DOCSLIB.ORG

Factors Affecting Feeding Injury to Grasses by Adult Billbugs (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Factors Affecting Feeding Injury to Grasses by Adult Billbugs (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-1985 Factors Affecting Feeding Injury to Grasses by Adult Billbugs (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Dale C. Nielson Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Biology Commons, and the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Nielson, Dale C., "Factors Affecting Feeding Injury to Grasses by Adult Billbugs (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)" (1985). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 3353. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/3353 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FACTORS AFFECTING FEEDING INJURY TO GRASSES BY ADULT BILLBUGS (COLEOPTERA : CURCULIONIDAE) by Dale C. Nielson A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Biology (Entomology) UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 1985 i i An adult bluegrass billbug, Sphenophorus parvulus Gyll enh al (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisory committee for their suggestions made in relation to this thesis. I am indebted to my thesis director, James D. Hansen, for his advice, criticism, and encouragement. I thar.k B. Austin Haws for his help and willingness to serve as my major professor. I also extend my appreciation to William F. Campbell, for providing useful information concerning plant growth and physiology. Lastly, I am grateful to the Agricultural Research Service, U. S. D. A., for providing financial support and use of facilities during the course of this study. Dale C. Nielson iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMNT S iii LIST OF TABLES . v LIST OF FIGURES vii ABSTRACT • viii INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES • REVIEW OF LITERATURE 7 MATERIALS AND METHODS 10 Insect sources 10 Determination of feeding injury 10 Daily feeding activity 12 Grass genera test • 12 Grass growth study • 14 Effect of stem diameter 15 Stem feeding test • 16 Leaf feeding test • 17 Comparison of wildrye stands 17 Field test #1 18 Field test #2 20 Field test #3 20 RESULTS • 22 Feeding injury rates 22 Daily feeding activity 25 Grass genera test • 25 Grass growth study • 25 Effect of stem diameter 29 Stem feeding and leaf feeding tests 36 Comparison of wildrye stands 38 Field tests 38 DISCUSSION • 47 Summary of feeding injury • • • • • 47 Effect of stem diameter and stand location 48 Considerations for screening studies 51 LITERATURE C!TEO 54 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Known host plants of the bluegrass billbug, Sthenophorus parvulus (Satterthwaite 1931, Ahmad and Funk 983, Asay et a1 • l9tl3) . • • • • • . • • • • • • • 3 2. Number of punctures by 10 adult billbugs to 60 stems over 3 days in the greenhouse 24 3. Punctures (X" ±SD) incurred by 50 bluegrass bill bugs to 5 grass genera in a greenhouse study 27 4. Survey of feeding damage by 10 adult bluegrass billbugs to 20 stems of each of 5 grass genera 28 5. Analysis of variance of feeding puncture data from grass genera study 29 6. Summary of feeding punctures incurred by bluegrass billbugs to stems of 3 wheatgrasses • 34 7. Analysis of variance of AGCR stem feeding punctures in stem diameter test 35 8. Analysis of variance of ELTR stem feeding punctures in stem diameter test 35 9. Analysis of variance of RS-1 stem feeding punctures in stem diameter test 36 10. Comparison of feeding injury rates among stem diameter test grass entries 37 11. Mean (:t SO) feeding punctures incurred by wildrye billbugs to stems and 1eaves of 3 wheatgrasses 38 12. Analysis of variance of feeding puncture data from stem feeding study 39 13. Analysis of variance of feeding puncture data from leaf feeding study 39 14. Mean (:t SO) feeding punctures incurred by wildrye billbugs to leaves of Great Basin wildrye from 3 different stands 41 15. Analysis of variance of feeding puncture data from test #1, comparison of wildrye stands 41 16. Analysis of variance of feeding puncture data from test #2, comparison of wildrye stands 42 vi 17. Feeding data (X± SO) from 3 feeding tests in the field 44 18. Analysis of variance of feeding puncture data from field study #1 • 44 19. Analysis of variance of feeding puncture data from field study 112 • 45 20. Analysis of variance of feeding puncture data from field study 113 • 46 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Circular arrangement of test plants in soil filled trays in the grass genera preference study . 13 2. Plexiglas enclosures for containing adult billbugs 13 3. Glass cages containing wildrye billbugs and leaf blade sections 19 4. Adult wildrye billbugs feeding on L. cinereus leaf blade sections • 19 5. Secondary feeding damage by adult wil drye bill bugs to L. cinereus leaves 23 6. lnfloresences of L. cinereus showing disfigurment due to adult wildrye billbug feeding injury 23 7. Observed numbers of adult wildrye and bluegrass billbugs feeding upon Great Basin wildrye and RS-1, respectively 26 8. Mean (± SE) feeding punctures to 5 grass entries using 10 bluegrass billbugs in a 13 day feeding study 30 9. Numbers of stems with indicated range of feeding punctures by bluegrass billbugs from grass genera test 31 10. Mean growth rates of 3 wheatgrasses grown in the greenhouse over a 4 month period 32 11. Mean (± SE) feeding punctures to different sized grass stems by bluegrass billbugs 33 12. ~lean ( ± SE) feeding punctures to 3 stems and 3 1 eaves of each of 3 grass entries by wil drye bi 11 bugs . 40 13. Mean (± SE) feeding punctures by 10 wildrye billbugs to leaves of Great Basin wildrye after 5 days in test #1, comparison of wil drye stands • 43 14. Mean (± SE) feeding punctures by 10 ~lildrye billbugs to leaves of Great Basin wildrye after 5 days in test #2, comparison of wil drye stands • 43 vii i ABSTRACT Factors Affecting Feeding Injury to Grasses by Adult Billbugs (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) by Dale C. Nielson, Master of Science Utah State University, 1985 Major Professor: B. Austin Haws Department: Biology-Division of Entomology Factors associated with feeding injury to grass plants by two species of adult billbugs, Sphenophorus gentilis and~· parvulus, were evaluated. Early season tests utilized adult bluegrass billbugs while later studies involved wildrye billbugs. Types of feeding injury were determined and preferred feeding locati ons on host plants were identified for each billbug species. Greenhouse and field studies compared different species of grasses, individual plants within a species, and plants from different locations, for billbug susceptibility. The effect of grass plant age and stem size were also tested using bluegrass billbugs. Using analysis of variance and multiple comparison tests, significant differences in amounts of feeding injury were determined among entries. Wildrye plants from different geographic locations showed large differences in susceptibility to wildrye billbug feeding when compared in a greenhouse study. Grass stem size had an effect on amounts of feeding injury incurred to 2 out of 3 wheatgrasses by bluegrass billbugs. A field study suggested that host plant age was not a factor in susceptibility of slender wheatgrass to bluegrass bfllbugs. ix Implications for screening grasses for resistance to billbugs using adult insects are discussed. Comparisons between greenhouse and field studies are also examined. (57 pages) INTRODUCTION The genus Sphenophorus (Coleoptera:Curculionidae) comprises the group of weevils known as billbugs. Adult insects are usually brown or black, and range in length from 5 to 20 mm (Vaurie 1951). These insects are usually associated with mature grass stands in habitats of marshes, pastures, and turfgrass. Billbugs have chewing mouthparts located at the distal end of a snout-like projection of the head. When feeding, adult weevils puncture and gouge out furrows in the stem tissues. As the injured host plant grows, the expanding leaves often become disfigured and riddled with holes (Metcalf 1917). Host plants in the grass family (Gramineae) are typically injured in this manner. Damage to other plants (e.g., cattails, sedges, and rushes) are usually less visible. Larval feeding is more damaging to the host plant than adult feeding (Lindgren et al. 1981, Kindler et al. 1983, Shearman et al. 1983). Billbug larvae cause economic injury to corn (Parrot 1889), turfgrasses (Juska 1965), and pasture grasses (Turner 1955). Larvae feed primarily below the crown of the host plant, often severing many of the roots in the process. When billbug larvae populations are high, damage to the root systems may be great enough that tillers are easily pulled from the ground. Injured plants show signs of water stress, premature senescence, and stunting (Metcalf 1917). Damaged plants are susceptible to fungal pathogens (Hanson and Milleron 1942). Feeding injury by adult billbugs has not been thoroughly investigated. I chose to study the feeding behavior of adult billbugs as the main topic of this thesis. Two species of billbugs were tested in studies in 1983 and 1984. Albeit a study of 2 species cannot possibly characterize the feeding injury of this large genus as a whole, it does attempt to identify some basic feeding patterns of billbugs in general. I was interested in identifying factors that influence the feeding response of adult billbugs to host plants. Differences among grass genera , growing environment, and intra-specific plant differences, such as plant age and stem diameter, were of interest. Presently, methods for screening plants for resistance to billbugs utilize larval feeding activity (Ahmad and Funk 1983). Because adult insects are more selective in accepting potential host plants than are immature forms, the use of adult insects in feeding preference tests could conceivably improve procedures for screening host plants.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Billbugs (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) New to Orchardgrass (Dactylis Glomerata) Grown in Virginia Author(S): William R
    Billbugs (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) New to Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata) Grown in Virginia Author(s): William R. Kuhn, Roger R. Youngman, Kenner Love, Timothy Mize, Shaohui Wu, and Curtis A. Laub Source: Entomological News, 123(4):315-316. Published By: The American Entomological Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3157/021.123.0405 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3157/021.123.0405 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Volume 123, Number 4, November and December 2013 315 SCIENTIFIC NOTE BILLBUGS (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE) NEW TO ORCHARDGRASS (DACTYLIS GLOMERATA) GROWN IN VIRGINIA1 William R. Kuhn,2 Roger R. Youngman,3 Kenner Love,4 Timothy Mize,5 Shaohui Wu,3 and Curtis A. Laub3 Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) is an important crop in Virginia, con- tributing significantly toward the commonwealth’s $448-million hay industry (NASS 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • 91St Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Branch Entomological Society of America
    91ST ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOUTHEASTERN BRANCH ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA 12-15 MARCH 2017 MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE David G. Riley President, 2016-2017 SPONSORS OF THE 2017 SEB MEETING Our sponsors provide support for the mixers, breakfast, and various other functions of the meeting. In so doing, they help reduce the registration costs and provide a much more enjoyable environment for our meeting. Please be sure to express your appreciation to our sponsors: Silver ($500-$999) (Coffee Break) (Sunday Reception) (Entertainment) Gold ($1,000-2,499) ADAMA Syngenta Annual Review 2015 Platinum ($2,500 +) Te o otets Te o otets NS se ove o otets Te WELCOME N NTICES & S ESA SECTIONS 4 PROGRAM INFORMATION 5 Southeastern Branch-ESA 2016-2017 Officers and Committees. Past Presidents of the ESA-SEB ........... AWARDS 1 0 SN WARDS 2 PROGRAM 19 Program Summary .....................19 Monday, March 13, 2017, Preliminary Business Meeting and Plenary Address ....22 Monday, March 13, 2017, Posters ........22 Monday, March 13, 2017, Morning .......24 Monday, March 13, 2017, Lunch and Learn ...........................27 Monday, March 13, 2017, Afternoon ......27 Tuesday, March 14, 2017, Posters ........30 Tuesday, March 14, 2017, Morning .......33 Tuesday, March 14, 2017, Awards Luncheon and Photo Salon ..............35 Tuesday, March 14, 2017, Afternoon ......36 Wednesday, March 15, 2017, Morning ....38 INDICES 41 Author Index .........................41 Common Name Index ..................46 Scientific Name Index ..................48 SHERATON FLOOR PLANS 50 1 SOUTHEASN BRANCH January 23, 2017 Welcome FROM: SEB-ESA President David Riley, [email protected] TO: SEB-ESA Membership SUBJECT: Welcome to the 91st Meeting of the Southeastern Branch of the ESA It is my pleasure to welcome you to the 91st Meeting of the Southeastern Branch (SEB) of the Entomo- logical Society of America March 12-15, 2017 at the Sheraton Memphis Downtown Hotel, Memphis, TN.
    [Show full text]
  • ) (51) International Patent Classification: A01N 63/00
    ) ( (51) International Patent Classification: Declarations under Rule 4.17: A01N 63/00 (2006.01) A01P5/00 (2006.01) — as to applicant's entitlement to apply for and be granted a A01P3/00 (2006.01) A01P 7/00 (2006.01) patent (Rule 4.17(H)) (21) International Application Number: — as to the applicant's entitlement to claim the priority of the PCT/US20 19/040 107 earlier application (Rule 4.17(iii)) (22) International Filing Date: Published: 0 1 July 2019 (01.07.2019) — with international search report (Art. 21(3)) — before the expiration of the time limit for amending the (25) Filing Language: English claims and to be republished in the event of receipt of (26) Publication Language: English amendments (Rule 48.2(h)) (30) Priority Data: 62/692,059 29 June 2018 (29.06.2018) US (71) Applicant: AGBIOME, INC. [US/US]; 104 T.W. Alexan¬ der Drive, Building 1, Durham, North Carolina 27709 (US). (72) Inventors: PALEKAR, Narendra; 121 Amiable Loop, Cary, North Carolina 275 13 (US). KEYSER, Chad Alton; 452 Texanna Way, Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540 (US). (74) Agent: BUCK, B. Logan; Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, P.O. Box 7037, Atlanta, Georgia 30357-0037 (US). (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every kind of national protection available) : AE, AG, AL, AM, AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DJ, DK, DM, DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JO, JP, KE, KG, KH, KN, KP, KR, KW,KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LU, LY,MA, MD, ME, MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SA, SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Economic Insects and Related Arthropods
    April 1989 · Bulletin 752 OHIO ECONOMIC INSECTS AND RELATED ARTHROPODS Armyworm feeding on com; 2x. (USDA) This list was prepared in cooperation with faculty of the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, the Ohio Department of Agriculture, the Ohio Department of Health, The Ohio State University and the Plant Pest Control Division of the United States Department of Agriculture . .Uhio Cooperative Extension Service The Ohio State University 2 OHIO ECONOMIC INSECTS AND RELATED ARTUROPODS For additional information, contact William F. Lyon, Extension Entomologist, The Ohio State University, 1991 Kenny Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1090. Phone: (614) m-5274. INTRODUCTION This list of Ohio Economic Insects and Related Arthropods was first assembled back in 1962-1964 while employed as the first "Survey Entomologist" of Ohio based at The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio. It was felt that such a list would serve as a valuable reference and useful purpose for commercial, government and public needs. This list was prepared and updated in cooperation with faculty of the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, the Ohio Department of Agriculture, the Ohio Department of Health, the Ohio State University and the Plant Pest Control Division of the United States Department of Agriculture. Common and scientific names are listed under various host and habitat categories. ACKNQWLEDGEMENT Several individuals have made valuable contributions to this list of Ohio Insects and Related Arthropods. by updating common names, scientific names, hosts and habitats. Carl W. Albrecht George Keeney Bruce Eisley Richard K. Lindquist John K.
    [Show full text]
  • R. L. Meagher, Jr.R and J. C. Kgaspi 2 Texas A&M University Agricultural
    S O U T IIW E S T E R N E N T O M O L O G IS T N IA R .2003 M ttIIN ‐F IE L D D IST R IB U T IO N O F T H R E E H O M O PT E R A N SP E C ttS IN T E X A S SU G A R C A N E R. L. Meagher,Jr.r andJ. C. kgaspi 2 TexasA&M University Agricultural Researchand ExtensionCenter 2415EastHighway 83 Weslaco,Texas 78596 ABSTRACT Sugarcanefields composed ofeither'CP 70-321'or'NCo 310'weresampled during 1993 and 1994 for three speciesofhomopteran insects. The West Indian canefly, Saccharosydne saccharivora(tlestwood), wasthe mostabundant speiies collectedwith densitiesreaching over 40 per shoot. Populationdensities varied sigrificantly throughoutthe seasonin 1993but were similar in 1994. No differencein densitieswere found between sugarcane cultivars. Both the sugarcanedelphacid, Perhinsiella saccharicidaKirkaldyand the leafhopperDraeculacephala portola Ball, were found in low numbers(< 1.0per shoot). P. saccharicidareached its highest levelslater in the season,and 'CP 70-321'shoots harbored more individuals than 'NCo 310' shoots.Although D. portola dertsitieswere low, differe,ncesamong fields andbetwecn cultivars were found. Aggregation,as measuredusing Taylor a and b coefficients, was shown to be greaterfor ,S.saccharivora than the other species. INTRODUCTION Sugarcane(interspecific hybrids of Saccharum)has been commercially grown in a tlree- county areaof southemTexas since 1972. Stemboringpyralids, Mexican rice borer, Eoreuma loftini (Dyar), andsugarcane borer, Diatraea saccharalis(F.), havebeen the most seriousinsect pests of the in{ustry (Meagher et al. 1994); however, other insects are active in the Texas sugarcaneagroecos)Nstem.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxa Names List 6-30-21
    Insects and Related Organisms Sorted by Taxa Updated 6/30/21 Order Family Scientific Name Common Name A ACARI Acaridae Acarus siro Linnaeus grain mite ACARI Acaridae Aleuroglyphus ovatus (Troupeau) brownlegged grain mite ACARI Acaridae Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Fumouze & Robin) bulb mite ACARI Acaridae Suidasia nesbitti Hughes scaly grain mite ACARI Acaridae Tyrolichus casei Oudemans cheese mite ACARI Acaridae Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) mold mite ACARI Analgidae Megninia cubitalis (Mégnin) Feather mite ACARI Argasidae Argas persicus (Oken) Fowl tick ACARI Argasidae Ornithodoros turicata (Dugès) relapsing Fever tick ACARI Argasidae Otobius megnini (Dugès) ear tick ACARI Carpoglyphidae Carpoglyphus lactis (Linnaeus) driedfruit mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex bovis Stiles cattle Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex brevis Bulanova lesser Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex canis Leydig dog Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex caprae Railliet goat Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex cati Mégnin cat Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex equi Railliet horse Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex folliculorum (Simon) Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex ovis Railliet sheep Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex phylloides Csokor hog Follicle mite ACARI Dermanyssidae Dermanyssus gallinae (De Geer) chicken mite ACARI Eriophyidae Abacarus hystrix (Nalepa) grain rust mite ACARI Eriophyidae Acalitus essigi (Hassan) redberry mite ACARI Eriophyidae Acalitus gossypii (Banks) cotton blister mite ACARI Eriophyidae Acalitus vaccinii
    [Show full text]
  • The Gut Microbiota of Larvae of Rhynchophorus Ferrugineus Oliver
    Tagliavia et al. BMC Microbiology 2014, 14:136 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2180/14/136 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access The gut microbiota of larvae of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Oliver (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Marcello Tagliavia1,3, Enzo Messina2, Barbara Manachini1, Simone Cappello2 and Paola Quatrini1* Abstract Background: The red palm weevil (RPW) Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) is one of the major pests of palms. The larvae bore into the palm trunk and feed on the palm tender tissues and sap, leading the host tree to death. The gut microbiota of insects plays a remarkable role in the host life and understanding the relationship dynamics between insects and their microbiota may improve the biological control of insect pests. The purpose of this study was to analyse the diversity of the gut microbiota of field-caught RPW larvae sampled in Sicily (Italy). Results: The 16S rRNA gene-based Temporal Thermal Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (TTGE) of the gut microbiota of RPW field-trapped larvae revealed low bacterial diversity and stability of the community over seasons and among pools of larvae from different host trees. Pyrosequencing of the 16S rRNA gene V3 region confirmed low complexity and assigned 98% of the 75,564 reads to only three phyla: Proteobacteria (64.7%) Bacteroidetes (23.6%) and Firmicutes (9.6%) and three main families [Enterobacteriaceae (61.5%), Porphyromonadaceae (22.1%) and Streptococcaceae (8.9%)]. More than half of the reads could be classified at the genus level and eight bacterial genera were detected in the larval RPW gut at an abundance ≥1%: Dysgonomonas (21.8%), Lactococcus (8.9%), Salmonella (6.8%), Enterobacter (3.8%), Budvicia (2.8%), Entomoplasma (1.4%), Bacteroides (1.3%) and Comamonas (1%).
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Birds As Predators and Potential Biocontrol Agents of Lnsect Pests in Corn Fields
    The Role of Birds as Predators and Potential Biocontrol Agents of lnsect Pests in Corn Fields by Annie C. Tremblay A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fuifilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Sciences Department of Natural Resources Sciences Macdonald Campus of McGill University Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada May 1999 O Annie C. Tremblay 1999 National Library Bibliothèque nationale l*l of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rwWellington OttawaON K1AW Otfawaûîü KIAW CaMda Canade The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une Licence non exclusive licence aliowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seil reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othexwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT Annie C. Tremblay Natural Resources This project investigated the impact of bird predation on insect pest populations within tvJo cornfields of Southwestern Quebec. Birds were excluded from portions of these fields through the use of bird-proof netting.
    [Show full text]
  • Long's Bulrush Scirpus Longii Fern
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Long’s Bulrush Scirpus longii in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2017 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2017. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Long’s Bulrush Scirpus longii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xiv + 61 pp. (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 1994. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Long’s Bulrush Scirpus longii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 27 pp. Hill, N. 1994. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Long’s Bulrush Scirpus longii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada in COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Long’s Bulrush Scirpus longii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 27 pp. Production note: COSEWIC acknowledges the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (Sean Blaney) for writing the status report on the Long’s Bulrush Scirpus longii, in Canada, prepared with the financial support of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Bruce Bennett and Jana Vamosi, Co- chairs of the COSEWIC Vascular Plants Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment and Climate Change Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Scirpe de Long (Scirpus longii) au Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F. List of Citations Accepted by ECOTOX Criteria and Database
    Appendix F. List of citations accepted by ECOTOX criteria and Database The citations in Appendices F and G were considered for inclusion in ECOTOX. Citations include the ECOTOX Reference number, as well as rejection codes (if relevant). The query was run in October, 1999 and revised March and June, 2000. References in Section F.1 include chlorpyrifos papers accepted by both ECOTOX and OPP and cited within this risk assessment. Sections F.2 through F.4. include the full list of chlorpyrifos papers from the 2007, 2008 and 2009 ECOTOX runs that were accepted by ECOTOX and OPP whether or not cited within the risk assessment and the full list of papers accepted by ECOTOX but not by OPP. ECOTOX Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes: Papers must meet minimum criteria for inclusion in the ECOTOX database as established in the Interim Guidance of the Evaluation Criteria for Ecological Toxicity Data in the Open Literature, Phase I and II, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 16, 2004. Each study must contain all of the following: • toxic effects from a single chemical exposure; • toxic effects on an aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal species; • biological effects on live, whole organisms; • concurrent environmental chemical concentrations/doses or application rates; and • explicit duration of exposure. Appendix G includes the list of citations excluded by ECOTOX and the list of exclusion terms and descriptions. For chlorpyrifos, hundreds of references were not accepted by ECOTOX for one or more reasons. OPP Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes for ECOTOX Data Studies located and coded into ECOTOX should also meet OPP criterion for use in a risk assessment (Section F.1).
    [Show full text]
  • A Catalog of the Coleóptera of America North of Mexico
    ^ Í/^Á. A CATALOG OF THE COLEÓPTERA OF AMERICA NORTH OF MEXICO FAMILY: CURCULIONIDAE SUBFAMILY: RHYNCHOPHORINAE . <>*> ^■■^ TT-"» ■ —, r »"i ! 1 C^} ,,i ;•. >c.> € i.^> ^"*> Í Sï '^m NAL DigitizingI Project ah529143a AGRICULTURE PREPARED BY /^îv UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL í/á AiW DEPARTMENT OF HANDBOOK RESEARCH AGRICULTURE NUMBER 529-143a SERVICE FAMILIES OF COLEóPTERA IN AMERICA NORTH OF MEXICO Fasci cle ' Family Year issued Fascicle ' Family Year issued Fascicle ' Family Year issued 1_._ _ -Cupedidae 1979 45.- -.Chelonariidae ... 98... .-Endomychidae __ 2 ..-Micromalthidae _ .1982 46.. Callirhipidae ... 100... .-Lathridiidae 3_.-.-Carabidae 47-_ —Hetcroceridae -. 1978 102-. .-Biphyllidae 4-. Rhysodidae 48.. ..Limnichidae 103... .-Byturidae 5_..__Amphizoidae — - 49_. ..Dryopidae 1983 104__._ _ M ycetophagidae 6 . Haliplidae 50__ --Elmidae 1983 105—..-Ciidae 1982 8_....Noteridae 51 — ..Buprestidae 107—...Prostomidae 9_..__Dytiscidae 52— .Cebrionidae 109__ 10_..__Gyrinidae 53— Elateridae Colydiidae . 13-..--Sphaeriidae 54- ..Throscidae 110- —Monommatidae 14...--Hydroscaphidae 55- .-Cerophytidae ... 111—.-.Cephaloidae 15-..--Hydraenidae 56.. -.Perothopidae ... 112—._.Zopheridae 16-..--Hydrophilidae -. 57.. -.Eucnemidae __. 115—...Tenebrionidae ._ 17... Georyssidae 58 « --Telegeusidae __. 116- ..Alleculidae 18-..--Sphaeritidae 61- ..Phengodidae ... 117-...Lagriidae 20-..--Histeridae 62- Lampyridae 118--...Salpingidae 21-.---Ptiliidae 63.. --Cantharidae 119-...Mycteridae 22_...-Limulodidae 64.. --Lycidae 120— .-Pyrochroidae 1983 23-..--Dasyceridae
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Orchards of Pecanero Walnut in the North of Coahuila, Mexico
    Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas volume 9 number 2 February 15 - March 31, 2018 Investigation note Diversity of weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in orchards of pecanero walnut in the north of Coahuila, Mexico Macotulio Soto-Hernández1§ Mayelis María Barros-Barrios2 1National Institute of Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Research-Experimental Site Zaragoza. Zaragoza- Ciudad Acuña Road km 12.5, Coahuila, México. CP. 26450. 2Magdalena University-Faculty of Basic Sciences-Biology Program. Carrera 32, num. 22-08, Santa Marta, Colombia. CP. 470004. ([email protected]). §Corresponding author: [email protected]. Abstract The northern region of Coahuila is one of the most important nut producing areas in Mexico. Euplatypus segnis (Chapuis, 1865) and Xyleborus ferrugineus (F. 1801) curculionids plague associated with walnuts in the country, not knowing if there are others present in the orchards. From july 2015 to september 2016 and august 2017, samples were taken from the Germplasm Bank of the INIFAP-Experimental Zaragoza Site, eight commercial orchards and native walnut trees. Using as sampling methods standard entomological network and knocking-sprinkling of the foliage with Cipermetrina. The 1 174 adult insect specimens were collected, six orders were determined, 49% were coleoptera, with Coccinellidae being the most abundant family, 17% were curculionids (203 adults and 32 identified species). Pandeleteius cinereus (Horn, 1876), Compsus auricephalus (Say, 1824) and Conotrachelus leucophaetus (Fahraeus, 1837 were harvested in walnut foliage, currently these species are not of economic importance for the crop. Smicronyx interruptus (Blatchley, 1916), S. sculpticollis (Casey, 1892) and Thecesternus hirsutus (Pierce, 1909) are possible natural biological control agents for Cuscuta L., 1753, Acacia (Mill, 1754) and Parthenium L., 1753.
    [Show full text]