Laboratory Rearing Procedures for Two Lepidopteran Weed Biocontrol Agents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Assessing Population Sizes, Biological Potential and Mass
1. ASSESSING POPULATION SIZES, BIOCONTROL POTENTIAL AND MASS PRODUCTION OF THE ROOT BORING MOTH AGAPETA ZOEGANA FOR AREWIDE IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF SPOTTED KNAPWEED BIOCONTROL 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: Mark Schwarzländer, PSES Department, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter DR MS 2339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339, (208) 885-9319, FAX (208)885- 7760, [email protected]; Joseph Milan, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, (208) 384-3487, FAX (208) 384-3326, [email protected]; Paul Brusven, Nez Perce Tribe Bio-Control Center, P.O. Box 365, 22776 Beaver Road, Lapwai, ID 83540, (208) 843-9374, FAX (208) 843-9373, [email protected] 3. COOPERATORS: Dr. Hariet Hinz (CABI Switzerland), Dr. Urs Schaffner (CABI Switzerland, Dr. Sanford Eigenbrode (University of Idaho), Dr. Heinz Müller-Schärer (University of Fribourg, Switzerland), Brian Marschmann (USDA APHIS PPQ State Director, Idaho), Dr. Rich Hansen (USDA APHIS CPHST, Ft. Collins, Colorado), John (Lewis) Cook (USDI BIA Rocky Mountain Region, Billings, Montana), Dr. John Gaskin (USDA ARS NPARL, Sidney, Montana), Idaho County Weed Superintendents and Idaho-based USFS land managers. BCIP CONTACT: Carol Randall, USFS Northern and Intermountain Regions, 2502 E Sherman Ave, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814, (208) 769-3051, (208) 769-3062, [email protected] 4. REQUESTED FUNDS: USFS $100,000 (Year 1: $34,000; Year 2: $33,000; and Year 3: $33,000), Project Leveraging: University of Idaho $124,329. 5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1) The current status of ecological research suggests that albeit having some impact on spotted knapweed, both, A. zoegana and C. achates have stronger negative effects on native grasses, thus indirectly benefiting one of most devastating invasive plants in the U.S. -
Montana Knapweeds
Biology, Ecology and Management of Montana Knapweeds EB0204 revised August 2017 Celestine Duncan, Consultant, Weed Management Services, Helena, MT Jim Story, Research Professor, retired, MSU Western Ag Research Center, Corvallis, MT Roger Sheley, former MSU Extension Weed Specialist, Bozeman, MT revised by Hilary Parkinson, former MSU Research Associate, and Jane Mangold, MSU Extension Invasive Plant Specialist Table of Contents Plant Biology . 3 SpeedyWeed ID . 5 Ecology . 4 Habitat . 4 Spread and Establishment Potential . 6 Damage Potential . 7 Origins, Current Status and Distribution . 8 Management Alternatives . 8 Prevention . 8 Mechanical Control . .9 Cultural Control . .10 Biological Control . .11 Chemical Control . .14 Integrated Weed Management (IWM) . 16 Additional Resources . 17 Acknowledgements . .19 COVER PHOTOS large - spotted knapweed by Marisa Williams, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, bugwood.org top inset - diffuse knapweed by Cindy Roche, bugwood.org bottom inset - Russain knapweed by Steve Dewey, Utah State University, bugwood.org Any mention of products in this publication does not constitute a recommendation by Montana State University Extension. It is a violation of Federal law to use herbicides in a manner inconsistent with their labeling. Copyright © 2017 MSU Extension The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Montana State University and Montana State University Extension prohibit discrimination in all of their programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital and family status. Issued in furtherance of cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jeff Bader, Director of Extension, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717. -
Weed Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed Symposium
Weed Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed Symposium Dennis Isaacson Martha H. Brookes Technical Coordinators U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Morgantown, WV and Oregon Department of Agriculture Salem, OR June 1999 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many of the tasks of organizing a symposium such as this — and there are many — are not obvious, and, if they are handled well, the effort that goes into them can easily be overlooked. Sherry Kudna of the Oregon Department of Agriculture Weed Control staff managed most of the arrangements and took care of many, many details, which helped the symposium run smoothly. We truly appreciate her many contributions. We also acknowledge the contributions of the presenters. They not only organized their own presentations and manuscripts, but also assisted with reviewing drafts of each other’s papers in the proceedings. Several of the presenters also covered their own expenses. Such dedication speaks well of their commitment to improving the practice of weed biocontrol. Both the Oregon State Office of the Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service made major contributions to supporting the symposium. Although several individuals from both organizations provided assistance, we especially note the encouragement and advice of Bob Bolton, Oregon Bureau of Land Management Weed Control Coordinator, and the willingness to help and financial support for publishing this document from Richard C. Reardon, Biocontrol/Biopesticides Program Manager, USDA Forest Service's Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV. We thank Tinathan Coger for layout and design and Patricia Dougherty for printing advice and coordination of the manuscript We also thank Barbra Mullin, Montana State Department of Agriculture, who delivered the keynote address; Tami Lowry, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, who helped format the document; and Eric Coombs, who provided the photographs of weeds and agents that convey the concepts of weed biocontrol. -
A Potential Collection Method for Agapeta Zoegana (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae), a Knapweed·Root·Feeding Moth Sheila M
J. ENTOMOL Soc. BRIT. COLUMBIA 86 (1989), SEPT. 3D, 1989 55 A POTENTIAL COLLECTION METHOD FOR AGAPETA ZOEGANA (LEPIDOPTERA: COCHYLIDAE), A KNAPWEED·ROOT·FEEDING MOTH SHEILA M. FITZPATRICK AGRICULWRE CANADA REsEARCH STATION 6660 N.W. MARINE DRIVE VANCOUVER, B.C. V6T lX2 ABSTRACT This paper describes a method for collecting living, undamaged Agapeta zoegana (L.) moths, especially recently mated females. The objective was to gather this potential biological control agent for subsequent distribution to land infested with Icnapweeds (CenJaurea spp.) Sweep-netting and baiting techniques were inappropriate collection methods, because the moths were delicate and did not appear to forage. The moths did not move to the plant tops at particular temperatures or times of day and therefore could not easily be collected by aspiration. However, males and virgin and mated females within large field cages were attracted to UV light and, during their daily period of reproductive activity from dusk to midnight, could be collected in a Heliothis trap (Sentry) illuminated by a blacklight. In the open, neither this method nor a mobile blacklight technique were successful in 1988, but both warrant further work. Results are discussed in the context of A. zoegana establishment in B.C. INTRODUCTION Diffuse (Centaurea diffusa Lam.) and spotted (c. maculosa Lam.) knapweed, introduced from Europe in the early 1900's, pose a serious threat to range- and pasture-hinds in B.C. (Cranston, 1980). The knapweeds outcompete native forage species on disturbed or over grazed sites, and are of low value as forage (Harris and Myers 1984). Chemical control of knapweed in most areas is neither economically practical nor environmentally desirable (Cranston 1980). -
13 SPOTTED KNAPWEED PEST STATUS of WEED Nature Of
In: Van Driesche, R., et al., 2002, Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States, USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04, 413 p. 13 SPOTTED KNAPWEED J. Story Montana State University, Western Agricultural Research Center, Corvallis, Montana, USA runoff and soil sedimentation (Lacey et al., 1989), and PEST STATUS OF WEED lowers plant diversity (Tyser and Key, 1988). Spot- Spotted knapweed, Centaurea maculosa Lamarck, is ted knapweed produces an allelopathic compound a purple-flowered, herbaceous, perennial weed, liv- that reduces germination of some grass species ing three to five years on average. It infests semiarid (Kelsey and Locken, 1987). range lands in the western United States and road- Geographical Distribution sides and fields in the eastern part of the country. Infested areas are dominated by the plant, reducing Spotted knapweed is native to Europe and western their grazing value and suppressing native plant com- Asia but has become widespread in parts of the munities. The plant, originally from Central Asia, has United States and Canada. The plant occurs through- been in North America for over 120 years. out the United States except for Alaska, Texas, Okla- homa, Mississippi, and Georgia (USDA, NRCS, Nature of Damage 2001). The plant is a serious invader of rangeland in Economic damage. Spotted knapweed is a serious the Rocky Mountain region. In Montana alone, the problem on rangeland, especially in the western plant infests an estimated 1.9 million ha of rangeland United States. Bucher (1984) estimated that an and pasture (Lacey, 1989). In Canada, the plant is 800,000 ha infestation in Montana was causing $4.5 abundant in British Columbia, and is common in million in annual forage losses, and that invasion of Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes (Watson and 13.6 million ha of vulnerable rangeland in Montana Renney, 1974). -
Insecta: Lepidoptera) SHILAP Revista De Lepidopterología, Vol
SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterología ISSN: 0300-5267 [email protected] Sociedad Hispano-Luso-Americana de Lepidopterología España Corley, M. F. V.; Rosete, J.; Gonçalves, A. R.; Nunes, J.; Pires, P.; Marabuto, E. New and interesting Portuguese Lepidoptera records from 2015 (Insecta: Lepidoptera) SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterología, vol. 44, núm. 176, diciembre, 2016, pp. 615-643 Sociedad Hispano-Luso-Americana de Lepidopterología Madrid, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=45549852010 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 SHILAP Revta. lepid., 44 (176) diciembre 2016: 615-643 eISSN: 2340-4078 ISSN: 0300-5267 New and interesting Portuguese Lepidoptera records from 2015 (Insecta: Lepidoptera) M. F. V. Corley, J. Rosete, A. R. Gonçalves, J. Nunes, P. Pires & E. Marabuto Abstract 39 species are added to the Portuguese Lepidoptera fauna and one species deleted, mainly as a result of fieldwork undertaken by the authors and others in 2015. In addition, second and third records for the country, new province records and new food-plant data for a number of species are included. A summary of recent papers affecting the Portuguese fauna is included. KEY WORDS: Insecta, Lepidoptera, distribution, Portugal. Novos e interessantes registos portugueses de Lepidoptera em 2015 (Insecta: Lepidoptera) Resumo Como resultado do trabalho de campo desenvolvido pelos autores e outros, principalmente no ano de 2015, são adicionadas 39 espécies de Lepidoptera à fauna de Portugal e uma é retirada. -
Scientific Names of Pest Species in Tortricidae (Lepidoptera)
RESEARCH Scientific Names of Pest Species in Tortricidae (Lepidoptera) Frequently Cited Erroneously in the Entomological Literature John W. Brown Abstract. The scientific names of several pest species in the moth meate the literature. For example, the subfamilial designation for family Tortricidae (Lepidoptera) frequently are cited erroneously in Olethreutinae (rather than Olethreutidae) was slow to be accepted contemporary entomological literature. Most misuse stems from the for many years following Obraztsov’s (1959) treatment of the group. fact that many proposed name changes appear in systematic treat- They even appear at both taxonomic levels (i.e., Olethreutinae and ments that are not seen by most members of the general entomologi- Olethreutidae) in different papers in the same issue of the Canadian cal community. Also, there is resistance among some entomologists Entomologist in the 1980s! (Volume 114 (6), 1982) Olethreutinae to conform to recently proposed changes in the scientific names of gradually was absorbed into the North America literature, espe- well-known pest species. Species names discussed in this paper are cially following publication of the Check List of the Lepidoptera Brazilian apple leafroller, Bonagota salubricola (Meyrick); western of America North of Mexico (Hodges 1983), which has served as a black-headed budworm, Acleris gloverana (Walsingham); and green standard for more than 20 years. budworm, Choristoneura retiniana (Walsingham). Generic names During preparation of a world catalog of Tortricidae (Brown discussed include those for false codling moth, Thaumatotibia leu- 2005), it became obvious to me that several taxonomically correct cotreta (Meyrick); grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana (Clemens); combinations of important pest species were not in common use in pitch twig moth, Retinia comstockiana (Fernald); codling moth, the entomological literature. -
Biological Control Agents
Ministry of Forests and Range Range Branch Biocontrol Development Group BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: AGAPETA ZOEGANA L. ................................................................................................................................ 4 Type of Agent: Root feeding moth ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Status: Secondary ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: APHTHONA CYPARISSIAE (KOCH) ................................................................................................................... 5 Type of agent: Root feeding flea beetle ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Status: Tertiary ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT: BOTANOPHILA SENECIELLA (MEADE) .............................................................................................................. 7 Type of Agent: Seed feeding fly ......................................................................................................................................................................... -
Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Biological Control of Invasive
Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States Roy Van Driesche Bernd Blossey Mark Hoddle Suzanne Lyon Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2002-04 Department of Service August 2002 Agriculture BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES Technical Coordinators Roy Van Driesche and Suzanne Lyon Department of Entomology, University of Massachusets, Amherst, MA Bernd Blossey Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Mark Hoddle Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the authors of the individual chap- We would also like to thank the U.S. Depart- ters for their expertise in reviewing and summariz- ment of Agriculture–Forest Service, Forest Health ing the literature and providing current information Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West on biological control of the major invasive plants in Virginia, for providing funding for the preparation the Eastern United States. and printing of this publication. G. Keith Douce, David Moorhead, and Charles Additional copies of this publication can be or- Bargeron of the Bugwood Network, University of dered from the Bulletin Distribution Center, Uni- Georgia (Tifton, Ga.), managed and digitized the pho- versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, (413) tographs and illustrations used in this publication and 545-2717; or Mark Hoddle, Department of Entomol- produced the CD-ROM accompanying this book. -
APHIS, State and R6 2005 FEIS, Approved Biological Control Agents
APHIS, State and R6 2005 FEIS, Approved Biological Control Agents Agent Weed targeted Sites/ Recommendations Type Collection Notes Effectiveness Aceria malherbae Field bindweed Spotty,isolated sites, Unlikely on MITE Transfer infested leaves/galls Stunts plants, reduces (may attack USFS,doesn't do well in R6 during growing season, early flowering, reduces plant Calystegia spp.) climate,poss on Admin or Grasslands; season allows mite populations density in Texas. warm sites more time to expand. Agapeta zoegana knapweeds Widespread in OR, possible gaps; INSECT Adults with blacklights, early Reduces biomass and (prefers spotted, prefers large plants, scattered density, July-September, short adult density. also diffuse) cooler knapweed sites lifespan; or dig roots. Agrilus hyperici St. Johnswort Spotty in E OR & WA, disperses well; INSECT Sweep adults, June-July; Most infested plants die; would use on west side if could release 100 on well-established will attack plants in shade establish, prefers warm dry with large plants. undamaged by Chrysolina stems; prone to fungus on wet sites; hyperici. may want to redistribute Aphthona abdominalis leafy spurge Failed, never recovered in US INSECT Not needed Aphthona cyparissiae leafy spurge Widespread;moist, high humidity and INSECT Sweep adults June-July. Less effective than Mediterranean, dry summers with sun, A.lacertosa; when sand, rock; Avoid sites with Aphthona spp. establish depressions, N aspects, bare ground; reductions in cover, larvae need 4 months cold. Canadian density, aboveground and research sug. prefers: flowering plants root biomass occur in 3-5 >51 cm, 50-125 stems/sq m., 40-60% yrs. sand. Aphthona czwalinae leafy spurge Widespread; moist, high humidity and INSECT Sweep adults June-July. -
Pyramica Boltoni, a New Species of Leaf-Litter Inhabiting Ant from Florida (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Dacetini)
Deyrup: New Florida Dacetine Ant 1 PYRAMICA BOLTONI, A NEW SPECIES OF LEAF-LITTER INHABITING ANT FROM FLORIDA (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE: DACETINI) MARK DEYRUP Archbold Biological Station, P.O. Box 2057, Lake Placid, FL 33862 USA ABSTRACT The dacetine ant Pyramica boltoni is described from specimens collected in leaf litter in dry and mesic forest in central and northern Florida. It appears to be closely related to P. dietri- chi (M. R. Smith), with which it shares peculiar modifications of the clypeus and the clypeal hairs. In total, 40 dacetine species (31 native and 9 exotic) are now known from southeastern North America. Key Words: dacetine ants, Hymenoptera, Formicidae RESUMEN Se describe la hormiga Dacetini, Pyramica boltoni, de especimenes recolectados en la hoja- rasca de un bosque mésico seco en el área central y del norte de la Florida. Esta especie esta aparentemente relacionada con P. dietrichi (M. R. Smith), con la cual comparte unas modi- ficaciones peculiares del clipeo y las cerdas del clipeo. En total, hay 40 especies de hormigas Dacetini (31 nativas y 9 exoticas) conocidas en el sureste de America del Norte. The tribe Dacetini is composed of small ants discussion of generic distinctions and the evolu- (usually under 3 mm long) that generally live in tion of mandibular structure in the Dacetini. leaf litter where they prey on small arthropods, Dacetine ants show their greatest diversity in especially springtails (Collembola). The tribe has moist tropical regions. The revision of the tribe by been formally defined by Bolton (1999, 2000). Ne- Bolton (2000) includes 872 species, only 43 of arctic dacetines may be recognized by a combina- which occur in North America north of Mexico. -
Field Guidecontrol of Weeds
US Department of Agriculture FOR THE BIOLOGICALFIELD GUIDECONTROL OF WEEDS IN THE NORTHWEST Rachel Winston, Carol Bell Randall, Rosemarie De Clerck-Floate, Alec McClay, Jennifer Andreas and Mark Schwarzländer Forest Health Technology FHTET-2014-08 Enterprise Team May 2014 he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in T1995 by the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ Cover photos: Aphthona nigriscutis (R. Richard, USDA APHIS), Mecinus spp. (Bob Richard, USDA APHIS PPQ), Chrysolina hypericic quadrigemina, Eustenopus villosus (Laura Parsons & Mark Schwarzländer, University of Idaho), Cyphocleonus achates (Jennifer Andreas, Washington State University Extension) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader.