Bats, Pesticides and White Nose Syndrome · (Shah 2010). Hibernating Bats More than half of U.S. bat species hibernate (Foley et al. 2011). Bats most affected by the fungus are species

Caused by FungusWhite nose syndrome is a disease

caused by a fungus. Lethal fungusdiseases in mammals are unusual,and they are often due to compro-mised immune systems. The fungus

By William Quarles

Millions of hibernating batsin the U.S. have been killedby a mysterious new dis-

ease. Death is associated with afungus, Geomyces destructans, thatattacks their skin. White fungallesions appear on their bodies andon their noses, which has led to thename “white nose syndrome.” G.destructans has attacked at leastnine different bat species, andaccording to biologists at the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, more than5.5 million bats in 20 states havedied since 2006 (FWS 2012; USGS2013).Bats are an indicator species,

interacting with many elements ofthe ecosystem. Mass die-off of batsis not good news, as it could signaldeeper troubles. Bats have lowreproductive rates, usually one off-spring per year. Once a populationundergoes mass mortality, recoveryis expected to be slow, if at all(Jones et al. 2009; Blehert 2012). The first cases were found near

Albany, New York in 2006, andmost of the deaths so far have beenconfined to the Northeast. But thefungus has been detected in theMidwest and in the South, and it“may be spreading along summerand winter migration routes of bats”(Ren et al. 2012). Spread of the dis-ease through the corn belt andother vast agricultural areas couldlead to widespread loss of crop pro-tection provided by bats (Boyles etal. 2011). The problem may emergesooner rather than later. Diseasedbats have recently been found inIowa and in Illinois (USGS 2013).The corn belt already has its

problems. Pests are becomingresistant to the insect protection

provided by genetically alteredcrops. As a result, we have seenincreased use of systemic chemicalpesticides such as neonicotinoids.Glyphosate resistant crops have ledto increased herbicide use. Thiscombination has brought a series ofenvironmental problems such asincreased bee mortality, and loss ofwildlife habitat (Quarles 2011ab;Hopwood et al. 2012; Pleasants andOberhauser 2012). Biological controls are part of the

IPM solution for pesticide resist-ance. Loss of bat biological controlcould lead to increased pesticideapplications and further environ-mental degradation (Boyles et al.2011).

In This Issue

Bats and Disease 1Argentine Ant 7IPM News 8Calendar 8ESA Report 9

Volume XXXIII, Number 9/10 (Published June 2013)

Bats, Pesticides and White Nose Syndrome

Courtesy

Alan Hick

s, New

York State D

ept. E

nviro

n. C

onserv.

A little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, shows signs of white nose syndrome.Wings, nose, and ears have been attacked by the white fungus, Geomycesdestructans.

1Special

Pheromone Report

2

2 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(9/10) Published June 2013

Updateis transmitted by contact betweenbats. When laboratory colonies ofbats were inoculated with G.destructans, they developed thelesions found in naturally infectedcolonies. Infected bats woke oftenfrom hibernation, lost weight, andstarted dying within 88 days of

inoculation (Lorch et al. 2011;Warnecke et al. 2012).The fungus is able to live outside

its host. The pathogen has beendetected in U.S. soil samples, andviable spores have been found inbat caves. The fungus prefers lowtemperatures (3-15°C;37-59°F,>90% humidity). Maximum growthrate is at 14°C (57°F), and it isprobably not a threat to humans(Hallam and Federico 2012; Hayes2012). It can be dispersed by “air,water, bird feathers, animal hair,arthropods, and humans and theirequipment” (Hayes 2012). White nose fungus has many ele-

ments in common with the fungusBatrachochytrium dendrobatidis,which has caused massive die-offsin amphibian populations (Eskewand Todd 2013). Pesticide contami-nation has been proposed as a con-tributing factor in both diseases(Shah 2010).

Hibernating BatsMore than half of U.S. bat species

hibernate (Foley et al. 2011). Batsmost affected by the fungus arespecies such as the little brown bat,Myotis lucifugus, that hibernate invery large numbers in cool caves(hibernacula). Populations in infect-ed hibernacula have been decliningby about 73% each year. Projecteddecline of the little brown bat isfrom 6.5 million to 65,000 in lessthan 20 years (Frick et al. 2010).Mortality is more likely when theweather outside the cave is dry andcold (Flory et al. 2012).Other bats infected so far include

gray bats, M. grisescens; endan-gered Indiana bats, M. sodalis;northern long-eared bat, M. septen-trionalis; eastern small footed bat,M. leibii; southeastern bat, M. aus-troriparius; cave bat, M. velifer; tri-colored bat, Perimyotis subflavus;and big brown bat, Eptesicus fus-cus. It is not known whether or notthe fungus will spread to speciesthat do not hibernate (Frick et al.2010; Foley et al. 2011).

Where Did it Come From?Either the fungus was already

here, or it has been recently intro-duced. Geomyces spp. have beendiscovered throughout the U.S.,and avirulent strains may have pre-ceeded the outbreak. But the strainof G. destructans causing diseaseshows little genetic variationbetween geographic sites, whichimplies recent introduction (Eskewand Todd 2013). G. destructans is widespread in

Europe, and the U.S. pathogen mayhave originated there. Inoculation ofU.S. bats with the European fungusgave mortality rates similar to inoc-ulation with the U.S. version of G.destructans (Warnecke et al. 2012;Foley et al. 2011).

Immune SystemInvolvement?

Whether it is native or intro-duced, the immune system of U.S.bats cannot deal with it. G.destructans is found in Europe, butmass mortality of bats has not been

The IPM Practitioner is published six times per year by the Bio-Integral ResourceCenter (BIRC), a non-profit corporationundertaking research and education in inte-grated pest management.

Managing Editor William Quarles

Contributing Editors Sheila DaarTanya DrlikLaurie Swiadon

Editor-at-Large Joel Grossman

Business Manager Jennifer Bates

Artist Diane Kuhn

For media kits or other advertising informa-tion, contact Bill Quarles at 510/524-2567,[email protected].

Advisory Board George Bird, Michigan State Univ.; SterlingBunnell, M.D., Berkeley, CA ; Momei Chen,Jepson Herbarium, Univ. Calif., Berkeley;Sharon Collman, Coop Extn., Wash. StateUniv.; Sheila Daar, Daar & Associates,Berkeley, CA; Walter Ebeling, UCLA, Emer.;Steve Frantz, Global Environmental Options,Longmeadow, MA; Linda Gilkeson, CanadianMinistry of Envir., Victoria, BC; JosephHancock, Univ. Calif, Berkeley; WilliamOlkowski, Birc Founder; George Poinar,Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR;Ramesh Chandra Saxena, ICIPE, Nairobi,Kenya; Ruth Troetschler, PTF Press, LosAltos, CA; J.C. van Lenteren, AgriculturalUniversity Wageningen, The Netherlands.

ManuscriptsThe IPMP welcomes accounts of IPM for anypest situation. Write for details on format formanuscripts or email us, [email protected].

CitationsThe material here is protected by copyright,and may not be reproduced in any form,either written, electronic or otherwise withoutwritten permission from BIRC. ContactWilliam Quarles at 510/524-2567 for properpublication credits and acknowledgement.

Subscriptions/MembershipsA subscription to the IPMP is one of the bene-fits of membership in BIRC. We also answerpest management questions for our membersand help them search for information.Memberships are $60/yr (institutions/libraries/businesses); $35/yr (individuals).Canadian subscribers add $15 postage. Allother foreign subscribers add $25 airmailpostage. A Dual membership, which includesa combined subscription to both the IPMPand the Common Sense Pest ControlQuarterly, costs $85/yr (institutions); $55/yr(individuals). Government purchase ordersaccepted. Donations to BIRC are tax-deductible. FEI# 94-2554036.

Change of AddressWhen writing to request a change of address,please send a copy of a recent address label.

© 2013 BIRC, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA94707; (510) 524-2567; FAX (510) 524-1758.All rights reserved. ISSN #0738-968X

White fungus, possibly Geomycessp. found growing in a cave.

Courtesy

USGS Natio

nal W

ildlife H

ealth

Cen

ter

A fungus is also killing frogs.

Photo co

urtesy

of G

ary Nafis

3

seen there. European bats mayhave evolved resistance to thepathogen, and probably haveimmune system protection. Theimmune system of U.S. bats isunable to prevent infection anddeath, either because acquiredimmunity to the novel pathogen isslow to develop, or because theimmune systems of U.S. bats aregenerally compromised. Hibernationitself causes depressed immunefunction, and any additional envi-ronmental insult could be the tip-ping point (Eskew and Todd 2013;Warnecke et al. 2012).

Fat Bats Favored?A number of things could lead to

immune suppression. Impropernutrition could have an effect. Batsare voracious foragers, eating closeto their weight in insects every day.If their food supply is reduced, dueeither to pesticides or weather con-ditions, improper nutrition mightlead to a depressed immune system(Barclay and Dolan 1991; Kannanet al. 2010; Burles et al. 2008).Diseased bats are often emaciat-

ed, but no one has established arecent nutritional baseline in areaswhere populations are crashing.Kunz et al. (1998) found averageweight of about 9.1 g and averagefat reserves of about 2.5 g, or 27%,in healthy adult little brown bats at

prehibernation swarming sites inVermont. Minimum fat reserves forsurvival in normal circumstancesshould be about 1.5 g (Hallam andFederico 2012). Storm and Boyles(2011) found average weights dur-ing hibernation of 7.6 g in healthyadult little brown bats from Ohioand 6.3 g in sick bats from NewYork. Hibernating bats must live for up

to six months on stored fat.Diseased bats wake often duringhibernation. Each time they wakeup, about 5% of their energyreserves are utilized (Warnecke etal. 2012). Dying bats often show signs of

starvation. Wing lesions from thefungus also cause a water loss.Diseased bats are often seen flyingoutside in daylight, presumablylooking for food and water. It is like-ly that fatter bats have a betterchance of survival (Storm andBoyles 2011).On the other hand, fat deposits

might help them survive, but maynot prevent infection. Laboratorycolonies of male Canadian littlebrown bats inoculated with the fun-gus had an average weight of 8.6 g,but contracted the disease anyway(Warnecke et al. 2012).

Bats and PesticidesBat immune systems may be

depressed from environmental con-tamination or pesticide residues.Little brown bats can live for 34years, and often eat their bodyweight of insects every day (Brunet-Rossini and Wilkinson 2009). Withthis kind of metabolic flow, they arevulnerable to accumulation of pesti-cides and environmental contami-nants, especially persistent ones.For instance, turf treated withchlordane 30 years ago led to con-taminated beetles that recentlykilled foraging bats (Stansley et al.2001).The association between bats and

pesticide toxicity was studied fre-quently during the time DDT, chlor-dane, dieldrin and otherorganochlorine pesticides were inwidespread use. Deaths from DDT,dieldrin, and chlordane were fairlycommon. These pesticides also hadmultigenerational transmission toimmature bats through mother’smilk (O’Shea and Johnston 2009;Rattner 2009).

Extermination with DDT DDT was sometimes actually used

to deliberately exterminate batcolonies. Studies of poisoned batsshowed periodic waves of toxicity as

3IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(9/10) Published June 2013 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

Update

A little brown bat has whitenose syndrome. Infected batsoften starve to death.

Courtesy

Alan Hick

s, NYS DEC

Bats hibernate in groups, and the fungus is spread by intimate con-tact. Infected bats wake often, depleting food stored for hibernation.

Courtesy

Nancy Hea

slip, N

ew York State D

ept. E

nviro

n. C

onserv.

4


UpdateDDT was mobilized from fat. As fatreserves dropped, toxicity increased(Kunz et al. 1977; Clark 1988). We might expect a pesticide prob-

lem where agricultural or turfinsects are the bat food supply andresistant pests live long enough forbats to eat them. DDT is persistentand has led to bat populationdeclines at Carlsbad Cavern, NewMexico (Clark 2001). Organophos-phates have been associated withdeaths of the endangered Indianabat, Myotis sodalis (Eidels et al.2007). Sprays of chlorpyrifos-methyl and fenoxycarb in Europeanapple orchards led to reproductiverisk in bats that gleaned insectsfrom treated foliage (Stahlschmidtand Bruhl 2012).Most of the bat pesticide studies

have involved acute toxicity, andpesticides studied have been mostlyorganophosphates or organochlo-rines. Very little has been publishedon the effects of pyrethroids, butesfenvalerate and permethrin havebeen found in carcasses of littlebrown bats. And apparently nothinghas been published on either acuteor sublethal effects of neonicoti-noids, fipronil and other modernpesticides on bats (O’Shea andJohnston 2009).

Pesticides and White NoseSyndrome

As mentioned earlier, little brownbats can live for 34 years. Long life-times can lead to a large accumula-tion of persistent pesticides(Brunet-Rossini and Wilkinson2009). Kannan et al. (2010) com-pared diseased bats from New York(average weight 6.1 g) with healthybats from Kentucky (average weight6.8 g). Bats were collected in thewild near the end of hibernation.Concentrations of DDT and PCBs

in sick bats were 1/10 to 1/1000 ofthe lethal dose. Average DDT lipidconcentrations in sick bats (12100ng/g) were about six times thosefound in healthy bats (2460 ng/g).DDT concentrations in diseasedbats were ten to one hundred timeshigher than healthy bats found inSpain or India. Concentrations ofPCBs in sick bat tissues exceeded

the toxic threshold for marinemammals (Kannan et al. 2010).High exposures of this kind can

lead to immunosuppression andenhancement of metabolic rate inbats. Immunosuppression wouldmake them more susceptible towhite nose fungus, and highermetabolic rates would deplete fatsfaster, leading to the emaciationseen in dying bats (Kannan et al.2010; O’Shea and Johnston 2009).White nose syndrome may also be

influenced by an outlier effect.Though average DDT lipid concen-trations in sick bats was 12,100ng/g, one bat had 26,900 ng/g(Kannan et al. 2010). The most con-taminated and weakest bats mayget the disease first. The weakestmay then spread it by contact toother bats.

Food Supply of BatsInsects are the major food item

for bats. Bats either catch flyinginsects in a technique called hawk-ing, or they glean stationary insectsfrom foliage and other locations.Hunting strategy varies, and somebat species use both gleaning andhawking (Ratcliffe and Dawson2003). They use sonar and a sharpsense of hearing to locate insectprey. Some insects can hear theswooping bats and try to avoidthem. Arctiid moths emit ultrasonicclicks to confuse attacking bats.Bat predation often becomes asonic war, with moths counteringbat sonar with sonic activity of theirown (Clare et al 2009).DNA analysis has greatly

increased knowledge of bat diet.Kinds of insects consumed varywith the bat species. For instance,the little brown bat efficiently har-vests swarms of aquatic insects.

Nearly a third of its diet in somelocations is the mayfly Caenis sp.So the little brown bat’s nutritionmay rely on water quality. Waterpollution would lead to less food(Belwood and Fenton 1976; Clare etal. 2011). If there is a pesticide connection

between aquatic insects and theproblems of the little brown bat, itmight be due to mosquito insecti-cides. West Nile virus has oftencaused aggressive applications ofmosquito adulticides as a defensivemeasure. Methoprene and BTI alsohave an impact on populations ofchironomids (gnats) that are foodfor the little brown bat (Belwoodand Fenton 1976; Niemi et al. 1999;Quarles 2001). Reduced aquaticinsects would drive the bat to seekalternate food such as moths, but itmight be less successful (Long1996).Other bats, such as the eastern

red bat, Lasiurus borealis, eatmostly Lepidoptera. A DNA analysisshowed major prey for this batcame from Geometridae, Pyrilidae,and Noctuidae families. More than60% of the prey were species thatcould detect bats, but were caughtanyway. Pests included the gypsymoth, Lymantria dispar; the blackcutworm, Agrotis ipsilon; codlingmoth, Cydia sp.; and tent caterpil-lars, Malacosoma sp. (Clare et al.2009). The endangered Indiana bat,M. sodalis, also feeds mainly onmoths (Lee and McCracken 2004).Feeding is to some degree oppor-

tunistic. For instance, the numberof Brazilian free tailed bats,Tadarida brasiliensis, eating cornearworm moths, Helicoverpa zea, isassociated with moth abundance.Bats track pest populations andforage where moths are most

European corn borer,Ostrinia nubilalis

West Nile mosquito, Culex tarsalis

5


Update

numerous (McCracken et al. 2012).Corn earworm would probably bemost abundant in areas where it isresistant to pesticides. Resistantmoths might be carrying significantconcentrations of residual pesti-cides. Since so little has been pub-lished, it may take some time totest the connection between pesti-cides and white nose syndrome.

Loss of Bats Lead toIncreased Pesticides

A single colony of 150 big brownbats, Eptesicus fuscus, eats morethan a million insects a year. The20 million bats in Bracken Cave,Texas eat more than 250 tons (0.5million lbs) of insects a night.Insects not eaten are often repelledfrom crops when they detect sonicpulses of bats. Each day, a littlebrown bat can eat its weight ininsects. Bats in the SacramentoValley feed on “moths, beetles andplant bugs that are often agricul-tural pests” (Long et al. 1998).Brazilian free tailed bats providevaluable pest control in cotton(Federico et al. 2008).As a result of white nose syn-

drome, at least 1320 metric tons

(nearly 3 million pounds) of insectseach year now escape predation,and the number will increase asmore bats die. The value of bat pre-dation in agriculture has been esti-mated at $22.9 billion each year.Biocontrols such as bats, reduce“the potential for evolved resistanceof insects to pesticides and geneti-cally modified crops” (Boyles et al.2011).One consequence of white nose

syndrome could be increased use ofpesticides. Current levels of pesti-cide applications have alreadycaused extensive environmentaldegradation. Bees are seeing exces-sive mortality (Quarles 2011a;Hopwood et al. 2012). Wildlife habi-tat is being destroyed, and pesti-cides may be contributing toamphibian decline (Quarles 2011b;Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012;Relyea 2005).

What Can be Done?Many of the suggestions, such as

fogging caves with fungicides, heat-ing caves, vaccination, and provid-ing water seem impractical. Eachyear some infected bats survive andspread the fungus to new locations.If few bats were infected, thenculling affected individuals mighthave some effect. But since largenumbers are involved, culling mayjust hasten the destruction. Closingcaves to tourists is possible, andmight keep human activities fromspreading the fungus to new loca-tions. But the fungus is spreadingfrom bat to bat, and closing cavesmight have little effect in the longrun. The best idea is to boost bathealth and immune systems byreducing their exposures to envi-ronmental toxins. Increased organiccrop production would help preventfuture exposures. Bat populationsshould also be closely monitored tofollow the course of the disease(Foley et al. 2011; Hallam andFederico 2012).

ConclusionBats in the U.S. are dying from a

fungus infection. The immune sys-tem of bats may have been weak-ened by pesticides and environmen-tal pollutants. Combination of weak

immune systems and a virulentpathogen has led to lethal results.One study shows an associationbetween sick bats and persistentpesticides. Other pesticides mightbe involved, but there is little infor-mation on the effects of modernpesticides on bats. Further researchis needed, and white nose syn-drome should be monitored closely.This kind of disturbance in an indi-cator species could be a sign ofother problems in the U.S. ecosys-tem.

William Quarles, Ph.D. is an IPMSpecialist, Executive Director of theBio-Integral Resource Center(BIRC), and Managing Editor of theIPM Practitioner. He can be reachedby email, [email protected].

ReferencesBarclay, R.M.R. and M.A. Dolan. 1991. The

digestive efficiency of insectivorous bats.Can. J. Zool. 69:1853-1856.

Belwood, J.J. and M.B. Fenton. 1976. Variationin the diet of Myotis lucifugus. Can. J. Zool.54:1674-1678.

Blehert, D.S. 2012. Fungal disease and thedeveloping story of bat white nose syndrome.PLOS Pathogens 8(7):1-3.

Boyles, J.G., P.M. Cryan, G.F. McCracken andT.H. Kunz. 2011. Economic importance ofbats in agriculture. Science 332:41-42.

Brunet-Rossini, A.K. and G.S. Wilkinson. 2009.Methods for age estimation and the study ofsenescence in bats. In: T.H. Kunz and S.Parsons, eds. Ecological and BehavioralMethods for the Study of Bats. JohnsHopkins Press, Baltimore. pp. 315-325 of901 pp.

Burles, D.W., R.M. Brigham, R.R. Ring et al.2008. Diet of two insectivorous bats, M.lucifugus, and M. keenii, in relation toarthropod abundance in a temperate PacificNorthwest rainforest environment. Can. J.Zool. 86:1367-1375.

Clare, E.L., B.R. Barber, B.W. Sweeney et al.2011. Eating local: influences of habitat on

Pink bollworm, P. gossypiella,is eaten by bats.

Courtesy

Peggy Greb

, USDA

Pesticides are killing honey bees.

Courtesy

Kathy Kea

tly Garvey

Western corn rootworm,Diabrotica sp.

Courtesy

Peggy Greb

, USDA

the diet of little brown bats (Myotis lucifu-gus). Mol. Ecol. 20:1772-1780.

Clare, E.L., E.E. Fraser, H.E. Braid et al. 2009.Species on the menu of a generalist preda-tor, the eastern red bat, Lasiurus borealis,using a molecular approach to detect arthro-pod prey. Mol. Ecol. 18:2532-2542.

Clark, D.R. 1988. How sensitive are bats toinsecticides? Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:399-403.

Clark, D.R. 2001. DDT and the decline of freetailed bats Tadarida brasiliensis at CarlsbadCavern New Mexico. Arch. Environ. Contam.Toxicol. 40:537-543.

Clark, D.R. and R.F. Shore. 2001. Chiroptera. In:R.F Shore and B.A. Rattner, eds.,Ecotoxicology of Wild Mammals, John Wileyand Sons, New York. [cited in O’Shea andJohnston]

Eidels, R.R., J.O. Whitaker and D.W. Sparks.2007. Insecticide residues in bats and guanofrom Indiana. Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci.116(1):50-57.

Eskew, E.A. and B.D. Todd. 2013. Parallels inamphibian and bat declines from pathogenicfungi. Emerging Infectious Diseases19(3):379-385.

Federico, P., T.G. Hallam, G.F. McCracken et al.2008. Brazilian free tailed bats as insectpest regulators in transgenic and conven-tional cotton crops. Ecol. Appl. 18(4):826-837,

Flory, A.R., S. Kumar, T.J. Stohlgren and P.M.Cryan. 2012. Environmental conditionsassociated with bat white nose mortality inthe northeastern United States. J. Appl.Ecol. 49:680-689.

Foley, J., D. Clifford, K Castle et al. 2011.Investigating and managing the rapid emer-gence of white nose syndrome, a novel, fatalinfectious disease of hibernating bats.Conserv. Biol. 25(2):223-231.

Frick, W.F., J.F. Pollock, A.C. Hicks et al. 2010.An emerging disease causes regional popula-tion collapse of a common North Americanbat species. Science 329:679-682.

FWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. NorthAmerican bat death exceeds 5.5 million fromwhite nose syndrome. January 17, 2012.www.fws.gov/northeast/feature_archive

Hallam, T.G. and P. Federico. 2012. The pan-zootic white nose syndrome: an environmen-tally constrained disease. Transboundaryand Emerging Dis. 59:269-278.

Hayes, M.A. 2012. The Geomyces fungi: ecologyand distribution. BioScience 62(9):819-823.

Hopwood, J. M. Vaughan, M. Shepherd, et al.2012. Are Neonicotinoids Killing Bees? TheXerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.Online. 33pp.

Jones, G., D.S. Jacobs, T.H. Kunz et al. 2009.Carpe noctem: the importance of bats asbioindicators. Endang. Species Res. 8:93-115.

Kannan, K., S.H. Yun, R.J. Rudd and M. Behr.2010. High concentrations of persistentorganic pollutants including PCBs, DDT,PBDEs and PFOS in little brown bats withwhite-nose syndrome in New York, USA.Chemosphere 80(6):613-618.

Kunz, T.H., E.L.P. Anthony and W.T. Rumage.1977. Mortality of little brown bats followingmultiple pesticide applications. J. Wildl.Manage. 41(3):476-483.

Kunz, T.H., J.A. Wrazen and C.D. Burnett. 1998.Changes in body mass and fat reserves inpre-hibernating little brown bats, Myotislucifugus. Ecoscience 5(1):8-17.

Lee, Y.F. and G.F. McCracken. 2004. Flight

activity and food habits of three species ofmyotis bats. Zool. Studies 43(3):589-597.[CAB Abstracts]

Long, R.F. 1996. Bats for insect biocontrol inagriculture. IPM Practitioner 18(9):1-6.

Long, R.F., T. Simpson, T.S. Ding, et al. 1998.Bats feed on crop pests in SacramentoValley. Calif. Agric. 52(1):8-10.

Lorch, J.M., C.U. Meteyer, M.J. Behr et al. 2011.Experimental infection of bats withGeomyces destructans causes white nosesyndrome. Nature 480:376.

McCracken, G.F., J.K. Westbrook, V.A Brown etal. 2012. Bats track and exploit changes ininsect pest populations. PLOS ONE 7(8):1-10.

Niemi, G.J., A.E. Hershey and L. Shannon et al.1999. Ecological effects of mosquito controlon zooplankton, insects, and birds. Environ.Chem. Toxicol. 18(3):549-559.

O’Shea, T.J. and J.J. Johnston. 2009.Environmental contaminants and bats. In:T.H. Kunz and S. Parsons, eds. Ecologicaland Behavioral Methods for the Study ofBats. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. pp.500-528 of 901 pp.

Pleasants, J.M. and K.S. Oberhauser. 2012.Milkweed loss in agricultural fields becauseof herbicide use: effect on the monarch but-terfly population. Insect Conserv. DiversityMarch. 10 pp.

Quarles, W. 2011a. Pesticides and honey beedeath and decline. IPM Practitioner33(1/2):1-8.

Quarles, W. 2011b. Brave new world—systemicpesticides and genetically engineered crops.IPM Practitioner 33(3/4):1-9.

Quarles, W. 2001. Sprays for adult mosquitoes,a failed technology? Common Sense PestControl Quarterly 17(2):3-7.

Ratcliffe, J.M. and J.W. Dawson. 2003.Behavioural flexibility: the little brown bat,Myotis lucifugus, and the northernlongeared bat, M. septentrionalis, both gleanand hawk prey. Animal Behav. 66:847-856.

Rattner, B.A. 2009. History of wildlife toxicology.Ecotoxicol. 18:773-783.

Relyea, R.A. 2005. The lethal effect of Roundupon aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecol.Appl. 15(4):1118-1124.

Ren, P., K.H. Haman, L.A. Last et al. 2012.Clonal spread of Geomyces destructansamong bats, Midwestern and SouthernUnited States. Emerging Infectious Diseases18(5):883-885.

Shah, S. 2010. Behind mass die-offs, pesticideslurk as culprit. Yale Environment 360,Online, 4 pp.

Stahlschmidt, P. and C.A. Bruhl. 2012. Bats atrisk? Bat activity and insecticide residueanalysis of food items in an apple orchard.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31(7):1556-1563.

Stansley, W., D.E. Roscoe, E. Hawthorne and R.Meyer. 2001. Food chain aspects of chlor-dane poisoning in birds and bats. Arch.Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 40:285-291.

Storm, J.J. and J.G. Boyles. 2011. Body temper-ature and body mass of hibernating littlebrown bats, Myotis lucifugus, in hibernaculaaffected by white nose syndrome. ActaTheriol. 56:123-127.

USGS. 2013. U.S. bat epidemic spreads to the20th state. www.nwhc.usgs.gov

Warnecke, L., J.M. Turner, T.K. Bollinger et al.2012. Inoculation of bats with EuropeanGeomyces destructans supports the novelpathogen hypothesis for the origin of white-nose syndrome. PNAS 109(18):6999-7003.

6

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(9/10) Published June 2013 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 947076

Update


Update

By William Quarles

The Argentine ant, Linepithemahumile, recruits large numbers offoragers to a food supply through atrail pheromone. A trail pheromoneis a reasonable consequence of theArgentine ant’s biology. Recentsequencing of the genome revealsthat this species should be verysensitive to tastes and odors (Smithet al. 2011).Argentine ants are strongly

attracted to (Z)-9-hexadecenal (Z-9),and it is present in whole bodyextracts (Cavill et al. 1979). Foryears Z-9 was thought to be theArgentine ant trail pheromone,mainly because ants readily followartificial trails of Z-9 (Choe et al.2012).Since Z-9 has very low toxicity

and is readily available commercial-ly, researchers have tried variousstrategies to make Z-9 a componentof ant management. For instance, afield trial showed that addition of Z-9 to sugar baits increased bait con-sumption by 33% (Greenberg andKlotz 2000). A recent idea is to use Z-9 as a

trail disruptant. In theory, saturat-ing an area with false recruitmenttrails could disrupt the food supply,and reduce foragers following realtrails into households (Suckling etal. 2011). A field test using anencapsulated spray formulation ofZ-9 showed fewer visible foragingtrails and fewer ants foraging attuna baits for at least two weeks(Suckling et al. 2010). The trail disruptant strategy was

field tested with Z-9 dispensers overthe course of two years in small100 m2 (1076 ft2) garden plots. [Z-9dispensers are commercially avail-able for mating disruption of Asiaticrice borer, Chilo suppressalis.]Foraging trails were successfullydisrupted, but Z-9 did not reducepopulation densities (Nishisue et al.2010). A similar long term experiment

combined Z-9 dispensers with ant

baits. Combination of Z-9 and antbaits led to foraging trail disruptionand to lower ant populations thanfound with either baits alone or Z-9alone (Sunamura et al. 2011).

Z-9 Not the TrailPheromone

Despite the fact that Z-9 acts likea trail pheromone, and may be use-ful in pest management, it turnsout that measurable amounts of Z-9 cannot be found in ant trails. Z-9may be used by the ants to increaseaggregation at food sources and atthe nest. Major components of thenatural pheromone are two iridoids,dolichodial and iridomyrmecin(Choe et al. 2012).

Water and RepellentsDisrupt Trails

Foraging trails can also be dis-rupted by water baits in generallyarid areas, and by repellents.Enzmann et al. (2012) found watersources drew Argentine ants out ofstructures, leading to formation ofnew foraging trails. Klotz et al.(1998) found that liquid boric acidbaits around a perimeter were high-ly attractive, foraging trailsincreased at ant baits, ants weredrawn out of structures and killedby baits. Sprays of 1% essential oils such

as peppermint, spearmint, winter-green, cinnamon, and clove repelants for one week. Spearmint is themost effective (Scocco et al. 2012).Shorey et al. (1992) found that far-nesol was an effective Argentine antrepellent. Used as a barrier, it effec-tively excluded the Argentine antfrom citrus trees for 7 weeks. Whencombined with Stickem™, it waseffective for 17 weeks.Combination of trail disruptants,

baits, and repellents may providean effective IPM strategy for reduc-ing happy foraging trails of theArgentine ant.

References Cavill, G.W.K., P.L. Robertson and N.W. Davies.

1979. An Argentine ant aggregation factor.Experientia 35:989-990.

Choe, D.H., D.B. Villafuerte and N.D. Tsutsui.2012. Trail pheromone of the Argentineant, Linepithema humile. PLOS ONE7(9):1-7.

Enzmann, B.L., K.M. Kapheim, T.B. Wang et al.2012. Giving them what they want: manip-ulating Argentine ant activity patterns withwater. J. Appl. Entomol. 136(8):588-595.

Greenberg, L. and J. Klotz. 2000. Argentine ant(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) trail pheromoneenhances consumption of liquid sucrosesolution. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(1):119-122.

Klotz, J., L. Greenberg and E.C. Venn. 1998.Liquid boric acid bait for control of theArgentine ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).J. Econ. Entomol. 91(4):910-914.

Nishisue, K., E. Sunamura, Y. Tanaka et al.2010. Long-term field trial to control theinvasive Argentine ant with synthetic trailpheromone. J. Econ. Entomol.103(5):1784-1789.

Scocco, C.M., D.R. Suiter and W.A. Gardner.2012. Repellency of five essential oils toLinepithema humile. J. Entomol. Sci.47(2):150-159.

Shorey, H.H., L.K. Gaston, R.G. Gerber, P.A.Phillips and D.L. Wood. 1992. Disruption offoraging by Argentine ants, Iridomyrmexhumilis (Mayr) (Hymemoptera: Formicidae),in citrus trees through the use of semio-chemicals and related chemicals. J. Chem.Ecol. 18(11):2131-2142.

Smith, C.D., A. Zimin, C. Holt et al. 2011. Draftgenome of the globally widespread andinvasive Argentine ant, Linepithemahumile. PNAS 108(14):5673-5678.

Suckling, D.M, R.W. Peck, L.D. Stringer et al.2010. Trail pheromone disruption ofArgentine ant trail formation and foraging.J. Chem. Ecol. 36:122-128.

Suckling, D.M. L.D. Stringer and J.E. Corn.2011. Argentine ant trail pheromone dis-ruption is mediated by trail concentration.J. Chem. Ecol. 37:1143-1149.

Sunamura, E., S. Suzuki, K. Nishisue et al.2011. Combined use of a synthetic trailpheromone and insecticidal bait provideseffective control of an invasive ant. PestManag. Sci. 67(10):1230-1236.

7

Happy Trails—Pheromones and the Argentine Ant

Argentine ant, L. humile

Drawing by Diane K

uhn

have occurred from acute exposure inthe field, and storage of traceamounts by overwintering bees canlead to some of the symptoms ofColony Collapse Disorder and beedecline.—New York Times, April 30,2013

USDA/EPA Release Reporton Honeybees

On May 2, 2013 the USDA and theEPA released the Report on theNational Stakeholders Conference onHoney Bee Health. This conferencewas held in Alexandria, Virginia onOctober 15-17, 2012. According tothe report, bees are being impactedby pesticides, diseases, poor nutritionand other factors. These multiple fac-tors are causing large losses of honeybee colonies each winter in the U.S.—USDA, May 2, 2013

Genetically EngineeredCrops Resistant to 2,4-D

DelayedThe USDA has decided to do a

detailed environmental review of cornand soybean crops genetically engi-neered to resist applications of 2,4-D.These crops are the agribusinessanswer to herbicide resistant weedscaused by use of glyphosate tolerantRoundup Ready® crops (see IPMP33(3/4):1-9). The USDA review couldtake up to two years.—New YorkTimes, May 11, 2013

New Website PromotesEcoWise Certified

A new website funded by aCalifornia Department of PesticideRegulation grant can be found atwww.gotantsgetserious.org. This web-site encourages consumers to useIPM methods for ant management.Consumers wanting to hire IPM certi-fied companies that emphasize non-chemical methods, protect water, andminimize pesticide applications areprovided with a direct link to theEcoWise Certified website www.eco-wisecertified.org.—Bill Quarles

8

In the last issue of the IPMPractitioner, we reported that accord-ing to the label, Grandevo™ was toxicto bees. The EPA required that word-ing until field tests with bees werecompleted. Marrone Bio Innovations,Inc. (MBI), has now received U.S. EPAapproval to delete the bee toxicitywarning statement from its GrandevoBioinsecticide label. The removal ofthe toxicity statement is supported bythird-party field evaluations thatshow Grandevo has no increasedmortality or detrimental effects tohoneybees. The key study was con-ducted in central North Carolina dur-ing the summer of 2012. The month-long hive study compared the mortali-ty rates of Grandevo to a known toxicpesticide reference treatment and awater treatment control.The Grandevo maximum label rate

of 3 pounds per acre (3.4 kg/ha) wasapplied on buckwheat pre-bloom and7 days later at full bloom during beeflight. Bee mortality measured sevendays after the initial application ofGrandevo was not statistically differ-ent between the water treatment con-trol group (30.0 bees per colony) andthe Grandevo-treated group (24.1bees/colony). At the same time, themortality rate of the toxic pesticideused for comparison was 1808 beesper colony. Details about theGrandevo field trial in North Carolinaare available in the April issue of BeeCulture magazine article or on theMarrone Bio Innovations websitehttp://bit.ly/10QUwFJ.—MBI PressRelease, May 21, 2013

European Union BansNeonicotinoids

On Monday April 29, EuropeanMinister Tonio Borg said that theEuropean Union would enact a twoyear ban on neonicotinoid pesticides.These pesticides, including imidaclo-prid, thiamethoxam, and clothianidanare extremely toxic to bees and arepersistent in the field (see IPMP33(1/2):1-11). When used as seedtreatments, trace amounts are foundin pollen and nectar, causingimpaired bee performance. Deaths


IPM NewsCalendarJanuary 22-25, 2014. 34th Annual EcoFarm

Conference. Asilomar, Pacific Grove, CA.

Contact: Ecological Farming Association,

831/763-2111; [email protected]

February 3-6, 2014. Annual Meeting Weed

Science Society of America. Vancouver, BC,

Canada. Contact: www.wssa.net

February 27-March 1, 2014. 25th Annual Moses

Organic Farm Conference. La Crosse, WI.

Contact: Moses, PO Box 339, Spring Valley, WI

54767; 715/778-5775; www.mosesorganic.org

March 9-11, 2014. California Small Farm

Conference. Doubletree, Rohnert Park, CA.

Contact: www.californiafarmconference.com

March 18-23, 2014. 4th Intl. Conf. Weeds and

Invasive Plants. Montpellier, France. Contact:

http://tinyurl.com/agsqucp

June 16-19, 2013. Annual Meeting Canadian

Phytopathological Society. Edmonton, ALB.

Contact: Kelley Turkington,

[email protected]

June 18-23, 2013. 70th Annual Convention, Pest

Control Operators of CA. Harrah’s, Las Vegas,

NV. Contact: www.pcoc.org

June 26, 2013. California Certified Organic

Farmers Postharvest Field Day. Pescadero, CA.

Contact: www.ccof.org/education

August 4-9, 2013. 98th Annual Conference

Ecological Society of America. Minneapolis,

MN. Contact: www.esa.org

August 9-11, 2013. Workshop Northeast Organic

Farming Association. UMass, Amherst, MA.

Contact: www.nofa.org

August 10-13, 2013. Annual Conference

American Phytopathological Society (APS).

Austin, TX. Contact: Betty Ford,

[email protected] or www.apsnet.org

August 11-14, 2013. Planning and Implementing

Sustainable IPM Systems. Corvallis, OR.

Contact: P. Jepson, [email protected]

state.edu

October 23-26, 2013. Pestworld, Annual Meeting

National Pest Management Association (NPMA),

Phoenix, AZ. Contact: NPMA, 10460 North St.,

Fairfax, VA 22031; 800/678-6722; 703/352-

6762www.npmapestworld.org

November 10-13, 2013. Annual ESA Meeting.

Austin, TX. Contact: ESA, 10001 Derekwood

Lane, Suite 100, Lanham, MD 20706; 301/731-

4535; http://www.entsoc.org

December 12-14, 2013. Acres USA Conference.

Springfield, IL. Contact: www.acresusa.com

March 24-26, 2015. 8th Intl. IPM Symposium.

Salt Lake City, UT. Contact: Elaine Wolff,

[email protected]

Field Tests Show Grandevo™

Not Toxic to Honeybees

“Before cuelure, pesticides wereapplied on a weekly basis, costingthe farmers more to produce thevegetables than they were makingthrough sales...With cuelure, dam-age caused by fruit flies went down70%, and farmers have been mak-ing a profit... After just a few sea-sons with the new technique,Bangladeshi cucurbit farmers aremaking three times what they madebefore using cuelure... Since 2003,over 47,000 farmers in Bangladeshhave attended farmer field schoolsas well as farmer training and fielddays in Bangladesh. These eventsare essential in promoting the wide-spread use of new pest manage-ment methods such as pheromonetraps.”

Cigarette Beetle MatingDisruption

One of the most common dry foodfactory and warehouse beetle pests,the cigarette beetle, Lasioderma

serricorne, feeds on milled, pack-aged and processed grain-basedproducts and spices, as well asyeast and flower nectar, said RizanaMahroof (South Carolina StateUniv, 300 College St NE, Orange-burg, SC 29117; [email protected]). The synthetic sexpheromones serricornin (4,6-dimethyl-7-hydroxynonan-3-one)and anhydroserricornin (2,6-diethyl-3,5-dimethyl-3,4-dihydro-

2H-pyran), produced by adultfemales and attractive to adultmales, are currently used mostly formonitoring in IPM programs. Butthey can also be used for masstrapping and mating disruption.Mating disruption is a highly

selective pest control method, anddispenser systems leave nodetectable residues. Mating disrup-tion dispensers generate apheromone fog that eliminates malemoths in the early stages of infesta-tions. In 2010 and 2011, Trécémating disruption dispensersdeployed at the rate of one per 225ft2 (25 m2) were tested in SouthCarolina feed mills, flour mills andseed warehouses. Results weremonitored with sticky traps andoviposition cups. Microscopes wereused to distinguish cigarette beetlesfrom drugstore beetles, Stegobiumpaniceum, the two most commonstored product beetles in theSoutheastern United States.In 2010, cigarette beetles were

significantly reduced 8 weeks aftermating disruption treatments, and27 insects were caught. In 2011,cigarette beetles were significantlyreduced 2 weeks after mating dis-ruption treatments, and 3 insectswere caught. Thus, pest populationreductions from mating disruptiontreatments in 2010 carried over to2011; 2012 results are being evalu-ated. Also, since “beetles are differ-ent than moths,” new dispensersand pheromone isomer blends arebeing developed.

Flour Beetle Traps“Insect traps are used for detect-

ing and monitoring Tribolium casta-neum, the red flour beetle, which isa major pest of grain processingand storage facilities,” said NishaShakya (Oklahoma State Univ, 127Noble Res Center, Stillwater, OK74078; [email protected]). Three types of monitoringtraps were compared: Dome™(Trécé, Adair, OK) with kairomone

Conference Notes

9

9

by Joel Grossman

T hese Conference Highlightswere selected from about1,800 talks and over 600

poster displays at the Nov. 11-14,2012, Entomological Society ofAmerica (ESA) annual meeting inKnoxville, Tennessee. ESA’s nextannual meeting is November 10-13,2013, in Austin, Texas. For moreinformation contact the ESA (10001Derekwood Lane, Suite 100,Lanham, MD 20706; 301/731-4535; www.entsoc.org

Pheromones in BangladeshIn Bangladesh, seedlings are

given a healthy start with soilamendments such as mustard oil-cake, poultry refuse andTrichoderma composts, some ofwhich are produced and sold bylocal farmers, said RangaswamyMuniappan (Virginia PolytechnicInstit, 526 Prices Fork Rd,Blacksburg, VA 24061; [email protected]). A combination ofpheromone traps and hand-pickingreduces cole crop damage fromleafeating caterpillars by 80%. Thisaction boosts cabbage yields 22%,increases economic returns 32%and reduces pest control costs over75% by eliminating most pesticideuse.Trapping fruit flies with indige-

nous lures and pheromones insteadof spraying pesticides boosts cucur-bit yields 200%-300% and reducesdamage 90%. Cuelure, a syntheticmimic of the pheromone producedby the female melon fly, Bactroceracucurbitae, is used in traps to pro-tect cucumbers, melons andgourds. Pheromone use hasincreased fruit fly catches 15- to18-fold over using mashed gourd asan attractant; though both types ofattractant traps can be used togeth-er.According to the Integrated Pest

Management Collaborative ResearchSupport Program (IPM CRSP):

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(9/10) Published June 2013 9

Conference Notes

Special Pheromone Report—ESA 2012 Annual Meeting

Cigarette beetle, Lasioderma serricorne

disruption synergize and canincrease Indian meal moth, Plodiainterpunctella, or navel orange-worm, Amyelois transitella, matingdisruption by 95%.Temperature is also important.

With Trécé’s hand-applied CIDE-TRAK® IMM mating disruptiondevices, there is more Indian mealmoth mating disruption at 27.5°C(81.5°F) than at 20°C (68°F). At28°C (82.4°F), there is a 96% reduc-tion in fertile moth eggs at 4 days(Huang & Subramanyam, 2003).“You get more bang for the buck

at higher temperatures” for Indianmeal moth mating disruption, saidBurks. Attract-and-kill and masstrapping may work better againstIndian meal moth at lower tempera-

tures and low populations. This isbecause Indian meal moths findeach other and mate quickly afteremergence of adult from pupae.

NOW Long Lasting Lures“The navel orangeworm (NOW),

Amyelois transitella, sex pheromonehas posed particular problems forchemical ecologists in terms ofidentification of minor components,and subsequently, stabilization in alure for monitoring purposes,” saidBradley Higbee (ParamountFarming, 33141 Lerdo Hwy,Bakersfield, CA 93308; [email protected]). Althoughthe main pheromone component isused successfully to disrupt matingin almonds, it is not sufficientlyattractive for use as a monitoringtool.The lack of available monitoring

tools has been a limiting factor inthe ability to effectively identifyphenological time point, comparerelative NOW populations and effec-

tively manage NOW in almonds andpistachios. But recently discoveredpheromone components have nowbeen formulated into an effectiveproduct. Modified wing traps anddelta traps were baited with virginfemale NOW moths as pheromonesources, as well as with Suterramembrane lures with 1-2 mgblends of either 3 or 4 NOWpheromone components.“All lures trapped comparable

numbers of male NOW relative tovirgin-baited traps for at least 4-5weeks in almond orchards,” saidHigbee. General Mixed-EffectsModels (GLMMs) indicated that thefour-component blend with a 2 mgload generally outperformed theother lures. Thus, “the Suterramembrane dispenser provides along lasting platform for release ofthe NOW pheromone blend,” saidHigbee.

Mass Trapping andMonitoring NOW

“Navel orangeworm (NOW),Amyelois transitella, is a major pestof almond, Prunus dulcis; pistachio,Pistacia vera; and walnut, Juglansregia grown in California’s CentralValley,” said Elizabeth Boyd(California State Univ, 400 W. FirstSt, Plumas 225, Chico, CA 95929;[email protected]). “A novelbait, placed in a sticky bottom wingtrap, was developed and utilized formonitoring and mass-trapping ofNOW in almonds and pistachios(Nay et al. 2012). In almonds, mostchemical management of NOW cen-ters around the susceptible hullspit stage of the developing fruit.”This is when female NOW moths layeggs and neonate larva enter thefruit, causing 1-10% damage in‘Nonpareil’ almonds.“Timing of chemical treatments

for NOW at hull split have tradition-ally followed degree day (DD) calcu-lations, various egg countingmethodologies, or a ‘shoot from thehip’ strategy,” said Boyd. “However,these strategies for predicting treat-ment timing do not predict end-sea-son damage levels. The objective ofthis research was to explore the useof the novel baited mass-trapping

10

and pheromone lure; ClimbUp® BG(Black Grip) with corn oil askairomone; and Torios®(Fuji FlavorCo, Japan) with pheromone lureand sticky surface.Dome™ traps, which are market-

ed commercially by Trécé to moni-tor red flour beetle, caught the mostbeetles. There was no significantdifference between ClimbUp BG andTorios traps.

Stored Product MothMating Disruption

Three major pheromone strategiesto combat stored product mothsare: 1) Attract and kill 2) Mass trap-ping and 3) Mating disruption, saidCharles Burks (USDA-ARS, 9611 S.Riverbend Ave, Parlier, CA 93648;[email protected]). Whichstrategy to use depends on popula-tion density and environmental con-ditions.Mating disruption mechanisms,

as put forward by Stelinski et al.(2004) for tortricid moths in fruitorchards, include: 1) camouflage offemale-produced plumes, 2) false-plume-following by male moths,and 3) habituation of CNS (centralnervous system) or peripheralreceptor adaptation.Knowing which mechanism of

mating disruption is operative for aparticular pest moth species aids inmaking practical choices in matingdisruption programs: such aswhether to use high strength(Trécé’s CIDETRAK® IMM), mediumstrength (BASF’s Allure®) or naturalstrength (Suttera’s CheckMate®puffer) pheromone emitters.Temperature and available free

water or humidity affectpheromones and pest control.Interactions with environmentalvariables and pheromone matingdisruption sometimes result indelayed or postponed moth mating.Indeed, just keeping male andfemale moths apart for a sufficientlylong time period may even beenough to drive down mating andpest populations.“Effects that are small without

delayed mating can be synergisticwhen delayed mating is consid-ered,” said Burks. For example,hydration and pheromone mating

Conference Notes

10


Conference Notes

Indian meal moth, Plodia interpunctella

Trap catches showed significantmating disruption from springSPLAT-CLM applications. There wasno interaction between winter andspring mating disruption applica-tions.

Pheromone Traps MonitorHessian Fly

Oklahoma produces about 6 mil-lion acres (2.4 million ha) of winterwheat, Triticum aestivum, annuallyfor grain and livestock forage,increasingly using no-tillage toreduce costs and soil erosion whileincreasing nutrient and moistureretention, said Nathan Bradford(Oklahoma State Univ, 127 NobleRes Center, Stillwater, OK 74078;[email protected]).“However, increases in no-till wheatacreages have been linked toincreases in Hessian fly, Mayetioladestructor, numbers across thestate.”

“It is thought that the wheatstubble leftover after harvest pro-vides Hessian fly puparia a place tooverwinter that would normallyhave been tilled,” said Bradford. “Inno-till systems, because the stubbleis left unburied the puparium havea much greater chance of survival.”During the 2011/2012 winter

wheat growing season, sticky cards(Pherocon® VI Liners) equippedwith synthetic Hessian flypheromone (Pheronet MayetiolaDestructor Lure) were placed inselected locations across the major

wheat growing regions of Okla-homa. There were two traps per siteand cards containing the syntheticpheromones were changed bi-week-ly and numbers of Hessian fly wererecorded.Hessian flies were trapped in

small numbers in October andNovember, and in larger numbersduring the spring months of March,April and May. Maximum trapcatch in a sampling period was1,400 flies. Pheromone traps didnot detect Hessian flies during theextreme winter (Dec.-Feb.) andextreme summer months (June-Sept.). These observations indicatedtwo flight periods and two genera-tions of flies in Oklahoma.“A prudent IPM plan relies on an

extensive database of a pest’s char-acteristics and behavior in order tobest manage the organism,” saidBradford. Pheromone trap catchmonitoring data may prove usefulin timing foliar sprays and targetingadult Hessian flies on winter wheatplants during the extended springflight period.

SPLAT Lures for FruitFlies

“Current Male AnnihilationTechniques (MAT) combine male-specific attractants with insecticidein traps and devices that, whileeffective, require routine servicethat is costly and labor intensive,”said Lyndsie Stoltman (ISCATechnol, 1230 Spring St, Riverside,CA 92507; [email protected]). “Specialized Pheromoneand Lure Application Technology(SPLAT) was initially developed formechanical deployment of smalldoses of Lepidopteran pheromonesfor long-lasting mating disruption.”“A U.S. EPA review has certified

all inert ingredients in SPLAT to be‘suitable for food use,’ with severalformulations labeled as organic,”said Stoltman. SPLAT is “hand ormechanically applied, rain-fast, andprovides long-term controlledrelease.” For Oriental fruit fly,Bactrocera dorsalis, SPLAT MATSpinosad ME combines spinosadwith methyl eugenol. SPLATAnarosa combines spinosad and a

Conference Notes

11

system as a monitoring, treatmenttiming, and end-season damagepredictive tool.” However, 2011 wasa low NOW year; and almond dam-age levels at hull split were low,even when no insecticides wereused.This fact “highlights the need for

understanding NOW overwinteringpopulation levels,” which are low-ered by good orchard sanitationpractices (i.e. removing leftoverunharvested nuts), said Boyd. If 1%nut damage was acceptable, “ourmodel would predict that a growerimplementing mass trapping wouldtime an insecticide application dur-ing hull split when pre-hull splittrap captures reach an average of 2moths per trap.

Citrus Leafminer MatingDisruption

Citrus leafminer (CLM),Phyllocnistis citrella, mating disrup-tion involves a noncompetitivemechanism, the creation of a senso-ry imbalance, which makes thepheromone blend ratio crucial, saidCraig Keathley (USDA-ARS, 2001 S.Rock Rd, Fort Pierce, FL 34945;[email protected]). Lowrates of a 3:1 blend of (Z,Z,E)-7,11,13-hexadecatrienal/(Z,Z)-7,11-hexadecadienal in SPLAT-CLM(ISCA Technol) were machinesprayed into tree canopies as 1-gram dollops at a rate of 500 gramsper ha (0.4 acres).Some plots were treated with

SPLAT-CLM both in winter andspring. Other plots were treatedonly once, either in spring or win-ter. Results were compared to plotsthat received no pheromone. TheSPLAT-CLM winter application wason February 8, when overwinteringCLM were emerging to attack thehot new citrus growth flushes. TheSPLAT-CLM spring application wason April 24.Mating disruption effectiveness

was estimated from delta trapcatches. Moth flights peaked in lateMarch, and leafmines peaked inlate May. Immigration of mothsfrom outside the orchard was sus-pected.


Conference Notes

Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor

Conference Notesethanol-treated branch section wereoccurring over the 30-day test peri-ods.”

Pheromone Isomer BrewDisrupts Mating in HopsAdult California prionus, Prionus

californicus, are large longhornedbeetles (Cerambycidae) pestiferouson Western USA apples, cherriesand hops, as well as many otheragricultural and ornamental crops,said James Barbour (Univ of Idaho,29603 U of I Lane, Parma, ID83660; [email protected]).Adults emerge in late June in thePacific Northwest. In July-August,before their 3-week adult lifespan isover, females lay up to 200 eggs atthe soil line. The larvae chew onroots underground for 3-5 years,and wreck hops plants.Adult female P. californicus are

sedentary. So, light traps capturethe males during their dusk to mid-night flights. Adults do not feed ordrink during their 3-week lifespan,and thus need to find mates quick-ly.The sex pheromone is (3R,5S)-

3,5-dimethyldodecanoic acid plussome minor components. The syn-thetic sex pheromone is a mixtureof enantiomers. But in the field amixture of (3S,5R) and (3R,5S) syn-thetic isomers formulated into 100mg lures works well, with no inhibi-tion. The synthetic isomer mixturealso captures P. integer.Given the short adult lifespan of

P. californicus, pheromone matingdisruption is needed for only a veryshort time on this high-value beerbrewing specialty crop. In small plottests, mating disruption provided84% suppression of P. californicus.In 25-100 acre (10-40 ha) Idadoand Washington hopyard trials,pheromone dispensers for matingdisruption are being placed onpoles.

Emerald Ash Borer Traps“Various trap designs and lure

formulations for emerald ash borer(EAB), Agrilus planipennis, havebeen developed and evaluated infield trials,” said Jacob Bournay(Michigan State Univ, 288 Farm

Lane, Rm 42 Nat Sci, East Lansing,MI 48824; [email protected]).“Many of these trials were conduct-ed in sites with moderate to highEAB densities, where substantialnumber of beetles are captured pertrap. At these densities, stress-related volatiles emitted by infestedash trees likely compete with lures.Moreover, as canopies thin anddieback becomes apparent, lightpenetration through the canopychanges, potentially affecting EABvisual responses to traps.”“The EAB population in a given

area can be characterized as aninvasion wave,” said Bournay.“Crest sites represent areas whereEAB densities are at peak levels,most trees are heavily infested anddeclining. Core sites represent sitesinvaded early, where most ash treeshave been killed and EAB popula-tions have largely collapsed. Cuspsites represent recently invadedareas where EAB populations arerelatively low and few trees showany evidence of infestation. Ideally,evaluation of traps and luresshould occur in Cusp sites becausethey represent conditions whereEAB detection is a viable objective.”Along an east-west gradient

across southern Michigan withCusp, Core and other invasionstages represented, EAB traps andlures with semiochemicals weretested. Canopy traps included greenprism traps with three clear panelscoated with clear Pestick® to cap-ture insects. Both purple and greenfunnel traps with collection cups atthe base and Fluon coating weretested. Double decker traps werecomposed of two purple prismtraps. Lures included manuka oil(Synergy Semiochem Corp), cis-3-hexenol and cis-lactone (releasedfrom rubber septa, and believed tobe a pheromone).“Overall, double-decker traps

baited with cis-3-hexenol andmanuka oil and double-deckertraps with cis-3-hexenol plus cis-lactone lures captured more EABthan the green and purple funneltraps, both baited with cis-3-hexenol plus cis-lactone,” saidBournay.

12

feeding stimulant for Mexican fruitfly, Anastrepha ludens.In Brazil, SPLAT MAT Spinosad

ME and SPLAT MAT Malathion MEcombine a pesticide and methyleugenol against carambola fruit fly,Bactrocera carambolae. A singleapplication of SPLAT MAT SpinosadME promotes sustained suppres-sion of B. carambolae populationsfor four months. In areas with highpest pressure, the number of pointsper area can be increased while thesize of each point is decreased. Forlower pest densities, the number ofpoints may be decreased while sizeis increased. In both scenarios thetotal active ingredient applied isequal.

Walnut Twig BeetlePheromone Traps

To optimize early detection meth-ods, Tennessee and California WTBflight responses were compared vis-a-vis male-produced pheromone,funnel traps, window-type bottletraps and ethanol-treated walnutbranches. “Trap catches inCalifornia far exceeded those inTennessee,” said Paul Dallara (Univof California, One Shields Ave,Davis, CA 95616; [email protected]). “In two of three studiesin TN, the WTB aggregationpheromone (developed in CA) elicit-ed a significant flight response fromboth sexes of WTB when dispensedat a range of release rates.” Comparisons of traps in TN

showed that 2-liter bottle trapsbaited with WTB pheromone weremore efficient than 4-unit Lindgrenfunnel traps, catching more WTBper unit area. But the funnel trapscaught more WTB.“In both CA and TN, when com-

bined with a pheromone bait, anethanol-treated black walnutbranch section elicited a significant-ly greater flight response from bothsexes of WTB than did thepheromone bait alone,” saidDallara. “Trap catches in CA to thepheromone bait plus ethanol-treat-ed branch section increased withtime in the field, suggesting thatquantitative or qualitative changesin semiochemicals from the


Conference Notes


13

14

14



15


16


17

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707


18



19


20

Classified AdsPRODUCTS PRODUCTS

Documents

Bats, Pesticides and White Nose Syndrome · (Shah 2010). Hibernating Bats More than half of U.S. bat species hibernate (Foley et al. 2011). Bats most affected by the fungus are species