scholarly journals Inexpensive Trap for Monitoring the Green June Beetle

2012 ◽  
Vol 105 (6) ◽  
pp. 2076-2084 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Cowell ◽  
Michal Reut ◽  
Donn T. Johnson ◽  
Darek Czokajlo ◽  
Soo-Hoon Samuel Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Green June Beetle

Response of the green June beetle and its gut microbiome to RDX and phenanthrene

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carina Jung ◽  
Matthew Carr ◽  
Eric Fleischman ◽  
Chandler Roesch
Keyword(s):  
Gut Microbiome ◽  
The United States ◽  
Model Organisms ◽  
Soil Toxicity ◽  
Intimate Contact ◽  
Animal Development ◽  
Bacterial Microbiome ◽  
Green June Beetle ◽  
High Concentrations ◽  
Survival Studies

Green June beetles are a cosmopolitan pest in the United States. Adults are voracious consumers of tree and vine fruit, while their larvae can dam-age and inadvertently consume root systems, particularly those of grasses, as they move through the soil and forage for detritus. Larvae ingest and process large volumes of soil while in the process of feeding. Due to their intimate contact with the soil it was hypothesized that soil contaminants that are known animal toxins would perturb the larval and affect their overall health and survival. Studies of this kind are important contribu-tions to the development of new model organisms and our understanding of interactions between the environment, contaminants, gut microbiome, and animal development, health, and survival. It is important to continue to develop relevant model organisms for monitoring toxicity as regulations for working with vertebrates becomes more prohibitive. In this study green June beetle larvae were exposed to RDX and phenanthrene through-out their entire soil-bound development, starting within the first few days of hatching through to their emergence as adults. The overall findings included that even at high concentrations, RDX and phenanthrene (25 ppm) exerted no significant effect on body weight or survival. Also, there was lit-tle apparent effect of RDX and phenanthrene on the bacterial microbiome, and no statistical association with measurable health effects. Nevertheless, the green June beetle is an interesting model for soil toxicity experiments in the future as is it easy to collect, house, and handle.

scholarly journals Green June Beetle Control in a Bermudagrass Pasture, 1995

1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 332-332
Author(s):  
K. L. Flanders ◽  
N. G. Graves ◽  
G. Cox ◽  
Z. D. DeLamar
Keyword(s):  
Green June Beetle

scholarly journals Green June Beetle Control on Golf Course Fairways in North Carolina 1995

1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 332-333
Author(s):  
P. T. Hertl ◽  
R. L. Brandenburg
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Golf Course ◽  
Green June Beetle

scholarly journals Evaluation of Merit to Control Green June Beetle Grubs on a Golf Course Fairway in Wayne, Penn-Sylvania, 1995

1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 336-336
Author(s):  
P. R. Heller ◽  
R. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Soil Temperature ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Observation Interval ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Creeping Bentgrass ◽  
Product Distribution ◽  
Particle Size Analysis ◽  
Size Analysis ◽  
Water Ph ◽  
Green June Beetle

Abstract The fairway consisted primarily of annual bluegrass (50%) and creeping bentgrass (50%). Treatment plots were 9 X 6 ft, arranged in a randomized complete block design and replicated 3 times. Liquid formulations were applied by using a CO2 compressed air sprayer with 4 8004VS TeeJet nozzles mounted on a 6 ft boom, operating at 28 psi, and applied in 1021 ml of water/54 ft2 or delivering 5 gal/1000 ft2. Granular treatments were applied with a fine grade top-dressing sand to facilitate product distribution. At treatment time (6 Jun), the following soil and environmental conditions existed: air temperature, 77°F; soil temperature at 1 inch depth, 80°F; soil temperature at 2 inch depth, 78°F; RH, 74%; amount of thatch, 0.25-0.5 inches; soil textural class, silt-loam; soil particle size analysis: 32.1% sand, 53.8% silt, 14.2% clay; soil moisture (oven dried), 31.1%; organic matter, 8.3%; water pH, 6.5; soil pH, 5.2; application time, late-morning; and cloudy skies. Immediately after treatment the experimental area was irrigated with 0.3 inch of water. Posttreatment counts were made on 6 Sep. The total number of new freshly constructed green June beetle burrows was recorded from each replicate (54 ft2) as well as the total number of green June beetle larvae flushed to the surface following an application of Sevin 80WSP over a 24 hr observation interval.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document