DOCSLIB.ORG

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants UNITED NATIONS SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/INF/24 Distr.: General 1 October 2010 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic English only Pollutants Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee Sixth meeting Geneva, 11–15 October 2010 Item 5 of the provisional agenda* Consideration of the draft risk management evaluation on endosulfan Compilation of information submitted pursuant to Annex F that is relevant to endosulfan Note by the Secretariat The annex to the present note contains a compilation of information pursuant to Annex F to the Stockholm Convention that is relevant to endosulfan and has been submitted by parties and observers in response to the invitation issued by the Committee in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 7 (a), of the Convention. The annex is presented as prepared by the working group and has not been formally edited by the Secretariat. * UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/1/Rev.1. K1062292 061010 For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly requested to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies. UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/INF/24 Annex Compilation of information submitted pursuant to Annex F that is relevant to endosulfan Draft prepared by the ad hoc working group on endosulfan under the POPs Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention July 2010 Contents 2 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/INF/24 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................4 ADDITIONAL ANNEX E INFORMATION........................................................................................................................5 (i) Production data, including quantity and location.............................................................................................5 (ii) Uses.................................................................................................................................................................7 (iii) Releases, such as discharges, losses and emissions .....................................................................................16 ANNEX F INFORMATION...........................................................................................................................................18 (A) EFFICACY AND EFFICIENCY OF POSSIBLE CONTROL MEASURES IN MEETING RISK REDUCTION GOALS.................18 (i) Description of possible control measures.......................................................................................................18 (ii) Technical feasibility......................................................................................................................................26 (iii) Costs, including environmental and health costs .........................................................................................28 (B) INFORMATION ON ALTERNATIVES (PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES).........................................................................33 (i) Description of alternatives .............................................................................................................................33 (ii) Technical feasibility......................................................................................................................................51 (iii) Costs, including environmental and health costs .........................................................................................51 (iv) Efficacy ........................................................................................................................................................53 (v) Risk ...............................................................................................................................................................54 (vi) Availability...................................................................................................................................................55 (vii) Accessibility................................................................................................................................................56 (C) SUMMARY ON INFORMATION ON IMPACTS ON SOCIETY OF IMPLEMENTING POSSIBLE CONTROL MEASURES........56 (i) Health, including public, environmental and occupational health .................................................................56 (ii) Agriculture, including aquaculture and forestry............................................................................................59 (iii) Biota (biodiversity) ......................................................................................................................................67 (iv) Economic aspects.........................................................................................................................................68 (v) Movement towards sustainable development................................................................................................70 (vi) Social costs...................................................................................................................................................71 (D) WASTE AND DISPOSAL IMPLICATIONS (IN PARTICULAR, OBSOLETE STOCKS OF PESTICIDES AND CLEAN‑UP OF CONTAMINATED SITES) ............................................................................................................................................71 (i) Technical feasibility.......................................................................................................................................71 (ii) Costs..............................................................................................................................................................73 (E) ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC...............................................................................................................73 (F) STATUS OF CONTROL AND MONITORING .............................................................................................................76 (G) ANY NATIONAL OR REGIONAL CONTROL ACTIONS ALREADY TAKEN, INCLUDING INFORMATION ON ALTERNATIVES, AND OTHER RELEVANT RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION ......................................................79 (H) OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR THE RISK MANAGEMENT EVALUATION ....................................................83 (I) OTHER INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE POPRC...........................................................................................101 ANNEX-I ..............................................................................................................................................................106 ANNEX-II.............................................................................................................................................................115 3 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/INF/24 Introduction Endosulfan, a synthetic organochlorine compound, is widely used as an agricultural insecticide. It was introduced into the market already back in the mid 1950s but plant protection products containing endosulfan are still used in a number of countries worldwide. The European Community and its Member States that are Parties to the Convention submitted a proposal to list endosulfan in Annexes A, B or C of the Convention in 2007 (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.3/5). At its fourth meeting held from 13 to 17 October 2008 in Geneva the POPRC decided to invite Parties and observers to submit the Annex E information on Endosulfan proposed by European Community and its Member States that are Parties to the Convention for listing in Annexes A, B, and/or C of the Convention in order to prepare a draft risk profile. A large number of parties and observers have responded to this invitation. The ad hoc working group prepared the draft risk profile (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/3). A supporting document for the draft risk profile can be found in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/INF/9. At its 5th meeting in Geneva from 12 to 16 October 2009 the POPRC reviewed and adopted a revised draft risk profile on endosulfan by which it agrees that the POP characteristics of the chemical warrant global action. The Committee decided to develop for endosulfan a risk management evaluation document that includes an analysis of possible control measures for consideration at its next meeting and final recommendation to the COP for its listing in the Annexes of the Convention.i Parties and observers have been invited to submit to the Secretariat information specified in Annex F by 8 January 2010ii. Several EU and non EU Member States and a few organisations followed the invitation and provided the relevant information. Among them Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Germany, India, Japan, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Togo, Ukraine, the United States of America and institutions like CropLife, IPEN, ISC and MAI. They provided useful information according to Annex F of the Stockholm Convention. In addition to the information relevant for the risk management evaluation, two parties (Australia and Norway) provided additional information relevant for the risk profile with respect to adverse human health effects. The corresponding information provided by Australia can be found in chapter “(I) Other information requested by the POPRC”. The corresponding information provided by Norway can be found in chapter “(h) Other relevant information for the risk management evaluation”. 4 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/INF/24 Additional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7,687,533 B2 Critcher Et Al
    USOO7687533B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7,687,533 B2 Critcher et al. (45) Date of Patent: Mar. 30, 2010 (54) N-(1-ARYLPYRAZOL-4L) SULFONAMIDES EP 546391 6, 1993 AND THEIR USE AS PARASITICDES EP 59.4291 4f1994 EP 626.375 11, 1994 (75) Inventors: Douglas James Critcher, Sandwich EP 1319657 6, 2003 (GB); Nigel Derek Arthur Walshe, WO WO87,03781 7, 1987 Sandwich (GB); Christelle Lauret, WO WO91f11172 8, 1991 Sandwich (GB) WO WO93, 19053 9, 1993 WO WO93,25543 12/1993 (73) Assignees: Pfizer Inc., New York, NY (US); Pfizer WO WO94/O2518 2, 1994 Products Inc., Groton, CT (US) WO WO94, 15944 T 1994 - WO WO94,21606 9, 1994 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this WO WO95/22552 8, 1995 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 WO WO96, 11945 4f1996 U.S.C. 154(b) by 607 days. WO WO96, 15121 5, 1996 WO WO98,24767 6, 1998 (21) Appl. No.: 10/593,133 WO WO98.28278 7, 1998 WO WO98,55148 12/1998 (22) PCT Filed: Mar. 7, 2005 WO WO98,57937 12/1998 (86). PCT No.: PCT/B2005/000597 W WS 1 3. S 371 (c)(1) WO WOO1, 19798 3, 2001 (2), (4) Date: Nov.30, 2006 WO WOO2/O58690 8, 2002 WO WOO3,O37274 5, 2003 (87) PCT Pub. No.: WO2005/090313 WO WOO3,051833 6, 2003 WO WO2004/OOO318 12/2003 PCT Pub. Date: Sep. 29, 2005 WO WO2004/043951 5, 2004 WO WO2004/043951 A1 * 5, 2004 (65) Prior Publication Data WO WO2004/049797 6, 2004 US 2008/O26 1940 A1 Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Heterospilus Cephi ^ Kohwer Is a Major Parasite of the European Wheat Sawfly, Cephus Pygmaeus (Linnaeus)
    HETEROSPILUS CEPHI ROHWER, A PARASITE OF THE EUROPEAN WHEAT SAWFLY, CEPHUS PYGMAEUS (L.)' By C. C. HILL, Associate Entomologist, and H. D. SMITH, Assistant Entomologist, Division of Cereal and Forage Insects, Bureau of Entomology, United States Department of Agriculture. ^ INTRODUCTION Heterospilus cephi ^ Kohwer is a major parasite of the European wheat sawfly, Cephus pygmaeus (Linnaeus). It was first reared from this host in 1924, by Donald T. Ries. In 1925, it was described by Rohwer,^ and the following year reference was made to it by Ries ^ in a paper on the wheat-stem sawfly. It is the purpose of this paper to present certain details of the mor- phology and life history of this parasite. GEOGRAPHICALIDISTRIBUTION Heterospilus cephi has been found throughout most of the western wheat areas of the State of New Xork, from Syracuse and the Finger Lakes westward to Lake Erie, and over a limited area in northern Pennsylvania, but has not yet been recovered south of Lycoming County, Pa. Figure 1 shows the districts of New York and Penn- sylvania from which it has been recovered. HOST Under natural conditions Heterospilus cephi has been found to at tack only the European wheat sawfly, Cephus pygmaeus (L.). How- ever, when- introduced into a large outdoor cage containing whea- infested with the black grain-stem sawfly, Trachelus tabidus (Fab.), it parasitized this species freely and passed through its complete normal life cycle on this host without difiiculty. 'This would indicate its ability to adapt itself to this host even though it does not already normally parasitize it. It is possible that the different geographical ranges of these two sawflies may account for the apparent failure of H.
    [Show full text]
  • Insecticides - Development of Safer and More Effective Technologies
    INSECTICIDES - DEVELOPMENT OF SAFER AND MORE EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES Edited by Stanislav Trdan Insecticides - Development of Safer and More Effective Technologies http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/3356 Edited by Stanislav Trdan Contributors Mahdi Banaee, Philip Koehler, Alexa Alexander, Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, Juliana Cristina Dos Santos, Ronald Zanetti Bonetti Filho, Denilson Ferrreira De Oliveira, Giovanna Gajo, Dejane Santos Alves, Stuart Reitz, Yulin Gao, Zhongren Lei, Christopher Fettig, Donald Grosman, A. Steven Munson, Nabil El-Wakeil, Nawal Gaafar, Ahmed Ahmed Sallam, Christa Volkmar, Elias Papadopoulos, Mauro Prato, Giuliana Giribaldi, Manuela Polimeni, Žiga Laznik, Stanislav Trdan, Shehata E. M. Shalaby, Gehan Abdou, Andreia Almeida, Francisco Amaral Villela, João Carlos Nunes, Geri Eduardo Meneghello, Adilson Jauer, Moacir Rossi Forim, Bruno Perlatti, Patrícia Luísa Bergo, Maria Fátima Da Silva, João Fernandes, Christian Nansen, Solange Maria De França, Mariana Breda, César Badji, José Vargas Oliveira, Gleberson Guillen Piccinin, Alan Augusto Donel, Alessandro Braccini, Gabriel Loli Bazo, Keila Regina Hossa Regina Hossa, Fernanda Brunetta Godinho Brunetta Godinho, Lilian Gomes De Moraes Dan, Maria Lourdes Aldana Madrid, Maria Isabel Silveira, Fabiola-Gabriela Zuno-Floriano, Guillermo Rodríguez-Olibarría, Patrick Kareru, Zachaeus Kipkorir Rotich, Esther Wamaitha Maina, Taema Imo Published by InTech Janeza Trdine 9, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia Copyright © 2013 InTech All chapters are Open Access distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles even for commercial purposes, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. After this work has been published by InTech, authors have the right to republish it, in whole or part, in any publication of which they are the author, and to make other personal use of the work.
    [Show full text]
  • View As Separate Document
    Ecotao Enterprises cc [email protected] iTEM NO. Available microscope slides. Note that there is an administrative and freight fee with any order A MICRO-SPECIMENS A1 plant WM A 1-1 CELL AND TISSUE---micro-specimens BB-QP0001 Letter A Slide BB-QP0002 Letter B Slide BB-QP0003 Onion Epidermis W.M BB-QP0004 Pepper Epidermal (showing simple pit pair)W.M BB-QP0005 Piasmodesma(Persimmon sndosperm) BB-QP0006 Onion root tip L.S BB-QP0007 Onion chromosome W.M BB-QP0008 Hydrilla stem tips L.S( showing shoot apical meristem) BB-QP0009 Clove Bud S.L BB-QP0010 Corn stalk inter apical meristem L.S BB-QP0011 Hosta leaf lower epidermis W.M BB-QP0012 Wheat leaf lower epidermis W.M BB-QP0013 Broad bean leaf lower epidermis W.M BB-QP0014 Corn leaf lower epidermis W.M BB-QP0015 Chrysanthemum leaf lower epidermis W.M(showing stoma) BB-QP0016 Apple leaf lower epidermis W.M(showing epidermi cells) BB-QP0017 Sycamore branch-shaped down W.M BB-QP0018 Geranium leaf lower epidermis W.M(Showing glandular hair) BB-QP0019 Mintleaf leaf lower epidermis W.M(showing glandular scale) BB-QP0020 Sweet potato root W.M(showing storage tissue) BB-QP0021 Hydrilla stem C.S(showing aceration tissue) BB-QP0022 Myriophyllum spicatum stem C.S(showing aceration tissue) BB-QP0023 Waterlily leaf C.S(showing aceration tissue) BB-QP0024 Amaranthus stems (showing vascular) BB-QP0025 Pumpkin stem C.S(showing tracheid) BB-QP0026 Pumpkin stem L.S (showing vascular type) BB-QP0027 Pumpkin stem isolation W.M (showing vascular type) BB-QP0028 Sunflower stem L.S BB-QP0029 Gossypium hirsutum
    [Show full text]
  • Jordan Beans RA RMO Dir
    Importation of Fresh Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), Shelled or in Pods, from Jordan into the Continental United States A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment February 14, 2011 Version 2 Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Pest Risk Assessment for Beans from Jordan Executive Summary In this risk assessment we examined the risks associated with the importation of fresh beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), in pods (French, green, snap, and string beans) or shelled, from the Kingdom of Jordan into the continental United States. We developed a list of pests associated with beans (in any country) that occur in Jordan on any host based on scientific literature, previous commodity risk assessments, records of intercepted pests at ports-of-entry, and information from experts on bean production. This is a qualitative risk assessment, as we express estimates of risk in descriptive terms (High, Medium, and Low) rather than numerically in probabilities or frequencies. We identified seven quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway of introduction. We estimated Consequences of Introduction by assessing five elements that reflect the biology and ecology of the pests: climate-host interaction, host range, dispersal potential, economic impact, and environmental impact. We estimated Likelihood of Introduction values by considering both the quantity of the commodity imported annually and the potential for pest introduction and establishment. We summed the Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction values to estimate overall Pest Risk Potentials, which describe risk in the absence of mitigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgenic Crops.Pdf
    MICHEL TEMER President of the Republic ELISEU PADILHA Chief of Staff of the Presidency of the Republic JOSÉ RICARDO ROSENO Special Secretary for Family Farming and Agrarian Development JEFFERSON CORITEAC Deputy Executive Secretary of for Family Farming and Agrarian Development JOSÉ ROBERTO VIEIRA SANTOS Subsecretary of Planning and Management RAQUEL SANTORI Subsecretary of de Agrarian Reordering EVERTON AUGUSTO PAIVA FERREIRA Subsecretary of Family Farming MARCELO MARTINS Subsecretary of Rural Development SORRIVAL DE LIMA Subsecretary of Land Regularization in the Legal Amazon CARLOS EDUARDO BOVO Director of the Coordination of Strategic Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (CGMA / NEAD) WILLY DE LA PIEDRA MESONES Coordinator-General for Strategic Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (CGMA / NEAD) Copyright 2017 MDA mda.gov.br Series NEAD Debate 27 Agrarian Studies and Rural Development Centre/ Coordination of Strategic Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (NEAD) Esplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco C, 5º andar – sala 543 CEP 70.046-900 Brasília/DF Editorial staff Editorial production: Ana Carolina Fleury and Mariana Camargo Spelling and grammar review: Ana Carolina Fleury, Mariana Camargo and Grafica Ideal Graphic and editorial design: Aline Pereira - Ascom/MDA Transgenic Crops – hazards and uncertainties: More than 750 studies disregarded by the GMOs regulatory bodies / Gilles Ferment ... [ et al. ].– Brasília: Ministry of Agrarian Development, 2017. 450p. _ ( Nead debate ; 27 ) ISBN 978-85- 8354-015- 1 1. Trangenic plants. 2. Agrobiodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Swarth, C. Et Al. the 2007 Jug Bay Bioblitz Reliort. 2008
    2007 Jug Bay BioBlitz Report Christopher Swarth, Lindsay Hollister, Elaine Friebele, Karyn Molines and Susan Matthews Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary December 2008 Introduction A BioBlitz is a 24-hour field survey and inventory of organisms in a well-defined area such as a park or other natural area. The objective of this intensive survey is to generate a catalog or list of all species that are identified or collected during the brief survey period. The first BioBlitz in the United States was conducted in 1996 in Washington, DC. Today dozens of BioBlitzes are held annually in the United States (see Wikipedia Encyclopedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioBlitz. A BioBlitz increases local knowledge of biodiversity and involves local naturalists and the public in coordinated fieldwork and observation. The surveys raise the awareness among the general public about the natural world and the importance of biodiversity. The species distribution and occurrence information that is obtained from a BioBlitz also provides resource managers with a deeper understanding of the natural lands under their management, thus enabling improved habitat stewardship. The 2007 Jug Bay BioBlitz took place at the Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary over a 24-hour period, from 12:00 (noon) on 15 September to 12:00 on 16 September. We organized this event in order to take advantage of the growing interest in biodiversity by the public and to tap in to the community of active, highly skilled naturalists in the Washington DC/Baltimore area. For this first-time effort we concentrated the field surveys on groups of organisms for which local biogeographical information was poor or incomplete (for example, ants, ground bees, spiders and zooplankton), rather than on the groups for which our knowledge on distribution was relatively thorough such as birds and herps.
    [Show full text]
  • Assemblage of Hymenoptera Arriving at Logs Colonized by Ips Pini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and Its Microbial Symbionts in Western Montana
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences Faculty Publications Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences 2009 Assemblage of Hymenoptera Arriving at Logs Colonized by Ips pini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and its Microbial Symbionts in Western Montana Celia K. Boone Diana Six University of Montana - Missoula, [email protected] Steven J. Krauth Kenneth F. Raffa Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/decs_pubs Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Boone, Celia K.; Six, Diana; Krauth, Steven J.; and Raffa, Kenneth F., "Assemblage of Hymenoptera Arriving at Logs Colonized by Ips pini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and its Microbial Symbionts in Western Montana" (2009). Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences Faculty Publications. 33. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/decs_pubs/33 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 172 Assemblage of Hymenoptera arriving at logs colonized by Ips pini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and its microbial symbionts in western Montana Celia K. Boone Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin,
    [Show full text]
  • Blister Beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Meloidae)1 Richard B
    EENY166 Blister Beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Meloidae)1 Richard B. Selander and Thomas R. Fasulo2 Introduction blister beetles are seldom seen, except for first instar larvae (triungulins) frequenting flowers or clinging to adult The family Meloidae, the blister beetles, contains about bees. All blister beetle larvae are specialized predators. 2500 species, divided among 120 genera and four subfami- Larvae of most genera enter the nests of wild bees, where lies (Bologna and Pinto 2001). Florida has 26 species, only they consume both immature bees and the provisions a small fraction of the total number in the US, but nearly of one or more nest cells. The larvae of some Meloinae, three times that of the West Indies (Selander and Bouseman including most Epicauta spp., prey on the eggs of acridid 1960). Adult beetles are phytophagous, feeding especially grasshoppers. A few larvae evidently prey on the eggs of on plants in the families Amaranthaceae, Asteraceae, blister beetles (Selander 1981). Of the Florida species, Fabaceae, and Solanaceae. Most adults eat only floral parts, Nemognatha punctulata LeConte (misidentified as Zonitis but some, particularly those of Epicauta spp., eat leaves as vittigera (LeConte)) has been found in a nest of a Megachile well. sp. in Cuba (Scaramuzza 1938) and several members of the genus Epicauta have been associated with the eggpods of Melanoplus spp. Figure 1. Adult Epicauta floridensis Werner (left), and E. cinerea Forster (right). Credits: Lyle J. Buss, University of Florida A few adults are nocturnal, but most are diurnal or show no distinct diel cycle. Since adults are gregarious and often Figure 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Author's Blurb
    Author’s Blurb TK Lim (Tong Kwee Lim) obtained his bachelor’s and plant products into and out of Australia from and master’s degrees in Agricultural Science and for the Middle East and Asian region. During from the University of Malaya and his PhD his time with ACIAR, he oversaw and managed (Botanical Sciences) from the University of international research and development programs Hawaii. He worked in the Agricultural University in plant protection and horticulture, covering a of Malaysia for 20 years as a Lecturer and wide array of crops that included fruit, plantation Associate Professor; as Principal Horticulturist crops, vegetables, culinary and medicinal herbs for 9 years for the Department of Primary and spices mainly in southeast Asia and the Industries and Fisheries, Darwin, Northern Pacifi c. In the course of his four decades of work- Territory; for 6 years as Manager of the Asia and ing career, he has travelled extensively world- Middle East Team in Plant Biosecurity Australia, wide to many countries in South Asia, East Asia, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Southeast Asia, Middle East, Europe, the Pacifi c Forestry, Australia, and for 4 years as Research Islands, USA and England and also throughout Program Manager with the Australian Centre for Malaysia and Australia. Since his tertiary educa- International Agriculture Research (ACIAR), tion days, he always had a strong passion for Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, crops and took an avid interest in edible and Australia, before he retired from public service. medicinal
    [Show full text]
  • Fifteen Newly Recorded Species of the Subfamily Doryctinae (Hymenoptera) in Korea
    Anim. Syst. Evol. Divers. Vol. 36, No. 1: 17-24, January 2020 https://doi.org/10.5635/ASED.2020.36.1.042 Review article Fifteen Newly Recorded Species of the Subfamily Doryctinae (Hymenoptera) in Korea Hye-Rin Lee1,*, S. A. Belokobylskij2, Deok-Seo Ku3, Bong-Kyu Byun4 1Animal Recovery Team (Insects), Division of Restoration Research, National Institute of Ecology, Yeongyang 36531, Korea 2Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia 3The Science Museum of Natural Enemies, Geochang 50147, Korea 4Department of Biological Science & Biotechnology, Hannam University, Daejeon 34430, Korea ABSTRACT Doryctinae is a large and heterogeneous group with more than 1,000 described. It is idiobiont ectoparasitoids on the larvae of wood-boring and xylophagous beetles. Some species attack larvae of wood boring lepidoptera. In the pres- ent study, fifteen species belonging to eight genera of the subfamily Doryctinae are recorded for the first time from Korea: Doryctes Haliday (2 species), Eodendrus Belokobylskij (1 species), Heterospilus Haliday (4 species), Mono­ lexis Förster (1 species), Neurocrassus Snoflak (2 species), Rhoptrocentrus Marshall (1 species), Sonanus Beloko- bylskij et Konishi (1 species), Spathius Nees (3 speices). The genera Eodendrus Belokobylskij, Monolexis Förster, Rhoptrocentrus Marshall, Sonanus Belokobylskij et Konishi and fifteen species are reported for the first times from Korea. Diagnosis and host information are provided. Keywords: ‌Doryctinae, Hymenoptera, new record, Korea INTRODUCTION by Kim (1963), Papp (1987a, 1987b, 1992), Belokobylskij and Ku (2001), Ku et al. (2001), Belokobylskij (2006), Belo- Braconid wasps of the subfamily Doryctinae are a large and kobylskij et al. (2012, 2013), Kim et al. (2016, 2018), and heterogeneous group with more than 1,000 described species Lee et al.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 01 CON ISBCA3 Copy COVER
    BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF COFFEE BERRY BORER: THE ROLE OF DNA-BASED GUT-CONTENT ANALYSIS IN ASSESSMENT OF PREDATION Eric G. Chapman1, Juliana Jaramillo2, 3, Fernando E. Vega4, & James D. Harwood1 1 Department of Entomology, University of Kentucky, S225 Agricultural Science Center North, Lexington KY 40546-0091, U.S.A., [email protected]; [email protected]; 2 International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe) P.O.Box 30772-00100 Nairobi, Kenya. 3Institute of Plant Diseases and Plant Protection, University of Hannover, Herrenhäuser Strasse. 2, 30419 Hannover - Germany. [email protected]; 4Sustainable Perennial Crops Laboratory, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Building 001, Beltsville MD 20705, U.S.A. [email protected] ABSTRACT. The coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei, is the most important pest of coffee worldwide, causing an estimated $500 million in damage annually. Infestation rates from 50-90% have been reported, significantly impacting coffee yields. Adult female H. hampei bore into the berry and lay eggs whose larvae hatch and spend their entire larval life within the berry, feeding on the coffee bean, lowering its quality and sometimes causing abscission. Biological control of H. hampei using parasitoids, fungi and nematodes has been reported but potential predators such as ants and predatory thrips, which have been observed in and around the coffee berries, have received little attention. This study reviews previous H. hampei biological control efforts and focuses on the role of predators in H. hampei biological control, an area in which tracking trophic associations by direct observation is not possible in part due to the cryptic nature of the biology of H.
    [Show full text]