Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodology for biological control of armored scale insects

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Phytoparasitica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Armored scale insects (Homoptera: Diaspididae) are among the most important pests in agriculture. For various reasons, they are considered promising targets for biological control projects. Ectoparasites of the genusAphytis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) are usually their most effective natural enemies. Lack of success in biological control was sometimes associated with overemphasis on predators or endoparasites.

The value of biosystematic research cannot be overemphasized. Surveys should be conducted both before and after colonization of natural enemies. Population trends can be followed by successive sampling. Twigs of uniform age and size usually provide adequate sampling units for armored scale insects; predators can be counted by direct observation; parasite abundance is best determined by dissection of host samples. Life tables can be constructed from such data.

Importation of exotic natural enemies is preferred to the various methods of manipulation. Basic ecological studies should never delay actual importation. Multiple introductions of natural enemies are strongly recommended. The search for natural enemies should cover the entire range of distribution of the pest.

Experimental exclusion methods are recommended for evaluation of the efficacy of natural enemies of armored scale insects. Field plots should be representative of typical bioclimatic areas, and should be entirely free from detrimental effects of abnormal conditions, dust or non-selective pesticides.

Methods of augmentation or conservation of natural enemies should be carefully evaluated in field tests before they are adopted as routine practices.

The effect of commercial pesticides on natural enemies can be determined in laboratory and field trials. Effective integrated control can be achieved by judicious use of relatively selective pesticides, in the least disruptive modes of application, in combination with a vigorous program of biological control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bartlett, B.R. (1953) Retentive toxicity of field-weathered insecticide residues to entomo-phagous insects associated with citrus pests in California.J. econ. Ent. 46: 565–569.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartlett, B.R. andVan den Bosch, R. (1964) Foreign exploration for beneficial organisms.In P. DeBach, Ed. Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 283–304.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clausen, C.P. (1956) Biological Control of Insect Pests in the Continental United States.Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1139.

  4. Compere, H. (1961) The red scale and its insect enemies.Hilgardia 31: 173–278.

    Google Scholar 

  5. DeBach, P. andHuffaker, C.B. (1971) Experimental techniques for evaluation of the effectiveness of natural enemies.In C.B. Huffaker, Ed. Biological Control. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 113–140.

    Google Scholar 

  6. DeBach, P. andLandi, J. (1961) The introduced purple scale parasite,Aphytis lepidosaphes Compere, and a method of integrating chemical with biological control.Hilgardia 31: 459–497.

    Google Scholar 

  7. DeBach, P., Rosen, D. andKennett, C.E. (1971) Biological control of coccids by introduced natural enemies.In C.B. Huffaker, Ed. Biological Control. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 165–194.

    Google Scholar 

  8. DeBach, P. andWhite, E.B. (1960) Commercial mass culture of the California red scale parasiteAphytis lingnanensis.Bull. Calif. agric. Exp. Stn 770.

  9. Doutt, R.L. (1954) An evaluation of some natural enemies of the olive scale.J. econ. Ent. 47: 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Howard, L.O. (1916) Further notes onProspaltella berlesei How.J. econ. Ent. 9: 179–181.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Huffaker, C.B., Kennett, C.E. andFinney, G.L. (1962) Biological control of olive scale,Parlatoria oleae (Colvée), in California by importedAphytis maculicornis (Masi) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae).Hilgardia 32: 541–636.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Quayle, H.J. (1938) The development of resistance to hydrocyanic gas in certain scale insects.Hilgardia 11: 183–210.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosen, D. (1967) Effect of commercial pesticides on the fecundity and survival ofAphytis holoxanthus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae).Israel J. agric. Res. 17: 47–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosen, D. andDeBach, P. (1973) Diaspididae.In C.P. Clausen, Ed. Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds — A Review.U.S. Dep. Agric. (in press).

  15. Rosen, D. andGerson, U. (1965) Field studies ofChilocorus bipustulatus (L.) on citrus in Israel.Ann. Epiphyt. 16: 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Taylor, T.H.C. (1935) The campaign againstAspidiotus destructor Sign, in Fiji.Bull. ent. Res. 26: 1–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Thompson, W.R. (1954 Biological control work on cedar scales in BermudaitRep. 6th Commonw. Conf.,London, pp. 89–93.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot

    David Rosen

Authors
  1. David Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosen, D. Methodology for biological control of armored scale insects. Phytoparasitica 1, 47–54 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02980306

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02980306

Keywords

Search

Navigation