Newsletter 16 - 2011
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
E-News Winter 2019/2020
Winter e-newsletter December 2019 Photos Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Contributions to our newsletters Dates for your Diary & Winter Workparties....2 Borage - Painted Lady foodplant…11-12 are always welcome. Scottish Entomological Gathering 2020 .......3-4 Lunar Yellow Underwing…………….13 Please use the contact details Obituary - David Barbour…………..………….5 Chequered Skipper Survey 2020…..14 below to get in touch! The Bog Squad…………………………………6 If you do not wish to receive our Helping Hands for Butterflies………………….7 newsletter in the future, simply Munching Caterpillars in Scotland………..…..8 reply to this message with the Books for Sale………………………...………..9 word ’unsubscribe’ in the title - thank you. RIC Project Officer - Job Vacancy……………9 Coul Links Update……………………………..10 VC Moth Recorder required for Caithness….10 Contact Details: Butterfly Conservation Scotland t: 01786 447753 Balallan House e: [email protected] Allan Park w: www.butterfly-conservation.org/scotland Stirling FK8 2QG Dates for your Diary Scottish Recorders’ Gathering - Saturday, 14th March 2020 For everyone interested in recording butterflies and moths, our Scottish Recorders’ Gathering will be held at the Battleby Conference Centre, by Perth on Saturday, 14th March 2020. It is an opportunity to meet up with others, hear all the latest butterfly and moth news and gear up for the season to come! All welcome - more details will follow in the New Year! Highland Branch AGM - Saturday, 18th April 2020 Our Highlands & Island Branch will be holding their AGM on Saturday, 18th April in a new venue, Green Drive Hall, 36 Green Drive, Inverness, IV2 4EU. More details will follow on the website in due course. -
Insect Pest List by Host Tree and Reported Country
Insect pest list by host tree and reported country Scientific name Acalolepta cervina Hope, 1831 Teak canker grub|Eng Cerambycidae Coleoptera Hosting tree Genera Species Family Tree species common name Reported Country Tectona grandis Verbenaceae Teak-Jati Thailand Scientific name Amblypelta cocophaga Fruit spotting bug|eng Coconut Coreidae Hemiptera nutfall bug|Eng, Chinche del Hosting tree Genera Species Family Tree species common name Reported Country Agathis macrophylla Araucariaceae Kauri Solomon Islands Eucalyptus deglupta Myrtaceae Kamarere-Bagras Solomon Islands Scientific name Anoplophora glabripennis Motschulsky Asian longhorn beetle (ALB)|eng Cerambycidae Coleoptera Hosting tree Genera Species Family Tree species common name Reported Country Paraserianthes falcataria Leguminosae Sengon-Albizia-Falcata-Molucca albizia- China Moluccac sau-Jeungjing-Sengon-Batai-Mara- Falcata Populus spp. Salicaceae Poplar China Salix spp. Salicaceae Salix spp. China 05 November 2007 Page 1 of 35 Scientific name Aonidiella orientalis Newstead, Oriental scale|eng Diaspididae Homoptera 1894 Hosting tree Genera Species Family Tree species common name Reported Country Lovoa swynnertonii Meliaceae East African walnut Cameroon Azadirachta indica Meliaceae Melia indica-Neem Nigeria Scientific name Apethymus abdominalis Lepeletier, Tenthredinidae Hymenoptera 1823 Hosting tree Genera Species Family Tree species common name Reported Country Other Coniferous Other Coniferous Romania Scientific name Apriona germari Hope 1831 Long-horned beetle|eng Cerambycidae -
64 Part I. Description and Backgrounds of a Polymorphism in the Pine Looper
64 PART I. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUNDS OF A POLYMORPHISM IN THE PINE LOOPER 1. THE OCCURRENCE OF A YELLOW-GREEN POLYMORPHISM IN PINE LOOPER CATERPILLARS IN THE NETHERLANDS 1.1. SOME GENERAL REMARKS ON THE OBJECTS OF STUDY The pine looper, or bordered white, is the only species of the genus Bupalus belonging to the lepidopterous family of the Geometridae. In Europe this moth has been an object of study since the last century, due to its being a very serious pest insect in some parts of the vast area in which it is found. Its food consists of needles of Scots pine, Pinus sylvestris L. The adult has a wing span of 3.5-4.0 cm. The male is dark brown with white or cream patches on the wings. The female has a greyish brown or an orange brown ground colour. Her markings are more or less similar to those of the male, though less distinct. The eggs are green, about 1 mm long, oval, with a shallow depression at the upper side. The first two larval instars are yellowish green, the first instar having a brown head, and the second instar a yellowish brown head. From the third instar onwards the larvae are green, with several disruptive white or yellowish longitudinal stripes both on the body and the head. An extensive description of the larvae has been given by HERREBOUT, KUYTEN & DE RUITER (1963). The pupae are green during the first few days following pupation, after which they become dark brown. The species is univoltine. The moths emerge from the end of May to the end of June. -
Newsletter 90
Norfolk Moth Survey c/o Natural History Dept., Castle Museum, Norwich, NR1 3JU Newsletter No.90 November 2016 INTRODUCTION With the flurry of activity through the latter part of the summer, it is easy to forget how cool, wet and frustrating the early part of the season often was. Opinion generally seems to suggest that, while the range of species seen was much to be expected, actual numbers of moths were down on the whole. However, one event during that early period brought the subject of moths to the attention of the media, both locally and nationally. This was the great invasion of Diamond- backed moths, Plutella xylostella, that took place at the very end of May and the first days of June. It would be no exaggeration to say that literally millions of these tiny moths arrived on these shores, with at least one commentator describing it as “...a plague of biblical proportion”. Several of us found ourselves answering queries and calls from a variety of sources in connection with this influx. Despite the dire warnings proffered by some sections of the media - and others, our cabbages weren’t totally obliterated as a result. In fact, the expected boost in numbers resulting from these original invaders breeding here, just didn’t seem to happen. In what might have otherwise been a distinctly average season, it is good to be able to report that twelve new species have been added to the Norfolk list this year. Amazingly, seven of these have been adventives, including one species new for the UK. -
The Moths of Dunnet Forest Caithness
THE MOTHS OF CAITHNE SS THE MOTHS OF DUNNET F O R E S T CAITHNESS A REVIEW OF THE MOTH SPECIES RECORDED IN DUNNET FOREST CAITHNESS AS AT THE ST 31 DECEMBER 2018 N E I L M O N E Y COUNTY MOTH RECORDER CAITHNESS PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW The development of Dunnet Forest from the original Forestry Commission experimental coniferous woodland to a community woodland managed by the community through the Dunnet Forestry Trust has reached a stage where changes in habitat are starting to drive change in the moth species being recorded in the forest. The purpose of this review is to detail moth species recorded up to 31st December 2018 to provide a base line against which future change can be monitored BACKGROUND The original forest was planted by the Forestry Commission in the mid-1950s as an experiment in forestry planting on poor soils. The forest was acquired by Scottish Natural Heritage in 1984 and is part of the Dunnet Links Site of Special Scientific Interest. Since 2003 the forest has been under the management of the Dunnet Forestry Trust (DFT) a community trust run by volunteers and employing two part time professional foresters. Covering 104 hectares the original coniferous planting was of a range of species but dominated by Sitka Spruce, Lodgepole Pine, Corsican Pine and Mountain Pine. About half of the area developed into mature forest with the remainder become a mixture of open space, scattered trees and scrub woodland.1 A CHANGING HABITAT DFT have been pro-active in the managing the forest both as a recreational resource for the community and in diversifying the habitat. -
Tarset and Greystead Biological Records
Tarset and Greystead Biological Records published by the Tarset Archive Group 2015 Foreword Tarset Archive Group is delighted to be able to present this consolidation of biological records held, for easy reference by anyone interested in our part of Northumberland. It is a parallel publication to the Archaeological and Historical Sites Atlas we first published in 2006, and the more recent Gazeteer which both augments the Atlas and catalogues each site in greater detail. Both sets of data are also being mapped onto GIS. We would like to thank everyone who has helped with and supported this project - in particular Neville Geddes, Planning and Environment manager, North England Forestry Commission, for his invaluable advice and generous guidance with the GIS mapping, as well as for giving us information about the archaeological sites in the forested areas for our Atlas revisions; Northumberland National Park and Tarset 2050 CIC for their all-important funding support, and of course Bill Burlton, who after years of sharing his expertise on our wildflower and tree projects and validating our work, agreed to take this commission and pull everything together, obtaining the use of ERIC’s data from which to select the records relevant to Tarset and Greystead. Even as we write we are aware that new records are being collected and sites confirmed, and that it is in the nature of these publications that they are out of date by the time you read them. But there is also value in taking snapshots of what is known at a particular point in time, without which we have no way of measuring change or recognising the hugely rich biodiversity of where we are fortunate enough to live. -
Moths and Butterflies
LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004MOTHS LJL©2004 LJL©2004AND BUTTERFLIES LJL©2004 LJL©2004 (LEPIDOPTERA) LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 FROM LJL©2004 BAHÍA LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004HONDA LJL©2004 LJL©2004 AND CANALES LJL©2004 LJL©2004 DE TIERRA LJL©2004 ISLANDLJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004(VERAGUAS, LJL©2004 LJL©2004 PANAMA LJL©2004) LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 LJL©2004 -
Common Kansas Butterflies ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
A POCKET GUIDE TO Common Kansas Butterflies ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Jim Mason Funded by Westar Energy Green Team, Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc., Occidental Chemical Corporation and the Chickadee Checkoff Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Butterflies vs. Moths • 4 • Observing Butterflies • 4 Family Papilionidae - Swallowtails ■ Pipevine Swallowtail • 6 ■ Zebra Swallowtail • 7 ■ Black Swallowtail • 8 ■ Giant Swallowtail • 9 ■ Eastern Tiger Swallowtail • 10 Family Pieridae – Whites & Sulphurs ■ Checkered White • 11 ■ Cabbage White • 12 ■ Clouded Sulphur • 13 ■ Orange Sulphur • 14 ■ Cloudless Sulphur • 15 ■ Sleepy Orange • 16 ■ Little Yellow • 17 ■ Dainty Sulphur • 18 ■ Southern Dogface • 19 Family Lycaenidae – Gossamer-Wings ■ Gray Copper • 20 ■ Bronze Copper • 21 ■ Coral Hairstreak • 22 ■ Gray Hairstreak • 23 ■ Juniper Hairstreak • 24 ■ Reakirts' Blue • 25 ■ Eastern Tailed-Blue • 26 ■ Spring Azure and Summer Azure • 27 Family Nymphalidae – Brushfoots ■ American Snout • 28 ■ Variegated Fritillary • 29 ■ Great Spangled Fritillary • 30 ■ Regal Fritillary • 31 ■ Gorgone Checkerspot • 32 ■ Silvery Checkerspot • 33 ■ Phaon Crescent • 34 ■ Pearl Crescent • 35 ■ Question Mark • 36 ■ Eastern Comma • 37 ■ Mourning Cloak • 38 ■ American Lady • 39 ©Greg Sievert ■ Painted Lady • 40 ■ Red Admiral • 41 ■ Common Buckeye • 42 ■ Red-spotted Purple • 43 ■ Viceroy • 44 ■ Goatweed Leafwing • 45 ■ Hackberry Emperor • 46 ■ Tawny Emperor • 47 ■ Little Wood Satyr • 48 ■ Common Wood Nymph • 49 ■ Monarch • 50 Family -
Pine Defoliator Bupalus Piniaria L. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) and Its Entomopathogenic Fungi 1
EKOLOGIJA. 2010. Vol. 56. No. 1–2. P. 34–40 DOI: 10.2478/v10055-010-0005-9 © Lietuvos mokslų akademija, 2010 © Lietuvos mokslų akademijos leidykla, 2010 Pine defoliator Bupalus piniaria L. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) and its entomopathogenic fungi 1. Fungi isolation and testing on larvae Dalė Pečiulytė1*, Pine defoliator bordered white moth (pine looper), Bupalus piniaria L. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) larvae were reared under laboratory conditions and were regularly sup- Irena Nedveckytė2, plied with pine twigs collected in nature for feeding. Cadavers of naturally infected 2nd and 3rd stage larvae were collected and analysed. Th irty-six fungal isolates belonging Vaidilutė Dirginčiūtė-Volodkienė1, to 15 species and 10 genera were obtained, cultivated and identifi ed. Among them two species prevailed: Lecanicillium psalliotae (syn. Verticillium psalliotae) and Fusarium 2, 3 Vincas Būda solani, comprising respectively 34.6 and 24.3% of the total number of fungi isolates. Conidial suspensions of the two fungi species at concentrations 105 to 108 conidia/ml 1 Nature Research Centre, were tested. Only the highest concentration of F. solani induced the mortality of 4th in- Žaliųjų Ežerų 49, star larvae, although the virulence was low: accumulative mortality ranged from 29.6 to LT-08406 Vilnius, Lithuania 30.7% aft er 10 days of spraying. In the control group, the mortality was 15.8% aft er the same period. Th e high percentage of cadavers containing one of the two fungal species 2 Nature Research Centre and the low mortality recorded in the test could be due to the very diff erent sensitivity Akademijos 2, to the pathogens in diff erent stage larvae. -
The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on the Biodiversity of Norfolk Jeff Price
The potential impacts of climate change on the biodiversity of Norfolk Jeff Price Introduction on a trajectory for ~3.2°C increase (UNEP Climate change is posing, and will continue 2016). While this is an improvement over to pose, increasing risks to biodiversity the previous ‘business as usual’ estimate (O’Neill et al. 2017). Changes in phenology of 4°- 4.5°C, it is still likely to have a large and range were first noted more than a impact on biodiversity. decade ago (Root et al. 2003) with many This paper reviews the projected climate publications since. Land use change is change impacts (relative to 1961-1990 increasingly a problem as species are being baseline) on some of the biodiversity further challenged by barriers to their in Norfolk (including birds, mammals, potential dispersal with their preferred reptiles, amphibians, butterflies, common climate across fragmented landscapes macro moths, dragonflies, bumblebees, (Settele et al. 2014). Many studies have grasshoppers, shieldbugs, ferns, orchids, examined the potential future impacts and some trees and shrubs. The paper of climate change on biodiversity using concentrates on the species currently found a variety of modelling techniques. This in Norfolk (largely based on lists on the includes results from Wallace Initiative Norfolk and Norwich Naturalist’s Society Phase 1 models showing the potential for website) and not on potential colonists range losses of greater than 50% across large from Europe. The exception is for some fractions of species globally at warming of the birds and dragonflies. For brevity levels of approximately 3.6 °C above pre- it concentrates on the climate changes industrial levels (Warren et al. -
BIODIVERSITY and ENVIRONMENT of NEW ROAD, LITTLE LONDON and NEIGHBOURING COUNTRYSIDE by Dr Paul Sterry Contents: 1
BIODIVERSITY AND ENVIRONMENT OF NEW ROAD, LITTLE LONDON AND NEIGHBOURING COUNTRYSIDE by Dr Paul Sterry Contents: 1. Summary. 2. A brief history. 3. Notable habitats alongside New Road and in the neighbouring countryside. 4. Protected and notable species found on New Road and in the surrounding countryside. Appendix 1 - Historical land use in Little London and its influence on biodiversity. Appendix 2 - Lepidoptera (Butterflies and Moths) recorded on New Road, Little London 2004-2019 (generalised OS Grid Reference SU6159). Appendix 3 - Ageing Hedgerows. About the author : Paul Sterry has BSc and PhD in Zoology and Ecology from Imperial College, London. After 5 years as a Research Fellow at the University of Sussex working on freshwater ecology he embarked on a freelance career as a wildlife author and photographer. Over the last 35 years he has written and illustrated more than 50 books, concentrating mainly on British Wildlife, with the emphasis on photographic field guides. Best-selling titles include Collins Complete British Trees, Collins Complete British Wildlife and Collins Life-size Birds. Above: Barn Owl flying over grassland in the neighbourhood of New Road. 1. Summary Located in the Parish of Pamber, Little London is a Biodiversity hotspot with New Road at its environmental heart. Despite the name New Road is one of the oldest highways in the village and this is reflected in the range of wildlife found along its length, and in the countryside bordering it. New Road has significance for wildlife far beyond is narrow, single-track status. Its ancient hedgerows and adjacent meadows are rich in wildlife but of equal importance is its role as a corridor of wildlife connectivity. -
This Item Is the Archived Peer-Reviewed Author-Version Of
This item is the archived peer-reviewed author-version of: Negative impacts of felling in exotic spruce plantations on moth diversity mitigated by remnants of deciduous tree cover Reference: Kirkpatrick Lucinda, Bailey Sallie, Park Kirsty J..- Negative impacts of felling in exotic spruce plantations on moth diversity mitigated by remnants of deciduous tree cover Forest ecology and management - ISSN 0378-1127 - 404(2017), p. 306-315 Full text (Publisher's DOI): https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2017.09.010 To cite this reference: https://hdl.handle.net/10067/1473810151162165141 Institutional repository IRUA 1 Negative impacts of felling in exotic spruce plantations on moth diversity mitigated by 2 remnants of deciduous tree cover 3 Lucinda Kirkpatrick1,2, Sallie Bailey3, Kirsty J. Park1 4 Lucinda Kirkpatrick (Corresponding author) 5 1Biological and Environmental Sciences 6 University of Stirling, 7 Stirling, Scotland 8 FK9 4LA. 9 EVECO 10 Universiteit Antwerpen 11 Universiteitsplein 1 12 Wilrijk 13 2610 14 3Forestry Commission Scotland, 15 Edinburgh, 16 United Kingdom 17 Email: [email protected] 18 Tel: +32 0495 477620 19 Word count: 6051 excluding references, 7992 including references, tables and figures. 20 Abstract: 21 Moths are a vital ecosystem component and are currently undergoing extensive and severe declines 22 across multiple species, partly attributed to habitat alteration. Although most remaining forest cover 23 in Europe consists of intensively managed plantation woodlands, no studies have examined the 24 influence of management practices on moth communities within plantations. Here, we aimed to 25 determine: (1) how species richness, abundance, diversity of macro and micro moths in commercial 26 conifer plantations respond to management at multiple spatial scales; (2) what the impacts of forest 27 management practices on moth diversity are, and (3) how priority Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 28 species respond to management.