DOCSLIB.ORG

Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture BACKGROUND STUDY PAPER NO. 47 October 2009 E COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE THE USE AND EXCHANGE OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE by Matthew J.W. Cock, Joop C. van Lenteren, Jacques Brodeur, Barbara I.P.Barratt, Franz Bigler, Karel Bolckmans, Fernando L. Cônsoli, Fabian Haas, Peter G. Mason, José Roberto P. Parra 1 This document has been prepared at the request of the Secretariat of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture by the Global Commission on Biological Control and Access and Benefit-Sharing of the International Organisation for Biological Control of Noxious Animals and Plants (IOBC), as a contribution to the cross-sectoral theme, Consideration of policies and arrangements for access and benefit-sharing for genetic resources for food and agriculture , which the Commission will consider at its Twelfth Regular Session. The content of this document is entirely the responsibility of the authors, and does not necessarily represent the views of the FAO, or its Members. 1 For affiliation of the authors see Annex 2. BACKGROUND STUDY PAPER NO. 47 i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION .................................................................................................................1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................4 1. THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR BENEFIT SHARING .............................................................. 4 2. THE IMPLEMENTERS ......................................................................................................................................... 4 3. THE BENEFITS TO USERS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS ............................................................................................. 5 4. THE EXTENT OF USE OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ................................................................................................. 5 5. CONTROL OF GENETIC RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFIT ............................................................... 5 6. REGULATION OF INTRODUCTION OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS ................................................................ 6 7. USER PERSPECTIVES ......................................................................................................................................... 7 8. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 7 I. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................................9 1. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................................9 2. SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 3. BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ..................................................................................................................................... 9 4. VARIETY OF USERS AND USES ..........................................................................................................................12 II. USE AND GLOBAL EXCHANGE OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS AND THEIR BENEFITS .................................................................................................................................................14 1. USE OF GENETIC RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 14 1.1. Extent of use .......................................................................................................................................... 14 1.2. Addition of value ................................................................................................................................... 21 1.3. Typology of main users ......................................................................................................................... 22 1.4. Trends in genetic diversity .................................................................................................................... 23 2. GLOBAL EXCHANGE OF GENETIC RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 24 2.1. Types of genetic materials .................................................................................................................... 24 2.2. Main providers of biological control agents ......................................................................................... 25 2.3. Transfer procedure ............................................................................................................................... 25 2.4. National vs. international transfers ...................................................................................................... 25 2.5. Trends in global exchanges .................................................................................................................. 25 3. BENEFITS OF USE AND EXCHANGE OF GENETIC RESOURCES ............................................................................ 26 3.1. Food security and poverty alleviation .................................................................................................. 26 3.2. Food safety and farmers’ and workers’ health ..................................................................................... 27 3.3. Livelihoods ............................................................................................................................................ 27 3.4. Environment and conservation benefits ................................................................................................ 27 3.5. Research and capacity building ............................................................................................................ 28 3.6. Commercial benefits from improved production .................................................................................. 28 4. CONTROL OF GENETIC RESOURCES USED IN BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ................................................................ 29 ii BACKGROUND STUDY PAPER NO. 47 5. SELLING GENETIC RESOURCES -BASED PRODUCTS ........................................................................................... 30 6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 31 III. CURRENT PRACTICES OF EXCHANGE OF GENETIC RESOURCES ...............................33 1. CURRENT TERMS AND MODALITIES FOR EXCHANGE OF GENETIC RESOURCES ................................................. 33 1.1. Informal networks ................................................................................................................................. 33 1.2. Information on biological control agents ............................................................................................. 33 1.3. Gaining access to biological control agents ......................................................................................... 33 1.4. Effects of legal or technological tools on use and exchange of genetic resources ............................... 34 2. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 34 IV. STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEWS ............................................................................................................35 1. PERCEPTIONS , AWARENESS OF USERS AND PROVIDERS ON ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING ............................ 35 1.1. The users of biological control agents .................................................................................................. 35 1.2. The biological control agent source countries ..................................................................................... 36 2. INITIATIVES OF KEY PLAYERS ......................................................................................................................... 36 3. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 37 V. OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................38 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................................................39 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................40 Case Study 1. Successful biological control of a forest insect pest ...........................................................43 Case Study 2. The search for a natural enemy of the cassava mealybug...................................................44 Case Study 3. The classical biological control of a cassava mealybug in Brazil.......................................45 Case Study 4. Indigenous leaf miner parasitoids for augmentative biological control in Europe .............46 Case Study 5. Over thirty years of successful release of a natural
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4Th National IPM Symposium
    contents Foreword . 2 Program Schedule . 4 National Roadmap for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) . 9 Whole Systems Thinking Applied to IPM . 12 Fourth National IPM Symposium . 14 Poster Abstracts . 30 Poster Author Index . 92 1 foreword Welcome to the Fourth National Integrated Pest Management The Second National IPM Symposium followed the theme “IPM Symposium, “Building Alliances for the Future of IPM.” As IPM Programs for the 21st Century: Food Safety and Environmental adoption continues to increase, challenges facing the IPM systems’ Stewardship.” The meeting explored the future of IPM and its role approach to pest management also expand. The IPM community in reducing environmental problems; ensuring a safe, healthy, has responded to new challenges by developing appropriate plentiful food supply; and promoting a sustainable agriculture. The technologies to meet the changing needs of IPM stakeholders. meeting was organized with poster sessions and workshops covering 22 topic areas that provided numerous opportunities for Organization of the Fourth National Integrated Pest Management participants to share ideas across disciplines, agencies, and Symposium was initiated at the annual meeting of the National affiliations. More than 600 people attended the Second National IPM Committee, ESCOP/ECOP Pest Management Strategies IPM Symposium. Based on written and oral comments, the Subcommittee held in Washington, DC, in September 2001. With symposium was a very useful, stimulating, and exciting experi- the 2000 goal for IPM adoption having passed, it was agreed that ence. it was again time for the IPM community, in its broadest sense, to come together to review IPM achievements and to discuss visions The Third National IPM Symposium shared two themes, “Putting for how IPM could meet research, extension, and stakeholder Customers First” and “Assessing IPM Program Impacts.” These needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Ladybirds, Ladybird Beetles, Lady Beetles, Ladybugs of Florida, Coleoptera: Coccinellidae1
    Archival copy: for current recommendations see http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu or your local extension office. EENY-170 Ladybirds, Ladybird beetles, Lady Beetles, Ladybugs of Florida, Coleoptera: Coccinellidae1 J. H. Frank R. F. Mizell, III2 Introduction Ladybird is a name that has been used in England for more than 600 years for the European beetle Coccinella septempunctata. As knowledge about insects increased, the name became extended to all its relatives, members of the beetle family Coccinellidae. Of course these insects are not birds, but butterflies are not flies, nor are dragonflies, stoneflies, mayflies, and fireflies, which all are true common names in folklore, not invented names. The lady for whom they were named was "the Virgin Mary," and common names in other European languages have the same association (the German name Marienkafer translates Figure 1. Adult Coccinella septempunctata Linnaeus, the to "Marybeetle" or ladybeetle). Prose and poetry sevenspotted lady beetle. Credits: James Castner, University of Florida mention ladybird, perhaps the most familiar in English being the children's rhyme: Now, the word ladybird applies to a whole Ladybird, ladybird, fly away home, family of beetles, Coccinellidae or ladybirds, not just Your house is on fire, your children all gone... Coccinella septempunctata. We can but hope that newspaper writers will desist from generalizing them In the USA, the name ladybird was popularly all as "the ladybird" and thus deluding the public into americanized to ladybug, although these insects are believing that there is only one species. There are beetles (Coleoptera), not bugs (Hemiptera). many species of ladybirds, just as there are of birds, and the word "variety" (frequently use by newspaper 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa, Review of the Mite Genus Gaeolaelaps Evans & Till (Acari: Laelapidae)
    Zootaxa 2158: 33–49 (2009) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2009 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Review of the mite genus Gaeolaelaps Evans & Till (Acari: Laelapidae), and description of a new species from North America, G. gillespiei n. sp. FRÉDÉRIC BEAULIEU Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The concept of the genus Gaeolaelaps of the mite family Laelapidae is reviewed, based on species descriptions in the literature and the examination of specimens of selected described and undescribed species. A short diagnosis and a description of the genus is presented, showing the range of morphological character states and indicating species that depart from the typical character states. Gaeolaelaps is restored from subgeneric to generic rank. A new species, G. gillespiei n. sp., is described from adult female and male specimens. This species shows promise in the control of fungus gnats and thrips on greenhouse cucumbers in British Columbia, Canada. It is a relative of the well known biocontrol agent Gaeolaelaps (or Hypoaspis) aculeifer, but presents a set of morphological traits that distinguish it from G. aculeifer and other related species. The diversity of soil-dwelling mesostigmatic mites remains poorly explored, and so is their potential for biological control. Key words: Hypoaspis, Hypoaspidinae, Mesostigmata, predatory mite, biocontrol Introduction The mesostigmatic mite family Laelapidae is ecologically diverse, and comprises obligate and facultative parasites of vertebrates, insect paraphages, and free-living predators that inhabit soil-litter habitats, as well as the nests of vertebrates and arthropods (Strong & Halliday 1994; Krantz & Walter 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropod Pest Management in Greenhouses and Interiorscapes E
    Arthropod Pest Management in Greenhouses and Interiorscapes E-1011E-1011 OklahomaOklahoma CooperativeCooperative ExtensionExtension ServiceService DivisionDivision ofof AgriculturalAgricultural SciencesSciences andand NaturalNatural ResourcesResources OklahomaOklahoma StateState UniversityUniversity Arthropod Pest Management in Greenhouses and Interiorscapes E-1011 Eric J. Rebek Extension Entomologist/ Ornamentals and Turfgrass Specialist Michael A. Schnelle Extension Ornamentals/ Floriculture Specialist ArthropodArthropod PestPest ManagementManagement inin GreenhousesGreenhouses andand InteriorscapesInteriorscapes Insects and their relatives cause major plant ing a hand lens. damage in commercial greenhouses and interi- Aphids feed on buds, leaves, stems, and roots orscapes. Identification of key pests and an un- by inserting their long, straw-like, piercing-suck- derstanding of appropriate control measures are ing mouthparts (stylets) and withdrawing plant essential to guard against costly crop losses. With sap. Expanding leaves from damaged buds may be tightening regulations on conventional insecti- curled or twisted and attacked leaves often display cides and increasing consumer sensitivity to their chlorotic (yellow-white) speckles where cell con- use in public spaces, growers must seek effective tents have been removed. A secondary problem pest management alternatives to conventional arises from sugary honeydew excreted by aphids. chemical control. Management strategies cen- Leaves may appear shiny and become sticky from tered around
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing the Life Table and Population Projection Of
    agronomy Article Comparing the Life Table and Population Projection of Gaeolaelaps aculeifer and Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae) Based on the Age-Stage, Two-Sex Life Table Theory Jihye Park 1,†, Md Munir Mostafiz 1,† , Hwal-Su Hwang 1 , Duck-Oung Jung 2,3 and Kyeong-Yeoll Lee 1,2,3,4,* 1 Division of Applied Biosciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea; [email protected] (J.P.); munirmostafi[email protected] (M.M.M.); [email protected] (H.-S.H.) 2 Sustainable Agriculture Research Center, Kyungpook National University, Gunwi 39061, Korea; [email protected] 3 Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea 4 Quantum-Bio Research Center, Kyungpook National University, Gunwi 39061, Korea * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-53-950-5759 † These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: Predatory soil-dwelling mites, Gaeolaelaps aculeifer (Canestrini) and Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Womersley) (Mesostigmata: Laelapidae), are essential biocontrol agents of small soil arthropod pests. To understand the population characteristics of these two predatory mites, we investigated their development, survival, and fecundity under laboratory conditions. We used Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) as a food source and analyzed the data using the age-stage, two-sex life table. The duration from egg to adult for G. aculeifer was longer than that for S. scimitus, but larval duration was similar Citation: Park, J.; Mostafiz, M.M.; between the two species. Notably, G. aculeifer laid 74.88 eggs/female in 24.50 days, but S. scimitus Hwang, H.-S.; Jung, D.-O.; Lee, K.-Y. Comparing the Life Table and laid 28.46 eggs/female in 19.1 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Biocontrol Science and Technology
    This article was downloaded by:[NEICON Consortium] On: 11 September 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 781557153] Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Biocontrol Science and Technology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713409232 Biology and prey range of Cryptognatha nodiceps (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), a potential biological control agent for the coconut scale, Aspidiotus destructor (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) V. F. Lopez; M. T. K. Kairo; J. A. Irish Online Publication Date: 01 August 2004 To cite this Article: Lopez, V. F., Kairo, M. T. K. and Irish, J. A. (2004) 'Biology and prey range of Cryptognatha nodiceps (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), a potential biological control agent for the coconut scale, Aspidiotus destructor (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)', Biocontrol Science and Technology, 14:5, 475 - 485 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09583150410001683493 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09583150410001683493 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratiolaelaps Scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae) to Control Varroa Destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in Honey Bees
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Risk assessment and predation potential of Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae) to control Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in honey bees 1¤ 2 1 Sabrina RondeauID *, Pierre Giovenazzo , ValeÂrie Fournier 1 DeÂpartement de phytologie, Universite Laval, QueÂbec City, Quebec, Canada, 2 DeÂpartement de biologie, a1111111111 Universite Laval, QueÂbec City, Quebec, Canada a1111111111 ¤ Current address: School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada a1111111111 * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract The biocontrol of the honey bee ectoparasite Varroa destructor is an underexploited but OPEN ACCESS promising avenue that would benefit from being integrated in a Varroa management pro- gram. Our study aimed to investigate the potential of the predatory mite Stratiolaelaps scimi- Citation: Rondeau S, Giovenazzo P, Fournier V (2018) Risk assessment and predation potential of tus to control Varroa infestations in honey bees. Tests on safety and predation were carried Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae) to out to: (1) assess the risk of predation of the honey bee brood by S. scimitus under labora- control Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in tory conditions and within the colony, and (2) evaluate the predation potential of S. scimitus honey bees. PLoS ONE 13(12): e0208812. https:// on phoretic Varroa mites. Under laboratory conditions, S. scimitus was able to feed upon doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208812 free Varroa mites, but also attacked every unprotected honey bee brood stages with a Editor: Olav Rueppell, University of North Carolina strong preference for bee eggs. When introduced inside colonies, however, S. scimitus at Greensboro, UNITED STATES does not have negative effects on the survival of the bee brood.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Notes on the Use of the Predatory Soil Mite Stratiolaelaps Scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae) As a Biological Control Agent for Acariasis in Lizards Robert W
    Preliminary Notes on the Use of the Predatory Soil Mite Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae) as a Biological Control Agent for Acariasis in Lizards Robert W. Mendyk, BS, MA Department of Herpetology, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, 3001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20008, USA Current address: Department of Herpetology, Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, 307 Zoo Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32218, USA ABSTRaCT: While commonly employed by the agricultural and horticultural industries, biological control has rarely been utilized in herpetological husbandry to treat infectious or parasitic diseases. This case study describes the use of the predatory soil mite Stratiolaelaps scimitus to treat parasitic mite infestations in two adult inland bearded dragons (Pogona vitticeps). Stratiolaelaps scimitus applied directly to the existing terrarium substrate appeared to have eliminated all traces of parasitic mite infestation in both lizards within 5 days. These results, although preliminary, highlight the potential utility of predatory mites and other biological control agents in the husbandry and veterinary management of reptiles in captivity. KEY WORDS: Acariasis, biological control, Hypoaspis miles, lizards, predatory mites, Stratiolaelaps scimitus. INTRODUCTiON CaSE REPORT Hematophagic and lymphophagic mites are common A sexual pair of adult inland bearded dragons (Pogona ­parasites of reptiles in captivity, where they can spread ­vitticeps) was acquired by a private keeper in 2007. The rapidly through a collection and be difficult to eradicate female (18.3 cm snout–vent length [SVL]; 265 g) was received completely (DeNardo and Wozniak, 1997; Wozniak and in August 2007 while the male (15.2 cm SVL; 168 g) was DeNardo, 2000; Fitzgerald and Vera, 2006; Schilliger et al., purchased at a reptile exposition in early December 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Thysanoptera, Aeolothripidae) from Iran
    © Biologiezentrum Linz/Austria; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Linzer biol. Beitr. 46/1 637-642 31.7.2014 New record of predatory thrips, Aeolothrips melaleucus (Thysanoptera, Aeolothripidae) from Iran K. MINAEI Abstract: A predatory species, Aeolothrips melaleucus (HALIDAY) is recorded on the base of materials collected on apple and bean caper leaves in Fars Province, south of Iran. The species is very similar to another predatory thrips Aeolothrips versicolor UZEL in forewing in which posterior margin of forewing is dark except at base and apex in both species. The characters on which these two species are separated together with illustrations are provided and predatory habitat of A. melaleucus is discussed briefly. Key words: Aeolothrips, biology, Fars Province, predator. Introduction Most members of the insects, order Thysanoptera or thrips are phytophagous on living plants or mycophagous on dead branches and in leaf litter (MOUND 1997). However a widespread behavioral attribute amongst these tiny insects has been demonstrated. Some thrips play role as pollinators (LEWIS 1973), some induce gall (CRESPI et al. 2004) and a few have been recorded as obligate predator (PALMER & MOUND 1991). Moreover, larvae and adults of species in the genus Aulacothrips (Heterothripidae) have become ectoparasite on some members of insect order Hemiptera in Brazil (CAVALLERI et al. 2010, 2012). More recently CAVALLERI et al. (2013) reported a novel interaction between a phlaeothripd (family Phlaeothripidae) species, Mirothrips arbiter, and three species of social paper wasps, the genus Polistes (Vespidae). This thrips species breeds inside the wasp colonies, and larval and adult thrips feed on wasp eggs, which become severely damaged.
    [Show full text]
  • Thrips of California
    BULLETIN OF THE CALIFORNIA INSECT SURVEY VOLUME 4, NO. 5 THE THRIPS OF CALIFORNIA PART I: SUBORDER TEREBRANTIA BY STANLEY F. BAILEY (Department of Entomology and Parasitology, University’ of California, Davis) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES 1957 BULLETIN OF THE CALIFORNIA INSECT SURVEY Editors: E. G. Linsley, S. B. Freeborn, P. D. Hurd, R. L. Usinger Volume 4, No. 5, pp. 143-220, plates 17-23 Submitted by Editors, March 28, 1956 Issued April 12, 1957 Price $1.50 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON. ENGLAND PRINTED BY OFFSET IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................... 143 Methods and Materials for the Collection of Thrips ........................................ 143 Bionomics ........................................................................... 145 Distribution ......................................................................... 145 Systematics ............................................................................ 146 Key to the Genera of California Thysanoptera: Terebrantia ................................. 147 Aeolothrips ........................................................................ 151 Anaphothrips ...................................................................... 159 Ankothrips ........................................................................ 163 Aptinothrips ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT on APPLES – Fruit Pathway and Alert List
    EU project number 613678 Strategies to develop effective, innovative and practical approaches to protect major European fruit crops from pests and pathogens Work package 1. Pathways of introduction of fruit pests and pathogens Deliverable 1.3. PART 5 - REPORT on APPLES – Fruit pathway and Alert List Partners involved: EPPO (Grousset F, Petter F, Suffert M) and JKI (Steffen K, Wilstermann A, Schrader G). This document should be cited as ‘Wistermann A, Steffen K, Grousset F, Petter F, Schrader G, Suffert M (2016) DROPSA Deliverable 1.3 Report for Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List’. An Excel file containing supporting information is available at https://upload.eppo.int/download/107o25ccc1b2c DROPSA is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (grant agreement no. 613678). www.dropsaproject.eu [email protected] DROPSA DELIVERABLE REPORT on Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background on apple .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Data on production and trade of apple fruit ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Pathway ‘apple fruit’ .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Beneficial Insects of Utah Guide
    BENEFICIAL INSECTS OF UTAH beneficial insects & other natural enemies identification guide PUBLICATION COORDINATORS AND EDITORS Cami Cannon (Vegetable IPM Associate and Graphic Design) Marion Murray (IPM Project Leader) AUTHORS Cami Cannon Marion Murray Ron Patterson (insects: ambush bug, collops beetle, red velvet mite) Katie Wagner (insects: Trichogramma wasp) IMAGE CREDITS All images are provided by Utah State University Extension unless otherwise noted within the image caption. CONTACT INFORMATION Utah State University IPM Program Dept. of Biology 5305 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322 (435) 797-0776 utahpests.usu.edu/IPM FUNDING FOR THIS PUBLICATION WAS PROVIDED BY: USU Extension Grants Program CONTENTS PREFACE Purpose of this Guide ................................................................6 Importance of Natural Enemies ..................................................6 General Practices to Enhance Natural Enemies ...........................7 Plants that will Enhance Natural Enemy Populations ..................7 PREDATORS Beetles .....................................................................................10 Flies .........................................................................................24 Lacewings/Dustywings .............................................................32 Mites ........................................................................................36 Spiders .....................................................................................42 Thrips ......................................................................................44
    [Show full text]