DOCSLIB.ORG

BOTANICAL RESEARCH Insect-Plant Interactions in a Crop Protection Perspective ADVANCES in BOTANICAL RESEARCH

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BOTANICAL RESEARCH Insect-Plant Interactions in a Crop Protection Perspective ADVANCES in BOTANICAL RESEARCH VOLUME EIGHTY ONE ADVANCES IN BOTANICAL RESEARCH Insect-Plant Interactions in a Crop Protection Perspective ADVANCES IN BOTANICAL RESEARCH Series Editors Jean-Pierre Jacquot Professor, Membre de L’Institut Universitaire de France, Unité Mixte de Recherche INRA, UHP 1136 “Interaction Arbres Microorganismes”, Université de Lorraine, Faculté des Sciences, Vandoeuvre, France Pierre Gadal Honorary Professor, Université Paris-Sud XI, Institut Biologie des Plantes, Orsay, France VOLUME EIGHTY ONE ADVANCES IN BOTANICAL RESEARCH Insect-Plant Interactions in a Crop Protection Perspective Volume Editor NICOLAS SAUVION INRA,UMR BGPI 0385 (INRA-CIRAD-SupAgro), Montpellier, France DENIS THIERY INRA, UMR SAVE 1065, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, Centre INRA de recherches de Bordeaux- Aquitaine, Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, Villenave d’Ornon, France PAUL-ANDRE CALATAYUD IRD UMR EGCE (Evolution, Génome, Comportement, Ecologie), CNRS-IRD-Univ. Paris-Sud, IDEEV, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France; IRD c/o ICIPE, Nairobi, Kenya Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States 525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, United States First edition 2017 Copyright Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. ISBN: 978-0-12-803318-0 ISSN: 0065-2296 For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com Publisher: Zoe Kruze Acquisition Editor: Kirsten Shankland Editorial Project Manager: Hannah Colford Production Project Manager: Magesh Mahalingam Designer: Christian Bilbow Typeset by TNQ Books and Journals CONTRIBUTORS K. Bermudez-Torres National Polytechnical Institute, Yautepec, Mexico R. Bommarco Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden P.-A. Calatayud IRD UMR EGCE (Evolution, Génome, Comportement, Ecologie), CNRS-IRD-Univ. Paris-Sud, IDEEV, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France; IRD c/o ICIPE, Nairobi, Kenya S. Colazza University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy J. Cook Western Sydney University, NSW, Australia E. Corcket Université de Bordeaux, INRA, UMR1202 BioGeCo, Pessac, France A.-M. Cortesero UMR 1349 IGEPP (Institute for Genetics, Environment and Plant Protection), Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France F. Dedeine Université François-Rabelais de Tours, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Tours, France E. Desouhant University of Lyon, Claude Bernard University, CNRS, Laboratory of Biometry and Evolutionary Biology UMR 5558, Villeurbanne, France G. Dubreuil Université François-Rabelais de Tours, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Tours, France B. Ekbom Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden B. Frérot INRA, UMR 1392, Institut d’Ecologie et des Sciences de l’Environnement de Paris, Versailles, France B. Giffard Bordeaux Sciences Agro, Université de Bordeaux, Gradignan, France ix j x Contributors D. Giron IRBI (Insect Biology Research Institute) – UMR 7261 CNRS/Université François-Rabelais de Tours, Tours, France; Université François-Rabelais de Tours, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Tours, France M. Goubault IRBI (Insect Biology Research Institute) – UMR 7261 CNRS/Université François-Rabelais de Tours, Tours, France A.T. Groot University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands M.O. Harris North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, United States J.K. Holopainen University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland E. Huguet Université François-Rabelais de Tours, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Tours, France A. Jarrige IRBI (Insect Biology Research Institute) – UMR 7261 CNRS/Université François-Rabelais de Tours, Tours, France E. Jousselin INRA – CBGP (INRA, IRD, CIRAD, Montpellier SupAgro), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France L. Kaiser IRD UMR EGCE (Evolution, Génome, Comportement, Ecologie), CNRS-IRD- Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France G.J. Kergoat INRA – CBGP (INRA, IRD, CIRAD, Montpellier SupAgro), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France F. Kjellberg CEFE (Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive), CNRS, Université de Montpellier – Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier – EPHE, Montpellier, France L. Legal ECOLAB, UMR 5245 (INP, UPS, CNRS), Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Environnement, Toulouse, France E. Leppik INRA, UMR 1392, Institut d’Ecologie et des Sciences de l’Environnement de Paris, Versailles, France F. Lieutier INRA, Laboratoire de Biologie des Ligneux et des Grandes Cultures, Université d0Orléans, Orléans, France Contributors xi P. Lou^apre University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Evolutionary Ecology Team, UMR 6282 Biogéosciences, 6 Bd Gabriel, Dijon, France B. Martinet INRA, UR0406 Abeilles et Environnement, Domaine St Paul, Avignon, France F. Menu University of Lyon, Claude Bernard University, CNRS, Laboratory of Biometry and Evolutionary Biology UMR 5558, Villeurbanne, France A.S. Meseguer INRA – CBGP (INRA, IRD, CIRAD, Montpellier SupAgro), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France J. Moreau University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Evolutionary Ecology Team, UMR 6282 Biogéosciences, 6 Bd Gabriel, Dijon, France L. Mouton Université de Lyon 1, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Villeurbanne, France A. Nel Institut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité, ISYEB – UMR 7205 – CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France P. Ode Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States Y. Outreman Agrocampus Ouest, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université de Rennes 1, Université Bretagne-Loire, Rennes, France S. Pincebourde IRBI (Insect Biology Research Institute) – UMR 7261 CNRS/Université François-Rabelais de Tours, Tours, France E. Rajon University of Lyon, Claude Bernard University, CNRS, Laboratory of Biometry and Evolutionary Biology UMR 5558, Villeurbanne, France S. Rasmann University of Neuch^atel, Neuch^atel, Switzerland P. Rasmont INRA, UR0406 Abeilles et Environnement, Domaine St Paul, Avignon, France G. Rodet AE, INRA, Avignon, France A. Rusch INRA, UMR SAVE 1065, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, Centre INRA de recherches de Bordeaux- Aquitaine, Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, Villenave d’Ornon Cedex, France xii Contributors A. Sallé INRA, Laboratoire de Biologie des Ligneux et des Grandes Cultures, Université d0Orléans, Orléans, France N. Sauvion INRA, UMR BGPI 0385 (INRA–CIRAD–SupAgro), Campus International de Baillarguet, Montpellier, France B. Schatz CEFE (Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive), UMR 5175 CNRS, Université de Montpellier – Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier – EPHE, Montpellier, France R.F.H. Sforza USDA-ARS-European Biological Control Laboratory, Montferrier-sur-Lez, France J.-C. Simon INRA, UMR 1349 IGEPP INRA-Agrocampus Ouest Rennes-Université Rennes 1, Le Rheu, France A. Thiel University of Bremen, FB 02, Institute of Ecology, Bremen, Germany D. Thiéry INRA, UMR SAVE 1065, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, Centre INRA de recherches de Bordeaux- Aquitaine, Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, Villenave d’Ornon Cedex, France M. Unbehend Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany J. van Baaren UMR-CNRS 6553 Ecobio, Université de Rennes 1, Université Bretagne-Loire, Rennes, France S. van Nouhuys University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland F. Vavre Université de Lyon 1, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Villeurbanne, France PREFACE Man has always had his troubles with insects. When he first emerged as man he already had fleas and lice and was fed on by mosquitoes and pestered by flies. Gradually, as the more stark enemies of primeval life, such as the leopard and tiger, ceased to be a great threat to primitive man, insects became increasingly important as a challenge to his success.1 Insects always were an enormous factor human activity had to deal with, and especially with food and health. The Bible explicitly referred to several
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Veronika Nývltová
    Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci Přírodov ědecká fakulta Bakalá řská práce Olomouc 2010 Veronika Nývltová Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci Přírodov ědecká fakulta Katedra botaniky Charakteristika skupiny vrby bobkolisté ( Salix phylicifolia agg.) ve St řední Evrop ě s důrazem na Salix bicolor v Česku. Bakalá řská práce Studijní program: Biologie Studijní obor: Systematická biologie a ekologie Forma studia: Prezen ční Autor: Veronika Nývltová Vedoucí práce: RNDr. Radim J. Vašut, Ph.D. Konzultant práce: Mgr. Martin Dan čák, Ph.D. Olomouc 2010 2 Prohlášení: Prohlašuji, že jsem p ředloženou bakalá řskou práci vypracovala samostatn ě pod vedením RNDr. Radima J. Vašuta Ph.D. Uvedla jsem veškerou literaturu, ze které jsem čerpala. V Olomouci dne 12. 8. 2010 Podpis: 3 Pod ěkování: Ráda bych pod ěkovala svému školiteli Radimovi J. Vašutovi za trp ělivost a ochotu. Dále děkuji Michalovi Hronešovi za pomoc p ři terénním pr ůzkumu. 4 Bibliografická identifikace Jméno a p říjmení autora: Veronika Nývltová Název práce: Charakteristika skupiny vrby bobkolisté ( Salix phylicifolia agg.) ve St řední Evrop ě s důrazem na Salix bicolor v Česku Typ práce: bakalá řská práce Pracovišt ě: Katedra botaniky, P řírodov ědecká fakulta UP Vedoucí práce: RNDr. Radim J. Vašut Ph.D. Rok obhajoby práce: 2010 Abstrakt: Vrby ( Salix spp.) pat ří k taxonomicky zna čně problematickým skupinám rostlin, ale práv ě tím jsou zajímavé a poskytují v tomto sm ěru stále nové objevy. V naší kv ěten ě náleží vysokohorské druhy vrb mezi vzácné taxony. Jedním z důvod ů jejich vzácnosti je v mnoha p řípadech reliktní charakter druh ů. Takovým p říkladem je i vrba dvoubarvá ( Salix bicolor ), jíž se v ěnuje p ředložená práce.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biology and Distribution of California Hemileucinae (Saturniidae)
    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 38(4), 1984,281-309 THE BIOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF CALIFORNIA HEMILEUCINAE (SATURNIIDAE) PAUL M. TUSKES 7900 Cambridge 141G, Houston, Texas 77054 ABSTRACT. The distribution, biology, and larval host plants for the 14 species and subspecies of California Hemileucinae are discussed in detail. In addition, the immature stages of Hemileuca neumogeni and Coloradia velda are described for the first time. The relationships among the Hemileuca are examined with respect to six species groups, based on adult and larval characters, host plant relationships and pheromone interactions. The tricolor, eglanterina, and nevadensis groups are more distinctive than the electra, burnsi, or diana groups, but all are closely related. Species groups are used to exemplify evolutionary trends within this large but cohesive genus. The saturniid fauna of the western United States is dominated by moths of the tribe Hemileucinae. Three genera in this tribe commonly occur north of Mexico: Hemileuca, Coloradia, and Automeris. Al­ though no Automeris are native to California about 50% of the Hemi­ leuca and Coloradia species in the United States occur in the state. The absence of Automeris and other species from California is due to the state's effective isolation from southern Arizona and mainland Mex­ ico by harsh mountains, deserts, the Gulf of California, and climatic differences. The Hemileuca of northern Arizona, Nevada, and Utah are very similar to that of California, while those of Oregon, Washing­ ton, and Idaho represent subsets of the northern California fauna. The majority of the saturniid species in the United States have had little or no impact on man, but some Hemileucinae have been of eco­ nomic importance.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Diadegma Insulare Or Microplitis Plutellae a More Effective Parasitoid of the Diamondback Moth, Plutella Xylostella ?
    War of the Wasps: Is Diadegma insulare or Microplitis plutellae a More Effective Parasitoid of the Diamondback Moth, Plutella xylostella ? ADAMO YOUNG 108 Homestead Street, Ottawa Ontario K2E 7N6 Canada; email: [email protected] Young, Adamo. 2013. War of the wasps: is Diadegma insulare or Microplitis plutellae a more effective parasitoid of the Dia - mondback Moth, Plutella xylostella ? Canadian Field-Naturalist 127(3): 211–215. Parasitism levels by Diadegma insulare (Muesebeck) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) and Microplitis plutellae (Haliday) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) at various densities of their host, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), were assessed. Cages with densities of 10 hosts, 20 hosts, and 40 hosts were set up, with the cage volume (40 500 cm 3) and number of wasps (2 females) remaining constant. The host populations were also exposed to the wasps for two different exposure times: 1 day and 3 days. The study showed that D. insulare was a better parasitoid overall, achieving a level of parasitism equal to or higher than M. plutellae at all densities. Microplitis plutellae performed best at a lower host density (76% ± 9% of 10 hosts vs. 43% ± 3% of 40 hosts). Diadegma insulare performed similarly at all densities tested (75% ± 5% of 10 hosts, 83% ± 4% of 20 hosts, and 79% ± 6% of 40 hosts). This suggests that D. insulare may be the better parasitoid overall and should be applied in severe, large-scale infestations, while M. plutellae may be better for small-scale infestations. Key Words: Diamondback Moth; Plutella xylostella; Microplitis plutellae; Diadegma insulare; parasitoids; biological control Introduction ical control can provide better control than pesticides.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) by Boris C. Kondratieff, Paul A. Opler, Matthew C. Garhart, and Jason P. Schmidt C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 March 15, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration (top to bottom): Widow Skimmer (Libellula luctuosa) [photo ©Robert Behrstock], Stonefly (Perlesta species) [photo © David H. Funk, White- lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata) [photo © Matthew C. Garhart] ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyrighted 2004 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….…1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..…………………………………………….…3 OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………………………………….………5 Site Descriptions………………………………………….. METHODS AND MATERIALS…………………………………………………………………………….5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………..…...11 Dragonflies………………………………………………………………………………….……..11
    [Show full text]
  • Associating Immatures and Adults of Aquatic Insects Using DNA Barcoding in High Andean Streams
    Ecología en Bolivia 52(2): 88-99. Septiembre 2017. ISSN 1605-2528. Associating immatures and adults of aquatic insects using DNA barcoding in high Andean streams Asociando inmaduros y adultos de insectos acuáticos utilizando códigos de barras de ADN en ríos altoandinos Carlos I. Molina1,2*, François-Marie Gibon3, Eduardo Dominguez4, Thomas Pape2 & Nina Rønsted2 1Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, Casilla 10077 – Correo Central, La Paz, Bolivia. Author correspondence: [email protected] 2Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 5-7, 1350 Copenhagen, Denmark. 3Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations (UMR INRA / IRD / CIRAD / Montpellier Supagro), Campus de Baillarguet, CS 30016, 34988 Montferrier sur Lez Cedex, France. 4CONICET, Instituto de Biodiversidad Neotropical, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales IML, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, San Miguel de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina. Abstract We analyzed the feasibility of using DNA-barcoding as a tool to achieve a correct and rapid association between different life stages of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera insects in high Andean streams from La Paz, Bolivia. We focused on this particular environment because the water of streams from the glaciers is becoming scarce, and this could create a risk of local disappearance of these aquatic species. Using cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (COI) gene sequences, we found high genetic interspecific divergence between specimens from different families and genera (maximum 20%), whereas the intraspecific genetic divergences were lower between specimens of the same species (ranged from 0.1-2%). In this manner, we associate the larval or nymphal instar with their respective adults (female and male), for one species of mayfly (Meridialaris tintinnabula Pescador & Peters, 1987), three species of stoneflies (Anacroneuria vagante Stark & Baumann, 2011, Claudioperla tigrina Klapálek, 1904 and C.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawk Moths of North America Is Richly Illustrated with Larval Images and Contains an Abundance of Life History Information
    08 caterpillars EUSA/pp244-273 3/9/05 6:37 PM Page 244 244 TULIP-TREE MOTH CECROPIA MOTH 245 Callosamia angulifera Hyalophora cecropia RECOGNITION Frosted green with shiny yellow, orange, and blue knobs over top and sides of body. RECOGNITION Much like preceding but paler or Dorsal knobs on T2, T3, and A1 somewhat globular and waxier in color with pale stripe running below set with black spinules. Paired knobs on A2–A7 more spiracles on A1–A10 and black dots on abdomen cylindrical, yellow; knob over A8 unpaired and rounded. lacking contrasting pale rings. Yellow abdominal Larva to 10cm. Caterpillars of larch-feeding Columbia tubercle over A8 short, less than twice as high as broad. Silkmoth (Hyalophora columbia) have yellow-white to Larva to 6cm. Sweetbay Silkmoth (Callosamia securifera) yellow-pink instead of bright yellow knobs over dorsum similar in appearance but a specialist on sweet bay. Its of abdomen and knobs along sides tend to be more white than blue (as in Cecropia) and are yellow abdominal tubercle over A8 is nearly three times as set in black bases (see page 246). long as wide and the red knobs over thorax are cylindrical (see page 246). OCCURRENCE Urban and suburban yards and lots, orchards, fencerows, woodlands, OCCURRENCE Woodlands and forests from Michigan, southern Ontario, and and forests from Canada south to Florida and central Texas. One generation with mature Massachusetts to northern Florida and Mississippi. One principal generation northward; caterpillars from late June through August over most of range. two broods in South with mature caterpillars from early June onward.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitochondrial Genomes Resolve the Phylogeny of Adephaga
    1 Mitochondrial genomes resolve the phylogeny 2 of Adephaga (Coleoptera) and confirm tiger 3 beetles (Cicindelidae) as an independent family 4 Alejandro López-López1,2,3 and Alfried P. Vogler1,2 5 1: Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, UK 6 2: Department of Life Sciences, Silwood Park Campus, Imperial College London, Ascot SL5 7PY, UK 7 3: Departamento de Zoología y Antropología Física, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Murcia, Campus 8 Mare Nostrum, 30100, Murcia, Spain 9 10 Corresponding author: Alejandro López-López ([email protected]) 11 12 Abstract 13 The beetle suborder Adephaga consists of several aquatic (‘Hydradephaga’) and terrestrial 14 (‘Geadephaga’) families whose relationships remain poorly known. In particular, the position 15 of Cicindelidae (tiger beetles) appears problematic, as recent studies have found them either 16 within the Hydradephaga based on mitogenomes, or together with several unlikely relatives 17 in Geadeadephaga based on 18S rRNA genes. We newly sequenced nine mitogenomes of 18 representatives of Cicindelidae and three ground beetles (Carabidae), and conducted 19 phylogenetic analyses together with 29 existing mitogenomes of Adephaga. Our results 20 support a basal split of Geadephaga and Hydradephaga, and reveal Cicindelidae, together 21 with Trachypachidae, as sister to all other Geadephaga, supporting their status as Family. We 22 show that alternative arrangements of basal adephagan relationships coincide with increased 23 rates of evolutionary change and with nucleotide compositional bias, but these confounding 24 factors were overcome by the CAT-Poisson model of PhyloBayes. The mitogenome + 18S 25 rRNA combined matrix supports the same topology only after removal of the hypervariable 26 expansion segments.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF (Bahasa Indonesia)
    Biospecies Vol. 11 No. 2, Juli 2018. Hal 72 - 75 INSECTS IN TEAK( Tectona grandis L.F) IN THEFOREST AREA OF PASSO VILLAGE CITY OF AMBON MALUKU Fransina LATUMAHINA Lecturer Of Agriculture Faculty, Pattimura University Ambon Maluku Indonesia E- mail : [email protected] Abstract, Teak is the forest species with the highest economic value in Indonesia. It is especially important to many villages in Maluku Province.In order to manage for maximum profitability we need to first understand the pest species attacking this valuable tree species and to determine how much damage is caused. species were identified, and the intensity of pest attack determined.We identified two species acting as major pests;the lady bug , (Coccinella magnifica) and the snoutbeetle(Orchidophilus aterrimus ).The snout beetleand the lady bug were associated with severe damage on 64% and 56% respectively of the trees sampled although the intensity of damage was low to medium Key Words: Teak (Tectona grandis),Lady bug (Coccinella magnifica), Snoutbeetle(Orchidophilus aterrimus) Introduction Thepest damage surveyswere carried out in the Teak (Tectona grandisLinn. F) is a tree Passo Village forest plantation area, Ambon with high economic value in Indonesiabut pests city fromJuly 2009 until August 2009. Pests cause a significant decrease in both the quality were identified at the Basic Biology Laboratory and quantity of the wood. Some of the common FKIP Pattimura University Ambon during pests found attacking teak (Tectona grandis September 2009 using pest manuals by Borror Linn. F) are Xyleborus destruens Blandford et al.(1992) and Achmad Sultoni and Kalsoven (scolytid borer) Hiblaea puera (Cramer) (teak (1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Integrated Crop Management by Conserving Natural Enemies of Insect Pests
    Improving Integrated Crop Management by Conserving Natural Enemies of Insect Pests Dr. Lloyd Dosdall, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta and Doug Moisey, Canola Council of Canada Project Code: CARP 2004-01 Final Report: March 2007 Field studies were undertaken in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan during the 2006 field season to investigate different management strategies for enhancing the effectiveness of natural enemies of cabbage seedpod weevil and diamondback moth in canola. The study showed that the level of parasitism of the cabbage seedpod weevil has increased dramatically in recent years, and the hymenopteran wasp, Diadegma insulare, is capable of causing significant reductions in diamondback moth populations. Canola growers in regions infested with damaging infestations of cabbage seedpod weevil should maintain recommended seeding rates 2.5 to 4.5 lb/acre (3 to 5 kg/ha) for optimal yields and consistent times to crop maturity. However, early seeding (late April) predisposes the crop to greater attack by the cabbage seedpod weevil and should be avoided. Canola insect pests are subject to attack by a wide range of natural enemies, comprising parasitoids, predators, and pathogens, many of which help limit or reduce pest populations. However, in spite of their economic importance, comparatively little is known of their biology and the factors that can enhance their effectiveness. The cabbage seedpod weevil, Ceutorhynchus obstrictus and the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella are two important insect pests of canola in western Canada that can be subject to considerable population mortality by natural enemies. In this project, field studies were conducted in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan during the 2006 field season to investigate aspects of improved integrated crop management by conserving natural enemies of the cabbage seedpod weevil and the diamondback moth.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Host Plants of Insect Galls in the State of Goiás in the Midwest Region of Brazil
    Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e6835 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e6835 General Article Checklist of host plants of insect galls in the state of Goiás in the Midwest Region of Brazil Walter Santos de Araújo‡, Eder Dasdoriano Porfírio Júnior§, Bárbara Araújo Ribeiro‡, Taiza Moura Silva‡, Elienai Cândida e Silva‡, Frederico Augusto Guimarães Guilherme|, Claudia Scareli-Santos¶, Benedito Baptista dos Santos‡ ‡ Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil § Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, Brazil | Universidade Federal de Goiás, Jataí, Brazil ¶ Universidade Federal do Tocantins, Araguaína, Brazil Corresponding author: Walter Santos de Araújo ([email protected]) Academic editor: Quentin Groom Received: 13 Oct 2015 | Accepted: 12 Nov 2015 | Published: 13 Nov 2015 Citation: Araújo W, Porfírio Júnior E, Ribeiro B, Silva T, Silva E, Guilherme F, Scareli-Santos C, Santos B (2015) Checklist of host plants of insect galls in the state of Goiás in the Midwest Region of Brazil. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e6835. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e6835 Abstract Background Surveys of host plants of insect galls have been performed in different regions of Brazil. The knowledge of species of host plants of insect galls is fundamental to further studies of plant-galling insect interactions. However, a list of host plant species of gall-inducing insects has not yet been compiled for the flora of the Midwest Region of Brazil. New information We provide a compilation of the plant species reported to host insect galls in the Cerrado of the state of Goiás in the Midwest Region of Brazil. Altogether we found records for 181 species of 47 families of host plants, which hosted 365 distinct gall morphotypes.
    [Show full text]
  • Movement of Plastic-Baled Garbage and Regulated (Domestic) Garbage from Hawaii to Landfills in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington
    Movement of Plastic-baled Garbage and Regulated (Domestic) Garbage from Hawaii to Landfills in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Final Biological Assessment, February 2008 Table of Contents I. Introduction and Background on Proposed Action 3 II. Listed Species and Program Assessments 28 Appendix A. Compliance Agreements 85 Appendix B. Marine Mammal Protection Act 150 Appendix C. Risk of Introduction of Pests to the Continental United States via Municipal Solid Waste from Hawaii. 159 Appendix D. Risk of Introduction of Pests to Washington State via Municipal Solid Waste from Hawaii 205 Appendix E. Risk of Introduction of Pests to Oregon via Municipal Solid Waste from Hawaii. 214 Appendix F. Risk of Introduction of Pests to Idaho via Municipal Solid Waste from Hawaii. 233 2 I. Introduction and Background on Proposed Action This biological assessment (BA) has been prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to evaluate the potential effects on federally-listed threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat from the movement of baled garbage and regulated (domestic) garbage (GRG) from the State of Hawaii for disposal at landfills in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Specifically, garbage is defined as urban (commercial and residential) solid waste from municipalities in Hawaii, excluding incinerator ash and collections of agricultural waste and yard waste. Regulated (domestic) garbage refers to articles generated in Hawaii that are restricted from movement to the continental United States under various quarantine regulations established to prevent the spread of plant pests (including insects, disease, and weeds) into areas where the pests are not prevalent.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera Recorded for Imperial County California Compiled by Jeffrey Caldwell [email protected] 1-925-949-8696 Note
    Lepidoptera Recorded for Imperial County California Compiled by Jeffrey Caldwell [email protected] 1-925-949-8696 Note: BMNA = Butterflies and Moths of North America web site MPG = Moth Photographers Group web site Most are from the Essig Museum’s California Moth Specimens Database web site Arctiidae. Tiger and Lichen Moths. Apantesis proxima (Notarctia proxima). Mexican Tiger Moth. 8181 [BMNA] Ectypia clio (clio). Clio Tiger Moth. 8249 Estigmene acrea (acrea). Salt Marsh Moth. 8131 Euchaetes zella. 8232 Autostichidae (Deoclonidae). Oegoconia novimundi. Four-spotted Yellowneck Moth. 1134 (Oegoconia quadripuncta mis-applied) Bucculatricidae. Ribbed Cocoon-maker Moths. Bucculatrix enceliae. Brittlebrush Moth. 0546 Cossidae. Goat Moths, Carpenterworm Moths, and Leopard Moths. Comadia henrici. 2679 Givira mucida. 2660 Hypopta palmata. 2656 Prionoxystus robiniae (mixtus). Carpenterworm or Locust Borer. 2693 Depressariidae. Pseudethmia protuberans. 1008 [MPG] Ethmiidae. Now assigned to Depressariidae. Ethmiinae. Ethmia timberlakei. 0984 Pseudethmia protuberans. 1008 Gelechiidae. Twirler Moths. Aristotelia adceanotha. 1726 [Sighting 1019513 BMNA] Chionodes abdominella. 2054 Chionodes dentella. 2071 Chionodes fructuaria. 2078 Chionodes kincaidella. 2086 (reared from Atriplex acanthocarpa in Texas) Chionodes oecus. 2086.2 Chionodes sistrella. 2116 Chionodes xanthophilella. 2125 Faculta inaequalis. Palo Verde Webworm. 2206 Friseria cockerelli. Mesquite Webworm. 1916 Gelechia desiliens. 1938 Isophrictis sabulella. 1701 Keiferia lycopersicella. Tomato Pinworm. 2047 Pectinophora gossypiella. Pink Bollworm. 2261 Prolita puertella. 1895 Prolita veledae. 1903 Geometridae. Inchworm Moths, Loopers, Geometers, or Measuring Worms. Archirhoe neomexicana. 7295 Chesiadodes coniferaria. 6535 Chlorochlamys appellaria. 7073 Cyclophora nanaria. Dwarf Tawny Wave. W 7140 Dichorda illustraria. 7055 Dichordophora phoenix. Phoenix Emerald. 7057 Digrammia colorata. Creosote Moth. 6381 Digrammia irrorata (rubricata). 6395 Digrammia pictipennata. 6372 Digrammia puertata.
    [Show full text]