DOCSLIB.ORG

Improving Efficacy of Metribuzin and Rimsulfuron in Potato Production.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Improving Efficacy of Metribuzin and Rimsulfuron in Potato Production.Pdf IMPROVING EFFICACY OF METRIBUZIN AND RIMSULFURON IN POTATO PRODUCTION A Thesis Submitted to Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By Adam Miller Winchester In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major Department: Plant Sciences February 2016 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School Title Improving Efficacy of Metribuzin and Rimsulfuron in Potato Production By Adam Miller Winchester The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Andrew P. Robinson Chair Harlene Hatterman-Valenti James J. Hammond Richard K. Zollinger Gary Secor Approved: 3/14/16 Richard D. Horsley Date Department Chair ABSTRACT Rimsulfuron and metribuzin are postemergence herbicides used to control broadleaf weeds in potato and are applied with adjuvants to improve efficacy. Postemergence weed control often coincides with fungicide treatments. Therefore, studies were conducted to determine the effect of adjuvants or fungicides (chlorothalonil or mancozeb) plus metribuzin and rimsulfuron on weed control, potato safety and yield. Common sunflower and common lambsquarters visual control was ≥ 91% when metribuzin (420 and 210 g ha-1) plus rimsulfuron (26 and 14 g ha-1) combinations were applied with or without fungicides. Past the four leaf stage, metribuzin (340 g ha-1) and rimsulfuron (21 g ha-1) with adjuvants had no effect on hairy nightshade dry weight. Adjuvants and fungicides did not change yield. These studies indicate that including fungicides with metribuzin and rimsulfuron reduce weed populations without negatively impacting yield. Additional research is needed to determine the effect of adjuvants with these herbicides on other weeds. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my major advisor, Dr. Andrew Robinson, for helping me with this thesis and introducing me to the great world of potato research. His guidance will surely help me in my career. I am grateful for our technician, Eric Brandvick, for helping me with my projects. I would also like to thank my graduate committee: Dr. Richard Zollinger, Dr. Harlene Hatterman-Valenti, Dr. Gary Secor and Dr. James Hammond, for sharing with me their vast knowledge and helping me better understand research. Next, I would like to thank my parents, Steve and Annette Winchester, for believing in me and supporting me. Their conversations were always a welcome respite following a long day of studying. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Dorielle Winchester, for her love and support. Her love and laughs have made the Fargo experience wonderful. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES .................................................................................................... x INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 3 The Potato .......................................................................................................................... 3 Description ............................................................................................................. 3 Cultivars ................................................................................................................. 3 Potato Production in North Dakota and Minnesota ............................................... 5 Weeds ................................................................................................................................. 5 Nightshade Species ................................................................................................ 5 Wild Proso Millet ................................................................................................... 7 Common Lambsquarters ........................................................................................ 8 Common Sunflower ............................................................................................... 9 Insects and Diseases ......................................................................................................... 10 Herbicides ........................................................................................................................ 11 Rimsulfuron ......................................................................................................... 11 Metribuzin ............................................................................................................ 12 Fungicides ........................................................................................................................ 14 Chlorothalonil ...................................................................................................... 15 Mancozeb ............................................................................................................. 15 Adjuvants ......................................................................................................................... 16 Surfactants............................................................................................................ 18 Methylated Seed Oils and Crop Oil Concentrates ............................................... 20 Spreaders, Stickers, and Spreader/Stickers .......................................................... 20 Buffering Agents (Alkalinity Agents) ................................................................ 21 v Antifoaming Agents ............................................................................................. 22 Water Conditioning Agents ................................................................................. 22 Drifit Retardants................................................................................................... 23 Deposition Aids ................................................................................................... 23 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................ 24 CHAPTER 2. EFFICACY OF ADJUVANTS WITH RIMSULFURON AND METRIBUZIN ON HAIRY NIGHTSHADE CONTROL ................................................................................... 34 Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 34 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 35 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................................... 40 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 43 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ 49 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................ 49 CHAPTER 3. POTATO AND WEED RESPONSE TO METRIBUZIN, RIMSULFURON AND ADJUVANT COMBINATIONS ....................................................................................... 55 Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 55 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 55 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................................... 59 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 63 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ 69 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................ 69 CHAPTER 4. EFFICACY OF METRIBUZIN AND RIMSULFURON WITH FUNGICIDES ON WEED CONTROL AND POTATO CROP SAFETY ......................................................... 73 Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 73 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 74 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................................... 76 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 81 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ 87 Literature Cited ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Socrates Project
    The Socrates Project Poisonous Plants in Virginia The Socrates Project - Poisonous Plants in Virginia. 2nd Edition, Revised and Expanded. Compiled by: The Socrates Project Authors, Virginia Master Naturalist Program Virginia Master Naturalist programs and employment are open to all, regardless of age, color, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, national origin, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran status, or any other basis protected by law. An equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Project Leader: Alfred Goossens Editor: Margaret Clifton Published December 2020 Published by the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia i © December 2020, The Socrates Project Authors, All Rights Reserved This publication is available for non-commercial public use, reprint, or citation without further permission, provided the use includes credit to The Socrates Project. Cover Art: Trish Crowe Published: December 2020 Published and printed by: The University of Virginia Printing & Copying Services ii Table of Contents Introduction and Acknowledgements iv American False-hellebore 2 Climbing Nightshade 4 Common Pokeweed 6 Cow Parsnip 8 Eastern Black Nightshade 10 Elderberry 12 Foxglove 14 Giant Hogweed 16 Horse-nettle 18 Jack-in-the-pulpit 20 Jimson-weed 22 Lily-of-the-valley 24 Mayapple 26 Monkshood 28 Mountain Laurel 30 Poison Hemlock 32 Poison Ivy 34 Poison Oak 36 Poison Sumac 38 Rhododendron and Azalea 40 Virginia-creeper 44 Water-hemlock 46 White Baneberry 48 White Snakeroot
    [Show full text]
  • Threats to Australia's Grazing Industries by Garden
    final report Project Code: NBP.357 Prepared by: Jenny Barker, Rod Randall,Tony Grice Co-operative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management Date published: May 2006 ISBN: 1 74036 781 2 PUBLISHED BY Meat and Livestock Australia Limited Locked Bag 991 NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2059 Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants Meat & Livestock Australia acknowledges the matching funds provided by the Australian Government to support the research and development detailed in this publication. This publication is published by Meat & Livestock Australia Limited ABN 39 081 678 364 (MLA). Care is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication. However MLA cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information or opinions contained in the publication. You should make your own enquiries before making decisions concerning your interests. Reproduction in whole or in part of this publication is prohibited without prior written consent of MLA. Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants Abstract This report identifies 281 introduced garden plants and 800 lower priority species that present a significant risk to Australia’s grazing industries should they naturalise. Of the 281 species: • Nearly all have been recorded overseas as agricultural or environmental weeds (or both); • More than one tenth (11%) have been recorded as noxious weeds overseas; • At least one third (33%) are toxic and may harm or even kill livestock; • Almost all have been commercially available in Australia in the last 20 years; • Over two thirds (70%) were still available from Australian nurseries in 2004; • Over two thirds (72%) are not currently recognised as weeds under either State or Commonwealth legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Broadleaf Weeds of South Dakota
    SoybeaniGrow BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Chapter 31: Common Broadleaf Weeds of South Dakota Sharon A. Clay ([email protected]) The effective management of broadleaf weeds can improve soybean yields. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the biology and management of broadleaf weeds routinely found in South Dakota soybean fields. Characteristics of selected broadleaf weeds are in Table 31.1. Annual weeds Weeds can be characterized by their life cycle. Annual weeds are those that germinate from seed every year and only live for a single season. Annual weeds can germinate during the spring, summer, or fall. Fall or very early spring-emerging weeds include field pennycress, horseweed (marestail), and evening primrose. Weeds that emerge in early to late spring (weeks prior to soybean planting) include common sunflower, Pennsylvania smartweed, ladysthumb, common lambsquarters, and giant ragweed. Weeds that typically emerge at or soon after soybean planting are common ragweed, velvetleaf, Russian thistle, redroot pigweed, and kochia. Annual weeds that emerge at the end of soybean planting include common cocklebur, wild mustard, black nightshade, venice mallow, and wild buckwheat. Weeds that typically emerge after soybean emergence include common waterhemp and buffalobur. Biennial weeds These plants germinate from seed in the spring and overwinter as a rosette. The second year, the plant produces flowers and seeds. Examples of biennial weeds are biennial wormwood and common mallow. Perennial weeds These plants can germinate from seed, and/or may produce new shoots from buds, roots, or rhizomes. The shoots from the buds can emerge very early and grow quickly due to the carbohydrate storage in the perennating structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Revision of Solanum Section Cyphomandropsis (Solanaceae) Author(S): Lynn Bohs Source: Systematic Botany Monographs, Vol
    Revision of Solanum Section Cyphomandropsis (Solanaceae) Author(s): Lynn Bohs Source: Systematic Botany Monographs, Vol. 61, Revision of Solanum Section Cyphomandropsis ( Solanaceae) (Aug. 30, 2001), pp. 1-85 Published by: American Society of Plant Taxonomists Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25027891 Accessed: 02-03-2016 19:03 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Society of Plant Taxonomists is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Systematic Botany Monographs. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 169.237.45.23 on Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:03:20 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REVISION OF SOLANUM SECTION CYPHOMANDROPSIS (SOLANACEAE) Lynn Bohs Department of Biology University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 ABSTRACT. Solanum section Cyphomandropsis (Solanaceae) includes 13 species native to South Amer ica. Plants of this section are woody shrubs to small trees that lack spines, are glabrous to pubescent with un branched or dendritically branched trichomes, and have tapered anthers with small terminal pores. Section Cyphomandropsis is closely related to Solanum sect. Pachyphylla (formerly genus Cyphomandra), from which it differs by lacking discrete, enlarged connectives on the abaxial anther surfaces.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Wisconsin 2016 Wetland Plant List
    5/12/16 State of Wisconsin 2016 Wetland Plant List Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ Trillium cernuum L. (Whip-Poor-Will-Flow er) Photo: Dan Tenaglia List Counts: Wetland MW NCNE Total UPL 91 109 200 FACU 510 534 1044 FAC 272 288 560 FACW 333 317 650 OBL 480 481 961 Rating 1686 1729 1729 User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps Region. 3) Some state boundaries lie within two or more Corps Regions. If a species occurs in one region but not the other, its rating will be shown in one column and the other column will be BLANK. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 1/26 5/12/16 NORTHCENTRAL GREAT LAKES 2016 SUBREGIONAL WETLAND PLANT LIST Scientific Name Authorship Subregion NCNE Common Name Populus tremuloides Michx. NGL = FAC FACU Quaking Aspen Rubus idaeus L. NGL = FAC FACU Common Red Raspberry 2/26 5/12/16 Scientific Name Authorship MW NCNE Common Name Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FACW FAC Balsam Fir Abutilon theophrasti Medik. FACU FACU Velvetleaf Acalypha gracilens Gray FACU FACU Slender Three-Seed-Mercury Acalypha rhomboidea Raf. FACU FACU Common Three-Seed-Mercury Acer negundo L. FAC FAC Ash-Leaf Maple Acer nigrum Michx.
    [Show full text]
  • Poindexter, D.B. 2013. Vascular Flora and Plant Communities of Alleghany
    Vascular FLOra AND Plant COmmunities OF Alleghany COunty, NOrtH CarOlina Derick B. Poindexter1 I.W. Carpenter, Jr. Herbarium (BOON) Appalachian State University, Biology Department Boone, North Carolina 28608-2027, U.S.A. [email protected] ABSTRACT An inventory of the vascular plant species of Alleghany County, North Carolina was conducted from spring 2008–summer 2012. Extensive fieldwork was augmented by a search of numerous herbaria, resulting in the documentation of 1508 taxa (1457 species) in 642 genera and 161 families. These taxa are represented by nine Lycopodiophyta, 39 Monilophyta, 23 Acrogymnospermae, and 1437 Angiospermae. Four hundred and thirty-five taxa, 28.8% of the total flora, are considered exotic. Sixty-five native taxa have state or global ranking due to rarity. Ten species are documented here as new to the flora of North Carolina, while 613 are new county distributional records. An additional 38 plausible sight records are included in the annotated checklist to bring attention to their uncertain attribution to the flora; however, these records are not treated in the taxonomic summary. A comparative assessment of all plant origin categories (i.e., native vs. multiple exotic categories) within the flora is included to accommodate the various perspectives of the botanical community. A companion website (www. vascularflora.appstate.edu) was created to provide a dynamic source of digital documentation for this study. RESUMEN Se realizó un inventario de las especies de plantas vasculares del condado de Alleghany, Carolina del Norte desde la primavera de 2008 hasta el verano de 2012. El extensivo trabajo de campo de Incrementó con la búsqueda en numerosos herbarios, dando como resultado la docu- mentación de 1508 taxa (1457 especies) en 642 géneros y 161 familias.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Community Monitoring at Congaree National Park: 2014 Data Summary
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Vegetation Community Monitoring at Congaree National Park 2014 Data Summary Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2016/1016 ON THIS PAGE Tiny, bright yellow blossoms of Hypoxis hirsuta grace the forest floor at Congaree National Park. Photograph courtesy of Sarah C. Heath, Southeast Coast Network. ON THE COVER Spiraling compound leaf of green dragon (Arisaema dracontium) at Congaree National Park. Photograph courtesy of Sarah C. Heath, Southeast Coast Network Vegetation Community Monitoring at Congaree National Park 2014 Data Summary Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2016/1016 Sarah Corbett Heath1 and Michael W. Byrne2 1National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network Cumberland Island National Seashore 101 Wheeler Street Saint Marys, GA 31558 2National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network 135 Phoenix Drive Athens, GA 30605 May 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for the timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Weed Concerns of 2008 and Emerging Weed Issues in 2009
    Top Weed Concerns of 2008 and Emerging Weed Issues in 2009 Bruce Murray Weed Specialist MAFRI Carman MB Growing Conditions 2008 Growing Conditions 2008 Outstanding Weed Issues in 2008 • It Depends – Where – When • Lack of pre-seed season meant heavier weed populations to deal with in-crop and a slower growing, less competitive crop early in the season. • There were no real dominant weed issues. • Product shortages – Edge – Group 1 graminicides – Reglone • Bromes continue to appear – Get to know them Weeds/Issues in 2009??? • Northern Interlake – Wet weeds • Curl Dock • Thistles • Dandelion • Ditch weeds – Heavy weed pressures • All weeds • Volunteer crops – Poor forage stands (flooding) • Opportunity for heavy weed pressures Weeds/Issues in 2009??? • Southwest – Drought weeds • Kochia • Russian thistle • Foxtail barley • Green foxtail – Heavy weed pressures • Lack of crop competition • All weeds present – Poor forage stands (drought) • Opportunity for heavy weed pressures Weeds/Issues in 2009??? • The rest of the Province – Pretty average conditions except for pre-seed season • Canada thistle was high??? • Dandelion was high??? • Crops were sprayed (in crop, less pre-seed activity) • Pretty good pre-harvest and post-harvest conditions – Need to increase post-harvest scouting • Dandelion • Foxtail • Night flowering catchfly • Cleavers • Bromes – Volunteer canola populations will be heavy • Heavy shattering (in the swath and standing crop in August) • Overwintering issues this year??? Weed Species To Keep An Eye On ? Nightshades Nightshades • Belong to family Solanacea (more than 3000 species) • Make up the Solanum genus – The genus Solanum is of worldwide economic importance, including major crop species such as the potato (Solanum tuberosum), the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and eggplant (Solanum melongena).
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Pest Management Strategic Plan for Potatoes in Oregon, Washington and Idaho
    OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE Integrated Pest Management Strategic Plan for Potatoes in Oregon, Washington and Idaho Summary of a workshop held on Feb. 22, 2019 Portland, Oregon Katie Murray, Paul Jepson, Isaac Sandlin, Oregon State University; Andy Jensen, NW Potato Research Consortium EM 9275 February 2020 Table of contents Process for this integrated pest management Potato pest management timing by crop stage 20 strategic plan 3 Major potato pest descriptions 21 Work group members 4 Potato pest management activities by crop stage 34 Review of 2006 summary of the most critical needs Planting to pre-emergence (March–May with in Pacific Northwest potato pest management 5 regional differences) 38 2019 top-priority critical needs 8 Emergence to row closure (April–early/late June) 41 Potato production overview 9 Row closure to harvest (June- September/October) 45 Integrated pest management overview in potato Harvest to postharvest 51 production 11 Invasive and emerging pests 53 MRL/export issues 13 References 54 Pollinator protection in potato production 14 Appendices 55 IPM critical needs 15 Using PAMS Terminology 85 List of major potato pests 17 Pesticide Risk Classification 86 This project was sponsored with funding from the Extension Implementation program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture (award No. 2017-70006-27154), with co-funding from the potato commissions of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington through the NW Potato Research Consortium. The IPMSP format is research in progress. Contact: Katie Murray Integrated Plant Protection Center 2040 Cordley Hall, Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-2915 [email protected] Katie Murray, statewide IPM coordinator, associate professor of practice, Oregon IPM Center; Paul Jepson, professor (retired), Oregon IPM Center; Isaac Sandlin, faculty research assistant, Oregon IPM Center, all of Oregon State University; and Andy Jensen, manager, NW Potato Research Consortium.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioherbicidal Enhancement and Host Range Expansion of a Mycoherbicidal Fungus Via Formulation Approaches C
    BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2018 VOL. 28, NO. 3, 307–315 https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2018.1445199 SHORT COMMUNICATION Bioherbicidal enhancement and host range expansion of a mycoherbicidal fungus via formulation approaches C. D. Boyettea, R. E. Hoaglandb and K. C. Stetinaa aUSDA-ARS, Biological Control of Pests Research Unit, Stoneville, MS, USA; bUSDA-ARS, Crop Production Systems Research Unit, Stoneville, MS, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum; EBN) is a Received 16 June 2017 problematic weed partly due to its tolerance or resistance to Returned 20 February 2018 certain herbicides. We examined the effects of an invert emulsion Accepted 21 February 2018 (IE) on the host range and weed control efficacy of the fungus First Published Online 5 March 2018 Colletotrichum coccodes (NRRL strain 15547) for biocontrol of EBN. Greenhouse tests demonstrated that several other solanaceous KEYWORDS weeds were also infected and killed, and field tests revealed >90% Colletotrichum coccodes; EBN control and dry weight reduction in plants treated with the Solanum ptycanthum; fungus-IE formulation. These results demonstrate that this IE bioherbicide; eastern black formulation can promote the efficacy of this bioherbicidal nightshade; herbicide- pathogen. resistant weed; invert emulsion Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum Dun.) (EBN), native to the Americas and commonly found throughout the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains, is an erect, branching annual or short-lived perennial herb (Bryson & DeFelice, 2010). One plant may produce up to 1000 berries containing 50 to 100 seeds each and seeds can germinate soon after anthesis and can retain viability in soil for many years (Bassett & Munro, 1985; Ogg, Rogers, & Schilling, 1981; Werner, Curran, & Lingenfelter, 1998; Zhou, Deckard, & Mes- − sersmith, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Suspected Or Known Species on Patuxent Research Refuge
    Appendix A. USFWS USFWS Tree Swallow Suspected or Known Species on Patuxent Research Refuge Appendix A. Suspected or Known Species on Patuxent Research Refuge Table A-1. Suspected or Known Bird Species on Patuxent Research Refuge 1 2 Rank Rank 3 6 5 4 Heritage Heritage Status Refuge E Refuge Status & E on on T & Natural 7 Natural T 30 Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Seasons State BCR Global State Federal WATERBIRDS American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus G4 S1 S2B I Yr M S1N Anhinga Anhinga anhinga Sp Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Yr B Black‐crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax G5 S3B S2N SpSF M Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis SpF Common Loon Gavia immer G5 S4N SpF Double‐crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Yr Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus G5 S4B SpSF H Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias G5 S4B S3 Yr B S4N Great Egret Ardea alba G5 S4B SpSF Green Heron Butorides virescens Yr B Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus G5 S4N SpF H Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis G5 S2 S3B I SpS B M Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea G5 S3B SpSF M Pied‐billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps G5 S2B S3N Yr B Red‐necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Sp Snowy Egret Egretta thula G5 S3 S4B SpSF M White Ibis Eudocimus albus SF Yellow‐crowned Night Nyctanassa violacea G5 S2B SpF M Heron WATERFOWL American Black Duck Anas rubripes G5 S4B S5N Yr B HH American Coot Fulica americana SpFW American Wigeon Anas americana SpFW M Blue‐winged Teal Anas discors SpSF Bufflehead Bucephala albeola SpFW H Canada Goose Branta canadensis Yr ? Canvasback Aythya valisineria G5 S3 S4N SpF
    [Show full text]
  • Pest Risk Analysis for Anthonomus Eugenii
    Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority Ministry of Economic affairs Pest Risk Analysis for Anthonomus eugenii July 2013 Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority Utrecht, the Netherlands Pest Risk Analysis for Anthonomus eugenii Dirk Jan van der Gaag 1 & Antoon Loomans 2 1 Office for Risk Assessment and Research, Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, the Netherlands 2 National Reference Centre, Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, the Netherlands Acknowledgements: the authors would like to thank Roel Potting, Joanne Fransen and Martin Damus for useful comments and suggestions on a draft of version 1.0 of this PRA. Initially, a PRA was conducted for the Netherlands (version 1.0, May 2013), which was later adapted to cover the whole European Union (version 2.0, June 2013) and amended with recent information on interceptions in the Netherlands (version 3.0, July 2013). Version: 3.0 Date: July 2013 PRA Anthonomus eugenii , NVWA, July 2013 2 Abstract The present Pest Risk Analysis was conducted after the finding of an outbreak of Anthonomus eugenii (pepper weevil) in a sweet pepper crop in the Netherlands in 2012. Official measures were taken to eradicate the pest. A. eugenii is present in Central America, the Caribbean, Mexico, USA and French Polynesia. Imports of fresh Capsicum and Solanum fruit from these regions and countries were identified as the most important pathways for introduction with Capsicum fruit being the most important one. Capsicum fruit has been imported since at least 1988 from countries where the pest is present. The import volume has not increased significantly since about 2000 and the probability of introduction has been assessed as “low” with a high uncertainty.
    [Show full text]