Biological Invasions

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 273–281 | Cite as

Potential Non-target Effects of a Biological Control Agent, Prickly Pear Moth, Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), in North America, and Possible Management Actions

  • Peter Stiling


Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), the poster child of biological control, has recently invaded the United States. The first US record was at Big Pine Key, Florida, in 1989. Since then it has moved rapidly northward into South Carolina. Fears are high that it will disperse, either on its own, or with human help, into the US desert southwest and Mexico. There are at least 31 species of prickly pear in the US that are likely to be attacked by Cactoblastis and 56 species in Mexico. As well as the threat to wild cacti, there are over 250,000 ha of Opuntia plantations in Mexico that support a thriving agricultural industry, most of which is centered on harvesting fruits or pads. Possible control measures include classical biological control using parasitoids or pathogens from South America, chemical control or F1 sterility, as has been used successfully for the codling moth. However, most of these options appear to have insurmountable difficulties. Classical biological control raises the fear of further non-target effects of natural enemies on native cactus herbivores. Chemical control has potential non-target effects on other (rare) insects and is expensive. F1 sterility is also expensive and is not self-sustaining, requiring considerable and continual human input. Nevertheless, research on control options is vital as is further work on the rate of spread and impact of Cactoblastis in the United States Southeast, so that we can be as well prepared as possible to deal with this threat when it arrives in Arizona, California, and Mexico.

Cactoblastis cactorum Florida Mexico Opuntia cacti US southwest 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bennett FD and Habeck DH (1992) Cactoblastis cactorum: a successful weed control agent in the Caribbean, now a pest in Florida? In: Delfosse ES and Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp 21–26. CSIRO, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloem S, Bloem KA, Carpenter JE and Calkins CO (1999a) Inherited sterility in codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): effect of substerilizing doses of radiation on field competitiveness. Environmental Entomology 28: 669–674Google Scholar
  3. Bloem S, Bloem KA, Carpenter JE and CalkinsCO(1999b) Inherited sterility in the codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): effect of substerilizing doses of radiation on insect fecundity, fertility and control. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 92: 222–229Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter JE, Bloem KA and Bloem S (2001) Applications of F1 sterility for research and management of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Florida Entomologist 54: 531–536Google Scholar
  5. Dickel TS (1991) Cactoblastis cactorum in Florida (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae: Phycitinae). Tropical Lepidoptera (Gainesville) 2: 117–118Google Scholar
  6. Dodd AP (1940) The biological campaign against prickly pear. Commonwealth Prickly Pear Board Bulletin, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  7. Falconer MA (1991) Conservancy acts to manage cactus moth at Torchwood Hammock Reserve. Florida Keys Initiative, The Nature Conservancy Newsletter, Winter 1991Google Scholar
  8. Fullaway DT (1954) Biological control of cactus in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology 47: 696–700Google Scholar
  9. Habeck DH and Bennett FD (1990) Cactoblastis cactorum Berg (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a phycitine new to Florida. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industries, Entomology Circular 333Google Scholar
  10. Hernandez LR and Emmel TC (1993) Cactoblastis cactorum in Cuba. Tropical Lepidoptera 4: 45–46Google Scholar
  11. Hight SO, Carpenter JE, Bloem KA, Bloem S, Pemberton RW and Stiling P (2002) Expanding geographical range of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in North America. Florida Entomologist (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Irish M (2001) The ornamental prickly pear industry in the southwestern United States. Florida Entomologist 84: 484–485Google Scholar
  13. Johnson DM and Stiling PD (1996) Host specificity of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), an exotic Opuntia-feeding moth, in Florida. Environmental Entomology 28: 743–748Google Scholar
  14. Johnson DM and Stiling PD (1998) Distribution and dispersal of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), an exotic Opuntia-feeding moth in Florida. Florida Entomologist 81: 12–22Google Scholar
  15. Julien MH and Griffiths MW (eds) (1998) Biological Control of Weeds: a World Catalogue of Agents and Their Target Weeds, 4th ed. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Leibee GL and Osborne LS (2001) Chemical control of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Florida Entomologist 84: 510–512Google Scholar
  17. Mann J (1969) Cactus-feeding insects and mites. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 256: 1–158Google Scholar
  18. North DT (1975) Inherited sterility in lepidoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 20: 167–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pemberton RW (1995) Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in the United States, an immigrant biological control agent or an introduction of the nursery industry? American Entomologist 41: 230–232Google Scholar
  20. Pemberton RW and Cordo HA (2001a) Potential and risks of biological control of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in North America. Florida Entomologist 84: 513–526Google Scholar
  21. Pemberton RW and Cordo HA (2001b) Nosema (Microsporida: Nosematidae) species as potential biological control agents of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): surveys of the Microporidia in Argentina and South Africa. Florida Entomologist 84: 527–530Google Scholar
  22. Pettey FW (1948) The biological control of prickly pear in South Africa. Science Bulletin, Department of Agriculture of the Union of South Africa 271: 1–163Google Scholar
  23. Pierce RL (1995) Infestation of Opuntia by the Phycitid Moths Melitara prodenialis and Cactoblastis cactorum. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  24. PretoriusMW and Van ark H (1992) Further insecticide trials for the control of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) as well as Dactylopius opuntiae (Homiptera: Dactylopiidae) on spineless cactus. Phytophylatica 24: 229–233Google Scholar
  25. Rebman JP and Pinkava DJ (2001) Opuntia cacti of North America – an overview. Florida Entomologist 84: 474–483Google Scholar
  26. Robertson HG (1987) Oviposition site selection in Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera): constraints and compromises. Oecologia 73: 601–608Google Scholar
  27. Simmonds FJ and Bennett FD (1966) Biological control of Opuntia spp. by Cactoblastis cactorum in the Leeward Islands (West Indies). Entomophaga 11: 183–189Google Scholar
  28. Soberon J, Golubov J and Sarukhan J (2001) The importance of Opuntia in Mexico and routes of invasion and impact of Cactoblastis cactorum. Florida Entomologist 84: 486–492Google Scholar
  29. Starmer WT, Aberdeen V and Lachance M (1988) The yeast community associated with decaying Opuntia stricta (Haworth) in Florida with regard to the moth Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg). Florida Scientist 51: 7–11Google Scholar
  30. Stiling P and Moon DC (2001) Protecting rare Florida cacti from attack by the exotic cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Florida Entomologist 84: 506–509Google Scholar
  31. Stiling P, Rossi A and Gordon D (2000) The difficulties of single factor thinking in restoration: replacing a rare cactus in the Florida Keys. Biological Conservation 94: 327–333Google Scholar
  32. Tuduri JCG, Martorell LF and Gaud SM (1971) Geographical distribution and host plants of the cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg), in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Journal of Agricultural University, Puerto Rico 58: 130–134Google Scholar
  33. Viguera SAL and Portillo L (2001) Uses of cactus pear (Opuntia spp.) and the potential impact of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Mexico. Florida Entomologist 84: 493–498Google Scholar
  34. Zimmerman HG, McFadyen RE and Erb HE (1979) Annotated list of some cactus-feeding insects of South America. Acta Zoologica Lilloana 32: 101–112Google Scholar
  35. Zimmerman HG, Moran VC and Hoffmann JA(2000) The renowned cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum: its natural history and threat to native Opuntia floras in Mexico and the United States of America. Diversity and Distributions 6: 259–269Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Stiling
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations