DOCSLIB.ORG

Turnip Moth CP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Turnip Moth CP Office of the Chief Plant Protection Officer Threat Specific Contingency Plan Common Name Turnip moth Scientific name Agrotis segetum Denis & Schiffermüller 1775 Drafted by OCPPO June 2011 THREAT SPECIFIC CONTINGENCY PLAN TURNIP MOTH 1 Purpose of this contingency plan ............................................................................................... 4 2 Pest information/status ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Pest details ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.1.1 General information ......................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Life cycle ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Affected hosts ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.2.1 Host range ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Geographic distribution ................................................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Symptoms ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Entry, establishment and spread ........................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 Entry potential ................................................................................................................. 9 2.3.2 Establishment potential ................................................................................................. 10 2.3.3 Spread potential ............................................................................................................ 11 2.3.4 Economic impact ........................................................................................................... 12 2.3.5 Environmental impact .................................................................................................... 12 2.3.6 Overall risk .................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Diagnostic information ......................................................................................................... 13 2.4.1 Diagnostic protocol ........................................................................................................ 13 2.5 Response checklist .............................................................................................................. 13 2.6 Delimiting survey and epidemiology study .......................................................................... 14 2.6.1 Sampling method .......................................................................................................... 14 2.6.2 Epidemiological study ................................................................................................... 16 2.6.3 Models of spread potential ............................................................................................ 17 2.6.4 Pest Free Area guidelines ............................................................................................. 17 2.7 Availability of control methods ............................................................................................. 18 2.7.1 General procedures for control ..................................................................................... 18 2.7.2 Control if small areas are affected ................................................................................ 18 2.7.3 Control if large areas are affected ................................................................................. 18 2.7.4 Cultural control .............................................................................................................. 18 2.7.5 Host plant resistance ..................................................................................................... 18 2.7.6 Chemical control............................................................................................................ 19 2.7.7 Mechanical control ........................................................................................................ 19 2.7.8 Biological control ........................................................................................................... 19 3 Course of action – eradication methods .................................................................................. 20 3.1 Destruction strategy ............................................................................................................. 20 | PAGE 2 THREAT SPECIFIC CONTINGENCY PLAN TURNIP MOTH 3.1.1 Destruction protocols .................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2 Decontamination protocols ............................................................................................ 21 3.1.3 Priorities ........................................................................................................................ 22 3.1.4 Plants, by-products and waste processing ................................................................... 22 3.1.5 Disposal issues ............................................................................................................. 22 3.2 Quarantine and movement controls .................................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Quarantine priorities ...................................................................................................... 22 3.2.2 Movement control for people, plant material and machinery ........................................ 23 3.3 Zoning .................................................................................................................................. 24 3.3.1 Destruction Zone ........................................................................................................... 24 3.3.2 Quarantine Zone ........................................................................................................... 25 3.3.3 Buffer Zone .................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.4 Restricted Area .............................................................................................................. 25 3.3.5 Control Area .................................................................................................................. 25 3.4 Decontamination and farm clean up .................................................................................... 25 3.4.1 Decontamination procedures ........................................................................................ 25 3.4.2 Decontamination if pest is identified in a small or a large area. .................................... 26 3.4.3 General safety precautions ........................................................................................... 27 3.5 Surveillance and tracing ...................................................................................................... 27 3.5.1 Surveillance ................................................................................................................... 27 3.5.2 Survey regions .............................................................................................................. 30 3.5.3 Post-eradication surveillance ........................................................................................ 31 4 References .................................................................................................................................. 32 5 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 34 Appendix 1. Standard diagnostic protocols ................................................................................... 34 Identification of Agrotis segetum Denis & Schiffermüller .................................................................. 34 Appendix 2. Experts, resources and facilities ............................................................................... 40 Appendix 3. Communications strategy .......................................................................................... 42 Appendix 4. Market access impacts .............................................................................................. 42 | PAGE 3 THREAT SPECIFIC CONTINGENCY PLAN TURNIP MOTH 1 Purpose of this contingency plan This contingency plan provides background information on the pest biology and available control measures to assist with preparedness for an incursion of Turnip Moth (Agrotis segetum). It provides guidelines for steps to be undertaken and considered when developing a Response Plan to this pest. Any Response Plan developed using information in whole or in part from this Contingency Plan must follow procedures as set out in PLANTPLAN and be endorsed by the National Management Group prior to implementation. 2 Pest information/status 2.1 Pest details Common names: Turnip moth, black cutworm, common cutworm, cutworm, dark moth, dart moth, tobacco cutworm, Turnip dart moth Scientific name: Agrotis segetum Denis & Schiffermüller 1775
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pu'u Wa'awa'a Biological Assessment
    PU‘U WA‘AWA‘A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PU‘U WA‘AWA‘A, NORTH KONA, HAWAII Prepared by: Jon G. Giffin Forestry & Wildlife Manager August 2003 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. ii GENERAL SETTING...................................................................................................................1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 Land Use Practices...............................................................................................................1 Geology..................................................................................................................................3 Lava Flows............................................................................................................................5 Lava Tubes ...........................................................................................................................5 Cinder Cones ........................................................................................................................7 Soils .......................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Inventory and Assessment Report, Fall 2018 Caltech Submillimeter Observatory, Maunakea, Hawai‘I
    Biological Inventory and Assessment Report, Fall 2018 Caltech Submillimeter Observatory, Maunakea, Hawai‘i Action BoardApril 2019 Prepared for: Sustainable Resources Group Intn’l, Inc. Prepared by: Matthew J Medeiros, PhD [email protected] mattjmedeiros.comFor All photographs in this report are copyrighted by Matthew J Medeiros. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Caltech Submillimeter Observatory Decommissioning ................................................................ 1 1.2 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Permit and Personnel .................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Schedule ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.4 Methodology for Inventorying Plants, Lichens, Non-arthropod Animals, and Abiotic Features . 3 2.4.1 Transects: Floral and Abiotic Features ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Harper's Island Wetlands Butterflies & Moths (2020)
    Introduction Harper’s Island Wetlands (HIW) nature reserve, situated close to the village of Glounthaune on the north shore of Cork Harbour is well known for its birds, many of which come from all over northern Europe and beyond, but there is a lot more to the wildlife at the HWI nature reserve than birds. One of our goals it to find out as much as we can about all aspects of life, both plant and animal, that live or visit HIW. This is a report on the butterflies and moths of HIW. Butterflies After birds, butterflies are probably the one of the best known flying creatures. While there has been no structured study of them on at HIW, 17 of Ireland’s 33 resident and regular migrant species of Irish butterflies have been recorded. Just this summer we added the Comma butterfly to the island list. A species spreading across Ireland in recent years possibly in response to climate change. Hopefully we can set up regular monitoring of the butterflies at HIW in the next couple of years. Butterfly Species Recorded at Harper’s Island Wetlands up to September 2020. Colias croceus Clouded Yellow Pieris brassicae Large White Pieris rapae Small White Pieris napi Green-veined White Anthocharis cardamines Orange-tip Lycaena phlaeas Small Copper Polyommatus icarus Common Blue Celastrina argiolus Holly Blue Vanessa atalanta Red Admiral Vanessa cardui Painted Lady Aglais io Peacock Aglais urticae Small Tortoiseshell Polygonia c-album Comma Speyeria aglaja Dark-green Fritillary Pararge aegeria Speckled Wood Maniola jurtina Meadow Brown Aphantopus hyperantus Ringlet Moths One group of insects that are rarely seen by visitors to HIW is the moths.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Plant Biosecurity Status Report
    The National Plant Biosecurity Status Report 2014 © Plant Health Australia 2015 Disclaimer: This publication is published by Plant Health Australia for information purposes only. Information in the document is drawn from a variety of sources outside This work is copyright. Apart from any use as Plant Health Australia. Although reasonable care was taken in its preparation, Plant Health permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part Australia does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, completeness or currency of the may be reproduced by any process without prior information, or its usefulness in achieving any purpose. permission from Plant Health Australia. Given that there are continuous changes in trade patterns, pest distributions, control Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction measures and agricultural practices, this report can only provide a snapshot in time. and rights should be addressed to: Therefore, all information contained in this report has been collected for the 12 month period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014, and should be validated and Communications Manager confirmed with the relevant organisations/authorities before being used. A list of Plant Health Australia contact details (including websites) is provided in the Appendices. 1/1 Phipps Close DEAKIN ACT 2600 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Plant Health Australia will not be liable for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred in or arising by reason of any person relying on the ISSN 1838-8116 information in this publication. Readers should make and rely on their own assessment An electronic version of this report is available for and enquiries to verify the accuracy of the information provided.
    [Show full text]
  • BIOLOGICAL CONTROL of the BLACK CUTWORM, <Em>AGROTIS IPSILON</Em> (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE), and ENDOPHYTE MEDIATED T
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2011 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF THE BLACK CUTWORM, AGROTIS IPSILON (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE), AND ENDOPHYTE MEDIATED TRITROPHIC INTERACTIONS IN TURFGRASS Andrea Jeanne Bixby-Brosi University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Bixby-Brosi, Andrea Jeanne, "BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF THE BLACK CUTWORM, AGROTIS IPSILON (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE), AND ENDOPHYTE MEDIATED TRITROPHIC INTERACTIONS IN TURFGRASS" (2011). University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations. 183. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_diss/183 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Andrea Jeanne Bixby-Brosi The Graduate School University of Kentucky 2011 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF THE BLACK CUTWORM, AGROTIS IPSILON (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE), AND ENDOPHYTE MEDIATED TRITROPHIC INTERACTIONS IN TURFGRASS ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Agriculture at the University of Kentucky By Andrea Jeanne Bixby-Brosi Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. Daniel A. Potter, Professor of Entomology Lexington, Kentucky 2011 Copyright © Andrea Jeanne Bixby-Brosi 2011 ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF THE BLACK CUTWORM, AGROTIS IPSILON (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE), AND ENDOPHYTE MEDIATED TRITROPHIC INTERACTIONS IN TURFGRASS Components of successful pest management programs must be complementary and not antagonistic. This project examined interactions between natural enemies of the black cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel), an important turfgrass pest, and host plant resistance by endophytic grass.
    [Show full text]
  • Pest Insects Infesting Carrot and Other Apiaceous Crops
    FACTSHEET 01/16 Field Vegetables Dr Rosemary Collier, University of Warwick Pest insects infesting carrot and other Apiaceous crops Carrot and related Apiaceous crops such as parsnip, celeriac and celery may be infested by a relatively small number of damaging pest insect species that can reduce both quality and yield. This factsheet focuses on the pest insects infesting carrot. However, the insects described may also be pests of related crops such as parsnip, celeriac and celery. The factsheet does not cover nematodes or slugs. Figure 1. Carrot fly damage to carrot roots Action points Carrot fly • Use suction trap records to indicate when all species of pest aphid are on the wing. • Use the carrot fly forecast to indicate when adult flies of each generation are likely to emerge and when the • Monitor crops closely. application of insecticide sprays is likely to be most effective. • Use the most effective aphicide treatments available, • Check whether an insecticide spray treatment is able taking account of their effects on natural enemies and be to kill adults or larvae or both stages. To maximise the aware of potential instances of insecticide resistance. ‘knockdown’ effect of insecticide sprays that target adults, they should be applied between 4–6pm on warm days, as Cutworms this is when most female flies are in the crop. • Use pheromone traps to indicate when turnip moths are • Where possible, isolate new crops from possible sources flying and laying eggs. of infestation (older crops), ideally using a separation distance of >1km. • Use a cutworm forecast to estimate the risk of damage to susceptible crops.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 Host Plant Resistance and Insect Pest Management in Chickpea
    25 Host Plant Resistance and Insect Pest Management in Chickpea H.C. SHARMA,1 C.L.L. GOWDA,1 P.C. STEVENSON,2 T.J. RIDSDILL-SMITH,3 S.L. CLEMENT,4 G.V. RANGA RAO,1 J. ROMEIS,5 M. MILES6 AND M. EL BOUHSSINI7 1Genetics Resources Divisions, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Asia Center, Hyderabad 502324, India; 2Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham, ME4 4TB, UK and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey, TW9 3AB, UK; 3CSIRO Entomology, Private Bag No 5, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia; 4USDA-ARS, 59 Johnson Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6402, USA; 5Agroscope ART Reckenholz Tänikon, Reckenholzstr, 191, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland; 6Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 203 Tor Street, PO Box 102, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia; 7International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syria Insect Pest Problems in Chickpea Chickpea (C. arietinum L.) is the third most important legume crop in the world, after dry beans and peas (FAO, 2003). It is cultivated in 42 countries in South Asia, North and Central America, the Mediterranean region, West Asia and North and East Africa. In recent years, it has become an important crop in Australia, Canada and the USA. Nearly 60 insect species are known to feed on chickpea (Reed et al., 1987) (Table 25.1). The important insect pests damaging chickpea in different regions are: ● Wireworms: false wireworm – Gonocephalum spp.; ● Cutworm: black cutworm – A. ipsilon (Hfn.) and turnip moth – A. segetum Schiff.; ● Termite: Microtermes obesi (Holm.) and Odontotermes sp.; ● Leaf-feeding caterpillars: cabbage looper – Trichoplusia ni (Hub.), leaf caterpillar – S.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying Dispersal in British Noctuid Moths
    Quantifying dispersal in British noctuid moths Hayley Bridgette Clarke Jones Doctor of Philosophy University of York Biology September 2014 1 Abstract Dispersal is an important process in the ecology and evolution of organisms, affecting species’ population dynamics, gene flow, and range size. Around two thirds of common and widespread British macro-moths have declined in abundance over the last 40 years, and dispersal ability may be important in determining whether or not species persist in this changing environment. However, knowledge of dispersal ability in macro-moths is lacking because dispersal is difficult to measure directly in nocturnal flying insects. This thesis investigated the dispersal abilities of British noctuid moths to examine how dispersal ability is related to adult flight morphology and species’ population trends. Noctuid moths are an important taxon to study because of their role in many ecosystem processes (e.g. as pollinators, pests and prey), hence their focus in this study. I developed a novel tethered flight mill technique to quantify the dispersal ability of a range of British noctuid moths (size range 12 – 27 mm forewing length). I demonstrated that this technique provided measures of flight performance in the lab (measures of flight speed and distance flown overnight) that reflected species’ dispersal abilities reported in the wild. I revealed that adult forewing length was a good predictor of inter- specific differences in flight performance among 32 noctuid moth species. I also found high levels of intra-specific variation in flight performance, and both adult flight morphology and resource-related variables (amount of food consumed by individuals prior to flight, mass loss by adults during flight) contributed to this variation.
    [Show full text]
  • Family: Noctuidae) in Conifer Forests of Himachal Pradesh with Brief Account of Its Wing Venation and Genitalia Shweta Thakur*, Pawan Kumar** and V.K
    Biological Forum – An International Journal 5(2): 71-80(2013) ISSN No. (Print): 0975-1130 ISSN No. (Online): 2249-3239 Taxonomic Update and Relative Abundance Studies on some Cutworms (Family: Noctuidae) in Conifer Forests of Himachal Pradesh with brief account of its Wing Venation and Genitalia Shweta Thakur*, Pawan Kumar** and V.K. Mattu* *Department of Biosciences, Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, (HP) **HFRI, Panthagathi, Shimla, (HP) (Received 05 June, 2013, Accepted 15 July, 2013) ABSTRACT: Subfamily Noctuinae are distributed in Great Plains and Deccan Peninsulas. They can be well examined and identified by their wing venation and genitalia. In the present study, four species Agrotis ipsilon Hufnagel, Agrotis segetum Denis and Schiffmuller, Xestia c-nigrum Linnaeus and Xestia renalis Moore were collected from different conifer forests of Himachal Pradesh. An account of genitalia, wing venation and relative abundance of these species are given and key has been furnished for interspecific discrimination by dwelling upon different morphological and genitalic characters. KEY WORDS: Conifer forest, genitalia, wing venation, INTRODUCTION s.l. During the present study, four species Agrotis ipsilon Hufnagel, A. segetum Denis and Schiffmuller, The species of the subfamily Noctuinae are also known Xestia c-nigrum Linnaeus, X. renalis Moore from the as cutworms, because of their habit to cut young shoots genus Agrotis and Xestia respectively have been below the surface. They are serious agricultural pest of reported from conifer forests and dealt with taxonomic many crops including winter cereals, cotton, clover, update. Wing venation and genitalic characters of these beets, potato and onion. Agriculture is the major section species have been elaborated and key is furnished for of growth in Indian economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Biosecurity Risk Assessment
    An Invasive Risk Assessment Framework for New Animal and Plant-based Production Industries RIRDC Publication No. 11/141 RIRDCInnovation for rural Australia An Invasive Risk Assessment Framework for New Animal and Plant-based Production Industries by Dr Robert C Keogh February 2012 RIRDC Publication No. 11/141 RIRDC Project No. PRJ-007347 © 2012 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-74254-320-8 ISSN 1440-6845 An Invasive Risk Assessment Framework for New Animal and Plant-based Production Industries Publication No. 11/141 Project No. PRJ-007347 The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication. The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors. The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular-Assisted Pollen Grain Analysis Reveals Spatiotemporal Origin of Long-Distance Migrants of a Noctuid Moth
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Article Molecular-Assisted Pollen Grain Analysis Reveals Spatiotemporal Origin of Long-Distance Migrants of a Noctuid Moth Hong Chang 1,2, Jianglong Guo 3, Xiaowei Fu 4, Yongqiang Liu 2, Kris A. G. Wyckhuys 2, Youming Hou 1,* and Kongming Wu 2,* ID 1 State Key Laboratory of Ecological Pest Control for Fujian and Taiwan Crops and Fujian Province Key Laboratory of Insect Ecology, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China; [email protected] 2 State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China; [email protected] (Y.L.); [email protected] (K.A.G.W.) 3 College of Plant Protection, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China; [email protected] 4 Department of Plant Protection, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, Xinxiang 453003, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (Y.H.); [email protected] (K.W.); Tel.: +86-10-8210-5551 (K.W.) Received: 18 January 2018; Accepted: 8 February 2018; Published: 13 February 2018 Abstract: Pollen grains are regularly used as markers to determine an insect’s movement patterns or host (plant) feeding behavior, yet conventional morphology-based pollen grain analysis (or palynology) encounters a number of important limitations. In the present study, we combine conventional analytical approaches with DNA meta-barcoding to identify pollen grains attached to migrating adults of the turnip moth, Agrotis segetum (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Northeast China. More specifically, pollen grains were dislodged from 2566 A. segetum long-distance migrants captured on Beihuang Island (Bohai Sea) and identified to many (plant) species level.
    [Show full text]
  • Turnip Moth, Agrotis Segetum WENQI WU, SYLVIA ANTON, CHRISTER LOFSTEDT, and BILL S
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 93, pp. 8022-8027, July 1996 Neurobiology Discrimination among pheromone component blends by interneurons in male antennal lobes of two populations of the turnip moth, Agrotis segetum WENQI WU, SYLVIA ANTON, CHRISTER LOFSTEDT, AND BILL S. HANSSON* Department of Ecology, Lund University, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden Communicated by Wendell Roelofs, Cornell University, Geneva, NY, March 22, 1996 (received for review November 21, 1995) ABSTRACT A difference in female pheromone produc- for gaining further insight into how information concerning tion and male behavioral response has previously been found different inter- and intra-populational blends is processed and in two populations of the turnip moth, Agrotis segetum, orig- integrated in the AL. In the present comparative study, we inating from Sweden and Zimbabwe, respectively. In this examined deutocerebral neurons of the two turnip moth study, we investigated the pheromone response of antennal populations, stimulating them with four single pheromone lobe interneurons of males of the two populations by intra- components, one behavioral antagonist [(Z)-5-decenol (Z5- cellular recordings, stimulating with single pheromone com- 10:0H)], and mixtures with various combinations of the four ponents and various inter- and intra-populational pheromone components. blends. Three major physiological types of antennal lobe neurons were established in the two populations according to their responses to different stimuli. One type responded MATERIALS AND METHODS broadly to almost all the stimuli tested. The second type Preparation. The Zimbabwean turnip moth culture was responded selectively to some of the single components and established in our laboratory from pupae shipped from Zim- blends.
    [Show full text]