1

laced food to pure sugar water.They preferred to eat the pesticideseven though it led to reduced foodintake. “Remarkably, the preferenceoccurred even when bees consum-ing these solutions were more likelyto die” (Kessler et al. 2015).Nicotine and neonicotinoids affectthe nicotinic nervous system, andthe behaviorial effects seen in thisexperiment are reminiscent of drugaddiction in humans (Raine andGill 2015).

By William Quarles

Honey bee decline has beenreviewed in previous issuesof the IPM Practitioner (see

Quarles 2008; Quarles 2011). Thereis good evidence that pesticides area major factor in honey bee colonycollapse disorder. Commercial hivesare contaminated with a mixture ofmany pesticides, including neoni-cotinoids (Mullin et al. 2010). Beesare exposed to neonicotinoids inpollen and nectar of systemicallytreated plants. They are alsoexposed to neonicotinoids (neonics)in spray residues, in toxic dustfrom seed treatments, in guttationdroplets, and in soil (Goulson 2013;Krupke et al. 2012; Girolami et al.2009; Girolami et al. 2012; Jeschkeet al. 2011; Hopwood et al. 2012). Neonics have delayed mortality

effects on overwintering honey beecolonies. Summer bees are poi-soned, and the overwinteringcolonies die. The delayed mortalityeffects are similar to those observedwith colony collapse disorder.Reduced overwintering survival maybe due to higher rates of queen lossand broodless periods during thelate summer months due to pesti-cide exposure (Dively et al. 2015;Lu et al. 2012; Lu et al. 2014).Both honey bees and bumble bees

are affected. Published studiesshow that the neonicotinoids imida-cloprid, clothianidin and thi-amethoxam have high acute toxicityto bees, and sublethal amountsinterfere with foraging and repro-duction. Exposure of bumble beesto neonicotinoid concentrationsfound in pollen and nectar of treat-ed plants reduces colony growthand the number of bumble beequeens (Whitehorn et al. 2012; Gilland Raine 2014).

Criticism of this research is thatpesticide concentrations used in theseexperiments would not be encoun-tered by bees in a field situation.Other criticisms are that bees areprobably repelled by treated plants,and that polluted pollen and nectargathered from treated plants would bediluted with that from untreatedplants (Raine and Gill 2015).

New ResearchThese criticisms have been

answered by new research. Kessleret al. (2015) have found that bothhoney bees, Apis mellifera, andbumble bees, Bombus terrestris,are not repelled by sugar solutionslaced with the neonicotinoids imida-cloprid, clothianidin, and thi-amethoxam. Even worse, whenchallenged with neonic concentra-tions often found in pollen and nec-tar, the bees preferred the pesticide-

In This Issue

Bees and Neonics 1Glyphosate 4Calendar 5Conference Notes 6

Volume XXXIV, Number 9/10, (Published May 2015)

Bees Attracted to Neonicotinoids

Photo co

urtesy

of K

athy Keatley

Garvey

Concentrations of neonicotinoids found in pollen and nectar are attractiveto honey bees, Apis mellifera. A large percentage of bee pollen can comefrom treated fields.

Special

Pheromone Issue

2

2 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015

UpdateSo, neonics are not repellent to

bees, at least when they encounterthem at low concentrations. Thisobservation is consistent with thewell known effects of neonics ontermites. Soil treated with 0.05%solutions of imidacloprid (Premise®)is not repellent to termites. Andpoisoned termites show the samekind of confused behavior seen withpoisoned bees (Quarcoo et al.2010).

Seed Treatments AffectWild Bees

A second new study found thatneonic seed coatings negativelyaffected wild bees in a Swedishlandscape. When wild bees wereexposed to fields of canola whereseeds had been coated with a pesti-cide mixture containing the neonicclothianidin (Elado®), wild bee den-sity in the treated fields droppedcompared to untreated controls.Clothianidin was the only pesticidefound in the bee collected pollenand nectar. Honey bee pollen con-tained about 13.9 ppb [parts perbillion], honey bee nectar contained10.3 ppb, and bumble bee nectarhad 5.4 ppb (Rundlof et al. 2015).The seed treatment led to reduced

numbers of ground nesting solitarybees, Osmia bicornis, and bumblebees, Bombus terrestris. Weights ofbumble bee colonies, and bumblebee queen production was reducedfollowing exposure to treated crops. About 80% of the bumble bee

pollen, and 57% of honey bee pollencollected came from the treatedcanola fields. This experiment

shows that pollen collection fromtreated fields can be extensive,despite availability of alternate foodsources (Rundlof et al. 2015).

Bumble Bees Sensitive toNeonics

These observations are consistentwith previous work. After 9 days offoraging in sunflowers treated withimidacloprid, about 10% more bum-ble bees were lost in treated fieldscompared to untreated fields (Taseiet al. 2001). Commercial bumblebee colonies exposed to clothianidinseed-treated corn had fewer work-ers than those exposed to organiccorn (Cutler and Scott-Dupree2014).However, a British Agency found

that field concentrations of neonicsfrom seed treatments had no effecton bumble bee colony growth andqueen production. This experimentwas criticized, and Goulson (2015)reanalyzed the data and found “anegative relationship between bothcolony growth and queen produc-tion and the levels of neonicotinoidsin the food stores collected by thebees.”

Honey Bees MoreResistant

In the short term, honey bees aremore resistant to neonic seed treat-ments. Rundlof et al. (2015) foundcanola seed treatments had no sta-tistically significant effect on honeybee colony growth. Due to the sam-ple size, an effect less than 19%would not have been detected. Anda study funded by Bayer alsoshowed no negative effects onhoney bees foraging in clothianidintreated canola fields (Cutler et al.2014).Honey bees may be more resist-

ant because large colony sizes maybuffer adverse effects of low pesti-cide concentrations on individuals.However, there could be impactsfrom chronic multigenerational per-sistent exposures (Raine and Gill2015). Honey bees also encounterlarger neonic concentrations whenexposed to foliage sprays and soildrenches. For instance, when cloth-

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

Tanya DrlikLaurie Swiadon

Editor-at-Large Joel Grossman Business Manager Jennifer BatesArtist Diane KuhnResearch Intern Erin Berg

For media kits or other advertising informa-tion, contact Bill Quarles at 510/524-2567,birc@igc.org.

Advisory Board George Bird, Michigan State Univ.; SterlingBunnell, M.D., Berkeley, CA ; Momei Chen,Jepson Herbarium, Univ. Calif., Berkeley;Sharon Collman, Coop Extn., Wash. StateUniv.; Sheila Daar, Daar & Associates,Berkeley, CA; Steve Frantz, GlobalEnvironmental Options, Woodland Hills, CA;Linda Gilkeson, Canadian Ministry of Envir.,Victoria, BC; Joseph Hancock, Univ. Calif,Berkeley; William Olkowski, Birc Founder;George Poinar, Oregon State University,Corvallis, OR; Ramesh Chandra Saxena,ICIPE, Nairobi, Kenya; Ruth Troetschler, PTFPress, Los Altos, CA.ManuscriptsThe IPMP welcomes accounts of IPM for anypest situation. Write for details on format formanuscripts or email us, birc@igc.org.

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

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

Change of AddressWhen writing to request a change of address,please send a copy of a recent address label.© 2015 BIRC, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA94707; (510) 524-2567; FAX (510) 524-1758.All rights reserved. ISSN #0738-968X

Bumble bee, Bombus sp.

Drawing fro

m Nixon 1954

3

ianidin is sprayed on turf, concen-tration in nectar of flowering cloveraverages 170 ppb (Larson et al.2013).

Soybean Seed TreatmentsNot Needed

Seed treatments causing prob-lems for wild bees may not even beneeded (Seagraves and Lundgren2012). On October 15, 2014 theEPA produced a Memorandumcalled “Benefits of NeonicotinoidSeed Treatments to SoybeanProduction.” The EPA concluded“seed treatments provide negligibleoverall benefits to soybean produc-tion in most situations. Publisheddata indicate that in most casesthere is no difference in soybeanyield when soybean seed was treat-ed with neonicotinoids versus notreceiving any insect control treat-ment.”

No New Outdoor UsesOn December 1, 2013 the

European Union implemented a twoyear ban on the neonicotinoids imi-dacloprid, clothianidin and thi-amethoxam. The ban is on seedtreatments, soil application of gran-ules, and foliar application to beefriendly plants. On April 2, 2015,the EPA announced that it will notbe approving new outdoor uses ofneonicotinoids until pollinator riskassessments are complete. Testsinclude acute and chronic toxicitytests for adults and larvae, fieldfeeding studies, foliage toxicity,residues in pollen and nectar, andrealistic field experiments that lookat long term effects.

AcknowledgementThe author wishes to thank Erin

Berg for helping with the researchon this article.

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

ReferencesCutler, C.G., C.D. Scott-Dupree, M. Sultan et al.

2014. A large-scale field study examiningeffects of exposure to clothianidin seed-treat-ed canola on honey bee colony health, devel-opment, and overwintering success. PeerJ2:e652.

Cutler, C.G. and C.D. Scott-Dupree. 2014. A fieldstudy examining the effects of exposure toneonicotinoid seed-treated corn on commer-cial bumble bee colonies. Ecotoxicol. 23:1755-1763.

Dively, G.P., M.S. Embrey, A. Kamel et al. 2015.Assessment of chronic sublethal effects ofimidacloprid on honey bee colony health.PLoS ONE 10(3):e0118748.

Gill, R.J. and N.E. Raine. 2014. Chronic impair-ment of bumble bee natural foraging behaviorinduced by sublethal pesticide exposure.Functional Ecol. 28:1459-1471.

Girolami, V., L. Mazzon, A. Squartini et al. 2009.Translocation of neonicotinoid insecticidesfrom coated seeds to seedling guttation drops:a novel way of intoxication for bees. J. Econ.Entomol. 102(5):1808-1815.

Girolami, V., M. Marzaro, L. Vivan et al. 2012.Fatal powdering of bees in flight with particu-lates of neonicotinoids seed coating andhumidity implication. J. Appl. Entomol.135:17-26.

Goulson, D. 2013. An overview of the environmen-tal risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides.J. Appl. Ecol. 50:977-987.

Goulson, D. 2015. Neonicotinoids impact bumblebee colony fitness in the field; a reanalysis ofthe UK’s Food & Environment ResearchAgency 2012 experiment. PeerJ 3:e854.

Hopwood, J., M. Vaughan, M. Shepherd, D.Biddinger et al. 2012. Are NeonicotinoidsKilling Bees? The Xerces Society forInvertebrate Conservation. 33 pp.

Jeschke, P., R. Nauen, M. Shindler and A. Elbert.2011, Overview of the status and global strat-egy for neonicotinoids. J. Agric. Food Chem.59:2897-2908.

Kessler, S.C., E.J. Tiedeken, K.L. Simcock et al.2015. Bees prefer foods containing neonicoti-noid pesticides. Nature 521:74-76.

Krupke, C.H., G.J. Hunt, B.D. Eitzer et al. 2012.Multiple routes of pesticide exposure forhoney bees living near agricultural fields.PLoS ONE 7(1):e29268. 8 pp.

Larson, J.L., C.T. Redmond, and D.A. Potter.2013. Assessing insecticide hazard to bumblebees foraging on flowering weeds in treatedlawns. PLoS ONE 8(6):e366375.

Lu, C., K.M. Warchol and R.A. Callahan. 2012. Insitu replication of honey bee colony collapsedisorder. Bull. Insectol. 65(1):99-106.

Lu, C. K.M. Warchol and R.A. Callahan. 2014.Sublethal exposure to neonicotinoidsimpaired honey bees winterization before pro-ceeding to colony collapse disorder. Bull.Insectol. 67(1):125-130.

Mullin, C.A., M. Frazier, J.L. Frazier et al. 2010.High levels of miticides and agrochemicals inNorth American apiaries: implications forhoney bee health. PLoS ONE 5(3):e9754. 19pp.

Nixon, G. 1954. The World of Bees. Hutchinson,London. 214 pp.

Quarcoo, F.Y., A.G. Appel and X.P. Hu. 2010.Descriptive study of non-repellent inducedbehaviors in Reticulitermes flavipes. Sociobiol.55(1B):217-227.

Quarles, W. 2008. Pesticides and honey beecolony collapse disorder. IPM Practitioner30(9/10):1-9.

Quarles, W. 2011. Pesticides and honey bee death

and decline. IPM Practitioner 33(1/2):1-9.Quarles, W. 2014. Neonicotinoids, bees, birds and

beneficial insects. Common Sense PestControl Quarterly 28(1-4):3-10.

Raine, N.E. and R.J. Gill. 2015. Tasteless pesti-cides affect bees in the field. Nature 521:38-40.

Rundlof, M., G.K.S. Andersson, R. Bommarco etal. 2015. Seed coating with a neonicotinoidinsecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature521:77-80.

Seagraves, M.P. and J.G. Lundgren. 2012. Effectsof neonicotinoid seed treatments on soybeanaphid and natural enemies. J. Pest. Sci.85:125-132.

Tasei, J.N., G. Ripault and E. Rivault. 2001.Effects of Gaucho seed coating on bumblebees visiting sunflower. In: L.P. Belzunces, C.Pelissier and G.B. Lewis, eds. 2001. Hazardsof Pesticides to Bees. INRA, Paris. pp. 207-212 of 308 pp.

Whitehorn, P.R., S. O’Conner, F.L. Wackers and D.Goulson. 2012. Neonicotinoid pesticidereduces bumble bee colony growth and queenproduction. Science Express March 29, 2012.3 pp.

3IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

Update

EcoWise UpgradeThe EcoWise IPM Practitioner list-

ings on the EcoWise website, www.eco-wisecertified.org and at www.birc.orghave been upgraded. IndividualPractitioners have been listed withcompany contact information. Whenyou call certified companies, be sureto ask for EcoWise Service. When youcall Practitioners at uncertified compa-nies, be sure to ask them to get theircompany certified.

Bird Flu OutbreakMidwestern factory farms (Confined

Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs)are now in the grips of a bird flu epi-demic. About 20 million chickens andturkeys have been destroyed so far.Bird flu virus mutates frequently, andthere are several variants currentlycirculating. The original virulent Asian strain

was H5N1. The H refers to hemagglu-tinin protein, and the N refers to neu-raminidase enzyme. This variantinfected humans and caused deaths.Human cases resulted from close con-tact with chickens and other fowl.The original strain has now mutated

to a less virulent H5N1 that has beenfound in Washington State. The straininfesting the Midwest is H5N2, whichis lethal to poultry, but so far has notinfected humans.Raising livestock in high density sit-

uations encourages disease epidemics.Antibiotics are added to animal food toencourage growth and prevent bacteri-al infections. But masses of animalsare vulnerable to viruses. This bird fluepidemic was preceded by a porcinevirus epidemic last year that killed 6million pigs.New York Times, May 5, 2015

4

4 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015

Update

By William Quarles

On March 20, 2015 a workingcommittee of the InternationalAgency for Research on Cancer(IARC) found that glyphosate is a“probable human carcinogen.” Theagency uses a transparent classifica-tion system with formal rules. Ifthere is sufficient evidence to show achemical produces cancer in twoanimal species, and if there is limit-ed evidence that it can cause cancerin humans, then the classificationgenerated is “probable human car-cinogen” (Guyton et al. 2015). A pre-liminary statement was publishedonline in Lancet Oncology, and thecomplete study will be Volume 112of IARC Monographs.The committee cited evidence that

glyphosate produces a dose relatedincrease of a rare kidney carcinomain mice. They also cited studiesshowing that glyphosate leads to anincreased incidence of pancreaticadenoma in rats. Other studies sup-porting carcinogenicity found bloodvessel sarcoma and skin tumor pro-motion in mice. According to theIARC committee, these studies aresufficient evidence that glyphosatecauses cancer in animals.Case control studies of occupa-

tional exposure in the USA, Canadaand Sweden show increased risk ofnon-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Thesestudies count as “limited evidence”of cancer in humans. Evidence wasdeemed limited because anotheroccupational study, the AgriculturalHealth Study (AHS), found no asso-ciation of glyphosate with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Other toxic effects of glyphosate

include DNA and chromosome dam-age in mammals and in human andanimal cells in vitro. Blood markersof chromosome damage in humanpopulations showed increases afterexposure to sprays of glyphosate for-mulations (Guyton et al. 2015).

Why Carcinogenic Now?Over the last few years applicators

and consumers have relied on anEPA evaluation of glyphosate show-ing a relatively benign toxicological

profile. The belief that glyphosatehas few toxic problems may have ledto overuse and excessive exposures.Glyphosate was originally classi-

fied by the EPA in 1985 as a Class Ccarcinogen, “evidence suggestive ofcarcinogenicity.” This determinationwas partly based on the mouse kid-ney cancer study cited by IARC. Buton October 31, 1991, the EPA re-evaluated the mouse kidney studyand classified glyphosate as Class E,“evidence of non-carcinogenicity.”Nothing had changed other than themouse data were reevaluated with adifferent statistical emphasis, andone more tumor was found in a con-trol group (Dykstra and Ghali 1991).So how can the same data lead

IARC to one conclusion and the EPAto another? The EPA in 1991 putmore emphasis on pairwise statisti-cal comparisons between the controlgroup and exposed group. IARCemphasized the increase of cancerwith glyphosate dose, and the factthat kidney carcinoma in mice israre and not likely to occur bychance.

According to the news media,Monsanto has accused IARC of “cher-ry picking” the data (Pollack 2015). Infact, all good toxicity determinationsare based on choosing high qualitystudies of known validity.

Emphasize PublicProtection or Corporate

Benefit?The EPA is required to compare

costs versus benefits as the basis for

pesticide regulation. The EPA hasregistered carcinogens, endocrinedisruptors, reproductive toxicantsand many pesticides with high acutetoxicity because the regulatorsbelieved benefits outweighed thetoxic costs. In fact, the same IARCstudy shows that the EPA registeredpesticides malathion and diazinonare also probable human carcino-gens.For 30 years the public has been

exposed to millions of pounds ofglyphosate thinking it was a benignproduct. The glyphosate case putsthe spotlight on the EPA. If a pesti-cide can be called non-carcinogenicor probably carcinogenic based onhow the results of one test areprocessed, shouldn’t the EPA err onthe side of caution and protect pub-lic safety?

Exposure to GlyphosateThe IARC determination means

that glyphosate might cause cancerif someone were chronically exposedto it. The amount of glyphosate inuse has exploded due to geneticallyengineered corn, soybeans and othercrops. Aerial sprays can exposefarmworkers and residents.Amounts applied have increasedfrom 25 million lbs in 1996 to 180million lbs in 2007 (EPA 2011).Excessive use may be causing dam-age to monarch butterflies and frogs(Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012;Wagner et al. 2013). Glyphosate isapplied in agriculture, along high-ways, in landscapes, on rangeland,on golfcourses, and in many back-yards. Weeds are becoming resist-ant, and glyphosate is becoming lessuseful (Quarles 2012; Powles 2008).Some studies have shown that

glyphosate or its formulations maycause birth defects and endocrinedisruption in animals (Richard et al.2005; Paganelli et al. 2010; Romanoet al. 2010; Dallegrave et al. 2003;2007). In the U.S., studies have shown

that farmers and other applicatorsthat apply glyphosate absorb it intotheir blood and excrete it in theirurine (Aquavella et al. 2004).Amounts detected are large enough

Exposure to glyphosate is widespread.

Drawing by Diane K

uhn

Glyphosate a Probable Human Carcinogen

5

5IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

Updateto cause an increased growth rate ofestrogen sensitive breast cancer cells(Thongprakalsang et al. 2013).Glyphosate and its degradation

product AMPA have been found inrainfall and in U.S. streams. Themaximum amount allowed in drink-ing water is 0.7 mg/liter (700 ppb).According to the EPA, chronic con-sumption above these levels couldlead to kidney problems or repro-ductive difficulties (Battaglin et al.2005)(EPA 2014). Glyphosate may also appear in

food, especially glyphosate resistantGMOs. The tolerance on raw com-modities such as soybean is 40 ppm(40,000 ppb). The tolerance on car-rots is 5 ppm (5000 ppb). Sinceglyphosate is systemic, residues canappear in food. Published papersshow residues of glyphosate and itsmetabolite in soybeans range from2-9 mg/kg (ppm) (2000-9000 ppb)(Arregui et al. 2004; Bohn et al.2014).

Label GeneticallyEngineered Food

Much of GMO Roundup Readycorn and soybeans is eitherprocessed or fed to animals.Presumably, this reduces theamount of glyphosate absorbed dur-ing ingestion of food. But actualdata on glyphosate residues in foodare scarce, since the USDA does notroutinely monitor for glyphosate.And new GMOs such as RoundupReady fresh corn are directly con-sumed by humans. The possibilitythat glyphosate may be more toxicthan we thought is another reasonto label genetically engineered foodthat might contain glyphosateresidues.

AcknowledgementThe author wishes to thank Erin

Berg for helping with the researchon this article.

William Quarles, Ph.D., is an IPMSpecialist, Executive Director of theBio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC),and Managing Editor of the IPMPractitioner. He can be reached byemail, birc@igc.org.

ReferencesAcquavella, J.F., B.H. Alexander, J.S. Mandel et al.

2004. Glyphosate biomonitoring for farmersand their families: results from the farm fam-ily exposure study. Environ. HealthPerspectives 112:321-326.

Arregui, M.C., A. Lenardon, D. Sanchez et al.2004. Monitoring glyphosate residues intransgenic glyphosate resistant soybean. PestManag. Sci. 60(2):163-166.

Battaglin, W.A., D.W. Kolpin, E.A. Scribner et al.2005. Glyphosate, other herbicides andtransformation products in Midwesternstreams. J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc.41(2):323-332.

Bohn, T., M. Cuhra, T. Traavik et al. 2014.Compositional differences in soybeans on themarket: glyphosate accumulates in RoundupReady GM soybeans. Food Chem. 153:207-215.

Dallegrave, E. F.D. Mantese and R.S. Coelho et al.2003. The teratogenic potential of the herbi-cide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats.Toxicol. Lett. 142:45-52.

Dallegrave, E., F.D. Mantese, R.T Oliveira et al.2007. Pre- and postnatal toxicity of the com-mercial glyphosate formulation in Wistarrats. Arch. Toxicol. 81:665-673.

Dykstra, W. and G.Z. Ghali. 1991. Second PeerReview of Glyphosate. USEPA, Washington,DC. 19 pp.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2011.Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 2006 and2007 Market Estimates. EPA, Washington. 33pp.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2014.Basic information about glyphosate in drink-ing water. http://water.epa.gov/drink/conta-minants/basicinformation/glyphosate.cfm

Guyton, K.Z., D. Loomis, Y. Grosse et al. 2015.Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos,parathion, malathion, diazinon, andglyphosate. Lancet Oncology Online March20, 2015. 2 pp.

Paganelli, A., V. Gnazzo, H. Acosta et al. 2010.Glyphosate based herbicides produce terato-genic effects in vertebrates by impairingretinoic acid signalling. Chem. Res. Toxicol.23:1586-1595.

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

Pollack, A. 2015. Weed killer, long cleared, isdoubted. New York Times, March 27, 2015.

Powles, S.B. 2008. Evolved glyphosate resistantweeds around the world: lessons to be learnt.Pest Manag. Sci. 64:360-365.

Quarles, W. 2012. Brave new world—systemic pes-ticides and genetically engineered crops. IPMPractitioner 33(3/4):1-9.

Richard, S., S. Molemi, H. Sipahutar et al. 2005.Differential effects of glyphosate andRoundup on human placental cells and aro-matase. Environ. Health Perspectives113(6):716-720.

Romano, R.M., M.A. Romano, M.M. Bernardi et al.2010. Prepubertal exposure to commercialformulation of the herbicide glyphosate alterstestosterone levels and testicular morphology.Arch. Toxicol. 84:309-317.

Thongprakalsang, S., A. Thiantanawat, N.Rangkadilok et al. 2013. Glyphosate induceshuman breast cancer cells growth via estro-gen receptors. Food Chem. Toxicol. 59:120-136.

Wagner, N., W. Reichenbecher, H. Teichmann et al.2013. Questions concerning the potentialimpact of glyphosate based herbicides onamphibians. Environ. Tox. Chem. 32(8):1688-1700.

CalendarJune 25-27, 2015. Pest Control Operators CA,Monterey, CA. Contact: PCOC, 3031, BeaconBlvd, W. Sacramento, CA 95691; www.pcoc.org.

August 1-5, 2015. American PhytopathologicalSociety Conference, Pasadena, CA. Contact:APS, 3340 Pilot Knob Road, St. Paul, MN55121; 651-454-7250; aps@scisoc.org.

August 9-14, 2015. 100th Annual Conference,Ecological Society of America, Baltimore, MD.Contact: ESA, www.esa.org.

September 15, 16, 2015. Annual MeetingBPIA.Arlington,VA.Contact:www.biopesticide-industryalliance.org.

October 20-23, 2015. NPMA Pest World,Nashville, TN. Contact: NPMA, www.npmapest-world.org.

November 15-18, 2015. Annual Meeting,Entomological Society of America, Minneapolis,MN. Contact: ESA, 9301 Annapolis Rd.,Lanham, MD 20706; www.entsoc.org.

November 15-18, 2015. Soil Science Society ofAmerica. Minneapolis, MN. Contact:www.soils.org.

November 15-18, 2015. Crop Science Society ofAmerica. Minneapolis, MN. Contact:https://www.crops.org.

January 2016. Advanced Landscape Plant IPMPHC Short Course. University of Maryland.Contact: A. Koeiman, Dept. Entomology, 4112Plant Sciences Building, University Maryland,College Park, MD 20742; 301-405-3913;akoeiman@umd.edu.

January 19-23, 2016. 35th Annual EcoFarmConference. Asilomar, Pacific Grove, CA.Contact: Ecological Farming Association,831/763-2111; info@eco-farm.org.

January 16, 2016. NOFA Winter OrganicFarming and Gardening Conf. Saratoga Springs,NY. Contact: NOFA, 585/271-1979;www.nofany.org.

February 2016. Annual Conference, AssociationApplied Insect Ecologists, Napa, CA. Contact:www.aaie.net.

February 8-11, 2016. Annual Meeting WeedScience Society of America. Lexington, KY.Contact: www.wssa.net

February 25-27, 2016. 27th Annual MosesOrganic Farm Conference. La Crosse, WI.Contact: Moses, PO Box 339, Spring Valley, WI54767; 715/778-5775; www.mosesorganic.org.

March 2016. California Small Farm Conference.Contact: www.californiafarmconference.com.

By Joel Grossman

T hese Conference Highlightswere selected from amongthe talks and poster dis-

plays at the Nov. 16-19, 2014,Entomological Society of America(ESA) annual meeting in Portland,Oregon. The next ESA annual meet-ing, November 15-18, 2015, inMinneapolis, Minnesota, titled“Synergy in Science: Partnering forSolutions,” is a co-meeting with theAmerican Society of Agronomy, theCrop Science Society of America,and the Soil Science Society ofAmerica. For more information con-tact the ESA (3 Park Place, Suite307, Annapolis, MD 21401;301/731-4535;www.entsoc.org.

Codling Moth DualAttractant

Pear ester (PE), ethyl (E,Z)-2,4-decadienoate, is stable when for-mulated into lures, and is attractiveto both sexes of codling moth,Cydia pomonella, said DouglasLight (USDA-ARS, 800 BuchananSt, Albany, CA, 94710;doug.light@ars.usda.gov). Pearester, a plant volatile, is usefulalone or in combination withcodling moth sex pheromone, (E,E)-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol (codlemone),for codling moth IPM and matingdisruption. Trécé lures combiningpear ester and codlemone providemore effective mating disruptionthan lures with pheromone alone.Pear ester is also an attractant

and arrestant for neonate codlingmoth larvae (newly hatched fromeggs). Thus, there is a control win-dow in IPM programs where pearester can be sprayed to stop larvaebefore fruit penetration. Whenarrested or stopped by pear ester,codling moth neonate larvae areeither desiccated, starve to death,or they are preyed upon by naturalenemies before entering the fruit.Slow release microcapsules of pearester can be formulated as a tankmix and sprayed onto trees at a1:32,000 dilution.

Pherocon Best for CornRootworm

“Corn, Zea mays, ranks as thesecond most important grain cropgrown in the world, and first inyield production,” said VeronicaTorrez (North Dakota State Univ,Dept 7650, PO Box 6050, Fargo,ND 58108; veronica.callestorre@ndsu.edu). Corn is used forhuman consumption, forage andsilage, and considerable amountsare used for biodiesel and ethanolproduction. The western corn root-worm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera,and northern corn rootworm, D.barberi, are the most serious pestsof corn in the north central regionof the United States and Canada.Since the 1990s corn rootworms

have developed resistance or adap-tations to various pest controlstrategies, including crop rotations,and “are becoming more importantpests of corn in North Dakota.”Yellow Pherocon® AM/NB andgreen Scentry® Multigard stickytraps collected weekly were com-pared to monitor geographic distri-bution, density and species compo-sition of corn rootworms in 18North Dakota counties.“Adult D. virgifera virgifera and D.

barberi were most common insoutheastern North Dakota wherethe majority of corn acreage [inNorth Dakota] is grown,” saidTorrez. “Densities were low andaveraged only 10 beetles per trapper week.” However, up to 17 west-ern corn rootworm adults and 40northern corn rootworm adultswere trapped weekly in CassCounty. Yellow Pherocon AM/NBtraps were deemed best for moni-toring adults of both corn rootwormspecies.

Plum Curculio AggregationPheromone

“Plum curculio, Conotrachelusnenuphar, is native to easternNorth America and is a pest ofapple, peach, plum and blueber-ries,” said Cesar Rodriguez-Saona

(Rutgers, 96 Lipman Dr, NewBrunswick, NJ 08901;crodriguez@aesop.rutgers.edu). Anodor based trap-tree approach formanaging plum curculio has suc-cessfully been tested in apples, sig-nificantly reducing pesticide use.Monitoring and managing plumcurculio in commercial appleorchards combines a fruit volatile,benzaldehyde, with grandisoic acid,a plum curculio aggregationpheromone.The basic concept of perimeter

trap crops is to minimize pesticideuse by treating a few “trap-bush”perimeter plants rather than spray-ing whole fields. New Jersey plumcurculio field trials comparedunbaited plots with baited trap-bush perimeter plots at four com-mercial blueberry farms.“The amount of plum curculio

injury was significantly greater on,and around, bushes baited with thegrandisoic acid and benzaldehydeattractant than on, and around,unbaited bushes,” indicating trap-bushes work in blueberries, saidRodriguez-Saona. However, therewas also a location effect. The trap-bush perimeter treatment workedadjacent to other blueberry fieldsbut not along forest edges.

Mass Trapping TomatoLeafminer

Widespread insecticide use inCentral and South America has ledto insecticide resistance in thenative tomato leafminer (tomatopinworm), Tuta absoluta, and pro-vided an impetus to developpheromone based mass trappingalternatives, said Cam Oehlschlager(ChemTica Internacional, Apdo 159-2150, San Jose, Costa Rica;cam@pheroshop.com). A worldwidepest wherever tomatoes are grown,fruit loss can be as high as 80%from larval tunneling; and sprayingonce or twice a week has disruptedbiocontrol by parasitoids and pro-duced insecticide resistance.The commercial availability of a

female produced sex pheromoneallows monitoring of tomato

6

IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 947076

Conference Notes

Special Pheromone Report—ESA 2014

leafminer moths with one trap perha (2.47 acres). IPM programs canalso use neem, BT and other organ-ic remedies. Postharvest sanitationis also important, as harvested anddried tomato plants carryover infes-tations.Several commercial trap designs

were tested for mass trapping withfemale produced sex pheromones.“Based on its small size and ease ofhandling, the most effective trap isa small plastic container with entrywindows cut on the sides and filledwith motor oil over water,” saidOehlschlager. “These traps are mosteffective when placed near groundlevel. Tests of septa containing 0.1mg to 2 mg of the pheromonerevealed that lower loadings weremore attractive during the firstweek of use, but higher loadingswere more attractive after 9 weeks.”“Mass trapping is as good as con-

ventional insecticides” in terms ofresults, and more economical, saidOehlschlager. “Even when initialcaptures in monitoring traps werehigh (>35 males/trap/day), masstrapping with 48 traps/ha (19.4traps/acre) reduced leaf damagemore efficiently than conventionalinsecticide treatment.” In Argentina,mass trapping with pheromoneswas $800/ha ($324/acre) cheaperthan conventional insecticides. InCosta Rica, mass trapping saves$2,000 per ha ($810/acre) everycropping cycle.

Citrus Leafminer MatingDisruption

Parasitoids provided good biologi-cal control of citrus leafminer,Phyllocnistis citrella, in Floridauntil they were disrupted by pesti-cides used for the Asian citrus psyl-lid, Diaphorina citri, said StephenLapointe (USDA-ARS, 2001 SouthRock Rd, Fort Pierce, FL 34945;Stephen.Lapointe@ars.usda.gov).The citrus leafminer moth “is aglobal pest of citrus and contributesto the incidence and severity of cit-rus bacterial canker disease,” whichmeans there is worldwide interestin finding the optimal pheromoneblend for mating disruption.In small plot field trials, the major

component for pheromone mating

disruption was (Z,Z,E)-7,11,13-hexadecatrienal. Further field trialsdemonstrated that the single com-ponent was equal to or better thanthe natural 3:1 blend of (Z,Z,E)-7,11,13-hexadecatrienal: (Z,Z)-7,11hexadecadienal.Field trials in 2012 and 2013

used a commercial release device,DCEPT CLM® (ISCA Tech,Riverside, CA), which “showedexceptional longevity in field trials,”said Lapointe. Approximately 1,000hectares (2470 acres) in Floridawith about 400,000 trees weretreated during the spring of 2014.There was a subsidy for earlyadopters provided through theCitrus Research and DevelopmentFoundation in collaboration with

ISCA Technologies, USDA-ARS andthe University of Florida. Othersites are being used to gather dataon “the effect of immigration ofgravid females from outside of thepheromone treated areas.” Thisinformation will help design anareawide mating disruption pro-gram for citrus leafminer and bacte-rial canker disease.

NOW Traps Measure IPMSuccess

“Pistachio mummies (nutsremaining in orchards after harvest)are the only available host forovipositing female navel orange-worm (NOW), Amyelois transitella,moths, and the only source fordeveloping immatures from the endof harvest in October until July orAugust of the following year when

the new crop becomes susceptible,”said Bradley Higbee (ParamountFarming Co, 6801 E. Lerdo Hwy,Shafter, CA 93308; bradh@para-mountfarming.com). Hence, IPMprograms can remove or destroymummies to reduce NOW popula-tions.“Mummies on the orchard floor

pose the greatest challenge in pista-chios,” said Higbee. Mummies inthe trees can be adequatelyremoved from almonds and pista-chios, and destroyed with mowingand shredding equipment. Forexample, brush shredders chop uptree prunings; and mummy shred-ders have berm sweepers to movemummies off the berm into thedrive row for destruction.Current sanitation methods

“result in modest, but significantlylower NOW damage at harvest,”said Higbee. Compared to unsani-tized orchards, full sanitationreduces mummy density 300% to1,000%. Weather and crop loadaccount for the high variability.Greater reductions in NOW popula-tions and crop damage are expectedfrom more effective sanitationmethods being developed.Both NOW pheromone traps and

egg traps are used to measure sani-tation success in IPM programs.Egg traps are baited with almondmeal as an attractant to inducefemale moths to lay eggs on thetrap exterior. Wing traps are baitedwith virgin female moths as apheromone source for attractingmale moths.“Mummy removal from trees was

very effective and was performedprior to trap deployment in bothyears,” said Higbee. Mummy densi-ty has a profound influence on eggtrap counts, but differences inpheromone trap data are less con-sistent. Mummies compete with eggtraps for oviposition sites; thisresults in higher counts in eggtraps placed in the full sanitationplots.

Flour Beetle AggregationPheromone

Red flour beetle, Tribolium casta-neum, a serious worldwide stored

7

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015 7

Conference Notes

Citrus leafminer,Phyllocnistis sp.

was applied in 1-gram dollops inblueberries at rates of 100 and 200dollops per acre (0.4 ha). Matingdisruption was 95% successfulusing 0.25 grams of cypermethrinper acre (0.4 ha). Adding cyperme-thrin to mating disruption reducesapplication rates and costs.

SPLAT Verbenone StopsBark Beetle

“SPLAT® Verb [10% (–)-ver-benone] was registered by theUSEPA in 2013 and is certified fororganic use,” said Agenor Mafra-Neto (ISCA Tech, 1230 Spring St,Riverside, CA 92507; president@iscatech.com). Verbenone acts asa biodegradable antiaggregantagainst bark beetles such as moun-tain pine beetle, Dendroctonus pon-derosae, which kills lodgepole pine,Pinus contorta.“The current formulation is dis-

pensed from caulking tubes andone 750-g (26.5-oz) tube is suffi-cient to treat several trees,” saidMafra-Neto. “The high levels of treeprotection observed is attributed tothe flexibility of applying dollops athigh densities/unit area, and thelarge zone of inhibition provided.” “SPLAT is a ‘matrix-type’ con-

trolled-release device,” said Mafra-Neto. “The release of active ingredi-ents is determined by Fick’s FirstLaw of Diffusion, which states thatmolecules move from regions ofhigh concentration to regions of lowconcentration at a rate directly pro-portional to its concentration gradi-ent. SPLAT Verb is a flowable emul-sion that allows the user to adjustthe size of each dollop according todesired distributions and releaserates.”Applications of prototypes of

SPLAT Verb to individual lodgepolepines resulted in complete tree pro-tection, while 93.3% tree mortalitywas observed in the untreated con-trols. Sunlight photoisomerizes ver-benone to chrysanthenone, whichhas no known behavioral activity onbark beetles. Analyses of dollops ofSPLAT Verb aged in the field indi-cated that the first traces ofchrysanthenone were only foundafter >12 months, indicating that

escape the area. The two majoraphid alarm pheromone collectionmethods are crushing the aphid orexposing the aphid to natural ene-mies. A new method exposes aphidsto temperature stress inside ther-mostated amber glass vials; thenthe aphids are crushed, and anSPME fiber is inserted into the vialfor 24 hours to collect the volatiles.“(E)-beta-farnesene (EBF) or

trans-beta-farnesene, the de novasynthesized alarm pheromone, wasfound to be the predominantvolatile alarm pheromone in manyaphid species,” said Alfares. Thetemperature stress, crushing andnatural enemy alarm pheromonecollection methods all detectedapoferneral first; followed by EBF,the major volatile.“Three farnesol isomers were also

detected,” said Alfares. Trans-caryophyllene was detected only inthe presence of lady beetles, whichindicates that this volatile is emit-ted by the natural enemy and notthe aphid.

Oriental Beetle Attract-And-Kill

“Oriental beetle, Anomala orien-talis, is a major pest of blueberriesin New Jersey,” said RobertHoldcraft (Rutgers, 125A LakeOswego Rd, Chatsworth, NJ 08019;rholdcra@rci.Rutgers.edu). The sexpheromone of oriental beetle hasbeen identified as a 9:1 blend of (Z)-and (E)-7-tetradecen-2-one. Sexpheromone-mediated mate locationand copulation typically occursnear soil surface, shortly afteremergence, close to the emergencesite. Previous trials showed matingdisruption dispensers or SPLAT®-OrB-MD were equally effective atmating disruption, reducing orientalbeetle trap captures by more than90% compared to untreated con-trols.The major oriental beetle

pheromone component, (Z)-7-tetradecen-2-one, has a food cropuse tolerance exemption, and wasformulated at 1% into SPLAT-OrB-MD. Adding 2% cypermethrin yieldsan attract-and-kill formulation,SPLAT®-OrB-A&K. This formulation

product pest, has an aggregationpheromone, 4,8-dimethyldecanal(DMD) released by feeding malesthat is attractive to both sexes, saidMichael Aikins (Kansas State Univ,32 W. Waters Hall, Manhattan, KS66506; mja8338@ksu.edu). Dailyaggregation pheromone productionby male red flour beetles was sam-pled in populations from 10 differ-ent geographic regions.“We found that amounts of DMD

released varied from less than 30.0ng/male/day in beetles fromManitoba and Georgia, to over 150ng/male/day in beetles fromKansas, Alabama, and California,”said Aikins. [A nanogram, ng, isone-billionth of a gram.] “TheKansas, Alabama, and Californiapopulations had ranges of DMDproduction that were 62.4 to 347.5ng/male/day, 3.3 to 316.9ng/male/day, and 31.4 to 379.9ng/male/day respectively.”“Our results suggest that

pheromone production in T. casta-neum varies significantly amonggeographically separate popula-tions,” said Aikins. “Controlled mat-ing with high-producing and low-producing males suggest thatpheromone production and releaseis probably controlled by multiplegenes.”

Brown Citrus Aphid AlarmPheromone

“We developed a simple method toquantify the released alarmpheromone from live brown citrusaphid, Toxoptera citricida, the mostefficient vector of Citrus tristezavirus (CTV),” said Serine Alfares(Univ Florida, 700 ExperimentStation Center, Lake Alfred, FL33850; serine@ufl.edu). Aphiddefenses include alarm pheromonesto warn other aphids of danger andcornicle secretions to defend indi-vidually against natural enemies.Aphid cornicles are tube-likeabdominal structures that secrete asticky defensive fluid that gluestogether natural enemy appendagessuch as mouth parts, antennae,and legs.Aphid alarm pheromones warn

other aphids to stop feeding and

8

IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 947078

Conference Notes

9

spurred the search for safer biologi-cal solutions such as a combinationof gel bait (e.g. thiamethoxam) andArgentine ant trail pheromone, (Z)-9-hexadecenal. In lab tests, trailpheromone increased Argentine antforaging by 300%-400% and boost-ed ant mortality.In Riverside, CA field tests, five of

ten houses with ant bait stationswere also treated with trailpheromone. Pre-monitoring assuredthat intial Argentine ant popula-tions were similar in the ten hous-es. Bait consumption was 300%higher and ant mortality was 65%with trail pheromone; versus 39%mortality for bait stations withouttrail pheromone. For this antspecies, the results were consideredvery good.In IPM programs, trail pheromone

is applied once a week, and lastsabout 20 minutes. But after initialdiscovery, ants begin adding to thepheromone trail themselves.Argentine ants are stingless, but

can be aggressive (or defensive) bybending down their gasters (a partof the abdomen) and secretingvolatile substances. Headspacevolatiles collected from Argentineants attacking harvester ants,Pogonomyrmex spp., yielded twovolatile compounds, dolichodial andindomyrmecin. These compoundsare also deposited in large quanti-ties on harvester ant cuticles; andcould be useful in IPM programs,because preliminary studies showthey are insecticidal and act as trailpheromone compounds. Currentstudies are looking at other proper-ties of these compounds, such aswhether or not they promote aggre-gation.

Mosquito Fish DeterrentSemiochemicals

Culex tarsalis, the Westernencephalitis mosquito of rice fields,swamps and wetlands, is repelledby semiochemicals emitted into thewater by the western mosquitofish,Gambusia affinis, said Adena Why(Univ California, 203 Ent Museum,Riverside, CA 92521; adena.why@email.ucr.edu). A mosquito preda-tor, the western mosquitofish has

pared to high point-source densitypheromone dispensers.

Pheromones Track BMSBin California

“Brown marmorated stink bug(BMSB), Halyomorpha halys, is rel-atively new to California,” saidCharles Pickett (CDFA, 1220 N St,Sacramento, CA 95814;cpickett@cdfa.ca.gov). “Residentpopulations were reported for thefirst time in southern California in2006. As of today, the stink bughas only been reported as an urbanproblem, invading peoples homes.In 2013, it was reported for the firsttime in northern California inSacramento, the state capital.”“Pheromone baited traps were

placed throughout the state begin-ning in 2013 using state records forinterceptions as a starting point,”said Pickett. “Beginning in 2014,with help from county andUniversity of California CooperativeExtension staff, trap numbers wereincreased to 114 across 23 coun-ties...In 2013 we recorded threecounties with reproducing popula-tions of BMSB. Today there are atleast five, showing that thestinkbug’s population is expand-ing.” Traps baited with the stink bug

aggregation pheromone also cap-tured natural enemies, including asphecid wasp, Astata occidentalis,and a tachinid fly, Euclytia flava.“Aggregation pheromones unique tothe Pentatomidae are most likelydrawing them into traps,” saidPickett. Sentinel egg masses moni-tored by cameras photographedCarabidae ground beetles, ants andan earwig preying on stink bug eggmasses during the night.

Argentine Ant TrailPheromone And Bait

The Argentine Ant, Linepithemahumile, the number one urban pestin many areas worldwide, alsoafflicts labs, hospitals and agricul-ture, said Kevin Welzel (UnivCalifornia, 900 University Ave, 167Entomol, Riverside, CA 92521;kwelz001@ucr.edu). Pesticides inCalifornia water samples have

the stability of verbenone within theSPLAT matrix is not a concern.

Puffers Disrupt CodlingMoth Mating

High-dosage emitters such as theSuterra CM Puffer® and Isomate®CM MIST used for codling moth,Cydia pomonella, mating disruptionare part of the labor-saving pufferlegacy pioneered by UC Riverside’slate Harry Shorey, said PeterMcGhee (Michigan State Univ, 106CIPS, East Lansing, MI 48824;mcghee@msu.edu). Field studiesreleased varying densities of sterilemale codling moths into orchardswith varying densities of high-dosage emitters with codling mothpheromone, (E,E)-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol (codlemone), for mating disrup-tion.Even with high codling moth den-

sities, high-dosage emitters canprovide cost-effective codling mothmating disruption. Indeed,pheromone dispenser density canbe optimized to achieve over 90%mating disruption; sometimes withonly one dispenser for an acre (0.4ha). Male codling moths are dis-placed away from females by thepheromone emitters; apparently viafalse plume following rather thancamouflaging.The major advantage of high-

dosage emitters is that only a hand-ful are needed per acre or hectare.Wheras application of hundreds ofpassive pheromone ropes or reser-voirs increases labor costs. Besidesreduced labor application costs,high-dosage emitters reducepheromone chemical costs com-

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015 9

Conference Notes

Adult BMSB, H. halys

Photo co

urtesy

StopBMSB.org

10

cient pollination from wild beespecies, the cold, short bloom peri-od in the study showed the value ofproviding managed bee hives andSPLAT Bloom.

Attracting Lady BeetlesPrey alarm pheromones, the color

yellow, and plant volatiles such asmethyl salicylate and limoneneattract lady beetles, said TedCottrell (21 Dunbar Rd, Byron, GA31008; ted.cottrell@ars.usda.gov).Lady beetle lures, methyl salicylatelures and Monterey Lady Beetleattractant were tested with Tedderscross-vane pyramidal traps in yel-low and black colors (Masonite orblack corrugated plastic).In spring and fall with 7-20

meters (23-66 ft) between traps, yel-low traps caught significantly morelady beetles than black traps. Thus,black traps were used to test forlure effects. But lures had no effecton lady beetle catches, with oneexception: 80 µL (microliter) oflimonene in rubber septa lures.

SPLAT Bloom formulations arehand or mechanically applied, rain-fast, and provide longterm con-trolled release of nasonovpheromone semiochemicals thatpromote honey bee visitation andencourage pollination of the treatedcrop. In Australia, SPLAT Bloom iscertified organic.SPLAT Bloom was applied in a

Fresno, California almond orchardhaving a large number of commer-cial bee hives. “Overall, the meanpercent fruit set in SPLAT Bloomtreated plots was 30.8% higherthan in untreated plots,” said Rico.“Almonds were valued at approxi-mately $2.58/pound ($5.69/kg) in2013. The 30.8% increase in fruitset could then be valued at approxi-mately $600/acre ($1,483/ha), wellworth the investment in SPLATBloom.”In apple orchards in Rio Grande

do Sul, Brazil using commercial beehives, SPLAT Bloom provided anoverall increase in fruit set of 45.5%over the control treatment. Whileapples are an easy crop to pollinate,with some varieties receiving suffi-

been released six times intoCalifornia.Culex tarsalis deposits 400%

more egg rafts in water lacking thewestern mosquitofish, compared towater with the predatory fish. Threesemiochemical compounds wereisolated from water containing thewestern mosquitofish. In wind tun-nel bioassays, there was no long-range mosquito attraction to waterwith mosquitofish semiochemicals.In binary choice assays, C. tarsalislaid significantly more eggs in waterwithout mosquitofish semiochemi-cals.

Pheromone Boosts Almond& Apple Yields

“ISCA Technologies’ SpecializedPheromone and Lure ApplicationTechnology (SPLAT®) was initiallydeveloped for mating disruption ofLepidoptera using small doses ofpheromones,” but can also be usedto increase pollination rates andfruit set, said Jonathan Rico (ISCATech, 1230 Spring St, Riverside, CA92507; Jonathan.r@iscatech.com).

IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 9470710

Conference Notes

11IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

11

12 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015

13IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

13

14

14 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015

15

15IPM Practitioner, XXXIV(9/10) Published May 2015 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

Classified AdsPRODUCTS PRODUCTS