23.08.2013 Views

pdf, 57.71Mb - Entomological Society of Canada

pdf, 57.71Mb - Entomological Society of Canada

pdf, 57.71Mb - Entomological Society of Canada

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Biological Control<br />

Programmes against<br />

Insects and Weeds<br />

in <strong>Canada</strong> 1969-1980<br />

EDITED BY J.S. KELLEHER AND M.A. HULME<br />

@ COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX


Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux<br />

Farnham Royal<br />

Slough SL2 3BN<br />

England<br />

Tel. Farnham Common 2281<br />

Telex 847964<br />

ISBN 085198536 X<br />

© Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, 1984. All rights<br />

reserved. No part <strong>of</strong> this publication may be reproduced in any<br />

form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying,<br />

recording or otherwise, without the prior permission<br />

<strong>of</strong> the copyright owner.<br />

The Executive Council <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth Agricultural<br />

Bureaux is signatory to the Fair Copying Declaration, details<br />

<strong>of</strong> which can be obtained from The Royal <strong>Society</strong>, 6 Carlton<br />

House Terrace, London SWI Y SAG.<br />

Printed by Page Bros (Norwich) Ltd


CONTENTS<br />

Contents iii<br />

Page<br />

FOREWORD vii<br />

GENERAL INTRODUCTION ix<br />

PART I - Biological control <strong>of</strong> agricultural insects in <strong>Canada</strong>, 1969-1980<br />

Chapter 1. Current approaches to biological control <strong>of</strong> agricultural insect pests 3<br />

Chapter 2. Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris), Pea Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) 7<br />

Chapter 3. Adelphocoris lineolatus (Goeze), Alfalfa Plant Bug (Heteroptera: Miridae) 9<br />

Chapter 4. Agromyza frontella (Rondani), Alfalfa Blotch Leafminer (Diptera: 11<br />

Agromyzidae)<br />

Chapter 5. Artogeia rapae (L.), Imported Cabbageworm (Lepidoptera: Pieridae), 15<br />

Trichoplusia ni (HObner), Cabbage Looper (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae),<br />

and Plutella xylostella (L.), Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera:<br />

Plutellidae)<br />

Chapter 6. Culex pipiens L., Northern House Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) 19<br />

Chapter 7. Culiseta inornata (Williston) a Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) 23<br />

Chapter 8. Cydia pomonella (L.), Codling Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) 25<br />

Chapter 9. Delia antiqua (Meigen), Onion Maggot (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) 29<br />

Chapter 10. Entomoscelis americana Brown, Red Turnip Beetle (Coleoptera: 31<br />

Chrysomelidae)<br />

Chapter 11. Euxoa messoria (Harris), Darksided Cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 33<br />

Chapter 12. Forficula auricularia L., European Earwig (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) 39<br />

Chapter 13. Hypera postica (Gyllenhal), Alfalfa Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 41<br />

Chapter 14. Lygus spp., Plant Bugs (Heteroptera: Miridae) 45<br />

Chapter 15. Mamcstra configurata Walker, Bertha Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 49<br />

Chapter 16. Manduca quinquemacu/ata (Haworth), Tomato Hornworm (Lepidoptera: 57<br />

Sphingidae)<br />

Chapter 17. Melanoplus spp., Camnu/a pellucids (Scudder), and other Grasshoppers 61<br />

(Orthoptera: Acrididae)<br />

Chapter 18. Musca domestics L., House Fly (Diptera: Muscidae) 63<br />

Chapter 19. Dulema melanopus (L.), Cereal Leaf Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 65<br />

Chapter 20. Phyllonorycter blancardella (F.), Spotted Tentiform Leafminer, (Lepidoptera: 69<br />

Gracillariidae)<br />

Chapter 21. Phyllotreta spp., Flea Beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 73<br />

Chapter 22. Tetranychus urticae Koch, Twospotted Spider mite (Acarina: Tetranychidae) 77<br />

Chapter 23. Thymelicus lineola (Ochsenheimer), European Skipper (Lepidoptera: 79<br />

Hesperiidae)<br />

Chapter 24. Tipu/a pa/udosa Meigen, European Cranefly (Diptera: Tipulidae) 85<br />

Chapter 25. Tria/eurodes vaporariorum (Westwood), Greenhouse Whitefly (Homoptera: 89<br />

Aleyrodidae)


iv Contents<br />

PART II - Biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>, 1969-1980<br />

Chapter 26. Current Approaches to Biological Control <strong>of</strong> Weeds<br />

Chapter 27. Acroptilon repens (L.) DC., Russian Knapweed (Compositae)<br />

Chapter 28. Ambrosia artemisiilolia L., Common Ragweed (Compositae)<br />

Chapter 29. Artemisia absinthium L., Absinth (Compositae)<br />

Chapter 30. Carduus nutans L., Nodding Thistle and C. acanthoides L., Plumeless<br />

Thistle (Compositae)<br />

Chapter 31. Centaurea diffusa Lam. and C. maculosa Lam., Diffuse and Spotted<br />

Knapweed (Compositae)<br />

Chapter 32. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., <strong>Canada</strong> Thistle (Compositae)<br />

Chapter 33. Clrsium vulgare (Savi) Ten., Bull Thistle (Compositae)<br />

Chapter 34. Convolvulus arvensis L., Field Bindweed (Convolvulaceae)<br />

Chapter 35. Euphorbia esu/a-virgata complex, Leafy Spurge and E. cyparissias L.,<br />

Cypress Spurge (Euphorbiaceae)<br />

Chapter 36. Hypericum perforatum L., St. John's-wort (Hypericaceae)<br />

Chapter 37. Linaria vulgaris Miller, Yellow Toadflax, and L. dalmatica (L.) Mill.,<br />

Broad-leaved ToadOax (Scrophulariaceae)<br />

Chapter 38. Opuntia polyacantha Haworth, Plains Prickly-pear Cactus (Cactaceae)<br />

Chapter 39. Rhamnus cathartica L., Common or European Buckthorn (Rhamnaceae)<br />

Chapter 40. Salso/a pest/fer A. Nels., Russian Thistle (Chenopodiaceae)<br />

Chapter 41. Senecio jacobaea L., Tansy Ragwort (Compositae)<br />

Chapter 42. Silene cucubalus Wibel, Bladder Campion (Caryophyllaceae)<br />

Chapter 43. Sonchus arvensis L., Perennial Sow-thistle, S. oleraceus L., Annual Sowthistle,<br />

S. asper (L.) Hill, Spiny Annual Sow-thistle (Compositae)<br />

Chapter 44. Verbascum thapsus L., Common Mullein (Scrophulariaceae)<br />

PART III - Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insect pests in <strong>Canada</strong> 1969-80<br />

Chapter 45. Biological Control <strong>of</strong> Forest Insect Pests in <strong>Canada</strong> 1969-1980: 215<br />

Retrospect and Prospect<br />

Chapter 46. Adelges piceae (Ratz.), Balsam Woolly Adelgid (Homoptera: Adelgidae) 229<br />

Chapter 47. Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens), Spruce Budworm (Lepidoptera: 235<br />

Tortricidae)<br />

A. Field Development <strong>of</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner in Eastern <strong>Canada</strong>, 238<br />

1970-80<br />

B. Viruses: Application and Assessment 248<br />

C. Application <strong>of</strong> Microsporidia and Fungi, and <strong>of</strong> Genetic Manipulation 260<br />

D. Testing <strong>of</strong> Parasitoids 267<br />

E. Review <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Opportunities against Spruce Budworm, 273<br />

Choristoneura fumiferana<br />

Chapter 48. Choristoneura occidentalls Freeman, Western Spruce Budworm (Lepidoptera: 277<br />

Tortricidae)<br />

Chapter 49. Coleophora laricella (Hubner), Larch Casebearer (Lepidoptera: 281<br />

Coleophoridae)<br />

95<br />

105<br />

111<br />

113<br />

115<br />

127<br />

139<br />

147<br />

155<br />

159<br />

171<br />

179<br />

183<br />

185<br />

191<br />

195<br />

203<br />

205<br />

211


Chapter 50. Coleophora serratella (L.), Birch Casebearer (Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae)<br />

Chapter 51. Fenusa pusilla (Lepeletier), Birch Leafminer (Hymenoptera:<br />

Tenthredinidae)<br />

Chapter 52. Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig), European Spruce Sawfly (Hymenoptera:<br />

Diprionidae)<br />

Chapter 53. Leucoma sa/icis (L.), Satin Moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae)<br />

Chapter 54. Lymantria dispar (L.), Gypsy Moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae)<br />

Chapter 55. Malacosoma disstria HObner, Forest Tent Caterpillar (Lepidoptera:<br />

Lasiocampidae)<br />

Chapter 56. Neodiprion abietis (Harris), Balsam Fir Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae)<br />

Chapter 57. Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch), Redheaded Pine Sawfly (Hymenoptera:<br />

Diprionidae)<br />

Chapter 58. Neodiprion sertifer (Ge<strong>of</strong>froy), European Pine Sawfly (Hymenoptera:<br />

Diprionidae)<br />

Chapter 59. Neodiprion swainei (Middleton), Swaine Jack Pine Sawfly (Hymenoptera:<br />

Diprionidae)<br />

Chapter 60. Operophtera bruceata (Hulst), Bruce Span worm (Lepidoptera: Geometridae)<br />

Chapter 61. Operophtera brumata (L.), Winter Moth (Lepidoptera: Geometridae)<br />

Chapter 62. Orgyia leucostigma (J.E. Smith), Whitemarked Tussock Moth (Lepidoptera:<br />

Lymantriidae)<br />

Chapter 63. Orgyia pseudotsugata (McDunnough), Douglas-fir Tussock Moth<br />

(Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae)<br />

Chapter 64. Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig), Larch Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae)<br />

Chapter 65. Pristiphora geniculata (Hartig), Mountain-ash Sawfly (Hymenoptera:<br />

Tenthredinidae)<br />

Chapter 66. Rhyacionia buoliana (Schiff.), European Pine Shoot Moth (Lepidoptera:<br />

Tortricidae)<br />

APPENDIX - Addresses <strong>of</strong> contributors<br />

INDEX OF SPECIES<br />

Contents v<br />

285<br />

291<br />

295<br />

299<br />

303<br />

311<br />

321<br />

323<br />

331<br />

341<br />

349<br />

353<br />

359<br />

363<br />

369<br />

381<br />

387<br />

395<br />

397


Foreword<br />

Foreword vii<br />

The CIBC Technical Communication series was initiated to provide an outlet for<br />

regional reviews on biological control. This review, the 8th in the series and the 3rd prepared<br />

by Canadian scientists, points to the importance which <strong>Canada</strong> attaches to biological<br />

control and reflects the volume <strong>of</strong> Canadian activity in this field.<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> continues to support an active classical biological control programme, relying<br />

on the Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control to undertake most <strong>of</strong> its foreign<br />

exploration and research. The collection and redistribution <strong>of</strong> natural enemies successfully<br />

established earlier to hasten control has continued. However, the current volume<br />

indicates an acceptance <strong>of</strong> biological control in its wider context as a component,<br />

albeit a very important one, <strong>of</strong> integrated pest management. Increasing attention and<br />

interest are being focused on other biological control approaches, i.e., augmentative<br />

and inundative releases as well as amelioration <strong>of</strong> the environment. The value <strong>of</strong> food<br />

plants or nectar sources for adult parasitoids has been demonstrated.<br />

To date, augmentative and inundative releases in <strong>Canada</strong> have involved pathogens,<br />

both introduced and native, rather than parasitoids or predators. The period under<br />

review has seen the implementation, by large field trials, <strong>of</strong> microbial control, utilizing<br />

both bacterial and viral preparations for the control <strong>of</strong> forestry pests. The use <strong>of</strong><br />

Bacillus thuringiensis has involved the large-scale production <strong>of</strong> "tailor-made" formulations<br />

by the agro-chemical industry and provides a preferred, although more<br />

expensive, alternative to the former wide-scale use <strong>of</strong> chemical pesticides for the<br />

control <strong>of</strong> spruce budworms. B.thuringiensis is fully registered as a pesticide in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> for use against several lepidopteran defoliators. Similarly, research on viruses<br />

<strong>of</strong> neodiprionid sawflies has led to practical field application, with some degree <strong>of</strong><br />

carry-over from year to year.<br />

The first book reported introductions <strong>of</strong> control agents against two weeds; the<br />

second reviewed attempts against four additional species or species complexes<br />

whereas in the present volume, thirty agents have now been released against fourteen<br />

weed species in <strong>Canada</strong>. Increasing efforts have been made to evaluate or quantify the<br />

gains which have been or might be derived from biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds.<br />

The book is timely; by its preparation, scientists and administrators can take stock <strong>of</strong><br />

achievements to date and thus will be better placed to plan for the future. As M.A.<br />

Hulme and G.A. Green point out, the scope for research opportunities is limited not by<br />

lack <strong>of</strong> suitable problems but by the resources available to devote to biological control.<br />

The economic climate in <strong>Canada</strong>, as elsewhere, dictates that emphasis be given to<br />

developing management strategies for the pests causing the greatest economic losses<br />

and, as pointed out by Dr. P. Harris, proposals for future funding for biological control<br />

must, in order to convince administrators to release funds, provide quantitive<br />

assessment <strong>of</strong> the losses inflicted by the target pest or weed and thereby demonstrate<br />

the financial benefit which will result if the project is successful. This book attempts to<br />

provide an evaluation <strong>of</strong> each control attempt, and administrators and scientists now<br />

should be in a good position to plan for the future.<br />

F.D. Bennett<br />

Director<br />

Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong><br />

Biological Control


General Introduction<br />

Gcncrallntroduction ix<br />

This book is the third review <strong>of</strong> Canadian biological control work published by the<br />

Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. It is compiled and edited by Dr. M.A. Hulme<br />

and Dr. J .S. Kelleher. Dr. P. Harris coordinated preparation <strong>of</strong> the section on biological<br />

control <strong>of</strong> weeds.<br />

The first compilation, "A Review <strong>of</strong> the Biological Control Attempts Against Insects<br />

and Weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>" was published in 1962 and dealt with control attempts against<br />

agricultural pests and weeds up to 1959 and against forest insects from 1910-1958. In<br />

1971 a sequel was published entitled ''Biological Control Programmes against Insects<br />

and Weeds in <strong>Canada</strong> 1959-1968"; this volume had separate sections on agricultural<br />

insects, on weeds, on forest pests, and on the organization <strong>of</strong> Canadian biological<br />

control research. During the late 1970s, a further sequel was proposed and preparation<br />

began in 1980. This volume is the end result.<br />

Like its immediate predecessor, this review has two main functions. First, it collates<br />

Canadian biological control attempts against insects and weeds from 1969 to 1980, and<br />

thus provides a permanent record <strong>of</strong> otherwise diffuse and relatively inaccessible data.<br />

Secondly, it attempts to provide an evaluation <strong>of</strong> each control attempt in terms <strong>of</strong><br />

reasons for success or failure, and hence develops recommendations for future work.<br />

Terminology used in biological control research can, at times, be ambiguous. The<br />

simple term "parasite" can be particularly troublesome and as an aid to readers its usage<br />

is defined more precisely. More effort has been devoted to entomopathogens during<br />

the current review period and in some cases both microbial parasites and insect<br />

parasites have been examined from the same host insect. To avoid confusion when<br />

referring to these entomogenous and entomophagous parasites, the latter have been<br />

termed parasitoids or insect parasites rather than just parasites. A parasitoid,<br />

following the definition <strong>of</strong> DeBach, is an insect that develops as a larva on or in a single<br />

host insect from eggs laid on, in or near the host; it usually consumes most <strong>of</strong> the host's<br />

tissues and it kills the host. Phytophagous insects that feed on plants regarded as<br />

weeds are thus termed parasites, whereas those feeding on crop plants, including trees,<br />

are referred to as pests (emphasizing their relationship with man rather than with the host<br />

plant).<br />

The term ''biological control" also requires some explanation. In the present context<br />

the term refers to an applied control strategy that involves the manipulation <strong>of</strong> living<br />

natural enemies for the purpose <strong>of</strong> regulating the abundance <strong>of</strong> pest populations. The<br />

regulation may be short or long term and the manipulation may include release<br />

strategies ranging from spot-introductions to widespread inundation. Introductions <strong>of</strong><br />

sterile individuals are thus included here; but the use <strong>of</strong> semiochemicals, notably<br />

kairomones and pheromones, is included only where these chemicals influence<br />

predator or parasitoid behaviour. Pheromone confusion trials on the pest insect are<br />

excluded since they involve direct chemical manipUlation <strong>of</strong> the pest. The use <strong>of</strong><br />

insect growth regulators is similarly excluded.<br />

The book is divided into three sections which cover agricultural insects, weeds, and<br />

forest insects; chapters within each section are generally listed in the alphabetical<br />

order <strong>of</strong> the insect's or weed's generic name; and each <strong>of</strong> the three sections begins with<br />

an overview <strong>of</strong> the chapters that follow. Addresses <strong>of</strong> contributors are listed in the<br />

Appendix. The book does not include an updated synopsis <strong>of</strong> the organization and<br />

accomplishments <strong>of</strong> Canadian biological control research in a separate section<br />

equivalent to Part IV <strong>of</strong> the 1971 volume. Accomplishments are summarized in the<br />

overview chapter beginning each section and the organizational observations in the<br />

1971 synopsis remain equally valid today without need for further elaboration.


x Gcncrallntroduction<br />

Several changes in the organization <strong>of</strong> Canadian biological control research have<br />

taken place since publication <strong>of</strong> the 1971 book. The Research Institute <strong>of</strong> Agriculture<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> at Belle .. ille, Ontario, which had played a pivotal role in importation and<br />

applied research <strong>of</strong> biological control organisms was closed in 1972 and its staff was<br />

relocated. The Biocontrol Unit was formed in Ottawa by Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> to coordinate<br />

importations. Material is imported through the Biocontrol Unit, and through<br />

Macdonald College in Quebec, the Forest Pest Management Institute and the<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Guelph in Ontario, and the Regina Research Station <strong>of</strong> Agriculture<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> in Saskatchewan. The Department <strong>of</strong> Fisheries and Forestry became part <strong>of</strong> a<br />

new Department, Environment <strong>Canada</strong>, in 1971. Forestry research is conducted by the<br />

Canadian Forestry Service within this Department; biological control research is still<br />

carried out at the same laboratories as those listed in the last review but establishment<br />

names have been modified to reflect the new organization.<br />

Many people assisted in the preparation <strong>of</strong> this review. Special acknowledgement is<br />

extended to Ms. R. Boyle and Ms. P. Loshak for helping in correcting the text. Dr. F.D.<br />

Bennett, Director, Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control, initiated the<br />

preparation, Dr. 0.1. Greathead, Assistant Director and Mr. 0.1. Girling, Information<br />

Officer, assisted in its publication, and Mrs. A.H. Greathead read the pro<strong>of</strong>s and<br />

completed the index.


PART I<br />

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF<br />

AGRICULTURAL INSECTS IN<br />

CANADA 1969-80


Chapter 1<br />

Current Approaches to Biological<br />

Control <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Insect Pests<br />

1.S. KELLEHER<br />

This part covers the biological control <strong>of</strong> insect and mite pests <strong>of</strong> crops, fruit trees, and<br />

ornamentals. As in the previous review (Kelleher 1971) it includes inoculation<br />

(introduction), augmentation, and inundation, using beneficial insects, entomopathogens,<br />

and autocidal methods.<br />

Some organizational changes have occurred since the last review. In 1972, the<br />

Research Institute at Belleville, Ontario, was closed and the staff transferred to<br />

Research Stations in other parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. The service function, <strong>of</strong> obtaining<br />

infonnation and collections <strong>of</strong> biological control organisms from abroad was transferred<br />

to Ottawa. The programme on the biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds was moved to the Regina<br />

Research Station. An Integrated Pest Control Section was fonned at Winnipeg with<br />

many <strong>of</strong> the scientists from Belleville. Other individuals were stationed at Summerland,<br />

Saskatoon, Harrow, and Ottawa.<br />

The adoption <strong>of</strong> integrated pest management (IPM) systems has placed biological<br />

control in a much more important role than before. At one time it was considered as an<br />

alternative to chemicals i.e. complete control was necessary. Now, however, our<br />

knowledge <strong>of</strong> insect population dynamics has increased, and it is now considered that<br />

even a small additional percentage mortality can have a pr<strong>of</strong>ound effect on the overall<br />

reduction <strong>of</strong> an insect population.<br />

The initial stages <strong>of</strong> an IPM programme involve a reduction in pesticide usage, by<br />

monitoring pest infestations so that chemicals are applied only when necessary. As a<br />

consequence, natural control factors are not so suppressed and are able to exert<br />

additional mortality on the pest population. But there will be a point where very little<br />

more can be obtained from the systems available and additional factors must be added<br />

to attain a greater reduction in pesticide use. This can come in many forms but the<br />

introduction <strong>of</strong> new natural enemies should be an important consideration in many<br />

instances.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the studies reported in this part have utilized introduced species <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitoids, or entomopathogens (Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (B.t.), fungi, viruses).<br />

Other aspects <strong>of</strong> biological control such as mass releases <strong>of</strong> parasitoids e.g. Trichogramma<br />

species, have been largely neglected. However reports from the USSR,<br />

China, and South American countries have attributed considerable successes with this<br />

approach and are prompting some consideration <strong>of</strong> initiating similar work in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Much may depend on the development <strong>of</strong> techniques to provide a large number <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitoids during a relatively short period for any particular insect. The main<br />

emphasis will be on production and storage but consideration should also be given to a<br />

number <strong>of</strong> target pests whose susceptible stages occur at different times.<br />

Increased awareness <strong>of</strong> the value <strong>of</strong> natural enemies has led to research on the<br />

differential effects <strong>of</strong> pesticides on natural enemies. Although pesticides usually affect<br />

a wide spectrum, some taxa are less affected by them than others. A working group <strong>of</strong><br />

the West Palaearctic Regional Section <strong>of</strong> the International Organization for Biological<br />

Control has taken an organized and coordinated approach to this subject. Members <strong>of</strong><br />

this group have standardized the culturing <strong>of</strong> various taxa <strong>of</strong> beneficial insects and are<br />

adopting standardized methods for testing the effects <strong>of</strong> pesticides on these insects in<br />

the laboratory and in the field. Eventually these data will be available as recommendations<br />

3


4 J. S. Kelleher<br />

Table 1<br />

to be placed on the label <strong>of</strong> pesticide containers and ill the bulletins <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial agencies.<br />

The following 24 chapters in this part have been arranged in alphabetical order using<br />

the scientific name <strong>of</strong> the pest species. An evaluation <strong>of</strong> the programme is given in<br />

Table 1. Only 10 <strong>of</strong> the pests were included both in this review and the last one. It can<br />

be concluded that no other information is available on the other target pests. This<br />

indicates the transient nature <strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> the agricultural projects, in contrast to those<br />

on forest insects and weeds.<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> biological control measures against agricultural insect and mite pests<br />

Pest Method Agent<br />

Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) Adventitious Predator<br />

Adelphocoris lineolatus (Goeze) Inoculation Parasitoid<br />

Agromyza frontella (Rondani) Inoculation Parasitoid<br />

Artogeia rapae (L.), Trichoplusia<br />

ni (Hilbner), & Plutella Inundative Virus, B.t.<br />

xylostella (L.) Inoculation Parasitoid<br />

Culex pipiens L. Augmentation Planaria<br />

Culiseta inornata (Williston) Augmentation Fungus<br />

Cydia pomonella (L.) Inundation Virus<br />

Delia antiqua (Meigen) Autocidal<br />

Entomoscelis americana Brown··<br />

Euxoa messoria (Harris) Augmentation Virus<br />

Forficula auricularia (L.) Inoculation Parasitoid<br />

Hypera postica (Gyll.) Adventitious Fungus<br />

Lygus spp. Inoculation Parasitoid<br />

Mamestra configurata Walker··<br />

Manduca quinquemaculata (Haworth) Inundation B.t.<br />

Melanopus spp., Camnula pellucida<br />

(Scudder) & other grasshoppers Inundation Protozoa<br />

Musca domestica L. Integration Parasitoid<br />

Oulema melanopus (L.) Inoculation Parasitoid<br />

Phyllonorycter blancardella (Fabricius) Inoculation Parasitoid<br />

Phyllotreta spp. Inoculation Parasitoid<br />

Tetranychus unicae Koch· Integration Predator<br />

Thymelicus lineola (Ochs.) Inundation B.t.<br />

Inundation Virus<br />

Inoculation Parasitoid<br />

Tipula paludosa (Meigen) Inoculation Parasitoid<br />

Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood)· Integration Parasitoid<br />

Measures started during or extending into period 1969 to 1980<br />

·Greenhouse<br />

··Exploratory studies - no. released<br />

•• • Degree <strong>of</strong> Success:<br />

- No control or not yet known if established<br />

+ Slight pest reduction or too early for evaluation <strong>of</strong> control<br />

+ + Local control; distribution restricted or not fully investigated<br />

+ + + Control widespread but local damage occurs<br />

+ + + + Control complete<br />

Degree <strong>of</strong><br />

Success···<br />

+<br />

+<br />

++++<br />

++<br />

+++<br />

+<br />

+<br />

+<br />

+<br />

+++<br />

++++<br />

+++<br />

++++<br />

++++<br />

+<br />

+++<br />

++++<br />

+++<br />

+<br />

++++


Literature Cited<br />

Current approaches to biological control <strong>of</strong> agricultural insect pests 5<br />

In the last Review, the use <strong>of</strong> a nematode, DD-136, was reported (Welch 1971)<br />

against several crop pests. This work was not continued although there are still several<br />

avenues to explore. Hopefully this will be done in the future. It will also be noted from<br />

Table 1 that predators were used in only 2 instances - one adventitiously, the other in<br />

a greenhouse situation. Possibly this group is less favored because the members tend<br />

to be less specific than parasitoids. However for reasons considered above, even<br />

relatively small degrees <strong>of</strong> mortality can effect population reductions on a much larger<br />

scale. But it would also be important to determine if there would be a net increase in pest<br />

mortality or if it would be merely compensatory.<br />

Of the 26 agents used, 11 were by inoculation with parasitoids and 7 by inundation<br />

with pathogens. Inoculations gave high success in 2 cases; others could not be<br />

evaluated as it was too early or recoveries had not yet been made. In contrast, 5 <strong>of</strong> the<br />

7 pests were controlled well by inundation with pathogens. However this method is<br />

primarily for short-term stage control whereas inoculation <strong>of</strong> new natural enemies is a<br />

long-term population control measure.<br />

In many cases, establishment <strong>of</strong> exotic natural enemies may be hampered by the low<br />

numbers available for release e.g. against Adelphocoris lineolatus (Goeze), Phyllotreta<br />

spp., and Thymelicus lineola (Ochs.). Propagation has been difficult or unattainable.<br />

Sometimes mortality has been high in rearing andlor storage. This has required intense<br />

efforts by the CIBC to increase the number <strong>of</strong> individuals obtained. Some new<br />

techniques have been considered e.g. leaving an area undisturbed on the premise that<br />

parasitoid populations would increase. Increasing host populations by the addition <strong>of</strong><br />

their eggs from other areas has also been tried successfully in some cases although the<br />

danger <strong>of</strong> introducing more virulent strains has restricted the use <strong>of</strong> this technique.<br />

In addition to the work reported in the following chapters there have been some<br />

minor efforts which did not warrant separate sections. These are as follows: Mantis<br />

religiosa L. ootheca were collected near Belleville, Ontario, in 1971 and 1972 and<br />

released near St. John's, Newfoundland against various grasshopper species (Acrididae);<br />

no recoveries have been recorded (R. Morris, 1981, personal communication).<br />

Coccinella septempunctata L. was found in northern New Jersey, in 1973 apparently<br />

as an adventitious introduction (Angalet & Jacques 1975). They were redistributed to<br />

various states in subsequent years and to Nova Scotia in 1981. The species had been<br />

reported from various parts <strong>of</strong> Quebec (Larochelle 1979) and was found in New<br />

Brunswick in 1981 (P.W. Schaefer, 1981, personal communication).<br />

As in previous reviews, this publication has been possible only through the cooperation<br />

<strong>of</strong> those who performed the work. In this part. 28 authors have contributed. Their efforts<br />

are gratefully acknowledged. as well as those <strong>of</strong> editors and typists who are too numerous<br />

to name individually.<br />

Angalct. G. W.; 1 acquest R.L. (1975) The establishmcnt <strong>of</strong> Coccinella septempunctata L. in thc continental Unitcd Statcs. USDA Cooperative<br />

Economic Insect Report 25, 883-884.<br />

Kcllchcr. 1.S. (1971) Current approachcs to biological control <strong>of</strong> agricultural insect pests. In: Biological control programmes against insects<br />

and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong> 1959-1968. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Communication<br />

4.1-3.<br />

Larochellc, A. (1979) Les coleoptercs Coccinellidac du Quebec. Cordulia. Supplement 10. I-Ill.<br />

Wclch. H.E. (1971) Various target species allcmplS with 00-136. In: Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong><br />

1959-1968. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> BiologiClll Control TechniCIJI Communication 4. 62-66.


Blank Page<br />

6


Literature Cited<br />

Chapter 2<br />

Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris), Pea Aphid<br />

(Homoptera: Aphididae)<br />

B.D. FRAZER<br />

Coccinella undecimpunctata L. was first encountered in pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon<br />

piswn (Harris), infested alfalfa in May 1972. Since then it is routinely found on low-growing,<br />

aphid infested plants including cereals, strawberries, and vegetables in numbers<br />

about equal to the predominant native species, C. californica and C. trifasciata. C.<br />

undecimpunctata is one <strong>of</strong> the first coccineJlids to be found in spring. They appear to<br />

be adapted to cooler cJimates than the lower mainland <strong>of</strong> British Columbia as there are<br />

few aphids available when they are first seen. The effect <strong>of</strong> their predation in reducing<br />

spring aphid numbers can greatly reduce the rate <strong>of</strong> increase <strong>of</strong> aphids (Frazer &<br />

Gilbert 1976) and thereby extend the time before pesticides are required. Later in the<br />

season the effects <strong>of</strong> C. undecimpunctata alone are smalJ because losses from the large<br />

number <strong>of</strong> predators in alfalfa, at least, are compensatory (Charnov et al. 1976). If C.<br />

undecimpunctata were added to a field without them, their aphid consumption would<br />

simply result in less for the other competing predators with no net increase in aphid<br />

mortality.<br />

Frazer, B.D.; Gilben. N. (1976) Coccinellids and aphids: a quantitative study <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> adult ladybirds (Coleoptera: CoccineUidae) preying<br />

on field populations <strong>of</strong> pea aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae). Journal <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

British Columbia 73, 33-56.<br />

Charnov, E.; Frazer, B.D.; Gilbert. N.; Raworth. D. (1976) Fishing for aphid - the exploitation <strong>of</strong> a natural population. JourfllJl <strong>of</strong> Applied<br />

Ecology 13. 379-389.<br />

7


Blank Page<br />

8


\0 C. H. Craig and C. C. Loan<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

development at intended liberation sites in western <strong>Canada</strong>. However, 47 P. ade/phocoridis<br />

were released near Clavet, Saskatchewan, latitude 52°N, in alfafa containing a<br />

second and third instar A. Iineo/alllS nymph population <strong>of</strong> 2 per sweep. A total <strong>of</strong> 29 P.<br />

ade/phocoridis and 49 P. rubricol/is were released in a similar situation near Shellbrook.<br />

Saskatchewan. latitude 53°N. Liberations in 1981 included 16 P. ade/phocoridis at the<br />

same site at Saskatoon and 12 <strong>of</strong> the species at Shellbrook. The first attempt to recover<br />

these introduced parasitoids at the liberation sites will be made in 1981.<br />

The introduction and release <strong>of</strong> P. ade/phocoridis and P. rubricol/is against A.<br />

lineo/atus in western <strong>Canada</strong> will continue through 1982 or 1983 when the impact <strong>of</strong> the<br />

programme will be assessed. Because A. Iineo/alllS is an excellent candidate host for<br />

introduced parasitoids. it is recommended that a search be made for other specific<br />

parasitoids <strong>of</strong> A. lineo/atus in Europe to increase the probability <strong>of</strong> successful<br />

establishment in western <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Bilewicz·Pawinska. T. (1975) Distribution <strong>of</strong> the insect parasites Peristenus Foerster and Mesochorus Gravenhorst in Poland. Bulletin de<br />

I'Academie Polonaise des Sciences Closse II Serie des Sciences Biologiques 23. 823-827.<br />

Craig. C.H. (1971) Distribution <strong>of</strong> Adelphocoris lineolatus (Heteroptera: Miridae) in western <strong>Canada</strong>. CanadUJn Entomologist 103. 280-81.<br />

Craig, C.H. (1963) The alfatra plant bug, Adelphocoris lineolatus (Goeze) in northern Saskatchewan. Canadian Entomologist 95.6-13.<br />

Loan. C.C. (1965) Life cycle and development <strong>of</strong> Peris/enus pal/ipes (Curtis) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae. Euphorinae) in five mirid hosts in the<br />

Belleville district. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario (1964) 95. 115-121.<br />

Loan. C.c. (1979) Three new species <strong>of</strong> Peristenus Foerster from <strong>Canada</strong> and western Europe (Hymenoptera: Braconidae. Euphorinae).<br />

Natura/iste Canadian 106.387-391.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 4<br />

Agromyza frontella (Rondani), Alfalfa<br />

Blotch Leafminer (Diptera:<br />

Agromyzidae)<br />

J.C. GUPPY, D.G. HARCOURT, M.O'c. GUIBORD and<br />

L.S. THOMPSON<br />

The alfalfa blotch leafminer, Agromyza frontella (Rondani), was introduced from<br />

Europe to the north eastern United States during the late 1960s (Miller & Jensen 1970)<br />

and first appeared in <strong>Canada</strong> at St-Armand, Quebec, in 1972 near the United States<br />

border (Harcourt 1973). The insect spread rapidly throughout eastern <strong>Canada</strong> from<br />

Prince Edward Island to Ontario (Thompson 1974, Guppy & Harcourt 1977), and by<br />

1979 it had threatened to become the most important pest <strong>of</strong> alfalfa in the 10 eastern<br />

counties <strong>of</strong> Ontario (Harcourt & Binns 1980) and in the other eastern provinces. It has<br />

continued to spread westward in Ontario and damaging levels were recorded in<br />

Hastings County in 1980 (Guppy 1981).<br />

Hosts include: Medicago, Melilollls, and Trifolium, but alfalfa, Medicago sativa L.,<br />

is apparently preferred (Steyskal 1972, Spencer 1973). The insect overwinters as a<br />

partially developed pupa and the adult emerges about mid-May to oviposit in the firstgrowth<br />

alfalfa. In eastern <strong>Canada</strong> there are three complete generations a year (Guppy<br />

1981), but a few individuals may complete a fourth. The crop is attacked by both the<br />

adults and larvae, but most <strong>of</strong> the damage is done by the larvae which feed on the<br />

mesophyll tissues forming blotch mines each <strong>of</strong> which represents about 27% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

leaflet area.<br />

The crop is attacked throughout the growing season but damage is more severe in<br />

the first and second cuttings; during the past 4 years, the percentage <strong>of</strong> leaflets mined<br />

in eastern Ontario averaged 70% and 58%, respectively.<br />

Seven parasitoid species native.to eastern <strong>Canada</strong> have been reared from larvae <strong>of</strong> A.<br />

frontella, all <strong>of</strong> them are hymenopterous species <strong>of</strong> the family Eulophidae. Diglyphus<br />

websteri (Crawford) and D. begini (Ashmead) were recorded in eastern Ontario and<br />

these two plus D. pulchripes (Crawford) in Quebec. In Prince Edward Island, five<br />

species were found, namely, D. begini, D. intermedius (Girault), Notanisomorpha sp.,<br />

Pnigalio maculipes (Crawford), and Pnigalio n. sp. One larval-pupal parasitoid<br />

Cyrtogaster sp. (Hymentoptera: Pteromalidae) emerged from puparia in Ontario.<br />

Assessment <strong>of</strong> parasitism has shown that the native species are <strong>of</strong> little importance<br />

in suppressing alfalfa blotch leafminer populations. However, a hemipteron species<br />

Nabis ferus (Linnaeus), common to eastern <strong>Canada</strong>, appears to be an important<br />

predator <strong>of</strong> the larvae. At Ottawa, incidence <strong>of</strong> attack increases with each generation,<br />

averaging about 60% in the third.<br />

The Beneficial Insects Research Laboratory, Newark, Delaware, United States<br />

Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture imported 14 parasitoid species from Europe from 1974 to<br />

1978 for release in the United States (Hendrickson & Barth 1979). By 1978 three<br />

hymenopterous species, Dacnusa dryas (Nixon) (Braconidae), Chrysocharis punctifacies<br />

Delucchi (Eulophidae), and Miscogaster hortensis Walker (Pteromalidae), were<br />

11


12 J. C. Guppy, D. G. Harcourt, M. O'c. Guibord and L. S. Thompson<br />

established at the Delaware field plots. These were recolonized in other northeastern<br />

states, where they became established (Hendrickson & Barth 1979, and personal<br />

communication), and imported for release into eastern <strong>Canada</strong>. A fourth species,<br />

Diglyphus isaea (Walker) (Eulophidae), was shipped to Quebec for release in 1975;<br />

establishment was not successful in either country apparently because it crossed with<br />

native species <strong>of</strong> Diglyphus and further attempts <strong>of</strong> establishment were abandoned<br />

(R.M. Hendrickson 1976, personal communication).<br />

Releases and Recoveries D. dryas, C. punclifacies, and M. hortensis are solitary endoparasitoids. The host is<br />

attacked during the larval stage and the parasitoids complete their development during<br />

Table 2<br />

the pupal stage.<br />

All releases in <strong>Canada</strong> were <strong>of</strong> adults, laboratory reared in Newark, Delaware, or<br />

field collected there or in other northeastern States by cooperators and shipped to<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> directly to release points or for distribution through Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>,<br />

Research Branch, Biological Control Unit, Research Program Service. Release and<br />

recovery data are given in Table 2. D. dryas, the only species thus far recovered,<br />

Releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> parasitoids against the alfalfa blotch leafminer, Agromyza<br />

fronlella (Rondani), in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Releases<br />

Species and Province Year Number Y car <strong>of</strong> recovery<br />

Chrysocharis plillctifacies<br />

Prince Edward Island 1978 4<br />

Prince Edward Island 1980 142<br />

Ontario 1980 150<br />

Quebec 1979 249<br />

Quebec 1980 90<br />

DaClIlIsa dryas<br />

Prince Edward Island 1977 68<br />

Prince Edward Island 1978 70<br />

Prince Edward Island 1979 546 1980<br />

Ontario 1979 586 1979<br />

Quebec 1979 16<br />

Quebec 1980 378 1981<br />

Dig/ypllUs isaea<br />

Quebec 1975 900<br />

Miscogasler IlOrlellsis<br />

Prince Edward Island 1978 32<br />

appears to be firmly established in eastern <strong>Canada</strong>. In eastern Ontario, it was reared<br />

from third generation pupae in the year <strong>of</strong> release, 1979, and from each generation in<br />

1980 after overwintering successfully in diapausing pupae. It was also collected in<br />

sweepnet samples throughout the growing season in 1980 at Ottawa.


Blank Page<br />

14


Pest Status<br />

Use <strong>of</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis<br />

Chapter 5<br />

Field Plot Introductions <strong>of</strong> Viruses<br />

Artogeia rapae (L.), Imported<br />

Cabbageworm (Lepidoptera: Pieridae),<br />

Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner), Cabbage<br />

Looper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and<br />

Plutella xylostella (L.), Diamondback<br />

Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae)<br />

R.P. JAQUES and J.E. LAING<br />

Artogeia rapae (L.), the imported cabbageworm, causes damage to cole crops<br />

practically wherever these crops are grown in <strong>Canada</strong>. The pest is quite susceptible to<br />

certain chemical insecticides and to insecticides containing Bacillus thuringiensis<br />

Berliner and, therefore, populations <strong>of</strong> larvae are usually retained at acceptable<br />

densities by recommended control programmes. Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner), the cabbage<br />

looper, is not as widespread but, because it is less susceptible than A. rapae to<br />

registered insecticides, it is considered to be the more important pest <strong>of</strong> cole crops,<br />

especially in southern Ontario. Plutella xylostella (L.) is not considered to overwinter<br />

in <strong>Canada</strong> and thus does not become a pest on cole crops until late in the season.<br />

Formulations <strong>of</strong> B. thuring;ensis (B.t.) containing B. thuringiensis var. kurstaki, a<br />

high-potency strain <strong>of</strong> B.t., were registered in <strong>Canada</strong> in 1972 for use against A. rapae,<br />

T. ni, and P. xylostella on cole crops and other crops. The new formulations (Thuricide®<br />

HPC, Sandoz Crop Protection Inc.; and Dipel® HD-l, Abbott Laboratories Ltd.)<br />

replacing formulations registered previously, protected cole crops equally as well as or<br />

better than did chemical insecticides. These formulations <strong>of</strong> B.I. are now used quite<br />

extensively.<br />

The native parasitoid complex <strong>of</strong> the imported cabbageworm (Michalowicz 1980)<br />

and the diamondback moth (Butts 1979, Bolter 1982) have been studied intensively.<br />

Two species, Apanteles rubecula Marsh. which parasitizes A. rapae and Apanleles<br />

plulellae (Kurdj.) a parasitoid <strong>of</strong> diamondback moth, have been imported and released<br />

in southwestern Ontario.<br />

The granulosis virus <strong>of</strong> A. rapae (ARGV), a naturally occurring virus (Jaques &<br />

Harcourt 1971) that <strong>of</strong>ten causes high mortality in populations <strong>of</strong> larvae <strong>of</strong> A. rapae<br />

late in the growing season, was evaluated by bioassays and plot tests as an introduced<br />

pathogen. In addition, three viruses that kill larvae <strong>of</strong> T. ni were assessed in laboratory<br />

and field studies. Two <strong>of</strong> these viruses, the single-embedded nuclear polyhedrosis<br />

15


16 R. P. Jaques and J. E. Laing<br />

virus <strong>of</strong> T. n; (TNNPV-SEV), the predominant naturally occurring virus <strong>of</strong> T. ni<br />

(Jaques 1970a) , and the nuclear polyhedrosis virus <strong>of</strong> Autographa cali/orn;ca<br />

(ACNPV), a virus that kills T. n; and that closely resembles the multiple-embedded<br />

nuclear polyhedrosis virus <strong>of</strong> T. ni (TNNPV-MEV), are considered as candidates for<br />

development as microbial insecticides for use against T. n;.<br />

Efficacy <strong>of</strong> the viruses <strong>of</strong> A. rapae and T. n; was assessed in 1970-80 using field<br />

plots <strong>of</strong> cabbage (each 24-32 m2) Jaques 1970b, 1972, 1973, 1977; Jaques & Laing<br />

1978).<br />

In these tests:<br />

(1) ARGV (7.5 x 10 12 granular inclusion bodies (GIBlha) applied to foliage 4 to 6<br />

times during the growing season reduced populations by 95 to 100% and protected the<br />

crop as well as did chemical insecticides applied at the recommended rates.<br />

(2) TNNPV-SEV, TNNPV-MEV and ACNPV were about equally effective against<br />

the cabbage looper. Four to 6 applications <strong>of</strong> 1.5 x lOll polyhedral inclusion bodies<br />

(PIB)lha during the growing season reduced populations <strong>of</strong> T. n; on cabbage by about<br />

75% and protected the crop as well as did methomyl or B.t. but not as well as<br />

permethrin applied at recommended rates.<br />

(3) Reduced-dosage mixtures <strong>of</strong> ACNPV, ARGV, andlor B.t. with chlordimeform<br />

were as effective against A. rapae and T. ni as were the microbial or chemical<br />

insecticides applied alone at the full rate (Jaques & Laing 1978). Mixtures <strong>of</strong> the<br />

viruses or B.t. and permethrin at 114 or 112 full rate were equally as effective as<br />

permethrin applied alone in protecting the crop.<br />

(4) The efficacy <strong>of</strong> ACNPV propagated ;n vitro was similar to that <strong>of</strong> ACNPV<br />

propagated ;n vivo.<br />

(5) Because the viruses persist in soil (Jaques 1974a, 1974b), application <strong>of</strong> a high<br />

dosage <strong>of</strong> ARGV and ACNPV when plants were transplanted, suppressed populations<br />

<strong>of</strong> A. rapae and T. n; on cabbage plants and lessened the frequency <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> insecticides<br />

later in the season.<br />

Predation and Parasimm The native parasitoid complex <strong>of</strong> the imported cabbageworm and the diamondback<br />

moth have been studied intensively (Butts 1979, Michalowicz 1980, Bolter 1982).<br />

Major mortality factors for A. rapae at Cambridge, Ontario during 1977-78 were<br />

Apanteles glomeratus (L.), Phryxe vulgaris (Fallen), Compsilura concinnata (Meigen),<br />

and Pteromalus puparum L. Major changes in the population occurred during the<br />

pupal stage and the key factor responsible for these changes was the pupal parasitoid, P.<br />

puparum. A. glomeratus which parasitizes the larvae <strong>of</strong> A. rapae also contributed<br />

substantially to the total mortality. However, rates <strong>of</strong> parasitism by both species <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitoids only reached high levels late in the growing season and did not prevent A.<br />

rapae from reaching densities which were injurious to the cabbage crop (Michalowicz<br />

1980).<br />

Major mortality factors <strong>of</strong> the diamondback moth larvae in Ontario are the larval<br />

parasitoids, M;croplitis plutellae (Mues.) and Diadegma insulare (Cress.), and the<br />

pupal parasitoid, D;adromus subti/icornis (Grav.) (Butts 1979, Bolter 1982). In three<br />

<strong>of</strong> four years in which parasitoids were monitored from 1977-81 in Cambridge,<br />

Ontario, D. insulare was the dominant parasitoid while D. subtilicornis was the<br />

dominant parasitoid in one <strong>of</strong> the four years.<br />

In a study <strong>of</strong> the competition between the larval parasitoids D. insulare and M.<br />

plutellae (Bolter 1982), it was shown that female D. insulare produced an average <strong>of</strong><br />

814 eggs in a lifespan <strong>of</strong> 26 days at 23°C, while female M. plutellae produced an average<br />

<strong>of</strong> 318 eggs in a lifespan <strong>of</strong> 20 days at 23°C. D. insulare avoided superparasitism and<br />

multiple parasitism <strong>of</strong> hosts already parasitized by M. plutellae. M. plutellae generally


Artogeia rapae (L.). 17<br />

avoids superparasitism. but cannot detect eggs <strong>of</strong> D. insulare in the host for at least 12<br />

hours after they were oviposited. However, the first-instar larva <strong>of</strong> M. plutellae was<br />

shown to be intrinsically superior to the first-instar larva <strong>of</strong> D. insulare.<br />

The native parasitoid complex <strong>of</strong> the diamondback moth does not provide adequate<br />

control <strong>of</strong> diamondback moth on Brussels sprouts late in the season when conditions<br />

favour an increase in the host population.<br />

Parasitoid Introductions Apanteles rubecula a larval parasitoid <strong>of</strong> A. rapae was introduced from British<br />

Columbia to Richmond, Ontario by Harcourt in 1970 and 1971. Establishment <strong>of</strong> the<br />

parasitoid was in doubt. However, four specimens <strong>of</strong> A. rubecula were recovered from<br />

a garden plot in Ottawa in 1982. A small number <strong>of</strong> A. rubecula. originally obtained<br />

from British Columbia, were released in Guelph, Ontario (40 99 and dd in 1978, 85 99<br />

and 120 dd in 1979), Harrow, Ontario (180 99 and 120 dd in 1978) and Cambridge,<br />

Ontario (165 99 and 175 o'd in 1979). Although pupae <strong>of</strong> A. rubecula were observed in<br />

the field in the fall during the year <strong>of</strong> each release, no A. rubecula have been recovered<br />

from the release areas during 1980-82.<br />

A second strain <strong>of</strong> A. rubecula obtained from north eastern China in 1981 was<br />

released at Guelph during 1982, but establishment <strong>of</strong> the parasitoids is unknown at the<br />

time <strong>of</strong> this report.<br />

Apanteles plutellae (Kurdj.) a larval parasitoid <strong>of</strong> the diamondback moth, native to<br />

Europe was imported to Guelph in 1981 from the CIBC laboratory in Trinidad. It is<br />

presently in culture at the University <strong>of</strong> Guelph and will be released in Guelph during<br />

1982.<br />

Host-Parasitoid-Pathogen Interactions<br />

The host-parasitoid-pathogen interactions between the parasitoid Apanteles glomeratus,<br />

a granulosis virus (GV), and their lepidopteran host Artogeia rapae larvae<br />

depended on the length <strong>of</strong> time between oviposition by the parasitoid and time <strong>of</strong><br />

ingestion <strong>of</strong> the virus by the host. Parasitoids did not survive in hosts which ingested<br />

virus on or before the fifth day post-parasitism. Percentage survival <strong>of</strong> parasitoids<br />

gradually increased from 26% when oviposition by parasitoids occurred six days prior<br />

to GV infection, to 90% when oviposition by parasitoids occurred nine days prior to GV<br />

infection. Survival <strong>of</strong> parasitoids in non-virus treated hosts remained consistently<br />

above 95%. The degree <strong>of</strong> host infection was strongly correlated with survival <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitoids: the heavier the host's GV infection, the fewer parasitoids that emerged<br />

from the host to pupate and that emerged from the pupae as adults (Levin et al. 1981).<br />

After prior oviposition in GV-infected A. rapae larvae, A. glomeralUS transmitted<br />

GV to healthy A. rapae larvae 73% <strong>of</strong> the time. Ninety per cent <strong>of</strong> parasitoids<br />

transmitted GV to at least one recipient larva. A. glomeralus which developed in and<br />

emerged from GV-infected A. rapae larvae, transmitted GV to 84% <strong>of</strong> the larvae in<br />

which they initially oviposited. Discrimination between healthy and diseased A. rapae<br />

larvae by female A. glomeralus was not observed. This lack <strong>of</strong> discrimination is likely<br />

to contribute to the dissemination <strong>of</strong> GV from host to host by A. glomeralUS in the field<br />

and to mortality <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid's progeny. Thus, the parasitoid is at a disadvantage<br />

when competing with GV in the field for hosts (Levin el al. 1979, 1983).


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 6<br />

Culex pipiens L., Northern House<br />

Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae)<br />

1.A. GEORGE<br />

The northern house mosquito, or rain barrel mosquito, Culex pipiens L., has long been<br />

known to live in close proximity to humans in southern Ontario (Wood el al. 1979).<br />

Larvae occur most commonly in stagnant water polluted to some degree with varying<br />

amounts <strong>of</strong> decaying organic matter such as vegetation or sewage. C. pipiens larvae<br />

are usually associated with, or follow the earlier occurring larvae <strong>of</strong> Culex resluans<br />

Theobald. Adult populations <strong>of</strong> C. pipiens reach a peak in August, and though<br />

breeding continues until October, females begin entering diapause in late August and<br />

will not take a blood meal until the following spring (Madder el al. 1980, Madder 1981).<br />

Mated females spend the winter in any protected shelter available to them. About mid­<br />

May females seek their first blood meal and deposit the first egg rafts during the third<br />

week <strong>of</strong> May at Guelph (Madder el al. 1980). Thoughfemales prefer the blood <strong>of</strong> birds<br />

to that <strong>of</strong> mammals (Hayes 1961), they will, when abundant, invade homes and feed on<br />

humans.<br />

C. pipiens has been implicated in the spread <strong>of</strong> St. Louis encephalitis (SLE) and it,<br />

along with Culex resluans (Madder el al. 1980), is assumed to be the vector <strong>of</strong> this<br />

virus in eastern North America (Wood el al. 1979). The first recorded epidemic <strong>of</strong> SLE<br />

occurred in southern Ontario in 1974-75 and stimulated investigations on surveillance<br />

for,and abatement <strong>of</strong> this insect (Mahdy el al. 1979, Helson el al. 1980).<br />

Four years (1977 -80) <strong>of</strong> identifying mosquito larvae by the author for the Middlesex­<br />

London District Health Unit, London, Ontario survey crews, has helped to establish<br />

catch basins, designed to drain away surface water, as major breeding sites for C.<br />

pipiens in this area. In 1979 catch basins accounted for 96% <strong>of</strong> all breeding sites found<br />

by the survey crew (Pringle el al. 1978). Moreover, on randomly selected streets in<br />

Brampton, Clarkson, Streetsville, and Port Credit, 70% <strong>of</strong> the catch basins examined<br />

contained Culex larvae (Hill, 1978, personal communication).<br />

Catch basins not only provide water high in organic matter throughout the summer,<br />

but, in addition, the underground pipes into which they drain provide ideal protected<br />

sites for the females to spend the winter months. In addition, the street locations <strong>of</strong><br />

most catch basins puts them in close proximity to human dwellings. Finally, some<br />

catch basins form a part <strong>of</strong> many farm drainage systems. These also support Culex<br />

larvae. Thus, the drainage systems, established throughout southern Ontario to<br />

remove surface water, provide ideal breeding conditions for C. pipiens and C.<br />

resluans, the suspected vectors <strong>of</strong> SLE.<br />

The planarian flatworm, Dugesia ligrina (Girard) (Tricladida, Turbellaria), has been<br />

known to be a predator <strong>of</strong> mosquitoes since Lischetti (1919) reported it to consume<br />

mosquito larvae (Jenkins 1964). A larger species, Dugesia dorolocephala (Woodworth),<br />

has recently been shown also to act as an effective predator <strong>of</strong> mosquito eggs, larvae,<br />

and pupae in California (Legner & Medved 1972, 1974, Medved & Legner 1974, Yu &<br />

Legner 1976). Small Merosloma species, under 1 mm in length, <strong>of</strong> planaria in the order<br />

Rhabdocoelida, kill mosquito larvae in the rice fields <strong>of</strong> California (Case & Washino<br />

1979).<br />

19


Recommendations<br />

Acknowledgement<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Culex pipiens L.. 21<br />

basins can readily be inoculated with reared planaria or more simply by transferring<br />

floats with planaria to new catch basins.<br />

Research on the abatement <strong>of</strong> Culex spp. in catch basins is required to enable intelligent<br />

control measures to be implemented if Culex-transmitted SLE virus reappears in<br />

Ontario. A study <strong>of</strong> the ability <strong>of</strong> predaceous planaria to survive year round in catch<br />

basins is under way. A search for Merostoma species should be conducted in Ontario.<br />

If planaria fail, the next most promising control in catch basins appears to be a<br />

means <strong>of</strong> slow release <strong>of</strong> B.t.;' or methoprene.<br />

This research was assisted by the Ontario Ministry <strong>of</strong> the Environment through the<br />

Ontario Pesticide Advisory Committee.<br />

Case. T.; Washino. R.K. (1979) Flatwonn control <strong>of</strong> mosquito larvae in rice fields. Science 206. 1412-1414.<br />

George. J.A. (1978) The potential <strong>of</strong> a local planarian. Dugesia tigriM (Tricladida. Turbellaria). for the control <strong>of</strong> mosquitoes in Ontario.<br />

Proceedings <strong>of</strong> Ihe EntomologicDl <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario 109.65-69.<br />

Hayes. R.O. (1961) Host preferences <strong>of</strong> Culiseta melanura and allied mosquitoes. Mosquito News 21. 179-187.<br />

Helson. B. V.; Surgeoner. G.A.; Wright. R.E. (1980) The seasonal distribution and species composition <strong>of</strong> mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae)<br />

collected during a St. Louis Encephalitis surveillance program from 1976 to 1978 in southwestern Ontario.<br />

Canadian Entomologist 112. 865-874.<br />

Jenkins. D.W. (1964) Pathogens. parasites and predators <strong>of</strong> medically important anhropods- Annotated list and bibliography. Bulletin <strong>of</strong><br />

the World Heallh Organization Supplement to vol 30.<br />

Legner. E.F.; Medved. R.A. (1972) Predators investigated for the biological control <strong>of</strong> mosquitoes and midges at the University <strong>of</strong> California.<br />

Riverside. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the California Mosquito Control Associotion 40. 109-111.<br />

Legner. E.F.; Medvcd. R.A. (1974) laboratory and small-scale field experiments with planaria (Tricladida. Turbellaria) as biological<br />

mosquito control agents. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Califomio Mosquito Control Association 42. 79-80.<br />

Uschelli. A.B. (1919) Un venne del genero Planoria. enemigo natural de las larvas del mosquito. Physis. Buenos Aires. 4.591-595.<br />

Madder. D.J. (1981) Biological studies on Culex pipiens L. and Culex restuans Theo. (Diptera. Culicidae) in southern Ontario. Ph.D. Thesis.<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Guelph. 125 pp.<br />

Madder. D.J.; MacDonald. R.S.; Surgeoner. G.A.; He/son. B.V. (1980) The use <strong>of</strong> oviposition activity to monitor populations <strong>of</strong> Culex<br />

pipiens and Culex restuans (Diptera: Culicidae). Canadian Entomologist 112. 1013-1017.<br />

Mahdy. M.S.; Spence. L.; Joshua. J.M. (Eds) (1979) Arboviral encephalitides in Ontario with special reference to St. Louis encephalitis.<br />

Ontario Ministry <strong>of</strong> Health, 364 pp.<br />

Medved. R.A.; Legner. E.F. (1974) Feeding and reproduction <strong>of</strong> the planarian Dugesia dorotocephala (Woodworth). in the presence <strong>of</strong><br />

Culex peris Speiser. Environmental Entomology 3, 637-641.<br />

Pringle. T.; Ryan. S.; Smith. L. (1978) Middlesex County mosquito·bome encephalitis control programme (1978). Report <strong>of</strong> Middlesex­<br />

London District Health Unit, London. Ontario. 36 pp.<br />

Wood. D.M.; Dang. P.T.; Ellis. R.A. (1979) The insects and arachnids <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Part 6. The mosquitoes <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Diptera: Culicidae.<br />

Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> Publication 1686. 390 pp.<br />

Yu. Hyo-sok; Legner. E.F. (1976) Regulation <strong>of</strong> aquatic Diptera by planaria. Entomophaga 21. 3-12.


Blank Page<br />

22


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Host Specificity<br />

Chapter 7<br />

Culiseta inornata (Williston), a Mosquito<br />

(Diptera: Culicidae)<br />

J .A. SHEMANCHUK, H.C. WHISLER and S.L. ZEBOLD<br />

Culiseta inomata (Williston) is a very common mosquito species in the Prairie<br />

Provinces <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. It is found not only in the open country but also in the aspen<br />

grove regions. Females <strong>of</strong> this species pass the winter as fertilized females in rodent<br />

burrows, caves, root cellars, rock piles, and abandoned buildings. Generally, the<br />

species does not appear in large numbers until late July. There are several generations<br />

in a season. C. inomata is a common pest <strong>of</strong> livestock and occasionally <strong>of</strong> man, and is<br />

a vector <strong>of</strong> western equine encephalomyelitis and California encephalitis (Morgante &<br />

Shemanchuk 1967, Shemanchuk & Morgante 1967).<br />

Concern about the environmental contamination with pesticides has led many<br />

countries to examine the use <strong>of</strong> biological agents for the control <strong>of</strong> mosquitoes. An<br />

aquatic fungus, Coelomomyces psorophorae Couch (Chytridiomycetes: Blastocladiales),<br />

parasitic on larvae <strong>of</strong> C. inomata was discovered in the irrigated areas <strong>of</strong> southern<br />

Alberta in 1956 and has been found there every year since. Larval mortalities up to<br />

80% have occurred in some <strong>of</strong> the breeding ponds. This fungus was also found<br />

infecting C. inornata larvae in the irrigated areas <strong>of</strong> Saskatchewan, which indicates a<br />

wide geographic distribution.<br />

The persistence <strong>of</strong> this fungus in the irrigated areas <strong>of</strong> southern Alberta and<br />

Saskatchewan and the ability to colonize the host species <strong>of</strong> mosquitoes in the<br />

laboratory prompted us to study further this particular host-parasite combination.<br />

Laboratory experiments resulted in the discovery <strong>of</strong> a previously unknown obligate<br />

alternate host the copepod, Cyclops vernalis, in the life-cycle <strong>of</strong> Coelomomyces<br />

psorophorae (Whisler et al. 1974, 1975). In the life-cycle, the zygote seeks out and<br />

attaches to the intersegmental membranes <strong>of</strong> the mosquito larva and penetrates the<br />

cuticle leading to the development <strong>of</strong> hyphal bodies, mycelium, and ultimately thickwalled<br />

resistant sporangia in the coelom <strong>of</strong> the larva, which kill the larva. Under<br />

appropriate conditions, these sporangia release zoospores <strong>of</strong> opposite mating type<br />

which infect the alternate host, Cyclops vernalis. Each zoospore develops into a<br />

thallus and eventually gametangia. Gametes <strong>of</strong> opposite mating type fuse either in or<br />

outside <strong>of</strong> the copepod to form the mosquito-infecting zygote.<br />

The discovery <strong>of</strong> the life-cycle led to the development <strong>of</strong> a successful laboratory<br />

procedure for the propagation <strong>of</strong> the fungus and to a better understanding <strong>of</strong> its basic<br />

biology.<br />

With the reliable technique which was developed for consistent and significant<br />

infections in C. inornata in the laboratory, host specificity studies <strong>of</strong> Coelomomyces<br />

psorophorae were possible. The possibility <strong>of</strong> infecting Aedes vexans (Meigen)<br />

received particular attention because larvae <strong>of</strong> this mosquito with light infections <strong>of</strong><br />

Coelomomyces psorophorae have occasionally been found in field sites where heavily<br />

infected larvae <strong>of</strong> C. inornata were also found. Larvae <strong>of</strong> A. vexans, A. dorsalis<br />

23


24 J. A. Shemanchuk. H. C. Wisler and S. L. Zebold<br />

Field Trials<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

(Meigen), and A. flavescens (Muller) were exposed to zygotes <strong>of</strong> Coelomomyces<br />

psorophorae, but, despite repeated attempts, infections by this strain were never<br />

attained. C. inornata larvae in the same experiment were infected (Zebold et al. 1979).<br />

These results seemed to support the prevailing opinion that Coelomomyces is a<br />

highly specific parasite. In further tests, however, infection was achieved in Culex<br />

pipiens L., C. quinquefasciatus Say, A. aegypti (L.), A. sierrensis (Ludlow), A.<br />

triseriatus (Say), and C. inornata (Louisiana strain).<br />

A. aegypti larvae were more susceptible than the other species, but maximum<br />

resistant sporangia production was consistently best in the original host species, C.<br />

inornata.<br />

In 1979, a preliminary field trial was conducted at 8-Mile Lake near Lethbridge using<br />

laboratory-cultured Coelomomyces psorophorae. Six artificial pools were established.<br />

One pool was inoculated with zoospores and copepods, one received copepods that<br />

were infected in the laboratory and were ready to release the zygotes, two pools<br />

received zygotes from laboratory-infected copepods, and two pools that received no<br />

fungal inoculum served as controls. Into each <strong>of</strong> the pools, first instar laboratoryreared<br />

larvae <strong>of</strong> C. inornata were introduced and exposed for 24 hours after which<br />

they were brought back to the laboratory for rearing to final instar and for observation<br />

for infection.<br />

The results from this test confirmed our field observation that the fungus is an<br />

effective killer <strong>of</strong> C. inomata larvae. The fungus was most effective when introduced<br />

into mosquito habitats in the zygote stage and produced a 64% kill.<br />

These results further indicate that this fungus will have practical application in<br />

controlling C. inornata as a short-term microbial pesticide and as a long-term inoculum<br />

in mosquito-breeding habitats where the fungus does not occur naturally.<br />

(1) Expand research on the design and development <strong>of</strong> techniques for large-scale<br />

production and long-term storage <strong>of</strong> Coelomomyces psorophorae.<br />

(2) Evaluate Coelomomyces psorophorae as a short-term microbial pesticide and as a<br />

long-term inoculum in mosquito-breeding habitats in the irrigated areas and in areas<br />

where the fungus does not occur.<br />

(3) Continue searching for Coelomomyces infections in other species <strong>of</strong> mosquitoes<br />

and define their life-cycles.<br />

(4) Search for other aquatic fungi that might be domesticated and manipulated for the<br />

control <strong>of</strong> mosquitoes.<br />

Morgante. 0.; Shemanchuk. J.A. (1967) Virus <strong>of</strong> California Encephalitis Complex; isolation from Cuiisela inornata. Science 157. 692-693.<br />

Shemanchuk. J.A.; Morgante. O. (1967) Isolation <strong>of</strong> Western Encephalitis virus from mosquitoes in Albena. Canadian JoumJll <strong>of</strong><br />

Microbiology 14.1-5.<br />

Whisler. H.C.; Zebold; S.L.; Shemanchuk. J.A. (1974) Alternate host for mosquito parasitic Coelomomyces. Nature 251. 715-716.<br />

Whisler. H.C.; Zebold. S.L.; Shemanchuk. J.A. (1975) Life history <strong>of</strong> Coelomomyces psorophorae. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the National Academy<br />

<strong>of</strong> Sciences 72. 693-696.<br />

Zcbold. S.L.; Whisler H.C.; Shemanchuk. J.A.; Travland. L.B. (1979) Host specilicity and penetration in mosquito pathogen Coe/omomyces<br />

psorophorae. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 57. 2766-2nO.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Orchard Tests<br />

Table 3<br />

Chapter 8<br />

Cydia pomonella (L.), Codling Moth<br />

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)<br />

R.P. JAQUES and J.E. LAING<br />

The codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), is a major pest <strong>of</strong> apple in most areas <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Canada</strong> in which the crop is grown. Several chemical insecticides, notably phosmet,<br />

azinphos-methyl, and permethrin, are effective against the pest. Nevertheless, protection<br />

<strong>of</strong> apples against the codling moth is a major concern in development <strong>of</strong> integrated<br />

pest management programmes for apples, not only because <strong>of</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong> the<br />

pest, but also because the broad-spectrum insecticides used to control it are detrimental to<br />

the predaceous and parasitic arthropods in orchards.<br />

A granulosis virus discovered by Tanada (1964) has been shown to be highly infectious<br />

for C. pomonella larvae in laboratory tests (Keller 1973, Laing & Jaques 1981). The<br />

virus was quite effective against the pest in apple orchard tests in Germany (Huber &<br />

Dickler 1977), reducing damage 10 fruit by C. pomonella by as much as 89%. Falcon el<br />

al. (1968) obtained similar crop protection in tests in California but the virus was less<br />

effective in orchard tests in Ohio (Sheppard & Stairs 1976).<br />

The granulosis virus <strong>of</strong> C. pomonella (CPGV) was applied to apple trees at four<br />

locations in <strong>Canada</strong> between 1974 and 1980 in orchard tests on effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the<br />

virus against the codling moth (Jaques el al. 1977, 1981).<br />

Seven-tree plots were sprayed at rales <strong>of</strong> 1 x 10 9 to 3 X 10 10 GIB <strong>of</strong> CPGV or 0.5 g<br />

azinphos-methyl per litre <strong>of</strong> spray in a 4-year test (1975-78) carried out at the<br />

Research Station at KentviJIe, Nova Scotia. A summary <strong>of</strong> results (Table 3) indicated<br />

that CPGV was not as effective as azinphos-methyl in protecting apples against<br />

damage by larvae <strong>of</strong> C. pomonella. Total damage to picked and dropped apples<br />

harvested from plots treated with CPGV was reduced by an average <strong>of</strong> 95.5%.<br />

Injury to apples by larvae <strong>of</strong> Cydia pomonella (L.) in a 4-year orchard test at KentviJIe.<br />

Nova Scotia, on efficacy <strong>of</strong> a granulosis virus·<br />

Material<br />

Virus<br />

Azinphos-methyl<br />

Check<br />

Injury by C. pomonellallOO apples<br />

Picked fruit Picked + Dropped fruit<br />

SE" DE-· SE DE<br />

1.6 1.0 1.7 1.6<br />

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4<br />

1.2 3.0 1.3 12.1<br />

·Tests were carried out in cooperation with C.R. MacLellan and K.H. Sanford,<br />

Research Station, Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>. Kentville, N.S.<br />

··SE and DE refer 10 "shallow-entry" and "deep-entry" injury, respectively.<br />

25


26 R. P. Jaques and J. E. Laing<br />

Table 4<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

The granulosis virus was applied to plots in apple orchards at the Research Station,<br />

Summerland, British Columbia, in 1975 and 1976; at the Research Station, Vineland<br />

Station, Ontario, in 1974, 1977, and 1978; and at the University <strong>of</strong> Guelph, Guelph,<br />

Ontario, in 1976-80; Table 4 lists data from some <strong>of</strong> the tests.<br />

Injury to apples by larvae <strong>of</strong> Cydia pomonella (L.) in orchard tests on efficacy <strong>of</strong> C.<br />

pomonella granulosis virus'.<br />

Materialllitre Applica.tionsl Injury by c.!omonellallOO<br />

<strong>of</strong> spray generatIon apples picke at harvest<br />

1st 2nd SE·· DE**<br />

Summerland, British Columbia<br />

1975<br />

CPGV 3.2-7.3 x lO9 GIB 2 2 55 32<br />

Check 0 0 22 71<br />

Vineland Station, Ontario<br />

1974<br />

CPGV 3.5-6.5 x 10 9<br />

GIB 3 2 21 5<br />

Phosmet 3.1 g 2 1 2 I<br />

Check 0 0 5 22<br />

Guelph, Ontario<br />

1979<br />

CPGV 3.3xlO'o GIB 3 3 9 2<br />

Check<br />

1979<br />

0 0 11 14<br />

CPGV 3.6xlO'o GIB 2 2 11 2<br />

3 4 8 0<br />

Check 0 0 7 11<br />

·Tests were carried out in cooperation with M.D. Proverbs, Research Station<br />

Summerland, British Columbia, and E.A.C. Hagley and R. Trottier, Research<br />

Station, Vineland Station, Ontario.<br />

"SE and DE refer to "shallow-entry" and "deep-entry" injury. respectively.<br />

Total damage to apples in plots treated with CPGV was not reduced appreciably in<br />

many <strong>of</strong> the tests. Deep-entry (D.E.) damage was reduced by 55% to 100%, approaching<br />

the reductions noted in plots treated with a chemical insecticide. It is noteworthy that<br />

shallow entries (stings) (S.E.) were higher in apples from plots treated with the virus<br />

than in nontreated apples in some tests, e.g. 1975 Summerland test, presumably<br />

because larvae infected by the virus died after they had entered the apple.<br />

The 1979 test at Guelph indicated superior crop protection with increased numbers<br />

<strong>of</strong> applications <strong>of</strong> the virus. In a plot test in 1980 at Guelph, CPGV was applied 2 or 4<br />

times for each <strong>of</strong> the two generations <strong>of</strong> C. pomonella larvae; however, crop<br />

protection was not increased by the higher frequency <strong>of</strong> application.<br />

The granulosis virus <strong>of</strong> C. pomonella did not protect the crop as well as did chemical<br />

insecticides in these tests. However, the virus is considered to have substantial<br />

potential in integrated pest management because it is specific for the target insect.


Cydia pomollella (L.). 27<br />

Further studies will emphasize timing and dosages <strong>of</strong> application, persistence <strong>of</strong> the<br />

virus in the orchard habitat, and application <strong>of</strong> the virus in combination with low<br />

dosages <strong>of</strong> chemical insecticides as means <strong>of</strong> increasing effectiveness.<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Falcon. L.A.; Kane. W.R.; Bethell. R.S. (1968) Preliminary evaluation <strong>of</strong> the granulosis virus for control <strong>of</strong> the codling moth. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Economic Entomology 61. 1208-1213.<br />

Huber. J.; Dickler. E. (1977) Codling moth granulosis: Its efficacy in the field in comparison with organophosphorous insecticides. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Economic EnlOmology 70. 557-561.<br />

Jaques. R. P.: Maclellan. C. R.; Sanford. K. H.; Proverbs. M.D.; Hagley. E.A.C. (19n) Preliminary orchard tests on control <strong>of</strong> codling moth<br />

larvae by a granulosis virus. Canadian Entomologist 109. 1079-1081.<br />

Jaques. R.P.; Laing. J.E.; Maclellan. C.R.; Proverbs. M.D.; Sanford. K.H.; Trottier. R. (1981) Apple orchard tests on efficacy <strong>of</strong> the<br />

granulosis virus <strong>of</strong> the codling moth. Laspeyresia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae). Ento·<br />

mophaga 26. 111-117.<br />

Keller. S. (1973) Mikrobiologische Bekiimpfung des Apfelwicklers Laspeyresia pomonella (L.) (= Carpocapsa pomonel/Q) mit spezifischen<br />

Granulosisvirus. Zeit.schrift fiir angewandte Entomologie 73. 137-181.<br />

Laing. D.R.; Jaques. R.P. (1981) Codling moth: techniques for rearing larvae and bioassaying granulosis virus. Joumal <strong>of</strong> Economic<br />

Entomology 73. 831-853.<br />

Sheppard. R.E.; Stairs. G.R. (1976) Effects <strong>of</strong> dissemination <strong>of</strong> low dosage levels <strong>of</strong> a granulosis virus in populations <strong>of</strong> the codling moth.<br />

Jou",al <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 69, 583-586.<br />

Tanada. Y. (1964) A granulosis virus <strong>of</strong> the codling moth. Carpocapsa pomonella (Linnaeus) (Olethreutidae, Lepidoptera). Journal <strong>of</strong> Insect<br />

Pathology 6.378-380.


Blank Page<br />

28


Chapter 9<br />

Delia antiqua (Meigen), Onion Maggot<br />

(Diptera: Anthomyiidae)<br />

F.L. McEWEN<br />

The onion maggot, Delia anliqua (Meigen), is the most destructive pest <strong>of</strong> onions<br />

throughout the temperate regions <strong>of</strong> the northern hemisphere and in <strong>Canada</strong> causes<br />

losses <strong>of</strong> 50-90% (Finlayson 1959). Effective control was not achieved until the late<br />

1940s when the cyclodiene insecticides became available. These, when applied in the<br />

furrow with the seed, provided excellent control <strong>of</strong> the first generation and additional<br />

treatments <strong>of</strong> DDT against the second and third generation adults reduced damage to a<br />

minimum. Resistance to these insecticides developed and the cyclodienes were<br />

replaced about 1960 by such organophosphorus components as ethion and diazinon.<br />

Subsequently chlorfenvinphos, fensulfothion, carb<strong>of</strong>uran, fon<strong>of</strong>os, and chlorpyrifos<br />

have been used in the seed furrow; and parathion, diazinon, naled, or malathion have<br />

been used as sprays against the adults <strong>of</strong> the second and third generation. Resistance<br />

to several <strong>of</strong> these insecticides has developed and, while the level <strong>of</strong> resistance has not<br />

been as great as with the cyclodienes, commercial control is becoming increasingly<br />

difficult (Harris & Svec 1976).<br />

The use <strong>of</strong> the sterile-male approach for insect control was first successfully applied<br />

(Knipling 1960) against a livestock pest and since then its use has been explored for<br />

many insect species. In the case <strong>of</strong> the onion maggot, McClanahan & Simmons<br />

(1966) and Noordink (1966) showed that the insect could be sterilized without serious<br />

effects on the longevity <strong>of</strong> the adult. In Holland, Noordink and his associates<br />

continued studies on the sterile-male method for control, and by 1980 had completed<br />

laboratory and field testing to the point where a commercial venture in marketing the<br />

programme to the growers is now in place (Noordink 1971, 1974; Ticheler el al. 1974;<br />

Loosjes 1976).<br />

In <strong>Canada</strong>, research on sterile-male control for the onion maggot began as a<br />

cooperative venture between Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> (C.R. Harris) and the University <strong>of</strong><br />

Guelph (F.L. McEwen) in 1971. In the initial stages <strong>of</strong> the study, mass rearing<br />

procedures were perfected (Harris & Svec 1976), and laboratory tests determined that<br />

when pupae reared under diapausing conditions were irradiated (Cobalt 60) after 6<br />

days post-diapause (24°C) at 2 or 4 krad, the males were sterilized and the females<br />

made unreproductive. Tests established that males produced from these pupae were<br />

competitive and lived about as long as those emerging from non-irradiated pupae.<br />

Initial field releases <strong>of</strong> sterilized pupae were begun in 1973 and, using fluorescent<br />

dyes as markers on released flies, the field distribution pattern was also determined.<br />

The survival <strong>of</strong> released flies was monitored and eggs collected in the field and hatch<br />

determined. The initial results indicated that the flies did not disperse widely (most<br />

recaptures were within 75 m <strong>of</strong> release site) and that the hatchability <strong>of</strong> eggs in the<br />

release area was reduced. In addition, an economic study was undertaken that showed<br />

that if the sterile-male programme was effective, it was an economically sound<br />

approach (King 1973).<br />

Field tests were expanded with 6000000 pupae released in 1974 and 10 000 000 in<br />

1975. While it was clear that egg hatch was reduced, bird predation on released pupae<br />

and immigration <strong>of</strong> wild flies into the release area resulted in inconsistent results.<br />

Extensive monitoring indicated, however, that when the ratio <strong>of</strong> wild to released flies<br />

approached 1: I, the egg hatch was reduced near 50%.<br />

29


30 F. L. McEwen<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Since rearing facilities for continuing field releases at the 1974 and 1975 levels were<br />

no longer available, the release portion <strong>of</strong> the programme was curtailed in subsequent<br />

years and efforts concentrated on learning more about the field ecology <strong>of</strong> wild and<br />

released flies, studying mating habits and determining a release procedure in which<br />

bird predation would not be such an important negative factor on the programme.<br />

These studies have demonstrated that the pupae can be released by air or as adults by<br />

air and, hopefully, will not be so subject to predation as ground release <strong>of</strong> pupae in<br />

designated sites. It has been shown also that the female fly mates only once (Martin<br />

1981) and that in the field, much <strong>of</strong> the survival <strong>of</strong> third generation larvae to<br />

overwintering pupae results from cull and volunteer onions left in the field after<br />

harvest. Thus fall sanitation is an essential component in a programme to reduce onion<br />

maggot populations.<br />

Future plans are to release approximately 100 000 000 sterilized flies in an isolated<br />

onion-growing area containing about 300 ha <strong>of</strong> onions in each <strong>of</strong> the years 1982 and<br />

1983. To accommodate this, a new biological control laboratory has been built at the<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Guelph with major facilities and space for mass rearing the onion<br />

maggot. These releases will be closely monitored and serve as a demonstration project<br />

to determine the feasibility <strong>of</strong> the sterile-male method <strong>of</strong> control. If successful on the<br />

limited area chosen, the programme will be expanded to the major onion areas in<br />

Ontario.<br />

Finlayson, D.G. (1959) Chemical control <strong>of</strong> the onion maggot in onions grown from seed in various types <strong>of</strong> soil in Northwestern America in<br />

1955-56. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 52, 851-856.<br />

Harris, C.R.; Svec, H. (1976) Onion maggot resistance to insecticides. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 69, 617-620.<br />

King, D.L.J. (1973) An economic appraisal <strong>of</strong> the sterile-male technique <strong>of</strong> onion maggot control on the Holland Marsh <strong>of</strong> Ontario. M.Sc.<br />

Thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Guelph, 176 pp.<br />

Knipling, E.F. (1960) The eradication <strong>of</strong> the screw-worm Oy. Scientific American 203, 54-61.<br />

Loosjes, M. (1976) Ecology and genetic control <strong>of</strong> the onion Oy Delia antiqua Meigen. Wageningen, PUDOC; 94 pp.<br />

Martin, J.S. (1981) Mating beha\;our <strong>of</strong> the onion maggot Oy Hylemya antiqua (Meigen) in laboratory conditions. M.Sc. Thesis, University<br />

<strong>of</strong> Guelph, 43 pp.<br />

McCIanaham, R.J.; Simmons, H.S.(1966) Sterilization <strong>of</strong> onion maggots by irradiation with cesium-137. Canadian Entomologist 98, 931-935.<br />

Noordink, J.Ph.W. (1971) Irradiation, competitiveness, and the use <strong>of</strong> radioisotopes in sterile-male studies with the onion Oy, Hylemya<br />

antiqua M. In: Sterility principle forinsect control or eradication. International Aromic Energy:Agency,<br />

232-328.<br />

Noordink, J.Ph.W. (1974) Onderzoek met behulp van radiactivc isotopen. Jaarversl. 1973. Mededelingen Instituut voor Plantenziektenkundig<br />

Onderzoek, Wageningen, 119-121.<br />

Ticheler, J.; Loosjes, M.; Noordink, J.Ph. W.; Noorlandcr, J.; Theunissen, J. (1974) Field experiments with the release <strong>of</strong> sterilized onion<br />

Dies Hylemya antiqua (Meig.). In: The sterile-insect technique and its field <strong>of</strong> applications International<br />

Atomic Energy Agency, 103-107.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 10<br />

Entomoscelis americana Brown, Red<br />

Turnip Beetle (Coleoptera:<br />

Chrysomelidae)<br />

G.H. GERBER<br />

The red turnip beetle, Entomosce/is americana Brown, is an oligophagous insect<br />

which feeds on Cruciferae and is an occasional pest <strong>of</strong> rape, Brassica campestris L. and<br />

B. napus L., mustard, B. juncea (L.) Czern. and B. Itirta Moench, and cruciferous<br />

garden crops in western <strong>Canada</strong> (Stewart 1973, Gerber & Obad<strong>of</strong>in 1981a, 1981b). The<br />

larvae and adults feed on seedling plants in May and June before the adults aestivate in<br />

July, and the adults feed on mature plants in August and September after aestivation.<br />

The only damage <strong>of</strong> economic significance is caused by the adults in June (Gerber 1974,<br />

1976).<br />

The red turnip beetle is native to North America and in <strong>Canada</strong> occurs south <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Arctic climatic zone and west <strong>of</strong> longitude 96°W (Stewart 1973). The beetle overwinters in<br />

the egg stage on the surface <strong>of</strong> the soil. The eggs hatch in late April and early May,<br />

shortly after the snow has melted, but usually before rape, mustard, and cruciferous<br />

garden crops are planted (Gerber & Obad<strong>of</strong>in 1981a). Larval development normally is<br />

completed by the end <strong>of</strong> May. The larvae feed on volunteer rape and mustard<br />

seedlings, and on cruciferous weeds in fields that contained these plants the previous<br />

year (Tumock et al. 1979). The adults emerge during the first 3 weeks <strong>of</strong> June and feed<br />

for 2-3 weeks, usually in the same fields in which the larvae fed. If the supply <strong>of</strong> food<br />

plants is not adequate. the adults will move into nearby new fields containing their host<br />

plants. At the end <strong>of</strong> June, the adults enter the soil to aestivate for about a month. They<br />

reappear in late July and August; disperse to new fields <strong>of</strong> rape, mustard, or garden<br />

Cruciferae; and mate and lay eggs until late October.<br />

The only known natural enemies <strong>of</strong> E. americana attack the adult stage: a pathogen<br />

(microsporidia (Gerber 1975» and a predator (adults <strong>of</strong> the carabid beetle, Pterosticltus<br />

adstrictus (W.J. Tumock, 1975. personal communication». These two natural enemies<br />

have been encountered on only a few occasions in the field and consequently are not<br />

considered to be important control agents.<br />

Manolache (1941) reported two tachinid parasitoids in the larvae and pupae <strong>of</strong> a<br />

European species <strong>of</strong> Entomoscelis (E. adonidis Pall.) in Romania: Meigenia mllIabilis<br />

Fall. and Marcltantia clta/cltonta Meig. However, the incidence <strong>of</strong> parasitism by M.<br />

mutabilis was low «6.0%) and Manolache considered E. adonidis to be only a<br />

secondary host for this tachinid (a heteroxenous species). Manolache did not report on<br />

the abundance and importance <strong>of</strong> the other tachinid. Brovdii (1977) found up to 38% <strong>of</strong><br />

the last instar larvae <strong>of</strong> E. adonidis parasitized by tachinids in the Ukraine. but the<br />

tachinids were not identified.<br />

Studies were initiated in 1973 to identify the natural enemies <strong>of</strong> E. adonidis in<br />

Europe and to determine whether there are any parasitoids <strong>of</strong> this beetle which are<br />

suitable for introduction into <strong>Canada</strong> as control agents for E. americana. The<br />

parasitoids <strong>of</strong> E. adonidis were considered to be potential control agents for E.<br />

americana, because the life histories, phenology. and host plants <strong>of</strong> these two species<br />

31


32 G. H. Gerber<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

are similar (Manolache 1941; Stewart 1973; Brovdii 1977; Gerber & Obad<strong>of</strong>in 1981a,<br />

1981b). These studies have not been successful, because populations <strong>of</strong> E. adonidis<br />

have been extremely scarce outside <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Union since 1973. Only a small<br />

number <strong>of</strong> specimens <strong>of</strong> a species <strong>of</strong> Meigenia have been found parasitizing the larvae.<br />

Collections <strong>of</strong> E. adonidis have not yet been made in the Soviet Union.<br />

It is recommended that every attempt be made to collect additional larvae and adults <strong>of</strong><br />

E. adonidis from Europe, especially from the Soviet Union, to identify the parasitoids<br />

<strong>of</strong> this beetle. If M. mutabilis is the only parasitoid which can be collected in sufficient<br />

number for release in <strong>Canada</strong>, research is needed to determine its life history and<br />

whether it is truly heteroxenous. If M. mutabilis is heteroxenous, it would not be a<br />

suitable control agent for E. americana.<br />

Efforts also should be made to collect another species <strong>of</strong> Entomoscelis, E. suturalis,<br />

which occurs on Cruciferae in Europe. The life history <strong>of</strong> E. suturalis is similar to<br />

those for E. americana and E. adonidis (Brovdii 1977), but there is no information in<br />

the literature on its natural enemies.<br />

Brovdii, V.M. (19n) Fauna <strong>of</strong> the Ukraine - Chrysomelinae leaf beetles. Ukrainian S.S.R. Academy <strong>of</strong> Sciences. Institute <strong>of</strong> Zoology.<br />

Naukova Dumka. Kiev 19(16), 1-388. (In Ukrainian).<br />

Gerber, G.H. (1974) Red turnip beetle on rape. Canadex 149.622.<br />

Gerber, G.H. (1975) Occurrence <strong>of</strong> a microsporidian infection in the red turnip beetle. Entomo.fcelis americana (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae).<br />

Canadian Entomologist 107, 1081-1082.<br />

Gerber. G.H. (1976) Effects <strong>of</strong> feeding by adults <strong>of</strong> the red turnip beetle, Entomosctlis americana Brown (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). during<br />

late July and August on the yield <strong>of</strong> rapeseed (Cruciferae). Manitoba Entomologist 10,31-35.<br />

Gerber, G.H.; Obad<strong>of</strong>in. A.A. (198Ia) Growth, development and survival <strong>of</strong> the larvae <strong>of</strong> the red turnip beetle, Entomoscelis americana<br />

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on Brassica campestris and B. napus (Cruciferae). Canadian Entomologist<br />

lB. 395-406.<br />

Gerber. G.H.; Obad<strong>of</strong>in. A.A. (198lb) The suitability <strong>of</strong> nine species <strong>of</strong> Cruciferae as hosts for the larvae <strong>of</strong> the red turnip beetle. Entomosctlis<br />

americana. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Canadian Entomologist 113.407-413.<br />

Manolache. F. (1941) Research on the morphology. biology. and control <strong>of</strong> the insect, Entomoscelis adonidis Pall .• in Romania. Methods.<br />

Guidance and Investigations. Institute <strong>of</strong> Agronomic Research Romania (Bucharest) 71. 1-205. (In<br />

Romanian).<br />

Stewan. D.B. (1973) The red turnip beetle. Entomoscelis americana Brown (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). biology and plant relationships.<br />

M.Sc.Thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Albena. Edmonton, 86 pp.<br />

Tumock. W.J.; Gerber, G. H.; Bickis, M.; Bennett. R.B. (1979) The applicability <strong>of</strong> X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy to the identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> populations <strong>of</strong> red turnip beetle. Entomoscelis americana (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Canadian Ento·<br />

mologist 111. 113-125.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 11<br />

Euxoa messoria (Harris), Darksided<br />

Cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)<br />

H.H. CHENG<br />

The darksided cutwonn, Euxoa messoria (Harris), is the most destructive insect pest<br />

<strong>of</strong> tobacco in Ontario and indeed throughout most tobacco-growing areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

It is a northern species which has also done great damage to a variety <strong>of</strong> crops. The<br />

principal injury is caused by larvae which attack the newly transplanted tobacco<br />

seedlings and damage the leaves or growing points and sometimes notch or sever the<br />

plants. If left uncontrolled, a low to moderate population level <strong>of</strong> this pest has resulted<br />

in 20-48% damaged plants and 14-25% loss <strong>of</strong> yield (Cheng 1971a, 1971b, 1973c,<br />

1975, 1980a). In the tobacco-growing areas, large populations <strong>of</strong> this pest are<br />

produced in the rye rotation crop, but invasion by migrating larvae is always a problem<br />

(Bucher & Cheng 1970).<br />

The bionomics <strong>of</strong> the darksided cutworm in Ontario has been published (Cheng<br />

1973a). It has one generation a year and overwinters as an egg in the soil from 6 to 12 mm<br />

below the surface. Depending upon the weather, overwintered eggs begin to hatch<br />

from the end <strong>of</strong> March to early April. Larvae in the early instars feed on the rye<br />

rotation crop, later they attack newly transplanted tobacco seedlings. The duration <strong>of</strong><br />

the larval stage is about 3 months. The mature larvae cease feeding and transform to<br />

pupae in the soil from late July to mid-August. The pupal stage lasts from 18 to 28 days.<br />

The adults emerge from mid-August to October and lay their eggs in the soil during the<br />

same period. These eggs are completely developed before winter and hatch in the<br />

following spring.<br />

Research on darksided cutwonn control in <strong>Canada</strong> in the past 10 years has centered<br />

in two areas: (1) selection and evaluation <strong>of</strong> the more effective and safe chemical<br />

insecticides (Cheng 1979, 1980a, 1980b), and (2) search and evaluation <strong>of</strong> effective<br />

biological control agents (Bucher 1970, 1971; Cheng 1973b, 1977). These approaches<br />

are reviewed in this chapter.<br />

As more information becomes available on the hazards involved in the agricultural use<br />

<strong>of</strong> insecticides, there is a greater demand for alternative methods for controlling<br />

insect pests. Consequently, laboratory and field tests with virus pathogens and<br />

Bacillus rhuringiensis preparations were conducted from 1968 to 1972 at the Research<br />

Station, Delhi, Ontario (Bucher 1970, 1971, Cheng 1973b). The results indicated that<br />

these pathogens were significantly less effective than chemical insecticides against E.<br />

messoria larvae in the field (Cheng 1973b).<br />

Studies on the biology and collection <strong>of</strong> parasitoids, predators, and diseases <strong>of</strong> E.<br />

messoria have also been conducted by Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> at the Delhi Research<br />

Station. The degree <strong>of</strong> the influence <strong>of</strong> various biotic factors on E. messoria<br />

populations and the importance and possible roles <strong>of</strong> the natural enemies in the<br />

tobacco crop and pest relationship have been discussed (Bucher & Cheng 1971,<br />

Cheng 1973a, 1977). In general. larval mortality in E. messoria from natural enemies<br />

was low.<br />

Tobacco is the number one cash crop in Ontario. Because <strong>of</strong> the high value <strong>of</strong> the<br />

crop and the insufficient pressure <strong>of</strong> the various biotic factors on the dark sided<br />

33


34 H. H. Cheng<br />

Parasitoids<br />

Predators<br />

cutworm, the use <strong>of</strong> chemical insecticides for control <strong>of</strong> this pest is vital to tobacco<br />

production. Persistent chemical insecticides, such as DDT and endosulfan (Thiodan®,<br />

Niagara Otemicals) cannot be used on tobacco because <strong>of</strong> the danger <strong>of</strong> environmental<br />

contamination and undesirable residues in tobacco (Cheng & Braun 1977, Frank et al.<br />

1977). Therefore, research in the evaluation <strong>of</strong> insecticidal control <strong>of</strong> cutworms in<br />

tobacco has been directed towards the more effective and safe chemical insecticides<br />

(Cheng 1973c, 1975, 1979, 1980a, 1980b). For example, the broad-spectrum pyrethroids,<br />

permethrin, and cypermethrin are very toxic to the cutworm larvae and nonhazardous,<br />

and have been registered and recommended for both preplanting (on the<br />

rye cover crop or on soil surface) and postplanting (on tobacco plants) for control <strong>of</strong><br />

cutworms.<br />

From 1973 to 1977, 14 species <strong>of</strong> insect parasitoids were reared from E. messoria<br />

larvae or pupae in Ontario; they all were primary and internal parasitoids, namely,<br />

Apanteles laeviceps Ashmead, A. militaris Walsh, Meteorus communis (Cresson) and<br />

M. levil'entris (Wesmael) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); Arenetra rufipes vernalis<br />

Walley, Campoletis flavicinctus (Ashmead), Campoletis sp., Enicospilus sp., and<br />

Eutanyacra sllturalis (Say) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae); Copidosoma bakeri<br />

(Howard) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae); Muscina stabulans (Fall.) (Diptera: Muscidae);<br />

Linnaemya compta (Fall.), Winthemia rll/opicta (Bigot), and W. deilephilae (O.S.)<br />

(Diptera: Tachinidae). Of these 14 species, Arenetra rufipes vernalis, Copidosoma<br />

bakeri, and Enicospilus sp. were the most common species reared from E. messoria<br />

larvae and were present in considerable numbers every year. The total parasitism by<br />

these three species was about 22% (Cheng 1977) and were considered to be the most<br />

important parasitoids <strong>of</strong> E. messoria.<br />

From the economic point <strong>of</strong> view, A. rllfipes vernalis is considered to be the most<br />

effective parasitoid <strong>of</strong> the darksided cutworm in the current generation in Ontario. It<br />

kills the sixth-instar larvae and essentially prevents the cutworm from causing the<br />

maximum damage to the tobacco crop, because the seventh instar <strong>of</strong> this pest does<br />

more damage to the tobacco crop than all the other instars combined. Enicospi/us sp.<br />

kills its host in the seventh instar or prepupal stage, and it reduces some losses caused<br />

by the cutworm. Conversely, C. bakeri increases the crop losses by the current<br />

generation, because the cutworms attacked by C. bakeri consumed 27.5% more food<br />

than did normal cutworms (McMillan 1930); however, it will reduce the population<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> the following generation <strong>of</strong> this pest. The rest <strong>of</strong> the parasitoids were present<br />

in small numbers or reared only once during the period <strong>of</strong> this study and it is likely that<br />

they are not important.<br />

Several birds, insects, and spiders were observed to attack the larvae and adults <strong>of</strong> the<br />

dark sided cutworm (Cheng 1973a). Birds periodically landed in the fields in search <strong>of</strong><br />

larvae in the early morning; most frequently recorded were starlings and grackles. Two<br />

species <strong>of</strong> ground beetles, Calosoma calidum (F.) and Harpalus caliginosus F.<br />

(Coleoptera: Carabidae), were the most important insect predators. Both the adults<br />

and larvae <strong>of</strong> the ground beetles destroyed a large number <strong>of</strong> cutworms. Moths <strong>of</strong> the<br />

darksided cutworm were preyed upon by spiders, which were identified as Leiobunum<br />

vittatum (Say), Phalangium opilio (L.), Hadrobllnus maculostlS (Wood), and Odie/lus<br />

pictus (Wood), as the moths rested in their hiding places. However, definitive studies<br />

on the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> these predator complexes in the regulation <strong>of</strong> E. messoria<br />

populations are lacking. Nevertheless, they are assumed to be valuable biological<br />

control factors.


Diseases<br />

Microbial Insecticide<br />

EIlXO(l messoria (Harris). 35<br />

Several insect pathogens have been isolated from the diseased larvae <strong>of</strong> E. messoria<br />

collected in the fields at Delhi, Ontario (Bucher & Cheng 1971). The bacterial diseases<br />

are common and the bacteria most commonly isolated from infested larvae are Bacillus<br />

cereus Frankland & Frankland, Enterobacter cloacae (Jordan), Enterobacter aerogenes<br />

(Kruse), Klebsiella pneumoniae (Schroeter), Streptococcus faecalis (Andrewes<br />

& Horder), Pseudomonas j1uorescens Migula, Pseudomonas spp., Bacillus splraericus<br />

Neide, and Achromobacter spp. The infected haemocoels <strong>of</strong> cutworm larvae usually<br />

contained one or a mixture <strong>of</strong> two or more bacterial species. B. cereus is a well-known<br />

pathogen <strong>of</strong> many insects (Heimpel & Angus 1963); E. aerogenes and P. fluorescens<br />

have been considered as potential pathogens <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> insects (Bucher 1963); the<br />

pathogenicity <strong>of</strong> the other species is very questionable and they probably occurred by<br />

chance in the haemocoel <strong>of</strong> sick larvae <strong>of</strong> E. messoria. The microsporidial disease,<br />

Nosema sp., is less common; the fungus disease, Sorosporella uvella (Krass.), is rare;<br />

and the virus diseases are virtually absent.<br />

Although larvae <strong>of</strong> E. messoria collected in the fields in Ontario are free from virus<br />

diseases, they are susceptible to two virus diseases, nuclear polyhedrosis and<br />

granulosis virus, originally isolated from a related cutworm, E. ochrogaster (Guenee)<br />

(Bucher 1970). In cooperation with Dr. G.E. Bucher <strong>of</strong> Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> Research<br />

Institute, Belleville, Ontario, field tests using preparations <strong>of</strong> nuclear polyhedrosis<br />

virus and granulosis virus were conducted in 1969 and 1970 at the Research Station,<br />

Delhi, Ontario. These tests showed that both viruses would protect tobacco seedlings<br />

from severe cutworm damage when applied on the green rye in high concentrations,<br />

but they were less effective than chlorpyrifos (Dursban® or Lorsban l8l , Dow Chemical<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> Ltd.) treatment and better than the untreated control.<br />

In 1971 and 1972, attempts were made to introduce both virus diseases into healthy<br />

populations <strong>of</strong> E. messoria by spraying the virus suspensions on tobacco trap-plants<br />

growing in a rye field. Consequently, a considerable number <strong>of</strong> E. messoria larvae<br />

collected with tobacco trap-plants from areas where viruses were introduced in 1971<br />

and 1972 were infested with virus. This indicated that a large amount <strong>of</strong> virus survival<br />

occurred and that virus introduction is feasible. Unfortunately, this programme was<br />

discontinued after the Research Institute, Belleville, Ontario, closed in the fall <strong>of</strong> 1972.<br />

In 1969, laboratory experiments were conducted to determine the susceptibility <strong>of</strong> the<br />

various larval stages <strong>of</strong> E. messoria in Ontario to four commercial preparations <strong>of</strong><br />

Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner: Thuricide® 9OTS, Thuricide® HP, Biotrol l8l BTB 183,<br />

and Dipel® (Sandoz <strong>Canada</strong>). In these experiments, first-instar to third-instar larvae<br />

that fed on rye leaves treated with all four B. thuringiensis preparations were found to<br />

be susceptible at all rates applied (Cheng 1973b). Mortality <strong>of</strong> fourth-instar to seventhinstar<br />

larvae fed treated tobacco leaves was low.<br />

From the results <strong>of</strong> laboratory experiments, it was apparent that preparations <strong>of</strong> B.<br />

thurittgiensis showed potential as a possible alternative to chemical insecticides for the<br />

control <strong>of</strong> the early instar larvae <strong>of</strong> E. messoria. Therefore, a field test was conducted<br />

in 1970 at the Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> Research Station, Delhi, Ontario, to determine<br />

whether these preparations could be as effective as chlorpyrifos for control <strong>of</strong> this pest<br />

when applied on the rye cover crop in spring. Data showed that B. tlruringiensis<br />

preparations as applied in the field for control <strong>of</strong> E. messoria larvae were relatively<br />

ineffective as compared with chlorpyrifos (Cheng 1973b). The failure <strong>of</strong> these<br />

preparations in the field trial is probably attributable to the different environmental<br />

conditions and the much more complex ecosystem in the field than in the laboratory.


Blank Page<br />

38


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Recommendations<br />

Chapter 12<br />

Forficula auricularia L. , European<br />

Earwig (Dermaptera: Forficulidae)<br />

R.F. MORRIS<br />

This report is an update on the European earwig, Forficula auricularia L., and its<br />

parasitoid, Bigonichela selipennis (Fallen), in Newfoundland as last reported by<br />

Morris (1971). This pest continued to spread throughout Newfoundland, and is now<br />

found in the following communities: St. John's, Wedgewood Park, Mt. Pearl, Kilbride,<br />

Petty Harbour, Logy Bay, Topsail, Long Pond, Torbay, Renews, Bay Roberts,<br />

Clarkes Beach, Grand Bank, Fortune, Grand Falls, Stephenville.<br />

The European earwig was first discovered in Newfoundland at St. John's in 1948. The<br />

parasitoid, Bigonichela selipennis, was introduced from British Columbia to Newfoundland<br />

in 1951, 1952, and 1953. It was successfully established but parasitism was<br />

extremely low during the period 1955-59 (Morris 1971). Because <strong>of</strong> a slow build-up,<br />

supposedly hardier strains <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid were obtained by the Research Institute at<br />

Belleville from Sweden and Switzerland and released at St. John's in 1959, 1961, and<br />

1963.<br />

The use <strong>of</strong> traps and attractants to complement earwig control with parasitoids were<br />

investigated and reported on by Morris (1965).<br />

No additional releases <strong>of</strong> Bigollichela selipennis have been made since those recorded<br />

by Morris (1971). Studies on its establishment and population increase were continued<br />

during the period from 1969 to 1978. Results are shown in Table 5.<br />

The introduced parasitoid, Bigonichela selipellllis, has successfully established itself<br />

with a maximum parasitism <strong>of</strong> 16.4% in 1973. Although the initial parasitism was low,<br />

4.4% in 1969, a steady increase was observed until 1973. There has been a considerable<br />

reduction in earwig populations in the study area since 1972, making it impossible to<br />

collect as large samples (4000 earwigs) as were used in the earlier years, and this<br />

reduction is no doubt due to the high levels <strong>of</strong> parasitism during the 1972-76 period.<br />

There has been a continuing spread <strong>of</strong> earwigs from the original site in St. John's with<br />

populations now established 420 km and 775 km from St. John's. Studies should be<br />

initiated to determine if the parasitoid has been introduced with its host to Grand<br />

Bank, Fortune, Grand Falls, and Stephenville. If it has not been introduced naturally,<br />

steps should be taken to artificially introduce Bigonichela selipellnis to these areas.<br />

39


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Parasitoids<br />

Pathogens<br />

Chapter 13<br />

Hypera postica (Gyllenhal), Alfalfa<br />

Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)<br />

D.G. HARCOURT and J.e. GUPPY<br />

Since its invasion <strong>of</strong> the mid-Atlantic States during the early 1950s, the eastern strain<br />

<strong>of</strong> the alfalfa weevil, Hypera pos/iea (Oyll.), has become the most important pest <strong>of</strong><br />

alfalfa in eastern North America. Of Eurasian origin, this biotype spread rapidly<br />

northward and in little more than a decade reached Ontario and Quebec where it began<br />

to alarm dairy farmers in the lower Great Lakes region. From 1967 to 1974,<br />

populations spread throughout southern Ontario, increasing at geometric rates.<br />

However, by the mid-seventies. this pattern <strong>of</strong> unregulated growth had been checked<br />

by the combined action <strong>of</strong> natural enemies, and during the past 5 years numbers <strong>of</strong> the<br />

pest have been constrained at a density level that fluctuates about the economic<br />

damage threshold. As a result. outbreaks have been restricted. However, scattered<br />

epicentres <strong>of</strong> infestations still exist and sudden population flare-ups are prone to occur.<br />

In 1957. the Beneficial Insects Research Laboratory. Northeastern region,<br />

U.S.D.A .• began to make releases <strong>of</strong> exotic parasitoids against the weevil. A total <strong>of</strong><br />

13 species was released, several <strong>of</strong> which became established (Abu & Ellis 1976).<br />

Discovery <strong>of</strong> the pest in Ontario in 1967 prompted recolonization here, <strong>of</strong> those species<br />

that had become established in the northeastern United States (Williamson 1971, 1972).<br />

Six species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids were released in various localities in Ontario during 1970 and<br />

1971 (Williamson 1971, 1972): Bathyplectes anurus (Thomson), B. eureulionis<br />

(Thomson), B. slenosligma (Thomson), Mieroelonus aelhiopoides Loan, M. coles;<br />

Drea, and Telras/jehus ineertus (Ratzeburg). Recoveries in 1971 included all species<br />

except M. eolesi which was not found until 1978. B. slenostigma was not found in<br />

follow-up years but all other species became firmly established. Although B. anurus<br />

was recovered the first year after its release. it has been slow to establish and spread,<br />

and its incidence <strong>of</strong> parasitism is <strong>of</strong> little importance.<br />

The egg parasitoid, Palasson luna (Girault) was not released in Ontario but has<br />

spread across the province with its host.<br />

In 1973. an infectious disease caused by the fungus Entomophthora phytonomi Arthur<br />

(Harcourt et al. 1974) was discovered in the Bay <strong>of</strong> Quinte area <strong>of</strong> southern Ontario<br />

where it caused a spectacular epizootic in populations <strong>of</strong> the weevil. New to the insect<br />

in North America. it was soon found throughout Ontario and in adjacent parts <strong>of</strong> the<br />

United States (Muka & Oyrisco 1976).<br />

41


Hypem poslica (GyllcnhaJ). 43<br />

I-Iarcourt. D.G.; Guppy. J.C.; Macleod. D.M.; Tyrrell. D. (1974) The fungus Emomopill/wrtl pi,ylollomi pathogenic to the alfalfa weevil.<br />

Hypera postim. Catracliatr Emomologisl 106. 1295-1300.<br />

Harcourt. D. G.; Guppy, J.c.; Binns, M. R. (1977) TIle analysis <strong>of</strong> inlrageneration change in eastern Ontario populations <strong>of</strong>lhc alfaUa weevil.<br />

Hypera postiCCl (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Canadian Elllomologist 109, 1521-1534.<br />

Harcourt. D.G.; Ellis, C.R.; Guppy. J.C. (1980) Distribution <strong>of</strong> Microclonlls aelltiopoitles.1I parusitoid <strong>of</strong> the alfalfa weevil (Coleoptera:<br />

Curculionidlle) in Ontario. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> tlte Emomologicltl <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Omario (1979) lID, 35-39.<br />

loan. C.C. (1971) SitOIlCl cylindricollis Fahr., sweelclover weevil, and Hypera postica (Gyll.) •• lIf.llfll weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). In:<br />

Biological conlrol progrummcs against insects and weeds in Cllnadll 1959-68. Commonwealtll blStitl4le<br />

<strong>of</strong> Biological COlllml Technical Commwlicatiotl 4. 43-46.<br />

Muka. A.A.; Gyrisco, G.G. (1976) Report presenled III 13th Northeast Regional Alfalfa Insects Conference, Newark, Delaware.<br />

Williamson, G.D. (1971) Insect liberalions in <strong>Canada</strong>, 1970. Parasites and predators. Canacia AgricllllIlre Liberatioll Bulietin 34. 16 pp.<br />

Williamson. G.D. (1972) Insect liberations in <strong>Canada</strong>. 1971. Parasites and predators. Canacia Agrialllllre LiberatiOlJ Bulietin 35. 16 pp.


Blank Page<br />

44


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 14<br />

Lygus spp.,<br />

Miridae)<br />

C.H. CRAIG and c.c. LOAN<br />

Plant Bugs (Heteroptera:<br />

About 30 species <strong>of</strong> Lygus are known to occur from coast to coast in <strong>Canada</strong> (Kelton<br />

1975). Most <strong>of</strong> the species feed on a variety <strong>of</strong> herbaceous and woody plants. some are<br />

host specific or are limited to related plant species. Many species <strong>of</strong> Lyglls are<br />

economically important as pests <strong>of</strong> fruits. vegetables. and tobacco crops, and <strong>of</strong> legume<br />

crops. primarily those grown for seed. Of the dozen species found on alfalfa the most<br />

abundant and important as pests are L. borealis Kelton and L. lineo/aris (Palisot de<br />

Beauvois), with L. unctuosus (Kelton). L. desertinus Knight, and L. shulli Knight <strong>of</strong><br />

lesser importance.<br />

Lygus overwinter as adults in the shelter <strong>of</strong> plant litter on the soil surface. In spring<br />

they feed on the early plants and move to alfalfa when it becomes suitable for feeding<br />

and oviposition.<br />

In <strong>Canada</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> generations <strong>of</strong> Lygus per year is not well documented<br />

because nymphal taxonomy is not known. It is generally conceded. however. that the<br />

species are univoltine in northern latitudes and bivoltine. or largely so. south <strong>of</strong> about<br />

latitude 51°N.<br />

Lygus feeding injures the vegetative and reproductive parts <strong>of</strong> the plant causing<br />

stunting. bud-blast and premature nower drop. and reduced yield and quality <strong>of</strong> seed.<br />

In most years and in most alfalfa seed fields. Lygus infestations exceed the economic<br />

threshold and control measures are essential.<br />

In Poland. Lygus rugulipennis Poppius. the dominant species on alfalfa. is parasitized<br />

by the braconids PeristemlS digoneUlis Loan. P. stygicus Loan. and P. rubricol/is<br />

(Thomson). The former two are bivoltine and attack both generations <strong>of</strong> host; the<br />

latter is univoltine and attacks only the first generation host (Bilewicz-Pawinska<br />

1969. 1975).<br />

In <strong>Canada</strong>, at Belleville. Ontario. L. lineo/aris. in the first generation on forage<br />

legumes. is parasitized by Peristenus pal/ipes (Curtis) and in the second generation on<br />

several weed species. by P. pseudopal/ipes (Loan) (Loan 1965. 1970).<br />

In 1975 in a survey <strong>of</strong> first-generation Lygus populations in alfalfa seed fields in<br />

Saskatchewan and Alberta. P. pal/ipes was the only euphorine parasitoid recovered.<br />

Incidence ranged from 3% to 49%. with an average <strong>of</strong> 21 % in the southern shortgrass<br />

prairie region. 28% in the central mixed prairie region, and 11% in the northern<br />

parkland-mixed forest region (Loan & Craig 1976). Surveys since that time have noted<br />

the occurrence <strong>of</strong> euphorine parasitism probably by P. pallipes, in second-generation<br />

Lygus in the southern prairie region (Craig. 1980. unpublished data).<br />

45


46 C. H. Craig and C. C. Loan<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Recommendations<br />

Table 6<br />

A programme to supplement the natural parasitism in Lygus populations in western<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> was started in 1977 with the first collection and shipment to Ottawa <strong>of</strong> parasitoids<br />

<strong>of</strong> European Lyglls, and in 1978 with the first liberations <strong>of</strong> these in western<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>. Table 6 shows the progression <strong>of</strong> liberations in the period 1978-81 inclusive.<br />

Liberations <strong>of</strong> Peristenus spp. in alfalfa against Lygus spp. in western<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Date <strong>of</strong> liberation Location <strong>of</strong> liberation site<br />

7 June 1978<br />

9 June 1978<br />

13 June 1978<br />

21 June 1978<br />

14 June 1979<br />

21 June 1979<br />

29 June 1979<br />

29 May 1980<br />

3 June 1980<br />

10 June 1980<br />

10 June 1980<br />

6 June 1981<br />

6 June 1981<br />

!<br />

}<br />

Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; 50 o N;<br />

shortgrass prairie; dry<br />

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; 52°N;<br />

mixed prairie; dry<br />

Tilley, Alberta; 50 0 30'N;<br />

shortgrass prairie;<br />

irrigated<br />

Shellbrook, Saskatchewan; 53°N;<br />

parkland-mixed forest; dry<br />

Ardath, Saskatchewan; 51°30'N;<br />

mixed prairie; dry<br />

Shellbrook, Saskatchewan<br />

(supplement to 1979 release)<br />

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan<br />

mixed prairie; irrigated<br />

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan<br />

(supplement to 1978 release)<br />

Yellow Creek, Saskatchewan;<br />

53°N parkland; dry<br />

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan<br />

(supplement to 1980 release)<br />

Species<br />

P. digoneLltis<br />

P. digoneLltis<br />

P. digoneutis<br />

P. stygicus<br />

P. digoneLltis<br />

P. srygicus<br />

P. digoneLltis<br />

P. digoneutis<br />

P. digoneutis<br />

P. digoneutis<br />

P. digoneutis<br />

P. digoneutis<br />

Number<br />

The imported parasitoids were released into Lygus populations breeding in alfalfa<br />

fields used for seed production. The lifespan <strong>of</strong> the sites for sampling purposes is about<br />

5 years, and during that time they are subject to normal alfalfa seed cropping practices.<br />

Intensive sampling for presence <strong>of</strong> adult Peristenus and mass collection <strong>of</strong> host<br />

nymphs for parasitoid rearing was started the year follOwing the initial liberations and<br />

continued for at least three ensuing years. In 1979-80, a total <strong>of</strong> 274 parasitoid adults,<br />

either captured at the liberation sites or reared from Lygus hosts collected from alfalfa<br />

at the liberation sites, were the native species, Peristenus pallipes. No introduced<br />

parasitoids have been recovered.<br />

The introduction and liberation <strong>of</strong> Peristenus parasitoids will terminate in the spring <strong>of</strong><br />

1981. During the next few years attempts will be made to recover the introduced<br />

parasitoids and to evaluate the programme.<br />

197<br />

177<br />

541<br />

41<br />

159<br />

23<br />

167<br />

261<br />

80<br />

138<br />

125<br />

115


Literature Cited<br />

Lyglls spp., 47<br />

Bilewicz-Pawinska. T. (1969) Natural limitation <strong>of</strong> LygllS TIlgu/ipel"'is Popp. by groups <strong>of</strong> UiophTon pallipes Curtis on the rye crop fields.<br />

Ekologia /'olska, Series .. 1 17.811-815.<br />

Bilcwicz-Pawinska. T. (1975) Distribution <strong>of</strong> insect parasites l'eristellllS Foerster lind MesochoTlis Gravenhorst in Poland. Bulletin lie<br />

I'ACtldemie Polonaise des Sciences 23. 823-827.<br />

Kelton. L.A. (1975) The LygllS bugs (genus Lygus Hahn) <strong>of</strong> North America (Heteroptera: Miridac). Memoirs o/tlle Entom%gielll <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Canada</strong> 95, 101 pp.<br />

Loan. C.C. (1965) Life cycle and development <strong>of</strong> LeiopilTonpllllipes Curtis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae. Euphorinae) in five mirid hosts in the<br />

Belleville district. Proceedi/lgs <strong>of</strong> tile ElllomologiCtlI <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario (1964) 95, 115-121.<br />

Loan. C.C. (1970) The new parasites <strong>of</strong> the tarnished plant bug in Ontario: Leioplirol/1JSlmdopallipes and Euphoriantllygivora (Hymenoptera:<br />

Braconidae. Euphorinae). Prm:eel!i'lgs af the Elllolllological <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Olllario 100, 188-195.<br />

Loan, C.C.; Craig. C.H. (1976) Euphllrine parasitism <strong>of</strong> Lyglls spp. in lllflllfil in western CllOllda (Hymenoptera: Braconidae; Heteroptem:<br />

Miridac). NtltllTll/iste Cal/aditlll 103, 497-500.


Blank Page<br />

48


Introduction<br />

Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 15<br />

Mamestra configurata Walker, Bertha<br />

Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)<br />

W.J. TURNOCK<br />

The bertha armyworm, Mamestra configllrata Walker, was first recognized as a major<br />

pest <strong>of</strong> the rapeseed and canola crops, Brassica nap"s (L.) and B. campestris L., on the<br />

Canadian prairies in 1971. Little was known <strong>of</strong> the life history and natural control <strong>of</strong> this<br />

species. In 1972, research programmes were initiated at Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> Research<br />

Stations in western <strong>Canada</strong>. Soon after, the Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological<br />

Control station at Delemont. Switzerland, began a study <strong>of</strong> the closely related European<br />

species, Mamestra brassicae (L.). To date, no decision has been made to introduce<br />

parasitoids <strong>of</strong> M. brassicae to <strong>Canada</strong>. This report summarizes information on the<br />

natural enemies <strong>of</strong> M. configllrata and M. brassicae and suggests future actions in<br />

biological control <strong>of</strong> the former species in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

M. configurata is native to North America and in <strong>Canada</strong> occurs from Manitoba to<br />

British Columbia (Wylie & Bucher 1977). Its native hosts are unknown, but it has been<br />

reported to feed on a wide variety <strong>of</strong> cultivated plants and introduced weeds (Beirne<br />

1971). On the Canadian prairies sporadic infestations occurred on various crops before<br />

1940. Since then attacks have largely been confined to fields <strong>of</strong> rapeseed and canola<br />

(Turnock & Philip 1979). From 1940 to 1970 the outbreaks were local and <strong>of</strong> short<br />

duration. From 1971 to 1974 an outbreak <strong>of</strong> unprecedented severity occurred from<br />

western Manitoba across the parkland region to Edmonton, and from Lethbridge to<br />

the Peace River District in Alberta. Insecticides were applied to about 38 000 ha<br />

(17.7% <strong>of</strong> the seeded area) in 1971, and about 31000 ha (23.3% <strong>of</strong>the seeded area) in<br />

1972. The outbreak declined in 1973 and damaging infestations were absent by 1975.<br />

Populations increased again in 1978 and 1979, and in 1980 about 49 000 ha (2.4% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

seeded area) were sprayed.<br />

The bertha armyworm is univoltine in <strong>Canada</strong> and overwinters in the pupal stage.<br />

Adults emerge from the first week <strong>of</strong> June to early August, in most years 50% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

adults have emerged by mid-July. Egg-laying, on the underside <strong>of</strong> the leaves <strong>of</strong> host<br />

plants, begins soon after emergence and the eggs hatch about 1 week later. There are<br />

six larval instars. The larvae feed mainly on the leaves, but the older instars may<br />

damage flowers and pods. Fully-fed larvae enter the soil in late August and September<br />

and pupate at depths down to 15 cm.<br />

The early reports <strong>of</strong> bertha armyworm infestations do not include lists <strong>of</strong> parasitoids or<br />

diseases (Wylie & Bucher 1977). Since 1972, collections <strong>of</strong> larvae have yielded 15<br />

species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids (Table 7). Wylie (1979) reared an additional 3 species from larvae<br />

and 5 species from pupae that had been held in field cages in an area where the bertha<br />

armyworm has never been found. Neither egg nor pupal parasitoids has been found in<br />

field collections.<br />

49


50 W. J. Turnock<br />

Table 7<br />

Table 8<br />

Parasitoids recovered from field-collected larvae <strong>of</strong> Mamestra eonfigllrata<br />

Walker in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Hymenoptera<br />

Ichneumonidae<br />

Banehlls f1aveseens Cress. (M,S,A)·<br />

Braconidae<br />

Apanteles xylinlls (Say) (M)<br />

Cotesia laevicips (Ashm.) (M)<br />

Eulophidae<br />

Elllophlls nr. nebillosus (Prov.) (M)<br />

Eupleetrus bieolor Swed. (M)<br />

Diptera<br />

Tachinidae<br />

Athrycia cinerea (Coq.) (M,S,A)·<br />

Mericia ampeius (WIK.) (M,S,A)<br />

Exorista mella (Wlk.) (S.A)<br />

Phryxe peeosensis(Tnsd.) (M)<br />

P. vulgaris (Fall.) (M)<br />

Chaetogena sp. (A)<br />

C. sp. (c1aripennis (Macq.) group) (A)<br />

Lespesia sp. (A)<br />

Winthemia rufopieta (Bigot) (M)<br />

W. qlladripustulata (F.) (M)<br />

• Location <strong>of</strong> collection points in parenthesis. (M = Manitoba, S = Saskatchewan,<br />

A = Alberta).<br />

Banehus f1aveseens Cress. was the most abundant species regardless <strong>of</strong> host<br />

abundance (Table 8). This univoltine parasitoid lays its eggs in the early larval instars<br />

and completes its development before the host would normally pupate.<br />

Parasitism ('Yo) by Banehus f1aveseens Cress., Athrycia cinerea (Coq.), Mericia ampelus<br />

(Wlk.), and other species on Mamestra eonfigurata Walker in Manitoba, Saskatchewan,<br />

and Alberta, 1972-80.<br />

Parasitism ('Yo)<br />

Year(s) Province No. No. Banehus Athrycia Mericia Other<br />

Fields Larvae<br />

1972-74 Manitoba 119 1915 28.3 20.7 0.4 0.1<br />

Saskatchewan 1 59 47.5 1.7 3.4 1.7<br />

Alberta 5 506 42.5 21.7 2.4 0<br />

1975-78 Manitoba 152 100 44.0 25.0 0 2.0<br />

1979 Manitoba 43 410 6.1 9.3 0 1.7<br />

Saskatchewan • 2 1273 14.0 29.0··<br />

1980 Manitoba 51 2154 26.3 6.2 0.04 0.3<br />

Alberta 3 775 25.3 4.4 0 0<br />

Data provided by A.P. Arthur, Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>, Research Station, Saskatoon .<br />

•• Mainly A. cinerea.<br />

Athrycia cinerea (Coq.) usually was less abundant than B. f1al'eseens when host<br />

populations were low (Table 8). but it may be as abundant in some fields during<br />

outbreaks. A. cinerea is univoltine in the Prairie Provinces. The eggs arc attached to<br />

the integument <strong>of</strong> larvae in the fourth to sixth instars. the larvae usually develop<br />

gregariously, and they mature before the host completes its feeding (Wylie 1977a).


MameSlra configurara Walker, 51<br />

Mericia ampelus (W1k.) was found in a very small percentage <strong>of</strong> bertha armyworm<br />

larvae collected during outbreaks, but has not been collected between outbreaks<br />

(Table 8). This species attaches its eggs to the leaves <strong>of</strong> plants and the larvae hatch 1-2<br />

minutes after oviposition. It appears to be bivoltine in <strong>Canada</strong>, but only the second<br />

generation parasitizes bertha armyworm. Larval survival is low, suggesting that Mamestra<br />

configurala is not a preferred host (Wylie 1977b).<br />

Pathogens have not been a major cause <strong>of</strong> mortality in the bertha armyworm. Wylie<br />

& Bucher (1977) identified fungus pathogens <strong>of</strong> the genus Entomophthora and a<br />

nuclear polyhedrosis virus as the main larval diseases in 1972. In addition, a protozoan<br />

parasite, possibly <strong>of</strong> the genus Nosema, was recovered from a few larvae.<br />

The cabbage moth, Mameslra brassicae (L.), is similar to M. configurala in its life<br />

history and phenology. M. brassicae feeds on a wide range <strong>of</strong> plants and is a major pest<br />

<strong>of</strong> cabbage in northern Eurasia. In western Europe (Switzerland, Austria, Germany)<br />

and in the warmer climatic zones <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Union (Kiev, Kharkov, Voronetz, and<br />

Krasnodar regions), it is bivoltine (CIBC Annual Project Statements 1974-80,<br />

Dzhuran 1979, Agarkov 1974, Stenin 1974, Drozda & Garnaga 1978, Tsybul'ko 1973).<br />

In cooler parts <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Union (Moscow, Gorky, Leningrad, Volgoda (Perm),<br />

Tomsk, Altai, Irkutsk, and Sakhalin regions), it is univoltine (Hori 1935, Kopvillem<br />

1960, Shchetinin 1974, Prokov'cva 1976, Kostylyova 1979). The univoltine populations<br />

lie north and the bivoltine populations lie south <strong>of</strong> the annual isotherm for 2 200" days<br />

over lOoC (Fig. 1).<br />

The parasitoid complex <strong>of</strong> M. brassicae consists <strong>of</strong> 47 species, <strong>of</strong> which 20 occur in<br />

the USSR (Razumov 1972, Kopvillem 1962). However, only 23 species are reported in<br />

the CIBC Annual Project Statements and recent literature from the Soviet Union<br />

(Table 9). Only two species, ErneSlia consobrina (Mg.) and Exelastes cinclipes (Retz.),<br />

are abundant in both areas.<br />

Ernestia consobrina occupies a similar position in the guild <strong>of</strong> parasitoids to that<br />

occupied by Mericia ampeills in North America. E. consobrina larviposits on the food<br />

plant <strong>of</strong> the host. Parasitism is most successful in third·instar larvae and M. brassicae is the<br />

major host (Kopvillem 1960, 1962, CIBC Annual Project Statement 1974); E. consobrina<br />

is the most important parasitoid <strong>of</strong> Mameslra brassicae in most <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Union<br />

(KopviJIem 1962), but not in western Europe (CIBC Annual Project Statements<br />

1974-80). It docs not occur in Primorskiy (far east) (Slabospitskii 1980). In the areas <strong>of</strong><br />

the Soviet Union where both host and parasitoid are bivoltine, it appears to have<br />

problems in synchronization with its host. In the Kicv region, Dzhuran (1979) reports a<br />

large decrcase in parasitism from the first to the second host generation while Drozda<br />

& Garnaga (1978) note an increase in the second generation. In univoltine areas, E.<br />

consobrina appears to be a more effective parasitoid than in bivoltine areas. High<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> parasitism are reported from the Leningnld, Moscow. and Volgoda (Perm)<br />

regions (Kopvillem 1960), the Gorky region (Razumov 1972), and the Irkutsk region <strong>of</strong><br />

western Siberia (Shchetinin 1974).<br />

Exelastes cinclipes occupies a similar position in the guild <strong>of</strong> parasitoids to that<br />

occupied by B. f/al'cscens in North America. E. cinclipes is bivoltine in western<br />

Europe, where it parasitizes larvac <strong>of</strong> the second generation (CIBC Annual Project<br />

Statement 1974). In the Moscow region. it is univoltine (Kopvillem 1960). This ichneumon<br />

mainly parasitizes third·instar larvae and appears to be well synchronized with its<br />

host (Kopvillem 1960). E. cinclipes is a common parasitoid in both western Europe and<br />

the Soviet Union. In westcrn Europc and areas <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Union with bivoltine hosts,<br />

it is more important than E. cOllsobrina (Tsybul'ko 1973. Agarkov 1974, CIBC Annual<br />

Project Statements 1974-78). but in cooler parts <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Union it is less abundant<br />

(Kopvillem 1962. Razumov 1972. Shchctinin 1974).<br />

Microplilis mediator (Hal.). like B. flal't'scens in North America. attacks host larvae<br />

in the early instars but unlikc it. M. mediator is multivoltine (CIBC Annual Project


Table 9<br />

Mamestra configurata Walker. 53<br />

Insect parasitoids <strong>of</strong> Mamestra brassicae Walker in western Europe and the USSR (See<br />

Fig. 1 for location <strong>of</strong> regions in the USSR).<br />

Family and Species<br />

Tachinidae<br />

Erneslia eonsobrina (Mg.)<br />

Phryxe vulgaris (Fall.)<br />

Alhrycia impressa (Wlp.)<br />

A. erYlhroeera R.D.<br />

Sip/rona erislala (F.)<br />

S. flavifrons Staeger<br />

Winlhemia quadripuslulala (F.)<br />

Exorisla larvarum (L.) (Taehina<br />

larvarum (L.»<br />

Blondelia nigripe.f (Fall.)<br />

Ceromasia sp.<br />

Ichncumonidae<br />

E.wasles cinelipes (Rctz.)<br />

Therion giganteum (Grav.)<br />

Campoplegini sp.<br />

Sleniehnellmon eulpalor (Schrank)<br />

Braconidac<br />

Microplilis mediator (Hal.)<br />

M. tubereulifer (Wcsm.)<br />

COlesia eongesla (Nees)<br />

C. glomerala (L.)<br />

MeleOru.v leviventris (Wesm.)<br />

Eulophidae<br />

ElllopllUs larvarllm L.<br />

Ellpleclrus sp.<br />

Eupleelrlls bieolor Swcd.<br />

Trichogrammatidae<br />

Triehogramma evaneseens Wcstw.<br />

Host Bivoltinc<br />

W. Europe. Krasnodar.<br />

Kiev. Saratov<br />

W. Europe<br />

Primorskiy<br />

W. Europe<br />

Krasnodar. Veronezh<br />

W. Europe<br />

W. Europe<br />

W. Europe. Kharkov<br />

Krasnodar<br />

W. Europe<br />

W. Europe<br />

Kharkov. Primorskiy<br />

Krasnodar. Voronezh<br />

Krasnodar<br />

Krasnodar. Kharkov<br />

W. Europe. Krasnodar.<br />

Voronezh. Kharkov. Kiev<br />

Region <strong>of</strong> Occurrence<br />

Host Univoltine<br />

Leningrad. Volgoda.<br />

Moscow. Gorky. Tomsk<br />

Tomsk<br />

Tomsk<br />

Tomsk<br />

Tomsk<br />

Moscow<br />

Moscow<br />

Moscow<br />

Sakhalin<br />

Moscow. Gorky. Tomsk.<br />

Sakhalin<br />

Sakhalin<br />

Gorky<br />

Sakhalin<br />

Sakhalin<br />

Gorky. Irkutsk. Altai<br />

Statement 1978). M. mediator is the most abundant parasitoid <strong>of</strong> Mamestra brassicae in<br />

Europe (CIBC Annual Project Statements 1974-80) but is not reported from the Soviet<br />

Union. It does not enter dispause to overwinter (CIBC Annual Project Statement 1980)<br />

and this characteristic may explain its absence from the Soviet Union. Microplitis tuberculifer<br />

(Wesm.) was the most abundant parasitoid in far eastern regions (Slabospitskii<br />

1980). where Mamestra brassicae is bivoltine. M. brassicae is univoltine on the island <strong>of</strong><br />

Sakhaline and is attacked by 5 species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids (Hori 1935). Only one <strong>of</strong> these. E.<br />

cinctipes. also occurs in other parts <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Union (Table 7).<br />

An egg parasitoid. TricllOgramma el'anescens Westw., occurs in western Europe<br />

and the Voronezh. Kharkov. Krasnodar, Gorky. Irkutsk. and Altai regions <strong>of</strong> the USSR<br />

(Razumov 1972. Tsybul'ko 1973. Agarkov 1974. Prokoreva 1976, CIBC Annual Project


54 W. J. Turnock<br />

Recommendations<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

Statement 1978, Kostylyova 1979). In the regions where the host is univoltine, T. evanescens<br />

generally is very rare (Prokoreva 1976). It is used as an inundative biological<br />

control agent in the USSR.<br />

The major components <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid guilds <strong>of</strong> M. configurata and M. brassicae<br />

attacking the early instar larvae include one ichneumon, B. f1avescens, in <strong>Canada</strong>; and<br />

two ichneumons, E. cintipes and Microplitis mediator, and one tachinid, E. consobrina,<br />

in western Europe. In <strong>Canada</strong>. one tachinid, A. cinerea, attacks the late instar larvae <strong>of</strong><br />

Mamestra cotlfigurata but no species <strong>of</strong> comparable effectiveness is reported from Eurasia.<br />

No egg parasitoids occur in <strong>Canada</strong> whereas T. evanescens occurs at generally low levels<br />

in Eurasia.<br />

The differences in the major components <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid guilds <strong>of</strong> M. configurata and<br />

<strong>of</strong> M. brassicae lead to the following recommendations for parasitoid introductions into<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>:<br />

(1) Parasitoids attacking the early larval ins tars<br />

(a) Ichneumons: B. f1avescetls in <strong>Canada</strong> is more effective than either E. cinctipes<br />

or Microplitis mediator in Eurasia. M. mediator does not go into diapause and does not<br />

occur in those parts <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Union where Mamestra brassicae is univoltine. Neither<br />

E. cinctipes nor Microplitis mediator should be considered for introduction into <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

(b) Tachinids: Mamestra configurata does not have an effective species attacking the<br />

early larval instars as Mericia ampe/us is poorly adapted. E. consobrina is an important<br />

parasitoid in Eurasia. It successfully parasitizes Mamestra configurata in the laboratory<br />

(Wylie 1977a) and has potential as a biological control agent. Material for releases in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> should be obtained from areas where M. brassicae is univoltine.<br />

(2) Parasitoids attacking late larval instars<br />

In <strong>Canada</strong>, A. ci1lerea is common, particularly during outbreaks, but no equivalent<br />

species is reported as a major parasitoid <strong>of</strong> M. brassicae in Eurasia. A. cinerea could<br />

be considered for introduction into the Soviet Union, perhaps as part <strong>of</strong> an exchange <strong>of</strong><br />

material involving E. C01lsobri1la. M. brassicae was a suitable host for A. cinerea in<br />

laboratory tests (Wylie 1977a).<br />

(3) Egg parasitoids<br />

The very low level <strong>of</strong> egg parasitism in M. brassicae does not suggest that T. evanescens<br />

would contribute significantly to the control <strong>of</strong> M. configurata in <strong>Canada</strong>. However, the<br />

local form <strong>of</strong> T. evanescens reported from the Irkutsk region (Kostylyova 1979) should<br />

be further investigated. If <strong>Canada</strong> should develop facilities for producing Trichogramma<br />

for inundative release, importation <strong>of</strong> the "Irkutsk" form would be desirable.<br />

Copies <strong>of</strong> the cited literature from the USSR were made available through the efforts<br />

<strong>of</strong> Mr A.1. Sylchenko, Ministry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Moscow, and Dr G. Tsubulskaja,<br />

Ukrainian Plant Protection Research Institute, Kiev. Their cooperation is greatly<br />

appreciated. Dr A.P. Arthur, Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>, Saskatoon, kindly permitted the use<br />

<strong>of</strong> his data on parasitism <strong>of</strong> M. configurata in Saskatchewan.


Literature Cited<br />

Mamestra con/igurata Walker, 55<br />

Agarkov. V.M. (1974) Effect <strong>of</strong> entomophages on the abundance <strong>of</strong> the cabbage moth during'l period <strong>of</strong> low abundance. Bulletin <strong>of</strong>tht All·<br />

Union Scientific Re.rearch in.rtitllle for the PrOlectioll <strong>of</strong> Plants 27. 3-6 (Translated from Russian).<br />

Beirne. B.P. (1971) Pest insects <strong>of</strong> annual crop plants in <strong>Canada</strong>. Memoirs <strong>of</strong> the Enwmological <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> 78. 124 pp.<br />

Central Intelligence Agency (1974) USSR agriculturallllias. U.S. Government Printing Office. 59 pp.<br />

Drozda. V.F.; Garnaga, N.G. (1978) Some biological and ecologic;11 char;scteristics <strong>of</strong> the t'lchinid Oy. Ernestia consobrina (Mg.). a parasite<br />

<strong>of</strong> the cabbage moth caterpill;sr. Scientific Pap'" <strong>of</strong> the Ukrainian Agrietlltural Academy 2(19. 23-25<br />

(Translated from Russian).<br />

Dzhurnn. V.N. (1979) The development <strong>of</strong> biological mcans for controlling the cabbage moth. Scientific Pap'" <strong>of</strong> the Ukraillian Agrimltural<br />

Academy 230. 25-26 (Translated from Russian).<br />

Hori. M. (1935) The cabbage moth (Barathra bra.uicae L.) in southern Saghalien. Report <strong>of</strong> the Saghalietr Central Experiment Station<br />

Sen-ice 1(3) (Translatcd from Japanese).<br />

Kop\;lIem. Kh.G. (1960) Parasites <strong>of</strong>the cabbage moth (Barathra brassicae L.) and the diamond· back moth (Pllllelia maculipennis Cun.) in<br />

the Moscow region. Entomologicl'l.'skol' Oboul'nil.' 39. 584-592.<br />

Kop\;lIem. Kh.G. (1962) Parasites <strong>of</strong> the cabbage moth and diamondback moth in the Moscow Region. Biological Methods <strong>of</strong> Controlling<br />

Pests and Discascs <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Crops I. 89-113 (Translated from Russian).<br />

Kostylyova. Ye.V. (1979) Experimental application <strong>of</strong> Trichogramma 'Igainstthe caggage moth in the Bratsk district <strong>of</strong> the Irkutsk region.<br />

In: Problems <strong>of</strong> Plant Protection in Eastern Siberia. Irkutsk. USSR. p. 34-39 (Translated from Russian).<br />

Prok<strong>of</strong>eva. N.A. (1976) Trichogramma in cabbage fields. Zaschita Rastenii 9. 19-20 (Translated from Russian).<br />

Razumov. V.P. (1972) Parasites <strong>of</strong> tbe cabbage moth (Maml'stra brassicae (L.)) in Gorky Oblasl. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Gorky Agricultural<br />

Institute 53.9-12 (Translated from Russian).<br />

Shchetinin. Yu.V. (1974) Parasites <strong>of</strong> the cabbage moth and diamond· back moth in the Tomsk region. In: The problems <strong>of</strong> entomology in<br />

Siberia. Novsibirsk. USSR. pp. 131·132 (Translated from Russian).<br />

SlabospilSkii. A.I. (1980) (Insect enemies <strong>of</strong> cabbage pests.) Zashchita Rastenii 5. 23 (in Russian).<br />

Stenin. V.I. (1974) The parasites. predators and polyhedrosis <strong>of</strong> the cabbage moth in the Kuban. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Kuibyshtl- Agricultural<br />

Institllle 125. 53-55 (Translated from Russian).<br />

Tsybul'ko. V.l. (1973) The main entomophages <strong>of</strong> the cabbage moth in Kharkov Province. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Kharkov Agricultural Institute<br />

182. 15-25 (Translatcd from Russian).<br />

Tumock. W.J.: Philip. H.G. (1979) The outbreak <strong>of</strong> benha armyworm. Maml'stra configurata (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) in Albena 1971 to<br />

1975. Manitoba Entomologi.fl I I( 1977). 10-21.<br />

Wylie. H.G. (l977a) Observations on Athrycia cinerea (Diptera: Tachinidae). a parasite <strong>of</strong> Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).<br />

Canadian Entomologist 109. 747-754.<br />

W)·lie. H.G. (1977b) Obsen'ations on Mericia ampe/us (Diptera: Tachinidae). an occasional parasite <strong>of</strong> hcnha armyworm. Mamestra<br />

configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in western <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Entomologist 109. 1023-1024.<br />

Wylie. H.G. (1979) Insect parasites reared from artificial field populations ncar Winnipeg. Manitoba. Manitoba Entomologist 11(1977).<br />

SO-55.<br />

Wylie. H.G.; Bucher. G.E. (1977) The benha armyworm. Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Monalit), <strong>of</strong> immature stages on<br />

the rape crop. 1972-1975. Cantldian Entomologist 1119.823-837.


Blank Page<br />

56


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 16<br />

Manduca quinquemaculata (Haworth),<br />

Tomato Hornworm (Lepidoptera:<br />

Sphingidae)<br />

H.H. CHENG<br />

The tomato hornworm. Manduca quillquemaculata (Haworth). is principally a pest <strong>of</strong><br />

tomato and tobacco plants in <strong>Canada</strong>. The distribution <strong>of</strong> this species is North and South<br />

American. On tobacco. the first-instar and second-instar larvae make many small holes<br />

in the leaves, later they eat larger areas <strong>of</strong> the lamina. and by the last instar the larvae<br />

may strip the top and mid-leaves <strong>of</strong> the plants leaving only the midribs and main leaf<br />

veins. In <strong>Canada</strong>. a moderate to high population level <strong>of</strong> this pest may cause 0.5% to<br />

2.7% loss <strong>of</strong> the marketable tobacco in untreated fields (Cheng 1977a).<br />

The tomato hornworm has one complete generation and part <strong>of</strong> a second generation<br />

each year under southwestern Ontario climatic conditions. Only the first generation <strong>of</strong><br />

this species causes appreciable damage to tobacco. The insect overwinters as a pupa in<br />

the soil. Moth emergence occurs from late June to September. The adults fly at dusk and<br />

lay their eggs on the under side <strong>of</strong> the tobacco leaves during the same period. Eggs hatch<br />

within four to six days and the larvae dig into the soil to a depth <strong>of</strong> 10 to 12 cm and pupate.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the pupae remain in the soil until the following year. but some moths may<br />

emerge from late August to September to start a second generation. Ten-year blacklight<br />

trap studies showed that population levels <strong>of</strong> M. quillquemacu[ata in southwestern<br />

Ontario are generally low to moderate (unpublished data).<br />

The tomato hornworm can be successfully controlled using a number <strong>of</strong> different<br />

chemical insecticides, however. the use <strong>of</strong> chemical insecticides on tobacco presents a<br />

number <strong>of</strong> problems that may assume greater importance in the future. In particular.<br />

applications <strong>of</strong> certain insecticides on tobacco during late July and August result in<br />

insecticide residues (Cheng & Braun 1977). which have undesirable effects on the<br />

quality <strong>of</strong> tobacco and may put the Canadian tobacco export trade in serious jeopardy.<br />

Consequently. a search for and development <strong>of</strong> alternative control methods for hornworms<br />

has been carried out during the past 20 years. Among the more promising <strong>of</strong> the<br />

biological agents tested for the control <strong>of</strong> this pest are strains <strong>of</strong> the spore forming bacterium<br />

Bacillus thurillgiensLr Berliner. which was found to be as effective as chemical<br />

insecticides. and has been used successfully for controlling hornworms on tobacco<br />

(Guthrie et al. 1959. Creighton et al. 1961. Begg 1964. Bucher & Cheng 1971, Cheng<br />

1973. 1977b. 1978).<br />

Two commercial preparations <strong>of</strong> B. tllllrillgimsis, Dipe1® and Thuricide®-HPC, have<br />

been registered and recommended for use in controlling hornworms on tobacco since<br />

1973 (Anonymous 1973). A survey conducted in southwestern Ontario in 1977, 1978. and<br />

1979 indicated that about 20% <strong>of</strong> growers applied B. thuringiensis preparations for<br />

control <strong>of</strong> horn worms. When aphids and hornwormsoccurred in the same period, most <strong>of</strong><br />

the growers would apply chemical insecticides or a tank mix combination <strong>of</strong> B. thurillgiensis<br />

preparation for hornworm and a chemical insecticide for aphids because B. thuringiensis<br />

preparations 'gave almost no control <strong>of</strong> aphids.<br />

57


58 H. H. Cheng<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

The most important insect parasitoids <strong>of</strong> the tomato homworm are Apanteles spp.,<br />

which parasitize 10-20% <strong>of</strong> the hom worm larvae in tobacco fields each year.<br />

Apanteles spp. kill the fourth-instar and fifth-instar larvae and essentially prevent<br />

the homworm from causing maximum damage to the tobacco crop.<br />

Preparations <strong>of</strong> B. thllringiensis control tomato hornworms as well as chemical<br />

insecticides (Bucher & Cheng 1971. Cheng 1973. 1977b, 1978) and for approximately<br />

the same cost <strong>of</strong> $20 to $25 per hectare for the material. B. thllringiensis has the merits<br />

<strong>of</strong> being nontoxic to man. plants, and non-target animals including beneficial insects<br />

such as parasitoids and predators. Thus it should be used by growers when an<br />

economic population level <strong>of</strong> the tomato horn worm larvae occurs in the tobacco fields.<br />

Under the present system <strong>of</strong> annual cropping <strong>of</strong> Due-cured tobacco in Ontario,<br />

sequential applications <strong>of</strong> insecticides for homworm control and <strong>of</strong> sucker control<br />

agents within short periods are common practices in tobacco production. To reduce the<br />

cost <strong>of</strong> control measures, attempts have been made to mix recommended insecticides<br />

and sucker control agents in the same tank and apply them to tobacco plants for<br />

control <strong>of</strong> hornworms and suckers in one spray operation. Five year tests indicated that<br />

all recommended insecticides used for homworm control can be mixed with sucker<br />

control agents in the same tank before application without losing their efficacy and<br />

caused no effects on the yield and quality <strong>of</strong> Due-cured tobacco in Ontario (Cheng 1977b,<br />

1978, 1980).<br />

At the Delhi Research Station, monitoring and economic threshold data have been<br />

developed for M. qllinquemaculata (Cheng 1977a). Since this pest overwinters as a<br />

pupa in the soil, early detection methods involve the capture <strong>of</strong> moths in light traps.<br />

Larval densities are monitored from mid-July to mid-August and insecticide applications<br />

are recommended when 5 or more large larvae (larger than 3 cm) are found per 100<br />

plants. Generally. M. qllinqllemacillata can be controlled for the whole growing season<br />

by a single application <strong>of</strong> B. thllringiensis or one <strong>of</strong> the recommended chemical<br />

insecticides.<br />

Detailed studies on the bionomics <strong>of</strong> the tomato hornworm in Ontario should be<br />

conducted. Although preparations <strong>of</strong> B. thuringiensis have provided excellent control <strong>of</strong><br />

the hornworm larvae, the rapid drop <strong>of</strong> larvae from plants treated with chemical insecticides<br />

is much more dramatic than the cessation <strong>of</strong> feeding and the slow death <strong>of</strong> B.t.infected<br />

larvae. Growers, therefore, should be better informed <strong>of</strong>the merits <strong>of</strong> B. thuringiensis<br />

to <strong>of</strong>fset their natural preference for a chemical insecticide that has more<br />

spectacular effects. A similar approach should be made in other areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> where<br />

the tomato hornworm is a problem.<br />

Anonymous (1973) 1973 Tobacco production recommendations. Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food, Pub!. 298. 32pp.<br />

Begg, J.A. (1964) Microbial and chemical control <strong>of</strong> homworms attacking tobacco in Ontario. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 57, 646-649.<br />

Bucher, G .E.; Cheng, H. H. (1971) Comparison <strong>of</strong> Bacillus Ihuringiensis preparations with carbaryl for homworm (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae)<br />

control on tobacco. Canadian Entomologist 103, 142-144.<br />

Cheng. H.H. (1973) Microplot test using microbial and chemical insecticides for control <strong>of</strong> tomato homworms on tobacco in Ontario. The<br />

Lighter 43(3). 10-13.


Mtmduca qllillqllemaclliata (Haworth), 59<br />

Cheng, H.H. (1977a) F1ue-cured tobacco losses caused by the tomato hornworm, Manduca quinquemaculala (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae), at<br />

various infestation levels in Ontario. Canadian Entomologist 109,1091-1095.<br />

Cheng, H.H. (1977b) Insecticides and sucker control chemicals: compatibility and effects on green peach aphid, tomato hornworm and<br />

suckers on flue-cured tobacco in Ontario. Tobacco Science 21, 108-111.<br />

Cheng, H.H. (1978) Pesticides play important role. Canadian Tobacco Grower 26(8),31-33.<br />

Cheng, H.H. (1980) Erfects <strong>of</strong> tank-mixed combinations <strong>of</strong> insecticides and sucker control agents on efficacy and on the yield and quality <strong>of</strong><br />

flue-cured tobacco. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario Ill, 7 -12.<br />

Cheng, H.H.; Braun, H.E. (1977) Chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, endosulfan, leptophos, and trichlorfon residues on cured tobacco leaves from fieldtreated<br />

tobacco in Ontario. Canadian 10urnal <strong>of</strong> Plant Science 57,689-695.<br />

Creighton, C.S.; Kinard, W.S.; Allen, N. (1961) Effectiveness <strong>of</strong> Bacillus tlluringiensis and several chemical insecticides for control <strong>of</strong><br />

budworms and hornworms on tobacco. 10urnal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 54, 1112-1114.<br />

Guthrie, F.E.; Rabb, R.L.; Bowery, T.G. (1959) Evaluation <strong>of</strong> candidate insecticides and insect pathogens for tobacco hornworm control,<br />

1956-1958. 10urnal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 52, 798-804.


Blank Page<br />

60


Chapter 17<br />

Melanoplus spp., Camnula pellucida<br />

(Scudder), and other Grasshoppers<br />

(Orthoptera: Acrididae)<br />

A.B. EWEN and M.K. MUKERJI<br />

Grasshoppers have been important destructive pests since crop production began on the<br />

Canadian prairies. Four species: the migratory grasshopper. Melanoplus sanguillipes<br />

(Fab.); the twostriped grasshopper, M. bivittatllS (Say); the Packard grasshopper, M.<br />

packardii Scudder; and the c1earwinged grasshopper, Camnllia pellucida (Scudder);<br />

generally arc considered to be the most important. Natural enemies and weather<br />

conditions cause marked fluctuations in their populations from year to year from one<br />

area to another, and several population peaks have been recorded during the more than<br />

thirty years that grasshopper surveys have been conducted in Saskatchewan (Gage &<br />

Mukerji 1977). High populations and significant damage to crops have been associated<br />

with early egg hatch due to an early, warm, and dry spring (Randell & Mukerji 1974).<br />

Grasshoppers host a variety <strong>of</strong> pathogenic micro-organisms including fungi, bacteria,<br />

viruses, and protozoans. Epizootics <strong>of</strong> fungal pathogens can produce drastic reductions<br />

in grasshopper populations. Pickford & Riegert (1964) showed that Emomophlhora<br />

grylli Fres. was a major factor responsible for significant reductions in grasshopper<br />

populations, espciaJly C. pellucida, in Saskatchewan in 1963. Although there have<br />

been other incidents <strong>of</strong> fungal epizootics, these pathogens have not given consistent<br />

control <strong>of</strong> grasshopper populations because <strong>of</strong> their restrictive requirements <strong>of</strong> specific<br />

moisture and temperature conditions for initiation and dissemination <strong>of</strong> infection in the<br />

host populations (Henry 1970). Most bacteria associated with grasshoppers are<br />

facultative pathogens which cannot multiply in the host gut but require direct passage<br />

into the haemocoele (Bucher 1960). Also. bacteria and many <strong>of</strong> the fungi pathogenic in<br />

grasshoppers are not suitable microbial control agents because they are associated<br />

with or pathogenic in other insects and animals (Henry 1970).<br />

Viral and protozoan pathogens have received more attention as potential biological<br />

control agents for grasshoppers. An entomopox virus (Henry & Jutila 1966) and a<br />

crystalline-array virus <strong>of</strong> the picornovirus group (Jutila et al. 1970) have been isolated<br />

from M. sangllinipes and M. bivittatus, respectively. Although these viruses arc<br />

uncommon in grasshoppers under normal conditions, observations indicate that they<br />

may be capable <strong>of</strong> lowering the population density <strong>of</strong> their hosts. Prolonged effects <strong>of</strong><br />

these pathogens have yet to be assessed. Of the protozoans, Malameba locustae (King<br />

& Taylor), several species <strong>of</strong> grcgarincs, three species <strong>of</strong> Nosema (N. locuslae Canning.<br />

N. acridophagus Henry, and N. cuneatum Henry), and a number <strong>of</strong> other microsporidians<br />

have been reported or described in grasshoppers. Malameba locustae and the<br />

gregarines (the most common protozoans in grasshoppers) cause chronic infections but<br />

have little immediate effect on their hosts.<br />

Most research effort in recent years has been directed towards using the Nosema<br />

spp. as biological control agents for the management <strong>of</strong> grasshopper populations and,<br />

<strong>of</strong> these. N. loclIstae has received the most attention. In 1980 a quantitative study <strong>of</strong><br />

the effect <strong>of</strong> N. /ocuslae as a control agent against grasshopper populations was<br />

carried out in a short grass pasture in east central Saskatchewan (Ewen & Mukerji<br />

1980). The predominant grasshopper species were M. sangllinipes, M. packardii. and<br />

C. pellucida, and about 50% <strong>of</strong> these populations were infected between 4 and 5 weeks<br />

61


62 A. B. Ewen and M. K. Mukcrji<br />

Literature Cited<br />

after application <strong>of</strong> 2.5-5.0 .x 10' spores <strong>of</strong> N. iocustae per ha. Maxima <strong>of</strong> 95-100%<br />

infection were evident between 9 and 12 weeks after application for all three<br />

grasshopper species. This increase in prevalence <strong>of</strong> infection throughout the season<br />

probably was due to the fact that feeding grasshoppers tend to consume grasshopper<br />

cadavers that they find, and data (Ewen & Mukerji 1980) indicate that most cadavers<br />

would contain mature spores <strong>of</strong> N. iocllStae later in the season.<br />

M. sanguinipes showed the greatest vulnerability to N. iocllStae infection among the<br />

three predominant grasshopper species in the Saskatchewan study (Ewen & Mukerji<br />

1980). At a 50% level <strong>of</strong> infection. its population was reduced 26%, significantly more<br />

than either M. packardii (20%), or C. pellucida (8%). Overall, the treated populations <strong>of</strong><br />

M. sanguinipes and M. packardii were reduced by about 20%, 4 weeks after spore<br />

application and by about 60%,8 weeks later. On the other hand, the population <strong>of</strong> C.<br />

pellucida, although showing about the same prevalence <strong>of</strong> infection as the MeianopillS<br />

populations, was reduced overall by only 28%. 12 weeks after application <strong>of</strong> N. iocllStae<br />

spores. It seems that the Cyrtacanthacridinae are more vulnerable to N. iocllStae<br />

infection than are the Oedipodinae.<br />

Grasshoppers that survived to lay eggs appeared to be infected to the extent that their<br />

fecundity was reduced. This was especially true <strong>of</strong> M. packardii, where the females laid<br />

about 65% fewer eggs than untreated populations (Ewen & Mukerji 1980). Egg production<br />

by the treated M. sanguinipes populations also was reduced markedly when<br />

compared to the control populations. Not enough data were collected to evaluate the<br />

effect <strong>of</strong> the pathogen on fecundity <strong>of</strong> C. pellucida. Data show that mature spores <strong>of</strong> N.<br />

iocllstae can overwinter (presumably in cadavers,) but it is not known if sufficient<br />

numbers survive to adequately infect the next year's populations.<br />

Applications <strong>of</strong> N. iocllStae spores in Saskatchewan were made to grasshopper<br />

populations that were predominantly in the third nymphal instar (Ewen & Mukerji 1980).<br />

Applications to younger populations resulted in the insects being killed at much lower<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> infection. and this could have important implications for grasshopper control in<br />

crop land. Crop defoliation could be reduced by killing the grasshoppers when they were<br />

first-instar or second-instar nymphs. but then fewer spores would be produced for infection<br />

<strong>of</strong> other grasshoppers. Thus. reducing the grasshopper populations earlier would<br />

better protect the crop. but a second application <strong>of</strong> spores a week or two later would be<br />

necessary because considerable recruitment would still be possible in these younger<br />

populations.<br />

Bucher. G.E. (1960) Potcntial bacterial pathogens <strong>of</strong> insects and their characteristics. Journal <strong>of</strong> Insect Pathology 2. 172-195.<br />

Ewen. AI B.; Mukerji. M.K. (1980) Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Nmema locus/ae (Microsporidia) as a control agent <strong>of</strong> grasshopper populations in<br />

Saskatchewan. JOIlrtral <strong>of</strong> Invertebrate Pathology 35. 295-303.<br />

Gage. S.H.; Mukerji. M.K. (1977) A perspective <strong>of</strong> grasshopper distribution in Saskatchewan and interrelationship with weather.<br />

Environmental Entomology 6. 469-479.<br />

Henry. J.E. (1970) Potential microbial control <strong>of</strong> grasshoppers and locusts. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the International Study Conference. Current &<br />

Future Problems <strong>of</strong> Acridology. pp. 465-468.<br />

Henry. J.E.; Jutila. J.W. (1966) The isolation <strong>of</strong> a polyhedrosis virus from a grasshopper. Journal <strong>of</strong> Invertebrate Pathology 8.417-418.<br />

Jutila. J.W.; Henry. J.E.; Anacker. R.L.; Brown. W.R. (1970) Some properties <strong>of</strong> a crystallinc-array virus (CAV) isolated from the<br />

grasshopper Melanoplus biviltatus (Say) (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Journal <strong>of</strong> invertebrate Pathology 15.<br />

225-23\.<br />

Pickford. R.; Riegert. P. W. (1964) The fungous disease eaused by Entomophthora grylfi Fres .• and its effects on grasshopper populations in<br />

Saskatchcwan in 1963. Canadian Enlomologist 96. 1158-1166.<br />

Randen. R.L.; Mukcrji. M. K. (1974) A technique for estimating hatching <strong>of</strong> natural egg populations <strong>of</strong> Melanoplus sanguinipes (Orthoptera:<br />

Acrididae). Canadian EnlOmologift 106. Sot -SI2.


Chapter 18<br />

Musca domestica L., House Fly (Diptera:<br />

Muscidae)<br />

R.A. COSTELLO<br />

Aies, particularly Musea domes/iea L., associated with egg producing operations have<br />

become an increasing problem in British Columbia's Fraser Valley in recent years.<br />

Conflicts between farmers and their nonfarming neighbours have intensified with the<br />

encroachment <strong>of</strong> urban development on agricultural areas. Flies can also be a considerable<br />

annoyance to farm operators and their families and employees.<br />

Certain parasitoid wasps have been found effective in suppressing nuisance fly populations<br />

in egg producing operations in California (Legner & Dietrick 1972, Legner e/ al.<br />

1975). A commercial insectary in that state provided the parasitoids for this study. The<br />

pupal parasitoid Spa/angia endius Walker (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) was selected<br />

for this trial because <strong>of</strong> its tendency to burrow deeper into manure than other available<br />

parasitoids in search <strong>of</strong> pupae (Legner 1977). Pre-release sampling indicated that more<br />

than 90% <strong>of</strong> the pupae were further than 3 cm below the surface.<br />

In 1978, a total <strong>of</strong> 400000 Spa/angia endius, in the form <strong>of</strong> parasitized house fly pupae,<br />

were released into a deep pit layer barn in Aldergrove, British Columbia. The barn,<br />

measuring 91 m by 12 m, contained 27 000 layers. The pit contained a 9 month accumulation<br />

<strong>of</strong> manure at the start <strong>of</strong> the trial. Four releases <strong>of</strong> 100 000 parasitoids each were<br />

made at 3 week intervals commencing 20 April. No other control methods were applied<br />

in this barn. Fly numbers, as indicated by "spot cards" (Rutz & Axtell 1979). were<br />

compared to those in a bam 30 m away where fly control consisted <strong>of</strong> chemical insecticides<br />

applied as space sprays. residual surface sprays, and floor baits. The spot cards<br />

consisted <strong>of</strong> white 7.6 x 12.7 cm unlined file cards. These were pinned to posts in the<br />

barns, collected weekly. and the fecal and regurgitation marks counted.<br />

Levels <strong>of</strong> parasitism were measured by collecting manure samples once a week.<br />

floating out fly pupae, and holding them at 30"C until either flies or parasitoids emerged.<br />

This also provided an indication <strong>of</strong> the fly species involved and all pupae collected were<br />

Musca domes/iea.<br />

Ay numbers were monitored in both barns from 25 April to 13 June. The spot card<br />

counts were similar for the first weeks, averaging 45.3 per card in the bam using<br />

chemical control methods and 35.7 in the barn where parasitoids were released. By the<br />

end <strong>of</strong> the third week, mean spot card counts rose to 390.2 in the chemical control barn<br />

and fell to 26.9 in the barn containing Spa/angia endius. Repeated applications <strong>of</strong><br />

pyrethrum as a thermal fog resulted in a reduction <strong>of</strong> the mean spot card count to 213.2<br />

by the end <strong>of</strong> the 6th week when the manure was removed and spot card counts were<br />

discontinued. Spot counts in the barn using parasitoids averaged 20 to 25 during the 4th,<br />

5th and 6th weeks <strong>of</strong> the trial.<br />

Six weeks after the initial introduction <strong>of</strong> parasitoids 63% <strong>of</strong> the fly pupae separated<br />

from manure samples contained Spa/angia endius larvae and pupae. This was the highest<br />

level <strong>of</strong> parasitism found during the sampling period.<br />

House fly numbers in the barn containing parasitoids rcmnincd nt acceptnble levels<br />

throughout the trial and the remainder <strong>of</strong> the fly senson, while flies in the bam employing<br />

chemical control methods were intolerably abundant and eventually necessitated<br />

removing the manure to relieve the problem. The commercial value <strong>of</strong> the parasitoids<br />

used in this study was approximately $800, about the same as the operator spent on<br />

chemicals the previous year.<br />

63


64 R. A. Costello<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Further laboratory and field studies are being carried out to develop an integrated<br />

approach to fly control in egg layer barns entailing parasitoid introductions, manure<br />

management, and chemical insecticides.<br />

Legner. E.F. (1977) Temperature. humidity and depth <strong>of</strong> habitat influencing host destruction and fecundity <strong>of</strong> muscoid fly parasites.<br />

Entomophaga 22. 199-206.<br />

Legner. E.F.; Dietrick. E.J. (1972) Inundation with parasitic insects to control filth breeding flics in California. Proceed;II8s o/the CalifornitJ<br />

Mosquito Control Association 40, 129-130.<br />

Legner. E.F.; Bowen. W.R.; Rooney. W.F.; McKeen, W.O.; Johnston. G.W. (1975) Integrated fly control on poultry ranches. California<br />

Agriculture 29(5). 8-10.<br />

RUll. D.A.; Aldell, R.C. (1979) Sustained releases <strong>of</strong> Muscidifurru raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) for house fly (Musca domestica)<br />

control in two types <strong>of</strong> caged·layer poultry houses. Environmellta/ Entomology 8. 1105-1110.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 19<br />

Releases and Recoveries in Ontario<br />

Oulema melanopus (L.), Cereal<br />

Leaf Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)<br />

D.G. HARCOURT, J.e. GUPPY and C.R. ELLIS<br />

During the early and mid 1970s, the cereal leaf beetle (eLB), Oulema melanopus (L.),<br />

began to threaten the production <strong>of</strong> small grains in Ontario. Following its initial<br />

discovery in Essex County near the border <strong>of</strong> Michigan in 1965, it spread rapidly<br />

eastward and by 1975 it had occupied most <strong>of</strong> Ontario south <strong>of</strong> Hwy 17. Populations<br />

reached economic levels in 1973, and in 1974 chemical treatment was required in ca. 75<br />

fields within the triangular area bounded by the counties <strong>of</strong> Lincoln, Grey, and<br />

Durham (Bereza 1974). In 1976, it occurred in damaging numbers on Manitoulin Island<br />

and, in 1977, it was found north <strong>of</strong> Lake Huron in the districts <strong>of</strong> Algoma, Sudbury,<br />

and Nipissing (Ellis et al. 1979).<br />

Like many <strong>of</strong> our introduced pests, the cereal leaf beetle is rarely troublesome in its<br />

native Europe where it is attacked by a complex <strong>of</strong> natural enemies. One <strong>of</strong> these, the<br />

larval cndoparasitoid Tetrastichus julis (Walker) was introduced against the beetle by<br />

research workers in Michigan in 1967. It was recovered in low numbers in 1969 (Stehr<br />

1970) and was extensively recolonized in 1971, when further releases were made in<br />

Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, and New York (Dysart et 01. 1973).<br />

T. julis is mostly bivoltine in Michigan (Gage & Haynes 1975). It emerges from its<br />

overwintering sites in late May and flies to nearby grain fields where it deposits its eggs<br />

in the first host larvae that appear. The gregarious parasitoid larvae grow slowly within<br />

their host while it is feeding. As soon as the host larva enters the soil and forms its<br />

pupal cell, the parasitoids quickly complete their development and form naked pupae<br />

within the cell. Diapause is facultative, but the incidence increases as the season<br />

progresses. Some adults emerge in early summer and give rise to a second generation.<br />

The remainder <strong>of</strong> the first generation and all <strong>of</strong> the second overwinter as last instar<br />

larvae inside the pupal cells <strong>of</strong> their hosts. In Michigan, roughly 80% <strong>of</strong> the population<br />

enters a second generation; this generation is poorly synchronized with populations <strong>of</strong><br />

its host since at the time <strong>of</strong> emergence relatively few beetle larvae are available for the<br />

adults to attack (Gage & Haynes 1975).<br />

Studies in Michigan during the early seventies indicated that T. julis had poor<br />

powers <strong>of</strong> dispersal (Haynes et -al. 1974). Natural spread was slow and rates <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitism in the United States midwest remained well below that needed to maintain<br />

populations at subeconomic levels.<br />

Large-scale releases <strong>of</strong> T. julis were made at 4 sites in southcentral Ontario in June<br />

1974 when parasitized host larvae were set out in fields <strong>of</strong> oats and barley (Harcourt et<br />

al. 1977). This has been the only parasitoid released in the province.<br />

In 1975, life table studies <strong>of</strong> the host in the Quinte area <strong>of</strong> southern Ontario showed<br />

that 55% and 43% respectively <strong>of</strong> the pupal cells in study plots in Northumberland and<br />

65


66 D. G. Harcourt, J. C. Guppy and C. R. Ellis<br />

Table 10<br />

Current Status <strong>of</strong> T. julis<br />

Hastings Counties (Harcourt et al. 1977) contained larvae <strong>of</strong> T. julis. These findings,<br />

which were unexpected in light <strong>of</strong> the Michigan experience, prompted closer examination<br />

<strong>of</strong> larval collections made during the course <strong>of</strong> annual CLB population surveys by Ontario<br />

Ministry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture and Food personnel at 8 sites within the province during 1975.<br />

The surveys consisted <strong>of</strong> 250 net sweeps from each <strong>of</strong> 30 fields <strong>of</strong> spring grain located<br />

within a 75 km! area. Eight such areas were sampled in late June following the<br />

accumulation <strong>of</strong> 475°D>9°C.<br />

Table 10 shows that T. julis had dispersed widely across Ontario by 1975. Rates <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitism were highest in southwestern Ontario, lowest in eastern Ontario, and<br />

intermediate in other parts <strong>of</strong> the province. Overall parasitism was 84%. The number<br />

<strong>of</strong> parasitoids per host ranged from 1 to 44 and averaged 5.9. The four host instars were<br />

parasitized in roughly the same proportion (75, 87, 84,84), suggesting that the larvae<br />

were attacked when small.<br />

Parasitism <strong>of</strong> the cereal leaf beetle,<br />

(Walker) in Ontario, 1975.<br />

County Township No. host<br />

larvae collected<br />

Oulema melanopus (L.), by Tetrastiehus julis<br />

Kent Merlin 894 95.0<br />

Middlesex Glencoe 212 91.9<br />

Essex Malden 526 88.6<br />

Wellington Fergus 227 83.7<br />

York Whitchurch 143 83.2<br />

Ontario Brock 15 73.3<br />

Bruce Mildmay 156 68.6<br />

Renfrew Bromley 147 15.0<br />

TOTALS 2320 84.4<br />

% parasitized<br />

Sweepnet samples <strong>of</strong> spring grain on Manitoulin Island in early July 1976 showed that<br />

the parasitism rate was 87% (Ellis et al. 1979).<br />

Since 1974, there have been no reports <strong>of</strong> economic damage by the cereal leaf beetle in<br />

Ontario other than on Manitoulin Island. In most fields <strong>of</strong> spring grain it has been<br />

difficult to find larvae. This raised fears that the host population might become too low to<br />

maintain the parasitoid which would set the stage for a resurgence <strong>of</strong> the pest. For this<br />

reason, extensive sampling has been carried out in representative sites in Ontario since<br />

1977. Rates <strong>of</strong> parasitism in the past 4 years have ranged from 31-68%, indicating that T.<br />

julis has the capacity to maintain itself as an effective biological control agent at very low<br />

host densities. There has been no indication <strong>of</strong> resurgence <strong>of</strong> CLB populations and no<br />

damage from the pest was reported in Ontario during the 1977-80 period.<br />

Because the distribution <strong>of</strong> T. julis in 1975 was more extensive than the area <strong>of</strong> the 1974<br />

releases and because its population density at most sites was inexplicably high, it is<br />

concluded that the parasitoid spread into Ontario as a result <strong>of</strong> the earlier releases in<br />

Michigan and other parts <strong>of</strong> the United States. It is also clear that the parasitoid has<br />

better powers <strong>of</strong> dispersal than originally reported.


Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Ou/ema me/at/opus (L.). 67<br />

We believe that there are two reasons for the spectacular success <strong>of</strong> T. iulis in Ontario<br />

relative to that in Michigan. First, the larval period <strong>of</strong> the cereal leaf beetle occurs after<br />

the seasonal accumulation <strong>of</strong> 235°0>9°C (Fulton & Haynes 1975) throughout its range,<br />

and this is therefore later in Ontario than in the United States midwest. Since the<br />

developmental threshold <strong>of</strong> T. iu/is resembles that <strong>of</strong> its host (Gage & Haynes 1975), it<br />

similarly emerges later in its northern range and its larvae complete their development<br />

later in the season. Hence, a greater proportion <strong>of</strong> the first generation enter diapause.<br />

Second, in deference to the harsher climate than in the United States midwest, agricultural<br />

practice in most parts <strong>of</strong> Ontario favours spring grains as opposed to winter wheat.<br />

These frequently grow in rotation with, and as a nurse crop for, alfalfa and other<br />

legumes. Hence, the field is left untilled after harvest and host pupal cells below soil<br />

level are not disturbed by plowing and disking, a practice which can destroy more than<br />

95% <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid population (Haynes et al. 1973).<br />

In view <strong>of</strong> the potential importance <strong>of</strong> the cereal leaf beetle to culture <strong>of</strong> spring grains in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>, rates <strong>of</strong> attack <strong>of</strong> T. iulis relative to numbers <strong>of</strong> its host should be monitored at<br />

regular intervals throughout its range.<br />

Bereza. K. (1914) Ontario insects. Canadian Agricultural/nseet Pest Review 52. 16.<br />

Dysan. RJ.; Maltby. H.L.; Brunson. M.H. (1913) Larval parasites <strong>of</strong> Oulema melanopus in Europe and their colonization in the United<br />

States. Entomophaga 18. 133-161.<br />

Ellis. e.R.; Harcoun. D.G.; Dubois-Martin. D. (1919) The current status in Ontario <strong>of</strong> Tetrastichus julis (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). a<br />

parasitoid <strong>of</strong> the cereal leaf beetle. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario 109. 23-26.<br />

Fulton. W.e.; Haynes. D.L. (1915) Computer mapping in pest management. Environmental Entomology 4.357-360.<br />

Gage. S. H.; Haynes. D. L. (1975) Emergence under natural and manipulated conditions <strong>of</strong> Tetrastichus julis. an introduced larval parasite <strong>of</strong><br />

the cereal leaf beetle. with rcCerence to regional population management. Environmental Entomology 4.<br />

425-434.<br />

Harcourt. D. G.; Guppy. J .C.; Ellis. C. R.E. (1917) Establishment and spread <strong>of</strong> Tetrastiehus julis (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) a parasitoid <strong>of</strong><br />

the cereal leaf beetle in Ontario. Canadian Entomologist 109, 473-476.<br />

Haynes. D.L.; Brandenburg. R.K.; Fisher, P.D. (1913) Environmental monitoring network for pest management systems. Environmental<br />

Entomology 2. 889-899.<br />

Haynes. D.L.; Gage. S.H.; Fulton. W. (1974). Management <strong>of</strong> the cereal leaf beetle pest ecosystem. Quaestiones Entomologieae 10,<br />

165-176.<br />

Stehr. F. W. (1910) Establishment in the United States <strong>of</strong> Tetrastiehus julis. a larval parasite <strong>of</strong> the cereal leaf beetle. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic<br />

Entomology 63.1968-1969.


Blank Page<br />

68


Pest Status and Background<br />

Chapter 20<br />

Phyllonorycter blancardella (F.), Spotted<br />

Tentiform Leafminer (Lepidoptera:<br />

Gracillariidae)<br />

J.E. LAING<br />

The spotted tentiform leafminer (STLM). Phyllonorycler blancardella (F.). is an indirect<br />

pest <strong>of</strong> apple in eastern <strong>Canada</strong> and the United States. This species probably<br />

entered North America from Europe early in the 1900s. Severe infestations (> 20 mines<br />

per leaf) may cause early leaf drop. stunting <strong>of</strong> terminal growth. premature fruit<br />

ripening, and fruit drop with a resultant decrease in yield and reduction <strong>of</strong> fruit set the<br />

year following the infestation (Pottinger & LeRoux 1971. Johnson 1975). There are three<br />

generations <strong>of</strong> the leafminer per year throughout its range in North America. The<br />

leafminer overwinters as a pupa. emerges in May. and begins to oviposit first-generation<br />

eggs. Adults <strong>of</strong> the first generation are present in orchards from mid-June through July.<br />

Second-generation adults appear in August (Johnson 1975. Laing 1977).<br />

Although many species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids have been recorded from STLM (Pottinger &<br />

Le Roux 1971. Johnson el al. 1978). this species is able to reach damaging levels in some<br />

orchards each year by the third or overwintering generation. Because <strong>of</strong> the cryptic<br />

feeding habits <strong>of</strong> the larvae. chemical controls must be either systemic or timed to<br />

coincide with adult emergence. The latter has been facilitated by the synthesis <strong>of</strong> a sex<br />

attractant for STLM (Roel<strong>of</strong>s el al. 1977) and the development <strong>of</strong> heat unit requirements<br />

above a threshold <strong>of</strong> approximately 7°C for emergence <strong>of</strong> the adults (Johnson el 01.<br />

1979). Although individual growers may obtain good control <strong>of</strong> STLM at times. reinvasion<br />

<strong>of</strong> commercial orchards likely occurs from hedgerow and abandoned or poorly<br />

maintained orchards.<br />

The following parasitoids have been reported from STLM in Ontario and Quebec<br />

(Pottinger & LeRoux 1971. Johnson el al. 1978):<br />

Braconidae Apanteles ornigis Weed<br />

Eulophidae Sympiesis marylandensis Girault<br />

Sympiesis bimaculatipennis Girault<br />

Sympiesis sericeicornis (Nees)<br />

Sympiesis conica (Provancher)<br />

Pnigalio maculipes (Crawford)<br />

Pnigalio flavipes (Ashmead)<br />

Pnigalio uroplatae (Howard)<br />

Chrysocharis cuspidogaster (Yosh.)<br />

Chrysocharis Iricinclus Ashm.<br />

Chrysocharis laricinellae (Ratz.)<br />

Tetrastichus sp.<br />

Cirrospilus cinclilhorax (Girault)<br />

Zagrammosoma mullilinealum (Ashmead)<br />

Horismenus Jraternus (Fitch)<br />

Eupelmidae Eupelmella vesicularis (Retzius)<br />

The most abundant parasitoids <strong>of</strong> STLM are the braconid Apanteles ornigis Weed in<br />

the first and third generations. and the chalcids Sympiesis marylandensis Gir. and S.<br />

69


Ph yJlollorycter blallcardelltr (F.) , 71<br />

Johnson. E.F .• Trouier. R.: L.'1ing. J.E. (1979) Degree-day relationships to the development <strong>of</strong> Lilhocollelis blancardella (Lepidoptem:<br />

Gracillariidae) and its parasite Apenlldes mnigis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Canadiall EtJlonrologisl<br />

III, II77- IIs...<br />

Laing. J.E. (l9n) Spotted tentifonn Icafminer. Ontario Ministry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture and Food, Agdex Factshcct. 3 pp.<br />

Laing. J.E.; Her:lty. J.M. (1981) Establishment in <strong>Canada</strong> <strong>of</strong> the parasite "'pallldes pedias Nixon on the spotted lenliform leafminer<br />

Phyllonorycler blancardella (Fabr.). EIII'irtmmelllal Emomology 10, 933-935.<br />

Nixon, G.E.J. (1973) A revision <strong>of</strong> Ihe north-western Europc.1D species <strong>of</strong> Ihe "ilripemlis, pallipes, octonariw, triallgulator, fratermlS,<br />

foniosllS, parasilellae, melacarpalis, and cirC/tt1lscripIILf-groups <strong>of</strong> ApatJIeles Forster (Hymenoptera:<br />

Braconidae)_ Bullelill <strong>of</strong> EIlIt}IJwltlgictz/ Research 63, 169-228.<br />

POllinger, R. P.; Le Roux, E.J. (1971) The biology and dynamics <strong>of</strong> Lil/mcolletis IJIclllcelrdelia (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) on apple in<br />

Quc!bec. Memoirs <strong>of</strong> Ihe ElllolllologiclIl Sociely <strong>of</strong> Calltlda 77, 437 pp.<br />

Roel<strong>of</strong>s, W.L.: Reissig, W.H. Weires, R.W. (1977) Sex auractalll for the spoiled tentiform learminer moth Lithocolletis b/allcardelltl.<br />

Environlllellla/ Etllolllolog}, 6, 373 - 374.<br />

SWilD, D.1. (1973) Evalualion <strong>of</strong> biologicnl conlrol <strong>of</strong> Ihe ouk Icafminer I'lzyllrmor},ctermessalliella (Zeit) (Lepidoptera: Gracillnriidae) in<br />

New Zealand. Bulletill <strong>of</strong> Elllr1lTwlogiCll/ Re.rI!rlrclz 63, 49-55.


Blank Page<br />

72


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 21<br />

Phyllotreta spp., Flea Beetles (Coleoptera:<br />

Chrysomelidae)<br />

H.G. WYLIE, W.l. TURNOCK and L. BURGESS<br />

Damage to rape crops in western <strong>Canada</strong> by flea beetles is caused primarily by adults <strong>of</strong><br />

two species, Phy/lotreta crllciferae (Goeze) and Phyl/otreta strio/ata (F.). A third flea<br />

beetle, Psylliodes puncru/ata Melsh., occurs in virtually all seedling rape crops on the<br />

prairies but by itself does not constitute a serious problem. Phyllolrela robusta Lee. and<br />

Phyllolrela a/bionica (Lee.) occur occasionally on rape crops in Saskatchewan (Burgess<br />

1977a) and three other described crucifer-feeding species in the genus Phyllotreta are<br />

known to occur in that province (Burgess 1981b).<br />

P. cruciferae was introduced on the west coast <strong>of</strong> North America in the early 1920s<br />

(Milliron 1953) and was abundant on crucifers in the Prairie Provinces by the late 1930s<br />

and early 1940s (Westdal & Romanow 1972). P. cruciferae has usually been the<br />

dominant flea beetle in rape fields across the prairies, particularly in the more southerly<br />

parts <strong>of</strong> the rape-growing area.<br />

P. slrio/ala apparently was introduced to North America before 1801 (Chittenden<br />

1923) and was present in <strong>Canada</strong> from the Atlantic provinces to British Columbia by the<br />

early 1900s (Burgess 1977a). This species infests rape crops across the parkland<br />

agricultural area from southern Manitoba to north <strong>of</strong> the Peace River in Alberta (Burgess<br />

1977a). P. strio/ata has recently gained in relative importance as a pest in both Saskatchwan<br />

and Alberta, being more abundant than P. cruciferae in some Saskatchewan rape<br />

fields after 1976 (Burgess 1981a) and in some fields in central Alberta since 1979 (H.G.<br />

Philip 1981 personal communication).<br />

Flea beetle problems in rape crops have increased in severity in the past decade. In<br />

Manitoba and Saskatchewan most fields <strong>of</strong> rape are threatened annually by these<br />

insects. In Alberta, flea beetle problems have tended to be less acute than in Saskatchewan<br />

and Manitoba, but in 1979 and 1980 heavy infestations were reported from<br />

most rape-growing areas (H.G. Philip 1981 personal communication). The estimated<br />

percentages <strong>of</strong> rape acreage treated with insecticides in 1979 were 75% in Manitoba,<br />

59% in Saskatchewan, and 45% in Alberta (Turnock & Samborski 1980). Although yield<br />

loss due to flea beetle damage is difficult to estimate. yield reductions <strong>of</strong> 15-50% have<br />

occurred in untreated plots in insecticide trials (Turnock & Samborski 1980). The<br />

combination <strong>of</strong> flea beetles and poor conditions for germination that occurred in 1975<br />

and 1980 in Manitoba completely destroyed many fields <strong>of</strong> rape.<br />

This is the first biological control programme set up against flea beetles <strong>of</strong> the genus<br />

Phyllotreta. The programme was initiated because <strong>of</strong> the low level <strong>of</strong> natural control <strong>of</strong><br />

P. cruciferae and P. strio/ata and because these are introduced species. Studies in<br />

Manitoba since 1975 confirmed only three native parasitoids <strong>of</strong> rape-infesting flea<br />

beetles: a braconid. Microctonus \'ittatae Mues.; a mermithid; and an allantonematid.<br />

Howardu/a sp. M. viltatae parasitizes adults <strong>of</strong> both P. cruciferae and P. strio/ala. but<br />

the incidence <strong>of</strong> parasitism is usually less than 5%. Various factors limit the impact <strong>of</strong><br />

this braconid in Manitoba. including its short adult life and low oviposition rate. and<br />

poor temporal synchronization with the host's population in mid-summer. Neither the<br />

mermithid nor the allantonematid is sufficiently abundant to limit populations <strong>of</strong> the<br />

73


74 H. G. Wylie, W. J. Turnock and L. Burgess<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Table 11<br />

rape-infesting species. Occasional predation <strong>of</strong> flea beetle adults by adults <strong>of</strong> Collops<br />

viltalllS Say (Coleoptera: Melyridae) and Geocoris bullalus (Say) (Hemiptera:<br />

Lygaeidae) and by larvae <strong>of</strong> Chrysopa sp. (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) have been reported<br />

(Gerber & Osgood 1975; Burgess 1977b, 1980).<br />

In Europe, a large complex <strong>of</strong> flea beetle species infest rape and other crucifers.<br />

Usually, the most destructive species are Psylliodes chrysocepha/a (L.) and Phyllolrela<br />

undu/ala Kutsch. (Carl 1973, Carl & Sommer 1975). Neither species occurs in <strong>Canada</strong>;<br />

P. chrysocepha/a was recorded once in Newfoundland (Anon. 1953) but apparently did<br />

not become established. Neither P. slrio/ala (sometimes called P. vinala F. by European<br />

entomologists; see Barber 1947) nor P. cruci/erae is considered to be an important pest<br />

in Europe. P. strio/ala is usually more abundant than P. erueiferae (Carl & Lehmann<br />

1980).<br />

Studies in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland identified three species <strong>of</strong> euphorine<br />

braconids, three mermithid species, and an allantonematid, Howardu/a phyllolrelae<br />

Oldham, as parasitoids <strong>of</strong> Phyllolrela spp. Although H. phyllolrelae parasitized up to<br />

70% <strong>of</strong> the flea beetle adults and reduced oviposition by parasitized females, it had little<br />

or no effect on beetle survival (Carl & Sommer 1975). The impact <strong>of</strong> the mermithids was<br />

also negligible. One <strong>of</strong> the braconid species was uncommon and was not identified. A<br />

second species, Microclonus sp. Z (Sommer 1981) which parasitized less than 10% <strong>of</strong><br />

the flea beetles, was morphologically indistinguishable from M. villalae (C.c. Loan<br />

1981 personal communication). The third braconid species, Mieroetonus bie%r<br />

Wesm., parasitized up to 50% <strong>of</strong> the flea beetle adults in summer. Small numbers <strong>of</strong> this<br />

braconid that were imported in <strong>Canada</strong> in 1977, and tested in the laboratory at Winnipeg,<br />

parasitized adults <strong>of</strong> P. eruci/erae and P. slrio/ala and developed on both species.<br />

Therefore, M. bie%r was considered to be a suitable candidate species for importation<br />

and release.<br />

Parasitoid cocoons received from the European Laboratory <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth<br />

Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control were reared at the Research Program Service, Central<br />

Experimental Farm, Ottawa. Those cocoons which produced hyperparasites <strong>of</strong><br />

the genus Mesoehorus were destroyed, and adults <strong>of</strong> Mieroetonus bie%r and M. vittalae<br />

were shipped by air express to Winnipeg.<br />

Details <strong>of</strong> releases <strong>of</strong> Mieroetonus bie%r Wesm. are shown in Table 11. Parasitoids<br />

were released in the open in experimental plots <strong>of</strong> rape, Brassica napus L., cv. Tower, at<br />

the Glenlea Field Station <strong>of</strong> the Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> Research Station, about 20 km south<br />

<strong>of</strong> Winnipeg. With the exception <strong>of</strong> three small releases, one in July 1979 and two in July<br />

1980 when host numbers were low, all parasitoids were released in May, June, August,<br />

or September when the plots were heavily infested by P. eruei/erae and lightly infested<br />

by P. strio/ata. No insecticides were applied to the plots each year for several weeks<br />

before the parasitoids were released, and none were applied after releases began.<br />

Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> parasitoids <strong>of</strong> Phyllolreta spp.<br />

Species and Province<br />

M icroctonus bie%r Wesm.<br />

Manitoba<br />

Year Origin<br />

1978 Austria<br />

1979 Austria<br />

1980 Austria<br />

Number<br />

182<br />

375<br />

653<br />

Year <strong>of</strong> Recovery


Table 12<br />

Phyllotreta spp.. 75<br />

Several attacks by the parasitoid females on adults <strong>of</strong> P. strio/ata were observed on rape<br />

plants in the plots during releases.<br />

Flea beetles from the release sites were collected in 1979 and 1980 and reared in the<br />

laboratory for evidence <strong>of</strong> parasitoid establishment. Numbers collected were 8502 P.<br />

eruciferae, 261 P. strio/ata, and smaller numbers <strong>of</strong> other rape-infesting beetles in June<br />

1979 from the 1978 release site; 3082 P. cruciferae and 674 P. siriolaia during July­<br />

October 1979 from the 1979 release site; and 5039 P. siriolaia and 418 Psylliodes<br />

punetlllata Melsh. in April 1980 from overwintering sites adjacent to the 1979 release<br />

site. No M. hieolor emerged from these beetles.<br />

Some adults <strong>of</strong> M. bicolor and M. sp Z were retained for laboratory studies (Table 12).<br />

These studies showed that females <strong>of</strong> ,H. bicolor parasitized more P. striolClla than P.<br />

cruciferae when equal numbers <strong>of</strong> the two hosts were present.<br />

Imported parasitoids <strong>of</strong> Phyllolrela spp. used for laboratory studies<br />

Species<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Recommendations<br />

Microetonus hieolor Wesm.<br />

Mieroelonus sp. Z<br />

Year Origin<br />

1977 Germany<br />

1978 Austria<br />

Switzerland<br />

1979 Austria<br />

1980 Austria<br />

1977 Germany<br />

1978 Switzerland<br />

1979 Austria<br />

1980 Austria<br />

Number<br />

Several factors have limited the probability <strong>of</strong> establishment. First, small numbers <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitoids were released. Second. scarcity <strong>of</strong>the preferred host. P. striolala. at Glenlea<br />

may have limited oviposition by the females after release. Third. dispersal <strong>of</strong> the beetles<br />

in autumn to overwintering sites and in spring in search <strong>of</strong> food, scattered the population<br />

<strong>of</strong> parasitized beetles and thereby reduced the probability <strong>of</strong> female parasitoids that<br />

emerged in the spring being fertilized. If M. hieolor has become established, the small<br />

numbers released and scattering <strong>of</strong> the population would minimize our chances <strong>of</strong><br />

detecting establishment until the incidence <strong>of</strong> parasitism has increased substantially.<br />

Larger colonies <strong>of</strong> M. bieolor (> 50() females per colony) should be released. Although<br />

large numbers <strong>of</strong> parasitized flea beetles have been collected by the CIBC. only small<br />

numbers <strong>of</strong> parasitoid adults have been reared and female colony size has never exceeded<br />

100. There are two reasons for the small parasitoid colonies. First. many <strong>of</strong> the<br />

immature parasitoids enter diapause and eventually die when the hosts are reared in<br />

cages in Europe. Second. parasitoid emergence from cocoons obtained in Europe has<br />

usually been less than 50%. The possibility that higher temperature and longer photoperiod<br />

prevent diapause should be investigated. as well as the factors responsible for<br />

poor survival <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid larvae and pupae in cocoons.<br />

The possibility <strong>of</strong> obtaining additional candidate parasitoid species for release in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> should be investigated in discussions planned in 1981 between staff <strong>of</strong> the CIBC<br />

and scientists from the USSR.<br />

43<br />

131<br />

20<br />

26<br />

8<br />

9<br />

2<br />

13<br />

I


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Chapter 22<br />

Tetranychus urticae Koch, Twospotted<br />

Spider mite (Acarina: Tetranychidae)<br />

R.J. McCLANAHAN<br />

The twospotted spider mite. Tetranychus urticae Koch, continues to be a major problem<br />

in greenhouse crops, particularly cucumbers, chrysanthemums, and roses. The floral<br />

crops are fairly well protected by granular applications <strong>of</strong> the systemic insecticide<br />

aldicarb, but cucumber growers are having a difficult time keeping mites under control.<br />

Resistance to dic<strong>of</strong>ol and Pentac® (Zoecon Industries Ltd.) has developed in some<br />

greenhouses. The effective material oxythioquinox was withdrawn from use on cucumbers<br />

in 1974.<br />

The predaceous mite Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot has been the only biological<br />

control agent seriously considered for control <strong>of</strong> T. urticae in greenhouses,<br />

although other mite predators are effective in orchards. The European workers have had<br />

encouraging results with P. persimilis and mass rearing is carried out at a number <strong>of</strong><br />

government and commercial establishments. Russian sources report a production <strong>of</strong> 83<br />

million P. persimilis per year from one rearing unit (Askretkov & Tolmacheva 1980).<br />

Probably the most extensive use <strong>of</strong> P. persimilis on greenhouse crops is in the Netherlands<br />

where some 400 ha (60% <strong>of</strong> total production) <strong>of</strong> cucumbers is protected by the<br />

predator (Koppert 1980).<br />

Research on the interaction <strong>of</strong> prey mites and P.persimilis has mostly been reported<br />

from Europe. Methods <strong>of</strong> introduction have been worked out for tomatoes (French et<br />

al. 1976) and cucumbers (Gould 1977), while the optimum conditions <strong>of</strong> temperature and<br />

humidity were defined by Stenseth (1979b) in Norway. Many references pertain to the<br />

compatibility <strong>of</strong> various insecticides and fungicides and the use <strong>of</strong> P.persimilis (e.g.<br />

Jeppson et al. 1975), but these results were superseded by investigations using a strain <strong>of</strong><br />

P. persimiiis resistant to phosphate insecticides (Stenseth 1979a).<br />

At Harrow, laboratory studies proved that some acaricides were selective in favor <strong>of</strong><br />

the predator (McClanahan 1971). However, the best materials were experimental or not<br />

widely accepted by growers for twospotted mite control. Since then oxythioquinox has<br />

been withdrawn from use on greenhouse cucumbers, and the twospotted mites have<br />

developed varying degrees <strong>of</strong> resistance to acaricides (McClanahan 1980).<br />

It is difficult to detail releases <strong>of</strong> P. persimilis in <strong>Canada</strong>, since there are several sources,<br />

including commercial enterprises, and only part <strong>of</strong> the production is used in <strong>Canada</strong>. A<br />

colony has been maintained at the Harrow Research Station for many years, and limited<br />

numbers are available on request by research establishments or educational projects.<br />

Acknowledgements <strong>of</strong> such shipments usually record successful establishment. P.<br />

persimilis are reared and sold by Better Yield Insects in Ontario and by Applied Bio­<br />

Nomics Ltd. in British Columbia. The number <strong>of</strong> predators available at the release point<br />

is dependent on the number <strong>of</strong> prey mites in the shipment and on the interval between<br />

77


78 R. J. McClanahan<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

packaging and releasing. Thus the number actually released can be much different than<br />

the number shipped, but under favorable conditions reproduction is very rapid with a<br />

generation in 5 days.<br />

Four commercial greenhouses near Leamington were used in a demonstration experiment<br />

in 1980. Two P. persimilis were placed on each mite-infested cucumber plant in<br />

February. Control <strong>of</strong> T. urlicae was achieved and maintained until late May, but then a<br />

change in greenhouse environment favored the pest mite and the growers had to switch<br />

to chemical control. Probably the humidity was lowered when vents were open<br />

throughout the day and this prevented P. pers;milis eggs from hatching.<br />

Techniques <strong>of</strong> using P. pers;milis in Canadian greenhouses will have to be refined and<br />

adjusted to greenhouse conditions. Introduction <strong>of</strong> predators onto the fall crop <strong>of</strong><br />

cucumbers might avoid a resurgence <strong>of</strong> T. urticae.<br />

Research projects could include modification <strong>of</strong> the greenhouse environment by<br />

misting to produce favorable conditions for the predator, or spraying only a portion <strong>of</strong><br />

the cucumber plants with an acaricide while predators were active on the unsprayed<br />

portion.<br />

Rearing under artificial conditions, as carried out in Russia (Storozhkov & Kamacheeva<br />

1980) should be tried in <strong>Canada</strong> for increased mass production.<br />

Askretkov. A.V.; Tolmacheva, KP. (1980) A sovkhoz biolaboratory. Zoshchita Rostenii 2,36 (in Russian).<br />

French, N.; Parr, W.J.; Gould. H.J.; Williams, J.l.; Simmonds, S.P. (1976) Development <strong>of</strong> biological control methods for the control <strong>of</strong><br />

Tetranychus urticae on tomatoes using Phytoseiu/us persimilis. Annals <strong>of</strong> Applied Biology 83, In-189.<br />

Gould, H.l. (1977) Biological control <strong>of</strong> glasshouse whitefly and red spider mite on tomatoes and cucumbers in England and Wales 1975 -76.<br />

Plant Pathology 26. 57-60.<br />

Jeppson, L.R.; McMurtry. 1.A.; Mead, D.W.; Jesser. M.J.; Johnson, H.G. (1975) Toxicity <strong>of</strong> citrus pesticides 10 some predaceous<br />

phytoseiid mites. Journal 01 Economic Entomology 68, 707-710.<br />

Koppen, P.C. (1980) Biological control in glasshouses in the Netherlands. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the International Symposium on Integrated<br />

Control in Agriculture and Forestry, Vienna 1979. p. 484.<br />

McClanahan, RJ. (1971) Selective acaricides for integrated control <strong>of</strong> Tetranychus urticae. International Organization for Biological<br />

Control. West Palearctic Regional Section. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> a Conference on Integrated Control in<br />

Glasshouses. pp. 13-22.<br />

McClanahan. R.J. (1980) Why has integrated control practice levelled <strong>of</strong>f in <strong>Canada</strong>" Bulletin SROP 19801111, 141-144.<br />

Stenseth, C. (1979a) Effect <strong>of</strong> fungicides and insecticides on a resistant strain <strong>of</strong> Phytostiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acarina:<br />

Phytoseiidae). Forskning og Forsok i Landbruket 30,77-83.<br />

Stenseth, C. (1979b) Effeet <strong>of</strong> temperature and humidity on Ihe development <strong>of</strong> Phytoseiulus persimilis and its ability to regulate populations<br />

<strong>of</strong> Tetranychus urtkae (Acarina: Phyloseiidae, Telranychidae). Entomophaga 24, 311-318.<br />

Storozhkov, Yu.V.; Kaznacheeva, V.P. (1980) Rearing <strong>of</strong> Phytoseiu/us in hydroponic greenhouses. Zoshchita Rostenii 2,34 (in Russian).


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 23<br />

Thymelicus lineola (Ochsenheimer),<br />

European Skipper (Lepidoptera:<br />

Hesperiidae)<br />

J.N. McNEIL<br />

In the last review dealing with the European skipper. Thymelicus lineola (Ochs.), Arthur<br />

(1971) reported that the distribution <strong>of</strong> this insect in <strong>Canada</strong> was limited to Ontario,<br />

Quebec. New Brunswick. and Nova Scotia in the east. with one localized population at<br />

Terrace, British Columbia. At that time economic losses caused by T. Iilleola had been<br />

recorded in Grey and Hastings Counties. Ontario. The distribution <strong>of</strong> the skipper has<br />

increased considerably and is now found in Prince Edward Island (Thompson 1974).<br />

Newfoundland (Jackson 1978). and in Manitoba (Preston & Westwood 1981). Also the<br />

population in British Columbia has now spread into the Lake Shuswap area (J. Proctor.<br />

1982. personal communication).<br />

Important hay losses have been recorded in Ontario (K. Bereza & W. Riley, 1978,<br />

personal communication. Quebec (McNeil et al. 1975), and Prince Edward Island<br />

(Thompson 1977). establishing it as a major pest species <strong>of</strong>timothy in the more northerly<br />

areas <strong>of</strong> its distribution. While the skipper is present throughout most northeastern<br />

states (Arthur 1971) the only incidence where T. lineola has reached pest status occurred<br />

in northern Michigan (R.F. Ruppel, 1977. personal communication).<br />

Bacillus thurillgiellSis Berliner. has proven effective in controlling larval skipper populations<br />

(Arthur & Angus 1965. Arthur 1968. McNeil et al. 1977) and is now recommended<br />

by the Conseil des productions vegetales du Quebec (1 x 10 10 I.U./ha) if control measures<br />

are required. It not only <strong>of</strong>fers satisfactory foliage protection when compared with chemical<br />

insecticides (Thompson 1977. Letendre & McNeil 1980), but also reduces the possible<br />

impact on non-target species, such as bees.<br />

The discovery <strong>of</strong> a nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) affecting a high percentage <strong>of</strong> larval<br />

populations around Normandin. Quebec (Smim<strong>of</strong>f 1974) stimulated research to evaluate its<br />

potential as a biological control agent for T. lineola. Smim<strong>of</strong>f et al. (1976) and Duchesne<br />

(1980) demonstrated the efficacy <strong>of</strong> this virus. however its action is much slower than B.<br />

thurillgiellSis. Following an aerial application <strong>of</strong> B. thllringiellSis 1 x 10 10 I.U. at 18.71<br />

l/ha. infected larvae were observed within 2 days and 100% mortality was obtained in 6<br />

days (Fig. 2a). Defoliation levels at the time <strong>of</strong> harvest were 20%. the same a'i pre-treatment<br />

levels. while in the controls defoliation averaged 90%. By comparison an aerial application<br />

<strong>of</strong> the NPV. 5 x 10 6 polyhedra/ml at 18.71 l/ha. gave the same mortality but required<br />

considerably more time (Fig. 2b). Also defoliation at harvest was 50%, and while being<br />

lower than the 100% in the controls, was significantly higher than the pre-treatment level <strong>of</strong><br />

20%. Thus the virus has less potential than B. thllrillgiensis as a curative means <strong>of</strong> control,<br />

but could be introduced as a preventative measure if populations are beginning to increase<br />

but have not reached very high larval densities. This would be advantageous as the virus<br />

persists in the population and has an effect over several years (Duchesne 1980). While few<br />

other pathogens have been found infecting skipper larvae in Quebec. two entomopathogenic<br />

fungi ZoophtJlOra radicans and Entomophthora egressa have been isolated from larvae<br />

collected at Amqui in 1977 and 1978 (McNeil & MacLeod 1982).<br />

79


Imported Parasitoids<br />

Thyme/iells /it/('o/a (Ochsenheimer), 81<br />

Sixteen species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids have been reared from skipper populations in Quebec<br />

since 1972 and only 3 species are common to the 22 species found in Ontario (Arthur<br />

1962). As reported for Ontario total parasitism levels are very low and the only parasitoid<br />

recovered consistently in any numbers is Itoplectis cotlquisitor (Say). Based on<br />

observations over the last 7 years the importance <strong>of</strong> indigenous parasitoids in the<br />

population dynamics <strong>of</strong> T. lin eo/a would have to be considered as negligible. While the<br />

diversity <strong>of</strong> parasitoid species was lower in Europe, Carl (1968) reported high levels <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitism and felt that the principal larval parasitoids Pllryxe vulgaris Fall. and Rogas<br />

tristis Westm., as well as the major pupal parasitoid Syspasis (=Slenichneumon)<br />

scutellator (Grav.) would be suitable candidates for introduction into <strong>Canada</strong>. He<br />

believed that S. scutellator would be the most promising due to the fact that it was well<br />

synchronised with the skipper and, as it is univoltine, would not require alternate hosts<br />

as do the larval parasitoids.<br />

Specimens <strong>of</strong> P. vulgaris have been received regularly from Europe since 1972 (Table<br />

13), but unfortunately shipments usually arrived when local skipper populations had<br />

already pupated. Thus efforts were made to maintain laboratory cultures using Arlogeia<br />

rapae (L.) larvae as an alternate host. Female parasitoids readily oviposted and parasitoid<br />

larvae developed successfully, however difficulties in maintaining healthy host<br />

colonies inhibited successful mass rearing <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid. In 1974, adults arrived soon<br />

enough to be released directly in the field at Normandin (Table 14), but no P. vulgaris<br />

have been recovered in the area. Releases <strong>of</strong> adults and parasitized A. rapae larvae were<br />

made at Rawdon in 1974 and 1975 (Table 14), but were too late to coincide with the<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> skipper larvae. However cabbages were quite widely cultivated around the<br />

release site and an abundance <strong>of</strong> imported cabbageworm larvae were available as<br />

alternate hosts. In subsequent sampling no skipper larvae parasitized by P. vulgaris were<br />

recovered. It is <strong>of</strong> interest to note that P. vulgaris is an indigenous species and has been<br />

reared from A. rapae in Ontario (Harcourt 1966), yet has never been reported attacking<br />

T. lineola in either Ontario or Quebec. Carl (1968) suggested that different geographic<br />

races <strong>of</strong> P. vulgaris, with restricted host ranges may exist, which would explain this<br />

situation.<br />

Shipments <strong>of</strong> S. scutellator have been received from Delemont since 1974 and as seen<br />

in Tables 13 and 14, numbers were rather low in 1974 and 1975 but increased subsequently.<br />

In an effort to increase the numbers collected, Dr Carl treated fifth-instar skipper larvae<br />

with fluorescent powder and released them at the collection site at Plancher-Bas. It was<br />

felt that as the last larval skin remains attached to the pupae individuals could be easily<br />

located using a black light. While the recovery <strong>of</strong> marked individuals was poor, it was<br />

observed that skipper pupae that had been parasitized were more readily located with a<br />

black light than unparasitized ones, even without marking. Using this technique, night<br />

time collections yielded higher numbers than in previous years. Adults held under<br />

laboratory conditions throughout the winter (Table 13) were kept at 2 ± 1°C in plastic<br />

boxes containing leaf litter and peat moss. Males died rapidly and although females lived<br />

much longer only one survived until spring but died before T. lineola pupae were<br />

available. From 1977 all adults not used in open releases were held on arrival in an<br />

insectary and supplied with a 10% sugar solution as well as water. By mid-September all<br />

males and some females had died. At this time all surviving females were placed in large<br />

field cages containing logs, hay bales, and leaf litter. In 1977-78 there were no survivors<br />

while in 1978-79 we recovered 5 <strong>of</strong> the 200 females in mid-June. These were fed and<br />

held in the insectary until skipper pupae were available. One female stung the first pupa<br />

that she encountered, remaining 45 minutes with her ovipositor in the host and upon<br />

withdrawal, died. The stung pupa was held but no parasitoid emerged. The other 4<br />

females however, showed no interest in skipper pupae. New hosts were provided each<br />

day until the parasitoids died. All exposed pupae were held but only T. lineola adults<br />

emerged. In 1979 the holding cages were destroyed during a storm and most parasitoids


Blank Page<br />

84


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 24<br />

Tipula paludosa Meigen, European<br />

Cranefly (Diptera: Tipulidae)<br />

A.T.S. WILKINSON<br />

The early history <strong>of</strong> the European crane fly, Tipula paludosa Meigen, in <strong>Canada</strong> has<br />

been recorded already (Fox 1957. Wilkinson & MacCarthy 1967. Wilkinson 1971). In<br />

Nova Scotia, this pest peaked about 1965 (Creelman 1971) but had declined to a low level<br />

by 1971. High populations <strong>of</strong> the larvae (Ieatherjackets) damaged golf courses and lawns<br />

around St. John's, Newfoundland until 1970 (Creelman 1969, 1970). In the lower Fraser<br />

Valley <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, it has spread as far east as Hope. On Vancouver Island, it<br />

was found near Duncan and Victoria in 1972 and caused damage to golf courses and<br />

lawns in Victoria in 1976. It damaged lawns in Nanaimo in 1978 and in Alberni in 1979. In<br />

1980. it damaged lawns and a golf course in Prince Rupert (Fig. 3). Populations were<br />

highest when the pest was first found in 1965, but as the infestation was spread by gravid<br />

females from the introduction sites near Vancouver into the lower Fraser Valley and<br />

south into Washington State, populations declined, damage became less, and chemical<br />

controls became unnecessary. When new isolated infestations such as those on Vancouver<br />

Island and at Prince Rupert occur, they behave like those near Vancouver did<br />

and require control measures, at least in the first few years. The spread south in<br />

Washington was recorded by Jackson & Campbell in 1975, when crane flies had been<br />

found 180 km south <strong>of</strong> the British Columbia-Washington border.<br />

No indigenous parasitoids have been found in larvae <strong>of</strong> T. paludosa but many predaceous<br />

ground beetles and birds have been observed feeding on them. The starling<br />

continues to be the best predator <strong>of</strong> both the larvae and adults. Many birds feed on the<br />

adults.<br />

One disease, or combinations <strong>of</strong> the many diseases found in the larvae, may have been<br />

responsible for reducing populations and keeping them below the economic level, but<br />

this has not been proven. The following diseases have been identified in T. paludosa<br />

larvae from the Vancouver area by Dr. P.L. Sherlock, Rothamsted Experimental<br />

Station, Harpenden, Herts., England: Gregarina longa Leger, Hirmocystis venlricosa<br />

(Leger) Labbe, AClinocephaius lipuiae (Hammerschmidt) Leger, DiplocySlis sp. and<br />

Nosema binucleatum Weissenberg. All except N. binucleatum were also found in<br />

larvae from Newfoundland. In British Columbia, up to 50% <strong>of</strong> the larvae examined<br />

harbour all protozoans mentioned.<br />

The literature indicated that the parasitoid Siphona geniculata De Geer was considered<br />

the primary control agent <strong>of</strong> T. paludosa. In England, Rennie & Sutherland (1920)<br />

recorded 21.3% and IS.9% parastism for 2 consecutive years for the first generation and<br />

27.7% parasitism for the second generation. The latter was based on a low host population.<br />

Parasitism by S. geniciliala in other parts <strong>of</strong> Europe was not as high as that reported by<br />

Rennie & Sutherland. The Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control was retained<br />

by Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>, Research Branch, in 1967 to study natural controls in Germany<br />

where T. paludosa occasionally causes damage in pastures. Populations <strong>of</strong> T. paludosa<br />

examined for parasitoids in 3 sites in Germany by Carl (1972) showed parasitism <strong>of</strong> 15.5,<br />

O.S, and 6.0% for the first generation and 4.9, 4.5, and 4.0% for the second generation. S.<br />

genicuiala has been recorded in Europe from Mamestra brassicae (L.), T. oleracea L., T.<br />

85


Releases and Recoveries<br />

Tipilia pailldosa Mcigen. 87<br />

fllivipennis De Geer. T. viltala Meigen. T. sllbnodicornis Zetterstedt. T. monlillm Egger.<br />

and T.maxima Poda (Rennie & Sutherland 1920. Chiswell 1956, Coulson 1962, Alma<br />

1975) as well as from T. pailldosa. It has been reared from only T. pailldosa in British<br />

Columbia.<br />

A phorid, Megaselia pailldosa (Wood), was found in T. pa/udosa by Coggins (1970) and<br />

by Carl (1972). It is rare in Europe and requires damp conditions.<br />

Many insecticides tested for the control <strong>of</strong> leatherjackets were effective. but only<br />

diazinon. chlorfenvinphos, and parathion were registered. Diazinon is used primarily on<br />

home and public lawns and the other two are used on pastures. Except in the more recent<br />

infestations at Nanaimo, Pon Alberni, Prince Rupen, and Victoria. there is very little<br />

need for chemical control. If these infestations follow the pattern <strong>of</strong> those in the lower<br />

Fraser Valley. populations will decline and chemical controls will no longer be needed.<br />

The B-exotoxin <strong>of</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner and the DD-136 nematode <strong>of</strong><br />

Neoplectana carpocapsae Weiser were investigated by Lam & Webster (1972) as possible<br />

controls for T. pailldosa. Both B-exotoxin and DD-136 were successful in killing<br />

leatherjackets in the laboratory, but the experimental evidence suggests that the heavy<br />

application required to achieve high mortality would not be practical for control <strong>of</strong> T.<br />

paludosa in the field.<br />

Carter (1973a. 1973b) showed that Tipula iridescent virus (TIV) can be transmitted<br />

when healthy larvae feed on a TIV-infected larva. Field trials by Caner (1978) showed<br />

that TIV can be introduced into field populations <strong>of</strong> T. paludosa but with low efficiency.<br />

In 1968. 331 adult S. geniculata were received from the Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong><br />

Biological Control (CIBC). Switzerland. from which 565 adults were reared and released<br />

near Cloverdale. British Columbia. Between 1971 and 1975 an additional 7000 S.<br />

geniculata received from the CIBC or reared at the Vancouver Research Station were<br />

released in the lower Fraser Valley. A technique for breeding S. geniculata was developed<br />

by Carl (1972). Leatherjackets were inoculated with larvae dissected from fieldcollected<br />

or laboratory-reared gravid females <strong>of</strong> S. geniculata. The first recovery was in<br />

1972 when 4 flies were reared from puparia attached to a leatherjacket cadaver. Counts<br />

<strong>of</strong> leatherjackets and parasitism were taken from January to August at Cloverdale from<br />

1974 to 1977 and at Ladner from 1975 to 1979. Parasitism was never very high. At<br />

Cloverdale. the highest parasitism recorded for the first generation (December to<br />

March) was 4.3% with an average <strong>of</strong> 1.6%, and for the second generation (June and July)<br />

the highest parasitism recorded was 5.1 % in 1974 and for the 4 years parasitism averaged<br />

2.4%. At Ladner during 5 years the highest parasitism was 3.3% for the winter generation<br />

with an average <strong>of</strong>2.3%. and for the second generation the highest parasitism recorded was<br />

6% with an average <strong>of</strong> 2.8%. As in Europe. the percent parasitism determined for the<br />

second generation was based on low numbers <strong>of</strong> the host because <strong>of</strong> the marked<br />

decrease in the larval population late in the season.<br />

In 1973. 100 S. geniculata adults were air expressed to Newfoundland; 79 survived<br />

and were released. In 1974. 600 were sent and released. None has yet been recovered.<br />

Megaselia pa/udosa was found in some <strong>of</strong> the leatherjackets received at the Vancouver<br />

laboratory from CIBC. Switzerland. It was reared for several generations but the<br />

colony died and the parasitoid was never released.<br />

Tipll/a iridescent virus-infected larvae were released near Ladner in 1975 but the virus<br />

has not been found in any larvae examined from this area.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 25<br />

Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood),<br />

Greenhouse Whitefly (Homoptera:<br />

Aleyrodidae)<br />

R.J. McCLANAHAN<br />

The greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood), can be a problem<br />

wherever greenhouse vegetable and flower crops are grown. In major greenhouse areas<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>, the damage has been alleviated considerably by extensive use <strong>of</strong> the<br />

parasitoid Encarsia formosa Gahan. When whiteflies are not controlled they cause<br />

reduction in plant vigour, formation <strong>of</strong> sooty mould on leaves and fruit, and reduced<br />

yield. Insecticide sprays, particularly the synthetic pyrethroids, are effective against the<br />

adults but repeated applications are required to keep the population at sub-economic<br />

levels.<br />

Much <strong>of</strong> the increased acreage under plastic and glass in the 1970s has been used for<br />

flower crops and bedding plants. These products may be infested with whitefly when<br />

they leave the greenhouse, in which case they have a lower value as well as serving to<br />

spread whitefly into new areas. Greenhouse whiteflies are also a problem in small hobby<br />

greenhouses or solar rooms <strong>of</strong> houses in which plants are grown. Biological control is<br />

the best means <strong>of</strong> combatting the pest in these situations.<br />

A research project on control <strong>of</strong> whiteflies was conducted at the Harrow Research<br />

Station from 1966 to 1974. An integrated control schedule was devised in which E.<br />

formosa were released, then sprays <strong>of</strong> oxythioquinox were applied to keep whiteflies<br />

under control until the parasitoids were established (McClanahan 1970, 1972). The<br />

withdrawal <strong>of</strong> oxythioquinox in 1974 shifted the emphasis to biological control alone. By<br />

this time mass rearing was well established and sufficient parasitoids were available to<br />

provide good whitefly control on greenhouse tomatoes and cucumbers (McClanahan<br />

1973).<br />

In Europe, renewed interest in biological control <strong>of</strong> whiteflies was generated by a<br />

need for control methods compatible with the use <strong>of</strong> Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias­<br />

Henriot for twospotted mite control. Extensive research was conducted in England and<br />

Holland on the interaction between E. formosa and whiteflies. A good review <strong>of</strong> this<br />

European research was given by Vet et al. (1980). Although there has been interest<br />

expressed in finding a whitefly parasitoid more effective than E. formosa at low<br />

temperatures, none has been found to date.<br />

The greenhouse whitefly was introduced to Japan about 1974 and within 4 years it<br />

became an important pest <strong>of</strong> greenhouse crops. A number <strong>of</strong> native parasitoids were<br />

found, not including E. formosa (Nakazawa & Hayashi 1977). Biological control is being<br />

considered in Japan.<br />

89


90 R. J. McClanahan<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Table 15<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

The use <strong>of</strong> E. fonnosa for whitefly control is so extensive that it is difficult to estimate<br />

the numbers released (Table 15). In the early 19705 production and distribution were<br />

handled by the Harrow Research Station. Parasitized whiteflies on tobacco leaves were<br />

packaged in lots estimated to contain 2, 5, or 10 thousand.<br />

A number <strong>of</strong> small businesses have been involved in E. fonnosa production and sales.<br />

Greenhouse Bio-Controls (1972-77) mainly supplied hobby greenhouse owners, with<br />

most sales to points in the United States. In 1973 and 1974 Greenhouse Bio-Controls<br />

supplied some <strong>of</strong> the needs <strong>of</strong> the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Producers' Marketing<br />

Board (OGVPMB) members, with 650000 and 947 000 parasitoids sold to the Board and<br />

distributed by them. This accounts for the increased Canadian distribution from this<br />

source in those years. In 1974-75, OGVPMB contracted E. formosa production to a<br />

grower, but that was not as successful as a subsequent arrangement whereby they<br />

provided partial salary for a technician supervised by Ontario Ministry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture<br />

and Food, with the rearing done in an isolated greenhouse at the Harrow Research<br />

Station.<br />

Releases <strong>of</strong> Encarsia formosa Gahan in <strong>Canada</strong> against Trialeurodes vaporariorum<br />

(Westwood).<br />

Source Numbers released- (thousands)<br />

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980<br />

Harrow Research Station 10 150 943 3133 2148 1485 1157 6 IS 12 19<br />

Greenhouse BiD-Controls 14 886 1028 47 41 81<br />

OGVPMB" 500 750 2065 2160 lOSS 1265 550<br />

Beller Yield Insects 2S 40<br />

Applied Bio-Nomics 450 1750 588<br />

* Parasitized whitefly pupae from which there is 90-98% emergence <strong>of</strong> adult parasitoids.<br />

** Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Producers' Marketing Board.<br />

In 1979 a similar arrangement was set up in British Columbia so growers there and in<br />

Alberta are supplied with E. formosa from Applied Bio-Nomics Ltd. The rearing<br />

facilities were supplied by Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> and technical support was given by the<br />

British Columbia Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture.<br />

Better Yield Insects was recently established in Ontario to produce and sell E.<br />

fonnosa and other biological control agents_ This source serves mainly hobby greenhouse<br />

owners in the United States, but plans were made to supply greenhouse vegetable<br />

growers in Ontario through OGVPMB, in 1981.<br />

Most releases have resulted in establishment, as judged by the very few failures<br />

reported. There have been cases where parasitoids were eliminated by an insecticide<br />

application, but with just one spray they have survived in the pupal stage and continued<br />

to multiply on the surviving whiteflies.<br />

The overall incidence <strong>of</strong> whitefly in Essex County has been reduced to the point where it<br />

is no longer a limiting factor in greenhouse tomato and cucumber production, and it is<br />

seldom a problem on field vegetables. E. formosa are easily found outdoors every<br />

summer.


Blank Page<br />

92


PART II<br />

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF<br />

WEEDS IN CANADA<br />

1969-80


Blank Page<br />

94


Success <strong>of</strong> the Programme<br />

Chapter 26<br />

Current Approaches to Biological Control<br />

<strong>of</strong> Weeds<br />

P. HARRIS<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 30 agents has been released against 14 weed species in <strong>Canada</strong>. A third <strong>of</strong><br />

the agents have failed to become established, a third are established but inflict<br />

relatively minor damage to the weed, and a third inflict major damage. This gives a<br />

crude measure <strong>of</strong> the success <strong>of</strong> the programme, but it is not adequate to determine<br />

whether investment in biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds is justified in economic terms. The<br />

opportunity is taken in this chapter to discuss this and other current issues.<br />

The success <strong>of</strong> any pest control programme depends on a combination <strong>of</strong> its<br />

effectiveness and its cost. In biological control both <strong>of</strong> these vary greatly with the<br />

agent selected. It is easiest to predict the cost <strong>of</strong> an agent; so other things equal, the<br />

least expensive agent is the best one. Indeed, van Lenteren (1980) suggested that there<br />

are too many variables and unknowns to enable an effective agent to be selected on a<br />

scientific basis. Scientific or not, there are rules <strong>of</strong> thumb for increasing the chances <strong>of</strong><br />

success: matching the climate <strong>of</strong> the collection and release area (Wapshere 1980),<br />

collecting from the host plant species or strain on which the agent is to be released, and<br />

Harris (1973) suggested a number <strong>of</strong> desirable agent characteristics. These approaches<br />

can now be tested and modified against the record in Julien's (1982) world catalogue <strong>of</strong><br />

releases. The procedures that work in practice can then be followed, even if the<br />

reasons for success are not understood.<br />

Biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds, in common with government sponsored chemical weed<br />

control programmes such as those against leafy spurge and knapweed in <strong>Canada</strong>, has<br />

been derelict in not evaluating the benefits <strong>of</strong> the programme in economic terms.<br />

Without economic cost:benefit data it is difficult to determine whether a particular<br />

strategy against a weed makes economic sense or it is being pursued for political,<br />

philosophical, or historical reasons. Several chapters in this section represent initial<br />

evaluation <strong>of</strong> the prospective cost:benefits <strong>of</strong> biological control <strong>of</strong> possible target<br />

weeds. Hopefully, this is a step towards substantiating the intuition that biological<br />

control is economically superior to any other method <strong>of</strong> control for certain types <strong>of</strong><br />

weed problems.<br />

The usual practice in biological control is to rate individual agents as failures, partial<br />

or complete successes depending on their impact on the density <strong>of</strong> the host (see Laing<br />

& Hamai 1976). This is neat, but a problem, because it is sometimes the combined<br />

cropping pressure <strong>of</strong> several agents on a weed that achieves its density reduction; also<br />

the effects on weed density are <strong>of</strong>ten delayed by the seed accumulated in the soil so<br />

that the project cannot be rated until several years after the agent has achieved its<br />

maximum effect. I suggest that it is more useful to rate biological control agents <strong>of</strong><br />

weeds in terms <strong>of</strong> the proportion <strong>of</strong> the annual production removed or destroyed. The<br />

agents are similar in effect to cows in a pasture: if consumption is below a certain level,<br />

future yield is not reduced. Thus the good farmer restrains utilization <strong>of</strong> grasses to<br />

40-60% <strong>of</strong> annual production depending on the species and area. The good biological<br />

control worker, on the other hand, must try to exceed the threshold for the target weed<br />

(which might be determined by clipping tests). Most forbs are less tolerant than grasses<br />

to utilization (Jameson 1963), but many shrubs will tolerate browsing up to 75% <strong>of</strong><br />

95


96 P. Harris<br />

Table 16<br />

annual production (Ellison 1960). If the threshold <strong>of</strong> a target weed is assumed to be<br />

50% <strong>of</strong> annual production. it will not be controlled by an agent that removes 30% <strong>of</strong><br />

production. Nevertheless the addition <strong>of</strong> new defoliators, seed or root feeders, will<br />

normally increase the total amount <strong>of</strong> the weed consumed. Thus the practice is to add<br />

agent species until the threshold is exceeded. For this reason I consider any agent that<br />

has become numerous enough to remove a substantial proportion <strong>of</strong> annual production<br />

as a success. I would prefer to rate them by the actual amount removed but do not<br />

have the data for all the species established in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

The successes <strong>of</strong> the Canadian programme are listed in Table 16. Several <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Agents removing a substantial proportion <strong>of</strong> the annual production <strong>of</strong> the target weed in<br />

one or more regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Target Weed<br />

Carduus nutans L.<br />

Centaurea diffusa Lam.<br />

e. maculosa Lam.<br />

Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten.<br />

Euphorbia cyparissias L.<br />

Hypericum per/oratum L.<br />

Senecio jacobaea L.<br />

Agent<br />

Rhinocyllus conicus Froel.<br />

Urophora affinis Frfld.<br />

U. quadri/asciata (Mg.)<br />

Urophora sty lata L.<br />

Hyles euphorbiae (L.)*<br />

Anaitis plagiala (L.)<br />

Chrysolina hyperici (Forst.)<br />

C. quadrigemina (Suffr.)<br />

Tyria jacobaeae L.<br />

Longitarsus jacobaeae (Wat.)<br />

• The inclusion <strong>of</strong> this insect is possibly an optimistic estimate <strong>of</strong> its effect.<br />

Country<br />

Screening Agent<br />

<strong>Canada</strong><br />

<strong>Canada</strong><br />

<strong>Canada</strong><br />

<strong>Canada</strong><br />

<strong>Canada</strong><br />

<strong>Canada</strong><br />

Australia<br />

Australia<br />

New Zealand<br />

United States<br />

agents have in fact achieved density reductions <strong>of</strong> the target weed that have solved<br />

some <strong>of</strong> the problems from it. For example, the seedhead weevil, Rhillocyllus conicus<br />

FroeI., has reduced the density <strong>of</strong> Carduus nutans L. sufficiently on Saskatchewan<br />

rangeland that it does not threaten the cattle stocking rate. On the other hand, the<br />

thistle remains numerous on disturbed sites such as gravel pits, and even at low<br />

densities can be a nuisance in parks and around beaches. Similarly Hypericum<br />

perforatum L. presently has little effect on the stocking rate <strong>of</strong> British Columbia<br />

rangeland: the dense stands at Elko, British Columbia, are not <strong>of</strong> concern for cattle<br />

production as stocking is kept low to retain the area as a wildlife overwintering refuge.<br />

The weed, however, is still perceived to be a problem by the ranchers, possibly<br />

because they fear its spread.<br />

The initial work on four <strong>of</strong> the successful agents (Table 16) was done by other<br />

countries. Insects successful in Australia or California, such as Chrysolina quadrigemina<br />

(Suffr.), have tended to be successful in <strong>Canada</strong> despite differences in climate and the<br />

converse is true <strong>of</strong> Canadian pioneered species such as R. conicus. Indeed, the most<br />

effective and widely employed technique for selection <strong>of</strong> an effective agent is to choose a<br />

proven winner. Such agents are also inexpensive as most <strong>of</strong> the pre-release studies<br />

required by <strong>Canada</strong> have been done. Stock for the Chrysolina spp. established in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> was obtained from California following success there. It would almost certainly<br />

have achieved an impact on the weed in <strong>Canada</strong> sooner if the releases had been made<br />

with climatically pre-adapted stock; but there is a trade-<strong>of</strong>f between speed <strong>of</strong> success<br />

and cost. In North America, savings can be achieved on weeds common to both <strong>Canada</strong>


Table 17<br />

Current approaches to biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds 97<br />

and the United States by demonstrating the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the agent in one country and<br />

only distributing those that are successful.<br />

There are 11 agent species established in <strong>Canada</strong> that are not removing a substantial<br />

proportion <strong>of</strong> the host plant production (Table 17). The reasons for their failure to<br />

increase to a high population density vary. Some were released so recently that there has<br />

not been time. Sphenoptera jugosfavica Zell. which was released in 1977 has increased<br />

to a high density within 0.25 km <strong>of</strong> the release point but is still too restricted in<br />

distribution to be included in Table 16. Other species may require a period <strong>of</strong> climatic<br />

adaption through selection. Studies on the successful agents Tyria jacobaeae L., Hyles<br />

euphorbiae (L.), and Chrysolina quudrigemina indicated that a period <strong>of</strong> 2-13 generations<br />

<strong>of</strong> natural selection was required to produce a population adapted to the release<br />

area. Thus several <strong>of</strong> the insects in Table 17 are possible successes.<br />

Agents established in <strong>Canada</strong> but not removing a substantial proportion <strong>of</strong> annual<br />

production <strong>of</strong> target weed.<br />

Target Weed<br />

Carduus nutans L.<br />

Centaurea diffusa Lam.<br />

C. maculosa Lam.<br />

Acroptilon repens (L.)<br />

Cirsium arvense Scop.<br />

Euphorbia esula-virgata<br />

complex<br />

Hypericum perforatum L.<br />

Linaria vulgaris Mill.<br />

Sonchus arvensis L.<br />

Carduus acanthoides L.<br />

Agent<br />

Trichosirocalus ho"idus Panz.<br />

Sphenoptera jugoslavica Zell.<br />

Metzneria paucipunctella Zell.<br />

Paranguina picridis Kirj. & Ivan.<br />

Ceutorhynchus litura F.<br />

Urophora cardui (L.)<br />

Oberea erythrocephala Schr.<br />

Aphis chloris (Koch)<br />

Calophasia lunula (Hufn.)<br />

Cystiphora sonchi (Bremi)<br />

Rhinocyllus conicus Froel.<br />

Year Established<br />

1978<br />

1977<br />

1974<br />

1977<br />

1968<br />

1976<br />

1981<br />

1981<br />

1966<br />

1982<br />

The failure <strong>of</strong> R. conicus to attack a high proportion <strong>of</strong> Carduus acanthoides L. flower<br />

heads seems to be related to a poor adaptation to this thistle. The weevil was a success<br />

on C. nutans in <strong>Canada</strong>, the host plant from which it was collected in Europe. The<br />

association <strong>of</strong> both specialized insects and pathogens with a host plant is an extremely<br />

stable relationship. The completion <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> generations on a marginal host<br />

normally does not improve survival unless the genetic potential to overcome host<br />

resistance already exists in the agent population. There are host races <strong>of</strong> R. conicllS on a<br />

number <strong>of</strong> European thistles (Zw6lfer & Preiss 1983); but it is uncommon on C.<br />

acanthoides and was not found in the samples examined by Zw6\fer (1965). Thus the C.<br />

nutans strain <strong>of</strong> R. conicus is likely to remain marginal on C. acanthoides as the species<br />

does not have the genetic potential to exploit it successfully.<br />

Two <strong>of</strong> the 12 failures listed in Table 18 have been established in <strong>Canada</strong> on the plant<br />

from which they were collected in Europe. Thus only ten or a third <strong>of</strong> the agents have<br />

failed to become established at all. This compares with a failure rate <strong>of</strong> about two thirds


Number <strong>of</strong> Phytophages and Weed Control<br />

Current approaches to biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds 99<br />

depressed by overgrazing or disturbance. Canadian examples are H. perfora/um,<br />

Centaurea diffusa Lam., C. maculosa Lam. in the grasslands <strong>of</strong> the interior <strong>of</strong> British<br />

Columbia; Carduus nlllans in the mid-grass prairie <strong>of</strong> Saskatchewan; Euphorbia esulavirgala<br />

complex in Manitoba; and E. cyparissias L. on limestone soils in<br />

Ontario, North American plants such as Solidago gigantea Ait, behave similarly in<br />

parts <strong>of</strong> Europe. These plants do not form extensive monocultures in their native region<br />

where they are cropped by phytophages. For example, E. cyparissias normally forms<br />

only a small portion <strong>of</strong> the herbaceous community on limestone soils in Europe compared<br />

to 25-50% at Braeside, Ontario. The introduction <strong>of</strong> phytophages against H.<br />

perforalum in British Columbia and Ontario reduced it to a small percentage <strong>of</strong> its<br />

former abundance at most sites, and C. nlllans has been reduced to less than 10% on<br />

Saskatchewan rangeland. In part, the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> a control agent depends on the<br />

level <strong>of</strong> competition from other plants (Harris 1981a) which is normally greatest in<br />

uncultivated habitats and least in disturbed sites.<br />

Specialized phytophages and their hosts normally have a mutual density dependence.<br />

Thus cropping pressure is high when the plant is abundant and low when it is scarce and<br />

vice versa for the mortality <strong>of</strong> the phytophage. The result is that neither becomes<br />

exterminated. A Canadian biological control example is the cinnabar moth, Tyria<br />

jacobaeae, on Senecio jacobaea L. in British Columbia in which the moth has<br />

tracked the density <strong>of</strong> its host (Lakhani & Dempster 1981). Similarly Ralph (1977) found<br />

that the highest densities <strong>of</strong> milkweed (Asclepias syriaca L.) supported the highest<br />

densities <strong>of</strong> Oncopellus fasciatus (Dall.), and that below a certain density that plant<br />

escaped attack. This has been called 'escape in space' by Feeney (1976).<br />

To summarize, classical biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds is most appropriate in terms <strong>of</strong> its<br />

impact and its effects against introduced weed species that dominate large areas <strong>of</strong> range<br />

or other uncultivated land.<br />

Cropping pressure on a weed can be increased by establishing several phytophage<br />

species on it (Harris 1981a). Even two closely competing seed head flies on C. diffusa<br />

reduced seed production more when together than either did alone (Myers & Harris<br />

1980). Internationally, introductions have tended to continue over a period <strong>of</strong> years until<br />

an average <strong>of</strong> four species has been established on the weed (Harris 1979). This process<br />

<strong>of</strong> adding agents can only go so far as there is a species area-asymptote: the number <strong>of</strong><br />

phytophagous insects and pathogens cropping a plant species varies with the log <strong>of</strong> its<br />

abundance (Lawton & Schroeder 1977, Strong & Levins 1979). That is to say the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> phytophages that can be supported by a plant species doubles for every<br />

tenfold increase in its abundance. In southern Britain five continental species <strong>of</strong> Heteroptera<br />

have become established on pine following large plantings. The pines displaced<br />

juniper and as a result one juniper-feeding Heteroptera, which formerly existed in<br />

sizeable colonies, has become extinct (Southwood 1957). Simberl<strong>of</strong>f (1978) achieved<br />

similar results experimentally by altering the size <strong>of</strong> mangrove islands. In some plants an<br />

expansion <strong>of</strong> range is matched by an increase in the species consuming it. The recruits<br />

are derived from other plants in the new range or from the host in the native habitat. This<br />

occurred within 50 years on cacao (Strong 1974). With other introduced plants such as E.<br />

cyparissias in North America, there has been negligible recruitment <strong>of</strong> insect consumers<br />

even after a hundred years. Presumably most native insects are unable to overcome the<br />

physical and chemical defenses <strong>of</strong> the plant and the infestations are too remote for<br />

specialized insects to reach them from Europe.


100 P. Harris<br />

The number <strong>of</strong> niches available to insect species is partly a function <strong>of</strong> the plant<br />

architecture, so a species native to several parts <strong>of</strong> the world tends to support similar<br />

numbers <strong>of</strong> leaf chewers, stem borers, and insects in other guilds throughout its range,<br />

even though the insects may be in different taxonomic orders (Lawton 1978). The niches<br />

can be regarded as sites at which the nutrient pool in the plant can be tapped. The pool<br />

normally cannot be drained through anyone tap but they all lower its level. This implies<br />

competition between agents in different niches. For example, Moran & Southwood<br />

(1982) found that there was interaction between chewers and sap suckers on the tree<br />

species studied.<br />

The best targets for classical biological control are introduced plants on which the<br />

consumer pressure is below that found in the native region. It should be possible to raise<br />

consumption to at least the native region level although the number <strong>of</strong> phytophages that<br />

can be established will be lower as their density will not be depressed by specialized<br />

parasites. Probably each agent established on a weed increases the difficulty <strong>of</strong> establishing<br />

additional species so those with the most potential should be introduced first.<br />

It is unlikely that native weeds can be controlled by classical biological control unless<br />

their abundance has increased. This has occurred with ragweed, Ambrosia artemis;;folia<br />

L. (Harris & Piper 1970). If the phytophage-ragweed area asymptote is below that<br />

<strong>of</strong> ragweeds that have not increased since European settlement, it should be possible to<br />

establish additional agents from South America; however the increased consumer<br />

pressure on the weed may not reduce allergenic hay-fever since the symptoms in man<br />

are relatively dose independent. Usually the best hope for the biological control <strong>of</strong> a<br />

native weed is the periodic application <strong>of</strong> an agent (probably a native pathogen) to keep it<br />

at an artificially high level. This is called augmentative biological control and is discussed<br />

under the heading 'The Future'. Hall et al. (1980) found no significant difference in<br />

the success <strong>of</strong> biological control against native and exotic insect pests, but whether the<br />

native pests had increased in adundance with modem agriculture was not considered.<br />

Demonstration that Candidate Agents are not a Threat to Desirable Plants<br />

The use <strong>of</strong> a plant species as a host by a phytophage depends on its suitability as a<br />

nutrient source and as a place to live, the opportunity <strong>of</strong> reaching the plant, and the<br />

survival advantage <strong>of</strong> using it (Harris 1981b). If one <strong>of</strong> these requirements is<br />

unfavourable, the agent will not reach high levels on it. The strategy is to show that the<br />

organism cannot develop on any plant outside a taxonomic group that does not contain<br />

desirable species (Harris & Zwolfer 1968, Zwolfer & Harris 1971, Wapshere 1974).<br />

Unfortunately in the laboratory, organisms develop on a broader range <strong>of</strong> plants than<br />

they attack in nature. It is then necessary to show that the organism either does not<br />

have the opportunity <strong>of</strong> establishing on the desirable plant in nature or that individuals<br />

doing so are at a selective disadvantage. In effect there is a 3 tier system <strong>of</strong> testing:<br />

desirable plants that fail the first test because they will support development, are<br />

considered at the next tier <strong>of</strong> opportunity and if this is positive, at the last, and most<br />

difficult, tier <strong>of</strong> advantage.<br />

The opportunity <strong>of</strong> an insect to attack a plant within its distributional range normally<br />

depends on the presence in the plant <strong>of</strong> sensory tokens for attraction and acceptance<br />

by the ovipositing female. This is the result <strong>of</strong> many generations <strong>of</strong> selection to<br />

optimize survival and is not easily changed. Indeed, it is <strong>of</strong>ten difficult to establish an<br />

agent if the strain or species <strong>of</strong> the target weed is different from the one on which it was<br />

collected. This is evident in the programme for the biological control <strong>of</strong> leafy spurge in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>. Similarly Goeden (1978) found that the race <strong>of</strong> R. conicus established on C.<br />

nutans in North America did not attack Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. in the field,


Current approaches to biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds 101<br />

although a strain collected from this plant established readily. This programming <strong>of</strong> an<br />

insect for a particular plant tends to break down in the laboratory and so is best field<br />

tested in the native region.<br />

In contrast to the active dispersal <strong>of</strong> most insects, the passive dispersal <strong>of</strong> pathogens<br />

and to a slightly lesser extent certain insects like aphids, results in their deposition on<br />

many plant species which they will frequently attempt to attack. The host range <strong>of</strong><br />

pathogens is normally genetically stable so most <strong>of</strong> the pathogen propagules landing on<br />

other plant species are lost. However, if the genetic capacity (possibly as a result <strong>of</strong><br />

hybridization) to attack another plant species exists in a pathogen popUlation, the<br />

occasionally successful individual can, by asexual reproduction, increase rapidly. It is<br />

not a good omen for biological control if dense stands <strong>of</strong> a desirable plant on which a<br />

pathogen can develop in the laboratory, grow near the target weed.<br />

The advantage <strong>of</strong> a particular host species to a phytophage depends on its potential for<br />

increase on it. The innate reproductive capacity <strong>of</strong> the phytophage on various plants can<br />

be measured in the laboratory, but the rate <strong>of</strong> increase in the field is influenced by<br />

mortality, competition from other consumers, the density <strong>of</strong> the host, and other factors<br />

that cannot be measured in the laboratory. Thus a good laboratory host is not necessarily at<br />

risk in nature, and a relatively poor laboratory host might be regularly damaged if there<br />

are large amounts growing as a monoculture. This is hard to determine experimentally in<br />

the new habitat without danger that the organism will escape. For this reason the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> the organism on an introduced crop plant in the laboratory is justification<br />

for rejecting it as a biological control agent; but development on a native wild plant is less<br />

cause for concern. For example, the European moth Plryllonorycter blancardella<br />

(Fabr.) attacks Cratueglls spp., apple, and several related plants in its native range but,<br />

where it has been introduced into Quebec, Pottinger & LeRoux (1971) were unable to<br />

find it on Cratueglls spp., an abundant native, although it was common on the introduced<br />

apple. Similarly Moran (1982, personal communication) found that insect pests on South<br />

African crops derived from native plants were, with rare exceptions, attacked by native<br />

species. On the other hand, introduced crops were attacked by both native and introduced<br />

insects.<br />

There are examples in which introduced insects and pathogens have become pests <strong>of</strong><br />

native plants. These phytophages are either polyphagous, like the gypsy moth, so they<br />

readily accept and develop on a wide range <strong>of</strong> plants; or the native lacks resistance, as in<br />

the case <strong>of</strong> the chestnut blight, so the organism has a higher reproductive capacity on it<br />

than on the original host. The best indication <strong>of</strong> the genetic capability <strong>of</strong> phytophages to<br />

utilize plants in the new habitat is their host range in the native region, and if necessary<br />

desirable plants <strong>of</strong> the new habitat can be tested there by planting them at their normal<br />

density. Thus a species such as Lema cyan ella L., which in Europe is only found on<br />

Cirs;llm arvense (L.) Scop. (Peschken & Johnson 1979) is unlikely to attack native<br />

North American thistles to any extent even though it will accept them in the laboratory.<br />

Selection <strong>of</strong> Target Weeds for Classical Biological Control<br />

Classical biological control cannot escape some measure <strong>of</strong> politics because it depends<br />

on public funding. Also, as an agent will spread over many properties, it has to be<br />

introduced as a matter <strong>of</strong> public interest.<br />

Originally the priorities for biological control in <strong>Canada</strong> were largely determined by<br />

popular demand: the squeaky wheel approach. This did not necessarily target the best or<br />

the most urgent weeds for biological control as is evident from some <strong>of</strong> the examples in<br />

this volume.


102 P. Harris<br />

The Future<br />

Literature Cited<br />

It is axiomatic that biological control is only justified if it is likely to produce a<br />

satisfactory return on investment which is greater than can be obtained by other means<br />

<strong>of</strong> control. The biological control <strong>of</strong> a suitable target weed is likely to require 20 scientist<br />

years ($2 million at present costs) (Harris 1979). These costs are less if host specificity<br />

testing has been done elsewhere. Determination <strong>of</strong> benefit requires quantification <strong>of</strong><br />

savings and increased yields minus any detrimental effects <strong>of</strong> control such as the<br />

reduction <strong>of</strong> a nectar source. Costs and benefits that cannot be quantified in monetary<br />

units should be expressed in ecological terms. The study should be published before<br />

biological control is started. This gives an opportunity for objections to be voiced and<br />

the proposal debated.<br />

Classical biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds is likely to continue to be directed primarily against<br />

introduced species that form extensive dense stands on uncultivated land. For this type<br />

<strong>of</strong> problem there is a hgh rate <strong>of</strong> success and the return is excellent, particularly when<br />

considered on.a national or a continental basis. There are, however, a limited number <strong>of</strong><br />

weed species that are prime targets in <strong>Canada</strong>. As work on these is completed or the<br />

possibilities for biological control are exhausted, as is happening for C. arvense, the<br />

programme will be directed increasingly against weeds <strong>of</strong> more minor importance. One<br />

way <strong>of</strong> maintaining a favorable benefit-cost ratio is to tackle them as joint projects with<br />

the United States or other countries so that the costs are shared and the benefits accrue<br />

on an international scale. At present international cooperation is informal and this will<br />

probably need to be replaced by more formal cooperative agreements against specific<br />

target weeds.<br />

There is room to increase the rate at which present projects are completed but the<br />

long-term prospect is for a continued small Canadian participation in classicial biological<br />

control <strong>of</strong> weeds. There has been an increase in staffing since the 1968 review (Harris<br />

1971) that reflects the economic seriousness <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the projects such as knapweed<br />

and leafy spurge. Thus Agricultural <strong>Canada</strong> has increased its participation from 2 to 4<br />

full-time scientists; McGill University (Macdonald College) has an active programme<br />

that emphasizes pathogens; the Province <strong>of</strong> Alberta is recruiting a scientist, and the<br />

University <strong>of</strong> British Columbia has a programme elucidating the effects <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the<br />

agents. The programme will probably stay at this level with more emphasis placed on the<br />

selection <strong>of</strong> both the target weeds and the agents.<br />

The main area for expansion is in augmentative biological control in which a pathogen<br />

is applied periodically as a bioherbicide. Two centres, Macdonald College and the<br />

Regina Research Station have started investigations in this area. The work has not been<br />

reported in this review as it has yet to lead to the licensing <strong>of</strong> a bioherbicide in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

The few bioherbicides currently in use in the United States are for weeds <strong>of</strong> crops that<br />

are hard to control by other means (Templeton 1982). One <strong>of</strong>the attractions <strong>of</strong> bioherbicides<br />

is that they can be produced in small amounts at a reasonable cost. Thus they can<br />

be used for weed problems <strong>of</strong> minor crops in which the area involved does not justify the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> a specific herbicide. The method has a pr<strong>of</strong>it potential so it is likely to be<br />

developed primarily by industry and this could occur rapidly. The main obstacle to date<br />

has been the lack <strong>of</strong> licensing regulations. These have now been drafted in the United<br />

States and it is probable that <strong>Canada</strong> will adopt similar requirements. There is an initial<br />

role for government research to get the industry started. Subsequently the government<br />

role may be largely regulatory.<br />

Ellison, L. (1960) Influence <strong>of</strong> grazing on plant succession <strong>of</strong> range plants. Botanical Review 26, 1-66.<br />

Feeney, P. (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Wallace, l.W.; Mansell, R.L. (Eds.). Biochemical interactions between plants<br />

and insects. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 10, 1-40. New York; Plenum Press.


Blank Page<br />

104


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 27<br />

Acroptilon repens (L.) DC., Russian<br />

Knapweed (Compositae)<br />

A.K. WATSON and P. HARRIS<br />

Acrop,ilon repens (L.) DC. (Centaurea repens L.) is native to Mongolia. Western<br />

Turkestan, Iran, Turkish Armenia and Asia Minor (Moore & Frankton 1974). and was<br />

first introduced into <strong>Canada</strong> about 1900 as a contaminant <strong>of</strong> Turkestan alfalfa seed (Groh<br />

1940). Russian knapweed is now widespread in the southern parts <strong>of</strong> the four western<br />

provinces and is also found in southern Ontario. although most infestations are relatively<br />

small (50% <strong>of</strong> infestations in Saskatchewan are less than one acre in size) (Watson 1980).<br />

This noxious weed has a well developed, extensive root system which is the major<br />

means <strong>of</strong> reproduction and spread (Frazier 1944). It forms dense infestations in cultivated<br />

fields, in grain and alfalfa fields. in pastures, along roadsides and irrigation ditches and in<br />

waste places. Russian knapweed is apparently indifferent to crop association and is able<br />

to survive in almost any crop in tillable soil (Rogers 1928). Infested fields commonly<br />

have knapweed densities <strong>of</strong> 100-300 shootslm 2 which suppress and essentially eliminate<br />

other plant growth (Selleck 1964). In addition to its intense competitive ability, Russian<br />

knapweed is poisonous to horses (Younget al. 1970). Actual crop losses and other losses<br />

due to Russian knapweed have not been determined nor estimated in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Because <strong>of</strong> its serious threat to Canadian agriculture, Russian knapweed was designated<br />

as a "prohibited noxious weed" in the Federal Seeds Act (Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong><br />

1967). The benefit <strong>of</strong> this is debatable as it is difficult to collect viable seed in <strong>Canada</strong><br />

(Watson 1975) and germination rarely occurs in the field (Selleck 1964). Control <strong>of</strong> this<br />

persistent perennial weed is difficult as its extensive root system is not adversely<br />

affected by cultivation and the weed is relatively resistant to commonly used herbicides.<br />

Picloram (4-amino-3,5.6-trichloropicolinic acid) and glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)<br />

glycine) are two <strong>of</strong> the more effective herbicides for Russian knapweed control (Alley &<br />

Humberg 1979). The biology <strong>of</strong> Russian knapweed has recently been reviewed (Watson<br />

1980).<br />

In North America, Russian knapweed is relatively free <strong>of</strong> specialized parasites and is not<br />

extensively attacked by polyphagous feeders, but in its native range, Russian knapweed<br />

is the host <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> specialized organisms (Watson 1980). The potential biological<br />

control agents <strong>of</strong> Russian knapweed include seven organisms that attack the seed head:<br />

a seed gall mite (Aceria acropliloni V. Shev. & Kov.), three Diptera (Dasyneura sp.,<br />

Urophora maura (Frfld.), Urophora kasochstanica V. Richter) and three Coleoptera<br />

(Larinus bardus Gyll., Larinus jaceae Fabr., Rhynchaenus dislans Faust); a stem gall<br />

former (Aulacida acroptilonica Beliz); a leaf and stem rust (Puccinia acroptili Syd.); and<br />

a leaf and stem gall nematode (Paranguina picridis Kirj. & Ivan.) (Watson 1980).<br />

105


108 A. K. Watson and P. Harris<br />

Table 21<br />

Table 22<br />

Recovery <strong>of</strong> P./Jicridis Kirj. & Ivan. on Russian knapweed, A. repem (L.) DC., at the<br />

Regina Research Station.<br />

Precipitation<br />

Year Galls/m: P. picridislm: A. repetls stems/m: September-May (mm)<br />

1977 0<br />

1978 0.67<br />

1979 3.0<br />

1980 no obvious<br />

galls but some<br />

swollen stems<br />

1981 0.63<br />

0<br />

2.9<br />

3599<br />

16<br />

15.0<br />

52.0<br />

18.6<br />

167.5<br />

212.5<br />

213.0<br />

145.7<br />

108.6<br />

The nematode population declined in the springs <strong>of</strong> 1980 and 1981, which was likely the<br />

result <strong>of</strong> the dry conditions. In the five years from release, no P. picridis were found in the<br />

control strip <strong>of</strong> knapweed planted 3 m away from the test plots.<br />

At the Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue site, 6 m l plots were established in the early spring <strong>of</strong><br />

1977 and 100 000 nematodeslm l were inoculated in three <strong>of</strong> the plots. Russian knapweed<br />

was transplanted into all plots and eight crop species were sown in rows between the<br />

Russian knapweed plants in 1977. In 1978. globe artichoke and safflower were sown in<br />

all plots. A few nematode galls were observed on Russian knapweed in 1977 and heavy<br />

galling occurred on Russian knapweed in 1978, 1979, and 1980. In 1981, gall formation on<br />

Russian knapweed was reduced. Galls did not develop on any <strong>of</strong> the tcst plant species in<br />

1977, 1978, or 1979.<br />

Effect <strong>of</strong> P. picridis Otl the ktlapweed<br />

P. picridis was innoculated into 3 m l plots <strong>of</strong> pure Russian knapweed at Jenner, Alberta.<br />

at a rate <strong>of</strong> 30 Ooo/ml, and three control plots were established with a 50 em buffer zone<br />

from the treated area.<br />

No galls were found on the knapweed in the 1978 growing season even though the<br />

nematodes had been kept in soil for six weeks before release. However, in the spring <strong>of</strong><br />

1979, most <strong>of</strong> the knapweed shoots in the treated plots were galled, although those<br />

appearing later in the summer were not infected. The plots were sampled at the end <strong>of</strong>the<br />

growing season, the knapweed counted. weighed, and the nematodes extraced (Table<br />

22). The results show that, apart from distorting the knapweed stems, the nematode had a<br />

negligible effect. This is in contrast to the results reported from the USSR (Kovalev et 01.<br />

1973). The other notable feature about the results is that in spite <strong>of</strong> the close proximity <strong>of</strong><br />

the treated and control plots, there had been little movement <strong>of</strong> the nematode into the<br />

control plots.<br />

This trial was terminated at the end <strong>of</strong> 1979, as the knapweed on the surrounding area<br />

has been treated with glyphosate and apparently eliminated.<br />

Effect <strong>of</strong> P. picridis Kirj. & Ivan. on A. repetls (L.) DC. at Jenner, Alberta in 1979.<br />

No. stems! No. seed headsl Dry weight <strong>of</strong> No. nematodes!<br />

Treatment 0.25 ml 0.25 m l fohage/0.25 m l 0.25 m:<br />

P. picridis 25.3 ± 3.9 73 ± 20.7 42 ± 6.2 2259 ± 163<br />

Control 33.2 ± 4.3 55 ± 16.0 44.8 ± 7.0 5.7 ± 3.9


Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Acropli/on repms (L.) DC.. 109<br />

Fears were expressed following submission <strong>of</strong> the laboratory screening tests that if P.<br />

picridis was able to adapt to attack desirable knapweeds or even globe artichoke. it<br />

might be extremely difficult to eradicate. The results from the persistence trials and the<br />

lack <strong>of</strong> movement <strong>of</strong> the nematode from the treated to control plots indicate that these<br />

fears are groundless. Removal <strong>of</strong> the host plant for two growng seasons will result in<br />

eradication <strong>of</strong> the nematode with little likelihood <strong>of</strong> reinfestation from surrounding<br />

populations without human assistance. Furthermore, the host range under field conditions<br />

was narrower than in the laboratory. Thus, there were no galls found on Cynara<br />

scolymus in the plots in either Saskatchewan or Quebec, and at Regina stray plants <strong>of</strong><br />

Carduus nulans and Cirsium arvense that appeared in the treated plots were also not<br />

infected. Lettuce was not a host under laboratory conditions (Watson 1975) and the two<br />

small swellings were almost certainly from some other cause, as no nematodes were<br />

found in them. From a safety point <strong>of</strong> view. the nematode should be no problem to any<br />

plant except Russian knapweed and it can be easily eradicated if desired.<br />

The effectiveness <strong>of</strong> P. picridis is another matter. The lack <strong>of</strong> movement in or on the<br />

soil suggests that it would have to be spread thoroughly over a knapweed stand in much<br />

the same manner as a granular herbicide. The nematode also requires moist spring<br />

conditions and there is no purpose in using it on the Canadian prairies unless the area to<br />

be treated normally receives a good winter snow cover. The nematode requires a winter<br />

before it will infect Russian knapweed, so the fall seems to be the best time for<br />

application.<br />

The lack <strong>of</strong> knapweed suppression in the plots treated in Alberta was disappointing.<br />

Almost certainly the effect would have been larger if the knapweed had some grass<br />

competition, as this would have helped suppress the later growing shoots. However, the<br />

main reason for lack <strong>of</strong> an effect is that the impact may be delayed for a year. The stem<br />

growth in the current year depends on the root reserves <strong>of</strong> the previous year. The<br />

nematode creates a metabolic sink in the stem that will tend to divert reserves from the<br />

roots so the plant should be less robust for the following year.<br />

1 The nematode, P. picridis, should be released on selected major natural infestations<br />

<strong>of</strong> Russian knapweed in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.<br />

2 Since Russian knapweed populations in <strong>Canada</strong> do not reproduce extensively<br />

from seed, the importation <strong>of</strong> biological control agents that attack the seed head is not<br />

justified.<br />

3 Since biological weed control programmes usually require more than one biological<br />

control agent to be successful (Harris 1979) and since P. picridis may not provide<br />

sufficient stress to control Russian knapweed in all habitats, studies could be initiated to<br />

evaluate the potential <strong>of</strong> the stem gall former Aulacida acroplilonica and the potential <strong>of</strong><br />

the rust Puccinia acroplili as possible additional biological control agents <strong>of</strong> Russian<br />

knapweed.<br />

Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> (1967) Seeds Act and Regulations. Ottawa: Quecn's Printer. 50 pp.<br />

Alley, H.P.; Humburg. N.E. (1979) Research in weed science. 1978. AgricullUral Experiment Station <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Wyoming<br />

Research Journal 137.98 pp.<br />

Frazier. J.C. (1944) Nature and rate <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> the root system <strong>of</strong> Centaurea picris. Botanical Gazelle (Chicago) 105.345-351.<br />

Groh. H. (1940) Turkestan alfalfa as a medium <strong>of</strong> weed introduction. Scienct' in Agriculture 21. 36-43.


Blank Page<br />

111


Blank Page<br />

112


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 29<br />

Artemisia absinthium L., Absinth<br />

(Compositae)<br />

M.G. MAW and D. SCHROEDER<br />

Artemisia absinthium L. is indigenous to temperate Europe and Asia and was introduced to<br />

North America as a medicinal and flavoring herb some time before 1832. By 1841.<br />

absinth had escaped from gardens and was recognized as an established weed in the<br />

United States (Mitich 1975). The weed was first recorded in <strong>Canada</strong> at Fort Garry.<br />

Manitoba in 1860 (Scoggan 1957). By 1883, absinth was considered to be naturalized in<br />

numerous locations from Newfoundland to western Ontario (Mitich 1975). Although it is<br />

abundant in the Prairie Provinces. it was not recognized as a serious weed until 1954<br />

(Frankton & Mulligan 1970).<br />

Absinth can now be found in all provinces <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> and in many <strong>of</strong> the northern<br />

states but with few exceptions it is confined to farm yards, around grain elevators, and<br />

along the edges <strong>of</strong> fields, railways, and roadsides. It is controlled by cultivation but can<br />

be spread into pastures, hayfields, and crop lands. Rapid increase in the spread <strong>of</strong> the<br />

weed on the prairies is associated with relatively moist conditions (Selleck & Coupland<br />

1961).<br />

Although absinth may flavor milk, and grain from infested fields may be rejected<br />

because the flour might be tainted (Selleck & Coupland 1961), such occurrences are<br />

rare. Cattle will not graze on absinth by choice, but may inadvertently consume it in hay.<br />

Absinth is a health hazard as the odor can cause illness in those working in infested<br />

fields. and its pollen causes great discomfort in those sensitized by it.<br />

While absinth is controlled by cultivation, the farming techniques <strong>of</strong> minimal or zero<br />

tillage might permit the weed to become a serious problem in some areas.<br />

At <strong>Canada</strong>'s request. surveys <strong>of</strong> absinth insects in Europe were undertaken by the<br />

Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control. A literature review suggested that<br />

Euzophera citlerosella (Zeller) (Lepidoptem: Pyralidae), a stem and root miner, was<br />

specific to A. absimhillm (Miotk 1973). Field surveys in Austria, Germany, France, and<br />

the Swiss Valais showed that E. cinerosel/a occurs in most populations <strong>of</strong> absinth<br />

throughout its European mnge, and that it causes serious damage to its host (Schroeder<br />

1979).<br />

E. cillerosella emerges about the end <strong>of</strong> May to the end <strong>of</strong> July and mating takes place<br />

within 24 hours <strong>of</strong> the female's emergence. Males mate several times; females just once.<br />

Oviposition starts the day following mating with 12 eggs laid daily for the first four days.<br />

Over 100 eggs may be laid during June and half that number during July.<br />

The eggs arc deposited on the lower leaves and hatching occurs in 8-10 days. The<br />

young larvae commence to feed on the upper cuticle <strong>of</strong> the leaf but soon bore into the<br />

leaf petiole destroying the bud in the leaf axil, then downwards, feeding on the vascular<br />

tissue <strong>of</strong> the shoots. As the season advances, the larvae reach the roots and destroy<br />

the outer parts before mining into the woody tissue. The winter is passed as hibernating<br />

larvae and puplltion takes pl.lce in the spring within a silken cocoon in a pupal cell near<br />

the root crown.<br />

Damllge to the host plant depends on the development <strong>of</strong> the larvae. First and second<br />

instars clluse little damage. but third and fourth instars mine the cambium and vascular<br />

113


Pest Status<br />

Chapter 30<br />

Carduus nutans L., Nodding Thistle and<br />

C. acanthoides L., Plume less Thistle<br />

(Compositae)<br />

P. HARRIS<br />

Carduus nwaftS L. and C. acanlllOides L. are thistles <strong>of</strong> European origin that form dense<br />

stands on dry uncultivated grasslands in many parts <strong>of</strong> North America. Three interbreeding<br />

subspecies <strong>of</strong> C. nWans occur in <strong>Canada</strong> (Moore & Frankton 1974) which arc<br />

treated as full species by some authors (Kazmi 1964). There is also some hybridization<br />

between C. mllaftS and C. aca""lOides (Mulligan & Frankton 1954). however. as far as<br />

the practical aspects <strong>of</strong> biological control are concerned there are two species: C. nulaftS<br />

with large heads (2-7 cm diameter) and a relatively short but intense flowering period<br />

that, on Saskatchewan rangeland, is largely finished by the end <strong>of</strong> July; C. aca",hoides<br />

with small heads (1.2-2.5 cm diameter) and a prolonged flowering period that. in<br />

southern Ontario. produces a succession <strong>of</strong> flower heads from early June until the plant<br />

is killed by frost in October or later. The seed <strong>of</strong> both thistles germinates as conditions<br />

permit throughout the growing season and they may be summer annuals. winter annuals. or<br />

biennials. The flowering height in C. nWans ranges from a few centimeters to over 2 m.<br />

so there is considerable plasticity in the species as well as genetic variability as the result<br />

<strong>of</strong> hybridization.<br />

Distribution <strong>of</strong> the thistle on the Canadian prairies is limited by a need for winter<br />

protection <strong>of</strong> the rosettes and relatively low grass competition for seedling establishment.<br />

Thus it is mainly found on light soils in the mid-grass prairie vegetation zone. in<br />

places that are covered by snow drifts in winter. such as gullies. fence lines. brush<br />

patches. and the lee side <strong>of</strong> stone piles. The dead stems also trap the snow in winter.<br />

Established stands tend to be self-perpetuating as the death <strong>of</strong> the flowering stems in<br />

August creates a seedbed largely devoid <strong>of</strong> competing vegetation. The occurrence <strong>of</strong> the<br />

thistle on heavier soils is a sign that the site was disturbed within the past few years.<br />

The status <strong>of</strong> C. nwaftS has changed in Saskatchewan since the establishment <strong>of</strong> the<br />

seed-head weevil. Rhinocyllus conicllS Froel.. for its biological control. In 1970, stands<br />

<strong>of</strong> 150 OOOlha <strong>of</strong> flowering C. nWans plants were common in pasture and extended for<br />

many kilometers in roadside borrow pits. At this density. there is no grazing within the<br />

stand. In 1980. the thistle was largely restricted to breaks in the pasture sward such as<br />

ground squirrel diggings and along cattle trails. Stands <strong>of</strong> over 15 000 plantslha were<br />

uncommon and small roadside stands that used to be a feature <strong>of</strong> the landscape have<br />

been reduced to scattered plants. On the 4 point scale. modified from Vere & Medd<br />

(1979). the most densely infested region has declined from category 4 to categories 1-2:<br />

1 = no C. nmans, 2 = scattered thistles or < I stand/ha. 3 = scattered thistles with 1 to 50<br />

standslha.4 = continuous thistles or >50 stands/ha. There was negligible grazing loss<br />

from category 2 infestations in Australia. a loss <strong>of</strong> 8.3% from category 3. and 16.7% loss<br />

from category 4. No comparable data are available for Saskatchewan but the loss is<br />

presumably similar. Currently there is little grazing loss from C. mllaftS on permanent<br />

pasture although dense patches remain on recently disturbed and abandoned ground<br />

which is <strong>of</strong>ten on roadsides. At low densities it is still a nuisance in some places such as<br />

parks. C. nmans continues to spread in the mid-grass prairie zone but on a narrower<br />

range <strong>of</strong> sites.<br />

115


Releases and Recoveries<br />

Rhinocynus conicus<br />

(Froel.) (Coleoptera:<br />

Curculionidae) (a) Ecology<br />

Trichosirocalus<br />

horridus (panz.)<br />

(Coleoptera:<br />

Curculionidae)<br />

Carduus IIutans L., 117<br />

The biology and host specificity <strong>of</strong> R. conicus has been treated in detail by Zw61fer &<br />

Harris (in press). The weevil is native to Europe, western Asia, and North Africa<br />

between latitudes 30 0<br />

N and SooN. Its main host is C. nutans but there has been race<br />

formation on other thistles in the genera Carduus, Cirsium, Silybum, and Onopordum.<br />

Teneral R. conicus emerge in July to early August in southern Ontario and August in<br />

Saskatchewan. The weevil has a second generation if the day length is over 16 hrs.<br />

Individuals released in a cage in southern Ontario on the 27 June when the day length was<br />

15 hr 48 min did not breed, but those released in mid-July in Saskatchewan with a day <strong>of</strong><br />

16 hr 5 min did so. Laing & Heels (1978) reported a second generation from weevils<br />

released in southern Ontario in August, but these were mated in the laboratory. presumably<br />

under long day conditions. Normally, in <strong>Canada</strong>, there is a single generation emerging<br />

after mid-summer and then hibernating in the soil litter. They appear again in the spring<br />

to feed on the leaves <strong>of</strong> bolting thistles and oviposit on the involucral bracts <strong>of</strong> the flower<br />

buds. Oviposition starts slightly before the buds are available in the spring with some<br />

wastage <strong>of</strong> eggs on the leaves enclosing the terminal flower bud and the first heads receive<br />

an abundance <strong>of</strong> eggs. Rees (1977) counted over 500 eggs on a single head.<br />

The eggs are covered with a cap <strong>of</strong> chewed thistle and the larva bores directly into the<br />

flower bud from under the cap. It mines the receptacle and sometimes the peduncle as<br />

well as feeding on the young ovules. Typically the receptacle mine fills with callus on<br />

which the larva feeds (Shorthouse, 1982, personal communication). Thus, like a gallformer,<br />

the larva stimulates production <strong>of</strong> its food supply. The mature larva forms a<br />

hard pupal chamber in the thistle head which remains after emergence so the number<br />

that developed in a head can be counted.<br />

(b) Releases<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the R. conicus stock established in <strong>Canada</strong> was collected from C. nwans growing in<br />

the French Rhine Valley around Mulhouse. As the initial results with this stock on C.<br />

acanthoides were disappointing, additional weevils were imported from the smallheaded<br />

thistle C. personata (L.) Jacquin as well as stocks from Cirsium spp. Day length<br />

at the release date probably prevented many <strong>of</strong> the colonies from breeding until the year<br />

following release (Table 23). With hindsight, it would have been better to have held them<br />

in laboratory storage until the following spring or mated them under long day conditions<br />

in the laboratory before release.<br />

(a) Ecology<br />

The biology <strong>of</strong> T. horridus was reported by Trumble & Kok (1979) and a bibliography<br />

<strong>of</strong> the weevil compiled by Trumble & Kok (1980). The weevil is found from Italy to<br />

Poland, in Turkey and the USSR. The adults have been found feeding on a number <strong>of</strong><br />

thistle genera and the larvae developed on several <strong>of</strong> these in the laboratory (Kok 1975),<br />

however, in the thistle garden at the Regina Research Station, they have only been found<br />

on Carduus spp. and not on either European or native Cirsium spp. Thus the field host


118 P. Harris<br />

Table 23 Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> R. conicllS Froel. against Cardlllls spp.<br />

Release Initial<br />

Province Host date Place Source Number recovery<br />

Saskatchewan C. "Ulans 26.7.68 Aylesbury 400 1969<br />

16.7.69 1898<br />

C. "Ulans 16.7.69 Findlater 1897 1969<br />

Ontario C. acamhoides 25.7.68 Read (site A) 320 1969<br />

23.5.69 1 282<br />

10.6.70 2 350<br />

5.10.69 Read (Site B) 3 74<br />

5.10.69 1 80<br />

31.6.70 Read (Site C) 1 3500 1971<br />

22.5.69 Stoco Lake 1 350 1970<br />

11.7.69 Roslin I 4320 1970<br />

22.5.70 1 1500<br />

1.5.70 Moira 4 200<br />

C. acamhoides 3.6.70 Flesherton 1 250 not checked<br />

xc. "utans<br />

C. "ulans 9.6.75 Guelph 5 2185 1976<br />

Manitoba C. "Ulans 17.6.74 Somerset 5 500 1975<br />

4.9.74 Darlingford 5 4000 1975<br />

Quebec C. "ulans 17.6.74 Lac St-Jean 5 1100 1975<br />

C. acanthoides 23.7.78 Huntingdon 5 7731 1982<br />

16.6.80 5 10130<br />

British Columbia C. nUlans 16.7.79 Williams Lake 5 2600 site<br />

destroyed<br />

1. Mulhouse, France ex C. nutans<br />

2. St. Hippolyte, France ex C. personala<br />

3. Krymsk, USSR ex Cirsium spinosllm<br />

4. Nantes, France ex C. vulgare<br />

5. Findlater. Saskatchewan ex C. nutans<br />

range <strong>of</strong> the strain introduced is more restricted than that <strong>of</strong> R. conicus. Under field<br />

conditions in Virginia, United States, it had a strong preference for C. nutans over C.<br />

acanlhoides and was more readily established on stands <strong>of</strong> the former species (Sieburth<br />

& Kok 1982). On C. nUlans, high densities <strong>of</strong> T. IIOTTidus and R. conicus were found in<br />

the same stands (Kok 1980).<br />

In <strong>Canada</strong>, the adult weevil overwinters in the soil litter. It becomes active in early<br />

spring to lay in the mid-vein <strong>of</strong> large CardullS leaves. This differs from the life cycle in<br />

Rome, Italy, where the weevil starts ovipositing in October and continues over winter<br />

(Bolt & Campobasso 1981). The larva bores down the mid-vein into the crown and<br />

develops just below the apical leaves. This causes the plant to produce several lateral<br />

shoots, which in Saskatchewan may be attacked again when about 15 cm high; the larvae<br />

are also sometimes found in the lateral vegetative buds. The result is to produce a bushy<br />

thistle in which flowering is probably delayed. The larvae pupate in the soil and emerge<br />

as adults in reproductive diapause in the early summer. They feed on the thistle leaves<br />

until the fall and can be frequently found on the bracts <strong>of</strong> the flower buds.<br />

(b) Releases<br />

The stock released at Aylesbury, Saskatchewan, was collected in eastern Austria. around<br />

Morel, Switzerland, and Neuenburg, Germany (Table 24). In addition, 22 weevils from


Table 24<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Carduus IIll1allS L., 119<br />

Neuenburg, released on a 4 m 2 stand <strong>of</strong> C. IIll1allS maintained at the Regina Research<br />

Station, were the source <strong>of</strong> the stock released elsewhere in <strong>Canada</strong>. At Regina, survival<br />

<strong>of</strong> the weevil was most easily confirmed by removing the apical rosette leaves to expose<br />

the larvae during the spring wheat seeding period, usually around mid-May. Later in the<br />

year, the weevil was hard to find and even its damage was obscure. Thus, it was hard to<br />

confirm establishment at Aylesbury as the road to the site was <strong>of</strong>ten impassable until late<br />

May. It is suspected that the reason that this cryptic weevil has not been reported<br />

established at other sites is that the thistles have been inspected too late in the season.<br />

Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> T. horridlls (Panz.) against CardulLf spp.<br />

Province Site Host Year Source Number Recovery<br />

Saskatchewan Aylesbury C. flUlaflS 1975 Austria-Germany-<br />

Switzerland<br />

65 1979<br />

Aylesbury C. flUians 1979 Saskatchewan 36<br />

Regina C. nUians 1975 Germany 22 1976<br />

Quebec Huntingdon C. acanthoides 1977 Saskatchewan 26<br />

Huntingdon C. acallthoides 1980 Saskatchewan 6<br />

Ontario West<br />

Huntingdon C. acallthoides 1978 Saskatchewan 33<br />

British<br />

Columbia<br />

Williams<br />

Lake C. nutans 1979 Saskatchewan 22<br />

site<br />

destroyed<br />

Manitoba Snowflake C. nutans 1980 Saskatchewan 16<br />

Density <strong>of</strong> R. conicus<br />

The general effects <strong>of</strong> R. conicus on C. lIlllans in Saskatchewan have been described in<br />

the Pest Status section. More detailed studies were done at the Findlater and Aylesbury<br />

release sites (Table 25 and 26). Findlater was an unused gravel pit and Aylesbury a gully in<br />

a permanent pasture. Both sites were sampled in early August: Findlater on a permanent<br />

transect along the spoil pile, and Aylesbury in four directions from the release point. The<br />

density <strong>of</strong> flowering thistles was determined with m 2 samples taken at 5 or 10 m intervals,<br />

or they were calculated by the distance between nearest neighbour for a population with a<br />

uniform distribution (Southwood 1978). The latter estimates are indicated by the absence<br />

<strong>of</strong> an error term in Table 26. In 1978 and 1979, the estimates obtained from the nearest<br />

neighbour method were: Aylesbury 1.4, 1.0, and at Findlater 48.2, 8.3/m 2 • These are<br />

similar to the values obtained from counting on the m 2 plots (Table 26). However, in 1976<br />

at Aylesbury, the distribution was clumped with most <strong>of</strong> the site free <strong>of</strong> thistles but some<br />

patches containing up to 651m 2 • In this year the nearest neighbour method, assuming a<br />

uniform distribution, gave a density <strong>of</strong> 2.7/m 2 compared to 6.6/m 2 obtained by averaging<br />

the m l samples. All heads were clipped from the thistle nearest to the right comer <strong>of</strong> the<br />

plot, the receptacle diameter <strong>of</strong> each head was measured, and the number <strong>of</strong> R. conicus or<br />

its pupal chambers were counted. Ifthere were not enough thistles in the transect samples<br />

to determine weevil density, the thistle nearest to each sampling interval was used.<br />

At Findlater, the density <strong>of</strong> R. coniClLf maturing in the flower heads climbed steadily<br />

from the second year to reach a plateau <strong>of</strong> 3.4 to 6.4 weevilslhead (Table 25). The weevils<br />

released in 1968 at Aylesbury (Table 23) received a day <strong>of</strong> less than 16 hrs in length and<br />

so probably did not breed until the following year. Thus the initial increase at Aylesbury<br />

was similar to that at Findlater; but after reaching a peak in 1975, the density fell. This


120 P. Harris<br />

Table 25<br />

may have been caused by cattle consuming the terminal flower heads, which contained<br />

the highest numbers <strong>of</strong> R. conicus. The cattle did this to an increasing extent as the<br />

density <strong>of</strong> the stand declined. The site was not grazed in 1982 and the density <strong>of</strong> weevils<br />

increased.<br />

Establishment pattern <strong>of</strong> R. conicus Froel. on C. acantlloides L. and C. nutans L.<br />

C. acantlloides (Site A) at Read, Ontario. Released 320 R. conicus 25 July 1968,282 on<br />

23 May 1969, 350 on 10 June 1970.<br />

Calc. R. coniclls<br />

Year Eggsffhistle per head No. thistles sampled<br />

1968 0 0<br />

1969 0.29 0.017 1453<br />

1971 0.38 0.023 285<br />

C. acantlloides at Roslin, Ontario. Released 4320 R. conicus on 11 July 1969.<br />

Calc. R. conicus<br />

Year Eggs/thistle per head No. thistles sampled<br />

1969 0 0<br />

1970 0.52 0.03 1531<br />

1970· 1.56 0.09 50<br />

1971 0.18 0.01 1272<br />

• On scattered C. nutans in C. acantlloides stand.<br />

C. nutans at Aylesbury, Saskatchewan. Released 400 R. conicus 26 July 1968, 1898 On<br />

16 July 1969.<br />

Year R. conicuslhead No. heads sampled<br />

1969 0.08 317<br />

1970 0.04 1055<br />

1971 0.06 688<br />

1972 0.26 847<br />

1973 0.79 956<br />

1974 2.72 311<br />

1975 3.68 288<br />

1976 1.43 182<br />

1977 0.43 353<br />

1978 2.70 251<br />

1979 0.86 349<br />

1980 0.40 293<br />

1981 0.06 54<br />

1982 3.18 105


Table 25<br />

continued<br />

CtmillllS IIlllatl.f L.. 121<br />

C. ,wlans at Findlater. Saskatchewan. Released 1897 R. conicus on 16 July 1969.<br />

Year R. conicllslhead No. heads sampled<br />

1969 0.03 119<br />

1970 0.002 509<br />

1971 0.01 194<br />

1972 0.19 241<br />

1973 0.46 168<br />

1974 1.45 211<br />

1975 4.53 52<br />

1976 4.01 96<br />

1977 1.84 99<br />

1978 3.38 86<br />

1979 5.02 177<br />

1980 3.65 373<br />

1981 3.51 59<br />

1982 6.36 375<br />

Laing & Heels (1978) reported achieving similar population densitites on C. n!llans<br />

in Ontario and the initial results reported by Letendre el al. (1976) for Quebec followed<br />

the same pattern. Thus the Saskatchewan impact <strong>of</strong> R. coniclls on C. nWans is probably<br />

representative <strong>of</strong> populations elsewhere in <strong>Canada</strong> except for British Columbia where the<br />

release site was destroyed by road building.<br />

Density <strong>of</strong> C. tllllans<br />

The density <strong>of</strong> C. tlllIans declined at Aylesbury from 15.7 flowering plantslm 1 in 1969 to<br />

0.5/ml in 1982 (Table 26). The habitat was initially invaded by Russian pigweed, Axyris<br />

amarantlroides L., and stinkweed, Thlaspi arvense L. The stinkweed was cropped by<br />

the red turnip beetle. Entomoscelis americana Brown, which also developed on C.<br />

mllans rosette leaves during this transitional period. Finally perennial grasses. Agropyron<br />

repens (L.) Beauv. and Sripa comata Trin. & Rupr.. occupied the area and the<br />

thistle was confined to breaks in the sward.<br />

At Findlater. the density <strong>of</strong> the thistle fluctuated from dense. following a moist fall<br />

and/or spring. to sparse when it was dry (Table 26). The invasion <strong>of</strong> the transect on the<br />

spoil pile by other plants was slow, so after dry winters the site remained open for<br />

recolonization by C. nlllans when conditions were more favourable for its seedlings.<br />

Gradually clumps <strong>of</strong> crested wheat grass, Agropyron crisralllm (L.) Gaertn .• appeared<br />

and by 1982 covered the transect. The C. nWans stand was then confined to the southwestern<br />

slope <strong>of</strong> the spoil pile. which was still free <strong>of</strong> grass.<br />

The decline <strong>of</strong> C.nlllans stands in Virginia, United States. occurred more rapidly than<br />

in Saskatchewan (Kok & Surles 1975). The summer rainfall was greater and its distribution<br />

more even so that there would be a greater growth <strong>of</strong> grass. Thus both studies<br />

support the conclusion that control <strong>of</strong> C. nutans has been achieved by a combination <strong>of</strong><br />

R. conicus and competition from other plants.<br />

At neither Saskatchewan site has the lowered density <strong>of</strong> the thistle reduced the<br />

numbers <strong>of</strong> R. cotliells/head. Scattered thistles <strong>of</strong>ten escape attack and the weevil may<br />

not be able to maintain itself on them. For example, 120 R. conieu.s released in 1974 on a<br />

stand <strong>of</strong> C. mllans in Regina that consisted <strong>of</strong> 368 scattered phtnts at 0.07 plantslm 1 bred<br />

in 1975 but not in 1976 when the density was 0.02 plantslm 1 • However, the weevil


122 P. Harris<br />

Table 26 C. flU/ailS L. stands at Aylesbury and Findlater following establishment <strong>of</strong> R. coniclls<br />

Froel. (± S.E.M.).<br />

Year No. C. tIIltallS/m 2 No. heads/plant Head diameter No. plants sampled<br />

Aylesbury<br />

1969 15.9 ± 1.7 5.7 ± 0.8 2.87 ± 0.02 56<br />

1970 11.8 ± 1.1 7.5 ± 0.9 1.68 ± 0.03 125<br />

1971 6.8 ± 0.7 6.2 ± 0.8 2.02 ± 0.03 100<br />

1972 604 ± 0.8 8.0 ± 0.9 1.65 ± 0.02 106<br />

1973 704 ± 1.1 1.79 ± 0.02 129<br />

1974 4.1 6.6 ± 1.3 1.73 ± 0.02 47<br />

1975 4.9 404 ± 0.7 1.94 ± 0.02 65<br />

1976 6.6 ± 104 304 1.73 ± 0.01 54<br />

1977 1.3 ± 0.3 6.0 ± 0.3 1.55 ± 0.02 60<br />

1978 1.2 ± 0.5 4.3 ± 0.8 1.52 ± 0.03 58<br />

1979 104 ± 004 3.9 ± 0.7 1.38 ± 0.02 89<br />

1980 1.9 ± 0.7 2.3 ± 0.1 1.16 ± 0.05 124<br />

1981 0.9 ± 0.4 1.5 ± 0.1 1041 ± 0.02 60<br />

1982 0.5 ± 0.1 2.8 ± 0.5 1.56 ± 0.04 38<br />

Findlater<br />

1969 l3.5 ± 2.6 11.9 ± 1.8 1.80 ± 0.04 10<br />

1970 19.1 ± 2.5 10.0 ± 1.3 1.98 ± 0.02 51<br />

1971 19.8 ± 2.8 4.9 = 0.5 1.69 ± 0.04 40<br />

1972 8.0 ± 1.2 6.9 = 0.7 1.70 ± 0.02 35<br />

1973 5.3 = 1.0 1.87 ± 0.04 32<br />

1974 19.9 5.9 ± 1.2 1.95 ± 0.01 35<br />

1975 52.1 2.9 ± 0.7 1.86 ± 0.06 18<br />

1976 7.2 4.2 ± 0.6 1.81 ± 0.03 24<br />

1977 0.4 ± 0.2 5.2 ± 0.2 2.03 ± 0.03 19<br />

1978 33.9 ± 5.7 2.3 ± 0.3 lAO ± 0.05 38<br />

1979 6.7 ± 0.1 5.2 ± 0.8 1.19 ± 0.03 33<br />

1980 3.0 ± 0.7 3.6 ± 0.3 1.19 ± 0.03 104<br />

1981 0.6 ± 0.3 4.0 ± 1.6 1.39 ± 0.06 24<br />

1982 0.03- 11.6 ± 1.8 1.83 ± 0.02 32<br />

- 1 thistle in 37 m 2<br />

persisted at another site in Regina on a 10 m 2 stand <strong>of</strong> C. nlltallS with around SO flowering<br />

thistles. If the weevil requires dense stands, even if they are confined to a few m 2 , the<br />

roadside and gravel pit stands may be necessary for maintaining a population.<br />

Size <strong>of</strong> C. nU/alls<br />

The size <strong>of</strong> flowering C. 'IlltallS plants as indicated by the number <strong>of</strong> heads/plant<br />

declined (Table 26). The slope <strong>of</strong> the decline was not significantly different at Aylesbury<br />

and Findlater, so the data were combined for the regression in Table 27 (Equation 1).<br />

The only major departure from the regression was the 1982 value from Findlater. This<br />

value was not used for the regression as it was not from the permanent transect. The<br />

equation shows that on the average a plant produced 0.34 fewer heads each year. Thus


Table 27<br />

Table 28<br />

Carduus lIU1tl1lS L. . 123<br />

thistle size has declined more than its density. For example at Aylesbury. the density <strong>of</strong><br />

the thistle in 1982 was 97% less than in 1969. but the number <strong>of</strong> heads had declined by<br />

nearly 99%.<br />

Regression equations <strong>of</strong> the effect <strong>of</strong> R. con;cus Froel. on C. nUiallS L.<br />

1. Average no. heads/plant at Aylesbury<br />

and Findlater<br />

2. Average head diameter at Aylesbury<br />

3. Average head diameter at Findlater<br />

x = no. years r = correlation coefficient<br />

dJ.<br />

= 994.5 - 0.50 x 26<br />

= 79.8 - 0.40 x 12<br />

7.3 - 2.89 x 13<br />

r<br />

-0.79<br />

-0.71<br />

-0.38<br />

p<br />


124 P. Harris<br />

Reasons for the impact <strong>of</strong> R. conicus<br />

Lashley (1969) and Sagar (I972) calculated that over 98% <strong>of</strong> the seed would have to be<br />

destroyed to achieve control <strong>of</strong> C. nutans if 50% <strong>of</strong> the seed was viable and 10% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

plants survived. At Aylesbury 80.6% ± 3.6 <strong>of</strong> the plump seed germinated on moist filter<br />

paper at room temperature, so the viability factor they used was low. Regression<br />

equations <strong>of</strong> seed production per head versus head size and the number <strong>of</strong> R. conicus<br />

gave reductions that varied from 5 to 25 seeds per weevil. The variation may arise from<br />

the formation <strong>of</strong> callus tissue acting as a metabolic sink in the heavily attacked heads;<br />

but even the highest estimate would only reduce seed production by around 50%.<br />

Analysis <strong>of</strong> one year's results <strong>of</strong> a four year study <strong>of</strong> thistle survival at Aylesbury<br />

indicated that no seedlings survived in a grass sward. Presumably the stand became<br />

established initially after a natural or man-made disturbance exposed the ground. The<br />

thistle then perpetuated itself and even at the stand margin spread by producing enough<br />

plants to smother the site. A constant percentage <strong>of</strong> plants was lost through the growing<br />

season regardless <strong>of</strong> their density or age and around 3% survived to the flowering stage.<br />

Apparently the weevil reduced seed production to the point at which the thistle was not<br />

able to completely occupy the site at all times. This allowed the entry <strong>of</strong> competing<br />

vegetation which eventually displaced the thistle. Further reductions <strong>of</strong> C. nUians can<br />

almost certainly be achieved by pasture improvement to reduce the number <strong>of</strong> bare spots.<br />

Effect <strong>of</strong> R. coniclls on C. acanthoides<br />

C. acanthoides has remained a problem in Ontario since the introduction <strong>of</strong> R. conicus. It<br />

is known that the weevil has persisted on the thistle as there is no difficulty in finding<br />

flower heads with eggs on them in the early spring; however, it is probable that seed<br />

production is reduced by a minor amount. In Virginia, only 12.4% <strong>of</strong> C. acanthoides<br />

heads are attacked compared to 81.4% <strong>of</strong>those on C. nlltans (Surles & Kok 1977). Much<br />

<strong>of</strong> this difference relates to the synchronization <strong>of</strong> egg production with flowering. In<br />

Saskatchewan, oviposition covers the flowering period and both are largely completed in<br />

July. In contrast, on 7 August 1969 at Read, Ontario, after R. conicus had ceased<br />

oviposition, 22% <strong>of</strong> the heads <strong>of</strong> C. acanthoides had finished flowering and would have<br />

been available to R. conicus, 7% were in bloom, and 70.7% were still in bud (unpublished<br />

data, T. New). Thus, 78% <strong>of</strong> the heads produced by C. acanthoides were not available to<br />

R. conicus. Similarly in Virginia, Surles & Kok (1977) found 19.1% <strong>of</strong> the heads were<br />

available to the weevil.<br />

Dowd & Kok (1981) found a density-related weight reduction <strong>of</strong> R. conicus in C.<br />

acanthoides that did not occur in C. n14tans. Also, the weevil responded to C. nutans<br />

more readily than to C. acanthoides for oviposition: in Table 25 there was a 3-fold<br />

difference in the numbers <strong>of</strong> eggs laid on the two species while Surles & Kok (1977)<br />

found a 4-fold difference. The difference in flower head size does not seem to be the<br />

important factor as some races <strong>of</strong> R. conicus achieve high densities on the small-headed<br />

thistles, C. pycnocephalus and C. ten14iflorus.<br />

R. conicus has not adapted to C. acanthoides in Europe: Batra et al. (1981) found it<br />

rarely on the thistle in France and it was not recorded in the surveys on C. acanthoides<br />

by Zw6lfer (1965). In my opinion, it is unlikely to adapt to become an effective control<br />

agent <strong>of</strong> the thistle in North America.<br />

Effect <strong>of</strong> T. horrid/IS<br />

No assessment <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> T. horridus on C. nil tans was made at Aylesbury beyond<br />

the fact that few plants are attacked. There are no reports on the value <strong>of</strong> the more dense


126 P. Harris<br />

Laing. J.E.: Heels. P.R. (1978) Establishment <strong>of</strong> an introduced weevil. Rhinoc}'lIlls conicllS (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) for the biological<br />

control <strong>of</strong> nodding thistle. Cardull.f nlltans (Composit3e) in southern Ontario. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the<br />

ElIlomological Societ}' <strong>of</strong> On",rio 1119. 3-8.<br />

Lashley. R. (1969) Musk thistle control. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> Ihe North Ctlltral Weed Control Conference 24. 99-100.<br />

Letendre. M.e.: Ritchot. 1'01.: Guibord. O·e.: Leduc. e. (1976) Essai d'cradication du chardon penche. CardullS nutans L.. oj I'aide du<br />

charanllon Rhinoc}'lIlls conicus Fmc!. Ph}'toprotection 57. 47-54.<br />

Moore. R.J.: Frankton. C. (1974) The thistles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Monograph 10. Ottawa. III pp.<br />

Mulligan. G.A.: Frankton. e. (195-1) The plumeless thistles (Cardlms spp.) in <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Field·Naluralist68. 31-36.<br />

Myers. J.H.: Harris. P. (1980) Distribution <strong>of</strong> Urophora galls in nower heads <strong>of</strong> diffuse and spotted knapweed in British Columbia. Jourtull<strong>of</strong><br />

Applied Ecolog}' 17.359-367.<br />

Puttler. B.: Long. A.H.: Peters. E.J. (1978) Establishment in Missouri <strong>of</strong> Rhinocyllus conicllS for the biological control <strong>of</strong> musk thistle<br />

(Carduus nu",IIS). Wud Science 26. 188-190.<br />

Rees. N.E. (l9n) Impact <strong>of</strong> RhinoC)'lIus COIliCIlS on thistles in southwestern Montana. Em'ironmental Entomology 6. 839-842.<br />

Rees. N.E. (1978) Interactions <strong>of</strong> Rhinocyllus ccmicus and thistles in the Gallatin valley. 31·38. In: Frick. K.E. (Ed.) Biological control <strong>of</strong><br />

thistles in the genus Card,ms ill the United States. Stoneville. Miss.: USDA. 50 pp.<br />

Sagar. G.R. (1972) On the ecology <strong>of</strong> weed control. In: Jones D.P.: Solomon M.E. (Eds.) Biology in pest and disease control. British<br />

Ecological <strong>Society</strong>. 42-50.<br />

Siebunh. P.J.: Kok. L.T. (1982) Oviposition preference <strong>of</strong> Tricllosirocalus Irorridus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Canadian Entomologist<br />

114. 1201-1202.<br />

Southwood. T.R.E. (1978) Ecological methods. Chapman & Hall. 52-1 pp.<br />

Surles. W. W.: Kok. L.T. (1977) Ovipositional preferences and s)'nchronization <strong>of</strong> Rlrinocyllus conicus with Carduus nutans and C.<br />

acantlroides. Em·ironmental ElIlomolog}, 6. 222-22-1.<br />

Trumble. J.T.: Kok. L.T. (1979) Celltorhynchidius horridus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): life cycle and development on Carduus thistles in<br />

Virginia. Annals <strong>of</strong> tht <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> America n. 563-564.<br />

Trumble. J.T.: Kok. L.T. (1980) A bibliography <strong>of</strong> Ceuthorhynchidius horridus (Panzer) (= Trichosirocalus horridus (Panzer»). an<br />

introduced weevil for the biological control <strong>of</strong> Carduus thistles. Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> Sociery <strong>of</strong><br />

America 62.464-467.<br />

Vere. D.T.; Medd. R.W. (1979) Estimating the economic loss caused by Carduus nutans in New South Wales. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 7th Asian·<br />

Pacific Weed Science Conference. 421-423.<br />

Ward. R. H.; Pienkowski R.L.: Kok. L. T. (1974) Host specificit)· <strong>of</strong> the first·instar <strong>of</strong> Cellthorhynchidius horridus. a weevilforthe biological<br />

control <strong>of</strong> thistles. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 67, 735 -737.<br />

Zw6ICer, H. (1965) Preliminary list <strong>of</strong> phytophagous insects attacking wild Cynareae (Compositae) species in Europe. Commonwealth<br />

Instilllte <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Bulletin 6. 81-154.<br />

Zw6lfer, H.; Harris, P. (in press) Biology and host specificity <strong>of</strong> Rhinocyllus conicllS, (Froel.) (Col.: Curculionidae), a successful biocontrol<br />

agent <strong>of</strong> the thistle Carduus nutans L. Zeirschrift fiir angewandte Entomologie.<br />

Zw61fer, H.; Preiss. M. (1983) Host selection and oviposition bchaviour in west· European ecotypes <strong>of</strong> Rhinocyllus conicus FroeJ. (Col.:<br />

Curculionidllc). Zeitsclrrift fiir angewandte Entomologie 95, 113·122.


Pest Status<br />

Chapter 31<br />

Centaurea diffusa Lam. and C. maculosa<br />

Lam. s. lat., Diffuse and Spotted<br />

Knapweed (Compositae)<br />

P. HARRIS and I.H. MYERS<br />

Diffuse and spotted knapweed are herbaceous plants introduced from Europe to the dry<br />

grasslands <strong>of</strong> western <strong>Canada</strong> and other parts <strong>of</strong> North America. The combination <strong>of</strong><br />

their allelopathic properties (Fletcher & Renney 1963), low forage value. and drought<br />

adaptation have allowed these two knapweeds to displace most other herbaceous plants<br />

over large areas.<br />

Diffuse knapwced is typically a biennial. The species was recorded in Washington State<br />

in 1907 (Howell 1959) and early Canadian herbarium specimens suggest a northward<br />

spread into British Columbia: Oyama 1936, Penticton 1939, Grandforks 1940 (Groh<br />

1943); however, it may also have been introduced directly into the province with Turkestan<br />

alfalfa from the Caspian Sea region. Renney (1959) suggested that the weed occurred at<br />

Pritchard and Lytton, British Columbia, prior to 1930 and certainly other weeds from<br />

southern USSR were recorded at Kamloops (near Pritchard) as early as 1920 (Groh<br />

1940). From these beginnings the weed spread by 1972 to infest 25 952 ha <strong>of</strong> dryland range<br />

and roadside in British Columbia as well as small areas in Alberta (Watson & Renney<br />

1974). Distribution <strong>of</strong> diffuse knapweed in 1977 is shown in Fig. 4. In 1981 about 25 ha <strong>of</strong><br />

diffuse knapweed, 8 heavily infested. were found on one farm near Morden, Manitoba<br />

(B. Todd, 1982, personal communication). Harris & Cranston (1979) predicted that the<br />

relatively high availability <strong>of</strong> summer moisture in Manitoba would put it beyond the range<br />

<strong>of</strong> the weed. It is now not clear whether the potential <strong>of</strong> the weed was seriously<br />

underestimated or the infestation merely represented a local site anomaly as it was on a<br />

light soil with a southern exposure and dry. In 1982 several kilometers <strong>of</strong>railway track<br />

were found to be infested at Walsh, Saskatchewan. This is only a slight extension <strong>of</strong> the<br />

range from the stand at Irvine, Alberta (Fig. 4); but a small stand was also found on the<br />

railway track at Colonsay, Saskatchewan, which is southeast <strong>of</strong> Saskatoon (S. McKell,<br />

personal communication). Distance spread <strong>of</strong>the weed across the prairies <strong>of</strong>ten seems to<br />

be associated with railway ties or treated bridge timbers from British Columbia.<br />

It appears that diffuse knapweed will continue to spread until it dominates the herbaceous<br />

community in open uncultivated sites in the brown chernozem and brunisol soils <strong>of</strong><br />

southern British Columbia and the brown soils <strong>of</strong> Alberta and Saskatchewan. This<br />

involves about 7.5 million ha (Harris & Cranston 1979).<br />

Spotted knapweed is a short lived perennial. The first Canadian specimen was collected<br />

by McCoun from Victoria, British Columbia, in 1893 (Groh 1943). By 1972, it was<br />

estimated to have infested 2410 ha in British Columbia as well as several small stands in<br />

Alberta (Watson & Renney 1974); but these amounts are small compared to the estimated<br />

800000 ha in Montana, United States (Maddox 1979). The western Canadian distribution<br />

<strong>of</strong> the weed in 1977 is shown in Fig. 5.<br />

It is predicted that spotted knapweed will spread to dominate the herbaceous community<br />

in open uncultivated or lightly forested sites at the dry end <strong>of</strong> the Douglas fir zone<br />

in British Columbia and in the dark brown soils <strong>of</strong> Alberta and Saskatchewan. About 3.2<br />

million ha are vulnerable to invasion (Harris & Cranston 1979).<br />

Assuming that the two knapweeds spread to their predicted limits <strong>of</strong> approximately 10<br />

million ha. the loss in terms <strong>of</strong> dry native pasture species would be 2.5 million tonnes/year<br />

127


130 P.I-htrrisandJ. H. Myers<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Urophora aflinis<br />

Frfld. (Diptera:<br />

TephrUldae)<br />

Urophora quadr1fBSCiata<br />

Mg.<br />

(Dlptera:<br />

Tephritidae)<br />

Cumm. The urediospores <strong>of</strong> P. jaeeae and P. eentaureae are similar in electron photomicrographs<br />

(Traquair el al. 1981), but are different from those <strong>of</strong> P. earlham; (Traquair<br />

1982 personal communication).<br />

It has recently been realized that because <strong>of</strong> different taxonomic treatments <strong>of</strong> spotted<br />

knapweed in Europe and North America, the problem species <strong>of</strong> British Columbia has<br />

been largely missed in the surveys done in Europe for possible biological control agents.<br />

Dostal (1976) recognizes 14 European species in the section Maculosae, whereas Moore<br />

& Frankton (1974) classified all the knapweeds in the section that have been introduced<br />

to North America as C. maeulosa. According to Dostal, C. maeulosa is diploid<br />

(2n= 18), whereas the problem knapweed <strong>of</strong> British Columbia is tetraploid (2n=36) and<br />

seems to be referable to C. biebersleinii D.C. C. biebersleinii is endemic to central and<br />

southeast Europe, but most <strong>of</strong> the survey was done on the more western species <strong>of</strong> C.<br />

valles;aea (D.C.) Jordan, C. maculosa Lam. s. SIr., and C. rhenana Bor.<br />

U. a/finis oviposits into immature flower heads <strong>of</strong> diffuse and spotted knapweed. The<br />

preferred head in diffuse knapweed is 5.5 to 7.5 mm long (Berube 1980). The larva<br />

stimulates gall formation from the receptacle tissues and feeds on enlarged and modified<br />

parenchyma cells within the gall. The number <strong>of</strong> galls that can develop in a<br />

head is proportional to the receptacle area, so the heads <strong>of</strong> spotted knapweed tend to<br />

have more galls than those <strong>of</strong> diffuse knapweed (Harris 1980a). The mature larva<br />

overwinters in the gall in the seed-head and its emergence in the spring is synchronized<br />

with the appearance <strong>of</strong> the first flower buds which are usually all attacked. In British<br />

Columbia, the partial second generation <strong>of</strong> U. affinis is too small to fully utilize the<br />

diffuse knapweed flower heads produced later in the summer (Roze 1981). However,<br />

spotted knapweed heads tend to be produced concurrently in early summer so that a<br />

smaller proportion escape attack.<br />

The releases <strong>of</strong> U. affinis are listed in Table 32. U. affinis established readily on both<br />

spotted and diffuse knapweed in British Columbia (Harris 1980a). It increased to a<br />

density <strong>of</strong> up to 3000 gallslml and spread widely throughout British Columbia to substantially<br />

reduce knapweed seed production. In Hastings County, Ontario, some galls<br />

were found in the year following release but heavy grazing destroyed most <strong>of</strong> the<br />

knapweed heads and the site has not been surveyed since. In Alberta, there was a<br />

change in policy which resulted in the treatment <strong>of</strong> all knapweed infestations with<br />

picloram. Flies became established on at least one site but we assume no colonies<br />

currently survive. The Quebec colonies released in 1980 were still present in 1981 and<br />

appear to be established (Watson 1981 personal communication).<br />

U. quadri/asciala is bivoltine and like U. affinis forms galls in the flower heads <strong>of</strong> a<br />

number <strong>of</strong> knapweed species. It emerges at the same time as U. affmis in the spring but<br />

oviposits into slightly more mature heads (7.5-9.5 mm in diffuse knapweed (Berube<br />

1980». The gall is fonned from the ovary wall tissues; several galls are nonnally found in<br />

a head and can develop in the same head as U. affinis. Both U. affmis and U.<br />

quadri/asciala increased rapidly after release, but at the original release sites U. quadrifasciala<br />

has since declined to low numbers, while U. affinis has stabilized at moderate<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> attack (Fig. 6). U. quadri/aseiata has spread more widely and rapidly than U.<br />

affinis and is now found on even small remote stands <strong>of</strong> knapweed in British Columbia.<br />

Berube (1980) suggested that U. quadrifaseiata has been less successful because heads


132 P. Harris and J. H. Myers<br />

Metzneria<br />

paucipuncteJJa<br />

Zell. (Lepidoptera:<br />

Gelechiidae)<br />

Table 29<br />

The life cycle <strong>of</strong> the moth on C. vaJlesiaca in the Swiss Rhone Valley (the source <strong>of</strong> the<br />

stock released in British Columbia) is reported by Englert (1971, 1972). The moth is<br />

univoltine and emerges at the end <strong>of</strong> May. It lays 60-100 eggs with a maximum <strong>of</strong>three eggs<br />

on an individual flower head base or adjacent stem. A single larva survives to develop in a<br />

head where it feeds principally on the achene while the seed coat is still s<strong>of</strong>t. The mature<br />

larva overwinters in the seed head which in spotted knapweed remains standing all winter<br />

having shed its seed in the fall. Up to nine seeds are eaten by a larva and in 83 attacked<br />

heads <strong>of</strong> C. vaJlesiaca, 95% <strong>of</strong> the viable seed was destroyed. Usually one-third to one-half<br />

<strong>of</strong> the heads were attacked even though the plants were widely scattered. Approximately<br />

20% <strong>of</strong> the eggs and 30-40% <strong>of</strong> the larvae were parasitized in Europe. Field records <strong>of</strong> the<br />

moth are restricted to knapweeds in the section MacuIosae, although in the laboratory it<br />

developed on C. diffusa.<br />

Adult M. paucipunctella were released (Table 32) in 1973 and 1974 at Castelgar airport<br />

and Westwold, British Columbia. M. paucipunctella has not been recovered from<br />

Castelgar; the number released was slightly less than at Westwold (73 in 1973 and 76 in<br />

1974) and in 1974, the flowering plants were mown shortly afterthe release was made. At<br />

Westwold, the initial establishment was tenuous with only four larvae found at the<br />

release point in August 1973. By the following year, larvae were found up to 20 m away<br />

(Table 29) and in 1976, they had spread a radius <strong>of</strong> at least 50 m. By 1979, the population<br />

was evenly distributed within a 50 m radius and by 1981, M. paucipunctella had spread at<br />

least 0.5 km.<br />

Establishment <strong>of</strong> M. paucipunctella Zell. on spotted knapweed, C. maculosa Lam., at<br />

Westwold, British Columbia.<br />

Year<br />

(fall)<br />

1973<br />

1974<br />

1976<br />

1977<br />

1978<br />

1979<br />

1980<br />

Radius Sampled<br />

(m)<br />

25<br />

20<br />

50<br />

30<br />

25<br />

50<br />

15<br />

No. Heads<br />

Examined<br />

4351<br />

2999<br />

485<br />

1443<br />

1719<br />

531<br />

443<br />

% heads with a M.<br />

paucipunctella larva<br />

0.1<br />

0.7<br />

2.0<br />

3.7<br />

27.5<br />

20.3<br />

37.7<br />

The population growth <strong>of</strong> M. paucipunctella has reflected the winter mortality <strong>of</strong><br />

larvae in the previous year. For example 68% <strong>of</strong> the larvae survived the winter <strong>of</strong><br />

1977-78 compared with only 28% in 1978-79. The reason for the mortality is not clear.<br />

The larvae can survive colder temperatures than they experience at Westwold; survival in<br />

the mild humid winter <strong>of</strong> Vancouver in 1977-78 was 82%, and it was 78% in the dry cold<br />

winter <strong>of</strong> Walachin, British Columbia. Possibly larvae are affected by a combination <strong>of</strong><br />

moisture and cold and the rate <strong>of</strong> onset <strong>of</strong> cold weather. Larvae absorb and lose moisture<br />

readily: 14 overwintering larvae dissected from knapweed heads and put on moist filter<br />

paper at 1000C in 3 days increased their weight by 50% (from 3.17±0.56 g to 4. 79± 1.13 g).<br />

After 16 days in a desiccator, they had returned to their original weight <strong>of</strong> 3.11±0.66 g.<br />

Less than 1% <strong>of</strong> the larvae are parasitized by an Elachertus sp. (Chalcidae) and some<br />

larvae are eaten by mice which feed on the seed heads particularly in the late summer.<br />

The percentage <strong>of</strong> seed destroyed by M. paucipunctella in <strong>Canada</strong> is much lower than<br />

the 95% reported by Englert (1971). However, C. biebersteinii heads at Westwold


Sphenoptera<br />

jugoslav/ca Obenb.<br />

(Coleoptera:<br />

Buprestidae)<br />

Table 30<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Centallrea diffllsa Lam. and C. maclllosa Lam. s. lat., 133<br />

contain an average 17 seeds compared with the 9-10 seeds for C. vallesiaca in the Swiss<br />

Rhone Valley. Only one M. paucipunctella larva develops in a head and destroys<br />

approximately four seeds or about one quarter <strong>of</strong> the production in a head at Westwold.<br />

However, at Westwold, M. paucipunctella does coexist in the same heads with U.<br />

quadrifasciata and there was no significant difference in the number <strong>of</strong> galls in heads<br />

with and without M. paucipunctella. Certainly U. quadrifasciata is adding to the seed<br />

destruction by M. paucipunctel/a but the moth larvae destroy U. affinis galls in the head.<br />

The biology and host specificity <strong>of</strong> S. jugoslavica were studied by Zw61fer (1976). The<br />

beetle is indigenous to the Balkans where it is found only on C. diffusa and C. jurineafolia.<br />

The adults feed on the knapweed foliage and do relatively minor damage. The female<br />

oviposits between the bases <strong>of</strong> tightly appressed rosette leaves, and if rosette growth<br />

occurs during the egg stage, the larva is unable to penetrate into the root crown. Thus the<br />

beetle is restricted to regions with a reliable summer drought during this stage. From the<br />

root crown a single larva bores into the root leaving a cylinder <strong>of</strong> cortex undamaged. The<br />

rosette continues to live, but in Europe <strong>of</strong>ten does not flower in the following year and so<br />

is subject to a second attack by S. jugoslavica. Up to 70% <strong>of</strong> the larvae in Europe are lost<br />

to parasitoids, predators, and competitors, but they were able to coexist with insects<br />

that feed on the outside <strong>of</strong> the knapweed roots. The beetle is univoltine and produces<br />

33-65 eggs/female.<br />

S. jugoslavica was released at Grandforks (51 adults) and White Lake, British<br />

Columbia (188 adults) in 1976 (Table 32). No survivors were found at Grandforks, but<br />

the colony at White Lake increased to infest 25-50"10 <strong>of</strong> the rosettes within a 250 m<br />

radius in 1981, and over half the flowering plants had been attacked (Table 30).<br />

Proportion <strong>of</strong> diffuse knapweed plants, C. diffusa L., attacked by Sphenoplera at the<br />

White Lake Observatory release site.<br />

Year Distance From Release Site Total·<br />

II 3m 6m 10 m 13 m 26 m 39 m 52 m 65 m<br />

Stem<br />

PlantslO.25 ml X ±S.D. n<br />

1977 .13 (40)··<br />

1978 .38 (52) .29 (17) .07 (41)<br />

1979 .39 (18) .SO (5) .29 (7) .05 (20)<br />

1980 .40 ( 5) .SO (34) .46 (13)<br />

1981 .59 (94)in 23 quadrates 0-250 m<br />

• Ungrazed area only<br />

•• Number <strong>of</strong> flowering plants<br />

10.11<br />

3.1<br />

.SO (IS) .52 (23) .57 (21) .29 (14) .33 (9) 6.5<br />

4.3<br />

Predictions <strong>of</strong> the eventual effects <strong>of</strong> the knapweed gall flies, U. affinis and U. quadri·<br />

fasciata, are conflicting. The immediate effects <strong>of</strong> the flies on the study sites at Kamloops<br />

have been a decline in seed production from around 25 000 to 1 SOO/m l and a reduction in<br />

the biomass <strong>of</strong> the weed, but the number <strong>of</strong> plants per unit area has remained the same.<br />

Obviously any effects <strong>of</strong> seed destruction would be masked for several years by the seed<br />

bank in the soil which, under dense stands <strong>of</strong> knapweed, is massive. Survivorship<br />

studies by Roze (1981) indicate that 1 500 seedslm l should be enough to maintain the<br />

7.6<br />

3.5<br />

4.2<br />

1.8<br />

11<br />

IS<br />

8<br />

23


134 P. Harris and J. H. Myers<br />

Table 31<br />

density <strong>of</strong> the weed, so no decline should be expected. On the other hand, Berube &<br />

Myers (1982) suggested that the knapweed would be controlled on sites where there<br />

was a high seedling loss either from drought or in moist sites from strong competition<br />

from other vegetation. In a later study, Myers & Berube (in press) found that the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> knapweed plants surviving to the flowering stage was directly proportional to<br />

the number <strong>of</strong> seedlings over a wide range <strong>of</strong> knapweed densities. If the results <strong>of</strong> this<br />

study are generally applicable, the flies should eventually achieve a large decline in<br />

knapweed density. The difference in the two predictions may be related to the study<br />

methods. ROle (1981) achieved a low knapweed density by removing seedlings from<br />

plots <strong>of</strong> almost pure knapweed. This had the effect <strong>of</strong> temporarily reducing the competition<br />

for the remaining knapweed. In the Myers & Berube (in press) study, the<br />

knapweed was always in competition: with itself at high densities and with grass at low<br />

densities.<br />

The effect <strong>of</strong> the beetle S. jugoslavica on diffuse knapweed was not studied in detail as<br />

until recently the colony was too small for destructive sampling. That the beetle tends to<br />

reduce seed production is evident from Table 31. Its effect may be much greater if it<br />

Effect <strong>of</strong> S. jugoslavica Obenb. on diffuse knapweed, C. diffusa L., seed production<br />

per flowering plant at White Lake, British Columbia<br />

Attacked Unattacked<br />

Year X ±SD n X ±SD n<br />

1977 18.6 13.4 5 20.4 14.8 28<br />

1978 69.1 45.9 26 73.5 55.7 82<br />

1979 38.9 33.9 10 66.5 80.4 16<br />

1980 31.6 24.4 25 54.3 52.5 27 P 0.05 U Test<br />

tends to prevent rosettes from bolting: approximately 20% <strong>of</strong> the rosettes in the fenced<br />

area had been attacked in the previous year, so they had passed at least two years<br />

without flowering. No previously attacked rosettes were found in the grazed area but the<br />

significance <strong>of</strong> this is not known, nor is the percentage <strong>of</strong> rosettes that normally take two<br />

years to flower. There was an indication that S. jugsolavica had a synergistic effect on<br />

seed reduction in plants stressed by drought or attacked by the seed-head gall flies. Both<br />

gall flies were present on the site, and in the autumn <strong>of</strong> 1981, there was an average <strong>of</strong><br />

1.63 ± 1.43 (S.D.) galls in the five distal heads on 23 plants; but whether a combination <strong>of</strong><br />

S. jugoslavica and the flies reduce seed production below the level needed for<br />

maintenance <strong>of</strong> the knapweed stand remains to be seen.<br />

The effect <strong>of</strong> M. paucipunctella on spotted knapweed was less than expected from<br />

European studies as a different species <strong>of</strong> knapweed appears to be involved in British<br />

Columbia. Also, the overwintering larvae at Westwold, British Columbia, have suffered<br />

a periodic large and unexplained winter mortality that has prevented the rapid increase<br />

and spread <strong>of</strong> the species. However, without releases in other knapweed stands, it<br />

should not be assumed that this mortality occurs throughout the spotted knapweed<br />

region <strong>of</strong> North America. The ability <strong>of</strong> M. paucipunctel/a or the seed fly U.<br />

quadrifasciata to survive in the colder parts <strong>of</strong> the Canadian prairies is doubtful. In<br />

the winter <strong>of</strong> 1981, spotted knapweed heads containing overwintering larvae <strong>of</strong> the three<br />

seed-head insects were tied to a stake at normal plant height at Regina. Only U. affinis<br />

larvae were alive in the spring. If large stands <strong>of</strong> the weed became established on the<br />

prairies, it might be possible to select cold hardy strains <strong>of</strong> the insects but in the meantime


Table 32<br />

Recommendations<br />

Centaurea diffusa Lam. and C. maculosa Lam. s. lat., 135<br />

the safest course <strong>of</strong> action is to chemically treat stands <strong>of</strong> the weed as they appear and are<br />

still small.<br />

Auld et al. (1979) pointed out that the best control strategy against a weed on either a<br />

farm or regional basis depends on the rate at which it spreads. The faster the rate, the<br />

greater the necessity to treat the source area while for slowly spreading weeds, containment<br />

is the most economic course <strong>of</strong> action. The seed reduction achieved by the<br />

biological control agents already established in British Columbia should have decreased<br />

the rate <strong>of</strong> knapweed invasion from headlands onto tame pasture as well as the spread to<br />

new regions within western <strong>Canada</strong>. Unfortunately, the benefits from this reduced rate<br />

<strong>of</strong> spread will not be reflected in the chemical control programme until this is done on a<br />

strictly costlbenefit basis. To reduce knapweed with biological control agents to the<br />

point where the publicly funded chemical control programme becomes clearly unnecessary<br />

will require the establishment <strong>of</strong> more biological control agents on knapweed in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> insects against Centaurea diffusa L. and C. maculosa<br />

Lam. s. lat.<br />

Control Agent Province Released Year Origin Number Year <strong>of</strong> Recovery<br />

C. I1Ulcu/o5a<br />

Urophora affinis Ontario 1970 France 694 1971<br />

British Columbia 1970 France 297 1971<br />

Ontario 1971 France 97<br />

British Columbia 1971 France 377 1972<br />

British Columbia 1972 British Columbia 1472<br />

British Columbia 1974 British Columbia 550<br />

Alberta 1976 British Columbia 200 Site treated with herbicide<br />

Quebec 1979 British Columbia 950<br />

Quebec 1980 British Columbia 345<br />

Urophora quadrifa5c",ra Quebec 1979 British Columbia 950<br />

Merzneria paucipuncrel/a British Columbia 1973 Switzerland 197 1974<br />

British Columbia 1974 Switzerland 177 1975<br />

British Columbia 1979 British Columbia 180 Overwintering test<br />

C. diffusa<br />

Urophora affinis British Columbia 1970 France 284 1971<br />

British Columbia 1971 France 209 1972<br />

British Columbia 1972 USSR 797 1973<br />

Alberta 1977 British Columbia 681 Site treated with herbicide<br />

Quebec 1980 British Columbia<br />

Urophora quadrifa5ciara British Columbia 1972 USSR 50 1973<br />

Sphenoprera jugol/avica British Columbia 1976 Greece 239 1977<br />

(1) The effects <strong>of</strong> S. jugoslavica on diffuse knapweed in British Columbia should be<br />

determined. If the beetle adds to the seed reduction that is achieved by the seed-head<br />

gall flies. it should be established throughout the diffuse knapweed region.<br />

(2) The susceptibility <strong>of</strong> M. paucipunctella to winter mortality should be detennined for<br />

a number <strong>of</strong> places within the spotted knapweed region and the moth established in<br />

favorable sites.<br />

(3) Additional species <strong>of</strong> biological control agents should be established on both<br />

spotted and diffuse knapweed in <strong>Canada</strong> as soon as they can be screened and approved


136 P. Harris and J. H. Myers<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

Literature Cited<br />

for release. In particular. studies should be completed on the root-feeding moth Agapeta<br />

zoegana for spotted knapweed. and Pelochrisla medullana for diffuse and spotted<br />

knapweed.<br />

(4) The possibility <strong>of</strong> using or enhancing pathogens already on knapweed in North<br />

America. particularly SclerOlina sclerotiorum and Puccinia jaceae should be explored.<br />

Although S. scleroliorum is a major pest <strong>of</strong> vegetable crops. its presence on knapweed<br />

infested rangeland should not aggravate the problem on cultivated land.<br />

Aspects <strong>of</strong> the biological control <strong>of</strong> knapweed have been the subject <strong>of</strong> Ph.D. studies at<br />

the University <strong>of</strong> British Columbia (U .B.C.) by Liga Roze and Peter Morrison. <strong>of</strong> undergraduate<br />

or technical studies. from U.B.C. by Barbara Rawlek. Woody Bennet. Sandy<br />

Ockenden and from Regina by Julie Soroka. Their work and ideas have been used extensively<br />

in preparing this review. Thanks are also due to Peter Morrison and Julie Soroka<br />

for reviewing and suggesting changes in the manuscript.<br />

Auld. B.A.; Coote. B.G.; Menz. K.M. (1979) Dynamics <strong>of</strong> plant spread in relation to weed control. ProCt'edings <strong>of</strong> 'he 7,h Asian Pacific<br />

Weed Science Conference. 399-402.<br />

Berube. D. E. (1980) Interspecific competition between Urophora affinis and U. quadrifascia,a (Diptera: Tephritidae) for ovipositional sites<br />

on diffuse knapweed (Centaurfa difflLta Compositae). ZeiLtclirif' far angewand'e Entonwlogie 90.<br />

299-306.<br />

Berube. D.E.; Myers. J.H. (1982) Suppression <strong>of</strong> knapweed invasion by crested wheatgrass in the dry interior <strong>of</strong> British Columbia. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Range Matlagemen' 35. 459-461.<br />

Cummins. G.B. (1977) Nomenclature changes and new species in the Uredinales. Myco,axotl 5. 398-408.<br />

Dostal. J. (1976) Cen'aurea L. p. 254-301. In: Flora europaea. vol 4. Cambridge University Press. 505 pp.<br />

Englen. W. (1971) Me'Ztleria paucipunc,ella Zell. (Ge1echiidae. Lepidoptera): a potential insect for the biological control <strong>of</strong> Cenlaurea<br />

s,oebe L. in <strong>Canada</strong>. Commotlweal,h Ins'i'u'e <strong>of</strong> Biological Cotllrol Progress Repor' 28. 12 pp.<br />

Englen. W.O. (1972) Revision der Gallung Me,zneria Zeller (Lepidoptera. Gc1echiidae) mit Beitriigen zur Biologic der Anen. Zeitscllrif' far<br />

angewand'e Entomologie 75.381-421.<br />

Fletcher. R.A.; Renne)" A.J. (1963) A growth inhibitor found in Centaurea spp. Canadian I(}urnal (}f Plant Science 43.475-481.<br />

Groh. H. (1940) Turkestan alfalfa as a medium <strong>of</strong> weed introduction. Science in Agricul,ure 21.36-43.<br />

Groh. H. (1943) Canadian weed survey. 2nd Annual Repon <strong>of</strong> the Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> AgriCUlture. 74 pp.<br />

Harris. P. (1979) Cost <strong>of</strong> biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds by insects in <strong>Canada</strong>. Weed ScienCt' 27. 242-250.<br />

Harris. P. (19800) Establishment <strong>of</strong> UropllOra affitlis Frnd. and U. quadrifascia,a (Meig.) in <strong>Canada</strong> for the biological control <strong>of</strong> diffuse and<br />

spOiled knapweed. Zeitschrif' fiir atlgewand'e En'(}m(}logie 89. 504-514.<br />

Harris. P. (1980b) Effects <strong>of</strong> Urophora affinis Frnd. and U. quadrifascia,a (Meig.) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Om'al/rea diffusa Lam. and C.<br />

maclliosa Lam. (Compositae). Zei'schrif' far angewatld'e En'omologie 90. 190-210.<br />

Harris. P.; Cranston. R. (1979) An economic evaluation <strong>of</strong> control meusures for diffuse and spOiled knapweed in western <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian<br />

10llmal <strong>of</strong> I'latl' Scitnce 59. 375-382.<br />

Howell, J.T. (1959) Distributional data on weedy thistles in western North America. Leafle, <strong>of</strong> Wes'ern Bo'any 9.17-29.<br />

Jeffrey. C. (1967) Notes on Compositae: 111. The Cynareae in cast tropical Africa. Kew Bulle,in 22, 107-140.<br />

Maddox, D.M. (1979) The knapweeds: their economics and biological control in the western States. U.S.A. Rangelatlds I. 139-143.<br />

Moore. R.J.; Frankton. C. (1974) The thistles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Calladiotl Drpar'menl <strong>of</strong> Agricul,ure Motlonograph 10. Ottawa. 111 pp.<br />

Myers. J. H.; Berube. D. E. (in press) Diffuse knapweed invasion into rangeland in the dry interior <strong>of</strong> British Columbia. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Plan' Science.<br />

Myers. J.H.; Harris, P. (1980) Distribution <strong>of</strong> Uroplwra gulls in nower heads <strong>of</strong> liffuse and spotted knapweed in British Columbia. JOl/rnal <strong>of</strong><br />

Applied Ecol(}gy 17.359-367.<br />

Renney. A.J. (1959) Centaurea spp. infestation in British Columbia. Proceedinll$ <strong>of</strong> a Joint Meeting <strong>of</strong> the North Central Weed Control<br />

Conference 16 and the Western <strong>Canada</strong> Weed Control Conference 10. 18-19.<br />

Roze. L. (1981) The biological control <strong>of</strong> Centaurea diffll.ta Lam. and C. maclIl(}.ra Lam. by Uropllora affitlis Frauenfeld and U.<br />

quadriflLrcia'a Meigel! (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ph.D. thesis. University <strong>of</strong> British Columbia.<br />

Savile. D.B.O. (1970a) Some Eurasian Puccinia species allacking Cardueae. Canadian 10llmal <strong>of</strong> BOIony 48. 1553-1566.<br />

Savile. D.B.O. (1970b) Autoecious Pllccinia species al1acking Cardueae in North America. Canadian loumal <strong>of</strong> Bo'any 48. 1567-1584.


Celltaltrea diffusa Lam. and C. macltlosa Lam. s. lat., 137<br />

Traquair, J.A.; Kokko, E.G.; Harris, P. (1981) Urcdiniosporc morphology <strong>of</strong> two rust fungi on Cellllllm:ll (knapweed). Almrllcls ollile<br />

Cll/ladiall 80latlical Assoeiatioll Amlllaf Meelitlg 1981.<br />

Watson, A.K.; Alkoury, I. (1981) Response <strong>of</strong> safflower cultivars to Pllceillia jaceae collected from diffuse knapweed in eastern Europe.<br />

Proceeditlgs olllle 5111 Itilemuliolllif SymptJSillt1l 1m Ille Biological Cotllml <strong>of</strong> Weeds, 301-305.<br />

Watson, A.K.; Copeman, R.J.; Relllley A.J. (1974) A first record <strong>of</strong> Scleroliml sclerotio",,,, and Microsplllleropsis cetllllllreac on CCtllllllrell<br />

diffllsa. Call1ldiatl Jmmlllfl11 Botatly 52. 2639-2640.<br />

Watson, A.K.; Renney, AJ. (1974) The biology <strong>of</strong> Canadian weeds, 6. Celllmlreu diffiLm ,lIId C. Itrllcillosa. Camldiutl JOllmal <strong>of</strong> PfulI/<br />

SciC/lce 54,687-701.<br />

Watson, A. K.; Schroeder, D.; Alkoury, I. (1981) Collection (If Pllccitlill specics [rom diffusc knapweed in eastern Europe. Call1uli,m JOllmaf<br />

01 Plam Palhology 3.6-8.<br />

Zwolfer H. (1976) Investigations on SplJetloplera (Cllilo.rletlla) jllgosfal·ica Obenb. (Col. Bupreslidac), a possiblc bioconlrol agent <strong>of</strong> the<br />

weed CetililllTeU diffllsil Lalli. (Colllpositac) in <strong>Canada</strong>. ZcilSc/rrifr liir Iltlgewalldre EII/oltralogie SO,<br />

170-190.


Blank Page<br />

138


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Altics csrduorum<br />

Guer. (Coleoptera:<br />

Chrysomelidae)<br />

Chapter 32<br />

Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., <strong>Canada</strong><br />

Thistle (Compositae)<br />

D.P. PESCHKEN<br />

New data have been published on the pest status <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.)<br />

Scop., since the previous ten year review (Peschken 1971). Thomas (1980) summarized<br />

the abundance <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle on cultivated land in <strong>Canada</strong>. This is a particularly<br />

serious weed in the three Prairie Provinces, especially in the black soil zone and in<br />

Manitoba. In this province it ranked fifth and sixth in abundance in 1978 and 1979<br />

respectively; ninth and twelfth in Saskatchewan from 1976 to 1979; and on the average<br />

thirteenth in Alberta from 1973 to 1979. Of their most troublesome weeds, farmers in<br />

Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba ranked <strong>Canada</strong> thistle second, fifth, and third<br />

respectively, i.e. considerably higher than the rank based on relative abundance (Thomas<br />

1980). Peschken et al. (1980) estimated the loss in yield <strong>of</strong> wheat in Saskatchewan based<br />

on the sampling estimate <strong>of</strong> the density <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle in wheat fields (Thomas 1976)<br />

and estimates <strong>of</strong> the reduction in yield <strong>of</strong> wheat at various density levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong><br />

thistle. Assuming the 10 year average yield <strong>of</strong> 1607 kg per ha and a price <strong>of</strong>$14.7 per 100<br />

kg, Saskatchewan farmers lost 24 300 t <strong>of</strong> wheat or $3 600 000 in the reduction <strong>of</strong> yield <strong>of</strong><br />

wheat alone due to <strong>Canada</strong> thistle in 1976. The costs <strong>of</strong> chemical and cultural control <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Canada</strong> thistle are high. Thus the total cost <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle in terms <strong>of</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> control<br />

and losses to all crops is a multiple <strong>of</strong> the $3 600 000 estimated for wheat.<br />

Natural enemies <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle and the initial stages <strong>of</strong> the biological control work<br />

were discussed in the previous review (Peschken 1971). Work on the biological control<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle has also been done in the United States with Altica carduorum Ouer.<br />

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Urophora cardui (Diptera: Tephritidae), and Ceutorhynchus<br />

Iitura (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) (Andres 1980, Schaber et al. 1975, Story<br />

1980). The latter species is established in Idaho, South Dakota, and Montana (Julien,<br />

1982). Baker et al. (1972) reported on releases <strong>of</strong> A. carduorum against <strong>Canada</strong> thistle in<br />

England. Ward & Pienkowski (1978a, 1978b), working in the state <strong>of</strong> Virginia, United<br />

States, investigated the biology and mortality <strong>of</strong> Cassida rubiginosa Muell. (Coleoptera:<br />

Chrysomelidae) which has been accidentally introduced into eastern North America.<br />

One insect was screened but not released. The only confirmed host plant <strong>of</strong> Tingis<br />

ampliata H.-S., (Heteroptera: Tingidae) in its native habitat in Europe is C. arvense.<br />

However, in the laboratory it developed fertile eggs on several other plants. including<br />

the cultivated globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.) and safflower (Carthamus tinctorius<br />

L.). Therefore, T. ampliata was not recommended for release (Peschken 1977).<br />

(a) Ecology<br />

Baker et al. (1972) showed that the development <strong>of</strong>the immature stages <strong>of</strong> A. carduorultl<br />

is slightly faster at 100% relative humidity (r.h.) than at 97%. At an average temperature<br />

139


140 D. P. Peschken<br />

Ceutorhynchus<br />

lItura (F.)<br />

(Coleoptera:<br />

Curcullonidae)<br />

<strong>of</strong> 15°C, development was not completed. while at 22.5°C to 25°C. it was completed in 33-<br />

38 days. Thus high temperatures and humidities are needed for an optimal rate <strong>of</strong><br />

development. This agrees with the coastal Mediterranean and Atlantic native distribution<br />

<strong>of</strong> the beetles (Peschken 1971).<br />

(b) Releases<br />

Releases up to and including 1968 were reported by Peschken (1971). The colony at<br />

Lacombe, Alberta survived until 1971. In addition, 170 were released in 1969 at Fon<br />

Vermilion, Albena (58°28' N), which is the most northern and coolest <strong>of</strong> all release sites<br />

<strong>of</strong> A. carduorum in <strong>Canada</strong> (Table 33). In 1970, 1018 beetles were released at Essex,<br />

Ontario (42° 22' N), which is the most southern and warmest <strong>of</strong> all release sites. Both<br />

releases were made early in the spring which prevented overdispersal in high<br />

temperatures (Peschken 1977). Predation <strong>of</strong> eggs and larvae was severe at Essex and less<br />

severe at Fort Vermilion. In the fall <strong>of</strong> the respective release years, 18 adults were found<br />

at Fon Vermilion and only one at Essex, although six times as many beetles had been<br />

released at the latter site. At Essex, the carabid beetle Lebia viridis Say, was implicated as<br />

a main predator <strong>of</strong> eggs and larvae. In feeding tests it consumed 0.7 eggs and larvae per<br />

hour (Peschken 1971). No A. carduorum were found in subsequent years.<br />

(a) Ecology<br />

The ecology <strong>of</strong> this stem-mining weevil was summarized by Peschken (1971). Since then<br />

Peschken & Beecher (1973) and Peschken & Wilkinson (1981) have published additional<br />

information. The weevil larvae feed on the parenchyma tissue <strong>of</strong> the stem and avoid the<br />

vascular bundles. In <strong>Canada</strong>, the females oviposit from early May until the beginning <strong>of</strong><br />

June. The new adults copulate and feed heavily during sunny, late summer and early fall<br />

days ",ith temperatures over 18°C, but do not oviposit. At this time, males outnumber<br />

females 2: 1.<br />

In spring, females outnumber the males 1.6: 1. In the laboratory females laid an average<br />

<strong>of</strong> 122 eggs in temperatures varying from 17°C to 27°C during a 16.5 hour day and 7°C to<br />

17°C during a 7.5 hour night. An average <strong>of</strong> 80% <strong>of</strong> the eggs hatched.<br />

(b) Releases<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 1188 weevils was released in five provinces at 11 release sites (Table 33).<br />

The insect became established at nine sites in varying climates in four provinces <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Canada</strong>. It spread slowly, 2.9 km in 12 years in Ontario, 90 m and 75 m in six and four<br />

years respectively at two release sites in Saskatchewan. The length <strong>of</strong> mines varied on<br />

the different release sites from 5 to 23 cm. The short, 5 cm, mines were found at<br />

Lacombe, Albena where almost all <strong>of</strong> the thistles were smooth-leaved, resembling<br />

those <strong>of</strong> C. arvense var. integrifolium Wimm. & Grab. The weevil preferred dense<br />

patches <strong>of</strong> thistle.<br />

Mined shoots were from 1.09 to 1.96 times taller than unmined ones in the fall<br />

(Peschken & Wilkinson 1981). This is explained as follows: early emerged, unattacked<br />

thistle rosettes grow into taller shoots by fall than later emerged ones (Peschken &<br />

Wilkinson 1981). The weevil oviposits into the early emerged rosettes and it is


Urophora cardui<br />

(L.) (Diptera:<br />

Tephritidae)<br />

Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.. 141<br />

assumed that larval mining does not prevent the early emerged rosettes from growing<br />

into taller shoots. This also means that damage to the thistles is light.<br />

The development <strong>of</strong> the weevils and thistles was monitored in detail at one release<br />

site in Ontario. The weevil was released on a dense patch <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle, and<br />

eventually it spread to other more or less contiguous thistle patches on the same<br />

permanent pasture covering about 1 ha. On the original release patch, the level <strong>of</strong><br />

mined stems peaked at 72% in the fifth growing season with an average <strong>of</strong> 2.75 larvae<br />

per stem, and thistle density subsequently diminished to zero (Peschken & Beecher<br />

1973, Peschken & Wilkinson 1981). However, on another patch in the same pasture,<br />

thistle density did not diminish although 77-91 % <strong>of</strong> the stems were mined for four<br />

years, while on a third thistle density declined to zero per m 1 with only up to 2% <strong>of</strong><br />

the stems being mined. Thus no consistent correlation between an increase in the<br />

weevil population and a decline <strong>of</strong> the thistles was observed. The rust Puccinia<br />

punctiformis (Str.) Roh!. and the thistle feeding beetles Cleonus piger Scop. (Coleoptera:<br />

Curculionidae) and Cassida rubiginosa Muell. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) were also<br />

present on this release pasture, and dense thistles tend to decrease to scattered shoots<br />

behind an advancing front (Amor & Harris 1975). It is assumed that the decline <strong>of</strong><br />

thistles on some <strong>of</strong> the patchcs was caused by one or a combination <strong>of</strong> these factors.<br />

Similarly, the fluctuating thistle densities at release sites in western <strong>Canada</strong> could not<br />

be associated with levels <strong>of</strong> weevil infestation.<br />

(a) Ecology<br />

This gall fly occurs from France in the west (ZwOlfer 1967) to near the Crimea<br />

(Oirlbeck & Oirlbeck 1964) and Siberia in (he east (Leclercq 1967), and from Sweden<br />

in the north (Zetterstedt 1847) to the Mediterranean in the south (Zwolfer 1967).<br />

Areas in half shade seem to be preferred over those in full sun (ZwOlfer 1967).<br />

The fly is monophagous on <strong>Canada</strong> thistle and oviposits into the vegetative buds <strong>of</strong><br />

the main or side shoots. In Saskatchewan, the oviposition period extends from the end<br />

<strong>of</strong> May to the third week in July. The larvae overwinter and pupate in spring inside a<br />

multi-locular lignified gall. There is a strong correlation in the number <strong>of</strong> larvae and the<br />

size <strong>of</strong> field collected or laboratory produced galls (Pesch ken et al. 1982).<br />

(b) Releases<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 4932 flies and 290 galls was released in 14 locations in the four western<br />

provinces <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> and in 10 locations in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick (Table<br />

33). In western <strong>Canada</strong>, galls were usually produced in the year <strong>of</strong> the release, and on<br />

two sites it survived for two and three years respectively. However, the fly died out in<br />

western <strong>Canada</strong> except for a very small colony at Camrose, Alberta.<br />

In contrast, U. cardu; is established at five locations in Ontario, Quebec, and New<br />

Brunswick. Near Sussex, New Brunswick, the fly had been released at two locations,<br />

4.5 km apart. The population <strong>of</strong> one release had spread over 1000 ha by 1980, but only<br />

6% <strong>of</strong> the shoots were galled in anyone thistle patch. By 1981, populations <strong>of</strong> the two<br />

release sites had merged and spread over 3000 ha. On some thistle patches up to seven<br />

galls were found on one thistle shoot and there was an average <strong>of</strong> three on the attacked<br />

shoots (O.B. Finnamore. 1981. personal communication). In 1979. 13% <strong>of</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong><br />

larvae was diagnosed to contain Nosema sp. (Microsporidia) spores and the percentage<br />

was higher in dead than in live larvae. Three percent <strong>of</strong> the larvae were parasitized by<br />

Habrocyrus elevatus Walker (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). In 1980, only 3% <strong>of</strong> the


142 D. P. Pcschken<br />

Lema cyanella<br />

(L.) (Coleoptera:<br />

Chrysomelidae)<br />

larvae contained Nosema spores and 1.3% were parasitized by an as yet unidentified<br />

hymenopterous parasite. In Saskatchewan and Alberta, the mortality was higher: 35%<br />

<strong>of</strong> a total <strong>of</strong> 402 larvae collected in the spring <strong>of</strong> 1975, 1976, and 1977 was dead.<br />

Comparing only those thistles that emerged during the oviposition period <strong>of</strong> the fly,<br />

shoots with galls on the main shoot were 57% shorter, and those with sideshoot galls<br />

were 10% shorter than ungalled shoots in Quebec when growing on an uncultivated site<br />

with competing vegetation. However, in Saskatchewan even an average <strong>of</strong> 13 galls per<br />

shoot did not reduce the height, dry weight, number <strong>of</strong> seed heads or the dry weight <strong>of</strong><br />

new shoots produced by thistles growing in the absence <strong>of</strong> competition on heavy fertile<br />

soil with sufficient moisture (Peschken et al. 1982).<br />

(a) Ecology<br />

This leaf-feeder is widely distributed in Europe and A!>ia between latitudes 35°N and<br />

65°N and occurs about three-quarters <strong>of</strong> the range <strong>of</strong> C. arvense (Peschken & Johnson<br />

1979). It is rare in Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland and is more frequent<br />

in western Europe (Zwolfer & Pattullo 1970, Winiarska 1973). Collection records<br />

indicate that moist habitats are preferred (Winiarska 1973, ZwOlfer & Pattullo 1970,<br />

Lopatin 1960, Peschken unpublished).<br />

The adult beetles hibernate and in Europe they appear on the thistle rosettes at about<br />

the end <strong>of</strong> April. They oviposit in May and the new generation <strong>of</strong> adults can be observed<br />

from the end <strong>of</strong> June until August. There is one generation per year.<br />

(b) Host specificity<br />

The only confirmed breeding host in Europe is C. arvense (Zwolfer & Pattulo 1970,<br />

Peschken & Johnson 1979). In the screening tests for host specificity, it did not feed on<br />

any cultivated plants but on several Cirsium spp. native to North America (Peschken &<br />

Johnson 1979). One <strong>of</strong> these, Cirsium drummondiiT. & G., was even preferred in favour<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle in choice tests in the laboratory. In a field cage, however, the females<br />

laid most eggs on those thistles which were most prevalent in terms <strong>of</strong> biomass <strong>of</strong> leaves<br />

and stems (Peschken unpublished).<br />

(c) Releases<br />

The releases listed on Table 33 were made for the purpose <strong>of</strong> testing the host preference<br />

<strong>of</strong> L. cyanella in the more natural environment <strong>of</strong> a field cage, not for establishment in<br />

the field. In the course <strong>of</strong> these field cage studies, 4 out <strong>of</strong> 28 beetles survived the 1978n9<br />

winter. In subsequent years the beetles were collected in the fall and overwintered in the<br />

laboratory. However, another adult was collected in the field in the spring <strong>of</strong> 1981. Thus<br />

L. cyan ella can survive the winter in Saskatchewan. No larvae were found in 1981. The<br />

release <strong>of</strong> L. cyanella with the intent <strong>of</strong> establishment has not yet been approved out <strong>of</strong><br />

concern for the Cirsium species <strong>of</strong> our native North American flora.


Table 33 Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> insects against Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.<br />

Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.. 143<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Species and Province Origin Year Number Recovery<br />

Altica carduorum (Guerin-Meneville)<br />

British Columbia Switzerland· 1969 5534<br />

Alberta Switzerland· 1969 170 1971<br />

Ontario Switzerland • 1970 1018<br />

France 1970 345<br />

TOTAL 7067<br />

Ceutorhynchus litura (F.)<br />

British Columbia Germany, Switzerland 1975 69 1976-80<br />

France, Italy<br />

Alberta Germany, Switzerland 1975 57 1976-80<br />

France, Italy<br />

Indian Head, Saskatchewan 1978 280 1979-80<br />

Saskatchewan Switzerland· 1973 70 1974-80<br />

Switzerland· 1974 30 1975-80<br />

Germany, Switzerland 1975 41 1976-80<br />

France, Italy<br />

Switzerland· 1976 56<br />

Switzerland • 1978 25 1979<br />

Indian Head, Saskatchewan 1979 228 1980<br />

Ontario Switzerland·· 1966 56<br />

New Brunswick Indian Head, Saskatchewan 1978 276 1981<br />

TOTAL 1188<br />

Urophora cardui (L.)<br />

British Columbia Germany 1974 274<br />

Germany 1975 98<br />

France. Austria 1976 199<br />

plus lab. reared<br />

from French stock<br />

Alberta Germany 1975 100 1976<br />

Austria, France 1976 472<br />

plus lab. reared<br />

from French stock<br />

Lab. reared from stock 1977 406 1978-81<br />

collected in <strong>Canada</strong><br />

Saskatchewan Germany 1974 625<br />

Germany, plus lab. 1975 274 1976-80<br />

reared from German stock<br />

France, Austria 1976 915 1977-78<br />

plus lab. reared<br />

from French stock<br />

Lab. reared from stock 1977 392<br />

collected in <strong>Canada</strong><br />

Ontario Germany 1975 81 1976-80<br />

France, Austria 1976 52 1977-80<br />

plus lab. reared<br />

from French stock


144 D. P. Peschken<br />

Table 33 continued<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Species and Province Origin Year Number Recovery<br />

Quebec Germany 1975 96<br />

France, Austria 1976 451 1977-79<br />

plus lab. reared<br />

from French stock<br />

Lab. reared from stock 1977 99<br />

collected in <strong>Canada</strong><br />

Field collected 1979 290 1981<br />

at Compton, Quebec galls<br />

New Brunswick France, Austria 1976 191 1977-82<br />

plus lab. reared<br />

from French stock<br />

Lab. reared from stock 1977 207 1978-82<br />

collected in <strong>Canada</strong><br />

TOTAL 4932 flies<br />

plus 290<br />

galls<br />

Lema cyanella (L.)<br />

Switzerland· 1978 28 1979<br />

1979 68<br />

1980 35 1981<br />

1982 31 1982<br />

TOTAL 162<br />

• These were laboratory reared beetles from stock collected in Switzerland .<br />

.. Not reported in Peschken 1971.<br />

The cool climate combined with predation prevented establishment <strong>of</strong> A. carduorum.<br />

The weevil, C. litura, is established in four provinces and probably can be colonized in<br />

all agricultural areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. However, damage to <strong>Canada</strong> thistle by larval mining is<br />

small. Furthermore, <strong>Canada</strong> thistle is a major weed in the grain belt <strong>of</strong> the three Prairie<br />

Provinces, where destruction <strong>of</strong> eggs and larvae by cultivation <strong>of</strong> thistles along field<br />

margins prevents the buildup <strong>of</strong> dense populations. U. cardu; is not established in<br />

western <strong>Canada</strong> (except for a small colony at Cam rose , Alberta), but it can probably be<br />

established anywhere in the agricultural areas <strong>of</strong> eastern <strong>Canada</strong>. The galls do cause<br />

noticeable stress to thistles growing in competition with other vegetation (Pesehken el<br />

al. 1982). Overdispersal prevented the buildup <strong>of</strong> dense populations and reduced<br />

effectiveness so far. It is not known why U. cardu; did not become established in western<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>. The 35% rate <strong>of</strong> mor.tality alone does not explain the failure <strong>of</strong> the release<br />

colonies, many <strong>of</strong> which bred well in the year <strong>of</strong> their release. Possibly severe spring<br />

frosts during the pupation period were a problem. Most release stock originated from the<br />

upper Rhine Valley which is considerably warmer and moister than the Prairie Provinces.<br />

Lalonde & Shortbouse (1982) suggest that inadequate moisture on the release sites in<br />

western <strong>Canada</strong> prevented the breakdown <strong>of</strong> the callus plug in the exit channel out <strong>of</strong> the


146 D. P. Peschken<br />

Ferdinandsen. C. (1923) Biologiske Undersogelser over Tidselrust (puccinia sual'eolens (Pers. Rostr.». Beretning om Nordi.rke jordbrllgsforskeres<br />

forenings Kongres 5-8, 475-487.<br />

Julien, M.H. (Ed.) (1982) Biological control <strong>of</strong> wceds: a world cataloguc <strong>of</strong> agents and their target weeds. Commonwealth Agricultural<br />

Bureaux. 108 pp.<br />

Lalonde. R.O.; Shorthousc, J.D. (1982) Exit strategy <strong>of</strong> Urophora cardui (Diptera: Tephritidae) from its gall on <strong>Canada</strong> thistle. Canadian<br />

Entomologist 114. 873-878.<br />

Leclercq. M. (1967) Contribution it I'etude des Trypetidae (Diptera) palearctiques et de leurs relations avec les vegetaux. Bulletin des<br />

Recherches Agronomiques de Gembloux (N.S.) 2, 64-105.<br />

Lopatin, I.K. (1960) Data on the fauna and ecology <strong>of</strong> leaf-beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on the southern rear bank <strong>of</strong> the Dnieper<br />

River. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 39(3).447-457.<br />

Peschken. D.P. (1971) Cinium arvense (L.) Scop .• <strong>Canada</strong> Thistle. In: Biological control programmes against insccts and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong><br />

1959-1968. Commonwealth InstitUle <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Communication 4. 79-83.<br />

Peschken, D.P. (1977) Host specificity <strong>of</strong> Tingis ampliata (Tingidae: Heteroptera): a candidate for the biological control <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle<br />

(Cirsium arvense). Canadian Entomologist 109.669-674.<br />

Peschken. D.P.; Beecher. R.W. (1973) Ceutorhynchus lilllra (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): biology and first releases for biological control<br />

<strong>of</strong> the weed <strong>Canada</strong> thistle (Cirsium arvense) in Ontario. <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Entomologist 105.<br />

1489-1494.<br />

Peschken, D.P.; Finnamore D.B.; Watson, A.K. (1982) Biocontrol <strong>of</strong> the weed <strong>Canada</strong> thistle (Cirsium arvense): releases and<br />

development <strong>of</strong> the gall fly Urophora cardui (Diptera: Tephritidae) in <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Entomologist<br />

114.349-357.<br />

Peschken. D.P.; Hunter. J.H.; Thomas. A.O. (1980) Damage in dollars caused by <strong>Canada</strong> thistle in wheat in Saskatchewan. Proceedings <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>Canada</strong> Thistle Symposium, Regina, p. 37-43.<br />

Pesehken, D.P.; Johnson, O.R. (1979) Host specificity and suitability <strong>of</strong> Lema cyanella (Coleoptera: Chrysomelida). a candidate for the<br />

biological control <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle (Cirsium arvense). Canadian Entomologist III. 1059-1068.<br />

Peschken. D.P.; Wilkinson. A.T.S. (1981) Biocontrol <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle (Cinium arvense): releases and effectiveness <strong>of</strong> Ceutorhynchus<br />

litura (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Entomologist 113, 777-785.<br />

Schaber. B.C.; Balsbaugh. E.U .• Jr.; Kantack, B.H. (1975) Releases <strong>of</strong> Altica carduorum (Col.: Chrysomciidae) on <strong>Canada</strong> thistle (Cirsium<br />

arvense) in South Dakota. Entomophaga 20, 325-335.<br />

Story. J.M. (1980) Biological control <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle in Montana. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Canada</strong> Thistle Symposium. Regina. p. 128-129.<br />

Thomas. A.O. (1976) Weed survey <strong>of</strong> cultivated land in Saskatchewan. Weed survey series, Publication 76-1, 93 pp.<br />

Thomas. A.O. (198O) Relative abundance <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle on cultivated land in <strong>Canada</strong>. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Canada</strong> Thistle Symposium,<br />

Regina. p. 167-181.<br />

Ward, R.H.; Pienkowski, R.L. (1978o) Biology <strong>of</strong> Cassida rubiginosa, a thistle-feeding shield beetle. Annals <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong><br />

<strong>of</strong> America 71(4). 585-591.<br />

Ward. R.H.; Pienkowski, R.L. (1978b) Mortality and parasitism <strong>of</strong> Cassida rubiginosa, a thistle-feeding shield beetle accidentally<br />

introduced into North America. Environmental Entomology 7(4),536-540.<br />

Wilson, R.O. (1981) Effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> thistle residue on growth <strong>of</strong> some crops. Weed Science 29(2), 159-164.<br />

Winiarska, W. (1973) Observations on the biology <strong>of</strong> Lema cyanella L. Chrysomelidae, Criocerinae. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne 43(2).<br />

373-382 (in Polish).<br />

*Zetterstedt, J.W. (1847) Diptera Scandinavia. V. VI. Lund. p. 2163-2580.<br />

Zwolfer, H. (1967) Observations on Urophora cardui L. (Trypctidae). Weed projects for <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological<br />

Control Progress Report 14. Delemont. 11 pp.<br />

Zwolfer, H. (1969) Experimental feeding ranges <strong>of</strong> species <strong>of</strong> Chrysomelidae (Col.) associated with Cynareae (Compositae) in Europe.<br />

Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Conrrol Technical Bulletin 12. 115-130.<br />

Zwolfer, H.; Pattullo. W. (1970) Zur Lebensweise and Wirtsbindung des Distel-Blattkiifers Lema cyanella L. (puncticollis Curt.) (Col.<br />

Chrysomelidae). Anzeiger fur Schiidlingskunde. Pj1anzenschutz, UmweltschUlz. 43(4). 53-59<br />

* The article has not been seen by the author.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Chapter 33<br />

Urophora sty/ala<br />

F. (Diptera:<br />

Tephritidae) (a) Ecology<br />

Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten., Bull Thistle<br />

(Compositae)<br />

P. HARRIS and A.T.S. WILKINSON<br />

Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. is a biennial <strong>of</strong> Eurasian origin that propagates itself only by<br />

seed. It is found in all regions <strong>of</strong> southern <strong>Canada</strong> but is most abundant in Quebec,<br />

Ontario, and British Columbia (Moore & Frankton 1974) on recently disturbed uncultivated<br />

ground or overgrazed permanent pasture. In southern British Columbia, it occurs<br />

along roads, ditches, dykes and fences, and on pastures or range where the sward has<br />

been broken; it is <strong>of</strong>ten troublesome in forage crops in the second year after planting.<br />

The thistle does not withstand cultivation so it is not a pest in arable crops. It may have<br />

one to several flowering stems, usually 0.5 to 2 m high but sometimes 3 m. Plants can be<br />

up to one meter in diameter with as many as 343 seed heads. The sharp prickles on the<br />

leaves discourage livestock from grazing it.<br />

Bull thistle can be controlled with 2,4-D or MCPA at 1 kg/ha; mowing is also effective<br />

if it is done when the plant is reaching maturity; but if cut too early the plant regrows and<br />

sets seed before frost. In spite <strong>of</strong> the ease <strong>of</strong> control, bull thistle persists as a common<br />

weed although it is a minor problem compared with the other thistles targeted for biological<br />

control in this volume.<br />

Surveys <strong>of</strong> the European insect fauna on C. vulgare were made by Zw6lfer (1965) as part<br />

<strong>of</strong> a broad study <strong>of</strong> thistle insects that might be used for biological control in <strong>Canada</strong>. In<br />

North America, the flower buds <strong>of</strong> C. vulgare are attacked by the artichoke plume moth,<br />

Platyptilia carduidactyla (Riley) (Pterophoridae), and the vegetative parts by Entylia<br />

carinata (Forst.) (Membracidae) as well as by a number <strong>of</strong> more polyphagous insects.<br />

There was an absence <strong>of</strong> specialized insects such as Urophora stylata F. (Tephritidae) in<br />

the seed heads. As a result <strong>of</strong> studies by Zw6lfer (1965), Persson (1963), and Redfern<br />

(1968), it was apparent that U. stylata was a promising biological control agent. Thus its<br />

screening and introduction to <strong>Canada</strong> was partly opportunistic. The lack <strong>of</strong> screening<br />

and release <strong>of</strong> other agents for the control <strong>of</strong> C. vulgare reflects the relatively minor pest<br />

status <strong>of</strong> the thistle.<br />

The biology <strong>of</strong> U. stylata is reported by Redfern (1968) and ZwOlfer (1972). The mature<br />

larvae overwinter in the seed heads <strong>of</strong> C. vulgare and pupate in the spring. The univoltine<br />

adults emerge in early summer (June) and the males establish territories on bolting thistle<br />

plants. Shortly before the thistles start to bloom the female visits the plants, mates,<br />

oviposits into the flower buds at a precise stage <strong>of</strong> maturity, and then leaves for another<br />

147


148 P. Harris. and A. T. S. Wilkinson<br />

Table 34<br />

thistle. The eggs are laid in small groups through the bracts at the top <strong>of</strong> the bud. A<br />

second-instar larva hatches in 5-8 days and bores down a corolla tube into the ovariole.<br />

The ovariole and the adjacent receptacle become enlarged and the larva feeds inside this<br />

gall. Lignified tissues which develop on the outside <strong>of</strong> the gall gradually coalesce with<br />

those <strong>of</strong> adjacent galls so that the larvae are eventually enclosed in a hard multilocular<br />

gall.<br />

Zwolfer (1972) and Redfern (1968) reported that approximately one quarter <strong>of</strong> the C.<br />

vulgare heads collected in their studies in western and central Europe were attacked by U.<br />

stylala. This is much lower than the population reached at the best site in British<br />

Columbia. On the European continent, 37% <strong>of</strong> the larvae were parasitized (Zw6lfer<br />

1972) and 24% in Britain (Redfern 1968). No larval or pupal parasitoids were encountered in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>. In certain regions <strong>of</strong> Europe, strains <strong>of</strong> U. stylala are specialized on certain other<br />

thistles, but no attack <strong>of</strong> other thistles by the strain released has been found in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

(b) Releases<br />

The releases <strong>of</strong> U. stylala are summarized in Table 34. The fly established itself readily<br />

at sites with a dense stand <strong>of</strong> C. vulgare. It has subsequently declined or disappeared<br />

where the thistle became sparse following the reestablishment <strong>of</strong> grasses and other<br />

herbaceous perennials as has happened at Danville and lie Jesus, Quebec, and Cranbrook,<br />

British Columbia. At aka, Quebec, the thistle was mowed one year after release<br />

and the colony disappeared. The release sites at Nanaimo and at Cloverdale, British<br />

Columbia, were also destroyed but the fly can be found in the surrounding area. The<br />

current status <strong>of</strong> the other release sites is unknown. The results <strong>of</strong> establishment suggest<br />

that fly dispersal is slow and they require a relatively stable and dense stand <strong>of</strong> C.<br />

vulgare for survival.<br />

Open releases and recoveries<br />

(Savi) Ten. in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

<strong>of</strong> Urophora stylala F. on Cirsium vulgare<br />

Year Location Origin No. released Year <strong>of</strong> recovery<br />

1973 Nanaimo, Germany - 174 adults 1974 (site cleared<br />

British Columbia Switzerland and mowed in 1975)<br />

1973 Westham Isle. Germany - 462 adults 1974<br />

British Columbia Switzerland<br />

1973 Cloverdale, Germany - 132 adults 1974<br />

British Columbia Switzerland<br />

1973 Cranbrook, Germany - 459 adults 1974-1976 (no<br />

British Columbia Switzerland thistles or U.<br />

stylala in 1981)<br />

1976 aka, Quebec France - 132 adults Site mowed - no<br />

Austria establishment<br />

1977 Danville, Quebec British Columbia 157 adults 1978<br />

1977 lIe Jesus, Quebec British Columbia 248 adults 1978<br />

1978 New Denver, British Columbia 957 pupae 1979<br />

British Columbia<br />

1978 Williams Lake, British Columbia 2000 pupae 1979<br />

British Columbia<br />

(lots 6069, 7017, 69)


Table 35<br />

Cirs;llm I'ulg(lre (Savi) Ten. , 149<br />

The establishment and build-up <strong>of</strong> U. stylata populations were followed in more detail<br />

at Cranbrook, Nanaimo. and particularly Cloverdale and Ladner. British Columbia<br />

(Table 35). The Cranbrook site was along a power right-<strong>of</strong>-way through forest; Cloverdale<br />

was a permanent pasture on black muck soil in the Fraser delta on which the thistle<br />

grew where the cattle hooves broke the sward. The site was destroyed for development<br />

in 1980, but the fly survives in the area. At Ladner, also in the Fraser delta. the thistle<br />

was confined to the edge <strong>of</strong> a drainage ditch through an intensely cultivated area used<br />

largely to grow seed sugar beet and carrots. The populations were followed by sampling,<br />

at the end <strong>of</strong> the summer, all the seed heads on thistle plants growing at approximately 5<br />

m intervals in 4 directions from the release point. The exception was the linear stand at<br />

Ladner. Samples were taken to the edge <strong>of</strong> the colony or the site. whichever was least.<br />

Size and spread <strong>of</strong> U. stylata F. colonies at release sites in British Columbia.<br />

Heads/plant No. heads % heads No. larvaeJgall Colony Distance (m) to near-<br />

Location Year ± S.E.M. sampled galled ± S.E.M. radius m est thistle ± SD<br />

Cranbook 1973 21.2 ± 6.0 525 6.7 20 II.R ± 11.1<br />

197-1 12.1 ± 1.8 320 2.8 2.1 ± 0.4 100 2.9 ± 2.9<br />

1976 6.2 ± 1.11 19-1 3.6 2.0 ± 0.4 80 thistle scarce<br />

19111 No thistles prescnt and no U. srylata found on nearby roadside C. vulgart'<br />

Nanaimo 1973 9.4 ± 2.1 113 3.5 30 0.7 ± 0.8<br />

1974 8.7 ± 1.5 180 42.8 3.0 ± 0.3 100 0.2 ±0.3<br />

1975 Area bulldoled, sown to grass and surrounding thistle cut<br />

Cloverdale 1973 53 30.2 3.0 ± 1.1<br />

1974 29.3 ± 3.5 299 41.5 3.2 ± 0.2<br />

1975 32.2 ± 5.0 10M 15.9 140 2.4 ± 3.4<br />

(299 plantslha)<br />

1976 39.7 ± 9.7 1110 65.3 140 + 36.1 ±5.2<br />

1977 39.8 ± 5.9 1\53 84.7 9.1 ± 0.3 200 + 3.5 ± 4.1<br />

1978 38.4 ± 5.7 1283 95.8 13.7 ± 0.6 250+ 2.4 ± 0.4<br />

1979 34.7 ± 7.2 520 92.7<br />

1980 Site destroyed<br />

(site 2) 1978 511.0 ± 19.4 5811 92.2<br />

1979 60.1 ± 14.5 402 83.6<br />

Ladner 1973 22.5 ± 4.7 -149 12.2 3.1 ± 0.3 100 0.3 ± 0.3<br />

1974 Not sampled - all but 2 thistles mowed<br />

1975 54.1 ± 9.2 1165 24.4 125 1.0 ± 1.1<br />

1976 38.6 ± 6.9 1313 5.7 3!!6+ 2.8 ± 6.3<br />

1977 80.6 ± 15.7 2338 6.0 160 + 1.7 ± 1.7<br />

19711 59.7 ± 10.6 1851 31.7 ISO + 11.9 ± 1.3<br />

1979 61.2 ± 10.9 2348 46.3 14.2 ± 5.2<br />

1980 41.8 ± 5.9 1918 39.9<br />

1981 55.3 ± 11.8 775 26.3<br />

1982 39.6 ± 9.0 912 38.8<br />

The results (Table 35) show that at Cloverdale the fly population increased to attack<br />

over 90% <strong>of</strong> the heads formed. The number <strong>of</strong> larvae per head increased with the percentage<br />

<strong>of</strong> heads attacked (Equation 8. Table 36). This is also apparent from Table 35: at<br />

low densities <strong>of</strong> the fly. a density <strong>of</strong> 2-3 larvae per gall was found. but at high fly<br />

densities the average increased to around 14 larvae per gall with maximum numbers <strong>of</strong><br />

over 30 larvae. Presumably the high larval numbers are the result <strong>of</strong> multiple ovipositon.<br />

The data for Ladner were excluded from this analysis where it is suspected that the<br />

inability <strong>of</strong> the fly to attack more than half the heads resulted from their loss over the<br />

surrounding fields which were treated with insecticide during the season. Thus although


150 P. Harris and A. T. S. Wilkinson<br />

Table 36<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

ElTects <strong>of</strong> U. stylata<br />

on the number <strong>of</strong><br />

seed heads on<br />

C. vulgare plants<br />

the high number <strong>of</strong> larvae/gall in 1979 indicated a high density <strong>of</strong> flies in early summer.<br />

the percentage <strong>of</strong> heads attacked suggests that those forming late in the season escaped<br />

the fly.<br />

The average distance <strong>of</strong> the sampled thistle to its neighbour (Table 35) gives an idea <strong>of</strong><br />

density although. except in one instance. this cannot be related to the number <strong>of</strong> thistles<br />

per unit area as the distribution contagion was not measured. No effect <strong>of</strong> the fly on the<br />

distance between thistles was apparent; however as C. vulgare seed was found to be still<br />

viable after approximately 36 years under forest cover (Harrington 1972). it will take a<br />

number <strong>of</strong> years <strong>of</strong> reduced input into the soil seed-bank before the density <strong>of</strong> the thistle<br />

is affected.<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> the effect <strong>of</strong> U. stylata F. on C. vulgare (Savi) Ten.<br />

Regression<br />

1. No. heads on unattacked plants 0.40 x + 2.0<br />

2. No. heads on attacked plants 0.32 x + 6.2<br />

3. No. plump seedlhead from unattacked plants 3.66 r - 18.7<br />

4. No. plump seedlhead from attacked plants -0.12 r + 67.7<br />

5. Mean no. larvaelhead in head size classes 0.16 r - 1.2<br />

6. Maximum number <strong>of</strong> larvaelhead in head<br />

size cI asses 0.24 r + 2.8<br />

7. Live larval weight in mg -0.08 n + 9.5<br />

8. No. larvaclgall 0.11 z + 0.3<br />

9. No. larvaelhead -0.006 x + 9.6<br />

10. Total seed production from unattacked plants 55.51 x + 235.2<br />

11. Total seed production from attacked plants 17.69 x + 571.4<br />

Where x = dry weight <strong>of</strong> plant in g<br />

r = radius <strong>of</strong> receptacle attachment to the involucre in nun<br />

z = the percentage <strong>of</strong> heads attacked<br />

n = no. larvae/head<br />

Cor.Coef. n P<br />

0.97 25


The number <strong>of</strong> seeds<br />

per head vs. head<br />

size and the number<br />

<strong>of</strong> U. sty/ala<br />

larvae present (a) Methods<br />

Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten.. 151<br />

recorded for each plant, as well as the number <strong>of</strong> heads attacked, and the number <strong>of</strong> U.<br />

stylolo larvae per gall. Attack by U. stylala enlarges the receptacle but does not affect<br />

the base where it is attached to the involucre, so its diameter was used to compare the<br />

size <strong>of</strong> the productive heads on the attacked and un attacked plants.<br />

(b) Results<br />

An average <strong>of</strong> 88% <strong>of</strong> the productive heads was galled on the attacked plants. This<br />

percentage is higher than that obtained from the transect samples (Table 35), but as a<br />

range <strong>of</strong> thistle sizes was selected from near the center <strong>of</strong> the colony, it was not a random<br />

sample. The 564 galled heads contained an average <strong>of</strong> 10.3 ± 0.3 SEM larvae. This is also<br />

slightly higher than the mean in Table 35.<br />

Plant weight accounted for most <strong>of</strong> the variation in the number <strong>of</strong> seed heads on both<br />

the attacked and unattacked plants (Equations 1 and 2. Table 36). The level <strong>of</strong> attack on<br />

individual plants ranged from an average <strong>of</strong> 1. 7 larvae/head to 18.1 larvae/head, but the<br />

attack level was not affected by plant size (Equation 9, Table 36). The slopes <strong>of</strong> the<br />

regression lines (Equations 1 and 2) suggest that attack reduced the number <strong>of</strong> heads:<br />

plants <strong>of</strong> 100 g had 9.5% fewer and those <strong>of</strong> 200 g had 14.6% fewer than the unattacked<br />

plants. However, the slopes were not significantly different and the differences in the<br />

averages were partly balanced by a slightly larger head size on the attacked plants<br />

(average diameter 13.7 ± 0.07 mm compared with 12.8 ± 0.06 for the unattacked plants).<br />

It is concluded that the receptacle area in the two groups <strong>of</strong> plants was practically identical.<br />

This was in contrast to the results <strong>of</strong> the seed-head Urophora spp. on diffuse knapweed<br />

(Harris 1980) where the number <strong>of</strong> heads and plant size were reduced by attack.<br />

Heads from both attacked and unattacked plants were bagged shortly before the pappus<br />

was ready to fly. Seed head size was measured as the radius <strong>of</strong> the receptacle attachment<br />

to the involucre as previously described, and the plump seed. separated with a blower,<br />

was counted for each head. Plump seed rather than germinated seed was used for<br />

regression analysis: both produced similar trends but the correlations were higher with<br />

the former. Part <strong>of</strong> the problem was a high variability <strong>of</strong> germination between heads.<br />

Anderson (1968) reported 40% germination at 20°C although this was increased to 80%<br />

with temperatures alternating between 20-30°C. We obtained 66.2 ± 2.0% germination<br />

<strong>of</strong> plump seed from unattacked plants at room temperature and 52.4 ± 4.8% from<br />

attacked plants.<br />

(b) Results<br />

On unattacked plants, large heads produced more plump seed than did small ones<br />

(Equation 3, Table 36) as is normal in composites. In contrast on the attacked plants,<br />

seed production decreased with head size (Equation 4, Table 36) although the slope and<br />

the correlation coefficient were so low that the production <strong>of</strong> 62 seeds for an average<br />

head <strong>of</strong> 13.7 mm diameter can be used as a constant for all heads. This means that for the<br />

plant it is now more productive to develop several small heads rather than a few large<br />

ones.


152 P. Harris and A. T. S. Wilkinson<br />

Calculation <strong>of</strong> seed<br />

production by<br />

attacked and<br />

unattacked plants<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

The effect <strong>of</strong> head size on seed production in the attacked plants is nullified because<br />

the number <strong>of</strong> U. sty/ala also increases with head size (Equation 5, Table 36). The mean<br />

number <strong>of</strong> larvae per head was considerably lower than the maximum number in the<br />

heads <strong>of</strong> each size (Equation 6, Table 36). Thus for a head with a diameter <strong>of</strong> 14 mm the<br />

average number from the regression was 6.6 larvae while the maximum was 14.6 larvae.<br />

Thus the larval population is well below the physical limits <strong>of</strong> the thistle heads. There<br />

was a rather small effect <strong>of</strong> crowding on larval weight. A regression <strong>of</strong> live weight <strong>of</strong> 980<br />

larvae from heads with 1-33 larvae in a gall showed that one larva per gall averaged 9.4<br />

mg compared with 6.7 mg for those in heads with 33 larvae. The slope <strong>of</strong> the regression is<br />

highly significant, although as indicated by the small correlation coefficient there was a<br />

large variation in larval weights at all densities (Equation 7, Table 36). For the purpose <strong>of</strong><br />

the calculations in this paper the size and hence the effect <strong>of</strong> a larva was assumed to be<br />

the same whether it was single or crowded.<br />

(a) Methods<br />

Seed production for each head on the unattacked plants was determined from regression<br />

Equation 3 (Table 36). These were summed and the total for each plant regressed on<br />

plant weight so that average production could be determined for a plant <strong>of</strong> any size. The<br />

same was done for the attacked plants except that the heads were assumed to produce 62<br />

seeds regardless <strong>of</strong> size.<br />

(b) Results<br />

The production <strong>of</strong> 4398 seeds for a plant <strong>of</strong> 75 g (Equation 10, Table 36), is close to the<br />

figure <strong>of</strong> 4000 seeds/plant given by Salisbury (1964) for the thistle in Britain. The attacked<br />

plant <strong>of</strong> this size produced 1898 seeds (Equation 11, Table 36), a reduction <strong>of</strong><br />

57%. For a plant <strong>of</strong> 150 g, the reduction was 62%.<br />

The calculations were made for a U. Sly/ala population infesting 88% <strong>of</strong> the thistle<br />

heads. This is slightly below the population plateau at Cloverdale, so the reduction in<br />

plump seed production at this site should be at least 60%. If the difference in the germination<br />

between attacked and unattacked plants is accepted, the reduction is over 65%.<br />

Under field conditions germination and seedling survival seem to depend on breaks in<br />

the sward rather than competition within the C. vulgare population. This means that the<br />

reduction in thistle density should be similar to the reduction <strong>of</strong> seed as soon as the soil<br />

seed-bank has reached its new equilibrium.<br />

(1) U. stylala should be distributed to sites across <strong>Canada</strong> with stable populations <strong>of</strong><br />

C. vulgare; but there is little point in releasing it against temporary outbreaks.<br />

(2) The introduction <strong>of</strong> additional biological control agents does not appear to be<br />

warranted as most <strong>of</strong> the problems with C. vulgare are either temporary following the<br />

clearing <strong>of</strong> land or the result <strong>of</strong> poor farming practice.<br />

Anderson. R.N. (1968) Germination and establishment <strong>of</strong> weeds for experimental purposes. Weed Science <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> America, 636 pp.<br />

Harrington. J.F. (1972) Seed storage and longevity. In: Kozlowski T.T. (Ed.) Seed biology vol. III. Academic Press. pp. 145-245.


CiTSiu11I J'lllgaTe (Savi) Ten. , 153<br />

Harris, P. (19BO) Effects <strong>of</strong> UropllOra affillis Frlld. and U. lfuaelrifruciata (Meig.) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Centaurea diffusa Lam. and C.<br />

maculosa Lum. (Composilae). 'Zritse/rri[t frlr allgewalldte Emomologie 90, 190-210.<br />

Moore, R.J.; Frankton, C. (1974) TIle thistles <strong>of</strong> Canuda. Agricullllre CU/lelda MOllograplr 10, 111 pp.<br />

Persson, P.I. (1963) Studies on the biology and huvill morphology <strong>of</strong> some trypetids (Dipt.). Opuscula Entomologica 28, 3-69.<br />

Redfern, M. (1968) The natural history <strong>of</strong> spear thistle hends. Field SlIldies 2.669-717.<br />

Salisbury. E. (1964) Weeds lind aliens. Collins, 384 pp.<br />

Zwolfer, H. (1965) A prcliminary list <strong>of</strong> phytoplurgous insects IIttllcking wild Cynareae species in Europe. Commonwealtll Instillete <strong>of</strong><br />

Biellogical Control Tee/mimi B,llielill 6, 81-154.<br />

Zwolfer. H. (1972) Invcstiglltions on Ur(lplwra sty/ala Fabr •• a possible agent for Ihe biological control <strong>of</strong> Cinium vIClgare in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Weed projects for C:lDmJa. Commollwcallir /tlStilllle <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Progress Report 29. 20 pp.


Blank Page<br />

154


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Biological Control<br />

Chapter 34 155<br />

Convolvulus arvensis L., Field Bindweed<br />

(Convolvulaceae)<br />

M.G. MAW<br />

Field bindweed. Convolvulus arvensis L.. a deep rooted perennial <strong>of</strong> Eurasian origin. is<br />

a serious problem in many areas and has been classed as the worst weed <strong>of</strong> the prairie<br />

and the Great Plains States (Bakke et al. 1939). It is a serious weed in Ontario and<br />

Quebec. especially in corn. and although it is <strong>of</strong> less importance in the western provinces<br />

some local areas are badly infested.<br />

Losses from bindweed competition vary with the crop and cultural methods. Rye<br />

yields may be reduced by 20% while grain sorghum yields may be reduced by 78% . On<br />

bindweed free land, wheat. barley. and oats yielded respectively 350.576. and 515 kg per<br />

ha more than on infested fields (Wiese & Phillips 1976). Fast growing crops that shade<br />

the ground may compete effectively with the weed. and winter wheat on the drier parts<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Great Plains is a good competitor because winter and spring growth occurs when<br />

bindweed is dormant. Summer crops may however be severely stunted or even killed by<br />

severe bindweed competition (Weise & Phillips 1976).<br />

Field bindweed was first noticed in America in Virginia as early as 1739. and by 1900 it<br />

was well established and recognized as a serious weed in most <strong>of</strong> the western states. In<br />

addition to a progressive spread across America. the weed may have been introduced<br />

several times. For example. it may have been introduced directly into Kansas with<br />

wheat brought from the Ukraine by immigrants about 1875 (Weise & Phillips 1976).<br />

Bindweed is difficult to control because <strong>of</strong> its extensive root system and prolific seed<br />

production. Roots and rhizomes may cover an area up to 6 m in diameter (Frazier 1943)<br />

and extend down 9 m below the soil surface (Phillips 1978). In addition roots store a<br />

range <strong>of</strong> sugars. starches. and proteins that can support the plants over long periods<br />

even though top growth may be repeatedly destroyed (Weise & Phillips 1976). Over 11<br />

million seeds may be produced per hectare and they may remain viable in soil for up to 30<br />

years (Timmons 1949).<br />

Seedlings develop deep taproots in a few weeks and in 9 to 11 weeks spread radially by<br />

lateral roots. Within one season a single plant may form a patch <strong>of</strong> more than 3 m in<br />

diameter (Weise & Phillips 1976).<br />

Control <strong>of</strong> bindweed but not eradication can be achieved through an integrated programme<br />

<strong>of</strong> frequent cultivation and selected herbicides. However, with the growing<br />

concern <strong>of</strong> the overload <strong>of</strong> chemicals in the environment, their cost. the cost <strong>of</strong> energy,<br />

and costs in lost production there has been interest in biological control. Mohyuddin<br />

(1969) listed the insects from Calystegia spp. and Convol"lIll1s spp. found by him in<br />

Ontario and by others in other parts <strong>of</strong> the world. and the University <strong>of</strong> California and<br />

the USDA jointly mounted a project to survey the Mediterranean area for natural<br />

enemies <strong>of</strong> Convolvulus (Rosenthal 1980). In all, 140 species <strong>of</strong> insects. three species <strong>of</strong><br />

mites, and three fungi were found attacking C. arvensis and other closely related Convolvulaceae.<br />

Of these, a mite, Eriophyes sp.; a bruchid. Spermophagus sericelts Ge<strong>of</strong>f.; a


156 M. G. Maw<br />

Discussion<br />

Table 37<br />

Table 38<br />

chrysomelid. Ga/eruca TUfa Germ.; and a mildew. Erysiphe convolvuli DC.. showed the<br />

most potential as control agents (Rosenthal 1980). None. however. was found to be<br />

strictly monophagous.<br />

Little biological control work has been done in <strong>Canada</strong>. However. limited attempts to<br />

augment existing populations or to establish new colonies in Alberta and British<br />

Columbia with insects from Saskatchewan and Ontario (Table 37 and Table 38) were not<br />

successful.<br />

Collection and release in <strong>Canada</strong> <strong>of</strong> chrysomelid insects in control <strong>of</strong> COlU'O/VIl/US arvensis<br />

L. projects<br />

Species Number Year Source Release or Lab Study<br />

Chirida guttala 114 1969 <strong>Canada</strong> British Columbia (study)<br />

(01.) 125 1970 Ontario British Columbia (study)<br />

236 1979 Saskatchewan Alberta (release)<br />

C/lelymorpha cassidea (F.) 97 1979 Saskatchewan Alberta (release)<br />

Melriona bie%r (F.) 18 1969 <strong>Canada</strong> British Columbia (study)<br />

7 1970 Ontario British Columbia (study)<br />

Metriona purpurata Boh. 224 1979 Saskatchewan Alberta (release)<br />

Collection and release in <strong>Canada</strong> <strong>of</strong> chrysomelid insects in control <strong>of</strong> Convo/vulus sepiwll<br />

L. projects<br />

Species<br />

Chirida gllttala (01.)<br />

Melriona bie%r (F.)<br />

Number<br />

120<br />

200<br />

Year<br />

1971<br />

1971<br />

Source<br />

Ontario<br />

Ontario<br />

Release<br />

British Columbia<br />

British Columbia<br />

Bindweed competes with crop plants for nutrients and water, and thus lowers yields. It<br />

twines around plants, smothering them and interfering with harvesting, and is a haven<br />

for crop pests (Rosenthal 1980}. It is considered to be the 12th most important weed in<br />

the world and the 14th most important weed in the United States (Rosenthal 1980). It is a<br />

serious weed in Ontario and Quebec but a lesser problem in the western provinces. It is<br />

mainly a weed in cultivated fields and so not a good candidate for biological control.<br />

A large number <strong>of</strong> insects are associated with bindweed in North America. but only<br />

sporadically in localized areas is appreciable damage done to the plant (Maw unpublished<br />

data). Also, it appears that most insect damage occurs when bindweed is<br />

supported by other plants or fences, rather than in the prostrate growth in fields.<br />

Attempts to move Chirida gllliala, Melriona bicolor and M. purpurala, and Che/ymorpha<br />

cassidea into new areas were unsuccessful. This may indicate that these species<br />

have reached their geographic limits.<br />

Rosenthal & Buckingham (1982) found a number <strong>of</strong> European organisms that may<br />

be useful as control agents <strong>of</strong> bindweed in North America. Of these. the arthropods<br />

Ga/eruca rufa, Spermophagus sericeus, and Eriophyes sp. probably have the most<br />

potential (Rosenthal 1980) and several other species may also be useful (Rosenthal &


Blank Page<br />

158


Pest Status<br />

Table 39<br />

Chapter 35<br />

Euphorbia esula-virgata complex, Leafy<br />

Spurge and E. cyparissias L., Cypress<br />

Spurge (Euphorbiaceae)<br />

P. HARRIS<br />

Leafy and cypress spurge. Euphorbia esu/a'I'irgala complex and E. cypar/ss/as<br />

L.. are herbaceous perennials <strong>of</strong> European origin that have become problem species in<br />

parts <strong>of</strong> North America. Leafy spurge is particularly serious on the Canadian prairies<br />

and the north central United States. while cypress spurge is most prevalent in Ontario<br />

and Quebec. Both spurges are unpalatable to most grazing animals except sheep and<br />

displace other herbaceous vegetation. In two leafy spurge stands investigated in Sas·<br />

katchewan in 1981. there was 65-72% less grass within the stand than just outside it.<br />

Cypress spurge on a thin limestone soil at Braeside. Ontario. comprised 56% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

herbaceous vegetation in a dry year and 26% in a wet year (Table 39). Cypress spurge is<br />

Density <strong>of</strong> Hy/es euphorbiae (L.) larvae, dry weight <strong>of</strong> E. cyparissias L. and total<br />

herbaceous vegetation at Braeside. Ontario.<br />

Year No. H. euphorbiae Dry weight <strong>of</strong> Dry weight <strong>of</strong> all<br />

larvae/m 1 E. cyparissias glml vegetationlm l<br />

1968<br />

6.8 x 10-)<br />

1969 1.75 x 10- 1<br />

56.6 216.0<br />

1970 0.4 44.7 79.2<br />

1971 1.0 73.1 147.1<br />

1972 0.3 91.9 213.1<br />

1974 0.6<br />

1975 2.3<br />

1976 0.4<br />

also <strong>of</strong> concern as extremely small amounts <strong>of</strong> its latex are intensely irritating to the<br />

eyes. The provincial and most municipal governments <strong>of</strong> the Canadian prairies have an<br />

active programme for the control <strong>of</strong> leafy spurge. For example in the early 1950s,<br />

Saskatchewan spent around $100 OOO/year against persistent perennial weeds and by 1979<br />

the amount had risen to $150 OOO/year, with leafy spurge being the main target. The sum<br />

covers the cost <strong>of</strong> treatment on provincial and municipal lands and roadsides but only<br />

the cost <strong>of</strong> the chemical on private lands. Thus the actual cost <strong>of</strong> controlling leafy spurge<br />

was considerably higher. In Manitoba in 1981. $38649 was spent on leafy spurge control<br />

by the provincial government <strong>of</strong> which $32 890 represented the cost <strong>of</strong> the chemical (E.<br />

Johnson. 1982. personal communication). In Saskatchewan in 1982, the full cost was<br />

$640Iha <strong>of</strong> spurge treated as the infestations are scattered or on rough terrain.<br />

In the first twenty years <strong>of</strong> the control programme in Saskatchewan the chemicals<br />

used were soil stcrilants such as sodium chlorate and various borates either alone or in<br />

combination with other herbicides. These were both expensive and ecologically un-<br />

159


160 P. Harris<br />

Background<br />

desirable. In 1971, the treatment <strong>of</strong> 65 ha with borascu (disodium tetraborate and 5<br />

bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-methylurate) cost $15 727 while the treatment <strong>of</strong> 86 ha with<br />

picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichlorpiclinic acid) cost $12 073 (SaskatchewllO Production<br />

and Marketing Branch 1972). Not only was picloram cheaper but the grass cover<br />

remaining was greatly preferable to the bare patches following treatment with soil<br />

sterilants. Thus in the past ten years picloram has been used almost exclusively on<br />

uncultivated stands except in Manitoba where its use is more restricted.<br />

The effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the chemical control programme is not impressive. Eleven<br />

Saskatchewan municipalities were resurveyed for leafy spurge llfter approximately 30<br />

years <strong>of</strong> chemical control. The weed has disappeared on cereal land with normal cultivation<br />

and application <strong>of</strong> 2.4-D, while on uncultivated land the area infested with spurge has<br />

more than doubled. These two trends almost cllOcelled eaeh other in the municipalities<br />

sampled.<br />

In Manitoba. where little picloram has been used, the increase has been large: from<br />

3236 ha in 1952 (Craik 1953) to an area estimated by Johnson (1982, personal communication)<br />

to be 46 693 ha in 1981. The difference in spurge increase between Saskatchewan<br />

and Manitoba is attributed entirely to the use <strong>of</strong> picloram; but against the<br />

benefits <strong>of</strong> the herbicide is the hazard that large scale continued use will contaminate the<br />

ground run<strong>of</strong>f water since the herbicide is subject to little microbial breakdown.<br />

The largest cypress spurge infestation in Ontario is on thin uncultivated limestone<br />

soils at Braeside. The species appears to have been introduced in 1870 and by 1981 had<br />

spread, initially with highway construction. to about 14000 ha on two limestone ridges.<br />

The main cause for concern is that the present infestation is only 15 km away from the<br />

360 000 ha Smith Falls Limestone Plain.<br />

The discussion <strong>of</strong> the biological control <strong>of</strong> leafy spurge by Harris et al. (in press) lists<br />

many insects and pathogens that are restricted to the genus Euphorbia. The difficulty is<br />

finding species that will survive on North American leafy spurge which seems to be a<br />

species complex. Specialized E. esula insects such as the aphid Acyrthosipholl neerlandicum<br />

HRL and the clear-winged moth. Chamaesphecia tentilrediniformis. do not survive on the<br />

common North American leafy spurge. To find insects that will accept the spurge. it has<br />

been necessary to seek those that can survive on several Euphorbia spp. Conversely.<br />

there are several spurges that should not be damaged in North America: E. antisyphilitica<br />

(a source <strong>of</strong> high quality wax in Mexico), E. pu/cherrima (the ornamental poinsettia). E.<br />

lathyris (a plant suggested as a source <strong>of</strong> hydrocarbon (Calvin 1978» and native North<br />

American spurges in general. Hence the biological control <strong>of</strong> leafy spurge is not without<br />

its difficulties even though the presence <strong>of</strong> large dense stands that arc almost unutilized by<br />

phytophagous organisms suggests that it is an extremely amenable target for biological<br />

control.<br />

About three quarters <strong>of</strong> the insects attacking Euphorbia in Europe are restricted to the<br />

genus. This is a higher proportion than for most other herbaceous plants. For example. at<br />

least three quarters <strong>of</strong> the insects that feed on the genus Solidago attack other plant<br />

genera (Harris et al .• in press). It appears that the degree <strong>of</strong> specialization in the insect<br />

guild on spurge is determined by the presence <strong>of</strong> enzymes and toxins that make it difficult<br />

for utilization by unspecialized insects and this extends to individual spurge species. For<br />

example. Ellis & Lennox (1941) reported the proteolytic enzyme euphorbain from E.<br />

lathyris but that E. peplus contained little or none <strong>of</strong> it. That some <strong>of</strong> the compounds are<br />

extremely toxic has been long known. For example the Geoponika (6th or 7th century)<br />

records that tithymalus (possibly E. cyparissias) mixed in a bait could be used to control<br />

mice by making them blind. I can confirm that minute amounts <strong>of</strong> E. cyparissias latex in


Releases and Recoveries<br />

HyJes euphorbiae<br />

(L.) (Lepidoptera:<br />

Sphinguidae) (a) Ecology<br />

Euphorbia esula-I'irgata complex. 161<br />

the eye are extremely painful. In the 12th century. Ibn Al Awan (Clemont-Mullet 1864)<br />

described the use <strong>of</strong> a spurge extract for repelling and killing insects. Portier & Busnel<br />

(1951) found that E. cyparissias latex contained a substance that produced violent muscle<br />

tetany in most insects although the specialized spurge hawkmoth larvae. Hyles euphorbiae<br />

(L.). recovered without ill effects. Geilser (1955) reported that the effects <strong>of</strong> the<br />

substance were similar to those <strong>of</strong> acetylcholine in that atropine was antagonistic to it.<br />

Such differences presumably account for the specialization <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the Chamaesphecia<br />

spp. moths to a single Euphorbia sp. For biological control purposes. this makes the<br />

precise identification <strong>of</strong> the target leafy spurges <strong>of</strong> North America an urgent matter. As<br />

this has so far proved difficult on morphological grounds perhaps a chemical or isozyme<br />

classification should be attempted.<br />

H. euphorbiae. the spurge hawkmoth. is a large defoliator <strong>of</strong> Euphorbia species in the<br />

subgenus esula in south and central Europe. northern India. and central Asia. The pupae<br />

can survive cold winters (Harris & Alex 1971) and its northern distribution seems to be<br />

limited by a requirement for high summer temperatures as the larvae feed little and<br />

eventually die if kept below 14°C. Also for unknown reasons the moth is uncommon south<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Mediterranean. H. euphorbiae has three generations a year in the south <strong>of</strong> its range<br />

and one in the north.<br />

The moth was selected a a biological control agent as it appeared to have the capability<br />

<strong>of</strong> defoliating spurge stands over large areas. Indeed it was a major pest <strong>of</strong> commercially<br />

grown E.lathyrisin the USSR (Malyuta 1934). The moth was approved for release in 1965<br />

and subsequently attempts were made to establish it in both <strong>Canada</strong> and the United<br />

States.<br />

(b) Releases<br />

Large numbers <strong>of</strong> H. euplrorbiae were bred in the laboratory and released. mostly as<br />

larvae. in spurge stands across <strong>Canada</strong> (Table 40). The stock used was from scattered<br />

collecting in Switzerland. France, and Germany on E. cyparissias and E. seguierana.<br />

Other larvae presumably from these hosts were purchased from collectors in East Germany.<br />

Initial establishment was disappointing and the first evidence <strong>of</strong> breeding was 68 widely<br />

scattered nearly mature larvae recovered at one <strong>of</strong> four release sites at Braeside, Ontario<br />

in 1968. These were collected and two generations bred from them over winter in the<br />

laboratory with the result that over 5000 <strong>of</strong> their progeny were released at Braeside in the<br />

spring <strong>of</strong> 1969. The only other site where a few field bred larvae were collected was at<br />

Sidney. Ontario, but this colony has not been visited since 1972.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the releases <strong>of</strong> H. euplrorbiae larvae made in 1966 and 1967 suffered a<br />

mortality <strong>of</strong> over 95% during the subsequent two weeks. The exception was a series <strong>of</strong><br />

releases made in September at Sidney. Ontario. and one release at Braeside. Ontario.<br />

where 23% <strong>of</strong> the larvae survived this period. The development <strong>of</strong> the larvae released<br />

late in the season was so slow that many <strong>of</strong> them failed to pupate and died. Forwood<br />

(1977) with a release <strong>of</strong> 51 larvae on leafy spurge in Nebraska found that they had all<br />

disappeared within seven days. The reason for the larval mortality was predation by


162 P. Harris<br />

Table 40<br />

Table 41<br />

Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> Hyles euphorbiae (L.) against Euphorbia spp. in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Year Euphorbia sp. Location No. and Stage Recovery<br />

1965 Cypress spurge Sidney. Ontario 206 larvae<br />

1966 Leafy spurge Jameson, Saskatchewan 1200 larvae<br />

Wilmer, British Columbia 300 larvae<br />

Miami. Manitoba 195 larvae<br />

14 pupae<br />

Hartney. Manitoba 186 larvae<br />

Cypress spurge Sidney. Ontario 3606 larvae<br />

Jones Falls. Ontario 550 larvae<br />

1967 Leafy spurge Wilmer. British Columbia 1900 larvae<br />

Kamloops, British Columbia 3000 larvae<br />

Moose Jaw Creek. Saskatchewan 979 larvae<br />

Balgonie, Saskatchewan 361 larvae<br />

Nr. Balgonie, Saskatchewan 3000 larvae<br />

Milestone, Saskatchewan 901 larvae<br />

Miami, Manitoba 1100 larvae<br />

Picton, Ontario 825 larvae<br />

1967 Cypress spurge Braeside, Ontario 13680 larvae 1968<br />

1968 Cypress spurge Sidney, Ontario 1565 larvae<br />

Braeside, Ontario 2801 larvae<br />

1969 Cypress spurge Braeside, Ontario 5210 larvae<br />

1973 Cypress spurge Hornings Mills, Ontario 600 larvae 1982<br />

1973 Leafy spurge Guelph, Ontario 200 larvae no recovery<br />

1974 Leafy spurge Regina Beach, Saskatchewan 37 larvae<br />

600 pupae<br />

1978 Leafy spurge Cardston, Alberta 229 larvae<br />

ants, mice, carabids, wasps, pentatomids, and spiders (Harris & Alex 1971). At three<br />

sites in Ontario the percentage survival <strong>of</strong> larvae after four days decreased almost<br />

directly with the average number <strong>of</strong> ants caught in a standard series <strong>of</strong> pitfall traps<br />

during the period (Table 41).<br />

The 68 larvae found in 1968 and the 179 found in 1979 that had not been released that<br />

summer were expressed on a m l basis as if all the larvae were confined to a hectare. In<br />

most <strong>of</strong> the subsequent years the survey was restricted to 100 m l samples taken in early<br />

August at paced intervals from a hectare within the release field but in 1975 the samples<br />

were taken from the adjacent roadside which usually supported a higher density <strong>of</strong><br />

larvae.<br />

Relationship between the number <strong>of</strong> ants in pitfall traps and the survival <strong>of</strong> H. euphorbiae<br />

(L.) larvae in a four day period<br />

Place<br />

Braeside<br />

Sidney<br />

Picton<br />

No. ants/trap<br />

5.4<br />

35.9<br />

58.7<br />

% H. euphorbiae<br />

larvae recovered<br />

34.5<br />

20.5<br />

11.8


166 P. Harris<br />

Table 43<br />

in East Austria with 3-5 larvae per plant. Some field mortality was noted: at one site on<br />

E. cyparissias, 31 % <strong>of</strong>the eggs failed to hatch although they developed embryos and 9%<br />

<strong>of</strong> the larvae died in the early instars. The population in part seems to be controlled by<br />

oviposition behaviour as multiple oviposition into a stem is rare and when it does occur<br />

only one larva survives to enter the root. In choice tests O. erythrocephala attacked<br />

Canadian leafy spurge more <strong>of</strong>ten than E. esula, but there was no indication that<br />

association with a particular spurge species in the field had formed a host race.<br />

(b) Releases<br />

Authority to release O. erythroceplwla was obtained in October 1979. The stock was<br />

field collected as beetles in Switzerland on E. segllierana and E. cyparissias, and in<br />

Austria on E. cyparissias and E. eSllla (Table 43). The sexes were separated on<br />

collection and then released together at the release site in <strong>Canada</strong> later.<br />

Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> Oberea erythrocephala (Schr.) on E. esula-virgala complex<br />

in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Release Date No. and Stage Source Release Site Recovery<br />

15 Oct 79 30 larvae Switzerland Caronport, Saskatchewan 1 <strong>of</strong> 12 alive<br />

May 80<br />

27 Jun 80 70 males Switzerland Caronport, Saskatchewan 15 larvae Sep 80<br />

60 females 31 larvae Sep 81<br />

3 Jul80 70 males Switzerland Cardston. Alberta 17 larvae Sep 80<br />

53 females o larvae Aug 81<br />

14 Jul 80 49 males Switzerland Jameson, Saskatchewan 1 larva Sep 80<br />

57 females o larvae Aug 81<br />

26 Jun 81 55 males Switzerland Weyburn, Saskatchewan 14 larvae Aug 81<br />

(8 on plants<br />

attacked in lab)<br />

30 Jun 81 59 males Switzerland Lauder, Manitoba 12 larvae Aug 81<br />

36 females<br />

10 Jul 81 90 adults Switzerland Manitou Lake, Saskatchewan 13 larvae Aug 81<br />

& Austria<br />

5 Aug 81 17 larvae Austria Caronport, Saskatchewan<br />

In 1979,30 leafy spurge plants that had been attacked in the laboratory were transplanted<br />

in mid-October to a spurge stand in Saskatchewan (Table 43) to check on<br />

the ability <strong>of</strong> the larvae to survive the winter. The plants did not have time to establish<br />

themselves before winter and some were killed. In the following May one larva was<br />

found in 12 crowns examined and subsequently some oviposition girdling was found at<br />

the site but no eggs or larvae.<br />

Field collected beetles were released on three spurge stands in 1980 (Table 43) and<br />

during the summer, stems with oviposition scars were tagged and then harvested in<br />

September to determine the number <strong>of</strong> larvae that had tunnelled into the roots before<br />

winter (Table 44).<br />

The Cardston site was extremely fertile and the spurge so tall and dense that many<br />

stems with oviposition scars were certainly missed but it had by far the best ratio <strong>of</strong><br />

oviposition scars to larvae. Unfortunately the site was burnt just before winter and in the<br />

following June the spurge was sprayed with pic\oram. Thus it was hardly surprising that<br />

no sign <strong>of</strong> the beetle was found in August 1981. In contrast at Caronport winter survival


Table 44<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Euphorbia esula-virgata complex. 167<br />

Oviposition attempts and success by o. erythrocephala (Schr.) at three sites<br />

No. stems with No. larvae in No. larvae in<br />

Site oviposition scars roots by September stems in Septcmber<br />

Jameson. Saskatchcwan 25 1 3<br />

Caronport. Saskatchewan 93 15 2<br />

Cardston. Alberta 29 17 2<br />

was good in spite <strong>of</strong> a poor snow cover as live larvae were found in three out <strong>of</strong> four<br />

plants examined in May. About twice as many larvae were found at the end <strong>of</strong> the<br />

summer as in the previous year including two plants (untagged the year before) with<br />

larvae developing over a two year period. The colony had a radius <strong>of</strong> about 25 m in the<br />

fall <strong>of</strong> 1981. No progeny were found at the Jameson release site.<br />

In 1981, beetles were released at three widely separated sites but as in the previous<br />

year breeding success was poor (Table 43). The table indicates that the date <strong>of</strong> release had<br />

little influence on breeding success so the problem does not appear to be related to the<br />

synchrony <strong>of</strong> the plant and larval development.<br />

The larvae developed readily in the stems <strong>of</strong> spurge plants from the Jameson area<br />

grown in pots but these plants tended to have larger stems than most <strong>of</strong> those in the field.<br />

The colony at Caronport was still present in 1982 and for the first time one adult was<br />

found (a fertilized female). A search made in mid-September produced one larva which<br />

was still in the stem only a few centimeters from the oviposition point. As most <strong>of</strong> the<br />

spurge stems were dead by October it had little prospect <strong>of</strong> survival. The problem is<br />

apparently not cool summer temperatures as the Cardston site had fewer heat units than<br />

the other release sites. The stem diameter at Caronport was, however, considerably less<br />

than at Cardston (the soil is sand and too light to be cultivated) so it appears that the<br />

beetle is only likely to thrive on spurge plants growing on fertile soils.<br />

The biological control <strong>of</strong> spurge in <strong>Canada</strong> has so far been a failure. The one insect<br />

established on cypress spurge has had little impact and the possible impact <strong>of</strong> O.<br />

erythrocephala on leafy spurge will not be apparent until its population has reached its<br />

plateau. Other insects tested have failed to survive on Canadian leafy spurge although<br />

some like C. tenthrediniformis appear to have a major impact on E. esula in Europe. The<br />

initial difficulty arose from equating the E. esula <strong>of</strong> Europe with the plant called E. esula<br />

in North America. Some difficulties still remain as it is not possible to search Europe<br />

for the Canadian spp. <strong>of</strong> leafy spurge for possible agents since the precise origin and<br />

identity <strong>of</strong> this spurge is not clear. Indeed, some <strong>of</strong> it may have arisen in North America<br />

through hybridization. Thus agents have to be found by testing the acceptability <strong>of</strong> North<br />

American leafy spurge to organisms found attacking closely related European spurges<br />

(those in the section Esu/a). A number <strong>of</strong> these are already known and can be subjected to<br />

the usual screening tests to establish their specificity. A few species have already been<br />

screened and effort should be made to establish them as widely as possible.<br />

The difference in the density <strong>of</strong> spurge in European and North American stands<br />

appears to be related to the cropping pressure by a complex <strong>of</strong> insects and pathogens in<br />

Europe, although it would be nice to demonstrate this by removing the insects from a<br />

European stand. One possible explanation for the richness <strong>of</strong> the complex in Europe is


168 P. Harris<br />

Recommendations<br />

that like R. euphorbiae in Ontario each insect species is only able to utilize a small<br />

proportion <strong>of</strong> the total resource. The establishment <strong>of</strong> a complex <strong>of</strong> insects in North<br />

America large enough to reduce spurge density seems to be largely a matter <strong>of</strong> time and<br />

effort. Meantime any insect that can be established in reasonable numbers should be<br />

regarded as a success as it contributes to the cropping pressure on the weed in North<br />

America.<br />

The priorities in the biological control <strong>of</strong> leafy and cypress spurge for the immediate<br />

future are recognized as follows:<br />

(1) To complete host specificity studies on additional biological control agents in<br />

order to obtain approval for their release in North America. A reasonable target is the<br />

establishment <strong>of</strong> 10 agents in <strong>Canada</strong> since several species <strong>of</strong> spurge are probably<br />

involved.<br />

The root feeding beetles in the genus Aphthona (Chrysomelidae) are <strong>of</strong> particular<br />

interest as they are widespread and common on Euphorbia spp. in Europe. Investigations<br />

by Maw (1981) showed that A. cyparissiae Koch, A. {lava Guill., and A.<br />

czwalinae Weise would accept Canadian leafy spurge although the first two species are<br />

most common on E. cyparissias and the latter on E. esula. A. cyparissiae is likely to be<br />

the most useful for the Canadian prairies: it has the broadest ecological range <strong>of</strong> the three<br />

species, but prefers dry open sites with dense spurge and the larvae are reasonably cold<br />

tolerant. A. czwalinae will probably be restricted to moist sites such as along streams<br />

and in well wooded areas. A. f1ava prefers dry open sites but is less cold tolerant than A.<br />

cyparissias and so may be most applicable for southern Ontario or the United States.<br />

The following insects have been bred on Canadian leafy spurge in the laboratory and<br />

warrant further investigation as biological control agents. The leaf-tying moth Lobesia<br />

euphorbiana (Ferr.) (Tortricidae), the defoliating moths Minoa murinata Scop. and<br />

Bistonfiducarius Anker (Geometridae): both the former two moths in feeding tests were<br />

restricted to a few species <strong>of</strong> Euphorbia and they appear suitable for use as biological<br />

control agents. The gall midges Bayeria capitigena Bremi, Dasineura capsulae Kiett.,<br />

and D. loewi Mik. (Cecidomyiidae); the aphids Acyrthosiphum cyparissiae Koch and<br />

Aphis euphorbiae Kltb. (Aphididae) are also worthy <strong>of</strong> testing.<br />

(2) The root-feeding moth, Chamaesphecia empiformis Esp. (Sesiidae), can almost<br />

certainly be established on the tetraploid E. cyparissias in Ontario and Quebec.<br />

Renewed efforts should be made to do this.<br />

(3) Chamaesphecia tenthrediniformis (D. & S.) should be established on E. esula s.<br />

str. if this spurge is a problem anywhere in North America. It is the most effective agent<br />

on E. esula in Austria.<br />

(4) The poor survival <strong>of</strong> Oberea erythrocephala (Cerambycidae) on the Canadian<br />

prairies may be related to the low fertility <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> the release sites. Releases<br />

should be tried again at Cardston, Alberta, and on cypress spurge in Ontario. Possibly<br />

the colony at Caronport can be made to flourish and hence be a source for distribution if<br />

the site is fertilized with nitrogen.<br />

(5) The populations <strong>of</strong> the spurge hawkmoth, Ryles euphorbiae (L.) (Sphingidae),<br />

established on cypress spurge near Mulmur, Ontario, suggest that the species may have<br />

value in other places in Ontario and Quebec. The strain imported from Europe appears<br />

to have a strong ovipositional preference for cypress spurge over leafy spurge. Stock<br />

from the colony established on leafy spurge in Montana should be tried again on leafy<br />

spurge in western <strong>Canada</strong>. As summer temperature may be limiting on much <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Canadian prairies, the releases should be made first in the regions receiving the greatest<br />

number <strong>of</strong> Corn Heat Units such as around Medicine Hat, Alberta, Estevan, Saskatchewan,<br />

and southcentral Manitoba.


Blank Page<br />

170


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 36 171<br />

Hypericum perforatum L., St. John's-wort<br />

(Hypericaceae)<br />

P. HARRIS and M. MAW<br />

In the early 1950s, St. John's-wort was forming large stands on the grasslands in the<br />

interior <strong>of</strong> British Columbia where it became the dominant herbaceous species. A number<br />

<strong>of</strong> biological control agents were introduced (McLeod 1962, Harris & Peschken 1971) and in<br />

most areas the weed has been reduced to scattered plants or patches up to 2 m in diameter<br />

and usually 100 to 200 m apart. The use <strong>of</strong> herbicides against the weed on public and private<br />

lands practically ceased. The main agent responsible for this reduction has been the beetle<br />

Chrys<strong>of</strong>ina quadrigemina (Suffr.). In the few areas, such as the eutric brunisols on fluvial<br />

glacial gravel and morainal deposits near Cranbrook, British Columbia, where the beetle<br />

popUlation has been patchy, the weed has continued to spread. In this area, dense stands <strong>of</strong><br />

St. John's-wort occur on about 30 km! <strong>of</strong> lightly grazed Douglas fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii,<br />

forest. At present, the weed is causing little monetary loss, but if it continues to spread,<br />

extensive wildlife and cattle grazing areas in the east Kootenays are threatened.<br />

In Ontario, St. John's-wort continues to be a common weed on poor quality grasslands,<br />

on thin dry soils, on gravel, limestone, or rock; but it was removed from the noxious weed<br />

list when the Weed Control Act was amended in 1976. If the availability <strong>of</strong> an effective<br />

biological control agent contributed to its removal from the list, biological control can be<br />

considered to have been a success. The weed is localized in New Brunswick and Nova<br />

Scotia, but it is capable <strong>of</strong> forming dense stands and appears to be spreading.<br />

The background to the biological control <strong>of</strong> St. John's-wort in <strong>Canada</strong> was described by<br />

McLeod (1962) (Harris & Peschken 1971). In these accounts, the beetle C. quadrigemina<br />

was most effective in the semiarid to dry subhumid regions (Harris el af. 1969) as they had<br />

an obligatory aestival diapause which they could not enter under continuously wet conditions<br />

(Huffaker 1967). The smaller beetle, C. hyperici, was most effective in the moist<br />

subhumid to humid regions. This assessment must now be revised with the spread <strong>of</strong> C.<br />

quadrigemina onto the moist coastal plain at Agassiz, British Columbia. In the years<br />

immediately following the release <strong>of</strong> the beetles, eggs and larvae were only found on the<br />

procumbent foliage from September to May. In 1981 in a moist region <strong>of</strong> British Columbia,<br />

eggs and first instar larvae were found on 23 June on the upright stems just prior to bloom<br />

while in the drier regions the beetle was in the adult pre-aestival feeding stage.<br />

The colour forms <strong>of</strong> C. quadrigemina vary markedly between release sites in British<br />

Columbia. Pesch ken (1972) found that the prevalence <strong>of</strong> the bronze forms was correlated<br />

with the mildness <strong>of</strong> the winter. He also found several behavioural adaptations between<br />

beetles in British Columbia and those in California which were the source <strong>of</strong> the British<br />

Columbia stock.


172 P. Harris and M. Maw<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Agrllus hyperici<br />

(Crotch) (Coleoptera:<br />

Buprestidae)<br />

Analtis plag/aIB (L.)<br />

(Lepidoptera:<br />

Geometridae)<br />

Aphis chloris (Koch)<br />

(Homoptera:<br />

Aphididae)<br />

Renewed attempts to establish the root boring beetle A. hyperici in the Cranbrook, British<br />

Columbia, area (Table 45) were not successful. This beetle is established at Mt. Shasta.<br />

California, and the climate <strong>of</strong> southern British Columbia is within the range <strong>of</strong> the species in<br />

Europe. The problem seems to be related to shipping stress in the newly emerged beetles,<br />

two shipments arrived dead at Cranbrook airport and no eggs or larvae were found from the<br />

release <strong>of</strong> live beetles. If further attempts are made to establish this insect, it is suggested<br />

that it should be done by transferring newly hatched larvae to plants growing at the release<br />

site.<br />

Two releases <strong>of</strong> A. plagiala were made in the Cranbrook British Columbia area and one<br />

in New Brunswick. No establishment has been reported from New Brunswick. In<br />

British Columbia, two moths were caught in September 1980, about 3 km from the<br />

release site and on 23 June 1981, when the first flowers had opened, an egg, a first instar<br />

larva, and several moths were seen. The moth was also found in 1981 near Grandforks,<br />

an area where it had been released in 1967 and not previously recovered. The moths<br />

were flying actively between the widely scattered clumps <strong>of</strong> the weed and had survived<br />

in spite <strong>of</strong> strong populations <strong>of</strong> C. quadrigemina. Many larvae were found at Grandforks in<br />

late July and a few near Cranbrook in late July and early October (K. Williams 1981<br />

personal communication). The colony at Agassiz, British Columbia, in 1981 caused<br />

browning and defoliation <strong>of</strong> H. perforalum in patches (L. Sigurgeirson 1981 personal<br />

communication).<br />

The A. plagiala larvae released in 1977 at North Tay Creek, New Brunswick, may have<br />

been killed by insecticide drift from aerial spray <strong>of</strong> the adjacent forest for spruce<br />

budworm (D. Finnamore 1981 personal communication).<br />

(a)Ecology<br />

The sexual generation <strong>of</strong> the aphid A. chloris appears in the fall (October in Cranbrook)<br />

in response to lower temperatures and shortened day length. During this period and in<br />

early November. an average <strong>of</strong> four (maximum <strong>of</strong> eight spread over a month) yellow<br />

eggs, which tum shiny black, are laid per female at the base <strong>of</strong> the flowering stems or on<br />

the procumbent foliage. Hatching occurs in April or May giving rise to a generation <strong>of</strong><br />

apterous females. These mature in about a month and several generations <strong>of</strong> apterous<br />

viviparous females are produced. During midsummer, when colonies become crowded.<br />

alate viviparous females develop and disperse to found new colonies.<br />

A. chloris has a wide geographic range. It is found in Sweden near the northern limit <strong>of</strong><br />

St. John's-wort (Johansson 1962). in Poland (Czechowskii 1975), in Israel (Neser. 1973,<br />

personal communication), in Britian in cool and damp conditions, and in the arid south<br />

<strong>of</strong> France, from sea level to 1500 m in the mountains (Wilson 1943).<br />

In the south <strong>of</strong> France and at Cranbrook, the aphids in summer are found near the tip<br />

<strong>of</strong> the shoots or beneath the flowers. In contrast, in England, northern France. and in the<br />

Alps, they are normally found at the base <strong>of</strong> the stems. Wilson (1943) suggested that the<br />

feeding site depends on conditions <strong>of</strong> heat and moisture. If so, the ability <strong>of</strong> the aphid to


Chrysolina hypericJ<br />

(Forester)<br />

(Coleoptera:<br />

Chrysomelidae)<br />

Ilypericum perfOrUlIlm L.. 173<br />

adjust in this manner bodes well for its survival in the varied conditions at Cranbrook.<br />

British Columbia.<br />

In France, A. chloris can be heavily parasitized by Ap/,idius cardui Marsh. (Braconidae)<br />

and Aphidencyrtus aphidiverus Mayr. (Encyrtidae), but its reproductive capacity is<br />

such that it remains a common species (Wilson 1943). The stocks <strong>of</strong> A. chloris received<br />

from the Rhine Valley and Alsace contained Lysiphlebus faborum (Marsh.) (Braconidae).<br />

This is an aggressive parasitoid and if left unchecked can destroy a laboratory colony.<br />

Although A. chloris will attack various species <strong>of</strong> Hypericum, the damage done to the<br />

plant or its acceptance by the aphid varies with the species. For example, at the end <strong>of</strong> 5<br />

days the number <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fspring from two mature apterous females on H. perforatum. H.<br />

rhodopaeum, H. calyeinum, and H. densiflorum were 37, 10, 7, and 0, respectively.<br />

Large colonies <strong>of</strong> A. chloris consistently killed vigorous plants <strong>of</strong> H. perforatum in<br />

about a month, while H. rhodopaeum lived for over seven months and put on new<br />

growth in spite <strong>of</strong> a heavy aphid population.<br />

(b) Releases<br />

Two releases <strong>of</strong> A. chloris were made in the Cranbrook, British Columbia, area (Table<br />

45). Infested H. perforalum plants were transplanted into the field. In 1979 this was done<br />

during a period <strong>of</strong> drought: the transplanted plants died and most <strong>of</strong> the surrounding H.<br />

perforatum had lost their foliage. No evidence <strong>of</strong> aphid survival was found. In 1980<br />

infested plants were transplanted earlier in the spring and the aphids moved readily onto<br />

the surrounding plants. By early November all <strong>of</strong> the rosettes sampled in a 20 m radius at<br />

the two release sites had a few fundatrigeniae and/or eggs. By late June 1981 following a<br />

wet and cool spring, scattered plants within a radius <strong>of</strong> 50 m <strong>of</strong> the release point had<br />

small colonies <strong>of</strong> A. chloris near the flower buds. By far the strongest colony <strong>of</strong> the aphid<br />

was on the site least favoured by C. quadrigemina.<br />

British Columbia was used as a source for obtaining stock for release in Ontario, Nova<br />

Scotia, and New Brunswick (Table 45).<br />

In Ontario, C. hyperici became established at the release site near Picton. Overwintering<br />

survival was 63% for adults and 31% for eggs compared to 19% and 6%<br />

respectively, for C. quadrigemina (Harris & Peschken 1974). Nevertheless C. quadrigemina<br />

rapidly became the most common species, although both species were still<br />

present in 1979 (13 ddand4 22 C. quadrigemina:4 ddand 322 C. hypericiin the sample<br />

collected).<br />

The releases in Nova Scotia contained a few individuals <strong>of</strong> C. quadrigemina collected<br />

with the C. hyperici from Fruitvale, British Columbia. Both species became established<br />

but by 1979 C. hyperici had become numerous enough at one site in the Annapolis Valley<br />

to generate one query about the identity <strong>of</strong> the beetles sitting on the side <strong>of</strong> a house (H.<br />

Specht, 1979, personal communication). This was about 30 km from the release site.<br />

According to M. Neary (1979, personal communication), the original release site has<br />

been cleared <strong>of</strong> the weed and it has been substantially reduced in the Kingston-Auburn<br />

area. C. hyperici is also established in the Dundurn and Fenwick regions. At Dundurn<br />

between 1970-72 the number <strong>of</strong> flowering stems declined from 5.8 to 3.4/m2. This is a<br />

more gradual decline than has been usual with C. quadrigemina in British Columbia.<br />

C. hyperici released at Tay Creek, New Brunswick, were well established in 1977, but<br />

were not numerous enough to control the weed. A problem with the release made in 1975<br />

is that all the individuals examined were female. Apparently the females continued their


174 P. Harris and M. Maw<br />

Table 45 Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> insects against Hypericum per/oralum L.<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Release site Year Origin Number Recovery<br />

Chrysolina hyperici<br />

Pictou Co., Nova Scotia 1969 British Columbia 2 100 adults 1970<br />

Prince Edward Co., Ontario 1969 British Columbia 70 adults 1970<br />

Annapolis Co., Nova Scotia 1969 British Columbia 1320 adults 1979<br />

Prince Edward Co., Ontario 1970 British Columbia 182 adults 1970<br />

Tay Creek, New Brunswick 1971 British Columbia 1 150 adults 1972<br />

Lime Kiln, New Brunswick 1971 British Columbia 1 150 adults<br />

Tay Creek, New Brunswick 1975 British Columbia 496 adults<br />

Chrysolina quadrigemina<br />

Prince Edward Co., Ontario 1969 British Columbia 182 adults 1970<br />

Sidney Twp., Ontario 1971 British Columbia 15 adults<br />

1971 California 139 adults<br />

Tay Creek, New Brunswick 1975 British Columbia 128 adUlts} Not found<br />

Tay Creek, New Brunswick 1977 British Columbia 55 adults in 1981<br />

Guelph, Ontario 1979 Ontario 40 adults· 7000 collected<br />

in 1981<br />

4 sites near Guelph, Ontario 1979 Ontario 560 adults No recovery<br />

34 sites in and around<br />

Guelph, Ontario 1981 Ontario 7000 adults<br />

Agrilus hyperici<br />

Elko, British Columbia 1977 California 56 adults No recovery<br />

up to 1981<br />

Aphis chloris<br />

Elko, British Columbia 1979 Germany 300 plus Did not<br />

survive<br />

Elko, British Columbia 1980 Germany 150000 1981<br />

Anailis plagiata<br />

Grandforks, British Columbia1967 Europe 875 larvae 1981<br />

Westbridge, British Columbia 1967 Europe 500 larvae<br />

Tay Creek, New Brunswick 1977 Switzerland 715 adults Not found<br />

in 1978<br />

Elko, British Columbia 1977 Switzerland 3648larvae<br />

Agassiz, British Columbia 1977 Switzerland 476 larvae 1981<br />

Elko, British Columbia 1980 France 169 larvae 1981**<br />

• Sample examined contained 17 C. quadrigemina: 7 C. hyperici<br />

.. In view <strong>of</strong> the small population in 1981, it is assumed that establishment occurred<br />

from the 1980 releases.<br />

pre-aestival feeding on the flowering plants for longer than the males, so that mass<br />

collecting produced a badly distorted sex ratio. It is not known whether other releases<br />

were adversely affected in this manner. The release site at North Tay Creek, New<br />

Brunswick, has been subject to insecticide drift from aerial treatments <strong>of</strong> the forest<br />

against spruce budworm. In 1978, 1979, and 1980, a buffer strip <strong>of</strong> two miles was left<br />

between the treated forest and the release field and beetle density increased noticeably


176 P. Hnrris nnd M. MlIw<br />

Recommendations<br />

beetle, C. hyperici, was needed to control the weed in moist sites. C. quadrigemina has now<br />

become numerous at the moist sites <strong>of</strong> Fruitvale and Agassiz, British Columbia, although<br />

C. hyperici has persisted and spread to other sites in the province (K. Williams 1981<br />

personal communication). However, in spite <strong>of</strong> the release <strong>of</strong> pioneer moist-adapted<br />

individuals <strong>of</strong> C. qlladrigemina with C. hyperici in the maritimes, the latter species has<br />

become dominant and C. quadrigemina was not present in the samples examined. C. hyperici<br />

is only slightly smaller than C. quadrigemina and the two species feed in a similar manner on<br />

H. perforattun, so it is surprising that they coexist in the same habitats. It is not known what<br />

occurred to allow C. quadrigemina to colonize moist habitats and invade the thriving colony<br />

<strong>of</strong> C. hyperici at Fruitvale. The adaption has not extended to the maritimes and again the<br />

reasons are unknown. From a purely pragmatic purpose <strong>of</strong> controlling H. perforatum the<br />

important thing is that one species or another will reduce the weed to a low density in most<br />

places in <strong>Canada</strong>. For example, at the release site in Ontario, the weed declined to only 0.2%<br />

<strong>of</strong> its former density.<br />

A strong colony <strong>of</strong> C. quadrigemina with some C. hyperici was established near<br />

Guelph, Ontario, with stock from the Picton, Ontario, colony. A total <strong>of</strong> 7000 beetles<br />

collected from the Guelph colony before its destruction in 1981 was distributed to 34<br />

other sites in and around the city. By 1983 there should be massive populations <strong>of</strong> the<br />

beetle in the Guelph area. These could be collected at little cost and released at other H.<br />

perforatum sites throughout Ontario. Some <strong>of</strong> the releases would fail (two out <strong>of</strong> five<br />

release sites <strong>of</strong> 1979 at Guelph were destroyed) but the beetle would distribute itself<br />

from the survivors. The pilot studies at Picton, Ontario as well as those in British<br />

Columbia indicate that the prevalence <strong>of</strong> H. perforatum would be greatly decreased by<br />

such a programme with a corresponding increase in forage for livestock or wildlife.<br />

The apparently few sites where Chrysolina spp. have been ineffective are on nutrientpoor<br />

soils and in insecticide-drift areas. No insects are likely to be effective for biological<br />

control if they receive an insecticide spray while they are exposed on their host<br />

plant. It might be possible to find a root-boring insect that was inside the plant during the<br />

spruce budworm spraying season; however, in view <strong>of</strong> the public outcry, the spray<br />

programme is likely to become increasingly circumspect, so the problem for C. hyperici<br />

should diminish.<br />

More investigations are needed to determine whether the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the Chryso­<br />

Iina spp. can be increased on nutrient-poor soils; however, as the moth A. plagiata is<br />

increasing on some <strong>of</strong> the areas not favored by the beetle, we already may have part <strong>of</strong><br />

the solution. Aphis chloris was chosen as a biological control agent as the presence <strong>of</strong><br />

symbionts in aphids <strong>of</strong>ten enables them to survive on plants that lack one or more<br />

essential amino acids or B vitamins. However, its effectiveness as a biological control<br />

agent for H. perforattun remains to be seen.<br />

(1) C. quadrigemina and/or C. hyperici have shown that they are able to reduce H.<br />

perforatum to well below the economic threshold in most regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Any<br />

province with H. perforaltun on their noxious weed list should distribute the beetles or,<br />

if the importance <strong>of</strong> the weed does not justify this small effort, remove the weed from the<br />

list.<br />

(2) Provinces where the weed is being satisfactorily controlled should remove H.<br />

perforalum from their noxious weed list as mowing or spraying operations against the<br />

weed are a waste and not likely to assist its biological control.<br />

(3) Further study is required to determine the role <strong>of</strong> Anaitis plagiata and/or Aphis<br />

chloris.<br />

(4) If further attempts are made to establish Agrilus hyperici, these should be done<br />

by transferring the young larvae to plants in the field.


Blank Page<br />

178


Pest Status<br />

90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

I/)<br />

-u<br />

ctI<br />

"- 50<br />

-I/)<br />

.0<br />

ctI<br />

"t:I<br />

Q) 50<br />

-ctI<br />

::::l<br />

E<br />

::J<br />

u 40<br />

u<br />

«<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

Chapter 37<br />

Linaria vulgaris Miller, Yellow Toadflax<br />

and L. dalmatica (L.) Mill., Broad-leaved<br />

Toadflax (Seroph ulariaeeae )<br />

P. HARRIS<br />

The importance <strong>of</strong> Linaria vulgaris Mill. in western <strong>Canada</strong> has declined since the early<br />

1950s so that now, as in eastern <strong>Canada</strong>, it is a conspicuous but relatively unimportant<br />

weed. In a study in the Peace River area <strong>of</strong> Alberta, Darwent et al. (1975) found that in<br />

• •<br />

54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78<br />

Year<br />

Fig. R. Cumulative number <strong>of</strong> abstracts on the control <strong>of</strong> toadnax with hcrbidcs in the Research Report <strong>of</strong> the Expert<br />

CommiUec on Weeds (<strong>Canada</strong> Western Section)<br />

179


180 P. Harris<br />

Background<br />

Table 47<br />

most areas it was less abundant in the early 1970s than it had been in 1956 and that<br />

toadflax was not a serious problem in cereal crops. In creeping red fescue, 180 toadflax<br />

stems/m 2 reduced the yield by a third; but in most areas there were 20 or less stems/m 2<br />

with no measurable effect on yield. Most <strong>of</strong> the dense stands <strong>of</strong> the weed were on sites<br />

that had been cleared and abandoned or were cropped infrequently.<br />

In Saskatchewan, the weed is still dense on uncultivated sandy soils from North<br />

Battleford west to Alberta. In other regions <strong>of</strong> the province it has disappeared or greatly<br />

declined since the 1950s.<br />

The decrease in the importance <strong>of</strong> the weed is reflected by the decline in the number <strong>of</strong><br />

abstracts relating to its chemical control in the Research Report <strong>of</strong> the Expert Committee on<br />

Weeds (<strong>Canada</strong> Western Section) (Fig. 8). The decrease <strong>of</strong> the weed has not however<br />

changed its status under noxious weed legislation. For example in Saskatchewan provincial<br />

subsidies are still paid to municipalities for its control.<br />

L. dalmatica (L.) is considerably more persistent that L. vulgaris, and it appears to<br />

exclude most other herbaceous species from the stand. Stands are local and the total<br />

area occupied does not appear to be large. Thus in the absence <strong>of</strong> documented evidence<br />

it does not appear to <strong>of</strong>fer a serious threat.<br />

A more detailed history <strong>of</strong> the biological control <strong>of</strong> toadflax is given by Harris &<br />

Carder (1971). The decline <strong>of</strong> the weed in western <strong>Canada</strong> coincided with the appearance<br />

<strong>of</strong> the flower-feeding beetle Brachypterolus pulicarius (L.). This European<br />

beetle was present in eastern <strong>Canada</strong> and spread to the west. In addition the seedfeeding<br />

weevil Gymnaetron antirrhinii (Payk.), another European insect present in the<br />

east, was released in western <strong>Canada</strong> in 1957. Both insects are now present in regions <strong>of</strong><br />

western <strong>Canada</strong> where toadflax is common.<br />

In 1962, a European defoliating moth, Calophasia lunula (Hfn.), was first released in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>, and it became established on the railway right-<strong>of</strong>-way at Belleville, Ontario in<br />

1966. The moth has two overlapping generations and lays single well distributed eggs.<br />

The first two larval instars are inconspicuous and frequently feed inside the flowers, but<br />

the third to fifth instars feed externally on the foliage and are easily seen. Samples taken<br />

along the railway right-<strong>of</strong>-way (Table 47) indicate that larvae were present from late May<br />

to early September, usually at a density <strong>of</strong> 2-6 larvae/100 stems regardless <strong>of</strong> the<br />

toadflax density. The density <strong>of</strong> the toadflax increased greatly following soil disturbance<br />

in the previous year. The overall level <strong>of</strong> damage was not impressive with less than 20"10<br />

<strong>of</strong> the stems being defoliated.<br />

Density <strong>of</strong> C. lunula and toadflax, L. vulgaris Mill. and L. dalmatica (L.) Mill .• along<br />

the railway at Belleville. Ontario.<br />

No. 3rd-5th instar<br />

Date No. samples· No. Toadflax stemsfm Z C. lunula larvae/m 2<br />

2 Jun 1968 26 85.7 2.0<br />

8 Aug 1968 19 89.1 3.8<br />

3 Sep 1969 158 6.6 0.05<br />

18 Jun 1970 52 7.2 0.31<br />

13 Aug 1970 205 0.98<br />

15 Aug 1971 31 7.7 0.13<br />

• (0.25 m 2 ) samples taken at 5 pace intervals


Table 48<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Linaria \·ulgaris Miller. 181<br />

The area has not been surveyed since 1972, but the moth has continued to spread; it<br />

was recovered from light traps at Ottawa, Ontario in 1977, a distance <strong>of</strong> over 300 km<br />

from the release site (E. Monroe, 1978, personal communication). Thus C. lunula is now<br />

probably present in most <strong>of</strong> southern Ontario. According to I. Jones (1978, personal<br />

communication), larvae were scarce in the Ottawa area in 1980: less than half a dozen<br />

were seen in several organized and many casual searches. In 1981, there was a large<br />

increase in the population, larvae were seen from early June to mid-October and along<br />

the railway track 47 to 57 larvae could be collected in an hour. Defoliated stems were<br />

evident, and some small stands were completely defoliated. Both the larvae and defoliation<br />

were associated with stunted toadflax plants and they rarely occurred in adjacent<br />

lush stands.<br />

Op'en releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> Calophasia [wUlla against L. vulgari.v Mill. and L.<br />

dalmatica (L.) Mill.<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Weed Species Province Year Origin Number Recovery<br />

L. vulgaris New Brunswick 1971 Ontario 1565 larvae<br />

& 136 pupae<br />

L. vulgaris Saskatchewan 1973 Ontario 2725 larvae<br />

L. dalmatica British Columbia 1969 Ontario 200 pupae<br />

L. dalmatica British Columbia 1971 Ontario 1180 larvae<br />

Four attempts were made to establish Calophasia lunula in regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> outside<br />

Ontario and all were unsuccessful (Table 48). The release site in Saskatchewan was<br />

flooded in the year following the release. The larvae released on Dalmation toadflax in<br />

British Columbia disappeared within days, apparently from ant predation. Survival<br />

was not followed closely in New Brunswick but no evidence <strong>of</strong> establishment was<br />

found in the following year.<br />

The moth, C. lunula, is obviously well established in Ontario and it should be possible<br />

to establish it in the rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. C. lunula has not defoliated enough L. vulgaris to<br />

control the weed on its own, but it has added to the stress inflicted by the now<br />

ubiquitous beetles, G. antirrhinii and B. pulicarius. The possibility that it may<br />

sometimes inflict more damage is indicated by the populations in Ottawa in 1981 which<br />

seem to be about ten times the density at Belleville prior to 1972.<br />

C. lunula favors the stunted toadflax stands that are found on dry soils. It is these<br />

stands that are persistent as edaphic conditions that permit the formation <strong>of</strong> tall lush<br />

stands also lead to the displacement <strong>of</strong> toadflax by grass and other vegetation. Thus C.<br />

lunula concentrates its attack where the weed is most persistent.<br />

The combination <strong>of</strong> the three toadflax insects can control L. vulgaris at below the<br />

economic threshold in most parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Indeed in most regions this has been<br />

achieved by the two beetles alone. An exception is North Battleford, Saskatchewan,


182 P. Harris<br />

Recommendations<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

Literature Cited<br />

where there are extensive dense stands <strong>of</strong> toad flax. Based on the results from Ontario,<br />

it is doubtful whether the establishment <strong>of</strong> C. lunula in the area would solve the<br />

problem. Whether it is worth screening and establishing a fourth agent for the control<br />

<strong>of</strong> toadflax around North Battleford needs to be determined by a cost-benefit study as<br />

opinions vary about the importance <strong>of</strong> toadflax to the region.<br />

Surveys for the biological control agents <strong>of</strong> toadflax and their host specificity testing<br />

should not be done by <strong>Canada</strong> unless it can be shown that the potential benefits are<br />

large enough to justify the costs <strong>of</strong> biological control. However, the costs to <strong>Canada</strong><br />

for biological control would be minimal if the tests were done by other countries. In<br />

this event the control agent should be imported as there would be benefits to individual<br />

land holders from the biological control <strong>of</strong> Dalmation and common toadflax. The moth<br />

C. lunula can almost certainly be established outside Ontario.<br />

I am grateful to Mr Ian Jones for the observations on C. lunula in the Ottawa area in<br />

1980 and 1981.<br />

Darwent, A.L.; Labay, W.; Yarish, W.; Harris, P. (1975) Distribution and importance in northwestern Alberta <strong>of</strong> loadflax and its insect<br />

enemies. Catuldian Journal 01 Piant Science 55, 157-162.<br />

Harris, P.; Carder. A.C. (1971) Linaria vulgaris Mill .• yellow loadfiax and L. dalmaJica (L.) Mill .• broad-leaved toadflax (Scrophulariaccae). In:<br />

Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong> 1959-1968. Commonwealth<br />

inslilute 01 Biological Control Technical Communication 4. 94-97.


Chapter 38<br />

Opuntia polyacantha Haworth, Plains<br />

Prickly-pear Cactus (Cactaceae)<br />

M.G. MAW<br />

There are three species <strong>of</strong> cacti on the Canadian Prairies: the prickly-pears, Opuntia<br />

polyacantha Haw. and O. tragi/is (Nutt.) Haw., and the pincushion or ball cactus,<br />

Mammillaria vivipara (Nutt.) Haw. Mammillaria is not considered to be a problem.<br />

In the western provinces cacti are found on dry hillsides and flatlands throughout the<br />

more arid parts <strong>of</strong> the brown soils zone. These areas have some grazing capacity, but<br />

have limitations that make improvement and cultivation impractical. For example,<br />

when the surface is disturbed the soils are likely to erode and blow easily.<br />

Periodically, especially during droughts, prickly-pear becomes a concern. Ranchers<br />

then worry that it will displace valuable grass, use scarce moisture, and cause injury to<br />

stock. It is generally thought that overgrazing increases cactus growth and spread.<br />

Certainly, severely overgrazed grasslands greatly facilitate the spread <strong>of</strong> cacti for when<br />

soils have been denuded, cactus pads broken from clumps come into contact with bare<br />

soil, root, and establish new clumps. On the other hand, Bement's (1968) study <strong>of</strong> heavy,<br />

moderate, and light pasture use showed that while populations <strong>of</strong> cactus doubled in area<br />

in 28 years, it never exceeded 2.4% <strong>of</strong> land area. Removal <strong>of</strong> cactus did not increase<br />

forage production significantly but did make it more available for grazing. In lightly<br />

grazed pastures, grasses tended to mask cactus while under heavy grazing, cactus was<br />

more conspicuous. Farmers in the Avonlea area <strong>of</strong> Saskatchewan maintain that cactus<br />

has not changed much in the past 20 years and where it has increased, it was through<br />

careless efforts to break up the clumps with harrows (personal interviews).<br />

The value <strong>of</strong> cactus in the North American ecosystem is not always appreciated.<br />

During drought and under heavy grazing, cactus reduces soil erosion. Clumps <strong>of</strong> cactus<br />

conserve moisture by holding snow, and after summer showers the soil within the<br />

clumps remains moist for several hours longer than soil outside them. Clumps also<br />

protect desirable plants from grazing so that seeds can be produced to repopulate the<br />

range after drought or heavy grazing (Houston 1963).<br />

Prickly-pear is a food for at least 44 species <strong>of</strong> birds and mammals. For example, seeds<br />

may account for 65% <strong>of</strong> the diet <strong>of</strong> the Harris ground squirrel and up to 5.0% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

browse <strong>of</strong> deer and antelope (Martin et al. 1961).<br />

The earliest record <strong>of</strong> an insect attacking cactus dates back several hundred years,<br />

and there is indication that cultivation <strong>of</strong> the cochineal, Dactylopius coccus Costa, was<br />

conducted in Mexico and Central America for many centuries before the voyage <strong>of</strong><br />

Columbus (Mann 1969).<br />

The first comprehensive study <strong>of</strong> insects <strong>of</strong> Cactaceae in the United States was done<br />

by Hunter et al. (1912). This work described the life history and habits <strong>of</strong> various<br />

species, summarized previous information. and provided an extensive and useful bibliography.<br />

Surveys for insects associated with O. polyacantha and O. /ragilis in Saskatchewan<br />

and Alberta were made from 1974 to 1979 (Maw & Molloy 1980). Although only 20<br />

species were found. three, Chelinidea vittiger Uhler, Dacty/opius con/usus (Ckll.), and<br />

Melitara dentata (Grote), were numerous enough to exert considerable pressure on the<br />

cactus. D. con/usus and M. dentala can be very destructive and each year destroy about<br />

10% <strong>of</strong> the pads (Maw & Molloy 1980)<br />

Two species <strong>of</strong> Lepidoptera. Cactob/aslis doddi Heinrich and C. bucyrus Dyar. were<br />

183


184 M. G. Maw<br />

Discussion<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

obtained from the high altitude valleys <strong>of</strong> Jujuy province in Northern Argentina for<br />

screening at Regina. The two species fed on local prickly-pear, but it was necessary to<br />

injure the pads before the larvae would enter to feed. Once inside, the larvae completely<br />

hollowed the pads, but then would not leave them to attack new ones. Either the local<br />

cactus was unsuitable or the insects were diseased for both species became weak and the<br />

colonies died out after a few generations in the laboratory.<br />

No introductions <strong>of</strong> cactus insects are considered, for any harm or inconvenience<br />

caused by our prairie cactus is balanced by benefits from it. The native biotic agents<br />

exert considerable pressure on the cactus and our native grasses, when not overgrazed<br />

are well able to compete.<br />

Any release <strong>of</strong> biological control agents to control prickly-pear would be vigorously<br />

opposed by both the United States and Mexico, because Opuntia spp. are used as<br />

emergency fodder for cattle and as human food. In addition, at least one species <strong>of</strong><br />

Opuntia is listed as endangered and 12 as threatened and still others are valued as<br />

ornamentals throughout the American southwest.<br />

(I) Introduction <strong>of</strong> biological control agents for Opuntia spp. in <strong>Canada</strong> should not<br />

be pursued.<br />

(2) Any control <strong>of</strong> cactus in <strong>Canada</strong> should be approached as a range management<br />

problem.<br />

Bement, R.E. (1968) Plains prickly-pear; relation to grazing intensity and blue grama yield on Central Great Plains. Journal <strong>of</strong> Range<br />

Matulgement 19, 83-86.<br />

Houston, W.R. (1963) Plains prickly-pear, weather, and grazing in the Northern Great Plains. Ecology 44, 569-574.<br />

Hunter, W.O.; Pratt, F.C.; Mitchell, J.D. (1912) The principle cactus insects <strong>of</strong> the United States. USDA Bureau <strong>of</strong> Entomology 113. 1-71.<br />

Mann, J. (1969) Cactus-feeding insects and mites. Smithsonian Institute Bulletin 256, 158 pp.<br />

Martin, A.C.; Zim, H.S.; Nelson, A.L. (1961) American wildlife and plants. A Guide to wildlife food habits. New York, Dover Publications<br />

Inc., 500 pp.<br />

Maw, M.O.; Molloy, M.M. (1980) Prickly-pear cactus on the Canadian prairies. Blue Jay 38, 208-211.


Pest Status<br />

Chapter 39<br />

Rhamnus cathartica L., Common or<br />

European Buckthorn (Rhamnaceae)<br />

M.G. MAW<br />

Common or European buckthorn, Rhamnw calhartica L., is the alternate host <strong>of</strong> crown<br />

rust or leaf rust <strong>of</strong> oats, Puccinia coronala Cda. f. sp. avenae Eriks.<br />

Considerable amounts <strong>of</strong> urediospore inoculum <strong>of</strong> crown rust is blown northwards<br />

every year from the United States and has nothing to do with the presence <strong>of</strong> buckthorn<br />

in <strong>Canada</strong>. Moreover, in some years, crown rust is so widespread and severe, such as in<br />

1980, that the presence or absence <strong>of</strong> buckthorn is probably not important (R. V. Clark,<br />

1980, personal communication) (Hanson & Grau 1979, Peturson 1954). Nevertheless,<br />

buckthorn is responsible for virtually all <strong>of</strong> the early infection by crown rust in the<br />

northern United States and in <strong>Canada</strong> (Hanson & Grau 1979), infecting oats from two<br />

weeks (Harder & McKenzie 1974) to a month (Harder 1975) before the arrival <strong>of</strong> the<br />

urediospores from the south.<br />

Buckthorn leaves are the site <strong>of</strong> spermagonial and the aecial stages <strong>of</strong> crown rust <strong>of</strong><br />

oats. This is a potential source <strong>of</strong> new pathogenic variation because hybridization and<br />

recombination occur in the pathogen on buckthorn (Simons el al. 1979). The greater<br />

diversity <strong>of</strong> rare races in the east, as opposed to the west, may be attributed to the<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> buckthorn (Fleischmann el al. 1963). Although there are a number <strong>of</strong> species<br />

<strong>of</strong> Rhamnw, both native and introduced, in North America, <strong>of</strong> those susceptible to P.<br />

coronala f. sp. avenae, only R. cathartica occurs in any significant numbers in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> (Peturson 1954).<br />

It is difficult to assess overall losses due to crown rust <strong>of</strong> oats. Unless there is a general<br />

epidemic <strong>of</strong> the rust, the infection is generally extremely variable. In Ontario, in 1977,<br />

infections ranged from a trace in some fields to nearly complete destruction <strong>of</strong> the oat<br />

crop in others (Harder 1978). Yield reductions are negligible if crown rust development<br />

does not precede heading, especially in relatively dry seasons. A late attack can,<br />

however, cause losses <strong>of</strong> 763-1029 kg per ha if the season is delayed by cool and wet<br />

weather (Fleischmann 1968). When there are few late fields <strong>of</strong> oats, severe infections <strong>of</strong><br />

30-90% may cause little damage (Fleischmann 1963).<br />

In Manitoba, estimates <strong>of</strong> combined crown and stem rust damage in 1970 indicated a<br />

loss in excess <strong>of</strong> 154 000 tonnes but less than half <strong>of</strong> it was attributed to crown rust<br />

(Martens 1971). In 1969, in Manitoba, losses to crown rust were estimated at 108 ()()()<br />

tonnes and losses in individual fields ranged from 5-30% (Fleischmann 1969).<br />

It is only when there is a minimal urediospore shower that the losses due to crown rust<br />

associated with buckthorn can be determined. Buckthorn is responsible for local and<br />

persistent infestations <strong>of</strong> the rust wherever buckthorn and oats are in close proximity<br />

and a single large buckthorn is sufficient to generate a moderately severe infection in an<br />

adjacent field (Harder 1975, 1978). The distribution <strong>of</strong> crown rust in Ontario in 1977<br />

indicates that buckthorn was responsible in that year for most <strong>of</strong> the rust infection <strong>of</strong><br />

oats. The very light infection occurring in the absence <strong>of</strong> buckthorn suggests there was<br />

little influx <strong>of</strong> spores from elsewhere (Harder 1978).<br />

Crown rust adversely affects yield, quality, weight, and protein content <strong>of</strong> oat seed.<br />

Light infections cause minor reductions, but infections <strong>of</strong> 68-80% cause yield<br />

reductions <strong>of</strong> 19.2 - 27 .8%, kernal weight <strong>of</strong> 12.3 -16.1 % , and a grade reduction <strong>of</strong> about<br />

one grade (Peturson 1952).<br />

185


186 M.G. Maw<br />

Background R. cathartica was introduced into North America as a hedge and shelterbelt shrub or as<br />

an ornamental in parks and gardens. It varies considerably in size, ranging upwards <strong>of</strong> 10<br />

m high under favourable conditions but is more usually less than half that height. It is<br />

very bushy, <strong>of</strong>ten many stemmed, and the shoots and branches terminate in a sharp<br />

spine. The leaves are alternate, smooth, and elliptical with toothed margins. The flowers<br />

are in the axils <strong>of</strong> the leaves, small, greenish, and dioecious. The mature fruit is a bluish<br />

to nearly black drupe, bitter to the taste, and about 8 mm in diameter. The seed is 3-4<br />

grooved.<br />

Reproduction is entirely by seeds which germinate 90-100% when the fruit is just<br />

ripe. The plant regenerates quickly from cut stems and after burning and grazing<br />

(Montgomery 1956, Mulligan 1952, Rydberg 1932).<br />

(a) Habitat<br />

In eastern <strong>Canada</strong>, buckthorn is found along fence rows, along roadsides, in open<br />

woods, and along the gently sloping banks <strong>of</strong> lakes, rivers, and streams, it is <strong>of</strong>ten seen in<br />

solid masses along every fence row in many locations, but apparently is not found to any<br />

extent in pastures. Plants <strong>of</strong> about 2.5 m can be found in wood openings with many<br />

smaller plants and seedlings in the more shaded locations. Where the trees are removed,<br />

these smaller plants grow rapidly forming a forest <strong>of</strong> buckthorn. It tends to be more<br />

commonly on soils <strong>of</strong> high moisture content than on light, dry soils (Mulligan 1952).<br />

In Manitoba, there are relatively few areas outside <strong>of</strong> the larger towns and cities where<br />

buckthorn is found (Peturson 1954). It is concentrated in Winnipeg, Brandon, and near<br />

Macdonald, generally as park and hedgerow plantings (Bassett 1958), and in a sheltered<br />

ravine near Morden (Harder 1975).<br />

In England, it is found chiefly on alkaline peat and limestone soils (Godwin 1943).<br />

(b) Geographic range<br />

In England, it is found in the midland, southern and eastern counties, but is absent<br />

from Cornwall, North Devon, Northumberland, and western counties <strong>of</strong> Wales.<br />

In Ireland, it is present in a wide belt across the central Irish plain, but absent from the<br />

southern counties and absent or rare in the northern.<br />

It is doubtfully native in Scotland, except possibly in Dumfries.<br />

Its range extends through the greater part <strong>of</strong> Europe to 60" 48' in Norway and 61 0 41' in<br />

Sweden, in southern Finland, Esthonia, and across Russia into western Asia, Afghanistan,<br />

and Turkestan.<br />

It is present in southern Europe to middle and eastern Spain and Macedonia, and<br />

sparingly at high altitudes in Morocco and Algeria, but absent in the Balearics, Corsica,<br />

and Sardinia, also from western Siberia, Transcaucasia to Altai (Godwin 1943).<br />

In North America, R. cathartica is found in the New England states, Virginia,<br />

westward to Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota (Fernald 1950), Quebec, Ontario<br />

Manitoba, and to a limited extent in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Maritimes.<br />

(c) Uses<br />

R. cathartica is a useful hedge and shelterbelt shrub and as such has been extensively<br />

planted in Ontario and Quc!bec and to a lesser extent in other provinces. It is also used as<br />

an ornamental in gardens and parks.


Discussion<br />

Rhamnus cathartica L.. 187<br />

The fruit is eaten by birds but usually only as a last resort. For example. robins will<br />

take them sparingly when no other food is available in the early spring. It is claimed that<br />

emodin in the green fruits prevents premature predation by birds (Trial & Dimond 1979).<br />

Perhaps late retention <strong>of</strong> fruit well into the spring attests to this.<br />

Several species <strong>of</strong> birds are cited as feeding on the fruit in Germany and England. and<br />

mice have been seen to eat the seed from dried fallen fruit.<br />

(d) Control<br />

Buckthorn is so prevalent in Ontario. especially in the eastern counties. and the bush is<br />

<strong>of</strong> such a large size that it is an almost impossible task to eradicate it by spraying. cutting,<br />

or bulldozing. So very little, if anything, is being done to control it.<br />

Herbicides give unsatisfactory results and 2,4,S-T which was recommended as a<br />

treatment <strong>of</strong> freshly cut stumps is now outlawed in many states and provinces (Hanson<br />

& Grau 1979). In any event, combinations <strong>of</strong> 2,4,-D and 2,4,S-T had little permanent<br />

effect and treated bushes regrew from the base and many <strong>of</strong> the test buckthorn leafed out<br />

one year after treatment (Switzer 1961). Ammate-X (ammonium sulfamate, duPont) is<br />

recommended as either a foliar spray or a stump treatment in Wisconsin (Hanson &<br />

Grau 1979) but early tests in Ontario showed that Ammate-X and fenuron (3-phenyl-l, 1dimethylurea)<br />

had little effect in that most <strong>of</strong> the test plants over four feet high continued<br />

to grow (Switzer et al. 1960, Switzer 1961).<br />

Cutting buckthorn gives at best temporary control because the stumps send up<br />

vigorous shoots in a relatively short time. However, cutting <strong>of</strong> individual bushes can<br />

reduce the incidence <strong>of</strong> crown rust in nearby fields.<br />

(e) Biological control<br />

Because chemical control <strong>of</strong> buckthorn is at best temporary, biological control is an<br />

attractive alternative and so at the request <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> a survey for biological control<br />

agents was made by tbe Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control in 1964<br />

(Malicky et al. 1970). It was found that practically all the phytophagous insects specific<br />

to or closely associated with Rhamnaceae are in the orders Lepidoptera and<br />

Hemiptera. Many Coleoptera were found on Rhamnaceae but none was specific<br />

(Malicky el al. 1970),<br />

Investigations. particularly starvation tests suggest that the geometrids SCOlosia<br />

vetulata Schiff., Triphosa dubitata L., and the Iycaenid Thecla spini L. may be<br />

possible species for the biological control <strong>of</strong> R. cathartica in <strong>Canada</strong>. The geometrids<br />

combine a high degree <strong>of</strong> host specificity with a potential to defoliate their host,<br />

however. T. dubitata overwinters as an adult which may prove difficult in Canadian<br />

situations. T. spin; may have too wide a host range to be an acceptable agent, but<br />

there is some doubt as to the correctness <strong>of</strong> the host records (Malicky el al. 1970).<br />

R. calharlica is only one <strong>of</strong> several species <strong>of</strong> Rhamnaceae capable <strong>of</strong> being an<br />

alternate host to crown rust <strong>of</strong> oats (Dietz 1926). It is, however, the only one occurring<br />

in any significant numbers in <strong>Canada</strong> (Peturson 19S4) .. Eradication <strong>of</strong> buckthorn would<br />

not erase the problems <strong>of</strong> crown rust but would remove the site <strong>of</strong> the aecial or sexual<br />

spores <strong>of</strong> the rust and thus the source <strong>of</strong> pathogenic variation through hybridization<br />

and recombination <strong>of</strong> genetic material (Simons el al. 1979). Hybridization and recom-


188 M. G. Maw<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

bination, however, may not be as important as once thought. New races appear first in the<br />

main north-south rust population, and only later become established in populations<br />

cycling on buckthorn. (Simmons M.D. personal communication 1983).<br />

Infections <strong>of</strong> rust due to buckthorn are usually very local but can result in complete<br />

loss <strong>of</strong> the crop near buckthorn. Infection levels usually decline linearly with distance<br />

from the buckthorn (Harder 1975) and a few hundred meters from the source is<br />

sufficient to make a significant difference in infection incidence. Growers must either<br />

avoid planting oats near buckthorn or eradicate it from their farms. Buckthorn is so<br />

widespread and persistent that complete eradication is not feasible.<br />

Biological control <strong>of</strong> buckthorn appears to be the only course to lessen the impact<br />

<strong>of</strong> crown rust on oat production. It is not expected that introduced bi;:'logical agents<br />

will eradicate buckthorn, but they might add to the stress <strong>of</strong> climate and soil type to<br />

slow the spread <strong>of</strong> the shrub. Also, it is expected that any reduction in leaf surface will<br />

aid in diminishing rust inoculum early in the season when the greatest injury is caused<br />

to the oat crop. Not many insects find buckthorn an attractive food source because <strong>of</strong><br />

the feeding deterrent chemical, emodin (Trial & Dimond 1979). The original sources <strong>of</strong><br />

the North American populations <strong>of</strong> buckthorn are not known and there could be<br />

different biotypes containing varying amounts <strong>of</strong> emodin. This may make selection <strong>of</strong><br />

effective biological control agents difficult.<br />

Surveys for phytophagous insects in Europe found no species specific to R.<br />

eathartiea, although the Lepidoptera Seotosia vetulata and Thecla spini exhibit a<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> specificity to Rhamnaceae.<br />

Thus when attempting to control buckthorn biologically, one has to consider that<br />

species other than R. eathartiea will be attacked. The degree to which these other<br />

species will be damaged must be determined in the screening tests, and decisions made<br />

as to whether damage and possible loss <strong>of</strong> other species <strong>of</strong> Rhamnaceae can be<br />

tolerated.<br />

Even though R. eathartiea is the source <strong>of</strong> early infection <strong>of</strong> oats by crown rust and is the<br />

site <strong>of</strong> the aecial stage <strong>of</strong> the rust, its complete eradication would at best result in only a<br />

reduced incidence <strong>of</strong> the disease and the appearance <strong>of</strong> new rust races. Therefore. it is<br />

recommended that biological control work on R. cathartiea be discontinued.<br />

Bassett. 1.1. (1958) A sUlVey <strong>of</strong> the European buckthorn and common barberry in southern Manitoba. Science Service, Division <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />

and Plant Pathology, Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Ottawa, 22 pp.<br />

Dietz, S.M. (1926) The alternate hosts <strong>of</strong> crown rust, PucciniD cor<strong>of</strong>Ulta Corda. Jounuzl 0/ Agricultural Research 33, 953-970.<br />

Fernald. M.L. (1950) Gray's manual <strong>of</strong> botany. American Book Corp., New York, 1632 pp.<br />

fleischmann. G. (1963) Crown rust <strong>of</strong> oats in <strong>Canada</strong> in 1963. ConodiDn Plant Disease Survey 43,168-172.<br />

fleischmann, G. (1968) Crown rust <strong>of</strong> oats in <strong>Canada</strong> in 1968. CatuldiDn Plant Disease Survey 48,99·101.<br />

fleischmann, G. (1969) Crown rust <strong>of</strong> oats in <strong>Canada</strong> in 1969. Canadian Plant Disease Survey 49,91-94.<br />

fleischmann. G.; Samborski, D.l.; Peturson, B. (1963) The distribution and frequency <strong>of</strong> occurrence <strong>of</strong> physiologic races <strong>of</strong> Puccinia<br />

coronata Corda. f. sp. avenae Erikas. in <strong>Canada</strong>. CanaditJn Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 41, 481-487.<br />

Godwin, H. (1943) Rhamnaceae. Journal <strong>of</strong> Ecology 31, 66-92.<br />

Hanson, E.W.; Gmu, G.R. (1979) The buckthorn menace to oal production. University <strong>of</strong> Wisconsin Extension Bulletin A 2860,2 pp.<br />

Harder, D.E. (1975) Crown rust <strong>of</strong> oats in <strong>Canada</strong> in 1974. Canaditln Plant Disease Survey 55, 63-65.<br />

Harder, D.E. (1978) Crown rust <strong>of</strong> oats in <strong>Canada</strong> in 19n. CafUldian Plant Disease Survey 58, 39-43.<br />

Harder, D.E.; McKenzie, R.l.H. (1974) Crown rust <strong>of</strong> oats in <strong>Canada</strong> in 1973. CafUldian Plant Disease Survey 54, 16-20.<br />

Malicky, H.; Sobhian, R.; Zwolfer, H. (1970) Investigations on the possibilities <strong>of</strong> a biological control <strong>of</strong> Rhamnus cathartica L. in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>. Host mnges, feeding sites, and phenology <strong>of</strong> insects associated with European Rhamnaceae.<br />

Zriuchri/t fUr angewantlte Entomologie 6S, n -97.


Blank Page<br />

190


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 40<br />

Salsola pestiter A. Nels., Russian<br />

Thistle (Chenopodiaceae)<br />

P. HARRIS<br />

Russian thistle, Salsola peslifer A. Nels. (= S. iberica Sennen & Pau; = S. kali var.<br />

lenuifolia Tausch.) is an annual, native to southern Russia and western Siberia. It was<br />

introduced as a flax seed contaminant into South Dakota in 1873 (Robbins el al. 1951),<br />

but it was probably also present in the many introductions <strong>of</strong> Turkestan alfalfa imported<br />

into <strong>Canada</strong> and the United States. The reason for suspecting this source was that Wilcox<br />

& Stevenson (1909) found it in 51 out <strong>of</strong> 201 samples <strong>of</strong> alfalfa seed in Nebraska. In<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>, it became particularly prevalent in the 19305: Moynan (1939) reported Russian<br />

thistle constantly invading new territory in Manitoba, and that between 1935-38 it<br />

became established on illustration stations at Roblin, Gilbert Plains, and Ste. Rose. It is<br />

now present in all provinces except Newfoundland, although in eastern <strong>Canada</strong> it is<br />

almost exclusively a railway and roadside weed (Frankton & Mulligan 1970). It is,<br />

however, abundant in the drier parts <strong>of</strong> the prairies and British Columbia on both<br />

cultivated land and over-grazed or disturbed pasture. In Saskatchewan, Russian thistle<br />

varied between the fifth to the seventh most abundant weed on cultivated land and in the<br />

southwest <strong>of</strong> the province it was present in 64% to 100% <strong>of</strong> the 0.25 ml samples surveyed<br />

(Thomas 1976,1977,1978, 1979). In winter the plants become tumble weeds that collect<br />

on fences and other obstructions.<br />

In western United States, Russian thistle is the favored alternate host <strong>of</strong> the beet<br />

leafhopper, Circulifer lenellus (Baker), which is the vector <strong>of</strong> the curly top virus <strong>of</strong> sugar<br />

beet and other crops (Severin 1933). The losses caused by this disease have been a major<br />

impetus for the biological control <strong>of</strong>the weed in the United States, however, the disease<br />

does not occur in the sugar beet areas <strong>of</strong> either Manitoba (Robertson 1968) or Alberta<br />

(R.J. Howard, 1981, personal communication).<br />

The insect guild on Russian thistle in North America is typical <strong>of</strong> an introduced weed.<br />

Goeden & Ricker (1968) found 91 species <strong>of</strong> insects feeding on it, but none <strong>of</strong> them did<br />

appreciable damage and all but two were polyphagous. In contrast, in the palaearctic the<br />

plant is attacked by a number <strong>of</strong> specialized insects (Hawkes 1969, Goeden 1973). Two<br />

<strong>of</strong> these have been cleared by workers in the United States. The Canadian programme<br />

against Russian thistle has been based on this work.<br />

The stem boring moth, Coleophora parthenica Meyr., was released in the United<br />

States in 1973 following host specificity studies by Hawkes & Mayfield (1976). The<br />

species has a high temperature threshold: a minimum <strong>of</strong> IS.5°C is required for development<br />

and about 500 degree-days above this temperature for maturation; however, about<br />

twice this number <strong>of</strong> degree-days are required for a population increase (Hawkes, 1976,<br />

personal communication). The moth is well established and has attained high population<br />

densities at many places in southwestern United States where it normally has three<br />

generations a year (Hawkes & Mayfield 1978b). At Indio, California, Goeden & Ricker<br />

(1979) found an average <strong>of</strong> one larva per 7.4 cm <strong>of</strong> stem. This level <strong>of</strong> attack had no<br />

effect on plant size, mortality. or seed production so the moth will have to be supplemented<br />

with other biological control agents to achieve beneficial results.<br />

The case bearer. Coleophora klimeschiella Toll., was released in California in 1977<br />

191


192 P. Harris<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Table 49<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

following screening studies by Hawkes & Mayfield (19780). The biology <strong>of</strong> this insect<br />

is reported by Khan & Baloch (1976): the first two instars are leafminers; in the last<br />

three, the larva lives outside the leaf in a case <strong>of</strong> hollowed leaves, and feeds by<br />

protruding its head and forelegs through a hole in the leaf so that it continues to feed<br />

inside the leaf. The insect overwinters as a larva inside the case attached to SaJsoJa<br />

stems or stones. There are one to three generations a year in Pakistan, depending on<br />

elevation. C. klimeschiella is established in California (Julien 1982).<br />

The releases <strong>of</strong> both C. parthenica and C. klimeschielJa are listed in Table 49.<br />

C. parthenica was released on a number <strong>of</strong> occasions in July and August in stands <strong>of</strong><br />

Russian thistle at the Regina and Swift Current Research Stations. The moths remained<br />

on the plants where they were released for several days, but no eggs or larvae were<br />

found in the vicinity. Larvae in the stems <strong>of</strong> potted plants that were placed outside failed<br />

to complete development. The problem was presumed to be the cool summer temperatures<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Canadian prairies. At Regina in July and August, the minimum temperature<br />

was below the threshold for development for 50 days in July and August, and on 16<br />

August, the temperature fell to 1.3°C. At all sites on the Canadian prairies, there is<br />

normally less than the 500 degree-days required by the insect.<br />

C. klimeschielJa was released in June at the Regina Research Station and bred in the<br />

summer <strong>of</strong> release and the following summer. The population was less than one larva per<br />

Russian thistle plant and they did no appreciable damage. In the spring <strong>of</strong> 1979, the<br />

release site was flooded for several weeks in the spring and the colony was destroyed.<br />

Open releases and recoveries against SaJsola pestifer A. Nels.<br />

Year No. <strong>of</strong> moths released Source Release site<br />

Coleophora parthenica<br />

1975 273<br />

1975 66<br />

1975 33<br />

Coleophora klimeschiella<br />

1977 91<br />

California<br />

California<br />

Pakistan<br />

Swift Current. Saskatchewan<br />

Regina. Saskatchewan<br />

Regina. Saskatchewan<br />

California Regina, Saskatchewan<br />

ex Pakistan<br />

Recovery<br />

bred in 1977<br />

and 1978 but<br />

not in 1979<br />

Summer temperatures on the Canadian prairies are too low for C. parthenica, and there<br />

is no purpose in making additional releases unless a strain with a low temperature<br />

threshold can be found. Even if such a strain can be established in <strong>Canada</strong>, on the basis <strong>of</strong><br />

results in the United States, the density <strong>of</strong> Russian thistle is unlikely to be affected.<br />

C. klimeschiella can survive in Saskatchewan and hence presumably elsewhere in<br />

southern <strong>Canada</strong>. Insects released for the biological control <strong>of</strong> a weed <strong>of</strong>ten require<br />

several years for the selection <strong>of</strong> a strain adapted to the region, so the lack <strong>of</strong> a rapid<br />

increase in the population should not be the sole reason for discontinuing further


Recommendations<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Sa/.m/a pestilL'r A. Nels.. 193<br />

attempts. More discouraging is the absence <strong>of</strong> any data on the losses caused by this<br />

extremely common weed on the prairies and the present general lack <strong>of</strong> interest in a<br />

biological control solution for Russian thistle.<br />

Biological control <strong>of</strong> S. pestifer should be discontinued until its use can be justified in<br />

economic terms.<br />

I am grateful to R.B. Hawkes for reviewing the manuscript.<br />

Frankton. C.: Mulligan. G.A. (1970) Weeds <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture. 217 pp.<br />

Goeden. R.D. (1973) Phytophagous insects found on Salsola in Turkey during exploration for biological weed control agents for California.<br />

Entomophaga 18. 439-448.<br />

Goeden. R.D.; Ricker. D.W. (1968) The phytophagous insect fauna <strong>of</strong> Russian thistle (Salsola kali var. tenuifolia) in southern California.<br />

Annals <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> America 61. 67-72.<br />

Goeden. R.D.; Ricker. D.W. (1979) Field analysis <strong>of</strong> Coleophora parthenica (Lcp.: Coleophoridae) as an imported natural enemy <strong>of</strong><br />

Russian thistle. Salsola iberica. in the Coachella valley <strong>of</strong> southern California. Environmental<br />

Entomology 8. 1099-1101.<br />

Hawkes. R.B. (1969) Insects recorded from Salsola spp. and Halogeton spp. Report <strong>of</strong> the Entomology Research Division. USDA. ARS.<br />

Albany. California. 55 pp.<br />

Hawkcs. R.B.; Mayfield. A. (1976) Host specificity and biological studies <strong>of</strong> Coleophora parthenica Meyrick. an insect for the biological<br />

control <strong>of</strong> Russian thistle. Commemorative Volume in Entomology. Department <strong>of</strong> Entomology.<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Idaho. 37-43.<br />

Hawkes. R.B.; Mayfield. A. (19780) Coleophora klimeschitlla. biological control agent for Russian thistle: host specificity testing.<br />

Environmental Entomology 7. 257 - 261.<br />

Hawkes. R.B.; Mayfield. A. (l978b) Coleophora spp. as biological control agents against Russian thistle. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 4th Inter.<br />

national Symposium on Biological Control <strong>of</strong> Weeds. 113-116.<br />

Julien. M.H. (1982) Biological control <strong>of</strong> weeds: a world catalogue <strong>of</strong> agents and their Iarget weeds. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological<br />

Control. lOS pp.<br />

Khan. A.G.; Baloch. G.M. (1976) Coleophora klimeschiella (Lcp: Coleophoridae) a promising biocontrol agent for Russian thistles.<br />

Salsola spp. Entomophaga 21. 425-428.<br />

Moynan. J.e. (1939) Di\ision <strong>of</strong> illustration stations. Progress report 1934 to 1938. Part II. Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture. <strong>Canada</strong>. 130 pp.<br />

Robertson. H. (1968) Sugar farmers <strong>of</strong> Manitoba. The Manitoba Beet Growers Association. 176 pp.<br />

Robbins. W.W.; Bellue. M.K.; Ball. W.S. (1951) Weeds <strong>of</strong> California. Sacramento; California State Printing Office. 547 pp.<br />

Severin. H.H.P. (1933) Field observations on the beet leafhopper. EUlellix ttnnt'llus. in California. Hilgardia 7. 281-360.<br />

Thomas. A.G. (1976) Weed survey <strong>of</strong> cultivated land in Saskatchewan. First annual report. Agricultural <strong>Canada</strong>. 93 pp.<br />

Thomas. A.G. (1977) Weed survey <strong>of</strong> cultivated land in Saskatchewan. Second annual report. Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>. 103 pp.<br />

Thomas. A.G. (1978) Weed survey <strong>of</strong> cultivated land in Saskatchewan. Third annual report. Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>. 113 pp.<br />

Thomas. A.G. (1979) Weed survey <strong>of</strong> cultivated land in Saskatchewan. Fourth annual report. Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>. 141 pp.<br />

Wilcox. E.M.; Stevenson. N. (1909) Report <strong>of</strong> the Nebraska seed laboratory. Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the Agric-u1tural Experiment Station, Nebraska 110.<br />

29pp.


Blank Page<br />

194


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 41<br />

Senecio jacobaea L., Tansy Ragwort<br />

(Compositae)<br />

P. HARRIS, A.T.S. WILKINSON and J.H. MYERS<br />

The status <strong>of</strong> tansy ragwort, Senecio jacobaea L., in <strong>Canada</strong> was described by Harris el<br />

al. (1971). Since that time the distribution has changed slightly. A small stand <strong>of</strong> the<br />

weed that had existed at Guelph, Ontario, for many years recently started to spread (J.<br />

Alex, 1981, personal communication). A small infestation in the Gaspe Peninsula,<br />

Quebec, recorded prior to 1900 could not be found by Watson & Muirhead (1979). The<br />

weed has continued to spread in the lower Fraser Valley in British Columbia, and it<br />

remains a serious socio-economic problem in the maritimes where there are many small<br />

mixed farms with a few cattle. The small field size and lack <strong>of</strong> specialized equipment<br />

makes chemical and mechanical control difficult and expensive. On the other hand, the<br />

death <strong>of</strong> one or two cattle from ragwort poisoning is a serious loss to the family food and<br />

income. There are no provincially compiled statistics <strong>of</strong> cattle deaths from ragwort as<br />

diagnosis is difficult and many cattle are sent for early slaughter if ragwort poisoning is<br />

suspected. However, in 1981, in Prince Edward Island the Montague Veterinary Clinic<br />

reported 12-20 ragwort-related cattle deaths; the Kensington Clinic had 20 but many<br />

more were suspected; the Provincial Veterinary Pathology Laboratory reported 10-12<br />

but suspected more (L. Thompson, 1981, personal communication). Thus the total<br />

cattle mortality from ragwort is similar to the 40-65 deaths estimated to have occurred<br />

in 1968 (Harris et al. 1971).<br />

The cinnabar moth, Tyria jacobaeae (L.), was established in the Canadian maritimes in<br />

1964 and in British Columbia in 1965 for the biological control <strong>of</strong> tansy ragwort. Despite<br />

difficulties in getting the moth established (Harris et al. 1975), it is now present throughout<br />

the ragwort infested regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>, including Newfoundland where no releases<br />

were made (Larson & Jackson 1980).<br />

The effect <strong>of</strong> the moth on the weed has varied widely. At Prince Charles, Prince<br />

Edward Island, and Durham, Nova Scotia, the weed has practically disappeared from<br />

the release sites although it has persisted in the disturbed ground along the roadsides<br />

(Harris el al. 1978). At Durham it was largely replaced by goldenrod Solidago sp. At<br />

Sussex, New Brunswick, the ragwort stand collapsed after defoliation by cinnabar<br />

larvae while the <strong>Canada</strong> thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., increased. Tansy ragwort<br />

has since returned to the site and the density <strong>of</strong> cinnabar reached circa three larvae/stem<br />

in 1980 with scattered but numerous larvae in 1981 (D. Finnamore, 1981, personal<br />

communication). Near Nanaimo, British Columbia, over the past ten years an average<br />

<strong>of</strong> 38% <strong>of</strong> the ragwort was defoliated with another 18% partially defoliated. This has had<br />

little effect on the density <strong>of</strong> the flowering plants but they are smaller. In California,<br />

Hawkes & Johnson (1978) found that, with cinnabar moth attack, the number and size<br />

<strong>of</strong> the ragwort flowering stems decreased and the number <strong>of</strong> rosettes increased. Not all<br />

the declines were the result <strong>of</strong> the cinnabar moth as Myers (1980) found that two <strong>of</strong> five<br />

stands in Nova Scotia declined even though the cinnabar population was not large<br />

enough to cause extensive defoliation.<br />

Many papers have been written in <strong>Canada</strong> and elsewhere on the causes <strong>of</strong> the diverse<br />

effects <strong>of</strong> the cinnabar moth on tansy ragwort. Harris et al. (1978a) related the collapse<br />

195


196 P. Harris. A. T. S. Wilkinson and J. H. Myers<br />

<strong>of</strong> some maritime stands <strong>of</strong> the weed following cinnabar defoliation to the frost sensitivity<br />

<strong>of</strong> the regenerating plants. Several studies (Green 1974, Campbell 1975, Myers 1976,<br />

Myers & Campbell 1976a, 1976b) have investigated the importance <strong>of</strong> ragwort spacing<br />

on cinnabar egg distribution and the success <strong>of</strong> larval transfer between plants. They<br />

showed that one requirement for explosive increases <strong>of</strong> the moth was dense stands <strong>of</strong> the<br />

weed. Dempster (1971) reported a higher mortality <strong>of</strong> cinnabar eggs and larvae on<br />

ragwort rosettes than on flowering stems and Myers (1980) found that cinnabar populations<br />

in areas with a high density <strong>of</strong> closely spaced rosettes tended to be less stable than<br />

on those with low rosette density. A high nitrogen content in the plant increased both<br />

moth fecundity and egg mass size in the following generation. Myers & Post (1981)<br />

argued that this would tend to destabilize the cinnabar population by over-exploitation<br />

<strong>of</strong> the food resource. In a study by Lakhani & Dempster (1981), the number <strong>of</strong> eggs had<br />

a rather small effect on the subsequent moth numbers because high egg density was<br />

<strong>of</strong>ten associated with larval starvation. In a dune habitat, Meijden (1979) described the<br />

cinnabar population as "walking on ice floes" because small stands <strong>of</strong> ragwort became<br />

extinct one or two years after attack by the moth and then reappeared after the moth<br />

emigrated to other stands. Predators were important in some instances (Wilkinson 1965,<br />

Myers & Campbell 1976c, Meijden 1979). In 1980 at Nanaimo, British Columbia, most <strong>of</strong><br />

the pupae were destroyed resulting in a low population in 1981 in which only 3% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

plants were attacked.<br />

Philogene (1975) found that the day length and temperature during larval development<br />

did not affect the obligatory pupal diapause. However, the moth has adapted its temperature<br />

threshold for emergence in the spring so that in the various regions <strong>of</strong> North<br />

America larval feeding remains synchronized with ragwort flowering (Myers 1979).<br />

Richards & Myers (1980) found that maternal moth size and temperature requirements<br />

for moth emergence were heritable and Myers (1978) found that the present populations<br />

<strong>of</strong> the moth have regional differences in their enzyme systems that are irrespective <strong>of</strong><br />

their origin. Thus in a few years since release, the moth has adapted to its new habitat<br />

with the result that its behaviour now is not necessarily the same as that <strong>of</strong> the stock<br />

released.<br />

A model by Lakhani & Dempster (1981) showed that for both Nanaimo, British<br />

Columbia, and Weeting Heath in Britain, the changes in the density <strong>of</strong> the weed closely<br />

conformed to the amount <strong>of</strong> spring and early summer rainfall. The model showed that at<br />

these sites the cinnabar population merely tracked the changes in the density <strong>of</strong> the<br />

weed. Myers (1980) also concluded that population fluctuations after an initial reduction<br />

<strong>of</strong> plant size by introduced cinnabar moths have a large environmental component. One<br />

indication that different factors are important in different sites is that the model did not<br />

fit the results from a more moist site in Oregon. In a more generalized model R<strong>of</strong>f &<br />

Myers (unpublished) found that depending on the degree <strong>of</strong> larval dispersal, the cinnabar<br />

population could be cyclic, stable, or chaotic. The gamut <strong>of</strong> these conditions<br />

occurs in nature. There are several ragwort habitats that are not utilized by the moth: the<br />

weed tends to be avoided when growing in partial shade; the cinnabar pupae are not able<br />

to overwinter in wet sites (Dempster 1971) so the moth tends to be absent in Europe from<br />

pastures on river flood plains, which <strong>of</strong>ten have dense ragwort stands; the moth is rare in<br />

the Swiss Jura on the widely separated plants or small clumps <strong>of</strong> plants. It is a weak flier<br />

and has dispersed less rapidly in California than the beetle Longitarsus jacobaeae<br />

(Waterhouse).<br />

In many habitats the cinnabar moth has not reduced the density <strong>of</strong> tansy ragwort, but<br />

plants defoliated annually tend to be smaller so there has been some reduction in ragwort<br />

biomass. Also for about two months in the summer there is little ragwort foliage in the<br />

pastures or hay fields so that availability <strong>of</strong> the toxic foliage to cattle is reduced. The<br />

level <strong>of</strong> control is not satisfactory as a high density <strong>of</strong> the weed remains on many sites for<br />

much <strong>of</strong> the year, so the cinnabar moth needs to be supplemented by additional agents.


Releases and Recoveries<br />

HyJemya senecieJJa<br />

Meade (Diptera:<br />

Muscidae)<br />

Tyriajacobaeae (L.)<br />

(Lepidoptera:<br />

Arctiidae)<br />

(a) Ecology<br />

Senecio j(lcoh(l('(l L. . 197<br />

H. senecie/la larvae reduce seed production by feeding in ragwort flower heads. The<br />

biology was described by Miller (1970). and an unsuccessful attempt to establish it in<br />

British Columbia and Prince Edward Island in 1968 was reported by Harris el 01. (1971).<br />

The fly has been established in New Zealand where it infested up to 77% <strong>of</strong> the heads at<br />

peak flowering but the effect <strong>of</strong> the reduced seed production on ragwort density was not<br />

determined. The fly was established in California and probably in Oregon and<br />

Washington (Frick 19690) but the California site was subsequently destroyed (Julien<br />

1981).<br />

(b) Releases<br />

A summary <strong>of</strong> releases in the current review period is shown in Table 50; none <strong>of</strong> them<br />

became established. At least part <strong>of</strong> the problem was poor synchrony between emergence<br />

<strong>of</strong> the flies and ragwort flowering: in 1970 the H. seneciella were received in May<br />

and placed outside in a field cage in Prince Edward Island. The flies emerged between 8<br />

and 17 June but the host plant did not flower until August. In 1971 emergence was<br />

delayed until the second half <strong>of</strong> July but still did not result in establishment (L.<br />

Thompson. 1981. personal communication). The results from British Columbia were<br />

similar.<br />

Establishment in the United States was obtained with much larger releases <strong>of</strong> circa<br />

2000 flies. As egg viability was circa 25% (Frick 1969b) a larger release than that used in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> is necessary. The problem with the synchronism <strong>of</strong> fly emergence can probably<br />

be overcome by releasing the mature larvae at the end <strong>of</strong> the summer; this could be done<br />

with the Oregon or Washington stock providing that it is free <strong>of</strong> parasites. The value <strong>of</strong><br />

establishing the fly is less clear since most ragwort reproduction in pastures is by vegetative<br />

propagation from existing plants. It is unlikely that the fly would survive in stands<br />

defoliated by cinnabar larvae which consume the flowers preferentially.<br />

Releases<br />

Field collected larvae from Nova Scotia were released at two sites in New Brunswick in<br />

1970 and at seven sites in Ontario in 1979 and 1981 (Table 50). These were the only<br />

releases since those reported by Harris el 01. (1971). Establishment occurred at both<br />

sites in New Brunswick resulting in widespread defoliation <strong>of</strong> tansy ragwort but on a<br />

long-term basis this is a less than desirable level <strong>of</strong> control. The insect did not become<br />

established in Ontario, possibly because <strong>of</strong> predation by ants (Alex, 1981, personal<br />

communication). About 20% <strong>of</strong> the Ontario shipment died in transit indicating that the<br />

popUlation was heavily stressed and probably diseased.


Recommendations<br />

Table 50<br />

Senecio jacobaI'll L. , 199<br />

L. jacobaeae was recovered at the two Prince Edward Island sites in 1982 and 1983<br />

although numbers were low (L.S. Thompson personal communication 1983). Also the<br />

possibility <strong>of</strong> some root damage from larval feeding was noted in New Brunswick (D.<br />

Finnamore personal communication 1981). Prince Edward Island has a more even<br />

distribution <strong>of</strong> summer rain than occurs on the south west coast <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, so<br />

possibly the summers are too moist for the biotype released. Frick & Johnson (1972)<br />

found that the life cycle <strong>of</strong> the Swiss biotype adapted in the laboratory by a decrease in the<br />

length <strong>of</strong> the egg diapause. With the beetle's rapid adaptability and the probable wide<br />

genetic variation <strong>of</strong> the British Columbia population (stock from three sources has been<br />

released there), it should be possible to select an adapted biotype in a field cage and<br />

increase the survivors in the laboratory if the field population falls critically low. The<br />

other alternative is to import beetles from a climate with a similar summer rainfall to<br />

Prince Edward Island, but even so some adaptation would probably be necessary.<br />

(1) The cinnabar moth has reduced the seriousness <strong>of</strong> tansy ragwort in many areas;<br />

however additional species <strong>of</strong> biological control agents are needed if a fully satisfactory<br />

level <strong>of</strong> ragwort control is to be achieved.<br />

(2) The most obvious candidate as a second biological control agent is the beetle<br />

Longilarsils jacobaeae. A biotype <strong>of</strong> this beetle is now adapted to the southwest coast <strong>of</strong><br />

British Columbia and should be distributed to ragwort infestations in the region. Estab-<br />

Open releases and recoveries against Senecio jacobaea L.<br />

Species and release site Year Origin No. Recovered<br />

Long;tarsus jacobaeae (Waterhouse)<br />

British Ollumbia<br />

Vancouver 1971 California ex Italy 100 adults 1974<br />

Vancouver 1973 Switzerland 38 adults<br />

Abbotsford 1971 California ex Italy 400 adults<br />

1972 Lab reared ex California<br />

and England 400 adults<br />

1972 California and England 250 adults<br />

1974 UBC site ex Switzerland 200 adults 1975<br />

Nanaimo 1974 England 92 adults 1976<br />

1976 Oregon ex Italy 1000 adults<br />

Chilliwack 1978 Abbotsford 500 adults 1979<br />

Prince Edward Island<br />

Mt. Herbert 1978 British Columbia 300 adults 1982<br />

Charlottetown 1981 British Columbia ISS adults 1982<br />

New Brunswick<br />

Fredericton 1981 British Columbia 180 adults<br />

Tyrill jacobaeat (L.)<br />

New Brunswick<br />

Sussex 1970 Nova Scotia 1000 larvae 1971<br />

Bathurst 1970 Nova Scotia 1000 larvae 1971<br />

Ontario<br />

Guelph 1979 Nova Scotia 4500 larvae Not recovered<br />

Guelph 1981 Nova Scotia 4500 larvae Not recovered<br />

H)'lemya sm«iella (Meade)<br />

British Ollumbia<br />

Abbotsford 1970 Switzerland 6S adults<br />

453 puparia Not recovered<br />

Prince Edward Island<br />

Charlottetown 1970 Switzerland liS adults Not recovered<br />

Charlottetown 1971 United States liO adults Not recovered


Sellecio jacoba('(/ 201<br />

Myers, 1.H. (1980) Is the insect or the plant the driving force in the cinnabar moth-tansy ragwort system? Oecologia 47.16-21.<br />

Myers. J.H.: Campbell. B.l. (19700) Indirect measures <strong>of</strong> larval dispersal in the cinnabar moth. Tyriajacobal'al' (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae).<br />

Canadian Entomologi5/ lOB. 967-972.<br />

Myers. 1.H.: Campbell. B.l. (1976b) Distribution and dispersal in populations capable <strong>of</strong> resource depletion. A field study on cinnabar<br />

moths. Oecologia 24. 7-20.<br />

Myers, J.H.: Campbell, B.l. (1976c) Predation by carpenter ants: a deterrent to the spread <strong>of</strong> cinnabar moth. Journal <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong><br />

<strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> British Columbia 73. 7-9.<br />

Myers, I.H.: Post. B.I. (1981) Plant nitrogen and fluctuations <strong>of</strong> inM:ct populations: a test with the cinnabar moth-tansy ragwon system.<br />

Oemlogia 48, 151-156.<br />

Newton. H.C.F. (1933) On the biology <strong>of</strong> some species <strong>of</strong> Longi;ar.sus living on ragwon. Bulletin <strong>of</strong> <strong>Entomological</strong> Research 24. 511-520.<br />

Philogene. B.J.R. (1975) Responses <strong>of</strong> the cinnabar moth, Hypocrita jacobaeae to various temperature/photoperiod regimes. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Insect Physiology 21. 1415-1417.<br />

Richards. L.J.: Myers, 1.H. (1980) Maternal influences on size and emergence time <strong>of</strong> the cinnabar moth. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Zoology 58.<br />

1452-1457.<br />

R<strong>of</strong>f, D.; Myers. J.H. Simulating the dynamics <strong>of</strong> the cinnabar moth populations: a study <strong>of</strong> complexity in a deterministic world<br />

(unpublished manuscript).<br />

Shute, S.L. (1975) Longitarsw jacobaeae Waterhouse (Col.. Chrysomelidac): identity and distribution. Entomologists' Monthly<br />

Magazine. 111 (1328-13300). 33-39.<br />

Watson, A.K.; Muirhead. L. (1979) Exploration <strong>of</strong> the Gaspe region <strong>of</strong> Quebec for tansy ragwon. p. 41 I. In: Research repon. Expen<br />

Committee on Weeds (Eastern <strong>Canada</strong>). 412 pp.<br />

Wilkinson. A.T.S. (19(5) Releases <strong>of</strong> cinnabar moth. Hypocrita jacobaeae (L.) (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) on tansy ragwon in British<br />

Columbia. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> British Columbia 62. 10-13.


Blank Page<br />

202


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 42<br />

Silene cucubalus Wibel, Bladder Campion<br />

(Caryophyllaceae)<br />

M.O. MAW<br />

Silene cucubalus Wibel is a deep rooted perennial <strong>of</strong> Eurasian origin. It is spread by seed<br />

(as many as 20 000 per plant) as well as vegetatively by parts <strong>of</strong> the root crown severed<br />

by implements. It is resistant to the common herbicides 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic<br />

acid) and MCPA (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid) at rates which can be<br />

safely used in grain crops. The weed grows in waste places, roadsides, and railyards,<br />

and although it is an infrequent weed in cultivated ground (Boivin 1968), it can be<br />

troublesome in well drained pastures, cereal crops, and hay. It is found in the northeastern<br />

and central United States and in every province <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> to latitude 54°N<br />

(Scoggan 1978) and is more common in the eastern than in the western parts <strong>of</strong> its range<br />

(Frankton et al. 1970).<br />

Although the weed is generally not a great problem throughout its Canadian range,<br />

there are localized areas where it causes concern. For example, in the Ethelbert district<br />

<strong>of</strong> Manitoba, a survey <strong>of</strong> weeds in cultivated fields (Thomas 1978) showed it to be<br />

present in 25% <strong>of</strong> the samples in 50% <strong>of</strong> the fields surveyed with a mean density <strong>of</strong> 5.9<br />

plants per square meter. In contrast, the weed was reported in only one <strong>of</strong> the remaining<br />

38 Manitoba districts surveyed. and there it was found only in 0.4% <strong>of</strong> the samples in<br />

8.3% <strong>of</strong> the fields at a density <strong>of</strong> 0.6 plants per square meter.<br />

Although it would seem that there has been little change in the status <strong>of</strong> the weed on<br />

cultivated lands since the 1966 survey (Alex 1966), agricultural practices have altered<br />

the situation in areas such as in southeastern Manitoba. Here a shift has been away from<br />

annual tillage to establishment <strong>of</strong> pastures and forage crops and forage seed production.<br />

Where bladder campion was not a problem as recently as three years ago, it now is a<br />

concern in over 4200 hectares and only limited control is being provided by herbicides<br />

and cultural methods.<br />

Surveys <strong>of</strong> the European insect fauna on species <strong>of</strong> Silene and Melandriwn were made<br />

by the Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control (Miotk 1973). Sixty-six percent <strong>of</strong><br />

the phytophagous insects on the two genera were oligophagous and the supposedly<br />

stenophagous species were either weevils or noctuids.<br />

The chrysomelid, Cassida azuna Fab. (mistakenly identified as Cassida hemisplwerica<br />

Hbst.) (Maw & Steinhausen 19800. 1980b), was collected in Switzerland and screened in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> (Maw 1976). The Cassidinae are generally specialized in their feeding habits and<br />

species in a subfamily are usually restricted to a limited group <strong>of</strong> plants. This was found<br />

to be so with C. azurea.<br />

First instar larvae fed on all the plants in the tribes Sileneae and Alsineae tested but<br />

they developed only on S. cucubalus. S. cserei. S. glauca. S. noctiflora. S. maritima, S.<br />

alba, S. acau/is, Gypsophila repens, Dianthus chinensis .. and D. plumarius. Damage by<br />

young larvae is confined to the epidermis <strong>of</strong> the leaf. while older larvae and adults eat<br />

large holes in the leaf blade. Flowers <strong>of</strong> Silene are eaten by both larvae and adults.<br />

203


2M M. G. Maw<br />

Discussion<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Although starvation tests give the impression that C. azurea has a wide host range, only<br />

plants in the family Caryophyllaceae supported development and in most instances only<br />

the younger tender leaves were eaten. Older and harder leaves and those with waxy<br />

coatings resist attack from young larvae and older larvae fare little better. It is expected<br />

that under field conditions, C. azurea would direct its attack to S. cucubalus. Other<br />

Silene would at best be marginal hosts. Dianthus spp. might be eaten when Silene spp.<br />

are unavailable. This would, however, be very restricted because the hard texture and<br />

waxy coating <strong>of</strong> the leaves make sustained feeding difficult for older larvae and adults<br />

and almost impossible for young larvae.<br />

With the main concern being the spread <strong>of</strong> S. cucubalus into forage, hay, and forage<br />

seed production fields, leaf feeding biological control agents may not be too successful.<br />

They will however be useful in situations where bladder campion is not cut, such as in<br />

waste areas. Root feeders should be <strong>of</strong> more use and so should be actively sought for<br />

biological control <strong>of</strong> S. cucubalus in hay and forage crops.<br />

(1) A biological control programme for S. cucubalus be continued.<br />

(2) C. azurea be reconsidered as a control agent.<br />

(3) Root feeders such as Hadena luteago Schiff. and H. andalusica Stgr. be<br />

studied and their potential as control agents be assessed.<br />

Alex, J .F. (1966) Survey <strong>of</strong> weeds <strong>of</strong> cultivated land in the prairie provinces. Regina, Saskatchewan; <strong>Canada</strong> Agriculture, Research Branch,<br />

68 pp.<br />

Boivin, B. (1968) Flora <strong>of</strong> the prairie provinces. Pan 2. Provancherea 3. Herbier Louis-Marie. Quebec; Universite Laval. 185 pp.<br />

Frankton. C.; Mulligan. G.A.; Wright, W.H.; Steins. I. (1970) Weeds <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Ottawa; Canadian Depanment <strong>of</strong> Agriculture. 217 pp.<br />

Maw. M.G. (1976) Biology <strong>of</strong> the tonoise beetle Cossilill hemisphaerica (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a possible biological control agent<br />

for bladder campion. Silene cucuba/us (Caryophyllaceac), in <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Entomologist 108.<br />

945-954.<br />

Maw. M.G.; Steinhausen. W.R. (19800) Corrigendum for "Biology <strong>of</strong> the tonoise beetle Cassilill hemisphaerica (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae),<br />

a possible biological control agent for bladder campion Silene cucubalus (Caryophyllaceae). in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Canadian Entomologist 112. 639.<br />

Maw. M.G.; Steinhausen, W.R. (1980b) Cassida azurta (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) - not C. hemisphaerica - as a possible biological<br />

control agent <strong>of</strong> bladder campion. Silene cucubalus (Caryopbyllaceae) in <strong>Canada</strong>. Ztitschri{t fur<br />

ange",andte Entomologie 90.420-422.<br />

Miotk. P. (1973) Phytophagous insects associated with weeds in central Europe. Pan 11. Wced Projects for <strong>Canada</strong>. Progress Repon 32.<br />

Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control. Delc!mont. Switzerland, 29 pp.<br />

Scoggan, H.J. (1978) The flora <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Pan 3. Ottawa; National Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural Sciences. pp. 547-1115.<br />

Thomas. A.G. (1978) The 1978 weed survey <strong>of</strong> cultivatcd land in Manitoba. Regina; Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> Research Station, 109 pp.


Pest Status<br />

Chapter 43<br />

Sonchus arvensis L., Perennial Sowthistle,<br />

S. oleraceus L., Annual Sowthistle<br />

and S. asper (L.) Hill, Spiny Annual<br />

Sow-thistle (Compositae)<br />

D.P. PESCH KEN<br />

Four species in the genus Sonchlls have been introduced into North America from<br />

Europe and Asia. Three <strong>of</strong> them are weeds. Perennial sow-thistle. Sonchus arvensis L..<br />

is a common weed in all provinces <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> but it is particularly abundant in Ontario.<br />

Manitoba. and the northern agricultural areas <strong>of</strong> Quebec. Ontario. and the Prairie Provinces<br />

(Frankton & Mulligan 1970). It includes the varieties S. arvensis L. s. str. and S.<br />

arvensis var. glabrescens Guenth .• Grab & Wimm. (Boulos 1961). It reproduces by<br />

seed and an extensive underground root system. About 9750 achenes are produced per<br />

flowering shoot (Stevens 1932) and 59500 per m 1 (Stevens 1924). The seeds are dispersed<br />

by means <strong>of</strong> a pappus. Stevens (1924) noted that most seeds are not carried far<br />

and that there is a difference in the persistence <strong>of</strong> the pappus in different lots. In our<br />

experiments only one <strong>of</strong> 26 seeds which were released into the air at wind speeds<br />

averaging 7 km per hour and gusting to 22 km per hour became detached from its pappus.<br />

Eighteen out <strong>of</strong> 20 seeds flew out <strong>of</strong> sight at average windspeeds <strong>of</strong> 15 km per hour and<br />

gusting to 38. The pappus <strong>of</strong> one seed became entangled on vegetation and fluttered in<br />

the wind for 15 minutes. but did not separate from the seed (Peschken, unpublished).<br />

Seedlings establish more readily where there is litter. and the moisture in low habitats<br />

may help seedling establishment in pond and ditch margins (Stevens 1926). This is the<br />

reason why S. arvensis is particularly serious in the irrigated area around Outlook,<br />

Saskatchewan (W.J. King. 1980, personal communication). Perennial sow-thistle<br />

thrives on low heavy soils and on lighter soils with a good moisture supply (Stevens<br />

1924).<br />

Fifty-nine shoots per m l reduced the yield <strong>of</strong> oats by 25% (Friesen & Shebeski 1960).<br />

Shaskov el al. (1977) report reduction in wheat yield by 4.5% to 27% in Kazakh SSR. at<br />

3-15 plants per mI. In Saskatchewan five shoots per ml reduced the yield <strong>of</strong> rapeseed by<br />

12% and 10 shoots by 18'Yo (Peschken unpublished).<br />

Control <strong>of</strong> perennial sow-thistle growing in grain is possible with herbicides, but<br />

difficult in broad-leaved crops. Cultivation has to be repeated every three to four weeks<br />

for at least one year to deplete root reserves (Derscheid & Parker 1972).<br />

The annual sow-thistle. S. oleraceus L.. an annual or rarely biennial weed, reproduces<br />

by seeds and has a strong tap root which may reach to a depth <strong>of</strong> 1 m and may<br />

spread to 1.29 m (Kutschera 1960). It grows up to 2 m tall and it produces about 6000<br />

seeds per plant (Salisbury 1961). It is a weed <strong>of</strong> cultivated fields, lawns, gardens. grainfields,<br />

vineyards and occurs in all provinces <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. In <strong>Canada</strong>, it may harbor virus<br />

diseases such as tobacco streak, alfalfa mosaic, cucumber mosaic. and the mycoplasma<br />

disease. aster yellows (Gayed 1978. Holm el al. 1917. Smith 1972). The spiny annual<br />

sow-thistle. S. asper (L.) Hill. is an erect annual or sometimes biennial weed up to 2 m<br />

tall, with a strong taproot reaching down to 2 m (Kutschera 1960). Salisbury (1961)<br />

estimates seed production to be about 18 000 per plant.<br />

205


206 D. P. Pes(<br />

Background<br />

Tephrltis dHscerata<br />

Lw. (Diptera:<br />

Tepbritidae)<br />

Cystiphora sonchl<br />

(Bremi) (Diptera:<br />

Cecidomyiidae)<br />

Both annual sow-thistles occur throughout <strong>Canada</strong>, but are more abundant in Ontario,<br />

Quebec, and British Columbia than in other provinces (Frankton & Mulligan 1970). S.<br />

lenerrimus is only reported from California (Shetler & Skog 1978).<br />

No biological control <strong>of</strong> sow-thistles has been reported from other parts <strong>of</strong> the world. In<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>, only one as yet unidentified Lepidoptera larva has been found feeding on the<br />

flower heads or destroying seeds, and no monophagous insects have been reported<br />

feeding on any other part <strong>of</strong> the perennial sow-thistle (M. Maw, 1982, personal communication).<br />

Conners (1967) lists three disease organisms specialized on S. arvensis:<br />

Marssonina sonchi Dearn. & Bisby, Seploria sonchi-arvensis Deam. & Bisby, and S.<br />

sonchifolia Cke. However, these do not control their host. The survey in eastern Austria<br />

and the Swiss Jura, and <strong>of</strong> the literature by Schroder (1974), and in Iran, Pakistan, and<br />

Japan by Zwolfer (1973) on Sonchus spp. produced only six insect species which appeared<br />

to be sufficiently host specific to warrant further study. Five <strong>of</strong> these are<br />

endophytic in the flower heads and one is a leaf gall fly. Two <strong>of</strong> these, Tephriris dilDcerata<br />

Loew and Cysliphora sonchi (Bremi) have been studied in detail and will be discussed<br />

below. In addition, the moth Celypha rosaceana (Schlager) is reported from Sonchus<br />

spp. and Taraxacum <strong>of</strong>ficinale Weber only and should be studied further (Bradley el al.<br />

1979).<br />

Ecology<br />

The fly deposits clutches <strong>of</strong> six to seven eggs into flower buds and in the laboratory the<br />

oviposition period may last up to ten weeks (Berube 1978a,1978b). The larvae transform<br />

the flower bud into a gall in which they pupate when mature. The adult fly enters<br />

diapause when exposed to a short day or cool temperatures or both and it overwinters as<br />

an adult. There is one generation per year (Berube 1978a). T. dilacerata is widely distributed<br />

in the palaearctic covering about three quarters <strong>of</strong> the range <strong>of</strong> S. arvensis (Berube<br />

1978a).<br />

Ecology<br />

C. sonchi is recorded from Sweden (Sylven 1975) and Denmark in the north (Henriksen<br />

1944) to Italy and Romania (Skuhrav6 el al. 1972) in the south, and from France (Kieffer<br />

1899) in the west to the European part <strong>of</strong> the USSR in the east (Peschken, in press).<br />

C. sonchi females lay their eggs on the underside <strong>of</strong> leaves. Galls are produced and<br />

become about 5 mm in diameter when mature. The larvae pupate in the gall or in the<br />

ground. The adults live up to 16 hours in the laboratory. Up to 721 galls were produced<br />

on one perennial sow-thistle rosette by six females. There are three generations per year<br />

in the field (Skuhrav6 & Skuhravy 1973).<br />

The fly is host specific to Sone/lus spp. (Peschken in press).


Releases and Recoveries<br />

Table 51<br />

Scmc/lus an'ens;s L.. 207<br />

T. dilacerata has been released on a total <strong>of</strong>five sites in Saskatchewan in 1979. 1980. and<br />

1981. and one site each in Alberta. Quebec. and Prince Edward Island (Table 51).<br />

Breeding occurred in 1979 when the flies were released in large field cages (180 cm high.<br />

180 x 180 cm). At Estevan three galls were found in August and 250 at Regina. From the<br />

latter an estimated 1150 flies emerged in the cage at Regina. Many <strong>of</strong> these were allowed<br />

to escape so that they could search for overwintering sites but no survivors were found<br />

in 1980. In 1981. only three galls were found in Outlook and 22 at Wishart. Saskatchewen.<br />

However. 98% <strong>of</strong> the flies were released for overwintering in the fall <strong>of</strong> 1980 and 97% in<br />

1981. All fall releases were made with flies that emerged from galls collected in Austria.<br />

In 1980. the flies emerged in the quarantine laboratory in a 16 hour day except for 1000.<br />

which had emerged in an eight hour day at 14°C and were released into a large field cage<br />

at Regina. Saskatchewan in September 1980. A log pile covered loosely with straw was<br />

provided as a possible overwintering site. The cage was removed in late fall to allow<br />

additional insulation by snow and replaced on 15 April 1981. No flies emerged.<br />

Subsequently it was learned that flies emerging at room temperature in a 16 hour day<br />

do not enter diapause. Releases made in the fall <strong>of</strong> 1981 were all made with flies conditioned<br />

for overwintering.<br />

C. sonciJi was released on four sites in Saskatchewan in 1981. where it survived the<br />

first winter on two sites and produced two generations in 1982 (Table 51). The colony in<br />

Alberta produced galls in 1981 but did not survive the winter. No galls were found from<br />

the 1982 release in Alberta nor from the 1981 and 1982 releases in Manitoba and Quebec.<br />

Open releases and recoveries against Sonchus arvensis L.<br />

Species and Province<br />

Tephritis dilacerala Lw. *<br />

Saskatchewan<br />

Alberta<br />

Quebec<br />

Prince Edward Island<br />

Cysliphora sonchi (Bremi)*<br />

Saskatchewan<br />

Alberta<br />

Manitoba<br />

Quebec<br />

Total<br />

Total<br />

Year Number<br />

1979 810<br />

1980 11486<br />

1981 1093<br />

1981 2000<br />

1981 1947<br />

1981 2000<br />

19336<br />

1981 21900<br />

1981 5000<br />

1982 4500<br />

1982 2000<br />

1981 5000<br />

1982 2100<br />

40500<br />

Year <strong>of</strong> Recovery<br />

1979<br />

1982<br />

1981<br />

* All insects were originally collected in Austria. All C. sonchi and 6% <strong>of</strong> the T. dilacerala<br />

releases were made with laboratory reared stock. and the remaining T. dilacerala releases<br />

were made with flies that emerged from pupae collected in the field in Austria.


208 D. P. Pesch ken<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

So far no T. dilaeerata overwintered in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan, with its thin or<br />

<strong>of</strong>ten non-existent snow-cover, constitutes a harsh climate for overwintering. Also<br />

suitable food for the adult flies may be scarce in spring and fall on the prairies.<br />

(1) Releases <strong>of</strong> CystipllOra sonehi and T. dilaeerata should be made and monitored in<br />

areas where S. arvensis is frequent, i.e. in Ontario and Manitoba, and the northerly areas<br />

<strong>of</strong> Ontario, Quebec. and the Prairie Provinces, and in irrigated areas where S. arvensis is a<br />

problem.<br />

(2) A study <strong>of</strong> the overwintering habits <strong>of</strong> T. dilaeerata should be made.<br />

(3) The role <strong>of</strong> seeds <strong>of</strong> S. arvensis in the propagation <strong>of</strong> existing stands and the<br />

establishment <strong>of</strong> new stands should be investigated to determine whether the establishment<br />

<strong>of</strong> seed-destroying biological control agents should be pursued.<br />

(4) The moth Celypha rosaeeana (Schlager) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and the seedhead<br />

fly Contarinia sellleclllendaliana Rubs. (= soneh; Kieffer) appear to have a narrow<br />

host range and warrant screening as biological control agents.<br />

(5) The survey for S. arvensis insects should be resumed and concentrated in the<br />

northern agricultural areas <strong>of</strong> Europe, such as Sweden, Finland. and the northern areas<br />

<strong>of</strong> European and Asian USSR, where S. arvensis is frequent.<br />

Berube. D.E. (1978a) Larval descriptions and biology <strong>of</strong> Tephritis dilacerata (Dipt.: Tephritidae) a candidate for biocontrol <strong>of</strong> Sonchus<br />

arvensis in <strong>Canada</strong>. Entomophaga 23. 69-82.<br />

Berube. D.E. (1978b) The basis <strong>of</strong> host plant specificity in Tephritis dilacerata and T. formosa (Dipt.: Tephritidae). Entomophaga 23.<br />

331-337.<br />

Boulos. L. (1961) Cytotaxonomic studies in the genus Sonchus. 3. On the cytotaxonomy and distribution <strong>of</strong> Sonchus arvensis L. Botaniska<br />

Notiser 114(1). 57-64.<br />

Bradley. J. D.; Tremewan. W.G.; Smith. A. (1979) British tortricoid moths. Tortricidae: Olethreutinae. Vol. II. London; The Ray <strong>Society</strong> and<br />

British Museum. 320 pp.<br />

Conners. I.L. (1967) An annotated index <strong>of</strong> plant diseases in <strong>Canada</strong>. and fungi recorded on plants in Alaska. <strong>Canada</strong> and Greenland.<br />

Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Publication 1251.381 pp.<br />

Derscheid. L.A.; Parker. R. (1972) Thistles. <strong>Canada</strong> thistle. perennial sow-thistle. South Dakota State University Extension Fact Sheet 450.<br />

4 pp.<br />

Frankton. D.; Mulligan. G.A. (1970) Weeds <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Publication 948. 217 pp.<br />

Friesen. G.; Shebeski. L.H. (1960) Economic losses caused by weed competition in Manitoba grain fields. I. Weed species. their relative<br />

abundance and their eUeet on crop yields. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant Science 40. 457-467.<br />

Gayed. S.K. (1978) Tobacco diseases. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Publication 1641, 57 pp.<br />

Henriksen. K.L. (1944) Fortegne1se over de danske galler (zoodeccidier). Spolia Zoologica Musei Hauniensis VI. 1-212.<br />

Holm. L.G.; Plucknett. D.L.; Pancho. J. V.; Herbcrger.J.P.(1977) Thc world's worst weeds. Honolulu; University Press <strong>of</strong> Hawaii. 609 pp.<br />

Kieffer. J.J. (1899) Enumeration des eecidies recueillies aux Petites-Dalles (Seine-Inferieure) avec description de deux Cccidomyies<br />

nouvelles. Bulletin de la Sociltl des Amis des Sciences Naturelles de Rouen. 89-105.<br />

Kutschera. L. (1960) Wurzelatlas mitteleuropiiischer Ackerunkriiuter und Kulturpllanzen. Frankfurt; DLG. 574 pp.<br />

Pesehken. D.P. (in press) Host specificity and biology <strong>of</strong> Cystiphora sonchi (Loew) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidac). a candidate for the<br />

biological control <strong>of</strong> Sonchus species. Enromophaga.<br />

Salisbury. E. (1976) Weeds and aliens. London; Collins. 384 pp.<br />

SchrOder. D. (1974) The phytophagous insects attacking Sonchus spp. (Compositae) in Europe. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 3rd International<br />

Symposium on Biological Control <strong>of</strong> Weeds. Montpellier. France. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological<br />

Control Miscellaneous Publication 8. 89-96.<br />

Shaskov. V.P.; Kokmakov. P.P.; Volkov. E.E.; Trifanova. L.F. (1977) The influence <strong>of</strong> rhizomatous weeds in spring wheat crops on the<br />

utilization <strong>of</strong> nitrogen. phosphoros and potassium. Agrokhimiya 14(3).57-59.<br />

Shetler. S.G.; Skog. L.E. (1978) A provisional checklist <strong>of</strong> species for Rora North America (Revised). Rora North America Report 84.<br />

Missouri Botanical Garden. 199 pp.<br />

Skuhrava • M.; Skuhravj. V. (1973) Gallmiicken and ihre Gallen auf Wildpllanzen. Wittenberg Lutherstadt; Ziemsen. 118 pp.


Sone/Ills arvensis L., 209<br />

Skuhravd , M.; Skuhravy, v.: Neacsu, P. (1972) Verbreitung der Gallmiicken in Rumlinien. Deutsche entomologische Zeitschrift 19,<br />

375-392.<br />

Smith, K.M. (1972) A textbook or plant virus diseases. 3rd ed., New York; Academic Press, 684 pp.<br />

Stevens, O.A. (1924) Perennial sow-thistle, growth and reproduction. North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 181,44 pp.<br />

Stevens, O.A. (1926) The sow thistle. NOTlII Dakota Experiment Station Circular 32, 16 pp.<br />

Stevens, O.A. (1932) The number and weight or seeds produced by weeds. Ameriam loumal <strong>of</strong> Botany 19. 784-794.<br />

Sylven, E. (1975) Study on relationships between habits and external structures in Oligotrophidi larvae. (Diptera. Cecidomyiidae).<br />

ZoologiCD Scripta 4, 55-92.<br />

Zwiilrer, H. (1973) A survey ror weed insects in Japan. Iran and Pakistan. Weed projects for <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong><br />

Biological Control Progress Report 3D, 27 pp.


Blank Page<br />

210


Pest Status<br />

Biological Control Studies<br />

Discussion<br />

Chapter 44<br />

Verbascum thapsus L., Common Mullein<br />

(Scrophulariaceae)<br />

M.O.MAW<br />

Verbascum thapsus L. is a biennial or, rarely, an annual <strong>of</strong> Eurasian origin. It was<br />

probably introduced into North America several times as a medicinal herb (Gross &<br />

Werner 1978). It is found over most <strong>of</strong> the United States and southern <strong>Canada</strong>, but is rare<br />

on the Canadian prairies, North Dakota, and Montana (Gross & Werner 1978. Maw<br />

1980). It is most vigorous on well drained gravelly or stony soils in rough pastures,<br />

fence rows, roadsides, railway yards, and waste places. It is not a major weed, not<br />

allergenic, not poisonous to humans, and not a problem on cultivated land. It does,<br />

however, harbor insects that may be vectors <strong>of</strong> diseases <strong>of</strong> economic plants. For example,<br />

the mullein leaf bug, Campy/omma verbasci Meyer, whose normal plant food is mullein,<br />

may cause damage to apple or pear fruit and potato leaves (Pickett 1939) and may also be<br />

a vector <strong>of</strong> fire blight, Bacillus amy/ovorus (Burr.) Trev. (Leonard 1965).<br />

The most effective control agents <strong>of</strong> mullein in Europe appear to be a weevil, Gymnaetron<br />

letrum F .• and the mullein shark moth, CucuJ/ia verbasci L. (Noctuidae) (Miotk 1973).<br />

The weevil is already well established in Ontario, British Columbia. and the United<br />

States from New England to Arkansas and the Pacific states (Blatchley & Leng 1916,<br />

Hatch 1971). The adults eat mullein leaves, and the larvae and adults destroy up to 50%<br />

<strong>of</strong> the seeds (Gross & Werner 1978).<br />

C. verbasci was screened (Maw 1980) and although there was some feeding on all<br />

Scrophulariaceae tested, and there was some nibbling on tomato, Nicoliana sp. and<br />

Brass;ca napus, sustained feeding and development occurred only on Verbascum spp.<br />

V. thapsus is an early colonizer on abandoned agricultural fields with the tall flowering<br />

stocks usually appearing the second year after abandonment. Populations are usually<br />

scattered but locally abundant, and the weed may cover entire fields where the ground<br />

has been left undisturbed. This situation is, however, relatively short-lived. In a study<br />

by Gross & Werner (1978) it was found that in a barley field that had been abandoned for<br />

three years, the density <strong>of</strong> V. thapsus was 1.0 plants per mI. In an adjacent field that had<br />

been abandoned for 12 years, the density <strong>of</strong> V. thapsus had declined to O.17/m l • Since<br />

seeds can be dormant but viable for 35 years, the typical pattern seems to be one <strong>of</strong><br />

ephemeral adult populations and long-lived seed pools (Gross & Werner 1978).<br />

Although the mullein leaf bug. Campy/omma verbasci, may damage apple and pear<br />

fruit, the bug is only partially phytophagous. It cannot complete its life cycle without<br />

insect prey and feeds on several species <strong>of</strong> mites and insects that attack the fruit crop<br />

(Gross & Werner 1978).<br />

211


212 M. G. Maw<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

The mullein moth, Cucullia verbasci, is considered to be a safe biological control<br />

agent to release. However, the inherent risk in releasing any organism into newenvironmental<br />

conditions remains and until the economic value in controlling the weed is<br />

determined, no release should be made.<br />

Until the loss caused by mullein has been determined, no releases <strong>of</strong> biological control<br />

agents should be made.<br />

Blatchley, W.S.; Leng, C.W. (1916) Rbynchophora or weevils <strong>of</strong> North Eastern America. Indianapolis; Nature Publishing Co., 682 pp.<br />

Gross, K.L.; Werner, P.A. (1978) The biology <strong>of</strong> Canadian weeds. 28. Verboscum thopsus L. and V. blal/aria L. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Plant Science 58, 401-413.<br />

Hatch, M.H. (1971) The Beetles <strong>of</strong> the Pacific Northwest. Part V. University <strong>of</strong> Washington Press, 662 pp.<br />

Leonard, D.E. (1965) Atractotomus mali and Campylomma verbosci (Heteroptera: Miridae) on apples in Connecticut. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Economic Entomology 58(5),1031.<br />

Maw, M.G. (1980) Cucullia verbose;, lin agent for the biological control <strong>of</strong> common mullein (Verboscum thapsus). Weed Science 28,<br />

27-30.<br />

Miotic, P. (1973) Phytophagous insects associated with weeds in central Europe. Part II. Weed Projects for <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth<br />

Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Progress Report 32, 29 pp.<br />

Pickett, A.D. (1939) The mullein (eafbug, Campylomma verbose; Meyer, as a pest <strong>of</strong> apples in Nova Scotia. <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario<br />

Annual Report 69, 105-106.


PART III<br />

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF FOREST<br />

INSECT PESTS IN CANADA 1969-80


Blank Page<br />

214


216 M. A. Hulme and G. W. Green<br />

Selection <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Agents<br />

pusilla (Lep.), both <strong>of</strong> which feed on birch; the gypsy moth, Lymamria dispar (L.); the<br />

balsam fir sawfly, Neodiprion abietis (Harr.), which, in the first review, was only examined<br />

using surplus parasitoid stock; Bruce spanworm, Operophtera bruceata (Hulst); two<br />

tussock moths, Orgyia leucostigma (J .E. Smith) and Orgyia pseudotsugata (McDunnough);<br />

and the mountain-ash sawfly, Pristiphora geniculata (Htg.). Effort was almost equally<br />

divided between treatments with entomopathogens and releases <strong>of</strong> predators or parasitoids.<br />

The current review thus contains evaluations <strong>of</strong> control attempts against 21 insect<br />

pests, although in some cases this simply entails updating assessments <strong>of</strong> control<br />

attempts made during the previous review period.<br />

Despite the increased number <strong>of</strong> pests covered in the current review, total effort<br />

devoted to biological control <strong>of</strong> forest pests declined as the Canadian Forestry Service<br />

went through a period <strong>of</strong> austerity. Work with predators and parasitoids suffered<br />

particularly severe reductions <strong>of</strong> resources; and certain aspects <strong>of</strong> all programmes, such<br />

as the population dynamics <strong>of</strong> the pest and <strong>of</strong> the control agent, were almost totally<br />

neglected. These cutbacks are reflected in the lack <strong>of</strong> depth with which many <strong>of</strong> our<br />

investigations were undertaken and inevitably reduced our chances <strong>of</strong> finding successful<br />

controls. Despite these difficulties significant progress has been made, as detailed<br />

later.<br />

The definition <strong>of</strong> biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insect pests used in this review follows<br />

that <strong>of</strong> the previous review - it is confined to the regulation <strong>of</strong> pest populations by the<br />

introduction <strong>of</strong> parasitoids, predators, or entomopathogens. Population regulation is<br />

considered acceptable if damage is controlled at tolerable levels in economic andlor<br />

·0 social terms. The methods <strong>of</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> the control agent cover all strategies from<br />

inoculative releases <strong>of</strong> an organism, which then spreads through the pest population, to<br />

augmenting agents already present in the pest popUlation, or to inundation <strong>of</strong> the pest's<br />

environment with a control agent that mayor may not already be present (Knipling<br />

1979).<br />

The chapters that follow this overview are organized in alphabetical generic sequence,<br />

and each chapter is written by the scientists responsible for conducting or assessing the<br />

control attempts. An outline is given <strong>of</strong> the present status <strong>of</strong> the pest, background is<br />

given where needed on reasons for the choice <strong>of</strong> control agents, and the authors'<br />

evaluation is given <strong>of</strong> each attempt. Each chapter concludes with specific suggestions<br />

for future work.<br />

In describing the pest status, and in many <strong>of</strong> the assessments <strong>of</strong> control effectiveness<br />

reference is made to the Forest Insect and Disease Survey (FIDS), an organization<br />

within the Canadian Forestry Service that carries out major surveys <strong>of</strong> pest populations<br />

and pest damage across the country. In earlier times surveys included routine rearings to<br />

measure parasitoid levels in pest populations, but due to staff cutbacks such measurements<br />

are rarely performed now and surveys by FIDS are generally confined to measurements<br />

<strong>of</strong> pest numbers and pest damage. This in turn has seriously impeded the<br />

effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the biological control research applied to forest pests.<br />

For taxonomic and other reasons, many changes in the names <strong>of</strong> insects or the spelling<br />

<strong>of</strong> insect names have taken place during the current review period. In order to standardize<br />

sQme <strong>of</strong> these changes, forestry contributions follow the nomenclat.ure <strong>of</strong> insect pests<br />

given in the "Common names <strong>of</strong> insects and related organisms" published by the<br />

<strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> America in 1980.<br />

Inoculative releases <strong>of</strong> parasitoids and predators<br />

When planning this strategy <strong>of</strong> biological control it has become customary to first<br />

establish whether the target pest is a native or an introduced species. Of the 21 pests


Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insect pests 217<br />

included in this review, 9 are considered native: C. fum;ferana, spruce budworm; C.<br />

occidentalis, western spruce budworm; M. disslria, forest tent caterpillar; N. abielis.<br />

balsam fir sawfly; N. lecontei, redheaded pine sawfly; N. swainei, Swaine jack pine<br />

sawfly; Operophtera bruceala. Bruce spanworm; Orgyia lellcostigma. whitemarked<br />

tussock moth; and O. pselldot.mgata. Douglas-fir tussock moth. There is disagreement on<br />

whether P. erichsonii. larch sawfly, is native or introduced. although most favour the<br />

latter view (A. Giroux' 1981. personal communication; Pschorn-Walcher 1977). Following<br />

this division into introduced and native species it has been customary to concentrate<br />

on introduced pests as being promising candidates for biological control by inoculative<br />

introduction <strong>of</strong> predators or parasitoids obtained from the pest's native habitat. Thus. in<br />

the present review. all but two such control attempts are against introduced pests: the<br />

exceptions are attempts against C. fumiferatla. where mostly limited and unpromising<br />

cage studies were formed with parasitoids. and attempts against N. swainei. where trials<br />

were made to introduce Formica spp. <strong>of</strong> ants as predators. The former attempts are best<br />

described as preliminary investigations rather than control attempts. and the latter trials<br />

as introductions <strong>of</strong> polyphagous predators aimed at control <strong>of</strong> several forest pests rather<br />

than just the sawfly. In general. the number <strong>of</strong> parasitoids or predators released in each<br />

control attempt depended on numbers obtained from field collections. Because <strong>of</strong><br />

limited resources <strong>of</strong> both people and material. little rearing was carried out to increase<br />

insect numbers and few <strong>of</strong> the female parasitoids were deliberately mated before<br />

release. Reeks & Cameron (1971) feel that a minimum <strong>of</strong> 500 mated females should be<br />

released but this was rarely achieved in the work reported here. Indeed. Beirne (1975)<br />

regards releasing inadequate numbers and other faulty procedures as important reasons<br />

for failure in control attempts.<br />

The question <strong>of</strong> whether to release one or several species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids or predators<br />

continues to evoke controversy (e.g. DeBach el al. 1976). Both release strategies were<br />

practised during the current review period without either showing obvious superiority in<br />

terms <strong>of</strong> control success. In co-operation with CIBC Delemont and other shipping<br />

stations, precautions were taken to screen out unwanted parasitoids, such as c1eptoparasitoids<br />

and hyperparasitoids. before releases were attempted. A further difficult question<br />

is whether to release monophagous or polyphagous parasitoids. In the case-studies<br />

reported here both types shared in the control successes. In all, 31 species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids<br />

and predators were released against 11 target pests and a further 3 species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids<br />

were tested in laboratory and field cage studies against C. fumiferana. Well over half <strong>of</strong><br />

the introductions were from Europe, three were from Japan. and one from Argentina;<br />

the remainder were relocations within <strong>Canada</strong>. All but three <strong>of</strong> the species belonged to<br />

the order <strong>of</strong> Hymenoptera; the three exceptions. all Diptera. were a laboratory culture <strong>of</strong><br />

Agria house; Shewell tested unsuccessfully against C. fumiferana, Lypha dubia<br />

Fallen, released against R. buoliana but not known to be established, and<br />

Cyzenis albicans (Fall.) successfully established and helping to control O. brumala.<br />

Approximately half <strong>of</strong> the released parasitoids and predators are known to be established<br />

and the list may be extended as more time is allowed for establishment to become evident.<br />

A summary <strong>of</strong> all free field releases is shown in Table 52. Three parasitoids tested only in<br />

cages are also included to complete the list <strong>of</strong> those examined during the review period.<br />

Application <strong>of</strong> entomopathogens<br />

Entomopathogens were used for attempted control against all the native insect pests<br />

covered in this review. and similar controls were explored against the introduced pests<br />

N. serlifer and L. dispar. The main entomopathogens used here were the bacterium B.I.<br />

and a number <strong>of</strong> baculoviruses.<br />

, Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa


218 M. A. Hulme and G. W. Green<br />

Table 52 Free field releases <strong>of</strong> parasitoids and predators against forest insect pests between 1969<br />

and 1980<br />

Host<br />

Chorisloneura fumiferana<br />

Coleophora laricella<br />

Coleophora serralella<br />

Fenusa pusilla<br />

Lymantria dispar<br />

Neodiprion seTlifer<br />

Neodiprion swainei<br />

Operophlera brumala<br />

Prisliphora erichsonii<br />

Prisliphora geniculala<br />

Rhyacionia buoliana<br />

• Laboratory culture .<br />

•• Cage release only.<br />

Parasitoidslpredators<br />

Agria housei<br />

Cephaloglypla laricis<br />

Cephaloglypla murinanae<br />

Lissonola sp.<br />

Trichogramma sp.<br />

Agalhis pumila<br />

Chrysocharis laricinellae<br />

Diadegma laricinellum<br />

Dicladocerus japonicus<br />

Apanteles coleophorae<br />

Apanleles mesoxanthus<br />

Apanteles corvin us<br />

Campoplex borealis<br />

Campoplex sp.<br />

GrypocentTUS albipes<br />

Lalhrolesles nigricollis<br />

Anaslaws dis paris<br />

Ooencyrlus kuvanae<br />

Dipriocampe diprioni<br />

Exenterus abruplorius<br />

Lophyropleclus IUlealor<br />

Pleolophus basizonus<br />

Formica lugubris<br />

Formica obscuripes<br />

Agrypon flaveolawm<br />

Cyzenis albicans<br />

Mesoleius lenthredinis<br />

Olesicampe benefaclor<br />

Olesicampe geniculalae<br />

Rhorus sp.<br />

Lypha dubia<br />

Orgilus obscuralor<br />

Parasierola nigrifemus<br />

Agathis binominala<br />

I<br />

Total<br />

number<br />

released<br />

2800 •<br />

••<br />

••<br />

59<br />

20000··<br />

2633<br />

530<br />

101<br />

292<br />

337<br />

1480<br />

1 753<br />

4994<br />

1404<br />

25000<br />

1 189<br />

4072<br />

2389<br />

1032<br />

1000 000<br />

5000000<br />

820<br />

1238<br />

467<br />

8588<br />

912<br />

63<br />

496<br />

560<br />

595<br />

85<br />

B.I. has been tried against a variety <strong>of</strong> pests, all belonging to the Lepidoptera, because<br />

the pathogenic effects <strong>of</strong> many strains <strong>of</strong> the bacterium are promoted by the alkaline<br />

digestive conditions typical <strong>of</strong> this order <strong>of</strong> insects. Much <strong>of</strong> the pioneering work on the<br />

bacterium was carried out by the Canadian Forestry Senice and work on the mode <strong>of</strong><br />

action <strong>of</strong> the entomopathogen is continuing. B.I. is now used operationally by forest<br />

managers: the control agent is fully registered as a pesticide in <strong>Canada</strong> and is commercially<br />

produced in a number <strong>of</strong> different formulations for use against C. fumiferana, L. dispar,<br />

and several other lepidopterous defoliators. Methods <strong>of</strong> applying the bacterium have<br />

varied. In a few cases the bacterium was applied from ground sprays on localized areas


Biological control <strong>of</strong>forest insect pests 219<br />

<strong>of</strong> pest outbreaks (examples are treatments to control M. disstria and L. dispar) ,<br />

whereas in most other cases the bacterium was applied with aerial sprays (examples<br />

here include attempted control <strong>of</strong> C. fumiferana, C. occidentalis, and O.<br />

pseudotsugata). Most development <strong>of</strong> aerial spraying <strong>of</strong> B.t. was conducted with C.<br />

fumiferana. Both water-based and oil-based formulations were used and the spray<br />

aircraft included fixed-wing aircraft equipped with from one to four engines, and<br />

various sizes <strong>of</strong> helicopters. Areas treated ranged as high as 90 000 ha, and in all cases<br />

results to a large extent depended on the application techniques that were employed.<br />

The time period during which B.t. can be applied during the insects' development is<br />

shorter than that permissible with chemical insecticides because the bacterium must be<br />

ingested to be effective whereas the standard chemical insecticides are neurotoxins and<br />

exhibit contact toxicity. An interesting international aspect <strong>of</strong> this work involved cooperative<br />

trials between <strong>Canada</strong> and the United States under the 6-year CAN USA<br />

Spruce Budworms Research Programme that started in 1977. The two countries also cooperated<br />

in one trial using B.t. against O. pseudotsugala in British Columbia.<br />

The use <strong>of</strong> viruses, particularly baculoviruses, for control <strong>of</strong> forest insect pests has<br />

progressed rapidly since the last review, and Morris (1980) provides a convenient<br />

tabulaton <strong>of</strong> all field tests where either ground or aerial applications <strong>of</strong> virus were used.<br />

Most attention has been focused on the neodiprionid sawflies because NPVs that attack<br />

these sawflies were found to be particularly virulent. Many sawflies also feed colonially,<br />

which facilitates cross infection, and some <strong>of</strong> the viruses spread from the point <strong>of</strong><br />

infection, thus allowing spot introductions <strong>of</strong> virus to be used rather than complete<br />

coverage <strong>of</strong> the infected areas. Predacious and scavenging insects are thought to be the<br />

main disseminators <strong>of</strong> the viruses. In some cases strips <strong>of</strong> the infected area were<br />

sprayed, and in the case <strong>of</strong> N. swainei spot introductions <strong>of</strong> laboratory-infected pupae<br />

were used. Other viruses, again mainly NPVs, with good virulence against a number <strong>of</strong><br />

Lepidoptera, have also been evaluated. Examples are tests against the tussock moths,<br />

O. leucostigma, and O. pseudotsugata. Some less virulent viruses were also applied<br />

aerially against, for example, C. fumiferana and C. occidenlalis; others were applied by<br />

ground sprays. for example. those against M. disstria and L. dispar.<br />

The remaining entomopathogens covered in this review are essentially at the laboratory<br />

stage <strong>of</strong> development. Fungi are well known to cause epizootics, such as the one<br />

believed to have helped collapse a recent outbreak <strong>of</strong> hemlock looper, Lambdina<br />

fiscellaria fiscellaria (Guenee), in Newfoundland (Otvos 1973). Other North American<br />

forest pests in which fungal epizootics have been recorded include spruce budworm C.<br />

fumiferana, black headed budworm, Acleris variana (Fern), and forest tent caterpillar,<br />

M. disslria. Entomophthora spp. <strong>of</strong> fungi are generally responsible and these are the<br />

fungi on which the Canadian Forestry Service concentrates its effort. Much <strong>of</strong> the<br />

biology <strong>of</strong> these fungi is now elucidated; before direct applications are attempted, efforts<br />

continue to devise techniques for mass production <strong>of</strong> resting spores, to devise practical<br />

application systems, and to induce spore germination, particularly under field conditions.<br />

One study, not reported elsewhere in this review, is an examination <strong>of</strong> control possibilities<br />

<strong>of</strong> mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, with Beauveria bassiana<br />

Vuillemin. This work can be summarized by stating that although the fungus is lethal to<br />

the insect in laboratory trials, no satisfactory way has yet been found to infect insects in<br />

the field (S. Whitney2 1981, personal communication).<br />

Work with protozoa roughly parallels that with fungi and emphasis is now on epizooticlogical<br />

studies. Protozoa are dominant entomopathogens <strong>of</strong> insects such as spruce<br />

budworm, C. fumiferana, but their effects are to debilitate rather than to kill the insects,<br />

by affecting larval and pupal vigour and by reducing adult longevity and fecundity.<br />

Because these entomopathogens are ubiquitous. work continues to elucidate their<br />

interaction with other control agents.<br />

2 Pacific Forest Research Centre, Victoria. British Columbia.


220 M. A. Hulme and G. W. Green<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Table 53<br />

Virtually no work has been carried out with nematodes during the review period,<br />

although recent laboratory studies have shown that Heterorhabditis hefiothidis (Khan et<br />

al.) is lethal to C. fumiferana (G. Finney' 1981 personal communication). Work with<br />

rickettsia has been deliberately avoided because <strong>of</strong> potential human health problems.<br />

We have attempted to summarize the authors' evaluations <strong>of</strong> control success under the<br />

headings <strong>of</strong> predators and parasitoids, and <strong>of</strong> entomopathogens. As previous reviews in<br />

this series have been devoted largely to predators and parasitoids, we have also<br />

summarized these earlier evaluations <strong>of</strong> the major control attempts to show progress<br />

through the review periods. Simmonds' classification <strong>of</strong> control success has been used<br />

to provide continuity with the previous review (Simmonds 1969). Practical control using<br />

entomopathogens received relatively little attention until the current review period,<br />

except for work with NPVs against G. hercyniae and N. lecontei, hence few comparisons<br />

can be made with earlier work. Furthermore, Simmonds' classification <strong>of</strong> control<br />

success does not adequately describe the control strategy attempted with many entomopathogens<br />

and a separate rating system has thus been devised for entomopathogens that<br />

better reflects the behaviour <strong>of</strong> these control agents.<br />

The summary <strong>of</strong> control attempts given in Tables 53 and 54 shows that two-thirds <strong>of</strong><br />

the forest insect pests covered in this review were considered to be successfully<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> biological control attempts against forest insect pests using predators and<br />

parasitoids<br />

Degree <strong>of</strong> success·<br />

Pest 1910-58 1958-68 1969-80<br />

Adelges piceae promising<br />

Coleophora laricella good ++++ ++++<br />

Coleophora se"atella<br />

Fenusa pusilla +<br />

Gilpinia hercyniae good ++++*. ++++**<br />

Leucoma salicis good +++ +++<br />

Lymantria dispar<br />

Neodiprion sertifer ++ ++<br />

Operophtera brumata ++++ ++++<br />

Pristiphora erichsonii promising ++ +++<br />

Pristiphora geniculata ++<br />

Rhyacionia buoliana + +++<br />

• Based on McGugan & Coppel's assessment up to 1958, and on Reeks & Cameron's<br />

evaluation for 1959-68. Simmonds' (1969) classification <strong>of</strong> control success is used<br />

in the final two columns, viz.<br />

No control.<br />

+ Slight pest reduction or too early for evaluation <strong>of</strong> control.<br />

+ + Local control; distribution restricted or not fully investigated.<br />

+ + + Control widespread but local damage occurs.<br />

+ + + + Control complete<br />

** Acting in conjunction with a virus.<br />

) Memorial University <strong>of</strong> Newfoundland, St. Johns, Newfoundland.


Table 54<br />

Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insect pests 221<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> biological control attempts against forest insect pests using entomopathogens·<br />

Entomopathogens<br />

Pest Type Degree <strong>of</strong> success··<br />

Chorisloneura fumiferana NPV-CPV-GV-EV·" slight<br />

Chorisloneura occidenraiis<br />

GiJpinia herr:yniae<br />

Lyl11lJlJJria dispar<br />

Maiacosoma disstria<br />

Neodiprion abietis<br />

Neodiprion Iecontei<br />

Neodiprion sertifer<br />

Neodiprion swainei<br />

Operophtera bruceala<br />

Orgyitl Jeucostigma<br />

Orgyitl pseudotsugata<br />

••<br />

...<br />

••••<br />

8.1.<br />

NPV<br />

8.1.<br />

NPV<br />

NPV<br />

8.1.<br />

NPV<br />

8.1.<br />

NPV<br />

NPV<br />

NPV<br />

NPV<br />

NPV<br />

NPV<br />

NPV<br />

B.t.<br />

good<br />

none<br />

none<br />

exceUent· .. •<br />

slight<br />

slight<br />

none<br />

good<br />

unknown<br />

excellent<br />

excellent<br />

good<br />

unknown<br />

good<br />

good<br />

slight<br />

Covering the period 1969-80, except for N. Ieconrei and G. herc:yniae where work<br />

was undertaken before 1969.<br />

The rating system is as follows:<br />

slight - decreased pest population but little damage prevented.<br />

good - decreased pest population and damage reduced to economically acceptable<br />

levels<br />

excellent - pest populations and damage reduced to almost zero.<br />

NPV<br />

CPV<br />

GV<br />

EV<br />

B.t.<br />

nuclear polyhedrosis virus<br />

cytoplasmic polyhedrosis virus<br />

granulosis virus<br />

entomopox virus<br />

Bacillus thuringiensis<br />

Acting in conjunction with parasitoids .<br />

regulated by using biological control agents and that success was equally divided<br />

between parasitoids and entomopathogens. A number <strong>of</strong> evaluations cannot yet be<br />

made due to lack <strong>of</strong> data, although in some cases, as mentioned later, prospects for<br />

success are promising. Brief details <strong>of</strong> control evaluations with parasitoids and predators,<br />

and with entomopathogens are as follows.<br />

Parasitoids and predators<br />

Many <strong>of</strong> the following chapters report work continued from the previous review period.<br />

Most evaluations have been directed to technical success in control and little further can<br />

be added to the earlier tentative economic assessments <strong>of</strong> Reeks & Cameron (1971). C.


222 M. A. Hulme and G. W. Green<br />

laricella, G. hercyniae. L. salicis. O. brumata, and P. erichsonii continue to be controlled<br />

by introduced parasitoids (Table 53), as does R. buoliana, provided temperatures favour<br />

parasitoids by synchronising their development with nectar and pollen supplies. These<br />

supplies are provided by encouraging the growth <strong>of</strong> flowering plants such as buckwheat<br />

(Fagopyrum esculentum Moench), wild carrot (Daucus carota L.). and milkweed (Asclepias<br />

syr;aca L.). This effective and novel approach emphasizes the importance <strong>of</strong> examining<br />

several alternative tactics for inoculating and establishing the control agent in the pest<br />

population. The geographic range <strong>of</strong> control <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the above insect pests does not yet<br />

cover the entire country and attempts are now being made to control, for example. C.<br />

laricella in western <strong>Canada</strong> by introducing a braconid, an ichneumonid and two eulophids<br />

similar to those that are successful in eastern <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Several new subjects were chosen for control attempts. Small introductions <strong>of</strong> braconids<br />

and ichneumon ids were made to control C. serratella, so far without success.<br />

However, prospects still seem good because these parasitoids are important regulators<br />

<strong>of</strong> populations in Europe. Limited introductions were made against F. pusilla and at<br />

least one <strong>of</strong> the parasitoids has become established, although it is too early to evaluate<br />

control potential. P. geniculata was chosen as a promising candidate for control because<br />

it is so heavily parasitized in its native Europe that once sufficient numbers <strong>of</strong> the<br />

ichneumonid were received from Europe good local control was obtained. underlining<br />

the importance <strong>of</strong> making adequate releases. Attempts against C. fumiferana are not<br />

evaluated here because they essentially did not progress beyond cage studies. Attempts<br />

against N. swaine; are also not evaluated because they involved release <strong>of</strong> a general<br />

predator <strong>of</strong> many forest pests.<br />

Entomopathogens<br />

Entomopathogens have been used for most <strong>of</strong> our current biological control attempts<br />

against native pests, mainly by attempting to inundate the environment <strong>of</strong> the pest<br />

insect. In general. entomopathogens must be applied early in the insect's development if<br />

foliage is to be saved in the year <strong>of</strong> application. Early application is particularly important<br />

when viruses are used.<br />

Remarkable progress has been made with B.t. during the review period. Improved<br />

strains <strong>of</strong> B.t. (Dulmage 1970) followed by improvements in formulation and application<br />

technology have now reached the point where many forest managers find B.I. can be as<br />

effective as chemical insecticides against C. fumiferana (e.g. Dorais el al. 1980); costs<br />

are three to five times higher. It is. <strong>of</strong> course, essential that the material be applied at the<br />

correct time, in adequate dosage, and with good application techniques that include<br />

suitable formulation <strong>of</strong> the spray ingredients. Many <strong>of</strong> these developments with B.I.<br />

sprays have not yet been adequately tested on other Lepidoptera but there are no a<br />

priori reasons why success should not be similar.<br />

Recent success with viruses has been outstanding. Effective viruses were found<br />

against all the tested neodiprionid sawflies, with the possible exception <strong>of</strong> N. ab;etis,<br />

where sufficient data are not yet available to make an assessment. The NPV <strong>of</strong> N.<br />

leconlei has been particularly successful in spreading from the point <strong>of</strong> application<br />

(apparently via predacious and scavenging insects) and has allowed spot introductions<br />

to be used. Observations suggest that many applied viruses continue to exert control in<br />

the years following application, although it is not yet clear in many cases how this carryover<br />

is achieved. The virus may infect <strong>of</strong>fspring transovarially, for example. or the virus<br />

may simply contaminate the environment by residing in cadavers. twig crotches, and<br />

other protected locations. Further research is required to elucidate the specific mechanisms.<br />

Effective viruses were also found that could control certain Lepidoptera, notably the<br />

NPVs for O. leucostigma and O. pseudotsugata. Success against C. fum;ferana and L.<br />

dispar has been only marginal because <strong>of</strong> the lower virulence <strong>of</strong> the viruses tested.


Future Considerations<br />

Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insect pests 223<br />

The estimated cost for virus material largely depends on production methods. Thus<br />

NPV from field-infected sawflies costs about $2.50Iha, whereas the tussock moth NPV<br />

produced in vivo in the laboratory costs about S501ha.<br />

There have been no control successes with either fungi or protozoa during the review<br />

period because, with the exception <strong>of</strong> trials to infect D. ponderosae with B. bassiana<br />

mentioned earlier, direct control has not been attempted. Basic questions in epizootiology<br />

remain to be answered first. Protozoa are, in any case, not generally envisaged as<br />

satisfactory control agents by themselves and emphasis is directed to control strategies<br />

in which they act synergistically with other agents.<br />

Like earlier reviews, the present reports cover many approaches to biological control.<br />

These case histories provide a valuable base on which to build future work, whether it be<br />

from the standpoint <strong>of</strong> assessing development with specific control agents or <strong>of</strong><br />

examining control opportunities with specific insect pests. Each <strong>of</strong> these aspects will be<br />

considered separately in the following discussion.<br />

Predators and parasitoids as control agents<br />

There are two schools <strong>of</strong> thought on whether to emphasize introduced pests in inoculative<br />

control attempts with exotic parasitoids or predators. Although it is agreed that this<br />

approach has been fruitful for many introduced pests, some favour a continuation <strong>of</strong> this<br />

planning strategy, whereas others such as Munroe (1971) point out that this concentration<br />

<strong>of</strong> effort on introduced pests has no theoretical basis to support it. Indeed, Pimentel<br />

(1963) lists a number <strong>of</strong> successes against native pests. One interesting recent addition to<br />

such lists is Oxydia trychiata Gn., a native forest defoliator in Colombia that was<br />

controlled by Telenomus a/sophilae Vier., an egg parasitoid <strong>of</strong> A/sophila pometaria<br />

(Harris) imported from Virginia in the United States. Not only does this example show<br />

control <strong>of</strong> a native pest by a parasitoid from a host <strong>of</strong> a different genus but it also<br />

demonstrates a successful transfer from temperate to tropical latitudes (Bustillo &<br />

Drooz 1977). The example serves to underline the earlier dictum <strong>of</strong> Huffaker et al. (1971)<br />

that "native as well as exotic pests are suitable subjects for biological control importations".<br />

Indeed we hope that inoculative introductions <strong>of</strong> exotic parasitoids and predators<br />

against native forest pests will be given more attention than in the past.<br />

A further point that perhaps needs to be reconsidered is the method by which<br />

parasitoid species are selected. Disproportionate attention has been devoted to the<br />

Hymenoptera during the review period, yet among other orders the Diptera, in particular,<br />

contain numerous species <strong>of</strong> successful parasitoids that deserve closer examination.<br />

Diptera can be more difficult to rear and the adults are sometimes considered more<br />

difficult to identify than Hymenoptera, but these factors should not prejudice the choice<br />

<strong>of</strong> candidate parasitoids unless all other comparative factors are judged equal. Munroe<br />

(1971) pointed out that during the previous review period the establishment rate for<br />

introduced Diptera was actually higher than that for introduced Hymenoptera although<br />

it is, <strong>of</strong> course, recognized that control does not always follow establishment.<br />

In terms <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> species released we concur with the views <strong>of</strong> Reeks &<br />

Cameron (1971) that either single or multiple species' releases are acceptable when<br />

supporting work shows that reasons are sound. Case histories suggest even where<br />

competitive displacement occurs, the resulting control may well be improved (e.g.<br />

Caltagirone 1981). Precautions should, <strong>of</strong> course, be taken to screen out undesirable<br />

parasitoids, especially hyperparasitoids and c1eptoparasitoids (e.g. Schroeder 1974).<br />

Desirable parasitoids should have good numerical andlor functional response to host<br />

population changes through attributes such as high fecundity, efficient host searching


224 M. A. Hulme and G. W. Green<br />

ability, and good synchronization <strong>of</strong> reproduction with the host (Pschorn-Walcher<br />

1977). Inbreeding that restricts genetic variability should be limited. It is always advisable to<br />

try to ensure genetic variation between released individuals by collecting breeding stock<br />

from several locations (Bennett 1974, Mackauer 1976).<br />

Selection <strong>of</strong> collecting locations for exotic parasitoids and predators has rightly been<br />

focused on the native habitat <strong>of</strong> the pest when introduced insects are the subject <strong>of</strong><br />

control attempts and this has inevitably led to a concentration <strong>of</strong> collection efforts in<br />

Europe. Case histories, however. show that successful control agents have also been<br />

found on different hosts and in different parts <strong>of</strong> the world. and to allow for this<br />

possibility. and thus increase the probability <strong>of</strong> success, a proportion <strong>of</strong> effort should be<br />

devoted to collecting from areas other than the native habitat <strong>of</strong> the pest (Pschorn­<br />

Walcher 1977). This approach is, <strong>of</strong> course. essential where native pests are the subject<br />

<strong>of</strong> control attempts by inoculative releases.<br />

Although the above remarks are aimed principally at so-called classical biological<br />

control. they are not intended to preclude attention to other release strategies. Augmentative<br />

or inundative releases <strong>of</strong> parasitoids or predators should perhaps be considered<br />

in some cases. These techniques remain essentially untested in Canadian forestry<br />

applications despite successes claimed in Russia and China (Tropin et 01. 1980, McFadden<br />

et al. 1981). For example, in Russia release <strong>of</strong> Trichogromma evanescens Westw. against<br />

eggs <strong>of</strong> R. buoliana and Petrona resine/la (L.) reduced the number <strong>of</strong> damaged pine buds<br />

by over 50% (Beglyarov & Smetnik 1977); and in China Trichogrommo dendrolimi Mats.<br />

reduced infestation by Dendrolimus sibericus Tschetw. from 63% <strong>of</strong> trees in 1956 to 1 %<br />

<strong>of</strong> trees in 1970 (Hussey 1977). Attention could also be given to the use <strong>of</strong> behavioural<br />

chemicals such as kairomones (e.g. Gross Jr. 1981, Weseloh 1981, Vinson 1977); these<br />

semiochemicals should improve control by augmenting the ability <strong>of</strong> natural enemies to<br />

locate hosts.<br />

Finally, two fundamental research needs in predator and parasitoid introductions<br />

have been raised repeatedly in this overview. The first need covers rearing techniques to<br />

ensure that adequate numbers <strong>of</strong> biological control organisms (mated females) are available<br />

for whatever release strategy is employed. The second fundamental need is for better<br />

knowledge <strong>of</strong> the population dynamics <strong>of</strong> the pest insect and <strong>of</strong> the candidate predators<br />

or parasitoids. Many feel that neglecting this aspect in favour <strong>of</strong> an ad hoc approach<br />

inevitably reduces chances <strong>of</strong> obtaining successful control.It is <strong>of</strong> course recognized. as<br />

Pschorn-Walcher (1977) states, that "predictions derived from multivariate analysis or<br />

population models are no guarantee that the biological control agents selected will be<br />

effective." Judgement must be exercised in deciding how much background information<br />

is desirable before releases are attempted. As Simmonds (1972) points out. "The introduction<br />

... is the crucial experiment. Promising biological control agents have failed to<br />

live up to expectations whereas apparently unlikely species have been very successful".<br />

Entomopathogens as control agents<br />

Bacteria and viruses have dominated control successes with entomopathogens and will<br />

probably continue to do so in the immediate future as improved methods are found for<br />

producing and applying these organisms. With B.t .• for example, efficacy against C.<br />

fumi/erona has been widely demonstrated and future research emphasis will be on<br />

reducing costs. This can be approached in a number <strong>of</strong> ways. Development <strong>of</strong> more<br />

concentrated formulations to reduce the volume <strong>of</strong> carrier liquid will reduce both shipping<br />

and application costs. Development <strong>of</strong> even more potent strains <strong>of</strong> B.t. will lead to similar<br />

reductions in costs. Finally, development <strong>of</strong> better application methods will increase the<br />

probability that larvae will ingest a lethal dose from a given quantity <strong>of</strong> applied B.t. by<br />

optimising the distribution <strong>of</strong> B.t. on the leaf surface. These methods entail all aspects <strong>of</strong><br />

application technology: generating optimum-sized droplets that contain the optimum


226 M. A. Hulme and G. W. Green<br />

production <strong>of</strong> biological control agents is seen as a less attractive commercial proposition,<br />

and it is thus important that government organizations maintain an interest in providing<br />

opportunities for large-scale production <strong>of</strong> biological control agents.<br />

Economic aspects <strong>of</strong> various biological control strategies have been briefly mentioned<br />

in this chapter. These aspects need addressing in more detail to supplement the few cost<br />

estimates developed here by biologists. Analysis by economists could provide a more<br />

comprehensive picture <strong>of</strong> costs and benefits: cost figures should separate production<br />

from application; and benefit figures should include carry-over effects following the<br />

year <strong>of</strong> application.<br />

Target pests for control<br />

Judging by progress reported in this and other reviews <strong>of</strong> biological control there seems<br />

little reason to rule out any forest pest on a priori grounds as a suitable candidate for<br />

biological control. Each decision to attempt control must, <strong>of</strong> course, take into account<br />

the specific situation <strong>of</strong> pest and host tree(s) and the range <strong>of</strong> control options that might<br />

be applied. However, in considering biological control there seems good reason to give<br />

more attention to research opportunities with the key economic pests in <strong>Canada</strong>'s<br />

forests, which would include C. fumiferana in eastern <strong>Canada</strong> and D. ponderosae and D.<br />

ru/ipennis (Kby.) in western <strong>Canada</strong><br />

In the case <strong>of</strong> C. fumiferana, a good short-term option using biological control is now<br />

available commercially. Longer term control is desirable but biological control attempts<br />

have met with limited success. There is, <strong>of</strong> course, scope for further work and, although<br />

all attempts will be difficult, we suggest that searches for more virulent viruses and for<br />

exotic parasitoids be given special emphasis. Candidate viruses to date exhibit marginal<br />

virulence against C. fumiferana but some control has nevertheless been obtained and<br />

further work is warranted. Parasitoid introductions as a biological control option have<br />

been given little more than a cursory examination, perhaps because C. fumiferana is a<br />

native pest. Many <strong>of</strong> the releases were conducted in unsuitable conditions and a more<br />

systematic study <strong>of</strong> this control option would allow a more factual comparison <strong>of</strong> its<br />

potential with other control options. The most common candidate hosts in Europe that<br />

have been suggested for parasitoid collections, based on the similarity <strong>of</strong> their life cycles<br />

to C. fumiferana, are C. murinana Hb. and Epinolia nigricana L. on Abies spp., Dichelia<br />

histrionana Froel. on Picea spp., and Archips oporana L. on Larix spp., Pinus spp., and<br />

Picea spp. Several Zeiraphera spp. <strong>of</strong>fer more remote possibilities. Collection activities<br />

should not, however, be confined to Europe. China, for example, has a Choristoneura sp.<br />

that attacks Picea spp. and appears to be well controlled by natural factors (Macdonald &<br />

Pollard 1976).<br />

With Dendroctonus spp. <strong>of</strong> bark beetles, particularly D. ponderosae and D. ru/ipennis<br />

that are major pests in western <strong>Canada</strong> perhaps the whole range <strong>of</strong> biological control<br />

agents needs closer examination to see which, if any, have practical potential for control.<br />

Certainly a wealth <strong>of</strong> information exists on related scolytids such as the southern pine<br />

bark beetle, D. frontalis Zimmerman (Thatcher et al. 1978), some <strong>of</strong> which could provide<br />

a useful starting point in considering options with other Dendroctonus spp. More field<br />

examinations <strong>of</strong> the natural enemy complex <strong>of</strong> Dendroctonus spp. in <strong>Canada</strong> is obviously<br />

required. Multiphagous parasitoids <strong>of</strong> bark beetles that attack hardwoods should not be<br />

overlooked, as some also parasitize bark beetles that attack s<strong>of</strong>twoods.<br />

Other particularly destructive pests that are not included in this review are the<br />

hemlock looper, L. [lScellaria[lScellaria, and the western hemlock looper, L. [lScellaria<br />

lugubrosa (Hulst); populations are now at endemic levels and irruptions are likely within<br />

the next few years. For the present, however, the most logical approach is to give priority<br />

to biological control research, mainly in accordance with the current importance <strong>of</strong> the<br />

pest, as the scope <strong>of</strong> research opportunities is limited not by lack <strong>of</strong> suitable problems but<br />

by the resources we are able to devote to biological control. There seems little doubt that


Literature Cited<br />

Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insect pests 227<br />

interest in this method <strong>of</strong> pest control is growing and more resources are likely to be<br />

committed in the future. This increased effort should in turn lead to progress that better<br />

reflects the potential <strong>of</strong> biological control as a viable pest management option.<br />

Beglyarov. G.A.; Smetnik. A.J. (1977) Seasonal colonization <strong>of</strong> entomophages in the USSR. In: Ridgway. R.L.; Vinson. S.B. (Eels.)<br />

Biological control by augmentation <strong>of</strong> natural enemies. New York: Plenum. pp. 283-328.<br />

Beirne. B.P. (1975) Biological control attempts by introductions against pest insects in the field in <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Entomologist 107.<br />

225-236.<br />

Bennett. F.D. (1974) Criteria for determination <strong>of</strong> candidate hosts and for selection <strong>of</strong> biotic agents. In: Maxwell. F.G.: Harris. F.A. (Eels.)<br />

Proceedings <strong>of</strong> a Summer Institute on Biological Control <strong>of</strong> Plant Insects and Diseases. Jackson.<br />

Mississippi; University Press <strong>of</strong> Mississippi. pp. 87-96.<br />

Bustillo. A.E.; Drooz. A.T. (1977) Comparative establishment <strong>of</strong> a Virginia (USA) strain <strong>of</strong> Telenomus alsophilae on Oxydia try'chiata in<br />

Columbia. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 70.767-770.<br />

Caltagirone, L.E. (1981) Landmark examples <strong>of</strong> classical biological control. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Entomology 26. 213-232.<br />

DeBach. P.; Huffaker. C.B. : MacPhee. A. W. (1976) Evaluation <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> natural enemies. In: Huffaker, C. B.; Messenger, P .S. (Eels.)<br />

TIleory and practice <strong>of</strong> biological control. London, New York; Academic Press. pp. 255-285.<br />

Dorais. L.; Pelletier. M.: Smirn<strong>of</strong>f. W.A. (1980) Pulvcrisations acriennes de Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner realisees au Quebec de 1971 1\<br />

1979 contre la tordeusc des bourgeons de I·cpinette. Choristoneurafumiferana (Oem.). [Abstract) Rapport<br />

presentc au VI' Congres International de I'Aviation Agricole a Turin. Italic 22-26 Sept. 1980. unpaginated.<br />

Dulmage, H.T. (1970) Insectidical activity <strong>of</strong> HD-l. a new isolate <strong>of</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis val. alesti. Journal <strong>of</strong> Invertebrate Pathology 15.<br />

232-239.<br />

Gross. H. R. Jr. (1981) Employment <strong>of</strong> kairomones in the management <strong>of</strong> parasitoids. In: Norlund. D.A.: Jones. R.L.; Lewis. W.J. (Eels.)<br />

Semiochemicals and their role in pest control. New York; John Wiley. pp. 137-152.<br />

Huffaker. C.B.; Messenger. P.S.; DeBach. P. (1971) The natural enemy component in natural control and the theory <strong>of</strong><br />

biological control. In: Huffakcr. C. B. (Ed. ) Biological control. New York. London; Plenum. pp. 253-293<br />

Hussey. N.W. (1977) Biological control techniques. In: Rishbeth. R.S. (leader). The Royal <strong>Society</strong> delegation on<br />

biological control to China. Aug. 15 - Sept. 3. London; Royal <strong>Society</strong>. 38 pp.<br />

Knipling. E.F. (1979) The basic principles <strong>of</strong> insect population. suppression. and management. US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Handbook<br />

512.659 pp.<br />

Macdonald. D.R.: Pollard. D.F.W. (1976) Report on the scientific exchange in forestry with the People's Republic <strong>of</strong> China. Canadian<br />

Forestry Service Report Pacific Forestry Research Centre. 32 pp.<br />

McFadden. M.W.; Dahlsten. D.L.; Berisford. C.W.; Knight. F.B.: Metterhousc. M.W. (1981) Integrated pest management in China's<br />

forests. Journal <strong>of</strong> Forestry 79. 723-726.<br />

McGugan. B.M.; Coppel. H.C. (1962) Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insects 1910-1958. In: A review <strong>of</strong> the biological control attempts against<br />

insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Communication<br />

2.35-127.<br />

Mackauer. M. (1976) Genetic problems in the production <strong>of</strong> biological control agents. Annual Rel'iew <strong>of</strong> Entomology 21.369-385.<br />

Morris. O.N. (1980) Entomopathogenic viruses: strategies for use in for usc in forest insect pest management. Canadian Entomologist 112.<br />

573-584.<br />

Munroc. E.G. (1971) Status and potential <strong>of</strong> biological control in <strong>Canada</strong>. In: Biological control programme against insects and weeds in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Communication 4. 213-255.<br />

Otvos. I. (1973) Biological control agents and their role in the population fluctuation <strong>of</strong> the eastern hemlock looper in<br />

Newfoundland.Canadian Forestry Sen'ice Information Report N-X-102. 34 pp.<br />

Pimentel. D. (1963) Introducing parasites and predators to control native pests. Canadian Entomologist 95.785-792.<br />

Poinar. G.O. Jr. (1979) Nematodes for biological control <strong>of</strong> insects. Boca Raton. Florida: Chemical Rubber Company. 220 pp.<br />

Pschorn-Walcher. H. (1977) Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insects. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Entomology 22. 1-22.<br />

Reeks. W .A.; Cameron. J.M. (1971) Current approaches to biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insects 1959-1968. In: Biological control programmes<br />

against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Communication<br />

4. 105-112.<br />

Schroeder. D. (1974) A study <strong>of</strong> the interaction between internal larval parasites <strong>of</strong> Rhyacionia buoliana. Entomophaga 19. 145-171.<br />

Simmonds. F.J. (1969) Brief resume <strong>of</strong> activities and rccent successes achieved. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Report.<br />

Trinidad. 16 pp.<br />

Simmonds. F.J. (1972) Approaches to biological control problems. EnlOmophaga 17.251-264.<br />

Thatcher. R.C.; Searcy. J.L.; Coster. J.E.; Hertel. G.D. (1978) The southern pine beetle. US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Technical Bulletin<br />

1631, 266 pp.<br />

Tropin.I.V.; Vedernikov. N.M.: Kranguaz. R.A.; Maslov. A.D.; Zubov. P.A.: Khramtsov. N.N.;Andreeva.G.I.;Lyashenko, L.1. (1980) A<br />

manual on the protection <strong>of</strong> the forest against pests and diseases. Moscow: Lcanaya promyshelnnost. 500 pp.<br />

Vinson. S.B. (1977) Behavioural chcmicals in the augmentation <strong>of</strong> natural cnemies. In: Ridgway. R.L.: Vinson. S.B. (Eels.) Biological<br />

control by augmentation <strong>of</strong> natural enemies. New York; Plenum. pp. 237-265.<br />

Weseloh. R.M. (1981) Host location by parasitoids. In: Nordlund. D.A.; Jones. R.L.: Lewis. W.J. (Eels.) Semiochemicals and their role in<br />

pest control. New York: John Wiley. pp. 79-96.


Blank Page<br />

228


Pest Status<br />

Chapter 46<br />

Background and Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Adelges piceae (Ratz.), Balsam<br />

Woolly Adelgid (Homoptera: Adelgidae)<br />

H.O. SCHOOLEY, l.W.E. HARRIS and B. PENDREL<br />

The balsam woolly adelgid, AdeJges piceae (Ratz.), is a destructive pest <strong>of</strong> firs, Abies<br />

spp. In recent years, however, populations have been low and dispersal has been<br />

limited. The distribution <strong>of</strong> the adelgid remains about the same as in 1968 (Clark el al.<br />

1971). In eastern <strong>Canada</strong>, expansion <strong>of</strong> the infestation has been largely into those small<br />

areas that had been bypassed as the initial infestation developed (Schooley 1980). The<br />

adelgid is now present throughout most <strong>of</strong> the fir forests <strong>of</strong> the Maritime Provinces,<br />

Newfoundland, and the eastern tip <strong>of</strong> the Gaspe Peninsula. A total area <strong>of</strong> about 103600<br />

kml is affected. In western <strong>Canada</strong> there have been only minor increases in the size <strong>of</strong><br />

the infestation, which now covers about 10 360 kml in southwestern British Columbia.<br />

The infestations in <strong>Canada</strong> extend southward into the United States on both the east and<br />

west coasts (Mitchell el al. 1970). Climate seems to be the main factor limiting further<br />

spread <strong>of</strong> this insect in <strong>Canada</strong> (Greenbank 1970).<br />

The balsam woolly adelgid attacks all species <strong>of</strong> firs in <strong>Canada</strong> but some are more<br />

resistant to injury than others. In eastern <strong>Canada</strong>, mortality <strong>of</strong> balsam fir, Abies balsamea<br />

(L.) Mill., has been common. In western <strong>Canada</strong>, subalpine fir, A. Jasiocarpa (Hook.)<br />

Nutt., growing at low elevations, is the most vulnerable species, but it rarely occurs<br />

within the present infestation boundaries (Harris 1968). Pacific silver or amabilis fir, A.<br />

amabilis (Doug!.) Forb., is the second most vulnerable western host and considerable<br />

mortality <strong>of</strong> this species has occurred. Grand fir, A. grandis (Doug!.) Lind!', is also<br />

deformed and killed by the adelgid, primarily on southern Vancouver Island. The<br />

adelgid is also threatening to destroy Fraser fir, A. fraseri (Pursh.) Poir., in the few<br />

remaining spruce-fir stands <strong>of</strong> the southern Appalachian Mountains <strong>of</strong> eastern United<br />

States (Johnson 1980).<br />

Some <strong>of</strong> the causes <strong>of</strong> variation in the response to adelgid infestation among Abies<br />

host species have been identified. Puritch (1973), for example, has shown that the onset<br />

and intensity <strong>of</strong> adelgid attack caused premature heartwood formation and a resulting<br />

abnormal water stress. Thus, ability to withstand this stress among fir species corresponds<br />

to their susceptibility to adelgid damage. It has also been observed that adelgid attack<br />

has little effect on European species because a layer <strong>of</strong> dead bark tissue develops during<br />

the wound healing process and protects the trees from further attack for several years<br />

(Oechssler 1962). This healing process is delayed or absent in balsam fir that is under<br />

continuous adelgid attack.<br />

Clark et al. (1971) stated that there was little scope for additional study in the control <strong>of</strong><br />

this adelgid by introduced predators. Field trials in eastern <strong>Canada</strong> tested all the<br />

apparently suitable insects over a 35-year period and failed to find a predator or predator<br />

complex that would control the adelgid. Only eight species <strong>of</strong> introduced predators have<br />

become established, at least temporarily, but none has been effective (Table 55) in<br />

reducing damage to economically tolerable levels. Consequently, it was recommended<br />

that the importation and release <strong>of</strong> predators be discontinued. This recommendation has<br />

229


230 H. O. Schooley. J.W.E. Harris and B. Pendrel<br />

been accepted and no introductions or releases have been made since 1969. The search<br />

for surviving introduced predators was discontinued in 1969, 1971. and 1978 in both New<br />

Brunswick and Nova Scotia (D.O. Greenbank. personal communication). in Newfoundland<br />

(Bryant 1971). and in British Columbia (Harris & Dawson 1979). The history <strong>of</strong><br />

predator releases and recoveries tabulated by Clark et al. (1971) has been updated<br />

Table 55 Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> predators against Adelges piceae (Ratz.)<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Species and province Year Origin Number Recovery<br />

Adalia luteopicta Mulsant<br />

Newfoundland 1960 India 159<br />

Adalia ronina (Lewis)<br />

Newfoundland 1961 Japan 67<br />

Nova Scotia 1963 Japan 290<br />

New Brunswick 1960 Japan 25 1960<br />

1962 Japan 37 1962<br />

1963 Japan 585 1963<br />

Adalia tetraspilota (Hope)<br />

Newfoundland 1960 India 33<br />

Aphidecta obliterata (L.)<br />

Newfoundland 1959 Czechoslovakia 735<br />

1960 Germany 934<br />

1962 Czechoslovakia 848<br />

1963 Germany 989<br />

1964 Germany 1 187<br />

1965 Czechoslovakia 185<br />

Germany 267<br />

1966 Czechoslovakia 509<br />

1966 Austria 1380 1966<br />

1967 Austria 4288 1967<br />

1968 Germany 1096 1968<br />

and Austria<br />

Nova Scotia 1964 Germany 1 773 1967<br />

1966 Austria 370<br />

Norway 47<br />

1967 Norway 422<br />

New Brunswick 1962 Germany 1827 1962<br />

1963 Germany 3157 1963<br />

British Columbia 1960 Germany 1050<br />

1961 Germany 1 141<br />

1962 Germany 796<br />

1963 Germany 1997<br />

1965 Czechoslovakia 660<br />

1968 Germany 1069<br />

1969 Germany 420<br />

Aphidoletes thompsoni (Mohn)<br />

Newfoundland 1959 Czechoslovakia 3 124<br />

Germany 25 952<br />

1962 Germany 270 1961<br />

1963 Germany 5201


Tablc 55 continucd<br />

Adelges piceadRatz.), 231<br />

Year<strong>of</strong><br />

Species and province Year Origin Number recovery<br />

1965 Germany 826 1967<br />

1966 Germany 35119<br />

1968 Germany 7248<br />

Nova Scotia 1965 Germany 450 1965<br />

1966 Germany 37 110 1966-67<br />

New Brunswick 1959 Germany 36131 1959-61<br />

1965 Germany 551 1965<br />

1966 Germany 6300 1966<br />

British Columbia 1962 Germany 280<br />

1963 Germany 516<br />

1965 Germany 1080 1967<br />

1966 Germany 6845<br />

Balaustium sp.<br />

Quebec 1967 Pakistan 126<br />

Ballia eue/,aris Mulsant<br />

Newfoundland 1960 India 32<br />

New Brunswick 1959 Pakistan 79<br />

1960 India 55<br />

Coccinella septempunctata L.<br />

New Brunswick 1959 India 28<br />

1960 India 22<br />

Cremifania nigrocel/ulata Czerney<br />

Newfoundland 1959 Germany 198 1971<br />

1961 Germany 17<br />

Nova Scotia 1966 Germany 169 1966<br />

New Brunswick 1963 Germany 48 1964-65<br />

1966 Germany 17 1966-68<br />

British Columbia 1966 Germany 137<br />

1968 Germany 706 1969<br />

Exochomus lituratus Gorham<br />

Newfoundland 1960 Pakistan no<br />

Nova Scotia 1963 Pakistan 991<br />

New Brunswick 1963 Pakistan 209<br />

Exochomus uropygialis Mulsan!<br />

Newfoundland 1960 India 226<br />

1960 Pakistan 2839<br />

Nova Scotia 1963 Pakistan 8782<br />

New Brunswick 1959 Pakistan 2550<br />

1963 Pakistan 247<br />

1964 Pakistan 238<br />

Harmonia breiti Mader<br />

Newfoundland 1960 Pakistan 88<br />

New Brunswick 1959 India 85<br />

Laricobius erichsonii Rosenhauer<br />

Newfoundland 1959 Czechoslovakia 1043 1959<br />

Germany 2159 1960


232 H. O. Schooley. J.W.E. Harris and B. Pendrel<br />

Tahlc 55 continucd<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Species and province Year Origin Number recovery<br />

1960 Germany 8228 1961<br />

1961 Germany 1 118 1963<br />

1962 Germany 7940 1964<br />

1963 Germany 1869 1965<br />

Newfoundland<br />

via Europe 1984 1966<br />

1964 Germany 1819 1968<br />

Newfoundland<br />

via Europe 300<br />

1965 Germany 152<br />

Nova Scotia 1966 Germany 2575 1967<br />

New Brunswick 1960 Germany 14266 1958-68<br />

1966 Germany 3497 1958-68<br />

British Columbia 1960 Germany 800 1962-65<br />

1961 Germany 1432 1978<br />

1963 Germany 4871 1966,74<br />

1965 Germany 612<br />

1968 Germany 3164 1969,71,74<br />

Leucopis (Leucopis) n. sp. or.<br />

'melanopus'Tanasijtshuk*<br />

Newfoundland 1959 Germany 160 1959-62<br />

1968 Germany 1040<br />

New Brunswick 1960 Germany 166 1958-68<br />

1966 Germany 241<br />

British Columbia 1968 Germany 2273<br />

Leucopis (Neoleucopis)<br />

obscura Holiday<br />

Newfoundland 1965 Austria 24 1959-68<br />

Leucopis (Neolellcopis)<br />

alralula Ratz.<br />

New Brunswick 1965 Germany 385<br />

Pul/us impexus (Mulsant)<br />

Newfoundland 1959 Germany 9500<br />

1960 Germany 1 146 1960<br />

1961 Germany 131 1961<br />

1966 Germany 18036<br />

Nova Scotia 1963 Germany 1000 1965-67<br />

1964 Germany 2031 1965-67<br />

1966 Germany 4700 1965-67<br />

New Brunswick 1962 Germany 685 1958-59<br />

1963 Germany 397 1958-59<br />

1964 Germany 200 1958-59<br />

1966 Germany 26550 1958-59<br />

British Columbia 1960 Germany 1240 1961<br />

1963 Germany 1400<br />

1965 Germany 2417<br />

1966 Germany 18513<br />

1968 Germany 2079 1969,71.74.78


Table 55<br />

continued<br />

Aclelge.\· ph-elle (Ratz.). 233<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Species and province Year Origin Number recovery<br />

Scymnus pumilio (Weise)<br />

Newfoundland 1960 Australia 9687<br />

New Brunswick 1959 Australia 5590<br />

1960 Australia 7286<br />

British Columbia 1960 Australia 2930<br />

Telraphleps abdulghani Ghauri<br />

Nova Scotia 1965 Pakistan 949<br />

New Brunswick 1962 Pakistan 1972<br />

1963 Pakistan I 157<br />

1964 Pakistan 45<br />

1965 India 278<br />

Pakistan 2921<br />

British Columbia 1965 India 19<br />

Pakistan 1257<br />

Tetraphleps raoi Ghauri<br />

Nova Scotia 1965 India 59<br />

New Brunswick 1965 India 59<br />

• Species 'M'.<br />

Attempts to control the adelgid with contact or systemic insecticides have been<br />

unsuccessful. Several insecticides tested proved suitable for ornamental and nursery<br />

applications where it was possible to saturate infested trees with chemical solutions.<br />

However, not one <strong>of</strong> the 51 insecticides used in laboratory and greenhouse experiments<br />

caused acceptable levels <strong>of</strong> adelgid mortality under field conditions (Nigam 1972, 1976).<br />

Recently, some success has been obtained in controlling adelgids on individual trees<br />

with insecticidal soaps (Puritch 1975). These chemicals are expected to be useful only<br />

for ornamental and nursery applications.<br />

There are no known insect parasites <strong>of</strong> the balsam woolly adelgid but several fungal<br />

diseases have been reported. including Fllsarium larvaTllm Forbel and Cephalosporium<br />

coccoTllm Petch found in the Gaspe region <strong>of</strong> Quebec (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1970), Cephalosporium<br />

sp. and Penicillium sp. found in British Columbia (Harriset al. 1966), and F. nivale (Fries)<br />

Cesati found on adelgids in North Carolina. USA (Fedde 1971). Greenhouse and field<br />

experiments with the diseases from Quebec have been unsuccessful. The potential <strong>of</strong><br />

organisms from other locations as natural control agents remains unknown.<br />

Failure to control the balsam woolly adelgid is viewed with special concern in Atlantic<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>. In Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, balsam fir stands are usually<br />

damaged before reaching a marketable size. On the island <strong>of</strong> Newfoundland, spectacular<br />

and unprecedented mortality <strong>of</strong> balsam fir has occurred on an accelerated scale in stands<br />

where adelgid attack has been followed by severe spruce budworm defoliation (Schooley<br />

1981). In affected areas. stand conversion. i.e. the replacement <strong>of</strong> balsam fir with other<br />

tree species, is being conducted on a large scale. Black spruce, Picea mariana (Mill.)<br />

B.S.P., is the favoured alternate species but white spruce. P. glauca (Moench) Voss,<br />

eastern larch. Larix larici"a (Du Roi) K. Koch. and hybrid larch species are being<br />

considered.


234 H. O. Schooley. J. W. E. Harris and B. Pendrel<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

As previously recommended by Clark et al. (1971) no further introduction <strong>of</strong> predators<br />

should be made into eastern <strong>Canada</strong> until new species that might effectively control<br />

the adelgids are identified. Suitable predators may be found attacking two closely related<br />

fir shoot adelgids. Adelges merkeris Eichhorn and Adelges nusslini C.B .• in Europe. The<br />

milder winter temperatures <strong>of</strong> coastal British Columbia could favour a species that failed<br />

in the east. Also. some species already tested on the west coast may have failed because<br />

too few individuals were released or because <strong>of</strong> unfavourable weather conditions at the<br />

time <strong>of</strong> release. Therefore. further introductions may be considered for western <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Any predator successfully introduced and proved to be effective in western <strong>Canada</strong><br />

should be considered for testing in the mild coastal areas <strong>of</strong> eastern <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Population dynamics studies should be conducted regularly in all regions where the<br />

adelgid is present. These studies should include observations that will identify any<br />

factors that successfully control mortality. Financial support should also be made<br />

available for periodic reappraisal <strong>of</strong> the effect that natural insect and disease organisms<br />

have in controlling the balsam woolly adelgid in other countries.<br />

Bryant. D.G. (1971) Forest protection: balsam woolly aphid. Adelges piceae (Ratz.). Annual Report Newfoundland Forest Protection<br />

Associalion 1971. 43 PI'.<br />

Clark, R.e.; Greenbank, D.O.; Bryant. D.G.; Harris, J.W.E. (1971) Adelges piceae (Ratz.). balsam woolly aphid (Homoptera: Adclgidae).<br />

In: Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong><br />

Biological Control Technical Communication 4. 113-127.<br />

Fedde. G.F. (1971) A parasitic fungus disease <strong>of</strong> Adelges piceae (Homoptera: Phylloxeridae) in North Carolina. Annals <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong><br />

<strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> America 64, 749-750<br />

Greenbank, D.O. (1970) Climate and the ecology <strong>of</strong> the balsam woolly aphid. Canadian Entomologist 102. 546-578.<br />

Harris. J.W.E. (1968) Balsam woolly aphid in British Columbia. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Forestry and Rural Development Forestry<br />

Researcl. Forest Pest Leaflet B.C.-I, 5 PI'.<br />

Harris, J. W. E.; Dawson. A. F. (1979) Predator release program for balsam woolly aphid, Adelges piceae (Homoptera: Adelgidae), in British<br />

Columbia, 1960-1969. Journal <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> British Columbia 76, 21-26.<br />

Harris. J.W.E.; Allen. S.1.; Collis, D.G.; Harvey, E.G. (1966) Studies <strong>of</strong> the balsam woolly aphid. Adelges piceae (Ratz.), in British<br />

Columbia. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Forestry Information Report BC-X-5, 5 pp.<br />

Johnson, K. (1980) Fraser fir and balsam woolly aphid. Summary <strong>of</strong> information. Southern Appalachian Reserve Resources Management<br />

Commillee Report, 62 pp.<br />

Mitchell. R.G.; Amman, D.G.; Waters. W.E. (1970) Balsam woolly aphid. US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Forestry Service, Forest Pest<br />

Leaflet 118. 10 PI'.<br />

Nigam. P.e. (1972) Summary <strong>of</strong> toxicity <strong>of</strong> insecticides and chemical control studies against balsam woolly aphid. Canadian Forestry Sen'ice<br />

Information Report CC-X-26. 7 pp.<br />

Nigam. P.C. (1976) Summary <strong>of</strong> chemical control studies against balsam woolly aphid in British Columbia. 1973-74.Canadian Forestry<br />

Service Information Report CC-X-133, 6 PI'.<br />

Oechssler. G. (1962) Sucking injuries to the tissue <strong>of</strong> native and exotic firs caused by central European fir aphids. Zei/Schriftfiir angl'wandte<br />

EnlOmologie SO, 418-459 (Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Forestry Translation 57).<br />

Puritch. G.S. (1973) The effects <strong>of</strong> water stress on photosynthesis. respiration and transpiration <strong>of</strong> four Abies species. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Forl'st Rl'search 3. 293-298.<br />

Puritch. G.S. (1975) The toxic effects <strong>of</strong> fatty acids and their salts on the balsam woolly aphid. Adelges piceae (RalZ.). Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Forest Resl'arch 5, 515-522.<br />

Schooley. H.O. (1980) The introduction. spread and occasional resurgence <strong>of</strong>the balsam woolly aphid in Newfoundland. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> thl'<br />

International Union Forest Research Organizations Conference on Dispersal <strong>of</strong> Forest Insec/S, Aug.Lrt<br />

27-31. 1979. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. PI'. 116-127.<br />

Schooley, H.O. (1981) An evaluation <strong>of</strong> the hazard rating systcm for balsam woolly aphid damage in Newfoundland. Procel'dings <strong>of</strong> a<br />

Symposium on Hazard Rating Systems in Forest Insect Pest Management, July 31 - August I, 1980.<br />

Athens, Georgia. US Department <strong>of</strong> AgriculTUre Forestry Service General Technical Report WO-27.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f. W.A. (1970) Fungus diseases affecting Adelges piceae in the fir forest <strong>of</strong> the Gaspe Peninsula. Quebec. Canadian Entomologist<br />

102. 799-805.


Pest Status<br />

Chapter 47<br />

Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens),<br />

Spruce Budworm (Lepidoptera:<br />

Tortricidae)<br />

C.A. MILLER<br />

The spruce budworm, CllOristoneura fumiferana (Clem.). is a native defoliator <strong>of</strong> the<br />

spruce, Picea spp., and balsam fir. Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., forests <strong>of</strong> North America,<br />

which extend from northern Alberta to the Atlantic seaboard. It is the most important<br />

economic pest in forests <strong>of</strong> eastern <strong>Canada</strong> because <strong>of</strong> the frequency <strong>of</strong> epidemics and<br />

the intensity and extent <strong>of</strong> fibre losses. Budworm populations periodically irrupt to<br />

epidemic proportions and cause extensive tree mortality and reduced growth in surviving<br />

trees. There have been three major epidemics in this century. The first occurred around<br />

1915 and covered most <strong>of</strong> the eastern Quebec - Atlantic Region; the second irrupted in<br />

Ontario - western Quebec in the late 1930s and appeared in the Atlantic Region in the<br />

late 1940s, but had little impact in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland; and the current<br />

outbreak irrupted in the late 1960s. In sequence, these three outbreaks <strong>of</strong> the 20th<br />

century have tended to increase in size and frequency.<br />

The review period <strong>of</strong> this publication, 1969-80 largely coincides with the third major<br />

epidemic. The prolonged second epidemic collapsed in the 1960s, except for a persistent<br />

infestation covering less than a million hectares in central New Brunswick. During the 4<br />

years 1967 - 70, spruce budworm population increases were recorded in all provinces<br />

from Ontario to Newfoundland, and by 1975 the epidemic reached its peak, covering<br />

about 54 x 10 6 ha, or about half <strong>of</strong> the land area in eastern <strong>Canada</strong> classified as productive<br />

forest. Much <strong>of</strong> the remainder is not occupied by spruce and fir.<br />

In general, the intensity <strong>of</strong> the infestation, as measured by egg-mass densities across<br />

eastern <strong>Canada</strong>, declined in the latter part <strong>of</strong> the 1970s but the density <strong>of</strong> feeding larvae<br />

relative to the decreased quality <strong>of</strong> foliage on previously attacked trees remained high<br />

enough to cause severe damage. Thus in 1980 the epidemic still caused moderate to<br />

severe defoliation over 36 x 10" ha and it is expected that extensive defoliation will<br />

continue into the mid-1980s.<br />

Maturing balsam fir trees in unprotected forests usually die after 3 or 4 successive<br />

years <strong>of</strong> severe spruce budworm attack. Spruce trees, particularly black spruce, Picea<br />

mariana (Mill.) B.S.P., are more tolerant <strong>of</strong> defoliation and may withstand up to 6 years<br />

<strong>of</strong> attack. In the current outbreak, tree mortality was first recorded in northeastern<br />

Ontario and western Quebec in 1972, about 5 years after the beginning <strong>of</strong> the epidemic.<br />

In Nova Scotia (Cape Breton Highlands) and Newfoundland, mortality was first recorded<br />

between 1975 and 1976. Throughout the whole region, the area <strong>of</strong> vulnerable forest<br />

containing dying and dead trees increased each year and by 1980 was estimated at about<br />

19 x 10" ha (Table 56). Although 'zones <strong>of</strong> heavy defoliation' and 'zones <strong>of</strong> tree mortality'<br />

were delineated, it has proved difficult to translate these spatial data to a volumetric<br />

estimate <strong>of</strong> fibre loss. Inventory data on spruce and fir before the outbreak are meagre;<br />

moreover, the rapid detection <strong>of</strong> dying stands <strong>of</strong> trees by remote sensing is not yet<br />

operational. However, some estimates <strong>of</strong> fibre loss in mortality zones are available<br />

(Table 56). Generally, in eastern <strong>Canada</strong> in the late 1970s there was (1) continuing loss <strong>of</strong><br />

radial and height growth in severely defoliated stands; (2) tree mortality ranging from 10<br />

to 80% at the stand level in a mortality zone <strong>of</strong> about 19 x 10" ha; (3) a loss in fibre quality<br />

and volume due to secondary pest attack in dead trees that were salvaged; and (4)<br />

235


236 C. A. Miller<br />

Table 56<br />

Table 57<br />

evidence that the future marketable volume <strong>of</strong> young stands that recover from the epidemic<br />

may be significantly lower than the site potential (Baskerville & Maclean 1979).<br />

Estimates <strong>of</strong> tree mortality in eastern <strong>Canada</strong> during the spruce budworm, Clwristoneura<br />

fumiferana (Clem.), outbreak <strong>of</strong> the 1970s·<br />

Dead and dying<br />

trees, 1980<br />

Date <strong>of</strong> first Area Volume<br />

Province tree mortality (x 10" hal (x 10" ml)<br />

Ontario 1972 8.4 ?<br />

Quebec 1972 9.3 ?<br />

New Brunswick •• 0.7 30<br />

Nova Scotia 1976 16<br />

Newfoundland 1975 0.4 40<br />

• Data extracted from: Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in <strong>Canada</strong> 1980. Canadian<br />

Forestry Service, Ottawa, 1981.<br />

•• Persistent infestation in central New Brunswick from the mid-1950s, with some tree<br />

mortality.<br />

No comprehensive policy was developed to deal with the spruce budworm problem in<br />

the 1970s in eastern <strong>Canada</strong>. The main reason is that each province administers its own<br />

forest resource and each gave a different priority to the social, economic, and political<br />

problems caused by spruce budworm. For example, in New Brunswick (Table 57) where<br />

the forest industry is <strong>of</strong> great importance to the provincial economy and the rate <strong>of</strong><br />

utilization <strong>of</strong> spruce and fir is high, the policy was to protect Crown forests and designated<br />

private holdings where there was risk <strong>of</strong> severe tree damage and imminent tree mortality<br />

(Miller & Kettela 1975). Extensive annual use <strong>of</strong> chemical insecticides was the principal<br />

tactic in implementing this policy. In contrast, Ontario adopted a policy limiting chemical<br />

S<strong>of</strong>twood utilization relative to spruce, Picea spp., and balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.)<br />

Mill., supply in New Brunswick and Ontario<br />

Pre-outbreak 1973<br />

Average<br />

Potential annual area<br />

Estimated Estimated A verage s<strong>of</strong>twood··· wood <strong>of</strong><br />

spruce and fir annual harvest 1979 supply sprayed<br />

volume·<br />

(x 10' ml)<br />

growth··<br />

(x 10' ml)<br />

Allowable<br />

(x 10' ml)<br />

Actual<br />

(x 10' ml)<br />

(D-C) forest (ha)<br />

1975-79<br />

A<br />

New Brunswick 348<br />

Ontario 1744<br />

B<br />

8.7<br />

44····<br />

C D<br />

7.1 7.4 Deficit<br />

27.1 19.3 Excess····<br />

• Statistics <strong>Canada</strong>, 1973 .<br />

•• Broad-scale estimate .<br />

••• F.L.C. Reed and Associates ltd., Canadian Forestry Congress. 1980 .<br />

•••• No correction for accessibility.<br />

2.3 x 10"<br />

4.0 x 10'


Literature Cited<br />

ChorislOIU'lIfCI fllmiferallil (Clemens). 237<br />

control programmes to high investment areas such as parks, nurseries, and high value<br />

timber stands, because in that province wood supply problems are less pressing and fir is<br />

a minor component <strong>of</strong> utilized s<strong>of</strong>twood. In all provinces, the issue <strong>of</strong> protection kindled<br />

debate on the use <strong>of</strong> chemicals. Various citizen groups argued that the use <strong>of</strong> chemical<br />

insecticides in forest spraying created unacceptable environmental and human health<br />

risks; they called for biological control and other pest management options. All provincial<br />

administration reacted to these concerns, but in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland the<br />

reaction resulted in curtailment <strong>of</strong> chemical spraying in forests that, with no intervention,<br />

had already suffered severe defoliation and increasing mortality.<br />

Although there has been research into many potential spruce budworm control techniques,<br />

operational control tactics in the face <strong>of</strong> a widespread epidemic are largely limited to<br />

removal <strong>of</strong> vulnerable stands and the suppression <strong>of</strong> feeding larval populations with<br />

chemical insecticides or with Bacillus Ihuringiensis Berliner. The following sections<br />

summarize the progress made with each <strong>of</strong> the biological control methods.<br />

Baskerville. G.L.; MacLean. D.A. (1979) Budworm caused mortality and 20-year recovery in immature balsam fir stands. Canadian<br />

Foreslry Sen'ice, Marilime Foresl Research Cenlre Informalion Reporl M-X-102.<br />

Miller. CA.; Kettela. E.G. (1975) Aerial control operations against the spruce budwonn in New Brunswick. 1952-1973. In: Prebble M.L.<br />

(Ed.) Aerial control <strong>of</strong> forest insects in <strong>Canada</strong>. Ottawa. Ontario; Thorn Press. pp. 95-112.


23R W. A. Smirn<strong>of</strong>fand O. N. Morris<br />

Background<br />

A. Field Development <strong>of</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner<br />

in Eastern <strong>Canada</strong>, 1970-80<br />

W.A. SMIRNOFF and O.N. MORRIS<br />

Bacillus Ihuringiensis var. kurslaki, (B.I.) is a bacterium registered in <strong>Canada</strong> for control<br />

<strong>of</strong> agricultural and forest pests. The registered preparations, derived from cultures <strong>of</strong> the<br />

serotype 3a, 3b, are a mixture <strong>of</strong> dormant endospores and endotoxin crystals suspended<br />

in a liquid carrier.<br />

Forest protection agencies have found spraying to be more expensive with B.I. than<br />

with chemical insecticides, yet B.I. remains a desirable alternative because its toxicity is<br />

confined to lepidopterous larvae and its use rarely arouses public antagonism. The<br />

Canadian experience <strong>of</strong> B.I. aerially applied against spruce budworm, Chorisloneura<br />

fumiferana (Clem.) is that its efficacy is variable. Field trials have indicated differences<br />

among commercial products, varying efficacies among field formulations, uncertainties<br />

over dosages, technical difficulties in spraying methods, weaknesses in means <strong>of</strong> measuring<br />

deposits, and inadequacies in techniques <strong>of</strong> assessing the agent's effectiveness in reducing<br />

larval populations and protecting foliage.<br />

Research into these problems was conducted in the 1970s, in two main areas, by two<br />

laboratories <strong>of</strong> the Canadian Forestry Service (C.F.S.): (a) in Quebec, where the<br />

Laurentian Forest Research Centre collaborated with the Quebec Department <strong>of</strong> Lands<br />

and Forests, and (b) in Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces, where the Forest Pest<br />

Management Institute participated in provincial-federal field trials. This paper collates<br />

the results from both laboratories.<br />

Mode <strong>of</strong> action<br />

B. Ihuringiensis serotype 3a, 3b is a bacterium that is pathogenic to lepidopterous<br />

larvae. On spruce budworm and other tortricids the commercial formulations cause<br />

enterotoxicosis by the action <strong>of</strong> the crystal-like parasporal inclusions (= delta endotoxin),<br />

followed by septicaemia from the action <strong>of</strong> their spores (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f & Valero 1979, Fast<br />

1981). The mode <strong>of</strong> action <strong>of</strong> the crystal toxin is described by Cooksey (1971).<br />

The pathogenic action <strong>of</strong> 8.1. on spruce budworm depends on the dose ingested. the<br />

age and physiological state <strong>of</strong> the larvae, the temperature, and possibly on the presence<br />

<strong>of</strong> natural infections by microsporidia. The optimal temperature for this action is<br />

20-22°C (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1967). Young larvae are more susceptible to B.I. than fifth- and sixthinstar<br />

larvae (Morris 1973).<br />

Formulations<br />

Initially B.I. was tested against spruce budworm in New Brunswick in 1960. The<br />

material used was Thuricide® SO-75 (Bi<strong>of</strong>erm Corp.), based on the Berliner serotype.<br />

Next, a small-scale aerial application <strong>of</strong> Thuricide® 90T was made in 1969, using both<br />

suspensions in water and water-in-oil emulsion (Morris el al. 1975). Assessment <strong>of</strong><br />

population density reduction and foliage protection was inconclusive owing to clogging<br />

<strong>of</strong> the spray nozzles and poor distribution <strong>of</strong> the active ingredient.<br />

Improved commercial preparations <strong>of</strong> B.I. became available for testing between 1970<br />

and 1980, namely Thuricide® 24B, Thuricide® 32B, Dipel® 36B (Abbot Ltd.), and<br />

Novabac® 32B (Cyanamid <strong>Canada</strong>) or Novabac® wettable powder titrating 80 000


A. Field development <strong>of</strong> Bacillus Ihurillgiellsis 239<br />

I. U .Img. These concentrates included various additives designed to improve deposit<br />

efficiency and adherence to foliage (rain fastness), and to prolong residual activity <strong>of</strong> the<br />

biological agent.<br />

Three field formulations were developed at the Laurentian Forest Research Centre,<br />

and have been used experimentally in Quebec. The first formulation, based on an<br />

aqueous solution <strong>of</strong> sodium dihydrogen phosphate (NaH 2P04), and the second, based<br />

on an aqueous solution <strong>of</strong> sorbitol, incorporate chitinase and Chevron® sticker (Chevron<br />

Chemical (<strong>Canada</strong>) Ltd.), and have been used since 1973 in low-volume sprays<br />

(4.7 l/ha). Sorbitol is a humectant, whereas sodium dihydrogen phosphate is added to<br />

increase the specific gravity <strong>of</strong> the liquid B.t. formulation. The third formulation, named<br />

Futura by the Laurentian Forest Research Centre, also uses sorbitol, chitinase, and<br />

sticker but incorporates less aqueous carrier and has been used for reduced-volume<br />

sprays (2.5 Jlha) since 1978 (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1980a, 1981a). Formulations used in Ontario and<br />

the Atlantic Provinces were similar, but did not include chitinase, sorbitol, or sodium<br />

dihydrogen phosphate (Morris 1980).<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f (1973, 1977) concluded after several years <strong>of</strong> experiments that the addition <strong>of</strong><br />

minute quantities <strong>of</strong> chitinase increases the efficacy <strong>of</strong> B.t. against spruce budworm; in<br />

his view, it enhances penetration <strong>of</strong> ingested ingredients through the gut lining, and<br />

rapidly potentiates symptoms <strong>of</strong> infection (lethargy, weight loss) even at low temperatures.<br />

Some other additives have been tested for compatibility. Smirn<strong>of</strong>f (1981b) found that<br />

either mineral oil in large quantities or various dyes inhibited spore development.<br />

During 1970-79, Thuricide® 16B (Sandoz. Inc.) was the only product fully registered<br />

for spruce budworm control under the Canadian Pest Control Products Act; around 1980<br />

Dipel® 88 and Novabac® (Cyanamid <strong>Canada</strong>) have been fully registered.<br />

Spray delivery systems and measurement <strong>of</strong> deposit<br />

Sprays were applied by various aircraft ranging from four-engined freight planes to<br />

single-engined biplanes and helicopters. They included the Lockheed Constellation L-<br />

749, Douglas DC-6B, <strong>Canada</strong>ir CL-215, Grumman Avenger TBM, Grumman Ag-cat,<br />

Boeing Stearman, Piper Pawnee, Cessna Agtruck, and the Sikorsky S55-T helicopter.<br />

Several kinds <strong>of</strong> spray emission hardware were tried, including Beecomist® (Beeco<br />

Products Co., USA), Micronair® (Micronair (Aerial) Ltd., U.K.) boom and flat fan<br />

Teejet® nozzles, and boom and open nozzles. Spray aircraft were calibrated to ensure<br />

appropriate emission rates for prescribed swath widths. Swath width varied from 305 m<br />

for a Constellation to 38 m for an Ag-cat (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1979a, Smirn<strong>of</strong>f & Juneau 1982).<br />

There is no general agreement on the optimal droplet size or optimal foliage coverage.<br />

Spray coverage is measured as the number <strong>of</strong> droplets per square centimetre on Kromekote®<br />

cards, or as the number <strong>of</strong> colonies per square centimetre collected on agar plates<br />

or MiIlipore® filters, placed at ground level in forest clearings. The number <strong>of</strong> spores<br />

deposited per unit area on glass plates at ground level has also been measured (Morris<br />

1980). In 1979, Smirn<strong>of</strong>f & Valero proposed a new method whereby a given volume <strong>of</strong><br />

peptonized water was exposed to the spray, so that the number <strong>of</strong> spores deposited per<br />

unit area could be calculated. For B.t. treatments, this value is more important than the<br />

total volume <strong>of</strong> liquid deposited (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1980a). Field tests have shown the necessity<br />

for calibration <strong>of</strong> the spray system: assessment based on the viable spore count deposited<br />

per unit area provides an adequate calibration.<br />

The concentration <strong>of</strong> B.t. within the proprietary product, the properties <strong>of</strong> the<br />

adjuvants added at the airstrip mixing plant, and the composition <strong>of</strong> the tank concentrate<br />

all affect the rate <strong>of</strong> deposition and the success <strong>of</strong> operations (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1980b).<br />

Operators used various kinds <strong>of</strong> spray hardware designed for chemical insecticides.<br />

Beecomist® spray heads were satisfactory on the Sikorsky helicopter. However, a


240 W. A. Smirn<strong>of</strong>f and O. N. Morris<br />

Field Trials<br />

boom and nozzle spray system composed <strong>of</strong> Teejet® 8004 flat fan nozzles gave better<br />

results with a Grumman Ag-cat fixed-wing aircraft (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1979a). A larger aircraft<br />

such as the DC-6B is used with open type nozzles, provided that the pumping system is<br />

able to produce a 413 kPa to 482 kPa pressure in the booms.<br />

In summary, a variety <strong>of</strong> means was used in the development <strong>of</strong> B.I. application<br />

technology: field trials using new formulations; improved hardware and nozzle systems;<br />

atomization and distribution <strong>of</strong> B.I.; knowledge <strong>of</strong> meteorological parameters; swath<br />

paths; improved deposit analysis; dosage rates; application timing and frequency;<br />

methods <strong>of</strong> measuring treatment effectiveness; and knowledge <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm<br />

population densities most amenable to effective control (Morris 1980, Morris el al. 1981,<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1979a, 1979b, 1980a, Auger el al. 1981).<br />

Assessment <strong>of</strong> efficacy<br />

The assessment <strong>of</strong> efficacy continues to be a major problem because both criteria -<br />

foliage saved and number <strong>of</strong> larvae killed - present sampling difficulties. The estimate<br />

<strong>of</strong> foliage saved by treatment is derived from comparisons <strong>of</strong> foliage persisting in<br />

untreated check plots with foliage retained in the sprayed plot. An important element <strong>of</strong><br />

the comparison is the production <strong>of</strong> new buds as a measure <strong>of</strong> foliage potential in the<br />

year following treatment. Quantification <strong>of</strong> foliage saved is based on counts <strong>of</strong> shoots,<br />

but the method lacks sensitivity because all shoots do not develop consistently. Since 1978<br />

an improved method has been developed at the Laurentian Forest Research Centre based<br />

on weight <strong>of</strong> new foliage produced and retained; it compares the weight <strong>of</strong> foliage<br />

produced by a defoliated tree with the expected weight <strong>of</strong> foliage produced by a healthy<br />

tree <strong>of</strong> similar branch area.<br />

The estimation <strong>of</strong> larval population reduction has usually been based on a comparison<br />

<strong>of</strong> the survival rate in the treated plot with that in an untreated check plot, using Abbott's<br />

formula to isolate the effect <strong>of</strong> the spray. Most workers recognize that this technique<br />

has major problems <strong>of</strong> sensitivity owing to the variability encountered in sampling.<br />

Non-lethal residual effects from B.I. have been observed by Morris (1973), Smirn<strong>of</strong>f<br />

(1978), and Morris el al. (1981); the influence <strong>of</strong> these effects on the dynamics <strong>of</strong>treated<br />

budworm populations cannot yet be assessed, but should not be ignored. Smirn<strong>of</strong>f<br />

detected changes in the "vitality" <strong>of</strong> survivors in treated populations, calculated by<br />

measurements <strong>of</strong> pupal weight, total lipids, calcium, and various enzymes. In a comparison<br />

<strong>of</strong> pupal populations in stands treated with the chemical insecticide fenitrothion,<br />

stands treated with B.I., and untreated stands, the survivors exposed to B.t. had the<br />

lowest vitality assessed by these biochemical criteria (Smim<strong>of</strong>f 1979c).<br />

Province <strong>of</strong> Quebec<br />

The field trials (Table 58) had various objectives, but were especially designed to test<br />

formulations and to measure deposits, larval mortality, and foliage protection under<br />

operational and experimental circumstances. The first trials in 1971 and 1972 encouraged<br />

the expectation that spruce budworm mortality and defoliation control could be achieved<br />

by adequate deposits <strong>of</strong> B.t. (Smim<strong>of</strong>f el al. 1973a, 1973b). Small trials in 1973 showed<br />

that B.t. sprays might be ineffective where spruce budworm populations were very high<br />

and stands were already weakened (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f el al. 1974). In 1974 and 1975, four-engined<br />

aircraft were used on a large scale for the first time, but the results were inconclusive<br />

because <strong>of</strong> improper calibration <strong>of</strong> the spray system (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f el al. 1976, Smirn<strong>of</strong>f &


244 W. A. Smirn<strong>of</strong>fand O. N. Morris<br />

Table 61<br />

Table 62<br />

Tests <strong>of</strong> Bacillus Ihuringiensis Berliner aerially applied against the spruce budworm,<br />

Clrorisloneura fumiferana (Oem.), on red spruce Picea rubens Sarg., in Nova Scotia and<br />

New Brunswick 1979-80"<br />

Ground<br />

Dosage deposit Pre·spray larval Percentage<br />

applied rate density per Percentage deroliation roliage<br />

Formulation"" Year (LU. x I0 9 iba) (drops/em l ) 45-cm branch Expected Actual saved<br />

Nova Scotia<br />

Thuricidcs 168 1979 I x 20 38-56 22 60 14 46<br />

Thuricidcs 168 1979 I x 20 51 14 38 9 28<br />

Thuricidc s 168 1979 2 x 20 27-31 12 36 14 22<br />

Thuricide!l 168 1900 I x 20 24 7 25 0.2 25<br />

Thuricidc:s 168 1900 1 x 20 30 7 25 14 II<br />

Thuricide!': 168 1900 I x 20 19 6 25 12 J3<br />

New Brunswick<br />

Dipell'l88 1979 1 x oW 20 17 46 23 23<br />

Thuricides 168 1979 I x 20 12-33 19 50 28 22<br />

" Includes only tests reporting pre-spray larval densities.<br />

"" Includes only formulations without chemical additives, e.g. chemical pesticides and<br />

enzymes.<br />

Extent <strong>of</strong> acceptable protection with Bacillus Ilruringiensis Berliner in eastern <strong>Canada</strong><br />

1979-80·<br />

Mean no. <strong>of</strong> Percentage <strong>of</strong><br />

Area droplets/em 2 area acceptably<br />

Province trea ted (ha) (range) protected""<br />

Ontario 4846 22 (11-30) 74<br />

- FPMI (1980 only) 320 34 (24-40) 100<br />

New Brunswick (1979 only) 360 23 (2-53) 100<br />

Nova Scotia 30188 51 (9-111) 92<br />

Newfoundland 15699 9 (5-16) 48<br />

and Labrador<br />

Quebec 33 174 43 (10-87) 89<br />

""<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Based on efficacy data provided by provincial departments or agencies.<br />

Acceptable protection is less than 50% defoliation <strong>of</strong> current year's growth.<br />

protected, ranged from 74 to 100% except for Newfoundland and Labrador, where the<br />

success rate was only 48%. The poor efficacy in Newfoundland was apparently due to<br />

inadequate spray deposits.<br />

The encouraging results with B.I. up to 1978 prompted the C.F.S. to formulate technical<br />

guidelines for the use <strong>of</strong> this product against the spruce budworm. A preliminary C.F.S.<br />

policy statement recommended "the operational testing <strong>of</strong> B.I. in environmentally<br />

sensitive areas or in sensitive areas where the forest manager either chooses not to use


Recommendations<br />

A. Field development <strong>of</strong> Bilcilllls IllIlringiensis 245<br />

or is forbidden to use conventional chemical insecticides for the control <strong>of</strong> the spruce<br />

budworm". The main technical recommendations were as follows:<br />

Objective - primarily to limit the average annual defoliation to less than 50% and<br />

secondarily to reduce the numbers <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm by 75-85%.<br />

Formulation - Thuricide® 16B. water (not chlorinated). Chevron® sticker (0.1 %).<br />

Optional for experimental trials: Thuricide lt 32B. sorbitol. Chevron® sticker. chitinase<br />

(9880 nephelometric units per hectare). water. and Erio Acid Red (experimental tracer).<br />

Note that dyes may inhibit B.I. efficacy.<br />

Dosage - 20 x 10" I.U. <strong>of</strong> B.I. in a minimum <strong>of</strong> 4.7 I/ha. In mixed spruce·fir stands. two<br />

applications <strong>of</strong> 10-20 x 10" I. U .Iha each.<br />

Operational constraints - pre·spray population density <strong>of</strong> 25-30 larvae per 45·cm branch<br />

tip. Application should start at shoot flare and continue no later than the date when 30% <strong>of</strong><br />

the spruee budworm have developed to the fifth instar.<br />

Deposit specifications - agar plates or Millipore® filters should be used to collect ground<br />

level deposits. aiming for a density <strong>of</strong> 25 droplets/cm l or more.<br />

In an attempt to reduce the inconsistencies <strong>of</strong> results in previous years, the 8.t.<br />

applications using these guidelines were co-ordinated in 1979 and 1980 (Morris 1980,<br />

1981). In general, the guidelines were followed unless extenuating circumstances were<br />

encountered. Clearly, B.I. is an effective alternative to the use <strong>of</strong> chemical pesticides for<br />

the protection <strong>of</strong> foliage. An analysis <strong>of</strong> the results <strong>of</strong> these applications (Morris 1980)<br />

showed that successful treatments had the following common characteristics:<br />

1. Pre-spray densities were usually less than 28 larvae per 45-cm branch tip<br />

2. Larval development at spray time was around fourth instar<br />

3. Bud flushing was 80-100% complete (except on red spruce)<br />

4. LV. applied per hectare were 20-40 x 10" in single or double applications<br />

5. Ground level droplet density was greater than 25/cm 1<br />

6. Spray time relative humidity was mostly higher than 65%<br />

7. Good weather followed spraying.<br />

These conditions are now generally accepted by researchers as desirable for 8.1.<br />

application in the forest.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f (1980c) advocates further conditions for reducing costs and increasing success;<br />

a) The required 8.1. dosage should be emitted in a formulation dispensible at<br />

2.5-3.0 l/ha; or (in the case or Thuricide® 32B with sorbitol in water) at 4.711ba;<br />

b) formulations should include Chevron® sticker at 1:1600; and chitinase at 10 000<br />

nephelometric units per hectare;<br />

c) spore viability in the concentrate drum should be checked;<br />

d) large capacity aircraft equipped with boom and nozzle are more cost-effective<br />

than small aircraft. Spray output must be calibrated and checked by counts <strong>of</strong> viable<br />

spores at ground level; the ground deposit should attain at least 60% <strong>of</strong> the emission<br />

rate;<br />

e) B.t. treatments should be carried out when most <strong>of</strong>the larvae are third instar, and<br />

buds are flushing (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1980c. Auger el 01. 1981).<br />

Improvements in commercial formulations and application technology during the past<br />

decade have brought B.I. to a point where it is now considered a clear alternative to<br />

chemical insecticides for use against spruce budworm. especially in environmentally<br />

sensitive areas. It is almost as effective for tree protection as the available chemical<br />

pesticides. Success or failure cannot yet be totally explained or predicted because<br />

relationships between foliage protection and dosage per volume emitted are not firmly<br />

established. Moreover, estimates <strong>of</strong> ground deposits have borne little practical relationship<br />

to deposits on foliage. The technical guidelines prepared in 1978 (see earlier)


246 W. A. Smirn<strong>of</strong>f and O. N. Morris<br />

Literature Cited<br />

continue to be valid, but require updating. B.t. spray operations are expensive<br />

compared with the use <strong>of</strong> chemical insecticides (2.5-5 times higher around 1980). As<br />

much <strong>of</strong> the cost is in material transport, more concentrated proprietary products should<br />

be devised to lower the shipping and application costs.<br />

Technical development <strong>of</strong> formulations, spray applications, and efficacy assessment<br />

should be continued: the search for more efficaceous formulations, droplet spectra, and<br />

timings should be continued; field dosage and volume/response relationships should be<br />

established, to provide the pest manager with costlbenefit options; and a quantitative<br />

method <strong>of</strong> measuring deposits at the feeding site is needed, to relate deposit rate <strong>of</strong> the<br />

active ingredient to its effectiveness.<br />

Auger. M.; Chabot. M.; Pelletier. M.; Bordeleau. C. (1981) Ellpertises entomologiques relices aux pulvl!risations al!riennes contre la<br />

tordeuse des bourgcons de I'!!pinette au QuI!bec en 1980. Qucbec; Ministl!re de I'Energie et des Ressources,<br />

107 pp.<br />

Cooksey, K.E. (1971) The protein erystaltollin <strong>of</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis: biochemistry and mode <strong>of</strong>action.ln: Burges. H.D.; Hussey. N.W.<br />

(Eds.) Microbial control <strong>of</strong> insects and mites. New York; Academic Press, pp. 247-274.<br />

Dorais, L.; Pelletier, M.; Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (1980) Pulvl!risations acriennes de Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner realisees au Qucbec de 1971 a<br />

1979 contre In tordeuse des bourgeons de I'cpinette, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.). Rappon presente<br />

au VI' Congres International de l'Aviation Agricole a Turin. Italie, Septembre 1980.<br />

Fast. P.G. (1981) The crystal toxin <strong>of</strong> Bacillusthuringiensis.ln: Burges, H.D. (Ed.). Microbial control <strong>of</strong> pests and plant diseases 1970-1980.<br />

New York; Academic Press, pp. 223-248.<br />

Morris, O.N. (1973) Dosage·monality studies with commercial Bacillus thuringiensis sprayed in a modified Potler's Tower against some<br />

forest insects. Journal <strong>of</strong> Invertebrate Pathology 22,108-114.<br />

Morris, O.N. (1980) Repon <strong>of</strong> the 1979 CAN USA Cooperative Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) spray trials. Canadian Forestry Service<br />

Information Report FPM-X-40, 160 pp.<br />

Morris, O.N. (1981) Repon on the 1980 Cooperative Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) spray trials. Canadian Forestry Service Information Report<br />

FMP-X-48, 80 pp.<br />

Morris, O.N.; Moore. A. (1975) Studies on the protection <strong>of</strong> insect pathogens from sunlight protection. II. Preliminary field trials. Canadian<br />

Forestry Service Information Report CC-X-113.<br />

Morris, O.N.; Angus, T.A.;Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W. (1975) In: Prebble, M.L. (Ed.). Aerial control <strong>of</strong>forest insects in <strong>Canada</strong>. Ottawa; Thorn Press, pp.<br />

129-133.<br />

Morris, O. N.; Hildebrand, M.J.; Moore, A. (1981) Comparative effectiveness <strong>of</strong> three commercial formulations <strong>of</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis for<br />

control <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Oem.). Canadian Forestry Service<br />

Information Report FMP-X-47. 31 pp.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (1967) Innuence <strong>of</strong> temperature on the rate <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> sill varieties <strong>of</strong> Bacillus cereus group. Insect pathology and<br />

microbial control. Amsterdam; Nonh-Holland, pp. 125-130.<br />

Smim<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (1973) Results <strong>of</strong> tests with Bacillus thuringiensis and chitinase on larvae <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm. Journal <strong>of</strong> Invertebrate<br />

Pathology 21,116-118.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (1977) Confirmations ellperimentales du potential du complelle Bacillus thuringiensis et chitinase pour la rl!pression de la<br />

tordeuse des bourgeons de I'cpinette Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Canadian<br />

Entomologist 109.351-358.<br />

Smim<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (1978) Impact des traitemcnts bacteriologiques et des traitcmcnts chimiqucs sur une I!pidemie de la tordeuse des bourgeons<br />

de I'cpinette. Resumc des communications, 46' congres ACFAS. p. 68.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (1979a) Results <strong>of</strong> spraying Bacillus thuringiensis two consecutive years over balsam fir stands damaged by spruce<br />

budworm. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Forest Research 9,509-513.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (1979b) Result <strong>of</strong> a 3-phase research program related to the biological control <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm in 1979. LFRC, Repon<br />

to the Candian Forest Pest Control Forum, Nov. 27-28, 1979, Ottawa, Ontario.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f. W.A. (1979c) Changes in metabolites in insects during starvation, infections or poisoning. Abstracts <strong>of</strong> papers, 9th International<br />

Congress <strong>of</strong> Plant Protection and 71st Annual Meeting <strong>of</strong> the American Phytopathological <strong>Society</strong>,<br />

Washington, D.C., No. 928.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (19800) Deposit asscssment <strong>of</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis formulations applied from an aircraft. CalUJdian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Microbiology 26,1364-1366.<br />

Smim<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (1980b) Calibration tests with various Bacillus thuringiensis preparations. Canadian Forestry Service Bi-monthly Research<br />

Notes 36,30-31.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (198Oc) Technological requirements for a successful Bacillus thuringiensis application against spruce budworm. Canadian<br />

Forestry Service Bi-monthly Research Notes 36.29-30.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W.A. (19810) Developpement d'une preparation compacte et economique de Bacillus thuringiensis pour la rl!pression de la<br />

tordeuse des bourgeons de I'cpinetle Choristoneura fumiferana. Annales de I'ACFAS 48.203.


248 J. C. Cunningham and G. M. Howse<br />

Background<br />

Field Trials<br />

B. Viruses: Application and Assessment<br />

J.C. CUNNINGHAM and G.M. HOWSE<br />

Five different types <strong>of</strong> viruses have been found to infect larvae <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm,<br />

Chorisloneura fumiferana (Clem.). Four <strong>of</strong> them share one feature in common, that is,<br />

virus particles are contained within proteinaceous inclusion bodies. These infectious<br />

particles are released when the inclusion bodies are ingested by larvae and the inclusion<br />

body protein dissolves in their alkaline gut juices. The four viruses comprise a nuclear<br />

polyhedrosis virus (NPV), a granulosis virus (GV), a cytoplasmic polyhedrosis virus<br />

(CPV), and an entomopoxvirus (EPV). Between 1971 and 1980, all four viruses have<br />

been field tested either alone or in various combinations. The fifth virus, which has been<br />

found to infect spruce budworm, is cricket paralysis virus. It has no inclusion body, has<br />

a very wide host range, has little potential as a biological control agent, and will not be<br />

discussed further. Collapse <strong>of</strong> a spruce budworm population due to a naturally occurring<br />

virus epizootic has never been observed. Both NPV and CPV are occasionally detected<br />

in eastern spruce budworm populations in Ontario. but generally less than 1 % <strong>of</strong> larvae<br />

are infected.<br />

The first field trials <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm viruses were conducted in 1959 and 1960 by<br />

applying NPV and GV on single small trees (Stairs & Bird 1962). In 1969, different<br />

dosages <strong>of</strong> NPV were applied on single trees at 2- to 3-day intervals throughout the larval<br />

period (Bird & McPhee 1970). In 1970, an EPV was found in 2-year cycle spruce<br />

budworm, C. biennis Freeman (Bird el al. 1971). In the laboratory very low dosages <strong>of</strong><br />

this EPV (in comparison to other viruses) caused high larval mortality and, although it<br />

was slow acting, there was high hope that it would prove to be an effective biological<br />

control agent. By 1970, the use <strong>of</strong> artificial diet had greatly improved methods <strong>of</strong> rearing<br />

spruce bud worm (McMorran 1965), and sufficient larvae could be reared in order to<br />

produce viruses for aerial spray trials (Grisdale 1970).<br />

The first aerial spray trial was conducted in 1971 and trials have been carried out each<br />

season since then. Sixty plots were treated with viruses or combinations <strong>of</strong> chemical and<br />

viral insecticides in Ontario between 1971 and 1980. Such factors as dosage, timing <strong>of</strong><br />

application, tank mixtures, spray equipment, impact on different species <strong>of</strong> host trees,<br />

and persistence <strong>of</strong> viruses from one year to the next have been evaluated. The following<br />

viruses and combinations <strong>of</strong> viruses were tested during this period: NPV, EPV, GV,<br />

EPV plus NPV plus CPV, and NPV plus CPV. In addition, NPV and EPV plus NPV have<br />

been applied following chemical insecticide sprays.<br />

Assessment <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> treatments<br />

The same methods used to evaluate chemical insecticide treatments in Ontario were<br />

used to assess virus spray trials. In addition to carrying out larval population studies<br />

and defoliation estimates, attempts were made to determine the levels <strong>of</strong> infection in<br />

the spruce bud worm population, to assess the effect on successful pupal emergence and,<br />

on some plots. to continue these studies for one or more years after the initial application.


250 J. C. Cunningham and G. M. Howse<br />

Estimating current year's defoliation<br />

The percentage <strong>of</strong> the current year's defoliation was obtained by detailed examination <strong>of</strong><br />

the 46-cm branch tips collected for the post-spray sample from the treated and check<br />

plots. These samples were collected after all surviving larvae had pupated and feeding<br />

had ceased. In the tables, the percentage <strong>of</strong> foliage saved was calculated using Abbott's<br />

formula.<br />

Follow-up studies<br />

Many plots were re-examined the following year and some plots were studied for several<br />

years because carry-over <strong>of</strong> viruses from one year to the next and the impact on the spruce<br />

budworm population in the years following the year <strong>of</strong> treatment are considered important<br />

factors in evaluating these biological control agents. The same observations were recorded<br />

as in the year <strong>of</strong> treatment.<br />

Tank mixes for virus applications<br />

Several tank mixes have been used for spruce budworm virus applications and are described in<br />

the tables. The viral product in all tests was a finely ground lyophilized preparation <strong>of</strong><br />

virus-infected larvae. A few plots were treated with this product in water alone, but<br />

without a tracer dye no deposit assessment could be made. In many <strong>of</strong> the tests IMC 90-<br />

001 (International Minerals Corp.) UV protectant was added. It is a water-soluble wood<br />

byproduct that has a dark colour; it can also be used as a tracer dye. This material was<br />

renamed Shade® (Sandoz Inc.), but its production was discontinued in 1979.<br />

Molasses has been used in most <strong>of</strong> the tank mixes. It is an anti-evaporant that enhances<br />

deposit <strong>of</strong> aqueous sprays, may give some UV protection, and may be a feeding attractant<br />

to spruce budworm larvae. The results from single-tree ground spray tests indicated that<br />

molasses in the mix had a marked beneficial effect. A commercial molasses preparation,<br />

Sandoz adjuvant V® (Sandoz Inc.), was used in 1975.<br />

Many wetting and sticking agents have been tested in combination with Shade®, with<br />

or without molasses. These agents include Bi<strong>of</strong>ilm® (Colloidal Products Corp.), Chevron®<br />

spray sticker (Chevron Chemical Co.), Triton® X-lOO and Triton® B-1956 (Rohm and<br />

Haas Co. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> Ltd.). All passed a laboratory test to determine their compatibility<br />

with virus at a concentration <strong>of</strong> 1 %.<br />

Two other preparations tested were:Sandoz San 285® wettable powder, which is a<br />

feeding attractant for the virus <strong>of</strong> cotton bollworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie), incorporated<br />

in a polymer-bound carbon formulation prepared by the Southwest Research Institute,<br />

San Antonio, Texas; and an emulsifiable oil, Sunspray® 11E (Sunoco Inc.). The process<br />

used to produce the polymer-bound carbon formulation inactivated most <strong>of</strong> the virus<br />

and the feeding attractant did not enhance virus infection levels in spruce bud worm<br />

(Cunningham et al. 1978). The emulsifiable oil used at 66% had no adverse effect on the<br />

virus and its use would be beneficial if sprays were applied when the humidity was low.<br />

Entomopoxvirus plus nuclear polyhedrosis virus plus cytoplasmic polyhedrosis virus<br />

In 1971 a helicopter was used to treat six 1.07-ha plots with EPV (Table 63). When<br />

smears <strong>of</strong> larvae from treated plots were examined microscopically it was discovered<br />

that the EPV preparation was contaminated with both NPV and CPV. All three viruses<br />

gave consistently higher levels <strong>of</strong> infection in larvae on white spruce, Picea glauca<br />

(Moench) Voss, hosts than on balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., hosts (Bird et al.<br />

1972, Howse et al. 1973).


Table 63<br />

Table 64<br />

B. Viruses: Application Clnd assessment 251<br />

Application <strong>of</strong> EPV contaminated with NPV and CPV on six 1.07-ha plots using a helicopter<br />

fitted with boom and nozzle equipment and calibrated to deliver 28.2 Ilha*<br />

Population<br />

Pre·dominant Deposit Highest virus infection (01.,) reduction due Current<br />

Dosage. instar at card, to treatment year's foliage<br />

PIB/ha time <strong>of</strong> droplets! EPV NPV CPV (%} saved ('Yo}<br />

Plot (x 10") application cm 2 bF·· wS bF wS bF wS bF wS bF wS<br />

1 750 2 10 9 38 10 0 7 0 40 R 15<br />

2 75 2 9 3 16 0 12 1 4 0 61 3 0<br />

3 7.5 2 9 1 12 0 2 II II 0 25 0 0<br />

4 750 3&4 29 6 5 4 7 1 4 30 79 1 0<br />

5 75 3&4 31 2 2 0 1 II II 48 57 0 0<br />

6 7.5 3&4 NO··· 4 6 0 0 0 0 II 59 1 0<br />

* Aqueous tank mix contained 2.5% IMC 90-001 sunlight protectant.<br />

** bF = balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.; wS = white spruce, Picea glauca<br />

(Moench) Voss.<br />

••• ND = Not determined .<br />

Follow-up studies were undertaken between 1972 and 1975 on the two plots treated<br />

with the highest dosage (Table 64). It can be seen that, although there was little foliage<br />

protection in 1971 (Table 63), there was significant foliage protection in the subsequent 3<br />

years. Also, the NPV, which was a minor contaminant in the EPV preparation, was<br />

considerably more prevalent in the following years than the EPV (Cunningham el al.<br />

1975a).<br />

Follow-up studies on two I?lots treated with EPV contaminated with NPV and CPV at a<br />

dosage <strong>of</strong> 750 x to" inclUSIon bodieslha in 1971·<br />

Population Current<br />

Highest virus infection (%) reduction due "ear's<br />

to virus oliage<br />

EPV NPV CPV {%l saved {%}<br />

Plot Year bF** wS bF wS bF wS bF wS bF wS<br />

1972 0 5 7 19 2 5 64 82 72 59<br />

1973 2 5 3 13 0 0 3 60 27 22<br />

1974 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 5 29 49<br />

1975 1 6 5 16 1 1 0 78 22 2<br />

4 1972 0 0 17 20 to 4 16 68 44 49<br />

1973 0 1 4 16 2 0 15 83 26 22<br />

1974 0 1 3 11 1 0 0 48 25 40<br />

1975 0 1 17 11 0 0 47 26 1 1<br />

* See Table 63 for details and results in 1971<br />

.* bF = balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.; wS<br />

(Moench) Voss.<br />

Entomopoxvirus<br />

white spruce, Picea glauca<br />

In 1972, pure EPV was tested and three plots with a total area <strong>of</strong>512 ha were treated. The<br />

timing <strong>of</strong> the application was on second- and third-instar larvae, but an unseasonably<br />

late snow fall destroyed most <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm larvae and killed the new growth<br />

on the trees. Population studies and defoliation estimates were abandoned and only


Table 67<br />

B. Viruses: Application and assessment 253<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> CPV as well as <strong>of</strong> NPV infection were recorded (Table 66) (Bird el al. 1972,<br />

Howse el al. 1973). Follow-up studies were undertaken on these plots between 1972 and<br />

1977 (Table 67). The incidence <strong>of</strong> NPV was higher than CPV during this period. Although<br />

not spectacular, some saving <strong>of</strong> foliage was recorded between 1972 and 1975 (Cunningham<br />

el al. 1975a).<br />

Follow-up studies on two white spruce, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, plantations treated<br />

with NPV plus CPV (400:1) in 1971-<br />

Highest virus<br />

infection %<br />

Population<br />

reduction<br />

due to virus Current year's<br />

Plot Year NPV CPV carry-over ('Yo) foliage saved ('Yo)<br />

G 1972 28 8 20 0<br />

1973 17 5 82 22<br />

1974 6 I 56 27<br />

1975 21 0 74 0<br />

1976 8 0 NO-- NO<br />

1977 3 0 NO NO<br />

H 1972<br />

1973<br />

1974<br />

1975<br />

1976<br />

1977<br />

24<br />

14<br />

6<br />

9<br />

0<br />

2<br />

3<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

65<br />

68<br />

62<br />

48<br />

NO<br />

NO<br />

63<br />

20<br />

44<br />

0<br />

ND<br />

NO<br />

- See Table 66 for details and results in 1971.<br />

-. ND = not determined.<br />

Rigorous quality control facilitated production <strong>of</strong> pure NPV between 1972 and 1978, but<br />

in 1979 a CPV contaminant was again found and aUempts to eliminate it were unsuccessful<br />

both that year and in 1980. In 1979, the ratio <strong>of</strong> NPV:CPV was 178:1, and in 1980 the<br />

same preparation and one with an NPV:CPV ratio <strong>of</strong> 300: I were applied (W.J. Kaupp<br />

1980, personal communication) (Table 66). In 1979, the viruses were applied either as<br />

second-instar larvae emerged from hibemacula or on later instars following budflush.<br />

Following the early application, high levels <strong>of</strong> virus infection and acceptable foliage<br />

protection were recorded. On the remaining plots reasonable levels <strong>of</strong> virus infection<br />

and population reduction but little or no foliage protection were recorded. In 1980, an<br />

attempt was made to repeat the early applications made in 1979. However, when the<br />

spray was applied about 90% <strong>of</strong> the larvae had mined into needles and buds. Infection<br />

levels were lower than in 1979, although moderate levels <strong>of</strong> both popUlation reduction<br />

and foliage protection were recorded.<br />

Nuclear polyhedrosis virus<br />

Tests were conducted with pure NPV in 1972 (Cunningham & McPhee 1973), in 1973<br />

(Cunningham el al. 1974) in 1974 (Cunningham el al. 1975b), in 1975 (Cunningham etal.<br />

1975c), in 1976 (Kaupp el al. 1978), in 1977 (Cunningham el al. 1978), and in 1978 (Cunningham<br />

el af. 1979). During that 6-year period, 33 plots with a total area <strong>of</strong> 1741 ha were treated<br />

(Table 68). In 1972 the trials were a failure because <strong>of</strong> the same late snow fall that<br />

affected the EPV trials that year. In subsequent years, tests were made with lower<br />

dosages than those used in the original 1971 test, a variety <strong>of</strong> tank mixes containing


258 J. C. Cunningham and G. M. Howse<br />

Recommendations<br />

use will probably be restricted to high value stands and environmentally sensitive areas. If it<br />

can be demonstrated conclusively that treatment with a virus gives foliage protection for<br />

several years following the year <strong>of</strong> application, then the high initial cost <strong>of</strong> the treatment<br />

becomes more acceptable.<br />

The application <strong>of</strong> contaminated virus preparations in 1971 was accidental. The<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> a CPV contaminant in the NPV used in 1979 and 1980 was known. but the<br />

material was still applied on the basis <strong>of</strong> the 1971 results. The minute amounts <strong>of</strong> CPV<br />

gave dramatic infection levels in the spruce budworm population that were <strong>of</strong>ten higher<br />

than the levels <strong>of</strong> NPV. This was surprising because the ratios <strong>of</strong> NPV:CPV were 400: 1.<br />

300: 1. and 178: 1. It appears that there is a synergistic effect between NPV and CPV. but<br />

this would require detailed laboratory investigations to prove conclusively.<br />

Foliage protection in the year <strong>of</strong> application was demonstrated in 1979 following treatment<br />

with NPV plus CPV on second-instar larvae as they emerged from hibernacula. Treatment<br />

<strong>of</strong> second-instar larvae has many benefits. although timing is extremely critical and<br />

it would only be practical to treat small. carefully monitored areas. Second-instar larvae<br />

are much more susceptible to infection with NPV than later instars and the LD50 in terms<br />

<strong>of</strong> numbers <strong>of</strong> PIB has been calculated for different instars as follows: second. 25; third.<br />

204; fourth. 462; fifth, 2514; and sixth, 3 643 (F.T. Bird 1978, unpublished data). At the<br />

time <strong>of</strong> emergence from hibernacula. leaves on the hardwood overstorey. frequently<br />

found in spruce-fir stands, have not flushed and a good aerial spray deposit can be<br />

obtained on the target species.<br />

To date, the tank mix considered most suitable for spruce budworm virus applications<br />

was an aqueous suspension containing 25% molasses, 6% Shade® and 1 % Chevron®<br />

sticker. It has been widely used with the NPVs <strong>of</strong> both Douglas-fir tussock moth. Orgyia<br />

pseudotsugata (McDunnough), and gypsy moth, Lyman/ria dispar (L.). Since Shade® is<br />

no longer commercially available, it will be necessary to find a new screening agent<br />

against ultra-violet light or a totally new formulation.<br />

Safety tests on spruce budworm NPV conducted at Ontario Veterinary College<br />

showed that this virus presents no hazard to birds and mammals (Valli et al. 1976). Fish<br />

tests, although indicating no hazard. were inconclusive and should be repeated (Savan<br />

et al. 1979). There are only limited safety testing data available for EPV (Buckner &<br />

Cunningham 1972). and no CPV and GV safety testing data are available. These would<br />

be required before any <strong>of</strong> these three .. iruses could be registered by Canadian authorities.<br />

The use <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the four viruses with inclusion bodies that infect spruce budworm is still at<br />

the experimental stage. In the near future only treatment <strong>of</strong> small areas can be considered.<br />

Applications <strong>of</strong> NPV or NPV plus CPV on second-instar larvae as they emerge from<br />

hibemacula should be retested in an effort to find if. under closely monitored conditions.<br />

this is a feasible and effective strategy.<br />

An improved tank mix that will keep the virus in a viable state on the foliage for more than<br />

a week would greatly increase the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> treatments and possibly allow lower<br />

dosages. Research on formulations is being conducted by both commercial and government<br />

agencies in the United States and formulations developed for other pathogens. such as<br />

bacteria and fungi. will probably have the characteristics suitable for use with viruses.<br />

The search for new viruses or strains <strong>of</strong> viruses that infect spruce budworm should be<br />

continued. There are several isolates <strong>of</strong> NPV • GV, and EPV from different Choristoneura<br />

species, but none has been found that is more virulent than the strains used in field trials.<br />

The search for larger. easily reared host larva for spruce budworm virus production has also<br />

proved unsuccessful. but should be continued.<br />

A long-term goal in the use <strong>of</strong> viruses for the regulation <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm population is<br />

to study the nucleic acid <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm NPV with a view to constructing a genetic


Literature Cited<br />

B. Viruscs: Applicmion and assessmcnt 259<br />

map. Once this is accomplished, techniques <strong>of</strong> genetic manipulation can be used in an<br />

attempt either to increase the virulence <strong>of</strong> spruce budwonn NPV or to modify some highly<br />

virulent, easily produced insect virus in such a way as to render it capable <strong>of</strong> infecting<br />

spruce budwonn.<br />

Abbott. W.S. (1925) A method <strong>of</strong> computing the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> an insecticide. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 18.265-267.<br />

Arif. B.M.; Sohi. S.S.; Krywienczyk. J. (1976) Replication <strong>of</strong> alkali-released NPV in a cell line <strong>of</strong> ChorislOneurafumiferana. Proceedings <strong>of</strong><br />

the 1st International Colloquium on Im'mebrate Pathology Kingston, Ontario, pp. 108-110.<br />

Bird. F.T.; McPhee. J. R. (1970) Susceptibility <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm to pure nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) sprays. Canadian Department<br />

<strong>of</strong> Fisheries and Forestry Bi·monthly Research Notes 26.35.<br />

Bird, F.T.; Sanders. C.J.; Burke. J.M. (1971) A newly discovered virus disease <strong>of</strong>the spruce budworm. Choristoneura biennis (Lepidoptera:<br />

Tortricidae). Journal <strong>of</strong> Invertebrate Pathology 18.159-161.<br />

Bird. F.T.; Cunningham. J.e.; Howse. G.M. (1972) Possible use <strong>of</strong> viruses in the control <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario 103,69-75.<br />

Buckner. C.H.; Cunningham. J.C. (1972) The effect <strong>of</strong> the poxvirus <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm. Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera:<br />

Tortricidae). on mammals and birds. Canadian Entomologist 104.1333-1342.<br />

Cunningham. J.e.; McPhee. J.R. (1973) Aerial application <strong>of</strong> entomopoxvirus and nuclear polyhcdrosis virus against spruce budworm at<br />

Chapleau. Ontario, 1972. Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Information Report IP-X-3. 27 pp.<br />

Cunningham, J.C.; McPhee, J.R.; Howse. G.M.; Harnden, A.A. (1974) Aerial application <strong>of</strong> a nuclear polyhedrosis virus against spruce<br />

budworm near Massey and Aubrey Falls, Ontario in 1973 and a survey <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> the virus in 1974.<br />

Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Information Report IP-X-4, 45 pp.<br />

Cunningham, I.C.; Howse, G.M.; Kaupp, W.J.; McPhee, J.R.; Hamden, A.A.; White, M.B.E. (1975a) The persistence <strong>of</strong> nuclear<br />

polyhedrosis virus in populations <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm. Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie,<br />

Information Report IP-X-lO, 32 pp.<br />

Cunningham. J.C.; Kaupp. W.J.; McPhee, I.R.; Howse, G.M.; Harnden, A.A. (1975b) Aerial application <strong>of</strong> nuclear polyhedrosis virus<br />

against spruce budworm on Manitoulin Island, Ontario in 1974 and a survey <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> the virus in<br />

1975. Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Information Report IP-X·8, 30 pp.<br />

Cunningham. I.C.; Kaupp. W.I.; McPhee, J.R.; Howse, G.M.; Harnden, A.A. (1975c) Aerial application <strong>of</strong> nuclear polyhcdrosis virus on<br />

spruce budworm on Manitoulin Island, Ontario in 1975. Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie,<br />

Information Report IP-X-9, 35 pp.<br />

Cunningham. J.c.; Kaupp. W.J.; Howse. G .M. ; McPhee. J. R.; de Groot. P. (1978) Aerial application <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm baculovirus: tests<br />

<strong>of</strong> virus strains. dosages and formulations in 1977. Canadian Forestry Service. Sault Ste. Marie.<br />

Information Report FPM-X-3. 37 pp.<br />

Cunningham. I.C.; Howsc. G.M.; McPhee. J.R.; de Groot. P.; White. M.B.E. (1979) Aerial application <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm baculovirus:<br />

replicated tests with an aqueous formulation and a trial using an oil formulation in 1978. Canadian<br />

Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Information Report FPM-X-21. 19 pp.<br />

Grisdale. D. (1970) An improved method for rearing large numbers <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm. Chonstoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera: Tonricidae).<br />

Canadian Entomologist 102.1111-1117.<br />

Howse. G.M.; Sanders. C.J.; Harnden. A.A.; Cunningham, J.e.; Bird, F.T.; McPhee. J.R. (1973) Aerial application <strong>of</strong> viruses against<br />

spruce budworm. 1971. Pan A. Impact in the year <strong>of</strong> application (1971). Pan B. Impact in the year<br />

following application (1972). Canadian Forest,)' Service, Sault Ste. Marie. Information Report O-X·I89.<br />

62pp.<br />

Kaupp. W.J. Cunningham,; J.C.; Howse. G.M.; McPhee. J.R.; de Groot. P. (1978) Aerial application <strong>of</strong>spruce budworm baculovirus: tests<br />

on sccond instar larvae in 1976. Canadian Forestry Service. Sault Ste. Marie. Information Report FPM­<br />

X-2. 20 pp.<br />

McMorran. A. (1965) A synthetic diet for the spruce budworm. Chonstoneura fumiferana (Clem.) (Lepidoptera: Tonricidae). Canadian<br />

Entomologist 97,58-62.<br />

Morris. O.N.; Armstrong. J.A.; Hildebrand. M.J.; Howse. G.M.; Cunningham, J.C.; McPhee. J.R. (1972) Aerial applications or virusinsccticide<br />

combinations against spruce budworm Chonstontura fumifl'rana (Clem.) (Tonricidae:<br />

Lepidoptera) at Rankin. Ontario, 1972. Canadian Forestry Servicl', Ollawa, Information Report CC-X-<br />

37,65 pp.<br />

Morris. O.N.; Armstrong, J.A.; Howse. G.M.; Cunningham, J.e. (1974) A 2-year study <strong>of</strong> virus-chemical insecticide combination in the<br />

integrated control or the spruce budworrn. Choristoneura fumiferana (Tortrieidae: Lepidoptera).<br />

Canadian Entomologist 106.813-824.<br />

Savan. M.; Budd. J.; Reno, P.W.; Darley, S. (1979) A study <strong>of</strong> two species <strong>of</strong> fish inoculated with spruce budworm nuclear<br />

polyhedrosis virus. Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Disl'ases 15,331-334.<br />

Stairs, G.R.; Bird. F.T. (1962) Dissemination <strong>of</strong> viruses against the spruce budworm. Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens). Canadian<br />

Entomologi.ft 94,966-969.<br />

Valli, V.E.; Cunningham, J.C.; Arir, B.M. (1976) Tests demonstrating the safety or a baculovirus <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm to mammals and<br />

birds. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 1st International Colloquium on Invertebrate Patllology, Kingston, Ontario, pp.<br />

445-446.<br />

Wilson, G.G. (1981) Nosema fumiferanae, a natural pathogen <strong>of</strong> a forest pest: potential ror pest management. In: Burges. H.D. (Ed.)<br />

Microbial control <strong>of</strong> pests and plant diseases 1970-1980. London; Academic Press. pp. 595-601.


C. AppliclItion <strong>of</strong> microsporidia and fungi. 261<br />

The natural levels <strong>of</strong> microsporidian infection in spruce budworm populations tend to<br />

increase with the age <strong>of</strong> the infestation. Examination <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm larvae collected in<br />

the Uxbridge forest <strong>of</strong> southern Ontario over a 6-year period indicated that the infection<br />

rate from N.fllmiferanae increased from 36% in 1973 to 69% in 1978 (Wilson 1977b). The<br />

Uxbridge forest was in fact an old infestation; severe defoliation was recorded in 1952<br />

and has persisted at fluctuating levels ever since.<br />

Fungi<br />

Steady progress was made during the 1970s in documenting the effects <strong>of</strong> fungi in natural<br />

epizootics and developing various species for use in biological control, with the result<br />

that Hirslllelia thompsoni Fisher, the first fungus to be registered for mite control in<br />

North America, is now available under the trade name Mycar® (Abbott Laboratories)<br />

and is also used against citrus rust mites.<br />

The occurrence <strong>of</strong> entomophthoraceous fungi on spruce budworm has been documented<br />

throughout much <strong>of</strong> the insect's range in the last 10 years. Outbreaks <strong>of</strong> fungal disease<br />

occurred in 1974 and 1979 in northern Ontario; in the former year the outbreak was <strong>of</strong><br />

Zoophlhora radicans (Brefeld) A. Bakto (= Entomophthora sphaerosperma Frasenius)<br />

(Harvey & Burke 1974), in the latter it was <strong>of</strong> the same fungus together with E. egressa<br />

MacLeod (Tyrrell, unpublished). In Newfoundland, the same two fungi were first<br />

recorded from the spruce budworm in 1972. The disease was widespread in western<br />

Newfoundland in 1973, and subsequently spread to the whole <strong>of</strong> the Island (Otvos &<br />

Moody 1978). Mortality varied from 10-40%, depending on weather conditions, and<br />

occasionally reached much higher values in localized areas. Both fungal species, together<br />

with an unidentified Conidiobo/w species, were responsible for spuce budworm mortality<br />

in northern Maine, where disease prevalence varied between 4 and 7% during 1975-77<br />

(Vandenberg & Soper 1978).<br />

In northern Ontario, mortality was higher in white spruce than in balsam fir in 1974,<br />

when fungal incidence was high (Harvey & Burke 1974), but no difference was observed<br />

between tree species in 1980, when fungal incidence was much lower (TyrreU, unpublished). In<br />

Maine, fungal prevalence was found to be both density-dependent and significantly<br />

higher in the lower crown area <strong>of</strong> the tree, and appeared to be enhanced by periods <strong>of</strong><br />

cool, wet weather (Vandenberg & Soper 1978). The link between moist conditions and<br />

• increased incidence <strong>of</strong> fungus has also been observed in Newfoundland (Otvos &<br />

Moody 1978).<br />

Fungal infection occurs in the later stages <strong>of</strong> larval development. Incidence <strong>of</strong> Z.<br />

radicans peaked between the fifth and sixth instars, E. egressa between the sixth instar<br />

and pre-pupa, and Conidiobolus sp. between the pre-pupal and pupal stages, respectively,<br />

in Maine (Vandenberg & Soper 1978); while in northern Ontario peak fungal infection<br />

coincided with the peak development <strong>of</strong> sixth-instar larvae (Tyrrell unpublished).<br />

Earlier instars however, are not resistant to the disease, and can readily be infected with<br />

Z. radicans under laboratory conditions (Kenneth 1978, Perry unpublished).<br />

Both Z. radicans and E. egressa can be isolated and grown in pure culture, and a<br />

number <strong>of</strong> different isolates <strong>of</strong> both species are now available. Z. radicans grows readily<br />

on a variety <strong>of</strong> solid and liquid media, and the mycelial stage can also be grown in small<br />

fermentors. E. egressa grows slowly on complex media such as coagulated egg yolk, but<br />

can be grown as a protoplast in osmotically stabilized media.<br />

Z. radicans can sporulate on artificial media to give both conidia and resting spores.<br />

The effects <strong>of</strong> environmental conditions, including temperature, photophase, and nutrient,<br />

on conidial germination have been determined (van Roermund, personal communication).<br />

Maturation <strong>of</strong> laboratory-produced resting spores under controlled conditions has been<br />

shown to be a key factor in potentiating their subsequent germination (Perry & Tyrrell<br />

in press), and the effects <strong>of</strong> environmental conditions on their germination are currently


264 G. G. Wilson, D. Tyrrell and T. J. Ennis<br />

Recommendations<br />

schubergi spores resulted in infection rates <strong>of</strong> 64.8% for white spruce and 96.3% for<br />

balsam fir 19 days after spraying. There was no infection in larvae from the check area<br />

and no carry-over <strong>of</strong> the microsporidium to the following year. All samples showed<br />

higher levels <strong>of</strong> infection in spruce budworm taken from balsam fir.<br />

Based on laboratory results there is a relationship between levels <strong>of</strong> infection and<br />

mortality. As an example, spore concentrations <strong>of</strong> 10" spores/ml fed to second-instar<br />

larvae resulted in 100% mortality in up to 24 days, with 50% mortality occurring about 14<br />

days after infection (balsam fir buds were dipped in the spore suspension). As a<br />

comparison, spore concentration <strong>of</strong> 100/ml resulted in 61 % mortality over a period <strong>of</strong><br />

6-28 days. For fifth-instar larvae Hr spores/ml gave 75% mortality over 8-33 days,<br />

and 10" sporeslml resulted in only 5.6% mortality, which was similar to the controls.<br />

Fungi<br />

E. egressa does not sporulate well on artificial media and conidia are normally obtained<br />

from infected insect cadavers. These are easily produced by injection <strong>of</strong> insect larvae<br />

with protoplasts, which have been shown to be part <strong>of</strong> the natural life cycle <strong>of</strong> this fungus<br />

(Tyrrell 1977). Transmission <strong>of</strong> E. egressa from laboratory-infected to natural populations<br />

<strong>of</strong> spruce budworm under field conditions using conidia produced in this manner has<br />

been demonstrated (Lim el al. unpublished).<br />

Genetic manipulation<br />

Topical application <strong>of</strong> thiotepa or 250-300 Sv <strong>of</strong> Co'" irradiation induced complete<br />

sterility in male spruce budworm (Retnakaran 1970, 1971). Males sterilized with thiotepa<br />

remained fully competitive and could suppress fertility <strong>of</strong> caged laboratory populations<br />

by up to 90% (Ennis unpublished data). However, release <strong>of</strong> chemosterilized males into<br />

caged field populations produced no detectable reduction in popUlation, mainly because<br />

<strong>of</strong> adverse effects on adult male mating behaviour. High level irradiation <strong>of</strong> male pupae<br />

or adults reduces fitness and mating competitiveness, militating against their effective<br />

use. However, at 20-50 Sv, induced chromosome aberrations have a heritable effect on<br />

fertility <strong>of</strong> subsequent generations, with depression <strong>of</strong> fertility persisting for up to three<br />

generations in the laboratory (Ennis 19790). The potential <strong>of</strong> inherited semi-sterility has<br />

not yet been tested in field populations. Dispersal and behaviour <strong>of</strong> irradiated males<br />

have also been studied using pheromone re-trapping techniques (Ennis 1979b).<br />

Few microsporidian parasites have been investigated as possible control agents <strong>of</strong> pest<br />

insects. If we take the amount <strong>of</strong> research on Bacillus Ihuringiensis Berliner (B.I.)<br />

before it was accepted as an insecticide as being representative in the development <strong>of</strong> a<br />

biological control agent, then it is obvious that we have barely begun the task with<br />

microsporidia. However, there are indications that many microsporidia do have good<br />

potential as biological control agents that, given appropriate research and development,<br />

may one day be realized. There is still much research needed on the development <strong>of</strong><br />

microsporidia in a control plan for the spruce budworm. Thorough studies are required<br />

on the host-parasite relationships and the incidence and effects <strong>of</strong> the microsporidia in<br />

their natural setting. Although these parasites can be introduced into a population <strong>of</strong> the<br />

spruce budworm, their effect on insect numbers has not been quantified. The use <strong>of</strong><br />

these parasites in integrated control should be investigated, not only in conjunction with<br />

chemicals, but also with other spruce budworm pathogens.


Literature Cited<br />

C. Application <strong>of</strong>microspnridia and fungi. 265<br />

The level <strong>of</strong> research effort on fungi for control <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm has been low<br />

compared to the effort on such biological agents as the viruses and B.t., but the results<br />

obtained to date suggest that fungi playa significant role in the regulation <strong>of</strong> spruce<br />

budworm populations, and the recent demonstration that infectious diseases can in<br />

theory drive population cycles (Anderson & May 1980) will provide further impetus for<br />

studies designed to delineate the role <strong>of</strong> fungi in the spruce budworm ecosystem. To this<br />

end, extensive epizootiological investigations on the biotic and abiotic factors affecting<br />

the fungus-budworm interaction should be carried out. These, coupled with continuing<br />

laboratory studies on the production <strong>of</strong> fungal material suitable for field dissemination.<br />

and on the selection and mode <strong>of</strong> action <strong>of</strong>the most virulent strains <strong>of</strong> fungi. will. in the<br />

long term. determine how and under what circumstances fungi may be used in the<br />

manipulation <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm populations.<br />

At present it is difficult to draw definite conclusions on the potential <strong>of</strong> microsporidia<br />

and fungi in the management <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm. However. because <strong>of</strong> their<br />

potential in a control programme. any comprehensive model <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm population-dynamics<br />

must embrace a thorough understanding <strong>of</strong> these pathogens.<br />

Research into the genetic manipulation <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm to date has supplied<br />

the basic level <strong>of</strong> information required for further testing: methods for mass sterilization.<br />

effects on fertility <strong>of</strong> caged population, and dispersal and detection <strong>of</strong> released insects.<br />

However, the large numbers <strong>of</strong> insects and extensive areas <strong>of</strong> forest affected by epidemics<br />

<strong>of</strong> this pest suggest caution in trying to develop genetic manipulation for control <strong>of</strong><br />

outbreak populations. The logistics <strong>of</strong> application, in terms <strong>of</strong> numbers and area. and the<br />

uncertainty <strong>of</strong> success indicate that its greatest potential lies in controlling endemic<br />

population levels, where the released insects' ability to detect and mate with females<br />

even when they are relatively rare provides one <strong>of</strong> the greatest advantages <strong>of</strong> the genetic<br />

approach. Future research should be aimed at such low level populations, and should be<br />

conducted with the objective <strong>of</strong> reducing reproduction potential to a level below that<br />

necessary to support a transition from endemic to epidemic levels.<br />

Anderson. R.M.; May. R.M. (1980) Infectious diseases and population cycles <strong>of</strong> forest insects. Science 210.658-661.<br />

Burges. H.D. (Ed.) (1981) Microbial control <strong>of</strong> pests and plant diseases, 1970-1980. London; Academic Press, 949 pp.<br />

Ennis. TJ. (1979a) Detection and isolation <strong>of</strong> induced chromosome aberrations in Lepidoptera. Experientia 35.1153-1154.<br />

Ennis, T.J. (1979b) A release·recapture experiment with normal and irradiated spruce budworrn males. Cana4ian Forestry Service Bi·<br />

monthly Research Notes 35.9-10.<br />

Harvey. G.T.; Burke. J.M. (1974) Monality <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworrn on white spruce caused by Entomophthora sphaerosperma. Canadian<br />

Forestry Service Bi·monthly Research Notes 30.23-24.<br />

Kenneth. R.G. (1978) Entomophthora sphoerosperma as an insect pathogen for spruce budworrn control. Abstracts <strong>of</strong> the Acadian<br />

<strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong>'s 38th AnnWlI Meeting. pp. 35-36.<br />

Lachana:. LE. (1979) Genetic strategies affecting the swx:css and economy <strong>of</strong> the sterile insect release method. In: Hoy. M.A.; McKelvey. J.J.<br />

(Eds.) Genetics in relation to insect management. Rockefeller Foundation. USA.<br />

Otvos.I.S.; Moody. B.H. (1978) The spruce budworm in Newfoundland: history. status and control. Canadian Foresty Sen·ice. Newfoundland<br />

Forest Research Centre, Information Report N·X-150.<br />

Outram. J. (1969) Potential use <strong>of</strong> the sterility principle for spruce budworm control in eastern <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Fisheries and<br />

Fort'stry' InteTllal Report M-45. Fredericton. N.B.<br />

Perry. D.; Tyrrell. D. (in prcss) Resting spore germination in ZoophtllOra radicans. Mycologia.<br />

Rctnakaran. A. (1970) Preliminary results <strong>of</strong> radiation induced sterility <strong>of</strong> the male spruce budworm. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Fisherit's and<br />

Forestry' Bi·monthly Research Notes 26.13-14.<br />

Retnakaran. A. (1971) Thiotepa as an effective agent for mass sterilizing the spruce budworrn. Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera:<br />

Tortricidae). Canadian Entomologist \03.1753-1756.<br />

Thomson. H.M. (1958) The effect <strong>of</strong> a microsporidian parasite on the development. reproduction and mortality <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworrn.<br />

Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.). Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Zoology 36.499-51 J.<br />

Tyrrell. D. (1977) Occurrence <strong>of</strong> protoplasts in the natural life cycle <strong>of</strong> Entomophthora egressa. Experimental Mycology 1.259-263.<br />

Vandenberg. J.D.; Soper. R.S. (1978) Prevalence <strong>of</strong> entomophthorales mycoses in populations <strong>of</strong> the spruce budworm. Choristoneura<br />

fumiferana. Environmental Entomology 7.847-853.


266 G. G. Wilson. D. Tyrrrell and T. J. Ennis<br />

Vandenberg, J.D.; Soper, R.S. (1979) A bioassay technique for Entomophthora sphaerosperma on the spruce budworm, Choristoneura<br />

fumiferana. Journal <strong>of</strong> Invertebrate Pathology 33,148-154.<br />

Wilson, G.G. (l977a) The effects <strong>of</strong> feeding microsporidian (Nosema fumiferanae) spores to naturally infected spruce budworm (Choristoneura<br />

fumiferana). Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Zoology 55,249-250.<br />

Wilson. G.G. (l977b) OhselVations on the incidence rates <strong>of</strong> Nosema fiuniferOlUle(microsporidia) in a spruce budwonn. ChoristoTU!ura fumiferana.<br />

(Lepidoptem: Tortricidae) population. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> Iile <strong>Entomological</strong> Sociely <strong>of</strong> Ontario 108,144-145.<br />

Wilson, G.G. (1980) Persistence <strong>of</strong> microsporidia in populations <strong>of</strong>the spruce budworm and forest tent caterpillar. Canadian Forestry Service,<br />

Sault Ste. Marie, Information Report FPM-X-39.<br />

Wilson, G.G. (1981) The potential <strong>of</strong> Pleistophora schubergi in microbial control afforest insects. Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie,<br />

Information Report FPM-X-49.


Background<br />

Table 73<br />

D. Testing <strong>of</strong> Parasitoids<br />

I.W. VARTY<br />

D. Testing <strong>of</strong> parasitoids 267<br />

The two strategies for biological control <strong>of</strong> the spruce budwonn, CJwristoneura fwniferatUl<br />

(Clem.), by parasitoids are the introduction <strong>of</strong> exotic species and the manipulation <strong>of</strong><br />

native ones. Most entomologists agree that the best prospects for introduction are those<br />

species that parasitize Choristoneura spp. (or near relatives) in spruce (Picea spp.) and fir<br />

(Abies spp.) forests in similar climatic zones abroad. The problem is to be ready for<br />

opportunities in those few years when pest outbreaks overseas permit sizeable collections<br />

<strong>of</strong> candidate parasitoids. The manipulation <strong>of</strong> native parasitoids <strong>of</strong>fers two other avenues<br />

for action: inundative release <strong>of</strong> laboratory-reared stock, and management <strong>of</strong> forest<br />

habitats to favour the dynamics <strong>of</strong> parasitoid response to available hosts.<br />

Efforts to establish exotic parasitoids in spruce budworm populations <strong>of</strong> eastern<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> have not succeeded. In 1944-53, large numbers <strong>of</strong> four species (two tachinids,<br />

one sarcophagid, and one ichneumonoid) from unidentified western spruce budworms<br />

(British Columbia) were released at various sites from Manitoba to Newfoundland. In<br />

1948-56, 12 ichneumonoid species from European hosts, especially Choristoneura<br />

murinana (Hb.) (France, Germany, Czechoslovakia), were released in small numbers<br />

in northwestern Ontario and Quebec. No evidence <strong>of</strong> the establishment <strong>of</strong> any introduced<br />

species has been produced (McGugan & CoppeI1962), and there were no explanations<br />

<strong>of</strong> the causes <strong>of</strong> failure. Interest in further introductions was inhibited by these failures<br />

and by lack <strong>of</strong> sources <strong>of</strong> parasitoids abroad. However, during the 1960s unsuccessful<br />

efforts were made to obtain three ichneumonoids specific to C. murinana (Miller &<br />

Angus 1971).<br />

Interest was renewed when an outbreak <strong>of</strong> Choristoneura diversana (Hb.) on Japanese<br />

(todo) fir (Abies firma Sieb & Zucc.) in Hokkaido, Japan, occurred in the late 1960s.<br />

Collaboration among four institutes (Hokkaido Forest Experimental Station, Maritimes<br />

Forest Research Centre, Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control, and the Agriculture<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> Research Station at Belleville, Ontario) resulted in the shipment <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitoids by air from Japan to New Brunswick in 1970-75 (Tables 73 and 74). Further,<br />

a small collection <strong>of</strong> parasitoids from C. murinana in Czechoslovakia was shipped to New<br />

Brunswick in 1972. These introductions are detailed below.<br />

In the early 1970s, the theory that spruce budworm epidemics may start in isolated<br />

local epicentres led to interest in methods <strong>of</strong> quelling incipient outbreaks over small<br />

areas. At the Laurentian Forest Research Centre this interest developed into a research<br />

study <strong>of</strong> the native egg parasitoid, Trichogramma minutum Ril., as a candidate for<br />

inundative release, now briefly reported. As pressure to find a biological alternative to<br />

Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> parasitoids against Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.)<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Species and province Year Origin Number recovery<br />

Agria housei Shewell 1971 Ontario (laboratory 2800 1971<br />

New Brunswick culture) (14 adults)<br />

Nil in 1972-73<br />

Lissonota sp. 1973 Japan 59 Nil in 1974<br />

New Brunswick


CephaJogl)pta<br />

murinanae Bauer<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonidae)<br />

D. Testing <strong>of</strong> parasitoids 269<br />

success varying from 17 to 60% as indicated by dissection <strong>of</strong> samples. Substantial host<br />

larval mortality during early diapause was attributed partly to ovipositional wounding. A<br />

problem was to optimize survival <strong>of</strong> parasitized hosts by exposing candidate larvae long<br />

enough to achieve a high percentage <strong>of</strong> attacked hosts. but short enough to avoid a high<br />

percentage <strong>of</strong> superparasitism and fatal wounding. The exposure patterns usually resulted<br />

in a single egg per host; the egg hatched within a few weeks and the parasitoid overwintered<br />

as a first-instar larva.<br />

In rearing thousands <strong>of</strong> prospectively parasitized spruce budworrn larvae, only 70 C.<br />

laritis pre-pupae emerged from their hosts. Of these, 27 successfully pupated in a<br />

cocoon, a few adults emerged, and only one female oviposited. Efforts to rear its<br />

progeny were unsuccessful. Between autumn and late spring in all years, the percentage<br />

parasitism <strong>of</strong> sampled host stock declined sharply, almost to zero. Hypotheses to<br />

account for the decline included ovipositional injury to hosts, lack <strong>of</strong> cold hardiness in<br />

the parasitoid, host diet unfavourable to the parasitoid, encapsulation reaction, and<br />

other biochemical defence mechanisms.<br />

Mortality <strong>of</strong> hosts in hibernacula was 20-62%, higher than the usual 9-22% recorded<br />

from populations in their natural environment. Some <strong>of</strong> the additional mortality was<br />

attributed to ovipositional wounding, as C. laricis has a large ovipositor compared with its<br />

native homologue, Glypla fumiferanae (Vier.). However, mortality <strong>of</strong> hosts was not an<br />

important factor in reduction <strong>of</strong> percentage parasitism. It is unlikely that low winter<br />

temperature discriminated against parasitoids within their spruce budworm hosts. In a<br />

test for cold hardiness, overwintering larvae <strong>of</strong> C. fumiferana, G. fumiferanae, and C.<br />

larieis were rapidly supercooled down to -60°C. All three species showed ice-crystal<br />

formation in the -40 to -43°C range, which is below the coldest natural environment in<br />

New Brunswick. Thus the parasitoid stock <strong>of</strong> Hokkaido provenance appeared to be as<br />

hardy as the native stocks <strong>of</strong> parasitoids and hosts, just as one would expect from a<br />

comparison <strong>of</strong> the monthly mean temperatures <strong>of</strong> the two regions.<br />

When a stock <strong>of</strong> second-instar spruce budworrn larvae was held in storage from<br />

October to May at a constant temperature <strong>of</strong> 7°C, the rate <strong>of</strong> decline <strong>of</strong> parasitism was<br />

unusually rapid compared with stock held out-<strong>of</strong>-doors at much lower temperatures.<br />

Evidently the "cold room" was a selectively hostile environment to the parasitoid, but<br />

not to the host. This suggested that the decline in parasitism was temperature-related<br />

rather than time-related.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the loss <strong>of</strong> parasitism occurred in post-diapause stocks; however, no evidence<br />

implicating host diet appeared, as rearings with either artificial diet or with natural<br />

foliage produced healthy hosts and moribund or vanished parasitoids. Dissections<br />

revealed very few encapsulated parasitoid larvae, not enough to indicate a mechanism<br />

for decline in percentage parasitism. The expected parasitoids seemed to disappear<br />

without trace, but occasionally parasitoid head capsules, faintly yellowed and very<br />

membranous, were discovered within the body cavity <strong>of</strong> healthy maturing hosts. Thus<br />

the most plausible hypothesis is that the spruce budworrn is able to kill and absorb larvae<br />

<strong>of</strong> C. larieis, leaving the host unimpaired.<br />

A small shipment (Table 74) <strong>of</strong> pupae was air-freighted from Czechoslovakia to New<br />

Brunswick in July 1972. Some 1300 spruce budworrn larvae in hibemacula were exposed,<br />

and females oviposited vigorously with behaviour similar to C. larieis. A January<br />

sample <strong>of</strong> hosts wintered out-<strong>of</strong>-doors indicated 25% parasitism <strong>of</strong> survivors and 18%<br />

host mortality. Overwintered hosts were successfully reared in May on artificial diet, or<br />

on diet followed by foliage, but only four parasitoid pre-pupae matured, two dying<br />

within pupal hosts and two emerging from larval hosts but failing to pupate. The<br />

disappearance <strong>of</strong> the expected population <strong>of</strong> parasitoids is unexplained, but circumstances<br />

were similar to those <strong>of</strong> C. larieis.


270 1. W. Varty<br />

Lissonola sp.<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonidae)<br />

Trichogramma<br />

minutum Riley<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Chalcidoidea)<br />

The biology <strong>of</strong> this ichneumonid species from C. diversana hosts on todo fir in Japan has<br />

been reported by Zw61fer (1972, personal communication). Shipments were air-freighted<br />

from Hokkaido to New Brunswick in 1972, 1973, and 1975 (Tables 73 and 74). Females<br />

mated soon after emergence from the cocoon, and were maintained on a diet <strong>of</strong> sugar,<br />

honey, and water for up to a month in insectary cages. No responses were observed to<br />

the presence <strong>of</strong> free-moving first-instar or spun-up second-instar spruce budworm.<br />

However, large samples dissected in winter revealed parasitism rates <strong>of</strong> 7% in 1972 and<br />

1% in 1973. No more than one egg shell was dissected from anyone host, although<br />

heavy superparasitism is the rule in C. diversana hosts. Although many thousands <strong>of</strong><br />

spruce budworm hosts were exposed, only one parasitoid emerged as a pre-pupa, and<br />

it failed to pupate. Three more mature larvae were dissected frot:T\ dead hosts, but no<br />

evidence <strong>of</strong> encapsulation or <strong>of</strong> tissue absorption <strong>of</strong> the parasitoids was found. Thus<br />

Lissonola sp. appears to be incompatible with spruce budworm because <strong>of</strong> low ovipositional<br />

stimulus to the parasitoid and some innate resistance by the host.<br />

The object <strong>of</strong>this study in Quebec in 1970-75 (F.W. Quednau 1974, personal communication,<br />

unpublished work reported to the Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Spruce Budworm Research,<br />

Canadian Forestry Service) was to explore the potential <strong>of</strong> this egg parasitoid for<br />

inundative release against rising spruce budworm populations in local epicentres. This<br />

native chalcidoid wasp is already present in all eastern North American forests, attacking<br />

eggs <strong>of</strong> scores <strong>of</strong> species, and typically contributing 5-25% parasitism <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm<br />

eggs. Apparently, scarcity <strong>of</strong> alternate hosts prevents the numerical response that T.<br />

m;nulUm might otherwise make to rising budworm density. Quednau believed that about<br />

2.5 x 10" female parasitoids per hectare would be needed for effective release in epicentres.<br />

The research problems facing the Laurentian Forest Research Centre were: (l)the<br />

maintenance <strong>of</strong> year-round research cultures <strong>of</strong> the parasitoids and suitable hosts;<br />

(2)comparison <strong>of</strong> commercial strains and arboreal ecotypes, and the selection <strong>of</strong> a<br />

type most responsive to laboratory rearing and the spruce budworm forest habitat;<br />

(3)determination <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid female's functional response to host density;<br />

(4)refinement <strong>of</strong> a mass-culture method, and (5)development <strong>of</strong> techniques for<br />

inundative release and assessment <strong>of</strong> efficacy.<br />

From 1970 to 1975 considerable biological knowledge and research experience was<br />

gained in the first three problems. Methods <strong>of</strong> air-freighting stock from the United States<br />

and Mexico were established, and techniques for small-scale rearing and storage <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitoids and host eggs were developed (Table 74). However, the application <strong>of</strong><br />

American commercial techniques <strong>of</strong> mass-rearing was thwarted by quarantine regulations,<br />

which prevented the utilization <strong>of</strong> the angoumois grain moth, Silotroga cerea/ella<br />

(Olivier), the most suitable host for Trichogramma cultures. Moreover, there were<br />

worker health problems (allergies) associated with mass-rearing.<br />

Progress was made in the selection <strong>of</strong> a Canadian ecotype well adapted to the forest<br />

environment and with superior host-finding potential. However, T. m;nulum was shown<br />

to have only a weak functional response to density <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm egg-masses; that<br />

is, in caged-tree experiments with varying parasitoid densities and host densities, the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> attacked host eggs per individual parasitoid was greater when egg-mass<br />

density was increased. However, increased density <strong>of</strong> parasitoids tended to lower<br />

success in finding hosts, perhaps because <strong>of</strong> mutual interference and increased superparasitism.<br />

Parasitism greater than 50% was not attained in cage experiments. Thus the<br />

prospects for useful impact on spruce budworm dynamics appear low, because only a<br />

drastic change in egg parasitism could have any significant effect on generation survival<br />

in spruce budworm outbreak densities (Morris 1963).<br />

The research was terminated in 1975 without definitive assessment <strong>of</strong> the feasibility <strong>of</strong><br />

application to spruce budworm control.


Agria housei Shewell<br />

(Diptera: Sareophagidae)<br />

Native parasitoids <strong>of</strong><br />

spruce budwonn larvae<br />

Recommendations<br />

D. Testing <strong>of</strong> parasitoids 271<br />

The native sarcophagid fly, Agria housei, has long been recorded as a pre-pupal and pupal<br />

parasitoid <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm and western spruce budworm, usually at low percentage<br />

parasitism. However, it merits consideration for inundative release because it is one <strong>of</strong><br />

the few budworm parasitoids that can be laboratory-produced in large quantities at<br />

acceptable costs; it can be reared directly on pork liver without an intermediate insect<br />

host. It has other characteristics that enhance its prospective application to the spruce<br />

budworm problem. However, the laboratory stock available for experimentation had<br />

been reared for many generations under artificial conditions, causing loss <strong>of</strong> cold hardiness<br />

and diapause induction (House 1967). Therefore there were doubts about the responsiveness<br />

<strong>of</strong> this stock to spruce budworm hosts and about its capacity to revert to univoltine<br />

reproduction.<br />

Field and laboratory tests were conducted in 1971 to gain experience in handling the<br />

species and to test its response to larval and pupal spruce budworm hosts (Tables 73 and<br />

74). The fly stock was provided by the Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> Research Institute, Belleville,<br />

Ontario. Laboratory cage experiments designed to test hostlparasitoid densities failed<br />

to elicit any apparent interaction, and no parasitoid progeny issued. However, some 2800<br />

adult flies (34% female) were freely released into a balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.,<br />

stand highly infested with spruce budworm pupae, at Fundy National Park. From a<br />

sample <strong>of</strong> 1114 pupae collected within 10 days <strong>of</strong> release and within 7S m <strong>of</strong> release point,<br />

14 A. housei puparia were recovered. Based on estimates <strong>of</strong> the density <strong>of</strong> available<br />

hosts, this rate <strong>of</strong> recovery indicated an excellent response by the introduced stock. No<br />

further specimens were recovered from samples <strong>of</strong> host pupae in 1972 and 1973, but<br />

given the poor cold hardiness inheritance <strong>of</strong> the stock and the dispersal characteristics <strong>of</strong><br />

the species, detectable persistence at the release point was not expected. The potential<br />

for applied biological control under appropriate pre-outbreak conditions remains unassessed.<br />

The Canadian Forestry Service has maintained a sporadic surveillance <strong>of</strong> the effectiveness<br />

<strong>of</strong> native parasitoids attacking spruce budworm, especially G. fumiferanae and<br />

Apanteles fumiferanae Vier., which parasitize overwintering larvae. A study at the<br />

Maritimes Forest Research Centre was conducted from 1977 to 1980 on the premise that<br />

an understanding <strong>of</strong> the factors limiting parasitoid effectiveness might lead to methods<br />

<strong>of</strong> managing the forest habitat to stimulate parasitoid regulation <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm. The<br />

study was directed to the behavioural biology <strong>of</strong> adults <strong>of</strong> these two species (feeding<br />

habits, flight periodicity, distribution in the canopy), but did not reveal any clear avenue<br />

for practical application (R.S. Forbes 1980, unpublished work, Canadian Forestry<br />

Service).<br />

It is recommended that the Canadian Forestry Service (a) maintain contacts with<br />

CIBC concerning collection opportunities abroad; (b) investigate the compatibilities<br />

<strong>of</strong> a range <strong>of</strong> non-indigenous parasitoids with spruce budworm hosts; (c) develop<br />

rearing, release, and assessment skills and facilities; and (d) assess opportunities for<br />

incorporating parasitoid manipulation in integrated pest management programmes based<br />

on spruce budworm population dynamics.


272 I. W. Varty<br />

Literature Cited<br />

House, H.L. (1967) The decreasing occurrcnce <strong>of</strong> diapause in the fly Puudosarcophaga a!finis through laboratory-reared generations.<br />

Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Zoology 45,149-153.<br />

McGugan, B.M.; Coppel, H.C. (1962) Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insects 1910-1958. In: A review <strong>of</strong> the biological control attempts against<br />

insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Communication<br />

2,35-127.<br />

Miller, C.A.; Angus, T.A. (1971) Choristoneurafumiferana (Clemens), spruce budworm (lcpidoptera: Tortricidae). In: Biological control<br />

programmes against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong> 1959- 1968. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological<br />

Control Technical Communication 4,127-130.<br />

Minot, M.C.; Leonard, D.E. (1976) Host preference and development <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid Brachymeria intermedia in Lymantria dispar L..<br />

Galleria mellonella and Choristoneura fumiferana. Environmental Entomology 5.527-532.<br />

Morris, R.F. (1963) The analysis <strong>of</strong> generation survival in relation to age-interval survivals in the unspmyed areas. In: Morris, R.F. (Ed.)<br />

The dynamics <strong>of</strong> epidemic spruce bud worm populations. Memoirs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong><br />

31,32-37.


274 I. W. Varty<br />

experimental biological insecticides with weak dispersion and self-sustenance in subsequent<br />

years. The Canadian Forestry Service (CFS) has undertaken fundamental and<br />

innovative research for more than 30 years, yet a cost-effective operational treatment for<br />

spruce budworm has not been achieved so far. In the 1970s, the emphasis was on<br />

isolation. mass-propagation, formulation, and spray-testing <strong>of</strong> baculoviruses. The economic<br />

problem was the high cost <strong>of</strong> virus propagation on diet-reared spruce budworm larvae,<br />

currently about $250 per sprayed hectare, or 30-40 times the cost <strong>of</strong> chemical treatment.<br />

The technical problem was the low rate <strong>of</strong> foliage protection, even when high larval<br />

mortality was attained.<br />

The probability <strong>of</strong> large-scale operational application in the 1980s is low. The future <strong>of</strong><br />

virus sprays may depend on development <strong>of</strong> a cheap culture method. Prospects for a selfspreading<br />

low-density inoculation method are poor. As no natural epizootic has been<br />

recorded, it appears that spruce budworm viruses have low natural infectiveness. Spray<br />

efficacy will probably demand high dosage and high density coverage <strong>of</strong> the target forest.<br />

Bacteria<br />

The commercial production <strong>of</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (B.t.) and its Canadian<br />

registration for forest use have already been achieved. B.t. is widely used and effective<br />

for North American field crops, but has been generally less successful against forest<br />

pests in experimental trials. Its toxicology, formulation, aerial delivery techniques, and<br />

field assessment methods have been developed for use against spruce budworm. B.t. is<br />

essentially a biological insecticide, and is not designed to meet the self-regulating, selfdistributing,<br />

density-dependent criteria <strong>of</strong> c1assicial biological control. Canadian laboratory<br />

studies in the 1970s addressed the mode <strong>of</strong> action <strong>of</strong> the crystal, its structure, and assays<br />

<strong>of</strong> potency <strong>of</strong> field preparations; field research was designed to develop formulations,<br />

test aerial delivery techniques, and assess efficacy for population reduction and foliage<br />

protection. Even so, B.t. application is 4-5 times more costly and somewhat less<br />

reliable than corresponding treatments with the chemical insecticide fenitrothion. B.t.<br />

technology is still short <strong>of</strong> its full potential: potential future developments include<br />

selection <strong>of</strong> more potent strains, preparation <strong>of</strong> synthetic mimics <strong>of</strong> the crystal toxin,<br />

improvements in formulation, and more effective aerial delivery systems.<br />

Fungi<br />

The study <strong>of</strong> mycoses caused by entomogenous fungi holds a modest posItIon in<br />

research and development <strong>of</strong> biological methods for agricultural pests (Ferron 1978).<br />

International interest has focused mainly on the role <strong>of</strong> fungal epizootics in pest<br />

population regulation. but in practice few commercial products exist and experimentation<br />

in forestry, for example in the USSR, has been limited. The object <strong>of</strong> field application is<br />

to initiate an epizootic by artificial dissemination <strong>of</strong> inoculum, and research has been on<br />

the nature <strong>of</strong> infectiveness, methods <strong>of</strong> mass propagation, and methods <strong>of</strong>field distribution.<br />

Canadian research in this field, conducted mostly at the Forest Pest Management<br />

Institute and at Memorial University <strong>of</strong> Newfoundland, was exploratory in the 1970s and<br />

was on methods <strong>of</strong> culture <strong>of</strong> inoculum and the mode <strong>of</strong> spore formation and germination.<br />

Until 1980 no field spray experimentation for spruce budworm control had been attempted.<br />

Fungi are valuable agents for biological control because <strong>of</strong> their high specificity and high<br />

infective ness in the laboratory. However, their natural incidence in spruce bud worm<br />

populations is low, so the prospects for stimulating large-scale epizootics are correspondingly<br />

weak. Development <strong>of</strong> an operational cost-competitive treatment apears to be remote.


Protozoa<br />

E. Review <strong>of</strong> biological control opportunities 275<br />

Protozoan parasitism <strong>of</strong> agricultural pests is commonplace and is reported to reduce<br />

population vigour. Many species occur in forest defoliator insects, including two species<br />

<strong>of</strong> microsporidia in spruce budworm. However, in pest control history the applied use <strong>of</strong><br />

protozoa has been rare, because they are costly to propagate in quantity, and exhibit low<br />

infectiveness after artificial distribution.<br />

Canadian research on microsporidian parasites <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm was restricted to<br />

the Forest Pest Management Institute in the 1970s, which documented their natural<br />

incidence and parasitic role. Spray experiments on single trees demonstrated that<br />

parasitism rates can be artificially raised, but left the problem <strong>of</strong> mass production<br />

unsolved. Operational application is not yet practicable.<br />

Parasitoids<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> has enjoyed some success in the importation <strong>of</strong> exotic parasitoids to control<br />

introduced pest insects in both agriculture and forestry, but the record <strong>of</strong> releases to<br />

control native forest pests has been discouraging (Munroe 1971). However, it is not<br />

known whether the low success rate in the control <strong>of</strong> native hosts is associated with the<br />

separate evolutions <strong>of</strong> host and parasitoid, or stems from imperfect testing techniques.<br />

In agriculture, inundative release <strong>of</strong> a few species <strong>of</strong> natural enemies is routine practice,<br />

but experimentation against forest pests has been fragmentary and unsustained (Pschom­<br />

Walcher 1977).<br />

Canadian research on manipulation <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm parasitism was scant in the<br />

1970s, but was on a sounder base than the hit-and-miss releases <strong>of</strong> the 1940s and 1950s.<br />

Research was on field-cage studies <strong>of</strong> host and site compatibility with exotic parasitoids<br />

and studies <strong>of</strong> the numerical response <strong>of</strong> native parasitoids, with the inundative release<br />

method in mind.<br />

The case for increasing the Canadian effort with respect to spruce budworm parasitism<br />

is not strong if the probability <strong>of</strong> establishing additional natural enemies decreases with<br />

increasing diversity <strong>of</strong> the natural enemy complement. There is a need for better<br />

theoretical guidelines in order to achieve maximum success. The empirical approach -<br />

to collect homologous parasitoids abroad, then release and monitor their distribution<br />

and persistence - is unpredictable and does not increase understanding <strong>of</strong> the processes<br />

unless accompanied by studies <strong>of</strong> host-parasitoid compatibility.<br />

Predators<br />

In world agriculture, some striking successes have been achieved by inoculative release<br />

<strong>of</strong> exotic predaceous arthropods, but in Canadian forestry few such releases have been<br />

attempted (Munroe 1971). In general, the release <strong>of</strong> an exotic broad-spectrum predator<br />

gives rise to more concern about ecological integrity than the introduction <strong>of</strong> hostspecific<br />

parasitoids. In <strong>Canada</strong>, the only releases <strong>of</strong> non-native arthropod predators <strong>of</strong><br />

forest pests in 1969-80 were the successful introductions <strong>of</strong> two red wood ant species<br />

from Italy and Manitoba to Quebec (Finnegan 1978); the experiments show encouraging<br />

results in the control <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm populations in young stands. However, in<br />

general. the technical and economic feasibilities <strong>of</strong> predator releases against spruce<br />

budworm have not been assessed.<br />

Genetic approaches<br />

Pest insect genetics is an important means <strong>of</strong> biological control, because it leads to<br />

autocidal methods for manipulating popUlations. The technique <strong>of</strong> releasing sterile


276 I. W. Varty<br />

Further research<br />

Literature Cited<br />

males to interfere with the transmission <strong>of</strong> genes is best exemplified by the successful<br />

screwworm and fruit fly mntrol operations by the United States Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture.<br />

During the 1970s many agencies around the world attempted pest control based on this<br />

principle (Whitten & Foster 1975).<br />

Exploratory research on spruce budworm genetics was conducted by CFS in the<br />

late 1970s, the only research agency with a declared interest. Such work is essentially<br />

long-term, demanding <strong>of</strong> innovation and risky as an investment; it includes investigations <strong>of</strong><br />

induced sterility, gene-damaging methods, and procedures for attaining population<br />

control. It may <strong>of</strong>fer opportunities for diminishing the budworm's reproductive success,<br />

but has potential mainly for small areas in the early stages <strong>of</strong> population increase.<br />

Prospects for early operational application are dim.<br />

Clearly none <strong>of</strong> the biological methods <strong>of</strong> control is ready to displace chemical spraying<br />

in a significant percentage <strong>of</strong> the area needing protection from spruce budworm.<br />

However, B.I. is efficacious and acceptable financially for small areas, especially in high<br />

value stands and in zones where chemicals are prohibited. The technical research, as<br />

recommended by Smirn<strong>of</strong>f & Morris in this chapter, should be strongly supported,<br />

because B.I. is close to being cost-competitive. It is the only non-chemical method able<br />

to replace the registered chemicals in the event <strong>of</strong> further restrictions, and it has<br />

considerable international research interest.<br />

For other entomopathogens, the main barrier to progress is the lack <strong>of</strong> methods for<br />

mass-propagation <strong>of</strong> agents at acceptable cost. Research agencies should re-examine<br />

the feasibility <strong>of</strong> hastening such capability, consulting with the many international<br />

agencies interested in similar, but problem-specific, developmental research. Because<br />

the search for new species or virulent strains <strong>of</strong> known entomopathogens has shown<br />

little promise, the prospects for induced genetic alteration should be monitored by close<br />

contact with scientific advances in agriculture. Meanwhile it is desirable to maintain the<br />

current steady progress reported already in this chapter.<br />

Research on parasitoids and predators is at low ebb. More basic research on hostparasitoid<br />

compatibility and on release and dispersion methods should be conducted.<br />

Research on genetic methods <strong>of</strong> autocidal control have been exploratory, but results<br />

have been sufficiently encouraging to justify further work.<br />

The contributors to each section <strong>of</strong> this chapter have recommended further long-term<br />

research. The potential for effective alternatives to chemical control is real, even if slight<br />

in most cases. Except for 8.1., none <strong>of</strong> these alternatives is likely to have a significant<br />

role in forest protection operations in the 1980s. However, because the spruce budworm<br />

is a long-term problem, and spruce-fir forest is a long-term resource, the need for an<br />

array <strong>of</strong> protection techniques for both remedial and preventive intervention is likely to<br />

persist.<br />

Beirne. B.P. (1975) Biological control attempts by introductions against pest insects in the field in <strong>Canada</strong>. Canadian Entomologist<br />

107.225-236.<br />

Ferron. P. (1978) Biological control <strong>of</strong> insect pests by entomogenous fungi. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Entomology 23.409-442.<br />

Finnegan. R.J. (1978) Predation by Formica lugubris (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera: Tonricidae).<br />

Canadian Forestry Service Bi-monthly Research Notes. 34(1).3-4.<br />

Miller. C.A.; Vanyo I.W. (1975) Biological methods <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm control. Forestry Chronicle 51.16-19.<br />

Munroe. E.G. (1971) Status and potential <strong>of</strong> biological control in <strong>Canada</strong>. In: Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>. 1959·68. Commonwealth Institule <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Communication 4.213-255.<br />

Pschorn-Walchcr. H. (1977) Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insects. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Entomology 22.1-22.<br />

TInsley. T.W. (1979) The potential <strong>of</strong> insect pathogenic viruses as pesticidal agents. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Entomology 24.63-87.<br />

Whitten. M.J.; Foster. G.G. (1975) Genetic methods <strong>of</strong> pest control. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Entomology 20.461-476.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Field Trials<br />

Chapter 48<br />

Choristoneura occidentalis Freeman,<br />

Western Spruce Budworm (Lepidoptera:<br />

Tortricidae)<br />

R.F. SHEPHERD and J.e. CUNNINGHAM<br />

Two outbreaks <strong>of</strong> the western spruce budworm, Choristoneura occidentalis Freeman,<br />

on Douglas fir, PseudolSuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, in British Columbia have been<br />

well documented and evidence <strong>of</strong> three more outbreaks during this century has been<br />

found by examination <strong>of</strong> tree radial sections. The current outbreak began in 1970 and<br />

still persists in 1980. It is more extensive and has continued longer than the previous<br />

outbreak, which lasted from 1954 to 1958.<br />

These outbreaks all occurred in the Frazer and Lillooet River valleys, which form an<br />

inter-zone between the moist coastal and dry interior zones <strong>of</strong> British Columbia. In the<br />

western and southern portions <strong>of</strong> these valleys, defoliation occurred in a mid·slope band<br />

but not in the valley bottoms. With time, populations have decreased in the western<br />

extremities <strong>of</strong> the infestation and increased toward the northeast, but during the current<br />

outbreak populations have decreased and then increased regionally more than once.<br />

Typical damage to trees includes reduction in height and radial growth, dieback, and<br />

deformity. Complete tree mortality has occurred in a few small patches but more<br />

commonly occurs in the understorey below larger heavily defoliated trees.<br />

The same viruses that infect C. occidentalis also infect spruce budworm, C. fumiferana<br />

(Clem.), and laboratory tests indicate that the former is more susceptible to a nuclear<br />

polyhedrosis virus (NPV) and a granulosis virus (GV) (Cunningham unpublished). In<br />

addition, populations <strong>of</strong> western spruce budworm are virtually free <strong>of</strong> the microsporidian<br />

parasites that are found at very high levels in older infestations <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm; it is<br />

possible that infection with microsporidia may be antagonistic to subsequent infection<br />

with viruses but this has to be verified.<br />

The first aerial spray trial using NPV on western spruce budworm was conducted in 1976<br />

on a 20.5·ha plot, using a fixed.wing aircraft fitted with boom and nozzle spray equipment.<br />

The dosage was 250 x 10" polyhedral inclusion bodies (PIB) per hectare; the aqueous<br />

formulation contained 25% molasses, 6% IMC 90-001 (International Minerals Corp.)<br />

UV protectant, and 1% Chevron® sticker; the emission rate was 9.4 I/ha and larvae<br />

were in the fourth, fifth, and sixth instars. Population reduction as a result <strong>of</strong> treatment,<br />

calculated by Abbott's formula (Abbott 1925), was 36%; the incidence <strong>of</strong> NPV in larvae,<br />

determined microscopically, was 6.8% in the treated plot and 1.6% in the check plot<br />

respectively. In 1977 the incidence <strong>of</strong> virus in the treated plot fell to 1.3% (Shepherd &<br />

Cunningham unpublished). This poor result was probably due to too Iowa dosage <strong>of</strong><br />

virus. applied too late.<br />

In 1978 the same equipment and emission rate were used to treat three 20-ha plots with<br />

NPV at a dosage <strong>of</strong> 750 x 10" PIBlha just after budflush when larvae were at the peak <strong>of</strong><br />

the fifth instar, with third, fourth. and sixth instars also present. The aqueous formulation<br />

277


27R R. F. Shcphcrd and J. C. Cunningham<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Recommendations<br />

contained 25% molasses, 3% Shade® (Sandoz Inc.) (the same product as IMC 90-001),<br />

and 0.05% Triton® B-1956 (Rohm and Haas Co. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> Ltd.) sticker. Fifteen days<br />

after spraying, NPV infection levels, detemined microscopically, were 55, 87, and 25%;<br />

and population reductions due to treatment were 0, 26, and 48% respectively. Successful<br />

adult emergence was lower in treated than in check plots,and the male:female ratio<br />

was 2: 1 in the treated plots compared to 1:1 in the check plots (Hodgkinson et al. 1979).<br />

In 1979 and 1980, follow-up studies were conducted on two <strong>of</strong> the three virus-treated<br />

plots, the third being abandoned because <strong>of</strong> a local population decline. In these two<br />

plots, NPV infection rates were recorded as 18 and 54% in 1979, and 7 and 17% in 1980.<br />

In 1979, population declines <strong>of</strong> 51 and 62% in the virus treated plots were recorded<br />

compared to increases <strong>of</strong> 46 and 201 % in the corresponding check plots. However, this<br />

trend was reversed in 1980; populations more than doubled in the virus-treated plots<br />

compared to 1979 levels and substantial population declines were noted in the check<br />

plots (Shepherd el al. 1982).<br />

Bacillus Ihuringiensis Berliner<br />

In 1978, four 4O-ha plots were treated with Thuricide® 16B (Sandoz Inc.), a commercial<br />

preparation <strong>of</strong> Bacillus Ihuringiensis Berliner (B.t.). The emission rate was 9.4 Vha and<br />

the dosage 20 x ur I. U ./ha. Fifteen days after spraying, populations were reduced by 32,<br />

66, 79, and 91% (Hodgkinson el al. 1979).<br />

In the plots treated with B.t., western spruce budworm populations increased in 1979<br />

in two <strong>of</strong> the four plots; in the third plot the population increased at a lesser rate and in<br />

the fourth it showed a small, but significant, decrease compared to corresponding check<br />

plots. In 1980 this trend was reversed, with untreated populations decreasing and B.t.treated<br />

populations increasing dramatically (Shepherd el al. 1982).<br />

Applications <strong>of</strong> NPV and B.I., in 1978 did not provide adequate control in that year, but<br />

NPV and possibly B.I. did provide some carry-over effect and continued to cause a<br />

population regulating effect a year later. This carry-over effect might have continued<br />

longer, but the plots treated in these trials were small and results were probably masked<br />

by immigration <strong>of</strong> moths. If either NPV or B.t. can regulate populations for a number <strong>of</strong><br />

years after a single application, their use may be justified economically.<br />

The same constraints that apply to the viruses on C. fumiferana also apply to C.<br />

occidentalis. However, the western species is virtually free from microsporidian<br />

parasites; preliminary laboratory tests have also shown that it is more susceptible to<br />

both NPV and av than microsporidia-free, laboratory-reared spruce budworm larvae.<br />

It therefore appears that western spruce budworm is a better candidate for population<br />

regulation with viruses.<br />

More field trials should be conducted to compare the efficacy <strong>of</strong> NPV and av.<br />

A test involving an isolated population, where moth immigration would be negligible,<br />

should be conducted in order to evaluate the long-term effects <strong>of</strong> these biological<br />

control agents.


Literature Cited<br />

CflOris(rmcllra occidelllalis Freeman. 279<br />

Abbott, W.S. (1925) A method <strong>of</strong> computing the erfeetiveness <strong>of</strong> an insecticide. Journal <strong>of</strong> Ecotromic Entomology 18.265-267.<br />

Hodgkinson, R.S.; Finnis. M.; Shepherd, R.F.; Cunningham, J.C. (1979) Aerial applications <strong>of</strong> nuclear polyhedrosis virus and Bacillus<br />

tllUTitlgietlsis against western spruce budworm. British Columbia Ministry <strong>of</strong> Forests/Canadian Forestry<br />

Service Joim Report 10. 19 pp.<br />

Shepherd, R.F.; Gray, T.G.; Cunningham, J.C. (1982) Effects <strong>of</strong> nuclear polyhedrosis virus nnd Dacilllts tllUritlgietlSis on western spruce<br />

budworm one nnd two xenrs after aerial application. Canarlian Entomologist 114,281-282.


Blank Page<br />

280


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

AgaIhis pumila (Ratz.)<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Braconidae)<br />

Chapter 49<br />

Coleophora laricella (Hiibner), Larch<br />

Casebearer (Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae)<br />

I.S. OTVOS and F. W. QUEDNAU<br />

The larch casebearer. Coleophora laricella (Hubner). was accidentally introduced from<br />

Europe, probably on nursery stock. It was first recorded in North America in 1886 at<br />

Northampton, Massachusetts (Herrick 1912), and in Ottawa in 1905 (Retcher 1906).<br />

The casebearer spread rapidly and by 1947 infested most tamarack, Larix laricina (Du<br />

Roi) K. Koch, in Newfoundland. the Maritimes. and Ontario. spreading west as far as<br />

Thunder Bay (McGugan & Coppel 1962). By 1970 it was present in southeastern<br />

Manitoba. It was first found on western larch. Larix occidentalis Nutt .• around St.<br />

Maries, Idaho, in 1957 (Denton 1958). and in British Columbia in 1966 (Molnar et al.<br />

1966). The larch casebearer moved rapidly along major larch stands in the valleys, and<br />

became established throughout the range <strong>of</strong> western larch in southeastern British<br />

Columbia in varying degrees <strong>of</strong> infestation. Successive years <strong>of</strong> severe defoliation cause<br />

growth reduction. crown dieback. and subsequent tree mortality (McGugan & Coppel<br />

1962. Turnock et al. 1969).<br />

Successful control <strong>of</strong> the larch casebearer in eastern and central <strong>Canada</strong> (Webb &<br />

Quednau 1971) by the introduction <strong>of</strong> parasitoids and by similar biological control work<br />

in the northwestern United States (Denton 1972. Ryan & Denton 1973) led to a resumption<br />

<strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> parasitoids in 1974 to combat the larch case bearer in British Columbia.<br />

An intensive survey <strong>of</strong> larch casebearer parasitoids conducted in British Columbia in<br />

1973 yielded 32 species <strong>of</strong> Hymenoptera (Miller & Finlayson 1974). In Quebec, studies<br />

on Diadegma laricinellum (Strobl) were continued after 1968, but the project was<br />

terminated in 1974 because <strong>of</strong> low priority.<br />

Four species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids. Agathis pumila (Ratz.), Chrysocharis laricinellae (Ratz.).<br />

Diadegma laricinellum (Strobl). and Dicladocerus japonicus Yshm. have been released<br />

in southeastern British Columbia. and a few D. laricinellum were also liberated in<br />

Quebec. The details <strong>of</strong> these releases are summarized in Table 75.<br />

This species was first introduced into British Columbia in 1969 when parasitized larch<br />

casebearers. collected in Montana (USA) were placed in larch casebearer infested<br />

stands at Arrow Creek and Fruitvale. The species was recovered in 1972 at both sites.<br />

Between 1974 and 1977 more adults <strong>of</strong> A. pumila, this time from Europe. were released<br />

at other locations in the southeastern part <strong>of</strong> the province. In addition, larch casebearer<br />

larvae parasitized by A. pumila in the laboratory were placed in infested larch stands.<br />

and parasitoids from an old larch case bearer infestation in British Columbia were also<br />

relocated.<br />

2XI


282 I. S. Otvos and F. W. Quednau<br />

Chrys«haris<br />

buidneHae (Ratz.)<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

EuJophidae)<br />

Table 75<br />

The establishment <strong>of</strong> the parasitoids was monitored by rearing last-instar larch casebearer<br />

larvae and pupae collected at the release sites. These rearings showed that A.<br />

pumila became established, but its numbers seem to be declining as another parasitoid,<br />

C. laricinellae, is increasing over the years. Quednau (1970) has shown that the<br />

multivoltine C. laricinellae increased at the expense <strong>of</strong> A. pumila in Quebec.<br />

Summad' <strong>of</strong> parasitoid releases and relocations in British Columbia and Quebec between<br />

1969 an 1980<br />

No. and sex <strong>of</strong><br />

Species and locality Lat. Long. Origin parasitoids released Year<br />

Agathis pumiJa (Ratz.)<br />

Fruitvale 49.06"N 117.33o"V Montana 100 M & F 1969<br />

Arrow Creek 49.07"N 116.26"W Montana 100> M & F 1969<br />

Nelway 49.02"N 117.1nV Austria 87M+89F 1974<br />

Blewett 49.28"N 117.2SW France 15 M + 15 F 1974<br />

Creston 49.06"N 116.31o"V Italy 10 M + 24 F 1975<br />

East Arrow 49.09"N 116.26o"V Italy 2OM+32F 1975<br />

Thrums 49.23"N 1l7.33"W Italy 9M+32F 1975<br />

Pass Creek 49.25"N 117.36o"V Italy 17 M + 31 F 1975<br />

Blewett 49.28"N 117.25"W Italy 14 M + 31 F 1975<br />

North Salmo 49.13"N 1l7.l4"W 400 (parasitized larvae) 1976<br />

Christina Lake 49.02"N 118.10"w Austria 25M+30F 1976<br />

Ross Spur 49.11"N 117.28"W Austria 24M+28F 1976<br />

Rossland 49.04"N 1l7.47"W Italy & Austria 16 M + 36F 1977<br />

Cherryville SO.13"N 118.34"W (relocation from l00M& F 1978<br />

Arrow Creek)<br />

Chrysocharis laricinellae (Ratz.)<br />

Thrums 49.23"N 1l7.33"W Switzerland 6 M + 12 F 1974<br />

Shuttleworth Creek 49.1ffl 119.32"W (relocation from 512 M & F 1980<br />

B.C.)<br />

Diadegma laricinellum (Strobl)<br />

South Slocan 49.23"N 1l7.33"W Austria IOM+5F 1974<br />

Thrums 49.23 c N 1l7.33"W Austria 7 M + 5 F 1974<br />

East Arrow 49.09"N 116.26"W Italy 9M + SF 1975<br />

Thrums 49.23°N 1l7.33"W Italy 9M + SF 1975<br />

North Creston 49. 12°N 116.34"W Italy 12 M + 28 F + 25 1976<br />

parasitized larvae<br />

Joliette' 46.02"N 73.27"W own rearings 12 F (mated) 1972<br />

Dicladocerus japonicus Yshm.<br />

Blewett 49.28"N 1l7.25°W Japan 52 M + 215 F 1974<br />

Thrums 49.23°N 1l7.33"W Japan 5M+20F 1974<br />

• Located in Quebec; all others are in British Columbia .<br />

C. laricinellae was apparently introduced in the Pacific Northwest with its host or it was<br />

released inadvertently with the early introductions <strong>of</strong> A. pumila (Ryan et al. 1974). In<br />

1974 a small number <strong>of</strong> imported C. laricinellae were released in British Columbia; in<br />

1980 greater numbers <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid were relocated from older infestations in the<br />

province.


Dladegma I8ricineIJum<br />

(Strobl), formerly<br />

known as D. nBnB<br />

(Grav.), (Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonldae)<br />

DlclBdocerus<br />

jBponlcus Yshrn.<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Eulophidae)<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Recommendations<br />

Co/eop//Ora laricella (Hubner), 283<br />

Adults <strong>of</strong> this parasitoid were liberated in small numbers in British Columbia from 1974<br />

to 1976, but none <strong>of</strong> the species has been recovered. In Quebec, 12 mated females from<br />

laboratory rearings were released in 1972, but recoveries could not be made because the<br />

project was terminated. Quebec received small quantities <strong>of</strong> D. laricinellum from<br />

Austria between 1968 and 1973. Because the biology <strong>of</strong> D. laricinellum was incompletely<br />

known, laboratory studies on competition between it and A. pumila were conducted<br />

before it was released in the field. These studies have shown that host larvae attacked by<br />

A. pumila are normally avoided by D. laricinellum except at high densities <strong>of</strong> A. pumila,<br />

which are rare in nature. D. laricinellum proved to be intrinsically inferior and died from<br />

the presence <strong>of</strong> A. pumila when both parasitoid species occurred in the same host larva<br />

(Quednau, unpublished). Synchronous attacks on larch casebearer larvae by both<br />

parasitoid species are unlikely to occur in nature, because A. pumila attacks smaller<br />

needle-mining stages than D. laricinellum. Factors adversely affecting the sex ratio <strong>of</strong><br />

the progeny <strong>of</strong> this parasitoid were discussed by Ryan (1980). These factors comprise<br />

continuous supply with hosts, overmating, too-early contact with hosts, superparasitism<br />

and lack <strong>of</strong> sufficient time between attacks to encourage the fertilization <strong>of</strong> parasitoid<br />

eggs. Because some <strong>of</strong> these factors were not used to provide optimum conditions for<br />

the proper sex ratio during the laboratory rearings <strong>of</strong> D. laricinellum in Quebec, too<br />

few female parasitoids were obtained for field liberations (Quednau unpublished).<br />

This species was released in 1974 at Blewett, British Columbia, in relatively small<br />

numbers and has not been recovered to date.<br />

It is too early to evaluate the effect <strong>of</strong> the parasitoids on the larch casebearer in British<br />

Columbia. Data obtained so far indicate that both A. pumila and C. laricinellae have<br />

become established. The latter is now fairly common in this province (Otvos unpublished)<br />

and may have contributed to the reduction <strong>of</strong> the larch case bearer and hence <strong>of</strong> tree<br />

mortality.<br />

Further searches should be made for D. laricinellum; because <strong>of</strong> the failure to recover it,<br />

the role <strong>of</strong> this parasitoid in Canadian larch casebearer populations remains to be<br />

evaluated. Its presence in the ecosystem can be only beneficial because it also may serve<br />

as a host for C. laricinellae. The introduction <strong>of</strong> A. pumila has probably facilitated the<br />

distribution <strong>of</strong> C. laricinellae in British Columbia. Although no studies have been made<br />

on this subject, winter mortality <strong>of</strong> the parasitoids should be considerably less in British<br />

Columbia than in the eastern part <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>, and the impact <strong>of</strong> C. laricinellae on larch<br />

case bearer populations should be stronger because <strong>of</strong> the more favourable climate in the<br />

west. Life-table studies, although time consuming, are essential to the understanding <strong>of</strong><br />

host-parasitoid population regulation mechanisms.


2M.. I. S. OtV()S and F. W. Quednau<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Denton. R.E. (1958) The larch c3scbearer in Idaho - a new defoliator for western forest. US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Forest Service<br />

Research Note 51. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, 6 pp.<br />

Denton. R.E. (1972) Establishment <strong>of</strong> Agathis pumila (Ratz.) for control <strong>of</strong>larch casebearer. and notes on native parasitism and predation in<br />

Idaho. US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Forest Service Research Note INT·I64. 6 pp.<br />

Retcher. J. (1906) Insects injurous to Ontario crops in 1905. Forest and shade trees. <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario Report 36.89-90.<br />

Herrick. G.W. (1912) The larch cascbearer. Blllletin <strong>of</strong> the Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station No. 322.<br />

McGugan. B.M.; Coppel, H.C. (1962) Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insects, 1910·1958. In: A review <strong>of</strong> biological control attempts against<br />

insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Bioiogicill Contwl Technical Communication<br />

2.35-216.<br />

Miller. G.E.; Finlayson, T. (1974) Native parasitoids <strong>of</strong> the larch cascbearer, Coleophora laricella (Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae), in the west<br />

Kootenay area <strong>of</strong> British Columbia. Journal <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> British Columbia 74.14 - 21.<br />

Molnar, A.C.; Harris. J.W.E.; Ross, D.A. (1966) British Columbia Region. Annual Report <strong>of</strong> the Forestln.rect and Disease Survey, Ottawa<br />

1967. PI'. 108-123.<br />

Quednau. F. W. (1970) Competition and cooperation between Chrysoclwris laricinellae and Agathis pumila on larch casebearer in Quebec.<br />

Canadian Entomologist 102.602-612.<br />

Ryan. R.B. (1980) Rearing methods and biological notes for seven species <strong>of</strong> European and Japanese parasitoids <strong>of</strong> the larch casebearer<br />

(Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae). Canadian Entomologist 112.1239-1248.<br />

Ryan. R.B.; Denton, R.E. (1973) Initial releases <strong>of</strong> Chrysocharis laricinella and Dic/adocerus westwoodii for biological control <strong>of</strong> the larch<br />

casebearcr in the western United States. US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Forest Sen-ice Research Note<br />

PNW·200. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, Oregon. 4 pp.<br />

Ryan. R.B.; Bousfield, W.E.; Miller. G.E.; Finlayson, T. (1974) Presence <strong>of</strong> Chrysocharis Ia,icinellae. a parasite <strong>of</strong> the larch casebearer. in<br />

the Pacific Northwest. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 67.805.<br />

Tunnock, S.; Denton, R. E.; Carlson, C.E.; Janssen. W. W. (1969) Larch casebearer and other factors involved with deterioration <strong>of</strong> western<br />

larch stands in northern Idaho. US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper, INT-68.<br />

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Sation, Ogden, Utah. 10 pp.<br />

Webb. F.E.; Quednau, F.W. (1971) Coleophora laricella (Hiibner), larch casebearer (Lepidoptera: Colcophoridae) In: Biological control<br />

programme against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>, 1959·1968. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological<br />

Contwl Technical Communication 4,131-143.


Pest status<br />

Chapter 50<br />

Coleophora serratelfa (L.), Birch Casebearer<br />

(Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae)<br />

A.G. RASKE<br />

The birch casebearer, Co/eophora semlIe/JQ (L.)I, is native to Europe; Salman (1929)<br />

postulated that the insect was accidentally introduced into northeastern North America<br />

about 1920. There it has become the most important defoliator <strong>of</strong> white birch, Betula<br />

papyri/era Marsh. It was discovered in Maine in 1927 (Salman 1929) and had spread to<br />

New Brunswick by 1933, to Nova Scotia by 1937 (Reeks 1951), to Ontario by 1944<br />

(Raizenne 1952), to Prince Edward Island by 1951, to Quebec by 1956, and to Manitoba<br />

by 1969 (Cochran 1974). It was discovered in western Newfoundland in 1953 and had<br />

spread throughout the island by 1971 (Raske 1974a). It was discovered in Victoria,<br />

British Columbia, in 1962 (probably from a separate introduction) and was causing<br />

severe defoliation <strong>of</strong> ornamental trees in about 100 ha <strong>of</strong> the city by 1980 (van Sickle<br />

personal communication). The pest has also been collected in Alberta (B. Wright 1981,<br />

personal communication). This casebearer thus appears to occur throughout <strong>Canada</strong><br />

(Fig. 11) but the exact distribution in central and western <strong>Canada</strong> is largely unknown.<br />

Identification records for Ontario were recently revised. Thus C. serratella has never<br />

been positively identified in Ontario but a thorough search has not been undertaken.<br />

The most common form <strong>of</strong> damage to trees is the browning and reduction <strong>of</strong> foliage<br />

caused by the feeding <strong>of</strong> late instar larvae in early summer (Bryant & Raske 1975). The<br />

larva feeds like a leafminer. It attaches its case to a leaf and mines as far as it can reach<br />

without leaving the case, creating somewhat rectangular mined patches. After a larva<br />

has eaten all the food within reach, it moves to another part <strong>of</strong> the leaf and repeats the<br />

process. The mined portion turns brown and this causes the scorched appearance <strong>of</strong><br />

severely damaged trees. The damage tends to become masked later in the summer by the<br />

continuous production <strong>of</strong> new foliage.<br />

The more severe form <strong>of</strong> damage occurs in early spring when large numbers <strong>of</strong> earlyinstar<br />

larvae destroy the flushing buds, causing twig, branch, and sometimes tree<br />

mortality (Bryant & Raske 1975); many insects starve.<br />

Outbreaks <strong>of</strong> the birch casebearer have been reported from Victoria, British Columbia,<br />

and from Quebec to Newfoundland. The insect probably reached St. John's, Newfoundland,<br />

in the late 1960s. It was extremely rare in Newfoundland in 1971 (Raske 19740) but<br />

had reached outbreak proportions by 1980. In a newly invaded area, populations tend to<br />

increase to a super-saturation level. After 1 or 2 years populations decline but continue<br />

to cause a high level <strong>of</strong> chronic defoliation <strong>of</strong> 20-50%. However, the post-outbreak<br />

population levels vary in both location and time.<br />

The life history and habits <strong>of</strong> the birch case bearer in the northeastern United States<br />

were reported by Salman (1929) and by Gillespie (1932). Guevremont & Juillet (1974)<br />

and Raske (1976) described aspects <strong>of</strong> the life history in <strong>Canada</strong>. Cosh an (1974) and<br />

Gepp (1975a) have summarized life history studies in Europe. The life cycle <strong>of</strong>the insect<br />

spans two calendar years. In <strong>Canada</strong>, eggs are laid in July on the underside <strong>of</strong> leaves.<br />

Larvae hatch in August and mine the leaf until early September. After moulting they<br />

cut a case from the leaf epidermis, crawl to a different area <strong>of</strong> the leaf, and feed until fall.<br />

I J.C. Bradley (In: Kloet, G.S.; Hinks, W.D. (Ells.) 1972 - Handbook for the identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> British insects, Vol. 2, Part 2. Lepidoptera. Royal <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong>,<br />

London) cites C. fuscedinella Zell. as a synonym <strong>of</strong> C. serralella (L.).<br />

285


Background<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Coleophora serralella (L.). 287<br />

Just before leaf drop they crawl to branch crotches or to the base <strong>of</strong> leaf buds to<br />

overwinter. In the following spring, after moulting, they feed on developing leaves.<br />

When fully grown, by early summer, they pupate and adults emerge in July.<br />

Species <strong>of</strong> alder (Alnus spp.) are the main hosts in continental Europe (Gepp 1975a),<br />

but in the British Isles several species <strong>of</strong> birch are the most severely attacked trees<br />

(Coshan 1974). In North America (Guevremont & Juillet 1974, Bryant & Raske 1975)<br />

white birch is the most severely damaged species, although grey birch, Betula populi/olio<br />

Marsh., may also sustain continuous severe damage. The casebearer may complete its<br />

life cycle on several species <strong>of</strong> hardwood trees and shrubs, but in North America it is<br />

known to build up high population levels only on white and grey birch (Guevremont &<br />

Juillet 1974, Bryant & Raske 1975).<br />

In North America, the extent <strong>of</strong> mortality <strong>of</strong> various life stages has been determined in<br />

Quebec (Guevremont & Juillet 1974) and in Newfoundland (Raske unpublished). Life<br />

tables for the two regions differ substantially. In Quebec, mortality <strong>of</strong> first- and secondinstar<br />

larvae and pupal parasitism seem to be the most important mortality factors. In<br />

Newfoundland, highly variable egg mortality, from unknown causes, seems to regulate<br />

the population at a chronic high level. This egg mortality (Raske 1974b) has not been<br />

reported on mainland <strong>Canada</strong>. In fall, early instar larval mortality in Newfoundland is<br />

about 20%. Surviving larvae that overwinter suffer mortality <strong>of</strong> about 60% annually. In<br />

spring, larval mortality among those remaining is about 80% and pupal mortality is 25%.<br />

Total losses from parasitism <strong>of</strong> all stages is about 10%.<br />

The parasitoid complex <strong>of</strong> this casebearer has been studied both in Europe and in<br />

North America where biological control <strong>of</strong> this pest has been attempted. In its native<br />

Europe, parasitoids are more important in regulating the population <strong>of</strong> the birch<br />

casebearer (Pschom-Walcher 1969 to 1975, Gepp 1975b, 1975c, Coshan 1974) than in<br />

North America (Guevremont & Juillet 1975, Raske 1978). However, the parasitoid<br />

complexes on the two continents resemble one another. Many genera are native to both<br />

regions: Scambus, ltoplectis, Gelis, Orgilus, Agathis, Habrocytus, Cirrospilus, and<br />

Chrysocharis. The species on each continent differ, except for Habrocytus semotus<br />

(Walker). Apanteles spp. and Campoplex spp. are dominant parasitoids <strong>of</strong> this casebearer<br />

in Europe, but are virtually absent on it in North America. The main difference between<br />

Quebec and Newfoundland is that Agathis cincta was common in Quebec and absent in<br />

Newfoundland.<br />

Most parasitoid species in North America are parasitic on many lepidopterous insects<br />

and are best considered incidental parasitoids that have adapted to this host.<br />

In 1968 the Canadian Forestry Service, in co-operation with the aBC, initiated a<br />

biological control programme against the birch casebearer in Newfoundland; introductions<br />

<strong>of</strong> European parasitoids began in 1971 and terminated in 1975 (Raske 1977). Two<br />

species complexes <strong>of</strong> parasitoids were released: Campoplex (= Porizon) spp. (Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonidae) and Apanteles spp. (Hymenoptera: Braoonidae) (Table 76). The Campoplex<br />

spp. consisted <strong>of</strong> C. borealis (Zett.) and an undescribed species. The Apanteles complex<br />

included three species: predominantly A. coleophorae (Wilk.) and a few each <strong>of</strong> A.<br />

mesoxanthus Ruschka and A. corvinus Reinh. Living individuals <strong>of</strong> neither complex


Blank Page<br />

290


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 51<br />

Fenusa pusilla (Lepeletier), Birch Leafminer<br />

(Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae)<br />

F.W. QUEDNAU<br />

Fenusa pusilla (Lepeletier) is an important endemic pest on ornamental birches, Betula<br />

spp., in <strong>Canada</strong>. This insect was accidentally introduced from Europe into the State <strong>of</strong><br />

Connecticut, USA, in 1923 (Friend 1933). The tree species attacked are Betula papyri/era<br />

Marsh., B. populi/olia Marsh .• B. lema L.. and the European B. verrucosa Ehrh. and its<br />

varieties. The present distribution <strong>of</strong> the sawfly in <strong>Canada</strong> is mainly from Newfoundland<br />

to Thunder Bay in northwest Ontario. but it has recently been recorded from the Prairie<br />

Provinces (Fig 12). The infestation level <strong>of</strong> F. pusilla in <strong>Canada</strong> is usually high and<br />

remains relatively constant from one year to another. The insect, by its oviposition and<br />

the ensuing feeding <strong>of</strong> larvae in leaf mines, causes discolouration <strong>of</strong> the foliage by the<br />

destruction <strong>of</strong> parenchyma cells. The affected trees have an unsightly brownish discolouration<br />

<strong>of</strong> the leaves. which drop prematurely. Repeated infestations <strong>of</strong> the sawfly<br />

weaken a tree and make it prone to attack by other insects or diseases. There are about<br />

three overlapping generations <strong>of</strong> F. pusilla in a year. The biology <strong>of</strong> this insect in Quebec<br />

has been described by Cheng & leRoux (1965) and Guevremont (1975).<br />

A preliminary study <strong>of</strong> biological control agents affecting F. pusilla in Europe was<br />

undertaken by the Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control (CIBC) at Delemont.<br />

Switzerland (Pschorn-Walcher & Eichhorn 1968). The observation that F. pusilla is<br />

much less abundant in Central Europe than in <strong>Canada</strong> led to the decision by the<br />

Canadian Forestry Service to introduce parasitoids. In 1972 the Newfoundland Forest<br />

Research Centre initiated a programme at Pasadena, Newfoundland. In 1974 the project<br />

was transferred for technical reasons to the Laurentian Forest Research Centre at Ste­<br />

Foy, Quebec. The aim <strong>of</strong> this biological control programme was the implantation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

two hymenopterous parasitoid species, Latlrrolestes nigricol/is Thoms. and Grypocentrus<br />

albipes Ruthe. For information on the techniques employed for the releases and recoveries<br />

the reader is referred to reports by Guevremont & Quednau (1976, 1978).<br />

Releases and Recoveries The numbers <strong>of</strong> parasitoids released in <strong>Canada</strong> are listed in Table 77.<br />

LaIhroIestes nigrirolJis<br />

Thoms. (syn.<br />

Priopoda nigricollis<br />

(Thoms.»<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

(chneumonidae)<br />

This is a multivoltine solitary endoparasitoid <strong>of</strong> semi-mature and mature larvae <strong>of</strong> the<br />

leafminer. Its biology in Europe was described by Eichhorn & Pschorn-Walcher<br />

(1973). Additional observations on its mating and oviposition behaviour were made by<br />

Quednau & Guevremont (1975). It is the most important natural enemy <strong>of</strong> F. pusilla<br />

in Central Europe. It is probably monophagous and well synchronized with successively<br />

overlapping stages <strong>of</strong> the host in the field. In captivity the female parasitoids are easily<br />

mated. Partial encapsulation <strong>of</strong> parasitoid eggs in the host larva, the incidence <strong>of</strong><br />

superparasitism. multiple parasitism by other parasitoid species. and entry in diapause<br />

291


Pest Status<br />

Chapter 52<br />

Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig), European<br />

Spruce Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae)<br />

L.P. MAGASI and P.O. SYME<br />

The European spruce sawfly, Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig), a major pest <strong>of</strong> spruce (Picea<br />

spp.) in eastern <strong>Canada</strong> during the 1930s and early 19405, has lost its economic<br />

importance with the collapse <strong>of</strong> outbreaks in the Gaspe Peninsula and in northern New<br />

Brunswick (Neilson er aI. 1971). Populations have remained generally low since the<br />

early 1940s. The insect, and specifically its biological control by parasitoids and<br />

pathogens, has thus received very little attention since the last review in 1969. Consequently,<br />

the information presented here is meagre. It deals mainly with major population<br />

changes and changes in distribution <strong>of</strong> the insect during the past decade. No research<br />

has been conducted on the biological control <strong>of</strong> the spruce sawfly in <strong>Canada</strong> since 1969<br />

and few references are available. Distribution <strong>of</strong> the pest is summarized in Fig. 13.<br />

Newfoundland<br />

Populations were generally low, with occasional minor increases. Larval numbers in<br />

western Newfoundland increased from l.4/tree in 1970 to 18.0/tree in 1971 and to<br />

24.OItree in 1972. However, by 1974 the population decreased to 1.0 larva/tree throughout<br />

the province and has remained at that level.<br />

The nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) Borrelinavirus hercyniae, introduced in 1943,<br />

is assumed to be a principal factor in controlling outbreaks but the introduction <strong>of</strong><br />

invertebrate parasitoids and perhaps even the masked shrew, Sorex cinereus cinereus<br />

Kerr, have doubtless improved the biological control <strong>of</strong> this insect.<br />

Maritimes<br />

Population levels were generally low in the region throughout the decade. The highest<br />

number recorded was in Pictou County, Nova Scotia, where 17 larvae were found on<br />

four white spruce trees, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, in 1978. The NPV B. hercyniae<br />

was last found in larvae in 1975. The dipterous parasitoid Drino bohemica (Mesn.) and<br />

the hymenopterous parasitoid Exenterus veIlicatus Cush. were last reared in 1977, but it<br />

should be added that, apart from these rearings, no efforts have been made to identify<br />

these control agents.<br />

Neilson et aI. (1971) in an earlier edition <strong>of</strong> this book described an increase in the<br />

sawfly population after the cessation <strong>of</strong> chemical insecticide spraying to control spruce<br />

budworm, Choristoneurafumiferana (Clem.). This situation occurred again in the early<br />

1970s when the monitoring plot was sprayed for 2 years. Sawfly levels increased<br />

immediately afterwards and remained high for a number <strong>of</strong> generations until, presumably,<br />

the host and its control agents re-established their balance.<br />

Quebec<br />

The insect was present in low numbers throughout its known range, with minor<br />

fluctuations. Laboratory rearings showed the presence <strong>of</strong> the NPV B. hercyniae in 1971,<br />

1973, 1974, and 1975, and the virus is considered a major factor in controlling the<br />

population.<br />

295


Ontario<br />

Gilpitlia Ill'rcylliae (Hartig), 297<br />

The insect has been sporadically reported, and occurs throughout the province within<br />

its known range but usually in very low numbers. In 1977, light defoliation <strong>of</strong> white<br />

spruce occurred in parts <strong>of</strong> southwestern Ontario.<br />

The Forest Insect and Disease Survey participated in a parasitoid identification<br />

project with CIBC in 1973. Of 160 sawfly cocoons, 7 adults <strong>of</strong> E. vellicatus emerged<br />

(4.4% parasitism); the parasitoids were mostly male.<br />

Manitoba<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Literature Cited<br />

The insect was first reported in Manitoba in 1969, when it was found in low<br />

populations on 5200 km! adjacent to the Ontario border. In 1970, populations were<br />

reported on a further 2600 kml, as far north as Otter Falls and Meditation Lake in the<br />

Whiteshell Provincial Park, and as far west as the Agassiz and the Sandilands Provincial<br />

Forests. It has not extended its range since then and population levels have remained<br />

low.<br />

The European spruce sawfly appears to be controlled, largely by biological agents.<br />

However, there may be differences in areas that are regularly subjected to chemical<br />

sprays. Neilson et al. (1971) stated that when spraying stopped, there was a sharp<br />

increase in sawfly populations - at least until the balance between host and control<br />

agent was re-established. This phenomenon was observed again in the 19705. In each<br />

case, the spray period lasted only 2-4 years. It is not known what is happening in areas<br />

<strong>of</strong> sustained chemical insecticide application: the European spruce sawfly, obviously,<br />

is kept at low populations but possibly not by biological control agents. Nor is it known<br />

what the status <strong>of</strong> these agents is or if they would rapidly re-establish the balance<br />

necessary for control once chemical insecticide spraying ceased. High-value spruce<br />

plantations, which were practically non-existent in the 1930s and 194Os, are now<br />

plentiful and provide a bountiful food supply for the sawfly.<br />

Neilson, M.M.; Martinez. R.; Rose, A.H. (1971) Diprion hercyniae (Hartig), European spruce sawfly. In: Biological control programmes<br />

against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>. 1959-1968. Commonweahh /outilUle <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical<br />

Communication 4,136-143.


Blank Page<br />

298


-(I)<br />

C<br />

c:::<br />

o<br />

'';:;<br />

::::l<br />

.c<br />

';:<br />

300 L. P. Magasi and O. A. Van Sickle


Leucoma salids (L.), 301<br />

was recorded at Upper Ferry and light damage occurred on willow in the Stephenville<br />

area. In 1980 the outbreak spread from St. Andrews to Fischell's River, mostly along the<br />

major rivers where natural stands <strong>of</strong> balsam poplar occur.<br />

Maritimes<br />

In 1969, over 3200 ha <strong>of</strong> woodland trees, trembling aspen, Populus tremuloides Michx.,<br />

and largetooth aspen, Populus grandidentata Michx., sustained moderate to severe<br />

defoliation in southeastern New Brunswick. The outbreak began in 1967, persisted for 3<br />

years, and collapsed in 1970. The collapse was partly due to biological control agents. At<br />

Elgin, New Brunswick, cocoons <strong>of</strong> A. solitarius were numerous on tree trunks in the<br />

winter <strong>of</strong> 1969-70 and counts <strong>of</strong> up to 732 cocoonslm l <strong>of</strong> bark surface were made. A<br />

cytoplasmic polyhedrosis virus, known in the maritimes since 1954, infected up to 67%<br />

<strong>of</strong> field-collected laboratory-reared larvae in 1968 near Anagance, within the same area<br />

as the L. salids infestation.<br />

Small outbreaks occurred in natural stands in 1974 in south-central New Brunswick,<br />

in 1976 in the central and in 1979 in the east-central parts <strong>of</strong> the province. All these<br />

outbreaks affected trembling aspen, but in 1974 largetooth aspen was also affected.<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the outbreaks lasted most than a single season.<br />

The insect was found on ornamental silver and Carolina poplars Populus alba L. and<br />

P. canadensis Moench, and willow, during 1969-80 at locations scattered throughout<br />

the region, resulting in varying degrees <strong>of</strong> defoliation.<br />

The parasitoids reared from satin moth in 1969-70 and their frequency are listed as<br />

follows:<br />

Apanteles solitarius (Ratz.)<br />

Compsilura concinnata (Mg.)<br />

12 locations; mean parasitism 51%<br />

(range 16-100%)<br />

6 locations; mean parasitism 15%<br />

(range 5-55%)<br />

Exorista sp. 1 location; percentage parasitism unknown<br />

The mean parasitism from all rearings was 28% for A. solitarius and 4% for C.<br />

concinnata. No rearings or insect analyses have been done since 1970.<br />

Quebec<br />

The general distribution <strong>of</strong> satin moth has increased considerably during the past decade<br />

and now includes all eastern Quebec and both sides <strong>of</strong> the St. Lawrence River. Infestations,<br />

causing defoliation that varied from trace to severe, were localized and were reported<br />

every year with the exception <strong>of</strong> 1970. No examinations <strong>of</strong> parasitism were made from<br />

1969-80.<br />

Ontario<br />

The insect was first reported in Ontario in 1972 from Cornwall and Lancaster Township,<br />

where it caused severe defoliation <strong>of</strong> individual silver poplar trees. By 1976 it had spread<br />

to near Ottawa. By 1980 it had reached west <strong>of</strong> Brockville and the severity <strong>of</strong> attack was<br />

reported on the increase. There are no records <strong>of</strong> parasitoids from the province. but<br />

again no check was made.


302 L. P. Magasi and G. A. Van Sickle<br />

Evaluation or Control Attempts<br />

Literature Cited<br />

British Columbia<br />

The general distribution has not changed appreciably during the reporting period but<br />

satin moth infestations were recorded in three new areas; at Revelstoke in 1972, at Avola<br />

in the North Thompson Valley in 1975, and at Rossland in 1976. Whether these represent<br />

a true range extension or are only outlying areas cannot be stated with certainty because<br />

<strong>of</strong> the discontinuous nature <strong>of</strong> the tree-host and insufficient collections <strong>of</strong> insects.<br />

Infestations usually occurred on small groups <strong>of</strong> a few shade trees. However, starting in<br />

1973 a few severe outbreaks on trembling aspen and black cottonwood, Populus<br />

trichocarpa Torr. & Gray, were observed near Merritt, and by 1976 almost 1500 ha <strong>of</strong><br />

natural stands were severely defoliated between Aspen Grove and Kamloops. Another<br />

outbreak, near Rossland, occurred in 1977 on over 140 ha <strong>of</strong> trembling aspen and small<br />

patches <strong>of</strong> trees were again defoliated in both these areas in 1978.<br />

In contrast to 67 rearing records during 1959-68, there were only two during 1969-80: in<br />

1972, 3 larvae reared from Revelstoke yielded one native parasitoid, Exorisla mella<br />

(Walker), and in 1976, 24 larvae, collected near Victoria, were reared: 6 were parasitized<br />

and 11 Apanteles melanoscellus (Ratt.) were recovered.<br />

Field observations recorded, but apparently unsubstantiated by collections, include:<br />

(l)in 1969, larvae were heavily parasitized in Lewis Park, Courtenay, where some<br />

trembling aspen was 80% defoliated; (2)in 1969, cocoons <strong>of</strong> Apanleies spp. were<br />

numerous on the trunks <strong>of</strong> severely defoliated black cottonwood at Slocan City; (3)in<br />

1975, A. solilarius was present in the second and last year <strong>of</strong> defoliation <strong>of</strong> black<br />

cottonwood over 1 ha along Birkenhead Lake.<br />

In a collection <strong>of</strong> more than 50 larvae from Lillooet in 1975, 6 were infected with a<br />

Beauveria sp. <strong>of</strong> fungus.<br />

The information presented here deals mainly with major population changes and changes in<br />

distribution <strong>of</strong> the host insect during the past decade; there are few instances where<br />

reference to biological control is made. No research has been conducted on the biological<br />

control <strong>of</strong> satin moth in <strong>Canada</strong> during the review period and none is recommended,<br />

given the minor economic importance <strong>of</strong> the pest. We have no information to alter the<br />

assessment given in the previous review, that parasitoids must recieve major credit for<br />

helping to shorten periods <strong>of</strong> pest outbreak and thus for reducing damage (Forbes & Ross<br />

1971).<br />

Forbes, R.S.; Ross, D.A. (1971) Stilnoptio salicis (L.). satin moth. In: Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>,<br />

1959-1968. Commonwtalth lnslilutt <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical CommUllication 4,205-212.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 54<br />

Lymantria dispar (L.), Gypsy Moth<br />

(Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae)<br />

K.J. GRIFFITHS and F.W. QUEDNAU<br />

The natural distribution <strong>of</strong> the gypsy moth, Lymantrio dispar (L.), extends across the<br />

whole <strong>of</strong> Europe, including Norway and Sweden up to about 58"N and all the temperate<br />

areas <strong>of</strong> North Africa and Asia, including Japan. Outbreaks occur periodicaUy throughout<br />

most <strong>of</strong> this range (Leonard 1974). The gypsy moth was accidentally introduced into<br />

North America at Medford. Massachusetts, in 1869, and within 20 years had become a<br />

serious local pest that required control (Burgess 1914). This pest has continued to cause<br />

serious periodic damage in spite <strong>of</strong> almost continuous work to control it. It is now found<br />

in the United States throughout the New England States, New York, New Jersey, and<br />

Pennsylvania, and has also been recorded in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West<br />

Virginia. Isolated infestations have been reported in Washington, Oregon, California,<br />

Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ohio (Forest Pest Survey Report, Virginia Division<br />

<strong>of</strong> Forestry, Sept.-Dec., 1980, unpublished report).<br />

The gypsy moth was first recorded in <strong>Canada</strong> in 1924 in Stanstead and St-Jean<br />

Counties, Quebec (McLaine 1925). A second invasion occurred in New Brunswick in<br />

1936 (McLaine 1938). Both these invasions apparently died out (Brown 1968) but a third,<br />

into Quebec south <strong>of</strong> Montreal in 1959 (Brown 1968), did not disappear and the gypsy<br />

moth has continued to spread in all directions from that area. The first invasion into<br />

Ontario occurred on Wolfe Island, just south <strong>of</strong> Kingston in 1969 (Sippell et 01. 1970),<br />

and it was reported on nearby Howe Island and the mainland near Kingston in 1970<br />

(Sippell et al. 1971). The Plant Quarantine Division <strong>of</strong> Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> reports that<br />

the 1979 distribution <strong>of</strong> gypsy moth extends from approximately 60 km west <strong>of</strong> Quebec<br />

City to Morrisburg, Ontario, and north to Ottawa, and from near Brockville, Ontario, to<br />

25 km west <strong>of</strong> Belleville, with a northward extension <strong>of</strong> approximately 70 km. There is<br />

also a population in Greater Toronto and in Oakville, Ontario (Fig. 15). A small<br />

infestation was detected over a two-block area in Vancouver, British Columbia, in the<br />

summer <strong>of</strong> 1978, and a control operation was undertaken in 1979. There were no male<br />

adult recoveries in pheromone traps set out in the area in the fall <strong>of</strong> 1979 and the<br />

infestation is believed to have been averted. On the east coast there seems to be an<br />

annual influx <strong>of</strong> male moths from Maine. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick males<br />

have been recovered in pheromone traps every year since 1971, with a marked increase<br />

in both provinces in the past 4 years. There were no male recoveries on Prince Edward<br />

Island in the first 6 years <strong>of</strong>trapping, but in 1979 nearly 47% and in 1980,19% <strong>of</strong> the traps<br />

produced males. However. egg masses have never been recovered in the maritimes in<br />

this period (Magasi 1981).<br />

Since its arrival in North America, the gypsy moth has acquired a large complex <strong>of</strong><br />

native insect parasites, and predators. Griffiths (1976) lists 22 species <strong>of</strong> insect parasites<br />

and Sabrosky & Reardon (1976) added 4 more to this list. In addition there are 17 species<br />

<strong>of</strong> insect predators, 4 species <strong>of</strong> mammalian predators (Griffiths 1976), and 46 species <strong>of</strong><br />

303


Lymcltllria dispar (L.). 305<br />

avian predators (McAtee 1911) recorded from the United States. A major programme <strong>of</strong><br />

importation and liberation <strong>of</strong> exotic insect parasites and predators was carried on in the<br />

United States from 1905 to 1933 (Dowden 1962) in which 44 species <strong>of</strong> insect parasites<br />

and 9 species <strong>of</strong> predators were released. Thirteen insect parasites and one predator<br />

became established. As pointed out by Ticehurst et 01. (1978) these natural enemies have<br />

not prevented the dispersal <strong>of</strong>the gypsy moth in North America, but their influence may<br />

be responsible for initiating population collapses and for maintaining relatively stable<br />

infestations in many areas following a collapse. The introduction programme was<br />

revived in the early 1970s and is continuing. Eight species <strong>of</strong> insect parasite and one<br />

species <strong>of</strong> nematode have been released. Four <strong>of</strong> the insect species were released<br />

unsuccessfully in earlier work (Griffiths 1976). None <strong>of</strong> these nine species is known to be<br />

established.<br />

Fourteen <strong>of</strong> the 26 species <strong>of</strong> native parasitoids that attack the gypsy moth in the United<br />

States have been recovered from other hosts in areas <strong>of</strong> Ontario and Quebec adjacent to<br />

the American infestation. Also 11 <strong>of</strong> the 17 insect predators, all <strong>of</strong> the four mammalian<br />

predators and 43 <strong>of</strong> the 46 species <strong>of</strong> avian predators are known to be in this area <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Canada</strong> (Griffiths 1976). In addition, four exotic parasitoids established in the United<br />

States were present in southern Ontario and Quebec before the gypsy moth was recorded.<br />

Three <strong>of</strong> these species, Compsilura concinnata (Meigen), Apanteles lacteicolor Vier., and<br />

Meteor/IS versicolor (Wesm.) had been introduced against the browntail moth, Euproctis<br />

chrysorrhoea L., and the satin moth, Leucoma salicis L.. and one, Exorista larvarum (L.).<br />

apparently dispersed naturally from the United States.<br />

Several studies have been carried out recently to determine which parasitoid species<br />

are attacking the gypsy moth in <strong>Canada</strong>. The first <strong>of</strong> these investigations, in 1974 and<br />

1975, involved the collection and rearing <strong>of</strong> gypsy moth larvae from four woodlots near<br />

Kingston and three woodlots near Cornwall, Ontario. From these rearings, one native<br />

and three introduced parasitoid species were recovered (Table 79) (Griffiths 1977). The<br />

second study was carried out in 1977 and 1978 near Havelock, south <strong>of</strong> Montreal. and<br />

Mt-St-Hilaire, east <strong>of</strong> Montreal, Quebec. Larvae and pupae were collected and reared,<br />

and one more native and four more exotic species recovered (Table 79) (Madrid &<br />

Stewart 1980). A third study, carried out in 1978-80, used Malaise traps to capture<br />

adults at Mt-St-Hilaire and Mt-St-Bruno. east <strong>of</strong> Montreal. In this survey five additional<br />

native species were found (Table 79). The final study, carried out in 1979 and 1980, was a<br />

repetition <strong>of</strong> the work done by Griffiths (1977); two new native species and one exotic<br />

species, Ooencyrtus kuvanae (How.). were recovered (Table 79).<br />

Howard & Fiske (1911) noted that naturally occurring pathogens were playing a role<br />

in gypsy moth population regulation in the United States shortly after the introduction <strong>of</strong><br />

the insect there. Much work has been done on pathogens since then. Bacterial and<br />

fungal pathogens are a minor influence (Doane 1971, Podgwaite & Campbell 1972,<br />

Majchrowicz & Yendol 1973), but viral pathogens, especially the nuclear polyhedrosis<br />

virus (NPV) Borrelinavirus reprimens Holmes, are known to be a major factor in<br />

reducing outbreaks (Doane 1970, Campbell & Podgwaite 1971). The gypsy moth NPV<br />

was registered for use in the United States in 1978, and quantities <strong>of</strong> it have since been<br />

produced and marketed as Gypcheki!!) (US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture) (Doane & McManus<br />

1981).<br />

An NPV was recorded from gypsy moth larvae in southeastern Ontario during studies<br />

<strong>of</strong> gypsy moth parasites carried out in 1974. 1975. 1979, and 1980 (Griffiths 1977.<br />

Griffiths & Wallace in press). It was also recorded in southwestern Quebec by Cardinal<br />

& Smirn<strong>of</strong>f (1973). Smirn<strong>of</strong>f has pointed out that for the last 3 years NPV has lowered<br />

gypsy moth numbers in Quebec (W.A. Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1981 personal communication).


306 K. J. Griffiths and F. W. Qucdnau<br />

Table 79<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Anastatus dis paris<br />

Rusdaka (Hymenoptera:<br />

Eupelmldae)<br />

Parasitoids recovered from the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), in <strong>Canada</strong> 1974-80<br />

Madrid & Quednau Griffiths<br />

Griffiths Stewan 1978-80 1979-80<br />

1977 1980 (unpublishcd) (unpublishcd)<br />

Diptera<br />

Sarcophagidae<br />

Sarcophaga aldrichi (Park.) xx xx<br />

Tachinidae<br />

Blepharipa pralensis (Mg.)' xx xx xx<br />

Compsilura concinnala (Mg.)' xx xx xx xx<br />

Exorisla larvarum (L.)' xx xx<br />

Exorisla mella (Wlk.) xx<br />

Paraseligena silvestris (R-D)' xx xx xx xx<br />

Hymenoptera<br />

Braconidae<br />

COlesia melanosceills (Ratz.)· xx xx xx xx<br />

Chalcididae<br />

Brachymeria intermedia (Nees)' xx xx<br />

Encyrtidae<br />

Ooencyrtus kllvanae (How.)" xx<br />

Eupelmidae<br />

AnaslalllS disparis Ruschka" xx<br />

Ichneumonidae<br />

ExochllS sp. xx<br />

Iloplectis conquislilor (Say) xx xx<br />

Phobocampe disparis (Vier.)· xx xx xx<br />

Pimpla pedalis (Cress.) xx xx xx xx<br />

77reronia llIilfattJae fulvescens (Cress.) xx<br />

Theronia hilaris (Say) xx<br />

Scelionidae<br />

TelonomllS sp. xx<br />

• Exotic parasitoids established in the United States .<br />

This parasitoid is a European species, successfully established in the United States by<br />

Howard & Fiske (1911)_ Natural dispersal is slow because female adults cannot fly and the<br />

species was subsequently distributed by further releases throughout the gypsy moth's<br />

American range (Dowden 1962).<br />

Adults <strong>of</strong> this species emerge from the previous year's gypsy moth eggs at about the<br />

time female moths are ovipositing. Female parasitoids attack the eggs and the parasitic<br />

larvae can develop in all embryonic stages <strong>of</strong> the gypsy moth. However, the proportion<br />

<strong>of</strong> gypsy moth females produced and the fecundity and longevity <strong>of</strong> the ovipositing<br />

female is reduced only if older eggs are attacked. There is usually only one generation<br />

per year and the parasitoid overwinters as a mature larva within the host egg. Preliminary<br />

work on the overwintering ability <strong>of</strong> mature larvae <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid indicated that A.<br />

dis paris apparently could survive over the same geographic area in <strong>Canada</strong> as the<br />

gypsy moth (Sullivan el 01. 1977). Because parasitism up to 28% had been recorded by<br />

Burgess & Crossman (1929), introduction <strong>of</strong> this species into <strong>Canada</strong> was undertaken


Table 80<br />

Table 81<br />

Ooenc)'rtus kuvsnse<br />

(How.) (Hymenoptera:<br />

Encyrtidae)<br />

Lymantria clispur (L.). 307<br />

following preliminary field cage and insectary studies (Table 80). The first releases were<br />

made near St-Mathias, Rouville County, Quebec. in 1979. with further releases near<br />

Acton Vale and Drummondville, Bagot and Drummond Counties respectively, in 1980<br />

(Table 81). Establishment <strong>of</strong> A. disparis occurred in all areas where releases were<br />

made. The initial occurrence <strong>of</strong> parasitism was 20-30% when batches <strong>of</strong> 25 female<br />

parasitoids were implanted in small ventilated cages, but only 2% when open releases <strong>of</strong><br />

batches <strong>of</strong> 200-400 females were made. Successful hibernation <strong>of</strong> A. disparis at St­<br />

Mathias was observed in 1980. A third release <strong>of</strong>this parasitoid was made in August 1980<br />

near Kilburnie, Ontario, but there have been no recoveries from this release as yet<br />

(Table 81).<br />

Laboratory and field cage studies <strong>of</strong> parasitoids against the gypsy moth, Lymanrria<br />

dis par (L.) in Quebec<br />

Species Year<br />

AnUSlalUS disparis Ruschka 1979<br />

• Field cage studies.<br />

•• Laboratory and insectary studies.<br />

1980<br />

Origin<br />

Hungary<br />

Austria<br />

Romania<br />

Hungary<br />

Austria<br />

Romania<br />

Hungary<br />

Number<br />

845*<br />

2505**<br />

234"<br />

Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> parasitoids against the gypsy moth, Lymanlria dispar (L.)<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Species and province Year Origin Number recovery<br />

Anuslalus disparis Ruschka<br />

Quebec 1980 USA<br />

Hungary<br />

5600 1980<br />

Ontario<br />

Ooencyrtus kuvanae (How.)<br />

1980 Hungary 1020<br />

Ontario 1976 USA 25000 1978<br />

This Japanese egg parasitoid was introduced into New England in 1909. Its establishment<br />

was immediate and its natural dispersal was augmented by additional large releases<br />

throughout the infested area (Burgess & Crossman 1929).<br />

In the United States O. kuvanae can have three generations per year on gypsy moth.<br />

The first generation cycle takes approximately 6 weeks but the subsequent ones only 3<br />

weeks. Early studies showed that attack by this species was weak. Britton (1935)<br />

recorded that in southeastern Massachusetts and in Rhode Island egg parasitism was not<br />

more than 10% per year. However, higher attack levels have been recorded in more


308 K. J. Griffiths and F. W. Qucdnau<br />

Borrelinsyirus<br />

reprlmens Holmes<br />

Bad11us tburingiemis<br />

Berliner (B.t.)<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

recent work. Dowden (1962) found attacks <strong>of</strong> 40-45% in Massachusetts and Connecticut.<br />

Weseloh (1972) gives a total summer attack <strong>of</strong> 29-42% in Connecticut. Thus its<br />

introduction into <strong>Canada</strong> was justified and preliminary investigations <strong>of</strong> the ability <strong>of</strong> the<br />

overwintering mated female adult to withstand low temperatures were undertaken<br />

(Griffiths & Sullivan 1978). It was found that adults were unable to survive continuous<br />

exposure to O°C for 30 days, and it was concluded that this species would be incapable <strong>of</strong><br />

surviving in the current range <strong>of</strong> the gypsy moth in <strong>Canada</strong>. To test this hypothesis,<br />

approximately 25 000 adults supplied by the New Jersey Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture<br />

were released on Wolfe Island, Ontario, on 24 September 1976 (Table 81). Gypsy moth<br />

egg masses have been collected in the release area in late August or early September<br />

each year since the release. There were no recoveries <strong>of</strong> O. kuvanae until 1978, when 28<br />

adults were recovered from two egg masses. A single adult was obtained from the<br />

release area in 1980. In addition, 45 adults <strong>of</strong> O. kuvanae were recovered from two egg<br />

masses collected near Glen Norman, Glengarry County, Ontario, in September 1980.<br />

Because this recovery site is approximately 180 km from the Wolfe Island release site, it<br />

is unlikely that there is any relation between the two; the parasitoids must have dispersed<br />

there naturally.<br />

Two experimental techniques for the application <strong>of</strong> NPV were tested by Cardinal &<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f (1973) in Missisquoi and St-Jean Counties, Quebec, in 1972. They handapplied<br />

an aqueous solution <strong>of</strong> NPV at 40 x 10' polyhedral inclusion bodies (PI B) per<br />

millilitre to egg masses in early May and recorded nearly 100% mortality in the larvae<br />

emerging from them. They also sprayed foliage by mist blower with an aqueous solution<br />

at 4 x 10' PIBlml when larvae were in the second or third instar, resulting in higher<br />

mortality than was seen in larvae on unsprayed foliage.<br />

Jobin & Caron (1982) made aerial applications <strong>of</strong> B.I., using the commercial product<br />

Thuricide® 32B (Sandoz Inc.) in Chambly and Rouville Counties, Quebec, in 1979.<br />

There were two applications in each area at dosages <strong>of</strong> 19.6 and 39.52 x W"I.U.fha. All<br />

applications included a sticker and chitinase and the B.I. was applied at a rate <strong>of</strong> 9.36<br />

Vha. Spraying was carried out in late May when 60-70% <strong>of</strong> larvae were in the second<br />

instar. Mortality <strong>of</strong> larvae in the treated areas 20 days after treatment was 100%,<br />

compared to a decrease <strong>of</strong> 70-76% in control areas over the same time period.<br />

The establishment <strong>of</strong> exotic insect parasites on the gypsy moth in <strong>Canada</strong> is proceeding<br />

well, largely through natural dispersal. We now know that 8 <strong>of</strong> the 13 established exotic<br />

species are attacking gypsy moth in the infested zone in <strong>Canada</strong> and we are confident<br />

that a 9th species, Anaslalus disparis Ruschka, will become established. Two <strong>of</strong> the<br />

remaining four species are already present in <strong>Canada</strong> on other hosts. They are Apanleles<br />

klcteicolor Viereck, essentially a parasitoid <strong>of</strong> the browntail moth, which was established<br />

against that species in the maritimes and Quebec in 1915 (Tothill 1916); and M. versicolor,<br />

introduced against browntail moth and satin moth in <strong>Canada</strong> (TothillI916) and recovered<br />

in Ontario from Rlleumaplera lIaslala L. by Forest Insect and Disease Survey staff. M.<br />

versicolor is infrequently recovered from the gypsy moth in the United States. The<br />

other two exotic species are Eupleromalus hemiplerus (Walker) and Monodonlomerus<br />

aereus Walker. The former species is a common parasitoid <strong>of</strong> the satin moth in the<br />

United States but is rarely obtained from the gypsy moth there (Burgess & Crossman


Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Lymantria dispar (L.). 3()9<br />

1929, Proper 1931). nle latter species is a secondary parasitoid as frequently as it is a<br />

primary one (Howard & Fiske 1911).<br />

It is too soon to state that the release <strong>of</strong> egg parasitoids in <strong>Canada</strong> has resulted in the<br />

permanent establishment <strong>of</strong> these insects. We do know that seven other species <strong>of</strong><br />

exotic parasitoids previously established in the United States are now attacking gypsy<br />

moth in <strong>Canada</strong>, but, in the absence <strong>of</strong> careful population studies <strong>of</strong> the gypsy moth we<br />

cannot say what impact any <strong>of</strong> them is having.<br />

A combination <strong>of</strong> applications <strong>of</strong> carbaryl on some areas and <strong>of</strong> "insecticide soap" on<br />

other areas in 1979 in Vancouver apparently resulted in elimination <strong>of</strong> the population<br />

there. It should be pointed out, however, that very few <strong>of</strong> the isolated infestations<br />

recorded in the history <strong>of</strong> the gypsy moth in the United States have ever been completely<br />

eradicated. Spraying with either an NPV or B.I. has been effective in small scale trials<br />

but the cost <strong>of</strong> application is many times higher than the cost <strong>of</strong> applying chemicals.<br />

It is evident that, aside from continuing to release and sample for the two egg parasitoids, O.<br />

kuvanae and A. dis paris , there is little more to be done in the introduction <strong>of</strong> biological<br />

agents because there are no more known suitable candidates. The one successfully<br />

established exotic predator, Calosoma sycophanla L., was introduced unsuccessfully<br />

into <strong>Canada</strong> at a number <strong>of</strong> locations (McGugan & Coppe11962) and it is questionable<br />

whether further work on this species is justified.<br />

Cardinal & Smim<strong>of</strong>f (1973) were able to produce gypsy moth NPV by rearing<br />

contaminated larvae in cages in the field. Smim<strong>of</strong>f (personal communication) recommends<br />

that the NPV so produced be used to inoculate incipient outbreaks by application on<br />

either egg masses or foliage to prevent buildup <strong>of</strong> gypsy moth to outbreak levels.<br />

In view <strong>of</strong> the above and <strong>of</strong> the relatively innocuous levels <strong>of</strong> gypsy moth populations<br />

in <strong>Canada</strong> in 1980, we feel there is no urgent need for further classical biological control<br />

work on this species. However, we strongly recommend that careful surveillance <strong>of</strong> the<br />

dispersal <strong>of</strong> the gypsy moth be continued by staff <strong>of</strong> the Plant Protection Division <strong>of</strong><br />

Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>. Continued monitoring in the Vancouver area is especially important.<br />

Brillon. W.E. (1935) The gypsy moth. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment SUllion Bulletin 375,623-647.<br />

Brown, G.S. (1968) The gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar L., a threat to Ontario honicullure and forestry. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong><br />

<strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario 98,12-15.<br />

Burgess, A. F. (1914) The gypsy moth and the brown· tail moth. with suggestions for their control. US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Farm Bulletin<br />

564,24 pp.<br />

Burgess, A.F.; Crossman. S.S. (1929) Imponed insect enemies <strong>of</strong> the gypsy moth and the brown-tail moth. US Departnunt <strong>of</strong> Agriculture<br />

Technical Bulletin 86, 147 pp.<br />

Campbell, R.W.; Podgwaite. J.D. (1971) The disease complex <strong>of</strong> the gypsy moth. I. Major components. Journal <strong>of</strong> In"ertebrate Pathology<br />

18(1).101-107.<br />

Cardinal. J .A.; Smim<strong>of</strong>f. W.A. (1973) Introduction ex¢rimentale de la polyCdrie nucleairc de Portherria di.fpar L. (Upidoptcres: Lymantriidae)<br />

en foret. Phytoprotection 54(1).48-50.<br />

Doane. C.C. (1970) Primary pathogens and their role in the development <strong>of</strong> an epizootic in the gypsy moth. Journal <strong>of</strong> Invertehrate Pathology<br />

15(1),21-23.<br />

Doane. c.c. (1971) Field application <strong>of</strong> a Streptococcus causing brachyosis in larvae <strong>of</strong> Porthetria dis par. Journal <strong>of</strong> In"enehrate Pathology<br />

17(3),303-307.<br />

Doane. c.c.; McManus. M.L. (Eds.) (1981) The gypsy moth: research toward integrated pest management. US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture<br />

Science Education Agency APHIS Technical Bulletin 1584,757 pp.<br />

Dowden. P.B. (1962) Parasites and predators <strong>of</strong> forest insects liberated in the United States through 1960. US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Forest<br />

Se",ice Handbook 226. 70 pp.<br />

Griffiths. K.J. (1976) The parasites and predators <strong>of</strong> the gypsy moth: a review <strong>of</strong> the world literature with special application to <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Canadian Forestry Se",ice Sault Ste. Marie. Ontario Report O-X·243. 92 pp.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 55<br />

Malacosoma disstria Hubner, Forest Tent<br />

Caterpillar (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae)<br />

W.G.H.IVES<br />

The forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria HUbner, has had a long history <strong>of</strong><br />

periodic outbreaks in <strong>Canada</strong> (Baird 1917, Hodson 1941, Hildahl & Reeks 1960, Sippell<br />

1962, Witter et al. 1975). The insect attacks a wide variety <strong>of</strong> tree species (Prentice<br />

1963), although the preferred host in most areas is trembling aspen, Populus tremu/oides<br />

Michx. Host trees are <strong>of</strong>ten completely stripped <strong>of</strong> foliage during outbreaks, but because<br />

the outbreaks usually last for only 3-6 years at anyone location (Sippell 1962, Witter et<br />

al. 1975), and even severely defoliated trees usually refoliate within a few weeks, there is<br />

usually very little tree mortality directly attributable to defoliation (Kulman 1971). However,<br />

severe mortality has occasionally been reported (Hodson 1941, G.N. Sti111980<br />

personal communication). Observations by the author suggest that such mortality is<br />

attributable primarily to the effects <strong>of</strong> severe drought fonowing several years <strong>of</strong> moderate to<br />

severe defoliation.<br />

Between 1969 and 1980 records compiled by the Forest Insect and Disease Survey<br />

(Anon. 1970-79) show that outbreaks <strong>of</strong> the forest tent caterpillar have occurred in all<br />

provinces except Newfoundland (Fig. 16). In New Brunswick, about 9 000 ha <strong>of</strong> trembling<br />

aspen were severely defoliated in 1969, and the infestation was expected to enlarge in<br />

1970. However, a combination <strong>of</strong> unseasonably wann weather in early May 1970, fonowed by<br />

several frosts, apparently resulted in the starvation <strong>of</strong> many young larvae. The area <strong>of</strong><br />

infestation therefore decreased, and the expected outbreak did Dot materialize. In Nova<br />

Scotia, about 50 km 2 <strong>of</strong> aspen were defoliated in 1972, and in Prince Edward Island about<br />

28 000 ha in 1974. In Quebec, several small areas totalling less than 100 km 2 were<br />

defoliated between 1973 and 1976. In Ontario, remnants <strong>of</strong> earlier outbreaks persisted<br />

into the survey period and new outbreaks began developing soon afterwards. A total<br />

<strong>of</strong> over 100 000 km 2 east <strong>of</strong> the Lakehead was defoliated between 1975 and 1977, while<br />

the outbreak in northwestern Ontario alone covered about 160 000 km 2 in 1978. In<br />

Manitoba, an incipient outbreak was detected in 1971 and by 1977 most <strong>of</strong> the southern<br />

part <strong>of</strong> the province was affected. The outbreak collapsed in 1978, except for an area<br />

west <strong>of</strong> Lake Winnipegosis where it collapsed in 1979. In Saskatchewan, the outbreak<br />

was slower in developing and did not reach its peak until 1980, when about 128 000 km 2<br />

were subjected to moderate or severe defoliation. In Alberta, an outbreak in the Wabamun<br />

Lake area has persisted throughout the survey period, but the greatest damage occurred<br />

in 1980, when about 75000 km 2 were defoliated. In British Columbia, over 70 000 ha<br />

were defoliated in the central part <strong>of</strong> the province in 1973, but the outbreak collapsed in<br />

1974.<br />

Populations <strong>of</strong> forest tent caterpillar are influenced by a variety <strong>of</strong> environmental factors<br />

including weather, competition, predation, parasitism, and diseases. Ives (1973) believed that<br />

unusually favourable spring weather 2-4 years before any noticeable defoliation was<br />

responsible for triggering outbreaks, and a number <strong>of</strong> workers report that unfavourable<br />

spring weather appears to be a major factor in population collapse (Tothilll918, Sweetman<br />

311


Malacosoma disstria J-Hibner. 3/3<br />

1940, Blais et al. 1955, Witter et al. 1972, Hodson 1977). Unusually cold winter weather<br />

is also sometimes responsible for population decline (Witter et al. 1975). Hodson (1941,<br />

1977) found that starvation, <strong>of</strong>ten coupled with high pupal parasitism by Sarcophaga<br />

aldrichi Parker, was a major contributor to population collapse. A large variety <strong>of</strong> insect<br />

parasites attacks the forest tent caterpillar (Witter & Kulman 1972), but the most prevalent is<br />

usually S. aldrichi, which <strong>of</strong>ten attacks over 90% <strong>of</strong> the pupae in the declining phases <strong>of</strong><br />

an outbreak (Hodson 1941, 1977). Predation by various birds (McAtee 1926, Hodson<br />

1941, Witter & Kulman 1972) and invertebrate predators such as ants (Tot hill 1918,<br />

Green & Sullivan 1950, Ayre & Hitchon 1968) has been observed on a number <strong>of</strong> occasions,<br />

but it is usually unimportant.<br />

Bacteria, fungi, microsporidia, and viruses all cause diseases in forest tent caterpillar<br />

larvae and pupae (Bird 1971). The bacteria isolated from M. disstria larvae include<br />

Bacillus cereus Frankland & Frankland, Clostridium brevifaciens Butcher, a Pseudomonas<br />

species, and Serratia marcescens Bizio, but all were rare (Smim<strong>of</strong>f 1968). The<br />

forest tent caterpillar is also susceptible to Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (B.t.), although<br />

this organism is not usually found under natural conditions. Several fungi have been<br />

isolated from forest tent caterpillar larvae and pupae, but according to Stairs (1972) only<br />

Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin and Entomophthora sp. were <strong>of</strong> any importance,<br />

and then only under humid conditions. A microsporidium, Nosema disstriae Thompson,<br />

has killed up to 90% <strong>of</strong> early-instar larvae in some areas (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1968). It also causes a<br />

reduction in the size <strong>of</strong> the insects and may affect their vigour, so that the full significance <strong>of</strong><br />

infection is hard to assess (Bird 1971).<br />

Infection with a nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) is <strong>of</strong>ten thought to be one <strong>of</strong> the<br />

most important factors in terminating forest tent caterpillar outbreaks. For example,<br />

Stairs (1966) stated that "Epizootics <strong>of</strong> nuclear polyhedrosis virus disease are known to<br />

be associated with the rapid decline <strong>of</strong> tent caterpillar popUlations, Malacosoma spp."<br />

Although this statement may be true for the tent-forming species, the evidence is<br />

equivocal for the forest tent caterpillar. Of the references cited by Stairs (1966), the<br />

following three deal with M. disstria. Bergold (1951) obtained high mortality among<br />

larvae in cages when they were sprayed with the virus under experimental conditions.<br />

Sippell (1952) demonstrated that a large percentage <strong>of</strong> egg bands collected in late fall<br />

were infected with virus. Neither experiment attempted to show that the virus had an<br />

effect on population trends. The third paper (Chapman & Glaser 1915) states: "Though<br />

wilt disease was also reported to have occurred in many places in the forest tent<br />

caterpillar, neither <strong>of</strong> us have seen more than a few typical cases from the field. Many<br />

caterpillars were sent in by field men but only a few <strong>of</strong> them proved to have typical wilt."<br />

Smim<strong>of</strong>f (1968) conducted a long-term study <strong>of</strong> M. disstria diseases in Quebec, and<br />

found NPV to be unimportant. Similarly, population studies by Hodson (1941) showed<br />

that the virus was responsible for less than 1 % mortality in Itasca State Park in 1936, and<br />

Witter el al. (1972), on the basis <strong>of</strong> intensive sampling, considered the virus to be<br />

unimportant in northern Minnesota during 1967-69.<br />

Although NPV appears to be unimportant as a control agent under natural conditions,<br />

it is possible that artificial dissemination <strong>of</strong> the virus into field populations might<br />

increase the amount <strong>of</strong> virus infection, thus increasing its effectiveness. Stairs (1964)<br />

used a small backpack mist blower to apply various dosages <strong>of</strong> virus to different larval<br />

instars <strong>of</strong> the forest tent caterpillar in 1963. A concentration <strong>of</strong> 10' polyhedral inclusion<br />

bodies (PIB) per millilitre applied to second- and third-instar larvae caused 92% mortality,<br />

most <strong>of</strong> the larvae dying within 10 days <strong>of</strong> the application. Stairs (1965) found virusinfected<br />

larvae in 1964 in both <strong>of</strong> the areas that had been sprayed in 1963, but not in an<br />

unsprayed area. The virus also occurred at considerable distances from the sprayed<br />

areas, and Stairs believed that he had been successful in artificially initiating an epizootic.


314 W. O. H. Ives<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Bacillus tburingJensis<br />

Berliner<br />

Biological control attempts against the forest tent caterpillar during the past decade have<br />

involved the bacterium B. Ihuringiensis, the microsporidium N. disslriae, and an NPV.<br />

Because some formulations <strong>of</strong> B. Ihuringiensis have been registered for control <strong>of</strong> the<br />

forest tent caterpillar, and have therefore been used commercially it is difficult to provide<br />

an accurate record <strong>of</strong> either the amounts used or the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the applications. The<br />

following is a summary <strong>of</strong> the more readily available information.<br />

The most comprehensive trials <strong>of</strong> B.I. against the forest tent caterpillar were conducted<br />

in Ontario in 1975,1977, and 1978 (G.M. Howse 1981 personal communication). In 1975,<br />

small-scale aerial spray trials with Thuricide® 168 (Sandoz Inc.) on trembling aspen<br />

stands in southern Ontario showed that the preparation had promise. One application at a<br />

rate <strong>of</strong> 10 x 10 9 1. U .lha reduced larval populations by 71 %; two applications at the same<br />

rate caused 92% mortality. The treatment was applied too late in the season to save any<br />

foliage. In 1977, evaluations were made <strong>of</strong> the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> two applications <strong>of</strong><br />

Thuricide® 16B (10 x 10' I. U .lha at each application) in controlling forest tent caterpillar<br />

populations over a total <strong>of</strong> about 850 ha <strong>of</strong> trembling aspen and sugar maple, Acer<br />

saccharum Marsh., in three provincial parks in southern Ontario. Resultant population<br />

reduction on trembling aspen ranged from 30 to 79%, and defoliation in the treated areas<br />

ranged from 5 to 46% compared to 82 to 100% in untreated areas. Similar results were<br />

obtained for infestations on sugar maple, where population reductions due to treatment<br />

ranged from 38 to 69%, and defoliation in sprayed areas was about 15%, compared to<br />

100% in an unsprayed area. A further 940 ha were sprayed with Thuricide® 16B in 1977,<br />

but no assessment <strong>of</strong> its effectiveness was made. In 1978, either one or two applications <strong>of</strong><br />

Thuricide® 168, mostly at the rate <strong>of</strong>7.5 x 10' I. U .lha for each application, were made on<br />

a total <strong>of</strong> about 515 ha <strong>of</strong> forest tent caterpillar infestations on trembling aspen, sugar<br />

maple, and red oak, Quercus rubra L., in southern Ontario. Insect populations were<br />

lower than in 1977, so the comparison <strong>of</strong> defoliation was not a practical way <strong>of</strong> showing<br />

effectiveness. However, population reduction due to treatment ranged from 79 to 100%<br />

on trembling aspen, from 71 to 100% on red oak, and was 100% in both treated<br />

infestations on sugar maple. In addition, 250 ha <strong>of</strong> sugar maple were sprayed with one<br />

application <strong>of</strong> Dipel® WP (Abbott Ltd.) (6.0 x 10' I.U.lha) in late May. Population<br />

reduction due to treatments was 98%.<br />

Data for western <strong>Canada</strong> are more fragmentary. In Alberta, a hydraulic sprayer was<br />

used in 1974 to treat two 0.2-ha plots <strong>of</strong> trembling aspen with Dipel® WP (9 x 10'<br />

I.U.lha) and a further two 0.2-ha plots with Thuricide® HPC (Sandoz Inc.) (5 x ur<br />

I.U.lha) (Drouin & Kusch 1975). Control was estimated at 75 and 70% respectively. In<br />

1976, two O.4-ha plots <strong>of</strong> trembling aspen were treated with Dipel® WP (9 x 10'<br />

I.U./ha). Control was estimated at 75 and 85%, based on the reduction in amount <strong>of</strong><br />

defoliation (Drouin & Kusch 1977). In addition, several applications were made by<br />

private operators under contract to various agencies.<br />

In Saskatchewan, Dipel® WP was used to control forest tent caterpillar outbreaks in<br />

Prince Albert and Saskatoon. In Prince Albert, about 325 ha within the city limits were<br />

treated in 1980 when the larvae were in the third and fourth instars, with good results (P.<br />

Kabat<strong>of</strong>f 1981 personal communication). The chemical insecticide malathion had been<br />

used earlier, when the larvae were in the first and second instars, because it was felt that<br />

there was insufficient foliage at that time for Dipel® WP to be effective. In Saskatoon,<br />

about 800 ha <strong>of</strong> city parks and about 40 000 avenue trees were treated with Dipel® WP in<br />

1980 (D. Scott 1981 personal communication). About 340 kg <strong>of</strong> Dipel® WP were used,<br />

and results were generally satisfactory.


Malam.mma disstria Hiibner, 319<br />

Stairs, O.R. (1964) Dissemination <strong>of</strong> nuclear polyhedrosis virus agaimt the forest tent caterpi11ar, MoJorosomo disstrio (Hiibner) (Lepidoptera:<br />

Lasiocampidae). Canadian EntomologisI96,1017-1020.<br />

Stairs, O.R. (196S) Artificial initiation <strong>of</strong> virus epizootics in forest tent caterpillar populations. Canadian Entomologist 97,10S9-1062.<br />

Stairs, O.R. (1966) Transmission <strong>of</strong> virus in tent caterpillar populations. Canadian Entomologist 98,1100-1104.<br />

Stairs, O.R. (1972) Pathogenic microorganisms in the regulation <strong>of</strong> forest insect populations. AnnUQI Review <strong>of</strong> Entomology 17,3SS-372.<br />

Sweetman, H. L. (1940) The value <strong>of</strong> the hand control for the tent caterpillars, Malacosoma americana Fabr. and Malacosoma di.s.stria Hbn.<br />

(Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). Canadian Enlomologis/72.24S-250.<br />

Tothill. J.D. (1918) The meaning <strong>of</strong> natural contro\. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> 4,10-14.<br />

Wilson. G.O. (1977) Effects <strong>of</strong> the microsporidia Nosema disstriae and Pleistophora schubergi on the survival <strong>of</strong> the forest tent caterpillar,<br />

Malacosoma difstria (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). Canadian Entomologisl 109,1021-1022.<br />

Wilson, 0.0. (1979) Effects <strong>of</strong> Nosema disstriae (Microsporidia) on the forest tent caterpillar, Malacosomo disstrio (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae).<br />

Proceedings <strong>of</strong> Ihe <strong>Entomological</strong> Socitty <strong>of</strong> Ontario 110.97-99.<br />

Wilson. G.O.; Kaupp. W.J. (1977) Application <strong>of</strong> Nosema disstriat and Pleistophora schubergi (Microsporida) against the forest tent<br />

caterpillar in Ontario. 1977. Canadian Forestry Service, Sault 511'. Marie, Information Report FPM-X-4.<br />

Willer. I.A.: Kulman. H.M. (1972) A rcview <strong>of</strong> the parasites and predators <strong>of</strong> tent caterpillars (Malacosoma spp.) in North America.<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Minnesola Agricultural Experiment Stalion Technical Bulletin 289.<br />

Witter, J .A.; Kulman, H .M.; Hodson, A.C. (1972) Life tables for the forest tent caterpillar. Annals <strong>of</strong> the EntomologiCilI <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> America<br />

6S.25-3t.<br />

Willer, J .A.; Mattson, W.J .• Kulman. H .M. (197S) Numerical analysis <strong>of</strong> a forest tent caterpillar (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae) outbreak in<br />

northern Minnesota. Canadian Entomologist 107,837-854.


Blank Page<br />

320


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Field Trial<br />

Chapter 56 321<br />

Neodiprion abietis (Harris), Balsam Fir<br />

Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae)<br />

J.e. CUNNINGHAM<br />

The balsam fir sawfly, Neodiprion abietis (Harr.) complex, occurs from New England to<br />

the Great Lakes and south to Missouri in the USA, from coast to coast in southern<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> (Baker 1972), and also in Newfoundland. In <strong>Canada</strong>, periodic outbreaks, usually <strong>of</strong><br />

short duration, are common on balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., and spruce, Picea<br />

spp., from Saskatchewan eastwards. Tree mortality is rare and is usually reported in<br />

conjunction with other pests such as spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana<br />

(Clem.), eastern blackheaded budworm, Ac/eris variana (Fern.), and balsam woolly<br />

adelgid, Adelges piceae (Ratz.) (Rose & Lindquist 1977).<br />

Balsam fir sawfly overwinters as eggs in diapause and spring hatching is fairly<br />

uniform. Larvae are gregarious and feed on old needles, but eat only parts <strong>of</strong>them, thus<br />

damaging many more needles than they consume. In the later instars, the colonies<br />

disperse and the larvae become solitary. There are five larval instars, but males do not<br />

feed during their last instar (D.R. Wallace & c.R. Sullivan 1980 personal communication).<br />

In 1980, traces <strong>of</strong> defoliation caused by this insect were found in western and central<br />

Newfoundland and light to moderate defoliation was observed in the northern, eastern,<br />

and Algonquin regions <strong>of</strong> Ontario (Sterner & Davidson 1981).<br />

A nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) was first reported in balsam fir sawfly by Steinhaus<br />

(1949). This disease has subsequently been reported in balsam fir sawfly populations in<br />

several Canadian provinces including Saskatchewan (Brown 1951), Alberta and Manitoba<br />

(Cumming 1954), and Quebec (Martineau & Lavallee 1971).<br />

Ground spray trials on single trees were conducted in Ontario in 1972 to test NPV on<br />

balsam fir sawfly (Ol<strong>of</strong>sson 1973). Aqueous suspensions <strong>of</strong> lOT, 1()6, lOS, 10', and to)<br />

polyhedral inclusion bodies (PIB) per millilitre plus 2.5% IMC 90-001 (International<br />

Minerals Corporation) UV protectant were tested at two application times, 8 days<br />

apart, on first- and third-instar larvae. A backpack mist blower was used and a 360-ml<br />

suspension was applied to each 2.5-m tall balsam fir tree, five trees being treated with<br />

each dosage on each date. There were 5-10 sawfly colonies per tree.<br />

The percentage <strong>of</strong> infected larvae following the applications is shown in Table 83.<br />

Infection is directly related to mortality with this NPV.


322 J. C. Cunningham<br />

Table 83<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Infection and defoliation following application <strong>of</strong> NPV on first- and third-instar balsam fir<br />

sawfly, Neodiprion abietis (Harr.), larvae in a ground spray trial (from Ol<strong>of</strong>sson 1973)<br />

Percentage virus infection Defoliation·<br />

Dosage I instar III instar I instar III instar<br />

PIBlml treated treated treated treated<br />

10' Q<br />

100 100 1 3<br />

10'<br />

HY<br />

100<br />

96<br />

88<br />

60<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

10'<br />

10}<br />

72<br />

60<br />

24<br />

4<br />

4<br />

4<br />

5<br />

5<br />

Check 0 0 5 5<br />

• Defoliation was rated on a scale <strong>of</strong> 1 to 5 where 1 was very light and 5 severe.<br />

The limited ground spray trials conducted in 1972 demonstrated that this NPV is a<br />

potentially useful biological control agent for balsam fir sawfly. However, as this<br />

species feeds mainly near the tops and mid-crowns <strong>of</strong> mature trees, an aerial spray<br />

application would be required for complete coverage. Further testing has not been<br />

conducted and aerial spray trials are required before definitive conclusions can be made<br />

and recommendations formulated.<br />

Ol<strong>of</strong>sson (1973) showed that timing <strong>of</strong> the application is critical and he recommended<br />

applying the NPVon late first-instar larvae. By the time they develop to the third instar,<br />

feeding damage is severe and the larvae require a much higher dosage <strong>of</strong> virus. For<br />

ground spray applications, Ol<strong>of</strong>sson recommended a dosage <strong>of</strong> 1W PIB/ml and he<br />

calculated that one fully grown, NPV-infected larva produced 1 I <strong>of</strong> spray <strong>of</strong> this<br />

concentration. However, this dosage would have to be increased for an aerial application. If<br />

the economic importance <strong>of</strong> balsam fir sawfly justifies the development <strong>of</strong> non-chemical<br />

pesticide control strategies, this NPV merits further research.<br />

Baker, W.J. (1972) Eastern forest insects. US Depanment <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 1175. US Government Printing OCfice,<br />

642 pp.<br />

Brown, C.E. (1951) Forest insect survey nOles. Canadian Depanment <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Bi·monthly Progress Report 7(2).2.<br />

Cumming. M. (1954) Diseases <strong>of</strong> insects. Canadian Depanment <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Bi·monthly Progress Report 10(3),3.<br />

Martineau, R.; Lavallc!e, A. (1971) Quc!bec region. Canadian Forestry Service, Annual Report <strong>of</strong> the Forest Insect and Disease Survey,<br />

pp.34-53.<br />

OloCsson, E. (1973) Evaluation <strong>of</strong> a nuclear polyhedrosis virus as an agent for the control <strong>of</strong> balsam fir sawfly, Neodiprion abietis (Harr.).<br />

Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Information ReportIP·X·2, 30 pp.<br />

Rose, A.H.; Lindquist, O.H. (19n) Insects <strong>of</strong> eastern spruces, fir and hemlock. Canadian Forestry Service, Forestry TechniCDI Report<br />

23, 159 pp.<br />

Steinhaus, E.A. (1949) Principles <strong>of</strong> insect pathology. New York; McGraw· Hill, 757 pp.<br />

Sterner, T.E.; Davidson, A.G. (comp.) (1981) Forest insect and disease conditions in <strong>Canada</strong> 1980. Canadian Forestry Service, Forest<br />

Insect and Disease Survey, 43 pp.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Field Trials<br />

Chapter 57<br />

Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch), Redheaded<br />

Pine Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae)<br />

J.C. CUNNINGHAM and P. DE GROOT<br />

The redheaded pine sawfly, Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch), is a serious defoliator <strong>of</strong> young<br />

hard pine, Pinus spp., plantations in Ontario, Quebec, and, to a lesser extent, New<br />

Brunswick. It is the most serious pest <strong>of</strong> red pine, Pinus resinosa Ait., in these regions<br />

due to the increase in the number <strong>of</strong> plantations over the last 20 years. Red pine is the<br />

principal species attacked, but jack pine, P. banbiana Lamb., and Scots pine, P.<br />

syfveslris L., are also attacked. Damage can be severe, especially when trees are less<br />

than 2-3 years old; one sawfly colony can totally defoliate and kill several trees<br />

(Benjamin 1955). Heavy defoliation results in reduced height growth, branch mortality,<br />

and defonnity if the leader is killed (Schaffner 1951, Benjamin 1955, MacAloney &<br />

Wilson 1964).<br />

This sawfly has only one generation per year in <strong>Canada</strong>, whereas in the southern parts<br />

<strong>of</strong> its range it may have as many as five (Benjamin 1955). In <strong>Canada</strong>, adult sawflies<br />

emerge, from mid-June to early July, from overwintered cocoons in the duff layer <strong>of</strong> the<br />

soil. The number <strong>of</strong> eggs laid by females varies considerably, but it is not unusual to have<br />

a complement <strong>of</strong> 80-140 eggs. Egg development varies with the ambient temperature<br />

and. as temperatures increase, the incubation period shortens. An incubation period <strong>of</strong><br />

3-4 weeks is typical in southern Ontario and Quebec. The sawfly larvae are gregarious<br />

and feed on foliage <strong>of</strong> all ages, although they show a preference for the previous year's<br />

foliage. Larvae are fully grown in 25-30 days from time <strong>of</strong> hatching, and are about 25<br />

mm long. Populations <strong>of</strong> sawflies are not evenly distributed throughout plantations but<br />

occur in "hot spots", <strong>of</strong>ten along a hardwood perimeter or on knolls.<br />

In the past, most attempts at control have been by applying chemical insecticides from<br />

the ground. In many cases, enough larvae escaped treatment to produce a population the<br />

following year large enough to require further treatment. This "insecticide treadmill"<br />

requires considerable man-power and may have to be continued for several years until<br />

the trees have grown enough to be out <strong>of</strong> danger or until the insect population has been<br />

regulated by natural control factors such as egg parasitoids (Benjamin 1955, Griffiths<br />

1956, Rauf el af. 1979).<br />

In 1950, a nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) disease <strong>of</strong> the redheaded pine sawfly was<br />

found in Ontario (Bird 1961). In a series <strong>of</strong> laboratory and ground spray trials. Bird<br />

demonstrated that this virus was highly infectious to sawfly larvae, that virus can be<br />

introduced into the population and initiate an epizootic, and that it can be transmitted<br />

from one generation to the next (Bird 1961, 1971).<br />

Virus for field trials is produced in vivo. Because there are no known synthetic diets for<br />

sawflies reared in the laboratory, it is necessary to use fresh foliage, which is labour<br />

intensive and expensive. Hence to produce virus, a plantation with a high insect<br />

population, which has already been severely damaged in previous years, is selected.<br />

When larvae reach the fourth instar, trees are sprayed with a mist blower using a<br />

323


324 J. C Cunningham and P. Dc Groot<br />

Table 84<br />

suspension <strong>of</strong> 10" polyhedral inclusion bodies (PIS) per millilitre at an application rate <strong>of</strong><br />

about 20 Ilha. Seven or 8 days after spraying, the first diseased and dead larvae are<br />

found, and colonies <strong>of</strong> moribund larvae are clipped from the trees and taken to the<br />

laboratory where they are picked <strong>of</strong>f the foliage and frozen. Collections are made every<br />

day until all colonies have died or pupated, which can take up to 30 days. The frozen<br />

larvae are lyophilized, ground to a fine powder, and the number <strong>of</strong> PISs per gramme<br />

measured. This material is stored at 2°C until required and is then suspended in water.<br />

Recent experiments have shown that suspension in an emulsifiable oil may be preferable,<br />

but such preparations have not yet been field tested.<br />

Spraying <strong>of</strong> an entomopathogen must be shown to be efficacious and safe before it is<br />

approved for operational use by the Canadian federal government. Extensive safety<br />

testing <strong>of</strong> redheaded pine sawfly NPV has been undertaken at Ontario Veterinary<br />

College, University <strong>of</strong> Guelph, where this virus was found to present no hazard to<br />

mammals (Forsberg, ValIi & Dwyer unpublished), birds (Valli & Oaxton, unpublished),<br />

and fish and Daphnia pulex (Hicks et al. 1981). The impact <strong>of</strong> the virus on non-target<br />

organisms was monitored in conjunction with the 1977 aerial spray trials in Ontario. In<br />

addition, beehives were placed in the treated plantations. No deleterious effects were<br />

noted (Kingsbury et al. 1978).<br />

A petition for the registration <strong>of</strong> this virus will be submitted to Canadian authorities in<br />

March 1981 for approval. If accepted this will be the first \irus registered for regulation<br />

<strong>of</strong> insect populations in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

Field trials during the review period started with a smalI ground spray trial with NPV,<br />

conducted in Quebec in 1970. In 1976, an intensive research programme was initiated to<br />

establish an operational method <strong>of</strong> applying this virus to control redheaded pine sawfly.<br />

Aerial spray trials were conducted every year in Ontario from 1976 to 1980, and in<br />

Quebec in 1978 and 1979. Ground applications were also made during this period; the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> plantations and areas treated are summarized in Table 84. Details <strong>of</strong> these<br />

trials are given below.<br />

Summary <strong>of</strong> field trials conducted with NPV <strong>of</strong> redheaded pine sawfly, Neodiprion<br />

lecontei (Fitch), between 1976 and 1980<br />

Ontario<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> No. <strong>of</strong><br />

Area planta- plantatreated<br />

tions tions<br />

Year (ha) from air from<br />

ground<br />

1976 43 3<br />

1977 52 3<br />

1978 26 2<br />

1979 34 4<br />

1980 540 8 88<br />

Ground spray trials in Quebec in 1970<br />

Area<br />

treated<br />

(ha)<br />

700<br />

330<br />

21<br />

Quebec<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

plantations<br />

from air<br />

36<br />

42<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

plantations<br />

from<br />

ground<br />

Purified NPV at a concentration <strong>of</strong> 1.3 x 10" PIBII and lyophilized NPV-infected larvae<br />

(with an undetermined PIB content) at 30, 60, 130, and 260 mgll were sprayed on thirdinstar<br />

larvae using a backpack mist blower. First mortality was observed 14 days after<br />

spraying and by 48 days 100% mortality was observed in the area treated with the<br />

lyophilized NPV-infected larval material, and 94.9 and 97.4% mortality in two areas<br />

treated with the purified virus (Anon. 1970).<br />

1<br />

1<br />

12


Aerial spray trials in Ontario in 1976<br />

Neodiprioll lecollId (Fitch). 325<br />

Three red pine plantations with a total area <strong>of</strong> 43.2 ha were sprayed with three different<br />

dosages <strong>of</strong> virus, 1.25 x Hr, 3.75 x 10", and 6.75 x to' PIBlha, at 9.4 Uha, using a fixedwing<br />

aircraft with boom and nozzle equipment, when most larvae were in the second<br />

instar. The formulation contained 60 gil !MC 9Q.OO1 (International Minerals Corporation)<br />

sunlight protectant. Pre-spray colony counts for the three plots were 59, 138, and 173<br />

colonies/50 trees, respectively, and 119 colonies/50 trees in an untreated check area.<br />

Seventeen days after spraying, the percentage <strong>of</strong> larvae infected with virus in the treated<br />

plots was 92, 96, and 98%, respectively, and 4 % in the check area. When the last colony<br />

count was made at 22 days, 7,46, and 1 colony/50 trees were recorded in the treated plots<br />

and 115/50 trees in the check plot. There was a good level <strong>of</strong> foliage protection in the<br />

treated areas (Kaupp & Cunningham 1977).<br />

Aerial spray trials in Ontario in 1977<br />

Two red pine and one jack pine plantation with a combined area <strong>of</strong> 48 ha were treated at a<br />

dosage <strong>of</strong> 5.5 x 10" PlBlha at 9.4 Uha. A fixed-wing aircraft with boom and nozzle<br />

equipment was used to spray second- and third-instar larvae on red pine, and a fixedwing<br />

aircraft with Micronair (Micronair4'i (Aerial) Ltd. U. K.) equipment to spray fourthinstar<br />

larvae on jack pine. The aqueous formulation contained 25% v/v molasses and 60<br />

gil IMC 90-001.<br />

In the jack pine plantation, 5 days after spraying the number <strong>of</strong> colonies/100 trees fell<br />

from 132 to 47 while the population in the untreated check plot remained constant. This<br />

rapid population decline prompted an investigation <strong>of</strong> the tank mix and it was found to<br />

contain 522JLglml <strong>of</strong> the chemical insecticide phosphamidon (Sundaram 1977 personal<br />

communication). By 26 days after spraying, the population density had fallen to 2<br />

colonies/100 trees.<br />

In the two red pine plantations, pre-spray counts <strong>of</strong> colonies/100 trees were 163 and<br />

54, and 217 in a check plot. Counts 26 days after spraying were 7 and 0 in the treated plots<br />

and 200 in the check area. The NPV also spread to an untreated plantation adjacent to<br />

these plantations and destroyed the redheaded pine sawfly population, but not before<br />

severe defoliation had occurred. Defoliation was light in all the treated areas, although it<br />

would have been heavy in the jack pine plantation without the unintentional contamination<br />

by phosphamidon in the aircraft spray tank (Kaupp et al. 1978).<br />

Aerial spray trials in Ontario in 1978<br />

Two red pine plantations with a total area <strong>of</strong>26 ha were treated when larvae were mainly<br />

in the second instar. The spray was applied with a fixed-wing aircraft equipped with a<br />

Micronair4'i spray delivery system. The dosage was 5 x 10" PIBlha in 9.4 Uha aqueous<br />

formulation containing 12.5% v/v molasses and 32 gil Shade® (Sandoz Inc.) (formerly<br />

IMC 90-001). Over 90% <strong>of</strong> sawfly colonies were diseased or dead 16 days after spraying<br />

and by 23 days no healthy colonies remained. Defoliation was lighter in treated than in<br />

check areas (de Groot et al. 1979).<br />

Aerial and ground spray trials in Quebec in 1978<br />

A large operation was undertaken and 37 red pine plantations covering 700 ha were<br />

treated. Two types <strong>of</strong> aerial spray equipment were used, a fixed-wing aircraft equipped<br />

with Micronair® and a helicopter equipped with Beecomist (Beeco Products Co., USA).<br />

In addition, one plantation was treated from the ground using backpack mist blowers.<br />

Dosage was 5 x 10' PIB/ha for aerial applications on second-instar larvae and 10 10 PIBlha


326 J. C.Cunningham and P. Dc Groot<br />

on third- and fourth-instar larvae for the ground application. Volume applied in all<br />

treatments was 9.4 l/ha. Some NPV was formulated in 25% v/v molasses and 30 gil<br />

Shade® and some was applied in water alone. Two application strategies were used, with<br />

some plantations getting total coverage and others partial coverage using widely spaced<br />

spray swaths. By 29 days after spraying, plantations sprayed by fixed-wing aircraft had<br />

an average mortality <strong>of</strong> 97.7% with total coverage and 72.5% with partial coverage.<br />

Plantations treated by helicopter had an average mortality <strong>of</strong> 99.4% with total coverage<br />

and 90.8% with partial coverage. The plantation treated with mist blowers had 98.4%<br />

mortality and untreated check plots had 29.5% mortality. The saving <strong>of</strong> foliage was<br />

satisfactory in all treatments except for the ground spray application where the application<br />

volume <strong>of</strong> 9.4 I/ha was too low and insect development was too far advanced (Desaulniers &<br />

Cunningham unpublished).<br />

Aerial spray trials in Ontario in 1979<br />

Red pine plantations with a total area <strong>of</strong> 33.6 ha were treated at a dosage <strong>of</strong> 5 x 10" PIBlha<br />

at 9.4 llha when larvae were in the first and second instars. A fixed-wing aircraft with<br />

Micronair® equipment was used. A comparic:on was made between a suspension <strong>of</strong><br />

lyophilized, NPV-infected larvae with Rhodamine B dye as a tracer and the same virus<br />

suspension formulated in 25% v/v molasses and 60 g.1 Shade®. There was no difference<br />

in the efficacy <strong>of</strong> the two treatments and it was concluded that it is unnecessary to add<br />

adjuvants to this virus. Both treatments gave 100% mortality, none <strong>of</strong> the larvae<br />

developed past the third instar and defoliation was minimal (Cunningham & de Groot<br />

unpublished).<br />

Aerial and ground spray trials in Quebec in 1979<br />

Forty-three red pine plantations with a total area <strong>of</strong> 330 ha were treated; 323 ha were<br />

sprayed from the air and 7 ha from the ground. Two helicopters were used for the aerial<br />

spray, one equipped with Beecomist411 units and one with boom and nozzle. From the air,<br />

application rate was 9.4 l/ha and dosage was 5 x 10" PIBlha. Backpack mist blowers<br />

were used for the ground spray application; volume sprayed was 18.8 l/ha and dosage<br />

was 10 10 PIBlha. Spraying was carried out when 80-90% <strong>of</strong> the eggs were hatched. The<br />

pre-spray population densities were 63 colonies/50 trees in the area treated with Beecomist®,<br />

110/50 trees in the area treated with boom and nozzle, 110/50 trees in the area treated<br />

with mist blowers and 22150 trees in the check area. At 35 days after spraying, mortality<br />

in these areas was 87, 98, 94 and 7%, respectively. Defoliation in the treated plantations<br />

was practically nil and only light defoliation was recorded in the check plots because <strong>of</strong><br />

the low sawfly population density (Bordeleau unpublished).<br />

Aerial and ground spray trials in Ontario in 1980<br />

Red pine plantations with a total area <strong>of</strong> 539.8 ha were treated. Experimental aerial spray<br />

trials were conducted on four plantations with a total area <strong>of</strong> 33 ha. A fixed-wing aircraft<br />

with Micronair® equipment was used and dosage on all plantations was 5 x 1()O PIBlha.<br />

Highly purified virus at 9.4 l/ha emitted volume was compared to lyophilized, NPVinfected<br />

larval material at the same volume. A comparison was also made with reduced<br />

emitted volumes <strong>of</strong> lyophilized larval material at 4.7 and 2.4 l/ha. Applications were<br />

made on first- and second-instar larvae. There was no difference in effectiveness<br />

between the crude and purified material or between the three emitted volumes. By 31<br />

days after spraying, 100% mortality was achieved in all four treatments.


Table 85<br />

Neodipriotl {ecomei (Fitch). 327<br />

Semi-operational aerial spray trials were conducted on a further four plantations with<br />

a total area <strong>of</strong>70 ha. Lyophilized NPV-infected larval material was used at 5 x 10' PIBlha<br />

and the emitted volume was 9.4l1ha. Larvae were mainly in the first and second instars,<br />

with a few unhatched egg clusters present, at the time <strong>of</strong> application. When the final<br />

survey was made 28 days after spraying, mortality ranged from 82 to 99%.<br />

Ground spray trials were conducted by Ontario Ministry <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources staff in<br />

five districts, and 88 plantations with a total area <strong>of</strong> 436.8 ha were treated entirely or<br />

partially over a 47-day period. Insect development ranged from first and second instar in<br />

the early treatments to fourth and fifth instar in the later ones (Cunningham & de Groot<br />

unpublished).<br />

Ground spray trials in Quebec in 1980<br />

A mist blower was used to treat 12 red pine plantations when larvae were in the first and<br />

second instars with 90% <strong>of</strong> the eggs hatched. The dosage was 5 x 10' PIBlha and two<br />

application volumes were tested, 18.7 and 93.6I1ha. Better results were obtained with<br />

the lower volume and 100% mortality was achieved 20 days after spraying. Thirty-five<br />

days after spraying, 97% mortality was reached with the higher volume. Defoliation in<br />

the treated plantations was negligible because <strong>of</strong> comparatively low larval population<br />

densities (an average <strong>of</strong> 21 colonieS/25 trees on the high volume application and 8<br />

colonies/l00 trees on the low volume application) combined with the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the<br />

treatments (Bordeleau unpublished).<br />

Surveys <strong>of</strong> plantations aerially sprayed in Ontario in years following the year <strong>of</strong> application<br />

In order to assess the durability <strong>of</strong> the virus treatments, surveys have been conducted<br />

annually on all the plantations aerially sprayed experimentally in Ontario, which by 1980<br />

numbered 15 (de Groot et al. 1979, Cunningham & de Groot unpublished). A summary<br />

<strong>of</strong> these surveys is shown in Table 85. Although not all these plantations remained<br />

Survey <strong>of</strong> plantations treated with NPV <strong>of</strong> redheaded pine sawfly, Neodiprion leeontei<br />

(Fitch), in years following the year <strong>of</strong> application<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> colonieS/l00 trees<br />

Pre-spray<br />

Year Plot estimate 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981<br />

1976 1 118 0 0 0 0 0<br />

2 176 0 0 0 0 0.75<br />

3 346 0 0 0 0 0<br />

1977 1 163 0 0 0 0.75<br />

2 81 0 0 1.75 0<br />

3 132 0 0 0 0.5<br />

1978 255 0.5 0 0<br />

2 174 2.5 1.25 2.0<br />

1979 1 124 0.25 0<br />

2 77 0 0.25<br />

3 5 0 0<br />

1980 1 52 0<br />

2 173 0<br />

3 225 0<br />

4 25 0


Blank Page<br />

330


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 58<br />

Neodiprion sertifer (Ge<strong>of</strong>froy), European<br />

Pine Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae)<br />

K.J. GRIFFITHS, J.e. CUNNINGHAM and I.S. OTVOS<br />

The European pine sawfly, Neodiprion serlifer (Ge<strong>of</strong>fr.), was first recorded in North<br />

America in New Jersey in 1925 (Schaffner 1939) and in <strong>Canada</strong> near Windsor, Ontario,<br />

in 1939 (Raizenne 1957). In Ontario it dispersed steadily until, by 1968, it was found<br />

throughout Ontario south and west <strong>of</strong> a line from Victoria Harbour to Belleville (Fig. 17).<br />

Transport <strong>of</strong> infested nursery stock resulted in isolated populations <strong>of</strong> N. serlifer well<br />

beyond this area - on Manitoulin Island, first recorded in 1966 (Sippell el al. 1966) and<br />

in Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay, first recorded in 1968 (Sippell el al. 1969).<br />

In the decade since 1968 the area occupied by N. serlifer has continued to expand,<br />

moving slightly to the north near Georgian Bay, but mainly to the east along the St.<br />

Lawrence River, until by 1978 the continuous distribution extended almost to the<br />

Quebec border along the St. Lawrence and as far north as Ottawa (Fig. 17) (Lindquist &<br />

Miller 1979).<br />

The isolated infestations on Manitoulin Island and at Sault Ste. Marie continued<br />

throughout the period 1968-78, but no N. senifer have been found in North Bay since<br />

1969. N. sertifer larvae were collected for the first time at several locations in Ottawa in<br />

1969 and by 1973 they were also found in the surrounding areas. They apparently<br />

remained there as Ottawa is now in an area <strong>of</strong> continuous distribution. An isolated light<br />

infestation was found north <strong>of</strong> Thessalon, Ontario, in 1974. The area was treated from<br />

the ground with nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) in 1975 and 1976, and there have been<br />

no further recoveries <strong>of</strong> N. serliler.<br />

In 1970 there were several heavy infestations in southwestern Ontario, where the<br />

insect has been present the longest. Infestations causing moderate to severe defoliation<br />

continued in this area until 1972. A decrease in numbers was noted in 1973, and this<br />

decrease continued until by 1977 generally low populations were recorded throughout<br />

the area.<br />

In 1974 N. sertiler was recorded for the first time in <strong>Canada</strong> beyond the borders <strong>of</strong><br />

Ontario. A single colony was recovered from Scots pine, Pinus sylvestris L., in Charlesbourg,<br />

Quebec, a few kilometres northeast <strong>of</strong> Quebec City (Martineau & Lavallee 1975), and a<br />

few colonies were recovered from Scots pine at Windsor Lake near St. John's, Newfoundland<br />

(Clark & Singh 1975). No further recoveries were made in Quebec, but N. serlifer<br />

has persisted and spread in Newfoundland. It was reported on ornamental pines Pinus<br />

spp. and in the few pine plantations within a radius <strong>of</strong> 15 km <strong>of</strong> St. lohn's by Otvos &<br />

Griffiths (1979). It was established by rearing some larvae that no parasitoids were<br />

present. The first discovery <strong>of</strong> N. serlifer in Nova Scotia was made in 1980, when it was<br />

obtained from ornamental pines at Little Harbour, Pictou County, and Truro, Colchester<br />

County (Magasi 1981).<br />

Studies <strong>of</strong> the population dynamics <strong>of</strong> N. sertifer carried out at the Great Lakes Forest<br />

Research Centre, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, had started in 1960 and were continued until<br />

1972. An overview <strong>of</strong> this work is given in Lyons el al. (1971) and Lyons (1977a). In<br />

brief, outbreaks in southern Ontario typically occur in young plantations where few<br />

natural control agents are present. Density peaks in 4-6 years, then declines to a low<br />

331


Neot!i/Jrio" satifer (Ge<strong>of</strong>froy), 333<br />

level and does not generally increase to outbreak levels again. Eventual decline <strong>of</strong> an<br />

outbreak was related to starvation <strong>of</strong> late-feeding larvae, parasitism <strong>of</strong> pre-spinning<br />

larvae by Exenlerus spp. and predation and parasitism <strong>of</strong> cocooned larvae. When<br />

outbreaks occur in stands <strong>of</strong> larger trees, they last longer and are associated with varying<br />

amounts <strong>of</strong> prolonged diapause (Lyons 1977a).<br />

Until 1958 the recorded insect parasitoid complex <strong>of</strong> N. sertifer consisted <strong>of</strong> 14 native<br />

primary parasitoids, 3 native hyperparasitoids, and 4 established European parasitoids.<br />

In the following decade another 14 indigenous parasitoids were recovered; recovery was<br />

made <strong>of</strong> Drino bolremica Mesn., another <strong>of</strong> the European species introduced during the<br />

1930s (McGugan & CoppeI1962); and one new exotic species, Lophyroplectus lutealor<br />

Thunb., was established (Griffiths & Lyons 1968). In the period under review only two<br />

species have been added to the parasitoid list. One <strong>of</strong> these, Exenterus affinis Roh., a<br />

native ichneumonid, was recovered from N. sertifer as early as 1964, but was not<br />

separated from the other species <strong>of</strong> Exenlerus attacking this host until 1977. It is<br />

recovered infrequently (Lyons 1977b). The second species is Exenterus abruptorius<br />

(Thunb.), a European parasitoid <strong>of</strong> N. sertifer, introduced in the 1930s but not recovered<br />

since the initial release. Lyons (1977b) recovered two specimens in a cocoon collection<br />

made in Dufferin County in May, 1972. Since then five more E. abruptorius from four<br />

other localities have been identified after examination <strong>of</strong> over 6 000 pinned specimens <strong>of</strong><br />

Exenterus obtained from N. ser/ifer collections throughout southwestern Ontario since<br />

1952. Further discussion <strong>of</strong> this species is given in the following section. Another<br />

recovery <strong>of</strong> the rare exotic species D. bohemiea was recorded in 1972 from a collection<br />

made at Gore Bay on Manitoulin Island.<br />

Dispersal <strong>of</strong> L. IUleator from the releases made in 1962 and 1964 (Griffiths & Lyons<br />

1968) has been followed closely. By 1969,7 years afterthe 1962 release in Grey County,<br />

recoveries had been made up to 19.3 km east <strong>of</strong> the release point. However, by 1971, 7<br />

years after the 1964 Norfolk County release, the greatest dispersal was only 3.4 km<br />

(Griffiths 1973). Rose (1976) reported that by 1975 L.luteatorhad spread throughout the<br />

whole <strong>of</strong> the N. sertifer distribution area east and north <strong>of</strong> the Grey County release<br />

point. It is possible, however, that the northern dispersal into the Bruce Peninsula was<br />

the result <strong>of</strong> a release made near Hepworth, Ontario, in 1970 (Griffiths & Lyons 1980).<br />

Rose noted that L. luteator had spread 305 km in an easterly direction in the 13 years<br />

since its release. There had been little or no movement south or west from the 1962<br />

release point and little further dispersal from the 1964 release in Norfolk County.<br />

Investigations on the biology <strong>of</strong> the principal parasitoids <strong>of</strong> N. sertifer and the<br />

interactions between them have continued during the last decade. It was found that<br />

females <strong>of</strong> Pleolophus basizonus (Grav.), which oviposit in cocooned pre-pupae, show<br />

a strong rejection <strong>of</strong> hosts containing larvae or pupae <strong>of</strong> its own species, although they<br />

do not discriminate between unattacked hosts and those containing eggs <strong>of</strong> its own<br />

species (Griffiths 1972). Also, it was found that P. basizonus females show a strong<br />

avoidance <strong>of</strong> cocoons in which there are eggs, larvae, or pre-pupae <strong>of</strong> the larval<br />

parasitoid L. lutealor (Griffiths 1976) and avoid cocoons containing developing E.<br />

abruptorius and Dahlbominus fuscipennis (Zelt.). On the other hand, D. fuscipennis<br />

does not avoid hosts containing P. basizonus or E. abruptorius and is usually successful<br />

in competition with them. Exenterus abruptorius, E. nigrifrons (formerly E. canadensis<br />

Prov.) and E. amielorius (Panz.) all superparasitize and none avoids attacking hosts<br />

containing eggs <strong>of</strong> either <strong>of</strong> the other two species. Neither E. abruptorius nor E.<br />

nigrifrons has an advantage over the other when competing on the host, but E. amictorius<br />

is usually successful when competing with the other species. This information on<br />

Exenterus spp .• plus data on the three species obtained in insectary experiments over 6<br />

years, was incorporated into a simulation model to investigate the interactions <strong>of</strong> the<br />

three parasitoids and their host. More recently a more sophisticated simulation model <strong>of</strong><br />

N. sertifer and the living and non-living factors that influence it has been developed. It


Table 86<br />

Open releases and recoveries<br />

Neodiprion sertiler (Ge<strong>of</strong>fr.)<br />

Neodipriol/ satirer (Ge<strong>of</strong>froy). 335<br />

<strong>of</strong> parasitoids against the European pine sawfly,<br />

Number Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Species and province Year Origin released recovery<br />

Dipriocampe diprioni Ferriere<br />

Ontario 1972 Austria 78<br />

1974 Germany 183 1975<br />

1978 Italy<br />

{<br />

33<br />

Italy<br />

1979 Switzerland<br />

and Austria<br />

272<br />

Exenterus abruptorius Thnb.<br />

Ontario 1972 Austria 648<br />

1973 Austria 1021<br />

1979 Austria 967<br />

1979 Italy 1035<br />

1980 Finland 235<br />

1980 Austria 90<br />

Newfoundland 1980 Finland 75<br />

Lophyroplectus lWeator (Thnb.)<br />

Ontario 1970 Ontario 80 1970<br />

1972 Ontario 2263 1972<br />

Newfoundland 1978 Ontario 306<br />

1979 Ontario 38<br />

1980 Ontario 467<br />

1980 Austria 50<br />

1980 Finland 1<br />

Pleolophus basizonus (Grav.)<br />

Newfoundland 1977 Ontario 1007 1977<br />

1978 Ontario 2104<br />

1979 Ontario 1007<br />

1980 Finland 25<br />

infested with N. sertiler near Williamsford, Ontario. Eggs <strong>of</strong> N. sertiler were collected<br />

in the release area and examined in the spring <strong>of</strong> 1962 and spring egg collections were<br />

made annually until 1968 in a population study plot 0.8 km away. No recoveries <strong>of</strong> the<br />

parasitoid were obtained.<br />

Because the egg stage <strong>of</strong> N. seniler in <strong>Canada</strong> was essentially an untapped resource<br />

for biological control. it was decided that more study on European egg parasitoids was<br />

justified in spite <strong>of</strong> earlier failures. The work was carried out by CIBC European<br />

Laboratory scientists. As a result <strong>of</strong> this work (Pschorn-Walcher & Eichhorn 1971,<br />

1973) it was found that D. diprioni had a univoltine strain adapted to N. seniler and a<br />

morphologically similar bivoltine strain which occurs rarely in N. sertiler. Earlier<br />

failures may have been the result <strong>of</strong> using the wrong strain and further work on<br />

introduction. using the univoltine strain, was justified. This work started in 1971 with a<br />

preliminary test which indicated that D. diprioni had attacked Canadian N. sertiler and<br />

had overwintered successfully outdoors near Chatsworth, Ontario.<br />

A release <strong>of</strong> 32 male and 46 female adults was made in Dufferin County Forest, 5<br />

September 1972 (Table 86). but this area was sprayed inadvertently with a chemical


336 K. J. Griffiths. J. C. Cunningham and I. S. Dtvos<br />

Table 87<br />

Exenterus abruptDrius<br />

(Thunb.)<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonidae)<br />

insecticide in the summer <strong>of</strong> 1973 and the N. sertiter population there was destroyed.<br />

Another release was made, in Grey Country, 6 September 1974, <strong>of</strong> 29 males and 154<br />

females (Table 86). There was 1.3% parasitism in 87 egg clusters collected at the release<br />

site in the spring <strong>of</strong> 1975. Parasitoids were obtained, but in decreasing numbers in both<br />

1976 and 1977; none was obtained in the following 3 years (Table 87).<br />

Releases <strong>of</strong> D. diprioni have been made at two other localities, one in Simcoe County,<br />

consisting <strong>of</strong> 11 male and 22 female adults, on 16 September 1978, and the other, <strong>of</strong> 90<br />

male and 182 female adults, in Peterborough County, 28 August and 30 September 1979<br />

(Table 86). There have been no recoveries from either release (Table 87).<br />

Laboratory rearings <strong>of</strong> D. diprioni were started in 1974 using adults obtained from<br />

Switzerland and Germany. Work continued until 1977 using the <strong>of</strong>fspring <strong>of</strong> the original<br />

stock augmented with adults from field collections <strong>of</strong> N. sertifer eggs and further<br />

shipments from Europe (Table 88) but it was not possible to maintain stock beyond the<br />

third generation.<br />

Recovery <strong>of</strong> Dipriocampe diprioni Ferriere<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong><br />

clusters Number <strong>of</strong> egg clusters Number <strong>of</strong> Sex ratio<br />

Year collected eggs examined with attack eggs attacked (% females)<br />

Grey County, Ontario<br />

1975 87 6052 7 80 (1.3%) 53<br />

1976 57 3094 2 34 (1.1%) 50<br />

1977 86 3819 1 7 (0.2%) 71<br />

1978 6 430 0 0<br />

1979 144 ? 0 0<br />

1980 28 ? 0 0<br />

Simcoe County, Ontario<br />

1979 52 ? 0 0<br />

1980 48 ? 0 0<br />

Peterborough County, Ontario<br />

1980 47 ? 0 0<br />

Since the recovery <strong>of</strong> a small number <strong>of</strong> adults <strong>of</strong> this species in southwestern Ontario in<br />

the spring <strong>of</strong> 1972, noted earlier, there has been renewed interest in trying to establish it<br />

at higher densities and in determining why it has remained so rare since its introduction<br />

in the period from 1936 to 1949 (McGugan & Coppel 1962). A number <strong>of</strong> well-timed<br />

releases have been made in Ontario (Table 86) but because N. sertiter popUlations are<br />

generally low, releases could only be made in areas <strong>of</strong> low host density. At these<br />

population levels large cocoon collections would have been necessary to determine if<br />

establishment had occurred, and the cost made sampling unpractical.<br />

A release <strong>of</strong> 43 male and 32 female adults obtained from Finland was made in SI.<br />

John's, Newfoundland, in July 1980 (Table 86).<br />

Studies on the biology <strong>of</strong> this species were started with insectary experiments in 1969<br />

and 1970 and continued with laboratory experiments from 1978 to 1980, using E.<br />

abruptorius adults from various European locations (Table 88). Although analysis <strong>of</strong><br />

results is not complete it is already clear that no single physical factor has been limiting<br />

the numbers <strong>of</strong> this species in Ontario.


PfeoIopbus ba9zonus<br />

(Grav.)<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonidae)<br />

Pathogens<br />

Table 88<br />

Neotiipriol/ .f(°r/iler (Ge<strong>of</strong>froy), 337<br />

Laboratory and field cane studies <strong>of</strong> parasitoids against the European pine sawfly<br />

Neodiprion seniler (Geo r.)<br />

Species and province Year Origin Number<br />

Dipriocampe diprioni Ferriere<br />

Ontario 1970 Austria 196<br />

1971 Austria 228<br />

1974 Germany 73<br />

1975 Austria 19<br />

1976 Switzerland 136<br />

1977 Switzerland 72<br />

£Xenlerus abruplorius Thnb. 1969 Austria 579<br />

Ontario 1970 Austria 244<br />

1978 Austria 242<br />

1978<br />

1978<br />

Germany<br />

Germany { Austria<br />

64<br />

75<br />

1978 Italy 211<br />

1979 Finland 139<br />

As stated earlier, shipments <strong>of</strong> parasitoids to Newfoundland were started soon after it<br />

was known that N. senifer was established there. The first species to be shipped was P.<br />

basizonus, a multivoltine parasitoid <strong>of</strong> cocooned pre-pupae successfully introduced from<br />

Europe in the 19305 (McGugan & Coppell962). N. seniler cocoons containing developing P.<br />

basizonus were shipped to Newfoundland in the summer <strong>of</strong> 1977. They were obtained<br />

from a rearing programme conducted in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, during the winter<br />

preceding shipment, and were reared in St. John's. Emerging parasitoids were released<br />

twice weekly between 21 July and 15 August at Windsor Lake, 9.7 km from St. John's. A<br />

total <strong>of</strong> 631 males and 376 females was released in an infested plantation <strong>of</strong> mixed jack<br />

pine and Scots pine (Otvos & Griffiths 1979) (Table 86). Approximately 130 adult P.<br />

basizonus were recovered from 600 N. seniler cocoons "planted" in the release area in<br />

the summer <strong>of</strong> 1977, indicating that the released adults had attacked successfully in<br />

the field (Otvos & Griffiths 1979). Further releases <strong>of</strong> large numbers <strong>of</strong> this parasitoid<br />

obtained from rearings in Sault Ste. Marie were made in 1978 and 1979. A small number<br />

<strong>of</strong> adults from Finland was also released in 1980 (Table 86). There have been no further<br />

recoveries <strong>of</strong> adults <strong>of</strong> this species from field-collected cocoons to date. Monitoring <strong>of</strong><br />

this release is continuing.<br />

In Ontario, European pine sawfly NPV was extensively used in the 19505 and 1960s by<br />

Christmas tree growers and provincial government forestry <strong>of</strong>ficials.<br />

There are several methods <strong>of</strong> producing this virus in host insect larvae, the simplest<br />

and cheapest being to do so in the field. Plantations with a suitable insect population<br />

density are found and fourth-instar larvae are sprayed using a mist blower to disseminate<br />

NPV at a concentration <strong>of</strong> 10" PIB/ml. The first dead larvae are found about 7 days after<br />

spraying and colonies <strong>of</strong> dead and dying larvae are collected daily until about 14 days<br />

after spraying. Larvae are removed from the foliage, frozen, lyophilized, ground to a<br />

fine powder, and the concentration <strong>of</strong> PIB per gramme determined. About lOS PIB are<br />

obtained from one dead larva, so, using a dosage <strong>of</strong> 5 x 10" PIBlha. about 50 virus-killed<br />

larvae are required. A virus treatment is therefore very economical. Between 1970 and<br />

1975 a considerable quantity <strong>of</strong> this virus was produced by Ontario Ministry <strong>of</strong> Natural


Recommendations<br />

Neocliprioll sertifer (Ge<strong>of</strong>froy). 339<br />

There is no doubt that European pine sawfly NPV is a highly efficacious biological<br />

control agent when applied on early instar larvae, and treatments continue to give control<br />

in the years following application. The longevity <strong>of</strong> this control depends on such factors as<br />

the initial population density <strong>of</strong> the host and the size <strong>of</strong> the trees, but infectious PIBs<br />

remain in the environment for at least 3 years following a virus epizootic (Kaupp 1981).<br />

Given this respite from defoliation, trees grow considerably and are much less susceptible<br />

to damage if further European pine sawfly outbreaks occur.<br />

To date, there are no viruses registered for operational use in <strong>Canada</strong>. In the USA, a<br />

petition has been prepared for registration <strong>of</strong> European pine sawfly virus under the name<br />

"Neochek-S". Extensive animal safety testing has been conducted by the Americans, but<br />

it is not known if these data will be acceptable to Canadian authorities. With the limited<br />

areas <strong>of</strong> European pine sawfly infestation currently reported, registration <strong>of</strong> its NPV in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> is not <strong>of</strong> high priority in comparison to viruses <strong>of</strong> certain other insect pests. Even<br />

if European pine sawfly NPV is eventually registered in <strong>Canada</strong>, there is little commercial<br />

incentive for production and marketing owing to its limited and specialized use. Virus<br />

production and distribution, therefore, will almost certainly remain in the hands <strong>of</strong><br />

federal and provincial governments.<br />

In view <strong>of</strong> the successful establishment <strong>of</strong> L. lutealor in five areas <strong>of</strong> Ontario, all following<br />

a single release, the failure to establish this species in Newfoundland following three<br />

releases in 3 successive years suggests a fundamental difference between the situations in<br />

Ontario and Newfoundland. We recommend that no more releases be made there after<br />

the 1981 release until further study reveals success or the reasons for failure.<br />

It was pointed out by Griffithsetal. (1971) that there are 62 species <strong>of</strong> native parasitoids<br />

known to attack other pine-feeding diprionids in Ontario that had not been recovered<br />

from N. serlifer. We have not recovered any <strong>of</strong> them in the limited sampling in the last<br />

decade in southern Ontario. It is possible that some <strong>of</strong> them are now attacking N. serlifer<br />

in northern Ontario and we recommend that sampling be done to determine if this is so.<br />

No more releases <strong>of</strong> D. diprioni or E. abruptorills should be made. However, sampling<br />

to determine whether the former species has become established can be continued with<br />

little cost for several years. Collections to determine the presence <strong>of</strong> E. abruplorius<br />

should only be undertaken when they can provide adequate numbers <strong>of</strong> hosts in order to<br />

justify the work that the processing <strong>of</strong> collections requires.<br />

As stated earlier, the operational use <strong>of</strong>NPV at Sandbanks Provincial Park in Ontario<br />

was considered to be an unqualified success. However, after assessing aerial applications<br />

<strong>of</strong> European pine sawfly NPV and evaluating reports <strong>of</strong> operations conducted outside<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>, two recommendations can be made. Firstly. the dosage <strong>of</strong> virus applied is about<br />

10 times more than required for satisfactory control. A dosage <strong>of</strong> 5 x Hf PIBlha is<br />

adequate. Secondly, adjuvants in the tank mix are unnecessary and virus in water alone<br />

will suffice.<br />

Although it is not within the discipline <strong>of</strong> biological control, we are concerned about the<br />

dispersal <strong>of</strong> the European pine sawfly beyond its present boundaries in <strong>Canada</strong>. Sullivan<br />

(1965) pointed out that the overwintering eggs <strong>of</strong> this species can survive a temperature <strong>of</strong><br />

-26°C and that, with conditioning and selection, they may be able to withstand<br />

temperatures even lower. Thus the possibility <strong>of</strong> this pest spreading throughout the range<br />

<strong>of</strong> its widely distributed hosts, Scots pine, jack pine, and red pine, is great unless efforts<br />

are made to prevent it. We recommend that some attempt be made to fumigate stock<br />

before transport to reduce this possibility, using techniques outlined by Monro & Kirby<br />

(1963).


340 K. J. Griffiths, J. C. Cunningham and I. S. Otvos<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Bird. F.T. (1950) The dissemination and propagation <strong>of</strong> a virus disease affecting European pine sawny. Neodiprion sertifer (Ge<strong>of</strong>f.).<br />

Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Bi·monthly Progress Report 6.2-3.<br />

Clark. R.C.; Singh. P. (1975) Newfoundland region. Canadian Forestry Service, Annual Report <strong>of</strong> the Forest Insect and Disease Survey<br />

1974.<br />

Cunningham. J.C.; Kaupp, W.J.; McPhee, J.R.; Sippell. W.L.; Barnes. C.A. (1975) Aerial application <strong>of</strong> a nuclear polyhedrosis virus to<br />

control European pine sawny. Canadian Forestry Service Bi·monthly Research Notes 31.39-40.<br />

Cunningham. J.C.; Entwistle. P.F. (1981) Control <strong>of</strong> sllwnies by baculovirus. In: Burges. D. (Ed.) Microbial control <strong>of</strong> pests and plant<br />

diseases. 1970-1980. London; Academic Press.<br />

Grirfiths, K.J. (1972) Diserimination between parasitized and unparasitized hosts by Pleolophus basizonu.r (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae).<br />

Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario \02.83-91.<br />

Grirfiths, K.J. (1973) The dispersal <strong>of</strong> the introduced parasitoid Lophyroplectus luteator (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) following its<br />

release against Neodiprion sertifer (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae) in Ontario. Canadian Entomologist<br />

\05.833-836.<br />

Griffiths, K.J. (1976) Interactions between Pleolophus basizonus and Lophyropleaus IUleator (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). two parasitoids <strong>of</strong><br />

Neodiprion sertifer (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae). Entomophaga 21.13-17.<br />

Grirfiths, K.J.; Lyons. L.A. (1968) The establishment <strong>of</strong> Lophyroplectus IuJeaJor (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) on Neodiprion serrife,<br />

(Hymenoptera: Diprionidae) in Ontario. CaruuJUm Entomologist 100.1095-1009.<br />

Griffiths. K.l.; Lyons. L.A. (1980) Funher rcleru;es <strong>of</strong> LophyropleclUJi luteator (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidac). an introduced parasite <strong>of</strong><br />

Neodiprion smifer (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae). Canadian Entomologist 112,421-426<br />

Griffiths. K.1.; Rose. A.H.; Bird. F.T. (1971) Neodiprion serrifer (Ge<strong>of</strong>f.). European pine sawfly (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae). In: Biological<br />

control programmes against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong> 1959- 1968. Commonwtalth InstiJute <strong>of</strong> Biologiazl<br />

Control Technical Communication 4.150-162.<br />

Kaupp. W.J. (1981) Studies on the ecology <strong>of</strong> the nuclear polyhedrosis virus <strong>of</strong> the European pine sawny. Neodiprion sertife, (Ge<strong>of</strong>f.). Ph.D.<br />

Thesis. Oxford University. U.K.<br />

Kraemer. M.E.; Coppel, H.C.; Hall, D.J. (1979) The establishment <strong>of</strong> Lophyroplectus luteator, a larval parasitoid <strong>of</strong> the European pine<br />

sawfly. Neodiprion serrifer. in Wisconsin. University <strong>of</strong> Wisconsin FOlTSt RestJ1rch Note 225,3 pp.<br />

Lindquist, O.H.; Miller, W.1. (1979) The pine sawny that carne to dinner. Your Forests 12(1).\0- I 1.<br />

Lyons, L.A. (1977a) On the population dynamics <strong>of</strong> Neodiprioll sawflies. In: Kulman, H.M.; Chiang. H.C. (Eds.). Insect ecology - papers<br />

presented in the A.C. Hodson Lectures. University <strong>of</strong> Millnesota Agriculture Experiment Statioll Technical<br />

Bulletin 310,48-55.<br />

Lyons. L.A. (1977b) Parasitism <strong>of</strong> Neodiprioll sertifer (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae) by Exenlerus spp. (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) in<br />

Ontario, 1962-1972, with notes on the parasites. Canadian Entomologist 109,555-564.<br />

Lyons. L.A.; Sullivan, C.R.; Wallace. D.R.; Griffiths, K.J. (1971) Problems in the management <strong>of</strong> forest pest populations. Proceedings <strong>of</strong><br />

the Tall Timbers Conference on Ecological Animal Control 1971, pp. 129-140.<br />

Magasi. L.P. (1981) Forest pest conditions in thc Maritimes in 1980. Canadian Forestry Service, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Report<br />

M-X-118,35 pp.<br />

Manineau, R.; Lavallee. A. (1975) Quebec region. Canadian Forestry Service, Annual Report <strong>of</strong> the Forestlnseet and Disease Survey 1974,<br />

pp.37-56.<br />

McOugan, D.M.; Coppel, H.C. (1962) Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insects. 1910-1958. In: A review <strong>of</strong> the biological control attempts against<br />

insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Communication<br />

2.35-127.<br />

Monro, H.A.A.; Kirby, C.S. (1963) Fumigation <strong>of</strong> nursery slock as a possible means <strong>of</strong> retarding the spread <strong>of</strong> Ihe European pine sawfly.<br />

Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Forestry, Entomology and Pathology Branch Bi-monthly Progress Report<br />

19(3).2.<br />

Otvos, I.S.; Griffiths. K.J. (1979) Cocoon parasitoid <strong>of</strong> the European pine sawfly introduced into Newfoundland from Ontario. Canadiall<br />

Forestry Service, Bi·monthly Research Notes 35(4),20-21.<br />

Pschorn·Walcher. H.; Eichhorn. O. (1971) Untersuchungen uber die Eiparasitien (Hym., Chalcidoidea) der rotgclben Kiefern-Buschhornblattwespe<br />

Neodiprion sertifer Georf. (Hym. Diprionidae). Anzeiger fur Schaedlingskunde, P[1anzellSchutz,<br />

Umweltschutz 44(7).97- 103.<br />

Pschorn·Walcher, H.; Eichhorn, O. (1973) Studies on the biology and ecology or the egg parasites (Hym.: Chalcidoidea) <strong>of</strong> the pine sawfly<br />

Neodiprion sertifer (Ge<strong>of</strong>f.) (Hym.: Diprionidae) in central Europe. Zeitschrift fur angewandte Entomologie<br />

74,286-318.<br />

Raizenne. H. (1957) Forest sawnies <strong>of</strong> southern Ontario and their parasitoids. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Division <strong>of</strong> Forest<br />

Biology Publication 1009,45 pp.<br />

Rose. A.H. (1976) The dispersal <strong>of</strong> Lophyroplectus luteator (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) on Neodiprion sertifer (Hymenoptera:<br />

Diprionidae) in southern Ontario. Canadian Entomologist 108.\395-1398.<br />

Scharfner. J. V. (1939) Neodiprion smifer (Ge<strong>of</strong>r.) a pine sawfly accidentally introduced into New Jersey from Europe. lournal <strong>of</strong> Economic<br />

Entomology 32.887-888.<br />

Sippell, W.L.; Dance. B.W.; Rose. A.H. (1966) Canadian Forestry Service, Report <strong>of</strong> the Insect and Disease Survey 1965. pp. 44-65.<br />

Sippell, W.L.; Gross. H.L.; Rose. A.H. (1969) Canadian Forestry Service, Report <strong>of</strong> the Insect and Disease Survey 1968, pp. 54-66.<br />

Sullivan. C.F. (1965) Laboratory and field investigations on the ability <strong>of</strong> eggs <strong>of</strong> the European pine sawny. Neodiprion sertifer (Ge<strong>of</strong>froy) to<br />

withstand low winter temperatures. Canadian Entomologist 97.978-993.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Chapter 59 341<br />

Neodiprion swainei (Middleton), Swaine<br />

Jack Pine Sawfly (Hymenoptera:<br />

Diprionidae)<br />

R.J. FINNEGAN and W.A. SMIRNOFF<br />

At the time <strong>of</strong> the last review by McLeod & Smirn<strong>of</strong>f (1971), the population <strong>of</strong><br />

Neodiprion swainei (Middleton), Swaine jack pine sawfly, was approaching endemic<br />

levels over most <strong>of</strong> its range in eastern Ontario and southwestern Quebec, where it has<br />

occurred extensively since the early 1950s. This was thought to be due partly to the<br />

natural collapse <strong>of</strong> a prolonged infestation and partly to the application <strong>of</strong> chemical<br />

insecticides in 1965 (Mcleod 1968). Mcleod & Smirn<strong>of</strong>f (1971) had expected a<br />

recurrence <strong>of</strong> N. swainei in the 19705, but this did not materialize, probably due to earlier<br />

applications <strong>of</strong> chemical insecticides against both Swaine jack pine sawfly, N. swainei,<br />

(McNeil et al. 1979) and spruce budworm, Choristoneurafumiferana (Clem.). (Mcleod<br />

1975) in the same general area. The population remained low throughout the 1970s. with<br />

the occurrence <strong>of</strong> only a few localized light infestations in northern Ontario and western<br />

Quebec.<br />

Parasitoids, predators, and pathogens have all been introduced in attempts to control<br />

sawfly populations. McLeod & Smirn<strong>of</strong>f (1971) reported that "Before 1958, only small<br />

numbers <strong>of</strong> Ple%phus basizonlls (Grav.) and Drino bohemica Mesn. were released<br />

against Neodiprion swainei in a few localities in Ontario. However, massive releases <strong>of</strong><br />

these two parasitoids, as well as Exenterlls amictorius Panzer and Dahlbominus fuseipennis<br />

(Zett.) were also made in the early 1940s against Diprion hercyniae Htg. in both<br />

Ontario and Quebec. All four species have been recovered from N. swainei in a number<br />

<strong>of</strong> localities in Quebec since 1958 ... but none in Ontario. E. amictorius and P. basizonus<br />

were most abundant, D. fllseipennis was less common, and only one specimen <strong>of</strong> D.<br />

bohemica was found". A brief description <strong>of</strong> the interaction <strong>of</strong> each parasitoid with N.<br />

swainei was given. Mcleod & Smirn<strong>of</strong>f also reported on the discovery and successive<br />

recoveries <strong>of</strong> the Borrelina viral pathogen. The results <strong>of</strong> one experimental aerial<br />

dispersion <strong>of</strong> the virus in 1960 and a second in 1964 were reported as "excellent" and<br />

"not as good" respectively. The ecology <strong>of</strong> the virus was briefly considered, stating that<br />

certain predators, such as wasps and pentatomids act as vectors <strong>of</strong> the virus. In<br />

conclusion, McLeod & Smirn<strong>of</strong>f stated that the releases <strong>of</strong> E. amictorillS and P.<br />

basizonus seemed to have been beneficial, and that the use <strong>of</strong> virus as a control was<br />

promising.<br />

During the past decade, no further release <strong>of</strong> parasitoids, and few recoveries, were<br />

made. Nonetheless, considerable research was completed during this period. In anticipation<br />

<strong>of</strong> an impending resurgence <strong>of</strong> the N. swainei population in Quebec, two foreign<br />

species <strong>of</strong> predacious red wood ants, Formica lugubris Zett. and F. obscuripes Forel,


342 R. J. Finnegan and W. A. Smirn<strong>of</strong>f<br />

Parasitolds<br />

Predators<br />

were introduced into susceptible stands <strong>of</strong> jack pine Pinus banksiana Lamb., in the St.<br />

Maurice river valley. Observations were reported on other insect predators as well as on<br />

birds and small mammals. Studies on the virulence. formulation <strong>of</strong> sprays. and application <strong>of</strong><br />

pathogens were also continued.<br />

Mcleod (1971) examined the variation <strong>of</strong> N. swainei cocoon survival and found that<br />

only about 10% <strong>of</strong> the mortality was caused by parasitoids. Later. Mcleod (1972)<br />

compared host discrimination with density responses during oviposition by parasitoids<br />

<strong>of</strong> N. swainei; he observed that the ability <strong>of</strong> females to discriminate against hosts<br />

containing previously deposited parasitoid progeny was variable. Although there was<br />

no discrimination at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the spinning period <strong>of</strong> N. swainei. it was quickly<br />

acquired and persisted to the end <strong>of</strong> the spinning period.<br />

Price (1970a, 1970b, 1970c) showed that "Female parasitic insects in the genera<br />

Pleolophus, Ensasys, and Matrus (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) search the ground<br />

cover for hosts and avoid areas they had already inspected" and that "females respond to<br />

their own trail odour, and recognition occurs also between conspecific, congeneric and<br />

intergeneric individuals". Later Price (1971) discussed the niche breadth and dominance<br />

<strong>of</strong> parasitic insects sharing the same host species. In 1972, he indicated that as a result <strong>of</strong><br />

recognition <strong>of</strong> repellent trail odours. females <strong>of</strong> P. basizonus are able to discriminate<br />

against parasitized hosts <strong>of</strong> N. swainei between narrow limits "set by the probability <strong>of</strong> a<br />

female finding an unparasitized host". and that they showed "mutual interference in egg<br />

laying at high parasitoid density" (Price 1972a). He also reported on the immediate and<br />

long-term effects <strong>of</strong> chemical insecticide application on insect parasites in jack pine<br />

stands in Quebec (Price 1972b); on the activity patterns and impact <strong>of</strong> paras ito ids on N.<br />

swainei (Price 1972c); and on the utilization <strong>of</strong> the same host by different insect parasites<br />

(Price 1972d).<br />

Finnegan (1971) reported on preliminary studies on the use <strong>of</strong> predacious ants to control<br />

forest pests in Quebec, and concluded that none <strong>of</strong> the species found was particularly<br />

promising. He further discussed (Finnegan 1974) both the harmful and beneficial aspects <strong>of</strong><br />

red wood ants as insect predators, the reason for their effectiveness, and recommendations<br />

for selecting desirable species for propagation. Finnegan (1975, 1977) later introduced<br />

two species <strong>of</strong> red wood ants, F. lugubris from central Europe and F. obscuripes from<br />

southern Manitoba, into a jack pine stand at Lac it la Chienne, about 70 km southwest <strong>of</strong><br />

La Tuque, Quebec, in the St. Maurice river watershed. The two species <strong>of</strong> ants belong to<br />

the F. rufa group and are aggressive predators <strong>of</strong> sawfly larvae, cocoons, and adults, as<br />

well as a variety <strong>of</strong> other defoliating insects (Cotti 1963, Finnegan 1978, McNeil et al.<br />

1978). These introductions were made in anticipation <strong>of</strong> a recurrence <strong>of</strong> N. swainei<br />

infestations in the late 1970s. When the initial introductions had become established,<br />

additional releases (from Europe and Manitoba) were made in subsequent years. Table<br />

89 shows the dates and approximate numbers <strong>of</strong> each ant species (workers and sexuals)<br />

released in the St. Maurice river watershed. The status <strong>of</strong> each species in 1981 is also given<br />

in Table 89, based on the number, average size, and insect vigour <strong>of</strong> the nests. Two<br />

secondary introductions <strong>of</strong> F. obscuripes (emanating from the first) were made in 1980 in<br />

the Gilardo Dam area, about 75 km west <strong>of</strong> La Tuque, Quebec.<br />

I1nytzky (1974) reported on the species <strong>of</strong> ants found in a young jack pine stand in<br />

Quebec, and on their distribution, population level, and predation <strong>of</strong> N. swainei. He<br />

studied 10 species <strong>of</strong> ants, <strong>of</strong> which F. fusca L. was the most abundant, and found that<br />

together with several other Formica species and Camponolus herculeanus (L.) they<br />

carried emerging and ovipositing adults, as well as cocoons, into their nests. He concluded that<br />

ants may be an important factor regulating N. swainei populations.


Pathogens<br />

Table 89<br />

Neodiprioll slI'ainei (Middleton), 343<br />

Open releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> predacious red wood ants against Swaine jack pine sawfly,<br />

Neodiprion swainei (Middleton), in the St. Maurice river watershed in Quebec<br />

Approximate<br />

Status in 1981<br />

Ant<br />

species<br />

Date <strong>of</strong><br />

release<br />

number<br />

released Recovery<br />

Estimated<br />

increase<br />

Formica 1972 4 ()()() ()()() About 20 nests 15-fold<br />

obscuripes Forel established (with<br />

sexuals present)<br />

1975 1 ()()() ()()() About 75 nests 20-fold<br />

established (with<br />

sexuals present)<br />

F. lugubris Zett. 1973 1 ()()() ()()() Ten nests established<br />

(with few sexuals)<br />

1975 2 ()()() (added to previous ?<br />

queens nests)<br />

1976 5 ()()() (added to previous ?<br />

queens nests)<br />

Mcleod (1971) reported, in a preliminary analysis <strong>of</strong> the variation in cocoon survival<br />

<strong>of</strong> N. swainei, that small animal predators accounted for about 47% <strong>of</strong> the mortality <strong>of</strong><br />

cocoons, and insect predators for about 16%. Mcleod (1974) also found that populations <strong>of</strong><br />

resident breeding birds in jack pine stands in Quebec varied little from 1964 to 1973, but<br />

that the mole population showed a steady, statistically significant increase over the 9<br />

years <strong>of</strong> sawfly infestation.<br />

Tostowaryk (1971a) described in detail the life history and behaviour <strong>of</strong> Podisus<br />

modestus (Dallas), a predacious pentatomid, which preys on N. swainei larvae as well as<br />

on other defoliators. He gave details <strong>of</strong> the habits and abundance <strong>of</strong> the predator, and<br />

also discussed the relationship between parasitism and predation <strong>of</strong> diprionid sawflies<br />

(Tostowaryk 1971b). Experimental results <strong>of</strong> the functional response <strong>of</strong> P. modestus to<br />

densities <strong>of</strong> N. swainei and N. pratti banksianae Rohwer (Tostowaryk 1971c) showed<br />

that the response was two-fold: a domed curve when the sawfly larvae were active and<br />

relatively large with respect to the size <strong>of</strong> the predator, and a negatively accelerated<br />

curve when the sawfly larvae were freshly killed and relatively small with respect to the<br />

predator's size. He also presented a list <strong>of</strong> coleopterous predators <strong>of</strong> N. swainei<br />

(Tostowaryk 1972), and stated that it seemed these predators responded in a densityindependent<br />

manner to the prey. Tostowaryk (1973) continued his observations on<br />

carabids found in jack pine stands. He noted that the three most common species <strong>of</strong><br />

carabids preyed to a limited extent on cocoons <strong>of</strong> N. swainei.<br />

A highly pathogenic strain <strong>of</strong> a Borrelina species <strong>of</strong> virus was studied (Smim<strong>of</strong>f 1961a,<br />

Mcleod & Smim<strong>of</strong>f 1971) and a formulation suitable for aerial dispersion was developed<br />

(Smim<strong>of</strong>f 1964). Aerial dispersion <strong>of</strong> the virus provided excellent control <strong>of</strong> the insect<br />

(Smirn<strong>of</strong>f et al. 1962). The dosages used were 4.5 IIha and 3711ha, at a concentration <strong>of</strong><br />

2 x 1()6 polybedralml. Cold weather during and after treatment caused a reduction in<br />

larval mortality, but because <strong>of</strong> trans-ovum and trans-ovarial transmission <strong>of</strong> the<br />

disease from parent to progeny, there was a long-term control effect (Smim<strong>of</strong>f 1962).


Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Table 90<br />

Neodiprioll swainei (Middleton). 345<br />

and a decrease in free glycerol, potassium, and especially total lipids (energy resources),<br />

which were decreased by 50% (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f 1971b).<br />

Results showed that biochemical analysis can be used to determine the pathological<br />

state <strong>of</strong> an N. swainei population; to follow, metabolically, the evolution <strong>of</strong> a virosis in<br />

the insect, thus permitting a prognosis <strong>of</strong> its population; and to evaluate whether the<br />

population is expanding or decreasing. The metabolic study done during 1979 and 1980<br />

indicated that the N. swainei population <strong>of</strong> the Saguenay - Lac St-Jean region, Quebec,<br />

is expanding.<br />

The influence <strong>of</strong> urea fertilization on the physiology and growth <strong>of</strong> jack pine and on the<br />

behaviour <strong>of</strong> N. swainei (either healthy or virus-infected) was determined. It was found<br />

that a treatment with urea in natural forest stands increased the length and weight <strong>of</strong> jack<br />

pine needles proportionally to the amount <strong>of</strong> nitrogen assimilated. Three years after<br />

nitrogen fertilization, the ingestion <strong>of</strong> foliage by N. swainei was reduced by approximately<br />

50%, and the natural mortality <strong>of</strong> the tenthredinid was increased by 50%. It was found<br />

that the sensitivity <strong>of</strong> larvae to virus infection, as well as the mortality, increased. Also,<br />

modifications in the physiological state <strong>of</strong> jack pine needles provoked changes in insect<br />

behaviour. For example, adults seemed to have more difficulty in laying eggs (twisted<br />

ovipositor) on needles <strong>of</strong> fertilized trees than on unfertilized ones (Smirn<strong>of</strong>f & Bernier<br />

1973, Smirn<strong>of</strong>f & Valero 1975).<br />

Large-scale transplantations <strong>of</strong> red wood ants over long distances have only been tried a<br />

few times on the North American continent, and the costs involved can only be roughly<br />

estimated. The transplantations from central Europe were made co-operatively with<br />

scientific institutions (University <strong>of</strong> Pavia in Pavia, Italy, and CIBC in Delemont,<br />

Switzerland) and as a consequence had many unrevealed costs. The introduction from<br />

southern Manitoba, on the other hand, was funded completely by the Laurentian Forest<br />

Research Centre. Because the operations were experimental and <strong>of</strong> a scientific nature,<br />

no charges were made for the ant colonies collected. However, future large-scale<br />

operations may have to take this factor into consideration.<br />

The total costs can be divided among four operations: collecting, packaging, transportation,<br />

and release. The relative importance <strong>of</strong> each can vary considerably according<br />

to time involved, distances to be covered and accessibility <strong>of</strong> sites. Table 90 gives<br />

estimates <strong>of</strong> two large transplantations made to the province <strong>of</strong> Quebec: one from<br />

Manitoba in 1972, the other from Italy in 1973.<br />

As there has not been any measurable N. swainei popUlation in recent years in jack<br />

pine stands chosen for the introduction <strong>of</strong> ants, it has not yet been possible to measure<br />

Cost estimates for the transplantation <strong>of</strong> red wood ant colonies<br />

Collecting Dispersal Approximate<br />

Date (man days) Transportation (man days) Packaging total costs<br />

1972 25 Southern Manitoba to Quebec. 10 $1 ()()() $6500<br />

with motor vehicle and trailer<br />

- $2 ()()()<br />

1973 40 Northern Italy to Quebec 10 $1 ()()() $9500<br />

motor vehicles and by air<br />

- $5 ()()()


348 R. J. Finnegan and W. A. Smirnorr<br />

Smim<strong>of</strong>f, W.A.; Valero. J. (1975) Effets II moyen tenne de la fertilisation par urCe ou par potassium sur P;n/IS banks;ana L. el Ie<br />

comportement de ses insectcs devastateurs: tels que Neodiprion swa;nei (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae)<br />

et TOllmcye//a IlIImismalicum (Homoptcra: Coccidac). Calladian lO/lmal Forest Research 5,236-244.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W.A.; Feltes, J.J.; Haliburton, W. (1962) A virus disease <strong>of</strong> Swaine's jack pine sawfly. Neodiprion swaine; Midd. sprayed from an<br />

aircraft. Canadiall Entomologist 94,4TI-486.<br />

Tostowaryk, W. (1971a) Life history and behavior <strong>of</strong> PodisllS modUlUS (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in boreal forcst in Quebec. CQlladian<br />

Entomologist 103,662-679.<br />

Tostowaryk, W. (1971b) Relationship between parasitism and predation <strong>of</strong> diprionid sawflies. Annals <strong>of</strong> the Elltom%gica/ <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

America 64,1424-1427.<br />

Tostowaryk, W. (1971c) The crfect <strong>of</strong> prey defense on the functional response <strong>of</strong> Podisus modutus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) to densities<br />

<strong>of</strong> the sawflies. Neodiprioll swainti and N. prall; banksiallQ (Hymenoptera: Neodiprionidae). Canadian<br />

Entomologist 104,61-69.<br />

Tostowaryk, W. (1972) Coleopterous predators <strong>of</strong> the Swaine jack pine sawDy Ntodiprion swainei Middleton (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae).<br />

Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Zoology 50,1139-1146.<br />

Tostowaryk, W. (1973) Population estimation and feeding behaviour <strong>of</strong> adult carnbids in jack pine stands. Quebec. CallQdian Forestry Service<br />

InfomuJtion Report Q·X·32. 23 pp.


Pest Status<br />

Chapter 60<br />

Operophtera bruceata (Hulst), Bruce<br />

Spanworm (Lepidoptera: Geometridae)<br />

W.G.H.IVES<br />

The Bruce spanworm, Operophlera bruceala (Hulst), attacks a variety <strong>of</strong> deciduous<br />

trees (Prentice 1963), and is very similar in appearance to the winter moth, Operophlera<br />

brumala (L.). Adults <strong>of</strong> the two species can be distinguished by differences in genitalia<br />

in males and in vestigial wing length in females (Eidt el al. 1966). Pupae can be separated<br />

by differences in the form <strong>of</strong> the cremaster, and larvae can be distinguished by the<br />

placement <strong>of</strong> the ocelli (Eidt & Embree 1968). In eastern <strong>Canada</strong>, sugar maples, Acer<br />

saccharum Marsh., and beech trees, Fagus grandi/olia Ehrh., are favoured hosts, but in<br />

western <strong>Canada</strong>, trembling aspen. Populus Iremuloides Michx., seems to be the principal<br />

host, particularly in Alberta. Although the Bruce spanworrn is not usually considered a<br />

major pest, a number <strong>of</strong> localized infestations, as well as more extensive outbreaks in<br />

which damage has been primarily due to this insect, have been reported by the Forest<br />

Insect and Disease Survey (Anon. 1952-79). The following account <strong>of</strong> infestation<br />

history is based on these reports, except where otherwise noted.<br />

In central and eastern <strong>Canada</strong>. the first reported damage occurred in a small stand <strong>of</strong><br />

sugar maple near Merrivale, Ontario, in 1951 and 1952. In Newfoundland a small<br />

infestation was reported on white birch, Belula papyri/era Marsh., in 1956. The first<br />

reported damage in the maritimes occurred in 1962, when a patch <strong>of</strong> sugar maple in<br />

Nova Scotia was severely defoliated. and a larger area <strong>of</strong> defoliation was reported in<br />

New Brunswick. Infestations in both Maritime Provinces increased in scope and intensity<br />

in 1963, and the outbreak reached its peak in 1964, when over 200 000 ha <strong>of</strong> severe<br />

defoliation occurred in Nova Scotia alone (Harrington 1968). Declines in populations<br />

were noted in 1965, and by 1966 the outbreak had collapsed. A short-lived outbreak also<br />

occurred in Quebec, where the insect reached epidemic proportions in many areas in<br />

1963. However, populations were lower in 1964, and only small pockets <strong>of</strong> defoliation<br />

were reported in 1965. At its peak, this outbreak covered some 39 000 km 2 (Martineau &<br />

Monnier 1966). In Ontario, where infestations <strong>of</strong> Bruce spanworrn were first reported,<br />

no further damage occurred until 1963, when a small pocket <strong>of</strong> aspen defoliation was<br />

reported near Sudbury. In 1965, three widely separated areas <strong>of</strong> severe sugar maple<br />

defoliation occurred: one was in Algonquin Park; another was on an island in Lake<br />

Huron; and the third was on hilltops and ridges near Sault Stet Marie. The outbreak<br />

decreased in intensity in 1966 and collapsed completely in 1967.<br />

In western <strong>Canada</strong>, damage to trembling aspen attributable to the Bruce spanworm<br />

was first reported from the Obed area <strong>of</strong> Alberta in 1956. Widespread areas <strong>of</strong> defoliation.<br />

much <strong>of</strong> it severe, were reported in 1957 and again in 1958, when about 130000 kml<br />

were moderately or heavily infested (Brown 1962). In 1959 some infestations had<br />

subsided, and all outbreaks collapsed in 1960. Severe defoliation <strong>of</strong> trembling aspen in<br />

northern British Columbia was reported in 1958 and 1959, but these infestations also<br />

collapsed in 1960.<br />

No further significant damage attributable to the Bruce spanworm was reported until<br />

1968, when extensive areas <strong>of</strong> moderate to severe defoliation <strong>of</strong> trembling aspen were<br />

again observed in Alberta. Both the intensity and size <strong>of</strong> this outbreak increased in 1969.<br />

Extensive damage also occurred in 1970, but only patches <strong>of</strong> aspen were severely<br />

defoliated in 1971. In Quebec, several maple groves were infested in 1970, and these<br />

were completely stripped in 1971 and again in 1972. The insect was somewhat less<br />

349


350 W. G. H. Ivcs<br />

Background<br />

Field Trials<br />

abundant in 1973. and populations continued to decline in 1974 and 1975. In Ontario,<br />

pockets <strong>of</strong> severe defoliation <strong>of</strong> sugar maple, white birch, and beech were reported along<br />

the south boundary <strong>of</strong> Algonquin Park in 1974, and the outbreak expanded and intensified in<br />

1975, apparently collapsing in 1976. Severe defoliation <strong>of</strong> trembling aspen also occurred<br />

in the Lake Nipigon area in 1976. The outbreak increased in area in 1977, but populations<br />

declined in most areas in 1978. In Alberta, severe defoliation by Bruce spanworm was<br />

again noted in the Obed area in 1978, and this outbreak continued in 1979 and 1980.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the reported outbreaks <strong>of</strong> Bruce spanworm have been <strong>of</strong> short duration.<br />

Consequently there was little if any tree mortality, even when defoliation was complete.<br />

One <strong>of</strong> the reasons for the short duration <strong>of</strong> the outbreaks, at least in eastern <strong>Canada</strong>,<br />

appears to be a nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) which was described by Smirn<strong>of</strong>f<br />

(1964). The virus apparently causes appreciable mortality and thus hastens the collapse<br />

<strong>of</strong> the outbreaks. Although there were several reports <strong>of</strong> the virus occurring in the<br />

maritimes and in Quebec, none <strong>of</strong> the Forest Insect and Disease Survey reports from<br />

western <strong>Canada</strong> mentioned virus, and no experimental assessments <strong>of</strong> its virulence<br />

could be found in the literature. A small-scale field experiment, using NPV from eastern<br />

<strong>Canada</strong>, was therefore conducted in the Obed area <strong>of</strong> Alberta in 1979.<br />

A small supply <strong>of</strong> NPV was obtained by infecting larvae reared in a laboratory<br />

(J.c. Cunningham 1979 personal communications). Bruce spanworm eggs were obtained<br />

by collecting moss from around the base <strong>of</strong> infested trees near Obed in the fall <strong>of</strong> 1978.<br />

The eggs were incubated during the winter, and the emerging larvae were reared on an<br />

artificial diet in plastic cups. A total <strong>of</strong> 5 000 fifth-instar larvae was infected with virus.<br />

The dead larvae were collected and the virus purified by differential centrifugation; 4 x<br />

1011 polyhedral inclusion bodies (PIB) were obtained. The results <strong>of</strong> the field trial have<br />

already been described (Ives & Cunningham 1980) and only a brief description <strong>of</strong> the<br />

experiment need be given here. A strip <strong>of</strong> moderately infested trembling aspen, mostly<br />

under 10 m in height, was selected for the virus trials. Various concentrations <strong>of</strong> virus in<br />

an aqueous formulation containing 50 gil Shade® (Sandoz Inc.), 1 % Chevron® sticker<br />

and 25% v/v animal feed-grade molasses were applied until liquid dripped from the<br />

foliage (about 350 lIha) with a backpack mist blower. Virus concentrations <strong>of</strong> 10' and 10'<br />

PIB/ml were applied on 24 May. The larvae were in the first instar, the temperature was<br />

19°C, relative humidity 42%, and wind speed 0-8 kmlh. Leaves on the trees receiving<br />

10' PIB/ml were 1.5-2.0 em in diameter. The remaining trees had not yet flushed. A<br />

second application <strong>of</strong> virus, on a different group <strong>of</strong> trees, was made on 1 June. Larvae<br />

were in the second and third instars, the temperature was 21°C, R.H. 29%, and wind<br />

speed 3-11 kmlh. The leaves were fully flushed, and three concentrations <strong>of</strong> virus (IO',<br />

10', and 10' PIB/ml) were tested.<br />

Two methods <strong>of</strong> assessing impact were used: determination <strong>of</strong> percentage mortality<br />

by rearing <strong>of</strong> individual larvae until death or pupation, and estimation <strong>of</strong> percentage<br />

defoliation by examining large numbers <strong>of</strong> individual leaves to determine the approximate<br />

amount eaten. Neither method was completely satisfactory. Aseptic techniques were<br />

not used in the collection <strong>of</strong> larvae, and all larvae for each sample were placed in the same<br />

container, so that contamination after collection probably occurred. The foliage samples<br />

were not collected until mid-August, and there was some evidence that the petioles <strong>of</strong><br />

the more severely damaged leaves had fallen by then. Consequently, the larval rearings<br />

may have tended to overestimate rates <strong>of</strong> infection, while the defoliation may have been<br />

underestimated. A further complication was the presence <strong>of</strong> naturally occurring virus.


Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempt<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

0l'('rol'illt'rtl bruceattl (Hulst). 351<br />

Two samples <strong>of</strong> late-instar larvae were collected about 0.4 km from the experimental<br />

area. Microscopic examination <strong>of</strong> living larvae from those samples revealed that 13 and<br />

2t % respectively were infected with NPV (Ives & Cunningham 1980).<br />

The percentages <strong>of</strong> virus-caused mortality <strong>of</strong> larvae collected 7 days after the 24 May<br />

application were 80 and 98% for larvae receiving 10' and 10' PIB/ml, compared to a<br />

mean <strong>of</strong> 52% for the two untreated check areas. Corresponding mortalities among larvae<br />

collected 10 days after the 1 June application were 94. 100. and 100% for dosages <strong>of</strong> 10'.<br />

to' and to" PIB/ml respectively, compared to a mean mortality <strong>of</strong> 68% for larvae<br />

collected in the check area. All treatments afforded some degree <strong>of</strong> foliage protection,<br />

but only the 24 May application <strong>of</strong> 10' PIB/ml and the 1 June application <strong>of</strong> to' PIB/ml<br />

provided protection that could be detected visually.<br />

Bruce spanworm NPV appears to be virulent, on the basis <strong>of</strong> the limited amount <strong>of</strong><br />

information available. However, it is expensive to produce, because it must be propagated<br />

in a small host. Its use in artificially regulating populations <strong>of</strong> Bruce spanworm does not<br />

currently seem to be practical, partly because <strong>of</strong> cost and partly because the rate <strong>of</strong><br />

natural virus infection usually appears to terminate outbreaks before appreciable damage<br />

occurs.<br />

Ultimately, this NPV might have potential as an applied biological insecticide, but this<br />

will not occur unless more economical methods for propagating insect viruses are<br />

developed. No further testing <strong>of</strong> this virus is recommended in the immediate future.<br />

Anonymous (1952 - 1979) Annual reports <strong>of</strong> the Forest Insect and Disease Survey. 1951-1976. Ottawa. Ontario; Canadian Forestry Senice.<br />

Brown. C.E. (1962) The life history and dispersal <strong>of</strong> the Bruce spanworm. Operophtera bruceala (Hulst) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae).<br />

Canadian Entomologist 94.1103-1107.<br />

Eidt. D.C.; Embree, D.G. (1968) Distinguishing larvae and pupae <strong>of</strong> the winter moth. Operophtera brumata. and the Bruce spanworm. O.<br />

bruceata (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Canadian Entomologist 100.536-539.<br />

Eidt, D.C.; Embree. D.G.; Smith. C.C. (1966) Distinguishing adults <strong>of</strong>the winter moth, Operophtera brumata (L.). and Bruce spanworm. O.<br />

brumata (Hulst) (Lepidoptera: Geomelridae). Canadian Entomologist 98.258-261.<br />

Harrington. W. (1968) Relation <strong>of</strong> light trap catches <strong>of</strong> Bruce spanworm to infestations in ccntral Nova Seotia. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong><br />

Fisheries and Forestry Bi-monthly Research Notes 24(5),39-40.<br />

I vcs, W. G. H. ; Cunningham, J. C. (1980) Application <strong>of</strong> nuclear polyhedrosis virus to control Bruce spanworm (Lepidoptera: Geometridae).<br />

Canadian Entomologist 112,741-744.<br />

Martineau. R.; Monnier. C. (1966) Recent outbreak <strong>of</strong> the Bruce spanworm in Quebec. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Forestry and Rural<br />

Development Bi-monthly Research Notes 22(6).5.<br />

Prentice. R.M. (1963) Forest Lepidoptera <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> recorded by the Forest Insect Survey. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Forest Entomology and<br />

Pathology Branch, Ottawa, Publication 1013.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f. W.A. (1964) A nuc\eopolyhedrosis virus <strong>of</strong> Operophtera bruceata (Hulst) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Journal <strong>of</strong> Insect<br />

Pathology 6.384-386.


Blank Page<br />

352


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 61<br />

Operophtera brumata (L.), Winter Moth<br />

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae)<br />

D.O. EMBREE and I.S. OTVOS<br />

The winter moth. Operophtera brumata (L.). was accidentally introduced into Nova<br />

Scotia. probably in the mid 1930s. and later spread to New Brunswick and Prince<br />

Edward Island. Recently it has been found in British Columbia. and in western Oregon<br />

in the United States.<br />

Populations <strong>of</strong> the insect in the maritimes have remained consistently low during the<br />

20-year review period because <strong>of</strong> the establishment and population build-up <strong>of</strong> the<br />

tachinid parasitoid Cyzenis albicans (Fall.) and the ichneumonid parasitoid<br />

Agrypon flaveolatum (Gravely) in 1961 (Embree 1971a). The gradual spread <strong>of</strong> the<br />

insect since it was first detected in 1949 has virtually ceased and it is almost non-existent<br />

in forested areas. However. populations have persisted in apple. Malus spp .• orchards<br />

and on shade trees. particularly oaks. Quercus spp .• and lindens. TWa spp .• (Sterner &<br />

Davidson 1981). Chemical control is occasionally required in orchards but generally<br />

parasitoid numbers have remained sufficiently high to keep the winter moth under<br />

control.<br />

In British Columbia. the winter moth is found in and around Victoria on Vancouver<br />

Island and in Richmond near Vancouver. As in Nova Scotia (Hawboldt & Cuming 1950),<br />

the insect was initially misidentified and was not suspected to be O. brumata until 1976.<br />

4 years after it was causing significant damage to Garry oak. Quercus garryana Doug!..<br />

in Victoria. By 1977 the outbreak had expanded over large areas and an estimated 120<br />

kml were severely affected in Victoria on the Saanich Peninsula. The centre <strong>of</strong> the<br />

outbreak appeared to be in the Wilkinson Road area in Victoria where several commercial<br />

nurseries are located. suggesting that the insect might have been introduced into British<br />

Columbia on nursery stock (Gillespie & Finlayson 1981). In British Columbia the larvae<br />

were found to feed on Acer. Crataegus. Malus, Prunus, Populus, Quercus. and Salix<br />

spp .• and other deciduous trees and shrubs and to pose a threat to commercial orchards<br />

and shade trees in urban areas. Parasitism by native species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids is less than 5%<br />

(Gillespie et al. 1978).<br />

In the United States. outbreaks <strong>of</strong> this pest are confined to Multnomach, Clackamus.<br />

and Washington counties in western Oregon. where the insect is found in abandoned<br />

orchards and is becoming a pest <strong>of</strong> filberts. Corylus spp.<br />

Biological control <strong>of</strong> the winter moth in the maritimes by the introduced parasitoids C.<br />

albicans and A. flaveolatum has been successful and remains so because it is helped by<br />

the behaviour <strong>of</strong> the winter moth which results in most <strong>of</strong> the host larvae starving before<br />

suitable food is available. Most <strong>of</strong> the time. winter moth hatching occurs before budburst <strong>of</strong><br />

its principal forest host. red oak. Quercus rubra L.. and other forest species. because less<br />

heat is required for hatching than for budburst. Over 98% <strong>of</strong> the newly hatched larvae<br />

may starve because they cannot feed on closed buds and the few survivors are then<br />

controlled by the parasitoids (Embree 1965).<br />

On hatching. larvae initially spin downwards and are then carried up to the tree<br />

foliage on rising air currents. Such currents are most apt to occur in the early morning<br />

when the air begins to warm and rise. By mid-morning. when the land is fully heated.<br />

353


354 D. G. Embree and I. S. Olvos<br />

Releases and Recoveries<br />

Agrypon fla.-eo/atum<br />

(Grav.)<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonidae)<br />

Cyzenis a1bicans<br />

(FaIl.) (Dlptera:<br />

Tachinidae)<br />

wind patterns develop. Winter moth hatching is synchronized to this pattern <strong>of</strong> wind<br />

movement, with hatching beginning at dawn and virtually ceasing by mid-morning. By<br />

this efficient means larvae are transported from hatching sites in crevices and lichens on<br />

the lower tree trunks to the tree crowns. Once there, the larvae either survive or die<br />

depending on whether the buds have opened. The wind may also transport the larvae<br />

several miles, but once established on the foliage, they do not dislodge easily until the<br />

late fifth instar in early summer, when they drop to the ground to pupate (Embree 1970).<br />

No other means <strong>of</strong> dispersal exists because the females, which are active in November<br />

and December, have vestigial wings and are flightless.<br />

No releases <strong>of</strong> parasitoids have been made in the maritimes since 1965 (Embree 1971b).<br />

Releases <strong>of</strong> parasitoids in British Columbia were conducted in 1979 and 1980 and are<br />

listed in Table 91.<br />

The British Columbia operation was financed and administered by the Crop Protection<br />

Branch (formerly Entomology and Plant Pathology Branch) <strong>of</strong> the British Columbia<br />

Ministry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture and Food in co-operation with the Pacific and Maritimes Forest<br />

Research Centres <strong>of</strong> the Canadian Forestry Service. Collections <strong>of</strong> last instar larvae<br />

were made in apple orchards in Nova Scotia in 1978 and 1979. Collections were also<br />

made in Germany by the Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control.<br />

Winter moth pupae were sent to the Biocontrol Unit <strong>of</strong> the Research Branch <strong>of</strong><br />

Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong> in Ottawa, where pupae were cold-treated and then reared under<br />

quarantine conditions. Only the adult parasitoids were shipped to British Columbia from<br />

the German collection but about two-thirds <strong>of</strong> the Nova Scotia collection were sent to<br />

Victoria for parasitoid rearing. The remainder were reared in Ottawa and the adults <strong>of</strong><br />

the two parasitoids were sent to Victoria.<br />

Based on studies in Nova Scotia, the control strategy in British Columbia has been to<br />

treat the infested area with repeated releases, each consisting <strong>of</strong> a minimum <strong>of</strong> 50 mated<br />

females <strong>of</strong> each species.<br />

This parasitoid beromes decreasingly effective as host densities increase, and is therefore most<br />

effective at low population density (Embree 1966). The adult parasitoids develop in<br />

winter moth pupae and emerge the following spring to parasitize early instars <strong>of</strong> host<br />

larvae.<br />

The first introduction <strong>of</strong> A. Jlaveolatum was in 1979 when a total <strong>of</strong> 1654 males and<br />

1 700 females was released at 33 locations in the greater Victoria area in stands infested<br />

with winter moth. Fifty pairs <strong>of</strong> parasitoids were released in each location after being<br />

held in mating cages for 1-3 days. The parasitoids in the cages were provided with twigs<br />

<strong>of</strong> cherry blossoms and bottles <strong>of</strong> sugared water with feeding wicks. In 1980 an additional<br />

2213 males and 2 813 females were released at 25 locations; <strong>of</strong> these a small proportion<br />

came from Germany, and the rest from Nova Scotia. This parasitoid has not yet been<br />

recovered in British Columbia.<br />

This parasitoid exhibits a sigmoid functional response curve and is most effective at high<br />

host densities (Embree 1966). The female, which can lay as many as 1300 eggs, oviposits<br />

in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> feeding damage by defoliators. Associated species such as the fall<br />

cankerworm, Alsophila pometaria (Harr.), which are resistant to parasitism by C.<br />

albicans, also consume the parasitoid eggs. With increasing winter moth populations C.<br />

albicans becomes increasingly effective.


Blank Page<br />

358


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 62<br />

Orgyia leucostigma (J.E. Smith),<br />

Whitemarked Tussock Moth (Lepidoptera:<br />

Lymantriidae)<br />

D.G. EMBREE, D.E. ELGEE and G.F. ESTABROOKS<br />

The whitemarked tussock moth, Orgyia leucostigma (J.E. Smith), is a noxious insect in<br />

eastern <strong>Canada</strong>, particularly in Nova Scotia. It is primarily a forest pest, capable <strong>of</strong><br />

killing entire stands <strong>of</strong> mature balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., in a year and <strong>of</strong><br />

defoliating extensive areas <strong>of</strong> hardwoods. It is particularly devastating to balsam fir<br />

Christmas trees which it deforms, defoliates, or kills. The white marked tussock moth is<br />

also a pest in urban areas where it feeds on a wide variety <strong>of</strong> hardwood shade trees,<br />

crawls over houses and lawns, and spins unsightly cocoons on trees and shrubs. Some<br />

people are allergic to the larval setae. Moreover, O. leucostigma is a pest <strong>of</strong> blueberries<br />

and is the target <strong>of</strong> an extensive spray programme to protect the commercial crop.<br />

Egg masses are laid on empty female cocoons and covered with froth. On hatching,<br />

larvae feed gregariously on the froth. Once this is consumed, larvae spin downwards on<br />

silken threads and are carried great distances by the wind. On occasion, during severe<br />

outbreaks, swarms <strong>of</strong> airborne larvae appear as a grey mist and the insects can cover the<br />

surface <strong>of</strong> small lakes and ponds when they land.<br />

The larvae feed on a wide variety <strong>of</strong> hardwoods and conifers such as tamarack, Larix<br />

laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch, but their primary host is balsam fir. Larvae feed in the shade<br />

on the underside <strong>of</strong> leaves and twigs. This feeding habit causes a unique form <strong>of</strong> damage<br />

to balsam fir Christmas trees because larvae also feed on the thin bark <strong>of</strong> developing<br />

leaders and upper lateral branches causing them to warp downwards. The result is a<br />

pronounced crook in the stems <strong>of</strong> surviving trees, visible for years afterwards. In heavy<br />

infestations, trees are festooned with silk.<br />

Pupation usually occurs on the underside <strong>of</strong> twigs and branches or on the stems <strong>of</strong> host<br />

trees, but it can occur almost anywhere, the yellowish white cocoons <strong>of</strong>ten being spun<br />

on fences, houses, or logs. Females remain on the surface <strong>of</strong> their cocoons when they<br />

emerge, mate with winged males, and lay from 100 to over 500 eggs.<br />

Outbreaks are controlled ultimately by a nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV). These outbreaks<br />

<strong>of</strong> O. leucostigma, at least in Nova Scotia, appear to originate in balsam fir<br />

stands at high elevations and occur at intervals <strong>of</strong> 6-10 years between outbreaks. The<br />

infestation spreads by wind-borne larvae and eventually large areas <strong>of</strong> balsam fir and<br />

hardwoods are defoliated. Such outbreaks become widespread and last for 5-6 years,<br />

then collapse because <strong>of</strong> the gradual spread <strong>of</strong> the virus disease. The initial infestation<br />

collapses in about 3 years, subsequent infestations in 2-3 years, and in the final stages <strong>of</strong><br />

the outbreak infestations appear and collapse in the same year.<br />

Over 25 species <strong>of</strong> parasitoids attack the whitemarked tussock moth but the only<br />

control they have over populations is to kill survivors following the collapse <strong>of</strong> outbreaks<br />

caused by NPV. As a result, whitemarked tussock moth populations are reduced suddenly<br />

to extremely low levels, which delays the build-up <strong>of</strong> subsequent outbreaks.<br />

359


360 D. G. Embree. D. E. Elgee and G. F. Estabrooks<br />

Field Trials<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

No attempt has been made to control this insect through the introduction <strong>of</strong> additional<br />

parasitoid species. The emphasis has been on establishing control through the manipulation<br />

<strong>of</strong> the virus (Cunningham 1972, Elgee 1975). Virus suspensions can be used as<br />

insecticides and have been tested successfully on small trees.<br />

A major attempt at biological control was made in 1975 to initiate an epizootic in a large<br />

population <strong>of</strong> the whitemarked tussock moth in the hope <strong>of</strong> shortening the length <strong>of</strong> an<br />

outbreak; it has been reported by Kurstak (in press). During the previous year the<br />

suspected start <strong>of</strong> a general outbreak <strong>of</strong> the whitemarked tussock moth was detected in an<br />

IS-ha stand <strong>of</strong> balsam fir near Castlereagh, Colchester County, Nova Scotia. A virus<br />

suspension was prepared from third-instar larvae reared from eggs collected at the site<br />

and infected with the Nova Scotia strain <strong>of</strong> NPV: the virus had been saved and stored<br />

from the last outbreak in 1965.<br />

On the evening <strong>of</strong> 9 July 1975, 204 I <strong>of</strong> an NPV suspension containing IO.S x HY'<br />

polyhedral inclusion bodies (PIB) per millilitre mixed with 204 I <strong>of</strong> a virus spray adjuvant<br />

manufactured by Sandoz Inc. and a fluorescent dye were sprayed from 30 m on IS ha <strong>of</strong><br />

mature balsam fir with a Cessna Ag-truck aircraft equipped with a boom and nozzle<br />

sprayer. Whitemarked tussock moth larvae were mainly first instars with some early<br />

second instars.<br />

There were no true controls (untreated areas) but larvae collected before the spray<br />

application and reared were free from disease. Twenty-four sample trees were established<br />

in a line bisecting the spray block. However, one edge <strong>of</strong> the block was not sprayed so<br />

that trees 20-24 were outside the block. No disease was detected in larvae collected on<br />

tree 24 and only light mortality (33%) occurred on trees 20-23. Mortality <strong>of</strong> larvae<br />

collected 1 day after spraying from trees 1-19, and reared on foliage from the sprayed<br />

area, averaged 84%, whereas that <strong>of</strong> survivors collected 2 weeks later was 64%. Field<br />

populations declined by 95%, as compared to 67% on the unsprayed trees, and defoliation<br />

was light. From the air, the outline <strong>of</strong> the sprayed area was clearly discernible in a<br />

severe outbreak that developed around the initial Castlereagh infestation. No appreciable<br />

population reappeared in the sprayed area. The outbreak in the surrounding areas intensified<br />

in 1976, covering a radius <strong>of</strong> 16 km, but collapsed from the virus disease in all but<br />

the periphery during the same year.<br />

Early in 1976, virus suspensions were dispersed at two locations along the periphery<br />

<strong>of</strong> the 1975 outbreak using an explosive device. Canisters containing 1.9 I <strong>of</strong> suspension<br />

were fired into the air using a home-made mortar and exploded over the forest canopy.<br />

Virus particles were dispersed over an area <strong>of</strong> 1000-2000 m l depending on wind velocity.<br />

However, by this time the virus was already present in the population. Eventually the<br />

outbreak spread throughout the province, collapsing everywhere by 1975.<br />

The experiment showed that the virus can be used as an effective biological insecticide.<br />

but whether it can be used to initiate a widespread epizootic is uncertain. The rapid<br />

spread <strong>of</strong> the O. ieucosligma infestation in 1975 resulted from dispersion <strong>of</strong> newly hatched<br />

larvae, most <strong>of</strong> which occurred before spraying took place. Moreover. low populations<br />

<strong>of</strong> larvae existed in the area immediately surrounding the initial 18 ha <strong>of</strong> detected outbreak.<br />

The outbreak in 1976 was widespread and extremely intense; even though it collapsed<br />

just 2 years after it appeared, it is unlikely that the source <strong>of</strong> the epizootic was the IS-ha<br />

spray block. Had the initial outbreak been detected in 1973 and sprayed in 1974 a clearer


Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Orgyilllelicosligll/(/ (J. E. Smith), 361<br />

understanding <strong>of</strong> the role <strong>of</strong> the virus in whitemarked tussock moth epidemiology might<br />

have been gained.<br />

The pattern <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> whitemarked tussock moth outbreaks presents an<br />

opportunity for an elegant approach to biological control; but there are major difficulties.<br />

The most promising strategy is to artificially accelerate the normal virus epizootic that<br />

has occurred consistently in every past outbreak <strong>of</strong> this insect. The obvious advantage<br />

<strong>of</strong> such a strategy is that the virus is used as an inoculum rather than as a blanket<br />

insecticide. The resulting epizootic will be one that inevitably would have occurred<br />

later, a consideration that might ease the registration approval <strong>of</strong> this NPV by Canadian<br />

authorities.<br />

Historically each whitemarked tussock moth outbreak in Nova Scotia appears to have<br />

begun in one or two small locations (epicentres). Virus material from the 1974-79 outbreak<br />

has been stored and the techniques <strong>of</strong> introducing the virus into a developing<br />

outbreak have been shown to be workable. However, two major problems must be<br />

addressed: first, early detection <strong>of</strong> epicentres requires constant monitoring <strong>of</strong> likely<br />

sites for a period <strong>of</strong> up to 10 years; and second, whitemarked tussock moth hatching<br />

occurs over a period <strong>of</strong> at least 2 weeks, so although larvae feed on the froth covering <strong>of</strong><br />

egg masses for 2 or 3 days, many larvae are likely to disperse before the virus is applied<br />

during peak egg hatching.<br />

A second strategy might be to employ sex pheromones that could be used to disrupt<br />

mating in epicentres. Success would depend on the almost immediate detection <strong>of</strong> these<br />

epicentres before they become large enough to develop a reservoir <strong>of</strong> dispersing larvae.<br />

Cunningham, J.e. (1972) Preliminary studies <strong>of</strong> nuclear polyhedrosis viruses infecting the whitemarked tussock moth, Orgyia lel/costigma.<br />

Canadian Forestry Service In.tect Pathology Research Institl/te, Sal/It Ste. Marie, Ontario, Information<br />

Report.<br />

Elgee, D.E. (1975) Persistence <strong>of</strong> a virus <strong>of</strong> the whitemarked tussock moth on balsam fir foliage. Canadian Forestr}' Service Bi-monthly<br />

Research Notes 31(5),33-34.<br />

Kurstak, E. (in press) Microbial and viral pesticides. New York; Marcel Dekker.


Blank Page<br />

362


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Field Trials<br />

Nuclear polyhedrosis<br />

virus<br />

Chapter 63<br />

Orgyia pseudotsugata (McDunnough),<br />

Douglas-fir Tussock Moth (Lepidoptera:<br />

Lymantriidae)<br />

J.C. CUNNINGHAM and R.F. SHEPHERD<br />

The Douglas-fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata (McDunn.), occurs in the semiarid<br />

interior <strong>of</strong> British Columbia and in parts <strong>of</strong> Washington, Idaho, California, Nevada,<br />

Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico in the United States. In <strong>Canada</strong>, Douglas fir,<br />

Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, is the preferred host; but Engelmann spruce,<br />

Picea engelmannii Parry, is also attacked and later instar larvae will feed on ponderosa<br />

pine, Pinus ponderosa Laws., when forced to abandon totally defoliated Douglas fir.<br />

Small larvae eat the underside <strong>of</strong> new needles. The later instar larvae may eat entire<br />

older needles or sever them near the base and leave them entwined in silk webbing.<br />

Heavily infested trees have a reddish-brown appearance. Trees may die after 1 year <strong>of</strong><br />

defoliation, but mortality occurs more commonly after 2 or more years <strong>of</strong> severe<br />

defoliation (Johnson & Ross 1967). Severely damaged trees are also susceptible to<br />

attack by the Douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins.<br />

Since 1916, when the first records were kept (Sugden 1957), six outbreaks <strong>of</strong> Douglasfir<br />

tussock moth occurred in British Columbia. The latest outbreak began in 1971 and<br />

collapsed in 1976; a further outbreak was predicted for 1981 (Sterner & Davidson 1981).<br />

Characteristically, high populations <strong>of</strong> Douglas-fir tussock moth appear in relatively<br />

small patches <strong>of</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> 1-5 ha. The infestation normally extends from these areas in<br />

subsequent years, but more striking is the appearance <strong>of</strong> new outbreaks <strong>of</strong>ten many<br />

kilometres from the original sites. After an average <strong>of</strong> 5 years (3-6) outbreaks collapse,<br />

the factors responsible being nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV), egg parasitoids, and<br />

starvation. However, following several years <strong>of</strong> severe defoliation, the trees frequently<br />

die before this population collapse occurs. Hence attempts to regulate the population<br />

with biological or chemical agents should be made early in the outbreak cycle.<br />

Two types <strong>of</strong> nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) have been found in populations <strong>of</strong><br />

Douglas-fir tussock moth. In one type the rod-shaped virus particles are embedded<br />

singly in polyhedral inclusion bodies (PIB) and in the other they are embedded in<br />

bundles (Hughes & Addison 1970). These are referred to as single-embedded NPV<br />

(SNPV) and multiple-embedded NPV (MNPV). An SNPV isolated from the whitemarked<br />

tussock moth. O. leucostigma (J.E. Smith), is also pathogenic for Douglas-fir tussock<br />

moth larvae.<br />

Small-scale ground-spray trials in 1962 with field-collected NPV (possibly a mixture<br />

<strong>of</strong> SNPV and MNPV) gave encouraging results (Morris 1963). The first aerial spray trial<br />

in British Columbia was conducted in 1974 using Douglas-fir tussock moth MNPV<br />

363


366 J. C. Cunningham and R. F. Shepherd<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Recommendations<br />

Some <strong>of</strong> the treatments were designated operational and others experimental.<br />

Twenty-one days after spraying, larval mortality due to the B.t. treatments averaged<br />

34% with a high <strong>of</strong> 57% with Thuricide® and a low <strong>of</strong> 13% with Dipel®. A double<br />

application <strong>of</strong> both materials and a higher volume <strong>of</strong> Thuricide® gave about 20% more<br />

control than single applications or the lower volume. Increasing the dosage <strong>of</strong> Dipel®<br />

gave no significant change, but using molasses in the tank mix instead <strong>of</strong> sorbitol gave a<br />

significant increase in the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> Dipel® and brought it to the same level as<br />

Thuricide® .<br />

Neither single nor double applications <strong>of</strong> Dipel® provided adequate foliage protection-<br />

59% defoliation was recorded on untreated check plots and 50-58% on Dipel®-treated<br />

plots. Better foliage protection was recorded with Thuricide 81 with only 18-25% defoliation<br />

on treated trees.<br />

The various operational and experimental treatments with B.t. gave a wide range <strong>of</strong><br />

results. However, the best population reductions due to treatment were less than 60%.<br />

This did not provide adequate foliage protection and did not prevent the Douglas-fir<br />

tussock moth population increasing to high densities in the next generation.<br />

Results with B.t. on Douglas-fir tussock moth in 1975 were considered unsatisfactory<br />

and applications <strong>of</strong> B.t. on other defoliating lepidopterous forest pests during the last<br />

decade in British Columbia have generally proved disappointing. Recent improvements<br />

in application technology <strong>of</strong> B.t. have resulted in improved control <strong>of</strong> spruce budworm,<br />

Choristoneurafumiferana (Oem.), and similar improvements may eventually be possible<br />

with Douglas-fir tussock moth. On the other hand, results with NPV are already most<br />

encouraging and it appears that this biological control agent can now provide a useful<br />

tool for the regulation <strong>of</strong> Douglas-fir tussock moth populations.<br />

Douglas-fir tussock moth MNPV was registered by the Environmental Protection<br />

Agency in the United States in 1975 under the name TM Biocontrol-1. It is proposed to<br />

apply for Canadian registration in 1982. At present this virus is not commercially<br />

produced and this poses two major problems that need solving: a source <strong>of</strong> supply; and<br />

production at a reasonable cost. Small amounts, sufficient to treat about 400 ha annually,<br />

are produced at the Forest Pest Management Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and<br />

larger amounts are produced for use in the United States by staff <strong>of</strong> the U.S. Forest<br />

Service, Corvallis, Oregon. A figure <strong>of</strong> $40 US per hectare was quoted for production at<br />

Corvallis in late 1980 (M.E. Martignoni personal communication) and this figure is<br />

probably even higher for material from Sault Ste. Marie. This cost figure is based on a<br />

dosage <strong>of</strong> 250 x 10' PIBlha. This dosage can probably be reduced to 125 x 10 9 PIBlha<br />

(I1nytzky et al. 1977), and possibly even lower.<br />

The mountainous terrain and consistently low relative humidity encountered in the<br />

interior <strong>of</strong> British Columbia pose problems for aerial application <strong>of</strong> pest control agents<br />

and particularly for application <strong>of</strong> aqueous spray formulations. Use <strong>of</strong> an oil-based<br />

formulation should be investigated, for this may well enhance the deposit and facilitate<br />

application <strong>of</strong> lower dosages.<br />

Ideally, application <strong>of</strong> a virus initiates an epizootic in the pest insect population,<br />

regulating the pest either in the year <strong>of</strong> application if applied on early-instar larvae, or in<br />

the subsequent year. Some NPVs have the potential to initiate epizootics and others<br />

have not; the status <strong>of</strong> Douglas-fir tussock moth NPV has not been established and the


Literature Cited<br />

Orgyia psellClolsllgata (McDunnough). 367<br />

virus has been applied in the same manner as a chemical pesticide. Although adequate<br />

control has been achieved, the material is too scarce and too costly to be applied in this<br />

way. Alternative methods should be investigated, such as seeding the NPV into the<br />

insect population. This could be tested by spraying widely spaced swaths to give partial<br />

coverage <strong>of</strong> the infested forest. Spread <strong>of</strong> the disease would then be relied on to regulate<br />

the Douglas·fir tussock moth population.<br />

Among the few viruses currently being developed as biological control agents <strong>of</strong><br />

forest insect pests in <strong>Canada</strong>, Douglas.fir tussock moth NPVs have proved to be<br />

effective pest management tools. Further testing and an attempt to register MNPV in<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> for operational use are strongly advocated. Improved production methods,<br />

lower dosage rates, and different strategies for its use may reduce the cost <strong>of</strong> treatment<br />

and make MNPV more attractive to forest managers.<br />

Furtht!r efficacy trials with B.t. may be warranted, as better strains and improved<br />

application technology become available. This work, however, should have lower<br />

priority than the virus work described above.<br />

Abbott, W.S. (1925) A method <strong>of</strong> computing the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> an insecticide. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 18.265-267.<br />

Hughes, K.M.; Addison. R.B. (1970) Two nuclear polyhedrosis viruses <strong>of</strong> the Douglas·fir tussock moth. Journal <strong>of</strong> Invertebrate Pathology<br />

16,196-294.<br />

I1nytzky, S.; McPhee. J.R.; Cunningham. J.C. (19n) Comparison <strong>of</strong> field'propagated nuclear polyhedrosis virus from Douglas-fir tussock<br />

moth with laboratory-produced virus. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Fisherits and Forts"y Bi-monthly<br />

Research Notts 33(1).5-6.<br />

Johnson. P.C.; Ross. D.A. (1967) Douglas-fir tussock moth. Hemerocampa (Orgyia) pseudotsugata McDunnough. In: Davidson. A.G.;<br />

Prentice. R.M. (Camps. and Eds.) Important forest insects and diseases <strong>of</strong> mutual concern to <strong>Canada</strong>. the<br />

United States and Mexico. Onawa; Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Forestry and Rural Development. pp.<br />

105-107.<br />

Morris. O.N. (1963) The natural and artificial control <strong>of</strong> the Douglas-fir tussock moth. Orgyia pseudotsugata McDunnough. by a nuclear<br />

polyhedrosis virus. Journal <strong>of</strong> Insect Pathology 5.401-414.<br />

Shepherd, R.F. (Ed.) (1980) Operational field trials against Douglas-fir tussock moth with chemical and biological insecticides. Canadian<br />

Forestry Service. Victoria. British Columbia. Information Report BC-X-201. 19 pp.<br />

Stelzer. M.; Neisess. J.; Cunningham. J.C.; McPhee. J.R. (1m) Field evaluation <strong>of</strong> baculovirus stocks against Douglas-fir tussock moth in<br />

British Columbia. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 70.243-246.<br />

Sterner. T.E.; Davidson. A .G. (camp.) (1981) Forest insect and disease conditions in <strong>Canada</strong> 1980. Canadian Fortslry Service Forest Insect and<br />

Disease Survey. 43 pp.<br />

Sugden, B.A. (1957) A brief history <strong>of</strong> the Douglas-fir tussock moth, Hemerocampa pseudotsugata McD., in British Columbia. Proceedings<br />

<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> British Columbia 54.37-39.


Blank Page<br />

368


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 64<br />

Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig), Larch<br />

Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae)<br />

W.G.H. IVES and J.A. MULDREW<br />

The larch sawfly, Pristiphora erichsonii (Htg.), is a major pest <strong>of</strong> larches, LArix spp.,<br />

in North America. It is the principal defoliator <strong>of</strong> tamarack, L. laricina (Du Roi) K.<br />

Koch, and also attacks western larch, L. occidentalis Nutt., and alpine larch, L. Iyallii<br />

ParI. Plantings <strong>of</strong> the various European and Asian species and their hybrids are also<br />

vulnerable (Turnock & Muldrew 1971a). Outbreaks have been recorded in <strong>Canada</strong> since<br />

late in the nineteenth century. Early outbreaks have been discussed by McGugan &<br />

Coppel (1962), and Turnock & Muldrew (1971a) summarized depredations for the<br />

decade 1959-68. Conditions since then have been outlined in the annual reports <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Forest Insect and Disease Survey (Anon. 1970-79). The folIowing account <strong>of</strong> infestation<br />

history from 1969 to 1980 is based primarily on these reports. Areas in which infestations<br />

<strong>of</strong> the larch sawfly have caused moderate or severe defoliation during this period are<br />

shown in Fig. 18.<br />

In Newfoundland, tamarack stands in the western and central parts <strong>of</strong> the province<br />

were moderately or severely defoliated in 1975, but most infestations colIapsed in 1976.<br />

A resurgence occurred along the west coast in 1979. In Labrador, an outbreak developed in<br />

1975, and by 1978 some tree mortality had been reported. In the maritimes, remnants <strong>of</strong><br />

an earlier outbreak persisted into the period, particularly in southern New Brunswick<br />

and central Nova Scotia. In eastern Prince Edward Island, infestations increased in<br />

1970 and populations did not colI apse until 1976. By this time over 30% <strong>of</strong> the trees were<br />

dead, and many more had dead tops. In Nova Scotia, populations started increasing in<br />

1970 and by 1975 tamarack stands in most <strong>of</strong> the province were affected. Populations in<br />

the eastern half <strong>of</strong> the province colIapsed in 1976, but the decline was more gradual in the<br />

western half and some infestations still persisted in 1980. In New Brunswick, larch<br />

sawfly damage during the period 1969-80 was confined to a number <strong>of</strong> relatively smalI<br />

pockets. In Quebec, several extensive areas with medium or high populations were<br />

reported between 1974 and 1977. In most <strong>of</strong> Ontario, outbreaks from the previous<br />

decade persisted into the early part <strong>of</strong> the present period, but most populations had<br />

colIapsed by 1972. However, an upsurge in populations was soon noted in southern<br />

Ontario, where severe defoliation <strong>of</strong> larch was reported from 1974 to 1978, particularly<br />

in plantations <strong>of</strong> European larch. In Manitoba, old infestations also persisted into the<br />

early part <strong>of</strong> the period, particularly in the southeastern part <strong>of</strong> the province. A moderate to<br />

severe infestation occurred south <strong>of</strong> The Pas between 1972 and 1975. Only pockets <strong>of</strong><br />

tamarack defoliation were noted in Saskatchewan between 1969 and 1980. Small<br />

pockets <strong>of</strong> defoliation were also reported in Alberta and in the Northwest Territories<br />

during the latter part <strong>of</strong> the period. A few infestations in British Columbia persisted in<br />

the early part <strong>of</strong> the period. The larch sawfly was extremely scarce on western larch until<br />

1976, when a population build-up occurred near Sparwood. This infestation collapsed in<br />

1980.<br />

The origin <strong>of</strong> larch sawfly in North America remains a matter <strong>of</strong> debate. Earlyentomologists<br />

(Fletcher 1885,1906, Fyles 1892, 1906, Hewitt 1912) considered the insect to be a<br />

recent introduction, and a number <strong>of</strong> workers still share this belief (Tumock 1972,<br />

Turnock & Muldrew 1973). The first larch sawfly outbreaks were noted in 1880 on the<br />

369


Pristiphora erichsollii (Hartig). 371<br />

eastern seaboard <strong>of</strong> the United States, and the insect appeared to spread westward<br />

(Coppel & Leius 1955, Nairn et ar. 1962). Reports <strong>of</strong> these early outbreaks indicated<br />

that their effects were particularly devastating. However, some entomologists have<br />

doubted the validity <strong>of</strong> the assumption <strong>of</strong> recent introduction, and feel that the insect has<br />

been here for a long time. Graham (1956) examined growth rings <strong>of</strong>an old tamarack from<br />

northern Michigan and believed that he was able to trace evidence <strong>of</strong> sawfly attack as far<br />

back as 1734. Graham (1930) and Graham & Knight (1965) also reported growth<br />

reductions in tamarack before 1880, which they attributed to larch sawfly defoliation;<br />

however, the periods <strong>of</strong> supposed defoliation do not agree completely. Similarly,<br />

Daviault (1948, 1974) examined some old tamarack from Quebec and noted severe<br />

growth suppression, which he attributed to larch sawfly attack, about 1829 to 1845.<br />

However, Nairn el ar. (I962) pointed out that it is practically impossible to separate the<br />

effects <strong>of</strong> larch sawfly defoliation from growth suppression caused by unfavourable<br />

environmental conditions. Although some <strong>of</strong> their growth records, particularly those for<br />

Isle Pierre, British Columbia, show periods <strong>of</strong> growth suppression prior to the known<br />

occurrence <strong>of</strong> larch sawfly in the area, they did not claim that this suppression was due<br />

to larch sawfly attack. Lejeune & Martin (1948) also examined discs cut from trees up<br />

to 159 years old. They found evidence <strong>of</strong> outbreaks in Manitoba from 1908 to 1915 and<br />

from 1941 to the time <strong>of</strong> examination (1948) but apparently there was no evidence <strong>of</strong><br />

earlier attacks.<br />

Wong (1974) believed that the larch sawfly reached North America during the Miocene<br />

Period via the Bering land bridge. He examined large numbers <strong>of</strong> larch sawfly adults and<br />

identified, on the basis <strong>of</strong> morphological characteristics, five distinct strains. Two<br />

strains occur only in North America, one is confined to Eurasia, and two occur in both<br />

North America and Eurasia, presumably as a result <strong>of</strong> an unintentional introduction<br />

in about 1910.<br />

The early attacks by the larch sawfly (Fyles 1892, Graham 1956) clearly demonstrate<br />

the severe impact that the insect can have on the successful production <strong>of</strong> larch. As a<br />

consequence, long-term population studies were undertaken in southeastern Manitoba<br />

to evaluate the effects <strong>of</strong> various factors on survival <strong>of</strong> the different life stages. These<br />

studies showed that none <strong>of</strong> the "native" agents behaved in a density-dependent manner<br />

and the populations fluctuated unpredictably (Ives 1976). The "native" factors are as<br />

follows. Egg survival is affected by adverse temperatures and several invertebrate<br />

predators, but both types <strong>of</strong> mortality are relatively unimportant. Feeding larvae are<br />

attacked by various vertebrate and invertebrate predators, larvae may be dislodged by<br />

storms, and starvation may cause mortality during severe outbreaks. Some disease<br />

organisms, including fungi, bacteria, microsporidia, and rickettsiae attack feeding larvae,<br />

but their effects are usually negligible. The only "native" parasitoid <strong>of</strong> any consequence in<br />

these studies was the tachinid Bessa harveyi (Tns.), which attacks late-instar larvae.<br />

However, the rates <strong>of</strong> attack were not related to population trends. Long-term sampling<br />

<strong>of</strong> parasitoids <strong>of</strong> larch sawfly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan by the Forest Insect and<br />

Disease Survey also failed to show any relationship between parasitism and population<br />

trends (Ives personal communication). Although parasitism was quite high, it was identical<br />

(44 %) for both increasing and decreasing larch sawfly populations. Elsewhere in <strong>Canada</strong>,<br />

Eclytus ornatus Hlmgr. (which may be a recent introduction from Europe) is a larval<br />

parasitoid <strong>of</strong> some importance in Newfoundland, and the pteromalid Trilneplis klugii<br />

(Ratz.) is occasionally an important cocoon parasitoid in drier sites in British Columbia<br />

(Turnock & Muldrew 1971a). Fully fed larvae dropping to spin cocoons are susceptible to<br />

predation and heat prostration, and some may drown in pools <strong>of</strong> surface water. Survival<br />

in the cocoon phase is affected by a number <strong>of</strong> factors. Those <strong>of</strong> minor importance include<br />

invertebrate predation and fungal diseases. The principal sources <strong>of</strong> mortality in this<br />

phase, apart from introduced parasitoids discussed later, are high water tables and


372 W. G. H. Ives and J. A. Muldrew<br />

predation by small mammals. The combined effects <strong>of</strong> these were key factors in determining<br />

population trends (Ives 1976).<br />

These factors clearly demonstrated the paucity <strong>of</strong> regulating factors in Canadian larch<br />

sawfly populations. Hewitt (191O) had been studying the larch sawfly in England before<br />

his appointment as Dominion Entomologist. He had found the ichneumonid Mesoleills<br />

tenthredinis Morl. to be an effective parasitoid <strong>of</strong> the larch sawfly and, as it was absent<br />

from <strong>Canada</strong>, he made arrangements for its importation and release between 1910 and<br />

1913. The releases in Manitoba were successful and parasitism by M. tenthredinis<br />

gradually increased to nearly 90% by 1927 (Graham 1931) and seemed to be a factor in<br />

terminating the outbreak. However, when the larch sawfly again reached outbreak<br />

proportions, about 1940, it was noted that M. tenthredinis was no longer an effective<br />

parasitoid due to encapsulation <strong>of</strong> the eggs by host blood cells which prevented hatching<br />

(Muldrew 1953). This encapsulation reaction gradually spread across continental North<br />

America, and at present only larch sawfly populations in Newfoundland and cordilleran<br />

British Columbia remain highly susceptible to M. tenthredinis (Bronskill 1960. Carroll<br />

1964). The lack <strong>of</strong> quarantine precautions at the time <strong>of</strong> the initial release was probably<br />

the cause <strong>of</strong> this change in susceptibility. Instead <strong>of</strong> releasing adult parasitoids. the<br />

release in Manitoba was made by placing host cocoons in a bog near Aweme to let the<br />

parasitoids emerge naturally (Hewitt 1917). Because not all the cocoons were parasitized.<br />

sawfly adults were released as well. This seemed harmless enough, as an outbreak was<br />

in progress at the time. However, subsequent research (Maw 1960) indicated that some<br />

<strong>of</strong> these adults probably possessed the encapsulation ability. Their progeny gradually<br />

spread across <strong>Canada</strong>, and have now become the predominant strain in most areas<br />

(Wong 1974).<br />

The decrease in effectiveness <strong>of</strong> M. tenthredinis prompted a renewed interest in<br />

biological control. Redistribution <strong>of</strong> B. harveyi and T. killgii was undertaken (Turnock<br />

& Muldrew 1971a) but the results were disappointing. A decision was therefore made in<br />

1957 to renew the search for suitable candidates in Europe and Japan. A number <strong>of</strong><br />

species were considered, but only two releases were successful; a Bavarian strain <strong>of</strong> M.<br />

tenthredinis and another ichneumonid, Olesicampe benefactor Hinz. In addition, the<br />

masked shrew, Sora cinereus cinereus Kerr, was successfully introduced into Newfoundland<br />

from New Brunswick.<br />

During the collection <strong>of</strong> possible parasitoids in Europe, a number <strong>of</strong> M. tenthredinis<br />

were obtained. Laboratory experiments showed that those from Bavaria were only<br />

slightly encapsulated by their hosts, as were the progeny <strong>of</strong> back-crosses <strong>of</strong> this strain<br />

with M. tenthredinis originating from the earlier introductions. Two releases were made<br />

in Manitoba in 1963 near Hodgson and in 1964 near Rennie (Turnock & Muldrew 1971a).<br />

Increases in parasitism (the two "races" are morphologically indistinguishable) clearly<br />

indicated that the Rennie release was successful. M. tenthredinis from the early release<br />

were more abundant in the Hodgson area and trends following the 1963 release <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Bavarian M. tenthredinis were inconclusive.<br />

A number <strong>of</strong> successful releases <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor were made between 1961 and 1968<br />

(Turnock & Muldrew 1971a). Parasitoids collected in Europe were released in Manitoba<br />

near Pine Falls in 1961 and near Riverton in 1%2 and 1963, and in Saskatchewan near<br />

Crutwell in 1964. Relocations <strong>of</strong> parasitoids collected near Riverton and Pine Falls were<br />

made as follows: Manitoba in 1967 and 1968; Saskat('hewan in 1965; and the maritimes<br />

in 1967 and 1968.<br />

A hyperparasitoid, Mesochorus dimidiatus Hlmgr., has been responsible for limiting<br />

the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor in Europe, and extreme care was exercised in the<br />

initial releases to ensure that none <strong>of</strong> the hyperparasitoids were inadvertently released.<br />

However, M. dimidiatus was recovered from the Pine Falls release area in 1966.<br />

Apparently M. dimidiatus was a rare but widely distributed holarctic species in <strong>Canada</strong><br />

before the release <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor. and has now been recorded in most areas where this


Releases and Recoveries<br />

Olesicampe benefactor<br />

Hinz.<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonidae)<br />

Pri.slip/lOra erichsonii (Hartig), 373<br />

parasitoid has been released. Rates <strong>of</strong> hyperparasitism by M. dimidiatus usually increase<br />

rapidly and there is reason to be concerned about the future effectiveness <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor.<br />

The masked shrew, S. cinereus cinereus, was successfully introduced into Newfoundland<br />

in 1958, when 12 females and 10 males were released near St. George's. Most <strong>of</strong> the<br />

individuals in the initial release survived the first winter and their progeny have prospered<br />

and spread and now probably occupy most <strong>of</strong> the suitable habitats throughout the island.<br />

Biological control studies <strong>of</strong> the larch sawfly during the period 1969 to 1980 have<br />

consisted <strong>of</strong> the redistribution <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor and Mesoleius tenthredinis, plus follow-up<br />

studies <strong>of</strong> these parasitoids and <strong>of</strong> the masked shrew in Newfoundland.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the redistributions <strong>of</strong> parasitoids involved O. benefactor (Table 95). The<br />

population increase and dispersal <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor are discussed in detail by Muldrew<br />

(in press). He has incorporated additional data that were not analysed by Turnock &<br />

Muldrew (1971a), so that his values for maximum dispersal in 1966 and 1967 are greater.<br />

He reports that the rate <strong>of</strong> dispersal was about 1 km after 4 years, 3 km after 5 years, and<br />

5 km after 6 years. Follow-up sampling until 1974 showed that the rate <strong>of</strong> dispersal<br />

increased dramatically between 1969 and 1971 (Fig. 19). In 1969. the maximum recorded<br />

distance was 87 km (at the Rennie life-table plot). Sampling in 1970 was inadequate for<br />

assessing dispersal but O. benefactor was recovered in northern Minnesota 293 km<br />

south <strong>of</strong> the release point (Kulman et al. 1974, Thompson & Kulman 1976). Extensive<br />

sampling by Muldrew in 1971 detected O. benefactor at Ignace, Ontario, 357 km from<br />

the release point. The maximum detected dispersal distance by 1972 was 476 km.<br />

However, larch sawfly populations began declining throughout the area in 1972, while<br />

hyperparasitism by Mesochorus dimidiatus increased. Apparently these factors influence<br />

the rate <strong>of</strong> spread, as the maximum recorded distance increased by only 64 km, to 540 km,<br />

by 1974.<br />

The dotted lines in Fig. 19 show the approximate maximum rates <strong>of</strong> parasitism at<br />

different distances from the release point. Until 1969 , the points are clustered around the<br />

lines, but the scatter increases for 1971, 1972, and 1974. Part <strong>of</strong> this increased variability<br />

was attributable to the relatively slow spread <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor into southern Manitoba.<br />

Muldrew (in press) surmised that the direction <strong>of</strong> the prevailing winds and abundance <strong>of</strong><br />

tamarack may have been the main reasons for the slow dispersal into this area. However<br />

by 1974 the rates <strong>of</strong> parasitism in southern Manitoba had increased considerably, and<br />

there was already some indication <strong>of</strong> a relative decline in rates <strong>of</strong> parasitism elsewhere,<br />

possibly due to hyperparasitism by M. dimidiatus. Although not shown in Fig. 19 the<br />

rates <strong>of</strong> M. dimidiatus parasitism increased dramatically from 1969 to 1974. In 1969,<br />

about 80% <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor near the release point were parasitized by M. dimidiatus. In<br />

1971, high rates <strong>of</strong> hyperparasitization had extended to nearly 200 km from the release<br />

point. By 1972, the high levels <strong>of</strong> M. dimidiatus attack had extended to over 300 km.<br />

Muldrew (personal communication) indicatedM. dimidiatus probably transferred to O.<br />

benefactor at a number <strong>of</strong> locations. The apparently rapid rate <strong>of</strong> dispersal between 1969<br />

and 1971, and the variable levels <strong>of</strong> hyperparasitism from 1971 to 1974 both agree with<br />

this hypothesis. There was little additional increase <strong>of</strong> M. dimidiatus parasitism in 1974,<br />

but the apparent decrease in O. benefactor parasitism is probably attributable to the<br />

hyperparasitoid.<br />

Information on increases in parasitism and dispersal from other release points is<br />

rather limited. A release <strong>of</strong> 694 males and 737 females was made near The Pas, Manitoba


374 W. G. H. (ves and J. A. Muldrew<br />

Table 95<br />

Species and province<br />

Redistribution releases and recoveries <strong>of</strong> Olesicampe benefactor Hinz and Mesoleius<br />

tenthredinis Morl. against Pristiphora erichsonii (Htg.)<br />

Location <strong>of</strong> release Numbers released<br />

Year <strong>of</strong><br />

Year Origin Lat. long. Males Females Total recovery<br />

"N OW<br />

Olt!sicampt! btlU!factor Hinz<br />

Prince Edward Island 1971 Nova Scotia 46001' 62°44' 157 117 274 1974<br />

1972 Nova Scotia 46"29' 63°58' 198 189 387<br />

Nova Scotia 1973 Nova Scotia 45°14' 62"49' 393 457 8SO<br />

1975 Nova Scotia 45°43' 63"09' 63 1976<br />

1975 Nova Scotia 45°16' 63°18' 20 1976<br />

1976 Nova Scotia 45"21' 61°54' 45 1977<br />

1976 Nova Scotia 45°19' 62°15' 69 1977<br />

Ontario 1976 Minnesota 79"18' 44004' 182 213 395 1977<br />

1978 Manitoba 75°11' 45°12' 30 32 62<br />

Manitoba 1969 Manitoba 49"48' 97"08' 60 53 113 1974<br />

1970 Man. and Sask. 49"19' 96000' 421 443 864 1970<br />

1971 Manitoba 50003' 96°13' 245 262 S07 Already present<br />

1972 Manitoba 49"19' 96000' 75 74 149<br />

Alberta 1972 Manitoba 54°43' 110004' 1283"<br />

1972 Manitoba 54"27' 113°58' 1139" 1973<br />

1972 Manitoba 55001' 119"06' 469- 1973<br />

1973 Alberta 54·30' 112°57' 118 122 240 1974<br />

1975 Manitoba 53"32' 117'04' 51 86 137 1975<br />

1981 Alberta 59"55' 111°43' 36<br />

Northwest Territories 1m Manitoba 60")6' 116006' 856-<br />

1981 Alberta 60"01' 112"07' 332 1981<br />

1981 Alberta 60"01' 110058' 30<br />

British Columbia 1980 Alberta 49"42' 114·55' 170<br />

1980 Alberta 49"29' 115004' 145<br />

1980 Alberta 49"38' 114·56' 150<br />

Mtsoltius Itnlhrt!dinis Morley<br />

Manitoba 1970 Man. and Sask. 4919' 96000' 63 85 148<br />

1971 Manitoba 49"19' 96000' 98 170 268<br />

1m Manitoba 49"19' 96000' 9 42 51<br />

• Estimates only - "small" cocoons were placed in the field, adult parasitoid emergence holes were counted<br />

and proportions <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor and Mesochorus'dimidiatus were based on reared samples.<br />

Meso/eius tenthred;n;s<br />

Morley<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonldae)<br />

in 1968. O. benefactor had dispersed 18 km by 1973 and 57 km by 1975,7 years after the<br />

release. Another release, consisting <strong>of</strong> 51 males and 86 females, was made near Obed<br />

Lake, Alberta, in 1975. O. benefactor parasitism near the release area reached 88% by<br />

1979 and 93 % by 1980. Seventeen per cent <strong>of</strong> the larch sawfly larvae in a bog 15 km east <strong>of</strong><br />

the release site were parasitized by O. benefactor in 1980. None had been found in this bog<br />

in 1979.<br />

Dispersal from The Pas and Obed Lake releases, 18 km and 15 km in 5 years, is<br />

considerably greater than the 3 km in 5 years recorded for the initial release at Pine Falls.<br />

This may simply be due to a different set <strong>of</strong> environmental conditions, but it could<br />

indicate that O. benefactor has become better adapted to the Canadian environment.<br />

Redistributions are shown in Table 95.


376 W. G. H. Ives and J. A. Muldrew<br />

Sorex cinereus<br />

cinereus Kerr<br />

(lnsedivora: Sorlddae)<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

The masked shrew, introduced into Newfoundland in 1958, has continued to spread.<br />

Survey reports for 1969 and 1970 (Anon. 1970-79) mentioned the concern <strong>of</strong> local<br />

residents as high initial numbers were noted in each area: by 1971 the shrew had spread<br />

over 95% <strong>of</strong> the island. Populations on the island, excluding the first 2 or 3 years' data,<br />

averaged about eight shrews per hectare, which seems to be unusually high. However,<br />

the 18-year average populations <strong>of</strong> the masked shrew in the Rennie life-table plot (Ives<br />

1981) was 5.2/ha. If one includes populations <strong>of</strong> the closely related arctic shrew, Sora<br />

arcticus Kerr, which averaged 1.8/ha, the total <strong>of</strong> 7.01ba is comparable. Populations <strong>of</strong><br />

the masked shrew in Newfoundland therefore seem to have stabilized, and can be<br />

expected to fluctuate in the future in response to environmental conditions.<br />

O. benefactor and larch sawfly populations have probably not yet reached an equilibrium,<br />

even at the original release point near Pine Falls. As shown in Fig. 19, the level <strong>of</strong> O.<br />

benefactor parasitism at or near the release point reached 90% in 1967. It remained at or<br />

near this level until 1972, but larch.sawfly populations collapsed in 1973, presumably as a<br />

result <strong>of</strong> the continued high rates <strong>of</strong> parasitism (rves 1976). No larvae or cocoons were<br />

obtained near the plot in 1973 or 1974, although intensive sampling was conducted<br />

(Muldrew in press). Detailed studies were discontinued after 1974, and further trends<br />

are based on limited sampling. In 1977, a collection <strong>of</strong> 72 fourth- and fifth-instar larvae<br />

was made near the original release site at Pine Falls. None was parasitized by O.<br />

benefactor. In 1978, collections <strong>of</strong> larvae from the same area yielded 1730 cocoons.<br />

Parasitism by O. benefactor was 1.5%, hyperparasitism by Mesochorus dimidiatus was<br />

86%. A total <strong>of</strong> 237 third- to fifth-instar larvae collected 8 km north <strong>of</strong> the release point in<br />

1978 contained no O. benefactor, but 19% <strong>of</strong> 424 fourth- and fifth-instar larvae from an<br />

area 8 km south <strong>of</strong> the release point were parasitized. NinetY7three per cent <strong>of</strong> these O.<br />

benefactor larvae were parasitized by M. dimidiatus. In 1980, a total <strong>of</strong> 535 cocoons<br />

was obtained from the same location; 15% <strong>of</strong> these contained O. benefactor, <strong>of</strong> which<br />

75% were parasitized by M. dimidiatus. No O. benefactor were present in 150 cocoons<br />

obtained by rearing late-instar larvae collected in 1980 near the Seddon's Comer lifetable<br />

plot, about 70 km south <strong>of</strong> the Pine Falls release point.<br />

Although the above data are rather fragmented, there is some evidence that O.<br />

benefactor is in danger <strong>of</strong> local extinction over a fairly wide area. Should this happen, it<br />

is possible that the larch sawfly may increase in abundance if environmental conditions<br />

are favourable. No population sampling <strong>of</strong> the larch sawfly was done in the Pine Falls<br />

release area in 1980, but observations by Ives indicated that this population increase<br />

may already be taking place. It remains to be seen whether or not O. benefactor will be<br />

able to prevent an outbreak in spite <strong>of</strong> the adverse influence <strong>of</strong> M. dimidiatus. O.<br />

benefactor is host specific, but M. dimidiatus is not (Pschorn-Walcher & Zinnert 1971).<br />

Because <strong>of</strong> this, one would expect M. dimidiatus to be able to persist on alternate hosts,<br />

thus obtaining a "head start" on any re-invading O. benefactor. Under these circumstances,<br />

M. dimidiatus would probably be able to control O. benefactor, thus permitting larch<br />

sawfly populations to reach outbreak proportions. However, a crude model developed<br />

by Ives (1976) indicated that the two parasitoids should reach an equilibrium with each<br />

other and with the larch sawfly. According to the model, the larch sawfly populations<br />

would fluctuate in response to density-independent environmental factors, but should not<br />

reach outbreak proportions in the presence <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor, even when M. dimidiatus is<br />

present. It is too early to tell which hypothesis is correct.<br />

The impact <strong>of</strong> the masked shrew on larch sawfly populations in Newfoundland has not<br />

been assessed in detail (Warren 1971). The fact that larch sawfly infestations reached


i'risliphora erichsonii (Hartig). 377<br />

outbreak proportions late in the decade 1971-1980 clearly indicates that the shrews<br />

were not able to control the insect. However, as Warren (1971) indicated, "the shrew has<br />

been a valuable predator <strong>of</strong> larch sawfly, and, despite some evidence <strong>of</strong> reduced<br />

parasitism, there has been an important net gain in cocoons destroyed". Ives (1976)<br />

showed that mortality during the cocoon and adult stages was largely responsible for<br />

determining population trends. Small mammal predation is <strong>of</strong>ten a major component <strong>of</strong><br />

this mortality, thus agreeing with Warren's assessment <strong>of</strong> the effect <strong>of</strong> the masked shrew<br />

in Newfoundland.<br />

Although there is some indication that larch sawfly popUlations in and around the Pine<br />

Falls release site may now be on the increase, there has been a period <strong>of</strong> several years<br />

when this insect was extremely difficult to find. It was probably not as rare as in Europe,<br />

but it was much less common than it has been in recent memory. Two recent papers<br />

illustrate just how rare the larch sawfly can be in alpine areas <strong>of</strong> Europe. Lovis (1975)<br />

collected only six larch sawfly (out <strong>of</strong> a total <strong>of</strong> 2816 larch insects) during a 3-year study<br />

<strong>of</strong> insects attacking native European larch in Switzerland. Auer (1971) studied the<br />

population dynamics <strong>of</strong> the larch bud moth, Zeiraphera diniana Gn., in the Upper<br />

Engadine Valley in Switzerland between 1949 and 1968. He presented population curves<br />

for eight larch insects for the period 1952 to 1968. The larch sawfly was apparently too<br />

rare to be included.<br />

The infestation patterns <strong>of</strong> the larch sawfly have been discussed by Turnock (1972).<br />

He did not consider the effects <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor, but with slight changes his discussion is<br />

still valid. He recognized three types <strong>of</strong> life systems: I) the stable latent type with a<br />

diverse environment and a rich parasitoid complex, characteristic <strong>of</strong> infestations on larch<br />

in alpine Europe; 2) the stable permanent type with a paucity <strong>of</strong> specific parasitoids,<br />

characteristic <strong>of</strong> many North American outbreaks before 1920; and 3) the temporary type<br />

with an intermediate parasitoid complex which includes one (or two) very effective larval<br />

parasitoid(s). characteristic <strong>of</strong> European plantings. infestations on western larch in<br />

British Columbia and on tamarack in the rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong> following the first successful<br />

introduction <strong>of</strong> an ichneumonid parasitoid between 1910 and 1913 (and in southeastern<br />

Manitoba following the successful introduction <strong>of</strong> O. benefaclor there in 1961). As this<br />

discussion <strong>of</strong> life systems illustrates, entomologists have been able to achieve at least<br />

partial biological control <strong>of</strong>the larch sawfly in North America. To continue this control, it<br />

may be necessary to seek ways in which biotic agents in the environment can be manipulated.<br />

Turnock & Muldrew (1971b) and Turnock et al. (1976) recognized four ways in<br />

which insect parasites or predators might be manipulated in order to help achieve<br />

biological control: 1) colonization releases; 2) inoculative releases; 3) inundative releases;<br />

and 4) enhancement <strong>of</strong> biotic agents by environmental manipulation. In the case <strong>of</strong> the<br />

larch sawfly, the last three approaches <strong>of</strong>fer the most promise. Because <strong>of</strong> the presence<br />

<strong>of</strong> M. dimidiatus, any releases <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor would need to be relatively large if they<br />

were to be effective. Releases intermediate in size between inoculative and inundative.<br />

say 2 000-3000 mated females, should be able to control infestations in plantations in 2<br />

or 3 years, if released when defoliation first becomes noticeable. However, this approach<br />

would necessitate a permanent facility capable <strong>of</strong> producing parasitoids on demand.<br />

Reliance on field populations would be too uncertain, especially as M. dimidiatus will<br />

almost certainly reduce the numbers <strong>of</strong> O. benefactor adults obtainable. The Bavarian<br />

strain <strong>of</strong> Mesoleius tenthredinis could probably be managed in a similar manner. Both<br />

species might even be able to sustain themselves in the field, and thus afford more or less<br />

permanent protection. In Manitoba O. benefactor appeared to suppress M. tenthredinis<br />

by sheer numbers. but this seems unlikely to happen again.<br />

Enhancement <strong>of</strong> environmental conditions might be a particularly effective method<br />

for increasing the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> avian and small mammalian predators in plantations.<br />

Buckner (1971) discussed this situation as it related to forest insects in general. Birds<br />

might be encouraged to nest in plantations by providing suitable nesting sites. Bruns


378 W. G. HIves and J. A. Muldrew<br />

Recommendations<br />

(1960) reported that this approach appeared to be effective in controlling pine insects in<br />

Germany. In the case <strong>of</strong> small mammals, research would have to be conducted to ensure<br />

that voles do not attack larches. Neither <strong>of</strong> us has observed evidence <strong>of</strong> this, but some<br />

tree species are severely damaged by voles. If high vole populations are not a threat to<br />

the trees it should be possible to enhance the environment by providing adequate cover,<br />

either in the form <strong>of</strong> slash or between-row vegetation, as several workers have shown<br />

that mouse and shrew populations are highest in areas with adequate cover (Morris<br />

1955, Beer 1961, Coulianos & Johnels 1962). Any such manipulation would have to be<br />

done carefully, to avoid creating an environment favouring snowshoe hares. However,<br />

it should be possible to improve the environment <strong>of</strong> the plantations as habitats for voles<br />

and shrews but not hares. This would increase the amount <strong>of</strong>small mammal predation,<br />

which should reduce the frequency <strong>of</strong> larch sawfly outbreaks.<br />

In low-lying situations it may be possible to flood the plantations at critical times in the<br />

larch sawfly's life cycle, as suggested by Buckner (1971). Hooding the plantations for<br />

short periods in the fall, soon after cocoon formation, or in the spring when the insects<br />

are in the pupal stage would have a marked effect on larch sawfly survival (Lejeune et 01.<br />

1955) but would not seriously damage the tamarack trees if carefully timed. It would also<br />

adversely affect small mammal populations, but this could be minimized by careful<br />

timing. If flooding could be done just before parasitoids are released, it might<br />

increase their effectiveness considerably, as the initial rate <strong>of</strong> parasitism would be<br />

higher.<br />

Finally, should serious infestations develop that may endanger the trees in plantations,<br />

it may still be possible to control the larch sawfly without unduly affecting the other<br />

biotic agents. In the case <strong>of</strong> M. tenthredinis, spraying with a larval insecticide (preferably<br />

one that does not kill adult Hymenoptera) when most <strong>of</strong>the larch sawfly larvae are in the<br />

first to third instars would reduce the sawfly populations but should not have an undue<br />

adverse effect on the parasitoids, as they attack mainly fourth- and fifth-instar larvae.<br />

Because <strong>of</strong> the prolonged period <strong>of</strong> larch sawfly emergence it would not be feasible to kill<br />

all the larvae, but it should be possible to reduce populations appreciably and thus<br />

enhance the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> M. tenthredinis. The use <strong>of</strong> chemicals in the presence <strong>of</strong> O.<br />

benefactor would be more difficult. Probably the most productive approach would be to<br />

reduce sawfly populations only to the extent that defoliation would not exceed 70%. This<br />

would save the trees, but should not have an unduly adverse effect on the parasitoids.<br />

The Bavarian strain <strong>of</strong> M. tenthredinis was released near Rennie, Hodgson, and St.<br />

Labre. It is known to have become established at Rennie, but how far it spread before<br />

being overwhelmed by O. benefactor is not known. The extremely low density <strong>of</strong> larch<br />

sawfly in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the Rennie plot for several years after its establishment may<br />

mean that its numbers were markedly reduced, if not eliminated. No follow-up studies<br />

were conducted in the St. Labre area, so it is not known if the Bavarian strain (from the<br />

Rennie plot) became established or not.<br />

It is therefore recommended that the Bavarian strain <strong>of</strong> M. tenthredinis be released in<br />

the Pine Falls area as soon as larch sawfly populations in the Bavarian plantations are<br />

high enough to make collection feasible. The results <strong>of</strong> the release at the Rennie plot<br />

looked extremely encouraging and a second attempt to establish this strain seems<br />

warranted. In Europe, M. tenthredinis is the most important insect parasite <strong>of</strong> the larch<br />

sawfly (Pschom-Walcher & Zinnert 1971) and there seems to be a reasonable chance <strong>of</strong><br />

the Bavarian strain assuming this position in <strong>Canada</strong>, now that Mesochorus dimidiatus<br />

seems destined to limit the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> Q. benefactor.<br />

O. benefactor has been widely redistributed in various parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>, from the<br />

maritimes to British Columbia. There does not seem to be much point in continuing with


380 W. G. H. Ives and J. A. Muldrew<br />

Maw, M.G. (1960) Notes on the larch sawfly, Pristiphora erichsonii (Htg.) (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), in Great Britain. Entomologist's<br />

Gazette 11,43-49.<br />

McGugan, B.M.; Coppel. H.C. (1962) Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insects - 1910-1958. In: A review <strong>of</strong> the biological control allempts<br />

against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Communication<br />

2,35-127.<br />

Morris, R.F, (1955) Population studies on some small forest mammals in eastern <strong>Canada</strong>. Journal <strong>of</strong> Mammalogy 36,21-35.<br />

Muldrew, J.A. (1953) The natural immunity <strong>of</strong> the larch sawRy (Pristiphora erichsonii (Htg.» to the introduced parasite Mesoleius<br />

tenthredinis Morley, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Zoology 31,313-332.<br />

Muldrew, J.A. (In press) Dispersal <strong>of</strong> Olesicampe benefactor Hinz, an introduced parasite <strong>of</strong> the larch sawfly. Canadian Forestry Service.<br />

Northern Forest Research Centre. Edmonton. Infonnation Report.<br />

Nairn. L.D.; Reeks. W.A.; Webb. F.E.; Hildahl, V. (1962) History <strong>of</strong> larch sawfly outbreaks and their effects on tamarack stands in<br />

Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Canadwn Entomologist 94.242-255.<br />

Pschom-Walcher, H.; Zinnen. K.D. (1971) Investigations on the ecology and natural control <strong>of</strong> the larch sawRy (Pristiphora erichsonii Htg.,<br />

Hym.: Tenthredinidae) in central Europe. Pan II: Natural enemies: their biology and ecology, and their<br />

role as monality factors in P. erichsonii. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical<br />

Bulletin 14,1-50.<br />

Thompson, L.C.; Kulman, H.M. (1976) Parasite complex <strong>of</strong> the larch sawRy in Minnesota. Environmental Entomology 5.1121-1127.<br />

Tumock, W.J. (1972) Geographical and historical variability in population pallems and life systems <strong>of</strong> the larch sawRy (Hymenoptera:<br />

Tenthredinidae). Canadian Entomologist 104,1883-1900.<br />

Turnock, W.J.; Muldrew, J.A. (1971a) Pristiphora erichsonii (Hanig), larch sawfly (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae). In: Biological control<br />

programmes against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>, 1959-1968. Commonweahh Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological<br />

Control Technical Communication 4,175-194.<br />

Tumock, W.J.; Muldrew, J.A. (1971b) Parasites. In: Toward integrated control. US Depanment <strong>of</strong> Agriculture Forest Service Research<br />

Paper NE-I94. Nonheastem Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. pp. 59-87.<br />

Tumock, W.J.; Muldrew, J. A. (1973) Characteristics <strong>of</strong> Bessa harveyi (Diptera: Tachinidae) suggesting the historic introduction <strong>of</strong> the larch<br />

sawfly to Nonh America. Manitoba Entomologist 6,49-53.<br />

Tumock, W.J.; Taylor, K.L.; Schroder, D.; Dahlsten, D.L. (1976) Biological control <strong>of</strong> pests <strong>of</strong> coniferous forests. In: Huffaker, C.B.;<br />

Messenger, P.S. (Eels.). Theory and practice <strong>of</strong> biological control. New York; Academic Press, pp.<br />

289-311.<br />

Warren, G.L. (19ul) Introduction <strong>of</strong> the masked shrew to imrrove control <strong>of</strong> forest insects in Newfoundland. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Tall Timbers<br />

Conference on Ecologica Animal Control by Habitat Management 2,185-202.<br />

Wong, H.R. (1974) The identification and origin <strong>of</strong> the strains <strong>of</strong> the larch sawRY' Pristiphora erichsonii (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), in<br />

North America. Canadian Entomologist HI6.1121-1131.


Pest Status<br />

Background<br />

Chapter 65<br />

Pristiphora geniculata (Htg. ), Mountain­<br />

Ash Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae)<br />

F.W. QUEDNAU<br />

The mountain-ash sawfly, Pristiphora geniculata (Hartig), is a major defoliator <strong>of</strong><br />

mountain-ash, mainly Sorbus americana Marsh, and S. aucuparia L. These tree species<br />

have little industrial importance but are planted widely as shade and ornamental trees.<br />

The mountain-ash sawfly was accidentally introduced into the United States in 1926<br />

(Schaffner 1936) and was first recorded in <strong>Canada</strong> in southern Quebec in 1934 (Petch<br />

1935). Its present Canadian range is from Newfoundland to southwestern Ontario (Fig.<br />

20). There has never been a serious outbreak. The sawfly causes noticeable and occasionaJly<br />

complete defoliation <strong>of</strong> mountain-ash, but this seldom causes mortality <strong>of</strong> the<br />

tree. To owners <strong>of</strong> such trees and to municipal park authorities, the insect is a considerable<br />

nuisance and <strong>of</strong>ten requires localized control by chemical methods. An account <strong>of</strong> the<br />

biology <strong>of</strong> mountain-ash sawfly in eastern <strong>Canada</strong> was given by Forbes & Daviault<br />

(1964). P. geniculata usually has one generation a year, but there may be a partial second<br />

generation depending on the climate.<br />

The decision to embark on a biological control programme in Quebec against P. geniculata<br />

was determined by the policy to reduce chemical control in urban forestry and by the<br />

success <strong>of</strong> biological control in Manitoba against the closely related larch sawfly, P.<br />

erichsonii (Htg.), on tamarack, Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch (Muldrew 1967, 1973).<br />

Data furnished by the CIBC European Station suggested that the ichneumonid wasp<br />

Olesicampe geniculatae Quednau & Lim, would be a primary candidate for introduction<br />

into <strong>Canada</strong>. Another parasitoid species under consideration was the ichneumonid wasp<br />

Rhorus sp. No.3.<br />

During the first years <strong>of</strong> attempts to colonize these parasitoid species in Quebec,<br />

infestation levels <strong>of</strong> mountain-ash sawfly were very low. Furthermore, in 1972 O. geniculatae<br />

was not found in sufficient numbers in Europe to warrant a shipment to <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />

However, in 1973, heavy infestations <strong>of</strong> P. geniculata occurred in several localities near<br />

Quebec City. Because <strong>of</strong> the scarcity in Europe <strong>of</strong> P. geniculata, laboratory massrearings<br />

<strong>of</strong> the sawfly were carried out in Quebec in order to obtain host material that<br />

could be sent to Europe to increase the host populations there. The rearing techniques<br />

were essentially the same as those described for the larch sawfly by Heron & Drouin<br />

(1969). In 1974 the Laurentian Forest Research Centre sent 6 000 cocoons <strong>of</strong> Canadian P.<br />

geniculata to CIBC in Switzerland and another 30 000 cocoons in 1976. This insect<br />

material was reared to the adult stage in Europe and the sawfly females were placed in<br />

plastic bags tied over branches <strong>of</strong> mountain-ash trees in the Waldviertel area in Austria,<br />

where O. geniculatae and other parasitoid species <strong>of</strong> the mountain-ash sawfly were known'<br />

to occur in significant numbers during the previous years. As a result, in 1977 large<br />

numbers <strong>of</strong> O. geniculatae and Rhorus sp. No.3 were received in Quebec.<br />

381


Releases and Recoveries<br />

Rhorus sp. No.3<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

[chneumonidae)<br />

Table 96<br />

0IeSaHnpe genJculBtae<br />

Quednau & Lim<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

[chneumonidae)<br />

The utilization <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid material is summarized in Table 96.<br />

Pristiphora geniclllata (Htg.), 383<br />

Parasitoids utilized for releases against mountain-ash sawfly, Pristiphora geniculoJa (Htg.),<br />

at Beaumont, Quebec (Iat. 46°50'N, long. 71002'W)<br />

Species Year Origin<br />

Rhorus sp. No.3 1973 Austria<br />

1974 Switzerland<br />

and Austria<br />

1975 Austria<br />

1976 Austria<br />

1977 Austria<br />

Olesicampe geniclliatae 1974 Switzerland<br />

and Austria<br />

1975 Austria<br />

1976 Austria<br />

1977 Austria<br />

No. and sex <strong>of</strong><br />

parasitoids received<br />

Male Female<br />

5<br />

29<br />

12<br />

67<br />

35<br />

22<br />

5<br />

32<br />

16<br />

83<br />

35<br />

16<br />

2 3<br />

92 117<br />

315 551<br />

This is a solitary endoparasitoid, probably specific to P. geniculata. The egg is laid<br />

through the ocellus into the head capsule <strong>of</strong> the host larva. This wasp is closely related to<br />

R. iapponicus Roman, a parasitoid <strong>of</strong> the larch sawfly, the biology <strong>of</strong> which was<br />

described by Pschorn-Walcher & Zinnert (1971). Rhorus sp. No.3 was received in<br />

Quebec from 1973 to 1977. Cage releases were made at Beaumont nurseries. A male was<br />

recovered in the field in 1978, but the parasitoid apparently did not become permanently<br />

established. It is difficult to mate this insect in captivity.<br />

This is also an internal solitary parasitoid that prefers the first- and second-instar larvae<br />

<strong>of</strong> the mountain-ash sawfly for attack. It is specific to this host. In the early colonization<br />

work in Quebec only small numbers <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid were available and shipments from<br />

Europe were <strong>of</strong>ten not well synchronized with host populations in Quebec. No recoveries<br />

were obtained from these first releases. Major implantations <strong>of</strong> this parasitoid were<br />

made in 1977 at Beaumont nurseries. The female parasitoids were mated in the laboratory<br />

and released in batches in large tents <strong>of</strong> woven plastic screening built over mountain-ash<br />

trees, in which host densities were artificially increased by adding young colonies <strong>of</strong> P.<br />

genicuiata larvae collected from other areas. Small bottles <strong>of</strong> water were fastened to the<br />

branches <strong>of</strong> the trees in the tents. The host material was exchanged and new parasitoids<br />

added each day. The parasitized P. geniclliata larvae were brought to the laboratory,<br />

given plenty <strong>of</strong> mountain-ash foliage that was kept fresh in water bottles, and reared to<br />

about fourth instar. This method excluded natural predators. The sawfly larvae were<br />

then returned to the field and placed in wire baskets (100 per basket) containing some<br />

foliage. The baskets were tied to the branches <strong>of</strong> mountain-ash trees in the area chosen<br />

for implantation. Parasitized larvae eventually fell to the ground and formed cocoons.<br />

Successful establishment <strong>of</strong> this parasitoid depends on massive initial implantations<br />

to give the parasitoid a good chance to multiply in the field. A female O. genicu/atae can<br />

lay up to 400 eggs and live up to 3 weeks in the laboratory at 22°C and 75% relative


384 F. W. Quednau<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

humidity (F.W. Quednau unpublished). The biology <strong>of</strong> this species is essentially the<br />

same as that reported for o. benefactor Hinz by Pschorn-Walcher & Zinnert (1971).<br />

O. geniculatae may have a partial second generation each year in the field.<br />

Whereas the colonization <strong>of</strong> Rhorus sp. No.3 was unsuccessful, O. geniculatae became<br />

firmly established at Beaumont nurseries, and within 4 years parasitized a large proportion <strong>of</strong><br />

hosts. A brief history <strong>of</strong> this event follows.<br />

At the beginning <strong>of</strong> massive implantations in 1m, population densities <strong>of</strong> P. geniculata<br />

were medium to heavy, and 1 year later were light to medium. In the fall <strong>of</strong> 1978 it was<br />

found from dissections <strong>of</strong> sawfly cocoons that the percentage <strong>of</strong> parasitism at the release<br />

centre had dropped to 25-30%, compared to 60-75% in 1977, as a result <strong>of</strong>the dilution<br />

<strong>of</strong> the parasitoid population in the area. It was estimated that within 1 year O. geniculatae<br />

spread about 500 m from the original release centre. In 1979 infestations by the mountainash<br />

sawfly were only light at Beaumont. Of30soil samples <strong>of</strong> 0.1 m l each, taken near the<br />

original release point <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid, only 10 contained living cocoons (range 1-5) and<br />

parasitism was about 73%, much higher than in 1978. Other sampling plots about 500 m<br />

from the release point yielded 30-35% parasitism in 1979. In 1980, in the same locality,<br />

dissections <strong>of</strong> mountain-ash sawfly larvae that were still in colonies (about third instar)<br />

were made. The infestation level was from 700 to 1 250 young colonies <strong>of</strong> the sawfly per<br />

hectare. Percentage parasitism obtained from these dissections was 88.7-93.5% in all the<br />

plots containing mountain-ash in the nursery (up to 500 m radius from the release centre).<br />

No second generation <strong>of</strong> P. geniculata was observed in 1980. From an evaluation <strong>of</strong> host<br />

cocoons collected in the fall <strong>of</strong> 1980 it was found that the number <strong>of</strong> P. geniculata cocoons<br />

had further diminished as compared with 1979 and few were unparasitized.<br />

Preliminary indications for 1981 are that O. geniculatae has spread about 30 km from<br />

the original release site and could be recovered at Ste-Foy, Charlesbourg, La Durantaye,<br />

St-Charles de Bellechasse, St-Michel de Bellechasse, St-Etienne de Lauzon, and Chutes<br />

Mt. Ste-Anne where parasitism was 81, 24, SO, 30, 82,70, and 4% respectively. A quantitative<br />

evaluation <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid on its host population has not been carried out<br />

so far. However, preliminary measures <strong>of</strong> pest numbers in consecutive years in the<br />

original release site at Beaumont indicate a drastic decline <strong>of</strong> the host populaton (from<br />

500 colonieslha in 1980 to an estimated 30 colonieslha in 1981), which must be attributed<br />

primarily to the action <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid. Comparative population counts <strong>of</strong> P. geniculata<br />

at St-Edouard de Frampton, where the environmental structure is very similar to that at<br />

Beaumont, but is situated outside the action radius <strong>of</strong> o. geniculatae, indicate very high<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> infestation in 1981.<br />

The cost <strong>of</strong> chemical insecticide treatment against P. geniculala would be at least<br />

$2OOlha. For this reason most owners <strong>of</strong> property with mountain-ash do not use chemical<br />

treatments. The mass production <strong>of</strong> O. geniculatae would need extensive manual labour<br />

and costs cannot be calculated accurately at present. However, as the parasitoid spreads<br />

on its own, its implantation could be highly beneficial.<br />

During the evaluation work in summer 1980, a large number <strong>of</strong> the larvae <strong>of</strong><br />

O. geniculatae found in the hosts were dead or appeared sick. At this stage it was decided<br />

to rear adults from P. geniculata cocoons collected from Beaumont in order to determine<br />

the percentage parasitism by O. geniculatae and to find out whether a hyperparasitoid was<br />

present. Emergence <strong>of</strong> the insects in 1981 revealed up to 90% total parasitism, but about<br />

60% <strong>of</strong> the parasitoids obtained were Mesochorus globu/alorThnb. This latter species is a<br />

hyperparasitoid with a wide distribution in <strong>Canada</strong>. It attacks various other species <strong>of</strong><br />

Olesicampe associated with nematine sawflies.


Blank Page<br />

386


Pest Status<br />

Chapter 66<br />

Rhyacionia buoliana (Schiff.),<br />

European Pine Shoot Moth<br />

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)<br />

P.D. SYME<br />

The European pine shoot moth, Rhyacionia buoliana (Schiff.), has been known as a<br />

destructive pest <strong>of</strong> hard pine, Pinus spp., plantations in North America since it was<br />

identified in 1914 (Busk 1914). Its history and biology have been the subjects <strong>of</strong> extensive<br />

investigations prior to 1969 and are well summarized by McGugan & Coppel (1962),<br />

Pointing & Green (1962), Miller (1967), and Syme (1971). The status <strong>of</strong> R. buoliana has<br />

been under continual surveillance and has been recorded in the Annual Reports <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Forest Insect and Disease Survey. The known distribution is shown in Fig. 21 for eastern<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> and British Columbia.<br />

The European pine shoot moth has one generation per year and adults appear in the<br />

field over a 4·week period that begins between the first and third weeks in June. Eggs are<br />

laid singly or in small groups on the twigs or needle sheaths <strong>of</strong> the new growth. Incubation<br />

requires 2 weeks. First- and second-instar larvae mine needle bases on the new growth.<br />

Later they migrate to the new buds where they feed before overwintering as half-grown<br />

larvae within the bud. Feeding is resumed in the spring and is extended to additional<br />

buds before pupation takes place in May.<br />

R. buoliana is primarily a pest <strong>of</strong> pine plantations. In North America, red pine, Pinus<br />

resinosa Ait., is the most seriously damaged. Scots, Austrian, ponderosa, and ornamental<br />

Mugho pines, P. sy/vestris L., P. nigra Arnold, P. ponderosa Laws., and P. mugo<br />

Turra, respectively, are moderately susceptible; whereas pitch, Virginia, jack, and eastern<br />

white pines, P. rigida Mill., P. virginiana, P. banksiana Lamb., and P. strobus L., respectively,<br />

are relatively resistant. The needle-mining larvae cause a browning <strong>of</strong> the foliage,<br />

but this apparently has little effect on the vigour <strong>of</strong> the host. Feeding on the terminal bud<br />

causes serious injury to the main stem form and repeated destruction <strong>of</strong> the entire<br />

terminal cluster during the summer months initially causes pr<strong>of</strong>usion <strong>of</strong> shoot growth<br />

(witch's broom) and eventually a spike top when the leader dies. Various degrees <strong>of</strong><br />

crookedness result from the lateral branches or buds assuming dominance over terminal<br />

shoots. Attack usually becomes less intensive as trees increase in height.<br />

In <strong>Canada</strong>, the European pine shoot moth is an important pest <strong>of</strong> pine plantations in<br />

southern Ontario, but it also exists in southern Quebec, primarily on ornamentals<br />

(Beique 1960). However, the Forest Insect and Disease Survey has not collected the<br />

moth in Quebec since 1968. Presumably the distribution within that province is unchanged<br />

but the prevalence is markedly decreased since 1968. In British Columbia the insect is<br />

well established, mostly on ornamental stock, in the Vancouver-Victoria area and to a<br />

lesser degree in the Okanagan Valley north to Kamloops (C.E. Brown 1981 personal<br />

communication). The European pine shoot moth was first reported in the maritimes at<br />

Bear River, Nova Scotia, in 1925 (Reeks et a1."1951), and has spread to cover all Nova<br />

Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and most <strong>of</strong> the southern half <strong>of</strong> New Brunswick. It has<br />

become a serious pest <strong>of</strong> Scots and red pine plantations in Prince Edward Island and<br />

Nova Scotia, where increased plantings have intensified the problem. However, there<br />

has been little spread in New Brunswick in the last decade and abundance has remained<br />

at a low level (L.P. Magasi 1981 personal communications). Since 1968 the European<br />

387


388 P. D. Symc


Rhyaciollia blloliallll (Schiff.). 3M!)<br />

pine shoot moth has remained an unimportant pest <strong>of</strong> ornamental pines in the cities <strong>of</strong> St.<br />

John's and Comer Brook in Newfoundland (A.G. Raske 1981 personal communication).<br />

The progressive distribution <strong>of</strong> the shoot moth in North America since 1968 suggests<br />

that the shipping <strong>of</strong> infested nursery stock has contributed strongly to its dispersal,<br />

resulting in a rapidly spreading but spotty distribution. This was particularly evident in<br />

the Maritime Provinces. The Forest Insect and Disease Survey has recorded the spread<br />

in that area as well as in British Columbia. Declining populations were noted in Quebec.<br />

In Ontario, the nothern limit <strong>of</strong> continuous distribution has held, as predicted (Green<br />

1962), at about the -29"C mean minimum temperature isotherm. The populations on<br />

Manitoulin and Cockburn islands in the North Channel <strong>of</strong> Lake Huron have collapsed<br />

because the host trees have outgrown susceptibility, and populations declined generally<br />

throughout the province during the 1970s. Changes in the economics and marketing <strong>of</strong><br />

red pine, at least in Ontario, have further reduced the importance <strong>of</strong> the European pine<br />

shoot moth; deformed stems may be acceptable under some circumstances.<br />

In the rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>, the situation remains static. In New Brunswick it is not known<br />

why the insect has not penetrated to the northern part <strong>of</strong> the province, although a lack <strong>of</strong><br />

susceptible hosts could be an important factor.<br />

Background Although considerable work was done on various biological aspects <strong>of</strong> the European<br />

pine shoot moth before 1968 (Syme 1971), the research emphasis and the parasitoid<br />

monitoring capability changed after 1969. For example, studies on R. buolialla in<br />

Ontario were virtually confined to the effects <strong>of</strong> wild carrot, Daucus carola L.. and<br />

other flowering plants on the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> Orgi/us obscuralor (Nees), the most<br />

effective introduced parasitoid <strong>of</strong> the pest. Meanwhile, the earlier literature on the<br />

biology. behaviour, history, distribution, ecology. damage, and control were well reviewed<br />

(Pointing & Green 1962, Pointing & Miller 1967, Miller 1967, Syme 1971). Since 1973<br />

virtually no new research has been done in <strong>Canada</strong> on either the European pine shoot<br />

moth or its parasitoids.<br />

Releases and Recoveries The following brief descriptions <strong>of</strong> species <strong>of</strong> parasitoid include recoveries or significant<br />

range extensions <strong>of</strong> species released before 1968, and significant developments and<br />

findings on their possible effectiveness determined since 1968. The origin and numbers <strong>of</strong><br />

released parasitoids are summarized in Tables 97 and 98. With the exceptions <strong>of</strong> O.<br />

obscurator (Nees), Lypha dubia (Fall.), and Parasierola lIigri/emllr (Ashm.). little can<br />

be reported.<br />

Table 97 Open releases and recoveries in Ontario <strong>of</strong> parasitoids against Rllyacionill bllolimuJ (Schiff.)<br />

Species Year <strong>of</strong> release Origin No. Released Year <strong>of</strong> recovery<br />

Agathis binominata<br />

Mues. 1969 Ontario 52<br />

1970 Ontario 33 1973<br />

Lyplla dubio (FaiL) 1969 Germany 496 1970<br />

Orgilus obscurator (Nees) 1969 Germany 218<br />

1970 Germany 45<br />

1971 Germany 225<br />

1972 Germany 82 1978<br />

Parasierola nigrifemur<br />

(Ashm.) 1974 Argentina (l}5


390 P. D. Syme<br />

Table 98<br />

Eulimneria runfernur<br />

(Thorn.)<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonidae)<br />

Lypha dubla (FaD.)<br />

(Diptera: Tachinfdae)<br />

Orgilus obscurator<br />

(Nees)<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

8racooidae)<br />

Laboratory and field cage studies in Ontario or parasitoids against Rhyacionia<br />

buoliana (Schiff.)<br />

Species Year Origin Number<br />

Orgilus obscurator (Nees) 1969 Germany 778<br />

1970 Germany 449<br />

1971 Germany 500<br />

1972 Germany 181<br />

1973 Germany 6<br />

Parasierola nigri/emur (Ashm.) 1973 Argentina 56<br />

E. Tuft/emur was released before 1959 at Toronto, Niagra Falls, and Elmira (McGugan &<br />

Coppe11962) but has not been released since. Although it had spread significantly west<br />

<strong>of</strong> the release point by 1968 (Syme 1971), collapse <strong>of</strong> host insect populations made the<br />

parasitoid difficult to find. It was taken only once (1972) at Elmira and twice (1969,1971)<br />

near Drayton, 16 km NW <strong>of</strong> Elmira, always in small numbers. Because this parasitoid<br />

interacts with O. obscuTator. to the latter's detriment, and in view <strong>of</strong> the relatively<br />

greater importance <strong>of</strong> O. obscurator. E. ruft/emur is considered detrimental to the<br />

control effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the two parasitoids.<br />

This species was described in 1810 from Sweden (Stone et 01. 1965) and is recorded by<br />

Thompson (1951) from many species <strong>of</strong> Lepidoptera in Europe. It is a primary larval<br />

parasitoid that deposits living larvae on twigs or foliage near host larvae. The wide range<br />

<strong>of</strong> host habitats suggests that a complex <strong>of</strong> closely related species may be involved. Small<br />

numbers were released in Nova Scotia against the winter moth, Operophtera brumata<br />

(L.), but none was recovered (Embree 1971).<br />

L. dubia attacks late-instar larvae <strong>of</strong> the European pine shoot moth, and after rapid<br />

development within the host the parasitoid larva drops to the ground to pupate. It spends<br />

most <strong>of</strong>the summer and all winter in the ground as a fully developed adult, which emerges<br />

at about the time the R. buoliana begins feeding in the spring. There is a pre-oviposition<br />

period <strong>of</strong> about 4 weeks.<br />

Studies in Europe showed that there was no serious interference by this species with<br />

Orgi/us obscurator, the most effective introduced parasitoid in Ontario, and that L. dubia<br />

is one <strong>of</strong>the more effective parasitoids in northern Germany (Adlung & Sailer 1963, D.<br />

Schroeder, CISC, Delemont, Switzerland, personal communication).<br />

The parasitoid had also been released against R. buoliana in the United States in the<br />

years 1933-38 and again in 1962 and 1963, but has not been recorded (Dowden 1962).<br />

Although 90% <strong>of</strong> 1 200 puparia set out at Elmira in 1968 successfully emerged (Syme<br />

1971), only a few were recovered and only enough in 1970 to say that at least one pair <strong>of</strong><br />

flies had successfully emerged and mated! No parasitoids have been recaptured from a<br />

release at Vance Tract, Wellington County, Ontario. Thus L. dubia, despite its effectiveness<br />

in northern Germany, does not seem to be effective against the European pine shoot<br />

moth in North America.<br />

O. obscurator is an internal solitary parasitoid that attacks first-instar larvae. Its life<br />

history has been described by Juillet (1960). Early introduction <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid and<br />

movement <strong>of</strong> nursery stock infested with R. buoliana resulted in a wide distribution <strong>of</strong> O.<br />

obscurator in Ontario (McGugan & Coppel 1962). In 1968 it was present virtually


c<br />

.2<br />

5<br />

:g<br />

Cij<br />

c<br />

Rhyacion;a buoliuna (Schiff.), 391


392 P. D. Syme<br />

Temelucha inlemlptor<br />

(Grav.)<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Ichneumonidae)<br />

ParageroIa nigrifemur<br />

(Ashm.)<br />

(Hymenoptera:<br />

Bethylldae)<br />

throughout the range <strong>of</strong> European pine shoot moth in Ontario and collections since that<br />

date have confirmed this (Fig. 22). It was also well established throughout Quebec, in the<br />

maritimes, and in Michigan, where it had not been released (Syme 1971).<br />

Since 1968, this parasitoid has become widespread throughout Nova Scotia and<br />

Prince Edward Island and has been found in the southeastern corner <strong>of</strong> New Brunswick<br />

(L.P. Magasi 1981 personal communication). In Newfoundland it has been recovered<br />

twice, both times at St. John's (A.G. Raske 1981 personal communication). No releases<br />

have ever been made <strong>of</strong> this parasitoid in either the maritimes or Newfoundland. Thus,<br />

the hypothesis expressed by McGugan & Coppel (1962) and Syme (1971), that the<br />

parasitoid and its host are easily dispersed by planting infested nursery stock, is clearly<br />

reinforced by the events <strong>of</strong> later years. It is also known that O. obscurator disperses well<br />

on its own, for at Cockburn Island in Lake Huron, where it had been released in 1966<br />

(Syme 1971), it was recovered 5 years later (1971) at Sand Bay, 12 km from the release<br />

point. Here it parasitized 39% <strong>of</strong> the European pine shoot moth, indicating it had been<br />

present for some years. In 1972 no R. buo[iana could be found at Sand Bay.<br />

In British Columbia, where again no intentional releases have ever been made, O.<br />

obscllrator occurs in the general area <strong>of</strong> Vancouver-Victoria (C.E. Brown 1981<br />

personal communication) (Fig. 22).<br />

In Ontario, where further studies have been made <strong>of</strong> the beneficial effects <strong>of</strong> wild<br />

carrot and other flowering plants on the longevity and increased fecundity <strong>of</strong> O. obsauator<br />

(Syme 1977), several situations were studied since 1968 that supported this technique <strong>of</strong><br />

enhancing parasitoid attack. At one small plantation in Brantford Township, Brant<br />

County, where D. carota was plentiful, O. obscllralor was released during the summer<br />

<strong>of</strong> 1972. The population was not sampled in 1973 or 1974, but by 1975 parasitism had<br />

risen to 60% and no European pine shoot moth population remained in 1976. In three<br />

other plantations replete with D. carota, parasitism rose to over 50% in 3 to 4 years with<br />

the concurrent demise <strong>of</strong> the European pine shoot moth population.<br />

It seems apparent that the presence <strong>of</strong> a suitable source <strong>of</strong> food in the form <strong>of</strong> D.<br />

carota can, under otherwise favourable conditions, increase the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> O.<br />

obscllrator to a level virtually able to eliminate the European pine shoot moth population.<br />

On the basis <strong>of</strong> these results, workers in Nova Scotia are attempting to establish wild<br />

carrot in pine plantations, but the results are not yet fully known (L.P. Magasi 1981<br />

personal communication).<br />

This primary internal larval parasitoid with cleptoparasitic habits (Syme 1971) has not<br />

been released since 1961. It persists at Elmira, Ontario, where it competes to the<br />

detriment <strong>of</strong> O. obscllralor. T. interrllptor was virtually always in a host with O. obscllrator,<br />

resulting in the death <strong>of</strong> the latter. Thus, in a field experiment designed to show the effects<br />

<strong>of</strong> D. carola, on O. obscllralor at Elmira, from 1966 to 1978, T. interrllptor parasitized up<br />

to 50% <strong>of</strong> the hosts already attacked by O. obscuralor, preventing the latter from<br />

attaining levels <strong>of</strong> parasitism over 40% necessary to cause the collapse <strong>of</strong> host populations.<br />

Thus it confounded the field trial that otherwise showed promise <strong>of</strong> demonstrating the<br />

beneficial effects <strong>of</strong> D. carota on O. obscurator.<br />

This external, multivoltine gregarious parasitoid had been found to be very effective<br />

against European pine shoot moth in Argentina (Brewer & Varas 1971). With background<br />

supplied by E.M. deBrewer, Department <strong>of</strong> Entomology, Cordoba National University,<br />

laboratory tests in <strong>Canada</strong> (Sault Ste. Marie) demonstrated that P. nigrifemur showed<br />

no tendency to select for hosts parasitized by O. obscllralor. Thus it has no cleptoparasitic<br />

tendencies (Syme 1974). Consequently, on 21 August 1974,695 adults (unsexed)<br />

were released at a site 4.5 km north <strong>of</strong> Elsinore, Amabel Township, Bruce County,


Agatbis binominata<br />

(Mues.) (Hymenoptera:<br />

Braconidae)<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Control Attempts<br />

Rhyacionia buoliana (Schiff.) 393<br />

Ontario. The trees averaged 1.4 m in height and there was an abundance <strong>of</strong> flowering<br />

plants including D. carola. In that same year, in October, two adult P. nigrifemur were<br />

found during the annual fall sample, but they were not associated with any apparent<br />

hosts. No parasitized hosts were found during the next 2 years. We can only conclude<br />

that the attempted introduction was a failure.<br />

Although this native parasitoid was released at Vance Tract, Wellington County, Ontario<br />

in 1%9 and 1970, only a single larva was recovered in 1973 and none in 1975, 76 or 77.<br />

Reasons for its failure to establish are speculative.<br />

The difficulties <strong>of</strong> evaluating the impact <strong>of</strong> biological control agents on the European pine<br />

shoot moth were discussed by Syme (1971) and can be summarized by stating that the<br />

host-pest relationship and pest damage change drastically with time. In the absence <strong>of</strong><br />

any further trials <strong>of</strong> exotic parasitoids or further behavioural studies, the well-established<br />

European species O. obscuralor seems to <strong>of</strong>fer the greatest promise for effective<br />

localized biological control in <strong>Canada</strong>. Several cases have been documented in which, in<br />

the presence <strong>of</strong> D. carota flowers. O. obscuralor has brought about complete collapse <strong>of</strong><br />

the R. buoliana infestation within a few years.<br />

As O. obscuralor is a univoltine internal parasitoid, chemical control applied to the<br />

host larval stage in the spring will remove a proportionate part <strong>of</strong> the parasitoid population.<br />

Chemical control <strong>of</strong> the early-instar needle-mining stage will have a negative impact on<br />

the parasitoid adult population, which would be actively searching for hosts. This would<br />

depress the parasitoid population disproportionately. Thus if chemical control is required<br />

within an integrated pest management scheme, the spring wandering stage <strong>of</strong> the European<br />

pine shoot moth would be the time to spray and cause the least potential damage to O.<br />

obscurator. Similarly, a systemic insecticide applied in the spring would have the least<br />

effect on O. obscuralor, but any insecticide will depress the parasitoid population to some<br />

extent.<br />

It should be pointed out here, however, that wild carrot is listed in the secondary<br />

noxious class <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Canada</strong> Seed Act <strong>of</strong> 1961 and is listed in The Weed Control Acts <strong>of</strong><br />

Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. It is detrimental to cattle when they<br />

ingest large quantities, and taints the milk, but Dale (1974) has pointed out that it is not a<br />

weed <strong>of</strong> cultivated fields and prime agricultural land and that there are no reports <strong>of</strong><br />

cattle grazing on it from choice. Further, it does not compete in a well-established turf<br />

and is not found where ploughing is an annual event.<br />

Wild carrot may also affect commercial production <strong>of</strong> carrot either by transmitting<br />

pests or harbouring diseases common to both cultivated and wild varieties, or by causing<br />

the production <strong>of</strong> poor seed <strong>of</strong> commercial varieties when hybridization occurs (Frankton<br />

1955). However, in <strong>Canada</strong> carrot seed is grown commercially only in British Columbia<br />

(Dale 1974).<br />

On the positive side Dale (1974) indicates that D. carola has a relatively high nutritive<br />

value and should be regarded with greater tolerance when found in pastures among<br />

plants <strong>of</strong> low nutritive value. Thus foresters concerned with the establishment <strong>of</strong> red pine<br />

might well question the status <strong>of</strong> wild carrot as a noxious weed.


394 P. D. Symc<br />

Recommendations<br />

Literature Cited<br />

The parasitoid O. obscuralor appears to be ubiquitous and the methods for manipulating<br />

D. carola are published (Syme 1976), so it remains for the system to be practised and<br />

refined. The method may in some instances be labour-intensive. However, if a plantation is<br />

established where D. carola already occurs, the plantation manager may preserve the<br />

wild carrot to favour O. obscuralor at virtually no cost.<br />

This unique method whereby the probability <strong>of</strong> control can be enhanced by manipulating the<br />

environment into which a parasitoid is introduced, thus favouring its survival and<br />

effectiveness, represents a new working principle that requires emphasis in future<br />

research as well as in methodology associated with biological control attempts.<br />

Adlung, K.G.; Sailer, R.I. (1963) Forest entomological studies in German afforestation areas, with special regard to pine shoot moth<br />

parasitoids <strong>of</strong> Rhyacionfu buoliana (Schiff.). Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeirung 134.229-238.<br />

Beique, R. (1960) The importance <strong>of</strong> the European pine shoot moth Rhyacionia boo/funa (Schiff.) in Quebec City and vicinity. Canadfun<br />

Entomologist 92,858-862.<br />

Brewer. M.; Varas, D. (1971) Cria masiva de Parasierola nigrifemur (Ash.), (Hym., Bethylidac) -primeras liberuciones en Calamuchita,<br />

Cordoba, Argentina. Revista Peruana de Entomologia 14,352-361.<br />

Busk, A. (1914) A destructive pine moth introduced from Europe. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Entomology 7,340-341.<br />

Dale, H.M. (1974) The biology <strong>of</strong> Canadian weeds. 5. Daucus carota. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant Science 54,673-685.<br />

Dowden, P.B. (1962) Parasites and predators <strong>of</strong> forest insects liberated in the United States through 1960. US Department <strong>of</strong> AgriculTUre<br />

Handbook 226, 70 pp.<br />

Embree, D.G. (1971) OperopltJera brumata (L.), winter moth (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). In: Biological control programmes against<br />

insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>, 1959-1968. Commonwealth Instirute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical<br />

Communication 4,167-175.<br />

Frankton, C.(l955) Weeds <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. Ottawa, Ontario; Queen's Printer, 196 pp.<br />

Green, G. W. (1962) Low winter temperatures and the European pine shoot moth. Rhyacionia buoliana (SehUf.) in Ontario. Canadian<br />

Entomologist 94,314-36.<br />

Juillet, J.A. (1960) Immature stages, life histories, and behaviour <strong>of</strong> two hymenopterous parasites <strong>of</strong> the European pine shoot moth,<br />

Rhyacionia buolfuna (Schiff.) (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae). Canadian Entomologist 92,342-346.<br />

McGugan, B.M.; Coppel, H.C. (1962) Biological control <strong>of</strong> forest insects, 1910-1958. In: A review <strong>of</strong>the biological control attempts against<br />

insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical Communication<br />

2,35-127.<br />

Miller, W.E. (1967) The European pine shoot moth - ecology and control in the Lake States. Forest Science Monograph 14,72 pp.<br />

Pointing, P.J.; Green, G.W. (1962) A review <strong>of</strong> the history and biology <strong>of</strong> the European pine shoot moth, Rhyacionia buoliana (Schiff.)<br />

(Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae) in Ontario. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Entomological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ontario 92,58-69.<br />

Pointing, P.J.; Miller, W.E. (1967) European pine shoot moth. In: Important forest insects and disease <strong>of</strong> mutual concern to <strong>Canada</strong>, the<br />

United States and Mexico. Canadian Department <strong>of</strong> Forestry and Rural Development Publication<br />

1180,162-166.<br />

Reeks, W.A.; Forbes, R.S.; Cuming, F.G. (1951) Canadfun Department <strong>of</strong> Forestry and Rural Development Annual Report, Forest Insect<br />

and Disease Survey 1950, pp. 5-20.<br />

Stone, A.; Sabrosky, C.W.; Wirth, W.W.; Foote, R.H.; Coulson, J.R. (1965) A catalogue <strong>of</strong> the Diptera <strong>of</strong> America, nonh <strong>of</strong> Mexico. US<br />

Department <strong>of</strong> AgriculTUre Handbook 276, 1696 pp.<br />

Syme, P.O. (1971) Rhyacionia buoliana (Schiff.), European pinc shoot moth (Lepidoptera: Olethrcutidae). In: Biological rontrol programmes<br />

against insects and weeds in <strong>Canada</strong>, 1959-1968. Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control Technical<br />

Communication 4,194-205.<br />

Syme, P.O. (1974) Interaction between three parasitoids <strong>of</strong> the European pine shoot moth. Canadian Forestry Service Bi-monthly Research<br />

Notes 30(2),9-10.<br />

Syme, P.O. (1976) Red pine and the European pine shoot moth in Ontario. Canadian Forestry Service Information Report O-X-244, 17 pp.<br />

Syme, P.O. (1977) Observations on the longevity and fecundity <strong>of</strong> Orgilus obscurator (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and the effects <strong>of</strong> certain<br />

foods on longevity. Canadfun Entomologist 109,995-1000.<br />

Thompson, W.R. (1951) A catalogue <strong>of</strong> the parasites and predators <strong>of</strong> insect pests. Sect. 2, Pt. 1. Hosts <strong>of</strong> the Coleoptera and Diptera.<br />

Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control, 147 pp.


396 Appendix<br />

Raske, A.G., Newfoundland Forest Research Centre, Canadian Forestry Service, Environment <strong>Canada</strong>, Bolt 6028, St. John's, Newfoundland<br />

AIC SX8.<br />

Schooley, H.O., Pctawawa National Forestry Institute, Canadian Forestry Service, Environment <strong>Canada</strong>, Chalk River. Ontario KOJ lJO.<br />

Schroeder, D., European Station, Commonwealth Institute <strong>of</strong> Biological Control. I Chemin des Grillons, CH·2800 Delemont, Switzerland.<br />

Shemanchuk, J.A., Researeh Station, Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>, Bolt 3000, Lethbridge, Albena TlJ 4BI.<br />

Shepherd, R.F .• Pacific Forest Research Centre. Canadian Forestry Service. Environment <strong>Canada</strong>, S06 Wcst Burnside Road, Victoria,<br />

British Columbia V8Z IMS.<br />

Smirn<strong>of</strong>f, W.A.. Laurentian Forest Research Centre, Canadian Forestry Service, Environment <strong>Canada</strong>, Bolt 3800. Stc·Foy. Quebec GlV 4C7.<br />

Syme, P.D .• Great Lakes Forest Research Centre, Canadian Forestry Service, Environment <strong>Canada</strong>. Bolt 490. Sault Stc. Marie, Ontario<br />

P6A SM7.<br />

Thompson. L.S .• Researeh Station. Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>, Bolt 1210. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island CIA 7M8.<br />

Tumock, W.J., Research Station, Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>, 19S Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2M9.<br />

TyrreD, D., Forest Pest Management Institute, Canadian Forestry Service. Environment <strong>Canada</strong>, Bolt 490. Sault Ste. Marie. Ontario P6A 5M7.<br />

Van Sickle, G.A .• Pacific Forest Researeh Centre, Canadian Forestry Service. Environment <strong>Canada</strong>. 506 West Burnside Road, Victoria,<br />

British Columbia V8Z IMS.<br />

Vanyo I.W., Maritimes Forest Researeh Centre. Canadian Forestry Service. Environment <strong>Canada</strong>. Bolt 4000. Fredericton. New Brunswick<br />

E3B SP1.<br />

Watson. A.K .• Macdonald Campus, Faculty <strong>of</strong> Agriculture. McGill University, Ste-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec H9K lCO.<br />

Whisler, H.C .• Depanmcnt <strong>of</strong> Botany, University <strong>of</strong> Washington. Seattle. Washington. USA 9819S.<br />

Wilkinson. A.T.S, Research Station, Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>. 6660 N.W. Marine Drive, Vancouver. British Columbia V6T IX2.<br />

Wilson. G.G., Forest Pest Management Institute. Canadian Forestry Service. Environment <strong>Canada</strong>, Bolt 490. Sault SIC. Marie, Ontario P6A 5M7.<br />

Wylie, H.G., Research Station, Agriculture <strong>Canada</strong>, 19S Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2M9.<br />

Zebold, S.L. Depanment <strong>of</strong> Botany. University <strong>of</strong> Washington, Seattle, Washington. USA 9819S.


Index <strong>of</strong> Species<br />

Abies amabilu 229<br />

abdulghani, Telraphleps<br />

Abiesbalsamea 229,235,236.241.242,251,252,254.256.<br />

263,271.321,359<br />

Abiesfirma 267<br />

Abies/raseri 229<br />

Abies grandis 229<br />

Abies lasiocarpa 229<br />

Abies spp. 226.229.267<br />

abielu. Neodiprion<br />

abruplorius. Exenterus<br />

absinth - see Arlemisia absinlhium<br />

absinthium. Arlemisia<br />

acanthium. Onopordum<br />

acanthoides. Carduus<br />

acaulis. Silene<br />

Acernegundo 315<br />

Acersaccharum 314.349,350<br />

Acerspp. 353<br />

Aceriaacropliloni 105<br />

Achilleafilipendulina 114<br />

Achilleaplarmica 114<br />

Achromobaclerspp. 35<br />

Acleris varian a 321<br />

Acrididae 5<br />

acridophagus, Nosema<br />

acroplili. Puccinia<br />

A cropli/on repens 97, 105·110<br />

acropli/oni, Auria<br />

acroplilonica, Aulacida<br />

AClinocephalus lipulae 85<br />

Acyrthosiphon neerlandicum 160<br />

Acyllhosiphonpuum 4,7<br />

Acyrthosiphum cyparissiae 168<br />

Adalia IUleopicla 230<br />

Adalia ronina 230<br />

Adalia lelraspilola 230<br />

Adelges merkeris 234<br />

Adelges nusslini 234<br />

Adelges piceae 215,220,229·234,321<br />

adelgid - see Adelges spp.<br />

adelphocoridis, Perulenus<br />

Adelphocoris lineolalus 4,5,9·10<br />

adonidis, Emomosce/is<br />

adslriclus, Pleroslichus<br />

Aedes aegypli 24<br />

Aedes dorsalis 23<br />

Aedes jlavescens 24<br />

Aedes sierrensis 24<br />

Aedes triseriatus 24<br />

Aedes vexans 23<br />

atgypli, Aedes<br />

atreus, Monodontomerus<br />

atrogenes, Enterobacler<br />

atlhiopoides, Microclonus<br />

a/finu. Exenttrus<br />

a/finis, Urophora<br />

Agapela zoegana 129,136<br />

Agalhis binominQla 218,389,393<br />

AgQlhis cincta 287,289<br />

Agathispumila 218,281·282,283.287<br />

Agriahousei 217,218.267,268.271<br />

Agri/ushyperici 98,172.174,176<br />

Agromyza/rontella 4,11·13<br />

Agropyron crislalum 121<br />

Agropyron repens 121<br />

Agryponjla\'eolatum 218.353.354·355.356<br />

alba, Populus<br />

alba. Silene<br />

albicans. Cyzenis<br />

a/Monica. PhyllOlrela<br />

albipes. Gryocenlrus<br />

Albugo Iragopogi 112<br />

alder-see Alnus spp.<br />

aldrichi, Sarcophaga<br />

alfalfa 7.9. 10. II. 41. 45. 46<br />

alfalfa blotch leafminer - see Agromyza /rontella<br />

alfalfa mosaic virus 205<br />

alfalfa plant bug - see Ade/phocoris lineolalus<br />

alfalfa weevil-see Hypera po.flica<br />

A/nusspp. 287<br />

alpine larch - see Larix Iyafli<br />

Aisophilapomelaria 223.354<br />

aisophilae. Telenomus<br />

Allicacarduorum 98.139-140.143<br />

amabilis, Abies<br />

amabilis fir - see Abies amabilis<br />

amaranthoides. Axyris<br />

Amerboa moschata 129<br />

Ambrosiaartemisii/olia 100.111-112<br />

Ambrosia cllamissonu III<br />

Ambrosiapsilostacltya III<br />

Ambrosia lenui/olia III<br />

Ambrosia Irifida III<br />

Ambrosiaspp. III<br />

americana. Entomoscelis<br />

americana. Sorbus<br />

americana. Ulmus<br />

amiclOrius. Exenterus<br />

ampelus. Mericia<br />

amp/iala, Tingis<br />

amy/ovorus. Bacillus<br />

Anaitisp/agiala 96.172.174.176.177<br />

Anaslalus disparis 218.306-307,308.309<br />

andalusica. Hadena<br />

annual sow-thistle -see Soncllus oleraceus<br />

Anopheles spp. 225<br />

antelope 183<br />

Amltemis lillcloria 114<br />

antiqua, Delia 4<br />

antirrltinii. Gymnaelron<br />

antisypltililica, Euphorbia<br />

ants 162,313-seealsoFormicaspp.<br />

anurus. Balhyplecles<br />

Apanteles arisba 70<br />

Apanleles circuTnscriplus group 70<br />

Apanteles circuTnscriptus 70<br />

Apanteles coleophorae 218. 287<br />

Apanteles corvinus 218. 287<br />

Apanteles /umi/eranae 271<br />

Apanle/esg/omeralus 16.17<br />

Apanteles lacleicolor 305. 308<br />

Apanteles laelus 70<br />

Apanteles laeviceps 34<br />

Apanteles melanoscellus 302<br />

Apanteies me.wxamlws 21 R. 287<br />

Apanteles mililaru 34<br />

Apanteies ornigu 69. 70<br />

Apanleles pedias 70<br />

Apanteles pllllellae 15. 17. 18<br />

397


398 Index <strong>of</strong> Species<br />

Apanlt'les rubecula 15.17. 18<br />

Apanlt'les solilarius 299.301<br />

Apanlt'les xylinus 50<br />

Apanteles spp. 58.286.287.288.289.302<br />

Aphidecla. oblilerala 230<br />

Aphidencyrllls aphidivertls 173<br />

Apllidius cardui 173<br />

aphidivmlS, AphidencYrlllS<br />

Aphidoletes thompsoni 230<br />

AphisclJ/oris 97.172-173.174.176,177<br />

Aphiseuphorbiae 168<br />

Aphlhona cyparissiae 168<br />

Apillhona czwalinae 168<br />

Apillhonaf!ava 168<br />

Apillhona spp. 168<br />

apple 25.69.101.211.353<br />

Archipscerasil'oranus 260<br />

Archipsoporana 226<br />

arclicus, Sorex<br />

A renelra rufipes "emalis 34<br />

arisba. Apameles<br />

armyworm-see Mameslraconfigurata<br />

Arlemisiaabsinlilium 113-114<br />

Artemisiacana 114<br />

A rlemisia dracun,ulus 114<br />

A rlemisia longifolia 114<br />

A rtemisia vulgaris 114<br />

Artemisiaspp. 114<br />

artemisiifolia, Ambrosia<br />

artichoke plume moth - see Platyptilia cardl/idaClyla<br />

artichoke - see Cynara scolymus<br />

Artogeia rapae 4. 15-18.81<br />

arvense, Cirsium<br />

arvense, Thlaspi<br />

arvensevar. inlegrifolium, Cirsium<br />

arvensis, Convolvulus<br />

an'ensis, Sonehus<br />

arvensis s. str .• Sonehus<br />

arvensis var. glabreseens, Sonehus<br />

Asclepias syriaeQ 99-see also milkweed<br />

aspen - see Populus spp.<br />

asper, Sonehus<br />

aster yellows 205<br />

alalanlae fulveseens, Theronia<br />

Athrycia cinerea 50.54<br />

A thrycia erythroeera 53<br />

Atilryeia impressa 53<br />

allantieus, CeUlorhyneilus<br />

alralula, Leueopis<br />

atricapilano, Coehylis<br />

Queuparia,Sorbus<br />

Aulacidaacroptiloniea 105.109<br />

auricularia, Forfieula<br />

Austrian pine - see Pinus nigra<br />

Axyrisamaranliloides 121<br />

azurea, Cassida<br />

Bacillus amylovorus 211<br />

Bacilluscereus 35,313<br />

Bacillus sphaerieus 35<br />

Baeilluslhuringiensis vii,3,15,18,33,35,57.58,79,80,87,<br />

215.217,218-219,221,222,224,225,237,238-247.264.<br />

265,274,276,278,308,309.313.314-315.317.318,356.<br />

365-366.367<br />

BacillllS Ihuringiensis var. israelellsis 20.21<br />

Bacillus IhurillgiellSiHar. kurslaki 15.238<br />

bacu10virus-see viruses<br />

bakeri, Copidosoma<br />

Balauslium sp. 231<br />

ball cactus - see Mammillaria vivipara<br />

Ballia el/c/Jaris 231<br />

balsam fir-see Abies balsamea<br />

balsam fir sawny - see Neodiprion abietis<br />

balsam poplar-see Popl/lllS balsamifera<br />

balsam woolly ade1gid - see A delges piceae<br />

balsamea, Abies<br />

balsamifera, Populus<br />

Ballel,us f!aveseells 50.51.54<br />

ballksialla. Pill us<br />

bardus, Larinus<br />

barley 155<br />

basizOIllIS, PleolopllllS<br />

bassialla, BeaUl'eria<br />

balalas, Ipomoea<br />

BalhypleCles allllTllS 41<br />

BalhypleCles curculionis 41. 42<br />

BalhypleCles slenosligma 41<br />

Bayeriaeapiligena 168<br />

BeQuveriabassiana 219.223,313.344<br />

Beal/variasp. 302<br />

beech - see FagllS grandifolia<br />

begini, DiglypllllS<br />

benefaclor, Olesieampe<br />

bertha armyworm - sec ,\-Iamestra eonfigurata<br />

Bessa haTl'eyi 371.372<br />

Belulalenta 291<br />

Betula papyrifera 285, 291. 349.350<br />

Betula populi folia 287. 291<br />

Belula verrueosa 291<br />

Belulaspp. 291<br />

bieolor, Eupleetrus<br />

bieolor, Metriona<br />

bieolor, Mieroetonus<br />

biebersteinii, Centaurta<br />

biennis, Chorisloneura<br />

Bigoniehetasetipennis 39,40<br />

bimaeulatipennis, Sympiesis<br />

bindweed - see Com'olulus arvensis<br />

binominata, Agathis<br />

binuc/eatum, Nosema<br />

bipinllalllS, Cosmos<br />

birch-see Betula spp.<br />

birch casebearer - see Coleophora serratella<br />

birch leafminer - sec Fen,usa pusilla<br />

birds 85,129.187.258.313.343.377-378<br />

Bislonfiduearius 168<br />

bivillalus, Melanoplus<br />

black cottonwood - sec Populus triehoearpa<br />

black spruce - see Pieea mariana<br />

bladder campion - see Silene eucubalus<br />

blaneardella, PI,yllonoryeter<br />

Blepharipa pralensis 306<br />

Blondelia lIigripes 53<br />

blueberry 359<br />

bohemiea, Drino<br />

borealis, Campoplex<br />

borealis, LygllS<br />

Borrelinavirus - see viruses<br />

Braehymeria intermedia 306<br />

Brachypterolus puliearillS 180, 181


Brassica campestris - sec canola. rape<br />

Brassica hina - see mustard<br />

Brassica juncea - see mustard<br />

Brassicanapus 211-see alsocanola. rape<br />

brassicae, Mamestra<br />

breili, Harmonia<br />

brel'ifaciens, Clostridium<br />

broad leaved toadnax - sec Linaria dalmatica<br />

browntail moth -see Euproctis chrysorrllOea<br />

Bruce span worm - see Operopll/era bruceata<br />

bruceala, Operophtera<br />

brumala, Operopll/era<br />

Brussels sprouts 17<br />

buckthorn -see Rhamnus cathartica<br />

buckwheat 222<br />

bUCl'rus, Catcoblastis<br />

bUdworm - see Acleris I'ariana, Choristmleura spp.<br />

buffalo weed - see Ambrosia tri{tda<br />

bull thistle - see Cirsillm l'll/gare<br />

bllllalus. Geocoris<br />

blloliana, Rhyacionia<br />

cabbage 51<br />

cabbage looper - see TriclropllLria tli<br />

cabbage moth -see Mamestra brassicae<br />

cabbage worm - see A rtogeia rapae<br />

Cacloblastis bllcyrus 183·184<br />

CaclOblastis doddi 183-184<br />

cactus - see Mammillaria I·i\·ipara, Oputrtia spp.<br />

calcilrapaevar. cenraurea, Puccitlia<br />

calidllm, Calosoma<br />

California encephalitis 23<br />

califomica. Coccinella<br />

caliginosus, Harpalus<br />

Caloplrasia Illnuia 97.98. 180-182<br />

Calosoma calidum 34<br />

Calosoma sycoplranra 309<br />

calycinum, Hypericum<br />

Calyslegia spp. 155. 157<br />

Camnula pelillcida 4, 61-62<br />

campion - see Silene cucuballlS<br />

Campolelis flavicinclus 34<br />

Campolelis sp. 34<br />

Camponol/IS lrerCIIleanrlS 342<br />

Campoplegini sp. 53<br />

Campoplex borealis 218.287<br />

Campoplex spp. 218. 286. 287.288. 289<br />

Campylomma verbasci 211<br />

cana, Artemisia<br />

<strong>Canada</strong> thistle - sce Cirsium arl'(mse<br />

canadensis. Exenrerus<br />

x canadensis, PoplI/lLr<br />

cankerworm - see Alsophiia pomelaria<br />

cano1a 49<br />

capi/igena, Bayeria<br />

capsulae. DasitlellTa<br />

carabids 162.343<br />

cardui, Aplridius<br />

.carelui. Uroplrora<br />

carduidactyla. Plalyplilia<br />

carduorum. Allica<br />

CardUUSaCalllhoides 97.115-125<br />

CarduusnUlans 96.97.99. J(XI. J06.109. 115·125<br />

CarduuiS nutaniS ssp. macrolepis 116<br />

Carduus personala 117. 118<br />

('meill/u p),ctlOceplra/lls 124<br />

Carel,ll/.r tetlllifloTlu 124<br />

Carc/Illlsspp. 117.145<br />

caritlalCl. EtIlylia<br />

Carolina poplar - sec POlmlus x canadensis<br />

carolCl, DallCilS<br />

carrot 222.389.392.393.394<br />

carthami, I'uccinia<br />

CarthamlLHinclOriu.r 129. 139<br />

cascbcilrcr -sec Coleop/rora spp.<br />

Cassiela aZllrea 203.2o.t<br />

Cassiela hemisphaerica 203<br />

Cassida rubiginosa 139. 141. 145<br />

cassielea. Cllelymorp/ra<br />

Ctllhartica. Rhamnus<br />

Celyp/ra rosaceana 206.108<br />

Centaureabiebersleitlii 130.132-133<br />

Cetllaurea cineraria 129<br />

CetllaureadiffrlSa 96.97.99.106.127-137<br />

Centaureajurineafolia 133<br />

Cetllaureamacll/osa 96.97.99.106.127-137<br />

Cetllallrea tligra 129<br />

Cetllaureaxpralensis 106<br />

CetllUllTea ragusina 129<br />

Cetllallrea reperrs - see A croptilon repens<br />

Cetllaurea rhetlana 130<br />

Centallrea I'Qllfsiaca 130. 132. 133<br />

Centallreaspp. 129<br />

centallreae. P'lccinia<br />

Cephaloglyplalaricis 218.268-269<br />

CephaloglYPla mllrinanae 218.268.269<br />

Cephalosporium coccorum 233<br />

Cel}halosporillm sp. 233<br />

cerasil·oratlllS. Archips<br />

cereilileilfbeetie-see Oulemamelanopus<br />

cerealella. Sitolroga<br />

cereals 7 -see also grain<br />

cerellS. Bacillus<br />

Ceroma.riasp. 53<br />

Index <strong>of</strong> Species 399<br />

CellllrorlryneilidillS IlOrrid,lS- sec Triclrosirocalus horridus<br />

CeulOr/r ynclllls atlatllicus 200<br />

CeulOrl,yncllllslilllra 97.139.140-141.143.144.145<br />

Clraelogena sp. ciaripennis group 50<br />

ClraelOgena sp. 50<br />

chaleilOtIla, Marellanria<br />

Chamaesplreciaempiformis 98.163-165.168<br />

Chamaesplreciatenrhrediniformis 98.160.163-165.167.168<br />

Clramaesplrecia spp. 161<br />

chamissOllis. Ambrosia<br />

Clrelinielea viltig('r 183<br />

Chelymorpha cassielea 156<br />

chitletuis, Di/lIItlllls<br />

Chiritia gllllalCl 156<br />

ell loris, Aphis<br />

ClrorislOnellrtl bietltlis 248<br />

ClrorislCmeura diversana 267<br />

Clroristotlellra fumiferana 215. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222.<br />

224.226.235-237.238-276.277.295.321.341.346.366<br />

ClroriSlOtlellra mllritlana 226.267<br />

ClrorislOnellra occidenralis 215. 217.219. 221. 257.277-279<br />

ClrorisICJtlellra pitlll.r 260<br />

ClrorislOm'llraspp. 226.260.267<br />

chrysanthemums 77<br />

chrysocepllala. Psylliodes<br />

Clrrysocllari.r cllSpieiogasler 69


400 Index <strong>of</strong> Species<br />

Chrysoc/laris laricinellae 69.218.281.282.283<br />

Chrysoc/laris pUllclifacies II. 12. 13<br />

Chrysoc/laris IricinclIlS 69<br />

Chrysocharis spp. 287<br />

Cllrysolina hyperici 96. 171. 173-175. 176<br />

Cllrysolinaquadrigemina 96.97.171.172.173.174.175.176<br />

Cllrysolina I'arians 98<br />

Chrysopa sp. 74<br />

chrysorrhoea, Euproclis<br />

cincla, Agalhis<br />

cinclipes. Exelasles<br />

cinclillrorax. Cirrospilus<br />

cilleraria. Celllaurea<br />

cinerea. Alhrycia<br />

cinereus cinereus. Sorex<br />

cinerosella, Euzophera<br />

cinnabar moth -see Tyria jacobaeae<br />

CirculiferlenellllS 191<br />

circumscriplllS. Apallleles<br />

CirrospilllS cinclillrorax 69<br />

Cirrospilus spp. 287<br />

Cirsiumarvense 97.98,101,102.109,139-146,195<br />

Cirsium arvense var. integrifolium 140<br />

Cirsiumdrummondii 142<br />

Cirsiumflodmanii 106<br />

Cirsium spinosum 118<br />

Cirsium vulgare 96.118.147-153<br />

Cirsiumspp. 116.117,142,145<br />

claripennis, Chaelogena<br />

c1earwinged grasshopper - see Camnula pellucida<br />

clear winged moth - see Chamaesphecia lenlhrediniformis<br />

Cleonuspiger 141.145<br />

cloacae, Enterobacler<br />

Clostridium brevifaciens 313<br />

Coccinellacalifornica 7<br />

Coccinellaseplempunclala 5.231<br />

Coccinella Irifasciala 7<br />

Coccinella undecimpunclala 7<br />

coccorum, Cephalosporium<br />

coccus, Daclylopius<br />

codling moth - see Cydia pomonella<br />

Coelomomyces psorophorae 23,24<br />

cole crops 15.18<br />

Coleophora fuscedinella 285<br />

Coleophoraklimeschiella 98.191-192<br />

Coleophoralaricella 215,218.220.222.281-284<br />

Coleophoraparthenica 98.191.192<br />

Coleophoraserralella 215,218,220,222,285-289<br />

coleophorae, Apanteles<br />

colesi, Mieroclonus<br />

coli, Escherichia<br />

Collops vi"alus 74<br />

comata. Slipa<br />

common buckthorn - see Rhamnus calhartica<br />

common mullein - see Verbascum Ihapsus<br />

common ragweed - see Ambrosia arlemisiifolia<br />

commUl'is. Meleorus<br />

Compsilura concinnala 16.301.305.306<br />

compla. Linnaemya<br />

concinnala. Compsilura<br />

confera, Leuzea<br />

configurata, Mames"a<br />

confusus, DaclylopillS<br />

congesla, Colesia<br />

conica. Sympiesis<br />

Conidiobolus sp. 261<br />

ccmquisilOr, flopleclis<br />

cOllSobrina. Emeslia<br />

Contarinia sc1,lechlendaliana 208<br />

Contarillia sonchi - see Contarinia schlechlendaliana<br />

com'o/l'uli, Er)'siphe<br />

COI'I'oll'uillS an'etlSis 155<br />

COIII'o/l'ulus sepium 156<br />

Com'oil'ulusspp. 155,157<br />

corOllala f. sp. al'ellae. Puccinia<br />

Copidoso",a bakeri 34<br />

corvillus. Apallleles<br />

Corylus spp. - see filbert<br />

cosmos III<br />

Cosmos bipimralus 111. 114<br />

COlesia cOllgesla 53<br />

COlesia glomerala 53<br />

COlesia lael'ieips 50<br />

Colesia melanoscelus 306<br />

cOllonwood - see POPUlllS spp.<br />

crane fly - see Tipula paludosa<br />

Cralaegusspp. 101,353<br />

creeping red fescue 180<br />

aislalllm. Agropyroll<br />

Cremifallia IIigrocellulala 231<br />

cricket paralysis virus 248<br />

crislala. Siphona<br />

crown rust <strong>of</strong> oats-see Puccinia coronala f.sp. al'enae<br />

Cruciferae 31.32,74<br />

allfiferae. Phyllolrela<br />

cruciferous garden crops 31<br />

cserei, Silene<br />

cucubalus. Silene<br />

Cucullia verbasci 211.212<br />

cucumber mosaic virus 205<br />

cucumbers 77, 78<br />

Culex pipiens 4. 19-21,24<br />

Culex quillquefascialus 24<br />

Culex reSlllallS 19<br />

Clliisela illomala 4.23-24<br />

culpalor, Slellic/lllellmoll<br />

cunea, Hyphan"ia<br />

Cllnealum, Nosema<br />

cllrclliiollis. Balhyplecles<br />

curly top virus 191<br />

cllSpidogaster, Clrrysoc/,aris<br />

cutworm - see Euxoa messoria<br />

cyanella, Lema<br />

Cyanus segelum 129<br />

Cyclops vemalis 23<br />

C)'diapomonella 4.25-27<br />

Cynarascolymus 106.109.129,139<br />

cyparissiae. AC)'rlhosiphum<br />

C)"parissiae, Aphlholla<br />

C)"parissias. Euphorbia<br />

cypress spurge - see Euphorbia cyparissias<br />

Cyrtacanthacridinae 62<br />

Cystiphora sonchi 97.206.207,208<br />

Cyrtoga.ftersp. 11<br />

cytoplasmic polyhedrosis virus - see viruses<br />

Cyzenisalbicans 217,218.353,354-355.356<br />

czwalinae, Aphthona<br />

Dacnusa dryas 11, 12. 13<br />

Dactylopius coccus 183


pellucida. Cyrtacanthacridinae. Melanoplus spp .•<br />

Oedopodinae<br />

great ragweed - see Ambrosia trifida<br />

greenhouse whitefly-see Trialeurodes vaporariorum<br />

Gregarina longa 85<br />

gregarines 61<br />

grey birch - see Betula populi/olia<br />

ground beetles 85<br />

ground squirrel 183<br />

grylli. Entomophthora<br />

Grypocentrus albipes 218.291.292.293·294<br />

gunata. Chirida<br />

Gymnaetronantirrhinii ISO. 181<br />

Gymnaetron tetrum 211<br />

Gypsophila repens 203<br />

Habrocytus semotus 287<br />

Habrocytuselevatus 141<br />

Habrocytus spp. 287<br />

Hadenaandalusica 204<br />

Hadena Iweago 204<br />

Hadrobunus maculosus 34<br />

hares 378<br />

Harmonia breiti 231<br />

Harpaluscaliginosus 34<br />

harveyi. Bessa<br />

hastata, Rheumaptera<br />

hay 79.204<br />

Helianthus sp. III<br />

sect. Helioscopa, Euphorbia<br />

heliothidis. Heterorhabditis<br />

hemipterus, Eupteromalus<br />

hemlock looper - see Lambdina {/Scellaria {/Scellaria<br />

herculean us, Camponotus<br />

hercyniae, Borrelinavirus<br />

hercyniae, Diprion<br />

hercyniae, Gilpinia<br />

Herpetomonas swainei 344<br />

Heterorhabditis heliothidis 220<br />

hilaris, Theronia<br />

Hirmocystis ventricosa 85<br />

Hirsutellathompsoni 261<br />

histrionanna, Dichelia<br />

Horismenus/raternus 69<br />

horridus, TrichosirocaIus<br />

honensis. Miscogaster<br />

housefly -see Musca domestica<br />

housei, Agria<br />

Howardulaphyllotretae 74<br />

Howardula sp. 73<br />

Hylemya seneciella 98, 197. 199. 200<br />

Hyleseuphorbiae 96.97.98.159.161·163.168<br />

Hyperapostica 4.41·43<br />

hyperici, Agrilus<br />

hyperici. Chrysolina<br />

Hypericumcalycinum 173<br />

Hypericum densiflorum 173<br />

Hyperieumper/oratum 96.97.98.99.171·177<br />

Hypericum rhodopaeum 173<br />

Hyphantria cunea 260<br />

iberica, Salsola<br />

impexus, Pullus<br />

imponed cabbageworm - see Anogeia rapae<br />

impressa, Athrycia<br />

ineertus, Tetrastiehus<br />

inornata, Culiseta<br />

insulare, Diadegma<br />

intermedia. Brachymeria<br />

intermedius. Diglyphus<br />

interruptor, Temelucha<br />

Ipomoea batatas - see sweet potato<br />

iridescent virus - see viruses<br />

isaea, Diglyphus<br />

Itoplectis conquisitor 81.306<br />

Itoplectis spp. 287<br />

jaceae, Larinus<br />

jaceae, Puccinia<br />

jack pine - see Pinus banksiana<br />

jack pine bud worm - see Choristoneura pinus<br />

jacobaeae, Longitarsus<br />

jacobaeae, Senecio<br />

jaeobaeae, Tyria<br />

Japanese fir-see Abiesfirma<br />

japonicus, Dicladocen/S<br />

jugoslavica, Sphenoptera<br />

julis, Tetrastiehus<br />

jurinea/olia, Centaurea<br />

kali var. tenui/olia, Salsola<br />

kasoehstaniea, Urophora<br />

kinghead - see Ambrosia trifida<br />

Klebsiella pneumoniae 35<br />

klimeschiella, Coleophora<br />

klugii, Tritneptis<br />

knapweed 95. 102-see also Acroptilon repens, Centaurea<br />

spp.<br />

knapweed root moth - see Agapeta zoegana<br />

kuvanae, Ooencyrtus<br />

lateicolor, Apanteles<br />

Lactuca sativa var. capita 114<br />

laetus, Apanteles<br />

laevieeps, Apanleles<br />

laevicips, Cotesia<br />

Lambdina {/Scellaria {!Seellaria 219. 226<br />

Lambdina {/Seellaria lugubrosa 226<br />

lapponicus, Rhorus<br />

larch - see Larix spp.<br />

larch case bearer - see Coleophora larieella<br />

large tooth aspen - see Populus grandidentata<br />

larieella, Coleophora<br />

laricina, Larix<br />

laricinellae, Chrysoeharis<br />

laricinel/um, Diadegma<br />

laricis. Cephaloglypta<br />

Laricobius eriehsonii 231<br />

Larinus bardus 105<br />

Larinusjaceaf 105<br />

Larix laricina 233.281.359.369.371.381<br />

Larix Iyallii 369<br />

Larix oecidentalis 281, 369<br />

Larix spp. 226. 369<br />

larvarum. Eulophus<br />

/arvarum, Exorista<br />

lan'arum, Fusarium<br />

lasioearpa, Abies<br />

Lathrolestes nigrieollis 218.291·294<br />

lathyris, Euphorbia<br />

Index <strong>of</strong> Species 403


404 Index <strong>of</strong> Species<br />

lawn 85<br />

leafy spurge 95, 100, 102-see also EuphorbiQ esulQ·virgata<br />

complex<br />

leatherjacket-see TipulQ spp.<br />

LebiQ viridis 140<br />

LecQnium tiliae 215<br />

lecontei, Neodiprion<br />

legume crops 45 -see also alfalfa, red clover, sainfoin, sweet<br />

clover<br />

Leiobunum villQtum 34<br />

LemQcyanella 101,142,144<br />

Lespesia sp. 50<br />

lettuce 107,109,114<br />

Leucoma SQlicis 215,220,222,299·302,305<br />

Leucopis atrQlulQ 232<br />

Leucopis n .sp. nr. melQnopus 232<br />

Leucopis obscurQ 232<br />

leucostigma, OrgyiQ<br />

LeuzeQcon/erQ 129<br />

leviventris, Meteorus<br />

LinQriQ dQlmQticQ 98, 179·182<br />

LinQriQ l'ulgQris 97,179·182<br />

linden-see Tiliaspp.<br />

lineola, Thymelicus<br />

lineolaris, Lygus<br />

lineolatus, Adelphocoris<br />

Linnaemyacompta 34<br />

Liothrips sp. 111<br />

Lissonotasp. 218,267,268,270<br />

litura, Ceutorhynchus<br />

lituratus, Exochomus<br />

LobesiaeuphorbianQ 168<br />

locustae, MalamebQ<br />

locustae, Nosema<br />

loewi, Dasineura<br />

Lombardy poplar-see Populus nigra var. italica<br />

longa, GregarinQ<br />

longi/oliQ, Artemisia<br />

Longitarsus /lavicomis 198<br />

LongitaTSusjacobaeae 96,196,198·200<br />

Lophyroplectus luteator 218,313,334,335,338,339<br />

lugubris, FormicQ<br />

luna, Patasson<br />

lunula, Calophasia<br />

luteago, Hadena<br />

luteator, Lophyroplectus<br />

luteopicta, Adalia<br />

lyalli, Larix<br />

Lygus borealis 45<br />

Lygus deserlinus 45<br />

Lygus lineolaris 45<br />

Lygus rugulipennis 45<br />

Lygus shulli 45<br />

Lygus unctuosus 45<br />

Lygus spp. 4,45·47<br />

Lymantriadispar 216,217,218,219,220,221,222,225,268,<br />

303·310<br />

LyphQdubia 217,218,389,390<br />

Lysiphlebus/aborum 173<br />

maculipes, Pnigalio<br />

maculosa, Centaurea<br />

maculosus, Hadrobunus<br />

Malacosomadisstria 215,217,219,221<br />

MalQmeba locustae 61<br />

Malus spp. - see apple<br />

MamestrQ brassicae 49,5 I, 52, 53, 54, 85<br />

Mamestra configurata 4,49·55<br />

mammals, small 258,372<br />

Mammillaria vil'iparQ 183<br />

Manduca quinquemaculata 4,57·59<br />

Manitoba maple -see Acer negundo<br />

Mantis religiosa 5<br />

maple-sec Acerspp.<br />

mQrcescens, Serratia<br />

Marchantia cha/chonta 31<br />

mQrianum, Silybum<br />

maritima, Silene<br />

MaTSsoninasonchi 206<br />

marylandensis, Sympiesis<br />

masked shrew - see Sorex cinereus cinereus<br />

Matricaria matricarioides 114<br />

mQtricarioides, Matricaria<br />

MQtrusspp. 342<br />

maura, UrophorQ<br />

maxima, Tipula<br />

mediator, Microplitis<br />

MedicQgo sativa - see alfalfa<br />

Medicago sp. 11<br />

medullana, Peloclrrista<br />

Megaselia paludosa 87<br />

Meigelliamlltabilis 31,32<br />

Meigelliasp. 32<br />

Melandrium spp. 203<br />

Melanoplusbivillatus 61<br />

Melanopluspackardii 61<br />

Melanoplussanguinipes 61<br />

MelQnoplusspp. 4,61·62<br />

melanopus, Leucopis<br />

melanopus, Oulema 4<br />

melanoscelus, Cotesia<br />

melanoscellus, Apanteles<br />

Melilotus sp. 11<br />

Melitara dentata 183<br />

mella, Exorista<br />

menziesi;, PselldotsugQ<br />

Mericiaampelus 50,51,54<br />

merkeri, Adelges<br />

mermithids 73,74<br />

MeroslOmaspp. 19,21<br />

Mesochorus dimidiatus 372-373, 377, 378<br />

Mesochorus globulQtor 384, 385<br />

Mesochorusspp. 74<br />

Mesoleius tenthredinis 218,372,373,374,378,379<br />

mesoxanthus, Apanteles<br />

messaniellQ, Phyllonorycter<br />

messoria, Euxoa 4<br />

Meteoruscommunis 34<br />

Meteorus lel'iventris 34,53<br />

Meteorus versicolor 305,308<br />

MetrionQ bicolor 156<br />

MetrionQ purpurata 156<br />

MetzneriapaucipunctellQ 97,132-133,134,135<br />

mice 129,132,162,187,378<br />

Microctonus aethiopoides 41,42<br />

Microctonus bicolor 74,75,76<br />

Microctonuscolesi 41.42<br />

Microctollus villatQe 73<br />

M;croctonus sp. Z 74,75<br />

Microplitis mediator 51,53,54


.\ticroplitis pluu!llae 16. 17<br />

M icroplitis tubereulifer 53<br />

microsporidia 31. 61. 260-261, 262-265<br />

migratory grasshopper-sec Melanoplus sunguinipes<br />

militaris. Apunteles<br />

milkweed 222<br />

.'.finoamurinata 168<br />

minUlum. Trichogramma<br />

Miscogasterhortf?flsis 11, 12, 13<br />

modestus. Podi.ws<br />

moles 343<br />

MonodontomeTiu aereus 308<br />

montium. Tipula<br />

mosehata, Amberboa<br />

mosquito - see Aedes spp .. Anopheles spp., Culex spp.,<br />

Culiseta spp.<br />

mountain ash - sec Sorbus spp.<br />

mountain-ash sawfly -see Pristiphora geniculala<br />

mountain pine beetle - see Dendroetonus ponderosae<br />

Mugho pine-see Pinusmugo<br />

mugo. Pinus<br />

mullein - see VerbasClim Ihapsus<br />

mullein leafbug-sce Campy/omma verbosci<br />

mullein shark moth -see Cucullia verbasci<br />

mullilineatum. Zagrammosoma<br />

murinanae. Cephaloglypta<br />

murinana. Choristoneura<br />

murinala. Minoa<br />

Mu.rca domeslica 4.63-64<br />

M uscina slabu/ans 34<br />

mustard 31<br />

mUlabi/is. Meigenia<br />

Nabisferus II<br />

nana. Diadegma<br />

nebulosus. Euloplllls<br />

necalrix. Vairimorpha<br />

neerlandicum. AcyrtllOsiphon<br />

negundo. Acer<br />

nematodes 220,225 - see also OD-136. mermithids<br />

Neodiprionabielis 216,217,221. 222.321-322<br />

Neodiprion lecontei 215,217.220.221.222,225,323-329<br />

Neodiprion pralli banksianae 343<br />

Neodiprionsmifer 215.217.218.220.221. 225. 331-340<br />

NeodiprionsK'ainei 215.217.218.219.221.222.341-348<br />

Neopleclanacarpocapsae 87<br />

ni. Trichop/usia<br />

Nicoliana sp. 211<br />

nigra. Centaurea<br />

nigra. Pinus<br />

nigra var. italica. Populus<br />

nigricana. Epinota<br />

nigrifemur. Parasierola<br />

nigripes. Blondelia<br />

nigrocellu/ata. Cremifania<br />

nigricollis. Lathrolestes<br />

nil·ale. Fusarium<br />

noclij7ora. Silene<br />

nodding thistle - see Carduus nUlatlS<br />

northern house mosquito - see Cu/ex pipiens<br />

Nosema acridophagu.r 6 I<br />

Nosema binucleatum 85<br />

Nosemacuneatum 61<br />

Nosemadisstriae 313.314.315.317.318<br />

Nosema fumiferanae 257.260.262-264<br />

Nosema locustae 61.62.260<br />

Nosemapyraustae 260<br />

Nosemaspp. 35.51.61,141.142<br />

Notanisomorplla sp. II<br />

muslini. Ade/ges<br />

nlllans. Carduus<br />

nUlans ssp. macro/epis. Carduus<br />

oak - see Quercus spp.<br />

oak leafmincr-see Phyllonorcyler messaniella<br />

oats 155.185.188.205<br />

Obereaerylhrocepha/a 97.165-167.168<br />

oblilerala. Aphidecla<br />

obscura. Leucopis<br />

obscurator. Orgilus<br />

obscuripes. Formica<br />

occidentalis. CllOristOlleura<br />

ocridentalis. Larix<br />

Odiellus pictus 34<br />

Oedopodinae 62<br />

<strong>of</strong>ficinale. Taraxacum<br />

o/eracea. Tipula<br />

o/eraceus, Sonchus<br />

Index <strong>of</strong> Species 405<br />

O/esicampe benefactor 218.370.372.373-375.376-377.378,<br />

379.384<br />

Olesicampe genicu/alae 218.381.382.383-385<br />

Oncope/lus /ascialus 99<br />

onion maggot-see Delia amiqua<br />

onions 29.30<br />

Onopordum acanthium 106<br />

Onopordumspp. 116.117<br />

OoencyrlUS kUl'anae 218.305.306.307-308,309<br />

Operophtera bruceata 216.217. 221. 349-351<br />

Operophtera brumata 215.217. 218.220.222, 349, 353-357.<br />

390<br />

opilio. Pha/angium<br />

oporana. Archips<br />

Opumia/ragi/is 183<br />

Opumia polyacamha 183-184<br />

Orgilusobscurator 218.389.390-392.393,394<br />

Orgi/usspp. 287<br />

Orgyia/eucostigma 216.217,219,221,222.359-361.364<br />

Orgyia pseudotsugata 216.217.219.221,222,225,363-367<br />

ornatus. Eclytus<br />

ornigis. Aponte/es<br />

Oulema melanopus 4.65-67<br />

Oxydia trychiata 233<br />

Pacific silver fir - see Abies amabi/is<br />

Packard grasshopper - see Me/anop/us packardii<br />

packardii. Melanoplus<br />

Paecilomyces [arinosus 344<br />

pallipes. Peristenus<br />

paludosa, Megaselia<br />

pa/udosa. Tipula 4<br />

sect. Paralias. Euphorbia<br />

Paranguinapicridis 97.105,106-109<br />

Parasetigena si/"estris 306<br />

Parasiero/a nigrifemur 218.389,390.392-393<br />

parasitoids 275<br />

parthenica, Co/eop/lOra<br />

Palasson luna 41.42<br />

patula. Tagete.s<br />

paucipunctella. Metzneria<br />

pea aphid - see Acyrthosiphon pis"m


406 Index <strong>of</strong> Species<br />

pear 211<br />

pecoseruis, Phryxe<br />

pedalis, Pimpla<br />

pedias, Apanleles<br />

Pellochrislamedullana 129,136<br />

pellucida, Camnula<br />

Penicillium sp. 233<br />

pentatomids 162<br />

peplus, EuphorbiD<br />

perennial sow-thistle -see Sonchus arveruis<br />

perforalum, Hypericum<br />

Perislenus adelphocoridis 9-10<br />

Perislenus digoneulis 45,46<br />

Perislenus pallipes 9,45,46<br />

Perislenus pseudopal/ipes 45<br />

Perislenus rubricollis 9·10,45<br />

Perislenus stygicus 45,46<br />

Perislenus spp. 46<br />

persimi/is, Phyloseiulus<br />

peslifer, Salsola<br />

Pelrona resinella 224<br />

Pllalangium opilio 34<br />

Phobocampe disparis 306<br />

Phryxe pecoseruis 50<br />

Phryxe vulgaris 16,50,53,81,82<br />

Phyllonorycler blancardella 4,69-71, 101<br />

Phyllonorycler messaniella 70<br />

Phyllolrela albionica 73<br />

Phyllolrela cruciferae 73,74,75<br />

Phyllolreta robusla 73<br />

Phyllolretastriolata 73,74,75,76<br />

Phyllolrela undulata 74<br />

Phyllolrekl vittata 74<br />

Phyllolretaspp. 4,5,73-76<br />

phyllotrekle, Howardula<br />

phytonomi, Entomophlhora<br />

Phyloseiulus persimilis 77-78,89<br />

Picea engelmannii 363<br />

Piceaglauca 233,243,251,252,253,254,255,256,262,263,<br />

295<br />

Picea mariDna 233,235,256<br />

Picea ruberu 243,244<br />

Picea spp. 226.235.236,267,295,321<br />

piceae, Abies<br />

piceae, Adelges<br />

picornovirus-see viruses<br />

picridis. Paranguina<br />

pictus, Odiellus<br />

piger, Cleonus<br />

pigweed -see Axyris amaranthoides<br />

Pimpla pedalis 306<br />

pincushion cactus-see Mammillaria vivipara<br />

pine-see Pinusspp.<br />

pine beetle -see Dedrocolonus ponderosae<br />

Pinus banksiana 323,325.334,338,339,342,345.387<br />

pinus, Choris/oneura<br />

Pinus mugo 387<br />

Pinus nigra 387<br />

Pinus ponderosa 363.387<br />

Pinus resinosa 323,325.326.327,334.338,339.387<br />

Pinus rigida 387<br />

Pinus strobus 387<br />

Pinus sylveslris 323,334.338.339<br />

Pinus virginiDna 387<br />

Pinus spp. 226,323,387<br />

pipieru, Clllex<br />

pisllm. AcyrtllOsipllOn<br />

pitch pine -see Pinus rigida<br />

plagia/a, Anailis<br />

plains prickly·pear cactus-see Opllnlia polyacantha<br />

plant bugs-see Lygllsspp.<br />

Plalyptiliacardllidaclyla 147<br />

Pleclocephalus 129<br />

Pleislophoraschllbergi 260,263·264.315<br />

Pleolophus basizonus 218,333,335.337,338,341,342<br />

Pleolophusspp. 342<br />

pllimarius, Dianthus<br />

plume less thistle - see Carduus acantllOides<br />

PlllIeliaxyloslella 4.15-18<br />

plluellae, Apallleles<br />

pllllellae, Microplilis<br />

pnellmoniae, Klebsiella<br />

Pnigalio jlal'ipes 69<br />

Pnigalio maclllipes 11.69<br />

P"igalio Ilroplalae 69<br />

P"igalio n.sp. 11<br />

Podislls modeslIlS 343<br />

polyacalllha, Opllntia<br />

pomerlaria, Alsophiia<br />

pomonella, Cydia<br />

ponderosa pine - see Pi"us ponderosa<br />

ponderosa, Pinus<br />

ponderosae, Dendroclo"us<br />

poplar - see Popllius spp.<br />

Popllius alba 299. 301<br />

Popllius balsamifera 299<br />

Popllius x canaderuis 299. 30 1<br />

Popllius delloides 299<br />

Populus grandidentala 299.301<br />

Populus nigra var. ilalica 299<br />

Popllius lremuloides 299.301.302.311.314.315.316.349<br />

Populus lrichocarpa 299, 302<br />

Populusspp. 299,317.353<br />

Porizon spp. - see Campoplex spp.<br />

poslica, Hypera<br />

potato 211<br />

praleruis, Blepharipa<br />

x praleruis, Centaurea<br />

pratti ba"ksianae, Neodiprion<br />

prickly-pear - see OpllTllia spp.<br />

Priopoda nigricollis - see Lalhrolestes nigricollis<br />

Prisliphoraerichsonii 215.217,218.220.222.369-380.381<br />

Prisliphorageniclliala 216.218,220.222.381-385<br />

protozoa 219.223.225. 274-see also individualspecies<br />

Pru"us spp. 353<br />

Pselldomonas j1lloresceru 35<br />

Pseudomonasspp. 35.313<br />

pseudopallipes, Perislenus<br />

Pseudotsuga menziesii 171,277.363<br />

pseudotsugae, De"droclo"us<br />

pseudosugala, Orgyia<br />

psi/oslachya, Ambrosia<br />

psorophorae, Coelomomyces<br />

Psylliodes chrysocephala 74<br />

Psylliodes pllncllliula 73,75<br />

ptarmica, Achillea<br />

Pleromalus puparllm 16<br />

Pleroslichus adslriclUS 31<br />

publicarius, Brachyplerus<br />

Puccinia acroplili 105.109


Puccinia calcilrapae Vilr. centaureae 129<br />

Pllct"illiacarlhami 129,130<br />

Pllceilliacentaurrae 129,130<br />

Pllceillia coronaUl f. sp. al'enae IllS<br />

Pucciniajacear 129.130.136<br />

Puccilliaplmcli/ormis 141,145<br />

pulcherrima, Euphorbia<br />

pulchripes, Diglyplllls<br />

pulrx, Daphnia<br />

PUI/IIS impexus 232<br />

pumila, Agalhis<br />

pumilio, ScymmlS<br />

pUllcli/acies, Chr),socharis<br />

puncli/ormis, Pllccillia<br />

pllnellliala, Psylliodes<br />

pl/parum, PteromalllS<br />

purpurata, Metriona<br />

plIsilla, FenllSa<br />

pycnocephalllS, CardllllS<br />

qlladri/asciata, UropllOra<br />

qllCldrigemina, Chry.wlilla<br />

qlladriplISlIIlata, lVillthemia<br />

QuercllS garryalla 353<br />

QuercllS rubra 353<br />

QuercllS spp. 353<br />

quillqlle/ascialllS, Culex<br />

qllillquemaclI/Clla, Malldllca 4<br />

radicans, ZoophtllOra<br />

ragllSilla, Centaurea<br />

ragweed -see Ambrosia spp.<br />

ragwort -see Smecio jacobaea<br />

rain bilrrel mosquito-see Culex pipiens<br />

raoi, Tetraph/eps<br />

rapae, Artogeia<br />

rape 31,49,73,74,75,205<br />

rapeseed - see rape<br />

red clover 9<br />

red oak -see QllefL'llS rubra<br />

red pine - see PimlS rfsillosa<br />

red spruce - see Piefa rubens<br />

red turnip beetle - see Elltomoscflis americana<br />

red wood ants - see Fannica spp.<br />

redheaded pine sawny - see Neodiprion lecontei<br />

rdigiosa, Mantis<br />

repens, Acroptil()fI<br />

repellS, Agropyroll<br />

repens, Centaurea<br />

repens, Gypsophi/a<br />

resillel/a, Petrona<br />

resillosa. PillllS<br />

restuans. Culex<br />

RhClmmlS cathartica 185-189<br />

rhellalla. Centaurea<br />

Rheumaptera hastata 308<br />

RhillocylillSconicllS 96,97.100.115.116.117.119·124.125<br />

rlrodopaellm. Hypaicum<br />

RhorllS lapponicllS 383<br />

RllOfllSsp.no3 381.383.384<br />

RllOrllSsp. 218<br />

Rhyaeioniabuoliana 215. 217.211l. 220. 222. 224.387-394<br />

RhynchaenllS distans 105<br />

rickellsia 220<br />

rigida. PinllS<br />

ritro. Echinops<br />

robin 187<br />

robllSla. Phyl/otrelCl<br />

Rogas Irislis 81<br />

roll ilia. Adalia<br />

rosaceana. Ce/)'pha<br />

roses 77<br />

rubecu/a. Apantdes<br />

rubens, Picea<br />

rubiginosa. Cassida<br />

rubra. QllercllS<br />

rubricollis, PerislmllS<br />

rll/a consobrina. Vespu/a<br />

rllfa. Galeruca<br />

ru{i/emllr. EII/imlleriii<br />

rllfipennis. DI'IIdroclolluS<br />

ru{ipes l'ernalis, Armelra<br />

rufopicla, Winthemia<br />

ruglllipennis. LygllS<br />

Russian knapweed - see Acropli/on repens<br />

Russian pigweed - see Axyris amaralllhoides<br />

Russian thistle - see Salsola pesli/er<br />

rye ISS<br />

saccharum, Acer<br />

sainfoin 9<br />

SI. John 's-wort - see Hypericum per/oralum<br />

SI. Louis encephalitis 19,20,21<br />

salicis, Leucoma<br />

Salixspp. 299,301. 353<br />

Salsola iberica - see Salso/a pesli/er<br />

Salsola kali var. tenui/olia - see Salso/a peslifer<br />

Salsolapesti/a 91l,191·193<br />

sUlrgllillipes, MelalloplllS<br />

seplempullclata, Coccillel/a 6<br />

Sarcophaga aldrichi 306.313<br />

satin moth - Leucoma salicis<br />

salim var. capila, Laclllca<br />

sawny-see Neodiprionspp., Gilpinia hercyniae<br />

SeambllS spp. 2117<br />

sehlechtendaliana, Conlarinia<br />

scill/bergi, P/eisltJphora<br />

Sclerolinasc/eroliorum 129.136<br />

scleroliorum, Sc/erolina<br />

sco/ymllS, Cynara<br />

Scolosia velu/ala 187, 188<br />

Scots pine - see PimlS sy/veslris<br />

ScymnllS pumilio 233<br />

segelum, CyanllS<br />

sfguierana, Euphorbia<br />

semOIIlS. HabrocYl1IS<br />

sl'IIeciella. Hylemya<br />

Smecio jacobaea 96.98,99.195·201<br />

sepillm, Convoil'ul,lS<br />

srptempullctata. Coccillella<br />

SeplOria soncl!i·arwII.fis 206<br />

Seploria sonchi/olia 206<br />

sfricellS. SpermophagllS<br />

sericeicornis, Sympiesis<br />

serratella, ColeopllOra<br />

Serratia marcescetlS 313<br />

sali/a. Neodipri()fI<br />

setipennis, Bigonichela<br />

short ragweed - see Ambrosia artemisiifolia<br />

slrlllli, LygllS<br />

Index <strong>of</strong> Species 407


408 Index <strong>of</strong> Species<br />

sibericus. Dendrolimu.r<br />

sierrensis. Aedes<br />

Silene a(aulis 203<br />

Silene alba 203<br />

Silene cserei 203<br />

Silenecllcubalus 203-204<br />

Silene glauca 203<br />

Silene maritima 203<br />

Silene noctif/ora 203<br />

Silene spp. 203.204<br />

silver poplar - see Popllius alba<br />

silvestris. Parasetigena<br />

Silybummarianum 100<br />

Silybum spp. 166. 117. 145<br />

simi/is. Diprion<br />

Siphona cristala 53<br />

Siphonaf/avifrons 53<br />

Siphonageniculala 85.86,87-88<br />

Silotroga cerealella 270<br />

skipper - see Thymelicus lineola<br />

Solidago giganlea 99<br />

So/idagospp. 160,195<br />

so/ilarius, Apanteles<br />

solslilia/is, Urophora<br />

sonchi, Contarinia<br />

sonchi, Cysliphora<br />

sonchi, Marssonina<br />

sonchi-arvensis, Seploria<br />

sonchif<strong>of</strong>ia, Seploria<br />

Sonchus arvensis 97,98,205-209<br />

Sonchusarvensiss.str. 205<br />

Sonchus arvensis var. g/abrescens 205<br />

Sonchus asper 205-209<br />

Sonchuso/eraceus 205-209<br />

Sonchus lenerrimus 206<br />

Sonchusspp. 206<br />

SorbusamericaM 381<br />

Sorbusaucuparia 381<br />

Sorex arClicus 376<br />

Sorex cinereus cinereus 295,372, 373, 376, 371<br />

sorghum 155<br />

Sorospore/la uvella 35<br />

Spalangia endius 63<br />

spanworm - see Operophlera bruceala<br />

Spermophagus sericeus 155<br />

sphaericus, Bacillus<br />

sphaerosperma, Entomophlhora<br />

Sphenop/erajugos/al'ica 97,129,133,134,135<br />

spider mite -see Te/ranychus urlicae<br />

spiders 162<br />

spini, Thecla<br />

spinosu.m, Cirsiu.m<br />

spiny annual sow-thistle - see Sonchus asper<br />

spotted knapweed - see Centaurea macu/osa<br />

spotted knapweed root moth - see Agapela zoegana<br />

spotted tentiform leafminer - see Phyllonorycler blancardella<br />

spruce - see Picea spp.<br />

spruce budworm - see Chorisloneura fumiferana<br />

spurge - see Euphorbia spp.<br />

spurge hawkmoth-see Hyleseuphorbiae<br />

slabu/ans, Muscina<br />

starlings 34,85<br />

Slenichneu.mon cu/palor 53<br />

SlenichneumonsculellalOr-see Syspasis sculellalor<br />

stenosligma, Balhyp/ectus<br />

stinkweed - see Thlaspi arl'(!nse<br />

Stipacoma/a 121<br />

strawberries 7<br />

SlreplOCOCC/lS faecalis 35<br />

strio/ata, Phyllotreta<br />

strobus, PilllLr<br />

stygicus, Perislenus<br />

stylata, UropllOra<br />

subalpine fir-see Abies lasiocarpa<br />

subnodicomi.r, Tipula<br />

sublilicomis, Diadromus<br />

sugar beet 191<br />

sugar maple - see Acer saccharum<br />

sunflower III<br />

swuralis, Entomoscelis<br />

swuralis. Eutanyacra<br />

Swaine jack pine sawfly - see Neodiprion swainei<br />

swainei, Herpelomonas<br />

swainei. Neodiprion<br />

sweet clover 9<br />

sweet potato 157<br />

sycophanta, Calosoma<br />

sylveslris, Pillus<br />

Sympiesis bimaculatipennis 69<br />

Sympiesis conica 69<br />

Sympiesis marylandensis 69<br />

Sympiesi.r sericeicornis 69. 70<br />

syriaca, Asclepias<br />

Syspasis scU/ellator 81. 82, 83<br />

Tachina lan'arum - see Exorista larvarum<br />

Tagetespalula 114<br />

tamarack -sec Larix laridna<br />

Tanacelum I'ulgare 114<br />

tansy ragwort -sec Senecio jacobaea<br />

Taraxacum <strong>of</strong>fidnale 206<br />

Telenomusalsophi/ae 223<br />

Telenomussp. 306<br />

Temelucha interruplor 392<br />

tene/lus, Circulifer<br />

lenerrimus, Sonchus<br />

lenthrediniformis, Chamaesphecia<br />

lenthredinis, Mesoleius<br />

lenuif/oru.r, Carduus<br />

tenuifolia, Ambrosia<br />

Tephrilis dilacerala 98.206.207.208<br />

Telracampe diprioni - see Dipriocampe diprioni<br />

Telranychus ur/icae 4,77-18<br />

Telraphleps abdulghalli 233<br />

Telrapltieps raoi 233<br />

letraspilota, Adalia<br />

Tetrastichus incerlUS 41.42<br />

Tetrasticllus julis 65-67<br />

Telraslichus sp. 69<br />

Ie/rum, Gymnaelron<br />

Ihapsu.r, Verbascum<br />

Theclaspini 181,188<br />

Thelohania sp. 260,344<br />

Therion giganteum 53<br />

Theronia alalanlae fulvescens 306<br />

Theronia hi/aris 306<br />

thistle - see Carduus spp., Cirsium spp .• Salsola pes/ifer,<br />

Sonchus spp.<br />

Thalspi arvense 121<br />

thomp.roni, Aphidoletes


410 Index <strong>of</strong> Species<br />

Malacosoma disstria 221,313,314<br />

Mamestra configurata 51<br />

Neodiprion abietis 221,321-322<br />

Neodiprion lecontei 215.220,221,222-223,225,323-328<br />

Neodiprion sertifer 221,331, 334, 337-338, 339<br />

Neodiprion swainei 221,341,343-345,346<br />

neodiprionid sawflies 219<br />

Operophlera bruceata 221,350-351<br />

Operophlera brumala 356<br />

Orgyia leucos/igma 219,221,222-223,359-361<br />

Orgyia pseudotsugata 219, 221, 222, 225, 258, 363-365,<br />

365-367<br />

Thylmelicus lineola 79<br />

Trichoplusia ni 16, 18<br />

picornovirus <strong>of</strong> Melanoplus bivittatus 61<br />

tobacco streak virus 205<br />

villata, Tipula<br />

villalae, Microclonus<br />

villatum, Leiobunum<br />

villatus, Col/ops<br />

vitliger, Chelinidea<br />

vivipara, Mammillaria<br />

vole 378<br />

vulgare, Cirsium<br />

vulgare, Tanacetum<br />

vulgaris, Anemisia<br />

vulgaris, Linaria<br />

vulgaris, Phryxe<br />

wasps 162<br />

websleri, Diglyphus<br />

western equine encephalomyelitis 23<br />

western larch -see Larix occidentalis<br />

western spruce bud worm -see Choristoneura occidentalis<br />

wheat 139, 155,205<br />

white birch - see Betu/Q papyrifera<br />

white elm - see Ulmus americana<br />

white spruce -see Picea glauco<br />

whitefly - see Trialeurodes vaporariorum<br />

whitemarked tussock moth - see Orgyia leucostigma<br />

wild carrot - see carrot<br />

willow -see Salix spp.<br />

winter moth -see Operophtera brumata<br />

Winthemia deilephilae 34<br />

Winthemia quadripustulata 50,53<br />

Winthemia rufopicla 34,50<br />

xylinus, Apanteles<br />

xylostel/a, Plutel/a<br />

yellow toadflax - see Linaria vulgaris<br />

Zagrammosoma multilineatum 69<br />

zea, Heliothis<br />

Zeiraphera diniana 3TI<br />

Zeiraphera spp. 226<br />

Zeuxidiplosis giardi 98<br />

zoegana, Agapeta<br />

Zoophthora radicans 79,261,262<br />

Zygogramma tonuosa 111

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!