Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/399958
Cranefly larvae damage roots and crowns of turf by direct feeding. As with invasions of other non-native species, there have been crisis events (Williams et al 1989) but eventually new pests become part of the regular pest management expectation. This pest is actually two invasive species; European Cranefly (Tipula paludosa) and the Common Cranefly (Tipula oleracea). In order to get a better understanding of how turf managers are dealing with these pests, a survey was offered to participants of the 2011 WCTA Conference and Tradeshow in Victoria, BC, with funding from the WCTA Research fund. Nineteen turf managers participated in the survey. Of the respondents, 47% were managers at golf courses, 24% were sports field managers, and the remainder were horticultural growers and researchers (Fig. 1). Most of the respondents were from BC but three were from Ontario and three from Oregon. The survey posed questions on the frequency and intensity of infestations, and any chemical or biological control measures used. It should be noted that respondents were not asked to distinguish between species of Cranefly. RESULTS The survey results suggested that there is a consistent presence of Cranefly (adults or larvae) in the majority of turf/sports greens in BC. Fifteen of nineteen respondents (79%) reported that the pest had been present recently (Fig. 2), with 31% recording infestation every year, and 26% every two to three years. Despite the apparent high frequency of infestations, the pest does not seem to be causing major financial losses for turf managers. When asked to rate their experience of the severity (including financial loss) of infestation on a scale of 0-10, only 6% of respondents reported having had high financial loss. The turf managers reporting highest infestation severity were from sites in Greater Vancouver and Ontario. The monitoring effort expended for a pest also indicates how serious an issue it is for turf managers. Turf managers do not appear to put forth a great deal of time or resources to monitor this pest: The most popular method of monitoring was to just observe and record damage to turf caused by any root-feeding larvae. The most effective method for monitoring cranefly larval numbers is counting the larva in a given area, but only 17% of the respondents employ this accurate method. CRANEFLY UPDATE 2011 SURVEY OF TURF MANAGERS (:UHWZOV[VM[OL0TWHJ[VM[OL,\YVWLHU*YHULÅ`VU[OL ;\YM.YHZZ0UK\Z[Y`PU)YP[PZO*VS\TIPH BY DEBORAH HENDERSON ;<9-9,:,(9*/9,769; Continued on Page 29 FIGURE 2. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS FROM DIFFERENT AREAS REPORTING RECENT CRANEFLY INFESTATIONS (ADULTS OR LARVAE) HAS LEATHERJACKET BEEN IDENTIFIED RECENTLY FIGURE 3. FREQUENCY OF CONTROL MEASURES USED AGAINST CRANEFLY IN TURF CONTROL MEASURES EMPLOYED 7/6;6*9,+0;!4(3*64:;69,@+0:*6=,930-,69. EUROPEAN CRANEFLY ADULT Tipula paludosa FIGURE 1. RESPONDENTS AREA OF TURF GRASS MANAGEMENT 26% Other 16% Horti- culture 16% Sport 42% Golf Turf PERCENTAGE OF MANAGERS USING MONITORING METHOD FOR CRANEFLY: • 7% No monitoring for this pest • 33% Observe and record damage to turf from any root-feeding larvae (note, this may not be caused by cranefly larvae) • 27% Record the number of adults swarming • 17% Count the number of larvae in a given area 26 TURF LINE NEWS