DOCSLIB.ORG

Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a Cooperative Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a Cooperative Approach Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Volume II of IV Chapters 1-8 and Appendixes A-E United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Newtown Square, PA NA–MB–01–12 August 2012 Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Type of Statement: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Area covered by statement: The 50 United States and District of Columbia Lead agency: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Responsible official: James R. Hubbard, Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry Sidney R. Yates Federal Building 201 14th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20250 For more information: Noel F. Schneeberger, Forest Health Program Leader Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry 11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200 Newtown Square, PA 19073 610–557–4121 [email protected] Joint lead agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Responsible official: Rebecca A. Bech, Deputy Administrator for Plant Protection and Quarantine 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 302-E Washington, DC 20250 For more information: Julie S. Spaulding, Gypsy Moth Program Coordinator Emergency and Domestic Programs 4700 River Road, Unit 137 Riverdale, MD 20737 301–851–2184 [email protected] Abstract: The USDA Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are proposing an addition to the gypsy moth management program that was described in the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement—Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach—and chosen in the 1996 Record of Decision. The agencies are proposing these new treatment options: adding the insecticide tebufenozide, or adding the insecticide tebufenozide and other new treatment(s) that may become available in the future to manage gypsy moths, provided that the other treatment(s) pose(s) no greater risk to human health and nontarget organisms than are disclosed in this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the currently approved treatments and tebufenozide. The addition of tebufenozide or other new treatment(s) to the list of approved treatment options does not change any program or administrative requirements identified in the 1995 EIS. Those requirements include any consultations required and the need to conduct site-specific environmental analyses in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and agency regulations. The complete Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement consists of four volumes: Volume I Summary Volume II Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative Chapter 3. Affected Environment Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Chapter 5. Preparers and Contributors Chapter 6. Mailing List Chapter 7. Glossary Chapter 8. References Appendix A. Gypsy Moth Treatments and Application Technology Appendix B. Gypsy Moth Management Program Appendix C. Scoping and Public Involvement Appendix D. Plant List Appendix E. Biology, History, and Control Efforts for the Gypsy Moth Volume III Appendix F. Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki (B.t.k.) Risk Assessment Appendix G. Gypchek (Nucleopolyhedrovirus) Risk Assessment Appendix H. Disparlure Risk Assessment Appendix I. Diflubenzuron Risk Assessment Volume IV Appendix J. Tebufenozide Risk Assessment Appendix K. DDVP (Dichlorvos) Risk Assessment Appendix L. Gypsy Moth Risk Assessment Appendix M. Risk Comparison All volumes can be viewed and downloaded at http://na.fs.fed.us/pubs/detail.cfm?id=5251. The record of decision is a separate document published and available 30 days or longer after the notice of availability for the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is published in the Federal Register (40 CFR Part 1506.10). Volume II Photo Credits Figure 1-1. (UGA1398104) USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure 1-2. (UGA1929085) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure 1-3. (UGA0488025) John H. Ghent, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org Figure 1-4. Left (UGA1241014) and Right (UGA1241013) John H. Ghent, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org Figure 1-5 (UGA3948096) William M. Ciesla, Forest Health Management International, www.forestryimages.org Figure 2-1. (UGA1275077) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure 3-1. (UGA1275033) USDA Forest Service Archives; www.forestryimages.org Figure 3-3. USDA Agricultural Research Service, www.ars.usda.gov/is/kids/suburb/story2/microscope.htm Figure 4-1. (UGA1275042) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure 5-1. (UGA1275050) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure 6-1. (UGA1275044) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure 7-1. (UGA1275010) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure 8-1. (UGA1275053) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure A-1. (UGA1275013) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure A-2. Derek Handley Figure A-3. (UGA1301021) Joseph O’Brien, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org Figure A-4. (UGA2652048) USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure A-5. (UGA2652042) USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure A-6. (UGA1335028) John H. Ghent, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org Figure A-7. (UGA2253091) Bill Antrobius, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org Figure A-8. (UGA5022085) Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Forestry Archives, www.insectimages.org Figure B-1. (UGA1275058) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure C-1. (UGA1275037) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure D-1. (UGA1275020) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure E-1. (UGA1275016) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure E-3. (UGA1929072) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.insectimages.org Figure E-4. (UGA0886002) Tim Tigner, Virginia Department of Forestry, www.insectimages.org Figure E-5. (UGA2652066) USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure E-6. (UGA2652079) USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine Archives, www.forestryimages.org Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Contents Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative Chapter 3. Affected Environment Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Chapter 5. Preparers and Contributors Chapter 6. Mailing List Chapter 7. Glossary Chapter 8. References Appendix A. Gypsy Moth Treatments and Application Technology Appendix B. Gypsy Moth Management Program Appendix C. Scoping and Public Involvement Appendix D. Plant List Appendix E. Biology, History, and Control Efforts for the Gypsy Moth Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action Figure 1-1. In 1892, workers attempted to control gypsy moth by hand picking egg masses. Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action Contents 1.1 Proposed Action.......................................................................................1 1.2 Public Involvement and Issues................................................................1 1.3 Background.............................................................................................2 1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action...............................................................3 1.5 Decision Framework................................................................................4 1.6 Scope of This Document and NEPA Requirements.................................6 1.7 Consultations...........................................................................................6 Figures Figure 1-1. In 1892, workers attempted to control gypsy moths by hand picking egg masses .................................................................. Cover Figure 1-2. Feeding by gypsy moth caterpillars (larvae) causes defoliation ..........................................................................................2 Figure 1-3. European gypsy moths (male on left and female on right) are found in the United States .......................................................................2 Figure 1-4. This Asian gypsy moth male (left) and female (right) are from Mongolia. As of this writing, the Asian gypsy moth is not found in the United States .............................................................................3 Figure 1-5. People unknowingly spread gypsy moths by moving objects on which egg masses were deposited ...............................................3 Figure 1-6. In 2010, the European gypsy moth was established in all or part of 19 states and the District of Columbia .....................................4 Tables Table 1-1. Acres treated in suppression projects, by treatment, 2001-2010 .....................................................................................................5 Table 1-2. Acres treated in eradication projects, by treatment, 2001-2010 .....................................................................................................5 Table 1-3. Acres treated in slow-the-spread projects by treatment, 2001-2010 .....................................................................................................5
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cladocera: Anomopoda: Daphniidae) from the Lower Cretaceous of Australia
    Palaeontologia Electronica palaeo-electronica.org Ephippia belonging to Ceriodaphnia Dana, 1853 (Cladocera: Anomopoda: Daphniidae) from the Lower Cretaceous of Australia Thomas A. Hegna and Alexey A. Kotov ABSTRACT The first fossil ephippia (cladoceran exuvia containing resting eggs) belonging to the extant genus Ceriodaphnia (Anomopoda: Daphniidae) are reported from the Lower Cretaceous (Aptian) freshwater Koonwarra Fossil Bed (Strzelecki Group), South Gippsland, Victoria, Australia. They represent only the second record of (pre-Quater- nary) fossil cladoceran ephippia from Australia (Ceriodaphnia and Simocephalus, both being from Koonwarra). The occurrence of both of these genera is roughly coincident with the first occurrence of these genera elsewhere (i.e., Mongolia). This suggests that the early radiation of daphniid anomopods predates the breakup of Pangaea. In addi- tion, some putative cladoceran body fossils from the same locality are reviewed; though they are consistent with the size and shape of cladocerans, they possess no cladoceran-specific synapomorphies. They are thus regarded as indeterminate diplostracans. Thomas A. Hegna. Department of Geology, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL 61455, USA. ta- [email protected] Alexey A. Kotov. A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Leninsky Prospect 33, Moscow 119071, Russia and Kazan Federal University, Kremlevskaya Str.18, Kazan 420000, Russia. alexey-a- [email protected] Keywords: Crustacea; Branchiopoda; Cladocera; Anomopoda; Daphniidae; Cretaceous. Submission: 28 March 2016 Acceptance: 22 September 2016 INTRODUCTION tions that the sparse known fossil record does not correlate with a meager past diversity. The rarity of Water fleas (Crustacea: Cladocera) are small, the cladoceran fossils is probably an artifact, a soft-bodied branchiopod crustaceans and are a result of insufficient efforts to find them in known diverse and ubiquitous component of inland and new palaeontological collections (Kotov, aquatic communities (Dumont and Negrea, 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Appendix 3. Thousand Islands National Park Taxonomy Report
    Appendix 3. Thousand Islands National Park Taxonomy Report Class Order Family Genus Species Arachnida Araneae Agelenidae Agelenopsis Agelenopsis potteri Agelenopsis utahana Anyphaenidae Anyphaena Anyphaena celer Hibana Hibana gracilis Araneidae Araneus Araneus bicentenarius Larinioides Larinioides cornutus Larinioides patagiatus Clubionidae Clubiona Clubiona abboti Clubiona bishopi Clubiona canadensis Clubiona kastoni Clubiona obesa Clubiona pygmaea Elaver Elaver excepta Corinnidae Castianeira Castianeira cingulata Phrurolithus Phrurolithus festivus Dictynidae Emblyna Emblyna cruciata Emblyna sublata Eutichuridae Strotarchus Strotarchus piscatorius Gnaphosidae Herpyllus Herpyllus ecclesiasticus Zelotes Zelotes hentzi Linyphiidae Ceraticelus Ceraticelus atriceps 1 Collinsia Collinsia plumosa Erigone Erigone atra Hypselistes Hypselistes florens Microlinyphia Microlinyphia mandibulata Neriene Neriene radiata Soulgas Soulgas corticarius Spirembolus Lycosidae Pardosa Pardosa milvina Pardosa moesta Piratula Piratula canadensis Mimetidae Mimetus Mimetus notius Philodromidae Philodromus Philodromus peninsulanus Philodromus rufus vibrans Philodromus validus Philodromus vulgaris Thanatus Thanatus striatus Phrurolithidae Phrurotimpus Phrurotimpus borealis Pisauridae Dolomedes Dolomedes tenebrosus Dolomedes triton Pisaurina Pisaurina mira Salticidae Eris Eris militaris Hentzia Hentzia mitrata Naphrys Naphrys pulex Pelegrina Pelegrina proterva Tetragnathidae Tetragnatha 2 Tetragnatha caudata Tetragnatha shoshone Tetragnatha straminea Tetragnatha viridis
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • Stuart, Trees & Shrubs
    Excerpted from ©2001 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. May not be copied or reused without express written permission of the publisher. click here to BUY THIS BOOK INTRODUCTION HOW THE BOOK IS ORGANIZED Conifers and broadleaved trees and shrubs are treated separately in this book. Each group has its own set of keys to genera and species, as well as plant descriptions. Plant descriptions are or- ganized alphabetically by genus and then by species. In a few cases, we have included separate subspecies or varieties. Gen- era in which we include more than one species have short generic descriptions and species keys. Detailed species descrip- tions follow the generic descriptions. A species description in- cludes growth habit, distinctive characteristics, habitat, range (including a map), and remarks. Most species descriptions have an illustration showing leaves and either cones, flowers, or fruits. Illustrations were drawn from fresh specimens with the intent of showing diagnostic characteristics. Plant rarity is based on rankings derived from the California Native Plant Society and federal and state lists (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Two lists are presented in the appendixes. The first is a list of species grouped by distinctive morphological features. The second is a checklist of trees and shrubs indexed alphabetically by family, genus, species, and common name. CLASSIFICATION To classify is a natural human trait. It is our nature to place ob- jects into similar groups and to place those groups into a hier- 1 TABLE 1 CLASSIFICATION HIERARCHY OF A CONIFER AND A BROADLEAVED TREE Taxonomic rank Conifer Broadleaved tree Kingdom Plantae Plantae Division Pinophyta Magnoliophyta Class Pinopsida Magnoliopsida Order Pinales Sapindales Family Pinaceae Aceraceae Genus Abies Acer Species epithet magnifica glabrum Variety shastensis torreyi Common name Shasta red fir mountain maple archy.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Illinois Native Trees
    Technical Forestry Bulletin · NRES-102 Checklist of Illinois Native Trees Jay C. Hayek, Extension Forestry Specialist Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences Updated May 2019 This Technical Forestry Bulletin serves as a checklist of Tree species prevalence (Table 2), or commonness, and Illinois native trees, both angiosperms (hardwoods) and gym- county distribution generally follows Iverson et al. (1989) and nosperms (conifers). Nearly every species listed in the fol- Mohlenbrock (2002). Additional sources of data with respect lowing tables† attains tree-sized stature, which is generally to species prevalence and county distribution include Mohlen- defined as having a(i) single stem with a trunk diameter brock and Ladd (1978), INHS (2011), and USDA’s The Plant Da- greater than or equal to 3 inches, measured at 4.5 feet above tabase (2012). ground level, (ii) well-defined crown of foliage, and(iii) total vertical height greater than or equal to 13 feet (Little 1979). Table 2. Species prevalence (Source: Iverson et al. 1989). Based on currently accepted nomenclature and excluding most minor varieties and all nothospecies, or hybrids, there Common — widely distributed with high abundance. are approximately 184± known native trees and tree-sized Occasional — common in localized patches. shrubs found in Illinois (Table 1). Uncommon — localized distribution or sparse. Rare — rarely found and sparse. Nomenclature used throughout this bulletin follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System —the ITIS data- Basic highlights of this tree checklist include the listing of 29 base utilizes real-time access to the most current and accept- native hawthorns (Crataegus), 21 native oaks (Quercus), 11 ed taxonomy based on scientific consensus.
    [Show full text]
  • Moths of North Carolina - Early Draft 1
    Noctuidae Achatia distincta Distinct Quaker Moth 20 n=12 • • High Mt. • • • • N 10 • •• u • • • m • • • • b • 0 • • e • • • r 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 • 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 NC counties: 27 • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • o 20 • f n=39 • = Sighting or Collection Low Mt. High counts of: in NC since 2001 F • = Not seen since 2001 l 10 30 - Ashe - 2000-05-02 • i 8 - Macon - 2001-04-21 g Status Rank h 6 - Ashe - 2000-05-02 0 NC US NC Global t 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec a 20 20 t n=35 n=7 e Pd CP s 10 10 0 0 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Three periods to each month: 1-10 / 11-20 / 21-31 FAMILY: Noctuidae SUBFAMILY: Noctuinae TRIBE: Orthosiini TAXONOMIC_COMMENTS: A monotypic genus found across most of eastern North America and throughout North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Root Maggots (Onion - Delia Antiqua; Cabbage - Delia Radicum)
    Root Maggots (Onion - Delia antiqua; Cabbage - Delia radicum) Figure 2 Root maggot larvae, 1/4" long Figure 1 Adult, 1/4" long Figure 3 Damage to onion Damage The maggots feed on the roots and the bulbs (in the case of onions), creating numerous tunnels. Plants first begin to wilt and can eventually become stunted and yellowed. Heavily infested plants can ultimately die. When Are They Active Root maggots overwinter in the top few inches of garden soil. In late April - early May adult flies emerge to lay 50-200 white eggs on the soil near the base of crops. Eggs hatch in 3-7 days and larvae immediately begin feeding on the roots of the plants. Feeding continues for 3-4 weeks before larvae pupate in the soil. Susceptible Plants Onion maggots are an early season pest of root vegetables such as onion, garlic, carrot, and radish, whereas cabbage maggots are mainly a pest of cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, radishes, and turnips. Prevention Methods Most root maggot adults are attracted to rotting organic matter; avoid incorporating animal manure or green manure in spring. When possible, delay planting susceptible plants until the threat of root maggots is reduced, which is generally after June 1st. Plant crops in well-drained soils and only when the soil temperatures exceed 50° F. Row covers are effective during flight periods and must be set up in your garden by the time adults flies are laying eggs which is usually early to mid-May. Don't use row covers if onions or other root vegetables or cucurbits were planted in the same area the previous year.
    [Show full text]
  • Companion Planting and Insect Pest Control
    Chapter 1 Companion Planting and Insect Pest Control Joyce E. Parker, William E. Snyder, George C. Hamilton and Cesar Rodriguez‐Saona Additional information is available at the end of the chapter http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55044 1. Introduction There is growing public concern about pesticides’ non-target effects on humans and other organisms, and many pests have evolved resistance to some of the most commonly-used pesticides. Together, these factors have led to increasing interest in non-chemical, ecologically- sound ways to manage pests [1]. One pest-management alternative is the diversification of agricultural fields by establishing “polycultures” that include one or more different crop varieties or species within the same field, to more-closely match the higher species richness typical of natural systems [2, 3]. After all, destructive, explosive herbivore outbreaks typical of agricultural monocultures are rarely seen in highly-diverse unmanaged communities. There are several reasons that diverse plantings might experience fewer pest problems. First, it can be more difficult for specialized herbivores to “find” their host plant against a back‐ ground of one or more non-host species [4]. Second, diverse plantings may provide a broader base of resources for natural enemies to exploit, both in terms of non-pest prey species and resources such as pollen and nectar provided by the plant themselves, building natural enemy communities and strengthening their impacts on pests [4]. Both host-hiding and encourage‐ ment of natural enemies have the potential to depress pest populations, reducing the need for pesticide applications and increasing crop yields [5, 6]. On the other hand, crop diversification can present management and economic challenges for farmers, making these schemes difficult to implement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gypsy Moth and Its Natural Enemies Agriculture Information Bulletin No
    THE GYPSY MOTH AND ITS NATURAL ENEMIES AGRICULTURE INFORMATION BULLETIN NO. 381 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE i^Q^^áh nú'3^1 '/■*X. -//' ■*iS3l^ THE AUTHOR ROBERT W. CAMPBELL is principal ecologist at the North- eastern Forest Experiment Station's research unit maintained at Syracuse, N. Y., in cooperation with the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse University. He received his bachelor's degree in forestry from the State University of New York College of Forestry in 1953 and his master's and Ph.D. degrees in forestry from the University of Michigan in 1959 and 1961. He joined the USDA Forest Service's Northeastern Forest Experiment Station in 1961. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My thanks to both Wayne Trimm and Robert W. Brown, whose beautiful illustrations reflect careful study of their sub- jects. I also thank the many gypsy moth watchers who have shared their observations and experiences with me. Issued February 1975 11 THE GYPSY MOTH AND ITS NATURAL ENEMIES by Robert W. Campbell CONTENTS BEHAVIOR 2 Hatch and dispersal 2 Young larvae 2 Older larvae 4 Pre-pupae and pupae 4 Adults 6 Eggs 6 MORTALITY 8 Young larvae 8 Older larvae 11 Pre-pupae 18 Pupae 18 Adults 21 Eggs 21 AGENTS THAT KILL THE SEXES DIFFERENTIALLY 22 CHANGES IN GYPSY MOTH POPULATION DENSITY 23 A FEW LAST WORDS 27 111 CAMPBELL, ROBERT W. 1974. The Gypsy Moth and its Natural Enemies. Agr. Inf. Bull. No. 381,27 p., illus. Patterns of gypsy moth behavior are described, especially those related to population density.
    [Show full text]
  • Faa 119 Biodiversity Analysis
    , MOLDOVA FAA 119 BIODIVERSITY ANALYSIS February 2007 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared1 by DevTech Systems, Inc. under an EPIQ II subcontract to PA Government Services, Inc. This page left intentionally blank MOLDOVA FAA 119 BIODIVERSITY ANALYSIS February 2007 Prepared by DevTech Systems, Inc. under an EPIQ II subcontract to PA Government Services, Inc. Contract # EPP-I-00-03-00015-00, subcontract # EPP3R015-4S-003, Task Order 3. DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government Cover photo credits: Jeff Ploetz, Steve Nelson, Aureliu Overcenco This page left intentionally blank TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................................................III PREFACE ........................................................................................................................V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... VI SECTION I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................1 SECTION II: THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY .....................................................................3 A. The Importance of Biodiversity...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mangroves: Unusual Forests at the Seas Edge
    Tropical Forestry Handbook DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41554-8_129-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Mangroves: Unusual Forests at the Seas Edge Norman C. Dukea* and Klaus Schmittb aTropWATER – Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia bDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur€ Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Quezon City, Philippines Abstract Mangroves form distinct sea-edge forested habitat of dense, undulating canopies in both wet and arid tropic regions of the world. These highly adapted, forest wetland ecosystems have many remarkable features, making them a constant source of wonder and inquiry. This chapter introduces mangrove forests, the factors that influence them, and some of their key benefits and functions. This knowledge is considered essential for those who propose to manage them sustainably. We describe key and currently recommended strategies in an accompanying article on mangrove forest management (Schmitt and Duke 2015). Keywords Mangroves; Tidal wetlands; Tidal forests; Biodiversity; Structure; Biomass; Ecology; Forest growth and development; Recruitment; Influencing factors; Human pressures; Replacement and damage Mangroves: Forested Tidal Wetlands Introduction Mangroves are trees and shrubs, uniquely adapted for tidal sea verges of mostly warmer latitudes of the world (Tomlinson 1994). Of primary significance, the tidal wetland forests they form thrive in saline and saturated soils, a domain where few other plants survive (Fig. 1). Mangrove species have been indepen- dently derived from a diverse assemblage of higher taxa. The habitat and structure created by these species are correspondingly complex, and their features vary from place to place. For instance, in temperate areas of southern Australia, forests of Avicennia mangrove species often form accessible parkland stands, notable for their openness under closed canopies (Duke 2006).
    [Show full text]