enhancement Applies This enhancement applies to all pasture, range or forest land use acres. Criteria 1. Develop a plan for managing invasive plants, brush and/or weeds that includes: a. Assessment of existing conditions, b. Identify strategies for control, c. Control methods selected, d. Monitoring and evaluation process, and e. Operation and maintenance follow up activities. 2. Implementation of this enhancement requires the use of biological and/or physical pest suppression techniques instead of pesticides. These techniques, used individually or in combination, can include activities such as: a. Grazing animals (primarily through the use of goats) to target undesirable vegetation. b.
    [Show full text]