DOCSLIB.ORG

Of Production, Value, Losses and Protection of Fruit Fly Hosts in India

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Of Production, Value, Losses and Protection of Fruit Fly Hosts in India Integrated Management of Fruit Flies in India (IMFFI) “Key Informant Survey” of Production, Value, Losses and Protection of Fruit Fly Hosts in India Workplan and Data Sheets John Stonehouse, Imperial College London Dear Colleague, The objective of the IMFFI Key Informant Survey is to obtain estimates, across the whole of India, for the following values:- - Production of fruit fly hosts, divided among the major agro-ecological zones - Farm-gate prices of fruit fly host produce - Losses to fruit flies, host-by-host and zone-by-zone, both with and without fly controls - Incidence of controls, host-by-host and zone-by-zone - The relative incidence of the major pest species in causing losses, separately for the two categories of orchard fruit and cucurbit vegetables Preliminary estimates have now been obtained and are being circulated, and all recipients are requested to comment on them. The idea is that the numbers so far will be looked at by everybody, they will comment, and then the revised numbers will be progressively improved. Please discuss these as widely as possible with colleagues and associates, and derive what, in your view, are more appropriate or more accurate values, and transmit your corrections to Dr John Stonehouse, IMFFI Project Manager, Imperial College London, UK (fax 00-44-1947-841189; e-mail [email protected]). The principle of this circulating request is that the estimates will become gradually more accurate as more and more refining opinions are received and absorbed. It thus uses the principle of Bayesian algebra, in which successive estimates, subjective if need be, are used to refine and improve each other, and of Delphi consultations, in which opinions are circulated anonymously and discussed among a group. The estimates follow below. On all pages columns are in pairs - “Initial” columns contain the values as estimated so far; “Revised” columns are empty and for the respondents (i.e. you) to write in corrections/alterations if you disagree with the “Initial” values. Leave the “Revised” cell empty if you do not disagree with the “Initial” value or don’t know anything about it. Production data are estimated nationwide, and then estimates attributed to production, loss and protection in the major agro-ecological zones into which ICAR divides India. These zones are shown on the map below. IMFFI Fruit Fly Key Informant Survey Workplan and Data Sheets – Page 1 of 1 The estimates fall into three categories, on three different data sheets:- 1. Production and farm-gate value of major hosts nationwide as, host-by-host: a - Production volume for the whole of India per annum b - Overall average farm-gate price - the price received by the farmer in rupees/KG. 2. Production and fruit fly losses, host-by-host for each different agro-ecological zone: 2A - Relative levels of production of each host across zones, estimated by awarding a score of “100” to the zone with the greatest level of production of that host, and then others for the other zones as a percentage of that. The role of the “Volume” values in Sheet 2 is therefore to allocate the RELATIVE incidence of production of different hosts to different areas (the absolute levels of production are in Sheet 1). Volume figures are levels of production by that host in that zone as a percentage of the production in the zone where it is most abundant. So if Zone A has most production it is awarded 100; Zone B may be 80% of A so gets 80; Zone C may be 15% of A so gets 15; Zone D may be 30% of Zone A so gets 30; and all the other zones have no production so all get 0. Imperial College will then adjust these by adding up the percentages, so of the total nationwide production A would account for 100/(100+80+15+30)=44%, B would account for 80/(100+80+15+30)=36%, C for 15/(100+80+15+30)=7%, D for 30/(100+80+15+30)=13%, and the others for 0%. (Enter “0” for cultivation of any host in any zone where cultivation is absent). 2B - Percentage losses to fruit flies, when hosts are not protected from them in any way. 2C - Percentage losses to fruit flies, when hosts are protected by local controls as currently in use. 2D - The percentage incidence of the local controls whose effect is assessed in 2C. “Control incidence” in Sheet 2 is the percentage of production of that particular host which is protected against fruit flies at farm level. Protection from fruit flies may be provided by controls such as cover sprays which are not directed at them, and these should be included 3. Prevalence in causing damage, relative to each other, of the various major fruit fly species, in the two broad categories of orchard fruit pests and cucurbit pests. This is estimated by, in each agro- ecological zone, grading the most prevalent fly species with a score of “100” and the other flies present with a prevalence as a percentage of that. Values in Table 3, in other words, are the RELATIVE levels of damage caused by different fly species to the two major host groups (fruit and cucurbits) in each zone. So, as an example, imagine that in any one particular zone dorsalis is most damaging, it is awarded 100, zonata causes about 3/4 of the damage of dorsalis and so it is awarded 75%, and correcta causes about a third of the damage of dorsalis and so is awarded 33%. Imperial College will then attribute damage to the species by adding up the percentages awarded, so here overall damage by dorsalis would be 100/(100+75+33)=48%, zonata would be 75/(100+75+33)=36%, and correcta would be 33/(100+75+33)=16%. As another example, if in a given zone the prevalence is of 50% of B cucurbitae, 30% of D ciliatus and 20% of B tau, scores would be awarded as “100” for cucurbitae, “60” (30/50) for ciliatus and “40” (20/50) for tau. Scoring is done in this way to allow values to be modified while under discussion without worrying whether they add up to 100; after the consultation is complete the totals for each species in IMFFI Fruit Fly Key Informant Survey Workplan and Data Sheets – Page 2 of 2 each zone will be divided by the total scores awarded in that zone to obtain final percentage values. These values, once collected from all participants, will allow the estimation of losses to flies across all hosts and zones. Respondents are requested to provide corrected values where they consider the values given to be in error, and next to each provisional, current value there is a vacant cell for the entry of corrections. Values which are considered to be correct may be left as they are. Please also indicate where a category, such as major host type under (1) or a major pest species under (3), has been omitted and needs to be added. The map below lists the major agro-ecological zones of India (the external boundaries of India on this map have not been authenticated and may not be correct). Your assistance in this Study is gratefully appreciated, and will contribute to a useful body of work. Best wishes, John Stonehouse Himalayan Highlands West - J&K - Himachal - Uttaranchal Punjab/Ganga Plain - Punjab Himalayan - Haryana Highlands - Delhi East Arid/Semi-Arid West - UP - Rajasthan - Bihar - Gujarat - D&D Bengal Basin - West Bengal West-Central - Assam /Lava Plateau - Maharashtra - MP Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East - Orissa - Jharkand - Chhatisgarh South - AP - Goa - Karnataka - Tamil Nadu - Kerala Principal Agroecological Zones of India IMFFI Fruit Fly Key Informant Survey Workplan and Data Sheets – Page 3 of 3 Sheet 1. All-India estimates of volumes of production All volume data are lakhs of metric tonnes (1MT=1000kg) per year nationwide. All price data are Rupees/KG at the farm gate. Volume Price Orchard fruit Initial Revised Initial Revised Mango 99 10 Guava 18 6 Jujube 1.5 6 Sapota 1 7 Phalsa 0.5 8 Peach 0.5 9 Apricot 0.5 9 Cucurbits Cucumber 28 20 Muskmelon 30 6 Watermelon 7 3.5 Cooking melon 2 5 Pumpkin 10 3.5 Bitter gourd 10 15 Small gourd 8 15 Ridge gourd 8 5 Bottle gourd 3.5 5 Snake gourd 5 7.5 Sponge gourd 2.5 5 Chayot/Chao-Chao 2 5 Ash gourd 10 5 Sweet gourd 2 10 IMFFI Fruit Fly Key Informant Survey Workplan and Data Sheets – Page 4 of 4 Sheet 2. Production and fruit fly losses, host-by-host and zone-by-zone A: Relative B: % Loss C: % Loss D: % Control Volume Unprotected Protected Incidence Product: Mango Initial Revised Initial Revised Initial Revised Initial Revised Himalayan Highlands West 2 20 2 40 Punjab/Ganga Plain 100 6 2 70 Arid/Semi-Arid West 8 3 1 80 West-Central/Lava Plateau 25 3 1 80 South 35 25 3 50 Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East 20 23 3 35 Bengal Basin 6 23 3 35 Himalayan Highlands East 1 10 3 30 Product: Guava Himalayan Highlands West 0 10 2 0 Punjab/Ganga Plain 100 12 3 0 Arid/Semi-Arid West 4 4 1 0 West-Central/Lava Plateau 10 10 2 0 South 10 10 2 0 Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East 40 40 10 0 Bengal Basin 0 30 7 0 Himalayan Highlands East 0 10 2 0 Product: Jujube Himalayan Highlands West 0 10 2 5 Punjab/Ganga Plain 30 12 3 5 Arid/Semi-Arid West 100 4 1 5 West-Central/Lava Plateau 20 10 2 5 South 0 10 2 5 Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East 4 40 10 5 Bengal Basin 1 30 7 5 Himalayan Highlands East 0 10 2 5 Product: Sapota Himalayan Highlands West 0 10 2 5 Punjab/Ganga Plain 100 12 3 5 Arid/Semi-Arid West 100 4 1 5 West-Central/Lava Plateau 20 10 2 5 South 20 10 2 5 Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East 20 40 10 5 Bengal Basin 0 30 7 5 Himalayan Highlands East 0 10 2 5 IMFFI Fruit Fly Key Informant Survey Workplan and Data Sheets – Page 5 of 5 Product: Phalsa Himalayan Highlands West 0 10 2 5 Punjab/Ganga Plain 100 12 3 5 Arid/Semi-Arid West 100 4 1 5 West-Central/Lava Plateau 70 10 2 5 South 0 10 2 5 Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Two New Species of Psyttalia Walker (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Opiinae) Reared from Fruit-Infesting Tephritid (Diptera) Hosts in Kenya
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 20: 349–377Two (2009) new species of Psyttalia Walker (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Opiinae) 349 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.20.99 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.pensoftonline.net/zookeys Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Two new species of Psyttalia Walker (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Opiinae) reared from fruit-infesting tephritid (Diptera) hosts in Kenya Robert A. Wharton Departament of Entomology, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:6AAF121C-A6DB-47B0-81EE-131259F28972 Corresponding author: Robert A. Wharton ([email protected]) Academic editor: Kees van Achterberg | Received 14 February 2009 | Accepted 7 May 2009 | Published 14 September 2009 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:42A09D98-A0FC-4510-A2E5-A578D9935766 Citation: Wharton RA (2009) Two new species of Psyttalia Walker (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Opiinae) reared from fruit-infesting tephritid (Diptera) hosts in Kenya. In: Johnson N (Ed) Advances in the systematics of Hymenoptera. Festschrift in honour of Lubomír Masner. ZooKeys 20: 349–377. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.20.99 Abstract Two species of opiine Braconidae, reared from fruit-infesting Tephritidae in Kenya, are described. Psyt- talia masneri, sp. n., was reared from fruits of Dracaena fragrans (L.) Ker Gawl. (Liliaceae) infested with Taomyia marshalli Bezzi in western Kenya. Psyttalia masneri is the only opiine braconid known to attack members of the genus Taomyia. Unusual morphological features of P. masneri and its host are detailed. Psyttalia halidayi, sp. n., was reared from fruits of Lettowianthus stellatus Diels (Annonaceae) infested with Ceratitis rosa Karsch in coastal Kenya. Psyttalia halidayi is morphologically similar to several described species of Psyttalia that have previously been used in the biological control of tephritid pests.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomass Power Project Invertebrates Scoping Level
    Biomass Power Project Invertebrates Scoping level John Irish 21 June 2017 Biodata Consultancy cc P.O. Box 30061, Windhoek, Namibia [email protected] 2 Table of Contents 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................3 2 Approach to study..............................................................................................................3 2.1 Terms of reference..........................................................................................................3 2.2 Methodology...................................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Literature survey..........................................................................................................3 2.2.2 Site visits......................................................................................................................5 3 Limitations and Assumptions.............................................................................................5 4 Legislative context..............................................................................................................6 4.1 Applicable laws and policies...........................................................................................6 5 Results...............................................................................................................................7 5.1 Raw diversity...................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Evenhuis-Hardy
    D. Elmo Hardy Memorial Volume. Contributions to the Systematics 67 and Evolution of Diptera. Edited by N.L. Evenhuis & K.Y. Kaneshiro. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Entomology 12: 67–77 (2004). New Species and New Records of Tephritidae (Diptera) from New Caledonia ALLEN L. NORRBOM Systematic Entomology Laboratory, PSI, ARS, USDA, c/o National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D. C. 20560-0168, USA; e-mail: [email protected] DAVID L. HANCOCK P.O. Box 2464, Cairns, Queensland 4870, Australia Abstract Tephritidae collected from New Caledonia by M.E. Irwin, E.I. Schlinger, and D.W. Webb were stud- ied and identified. The 18 species represented include 3 new species, Austronevra irwini, Ceratitella schlingeri, and Euphranta hardyi, and 6 species reported from New Caledonia for the first time. The total number of Tephritidae from the island is increased from 16 to 25. Introduction D. Elmo Hardy was one of the most prolific taxonomists to study the family Tephritidae. He pro- posed more than 460 tephritid species names, second only to E.M. Hering in this regard, and he named the most valid species (Norrbom et al., 1999a). His large monographic works and cataloging efforts on the Oriental and Australasian faunas have paved the way for continued progress by his suc- cessors. Therefore we are honored to dedicate this paper to his memory. The fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) fauna of New Caledonia is poorly known. Only 15 species were recorded by Norrbom et al. (1999b), 11 belonging to the genus Bactrocera. Euphranta lemnis- cata (Enderlein) was also recently recorded by Hancock & Drew (2003).
    [Show full text]
  • SWAP 2015 Report
    STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN September 2015 GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE RESOURCES DIVISION Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Recommended reference: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan. Social Circle, GA: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Recommended reference for appendices: Author, A.A., & Author, B.B. Year. Title of Appendix. In Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan (pages of appendix). Social Circle, GA: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Cover photo credit & description: Photo by Shan Cammack, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Interagency Burn Team in Action! Growing season burn on May 7, 2015 at The Nature Conservancy’s Broxton Rocks Preserve. Zach Wood of The Orianne Society conducting ignition. i Table&of&Contents& Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv! Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ x! I. Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................. 1! A Plan to Protect Georgia’s Biological Diversity ....................................................... 1! Essential Elements of a State Wildlife Action Plan .................................................... 2! Species of Greatest Conservation Need ...................................................................... 3! Scales of Biological Diversity
    [Show full text]
  • Honeybees Disrupt the Structure and Functionality of Plant-Pollinator Networks Received: 6 July 2018 Alfredo Valido 1,2, María C
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Honeybees disrupt the structure and functionality of plant-pollinator networks Received: 6 July 2018 Alfredo Valido 1,2, María C. Rodríguez-Rodríguez1 & Pedro Jordano 1 Accepted: 5 March 2019 The honeybee is the primary managed species worldwide for both crop pollination and honey Published: xx xx xxxx production. Owing to beekeeping activity, its high relative abundance potentially afects the structure and functioning of pollination networks in natural ecosystems. Given that evidences about beekeeping impacts are restricted to observational studies of specifc species and theoretical simulations, we still lack experimental data to test for their larger-scale impacts on biodiversity. Here we used a three-year feld experiment in a natural ecosystem to compare the efects of pre- and post-establishment stages of beehives on the pollination network structure and plant reproductive success. Our results show that beekeeping reduces the diversity of wild pollinators and interaction links in the pollination networks. It disrupts their hierarchical structural organization causing the loss of interactions by generalist species, and also impairs pollination services by wild pollinators through reducing the reproductive success of those plant species highly visited by honeybees. High-density beekeeping in natural areas appears to have lasting, more serious negative impacts on biodiversity than was previously assumed. Te western honeybee (Apis mellifera) is an economically important species native to Eurasia and Africa, which has been introduced almost worldwide for crop pollination and honey production1. Except in Africa, most of their present-day populations are actually supported by the beekeeping activity2. Te role of honeybees as polli- nators is currently under debate3–5.
    [Show full text]
  • National Program 304 – Crop Protection and Quarantine
    APPENDIX 1 National Program 304 – Crop Protection and Quarantine ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORT 2007 – 2012 Current Research Projects in National Program 304* SYSTEMATICS 1245-22000-262-00D SYSTEMATICS OF FLIES OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPORTANCE; Allen Norrbom (P), Sonja Jean Scheffer, and Norman E. Woodley; Beltsville, Maryland. 1245-22000-263-00D SYSTEMATICS OF BEETLES IMPORTANT TO AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE PLANTS, AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL; Steven W. Lingafelter (P), Alexander Konstantinov, and Natalie Vandenberg; Washington, D.C. 1245-22000-264-00D SYSTEMATICS OF LEPIDOPTERA: INVASIVE SPECIES, PESTS, AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS; John W. Brown (P), Maria A. Solis, and Michael G. Pogue; Washington, D.C. 1245-22000-265-00D SYSTEMATICS OF PARASITIC AND HERBIVOROUS WASPS OF AGRICULTURAL IMPORTANCE; Robert R. Kula (P), Matthew Buffington, and Michael W. Gates; Washington, D.C. 1245-22000-266-00D MITE SYSTEMATICS AND ARTHROPOD DIAGNOSTICS WITH EMPHASIS ON INVASIVE SPECIES; Ronald Ochoa (P); Washington, D.C. 1245-22000-267-00D SYSTEMATICS OF HEMIPTERA AND RELATED GROUPS: PLANT PESTS, PREDATORS, AND DISEASE VECTORS; Thomas J. Henry (P), Stuart H. McKamey, and Gary L. Miller; Washington, D.C. INSECTS 0101-88888-040-00D OFFICE OF PEST MANAGEMENT; Sheryl Kunickis (P); Washington, D.C. 0212-22000-024-00D DISCOVERY, BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY OF NATURAL ENEMIES OF INSECT PESTS OF CROP AND URBAN AND NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS; Livy H. Williams III (P) and Kim Hoelmer; Montpellier, France. * Because of the nature of their research, many NP 304 projects contribute to multiple Problem Statements, so for the sake of clarity they have been grouped by focus area. For the sake of consistency, projects are listed and organized in Appendix 1 and 2 according to the ARS project number used to track projects in the Agency’s internal database.
    [Show full text]
  • Pest Categorisation of Non‐EU Tephritidae
    SCIENTIFIC OPINION ADOPTED: 21 November 2019 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5931 Pest categorisation of non-EU Tephritidae EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH), Claude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier, Marie-Agnes Jacques, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A Navas-Cortes, Stephen Parnell, Roel Potting, Philippe Lucien Reignault, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent Civera, Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappala, Eleftheria Maria Bali, Nikolaos Papadopoulos, Stella Papanastassiou, Ewelina Czwienczek and Alan MacLeod Abstract The Panel on Plant Health performed a group pest categorisation of non-EU Tephritidae, a large insect family containing well-studied and economically important fruit fly species and little studied species with scarce information regarding their hosts and species that do not feed on plants. Information was saught on the distribution of each species and their hosts. Tephritidae occur in all biogeographic regions except in extreme desert and polar areas, where their hosts are scarce or absent. Non- European Tephritidae are listed in 2000/29 EC as Annex 1/A1 pests whose introduction into the EU is prohibited. Non-EU Tephritidae are regularly intercepted in the EU. Interceptions mainly occur on fruits although there is potential for entry on other plant parts. Beginning with over 5,000 recognised species, factors relevant for pest categorisation were sequentially used to narrow down the list of species to create a list of Tephritidae not known to be established in the EU yet which occur in countries with some EU climate types and which feed on plants that occur in the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Records of Fruit-Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) from India
    ISSN 0375-1511 Rec. zool. Surv. India: 113(Part-l): 159-168,2013 ADDITIONAL RECORDS OF FRUIT-FLIES (DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE) FROM INDIA KAUSHIK KR. BHATTACHARYA, P. PARUI AND DHRITI BANERJEE* Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata-700053 E-mail: [email protected] INTRODUCTION which Philophylla indica is endemic to India. This Members of family Tephritidae include family can be distinguished from all other several economically important pest species families of Diptera by the combination of well across the globe. Various species of fruit fly cause developed mesoclinate frontal setae and damage to fruit and other plant crops, some fruit subcostal vein bent sharply anteriorly at right flies are used as agents of, thereby reducing the angle before the apex, weakened or evanescent populations of pest species. Most fruit flies lay beyond the bend. In addition, the costa has three their eggs in plant tissues, where the larvae find breaks viz., costal, humeral and subcostal their first food upon emerging. The adults usually (Hardy, 1973, 1974), vein Rl dorsally with have a very short lifespan. setulae; wing usually with colour pattern; cell bcu usually with an acute extension (White and Fruit flies of the family Tephritidae Elson-Harris, 1992). comprise 4,500 species, 500 genera under six subfamilies namely Blepharoneurinae, Dacinae, Family TEPHRITIDAE Phytalmiinae, Tachiniscinae, Tephritinae and Subfamily PHYTALMIINAE Trypetinae, Korneyev (1999). Among the species Tribe ACANTHONEVRINI reported worldwide, 325 species of fruit flies are Genus Rioxa Walker known to occur in the Indian subcontinent, of which 243 in 79 genera are from India alone 1856. Rioxa Walker, J. Proc. Linn. Soc.
    [Show full text]
  • Hymenovaria 19
    nummer 19 november 2019 Nieuwsbrief Sectie Hymenoptera Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging Hans’ -nummer nr. 19, november 2019 ISSN 1387-1773 Foto voorpagina: Hans Nieuwenhuijsen als leermeester van de jeugd. Nieuwsbrief sectie Hymenoptera van de Foto: Roy Kleukers. Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging Redactie Vormgeving: Jan Smit. J. D’Haeseleer, T. Peeters, J. Smit, E. van der Spek Redactieadres Voermanstraat 14, 6921 NP Duiven e-mail: [email protected] Website www.hymenovaria.nl Redactioneel Het is bijna te mooi om waar te zijn maar toch... je als die leden ook nog enthousiaste, aimabele mensen leest nu in onze vijftigste nieuwsbrief! Wat in 1995 zijn .... begon op enkele velletje grijs papier is uitgegroeid tot een waardige nieuwsbrief die tweemaal per jaar Één van die leden willen we in dit nummer speciaal in verschijnt met per nummer gemiddeld zo’n 50 het zonnetje zetten: Hans Nieuwenhuijsen. Hans werd bladzijden. Laagdrempelig, goed leesbaar, zelf op 2 november 75 jaar en dat was voor de redactie een vormgegeven, met vele interessante wetenswaar- goede reden om hem te verrassen met dit thema- digheden en serieuze informatie over wespen en bijen, nummer. Hans was vanaf het eerste begin op allerlei toch? Een verbindend element binnen de sectie manieren betrokken bij de sectie. Hij zat niet alleen in Hymenoptera van de NEV, al blijft de nieuwsbrief het bestuur en de redactie maar leidde ook toch vooral beperkt tot de angeldragende wespen en studiedagen, schreef veel in onze nieuwsbrief en bijen. Laten we hopen dat daar in de komende jaren organiseerde excursies, zoals bijvoorbeeld jongstleden nog wat meer verbreding in sluipt.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Committee 5 Year Review
    Advisory Committee 5 Year Review 2015-2019 EDDMapS CONTENTS EDDMapS 5.0 History of the Center 4 EDDMapS State/Provincial Integration 5 Strategic Plan Florida Invasive Species Partnership Invasive Species Data Standards 6 Center Faculty and Staff Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey 10 Advisory Board IPCConnect Rose Rosette Disease 16 Media Distribution Encyclopedia of Life and iNaturalist Integration 21 Social Media Campaign Wetland Training for Farm Service Agency 22 Project Highlights North American Invasive Species Forum Whitefly Biology and Distribution in Georgia The New Bugwood Website seID - Seed Identification Smartphone App for Toxic Plant Seeds and Fruit Wild Spotter 44 Publications Southern IPM Center Books and Book Chapters ImageID Outreach Publications EDDMapS IPM Journal Articles Bugwood Image Database First Detector Network in Georgia 50 Presentations Invasive.org 52 Professional Service and Awards iBiocontrol 53 Grants AgPest Monitor PAMF (Phragmites Adaptive Management Framework) ISMTrack Healthy Trees Healthy Cities Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health Annual Report Highlights 2015-2019 / 2 Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health Annual Report Highlights 2015-2019 / 3 History of the Center STRATEGIC PLAN 2016-2025 The Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health (www.bugwood.org) was formed in 2008 as a University I. Promote, publicize, and improve awareness of the Center and its programs of Georgia Extension and Outreach Center. The Center is jointly housed in the College of Agricultural and Within the University: Environmental Sciences and the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources. In 2014, the Center’s mission • Produce annual reports, impact statements, newsletters, and press releases • Provide training and updates for Agriculture & Natural Resources and 4-H County Extension Agents, Program Development was expanded to include a linkage with graduate student teaching and research.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Survey of Bamboo-Shoot Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Acanthonevrini, Gastrozonini), with Four New Records from Bangladesh
    Academic Journal of Entomology 10 (1): 01-04, 2017 ISSN 1995-8994 © IDOSI Publications, 2017 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.aje.2017.01.04 A Preliminary Survey of Bamboo-Shoot Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Acanthonevrini, Gastrozonini), With Four New Records from Bangladesh 1Mahfuza Khan, 12M. Abdul Bari, Mahmudul Hossain, 3Damir Kovac, 4Amnon Freidberg, 56Jane Royer and David L. Hancock 1Insect Biotechnology Division, Institute of Food and Radiation Biology (IFRB) Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE), Ganakbari- 1349, Savar, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh 2Radiation Entomology and Acarology Division, IFRB, AERE 3Forschungsinstitute Senckenberg, Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany 4Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel 5Plant Biosecurity and Product Integrity Biosecurity, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Brisbane QLD 4001, Australia 68/3 McPherson Close, Edge Hill, Cairns, Queensland 4870, Australia Abstract: A preliminary survey of bamboo-shoot fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Acanthonevrini, Gastrozonini) of Bangladesh was conducted at the National Botanical Garden (NBG), Mirpur, Dhaka, Bangladesh during April to August, 2015. Most of the specimens were collected by carefully placing glass test tubes and polythene bags over the flies. On each collection day young bamboo shoots were broken in order to attract adult flies. Some species were collected from bamboo clumps/stands by hand picking. Six different bamboo-shoot fly species viz., Felderimyia gombakensis Hancock and Drew, Rioxoptilona dunlopi (van der Wulp) and Rioxoptilona vaga (Wiedemann) in Tribe Acanthonevrini (Tephritidae: Phytalmiinae), plus Acroceratitis distincta (Zia), Acroceratitis ceratitina (Bezzi) and Gastrozona soror (Schiner) in Tribe Gastrozonini (Tephritidae: Dacinae) were detected and collected. F. gombakensis, R. vaga, A. distincta and G. soror are new records for Bangladesh.
    [Show full text]
  • Мухи-Сигнальниці (Platystomatidae), Пирготиди (Pyrgotidae) (До Яких
    НАЦІОНАЛЬНА АКАДЕМІЯ НАУК УКРАЇНИ ІНСТИТУТ ЗООЛОГІЇ ІМ. І. І. ШМАЛЬГАУЗЕНА КОРНЄЄВ Валерій Олексійович УДК 595.773.4 МУХИ ТЕФРИТОЇДНОГО КОМПЛЕКСУ (DIPTERA, PLATYSTOMATIDAE, PYRGOTIDAE, TEPHRITIDAE) ПАЛЕАРКТИКИ (філогенія, систематика, трофічні зв’язки, поширення) 03.00.08 — зоологія АВТОРЕФЕРАТ дисертації на здобуття вченого ступеня доктора біологічних наук Київ — 2004 2 Дисертацією є рукопис. Роботу виконано у відділі популяційної екології та біогеографії Інституту зоології ім. І. І. Шмальгаузена Національної академії наук України Наукові консультанти — член-кореспондент Національної академії наук України, доктор біологічних наук, професор ДОЛІН Володимир Гдаліч, завідувач відділу доктор біологічних наук, ст. н. с. АНДРЄЄВА Рима Василівна завідувач лабораторії Офіційні опоненти: член-кореспондент Національної академії наук України, доктор біологічних наук, професор ФРАНЦЕВИЧ Леонід Іванович, Інститут зоології ім. І. І. Шмальгаузена НАНУ доктор біологічних наук, професор ЗЛОТІН Олександр Захарович, Харківський державний педагогічний університет ім. Г. С. Сковороди доктор біологічних наук, професор БІЛЕЦЬКИЙ Євген Миколайович, Харківський державний аграрний університет ім. В. В. Докучаєва УААН Провідна установа: Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка Захист дисертації відбудеться “ 28 ” грудня 2004 р. о 10-й годині на засіданні спеціалізованої вченої ради Д 26.153.01 в Інституті зоології НАН України: 01030, м. Київ, вул. Богдана Хмельницького 15. З дисертацією можна ознайомитися в бібліотеці Інституту зоології НАН України
    [Show full text]