Biological Control of Whitefly on Greenhouse Tomato in Colombia: Encarsiaformosa Oramitus Fuscipennist by Raf M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Biological control ofwhitefl y on greenhouse tomato in Colombia: Encarsiaformosa orAmitus fuscipennisl RafMJ. DeVis CENTRALE LANDBOUWCATALOGUS 0000 0873 7542 Promotor: Prof.Dr .J.C .va nLentere n Hoogleraar ind eEntomologi e Wageningen Universiteit Samenstelling promotiecommissie: Prof.Dr . H.J.P.Eijsackers , Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam / ALTERRA Dr.A .Janssen , Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof.Dr . M. Dicke, Wageningen Universiteit Dr.J.J .Fransen ,Proefstatio n Aalsmeer ^0^1 {3) 15 Propositions 1. The statement that biological control in greenhouses in temperate zones is easier than in tropical areas (e.g. Gullino et al., 1999; van Lenteren, 2000) is not valid (Bueno & van Lenteren, submitted; this thesis). Gullino, MX., et al. 1999. In: Albajes, R., et al. (Eds.). Integrated pest and disease management in greenhouse crops.Kluwe r AcademicPublishers ,Th eNetherlands ,p 1-13. vanLenteren ,J.C .2000 .Cro pProtectio n 19: 375-384. Bueno,V.H.P .& J.C .va nLenteren , submitted. Thisthesis . 2. The application of relatively safe pesticides (Hassan et al., 1991) by water sprays can still be very harmful for natural enemies.Thi s may also applyfo r biopesticides. Hassan,S.A. , et al. 1991.Entomophag a36 :55-67 . Thisthesis . 3. The intrinsic rate of increase of many whitefly parasitoids has probably been seriously underestimated. van Roermund, H.J.W. & J.C. van Lenteren. 1992.Wageninge n Agricultural University Papers 92(3): 103-147. vanLenteren , J.C, et al. 1997. J. Appl.Ent . 121:473-485. Drost,Y.C. ,e tal . 1996. Proc.Exper .& Appl .Entomol ,N.E.V .7 : 165-170. Thisthesis . 4. The requirement that growers' organisations participate in research projects in Colombia is an excellent way to force applied scientists to resolve real problems instead of producing science for science. 5. Most computer databases on agriculture or biology include only recent references exemplifying that our society has more respect for recent developments than for those of our predecessors. 6. The fact that acquiring scientific papers in "developed" countries is a question of few mouse clicks, while in "developing" countries it is a difficult to impossible task, is a serious limitation and disadvantage for scientists in the latter countries. 7. In contrast to the impression one gets from the media, the vast majority of Colombian people is very peaceful. Propositions with the thesis "Biological control of whitefly on greenhouse tomato in Colombia: Encarsiaformosa orAmitus fuscipennisT by Raf M. J. De Vis. Wageningen, December 18, 2001. RafM.J.DeVis Biological control ofwhitefl y on greenhouse tomato in Colombia: Encarsiaformosa orAmitus fuscipennis? Proefschrift ter verkrijging van degraa d van doctor op gezagva n rector magnificus van Wageningen Universiteit Prof.Dr .Ir .L .Speelma n inhe t openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 18decembe r200 1 desnamiddag st e 16.00i nd eAul a lbis\/\g DeVis ,Ra f M.J. 2001. Biological control of whitefly on greenhouse tomato in Colombia: Encarsia formosa or Amitusfuscipennisl Doctoral thesis. Wageningen University. -Wit href. - With summary in English, Dutchan d Spanish ISBNnr .90-5808-521- X Ternagedachtenis vanmijn ouders Table of contents Chapter 1 General introduction 1 Chapter 2 Longevity, fecundity, ovipositionfrequency an d intrinsic 15 rate of increase ofth e greenhousewhitefly ,Trialeurodes vaporariorum on greenhousetomat o in Colombia Chapter 3 Life history ofAmitus fuscipennis asparasitoi d ofth e 23 greenhouse whitefly Trialeurodesvaporariorum on tomato asfunctio n oftemperatur e Chapter 4 Foraging ofAmitusfuscipennis for whitefly 45 (Trialeurodes vaporariorum) ontomat o leaflets Chapter 5 Comparison offoragin g behaviour, interspecific host 67 discrimination and competition ofEncarsia formosa and Amitusfuscipennis Chapter 6 Biological control of Trialeurodes vaporariorum by 99 Encarsiaformosa ontomat o inunheate d greenhouses in thehig haltitud e tropics Chapter 7 Amitusfuscipennis, analternativ e toth ebiologica l 119 control of Trialeurodes vaporariorum byEncarsia formosa? Chapter 8 Summarising discussion 137 Summary 149 Samenvatting 153 Resumen 157 Dankwoord- Agradecimientos 161 List ofpublication s 163 Curriculum vitae 165 1.Genera l introduction From chemical control tointegrate d pest management Chemical control became thepanace a ofpes t management inth e 40's and 50's because of its easy use and the highly increased benefits. However, the appearance of a series of negative effects has made it nowth e black sheep of cropprotection . These negative effects are mainly the impact on the environment and non-target organisms. Additionally, the use of chemicals put the growers at risk when applying chemicals in the crop and the consumers when eating products with chemical residues. But certainly, the appearance of resistance was the most important drive to develop new ways of pest control. This lead to the development of integrated pest management (IPM) programs where several ways of pest control, including physical, mechanical, ethological, chemical and biological control are combined. However, the way pest management is focused in most of these programs is still therapeutic and, although the newly used control measures may be less harmful, pest outbreaks still occur. Crop protection should therefore focus on a total system approach, based on agroecosystems that limit in a natural way the development ofpest s and where therapeutic measures are only used as a corrective rather than a standard procedure. Habitat manipulation and host plant resistance are likely to play an important role in this approach. Therefore, knowledge of the agroecosystems and interactionsbetwee nth e different trophic levelsi sver y important (Lewis et al., 1997;va n Lenteren, 1997). The success of integrated approaches such as that of The Netherlands (Lewis et al., 1997), stimulated governments to develop rules to reduce the use of pesticides in favour of biologically based pest control. In this way, pesticide use has been reduced by 25-50 % or more inrelativel y shortperiod s of lesstha n a decade in Sweden, Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands (vanLenteren , 1997). The most important general advantages of IPM, and more specifically biological control, are the reduced impact of pest control on the environment and a healthier final product. But, growers look first at the benefit of their crops and are not likely to be interested in increasing costs or risks of yield losses solely for the altruistic reason of using biological control. However, it has been shown that the currently used systems are cheaper or comparable in costs and in fact more reliable than chemical control, at least in greenhouse vegetable crops (Bolckmans, 1999; van Lenteren & Martin, 1999). On the other hand, because of the lower thresholds and the wider variety of products in ornamentals, more research and experience will be needed to come to biological systems with comparable costs andreliabilit y aschemica l control.Additionally , growers implement biological control as the mainpes t control strategy for many other reasons (van Lenteren, 2000a; Parella et al., 1999). These include (1) ahealth y working environment; (2) beneficials do not cause phytotoxicity. Yield increases of 20-25 % have been found in greenhouses under biological control compared to chemical control in cucumber because of the reduced fytotoxicity; (3) the introduction of natural enemies is less time consuming and more pleasant; (4) natural enemies often find their way into areas of plant foliage, which may not bereache d by sprays; (5) introduction of natural enemies is usually done at the start of the crop when time is available and once the natural enemies are established no further introductions are normally Chapter 1 necessary, in contrast with chemical control; (6) application of natural enemies does not interfere with harvest (safety period before harvest) or with activities in the crop (re-entry period after application); (7) natural enemies do not become resistant, as opposed to pesticides; and (8) producing healthy products, without damaging the environment is appreciated byth e generalpubli c and improves the statuso fth e farm and farmer. Several strategies have been developed for the biological control of pests in agroecosystems (van Lenteren et al., 1996). Examples are given of whitefly pests that are controlled withth e different strategies: • Classical biological control or inoculative biological control: long term biological control isobtaine d byth e introduction ofa limited number of beneficials originating from an area othertha n where thepes t occurs. This method has been used successfully to control pests that are introduced in a new habitat where no natural enemies of that pest are present or control by endemic natural enemies is insufficient. For example, the introduction of Amitus spiniferus and Cales noacki to control the woolly whitefly (Aleurothrixus floccosus), and Amitus hesperidum and Encarsia opulentat o control the citrus blackfly (Aleurocanthus woglumi), in citrus orchards in North America (DeBach & Rose, 1976; Flanders, 1969). • Inundative biological control: high quantities of beneficials are released to obtain immediate control of the pest for a short period, without aiming to obtain an effect of these introductions for later pest generations. An example of this system is the use of Encarsia luteola and Delphastuspusillus to control Bemisa argentifolii in poinsettias in theUS A (Heinz &Parella , 1994). • Seasonal inoculative biological control: high numbers