Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Janet L. Kintz x
Clear All Modify Search

The effects of sun and shade in a small monocultural nursery-like environment and the effect of natural enemies on the population density of azalea lace bugs (Stephanitis pyrioides Scott) on azaleas (Rhododendron L.) in the nursery environment were assessed. A comparison of sun and shade treatments for total number of azalea lace bug eggs collected and eclosed revealed no significant (P < 0.05) differences. Stippling damage did not differ significantly between sun and shade treatments. Therefore, lace bug oviposition or eclosion were not affected by sun or shade. Arthropods collected from 5 weeks of beat samples were divided into four feeding guilds: predator-parasitoid (eight families), chelicerates (six families), chewing herbivores (two families), and piercing-sucking herbivores (nine families). Guilds were not significantly different between sun and shade treatments. In the small monocultures designed for this experiment, the 4 guilds do not appear to show preference for sun or shade habitats. No significant differences in azalea lace bug populations between caged and uncaged azalea cuttings in the nursery environment indicate there were no consequential effects of predation or parasitism on egg eclosion or subsequent instars in the first generation.

Full access

Biological control agents were ordered from three U.S. suppliers three times during 1994 and were evaluated (total of nine orders evaluated). Biological control agents evaluated were a whitefly parasitoid [Encarsia formosa Gahan (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae)], mealybug destroyer [Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)], insidious flower bug [Orius insidiosus (Say) (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae)], and a predatory mite [Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acari: Phytoseiidae)]. Arrival time, packaging methods, cost, quality, and quantity for each shipment were recorded. Six of the nine orders evaluated did not arrive by the date promised by the supplier. Most biological control agents were shipped in styrofoam boxes; the method by which they were packed in the box differed among suppliers. The cost of each biological control agent order ranged from $260.64 to $327.03 and varied with the same supplier. The number of viable E. formosa emerging ranged from 745 to 4901; two of the nine orders met the quota of 2000 live wasps. The total number of live C. montrouzieri received ranged from 234 to 288; five orders contained the expected number of 250 live beetles. For the expected order of 1000 O. insidiosus, quantities of live insects ranged from 423 to 1333; three orders contained at least the expected amount. The number of live P. persimilis ranged from 199 to 4447. Three orders contained the targeted amount of 2000. Our findings indicate that there are problems with the quantity of viable biological control agents being shipped. To build consumer confidence in the potential effectiveness of biological control, suppliers and producers of biological control agents must address ways to ensure that the consumer receives a high-quality product, in quantity and viability.

Full access