DOCSLIB.ORG

General News

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General News BiocontrolNews and Information 2003 Vol. 24 No. 4 77N–90N General News Testing Times for Testing were released against St John’s wort The above rare instances of the failure of (Hypericum perforatum) but they had not New Zealand’s past testing procedures The high profile reporting of non-target been tested against native Hypericum spe- occurred because plants that might have impacts of a few classical weed biocontrol cies. Hypericum japonicum and H. grami- been tested were not. There are just two agents over the past few years highlighted neum are uncommon plants and, although recorded cases where plants were tested, but one shortcoming of many, if not most, bio- none of the agents has been recorded on the testing failed to predict the non-target control programmes – related to not inade- them, they could be at risk. In many other attacks that subsequently occurred. The quate testing, but inadequate monitoring. In projects during that period, and in all broom seed beetle Bruchidius villosus and trying to answer the critics of biocontrol, its projects since 1990, it has been standard the gorse pod moth Cydia succedana have defenders could only point to the absence practice to test native plants so the omission unexpectedly attacked seed of other exotic of reported problems for the overwhelming of indigenous species from test plant lists Fabaceae, although pre-release testing sug- majority of the 1150 or more planned should not occur now. However, this does gested that this would not happen. Investi- releases of weed biocontrol agents that not imply that selecting what plants to test gations into both are continuing, but Fowler have been made worldwide. An equally is now always straightforward. noted that a common link is that both use overwhelming absence of post-release sur- seasonally ephemeral resources (young veys means that there is little concrete evi- The first agent to be released in New Zea- pods) whose phenology in comparison to dence about the non-target impact of most land, cinnabar moth, was tested against that of the agent differs slightly between of these releases. eight native species of Senecio before per- Europe and New Zealand, potentially In New Zealand, Landcare Research has mission was given for its release against offering novel no-choice situations to been dusting off old files and investigating ragwort. However, when ragwort is defoli- agents in the field after release. This gives the safety record of weed biocontrol there ated the moth occasionally attacks two spe- us a new concept to consider: Do agents since the first biocontrol agent, cinnabar cies of native Senecio (S. minimus and S. introduced for discrete seasonal resources moth (Tyria jacobaeae), was released biserratus) which were not tested. Why need more careful assessment? Should against ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) in were these two not included in the test plant more rigorous no-choice testing be consid- 1929. This audit will alert the country’s list? They were in a different genus at the ered in these circumstances? Withers biocontrol community to any lurking dan- time. This is the only recorded instance of believes that the answer lies in our ability to gers, and also identify past flaws that will an introduced weed biocontrol agent accurately interpret the results of host spe- help tighten up testing procedures for the attacking a native non-target species in cificity testing, something that retrospective future. New Zealand, but could such a testing analysis of the methods used in the past, omission happen again? It is unlikely. Plant combined with post release field assess- Landcare has been looking at some agents systematics have clearly progressed since ment, will help us with. that are now common in New Zealand, 1929 and if the testing were being con- checking what testing was done before each The message is that if weed biocontrol is to ducted now, these two species would be win the confidence of its often vociferous was released, and whether non-target attack included. However, even with the taxo- has occurred – or might yet. Reporting sceptics, it is likely to require more sophis- nomic relationships clarified, there is ticated yet transparent interpretation of the results at the 11th Symposium on the Bio- another source of uncertainty. logical Control of Weeds in Canberra this host range testing carried out, and poten- tially will become more time-consuming year, Simon Fowler said that, overall, the Alternanthera sessilis, a close relative of reliability of host specificity testing in New and (therefore) more costly as a result. At a alligator weed (A. philoxeroides) was not time when time and budgets are being cut Zealand in the past has been good although included in host specificity tests in that bio- a few gaps have been identified. this fills the biocontrol community with control programme. Both are exotic species dismay. As a direct consequence of the The largest gap in testing probably and indeed there are no native New Zealand greater cost some projects will not be occurred in some projects conducted plants in the family. But what was not fore- undertaken, while the increased scrutiny is between 1943 and 1982. Although early seen was that A. sessilis would subse- likely to raise the bar so high that poten- biocontrol projects included native species quently attain cultural importance as a new tially useful and harmless agents will be in specificity tests, during this period 13 vegetable crop for some sectors of the com- rejected. introductions of natural enemies were made munity. Short of including a fortune-teller which relied heavily on testing in other in the biocontrol project, this would have Source: Hayes, L (ed) (2003) In retrospect. countries, and New Zealand natives were been hard to predict but Toni Withers In: What’s new in biological control of not tested. In one case, thistles, the rationale (Forest Research), who has been working weeds. Annual review. Lincoln, New Zea- was that there are no native thistles in New with Fowler and others on this project, land; Landcare New Zealand Ltd 2003, No. Zealand so there were no closely related believes that the current rigorous process 25, pp. 7-9. native species to test. While there could for drawing up test plant lists means that a Contact: Simon Fowler, have been problems where introductions similar case would not now be overlooked. Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, were made against other targets with New Of two agents introduced against alligator Auckland, New Zealand. Zealand relatives, no non-target impacts weed, one (the moth Arcola malloi) attacks Email: [email protected] have been recorded on New Zealand native other Alteranthera species, and although Fax: +64 9 849 7093 plants, and only one potential serious damage to A. sessilis has not been observed impact has emerged so far. Three agents it remains a possibility. ❑ Are we on your mailing list? BiocontrolNews and Information is always pleased to receive news of research, conferences, new products or patents, changes in personnel, collaborative agreements or any other information of interest to other readers. If your organization sends out press releases or newsletters, please let us have a copy. In addition, the editors welcome proposals for review topics. 78N BiocontrolNews and Information 2003 Vol. 24 No. 4 Birch Sawflies Seen Off of attack in June-July from the univoltine initiated a successful communication cam- species, P. thomsoni, together with a second paign to dissuade the public from applying An Old World birch leaf-mining sawfly, generation of F. pusilla. Although a third insecticide on the grounds that it would dis- accidentally introduced to Alaska, is the species, the late birch leaf edge miner, Het- rupt biocontrol. Edmonton’s success has subject of a classical biocontrol programme erarthrus nemoratus, is present in Alberta, been noted by authorities in areas still trou- employing a natural enemy from neigh- it is very rare and causes little damage. bled by the sawflies, and NoFC is currently bouring Canada. This programme, capital- working with Northwest Territories and izing on the successful biocontrol of birch In the early 1990s, scientists were surprised Alaska on control programmes. leaf-mining sawflies in Canada, will also to notice a dramatic drop in sawfly damage mark the first instance of a natural enemy to birch trees in Edmonton, Alberta and Alaska remained free of alien birch leaf- being released as part of a major pro- even more surprised to find that a native mining sawfly pests until about the 1990s gramme against an invasive alien species in parasitoid was responsible by reducing when the first damage to birch was noticed. the wild in Alaska. populations of one of the species, P. thom- Subsequently, birches in Anchorage began soni. The parasitoid responsible, Lath- to sustain the greatest damage, which now Birches have a worldwide distribution in rolestes luteolator, appears to be native to extends over more than 14,000 ha in and the North Temperate Zone, and some 12 both Old and New Worlds. It had not previ- around the city. The pest has also spread as native species are found in North America. ously been recorded from P. thomsoni, far north as Fairbanks, east to Glennallen They are an important component of the although it attacks sawflies in the genus and south to Haines and Skagway. It was boreal forests that extend north to the Caliroa in Europe and North America, and not until 2002 that the major culprit was treeline. A number of native and exotic spe- Profenusa alumna on northern red oaks positively identified as P. thomsoni; how- cies are highly valued and widely planted (Quercus rubra) in eastern Canada and the ever, F. pusilla and H.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mitochondrial DNA Variation in Two Invasive Birch Leaf-Mining Sawflies in North America
    545 Mitochondrial DNA variation in two invasive birch leaf-mining sawflies in North America Chris J.K. MacQuarrie1 Department of Renewable Resources, 442 Earth Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3; Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320 122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 3S5 David W. Langor Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320 122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 3S5 Felix A.H. Sperling Department of Biological Sciences, 405A Biological Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6E 2E9 Abstract—Mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I and II genes were sequenced for two invasive alien birch (Betula L. [Betulaceae]) leaf-mining sawflies, Profenusa thomsoni (Konow, 1886) (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) and Scolioneura betuleti (Klug, 1816) (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), accidentally introduced from Europe to North America. Ten North American and two European populations of P. thomsoni were sampled. As no genetic variation was ob- served for this parthenogenic species in Europe or North America, there is no evidence that this species was introduced more than once into North America. A single Canadian population of pu- tative S. betuleti was genetically characterized and compared with populations of S. betuleti and Scolioneura vicina Konow, 1894 in Europe to resolve the species identity of the introduced Ca- nadian population. Three haplotypes were present in European material but only one haplotype was represented in material collected in Canada. The haplotype in the Canadian population oc- curred in both S. betuleti and S. vicina in Europe. Thus, this preliminary genetic work cannot provide certain identity of the Canadian species.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods and Work Profile
    REVIEW OF THE KNOWN AND POTENTIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF PHYTOPHTHORA AND THE LIKELY IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES JANUARY 2011 Simon Conyers Kate Somerwill Carmel Ramwell John Hughes Ruth Laybourn Naomi Jones Food and Environment Research Agency Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ 2 CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Review of the potential impacts on species of higher trophic groups .................... 16 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 44 3. Review of the potential impacts on ecosystem services .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pear Sawfly Caliroa Cerasi Order Hymenoptera, Family Tenthredinidae; Common Sawflies Introduced Pest
    Pests of Trees and Shrubs Pear sawfly Caliroa cerasi Order Hymenoptera, Family Tenthredinidae; common sawflies Introduced pest Host plants: Cherry, cotoneaster, hawthorn, mountain- ash, pear and plum Description: Adult sawflies are 5–8 mm long, black and yellow, and stout bodied. Larvae are slimy, slug-like, and shiny olive-green to blackish in color. They are 12 mm long when full grown. Life history: Adults emerge early in June and lay single eggs on leaf undersides. Larvae appear in June, feed for about a month, then drop to the soil to pupate. A second generation can begin in early August. Overwintering: Prepupae in the soil. Damage symptoms: Larvae feed on upper leaf surfaces, Scorched leaves caused by pear sawfly larva defoliation leaving only the leaf veins. Heavy defoliation gives the damage. (189) tree a scorched appearance, and leaves may drop prema- Photo: Jeff Hahn turely. Severe defoliation can adversely affect tree health. Monitoring: Look for black, slug-like larvae feeding on the upper surface of leaves in June and again in August, and look for their damage on the leaves. Physical control: Small populations of larvae can be removed by hand and destroyed. Chemical control: Horticultural oils and insecticidal soaps are very effective against larvae. Biological control: No reports of natural enemies Plant mortality risk: Low Biorational pesticides: azadirachtin, horticultural oil, insecticidal soap, pyrethrins, spinosad Conventional pesticides: acephate, bifenthrin, carbaryl, Leaf damage caused by pear sawfly larvae. (188) chlorpyrifos (nursery only), cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, Photo: Whitney Cranshaw fluvalinate, imidacloprid, lambda-cyhalothrin, malathion, permethrin Leaf damage caused by young, pear sawfly larvae.
    [Show full text]
  • Pear Sawfly (Caliroa Cerasi) Vincent P
    Published by Utah State University Extension and Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory ENT-150-11 Revised September 2011 Pear Sawfly (Caliroa cerasi) Vincent P. Jones, Extension Specialist and Ryan S. Davis, Arthropod Diagnostician DID YOU KNOW? • Pear sawfly hosts include pear, cherry, hawthorn, plum, buttonbrush, Juneberry, mountain ash, coto- neaster, and quince. a • There are 2 generations of pear sawfly each year; second generation larvae cause the majority of the damage. • Damage from pear sawfly feeding rarely warrants control. • If control is needed, hand removal or spraying with a strong stream of water can be effective. • Low toxicity chemical controls include insecticidal soap and products containing spinosad A&B. Fig. 2. Young pear sawfly larvae covered in dark, gelati- INTRODUCTION nous secretion.1 The pear sawfly, which is actually a wasp, is a common pest on pear, cherry, and hawthorn in Utah. GENERAL BIOLOGY The slug-like appearance of the larval stage has prompt- Pear Sawfly ed this insect to also be referred to as the pear or cherry slug in various parts of the country. Although cherry and Scientific Name: Caliroa cerasi. pear are the preferred hosts, the pear sawfly will also Range: North Atlantic states to California; Canada, Eu- attack plum, buttonbrush, Juneberry, mountain ash, rope. cotoneaster and quince. On fruit trees which are treated Hosts: Cherry and pear are primary hosts; secondary hosts for other pests, the pear sawfly is rarely a problem, but in include plum, buttonbrush, Juneberry, mountain ash, untreated situations the entire tree may be defoliated. cotoneaster, and quince. Identification of Adult:The adults have four wings, are black-and-yellow and slightly larger than a common house fly (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs
    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    [Show full text]
  • ARTHROPODA Subphylum Hexapoda Protura, Springtails, Diplura, and Insects
    NINE Phylum ARTHROPODA SUBPHYLUM HEXAPODA Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects ROD P. MACFARLANE, PETER A. MADDISON, IAN G. ANDREW, JOCELYN A. BERRY, PETER M. JOHNS, ROBERT J. B. HOARE, MARIE-CLAUDE LARIVIÈRE, PENELOPE GREENSLADE, ROSA C. HENDERSON, COURTenaY N. SMITHERS, RicarDO L. PALMA, JOHN B. WARD, ROBERT L. C. PILGRIM, DaVID R. TOWNS, IAN McLELLAN, DAVID A. J. TEULON, TERRY R. HITCHINGS, VICTOR F. EASTOP, NICHOLAS A. MARTIN, MURRAY J. FLETCHER, MARLON A. W. STUFKENS, PAMELA J. DALE, Daniel BURCKHARDT, THOMAS R. BUCKLEY, STEVEN A. TREWICK defining feature of the Hexapoda, as the name suggests, is six legs. Also, the body comprises a head, thorax, and abdomen. The number A of abdominal segments varies, however; there are only six in the Collembola (springtails), 9–12 in the Protura, and 10 in the Diplura, whereas in all other hexapods there are strictly 11. Insects are now regarded as comprising only those hexapods with 11 abdominal segments. Whereas crustaceans are the dominant group of arthropods in the sea, hexapods prevail on land, in numbers and biomass. Altogether, the Hexapoda constitutes the most diverse group of animals – the estimated number of described species worldwide is just over 900,000, with the beetles (order Coleoptera) comprising more than a third of these. Today, the Hexapoda is considered to contain four classes – the Insecta, and the Protura, Collembola, and Diplura. The latter three classes were formerly allied with the insect orders Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails) and Thysanura (silverfish) as the insect subclass Apterygota (‘wingless’). The Apterygota is now regarded as an artificial assemblage (Bitsch & Bitsch 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological-Control-Programmes-In
    Biological Control Programmes in Canada 2001–2012 This page intentionally left blank Biological Control Programmes in Canada 2001–2012 Edited by P.G. Mason1 and D.R. Gillespie2 1Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 2Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agassiz, British Columbia, Canada iii CABI is a trading name of CAB International CABI Head Offi ce CABI Nosworthy Way 38 Chauncey Street Wallingford Suite 1002 Oxfordshire OX10 8DE Boston, MA 02111 UK USA Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 T: +1 800 552 3083 (toll free) Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 T: +1 (0)617 395 4051 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cabi.org Chapters 1–4, 6–11, 15–17, 19, 21, 23, 25–28, 30–32, 34–36, 39–42, 44, 46–48, 52–56, 60–61, 64–71 © Crown Copyright 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery. Remaining chapters © CAB International 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electroni- cally, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Biological control programmes in Canada, 2001-2012 / [edited by] P.G. Mason and D.R. Gillespie. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-78064-257-4 (alk. paper) 1. Insect pests--Biological control--Canada. 2. Weeds--Biological con- trol--Canada. 3. Phytopathogenic microorganisms--Biological control- -Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Groups of Insects, Mites and Spiders
    List Supplemental Information Content Taxonomic Groups of Insects, Mites and Spiders Pests of trees and shrubs Class Arachnida, Spiders and mites elm bark beetle, smaller European Scolytus multistriatus Order Acari, Mites and ticks elm bark beetle, native Hylurgopinus rufipes pine bark engraver, Ips pini Family Eriophyidae, Leaf vagrant, gall, erinea, rust, or pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda eriophyid mites ash flower gall mite, Aceria fraxiniflora Order Hemiptera, True bugs, aphids, and scales elm eriophyid mite, Aceria parulmi Family Adelgidae, Pine and spruce aphids eriophyid mites, several species Cooley spruce gall adelgid, Adelges cooleyi hemlock rust mite, Nalepella tsugifoliae Eastern spruce gall adelgid, Adelges abietis maple spindlegall mite, Vasates aceriscrumena hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae maple velvet erineum gall, several species pine bark adelgid, Pineus strobi Family Tarsonemidae, Cyclamen and tarsonemid mites Family Aphididae, Aphids cyclamen mite, Phytonemus pallidus balsam twig aphid, Mindarus abietinus Family Tetranychidae, Freeranging, spider mites, honeysuckle witches’ broom aphid, tetranychid mites Hyadaphis tataricae boxwood spider mite, Eurytetranychus buxi white pine aphid, Cinara strobi clover mite, Bryobia praetiosa woolly alder aphid, Paraprociphilus tessellatus European red mite, Panonychus ulmi woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum honeylocust spider mite, Eotetranychus multidigituli Family Cercopidae, Froghoppers or spittlebugs spruce spider mite, Oligonychus ununguis spittlebugs, several
    [Show full text]
  • The Pear-Slug
    Volume 11 Article 1 Number 130 The pear-slug August 2017 The pear-slug R. L. Webster Iowa State College Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/bulletin Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Webster, R. L. (2017) "The pear-slug," Bulletin: Vol. 11 : No. 130 , Article 1. Available at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/bulletin/vol11/iss130/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Extension and Experiment Station Publications at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletin by an authorized editor of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Webster: The pear-slug Bulletin No. 130 March, 1912 THE PEAR-SLUG Caliroa cerasi Linn. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION IOWA STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND THE MECHANIC ARTS Entomological Section Ames, Iowa Published by Iowa State University Digital Repository, 1911 1 Bulletin, Vol. 11 [1911], No. 130, Art. 1 SUMMARY. 1. The pear-slug, or cherry-slug, is a dark, almost black, slimy slug, about 2-5 of an inch long when full grown, which feeds on cherry, pear and plum leaves. 2. These slugs feed on the upper sides of the leaves, eating out all the tissue except the veins and the lower surface. The injured leaves become dry and brown and fall from the trees, which are sometimes left entirely bare of foliage in midsummer. 3. Trees are often killed as a result of repeated defoliation. A short crop of fruit follows a severe attack by this insect, on ac­ count of the weakened condition of the tree.
    [Show full text]
  • BYGL May 26, 2011
    Home BYGL 2011 Text Only Contacts Search Site Map ENLT Presentations Lead Editor: Curtis Young Contributing Authors: Pam Bennett, Joe Boggs, Cindy Meyer, Jim Chatfield, Erik Draper Dave Dyke, Gary Gao, Tim Malinich, Bridget Meiring, Amy Stone and Curtis Young Buckeye Yard and Garden onLine provides timely information about Ohio growing conditions, pest, disease, and cultural problems. Updated weekly between April and October, this information is useful for those who are managing a commercial nursery, garden center, or landscape business or someone who just wants to keep their yard looking good all summer. BYGL May 26, 2011 Thursday, 26 May 2011 17:11 This is the 8th 2011 edition of the Buckeye Yard and Garden Line (BYGL). BYGL is developed from a Tuesday morning conference call of Extension Educators, Specialists, and other contributors in Ohio. In This Issue: 1. PLANTS OF THE WEEK: Annual (Calibrachoa); Perennial (Peony); Woody (Kentucky Coffeetree); Vegetable (Bell Pepper); and Weed (Buckhorn Plantain). 2. HORT SHORTS: Growing Degree Days (GDD) and Squaw Root. 3. BUG BYTES: Watch for Bagworm Egg Hatch; Annual Maple Leaf-Drop Commences (Maple Petiole Borer); Scarlet Oak Sawfly; Woolly Beech Aphids not so Woolly; and Hydrangea Leaf-Tier Moth. 4. DISEASE DIGEST: Anthracnose Anxiety and Brown Rot of Peaches and Nectarines. 5. TURF TIPS: Nostoc Balls and Lawn Litter. 6. INDUSTRY INSIGHTS: Calico Scale; European Elm Scale; and EABU Announces Recorded Version of Thousand Canker Disease on Walnut Webinar. 7. WEATHERWATCH. 8. COMING ATTRACTIONS: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Awareness Week; Slow Ash Mortality (SLAM) Webinar; and School Integrated Pest Management Seminars Scheduled.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT on APPLES – Fruit Pathway and Alert List
    EU project number 613678 Strategies to develop effective, innovative and practical approaches to protect major European fruit crops from pests and pathogens Work package 1. Pathways of introduction of fruit pests and pathogens Deliverable 1.3. PART 5 - REPORT on APPLES – Fruit pathway and Alert List Partners involved: EPPO (Grousset F, Petter F, Suffert M) and JKI (Steffen K, Wilstermann A, Schrader G). This document should be cited as ‘Wistermann A, Steffen K, Grousset F, Petter F, Schrader G, Suffert M (2016) DROPSA Deliverable 1.3 Report for Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List’. An Excel file containing supporting information is available at https://upload.eppo.int/download/107o25ccc1b2c DROPSA is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (grant agreement no. 613678). www.dropsaproject.eu [email protected] DROPSA DELIVERABLE REPORT on Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background on apple .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Data on production and trade of apple fruit ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Pathway ‘apple fruit’ .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Beiträge Zur Bayerischen Entomofaunistik 13: 67–207
    Beiträge zur bayerischen Entomofaunistik 13:67–207, Bamberg (2014), ISSN 1430-015X Grundlegende Untersuchungen zur vielfältigen Insektenfauna im Tiergarten Nürnberg unter besonderer Betonung der Hymenoptera Auswertung von Malaisefallenfängen in den Jahren 1989 und 1990 von Klaus von der Dunk & Manfred Kraus Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Einleitung 68 2. Untersuchungsgebiet 68 3. Methodik 69 3.1. Planung 69 3.2. Malaisefallen (MF) im Tiergarten 1989, mit Gelbschalen (GS) und Handfänge 69 3.3. Beschreibung der Fallenstandorte 70 3.4. Malaisefallen, Gelbschalen und Handfänge 1990 71 4. Darstellung der Untersuchungsergebnisse 71 4.1. Die Tabellen 71 4.2. Umfang der Untersuchungen 73 4.3. Grenzen der Interpretation von Fallenfängen 73 5. Untersuchungsergebnisse 74 5.1. Hymenoptera 74 5.1.1. Hymenoptera – Symphyta (Blattwespen) 74 5.1.1.1. Tabelle Symphyta 74 5.1.1.2. Tabellen Leerungstermine der Malaisefallen und Gelbschalen und Blattwespenanzahl 78 5.1.1.3. Symphyta 79 5.1.2. Hymenoptera – Terebrantia 87 5.1.2.1. Tabelle Terebrantia 87 5.1.2.2. Tabelle Ichneumonidae (det. R. Bauer) mit Ergänzungen 91 5.1.2.3. Terebrantia: Evanoidea bis Chalcididae – Ichneumonidae – Braconidae 100 5.1.2.4. Bauer, R.: Ichneumoniden aus den Fängen in Malaisefallen von Dr. M. Kraus im Tiergarten Nürnberg in den Jahren 1989 und 1990 111 5.1.3. Hymenoptera – Apocrita – Aculeata 117 5.1.3.1. Tabellen: Apidae, Formicidae, Chrysididae, Pompilidae, Vespidae, Sphecidae, Mutillidae, Sapygidae, Tiphiidae 117 5.1.3.2. Apidae, Formicidae, Chrysididae, Pompilidae, Vespidae, Sphecidae, Mutillidae, Sapygidae, Tiphiidae 122 5.1.4. Coleoptera 131 5.1.4.1. Tabelle Coleoptera 131 5.1.4.2.
    [Show full text]