BioControl

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 289–308 | Cite as

Specificity of Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope and Leptomastix dactylopii for six mealybug species

Article

Abstract

In order to understand better non-target effect and potential uses, the host specificity of two parasitoid species (Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope Noyes & Menezes and Leptomastix dactylopii Howard) (both Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) for six mealybug species [Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell), Phenacoccus madeirensis Green, Phenacoccus solani Ferris, Planococcus citri (Risso),Pseudococcus longispinus (Targioni-Tozzetti) and Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret)] (all Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) was studied through behavioral observations and laboratory rearing. The selected mealybug species represent major subfamilies and tribes of Pseudococcidae. Except for F. virgata, all mealybug species induced examinations by Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope and L. dactylopii. Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope was specific to P. madeirensis, which was the only mealybug species selected for oviposition and suitable for complete development of the parasitoid. No encapsulation of Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope in P. madeirensis was observed. Leptomastix dactylopii accepted multiple species for oviposition, with the ranking of species preference as P. citri > P. viburni > P. longispinus > P. solani > P. madeirensis. Only P. citri, P. longispinus and P. viburni supported the development of L. dactylopii. Parasitoids developing in P. longispinus and P. viburni suffered from high encapsulation rates, while no encapsulation was observed when developing in P. citri. The results of this study suggest that Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope is highly host specific. Leptomastix dactylopii, on the other hand, has a wider host range. The use of Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope in a mealybug biological control program is limited to P. madeirensis and L. dactylopii to P. citri. The results presented in this study also lead us to question the accuracy of the reported host range of L. dactylopii, which include all six mealybug species tested.

Keywords

encapsulation Encyrtidae Hemiptera host specificity Hymenoptera non-target effect oviposition behavior Pseudococcidae 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Noyes of Natural History Museum, London, UK for identification of Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope, and N. Gamble of the Callaway Garden, Pine Mountain, GA for allowing us to collect L. dactylopii and F. virgata in the Cecil B. Days Butterfly Center. L. S. Osborne of the University of Florida, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, FL, provided starter culture of A. loecki and important discussion on the original of the parasitoid species. We appreciate the valuable comments provided by two anonymous reviewers. We also thank M. Townsend, S. Stevens and R. Harris of the University of Georgia, as well as B. Wiltz of Louisiana State University, for their technical assistance and insect colony maintenance.

References

  1. Alleyne M., Wiedenmann R.N. (2001). Suitability of lepidopteran stemborers for parasitization by novel-association endoparasitoids. BioControl 46:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlett B.R. (1978). Pseudococcidae. In: Clausen C.P. (ed). Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (Agriculture Handbook volume 480), Washington DC, pp. 137–170Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Dov, Y. (1994). A Systematic Catalogue of the Mealybugs of the World (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with Data on Geographical Distribution, Host Plants, Biology and Economic Importance. Intercept, AndoverGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumberg D. (1997). Parasitoid encapsulation as a Defense Mechanism in the Coccoidea (Homoptera) and its importance in biological control. Biol. Control 8:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumberg D., Van Driesche R.G. (2001). Encapsulation rates of three encyrtid parasitoids by three mealybug species (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) found commonly as pests in commercial greenhouses. Biol. Control 22:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briese D.T. (2005). Translating host-specificity test results into the real world: The need to harmonize the yin and yang of current testing procedures. Biol. Control 35:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chong, J.-H., 2005. Biology of the Mealybug Parasitoid, Anagyrus loecki, and its Potential as a Biological Control Agent of the Madeira Mealybug, Phenacoccus madeirensis. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GAGoogle Scholar
  8. Chong, J.-H. and R.D. Oetting, 2002. Mealybugs. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Insect and Disease Management on Ornamentals. The Society of American Florist, Alexandria VA, pp. 71–77Google Scholar
  9. Conover W.J. (1999). Practical Nonparametric Statistics. 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  10. Copland M.J.W., Tingle C.C.D., Saynor M., Panis A. (1985). Biology of glasshouse mealybugs and their predators and parasitoids. In: Hussey N.W., Scopes N.E.A. (eds). Biological Pest Control: T(edhe Glasshouse Experience. Blanford Press, Poole, pp. 82–86Google Scholar
  11. DeBach P., Barlett B.R. (1964). Methods of colonization, recovery and evaluation. In: DeBach P. (ed). Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pp. 402–426Google Scholar
  12. Downie D.A., Gullan P.J. (2004). Phylogenetic analysis of mealybugs (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) based on DNA sequences from three nuclear genes, and a review of the higher classification. Syst. Entomol. 29:238–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Van Driesche R.G., Hoddle M. (1997). Should arthropod parasitoids and predators be subject to host range testing when used as biological control agents. Agr. Human Values 14:211–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haye T., Goulet H., Mason P.G., Kuhlmann U. (2005). Does fundamental host range match ecological host range?. A retrospective case study of a Lygus plant bug parasitoid. Biol. Control 35:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Jong P.W., van Alphen J.J.M. (1989). Host size selection and sex allocation in Leptomastix dactylopii Howard, a parasitoid of Planococcus citri. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 50:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. van Klinden R.D. (2000). Host specificity testing: Why do we do it and how can we do it better. In: Van Driesche R.G., Heard T.A., McClay A., Reardon R. (eds). Proceedings of Session: Host-Specificity Testing of Exotic Arthropod Biological Control Agents – the Biological Basis for Improvement in Safety. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV, pp. 54–68Google Scholar
  17. Kuhlman U. and Mason P.G. (2003). Use of field host range surveys for selecting candidate non-target species for physiological host specificity testing of entomophagous biological control agents. In: Van Driesche R.G. (ed). Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Honolulu, Hawaii, 14–18 January 2002. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV, pp. 370–377Google Scholar
  18. van Lenteren J.C., Babendreier D., Bigler F., Burgio G., Hokkanen H.M.T., Kurke S., Loomans A.J.M., Menzler-Hokkanen H.M.T., van Rijn P.C.J., Thomas M.B., Tommasini M.G., Zeng Q.Q. (2003). Environmental risk assessment of exotic natural enemies used in inundative biological control. Biol. Control 48:3–38Google Scholar
  19. Louda S.M., Arnett A.E., Rand T.A., Russell F.L., (2003). Invasiveness of some biological control insects and adequacy of their ecological risk assessment and regulation. Cons. Biol. 17:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morehead S.A. and Feener D.H. (2000). An experimental test of potential host range in the ant parasitoid Apocephalus paraponerae. Ecol. Entomol. 25:332–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nechols J.R., Kauffman W.C., Schaefer P.W. (1992). Significance of host specificity in classical biological control. In: Kauffman W.C., Nechols J.R. (eds). Selection Criteria and Ecological Consequences of Importing Natural Enemies. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, USA, pp. 41–52Google Scholar
  22. Noyes J.S. and Hayat M. (1994). Oriental Mealybug Parasitoids of the Anagyrini (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. Oetting R., Hudson W., Braman K., (2002). XIII. Ornamental, lawn and turf insects. In: Guillebeau P., Roberts P., Hinkle N. (eds). Summary of Losses from Insect Damage and Costs of Control in Georgia 2001. University of Georgia, Athens, GA, pp. 21–23Google Scholar
  24. Onstad D.W., McManus M.L. (1996). Risks of host range expansion by parasites of insects. BioScience 46:430–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sagarra L.A., Vincent C., Stewart R.K., (2001a). Suitability of nine mealybug species (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) as hosts for the parasitoid Anagyrus kamali (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Flr. Entomol. 84:112–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sagarra L.A., Vincent C., Stewart R.K., (2001b). Body size as an indicator of parasitoid quality in male and female Anagyrus kamali (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 91:363–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. SAS Institute, 1999. SAS User Guide, Version 8.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  28. Sheppard A.W., van Klinken R.D., Heard T.A. (2005). Scientific advances in the analysis of direct risks of weed biological control agents to nontarget plants. Biol. Control 35:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Strand M.R., Obrycki J.J. (1996). Host specificity of insect parasitoids and predators. BioScience 46:422–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Townsend M.L., Oetting R.D., Chong J.-H. (2000). Management of the mealybug Phenacoccus madeirensis. Proc. South. Nurs. Assoc. Res. Conf. 45:162–166Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology, College of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesUniversity of GeorgiaGriffinUSA
  2. 2.University of Florida, USDA Subtropical Horticulture Research StationMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations