DOCSLIB.ORG

Syngenta Company Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of SYN-05307-1 Rootworm Resistant Corn

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Syngenta Company Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of SYN-05307-1 Rootworm Resistant Corn Syngenta Company Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of SYN-05307-1 Rootworm Resistant Corn OECD Unique Identifier: SYN-Ø53Ø7-1 Draft Environmental Assessment May 2012 Agency Contact Cindy Eck Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-8669 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely 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. i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... II 1 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Regulatory Authority............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Regulated Organisms ........................................................................................... 2 1.3 Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: Syngenta Event 5307 Corn 2 1.4 Purpose of Product ............................................................................................... 3 1.5 APHIS Response to Petition for Nonregulated Status ......................................... 3 1.6 Coordinated Framework Review ......................................................................... 4 1.6.1 Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................ 4 1.6.2 Food and Drug Administration ..................................................................... 5 1.7 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 5 1.8 Issues Considered ................................................................................................. 5 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 7 2.1 Corn Biology ........................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Persistence in the Environment/Weediness Potential ................................... 9 2.2 Corn Production ................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Production and Yield .................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 Agronomic Practices ................................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Specialty Corn Systems .............................................................................. 25 2.2.4 Raw and Processed Corn Commodities ...................................................... 28 2.3 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 28 2.3.1 Water Quality and Use ................................................................................ 28 2.3.2 Soil .............................................................................................................. 30 2.3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 30 2.3.4 Climate ........................................................................................................ 30 2.4 Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 31 2.4.1 Animals ....................................................................................................... 31 2.4.2 Plants ........................................................................................................... 32 2.4.3 Soil Microorganisms ................................................................................... 32 2.4.4 Biodiversity ................................................................................................. 33 2.4.5 Gene Movement in the Natural Environment ............................................. 33 2.5 Public Health ...................................................................................................... 33 2.5.1 Human Health ............................................................................................. 34 2.5.2 Animal (Livestock) Health ......................................................................... 35 2.5.3 Worker Safety ............................................................................................. 36 2.6 Socioeconomic ................................................................................................... 36 2.6.1 Domestic Economic Environment .............................................................. 36 2.6.2 Trade Economic Environment .................................................................... 38 2.6.3 Social Environment ..................................................................................... 38 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 3 ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................... 40 3.1 No Action Alternative: Continuation as a Regulated Article ............................ 40 3.2 Proposed Action: Determination That Event 5307 Corn Is No Longer a Regulated Article ................................................................................................................ 40 3.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Consideration .................. 40 3.3.1 Prohibit Any Event 5307 Corn from Being Released ................................. 41 3.3.2 Approve the Petition in Part ........................................................................ 41 3.3.3 Isolation Distance between Event 5307 Corn and Non-GE Corn Production and Geographical Restrictions .................................................................... 41 3.3.4 Requirement of Testing for Event 5307 Corn............................................. 42 3.4 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................... 42 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................... 44 4.1 Scope of Environmental Analysis ...................................................................... 44 4.1.1 Persistence in the Environment/Weediness Potential ................................. 45 4.2 Corn Production ................................................................................................. 45 4.2.1 Production and Yield .................................................................................. 45 4.2.2 Agronomic Practices ................................................................................... 46 4.2.3 Specialty Corn Systems .............................................................................. 52 4.2.4 Raw and Processed Corn Commodities ...................................................... 57 4.3 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 57 4.3.1 Water Quality and Use ............................................................................... 57 4.3.2 Soil .............................................................................................................. 59 4.3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 60 4.3.4 Climate ........................................................................................................ 60 4.4 Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 61 4.4.1 Animals ....................................................................................................... 62 4.4.2 Plants ........................................................................................................... 68 4.4.3 Soil Microorganisms ................................................................................... 68 4.4.4 Biodiversity ................................................................................................. 70 4.4.5 Gene Movement in the Natural Environment ............................................. 71 4.5 Public Health ...................................................................................................... 72 4.5.1 Human Health ............................................................................................. 72 4.5.2 Animal (Livestock) Health ........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dow Agrosciences Petitions (09-233- 01P, 09-349-01P, and 11-234-01P) for Determinations of Nonregulated Status for 2,4-D-Resistant Corn and Soybean Varieties
    Dow AgroSciences Petitions (09-233- 01p, 09-349-01p, and 11-234-01p) for Determinations of Nonregulated Status for 2,4-D-Resistant Corn and Soybean Varieties Draft Environmental Impact Statement—2013 Agency Contact: Sid Abel Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-6352 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Consequences of Omnivory and Alternative Food Resources on the Strength of Trophic Cascades
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: CONSEQUENCES OF OMNIVORY AND ALTERNATIVE FOOD RESOURCES ON THE STRENGTH OF TROPHIC CASCADES Steven D. Frank, Doctor of Philosophy, 2007 Directed By: Associate Professor Paula M. Shrewsbury Department of Entomology & Professor Robert F. Denno Department of Entomology Omnivorous predators that feed on prey and plant resources are recognized as an important component of food webs but their impact on herbivore populations and trophic dynamics is unpredictable. Feeding on food items from multiple trophic levels increases the reticulate nature of food webs and the labile role of omnivores in promoting trophic cascades. Using carabid beetles in a corn agroecosystem, this research explored the interactive effects of predator guild (omnivore or carnivore) and the trophic origin of alternative food resources (seeds or fly pupae) on the control of herbivores (black cutworms) and plant survival. I demonstrated that the trophic guild and feeding performance of carabids can be predicted from their mandibular morphology. Carnivorous carabids, using mandibles with sharp points and a long shearing edge, kill and consume caterpillars more efficiently than omnivores that have mandibles with wide molar areas adapted for consuming prey and seeds. Omnivore preference for seeds and pupae further reduced their consumption of cutworms, which resulted in increased plant damage, ultimately dampening trophic cascades. In open field plots the abundance of omnivorous carabids and ants increased in response to seed but not pupae whereas neither subsidy affected the abundance of carnivorous predators. Pupae subsidies reduced predation of cutworms by carnivores and omnivores, consequently reducing seedling survival. However, in seed subsidized plots omnivorous predators switched from seeds to higher quality cutworm prey.
    [Show full text]
  • STORGARD Insect Identification Poster
    ® IPM PARTNER® INSECT IDENTIFICATION GUIDE ® Name Photo Size Color Typical Favorite Attracted Geographic Penetrate Product Recommendation (mm) Life Cycle Food to Light Distribution Packages MOTHS Almond Moth 14-20 Gray 25-30 Dried fruit Yes General Yes, Cadra cautella days and grain larvae only STORGARD® II STORGARD® III CIDETRAK® IMM Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ (Mating Disruptant) Angoumois 28-35 Yes, Grain Moth 13-17 Buff days Whole grain Yes General larvae only Sitotroga cerealella STORGARD® II STORGARD® III Casemaking 30-60 Wool, natural Yes, Clothes Moth 11 Brownish days fibers and hair Yes General larvae only Tinea pellionella STORGARD® II STORGARD® III European Grain Moth 13-17 White & 90-300 Grain Yes Northern Yes, Nemapogon granellus brown days larvae only STORGARD® II STORGARD® III Copper Indianmeal Moth Broken or 8-10 red & silver 28-35 processed Yes General Yes, Plodia interpunctella days larvae only gray grain STORGARD® II STORGARD® III CIDETRAK® IMM Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ (Mating Disruptant) Mediterranean Gray & Flour and Flour Moth 10-15 30-180 processed Yes General Yes, black days larvae only Ephestia kuehniella cereal grain STORGARD® II STORGARD® III CIDETRAK® IMM Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ (Mating Disruptant) Raisin Moth Drying and 12-20 Gray 32 days Yes General Yes, dried fruit larvae only Cadra figulilella STORGARD® II STORGARD® III CIDETRAK® IMM Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™ Also available in QUICK-CHANGE™
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Carabidae)
    Zootaxa 4647 (1): 134–153 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4647.1.12 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:41BAFD61-40D1-446C-BE22-CA8C7FE54FC3 Two new species of Australian Eutarsopolipus (Acariformes: Podapolipidae) from Nurus medius (Coleoptera: Carabidae) OWEN D. SEEMAN Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane, Qld, 4101, Australia. Abstract Eutarsopolipus burwelli sp. nov. and E. echinatus sp. nov. (Acari: Podapolipidae) are described from Nurus medius Darlington, 1961 (Coleoptera: Carabidae), a large burrowing carabid beetle found in the rainforests of coastal central Queensland, Australia. Eutarsopolipus burwelli belongs to the ochoai species group, which is herein refined, and E. echinatus is placed tentatively in the pterostichi species group. A revised key to the species groups of Eutarsopolipus is provided. The synhospitalic species of Eutarsopolipus are reviewed and synhospitality within the genus is discussed. Key words: Heterostigmatina, key, insect parasites, species groups, synhospitality, taxonomy Introduction Eutarsopolipus Berlese, 1913 (Acariformes: Podapolipidae) is the largest genus of Podapolipidae with 71 described species (Katlav & Hajiqanbar 2018), all of which are subelytral parasites of carabid beetles. Regenfuss (1968) sepa- rated the genus into several species groups, subsequently augmented by other authors, with up to 14 species groups now recognised (Husband & Husband 2009). This informal classification aids identification and provides a useful means of discussing purported relatedness between species, but a phylogenetic test of these species groups has not yet been accomplished. The genus is widespread, being found on every continent where carabids exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape and Local Controls of Insect Biodiversity in Conservation Grasslands
    Land 2014, 3, 693-718; doi:10.3390/land3030693 OPEN ACCESS land ISSN 2073-445X www.mdpi.com/journal/land/ Article Landscape and Local Controls of Insect Biodiversity in Conservation Grasslands: Implications for the Conservation of Ecosystem Service Providers in Agricultural Environments Thomas O. Crist 1,2,* and Valerie E. Peters 1 1 Institute for the Environment and Sustainability, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-513-529-6187; Fax: +1-513-529-5814. Received: 3 May 2014; in revised form: 23 June 2014 / Accepted: 30 June 2014 / Published: 14 July 2014 Abstract: The conservation of biodiversity in intensively managed agricultural landscapes depends on the amount and spatial arrangement of cultivated and natural lands. Conservation incentives that create semi-natural grasslands may increase the biodiversity of beneficial insects and their associated ecosystem services, such as pollination and the regulation of insect pests, but the effectiveness of these incentives for insect conservation are poorly known, especially in North America. We studied the variation in species richness, composition, and functional-group abundances of bees and predatory beetles in conservation grasslands surrounded by intensively managed agriculture in Southwest Ohio, USA. Characteristics of grassland patches and surrounding land-cover types were used to predict insect species richness, composition, and functional-group abundance using linear models and multivariate ordinations. Bee species richness was positively influenced by forb cover and beetle richness was positively related to grass cover; both taxa had greater richness in grasslands surrounded by larger amounts of semi-natural land cover.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America. 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa by Boris C. Kondratieff, Luke Myers, and Whitney S. Cranshaw C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 22, 2011 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 3 Cover Photo Credits: Whitney S. Cranshaw. Females of the blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fab.) laying eggs on an animal carcass on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. 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, Colorado, 80523-1177. Copyrighted 2011 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • And Crotalomorpha Camini (Acari: Crotalomorphidae), Ectoparasites of Stenolophus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Michigan, U.S.A
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 37 Numbers 1 & 2 - Spring/Summer 2004 Numbers Article 2 1 & 2 - Spring/Summer 2004 April 2004 Distribution of Eutarsopolipus (Acari: Podapolipidae) and Crotalomorpha Camini (Acari: Crotalomorphidae), Ectoparasites of Stenolophus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Michigan, U.S.A. Robert W. Husband Adrian College David O. Husband Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Husband, Robert W. and Husband, David O. 2004. "Distribution of Eutarsopolipus (Acari: Podapolipidae) and Crotalomorpha Camini (Acari: Crotalomorphidae), Ectoparasites of Stenolophus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Michigan, U.S.A.," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 37 (1) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol37/iss1/2 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Husband and Husband: Distribution of <i>Eutarsopolipus</i> (Acari: Podapolipidae) and 10 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 37, Nos. 1 & 2 DISTRIBUTION OF EUTARSOPOLIPUS (ACARI: PODAPOLIPIDAE) AND CROTALOMORPHA CAMINI (ACARI: CROTALOMORPHIDAE), ECTOPARASITES OF STENOLOPHUS (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE) IN MICHIGAN, U.S.A. Robert W. Husband1 and David O. Husband2 ABSTRACT Three acarine parasites of Stenolophus spp are described from Michigan. Eutarsopolipus elzingai Husband (Acari: Podapolipidae), previously known from eastern Kansas, Eutarsopolipus brevichelus Husband and Husband, with one Michigan record, and Crotalomorpha camini Lindquist and Krantz (Acari: Crotalomorphidae), previously known from Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas and Oklahoma, are widely distributed in Michigan as subelytral parasites of Stenolophus comma (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and Stenolophus lecontei (Chaudoir), the seed corn beetle.
    [Show full text]
  • Bitki Koruma Bülteni 60-2 Kapakk
    ISSN : 0406-3597 E-ISSN : 1308-8122 PLANT PROTECTION BULLETIN Volume 60 | Number 2 April - June , 2020 PLANT PROTECTION BULLETIN / BİTKİ KORUMA BÜLTENİ Volume 60 No 2 April - June 2020 Owner Ayşe ÖZDEM FARSHBAF, Reza - Iran ALKAN, Mustafa - Turkey ASAV, Ünal - Turkey GÜNAÇTI, Hale - Turkey AYDAR, Arzu - Turkey IŞIK, Doğan - Turkey İMREN, Mustafa - Turkey KARAHAN, Aynur - Turkey BATUMAN, Özgür - USA KAYDAN, Mehmet Bora - Turkey KODAN, Münevver - Turkey KOVANCI, Orkun Barış - Turkey SERİM, Ahmet Tansel - Turkey ÇAKIR, Emel - Turkey TOPRAK, Umut - Turkey TÖR, Mahmut - UK DURMUŞOĞLU, Enver - Turkey ULUBAŞ SERÇE, Çiğdem - Turkey EVLİCE, Emre - Turkey ÜSTÜN, Nursen - Turkey published four times a year with original research articles in English or Turkish languages on plant protection and health. It includes research on biological, ecological, physiological, epidemiological, taxonomic studies and methods of protection in residue, toxicology and formulations of plant protection products and plant protection machinery are also included. Article evaluation process is based on double blind referee system and published as open access. Annual biological studies, short Abstracted/indexed by EBSCOhost, CAB Abstracts, Clarivate Analytics-Zoological Record, TR-Dizin. Plant Protection Bulletin is quarterly publication of the Directorate of Plant Protection Central Research Institute on behalf of General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies. Correspondence Address : +90 (312) 315 15 31 AZİM MATBAACILIK Büyük San. 1.cad Alibey İşh. 99/33 İskitler, 06030 (0312) 342 03 71 - [email protected] www.azimmatbaacilik.com PLANT PROTECTION BULLETIN / BİTKİ KORUMA BÜLTENİ Volume 60 No 2 April - June 2020 Contents / İçindekiler Fumigant toxicity at low temperature of four different essential oils against different stages of Mediterranean flour moth Ephestia kuehniella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Healthy Forest?
    SINCE 1976 THE FRIENDS OF DYKE MARSH SUMMER 2015 What Is a Healthy Forest? Challenges Include Invasive Aliens and Global Warming Join us on September 16, 7:30 p.m., when Joe Marx will discuss what a healthy Mid-Atlantic forest might look like, whether the pre-settlement forest was in fact healthy, and what chance a healthy forest would have in our era of invasive FODM Quarterly Meeting aliens and global warming. Wednesday, September 16, at Definitions of forest health vary 7:30 p.m., Huntley Meadows greatly along a scale from total human Park, Norma Hoffman Visitor exclusion to total human management. Center, 3701 Lockheed Blvd., Although the Mid-Atlantic states were Alexandria, VA 22306. Phone blanketed with a largely deciduous forest Scenic view of the George Washington 703-768-2525. Free to all. at the time of European contact, the abo- National Forest. Photo by Bob Veltkamp. riginal peoples manipulated this forest to Calendar of Events a much wider extent than is commonly Field Studies program sponsored by the August 29 - 10 a.m., Pollina- realized. Today, many in the natural histo- Graduate School USA and the Audubon tor Walk; details, see page 5. ry community hope that the remaining Naturalist Society. October 24 - 10 a.m., Fall Col- Mid-Atlantic forestland can be preserved The meeting is cosponsored by the ors Walk; details, see page 5. in a healthy condition. What should we American Horticultural Society, the Po- November 18 - 7:30 p.m., Fall aim for? What is the right balance be- towmack Chapter of the Virginia Native FODM Quarterly Meeting; tween combating alien organisms and Plant Society, the Fairfax Chapter of Vir- LoriAnne Burnette on nature’s letting natural succession run its course? ginia Master Naturalists and the Fairfax exquisite timing, phenology.
    [Show full text]
  • Twelve Ground Beetles New to Virginia Or the District of Columbia
    Banisteria, Number 43, pages 40-55 © 2014 Virginia Natural History Society Twelve Ground Beetles New to Virginia or the District of Columbia and an Annotated Checklist of the Geadephaga (Coleoptera, Adephaga) from the George Washington Memorial Parkway Brent W. Steury U.S. National Park Service 700 George Washington Memorial Parkway Turkey Run Park Headquarters McLean, Virginia 22101 Peter W. Messer 4315 W. Riverlake Drive Mequon, Wisconsin 53092 ABSTRACT One-hundred eighty-four species in 70 genera of geadephagan beetles (183 carabids and one rhysodid) were documented during a nine-year field survey of a national park site (George Washington Memorial Parkway) that spans parts of Fairfax and Arlington counties and the City of Alexandria in Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The capture of Elaphropus quadrisignatus (Duftschmid) represents the second record for the New World. Seven species, E. quadrisignatus, Harpalus rubripes (Duftschmid), Microlestes pusio (LeConte), Platynus opaculus LeConte, Pterostichus permundus (Say), P. sculptus LeConte, and Scarites vicinus Chaudoir are documented for the first time from the Commonwealth. Seven species, Anisodactylus dulcicollis (LaFerté-Sénectère), Elaphropus anceps (LeConte), E. saturatus (Casey), Oodes americanus Dejean, P. permundus, S. vicinus, and Tachys potomaca (Erwin) are documented for the first time from the District of Columbia. The study increases the number of geadephagan beetles known from the Potomac River Gorge to 255 species and the number from Virginia to 543 taxa. Hand picking and Malaise traps proved to be the most successful capture methods of the eight methods employed during the survey. Periods of adult activity, based on dates of capture, are given for each species.
    [Show full text]
  • Kobe University Repository : Thesis
    Kobe University Repository : Thesis Spatial and temporal effects of local climate change on the carabid 学位論文題目 beetle community in Baekdudaegan mountain of South Korea(韓国白 Title 頭大幹における局地気候変動がオサムシ群集に及ぼす空間的・時間的 な影響) 氏名 Bak, Yonghyen Author 専攻分野 博士（理学） Degree 学位授与の日付 2017-03-25 Date of Degree 公開日 2018-03-01 Date of Publication 資源タイプ Thesis or Dissertation / 学位論文 Resource Type 報告番号 甲第6816号 Report Number 権利 Rights JaLCDOI URL http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/handle_kernel/D1006816 ※当コンテンツは神戸大学の学術成果です。無断複製・不正使用等を禁じます。著作権法で認められている範囲内で、適切にご利用ください。 PDF issue: 2021-10-06 Doctoral dissertation Spatial and temporal effects of local climate change on the carabid beetle community in Baekdudaegan mountain of South Korea 4(6 $ /3 .1)"1) 5 YONGHYEN BAK #% Graduate school of Human Development and Environment Kobe University + 21'0&*-, 1&! January, 2017 Table of contents Chapter 1. General introduction Chapter 2. Community structure and distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Baekdudaegan mountain of Gangwon-do, Korea Chapter 3. Local climate mediates spatial and temporal variation in carabid beetle communities in three forests in Mount Odaesan, Korea Chapter 4. Quantifying spatial and temporal changes of carabid beetle communities and local environments in Baekdudaegan mountains of Ganwon-do, Korea Chapter 5. General discussion Acknowledgements References Chapter 1. General introduction General introduction Global climatic warming is suggested to be created by the enhanced greenhouse effect, and will precipitate other environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. Part 3 Chapter 1 Survey of Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of Fort Sill, Comanche Co., Oklahoma Chapter 2 Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III. Arachnida: Ixodidae, Scorpiones, Hexapoda: Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University 1 Cover Photo Credits: The Black and Yellow Argiope, Argiope aurantia Lucas, (Photo by P.E. Cushing), a robber fly Efferia texana (Banks) (Photo by C. Riley Nelson). ISBN 1084-8819 Information about the availability of this publication and others in the series may be obtained from Managing Editor, C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Ddiversity, Department of Bbioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III Edited by Paul A. Opler Chapter 1 Survey of Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of Fort Sill, Comanche Co., Oklahoma by Paula E. Cushing and Maren Francis Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature and Science Denver, Colorado 80205 Chapter 2 Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III. Arachnida: Ixodidae, Scorpiones, Hexapoda: Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera by Boris C. Kondratieff, Jason P. Schmidt, Paul A. Opler, and Matthew C. Garhart C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 January 2005 Contributions of the C.P.
    [Show full text]