DOCSLIB.ORG

Impacts and Options for Biodiversity-Oriented Land Managers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GYPSY MOTH (LYMANTRIA DISPAR): IMPACTS AND OPTIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY-ORIENTED LAND MANAGERS May 2004 NatureServe is a non-profit organization providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. A NatureServe Technical Report Citation: Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): Impacts and Options for Biodiversity- Oriented Land Managers. 59 pages. NatureServe: Arlington, Virginia. © 2004 NatureServe NatureServe 1101 Wilson Blvd., 15th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 www.natureserve.org Author’s Contact Information: Dr. Dale Schweitzer Terrestrial Invertebrate Zoologist NatureServe 1761 Main Street Port Norris, NJ 08349 856-785-2470 Email: [email protected] NatureServe Gypsy Moth: Impacts and Options for Biodiversity-Oriented Land Managers 2 Acknowledgments Richard Reardon (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV), Kevin Thorpe (Agricultural Research Service, Insect Chemical Ecology Laboratory, Beltsville, MD) and William Carothers (Forest Service Forest Protection, Asheville, NC) for technical review. Sandra Fosbroke (Forest Service Information Management Group, Morgantown, WV) provided many helpful editorial comments. The author also wishes to commend the Forest Service for funding so much important research and technology development into the impacts of gypsy moth and its control on non-target organisms and for encouraging development of more benign control technologies like Gypchek. Many, but by no means all, Forest Service-funded studies are cited in this document, including Peacock et al. (1998), Wagner et al. (1996), and many of the studies cited from Linda Butler and Ann Hajek. Many other studies in the late 1980s and 1990s had USDA Forest Service funding from the Appalachian Gypsy Moth Integrated Pest Management Project (AIPM). USDA Forest Service-funded work on BTK in the 1990s in particular has produced results that could not have been anticipated. Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy, and distribute these data is hereby granted under the following conditions: 1. The above copyright notice must appear in all documents and reports; 2. Any use must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes; and 3. Some data may be altered in format for analytical purposes; however, the data should be referenced using the citation above. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright. Information Warranty Disclaimer: All data are provided as is without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to these data, including, but not limited to, all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use of these data. Because the data in the NatureServe Central Databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided are for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site-specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. NatureServe Gypsy Moth: Impacts and Options for Biodiversity-Oriented Land Managers 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Basic Life History ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Gypsy Moth Habitat and Foodplant Comments .......................................................................................... 8 Population Dynamics ................................................................................................................................... 9 Short term trends ........................................................................................................................... 11 Long term trend ............................................................................................................................ 11 Native and introduced natural controls ......................................................................................... 11 Threats and Impacts of Gypsy Moth Control Practices ............................................................................. 12 Apparent Impacts from Past (1950s – 1980s) Control Programs .............................................................. 13 Impacts from biological control efforts, especially Compsilura and Entomophaga ..................... 15 Potential Impacts from More Current Control Practices ............................................................................ 18 Potential Impacts from Gypsy Moth .......................................................................................................... 19 Impacts of gypsy moth outbreaks on native Lepidoptera and other leaf eaters ........................... 21 Summary of Potential Impacts Related to Gypsy Moth ............................................................................. 24 Protection Needs ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Protecting special habitats ............................................................................................................. 24 Management Summary, Current Management Programs .......................................................................... 26 Overview of Gypsy Moth Management Practices ..................................................................................... 27 Impacts Related to Gypsy Moth and Its Management for Biodiversity Oriented Managers to Consider . 28 Defoliation and tree mortality ....................................................................................................... 28 Old growth forests ........................................................................................................................ 28 Rare plants .................................................................................................................................... 28 Native fauna.................................................................................................................................. 29 Overview of Management Methods and Options ...................................................................................... 32 Non-target issues with Dimilin® .................................................................................................. 35 Non-target issues with Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (= BTK) ........................................... 38 Non-target issues with Entomophaga maimaiga .......................................................................... 44 Evaluation of Natural Communities and Rare Species Occurrences With a History of Gypsy Moth Spraying ..................................................................................................................................................... 44 NatureServe Gypsy Moth: Impacts and Options for Biodiversity-Oriented Land Managers 4 Monitoring Methods .................................................................................................................................. 45 Monitoring Programs and Contacts ........................................................................................................... 46 Management Research Programs............................................................................................................... 46 Management Research Needs .................................................................................................................... 46 Restoration Potential.................................................................................................................................. 48 Additional Topics: Decline of Larger Summer Moths In and Near New England.................................... 49 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 52 Foreword In July 2001, Dale Schweitzer, representing NatureServe, contacted the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Protection (FHP) in Region 8 concerning their interest in providing funding to update the Gypsy Moth Element Stewardship abstract prepared by this author in 1987-1988. FHP, R-8 and the Forest Health Technology Enterprise team provided financial assistance in completing this version to be posted on the NatureServe website. The use of trade, firm or corporation names as well as remarks about insecticides or their impacts do not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or U.S. Forest Service. NatureServe Gypsy Moth: Impacts and Options for Biodiversity-Oriented
Recommended publications
  • Identification of Insect-Plant Pollination Networks for a Midwest Installation: Fort Mccoy, WI 5B

    Identification of Insect-Plant Pollination Networks for a Midwest Installation: Fort Mccoy, WI 5B

    1 - 16 - ERDC TN ERDC Center for the Advancement of Sustainability Innovations (CASI) Identification of Insect-Plant Pollination Networks for a Midwest Installation Fort McCoy, WI Irene E. MacAllister, Jinelle H. Sperry, and Pamela Bailey April 2016 Results of an insect pollinators bipartite mutualistic network analysis. Construction Engineering Construction Laboratory Research Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) solves the nation’s toughest engineering and environmental challenges. ERDC develops innovative solutions in civil and military engineering, geospatial sciences, water resources, and environmental sciences for the Army, the Department of Defense, civilian agencies, and our nation’s public good. Find out more at www.erdc.usace.army.mil. To search for other technical reports published by ERDC, visit the ERDC online library at http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/default. Center for the Advancement of ERDC TN-16-1 Sustainability Innovations (CASI) April 2016 Identification of Insect-Plant Pollination Networks for a Midwest Installation Fort McCoy, WI Irene E. MacAllister and Jinelle H. Sperry U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) 2902 Newmark Dr. Champaign, IL 61822 Pamela Bailey U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory (EL) 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Final Report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Under Center for the Advancement of Sustainability Innovations (CASI) Program Monitored by U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL) 2902 Newmark Drive Champaign, IL 61822 ERDC TN-16-1 ii Abstract Pollinating insects and pollinator dependent plants are critical compo- nents of functioning ecosystems yet, for many U.S.
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5

    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,
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves

    Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves

    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
  • Butterflies and Moths of Gwinnett County, Georgia, United States

    Butterflies and Moths of Gwinnett County, Georgia, United States

    Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail
  • Saturniidae) of Rio Grande Do Sul State, Brazil

    Saturniidae) of Rio Grande Do Sul State, Brazil

    214214 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 63(4), 2009, 214-232 ARSENURINAE AND CERATOCAMPINAE (SATURNIIDAE) OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL STATE, BRAZIL ANDERSONN SILVEIRA PRESTES Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] FABRÍCIO GUERREIRO NUNES Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] ELIO CORSEUIL Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] AND ALFRED MOSER Avenida Rotermund 1045, 93030-000 São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] ABSTRACT. The present work aims to offer a list of Arsenurinae and Ceratocampinae species known to occur in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The list is based on bibliographical data, newly collected specimens, and previously existing museum collections. The Arsenurinae are listed in the following genera (followed by number of species): Arsenura Duncan, 1841 (4), Caio Travassos & Noronha, 1968 (1), Dysdaemonia Hübner, [1819] (1), Titaea Hübner, [1823] (1), Paradaemonia Bouvier, 1925 (2), Rhescyntis Hübner, [1819] (1), Copiopteryx Duncan, 1841 (2). Cerato- campinae are listed in Adeloneivaia Travassos, 1940 (3), Adelowalkeria Travassos, 1941 (2), Almeidella Oiticica, 1946 (2), Cicia Oiticica, 1964 (2), Citheronia Hübner, [1819] (4), Citioica Travassos & Noronha, 1965 (1), Eacles Hübner, [1819] (4), Mielkesia Lemaire, 1988 (1), Neocarne- gia Draudt, 1930 (1), Oiticella Travassos & Noronha, 1965 (1), Othorene Boisduval, 1872 (2), Procitheronia Michener, 1949 (1), Psilopygida Michener, 1949 (2), Scolesa Michener, 1949 (3) and Syssphinx Hübner, [1819] (1).
  • Hawk Moths of North America Is Richly Illustrated with Larval Images and Contains an Abundance of Life History Information

    Hawk Moths of North America Is Richly Illustrated with Larval Images and Contains an Abundance of Life History Information

    08 caterpillars EUSA/pp244-273 3/9/05 6:37 PM Page 244 244 TULIP-TREE MOTH CECROPIA MOTH 245 Callosamia angulifera Hyalophora cecropia RECOGNITION Frosted green with shiny yellow, orange, and blue knobs over top and sides of body. RECOGNITION Much like preceding but paler or Dorsal knobs on T2, T3, and A1 somewhat globular and waxier in color with pale stripe running below set with black spinules. Paired knobs on A2–A7 more spiracles on A1–A10 and black dots on abdomen cylindrical, yellow; knob over A8 unpaired and rounded. lacking contrasting pale rings. Yellow abdominal Larva to 10cm. Caterpillars of larch-feeding Columbia tubercle over A8 short, less than twice as high as broad. Silkmoth (Hyalophora columbia) have yellow-white to Larva to 6cm. Sweetbay Silkmoth (Callosamia securifera) yellow-pink instead of bright yellow knobs over dorsum similar in appearance but a specialist on sweet bay. Its of abdomen and knobs along sides tend to be more white than blue (as in Cecropia) and are yellow abdominal tubercle over A8 is nearly three times as set in black bases (see page 246). long as wide and the red knobs over thorax are cylindrical (see page 246). OCCURRENCE Urban and suburban yards and lots, orchards, fencerows, woodlands, OCCURRENCE Woodlands and forests from Michigan, southern Ontario, and and forests from Canada south to Florida and central Texas. One generation with mature Massachusetts to northern Florida and Mississippi. One principal generation northward; caterpillars from late June through August over most of range. two broods in South with mature caterpillars from early June onward.
  • Butterflies and Moths of Cibola County, New Mexico, United States

    Butterflies and Moths of Cibola County, New Mexico, United States

    Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail
  • Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats a Symposium

    Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats a Symposium

    Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats A Symposium y Edited b Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-145 DISCLAIMER The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. Papers published in these proceedings were submitted by authors in electronic media. Some editing was done to ensure a consistent format. Authors are responsible for content and accuracy of their individual papers and the quality of illustrative materials. Cover photos: Large photo: Craig W. Stihler; small left photo: Joseph S. Johnson; small middle photo: Craig W. Stihler; small right photo: Matthew J. Clement. December 2011 Southern Research Station 200 W.T. Weaver Blvd. Asheville, NC 28804 Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats: A Symposium Athens, Georgia March 9–10, 2010 Edited by: Susan C. Loeb U.S Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station Michael J. Lacki University of Kentucky Darren A. Miller Weyerhaeuser NR Company Sponsored by: Forest Service Bat Conservation International National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Offield Family Foundation ContEntS Preface . v Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats: An Introduction . 1 Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller Distribution and Status of Eastern Big-eared Bats (Corynorhinus Spp .) . 13 Mylea L. Bayless, Mary Kay Clark, Richard C. Stark, Barbara S.
  • The Saddled Prominent Complex in Maine with Special Consideration of Eastern Maine Conditions

    The Saddled Prominent Complex in Maine with Special Consideration of Eastern Maine Conditions

    Maine State Library Digital Maine Forest Service Documents Maine Forest Service 3-1-1978 The Saddled Prominent Complex in Maine with Special Consideration of Eastern Maine Conditions Maine Forest Service Entomology Division Richard G. Dearborn Henry Trial JR Dave Struble Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/for_docs Recommended Citation Maine Forest Service; Dearborn, Richard G.; Trial, Henry JR; and Struble, Dave, "The Saddled Prominent Complex in Maine with Special Consideration of Eastern Maine Conditions" (1978). Forest Service Documents. 278. https://digitalmaine.com/for_docs/278 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Maine Forest Service at Digital Maine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Forest Service Documents by an authorized administrator of Digital Maine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SADDLED PROMINENT COMPLEX IN MAINE with special consideration of Eastern Maine conditions 1974-1977 by R. G. Dearborn H. Trial, Jr. D. Struble M. Devine ENTOMOLOGY DIVISION Maine Department of Conservation TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 2 Bureau of Forestry Augusta, Maine MARCH 1978 THE SADDLED PROMINENT COMPLEX IN MAINE With special consideration of Eastern Maine Conditions 1974-1977 Richard Dearborn, Henry T-rial, Jr. , Dave Struble, Michael Devine Abstract Both aesthetically and economically, hardwood stands form a very important resource within the State of Maine. When a large, severe and unprecedented series of outbreaks of the saddled prominent and its allies began their rise in 1969 the concern of forest entomologists was drawn to the problem. Attempts to define the problem were divided into two categories. The first involved estab­ lishing a series of plots to measure the impact of the insect on the host re­ source.
  • Butterflies and Moths of San Bernardino County, California

    Butterflies and Moths of San Bernardino County, California

    Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail
  • NEWSLETTER• of the MICHIGAN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

    NEWSLETTER• of the MICHIGAN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

    NEWSLETTER• of the MICHIGAN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY Volume 38, Numbers 4 December, 1993 Impacts ofBt on Non-Target Lepidoptera John W. Peacock, David L. Wagner, and Dale F. Schweitzer USDA Forest Service, Hamden, CT; University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT; and The Nature Conservancy, Port Norris, NT, respectively Introduction gypsy moth in Oregon. Sample et a1. ing attempts bycertain birds. In another (1 993) have likewise reported a signifi­ study, Bellocq et al. (1992) showed that Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner var. cant reduction inspecies abundance and the use of Btk increased immigration kurstaki (Btk) is one of the pesticides richness in non-target Lepidoptera in rates andcaused d ietary shifts inshrews. most commonly employed against lepi­ field studies in eastern West Virginia. We report here a summary of our dopteran forest pests. In the eastern U.S., James et al. (1993) haveshown thatBtk is studies aimed at determining the effect where millionsofhectares of deciduous toxic to late, but not early, instar larvae of Btko n non-target Lepidoptera inboth forest have been defoliated by the ''Eu­ of the beneficial cinnabar moth, Tyria laboratoryand field studies. Laboratory ropean" gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar jacobaeae (L.). bioassays were conducted on larvae in (L.), Btk has been used extenSively to In addition to its direct effects on seven families of native eastern U.S. slow the spread of this pest and to re­ native Lepidoptera, Btk can indirectly Macrolepidoptera. Field studies were duce defoliation. In 1992 alone, over affect other animals that rely on lepi­ carried out in Rockbridge County, Vir­ 300,000 ha were treated with Btk, in­ dopterous larvae as a primary source of ginia, and were the first to evaluate non­ cluding gypsy moth suppression activi­ food.
  • Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometro

    Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometro

    Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimalonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, & Noctuoidea) Biodiversity Inventory of the University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Lab Hugo L. Kons Jr. Last Update: June 2001 Abstract A systematic check list of 489 species of Lepidoptera collected in the University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Lab is presented, including 464 species in the superfamilies Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimalonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, and Noctuoidea. Taxa recorded in Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, and Thyrididae are also included. Moth taxa were collected at ultraviolet lights, bait, introduced Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), and by netting specimens. A list of taxa recorded feeding on P. notatum is presented. Introduction The University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Laboratory (NATL) contains 40 acres of natural habitats maintained for scientific research, conservation, and teaching purposes. Habitat types present include hammock, upland pine, disturbed open field, cat tail marsh, and shallow pond. An active management plan has been developed for this area, including prescribed burning to restore the upland pine community and establishment of plots to study succession (http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/natl.htm). The site is a popular collecting locality for student and scientific collections. The author has done extensive collecting and field work at NATL, and two previous reports have resulted from this work, including: a biodiversity inventory of the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea & Papilionoidea) of NATL (Kons 1999), and an ecological study of Hermeuptychia hermes (F.) and Megisto cymela (Cram.) in NATL habitats (Kons 1998). Other workers have posted NATL check lists for Ichneumonidae, Sphecidae, Tettigoniidae, and Gryllidae (http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/insect.htm).