DOCSLIB.ORG

Improving Lettuce Insect Pest Management - NSW and QLD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Improving lettuce insect pest management - NSW and QLD

Dr Sandra McDougall
NSW Department of Primary
Industries

Project Number: VG01028

VG01028

This report is published by Horticulture Australia Ltd to pass on information concerning horticultural research and development undertaken for the vegetable industry.

The research contained in this report was funded by Horticulture Australia Ltd with the financial support of the vegetable industry, Syngenta, Convenience Foods Pty Ltd, South Pacific Seeds, Organic Crop Protectants Pty Ltd and the NSW Department of Primary Industries.

All expressions of opinion are not to be regarded as expressing the opinion of Horticulture Australia Ltd or any authority of the Australian Government.

The Company and the Australian Government accept no responsibility for any of the opinions or the accuracy of the information contained in this report and readers should rely upon their own enquiries in making decisions concerning their own interests.

ISBN 0 7341 1227 0 Published and distributed by: Horticulture Australia Ltd Level 1 50 Carrington Street Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: Fax:
(02) 8295 2300 (02) 8295 2399

© Copyright 2006

FINAL REPORT

VG01028

Improving lettuce pest management –
NSW and SE Queensland

30 November 2005

Sandra McDougall et al.

NSW Department of Primary Industries
ISBN 0 7347 1691 5

  • Project No:
  • VG 01028

Principal Investigator: Contact Details:

Dr Sandra McDougall National Vegetable Industry Centre NSW DPI PMB, Yanco NSW 2703 (02) 6951 2728 (02) 6951 2692 fax 042 740 1466 mob

[email protected]

Project Team:

NSW DPI: QDPI:
Sandra McDougall, Andrew Creek, and Tony Napier, John Duff

Report Completed:

October 2005
Statement of purpose: This report is a summary of the research and extension work conducted by the project team on lettuce pest management.

Funding:

The researchers acknowledge the financial support for this project from NSW DPI, QDPI, Horticulture Australia, AUSVEG, South Pacific Seeds and Convenience Foods. Financial support for the 2nd & 3rd Australian Lettuce Industry Conferences, which were organized as part of this project also came from: Abbe Corrugated, Bejo Seeds, Boomaroo Nurseries, City of Wyndam, Dupont, Freshcuts, GSF, Henderson Seed Group, Landpower, Melbourne Markets, New Holland, Perfection Fresh, Rijk Zwaan, Syngenta Seeds, TotalPak Solutions, Tripax Engineering, Vegco, Withcott Seedlings and Yates (Enza Zaden).

Disclaimer:

Any recommendations contained in this publication do not necessarily represent current HAL Limited policy. No person should act on the basis of the contents of this publication, whether as to matters of fact or opinion or other content, without first obtaining specific, independent professional advice in respect of the matters set out in this publication.

VG 01028: Improving lettuce pest management in NSW and SE QLD

MEDIA SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... 1 TECHNICAL SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................... 3

LETTUCE INDUSTRY .............................................................................................................................................. 3 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT......................................................................................................................... 3 PROJECT DIRECTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3 EFFICACY TRIALS .................................................................................................................................................. 4 TRIAL PRODUCTS................................................................................................................................................... 7

FIELD TRIAL REPORTS ................................................................................................................................... 11

SAP-SUCKING INSECTS INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL, SPRING 2002 (LEETON RS, NSW) ................................... 12 SAP-SUCKING INSECTS INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL, AUTUMN 2003 (GATTON, QLD)...................................... 16 APHID SOIL DRENCH EFFICACY TRIAL, SPRING 2003 (YANCO, NSW).................................................................. 23 APHID INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL, SPRING 2003 (YANCO, NSW)................................................................... 29 SAP-SUCKING INSECTS INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL, AUTUMN 2004 (GATTON, QLD)...................................... 35 APHID SOIL DRENCH EFFICACY TRIAL, SPRING 2004 (HAY, NSW)...................................................................... 42 HELIOTHIS INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL, AUTUMN 2002 (GATTON, QLD) ........................................................ 49 HELIOTHIS INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL, AUTUMN 2003 (HAY, NSW).............................................................. 54 HELIOTHIS INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL, SPRING 2003 (YANCO, NSW)............................................................ 59 NPV SPRINKLER EFFICACY TRIAL SEPTEMBER 2004 (YANCO, NSW) ................................................................. 64 HELIOTHIS NPV SPRAY EFFICACY TRIAL, SPRING 2004 (YANCO, NSW)............................................................. 72

POT TRIAL REPORTS ....................................................................................................................................... 80

PARTICLE FILM EFFICACY TRIAL, WINTER 2002 (YANCO, NSW) ........................................................................ 81 APHID INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL, SPRING 2002............................................................................................. 83 APHID SEEDLING DRENCH EFFICACY TRIAL, WINTER 2004 (YANCO, NSW)........................................................ 85 APHID SOIL & CELL DRENCH EFFICACY TRIAL, SPRING 2004 (YANCO, NSW)..................................................... 91 APHID SOIL DRENCH EFFICACY TRIAL, WINTER 2005 (YANCO, NSW) ................................................................ 96 POLYHOUSE HELIOTHIS INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL I, WINTER 2003 (YANCO, NSW) .................................. 101 POLYHOUSE HELIOTHIS INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL II, WINTER 2003 (YANCO, NSW) ................................. 105 POLYHOUSE HELIOTHIS INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL III, WINTER 2003 (YANCO, NSW)................................ 109 POLYHOUSE HELIOTHIS NPV EFFICACY TRIAL, SPRING 2003 (YANCO, NSW).................................................. 113 POLYHOUSE HELIOTHIS EFFICACY TRIAL, SPRING 2003 (YANCO, NSW) ......................................................... 116

BEST MANAGEMENT OPTIONS (BMO) TRIALS...................................................................................... 119

SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 119 ICEBERG LETTUCE BMO, SPRING 2003 (HAY, NSW)........................................................................................ 121 ICEBERG LETTUCE BMO II, SPRING 2003 (HAY, NSW) .................................................................................... 127 ICEBERG LETTUCE BMO, SPRING 2003 TRIAL 1(COWRA, NSW) ...................................................................... 132 ICEBERG LETTUCE BMO, SPRING 2003 TRIAL 2 (COWRA, NSW) ..................................................................... 138 ICEBERG LETTUCE BMO, SPRING 2003 TRIAL 3 (CANOWINDRA, NSW) ........................................................... 145 LETTUCE BMO COMPARISON, AUTUMN 2004 (HAY, NSW) ............................................................................. 151 LETTUCE BMO CASE STUDY, AUTUMN 2004 (HAY, NSW)............................................................................... 157 SEEDED ICEBERG LETTUCE BMO COMPARISON, WINTER 2004 (HAY, NSW).................................................... 162 TRANSPLANTED LETTUCE BMO COMPARISON, WINTER 2004 (HAY, NSW) ..................................................... 169 BEST MANAGEMENT OPTIONS (BMO) TRIAL, SPRING 2003 (LOCKYER VALLEY, QLD)................................... 176 EFFICACY TRIALS DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................... 180

OTHER TRIALS................................................................................................................................................. 183

EVALUATING LETTUCE VARIETIES, SPRING 2002 (CENTRAL WEST NSW)....................................................... 183 STICKY TRAP COMPARISON, 2004 (HAY, NSW) ............................................................................................... 187 COMPARISON OF MONITORING METHODS (HAY, NSW).................................................................................... 189

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ........................................................................................................................... 194

VG 01028: Improving lettuce pest management in NSW and SE QLD

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 194 ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 194

EVALUATION.................................................................................................................................................... 200

LETTUCE IPM SURVEY SE QLD GROWERS (2005)............................................................................................ 204 LETTUCE IPM SURVEY 2005............................................................................................................................. 212

RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 220 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................................... 221

APPENDIX 1 CONFERENCE PROGRAM................................................................................................................ 222 APPENDIX 2 LETTUCE INDUSTRY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES ..................................................... 224 APPENDIX 3 2ND LETTUCE INDUSTRY CONFERENCE EVALUATION ................................................................... 230 APPENDIX 4 LETTUCE SURVEY OF CURRENT INSECTICIDE PRACTICES ............................................................... 232 APPENDIX 5 LETTUCE GROWER / CONSULTANT SURVEY (2002)....................................................................... 242 APPENDIX 6 3RD LETTUCE INDUSTRY CONFERENCE PROGRAM .......................................................................... 243 APPENDIX 7 3RD LETTUCE INDUSTRY CONFERENCE PRIORITIES ........................................................................ 251 APPENDIX 8 3RD LETTUCE INDUSTRY CONFERENCE PARTICIPANT EVALUATION............................................... 252 APPENDIX 9 3RD LETTUCE INDUSTRY CONFERENCE COMMITTEE EVALUATION................................................. 261 APPENDIX 10 LETTUCE INSECT PEST MANAGEMENT SURVEY FORM ................................................................ 270

VG 01028: Improving lettuce pest management in NSW and SE QLD

Media Summary

New options for managing insect pests in lettuce have been developed and lettuce growers have been assisted in adopting an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach. Australian lettuce growers have been assisted in preparing for the arrival of the new pest, Currant Lettuce aphid into their growing areas and those affected by the pest’s arrival have been assisted in it’s management.

The initial 3 year lettuce integrated pest management (IPM) project (VG98048) focused on managing the key pest, heliothis. One species of this pest group, like most key pests, had developed resistance to the insecticides used to control it. Although growers still got some control using the old chemistry, chemical failures had become more common. An IPM approach seeks to utilize both beneficial insects and selective pesticides that have less negative impact on beneficals to assist in managing pests. In an IPM system, crops are monitored and attention is paid to cultural control practices such as removing weeds that host diseases or pests.

This project continued working with growers to improve understanding of an integrated pest management approach, to recognize pests, beneficials, diseases and disorders in their lettuce crops, and learn from each other through lettuce industry conferences. The field identification guide was produced as a reference that growers’ and industry people can continue to refer to.

Following VG98048 heliothis and other caterpillars could effectively be managed by relying on beneficial insects and using new generation insecticides or some biological products. However, towards the end of VG98048 silverleaf whitefly moved into SE Queensland lettuce producing areas causing considerable damage. The currant-lettuce aphid devastated the NZ lettuce industry just after this project began in 2002 and arrived in Tasmania (Mar 2004) 14 months before this project finished. Western flower thrips also moved more into field grown lettuce crops causing considerable damage by spreading tomato spotted wilt virus. These sapsucking insects were the focus of trials for new insecticides throughout this project. Some work also continued to test insecticides for heliothis management. There are some products, particularly some soil or seedling drenches that showed very good control of aphids and leafhoppers. A smaller group reduced whitefly numbers and data was inconclusive or variable on thrips control.

Western flower thrips appears to be a major impediment to adoption of IPM in lettuce in South and Western Australia. The lack of IPM consultants in most lettuce growing areas is also a major impediment to adoption. Like heliothis, these new pests of lettuce: silverleaf whitefly, western flower thrips and currant-lettuce aphid have developed resistance to most chemicals that has been used against them intensively. Therefore developing an integrated approach that relies on more than just a single chemical to manage each pest is as important as ever.

1

VG 01028: Improving lettuce pest management in NSW and SE QLD

Technical Summary

A biointensive IPM strategy should be more effective and resilient in the long term in managing pests than reliance on a few regularly applied broad spectrum insecticides. Developing a biointensive IPM strategy for an industry and having an industry adopt a biointensive IPM strategy is a slow and potentially complicated business.

This project screened the efficacy of 23 new products and some novel applications of old chemistry against various sap suckers and/or lepidoptera. A variety of polyhouse pot and field trials were conducted. Some trials were conducted on field stations (Yanco and Gatton) and some were conducted in commercial lettuce growers fields. In trying to tie together the various combinations of new chemistry ‘best management option’ (BMO) trials were conducted. Some BMOs were incorporated into replicated small plot trials, some were as unreplicated commercial-scale trials paired to ‘grower controls’.

For aphid management the neonicotinyl insecticides were effective as as foliar (acetamiprid, clothianidin and thiacloprid), soil or seedling drenches (imidacloprid, thiomethoxam and clothianidin) and/or granular band applications (thiomethoxam). Seedling drenches were quickest to take effect. Soil or seedling drenches and granular band killed aphids for life of crop/trial at recommended rates but for a shorter period at lower rates. Foliar sprays had knockdown and some residue for a week or so.

In trials where leafhoppers were present neonicotinyl insecticides were effective, and also had some reduction on Rutherglen bugs and mirids. Thrips activity was mixed between trials and products. Imidacloprid reduced whitefly numbers, however acetamiprid seemed to promote development of whitefly. Pirimicarb and dimethoate used as soil or seedling drench had good activity although serious phytotoxicity problems were noted at higher rates of dimethoate. Pymetrozine as a foliar spray was slow to show activity, reducing for aphid and leafhopper numbers but not whitefly or western flower thrips. Pyriproxyfen as a foliar showed no western flower thrips activity but reduced whitefly egg production. Of the experimental foliar products DC068 showed aphid and leafhopper activity for 2 weeks, and DC027 showed some thrips but not whitefly activity. MTI446 as a furrow spray not properly tested.

Parrifin oil, SilicaK, Natrasoap, kaolin and azadiractin showed no aphid activity. DC041, S1812, emamectin benzoate and methoxyfenozide were all effective against heliothis, although prodigy is slower to act. Emamectin and S1812 were good at controlling lucerne leafroller (LLR), although the lower rate of S1812 was not as good at getting LLR in lettuce heads. The heliothis virus products Gemstar® and Vivus® did eventually kill virtually all heliothis, however many larvae continued to feed for days and in some cases weeks. BMO trials were variable in methodology and results but tended to give reasonable control. However BMOs proved to be more costly when compared to the ‘grower’ control.

Raising awareness of IPM with growers was facilitated via field days, workshops, the bimonthly newsletter, training of an IPM scout in one region, and two national lettuce industry conferences. Identification of pests, beneficials, diseases and disorders was assisted with the production and distribution to all lettuce growers a field identification guide for lettuce.

2

VG 01028: Improving lettuce pest management in NSW and SE QLD

Introduction

Lettuce Industry

The Australian lettuce industry produces between 100,000-150,000 tonnes of lettuce valued around $100 million annually (ABS, Catalogue 7121.0). Average yields are approximately 22.6 tonnes per hectare (AUSVEG 2005). Lettuce is produced in all states with Queensland producing the most (35%) followed by Victoria (28%), NSW (17%), WA (11%), SA (6%) and Tasmania (3%).

Lettuce production can be classified into ‘head’, ‘fancy’, and ‘baby-leaf’ lettuce. It can be grown in fields or hydroponically. It can be sold on the ‘fresh’ market or processed. Data is not readily available for the breakdown of the different lettuce sectors.

Processing of head lettuce involves washing and shredding for fast food or restaurant sectors. Processing of baby-leaf usually involves washing and bagging for the restaurant or retail sectors. Head lettuce sold on the fresh market usually is sold with some wrapper leaves still attached but if bagged the wrapper leaves are removed. Similarly wrapper leaves are removed from head lettuce sold to the processing sector.

Integrated Pest Management

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a strategy which seeks to integrate all available knowledge to best manage pests and diseases. Definitions of IPM vary as do IPM strategies for different crops and for similar crops in different regions. Nevertheless, there are many similar elements to all IPM strategies. The debate tends to rage around which tools or elements are the minimum necessary to be called an IPM practitioner, for in reality there is an IPM spectrum. The beginning of the spectrum is debatable and the end is farm planning that minimises pests, maximises beneficials and rarely requires pesticide applications, and when they are needed biological pesticides are preferred.

Developing an IPM system for a crop requires building up the knowledge base of what pests, diseases and beneficials are in the system. Also understanding their interactions and impacts on the crop. It requires getting access to more specific pesticides that are ‘softer’ on beneficial insects, or getting access to varieties that are resistant to pests or diseases. It requires developing crop monitoring techniques or strategies that are time and cost effective and where possible, developing action thresholds or information on when intervention is required.

Project direction

Prior to the first lettuce IPM project VG98048 growers had no access to ‘soft’ chemistry. All but a few growers were spraying on a calendar basis and few could identify their key pests and even fewer knew what other insects or diseases could help manage those pests. In VG98048 emphasis was put on regular monitoring of a range of lettuce crops to understand what pests,

3

VG 01028: Improving lettuce pest management in NSW and SE QLD

diseases and beneficials were in the system. Generating efficacy data to assist in registration of new ‘IPM-friendly’ pesticides for the key pest, Heliothis, and to develop greater knowledge in how these pesticides might be best used in lettuce was also a key focus. Workshops and an IPM Information Guide were produced to help growers and consultants learn what pests, beneficials and diseases were found in lettuce crops and what their management options might be. Information was gathered to help better target pesticides to the vulnerable life stages of the pest. Trials were conducted to improve spray application with modified overhead booms, air assist or CDA sprayers. Towards the end of the project other sap-sucking insects were causing problems in the lettuce industry. Silverleaf whitefly had arrived in SE Queensland, growers in the central west of NSW were experiencing trouble with aphid or thrips transmitted viruses and growers in Sydney basin were seeing more problems with thrips. VG01028 was funded to continue the insect pest work and look more broadly than just Heliothis.

Recommended publications
  • The Genomics and Evolution of Mutualistic and Pathogenic Bacteria

    The Genomics and Evolution of Mutualistic and Pathogenic Bacteria

    Symbiotic bacteria in animals • Oct 3 2006 • Nancy Moran • Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Reading: The gut flora as a forgotten organ by A. O’Hara and F Shanahan EMBO Reports. 2006 What is symbiosis? • Term typically used for a chronic association of members of more than one genetic lineage, without overt pathogenesis • Often for mutual benefit, which may be easy or difficult to observe – Exchange of nutrients or other metabolic products, protection, transport, structural integrity Microbes in animal evolution • Bacteria present by 3.9 bya, Archaea and Eukaryota by >2 bya – The Earth is populated by ecologically diverse microbes • Animals appear about 1 bya • Animals evolved in microbial soup – “Innate” immune system probably universal among animal phyla: pathogenic infection was a constant selection pressure – But animals also evolved codependence on microbes, some of which are required for normal development and reproduction evolutionary innovations through symbiosis: examples • Eukaryotic cell (mitochondria) • Photosynthesis in eukaryotes (plastids) • Colonization of land by plants (mycorrhizae) • Nitrogen fixation by plants (rhizobia) • Animal life at deep sea vents (chemoautotrophic life systems) • Use of many nutrient-limited niches by animal lineages Why do hosts and symbionts cooperate so often? • Persistent association allows both to increase their persistence and replication. –Coinheritance – Long-term infection • Intimate metabolic exchange generating immediate beneficial feedback Symbiosis- main variables • Route
  • A Contribution to the Aphid Fauna of Greece

    A Contribution to the Aphid Fauna of Greece

    Bulletin of Insectology 60 (1): 31-38, 2007 ISSN 1721-8861 A contribution to the aphid fauna of Greece 1,5 2 1,6 3 John A. TSITSIPIS , Nikos I. KATIS , John T. MARGARITOPOULOS , Dionyssios P. LYKOURESSIS , 4 1,7 1 3 Apostolos D. AVGELIS , Ioanna GARGALIANOU , Kostas D. ZARPAS , Dionyssios Ch. PERDIKIS , 2 Aristides PAPAPANAYOTOU 1Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Nea Ionia, Magnesia, Greece 2Laboratory of Plant Pathology, Department of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece 3Laboratory of Agricultural Zoology and Entomology, Agricultural University of Athens, Greece 4Plant Virology Laboratory, Plant Protection Institute of Heraklion, National Agricultural Research Foundation (N.AG.RE.F.), Heraklion, Crete, Greece 5Present address: Amfikleia, Fthiotida, Greece 6Present address: Institute of Technology and Management of Agricultural Ecosystems, Center for Research and Technology, Technology Park of Thessaly, Volos, Magnesia, Greece 7Present address: Department of Biology-Biotechnology, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece Abstract In the present study a list of the aphid species recorded in Greece is provided. The list includes records before 1992, which have been published in previous papers, as well as data from an almost ten-year survey using Rothamsted suction traps and Moericke traps. The recorded aphidofauna consisted of 301 species. The family Aphididae is represented by 13 subfamilies and 120 genera (300 species), while only one genus (1 species) belongs to Phylloxeridae. The aphid fauna is dominated by the subfamily Aphidi- nae (57.1 and 68.4 % of the total number of genera and species, respectively), especially the tribe Macrosiphini, and to a lesser extent the subfamily Eriosomatinae (12.6 and 8.3 % of the total number of genera and species, respectively).
  • Mexican Uroleucon (Hemiptera: Aphididae) from the Collection of the Muséum National D'histoire Naturelle of Paris with Eleven

    Mexican Uroleucon (Hemiptera: Aphididae) from the Collection of the Muséum National D'histoire Naturelle of Paris with Eleven

    622 Florida Entomologist 94(3) September 2011 MEXICAN UROLEUCON (HEMIPTERA: APHIDIDAE) FROM THE COLLECTION OF THE MUSÉUM NATIONAL D’HISTOIRE NATURELLE OF PARIS WITH ELEVEN NEW SPECIES JUAN M. NIETO NAFRÍA, M. PILAR MIER DURANTE AND NICOLÁS PÉREZ HIDALGO Departamento de Biodiversidad y Gestión Ambiental. Universidad de León, E-24071, León, Spain ABSTRACT Very little is known about the Mexican fauna of Uroleucon; only 4 species have been re- corded, which is fewer than in Central America and the Caribbean. One hundred ninety two samples collected in 19 Mexican states from the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (Paris) collection have been studied and 30 species identified. Four of them are the species previously recorded (U. ambrosiae, U. erigeronense, U. pseudoambrosiae and U. sonchi). Fif- teen North American species are recorded for the first time from Mexico: U. astronomus, U. brevitarsus, U. chani, U. eupatoricolens, U. gravicorne, U. macgillivrayae, U. maximiliani- cola, U. nigrotuberculatum, U. obscuricaudatum, U. paucosensoriatum, U. penderum, U. rey- noldense, U. richardsi, U. stoetzelae and U. zerogutierrezis. Thirty-three new “aphid/host plant” relationships of these species have been established. Comments about the distribu- tion of the species are made. Eleven new species are described, illustrated and discussed: U. penae, U. mexicanum, U. gnaphalii, U. sinuense, U. munozae, U. zacatecense, U. queretarense, U. tlaxcalense, U. latgei, U. heterothecae and U. remaudiereorum. An appendix with modifi- cations for 17 keys in Blackman and Eastop’s work, “Aphids on the World’s Herbaceous Plants and Shrubs”, is presented and 3 additional keys are given. Key Words: Uroleucon, aphids, Mexico, host plants RESUMEN Se conoce muy poco sobre la fauna mexicana del género Uroleucon; sólo se han citado cuatro especies en el país, que son menos que las citadas en América Central y el Caribe.
  • Aphid Transmission of Potyvirus: the Largest Plant-Infecting RNA Virus Genus

    Aphid Transmission of Potyvirus: the Largest Plant-Infecting RNA Virus Genus

    Supplementary Aphid Transmission of Potyvirus: The Largest Plant-Infecting RNA Virus Genus Kiran R. Gadhave 1,2,*,†, Saurabh Gautam 3,†, David A. Rasmussen 2 and Rajagopalbabu Srinivasan 3 1 Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA 2 Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA; [email protected] 3 Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]. † Authors contributed equally. Received: 13 May 2020; Accepted: 15 July 2020; Published: date Abstract: Potyviruses are the largest group of plant infecting RNA viruses that cause significant losses in a wide range of crops across the globe. The majority of viruses in the genus Potyvirus are transmitted by aphids in a non-persistent, non-circulative manner and have been extensively studied vis-à-vis their structure, taxonomy, evolution, diagnosis, transmission and molecular interactions with hosts. This comprehensive review exclusively discusses potyviruses and their transmission by aphid vectors, specifically in the light of several virus, aphid and plant factors, and how their interplay influences potyviral binding in aphids, aphid behavior and fitness, host plant biochemistry, virus epidemics, and transmission bottlenecks. We present the heatmap of the global distribution of potyvirus species, variation in the potyviral coat protein gene, and top aphid vectors of potyviruses. Lastly, we examine how the fundamental understanding of these multi-partite interactions through multi-omics approaches is already contributing to, and can have future implications for, devising effective and sustainable management strategies against aphid- transmitted potyviruses to global agriculture.
  • Eco-Climatic Assessment of the Potential Establishment of Exotic Insects in New Zealand

    Eco-Climatic Assessment of the Potential Establishment of Exotic Insects in New Zealand

    Eco-climatic assessment of the potential establishment of exotic insects in New Zealand A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Lincoln University by Lora Peacock Lincoln University 2005 Contents Abstract of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of PhD Eco-climatic assessment of the potential establishment of exotic insects in New Zealand Lora Peacock To refine our knowledge and to adequately test hypotheses concerning theoretical and applied aspects of invasion biology, successful and unsuccessful invaders should be compared. This study investigated insect establishment patterns by comparing the climatic preferences and biological attributes of two groups of polyphagous insect species that are constantly intercepted at New Zealand's border. One group of species is established in New Zealand (n = 15), the other group comprised species that are not established (n = 21). In the present study the two groups were considered to represent successful and unsuccessful invaders. To provide background for interpretation of results of the comparative analysis, global areas that are climatically analogous to sites in New Zealand were identified by an eco­ climatic assessment model, CLIMEX, to determine possible sources of insect pest invasion. It was found that south east Australia is one of the regions that are climatically very similar to New Zealand. Furthermore, New Zealand shares 90% of its insect pest species with that region. South east Australia has close trade and tourism links with New Zealand and because of its proximity a new incursion in that analogous climate should alert biosecurity authorities in New Zealand.
  • BIN Overlap Confirms Transcontinental Distribution of Pest Aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae)

    BIN Overlap Confirms Transcontinental Distribution of Pest Aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae)

    RESEARCH ARTICLE BIN overlap confirms transcontinental distribution of pest aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) 1,2 3 1,4 Muhammad Tayyib NaseemID , Muhammad AshfaqID *, Arif Muhammad Khan , Akhtar Rasool1,5, Muhammad Asif1, Paul D. N. Hebert3 1 National institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Faisalabad, Pakistan, 2 Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan, 3 Centre for Biodiversity Genomics & Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, 4 Department of Biotechnology, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan, 5 Department of Zoology, University of Swat, Swat, Pakistan a1111111111 a1111111111 * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract DNA barcoding is highly effective for identifying specimens once a reference sequence library is available for the species assemblage targeted for analysis. Despite the great need OPEN ACCESS for an improved capacity to identify the insect pests of crops, the use of DNA barcoding is Citation: Naseem MT, Ashfaq M, Khan AM, Rasool constrained by the lack of a well-parameterized reference library. The current study begins A, Asif M, Hebert PDN (2019) BIN overlap confirms to address this limitation by developing a DNA barcode reference library for the pest aphids transcontinental distribution of pest aphids of Pakistan. It also examines the affinities of these species with conspecific populations (Hemiptera: Aphididae). PLoS ONE 14(12): from other geographic regions based on both conventional taxonomy and Barcode Index e0220426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0220426 Numbers (BINs). A total of 809 aphids were collected from a range of plant species at sites across Pakistan. Morphological study and DNA barcoding allowed 774 specimens to be Editor: Feng ZHANG, Nanjing Agricultural University, CHINA identified to one of 42 species while the others were placed to a genus or subfamily.
  • Aphid Parasitoids of Malta: Review and Key to Species

    Aphid Parasitoids of Malta: Review and Key to Species

    BULLETIN OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MALTA (2015) Vol. 7 : 121–137 DOI: 10.17387/BULLENTSOCMALTA.2015.10 Aphidiinae (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) aphid parasitoids of Malta: review and key to species Ehsan RAKHSHANI1, Petr STARÝ2, Željko TOMANOVIĆ3 & David MIFSUD4 ABSTRACT. This paper brings an annotated list of the 16 aphid parasitoids detected up to 2015 in Malta. All the species were reared from identified aphid-plant associations. An illustrated key to the identification of the recorded species from Malta is provided. Taxonomy and peculiarities of the individual taxa are discussed and research outlines are also presented. Two species, Aphidius absinthii and Trioxys pallidus are newly recorded for the Maltese fauna, in association with Uroleucon inulae and Hoplocallis picta, respectively. The first host association has never been reported so far. The documented aphid fauna of the Maltese Islands indicates the probable existence of other species of aphid parasitoids that may be present in the archipelago, especially those already known in nearby Mediterranean territories. KEY WORDS. Biological control, invasive species, intraspecific variation, tritrophic association, Aphidius absinthii, Trioxys pallidus. INTRODUCTION All members of the braconid subfamily Aphidiinae are solitary endoparasitoids of aphids (STARÝ, 1970). They are among the most important natural enemies of aphids, which can effectively regulate the aphid populations and prevent serious outbreaks (HUGHES, 1989; HAGVAR & HOFSVANG, 1991). As a representative model of food webs in an ecosystem (STARÝ, 2006), the Aphidiinae have widely been considered in the tritrophic (parasitoid-aphid-plant) approach (KAVALLIERATOS et al., 2004), which gives the useful ecological data as well as a good background for subsequent biological control programmes against aphid pests.
  • PDF | 326 KB) Kansas State University, Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

    PDF | 326 KB) Kansas State University, Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

    ANNÉE 2016 THÈSE / UNIVERSITÉ DE RENNES 1 sous le sceau de l'Université Bretagne Loire pour le grade de DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE RENNES 1 Mention : Biologie / écologie Ecole doctorale Vie-Agro-Santé présentée par Yoann Navasse Préparée à l’unité de recherche UMR IGEPP 1349 Institut de génétique, environnement et protection des plantes Thèse soutenue à Agrocampus Spécialisation Ouest le 7 décembre2016 parasitaire chez les devant le jury composé de : Flavie VANLERBERGHE Aphidiinae : existe-t-il Directrice de recherche, INRA, CBGP / rapporteur Jean-Pierre SARTHOU des parasitoïdes de Maître de conférences, INRA, ENSAT / rapporteur Marlène GOUBAULT pucerons Maître de conférences, IRBI, Université François Rabelais / examinatrice généralistes ? Anne-Marie CORTESERO Professeure, Université de Rennes 1 / examinatrice Nicolas RIS Ingénieur de recherche, INRA/ examinateur Anne LE RALEC Professeure, Agrocampus Ouest / directrice de thèse Manuel PLANTEGENEST Professeur, Agrocampus Ouest / co-directeur de thèse 2 Sommaire Introduction générale .......................................................................................................... 5 I. Le caractère généraliste ............................................................................................................. 5 I.. Qu’est-e u’ue espèce généraliste ? ......................................................................................... 5 I.. L’eistee du aate galiste, u sujet otoves .......................................................... 6 I.3. La spécialisation écologique
  • Article 524340 3007366A7d928

    Article 524340 3007366A7d928

    ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺗﺨﺼﺼﻲ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﺣﺸﺮه ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺟﻠﺪ 4 ، ﺷﻤﺎره 2 ، ﺳﺎل 1391 ، ( 153-141 ) داﻧﺸﮕﺎه آزاد اﺳﻼﻣﻲ، واﺣﺪ اراك ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺗﺨ ﺼﺼﻲ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﺣﺸﺮه ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺷﺎﭘﺎ 4668- 2008 (ﻋﻠﻤﻲ - ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ) www.entomologicalresearch.ir http://jer.iau-arak.ac.ir ﺟﻠﺪ 4 ، ﺷﻤﺎره 2 ، ﺳﺎل 91 13، (1 153-14) ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻓﻮن ﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎ ( Hem., Sternorrhyncha; Aphididae ) در ﻧﻮاﺣﻲ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺷﻬﺮﺳﺘﺎن ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه ﺳﻌﻴﺪه ﻗﻬﺮﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﮋاد1* ، ﻣﻌﺼﻮﻣﻪ ﺷﺎﻳﺎن ﻣﻬﺮ2 ، ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺗﻘﻲ ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪي3 -1 داﻧﺸﺠﻮي ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ارﺷﺪ ﺣﺸﺮه ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻛﺸﺎورزي، داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻋﻠﻮم ﻛﺸﺎورزي و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺳﺎري -2 اﺳﺘﺎدﻳﺎر ﮔﺮوه ﭘﮔﻴﺎه ﺰﺷﻜﻲ، داﻧﺸﻜﺪه ﻋﻠﻮم زراﻋﻲ، داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻋﻠﻮم ﻛﺸﺎورزي و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺳﺎري -3 ﻣﺮﺑﻲ، ﮔﺮوه ﮔﻴﺎه ﭘﺰﺷﻜﻲ، ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﻛﺸﺎورزي و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه ﭼﻜﻴﺪه ﻓﻮن ﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎي ﺧﺎﻧﻮاده Aphididae روي ﻣﻴﺰﺑﺎن ﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﮔﻴﺎﻫﻲ در ﺷﻬﺮﺳﺘﺎن ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه ﻃﻲ ﺳﺎل ﻫﺎي 1389 ﺗﺎ 1390 ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺷﺪ . ﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎي ﺟﻤﻊ آوري ﺷﺪه از روي ﻣﻴﺰﺑﺎن ﻫﺎي ﮔﻴﺎﻫﻲ در اﻟﻜﻞ اﺗﻴﻠﻴﻚ 75 درﺻﺪ ﻧﮕﻬﺪاري و ﭘﺲ از ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﭘﺮﭘﺎراﺳﻴﻮن ﺗﺎ ﺳﻄﺢ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ. ﻋﻼوه ﺑﺮ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻴﺰﺑﺎن ﻫﺎي ﮔﻴﺎﻫﻲ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﻛﻤﻚ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎي ﺷﺘﻪ ﺟﻤﻊ آوري و ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼ ﻴﻦ ﮔﻴﺎه ﺷﻨﺎس ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺪ. ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎي ﺷﺘﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻪ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﻦ ﺷﺘﻪ ﺷﻨﺎس در اﻳﺮان رﺳﻴﺪ. در ﻣﺠﻤﻮع 25 ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺷﺘﻪ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻪ 13 ﺟﻨﺲ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ از اﻳﻦ ﺧﺎﻧﻮاده در ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺷﻬﺮﺳﺘﺎن ﺟﻤﻊ آوري و ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺪ. ﺗﻤﺎم ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺮاي اوﻟﻴﻦ ﺑﺎر از ﺷﻬﺮﺳﺘﺎن ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه ﮔﺰارش ﻣﻲ ﻧﺷﻮ ﺪ. ﻛﻠﻜﺴﻴﻮن اﺳﻼﻳﺪ ﻣﻴﻜﺮوﺳﻜﻮﭘﻲ از ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎي ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺪه در آزﻣﺎﻳﺸﮕﺎه ﺣﺸﺮه ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﮔﺮوه ﮔﻴﺎه ﭘﺰﺷﻜﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻋﻠﻮم ﻛﺸﺎورزي و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺳﺎري ﻣﻮﺟﻮد ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ. ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎي ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮح زﻳﺮ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ: Acyrthosiphon gossypii Mordvilko ,1914, Acyrthosiphon malvae ssp.
  • Checklist of Iranian Aphids (Hemiptera: Stenorrhyncha: Aphidomorpha)

    Checklist of Iranian Aphids (Hemiptera: Stenorrhyncha: Aphidomorpha)

    J Insect Biodivers Syst 05(4): 269–300 ISSN: 2423-8112 JOURNAL OF INSECT BIODIVERSITY AND SYSTEMATICS Monograph http://jibs.modares.ac.ir http://zoobank.org/References/43A1E9AC-DBFA-4849-98A3-132094755E17 Checklist of Iranian Aphids (Hemiptera: Stenorrhyncha: Aphidomorpha) Fatemeh Momeni Shahraki¹, Kambiz Minaei1* and Shalva Barjadze2 1 Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Iran. 2 Institute of Zoology, Ilia State University, Giorgi Tsereteli 3, Tbilisi 0162, Georgia. ABSTRACT. The paper presents a comprehensive compilation of 543 Received: species and 24 subspecies of aphids, within 144 genera, belonging to 15 29 July, 2019 subfamilies, 3 families and three superfamilies of Aphidomorpha recorded to Accepted: date from Iran. Among them, 35 species of aphids are endemic to Iran. 03 October, 2019 Published: 17 October, 2019 Subject Editor: Ehsan Rakhshani Key words: Aphids, Iran, Checklist Citation: Momeni Shahraki, F., Minaei, K. & Barjadze, Sh. (2019) Checklist of Iranian Aphids (Hemiptera: Stenorrhyncha: Aphidomorpha). Journal of Insect Biodiversity and Systematics, 5 (4), 269–300. Introduction Iran forms a large part of the Iranian plant viral diseases (Blackman & Eastop, plateau, and covers an area of 1,623,779 2007). The known world aphid fauna km². It is bordered in the north by the consists of 5262 extant species (Favret, Caucasus Mountains, Middle Asian natural 2019). They are mostly found in temperate regions and the Caspian Sea (-27 m below zone (Baranyovits, 1973). The aphid fauna sea level); in the west by the Anatolian and of Iran and adjacent countries has been Mesopotamian regions; in the east by the investigated sporradically. The first report eastern part of the Iranian plateau of aphids in Iran was presented by (Afghanistan and adjacent west Pakistan) Theobald (1920).
  • Lutte Contre Les Pucerons De La Chicorée Biologique Essai Bande Fleurie Sur Chicorée Porte Graine Et Plan D’Aménagement D’Une Haie Composite

    Lutte Contre Les Pucerons De La Chicorée Biologique Essai Bande Fleurie Sur Chicorée Porte Graine Et Plan D’Aménagement D’Une Haie Composite

    LAURE NESPOULOUS Lutte contre les pucerons de la chicorée biologique Essai bande fleurie sur chicorée porte graine et plan d’aménagement d’une haie composite 2010/2011 Responsable du site et maitre de stage : M Joël Garaud BEJO SUD - S I T E G R I F F E T - 11 400 - S A I N T M A R T I N L ALANDE Remerciements Avant tout, je tiens à remercier M. Joël GARAUD, Responsable du site de BEJO Sud à Saint Martin Lalande, de m’avoir permis de faire ce stage de 16 semaines au seins de l’équipe de production. Je remercie également les employés de BEJO Sud : M. Dominique BAIN, M. Pascal MALACLET, M. Renaud SOUILHET, M. Christophe CLEMENT, ainsi que les secrétaires, Mme. Jennifer VIDAL, Mme Charline DECAUNES et le technicien responsable du secteur sud Guillaume CASTELLE. Je remercie l’équipe enseignante : M. Boris FUMANAL tuteur de stage, Mlle Florence CABANEL coordinatrice de la licence, M. Christophe POUGET enseignant au lycée agricole de Tulle-Naves et M. Laurent BOULET enseignant au lycée agricole de Bonnefon pour leur implication dans la licence et leur aide apportée dans la réalisation de mon rapport de stage. Je remercie toutes les personnes qui ont répondu à mes questions, notamment M. Bruno JALOUX (Agro campus Ouest Angers), et M. Alain ARRUFAT (CIVAM 66) sans qui je n’aurais pas pu réaliser cette expérimentation. Je remercie enfin ma famille qui m’a permis de financer et de réaliser cette licence. Tables des matières I. Introduction _____________________________________________________ 1 II. Présentation de l’entreprise _________________________________________ 3 III.
  • Aphids Associated with Shrubs, Herbaceous Plants and Crops in the Maltese Archipelago (Hemiptera, Aphidoidea)

    Aphids Associated with Shrubs, Herbaceous Plants and Crops in the Maltese Archipelago (Hemiptera, Aphidoidea)

    BULLETIN OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MALTA (2011) Vol. 4 : 5-53 Aphids associated with shrubs, herbaceous plants and crops in the Maltese Archipelago (Hemiptera, Aphidoidea) David MIFSUD1, Marija MANGION2, Erika AZZOPARDI2, Xavier ESPADALER3, David CUESTA-SEGURA4, Gillian W. WATSON5 & Nicolás PÉREZ HIDALGO4 ABSTRACT. A survey of the aphids associated with Maltese shrubs, herbaceous plants and crops was carried out. Sixty six aphid species were recorded from more than 90 species of host plants. Forty eight aphids were recorded from the Maltese islands for the fi rst time bringing the total number of aphid species known from these islands to 99. New records include: Acyrthosiphon lactucae, A. pisum, Anoecia vagans, Aphis alienus, A. euphorbiae, A. hederae, A. lambersi, A. multifl orae, A. nasturtii, A. parietariae, A. picridicola, A. ruborum, A. sedi, Aulacorthum solani, Brachycaudus helichrysi, Capitophorus sp. nr. similis, Clypeoaphis suaedae, Cryptomyzus korschelti, Dysaphis apiifolia, D. foeniculus, D. pyri, D. tulipae, Hyadaphis coriandri, H. foeniculi, H. passerinii, Hyperomyzus lactucae, Idiopterus nephrelepidis, Macrosiphoniella absinthii, M. artemisiae, M. sanborni, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, Ma. rosae, Melanaphis donacis, Metopolophium dirhodum, Pterochloroides persicae, Rectinasus buxtoni, Rhopalosiphum maidis, R. padi, R. rufi abdominale, Schizaphis graminum, Semiaphis dauci, Sipha maydis, Sitobion avenae, S. fragariae, Therioaphis alatina, Uroleucon inulae, U. hypochoeridis and U. sonchi. Of these 99 aphid species, 58 are of economic importance and 16 are alien introductions. For 15 of the aphid species, a total of 22 new host-plant records are made. Ten species of ants were found attending 18 aphid species. KEY WORDS. Malta, Mediterranean, new records. INTRODUCTION The aphids (Hemiptera, Aphidoidea) are a group of phloem sap-sucking insects, each generally 1-5mm long.