DOCSLIB.ORG

THE INFLUENCE of CULTIVAR and NATURAL ENEMIES on RASPBERRY BEETLE (Byturus Tomentosus De Geer) LIINA ARUS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE INFLUENCE of CULTIVAR and NATURAL ENEMIES on RASPBERRY BEETLE (Byturus Tomentosus De Geer) LIINA ARUS THE INFLUENCE OF CULTIVAR AND NATURAL ENEMIES ON RASPBERRY BEETLE (Byturus tomentosus De Geer) SORDI JA LOODUSLIKE VAENLASTE MÕJU VAARIKAMARDIKALE (Byturus tomentosus De Geer) LIINA ARUS A Thesis for applying for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology Väitekiri filosoofiadoktori kraadi taotlemiseks entomoloogia erialal Tartu 2013 EESTI MAAÜLIKOOL ESTONIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES THE INFLUENCE OF CULTIVAR AND NATURAL ENEMIES ON RASPBERRY BEETLE (Byturus tomentosus De Geer) SORDI JA LOODUSLIKE VAENLASTE MÕJU VAARIKAMARDIKALE (Byturus tomentosus De Geer) LIINA ARUS A Th esis for applying for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology Väitekiri fi losoofi adoktori kraadi taotlemiseks entomoloogia erialal Tartu 2013 Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Estonian University of Life Sciences According to verdict No 149 of August 28, 2013, the Doctoral Commitee of Agricultural and Natural Sciences of the Estonian University of Life Sciences has accepted the thesis for the defence of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology. Opponent: Prof. Inara Turka Latvia University of Agriculture Jelgava, Latvia Supervisor: Prof. Emer. Anne Luik Estonian University of Life Sciences Defense of the thesis: Estonian University of Life Sciences, Karl Ernst von Baer house, Veski st. 4, Tartu on October 4, 2013 at 11.00 The English language was edited by PhD Ingrid Williams. The Estonian language was edited by PhD Luule Metspalu. Publication of the thesis is supported by the Estonian University of Life Sciences and by the Doctoral School of Earth Sciences and Ecology created under the auspices of European Social Fund. © Liina Arus, 2013 ISBN 978-9949-484-93-5 (trükis) ISBN 978-9949-484-94-2 (pdf) CONTENTS LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS ..........................................7 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ 9 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 10 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................... 13 2.1. Raspberry beetle: biology and cultivar preference .................. 13 2.2. Raspberry beetle’s natural enemies ........................................ 14 2.3. Eff ects of cultivation technologies on the pests and their natural enemies .............................................................17 3. HYPOTHESES AND AIMS OF THE STUDY ........................19 4. MATERIALS AND METHODS ...............................................20 4.1. Descriptions and design of the experimental areas ................20 4.1.1. Data collection in fi eld experiments ............................. 23 4.1.2. Weather conditions ..................................................... 24 4.2. Laboratory feeding experiment (IV) ......................................24 4.3. Statistical data analyses ..........................................................25 5. RESULTS .................................................................................... 27 5.1. Th e impact of cultivars (I) and mulching on raspberry beetle damage ................................................................................ 27 5.2. Th e carabids species composition and abundance; impact of cultivation technologies (II, III) ...........................................28 5.3. Laboratory feeding experiment with carabids (IV) .................34 5.4. Th e impact of intercropping on the parasitisation level of raspberry beetle larvae (V) .................................................... 34 6. DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 36 6.1. Th e impact of raspberry cultivars and mulches on the raspberry beetle damage ....................................................................... 36 6.2. Th e infl uence of cultivation technologies on the natural enemies of raspberry beetle ................................................... 38 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 42 SUMMARY IN ESTONIAN .........................................................44 REFERENCES ................................................................................ 48 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................ 61 5 ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS........................................................ 63 CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................... 109 ELULOOKIRJELDUS ...................................................................112 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ............................................................115 6 LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS This thesis is a summary of the following papers, which are referred to by Roman numerals in the text. The papers are reproduced with due permission from the publishers of the following journals: Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (III), Žemdirbystė/Agriculture (IV) and Agronomy Research (V). I. Arus, L., Kikas, A., Kaldmäe, H., Kahu, K. and Luik, A. 2013. Damage by raspberry beetle (Byturus tomentosus De Geer) in different raspberry cultivars. (Accepted by Biological Agriculture and Horticulture). II. Luik, A., Tarang, T., Veroman, E., Kikas, A. and Hanni, L. 2002. Carabids in the Estonian crops. In Proceedings of the scientifi cs international conference „Plant protection in the Baltic region in the context of integration to EU“, Kaunas, Lithuania Sept. 26-27. 2002: 68–71. III. Arus, L., Luik, A., Monikainen, M. and Kikas, A. 2011. Does mulching infl uence potential predators of raspberry beetle? Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Plant Soil Science 61(3): 220–227. IV. Arus, L., Kikas, A. and Luik, A. 2012. Carabidae as natural enemies of the raspberry beetle (Byturus tomentosus F.). Žemdirbystė/Agriculture 99(3): 327–332. V. Hanni, L. and Luik, A. 2006. Parasitism of raspberry beetle (Byturus tomentosus F.) larvae in different cropping techniques of red raspberry. Agronomy Research 4 (special issue): 187–190. 7 The contribution of the author to the papers: Paper I II III IV V Idea and design LA, AL AL LA, AL LA, AL LA, AL Data collection LA, KK TT, EV, AK, LA LA, MM LA LA Data analysis LA All LA, MM LA LA Manuscript preparation All All LA, AL, AK All All LA − Liina Arus; AL − Anne Luik; AK − Ave Kikas; KK − Kersti Kahu; MM − Martin Monikainen; TT − Tiiu Tarang; EV − Eve Veromann; All − all authors of the paper. 8 ABBREVIATIONS ANOVA analysis of variance BP black plastic mulch cv. (cvs.) cultivar(s) LSD least signifi cant difference ns not signifi cant (statistics) p probability (statistics) PM peat mulch r correlation coeffi cient RB raspberry beetle SD standard deviation (statistics) SDM sawdust mulch SE standard error (statistics) SM straw mulch WM without mulching 9 1. INTRODUCTION Raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) is the most widely grown top fruit crop of all Rubus species throughout the world; most production is concentrated in northern and central Europe (Gordon et al., 1997; Graham and Jennings, 2009). According to Statistics Estonia, the cultivation area of small fruits has decreased during the last decade, with only 150 hectares of raspberries grown in 2012 in Estonia; however, at the same time on data of the Estonian Agricultural Board the organically-grown raspberry area has increased to about 27 hectares. Insuffi cient winter hardiness is the most essential factor reducing raspberry yield in Nordic conditions (Dénes and Kollányi, 1999; Kikas et al., 2002; Libek and Hanni, 2003; Arus et al., 2008a; Strautina et al., 2012; Arus and Libek, 2013) but also the abundance of diseases and pests. Pest regulation methods are still under-developed for environmentally-friendly fruit production (Gordon et al., 1997; Vétek et al., 2008). Many growers of organic raspberry have large losses in yield and reduced quality of their products because of insect damage. The dominant pest – the raspberry beetle (RB) (Byturus tomentosus De Geer) (Coleoptera; Byturidae), affects raspberry yield as well as fruit quality (Birch et al., 2004). Most consumers and high quality producers have zero tolerance of larval contamination and fruit injury. Damaged fruits can also become infected by grey mould (Botrytis cinerea Pers.) thus further reducing their storage quality (Woodford et al., 2002). The occurrence of the pest is dependent on the genetic properties of cultivars, natural enemies and cultivation technologies. In conventional production, control of RB generally relies on synthetic chemical insecticides, often sprayed prophylactically (Gordon et al., 1997; Gordon, 2008; Linder et al., 2011). This pollutes the environment and also kills the natural enemies of the pests. Sublethal doses of residues in nectar and pollen can cause physiological dysfunctions in bees, parasitoids and predators (Gels et al., 2002; Ramirez-Romero et al., 2005; Rogers et al., 2007; Peusens and Gobin, 2008; Mänd et al., 2010). Decreased pesticide use positively affects coccinellids, syrphid larvae and spider communities (Schumacher and Freier, 2008; Volkmar et al., 2008), while also improving the quality, including antioxidant activity, of the fruits (Worthington, 2001; Asami et al., 2003; Olsson et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2008; Tõnutare 10 et al., 2009; Reganold et al., 2010) thereby having a positive impact on human health (Rembiałkowska and Średnicka, 2009). Raspberry cultivars from northern, central and southern Europe differ in morphological, phenological and biochemical properties (Finn and Hancock, 2008; Graham and Jennings, 2009). They can be different in susceptibility
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Integrated Pest Management for Raspberry Beetle
    Integrated Pest Management for Raspberry Beetle Order: Coleoptera Family: Byturidae Species: Byturus unicolor The raspberry beetle, also known as the raspberry fruitworm, is a product contaminant pest found in raspberry fields in Washington. The larvae, or fruitworm, may fall off with the fruit during machine harvest. This pest has often been controlled by a diazinon treatment at 5% bloom, before pollinators are brought into the field. The United States Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to reduce the use of organophosphates, such as diazinon, through higher restrictions and cancellations. New monitoring tools for the raspberry beetle have been developed and tested in Whatcom County. The Rebell® Bianco white sticky trap can be used to detect raspberry beetle levels in a field. This may help in determining what treatment, if any, is Figure 1: Adult raspberry required for control of the pest. beetle on a raspberry bud Biology: The adult raspberry beetle is between 0.15 and 0.2” in length, a reddish brown color with short hairs covering its whole body (see figure 1). Overwintering in the soil, the adult emerges in the spring between mid-April and mid-May depending on soil temperatures. The adults feed on leaves, often on the new primocane leaves, but in areas of high populations they will also feed on upper floricane leaves. Adults are then attracted to flower buds and blooms where mating and, subsequently, ovipositing occurs. Larvae (or fruitworm) emerge from the eggs on the flower or immature fruit and begin feeding on the receptacle. The larvae are between 0.1” and 0.25” in length depending on the time of season.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Plant-Animal Interactions in the Forest Herb Actaea Spicata
    The spatial and temporal dynamics of plant-animal interactions in the forest herb Actaea spicata Hugo von Zeipel Stockholm University ©Hugo von Zeipel, Stockholm 2007 Cover: Actaea spicata and fruits with exit holes from larvae of the moth Eupithecia immundata. Photo: Hugo von Zeipel ISBN 978-91-7155-535-9 Printed in Sweden by Universitetsservice, US-AB, Stockholm 2007 Distributor: Department of Botany, Stockholm University Till slut Doctoral dissertation Hugo von Zeipel Department of Botany Stockholm University SE-10691 Stockholm Sweden The spatial and temporal dynamics of plant-animal interactions in the forest herb Actaea spicata Abstract – Landscape effects on species performance currently receives much attention. Habitat loss and fragmentation are considered major threats to species diversity. Deciduous forests in southern Sweden are previous wooded pastures that have become species-rich communities appearing as islands in agricultural landscapes, varying in species composition. Actaea spicata is a long-lived plant occurring in these forests. In 150 populations in a 10-km2 area, I studied pre-dispersal seed predation, seed dispersal and pollination. I investigated spatio-temporal dynamics of a tritrophic system including Actaea, a specialist seed predator, Eupithecia immundata, and its parasitoids. In addition, effects of biotic context on rodent fruit dispersal and effects of flowering time and flower number on seed set, seed predation and parasitization were studied. Insect incidences of both trophic levels were related to resource population size and small Eupithecia populations were maintained by the rescue effect. There was a unimodal relationship between seed predation and plant population size. Seed predator populations fre- quently went extinct in small plant populations, resulting in low average seed predation.
    [Show full text]
  • Pruning of Small Fruit Crops Can Affect Habitat Suitability for Drosophila Suzukii
    Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 294 (2020) 106860 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee Pruning of small fruit crops can affect habitat suitability for Drosophila T suzukii Torsten Schöneberga,1, Arielle Arsenault-Benoita,1, Christopher M. Taylora, Bryan R. Butlerb, Daniel T. Daltonc, Vaughn M. Waltonc, Andrew Petrand, Mary A. Rogersd, Lauren M. Diepenbrocke, Hannah J. Burrackf, Heather Leachg, Steven Van Timmereng, Philip D. Fanningg, Rufus Isaacsg, Brian E. Gressh, Mark P. Boldai, Frank G. Zalomh, Craig R. Roubosj, Richard K. Evansj, Ashfaq A. Sialj, Kelly A. Hambya,* a Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA b Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, College Park, MD, 20742, USA c Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA d Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, 55108, USA e Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Lake Alfred, FL, 33850, USA f Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA g Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA h Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA i University of California Cooperative Extension, Santa Cruz County, Watsonville, CA, 95076, USA j Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Insect activity, survival, and development are affected by climatic conditions that elicit effects at multiple scales. Spotted-wing drosophila Pruning small fruit crop canopies alters the microclimate, which in turn may influence insect pest activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)
    November - December 2008 633 ECOLOGY, BEHAVIOR AND BIONOMICS Wolbachia in Two Populations of Melittobia digitata Dahms (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) CLAUDIA S. COPELAND1, ROBERT W. M ATTHEWS2, JORGE M. GONZÁLEZ 3, MARTIN ALUJA4 AND JOHN SIVINSKI1 1USDA/ARS/CMAVE, 1700 SW 23rd Dr., Gainesville, FL 32608, USA; [email protected], [email protected] 2Dept. Entomology, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA; [email protected] 3Dept. Entomology, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843-2475, USA; [email protected] 4Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Ap. postal 63, 91000 Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico; [email protected] Neotropical Entomology 37(6):633-640 (2008) Wolbachia en Dos Poblaciones de Melittobia digitata Dahms (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) RESUMEN - Se investigaron dos poblaciones de Melittobia digitata Dahms, un parasitoide gregario (principalmente sobre un rango amplio de abejas solitarias, avispas y moscas), en busca de infección por Wolbachia. La primera población, provenía de Xalapa, México, y fue originalmente colectada y criada sobre pupas de la Mosca Mexicana de la Fruta, Anastrepha ludens Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae). La segunda población, originaria de Athens, Georgia, fue colectada y criada sobre prepupas de avispas de barro, Trypoxylon politum Say (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae). Estudios de PCR de la región ITS2 confi rmaron que ambas poblaciones del parasitoide pertenecen a la misma especie; lo que nos provee de un perfi l molecular taxonómico muy útil debído a que las hembras de las diversas especies de Melittobia son superfi cialmente similares. La amplifi cación del gen de superfi cie de proteina (wsp) de Wolbachia confi rmó la presencia de este endosimbionte en ambas poblaciones.
    [Show full text]
  • IOBC/WPRS Working Group “Integrated Plant Protection in Fruit
    IOBC/WPRS Working Group “Integrated Plant Protection in Fruit Crops” Subgroup “Soft Fruits” Proceedings of Workshop on Integrated Soft Fruit Production East Malling (United Kingdom) 24-27 September 2007 Editors Ch. Linder & J.V. Cross IOBC/WPRS Bulletin Bulletin OILB/SROP Vol. 39, 2008 The content of the contributions is in the responsibility of the authors The IOBC/WPRS Bulletin is published by the International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants, West Palearctic Regional Section (IOBC/WPRS) Le Bulletin OILB/SROP est publié par l‘Organisation Internationale de Lutte Biologique et Intégrée contre les Animaux et les Plantes Nuisibles, section Regionale Ouest Paléarctique (OILB/SROP) Copyright: IOBC/WPRS 2008 The Publication Commission of the IOBC/WPRS: Horst Bathon Luc Tirry Julius Kuehn Institute (JKI), Federal University of Gent Research Centre for Cultivated Plants Laboratory of Agrozoology Institute for Biological Control Department of Crop Protection Heinrichstr. 243 Coupure Links 653 D-64287 Darmstadt (Germany) B-9000 Gent (Belgium) Tel +49 6151 407-225, Fax +49 6151 407-290 Tel +32-9-2646152, Fax +32-9-2646239 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Address General Secretariat: Dr. Philippe C. Nicot INRA – Unité de Pathologie Végétale Domaine St Maurice - B.P. 94 F-84143 Montfavet Cedex (France) ISBN 978-92-9067-213-5 http://www.iobc-wprs.org Integrated Plant Protection in Soft Fruits IOBC/wprs Bulletin 39, 2008 Contents Development of semiochemical attractants, lures and traps for raspberry beetle, Byturus tomentosus at SCRI; from fundamental chemical ecology to testing IPM tools with growers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution and Genomic Basis of Beetle Diversity
    The evolution and genomic basis of beetle diversity Duane D. McKennaa,b,1,2, Seunggwan Shina,b,2, Dirk Ahrensc, Michael Balked, Cristian Beza-Bezaa,b, Dave J. Clarkea,b, Alexander Donathe, Hermes E. Escalonae,f,g, Frank Friedrichh, Harald Letschi, Shanlin Liuj, David Maddisonk, Christoph Mayere, Bernhard Misofe, Peyton J. Murina, Oliver Niehuisg, Ralph S. Petersc, Lars Podsiadlowskie, l m l,n o f l Hans Pohl , Erin D. Scully , Evgeny V. Yan , Xin Zhou , Adam Slipinski , and Rolf G. Beutel aDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; bCenter for Biodiversity Research, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; cCenter for Taxonomy and Evolutionary Research, Arthropoda Department, Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; dBavarian State Collection of Zoology, Bavarian Natural History Collections, 81247 Munich, Germany; eCenter for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; fAustralian National Insect Collection, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; gDepartment of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Institute for Biology I (Zoology), University of Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany; hInstitute of Zoology, University of Hamburg, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany; iDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Wien, Wien 1030, Austria; jChina National GeneBank, BGI-Shenzhen, 518083 Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; kDepartment of Integrative Biology, Oregon State
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Material
    Parisi F, Lombardi F, Marziliano PA, Russo D, De Cristofaro A, Marchetti M, Tognetti R (2020). Diversity of saproxylic beetle communities in chestnut agroforestry systems iForest – Biogeosciences and Forestry – doi: 10.3832/ifor3478-013 Supplementary Material Fig. S1 - Differences of means for the occurring forms of MHs through the application of a Tukey test. In detail, if an interval does not contain the zero value, then the corresponding means are significantly different. s1 Parisi F, Lombardi F, Marziliano PA, Russo D, De Cristofaro A, Marchetti M, Tognetti R (2020). Diversity of saproxylic beetle communities in chestnut agroforestry systems iForest – Biogeosciences and Forestry – doi: 10.3832/ifor3478-013 Tab. S1 - List of species of Coleoptera and number of specimens collected from young coppice (YC), mature coppice (MC) and traditional fruit orchard (TO). IUCN = Red List Categories (Audisio et al. 2015). LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, DD = Data Deficient. CT = Trophic Categories. XY = xylophagous (also on healthy trees), SX = saproxylophagous (on dead wood and woody rotting material, including woodmould), PR = predator (as larvae and/or adults) of Sx/xy or of other saproxylic insects, MY = mycophagous (on hyphae of saproxylic fungi or yeasts, and myxomycetes, mostly under bark), MB = mycetobiontic on carpophora of large Polyporales and other fungi living on old trees and stumps, NI (CO) = inhabiting birds’ and small mammals’ nests in hollow trees, CO = commensal of Sx/xy or of other saproxylic insects, SF = sap-feeder on trees attacked by xy, SP = saprophytophagous (on dead vegetal rotting material associated with dead wood debris) (Audisio et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Introduction and Key to Families
    Royal Entomological Society HANDBOOKS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BRITISH INSECTS To purchase current handbooks and to download out-of-print parts visit: http://www.royensoc.co.uk/publications/index.htm This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. Copyright © Royal Entomological Society 2012 ROYAL ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON Vol. IV. Part 1. HANDBOOKS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BRITISH INSECTS COLEOPTERA INTRODUCTION AND KEYS TO FAMILIES By R. A. CROWSON LONDON Published by the Society and Sold at its Rooms 41, Queen's Gate, S.W. 7 31st December, 1956 Price-res. c~ . HANDBOOKS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BRITISH INSECTS The aim of this series of publications is to provide illustrated keys to the whole of the British Insects (in so far as this is possible), in ten volumes, as follows : I. Part 1. General Introduction. Part 9. Ephemeroptera. , 2. Thysanura. 10. Odonata. , 3. Protura. , 11. Thysanoptera. 4. Collembola. , 12. Neuroptera. , 5. Dermaptera and , 13. Mecoptera. Orthoptera. , 14. Trichoptera. , 6. Plecoptera. , 15. Strepsiptera. , 7. Psocoptera. , 16. Siphonaptera. , 8. Anoplura. 11. Hemiptera. Ill. Lepidoptera. IV. and V. Coleoptera. VI. Hymenoptera : Symphyta and Aculeata. VII. Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea. VIII. Hymenoptera : Cynipoidea, Chalcidoidea, and Serphoidea. IX. Diptera: Nematocera and Brachycera. X. Diptera: Cyclorrhapha. Volumes 11 to X will be divided into parts of convenient size, but it is not possible to specify in advance the taxonomic content of each part. Conciseness and cheapness are main objectives in this new series, and each part will be the work of a specialist, or of a group of specialists.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Classification of the Families of Coleoptera
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 8 Number 3 - Fall 1975 Number 3 - Fall 1975 Article 4 October 1975 Current Classification of the amiliesF of Coleoptera M G. de Viedma University of Madrid M L. Nelson Wayne State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation de Viedma, M G. and Nelson, M L. 1975. "Current Classification of the amiliesF of Coleoptera," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 8 (3) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol8/iss3/4 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]. de Viedma and Nelson: Current Classification of the Families of Coleoptera THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST CURRENT CLASSIFICATION OF THE FAMILIES OF COLEOPTERA M. G. de viedmal and M. L. els son' Several works on the order Coleoptera have appeared in recent years, some of them creating new superfamilies, others modifying the constitution of these or creating new families, finally others are genera1 revisions of the order. The authors believe that the current classification of this order, incorporating these changes would prove useful. The following outline is based mainly on Crowson (1960, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1971, 1972, 1973) and Crowson and Viedma (1964). For characters used on classification see Viedma (1972) and for family synonyms Abdullah (1969). Major features of this conspectus are the rejection of the two sections of Adephaga (Geadephaga and Hydradephaga), based on Bell (1966) and the new sequence of Heteromera, based mainly on Crowson (1966), with adaptations.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain F
    The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain F. Williams, R. Eschen, A. Harris, D. Djeddour, C. Pratt, R.S. Shaw, S. Varia, J. Lamontagne-Godwin, S.E. Thomas, S.T. Murphy CAB/001/09 November 2010 www.cabi.org 1 KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the input of many people from Great Britain and abroad. We thank all the people who have taken the time to respond to the questionnaire or to provide information over the phone or otherwise. Front Cover Photo – Courtesy of T. Renals Sponsors The Scottish Government Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government Department for the Economy and Transport, Welsh Assembly Government FE Williams, R Eschen, A Harris, DH Djeddour, CF Pratt, RS Shaw, S Varia, JD Lamontagne-Godwin, SE Thomas, ST Murphy CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford OX10 8DE UK and CABI Europe - UK Bakeham Lane Egham Surrey TW20 9TY UK CABI Project No. VM10066 2 The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain Executive Summary The impact of Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) can be manifold, ranging from loss of crops, damaged buildings, and additional production costs to the loss of livelihoods and ecosystem services. INNS are increasingly abundant in Great Britain and in Europe generally and their impact is rising. Hence, INNS are the subject of considerable concern in Great Britain, prompting the development of a Non-Native Species Strategy and the formation of the GB Non-Native Species Programme Board and Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • Carabidae As Natural Enemies of the Raspberry Beetle (Byturus Tomentosus F.)
    ISSN 1392-3196 ŽEMDIRBYSTĖ=AGRICULTURE Vol. 99, No. 3 (2012) 327 ISSN 1392-3196 Žemdirbystė=Agriculture, vol. 99, No. 3 (2012), p. 327–332 UDK 634.711:634.75 Carabidae as natural enemies of the raspberry beetle (Byturus tomentosus F.) Liina ARUS1, Ave KIKAS1, Anne LUIK2 1Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Polli Horticultural Research Centre Kreutzwaldi 1, 51014 Tartu, Estonia E-mail: [email protected] 2Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Kreutzwaldi 1, 51014 Tartu, Estonia Abstract The raspberry beetle (Byturus tomentosus F.) is a widespread pest of raspberry in Europe. Although it is being controlled chemically, alternative strategies should be developed, based on biological control by polyphagous predators. Laboratory feeding tests were used to investigate the role of raspberry beetle larvae in the diet of the carabid species, Pterostichus melanarius, P. niger, Carabus nemoralis and Harpalus rufipes. In no-choice and choice feeding tests with aphids or raspberry beetle larvae P. melanarius and P. niger preferred to consume raspberry beetle larvae. C. nemoralis quickly consumed both prey items. H. rufipes preferred to eat raspberry beetle larvae to Thlapsi arvense seeds. According to the consumed biomass of each food item, larvae of the raspberry beetle were preferred by each carabid species tested. Data reported here clearly indicate that large carabids − P. melanarius, P. niger, C. nemoralis and H. rufipes could play an important role in regulating raspberry pest populations. Key words: biological control, Carabidae, aphid, Byturus tomentosus larvae, prey preference. Introduction Carabids are the most common predatory insects of the crop.
    [Show full text]
  • Raspberry Breeding
    RASPBERRY BREEDING JULIE GRAHAM and NIKKI JENNINGS WORLD PRODUCTION Raspberries are grown in many parts of the world with production estimated at 482, 763 MT (2005) (http:/ FAOSTAT.FAO.ORG). Europe is estimated to produce around half of all production (Rubus idaeus L.). This is an important high-value horticultural industry in many European countries, providing employment directly in agriculture, and indirectly in food processing and confectionary. Most raspberry production is concentrated in the northern and central European countries, although there is an increasing interest in growing cane fruits in southern Europe e.g. in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. In many production areas, the fruit is grown for the fresh market, but in central Europe e.g. Poland, Hungary and Serbia, a high proportion of the crop is destined for processing. Major regions of production in North America include the Pacific North-West, California, Texas and Arkansas, as well as regions in New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Chile, Argentina and Guatemala also have extensive production. In Europe in particular, there has been increased interest in sale of raspberry fruits harvested from 'organic production' - farming based on methods relying entirely on crop rotation and avoidance of pesticide application (except certain substances currently permitted by the national regulatory authority for organic farming). However, with woody perennial crops the difficulties of maintaining healthy productive plantations over many years are profound and it is too early to judge the overall success of these ventures in Rubus cane fruits. Increasing popularity of autumn-fruiting raspberries, in which Raspberry Breeding late season fruit is harvested from berries forming on the upper nodes of primocanes (Jennings and Brennan 2002), has extended the production season and the period of attack of some foliar and cane pests.
    [Show full text]