DOCSLIB.ORG

Risks of Esfenvalerate Use to Federally Threatened California Red-Legged Frog (Rana Aurora Draytonii)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Risks of Esfenvalerate Use to Federally Threatened California Red-Legged Frog (Rana Aurora Draytonii) Risks of Esfenvalerate Use to Federally Threatened California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) Pesticide Effects Determination Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs Washington, D.C. 20460 February 19, 2008 Primary Authors Shannon Borges, Biologist Katrina White, Ph.D., Biologist Nelson Thurman, Senior Fate Scientist Environmental Risk Branch II Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) Secondary Review Donna Randall, Senior Effects Scientist Environmental Risk Branch II Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) Dana Spatz, Acting Branch Chief, Environmental Risk Branch II Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) i Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Problem Formulation .......................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.3 Previous Assessments................................................................................................. 10 2.4 Stressor Source and Distribution................................................................................ 10 2.4.1 Environmental Fate Properties ............................................................................ 10 2.4.2 Environmental Transport Mechanisms................................................................ 20 2.4.3 Mechanism of Action .......................................................................................... 21 2.4.4 Use Characterization............................................................................................ 21 2.5 Assessed Species ........................................................................................................ 33 2.5.1 Distribution.......................................................................................................... 33 2.5.2 Reproduction........................................................................................................ 39 2.5.3 Diet ...................................................................................................................... 39 2.5.4 Habitat.................................................................................................................. 40 2.6 Designated Critical Habitat ........................................................................................ 41 2.7 Action Area ................................................................................................................ 43 2.8 Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Ecological Effect........................................ 44 2.8.1 Assessment Endpoints for the CRLF................................................................... 44 2.8.2 Assessment Endpoints for Designated Critical Habitat....................................... 46 2.9 Conceptual Model ...................................................................................................... 49 2.9.1 Risk Hypotheses .................................................................................................. 49 2.9.2 Diagram ............................................................................................................... 50 2.10 Analysis Plan.............................................................................................................. 55 2.10.1 Measures to Evaluate the Risk Hypotheses and Conceptual Model.................... 55 3.0 Exposure Assessment........................................................................................................ 60 3.1 Label Application Rates and Intervals ....................................................................... 60 3.2 Aquatic Exposure Assessment ................................................................................... 63 3.2.1 Modeling Approach............................................................................................. 63 3.2.2 Model Inputs........................................................................................................ 65 3.2.3 Results.................................................................................................................. 68 3.2.4 Existing Monitoring Data .................................................................................... 68 3.3 Terrestrial Animal Exposure Assessment .................................................................. 74 3.4 Terrestrial Plant Exposure Assessment ...................................................................... 76 4.0 Effects Assessment ........................................................................................................... 77 4.1 Evaluation of Aquatic Ecotoxicity Studies ................................................................ 80 4.1.1 Toxicity to Amphibians ....................................................................................... 80 4.1.2 Toxicity to Freshwater Fish................................................................................. 81 4.1.3 Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates ................................................................... 83 4.1.4 Toxicity to Aquatic Plants ................................................................................... 86 4.1.5 Freshwater Field Studies...................................................................................... 86 4.2 Evaluation of Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Studies............................................................. 88 4.2.1 Toxicity to Birds.................................................................................................. 88 ii 4.2.2 Toxicity to Mammals........................................................................................... 89 4.2.3 Toxicity to Non-Target Terrestrial Invertebrates ................................................ 91 4.2.4 Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants ............................................................................... 91 4.3 Use of Probit Slope Response Relationship to Provide Information on the Endangered Species Levels of Concern ..................................................................... 92 4.4 Incident Database Review .......................................................................................... 93 5.0 Risk Characterization........................................................................................................ 96 5.1 Risk Estimation .......................................................................................................... 96 5.1.1 Exposures in the Aquatic Habitat ........................................................................ 96 5.1.2 Exposures in the Terrestrial Habitat .................................................................. 101 5.1.3 Primary Constituent Elements of Designated Critical Habitat.......................... 105 5.2 Risk Description ....................................................................................................... 105 5.2.1 Direct Effects..................................................................................................... 108 5.2.2 Indirect Effects to the CRLF (via reductions in prey base) ............................... 110 5.2.3 Indirect Effects (via Habitat Effects)................................................................. 112 5.2.4 Modification of Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................... 113 5.3 Risk Hypotheses Revisited....................................................................................... 113 6.0 Uncertainties ................................................................................................................... 116 6.1 Exposure Assessment Uncertainties......................................................................... 116 6.1.1 Maximum Use Scenario .................................................................................... 116 6.1.2 Aquatic Exposure Modeling of Esfenvalerate................................................... 116 6.1.3 Action Area Uncertainties ................................................................................. 118 6.1.4 Usage Uncertainties........................................................................................... 118 6.1.5 Terrestrial Exposure Modeling of Esfenvalerate............................................... 118 6.1.6 Spray Drift Modeling......................................................................................... 119 6.2 Effects Assessment Uncertainties ............................................................................ 120 6.2.1 Age Class and Sensitivity of Effects Thresholds............................................... 120 6.2.2 Use of Surrogate Species Effects Data .............................................................. 120 6.2.3 Sublethal Effects................................................................................................ 120 6.2.4 Location of Wildlife Species ............................................................................. 121 7.0 Risk Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 122 8.0 References......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Restricted Use Product Summary Report
    Page 1 of 17 Restricted Use Product Summary Report (January 19, 2016) Percent Active Registration # Name Company # Company Name Active Ingredient(s) Ingredient 4‐152 BONIDE ORCHARD MOUSE BAIT 4 BONIDE PRODUCTS, INC. 2 Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) 70‐223 RIGO EXOTHERM TERMIL 70 VALUE GARDENS SUPPLY, LLC 20 Chlorothalonil 100‐497 AATREX 4L HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 42.6 Atrazine 100‐585 AATREX NINE‐O HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 88.2 Atrazine 100‐669 CURACRON 8E INSECTICIDE‐MITICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 73 Profenofos 100‐817 BICEP II MAGNUM HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 33; 26.1 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐827 BICEP LITE II MAGNUM HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 28.1; 35.8 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐886 BICEP MAGNUM 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 33.7; 26.1 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐898 AGRI‐MEK 0.15 EC MITICIDE/INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 2 Abamectin 100‐903 DENIM INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 2.15 Emamectin benzoate 100‐904 PROCLAIM INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 5 Emamectin benzoate 100‐998 KARATE 1EC 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 13.1 lambda‐Cyhalothrin 100‐1075 FORCE 3G INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 3 Tefluthrin Acetochlor; Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl‐ 100‐1083 DOUBLEPLAY SELECTIVE HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 16.9; 67.8 , S‐ethyl ester 100‐1086 KARATE EC‐W INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 13.1 lambda‐Cyhalothrin 100‐1088 SCIMITAR GC INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION,
    [Show full text]
  • Carpenter Ants and Control in Homes Page 1 of 6
    Carpenter Ants and Control in Homes Page 1 of 6 Carpenter Ants and Control in Homes Fact Sheet No. 31 Revised May 2000 Dr. Jay B Karren, Extension Entomologist Alan H. Roe, Insect Diagnostician Introduction Carpenter ants are members of the insect order Hymenoptera, which includes bees, wasps, sawflies, and other ants. Carpenter ants can be occasional pests in the home and are noted particularly for the damage they can cause when nesting in wood. In Utah they are more of a nuisance rather than a major structural pest. Carpenter ants, along with a number of other ant species, utilize cavities in wood, particularly stumps and logs in decayed condition, as nesting sites. They are most abundant in forests and can be easily found under loose bark of dead trees, stumps, or fallen logs. Homeowners may bring them into their homes when they transport infested logs from forests to use as firewood. Description Carpenter ants include species that are among the largest ants found in the United States. They are social insects with a complex and well-defined caste system. The worker ants are sterile females and may occur in different sizes (majors and minors). Members of the reproductive caste (fertile males and females) are usually winged prior to mating. All ants develop from eggs deposited by a fertilized female (queen). The eggs hatch into grub-like larvae (immatures) which are fed and cared for by the workers. When fully grown, the larvae spin a cocoon and enter the pupal stage. The pupal stage is a period of transformation from the larva to adult.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, EVERCIDE ESFENVALERATE 6.4
    II UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DEC 1 6 2011 Mr. Thomas A. Lennan McLaughlin Gormley King Company 8810 Tenth Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55427-4319 Subject: Notification per PRN 98-10 EPA Registration No.: 1021 -1815 Evercide® Esfenvalerate 6.4% CS Date of Submission: November 14, 2011 Dear Mr. Lennan: The Agency is in receipt of your Application for Pesticide Notification under Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) 98-10 for the abovementioned product. The Registration Division (RD) has conducted a review of this request and finds that the action(s) requested fall within the scope of PRN 98-10. The label submitted with the application has been stamped "Notification" and will be placed in our records. If you have any questions regarding this action, please contact Olga Odiott at (703)308-9369. Sincerely, Mark Stfarez Product Manager 13 Insecticide Branch Registration Division (7505P) f Please read instructions before completing form Form /ed. OMB No. 2070-0060. Approval expires 05-31-98 United States Reregistration OPP Identifier Number Environmental Protection Agency Amendment Washington, DC 20460 Other Application for Pesticide Reregistration - Section I 1. Company/Product Number 2. EPA Product Manager 3. Proposed Classification 1021-1815 Richard Gebken 4. Company/Product (Name) PM# I None D Restricted EVERCIDE® Esfenvalerate 6.4% CS 10 5. Name and Address of Applicant (Include Zip Code) 6. Expedited Review. In accordance with FIFRA Section 3(c)(3)(b)(i), my MCLAUGHLIN GORMLEY KING COMPANY product is similar or identical in composition and labeling to: 8810 TENTH AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427 EPA Reg.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide No. 1 – October 2020 2/12 the CONCEPT and IMPLEMENTATION of CPA GUIDANCE RESIDUE LEVELS
    Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco CORESTA GUIDE N° 1 The Concept and Implementation of CPA Guidance Residue Levels October 2020 Agro-Chemical Advisory Committee CORESTA TECHNICAL GUIDE N° 1 Title: The Concept and Implementation of CPA Guidance Residue Levels Status: Valid Note: This document will be periodically reviewed by CORESTA Document history: Date of review Information July 2003 Version 1 GRL for Pyrethrins () and Terbufos corrected. December 2003 CPA terminology corrected. June 2008 Version 2 – GRLs revised and residue definitions added Provisional GRL of 2.00 ppm for Cyfluthrin to replace previous June 2010 GRL of 0.50 ppm July 2013 Version 3 – GRLs revised October 2013 Note for Maleic Hydrazide revised Version 4 – GRLs revised + clarification that scope of GRLs July 2016 applies predominantly to the production of traditional cigarette tobaccos and GAP associated with their cultivation. June 2018 Fluopyram GRL of 5 ppm added to GRL list Version 5 – Nine new CPAs with GRL added to list. November 2019 Revision of GRLs for Chlorantraniliprole and Indoxacarb. Updated web links. October 2020 Version 6 – Flupyradifurone GRL of 21 ppm added to GRL list. CORESTA Guide No. 1 – October 2020 2/12 THE CONCEPT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CPA GUIDANCE RESIDUE LEVELS Executive Summary • Guidance Residue Levels (GRLs) are in the remit of the Agro-Chemical Advisory Committee (ACAC) of CORESTA. Their development is a joint activity of all ACAC members, who represent the leaf production, processing and manufacturing sectors of the Tobacco Industry. The concept of GRLs and their implementation are described in this guide. • GRLs provide guidance to tobacco growers and assist with interpretation and evaluation of results from analyses of residues of Crop Protection Agents (CPAs*).
    [Show full text]
  • The Armenians
    THE ARMENIANS By C.F. DIXON-JOHNSON “Whosoever does wrong to a Christian or a Jew shall find me his accuser on the day of judgment.” (EL KORAN) Printed and Published by GEO TOULMIN & SONS, LTD. Northgate, Blackburn. 1916 Preface The following pages were first read as a paper before the “Société d’Etudes Ethnographiques.” They have since been amplified and are now being published at the request of a number of friends, who believe that the public should have an opportunity of judging whether or not “the Armenian Question” has another side than that which has been recently so assiduously promulgated throughout the Western World. Though the championship of Greek, Bulgarian and other similar “Christian, civilized methods of fighting,” as contrasted with “Moslem atrocities” in the Balkans and Asia Minor, has been so strenuously undertaken by Lord Bryce and others, the more recent developments in the Near East may perhaps already have opened the eyes of a great many thinking people to the realization that, in sacrificing the traditional friendship of the Turk to all this more or less sectarian clamor, British diplomacy has really done nothing better than to exchange the solid and advantageous reality for a most elusive and unreliable, if not positively dangerous, set of shadows. It seems illogical that the same party which recalled the officials (and among them our present War Minister) appointed by Lord Beaconsfield to assist the Turkish Government in reforming their administration and collecting the revenue in Asia Minor, and which on the advent of the Young Turks refused to lend British Administrators to whom ample and plenary powers were assured, should now, in its eagerness to vilify the Turk, lose sight of their own mistakes which have led in the main to the conditions of which it complains, and should so utterly condemn its own former policy.
    [Show full text]
  • How Things Fly Presentations
    1A Crawford, Jasmine I Eagle 1A Elliott, Noah C Bumble Bee 1A Patel, Kishan H Hornet 1A Sutton, Ashley K Turkey 1B Ablorh, Marcellina A Birds 1B Bailey-Simpson, Tyron D Bumble Bee 1B Butler, Vidal M Hornet 1B Castor, Carnie Wasp 1B Clark, Micaylah J Butterfly 1B Fairley, Nicholas M Duck 1B Gaymer, Nicolas Falcon 1B Gomez, Luis G Eagle 1B Haines, Tynise N Geese 1B Harden, Travis E Ostrich 1B Henry, Nigel D Turkey 1B Jenkins, Myae'h J Birds 1B Johnson, Jeremy A Bumble Bee 1B Jordan, Justin A Hornet 1B Kovach, Alecia A Wasp 1B Marshall, Allison V Butterfly 1B Marshall, Alyssa M Duck 1B McLennon, Michael K Falcon 1B Milazzo, Matthew M Eagle 1B Okwuosa, Arinze A Geese 1B Smith, Chasity R Ostrich 1B Thomas, Jada L Turkey 1B Warren, Dierra L Birds 1B Weems, Destiny K Bumble Bee 2A Anderson, Jeremiah O Birds 2A Barrett, Dakota A Bumble Bee 2A Bates, Brooklyn J Hornet 2A Blue II, Neil Wasp 2A Brock, Devin A Butterfly 2A Clark, Jasmine M Duck 2A Coleman, Arrienna D Falcon 2A Fisher, M'Kayla M Eagle 2A Harris, Johnathan L Geese 2A Heintz, Michael H Ostrich 2A Hester, Jazlyn A Turkey 2A Hobbs, Kamilah D Birds 2A Jackson, Janise N Bumble Bee 2A Jenkins II, Harrison C Hornet 2A Jones, Lance K Wasp 2A Jones, Shicorreus L Butterfly 2A Logan, Tyshawn A Duck 2A Maduchem-Izundu, KachikwuluFalcon M 2A Matthews, Zackary G Eagle 2A Nguyen, Jimmy Geese 2A Norfleet, Nyhjae Q Ostrich 2A Paragon-singh, Andrew W Turkey 2A Parrish Brown, Jordan C Birds 2A Petty, Kristina A Bumble Bee 2A Pitchford, Colin C Hornet 2A Singleton, Isaiah D Wasp 2A Tucker, Cody D Butterfly
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Chemistry Method for Pyrethroids in Sediment 47053001
    • 1. Introduction and Summary 1.1 Scope The analytical procedure described is suitable for the detennination of residues of bifenthrin, cypennethrin, cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, lambda-cyhalothrin and permethrin (Figures 1-8) in sediment using an external standardisation procedure. The Iimit ofquantitation of the method is 0.1 µg kg·• for bifenthrin, cypermethrin, cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, lambda-cyhalothrin and 1.0 µg kg" 1 for pennethrin. Figura 1 Compound Bifenthrin IUPAC Name 2-methylbiphenyl-3-ylmethyl (Z)-( 1RS,3RS)-3-(2-chloro-3- 3-3-trifluoroprop-l -enyl)-2,2- dimethy lcyclopropanecarboxy late CAS Number 82657-04-3 CAS Name (2-methyl[ I,I '-biphenyl]-3-(2-chloro-3-3-3-trifluoroprop- l­ enyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate • Cl Figure 2 Compound Cypermethrin IUPACName (RS)-a-cyano-3-phenoxy benxy I ( 1RS,3RS; IRS,3SR)-3-(2,2- dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxy late CASNumber 52315-07-8 CAS Name Cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)- 2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate N 11 Cl 0 Cl • Page 7 of185 • Figure 3 Compound Cyfluthrin IUPAC Name RS)-a-cyano-4-fluoro-3-phenoxybenzyl ( 1RS,3RS; 1RS,JSR}-3-(2,2-dichloroviny 1)-2,2- dimethy lcyclopropanecarboxylate CASNumber 68359-37-5 CASName Cyano(4-fluoro-3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2- dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethy lcyclopropanecarboxylate N 11 Cl 0 o'() F ~' Figure 4 Compound Deltamethrin IUPAC Name (S)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl ( IR,JR)-3-(2,2- dibromoviny 1)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate CAS Number
    [Show full text]
  • Compound Class Type Analysed in 3,4-Dichloroaniline Anilines
    U.S. Geological Survey ‐ California Water Science Center Pesticide Fate Research (Table of Analytes) Compound Class Type Analysed In 3,4‐Dichloroaniline Anilines degradate water & sediment AlAlac hlorChl Chloroacetani t ilidlides hbiidherbicide watert & sedidiment t Aldrin Organochlorines insecticide sediment Allethrin Pyrethroids insecticide water & sediment alpha‐Chlordane Organochlorines insecticide sediment alpha‐HCH Organochlorines insecticide sediment Atrazine Triazines/Triazones herbicide water & sediment AzoxystrobinAzoxystrobin Strobilurins funfungicidegicide water & sediment beta‐HCH Organochlorines insecticide sediment Bifenthrin Pyrethroids insecticide water & sediment Butylate Thiocarbamates herbicide water & sediment Carbaryl Carbamates insecticide water & sediment Carbofuran Carbamates insecticide water & sediment Chlorothalonil Miscellaneous fungicide water & sediment ChlChlorpyrifos if OrganophosphatesOhh insecticideiiid water & sedimentdi cis‐Nonachlor Organochlorines insecticide sediment Cycloate Thiocarbamates herbicide water & sediment Cyfluthrin Pyrethroids insecticide water & sediment Cyhalothrin Pyrethroids insecticide water & sediment Cypermethrin Pyrethroids insecticide water & sediment Cyproconazole Conazoles fungicide water & sediment Dacthal (DCPA) Miscellaneous herbicide water & sediment delta‐HCH Organochlorines insecticide sediment Deltamethrin Pyrethroids insecticide water & sediment Diazinon Organophosphates insecticide water & sediment Dieldrin Organochlorines insecticide sediment Disulfoton Organophosphates
    [Show full text]
  • Baldfaced Hornet & Aerial Yellowjacket
    Colorado Insect of Interest Baldfaced Hornet & Aerial Yellowjacket Scientific Names: Dolichovespula maculata (L.) (baldfaced hornet), D. arenaria (Fabricius) (aerial yellowjacket) Figure 1. Baldfaced hornet collecting honeydew from oak galls. Order: Hymenoptera (Bees, Wasps, Ants, Sawflies and Relatives) Family: Vespidae Identification and Descriptive Features: Adults are prominently marked with either black and white (baldfaced hornet) or black and yellow (aerial yellowjacket) markings. The general body form is elongate with the hind end terminating in a blunt point (with stinger) and they are only sparsely hairy, unlike bees. The baldfaced hornet is the larger species, typically over 15 mm in length. Size range within a colony varies with workers being smaller, usually within the range of 10-14 mm. Adults of the aerial yellowjacket are quite similar Figure 2. Aerial yellowjacket chewing on to the western yellowjacket, Vespula pensylvanica weathered wood. (Saussure), in both size and general coloration. The pattern of markings on the abdomen can be used to separate these insects (Figures 6-9). Distribution in Colorado: Both the baldfaced hornet and aerial yellowjacket normally nests in trees or large shrubs and are native to forested areas. However, with landscaping provided around residential areas these wasps may now commonly be found in most towns and cities, with the exception of some in the eastern plain communities. The aerial yellowjacket, in particular, has also adapted to nest on buildings. Life History and Habits: The baldfaced hornet and aerial yellowjacket, the two primary representatives of the genus Dolichovespula in Colorado, make large above ground carton nests of a papery material. These nests are produced annually, initiated in spring by a single overwintered queen and abandoned at the end of the season.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Wasps, Bees and Hornets Around Your Home  Dr
    Bringing information and education into the communities of the Granite State Controlling Wasps, Bees and Hornets Around Your Home Dr. Alan T. Eaton, Extension Specialist, Entomology Wasp encounters can be painful, even life-threatening, for a few highly sensitive people. Yet some New Hampshire species are not very aggressive and they also serve as valuable predators of soft-bodied insects. A hands-off policy might be better for some situations, while others might require careful, direct action. The choice you make should depend on the species and situation. Aggressive species New Hampshire is “blessed” with at least nine species of yellow- jackets, along with two other aggressive wasp species, the bald- faced hornet and giant European hornet. All these members of the wasp family Vespidae live in colonies and have similar life cycles. We also have a moderately aggressive, large solitary wasp, called the cicada killer. Most yellow jackets are about ½ inch long, with yellow and black banded bodies, and clear wings. Bald-faced hornets grow up to ¾ Yellow jacket wasp. Wasps and hornets are im- inch long, with stout, black bodies marked with gray or white bands. portant predators of soft-bodied insects, such Giant European hornets grow up to one inch long, resembling giant as caterpillars. yellow jackets, with a stout body, but colored yellow, brown and black. Only the mated females of Vespidae species survive the winter. These females overwinter individually, usually in deep leaf litter in the woods. In the spring, those that survived emerge and search for a site to start a tiny nest. Bald faced hornets prefer eaves of buildings, horizontal branches, or some similar site protected from rain.
    [Show full text]
  • Aliens: the Invasive Species Bulletin Newsletter of the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group
    Aliens: The Invasive Species Bulletin Newsletter of the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group ISSN 1173-5988 Issue Number 31, 2011 Coordinator CONTENTS Piero Genovesi, ISSG Chair, ISPRA Editors Editorial pg. 1 Piero Genovesi and Riccardo Scalera News from the ISSG pg. 2 Assistant Editor ...And other news pg. 4 Anna Alonzi Monitoring and control modalities of a honeybee predator, the Yellow Front Cover Photo legged hornet Vespa velutina The yellow-legged hornet Vespa velutina nigrithorax (Hymenoptera: © Photo by Quentin Rome Vespidae) pg. 7 Improving ant eradications: details of more successes, The following people a global synthesis contributed to this issue and recommendations pg. 16 Shyama Pagad, Carola Warner Introduced reindeer on South Georgia – their impact and management pg. 24 Invasive plant species The newsletter is produced twice a year and in Asian elephant habitats pg. 30 is available in English. To be added to the AlterIAS: a LIFE+ project to curb mailing list, or to download the electronic the introduction of invasive version, visit: ornamental plants in Belgium pg. 36 www.issg.org/newsletter.html#Aliens Investigation of Invasive plant Please direct all submissions and other ed- species in the Caucasus: itorial correspondence to Riccardo Scalera current situation pg. 42 [email protected] The annual cost of invasive species to the British economy quantified pg. 47 Published by Eradication of the non-native ISPRA - Rome, Italy sea squirt Didemnum vexillum Graphics design from Holyhead Harbour, Wales, UK pg. 52 Franco Iozzoli, ISPRA Challenges, needs and future steps Coordination for managing invasive alien species Daria Mazzella, ISPRA - Publishing Section in the Western Balkan Region pg.
    [Show full text]