DOCSLIB.ORG

Outdoor IPM for Maine Schools

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Outdoor IPM for Maine Schools OUTDOOR INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT FOR MAINE SCHOOLS 10 THINGS EVERY SCHOOL SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PESTS & PESTICIDES . Children are more susceptible to harmful effects of pesticide exposure due to their small body size and immature immune, liver, and neurological systems. People with asthma and other respiratory conditions may have severe reactions to pesticide exposure. Pesticides that are commonly used in schools include insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, and disinfectants or sanitzers. Anyone using pesticides (except disinfectants and hornet/wasp spray) at a school in Maine must have a commercial pesticide applicator’s license. Several Maine schools have been fined for unlicensed use of pesticides. The State of Maine requires outdoor pesticide applicators to post treated areas to “reasonably ensure that persons entering such areas will see the notice.” . It is a violation of Federal law to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Many pests can be controlled without pesticide use or with minimal pesticide use. There are many informational resources available to help manage pests in the most practical manner. Schools can start by contacting the Maine Scool IPM Progam, http://www.thinkfirstspraylast.org/schoolipm, 207-287-2731. New State and Federal regulations may affect pesticide use in schools. For current regulations and questions about pesticides in schools, contact the Maine Board of Pesticides Control, 207-287-287-2731, www.thinkfirstspraylast.org. The Cooperative Extension Insect Pest and Plant Disease Diagnostic Laboratory offers free identification and management recommendations, 207-581-3880, www.umext.maine.edu/topics/pest.htm. Contact your County Extension Office for addtional resources (see inside back cover). ABOUT THIS MANUAL WHO—This manual was prepared by the Maine Department of Agriculture, and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension under a federal grant provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The grant established Maine’s School Integrated Pest Management Program coordinated by the Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources. Outdoor Integrated Pest Management for Maine Schools was reviewed by a committee that included concerned parents, state and academic professionals, school employees, school administrators, and commercial pest managers. WHAT—In this manual we introduce Integrated Pest Management (IPM), an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of common sense practices. IPM uses comprehensive information about pest life cycles, their interactions with the environment, and an understanding of all available control methods to manage pest damage by the most economical and least hazardous means. WHY—IPM offers practical, affordable, long-term solutions for managing school grounds in ways that ensure a safe and healthy learning environment. This manual provides information that can be used to incorporate IPM into current facilities management practices. Our goal is to help schools manage outdoor pests through more structured pest monitoring, adopting practical communication and performance guidelines, writing well constructed pest management contracts, and using low-risk pest management methods. For more information contact the Maine School IPM Program 207-287-2731. i HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL This manual deals with outdoor pests on school grounds. For information about managing indoor pests, contact the Maine School IPM Program, 207-287-2731. 1. Read chapters 1 to 3 The first two chapters are of particular interest to school board members, administrators, principals, facility managers, and parents as they establish school IPM policies. Topics include: . the general concepts of IPM, . pesticide risk, . school pest management policies, . working with pest management contractors, and . designing and conducting your own IPM program. Chapter three is written primarily for school pest managers involved in day-to-day pest management activities. It offers a more detailed discussion of an IPM concepts, including: . monitoring, . record keeping, . determining action thresholds, . selecting pest control methods, and . evaluating program performance. The remainder of the manual introduces landscape and turf management, and pests that are commonly encountered. The appendices discuss State and Federal pesticide regulations and licensing requirements for individuals making applications on school grounds. 2. Determine pest management needs Survey the school grounds noting pest damage and conditions that favor pests. Examine current pest management practices and weigh their effectiveness in terms of cost, risk, and benefit. Larger school units, and schools Smaller school programs should assign familiar with IPM, should establish> IPM responsibilities to individuals. an IPM committee. 3. Write an IPM Plan based on your needs Review the IPM practices presented in this manual to learn about specific control methods. Discuss them with your IPM committee, pest control professional, administration, staff, and parents. Decide on a few appropriate practices and design a pilot program to fit your situation. Gradually incorporate IPM into current maintenance practices. Larger school units can develop a Smaller school programs should focus comprehensive program to replace> on short term pest management goals. traditional methods. ii PEST MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES IN THE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT School is a challenging school children, and the use place for a pest management of pesticides. We know that program. Significant pest pests can be a serious threat problems can unexpectedly to the school community. develop in many areas and We also know that children pesticides often seem to be are more vulnerable to the best solution, perhaps the pesticide exposure than only one. Yet, nationwide, adults. It is necessary to parents and other citizens sensitively address have voiced legitimate the concerns of parents and concerns about the risks of others who understand the pesticide use in schools. benefits of a pest-free Integrated Pest Management school and safe playing (IPM) is a decision making fields, but want this process that addresses both achieved with a minimum of sides of this issue. IPM’s toxic materials. focus on pest prevention and IPM combines practical least-toxic methods is practical to apply and pest management strategies to prevent or cost-effective to operate. control pests in ways that reduce risks to Schools are complex systems including health and the environment. School IPM takes different physical spaces, indoors and out. a broad-minded view of pest Most school buildings are unintentionally problems, gathering everyone involved to built with inconspicuous entry points and design flexible, site-specific pest management shelter for insects, rodents, and other plans. IPM does not reject technology, nor unwelcome wildlife. Inappropriate does it blindly embrace new technology. IPM landscape design and plant selection often does promote a deeper awareness of natural encourage pests. Diminishing budgets and systems, an understanding of pest life cycles, deferred maintenance compound the and how cultural modifications, mechanical problems. Pesticides offer a quick and controls, and beneficial organisms affect pest effective means of dealing with many pest populations. IPM does not rule out pesticide problems but schools should carefully use, but requires thoughtful consideration, an consider their use. increased awareness of the world around us, In Maine, as elsewhere, schools need to and the importance of environmental balance the known health risks of preservation. School is the perfect place for uncontrolled pest infestations, the safety of this lesson. iii CONTENTS Chapter 1 IPM FOR MAINE SCHOOLS Sustainable plants ..................................................... 31 Elements of IPM ......................................................... 1 Native groundcovers ................................................. 32 Why we should use IPM in schools? .......................... 2 Managing landscape pests ........................................ 33 The decision-making process ..................................... 3 References/resources ................................................ 36 Integrated pest management ....................................... 5 A Federal IPM plan .................................................... 7 Chapter 5 The Maine school IPM survey .................................... 7 School pesticide-use surveys ...................................... 8 TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT IPM Standards for schools .......................................... 9 Turfgrass IPM ........................................................... 37 IPM Certification for schools ..................................... 9 Turfgrasses ................................................................ 39 References/resources ................................................ 10 Establishing turfgrass................................................ 42 Managing turfgrass ................................................... 42 Chapter 2 References/resources ................................................ 47 ORGANIZING A SCHOOL IPM PROGRAM Learn about IPM ....................................................... 11 Chapter 6 Involve the school board and administration ............ 11 INSECT PESTS OF TURFGRASS Budget for IPM ......................................................... 11 White grubs ..............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MOSQUITOES of the SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
    L f ^-l R A R > ^l^ ■'■mx^ • DEC2 2 59SO , A Handbook of tnV MOSQUITOES of the SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES W. V. King G. H. Bradley Carroll N. Smith and W. C. MeDuffle Agriculture Handbook No. 173 Agricultural Research Service UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE \ I PRECAUTIONS WITH INSECTICIDES All insecticides are potentially hazardous to fish or other aqpiatic organisms, wildlife, domestic ani- mals, and man. The dosages needed for mosquito control are generally lower than for most other insect control, but caution should be exercised in their application. Do not apply amounts in excess of the dosage recommended for each specific use. In applying even small amounts of oil-insecticide sprays to water, consider that wind and wave action may shift the film with consequent damage to aquatic life at another location. Heavy applications of insec- ticides to ground areas such as in pretreatment situa- tions, may cause harm to fish and wildlife in streams, ponds, and lakes during runoff due to heavy rains. Avoid contamination of pastures and livestock with insecticides in order to prevent residues in meat and milk. Operators should avoid repeated or prolonged contact of insecticides with the skin. Insecticide con- centrates may be particularly hazardous. Wash off any insecticide spilled on the skin using soap and water. If any is spilled on clothing, change imme- diately. Store insecticides in a safe place out of reach of children or animals. Dispose of empty insecticide containers. Always read and observe instructions and precautions given on the label of the product. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agriculture Handbook No.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health Pest Control Manual (Currently with the South Walton Mosquito Control Was Prepared by Elisabeth Beck of the Florida District)
    Public Health Pest Control APPLICATOR TRAINING MANUAL NICOLE “NIKKI” FRIED, Commissioner Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 3125 Conner Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Public Health Pest Control APPLICATOR TRAINING MANUAL Nicole “Nikki” Fried, Commissioner Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 3125 Conner Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Acknowledgements In accordance with Florida Administrative Code and to extension specialists in neighboring states for Chapter 5E-13.040, all persons who apply or supervise valuable ideas and visual aids. Credit is due to the late the application of a pesticide intended to control Paul J. Hunt, and John Gamble, East Volusia Mosquito arthropods on property other than their own individual Control District, and Thomas M. Loyless, Bureau of residential or agricultural property must be licensed to Entomology and Pest Control (BEPC) of FDACS for do so with a Public Health Pest Control (PHPC) license photographs of equipment and habitats. or work under the supervision of a licensed applicator. Thanks are due to Dr. Carlyle B. Rathburn, In order to obtain the PHPC license, applicants must retired, John A. Mulrennan, Sr. Public Health score 70% or above on two exams administered by the Entomology Research and Education Center for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer section on calibration of equipment, Dr. Philip Koehler, Services (FDACS): the General Standards (Core) exam Department of Entomology and Nematology, IFAS, and the Public Health Pest Control exam. This Public University of Florida, and William R. Opp, retired, Lee Health Pest Control Manual, in conjunction with the County Mosquito Control District for additional Core Manual “Applying Pesticides Correctly” published technical assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating EE Activity Among Pheasants in Connecticut' As Well As the Occurrence of High Mortality at a Time When Cold Weather Suppressed Adult Mosquito Activity
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by PubMed Central ROBERT C. WALLIS DepartmentYale Universityof EpidemiologySchool of Medicineand Public Health, RECENT ADVANCES IN RESEARCH ON THE EASTERN ENCEPHALITIS VIRUS** Knowledge of the ecology of the Eastern Encephalitis (EE) virus has accumulated rapidly since the agent was first isolated in 1933. The sporadic incidence of infections, lack of direct contact except among pheasants in the same pen, association of outbreaks with swampland areas, and the occurrence of infections following the peak of the mosquito season led to the theory that the virus was transmitted by mosquitoes. Consequently, in early investigations attention was directed to coastal areas and the prob- ability of salt marsh mosquitoes as vectors. However, in reports of epidemics among pheasants in New Jersey by Beaudette and co-workers,"7 the pattern of spread of the virus produced doubt concerning arthropod transmission. Where cases were confined to pheasants in one pen and failed to appear among those in adjacent pens separated only by large mesh chicken wire through which mosquitoes might readily pass, it was obvious that mosquitoes were not responsible for transmission. Similar circumstances were encountered in the course of investigating EE activity among pheasants in Connecticut' as well as the occurrence of high mortality at a time when cold weather suppressed adult mosquito activity. However, in the study of daily mortality records it was found that initial deaths occurred during a period of warm weather when mosquito activity was high. This led to consideration of primary transmission into a pheasant flock, probably by an infected mosquito or wild bird, and from the initial case, secondary contact transmission that accounted for the rapid transfer of virus from pheasant to pheasant within the flock.
    [Show full text]
  • Mosquito Vectors of Eastern Equine Encephalomyelitis Virus in Massachusetts
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 1996 Mosquito vectors of eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus in Massachusetts. Rajeev Vaidyanathan University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses Vaidyanathan, Rajeev, "Mosquito vectors of eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus in Massachusetts." (1996). Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014. 3073. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/3073 This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MOSQUITO VECTORS OF EASTERN EQUINE EN®P^®miYELITIS VIRlIi IN MASSACHUSETTS A Thesis Presented by RAJEEV VAIDYANATHAN Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May 1996 Entomology MOSQUITO VECTORS OF EASTERN EQUINE TOCEPHALOMYELITIS VIRUS IN MASSACHUSETTS A Thesis Presented by RAJEEV VAIDYANATHAN Approved as to style and content by: D, Edman, Chair T. Michael Peters, Member John P. Burand, Member Thomas W. Scott, Member T. Michael Peters, Department Head Entomology Dedicated to the memory of George C. Eickwort He taught us how to fly. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS University of Massachusetts at Amherst Dr. John Edman Dr. T. Michael Peters Dr. John P. Burand Dr. John Buonaccorsi Geoff Attardo University of Maryland at College Park Dr. Thomas W. Scott Lynn A. Cooper Les Lorenz University of Massachusetts Cranberry Experimental Station Dr. Anne Averill Marty Averill Jay O’Donnell Massachusetts Department of Health Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Mosquito Records. I. Uncommon Aedes and Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae)
    Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 14(2):165-172, 1998 Copyright @ 1998 by the American Mosquito Control Association, Inc. NORTH CAROLINA MOSQUITO RECORDS. I. UNCOMMON AEDES AND ANOPHELES (DIPTERA: CULICIDAE) B. A. HARRISON.'4 P B. WHITT,I E. E. POWELL2 eNo E. Y. HICKMAN, JR.3 ABSTRACT. New distribution records are provided for l0 mosquito species that are rare or uncommon in North Carolina: Aedes aegypti, Ae. cinereus, Ae. dupreei, Ae. fulvus pallens, Ae. hendersoni, Ae. mitchellae, Ae. thibauki, Ae. tormentor, Ae. trivittatus, and Anopheles atropos. Biological notes are provided for habitats, be- havior, and, in some cases, color patterns. Comments are also made about 6 additional species that are rare or uncommon in North Carolina. KEY WORDS Rare, Aedes, Anopheles, uncommon, North Carolina INTRODUCTION smaragdinus Reinert [Robertson et al. 1993, as Anopheles quadrimaculalus B; Reinert et al. 1998 Publications documenting the distributions of (1997)l in North Carolina. mosquito species in North Carolina are scarce. This A study of the mosquitoes of the western pied- state has some of the most variable ecosystems in mont and mountainous regions of North Carolina the United States, ranging from subtropical in the was initiated in 1994 by the Public Health Pest southeastern corner to boreal on the highest western Management Section, North Carolina Department mountains. Despite this recognized diversity, vir- of Environment and Natural Resources. The limited tually no efforts have been made to systematically information about the mosquitoes of this area and examine the mosquito fauna of the state. The first a growing concern about mosquito-borne diseases comprehensive listing for North Carolina mosqui- were the primary reasons for starting the study.
    [Show full text]
  • Week 30: 25 July to 31 July 2021
    VECTOR SURVEILLANCE IN NEW JERSEY EEE, WNV, SLE, LAC, DENV, CHIK, ZIKV, and JCV Prepared by Lisa M. Reed and Dina Fonseca Center for Vector Biology, Rutgers University 25 July to 31 July, 2021, CDC Week 30 Data download 1:30 pm 30 July This New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station report is supported by Rutgers University, Hatch funds, funding from the NJ State Mosquito Control Commission and with the participation of the Department of Health, Department of Agriculture and of the 21 county mosquito control agencies of New Jersey. Data is held in JerseySurv, a subset of the CalSurv system. NOTE: County/species tables for arboviruses are now in a supplemental file here Arbovirus Summary Currently, there are 83 positive WNV pools, 81 in Culex Mix (Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren counties), one in Cx. pipiens(Cape May) and one in Aedes trivittatus (Essex County). There is two positive EEE pools detected in Cs. melanura, one from Gloucester County, collected 30 June and the second from Camden County. There is one positive JCV pool detected in Aedes vexans, from Sussex County, collected 8 July. There is one human case of Jamestown Canyon virus, in Sussex County. Date of onset was May 8. In 2020, there were 13 positive EEE pools in Culiseta melanura. There were 241 positive WNV pools, in Culex Mix (231), in Culex pipiens (4), Culex restuans (1), Culiseta melanura (2), Aedes albopictus (2), and Aedes canadensis canadensis (1). There were 6 positive JVC pools in Aedes cantator (2), Aedes taeniorhynchus (1), Anopheles quadrimaculatus (1) and Coquillettidia perturbans (2).
    [Show full text]
  • Vector Surveillance Summary Sheet
    VECTOR SURVEILLANCE IN NEW JERSEY EEE, WNV, SLE, LAC, DENV, CHIK, ZIKV, and JCV Prepared by Lisa M. Reed and Dina Fonseca Center for Vector Biology, Rutgers University 1 September to 7 September, 2019, CDC Week 36 Data download 12:10 pm 7 September This New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station report is supported by Rutgers University, Hatch funds, funding from the NJ State Mosquito Control Commission and with the participation of the Department of Health, Department of Agriculture and of the 21 county mosquito control agencies of New Jersey. Data is held in JerseySurv, a subset of the CalSurv system. NOTE: County/species tables for arboviruses are now in a supplemental file here Arbovirus Summary 52 EEE positive pools, 9 horse cases, 1 alpaca case, 1 human case (Somerset County) 202 WNV positive pools, 0 horses, 1 human case (Hunterdon County) 1 LAC positive pool 4 JCV positive pools 0 SLE, DENG, CHIK, ZIKA positive pools Note: Data downloads times are noted and do not necessarily reflect all pools submitted and analyzed to that point in time. This report may vary from other reports from the same dataset as they are snapshots in time. Culiseta melanura and Eastern Equine Encephalitis Inland Historic Total Total Pools EEE Current SITE/Boxes or Population Tested* Tested* Isolation MFIR Weekly Mean Coastal Mean (Collected) (Submitted) Pools Bass River (Burlington Co.)/5 Coastal 0.64 0.00 7 4 Green Bank (Burlington Co.)/25 Coastal 3.23 0.64 81 (97) 10 (11) Corbin City (Atlantic Co.)/25 Coastal 2.27 0.32 139 (147) 13 (14) Dennisville (Cape May Co.)/50 Coastal 4.83 0.20 62 10 Winslow (Camden Co.)/50 Inland 1.52 0.92 617 18 5 8.104 Centerton (Salem Co.)/50 Inland 2.88 0.14 150 11 1 6.667 Turkey Swamp (Monmouth Co.)/50 Inland 1.81 3.62 775 (956)‡ 24 (28) ‡ 6 7.712 Glassboro (Gloucester Co.)/50 Inland 0.48 0.20 159 12 2 12.579 *Current week (in parentheses) results pending.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science
    PROCEEDINGS of the INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE CUMULATIVE INDEX Volumes 51-60 1941-1950 Compiled by Ray C. Friesner Index Committee Nellie M. Coats, Frank N. Wallace, Paul Weatherwax Ray C. Friesner, Chairman Indiana Acadenry of Science Indiana State Library 1952 INDEX TO PORTRAITS Arthur, Joseph Charles (1850-1942) 52:1 Behrens, Charles August (1885-1950) 60:30 Bruner, Henry Lane (1861-1945) 55:1 Coulter, Stanley (1853-1943) 53:4 Foley, Arthur Lee (1867-1945) 55:5 Hessler, Robert (1861-1942) 53:8 Malott, Clyde Arnett (1887-1950) 60:23 Martin, Lillien Jane (1851-1943) 53:10 Noyes, William Albert (1857-1941) 51:8 Phinney, Arthur John (1850-1942) 52:8 Wade, Frank Bertram (1875-1950) 60:25 359 PAST OFFICERS 1941-1950 (Officers from the founding of the Academy through 1944 are listed in 53:xvii-xx). Year President Vice-President Secretary 1941 Paul Weatherwax E. F. Degering Winona H. Welch 1942 M. G. Mellon Theodor Just Winona H. Welch 1943 Theodor Just C. L. Porter Winona H. Welch 1944 C. A. Malott E. B. Abbott Winona H. Welch 1945 M. S. Markle J. F. Mackell Winona H. Welch 1946 E. F. Degering N. E. Pearson Winona H. Welch 1947 J. F. Mackell A. R. Bechtel Winona H. Welch 1948 Winona H. Welch Mason E. Hufford 0. B. Christy 1949 Charles L. Porter Stephen S. Visher 0. B. Christy 1950 Stephen S. Visher 0. B. Christy W. A. Daily Year Treasurer Editor Press Secretary 1941 W. P. Morgan P. D. Edwards W. E. Edington 1942 W. P. Morgan P.
    [Show full text]
  • TRAINING MANUAL.Cdr
    Floodwater Mosquitoes (Lay eggs singly on non-aquatic surfaces outside of containers) Aedes sollicitans Chapter 5 (Tan Salt Marsh Mosquito) BIONOMICS AND RECOGNITION Aedes sollicitans is a salt marsh breeding species and one of the most important pest mosquitoes OF IMPORTANT in Louisiana. It is also a known vector of Venezuelan MOSQUITO SPECIES equine encephalitis (VEE) and a suspected vector of eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) in Louisiana and elsewhere. One who is casually acquainted with Aedes sollicitans breeds along the gulf coastal mosquitoes may believe that all types are much the plains and in inland areas where brackish water is same and, indeed, the similarities between species are available. The eggs of Ae. sollicitans are laid on moist considerable. That person, however, may be greatly soil in intermediate to fresh water marshes where they surprised at the differences in appearance and behavior remain until flooded by high tides or rains. Breeding from species to species (and even among some may occur in potholes, depressions, and “runs” (small, varieties within species). The differences in ditch-like depressions containing specific plant appearance, especially notable in the larval and adult species) in otherwise level areas of the marshes which stages, permit accurate identification of the species. are subject to periodic, but not daily, flooding. The The behavioral differences permit various species to eggs require several days of drying (conditioning) in occupy numerous ecological niches with relatively order to hatch when flooded. Development of the little overlapping. Thus, knowledge of the source or aquatic stages requires 7-10 days depending of water breeding habitat of mosquitoes can provide a strong temperature.
    [Show full text]
  • Three-Year Investigation of Mosquito Breeding in Natural and Impounded Tidal Marshes in Delaware
    G i / ?5 I ·' U. S. Dcp2,rtrncnt Of The Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Bulletin No. 320 (Technical) June, 1957 THREE-YEAR INVESTIGATION OF MOSQUITO BREEDING IN NATURAL AND IMPOUNDED TIDAL MARSHES IN DELAWARE by Richard F. Darsie, Jr. and Paul F. Springer UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION NEWARK, DELAWARE '-. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary . 5 Description of Study Areas . 8 Study Procedures . 11 Weather and Tidal Conditions . 13 Comparison of Mosquito Breeding in Natural and Impounded Marshes . 16 Species Occurrence ................................ 16 Seasonal Distribution .............................. 26 Relation to Certain Ecological Factors . 29 Vegetation . 29 Association of Mosquitoes with Vegetation Types .......... 29 Association of Mosquitoes with Each Other Within Vegetation Types . 36 Salinity . 42 Hydrogen-ion Concentration ............................. 45 Adult Abundance Adjoining the Study Areas ...................... 45 Species Occurrence ........................................ 45 Seasonal Distribution . 48 Comparison of Larval and Adult Populations . 50 Comparison of Wildlife Utilization in Natural and Impounded Marshes ................................................. 53 Water-Management Relationships . 56 Mosquito Production . 56 Effect of Impounding on Wildlife Utilization . 57 Management Recommendations . 58 Literature Cited .............................. ·. 63 Summary An investigation of mosquito breeding in natural and impounded tidal marshes in-Delaware was conducted from 1953 to 1955. Study areas included two natural marshes and two fresh-water impoundments, one completed in 1939 and the other after the first summer of study. The impoundments were designed to improve waterfowl habitat, and consisted largely of open expanses of water several feet in depth containing submerged plants with marginal stands of emergent vegetation. In the tidal marsh, the mosquitoes dipped in greatest numbers were Aedes sollicitans and Aedes cantator, the two most important pests in the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropogenic Impacts on Mosquito Populations in North America Over the Past Century
    ARTICLE Received 16 Feb 2016 | Accepted 19 Oct 2016 | Published 6 Dec 2016 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13604 OPEN Anthropogenic impacts on mosquito populations in North America over the past century Ilia Rochlin1,2, Ary Faraji2,3, Dominick V. Ninivaggi1, Christopher M. Barker4 & A. Marm Kilpatrick5 The recent emergence and spread of vector-borne viruses including Zika, chikungunya and dengue has raised concerns that climate change may cause mosquito vectors of these diseases to expand into more temperate regions. However, the long-term impact of other anthropogenic factors on mosquito abundance and distributions is less studied. Here, we show that anthropogenic chemical use (DDT; dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and increasing urbanization were the strongest drivers of changes in mosquito populations over the last eight decades in areas on both coasts of North America. Mosquito populations have increased as much as tenfold, and mosquito communities have become two- to fourfold richer over the last five decades. These increases are correlated with the decay in residual environmental DDT concentrations and growing human populations, but not with temperature. These results illustrate the far-reaching impacts of multiple anthropogenic disturbances on animal communities and suggest that interactions between land use and chemical use may have unforeseen consequences on ecosystems. 1 Suffolk County Vector Control, 335 Yaphank Avenue, Yaphank, New York 11980, USA. 2 Center for Vector Biology, Rutgers University, 180 Jones Avenue, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901, USA. 3 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District, 2020 North Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116, USA. 4 Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Aedes Albopictus an Efficient Bridge Vector for Zoonotic Arboviruses?
    Article Supplementary information A systematic review: Is Aedes albopictus an efficient bridge vector for zoonotic arboviruses? Taissa Pereira dos Santos1*, David Roiz1, Ricardo Lourenço-de-Oliveira2 and Christophe Paupy1* 1MIVEGEC, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, 34090, France; [email protected] (D.R.) ; 2LATHEMA, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro-RJ, 4364, Brazil; [email protected] (R.L.O.) *Correspondence: [email protected] (T.P.S.); [email protected] (C.P.) Received: date; Accepted: date; Published: date Table S1. List of the 16 articles found by searching Google Scholar to characterize the types of natural breeding sites exploited by Ae. albopictus. References Gomes, A.; Forattini, O.; Kakitani, I.; Marques, G.; Marques, C.; Marucci, D.; Brito, M. Microhabitats de Aedes albopictus (Skuse) na região do Vale do Paraíba, Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Rev. Saúde Pública S. Paulo 1992, 26, 108–118. Forattini, O.P.; Marques, G.R.A.M.; Kakitani, I.; De Brito, M.; Sallum, M.A.M. Significado epidemiológico dos criadouros de Aedes albopictus em bromélias. Rev. Saude Publica 1998, 32, 186–188. Delatte, H.; Toty, C.; Boyer, S.; Bouetard, A.; Bastien, F.; Fontenille, D. Evidence of Habitat Structuring Aedes albopictus Populations in Réunion Island. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2013, 7, e2111. Marquetti, M.; Bisset, J.; Leyva, M.; Garcia, A.; Rodriguez, M. Comportamiento estacional y temporal de Aedes aegypti y Aedes albopictus en La Habana, Cuba. 2008, 60, 62–67. Li, Y.; Kamara, F.; Zhou, G.; Puthiyakunnon, S.; Li, C.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Yao, L.; Yan, G.; Chen, X.G. Urbanization Increases Aedes albopictus Larval Habitats and Accelerates Mosquito Development and Survivorship.
    [Show full text]