DOCSLIB.ORG

Biology, Ecology, and Evolving Management of Helicoverpa Zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Sweet Corn in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biology, Ecology, and Evolving Management of Helicoverpa Zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Sweet Corn in the United States Journal of Economic Entomology, 109(4), 2016, 1667–1676 doi: 10.1093/jee/tow125 Advance Access Publication Date: 21 June 2016 Field and Forage Crops Review Biology, Ecology, and Evolving Management of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Sweet Corn in the United States Daniel L. Olmstead,1 Brian A. Nault, and Anthony M. Shelton Department of Entomology, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, 630 W. North St., Geneva, NY 14456 ([email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]), 1Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Received 31 March 2016; Accepted 7 May 2016 Abstract Downloaded from The corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), is a polyphagous pest found throughout the United States, where it attacks many field and vegetable crops. Although H. zea has long been a traditional pest of sweet corn, its im- portance to this crop has increased dramatically over the past two decades. In this review, we summarize infor- mation critical for current and future management of H. zea in sweet corn production in the United States. First, we discuss the pest status of H. zea and its life history, including migration, infestation and larval development, http://jee.oxfordjournals.org/ diapause, overwintering, and abiotic factors that affect its biology. Next we describe monitoring methods, crop protection decision-making processes, chemical control options, and the use of genetic technologies for control of H. zea. Alternative H. zea management options including biological control, cultural controls, host plant resis- tance, and pheromone disruption are also reviewed. The role of climate change and its effects on H. zea and its ecology are discussed, as well as the recent invasion of its relative, Helicoverpa armigera (Hu¨bner), which is a major pest of corn in other parts of the world. To conclude, we suggest future research opportunities for H. zea and H. armigera management in sweet corn. by guest on August 15, 2016 Key words: corn earworm, Helicoverpa armigera, Zea mays L., development, host interaction The corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: disruption. We conclude by discussing the role of climate change and Noctuidae), is a key pest of many field and vegetable crops and is its potential effects on H. zea biology and the implications of the recent found throughout the western hemisphere (Cohen et al. 1988, CABI arrival of Helicoverpa armigera (Hu¨ bner) in the continental United 2016). This review focuses on H. zea in sweet corn, Zea mays L. States on sweet corn insect pest management. convar. saccharata Koern, in the United States. Although H. zea is a traditional pest of sweet corn in the United States, its significance has increased over the past two decades. The importance of under- standing H. zea and its close relationship with sweet corn is vital for Sweet Corn Production pest management of this valuable crop. Sweet corn is an important specialty crop and is grown in 158 coun- Despite the considerable body of work on H. zea in sweet corn that tries for fresh-market and processing purposes (USDA ERS 2015). has been published over the past 100 years, we are unaware of a com- In the United States, sweet corn was harvested on >28,000 farms prehensive review or synthesis of this information. Thus, a review is representing all 50 states, with Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin, timely and, we hope, will stimulate discussion on future work with this Florida, and New York harvesting the largest combined acreage of key pest. In this review, we highlight key information on the biology, fresh-market and processing sweet corn in 2013 (USDA NASS ecology, and management of H. zea insweetcornintheUnitedStates. 2016). Florida, Georgia, New York, and California produce the First, we briefly provide context by describing sweet corn production most fresh-market sweet corn annually by weight, whereas in the United States. We follow this by describing the life history of Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin, and New York produce the H. zea, including its migration, infestation and larval development, dia- most processing sweet corn. Sweet corn added US$1.2 billion in pause, overwintering, and abiotic factors affecting its life history. We 2013 to the U.S. economy. In the same year, 96,591 ha of sweet discuss monitoring methods, crop treatment decision-making pro- corn were harvested for fresh market, with a value of US$842.3 mil- cesses, chemical control options, and the use of genetic technologies for lion and a per ha value of US$8,720; 127,510 ha were harvested for H. zea management in sweet corn. Also covered are tactics of biologi- processing, with a value of US$357.8 million and a per ha value of cal control, cultural controls, host plant resistance, and pheromone US$2,806 (USDA NASS 2016). VC The Authors 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] 1667 1668 Journal of Economic Entomology, 2016, Vol. 109, No. 4 Sweet corn is closely related to field corn, but only the sweet are attracted to corn silks (Cantelo and Jacobson 1979, Fitt 1989, corn ear or its kernels are marketed for human consumption. In con- Raina et al. 1992). trast, many parts of a field corn plant are used for diverse purposes, Helicoverpa zea is widespread throughout North America (CABI ranging from animal feed and processed foods to ethanol produc- 2016), but populations are not permanent or ubiquitous in all areas. tion. Although both corn types are attacked by H. zea, pest manage- Helicoverpa zea is often migratory, and airborne radar observations ment strategies for the two types of corn vary considerably. have revealed that mass migrations can occur over long distances in All sweet corn varieties contain variations of Su, Se, and Sh-2 ge- a single night (Wolf et al. 1990) at altitudes up to 900 m (Beerwinkle notypes. Su causes the pericarp to produce water-soluble polysac- et al. 1994). Studies examining pollen on H. zea moths also support charides instead of starches and results in desirable eating the idea that migrations occur over hundreds of kilometers (Hendrix characteristics (James et al. 1995, Tracy et al. 2006). Su sweet corn et al. 1987, Westbrook et al. 1997). Furthermore, Gould et al. varieties were the first modern lines to be developed in the early (2002) have argued that reverse migration might occur in the fall 1900s and have moderate sugar levels in the kernel. Se, when acti- from northern states to overwintering sites in Texas and Louisiana. vated, enhances the activity of Su, causing the production of addi- The ability of H. zea moths to travel long distances in a short tional sugars (Ferguson et al. 1978). Homozygous Sh-2 varieties period can complicate local field-level management. In a short produce kernels with higher sugar content than Su homozygous vari- period, H. zea adults can theoretically migrate from a remote loca- eties (Najeeb et al. 2011). Se and Sh-2 genes have been bred into tion >400 km away (Westbrook et al. 1997). For this reason, H. zea modern Triplesweet sweet corn lines, where 100% of ear kernels ex- moth activity in sweet corn fields must be monitored (described in press the Se phenotype and 25% also express Sh-2 characteristics sections that follow), so that local population levels are checked on (Grubinger 2004). a regular basis. Downloaded from Modern sweet corn varieties have been bred for kernel traits de- Regional moth activity data and meteorological forecasting can sirable for human consumption. These characteristics also make the be used to provide knowledge about impending immigrations of developing sweet corn ear an ideal source of nutrition for H. zea H. zea into regional and local landscapes (Beerwinkle et al. 1994). (Cohen et al. 1988). Corn kernels have multiple nutritional compo- For example, Pest Watch (www.pestwatch.psu.edu) provides a nents, and H. zea larvae take advantage of these different parts to regional view of H. zea over time and space in the northeastern and satisfy their developmental requirements (Waldbauer et al. 1984). mid-Atlantic Unites States based on weekly catches from a network http://jee.oxfordjournals.org/ For this reason, H. zea will preferentially choose corn over other of pheromone and black light traps (Fleischer 2016). Other sites plant hosts (Johnson et al. 1975) because there is a higher likelihood (www.insectforecast.com) predict H. zea migrations using meteoro- of completing development. logical forecasting (Sandstrom 2016). If source locations for H. zea migrations and the history of chemical controls used to manage them could be determined, the timing of immigrating populations may be predicted and management improved by avoiding similar Pest Description chemical controls. Helicoverpa zea has many common names, including, but not lim- by guest on August 15, 2016 ited to, corn earworm, cotton bollworm, bollworm, tomato fruit- worm, soybean podworm, and sorghum headworm (CABI 2016). Host range and Landscape Considerations Adults are 20–25 mm in length and have brown (females) to brown- Successful development of H. zea can occur on large acreage field green (males) coloration (CABI 2016). Small spots are sometimes crops such as field corn, soybean, and cotton (Kennedy and Storer visible on the forewings, while dark outer-marginal bands and 2000), but corn earworms also feed on many important vegetable brown disc-shaped spots are found on the dorsal surfaces of the crops such as snap bean, sweet corn, and tomato. A variety of underwings (Hardwick 1965). Eggs are laid singly, have an approxi- weedy, uncultivated plants can also serve as hosts to H. zea mate dimension of 0.5 mm length by 0.5 mm width, and vary in (Nuenzig 1963, Hardwick 1965, Sudbrink and Grant 1995, color from white after they are laid to yellow near larval hatch Kennedy and Storer 2000).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Old World Bollworm Management Program Puerto Rico Environmental Assessment, September 2015
    United States Department of Agriculture Old World Bollworm Marketing and Regulatory Management Program Programs Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Puerto Rico Environmental Assessment September 2015 Old World Bollworm Managment Program Puerto Rico Environmental Assessment September 2015 Agency Contact: Eileen Smith Pest Detection and Emergency Programs Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Road, Unit 134 Riverdale, MD 20737 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Roaches Further Exemplify 'No Land Return' in Aquatic Insects
    Gondwana Research 68 (2019) 22–33 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Gondwana Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gr Ancient roaches further exemplify ‘no land return’ in aquatic insects Peter Vršanský a,b,c,d,1, Hemen Sendi e,⁎,1, Danil Aristov d,f,1, Günter Bechly g,PatrickMüllerh, Sieghard Ellenberger i, Dany Azar j,k, Kyoichiro Ueda l, Peter Barna c,ThierryGarciam a Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská cesta 9, 845 06 Bratislava, Slovakia b Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Physics, Research Center for Quantum Information, Dúbravská cesta 9, Bratislava 84511, Slovakia c Earth Science Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská cesta 9, P.O. BOX 106, 840 05 Bratislava, Slovakia d Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya 123, 117868 Moscow, Russia e Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Ilkovičova 6, Bratislava 84215, Slovakia f Cherepovets State University, Cherepovets 162600, Russia g Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, Rosenstein 1, D-70191 Stuttgart, Germany h Friedhofstraße 9, 66894 Käshofen, Germany i Bodelschwinghstraße 13, 34119 Kassel, Germany j State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, PR China k Lebanese University, Faculty of Science II, Fanar, Natural Sciences Department, PO Box 26110217, Fanar - Matn, Lebanon l Kitakyushu Museum, Japan m River Bigal Conservation Project, Avenida Rafael Andrade y clotario Vargas, 220450 Loreto, Orellana, Ecuador article info abstract Article history: Among insects, 236 families in 18 of 44 orders independently invaded water. We report living amphibiotic cock- Received 13 July 2018 roaches from tropical streams of UNESCO BR Sumaco, Ecuador.
    [Show full text]
  • Bt Resistance Implications for Helicoverpa Zea (Lepidoptera
    Environmental Entomology, XX(X), 2018, 1–8 doi: 10.1093/ee/nvy142 Forum Forum Bt Resistance Implications for Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Insecticide Resistance Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ee/nvy142/5096937 by guest on 26 October 2018 Management in the United States Dominic D. Reisig1,3 and Ryan Kurtz2 1Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Vernon G. James Research and Extension Center, 207 Research Station Road, Plymouth, NC 27962, 2Agricultural & Environmental Research, Cotton Incorporated, 6399 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513, and 3Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Subject Editor: Steven Naranjo Received 19 June 2018; Editorial decision 27 August 2018 Abstract Both maize and cotton genetically engineered to express Bt toxins are widely planted and important pest management tools in the United States. Recently, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) has developed resistance to two toxin Bt maize and cotton (Cry1A and Cry2A). Hence, growers are transitioning to three toxin Bt cotton and maize that express both Cry toxins and the Vip3Aa toxin. H. zea susceptibility to Vip3Aa is threatened by 1) a lack of availability of non-Bt refuge crop hosts, including a 1–5% annual decline in the number of non-Bt maize hybrids being marketed; 2) the ineffectiveness of three toxin cultivars to function as pyramids in some regions, with resistance to two out of three toxins in the pyramid; and 3) the lack of a high dose Vip3Aa event in cotton and maize. We propose that data should be collected on current Cry-resistant H.
    [Show full text]
  • Disruption of Insect Diapause Using Agonists and an Antagonist of Diapause Hormone
    Disruption of insect diapause using agonists and an antagonist of diapause hormone Qirui Zhanga,b, Ronald J. Nachmanc,1, Krzysztof Kaczmarekc,d, Janusz Zabrockic,d, and David L. Denlingera,b,1 Departments of aEntomology and bEvolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210; cAreawide Pest Management Research Unit, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, US Department of Agriculture–Agriculture Research Service, College Station, TX 77845; and dInstitute of Organic Chemistry, Technical University of Lodz, 90-924 Lodz, Poland Contributed by David L. Denlinger, August 24, 2011 (sent for review July 20, 2011) The dormant state known as diapause is widely exploited by several hyperpotent agonists of DH capable of terminating dia- insects to circumvent winter and other adverse seasons. For an pause as well as preventing entry into diapause. In addition, we insect to survive, feed, and reproduce at the appropriate time of report an antagonist of DH, an agent with a unique structure that year requires fine coordination of the timing of entry into and exit blocks the action of DH in terminating diapause. The rationally from diapause. One of the hormones that regulates diapause in developed peptide agonists and antagonist that we report here moths is the 24-aa neuropeptide, diapause hormone (DH). Among offer previously undescribed tools that could be directed against members of the Helicoverpa/Heliothis complex of agricultural this group of agriculturally important pests. pests, DH prompts the termination of pupal diapause. Based on the structure of DH, we designed several agonists that are much Results and Discussion more active than DH in breaking diapause.
    [Show full text]
  • Danaus Plexippus) in Milkweed Gardens and Conservation Areas
    Journal of Insect Conservation https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-0102-8 ORIGINAL PAPER Recruitment, survival, and parasitism of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) in milkweed gardens and conservation areas Emily A. Geest1 · L. LaReesa Wolfenbarger1 · John P. McCarty1 Received: 10 July 2018 / Accepted: 24 October 2018 © The Author(s) 2018 Abstract Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) are suffering from declining populations and conservationists have encouraged planting milkweed gardens in urban and suburban landscapes to help offset habitat loss across the breeding range. The effectiveness of gardens as a conservation strategy depends on their ability to attract ovipositing adults and the survival of monarch larvae in these gardens. Larvae are susceptible to a variety of predators as well as to parasitism by a tachinid fly (Lespesia archippivora) and a protozoan parasite (Ophryocystis elektroscirrha) which cause lethal or sublethal effects, yet the severity of these risks in gardens is not well understood. We compared egg abundance and larval survival in traditional conservation areas to gardens that incorporated milkweed to attract monarchs. Additionally, we collected late instar larvae and reared them in the lab to compare parasitism rates between monarch gardens and conservation areas. Both gardens and conservations sites varied widely in recruitment and survival of monarchs and there were no significant differences between the garden and conservation sites. Tachinid fly parasitism ranged from 30% of larvae from conservation sites in 2016 to 55% of larvae from gardens in 2017, but did not differ between the two categories of sites. Parasitism byO. elektroscirrha was detected in fewer than 2% of larvae. The density of milkweed had no effect on the number of monarch eggs in conservation areas or gardens in either year.
    [Show full text]
  • New Moths from Texas (Noctuidae, Tortricidae)
    1968 Joltrnal of the Lepidopterists' Societu 133 NEW MOTHS FROM TEXAS (NOCTUIDAE, TORTRICIDAE) ANDRE BLANCHARD 3023 Underwood, Houston, Texas As a retirement hobby, I decided, six years ago, to catalog the moths of Texas. My wife and I have been collecting moths all over Texas for the last four years. As the work progressed, I came to realize that I may have to settle, more modestly, for a "Contributions Toward A Catalog of the Moths of Texas." The number of species in my collection which had apparently never been taken in Texas is quite large, and the number of those which seem to be new to science, particularly from the mountain ranges and desert areas of West Texas, is much larger than I ever expected. I have been fortunate in interesting several specialists in describing some of these new species: Dr. C. L. Hogue (196S), Mr. McElvare ( 1966), Dr. E. L. Todd (1966) have described three. Difficult cases are now and, in the future, will be submitted to experts. I have de­ scribed the male of a fourth species (1966), the female of which was described by Dr. F. H. Hindge (1966). While getting more material for my intcnded catalog, I shall describe as many of the new species as I can name without becoming guilty of adding to the confusion which already exists in some genera. In the present paper, I describe six new noctuids and one tortricid species. All types were collected by A. &. M. E. Blanchard. Acronicta vallis cola Blanchard, new species (PI. I, fig. J; PI.
    [Show full text]
  • GMS News Autumn 2019 Weeks 28-36
    GMS News Autumn 2019 Weeks 28-36 Contents Editorial Norman Lowe 1 Overview GMS 2019 4th Quarter Evan Lynn 2 My move to the “Dark Side” David Baker 12 Another snippet! (VC73) Rhian & Adam Davies 17 Emperors, admirals and chimney sweepers, a book review Peter Major 15 GMS collaboration with Cairngorms Connect Stephen Passey 22 How and when to release trapped moths? Norman Lowe 23 Garden Moth Scheme South Wales Conference Norman Lowe 23 Clifden Nonpareil Michael Sammes 24 Tailpiece Norman Lowe 24 Lepidopteran Crossword No. 12 Nonconformist 25 Communications & links 26 GMS sponsors 27 Editorial – Norman Lowe Welcome to the final Garden Moth Scheme Quarterly Report of 2019. We have a bumper Christmas edition for you this time with a good variety of articles from lots of different contributors. Of course these always represent our contributors’ personal views, with which you might agree or disagree. And if so, let’s hear from you! We start as always with Evan’s roundup of the quarter’s results comparing moth catches with weather conditions as they occurred throughout the period. This time he has chosen to compare Ireland and Scotland, the northern and western extremities of our study area. They are also our two largest “regions” (OK I know they (and Wales) don’t like to be called regions but I can’t think of a better alternative) and the ones with the largest numbers of vice counties with no GMS recorders. I’ll return to this theme in my Tailpiece. Evan has also focused on the Setaceous Hebrew Character, a species that seems to vary possibly more than any other from place to place.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleomegilla Maculata (Degeer) Predation on Eggs of Colorado Potato Beetle, Leptinotarsa Decemlineata (Say)
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 1989 Coleomegilla maculata (DeGeer) predation on eggs of Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say). Ruth V. Hazzard University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses Hazzard, Ruth V., "Coleomegilla maculata (DeGeer) predation on eggs of Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say)." (1989). Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014. 3055. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/3055 This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COLEOMEGILLA MACULATA (DEGEER) PREDATION ON EGGS OF COLORADO POTATO BEETLE, LEPTINOTARSA DECEMLINEATA (SAY) A Thesis Presented by RUTH V. HAZZARD Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May 1989 Department of Entomology COLEOMEGILLA MACULATA (DEGEER) PREDATION ON EGGS OF COLORADO POTATO BEETLE, LEPTINOTARSA DECEMLINEATA (SAY) A Thesis Presented by RUTH V. HAZZARD Approved as to style and content by: David N. Ferro, Chairperson of Committee Jo^epl/ S. Elkinton, Member ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to Dave Ferro for keeping the door to his office always open for me, and thereby opening the door to the profession of Entomology. Special thanks to Roy Van Driesche and Joe Elkinton for their assistance in this work, and to all of my professors for their generosity in teaching. I appreciate the help of Buddy, Tuan and Jennifer in counting eggs and feeding beetles, which made these experiments possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Predaceous Ground Beetles Caterpillar Hunters and Bombardier
    E-185 5-03 PredaceousPredaceous GroundGround BeetBeetlesles Caterpillar Hunters and Bombardier Beetles Rick Minzenmayer, Extension Agent-IPM Chris Sansone, Extension Entomologist Texas Cooperative Extension redaceous ground beetles can be a nui- genus Calosoma, a brightly colored ground sance when numerous. They are beetle. Some species are called “bombardier PPattracted to lights and can sometimes beetles” because they emit what appears to be be found by the hundreds around lights in the smoke from the rear of the abdomen. The morning. The large numbers can also be a “smoke” is actually a glandular fluid that problem because the beetles defend them- vaporizes when it hits air; the fluid can irri- selves by emitting an odor. tate the skin. The ground beetles also emit an Ground beetles are part of the order odor to stop their enemies, including people. Coleoptera. This is the largest order of insects with over a quarter of a million species described throughout the world — about 30,000 species in the United States. Most beetles have two pairs of wings (elytra). The front pair is usually thickened and hard and meet in a straight line down the back when the wings are at rest. The back pair are mem- branous and folded beneath the front pair. All beetles have chewing mouthparts and under- go complete metamorphosis (egg, larva, pupa and adult). Predaceous ground beetles belong to the fami- ly Carabidae. This is the second largest family Caterpillar hunter, Calasoma scrutator (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: of beetles, with more than 2,500 species in Carabidae). North America. Most members of this family are considered beneficial, feeding on other insects in both the larval and adult stages.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects Parasitoids: Natural Enemies of Helicoverpa
    Queensland the Smart State insects Parasitoids: Natural enemies of helicoverpa Introduction Helicoverpa caterpillars (often called heliothis) are serious pests of many crops in Australia. A range of parasitoid and predatory insects attack helicoverpa. Identifying and conserving these beneficial insects is fundamental to implementing pest management with a reduced reliance on chemical insecticides. This brochure describes the most important parasitoids of helicoverpa in Australian broadacre crops. Parasitoids versus parasites: What’s the difference? Parasitoids kill their hosts; parasites (such Figure 1. Netelia producta is one of the as lice and fleas) do not. All the insects most commonly encountered parasitoids in this brochure are parasitoids. Despite of helicoverpa. Females lay their eggs onto this difference, the terms parasitoid and caterpillars, and the hatching wasp larva parasite are often used interchangeably, if feeds on its host, eventually killing it. inaccurately. Parasitoids such as Netelia can be important biological control agents of helicoverpa in crops. (Photo: K. Power) All comments about parasitoid abundance in this publication are based on field observations in southern Queensland farming systems. These patterns may not occur in all parts of Australia. About parasitoids What is a parasitoid? How do parasitoids find their A parasitoid is an insect that kills (parasitises) hosts? its host — usually another insect — in Many adult parasitoids find their host by order to complete its lifecycle. In Australia, smell. They can detect the direct odour of helicoverpa are parasitised by many species the host itself, or odours associated with host of wasps and flies. All helicoverpa immature activity, such as plant damage or caterpillar stages are parasitised (that is, egg, caterpillar frass (dung).
    [Show full text]
  • Data Sheet on Helicoverpa
    EPPO quarantine pest Prepared by CABI and EPPO for the EU under Contract 90/399003 Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests Helicoverpa zea IDENTITY Name: Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) Synonyms: Heliothis zea (Boddie) Bombyx obsoleta Fab. Phalaena zea (Boddie) Heliothis umbrosus Grote Taxonomic position: Insecta: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Common names: American bollworm, corn earworm, tomato fruitworm, New World bollworm (English) Chenille des épis du maïs (French) Amerikanischer Baumwollkapselwurm (German) Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature: The taxonomic situation is complicated and presents several problems. Hardwick (1965) reviewed the New World corn earworm species complex and the Old World African bollworm (Noctuidae), most of which had previously been referred to as a single species (Heliothis armigera or H. obsoleta), and pointed out that there was a complex of species and subspecies involved. Specifically he proposed that the New World H. zea (first used in 1955) was distinct from the Old World H. armigera on the basis of male and female genitalia. And he described the new genus Helicoverpa to include these important pest species, Some 80 or more species were formerly placed in Heliothis (sensu lato) and Hardwick referred 17 species (including 11 new species) to Helicoverpa on the basis of differences in both male and female genitalia. Within this new genus the zea group contains eight species, and the armigera group two species with three subspecies. See also Hardwick (1970). Because the old name of Heliothis for the pest species (four major pest species and three minor) is so well established in the literature, and since dissection of genitalia is required for identification, there has been resistance to the name change (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • £Arasites Associated with Lepidopterous Pests of Alfalfa in .Qklahoma
    £ARASITES ASSOCIATED WITH LEPIDOPTEROUS PESTS OF ALFALFA IN .QKLAHOMA By KATHLEEN MARY SENST I' Bachelor of Arts Wartburg College Waverly, Iowa 1974 Master of Science Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1978 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 1982 PARASITES ASSOCIATED WITH LEPIDOPTEROUS PESTS OF ALFALFA IN OKLAHOMA Thesis Approved: . ~ \ . ii 1143730 j ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I w.isb. to expres.s. my deep appreciation to my major adviser, Dr. Ricb.ard Berberet, for hi:s willi.ngness. to advise and help, and for his friendsb.i.p duri.ng thi:s: s:tudy and preparation of this manuscript. Appreciation is. expressed to Ors. Ray Eikenbary, Jerry Young, Robert Burton, and John Caddel for serving as members of my graduate committee, and to Or. Ron McNeu for his help in analyzing the data. Thanks. are extended to Mary Hininger, Melinda Davis, Donna Ridge, Phoebe Courtney, and Debbie Lauchner for their assistance in the lab­ oratory, and to Doug Sander and Kevin Mussett for their assistance in the fi.el d. Special thanks goes to Ms. Anne Hunt for clerical review and typing of this manuscript. My most sincere appreciation is reserved for my husband, John (Soteres}, for his encouragement, understanding, and patience while I was completing this work. I share the credit for this work with my family, whose love and support have been a constant source of encourage­ ment in my life. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 II.
    [Show full text]