DOCSLIB.ORG

The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain Annexes 1 and 2 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 September 2010 1 www.cabi.org KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE NNS costs Introductory Section Invasive non-native species are non-native animals or plants that have the ability to spread causing damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live. These can include animals and plants that have been here a long time such as the rabbit, the brown rat, and Rhododendron, as well as more recent arrivals. The economic impact of invasive non-native species is unknown. Defra, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government have asked CABI to undertake this research into the economic costs of invasive non-native species to the GB economy and to various sectors. We have been asked to provide estimates not only for direct costs e.g. containment, management, eradication and restoration but also less obvious costs, such as reduction in recreational revenue, additional flooding, reduction in biodiversity etc. You or your organisation have been identified as stakeholders for whom invasive non-native species either have a direct impact on activities or an indirect one. For example you may be involved in research on invasive non-native species or control invasive non-native species on behalf of clients or the public. There now follows a brief questionnaire which we hope will be relatively easy to complete. For reference click here for a list of some of the species which have been flagged through literature review. Please submit your response by Wednesday 25th November 2009. 1. In which country do you work? gfedc Scotland gfedc England gfedc Wales gfedc GB-wide 2. Which of the following sectors best captures your field of work? gfedc Agriculture, Horticulture, gfedc Flooding gfedc Research Forestry gfedc Land Management gfedc Tourism, Recreation gfedc Aquaculture gfedc Marine gfedc Transport gfedc Biodiversity & Conservation gfedc Quarantine & Surveillance gfedc Utilities gfedc Construction & Development Other (please specify) Page 1 NNS costs *3. We are aware that people have different levels of involvement with invasive non-native species. Some respondents will be directly involved in the clearance, control, eradication, awareness raising of invasive non-native species for themselves or their clients. Others may be involved in invasive non-native species research or other activities that do not have a direct or immediate effect on invasive non- native species. Please choose the appropriate response below to direct you to the correct section of the questionnaire. Please note that you will be given the opportunity to fill out all sections of the questionnaire that are relevant to you. nmlkj Invasive non-native species have a direct impact on me, my clients or taxpayers nmlkj Invasive non-native species don't have a direct impact on me but I have a quantifiable knowledge of invasive non-native species through research or otherwise nmlkj Invasive non-native species have no relevance to me Page 2 NNS costs Research costs We would like to capture the costs of invasive non-native species work that is not directly related to control, eradication etc. In particular we are interested in the cost of projects, research etc. that focus on invasive non- native species, but do not undertake any direct management work. 1. Which of the following sectors benefit from your work? gfedc Agriculture, Horticulture, gfedc Construction & Development gfedc Quarantine & Surveillance Forestry gfedc Flooding gfedc Tourism, Recreation gfedc Aquaculture gfedc Land Management gfedc Transport gfedc Biodiversity gfedc Marine gfedc Utilities gfedc Conservation Other (please specify) 2. Which species (or groups of species) do you work with / on / research / have information on? (Please list) m n 3. Please quantify how much your organisation spends (£) on invasive non-native species research per annum, including project work, invasive non-native species meetings, initiatives, answering queries and giving advice etc. nmlkj 0 nmlkj 10,000-25,000 nmlkj 250,000-500,000 nmlkj <1,000 nmlkj 25,000-50,000 nmlkj >500,000 nmlkj 1,000-5,000 nmlkj 50,000-100,000 nmlkj 5,000-10,000 nmlkj 100,000-250,000 Please indicate whether this figure represents the costs for an individual, a team division or the organisation as a whole. 4. Please quantify in addition how many days both staff and volunteers, spent on invasive non-native species work per year. nmlkj 0-10 nmlkj 50-100 nmlkj 500-1000 nmlkj 10-25 nmlkj 100-200 nmlkj >1000 nmlkj 25-50 nmlkj 200-500 Page 3 NNS costs 5. Please separate these total costs by species if possible. m n *6. Would you like to add details about any management costs or indirect (e.g. increased flooding, soil erosion etc.) costs that you incur? nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj I have already completed the section on management costs Page 4 NNS costs Direct impact details In order to estimate the costs of invasive non-native species we need a few details about the area that you manage or are responsible for. 1. Please state the location(s) which you are reporting on (e.g. National Park, Nature Reserve, development site, a specific river catchment etc). m n 2. Please state the type of habitat you are reporting on (e.g. river catchment, SSSI, roads, construction site etc.) m n 3. How many hectares are you reporting on? *4. Are you providing information about the economic costs you or your organisation incurs annually on invasive non-native species as a total cost, or as costs broken down by species or species type (e.g. aquatic plants)? nmlkj Total costs nmlkj Costs by species or species type/ taxon Page 5 NNS costs Total costs The ultimate goal of this research is to come up with a total figure for the costs of invasive non- native species to the GB economy. We recognise that it may be difficult to separate this out for individual species or types of species so this page focuses on annual figures or estimates for all invasive non-native species that you manage. 1. If it is difficult to separate out invasive non-native species from all species that your organisation controls with the same management practice then please estimate the proportion that are invasive non-native species, e.g. invasive non-native species make up 70% of the weeds that are controlled on our / my etc land. m n 2. What are your annual direct costs on the management of invasive non- native species? (If you only know the total spend then please complete the final column.) Material, equipment, Labour (staff /volunteer days, Total management costs (£, transport (£, annually) annually) annually) Awareness raising n n n Containment, control n n n Desk based work e.g. n n n admin, public enquiries & advice Eradication n n n Increased n n n infrastructure maintenance costs Prevention n n n Project management n n n Restoration n n n Please add any comments or clarification m n Page 6 NNS costs 3. Invasive non-native species may also cause indirect costs such as those below. Please provide estimates for these lost benefits on an annual basis (£). 500- 1,000- 5,000- 10,000- 25,000- 50,000- 100,000- 1-500 >500,000 1,000 5,000 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 500,000 Reduced carrying nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj capacity e.g. people/ vehicles/ livestock Reduced profit nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Reduced visitor income nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Reduction in jobs or nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj recruitment Reduction in nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj yield/productivity Please add any other indirect costs that you are aware of, and any comments or clarification m n 4. The presence of invasive non-native species may cause further effects on the environment, such as those below. Please estimate the additional costs that you incur due to invasive non-native species (£). 500- 1,000- 5,000- 10,000- 25,000- 50,000- 100,000- 1-500 >500,000 1,000 5,000 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 500,000 Increased access costs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Increased erosion nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Increased flooding nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Increased health and nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj safety costs Increased siltation nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Reduced aesthetic value nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Reduced biodiversity nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Reduced drought nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj tolerance Please specify any other costs due to invasive non-native species, or any comments m n *5. Would you like to add costs by species? nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Page 7 NNS costs Details of Species 1 You may add details for up to five species or species type/ taxa on these pages. *1. Please identify the species (or groups of species) you are reporting on. 2. What are your annual direct costs on the management of invasive non- native species? (If you only know the total spend then please complete the final column.) Material, equipment, Labour (staff /volunteer days, Total management costs (£, transport (£, annually) annually) annually) Awareness raising n n n Containment, control n n n Desk based work e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuisance Insects and Climate Change
    www.defra.gov.uk Nuisance Insects and Climate Change March 2009 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Tel: 020 7238 6000 Website: www.defra.gov.uk © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2007 This publication is value added. If you wish to re-use this material, please apply for a Click-Use Licence for value added material at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/value-added-licence- information/index.htm. Alternatively applications can be sent to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ; Fax: +44 (0)1603 723000; email: [email protected] Information about this publication and further copies are available from: Local Environment Protection Defra Nobel House Area 2A 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Email: [email protected] This document is also available on the Defra website and has been prepared by Centre of Ecology and Hydrology. Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2 An Investigation into the Potential for New and Existing Species of Insect with the Potential to Cause Statutory Nuisance to Occur in the UK as a Result of Current and Predicted Climate Change Roy, H.E.1, Beckmann, B.C.1, Comont, R.F.1, Hails, R.S.1, Harrington, R.2, Medlock, J.3, Purse, B.1, Shortall, C.R.2 1Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2Rothamsted Research, 3Health Protection Agency March 2009 3 Contents Summary 5 1.0 Background 6 1.1 Consortium to perform the work 7 1.2 Objectives 7 2.0
    [Show full text]
  • Quercus Cerris
    Quercus cerris Quercus cerris in Europe: distribution, habitat, usage and threats D. de Rigo, C. M. Enescu, T. Houston Durrant, G. Caudullo Turkey oak (Quercus cerris L.) is a deciduous tree native to southern Europe and Asia Minor, and a dominant species in the mixed forests of the Mediterranean basin. Turkey oak is a representative of section Cerris, a particular section within the genus Quercus which includes species for which the maturation of acorns occurs in the second year. Quercus cerris L., commonly known as Turkey oak, is a large fast-growing deciduous tree species growing to 40 m tall with 1 Frequency a trunk up to 1.5-2 m diameter , with a well-developed root < 25% system2. It can live for around 120-150 years3. The bark is 25% - 50% 50% - 75% mauve-grey and deeply furrowed with reddish-brown or orange > 75% bark fissures4, 5. Compared with other common oak species, e.g. Chorology Native sessile oak (Quercus petraea) and pedunculate oak (Quercus Introduced robur), the wood is inferior, and only useful for rough work such as shuttering or fuelwood1. The leaves are dark green above and grey-felted underneath6; they are variable in size and shape but are normally 9-12 cm long and 3-5 cm wide, with 7-9 pairs of triangular lobes6. The leaves turn yellow to gold in late autumn and drop off or persist in the crown until the next spring, especially on young trees3. The twigs are long and pubescent, grey or olive-green, with lenticels. The buds, which are concentrated Large shade tree in agricultural area near Altamura (Bari, South Italy).
    [Show full text]
  • The Slugs of Britain and Ireland: Undetected and Undescribed Species Increase a Well-Studied, Economically Important Fauna by More Than 20%
    The Slugs of Britain and Ireland: Undetected and Undescribed Species Increase a Well-Studied, Economically Important Fauna by More Than 20% Ben Rowson1*, Roy Anderson2, James A. Turner1, William O. C. Symondson3 1 National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom, 2 Conchological Society of Great Britain & Ireland, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, 3 Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom Abstract The slugs of Britain and Ireland form a well-studied fauna of economic importance. They include many widespread European species that are introduced elsewhere (at least half of the 36 currently recorded British species are established in North America, for example). To test the contention that the British and Irish fauna consists of 36 species, and to verify the identity of each, a species delimitation study was conducted based on a geographically wide survey. Comparisons between mitochondrial DNA (COI, 16S), nuclear DNA (ITS-1) and morphology were investigated with reference to interspecific hybridisation. Species delimitation of the fauna produced a primary species hypothesis of 47 putative species. This was refined to a secondary species hypothesis of 44 species by integration with morphological and other data. Thirty six of these correspond to the known fauna (two species in Arion subgenus Carinarion were scarcely distinct and Arion (Mesarion) subfuscus consisted of two near-cryptic species). However, by the same criteria a further eight previously undetected species (22% of the fauna) are established in Britain and/or Ireland. Although overlooked, none are strictly morphologically cryptic, and some appear previously undescribed. Most of the additional species are probably accidentally introduced, and several are already widespread in Britain and Ireland (and thus perhaps elsewhere).
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure of Cynipid Oak Galls: Patterns in the Evolution of an Extended Phenotype
    The structure of cynipid oak galls: patterns in the evolution of an extended phenotype Graham N. Stone1* and James M. Cook2 1Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK ([email protected]) 2Department of Biology, Imperial College, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK Galls are highly specialized plant tissues whose development is induced by another organism. The most complex and diverse galls are those induced on oak trees by gallwasps (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae: Cyni- pini), each species inducing a characteristic gall structure. Debate continues over the possible adaptive signi¢cance of gall structural traits; some protect the gall inducer from attack by natural enemies, although the adaptive signi¢cance of others remains undemonstrated. Several gall traits are shared by groups of oak gallwasp species. It remains unknown whether shared traits represent (i) limited divergence from a shared ancestral gall form, or (ii) multiple cases of independent evolution. Here we map gall character states onto a molecular phylogeny of the oak cynipid genus Andricus, and demonstrate three features of the evolution of gall structure: (i) closely related species generally induce galls of similar structure; (ii) despite this general pattern, closely related species can induce markedly di¡erent galls; and (iii) several gall traits (the presence of many larval chambers in a single gall structure, surface resins, surface spines and internal air spaces) of demonstrated or suggested adaptive value to the gallwasp have evolved repeatedly. We discuss these results in the light of existing hypotheses on the adaptive signi¢cance of gall structure. Keywords: galls; Cynipidae; enemy-free space; extended phenotype; Andricus layers of woody or spongy tissue, complex air spaces within 1.
    [Show full text]
  • National Oak Gall Wasp Survey
    ational Oak Gall Wasp Survey – mapping with parabiologists in Finland Bess Hardwick Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2 1.1. Parabiologists in data collecting ............................................................................. 2 1.2. Oak cynipid gall wasps .......................................................................................... 3 1.3. Motivations and objectives .................................................................................... 4 2. Material and methods ................................................................................................ 5 2.1. The volunteers ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2. Sampling ................................................................................................................. 6 2.3. Processing of samples ............................................................................................ 7 2.4. Data selection ........................................................................................................ 7 2.5. Statistical analyses ................................................................................................. 9 3. Results ....................................................................................................................... 10 3.1. Sampling success .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter 41 January 2021
    Newsletter 41 January 2021 Lockdown Special - Species to look for in Cerodontha iridis Winter: Dip: Agromyzidae: Agromyzid larvae can still be found actively feeding during the winter and careful searching may also reveal those pupariating inside stems. Cerodontha iridis (Hendel, 1927) This leaf miner of iris species forms large conspicuous blotch mines which have a mottled appearance. It looks rather as if someone has tried to whitewash a leaf with a dirty paint brush! A good miner to look for in supermarket car parks, parks and gardens. Map © National Agromyzidae Recording Scheme Phytomyza hellebori Kaltenbach, 1872: This miner is found in Helleborus species, mostly in Stinking Hellbore (Helleborus foetidus), and is a good species to look for in your gardens and also in parks. The mines develop throughout the winter and are initially black and linear. As they develop they may form a blotch and then whiten as they age. The mines are very visible and several may Photo ©Rob Edmunds develop in a leaf. It was first discovered in the UK in 2000 and is Its current distribution is shown: spreading into the West and North from the southern counties. 1 Ragwort stems may hold a variety of puparia such as Melanagromyza aeneoventris (Fallén, 1823), Melanagromyza dettmeri Hering, 1933, Melanagromyza eupatorii Spencer, 1957 and Melanagromyza oligophaga Spencer, 1990. This Ragwort stem has been mined by Melanagromyza eupatorii and has the puparium in situ: Photo ©Rob Edmunds Phytomyza hellebori Carefully collect some stems and split from the bottom upwards. Take care that any puparia found do not ‘ping’ out of the stems as you open them up! Puparia, if present, are tiny cigar-shaped objects with very distinctive hooked posterior spiracles.
    [Show full text]
  • The Population Biology of Oak Gall Wasps (Hymenoptera:Cynipidae)
    5 Nov 2001 10:11 AR AR147-21.tex AR147-21.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GSR Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2002. 47:633–68 Copyright c 2002 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved THE POPULATION BIOLOGY OF OAK GALL WASPS (HYMENOPTERA:CYNIPIDAE) Graham N. Stone,1 Karsten Schonrogge,¨ 2 Rachel J. Atkinson,3 David Bellido,4 and Juli Pujade-Villar4 1Institute of Cell, Animal, and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, The King’s Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, United Kingdom; e-mail: [email protected] 2Center of Ecology and Hydrology, CEH Dorset, Winfrith Technology Center, Winfrith Newburgh, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 8ZD, United Kingdom; e-mail: [email protected] 3Center for Conservation Science, Department of Biology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom; e-mail: [email protected] 4Departamento de Biologia Animal, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Avenida Diagonal 645, 08028 Barcelona, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Key Words cyclical parthenogenesis, host alternation, food web, parasitoid, population dynamics ■ Abstract Oak gall wasps (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae, Cynipini) are characterized by possession of complex cyclically parthenogenetic life cycles and the ability to induce a wide diversity of highly complex species- and generation-specific galls on oaks and other Fagaceae. The galls support species-rich, closed communities of inquilines and parasitoids that have become a model system in community ecology. We review recent advances in the ecology of oak cynipids, with particular emphasis on life cycle characteristics and the dynamics of the interactions between host plants, gall wasps, and natural enemies. We assess the importance of gall traits in structuring oak cynipid communities and summarize the evidence for bottom-up and top-down effects across trophic levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan
    Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan June 2005 Martin Nugent, Chair Wildlife Diversity Coordinator Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 (503) 872-5260 x5346 FAX: (503) 872-5269 [email protected] Kev Alexanian Dan Hilburn Sam Chan Bill Reynolds Suzanne Cudd Eric Schwamberger Risa Demasi Mark Systma Chris Guntermann Mandy Tu Randy Henry 7/15/05 Table of Contents Chapter 1........................................................................................................................3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 What’s Going On?........................................................................................................................................ 3 Oregon Examples......................................................................................................................................... 5 Goal............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Invasive Species Council................................................................................................................. 6 Statute ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Functions .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FOURTH UPDATE to a CHECKLIST of the LEPIDOPTERA of the BRITISH ISLES , 2013 1 David J
    Ent Rec 133(1).qxp_Layout 1 13/01/2021 16:46 Page 1 Entomologist’s Rec. J. Var. 133 (2021) 1 FOURTH UPDATE TO A CHECKLIST OF THE LEPIDOPTERA OF THE BRITISH ISLES , 2013 1 DAvID J. L. A GASSIz , 2 S. D. B EAvAN & 1 R. J. H ECkFoRD 1 Department of Life Sciences, Division of Insects, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD 2 The Hayes, Zeal Monachorum, Devon EX17 6DF Abstract This update incorporates information published since 30 November 2019 and before 1 January 2021 into A Checklist of the Lepidoptera of the British Isles, 2013. Introduction The Checklist of the Lepidoptera of the British Isles has previously been amended (Agassiz, Beavan & Heckford 2016a, 2016b, 2019 and 2020). This update details 4 species new to the main list and 3 to Appendix A. Numerous taxonomic changes are incorporated and country distributions are updated. CENSUS The number of species now recorded from the British Isles stands at 2,558 of which 58 are thought to be extinct and in addition there are 191 adventive species. ADDITIONAL SPECIES in main list Also make appropriate changes in the index 15.0715 Phyllonorycter medicaginella (Gerasimov, 1930) E S W I C 62.0382 Acrobasis fallouella (Ragonot, 1871) E S W I C 70.1698 Eupithecia breviculata (Donzel, 1837) Rusty-shouldered Pug E S W I C 72.089 Grammodes bifasciata (Petagna, 1786) Parallel Lines E S W I C The authorship and date of publication of Grammodes bifasciata were given by Brownsell & Sale (2020) as Petagan, 1787 but corrected to Petagna, 1786 by Plant (2020).
    [Show full text]
  • Erster Nachtrag Zur Mikrolepidopterenfauna Zyperns
    ©Entomologischer Verein Apollo e.V. Frankfurt am Main; download unter www.zobodat.at Nachr. entomol. Ver. Apollo, N.F. 17 (2): 209-224 (1996) 209 Erster Nachtrag zur Mikrolepidopterenfauna Zyperns Ernst Arenberger und Josef Wimmer Ernst A renberger, Börnergasse 3, 4/6, A-1190 Wien, Österreich Josef Wimmer, Feldstraße 3 D, A-4400 Steyr, Österreich Zusammenfassung: Vor allem durch die Aufsammlungen von J. Wimmer, Steyr, wird die Liste der von Zypern bekannten Mikrolepidopterenfauna um 35 Arten vermehrt und auf insgesamt 496 Taxa ergänzt. Schlüsselwörter: Insecta, Lepidoptera, Mikrolepidoptera, Systematik, Fauni- stik, palaearktische Region, Fauna Zyperns. First Supplement to the microlepidopteran fauna of Cyprus Abstract: The list of the species of microlepidoptera of Cyprus is increased from 461 species to 496 taxa now in total, especially by the collections of J. Wimmer, Steyr, Austria. Key words: Insecta, Lepidoptera, Microlepidoptera, systematics, faunistics, Palaearctic region, fauna of Cyprus. Einleitung Schon kurze Zeit nach Erscheinen der Zusammenfassung aller bisher ge­ meldeten Meldungen über die Mikrolepidopteren Zyperns (Arenberger 1995) liegen wieder zahlreiche noch unveröffentlichte Funde aus Zypern vor. Es handelt sich insbesondere um Aufsammlungen von J. Wimmer in den Jahren 1993-1995 in der Umgebung von Paphos. Die bisherigen Sam­ melergebnisse bezogen sich einerseits auf den Norden der Insel, der Um­ gebung von Kyrenia, und andererseits auf das gebirgige Zentrum im Troodos-Gebirge sowie das Küstengebiet des Südens (Karte siehe bei Arenberger 1995). Jetzt können auch Angaben über die Fauna des westli­ chen Teiles der Insel gemacht werden. Ergänzt wird der vorliegende Beitrag durch restliche Arten aus den Aus­ beuten K. Mikkolas und des Autors, die bei Arenberger (1995) nicht ein­ bezogen werden konnten, sowie einige Funde von R.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of the Alphitobius Diaperinus (Panzer) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) with Entomopathogenic Fungi
    Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola ISSN 1516-635X Apr - Jun 2009 / v.11 / n.2 / 121 - 127 Control of the Alphitobius Diaperinus (Panzer) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) with Entomopathogenic Fungi Author(s) ABSTRACT Rezende SRF1 Curvello FA2 The beetle Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer), considered a worldwide Fraga ME3 Reis RCS2 pest in the poultry industry, is difficult to control and it is a vector for Castilho AMC4 pathogens. The objective of this study was to evaluate the biological Agostinho TSP5 control of the lesser mealworm, by strains of fungi Beauveria bassiana, 1 M.Sc. student in Animal Science of Cladosporium sp. and Trichoderma sp. Larvae and adults of the A. Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. diaperinus were inoculated with suspensions of conidia in the 2 Professor, Instituto de Zootecnia of concentration of 107 conídia.mL-1. The B. bassiana isolate caused higher Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. 3 Professor, Instituto de Veterinária of insect mortality as compared to Cladosporium sp. and Trichoderma sp. Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro; isolates, with the larvae being more susceptible than adults. The 4 Biologist MS. Agrobio - Alternative pesticides. entomopathogenicity of B. bassiana was further evaluated with 200 5 M.Sc student in Zootecnia of Universidade larvae and 200 adults of A. diaperinus inoculated with suspensions 106, Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. 107, and 108 conidia.mL-1, and observed for ten days. Larvae mortality started at the fourth day at the lowest concentration, and the adult mortality was only observed on the sixth day at the concentration of 108 conidia.mL-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Evaluation of Beauveria Bassiana (986) As a Biological
    Acta Scientiae Veterinariae ISSN: 1678-0345 [email protected] Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Brasil Gazoni, Fábio Luiz; Flores, Fernanda; Silveira, Flávio; Steffen, Renata; Reginatto, Andressa; Soares, Cláudia; Lovato, Maristela Evaluation of Beauveria bassiana (986) as a Biological Control of Alphitobius diaperinus in Poultry Bed of Wood Shavings Acta Scientiae Veterinariae, vol. 40, núm. 1, 2012, pp. 1-4 Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre, Brasil Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=289021814007 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative F.L. Gazoni, F. Flores, F. Silveira, et al. 2012. Evaluation of Beauveria bassiana (986) as a Biological Control of Alphitobius diaperinus in Poultry Bed of Wood Shavings. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae. 40(1): 1016. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae, 2012. 40(1): 1016. SHORT COMMUNICATION ISSN 1679-9216 (Online) Pub. 1016 Evaluation of Beauveria bassiana (986) as a Biological Control of Alphitobius diaperinus in Poultry Bed of Wood Shavings Fábio Luiz Gazoni1, Fernanda Flores1, Flávio Silveira1, Renata Steffen2, Andressa Reginatto2, Cláudia Soares2 & Maristela Lovato1 ABSTRACT Background: Alphitobius diaperinus, lesser mealworm, represents one of the most important pests in the poultry farming industry worldwide. This insect serves as a mechanical host of pathogenic micro-organisms to birds and causes injuries in their digestive tract affecting the feed conversion. Both larvae and adult insects grow in the avian bed, over the soil of sheds and especially near the feeders, where there is a greater availability of food and water.
    [Show full text]