Introduction

Internet Use Statistics

Insect Surveys

Collaborators

Total Number of Specimens Received

Taxa, by Order, received at the Insect Identification Lab

Number of Specimens Received from each County

Specimens Received by Month and Commodity Group

Arthropods Received by Month :

Arthropods Received by Host Plant

This report summarizes the activity of the Insect Identification Laboratory at Virginia Tech for 2000. The laboratory is located in 215 Price Hall. It is managed by Eric Day, Lab Manager, and Doug Pfeiffer, Extension Entomologist, Department of Entomology.

Specimens are identified and recorded in the lab, then sent for control recommendations and additional comments to Extension Entomologists who handle particular commodity groups. All specimen data are entered into the Insect I.D. Lab computer data base on the Virginia Tech mainframe computer. The data base greatly facilitates sorting and storage of the information. Some of the records were sent via microcomputer to the Cooperative National Plant Pest Survey and Detection Program (USDA, APHIS, PPQ). We at Virginia Tech acknowledge support provided by this program.

Whenever possible insects are identified to the species level. Common names are used where possible because of their wide recognition. To facilitate mailing insects and insect damaged plant specimens to the lab, local offices of Virginia Cooperative Extension are provided with Insect Identification and Diagnosis Request forms (form 444-113), alcohol vials, and mailing tubes. Specimens also may be brought directly to the lab or mailed to:

A total of 1,751 requests were received in 2000. The requests came from the following categories:

Count of Agent Source
AGENT	1490
MAIL-IN	46
OUT OF STATE	1
VDACS	7
VPI-ENT	8
VPI-CAMPUS	13
VPI-PPWS	6
VPI-STA	9
WALK-IN	171
Grand Total	1751

Identification requests from the following client groups:

Count of Client Group
Client Group	Total
COMMERCIAL GROWER, FARMER	156
HOMEOWNER	1428
LANDSCAPER, ARBORIST	55
MEDICAL DOCTOR	6
OTHER	58
PEST CONTROL OPERATOR	45
UNKNOWN	3
Grand Total	1751

Control Recommendations were requested:

Count of Control Recommendation Request
F	99
T	1652
Grand Total	1751

Referrals

Count of PDC referrals
Sample sent to the Insect ID Lab directly	1401
Sample referred to the ID Lab by the Plant Disease Clinic	350
Grand Total	1751

For the Insect Identification Laboratory site use see:

http://www.ento.vt.edu/stats/idlab/idlab_2000.html

Analysed requests from Sat-01-Jan-2000 00:24 to Sun-31-Dec-2000 23:50 (366.0 days).

Note: October data is missing.

Total successful requests: 1 226 073 (7 178)

For entomology factsheets maintained on the Virginia Cooperative Extension site, http://www.ext.vt.edu/departments/entomology. Data is for July to December.

http://www.ext.vt.edu/analog/vce_public.2000-CAL.html

Analyzed requests from Sat, Jan 01 2000 00:01 to Sun, Dec 31 2000 23:59 (366.00 days).

817666: /departments/entomology/

Combined total for pages maintained by Eric Day: 2,043,739

Detection survey for exotic bark beetles: Ips typographus and I. Sexdentatus, INVESTIGATORS: Dr. Scott M. Salom, Eric Day and Jeffrey G. Fidgen, Department of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0319 PROJECT OBJECTIVE To survey for exotic bark beetle pests, Ips typographus and I. sexdentatus at major Virginia ports. FINAL REPORT Semiochemical-baited funnel traps were deployed on April 14, 2000 at three locations: 1. Virginia Inland Port near Front Royal, Warren Co., Va (6 traps, two locations); 2. Christmas tree farm of Tim Opeka located north central Loudoun Co., VA (4 traps, two locations); and 3). Christmas tree farm of Mark Malick located northwestern Loudoun Co., VA (6 traps, two locations). The traps at the inland port were located in a small cluster of eastern red cedar. At the Opeka farm, traps were located within two separate stands of 30 year-old spruce, and at the Malick farm, they were placed along a fence row of older spruce trees. On April 14^th, 2000 each trap was baited with the exotic bark beetle lures Ipsdienol (ID), methyl butenol (MB) and cis-verbenol (CV), and visited every four weeks until late-September (5 sampling periods). The baits were changed for fresh ones on July 18, 2000. On September 29^th, 2000 the traps were sampled and then removed. RESULTS: As had occurred in past years, none of the exotic bark beetle species were captured in any of the traps. In total, 93 (~18.6 beetles/trap/period) pine engraver beetles, Ips pini, were caught over the 149 day trapping period. We are grateful to A. Lamb, MSc Graduate Student at Virginia Tech for processing trap catches and to Dr. R. Jakus, of the Laboratory of Forest Protection, Institute of Forest Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, for verifying that no I. typographus were caught in the spring and summer sampling periods.

Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Survey Project Coordinator: T. Michael Likins, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218 SURVEY LIMITED BECAUSE GROWER DID NOT REPLANT TOMATOES. Objective: To survey tomato production fields on Virginia's Eastern Shore for the presence of the whitefly vectored gemini virus known as Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV). Benefits/Justification: TYLCV is a yield reducing viral pathogen that is the limiting factor in tomato production in Israel. The significance of the disease is that the virus causes flower abscission, thereby eliminating fruit set. Up to 90% yield reduction can be expected. TYLCV virus was detected and eradicated in 1997 on Virginia's Eastern Shore. This area represents a significant agricultural component to the local and state economies. TYLCV poses a direct and serious threat to the economy of the Eastern Shore, specifically, and the export status of Virginia in general. An important but unknown factor is whether this disease can become established in Virginia since weed hosts of the virus include nettles, jimson weed, and nightshade. Materials and Methods: The three (3) fields involved in the original introduction were surveyed for TYLCV. Symptomatic tomato plants and several randomly chosen putative weed hosts were to be shipped via overnight express to a cooperator at the University of Florida for DNA hybridization analysis. Products Produced: FIELD FORMERLY PLANTED WITH TOMATO YELLOW LEAF CURL VIRUS INFESTED TOMATO PLANTS NOW PLANTED TO SOYBEANS. NO INFESTED TOMATOES FOUND ON SITE VISIT DURING 2000.

Development of Trapping as a Survey Tool for Plum Curculio: Project Coordinator: Douglas Pfeiffer, Department of Entomology, VPI&SU, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Results: In 2000 we continued to monitor plum curculio with experimental lures and traps. The trap used this season was meant to be an improvement over the pyramid trap used in 1999, however it was less effective. Therefore next season's research will continue with the pyramid trap; these results were shared with other curculio workers at the ESA conference in Montreal. In related research, progress has been made in developing a biochemical means to separate northern and southern strains of plum curculio. This will be of great practical importance because the southern strain has two generations annually, while the northern strain is single-brooded. The southern strain thus may have larvae in the fruit at harvest, posing an export problem. It is critical that we determine the distribution of the strains in Virginia, where they meet (according to the literature). Objective: (1) Develop trapping technology for plum curculio, determine if the plum curculio is univoltine and enhance export status of Virginia apples. Benefits/Justification: Plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst), is one of the most abundant pests of apple, peach, nectarine, plum, cherry, apricot, pear, and blueberry in eastern North America, and is one of the main impediments to eliminating early season insecticide spray. There are currently no effective sampling methods for this pest, nor are there alternatives to the current program of organophosphate (OP) recommendations. Of the three fruit-infesting weevils sampled in New England by Maier (1990), plum curculio had the widest host range (19 out of 24 rosaceous species sampled). The main commercial damage from plum curculio results from the crescent-shaped scars made by ovipositing females. In heavy infestations, fruit drop may result (Levine & Hall 1977). Its biology was reviewed by Racette et al. (1992) and Hull et al. (1995). Plum curculio overwinters outside the orchard and invades starting at about the time of bloom, although in some years, invasion of orchards may begin at pink. In some years, a petal fall spray alone will suffice to give control. In other years, additional sprays are needed; the need for such additional sprays is unpredictable, however. There has been no effective way to monitor this insect. A standard recommendation is to watch for the appearance of freshly injured fruit (Hull et al. 1995). By that time, additional injury can occur quickly. If left uncontrolled, this insect can injure almost all of the fruit in an orchard. There are northern and southern strains of plum curculio (Chapman 1938). The northern strain is marked by an obligatory winter diapause, and is therefore univoltine. The southern strain has no such obligatory diapause; there are two or three generations annually and it can breed continuously in culture. When northern females are mated to southern-type males, there is lower fecundity and fertility than in the reciprocal cross (southern females and northern males) (Stevenson & Smith 1961). Even in the latter cross, there is reduced oviposition and egg hatch (Padula & Smith 1971). The reduced oviposition was associated with early degeneration of the spermatophore within the spermatheca. Chapman (1938) presented the approximate distribution of the two strains. The dividing line runs northeast to southwest through the western portion of Virginia. Bobb (1952) reported a single brood in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, with a second in the Piedmont. However, the situation may not always be clear. Bobb (1973) reported two broods from the Coastal Plain of Virginia and only a partial second in the Piedmont, implying a climatic effect. Schoene (1936) reported a partial second brood but effects were confounded in that study because weevils were collected in Roanoke and Crozet (both sides of the Blue Ridge); curculios were then reared in an outdoor insectary in Staunton. Furthermore both overwintered adults and first brood adults were collected; it was difficult to determine which were producing eggs. Stearns (1931) reported a single brood in northern and central Delaware, and a partial second in the southern part of the state. Neiswander (1948) reported a single generation in Ohio. Chandler (1932) found a few second brood eggs in southern Illinois, but felt this to be a minor occurrence. The distribution of the strains is important for several reasons. From an IPM viewpoint, the need for additional sprays will depend on the presence of ovipositing females later in the season. The presence of a second generation greatly increases the likelihood of larval presence in the fruit at harvest. This has bearing in developing export markets. For the past two years, California has questioned the importation of Virginia and Delaware apples because of the possibility of larval infestation in the late summer. Documentation of the status of the bivoltine strain would clarify the need for such concern. Materials and Methods: Pheromone lures are available on an experimental basis that contain a racemic blend of grandisoic acid. Odor sources will be obtained from pheromone lure suppliers, but lures may also be synthesized in the Department of Entomology in order to control the enantiomer composition. Commercial sources prepare the racemic blend because of cost considerations. If possible, the (+) enantiomer will be evaluated alone, since this is the compound isolated from males by Eller and Bartelt (1996). These will be compared in the laboratory using choice tests. Limonene, ethyl isovalerate and plum volatiles will be tested as well, alone and in combination with the pheromone (plum is more attractive to plum curculio than is apple (Chapman 1938, Eller and Bartelt 1996)). Chi-square analysis will be employed in these two-choice experiments. Factorial analyses will be used to test limonene and ethyl isovalerate with and without the presence of grandisoic acid. Adult curculios will be starved for 24 hours before testing (Leskey et al. 1998b). Initially various combinations will be compared with a blank control; eventually combinations will be contrasted with each other to determine relative attractiveness. Curculios will be tested in a Y-tube olfactometer, as well as plastic arenas modified after Prokopy et al. (1995). The Response Index (RI) of Prokopy et al. (1995) will be used to quantify attraction of plum curculios to odor sources. In this index, the number of curculios responding to the control (C) is subtracted from the number responding to the treatment (T), dividing by the total number of curculios captured at both sources, and then multiplying by 100. Thus, RI = [(T - C )/ (T + C)] x 100. Three companies will supply lures for field testing (Trece, IPM Technologies, and Scenturion). Unbaited pyramid traps will be compared with traps including alternative olfactory lures. Traps will be placed at the edge of an apple orchard bordering woods, in close proximity to tree trunks; collections are greater at this location than between trees within rows, or between trees and woodland borders (Prokopy and Wright 1998). These will be placed in a completely randomized design, replicated five times per location. Data will be subjected to analysis of variance.

Virginia Survey for the Small Hive Beetle, Aethina tumida Project Coordinators: Richard Fell, Department of Entomology, VPI&SU, Blacksburg, VA 24061, Frank Fulgham, VDACS, Richmond, VA, Eric Day, VPI&SU, Blacksburg, VA Results: A fact sheet was produced on small hive beetle and more the 200 were sent to 8 local beekeeper associations in Virginia as well as the State Beekeepers association. Eleven presentations were made at beekeepers associations in 2000 with a combined audience of over 300. Two suspect beetles resulted from the project but neither were the small hive beetle. Objective: The primary objective of the project was to determine if the small hive beetle, Aethina tumida, has been introduced into Virginia, and if established, the areas in the state where it can be found. Benefits/Justification: At the present time, we have no data on whether the small hive beetle is present in the state. The beetle has been found in several areas of North Carolina and more recently in Pennsylvania. The movement of honey bee colonies through the state for pollination and the shipment of package bees into the state for the establishment of new colonies have provided considerable opportunity for the introduction of this honey bee pest. Discovery of the pest and characterization of its distribution will allow us to more effectively direct efforts toward its control. Materials and Methods: The Virginia survey will consist of two major components. First, apiary inspectors will be provided with information on how to inspect colonies for the presence of the small hive beetle and asked to check for its presence during colony disease inspections. Information on colony location, number, and status (positive or negative) will be collected from reports filed by the apiary inspectors. If small hive beetles are found, more intensive inspection of colonies in the area will be made. The second part of the survey effort will enlist the cooperation of local beekeeping organizations and extension agents through out the state. Survey forms and information will be provided to agents and to each association. Members will be asked to check their hives for possible beetle infestations. Specific efforts will also be made to contact beekeepers who have established new colonies from package bees within the last year that have been shipped from areas known to be infested (Georgia, Florida Tennessee and South Carolina).

Pine Shoot Beetle - Thirty-three sites were surveyed in northern Virginia for Pine Shoot Beetle, Tomicus piniperda.. PrincipLE Investigators: Eric R. Day Department of Entomology VPI&SU Blacksburg, VA 24061 Frank Fulgham Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) P.O. Box 1163 Richmond, VA 23218 Bernetta Barco USDA/APHIS/PPQ 2702 Charles City Rd. Richmond, VA 23231 Abstract: Traps were placed on 31 farms in January, 2000. Traps were checked on a 2 to 4 week interval until June in some locations and September in others. No Pine Shoot Beetles or suspect beetles were found in any of the traps. Project Background and Justification: Tomicus piniperda was recently detected in western panhandle region of Maryland (Allegheny, Garrett and Washington Counties) less then 20 miles from the Virginia state line. T. piniperda is known in the United States from seven states but has not yet been found in Virginia. This insect has the potential to be a pest of pine (Pinus sp.) in Virginia and knowledge of its presence would aid in pest management and regulatory programs. It is currently regulated by a USDA, APHIS quarantine. Current survey procedures rely on visual surveys conducted during July and August. The literature and recent trapping experience in infested states shows that Lindgren funnel traps baited with alpha pinene or a combination of alpha pinene, terpinolene, and 3-carene are effective in detecting T. piniperda. Due to the amount of work during the visual survey season and the cryptic nature of shoot damage, survey for T. piniperda during spring emergence is needed. Eight Virginia counties (Frederick, Clarke, Loudoun, Rappahannock, Shenandoah, Fauquier, Warren, Highland) were surveyed. Widely scattered sites were selected in each county. Each site consisted of at least 25 pine trees or a Christmas tree plantation, nursery, saw mill, pulp mill, or timber gathering yard. Three traps were placed per site. A total of 93 traps were placed in all five counties. T. piniperda fly when winter temperatures exceed 54oF Traps were baited with alpha pinene lures obtained from a commercial source. RESULTS: Traps were serviced by VDACS, APHIS, and VPI&SU. All samples were sent to VPI&SU. Preliminary screening of samples was done by a VPI&SU technician and no suspect specimens were submitted to S. Passoa or Rick Hoebeke for confirmation. Summary data indicating its negative status in Virginia has been entered into the NAPIS database. No suspect or exotic beetles were found.

Background Information on Pine Shoot Beetle Survey: Counties: Frederick, Clarke, Loudoun, Highland, Warren, Rappahannock, Fauquier Monitoring agencies: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI&SU), Virginia Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), and APHIS/PPQ. Number of Sites: 31 Sites in eight counties Traps per site: 3 Total traps: 93 Trap Setup: December and January. Travel & Transportation: Traps were visited every 4-8 weeks from February to June and until September for some sites. Virginia Tech Personnel: Eric R. Day. APHIS Personnel: None this year. VDACS Personnel: Frank Fulgham, Tom Finn, Tom Cary, Beth McClelland, Ernie Elliott

Previous Surveys: Corn Earworm, Heliocoverpa zea, Survey (1974-1997); Western Corn Rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera (1985, 1987-93); Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus (1988-1992); Pear Thrips (1990-92), Exotic Lady Beetles (1993), Hylobius abietis (1995). Exotic moths: Apple Ermine Moth, Cherry Bark Tortrix, and Pear Leaf Blister Moth (1986-1995). Broomrape Weed (Orobanche) (1996), Tufted Apple Bud Moth (1996), Apple Maggot (1996), Golden Nematode (1996) Culicoides veripennis. (1994 -1995), Pine Shoot beetle (1997-2001), Exotic Bark Beetles (1995-2000), Tropical Soda Apple (1998), Sweet Potato Weevil (1998), exotic clover weevils: Ischnopterapion virens (1999).

Persons providing identifications and/or control recommendations:

Identifications and control recommendations covering most commodities performed by:

Mr. Eric R. Day

Manager, Insect Identification Laboratory

Timely and valuable identifications and/or control recommendations were also provided by:

Dr. Richard D. Fell	Professor of Entomology	Apiculture and Stinging Insects
Dr. Dini Miller	Assistant Professor of Entomology	Structural and Household Insects
Dr. Ames Herbert	Associate Professor of Entomology	Soybeans, Small grains, Peanuts, and cotton
Mr. Steve Hiner	Technical Support Staff	Aquatic Insects and Invertebrates
Dr. Michael Kosztarab	Emeriti Professor of Entomology	Scale Insects
Dr. Edwin Lewis	Assistant Professor of Entomology	Turf and Ornamentals
Dr. Douglas G. Pfeiffer	Professor of Entomology	Fruit and Nuts
Dr. Scott Salom	Associate Professor of Entomology	Forest and Conifer
Dr. Peter Schultz	Station Director, Hampton Roads	Ornamentals
Dr. Paul J. Semtner	Professor of Entomology	Tobacco
Dr. J. Reese Voshell	Professor of Entomology	Aquatic Insects
Dr. Roger Youngman	Associate Professor of Entomology	Corn, Small grains, and Livestock

Activities: The following table lists the magnitude of activities and services provided by the Insect Identification Laboratory (IIL) and the faculty and staff associated with it since 1967.

Number of Specimens Identified
Year	Identifications for Extension Agents and the Public	Identifications from Exotic Pest Surveys, Numbers of Traps Examined	Specimens sent to the Systematic Entomology Laboratory,USDA at Beltsville, Md. *
1967	318	a	a
1968	984	a	a
1969	1104	a	a
1970	1245	a	a
1971	1276	a	100b
1972	970	a	516
1973	1124	a	184
1974	1264	a	316
1975	1430	a	160
1976	1437	a	223
1977	1365	a	282
1978	1351	a	89
1979	1770	a	120
1980	1527	a	23
1981	2028	a	89
1982	2004	a	100
1983	1815	a	36
1984	1745	a	45
1985	1730	a	20
1986	1537	62	16
1987	1731	0	32
1988	1719	69	15
1989	1877	145	10
1990	1629	120	37
1991	1874	120	23
1992	1516	80	13
1993	1642c	160	30
1994	1548	77	17
1995	1764	0	32
1996	1376	0	6
1997	1435	0	4
1998	1595	0	6
1999	1510	0	7
2000	1751	0	7
	______	_____	_____
TOTAL	50991	833	2558

a Service not previously provided; b Estimated; c Includes requested Harmonia axyridis samples; * Includes specimens sent to other taxonomists at other institutions

Taxa, by Order, received at the Insect Identification Lab in 2000

Count of Insect Order
Insect Order	Total
Coleoptera	343
Hymenoptera	228
Lepidoptera	209
Homoptera	193
Acari	158
Other	136
Diptera	123
Hemiptera	111
Isoptera	50
Araneida	41
Araneae	33
Orthoptera	22
Thysanoptera	22
Collembola	15
Dermaptera	13
Diplopoda	11
Dictyoptera	9
Psocoptera	8
Neuroptera	5
Scutigeromorpha	5
Thysanura	3
Anoplura	2
Ephemeroptera	2
Mollusca	2
Plecoptera	2
Coleoptea	1
Polydesmida	1
Pseudoscorpiones	1
Siphonaptera	1
Grand Total	1751

Source of Insects by County for 2000

Count of County
County	Total
Albemarle	67
Alleghany	12
Amelia	6
Amherst	4
Appomattox	7
Arlington	27
Augusta	56
Bath	5
Bedford	7
Bland	2
Botetourt	16
Brunswick	5
Buchanan	4
Buckingham	2
Campbell	6
Carroll	20
Charles City	10
Charlotte	1
Chesapeake(IC)	15
Chesterfield	51
Clarke	10
Craig	2
Culpeper	7
Cumberland	6
Danville(IC)	28
Dickenson	13
Dinwiddie	12
Essex	8
Fairfax	24
Fauquier	23
Floyd	8
Fluvanna	14
Franklin	27
Frederick	25
Giles	28
Gloucester	10
Goochland	6
Grayson	5
Greene	21
Greensville	7
Halifax	3
Hampton(IC)	13
Hanover	55
Henrico	75
Henry	6
Highland	11
Isle of Wight	12
James City	49
King and Queen	1
King George	13
King William	3
Lancaster	12
Lee	2
Loudoun	12
Louisa	20
Lunenberg	16
Lynchburg(IC)	80
Madison	2
Mathews	12
Mecklenberg	4
Middlesex	5
Montgomery	191
Nelson	16
New Kent	2
Newport News(IC)	2
Norfolk(IC)	10
Northumberland	21
Nottoway	4
Orange	14
Out of State	1
Page	36
Patrick	12
Petersburg(IC)	3
Pittsylvania	5
Portsmouth(IC)	4
Powhatan	7
Prince Edward	7
Prince George	42
Prince William	25
Pulaski	2
Rappahannock	30
Richmond	4
Richmond(IC)	5
Roanoke	59
Rockbridge	9
Rockingham	52
Russell	7
Shenandoah	23
Smyth	2
Southampton	4
Spotsylvania	3
Stafford	9
Suffolk(IC)	14
Surry	3
Sussex	3
Tazewell	11
Virginia Beach(IC)	10
Warren	12
Washington	14
Westmoreland	14
Wise	13
Wythe	8
York	25
Grand Total	1751

Count of Insects by Host Category and Month for 2000

Count of Category	Month Rec
Category	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Grand Total
ANIMAL	1				2		1	1	2			2	9
APICULTURAL		1	2			1			1				5
FIELD CROP		1		5	2	7	3	7	4	1	1	2	33
FRUITS,NUTS		4	2	6	6	11	16	10	4	1	2	1	63
GENERAL	2	1	2	1		3	21	4	2	1			37
HOUSEHOLD	18	16	30	20	49	58	64	64	53	44	27	10	453
HUMAN			5	5	12	13	5	11	8	2	4	5	70
LAWNS, TURF			1	1	4	3	4	7	2	2	3		27
ORNAMENTALS	13	24	48	62	122	137	98	88	71	71	39	4	777
STORED PRODUCTS	13	7	12	5	9	5	8	4	11	17	11	3	105
STRUCTURAL	2	6	19	20	16	9	6	8	7	4		2	99
VEGETABLES	1		1	5	5	11	18	13	10	6	3		73
Grand Total	50	60	122	130	227	258	244	217	175	149	90	29	1751