DOCSLIB.ORG

The Economic Importance of Organophosphates in California Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Economic Importance of Organophosphates in California Agriculture The Economic Importance of Organophosphates in California Agriculture by: Mark Metcalfe*, Bruce McWilliams*, Brent Hueth*, Robert Van Steenwyk**, David Sunding*, and David Zilberman* *Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics **Department of E.S.P.M. Cooperative Extension Entomologist University of California, Berkeley With assistance from: William Chaney, Richard Coviello, Larry Godfrey, Pete Goodell, Elizabeth Grafton-Cardwell, Eric Natwick, Carolyn Pickel, Nick Toscano, Lucia Varela and Frank Zalom University of California Cooperative Extension APPENDIX August, 2002 This study was funded by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Table of Contents APPENDIX A: UC SPECIALIST REPORTS ........................................................................3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 ALFALFA HAY ............................................................................................................................. 4 Current Pest Management Program ....................................................................................... 6 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology....................................... 8 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology ...................................... 8 ALMONDS .................................................................................................................................. 16 Current Pest Management Program ..................................................................................... 19 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology......................................... 21 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................... 24 Addendum ............................................................................................................................. 27 BROCCOLI .................................................................................................................................. 43 Current Pest Management Program ..................................................................................... 46 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology..................................... 48 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................... 49 Addendum ............................................................................................................................. 50 CARROTS ................................................................................................................................... 63 Current Pest Management Program ..................................................................................... 66 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology..................................... 67 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................... 68 COTTON ..................................................................................................................................... 75 Current Pest Management Program ..................................................................................... 78 OP Free-Pest Management with Available Technology ....................................................... 80 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................... 81 Addendum ............................................................................................................................. 84 GRAPES ...................................................................................................................................... 97 Current - Pest Management Program ................................................................................ 103 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology................................... 105 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................. 107 Addendum ........................................................................................................................... 109 LETTUCE (HEAD AND LEAF) .................................................................................................... 119 Current Pest Management Program ................................................................................... 123 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology................................... 125 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................. 127 Addendum – Lettuce ............................................................................................................ 129 ORANGES ................................................................................................................................. 151 Current Pest Management Program ................................................................................... 156 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology................................... 157 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................. 159 Addendum ........................................................................................................................... 160 1 PEACHES AND NECTARINES ..................................................................................................... 169 Current Pest Management Program ................................................................................... 173 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology................................... 175 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................. 176 Addendum ........................................................................................................................... 178 STRAWBERRIES ........................................................................................................................ 187 Current - Pest Management Program ................................................................................ 189 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology................................... 191 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................. 192 Addendum ........................................................................................................................... 193 TOMATOES (FRESH AND PROCESSED) ...................................................................................... 200 Current Pest Management Program ................................................................................... 205 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology................................... 209 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................. 212 Addendum ........................................................................................................................... 214 WALNUTS ................................................................................................................................ 227 Current - Pest Management Program ................................................................................ 231 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Available Technology................................... 232 OP Free – Pest Management Program with Emerging Technology .................................. 234 Addendum ........................................................................................................................... 236 APPENDIX B: MATHEMATICAL MODEL .....................................................................249 2 Appendix A: UC Specialist Reports INTRODUCTION Entomologically sound pest management programs are a necessary foundation for an economic analysis of the importance of organophosphate (OP) insecticides to California agriculture. OP free insect pest management programs must be unbiased and constructed with clearly understandable parameters and objectives. The economic analysis in this report relied on OP free insect pest management programs constructed by University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) entomologists. UCCE entomologists have intimate knowledge of existing programs while at the same time are knowledgeable of new pest management tools that will become available in the near future. In fact, UCCE entomologists are often in the forefront of the development of new pest management tools. For this analysis, UCCE entomologists developed a “typical” insect pest management program for a commodity or commodities in which they have expertise. The OP free insect pest management programs are constructed for immediate implementation without consideration of the cost of the program or consequence of insecticide resistance. The programs take into account any secondary or occasional pests that may require additional control measures. Also, the UCCE entomologists estimated any increased damage or yield loss above current levels that would result from their OP free insect pest management program. The UCCE entomologists also developed a more ecologically sound OP free insect pest management program using currently available pest management practices and those emerging technologies that are anticipated to be registered within the next
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bayle-Barelle 1808) (Lepidoptera, Zygaenidae, Procridinae)
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Stapfia Jahr/Year: 1998 Band/Volume: 0055 Autor(en)/Author(s): Tarmann Gerhard Michael Artikel/Article: Die Weinzygaene Theresimima ampellophaga (Bayle-Barelle 1808) (Lepidoptera, Zygaenidae, Procridinae). Kehrt ein verschwundener Weinschädling zurück? 57-84 © Biologiezentrum Linz/Austria; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Stapfia 55 57-84 11. September 1998 Die Weinzygaene Theresimima ampellophaga (BAYLE-BARELLE 1808) (Lepidoptera, Zygaenidae, Procridinae) Kehrt ein verschwundener Weinschädling zurück?* Gerhard M. TARMANN Abstract: The Vine Bud Moth or European Grapeleaf Skeletonizer Theresimima ampellophaga (BAYLE-BARELLE 1808) - reappearence of a vine pest? The Vine Bud Moth or European Grapleaf Skeletonizer Theresimima ampellophaga (BAYLE- BARELLE 1808) was thought to be under control for many years. The last harmful infestations are recorded from Hungary in 1954 (ISSEKUTZ 1957a, 1957b). Only a few records are known from later years. A possible reason for the decline of populations may be found in more effective use of pesticide and insecticide. In 1990 Th. ampellophaga was rediscovered on Crimea (Ukraine) after almost 50 years of absence (EFETOV 1990b). For the first time the larvae were found on decorative vines (Parthenocissus). Between 1990 and 1997 the Vine Bud Moth spread all over southern Crimea and has developed very strong populations. This fact leads to the conclusion that neighbouring countries might be in immediate danger. The present paper gives an overview about historical and recent observations of Th. ampellophaga with special emphasis to the situation on Crimea. Pheromone recognition and pest control methods are mentioned. The systematic position and the historical and recent geographical distributions are discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-11607-8 — a Natural History of Ladybird Beetles M. E. N. Majerus , Executive Editor H. E. Roy , P
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-11607-8 — A Natural History of Ladybird Beetles M. E. N. Majerus , Executive Editor H. E. Roy , P. M. J. Brown Index More Information Index 2-isopropyl-3-methoxy-pyrazine, 238 281, 283, 285, 287–9, 291–5, 297–8, 2-phenylethylamine, 237 301–3, 311, 314, 316, 319, 325, 327, 329, 335 abdomen, 17, 20, 22, 24, 28–9, 32, 38, 42, 110, Adalia 4-spilota,80 114, 125, 128, 172, 186, 189, 209–10, Adalia conglomerata, 255 218 adaline, 108, 237, 241 Acacia, 197, 199 adalinine, 237 acaricides, 316 adelgids, 29, 49, 62, 65, 86, 91, 176, 199, 308, Acaridae, 217 310, 322 Acarina, 205, 217 Adonia, 44, 71 Acer pseudoplatanus, 50, 68, 121 aggregations, 163, 165, 168, 170, 178, 184, Acraea, 228, 297, 302 221, 312, 324 Acraea encedana, 302 Aiolocaria, 78, 93, 133, 276 Acraea encedon, 297, 302 Aiolocaria hexaspilota,78 Acyrthosiphon nipponicum, 101 Aiolocaria mirabilis, 133, 276 Acyrthosiphon pisum, 75, 77, 90, 92, 97–101, albino, 273 116, 239 Alces alces,94 Adalia, 5–6, 10, 22, 34, 44, 64, 70, 78, 80, 86, Aleyrodidae, 91, 310 123, 125, 128, 130, 132, 140, 143, 147, alfalfa, 119, 308, 316, 319, 325 159–60, 166–7, 171, 180–1, 218, 222, alimentary canal, 29, 35, 221 234, 237, 239, 241, 255, 259–60, 262, alkaloids, x, 99–100, 195–7, 202, 236–9, 241–2, 269, 279, 281, 284, 286, 298, 311, 325, 245–6 327, 335 Allantonematidae, 220 Adalia 10-punctata, 22, 70, 80, 86, 98–100, anal cremaster, 38, 40 104, 108, 116, 132, 146–7, 149, Anatis, 4, 17, 23, 41, 44, 66, 76, 89, 102, 131, 154, 156, 160, 174, 181–3, 188, 148, 165, 186, 191, 193,
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2017/023486 Al 9 February 2017 (09.02.2017) P O P C T
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2017/023486 Al 9 February 2017 (09.02.2017) P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: 0552 (US). FENGLER, Kevin; 7250 NW 62nd Ave, P.O. AOlH l/00 (2006.01) C07K 14/195 (2006.01) Box 552, Johnston, IA 5013 1-0552 (US). SCHEPERS, A01H3/00 (2006.01) C12N 15/82 (2006.01) Eric; 7250 NW 62nd Ave, P.O. Box 552, Johnston, IA 5013 1-0552 (US). UDRANSZKY, Ingrid; 7250 NW 62nd (21) International Application Number: Ave, P.O. Box 552, Johnston, IA 5013 1-0552 (US). PCT/US20 16/04 1452 (74) Agent: BAUER, S., Christopher; Pioneer Hi-Bred Inter (22) International Filing Date: national, Inc., 7100 N.W. 62nd Avenue, Johnston, IA 8 July 2016 (08.07.2016) 5013 1-1014 (US). (25) Filing Language: English (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every (26) Publication Language: English kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, (30) Priority Data: BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, 62/201,977 6 August 2015 (06.08.2015) US DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, (71) Applicants: PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JP, KE, KG, KN, KP, KR, INC. [US/US]; PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, MG, INC., 7100 N.W.
    [Show full text]
  • COLEOPTERA COCCINELLIDAE) INTRODUCTIONS and ESTABLISHMENTS in HAWAII: 1885 to 2015
    AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE COCCINELLID (COLEOPTERA COCCINELLIDAE) INTRODUCTIONS AND ESTABLISHMENTS IN HAWAII: 1885 to 2015 JOHN R. LEEPER PO Box 13086 Las Cruces, NM USA, 88013 [email protected] [1] Abstract. Blackburn & Sharp (1885: 146 & 147) described the first coccinellids found in Hawaii. The first documented introduction and successful establishment was of Rodolia cardinalis from Australia in 1890 (Swezey, 1923b: 300). This paper documents 167 coccinellid species as having been introduced to the Hawaiian Islands with forty-six (46) species considered established based on unpublished Hawaii State Department of Agriculture records and literature published in Hawaii. The paper also provides nomenclatural and taxonomic changes that have occurred in the Hawaiian records through time. INTRODUCTION The Coccinellidae comprise a large family in the Coleoptera with about 490 genera and 4200 species (Sasaji, 1971). The majority of coccinellid species introduced into Hawaii are predacious on insects and/or mites. Exceptions to this are two mycophagous coccinellids, Calvia decimguttata (Linnaeus) and Psyllobora vigintimaculata (Say). Of these, only P. vigintimaculata (Say) appears to be established, see discussion associated with that species’ listing. The members of the phytophagous subfamily Epilachninae are pests themselves and, to date, are not known to be established in Hawaii. None of the Coccinellidae in Hawaii are thought to be either endemic or indigenous. All have been either accidentally or purposely introduced. Three species, Scymnus discendens (= Diomus debilis LeConte), Scymnus ocellatus (=Scymnobius galapagoensis (Waterhouse)) and Scymnus vividus (= Scymnus (Pullus) loewii Mulsant) were described by Sharp (Blackburn & Sharp, 1885: 146 & 147) from specimens collected in the islands. There are, however, no records of introduction for these species prior to Sharp’s descriptions.
    [Show full text]
  • Crop Profile for Apples in California General Production
    Crop Profile for Apples in California General Production Information ● Apple production in California represents 8.5% of the national production (1). ● California has over 38,500 bearing acres of apples (1). ● Yield per acre varies from 2 to 18 tons per acre throughout California’s growing regions, primarily due to irrigation and varietal differences (13). ● From 1995 to 1997, California apple growers average production was 920,000,000 pounds. In 1997, 962,000,000 pounds of apples were produced (1). ● The average value of apples produced in the state between 1995 and 1997 was $158,918,000. The value of apples produced in 1997 was $162,655,000 (1). ● The average cost to produce an acre of apples in California amounts to $4,523 per acre for irrigated orchards and $3,947 per acre for non-irrigated orchards (11, 12). Production Regions There are five major regions in which apples are grown in California. Historically, apple production was limited to the coastal mountains north and south of San Francisco Bay, in the Sierra foothills east of Sacramento, and in the Southern California mountains. Recently apple production has expanded into the Central Valley, with new plantings of Granny Smith, Fuji, Gala, and other varieties. Important coastal apple producing counties are Sonoma in the North Coast, and Santa Cruz and San Luis Obispo in the Central Coast region. However the major apple production areas are now in the San Joaquin Valley with Kern, Fresno, San Joaquin, and Madera counties being the leading producers (3). Southern California mountain regions still have a few orchards.
    [Show full text]
  • Coccinellidae)
    ECOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUR OF THE LADYBIRD BEETLES (COCCINELLIDAE) Edited by I. Hodek, H.E van Emden and A. Honek ©WILEY-BLACKWELL A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication CONTENTS Detailed contents, ix 8. NATURAL ENEMIES OF LADYBIRD BEETLES, 375 Contributors, xvii Piotr Ccryngier. Helen E. Roy and Remy L. Poland Preface, xviii 9. COCCINELLIDS AND [ntroduction, xix SEMIOCHEMICALS, 444 ]an Pettcrsson Taxonomic glossary, xx 10. QUANTIFYING THE IMPACT OF 1. PHYLOGENY AND CLASSIFICATION, 1 COCCINELLIDS ON THEIR PREY, 465 Oldrich Nedved and Ivo Kovdf /. P. Mid'laud and James D. Harwood 2. GENETIC STUDIES, 13 11. COCCINELLIDS IN BIOLOGICAL John J. Sloggett and Alois Honek CONTROL, 488 /. P. Midland 3. LIFE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT, 54 12. RECENT PROGRESS AND POSSIBLE Oldrkli Nedved and Alois Honek FUTURE TRENDS IN THE STUDY OF COCCINELLIDAE, 520 4. DISTRIBUTION AND HABITATS, 110 Helmut /; van Emden and Ivo Hodek Alois Honek Appendix: List of Genera in Tribes and Subfamilies, 526 5. FOOD RELATIONSHIPS, 141 Ivo Hodek and Edward W. Evans Oldrich Nedved and Ivo Kovdf Subject index. 532 6. DIAPAUSE/DORMANCY, 275 Ivo Hodek Colour plate pages fall between pp. 250 and pp. 251 7. INTRAGUILD INTERACTIONS, 343 Eric Lucas VII DETAILED CONTENTS Contributors, xvii 1.4.9 Coccidulinae. 8 1.4.10 Scymninae. 9 Preface, xviii 1.5 Future Perspectives, 10 References. 10 Introduction, xix Taxonomic glossary, xx 2. GENETIC STUDIES, 13 John J. Sloggett and Alois Honek 1. PHYLOGENY AND CLASSIFICATION, 1 2.1 Introduction, 14 Oldrich Nedved and Ivo Kovdf 2.2 Genome Size. 14 1.1 Position of the Family. 2 2.3 Chromosomes and Cytology.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): Influence of Subelytral Ultrastructure
    Experimental & Applied Acarology, 23 (1999) 97–118 Review Phoresy by Hemisarcoptes (Acari: Hemisarcoptidae) on Chilocorus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): influence of subelytral ultrastructure M.A. Houck* Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409–3131, USA (Received 9 January 1997; accepted 17 April 1998) ABSTRACT The non-phoretic stages of mites of the genus Hemisarcoptes are predators of the family Diaspididae. The heteromorphic deutonymph (hypopus) maintains a stenoxenic relationship with beetles of the genus Chilocorus. The mites attach to the subelytral surface of the beetle elytron during transport. There is variation in mite density among species of Chilocorus. Both Hemisarcoptes and Chilocorus have been applied to biological control programmes around the world. The objective of this study was to determine whether subelytral ultrastructure (spine density) plays a role in the evolution of symbiosis between the mite and the beetle. The subelytral surfaces of 19 species of Chilocorus and 16 species of Exochomus were examined. Spine density was determined for five subelytral zones: the anterior pronotal margin, medial central region, caudoventral tip, lateral distal margin and epipleural region. Spine density on the subelytral surface of Chilocorus and Exochomus was inversely correlated with the size of the elytron for all zones except the caudoventral tip. This suggests that an increase in body size resulted in a redistribution of spines and not an addition of spines. The pattern of spine density in Exochomus and Chilocorus follows a single size–density trajectory. The pattern of subelytral ultrastructure is not strictly consistent with either beetle phylogeny or beetle allometry. The absence of spines is not correlated with either beetle genus or size and species of either Chilocorus or Exochomus may be devoid of spines in any zone, irrespective of body size.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Padil Species Factsheet Scientific Name: Common Name Image Library Partners for New Zealand Biosecurity Image Library
    1. PaDIL Species Factsheet Scientific Name: Harrisina sp. (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae: Procridinae) Common Name Moth Live link: http://www.padil.gov.au/maf-border/Pest/Main/141427 Image Library New Zealand Biosecurity Live link: http://www.padil.gov.au/maf-border/ Partners for New Zealand Biosecurity image library Landcare Research — Manaaki Whenua http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/ MPI (Ministry for Primary Industries) http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/ 2. Species Information 2.1. Details Specimen Contact: MAF Plant Health & Environment Laboratory - [email protected] Author: MAF Plant Health & Environment Laboratory Citation: MAF Plant Health & Environment Laboratory (2011) Moth(Harrisina sp.)Updated on 4/9/2014 Available online: PaDIL - http://www.padil.gov.au Image Use: Free for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY- NC 4.0) 2.2. URL Live link: http://www.padil.gov.au/maf-border/Pest/Main/141427 2.3. Facets Commodity Overview: Horticulture Commodity Type: Grapes Distribution: 0 Unknown Status: NZ - Exotic Groups: Moths Host Family: 0 Unknown Pest Status: 0 Unknown 2.4. Diagnostic Notes **Adult** Fore wings four times as long as wide, outer and inner margins equal; R, stalked, but R5 arising from cell, and widely separated from R2+3+4. Hind wing of less than half the area of the fore wing, with M1 and 3d A lost. Wings more heavily scaled than in other genera. **Larva** Bearing black tufts contrasting with the pale ground; social on grape. **References** - Forbes, W.T.M. (1923). Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states. _Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoirs_, 68: 1-729.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Zygaenoidea
    2019 Vol 3 (2) Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Zygaenoidea: Zygaenidae, Latreille 1809, Limacodidae, Moore 1879, Dalceridae Dyar, 1898 and Megalopygidae Herrich-Schäffer, 1855 Jon H. Shepard Paul C. Hammond Christopher J. Marshall Oregon State Arthropod Collection, Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR 97331 Cite this work, including the attached dataset, as: Shepard, J. H., P. C. Hammond, C. J. Marshall. 2019. Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Zygaenoidea: Zygaenidae, Latreille 1809, Limacodidae, Moore 1879, Dalceridae Dyar, 1898 and Megalopygidae Herrich-Schäffer, 1855. Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 3(2) (beta version). http://dx.doi.org/10.5399/osu/cat_osac.3.2.4593 Introduction These records were generated using funds from the LepNet project (Seltmann et. al., 2017) - a national effort to create digital records for North American Lepidoptera. The dataset published herein contains the label data for all North American specimens of Zygaenidae, Limacodidae, Dalceridae and Megalopygidae residing at the Oregon State Arthropod Collection as of March 2019. A beta version of these data records will be made available on the OSAC server (http://osac.oregonstate.edu/IPT) at the time of this publication. The beta version will be replaced in the near future with an official release (version 1.0), which will be archived as a supplemental file to this paper. Methods Basic digitization protocols and metadata standards can be found in (Shepard et al. 2018). Identifications were confirmed prior to determination by Jon Shepard and Paul Hammond using the online Digital Guide to Moth Identification website (Moth Photographers Group, 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Biological Control of Insects and Mites: a Worldwide Catalogue of Pathogen and Nematode Introductions
    United States Department of Agriculture Classical Biological Control of Insects and Mites: A Worldwide Catalogue of Pathogen and Nematode Introductions Forest Forest Health Technology FHTET-2016-06 Service Enterprise Team July 2016 The Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 by the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET Classical Biological Control of Insects and Mites: as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ A Worldwide Catalogue of The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information Pathogen and Nematode Introductions and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. ANN E. HAJEK Department of Entomology Cover Image Cornell University Dr. Vincent D’Amico, Research Entomologist, U.S. Forest Service, Urban Forestry Unit, NRS-08, Newark, Delaware. Ithaca, New York, USA Cover image represents a gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) larva silking down from the leaves of an oak (Quercus) tree and being exposed to a diversity of pathogens (a fungus, SANA GARDESCU a bacterium, a virus and a microsporidium) and a nematode that are being released by a Department of Entomology human hand for biological control (not drawn to scale). Cornell University Ithaca, New York, USA In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Modern Threats to the Lepidoptera Fauna in The
    MODERN THREATS TO THE LEPIDOPTERA FAUNA IN THE FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM By THOMSON PARIS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011 1 2011 Thomson Paris 2 To my mother and father who helped foster my love for butterflies 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank my family who have provided advice, support, and encouragement throughout this project. I especially thank my sister and brother for helping to feed and label larvae throughout the summer. Second, I thank Hillary Burgess and Fairchild Tropical Gardens, Dr. Jonathan Crane and the University of Florida Tropical Research and Education center Homestead, FL, Elizabeth Golden and Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park, Leroy Rogers and South Florida Water Management, Marshall and Keith at Mack’s Fish Camp, Susan Casey and Casey’s Corner Nursery, and Michael and EWM Realtors Inc. for giving me access to collect larvae on their land and for their advice and assistance. Third, I thank Ryan Fessendon and Lary Reeves for helping to locate sites to collect larvae and for assisting me to collect larvae. I thank Dr. Marc Minno, Dr. Roxanne Connely, Dr. Charles Covell, Dr. Jaret Daniels for sharing their knowledge, advice, and ideas concerning this project. Fourth, I thank my committee, which included Drs. Thomas Emmel and James Nation, who provided guidance and encouragement throughout my project. Finally, I am grateful to the Chair of my committee and my major advisor, Dr. Andrei Sourakov, for his invaluable counsel, and for serving as a model of excellence of what it means to be a scientist.
    [Show full text]
  • Hedgerows Enhance Beneficial Insects on Adjacent Tomato Fields In
    Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 189 (2014) 164–170 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee Hedgerows enhance beneficial insects on adjacent tomato fields in an intensive agricultural landscape a,∗ b a Lora A. Morandin , Rachael F. Long , Claire Kremen a Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, 130 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA b Agriculture and Natural Resources, Cooperative Extension Yolo County, University of California, 70 Cottonwood Street, Woodland, CA 95695, USA a r a t i b s c t l e i n f o r a c t Article history: Within-farm habitat enhancements such as hedgerows could aid pest control in adjacent crops; how- Received 10 June 2013 ever, there is little information on whether small-scale restoration impacts pests and natural enemies, Received in revised form 14 March 2014 and crop damage, and how far effects may extend into fields. We compared restored, California native Accepted 15 March 2014 perennial hedgerows to unenhanced field edges consisting of commonly occurring semi-managed, non- native weeds. Pest and natural enemy communities were assessed in both edge types and into adjacent Keywords: processing tomato fields. Using sentinel pest eggs, pest control was quantified, and pest pressure and crop Agriculture damage was compared between field types. Economically-important pests were fewer and parasitoid Pest control wasps were more abundant in hedgerows than weedy crop edges. There was no difference in preda- Natural enemies Restoration tory arthropod abundance between edge types, but there was greater predator richness in hedgerow Conservation biological control than weedy edges.
    [Show full text]