VIOLENCIA AUTOINFLINGIDA
1.4. EPIDEMIOLOGIA DEL SUICIDIO 1 Datos epidemiológicos mundiales
1.4.2. Datos epidemiológicos del suicidio en España
Decades of selection in the eastern United States have provided elm cultivars resistant to Dutch elm disease. However, 10-year results from field trials in California were somewhat disappointing. Costello, Scott, and Drake (2004) found that in California, the American elm selection ‘Valley Forge’ exhibited very poor structure and that American 'Liberty’ can become infected by DED. 'Prospector' (a moderate-size tree at maturity) and 'Frontier' (which grows very large, but is somewhat ELB-susceptible) are good choices for California landscapes if they are regularly and properly pruned during their early years to induce good structure (Table 3).
Newer cultivars have become commercially available. In the eastern U.S., many of these elms are highly resistant to both DED and ELB. Some also have the stately, upright vase-shaped growth for which American and European elms were so prized, desirable growth habits lacking in the purely Asian elms that are the primary sources of DED- and ELB-resistance genes. 'Frontier', 'Prospector', and American elm selections are among the 13 elm cultivars being field tested at UC Davis. First-year (2005) results during a season of high elm leaf beetle abundance demonstrate that many of the newest DED-resistant elms are either highly or moderately resistant to ELB (Fig. 2).
These elms are being professionally pruned to promote a dominant central leader and well-spaced, strongly attached lateral branches. After five years of controlled study, well-performing elms will be transplanted throughout the UC Davis campus. Long-term study will reveal whether the pest resistance and desirable growth habits these elms demonstrated in the East and early in our study will be maintained in California landscapes.
REFERENCES
Berry, P.A. 1938a. Laboratory studies on Tetrastichus xanthomelaenae Rond. and Tetrastichus sp., two hymenopterous egg parasites of the elm leaf beetle. Journal of Agricultural Research 57: 859–863.
Berry, P.A. 1938b. Tetrastichus brevistigma Gahan, a pupal parasite of the elm leaf beetle. U. S. Dept. Agric. Cir. 485. 11 pp.
Brown, L.R., Eads, C.O. 1966. A technical study of insects affecting the elm tree in southern California. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 821. 24 pp.
Bugg, R.L., Ehler, L.E. undated. Biological control of the elm leaf beetle in the Central Valley of California: a report of research during 1983. University Riverside. 6 pp. (unpublished)
Clausen, C.P. 1978. Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review. U.S. Dept. Agric. Handbook 480. 545 pp.
Costello, L.R., Scott, S.R., Drake, C.M. 2004. A 10-year evaluation of the performance of four elm cultivars in California, U.S. Jour. of Arboriculture 30(2), 114–122.
Dahlsten, D.L., Dreistadt, S.H. 1995. Elm leaf beetle, Xanthogaleruca luteola (Muller), Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae. In: Nechols, J.R., Andres, L.A., Beardsley, J.W., Jackson, C.G. (eds). Biological Control in the Western United States. Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 3361, pp 180–182.
Dahlsten, D.L., Rowney, D.L., Tait, S.M. 1994. Climatic influences on elm leaf beetle and its control through introduced parasitoids and insecticide bands. In: Beall, T. (ed.), Innovations in Landscape Pest Management. Elvenia J. Slosson, Fund for Ornamental Horticulture: 1987-1991. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, pp. 20–22.
Dahlsten, D.L., Rowney, D.L., Lawson, A.B. 1998. IPM helps control elm leaf beetle. California Agriculture 52(2),18–23.
Dahlsten, D.L., Dreistadt, S.H., Geiger, J.R., Tait, S.M., Rowney, D.L., Yokota, G.Y., Copper, W.A. 1990. Elm leaf beetle biological control and management in northern California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Report.
Dahlsten, D.L., Tait, S.M., Rowney, D.L., Gingg, B.J. 1993. A monitoring system and development of ecologically sound treatments for elm leaf beetle. Jour. of Arboriculture 19(4), 181–186.
Dreistadt, S.H., Clark, J.K., Flint, M.L. 2004. Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs: An Integrated Pest Management Guide. Second edition. Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 3359.
Dreistadt, S.H., Dahlsten, D.L. 1990a. Distribution and abundance of Erynniopsis antennata (Diptera: Tachinidae) and Tetrastichus brevistigma (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), two introduced elm leaf beetle parasitoids in northern California. Entomophaga 35(4), 527–536.
Dreistadt, S.H., Dahlsten, D.L. 1990b. Relationships of temperature to elm leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) development and damage in the field. J. Econ. Entomol. 83(3), 837–841.
Dreistadt, S.H., Dahlsten, D.L. 1990c. Insecticide bark bands and control of the elm leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Northern California. J. Econ. Entomol. 83(4), 1495–1498.
Dreistadt, S.H., Dahlsten, D.L. 1991. Establishment and overwintering of Tetrastichus gallerucae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), an egg parasitoid of the elm leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in northern California. Environ. Entomol. 20(6), 1711–1719.
Ehler, L.E., Bugg, R.L., Hertlein, M.B., Sauter, H.B., Thorarinson, K. 1987. Patch-exploitation patterns in an egg parasite of elm leaf beetle. Entomophaga 32, 233–239.
Fernald, H.T. 1901. The imported elm leaf beetle., Galerucella luteola Mull. Hatch Experiment Station. Massachusetts Agricultural College. Bulletin No. 76. 8 pp.
Flanders, S.E. 1936. Japanese species of Tetrastichus parasitic eggs of Galerucella xanthomelaenae (Schrank). J. Econ. Entomol. 29, 1024–1025.
Flanders, S.E. 1940. Observations on the biology of the elm leaf beetle parasite, Erynnia nitida R. J. Econ. Entomol. 33, 947–948.
Lawson, A.B., Dreistadt, S.H. 2004. Elm Leaf Beetle Pest Notes. University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 7403. Oakland. online at www.ipm.ucdaivs.edu. Lawson, A.B., Dahlsten, D.L. 2003a. Evaluation of systemic insecticides as a treatment option in integrated pest
management of the elm leaf beetle, Xanthogaleruca luteola (Müller) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 96(5),1455–1462.
Lawson, A.B., Dahlsten, D.L. 2003b. Implementation of a city-wide monitoring program to base treatment decisions on elm leaf beetle abundance. Journal of Arboriculture 29(1), 34–41.
Luck, R. F. and G. T. Scriven. 1979. The elm leaf beetle, Pyrrhalta luteola, in southern California: its host preference and host impact. Environ. Entomol. 8, 307–313
Luck, R.F., Scriven, G.T. 1984. Final report–1984. UCR component of Department of Forestry award #3-080- 396. University of California, Riverside. 2 pp. (unpublished)
Luck, R.F., Scriven, G.T. 1976. The elm leaf beetle, Pyrrhalta luteola, in southern California: its pattern of increase and its control by introduced parasites. Environ. Entomol. 5, 409–416.
Olkowski, W., Daar, S., Green, M., Anderson, D., Hyde, J. 1986. Update: new IPM methods for elm leaf beetle. IPM Practitioner. 8(5), 1–7.
Svihra, P. 1980. Dutch elm disease in California. Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California. Leaflet 21189. 8 pp.
Table 1.
Insecticides and when they were first recommended or used in the United States to control elm leaf beetle
Pesticide Date Status
copper arsenic (Paris green) 1860s No
kerosene and soap emulsions 1970s No
lead arsenate 1890s No
nicotine sulfate 1920s No
DDT 1940s No
hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) =benzene hexachloride (BHC) 1940s No
dieldrin 1940s No
malathion 1950s early No
carbaryl (Sevin) 1950s late X
dicrotophos (Bidrin) 1970s No
Metasystox R 1970s No
pyrethroids (e.g., fluvalinate) 1970s X
orthene (Acephate) 1980s X
Bacillus thuringiensis tenebrionis (=Bt san diego) 1980s Noa
azadirachtin (Azatin) 1980s UC
abamectin (Avid, Vivid II) 1980s UC
imidacloprid (Bayer Advanced T&S, Merit) 1990s late UC
This incomplete list includes only some of the more common or notable pesticides that have been used for ELB. No, Not registered or not currently University of California recommended for elm leaf beetle control.
UC, University of California recommended (Lawson and Dreistadt 2004).
X, Qualified UC recommendation: only for trunk banding (carbaryl, pyrethroids) or injection techniques that do not create large trunk wounds (acephate).
a Recommended by Cooperative Extensions in other states, but no current California registration.
Table 2.
Parasitoid introductions in central and southern California for the biological control of Xanthogaleruca luteola, 1933–1983
Year Source Location(s) Reference
1933–36 Europe, Japana Fresno Berry 1938a, Clausen
1978, Flanders 1936 1934b eastern US Fresno, Orangevale, Port Costa, Visalia Berry 1938b
1939c Europe Stockton Clausen 1978
1950-60s, 1971–83
France, Iran, Morocco, Spain
Southern California, including: Bishop, Hesperia, Landcaster, N. Hollywood, Redlands, Riverside, Temecula, Thurman Flt., Yucaipa
Luck & Scriven 1984
1974–80 Iran, Greece Davis, Modesto, San Jose, St. Helena, Winters Olkowski et al. 1986 1981–83 Israel, Morocco Chico, Davis, Dixon, Fresno, Marysville, Merced,
Modesto, Sacramento, Stockton, Winters, Woodland
Bugg & Ehler undated
All introductions were of Oomyzus (=Tetrastichus) gallerucae, except as noted. a Tetrastichus sp. from Pyrrhalta maculicollis (Mots.) from Japan.
b Baryscapus (=Tetrastichus) brevistigma c Erynniopsis antennata
Table 3.
Elms (Ulmus spp.) and elm substitutes that have been commercially available for more than two decades and their susceptibility to Dutch elm disease (DED) and elm leaf beetle (ELB)
Tree Susceptibility
Common name Scientific name ELB DED
English elm Ulmus procera HS HS
Scotch elm U. glabra HS HS
American elm U. americana S HS
'Homestead' hybrid including U. carpinifolia, U. hollandica, and U. pumila
S R
'Liberty' group American elms U. americana selections Sa MR 'New Horizon' and 'Valley Forge'
American elmsb U. americana selections S
a R
'Pioneer' U. glabra X U. carpinifolia S R
Siberian elm U. pumila S MR
'Frontier' U. carpinifolia X U. parvifolia MRc R
Chinese elm U. parvifolia Rd MR
'Prospector' U. wilsoniana selection R R
zelkova Zelkova serrata R MR
hackberry Celtis spp. NS NS hornbeam Carpinus spp. NS NS HS, highly susceptible R, resistant S, susceptible NS, not susceptible MR, moderately resistant
a Generally susceptible to elm leaf beetle, but certain selections exhibit some resistance.
b American elm selections resistant to Dutch elm disease have exhibited poor growth structure when grown in California.
c Reported ELB susceptibility varies greatly, possibly due to location and genetic variability or misidentification elms.
Fig. 1. California release sites of the elm leaf beetle egg parasitoid Oomyzus gallerucae, 1984–1998 (Dahlsten et al., 1998).
'Emerald Sunshine,' Ulmus propinqua 'Frontier,' U. carpinifolia X U. parvifolia
'Homestead,' U. glabra X U. carpinifolia X U. pumila
'Morton Glossy' Triumph, U. pumila X U. japonica X U. wilsoniana 'Morton Plainsman' Vanguard, U. pumila X U. japonica
'Morton Red Tip' Danada Charm, U. japonica X U. wilsoniana
'Morton Stalwart' Commendation, U. carpinifolia X U. pumila X U. wilsoniana 'Morton' Accolade, U. japonica X U. wilsoniana
'New Horizon,' U. pumila X U. japonica
'Patriot,' (U. glabra X U. carpinifolia X U. pumila) X U. wilsoniana 'Pioneer,' U. glabra X U. carpinifolia
'Prospector,' U. wilsoniana 'Valley Forge,' U. americana
Fig. 2. Comparison of elm leaf beetle damage to 13 Dutch elm disease resistant elm (Ulmus spp.) cultivars. Means are from eight 1-foot shoot segments from 5 trees per cultivar, planted in March, 2005 every 20-ft in a RCB design on the UC Davis campus. Bars topped by a same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05) according to ANOVA and Tukey's tests for all paired comparisons (Flint and Dreistadt unpublished). All specimens of a fourteenth cultivar of U. parvifolia ('Emer II' Allee) died. 'New Harmony' and 'Princeton' American elm selections were added in 2006.
BEHAVIORAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN ANTS, PESTS, AND PARASITOIDS – IMPLICATIONS