Advertisement

Entomophaga

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 415–426 | Cite as

Integrated control of the long-tailed mealybug,Pseudococcus longispinus [Hom.: Pseudococcidae], in avocado plantations in Israel

  • E. Swirski
  • Y. Izhar
  • M. Wysoki
  • E. Gurevitz
  • S. Greenberg
Article

Abstract

Avocado plantations in Israel neighbouring cotton fields were heavily infested with and damaged by the long-tailed mealybugPseudococcus longispinusTargioni Tozzetti. Drift of pesticides from the aerial sprays of those cotton fields upset the biological equilibrium and resulted in outbreaks of the mealybug population.

The honeydew moth,Cryptoblabes gnidiellaMill. is attracted to the honeydew and its larvae gnaw the fruit. Avocado plantations in the vicinity of deciduous fruit trees, vines and citrus orchards treated with non-selective pesticides were also damaged, but to a lesser degree. The annual peak of the long-tailed mealybug population occurs in late spring and early summer, declines from autumn to winter, and is at an ebb usually in April.

The parasitic waspHungariella peregrinaCompere, the most important natural enemy in Israel of the long-tailed mealybug, was released in the striken areas.Anagyrus fusciventrisGirault was introduced from Australia and well established in citrus and avocado plantations. The lady beetleCryptolaemus montrouzieriMuls. did not become established in avocado plantations. Lacewings were less important than parasites as biocontrol agents. Control of ants did not affect markedly the fluctuations in the mealybug populations. As a result of limitations of aerial sprays of cotton near avocado, as well as of release of natural enemies in afflicted plantations, the long-tailed mealybug population and its damage were reduced greatly.

Keywords

Natural Enemy Cotton Field Annual Peak Citrus Orchard Deciduous Fruit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

En Israël, certaines plantations d'avocatiers avoisinant des champs de coton sont fortement infestées et endommagées par la cochenillePseudococcus longispinusTargioni Tozzetti. Les insecticides utilisés en pulvérisations par avion de ces champs de coton et dérivant sur les avocatiers, altérent l'équilibre biologique et accroissent ainsi énormément la population de la cochenille. La pyraleCryptoblabes gnidiellaMill. est attirée par le miellat de la cochenille et ses larves rongent le fruit. Au voisinage d'arbres fruitiers à feuilles caduques, de vignes et d'agrumes traités par des insecticides non sélectifs, les avocatiers subissent aussi des dégats, moins sévères toutefois. La population de la cochenille atteint son maximum annuel pendant la période, fin printemps — début de l'été; elle décline de l'automne à l'hiver et est généralement à son minimum en avril. L'hyménoptère parasiteHungariella peregrinaCompère, énemi naturel le plus important de la cochenille en Israël, a été lâché dans les zones affectées.Anagyrus fusciventrisGirault a été introduit d'Australie et est bien établi dans les plantations d'agrumes et d'avocatiers. La coccineleCryptolaemus montrouzieriMuls. ne s'est pas maintenue dans les plantations d'avocatiers. Comme facteurs de lutte biologique, les chrysopes se sont avérés moins importants que les parasites. Le contrôle des fourmis n'a pas eu d'effet marqué sur les fluctuations des populations de cochenilles. La restriction des traitements aériens du coton avoisinant les avocatiers, ainsi que les lâchers d'enemis naturels dans les plantations infestées ont réduit de beaucoup les pullulations de cochenilles et leurs dégâts.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anon. — 1958. Distribution Maps of Pests. Ser. A, Map No. 93. —Commonw. Inst. Entomol., Lond.Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett, B. R. &Lloyd, D. C. — 1958. Mealybugs attacking citrus in California. A survey of their natural enemies and the release of new parasites and predators. —J. Econ. Entomol., 51, 90–95.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, F. D. &Hughes, I. W. — 1959. Biological control of insect pests in Bermuda. —Bull. Entomol. Res., 50, 423–436.Google Scholar
  4. Compere, H. — 1939. Mealybugs and their insect enemies in South America. —Univ. Calif. Publ. Entomol., 7, 57–74.Google Scholar
  5. DeBach, P. &Fleschner, C. A. — 1947. Ladybirds, lacewings, parasites tested as long-tailed mealybug controls in California citrus. —Calif. Agric., 1, 3.Google Scholar
  6. Ebeling, W. — 1950. Subtropical Entomology. —Lithotype Process Co., San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Flanders, S. E. — 1940. Biological control of the long-tailed mealybugPseudococcus longispinus. —J. Econ. Entomol., 33, 754–759.Google Scholar
  8. — — 1944. Control of the long-tailed mealybug on avocados by hymenopterous parasites. —J. Econ. Entomol., 37, 308–309.Google Scholar
  9. Greathead, D. J. — 1971. A Review on Biological Control in the Ethiopian Region. —Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Control., 5, 5, 88, 105.Google Scholar
  10. Grinberg, A. — 1957. The status of biological control in Israel. —Hassadeh, 38, 295–299 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  11. Kaminski, Y. — 1974. Studies on the biology and taxonomy ofChartocerus (Signiphorina) subaeneus (Foerster) [Hymenoptera: Signiphoridae], secondary parasite of mealybugs. —M. Sc. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel. (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  12. Monastero, S. — 1962. Le cocciniglie degli agrumi in Sicilia. —Boll. Inst. Entomol. Agrar. Osser, Fitopathol. Palermo, 28, 65–151.Google Scholar
  13. Neumark, S. — 1952.Chrysopa carnea St. and its enemies in Israel. —Bull. Ilanot Forest Res. Stn., 1, 127 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Panis, A. — 1969. Observations faunistiques et biologiques sur quelquesPseudococcidae [Homoptera, Coccoidea] vivant dans le Midi de la France. —Ann. Zool. Ecol. Anim., 1, 211–224.Google Scholar
  15. Rosen, D. — 1967. Biological and integrated control of citrus pests in Israel. —J. Econ. Entomol., 60, 1422–1427.Google Scholar
  16. Tryapitsyn, V. A. — 1963. Survey of acclimatization ofEncyrtidae for control of agricultural pests and suggestions for their acclimatization in the USSR. —Proc. Conf. on Acclimatization of Animals in the USSR, held in Frunze, 10–15 May, 1963. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1966, pp. 226–229.Google Scholar
  17. Wysoki, M. — 1977. Overwintering, oversummering, and the effect of extreme temperature and humidity levels on the parasitic waspHungariella peregrina Compere [Hymenoptera, Encyrtidae]. —Phytoparasitica, 5, 15–25.Google Scholar
  18. Wysoki, M., Izhar, Y., Gurevitz, E., Swirski, E. &Greenberg, S. — 1975. Control of the honeydew moth,Cryptoblabes gnidiella Mill. [Lepidoptera: Phyticidae], withBacillus thuringiensis Berliner in avocado plantations. —Phytoparasitica, 3, 103–111.Google Scholar
  19. Wysoki, M., Izhar, Y., Swirski, E., Gurevitz, E. &Greenberg, S. — 1977. Susceptibility of avocado varieties to the long-tailed mealybug,Pseudococcus longispinus (Targioni Tozzetti) [Homoptera: Pseudococcidae], and a survey of its host plants in Israel. —Phytoparasitica, 5, 140–148.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Le François 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Swirski
    • 1
  • Y. Izhar
    • 2
  • M. Wysoki
    • 1
  • E. Gurevitz
    • 1
  • S. Greenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Div. of Entomology, The Volcani CenterAROBet DaganIsrael
  2. 2.Extension ServiceMinistry of AgricultureAkkoIsrael

Personalised recommendations