DOCSLIB.ORG

Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a Cooperative Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a Cooperative Approach Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Risk Assessments and Risk Comparison Volume IV of IV Appendixes J-M United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Newtown Square, PA NA-MR-01-08 June 2008 Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement The complete Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach, consists of four volumes: Volume I Summary Volume II Chapters 1-8 and Appendixes A, B, C, D, E Volume III Appendixes F, G, H, I Volume IV Appendixes J, K, L, M Lead Agency: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Responsible Official: James R. Hubbard, Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry Sidney R. Yates Federal Building 201 14th Street, SW Washington, DC 20250 For More Information: Bill Oldland, SEIS Team Leader 180 Canfield Street Morgantown, WV 26505 Joint Lead Agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USDA Responsible Official: Richard L. Dunkle, Deputy Administrator for Plant Protection and Quarantine 4700 River Road Riverdale, MD 20737-1236 For More Information: Weyman P. Fussell, Ph.D., Gypsy Moth Program Coordinator Emergency and Domestic Programs, APHIS 4700 River Road, Unit 134 Riverdale, MD 20737-1236 Abstract: The USDA Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are proposing an addition to the gypsy moth management program that was described in the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement--Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach--and chosen in the 1996 Record of Decision. The agencies are proposing these new treatment options: adding the insecticide tebufenozide, or adding the insecticide tebufenozide and other new treatment(s) that may become available in the future to manage gypsy moths, provided that the other treatment(s) poses no greater risk to human health and nontarget organisms than are disclosed in this Draft SEIS for the currently approved treatments and tebufenozide. Commenting on this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of this draft supplemental environmental impact statement. Timely comments will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to all of the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final supplemental environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision making process. Furthermore, the more specific and substantive the comments, the better for reviewers and the agencies alike. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer’s position and contentions (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553, 1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may therefore be forfeited, if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement (Department ofT ransportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764 (2004). Comments on this draft supplemental environmental impact statement should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). Web Site for Draft SEIS: The Draft SEIS is available for viewing at www.na.fs.fed.us/wv/eis Send Comments to: Bill Oldland, SEIS Team Leader USDA Forest Service 180 Canfield Street Morgantown, WV 26505 304-285-1585 Date Comments Must Be Received: See cover letter for the date that comments are due in Morgantown, WV. Contents Appendix J. Tebufenozide Risk Assessment Appendix K. DDVP (Dichlorvos) Risk Assessment Appendix L. Gypsy Moth Risk Assessment Appendix M. Risk Comparison Figures Figure J-1. DDT was applied using airplanes in the early years of gypsy moth control programs. Figure K-1. A sprayer unit mounted on a Model A Ford truck was used for gypsy moth control. Figure L-1. Gypsy moth caterpillars cluster at the base of a banded tree (Arlington, Virginia, 1905). Figure M-1. Ropes were used to climb trees, to treat them for gypsy moths in the 1930s. Photo Credits Figure J-1. (UGA1275035) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure K-1. (UGA1275022) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure L-1. (UGA1275074) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Figure M-1. (UGA1275057) USDA Forest Service Archives, www.forestryimages.org Appendix J Tebufenozide Risk Assessment Figure J-1. DDT was applied using airplanes in the early years of gypsy moth control programs. SERA TR 04-43-05-06c Control/Eradication Agents for the Gypsy Moth - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Tebufenozide (Mimic) Final Report Prepared for: USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0082F USDA Forest Service BPA: WO-01-3187-0150 Requisition No.: 43-3187-1-0269 Task No. 5 Submitted to: Dave Thomas, COTR Forest Health Protection Staff USDA Forest Service Rosslyn Plaza Building C, Room 7129C 1601 North Kent Street Arlington, VA 22209 Prepared by: Patrick R. Durkin and Julie Klotzbach Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Telephone: (315) 637-9560 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com August 8, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................ii LIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................vi LIST OF TABLES...........................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................vi LIST OF WORKSHEETS.....................................................vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS . vii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS . ix CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION .................................... x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................... xi 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................... 1-1 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................ 2-1 2.1. OVERVIEW ..................................................... 2-1 2.2. CHEMICAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMERCIAL FORMULATIONS . 2-1 2.3. APPLICATION METHODS......................................... 2-2 2.4. MIXING AND APPLICATION RATES................................ 2-3 2.5. USE STATISTICS................................................. 2-4 3. HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................... 3-1 3.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ....................................... 3-1 3.1.1. Overview. ................................................ 3-1 3.1.2. Mechanism of Action........................................ 3-1 3.1.3. Kinetics and Metabolism..................................... 3-1 3.1.3.1. Pharmacokinetic Studies.............. ..... 3-2 3.1.32. Dermal Absorption Rates.......................... 3-2 3.1.4. Acute Oral Toxicity......................................... 3-3 3.1.5. Subchronic or Chronic Systemic Toxic Effects. 3-3 3.1.6. Effects on Nervous System. .................................. 3-4 3.1.7. Effects on Immune System. .................................. 3-4 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 3.1.8. Effects on Endocrine System.................................. 3-5 3.1.9. Reproductive and Teratogenic Effects. 3-6 3.1.10. Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity. 3-6 3.1.11. Irritation and Sensitization (Effects on the Skin and Eyes). 3-7 3.1.12. Systemic Toxic Effects from Dermal Exposure. 3-7 3.1.13. Inhalation Exposure........................................ 3-8 3.1.14. Inerts and Adjuvants. ...................................... 3-8 3.1.15. Impurities and Metabolites................................... 3-9 3.1.16. Toxicologic Interactions. ................................... 3-9 3.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ....................................... 3-10 3.2.1. Overview. ............................................... 3-10 3.2.2. Workers................................................. 3-10 3.2.2.1. General Exposures................................. 3-11 3.2.2.2. Accidental Exposures............................... 3-12 3.2.3. General Public............................................ 3-14 3.2.3.1. General Considerations . 3-14 3.2.3.2. Direct Spray...................................... 3-14 3.2.3.3. Dermal Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation . 3-14 3.2.3.4. Contaminated Water ............................... 3-15 3.2.3.4.1. Accidental Spill..................... 3-15 3.2.3.4.2. Accidental Direct Spray .................... 3-15 3.2.3.5. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Fish . 3-19 3.2.3.6. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation . 3-20 3.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT.................................. 3-23 3.3.1. Overview................................................ 3-23 3.3.2. Chronic RfD............................................. 3-23 3.3.3. Acute RfD............................................... 3-24 3.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION...................................... 3-26 3.4.1. Overview................................................ 3-26 3.4.2. Workers................................................. 3-26 3.4.3. General Public............................................ 3-27 3.4.4. Sensitive Subgroups........................................ 3-28 3.4.5. Connected Actions........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [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]
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
    [Show full text]
  • Manual for Certificate Course on Plant Protection & Pesticide Management
    Manual for Certificate Course on Plant Protection & Pesticide Management (for Pesticide Dealers) For Internal circulation only & has no legal validity Compiled by NIPHM Faculty Department of Agriculture , Cooperation& Farmers Welfare Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Government of India National Institute of Plant Health Management Hyderabad-500030 TABLE OF CONTENTS Theory Practical CHAPTER Page No. class hours hours I. General Overview and Classification of Pesticides. 1. Introduction to classification based on use, 1 1 2 toxicity, chemistry 2. Insecticides 5 1 0 3. fungicides 9 1 0 4. Herbicides & Plant growth regulators 11 1 0 5. Other Pesticides (Acaricides, Nematicides & 16 1 0 rodenticides) II. Pesticide Act, Rules and Regulations 1. Introduction to Insecticide Act, 1968 and 19 1 0 Insecticide rules, 1971 2. Registration and Licensing of pesticides 23 1 0 3. Insecticide Inspector 26 2 0 4. Insecticide Analyst 30 1 4 5. Importance of packaging and labelling 35 1 0 6. Role and Responsibilities of Pesticide Dealer 37 1 0 under IA,1968 III. Pesticide Application A. Pesticide Formulation 1. Types of pesticide Formulations 39 3 8 2. Approved uses and Compatibility of pesticides 47 1 0 B. Usage Recommendation 1. Major pest and diseases of crops: identification 50 3 3 2. Principles and Strategies of Integrated Pest 80 2 1 Management & The Concept of Economic Threshold Level 3. Biological control and its Importance in Pest 93 1 2 Management C. Pesticide Application 1. Principles of Pesticide Application 117 1 0 2. Types of Sprayers and Dusters 121 1 4 3. Spray Nozzles and Their Classification 130 1 0 4.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats a Symposium
    Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats A Symposium y Edited b Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-145 DISCLAIMER The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. Papers published in these proceedings were submitted by authors in electronic media. Some editing was done to ensure a consistent format. Authors are responsible for content and accuracy of their individual papers and the quality of illustrative materials. Cover photos: Large photo: Craig W. Stihler; small left photo: Joseph S. Johnson; small middle photo: Craig W. Stihler; small right photo: Matthew J. Clement. December 2011 Southern Research Station 200 W.T. Weaver Blvd. Asheville, NC 28804 Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats: A Symposium Athens, Georgia March 9–10, 2010 Edited by: Susan C. Loeb U.S Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station Michael J. Lacki University of Kentucky Darren A. Miller Weyerhaeuser NR Company Sponsored by: Forest Service Bat Conservation International National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Offield Family Foundation ContEntS Preface . v Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats: An Introduction . 1 Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller Distribution and Status of Eastern Big-eared Bats (Corynorhinus Spp .) . 13 Mylea L. Bayless, Mary Kay Clark, Richard C. Stark, Barbara S.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Flower Thrips Management on Greenhouse-Grown Crops
    Western Flower Thrips Management on Greenhouse-Grown Crops Greenhouse producers worldwide are familiar with the Eggs hatch in two to four days. Nymphs feed on both western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), leaves and flowers. The first nymphal stage lasts one to one of the most destructive insect pests of greenhouse- two days; the second nymphal stage, two to four days. grown crops. Western flower thrips, the primary thrips Second instar nymphs are typically more active and tend species encountered by greenhouse producers, is extremely to feed more than first instar nymphs. The second instar polyphagous, feeding on a wide-variety of horticultural nymph eventually migrates to the plant base and enters crops grown in both commercial and research greenhouses. the growing medium to pupate. Western flower thrips also This insect pest has been included in greenhouse pest pupate in leaf debris, on the plant, and in the open flowers control brochures since 1949. It was not considered a of certain types of plants including chrysanthemum. There major insect pest of greenhouse-grown crops until the are actually two “pupal” stages: a prepupa (or propupa) and 1980s. This publication addresses biology and damage; pupa. Both stages commonly occur in growing medium or scouting; and cultural, physical, insecticidal, and biological soil underneath benches. management. The issues discussed should provide insight Growing medium or soil type and pH and pupation depth on the importance of dealing with western flower thrips may influence pupal survival. Pupation depth depends on holistically instead of solely relying on insecticides. growing medium or soil type. Pupae stages do not feed Biology and Feeding Damage and are tolerant or immune to most insecticides commonly Knowledge of biology and damage is important in applied to manage western flower thrips nymphs and understanding the challenges associated with developing adults.
    [Show full text]
  • Prairie Ridge Species Checklist 2018
    Prairie Ridge Species Checklist Genus species Common Name Snails Philomycus carolinianus Carolina Mantleslug Gastrocopta contracta Bottleneck Snaggletooth Glyphalinia wheatleyi Bright Glyph Triodopsis hopetonensis Magnolia Threetooth Triodopsis juxtidens Atlantic Threetooth Triodopsis fallax Mimic Threetooth Ventridens cerinoideus Wax Dome Ventridens gularis Throaty Dome Anguispira fergusoni Tiger Snail Zonitoides arboreus Quick Gloss Deroceras reticulatum Gray Garden Slug Mesodon thyroidus White-lip Globe Slug Stenotrema stenotrema Inland Stiltmouth Melanoides tuberculatus Red-rim Melania Spiders Argiope aurantia Garden Spider Peucetia viridans Green Lynx Spider Phidippus putnami Jumping Spider Phidippus audax Jumping Spider Phidippus otiosus Jumping Spider Centipedes Hemiscolopendra marginata Scolopocryptops sexspinosus Scutigera coleoptrata Geophilomorpha Millipedes Pseudopolydesmus serratus Narceus americanus Oxidus gracilis Greenhouse Millipede Polydesmidae Crayfishes Cambarus “acuminatus complex” (= “species C”) Cambarus (Depressicambarus) latimanus Cambarus (Puncticambarus) (="species C) Damselflies Calopteryx maculata Ebony Jewelwing Lestes australis Southern Spreadwing Lestes rectangularis Slender Spreadwing Lestes vigilax Swamp Spreadwing Lestes inaequalis Elegant Spreadwing Enallagma doubledayi Atlantic Bluet Enallagma civile Familiar Bluet Enallagma aspersum Azure Bluet Enallagma exsulans Stream Bluet Enallegma signatum Orange Bluet Ischnura verticalis Eastern Forktail Ischnura posita Fragile Forktail Ischnura hastata Citrine
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Single and Combined Toxicity of Chlorantraniliprole And
    toxins Article Assessing the Single and Combined Toxicity of Chlorantraniliprole and Bacillus thuringiensis (GO33A) against Four Selected Strains of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), and a Gene Expression Analysis Muhammad Zeeshan Shabbir 1,2, Ling He 1,2, Changlong Shu 3, Fei Yin 1,2, Jie Zhang 3 and Zhen-Yu Li 1,2,* 1 Institute of Plant Protection, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China; [email protected] (M.Z.S.); [email protected] (L.H.); [email protected] (F.Y.) 2 Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of High Technology for Plant Protection, Guangzhou 510640, China 3 State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100094, China; [email protected] (C.S.); [email protected] (J.Z.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Concerns about resistance development to conventional insecticides in diamondback moth (DBM) Plutella xylostella (L.), the most destructive pest of Brassica vegetables, have stimulated interest in alternative pest management strategies. The toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. aizawai (Bt GO33A) combined with chlorantraniliprole (Chl) has not been documented. Here, we examined sin- gle and combined toxicity of chlorantraniliprole and Bt to assess the levels of resistance in four DBM strains. Additionally, enzyme activities were tested in field-original highly resistant (FOH-DBM), Bt-resistant (Bt-DBM), chlorantraniliprole-resistant (CL-DBM), and Bt + chlorantraniliprole-resistant (BtC-DBM) strains. The Bt product had the highest toxicity to all four DBM strains followed by the Citation: Shabbir, M.Z.; He, L.; Shu, mixture of insecticides (Bt + Chl) and chlorantraniliprole.
    [Show full text]
  • POPULATION GENETIC CONSEQUENCES of FEEDING HABITS in SOME FOREST LEPIDOPTERA Paper Is an Attempt to Test the Applicability to Al
    POPULATION GENETIC CONSEQUENCES OF FEEDING HABITS IN SOME FOREST LEPIDOPTERA CHARLES MITTER1 .~NDDOUGLAS J. FUTUYMA Department of Ecology and Evolution, State Uniuersity of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794 Manuscript received December 27, 1977 Revised copy received December 5, 1978 ABSTRACT By surveying variation at allozyme loci in several phytophagous lepidopteran species (Geometridae), we have tested two hypotheses about the relationship of genetic variation to environmental heterogeneity: (1) that allozyme polymorphisms may exist because of associations between genotypes and “niches” (different host plants, in this instance), and (2) that the overall genetic variation of a species is correlated with environmental heterogeneity (or breadth of the species’ overall ecological niche) .-Genetic differentiation among samples of oligophagous or polyphagous species taken from different host species was observed in one of three species, at only one of seven poly- morphic loci. The data thus provide no evidence for pronounced genetic sub- structuring, or “host race” formation in these sexually reproducing species, although host plant-genotype associations in a parthenogenetic moth give evi- dence of the potential for diversifying selection.-In a comparison of allo- zyme variation in polyphagous (“generalized”) and oligophagous (“spe- cialized”) species, heterozygosity appeared to be higher in specialized species, at all polymorphic loci but one. It is possible that this unexpected result arises from a functional relation between breadth of diet and genetic variation. paper is an attempt to test the applicability to allozyme loci of two TFgotheses about the relationship of genetic variation to environmental heterogeneity. The first hypothesis is that polymorphism may exist because different indi- viduals in a population encounter or select different states of the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Hazardous Materials List
    Hazardous Materials List Version: 1.12.2016 v 1.4 All agrochemicals, especially pesticides, can be potentially hazardous in some form or other to human and animal health as well as to the environment and therefore should be used only under caution. Fairtrade International recommends the use of other methods like proper choice of crops and varieties, suitable cultivation practices and biological material for pest, before a chemical pesticide is used for pest control. The Hazardous Materials List (HML) is divided in three lists: the Red List, the Orange List and the Yellow List. Red List: The Red List is a ‘prohibited’ list and includes materials that must not be used on Fairtrade products. Orange List: The Orange List is a ‘restricted’ List and includes materials that may be used under conditions specified in this document thus restricting their use. The use of materials in this list will be monitored by Fairtrade International. Operators should be aware that some of these materials are to be phased out by 30 June 2020 or by 30 June 2022 as indicated in the list. The other materials in the list may eventually be prohibited and are encouraged to abandon their use. Yellow List: The Yellow List is a ‘flagged’ list and includes materials which are flagged for being hazardous and should be used under extreme caution. Fairtrade International will be monitoring the classification of these materials by international bodies like PAN, WHO and FAO, and materials may be prohibited in the future. Operators are encouraged to abandon their use. Classification of materials in the HML The Hazardous Materials List includes materials that are identified as Highly Hazardous as defined in the Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management adopted by FAO and WHO in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • (Lepidoptera) from a Location Near Marmaris in South-Western Anatolia, Turkey
    Esperiana Band 19: 263-296 Bad Staffelstein; 26. November 2014 ISBN 978-3-938249-06-2 Collection records of Noctuoidea and Bombycoidea (Lepidoptera) from a Location near Marmaris in South-Western Anatolia, Turkey Thomas BARON Key Words: Lepidoptera, Noctuoidea, Bombycoidea, Western Anatolia, Turkey Stichworte: Lepidoptera, Noctuoidea, Bombycoidea, Westanatolien, Türkei Deutsche Zusammenfassung Der Artikel fasst die Fangergebnisse des Autors in Turunç zusammen, einem kleinen Urlaubsort am Mittelmeer nahe Mar- maris in der Südwesttürkei. Gegenstand der Untersuchung sind die taxonomischen Gruppen Noctuoidea, Bombycoidea, Drepanoidea und Axioidea. Die Fänge erfolgten überwiegend am Licht. Diese Region der Türkei ist trotz leichter Erreichbarkeit erstaunlich schlecht erforscht. Es gibt für die Provinz Mugla bisher fast keine Daten für Nachtfalterfänge. Die Untersuchung fand über alle Jahreszeiten und an insgesamt 456 Tagen statt. Es wurde anhand der insgesamt über 4400 registrierten Individuen eine grobe Klassifizierung der Häufigkeit vorgenommen. Insgesamt konnten 168 Arten festgestellt werden. Die Zahl von Arten, die trotz derart langer Anstrengungen nur einmal festgestellt wurden, ist mit 25 relativ hoch. Es daher zu erwarten, dass einige weitere hier nicht aufgeführte Arten vorkommen. Für eine Reihe der festgestellten Spezies existieren bisher nur wenige Nachweise aus der Türkei. Eine Art ist neu für das Land. Weiterhin kann bei einigen nahverwandten Arten ein Beitrag zur Klärung von Verbreitungsgrenzen geleistet werden, die z.T. gerade in Kleinasien unklar sind. Durch das vor allem in Sommer extrem heisse und trockene Klima und den milden Winter fliegen einige Arten früher als bekannt. Viele hingegen fliegen später in den Herbst und Winter hinein, so dass eine ganze Reihe von in der Literatur nicht bekannten Flugzeiten aufgezeigt werden kann.
    [Show full text]