Advertisement

Phytoparasitica

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 331–340 | Cite as

Management of the false carmine cochineal Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell): perspective from Pernambuco state, Brazil

  • Jorge Braz Torres
  • José Adriano Giorgi
Article
  • 102 Downloads

Abstract

The false carmine cochineal outbreak in the semiarid region of Brazil has caused considerable damage to the cactus production for the last 16 years. Native of Mexico, the false carmine cochineal, Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell), has invaded other countries including recent citations in Morocco and Israel. In some countries, intentional introduction of the false carmine cochineal has been done for biological control of noxious cactus weeds; while, in Brazil, its introduction was apparently for carmine dye production. However, there was a rapid distribution through the semiarid region causing a huge problem for cactus pear production as fodder. The pest problem in Brazil has motivated studies on control alternatives. Farmers have the option to manage this pest with host-plant-resistance or alternative and synthetic insecticides. In addition, knowledge on indigenous predatory insect species with the potential to help suppressing the pest population have been generated, especially the lady beetles Zagreus bimaculosus (Mulsant), Prodiloides bipunctata Weise. Farmers should also be aware of the risks involved in transporting contaminated vegetative material and animals into pest free areas. All these practices can be fully achieved once growers start changing their current practice of cactus growing. It is particularly important for growers to conduct regular inspections in the fields to detect early infestation of the pest. Dealing with small and spatially localized infestations have been proved easier than work on highly infested areas. Cactus can still be a profitable activity if these recommendations are taken seriously.

Keywords

Opuntia Exotic pests Semiarid IPM 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Proc. 301739/2016-1” and the “Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de Pernambuco (FACEPE), APQ-0168-5.01/15” for their financial support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest, no human subjects were involved in these experiments, and all applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

References

  1. Adalma-Aguilera, C., Llanderal-Cázares, C., Soto-Hernández, M., & Castillo-Márquez, L. E. (2005). Producción de grana-cochinilla (Dactylopius coccus Costa) em plantas de nopal a la intempérie y em microtúneles. Agrociencia, 39, 161–171.Google Scholar
  2. Albuquerque, S. G., & Santos, D. C. (2005). Palma-forrageira. In L. H. P. Kill & E. A. Menezes (Eds.), Espécies vegetais exóticas com potencialidades para o semi-árido brasileiro (pp. 91–127). Brasília: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica.Google Scholar
  3. Almeida, R. P. (1990). Aspectos bioecológicos de predadores (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) sobre a cochonilha da palma-forrageira Diaspis echinocacti Bauché, 1833 (Homoptera: Diaspididae), em condições de laboratório. Recife: Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (Dissertação de Mestrado).Google Scholar
  4. Arruda, G. P. (1983). Aspectos etológicos da cochonilha da “palma forrageira” Diaspis echinocacti (Bouché, 1833) (Homoptera, Diaspididae). Recife: Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (Dissertação de Mestrado).Google Scholar
  5. Assis, J. G. A., Resende, S. V., Bellintani, M. V., Coelho, P. J. A., Corrreia, D., Marchi, M. N. G., Cruz, B. M., Nahoum, P. I. V., Menezes, M. O. T., & Meiado, M. V. (2011). Conservação Ex Situ. In S. R. Silva, D. Zappi, N. Taylor, & M. Machado (Eds.), Plano de ação nacional para a conservação das cactáceas (pp. 44–54). Brasília: Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade-ICMBIO.Google Scholar
  6. Barbosa, P. R. R., Oliveira, M. D., Giorgi, J. A., Oliveira, J. E. M., & Torres, J. B. (2014a). Suitability of two prey species for development, reproduction, and survival of Tenuisvalvae notata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 107, 1102–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbosa, P. R. R., Oliveira, M. D., Giorgi, J. A., Silva-Torres, C. S. A., & Torres, J. B. (2014b). Predatory behavior and life history of Tenuisvalvae notata (coleoptera: coccinellidae) under variable prey availability conditions. The Florida Entomologist, 97, 1026–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baskaran, R. K. M., Lakshmi, L. G., & Uthamasamy, S. (1999). Comparative biology and predatory potential of Australian ladybird beetle (Cryptolaemus montrouzieri) on Planococcus citri and Dactylopius tomentosus. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 69, 605–606.Google Scholar
  9. Ben-Dov, Y. (2006). A Systematic catalogue of eight scale insect families (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of the world. Kidlington: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  10. Ben-Dov, Y., & Marotta, S. (2001). Taxonomy and family placement of Coccus bassi Targioni Tozzetti, 1867 (Hemiptera: Coccoidea). Phytoparasitica, 29, 169–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. BNB (Banco do Nordeste do Brasil). (1959). Notas sobre a cultura da palma forrageira no Nordeste. Fortaleza: BNB.Google Scholar
  12. Bouharroud, R., Amarraque, A., & Qessaoui, R. (2016). First report of the Opuntia cochineal scale Dactylopius opuntiae (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) in Morocco. Bulletin EPPO, 46, 308–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brito, C. H., Lopes, E. B., Albuquerque, L. C., & Batista, J. L. (2008). Avaliação de produtos alternativos e pesticidas no controle da cochonilha-do-carmim. Revista de Biologia e Ciências da Terra, 8, 1–5.Google Scholar
  14. Carvalho, P. R. N., Collins, C. H., & Carvalho, C. R. L. (2001). Extração e produção do corante carmim de cochonilha. Brazilian Journal of Food Technology, 4, 9–17.Google Scholar
  15. Castro, R. M. (2011). Biologia e exigências térmicas de Zagreus bimaculosus (Mulsant) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Recife: UFRPE (Dissertação de Mestrado).Google Scholar
  16. Chávez-Moreno, C. K., Tecante, A., & Casas, A. (2009). The Opuntia (Cactaceae) and Dactylopius (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) in Mexico: a historical perspective of use, interaction and distribution. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 3337–3355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chávez-Moreno, C. K., Tecante, A., Casas, A., & Claps, L. E. (2011). Distribution and habitat in Mexico of Dactylopius Costa (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) and their cacti hosts (Cactaceae: Opunoideae). Neotropropical Entomology, 40, 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cruz-Rodrıguez, J. A., Gonzalez-Machorro, E., Gonzalez, A. A. V., Ramırez, M. L. R., & Lara, F. M. (2016). Autonomous biological control of Dactylopius opuntiae (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) in a prickly pear plantation with ecological management. Environmental Entomology, 45, 642–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, C. J., Yoshioka, E., & Kageler, D. (1992). Biological control of lantana, prickly pear, and hamakua pamakani inhawah in Hawaii. In P. Stone, C. W. Smith, & J. D. Tunison (Eds.), Alien plant invasions in native ecosystems of Hawaii—Management and research (pp. 411–431). Manoa, Honolulu: Univ. of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  20. De Lotto, G. (1974). On the state and identity of the cochineal insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Dactylopiidae). Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa, 37, 167–193.Google Scholar
  21. Eisner, T., & Nowicki, S. (1980). Red cochineal dye (carminic Acid): its role in nature. Science, 208, 1039–1042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Eisner, T., Ziegler, R., McCormick, J. L., Eisner, M., Hoebeke, E. R., & Meinwald, J. (1994). Defensive use of an acquired substance (carminic acid) by predaceous insect larvae. Experientia, 50, 610–615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Flores-Hernández, A., Murillo-Amador, B., Rueda-Puente, E. O., Salazar-Torres, J. C., Garcia-Hernández, J. L., & Troyo-Diéguez, E. (2006). Reproduction of wild cochineal Dactylopius opuntiae (Homoptera: Dactylopiidae). Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 77, 97–102.Google Scholar
  24. García, G. F., Rojas, M. A., Petriz, E. E., & Hernández, H. F. (1999). Dactylopius coccus y Dactylopius sp.: detección de polimorfismos en el DNA usando RAPD-PCR y comparación entre especies. Imaggen (número especial dedicado a la investigación). Universidad Simón Bolívar, 48, 16–22.Google Scholar
  25. Giorgi, J. A., Barbosa, P. R. R., Oliveira, J. E. M., & Torres, J. B. (2017). Prodiloides bipunctata Weise (Coccinellidae: Cephaloscymnini): new research on native natural predators of the carmine cochineal, Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerel) (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) in the Brazilian Semi-arid. The Coleopterist Bulletin (in press).Google Scholar
  26. Githure, C. W., Zimmermann, H. G., & Hoffman, J. H. (1999). Host specificity of biotypes of Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell) (Homoptera: Dactylopiidae): prospects for biological control of Opuntia stricta (Haworth) Haworth (Cactaceae) in Africa. African Entomologist, 7, 43–48.Google Scholar
  27. González, M., Méndez, J., Carnero, A., Lobo, M. G., & Afonso, A. (2002). Optimizing conditions for the extraction of pigments in cochineals (Dactylopius coccus Costa) using response surface methodology. Journal of the Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50, 6968–6974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, P. K., Holtkamp, R. H., & Day, M. D. (2016). The host range of four new biotypes of Dactylopius tomentosus (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) from southern USA and their potential as biological control agents of Cylindropuntia spp. (Cactaceae) in Australia: Part II. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 26, 1033–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein, H. (2002). Biological control of invasive cactus species (Family Cactaceae). Pretoria, South Africa, ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute, PPRI leaflet series: weeds biocontrol, no. 22.Google Scholar
  30. Lima, I. M. M., & Gama, N. S. (2001). Registro de plantas hospedeiras (Cactaceae) e de nova forma de disseminação de Diaspis echinocacti (Bouché) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), Cochonilha-da-Palma-Forrageira, nos Estados de Pernambuco e Alagoas. Neotropical Entomology, 30, 479–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lima, M. S., Silva, M. P., Ferreira, W. M., Silva, L. D., & Paranhos, B. A. J. (2011). Predadores associados a Dactylopius opuntiae (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) em palma forrageira no estado de Pernambuco, Brasil. Revista Chilena de Entomologia, 36, 51–54.Google Scholar
  32. Lira, M. A., Santos, M. A. V., & Dias, F. M. (2016). Histórico e importância da palma. In M. A. Lira (Ed.), Palma forrageira: cultivo e uso (pp. 19–22). Recife: Cadernos do Semiárido – riquezas & oportunidades, CREA-PE.Google Scholar
  33. Lopes, E. B. (2007). Palma forrageira: cultivo, uso atual e perspectivas de utilização no semi-árido nordestino. João Pessoa: EMEPA/FAEPA.Google Scholar
  34. Lopes, E. B., Brito, C. H., Albuquerque, I. C., & Batista, J. L. (2010). Seleção de genótipos de palma forrageira (Opuntia spp.) e (Nopalea spp.) resistentes à cochonilha-do-carmim (Dactylopius opuntiae Cockrell, 1929) na Paraíba, Brasil. Revista de Engenharia Ambiental, 7, 204–215.Google Scholar
  35. Malkie, S., Ben-Dov, Y., Protasov, A., Carvalho, C. J., & Mendel, Z. (2014). First record of Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) from Israel. Phytoparasitica, 42, 377–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mathenge, C. W., Holford, P., Hoffmann, J. H., Spooner-Hart, R., Beattie, G. A. C., & Zimmermann, H. G. (2009). The biology of Dactylopius tomentosus (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research, 99, 551–559.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Moran, V. C., & Cobby, B. S. (1979). On the life-history and fecundity of the cochineal insect, Dactylopius austrinus De Lotto (Homoptera: Dactylopiidae), a biological control agent for the cactus Opuntia aurantiaca. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 69, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moran, C., & Hoffmann, H. J. (2008). The effects of simulated and natural rainfall on cochineal insects (Homoptera: Dactylopiidae): colony distribution and survival on cactus cladodes. Ecological Entomology, 12, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mow, V. C., Gunn, B. H., & Walter, G. H. (1982). Wind dispersal and settling of first-instar crawlers of the cochineal insect Dactylopius austrinus (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Dactylopiidae). Ecological Entomology, 7, 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oliveira, M. D., Barbosa, P. R. R., Silva-Torres, C. S. A., & Torres, J. B. (2014). Performance of the striped mealybug Ferrisia virgata Cockerell (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) under variable conditions of temperature and mating. Neotropical Entomology, 43, 1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Paterson, I. D., Hoffmann, J. H., Klein, H., Mathenge, C. W., Neser, S., & Zimmermann, H. G. (2011). Biological control of Cactaceae in South Africa. African Entomology, 19, 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pérez-Guerra, G. M. C. (1991). Biosystematics of the family Dactylopiidae (Homoptera: Coccinea) with emphasis on the life cycle of Dactylopius coccus Costa. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnica Institute and State University.Google Scholar
  43. Pérez-Guerra, G., & Kosztarab, M. (1992). Biosystematics of the family Dactylopiidae (Homoptera: Coccinea) with emphasis on the life cycle of Dactylopius coccus Costa (Studies on the morphology and systematics of scale insects). Bulletin of Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, 16, 1–90.Google Scholar
  44. Piña, L. I. (1979). Principales países productores de grana fina y algunos aspectos biológicos sobre la producción de este colorante. Revista Laboratorio Nacionales de Fomento Industrial, 5, 14–16.Google Scholar
  45. Portillo, M. I., & Vigueras, A. L. (2006). A review on the cochineal species in México, host and natural enemies. Acta Horticulturae, 728, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Protasov, A., Mendel, Z., Spodek, M., & Carvalho, C. J. (2017). Management of the Opuntia cochineal scale insect, Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell) in Israel. Alon Hanotea, 71, 48–51.Google Scholar
  47. Ramírez-Puebla, S. T., Rosenblueth, M., Chávez-Moreno, C. K., Catanho Pereira de Lyra, C. K., Tecante, A., & Martínez-Romero, E. (2010). Molecular Phylogeny of the Genus Dactylopius (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) and Identification of the Symbiotic Bacteria. Environmental Entomology, 39, 1178–1183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Sanches, N. F., & Carvalho, R. S. (2010). Procedimentos para manejo da criação e multiplicação do predador exótico Cryptolaemus montrouzieri. Cruz das Almas: Brasil, Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura (Circular Técnica, 99).Google Scholar
  49. Santos, D. C., Silva, M. C., Dubeux Júnior, J. C. B., Lira, M. A., & Silva, R. M. (2013). Estratégias para uso de cactáceas em zonas semiáridas: novas cultivares e uso sustentável das espécies nativas. Revista Científica de Produção Animal, 15, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Silva, D. M. P. (1990). Ocorrência de Calloenesis sobre a cochonilha em Alagoas. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 25, 281–282.Google Scholar
  51. Silva, D. M. P., Mergulhão, C. C. D. S., Medeiros, L. V., Figueiredo, M. V. B., & Burity, H. A. (2013). Genetic variability of Dactylopius opuntiae (Hemiptera, Dactylopiidae) on forage cactus in northeast Brazil. Genetics and Molecular Research, 12, 5236–5246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Souza, N. R., & Hoffmann, J. H. (2015). Testing the hypothesis that a cochineal insect species (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) may have been displaced by a congeneric biological control agent from a different cactus host. Biological Control, 85, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tapajos, S. J., Lira, R., Silva-Torres, C. S. A., Torres, J. B., & Coutinho, R. L. C. (2016). Suitability of two exotic mealybug species as prey to indigenous lacewing species. Biological Control, 96, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Dam, A. R., & May, B. (2012). A new species of Dactylopius Costa (Dactylopius gracilipilus sp. nov.) (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Dactylopiidae) from the Chihuahuan Desert, Texas, U.S.A. Zootaxa, 3573, 33–39.Google Scholar
  55. Vanegas-Rico, J. M., Lomeli-Flores, J. R., Rodrígues-Leyva, E., Mora-Aguilera, G., & Valdez, J. M. (2010). Enemigos naturales de Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell) en Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller en el centro de México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana, 26, 415–433.Google Scholar
  56. Vasconcelos, J. (2009). A praga da cochonilha em Pernambuco. Brasília: Senado Federal.Google Scholar
  57. Vasconcelos, A. G. V., Lira, M. A., Cavalcanti, A. L. V. B., Santos, M. V. F., & Willadino, L. (2009). Seleção de clones de palma forrageira resistentes à cochonilha-do-carmim (Dactylopius sp.). Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 38, 827–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Volchansky, C. R., Zimmermann, H. G., & Hoffman, J. H. (1999). Host-plant affinities of two biotypes of Dactylopius opuntiae (Homoptera: Dactylopiidae): enhanced prospects for biological control of Opuntia stricta (Cactaceae) in South Africa. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Warumby, J. F., Tavares Filho, J. J., Santos, D. C., & Arruda, G. P. (1993). Controle integrado da cochonilha Diaspis echinocacti (Homoptera, Diaspididae) que ocorre sobre a palma forrageira no Nordeste. Recife: IPA, (IPA Comunicado Técnico 57).Google Scholar
  60. Washburn, J. O., & Washburn, L. (1984). Active aerial dispersal of minute wingless arthropods: exploitation of boundary layer velocity gradients. Science, 223, 1088–1089.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Agronomia – EntomologiaUniversidade Federal Rural de PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratório de ZoologiaUniversidade Federal do ParáAltamiraBrazil

Personalised recommendations