DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Review No. CP 182 / 1807258 Weed Control Options And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research Review No. CP 182 / 1807258 Weed Control Options And April 2019 Research Review No. CP 182 / 1807258 Weed control options and future opportunities for UK crops Authors: Sarah K. Cook, Laura R. Davies, Frances Pickering, Lynn V. Tatnell, Angela Huckle, Sonia Newman, Chloe Whiteside, Charlotte White, David Talbot, Helen Holmes (ADAS), Patricia E. Turnbull (Independent agronomist), Denis C. Buckley (Independent agronomist), Jim Scrimshaw (PGRO) and Pamela Chambers (UPL) Editors: James H Clarke, Steve Ellis and Sarah Clarke (ADAS Boxworth, Boxworth, Cambs CB23 4NN) This review was produced as the final report of a four month project (CP 182 / 1807258) that started in September 2018. The work was funded under a contract of £26,000 from AHDB and £10,000 from BBRO, with additional funding from BASF, Bayer CropScience, Belchim, Corteva Agriscience, FMC Agro Ltd, Syngenta and UPL Europe Ltd. Additional in-kind funders and contributors: Frontier, Garford Farm Machinery, Hutchinsons, Maize Growers Association, PGRO, Procam and Rootwave. While the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board seeks to ensure that the information contained within this document is accurate at the time of printing, no warranty is given in respect thereof and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board accepts no liability for loss, damage or injury howsoever caused (including that caused by negligence) or suffered directly or indirectly in relation to information and opinions contained in or omitted from this document. Reference herein to trade names and proprietary products without stating that they are protected does not imply that they may be regarded as unprotected and thus free for general use. No endorsement of named products is intended, nor is any criticism implied of other alternative, but unnamed, products. iii iv v CONTENTS 1. ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................1 2. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................7 2.1. Document structure ........................................................................................... 10 3. WEED CONTROL TECHNIQUES ................................................................................... 12 3.1. Integrated weed management ........................................................................... 14 3.2. Cultural Control .................................................................................................. 16 3.2.1. Rotations ....................................................................................................... 16 3.2.2. Rotational livestock grazing and weed management ..................................... 18 3.2.3. Crop species.................................................................................................. 19 3.2.4. Crop cultivars ................................................................................................. 20 3.2.5. Tillage and cultivations .................................................................................. 20 3.2.6. Fallow ............................................................................................................ 27 3.2.7. Cover cropping .............................................................................................. 30 3.2.8. Intercropping or companion cropping ............................................................. 32 3.2.9. Seed rates ..................................................................................................... 33 3.2.10. Row widths .................................................................................................... 33 3.2.11. Drilling dates .................................................................................................. 34 3.2.12. Timing of nitrogen .......................................................................................... 34 3.3. Non-Chemical Control ........................................................................................ 35 3.3.1. Manual removal of weeds .............................................................................. 35 3.3.2. Mechanical weeding ...................................................................................... 36 3.3.3. Mowing and cutting ........................................................................................ 40 3.3.4. Thermal weeding ........................................................................................... 43 3.3.5. Abrasive weeding .......................................................................................... 48 3.3.6. Mulching (excluding living plant ground cover) ............................................... 49 3.3.7. Allelopathy ..................................................................................................... 50 3.3.8. Biological control ........................................................................................... 52 3.3.9. Harvest weed seed control ............................................................................ 53 vi 3.4. Chemical Control ................................................................................................ 54 3.4.1. Existing chemistries ....................................................................................... 56 3.4.2. Current uses of glyphosate ............................................................................ 60 3.4.3. Alternatives to glyphosate .............................................................................. 60 3.4.4. Crop desiccation ............................................................................................ 62 3.4.5. Optimising use of existing chemistry .............................................................. 63 3.4.6. New chemistry ............................................................................................... 69 3.4.7. Herbicide resistance ...................................................................................... 71 3.4.8. Herbicide resistance diagnostics .................................................................... 74 3.4.9. Bioherbicides ................................................................................................. 78 3.4.10. Biopesticides – transferable technology ......................................................... 80 3.5. Novel and Emerging Technologies ................................................................... 80 3.5.1. Sensing and predicting the need for control ................................................... 80 3.5.2. Tools used to provide control ......................................................................... 83 3.6. Digital tools ......................................................................................................... 85 3.6.1. Prediction modelling ...................................................................................... 86 3.6.2. Decision support systems .............................................................................. 87 3.6.3. Internet tools .................................................................................................. 89 3.6.4. Apps .............................................................................................................. 91 3.7. Genetic Tools ...................................................................................................... 92 3.7.1. Herbicide tolerant crops ................................................................................. 92 3.7.2. Genetically modified crops ............................................................................. 93 3.7.3. CRISPR technology ....................................................................................... 99 3.7.4. RNA interference technology ....................................................................... 100 3.7.5. Quantitative trait loci .................................................................................... 100 3.7.6. Weed genome sequencing .......................................................................... 101 3.8. Preventative weed control ............................................................................... 101 3.8.1. Contaminated straw ..................................................................................... 102 3.8.2. Forage, feed and livestock ........................................................................... 102 vii 3.8.3. Composting, anaerobic digestion, and sewage sludge ................................ 103 3.8.4. Weeds in sown seed .................................................................................... 103 3.8.5. Manage weeds in non-cropped areas .......................................................... 105 3.8.6. Machinery .................................................................................................... 105 3.8.7. Water ........................................................................................................... 105 3.8.8. Predation ..................................................................................................... 105 4. THE APPLICABILITY OF WEED CONTROL OPTIONS BY CROP .............................. 106 4.1. Horticulture ....................................................................................................... 106 4.1.1. Field vegetables .......................................................................................... 106 4.1.2. Soft fruit ......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparison of Different Mechanical Weed Control Strategies in Sugar Beets
    27. Deutsche Arbeitsbesprechung über Fragen der Unkrautbiologie und -bekämpfung, 23.-25. Februar 2016 in Braunschweig Comparison of different mechanical weed control strategies in sugar beets Vergleich verschiedener mechanischer Unkrautstrategien in Zuckerrüben Christoph Kunz*, Jonas Felix Weber, Roland Gerhards University of Hohenheim, Institute of Phytomedicine, Otto-Sander-Straße 5, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany *Corresponding author, [email protected] DOI 10.5073/jka.2016.452.059 Abstract In sugar beet (Beta vulgaris.) weed control is commonly performed by herbicide application applied broadcast at splitting during the cultivation period. Mechanical weeding can be an alternative to chemical weed control. The aim of this experiment was the estimation of weed control efficacy with the use of automatic steering technologies by camera guidance, the use of different intra row weed control implements in conservation tillage systems and the influence of these techniques to the number of uprooted sugar beets. A field experiment with a randomized complete plot design was conducted in 2015 at Ihinger Hof, Germany. Weed density ranged from 0 to 12 plants m-2 with Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus, Polygonum aviculare as the most abundant weed species. Hoeing with the use of automatic steering technologies reduced the weed density by 82%. The use of finger weeders, rotary-harrow and torsion finger weeder reduced the weed density by 29% compared to common hoeing strategies. Differences in the number of uprooted sugar beets were not found across all treatments. We revealed the possibility of a more intense use of mechanical weeding technologies in combination with precision farming technologies in sugar beet. Keywords: Camera steering, inter row weeding, intra row weeding, mechanical weed control, sugar beets Zusammenfassung In Zuckerrüben (Beta vulgaris) wird die Unkrautkontrolle meistens durch eine mehrfache Herbizidapplikation auf der gesamten Ackerfläche durchgeführt.
    [Show full text]
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Water Beetles
    Ireland Red List No. 1 Water beetles Ireland Red List No. 1: Water beetles G.N. Foster1, B.H. Nelson2 & Á. O Connor3 1 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ 2 Department of Natural Sciences, National Museums Northern Ireland 3 National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government Citation: Foster, G. N., Nelson, B. H. & O Connor, Á. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 1 – Water beetles. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Cover images from top: Dryops similaris (© Roy Anderson); Gyrinus urinator, Hygrotus decoratus, Berosus signaticollis & Platambus maculatus (all © Jonty Denton) Ireland Red List Series Editors: N. Kingston & F. Marnell © National Parks and Wildlife Service 2009 ISSN 2009‐2016 Red list of Irish Water beetles 2009 ____________________________ CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 3 NOMENCLATURE AND THE IRISH CHECKLIST................................................................................................ 3 COVERAGE .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Between-Row Mower Design for Weed Control in Organically Grown No-Till Soybeans
    BETWEEN-ROW MOWER DESIGN FOR WEED CONTROL IN ORGANICALLY GROWN NO-TILL SOYBEANS ________________________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri ________________________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science ________________________________________________________________________ By GABRIEL AYICHIM ZULKARINI ABDULAI Dr. Kerry Clark, Thesis Supervisor JULY 2018 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled BETWEEN-ROW MOWER DESIGN FOR WEED CONTROL IN ORGANICALLY GROWN NO-TILL SOYBEANS Presented by Gabriel Ayichim Zulkarini Abdulai A candidate for the degree of Master of Science, Biological Engineering And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Dr. Teng Lim Dr. Kerry Clark Dr. Leon Schumacher Dr. Steve Borgelt ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A local proverb in my home country states that ‘when someone has been good to you, appreciate them and be grateful’ It is therefore with heartfelt gratitude that I want to thank Dr. Kerry Clark for providing me with this great opportunity to grow in knowledge and to contribute to the field of mechanical weed control in organic no-till. I am most grateful for this opportunity and the scholarship given me. I also want to thank Dr. Leon Schumacher for his encouragement. Your counsel and mentorship has been helpful and contributed to making me a better student. I am also grateful to Dr. Teng Lim for his advice and support in the pursuit of my master’s degree. I want to also thank Dr. Steve Borgelt for broadening my horizon in hydraulics. Dr. Rob Myers supported and encouraged me greatly in my pursuits.
    [Show full text]
  • Manuka Oil As a Potential Natural Herbicide
    Manuka Oil as a Potential Natural Herbicide Franck E. Dayan and Daniel K. Owens USDA-ARS Natural Products Utilization Research Unit P.O. Box 8048, University, MS 38677 [email protected] In 1977, Gray observed that bottlebrush plant (Callistemon citrinus) repressed the growth of plants in its surroundings. Crude extracts from this plant caused the bleaching of grass weeds. He identified the active component as leptospermone, a natural triketone structure with no known biological activity that had been reported in a number of Australasian shrubs. Leptospermone was moderately active in greenhouse tests, controlling mostly small-seeded grass weeds. This natural product and a small number of synthetic structural analogs were patented as herbicides in 1980. A few years later, a separate group at the Western Research Center was generating analogs of the cyclohexanedione herbicide sethoxydim, an inhibitor or acetyl- coenzyme-A carboxylase. Some of the second generation herbicidal derivatives with a dimedone backbone caused bleaching symptoms similar to leptospermone. Combination of the syncarpic acid of leptospermone to this chemistry ultimately served as the basis for the development of the triketone synthetic herbicides (Fig. 1). Fig. 1. Struct ure s of the n a tural trik et o n e leptosperm one a nd t w o s y nthetic analogues that are sold as commer ci a l he r bic ides. Natural β-triketones are common in many Australasian woody plants (e.g., Leptospermum, Eucalyptus, Melaceuca, etc...). Steam distilled manuka oil account for 0.3% of the dried weight of L. scoparium. However, the amount of β-triketone present in these oils varies wildly across New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvest-Aid Efficiency in Guar (Cyamopsis Tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.) in the Texas Plains
    Harvest-aid Efficiency in Guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.) in the Texas Plains by Jonathan Shockey BS A Thesis In Plant and Soil Sciences Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTERS OF SCIENCE Approved Dr. Peter Dotray Chair of Committee Dr. Calvin Trostle Dr. Noureddine Abidi Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School December, 2016 Copyright 2016, Jonathan Shockey Texas Tech University, Jonathan Shockey, December 2016 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Calvin Trostle and Texas A&M AgriLife Extension for not only his guidance during this research and for allowing me the time away from my assigned duties to complete these experiments; but also for providing the funding to get it accomplished. Under his direction I learned many things about agricultural research that I will carry with me throughout my career. I would also like to thank Dr. Peter Dotray for his advice and direction both as committee co-chairman and as an instructor for modes and mechanisms of herbicides. Rounding out my committee I would like to thank Dr. Noureddine Abidi for his expert advice in all potential biopolymer aspects of this study, and patient instruction during his biopolymers and bioproducts course. Additionally, I would like to thank Ray White for his assistance in conducting spray applications, harvesting, and other data collection, his time and dedication to this research was without question a major contribution to its completion. I would also like to thank Dr. Katie Lewis for her expert assistance with SAS and other software questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Weed Control Cultural and Mechanical Methods
    Organic Weed Control Cultural & Mechanical Methods Corn (next to a field of oats/peas/barley) that has recently been cultivated for the second and last time with a high-clear- ance cultivator. Peter Martens, cultivating soybeans on a John Deere 3020 with JD725 front-mount cul- tivator and a IH133 rear-mount cultivator, both with C-shank teeth. The front has half by Mary-Howell & Klaas Martens sweeps, the back has sweeps. The front cultivator is modified to have two gangs per row eeds happen. That is a fact of instead of the standard single gang in the middle of the row. The rear cultivator is modi- fied with a side shifter to keep it aligned with the front cultivator on side hills. life for organic farmers, and Wtherefore many of our field soil conditions, weather, crop rotations weed control is a multi-year, whole-farm, operations are designed to make sure that and field histories, machinery, markets multi-faceted approach — and you are the health and quality of our crops are not and specific market quality demands, and probably doing much of it already without jeopardized by the inevitable weed pres- available time and labor. You must have realizing the effect your actions have on sure. Planning an effective the ability to adjust your weed pressure. Reprinted from weed-control program weed-control strategies to the Writing in 1939, German agricultural involves many different unique and ever-changing researcher Bernard Rademacher stated, aspects of organic crop challenges of each year. “Cultural weed control should form the production. As farmers August 2002 • Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • Jamesdanieljonesiiithesis.Doc-After Defense
    The Evaluation of HPPD-Inhibitors for Full-Season Control of Morningglory (Ipomoea) Species in Corn (Zea mays L.) by James Daniel Jones III A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 15, 2018 Keywords: Ipomoea, corn, HPPD, postemergence Approved by Dr. Dennis Delaney, Chair, Extension Specialist, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Andrew Price, Affiliate Associate Professor, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Audrey Gamble, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences i Abstract Due to late-season morningglory harvest interference concerns in corn, field studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 at the Prattville Agricultural Research Unit in Prattville, Alabama and at the Sand Mountain Research and Extension Center in Crossville, Alabama to evaluate late season control of morningglory species using HPPD- inhibitors postemergence (POST) applied alone, following atrazine preemergence (PRE), or in combination with atrazine. Additionally, Amaranthus spp. and Senna spp. were evaluated for control. An incomplete randomized design with a split-plot treatment arrangement with four replications was utilized. The trial was divided into two sections: one with a PRE application of atrazine and a second without a preemergence application of atrazine. Eleven herbicides were applied POST without atrazine including: tembotrione; mesotrione; topramezone+dimethenamid; mesotrione+S- metolachlor+glyphosate; tembotrione+thiencarbazone; topramezone; mesotrione+S- metolachlor+atrazine; mesotrione+S-metolachlor+atrazine+bicyclopyrone; mesotrione+nicosulfuron; isoxaflutole; isoxaflutole+thiencarbazone-methyl; non-treated with atrazine applied PRE, and a true non-treated check. The same herbicides, excluding the two treatments that contain atrazine in the premixture, were also applied with atrazine.
    [Show full text]
  • Metacommunities and Biodiversity Patterns in Mediterranean Temporary Ponds: the Role of Pond Size, Network Connectivity and Dispersal Mode
    METACOMMUNITIES AND BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS IN MEDITERRANEAN TEMPORARY PONDS: THE ROLE OF POND SIZE, NETWORK CONNECTIVITY AND DISPERSAL MODE Irene Tornero Pinilla Per citar o enllaçar aquest document: Para citar o enlazar este documento: Use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/670096 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.ca Aquesta obra està subjecta a una llicència Creative Commons Reconeixement- NoComercial Esta obra está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence DOCTORAL THESIS Metacommunities and biodiversity patterns in Mediterranean temporary ponds: the role of pond size, network connectivity and dispersal mode Irene Tornero Pinilla 2020 DOCTORAL THESIS Metacommunities and biodiversity patterns in Mediterranean temporary ponds: the role of pond size, network connectivity and dispersal mode IRENE TORNERO PINILLA 2020 DOCTORAL PROGRAMME IN WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUPERVISED BY DR DANI BOIX MASAFRET DR STÉPHANIE GASCÓN GARCIA Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements to obtain the Degree of Doctor at the University of Girona Dr Dani Boix Masafret and Dr Stéphanie Gascón Garcia, from the University of Girona, DECLARE: That the thesis entitled Metacommunities and biodiversity patterns in Mediterranean temporary ponds: the role of pond size, network connectivity and dispersal mode submitted by Irene Tornero Pinilla to obtain a doctoral degree has been completed under our supervision. In witness thereof, we hereby sign this document. Dr Dani Boix Masafret Dr Stéphanie Gascón Garcia Girona, 22nd November 2019 A mi familia Caminante, son tus huellas el camino y nada más; Caminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fungi of Slapton Ley National Nature Reserve and Environs
    THE FUNGI OF SLAPTON LEY NATIONAL NATURE RESERVE AND ENVIRONS APRIL 2019 Image © Visit South Devon ASCOMYCOTA Order Family Name Abrothallales Abrothallaceae Abrothallus microspermus CY (IMI 164972 p.p., 296950), DM (IMI 279667, 279668, 362458), N4 (IMI 251260), Wood (IMI 400386), on thalli of Parmelia caperata and P. perlata. Mainly as the anamorph <it Abrothallus parmeliarum C, CY (IMI 164972), DM (IMI 159809, 159865), F1 (IMI 159892), 2, G2, H, I1 (IMI 188770), J2, N4 (IMI 166730), SV, on thalli of Parmelia carporrhizans, P Abrothallus parmotrematis DM, on Parmelia perlata, 1990, D.L. Hawksworth (IMI 400397, as Vouauxiomyces sp.) Abrothallus suecicus DM (IMI 194098); on apothecia of Ramalina fustigiata with st. conid. Phoma ranalinae Nordin; rare. (L2) Abrothallus usneae (as A. parmeliarum p.p.; L2) Acarosporales Acarosporaceae Acarospora fuscata H, on siliceous slabs (L1); CH, 1996, T. Chester. Polysporina simplex CH, 1996, T. Chester. Sarcogyne regularis CH, 1996, T. Chester; N4, on concrete posts; very rare (L1). Trimmatothelopsis B (IMI 152818), on granite memorial (L1) [EXTINCT] smaragdula Acrospermales Acrospermaceae Acrospermum compressum DM (IMI 194111), I1, S (IMI 18286a), on dead Urtica stems (L2); CY, on Urtica dioica stem, 1995, JLT. Acrospermum graminum I1, on Phragmites debris, 1990, M. Marsden (K). Amphisphaeriales Amphisphaeriaceae Beltraniella pirozynskii D1 (IMI 362071a), on Quercus ilex. Ceratosporium fuscescens I1 (IMI 188771c); J1 (IMI 362085), on dead Ulex stems. (L2) Ceriophora palustris F2 (IMI 186857); on dead Carex puniculata leaves. (L2) Lepteutypa cupressi SV (IMI 184280); on dying Thuja leaves. (L2) Monographella cucumerina (IMI 362759), on Myriophyllum spicatum; DM (IMI 192452); isol. ex vole dung. (L2); (IMI 360147, 360148, 361543, 361544, 361546).
    [Show full text]
  • (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) for the Control of Salvinia
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2011 Introduction and Establishment of Cyrtobagous salviniae Calder and Sands (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) for the Control of Salvinia minima Baker (Salviniaceae), and Interspecies Interactions Possibly Limiting Successful Control in Louisiana Katherine A. Parys Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Parys, Katherine A., "Introduction and Establishment of Cyrtobagous salviniae Calder and Sands (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) for the Control of Salvinia minima Baker (Salviniaceae), and Interspecies Interactions Possibly Limiting Successful Control in Louisiana" (2011). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 1565. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1565 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. INTRODUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CYRTOBAGOUS SALVINIAE CALDER AND SANDS (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE) FOR THE CONTROL OF SALVINIA MINIMA BAKER (SALVINIACEAE), AND INTERSPECIES INTERACTIONS POSSIBLY LIMITING SUCCESSFUL CONTROL IN LOUISIANA. A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Entomology By Katherine A. Parys B.A., University of Rhode Island, 2002 M.S., Clarion University of Pennsylvania, 2004 December 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In pursing this Ph.D. I owe many thanks to many people who have supported me throughout this endeavor.
    [Show full text]