1. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 20061 Efficacy Against Adult Mosquitoes and Impact on Miami Blue Butterfly Lavae of Aerial ULV Application of Naled A Research Progress Report

2. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 20062 Participate Organizations  Florida A&M University  Florida Keys Mosquito Control District  University of Florida  Florida Park Service, FDEP  US Fish and Wildlife Service  Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission  Collier County Mosquito Control District  Indian River Mosquito Control District  Sponsored by Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (FDACS)

3. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 20063 Materials and Methods  Study Location: North Key Logo, Florida  Team work: 4 groups with 2-3 people per group  12 treatment Sites with 9 site at spray zone and 3 at the drift zone  Control stations (3) at over 25 miles away from the spray zone  Florida Keys MCD’s Aircraft (BN2T) equipped with WingmanTM GX and AIMMS-20 (Adapco) was used for naled Aerial ULV application  Residue sample collections: yarn and filter paper  Naled Analysis -GC with TSD (NPD) and ECD detector

4. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 20064 Materials and Methods  Bioassay: caged mosquitoes (about 50 field captured female mosquitoes / cage) (Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus) and mortality was assessed 8 hrs after the aerial application  Bioassay: Miami Blue Butterfly (Hemiargus thomasi bethunebakeri) Larvae (4 th instars) placed on top leaves of one gallon nickerbean plants. After being exposed mosquito spray, the larvae were continue feed on the “contaminated” leave for 48 hrs. Each larvae was continued monitored through pupa to adult butterfly for long-term impact assessment. The larvae escaped during the assay were also recorded.

5. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 20065

6. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 20066

7. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 20067

8. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 20068

9. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 20069

10. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200610

11. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200611

12. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200612

13. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200613

14. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200614

15. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200615

16. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200616

17. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200617

18. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200618

19. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200619

20. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200620

21. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200621 Trial 1 --8/23/2006 SiteNaled (ug/m 2 )% MBB escaped% MBB SurvivedNo. of MBB % Mosquito Mortality FK-1F1,163.9933%100%6 FK-2F695.9520%100%5 FK-3F87.0717%100%694% FK-4F1,627.320%100%4 FK-5F835.8833%75%6100% FK-6F53.910%100%634% FK-7FND33%100%65% FK-8F28.580%100%668% FK-9F328.780%100%6 FK-10F53.6533%100%619% FK-11F30.5750%100%611% FK-12FND17%100%65% FK-13FND33%100%63% FK-14FND17%100%67% FK-15FNDN/A 4%

22. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200622 Trial 2 --9/20/2006 SiteNaled (ug/m 2 )% MBB escaped% MBB SurvivedNo. of MBB% Mosquito Mortality FK-1F1,160.2117%80%690% FK-2F71.5633%100%614% FK-3F830.8467%50%692% FK-4F769.430%100%687% FK-5F606.9017%100%693% FK-6F331.960%100%693% FK-7F1,373.080%83%690% FK-8F1,050.5343%100%7 FK-9F653.980%83%692% FK-10F961.010%83%638% FK-11FND33%100%627% FK-12F139.5950%67%617% FK-13FND0%100%69% FK-14FND17%100%67% FK-15FND33%100%60%

23. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200623 SiteNaled (ug/m 2 )% MBB escaped% MBB SurvivedNo. of MBB% Mosquito Mortality FK-1F1,339.520%50%664.10% FK-2F968.4417%40%642.86% FK-3F1,069.6333%100%686.96% FK-4F3,188.0017%100%677.14% FK-5F3,062.3383%0%689.29% FK-6F762.070%100%693.33% FK-7F174.470%100%641.67% FK-8F494.5617%80%610.81% FK-9F353.650%100%685.00% FK-10FND50%67%67.50% FK-11FND0%50%621.43% FK-12FND17%80%630.00% FK-13FND0%100%617.07% FK-14FND0%100%615.79% FK-15FND67%100%633.33% Trial 3 --9/21/2006

24. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200624 Summery of Preliminary Results  Trial 1. --Mosquito control efficacy was excellent. The highest ground deposition was on site 4 (1,627 µg/m 2 ) which did not result the larvae death. One died MBB larvae was found in site 5 (836 µg/m 2 )  Trial 2. -- Mosquito control efficacy was good. The highest ground deposition was on site 7 (1,373 µg/m 2 ). One died MBB larvae was found in each of the six sites (site 1, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 12). Among them, site 12 had the least naled residue deposition (140 µg/m 2 ). However, site 8 (1,051 µg/m 2 ) had 100% MBB larvae survived to adult  Trial 3. --Mosquito control efficacy was fair. The highest ground deposition (site 4, with 3,144 µg/m 2 ) was found and 13 died larvae in this trial. Mystery: there were 5 larvae died in station 10, 11 and 12 with no detectable insecticide residue.  An average of 20% MBB larvae escaped in each of the 3 trials.

25. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200625 Discussion –Naled Residue  The naled residue detection Naled were detected in most of the field samples  The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) The spike samples on filter paper have reasonable recovery The spike recoveries on from yarn samples were low to none  The deposition threshold of naled residue < under 1000 µg/m 2 a desirable threshold. >1000 - < 1,500 µg/m 2 a marginal acceptable level.  The deposition range of naled spray In general it is fall under 1,000 or 1,500 µg/m 2 However, higher deposition was found on site 4 (3,188 µg/m 2 and 5 (3,062 µg/m 2 ) in trial 3 (9/21/2006).

26. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200626 Discussion –MBB Assay  Missing MBB larvae in trial. It is unknown the larvae “mission in action” --host plant searching behavior or hide for pupation?  Acute toxicity --No dead larvae were found during sample collection. It is appears that there were no acute toxic effect of naled on MBB larvae following the spray event  48 hrs mortality observation It appears that those larvae died in 48hr were not correlated with naled concentration on ground. Need more trials and statistical analysis to prove this hypothesis.  Long term impact from naled spray All alive MBB larvae following exposure to the spray successfully emerged to adults. It appears there are no long term impact

27. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200627 Discussion –Adult Mosquito Assay  The naled spray is very effective at current dosage rate against Oc. taeniorhynchus.  The efficacy can vary depend on topography such as the droplets may be blocked by trees.  The residue on yarn may correlate mosquito mortality. However, the fast degradation of naled in early morning could be great challenge to residue detection and recovery

28. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200628 Limitation of this study  Availability of the MBB larvae stand by to wait for MBB larvae to go through their life cycle is definitely time consuming and will affect the project progress  Only a single spray mission is evaluated the impact from multiple spray in consecutive date remains to be investigated.  Only MBB larvae bioassay is conducted the impact to adult MBB remains to be evaluated  Only current FKMCD application parameter is evaluated, the change of the spray parameter will decrease (e.g. Lower insecticide dose) or increase the impact (e.g. lower the spray attitude).

29. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200629 Acknowledgements The following personnel contributed to this project:  Florida A&M University -- C. Brock, T. Quimet, T. Lian, R. Aarons, N. Sickerman  Florida Keys Mosquito Control District -- Larry Hribar, Melanie Howey, Dawn Miller, David DeMay, Gary Bynum, Colleen Fitzsimmons, Eldred Wirsching, Seann Brown, and Abby Duckwall  University of Florida -- Akers Pence, Jaret Daniels  Florida Park Service, FDEP -- Jim Dusquesnel  US Fish and Wildlife Service -- Tim Barger  Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission -- Sharyn Hood  Collier County Mosquito Control District -- Jeff Stivers  Indian River Mosquito Control District -- Michael Hudon

30. zhongFCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 200630