DOCSLIB.ORG

Insect Enemies of Birch

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Insect Enemies of Birch INSECT ENEMIES OF BIRCH by JAMES G. CONKLIN, Chairman, Department of Entomology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, N.H. ATIVE BIRCHES are subject to attack were killed in plots in the open or under N by insects at all stages of growth from partial canopy. Godman and Krefting (1960) the germinating seedling to the mature found that insects caused little damage to tree. All parts of the tree - roots, stem, yellow birch in upper Michigan. Graham and branches, foliage, and even the developing and Knight ( 1965) caution against too com­ seed - may be utilized as feeding sites by placent an attitude toward insect pests of insects of one kind or another. seedlings but indicate that applied control An enumeration of the many insects re­ measures are rarely necessary except in forest corded in the literature as feeders on birch nurseries. might be impressive in numbers but would Beyond the seedling stage, the birches­ contribute little to this symposium. Rather, it in common with other hardwoods-are fed would seem more appropriate to consider a upon by an almost endless variety of insects. few representative kinds of insects that are By far the great majority occurring on yellow responsible for particular types of injury, to or paper birch are scarcely known outside the indicate their relative importance and the field of taxonomy. Some, because of their fre­ need for control. quent occurrence in outbreak form or because Much of the literature dealing with insect of obviously destructive feeding habits, have damage to tree seedlings emphasizes damage long occupied the attention of workers in to conifers, and especially to seedlings in forest entomology and timber improvement. forest nurseries. Insect damage to seedling Root-feeding insects ordinarily cause little hardwoods appears to have attracted relatively damage to birch saplings or to the older little attention on the part of research workers trees. The extensive root system is able to up to the present. tolerate without serious effect the feeding of Under natural conditions birch seedlings the relatively limited population of under­ may be destroyed by such root-feeding insects ground insects. as white grubs, weevil larvae, and wireworms, The birch canopy provides a particularly or by above-ground feeders such as cutworms attractive feeding ground for a large array or miscellaneous other stem or leaf feeders. of insects. Some, having a piercing beak or At this early stage of growth a seedling may proboscis, suck the sap from the leaves. be killed by the activity of a single insect, Others, having mandibulate mouth parts, but insect damage to birch seedlings is rarely mine within the leaf tissues, or devour the reported. This may be accounted for by the entire leaf structure. fact that the suspect insects normally occur in The sap-sucking relatively small numbers under forest condi­ insects belong to two major groups, tions and have limited mobility during their the Hemiptera and the Homop­ tera. The Hemiptera larval feeding stages, or it may be that the are represented especially by the lace bugs (Tingidae) loss of a small percentage of seedlings is more and the plant or Jess taken for granted. bugs (Miridae) . A number of species of lace bugs are known to feed on birch. They some­ Linteau (1948) found that insects were times occur in great numbers, and because of responsible for a mortality of about 9 percent their sedentary habits are readily observed. of yellow birch seedlings. Nearly all of the The young nymphs feed on the underside of injury was attributed to the spring canker­ the leaves, the adults on either surface. Al­ worm, Paleacrita vernata (Peck), and occurred though they will feed on trees of all sizes, under conditions of full canopy. No seedlings they seem to prefer saplings and pole-sized 151 trees (Graham and Knight 1965). Drake growth is not likely to become evident until ( 1922) studied the birch tingid Corythuca the following year. pallipes Parshley in the Cranberry Lake area At least three species of leaf-mining saw­ in New York, and concluded that it was the flies occur commonly on birch. Probably the most injurious leaf feeder on yellow birch in most widely observed is Fenusa pusilla (Lep.). that vicinity. Year after year this species is likely to be It prefers gray Little information is available on the mirid abundant over wide areas. white birch plant bugs that feed on birch. So far as birch, although it does attack within the known they overwinter as adults and lay their also. The birch leaf miner appears may eggs in the leaf veins or stems. Under forest first expanding leaves in the spring and in some areas, conditions the plant bugs occur in relatively have two grenerations and, biology small numbers and are not considered to be three complete generations a year. The detail by Friend important pests of trees. of this species was reported in ( 1927, 1933). The leafhoppers that occur on birches have The birch leaf-mining sawfly Heterarthrus attracted only a limited amount of research memoratus (Fallen) shows a preference for attention even though certain species are paper birch. In severely infested trees there sometimes numerous over wide areas. Varty may be noticeable killing of top branches, (1963, 1964) indicated that the species feed­ annual growth is reduced, and the quality of ing on birch occur chiefly in the genera the wood may be inferior (Craighead 1950). Oncopsis and Eryth1·oneura. The biologies and The species has a single generation annually, host-relationships of the leafhoppers of forest but because it is parthenogenetic it is capable trees warrant careful study since a number of of rapidly developing very large populations. species belonging to that family are known vectors of important plant diseases. A third species, Profenusa thomsoni (Konow), prefers paper and yellow birch. aphids often appear on Foliage-infesting In the past it has been confused with other extensive areas and in great birches over species found on birch. Recent studies by of species as well as abundance. In variety Martin (1960) show that the adults begin to they are the dominant group of individuals appear about the middle of July, and larval insects. Birch aphids do not kill sap-sucking feeding is most evident in August and Sep­ and Knight 1965) and trees directly (Graham tember. Males are unknown, indicating that in a given locality may fluctu­ their abundance the species is parthenogenetic. Martin con­ year to year. Under conditions ate greatly from sidered that this sawfly causes little or no populations they interfere of heavy aphid noticeable injury to birch because of the late­ the normal functioning of the foliage and with ness of the larval feeding period. thus weaken the trees. The typical defoliators are the insects that Investigations of birch aphids, largely of a devour the entire leaf, or most of it. The survey nature, have been carried on in the more important kinds on birch are the larvae Maritime provinces of New Brunswick by of Lepidoptera, such as the forest tent cater­ Varty (1 963, 1964) and in Quebec by Qued­ pillar, Malacosoma disstria Hbn., and the nau (1966). saddled prominent, Heterocampa guttivitta and Among the chewing insects of birch foliage (Walk.). The larvae of certain sawflies, leaf the birch skeletonizer, Bttcmlatrix canadensi­ certain Coleoptera, mostly chrysomelid numer­ sella Chambers, periodically appears over ex­ beetles and their larvae, are sometimes tensive areas in outbreak numbers, causing ous enough to cause noticeable defoliation. complete defoliation (Simpson 1932). The The forest tent caterpillar is perhaps the tiny moths are most numerous in July, and the best known and most important of the defolia­ young larvae start off as miners within the tors attacking birch, even though its most leaf. After 3 or 4 weeks they emerge from spectacular outbreaks are ordinarily associated their mines and after molting feed for another with other hardwoods (Anderson 1944, Craig­ 3 or 4 weeks on the underside of the leaves head 1950, Graham and Knight 1965, Red­ as skeletonizers, eating only the softer leaf mond 1957 ). Studies in Minnesota by Hodson tissues. Since defoliation by this species occurs (1941) and in Ontario by Sippel! late in the growing season, its effect on {1962) indicate that major outbreaks have 152 occurred in the past about every 10 years, but attention on the bronze birch borer, which was the interval is not consistent. The last major then appearing in unprecedented numbers in outbreak in New Hampshire occurred over the affected stands. The fact that many young 30 years ago. birches were being attacked by the borer led to some speculation as to whether the insect Barter and Cameron ( 1955) studied the was solely responsible for death of the trees. effects of forest tent caterpillar defoliation on aspen and paper birch. They found that radial Early studies of the dieback problem by growth in paper birch was reduced 22, 68, Balch and Prebble (1940) indicated that in and 86 percent compared with 23, 87, and 52 some areas previous defoliation of birch stands percent defoliation in the 3 consecutive years in 1927 and 1928 had weakened the trees, of the outbreak. Growth retardation following thus favoring an increase in borer activity. defoliation was more pronounced on birch Haw bolt and Skolko ( 1948) noted that many than on aspen even though defoliation of yellow birches were already in advanced stages birch was less and occurred later in the sea­ of decline without having been attacked by son. They reported that 21 percent of the the borer. The findings of these and other birch had died since the start of the outbreak, investigators of the problem were reviewed by largely as a result of bronze birch borer attaak Redmond ( 195 7).
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]
  • Influences of Trees on Abundance of Natural Enemies of Insect Pests: a Review*
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Agronomy & Horticulture -- Faculty Publications Agronomy and Horticulture Department 1995 Influences of rT ees on Abundance of Natural Enemies of Insect Pests: A Review Mary Ellen Dix United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service R. J. Johnson University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Mark O. Harrell University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Ronald M. Case University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Robert J. Wright University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agronomyfacpub Part of the Plant Sciences Commons Dix, Mary Ellen; Johnson, R. J.; Harrell, Mark O.; Case, Ronald M.; Wright, Robert J.; Hodges, Laurie; Brandle, James R.; Schoeneberger, Michelle M.; Sunderman, N. J.; Fitzmaurice, R. L.; Young, Linda J.; and Hubbard, Kenneth G., "Influences of rT ees on Abundance of Natural Enemies of Insect Pests: A Review" (1995). Agronomy & Horticulture -- Faculty Publications. 412. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agronomyfacpub/412 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agronomy and Horticulture Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Agronomy & Horticulture -- Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Mary Ellen Dix, R. J. Johnson, Mark O. Harrell, Ronald M. Case, Robert J. Wright, Laurie Hodges, James R. Brandle, Michelle M. Schoeneberger, N. J. Sunderman, R. L. Fitzmaurice, Linda J. Young, and Kenneth G. Hubbard This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ agronomyfacpub/412 Dix, Johnson, Harrell, Case, Wright, Hodges, Brandle, Schoenberger, Sunderman, Fitzmaurice, Young & Hubbard in Agroforestry Systems 29 (1995) Agroforestry Systems 29: 303-311, 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletins the Roosevelt Wild Life Station
    SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry Digital Commons @ ESF Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletins The Roosevelt Wild Life Station 1926 Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletin Charles C. Adams SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.esf.edu/rwlsbulletin Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Adams, Charles C., "Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletin" (1926). Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletins. 23. https://digitalcommons.esf.edu/rwlsbulletin/23 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the The Roosevelt Wild Life Station at Digital Commons @ ESF. It has been accepted for inclusion in Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletins by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ ESF. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. VOLUME 4 OCTOBER, 1926 NUMBER 1 Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletin OF THE Roosevelt Wild Life Forest Experiment Station OF The New York State College of Forestry AT Syracuse University RELATION OF BIRDS TO WOODLOTS CONTENTS OF ROOSEVELT WILD LIFE BULLETIN (To obtain these publications see announcement on back of title page.) Roosevelt Wild Life Bulletin, Vol. i, No. i. December, 192 1. 1. Foreword Dr. George Bird Grinnell. 2. Roosevelt Wild Life State Memorial Dr. Charles C. Adams. 3. Appropriateness and Appreciation of the Roosevelt Wild Life Memorial Dr. Charles C. Adams. 4. Suggestions for Research on North American Big Game and Fur- Bearing Animals Dr. Charles C. Adams. 5. Theodore Roosevelt Sir Harry H. Johnston. 6. Roosevelt's Part in Forestry Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Cankerworms Marion S
    Published by Utah State University Extension and Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory ENT-119-08 March 2020 Cankerworms Marion S. Murray Erin W. Hodgson IPM Project Leader Extension Entomology Specialist What You Should Know • Both spring and fall cankerworms occur sporadically in Utah, typically on a five to seven year cycle. • Larvae feed for six weeks in the spring and cause heavy defoliation in outbreak years. • Treatment is often not warranted for most years; however, using Bacillus thuringiensis or spinosad before larvae exceed 1/2 inch is an effective control option. ankerworms, also known as inchworms, are in 2 the order Lepidoptera and family Geometridae. Fig. 2. Fall cankerworm feeding damage. CGeometrid moth adults have slender bodies and relatively large, broad forewings (Figs. 1, 3). Both Hosts and Life Cycle fall, Alsophila pometaria, and spring, Paleacrita vernata, cankerworms occur in Utah, with the fall cankerworm Fall and spring cankerworm larvae feed on a wide being most common. Insect outbreaks are periodic variety of hardwood tree foliage including apple, ash, and concentrated in urban areas or near deciduous red and white oaks, maple (including boxelder), elm, woodlands, and can cause complete defoliation of cherry, linden, and honeylocust (Fig. 2). trees in early spring. Both cankerworm species are native to deciduous forests of North America, and Cankerworms have one generation per year. Eggs have many natural enemies that regulate outbreak hatch in early spring soon after bud break (about populations. Typically, the cankerworm population will 148-290 degree days after January 1, at 50˚F lower increase to an upper limit where it will remain for 2 to 3 developmental threshold).
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Forest Service MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
    Maine Forest Service ● MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FALL CANKERWORM Alsophila pometaria (Harris) Insect and Disease Laboratory ● 168 State House Station ● 50 Hospital Street ● Augusta, Maine ● 04333­0168 Damage This important pest of forest and shade trees occurs generally throughout most of Northeastern America where it feeds on a variety of hardwoods. Damage is first noticed in early May when feeding by the tiny larvae known as "cankerworms," "loopers," "inchworms" or "measuring worms" on the opening buds and expanding leaves causes the foliage to be skeletonized. Later as the larvae mature all but the midrib (and veins) of leaves are devoured. Occasional outbreaks of this pest in Maine have caused severe defoliation of oak and elm. The outbreaks are most often localized and usually last three to four years before natural control factors cause the population to collapse. Trees subjected to two or more years of heavy defoliation may be seriously damaged, especially weaker trees or trees growing on poor sites. Hosts Its preferred hosts are oak, elm and apple, but it also occurs on maple, beech, ash, poplar, box elder, basswood, and cherry. Description and Habits The wingless, greyish­brown female cankerworm moths emerge from the duff with the onset of cold weather in October and November and crawl up the tree trunks. The male moth is greyish­brown with a one inch wing span. Males can often be seen flitting through infested stands during the day or warmer nights during hunting season. The females are not often seen. Females deposit their eggs in single­layered compact masses of 100 or more on the bark of smaller branches and twigs of trees often high in the crown from October to early December.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs
    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Habitat and Bat Activity on Moth Community Composition and Seasonal Phenology Across Habitat Types
    INFLUENCE OF HABITAT AND BAT ACTIVITY ON MOTH COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND SEASONAL PHENOLOGY ACROSS HABITAT TYPES BY MATTHEW SAFFORD THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Entomology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2018 Urbana, Illinois Advisor: Assistant Professor Alexandra Harmon-Threatt, Chair and Director of Research ABSTRACT Understanding the factors that influence moth diversity and abundance is important for monitoring moth biodiversity and developing conservation strategies. Studies of moth habitat use have primarily focused on access to host plants used by specific moth species. How vegetation structure influences moth communities within and between habitats and mediates the activity of insectivorous bats is understudied. Previous research into the impact of bat activity on moths has primarily focused on interactions in a single habitat type or a single moth species of interest, leaving a large knowledge gap on how habitat structure and bat activity influence the composition of moth communities across habitat types. I conducted monthly surveys at sites in two habitat types, restoration prairie and forest. Moths were collected using black light bucket traps and identified to species. Bat echolocation calls were recorded using ultrasonic detectors and classified into phonic groups to understand how moth community responds to the presence of these predators. Plant diversity and habitat structure variables, including tree diameter at breast height, ground cover, and vegetation height were measured during summer surveys to document how differences in habitat structure between and within habitats influences moth diversity. I found that moth communities vary significantly between habitat types.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Rocky Mountain Region 1997-1999
    Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Rocky Mountain Region 1997-1999 United States Renewable Rocky Department of Resources Mountain Agriculture Forest Health Region Management 2 FOREST INSECT AND DISEASE CONDITIONS IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION 1997-1999 by The Forest Health Management Staff Edited by Jeri Lyn Harris, Michelle Frank, and Susan Johnson December 2001 USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Renewable Resources, Forest Health Management P.O. Box 25127 Lakewood, Colorado 80225-5127 Cover: Aerial photograph taken by Robert D. Averill on October 29, 1997, just days after a blowdown event occurred on the Routt National Forest. The picture was taken looking east toward a blowdown area that straddles both the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness and the Routt National Forest. “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity employer.” Maps in this product are reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Native and Non-Native Plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better Than Non-Natives?
    Impacts of Native and Non-native plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better than Non-natives? by Carl Scott Clem A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 12, 2015 Key Words: native plants, non-native plants, caterpillars, natural enemies, associational interactions, congeneric plants Copyright 2015 by Carl Scott Clem Approved by David Held, Chair, Associate Professor: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Charles Ray, Research Fellow: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Debbie Folkerts, Assistant Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Robert Boyd, Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Abstract With continued suburban expansion in the southeastern United States, it is increasingly important to understand urbanization and its impacts on sustainability and natural ecosystems. Expansion of suburbia is often coupled with replacement of native plants by alien ornamental plants such as crepe myrtle, Bradford pear, and Japanese maple. Two projects were conducted for this thesis. The purpose of the first project (Chapter 2) was to conduct an analysis of existing larval Lepidoptera and Symphyta hostplant records in the southeastern United States, comparing their species richness on common native and alien woody plants. We found that, in most cases, native plants support more species of eruciform larvae compared to aliens. Alien congener plant species (those in the same genus as native species) supported more species of larvae than alien, non-congeners. Most of the larvae that feed on alien plants are generalist species. However, most of the specialist species feeding on alien plants use congeners of native plants, providing evidence of a spillover, or false spillover, effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall Cankerworm William M
    Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 182 April 2013 U.S. Department of Agriculture • Forest Service Fall Cankerworm William M. Ciesla 1 and Christopher Asaro 2 Fall cankerworm, Alsophila pometaria to Georgia and west to California, (Harris), is an insect that feeds on the Colorado, Missouri, Montana, New foliage of many species of broadleaf Mexico and Utah. trees. It is native to North America and populations periodically build to Larvae feed on a wide range of broad- outbreak levels that cause extensive leaf trees and smaller woody plants defoliation. This insect is a member of including apple, Malus pumila, ash, a large family of moths known as the Fraxinus spp., basswood, Tilia spp., Geometridae. The larvae are common- beech, Fagus grandifolia, cherry, ly referred to as “loopers, spanworms, Prunus spp., elm, Ulmus spp., hickory, inchworms or measuring worms.” Carya spp., maple, Acer spp. and many These names derive from their unique species of oaks, Quercus spp. Oaks way of locomotion. Geometrid lar- vae have only two functional pairs of prolegs. They clasp their front legs on a leaf or branch and draw up with the prolegs on the hind end. This causes the thoracic and abdominal segments to form an arch (Figure 1). They then reach out again with their thoracic legs. This gives the impression that they are measuring as they move about. Distribution and Hosts Fall cankerworm is found from the Maritime Provinces of Canada Figure 1. Mature fall cankerworm larva in a classic west to Alberta, throughout the “looper” position. Note reduced proleg on fifth eastern United States from Maine abdominal segment.
    [Show full text]
  • Lifecycle of Cankerworms
    Cankerworms are common pests of shade trees such as elm, apple, hackberry, maple, Basswood, hickory, box elder, black cherry, beech, birch, and many others. They are also known as inchworms or loopers due to their distinctive “looping” motion. Cankerworms have their own natural cycles of periodical outbreaks (for 2-7 years) followed by a period of low population (for 13 to 18 years). During their period of abundance, they can cause major defoliation, branch dieback, and death of trees. This is the reason why they need to be controlled as soon as they are detected. What are Cankerworms? Cankerworms have two species; fall cankerworms and spring cankerworms. • The fall species (Alsophila pometaria) have three pairs of prolegs and they lay their eggs in late fall and winter. • The spring species (Paleacrita vernata) have two pairs of prolegs and they lay their eggs in early spring. Spring and fall cankerworm look very similar to each other. The best way to differentiate them is to count their prolegs. Fully-grown females of both species are wingless. They are greyish brown in color and measure about 10-12 mm in length. The male cankerworms measure 25 mm in length and have greyish brown wings with irregular white bands. The larvae of both species also look very similar. Mature larvae are light green to dark brown in color. Light green caterpillars often have white lines running down their body. The dark brown ones have black stripes. Lifecycle of Cankerworms This pest has one generation per year. The lifecycle of both spring and fall species is almost same.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, VBC -60397,02/10/2015
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA Reg. Number: Date of Issuance: Office of Pesticide Programs Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P) 73049-502 2/10/2015 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 NOTICE OF PESTICIDE: Term of Issuance: X Registration Reregistration Unconditional (under FIFRA, as amended) Name of Pesticide Product: Sympatico Biological Insecticide Emulsifiable Suspension Name and Address of Registrant (include ZIP Code): Valent Biosciences Corporation 870 Technology Way, Suite 100 Libertyville, IL 60048 Note: Changes in labeling differing in substance from that accepted in connection with this registration must be submitted to and accepted by the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division prior to use of the label in commerce. In any correspondence on this product, always refer to the above EPA Registration Number. On the basis of information furnished by the registrant, the above named pesticide is hereby registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA or the Act). Registration is in no way to be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of this product by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In order to protect health and the environment, the Administrator, on his or her motion, may at any time suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the Act. The acceptance of any name in connection with the registration of a product under the Act is not to be construed as giving the registrant a right to exclusive use of the name or to its use if it has been covered by others. This product is unconditionally registered in accordance with FIFRA section 3(c)(5) provided that you: 1.
    [Show full text]