Management of white grubs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) on groundnut in southern India

The chemical control of groundnut white grubs, Holotrichia serrata F. and H. reynaudi Blanchard (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), was studied in south--central India. Microplot trials demonstrated that chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid seed--dressings were effective against H. serrata at rates as low as 0.6 and 3.5 g a.i. kg-1, respectively, while microplot and on--farm trials showed that 1.2 and 3.5 g a.i. kg-1of chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid, respectively, were required for H. reynaudi. Chlorpyrifos residue analyses indicated that at 20 days after sowing (d.a.s.) rates up to 5.0 g a.i. kg-1 produced residues in soil and groundnut seedlings markedly below the relevant MRL, and no detectable residues at harvest under the southern Indian rainy--season environment. A farmer survey found that in Andhra Pradesh (AP), insecticides (chlorpyrifos and phorate) were applied for white grub control in 37.5% of farms sampled, while no insecticides were applied for this purpose in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The white grub density on farms in AP where insecticide had been applied averaged 0.07 larvae m-2, compared to 1.04 larvae m-2 in the remaining AP farms. In AP, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, 70%, 42% and 39% of currently untreated groundnut fields, respectively, exceed the provisional economic threshold. A survey in the Anantapur district of AP found that farmer’s target and achieved rates for seed treatment averaged 0.44 and 0.52 g a.i. kg-1, both below optimal rates determined in microplot experiments. These data provide the foundation for an effective and sustainable program of management for groundnut white grubs in south--central India by providing key efficacy data and baseline data on farmer insecticide- use patterns.

Two novel mastreviruses from chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in Australia

Two novel mastreviruses (genus Mastrevirus; family Geminiviridae), with proposed names chickpea chlorosis virus (CpCV) and chickpea redleaf virus, are described from chickpea (Cicer arietinum) from eastern Australia. The viruses have genomes of 2,582 and 2,605 nucleotides, respectively, and share similar features and organisation with typical dicot-infecting mastreviruses. Two distinct strains of CpCV were suggested by phylogenetic analysis. Additionally, a partial mastrevirus Rep sequence from turnip weed (Rapistrum rugosum) indicated the presence of a distinct strain of Tobacco yellow dwarf virus (TYDV). In phylogenetic analyses, isolates of Bean yellow dwarf virus, Chickpea chlorotic dwarf Pakistan virus and Chickpea chlorotic dwarf Sudan virus from southern and northern Africa and south-central and western Asia clustered separately from these three viruses from Australia. An Australian, eastern Asian, or south-eastern Asian origin for the novel mastreviruses and TYDV is discussed.

Wild dog control impacts on calf wastage in extensive beef cattle enterprises

Wild dogs (Canis lupus dingo and hybrids) are routinely controlled to protect beef cattle from predation yet beef producers are sometimes ambivalent as to whether wild dogs are a significant problem or not. This paper reports the loss of calves between birth and weaning in pregnancy-tested herds located on two beef cattle properties in south-central and far north Queensland for up to 4 consecutive years. Comparisons of lactation failures (identified when dams that previously tested pregnant were found non-lactating at weaning) were made between adjoining test herds grazed in places with or without annual (or twice annual) wild dog poison baiting programs. No correlation between wild dog relative abundance and lactation failures was apparent. Calf loss was frequently higher (three in 7 site-years, 11–32%) in baited areas than in non-baited areas (9% in 1 of 7 site-years). Predation loss of calves (in either area) only occurred in seasons of below-average rainfall, but was not related to herd nutrition. These data suggest that controlling wild dogs to protect calves on extensive beef cattle enterprises is unnecessary in most years because wild dogs do not routinely prey on calves. In those seasons when wild dog predation might occur, baiting can be counter-productive. Baiting appears to produce perturbations that change the way surviving or re-colonising wild dog populations select and handle prey and/or how they interact with livestock.