DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment ID-2020-23-1 May 6, 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment ID-2020-23-1 May 6, 2020 Idaho Environmental Assessment Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket Suppression Program United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Environmental Assessment ID-2020-23-1 May 6, 2020 Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program for Southern Idaho United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Idaho State Office 9118 West Blackeagle Drive Boise, Idaho 83709-1572 (208) 373-1600 1 Idaho Environmental Assessment Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket Suppression Program Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]. Persons With Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by USDA over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and other wildlife— if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended label practices for the use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers 2 Idaho Environmental Assessment Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket Suppression Program Table of Contents I. Need for Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................................5 A. Purpose and Need Statement ........................................................................................................................5 B. Background Discussion ...................................................................................................................................6 C. About This Process .........................................................................................................................................8 Scoping and Input from the Public .........................................................................................................................8 II. Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................................9 A. Alternative 1: No Suppression Program ..................................................................................................... 10 B. Alternative 2: Insecticide Applications at Conventional Rates ................................................................... 10 C. Alternative 3: Reduced Agent Area Treatments (RAATS) with Adaptive Management Strategy – (Preferred Alternative) .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Experimental Treatments included in RAATS - (Research purposes only) .......................................................... 12 III. Methodologies............................................................................................................................................. 14 A. Land Administration .................................................................................................................................... 14 1. Bureau of Land Management ................................................................................................................. 15 2. Forest Service .......................................................................................................................................... 15 B. Documenting Rangeland Grasshopper Suppression Programs ................................................................... 15 C. Treatment Strategy ..................................................................................................................................... 16 1. Basis for Decision to Treat....................................................................................................................... 16 2. Selection of Treatment............................................................................................................................ 16 3. Multiple Applications .............................................................................................................................. 18 4. Methods of Application ........................................................................................................................... 18 5. Discrimination Based on Vegetation Type .............................................................................................. 18 6. Protective Measures in Addition to Annual Guidelines .......................................................................... 19 IV. Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................. 20 A. Description of Affected Environment .......................................................................................................... 20 B. Site-Specific Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 23 1. Human Health ......................................................................................................................................... 23 2. Non-target Species .................................................................................................................................. 24 3. Socioeconomic Issues .............................................................................................................................. 26 4. Cultural Resources and Events ................................................................................................................ 26 5. Special Considerations for Certain Populations ...................................................................................... 27 V. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................................... 28 3 Idaho Environmental Assessment Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket Suppression Program A. Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives ...................................................................................... 28 1. No Suppression Program Alternative ...................................................................................................... 28 2. Insecticide Applications at Conventional Rates Alternative ................................................................... 29 3. Reduced Agent Area Treatments (RAATs) with Adaptive Management Strategy Alternative (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................................................................................................... 47 B. Other Environmental Considerations .......................................................................................................... 54 1. Cumulative Impacts, Synergistic Effects, Inert Ingredients, and Metabolites ........................................ 54 2. Executive Order No. 12898, Federal Actions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Integration of Entomopathogenic Fungi Into IPM Programs: Studies Involving Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) Affecting Horticultural Crops
    insects Review Integration of Entomopathogenic Fungi into IPM Programs: Studies Involving Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) Affecting Horticultural Crops Kim Khuy Khun 1,2,* , Bree A. L. Wilson 2, Mark M. Stevens 3,4, Ruth K. Huwer 5 and Gavin J. Ash 2 1 Faculty of Agronomy, Royal University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 2696, Dangkor District, Phnom Penh, Cambodia 2 Centre for Crop Health, Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia; [email protected] (B.A.L.W.); [email protected] (G.J.A.) 3 NSW Department of Primary Industries, Yanco Agricultural Institute, Yanco, New South Wales 2703, Australia; [email protected] 4 Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (NSW Department of Primary Industries and Charles Sturt University), Wagga Wagga, New South Wales 2650, Australia 5 NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wollongbar Primary Industries Institute, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2477, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +61-46-9731208 Received: 7 September 2020; Accepted: 21 September 2020; Published: 25 September 2020 Simple Summary: Horticultural crops are vulnerable to attack by many different weevil species. Fungal entomopathogens provide an attractive alternative to synthetic insecticides for weevil control because they pose a lesser risk to human health and the environment. This review summarises the available data on the performance of these entomopathogens when used against weevils in horticultural crops. We integrate these data with information on weevil biology, grouping species based on how their developmental stages utilise habitats in or on their hostplants, or in the soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Methionine Sulfoxide Reductases in Fungi and Conservation of the Free- 2 Methionine-R-Sulfoxide Reductase in Multicellular Eukaryotes
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.26.433065; this version posted February 27, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Distribution of methionine sulfoxide reductases in fungi and conservation of the free- 2 methionine-R-sulfoxide reductase in multicellular eukaryotes 3 4 Hayat Hage1, Marie-Noëlle Rosso1, Lionel Tarrago1,* 5 6 From: 1Biodiversité et Biotechnologie Fongiques, UMR1163, INRAE, Aix Marseille Université, 7 Marseille, France. 8 *Correspondence: Lionel Tarrago ([email protected]) 9 10 Running title: Methionine sulfoxide reductases in fungi 11 12 Keywords: fungi, genome, horizontal gene transfer, methionine sulfoxide, methionine sulfoxide 13 reductase, protein oxidation, thiol oxidoreductase. 14 15 Highlights: 16 • Free and protein-bound methionine can be oxidized into methionine sulfoxide (MetO). 17 • Methionine sulfoxide reductases (Msr) reduce MetO in most organisms. 18 • Sequence characterization and phylogenomics revealed strong conservation of Msr in fungi. 19 • fRMsr is widely conserved in unicellular and multicellular fungi. 20 • Some msr genes were acquired from bacteria via horizontal gene transfers. 21 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.26.433065; this version posted February 27, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY and MANAGEMENT of MORMON CRICKET, Anabrus Simplex Haldeman
    • ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF MORMON CRICKET, Anabrus simplex Haldeman Final report to the National Park Service submitted by John Capinera and Charles MacVean, Department of Entomology Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 April, 1987 INTRODUCTION The Mormon cricket, Anabrus simplex Haldeman, is a flightless, shield-backed grasshopper which occurs primarily in the Great Plains and sagebrush-dominated regions of the United States and Canada. It is a gregarious insect and is probably best known for its huge migratory aggregations, or bands. These typically develop in permanent breeding areas in broken, mountain habitat and then spread, by walking, to surrounding areas, including agricultural lowlands and valleys (Wakeland and Shull 1 936). Dating to the early encounter in 1848 between hordes of this insect and Mormon settlers in the Salt Lake Valley - from which the name "Mormon crickets" stems - sporadic outbreaks of crickets have caused severe damage to crops, especially wheat and alfalfa (Cowan 1929, Wakeland 1959, Evans 1985). Though crickets normally feed on a wide diversity of rangeland plants, crops are highly preferred (Swain 1944). Homesteaders were forced to abandon farming in northwest Colorado due to the yearly invasions of crickets during the 1920's. Damaging numbers of crickets persisted into the late thirties, with the peak of the epidemic occurring in 1938. Damage by crickets to rangeland plants has been much more difficult to assess than crop damage (Swain 1940, 1944). While crickets do feed on range grasses, particularly the inflorescences, they clearly prefer broad-leaf, succulent species of lesser forage value when these are present (Cowan 1929, Swain 1 944, Wakeland 1959).
    [Show full text]
  • Mormon Crickets
    For More Information: MORMON CRICKETS | THE PROBLEM Robert Srygley, Insect Ecologist 406-433-9420 • [email protected] Identication utbreaks of the Mormon cricket (Anabrus simplex) continue to periodically threaten This brochure is intended to USDA-ARS Northern Plains Olarge parts of the western United States. Mormon cricket range help those working in the field Mormon cricket outbreaks originate on rangeland Agricultural Research Laboratory to idenfy Mormon crickets both to help predict and and can lead to the formation of huge migratory bands that move into and Agricultural Systems Research Unit damage crop systems. prevent possible outbreaks and NPARL Pest Management Research Unit to aid research efforts. ID ps Contrary to their name, Mormon crickets are not crickets, but flightless, can be found inside. (Look-a- shield-backed katydids. Although they do not fly, they are highly mobile and likes are also noted below.) capable of migrating great distances. They move in wide bands by walking or United States Department of Agriculture jumping, and may devour much of the forage and crops in their path. Agricultural Research Service The Economics Migrating bands of nymphs or adults can completely destroy fields of sugarbeets, small grains and alfalfa as well as garden vegetables. Because of their migratory habit, 1500 N. Central Ave., Sidney, Montana 59270 bands of Mormon crickets may be A massive Mormon cricket outbreak from 1998-2012 – with a major surge in present in a parcular site for no acreage infested in 2003/2004 – was one of the most severe on record and www.ars.usda.gov/pa/nparl • 406-433-2020 • fax 406-433-5038 more than three or four days.
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2013/150015 Al 10 October 2013 (10.10.2013) P O P C T
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization I International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2013/150015 Al 10 October 2013 (10.10.2013) P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, C07D 209/54 (2006.01) A01N 43/38 (2006.01) BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, C07D 471/10 (2006.01) A01N 43/90 (2006.01) DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IS, JP, KE, KG, KM, KN, KP, (21) International Application Number: KR, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LY, MA, MD, PCT/EP2013/056915 ME, MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, (22) International Filing Date: NO, NZ, OM, PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, 2 April 2013 (02.04.2013) RW, SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, (25) Filing Language: English ZM, ZW. (26) Publication Language: English (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every (30) Priority Data: kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, 12162982.8 3 April 2012 (03.04.2012) EP GM, KE, LR, LS, MW, MZ, NA, RW, SD, SL, SZ, TZ, UG, ZM, ZW), Eurasian (AM, AZ, BY, KG, KZ, RU, TJ, (71) Applicant: SYNGENTA PARTICIPATIONS AG TM), European (AL, AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, [CH/CH]; Schwarzwaldallee 215, CH-4058 Basel (CH).
    [Show full text]
  • MORMON CRICKETS in NORTH AMERICA 3 Extensively Before Caudell's Revision of 1907 (25), When He Placed It in Synonymy
    ""'1.0 I~~ 1.1 UI.l1 1t"1~ '"'' 1.4 ~" 1.6 "'ICROCOP'I RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART N"110S"L BUREl.C or SlAN\)-'ROS-1963-~ N,,1I\lN-.l BURr-.u Of Sl-'IIO-'ROS-1963-A . 'i PREFACE Mormon crickets are found only in western North America. They plagued the white man in the West when he grazed his first herds of livestock and cleared small tracts of land to raise his first crops. These insects have continued. to affect adversely the economy, development, and agricultural production of the areas they infest. Mormon crickets are omnivorous feeders. Theil' d~l.mage vades from holes in the leaves to complete destruction of large plants. They eat almost any green vegetation. Although they usually completely destroy sllcculent gardens and truck crops they invade, these crickets cause the greatest total loss to range l)lants. One major outbreak in the United States that began in 1931 lasted 17 years. In 1938, at the peak oC the infestation nearly 19 million acres in 11 States were known to be infested, with crop 10Rses 'in these States totalhw more than $700,000. Research on c{llltrol methocls and materjals have been abun­ dantly fruitful. For a long period, bal'riers were Telied upon to halt migrating bands of the crickets, but the barriers were ex­ I; • pensive to build and. mah~t~dn amI wel,:e ?nly partly effecti.ve. ,,' ']'11e development of ll1secticlc1es made pOSSible the use of balts. They proved so practical, economical. and effective that Mormon cricket control is now mainly directed to destroying small out­ breaks before they can expand to economic importance.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 April Wildlife Express
    RR Volume 18 Issue 8 April 2005 CrazyCrazy CCricketsrickets DAH I O F I S H E M & GA Let’s Look at... the Mormon Cricket You’re hiking along a trail in the foothills of southwest Idaho, and you notice movement in the bushes. Out jumps what looks to be the largest grasshopper you’ve ever seen. Your first thought might be, “Man, what are these grasshoppers eating? They’re huge!” More and more of the bold bugs make their way on to the trail. Your next thought might be, “Man! I need to get moving!” Not to worry, these large bugs won’t eat you, but they may eat their “brothers” that you stepped on! The common name of the insect photo courtesy of Agricultural Research Service you’re seeing is Mormon cricket. It is not a grasshopper or a cricket. It is a katydid. Grasshoppers, crickets and katydids are all related but scientifically are classified differently. Mormon crickets have the scientific name of Anabrus simplex. These large, flightless insects can be found throughout western North America. The dark brown-to-black insects are about the size of an adult’s thumb. They have long hind legs that help with crawling and jumping. Their long hair-like antennae are about the same length of their bodies. Male Mormon crickets are peanut-shaped with a rounded end. Females tend to be longer with a sword-like spear on their end that is used for injecting eggs into the dirt. Each female will lay about 86 eggs in the summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Metarhizium Anisopliae Challenges Immunity and Demography of Plutella Xylostella
    insects Article Metarhizium Anisopliae Challenges Immunity and Demography of Plutella xylostella 1, 1, 1 2 1 Junaid Zafar y, Rana Fartab Shoukat y , Yuxin Zhang , Shoaib Freed , Xiaoxia Xu and Fengliang Jin 1,* 1 Laboratory of Bio-Pesticide Creation and Application of Guangdong Province, College of Plant Protection, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; [email protected] (J.Z.); [email protected] (R.F.S.); [email protected] (Y.Z.); [email protected] (X.X.) 2 Laboratory of Insect Microbiology and Biotechnology, Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 66000, Pakistan; [email protected] * Correspondence: jfl[email protected]; Tel.: +86-208-528-0203 These authors contributed equally to this work. y Received: 28 July 2020; Accepted: 9 October 2020; Published: 13 October 2020 Simple Summary: The diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, is a destructive pest of cruciferous crops worldwide. Integrated pest management (IPM) strategies, largely involve the use chemical pesticides which are harmful for the environment and human health. In this study, the virulence of three species of entomopathogenic fungi were tested. Metarhizium anisopliae proved to be the most effective by killing more than 90% of the population. Based on which the fungus was selected to study the host-pathogen immune interactions. More precisely, after infection, superoxide dismutase (SOD) and phenoloxidase (PO), two major enzymes involved in immune response, were studied at different time points. The fungus gradually weakened the enzyme activities as the time progressed, indicating that physiological attributes of host were adversely affected. The expression of immune-related genes (Defensin, Spaetzle, Cecropin, Lysozyme, and Hemolin) varied on different time points.
    [Show full text]
  • Life History, Habits, and Control of the Mormon Cricket'
    TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. 161 DECEMBER, 1929 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D. C. LIFE HISTORY, HABITS, AND CONTROL OF THE MORMON CRICKET' Hy FRANK T. COWAN '' Junior lintuiiiolui/iët, Division of Cereal and Foraye Insovt Bureau of Entomologii CONTENTS rage I'age Introduction 1 Description of stages—Continued. Historioiil 2 Adult 12 iioouraphlcal distribution 3 Molting _- 12 Habitat 4 Reactions 14 Economic importance 4 Food plants 16 I*]xtent of infestations T» Cannibalism 16 Nature of injury 5 Migrations 17 Seasonal liistory (i Reproduction 18 Experiments in rearing 7 Natural control 21 Description of stages 8 Predatory enemies J^l Egg 8 Insect parasites -2 First instar - 0 Artiflcial control 23 Second instar 10 Byan masli 2;^ Third instar 10 Raxriers 24 Eourtll initar 10 .\rseiiites 25 I'"ifth instar 11 Summary 26 Sixtli instar 11 Literature cited 28 Seventh instar 11 INTRODUCTION The work reported in this bulletin was begun in Hot Springs County, Wyo., in 1923 by F. W. Boyd.-' Experimental work dealing with the life history, habits, and control of the Mormon cricket was carried on by Mr. Boyd in that section until 1924. Little or no work was done in 1925, but in 1926 and 1927 the writer did similar work in Lake and Sanders Counties in western Montana. As a sequel to this experimental work a control campaign was instituted by the State of Montana in 1927, in cooperation with these counties. So highly successful was it that another campaign, based on its results, was carried on by the writer in the spring of 1928 in Iloutt and Moffat Counties, in northwestern Coloraclo.
    [Show full text]
  • Mode of Infection of Metarhizium Spp. Fungus and Their Potential As Biological Control Agents
    Journal of Fungi Review Mode of Infection of Metarhizium spp. Fungus and Their Potential as Biological Control Agents Kimberly Moon San Aw and Seow Mun Hue * School of Science, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, 47500 Subang Jaya, Malaysia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +603-55146116 Academic Editor: David S. Perlin Received: 24 February 2017; Accepted: 1 June 2017; Published: 7 June 2017 Abstract: Chemical insecticides have been commonly used to control agricultural pests, termites, and biological vectors such as mosquitoes and ticks. However, the harmful impacts of toxic chemical insecticides on the environment, the development of resistance in pests and vectors towards chemical insecticides, and public concern have driven extensive research for alternatives, especially biological control agents such as fungus and bacteria. In this review, the mode of infection of Metarhizium fungus on both terrestrial and aquatic insect larvae and how these interactions have been widely employed will be outlined. The potential uses of Metarhizium anisopliae and Metarhizium acridum biological control agents and molecular approaches to increase their virulence will be discussed. Keywords: biopesticide; Metarhizium anisopliae; Metarhizium acridum; biological vectors; agricultural pests; mechanism of infection 1. Introduction Pests such as locusts, grasshoppers, termites, and cattle ticks have caused huge economic and agricultural losses in many parts of the world such as China, Japan, Australia, Malaysia, Africa, Brazil, and Mexico [1–8]. Vectors of malaria, dengue, and Bancroftian filariasis, which are Aedes spp., Anopheles spp., and Culex spp. respectively, have been responsible for hospitalization and death annually [9,10]. To eliminate these pests and vectors, chemical insecticides have been commonly used as the solution.
    [Show full text]
  • I MAPPING CIRCADIAN OUTPUT PATHWAYS in Neurospora Crassa
    MAPPING CIRCADIAN OUTPUT PATHWAYS IN Neurospora crassa A Dissertation by LINDSAY DANIELLE BENNETT Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Deborah Bell-Pedersen Committee Members, Daniel Ebbole Wayne Versaw Terry Thomas Head of Department, Thomas McKnight December 2013 Major Subject: Microbiology Copyright 2013 Lindsay D. Bennett i ABSTRACT Circadian clocks are ubiquitous in eukaryotic organisms, providing the ability to anticipate regularly occurring stressful environmental changes. The molecular clock leads to a change in physiology of the organism such that it is prepared for predictable changes. While the external signals detected by the clock, as well as the molecular mechanism of clock components have been extensively characterized, less is known about how the clock manifests time of day information to the organism as a whole. Our lab has focused on identifying output pathways from the clock, using the model organism Neurospora crassa. We have previously demonstrated the circadian regulation of the conserved Mitogen Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) OS-2 pathway, a homolog of the mammalian p38 pathway, and necessary for maintaining osmotic homeostasis in Neurospora. I present data indicating the circadian regulation of the 2 other MAPK pathways in Neurospora, the mammalian ERK1 and ERK2 like MAPKs, MAK-1 and MAK-2, and show that they are outputs of the clock. Furthermore, I identified around 500 genes that are mis-regulated when MAK-1 is deleted; greater than 25% of those genes are predicted to be clock- controlled.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control of Desert Locust (Schistocerca Gregaria Forskål)
    CAB Reviews 2021 16, No. 013 Biological control of desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria Forskål) Eunice W. Githae* and Erick K. Kuria Address: Department of Biological Sciences, Chuka University, P.O. Box 109-60400, Chuka, Kenya. *Correspondence: Eunice W. Githae. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Received: 03 September 2020 Accepted: 05 January 2021 doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR202116013 The electronic version of this article is the definitive one. It is located here: http://www.cabi.org/cabreviews © CAB International 2021 (Online ISSN 1749-8848) Abstract Desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria Forskål) is one of the most serious agricultural pests in the world due to its voracity, speed of reproduction, and range of flight. We discuss the current state of knowledge on its biological control using microorganisms and botanical extracts. Metarhizium flavoviride was among the first fungus to be recognized as a bio-control agent against desert locust in the laboratory and field conditions. Nevertheless, its oil formulation adversely affected non- target organisms, hence led to further research on other microorganisms. Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum (syn. Metarhizium acridum) is an environmentally safer bio-pesticide that has no measurable impact on non-target organisms. However, there are various shortcomings associated with its use in desert locust control as highlighted in this review. Bacterial pathogens studied were from species of Bacillus, Pseudomonas, and Serratia. Botanical extracts of 27 plant species were tested against the locust but showed varied results. Azadirachta indica and Melia volkensii were the most studied plant species, both belonging to family Meliaceae, which is known to have biologically active limonoids.
    [Show full text]