Integrated pest management in Newton

By Ed Cunningham/ Special To The Tab

 

Prodded and guided by the Green Decade Coalition’s Committee for Alternatives to Pesticides (GreenCAP), the city of Newton, in September 1997, became the first municipality in the state to adopt an Integrated Pest Management policy. What happened here in the mid 1990s is an example of how government should work: a small grassroots group of concerned citizens saw a need and was able to affect a municipality’s policy and direction. They succeeded, not only because of their vision and dedicated effort, but because IPM is common sense, backed by science, logic, and economics.

This article looks at how IPM came to Newton, what the city’s IPM policy is, and what has been accomplished under that policy. It concludes that work remains to be done and that there is still plenty of room for concerned citizens to follow the lead of our IPM pioneers.

GreenCAP was formed in 1994 by Newton residents Maeve Ward and Ellie Goldberg. The nascent group worked to reduce the use of toxins for weed and insect control in the city and in 1996 received a grant from the Toxins Use Reduction Institute at UMASS Lowell. The grant established a partnership among four Newton groups – the Conservation Commission, the Conservators, the Parks and Recreation Department and GreenCAP – to promote pollution prevention policies such as IPM. A task force began work on IPM guidelines for the city’s grounds and buildings, GreenCAP’s education and outreach projects continued, and a year later Mayor Concannon announced the city’s IPM Policy.

It became city policy to eliminate the use of pesticides except as a last resort and to prevent the contamination of buildings, soil, air, and water. The policy also dictated that IPM principles and practices be followed in all work done to city grounds and buildings, whether performed by city employees or outside contractors. An IPM Advisory Committee was formed to coordinate the work of city departments responsible for buildings and grounds regarding the prevention or elimination of pests. Chaired by Doug Dickson since its inception, it consists of representatives of the Departments of Health, Public Buildings, Parks and Recreation, and Public Schools and of community organizations such as the Green Decade Coalition.

Under the direction of the committee, maintenance plans describing how to monitor, document, and handle pest populations were written for all city schools and grounds. Guidelines written for the city’s playing fields set mowing heights, watering and aerating policies, and fertilizer characteristics. Environmental Management Teams (EMTs), with PTO and community representation, were established to oversee the plans at each Newton school. Maintenance plans and EMTs and are currently being created for all municipal buildings. The committee develops and runs annual staff training programs. It monitors pest problems and reviews requests or proposals to use pesticides.

In February 2004 the Newton schools won IPM STAR certification after undergoing a rigorous process overseen by Dr. Thomas Green of the IPM Institute of North America, who worked closely on the project with Advisory Committee member Don Rivard, a Waltham-based IPM consultant. The history of pest problems, the condition of buildings and grounds, and the pesticides used in the prior three years were all inspected. Certification requires that IPM policies and plans be in place to guide school administrators and staff in preventing or responding to pest problems.

As this award attests, there have been IPM successes in Newton. But IPM is a continuous process; there will always be more work to do. Reports trickle back to the committee of mowing height standards not being followed, of spraying taking place when it is not a last resort, of vent systems being blocked resulting in temperature control and air quality problems, of cleaning guidelines not being followed, resulting in pest infestation. Plans and training which should prevent these occurrences are in place, but vigilance and follow-up are constantly needed.

Vital to the success of the IPM plans in the schools are the EMTs. An EPA document, “IPM for Schools,” states that “Successful IPM programs in schools have come from concerned parents.” Carol Bock, IPM Advisory Committee member and Newton School Department Director of Capital Planning and Operations, agrees: “The schools with very active and successful EMTs are the schools where the parents are very involved.” As a parent, you can help make IPM work in your children’s schools.

The more people read about IPM, the more they realize that it should be mainstream thought and practice. Successful IPM not only makes our buildings and landscapes safer and healthier, it saves money. We should follow it in our own homes and yards as well. Like the IPM pioneers in Newton, you can make a difference. Learn more about IPM. Put it into practice.

Ed Cunningham is the Green Decade Coalition representative to the Newton IPM Advisory Committee.

 This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

The invasion of the home snatchers

By Bruce Wenning/ Special To The Tab

 

 

Many kinds of pests find their way into your home. Some you can tolerate, others you can’t. Carpenter ants and carpenter bees are insects that want to move in with you. When they invade your space, the damage can be extensive and costly.

Ants are the most recognized insects on earth, with many subfamilies, genera and species worldwide. They are in the Order Hymenoptera (bees, ants, wasps, sawflies and parasitic wasps). They have three distinct body regions; head, thorax, and abdomen, and their antennae, which are usually elbowed (bent), function as chemical receptors.

 

Ants nest in colonies and cooperate in raising their young, finding food and defending the colony. They exhibit a caste system comprised of a queen, males and workers. The division of labor in the colony is an integral condition of group living. Queens fly to mate with males, and once mated, a queen will remove her wings and remain dedicated to egg laying for the colony. Males have wings and die soon after mating with the queen. Workers, as their name implies, do most of the colony’s work; they are sterile wingless females. Large colonies can have over 3,000 worker ants.

There are many ant species found throughout the United States. The most destructive Eastern species is Camponotus pennsylvanicus, the black carpenter ant, which is common in New England. These ants are attracted to damp wood caused by leaking roofs, wood in contact with soil, leaking plumbing fixtures, insulation, blocked gutters, poorly ventilated attics and crawl spaces, and other wooden structures (supports, walls, pillars, siding, joists, sills) that are rotted or water-damaged. When Carpenter ants invade a home or other wooden structure and establish a colony with a queen, it is usually bad news.

Carpenter ants can be found around the periphery of your home in moist foundation mulches, piles of damp leaves and branches and woodpiles. The best approach to the carpenter ant problem is preventive: eliminate damp habitats around the exterior of your home (as well as inside).

Carpenter ants are frequently confused with termites, which are also wood-destroying insects. Termites are soft-bodied and usually white or cream colored; they are sometimes called, erroneously, “white ants” although they are more closely related to cockroaches than to ants. Carpenter ants, in contrast, are hard-bodied and black or dark brown in color. Termites (which are in the small order Isoptera, meaning equal wings) have fore and hind wings that are nearly equal in size and which fold at rest close to the body. Carpenter ants, whose fore wings are larger than their hind wings, usually extend or hold their wings above their body at rest.

Termites do not have a “waist” (constriction between the thorax and abdomen), whereas carpenter ants do have this constriction. Termites have bead-like antennae while carpenter ants have their antennae in segments resembling a short “arm” and “elbow.” Unlike termites, carpenter ants do not eat or digest wood, but instead excavate mostly moist and soft wood (and sometimes dry wood) and deposit the resulting “sawdust” outside their colony, while keeping their galleries clean. Wood digesting termites, on the other hand, line their galleries with moist soil. Carpenter ants are both predators and scavengers, feeding on live and dead insects, plant sap of certain plants, aphid and sap sucking insect honey dew, and various food scraps.

Another type of wood-destroying insect, sometimes mistaken for bumble bees, are carpenter bees, also in the order Hymenoptera (like carpenter ants). They differ from bumble bees in their body markings. Carpenter bees have black abdomens while bumble bees have yellow abdominal markings. Carpenter bees tend to fly and hover high up against buildings and windowsills to excavate their galleries in dry wood. Females have a stinger but rarely sting. Males do not have a stinger and are harmless to humans.

The US has seven species of carpenter bees. The most destructive to homes and other wooden structures is the Eastern species, Xylocopa virginica. They can cause significant damage by boring into and excavating wood year after year. You may see this species flying near windowsills, eaves, wooden siding, fence posts, railings, and other very dry wooden structures. An infestation is first detected by finding large amounts of sawdust below half-inch diameter entrance holes in wood. Applying linseed oil to dry wood can reduce the attractiveness of such wood to these bees.

Carpenter ants, carpenter bees, and termites utilize trees and other woody plants and materials as part of their life cycle. Each is important in its respective niche, but when they invade our domain they become pests. Homeowners who find it necessary to control or eradicate them should consult a certified pest control company and request that they deal with the problem in the most environmentally benign way possible.

For more information see Arnold Mallis, Handbook of Pest Control; Hansen & Klotz, Carpenter Ants of the United States and Canada, and www.ceinfo.unh.edu

Bruce Wenning is horticulturist and grounds manager at Mass Audubon Society, Habitat sanctuary, Belmont and serves on the Board of Directors of the Ecological Landscaping Association, www.ecolandscaping.org.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Garden Space Invaders

By Jill Hahn//Special To The Tab

 

If you’re like me, you started thumbing through garden catalogs in the dark days of early February, ogling the lush photographs and dreaming of how all those perfect, blooming plants would look in your own yard. Of course, your yard was covered with 2 1/2 feet of rock-hard snow in early February, and there wasn’t enough daylight to grow a mushroom. Sending photos of bright flowers and vivid fruit to New Englanders in February is like sending a frosty six-pack to a recovering alcoholic. Common sense might just go out the window. And the choices you make as you admire those glossy advertisements can have an impact far beyond the corners of your yard.

 

The 10 most unwanted

Here are the top 10 species of plants that are listed as unwanted by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program:

·      Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculata

·      Purple loosetrife Lythrum salicaria

·      Autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellate

·      Japanese, Morrow’s, and Amur honesuckles Lonicera sp.

·      Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora

·      Norway maple Acer platanoides

·      Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata

·      Shining and common buckthorns Rhamnus fragula, R. cathartica

·      Common reed Phragmites communis

·      Common and Japanese barberries Berberis vulgaris, B. thunbergii

 

Consider:

 

“Lonicera maackii [Amur honeysuckle]… produces masses of white flowers that mature to yellow followed by a profusion of 1/4″ bright red fruit persisting into winter… adaptable to poor soils…” (Nature Hills Nursery) “This climbing Bittersweet Vine produces sunny yellow seed pods that give way to bright red, decorative berries… thrives in the poorest of soils. Songbirds love to gather around this attractive plant, and so will you!” (Michigan Bulb Company)

Wow, those plants sound great! But what the catalogs don’t tell you is that these two species are on the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program’s “Ten most unwanted invasive species” list, villains that threaten the wellbeing of the native plants and animals that have defined our natural landscape for millennia.

An invasive species is one that, once established, manages to spread in numbers and space to the exclusion of other plants. Alien invaders, those imported from other countries, tend to be especially damaging because the predators that might keep in check in their native habitat don’t exist here.

If you look around your yard, you will likely find that most of the familiar plants that define your personal landscape are actually alien species. That rhododendron just bursting into bloom is as likely to hail from Japan as from North Carolina. The tulips came from Central Asia, the daffodils from the Mediterranean. Even the grass species growing in your lawn were introduced from Europe. Although they are not native to the U.S., most of these species are well-mannered and don’t present a problem to the forests and meadows of New England. What sets such species as the honeysuckle and bittersweet apart is that they are not content to stay where they are put. The very attributes that make you want to buy them (thrive in the poorest of soils, attractive to birds) are what make them a threat.

Five key biologic traits characterize invasive species: 1) they produce large quantities of seeds; 2) they have effective dispersal mechanisms; 3) they are readily established; 4) they grow rapidly; and 5) they are effective competitors. The birds, for example, that flock to your bittersweet vine to eat its berries become dispersal agents that carry its seeds to your neighbor’s yard, our woods and roadsides, the local Audubon preserve. Every manager of natural spaces in our state is currently waging war against spreading stands of alien invaders. When the diversity of native plants becomes overwhelmed by stands of a single, introduced species, it can cause the disappearance or extinction not just of those outcompeted plants, but of the animals that depended on them as well.

So what can you, the responsible gardener, do? Before you make an impulse buy from a garden catalog or center, do a little research. There are many sites online that can help you identify, and avoid, alien invaders (The New England Wildflower Society has a well-researched list, as well as a list of native alternatives, http://www.newfs.org/conserve/invasive.htm). To get you started, here are a few plants you should not buy:

Goutweed, or snow-in-winter (Aegopodium podagraria), a variegated, three-leaved groundcover that’s almost impossible to pull out because it propagates by easily-fragmented runners; those non-native honeysuckles(Lonicera Morrowii, L. tatarica, L. Maackii, L. x bella & L. japonica);Porcelain Berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata); Yellow Flag Iris (Iris pseudacorus); Burning Bush (Euonymus alatus), that ever-popular large woody shrub that turns bright scarlet in autumn.

Be especially suspicious of plants touted as able to grow in all conditions, or as good for erosion control. Become familiar with the top 10 unwanted species and eradicate them ruthlessly whenever you see them. Some of them will be obvious weeds, while others hold pride of place in many local gardens. It hurts to look at your beautiful burning bush specimen as an alien enemy, but that shrub doesn’t look so beautiful when it’s monopolizing the understory of the local forest.

Now excuse me while I go dig up the prickly but lovely Japanese barberry bush that’s screening my compost bin, and leap back into my losing battle with the Japanese knotweed that is marching its way up my backyard. Thank goodness I wasn’t the one who decided that might be a nice ornamental plant and set it loose on an unsuspecting Newton.

Jill Hahn, a Newton Highlands resident, is a biologist, a writer, and a mom. All three roles contribute to her interest in environmental issues. She can be reached at jkkhahn@comcast.net.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Taming the winter moth

By Joseph S. Elkinton/Special To The Tab

 

 

My laboratory at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst has embarked on an effort to control the winter moth, Operopthera brumata, a major new threat to our forests and shade trees. The winter moth is native to Europe and has recently invaded eastern Massachusetts and caused widespread defoliation of many kinds of deciduous trees, including all species of oak and maple. In addition, it represents a threat to blueberry and apple crops. Severe tree defoliation has occurred at sites near Cape Ann and throughout the South Shore and Cape Cod. It has probably been established in eastern Massachusetts for about a decade, but no one knows how it got here or exactly where it was first established. Until 2003, it was thought to be a native species, the fall cankerworm, Alsophila pometaria. Close examination of the adult females in December 2003 proved that it was neither fall cankerworm nor the Bruce spanworm, Operopthera bruceata,a native species that is very closely related to the winter moth. All three species are in the inch-worm family of moths that feed in early spring and then drop to ground in late May where they form earthen cocoons in the soil or forest litter. The adult winter moths emerge in November or December. The females have no wings. They climb the trunks of trees and produce a pheromone that attracts the winged males. After mating they lay eggs in bark crevices, which then hatch the following spring. Many people in eastern Massachusetts have been startled by the large numbers of male winter moths they have seen flying in early evening at Christmas time. This phenomenon accounts for the name winter moth.

We believe we have an excellent chance to use natural controls to prevent future defoliation by winter moth and to convert it to a non-pest status similar to that of the hundreds of native caterpillar species that exist in our forests without ever causing outbreaks. Invasions of winter moth have occurred at other sites in North America, namely Nova Scotia in the 1950s and in the Pacific Northwest in the 1970s. In each case, a decade-long outbreak has been successfully and permanently controlled by the introduction of a parasitic fly called Cyzenis albicans, from Europe, where it is one of the naturally occurring parasites of winter moth. In Nova Scotia, they first released C. albicansin 1954. High levels of parasitism did not occur until 1961, but after that winter moth retreated to low density where it has remained ever since.

One of the most attractive features about C. albicansis that it specializes on winter moth and does not attack any other species with the possible exception of Bruce spanworm. That means that C. albicanswill not have any unintended effects on other species and when it suppresses winter moth densities, it will suppress its own density as well. People will be unaware that this fly is present in their back yards just as they are unaware of the many native species of parasitic flies and wasps that attack native insects in their yards.

In April 2005, we received about 5,000 winter moth pupae shipped to us from Victoria BC by colleagues in the Canadian Forest Service. Many of these pupae were infested with C. albicans, and from this batch we obtained 832 adult flies of which about half were females. On May 4, 2005, we released 225 C. albicansat a site in Wompatuck State Park in Hingham, where we have collected data on parasitism of winter moth since 2004. The remaining flies were held in the laboratory to produce eggs for production of more flies for next year. Based on similar work in Nova Scotia, we do not expect to see much, if any, parasitism for several years, because the eggs laid by a few hundred released flies are dispersed among the millions of winter moths at this site.

We believe that our efforts to control winter moth by introducing C. albicansare almost guaranteed to work because the approach has already worked before at two other locations in North America. If so we will achieve permanent solution to the winter moth outbreak that will require no further expenditures once we get C. albicans established. However, in order for the introduction to work within a reasonable time frame (e.g. five years) we must invest sufficient funds to be able to release several thousand C. albicansfrom as many sites as possible each year. Otherwise it could be a decade or more before the parasitoid population catches up with the already huge winter moth population. Last year we estimated that there were approximately a quarter million winter moth eggs being laid in each tree. With several million trees infested, the estimated size of the winter moth population in eastern Massachusetts is several trillion!! It will take some years for a few thousand C. albicansto multiply sufficiently to catch up. As with any biological control project, we must release a sufficient number of parasitoids at each site in order to assure that the next generation of parasitoids are abundant enough to find mates. Luckily the Massachusetts state legislature is considering a bill to provide the necessary funding for this initiative.

Joseph S. Elkinton is Professor of Entomology in the Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, elkinton@ent.umass.edu, 413-545-4816.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Lawn and Garden Coneheads

By Bruce Wenning/ Special To The Tab

 

 

The Proturans are not your typical soil dwelling insects. They are in the Order Protura and are blind, slow moving, white colored, tiny (0.6 to 1.5 mm), and have no antennae. They are affectionately referred to as “coneheads”

because of their uniquely shaped conical heads.   

 

What makes them unusual is that unlike most insects, proturans’ front legs serve as antennae and are full of specialized sensory hairs that aid them in finding food, mates, and suitable habitats. They require dark conditions to exploit substrates such as rotting logs, leaf mold, humus, and soils high in organic matter. Proturans are subterranean and like moist but well drained soils, the same conditions necessary for growing most plants in gardening and lawn care. They are true soil dwellers and are beneficial insects. Proturans hold their specialized front legs outstretched, meticulously tapping and stroking as they feel their way between soil particles, crevices, along plant root channels, and between and within organic compounds. Their front legs are their “eyes”.

There are nearly 500 species of proturans worldwide, but only about twenty in North America. These tiny insects are much less numerous than soil mites and springtails, but they are important components of the soil ecosystem. They are common in the soils of deciduous and evergreen forests, meadows, woodlands, organic lawns and gardens. Like other decomposer organisms, such as earthworms, soil mites, springtails, and millipedes, they contribute to soil fertility by feeding on fungal and bacterial infested (decaying) organic compounds. The waste products produced are slowly released as nutrients for plant root uptake. The feeding activities of all soil decomposer organisms help to reduce plant disease-causing fungi and bacteria.

Adult and immature proturans look alike and utilize the same food sources. The larvae have nine abdominal segments. As they grow (molt) to adults they gain three more abdominal segments, one at each molt.

As they move through the soil (most live in the top six inches) proturans help improve soil structure by mixing soil particles and decaying organic compounds. They also release fecal pellets that stimulate soil microbial activity, which helps to further decompose organic matter. Proturians and many other species of soil invertebrates do the same or similar tasks at different soil depths and moisture and temperature regimes simultaneously, while feeding on different organic compounds at various stages of decay. It is a complex system maintained and enhanced by organic gardening practices.

You can help maintain proturans and other beneficial organisms by avoiding the use of harmful (inorganic) fertilizers and pesticides. Organic fertilizer compounds such as composted manure, leaf mold and processed organic fertilizers will help increase and maintain these beneficial insects in your gardens and lawns. To read more, see “Soil Biology Primer” (Soil and Water Conservation Society), www.swcs.org and “The Ground Crew”, the website of Entomology Professor, John Meyer, UNC.

Bruce Wenning, Horticulturist and Grounds Manager at MA Audubon’s Habitat Wildlife Sanctuary in Belmont, is on the Board of Directors of the Ecological Landscaping Association, www.ecolandscaping.org.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Annual bird count finds 53 species

By M. G. Criscitiello, MD/ Special To The Tab

 

Robins, Blue Jays, Cedar Waxwings were up; American Crows, House Finches, Canada Geese were down; Nuthatches, Hooded Mergansers, Downy Woodpeckers were holding steady; but Wild Turkeys and Wood Ducks were no-shows. The 32nd Annual Christmas Bird Count was held in Newton on Dec. 18 (www.newtonconservators.org/christmasbirdcount.htm). This year 17 local birders joined in, grateful for clear weather: Susan Abele, Dorothy Anderson, Cris Criscitiello, Richard Danca, Pete Gilmore, Jan Gilpin, Liane Hartnett, Deborah & Frank Howard, Sam Jaffe, Ted Kuklinski, Liz Micheels, Steve Olanoff, Anne Pearson, Ian Reid, Al Scott, and David Tobias.

Those who braved the dark at 4:30 a.m. were rewarded by finding eight owls – seven Eastern Screech Owls and one Great Horned Owl – a considerably better showing than last year. Later, after sunrise, five teams of seasoned birders spread across the city, chalking up a list of 53 different species. Eight of these had not been seen in the past few Christmas Counts. They included one hardy American Coot at Crystal Lake; single examples each of a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Swamp Sparrow, Rusty Blackbird, and Purple Finch in Cold Spring Park; six Common Mergansers on the Charles River; a Great Horned Owl in Kennard Park; and a Black/Mallard Duck hybrid at Newton Commonwealth Golf Course.

The number of count areas in the US and Canada is now well over 2,000, each consisting of a circle 15 miles in diameter. As the territory covered increases, the data derived become more valid statistically. The Count is performed under the auspices of the National Audubon Society and the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.

Modestino Criscitiello, a retired cardiologist, is Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, Tufts University School of Medicine. He is a Board member of the Newton Conservator and host of the Conservators’ Environmental Show on NewTV.

Pests who don’t take winter off

By Bruce Wenning/ Special To The Tab

 

 

Very few insects, especially pest species, are active at low temperatures. Most insect species in New England feed, mature and mate during the warmer months. The few that are active during the colder months have physiological traits that protect them from the cold. These traits lead to the production of specific sugar and alcohol compounds that circulate in their blood and prevent the insect from freezing when there is a gradual drop in air temperature.

 

In our area, there are three important insect pests that can tolerate cold weather. The first is a dull brownish moth that is drawn to house lights at night. Called the Winter Moth (Operophtera brumata), the males can be seen by the hundreds covering the sides of buildings, doors, and windows at dusk and dawn. (The wingless females are flightless.) This pest, which resembles our native Fall Cankerworm Moth – and makes its appearance at about the same time – is new to the area. However, Winter Moth is well known on the South Shore and Cape Cod, where oaks, maples, crabapples, cherries and other trees and shrubs have been partially to completely defoliated over the past few years.

After mating, Winter Moths leave clusters of eggs in tree bark, which begin to hatch in March. The yellow-green larvae crawl up the tree, inchworm style, to feed on buds and leaves until mid-June, creating holes in leaves and loss of flower petals. The larvae extrude a long silken thread that functions like a parachute to transport them from one tree to another. After they fall to the ground and penetrate the soil, they spin a cocoon, undergo pupation, and emerge as adult moths in late fall. Recently, the moth has been re-emerging in great numbers here. It is essential to understand the timing of this complex life cycle to address the problem. There are only short-term solutions available now (for specifics see the Web site listed at the end of this article). Fortunately, a promising long-term solution to this problem is being tested by Joseph Elkinton, PhD, an entomologist at U Mass/Amherst. His research will be described in detail in a follow-up article on these pages.

The second cold weather insect pest is more familiar – the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae). This sap- sucker attaches itself at the bases of hemlock needles and inserts its piercing mouth-parts into the needle base and siphons sap. It is a specific pest of Eastern hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis) and Carolina hemlock (T. caroliniana). This accidentally introduced insect, originally from Japan, has devastated hemlock stands in forests of Connecticut and further south. It is moving northward into southern New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont. Both immature and adult stages are very small and are inactive during the summer months. They start feeding and maturing into adults during the fall. From January to mid-April, females produce egg masses secured in tiny “cotton balls” located at branch tips, white clusters that are easy to spot in the winter. The best time to treat these hemlocks is from late March to mid-September. Horticultural oil will suffocate the eggs, nymphs, and adults of this pest if you apply the oil thoroughly. Horticultural oil is very low in toxicity and is used and approved by organic farmers and gardeners. It kills all stages of the adelgid, including the egg stage by suffocation, unlike traditional petroleum based insecticides. Insect pests treated with oil do not build up resistance to this compound. However, petroleum based insecticides are neurotoxins and with overuse will cause insecticide resistance, health problems to humans and other animals and contaminate the environment.

The third cold weather pest, which feeds on turf grass roots, is the European chafer (Rhizotrogus majalis). The adults are brown colored beetles that emerge from the soil by mid June; the immature stage is called a white grub and is similar in appearance to the Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica) grub. Because European chafer adults mostly fly during the night to lights they frequently go unnoticed by people. The lawn damage caused by the grubs is noticed by most people, although it is frequently blamed on the Japanese beetle grub. But not all grubs are Japanese beetles. In fact, there are two more turf grass root-feeding white grubs common in our area, the Oriental beetle (Anomala orientalis) and the Asiatic garden beetle (Maladera castanea).

The European chafer can be much more devastating to home lawns than the other three grub species because it is the only grub that can feed during cold weather, causing turf grass root damage in the early spring and into the fall when the other grub species are inactive. According to Patricia Vittum, Professor of Entomology at UMA/Amherst, European chafers have been observed feeding on turf grass roots under snow as early as February, much earlier in the season than the other three grub species.

For more information on the identification, control and life cycle details of these insect pests visit, www.UMassGreenInfo.org

Bruce Wenning is the property manager at the Massachusetts Audubon Society Habitat sanctuary, Belmont, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Ecological Landscaping Association, www.ecolandscaping.org.

Bats and EIDs

By Tigga Kingston/ Special To The Tab

 

 

Gently, I reach into the holding bag and pull out the first of the night’

s catch. 65 million years of evolutionary perfection – a beautiful trefoil horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus trifoliatus). Her grayish-fawn fur is long and fluffy and she has yellow ears, elbows and knees and tan-colored wings.

With over 1,100 species, bats account for 20 percent of mammals and are found on all continents except Antarctica. In the wet tropics bats comprise more than half the mammal species, and in South America over 100 species can coexist at a single locality. This species richness is matched by unparalleled ecological diversity- bats eat fruits, nectar, leaves, insects, small terrestrial vertebrates, and fish. Despite popular myths, there are only three species of vampire bats, restricted to Central and South America.

 

Tragically, nearly a quarter of all bat species are threatened by extinction, mainly due to habitat loss, hunting, disturbance at roost sites and pesticides. Conservation has been greatly impeded by a lack of understanding of these animals. Demonized and feared across cultures for centuries, shrouded in myth and prejudice, bats now face another challenge to their unfairly tarnished image – their role as natural wildlife reservoirs in the emergence of new and sometimes fatal infectious diseases.

In 2005, scientists identified three horseshoe bat species (genus Rhinolophus) from China as the probable natural wildlife reservoir for the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) virus. SARS first emerged in China in 2002, infected about 8,000 people around the world in 2003 and killed more than 750 people; the cost to the global economy was more than $50 billion. SARS is one of several infectious diseases that emerged in the last decade in which bats have been identified as the probable wildlife reservoir. In the late 1990s, Nipah virus spilled over from pigs to humans in Malaysia, resulting in the death of 108 people. Old World fruit bats in the genus Pteropus (flying foxes) appear to be the original hosts of Nipah virus, the related Hendra virus, and probably Ebola virus.

From a conservation perspective, this would seem to be the final nail in the coffin of bat public relations. The health and economic impacts of Emerging Infectious Diseases are a global concern, and it is critical that outbreaks are controlled and minimized, but we must protect bats while addressing these diseases.

Large-scale culling programs – often the first response of beleaguered governments- are the last thing biologists and conservationists wish to see. Bats are a major and unique component of global biodiversity, and provide critical ecosystem and economic services as pollinators, seed dispersers and predators of insects. For example, in the Old World, more than 500 economically important products are derived from these plants pollinated or dispersed by bats – including favorites such as durian, petai, mango, banana, guava, figs, carob, cashew, avocado, dates, jackfruit and papaya. The durian trade alone is worth in excess US$1.5 billion annually.

Insectivorous bats consume a least half their body weight in insects every night. In a six month period, a single colony of Mexican free-tailed bats may consume over 2,450 metric tons of insects, which include the most damaging agricultural and forestry pests.

Ethical and conservation issues aside, eradication of host species is ineffective in managing disease. Seventy years of aggressive campaigns to eradicate vampire bats (sometimes deploying draconian methods such as poison gas or blasting) did little to control bovine rabies in South America but resulted in the destruction of millions of bats of many species. Eventually, ecological and behavioral research led to selective control methods that are now proving effective. Policy must be based on solid research.

In the wild, host bat species show little signs of infection by the viruses they harbor. These viruses have been present in bat populations for 1000s -maybe millions – of years, but have only emerged recently. Understanding why bat-borne viruses are emerging now is the key to predicting and minimizing future outbreaks.

Although bats can pass some diseases directly to humans, such as rabies, in many cases (including, Hendra, Nipah and SARS) there is no direct transmission of the virus from bats to people. The viruses usually infect an intermediate “amplifier” host that is in contact with both bats and humans. In SARS this host was the masked palm civet. These are naive hosts with little or no resistance to the pathogens, resulting in rapid replication of the virus. This promotes transmission to other individuals of the same species, and can lead to genetic modifications that enable the virus to jump to humans. In most cases transmission to humans has occurred only among people closely associated with an amplifier host. In China wildlife traders and restaurant owners were the first to become infected with SARS, which reached epidemic proportions because of human-human transmission.

Historically bats had very little contact with spillover hosts, certainly not enough to sustain an infectious virus. Civets are generally solitary; it was the unnatural aggregations in crowded wildlife markets supplying the wildlife meat trade in South China that enabled them to become potential hosts. Neither pigs nor horses are native to Australia and farm pigs in Malaysia are far removed from their wild boar relatives, so all these represent naive hosts. Intensive farming practices then promote the rapid spread of pathogens within local populations.

Introducing domestic livestock into remote areas, coupled with intensive animal husbandry practices, have created opportunities for these diseases to emerge. In the live markets of China, bats and bat products are widely sold for food and traditional medicine, bringing them into direct contact with other wildlife traded for meat such as civets. The outbreak of Nipah virus in Malaysia was similarly precipitated by human actions. Fruit bats throughout South East Asia and Australia have declined dramatically due to hunting and habitat loss; these stressors have led to changes in foraging behavior that can directly impact viral dynamics while bringing bats into close proximity with people and livestock. Pig consumption of fruit pulp spat out by the bats seems to be the route by which infected saliva and urine passed from bats to pigs in Malaysia, and the mode of transmission from bats to horses is probably similar. Infectious diseases have emerged due to human actions that affect the availability of amplifier hosts and the ecology of reservoir hosts. These diseases will not be controlled by controlling bats, but the risks could be minimized if links between reservoir species and spillover hosts are broken. In the short term, trade in wild animals for medicine and food increases the risks, and it is clear that domestic livestock should not be housed near fruit bat feeding trees. In the long-term, research on the interaction between host ecology, species-species transmission and human modification of the environment are the most likely means by which the emergence of new infectious diseases will be controlled.

Tigga Kingston, PhD, Sr Res Assoc, Geography & Environment Dept, BU, Director of the Malaysian Bat Conservation Research Unit, studies bat diversity in the threatened rainforests of SE Asia. Her work focuses on understanding the ecology, conservation biology and evolution of these vital mammals.

 

Towns work to identify, eliminate bacteria in river

By David Kaplan/ Special To The Tab

 

The Charles River’s Lower Basin is one of the most heavily trafficked recreation waters in Massachusetts, supporting thousands of boaters daily in peak summer months. Despite marked improvement in the river’s water quality from 1995, bacteria levels sometimes exceed Massachusetts’ standards for safe swimming and boating.

Illicit connections of sanitary sewer pipes to stormwater pipes are a significant source of bacterial pollution and can discharge untreated sanitary waste into the Charles River even in dry weather. “Federal policy requires towns to initiate stronger and more vigilant illicit connection detection and elimination programs,” said Anna Eleria, environmental engineer at Charles River Watershed Association. “Watershed towns have responded with action plans to step up their efforts to reduce bacterial pollution in their water bodies.”

Eleria cited work in Newton and Brookline involving water sampling and dye testing within the stormwater infrastructure to pinpoint potential sources of wastewater and remove the connections to the stormwater system.

According to Newton’s quarterly report to the US EPA, the overseeing body, on their progress in detecting and eliminating illicit connections, the city is in the process of mapping and sampling stormwater catch basins and outfall locations to determine areas of concern for future analysis and action. In their report, Brookline officials estimate that nine illicit connections and nearly 3,500 gallons per day of wastewater flows have already been removed from the stormwater drainage system.

The Charles River also receives bacteria and other pollution from raw sewage released from combined sewer outfalls during heavy rain events. Combined sewers are antiquated systems originally designed to collect and convey a combination of both stormwater and sanitary wastewater directly into a lowland waterbody.

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority collects combined wastewater in interceptor pipes and pumps it to the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant in Winthrop. To prevent sewers from backing up into homes, combined sewer overflows are activated when inflow exceeds the treatment plant’s capacity, dumping millions of gallons of treated and untreated sewage into the river each year.  

Boston and Cambridge still have combined systems and are working towards their eventual separation, which will reduce inflow to the treatment plant and decrease the frequency of CSO discharges. Cambridge recently separated sewerage in the Cambridgeport area and has more projects on the horizon. Separating systems is both time-consuming and costly, but must be done to secure the future health of the Charles River and its boaters.

Acknowledging the public’s need for better, “real-time” water quality information, CRWA, with financial aid from federal, state and local government programs created and implemented a water quality monitoring and public notification project in 1998. The program completed its eighth successful season in October 2005 with its assessment of bacteria levels for the Head of the Charles Regatta.

“Samples taken from the Charles are analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria, which signals the presences of human and animal waste and is also an indicator of other, more harmful bacteria,” said Ariel Dekovic, who manages daily notification of the flag colors. “The models predict daily fecal coliform bacteria concentrations, and the probability that these concentrations exceed the Massachusetts state water quality standard for safe boating conditions.”

The program relies on a combination of water quality sampling and the use of statistical models developed by CRWA in 2002 in collaboration with U.S. Geological Survey and Tufts University.

David Kaplan, MA (Environmental Mgmt, Duke University), was a CRWA intern in 2000 and is now one of their Watershed Scientists. He is proficient in GIS, and has worked extensively on water quality projects.

The squirrel’s dilemma: acorn or tulip bulb?

By Bruce Wenning/ Special To The Tab

Last fall did you loose a lot of your precious tulip bulbs to the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), chipmunk (Tamias striatus), and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)? I did at Habitat, the Mass Audubon sanctuary in Belmont where I’m the grounds manager. We plant 2,000 tulip bulbs every November for beautifying our formal gardens each spring. Last fall we lost close to 600 tulip bulbs to the above mentioned rodents. They were dug up and eatened for a highly nutrious meal and adequate moisture source during the droughty weather that prevailed. The meadow vole was very successful at feeding on our tulip bulbs even under the pristine snow cover. Those bandits!

What caused this change in feeding behavior to become so drastic and satisfying to them and troublesome to gardeners? The droughty years that began in 1993 and lasted more or less until 2004. Acorns are the fruits (and seeds) of oak trees and the main staple of squirrels while still on the tree. The calories stored in acorns is in the form of fat and other organic compounds that help squirrels, and other animals, get through the winter months. Squirrels prefer to feed immediately on the acorns of White Oak (Quercus alba) and will bury the high tannin content acorns of Red Oak (Q. rubra) and Black Oak (Q. velutina) for eating at a later date. Acorns are buried at shallow depths for better olfactory detection. Experiments have proven that squirrels find their buried acorns by smelling them and not by memory.

During droughty years, oak trees, as other tree species, become stressed due to a lack of adequate water for growth and reproduction. Part of an oak trees carbohydrate root reserves are allocated to the reproductive cycle of the tree each year. When plants are stressed by un-seasonal temperature extremes, nutrient deficiencies or prolonged drought, particularly during their flower development and pollen dispersal, seed production can be greatly reduced. During drought the threat of death increases which prompts many trees to allocate close to 50 percent of these reserves to leaf and root production to ensure survival and away from energy depleting reproduction (producing seeds). This was the scenario last fall with oak trees. Successive years of prolonged drought shifted these reserves away from acorn production. The acorn population simply crashed. In addition, when drought occurs early in the growing season the flowers of oaks are fed upon by squirrels preventing their fate of development into acorns in the fall. Therefore, drought was the culprit that turned the squirrels, chipmunks and voles from acorns and other natural foods to tulip bulbs. Tulip gardens showed the damage this past spring with incomplete blooms or no tulip flowers at all.

This year I see acorns! Hopefully, many of our rodent friends will spare our tulip bulbs and stick with their natural foods. To protect tulip bulbs from squirrels and other rodents, I have found two non-toxic strategies. The first is covering your tulip bulb beds with unsightly hardware cloth (wire) with quarter inch holes. Secure the edges with bricks, logs or other heavy objects. Planting your tulip bulbs closer to Thanksgiving gives squirrels and chipmunks more time away from your attractive tulip bulbs and more time caching acorns and other nuts and seeds.

The second strategy is spring protection. When tulips are emerging from the soil, apply a wax-based hot pepper spray to the foliage to deter rabbits, squirrels and chipmunks from seeking moisture by nibbling the tulip stems that support the bloom.

There are hot pepper spray concoctions on the market, but not wax-based. To buy the longer lasting wax-based pepper spray contact Ben E. Daniels Company in Plympton, MA. www.benedaniels.com, (800)-854-7988. I have tried this spray and it works.

Bruce Wenning, a plant pathologist and entomologist, is property manager of MA Audubon Society’s Habitat Education Center and Wildlife Sanctuary (Belmont). He is on the Board of Directors of the Ecological Landscaping Association, www.ecolandscaping.org.