DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrated Pest Disease and Weed Management Manual for Australian Apple and Pears

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrated Pest Disease and Weed Management Manual for Australian Apple and Pears Integrated Pest Disease and Weed Management manual for Australian Apple and Pears Disclaimer: Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited (Hort Innovation) makes no representations and expressly disclaims all warranties (to the extent permitted by law) about the accuracy, completeness, or currency of information in this Manual. Users of this Manual should take independent action to confirm any information in this Manual before relying on that information in any way. Reliance on any information provided by Hort Innovation is entirely at your own risk. Hort Innovation is not responsible for, and will not be liable for, any loss, damage, claim, expense, cost (including legal costs) or other liability arising in any way (including from Hort Innovation or any other person’s negligence or otherwise) from your use or non-use of the Final Report or from reliance on information contained in the Manual or that Hort Innovation provides to you by any other means. Funding statement: Levy funds – R&D projects This Manual is an output of project AP16007 “An Integrated Pest, Disease and Weed Management Program for the Australian Apple and Pear Industry” funded by Hort Innovation, using the Apple and Pear industry research and development levy and contributions from the Australian Government. Hort Innovation is the grower-owned, not-for-profit research and development corporation for Australian horticulture. Additional funding, not managed by Hort Innovation, was provided by the Victorian Government through the Agriculture Victoria group in the Department of Jobs Precincts and Regions; the New South Wales Government through the Department of Primary Industries; the Queensland Government through the Department of Agriculture Food and Fisheries; the Western Australian Government through the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development; and the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture within the University of Tasmania. Edition information: This is the second edition of the manual, the first having been produced as “Integrated Pest Management for Australian Apples & Pears” in 2009 by Shane Hetherington and edited by Ann Munroe on behalf of Apple and Pear Australia Ltd. Many of the photographs and images from that edition have been retained in this second edition. Additional photographs were sourced from Plant Health Australia, NSW DPI, TIA, WA DPIRD, Agriculture Victoria, and private individuals with acknowledgement embedded with the image. This edition was prepared by David Williams1 and Oscar Villalta1 with contributions by Stephen Quarrell2, Kevin Dodds3, Paul James4, Alison Mathews5 and Stewart Learmonth5. Jennifer Sexton1 undertook the mammoth task of correcting formatting and other errors. 1 Agriculture Victoria; 2 TIA; 3 NSW DPI; 4 Lenswood Cooperative, 5 DPIRD WA Publishing details: Published and distributed by: Hort Innovation Level 8 1 Chifley Square Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) 8295 2300 www.horticulture.com.au © Copyright 2017 Horticulture Innovation Australia Agriculture Victoria, Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions 2 Supported by and Agriculture Victoria, Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions 3 Table of Contents About this manual ................................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 1: Introduction to IPDM ............................................................................................................ 9 IPDM quick facts........................................................................................................................... 9 What is IPDM? ........................................................................................................................... 10 Making the decision to use IPDM requires personal choices ....................................................... 13 Developing a strategy to transition to IPDM ................................................................................. 15 Some IPDM terms defined .......................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 2: Developing an IPDM Plan .................................................................................................. 19 IPDM Quick Facts ....................................................................................................................... 19 Step 1: Prevention ...................................................................................................................... 21 Step 2: Prepare land for planting ................................................................................................. 26 Step 3: Planting and establishment ............................................................................................. 29 Step 4: Pest and disease management plan ............................................................................... 34 Example Action Plan in SMEACS format .................................................................................... 37 Chapter 3: Key pests and diseases, their activity periods, and monitoring methods ............................. 39 IPDM Quick Facts ....................................................................................................................... 39 Key pests ................................................................................................................................... 41 Pest and Disease Monitoring methods for apple and pear orchards ............................................ 44 Chapter 4: Biosecurity and potential incursions of new pests ............................................................... 50 IPDM quick facts......................................................................................................................... 50 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 Apple brown rot Monilinia fructigena ........................................................................................... 54 Apple maggot Rhagolletis pomonella .......................................................................................... 55 Apple proliferation....................................................................................................................... 57 Asian gypsy moth Lymantria dispar............................................................................................. 58 Black stem blight ........................................................................................................................ 60 4 Brown headed leaf roller (BHLR) complex................................................................................... 61 Brown marmorated stink bug Halyomorpha halys........................................................................ 63 Cedar apple rust Gymnosporangium juniperi-virginianae............................................................. 65 European canker Neonectria ditissima (syn N.galligena) ............................................................. 67 Fire blight ................................................................................................................................... 70 Green headed leaf rollers (GHLR) Planotortrix excessana and P. octo ........................................ 71 Oblique banded leaf roller (OBLR) Choristoneura rosaceana ...................................................... 72 Omnivorous leaf roller Platynota sultana ..................................................................................... 74 Orange tortrix Argyrotaenia citrana ............................................................................................. 76 Oriental fruit fly Complex............................................................................................................. 78 Pear fruit moth Acrobasis pyrivorella ........................................................................................... 80 Pear psylla Cacopsylla pyricola................................................................................................... 81 Plum curculio Conotrachelus nenuphar ....................................................................................... 83 Rosy apple aphid Dysaphis plantaginea ...................................................................................... 85 Spotted wing drosophila (SWD) Drosophila suzukii ..................................................................... 87 Chapter 5: Integrated weed management ............................................................................................ 89 Quick Facts for on-farm weed management ................................................................................ 89 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 91 Weed Management .................................................................................................................... 92 Chapter 6: Pesticides and the Australian Apple and Pear Industry ..................................................... 100 IPDM quick facts....................................................................................................................... 100 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 101 Resistance management .........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Entomology of the Aucklands and Other Islands South of New Zealand: Lepidoptera, Ex­ Cluding Non-Crambine Pyralidae
    Pacific Insects Monograph 27: 55-172 10 November 1971 ENTOMOLOGY OF THE AUCKLANDS AND OTHER ISLANDS SOUTH OF NEW ZEALAND: LEPIDOPTERA, EX­ CLUDING NON-CRAMBINE PYRALIDAE By J. S. Dugdale1 CONTENTS Introduction 55 Acknowledgements 58 Faunal Composition and Relationships 58 Faunal List 59 Key to Families 68 1. Arctiidae 71 2. Carposinidae 73 Coleophoridae 76 Cosmopterygidae 77 3. Crambinae (pt Pyralidae) 77 4. Elachistidae 79 5. Geometridae 89 Hyponomeutidae 115 6. Nepticulidae 115 7. Noctuidae 117 8. Oecophoridae 131 9. Psychidae 137 10. Pterophoridae 145 11. Tineidae... 148 12. Tortricidae 156 References 169 Note 172 Abstract: This paper deals with all Lepidoptera, excluding the non-crambine Pyralidae, of Auckland, Campbell, Antipodes and Snares Is. The native resident fauna of these islands consists of 42 species of which 21 (50%) are endemic, in 27 genera, of which 3 (11%) are endemic, in 12 families. The endemic fauna is characterised by brachyptery (66%), body size under 10 mm (72%) and concealed, or strictly ground- dwelling larval life. All species can be related to mainland forms; there is a distinctive pre-Pleistocene element as well as some instances of possible Pleistocene introductions, as suggested by the presence of pairs of species, one member of which is endemic but fully winged. A graph and tables are given showing the composition of the fauna, its distribution, habits, and presumed derivations. Host plants or host niches are discussed. An additional 7 species are considered to be non-resident waifs. The taxonomic part includes keys to families (applicable only to the subantarctic fauna), and to genera and species.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Pathways by Which Non-Native Forest Insects Move
    Journal of Pest Science (2019) 92:13–27 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0990-0 REVIEW Common pathways by which non‑native forest insects move internationally and domestically Nicolas Meurisse1 · Davide Rassati2 · Brett P. Hurley3 · Eckehard G. Brockerhof4 · Robert A. Haack5 Received: 18 February 2018 / Revised: 29 April 2018 / Accepted: 12 May 2018 / Published online: 30 May 2018 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract International trade and movement of people are largely responsible for increasing numbers of non-native insect introductions to new environments. For forest insects, trade in live plants and transport of wood packaging material (WPM) are considered the most important pathways facilitating long-distance invasions. These two pathways as well as trade in frewood, logs, and processed wood are commonly associated with insect infestations, while “hitchhiking” insects can be moved on cargo, in the conveyances used for transport (e.g., containers, ships), or associated with international movement of passengers and mail. Once established in a new country, insects can spread domestically through all of the above pathways. Considerable national and international eforts have been made in recent years to reduce the risk of international movement of plant pests. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) No. 15 (WPM), 36 (plants for planting), and 39 (wood) are examples of phytosanitary standards that have been adopted by the International Plant Protection Convention to reduce risks of invasions of forest pests. The implementation of ISPMs by exporting countries is expected to reduce the arrival rate and establishments of new forest pests. However, many challenges remain to reduce pest transportation through international trade, given the ever-increasing volume of traded goods, variations in quarantine procedures between countries, and rapid changes in distribution networks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Painted Apple Moth Eradication Programme (B)
    CASE PROGRAM 2006-10.2 The Painted Apple Moth Eradication Programme (B) In late August 2002, Murray Sherwin, Director-General of the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) had to decide whether to reverse his department’s recommendation, made to Cabinet barely a month before, for the future management of the Painted Apple Moth (PAM) incursion. The fast-breeding moth, discovered three years earlier, threatened New Zealand’s plantation forests as well as its native bush, potentially robbing the economy of $356 million in exports. Despite eradication efforts, including the controversial use of aerial sprays, new areas of infestation were still being discovered. Murray Sherwin had become chief executive less than a year ago, arriving at MAF as controversy was building around his Forest Biosecurity Group’s management of PAM. MAF’s recommendation to Cabinet in July 2002, based on the weight of internal and external advice, and concern about the $90 million estimated cost of an all-out eradication attempt, was to continue with containment activities while further investigating other means of managing the pest. Government’s response was to allocate $11 million in immediate resources and call for more detailed information on the options of long-term management, or a renewed attempt at full eradication. Sherwin realised there was substantial political support, despite the odds, for eradication. He now needed to know whether his department, besieged by media and community criticism, could believe in and commit to the task. This case was developed by the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) and funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF).
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Pear Psylla for Pest Management Decisions and Research
    Integrated Pest Management Reviews 4: 1–20, 1999. © 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Monitoring of pear psylla for pest management decisions and research David R. Horton USDA-ARS, 5230 Konnowac Pass Rd., Wapato, WA 98951 U.S.A. (Tel.: (509) 454-5639; Fax: 509-454-5646) Received 6 May 1998; accepted 3 November 1998 Abstract Pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola (Foerster) (Homoptera: Psyllidae), is one of the key insect pests in North American pear production. In some growing areas, more than 50% of dollars spent to control arthropod pests in commercial pear are directed specifically at controlling this species. Control measures require accurate and timely information about dispersal, onset of egg-laying in spring, densities in the orchard, and age composition of the population. To meet these ends, a number of sampling methods have been developed to monitor pear psylla, the most common being (for pest management purposes) visual inspection of spurs and foliage for nymphs and eggs, and use of beat trays to monitor adults. Action thresholds have been developed for counts obtained with either method. However, threshold estimates are fairly narrowly defined, referring to a somewhat limited group of pear cultivars, type of injury to be prevented, and pest management program being used. Further refinement has been difficult because of an incomplete understanding of psylla’s spatial distribution, seasonal changes in spatial distribution, and unknown or seasonally changing action thresholds. Beat trays and visual inspection of foliage have also been used to monitor pear psylla in various types of research projects, including studies of dispersal and biological control.
    [Show full text]
  • Beginners' Guide to Macro Moths: Te Hiku
    NZ moths are special many whakatauki written about the Why we need to trap the moths Why do we need to study moths? More than 86% of the known moths caterpillar and its capacity to eat. Who benefits from Moths are mainly out at night, so Moths breed fast and have lots of in NZ are endemic. They only occur studying moths? most people don’t see how many offspring. There are lots of different in NZ so we have to look after A more recent pest is the codling there are or what’s happening moth species playing different roles them.. moth (Cydia pomonella). Introduced to them. Unfortunately we need in the ecosystem. Moths have links Beginners’ Guide to Society from Europe, it attacks apples, You & I specimens for identification. to lots of other species (e.g. plants, Macro Moths Why are moths important? pears, walnuts, and other fruit. birds, introduced pests, other Moths are a key part of the wider Nature Why we need standardised data invertebrates). Moths have a bad reputation for ecosystem and they sit in the If we all use the same type of trap eating clothes, especially natural centre of a complex food web. The (e.g. a Heath Moth Trap) we can If something is changing in the Te Hiku fibres like wool, silk, and fur. In caterpillars are herbivores eating a compare data from different places ecosystem, moths are amongst reality there are very few moth range of native plants. and over time. With standardised the first creatures to respond. They species whose caterpillars eat Education information we can all work are likely to be good indicators of clothes.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan
    Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan June 2005 Martin Nugent, Chair Wildlife Diversity Coordinator Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 (503) 872-5260 x5346 FAX: (503) 872-5269 [email protected] Kev Alexanian Dan Hilburn Sam Chan Bill Reynolds Suzanne Cudd Eric Schwamberger Risa Demasi Mark Systma Chris Guntermann Mandy Tu Randy Henry 7/15/05 Table of Contents Chapter 1........................................................................................................................3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 What’s Going On?........................................................................................................................................ 3 Oregon Examples......................................................................................................................................... 5 Goal............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Invasive Species Council................................................................................................................. 6 Statute ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Functions .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Psyllid Host-Plants (Hemiptera: Psylloidea): Resolving a Semantic Problem
    242 Florida Entomologist 97(1) March 2014 PSYLLID HOST-PLANTS (HEMIPTERA: PSYLLOIDEA): RESOLVING A SEMANTIC PROBLEM 1,* 2 3 2 DANIEL BURCKHARDT , DAVID OUVRARD , DALVA QUEIROZ AND DIANA PERCY 1Naturhistorisches Museum, Augustinergasse 2, CH-4001 Basel, Switzerland 2Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK 3Embrapa Florestas, Colombo/PR, Brazil *Corresponding author; E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Evolutionary and biological patterns can be obscured by inadequate or ill-defined terminol- ogy. An example is the generally very specific relationship between the sap-feeding hemip- teran group, psyllids, and their breeding plants, commonly called host-plants. The literature is clogged with references to so called ‘hosts’, which are often merely plants on which psyllids were found accidentally, and no immature development was detected. Recently the term host has also been applied by some authors to any plant on which immature or adults feed. Here we propose a terminology to clarify associated plant definitions, and we suggest restricting the use of the term host-plant to plants on which a psyllid species completes its immature to adult life cycle. For the other plant associations we suggest the terms overwintering or shel- ter plant (plants on which adult psyllids overwinter and on which they may feed), food plant (plants on which adult psyllids feed, but do not breed and do not spend an extended period of time) and casual plant (plants on which adult psyllids land but do not feed). Key Words: jumping plant-lice, psyllids, host-plant, terminology RESUMEN Patrones evolutivos y biológicos pueden ser oscurecidas por la terminología inadecuada o mal definida.
    [Show full text]
  • Codling Moth Areawide Integrated Pest Management
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska 2008 Codling Moth Areawide Integrated Pest Management Alan L. Knight USDA-ARS Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub Part of the Agricultural Science Commons Knight, Alan L., "Codling Moth Areawide Integrated Pest Management" (2008). Publications from USDA- ARS / UNL Faculty. 651. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/651 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. - 9 Codling Moth Areawide Integrated Pest Management ALAN L. KNIGHT Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, Wapato, Washington, USA Introduction Codling moth (CM) is an insidious pest, tunnelling to the core of valuable commodi­ ties that are typically marketed with exceptional quality standards for appearance, firmness and sweetness. While there is no mention in the Bible of whether the apple that Eve gave to Adam graded 'Extra fancy', it is likely that if this fruit had been infested with CM, the human race would not be as anxious about returning to a pest-ridden garden of paradise. Nevertheless, since Noah allowed two adult CM to disembark from his boat, the distribution of this pest has closely followed man's culti­ vation of its hosts around the world (Shel'deshova, 1967).
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for Lambdina Fiscellaria
    Rapid Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for Lambdina fiscellaria July 2018 Larva of the eastern hemlock looper, Lambdina fiscellaria fiscellaria . Image courtesy Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Bugwood.org PRA for Lambdina fiscellaria © M G Tuffen Rapid Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for Lambdina fiscellaria 4th November 2018 Author: M G Tuffen Address: Teagasc, Ashtown Research Centre, Dublin 15, D15 KN3K, Ireland [email protected] This document was produced as part of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) funded Forestry Management Research (FORM) project as a collaboration between Teagasc and DAFM. Please treat this document and its associated appendices as confidential and as a working document that may be subject to change in response to new information. Teagasc Contact Dr Helen Grogan Address: Teagasc, Ashtown Research Centre, Dublin 15, D15 KN3K, Ireland [email protected] DAFM Contact Dr Sheila Nolan Address: DAFM Laboratories, Backweston, Celbridge, Co. Kildare, W23 VW2C, Ireland [email protected] 2 PRA for Lambdina fiscellaria © M G Tuffen Executive Summary The hemlock looper, Lambdina fiscellaria, is a North American forest pest of coniferous and broadleaved trees. The pest has a complicated taxonomy. It is widely reported as having three subspecies on the basis of differences in feeding preferences of the larval stages, but there are no morphological differences and some authors argue the pest should be treated as a single species. All three subspecies are considered in this PRA, which examines the risk of this pest to the island of Ireland (the PRA area), consisting of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Lambdina fiscellaria fiscellaria, also known as the eastern hemlock looper, is distributed in eastern North America and larvae show a preference for Abies balsamea (balsam fir) but will also feed on Picea glauca (white spruce), Tsuga canadensis (eastern hemlock) and a number of broadleaved trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies for the Eradication Or Control of Gypsy Moth in New Zealand
    Strategies for the eradication or control of gypsy moth in New Zealand Travis R. Glare1, Patrick J. Walsh2*, Malcolm Kay3 and Nigel D. Barlow1 1 AgResearch, PO Box 60, Lincoln, New Zealand 2 Forest Research Associates, Rotorua (*current address Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Dublin Road, Galway, Republic of Ireland) 3Forest Research, Private Bag 3020, Rotorua Efforts to remove gypsy moth from an elm, Malden, MA, circa 1891 May 2003 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The aim of the report is to provide background information that can contribute to developing strategies for control of gypsy moth. This is not a contingency plan, but a document summarising the data collected over a two year FRST-funded programme on biological control options for gypsy moth relevant to New Zealand, completed in 1998 and subsequent research on palatability of New Zealand flora to gypsy moth. It is mainly aimed at discussing control options. It should assist with rapidly developing a contingency plan for gypsy moth in the case of pest incursion. Abbreviations GM gypsy moth AGM Asian gypsy moth NAGM North America gypsy moth EGM European gypsy moth Bt Bacillus thuringiensis Btk Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki MAF New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry MOF New Zealand Ministry of Forestry (defunct, now part of MAF) NPV nucleopolyhedrovirus LdNPV Lymantria dispar nucleopolyhedrovirus NZ New Zealand PAM Painted apple moth, Teia anartoides FR Forest Research PIB Polyhedral inclusion bodies Strategies for Asian gypsy moth eradication or control in New Zealand page 2 SUMMARY Gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), poses a major threat to New Zealand forests. It is known to attack over 500 plant species and has caused massive damage to forests in many countries in the northern hemisphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Evaluation of the Relative Susceptibility of Six Pear Varieties to the Pear Psylla (Cacopsylla Pyricola (Foerster, 1848))
    doi:10.14720/aas.2019.114.1.5 Original research article / izvirni znanstveni članek Field evaluation of the relative susceptibility of six pear varieties to the pear psylla (Cacopsylla pyricola (Foerster, 1848)) Mohammad Saeed EMAMI 1,2 Received February 04, 2019; accepted August 02, 2019. Delo je prispelo 04. februarja 2019, sprejeto 02. avgusta 2019. Field evaluation of the relative susceptibility of six pear vari- Ovrednotenje relativne občutljivosti šestih sort hrušk na eties to the pear psylla (Cacopsylla pyricola (Foerster, 1848)) malo hruševo bolšico (Cacopsylla pyricola (Foerster, 1848)) Abstract: The pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola (Foerster, Izvleček: Mala hruševa bolšica, Cacopsylla pyricola (För- 1848) (Hemiptera: Psyllidae), is one of the most detrimental ster, 1848) (Hemiptera: Psyllidae), je eden izmed najbolj uniču- pests in commercial pear orchards. Varieties with low infesta- jočih škodljivcev v komercialnih nasadih hrušk. Sorte z majnim tion level to pear psylla would offer to integrated psyllid man- deležem okužbe z bolšico bi lahko uporabili pri integriranem agement. The natural infestation level of six pear varieties to upravljanju s hruševo bolšico. Naravna okužba s hruševo bolši- pear psylla was studied under field conditions during three suc- co je bila preučevana na šestih sortah hrušk na prostem v treh cessive years. The pear varieties consisted of ‘Comice’, ‘Buerre zaporednih letih. Sorte hrušk so bile:‘Comice’, ‘Buerre Giffard’, Giffard’, ‘Bonne Louise’, ‘Felestini’, ‘Shahmiveh’, and ‘Sebri’. Psyl- ‘Bonne Louise’, ‘Felestini’, ‘Shahmiveh’, in ‘Sebri’. Populacija lid population was sampled weekly by limb jarring method and bolšic je bila vzorčena tedensko s stresanjem vej in naključno selecting 10 leaves randomly per tree. The results indicated that izbiro 10 listov na drevo.
    [Show full text]
  • Trophobiosis Between Formicidae and Hemiptera (Sternorrhyncha and Auchenorrhyncha): an Overview
    December, 2001 Neotropical Entomology 30(4) 501 FORUM Trophobiosis Between Formicidae and Hemiptera (Sternorrhyncha and Auchenorrhyncha): an Overview JACQUES H.C. DELABIE 1Lab. Mirmecologia, UPA Convênio CEPLAC/UESC, Centro de Pesquisas do Cacau, CEPLAC, C. postal 7, 45600-000, Itabuna, BA and Depto. Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais, Univ. Estadual de Santa Cruz, 45660-000, Ilhéus, BA, [email protected] Neotropical Entomology 30(4): 501-516 (2001) Trofobiose Entre Formicidae e Hemiptera (Sternorrhyncha e Auchenorrhyncha): Uma Visão Geral RESUMO – Fêz-se uma revisão sobre a relação conhecida como trofobiose e que ocorre de forma convergente entre formigas e diferentes grupos de Hemiptera Sternorrhyncha e Auchenorrhyncha (até então conhecidos como ‘Homoptera’). As principais características dos ‘Homoptera’ e dos Formicidae que favorecem as interações trofobióticas, tais como a excreção de honeydew por insetos sugadores, atendimento por formigas e necessidades fisiológicas dos dois grupos de insetos, são discutidas. Aspectos da sua evolução convergente são apresenta- dos. O sistema mais arcaico não é exatamente trofobiótico, as forrageadoras coletam o honeydew despejado ao acaso na folhagem por indivíduos ou grupos de ‘Homoptera’ não associados. As relações trofobióticas mais comuns são facultativas, no entanto, esta forma de mutualismo é extremamente diversificada e é responsável por numerosas adaptações fisiológicas, morfológicas ou comportamentais entre os ‘Homoptera’, em particular Sternorrhyncha. As trofobioses mais diferenciadas são verdadeiras simbioses onde as adaptações mais extremas são observadas do lado dos ‘Homoptera’. Ao mesmo tempo, as formigas mostram adaptações comportamentais que resultam de um longo período de coevolução. Considerando-se os inse- tos sugadores como principais pragas dos cultivos em nível mundial, as implicações das rela- ções trofobióticas são discutidas no contexto das comunidades de insetos em geral, focalizan- do os problemas que geram em Manejo Integrado de Pragas (MIP), em particular.
    [Show full text]