DOCSLIB.ORG

Threat Specific Contingency Plan Corn Earworm

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Threat Specific Contingency Plan Corn Earworm INDUSTRY BIOSECURITY PLAN FOR THE GRAINS INDUSTRY Threat Specific Contingency Plan Corn earworm Helicoverpa zea Prepared by Kalang Consultancy Services Pty Ltd and Plant Health Australia April 2009 PLANT HEALTH AUSTRALIA | Contingency Plan – Corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) Disclaimer The scientific and technical content of this document is current to the date published and all efforts were made to obtain relevant and published information on the pest. New information will be included as it becomes available, or when the document is reviewed. The material contained in this publication is produced for general information only. It is not intended as professional advice on any particular matter. No person should act or fail to act on the basis of any material contained in this publication without first obtaining specific, independent professional advice. Plant Health Australia and all persons acting for Plant Health Australia in preparing this publication, expressly disclaim all and any liability to any persons in respect of anything done by any such person in reliance, whether in whole or in part, on this publication. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of Plant Health Australia. Further information For further information regarding this contingency plan, contact Plant Health Australia through the details below. Address: Suite 5, FECCA House 4 Phipps Close DEAKIN ACT 2600 Phone: +61 2 6215 7700 Fax: +61 2 6260 4321 Email: [email protected] Website: www.planthealthaustralia.com.au | PAGE 2 PLANT HEALTH AUSTRALIA | Contingency Plan – Corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) 1 Purpose of this contingency plan .......................................................................................... 5 2 Pest information/status ........................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Pest details ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 General information .................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Life cycle .................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Affected hosts ................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Host range .................................................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 Geographic distribution ............................................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Symptoms .................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Entry, establishment and spread ....................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Entry potential ............................................................................................................ 7 2.3.2 Establishment potential ............................................................................................... 9 2.3.3 Spread potential ......................................................................................................... 9 2.3.4 Economic impact ...................................................................................................... 10 2.3.5 Environmental impact ............................................................................................... 11 2.3.6 Overall risk ............................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Diagnostic information..................................................................................................... 11 2.4.1 Diagnostic protocol ................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Response checklist ......................................................................................................... 11 2.6 Delimiting survey and epidemiology study ....................................................................... 12 2.6.1 Sampling method ...................................................................................................... 12 2.6.2 Epidemiological study ............................................................................................... 14 2.6.3 Models of spread potential ........................................................................................ 14 2.6.4 Pest Free Area guidelines ......................................................................................... 14 2.7 Availability of control methods ......................................................................................... 15 2.7.1 General procedures for control.................................................................................. 15 2.7.2 Control if small areas are affected ............................................................................. 15 2.7.3 Control if large areas are affected ............................................................................. 15 2.7.4 Cultural control ......................................................................................................... 15 2.7.5 Host plant resistance ................................................................................................ 16 2.7.6 Chemical control ....................................................................................................... 16 2.7.7 Mechanical control .................................................................................................... 16 2.7.8 Biological control ...................................................................................................... 17 3 Course of action – eradication methods .............................................................................. 17 3.1 Destruction strategy ........................................................................................................ 17 | PAGE 3 PLANT HEALTH AUSTRALIA | Contingency Plan – Corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) 3.1.1 Destruction protocols ................................................................................................ 17 3.1.2 Decontamination protocols........................................................................................ 17 3.1.3 Priorities ................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.4 Plants, by-products and waste processing ................................................................ 18 3.1.5 Disposal issues......................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Quarantine and movement controls ................................................................................. 19 3.2.1 Quarantine priorities ................................................................................................. 19 3.2.2 Movement control for people, plant material and machinery ...................................... 19 3.3 Zoning ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.3.1 Destruction Zone ...................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Quarantine Zone....................................................................................................... 20 3.3.3 Buffer Zone .............................................................................................................. 20 3.3.4 Restricted Area ......................................................................................................... 20 3.3.5 Control Area ............................................................................................................. 20 3.4 Decontamination and farm clean up ................................................................................ 20 3.4.1 Decontamination procedures .................................................................................... 20 3.4.2 Decontamination if pest is identified in a small or large areas .................................... 21 3.4.3 General safety precautions ....................................................................................... 21 3.5 Surveillance and tracing .................................................................................................. 21 3.5.1 Surveillance .............................................................................................................. 21 3.5.2 Survey regions ......................................................................................................... 21 3.5.3 Post-eradication surveillance .................................................................................... 22 4 References ............................................................................................................................ 23 5 Appendices............................................................................................................................ 25 Appendix 1. Standard diagnostic protocols ............................................................................... 25 Appendix 2. Experts, resources and facilities ............................................................................ 25 Appendix 3. Communications strategy .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bt Resistance Implications for Helicoverpa Zea (Lepidoptera
    Environmental Entomology, XX(X), 2018, 1–8 doi: 10.1093/ee/nvy142 Forum Forum Bt Resistance Implications for Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Insecticide Resistance Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ee/nvy142/5096937 by guest on 26 October 2018 Management in the United States Dominic D. Reisig1,3 and Ryan Kurtz2 1Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Vernon G. James Research and Extension Center, 207 Research Station Road, Plymouth, NC 27962, 2Agricultural & Environmental Research, Cotton Incorporated, 6399 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513, and 3Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Subject Editor: Steven Naranjo Received 19 June 2018; Editorial decision 27 August 2018 Abstract Both maize and cotton genetically engineered to express Bt toxins are widely planted and important pest management tools in the United States. Recently, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) has developed resistance to two toxin Bt maize and cotton (Cry1A and Cry2A). Hence, growers are transitioning to three toxin Bt cotton and maize that express both Cry toxins and the Vip3Aa toxin. H. zea susceptibility to Vip3Aa is threatened by 1) a lack of availability of non-Bt refuge crop hosts, including a 1–5% annual decline in the number of non-Bt maize hybrids being marketed; 2) the ineffectiveness of three toxin cultivars to function as pyramids in some regions, with resistance to two out of three toxins in the pyramid; and 3) the lack of a high dose Vip3Aa event in cotton and maize. We propose that data should be collected on current Cry-resistant H.
    [Show full text]
  • (Cydia Pomonella L.) and Woolly Apple Aphid, (Eriosoma Lanigerum) on Apple (Malus Domestica L
    International Journal of Entomology Research International Journal of Entomology Research ISSN: 2455-4758; Impact Factor: RJIF 5.24 Received: 17-05-2020; Accepted: 19-05-2020; Published: 08-06-2020 www.entomologyjournals.com Volume 5; Issue 3; 2020; Page No. 156-160 Population trend of codling moth (Cydia pomonella l.) And woolly apple aphid, (Eriosoma lanigerum) on apple (Malus domestica L. Borkh) fruit tree orchard Muhammad Umer1, Noor Muhammad2*, Nisar Uddin3, Muhammad Khalil Ullah Khan4, Shariat Ullah5, Niaz Ali6 1 Department of Plant Protection, The Agriculture University of Peshawar, Peshawar, KP, Pakistan 2, 4 Department of Pomology, College of Horticultural Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding, Hebei China 3, 5 Department of Botany University of Malakand, KP, Pakistan 6 Department of Botany Hazara University, KP, Pakistan Abstract The population trends of Cydia pomonella L. and Eriosoma lanigerum were studied on apple fruit orchard. These two pests caused serious losses in district Mastung, Balochistan Province, Pakistan. The results of weekly mean population dynamics showed that the mean population of Cydia pomonella L. on each apple fruit tree varied. For the first week it varied from 0.0 to 8.0 in which the maximum attack of the Codling moth was 8.0 for treatment (T) 6. In the same way the highest attack in the week; first, second, third, fourth, to tenth was 3.5, 8.0, 4.5, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0, 4.5, 4.5, and 4.5 respectively. While the mean population dynamics of (Eriosoma lanigerum) ranged from 0.0 to 4.0 in first week. Among the population maximum invasion of Woolly apple aphid for week first, second, third, fourth, to tenth was 4.0, 3.0, 3.0, 6.0, 6.0, 3, 4, 3, 4 and 6 respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Sheet on Helicoverpa
    EPPO quarantine pest Prepared by CABI and EPPO for the EU under Contract 90/399003 Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests Helicoverpa zea IDENTITY Name: Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) Synonyms: Heliothis zea (Boddie) Bombyx obsoleta Fab. Phalaena zea (Boddie) Heliothis umbrosus Grote Taxonomic position: Insecta: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Common names: American bollworm, corn earworm, tomato fruitworm, New World bollworm (English) Chenille des épis du maïs (French) Amerikanischer Baumwollkapselwurm (German) Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature: The taxonomic situation is complicated and presents several problems. Hardwick (1965) reviewed the New World corn earworm species complex and the Old World African bollworm (Noctuidae), most of which had previously been referred to as a single species (Heliothis armigera or H. obsoleta), and pointed out that there was a complex of species and subspecies involved. Specifically he proposed that the New World H. zea (first used in 1955) was distinct from the Old World H. armigera on the basis of male and female genitalia. And he described the new genus Helicoverpa to include these important pest species, Some 80 or more species were formerly placed in Heliothis (sensu lato) and Hardwick referred 17 species (including 11 new species) to Helicoverpa on the basis of differences in both male and female genitalia. Within this new genus the zea group contains eight species, and the armigera group two species with three subspecies. See also Hardwick (1970). Because the old name of Heliothis for the pest species (four major pest species and three minor) is so well established in the literature, and since dissection of genitalia is required for identification, there has been resistance to the name change (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty-Five Pests You Don't Want in Your Garden
    Twenty-five Pests You Don’t Want in Your Garden Prepared by the PA IPM Program J. Kenneth Long, Jr. PA IPM Program Assistant (717) 772-5227 [email protected] Pest Pest Sheet Aphid 1 Asparagus Beetle 2 Bean Leaf Beetle 3 Cabbage Looper 4 Cabbage Maggot 5 Colorado Potato Beetle 6 Corn Earworm (Tomato Fruitworm) 7 Cutworm 8 Diamondback Moth 9 European Corn Borer 10 Flea Beetle 11 Imported Cabbageworm 12 Japanese Beetle 13 Mexican Bean Beetle 14 Northern Corn Rootworm 15 Potato Leafhopper 16 Slug 17 Spotted Cucumber Beetle (Southern Corn Rootworm) 18 Squash Bug 19 Squash Vine Borer 20 Stink Bug 21 Striped Cucumber Beetle 22 Tarnished Plant Bug 23 Tomato Hornworm 24 Wireworm 25 PA IPM Program Pest Sheet 1 Aphids Many species (Homoptera: Aphididae) (Origin: Native) Insect Description: 1 Adults: About /8” long; soft-bodied; light to dark green; may be winged or wingless. Cornicles, paired tubular structures on abdomen, are helpful in identification. Nymph: Daughters are born alive contain- ing partly formed daughters inside their bodies. (See life history below). Soybean Aphids Eggs: Laid in protected places only near the end of the growing season. Primary Host: Many vegetable crops. Life History: Females lay eggs near the end Damage: Adults and immatures suck sap from of the growing season in protected places on plants, reducing vigor and growth of plant. host plants. In spring, plump “stem Produce “honeydew” (sticky liquid) on which a mothers” emerge from these eggs, and give black fungus can grow. live birth to daughters, and theygive birth Management: Hide under leaves.
    [Show full text]
  • False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia Leucotreta
    Stone Fruit Commodity-Based Pest Survey False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta Introduction False codling moth (Figure 1) is a significant pest because of its potential economic impact on many crops, including stone fruit, avocado, citrus, corn, cotton, and macadamia. It is not currently known to be present in the United States. Biology Depending on conditions, the false codling moth’s life cycle ranges from 30 to 174 days. It can produce from 2 to 10 generations each year, depending on multiple factors including temperature, food availability and quality, and humidity. To attract males, adult females release pheromones at FIGURE 1. Adult false codling moth (Thaumatotibia leucotreta). Photo courtesy of night. After the adults mate, the female deposits eggs on Pest and Diseases Image Library, Bugwood.org. host plants, either in batches or as single eggs. Later, the hatching larvae burrow into the rind of the host plant. Mature larvae spin cocoons and pupate before they emerge as adults. Symptoms False codling moth can attack stone fruit at any stage. Larvae can even develop in hard green fruit prior to application of control measures. Larvae burrow at the stem end into the fruit and cause damage by feeding around the stone. Damaged fruit can become vulnerable to secondary pests such as fungal organisms and scavengers. Peaches can be damaged by larvae beginning up to 6 weeks before harvest. False codling moth can also attack plants unsuitable for larvae development, such as avocado, causing lesions on fruit tissue and diminishing the marketability of fruit. Because false codling moth is an internal feeder, few symptoms are actually displayed by the larvae.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Biocontrol Agent and Mass Trapping of Codling Moth
    IBILITY IT’S YOUR RESPONS A new biocontrol agent and mass trapping of codling moth David Williams Codling moth overwinters on pome fruit trees Agriculture Victoria Research Division as hibernating mature caterpillars in cocoons Department of Economic Development, Jobs, in sheltered areas such as under bark scales Transport and Resources on the trunk. In spring, as day length and [email protected] temperature increase, the caterpillars emerge from hibernation, enter pupation and eventually Introduction emerge as adult moths ready to mate and lay eggs. Mating disruption is designed to reduce or Changes to the types of pesticides available delay mating so that fewer eggs are laid. Although for use in fruit production, and the progress of application of sex pheromone mediated mating research into biological control of major insect disruption (MD) can be an effective alternative pests, is providing fruit growers with safer, cost- to the use of pesticides for control of low to effective and environmentally friendly options to moderate population levels of codling moth, incorporate into their pest management systems. control of moderate to high population densities is more problematic. Several consecutive seasons Codling moth (Figure 1) is the most serious pest of area-wide MD treatments are needed to control of pome fruit worldwide and the most damaging higher pest population levels. The aim of MD is to pest of commercial apple, pear, quince and nashi prevent, or at least significantly reduce, mating orchards in Australia. It is widely distributed in between the moths. However, if there are enough all Australian states except Western Australia female moths present then mating can still occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Codling Moth Cydia Pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae) Arthur M
    http://hdl.handle.net/1813/43086 Insect Identification Sheet No. !2 TREE FRUIT CROPS Revised 1996 fMtegrated est CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION RManagement Codling Moth Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae) Arthur M. Agnello and David P. Kain CM adults are 10-12 mm (0.5 in.) long, with a wing span of 15 to 20 mm (0.75 in). The moths are an iridescent gray color Department of Entomology, New York State with a chocolate-brown patch, containing copper to gold mark­ Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, New York ings, located at the tip of each forewing (fig. 1). The hind wings, which are not visible when the moth is at rest, are a lighter, The codling moth (CM) is a pest introduced from Eurasia. The copper brown color. larvae feed on the fruit of a wide range of host plants including During the day, CM adults remain at rest, well camouflaged, apple, pear, quince, hawthorne, crabapple, and walnut. CM on the bark of trees. If the temperature is above 10-15.5 C completes 1.5-3.5 generations annually, depending on locality (50-60 F) at dusk, the moths become active, mate, and the and length of growing season. It is the major fruit-feeding pest females lay their eggs. Under similar conditions, the moths can in fruit growing regions of the western United States. It is also a also be active at dawn. A female may lay up to 100 eggs. significant pest in the East, but has generally been managed by sprays used to control plum curculio and apple maggot.
    [Show full text]
  • Codling Moth (Laspeyresia Pomonella)
    Published by Utah State University Extension and Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory ENT-13-06 June 2010 Codling Moth (Cydia pomonella) Diane Alston, Entomologist • Marion Murray, IPM Project Leader • Michael Reding, Former IPM Project Leader Do You Know? • Codling moth is the major pest of apple and pear in Utah. • Damaging stage: larva tunnels into fruit • Monitoring stage: adult moth • Use of pheromone traps and the degree-day model (based on daily temperatures) are critical for determining optimal treatment timings. • Insecticides and pheromone-based mating disruption are currently the main management tactics. • Insecticides are targeted at newly hatched larvae and/or eggs. • Mating disruption devices need to be applied immediately before or at biofix (first moth Fig. 1. Codling moth adult activity) to prevent or adequately delay moth mating. • Biological control is minimally effective because larvae are protected inside fruit. • Insect development and spray timing information are available on the USU Extension Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Tree Fruit Pest Advisories Web page (www.utahpests.usu.edu/ipm/htm/ advisories/treefruit) or from your county USU Extension office. odling moth (Order Lepidoptera, Family Tortricidae) Cis the most serious pest of apple and pear worldwide (Fig. 1). In most commercial fruit producing regions and Fig. 2. Codling moth larva home yards in Utah, fruit must be protected to harvest a crop. Insecticides are the main control tactic. There moth each year (Fig. 3). In northern Utah, there are new insecticides available, many of which are less are typically two full generations and a partial third toxic to humans and beneficial insects and mites than generation.
    [Show full text]
  • False Codling Moth
    Fact sheet False codling moth What is the False codling moth? The False codling moth (Cryptophlebia leucotreta) is an internal fruit feeding moth that can be found throughout the year in warm climates and has been recorded as feeding on over 50 different plant species. This moth causes economic loss in a range of crops in sub-Saharan Africa. Losses during infestations can be between 20-30%. What does it look like? Adult moths are 15-16 mm (males) and 19-20 mm Citrus Research International, Bugwood.org J.H. Hofmeyr, (female) in length. Forewings have grey, brown, Eggs are oval shaped and almost 1 mm long black and orange-brown markings. A triangular marking on the outer part of the wing with a crescent shaped marking above it distinguishes the False codling moth from other species. Young larvae are yellowish-white with dark spots but bright red or pink when fully grown (15 mm), with a yellow-brown head. Pupae are contained within a tough silken cocoon amongst debris or in the soil. Female moths lay 100-400 eggs (oval, flattened and almost 1 mm in length) singly on the fruits at night. J.H. Hofmeyr, Citrus Research International, Bugwood.org J.H. Hofmeyr, What can it be confused with? False codling moth pupae False codling moth can look similar to other moths but can be distinguished by the triangular marking near the edges of the wings. What should I look for? The young larvae mine fruit just beneath the surface, or bore into the skin causing premature ripening of the fruit.
    [Show full text]
  • Tarsi of Male Heliothine Moths Contain Aldehydes and Butyrate Esters As Potential Pheromone Components
    Entomology Publications Entomology 5-2016 Tarsi of Male Heliothine Moths Contain Aldehydes and Butyrate Esters as Potential Pheromone Components Man-Yeon Choi U.S. Department of Agriculture Seung-Joon Ahn Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology Kye-Chung Park Horticulture and Food Research Institute Robert Vander Meer U.S. Department of Agriculture Ring T. Cardé University of California, Riverside See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ent_pubs Part of the Behavior and Ethology Commons, Entomology Commons, and the Population Biology Commons The complete bibliographic information for this item can be found at https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ ent_pubs/561. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Entomology at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Entomology Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tarsi of Male Heliothine Moths Contain Aldehydes and Butyrate Esters as Potential Pheromone Components Abstract The Noctuidae are one of the most speciose moth families and include the genera Helicoverpa and Heliothis. Females use (Z)-11-hexadecenal as the major component of their sex pheromones except for Helicoverpa assulta and Helicoverpa gelotopoeon, both of which utilize (Z)-9-hexadecenal. The minor compounds found in heliothine sex pheromone glands vary with species, but hexadecanal has been found in the pheromone gland of almost all heliothine females so far investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Fruit Insects Department of Entomology
    E-274-W Fruit Insects Department of Entomology QUICK TIPS FOR MANAGING IMPORTANT INSECT PESTS OF FRUIT TREES IN INDIANA Elizabeth Y. Long, Extension Entomologist Several insect and mite pests feed on and damage fruit trees and their fruits throughout the growing season. This bulletin provides a brief overview of the biology and management of key pests that tree fruit producers may encounter in Indiana. For insecticide recommendations, please see the Midwest Fruit Pest Management Guide (ID-465-W) and Managing Pests in Home Fruit Plantings (ID-146-W) available through the Purdue Extension Education Store. European Red Mite (Panonychus ulmi) (see Purdue Extension Entomology bulletin E-258-W) The European red mite (ERM) is a pest of pome and stone fruit trees, as well as nuts and berries. ERM overwinters as an egg in the bark around the base of buds and spurs. When active, they are typically found in the foliage, where they feed by piercing leaf tissue and sucking up the sap that oozes out. This feeding reduces chlorophyll content, limiting the ability of leaves to capture sunlight and produce sugar. Feeding damage appears as ‘bronzing’ of the leaves and when severe can lead to premature leaf drop, poor fruit color, reduced fruit size and quality, and reduced fruit set the following year. Best management practices for this pest include: (1) applying dormant oil (with good coverage) prior to bloom, (2) scout- ing the orchard regularly after the ‘petal fall’ stage through August, and (3) using reduced risk insecticides to help conserve predatory mites that attack ERM.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Home Orchard Pest Management
    HOME ORCHARD HOME ORCHARD DISEASE AND PEST MANAGEMENT GUIDE PREFACE Elizabeth Little, Extension Plant Pathologist Brett Blaauw, John All and Dean Kemp, Entomologists Home orchard disease and pest management guides suggest cultural and chemical control practices that offer a reasonable degree of protection from pests. Home orchardists should be aware that producing commercial quality, blemish-free fruit in Georgia’s climate is difficult. During the growing season, the crop should be monitored at least weekly for any emerging pest problems. Fungicides and insecticides work best when pest levels are low. Recommendations attempt to time applications just before and through typical peaks in pest abundance. Fine tuning the time of application to what you see in your orchard will help minimize pest damage. To be effective, fungicides need to be applied before appearance of symptoms and/or just prior to and during weather conditions favorable for disease development. Many fruit diseases are favored by cool-to-mild periods with moderate-to-high amounts of rainfall and humidity. Pruning and removal of diseased and/or dead twigs and branches, raking and removal of leaves and debris, regular mowing around vines, trees or bushes, and disposing of rotten and/or diseased fruit, improves disease and insect control. Collectively these practices are referred to as sanitation. Sanitation, in combination with choosing disease-resistant cultivars and the as-needed use of chemicals, will optimize control. Pest pressure in home orchards is often as high, or higher, than is experienced in commercial orchards. Edge effect – higher pest abundance where two different habitat types meet – is common in commercial orchards.
    [Show full text]