DOCSLIB.ORG

Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Department Forest Insect and of Agriculture Forest Service Disease Conditions Forest Health Protection in the United States August 2005 2004 Healthy Forests Make A World of Difference United States Department of Agriculture Forest Insect and Forest Service Disease Conditions Forest Health Protection in the United States August 2005 2004 PREFACE This is the 54th annual report prepared by the U.S. • seed orchard insects and diseases; Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA • nursery insects and diseases; and Forest Service) of the insect and disease conditions of • abiotic damage. the Nation's forests. This report responds to direction in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, as These categories are listed in the table of contents; amended, to conduct surveys and report annually on there is no index. insect and disease conditions of major national significance. Insect and disease conditions of local The information in this report is provided by the Forest importance are reported in regional and State reports. Health Protection Program of the USDA Forest Service. This program serves all Federal lands, The report describes the extent and nature of insect- including the National Forest System and the lands and disease-caused damage of national significance in administered by the Departments of Defense and the 2004. The first section of this report highlights Interior. Service is also provided to tribal lands. The emerging insect and disease issues. Regional and program provides assistance to private landowners temporal trends in selected insect and disease through the State foresters. A key part of the program conditions are highlighted in the second section of the is detecting and reporting insect and disease epidemics report. Distribution maps are provided for some pests. and the effects of wind, air pollution, floods, droughts, Graphs depict acreage trends over the last several and other agents. Detection surveys are conducted on years for some pests. Tables show acreages affected a regular basis by State and USDA Forest Service for selected pests by State by year for the last 5 years. program specialists. The third section of the report brings together insect, For additional information about conditions, contact disease, and abiotic agent damage reports from each the USDA Forest Service office listed on the next page affected region under the organism's or agent's name. (see map for office coverage) or your State forester. The organisms and agents are arranged alphabetically in the appropriate section— The USDA Forest Service also prepared "America's • insects—native; Forests: 2003 Health Update," which highlights major • insects—nonnative; forest health concerns. The report deals with exotic (nonnative) pests, the rural-urban-wildland interface, • diseases—native; and the effects of weather and air pollution on forests. • diseases—nonnative; • diseases—origin unknown; • declines and complexes; iii United States Department Of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Protection Offices Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, USDA Northern Region (R-1) Pacific Northwest Region (R-6) P.O. Box 7669 P.O. Box 3623 Missoula, MT 59807 Portland, OR 97208-3623 (406) 329-3605 (503) 808-2913 Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, USDA Rocky Mountain Region (R-2) Southern Region (R-8) P.O. Box 25127 1720 Peachtree Road, NW, Room 862 S Denver, CO 80225 Atlanta, GA 30367-9102 (303) 275-5026 (404) 347-2961 Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, USDA Southwestern Region (R-3) Northeastern Area 333 Broadway Boulevard, SE 11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Newtown Square, PA 19073 (505) 842-3247 (610) 557-4124 Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, USDA Intermountain Region (R-4) Alaska Region (R-10) 324 25th Street 3301 C Street, Suite 522 Ogden, UT 84401 Anchorage, AK 99503-3956 (801) 625-5759 (907) 271-2575 Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, USDA Pacific Southwest Region (R-5) International Institute of Tropical Forestry 1323 Club Drive UPR Experiment Station Grounds Vallejo, CA 94592 P.O. Box 25000 (707) 562-8921 Rio Piedras, PR 00928-5000 (787) 766-5335 iv USDA Forest Service Regions and Area Copies of this report are available from: USDA Forest Service Attn: Forest Health Protection Stop Code 1110 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20250-1110 Phone: (703) 605-5352 Fax: (703) 605-5353 Email: [email protected] This report is also available on the Internet at: www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/current_conditions.shtml v CONTENTS Preface ............................................................................................................................................................................................. iii Map of Forest Service Regions/Area ................................................................................................................................................ v Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 PART 1: EMERGING INSECT AND DISEASE ISSUES ............................................................................................................. 5 Emerald ash borer............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Piñon pine mortality ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Western bark beetles....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Sudden Oak Death .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 PART 2: HISTORICAL HIGHLIGHTS ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Insect Conditions Highlights........................................................................................................................................................... 16 Gypsy moth........................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Southern pine beetle........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Mountain pine beetle.......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Spruce budworm ................................................................................................................................................................ 22 Western spruce budworm................................................................................................................................................... 24 Hemlock woolly adelgid .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Common European pine shoot beetle................................................................................................................................. 27 Spruce beetle...................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Disease Conditions Highlights........................................................................................................................................................ 29 Dogwood anthracnose........................................................................................................................................................ 29 Beech bark disease ............................................................................................................................................................. 30 Butternut canker................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Fusiform rust...................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Dwarf mistletoes ................................................................................................................................................................ 33 PART 3: CONDITIONS BY DAMAGE AGENT BY REGION .................................................................................................. 35 Insects: Native ............................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Arborvitae leaf miners (Region 9/Northeastern Area) ...................................................................................................... 36 Aspen leaf blotch miner (Region 10) ................................................................................................................................. 36 Bagworm moth (Region 9/Northeastern
Recommended publications
  • DEFOLIATORS Insect Sections

    DEFOLIATORS Insect Sections

    Alaska. Reference is made to this map in selected DEFOLIATORS insect sections. (Precipitation information from Schwartz, F.K., and Miller, J.F. 1983. Probable maximum precipitation and snowmelt criteria for Fewer defoliator plots (27 plots) were visited during southeast Alaska: National Weather Service the 1999 aerial survey than in previous years (52 plots) Hydrometeorological Report No. 54. 115p. GIS layer throughout southeast Alaska. An effort was made to created by: Tim Brabets, 1997. distribute these plots evenly across the archipelago. URL:http://agdc.usgs.gov/data/usgs/water) The objectives during the 1999 season were to: ¨ Spend more time covering the landscape during Spruce Needle Aphid the aerial survey, Elatobium abietinum Walker ¨ Allow more time to land and identify unknown mortality and defoliation, and Spruce needle aphids feed on older needles of Sitka ¨ Avoid visit sites that were hard to get to and had spruce, often causing significant amounts of needle few western hemlocks. drop (defoliation). Defoliation by aphids cause reduced tree growth and can predispose the host to Hemlock sawfly and black-headed budworm larvae other mortality agents, such as the spruce beetle. counts were generally low in 1999 as they were in Severe cases of defoliation alone may result in tree 1998. The highest sawfly larvae counts were from the mortality. Spruce in urban settings and along marine plots in Thorne Bay and Kendrick Bay, Prince of shorelines are most seriously impacted. Spruce aphids Wales Island. Larval counts are used as a predictive feed primarily in the lower, innermost portions of tree tool for outbreaks of defoliators. For example, if the crowns, but may impact entire crowns during larval sample is substantially greater in 1999, then an outbreaks.
  • Evidence and Implications of Recent and Projected Climate Change in Alaska’S Forest Ecosystems 1, 2 1 3 4 JANE M

    Evidence and Implications of Recent and Projected Climate Change in Alaska’S Forest Ecosystems 1, 2 1 3 4 JANE M

    Evidence and implications of recent and projected climate change in Alaska’s forest ecosystems 1, 2 1 3 4 JANE M. WOLKEN, TERESA N. HOLLINGSWORTH, T. SCOTT RUPP, F. STUART CHAPIN, III, SARAH F. TRAINOR, 5 6 7 3 8 TARA M. BARRETT, PATRICK F. SULLIVAN, A. DAVID MCGUIRE, EUGENIE S. EUSKIRCHEN, PAUL E. HENNON, 9 10 11 8 1 ERIK A. BEEVER, JEFF S. CONN, LISA K. CRONE, DAVID V. D ’AMORE, NANCY FRESCO, 8 3 12 11 13 THOMAS A. HANLEY, KNUT KIELLAND, JAMES J. KRUSE, TRISTA PATTERSON, EDWARD A. G. SCHUUR, 14 14 DAVID L. VERBYLA, AND JOHN YARIE 1Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning, University of Alaska, 3352 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 USA 2United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Boreal Ecology Cooperative Research Unit, P.O. Box 756780, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 USA 3Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 USA 4Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, University of Alaska, 3352 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 USA 5United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Anchorage Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3301 C Street, Suite 200, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 USA 6Environment and Natural Resources Institute, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska 99508 USA 7United States Geological Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 USA 8United States Department of Agriculture Forest
  • Membership 2005: Year in Review

    Membership 2005: Year in Review

    ESA Newsletter Information for the Members of the Entomological Society of America MARCH 2006 • VOLUME 29, NUMBER 3 Membership 2005: Year in Review By Chris Stelzig, Director of Membership we get too far into the year, I wanted to fin- not withstanding, this is a great, inexpensive and Marketing ish the update on 2005. way to get general feedback from you on a Sections and Branches—The Pacific wide range of topics. Headquarters uses this For the first time since 1992, ESA posted Branch saw the most growth when we com- data for planning purposes. In the Member- two back-to-back years of membership pare 2004 to 2005 with a 12% increase in ship Toolbox on the website (http://www. growth. This is a milestone, especially when membership. Only the Southeastern Branch entsoc.org/membership/toolbox/support_ coupled with the fact that just five years ago saw an actual decline, and that was merely esa/survey.htm), you will find a list of all our we were losing members by the hundreds by one person (a case in point to say that active surveys and an invitation to partici- every year and our funds were quickly dry- EVERY membership renewal is important!). pate in one. ing up. You’ve heard me say “Strength in Section B saw the largest growth last year, Performance—About 80% of members Numbers” for nearly five years now. The leaping more than 10%. who responded felt that they were satisfied reason for this is that membership is the Membership Types—As I mentioned with performance from ESA headquarters.
  • Alder Canopy Dieback and Damage in Western Oregon Riparian Ecosystems

    Alder Canopy Dieback and Damage in Western Oregon Riparian Ecosystems

    Alder Canopy Dieback and Damage in Western Oregon Riparian Ecosystems Sims, L., Goheen, E., Kanaskie, A., & Hansen, E. (2015). Alder canopy dieback and damage in western Oregon riparian ecosystems. Northwest Science, 89(1), 34-46. doi:10.3955/046.089.0103 10.3955/046.089.0103 Northwest Scientific Association Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse Laura Sims,1, 2 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, 1085 Cordley Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Ellen Goheen, USDA Forest Service, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Alan Kanaskie, Oregon Department of Forestry, 2600 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97310 and Everett Hansen, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, 1085 Cordley Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Alder Canopy Dieback and Damage in Western Oregon Riparian Ecosystems Abstract We gathered baseline data to assess alder tree damage in western Oregon riparian ecosystems. We sought to determine if Phytophthora-type cankers found in Europe or the pathogen Phytophthora alni subsp. alni, which represent a major threat to alder forests in the Pacific Northwest, were present in the study area. Damage was evaluated in 88 transects; information was recorded on damage type (pathogen, insect or wound) and damage location. We evaluated 1445 red alder (Alnus rubra), 682 white alder (Alnus rhombifolia) and 181 thinleaf alder (Alnus incana spp. tenuifolia) trees. We tested the correlation between canopy dieback and canker symptoms because canopy dieback is an important symptom of Phytophthora disease of alder in Europe. We calculated the odds that alder canopy dieback was associated with Phytophthora-type cankers or other biotic cankers.
  • Forest Insect Conditions in the United States 1966

    Forest Insect Conditions in the United States 1966

    FOREST INSECT CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 1966 FOREST SERVICE ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreword This report is the 18th annual account of the scope, severity, and trend of the more important forest insect infestations in the United States, and of the programs undertaken to check resulting damage and loss. It is compiled primarily for managers of public and private forest lands, but has become useful to students and others interested in outbreak trends and in the location and extent of pest populations. The report also makes possible n greater awareness of the insect prob­ lem and of losses to the timber resource. The opening section highlights the more important conditions Nationwide, and each section that pertains to a forest region is prefaced by its own brief summary. Under the Federal Forest Pest Control Act, a sharing by Federal and State Governments the costs of surveys and control is resulting in a stronger program of forest insect and disease detection and evaluation surveys on non-Federal lands. As more States avail themselves of this financial assistance from the Federal Government, damage and loss from forest insects will become less. The screening and testing of nonpersistent pesticides for use in suppressing forest defoliators continued in 1966. The carbamate insecticide Zectran in a pilot study of its effectiveness against the spruce budworm in Montana and Idaho appeared both successful and safe. More extensive 'tests are planned for 1967. Since only the smallest of the spray droplets reach the target, plans call for reducing the spray to a fine mist. The course of the fine spray, resulting from diffusion and atmospheric currents, will be tracked by lidar, a radar-laser combination.
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs

    Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs

    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
  • Bees, Wasps & Ants

    Bees, Wasps & Ants

    Sheringham and Beeston Regis Commons SSSI / SAC FAUNA: Hymenoptera INSECTA (Pterygota) Family/Order English Name. Scientific Name. Authority. Grid Ref. Tetrad/ Last Km sq. Common. Record. HYMENOPTERA. PAMPHILIDAE: Sawfly. Pamphilius inanitus (Villers, 1789) TG1642 1987? (Bees, Wasps and Ants) ARGIDAE: Elm Zig-zag Sawfly. Aproceros leucopoda Takeuchi, 1939 TG1642 14R/B 2020 Bramble Sawfly. Arge cyaneocrocea (Forster, 1771) TG1642 2016 Sawfly. Arge gracilicornis (Klug, 1814 ) TG1642 1987? CIMBICIDAE: Honeysuckle Sawfly. Abia lonicerae (Linnaeus) TG1641 14Q/B 2015 Club-horned Sawfly. Abia sericera (Linnaeus) TG1642 14R/B 2014 Club-horned Sawfly. Zaraea fasciata Linnaeus, 1758 TG1641/42 14R,14Q/B 2014 Birch Sawfly. Cimbex femoratus (Linnaeus, 1758) TG1642 14R/B 2017 SIRICIDAE: Greater Horntail Wasp. Urocerus gigas (Linnaeus, 1758) TG1642 14R/S 1992 CEPHIDAE: Sawfly. Calameuta pallipes (Klug, 1803) TG1642 1987? TENTHREDINIDAE: Willow Sawfly. Pontania proxima (Lepeletier, 1823) TG1642 14R/BS 2009 Willow Sawfly. Eupontania pedunculi (Hartig, 1837) TG1642 14R/B 1999 Willow Sawfly. Eupontainia viminalis (Linnaeus, 1758) TG1642 14R/B 2002 Willow Sawfly. Pontainia bridgemanii (Cameron, 1883) TG1642 14R/B 1999 Sawfly. Caliroa annulipes (Klug, 1816) TG1642 14R/S 2002 Hazel Sawfly. Craesus septentrionalis (Linnaeus, 1758) TG1641 14Q/B 2017 Sawfly. Blennocampa phyllocolpa Viitasaari & Vikberg, 1985 TG1642/41 14R,14Q/B 2003 Sawfly. Selandria serva (Fabricius, 1793) TG1642 14R/B 2013 Sawfly. Aneugmenus padi (Linnaeus, 1761) TG1642 1987? Bracken Sawfly. Strongylogaster multifasciata (Geoffroy, 1785) TG1642 14R/BS 2020 Sawfly. Dichrodolerus vestigialis (Klug, 1818) TG1642 1996 Sawfly. Dolerus germanicus (Fabricius, 1775) TG1642 1987? Sawfly. Eutomostethus ephippium (Panzer, 1798) TG1642 14R/BS 2020 Sawfly. Poodolerus aeneus Hartig, 1837 TG1642 1987? Sawfly. Dolerus brevitarus Hartig TG1642 1987? Sawfly.
  • 3.7.10 Curculioninae Latreille, 1802 Jetzt Beschriebenen Palaearctischen Ceuthor- Rhynchinen

    3.7.10 Curculioninae Latreille, 1802 Jetzt Beschriebenen Palaearctischen Ceuthor- Rhynchinen

    Curculioninae Latreille, 1802 305 Schultze, A. (1902): Kritisches Verzeichniss der bis 3.7.10 Curculioninae Latreille, 1802 jetzt beschriebenen palaearctischen Ceuthor- rhynchinen. – Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift Roberto Caldara , Nico M. Franz, and Rolf 1902: 193 – 226. G. Oberprieler Schwarz, E. A. (1894): A “ parasitic ” scolytid. – Pro- ceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 3: Distribution. The subfamily as here composed (see 15 – 17. Phylogeny and Taxonomy below) includes approx- Scudder, S. H. (1893): Tertiary Rhynchophorous Coleo- ptera of the United States. xii + 206 pp. US Geological imately 350 genera and 4500 species (O ’ Brien & Survey, Washington, DC. Wibmer 1978; Thompson 1992; Alonso-Zarazaga Stierlin, G. (1886): Fauna insectorum Helvetiae. Coleo- & Lyal 1999; Oberprieler et al. 2007), provisionally ptera helvetiae , Volume 2. 662 pp. Rothermel & Cie., divided into 34 tribes. These are geographically Schaffhausen. generally restricted to a lesser or larger degree, only Thompson, R. T. (1973): Preliminary studies on the two – Curculionini and Rhamphini – being virtually taxonomy and distribution of the melon weevil, cosmopolitan in distribution and Anthonomini , Acythopeus curvirostris (Boheman) (including Baris and Tychiini only absent from the Australo-Pacifi c granulipennis (Tournier)) (Coleoptera, Curculion- region. Acalyptini , Cionini , Ellescini , Mecinini , idae). – Bulletin of Entomological Research 63: 31 – 48. and Smicronychini occur mainly in the Old World, – (1992): Observations on the morphology and clas- from Africa to the Palaearctic and Oriental regions, sifi cation of weevils (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) with Ellescini, Acalyptini, and Smicronychini also with a key to major groups. – Journal of Natural His- extending into the Nearctic region and at least tory 26: 835 – 891. the latter two also into the Australian one.
  • Arthropod Community Structure in Regenerating Douglas-Fir and Red Alder Forests: Influences of Geography, Tree Diversity and Density

    Arthropod Community Structure in Regenerating Douglas-Fir and Red Alder Forests: Influences of Geography, Tree Diversity and Density

    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Brett L. Schaerer for the degree of Master of Science in Entomology presentedon March 17, 2000. Title: Arthropod Community Structure in Regenerating Douglas-fir and Red Alder Forests: Influences of Geography, Tree Diversity and Density Abstract approved: Redacted for privacy Timothy D. Schowalter The structuring of canopy arthropod communities was reviewed and investigated in relation to tree species diversity and its component factors, interspersion of different species and density of each tree species. Fifteen treatments of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and red alder (Alnus rubra) (various densities and proportions of each)were randomly assigned to 0.073 ha plots, replicated three-fold at each of two locations in Western Oregon: the Cascade Head Experimental Forest and the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest. The six treatments used in this studywere two densities of Douglas-fir and red alder monoculture (1000 trees/ha and 500 trees/ha), and mixtures of Douglas-fir and red alder (500 trees/ha of each) planted simultaneouslyor red alder planted 6 years after the Douglas-fir. Trees were initially planted in 1985-1986. The arthropod communities were sampled in the summer of 1998 by bagging and pruning branches from the mid-canopy of both tree species. Multivariate analyses distinguished the arthropod communities foundon each tree species and geographical location, but not among the different diversity and density treatments. Many arthropod taxa and functional groups residingon a single tree species had significantly different abundances between locations. Themost commonly encountered taxon, Adelges cooleyi Gillette (Homoptera: Adelgidae),was most abundant on Douglas-firs in the 500 trees/ha monoculture and the mixture with younger red alder, and least abundant in the mixture with both species planted simultaneously (the1000 trees/ha Douglas-fir monoculture was intermediate).
  • Widespread Occurrence of Black-Orange-Black Color Pattern in Hymenoptera

    Widespread Occurrence of Black-Orange-Black Color Pattern in Hymenoptera

    Journal of Insect Science, (2019) 19(2): 13; 1–12 doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iez021 Research Widespread Occurrence of Black-Orange-Black Color Pattern in Hymenoptera R. Mora1,2,3 and P. E. Hanson2 1Universidad de Costa Rica, Centro de Investigación en Biología Celular y Molecular, Ciudad de la Investigación Postal 11501-2060, San Pedro de Montes de Oca, SJ, Costa Rica, 2Universidad de Costa Rica, Escuela de Biología, Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San Pedro de Montes de Oca, SJ, Costa Rica, and 3Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Subject Editor: Phyllis Weintraub Received 19 October 2018; Editorial decision 3 February 2019 Abstract Certain color patterns in insects show convergent evolution reflecting potentially important biological functions, for example, aposematism and mimicry. This phenomenon has been most frequently documented in Lepidoptera and Coleoptera, but has been less well investigated in Hymenoptera. It has long been recognized that many hymenopterans, especially scelionids (Platygastridae), show a recurring pattern of black head, orange/red mesosoma, and black metasoma (BOB coloration). However, the taxonomic distribution of this striking color pattern has never been documented across the entire order. The main objective of our research was to provide a preliminary tabulation of this color pattern in Hymenoptera, through examination of museum specimens and relevant literature. We included 11 variations of the typical BOB color pattern but did not include all possible variations. These color patterns were found in species belonging to 23 families of Hymenoptera, and was most frequently observed in scelionids, evaniids, and mutillids, but was relatively infrequent in Cynipoids, Diaprioids, Chalcidoids, and Apoids.
  • Molecular Phylogenetics of the Superfamily Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera)

    Molecular Phylogenetics of the Superfamily Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera)

    Molecular Phylogenetics of the Superfamily Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) Conrad Paulus Dias Trafford Gillett A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of East Anglia Norwich, Norfolk, England March 2014 © This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived there-from must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution. 1 Molecular Phylogenetics of the Superfamily Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) Conrad Paulus Dias Trafford Gillett March 2014 Thesis abstract This thesis examines higher-level evolutionary history within the superfamily Curculionoidea, the most speciose family-level taxon, which includes beetles commonly known as weevils. This is achieved using a phylogenetic approach incorporating the largest datamatrix yet employed for weevil molecular systematics, and includes an investigation into the prospect of obtaining short phylogenetically informative amplicons from archival museum specimens. Newly obtained DNA sequence data is analysed from a variety of mitochondrial and nuclear loci, including 92 mitogenomes assembled through the approach of next-generation sequencing of pooled genomic DNA. The resulting trees are used to test previous morphological- and molecular-based hypotheses of weevil relationships and classification schemes. Mitogenomic-derived trees reveal topologies that are highly congruent with previous molecular studies, but that conflict with some morphological hypotheses. Strong nodal support strengthens inferences into the relationships amongst most weevil families and suggests that the largest family, the Curculionidae, is monophyletic, if the subfamily Platypodinae is excluded.
  • Coleoptera: Curculionidae1

    Coleoptera: Curculionidae1

    Pacific Insects Monograph 27: 225-259 10 November 1971 ENTOMOLOGY OF THE AUCKLANDS AND OTHER ISLANDS SOUTH OF NEW ZEALAND: COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE1 By G. Kuschel2 Abstract: This is a supplementary report to that published on the Curculionidae from Auckland, Campbell, Antipodes, and Snares Islands (no species are known from Bounty or Macquarie) and is based on some 2000 additional specimens collected during further trips to the islands. The native fauna now contains 17 genera and 35 species belonging to 9 subfamilies; 4 genera (23.53%) and 21 species (60.0%) being endemic. All genera and species have their closest relatives in the New Zealand mainland. A significant fact is that none of the true wood borers, flower dwellers, or leaf miners is endemic, and that the larvae of all the endemic species live either in the soil (76.33%) or in decaying plants (23.67%). Further discussions on the composition of the fauna are presented. The fauna is also compared with that of other cold-temperate areas of the southern hemisphere. Apart from a general key to the genera, separate keys to the species are given for the Aucklands, Campbell, and the Snares. A few nomenclatural changes were necessary after an examination of some type material previously not available. INTRODUCTION Since the last paper on the subantarctic weevil fauna was published (Kuschel 1964) further parties to several islands have obtained some 2000 additional specimens which included four new species. I had the opportunity of participating in trips to Adams I, South of Auckland I, Campbell I, and Antipodes I. My primaiy object was to find out a little more about the environmental con­ ditions and feeding habits of each species as well as to gather large amounts of leaf litter, swards, mats, and cushion plants for the extraction of the ground and soil fauna, and some wood samples for rearing the wood borers and their associates.