<%BANNER%>

Evaluation of Attractants and Monitoring for Sap Beetle Control in Strawberries

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101122_AAAABH INGEST_TIME 2010-11-23T01:31:09Z PACKAGE UFE0012062_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 4069 DFID F20101122_AAAQIU ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH kelts_c_Page_67thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
c260a31e7237c3fd9ba6768a466ec2bd
SHA-1
a4a414a36355fef753100ae4748d1b12dd610b2a
1053954 F20101122_AAAPWZ kelts_c_Page_50.tif
a0684f8d0ec6b3b56898ba7dd0582169
7df0170b571e346aec5b52d940645817eee1db64
1051947 F20101122_AAAPUB kelts_c_Page_44.jp2
d27e7875c67f1ae75c849cce67e9663e
00badf9a03a06955b1eef3909eff81b4fcf35787
3441 F20101122_AAAQIV kelts_c_Page_68thm.jpg
ddbc2ce4f27ffa23a0ac01815fbd7fdb
79f22a0bc8b8058f5a1171a33d683b57faa02c18
2505 F20101122_AAAQDX kelts_c_Page_87.txt
7209ac9ffc462d5851b1d20c3da88ef7
4d3c0898764a4a65c839cadebdd99cca4a027634
859 F20101122_AAAPPE kelts_c_Page_51.txt
5c5d448aae1f3f7563a86bd4d54490e1
80686bc5c130b1b4e49660850d85d71080d303bb
872701 F20101122_AAAPUC kelts_c_Page_46.jp2
8165de9db24507cdf1dfd223f057578c
07f39bbb47f563746425998fb350394a97b9d43f
10691 F20101122_AAAQIW kelts_c_Page_68.QC.jpg
3b9faaee4a4e3f1dcf11be7fc1be35b2
6e5abb2eb01a8ddc1c1ccb37c9ba4d433032be80
906493 F20101122_AAAQDY kelts_c.pdf
02709d00579262afb5034eebea957d47
c33af3b872caf011dc71bd27427ff8f84cd65529
F20101122_AAAPPF kelts_c_Page_36.tif
f2dbf928f7cf4fde5930dd7cbfb1ab3f
2c90234dfd12cb2ff1c9aaf1be7b5561f4cf6238
48037 F20101122_AAAPZA kelts_c_Page_20.pro
9c0109c0e742a47cdc706433aba0cb6d
03773cda4599a1c600bc80fbb523cbcd3b0e31d9
44011 F20101122_AAAQBA kelts_c_Page_80.pro
eb2aef93d9502632a5e3e88adf4071ae
2a095bf3dd9d88e74dc0edafb68b920f63b9346f
515379 F20101122_AAAPUD kelts_c_Page_48.jp2
520a65ee2e5544d653d7ff9d10fae49d
439a5e8bb600338adf952ac23ca120236ca2ff3d
7335 F20101122_AAAQIX kelts_c_Page_69thm.jpg
9ede0a2bcc8ef700fff3bd53f34e23e2
7a8c21df8481ebe153148c0363a0a5b2232ff9f8
4965 F20101122_AAAQDZ kelts_c_Page_43thm.jpg
bc99548026ac5522220522d86874eab7
8a9ae12caca58faf14901d6afd606909ff45f02a
103926 F20101122_AAAPPG kelts_c_Page_25.jp2
8ff25fc3b382b9b7ecfc2012446683d0
25cdd7133651d51e75f54be83f6574d786e0c002
46997 F20101122_AAAPZB kelts_c_Page_22.pro
015d08b6c4de2df701552d76227f9358
56c379406cb54828b045ba33bc43716b73325cff
51166 F20101122_AAAQBB kelts_c_Page_81.pro
679e2994a933204e3c5d6d33b7c1834a
2ccc52f7060c16ac6d86684f3fe72811347b2ed2
27986 F20101122_AAAPUE kelts_c_Page_49.jp2
a0b41b0e202ff9198d9ae2cde6bb98e6
66e0ed5ffdcee3a6f24b29b3b9e0216084f40436
29732 F20101122_AAAQIY kelts_c_Page_69.QC.jpg
81ee3003aacc8a1664d8348ce5b87cc7
877c15830f2378a7397a4a7ff2aa00d9482ae32e
727 F20101122_AAAPPH kelts_c_Page_64.txt
1f9a976a1834200257f0573e40d0c315
c63442f3f7f677f44cba828a09b1a511fd2ace73
50367 F20101122_AAAPZC kelts_c_Page_23.pro
6557b731822d3db0f884df869b10c4e6
67545b89ea7969a7e298e953089258ea2ce17d5b
51973 F20101122_AAAQBC kelts_c_Page_82.pro
8fc2c61ce23fe75b387ea3888343b6e0
da828713a9fdcd57a152f55b6f6dcb8ff0e66942
27182 F20101122_AAAPUF kelts_c_Page_50.jp2
f7c72f9e13bb3b6ce782f51b78b98bbe
b60a1d7b32f007fc01c3233b0ec1de7d55582215
8069 F20101122_AAAQIZ kelts_c_Page_70thm.jpg
79babd6740ceded3d251f521217538c2
96e4cb5ba08e6a9231d51e2a569aa093e4f9b9bf
21686 F20101122_AAAQGA kelts_c_Page_45.QC.jpg
cd4214d40eb236333855136040ae6e7a
a6ef55d8e2b1601024047667b29c070a0b84304f
1051980 F20101122_AAAPPI kelts_c_Page_09.jp2
ce22e3848256c0b6522c6f70a623349e
3c88723f70c72746dfbe40e5dada35935ec762eb
46287 F20101122_AAAPZD kelts_c_Page_24.pro
da2a96a8655daf61b039cfdb00442728
92723b3ffa76167592f15f0384d719175d546e59
5366 F20101122_AAAQBD kelts_c_Page_83.pro
48663d1ea15b3c1f5248a4938b41c93b
3154afd738ec577c97298839f1399e47c858a109
34848 F20101122_AAAPUG kelts_c_Page_51.jp2
6b2774ee941a194fb670760c9936330a
8b3884ddb9a3c5a79a747b448fc1d9aa8144c7ee
26267 F20101122_AAAQGB kelts_c_Page_17.QC.jpg
503db2d2a38bad318aa23c3d22a7b63d
e8ff33bee23c23c83a0609fec800602cfba6a2f9
8398 F20101122_AAAPPJ kelts_c_Page_87thm.jpg
e5b2c7af4326c2e49dcc5ce4861ab1c7
149a6003c668dd9f46692924410e27980e8845ef
47075 F20101122_AAAPZE kelts_c_Page_25.pro
176d0fc09454acc20fa24be8ca1bdde4
59be2f249d89970530df5e3714b379962d64f903
61693 F20101122_AAAQBE kelts_c_Page_87.pro
3e740b26eee261c90def2cbeb365378d
4051f6627c863ba6e35e5aa86ba1759a9be6ac35
34474 F20101122_AAAPUH kelts_c_Page_52.jp2
aacc36723a82d80da24462624c76cc10
ff77161f3e748247c63fb72d6e17354f4fda0244
1186 F20101122_AAAQGC kelts_c_Page_07thm.jpg
61027be256e074a167aa5707410d4bfd
134bf7aab450bac14d689cff4346821d2c6a70c2
1858 F20101122_AAAPPK kelts_c_Page_13.txt
bde09ff5f42117cb917f11bbc656789e
4a4e0ebdbc9145a35bedd933caced578bcb81b41
48371 F20101122_AAAPZF kelts_c_Page_26.pro
ed25d7f64eca38bf333c830724ca083f
50f0c8063bb1a17c6e2c47ca7ea0ed7e612ffa45
17356 F20101122_AAAQBF kelts_c_Page_88.pro
c41d900eab85ce615e3404f678c65856
38a93283766af816afc2b57518907bec3de00697
48106 F20101122_AAAPUI kelts_c_Page_53.jp2
51d540d9788f7ad6ca246de460689087
bfe4d7f394f7a037314b72b8066480a70edc7c7e
15274 F20101122_AAAQGD kelts_c_Page_53.QC.jpg
33664f501bcbe2f1aabcb5228168732d
81d645c8ca24c0feebfd76bc5bd6db5858721347
457 F20101122_AAAQBG kelts_c_Page_01.txt
7bdef4d0ff4c538472e27bac31a8d73f
3a09211f0ee13e0b502c183fd2c165a518f67e75
F20101122_AAAPPL kelts_c_Page_15.tif
ac9f6f9468a89721d4d1f7a3670feb74
f4fc93fbcb2011eee8ac3c7147a2b697da1b651c
48635 F20101122_AAAPZG kelts_c_Page_27.pro
adc6f1def9d3282c09febb443bb0482f
e091ad8faed6d25b87867f074316fb2ae2219cc4
6969 F20101122_AAAQGE kelts_c_Page_06thm.jpg
7d219d64497c06f55491cb53160a84ef
1f879d80691fb5ef10d87bd5582081fd31691a2b
121 F20101122_AAAQBH kelts_c_Page_03.txt
a152fc739afaa31fa8974c9e18a4b240
3660196f59e149c4a4f9821db25b3a05e1d0b125
3312 F20101122_AAAPPM kelts_c_Page_52thm.jpg
51dba5b65a311d5051e7b78d0fd29d9a
167da213ca1a938fb6c3b984b7356ad2578c85d5
19800 F20101122_AAAPZH kelts_c_Page_28.pro
d40c79899c4f9f1b056a1fce595dd203
896ffa38db28862cfd32a44b07ac7b0ec85fdc29
55062 F20101122_AAAPUJ kelts_c_Page_54.jp2
e72b0fa68fd4c062e9fd756071cce26b
57569f6a30ab76a637d6cd3c95827ff46c40e208
30191 F20101122_AAAQGF kelts_c_Page_60.QC.jpg
69bce6ade991d19ef4900a22441dc2cf
c9fb984099ddb2b3cd1f29d4c284832e0a50dae5
1234 F20101122_AAAQBI kelts_c_Page_04.txt
ef1fbb02f7f4eb225f9ce1e4cb9cce69
8738078848e371ceb5b10ad2e15f4061567830fb
1768 F20101122_AAAPPN kelts_c_Page_12.txt
341427ee2ed302227a4d266ed3edbee5
51c52fdeea91e7b104216b313ccea07e4749e388
44433 F20101122_AAAPZI kelts_c_Page_29.pro
2dd66fdd266c90d2bf14ae07eb5f3e53
31cade3cefde6b6c02a1e94245644e663898b809
51179 F20101122_AAAPUK kelts_c_Page_55.jp2
5a99570717380458efb9dfff38bdaeb0
938786782a535c4b810a7dc952bc5e3b9e0cd5fb
33336 F20101122_AAAQGG kelts_c_Page_86.QC.jpg
32b114ba485cd5b3274924ee94433560
6b3c76aa74e6e4f26e0aea45477ca8083140aa5e
3166 F20101122_AAAQBJ kelts_c_Page_05.txt
19a182b0a95cca2250601e64384b31f0
d52a6f20fa661b44f21bc6aa5c4babbf950efc23
46721 F20101122_AAAPZJ kelts_c_Page_30.pro
74e073ad54cfaedf21a4c672d0451043
dc86ef40d7cf3f41005fa0bc028a18f287184c8d
95200 F20101122_AAAPUL kelts_c_Page_56.jp2
e704c8fdcb8a4a803bdc0d26f20b1cd1
e1beff10096a6fab5c839f02517526e0348bfc74
F20101122_AAAPPO kelts_c_Page_28.tif
6a108a8b6fccd05b652af55debf6fc5c
766af32574676ee622e1badb1b90122b1ab3e7e3
5710 F20101122_AAAQGH kelts_c_Page_10thm.jpg
8ee91d157f58c7300e3b431981bfec4c
093948639f7a98f5a726c5053415e1b8f30ce355
4543 F20101122_AAAQBK kelts_c_Page_06.txt
0d63cdeee29017a37e94939c64bd087f
756e58a189da84f56a20905ffb63434255901e06
50592 F20101122_AAAPZK kelts_c_Page_31.pro
d8b317f4f66c80f69d95c8d8ee43804f
b505ed65013c68969acae21c000ea9c1005c1d8d
93989 F20101122_AAAPUM kelts_c_Page_57.jp2
8034f65fcd39a12662f16896a7ff5d23
f4a65eca840e41c719b49371894d947f41b30690
7963 F20101122_AAAPPP kelts_c_Page_33thm.jpg
039dcea51cad3bb379d4e2f1d6f6b63c
bc4cafdcd0ca543da1b9994896eee14b75ec2dc9
7846 F20101122_AAAQGI kelts_c_Page_26thm.jpg
daca7a851496d3dfdace187e372653e8
8736d476c7e6b0ccb7040c734553c5f1122dbdda
276 F20101122_AAAQBL kelts_c_Page_07.txt
34279c11242b73f26e836897de202ee6
9f304beeaee8e4213cab90947b7e2aba173c2166
47164 F20101122_AAAPZL kelts_c_Page_32.pro
c643c7101c7110de6dd447344b455d39
49724b821ea797bcfbf99acc2b91f7cbd203fcba
85972 F20101122_AAAPUN kelts_c_Page_58.jp2
3ce6e46edadde3ad4b65fbe59493a31e
2fdd70faf6bff410cee8f0382fe0c586d25b273b
2897 F20101122_AAAPPQ kelts_c_Page_78thm.jpg
9bc4d38d1cca9a100e61af836111cefd
120b82cb9086a40e1e940ff595e06b372ddfb872
32874 F20101122_AAAQGJ kelts_c_Page_70.QC.jpg
8f318c4680b3943eb95b2e3d72311188
406dd38af08b99de30b77e3d0cb268449cf8944c
1615 F20101122_AAAQBM kelts_c_Page_09.txt
577e8f7430617bf28c4cf48b3e4a70fb
46342b259b18c027b3228dfe3045bb7f59f12279
46918 F20101122_AAAPZM kelts_c_Page_33.pro
2a522dd7f7193c6ac4f3e71655e4728e
ca7c52a25de2f9601bfd64c593348dd57e27c2f1
96928 F20101122_AAAPUO kelts_c_Page_59.jp2
c3998e53aa331a0985a01b6cc3a5594b
411b3fdca17731e1997e4b63d96b0013ad0adb9a
19379 F20101122_AAAPPR kelts_c_Page_08.QC.jpg
1afb1d76e652849cbe0e41bb2e9c92f4
55227e3e182dbc830570884063a4bc80e53814ce
11236 F20101122_AAAQGK kelts_c_Page_77.QC.jpg
55e8e45dcc9ff36dd274e78ceea595cd
fa43138c1516313c42794ab40256f85eadcf12e1
1555 F20101122_AAAQBN kelts_c_Page_10.txt
bfbe2278f2551614e2d150336e5300fb
d54d1d53976630021e3ad4c85e529287635becc1
45263 F20101122_AAAPZN kelts_c_Page_34.pro
b28b7925a77cf8bc11af858f70ab39e4
a0f88d6f0043d30d3cdafbf4725445583ff4ea63
98326 F20101122_AAAPUP kelts_c_Page_60.jp2
ab3ad7c114da81ad7d2652a98d15daaf
c0d9052eb355189744d38382c59692c599afe3aa
103568 F20101122_AAAPPS kelts_c_Page_22.jp2
d8861f57be5d63dc952e6db82edd3f45
f6035ce0f62658fd16f74b33d5e2ae3c87e226d9
1541 F20101122_AAAQGL kelts_c_Page_03.QC.jpg
38b5f1089bae0bd0b247c645c26a27a2
75cafbbc45c7d7428a6f83b52212e5a76d94c4e4
1782 F20101122_AAAQBO kelts_c_Page_11.txt
6108a798be668ac88fe23701dc20b443
fc5122b9ea0c2444635a730f74510ff3bb0f8902
99696 F20101122_AAAPUQ kelts_c_Page_61.jp2
ea0aa2b5a224c1802fa53df680558ef3
755ffff15decd6a9c888df1555ca63ba0f47af4a
1853 F20101122_AAAPPT kelts_c_Page_72.txt
363d60a27c4c1a6835e8ddb0399935a7
daad2f846879f17acfda8898bbf4c3fd490ef5bb
6018 F20101122_AAAQGM kelts_c_Page_47thm.jpg
efaeb6619d5ce62ae76d1119db22d8e8
651f3b75203631c3190845e0f9dda0cf21661e38
1864 F20101122_AAAQBP kelts_c_Page_14.txt
cbc75bd6a81ba4d144b8fb831afc7780
554fa6ba8f6286fcfe667a66fa59769c920566ae
48545 F20101122_AAAPZO kelts_c_Page_35.pro
efebfd559cc2ea1a3ea4059c0a1d9234
401abf72efb1434567b8448b36886f3608c27454
30222 F20101122_AAAPUR kelts_c_Page_63.jp2
172d17d0b239ae31cf219b8f2755c278
7c68864b62154690d5c6e689098bac83888c7212
F20101122_AAAPPU kelts_c_Page_14.tif
3ba2ae55015fbaf9740269f4ec7300f7
b5c5faae622ff465a32908f7c0816216a0b5bb18
5609 F20101122_AAAQGN kelts_c_Page_16thm.jpg
45496cb7cb49f18b0a4d2306c0bf33c8
e60123433500013400296496bb5934de0fa3d168
1057 F20101122_AAAQBQ kelts_c_Page_15.txt
f117a5d34bacfed5966232a7fd4da24a
310d0aec2b7e06ee96f6f8536942baa5ac70493c
45024 F20101122_AAAPZP kelts_c_Page_36.pro
ca3bf1d1fa34bc6b306c55af16e78143
d07efeaf4a009dec8fd49d08889a678e778ff651
30496 F20101122_AAAPUS kelts_c_Page_64.jp2
e9ec30a008461d783bd4310c00be02aa
8642202a81c3a71e25efbf7f837f6bd814a7c3f6
2556 F20101122_AAAPPV kelts_c_Page_50thm.jpg
cb134462309cb694ca1a15df2de632c7
8a97bb176f9ff9b5b13573ea0c50944baa569de9
5051 F20101122_AAAQGO kelts_c_Page_08thm.jpg
47903ffa51c016c0b5600fd2c9869596
270b7c07d3d9e8b09ca2bd3f982fd1c032872c66
349 F20101122_AAAQBR kelts_c_Page_16.txt
df4c8f472f773a90ddbe040c502d4fdb
e7a24b14839df3411eac7ae0416dbe953ef1f148
48044 F20101122_AAAPZQ kelts_c_Page_37.pro
c1eaf8ddcc64160943721ba8be52195d
fa4414bf42e0fb8be8ec3cc50dbf762d10d35d46
37169 F20101122_AAAPUT kelts_c_Page_65.jp2
637822219b65f2988cf23aeee7853049
73490f94b96973b574ffb0ca13f1bbfdb1f9f619
101978 F20101122_AAAPPW UFE0012062_00001.mets FULL
9950c838d74e6ad050fdcc93b62c1741
04d02086137b2285e5592540cb95fb2d6b03b80f
8310 F20101122_AAAQGP kelts_c_Page_40thm.jpg
4ac49dce711a1ffd0085414b5245c8f3
aa0498ace93f663809c2876e4e84f9c2e26eada1
1723 F20101122_AAAQBS kelts_c_Page_17.txt
d27e5f455edaf2759da84b50d2b4cc5e
797771f818fba329cf14721c7d42825c96e4d651
48893 F20101122_AAAPZR kelts_c_Page_38.pro
ddfc2a93283bc3245bec5e8e0c0a79b4
e44db1106d94e527d7f2253783e7b8d13c3ed7df
50389 F20101122_AAAPUU kelts_c_Page_67.jp2
24bc68a4172735fbcc7a59102c2174a9
fa9c8850e7d85148992f0694cef491c8218105b8
19879 F20101122_AAAQGQ kelts_c_Page_43.QC.jpg
875d28915cb6afa8f77aa2d15c34f4b4
724cddd8475c39e2ae02fc765810b8ab2bffe13d
2033 F20101122_AAAQBT kelts_c_Page_18.txt
8569bb5382a58e4e3a3038f4dae84fbd
4d61acc24f35eba01829d29cf075616492755a46
47886 F20101122_AAAPZS kelts_c_Page_39.pro
ed346034501793cf1b9606ee2c91f07f
ce05f17365d9c7086041a20180bba8f0dca68701
256896 F20101122_AAAPUV kelts_c_Page_68.jp2
aea1cde29101019149520ab2f6955c3b
3f62a1d58b53b761a8279162e7c2d8a564ecf359
F20101122_AAAPNA kelts_c_Page_82.tif
1d5020a77ad94797b3129d8c8981621d
1406cf9c33dd20ba288918380ac4a3a22703ea3c
8366 F20101122_AAAQGR kelts_c_Page_23thm.jpg
391be53afbcb5e86fa007a361255a880
9bc386b87e939de1b95d7b33d0ed031e9d9222ff
1790 F20101122_AAAQBU kelts_c_Page_19.txt
30fdea79d5d8f55e9fbaf5fe6418826a
23abd03c112d8d14ed895835665e01b1fa231195
50382 F20101122_AAAPZT kelts_c_Page_40.pro
e6b843c17563970122c19d031339fcc2
a1e106da79a16abb4c36cf3a06ed84923e324318
97663 F20101122_AAAPUW kelts_c_Page_69.jp2
a549a0fe591c14a089ec2c1e52503086
e0cf839315e906f840c875dfd07744638b554431
43611 F20101122_AAAPNB kelts_c_Page_56.pro
c4f1d3349e5db99997c443f88d594793
63d57de7c309d70936141121149148fc0af9ba18
24849 F20101122_AAAPPZ kelts_c_Page_01.jpg
3585730748658b674c4526289a64b184
3f40f498d0654f4f46dd7eef3f59a9ea15e9444d
131974 F20101122_AAAQGS UFE0012062_00001.xml
282d28029fbdb59db9a78e74799323cb
acb526f3898c915e5f6098f3c54ec5a8eac50324
50417 F20101122_AAAPZU kelts_c_Page_42.pro
6e705312fafbc3a7b953cb070a105d2d
3213872fedf089ced859b6ddd07d2729532f862d
106012 F20101122_AAAPUX kelts_c_Page_70.jp2
9fe816ad8733ee4f707b796faa65172e
2a539867ce140e2f11f71445aa45ba1f94d757b9
2162 F20101122_AAAQGT kelts_c_Page_01thm.jpg
ee297e30cd213497e7c6d28df6178bab
6c5ae89ec5f4d50d0fd50be183307314141e96c5
1978 F20101122_AAAQBV kelts_c_Page_20.txt
2a7327f0c6cf4184e2f0b4852a0b4ec0
80fb316cd2380edbc0c87241b50f89408c66ea5a
6478 F20101122_AAAPZV kelts_c_Page_45.pro
1bf582d0c041fc46eac0d73c2d94ea71
4bf25e96e37957105aba198db8479e9b26ccd562
37335 F20101122_AAAPSA kelts_c_Page_65.jpg
38dbf92fdf27bfb9e52342df978498e2
16705e5adde19632d2d705e4f9599c75f3ab5ece
82412 F20101122_AAAPUY kelts_c_Page_71.jp2
539e1fdf730216aef60052e670732583
10723576c5be79109187ce732b40cc585b344cd3
25271604 F20101122_AAAPNC kelts_c_Page_44.tif
efae1e842145c2c519d530fd3b9060be
ccfbe9a35671e1d19769454c4730d22b0a192412
1594 F20101122_AAAQGU kelts_c_Page_02.QC.jpg
ecd8e6c65829783a93fd91af5625992d
ea3ff12b907b74db2817784003b8ac975033d470
1863 F20101122_AAAQBW kelts_c_Page_22.txt
6351c33ec082eb3333d3f2384decdfce
54cd2508ae92a9e3b5ecf14c84bee3a578c9b140
10769 F20101122_AAAPZW kelts_c_Page_46.pro
d76b921c7d6302850a09c76d1d3843d0
0f28d0126786fd6cd69acdbaa9b9cb6f4668a3f7
56834 F20101122_AAAPSB kelts_c_Page_66.jpg
e13f5c394b17c2f4d18d3cbdab3fa9d5
5d18992d4b60a429f7c8d3d2882f08bbb59c16fd
99900 F20101122_AAAPUZ kelts_c_Page_72.jp2
c654cff91b01417a08a209c868240b0e
bd3772a3850ffa01300af9eb187707a1462a9d45
90152 F20101122_AAAPND kelts_c_Page_59.jpg
905bbf0d1062dbff164d12a8db58d480
c14d0f0facb0e0e2f4fec789c079dd8ac8771f70
655 F20101122_AAAQGV kelts_c_Page_03thm.jpg
41792fd781887535a8cb9ccbe130247f
ab539edb9697e0d2161f2e645474121066e1bfe3
1991 F20101122_AAAQBX kelts_c_Page_23.txt
08af9f3d36bb0361df368a56c5dd3b1a
98143c90a112a9ac12532ef3b12386061e9d36ab
46144 F20101122_AAAPSC kelts_c_Page_67.jpg
2633392de9d97dd6f5d6bf1a71821d87
1493d1d778b46f088ec62aa55cefbd1b9bcbf3c1
7821 F20101122_AAAPNE kelts_c_Page_22thm.jpg
9cfd657cfeddbc3355d1c85c5584404c
23d8ccb38b8f877bfcdfb214ad298857bdb04ec5
19287 F20101122_AAAPZX kelts_c_Page_47.pro
23cd4d726f9b48fdf264735e8e81694b
8d7862e4b5468c8c245dddb133832d8a6b418b37
5240 F20101122_AAAQGW kelts_c_Page_04thm.jpg
845e61a9d9b459d63d10ba120e4a3d38
0e9868fc6cec46e83aece020d06c7b89d2ac3915
1869 F20101122_AAAQBY kelts_c_Page_24.txt
a88f94868a412121c35c87833e19153d
1217905e1431a692c9abe30931f9c2506cc24161
31100 F20101122_AAAPSD kelts_c_Page_68.jpg
36aab54d73b961c8deaeb1038904f710
3584c0446a1b1c0cb14771e1d2199f2bf8c49204
46400 F20101122_AAAPNF kelts_c_Page_79.jpg
977ed02e132175d4a631a04386568828
e15c06e80a8463e7daa4a0827693936fee86d99a
F20101122_AAAPXA kelts_c_Page_51.tif
7983e49cce80465f300bcad4c28c71c2
4dc585ffaa0ad992ac2bf901d36697779d7b4337
19299 F20101122_AAAPZY kelts_c_Page_48.pro
f859326e8471e2e9eb0c1bf1bab6eb91
e9b944e853014dc5d795ef4332e0c93ea5f213be
20888 F20101122_AAAQGX kelts_c_Page_04.QC.jpg
e53fe5547dc75cb18a1103503e10f2ea
5d4a9dc743a8a2193987275ce60f0962b24d4c56
1870 F20101122_AAAQBZ kelts_c_Page_25.txt
773ff1d4ca047b38407fa9e7e9cd81b1
0ca7a86bde7ddde27db455ea5b3a3aafb918af9d
91467 F20101122_AAAPSE kelts_c_Page_69.jpg
36998a9582ba2cd31f3e8a553b2560d7
81946496a372a4d2953a0c313fbd5245a6d98074
45241 F20101122_AAAPNG kelts_c_Page_59.pro
dd13b4664c746b03c9490273e7696fbc
9b14c36f1908aa63fa6ac6441d397ded056f5325
F20101122_AAAPXB kelts_c_Page_52.tif
021984d82747508be98fd98f0c838192
86c8b1de0f37b8fefddbbd3d532d9bfa01c7cee3
10534 F20101122_AAAPZZ kelts_c_Page_50.pro
633f9e686ef43465e40b472f416f0171
e7caf05254fed4fb09f23ce2dbeb14e826787cf2
5486 F20101122_AAAQGY kelts_c_Page_05thm.jpg
aeb7d0eac343e39a883c2aa5773353a1
9a73b46418aa4c4b2e16583112103af6e63082bc
94429 F20101122_AAAPSF kelts_c_Page_72.jpg
6c970e591c2b6feab3bf662464dd125e
77f2febf9c1c5764e0012c37804ee68c5e4b28a9
1990 F20101122_AAAPNH kelts_c_Page_21.txt
ee3d2a77c0943928286c314d9800f879
463e905be66fa00e26b5dde5c10f6e293c04f854
F20101122_AAAPXC kelts_c_Page_53.tif
cc85d4cee91679d328bdf18a18024e48
f0a36313f15af99413edfa27f342527e557e97b7
22670 F20101122_AAAQGZ kelts_c_Page_10.QC.jpg
b525f087ca4f0ed0cc93232869575ab1
7d5bda2016fe9c7691058052253f4402aab8d587
8038 F20101122_AAAQEA kelts_c_Page_39thm.jpg
e1dc54f85a7308f537a5277af6a6d2c6
c4c426f180bd79088eabe03204cd1229eb2db0cb
93996 F20101122_AAAPSG kelts_c_Page_73.jpg
b409376ec9f2b7c6d63f776a287f2cbe
1cc486c02c20284b28449a39fc106d04254e5b49
21670 F20101122_AAAPNI kelts_c_Page_46.QC.jpg
8bb3562fe492587f283e10c7423a661e
36f8663729a864511db3665dec8ba64bf67e1aaa
F20101122_AAAPXD kelts_c_Page_54.tif
6f787ec4f87d1cd946ec341dcc2913e4
9d377a69303a7f250cb0cd09e0def732ff6e84e4
10699 F20101122_AAAQEB kelts_c_Page_64.QC.jpg
21c062342836a5fc51e67ed3dbd16ee8
379b295f2f83b31b7309aa13c7d7c694132d20c7
31015 F20101122_AAAPNJ kelts_c_Page_63.jpg
c86e1b27153035d3545d37c7267f6d53
0adeee19fff5c070ca92c9e3e2ba276b55b1412a
F20101122_AAAPXE kelts_c_Page_55.tif
f2c958e36d3dbf790d39eef5c13d5c77
4ec86293dac279b42ef8f11ff5cea78135e5e4cd
18967 F20101122_AAAQEC kelts_c_Page_47.QC.jpg
76874a331ccc4416765bc47579a103c2
a88edd7d5d54346496b2787572019d413e53efa4
76715 F20101122_AAAPSH kelts_c_Page_74.jpg
252de4490784c868ae4ed43a1d2bf83a
ee67238c7cab8662a86b5665776065d9b5bc08b1
96922 F20101122_AAAPNK kelts_c_Page_39.jpg
c5181342a37aeccd910a513d2b71911e
3f8790f9aa8db973f7b5df8d21f1f98acc56610b
F20101122_AAAPXF kelts_c_Page_56.tif
b51c47291f90d196fa2d955cc1e4cac9
467ff71593df979fcfb425f4ba48747a0738f1b3
25285 F20101122_AAAQJA kelts_c_Page_71.QC.jpg
0f91830fe7a4a1f967c90f7b2f6001d0
f2e7ba723e970052b8c854f1a364eddae16aa560
4196 F20101122_AAAQED kelts_c_Page_66thm.jpg
99df3c7381f3cb5f7f78bc57a4449ce2
10e543b594527a85e3360a8e290ec5723d96add3
28390 F20101122_AAAPSI kelts_c_Page_75.jpg
f46c412e5f0c555ca5a4797c01fec82a
3546f3162feccfae4017ee1bfb0385bbb06fdadc
106004 F20101122_AAAPNL kelts_c_Page_27.jp2
2e1daf63025c2fefd06151fc8391c71e
5145c17a52b0f0877aa77e87f8d2e34c63374faf
F20101122_AAAPXG kelts_c_Page_57.tif
ca11a9b3441aac3393fbef963c450ab5
960dd30cb678c224ecbc4315c9a1fc1801fcaded
7662 F20101122_AAAQJB kelts_c_Page_72thm.jpg
be847795384cec63f00252bf2027d77e
b98b20c18f8943deccbed6751de9faa82a1e0c25
627 F20101122_AAAQEE kelts_c_Page_02thm.jpg
60bf23ed5aee9f3fba9a092cbe4749ea
9fd44440870a520bec0b6647b96bf3aa5278ca87
32362 F20101122_AAAPSJ kelts_c_Page_76.jpg
7a7fd17180c57357e548e9c413b6296d
25652559f5a6da12c5189de5aa4a5f834b9d66ee
97379 F20101122_AAAPNM kelts_c_Page_70.jpg
5b2ae69cb5fe627f8d00f3174dd6d56b
c573df11cf44cd6fbf581eb5b5938c5d5977c35e
F20101122_AAAPXH kelts_c_Page_58.tif
1b2e92a822f6b0cee13e0d6ce0bae2d4
7465d14142b73b2eff67de4ffa885f9844491bf1
32227 F20101122_AAAQJC kelts_c_Page_73.QC.jpg
f4a0d488e87658c3bf00280a512556da
ef2a62683791fd542ccc39adb2d74359af02cd6c
20790 F20101122_AAAQEF kelts_c_Page_16.QC.jpg
bc73b2dc3f519ebd7ec61902c6884ae6
6e7a7245f27e816811233287cdd960b64382a4c6
1051977 F20101122_AAAPNN kelts_c_Page_16.jp2
2af2a99241d4cda2f58bf25155d50033
0a7a1ebc9c62c901e71d1a937ce5da08dc05e07f
F20101122_AAAPXI kelts_c_Page_59.tif
0756e351c373861db4544b5f35172a7f
dc821d52a033471d314a23d167b02a0a4b5de2e1
33895 F20101122_AAAPSK kelts_c_Page_77.jpg
c7ec06578a687f0258ce25ef60734b08
7caca85de686dec22d2c736d2b6b348cd740cfe3
24932 F20101122_AAAQJD kelts_c_Page_74.QC.jpg
542ba5b15e15048cb141f61204874683
60d7eed1bad91c0deb0223bf3e4899bf1a6bbef9
8497 F20101122_AAAQEG kelts_c_Page_85thm.jpg
7d53d6893c17a12c4309b47cb145cc4b
5bce50f35b80e924f47be77ca8c961687465784c
F20101122_AAAPNO kelts_c_Page_31.tif
e5fad18fa21e82104fb6bfc31cdf927b
20cbe3e7ea677d89c311e9fe52322e81f89d4a45
F20101122_AAAPXJ kelts_c_Page_60.tif
8dec01cfe6427bc8358b25cf661d00c5
3437f6b0f81e9abfab454eabf97048edaac69825
89357 F20101122_AAAPSL kelts_c_Page_80.jpg
fcbf9d3415a5613148ba577cecd0c6ab
4821c889fbb6f2a0bc6c1ab42378eba41521b23e
2866 F20101122_AAAQJE kelts_c_Page_75thm.jpg
9ca8ce944fe4e09b90513174fde5bec1
00b4de913db8c24e238607b2f60cd9fd3e5fb0eb
15077 F20101122_AAAQEH kelts_c_Page_79.QC.jpg
d1df492c3031948f52caf566b58d360d
0b8f7ca24c8c5fbe7faab231464b342d443162e8
106655 F20101122_AAAPNP kelts_c_Page_21.jp2
1fc12c8010d4299523afd6ea1dfe1b47
76f4c2bfd03f3852a3c064629d1369c9be40cc38
F20101122_AAAPXK kelts_c_Page_62.tif
2483b242afbf4c1358a4de552eecb13e
4c1ba3fb90f8c06988ee066c735b3f7770a2937e
102087 F20101122_AAAPSM kelts_c_Page_81.jpg
3d78ed2e079f26527eb9256cfdc80bc5
e7a0a568343dc285bf20c5e943927a4e2089d41b
3109 F20101122_AAAQJF kelts_c_Page_76thm.jpg
9ebeaf719718a9fbf912d053d905b6a8
eab41ac27b71192c7fe51b23feffa6f16a4e7819
29538 F20101122_AAAQEI kelts_c_Page_29.QC.jpg
f15986e9cdd58eb9e27c96cd01743533
77650aa0c8c6388485c43c8992895c1cf6635db0
48493 F20101122_AAAPNQ kelts_c_Page_21.pro
5519b26ad4cc70dc48f873457617b9e3
1e8e1c6015511bdf11361d484942c09702bb0cc5
F20101122_AAAPXL kelts_c_Page_64.tif
470fc1e0165a8046e9cf6d9c2de69f39
6a22c174e4e3a712a7545ec1e74466aae1ab6908
103639 F20101122_AAAPSN kelts_c_Page_82.jpg
08de1383208d8eb8fb780cb3efb4b466
c1d1971d9fa103808f3d4f3344b063093bf220ab
10424 F20101122_AAAQJG kelts_c_Page_76.QC.jpg
910b4893bf9e1cec07a2ae3a27da5a16
5fac828ae64d68d41d7a50e30781f4ffb6671175
29503 F20101122_AAAQEJ kelts_c_Page_61.QC.jpg
0f04f4a758ded9887909698a08406b20
4988e87d0401755125c10412b2cc9ce9895b0d64
2278 F20101122_AAAPNR kelts_c_Page_84.txt
acdbb8ccdce609d8bf01575d07877f05
3417a0d8dd84404d09f4228df8fc82e0880117b4
13656 F20101122_AAAPSO kelts_c_Page_83.jpg
016e5ead40017e0862c2955d1a43a4f6
353980d3c13c83df0968ed1ce66a08ab8381b2e1
3135 F20101122_AAAQJH kelts_c_Page_77thm.jpg
d9ec631012fda4a266eac239c78d6b33
61c7468f853d34fc32bf971e9dae091f144593c5
7572 F20101122_AAAQEK kelts_c_Page_29thm.jpg
b97c5c993d752c3ab8c98541809cbd51
e68500aa0c30aff092dc20216e5929ad4c4555cf
3537 F20101122_AAAPNS kelts_c_Page_07.QC.jpg
2d9a17793d58b747d8859745c9c99d57
50d71c54236aac72ff409052e951495c94885431
F20101122_AAAPXM kelts_c_Page_65.tif
7923029a9d619f327b842ceb850b9dd1
73a1567b60f1b85e5d0589e595089ae66fffed46
116190 F20101122_AAAPSP kelts_c_Page_86.jpg
f1a41c9de5a4108f7110a9783f085cec
29a03f4fbf601ff289e694eff20878f3885bff76
4774 F20101122_AAAQJI kelts_c_Page_79thm.jpg
2b6b68ec7ad1869f2ee6d9ff2e92ea2a
0225cf6c4c3877c36620dcbcdda2588b77846be9
33487 F20101122_AAAQEL kelts_c_Page_31.QC.jpg
c662f5b49c628d5f09c5e0b82e6e238f
273e4e3c60652a12f3c48f3e780097c71d866982
F20101122_AAAPNT kelts_c_Page_47.tif
01eaf466c31f3f1d347fefc5f1a9c195
d2a2e1c768aeeea6dbda511bee81d5fcbcee8f16
F20101122_AAAPXN kelts_c_Page_66.tif
c718ee510d57a33ace430d535e46c3dd
742348093cc8e4f383908f8105f0afbf52528bc0
121662 F20101122_AAAPSQ kelts_c_Page_87.jpg
f8f2b6e171858f4e3c8048b4de2a8a73
2df806d4e0f8434c194684cd78556f8dacc2781f
7264 F20101122_AAAQJJ kelts_c_Page_80thm.jpg
9dd6b38b50f1a02b092576e6b8fb3684
0813ba944b82e5d8b6707ebccb19703504a7e4ab
8967 F20101122_AAAQEM kelts_c_Page_50.QC.jpg
54cd4b1facce9e27a866069c51138125
368c28153324ab34ced4bbe5383fa7575a5ca836
1011738 F20101122_AAAPNU kelts_c_Page_45.jp2
ec80339c88d2a78fc9b9c735e889a570
b16a7e39ec80a39b571ac46b1c704dae706e4ab5
F20101122_AAAPXO kelts_c_Page_68.tif
b4dad2ec6927b3acfc7880b8e1a3ebba
40f4e256106850a485d0e37a7d530289c43c9303
39940 F20101122_AAAPSR kelts_c_Page_88.jpg
264d67d5af3721eb6c3f3de3bb9eeb06
3544ca6c70bfc6c9a996bd3e6670e630e8a1eacb
28620 F20101122_AAAQJK kelts_c_Page_80.QC.jpg
7a89b452509514c5bdce944ad3b4410a
bc3b91e8ad58c854f87a9d9d371bbd8015b578ac
31911 F20101122_AAAQEN kelts_c_Page_27.QC.jpg
8ce1a879cac11c1ab0fb9ca3f809199f
dada325e43cad8820fb84a7416c3e6c517872b1a
F20101122_AAAPNV kelts_c_Page_61.tif
6b9310c40dbc4069011fdee5e31023b9
9414fbb197a2491525c5e28b19d52f44e075d474
F20101122_AAAPXP kelts_c_Page_69.tif
f0ca344b8c3f209e0fe39e600ddf886d
87408ba185048b2406e120288184e7160974b30a
23918 F20101122_AAAPSS kelts_c_Page_01.jp2
6156d82b61ed4ea3dcb8d7e267a14e88
e3ad5c54e616a95eaec22d2f10b7b5cde8012c31
8343 F20101122_AAAQJL kelts_c_Page_81thm.jpg
909d3744e624f1f6705b799ec2aed848
10e0634e2f8c378d0d7cdc76f8ce125df178c8bf
16210 F20101122_AAAQEO kelts_c_Page_55.QC.jpg
dd10c98164b60f4f1c1f2858cc6662de
08c24a8146a1fec3da64c7ddbfcb2cf6f3789664
7120 F20101122_AAAPNW kelts_c_Page_12thm.jpg
30571815e04579e7d8838a04b5055489
8c4a0686f4ceb46010f45d0fb44c859679d86acd
F20101122_AAAPXQ kelts_c_Page_70.tif
27cc1d0983bca337184fb789bea0880a
30f5833de70567cfa642565028921e668d7274ff
5575 F20101122_AAAPST kelts_c_Page_02.jp2
377d44ac97c6531d90f2a029e1607fa0
57e66ae85e05c3e559861d9d22e0b1027f7706ad
33327 F20101122_AAAQJM kelts_c_Page_81.QC.jpg
ec12dc3fab40b3eab2b923895b0adba8
2a2212062e5ad0c4880d4fab050d4a49d8c041a7
7351 F20101122_AAAQEP kelts_c_Page_84thm.jpg
5e5dd52a02de33ad26035a31df138d17
daaccdfcf762888ce2728acbb2a2908cf5198c8e
259 F20101122_AAAPNX kelts_c_Page_83.txt
864e0cee4dbef32e250a29128ae94293
e9b49e4036b17a4295cb3a3b6f26d896e0fadb40
F20101122_AAAPXR kelts_c_Page_72.tif
baba78fc200ea2a7d605219c61a3eda4
729bf8bb901d782915b00cb116dc96202e3b382a
6992 F20101122_AAAPSU kelts_c_Page_03.jp2
a31496312adb7c6c126b4aab05eb57cd
667bd37edceb9ea51206b2c7cbabaa2e8402395b
8364 F20101122_AAAQJN kelts_c_Page_82thm.jpg
cdbabdf010f737996c3d1240fe4b32a0
34530745069e137e7a1dc753518e8fad13a685f0
16892 F20101122_AAAQEQ kelts_c_Page_15.QC.jpg
4ca6dc170f1996adff829daf1ca86528
bd83f5177393f7f1d2c3478f916c1766b8dccce4
F20101122_AAAPNY kelts_c_Page_46.tif
ff806272771341906cbe4a2ef53037ab
c67b323f199f47f524b57b22d025182a34cb0cff
F20101122_AAAPXS kelts_c_Page_73.tif
251c6c0f2319a226b49030e5af00590b
1b5508ea0a06250152d0d827da64aeeb7e86bc4d
66297 F20101122_AAAPSV kelts_c_Page_04.jp2
db2b51f688bc33ce249f0a714540984a
3a8d6d7f37ee7d297adc1b683b98e8dad51b332c
34078 F20101122_AAAQJO kelts_c_Page_87.QC.jpg
ab53014526c0d3a2f2676e99f17d1b8b
4c2445d5ad0ccdeb51f7791163c37e5d7aab50c7
5014 F20101122_AAAQER kelts_c_Page_55thm.jpg
3445cbfdf0354e62e01d5f276ebc9b2e
71b6609648ec028e960fc8f024bd2030a725500f
30241 F20101122_AAAPNZ kelts_c_Page_36.QC.jpg
e2be4b36ed9335bc012f0923c0b7d01d
d6e25a8e13bb5a92efeb1ee9eb3d54a04b4b25e2
F20101122_AAAPXT kelts_c_Page_74.tif
01d39de0ec858f9273655d5895190703
16a6922448ed41c0fbff95bea8bedc2a2cbf1b95
1051985 F20101122_AAAPSW kelts_c_Page_05.jp2
5bdb2b95848c0c9206f4c9608ac249d0
8aa7042a10a976baf3c48ef5687dde8719e35dfe
3393 F20101122_AAAQJP kelts_c_Page_88thm.jpg
0aa2c0f7543376807b9f6e9b2777145f
dfb63f3ee57586a17ddb3e1962448caeca3c9013
6397 F20101122_AAAQES kelts_c_Page_45thm.jpg
47bd2eff8b8edd50b6a7a783d5da3e7a
3068b35d53cd0c5052a4b29cb8c1872d1212c1dc
F20101122_AAAPXU kelts_c_Page_75.tif
0b3915a34d7cf8b850880ee09fb082b7
f6b4236ce1a1cdf441dd139dd0f7fc1ebccf5912
1051976 F20101122_AAAPSX kelts_c_Page_06.jp2
3d2b492b874c00ef701b013dd10b1929
04de4777a6b6c561795e5ce19cc232085a7e7772
12986 F20101122_AAAQJQ kelts_c_Page_88.QC.jpg
4eff84b9d69378cf35b8f8b8868e41ac
4c62e91f344402c88f8acbacee141a781d85a5b7
13999 F20101122_AAAQET kelts_c_Page_28.QC.jpg
d1c8420538eb68abb78ece3f9284afff
054e6b75b22584dfe1b2e608895048ea2136f0a9
F20101122_AAAPXV kelts_c_Page_76.tif
9187a6dc6df75061daade58f8e0ebb2d
e84ece735eee8af79178210e81b80499fa9049c8
4675 F20101122_AAAPQA kelts_c_Page_02.jpg
cc4e48a0b7bd610de2d08dde8a835473
8dd8bd2ed893d64f9cfa9ae69f1d8fecb3eeed87
153315 F20101122_AAAPSY kelts_c_Page_07.jp2
4d25156b87b7d83927ccc842510abaab
f03d211c8416d8c7678d2f7f3b46590e93f078fe
3498 F20101122_AAAQEU kelts_c_Page_51thm.jpg
f304e547bbfaf85e919c9d41eca66d52
2519708ae99f2a8cedfb4aaba412bfefd1f4a251
F20101122_AAAPXW kelts_c_Page_77.tif
e8c3a25ec2ded5f3934724d8e09bc21e
d296be6992d0d6afa759c7bb171ead27ba46f96b
6002 F20101122_AAAPQB kelts_c_Page_03.jpg
7850e4319b20f587d8aeed30ee575440
84eabc2614a5dd78fa97633ca0f1894dd0a5f1f7
F20101122_AAAPSZ kelts_c_Page_08.jp2
5ee05262461bdfb1cf73df8b4cb4dbde
e13519ee635bf2b0bff1dbdb7f53e23f10429d02
15877 F20101122_AAAQEV kelts_c_Page_66.QC.jpg
50b862074be2f7b0cc1caa0d81bb38ab
465abb74c572be9e261a95529b3315a9a0ab032b
F20101122_AAAPXX kelts_c_Page_78.tif
3784a1e8ca1abdb34f0e5fcc7cb26511
349ee1db72a837b2c96dae5b2eea96468cc725e0
64884 F20101122_AAAPQC kelts_c_Page_04.jpg
157dc69f96cff54828181fafabbeef57
eca58c87c0234a2658cdc98d52e6ae657128fed0
7855 F20101122_AAAQEW kelts_c_Page_20thm.jpg
a7ed487a15244ad73e769378c6198b70
765ecc3fea9baf7e9e5083530fe4f3e0f8f33530
99990 F20101122_AAAPVA kelts_c_Page_73.jp2
9ddd3fb586abf67a37c857a34406d594
8b125517f70dc49aee1c49dbb5fb1185f01e4b84
F20101122_AAAPXY kelts_c_Page_79.tif
a995839a8f1223883f270275361b5d27
a72e5560bc58a1e1599a9efd012bc50c7285f772
97583 F20101122_AAAPQD kelts_c_Page_05.jpg
d53031ad4b9215901e8c5bb0242a3df2
970b1656e9c374cb197acee50b3eb14246102dfb
8049 F20101122_AAAQEX kelts_c_Page_01.QC.jpg
5a1ca0feac671fc610332433b64cfc4c
0efc5bb662c4fb375f1666849ff7be2393a11201
82963 F20101122_AAAPVB kelts_c_Page_74.jp2
84a4aae11e70d477f82013e3a9b7f84a
bec0fac30378d167e6721f2220f2dbdbb9cb29be
F20101122_AAAPXZ kelts_c_Page_80.tif
ad61f110662398c0c749573383ee5427
e7d424dff1b5436e78934b062c7d5e20c47e74b7
135326 F20101122_AAAPQE kelts_c_Page_06.jpg
ada2d7007fdaed315ec6736d956e8493
b7c1f3d4ebed9f6ef6eb0772e45f151b4e42c0fb
29912 F20101122_AAAPVC kelts_c_Page_75.jp2
747cbff91c5591b19cf2033322133b5a
074d10e97274f2e36584b0c13b95f76b10331f0e
31969 F20101122_AAAQEY kelts_c_Page_39.QC.jpg
547fb73e23e7ec429c15b2f86af253a7
ff96044375b707c067117a464847b8fe566a28c3
1916 F20101122_AAAQCA kelts_c_Page_26.txt
7abf77e91eb8af491c59eca5496546ff
d358e171e14f6a600c6fd2009c7fea047b920d72
30573 F20101122_AAAPVD kelts_c_Page_76.jp2
4d885743b8a05603d5ae3602efbdebf8
5cdd539cb8ff17c17adb21d280608943ed1f81b7
12284 F20101122_AAAPQF kelts_c_Page_07.jpg
3380f360a21961a694740de5813f2d9d
effca617cee030d22730f955bb357970144afbd9
7399 F20101122_AAAQEZ kelts_c_Page_56thm.jpg
4dbfe49f8d91de077cb507adaae839fc
ec3add8ff6b24ebf7c802452159458698cf3ba86
1922 F20101122_AAAQCB kelts_c_Page_27.txt
3d5d52d22f09b57b9b80a093508f8543
d23f8b5950ced8e036fdca57bda3dda93bb39bcc
31806 F20101122_AAAPVE kelts_c_Page_78.jp2
5ae2e7732fa94ef8b0e67d37fcf77666
e0911004ab3a42fdcf806d9dda4a85a0547dfd20
67179 F20101122_AAAPQG kelts_c_Page_08.jpg
48d725a276581d6863d1ad00d85a8236
27abcf3e70226f81de4830c5f11e97bd7e660254
799 F20101122_AAAQCC kelts_c_Page_28.txt
1b00042f1069616388119b7c4b7f579c
414db0603650c42edcde7e84f138075a7cc40c3f
743328 F20101122_AAAPVF kelts_c_Page_79.jp2
32e1bb5afd23a48717355d69463fa1ba
b24b41bfb4dbc8e9a682c3ea1b08ceec98dd8685
72963 F20101122_AAAPQH kelts_c_Page_10.jpg
a758a2704e525cb2b80888209e60928e
ff8ecf9595f2a765cb8be77f059766b0118fd332
7074 F20101122_AAAQHA kelts_c_Page_11thm.jpg
95740976fcedb31257e2438ebfb590d6
3260ddfff078af9fa984eb9e5a129f48d843c559
1804 F20101122_AAAQCD kelts_c_Page_29.txt
132ae39118a5bbaad5968693b2da66df
548ecdce15e6976fda500e2698919e7a121eea0f
97373 F20101122_AAAPVG kelts_c_Page_80.jp2
a1002e84130ae53c6ebf85f20913ded9
3802beb45a93910440b33af1a82d65daa9db188d
90472 F20101122_AAAPQI kelts_c_Page_11.jpg
250a7a38ab18d6a74ec66dc6f0186ce6
8e7968f8df7e29fe24ddf17bbf818803a2a6a115
28354 F20101122_AAAQHB kelts_c_Page_12.QC.jpg
59f5b054bc46c3814978bdb34c2e1cd6
a69c4c03eea63b65bc34a909d6a68f254ba1f9bf
1883 F20101122_AAAQCE kelts_c_Page_30.txt
8abd5f8df4f01b96b9fca9fdb947e824
7b147dc315467afcd2b648345033a341000c7eee
88316 F20101122_AAAPQJ kelts_c_Page_12.jpg
aa517ff6f3b66b42388473622d53436b
cf2fc9a9522ac0b25acb6800d89cc4f2689376e1
109436 F20101122_AAAPVH kelts_c_Page_81.jp2
055d9db741920c87c52ac5b55dcfb7e0
8d8cf7c7b838960c77eecf6ece243be33d8367cf
8064 F20101122_AAAQHC kelts_c_Page_13thm.jpg
1d9edd27dc41453bc881fe87fa88804d
87526f02d54df34b5fde92d32be08726ee4f63d1
1999 F20101122_AAAQCF kelts_c_Page_31.txt
8ff83e6a8d068da248cc0f83217d4ba7
467cd468a20654adc4d013e9e7f52d72554fe5aa
96405 F20101122_AAAPQK kelts_c_Page_13.jpg
23fef293c9862626e4107efd6b69a598
9e2fd7a1a9e7a3a5c3749d7ea795457910086a81
111407 F20101122_AAAPVI kelts_c_Page_82.jp2
c48c38b73cdabe75f8d72022049df84b
6925a3d6ab005894ce00aa205f79a2808d262547
31452 F20101122_AAAQHD kelts_c_Page_13.QC.jpg
2b0fc7462d8b216d468cf9aaac706bb9
8f3e69190be9f565598658ee51cc116dac4153c4
F20101122_AAAQCG kelts_c_Page_32.txt
7ad0197226d58e4363b125194800ebb5
3d73e2b768641de28383a64de0edf8f73bccc84e
97144 F20101122_AAAPQL kelts_c_Page_14.jpg
d60650bd207b80cf99014826cef4707c
6bd78b18fe5feb48cd7e0ba799ea890e50365cf1
14827 F20101122_AAAPVJ kelts_c_Page_83.jp2
345385316f275109191fab4528e06f27
371993688f4de0dccb80842b056daa74b4a31ce5
7907 F20101122_AAAQHE kelts_c_Page_14thm.jpg
32190f127618dfdf116f16ad7e45bba3
20426477e81733dc1a103b97b3069a3df251e82e
1914 F20101122_AAAQCH kelts_c_Page_35.txt
17c6b07bb4fdcfa9a8783c814c818e46
30d1f62aed91cc2a5f1bb592ab98ae529838b1e4
54735 F20101122_AAAPQM kelts_c_Page_15.jpg
aaf6f004d8b91c8576516a8a73b91aa9
95e64ec19bf75099a7b4ad2bf85e24850e28e702
4663 F20101122_AAAQHF kelts_c_Page_15thm.jpg
b2e8d63d2105bcb115f383b699ad9503
f170c4ffca1a0569a12c86c4de5b0a52fa092e47
1829 F20101122_AAAQCI kelts_c_Page_36.txt
4bb6afbfa6a0b0668826a45ceefdadaa
0af94660169cd7f8842d1c2a541b3fd0ef3ac2a9
71654 F20101122_AAAPQN kelts_c_Page_16.jpg
ce473e3bb3c43b05677936588d47429e
add89db7455527bb68bbd4b8cc94017464879673
115024 F20101122_AAAPVK kelts_c_Page_84.jp2
945307576368f3e64cad196e178b4fdb
b3a9967f0805fbdb9afa855a060ffc11f7089512
7054 F20101122_AAAQHG kelts_c_Page_17thm.jpg
2ee4f258628557be9a0aac037fca6575
a29ff8de6e47443c5e5f4a246da1da14ea2d9987
1900 F20101122_AAAQCJ kelts_c_Page_37.txt
de755b36446514439dcb18bfef51dc5d
14dfe9935c61a16e623ffae220513723c2e3dd7d
104164 F20101122_AAAPQO kelts_c_Page_18.jpg
ac59d6d817553de44b13d531e68e8845
42821c7419fdb5709a6b0aeea4ce065873264ea7
135664 F20101122_AAAPVL kelts_c_Page_85.jp2
9959b2a425324cab5cff76e102b15f04
44fea3e72685468f4612a4904e2a8a440df16248
33757 F20101122_AAAQHH kelts_c_Page_18.QC.jpg
33393a22684cfa762e99aaefbd1fa265
c7930b1d8e1c141ffd7f53b4101889f870f5c7e1
1969 F20101122_AAAQCK kelts_c_Page_38.txt
4c5e8accba1462ecddc0ad0ff9491c87
e9e0df47977d045ce524367a32f5a87c8c0c29c7
92196 F20101122_AAAPQP kelts_c_Page_19.jpg
ea7ecef1a275fdd38ba423171c0583d5
51246c75be9996097fbe2c85499c876039ec92d6
121680 F20101122_AAAPVM kelts_c_Page_86.jp2
5e6326c5822a867f1e14ffcf0ac45e0f
a81c23100f262a61d426dd76b16a694acea0c55b
32154 F20101122_AAAQHI kelts_c_Page_20.QC.jpg
e5f7182ebad843a8c050c479b6aa0eca
fa1ad2e879293c3450c04e605d89ee78cc85262c
1895 F20101122_AAAQCL kelts_c_Page_39.txt
198f089e2f973e3267b6b0c74bb11d43
40dec7b331a85f7eaea1c4b619ed8b1cd36dbdee
98806 F20101122_AAAPQQ kelts_c_Page_20.jpg
908d4e825879c803963bed7bf9a7212c
c287ddfd3ff260ab764b6bca43158b3d7c6e8163
127872 F20101122_AAAPVN kelts_c_Page_87.jp2
50604f39c6f817f82811faa61832880a
06567710c8c42d66b0472782ea056afe6b860a82
30690 F20101122_AAAQHJ kelts_c_Page_22.QC.jpg
9425be376e7e26d6f94e23d62ef8f9b1
89bd41430ba516d485e2e581072a834849f72960
1993 F20101122_AAAQCM kelts_c_Page_40.txt
b93d428779991da8b470e28015614723
9db58468bcc0acec4b3ef54816d8dcbd6e2ebd43
98913 F20101122_AAAPQR kelts_c_Page_21.jpg
f994af4c7e40052257bcb2ff89f1c02e
7d56c08dcf594978d9b968a884153291632deb68
F20101122_AAAPLU kelts_c_Page_18.tif
7395a764ea737ec87a9deefa1f8725f0
4bb7c2bd0ffad223a88a854f43565a2320c90dc3
41698 F20101122_AAAPVO kelts_c_Page_88.jp2
1903cdc08c66c6d38b02b311533b7c8a
612dd26c88cab849bee0382e57dcba343f964004
7698 F20101122_AAAQHK kelts_c_Page_24thm.jpg
ef9d47505ddb5a2776f4f947fff6496b
94e21d11cc9ff70abd43dffe275ccc95bb04ce7f
F20101122_AAAQCN kelts_c_Page_41.txt
ef756d2e80b88b5415075161160dbb05
0a58fdcdba381b1dd6b2acede370ed1df64ac743
95679 F20101122_AAAPQS kelts_c_Page_22.jpg
88d0c2746da621906a9e02797ac355f7
e1ebb19ff0f268250bf12b25cc1070cf98977428
111 F20101122_AAAPLV kelts_c_Page_02.txt
127440d7c52dc04ee18cababcfa18647
c341ff9f9d1148a351d1f80f04621a2a2a8575c5
F20101122_AAAPVP kelts_c_Page_02.tif
a22c395eaa1a1bc435a95748a73fd970
e2dd02372dd3f17044135d03ef7c0f0d79f97ed3
30292 F20101122_AAAQHL kelts_c_Page_24.QC.jpg
ba0efa3c3772fb6cb77c60cd7c0281f7
722c4568a00e6b720281188fb0373ac368f7dfb1
1988 F20101122_AAAQCO kelts_c_Page_42.txt
ac91911e81633eaad2a472a8b120bc66
5c8f0c167553c4b28dff9e9943234b5c90af4905
102029 F20101122_AAAPQT kelts_c_Page_23.jpg
3050d53b8f7d8b7faeabf0ca08c9620d
3786088eeaa89ef3a89d45582e269cf871fdc45a
F20101122_AAAPLW kelts_c_Page_49.tif
2cc55ad4495221459b547f4e69525242
7dc88faf3636670daf5c8272a33a58508077670f
F20101122_AAAPVQ kelts_c_Page_03.tif
53bf2d6fb9a9f426c3b9377155aebe44
6b4279e95ee406c7271442f5649dcf7b7cbfd966
7314 F20101122_AAAQHM kelts_c_Page_25thm.jpg
cfcd70deb50bf4836e924cf11c42e591
f174c072a85b90bb8425d49a6f696a1b98fb950a
1193 F20101122_AAAQCP kelts_c_Page_43.txt
d52275729c5f6c43c5fb589dda87dc4c
7e12066c4b13ec5ada3a10e4ca5a556c27baf589
94976 F20101122_AAAPQU kelts_c_Page_24.jpg
c7a9f120fa7d0dbcbd3af06d98c8aa39
e8b073cb0ced2bf301ec436b22e6b6fea3b7460d
6565 F20101122_AAAPLX kelts_c_Page_71thm.jpg
72371a369a8d32bd82389f765351179b
9370749bc64f9d235b37ece7c06957f97007120f
F20101122_AAAPVR kelts_c_Page_04.tif
14ebc39ccf91dfa211782f60bbd63d62
f41e841e4558fb0da9c83fe5c7814249c629c9c2
31734 F20101122_AAAQHN kelts_c_Page_26.QC.jpg
03eb98ea5157d327a004c63ada5f001c
4d2159089b94f125b740d1836029f542c8b92e32
358 F20101122_AAAQCQ kelts_c_Page_45.txt
7a82d50f926bd68aac798a5d53b4efe4
1ebf36665929c4c146c44eb96997c5943ec3090d
94875 F20101122_AAAPQV kelts_c_Page_25.jpg
5fa717d675ac63084d88320c8b246083
5dcd4beea3bf0401f4bfa51bea75ff7246fc7395
65537 F20101122_AAAPLY kelts_c_Page_85.pro
692cf2f164a1f2d2c8730464d5a0ff94
31e948f3ca06a7686ad59f8d14e97437c816102e
F20101122_AAAPVS kelts_c_Page_05.tif
6409110391c2985fb63cb74bd2584bd2
d3efd6f912b578e2282dcf3bbdd8b23ceafe2dbc
3656 F20101122_AAAQHO kelts_c_Page_28thm.jpg
235d5bbec846248f76eecbeceb229083
ffc2bad6d71d6fc66ad0ca4f64a502dc89e59e2e
647 F20101122_AAAQCR kelts_c_Page_46.txt
2bdcb2a13de96dd89ac379f4300b61b6
1251ffbde7b46a911fe273704d3f0438eb33da7c
99017 F20101122_AAAPQW kelts_c_Page_27.jpg
2657e04febdd8416467361af558176a7
9259d993f7ce200ec7dd323dc079e0e846797fe9
30816 F20101122_AAAPLZ kelts_c_Page_14.QC.jpg
30d7c50daf6f3406025e2be6af159e20
2b195c35ddf486be165e9eef6c9f84632a207d2a
F20101122_AAAPVT kelts_c_Page_06.tif
83e21b02c8d45fa2b08daf2588ee7ad2
75145d7ce72828e2f894bc4db2b940d51208262a
8355 F20101122_AAAQHP kelts_c_Page_31thm.jpg
1a3bd045a13133469a6983e1242d27a3
ba4ba9d5185872c334524f18ae31d16c44873011
1058 F20101122_AAAQCS kelts_c_Page_47.txt
7b6d641ad433e82665f858b78973073e
6c3567eada5c8d3eb5b9bf9f0ecb4db25c690692
43182 F20101122_AAAPQX kelts_c_Page_28.jpg
09cb7f9d76d317358c70d48fc5824418
f9cbe0b92090c78601cbb458164429404e307785
F20101122_AAAPVU kelts_c_Page_07.tif
910fbb17d6a2bcfb12cb1fbe7bce6465
3dab5ff8452f2ca62f0ef5a3aa27c87698d089f9
7955 F20101122_AAAQHQ kelts_c_Page_32thm.jpg
b386337c227871c4ccd69271fb433bb7
96580aefee4f95c6dcca45f4af449a5d18da20cb
913 F20101122_AAAQCT kelts_c_Page_48.txt
5275d05ab79ebff5c99084bc8ae56a2a
4abf0e199f8e6910a592ade2a8245da34e955e6a
92365 F20101122_AAAPQY kelts_c_Page_29.jpg
14681195e1d47ed78174f89fe0d7d697
75b6c33852c773602384ebc644d87a064c1b92a1
F20101122_AAAPVV kelts_c_Page_08.tif
8ca0d10a4d947ec4366d699db74f2dec
00fdad0cdcf75d408b487d374c5687925e9b1d2d
66149 F20101122_AAAPOA kelts_c_Page_09.jpg
1c53d5f30cf80ccfde2b4df3ef60993c
e36921705ae6c0c923b50d984cd1aad974cbe83c
31558 F20101122_AAAQHR kelts_c_Page_32.QC.jpg
56fc0eff2e993a4ca86497a2fc91ee2d
eabc0b4368323de7d3e5202e50fee10e45222cd0
774 F20101122_AAAQCU kelts_c_Page_52.txt
1d28a144e837084e64fcdf4d79381617
5f82fb4f98507a46ef283eea6cb47d1f8f5ffeca
94635 F20101122_AAAPQZ kelts_c_Page_30.jpg
7228b75bf475ffebe139d9a3ea6d7f22
61b145f5288e70e2dfb505306f99e2751d3bd303
F20101122_AAAPVW kelts_c_Page_09.tif
f20b9798bfc76cfae1200125ae25471a
9b6111ecaed834f4c1e8a2f988abf62810e34a19
753 F20101122_AAAPOB kelts_c_Page_49.txt
1a0085d83af76bdc54c5bd14508c7744
6be99e12f195da24decb674b132d47a85a5d724e
31912 F20101122_AAAQHS kelts_c_Page_33.QC.jpg
5dabf390182bab05b7fc02384e9ab999
456caf439076ecaea5660bd495bf52cfc95ecdcc
806 F20101122_AAAQCV kelts_c_Page_53.txt
1d230737a9689bc3f3a7d1857edbff9a
6e7627423acfdedd3b52d1a0b51db46020383c58
F20101122_AAAPVX kelts_c_Page_10.tif
2aab13e6ed5780407c2a3c057fb963e5
187e938a1c71cc5c8e60e50a3ce1ff72587c5d76
302 F20101122_AAAPOC kelts_c_Page_44.txt
bea3b7ee4700dcc1a26b9104cca71952
ac2b696afd2426f577665ec2aae9e97c4960c827
7829 F20101122_AAAQHT kelts_c_Page_34thm.jpg
70acb91b87b9cbb1f0e38c61475ec01c
be5940df0de104735a358e10557ba52ff0f31db3
76395 F20101122_AAAPTA kelts_c_Page_10.jp2
e7dbb64b5a16d6e8b84b74f0e2401fcf
c03eef15a59aba76f276f664dee62d5c5c817dc1
F20101122_AAAPVY kelts_c_Page_11.tif
feb6105d7eb4c23adb4a43ef78a7764a
0fb29c954ab6dafdbd7e22ac485a3082e0309ec5
8286 F20101122_AAAQHU kelts_c_Page_35thm.jpg
671c4f20592387252171641c7db26a47
2d6517ac3e8d8db78deaabd00f5620fccb4f8ce5
1231 F20101122_AAAQCW kelts_c_Page_54.txt
49b98878014730eba0cacba11ad45ccb
4e53b0e756eb47326d22669ef77510fd69b8ee13
97299 F20101122_AAAPTB kelts_c_Page_11.jp2
0f77fc2fc67af46ec9628f3e07d56ddf
89be5db912dbea88372b66f34f31684f2b85cf8b
F20101122_AAAPVZ kelts_c_Page_12.tif
14f0dd1316e8572ffc762f706ccf3733
ff10360a649908d7619e8bae2a17523c209d65cb
85615 F20101122_AAAPOD kelts_c_Page_62.jp2
ed0e5e50e897fe77530645bfca44a6bf
712462a7ffbf9cff456777aecacb428e3af2e959
32463 F20101122_AAAQHV kelts_c_Page_35.QC.jpg
b00488874675df1bc33d59d2c7385620
289749918f8d33713560ffd5b149c1daf12a3b39
1189 F20101122_AAAQCX kelts_c_Page_55.txt
68217c7d17ee358e013767da7a2a7c18
10db8105438cb3f23468f955f1c0e07cb01a56e6
94986 F20101122_AAAPTC kelts_c_Page_12.jp2
92af07498cf13121d90dd71d2f15038a
16dcd25f5e9ce121228607073a82e71022b676f8
1846 F20101122_AAAPOE kelts_c_Page_33.txt
7151ec57a88f2cd9651e6b5abc573dd1
6d1200acd86c43087414282e644168fd2e837857
32962 F20101122_AAAQHW kelts_c_Page_37.QC.jpg
817cd8aef6adf254a991edea888f0a45
2259655172c9771de590bb8e8e464f392c64a863
1783 F20101122_AAAQCY kelts_c_Page_56.txt
120c88b49b25f9a6a2936e7f7a03c249
5006c643e33099dc053b81a0a991099e45d8f87b
F20101122_AAAPYA kelts_c_Page_81.tif
8f2ef44628def620d7233202896a43e3
0bdfdd9d0de4f9d845f98c4ccdce1f012d17cfea
17635 F20101122_AAAQAA kelts_c_Page_51.pro
64e6508c1222082a608dba73fbfadea9
3c07932d3beec32464336770d721fe3d778f4130
104040 F20101122_AAAPTD kelts_c_Page_13.jp2
39547cfb9aade8dad3c7d45d7c70957c
c502cb0350c12167282dcb5e665873a9e0c00f4e
46452 F20101122_AAAPOF kelts_c_Page_72.pro
440b1f0f46f56ab075e2d55efdca239a
355678cba1809b45883e32ebea427dee4b3a9f1f
7908 F20101122_AAAQHX kelts_c_Page_38thm.jpg
9b891e68ea5ba30c60521e113447e3ce
050a668afdd3e435ffcae60a06fee601bec728de
1719 F20101122_AAAQCZ kelts_c_Page_57.txt
cce5e4e816ef13356f6d9827335da0ae
400aa07f698fe2b3d101954217c2d363fcb21d1e
F20101122_AAAPYB kelts_c_Page_83.tif
c8defdcd1e803e62f33f146149e7f6f5
30ec3e9a439bfdc1448a43bab94cb9d52f09c57c
17573 F20101122_AAAQAB kelts_c_Page_52.pro
6927205b7ca9322d3bd9da2f83b70fbd
3cb785d9ac6f2e2eac2eaf653c261e10454b7bd8
59552 F20101122_AAAPTE kelts_c_Page_15.jp2
9fa700f60e0f0825a0dfa8b53fc43b42
6d8af1f24b32131b519a27d70bddfc0c09fef31d
104951 F20101122_AAAPOG kelts_c_Page_84.jpg
d95e6ec1d190b150af22c59624d6524d
92ba615712f9f553a1922f03da4fe7863fbfa167
7943 F20101122_AAAQHY kelts_c_Page_41thm.jpg
9f6210cfa9b14091cde1ccd99a45db58
aeff148c2036a5d619c4e1466ff13fce2555c4ab
F20101122_AAAPYC kelts_c_Page_84.tif
67d19677ee12274112acf325eb0a4e1d
f1e20e86055075ee85d8ca8ec5b8af56bff8ca69
19601 F20101122_AAAQAC kelts_c_Page_53.pro
f54d500b008a89de1c6e1675eabf74f1
9d4334aa1d70a8482ba2ec0f81314b4adec40371
87279 F20101122_AAAPTF kelts_c_Page_17.jp2
aa9c5b51f7a8f7a9da4fe50177a029dc
8d822b221cbf283b6c9ded4798dc07c9a488052a
31575 F20101122_AAAPOH kelts_c_Page_77.jp2
f3345763e1a6757dee440d2f1b87a966
8698afe931afa65a5f4055700dfe3816c6c277e1
33416 F20101122_AAAQHZ kelts_c_Page_41.QC.jpg
db78a476d9c48fdfb82770593a1ea502
17a05009ecf76f4c7669bc12dc191cc8b99632c7
6356 F20101122_AAAQFA kelts_c_Page_74thm.jpg
dde8812a55e0bafd89bceede54a9cb12
c4bf9e1798af5d2dddf0725422428fb8f8872c0a
26143 F20101122_AAAQAD kelts_c_Page_54.pro
aaf708e00a9281c6c71bcf272c1991cc
55737c9469a6b1290f826c764d822ad7bf3e3da1
112284 F20101122_AAAPTG kelts_c_Page_18.jp2
2048d515f7d7da2561aef7f9dc952460
22dc21faef025dbeca5f5c6acf9a3261222ae2e5
98522 F20101122_AAAPOI kelts_c_Page_26.jpg
78f0be2680e00e178f567183c757fca4
926bfe50592f221bb58de97ce61f313cd609dfa2
F20101122_AAAPYD kelts_c_Page_85.tif
fc263a16179a53d13f6b1b2f23e23708
f8f23d50d3a24319d821b3f86376479283fbb2e7
4918 F20101122_AAAQFB kelts_c_Page_09thm.jpg
6d212559834a8247d46cac793428071a
f80d44a1990b4dd9640c35f148775fe043774875
27687 F20101122_AAAQAE kelts_c_Page_55.pro
07b5121a9f6108600f5187bad54054ee
bffce97b52a6dd50bc429986156bd393e7479af7
100264 F20101122_AAAPTH kelts_c_Page_19.jp2
6b8fe4ca94ec686d1907e92bfe0d7bea
b15f5c6f7359b7115db69a449e91fb6bbfe58334
14215 F20101122_AAAPOJ kelts_c_Page_67.QC.jpg
dc941cb3e91164474387ff38e5add386
c930397d3056bd46c3a9819215d49d07b32f2416
F20101122_AAAPYE kelts_c_Page_86.tif
e6a9c8085a865f06b13c65d86f1410d0
0212bdb62551da99b5042927d3bd7cb310068743
11273 F20101122_AAAQFC kelts_c_Page_78.QC.jpg
dc24467c446dad88d3a6f55b3c2c8586
00fd77566dd2984f50ee025545bcdc5f3e002a6c
42146 F20101122_AAAQAF kelts_c_Page_57.pro
d991e43e7a2082e4896f8816c0f413a7
209700f9ffe063ba32370256e4df32cf7cda0c27
F20101122_AAAPOK kelts_c_Page_63.tif
0f331bf22c10cdde302f9fb19065bcec
5d08c2cfd8b188f064ab574257db5e93d2020674
F20101122_AAAPYF kelts_c_Page_87.tif
e88c0cc406b25b8672282aa60091bb1d
ed92c7186aff541ebb5e672f2d32894d7a1d7b91
33823 F20101122_AAAQFD kelts_c_Page_82.QC.jpg
3578c1bd3ebc052dfe12fbf20f57b8ec
a3efdd0c582f24eb06c18f9f198fdccb9beee274
38130 F20101122_AAAQAG kelts_c_Page_58.pro
27816ac804396dfedb8ef543f02735f9
b5e8b8d96fcf509f771bedb00cb99210b940c344
106666 F20101122_AAAPTI kelts_c_Page_20.jp2
38ccb06a724ac4eecbfe616001a6e16c
4a63da73c2cb1368ede2272327465b661cb7590b
29886 F20101122_AAAPOL kelts_c_Page_43.pro
a8b4d1bb79c654efef1779e79291b889
daade11c50f3714b414034617eab5d5b0ab4c200
F20101122_AAAPYG kelts_c_Page_88.tif
683a011616cc0e3508be5e01aef8d4ff
56a26cf7541df80fd1891b6e9856ec0f17cbdf94
7930 F20101122_AAAQFE kelts_c_Page_30thm.jpg
1f1bba3b73d3c12b7f1a3bfcda1aedb3
42f1912aeb2fdade2e9e29f3c1b2802e792128c1
45491 F20101122_AAAQAH kelts_c_Page_60.pro
d957b028974c6617c60293100e41653c
dc26c971006ce1815d1ddd5c0a7fa5d650d1d31e
109733 F20101122_AAAPTJ kelts_c_Page_23.jp2
8acafe503fb48bdd3fb01df7ab808dd1
b2f1dadf64826eac3835caa37553e7fe9dd69477
1827 F20101122_AAAPOM kelts_c_Page_59.txt
256beace0afe19020675a894424efbba
d59e9a6f11066d2b3487ec21a4e1757d2987cb29
8087 F20101122_AAAPYH kelts_c_Page_01.pro
5c14160deb3b7a63ccf77be047864b46
351e8fc4c020c3b70cca44122f9e7d2b8080250e
30420 F20101122_AAAQFF kelts_c_Page_84.QC.jpg
9035667f304f69ed805aabe89f02306b
d85322e03a0796fd8c9a906691a1a79292a4cf2c
45648 F20101122_AAAQAI kelts_c_Page_61.pro
447fecbcf08979f69209c31546dbaabe
842b38f67d0c8b0aa27705d57583f525063a44b6
103514 F20101122_AAAPTK kelts_c_Page_24.jp2
466f6aea529bd9064d64dada87b732b8
7f62faa7939d920c7330ff50bc01c2535ca7c67c
31636 F20101122_AAAPON kelts_c_Page_25.QC.jpg
34aa56596b2a19bb0a6f1a05dd01bfec
2c0d3c4d9d37d628b03922415b7dc885273c9a2b
1198 F20101122_AAAPYI kelts_c_Page_02.pro
d2dc16f9d39f8d63ba54bc0468314635
05b958b3883f3c892eb95cd5bca12bea012a35e3
8036 F20101122_AAAQFG kelts_c_Page_21thm.jpg
1686a63443180ac6a1d58ce50c50d975
c3c7c29187f876182c79fccb87a440c785185504
39046 F20101122_AAAQAJ kelts_c_Page_62.pro
d96cb0f9bc625a8aae43d278c4d91a50
0e2a12e5ae7fe9a9e63f355a8b1acf2bfdcc9829
105976 F20101122_AAAPTL kelts_c_Page_26.jp2
95dfea91e8e0f309a0f57bb7a24a2a05
d79c91624710f892a6fd3cb2f115d3df432a38ef
460 F20101122_AAAPOO kelts_c_Page_50.txt
d443ba082edbce9e544e0028e26a2b03
9b382c0c2f646fc310c03c49c59db49bae25fd0e
1740 F20101122_AAAPYJ kelts_c_Page_03.pro
5d4193670644d58dac9f0394fb0165eb
adf44c60e6490bb51bb02bd919a6d0588195057d
32321 F20101122_AAAQFH kelts_c_Page_21.QC.jpg
378c48a219692baaa9396126cda6ca13
6c76ad28d11919ba35040b019e90501508c12bf5
45683 F20101122_AAAPTM kelts_c_Page_28.jp2
4b5c7925d5e0103e37d7fc463a4043a5
b9396f8d2ab8dcceaf69d3611659c66974cf1dac
55910 F20101122_AAAPOP kelts_c_Page_84.pro
b64ff3bfc100e25aa81dd8d6cf13a7e4
2dfabe575fc2c59882c4ad1ded8ac74ad054a11c
F20101122_AAAPYK kelts_c_Page_04.pro
7ddd8658368cec87519b9271988a29b9
8eaa978d612181edb5757be475b697b5e46c99ca
15015 F20101122_AAAQAK kelts_c_Page_63.pro
ae20976ffe5e0f10946ef12db2495dea
8bf0f5d3bbc656a4e2f25920411ded27c4bf1341
30040 F20101122_AAAQFI kelts_c_Page_11.QC.jpg
245c9a4ede13c7fc66f78b185c84b7cc
a95c86b00936e1af4c243cdc44cff303ea31336b
97983 F20101122_AAAPTN kelts_c_Page_29.jp2
fa23f5325013a20cd1dfdba158fb621c
aafb49aa13f515a05fa777a233faec3e144e0d0c
477862 F20101122_AAAPOQ kelts_c_Page_47.jp2
56704a30df8becefbe1e7514ac0a5720
795ddc8b7285433e9a2243368851d22905752cdc
76032 F20101122_AAAPYL kelts_c_Page_05.pro
6972b00acd352a1bc42cabcd96a37445
5df9907b5d5717f047d111497ae7de8fdd4ee7b8
16129 F20101122_AAAQAL kelts_c_Page_64.pro
252fc1081a84f63b9377a9cfa5a07e1a
3b6d18bac97ff81cb841ce1afe7451379a9815c4
6469 F20101122_AAAQFJ kelts_c_Page_62thm.jpg
fee9de5b2435fdefe1c72cf49f3a328c
c2a011da4189f6852d96933bd98aa501c68f8673
102542 F20101122_AAAPTO kelts_c_Page_30.jp2
564b8927c41effd34b15c53acc95edc1
406f80a031e6693bad485e76fc25a1e09daf71c5
36555 F20101122_AAAPOR kelts_c_Page_85.QC.jpg
b7a4617b6917e16a0a4844d297d1a557
3a9587e54f604c52ebc1eb4c37ca4677f16eb21e
110189 F20101122_AAAPYM kelts_c_Page_06.pro
7c322dc0e6213942210f791b4fa84c20
80482edb1e047bcf4a7da35686c5eee6f5bc710a
24264 F20101122_AAAQAM kelts_c_Page_65.pro
3567e1351eb330002b351e33c7e7b78c
9e4010c4d9a2893a982b01cb5ed7b80d4d87ae43
31458 F20101122_AAAQFK kelts_c_Page_30.QC.jpg
f37ae7ff90e7d8f41a6af8558ecd84c6
28706d40479381326b0728f28d553eef70d6caab
109343 F20101122_AAAPTP kelts_c_Page_31.jp2
d4780eb78a0ffb85c0e8016edc6f77c0
811a272521bc6e89d4648d0a9821571a674b8781
18992 F20101122_AAAPOS kelts_c_Page_09.QC.jpg
ffbd650817c4337dac9a3c8375067a32
2472c58b24c01cecdde8016ff681e733173ab9c1
42457 F20101122_AAAQAN kelts_c_Page_66.pro
5e452f7ffd94ceafd66a334b0e5650ca
7894ddb3121a1cffb9aabd2ff9087cc58136227a
1335 F20101122_AAAQFL kelts_c_Page_83thm.jpg
b47e344c34748a14bd9e042b9eb1c874
9ebd3919c0b39c5005318871b73826662ca00e8a
104038 F20101122_AAAPTQ kelts_c_Page_32.jp2
e00a8a9ef04a9e3da8869877d0a76e8f
1452ac76383df42ddd96d8998dfa7db786ab1a29
10199 F20101122_AAAPOT kelts_c_Page_75.QC.jpg
9088f464310d428c8fe97c4a7921c1e6
e0f55410ccca92d7893b5e9f159f23f731de9f8d
6909 F20101122_AAAPYN kelts_c_Page_07.pro
e53290ac87281f1a3bd0de6f1dd04e90
13c999254cb53d2b3c9a50829a87e1108560ba2c
28881 F20101122_AAAQAO kelts_c_Page_67.pro
3e968ce7859e618cef80622bdbe4aa5f
eb500eb0d4f3f2d579ebf5188676dc67f7ec5ab9
32338 F20101122_AAAQFM kelts_c_Page_42.QC.jpg
af09ef429030d4a125a36d3b8e480738
3fcb5d2355212c97d65ff24741635ee65e085a06
103980 F20101122_AAAPTR kelts_c_Page_33.jp2
ad8e4fe1dfff5987e878fa8be003977a
775dec796484de37e1dded710082672519c1d8f4
73708 F20101122_AAAPOU kelts_c_Page_71.jpg
4697e46d5cc4f756d97065be86709899
a396d27c4c7eb8becf8a26025835509f7c6423e3
34010 F20101122_AAAPYO kelts_c_Page_08.pro
4f593e99fc8ce9862b6dd665f1f89271
0fc99e24b704bd2392025b7765420cbeba2c3f9a
9966 F20101122_AAAQAP kelts_c_Page_68.pro
c96b33f99fa8257b96bbd5867803f4ce
be521d9f196546335ae8ba5eb7ef96197b8155c5
7414 F20101122_AAAQFN kelts_c_Page_59thm.jpg
fb2939775a99ff26c48f4835e7c784ef
86d9d4c098e1eace419f96592abf20a117b542ab
100034 F20101122_AAAPTS kelts_c_Page_34.jp2
31a849635d6a59564b4cf32f03340648
5b0d7e2535a5c8746e2b6461ea35b0a1c14da818
867 F20101122_AAAPOV kelts_c_Page_75.txt
be7ae3dc9880910c20ed83dbf8037bff
07637185ed897b9f922a9389974165ae8716f875
39107 F20101122_AAAPYP kelts_c_Page_09.pro
1654c3be1c218dc9e718e5e56bcb1f9b
18465670cc278119870fb13423f58c3997dc0014
44495 F20101122_AAAQAQ kelts_c_Page_69.pro
e7e525cd5a669fe55b41e96ee742d923
52f96ee41874a7762db30619dd9d1057f63f5d72
33010 F20101122_AAAQFO kelts_c_Page_40.QC.jpg
306a0834524be5f3f54b58cfc386943b
b6732dad8fd6a54a0098d039f41ecda890524309
106973 F20101122_AAAPTT kelts_c_Page_35.jp2
925899b626343ca9b6f070b21eed6964
0311076f3ed1b1cc44b28762ec457e11b47c102f
F20101122_AAAPOW kelts_c_Page_71.tif
34348789b1be1e2e0f1a132d27fdfeda
9d8d0a2f712199d34db8cd9ceaf5d60f87f68228
33961 F20101122_AAAPYQ kelts_c_Page_10.pro
b0397a56b55aae28c26b5a705f9581f4
5a6bf2dd31c8aef447abe1ca06f9ec33220d8327
48168 F20101122_AAAQAR kelts_c_Page_70.pro
cd164c1a9c517a594233fffb1ca65c18
3c42bc015c8577685624287d7bd0f9f529769935
7915 F20101122_AAAQFP kelts_c_Page_36thm.jpg
7c3a1d843b27f95bb2ef45340ddd100f
9ce5e98ce0009851f9bd6e0d8042cde2795f9847
99012 F20101122_AAAPTU kelts_c_Page_36.jp2
342774ac7e8651dbeaa3be9994755d2b
b605526050b8385b1c25b64717623602b0088f3a
82535 F20101122_AAAPOX kelts_c_Page_17.jpg
7adaab4d3a39053d114e1264123a41b5
057cdae3bff0f4d373ecef0c6b1ebb6c0700dbc5
44416 F20101122_AAAPYR kelts_c_Page_11.pro
23423330e69cd60a6f41225ae9b0b485
002732433142f15fda3863f0dfa0fdfe59b21687
36470 F20101122_AAAQAS kelts_c_Page_71.pro
8b5a61c1062d2dfa63157d03c4f5c9c3
62e334da9e51ebc4d7922ec057987cd4709305c9
32509 F20101122_AAAQFQ kelts_c_Page_38.QC.jpg
14199ae9d6a06b913c7a6111af10ca13
50942c06df6ad03bcb8630d051a2c962b34fc782
104746 F20101122_AAAPTV kelts_c_Page_37.jp2
b5ffcc41ed6585192bbb83b7871b2c31
002a4fd4b4daf65fcd16b3a5ae97cb61a6263ed1
F20101122_AAAPMA kelts_c_Page_67.tif
a784e01856562eb8f64cf0e347f53c8d
57925cf59cb1d1b6a198461c998f0a09c279d6a4
33794 F20101122_AAAPOY kelts_c_Page_78.jpg
7b2d099f64c580b1ee30eb3360b912cf
b4c3ccfe942dac258c4b1c8e86e3452d9ebe8a7c
42870 F20101122_AAAPYS kelts_c_Page_12.pro
c4b3a7c8d4b1900dd4f3d0c69604a947
ee475a1da2b28524587e82e39b8f5ef29da87e43
46186 F20101122_AAAQAT kelts_c_Page_73.pro
f64de1c5b49a45c737e5329edc36af60
39b0bf191c696703960b79ad9fb9a54c915255d8
7947 F20101122_AAAQFR kelts_c_Page_27thm.jpg
ec0c7bb75a4bb33bff4bfe5d1c178430
39ce8144bdc70824d741ccb2589405b8894b9fe4
105020 F20101122_AAAPTW kelts_c_Page_38.jp2
fb89722011a560b20d20bb0ebcfa219e
b75d1e2a1b5ce67a679d5bf696aac5e6addbcb97
F20101122_AAAPOZ kelts_c_Page_13.tif
ee24aad4e78a47b555c6b8f7da2eebbd
7c0ca21eaf5695ede6977300ff78146190cb4a29
46670 F20101122_AAAPYT kelts_c_Page_13.pro
5af1372b39544f36a71cf6be450dc469
8d685fc978e3d14a97ee04e086c53f15b70096e5
5037 F20101122_AAAQFS kelts_c_Page_83.QC.jpg
cf62ab0bcca2cdc7affc6d33e3d3e9a4
5cb7993a81730dd583c2494e0af15976ad173fb4
108064 F20101122_AAAPTX kelts_c_Page_40.jp2
9ef2fe374b13de023b645a9493dc2f96
16db627ec51479abe52e4f20db4f9cc3dc3bde3f
F20101122_AAAPMB kelts_c_Page_01.tif
964caaee3b472426fe803ea848a3d70b
b41c99a354d19d917052b33bec249e5fb34a94cb
46986 F20101122_AAAPYU kelts_c_Page_14.pro
9f961153ebd163d47e0cb561104e9594
1b443cc4ebb625a7cb877c9a5833b5c19f9ffa3f
37434 F20101122_AAAQAU kelts_c_Page_74.pro
9513484daa25450203ca224216580b7d
1aa638e250add3a37cdcc268a74d9e2c6797b12d
16312 F20101122_AAAQFT kelts_c_Page_54.QC.jpg
f9d2ecde228bc73f2ad6473e6ef18a5c
dc23f37f3c6ccb5ebae8138e22a2e9bd782b15a2
104344 F20101122_AAAPTY kelts_c_Page_41.jp2
f72b0cd40006ec4619028039af0b581e
c5d7bf48c8dccea3ef37993bbd53b16c31812b8e
2833 F20101122_AAAPMC kelts_c_Page_64thm.jpg
b60bc0053ad29636c961ea015e5e0fef
1f3906a49f12d9c19444430867174d3817a40472
25986 F20101122_AAAPYV kelts_c_Page_15.pro
bf1f60aa7d9f6b21559dbb9e27d72ad1
1413961b8c89023ce7d107e3df5d4475b5b0d336
17021 F20101122_AAAQAV kelts_c_Page_75.pro
35c20ca7f8e7f55b0f402e6f7baac57d
3e77788224678d3c33016a8b8c21119eaffe20f9
102769 F20101122_AAAPRA kelts_c_Page_31.jpg
34c529bad42f28de165b87ee513e08ba
e0d9b71123e716fb94c175b6ad6bb782aead1dae
31231 F20101122_AAAQFU kelts_c_Page_72.QC.jpg
fa3a05037fccb0ad971f1b2ed4f8c9f4
029d1691c12f727a25ed014a02856655de08bb63
108493 F20101122_AAAPTZ kelts_c_Page_42.jp2
39c336d17be2c65d7ceb1b3a4adbc3c0
c7143146db70d459f2c6063f731a20847d8313de
103481 F20101122_AAAPMD kelts_c_Page_14.jp2
abdf79d1f120f2f948e68207d9cb2757
93311c8744077349819a6ad63235fb137cc64f7d
5973 F20101122_AAAPYW kelts_c_Page_16.pro
b6888b33e958942527b76ba81704b956
27ff83f0c96e6665d036140bfc7f6df1ad7eb059
14361 F20101122_AAAQAW kelts_c_Page_76.pro
317e47c031dcdad4f86ce4b75f20c648
6dd6c5bba97eb929aa618dd0d8a844fd5ec61c97
96586 F20101122_AAAPRB kelts_c_Page_32.jpg
72d21a46e06af7755fb268ab8a44bd37
01f99a35678916e401e9ef3c848435dad9bd8659
8381 F20101122_AAAQFV kelts_c_Page_18thm.jpg
b80c25688ae85c1d77a25f9a49cebb45
e235b1dc9ea1d98f4fca32756f9269fe75b73d69
48505 F20101122_AAAPME kelts_c_Page_41.pro
f7a6157d92a27d14bdc6374f9f344204
7397346e15fc694d30577bb0df4ea46a371e80dc
39829 F20101122_AAAPYX kelts_c_Page_17.pro
79d77a8452f32bd49e76906960cd37a6
eb3b0b6ab119727552c3b7f143c247d1a56ea48d
16075 F20101122_AAAQAX kelts_c_Page_77.pro
f48473f697da4a70cbdf0257acb0517c
efb9afc8d2d55c82d8e415003131f642e28f481e
96580 F20101122_AAAPRC kelts_c_Page_33.jpg
b7f2517f3597842f48d03a39448cbe2c
aa375a9c70b6786db4e8d73861f7dcafe6415337
7772 F20101122_AAAQFW kelts_c_Page_19thm.jpg
e0ceba8d22c24c4bbe1ab83bee308aa1
22165ea259b597db1716374d36cd3aecf7f40c61
49656 F20101122_AAAPMF kelts_c_Page_53.jpg
73e217822b3e641114c51cd2328bdbf5
51ac21039388b90bf50c64d9ee2845a7fc42f306
F20101122_AAAPWA kelts_c_Page_16.tif
27fdb1d2f96a241c9f84715185043832
a01671e07d32600de58519a6625be9e0811a748b
51672 F20101122_AAAPYY kelts_c_Page_18.pro
b73062071e4621614401931098dab749
af595e6453ceac60beea499345f8a9e2cab5aa17
16607 F20101122_AAAQAY kelts_c_Page_78.pro
e39ece305cee1e5b9114417f570069fb
8918a98d72b02e2d154ec4c2b2c65e4b12de92f2
92734 F20101122_AAAPRD kelts_c_Page_34.jpg
79f1d0d3505979fa4a107f44564c5f70
de669092f1c6fb708ece10888c44b343f100b059
32897 F20101122_AAAQFX kelts_c_Page_23.QC.jpg
714e1214b3f463a69fc725b720890942
ff550d268e99600d894cd1ade4b2ae76e9dd5e2f
59289 F20101122_AAAPMG kelts_c_Page_66.jp2
b16384278f6fc22c0ce2914e2f0641f0
8cecd081c2beba6a2c22e4f11e23d5ee6ae038c1
F20101122_AAAPWB kelts_c_Page_17.tif
5e737afd8c2c385224f40bfb85af6bf0
165f6c7ef066a566ca6160abf867adaa9d329fcb
45213 F20101122_AAAPYZ kelts_c_Page_19.pro
70d059ff64dca02fe404d25648c11fab
4e48fb221e631f5f91911a6f45c46eef26b2e717
2024 F20101122_AAAQAZ kelts_c_Page_79.pro
e845bb150647be74ef386bac2b44b172
d6a685075e0fc98adddccc785b23a55e569ea705
92567 F20101122_AAAPRE kelts_c_Page_36.jpg
aaeebe8323f38821cefccbfecaca1ca3
a113b4dc80798a5a6771a70a6430eb2d96ddf966
6091 F20101122_AAAQFY kelts_c_Page_48thm.jpg
d85c09bf23bc595b04efe48687caf1de
ca38aec7a6d7c7188ef3038130337daca22ad55d
132612 F20101122_AAAPMH kelts_c_Page_85.jpg
9a60f2765f5e60438f54b25cdf773f0f
cf509a20d244c0dfc7b21285ce895480f2c53205
F20101122_AAAPWC kelts_c_Page_19.tif
58ef776e51d99cb8bb0ee196d1809990
9c54b62938d8f70fd775278f3bb41f2ab1e0755e
97450 F20101122_AAAPRF kelts_c_Page_37.jpg
b06c704c517e7f6188982bf63952418d
7899f59d20db45f47aea512c4e6dbecf088b920b
1532 F20101122_AAAQDA kelts_c_Page_58.txt
051df670605b462a04d72d467c951c0a
a79036397e1831f2aa2f705ec97aa7c04d629cc7
101051 F20101122_AAAPMI kelts_c_Page_35.jpg
14913c78ce9999415c8e44ac0f8d8157
63b6cfd5096b6139974161f20a957fb4c177469a
F20101122_AAAPWD kelts_c_Page_20.tif
56be72e3ec3f47e33264b50b4bed5c6b
20fd0180b4a4ef40f7af0a2d3f2c379f205ff8c2
22105 F20101122_AAAQFZ kelts_c_Page_05.QC.jpg
33c9383016a88389ae4c5c334dfbd9c1
69a605e5a2033194995f7e6d30ca8f663bb464d7
1807 F20101122_AAAQDB kelts_c_Page_60.txt
6a404ea6c58dc98437c2d3a71b468c12
aa06e54f875117debaf6070e12deaa472958a9ca
737 F20101122_AAAPMJ kelts_c_Page_88.txt
dcea33e1f93281e6c786757c7f6b5f35
89eeb92b87439baffa7419ecee68e3463ee5aead
F20101122_AAAPWE kelts_c_Page_21.tif
20eaa010454b521922b1fa27d082921d
070aec15734be2d63b67aa4c17c8b1026ef7eeed
99171 F20101122_AAAPRG kelts_c_Page_38.jpg
82f1e3396b5e1aa5d14c6f5ea334530c
f1f0dbad4de22e31bade7d34ccf00d42536e55f1
1849 F20101122_AAAQDC kelts_c_Page_61.txt
6006b641b174bd85ba21779daa6669d1
7a192e859104b5920bab5efeba63dc6731e6f021
F20101122_AAAPMK kelts_c_Page_38.tif
93e773a6c1383697f255d63d9aafcd73
fbc15e98b4e5bd3b27deae3dad5c81eff216b8eb
F20101122_AAAPWF kelts_c_Page_22.tif
c97fd8a52d8b84893b9d2a6a1f477287
c51fb9b1df19c8212d4b4d45eeaf69a4a8f7bc2a
100708 F20101122_AAAPRH kelts_c_Page_40.jpg
c1f0c74b5d9d2c756bb2e057bc60de19
af918e528b2ca6fa4589c2b7febe6ca7c336581e
6594 F20101122_AAAQIA kelts_c_Page_44thm.jpg
f8a0db71000249da208a2c77258d2da8
b06e6acfe9d8c9dab91e5da05f65b1c34f2301f7
F20101122_AAAQDD kelts_c_Page_62.txt
683ca7072e01d0e1b038c9e11b5115ba
326a106a1b2a437db489ee65c781615f132cd157
7825 F20101122_AAAPML kelts_c_Page_61thm.jpg
53ba3fe3bb303b41118f584e9bbbbcf6
54b4b2a3ee93e7c2fad306e256796960cc202931
F20101122_AAAPWG kelts_c_Page_23.tif
552613af081320f9698f5208e02d793f
2245c6bf5a3ac97c0c4d0cde5a873f3699f6f6f3
96074 F20101122_AAAPRI kelts_c_Page_41.jpg
8d4a58a5a92097f25188e1034f2408ea
ea01e0f1f088b954ccf05ee61ce5122e063a9fd9
21303 F20101122_AAAQIB kelts_c_Page_44.QC.jpg
d90457f9b7ce1dcbeadcfb4a180f622e
3439c635a06bf8184a35ddb5bf6c6c6cab6b67dd
F20101122_AAAQDE kelts_c_Page_63.txt
3e13d3eb8e07f414d71a0258bef84894
2b6bd700d7cb0fc719a61467c8e7672ebd2d5ec2
30278 F20101122_AAAPMM kelts_c_Page_19.QC.jpg
32b6cde2b4a3bf652ebefc599aa53c19
b99b710224f70c9369d117beced2d343346fa449
F20101122_AAAPWH kelts_c_Page_24.tif
fd2ffd1d8a52e90eb42d27197fbfa0f9
2516d48ec90615c81a14e39b7e786e1e22f9b3e7
66948 F20101122_AAAPRJ kelts_c_Page_44.jpg
0630691cc2ecbfbd14a351177fcd477e
f124352cc3874b805b5c00071bf18e8b07116ce8
6344 F20101122_AAAQIC kelts_c_Page_46thm.jpg
d8e11b40e6d66a57d7a23ca3914f12c3
0c6f22bcf7c742a72aa819ea795a482cd0716153
1317 F20101122_AAAQDF kelts_c_Page_65.txt
cec9d5a05d3c7ea8c0bc13ce2ba3ef46
32a92590842a737185888f81f863f03b9994a1a0
61696 F20101122_AAAPMN kelts_c_Page_43.jpg
6724a34d298ff2780e49983a3418442f
881fcf477f60d248f9be45ed0b71a1b88500666d
F20101122_AAAPWI kelts_c_Page_25.tif
f2b7ceabd7f6c7bbbf32c8bf7b779410
5bdbcf80862d35ae9256c529545205e149fc24c7
68419 F20101122_AAAPRK kelts_c_Page_45.jpg
0af7d4ad5fd5cfa57231ec41eadb87ae
c84738731fbeaf21d55dd04d84ed2d02c71debdb
18904 F20101122_AAAQID kelts_c_Page_48.QC.jpg
79e074ea4b968f4bb11ac49c9b6244e1
29455ceacc3c530f9d9544cbcc1efefa79a37052
2213 F20101122_AAAQDG kelts_c_Page_66.txt
91f9f2726d25629edf950c9a68eca925
bfa61b783996a7d198016c8f2156f8665b296be0
8113 F20101122_AAAPMO kelts_c_Page_37thm.jpg
fa4a56e01b7ddc3c742372356e86e9fc
f0ed5e743a5122396f4abc71d857524bbb13844a
F20101122_AAAPWJ kelts_c_Page_26.tif
6255267b6f066aa0c2bffa57d59e2e4f
4cf94ea43bf66829399afb97f2646101fc7f7c9e
62367 F20101122_AAAPRL kelts_c_Page_46.jpg
0639654b63ddae483033dbc98b7f9d76
381f4ef00a62888a389302d49e149254b206b33a
2909 F20101122_AAAQIE kelts_c_Page_49thm.jpg
d47ab502ae50037f32dea612ab0364e1
61295ca5e0141bce738f5ca798bfde1ef7fb648d
1417 F20101122_AAAQDH kelts_c_Page_67.txt
84cf896cf59e14e507339c2f26ee16af
6c1a5b020af6977b05d9bed05e7886d38395432f
30120 F20101122_AAAPMP kelts_c_Page_34.QC.jpg
c866da3ab868d766aeb1907607f8276d
fe55f5a4e1a16c43de859695d0b1d736f16f3b58
F20101122_AAAPWK kelts_c_Page_27.tif
b7d4c83c1430ddca0cc7ac3a89b1ff8d
c822d39e733ba5f74990a3353fb5984edbacdf75
57042 F20101122_AAAPRM kelts_c_Page_47.jpg
8f30c15dcd686f28975cdf2b4328a7af
2b2a325edbb73896fab007c90313d1e55c2f10ad
9337 F20101122_AAAQIF kelts_c_Page_49.QC.jpg
c65679b73ccd5ef8a2a81d4f6b14764d
d5a1667aa05774423e01e6db3e8cfe41ca60b4b6
F20101122_AAAQDI kelts_c_Page_68.txt
73b0e26855fa125c56ff293f585495a5
6b9fd82289d9987ff41bfd7f8709311070a74022
1409 F20101122_AAAPMQ kelts_c_Page_08.txt
c99bd0006b6e67a81d389a51f208594d
da3b762e87e9575921c4baef93fd59b6c6e38208
58962 F20101122_AAAPRN kelts_c_Page_48.jpg
e89254899aee96d3925eb44e41945989
f0f23d8473bcb75ec1874cfcaeb7d66ef6accc0f
11535 F20101122_AAAQIG kelts_c_Page_51.QC.jpg
228c375af61d672dc7e06960009fc803
20fc35b76585a680ab63945d99d7d748a0f41720
1820 F20101122_AAAQDJ kelts_c_Page_69.txt
9cb4bd78963d7d746b0f7ba2b016e3c2
e76b254ca94f18e9848949788419ee9a8c452b13
34313 F20101122_AAAPMR kelts_c_Page_51.jpg
c70405c5b9e38aa1f844c4c1c675f49f
20f38c5f4727e837232d9cc425e0e826e9b8a7a8
F20101122_AAAPWL kelts_c_Page_29.tif
33af7ae730c9dc2b8c4291e9a67bd2b8
dfae7ff62bebbad4fdd9e87b70c2b03a663bba73
28321 F20101122_AAAPRO kelts_c_Page_49.jpg
b4b0bd0bb6dd97934fd7f8a678447f30
d0d6d190389ba43cb09fe6f0ffb94ac0ae483d0e
11855 F20101122_AAAQIH kelts_c_Page_52.QC.jpg
23f63f116ce2a6ea5bd71947cfe58e78
1740921714d0c71899bfee191f451eaed51e72b4
1938 F20101122_AAAQDK kelts_c_Page_70.txt
160ca9bd5bd77df7bf14ef41b0c64491
c3476722aed70a2082fe113e29a8ef6933ce364b
F20101122_AAAPWM kelts_c_Page_30.tif
58790f63b3e9f3e2d1311be298bd6284
db1c58c58f2bbec87ae4613518da0a5f4917ee57
24655 F20101122_AAAPRP kelts_c_Page_50.jpg
4b6a1c11c67fe2b48afbecaa069d37c7
ccb0255e41f694894ff8bdcd62bd7b1ff27c427a
6691 F20101122_AAAPMS kelts_c_Page_44.pro
d771afc8b3bb0f8b00172d7044e17305
4cf5bd84b23ce059d5ce902e9e6f17d38d74ba3c
4385 F20101122_AAAQII kelts_c_Page_53thm.jpg
396682c66c624bb37348cdb9d63abfc1
e3f62eebf8d71928dec5e708e62fa2fbad432313
1503 F20101122_AAAQDL kelts_c_Page_71.txt
cb22d3bebe8b8a124dab7ea2c067168d
e1e3034b9fcdc58af4caa116629bc42d328ff414
F20101122_AAAPWN kelts_c_Page_32.tif
0422d36af611fd5d6520bcb56c2eb24d
f6b5c3a17e15632014b8a975bfe9a98d0435957b
34498 F20101122_AAAPRQ kelts_c_Page_52.jpg
7bf65f30acfe5d449e0a3f91854a351b
63b8cadfff5928177c641824ea35b83a25a0ef36
8296 F20101122_AAAPMT kelts_c_Page_86thm.jpg
6dda91ecde6c69c1ee89ac21e47fcd5c
e14ce330ab381844a0fd93f4fa2e76cc91393d51
4615 F20101122_AAAQIJ kelts_c_Page_54thm.jpg
c2718025d58927bfb597af375d5e9498
d24ae166adf1e3481708a45f2c8a7197e658b9a0
1866 F20101122_AAAQDM kelts_c_Page_73.txt
01de17d1be866b99816b03235579fac7
baa1f9cbe7276bb5b3ed2af269452bb7cb527af5
F20101122_AAAPWO kelts_c_Page_33.tif
bc6c25b6cf0842a4af2d8792a54390ed
88fa2e41aa15769e33558d505cf038fc4e4ee459
53872 F20101122_AAAPRR kelts_c_Page_54.jpg
e1acd2a872ca0c1273453083a83fcd22
ab195624ab621f8f9adde27ca78ec81434011cc0
10195 F20101122_AAAPMU kelts_c_Page_63.QC.jpg
8361fe4152ee3e1644ccacd09ad9686f
edffb7d200da909b64cff036197372e176644f5c
29623 F20101122_AAAQIK kelts_c_Page_56.QC.jpg
07d8418b786e8d01cbbac37231ffcf3b
6867f35f0956cbfb8c2f9e854387768fc681a733
1499 F20101122_AAAQDN kelts_c_Page_74.txt
692a15307c688fb4f0257c96fd55264f
af6ef92a7a242b2985e5617c242cbf71d9b891fc
F20101122_AAAPWP kelts_c_Page_34.tif
fb0fd61362881e77aceb994fe0c8a4d5
251940f55c7388fa5975c6a05454a9aca59a1552
52470 F20101122_AAAPRS kelts_c_Page_55.jpg
b42575a25732e17ff94941be85b24e95
f9596ead82d339c9de189731be96f065490f737e
104439 F20101122_AAAPMV kelts_c_Page_39.jp2
de54aa5ce123ce3a1bf157365ff6d38a
24072888e450ece91e54d7af369fff3bc7164126
7312 F20101122_AAAQIL kelts_c_Page_57thm.jpg
527ec5270f1632ca132e93dfaf8908c2
2609423bf9ea97d1a70c75eda580a324f77312be
679 F20101122_AAAQDO kelts_c_Page_76.txt
64efb63848ae8484b19a9f93419f5c88
7b72a178007c186a99539d522e3030850a063471
F20101122_AAAPWQ kelts_c_Page_35.tif
237e5a721226710834cb9c6e165d2ea0
a4066f11919e12eb4d47b4744b195afbe58f9784
90465 F20101122_AAAPRT kelts_c_Page_56.jpg
627b9509c966bf30b0ecc53873002e27
c953a116f6aacde528a4609fc423363940059bcc
58242 F20101122_AAAPMW kelts_c_Page_86.pro
015379e89cb0f6471f6c1db563fc6faf
9e110d781c7ad69da3f2c5041c5d41b1988d9965
28927 F20101122_AAAQIM kelts_c_Page_57.QC.jpg
9142cf2ea98d3f1aa3afefbec4392d59
97295f66321393fe854fbea3c0bce1277fb69780
811 F20101122_AAAQDP kelts_c_Page_77.txt
2120975c83d291c86d4e85c091a4fb86
1dcad830f8dcc2bbee57d6b1b6812bb7d9707497
F20101122_AAAPWR kelts_c_Page_37.tif
6b66044531c241068888e24517a1649b
408b853121cf6c7b347038b361e59f59181a196c
86757 F20101122_AAAPRU kelts_c_Page_57.jpg
b39b1b6aaeef0b612fd0f3049e3ea7e5
94e15735333c46e85fadf782301d98adaf7a8f5a
26264 F20101122_AAAPMX kelts_c_Page_62.QC.jpg
aea389911f7da0bb4e6752909680cf1c
187f8aa571f4fbf9fd6c13fa00222df11aa6e144
6631 F20101122_AAAQIN kelts_c_Page_58thm.jpg
97ee07d4df9eea3d06b8acd36de1553c
41921fab025bfcc966a46c45386e9e493d27c8d0
837 F20101122_AAAQDQ kelts_c_Page_78.txt
5d85dac0fe480aed7d353840a654b264
03b6fb8fa2d2b9c2b0cba3191477dbae76beacec
F20101122_AAAPWS kelts_c_Page_39.tif
390a3e75e9f1f657e6c17777150cf8c0
1b2a88bce2f752398dcfccdfe5a691218457fbe0
78074 F20101122_AAAPRV kelts_c_Page_58.jpg
f8f769e665c78a7ce1d424061aecbd2f
054eb399b939f6746cb957839c356c6433551ce4
29724 F20101122_AAAPMY kelts_c_Page_06.QC.jpg
8928e3e3f87a04c00ea426acb9f94c74
ded48b0f9e938247a7fec2bed1e8a4188b676041
26911 F20101122_AAAQIO kelts_c_Page_58.QC.jpg
bb8617ed8634beb41961e61dad657d7d
3ebad848fb2038511bc656495065371caab299c9
139 F20101122_AAAQDR kelts_c_Page_79.txt
3d352bb35d8a16ca085fe84b78e121f8
ea4a705185175f2f462db5738a830a6ad22d9581
F20101122_AAAPWT kelts_c_Page_40.tif
f5730c2c68262d15db0191db9900ad33
632916367625cbf657f6f146403b0944e87f57de
90608 F20101122_AAAPRW kelts_c_Page_60.jpg
d197ac964f927559f124078eb2a1188c
2914d47e00d40d2cc38b9e742626d503e5658860
1794 F20101122_AAAPMZ kelts_c_Page_34.txt
a0d48ec4cf38322090fb780c0c4bef63
a432c5aa7c5bd09df46b760b3aaa13deb67e5534
30519 F20101122_AAAQIP kelts_c_Page_59.QC.jpg
2ba65cebcb1e0d9ddfd83558cd61896a
63ae1e6631e97201b7d051fb60fc837d33f49121
F20101122_AAAQDS kelts_c_Page_80.txt
5b19dc8b339d0c97cd6e571b2e2fb2d9
431b591b3e53bd3c8cd5d84cbc61d98d87028bc5
F20101122_AAAPWU kelts_c_Page_41.tif
cd7362da725f506d45c19903fe7f5d57
b6d5da2b8c0c9bcb2d3509d345c3fbd6cd2b53a5
93171 F20101122_AAAPRX kelts_c_Page_61.jpg
97ceae90b4002b81b6b764748dbd9b13
171941d3c14802bdea7d380f733baa2ce4031019
7357 F20101122_AAAQIQ kelts_c_Page_60thm.jpg
9e2c1392f3721685fd8678fb31d89f5e
d9daa96868a5bbcf9c716cb4756c720d5549b73c
2017 F20101122_AAAQDT kelts_c_Page_81.txt
0db2e2e96d3ddf2ad8c374734ca95156
b03e42729e8e1a1a4ffdc2769144abbccca94ffc
F20101122_AAAPWV kelts_c_Page_42.tif
752b68e5a29d1b6d44c1b1b1d4006fb5
0e52f251d17dcce5ed623beb95c6d13c92e7141f
13754 F20101122_AAAPPA kelts_c_Page_49.pro
eed490b244b2f7f373b558448b959837
ebc876c002f2966789e5df3195f7d172d90c0469
80122 F20101122_AAAPRY kelts_c_Page_62.jpg
268d460ac2d9fa1b0aa631b17399f83b
0493d7b1614941d0742db660ba5dcf9f59525dcb
2957 F20101122_AAAQIR kelts_c_Page_63thm.jpg
1e9c32f4d16face8d28af86956315164
08cc99dde4a5ffec46c683c6ed83c529ff8df2f7
2050 F20101122_AAAQDU kelts_c_Page_82.txt
2610013a6790812a8c569750052a8173
850a75444e054791495f01dd90f4aca75fa015a6
F20101122_AAAPWW kelts_c_Page_43.tif
ab241802674e7643b644dbfccdca7500
266f0736591075c0cc6e6d28ccbb9a89baf770f2
8079 F20101122_AAAPPB kelts_c_Page_42thm.jpg
e65dfed060ace16dd30dfe31fa056e01
e4544efa4770c9a34e034fe725d2fa9c8f45e4ac
29913 F20101122_AAAPRZ kelts_c_Page_64.jpg
f405b1f56f71c2325af0f069ad12f5cd
508eda66f508baeca9a5df2646df47a5695be2f7
3370 F20101122_AAAQIS kelts_c_Page_65thm.jpg
391344a27378ad5eea2ed066dfe97e54
66d761295fd21f424da3d1641eb1da6134ea18dd
2658 F20101122_AAAQDV kelts_c_Page_85.txt
f9d9cdc0c478d7f9fed66a1f6bbe8a51
ea5a71080cfde47ce8a9b9be6edf24bd8e89ff02
F20101122_AAAPWX kelts_c_Page_45.tif
d1b65afef10401215e7530cf79ce4f9d
1195cc699460c01f0f27c347c43174db3d2a3fc5
100081 F20101122_AAAPPC kelts_c_Page_42.jpg
f9ffbf15beb2c3e48ff269c553cb0493
7baf052107ce04f2daed78f3e4f9ea7290b307a2
11284 F20101122_AAAQIT kelts_c_Page_65.QC.jpg
e2e19aace3ad37730edbf66d87896016
9bea051822aa5e69c80b56a11214e08780f3798a
2377 F20101122_AAAQDW kelts_c_Page_86.txt
b97bf490118a2ab549d48d939d0b12f9
49880f6b2ff9912ae3fac9a0bf370288d950ac52
F20101122_AAAPWY kelts_c_Page_48.tif
9c053c08a9b168911bd11576f06351fd
4cfc87e634eff66061d4bd1afabf0ba2c4057e1b
7924 F20101122_AAAPPD kelts_c_Page_73thm.jpg
554a8521636b42f8fff11b502677d9d4
e01213f8ffdddafe7fedbbc68d63e84300de0bd0
67620 F20101122_AAAPUA kelts_c_Page_43.jp2
c94ba02cc1c871e93224e835f6ec6371
18b61bc6b61f1e1679355f25c7783bc294a54d71



PAGE 1

EVALUATION OF ATTRACTANTS AN D MONITORING FOR SAP BEETLE CONTROL IN STRAWBERRIES By CRYSTAL A. KELTS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Crystal A. Kelts

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my mother Shelly Colloredo

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my major professor, Dr. Oscar Libur d for recruiting me into the Small Fruit and Vegetable IPM laboratory as a graduate a ssistant at the University of Florida. His ongoing support, guidance, and friendship have enabled me to come this far. I am thankful to the students and staff of the Small Fruit and Vegetable IPM Laboratory for their assistance with the data collection and anal ysis of this research especially Alejandro Arvalo and Elena Rhodes. I thank Dr. Bald wyn Torto for being a wonderful mentor and for his devotion to my research and to me as a student. I thank th e chemistry unit at the USDA-CMAVE in Gainesville, FL, especially L.K. Sparks for their support and the use of their equipment. I thank Dr. Robert Meagher for his critical review of this thesis. I am grateful to Scott Taylor and the Plant Science Research and Education Unit for their help in the design and maintenance of my research plots. I would also like to thank my boyfriend John Snodgrass for being my motivati on in completing this research. Also, I thank my family and friends for their continual support and encouragement. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................6 Sap Beetles....................................................................................................................6 Semiochemicals ............................................................................................................6 Relationship Between Sap Beetles, Fungi, and Volatile Constituents ..................6 Acquisition and Identifi cation of Fungal Spores ...................................................8 Aggregation Pheromones ......................................................................................9 Biology .........................................................................................................................9 Life Cycle .....................................................................................................................9 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................10 Baits ............................................................................................................................10 Control ........................................................................................................................13 Biological ............................................................................................................13 Cultural ................................................................................................................14 Chemical ..............................................................................................................14 3 FIELD EFFICACY AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF HOST AND NONHOST VOLATILES AT TRACTIVE TO SAP BEETLE PESTS OF STRAWBERRIES ......................................................................................................18 Materials and Methods ...............................................................................................19 Field Site and Experiments ..................................................................................19 2004 tracking the movement of sap beetles .................................................20 2005 evaluation of attractants ......................................................................21 Sap beetle response to attractants in harvested and un-harvested strawberries ...............................................................................................21 v

PAGE 6

Statistical analyses ........................................................................................22 Laboratory Experiments ......................................................................................22 Rearing protocol...........................................................................................22 Inoculation ....................................................................................................23 Treatment preparation ..................................................................................24 Volatile collection and analysis ....................................................................24 Statistical analyses ........................................................................................25 Results .........................................................................................................................25 2004 Tracking the Movement of Sap Beetles .....................................................25 2005 Evaluation of Attractants ............................................................................26 Harvested Versus Un-harvested Plots .................................................................26 Volatile Collection and Analysis .........................................................................27 Discussion ...................................................................................................................27 Tracking the Movement of Sap Beetles ..............................................................27 Evaluation of Attractants .....................................................................................29 Harvested Versus Un-harvested Plots .................................................................30 Volatile Collection and Analysis .........................................................................30 4 ATTRACTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT STAGES OF STRAWBERRY FRUIT ......45 Methods ......................................................................................................................46 In Situ Counts ......................................................................................................46 Statistical Analyses ..............................................................................................46 Volatile Collection and Analysis .........................................................................47 Statistical Analyses ..............................................................................................47 Results .........................................................................................................................48 In Situ Counts ......................................................................................................48 2004..............................................................................................................48 2005..............................................................................................................48 Volatile Collection and Analysis .........................................................................49 Discussion ...................................................................................................................50 5 EFFECTS OF REDUCED RISK AND CONVENTIONAL INSECTICIDES ON SAP BEETLE PESTS OF STRAWBERRIES ...........................................................58 Materials and Methods ...............................................................................................59 Preparation of Sap Beetles for Assay ..................................................................59 Sampling ..............................................................................................................60 Statistical Analysis ..............................................................................................60 Results .........................................................................................................................60 Lobiopa insularis .................................................................................................60 Lobiopa insularis males ...............................................................................61 Lobiopa insularis females ............................................................................61 Field Collected Sap Beetles .................................................................................62 Discussion ...................................................................................................................62 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................69 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF REFERENCES ...................................................................................................73 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................................77 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adu lts in strawberries, Citra, FL (2004). .........38 3-2 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adu lts in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005). .........39 3-3 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adu lts in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005) weeks 1-4. .................................................................................................................40 3-4 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adu lts in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005) weeks 5-8. .................................................................................................................41 3-5 Volatiles present in bait attractants. .........................................................................42 4-1 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2004)..........52 4-2 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005)..........53 4-3 Volatiles present in ripe, ove r-ripe, and dry strawberry fruit. ..................................54 5-1 Mean SEM rating of L. insularis males and females combined. .........................64 5-2 Mean SEM rating of L. insularis males. ...............................................................65 5-3 Mean SEM rating of L. insularis females. ............................................................66 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Sap Beetle. Lobiopa insularis (adult). ........................................................................5 1-2 Strawberry plants, Citra, FL (2004). ..........................................................................5 3-1 Sap beetle trap. .........................................................................................................33 3-2 Trap containing treatment bag and water source. .....................................................33 3-3 Trap placed among strawberry plants. .....................................................................33 3-4 Maintaining the colonies.. ........................................................................................34 3-5 Volatile collection system. .......................................................................................35 3-6 Total number of sap beetles captured in a strawberry field, Citra, FL (2005).........35 3-7 Percent of total sap beetles captured in a strawberry field, Citra, FL (2005). ..........36 3-8 Mean SEM number of sap beetles in harvested and un-harvested plots of strawberries, Citra, FL (2005)..................................................................................36 3-9 Mean SEM relative peak areas for bait treatments. ..............................................37 3-10 Mean SEM relative peak areas for treatments 1 and 2..........................................37 5-1 Insecticide bioassay set-up. ......................................................................................68 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EVALUATION OF ATTRACTANTS AN D MONITORING FOR SAP BEETLE CONTROL IN STRAWBERRIES By Crystal A. Kelts December 2005 Chair: Oscar Liburd Major Department: Entomology and Nematology Sap beetles (Coleoptera: Niti dulidae) are important pests of strawberries in northcentral Florida. During 2004, field monito ring studies were c onducted to track the movement of sap beetles into strawberry fi elds. Treatments include d 1) traps located on the periphery of the field, 2) traps located be tween strawberry plots, and 3) traps located within plots. Results showed that traps located on the periphery of the field captured significantly more sap beetle s than other treatments. Additional studies were conducted in 2005 to evaluate attractants to be used in traps for monitoring sap beetles. Treatmen ts included traps baited with 1) pollen dough, 2) pollen dough fed on by larvae of L. insularis, 3) ripe strawberries, 4) ripe strawberries fed on by L. insularis and 5) control (unbaited traps) Traps were also placed in harvested and un-harvested plots to study sap beetle response in the different microenvironments. x

PAGE 11

Results indicated that all treatments evaluated captured significantly more sap beetles than control treatments. Furthermor e, traps placed in un-harvested strawberry plots captured significantly more sap beetles than traps placed in harvested plots. In studies to examine sap beetle response to different stages of strawberries we sampled sap beetles on 1) dried strawberries [on the ground], 2) ripe strawberries, 3) over-ripe strawberries, and 4) ground litter. During both years over-ri pe strawberries had consistently more sap beetles than all other treatments. Volatiles of dry, ripe, and over-ripe strawberries were collected separately and analyzed using GC Mass Spectrometry. Vo latile profiles of ripe and over-ripe strawberries had significantly la rger peak areas relative to internal standards. Further studies showed that volatile profiles of strawberries and strawberries fed upon by L. insularis also had significantly larger peak ar eas relative to internal standards. Finally, we investigated redu ced-risk chemical tactics for control of sap beetles. Conventional and reduced-risk insecticides were evaluated in laboratory assays for their effectiveness against sap beetles. Five treatments were investigated including one conventional standard Malathion 5EC, two reduced-risk insecticides spinosad (SpinTor 2SC) and thiamethoxam (Actara 25G), as well as imidacloprid (Provado 1.6 F), and control [untreated plots]. Malathion consistently killed mo re sap beetles than any other treatment. The results indicate that reduced-ri sk insecticides rarely kill sap beetles when used to control other pests, which may acc ount for recent increas es in sap beetle populations. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Florida is the second largest producer of strawberries in the United States and provides 15% of the total U.S. crop, and 100% of the domestically produced winter crop. Approximately 95% of Floridas commercial production acreage is located in Manatee and Hillsborough counties with the other 5% oc curring in both north and south Florida. Strawberry is one of the most expens ive crops to produce. During the 1998-1999 strawberry season production costs averaged $17,000 per acre. Nevertheless, the Florida strawberry industry is undergoing an increase in acreage and profits. In the past 15 years, Florida has increased its acreage by 40% and income has increased by 300% (Mossler and Nesheim 2003). During the 1999-2000-production season, 6178 acres of strawberries were grown producing a profit exceeding $167 million. Despite the recent surge in Floridas strawberry acreage and profits, production trends may be threatened due to several key pests that cause significant damage in strawberries. Sap beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) are one of several key pests associated with strawberry production (Fig. 1-1). They are listed in the 2004 Florida Crop Profile as a major pest of strawberri es (Mossler and Nesheim 2004). Sap beetles cause direct as well as indirect injury to fruit and can significantly reduce marketable yields. Direct feeding causes large cavities in ripe and over-ripe fruit rendering it unmarketable. Sap beetle damage to strawber ry fruit can cause secondary infections by plant pathogens. They vector mycotoxi n-producing fungi that expedite the natural 1

PAGE 13

2 fermentation process (Dowd 1994). Also, sap be etles leave the fruit vulnerable to other pathogens such as botrytis fruit rot (gray mold), the most important strawberry disease in Florida (Mossler and Nesheim 2003). Sap beetles have a wide host range and feed on a variety of rotting fruits and decaying plant matter (Myers 2001, Peng and Williams 1990). There are more than 2,500 species of nitidulids described and over half of the genera are cosmopolitan (Rondon et al. 2004). Twenty-one genera have b een reported in Florida. According to Potter (1995), nine nitidulid species can be found on strawberry fruit in east Hillsborough County including; Carpophilus freemani Dobson, C. fumatus Boheman, C. humeralis F., C. mutilatus Erichson, Colopterus insularis (Castelnau), Stelidota geminata (Say), S. ferruginea Reitter, Haptoncus luteolus (Erichson), and Lobiopa insularis (Castelnau). One important species of sap beetle f ound in Florida is the strawberry borer, L. insularis. This beetle is distributed throughout the southeastern U.S. from Alabama and Texas to Florida. Lobiopa insularis is one of the most abundant species of sap beetle found in eastern Hillsborough County (Rondon et al. 2004). It can also be found throughout Central America and th e West Indies to Columbia and Brazil (Parsons 1943). In Brazil, L. insularis has severely damaged up to 70% of strawberry plantings in some areas (Fornazier et al. 1986). Another important species is the strawberry sap beetle, S. geminata This species has been found to damage strawberries in Dela ware, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Virginia, and Maryland. In the past, estimated losses of st rawberries in Michigan attributed to the strawberry sap beetle exceeded $3 million (Miller and Williams 1982).

PAGE 14

3 Florida strawberries are grown on raised be ds with plastic mulch (Fig. 1-2). Winter grown strawberries are characteristic of a re latively short growing season usually ranging from late November to early April. The cost of labor, water s upply, pesticide use, and other inputs can be economically costly to growers. On aver age, growers harvest fruit 23 times per week. Continual harvesting puts restrictions on pesticides since many have re-entry periods longer than three days. Standard production practices utilize la rge amounts of pesticides, including organophosphate insecticides that are potentially harmful to the environment, people, and non-target organisms found in the ecosystem. In Florida, several varieties of strawberries are grown each year, including Camarosa, Carmine, Earlibrite, Gaviota, Oso Grande, Strawberry Festival, Sweet Charlie, and Tr easure (Duval et al. 2004). Transplants are planted from late September to early Novemb er. Because of Floridas ideal environment for insect, mite, disease, and nematode deve lopment, the use of clean transplants is crucial to production. Transplants are often treated with fumigants such as methyl bromide, and fungicides are applied continuously up to the point of harvest since fruit are highly perishable. The introduction of the 1996 Food Quality Production Act (FQPA) has targeted many pesticides including organophosphates a nd carbamates to be phased out over a 10year period. One compound that is targeted to be phased out is methyl bromide. With the phase out of methyl bromide and the hi gh dependency on fungicides, there will be a need for alternative methods of reducing pe st and pathogen populat ions to tolerable levels. An effective integrated pest management program may reduce sap beetle

PAGE 15

4 populations, as well as the inci dence of fungal pathogens allowing growers to rely less heavily on pesticides. Monitoring and trapping for sap beetles is an important tactic in an integrated pest management program in strawberries. An e ffective trap design along with development of attractive baits for sap beetles may be im portant in monitoring sap beetle populations, consequently improving timing of control tactics. Our hypothesis is that development of an effective trap and lure system and improvements in sampling methods will improve detection of sap beetle populations in strawberry fields. In addition, identification of reduced-risk insectic ides will provide an effective tool for controlling high populations of sap beetles without destroying important natural enemies. The development of cultural practices is important to provide farmers with integrated pest management techniques that will reduce pest populations and will have a positive impact on the environment.

PAGE 16

5 Figure 1-1. Sap Beetle. Lobiopa insularis (adult). Figure 1-2. Strawberry pl ants, Citra, FL (2004).

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In developing an IPM program, it is cruc ial to know the biology, behavior, and population dynamics of the pests involved. Without this background information it is more difficult to interpret the data. Sap Beetles Habitats of sap beetles are relatively vari able. Larvae of the subfamily Cateretinae live in the seed capsules of various plants and adults feed on pollen and petals of the same plants or others. Other subfam ilies of sap beetles are saprophagous and mycetophagous and feed on decaying fruits and on fermenting plant juices (Potter 1994). Many sap beetles have a wide host range feed ing on flowers, fruits, sap, fungi, stored products, and fermenting tissue from many fruit and vegetable crops while others are extremely host specific. Semiochemicals Relationship Between Sap Beetles, F ungi, and Volatile Constituents Mycetophagous beetles vector fungi that ar e thought to expedite the fermentation process and therefore attractiven ess of the decaying fruit. Fungi increase the release of volatiles common to fruit substrates by a combination of in creased fruit-cell lysis and/or fungal catabolism of fruit const ituents that parallels the pro cess of fruit ripening (Phelan and Lin 1991, Lin and Phelan 1992). Zilkowski et al. (1999) studied the attractiveness of oranges fed upon by C. humeralis (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in wind-tunnel bioassays and found that oranges fed upon by either sex of th e beetle were consiste ntly more attractive 6

PAGE 18

7 than volatiles from beetle-free oranges. The reason for the increase in attraction was not very clear but it is was hypot hesized that the oranges may have been inoculated with fungi from the beetles. This study supported previous findings, which showed that fungal inoculation of food substrates enhanced host location for two nitidulid species, C. hemipterus F. and C. lugubris Murray (Blakmer and Phelan 1991). Host and sap beetle associated fungalinduced volatile components have been identified for many sap beetle species. For example, the sap beetle C. humeralis is attracted to the volatile s released by the fungus Fusarium verticillioides (Saccardo) (Bartelt and Wicklow 1999). Vo latiles produced by the fungus included a blend of five alcohols (ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-methyl-1propanol, 3-methly-1 butanol, and 2-methyl-1butanol), acetaldehyde, and et hyl acetate. Four phenolic s were produced along with unidentified hydrocarbons and a ketone. These authors identified the attractive components for the sap beetle to comprise pr imarily of alcohols, acetaldehyde, and ethyl acetate, rather than phenolics, which were also present in the volat iles. Alternatively, when C. humeralis feeds on oranges, the fungal-induced volatiles that elicit attraction from conspecifics of the beetle ar e different from those released by F verticillioides They comprise 2,5, diisopropylpyrazine, 2phenylethanol and an unidentified product (Zilkowski et al. 1999 ), suggesting that C. humeralis is a generalist insect. Volatile profiles of insect dependent fungi have been found to contain many of the same components as profiles of host volatile s. Sixteen components identified from the headspace profile of the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum (Bretz) have been found previously in the odors from various food substrates, and eleven of the components tested on a number of nitidulid species elicited attrac tive responses from some of the beetles.

PAGE 19

8 The 16 components included one aldehyde (ace taldehyde), one ketone ( 2butanone), five alcohols ( ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-methylpropanol, 3-methylbutanol, and 2methylbutanol) and nine esters ( methyl ace tate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, propyl acetate, methyl butyrate, isobutyl acetate, met hyl isovalerate, butyl ac etate, and isopentyl acetate), which were previously identified as common fruit constituents attractive to sap beetles. They concluded that C. fagacearum attracts nitidulids by mimicking food odors (Lin and Phelan 1992). Acquisition and Identification of Fungal Spores Mycetophagous sap beetles can acquire fungi by feeding on fungal spores or by the fungus coming in contact with depressions on different sclerites of the body surface. Fungal spores are then propagated through th e alimentary canal of the sap beetle suggesting that they can be disperse d through the insects excrement. C. truncatus Randall, the primary sap beetle vector of oak wilt pathogen, is attracted to oak wilt fungal fruiting mats where it feeds, mates, a nd oviposits (Kyhl et al. 2002). The fungal propagules are ingested and accumulate on cuticular surfaces of both the adults and larvae. Little work has been done on the identification of fungi vectored by sap beetle pests of strawberries although fungi of other nitidulids have been identified. Species in the genera Aspergillus Penicillium and Fusarium have been found in association with maize sap beetles such as the corn sap beetle C. dimidiatus F. and the dusky sap beetle, C. lugubris Some species including C. lugubris and beetles in the genus Glischrochilus are vectors of tree diseases such as oak wilt, C. fagacearum (Myers 2004).

PAGE 20

9 Aggregation Pheromones The importance of male-produced ag gregation pheromones has been well documented among the family Nitidulidae (Co sse and Bartelt 2000, Pena et al. 1999). Sap beetle aggregation pheromones of a par ticular species have been found to attract related species. In a study examining the structure, electrophysio logy, and behavior of the male-produced aggr egation pheromone of C. truncatus, it was found that the pheromone could be used as a cross attract ant for other sap beetle species including C. lugubris C. antiquus Melsheimer, and C. brachypterus Say (Cosse and Bartelt 2000). These pheromones may be important in the attr action of large numbers of sap beetles to a particular strawberry field and ma y increase damage considerably. Biology Sap beetles are believed to overwinter as adults or pupae in woodlands on the periphery of strawberry fields. As strawbe rries form on plants, sap beetles are able to detect chemical cues that are emanated to the wooded periphery and surrounding areas (Rhainds and English-Loeb 2002). Adults migrate from peripheries only when temperatures reach 16C (67F) (Myers 2004) Rhainds and English-Loeb (2002) studied the location of sap beetles within the field and recorded more sap beetles on fruit that was on the ground compared with fruit in the canopy, suggesting differen tial suitability of strawberry fruits as a food source for sap beetles (Rhainds and English-Loeb 2002). Life Cycle Although the life cycle varies for different species, it is possible to make some generalizations for the family Nitidulidae. After females deposit eggs on rotting fruit it takes approximately two to five days for e ggs to hatch. After hatching, larvae feed on available material. Sap beetles are characteri zed by three or four larval instars. The

PAGE 21

10 entire larval period lasts approximately 1.5 weeks, after which larvae burrow into the surrounding soil and pupate. For the dusky sap beetle, it takes approximately 28 to 30 days from egg deposition to adult emergence. Luckmann (1963) collected Glischrochilus quadrisignatus (Say) adults from April through Oc tober and found that only females collected in the spring had functi onal ovaries and produced eggs. Most sap beetles exhibit tw o generations per year a lthough in tropical climates, multiple generations can occur if resources are available throughout the year (Myers 2004). Adults are characterized by a rela tively long life span and can live for approximately 2 to 2.5 months. This may expl ain the relatively wide host range of most sap beeltes. A longer adult period allows sap b eetles to adapt to seve ral different types of substrates (Myers 2004). Monitoring Monitoring is the cornerstone for many IPM programs that allows for heightened awareness of pest density. Regular monitoring allows the grower to predict pest outbreaks, and gives sufficient time to implement management programs. This ultimately reduces the need for harmful pesticides. For sap beetles, monitoring can be performed by visual counts or with the use of baited traps (Foott and Hybsky 1976). Baits Baits have been shown to increase captures for sap beetles. Previous studies have shown that whole wheat bread dough is effective in attracting nitidulids. Williams et al. (1994) studied the efficacy of four trap baits for monitoring beetles, including whole wheat bread dough, fermenting brown sugar, a mixture of fermenting malt/molasses, and vinegar. Twenty species in nine different ge nera were collected and the majority showed preference to baits in the follo wing order although all baits pr oved to be attractive: wheat

PAGE 22

11 dough, brown sugar, malt and molasses, and vinegar. Only a few species deviated from this pattern. Laboratory studies have show n that modified bread dough is an effective bait in catching L. insularis and other sap beetles (B. Torto unpublished data). The dough incorporates autoclaved bee-collected po llen, commercial pollen s ubstitute, and honey. The ingredients are intermixed and are allowe d to harden to a dough-like consistency. The effectiveness of food baits combin ed with male-produced aggregation pheromone has also been well documented. Ma ny sap beetles exhibit cross-attraction to pheromones. However, beetles which are not attracted to the pheromone may be lured by coattractants. Williams et al. (1993) showed that traps baited w ith pheromone and bread dough caught at least five times more adult be etles than bread dough alone. In another study involving the effectiveness of pheromone bait stations on the attraction of nitidulid pollinators and subsequent fruit set of Annona spp., Pena et al. (1999) found that trees containing traps with pheromones combined with host volatile odor produced more fruit than did untreated trees. Ja mes et al. (1996b) studied the effect of pheromone baited traps (with fermenting bread dough as a coattractant) on reducing Carpophilus spp. in stone fruit orchards. They found that populations in ripe fruit were significantly reduced compared with non pheromone baited traps. James et al. (2000) found that multispecies pheromone lures for Carpophilus spp. were effective as attractants in areas cont aining more than one damaging species of sap beetles. Captures of C. davidsoni Dobson and C. mutilatus Erichson in traps baited with aggregation pheromones (of both species or a three way lure that also included the

PAGE 23

12 pheromone of C. hemipterus (L.)) were not significantly different from captures in traps baited with conspecific pheromones (James et al. 2000). Trap design and position also affect monitori ng efficiency and overall trap captures. In two separate experiments, Peng and Williams (1991) studied the effect of trap design and height on captures of sap beetles. In the first experiment, nine different trap designs were compared in an apple orchard where beet les were present. Traps were baited with whole-wheat bread dough, and results showed that the Lindgren funnel trap (funnelshaped trap) was the most effective and the Mc Phail trap (glass inva ginated trap) caught the fewest beetles. In the second experime nt, the number of beetle s collected per trap decreased as trap height increas ed. Also, trap height differe d for the same species in two different habitats suggesting that sap beetle presence varied with the nature of the habitat (Peng and Williams 1991). In a study investigating trap design and attractants, James et al. (1996a) found that water-based funnel traps w ith aggregation pheromone and fermenting bread dough caught 3-7 fold as many Carpophilus spp. beetles than wind-orie nted pipe traps or dry funnel traps. In another study comparing trap design Williams et al. (1993) studied the effectiveness of three trap types including the wind-oriented pipe trap (T-shaped trap made of PVC in which insects are collected in a plastic cup at the bottom of the pipe), the Japanese beetle plastic trap and the nitidulid inventory technique trap (consisting of a canning jar with a plastic cone inserted in the mouth of the jar) and found that the nitidulid inventory trap was the most effective (Williams et al. 1993). Although several different trap types and pheromones have been found to be effective against sap beetles, many of these experimental traps and pheromones are not

PAGE 24

13 commercially available. In a study compari ng commercial and experimental traps with pheromones, Dowd (2005) found that comm ercial traps and pheromones were as effective as experimental counterparts. Sap beetles over-winter in woodland peripheries; therefore, the use of mass trapping may be effective at disrupting th e migration of adults from woodland and surrounding areas to strawberry fields when fr uits begin to ripen (Rhainds and EnglishLoeb 2002). Rhainds and English-Loeb (2002) placed traps baited with bread dough in the center of strawberry rows and on the periphery, and recorded similar captures of beetles early in the season from both locati ons. However, captures of sap beetles were highest in peripheral traps after strawberry fruits began to ripen. Traps placed at the periphery of the strawberry field captured many adults but did not reduce infestation of fruits by larvae in the field, indicating that mass trapping of adults with food baited traps is not a viable management strategy but ma y be used for monitoring purposes (Rhainds and English-Loeb 2002). Control Sap beetle population contro l in strawberries includes biological, cultural, and chemical management strategies that when us ed together make up an effective integrated pest management program for strawberries. Biological A few parasitic wasps have been found to effectively parasitize sap beetles in the family Nitidulidae. In laboratory assays Weiss and Williams (1980) explored hostparasite relationships of an endoparasitic wasp, Microctonus nitidulidis Loan (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and the strawberry sap beetle, S. geminata. Strawberry sap beetle egg production was greatly reduced by pa rasitism, while fertility of beetle males

PAGE 25

14 was not affected. High rates of parasitism reduced oviposition rates by 2/3 suggesting that M. nitidulidis may be a promising biocontrol agent for sap beetle management that needs to be further explored. Other parasitic wasps include Brachyserphus abruptus (Say), M. nitidulidis and Zeteticontus insularis (Howard). Z. insularis can successfully parasitize the sap beetle L. insularis, which is a common pest of strawberries in Florida (Coler et al. 1986). A new species of nematode may be a pr omising biological control agent for sap beetles. Psammomermis nitiduesis was found in 80 percent of the sap beetles taken from a field in Peoria, Illinois in early spring (Lyons-Johnson 1997). Subsequently, biological control involving nematodes may be a plausible strategy in the future. Although biological control for sap beetles is a promising component of an IPM program, there are no biological control agents commercially available at this time. Cultural The most important cultural strategy for managing sap beetle damage in strawberries is to harvest all fruit as soon as they are mature. Another management tactic is dropping ripe and fermenting fruits into center rows where they decay and allow beetles to complete their life cycle (Mossl er and Nesheim 2004). This strategy works well when populations of sap beetles are re latively low but it is ineffective when populations have surpassed a threshold density. Chemical Currently, five insecticides are used to control sap beetles although several other classes of insecticide are labeled for use in strawberries. These include bifenthrin (Capture 2E), diazinon, pyrethrins, carbar yl (Sevin), and Malathion (Mossler and Nesheim 2004). Malathion has been the standa rd material of choi ce for control of sap

PAGE 26

15 beetles and has been used successfully in comm ercial fields for several years. However, sap beetle resistance to Malath ion may be on the rise (Williams et al. 1984). Kehat et al. (1976) reported that stronger concentrations of Malathion were necessary for moderate control. Applying more than the recommende d rate of organophosphate insecticides is especially detrimental to non-target organisms. Therefore, it is important to find less harmful insecticides to control this pest. In another study, Dowd et al. (2000) comp ared the efficacy of two conventional compounds aerially applied for the control of sap beetles in high amylose corn. Results showed that Malathion granul es can be as effective as commercial formulations in controlling sap beetles. Numbers of benefi cial coccinellid beetles and predators were significantly higher after treatment with Malath ion granules compared with chlorpyrifos granules. Low levels of active ingredients and low toxicity of Malathion granules provides environmental advantages over commer cial formulations of other insecticides (Dowd et al. 2000). Rhainds and English-Loeb (2002) studied th e impact of insec ticide application on infestation of strawberry sap beetles. Five treatments were evaluated but they found that treatments with fenpropathrin reduced larval in festation but did not a ffect the capture of adults in food-baited traps. Results also indicated that insecticide treatment reduced larval infestation for fruits on the ground wh en compared with infestation in the plant canopy, suggesting that the dense leaf cover of strawberry pl ants may prevent insecticide from reaching the ground. Several new classes of insecticides have been registered for use in small fruit crops. With the potential loss and/or restricti on of organophosphate insecticides through the

PAGE 27

16 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), ther e is an increasing need to expand the spectrum of control for these newer insecticid es to cover as many pests as possible. Three relatively new insecticides incl ude: 1) imidacloprid, Provado 1.6 F (Bayer Cropscience Kansas City, MO), 2) thia methoxam, Actara 25 WG (Syngenta Crop Protection Wilmington, DE) and 3) spinosad, SpinTor 2SC (Dow, Agrosciences, Carmel, IN). These insecticides are effective in controlling a broad range of insects in a wide variety of crops giving them the potential to replace many conventional chemicals. Thiamethoxam and spinosad are classified as reduced risk and may conserve natural enemies that regulate other key pests in the strawberry ecosystem. Imidacloprid is a neonico tinoid in the chloronicotinyl subclass. It provides protection to a broad range of cr ops and suppresses damage of sucking insect pests. It is effective against many insects that are resist ant to commercially used insecticides and provides immediate and residual control on cont act and systemically through the plant. The short duration of residue on the leaf surface results in low activity of this insecticide on parasitoid natural enemies (Wilkinson 2002). Thiamehoxam is a second-generation neonicotinoid compound with stomach and contact activity. It belongs to the subclass thianicotinyl of the neonicotinoid insecticides, which interferes with the nicotinic acetylcho line receptors in the insect nervous system (Maiensfisch et al. 2001). As a foliar, soil application, or as seed treatment, it has strong systemic and translaminar activity that allows it to kill insects on th e underside of leaves. It can be used on several plants for a broa d range of commercia lly important sucking pests and chewing pests such as beetles a nd lepidopteran larvae (Torres et al. 2003).

PAGE 28

17 Spinosad is a broad-spectrum insecticide us ed in a variety of crops. Its new mode of action allows for low human toxicity. It is very compatible with IPM and resistance management programs. It is derived from the actinomycete Saccharopolyspora spinosa and acts in conjunction with the neurotransmitter acetylcholine to prolong insect neural responses, which are often witnessed as twitching and paraly sis (Salgado 1997). Although there is sufficient information on the interaction of sap beetles and host and non-host volatile compounds and their ch emical compositions for many species, there is not much information available on thos e sap beetles that are pests of strawberry crops in Florida. These gaps will now be investigated in this thesis.

PAGE 29

CHAPTER 3 FIELD EFFICACY AND CHEMICAL CO MPOSITION OF HOST AND NON-HOST VOLATILES ATTRACTIVE TO SAP BE ETLE PESTS OF STRAWBERRIES Strawberries are an importan t high value crop in Florida. The state is the second largest producer of strawbe rries in the nation with over 6,178 acres and an annual profit exceeding $168 million. Currently, several key arthropod pests threaten strawberry production. These include twospotted spider mi tes and sap beetles. Biological control programs are currently being developed for twos potted spider mites. In this chapter, our aim is to investigate the potential to mon itor sap beetles using hos t and non-host volatile attractants. In addition, a subs equent objective is to gain a better understanding of sap beetle ecology in strawberries. Sap beetles cause direct and indirect damage to strawberry fruit (Liburd and Finn 2004). Currently, production practices utilize la rge amounts of pesticides including organophosphates to control sap beetles and other key pests. This practice has been effective for some time; however increasing pressure from environmentalists and the general public coupled with the developm ent of resistance against mainstay organophosphate insecticides have resulted in new research initia tives to investigate potential alternatives to br oad-spectrum insecticides. Some studies have successfully used baite d traps to capture a nd monitor sap beetle adults (Foot and Hybsky 1976). However, th ere is still conflicting information on whether trapping is an effective management t ool to control sap beetles. Studies have suggested that baited traps may increase the number of sap beetles in the production 18

PAGE 30

19 system (Rhainds and English-Loeb 2002), wh ile others have show n that mass trapping may be an effective control measure for sap beetle pests (Foot and Hybsky 1976). A better understanding of sap beetle responses to baited traps is essential to develop effective management strategies to control this pest. A few host and non-host volatiles for sap b eetle pests have been identified. Volatile components varied among species and host; however, general components and blends that are attractive to sap beetles include alcohols, esters, and acids. Although some of these volatiles have been identified, little research has been conducted on host and non-host volatile attr activeness to sap beetles of strawberries in Florida. Determination of bait attractiveness in the field as well as identification of attractive components of these baits is important when developing an effec tive monitoring system for sap beetle control in strawberries. Specific objectives for this research were to compare the attractiveness of host and non-host baits in the field, as well as to inve stigate trapping location within the field and in adjacent woodland areas. Differences in sap beetle captures among baits inoculated with a fungus of sap beetles we re compared with aseptic ba its. Finally, a comparison of the chemical components of these baits was ma de to identify candidate attractants. Materials and Methods Field Site and Experiments Field research was conducted at the Univer sity of Florida, Plant Science Research and Education Unit located in Citra, Florida. Strawberries, Fragaria x ananassa Duschene., cv. Strawberry Festival were planted on raised beds. Research was conducted in two fields each consisting of 24 plots in 2004, and 28 plots in 2005. Each

PAGE 31

20 plot contained six rows of st rawberry plants spaced appr oximately 0.3 m apart. Plots measured 7.3 X 6.1 m with a buffe r of 7.3 m between plots. Two types of field experiments were conducted. An initial experiment was designed to track the movement of sap beet les into strawberry fields and a second experiment was designed to evaluate at tractants (host and non-host compounds). 2004 tracking the movement of sap beetles This experiment was conducted early in the field season (1/26/04-2/23/04) when strawberry fruit were beginning to ripen and fe rmented fruits were absent from the field. The trap used to track the movement of sap beetles was designed based on a model from the USDA-ARS laboratory in Gainesville, Florid a. The trap consisted of two white 1.0 L plastic buckets (one inside of the other) with the bottom cut out of the inner bucket (Fig. 3-1). Two windows approximately 10.2 x 5.1 cm were cut on each side of the trap and fitted with an aluminum wire mesh to allow sa p beetles to enter. The inside of each trap contained a wire mesh funnel approximately 14 cm in diameter, which directs sap beetles to the bait and keeps larger organisms from en tering into the trap. A string was glued to the trap to allow for hanging and a plastic t op was placed on the trap to keep water from entering. Holes were created at the bottom of the outer bucket to allow for drainage. Each trap was baited with a pollen d ough mixture (B. Torto unpublished data) that has been shown to attract sap beetles in pr evious studies. Approximately 80 g of pollen dough was placed inside a cotton stockinette a nd tied off with rubber bands on each end. The stockinette containing polle n dough was placed inside the trap (Fig. 3-2). A water source (15 ml of deionized water) was also pr ovided in small plastic vials with a 1-cm hole punched through the snap cap. Cotton de ntal gauze (Richmond Dental, Charlotte,

PAGE 32

21 NC) was placed through the hole of the cap into the water source. Baits and water sources were changed weekly. Treatments for this experiment included: 1) traps located on th e periphery of the field [0.2 m from the woods], 2) traps located between stra wberry plots, and 3) traps located within plots. Treatments were re plicated three times and were set up in a completely randomized block design. Traps were placed at least 30.5 m apart and were anchored inside the soil. Traps were checked weekly for the presence of sap beetles. Total sap beetle numbers were recorded and sap beetle adults we re identified at the Department of Plant Industry in Gainesville, Florida. 2005 evaluation of attractants Experiments to evaluate attractants we re conducted from early February through March 2005. Experiments consis ted of four treatments that included traps baited with 1) pollen dough, 2) pollen dough fed upon by larvae of L. insularis, 3) ripe strawberries, 4) ripe strawberries fed upon by L. insularis and 5) control (unbaite d traps). Treatments were arranged in a completely randomized block design among strawberry plants and were replicated 4 times (Fig. 3-3). Traps identic al to those used in 2004 were used in this study. Also, traps were baited by placing the bait into a cott on stockinette as described above. Water was provided as described above Baits and water sources were changed weekly. Traps were checked weekly and th e number of sap beetles was counted and recorded for eight weeks during the growing season. Sap beetle response to attractants in harvested and un-harvested strawberries After four weeks traps containing the mo st attractive treatm ent (pollen dough fed upon by larvae of L. insularis) were placed in harvested and un-harvested strawberry

PAGE 33

22 plots. Trap catches from ha rvested plots were compared wi th un-harvested plots to track sap beetle response. Statistical analyses All data from sap beetle field counts were analyzed by repeated measures Analysis of Variance using the SAS GLM procedure. All data were square -root transformed to stabilize variances, and means separated w ith least significant differences (TUKEY) 0.05 (SAS Institute Inc. 2002). Data reported in the tables and figures represented untransformed means standard errors. Laboratory Experiments Rearing protocol Since sap beetles propagate fungi, field-colle cted larvae or adults (already exposed to fungi) can be used to inoculate su bstrates through feeding. Adults of L. insularis were collected from traps near bee hives in Hi gh Springs, FL. A colony was reared for inoculation purposes and was kept in an in sect growth chamber at 26.7 C with 14:10 L:D and 70% RH (Fig. 3-4A). All stages of the insect were fed on a mixture of fresh strawberries and pollen dough. A water source was also provided using a small plastic vial with a hole punched through the cap. Cotton dental gauze wa s placed through the hole and deionized water was added to the contai ner. Adults were kept separate in mason jars. Eggs were laid on wax paper (Fig. 3-4B) and were removed every two days. Eggs were then placed in larval containers w ith food and water (Fig 3-4C) When larvae reached the wandering stage they were set onto autoclaved soil. One hundred to 300 larvae were placed in rearing boxes containing autoclaved soil (Fig 3-4D) (approximately 9% moisture), a food source, and a water source. At the end of the pupal stage, they were harvested from soil and sexed (Fi g. 3-4E). Fifty to 75 insects were placed in Petri dishes

PAGE 34

23 lined with filter paper. A small piece of de ntal gauze, moistened with deionized water, was taped to the top of the Pe tri dish to provide moisture (Fig. 3-4F). After adults eclosed they were placed in mason jars. Virgin males and females were sexed using standard procedures based on th eir abdominal tip characters. Inoculation Approximately 1,500 larvae of L. insularis approximately one day old were used for fermentation of pollen dough and strawberries. Buckets were filled with approximately 6 L of each treatment. Two buckets containing 6L of pollen dough and 2 buckets containing 6 L of strawberries were used. The weight of the bucket of pollen dough and strawberries was determined prio r to inoculation (strawberry ~ 2.3kg, pollen dough ~6.4 kg). Strawberries were cut in qua rters to maximize surface areas exposed to fermentation and leaves were removed from fru it. The contents of each bucket to be fermented were divided in half and spread around the bottom of a 22-gallon Rubbermaid container with a screened top. A water source was provided only in pollen dough containers. This water source was not needed in strawberry containe rs. All containers were then placed in a growth chamber maintained at 26C and 90% RH. Larvae were used for fermentation instead of adults because of their ability to swim and move through the substrate. Twenty-four hours after inoculat ing treatments with larvae, aluminum foil with six holes punched with a paper clip was placed under the lid of each container to provide darkness and allow for maximum fermentation. Pollen dough was sprayed with 5 mL of distilled wate r. Larvae were allowed to feed for one week and then they were removed from the substrate.

PAGE 35

24 Treatment preparation Bait bags were then prepared with one i ce cream scoop of treatment that was placed into the cotton stockinette and tied off with rubber bands. Each bag weighed approximately 50-80 g. Treatment bags were prepared and frozen at -68 C) until used for the field trapping experiments. The frozen treatments were removed to thaw overnight before use. Control traps contained only a wa ter source, 15 ml in a vial. Volatile collection and analysis Volatiles were collected and analyzed using equipment located at the USDA-ARS CMAVE in Gainesville, Florida (Fig. 3-5). Volatiles were collected from the same attractants evaluated in the field and analy zed. Treatments included: 1) pollen dough, 2) pollen dough fed upon by larvae of L. insularis, 3) ripe strawberries, 4) ripe strawberries fed upon by L. insularis and 5) control. Each treatm ent was replicated three times. Treatment bags (as described above) were plac ed into quick-fit glass chambers (30-cmlong x 3-cm-OD). Volatiles were collected on Super Q filters by pulling charcoal-filtered and humidified air through the traps at 500 ml /min for 2 h. Each filter was eluted with 250l of GC/GC-MS-grade dichloromethane (Burdick and Jackson, Muskegon, MI), and the eluents stored at -68 C prior to analysis by coupled gas chromatography (GC)-mass spectrometry (MS). This was done on a HP-6890 GC coupled to a HP5973 mass spectrometer (Electron impact mode, 70eV, Ag ilent, Palo Alto) equipped with a HP-1 column (30 m x 0.25 mm ID x 0.25 m, J & W Scientific, Folsom CA). The volatiles from pollen dough fed upon by a field-collected sap beetle were also analyzed for comparison. For the analysis, 40 ng of octane and 80 ng of nonyl acetate were added to 40 l of each volatile extract and 1 l was analyzed. Peak areas of the components were

PAGE 36

25 integrated and the total areas of volatiles an alyzed compared with that of the internal standards. The components in the volatiles were identif ied by comparing their mass spectral data with those in the library (NIST, 98K) of the mass spectrometer. Statistical analyses All data from the volatile collections were analyzed by repeated measures Analysis of Variance using the SAS GLM procedure. All data were log (x+1)-transformed to stabilize variances, and means separated w ith least significant differences (TUKEY) 0.05 (SAS Institute Inc. 2002). Data report ed in the tables and figures represent untransformed means standard errors. Results 2004 Tracking the Movement of Sap Beetles For the first three w eeks there were no significant di fferences among treatments. In week 4 there were significant differences among all the treatments evaluated. Traps located on the periphery (near the woods) cap tured the highest number of sap beetles (Table 3-1 and Fig. 3-6). This treatment was significantly different from all other treatments that consisted of traps located within the plots and between the plots ( F = 36.5; df = 2:4; P = 0.0027). Traps located within rows al so captured significantly more sap beetles than traps located between plots. Throughout the trapping period (1/26/042/27/04) traps located on the periphery (near the woods) captured significantly more beetles than other treatments ( F = 5.8; df = 2:28; P = 0.0081) [Table 3-1]. Overall, traps on the periphery captured 5-fold more beetles than any other treatment. Among the sap beetles captured, Urophorus humeralis (F.) was the most dominant species ~ 30% of the beetle s caught. Other species captured include,

PAGE 37

26 Colopterus truncatus (Randall), Epuraea luteolus (Erichson), Cryptarcha ampla Erichson and Carpophilus sp. 2005 Evaluation of Attractants Throughout the trapping period (2/9/05-3/30/05) all of the tr eatments evaluated captured significantly more sa p beetles than the control ( F = 9.8; df = 4:145; P < 0.0001) [Table 3-2]. There were no significant differences in cap tures among the different types of bait used for the overall trapping period. Sa p beetle capture vari ed among weeks (Fig. 3-7). During the first week, traps baited wi th ripe strawberries captured significantly more sap beetles than other treatments ( F = 27.9; df = 4:12; P < 0.001) [Table 3-3]. During week 2, traps baited with ripe stra wberries and ripe strawberries fed upon by L. insularis captured significantly more sa p beetles than the control ( F = 5.7; df = 4:12; P = 0.009). During week 4 traps baited with strawberry fed upon by L. insularis larvae were weakly attractive (F = 3.0; df = 4:12; P = 0.0618). During weeks 3, 5 and 7 none of the treatments were significantly different. During week 6 there were no significant differences in the captures of sap beetles be tween baited traps. However, baited traps captured significantly more sa p beetles than the control ( F = 11.2; df = 4:12; P = 0.0005). During week 8, traps baited with pollen dough captured significantly more sap beetles than strawberries fed upon by L. insularis fresh strawberries, and the control ( F = 14.3; df = 3:12; P = 0.0002) [Table 3-4]. There were no significant differences between strawberries fed upon by L. insularis ripe strawberries, and the control. Harvested Versus Un-harvested Plots Traps placed in un-harvested strawberri es and baited with pollen dough captured 2.2-times more sap beetles than those placed in plots that were harvested weekly.

PAGE 38

27 Overall, these traps captured significantly more sap beetles than traps placed in harvested plots ( F = 4.5; df = 3:24; P = 0.04) [Figure 3-8]. Volatile Collection and Analysis Overall, the total areas of the volatile prof iles of baits that co ntained strawberries either fed upon or not by L. insularis were higher than that of the control treatment ( F = 4.4; df = 4:8; P = 0.0355) [Fig 3-9]. There were no si gnificant differences in the peak areas of volatiles between other treatments evaluated. GC-MS identified components in the volatiles of the attractive treatments as mainly alcohols, fatty acids and esters (Table 3-5). Additionally, aldehydes, ketones, hydrocarbons, terpenoids, and nitrogenous and sulfur derivatives were present in these volatiles. Overall, the com positions of the volatiles re leased by the baits fed upon by L. insularis were compositionally richer than those that were released by the baits not fed upon by the sap beetle (Table 3-5). Forty-one components were identified in the volatiles from the pollen dough fed upon by L. insularis 32 components were identified in the volatiles released by the polle n dough only. Similarly, 47 com ponents were identified in the volatiles of strawberries fed upon by the beetle, while 44 components were identified in the volatiles of the ripe strawberries. From the volatiles of pollen dough fed upon by the field collected sap beetle, 35 components were identified. Discussion Tracking the Movement of Sap Beetles During the 2003-2004 field season, results from trap catches showed that traps near the woods, along the periphery of the strawber ry field caught more sap beetles compared with other treatments. These results are c onsistent with those obtained by Rhainds and English-Loeb (2002) who reported larger numbers of sap beetles in traps along the border

PAGE 39

28 of the field compared with traps within the field. Since sap beetles are believed to overwinter in wooded peripheries, it is possible that traps placed adjacent to wooded areas may intercept over-wintering sap beetles moving in to strawberry fields. Therefore, it is possible that traps located on th e periphery of the fields near the woods may be effective in reducing sap beetle populations by disr upting migration to strawberry fields. During weeks 1-3 there were no signifi cant differences among the number of sap beetles caught in different locations. However, in week 4 baited traps placed by the woods caught significantly more sap beetles than other treatments. These results suggest that there is a positive inte raction between timing and trap location. Sap beetles are probably responding to increases in the concentr ation or the amount of host volatile as the strawberries mature. Rhainds and English-Lo eb (2002) showed similar results in which traps located on the border of strawberry fiel ds and within strawberry fields captured similar numbers of sap beetles early in the s eason but were highest in border traps once the fruit began to ripen. Low overall captures early in the season suggest that beetles do not inhabit strawberry fields before fruit begin to ripen. This may be because fruit fermentation odors are not strong enough early in th e season to elicit sap beetle migration from wooded areas. Five different species of nitidulids were recorded from trap catches. The dominant species was U. humeralis. Our findings were different to those of Potter (1995) who recorded 9 different species. Differen ces in locality (Hills borough County, versus Marion County, Potter 1995), may account for our findings. The only species we found that Potter (1995) recorded was Carpophilis spp.

PAGE 40

29 Evaluation of Attractants Overall, all treatments evaluated dur ing the 2004-2005 field season were more effective in capturing sap beetles than the contro l. However, there were no differences in trap captures among other treatments. Black mer and Phelan (1995) found similar results when three out of four predominant sap beetle species were attracted to all baits tested. In their study, they found minimal preferen ce among baits including: strawberry, banana, tomato, maize, and whole wheat bread dough. W eekly data were inc onsistent throughout the trapping period. Traps containing strawberries captured more sap beetles in week 1 than any other treatment while tr aps baited with pollen dough fed upon by L. insularis caught the most sap beetles in week 8. As in the 2003-2004 field season, phenology se ems to play an important role in attractant choice. During the first week of trapping, ripe and fermenting fruits were unavailable and traps containing strawberries captured most of the sap beetles. It is possible that when the fruit began to ripen the beetles were more attracted to their natural host. These results are consistent with Bl ackmer and Phelan (1995) who found that when maize kernels were full, attraction to maize baits virtually ended in three out of four cases. Although there were no significant differe nces in the attractiveness of the different lures, it is possible that the lu re prepared from pollen dough may be more suitable for use in the field since the presence of honey slows the decomposition process which may prolong the release of attractants for a longer period than the fresh fruit. Although previous data had suggested that hosts fed upon by sap beetles were more attractive than treatments that were not fed upon (Zilkowski et al. 1999, and Bartelt and Wicklow 1999), the attractiveness of the different treatments fed upon by L. insularis

PAGE 41

30 to sap beetles did not differ significantly from those of aseptic treatments in the field. It is possible that treatments, which were fed upon fermented too quickly and did not last very long in the field. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that different species of sap beetles may prefer different stages of host and non-host fermentation. There were no significant differences in at tractiveness of pollen dough fed upon by L. insularis (colony reared) or that of the field collected sap beetle suggesti ng that if baits were to be inoculated either source of sap beetles could be used. Harvested Versus Un-harvested Plots Un-harvested plots had consistently more sa p beetles than harvested plots. These results were expected since un-harvested pl ots contained more fermenting fruits (an abundance of host volatiles) and many sap beetle s are attracted to fermenting plant juices (Potter 1994). Volatile Collection and Analysis The composition of volatiles of treatments fed upon by L. insularis and the field collected sap beetle were different from the volatiles of the treatments without the beetles. They differed both in quantity and qua lity. Generally, a larger number of esters were released in the volatiles of the tr eatments fed upon by the beetles compared with asceptic counterparts. Clearly, the major di fference between the volatiles released by the pollen dough treatments was the presence of fermentation-related products, including 3and 2-methyl-1-butanol and fatty acids in the volatiles of pollen dough fed upon by the different sap beetles. Many of the same components or classe s of compounds found in our study have been found to be attractive to nitidulids in previous studies including alcohols, ketones, esters, hydrocarbons, and nitrogenous compounds (Chapter 2). 3and 2-methyl-1

PAGE 42

31 butanol were found in our analysis in treatments fed upon by larvae of L. insularis and the field-collected sap beetle, as well as ripe strawberries but not in pollen dough treatments. These same components were found in volatile pr ofiles of the fungi C. fagacearum and F. verticillioides (Lin and Phelan 1992, Zilkowski et al. 1999). This implies that our treatments containing th ese compounds may have been inoculated by a fungus. Also, it is possible that ripe strawber ries were inoculated by beetles in the field before they were collected for analysis. Our hypothesis was that treatments inoculated via feeding by L. insularis would have larger profile areas and t hus be more attractive in baited traps. However, the results showed that this appeared not to be the case. We cannot rule out the possibility that fresh strawberries taken from the field could have been previously inoculated by field insects causing the release of volatiles which might have contributed to the overall profile area. Also, all the baits were prepared at the be ginning of the season and then frozen. Baits were thawed weekly which could have expedited the fermentation process. This is especially the case with the strawberry tr eatments since the fruit is more prone to fermentation than pollen dough. Also, strawberri es and strawberries fed upon had larger quantities of fatty acids, alcohols, and esters that could serve as th e candidate attractants in the bait treatments, consistent with prev ious results obtained for other sap beetles (Bartelt and Wicklow 1999). Also, timing of volatile release from bait tr eatments may have played a role in bait attractiveness. Baits were changed weekly, however there may have been differences in volatile release among bait treatments. For example, since pollen dough treatments contain honey, which slows down the fermentati on process release of volatiles may have

PAGE 43

32 been prolonged in these treatments while vol atile release of strawberry treatments may have occurred within just a few days afte r placement in the field. Less frequent replacement of baits may be important in asces sing the effectiveness of attractants so that volatiles from all attractants are released befo re renewal. James et al. (1998) found that renewing multispecies pheromone lures every 2 weeks instead of weekly is an effective method of trapping for sap beetles. In summary, there were no significant differences overa ll in the attractiveness among bait treatments in the field. However, all treatments were significantly different from the control and therefore may have poten tial for development for use in strawberry pest management programs for sap beetles. Additionally, since significant differences among treatments were inconsistent weekl y, phenology including fruit development, geography, and weather conditions may be impo rtant in bait selection and placement. Volatile analysis showed that many of the same components found to be attractive to sap beetles in previous studies were present in bait attractants.

PAGE 44

33 Figure 3-1. Sap beetle trap used in experiments to evaluate tracking and movement of sap beetles and evaluati on of attractants. Figure 3-2. Trap containing treat ment bag and water source. Figure 3-3. Trap placed among strawberry plants.

PAGE 45

34 A B C D E F Figure 3-4. Maintaining the colonies. A) sap beetle colonies, B) mason jar with wax paper egg collectors, C) la rval rearing container, D) autoclaved soil, E) separation of pupae from soil, and F) sexed pupae in Petri dishes.

PAGE 46

35 Figure 3-5. Volatile collection system used fo r volatile collection a nd analysis of bait treatments. 0 20 40 60 80 100 1201/26/2004 2/2/2004 2/9/2004 2/16/2004 2/23/2004 Number of beetles Woods Plots Rows Figure 3-6. Total number of sap beetles captured in a strawberry field, Citra, FL (2005).

PAGE 47

36 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 12345678Percent of total sap beetles caught T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Figure 3-7. Percent of total sap beetles capture d in a strawberry field, Citra, FL (2005). (T1 = pollen dough, T2 = pollen dough fed upon by larvae of L. insularis T3 = ripe strawberries, T4 = ripe st rawberries fed upon by larvae of L. insularis and T5 = control) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Harvested UnharvestedMean number of sap beetles a a Figure 3-8. Mean SEM number of sap beetles in harvested and un-harvested plots of strawberries, Citra, FL (2005).

PAGE 48

37 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Pollen doughPollen dough fed upon StrawberryStrawberry fed upon ControlMean relative peak area ab ab a a b Figure 3-9. Mean SEM relative peak areas for bait treatments. Mean peak areas were calculated relative to internal sta ndards octane and nonyl acetate. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 T1 T2Mean relative area a a Figure 3-10. Mean SEM relative peak areas for treatments 1 and 2. Mean areas were calculated relative to areas of internal standards octane and nonyl acetate. (T1 = pollen dough fed on by larvae of Lobiopa insularis and T2 = pollen dough fed on by larvae of a field collected sap beetle).

PAGE 49

38 Table 3-1. Mean SEM number of sap beetle a dults in strawberries Citra, FL (2004). Treatments Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Total Captures Woods, Periphery 2.0 1.2 27.0 17.6 0.3 0.3 33.3 4.4 a 15.7 5.9 a Between Plots 0.0 0.0 7.0 3.6 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.6 b 2.9 1.1 b Within Plots 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 13.3 1.8 c 3.6 1.8 b Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 50

39 Table 3-2. Mean SEM number of sap beetle a dults in strawberries Citra, FL (2005). Treatments Total Captures Pollen Dough 5.6 a Pollen Dough fed upon by L. insularis larvae 9.5 2.3 a Strawberry 14.1 4.5 a Strawberry fed upon by L. insularis larvae 1.3 a Control 0.0 0.0 b Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 51

40 Table 3-3. Mean SEM number of sap beetle a dults in strawberries Citra, FL (2005) weeks 1-4. Treatments Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Pollen Dough 0.0 0.0 b 1.0 1.0 ab 8.2 4.6 1.8 0.9 ab Pollen Dough fed upon by L. insularis larvae 0.3 0.3 b 4.5 4.5 ab 22.6 12.9 1.8 1.4 ab Strawberry 69.0 18.0 a 9.0 1.4 a 8.0 3.6 2.3 1.7 ab Strawberry fed upon by L. insularis larvae 6.8 2.8 b 9.5 2.8 a 5.8 1.9 4.5 2.0 a Control 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 b Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 52

41 Table 3-4. Mean SEM number of sap beetle a dults in strawberries Citra, FL (2005) weeks 5-8. Treatments Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Pollen Dough 0.8 0.8 7.5 1.9 a 14.0 6.2 11.3 3.8 ab Pollen Dough fed upon by L. insularis larvae 2.5 1.3 8.3 3.7 a 14.3 6.4 22.3 3.9 a Strawberry 3.3 1.4 20.3 9.6 a 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 c Strawberry fed upon by L. insularis larvae 2.0 2.0 7.0 2.2 a 9.0 9.0 1.5 1.5 bc Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 c Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 53

42 Table 3-5. Volatiles present in bait attractants. T1 T2 T3 T4 Field SB T5 ALCOHOL 3-methyl-1-butanol + + + + 2-methyl-1-butanol + + + + 2-methyl-3-pentanol + 2-methoxy-4-penten-2-ol + 1,3-butaediol + + + 2,3-butanediol + + + phenylethanol + + + ALDEHYDE benzaldehyde + + + + + hexanal + nonanal + + + trace decanal + + phenylacetaldehyde + Lilac aldehyde A + Lilac aldehyde B + Lilac aldehyde C + KETONE acetophenone + + 3-hydroxy-2-butanone + 3-hydroxy-2-methyl-2-butanone + 2-nonanone + + 2-heptanone + + 2-undecanone + + + (E,E)-3,5-octadien-2-one + + FATTY ACID propionic acid + + + butanoic acid + 2-methylpropionic acid + 3-methylbutanoic acid + + + + 2-methylbutanoic acid + + + + 4-hydroxybutanoic acid + cyclopropanecarboxylic acid + pentanoic acid + + + hexanoic acid + + 2-methylpentanoic acid + ESTER

PAGE 54

43 Table 3-5. Continued. T1 T2 T3 T4 Field SB T5 ethyl butanoate + + ethyl-2-methyl propanoate + ethyl-2-methyl butanoate + + ethyl hexanoate + + + + ethyl heptanoate + ethyl tiglate + ethyl 2-butenoate + + ethyl octanoate + + + + ethyl nonanoate + + ethyl decanoate + + ethyl dodecanoate + + + ethyl hexadecanoate + ethyl phenylpropanoate + + ethyl benzoate + ethyl phenylacetate + + + ethyl cinnamate + + ethyl-2-hydroxy propanoate + + + + 2-methylpropanyl acetate + + 3-methyl-1-butanyl acetate + + 2-methyl-1-butanyl acetate + + 3-methyl-1-butanyl propanoate + methyl butanoate + methyl hexanoate + + n-propyl acetate + + propyl hexanoate + + hexyl acetate + + 2-phenylethyl acetate + + + 3-phenyl-1-propanyl acetate + methyl phenylpropanoate + Lilac acid formate D + diethyl butanedioate + + LACTONE butyrolactone + + + 5-ethyldihydro-2(3H)furanone + + + 2, 5 dimethyl-4-methoxy-3(2H) furanone + + HYDROCARBON 4-methoxy-1-butene + + + 3-hydroxy-2-butene +

PAGE 55

44 Table 3-5. Continued. T1 T2 T3 T4 Field SB 2-ethoxy-butane + butyl cyclohexane + hexyl cyclohexane + + + (Z)-1,4-dimethylcyclohexane decane + + dodecane + + + tetradecane + + TERPENE linalool + + (Z)-linalool oxide + + + -terpineol + + (E)nerolidol + + (E)-geranyl acetone + BEZENOID styrene + + guaiacol + phenol + FURAN furfural + + 1(2-furanyl)ethanone + + 2,5-dimthyltetrahydr ofuran + + SULFUR COMPOUND benzothiazole + + + + NITROGENOUS 2,5-dimethylpyrazine + + + 2,3-dimethylpyrazine + + + 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine + + + 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine + + + 3-ethyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazine + MISCELLANEOUS 2,4,5-trimethyl-1,3dioxolane + + + 4-methyl-1,3-dioxolane + + + methyl antranilate + + KEY: + -detected in the volat iles captured on Super Q filter. (T1 = pollen dough, T2 = pollen dough fed upon by larvae of L. insularis T3 = ripe strawberries, T4 = ripe strawberries fed upon by larvae of L. insularis T5 = control, and Field SB = fieldcollected sap beetles).

PAGE 56

CHAPTER 4 ATTRACTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT STAGES OF STRAWBERRY FRUIT Connell (1980) reported that strawberry sap beetle adults, S. geminata, are attracted to ripe, over-ripe and injured fruits of many pl ants. Beetles migrate from the periphery of strawberry plots and oviposit in to rotting strawberries, althou gh some eggs may be laid in fresh strawberries (Mossler and Nesheim 2004). Sanitation is often considered the most important control method in deterring sap beetle pests. This involves the removal of rotting fruit from the field. However, removing rotted fruit from the field may not be practical since harv esting usually occurs two to three times per week. A better understand ing of sap beetle preference to different stages of strawberry fruit is important when developing control measures for sap beetles. Regular sampling is an important monitori ng tool that gives information on insect population or pest status. Based on the number of samples taken from a field, conclusions can be drawn regard ing pest status. Currently, there is little information on sampling for sap beetles in strawberries although the importance of sampling for sap beetle pests is well established. A closer examination of the chemical composition of different stages of the fruit will allow fo r better understanding of why sap beetles may prefer to feed and lay eggs in certain t ypes of fruit. This may allow for further development of monitoring and trapping techniques. Specific objectives of this research were to determine the attract iveness of different stages of strawberry fruit to sap beetles in the field. Additionally, I wanted to compare 45

PAGE 57

46 volatile composition of these different stages of strawberries to identify candidate components for the sap beetles. Methods Field research was conducted at the Universi ty of Florida, Plant Science Research and Education Unit located in Citra, Florida. Strawberries, Fragaria x ananassa Duschene., cv. Strawberry Festival were plan ted on raised beds. Each plot contained six rows of strawberry plants spaced appr oximately 0.3 m apart. Plot size was 7.3 X 6.1 m. The spacing between plots was 7.3 m. In Situ Counts In order to evaluate the attractiveness of sap beetles to different stages of strawberries, 8 plants from two center rows in each plot were examined for sap beetles. Sampling was done by visually counting the numbe r of sap beetle adults on all 8 plants (per plot) on a weekly basis. Four treatm ents were evaluated. In each treatment, sap beetles were counted on 1) drie d strawberries on the ground, 2) ripe strawberries, 3) overripe strawberries, and 4) ground litter. For the purposes of this study, dry strawberries were those that were completely void of moisture and were brown, ripe strawberries were 80% bright red with visible decay, and over-rip e strawberries were 80% dark red with at least 25% decay. The experiment was set up using a completely randomized block design with 24 replicates. Statistical Analyses All data from sap beetle field counts were analyzed by repeated measures Analysis of Variance using the SAS GLM procedure. All data were square root transformed to stabilize variances, and means separated with least significant differences

PAGE 58

47 (TUKEY) 0.05 (SAS Institute Inc. 2002). Data re ported in the tables and figures represent untransformed means standard errors. Volatile Collection and Analysis Volatiles from the following treatments 1) dry, 2) ripe and 3) over-ripe strawberries were collected and analyzed as previously described in Chapter 3 using facilities available at the USDA-ARS CMAVE laboratory in Gainesville, Florida. Forty grams of strawberries were used from each treatment. Treatments were replicated three times. The leaves from the strawberries were removed, while keeping the fruits intact. Volatiles were collected using Super Q filters for approximately 2 h then eluted using 250l of dichloromethane. Samples were then analyzed using GC-Mass Spectrometry. The total profile area relative to sum of the areas of the internal standards octane and nonyl acetate was used to assess the quantit y of components in each treatment. Our hypothesis was that profiles with larger areas relative to internal standards parallel the most attractive fruit stages in the field Statistical Analyses All data from volatile collections were analyzed by repeated measures Analysis of Variance using the SAS GLM procedure. All data were log transformed to stabilize variances, and means separa ted with least significant differences (TUKEY) 0.05 (SAS Institute Inc. 2002). Data reported in the tables and figures represent untransformed means standard errors.

PAGE 59

48 Results In Situ Counts 2004 Throughout the experimental period (4/7/0 4-4/20/04) over-ripe strawberries attracted significantly more sap beet les than those found in ground litter ( F = 95.4; df = 3, 259; P < 0.0001) [Table 4-1]. Significantly more sap beetles were found in ground litter than in dry or ripe strawberries. There were no significant differences between dry and ripe strawberries. Data for individual week s indicated that over-ripe strawberries had significantly more sap beetles than all other treatments (all weeks, P < 0.0001) [Table 41]. Generally, over-ripe stra wberries had 3-times more sap beetles than any other treatment. 2005 Similar findings were recorded in 2005. Over-ripe stra wberries attracted significantly more sap beetles than all othe r treatments throughout the trapping period ( F = 154.6; df = 3, 354; P < 0.0001) [Table 4-2]. Significan tly more sap beetles were found in ground litter than in dry or ripe strawberries. There we re no significant differences between the number of sap beetles found in dry and ripe strawberries. Data for individual weeks varied. During the firs t week over-ripe strawberries had significantly more sap beetles than any other treatment (F = 36.2; 3, 69; P < 0.0001) [Table 4-2]. There were no significant differences among ripe and dry st rawberries and ground litter. For week 2, over-ripe strawberries had significantly more sa p beetles than ripe and dry strawberries ( F = 11.2; df = 3:69; P < 0.0001) [Table 4-2]. There were no significant differences between over-ripe strawberries and ground litter. Significantly more sap beetles were found in ground litter than dry strawberries (Table 4-2). There were no significant

PAGE 60

49 differences between ground litte r and ripe strawberries. Al so, there were no significant differences between dry and ripe strawberries. For weeks 3 and 4, over-ripe strawberries had significantly more sap beetles th an any other treatment (For week 3, F = 111.2; df = 3, 69; P < 0.0001) and (for week 4, F = 125.7; df = 3, 69; P < 0.0001) [Table 4-2]. Significantly more sap beetles were found in ground litter than in dry and ripe strawberries. There were no significant differences among dry and ripe strawberries. Volatile Collection and Analysis Overall, the volatile profile s of ripe and over-ripe strawberries had significantly larger areas relative to internal standards than those of dry stra wberries and control treatments (F = 38.2; df = 3:6; P = 0.0003) [Fig. 4-1]. The volatile profiles of dry strawberries had significantly larger areas relative to internal standards than control treatments. There were no significant differe nces between the total areas of volatiles released from ripe and over-ripe strawberries. GC-MS identified components in the volatiles of the attractive treatments as mainly alcohols, fatty acids and esters (Table 4-3). Additionally, aldehydes, ketones, hydrocarbons terpenoids, lactone, furan, and nitrogenous and sulfur derivatives were present in these volatiles. Overall, the com position of the volatiles released by over-ripe strawberries was compositionally richer than those that were released by dry and ripe strawberries (Table 4-3). Twenty-three com ponents were identified in the volatiles from dry strawberries, 46 components were identi fied in the volatiles released by ripe strawberries. Fifty six components were id entified in the volatiles of over-ripe strawberries.

PAGE 61

50 Discussion During both field seasons (2003 2005), overripe strawberries had significantly more sap beetles than dry and ripe strawber ries. Also with the exception of week 2 (2005), over-ripe strawberries ha d significantly more sap beetle s than ground litter. It is believed that over-ripe strawberries have a high percentage of fermenting fruit emitting volatile and sap-beetles responded by accumulati ng on these fruit. Sap beetles have been known to accumulate on fermenting fruit (Potter 1994). This data is consistent with Warner (1990) who found sap beetles in later ripening berries but none in berries that mature early. Ground litter treatments had significantly more sap beetles than dry and ripe strawberries. Two reasons may account for th e high numbers of sap beetles in the ground litter. First, over-ripe strawberries fall to the ground and beetles may respond to volatile cues by moving to the ground to take advantag e of fermenting fruits. Another theory is that sap beetles play dead and drop off fr uit into the ground litter when disturbed. Neumann and Patti (2004) found similar re sults with the related sap beetle, Aethina tumida (Murray). Cavities characteristic of sap beetle inju ry were abundant in ripe (marketable) strawberries. This type of injury render s the fruit unmarketable, highlighting the importance of this pest in fresh marketab le fruits. Secondly, small cavities from sap beetle injury leaves the fru it vulnerable to secondary inf ection from pathogens. Also, invasion by fungal pathogens may cause aggregat ion of sap beetles and possibly increase the incidence of sap beetle damage. Sap beet les tended to congregate under fruit axils, where they are difficult to detect.

PAGE 62

51 Volatile profiles of dry, ripe, and over-rip e strawberries showed that peak areas relative to internal standards were highest for ove r-ripe fruit. Profiles of ripe strawberries were richer than those of dry strawberries. Over-ripe fruits cons istently had more sap beetles than any other treatment in the fiel d, which is correlated to the high peaks recorded in the GC Mass spectrometry resu lts. Profiles of dry strawberries had significantly higher areas relative to internal st andards. However, they were completely void of sap beetles in the fiel d during both field seasons. Chem ical analysis showed that dry strawberries contained many of the same components as ripe and over-ripe strawberries, but contained fewer esters. Dry strawberries also produced several fermentation components such as alcohols and fa tty acids. This may be due to previous feeding when fruit was ripe. Therefore, it is possible that esters may be an attractive component in ripe and over-ripe strawberry fruits. Volatile profiles of ripe strawberries lacked fermentation-related products such as 3and 2 methyl-1-but anol and fatty acids while these compounds were abundant in dry and over-ripe fruit. These are the same compound found in fungal volatil e profiles of the fungi C. fagacearum and F. verticillioides (Lin and Phelan 1992, Zilkowski et al. 1999). Therefore, it may be possible that these components were present in over-ripe and dry fruits as a result of sap beetle inoculation with fungus.

PAGE 63

52 Table 4-1. Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2004). Treatments Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Total Captures Dry Strawberries 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 0.0 c Ripe Strawberries 0.0 0.0 b 0.4 0.4 b 0.0 0.0 b 0.5 0.1 c Over-ripe Strawberries 5.0 1.0 a 6.7 1.7 a 7.5 1.8 a 6.4 0.9 a Ground Litter 1.7 1.0 b 0.8 0.3 b 0.6 0.2 b 1.1 0.3 b Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 64

53 Table 4-2. Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005). Treatments Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Total Captures Dry Strawberries 0.1 0.1 b 0.0 0.0 c 0.1 0.1 c 0.0 0.0 c 0.1 0.0 c Ripe Strawberries 0.3 0.1 b 0.3 0.1 bc 0.4 0.1 c 0.2 0.1 c 0.3 0.1 c Over-ripe Strawberries 8.0 1.5 a 6.0 2.0 a 15.0 2.2 a 14.1 1.9 a 10.8 1.0 a Ground Litter 0.5 0.2 b 1.8 0.6 ab 6.8 0.9 b 2.4 0.5 b 2.9 0.4 b Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 65

54 Table 4-3. Volatiles present in ripe, ov er-ripe, and dry strawberry fruit. T1 T2 T3 T4 ALCOHOL 3-methyl-1-butanol + + 2-methyl-1-butanol + + 2-ethyl-butanol + hexanol + 1,3-butanediol + 2,3-butanediol + ALDEHYDE hexanal + ( E )-2-hexenal + heptanal + nonanal + + trace decanal + + benzaldehyde + KETONE 2-heptanone + 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one + 3-octanone + 1 (4-ethylphenyl)-ethanonoe + LACTONE butyrolactone + FATTY ACID butanoic acid + 3-methylbutanoic acid + 2-methylbutanoic acid + + 2-methylpropanoic acid + + 4-hydrobutanoic acid + ESTER ethyl propionate + + ethyl butanoate + + +

PAGE 66

55 Table 4-3. Continued. T1 T2 T3 T4 ethyl hexanoate + + + ethyl 2-butenoate + + ethyl pentanoate + + ethyl 2-methylpropionate + ethyl 2-methylbutanoate + + + ethyl 3-methylbutanoate + + ethyl tiglate + ethyl benzoate + + ethyl 2-hexenoate + ethyl octanoate + + hexyl 2-methylbutanoate + isopropyl hexanoate + methyl 3-methylbutanoate + methyl 2-methylbutanoate + + 2-methyl propanoate + 2-methylpropyl butanoate + 2-methylbutyl propanoate + 2-methylbutyl butanoate + 3-methylbutyl butanoate + 1-methylethyl butanoate + + methyl butanoate + + methyl pentanoate + 1-methylethyl hexanoate + + 2-methylbutyl hexanoate + methyl hexanoate + + methyl octanoate + + methyl salicylate + 2-methylpropyl acetate + 3-methyl-1-butanyl acetate + + 2-methyl-1-butanyl acetate + + methyl hexanoate + octyl acetate + pentyl acetate + + pentyl butanoate + pentyl 2-methylpropionate + phenylmethyl acetate + 2-phenylethyl acetate + propyl acetate + propyl butanoate + + propyl hexanoate + butyl butanoate + butyl acetate + + (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate + (E)-3-hexenyl acetate +

PAGE 67

56 Table 4-3. Continued. T1 T2 T3 T4 (E)-2-hexenyl acetate + (Z)-3-hexenyl butanoate + (E)-3-hexenyl butanoate + hexyl butanoate + hexyl propanoate + hexyl acetate + + + 2-methyllbutyl propionate + HYDROCARBON 1-methyl-2propylcyclohexane + 1,4-diethyl-1,4-dimethyl-2,5cyclohexadiene + (Z)-1,4-dimethylcyclohexane trace BENZENOID Styrene + + p-xylene + 1-ethyl-2methylbenzene + 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene + FURAN 2,5-dimethyl-4 methoxy-2 (3H) furanone + + + 5-ethenyl-dihydro-5-methyl-2 (3H) furanone + TERPENE -terpineol + ( E )-nerolidol + + D-limonene + SULFUR COMPOUNDS S-methyl butanethioate + ethyl(methylthio)acetate + MISCELLANEOUS 2,4,5-trimethyl-1,3-dioxolane + KEY: + -detected in the volat iles captured on Super Q filter. (T1 = dry strawberries, T2 = ripe strawberries, T3 = over-ripe strawberries and T4 =blank)

PAGE 68

57 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Dry Ripe OverripeControlMean relative peak area b a a c Figure 4-1. Mean SEM relative peak area for di fferent stages of strawberry fruit. Means were calculated relative to internal st andards octane and nonyl acetate. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 69

CHAPTER 5 EFFECTS OF REDUCED RISK AND CO NVENTIONAL INSECT ICIDES ON SAP BEETLE PESTS OF STRAWBERRIES Although several insecticides have been re gistered for use on strawberries for the control of sap beetles, applic ation of organophosphate insectic ides has been the standard for several years. Many of these insecticides have a long re-entry period and do not allow for frequent harvest. Insecticides with long re-entry periods allow for an abundance of over-ripe strawberries to accumulate in the field. Volatile cues from these over-ripe fruits facilitate the movement of sap beetles into strawberry fields. Recently, growers have been applying large amounts of insecticides to redu ce high populations of sap beetles to tolerable leve ls. Frequent application of broad-spectrum insecticides increases the selection pressure and encour ages development of resistant genes. Furthermore, these insecticides pose a threat to natural enemies and non-target organisms in the environment. Effective control of sap beetles in stra wberries requires good sanitation. This can be labor intensive when working with pe rishable commodities like strawberries. Biological control agents for sap beetle contro l are currently being investigated but these products are not yet commercially available. Recently, several new classes of reducedrisk insecticides have been developed for us e on fruit crops. Some of these insecticides are registered for use in strawberries (not for sap beetle control) Laboratory and field assays need to be conducted to evaluate thei r potential to be used in sap beetle IPM programs. Promising compounds could be id entified and be used with effective 58

PAGE 70

59 monitoring, as well as with improved sanitation to better effectively manage sap beetle populations. Specific objectives of this resear ch were to evaluate the effectiveness of conventional and reduced-risk insecticides on sap beetle pests of strawberries. Materials and Methods Laboratory assays to evaluate conventi onal and reduced-risk insecticides for control of sap beetles were conducted at the Small Fruit a nd Vegetable IPM Laboratoy in Gainesville, FL. Five treatments were evaluated including, 1) Malathion 5EC, 2) imidacloprid, Provado 1.6 F (Bayer Cropscience Kansas City, MO), 3) thiamethoxam, Actara 25 WG (Syngenta Crop Protection Wi lmington, DE) and 4) spinosad, SpinTor 2SC (Dow, Agrosciences, Carmel, IN), and 5) control [untreated Petri dishes]. Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design (Fig. 5-1). Insecticides were applied at the recommended (scaled down) ra te to filter paper (15 cm diameter) using 0.5 L hand-atomizers. Filter paper was allowed to air-dry for 30 minutes. Each filter paper was then placed in a glass Petri dish (150 x 20 mm) with 3-4 g of overripe strawberries. Petri dishes were maintained at 27C and exposed to 14 L:10 D (light:dark regime) at relative humidity of 65%. Each Petri dish contained four insects. Bioassays were run three times. In the first assay newly eclosed virgin males of L. insularis were used. In the second assay virgin females of L. insularis were tested. In th e third bioassay field collected adults were tested. Preparation of Sap Beetles for Assay Laboratory sap beetles eclosed approxim ately one month prior to assay (see Chapter 3 for rearing protocol). After eclosi on beetles were sexed. In the case of field collected sap beetles, they were collected from an untreated strawberry field in Citra, FL.

PAGE 71

60 The beetles were identified si x hours prior to assay. The ag e of the insects was unknown. Three adults were used per Petri dish (3 beetles in each dish for field-collected sap beetles and 4 beetles in each dish for L. insularis ). All treatments were replicated 4 times. Sampling Insects were rated using a 0-3 scale base d upon average activity in each Petri dish (Liburd et al. 2003). A score of 3 indicated uni nhibited mobility (the status of beetles in nature). A score of 2 indicated decreased mobility (limited movement-grooming). A score of 1 indicated no responsiveness but movement was stimulated only by touch. A score of 0 indicated mortality (death). Data was recorded at 2, 6, 24, and 48 hours after treatment. Statistical Analysis Mean rating per replicate was calculate d and analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance using the SAS GLM procedure. All data were square-root transformed to stabilize variances, and means separated with least significant differences (TUKEY) 0.05 (SAS Institute Inc. 2002). Data re ported in the tables and figures represent untransformed means standard errors. Results Lobiopa insularis Overall, Malathion was the only treatmen t that significantly reduced the number of sap beetles in the assay ( F = 12.2; df = 4:69; P < 0.0001). There we re no significant differences among the other treatments evaluated.

PAGE 72

61 At 2 h there were no significant diffe rences among any of the treatments. However, at 6 h Provado 1.6 F had significan tly higher mortality than the control ( F = 3.9; df = 4:12; P = 0.0301) [Table 5-1]. There we re no significant differences among other treatments evaluated. At 24 and 48 h si gnificantly more beetles died in treatments exposed to Malathion compared wi th other treatments (for 24 h F = 3.8; df = 4:12; P = 0.0323, for 48 h F = 99.2; df = 4:12; P <0.0001) [Table 5-1]. Lobiopa insularis males Overall, Malathion was the only treatment that significantly reduced the number of sap beetles in the assay ( F = 9.1; df = 4:69; P < 0.0001) [Table 5-2]. There were no significant differences among other treatments evaluated. At 24 h there were no significant differences among treatments evaluated. However, at 48 h significantly more beetles died in treatments exposed to Malathion compared with other treatments ( F = 145.9; df = 4:12; P < 0.0001) [Table 5-2]. There were no significant differences among other treatments. Lobiopa insularis females Overall, Malathion was the only treatm ent that significantly reduced the number of sap beetles in the assay ( F = 11; df = 4:69; P < 0.0001) [Table 5-3]. Unlike males at 6 h, SpinTor 2 SC, Provado 1.6 F, and Actara 25G were not significantly different to treatments of Malathion. There were no significant differences among other treatments evaluated. At 2 h there were no significant differen ces among treatments. However, at 6 h Malathion was the only treatment that had significantly more dead sap beetles compared with the control ( F = 3.1; df = 4:12; P = 0.0553). All other treatments were not significantly different from each other. At 24 and 48 h Malathion was the only treatment

PAGE 73

62 that significantly reduced the number of sap beetles in the assay (for 24 h, F = 4.7; df = 4:12; P = 0.0159) and (for 48 h, F = 34.9; df = 4:12; P < 0.0001) [Table 5-3]. There were no significant differences among other treatments evaluated. Field Collected Sap Beetles Overall, Malathion was the only treatment that significantly reduced the number of sap beetles in the assay ( F = 11.4; df = 4:69; P < 0.0001) [Table 5-4]. There were no significant differences among the ot her treatments evaluated. After 6 h there were no differences among treatments. However, at 24 and 48 h significantly more beetles died in treatments exposed to Malathion compared with other treatments (for 24 h, F = 6.5; df = 4:12; P = 0.0051) and (for 48 h, F = 13; df = 4:12; P = 0.0003) [Table 5-4]. Discussion Our results indicate that Malathion was the only effective insecticide in killing sap beetles. The results confirmed a potential re ason for the recent increase in sap beetle numbers in strawberry fields. Recently, extension agents have been encouraging growers to use more reduced-risk insecticides in order to conserve na tural enemies and the environment. These reduced-risk insecticides may be effective against primary pests such as thrips and Lepidopterans but leave secondary pests like sap beetles unharmed. Females appear to be more susceptible than males. This information became clear with treatments of Malathion. Females of L. insularis were affected by Malathion at 6 h posttreatment while males were not affected until 48 h post-treatment. The same was true for some of our reduced-risk in secticides. SpinTor 2 SC, Actara 25 WG and Provado 1.6 F caused a slight reduction in female populations at 6 h. Thes e same insecticides did not

PAGE 74

63 affect males L. insularis males. The reason for the obser ved difference in susceptibility of females and males is unclear. Although Malathion was the only insecticide th at killed more sap beetles than the control, the reduced risk inse cticides tested should not be completely discounted. There are many factors that may be responsible for th ese results. Isaacs et al. (2004) states that reduced-risk insecticides generally have less immediate toxic effects on pests than conventional insecticides, but their activity ma y have repellent or an ti-feeding effects. The bioassays were run for a total of 48 h. Future studies might include longer test periods to better assess the slower acting toxic effects of reduced-risk insecticides. Also, field experiments that monitor populations of feeding insects pre-and post-spray may account for repellent and anti-feeding eff ects of reduced-risk insecticides. Since strawberry producti on requires harvesting generally every 2 days, an insecticide with a PHI period of 2 days would be ideal. Malathion has a PHI of 3 days (Mossler and Neisham 2004) so harvesting must be delayed. Future research on chemical control of sap beetles in stra wberries should focus on system ic reduced-risk insecticides with short PHI periods to allow for maximu m harvesting. The incorporation of reducedrisk insecticides and freque nt harvesting may be the key to sap beetle control in strawberries.

PAGE 75

64 Table 5-1. Mean SEM rating of L. insularis males and females combined. Treatments 2 HAT 6 HAT 24 HAT 48 HAT Overall Rating Malathion 5EC 2.6 0.4 2.70.1 ab 1.3 0.6 b 0.1 0.1 b 1.7 0.3 b SpinTor 2SC 3.0 0.1 2.8 0.0 ab 2.8 0.1 ab 2.8 0.1 a 2.8 0.1 a Provado 1.6 F 3.0 0.1 2.6 0.2 b 2.6 0.1 ab 2.6 0.1 a 2.7 0.1 a Actara 25G 3.0 0.1 2.7 0.1 ab 2.7 0.1 ab 2.5 0.5 a 2.7 0.1 a Control 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.1 a 3.0 0.1 a 3.0 0.1 a 3.0 0.0 a Means followed by the same letter are not sign ificantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 76

65 Table 5-2. Mean SEM rating of L. insularis males. Treatments 2 HAT 6 HAT 24 HAT 48 HAT Overall Rating Malathion 5EC 2.9 0.1 2.8 0.1 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 b 1.8 0.3 b SpinTor 2SC 2.9 0.1 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.7 0.1 a 2.8 0.0 a Provado 1.6 F 2.9 0.1 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.2 2.4 0.2 a 2.5 0.1 a Actara 25G 3.0 0.0 2.7 0.1 2.7 0.1 2.7 0.1 a 2.8 0.0 a Control 3.0 0.0 2.9 0.1 2.9 0.1 2.9 0.1 a 3.0 0.0 a Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 77

66 Table 5-3. Mean SEM rating of L. insularis females. Treatments 2 HAT 6 HAT 24 HAT 48 HAT Overall Rating Malathion 5EC 2.9 0.1 2.6 0.1 b 1.1 0.2 b 0.1 0.1 b 1.7 0.3 b SpinTor 2SC 3.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 ab 2.8 0.1 a 2.7 0.1 a 2.8 0.0 a Provado 1.6 F 3.0 0.0 2.7 0.2 ab 2.7 0.1 a 2.4 0.2 a 2.8 0.1 a Actara 25G 2.9 0.1 2.7 0.1 ab 2.6 0.1 a 2.7 0.1 a 2.6 0.1 a Control 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 a 3.0 0.0 a 2.9 0.1 a 3.0 0.0 a Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 78

67 Table 5-4. Mean SEM rating of field collected sap beetles, Citra, FL. Treatments 2 HAT 6 HAT 24 HAT 48 HAT Overall Rating Malathion 5EC 2.9 0.1 2.7 0.1 0.9 0.6 b 0.5 0.5 b 1.8 0.3 b SpinTor 2SC 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 a 2.8 0.1 a 2.9 0.0 a Provado 1.6 F 2.9 0.1 2.9 0.1 2.8 0.1 a 2.6 0.2 a 2.8 0.1 a Actara 25G 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 a 2.8 0.1 a 2.6 0.0 a Control 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 a 3.0 0.0 a 3.0 0.0 a Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different ( P = 0.05, TUKEY test)

PAGE 79

68 Figure 5-1. Insecticide bioassay set-up.

PAGE 80

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Research on the behavior and biology of sap beetle pests has led to improvements in managing these pests. Trapping has been s hown to be an effective monitoring tool and may be effective as a management tactic as well. Many baits have been shown to effectively attract sap beetle s, especially whole wheat bread dough which has been used in many studies. Research on host volatile compounds has shown that sap beetles are attracted primarily to esters, fatty acids, and al cohols. Using chemical tactics is also an important component of the to tal strawberry pest management program. Also, advances in biological control and pheromones used as attractants are promising additions to a comprehensive integrated pest management program for strawberries. Many of these tactics must be properly integrated to achieve the most cost effective and safest pest management program to suppress sap b eetle population to to lerable levels. Unfortunately, little work has been done on a comprehensive pest management program for sap beetles found in Florida st rawberries. Since many sap beetles are generalist feeders and since w eather and other uncontrollabl e conditions may affect sap beetle behavior, it is essential to investigate several strategies. In this thesis we studied several aspects of sap beetle management including, movement into strawberries, monitoring their activities in the field and pot ential use of reduced-risk insecticides. The results of this study suggest that traps placed near the woods are more effective at capturing sap beetles than traps placed within and betw een strawberry rows. Although 69

PAGE 81

70 this was the case, most sap beetles found in baited traps near the woods were found early in the production season. This may indicate th at border sprays or ri nging the field with attract & kill traps may be a reduced-risk tactic to prevent high populations from increasing. Trapping during the 2005 field season showed that all bait treatments were significantly better than the cont rol but not different from one another overall. A better understanding of how the bait tr eatment works may lead to improvements in the type of attractants used to monitor sap beetles. As in 2004, trap catches were inconsistent between weeks (Fig 3-6). This suggests that levels of fruit maturity and environmental factors can affect trap captures Other factors that were not investigated in this thesis include trap placement and timing of bait deploy ment in the field. Our studies indicate that preventative trapping tactics can be im plemented early in the season, before fruits begin to ferment. Once the fruit begins to ferment sap beetles are attracted to their natural host and captures in strawberry baited traps will decline. Until more research information becomes available traps can be baited with pollen dough. This bait can be easily prepared and ingredients can be quantified. The number of sap beetles caught in trap s baited with strawberries and pollen dough fed upon by L. insularis were not significantly different from fresh strawberries or pollen dough, respectively. Laboratory studies have shown that sap beetle hosts, which have previously been fed upon by sap beetles, a ttract significantly more sap beetles. This did not occur in our field studies. Field tr apping contains many more variables which can affect beetle response or trap efficacy. Results from traps placed in harvested versus un-harvested fruit showed that those traps placed in un-harvested plots captured si gnificantly more sap beetles. This result

PAGE 82

71 was expected because many sap beetles are attracted to decaying or fermenting fruit, which is typical in un-harvested strawberry fields. Therefore, timely harvesting and sanitation is crucial to re ducing sap beetle populations. Voltile profiles of baits showed that strawberries and strawberries fed upon by L. insularis had significantly larger area s in relation to internal standards than control treatments. This suggests that strawberries and strawberries fed upon by L. insularis may have more active compounds that are attractiv e to sap beetles. Vo latiles of pollen dough fed upon by L. insularis and pollen dough fed upon by the fi eld-collected sap beetle did not show any significant differences in mean relative peak areas. This suggests that treatments fed upon by either sap beetle could be used in the field. Furthermore, overripe strawberries had consistently higher numbers of sap beetles than all other treatments. Again, frequent harvesting and interception of sap beetles before entry into the field may help to alleviate a high p opulation of sap beetles. Results of insecticide bioassays showed th at Malathion was the only treatment that effectively killed sap beetle s compared with other treatm ents. Although this was the case, control provided by reduced-risk insec ticides should be evaluated for sub-lethal effects on sap beetle pests. A longer evaluation period may have given a different type of result. Nevertheless, prelimin ary evidence indicates that some reduced-risk insecticides do not kill sap beetles, which may account for their recent high numbers in the field. Future studies involving sap beetle pests of strawberries should include wind tunnel and olfactometer studies to test potential pheromones as well as kairomone attractants for sap beetles. The incorporation of aggregati on pheromones should be investigated for sap beetles in strawberries. Traps containing inse cticide strips may be useful in evaluating

PAGE 83

72 the number of sap beetles caught in traps, el iminating the variable of beetle escape. Insecticide bioassays studying re pellent activities of reduced-r isk insecticides should also be assessed.

PAGE 84

LIST OF REFERENCES Bartelt, R.J. and D.T. Wicklow. 1999. Volatiles from Fusarium verticillioides (Sacc.) Nirenb. and their attractiveness to nitidulid beetles. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47: 24472454. Blackmer, J.L. and P.L. Phelan. 1995. Ecol ogical analysis of Nitidulidae: seasonal occurrence, host choice and habitat preference. J. Appl. Ent. 119: 321-329. Blackmer, J.L. and P.L. Phelan. 1991. Effect of physiological state and fungal inoculation on chemically modulated host-plant finding by Carpophilus hemipterus and Carpophilus lugubris Entomologia. 61: 33-43. Coler, R.R., R.N. Williams, and E.B. Filho. 1986. A nitidulid parasitoid, Zeteticontus insularis (Howard) (Hymenoptera: Encrytid ae) present in Sao Paulo with clarification on its host. Revist a de Agricultura. 61: 245-249. Connell, W.A. 1980. Stelidota geminata (Say) infestations of st rawberries (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Ent. News. 91: 55-56. Cosse, A.A. and R.J. Bartelt. 2000. Male -produced aggregat ion pheromone of Colopterus truncates : structure, electrophysio logical, and behavioral activity. J. Chem. Ecol. 26(7): 1735-1748. Dowd, P.F. 2005. Suitability of commercially available insect traps and pheromones for monitoring dusky sap beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) and related insects in Bt sweet corn. Hort. Ent. 98: 856-861. Dowd, P.F., R.L. Pingel, D. Ruhl, B.S. Shasha, R.W. Behle, D.R. Penland, M.R. McGuire, and E.J. Faron II. 2000. Multiacr eage evaluation of aerially applied adherent malathion granules for selective insect control and i ndirect reduction of mycotoxigenic fungi in specialty corn. Ecotoxicology. 1424-1428. Dowd P.F., and T.C. Nelson. 1994. Seasonal va riation of sap beetle (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) populations in central Illi nois cornfield-oak woodland habitat and potential influence of weather patterns. Environ. Entomol. 23: 1215-1223. Duval, J.R., J.F. Price, G.J. Hochmuth, W. M. Stall, T.A. Kucharek, S.M. Olson, T.G. Yaylor, S.A. Smith, and E.H. Simonne. 2004. Strawberry Production in Florida. pp. 277-283 in: Extension Bulletin HS736 University of Florida/IFAS, Gainesville. 73

PAGE 85

74 Foott, W.H., and J.E. Hybsky. 1976. Capture of Glischrochilus quadrisignatus (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in bait ed traps. Can. Entomol. 108: 837-839. Fornazier, M.J. C.A. S. do Carmo, C.P. Teix eira, and E.B. Pereira. 1986. Finding of the strawberry borer Lobiopa insularis in the State of Espirito Santo. Comunicado Tecnico ENCAPA. 44: 3. Isaacs, R., R.J. Mercader, and J.C. Wise. 2004. Activity of conventional and reduced-risk insecticides for protec tion of grapevines against the rose chafer, Macrodactylus subspinosus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Appl. Entom. 128: 371-376. James, D.G, B. Vogele, F.J. Faulder, and C.J. Moore. 2000. Efficacy of multispecies pheromone lures for Carpophilus davidsoni Dobson and Carpophilus mutilatus Erichson (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Aust. J. Ent. 39: 83-85. James, D.G, C.J. Moore, R.J. Faulder, and V. Vogele. 1998. An improved coattractant for pheromone trapping of Carpophilus spp. (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Aust. J. Ent. 37: 357-361. James, D.G., R.J. Bartelt, and C.J. Moor e. 1996a. Trap design effect on capture of Carpophilus spp. (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae ) using synthetic aggregation pheromones and a coattractant. J. Econ. Entomol. 89: 648-653. James, D.G, R.J. Bartelt, and C.J. Moore. 1996b. Mass-trapping of Carpophilus spp. (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in stone frui t orchards using s ynthetic aggregation pheromones and a coattractant: deve lopmentof a strategy for population suppression. J. Chem. Ecol. 22: 1541-1556. Kehat, M.D., D. Blumberg, and S. Greenberg. 1976. Fruit drop and damage in dates: The role of Coccotrypes dactyliperda F. and nitidulid beetles, and prevention by mechanical measures. Phytoparasitica. 4: 93-99. Kyhl, J.F., R.J. Bartelt, A. Coss, J. Juzwik, and S.J. Seybold. 2002. Semiochemicalmediated flight responses of sap beetle vectors of oak wilt, Ceratocystis fagacearum J. Chem. Ecol. 28: 1527-1547. Liburd O. E. and E. M. Finn. 2004. Small fruit pests and their management. In : J. L. Capinera (ed.), Encyclopedia of En tomology. Vol. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Pages 2013-2029. Liburd, O.E., E.M. Finn, K.L. Pettit, and J. C. Wise. 2003. Response of blueberry maggot fly (Diptera:Tephritidae) to imidacloprid-tr eated spheres and selected insecticides. Can. Entomol. 135: 427-438. Lin, H. and P.L. Phelan. 1992. Comparison of volatiles from beetle-transmitted Ceratocystis fagacearum and four non-insect-dependent fungi. J. Chem. Ecol. 18: 1623-1632.

PAGE 86

75 Luckmann, W.H. 1963. Observations on the biology and control of Glischrochilus quadrisignatus. J. Econ. Ent. 56: 681-686. Lyons-Johnson, D. 1997. Sap Beetle has a Nematode Nemesis. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archiv e/apr97/ sapbeetle0497.htm July 2005. Maiensfisch, P.H. Huerlimann, A. Rindlis bacher, L. Gsell, H. Dettwiler, J. Haettenschwiler, E. Syeger, and M. Walti. 2001. The discovery of thiamethoxam: a second-generation neonicotinoid. Pest Management Science. 57: 165-176 Miller, K.V., and R.N. Williams.1982. Seasonal abundance of Stelidota geminata (Say) in selected habitats. J. Georgia Entomol. Soc. 17: 106-112. Mossler, M.A., and O.N. Nesheim. 2004. Strawberry pest management strategic plan (PMSP). pp. 1-16 in: Extension Bulletin CIR1443/P. University of Florida/IFAS, Gainesville. Mossler, M.A., and O.N. Nesheim. 2003. Fl orida crop/pest management profiles: strawberries. pp. 1-24 in: Ex tension Bulletin P1037. University of Florida/IFAS, Gainesville. Myers, L. 2001. Sap beetles (of Florida), Nitidulidae (Insects: Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). pp. 1-16 in: Extension Bulletin EENY-256. University of Florida/IFAS, Gainesville. Neumann, P. and P.J. Elzen. 2004. The biology of the small hive beetle ( Aethina tumida Coleoptera: Nitidulidae): gaps in our knowledge of an invasive species. Apidologie. 35: 229-247. Parsons C.T. 1943. A revision of Nearctic Ni tidulidae (Coleoptera). Bull. Comp. Zoo. 92: 121-248. Pena, J.E., A. Castineiras, R. Bartelt, and R. Duncan. 1999. Effect of pheromone baitstations for sap beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) on Annona spp. fruit set. Florida Entomologist 82: 475-480. Peng, C., and R.N. Williams. 1991. Effect of tr ap design, trap height, and habitat on the capture of sap beetles (Coleoptera: N itidulidae) using whole-wheat bread dough. J. Econ. Entomol. 84: 1515-1519. Peng, C. and R.N. Williams 1990. Pre-oviposit ion period, egg production and mortality of six species of hibernating sap beetles (C oleoptera: Nitulidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 25: 453-457. Phelan, L.P. and H. Lin. 1991. Identificati on of food volatiles at tractive to dusky sap beetle, Carpophilus lugbris (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 17: 12731285.

PAGE 87

76 Potter, M.A. 1995. The Nitidulidae (Coleoptera) associated with strawberry in eastern Hillsborough County, Florida. Thesis. Univ ersity of Florida, Department of Entomology and Nematology. 98 pp. Rhainds, M., and G. English-Loeb. 2002. Imp act of insecticide application and mass trapping on infestation by strawberry sa p beetles (Coleopter a: Nitidulidae). J.Entomol. Sci. 37: 300-307. Rondon, S.I., J.F. Price, and D.J. Cantliffe 2004. Sap beetle (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) management in strawberries. pp. 1-7 in: Extension Bulletin HS993. University of Florida/IFAS, Gainesville. Salgado, V.L. 1997. The modes of action of Spinosad and other insect control products. Down to Earth 52: 39-40. Torres, J.B., C.S.A. Silva-Torres, and J.V. de Oliveira. 2003. Toxicity of pymetrozineand thiamethoxam to Aphelinus gossypii and Delphastus pusillus Pesq. Agropec. Bras Brasilia. 38: 459-466. Warner, R.L., M.M. Barnes, and D.F. Lair d. 1990. Chemical control of a carob moth Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera :Pyralidae) a nd various nitidulid beetles (Coleoptera) on deglet noor dates in California USA. J. Econ. Ent. 83: 2357-2361. Weiss, M.J., and R.N. Williams.1980. So me host-parasite relationships of Microctonus nitidulidis and Stelidota geminata. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 73: 323-326. Wilkinson, T.K. 2002. Biological cont rol of obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple a nd pear orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 93:737-743. Williams, R.N., M.S. Ellis, and G. Keeney. 1994. A bait attractant study of the Nitidulidae (Coleoptera) at Shawnee state forest in sout hern Ohio. The Great Lakes Entomologist. 27: 229-234. Williams, R.N., D.S. Fickle, R.J. Bartelt, and P.F. Dowd. 1993. Responses by adult Nitidulidae (Coleoptera) to synthetic aggr egation pheromones, a coattractant, and effects of trap design and placement. Eur. J. Entomol. 90: 287-294. Williams, R.N., M.J. Weiss, K.V. Miller, and J.J. Werner. 1984. A summary of experiments for control of sap beetles which attack fruit crops. Research circularOhio Agricultural Research and Development Center. 283: 66-68. Zilkowski, B.W., R.J. Bartelt, D. Blum berg, D.G. James, and D.K. Weaver. 1999. Identification of host-related volatil es attractive to pineapple beetle Carpophilus humeralis J. Chem. Ecol. 25: 229-252.

PAGE 88

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Crystal Amber Kelts was born in Gaylord, Michigan, on October 21, 1980. She then moved to Florida with her family as a young child. She graduated from Melbourne Central Catholic High School, Melbourne, Florida, in May 1999. After graduation Crystal attended the University of Florida, where she earned her BS in entomology (with a minor in horticulture) in 2003. Immediately af ter graduation, Crystal decided to pursue her MS degree in entomology at the Universi ty of Florida in 2003. After completing her degree requirements, Crystal will be work ing as a biologist for Manatee County Mosquito Control District in Palmetto, Florida. 77


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0012062/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Attractants and Monitoring for Sap Beetle Control in Strawberries
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0012062:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0012062/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Attractants and Monitoring for Sap Beetle Control in Strawberries
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0012062:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












EVALUATION OF ATTRACTANTS AND MONITORING FOR SAP BEETLE
CONTROL IN STRAWBERRIES
















By

CRYSTAL A. KELTS


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Crystal A. Kelts

































This document is dedicated to my mother Shelly Colloredo















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my major professor, Dr. Oscar Liburd for recruiting me into the Small Fruit

and Vegetable IPM laboratory as a graduate assistant at the University of Florida. His

ongoing support, guidance, and friendship have enabled me to come this far. I am

thankful to the students and staff of the Small Fruit and Vegetable IPM Laboratory for

their assistance with the data collection and analysis of this research especially Alejandro

Arevalo and Elena Rhodes. I thank Dr. Baldwyn Torto for being a wonderful mentor and

for his devotion to my research and to me as a student. I thank the chemistry unit at the

USDA-CMAVE in Gainesville, FL, especially L.K. Sparks for their support and the use

of their equipment. I thank Dr. Robert Meagher for his critical review of this thesis. I am

grateful to Scott Taylor and the Plant Science Research and Education Unit for their help

in the design and maintenance of my research plots. I would also like to thank my

boyfriend John Snodgrass for being my motivation in completing this research. Also, I

thank my family and friends for their continual support and encouragement.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................................... ......... .............. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ ix

A B STR A C T ................................................. ..................................... .. x

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................6

S a p B e etle s....................................................... ................ .. 6
Sem iochem icals ................................................................ ... ... ...............
Relationship Between Sap Beetles, Fungi, and Volatile Constituents ..............6
Acquisition and Identification of Fungal Spores ...............................................8
Aggregation Pherom ones .................................. ......................................9
B io lo g y ...................................................... .......................... 9
L ife C y cle .............................................................................. 9
M o n ito rin g ......................................................................................................1 0
B a it s ...................................................................................................................... 1 0
C o n tro l ................................................................1 3
B io lo g ic a l ................................................................1 3
C u ltu ra l .......................................................................................................... 1 4
C h e m ic a l ........................................................................................................ 1 4

3 FIELD EFFICACY AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF HOST AND NON-
HOST VOLATILES ATTRACTIVE TO SAP BEETLE PESTS OF
S T R A W B E R R IE S ................................................................................................ 18

M materials an d M eth o d s ......................................................................................... 19
Field Site and Experiments ........................ ....................... ...............19
2004 tracking the movement of sap beetles ..................................... 20
2005 evaluation of attractants ............................... ............................ 21
Sap beetle response to attractants in harvested and un-harvested
straw b e rrie s ......................................................................................... 2 1









Statistical analyses.............. .... .............. .. ........... .. .............. 22
L laboratory E xperim ents ........................................................... .....................22
Rearing protocol .................. .......... .......... .. .... .. .. ................22
In o cu latio n .............................................................................................. 2 3
Treatm ent preparation ........................................................................... 24
V volatile collection and analysis......................................... ............... 24
Statistical an aly ses............ .... ........................................ ........ .... .......... 2 5
R results ..................................... ................... .. ............... ............... 25
2004 Tracking the Movement of Sap Beetles ............................................. 25
2005 Evaluation of Attractants...................................................................... 26
Harvested Versus Un-harvested Plots ...................................... ............... 26
V olatile Collection and A nalysis..................................... ......... ............... 27
D isc u ssio n ........................... ............................................................... ............... 2 7
Tracking the M ovem ent of Sap Beetles ................................... .................27
E valuation of A ttractants ................................................................ ............... 29
Harvested Versus Un-harvested Plots ...................................... ............... 30
V olatile Collection and A nalysis..................................... ......... ............... 30

4 ATTRACTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT STAGES OF STRAWBERRY FRUIT......45

M e th o d s ........................................................................... 4 6
In Situ Counts ................................. ............................... ....... 46
Statistical Analyses.............................................. .... ............ 46
V olatile Collection and A nalysis..................................... ......... ............... 47
Statistical A naly ses............ .... ........................................................ .... .... .... 47
R results ................................................................................................................ 4 8
In Situ Counts ................................. ............................... ....... 48
2004 ................................. .......................... .... .... ........ 48
2 00 5 ........................................4 8
V olatile Collection and A nalysis............................................... 49
D isc u ssio n ............................................................................................................. 5 0

5 EFFECTS OF REDUCED RISK AND CONVENTIONAL INSECTICIDES ON
SAP BEETLE PESTS OF STRAWBERRIES .................................... ....58

M materials an d M eth od s ......................................................................................... 59
Preparation of Sap Beetles for A ssay ...................................... ........... ....59
S a m p lin g .....................................................................................6 0
Statistical A naly sis ...........................................................60
R e su lts ...........................................................................................6 0
Lobiopa insularis .... .................................... .... ..............................60
L obiop a insularis m ales ....................................................... 61
Lobiopa insularis fem ales ............................... ............... 61
Field C collected Sap B eetles............................................... 62
D isc u ssio n ............................................................................................................. 6 2

6 SUM M ARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................... 69









L IST O F R E FE R EN C E S ........................................................................... .......... .......... 73

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ...................................................................... ..................77
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2004). .........38

3-2 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005). .........39

3-3 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005)
w eek s 1-4 ...........................................................................4 0

3-4 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005)
w eek s 5 -8 ...........................................................................4 1

3-5 Volatiles present in bait attractants. .............................................. ............... 42

4-1 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2004). .........52

4-2 Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005). .........53

4-3 Volatiles present in ripe, over-ripe, and dry strawberry fruit..............................54

5-1 Mean SEM rating of L. insularis males and females combined. ......................... 64

5-2 M ean + SEM rating of L. insularis males. .................................... .................65

5-3 Mean + SEM rating ofL. insularis females. ...................................................66
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

1-1 Sap Beetle. Lobiopa insularis (adult)...................................................................... 5

1-2 Strawberry plants, Citra, FL (2004). ........................................ ....... ............... 5

3-1 Sap beetle trap. ................................................................33

3-2 Trap containing treatment bag and water source..........................................33

3-3 Trap placed among strawberry plants. ........................................ ............... 33

3-4 M maintaining the colonies.......................................................................34

3-5 V olatile collection system .............................................. ............................. 35

3-6 Total number of sap beetles captured in a strawberry field, Citra, FL (2005). .......35

3-7 Percent of total sap beetles captured in a strawberry field, Citra, FL (2005)...........36

3-8 Mean SEM number of sap beetles in harvested and un-harvested plots of
straw berries, Citra, FL (2005). ...... ..................................................................... 36

3-9 Mean + SEM relative peak areas for bait treatments. ............. ............... 37

3-10 Mean + SEM relative peak areas for treatments 1 and 2............................. 37

5-1 Insecticide bioassay set-up. ...... ........................... ....................................... 68
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

EVALUATION OF ATTRACTANTS AND MONITORING FOR SAP BEETLE
CONTROL IN STRAWBERRIES

By

Crystal A. Kelts

December 2005

Chair: Oscar Liburd
Major Department: Entomology and Nematology

Sap beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) are important pests of strawberries in north-

central Florida. During 2004, field monitoring studies were conducted to track the

movement of sap beetles into strawberry fields. Treatments included 1) traps located on

the periphery of the field, 2) traps located between strawberry plots, and 3) traps located

within plots. Results showed that traps located on the periphery of the field captured

significantly more sap beetles than other treatments.

Additional studies were conducted in 2005 to evaluate attractants to be used in

traps for monitoring sap beetles. Treatments included traps baited with 1) pollen dough,

2) pollen dough fed on by larvae ofL. insularis, 3) ripe strawberries, 4) ripe strawberries

fed on by L. insularis, and 5) control (unbaited traps). Traps were also placed in

harvested and un-harvested plots to study sap beetle response in the different micro-

environments.









Results indicated that all treatments evaluated captured significantly more sap

beetles than control treatments. Furthermore, traps placed in un-harvested strawberry

plots captured significantly more sap beetles than traps placed in harvested plots.

In studies to examine sap beetle response to different stages of strawberries we

sampled sap beetles on 1) dried strawberries [on the ground], 2) ripe strawberries, 3)

over-ripe strawberries, and 4) ground litter. During both years over-ripe strawberries had

consistently more sap beetles than all other treatments.

Volatiles of dry, ripe, and over-ripe strawberries were collected separately and

analyzed using GC Mass Spectrometry. Volatile profiles of ripe and over-ripe

strawberries had significantly larger peak areas relative to internal standards. Further

studies showed that volatile profiles of strawberries and strawberries fed upon by L.

insularis also had significantly larger peak areas relative to internal standards.

Finally, we investigated reduced-risk chemical tactics for control of sap beetles.

Conventional and reduced-risk insecticides were evaluated in laboratory assays for their

effectiveness against sap beetles. Five treatments were investigated including one

conventional standard Malathion 5EC, two reduced-risk insecticides, spinosad (SpinTor

2SC) and thiamethoxam (Actara 25G), as well as imidacloprid (Provado 1.6 F), and

control [untreated plots]. Malathion consistently killed more sap beetles than any other

treatment. The results indicate that reduced-risk insecticides rarely kill sap beetles when

used to control other pests, which may account for recent increases in sap beetle

populations.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


Florida is the second largest producer of strawberries in the United States and

provides 15% of the total U.S. crop, and 100% of the domestically produced winter crop.

Approximately 95% of Florida's commercial production acreage is located in Manatee

and Hillsborough counties with the other 5% occurring in both north and south Florida.

Strawberry is one of the most expensive crops to produce. During the 1998-1999

strawberry season production costs averaged $17,000 per acre. Nevertheless, the Florida

strawberry industry is undergoing an increase in acreage and profits. In the past 15 years,

Florida has increased its acreage by 40% and income has increased by 300% (Mossler

and Nesheim 2003). During the 1999-2000-production season, 6178 acres of strawberries

were grown producing a profit exceeding $167 million.

Despite the recent surge in Florida's strawberry acreage and profits, production

trends may be threatened due to several key pests that cause significant damage in

strawberries. Sap beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) are one of several key pests

associated with strawberry production (Fig. 1-1). They are listed in the 2004 Florida

Crop Profile as a major pest of strawberries (Mossler and Nesheim 2004). Sap beetles

cause direct as well as indirect injury to fruit and can significantly reduce marketable

yields. Direct feeding causes large cavities in ripe and over-ripe fruit rendering it

unmarketable. Sap beetle damage to strawberry fruit can cause secondary infections by

plant pathogens. They vector mycotoxin-producing fungi that expedite the natural









fermentation process (Dowd 1994). Also, sap beetles leave the fruit vulnerable to other

pathogens such as botrytis fruit rot (gray mold), the most important strawberry disease in

Florida (Mossler and Nesheim 2003).

Sap beetles have a wide host range and feed on a variety of rotting fruits and

decaying plant matter (Myers 2001, Peng and Williams 1990). There are more than

2,500 species of nitidulids described and over half of the genera are cosmopolitan

(Rondon et al. 2004). Twenty-one genera have been reported in Florida. According to

Potter (1995), nine nitidulid species can be found on strawberry fruit in east Hillsborough

County including; Carpophilus freeman Dobson, C. fumatus Boheman, C. humeralis F.,

C. mutilatus Erichson, Colopterus insularis (Castelnau), Stelidota geminata (Say), S.

ferruginea Reitter, Haptoncus luteolus (Erichson), and Lobiopa insularis (Castelnau).

One important species of sap beetle found in Florida is the strawberry borer, L.

insularis. This beetle is distributed throughout the southeastern U.S. from Alabama and

Texas to Florida. Lobiopa insularis is one of the most abundant species of sap beetle

found in eastern Hillsborough County (Rondon et al. 2004). It can also be found

throughout Central America and the West Indies to Columbia and Brazil (Parsons 1943).

In Brazil, L. insularis has severely damaged up to 70% of strawberry plantings in some

areas (Fornazier et al. 1986).

Another important species is the strawberry sap beetle, S. geminata. This species

has been found to damage strawberries in Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Virginia, and

Maryland. In the past, estimated losses of strawberries in Michigan attributed to the

strawberry sap beetle exceeded $3 million (Miller and Williams 1982).









Florida strawberries are grown on raised beds with plastic mulch (Fig. 1-2). Winter

grown strawberries are characteristic of a relatively short growing season usually ranging

from late November to early April. The cost of labor, water supply, pesticide use, and

other inputs can be economically costly to growers. On average, growers harvest fruit 2-

3 times per week. Continual harvesting puts restrictions on pesticides since many have

re-entry periods longer than three days.

Standard production practices utilize large amounts of pesticides, including

organophosphate insecticides that are potentially harmful to the environment, people, and

non-target organisms found in the ecosystem. In Florida, several varieties of strawberries

are grown each year, including Camarosa, Carmine, Earlibrite, Gaviota, Oso Grande,

Strawberry Festival, Sweet Charlie, and Treasure (Duval et al. 2004). Transplants are

planted from late September to early November. Because of Florida's ideal environment

for insect, mite, disease, and nematode development, the use of clean transplants is

crucial to production. Transplants are often treated with fumigants such as methyl

bromide, and fungicides are applied continuously up to the point of harvest since fruit are

highly perishable.

The introduction of the 1996 Food Quality Production Act (FQPA) has targeted

many pesticides including organophosphates and carbamates to be phased out over a 10-

year period. One compound that is targeted to be phased out is methyl bromide. With

the phase out of methyl bromide and the high dependency on fungicides, there will be a

need for alternative methods of reducing pest and pathogen populations to tolerable

levels. An effective integrated pest management program may reduce sap beetle









populations, as well as the incidence of fungal pathogens allowing growers to rely less

heavily on pesticides.

Monitoring and trapping for sap beetles is an important tactic in an integrated pest

management program in strawberries. An effective trap design along with development

of attractive baits for sap beetles may be important in monitoring sap beetle populations,

consequently improving timing of control tactics.

Our hypothesis is that development of an effective trap and lure system and

improvements in sampling methods will improve detection of sap beetle populations in

strawberry fields. In addition, identification of reduced-risk insecticides will provide an

effective tool for controlling high populations of sap beetles without destroying important

natural enemies.

The development of cultural practices is important to provide farmers with

integrated pest management techniques that will reduce pest populations and will have a

positive impact on the environment.
















'a,,, -



*'irrt: Y. j.
S '





r A .r.. "



A :
... .

A ~ ;"


II


*~ r


.1w*


Figure 1-1. Sap Beetle. Lobiopa insularis (adult).


Figure 1-2. Strawberry plants, Citra, FL (2004).


...


* I;
.r.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

In developing an IPM program, it is crucial to know the biology, behavior, and

population dynamics of the pests involved. Without this background information it is

more difficult to interpret the data.

Sap Beetles

Habitats of sap beetles are relatively variable. Larvae of the subfamily Cateretinae

live in the seed capsules of various plants and adults feed on pollen and petals of the

same plants or others. Other subfamilies of sap beetles are saprophagous and

mycetophagous and feed on decaying fruits and on fermenting plant juices (Potter 1994).

Many sap beetles have a wide host range feeding on flowers, fruits, sap, fungi, stored

products, and fermenting tissue from many fruit and vegetable crops while others are

extremely host specific.

Semiochemicals

Relationship Between Sap Beetles, Fungi, and Volatile Constituents

Mycetophagous beetles vector fungi that are thought to expedite the fermentation

process and therefore attractiveness of the decaying fruit. Fungi increase the release of

volatiles common to fruit substrates by a combination of increased fruit-cell lysis and/or

fungal catabolism of fruit constituents that parallels the process of fruit ripening (Phelan

and Lin 1991, Lin and Phelan 1992). Zilkowski et al. (1999) studied the attractiveness of

oranges fed upon by C. humeralis (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in wind-tunnel bioassays and

found that oranges fed upon by either sex of the beetle were consistently more attractive









than volatiles from beetle-free oranges. The reason for the increase in attraction was not

very clear but it is was hypothesized that the oranges may have been inoculated with

fungi from the beetles. This study supported previous findings, which showed that fungal

inoculation of food substrates enhanced host location for two nitidulid species, C.

hemipterus F. and C. lugubris Murray (Blakmer and Phelan 1991).

Host and sap beetle associated fungal-induced volatile components have been

identified for many sap beetle species. For example, the sap beetle C. humeralis is

attracted to the volatiles released by the fungus Fusarium verticillioides (Saccardo)

(Bartelt and Wicklow 1999). Volatiles produced by the fungus included a blend of five

alcohols (ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-methyl-lpropanol, 3-methly-1 butanol, and 2-methyl-l-

butanol), acetaldehyde, and ethyl acetate. Four phenolics were produced along with

unidentified hydrocarbons and a ketone. These authors identified the attractive

components for the sap beetle to comprise primarily of alcohols, acetaldehyde, and ethyl

acetate, rather than phenolics, which were also present in the volatiles. Alternatively,

when C. humeralis feeds on oranges, the fungal-induced volatiles that elicit attraction

from conspecifics of the beetle are different from those released by F. verticillioides.

They comprise 2,5, diisopropylpyrazine, 2-phenylethanol and an unidentified product

(Zilkowski et al. 1999), suggesting that C. humeralis is a generalist insect.

Volatile profiles of insect dependent fungi have been found to contain many of the

same components as profiles of host volatiles. Sixteen components identified from the

headspace profile of the fungus Ceratocystisfagacearum (Bretz) have been found

previously in the odors from various food substrates, and eleven of the components tested

on a number of nitidulid species elicited attractive responses from some of the beetles.









The 16 components included one aldehyde acetaldehydee), one ketone ( 2- butanone),

five alcohols ( ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-methylpropanol, 3-methylbutanol, and 2-

methylbutanol) and nine esters ( methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, propyl

acetate, methyl butyrate, isobutyl acetate, methyl isovalerate, butyl acetate, and isopentyl

acetate), which were previously identified as common fruit constituents attractive to sap

beetles. They concluded that C. fagacearum attracts nitidulids by mimicking food odors

(Lin and Phelan 1992).

Acquisition and Identification of Fungal Spores

Mycetophagous sap beetles can acquire fungi by feeding on fungal spores or by the

fungus coming in contact with depressions on different sclerites of the body surface.

Fungal spores are then propagated through the alimentary canal of the sap beetle

suggesting that they can be dispersed through the insect's excrement. C. truncatus

Randall, the primary sap beetle vector of oak wilt pathogen, is attracted to oak wilt fungal

fruiting mats where it feeds, mates, and oviposits (Kyhl et al. 2002). The fungal

propagules are ingested and accumulate on cuticular surfaces of both the adults and

larvae.

Little work has been done on the identification of fungi vectored by sap beetle pests

of strawberries although fungi of other nitidulids have been identified. Species in the

genera Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Fusarium have been found in association with maize

sap beetles such as the corn sap beetle C. dimidiatus F. and the dusky sap beetle, C.

lugubris. Some species including C. lugubris and beetles in the genus Glischrochilus are

vectors of tree diseases such as oak wilt, C. fagacearum (Myers 2004).









Aggregation Pheromones

The importance of male-produced aggregation pheromones has been well

documented among the family Nitidulidae (Cosse and Bartelt 2000, Pena et al. 1999).

Sap beetle aggregation pheromones of a particular species have been found to attract

related species. In a study examining the structure, electrophysiology, and behavior of

the male-produced aggregation pheromone of C. truncatus, it was found that the

pheromone could be used as a cross attractant for other sap beetle species including C.

lugubris, C. antiquus Melsheimer, and C. brachypterus Say (Cosse and Bartelt 2000).

These pheromones may be important in the attraction of large numbers of sap beetles to a

particular strawberry field and may increase damage considerably.

Biology

Sap beetles are believed to overwinter as adults or pupae in woodlands on the

periphery of strawberry fields. As strawberries form on plants, sap beetles are able to

detect chemical cues that are emanated to the wooded periphery and surrounding areas

(Rhainds and English-Loeb 2002). Adults migrate from peripheries only when

temperatures reach 16C (67F) (Myers 2004). Rhainds and English-Loeb (2002) studied

the location of sap beetles within the field and recorded more sap beetles on fruit that was

on the ground compared with fruit in the canopy, suggesting differential suitability of

strawberry fruits as a food source for sap beetles (Rhainds and English-Loeb 2002).

Life Cycle

Although the life cycle varies for different species, it is possible to make some

generalizations for the family Nitidulidae. After females deposit eggs on rotting fruit it

takes approximately two to five days for eggs to hatch. After hatching, larvae feed on

available material. Sap beetles are characterized by three or four larval instars. The









entire larval period lasts approximately 1.5 weeks, after which larvae burrow into the

surrounding soil and pupate. For the dusky sap beetle, it takes approximately 28 to 30

days from egg deposition to adult emergence. Luckmann (1963) collected Glischrochilus

quadrisignatus (Say) adults from April through October and found that only females

collected in the spring had functional ovaries and produced eggs.

Most sap beetles exhibit two generations per year although in tropical climates,

multiple generations can occur if resources are available throughout the year (Myers

2004). Adults are characterized by a relatively long life span and can live for

approximately 2 to 2.5 months. This may explain the relatively wide host range of most

sap beeltes. A longer adult period allows sap beetles to adapt to several different types of

substrates (Myers 2004).

Monitoring

Monitoring is the 'cornerstone' for many IPM programs that allows for

heightened awareness of pest density. Regular monitoring allows the grower to predict

pest outbreaks, and gives sufficient time to implement management programs. This

ultimately reduces the need for harmful pesticides. For sap beetles, monitoring can be

performed by visual counts or with the use of baited traps (Foott and Hybsky 1976).

Baits

Baits have been shown to increase captures for sap beetles. Previous studies have

shown that whole wheat bread dough is effective in attracting nitidulids. Williams et al.

(1994) studied the efficacy of four trap baits for monitoring beetles, including whole

wheat bread dough, fermenting brown sugar, a mixture of fermenting malt/molasses, and

vinegar. Twenty species in nine different genera were collected and the majority showed

preference to baits in the following order although all baits proved to be attractive: wheat









dough, brown sugar, malt and molasses, and vinegar. Only a few species deviated from

this pattern.

Laboratory studies have shown that modified bread dough is an effective bait in

catching L. insularis and other sap beetles (B. Torto unpublished data). The dough

incorporates autoclaved bee-collected pollen, commercial pollen substitute, and honey.

The ingredients are intermixed and are allowed to harden to a dough-like consistency.

The effectiveness of food baits combined with male-produced aggregation

pheromone has also been well documented. Many sap beetles exhibit cross-attraction to

pheromones. However, beetles which are not attracted to the pheromone may be lured by

coattractants. Williams et al. (1993) showed that traps baited with pheromone and bread

dough caught at least five times more adult beetles than bread dough alone. In another

study involving the effectiveness of pheromone bait stations on the attraction of nitidulid

pollinators and subsequent fruit set of Annona spp., Pena et al. (1999) found that trees

containing traps with pheromones combined with host volatile odor produced more fruit

than did untreated trees. James et al. (1996b) studied the effect of pheromone baited

traps (with fermenting bread dough as a coattractant) on reducing Carpophilus spp. in

stone fruit orchards. They found that populations in ripe fruit were significantly reduced

compared with non pheromone baited traps.

James et al. (2000) found that multispecies pheromone lures for Carpophilus spp.

were effective as attractants in areas containing more than one damaging species of sap

beetles. Captures of C. davidsoni Dobson and C. mutilatus Erichson in traps baited with

aggregation pheromones (of both species or a three way lure that also included the









pheromone of C. hemipterus (L.)) were not significantly different from captures in traps

baited with conspecific pheromones (James et al. 2000).

Trap design and position also affect monitoring efficiency and overall trap captures.

In two separate experiments, Peng and Williams (1991) studied the effect of trap design

and height on captures of sap beetles. In the first experiment, nine different trap designs

were compared in an apple orchard where beetles were present. Traps were baited with

whole-wheat bread dough, and results showed that the Lindgren funnel trap (funnel-

shaped trap) was the most effective and the McPhail trap (glass invaginated trap) caught

the fewest beetles. In the second experiment, the number of beetles collected per trap

decreased as trap height increased. Also, trap height differed for the same species in two

different habitats suggesting that sap beetle presence varied with the nature of the habitat

(Peng and Williams 1991).

In a study investigating trap design and attractants, James et al. (1996a) found that

water-based funnel traps with aggregation pheromone and fermenting bread dough

caught 3-7 fold as many Carpophilus spp. beetles than wind-oriented pipe traps or dry

funnel traps. In another study comparing trap design Williams et al. (1993) studied the

effectiveness of three trap types including the wind-oriented pipe trap (T-shaped trap

made of PVC in which insects are collected in a plastic cup at the bottom of the pipe), the

Japanese beetle plastic trap and the nitidulid inventory technique trap (consisting of a

canning jar with a plastic cone inserted in the mouth of the jar) and found that the

nitidulid inventory trap was the most effective (Williams et al. 1993).

Although several different trap types and pheromones have been found to be

effective against sap beetles, many of these experimental traps and pheromones are not









commercially available. In a study comparing commercial and experimental traps with

pheromones, Dowd (2005) found that commercial traps and pheromones were as

effective as experimental counterparts.

Sap beetles over-winter in woodland peripheries; therefore, the use of mass

trapping may be effective at disrupting the migration of adults from woodland and

surrounding areas to strawberry fields when fruits begin to ripen (Rhainds and English-

Loeb 2002). Rhainds and English-Loeb (2002) placed traps baited with bread dough in

the center of strawberry rows and on the periphery, and recorded similar captures of

beetles early in the season from both locations. However, captures of sap beetles were

highest in peripheral traps after strawberry fruits began to ripen. Traps placed at the

periphery of the strawberry field captured many adults but did not reduce infestation of

fruits by larvae in the field, indicating that mass trapping of adults with food baited traps

is not a viable management strategy but may be used for monitoring purposes (Rhainds

and English-Loeb 2002).

Control

Sap beetle population control in strawberries includes biological, cultural, and

chemical management strategies that when used together make up an effective integrated

pest management program for strawberries.

Biological

A few parasitic wasps have been found to effectively parasitize sap beetles in the

family Nitidulidae. In laboratory assays, Weiss and Williams (1980) explored host-

parasite relationships of an endoparasitic wasp, Microctonus nitidulidis Loan

(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and the strawberry sap beetle, S. geminata. Strawberry sap

beetle egg production was greatly reduced by parasitism, while fertility of beetle males









was not affected. High rates of parasitism reduced oviposition rates by 2/3 suggesting

that M nitidulidis may be a promising biocontrol agent for sap beetle management that

needs to be further explored. Other parasitic wasps include Brachyserphus abruptus

(Say), M. nitidulidis, and Zeteticontus insularis (Howard). Z insularis can successfully

parasitize the sap beetle L. insularis, which is a common pest of strawberries in Florida

(Coler et al. 1986).

A new species of nematode may be a promising biological control agent for sap

beetles. Psammomermis nitiduesis was found in 80 percent of the sap beetles taken from

a field in Peoria, Illinois in early spring (Lyons-Johnson 1997). Subsequently, biological

control involving nematodes may be a plausible strategy in the future.

Although biological control for sap beetles is a promising component of an IPM

program, there are no biological control agents commercially available at this time.

Cultural

The most important cultural strategy for managing sap beetle damage in

strawberries is to harvest all fruit as soon as they are mature. Another management tactic

is dropping ripe and fermenting fruits into center rows where they decay and allow

beetles to complete their life cycle (Mossler and Nesheim 2004). This strategy works

well when populations of sap beetles are relatively low but it is ineffective when

populations have surpassed a threshold density.

Chemical

Currently, five insecticides are used to control sap beetles although several other

classes of insecticide are labeled for use in strawberries. These include bifenthrin

(Capture 2E), diazinon, pyrethrins, carbaryl (Sevin), and Malathion (Mossler and

Nesheim 2004). Malathion has been the standard material of choice for control of sap









beetles and has been used successfully in commercial fields for several years. However,

sap beetle resistance to Malathion may be on the rise (Williams et al. 1984). Kehat et al.

(1976) reported that stronger concentrations of Malathion were necessary for moderate

control. Applying more than the recommended rate of organophosphate insecticides is

especially detrimental to non-target organisms. Therefore, it is important to find less

harmful insecticides to control this pest.

In another study, Dowd et al. (2000) compared the efficacy of two conventional

compounds aerially applied for the control of sap beetles in high amylose corn. Results

showed that Malathion granules can be as effective as commercial formulations in

controlling sap beetles. Numbers of beneficial coccinellid beetles and predators were

significantly higher after treatment with Malathion granules compared with chlorpyrifos

granules. Low levels of active ingredients and low toxicity of Malathion granules

provides environmental advantages over commercial formulations of other insecticides

(Dowd et al. 2000).

Rhainds and English-Loeb (2002) studied the impact of insecticide application on

infestation of strawberry sap beetles. Five treatments were evaluated but they found that

treatments with fenpropathrin reduced larval infestation but did not affect the capture of

adults in food-baited traps. Results also indicated that insecticide treatment reduced

larval infestation for fruits on the ground when compared with infestation in the plant

canopy, suggesting that the dense leaf cover of strawberry plants may prevent insecticide

from reaching the ground.

Several new classes of insecticides have been registered for use in small fruit crops.

With the potential loss and/or restriction of organophosphate insecticides through the









1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), there is an increasing need to expand the

spectrum of control for these newer insecticides to cover as many pests as possible.

Three relatively new insecticides include: 1) imidacloprid, Provado 1.6 F (Bayer

Cropscience Kansas City, MO), 2) thiamethoxam, Actara 25 WG (Syngenta Crop

Protection Wilmington, DE) and 3) spinosad, SpinTor 2SC (Dow, Agrosciences, Carmel,

IN). These insecticides are effective in controlling a broad range of insects in a wide

variety of crops giving them the potential to replace many conventional chemicals.

Thiamethoxam and spinosad are classified as reduced risk and may conserve natural

enemies that regulate other key pests in the strawberry ecosystem.

Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid in the chloronicotinyl subclass. It provides

protection to a broad range of crops and suppresses damage of sucking insect pests. It is

effective against many insects that are resistant to commercially used insecticides and

provides immediate and residual control on contact and systemically through the plant.

The short duration of residue on the leaf surface results in low activity of this insecticide

on parasitoid natural enemies (Wilkinson 2002).

Thiamehoxam is a second-generation neonicotinoid compound with stomach and

contact activity. It belongs to the subclass thianicotinyl of the neonicotinoid insecticides,

which interferes with the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the insect nervous system

(Maiensfisch et al. 2001). As a foliar, soil application, or as seed treatment, it has strong

systemic and translaminar activity that allows it to kill insects on the underside of leaves.

It can be used on several plants for a broad range of commercially important sucking

pests and chewing pests such as beetles and lepidopteran larvae (Torres et al. 2003).









Spinosad is a broad-spectrum insecticide used in a variety of crops. Its new mode

of action allows for low human toxicity. It is very compatible with IPM and resistance

management programs. It is derived from the actinomycete Saccharopolyspora spinosa

and acts in conjunction with the neurotransmitter acetylcholine to prolong insect neural

responses, which are often witnessed as twitching and paralysis (Salgado 1997).

Although there is sufficient information on the interaction of sap beetles and host

and non-host volatile compounds and their chemical compositions for many species,

there is not much information available on those sap beetles that are pests of strawberry

crops in Florida. These gaps will now be investigated in this thesis.














CHAPTER 3
FIELD EFFICACY AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF HOST AND NON-HOST
VOLATILES ATTRACTIVE TO SAP BEETLE PESTS OF STRAWBERRIES

Strawberries are an important high value crop in Florida. The state is the second

largest producer of strawberries in the nation with over 6,178 acres and an annual profit

exceeding $168 million. Currently, several key arthropod pests threaten strawberry

production. These include twospotted spider mites and sap beetles. Biological control

programs are currently being developed for twospotted spider mites. In this chapter, our

aim is to investigate the potential to monitor sap beetles using host and non-host volatile

attractants. In addition, a subsequent objective is to gain a better understanding of sap

beetle ecology in strawberries. Sap beetles cause direct and indirect damage to strawberry

fruit (Liburd and Finn 2004).

Currently, production practices utilize large amounts of pesticides including

organophosphates to control sap beetles and other key pests. This practice has been

effective for some time; however increasing pressure from environmentalists and the

general public coupled with the development of resistance against "mainstay"

organophosphate insecticides have resulted in new research initiatives to investigate

potential alternatives to broad-spectrum insecticides.

Some studies have successfully used baited traps to capture and monitor sap beetle

adults (Foot and Hybsky 1976). However, there is still conflicting information on

whether trapping is an effective management tool to control sap beetles. Studies have

suggested that baited traps may increase the number of sap beetles in the production









system (Rhainds and English-Loeb 2002), while others have shown that mass trapping

may be an effective control measure for sap beetle pests (Foot and Hybsky 1976). A

better understanding of sap beetle responses to baited traps is essential to develop

effective management strategies to control this pest.

A few host and non-host volatiles for sap beetle pests have been identified.

Volatile components varied among species and host; however, general components and

blends that are attractive to sap beetles include alcohols, esters, and acids. Although

some of these volatiles have been identified, little research has been conducted on host

and non-host volatile attractiveness to sap beetles of strawberries in Florida.

Determination of bait attractiveness in the field as well as identification of attractive

components of these baits is important when developing an effective monitoring system

for sap beetle control in strawberries.

Specific objectives for this research were to compare the attractiveness of host and

non-host baits in the field, as well as to investigate trapping location within the field and

in adjacent woodland areas. Differences in sap beetle captures among baits inoculated

with a fungus of sap beetles were compared with aseptic baits. Finally, a comparison of

the chemical components of these baits was made to identify candidate attractants.

Materials and Methods

Field Site and Experiments

Field research was conducted at the University of Florida, Plant Science Research

and Education Unit located in Citra, Florida. Strawberries, Fragaria x aananssa

Duschene., cv. 'Strawberry Festival' were planted on raised beds. Research was

conducted in two fields each consisting of 24 plots in 2004, and 28 plots in 2005. Each









plot contained six rows of strawberry plants spaced approximately 0.3 m apart. Plots

measured 7.3 X 6.1 m with a buffer of 7.3 m between plots.

Two types of field experiments were conducted. An initial experiment was

designed to track the movement of sap beetles into strawberry fields and a second

experiment was designed to evaluate attractants (host and non-host compounds).

2004 tracking the movement of sap beetles

This experiment was conducted early in the field season (1/26/04-2/23/04) when

strawberry fruit were beginning to ripen and fermented fruits were absent from the field.

The trap used to track the movement of sap beetles was designed based on a model from

the USDA-ARS laboratory in Gainesville, Florida. The trap consisted of two white 1.0 L

plastic buckets (one inside of the other) with the bottom cut out of the inner bucket (Fig.

3-1). Two windows approximately 10.2 x 5.1 cm were cut on each side of the trap and

fitted with an aluminum wire mesh to allow sap beetles to enter. The inside of each trap

contained a wire mesh funnel approximately 14 cm in diameter, which directs sap beetles

to the bait and keeps larger organisms from entering into the trap. A string was glued to

the trap to allow for hanging and a plastic top was placed on the trap to keep water from

entering. Holes were created at the bottom of the outer bucket to allow for drainage.

Each trap was baited with a pollen dough mixture (B. Torto unpublished data) that

has been shown to attract sap beetles in previous studies. Approximately 80 g of pollen

dough was placed inside a cotton stockinette and tied off with rubber bands on each end.

The stockinette containing pollen dough was placed inside the trap (Fig. 3-2). A water

source (15 ml of deionized water) was also provided in small plastic vials with a 1-cm

hole punched through the snap cap. Cotton dental gauze (Richmond Dental, Charlotte,









NC) was placed through the hole of the cap into the water source. Baits and water

sources were changed weekly.

Treatments for this experiment included: 1) traps located on the periphery of the

field [0.2 m from the woods], 2) traps located between strawberry plots, and 3) traps

located within plots. Treatments were replicated three times and were set up in a

completely randomized block design. Traps were placed at least 30.5 m apart and were

anchored inside the soil. Traps were checked weekly for the presence of sap beetles.

Total sap beetle numbers were recorded and sap beetle adults were identified at the

Department of Plant Industry in Gainesville, Florida.

2005 evaluation of attractants

Experiments to evaluate attractants were conducted from early February through

March 2005. Experiments consisted of four treatments that included traps baited with 1)

pollen dough, 2) pollen dough fed upon by larvae ofL. insularis, 3) ripe strawberries, 4)

ripe strawberries fed upon by L. insularis, and 5) control (unbaited traps). Treatments

were arranged in a completely randomized block design among strawberry plants and

were replicated 4 times (Fig. 3-3). Traps identical to those used in 2004 were used in this

study. Also, traps were baited by placing the bait into a cotton stockinette as described

above. Water was provided as described above. Baits and water sources were changed

weekly. Traps were checked weekly and the number of sap beetles was counted and

recorded for eight weeks during the growing season.

Sap beetle response to attractants in harvested and un-harvested strawberries

After four weeks traps containing the most attractive treatment (pollen dough fed

upon by larvae of L. insularis) were placed in harvested and un-harvested strawberry









plots. Trap catches from harvested plots were compared with un-harvested plots to track

sap beetle response.

Statistical analyses

All data from sap beetle field counts were analyzed by repeated measures Analysis

of Variance using the SAS GLM procedure. All data were square-root transformed to

stabilize variances, and means separated with least significant differences (TUKEY)

a = 0.05 (SAS Institute Inc. 2002). Data reported in the tables and figures represented

untransformed means + standard errors.

Laboratory Experiments

Rearing protocol

Since sap beetles propagate fungi, field-collected larvae or adults (already exposed

to fungi) can be used to inoculate substrates through feeding. Adults of L. insularis were

collected from traps near bee hives in High Springs, FL. A colony was reared for

inoculation purposes and was kept in an insect growth chamber at 26.70 C with 14:10

L:D and 70% RH (Fig. 3-4A). All stages of the insect were fed on a mixture of fresh

strawberries and pollen dough. A water source was also provided using a small plastic

vial with a hole punched through the cap. Cotton dental gauze was placed through the

hole and deionized water was added to the container. Adults were kept separate in mason

jars. Eggs were laid on wax paper (Fig. 3-4B) and were removed every two days. Eggs

were then placed in larval containers with food and water (Fig 3-4C) When larvae

reached the 'wandering stage' they were set onto autoclaved soil. One hundred to 300

larvae were placed in rearing boxes containing autoclaved soil (Fig 3-4D) (approximately

9% moisture), a food source, and a water source. At the end of the pupal stage, they were

harvested from soil and sexed (Fig. 3-4E). Fifty to 75 insects were placed in Petri dishes









lined with filter paper. A small piece of dental gauze, moistened with deionized water,

was taped to the top of the Petri dish to provide moisture (Fig. 3-4F). After adults

closed they were placed in mason jars. Virgin males and females were sexed using

standard procedures based on their abdominal tip characters.

Inoculation

Approximately 1,500 larvae of L. insularis approximately one day old were used

for fermentation of pollen dough and strawberries. Buckets were filled with

approximately 6 L of each treatment. Two buckets containing 6L of pollen dough and 2

buckets containing 6 L of strawberries were used. The weight of the bucket of pollen

dough and strawberries was determined prior to inoculation (strawberry 2.3kg, pollen

dough -6.4 kg). Strawberries were cut in quarters to maximize surface areas exposed to

fermentation and leaves were removed from fruit. The contents of each bucket to be

fermented were divided in half and spread around the bottom of a 22-gallon Rubbermaid

container with a screened top. A water source was provided only in pollen dough

containers. This water source was not needed in strawberry containers. All containers

were then placed in a growth chamber maintained at 260C and 90% RH.

Larvae were used for fermentation instead of adults because of their ability to swim

and move through the substrate. Twenty-four hours after inoculating treatments with

larvae, aluminum foil with six holes punched with a paper clip was placed under the lid

of each container to provide darkness and allow for maximum fermentation. Pollen

dough was sprayed with 5 mL of distilled water. Larvae were allowed to feed for one

week and then they were removed from the substrate.









Treatment preparation

Bait bags were then prepared with one ice cream scoop of treatment that was placed

into the cotton stockinette and tied off with rubber bands. Each bag weighed

approximately 50-80 g. Treatment bags were prepared and frozen at -68 C) until used

for the field trapping experiments. The frozen treatments were removed to thaw

overnight before use. Control traps contained only a water source, 15 ml in a vial.

Volatile collection and analysis

Volatiles were collected and analyzed using equipment located at the USDA-ARS

CMAVE in Gainesville, Florida (Fig. 3-5). Volatiles were collected from the same

attractants evaluated in the field and analyzed. Treatments included: 1) pollen dough, 2)

pollen dough fed upon by larvae ofL. insularis, 3) ripe strawberries, 4) ripe strawberries

fed upon by L. insularis, and 5) control. Each treatment was replicated three times.

Treatment bags (as described above) were placed into quick-fit glass chambers (30-cm-

long x 3-cm-OD). Volatiles were collected on Super Q filters by pulling charcoal-filtered

and humidified air through the traps at 500 ml/min for 2 h. Each filter was eluted with

250pl of GC/GC-MS-grade dichloromethane (Burdick and Jackson, Muskegon, MI), and

the eluents stored at -68 C prior to analysis by coupled gas chromatography (GC)-mass

spectrometry (MS). This was done on a HP-6890 GC coupled to a HP5973 mass

spectrometer (Electron impact mode, 70eV, Agilent, Palo Alto) equipped with a HP-1

column (30 m x 0.25 mm ID x 0.25 [pm, J & W Scientific, Folsom, CA). The volatiles

from pollen dough fed upon by a field-collected sap beetle were also analyzed for

comparison. For the analysis, 40 ng of octane and 80 ng of nonyl acetate were added to

40 [tl of each volatile extract and 1 jl was analyzed. Peak areas of the components were









integrated and the total areas of volatiles analyzed compared with that of the internal

standards. The components in the volatiles were identified by comparing their mass

spectral data with those in the library (NIST, 98K) of the mass spectrometer.

Statistical analyses

All data from the volatile collections were analyzed by repeated measures Analysis

of Variance using the SAS GLM procedure. All data were log (x+1)-transformed to

stabilize variances, and means separated with least significant differences (TUKEY)

a = 0.05 (SAS Institute Inc. 2002). Data reported in the tables and figures represent

untransformed means standard errors.

Results

2004 Tracking the Movement of Sap Beetles

For the first three weeks there were no significant differences among treatments. In

week 4 there were significant differences among all the treatments evaluated. Traps

located on the periphery (near the woods) captured the highest number of sap beetles

(Table 3-1 and Fig. 3-6). This treatment was significantly different from all other

treatments that consisted of traps located within the plots and between the plots (F = 36.5;

df = 2:4; P = 0.0027). Traps located within rows also captured significantly more sap

beetles than traps located between plots. Throughout the trapping period (1/26/04-

2/27/04) traps located on the periphery (near the woods) captured significantly more

beetles than other treatments (F = 5.8; df = 2:28; P = 0.0081) [Table 3-1]. Overall, traps

on the periphery captured 5-fold more beetles than any other treatment.

Among the sap beetles captured, Urophorus humeralis (F.) was the most

dominant species 30% of the beetles caught. Other species captured include,









Colopterus truncatus (Randall), Epuraea luteolus (Erichson), Cryptarcha ampla Erichson

and Carpophilus sp.

2005 Evaluation of Attractants

Throughout the trapping period (2/9/05-3/30/05) all of the treatments evaluated

captured significantly more sap beetles than the control (F = 9.8; df= 4:145; P < 0.0001)

[Table 3-2]. There were no significant differences in captures among the different types

of bait used for the overall trapping period. Sap beetle capture varied among weeks (Fig.

3-7). During the first week, traps baited with ripe strawberries captured significantly

more sap beetles than other treatments (F = 27.9; df = 4:12; P < 0.001) [Table 3-3].

During week 2, traps baited with ripe strawberries and ripe strawberries fed upon by L.

insularis captured significantly more sap beetles than the control (F = 5.7; df= 4:12; P=

0.009). During week 4 traps baited with strawberry fed upon by L. insularis larvae were

weakly attractive (F = 3.0; df= 4:12; P = 0.0618). During weeks 3, 5 and 7 none of the

treatments were significantly different. During week 6 there were no significant

differences in the captures of sap beetles between baited traps. However, baited traps

captured significantly more sap beetles than the control (F = 11.2; df = 4:12; P = 0.0005).

During week 8, traps baited with pollen dough captured significantly more sap beetles

than strawberries fed upon by L. insularis, fresh strawberries, and the control (F = 14.3;

df = 3:12; P = 0.0002) [Table 3-4]. There were no significant differences between

strawberries fed upon by L. insularis, ripe strawberries, and the control.

Harvested Versus Un-harvested Plots

Traps placed in un-harvested strawberries and baited with pollen dough captured

2.2-times more sap beetles than those placed in plots that were harvested weekly.









Overall, these traps captured significantly more sap beetles than traps placed in harvested

plots (F= 4.5; df = 3:24; P = 0.04) [Figure 3-8].

Volatile Collection and Analysis

Overall, the total areas of the volatile profiles of baits that contained strawberries

either fed upon or not by L. insularis were higher than that of the control treatment (F=

4.4; df = 4:8; P = 0.0355) [Fig 3-9]. There were no significant differences in the peak

areas of volatiles between other treatments evaluated.

GC-MS identified components in the volatiles of the attractive treatments as mainly

alcohols, fatty acids and esters (Table 3-5). Additionally, aldehydes, ketones,

hydrocarbons, terpenoids, and nitrogenous and sulfur derivatives were present in these

volatiles. Overall, the compositions of the volatiles released by the baits fed upon by L.

insularis were compositionally richer than those that were released by the baits not fed

upon by the sap beetle (Table 3-5). Forty-one components were identified in the volatiles

from the pollen dough fed upon by L. insularis, 32 components were identified in the

volatiles released by the pollen dough only. Similarly, 47 components were identified in

the volatiles of strawberries fed upon by the beetle, while 44 components were identified

in the volatiles of the ripe strawberries. From the volatiles of pollen dough fed upon by

the field collected sap beetle, 35 components were identified.

Discussion

Tracking the Movement of Sap Beetles

During the 2003-2004 field season, results from trap catches showed that traps near

the woods, along the periphery of the strawberry field caught more sap beetles compared

with other treatments. These results are consistent with those obtained by Rhainds and

English-Loeb (2002) who reported larger numbers of sap beetles in traps along the border









of the field compared with traps within the field. Since sap beetles are believed to over-

winter in wooded peripheries, it is possible that traps placed adjacent to wooded areas

may intercept over-wintering sap beetles moving into strawberry fields. Therefore, it is

possible that traps located on the periphery of the fields near the woods may be effective

in reducing sap beetle populations by disrupting migration to strawberry fields.

During weeks 1-3 there were no significant differences among the number of sap

beetles caught in different locations. However, in week 4 baited traps placed by the

woods caught significantly more sap beetles than other treatments. These results suggest

that there is a positive interaction between timing and trap location. Sap beetles are

probably responding to increases in the concentration or the amount of host volatile as the

strawberries mature. Rhainds and English-Loeb (2002) showed similar results in which

traps located on the border of strawberry fields and within strawberry fields captured

similar numbers of sap beetles early in the season but were highest in border traps once

the fruit began to ripen. Low overall captures early in the season suggest that beetles do

not inhabit strawberry fields before fruit begin to ripen. This may be because fruit

fermentation odors are not strong enough early in the season to elicit sap beetle migration

from wooded areas.

Five different species of nitidulids were recorded from trap catches. The dominant

species was U. humeralis. Our findings were different to those of Potter (1995) who

recorded 9 different species. Differences in locality (Hillsborough County, versus

Marion County, Potter 1995), may account for our findings. The only species we found

that Potter (1995) recorded was Carpophilis spp.









Evaluation of Attractants

Overall, all treatments evaluated during the 2004-2005 field season were more

effective in capturing sap beetles than the control. However, there were no differences in

trap captures among other treatments. Blackmer and Phelan (1995) found similar results

when three out of four predominant sap beetle species were attracted to all baits tested.

In their study, they found minimal preference among baits including: strawberry, banana,

tomato, maize, and whole wheat bread dough. Weekly data were inconsistent throughout

the trapping period. Traps containing strawberries captured more sap beetles in week 1

than any other treatment while traps baited with pollen dough fed upon by L. insularis

caught the most sap beetles in week 8.

As in the 2003-2004 field season, phenology seems to play an important role in

attractant choice. During the first week of trapping, ripe and fermenting fruits were

unavailable and traps containing strawberries captured most of the sap beetles. It is

possible that when the fruit began to ripen the beetles were more attracted to their natural

host. These results are consistent with Blackmer and Phelan (1995) who found that when

maize kernels were full, attraction to maize baits virtually ended in three out of four

cases.

Although there were no significant differences in the attractiveness of the

different lures, it is possible that the lure prepared from pollen dough may be more

suitable for use in the field since the presence of honey slows the decomposition process

which may prolong the release of attractants for a longer period than the fresh fruit.

Although previous data had suggested that hosts fed upon by sap beetles were

more attractive than treatments that were not fed upon (Zilkowski et al. 1999, and Bartelt

and Wicklow 1999), the attractiveness of the different treatments fed upon by L. insularis









to sap beetles did not differ significantly from those of aseptic treatments in the field. It

is possible that treatments, which were fed upon fermented too quickly and did not last

very long in the field. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that different species

of sap beetles may prefer different stages of host and non-host fermentation. There were

no significant differences in attractiveness of pollen dough fed upon by L. insularis

(colony reared) or that of the field collected sap beetle suggesting that if baits were to be

inoculated either source of sap beetles could be used.

Harvested Versus Un-harvested Plots

Un-harvested plots had consistently more sap beetles than harvested plots. These

results were expected since un-harvested plots contained more fermenting fruits (an

abundance of host volatiles) and many sap beetles are attracted to fermenting plant juices

(Potter 1994).

Volatile Collection and Analysis

The composition of volatiles of treatments fed upon by L. insularis and the field

collected sap beetle were different from the volatiles of the treatments without the

beetles. They differed both in quantity and quality. Generally, a larger number of esters

were released in the volatiles of the treatments fed upon by the beetles compared with

asceptic counterparts. Clearly, the major difference between the volatiles released by the

pollen dough treatments was the presence of fermentation-related products, including 3-

and 2-methyl-1-butanol and fatty acids in the volatiles of pollen dough fed upon by the

different sap beetles.

Many of the same components or classes of compounds found in our study have

been found to be attractive to nitidulids in previous studies including alcohols, ketones,

esters, hydrocarbons, and nitrogenous compounds (Chapter 2). 3- and 2-methyl-l-









butanol were found in our analysis in treatments fed upon by larvae ofL. insularis and

the field-collected sap beetle, as well as ripe strawberries but not in pollen dough

treatments. These same components were found in volatile profiles of the fungi C.

fagacearum andF. verticillioides (Lin and Phelan 1992, Zilkowski et al. 1999). This

implies that our treatments containing these compounds may have been inoculated by a

fungus. Also, it is possible that ripe strawberries were inoculated by beetles in the field

before they were collected for analysis.

Our hypothesis was that treatments inoculated via feeding by L. insularis would

have larger profile areas and thus be more attractive in baited traps. However, the results

showed that this appeared not to be the case. We cannot rule out the possibility that fresh

strawberries taken from the field could have been previously inoculated by field insects

causing the release of volatiles which might have contributed to the overall profile area.

Also, all the baits were prepared at the beginning of the season and then frozen. Baits

were thawed weekly which could have expedited the fermentation process. This is

especially the case with the strawberry treatments since the fruit is more prone to

fermentation than pollen dough. Also, strawberries and strawberries fed upon had larger

quantities of fatty acids, alcohols, and esters that could serve as the candidate attractants

in the bait treatments, consistent with previous results obtained for other sap beetles

(Bartelt and Wicklow 1999).

Also, timing of volatile release from bait treatments may have played a role in bait

attractiveness. Baits were changed weekly, however there may have been differences in

volatile release among bait treatments. For example, since pollen dough treatments

contain honey, which slows down the fermentation process release of volatiles may have









been prolonged in these treatments while volatile release of strawberry treatments may

have occurred within just a few days after placement in the field. Less frequent

replacement of baits may be important in ascessing the effectiveness of attractants so that

volatiles from all attractants are released before renewal. James et al. (1998) found that

renewing multispecies pheromone lures every 2 weeks instead of weekly is an effective

method of trapping for sap beetles.

In summary, there were no significant differences overall in the attractiveness

among bait treatments in the field. However, all treatments were significantly different

from the control and therefore may have potential for development for use in strawberry

pest management programs for sap beetles. Additionally, since significant differences

among treatments were inconsistent weekly, phenology including fruit development,

geography, and weather conditions may be important in bait selection and placement.

Volatile analysis showed that many of the same components found to be attractive to sap

beetles in previous studies were present in bait attractants.























Figure 3-1. Sap beetle trap used in experiments to evaluate tracking and movement of sap
beetles and evaluation of attractants.


Figure 3-2. Trap containing treatment bag and water source.


Figure 3-3. Trap placed among strawberry plants.
















































E


Figure 3-4. Maintaining the colonies. A) sap beetle colonies, B) mason jar with wax
paper egg collectors, C) larval rearing container, D) autoclaved soil, E)
separation of pupae from soil, and F) sexed pupae in Petri dishes.


id

































Figure 3-5. Volatile collection system used for volatile collection and analysis of bait
treatments.




120

100 -

80 /
/ Woods
60 -M-Plots
/ Rows


0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
(D CD C (N (N
(NOON


Figure 3-6. Total number of sap beetles captured in a strawberry field, Citra, FL (2005).

































. Percent of total sap beetles captured in a strawberry field, Citra, FL (2005).
(T1 = pollen dough, T2 = pollen dough fed upon by larvae ofL. insularis, T3
= ripe strawberries, T4 = ripe strawberries fed upon by larvae ofL. insularis,
and T5 = control)


Harvested


Unharvested


Figure 3-8. Mean + SEM number of sap beetles in harvested and un-harvested plots of
strawberries, Citra, FL (2005).


100
90 -
890 -
S 80
2 70 T1
60 T2
50 c T3
S40 o T4

20
10
a. 20 -

210
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Figure 3-7






16

n 14

S12

S10
0 8

S6

S4

2
I-


a





a


-














60


ca 50
5

c 40
3o0
c.
0 30
4-

S20


I 10


0






Figure 3-9


-


-


-


-


-


-


-


. Mean SEM relative peak areas for bait treatments. Mean peak areas were
calculated relative to internal standards octane and nonyl acetate. Means
followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY
test).


Figure 3-10. Mean + SEM relative peak areas for treatments 1 and 2. Mean areas were
calculated relative to areas of internal standards octane and nonyl acetate. (T
= pollen dough fed on by larvae ofLobiopa insularis and T2 = pollen dough
fed on by larvae of a field collected sap beetle).


Pollen dough Pollen dough fed Straw berry Straw berry fed Control
upon upon






38


Table 3-1. Mean + SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2004).



Treatments Total
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 a
Captures
Woods,
Periphery 2.0 1.2 27.0 17.6 0.3 0.3 33.3 4.4 a 15.7 5.9 a


Between Plots 0.0 0.0 7.0 3.6 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.6 b 2.9 + 1.1 b

Within Plots 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 1.0 + 0.6 13.3 1.8 c 3.6 1.8 b

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY test)











Table 3-2. Mean + SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005).


Treatments


Total Captures


Pollen Dough

Pollen Dough fed
upon by L. insularis
larvae

Strawberry

Strawberry fed upon
by L. insularis larvae

Control


Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY test)


5.6 1.3 a


9.5 2.3 a


14.1 4.5 a


5.8 1.3 a

0.0 0.0 b







40


Table 3-3. Mean + SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005)
weeks 1-4.


Treatments Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Pollen Dough 0.0 0.0 b 1.0 1.0 ab 8.2 + 4.6

Pollen Dough fed
upon by L. insularis 0.3 0.3 b 4.5 4.5 ab 22.6 12.9
larvae

Strawberry 69.0 18.0 a 9.0 1.4 a 8.0 + 3.6

Strawberry fed upon
Strawberry fed upon 6.8 + 2.8 b 9.5 2.8 a 5.8 + 1.9
by L. insularis larvae

Control 0.0 + 0.0 b 0.0 + 0.0 b 0.0 + 0.0
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P


Week 4


1.8 0.9 ab


1.8 1.4 ab


2.3 1.7 ab


4.5 2.0 a

0.0 + 0.0 b
0.05, TUKEY test)






41


Table 3-4. Mean + SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005)
weeks 5-8.





Treatments Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

Pollen Dough
Pollen Dough 0.8 + 0.8 7.5 + 1.9 a 14.0 + 6.2 11.3 + 3.8 ab

Pollen Dough fed
upon by L. insularis 2.5 1.3 8.3 3.7 a 14.3 6.4 22.3 3.9 a
larvae
Strawberry 3.3 1.4 20.3 + 9.6 a 1.5 + 0.7 0.0 + 0.0 c

Strawberry fed upon
Strawberry fed upon l2.0 + 2.0 7.0 + 2.2 a 9.0 + 9.0 1.5 + 1.5 bc
by L. insularis larvae

Control 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 b 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 c
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY test)









Table 3-5. Volatiles present in bait attractants.


T2 T3


Field
T4 SB


ALCOHOL
3-methyl-1-butanol
2-methyl-1-butanol
2-methyl-3-pentanol
2-methoxy-4-penten-2-ol
1,3-butaediol
2,3-butanediol
phenylethanol


ALDEHYDE
benzaldehyde
hexanal
nonanal
decanal
phenylacetaldehyde
Lilac aldehyde A
Lilac aldehyde B
Lilac aldehyde C

KETONE
acetophenone
3-hydroxy-2-butanone
3-hydroxy-2-methyl-2-butanone
2-nonanone
2-heptanone
2-undecanone
(E,E)-3,5-octadien-2-one

FATTY ACID
propionic acid
butanoic acid
2-methylpropionic acid
3-methylbutanoic acid
2-methylbutanoic acid
4-hydroxybutanoic acid
cyclopropanecarboxylic acid
pentanoic acid
hexanoic acid
2-methylpentanoic acid


+ +


+ trace


ESTER


+ +










Table 3-5. Continued.


Tl
ethyl butanoate
ethyl-2-methyl propanoate
ethyl-2-methyl butanoate
ethyl hexanoate +
ethyl heptanoate
ethyl tiglate
ethyl 2-butenoate
ethyl octanoate +
ethyl nonanoate +
ethyl decanoate +
ethyl dodecanoate
ethyl hexadecanoate
ethyl phenylpropanoate
ethyl benzoate +
ethyl phenylacetate +
ethyl cinnamate
ethyl-2-hydroxy propanoate +
2-methylpropanyl acetate
3-methyl-l-butanyl acetate
2-methyl- -butanyl acetate
3-methyl-l-butanyl propanoate
methyl butanoate
methyl hexanoate
n-propyl acetate
propyl hexanoate
hexyl acetate
2-phenylethyl acetate
3-phenyl-l-propanyl acetate
methyl phenylpropanoate
Lilac acid format D
diethyl butanedioate +


LACTONE
butyrolactone +
5-ethyldihydro-2(3H)furanone
2, 5 dimethyl-4-methoxy-3(2H) furanone


HYDROCARBON
4-methoxy-l-butene
3-hydroxy-2-butene


T2 T3
+
+


+
+


+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+ +
+


+


+ +


Field
SB












Table 3-5. Continued.


2-ethoxy-butane
butyl cyclohexane
hexyl cyclohexane
(Z)-1,4-dimethylcyclohexane
decane
dodecane
tetradecane

TERPENE
linalool
(Z)-linalool oxide
a-terpineol
(E)- nerolidol
(E)-geranyl acetone

BEZENOID
styrene
guaiacol
phenol

FURAN
furfural
1 (2-furanyl)ethanone
2,5-dimthyltetrahydrofuran




SULFUR COMPOUND
benzothiazole


NITROGENOUS
2,5-dimethylpyrazine
2,3-dimethylpyrazine
2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine
2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine
3-ethyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazine


Tl T2 T3
+


Field
T4 SB


+ +


+ +


+ +
+
+


MISCELLANEOUS
2,4,5-trimethyl-1,3-dioxolane + + +
4-methyl-1,3-dioxolane + + +
methyl antranilate + +
KEY: + -detected in the volatiles captured on Super Q filter. (T1 = pollen dough, T2
pollen dough fed upon by larvae of L. insularis, T3 = ripe strawberries, T4 = ripe
strawberries fed upon by larvae ofL. insularis, T5 = control, and Field SB = field-
collected sap beetles).














CHAPTER 4
ATTRACTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT STAGES OF STRAWBERRY FRUIT

Connell (1980) reported that strawberry sap beetle adults, S. geminata, are attracted

to ripe, over-ripe and injured fruits of many plants. Beetles migrate from the periphery of

strawberry plots and oviposit into rotting strawberries, although some eggs may be laid in

fresh strawberries (Mossler and Nesheim 2004).

Sanitation is often considered the most important control method in deterring sap

beetle pests. This involves the removal of rotting fruit from the field. However,

removing rotted fruit from the field may not be practical since harvesting usually occurs

two to three times per week. A better understanding of sap beetle preference to different

stages of strawberry fruit is important when developing control measures for sap beetles.

Regular sampling is an important monitoring tool that gives information on insect

population or pest status. Based on the number of samples taken from a field,

conclusions can be drawn regarding pest status. Currently, there is little information on

sampling for sap beetles in strawberries although the importance of sampling for sap

beetle pests is well established. A closer examination of the chemical composition of

different stages of the fruit will allow for better understanding of why sap beetles may

prefer to feed and lay eggs in certain types of fruit. This may allow for further

development of monitoring and trapping techniques.

Specific objectives of this research were to determine the attractiveness of different

stages of strawberry fruit to sap beetles in the field. Additionally, I wanted to compare









volatile composition of these different stages of strawberries to identify candidate

components for the sap beetles.

Methods

Field research was conducted at the University of Florida, Plant Science Research

and Education Unit located in Citra, Florida. Strawberries, Fragaria x aananssa

Duschene., cv. 'Strawberry Festival' were planted on raised beds. Each plot contained

six rows of strawberry plants spaced approximately 0.3 m apart. Plot size was 7.3 X 6.1

m. The spacing between plots was 7.3 m.

In Situ Counts

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of sap beetles to different stages of

strawberries, 8 plants from two center rows in each plot were examined for sap beetles.

Sampling was done by visually counting the number of sap beetle adults on all 8 plants

(per plot) on a weekly basis. Four treatments were evaluated. In each treatment, sap

beetles were counted on 1) dried strawberries on the ground, 2) ripe strawberries, 3) over-

ripe strawberries, and 4) ground litter. For the purposes of this study, dry strawberries

were those that were completely void of moisture and were brown, ripe strawberries were

80% bright red with visible decay, and over-ripe strawberries were 80% dark red with at

least 25% decay. The experiment was set up using a completely randomized block design

with 24 replicates.

Statistical Analyses

All data from sap beetle field counts were analyzed by repeated measures

Analysis of Variance using the SAS GLM procedure. All data were square root

transformed to stabilize variances, and means separated with least significant differences









(TUKEY) a = 0.05 (SAS Institute Inc. 2002). Data reported in the tables and figures

represent untransformed means + standard errors.

Volatile Collection and Analysis

Volatiles from the following treatments 1) dry, 2) ripe and 3) over-ripe

strawberries were collected and analyzed as previously described in Chapter 3 using

facilities available at the USDA-ARS CMAVE laboratory in Gainesville, Florida. Forty

grams of strawberries were used from each treatment. Treatments were replicated three

times.

The leaves from the strawberries were removed, while keeping the fruits intact.

Volatiles were collected using Super Q filters for approximately 2 h then eluted using

250il of dichloromethane. Samples were then analyzed using GC-Mass Spectrometry.

The total profile area relative to sum of the areas of the internal standards octane and

nonyl acetate was used to assess the quantity of components in each treatment. Our

hypothesis was that profiles with larger areas relative to internal standards parallel the

most attractive fruit stages in the field

Statistical Analyses

All data from volatile collections were analyzed by repeated measures Analysis of

Variance using the SAS GLM procedure. All data were log transformed to stabilize

variances, and means separated with least significant differences (TUKEY) a = 0.05

(SAS Institute Inc. 2002). Data reported in the tables and figures represent

untransformed means + standard errors.









Results

In Situ Counts

2004

Throughout the experimental period (4/7/04-4/20/04) over-ripe strawberries

attracted significantly more sap beetles than those found in ground litter (F = 95.4; df = 3,

259; P < 0.0001) [Table 4-1]. Significantly more sap beetles were found in ground litter

than in dry or ripe strawberries. There were no significant differences between dry and

ripe strawberries. Data for individual weeks indicated that over-ripe strawberries had

significantly more sap beetles than all other treatments (all weeks, P < 0.0001) [Table 4-

1]. Generally, over-ripe strawberries had 3-times more sap beetles than any other

treatment.

2005

Similar findings were recorded in 2005. Over-ripe strawberries attracted

significantly more sap beetles than all other treatments throughout the trapping period (F

= 154.6; df= 3, 354; P < 0.0001) [Table 4-2]. Significantly more sap beetles were found

in ground litter than in dry or ripe strawberries. There were no significant differences

between the number of sap beetles found in dry and ripe strawberries. Data for individual

weeks varied. During the first week over-ripe strawberries had significantly more sap

beetles than any other treatment (F = 36.2; 3, 69; P < 0.0001) [Table 4-2]. There were no

significant differences among ripe and dry strawberries and ground litter. For week 2,

over-ripe strawberries had significantly more sap beetles than ripe and dry strawberries

(F= 11.2; df = 3:69; P < 0.0001) [Table 4-2]. There were no significant differences

between over-ripe strawberries and ground litter. Significantly more sap beetles were

found in ground litter than dry strawberries (Table 4-2). There were no significant









differences between ground litter and ripe strawberries. Also, there were no significant

differences between dry and ripe strawberries. For weeks 3 and 4, over-ripe strawberries

had significantly more sap beetles than any other treatment (For week 3, F = 111.2; df=

3, 69; P < 0.0001) and (for week 4, F = 125.7; df = 3, 69; P < 0.0001) [Table 4-2].

Significantly more sap beetles were found in ground litter than in dry and ripe

strawberries. There were no significant differences among dry and ripe strawberries.

Volatile Collection and Analysis

Overall, the volatile profiles of ripe and over-ripe strawberries had significantly

larger areas relative to internal standards than those of dry strawberries and control

treatments (F= 38.2; df= 3:6; P= 0.0003) [Fig. 4-1]. The volatile profiles of dry

strawberries had significantly larger areas relative to internal standards than control

treatments. There were no significant differences between the total areas of volatiles

released from ripe and over-ripe strawberries.

GC-MS identified components in the volatiles of the attractive treatments as mainly

alcohols, fatty acids and esters (Table 4-3). Additionally, aldehydes, ketones,

hydrocarbons terpenoids, lactone, furan, and nitrogenous and sulfur derivatives were

present in these volatiles. Overall, the composition of the volatiles released by over-ripe

strawberries was compositionally richer than those that were released by dry and ripe

strawberries (Table 4-3). Twenty-three components were identified in the volatiles from

dry strawberries, 46 components were identified in the volatiles released by ripe

strawberries. Fifty six components were identified in the volatiles of over-ripe

strawberries.









Discussion

During both field seasons (2003 2005), over-ripe strawberries had significantly

more sap beetles than dry and ripe strawberries. Also with the exception of week 2

(2005), over-ripe strawberries had significantly more sap beetles than ground litter. It is

believed that over-ripe strawberries have a high percentage of fermenting fruit emitting

volatile and sap-beetles responded by accumulating on these fruit. Sap beetles have been

known to accumulate on fermenting fruit (Potter 1994). This data is consistent with

Warner (1990) who found sap beetles in later ripening berries but none in berries that

mature early.

Ground litter treatments had significantly more sap beetles than dry and ripe

strawberries. Two reasons may account for the high numbers of sap beetles in the ground

litter. First, over-ripe strawberries fall to the ground and beetles may respond to volatile

cues by moving to the ground to take advantage of fermenting fruits. Another theory is

that sap beetles play dead and drop off fruit into the ground litter when disturbed.

Neumann and Patti (2004) found similar results with the related sap beetle, Aethina

tumida (Murray).

Cavities characteristic of sap beetle injury were abundant in ripe (marketable)

strawberries. This type of injury renders the fruit unmarketable, highlighting the

importance of this pest in fresh marketable fruits. Secondly, small cavities from sap

beetle injury leaves the fruit vulnerable to secondary infection from pathogens. Also,

invasion by fungal pathogens may cause aggregation of sap beetles and possibly increase

the incidence of sap beetle damage. Sap beetles tended to congregate under fruit axils,

where they are difficult to detect.









Volatile profiles of dry, ripe, and over-ripe strawberries showed that peak areas

relative to internal standards were highest for over-ripe fruit. Profiles of ripe strawberries

were richer than those of dry strawberries. Over-ripe fruits consistently had more sap

beetles than any other treatment in the field, which is correlated to the high peaks

recorded in the GC Mass spectrometry results. Profiles of dry strawberries had

significantly higher areas relative to internal standards. However, they were completely

void of sap beetles in the field during both field seasons. Chemical analysis showed that

dry strawberries contained many of the same components as ripe and over-ripe

strawberries, but contained fewer esters. Dry strawberries also produced several

fermentation components such as alcohols and fatty acids. This may be due to previous

feeding when fruit was ripe. Therefore, it is possible that esters may be an attractive

component in ripe and over-ripe strawberry fruits. Volatile profiles of ripe strawberries

lacked fermentation-related products such as 3- and 2 methyl-1-butanol and fatty acids

while these compounds were abundant in dry and over-ripe fruit. These are the same

compound found in fungal volatile profiles of the fungi C. fagacearum and F.

verticillioides (Lin and Phelan 1992, Zilkowski et al. 1999). Therefore, it may be

possible that these components were present in over-ripe and dry fruits as a result of sap

beetle inoculation with fungus.










Table 4-1. Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2004).



Treatments Total
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
Captures
Dry Strawberries 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 + 0.0 b 0.0 + 0.0 c

Ripe Strawberries 0.0 0.0 b 0.4 0.4 b 0.0 + 0.0 b 0.5 + 0.1 c
Over-ripe
Over-ripe 5.0 1.0 a 6.7 1.7 a 7.5 + 1.8 a 6.4 + 0.9 a
Strawberries
Ground Litter 1.7 1.0 b 0.8 0.3 b 0.6 0.2 b 1.1 + 0.3 b



Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY test)






53



Table 4-2. Mean SEM number of sap beetle adults in strawberries, Citra, FL (2005).



Treatments
Treatments Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Total Captures

Dry
Dry 0.1 0.1 b 0.0 + 0.0 c 0.1 +0.1 0.0 + 0.0 c 0.1 + 0.0 c
Strawberries
Ripe
Ripe 0.3 +0.1 b 0.3 +0.1 bc 0.4+0.1 c 0.2 + 0.1 c 0.3 0.1 c
Strawberries
Over-ripe 8.0 + 1.5 a 6.0 2.0 a 15.0 + 2.2 a 14.1 + 1.9 a 10.8 + 1.0 a
Strawberries
Ground Litter 0.5 0.2 b 1.8 0.6 ab 6.8 + 0.9 b 2.4 + 0.5 b 2.9 + 0.4 b

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY test)






54



Table 4-3. Volatiles present in ripe, over-ripe, and dry strawberry fruit.
Tl T2 T3 T4

ALCOHOL
3-methyl-1-butanol + +
2-methyl-l-butanol + +
2-ethyl-butanol +
hexanol +
1,3-butanediol +
2,3-butanediol +



ALDEHYDE
hexanal +
(E)-2-hexenal +
heptanal +
nonanal + + trace
decanal + +
benzaldehyde +



KETONE
2-heptanone +
6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one +
3-octanone +
1 (4-ethylphenyl)-ethanonoe +


LACTONE
butyrolactone +

FATTY ACID
butanoic acid +
3-methylbutanoic acid +
2-methylbutanoic acid + +
2-methylpropanoic acid + +
4-hydrobutanoic acid +

ESTER
ethyl propionate + +
ethyl butanoate + + +









Table 4-3. Continued.
Tl T2 T3 T4
ethyl hexanoate + + +
ethyl 2-butenoate + +
ethyl pentanoate + +
ethyl 2-methylpropionate +
ethyl 2-methylbutanoate + + +
ethyl 3-methylbutanoate + +
ethyl tiglate +
ethyl benzoate + +
ethyl 2-hexenoate +
ethyl octanoate + +
hexyl 2-methylbutanoate +
isopropyl hexanoate +
methyl 3-methylbutanoate +
methyl 2-methylbutanoate + +
2-methyl propanoate +
2-methylpropyl butanoate +
2-methylbutyl propanoate +
2-methylbutyl butanoate +
3-methylbutyl butanoate +
1-methylethyl butanoate + +
methyl butanoate + +
methyl pentanoate +
1-methylethyl hexanoate + +
2-methylbutyl hexanoate +
methyl hexanoate + +
methyl octanoate + +
methyl salicylate +
2-methylpropyl acetate +
3-methyl-l-butanyl acetate + +
2-methyl-1-butanyl acetate + +
methyl hexanoate +
octyl acetate +
pentyl acetate + +
pentyl butanoate +
pentyl 2-methylpropionate +
phenylmethyl acetate +
2-phenylethyl acetate +
propyl acetate +
propyl butanoate + +
propyl hexanoate +
butyl butanoate +
butyl acetate + +
(Z)-3-hexenyl acetate +
(E)-3-hexenyl acetate +










Table 4-3. Continued.
Tl T2 T3 T4
(E)-2-hexenyl acetate +
(Z)-3-hexenyl butanoate +
(E)-3-hexenyl butanoate +
hexyl butanoate +
hexyl propanoate +
hexyl acetate + + +
2-methyllbutyl propionate +


HYDROCARBON
1-methyl-2propylcyclohexane +
1,4-diethyl-l,4-dimethyl-2,5-cyclohexadiene +
(Z)-1,4-dimethylcyclohexane trace

BENZENOID
Styrene + +
p-xylene +
1-ethyl-2methylbenzene +
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene +


FURAN
2,5-dimethyl-4 methoxy-2 (3H) furanone + + +
5-ethenyl-dihydro-5-methyl-2 (3H) furanone+

TERPENE
ac-terpineol +
(E)-nerolidol + +
D-limonene +


SULFUR COMPOUNDS
S-methyl butanethioate +
ethyl(methylthio)acetate +

MISCELLANEOUS
2,4,5-trimethyl- 1,3-dioxolane +
KEY: + -detected in the volatiles captured on Super Q filter. (T1 = dry strawberries, T2
ripe strawberries, T3 = over-ripe strawberries and T4 =blank)







57




45 a
40
35 a
30 -
5 25
20
b
S15


0

Dry Ripe Overripe Control


Figure 4-1. Mean + SEM relative peak area for different stages of strawberry fruit. Means
were calculated relative to internal standards octane and nonyl acetate. Means
followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY
test)














CHAPTER 5
EFFECTS OF REDUCED RISK AND CONVENTIONAL INSECTICIDES ON SAP
BEETLE PESTS OF STRAWBERRIES

Although several insecticides have been registered for use on strawberries for the

control of sap beetles, application of organophosphate insecticides has been the standard

for several years. Many of these insecticides have a long re-entry period and do not

allow for frequent harvest. Insecticides with long re-entry periods allow for an

abundance of over-ripe strawberries to accumulate in the field. Volatile cues from these

over-ripe fruits facilitate the movement of sap beetles into strawberry fields. Recently,

growers have been applying large amounts of insecticides to reduce high populations of

sap beetles to tolerable levels. Frequent application of broad-spectrum insecticides

increases the selection pressure and encourages development of resistant genes.

Furthermore, these insecticides pose a threat to natural enemies and non-target organisms

in the environment.

Effective control of sap beetles in strawberries requires good sanitation. This can

be labor intensive when working with perishable commodities like strawberries.

Biological control agents for sap beetle control are currently being investigated but these

products are not yet commercially available. Recently, several new classes of reduced-

risk insecticides have been developed for use on fruit crops. Some of these insecticides

are registered for use in strawberries (not for sap beetle control). Laboratory and field

assays need to be conducted to evaluate their potential to be used in sap beetle IPM

programs. Promising compounds could be identified and be used with effective









monitoring, as well as with improved sanitation to better effectively manage sap beetle

populations. Specific objectives of this research were to evaluate the effectiveness of

conventional and reduced-risk insecticides on sap beetle pests of strawberries.

Materials and Methods

Laboratory assays to evaluate conventional and reduced-risk insecticides for

control of sap beetles were conducted at the Small Fruit and Vegetable IPM Laboratoy in

Gainesville, FL. Five treatments were evaluated including, 1) Malathion 5EC, 2)

imidacloprid, Provado 1.6 F (Bayer Cropscience Kansas City, MO), 3) thiamethoxam,

Actara 25 WG (Syngenta Crop Protection Wilmington, DE) and 4) spinosad, SpinTor

2SC (Dow, Agrosciences, Carmel, IN), and 5) control [untreated Petri dishes].

Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design (Fig. 5-1).

Insecticides were applied at the recommended (scaled down) rate to filter paper (15 cm

diameter) using 0.5 L hand-atomizers. Filter paper was allowed to air-dry for 30 minutes.

Each filter paper was then placed in a glass Petri dish (150 x 20 mm) with 3-4 g of over-

ripe strawberries.

Petri dishes were maintained at 270C and exposed to 14 L: 10 D (light:dark regime)

at relative humidity of 65%. Each Petri dish contained four insects. Bioassays were run

three times. In the first assay newly closed virgin males ofL. insularis were used. In

the second assay virgin females ofL. insularis were tested. In the third bioassay field

collected adults were tested.

Preparation of Sap Beetles for Assay

Laboratory sap beetles closed approximately one month prior to assay (see

Chapter 3 for rearing protocol). After eclosion beetles were sexed. In the case of field

collected sap beetles, they were collected from an untreated strawberry field in Citra, FL.









The beetles were identified six hours prior to assay. The age of the insects was unknown.

Three adults were used per Petri dish (3 beetles in each dish for field-collected sap

beetles and 4 beetles in each dish for L. insularis). All treatments were replicated 4

times.

Sampling

Insects were rated using a 0-3 scale based upon average activity in each Petri dish

(Liburd et al. 2003). A score of 3 indicated uninhibited mobility (the status of beetles in

nature). A score of 2 indicated decreased mobility (limited movement-grooming). A

score of 1 indicated no responsiveness but movement was stimulated only by touch. A

score of 0 indicated mortality (death). Data was recorded at 2, 6, 24, and 48 hours after

treatment.

Statistical Analysis

Mean rating per replicate was calculated and analyzed by repeated measures

analysis of variance using the SAS GLM procedure. All data were square-root

transformed to stabilize variances, and means separated with least significant differences

(TUKEY) a = 0.05 (SAS Institute Inc. 2002). Data reported in the tables and figures

represent untransformed means + standard errors.



Results

Lobiopa insularis

Overall, Malathion was the only treatment that significantly reduced the number

of sap beetles in the assay (F = 12.2; df = 4:69; P < 0.0001). There were no significant

differences among the other treatments evaluated.









At 2 h there were no significant differences among any of the treatments.

However, at 6 h Provado 1.6 F had significantly higher mortality than the control (F=

3.9; df= 4:12; P = 0.0301) [Table 5-1]. There were no significant differences among

other treatments evaluated. At 24 and 48 h significantly more beetles died in treatments

exposed to Malathion compared with other treatments (for 24 h F = 3.8; df = 4:12; P =

0.0323, for 48 h F= 99.2; df= 4:12; P <0.0001) [Table 5-1].

Lobiopa insularis males

Overall, Malathion was the only treatment that significantly reduced the number of

sap beetles in the assay (F= 9.1; df = 4:69; P < 0.0001) [Table 5-2]. There were no

significant differences among other treatments evaluated.

At 24 h there were no significant differences among treatments evaluated.

However, at 48 h significantly more beetles died in treatments exposed to Malathion

compared with other treatments (F= 145.9; df= 4:12; P < 0.0001) [Table 5-2]. There

were no significant differences among other treatments.

Lobiopa insularis females

Overall, Malathion was the only treatment that significantly reduced the number

of sap beetles in the assay (F= 11; df = 4:69; P < 0.0001) [Table 5-3]. Unlike males at 6

h, SpinTor 2 SC, Provado 1.6 F, and Actara 25G were not significantly different to

treatments of Malathion. There were no significant differences among other treatments

evaluated.

At 2 h there were no significant differences among treatments. However, at 6 h

Malathion was the only treatment that had significantly more dead sap beetles compared

with the control (F = 3.1; df = 4:12; P = 0.0553). All other treatments were not

significantly different from each other. At 24 and 48 h Malathion was the only treatment









that significantly reduced the number of sap beetles in the assay (for 24 h, F = 4.7; df =

4:12; P = 0.0159) and (for 48 h, F= 34.9; df= 4:12; P < 0.0001) [Table 5-3]. There were

no significant differences among other treatments evaluated.

Field Collected Sap Beetles

Overall, Malathion was the only treatment that significantly reduced the number of

sap beetles in the assay (F= 11.4; df = 4:69; P < 0.0001) [Table 5-4]. There were no

significant differences among the other treatments evaluated.

After 6 h there were no differences among treatments. However, at 24 and 48 h

significantly more beetles died in treatments exposed to Malathion compared with other

treatments (for 24 h, F= 6.5; df= 4:12; P = 0.0051) and (for 48 h, F= 13; df= 4:12; P=

0.0003) [Table 5-4].

Discussion

Our results indicate that Malathion was the only effective insecticide in killing sap

beetles. The results confirmed a potential reason for the recent increase in sap beetle

numbers in strawberry fields. Recently, extension agents have been encouraging growers

to use more reduced-risk insecticides in order to conserve natural enemies and the

environment. These reduced-risk insecticides may be effective against primary pests

such as thrips and Lepidopterans but leave secondary pests like sap beetles unharmed.

Females appear to be more susceptible than males. This information became clear with

treatments of Malathion. Females ofL. insularis were affected by Malathion at 6 h post-

treatment while males were not affected until 48 h post-treatment. The same was true for

some of our reduced-risk insecticides. SpinTor 2 SC, Actara 25 WG and Provado 1.6 F

caused a slight reduction in female populations at 6 h. These same insecticides did not









affect males L. insularis males. The reason for the observed difference in susceptibility

of females and males is unclear.

Although Malathion was the only insecticide that killed more sap beetles than the

control, the reduced risk insecticides tested should not be completely discounted. There

are many factors that may be responsible for these results. Isaacs et al. (2004) states that

reduced-risk insecticides generally have less immediate toxic effects on pests than

conventional insecticides, but their activity may have repellent or anti-feeding effects.

The bioassays were run for a total of 48 h. Future studies might include longer test

periods to better assess the slower acting toxic effects of reduced-risk insecticides. Also,

field experiments that monitor populations of feeding insects pre-and post-spray may

account for repellent and anti-feeding effects of reduced-risk insecticides.

Since strawberry production requires harvesting generally every 2 days, an

insecticide with a PHI period of 2 days would be ideal. Malathion has a PHI of 3 days

(Mossler and Neisham 2004) so harvesting must be delayed. Future research on chemical

control of sap beetles in strawberries should focus on systemic reduced-risk insecticides

with short PHI periods to allow for maximum harvesting. The incorporation of reduced-

risk insecticides and frequent harvesting may be the key to sap beetle control in

strawberries.







64



Table 5-1. Mean .SEM rating of L. insularis males and females combined.

Treatments Overall
2 HAT 6 HAT 24 HAT 48 HAT
Rating
MalathionEC 2.6+0.4 2.7 0.1 ab 1.3 0.6 b 0.1 0.1 b 1.7 + 0.3 b
Malathion 5EC
S r 2C 3.0+0.1 2.8 0.0 ab 2.8 0.1 ab 2.8 0.1 a 2.8 0.1 a
SpinTor 2SC

Provado 1.6 F 3.0+0.1 2.6 + 0.2 b 2.6 +0.1 ab 2.6 +0.1 a 2.7+ 0.1 a

Actara 25G 3.0+0.1 2.7 0.1 ab 2.7 0.1 ab 2.5 + 0.5 a 2.7+ 0.1 a

Control 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.1a 3.0 0.1a 3.0 0.1a 3.0 + 0.0 a
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY test)











Table 5-2. Mean + SEM rating ofL. insularis males.


Treatments


Malathion 5EC

SpinTor 2SC

Provado 1.6 F

Actara 25G

Control


2 HAT 6 HAT 24 HAT

2.9 0.1 2.8 0.1 1.5 0.5

2.9 0.1 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0

2.9 0.1
2.9 0.1 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.2

3.0 0.0 2.7 0.1 2.7 0.1

3.0 0.0 2.9 0.1 2.9 0.1


48 HAT

0.1 0.1 b

2.7 0.1 a

2.4 0.2 a

2.7 0.1 a

2.9 0.1 a


Overall
Rating
1.8 0.3 b

2.8 0.0 a

2.5 0.1 a

2.8 0.0 a

3.0 + 0.0 a


Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY test)










Table 5-3. Mean + SEM rating ofL. insularis females.



Treatments Overall
2 HAT 6 HAT 24 HAT 48 HAT
Rating

Malathion 5EC 2.9 0.1 2.6 0.1 b 1.1 0.2b 0.1 0.1 b 1.7 0.3 b

SpinTor 2SC 3.0 +0.0 2.8 0.0 ab 2.8 0.1 a 2.7 0.1 a 2.8 0.0 a
SpinTor 2SC

Provado 1.6F 3.0 +0.0 2.7 0.2 ab 2.7 0.1 a 2.4 0.2 a 2.8 0.1 a

Actara 25G 2.9 0.1 2.7 0.1 ab 2.6 0.1 a 2.7 0.1 a 2.6 0.1 a

Control 3.0 + 0.0 3.0 + 0.0 a 3.0 + 0.0 a 2.9 0.1 a 3.0 + 0.0 a

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY test)









Table 5-4. Mean SEM rating of field collected sap beetles, Citra, FL.



Treatments Overall
2 HAT 6 HAT 24 HAT 48 HAT
Rating

Malathion 5EC 2.9 0.1 2.7 0.1 0.9 + 0.6 b 0.5 0.5 b 1.8 + 0.3 b
Sp r 2C 3.0 + 0.0 3.0 + 0.0 2.8 0.1 a 2.8 0.1 a 2.9 0.0 a
SpinTor 2SC

Provado 1.6F 2.9 0.1 2.9 0.1 2.8 0.1 a 2.6 0.2 a 2.8 0.1 a

Actara 25G 3.0 + 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 a 2.8 0.1 a 2.6 + 0.0 a

Control 3.0 + 0.0 3.0 + 0.0 3.0 + 0.0 a 3.0 + 0.0 a 3.0 + 0.0 a
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, TUKEY test)




















A*
w~yif,"1^ iH^ '^ ^


Figure 5-1. Insecticide bioassay set-up.














CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS



Research on the behavior and biology of sap beetle pests has led to improvements

in managing these pests. Trapping has been shown to be an effective monitoring tool and

may be effective as a management tactic as well. Many baits have been shown to

effectively attract sap beetles, especially whole wheat bread dough which has been used

in many studies. Research on host volatile compounds has shown that sap beetles are

attracted primarily to esters, fatty acids, and alcohols. Using chemical tactics is also an

important component of the total strawberry pest management program. Also, advances

in biological control and pheromones used as attractants are promising additions to a

comprehensive integrated pest management program for strawberries. Many of these

tactics must be properly integrated to achieve the most cost effective and safest pest

management program to suppress sap beetle population to tolerable levels.

Unfortunately, little work has been done on a comprehensive pest management

program for sap beetles found in Florida strawberries. Since many sap beetles are

generalist feeders and since weather and other uncontrollable conditions may affect sap

beetle behavior, it is essential to investigate several strategies. In this thesis we studied

several aspects of sap beetle management including, movement into strawberries,

monitoring their activities in the field and potential use of reduced-risk insecticides.

The results of this study suggest that traps placed near the woods are more effective

at capturing sap beetles than traps placed within and between strawberry rows. Although









this was the case, most sap beetles found in baited traps near the woods were found early

in the production season. This may indicate that border sprays or ringing the field with

attract & kill traps may be a reduced-risk tactic to prevent high populations from

increasing. Trapping during the 2005 field season showed that all bait treatments were

significantly better than the control but not different from one another overall. A better

understanding of how the bait treatment works may lead to improvements in the type of

attractants used to monitor sap beetles. As in 2004, trap catches were inconsistent

between weeks (Fig 3-6). This suggests that levels of fruit maturity and environmental

factors can affect trap captures. Other factors that were not investigated in this thesis

include trap placement and timing of bait deployment in the field. Our studies indicate

that preventative trapping tactics can be implemented early in the season, before fruits

begin to ferment. Once the fruit begins to ferment sap beetles are attracted to their

natural host and captures in strawberry baited traps will decline. Until more research

information becomes available traps can be baited with pollen dough. This bait can be

easily prepared and ingredients can be quantified.

The number of sap beetles caught in traps baited with strawberries and pollen

dough fed upon by L. insularis were not significantly different from fresh strawberries or

pollen dough, respectively. Laboratory studies have shown that sap beetle hosts, which

have previously been fed upon by sap beetles, attract significantly more sap beetles. This

did not occur in our field studies. Field trapping contains many more variables which can

affect beetle response or trap efficacy.

Results from traps placed in harvested versus un-harvested fruit showed that those

traps placed in un-harvested plots captured significantly more sap beetles. This result









was expected because many sap beetles are attracted to decaying or fermenting fruit,

which is typical in un-harvested strawberry fields. Therefore, timely harvesting and

sanitation is crucial to reducing sap beetle populations.

Voltile profiles of baits showed that strawberries and strawberries fed upon by L.

insularis had significantly larger areas in relation to internal standards than control

treatments. This suggests that strawberries and strawberries fed upon by L. insularis may

have more active compounds that are attractive to sap beetles. Volatiles of pollen dough

fed upon by L. insularis and pollen dough fed upon by the field-collected sap beetle did

not show any significant differences in mean relative peak areas. This suggests that

treatments fed upon by either sap beetle could be used in the field. Furthermore, over-

ripe strawberries had consistently higher numbers of sap beetles than all other treatments.

Again, frequent harvesting and interception of sap beetles before entry into the field may

help to alleviate a high population of sap beetles.

Results of insecticide bioassays showed that Malathion was the only treatment that

effectively killed sap beetles compared with other treatments. Although this was the

case, control provided by reduced-risk insecticides should be evaluated for sub-lethal

effects on sap beetle pests. A longer evaluation period may have given a different type of

result. Nevertheless, preliminary evidence indicates that some reduced-risk insecticides

do not kill sap beetles, which may account for their recent high numbers in the field.

Future studies involving sap beetle pests of strawberries should include wind tunnel

and olfactometer studies to test potential pheromones as well as kairomone attractants for

sap beetles. The incorporation of aggregation pheromones should be investigated for sap

beetles in strawberries. Traps containing insecticide strips may be useful in evaluating






72


the number of sap beetles caught in traps, eliminating the variable of beetle escape.

Insecticide bioassays studying repellent activities of reduced-risk insecticides should also

be assessed.















LIST OF REFERENCES


Bartelt, R.J. and D.T. Wicklow. 1999. Volatiles from Fusarium verticillioides (Sacc.)
Nirenb. and their attractiveness to nitidulid beetles. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47: 2447-
2454.

Blackmer, J.L. and P.L. Phelan. 1995. Ecological analysis of Nitidulidae: seasonal
occurrence, host choice and habitat preference. J. Appl. Ent. 119: 321-329.

Blackmer, J.L. and P.L. Phelan. 1991. Effect of physiological state and fungal inoculation
on chemically modulated host-plant finding by Carpophilus hemipterus and
Carpophilus lugubris. Entomologia. 61: 33-43.

Coler, R.R., R.N. Williams, and E.B. Filho. 1986. A nitidulid parasitoid, Zeteticontus
insularis (Howard) (Hymenoptera: Encrytidae) present in Sao Paulo with
clarification on its host. Revista de Agricultura. 61: 245-249.

Connell, W.A. 1980. Stelidota geminata (Say) infestations of strawberries (Coleoptera:
Nitidulidae). Ent. News. 91: 55-56.

Cosse, A.A. and R.J. Bartelt. 2000. Male-produced aggregation pheromone of Colopterus
truncates: structure, electrophysiological, and behavioral activity. J. Chem. Ecol.
26(7): 1735-1748.

Dowd, P.F. 2005. Suitability of commercially available insect traps and pheromones for
monitoring dusky sap beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) and related insects in Bt
sweet corn. Hort. Ent. 98: 856-861.

Dowd, P.F., R.L. Pingel, D. Ruhl, B.S. Shasha, R.W. Behle, D.R. Penland, M.R.
McGuire, and E.J. Faron II. 2000. Multiacreage evaluation of aerially applied
adherent malathion granules for selective insect control and indirect reduction of
mycotoxigenic fungi in specialty corn. Ecotoxicology. 1424-1428.

Dowd P.F., and T.C. Nelson. 1994. Seasonal variation of sap beetle (Coleoptera:
Nitidulidae) populations in central Illinois cornfield-oak woodland habitat and
potential influence of weather patterns. Environ. Entomol. 23: 1215-1223.

Duval, J.R., J.F. Price, G.J. Hochmuth, W.M. Stall, T.A. Kucharek, S.M. Olson, T.G.
Yaylor, S.A. Smith, and E.H. Simonne. 2004. Strawberry Production in Florida. pp.
277-283 in: Extension Bulletin HS736 University of Florida/IFAS, Gainesville.









Foott, W.H., and J.E. Hybsky. 1976. Capture of Glischrochilus quadrisignatus
(Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in baited traps. Can. Entomol. 108: 837-839.

Fomazier, M.J. C.A. S. do Carmo, C.P. Teixeira, and E.B. Pereira. 1986. Finding of the
strawberry borer Lobiopa insularis in the State of Espirito Santo. Comunicado
Tecnico ENCAPA. 44: 3.

Isaacs, R., R.J. Mercader, and J.C. Wise. 2004. Activity of conventional and reduced-risk
insecticides for protection of grapevines against the rose chafer, Macrodactylus
subspinosus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Appl. Entom. 128: 371-376.

James, D.G, B. Vogele, F.J. Faulder, and C.J. Moore. 2000. Efficacy of multispecies
pheromone lures for Carpophilus davidsoni Dobson and Carpophilus mutilatus
Erichson (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Aust. J. Ent. 39: 83-85.

James, D.G, C.J. Moore, R.J. Faulder, and V. Vogele. 1998. An improved coattractant for
pheromone trapping of Carpophilus spp. (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Aust. J. Ent. 37:
357-361.

James, D.G., R.J. Bartelt, and C.J. Moore. 1996a. Trap design effect on capture of
Carpophilus spp. (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) using synthetic aggregation
pheromones and a coattractant. J. Econ. Entomol. 89: 648-653.

James, D.G, R.J. Bartelt, and C.J. Moore. 1996b. Mass-trapping of Carpophilus spp.
(Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in stone fruit orchards using synthetic aggregation
pheromones and a coattractant: developmentof a strategy for population
suppression. J. Chem. Ecol. 22: 1541-1556.

Kehat, M.D., D. Blumberg, and S. Greenberg. 1976. Fruit drop and damage in dates: The
role of Coccotrypes dactyliperda F. and nitidulid beetles, and prevention by
mechanical measures. Phytoparasitica. 4: 93-99.

Kyhl, J.F., R.J. Bartelt, A. Cosse, J. Juzwik, and S.J. Seybold. 2002. Semiochemical-
mediated flight responses of sap beetle vectors of oak wilt, Ceratocystis
fagacearum. J. Chem. Ecol. 28: 1527-1547.

Liburd O. E. and E. M. Finn. 2004. Small fruit pests and their management. In: J. L.
Capinera (ed.), Encyclopedia of Entomology. Vol. 3. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Pages 2013-2029.

Liburd, O.E., E.M. Finn, K.L. Pettit, and J.C. Wise. 2003. Response of blueberry maggot
fly (Diptera:Tephritidae) to imidacloprid-treated spheres and selected insecticides.
Can. Entomol. 135: 427-438.

Lin, H. and P.L. Phelan. 1992. Comparison of volatiles from beetle-transmitted
Ceratocystisfagacearum and four non-insect-dependent fungi. J. Chem. Ecol. 18:
1623-1632.









Luckmann, W.H. 1963. Observations on the biology and control of Glischrochilus
quadrisignatus. J. Econ. Ent. 56: 681-686.

Lyons-Johnson, D. 1997. Sap Beetle has a Nematode Nemesis.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/apr97/ sapbeetle0497.htm July 2005.

Maiensfisch, P.H. Huerlimann, A. Rindlisbacher, L. Gsell, H. Dettwiler, J.
Haettenschwiler, E. Syeger, and M. Walti. 2001. The discovery of thiamethoxam: a
second-generation neonicotinoid. Pest Management Science. 57: 165-176

Miller, K.V., and R.N. Williams.1982. Seasonal abundance of Stelidota geminata (Say)
in selected habitats. J. Georgia Entomol. Soc. 17: 106-112.

Mossler, M.A., and O.N. Nesheim. 2004. Strawberry pest management strategic plan
(PMSP). pp. 1-16 in: Extension Bulletin CIR1443/P. University of Florida/IFAS,
Gainesville.

Mossler, M.A., and O.N. Nesheim. 2003. Florida crop/pest management profiles:
strawberries. pp. 1-24 in: Extension Bulletin P1037. University of Florida/IFAS,
Gainesville.

Myers, L. 2001. Sap beetles (of Florida), Nitidulidae (Insects: Coleoptera: Nitidulidae).
pp. 1-16 in: Extension Bulletin EENY-256. University of Florida/IFAS,
Gainesville.

Neumann, P. and P.J. Elzen. 2004. The biology of the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida,
Coleoptera: Nitidulidae): gaps in our knowledge of an invasive species.
Apidologie. 35: 229-247.

Parsons C.T. 1943. A revision of Nearctic Nitidulidae (Coleoptera). Bull. Comp. Zoo. 92:
121-248.

Pena, J.E., A. Castineiras, R. Bartelt, and R. Duncan. 1999. Effect of pheromone
baitstations for sap beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) on Annona spp. fruit set.
Florida Entomologist 82: 475-480.

Peng, C., and R.N. Williams. 1991. Effect of trap design, trap height, and habitat on the
capture of sap beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) using whole-wheat bread dough. J.
Econ. Entomol. 84: 1515-1519.

Peng, C. and R.N. Williams 1990. Pre-oviposition period, egg production and mortality
of six species of hibernating sap beetles (Coleoptera: Nitulidae). J. Entomol. Sci.
25: 453-457.

Phelan, L.P. and H. Lin. 1991. Identification of food volatiles attractive to dusky sap
beetle, Carpophilus lugbris (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 17: 1273-
1285.









Potter, M.A. 1995. The Nitidulidae (Coleoptera) associated with strawberry in eastern
Hillsborough County, Florida. Thesis. University of Florida, Department of
Entomology and Nematology. 98 pp.

Rhainds, M., and G. English-Loeb. 2002. Impact of insecticide application and mass
trapping on infestation by strawberry sap beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae).
J.Entomol. Sci. 37: 300-307.

Rondon, S.I., J.F. Price, and D.J. Cantliffe. 2004. Sap beetle (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae)
management in strawberries. pp. 1-7 in: Extension Bulletin HS993. University of
Florida/IFAS, Gainesville.

Salgado, V.L. 1997. The modes of action of Spinosad and other insect control products.
Down to Earth 52: 39-40.

Torres, J.B., C.S.A. Silva-Torres, and J.V. de Oliveira. 2003. Toxicity of pymetrozineand
thiamethoxam to Aphelinus gossypii and Delphastuspusillus. Pesq. Agropec. Bras
Brasilia. 38: 459-466.

Warner, R.L., M.M. Barnes, and D.F. Laird. 1990. Chemical control of a carob moth
Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera :Pyralidae) and various nitidulid beetles
(Coleoptera) on deglet noor dates in California USA. J. Econ. Ent. 83: 2357-2361.

Weiss, M.J., and R.N. Williams.1980. Some host-parasite relationships of Microctonus
nitidulidis and Stelidota geminata. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 73: 323-326.

Wilkinson, T.K. 2002. Biological control of obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura
rosaceana (Harris) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple and pear orchards. J. Econ.
Entomol. 93:737-743.

Williams, R.N., M.S. Ellis, and G. Keeney. 1994. A bait attractant study of the
Nitidulidae (Coleoptera) at Shawnee state forest in southern Ohio. The Great Lakes
Entomologist. 27: 229-234.

Williams, R.N., D.S. Fickle, R.J. Bartelt, and P.F. Dowd. 1993. Responses by adult
Nitidulidae (Coleoptera) to synthetic aggregation pheromones, a coattractant, and
effects of trap design and placement. Eur. J. Entomol. 90: 287-294.

Williams, R.N., M.J. Weiss, K.V. Miller, and J.J. Werner. 1984. A summary of
experiments for control of sap beetles which attack fruit crops. Research circular-
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. 283: 66-68.

Zilkowski, B.W., R.J. Bartelt, D. Blumberg, D.G. James, and D.K. Weaver. 1999.
Identification of host-related volatiles attractive to pineapple beetle Carpophilus
humeralis. J. Chem. Ecol. 25: 229-252.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Crystal Amber Kelts was born in Gaylord, Michigan, on October 21, 1980. She

then moved to Florida with her family as a young child. She graduated from Melbourne

Central Catholic High School, Melbourne, Florida, in May 1999. After graduation

Crystal attended the University of Florida, where she earned her BS in entomology (with

a minor in horticulture) in 2003. Immediately after graduation, Crystal decided to pursue

her MS degree in entomology at the University of Florida in 2003. After completing her

degree requirements, Crystal will be working as a biologist for Manatee County

Mosquito Control District in Palmetto, Florida.