DOCSLIB.ORG

Selection of the Common Green Lacewing for Resistance to Carbaryl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Selection of the Common Green Lacewing for Resistance to Carbaryl nea that resulted in its ability to survive Selection of the common field rates of a pesticide. Geographical variability green lacewing for The first stage of the laboratory selec- tion program entailed collecting lace- wings from widely separated areas of resistance to carbaryl California. We then screened the lace- wings with six pesticides to see if there Elizabeth E. Grafton-Cardwell 0 Marjorie A. Hoy was any geographical variability in the colonies' response to pesticides. If all of Lacewings, ladybird beetles, predatory applied for navel orangeworm control the lacewing populations showed a simi- mites, wasp parasites, and other natural and kept spider mites under control so lar level of susceptibility to all pesticides, enemies of pests are important biological that fewer applications or lower rates of we would assume that selection was not control agents in many integrated pest acaricides were needed. occurring in the field and the genes neces- management (IPM) programs throughout The adult common green lacewing, sary to develop resistance were rare. If California. These natural enemies, how- Chrysoperla carnea Stephens, is a widely so, laboratory selection could be slow and ever, are usually more sensitive to pesti- dispersing nectar-feeding insect that de- would require screening enough numbers cides than are the pests they attack. As a posits eggs on both orchard and field to pick up such a rare gene. Variability in result, when a pesticide must be applied crops. As a larva, it is a voracious pred- response to insecticides would imply that for a key pest that has no biological ator of aphids, mites, small lepidopterous field selection for resistance had already agents controlling it, the natural enemies larvae, psylla, and eggs of many insects. begun. of other pests are killed and secondary The lacewing has been shown to be rela- We collected adult C. carnea from al- pest outbreaks occur. tively tolerant of some chlorinated hydro- falfa in San Joaquin, Fresno, Kern, and There are several hypotheses to ex- carbons, pyrethroids, and microbial insec- Imperial counties during 1981 and 1982 plain why natural enemies may be more ticides. It is susceptible, however, to most and maintained them as four separate sensitive to pesticides than pest insects of the commonly used organophosphorus colonies. Adults, larvae, and eggs were and mites. One is that they have different and carbamate insecticides. Enhance- screened with the organophosphates dia- feeding habits. The natural defense sys- ment of the lacewing's tolerance of these zinon (50 percent WP) and phosmet (Imi- tems of plants may stimulate production pesticides would improve its effective- dan, 50 percent WP), the carbamates car- of detoxifying enzymes in pests that also ness in many crops. We report here on the baryl (Sevin, 50 percent WP) and break down pesticides. Since natural en- first case of laboratory selection of C. car- methomyl (Lannate, WS liquid), and the emies generally do not feed on plants, pyrethroids permethrin (Ambush, Pounce, they do not have these enzymes in suffi- TABLE 1. Pesticide concentrationsat which 50 EC) and fenvalerate (Pydrin, EC). cient quantities to detoxify pesticides. percent (LCso) and 90 percent (LCgO) mortality Adults were tested in petri dishes Availability of food after pesticide appli- occurred in first-staae common areen lacewina sprayed with a range of concentrations of cations also gives pests an advantage larvae collect;d from fourcounties " formulated pesticide in water plus a wet- over natural enemies. When pesticides Pesticide (field rate)' ting agent. Each dish containing five are applied, most of the hosts and prey of and colony tested LCsnt LCan adult lacewings was closed with tissue pa- the natural enemies are destroyed, which Permethrin (0.2 Ib) /b active inclredient/ga/ per, and adults were provided with food can cause the few survivors to starve. The San Joaquin ' 0.64 a 1.88 and water. Twenty adults were tested at Fresno 2.48 c 20.33 pest survivors, however, simply feed on Kern 0.23 a 11.20 each concentration, and mortality was as- plants and rapidly rebuild their popula- Imperial 1.72 b 4.45 sessed after 72 hours. tions. Thus, the pest population recovers Fenvalerate (0.1 Ib) Adult lacewings were susceptible to much more rapidly after treatment with San Joaquin 1.50 a 5.39 field rates of the organophosphorus and Fresno 1.40 a 2.86 pesticides and develops pesticide resis- Kern 1.63 ab 8.1 6 carbamate insecticides. In contrast, they tance more rapidly. Imperial 2.22 b 17.39 were tolerant of both pyrethroids, easily One method of improving biological Carbaryl (1.5 Ib) surviving field rates. This is a natural tol- control in agricultural IPM systems that San Joaquin 0.0013 a 0.0053 erance, not a field-selected resistance, be- Fresno 0.0023 b 0.0068 use pesticides has been to select the natu- Kern 0.0030 b 0.0063 cause all colonies responded at a similar ral enemy in the laboratory for resistance Imperial 0.0032 b 0.0158 level and because other investigators to one or more commonly used pesticides. Methomyl (0.45Ib) have reported similar results. Two or Predatory mites in the family Phytoseii- San Joaquin 0.0009 ab 0.0023 more of the colonies differed significantly Fresno 0.0012 b 0.0045 dae are currently the only biological con- Kern 0.0004 a 0.0035 in their response to carbaryl, methomyl, trol agents that have been successfully se- Imperial 0.0043b 0.0042 and diazinon, indicating that field selec- lected for levels of resistance useful in the Diazinon (0.5 Ib) tion may be occurring. San Joaquin Coun- field. In California almonds, strains of the San Joaquin 0.0023a 0.0085 ty lacewings consistently responded with (= Fresno 0.0024 a 0.0048 predatory mite Metaseiulus Typhlo- Kern 0.0011 a 0.0045 the greatest susceptibility, which corre- dromus) occidentalis (Nesbitt) have devel- Imperial 0.0043 b 0.0101 lates with the lower use of pesticides in oped resistance to organosphosphorus Phosmet (1 .O Ib) that county. pesticides in the field and to carbamates San Joaquin 10.0 a 20.3 We tested lacewing eggs with the six Fresno 17.5 a 72.0 and pyrethroids in the laboratory. The se- Kern 36.6 b 395.8 pesticides using field rates proposed for lected strains have been mass-reared and Imperial 158.5 c 3206.3 alfalfa mixed in 10 gallons of water: per- released to control Pacific spider mite, * Field rate proposed for alfalfa, mixed in 10 gallons of methrin, 0.2 pound; fenvalerate, 0.1 Tetranychus pacificus McGregor, and water. pound; carbaryl, 1.5 pounds; methomyl, t LC values in the same column for each pesticide two-spotted spider mite, T. urticae Koch. folzwed by the same letter indicate that the responses 0.45 pound; diazinon, 0.5 pound; and phos- The predatory mites have survived sprays of the colonies are not significantly different (p=0.05). met, 1 pound. Female lacewings were al- 22 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1986 100 100 p susceptible - 90 90 - - 70- - c- 5--70 .g- 50. * - a g 50 5- 30- I30:- - r Carbaryl-6 10 - 10 - d 0 01-- 1 I8 I 1 I 1 ,0008 .003 ,006 .03 .3 1.5 7.5 15 ,0008 ,003 .006 .03 1.5 15 Carbaryl (Ib Alp0 gal) Carbaryl (Ib A1/10 gal) Fig. 1. Imperial County green lacewing larvae showed more than 80 Fig. 2. Genetic analysis of purified susceptible strain crossed with the percent survival after four generations of selection. All of highly carbaryl-resistant strain (after six rounds of selection) and their susceptible San Joaquin larvae died at concentrations above ,003. offspring indicated no single dominant gene was involved. lowed to deposit eggs on paper toweling. use of pesticides in that county. It is most Selection for carbaryl resistance oc- Each sheet of eggs was cut in two; one likely that resistance has not reached curred very rapidly in this assay (fig. 1). half was sprayed with formulated pesti- field spray levels because lacewing adults All San Joaquin County larvae died at cide in water and the other half was fly to many different crops to deposit rates above 0.003 pound active ingredient sprayed with water alone. None of the their eggs and so may be exposed to many per 10 gallons. Of the unselected Imperial pesticides tested affected egg hatch. pesticides during their lifetime. Because County larvae, 97 to 99 percent died at We tested lacewing larvae individually different pesticides are likely to have dif- rates above 0.03 pound, but after only one (to avoid cannibalism) in small wells of ferent modes of action, selection for any selection (carbaryl-1), mortality de- plastic microtiter plates. Each plate was one is slow when an insect is exposed to creased to approximately 90 percent at treated with a concentration of pesticide several at the same time. these rates. Mortality decreased to 50 to mixed with distilled water plus a wetting Although field-selected green lace- 70 percent after the second round of selec- agent, then air-dried the tops of the wells wings did not have levels of resistance tion (carbaryl-2) and to less than 20 per- were ringed with stickem. Grain moth useful against field rates, the existence of cent after four rounds of selection. Up to eggs, Anagasta kuehniella Zeller, were more tolerant strains prompted us to at- 80 percent of the selected lacewing larvae provided as food for the larvae. Mortality tempt laboratory selection. survived on formulated material at the was assessed after 48 hours. We tested 30 field rate recommended for alfalfa (ap- to 200 first-stage (instar) larvae at each Carbaryl resistance proximately 1.5 pounds active ingredient concentration.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RR Program's RCL Spreadsheet Update
    RR Program’s RCL Spreadsheet Update March 2017 RR Program RCL Spreadsheet Update DNR-RR-052e The Wisconsin DNR Remediation and Redevelopment Program (RR) has updated the numerical soil standards in the August 2015 DNR-RR- 052b RR spreadsheet of residual contaminant levels (RCLs). The RCLs were determined using the U.S. EPA RSL web- calculator by accepting EPA exposure defaults, with the exception of using Chicago, IL, for the climatic zone. This documentThe U.S. provides EPA updateda summary its Regionalof changes Screening to the direct-contact Level (RSL) RCLs website (DC-RCLs) in June that2015. are To now reflect in the that March 2017 spreadsheet.update, the The Wisconsin last page ofDNR this updated document the has numerical the EPA exposuresoil standards, parameter or residual values usedcontaminant in the RCL levels calculations. (RCLs), in the Remediation and Redevelopment program’s spreadsheet of RCLs. This document The providesU.S. EPA a RSL summary web-calculator of the updates has been incorporated recently updated in the Julyso that 2015 the spreadsheet.most up-to-date There toxicity were values no changes for chemi - cals madewere certainlyto the groundwater used in the RCLs,RCL calculations. but there are However, many changes it is important in the industrial to note that and the non-industrial web-calculator direct is only a subpartcontact of the (DC) full RCLsEPA RSL worksheets. webpage, Tables and that 1 andthe other 2 of thissubparts document that will summarize have important the DC-RCL explanatory changes text, generic tablesfrom and the references previous have spreadsheet yet to be (Januaryupdated.
    [Show full text]
  • Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report
    SERA TR-052-02-02c Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-06-0012 SERA Internal Task No. 52-02 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com May 12, 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Attachments........................................................................................................................ vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................................................... vii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................... x CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cockroach Control Manual
    COCKROACHCOCKROACH CONTROLCONTROL MANUALMANUAL (Photo by J. Kalisch) Barb Ogg, Extension Educator, Lancaster County Clyde Ogg, Extension Educator, Pesticide Safety Education Program Dennis Ferraro, Extension Educator, Douglas & Sarpy Counties Extension is a Division of the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln cooperating with the Counties and the United States Department of Agriculture. ® University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension’s educational programs abide with the nondiscrimination policies of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the United States Department of Agriculture. Table of Contents 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 5 Chapter 2: Know Your Enemy 9 Chapter 3: Cockroach Biology 15 Chapter 4: Locate Problem Areas 23 Chapter 5: Primary Control Strategies: Modify Resources 31 Chapter 6: Low-Risk Control Strategies 37 Chapter 7: Insecticide Basics 45 Chapter 8: Insecticides and Your Health 53 Chapter 9: Insecticide Applications 59 Chapter 10: Putting a Management Plan Together i Cockroach Control Manual Preface It has been more than 10 years since the first edition of the Cockroach Control Manual was completed. While the basic steps for effective and safe cockroach control are still the same, there are more types of control products available than there were 10 years ago. This means you have even more choices in your arsenal to help fight roaches. The Cockroach Control Manual is a practical reference for persons who have had little or no training in insect identification, biology or control methods. We know most people want low toxic methods used inside their homes so we are emphasizing low-risk strategies even more than in the original edition.
    [Show full text]
  • Ingleby Prohibited Pesticides May 2018
    1[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Acaricides Cyhexatin Acaricide Parathion-ethyl Acaricide/Insecticide Tetradifon Acaricide Tebufenpyrad Acaricide Fumigants 1,2-Dibromoethane Fumigant 1,2-dichloroethane Fumigant Fungicides 2-Aminobutane (aka sec-butylamine) Fungicide Allyl alcohol Fungicide Benomyl Fungicide Binapacryl Fungicide Bitertanol Fungicide Blasticidin-S Fungicide Cadmium Fungicide Captafol Fungicide Chloranil Fungicide Chloromethoxypropyl-mercuric-acetate (CPMA) Fungicide Chlozolinate Fungicide Di(phenylmercury)dodecenylsuccinate (PMDS) Fungicide Diammonium ethylenebis Fungicide DNOC Fungicide / Herbicide /Insecticide Edifenphos Fungicide Fenarimol Fungicide Fentin acetate Fungicide Flusilazole Fungicide Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Fungicide Hexaconazole Fungicide Iminoctadine Fungicide Leptophos Fungicide Maneb Fungicide Mercuric oxide Fungicide Mercurous chloride (calomel) Fungicide Mercury compounds Fungicide Nickel bis Fungicide Nuarimol Fungicide Oxadixyl Fungicide Penconazole Fungicide Ingleby Farms & Forests May 2018 Prohibited Active Ingredients 2[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Fungicides (continued) Phenylmercury acetate Fungicide/Herbicide Phenylmercuric oleate [PMO] Fungicide Prochloraz Fungicide Procymidone Fungicide Propineb Fungicide Pyrazophos Fungicide Pyrifenox Fungicide Tecnazene Fungicide Tricyclazole Fungicide Tridemorph Fungicide Vinclozolin Fungicide Zineb Fungicide Herbicides 2,4,5-T Herbicide Acifluorfen Herbicide Alachlor Herbicide Arsenic
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticides and Toxic Substances
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs TO: Jim Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs As you know, EPA has completed its assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through the individual- chemical review process. The Agency’s review of individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP, malathion.1 These 31 OPs are listed in Appendix A. EPA has concluded, after completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with exposures to all of the OPs, that: (1) the pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) are indeed eligible for reregistration; and 1 Malathion is included in the OP cumulative assessment. However, the Agency has issued a RED for malathion, rather than an IRED, because the decision was signed on the same day as the completion of the OP cumulative assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Pesticide Poisoning Risk and Understanding the Signs and Symptoms Clyde L
    EC2505 Revised June 2018 Managing Pesticide Poisoning Risk and Understanding the Signs and Symptoms Clyde L. Ogg, Extension Educator Jan R. Hygnstrom, Project Manager Cheryl A. Alberts, Project Coordinator Erin C. Bauer, Entomology Lecturer The potential for accidents with pesticides is real. Ac- cidental exposure or overexposure to pesticides can have seri- ous consequences. While most pesticides can be used with relatively little risk when label directions are followed, some are extremely toxic and require special precautions. The Poison Control Centers receive about 90,000 calls each year related to pesticide exposures. Pesticides are re- sponsible for about 3 percent of all accidental exposures to children 5 years and younger and about 4 percent for adults. In addition, pesticides are the cause of about 3 percent of children’s deaths reported to the Poison Control Centers. Routes of Exposure Pesticides can enter the human body three ways: 1) der- mal exposure, by absorption through the skin or eyes; 2) oral exposure, through the mouth; and 3) through inhalation or respiratory exposure, by inhaling into the lungs. Some classify exposure through the eyes as ocular exposure. Dermal exposure results in absorption immediately after Figure 1. Absorption rates of different a pesticide contacts the skin or eyes. Absorption will contin- parts of the body based on the absorption ue as long as the pesticide remains in contact with the skin or of parathion into the forearm over 24 eyes. The rate at which dermal absorption occurs is different hours. for each part of the body (Figure 1). Maiback and Feldman (1974) measured the amount of the pesticide parathion absorbed by different parts of the human body over 24 hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Pyrethroid Insecticides: Use, Environmental Fate, and Ecotoxicology
    11 Pyrethroid Insecticides: Use, Environmental Fate, and Ecotoxicology Katherine Palmquist, Johanna Salatas and Anne Fairbrother Exponent United States 1. Introduction There was little public concern over potential nontarget effects of pesticides until the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (Delaplane, 2000; Moore et al., 2009). Organochlorine insecticides (such as DDT) had been used intensively and were credited for many of the problems highlighted by Carson. Because of their accumulation in the environment and reproductive toxicity in people, their use was eventually phased out in most industrialized countries in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Moore et al., 2009). Organophosphate (OPs) and carbamate pesticides (based on the same chemistry and mode of action as nerve gas used by the military) took the place of the organochlorine products and have been widely used since the late 1970s. For the past three decades, OP pesticides have been the insecticides most commonly used by professional pest-control bodies and homeowners (Feo et al., 2010). However, in the late 1980s, OPs in California came under scrutiny when they began to show up in groundwater samples. In addition, because of their potentially toxic effects on people, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considered a ban on both OP and carbamate insecticides as part of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The FQPA mandated that the EPA reassess all pesticide tolerance levels considering aggregate exposures, cumulative effects from pesticides sharing common mechanisms of toxicity, and special protection for infants and children (Metcalfe et al. 2002). During the early 2000s, the EPA began phasing out residential uses of the two primary OPs, diazinon, and chlorpyrifos (CDPR 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Lists
    United States Office of Solid Waste EPA 550-B-10-001 Environmental Protection and Emergency Response May 2010 Agency www.epa.gov/emergencies LIST OF LISTS Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right- To-Know Act (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act • EPCRA Section 302 Extremely Hazardous Substances • CERCLA Hazardous Substances • EPCRA Section 313 Toxic Chemicals • CAA 112(r) Regulated Chemicals For Accidental Release Prevention Office of Emergency Management This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction................................................................................................................................................ i List of Lists – Conslidated List of Chemicals (by CAS #) Subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act ................................................. 1 Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Consolidated List ..................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Radionuclides Listed Under CERCLA .......................................................................... B-1 Appendix C: RCRA Waste Streams and Unlisted Hazardous Wastes................................................ C-1 This page intentionally left blank. LIST OF LISTS Consolidated List of Chemicals
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Lambda-Cyhalothrin in Exotic Fruit Fly Applications
    United States Department of Agriculture Draft Human Health and Marketing and Regulatory Ecological Risk Programs Animal and Plant Assessment for Lambda- Health Inspection Service cyhalothrin in Exotic Fruit Fly Applications April 2018 Draft Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Lambda-cyhalothrin in Exotic Fruit Fly Applications April 2018 Agency Contact: John Stewart National Fruit Fly Policy Manager Plant Protection and Quarantine – Policy Management Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 27606 i Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632- 9992 to request the form.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Household Ant Pests Bastiaan M
    B-6183 12-05 Managing Household Ant Pests Bastiaan M. Drees* n nature, ants are generally considered become queen ants in new colonies. They may to be beneficial insects. But when they choose indoor nesting sites if suitable ones are I invade a home, ants can be a nuisance. not available outdoors. When she finds a nesting To manage an ant infestation in the home, site, the queen loses her wings and begins to lay you must first identify the species. The next step eggs, which hatch into legless, grub-like larvae. is to learn about the biology of that species and The queen feeds the larvae as they develop determine where the colony might be nesting. through several stages, molting and growing Some species commonly nest indoors, while oth- between each stage. Larvae then form pupae and ers nest outside and enter a home just to look for soon emerge as adult ants. Once worker ants food. have developed, the queen no longer needs to To rid your home of ants, you must eliminate care for the brood. the colonies or nests. Some treatments, such When winged ants swarm in the home, it as insecticides sprayed on ant trails, kill only a is likely that their colony is located somewhere few foraging worker ants. They do not eliminate inside. Winged ants swarming outside, such as colonies. In fact, such treatments can sometimes around porch lights, should not be a concern. make the problem worse by causing a colony to To discourage them, turn off porch lights or use split into two or more separate colonies.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction Profile for Mixture of Insecticides: Pyrethroids
    44 5. References Abdel-Rahman A, Dechkovskaia AM, Goldstein LB, et al. 2004. Neurological deficits induced by malathion, DEET, and permethrin, alone or in combination in adult rats. J Toxicol Environ Health A 67(4):331-356. ATSDR. 1992. Public health assessment guidance manual. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR. 2003a. Toxicological profile for pyrethrins and pyrethroids. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp155.pdf. March 29, 2013. ATSDR. 2004a. Guidance manual for the assessment of joint toxic action of chemical mixtures. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/IP-ga/ipga.pdf. April 2, 2013. ATSDR. 2004b. Interaction profile for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/IP- btex/ip05.pdf. March 29, 2013. Belden JB, Lydy MJ. 2006. Joint toxicity of chlorpyrifos and esfenvalerate to fathead minnows and midge larvae. Environ Toxicol Chem 25(2):623-629. Bosgra S, van Eijkeren JC, van der Schans MJ, et al. 2009. Toxicodynamic analysis of the inhibition of isolated human acetylcholinesterase by combinations of methamidophos and methomyl in vitro. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 236(1):1-8. Burr SA, Ray DE. 2004. Structure-activity and interaction effects of 14 different pyrethroids on voltage- gated chloride ion channels. Toxicol Sci 77(2):341-346. Cao Z, Shafer TJ, Crofton KM, et al. 2011. Additivity of pyrethroid actions on sodium influx in cerebrocortical neurons in primary culture.
    [Show full text]