Leaf and shoot distortions and retarded shoot growth in Vitis vinifera L. prevalent in Australian vineyards in early spring, were investigated in replicated field experiments over 3 yrs. Leaf distortion and retarded shoot growth were identified as damage due to feeding of extremely high populations of over-wintered deutogynes of Calepitrimerus vitis (Nalepa) (grape rust mite). This damage was hitherto known in Australia as 'Restricted Spring Growth' (RSG), a syndrome comprising several growth abnormality symptoms, none with a clearly identified cause or a successful treatment. A successful treatment against C. vitis was used to selectively eliminate RSG, while C. vitis numbers were recorded using a validated trapping technique; intercepting deutogynes migrating from winter shelters in the wooden vine structure, to emerging green tissues. Severe leaf distortion was associated with > 400 C. vitis deutogynes per spur, while > 1000 per spur had the added effect of severely retarding shoot growth. A 43.0-47.2% shoot length reduction was recorded for Cabernet Sauvignon, 27.1-32.8% for Sauvignon Blanc, when 4-6 leaves were separated. Symptoms were most prominent up to 8-9 separated leaves, however 24.7-30.4% shoot length reduction was still evident at flowering, and 12.8% circa fruit set. C. vitis effect on vine fruitfulness, and yield parameters at fruit set, were also studied. Once successfully treated to prevent C. vitis damage, poor bud burst remained evident in some vineyards. Surveys of unburst buds from such vineyards revealed presence of Colomerus vitis (Pagenstecher) (grape bud mite). When Col. vitis numbers in unburst buds reached 100-500 per bud, apical meristems of primary, and commonly also secondary buds were dead, preventing bud burst. The remaining living scale tissue was distinctly scarred. Bud and associated shoot damage were documented. Retarded shoot growth and leaf distortion, previously attributed to RSG, are misdiagnosed C. vitis spring feeding damage. Clustered high infestations of Col. vitis can cause bud-axis necrosis, bud burst failure, shoots with short basal internodes, and short, thin, zigzagged shoots with absent fruit clusters; all previously considered RSG.

Laboratory bioassays for testing the effect of agrochemicals on Euseius victotiensis (Womersley) and Galendromus occidentalis (Nesbitt) on detached leaves of Glycine max (L.) (soybean) and Phaseolus vulgaris L. (French bean) were developed. The tests allowed standardized comparisons between mite species and leaf substrates, under "worst-case scenario" exposure, comparable with commercial pesticide application. Young juveniles, along with their initial food and the entire water supply, were sprayed to the point of runoff by using a Potter spray tower. The highest registered field rate concentration used on French bean was adjusted to deliver the same pesticide dose per higher runoff point spray volume on soybean. Cumulative mortality was assessed at 48 h, 4 d, and 7 d after spray application. Fecundity was assessed for 7 d from the onset of egg lay. Boscalid (Filan 500 WG), dithianon (Delan 700 WG), and kresoxim-methyl (Stroby 500 WG) caused no significant 7-d mortality or fecundity reduction to G. occidentalis or E. victoriensis compared with controls, and are classified as harmless to both species. Mancozeb (Mancozeb 750 WG) was highly toxic to both species, resulting in severe mortality and fecundity reduction and is considered incompatible with integrated pest management programs that use these species. Metiram (Polyram 700 WG) was highly toxic to E. victoriensis but only moderately toxic to G. occidentalis. Analyses of mortality proportions, including, and excluding unaccounted escapees, produced the same results. Test standardization on leaf substrates provides an alternative approach to standardization via residue on glass used by International Organisation for Biological and Integrated Control or Noxious Animals and Plants/West Palaearctic Regional Section regulatory testing in the European Union.

This paper discusses the development and implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies for broadacre cropping in Victoria, Australia, with reference to other crops and also the levels of adoption of IPM in Australia and overseas. Levels and rates of adoption are mostly low but with some exceptions. The reasons for differing levels of adoption include the failure of strategies to successfully deal with all pests, the lack of motivation to change to using IPM given current successful pesticide-based controls, and the poor availability of IPM advisors in the field. This paper outlines how IPM strategies for wheat, barley and canola crops were developed and implemented using a collaborative approach between farmers, agronomists and entomologists. It was found that although there were no existing specific IPM strategies for the crops grown in the region of south-eastern Australia, there was sufficient information for farmers to start using an IPM approach. This paper gives a case study of implementing change to IPM from conventional pesticide spraying, including the development of a course in IPM for growers and agronomists. It focuses on the process of changing practices and information transfer rather than on entomological details.

The impacts of six selective insecticides on three predatory insect species, Tasman's lacewing (Micromus tasmaniae), the transverse ladybird (Coccinella transversalis) and the damsel bug (Nabis kinbergii), were tested by acute and long-term bioassay. Acute bioassays measured mortality 72 h after exposure to wet sprays and dry residues, and long-term bioassays measured mortality and sublethal effects over a generation. The acute bioassays were not consistently reliable indicators of the harmfulness of insecticides that did not induce high short-term mortality. Pymetrozine caused very low mortality (Յ20%) to the larvae of C. transversalis in acute tests, but the long-term test showed that 97.6% of individuals were killed before maturity. Similarly, pirimicarb adversely affected reproduction of C. transversalis even though there was only a minor effect on short-term mortality. Imidacloprid caused low mortality (Յ20%) of M. tasmaniae in acute tests, but reproductive capacity was reduced by about two-thirds in long-term tests. Therefore, in some cases, acute bioassays were poor indicators of overall effects of insecticides on populations. Our results support previous studies by other authors that long-term mortality and sublethal effects of selective insecticides on predatory species need to be determined to facilitate their effective use alongside biological control in integrated pest management programs.

Integrated Pest Management for Crops and Pastures describes in straightforward language what is required for farmers to successfully implement Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in cropping and grazing operations. It explains the differences between conventional pesticide-based controls and IPM, and demonstrates the advantages of IPM. Effective control of pests depends on a number of approaches, not just chemical or genetic engineering. The opening chapters cover the different approaches to pest management, and the importance of identification and monitoring of pests and beneficials. Most farmers and advisors can identify major pests but would struggle to recognise a range of beneficial species. Without this information it is impossible to make appropriate decisions on which control methods to use, especially where pests are resistant to insecticides. The book goes on to deal with the control methods: biological, cultural and chemical. The biological control agents discussed include both native and introduced species that attack pests. Cultural changes that have led to an increase in the incidence or severity of pest attack are also examined. The chapter on chemical control describes the different ways chemicals can affect beneficial species, also detailing acute, sub-lethal and transient toxicities of pesticides, drawing on examples from horticulture where necessary. Finally, the authors bring all the components of integrated pest management together and show farmers how to put their IPM plan into action.