DOCSLIB.ORG

FY 2017 Annual Report on Technology Transfer Disclaimers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FY 2017 Annual Report on Technology Transfer Disclaimers United States Department of Agriculture FY 2017 Annual Report on Technology Transfer Disclaimers Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. January 2018 FY 2017 Annual Report on Technology Transfer TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Combined Metric Tables…………………………………………………………………………. …..7 1.0. Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 1.1. Mission Statement……………………………………………………………………….……………… 10 1.2. Nature and Structure of Program……………………………………………………..………………… 10 1.3. Technology Transfer Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success (Metrics)………………………….. 11 2.0. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 2.0.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………................ 31 2.0.2. Combined Metric Tables……………………………………………………………………………… 31 2.1. Wildlife Services (WS) 2.1.1. Mission Statement…………………………………………………………….……………… 36 2.1.2. Nature and Structure of Program…………………………………………….……................. 36 2.1.3. Technology Transfer Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success…………………............. 39 2.1.4. Downstream Outcomes..………………………………………………………………………43 2.2. Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) 2.2.1. Mission Statement………………………………………………………………………......... 51 2.2.2. Nature and Structure of Program…………………………………………………………….. 51 2.3. International Services (IS) 2.3.1. Mission Statement…………………………………………………………………..…………53 2.3.2. Nature and Structure of Program…………………………………….………………………. .53 2.3.3. Downstream Outcomes…………….………………………………………………………….58 2.4. Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) 2.4.1. Mission Statement……………………………………………………………………..………59 2.4.2. Nature and Structure of Program………………………………………………………………59 2.4.3. Technology Transfer Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success…………………………....61 2.4.4. Downstream Outcomes………………………………………………………………………...63 2.5. Veterinary Services (VS) 2.5.1. Mission Statement……………………………………………..………………………........... 77 2.5.2. Nature and Structure of Program………………………………………………….…………. 77 2.5.3. Technology Transfer Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success…………….…..…………81 3.0. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 3.1. Mission Statement………………………………………………………………………..………….86 FY17 Page 1 FY 2017 Annual Report on Technology Transfer 3.2. Nature and Structure of Program………………………………………………..………………….. 86 3.3. Approach and Plans for Conducting Technology Transfer…………………………..…………….. 88 3.4. Technology Transfer Highlights …………………………………………………………………….91 3.5. Metric Tables……………………………………………………………………….………………. 96 3.6 Downstream Outcomes……………………………………… …………………….………………102 3.7. Outreach Activities: Workshops, Field Days, Trainings/Demonstrations, and Stakeholder Presentations/Meetings…………………………………………………………………..………….158 3.8. Technology Transfer Award Winners……………………..…..……………………………………228 3.9. Selected Metric Charts…………………………………..……………..……………………………231 4.0. Economic Research Service (ERS) 4.1. Mission Statement……………………………………………………….……………………….....240 4.2. Nature and Structure of Research Program………………………………………………………… 240 4.3. Current Technology Transfer Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success (Metrics).……………. 241 4.4. Strengthening Current Activities…………………………………………………...………….........242 4.5. Response to Presidential Memorandum…………………………………………………………......242 4.6. Downstream Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………...245 4.7. Publications…………………………………………………………………………………….. …...247 5.0. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) 5.1. Mission Statement………………………………………………………….……………………......248 5.2. Nature and Structure of Program……………………….………………………………..…….........248 5.3. Downstream Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………...249 6.0. Forest Service (FS) 6.1. Understanding………………………………………………………...…………….….……………256 6.2. Mission Statement………………………………………….………………………………………. 256 6.3. Nature and Structure of Research Program………..……………………………………………….. 257 6.4. Role of the National Program Leaders……………...…………………………………………........ 259 6.5. Current Technology Transfer Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success……………………….. 260 6.6. Forest Products Laboratory………………………………………………………………………….261 6.7. Forest Service Decision Support Tools and Data………………………………………..……..…...270 6.8. Who Owns the Forest?………………………………………………………………………………274 6.9. State & Private Forestry (S&PF)……………………….…………………………………………...274 6.10. Water………………………………………………………………………………………….……284 6.11. Fire....……………………………………………………………………………………….….......287 6.12. Science Delivery by the Research and Development Office and Field Research Stations…..……290 6.13. Metric Tables ………………………………………………………………………………..……. 345 7.0. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 7.1. Mission Statement……………………………………………………………….……………….....350 7.2. Nature and Structure of Research Program………………………………………………..……......350 7.3. Activities in FY 2017………………………………………..…………..…..………………………352 FY17 Page 2 FY 2017 Annual Report on Technology Transfer 8.0. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) 8.1. Mission Statement…………………………………………………………………………..……..359 8.2. Strategic Plan………………………………………………………………………………………359 8.3. Nature and Structure of Research Program………………………………………..………………359 8.4. Technology Transfer Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success (Metrics)………..………………..360 8.5. Downstream Outcomes………………………………………………………..…………………...364 8.6. Outreach Activities………………………………………………………….……………………...365 8.7. Publications………………………………………………………….……………………………..368 9.0. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 9.1. Mission Statement………………………………………………………………….…...………….369 9.2. Nature and Structure of Program………………………………………………….………………..369 9.3. Downstream Outcomes………..…………………………………………..………………………..370 9.4. Outreach Activities……………………………………………………………………………….…373 9.5. Publications……………………………………………………………………………..…………..374 10.0. National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 10.1. Mission Statement ……………………………………………………………………….….…......383 10.2. Nature and Structure of Program…………………………………………………..………………383 10.3. Technology Transfer Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success………..……………………...385 10.4. Strengthening Current Activities and New Initiatives………………………………..……………385 10.5. Response to Presidential Memorandum…………………………………..………………….….....386 10.6. Downstream Outcomes……………………………………………..……..……………………….389 10.7. Outreach Activities………………………………………………………………………………...405 11.0. Rural Development (RD) 11.1. Mission Statement ………………………………………………………………….….…..………408 11.2. Nature and Structure of Program…………………………………………………..…..…………..408 11.3. Technology Transfer Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success………..……..…………....….411 11.4. Strengthening Current Activities and New Initiatives………………………………..……………412 12.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 12.1. Mission Statement ………………………………………………………………….….…..………413 12.2. Nature and Structure of Program…………………………………………………..…..…………..413 12.3. Soils Research & Technology Transfer ……….……..……………………………………….…...414 12.4. Plant Material Centers ………………………………..…………...………………………….……421 12.5. Snow Survey & Water Supply..……………………..……...………………………………….…..424 12.6. Soil Health...……………………………..………………………………………………..……….425 12.7. Watershed & Dam Protection………..……..…………………………………………..………….426 12.8. National Support Centers..……………………..…………………………………………………..428 12.9. Science & Training Library………..……..…………………………………………….………….429 12.10. Phytoremediation Data..……………………..……………………………………………………430 12.11. Conservation & Innovation Grants (CIG)..………………………………………..……………...430 FY17 Page 3 FY 2017 Annual Report on Technology Transfer INTRODUCTION President Abraham Lincoln coined the phrase “the People’s Department,” acknowledging the role of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in solving problems–a service that benefits all people every day. Thus, well before
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Worms, Nematoda
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of 2001 Worms, Nematoda Scott Lyell Gardner University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs Part of the Parasitology Commons Gardner, Scott Lyell, "Worms, Nematoda" (2001). Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology. 78. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs/78 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Volume 5 (2001): 843-862. Copyright 2001, Academic Press. Used by permission. Worms, Nematoda Scott L. Gardner University of Nebraska, Lincoln I. What Is a Nematode? Diversity in Morphology pods (see epidermis), and various other inverte- II. The Ubiquitous Nature of Nematodes brates. III. Diversity of Habitats and Distribution stichosome A longitudinal series of cells (sticho- IV. How Do Nematodes Affect the Biosphere? cytes) that form the anterior esophageal glands Tri- V. How Many Species of Nemata? churis. VI. Molecular Diversity in the Nemata VII. Relationships to Other Animal Groups stoma The buccal cavity, just posterior to the oval VIII. Future Knowledge of Nematodes opening or mouth; usually includes the anterior end of the esophagus (pharynx). GLOSSARY pseudocoelom A body cavity not lined with a me- anhydrobiosis A state of dormancy in various in- sodermal epithelium.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory Manual Course No. Pl. Path
    NAVSARI AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY Theory Manual INTRODUCTORY PLANT NEMATOLOGY Course No. Pl. Path 2.2 (V Dean’s) nd 2 Semester B.Sc. (Hons.) Agri. PROF.R.R.PATEL, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR Dr.D.M.PATHAK, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Dr.R.R.WAGHUNDE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE NAVSARI AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY BHARUCH 392012 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION What are the nematodes? Nematodes are belongs to animal kingdom, they are triploblastic, unsegmented, bilateral symmetrical, pseudocoelomateandhaving well developed reproductive, nervous, excretoryand digestive system where as the circulatory and respiratory systems are absent but govern by the pseudocoelomic fluid. Plant Nematology: Nematology is a science deals with the study of morphology, taxonomy, classification, biology, symptomatology and management of {plant pathogenic} nematode (PPN). The word nematode is made up of two Greek words, Nema means thread like and eidos means form. The words Nematodes is derived from Greek words ‘Nema+oides’ meaning „Thread + form‟(thread like organism ) therefore, they also called threadworms. They are also known as roundworms because nematode body tubular is shape. The movement (serpentine) of nematodes like eel (marine fish), so also called them eelworm in U.K. and Nema in U.S.A. Roundworms by Zoologist Nematodes are a diverse group of organisms, which are found in many different environments. Approximately 50% of known nematode species are marine, 25% are free-living species found in soil or freshwater, 15% are parasites of animals, and 10% of known nematode species are parasites of plants (see figure at left). The study of nematodes has traditionally been viewed as three separate disciplines: (1) Helminthology dealing with the study of nematodes and other worms parasitic in vertebrates (mainly those of importance to human and veterinary medicine).
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Control of the Anguinid Nematode
    BIOLOGY AND CONTROL OF THE AIIGTIINID NEMATODE ASSOCIATED WITH F'LOOD PLAIN STAGGERS by TERRY B.ERTOZZI (B.Sc. (Hons Zool.), University of Adelaide) Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The University of Adelaide (School of Agriculture and Wine) September 2003 Table of Contents Title Table of contents.... Summary Statement..... Acknowledgments Chapter 1 Introduction ... Chapter 2 Review of Literature 2.I Introduction.. 4 2.2 The 8acterium................ 4 2.2.I Taxonomic status..' 4 2.2.2 The toxins and toxin production.... 6 2.2.3 Symptoms of poisoning................. 7 2.2.4 Association with nematodes .......... 9 2.3 Nematodes of the genus Anguina 10 2.3.1 Taxonomy and sYstematics 10 2.3.2 Life cycle 13 2.4 Management 15 2.4.1 Identifi cation...................'..... 16 2.4.2 Agronomicmethods t6 2.4.3 FungalAntagonists l7 2.4.4 Other strategies 19 2.5 Conclusions 20 Chapter 3 General Methods 3.1 Field sites... 22 3.2 Collection and storage of Polypogon monspeliensis and Agrostis avenaceø seed 23 3.3 Surface sterilisation and germination of seed 23 3.4 Collection and storage of nematode galls .'.'.'.....'.....' 24 3.5 Ext¡action ofjuvenile nematodes from galls 24 3.6 Counting nematodes 24 3.7 Pot experiments............. 24 Chapter 4 Distribution of Flood Plain Staggers 4.1 lntroduction 26 4.2 Materials and Methods..............'.. 27 4.2.1 Survey of Murray River flood plains......... 27 4.2.2 Survey of southeastern South Australia .... 28 4.2.3 Surveys of northern New South Wales...... 28 4.3 Results 29 4.3.1 Survey of Murray River flood plains...
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Anguina Tritici
    Anguina tritici Scientific Name Anguina tritici (Steinbuch, 1799) Chitwood, 1935 Synonyms Anguillula tritici, Rhabditis tritici, Tylenchus scandens, Tylenchus tritici, and Vibrio tritici Common Name(s) Nematode: Wheat seed gall nematode Type of Pest Nematode Taxonomic Position Class: Secernentea, Order: Tylenchida, Family: Anguinidae Reason for Inclusion in Manual Pests of Economic and Environmental Concern Listing 2017 Background Information Anguina tritici was discovered in England in 1743 and was the first plant parasitic nematode to be recognized (Ferris, 2013). This nematode was first found in the United States in 1909 and subsequently found in numerous states, where it was primarily found in wheat but also in rye to a lesser extent (PERAL, 2015). Modern agricultural practices, including use of clean seed and crop rotation, have all but eliminated A. tritici in countries which have adopted these practices, and the nematode has not been found in the United States since 1975 (PERAL, 2015). However, A. tritici is still a problem in third world countries where such practices are not widely adapted (SON, n.d.). Figure 1: Brightfield light microscope images of an A. tritici female as seen under low power In addition, trade issues have arisen due to magnification. J. D. Eisenback, Virginia Tech, conflicting records of A. tritici in the United bugwood.org States (PERAL, 2015). 1 Figure 2: Wheat seed gall broken open to reveal Figure 3: Seed gall teased apart to reveal adult thousands of infective juveniles. Michael McClure, males and females and thousands of eggs. J. University of Arizona, bugwood.org D. Eisenback, Virginia Tech, bugwood.org Pest Description Measurements (From Swarup and Gupta (1971) and Krall (1991): Egg: 85 x 38 μm on average, but may also be larger (130 x 63 μm).
    [Show full text]
  • Rathayibacter Poisoning
    Recovery Plan For Rathayibacter Poisoning Caused by Rathayibacter toxicus (syn. Clavibacter toxicus) February, 2010 Contents: Page Executive Summary 2 Contributors and Reviewers 4 I. Introduction 5 II. Disease Development and Symptoms 7 III. Plant Infection, Spread of the Bacterium, and Animal Poisoning 10 IV. Monitoring and Detection 11 V. Response 12 VI. USDA Pathogen Permits 13 VII. Economic Impact and Compensation 14 VIII. Mitigation and Disease Management 14 IX. Infrastructure and Experts 15 X. Research, Extension, and Education 16 References 19 Web Resources 23 Appendices 24 This recovery plan is one of several disease-specific documents produced as part of the National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) called for in Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 9 (HSPD-9). The purpose of the NPDRS is to ensure that the tools, infrastructure, communication networks, and capacity required to minimize the impact of high consequence plant disease outbreaks are available so that a adequate level of crop production is maintained. Each disease-specific plan is intended to provide a brief primer on the disease, assess the status of critical recovery components, and identify disease management research, extension, and education needs. These documents are not intended to be stand-alone documents that address all of the many and varied aspects of plant disease outbreaks and all of the decisions that must be made and actions taken to achieve effective response and recovery. They are, however, documents that will help the USDA to further guide efforts toward plant disease recovery. Executive Summary Rathayibacter (Clavibacter) toxicus was added to the Select Agent List in 2008 due primarily to the potential damage affecting domesticated forage-consuming animals in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Histopathology of Different
    1 BIOLOGY AND HISTOPATHOLOGY OF DIFFERENT ISOLATES OF ANGUINA TRITICI ON TRITICUM SPP. by Riadh Falih Al-Sabie B.Sc. (Baghdad), DIC. (Imperial College), M.Sc. (London) A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE FACULTY OF SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON. Department of Zoology and Applied Entomology Imperial College at Silwood Park Imperial College of Science and Technology AshursE Lodge Sunninghill Ascot Berkshire: ENGLAND September, 1980. 11 ABSTRACT Isolates of Anguina tritici from Australia, England, India, Iraq and U.S.A. were maintained on spring wheat. Measurements of males and females and second stage juveniles (J2) showed consistent morphometric differences between some isolates. Host range studies on species and varieties of Triticwn and AegiZops indicated an ability to infect a wide range of hosts of which 9 were new records. Infection studies on naturally infected wheat revealed that the growing point was invaded by the second stage juveniles shortly after flower induction. Artificial inoculation of wheat plants showed that the infective stage needed an association with the flower primordia for at least 24 days (latent period) for galling to be initiated. Further studies were made on the effect of temperature on invasion and distribution of galls in artificially inoculated heads. The histopathology of infection and subsequent gall development was observed. J2 invaded the primordia of either one stamen only (outer anther), ovary only or both to form the gall. The J2 survived in the soil for 250 days in the absence of a host, and some could still infect and form galls after 225 days. J2 from all isolates could not survive for more than 40 days in aerated water.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This PDF File
    REDIA, XCIV, 2011: 103-106 NICOLA GRECO (*) - ANNA MARINARI (**) HYSTORY OF NEMATOLOGY IN ITALY (*) CNR, Istituto per la Protezione delle Piante, Bari, Italy. (**) CRA, Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Firenze, Italy. Greco N., Marinari A. – History of nematology in Italy. Notwithstanding nematology is a rather new science, in Italy the first observations and publications on nematodes date back to several centuries ago and are from physicians and botanists. Among them are U. Aldrovandi (1522-1605), who was the first in the word to observe nematodes in insects, and F. Redi, who published in 1684 his observations about “living animals occurring in living animals”. However, the first observations on plant parasitic nematodes were made from the second half of 1800 to early 1900. They refer to Anguina tritici in wheat kernels (1867), Meloidogyne spp. (1875-1904) on several host plants, Ditylenchus dipsaci (1897) in oats. The sugar beet cyst nematode, Heterodera schachtii, was reported in 1931 and the citrus nematode, Tylenchulus semipenetrans, in 1940. The turning point in Italian plant nematology occurred during 1950-1970, when investigations and control trials started on Xiphinema index, the natural vector of the Grape fan leaf virus. In the same period, the Phytosanitary Service of Pescara addressed much of his efforts on plant parasitic nematodes and the Section of Nematology is established at the Experimental Institute of Agricultural Zoology, of the Ministry of Agriculture, in Florence. Moreover, in 1970, the Italian National Research Councils founded in Bari the Laboratory (later Institute) of Agricultural Nematology Applied to Plants. Later on, nematology attracted also the interest of several other Phytosanitary Services, Universities and firms producing nematicides.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Diversity on Mount Mansfield
    Introduction pitfall traps located around each plot at 60° This report concludes the fifth consecutive intervals. In previous years a single light year of insect surveys on Mount Mansfield. trap was located in the center plot, but in The purpose of this program is to develop 1995 two additional light traps were information on taxonomic diversity and included and located outside the permanent species abundance of selected insect groups plot no less than 30 m apart. At Proctor in the forest ecosystem at different Maple Research Center and Underhil1 State elevations. This information will contribute Park traps two and three correspond to the a taxonomic foundation for future work on single trap used in previous years. Three the ecological relationships between traps were also established at the 715 m site. invertebrate biodiversity and forest management. The 1995 Lepidoptera survey was limited to Noctuidae, Geometridae, The first three years of the insect Notodontidae, Arctiidae, Satumiidae, survey included Hymenoptera and Diptera Lasiocampidae, Drepanidae, Sesiidae, and from canopy malaise traps, ground beetles Limacodidae. These groups were selected (Carabidae) from pitfall traps and because it was possible to provide accurate Lepidoptera from light traps. The canopy identifications for most specimens within the study was. discontinued after the first three time constraints of the study, with the years, and the data from this and ground exception of Limacodidae which turned out surveys are being analyzed for statistical to be impractical because of similarities comparisons of diversity variation among among some species. the three study sites. Results Comparisons are presented in this (A) Pest species report for general between-site diversity , A few specimens of the gypsy moth individual pest species, and examples of (Lymantria dispar) were recorded for the elevation differences for individual species.
    [Show full text]
  • Nematology Training Manual
    NIESA Training Manual NEMATOLOGY TRAINING MANUAL FUNDED BY NIESA and UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI, CROP PROTECTION DEPARTMENT CONTRIBUTORS: J. Kimenju, Z. Sibanda, H. Talwana and W. Wanjohi 1 NIESA Training Manual CHAPTER 1 TECHNIQUES FOR NEMATODE DIAGNOSIS AND HANDLING Herbert A. L. Talwana Department of Crop Science, Makerere University P. O. Box 7062, Kampala Uganda Section Objectives Going through this section will enrich you with skill to be able to: diagnose nematode problems in the field considering all aspects involved in sampling, extraction and counting of nematodes from soil and plant parts, make permanent mounts, set up and maintain nematode cultures, design experimental set-ups for tests with nematodes Section Content sampling and quantification of nematodes extraction methods for plant-parasitic nematodes, free-living nematodes from soil and plant parts mounting of nematodes, drawing and measuring of nematodes, preparation of nematode inoculum and culturing nematodes, set-up of tests for research with plant-parasitic nematodes, A. Nematode sampling Unlike some pests and diseases, nematodes cannot be monitored by observation in the field. Nematodes must be extracted for microscopic examination in the laboratory. Nematodes can be collected by sampling soil and plant materials. There is no problem in finding nematodes, but getting the species and numbers you want may be trickier. In general, natural and undisturbed habitats will yield greater diversity and more slow-growing nematode species, while temporary and/or disturbed habitats will yield fewer and fast- multiplying species. Sampling considerations Getting nematodes in a sample that truly represent the underlying population at a given time requires due attention to sample size and depth, time and pattern of sampling, and handling and storage of samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Worms, Nematoda
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Scott Gardner Publications & Papers Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Winter 1-1-2013 Worms, Nematoda Scott Lyell Gardner University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/slg Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Biology Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Parasitology Commons Gardner, Scott Lyell, "Worms, Nematoda" (2013). Scott Gardner Publications & Papers. 15. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/slg/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scott Gardner Publications & Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. digitalcommons.unl.edu Worms, Nematoda Scott Lyell Gardner University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA Glossary Anhydrobiosis State of dormancy in various invertebrates due to low humidity or desiccation. Cuticle Noncellular external layer of the body wall of various invertebrates. Gubernaculum Sclerotized trough-shaped structure of the dorsal wall of the spicular pouch, near the distal portion of the spicules; functions for reinforcement of the dorsal wall. Hypodermis Cellular, subcuticular layer that secretes the cuticle of annelids, nematodes, arthropods (see epidermis), and various other invertebrates. Pseudocoelom Body cavity not lined with a mesodermal epithelium. Spicule Bladelike, sclerotized male copulatory organs, usually paired, located immediately dorsal to the cloaca. Stichosome Longitudinal series of cells (stichocytes) that form the posterior esophageal glands in Trichuris. Stoma Mouth or buccal cavity, from the oral opening and usually includes the anterior end of the esophagus (pharynx).
    [Show full text]
  • Plant-Parasitic Nematodes in Germany – an Annotated Checklist
    86 (3) · December 2014 pp. 177–198 Plant-parasitic nematodes in Germany – an annotated checklist Dieter Sturhan Arnethstr. 13D, 48159 Münster, Germany, and c/o Julius Kühn-Institut, Toppheideweg 88, 48161 Münster, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Received 15 September 2014 | Accepted 28 October 2014 Published online at www.soil-organisms.de 1 December 2014 | Printed version 15 December 2014 Abstract A total of 268 phytonematode species indigenous in Germany or more recently introduced and established outdoors are listed. Their current taxonomic status and classification is given, which is not always in agreement with that applied in Fauna Europaea or recent publications. Recently used synonyms are included and comments on the species status are sometimes added. Species originally described from Germany are particularly marked, presence of types and other voucher specimens in the German Nematode Collection - Terrestrial Nematodes (DNST) is indicated; likewise potential occurrence or absence of species in field soil and similar cultivated land is noted. Species known from indoor plants and only occasionally observed outdoors are listed separately. Synonymies and species considered as species inquirendae are listed in case records refer to Germany; records and identifications considered as doubtful are also listed. In a separate section notes on a number of genera and species are added, taxonomic problems are indicated, and data on morphology, distribution and habitat of some recently discovered species and of still unidentified or undescribed species or populations are given. Longidorus macroteromucronatus is synonymised with L. poessneckensis. Paratrophurus striatus is transferred as T. casigo nom. nov., comb. nov. to the genus Tylenchorhynchus. Neotypes of Merlinius bavaricus and Bursaphelenchus fraudulentus are designated.
    [Show full text]