DOCSLIB.ORG

A Review of Novel Strategies to Manage Viruses in UK Crops

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Review of Novel Strategies to Manage Viruses in UK Crops Project title: A review of novel strategies to manage viruses in UK crops Project number: FV461 Project leader: Dr Aoife O’ Driscoll, RSK ADAS Key staff: Dr Aoife O’ Driscoll Dr Lucy James Dr Sacha White Mr Dave Kaye Dr Steve Ellis Ms Frances Pickering Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2019. All rights reserved DISCLAIMER While the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board seeks to ensure that the information contained within this document is accurate at the time of printing, no warranty is given in respect thereof and, to the maximum extent permitted by law the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board accepts no liability for loss, damage or injury howsoever caused (including that caused by negligence) or suffered directly or indirectly in relation to information and opinions contained in or omitted from this document. © Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2019. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including by photocopy or storage in any medium by electronic mean) or any copy or adaptation stored, published or distributed (by physical, electronic or other means) without prior permission in writing of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, other than by reproduction in an unmodified form for the sole purpose of use as an information resource when the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board or AHDB Horticulture is clearly acknowledged as the source, or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. All other trademarks, logos and brand names contained in this publication are the trademarks of their respective holders. No rights are granted without the prior written permission of the relevant owners. DOCUMENT STRUCTURE This document reviews the different methods available for virus management in various crop groups. The reader is invited to consult their specific section of interest by clicking on the hyperlink attached to each section. 1. Potatoes 2. Cereals 3. Oilseed rape 4. Field vegetables Root crops Vining peas Vegetable Brassicas Cucurbits Lettuce Alliums Asparagus 5. Protected tomato 6. Sugar beet The document begins with a Review Summary of the overall conclusions. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2019. All rights reserved CONTENTS DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ....................................................................................... 2 REVIEW SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1 Headline ..................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1 Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 5 REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 7 Materials and methods ............................................................................................. 10 Virus management in potato .................................................................................... 10 Virus Management in cereals ................................................................................... 27 Virus management in oilseed rape ........................................................................... 54 Virus management in carrots ................................................................................... 66 Virus management in peas ....................................................................................... 80 Virus management in vegetable Brassicas .............................................................. 93 Virus management in cucurbits .............................................................................. 101 Virus management in lettuce .................................................................................. 114 Virus management in asparagus ............................................................................ 131 Virus management in protected tomato .................................................................. 136 Virus management in sugar beet ........................................................................... 157 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 179 Knowledge and Technology Transfer ..................................................................... 188 Glossary ................................................................................................................. 188 References ............................................................................................................. 189 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2019. All rights reserved REVIEW SUMMARY Headline In mitigating against the negative impacts posed by viruses on diverse agriculture and horticulture production systems, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, a paradigm shift toward deploying integrated, eco-friendly strategies is needed. Novel management practices in virus management have been identified in this review, centred around building epidemiological intelligence of virus threats, technological innovations to test for potentially new viruses and a better understanding of virus pathosystems and their interactions with the surrounding environment. Background Understanding the impact and management of virus symptoms in crops and /or the vectors that transmit viruses is an important issue for several AHDB sectors. This review was undertaken as a response to the need to commission new research into virus/crop management strategies. Summary Climate change, agricultural globalisation and international trade are driving shifts in agricultural practices and cropping systems that favour viral disease outbreaks. In the UK, growers are heavily reliant on synthetic insecticides to manage viral vectors cost effectively. However, the use of these products is coming under increasing pressure from legislation, climate change and market requirements such as reduced pesticide inputs and maximum residue levels. This, combined with insecticide resistance is having a significant impact on the both the arable and horticulture sectors. Ever advancing changes in technology provide opportunities for virus management beyond the current choices. This will allow more precise and targeted control, enabling integrated management of viruses-and their vectors-to become more of a normal practice than a concept that growers consider too much of a challenge. This report is a review of virus management options on a national and international level that could benefit UK crop production in cereals and oilseeds, sugar beet, potato, field vegetables and protected tomato. A summary of the major virus diseases affecting these crops in the UK, their vectors and alternate hosts, their primary methods of detection and available facilities in the UK to carry out detection are provided in Tables 42 and 43. 1 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2019. All rights reserved Recent shifts in viruses currently present in the UK In potato, there has been a recent shift towards the Potato virus Y serotype PVYN which accounted for more than 90% of PVY cases (Davie et al., 2017). In vegetable Brassicas, Broccoli necrotic yellows (BNYV) has been recorded in the UK (Walsh, J. Pers. Comm.). In tomato, Southern tomato virus (STV) was first identified in the UK in April 2019, with the first case of Tomato brown rugose virus (ToBRFV) reported on July 12th 2019. At the time of writing, the source of this ToBRFV outbreak is currently unknown. The risk of infection to other sites remains high, especially where sites handle imported fruit. New and emerging viruses In 2018, a new Potyvirus infecting potatoes named Potato yellow blotch virus (PYBV) was identified by scientists at Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) (Nisbet et al., 2019). In 2011, next generation sequencing identified several novel viruses in a wheat crop in Suffolk, including one that appeared in a quarter of all samples (Flint, 2015). Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV) has been detected in the UK with few issues, but strains present in other countries cause significant yield losses. The arrival of such strains in the UK may increase the importance of this virus. In carrots, there have been a number of new disease reports of viruses infecting both carrot and wild Apiaceae species, including Arctopus echinatus associated virus (AeaV), isolated from Arctopus echinatus, a perennial weed of the Apiacae family in South Africa (Richet et al., 2018), the first report of Apium Virus Y and Carrot Thin Leaf Virus in parsley in Slovenia (Mehle et al., 2019) and the first report of Carrot torrado virus 1 (CaTV1) and Carrot thin leaf virus (CTLV) from the wild Apiacae species Torilis arvensis ssp. arvensis in Greece (Lotos et al., 2018). Fox et al., 2017 discuss the newly emerging group of Nanoviruses as potentially damaging to UK pea crops: in particular Pea necrotic yellow dwarf virus (PNYDV) which has spread through Germany, the Netherlands and Austria (Gaafar et al., 2016, 2017). Ahsan and Ashfaq, 2018 demonstrated the first Cucumber Mosaic Virus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Encounters Between Aphids and Their Predators: the Relative Frequencies of Disturbance and Consumption
    Blackwell Publishing Ltd Encounters between aphids and their predators: the relative frequencies of disturbance and consumption Erik H. Nelson* & Jay A. Rosenheim Center for Population Biology and Department of Entomology, One Shields Avenue, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA Accepted: 3 November 2005 Key words: avoidance behavior, escape behavior, induced defense, non-consumptive interactions, non-lethal interactions, predation risk, trait-mediated interactions, Aphididae, Homoptera, Aphis gossypii, Acyrthosiphon pisum Abstract Ecologists may wish to evaluate the potential for predators to suppress prey populations through the costs of induced defensive behaviors as well as through consumption. In this paper, we measure the ratio of non-consumptive, defense-inducing encounters relative to consumptive encounters (hence- forth the ‘disturbed : consumed ratio’) for two species of aphids and propose that these disturbed : consumed ratios can help evaluate the potential for behaviorally mediated prey suppression. For the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Homoptera: Aphididae), the ratio of induced disturbances to consumption events was high, 30 : 1. For the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii (Glover) (Homoptera: Aphididae), the ratio of induced disturbances to consumption events was low, approximately 1 : 14. These results indicate that the potential for predators to suppress pea aphid populations through induction of defensive behaviors is high, whereas the potential for predators to suppress cotton aphid populations through induced behaviors is low. In measuring the disturbed : consumed ratios of two prey species, this paper makes two novel points: it highlights the variability of the disturbed : con- sumed ratio, and it offers a simple statistic to help ecologists draw connections between predator–prey behaviors and predator–prey population dynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficiency of Botanical Extracts Against Aphis Craccivora Koch (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Nymphs in Vigna Unguiculata (L.) Walp
    doi:10.12741/ebrasilis.v13.e910 e-ISSN 1983-0572 Publication of the project Entomologistas do Brasil www.ebras.bio.br Creative Commons License v4.0 (CC-BY) Copyright © Author(s) Article Full Open Access General Entomology Efficiency of botanical extracts against Aphis craccivora Koch (Hemiptera: Aphididae) nymphs in Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp Jefferson Auteliano Carvalho Dutra , Victor Emmanuel de Vasconcelos Gomes , Ervino Bleicher , Deivielison Ximenes Siqueira Macedo & Mirla Maria Mesquita Almeida 1. Universidade Federal do Ceará, Brazil. EntomoBrasilis 13: e910 (2020) Edited by: Abstract. The present study aimed to evaluate the insecticidal activity of hydroalcoholic plant extracts Rodrigo Souza Santos on Aphis craccivora Koch nymphs in cowpea. The experiments were carried out under greenhouse conditions in a randomized block design with five repetitions. Hydrated ethanol was used as a solvent Article History: in the botanical extract preparation. Cowpea plants were infested with five female adult aphids, Received: 03.vi.2020 eleven days after planting. After 48 hours, the adults were removed from the plants, leaving the Accepted: 13.x.2020 recently bred nymphs. The evaluation of the nymphs’ survival was carried out forty-eight 48 hours Published: 21.xii.2020 after the application of the plant extracts. The botanical extracts with more than 50% efficiency were: Corresponding author: Allium tuberosum leaf, Caesalpinia ferrea leaf, Piper aduncum leaf, Carica papaya seed, Dieffenbachia picta leaf, Cucurbita moschata seed and the control
    [Show full text]
  • Outcome of the Insecticide Working Group B
    Outcome of the Insecticide Working Group B Although centred on the fictitious dossier for ‘Lepticide’, the discussion also covered more general aspects of resistance risk assessment (highlighted in bold below). The dossier was unsatisfactory in several respects, but especially since data on cross-resistance in Myzus persicae presented in the Annex bore no relation to figures summarised in the main text. Because of unclear data, a final risk assessment for M. persicae was impossible. Some other inconsistencies and criticisms are presented below. The dossier presents a comparable easy case because pyrethroids are a well known class of insecticides and resistance to this group has been characterised in many important pest species. The two primary targets, the aphid Myzus persicae and the Colorado beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata, are well known to have developed resistance to a number of insecticide classes including pyrethroids. Emphasis on these species as ‘high risk’ targets is therefore correct, but a more detailed account including reference to some key publications is needed to justify these inherent risks to a regulator not necessarily well versed in insecticide resistance research. The inherent risk for the other aphids present in potato is not addressed in the dossier, and should have been considered to justify the exclusion of other species (eg. Aphis frangulae) that are also known to present resistance problems Evidence for the presence or absence of cross-resistance between Lepticide and other pyrethroids is poorly presented. Data in Tables 1 and 3 are contradictory and clearly relate to different bioassays done for different purposes. The presentation of probit parameters is very imprecise, and on this basis it is not clear if the pyrethroid-resistant strain of M.
    [Show full text]
  • Melon Aphid (Aphis Gossypii [Glover]) Donald Nafus, Associate Professor of Entomology, University of Guam
    Agricultural Pests of the Pacific ADAP 2000-10, Reissued February 2000 ISBN 1-931435-13-8 Melon Aphid (Aphis gossypii [Glover]) Donald Nafus, Associate Professor of Entomology, University of Guam he adult melon aphid or cotton aphid (Aphis Tgossypii Glover) is yellow to dark green with a black head and black cornicles. Often the melon aphid is light green mottled with darker green, but under crowded con- ditions and high temperatures it can be yellow or nearly white. Adult aphids range from 0.9 to 1.8 millimeters (mm) long. Females can bear two or more live young each day, rather than laying eggs. Adults live two to three weeks. The melon aphid feeds on the shoots or undersides of leaves of many plants. Over 70 hosts are listed for Ha- waii alone. Some of the common plants attacked in the Pacific region are cucurbits, citrus, eggplant, peppers, taro, and okra. Other hosts include banana, cotton, cof- Melon aphids on cucumber leaf fee, cocoa, Piper, tomato, beans, sweet potato and po- tato. The melon aphid can develop in large numbers on taro aphids, including melon aphid. These wasps are highly causing wilting and downward curling of the leaves. sensitive to chemical sprays. Care should be taken not Heavy infestations on cucumber, melon and other plants to use sprays that would disrupt this biological control result in small, distorted leaves. Often these severely in areas where natural enemies have been introduced. wrinkled or curled leaves form a cup shape and may dry If virus is present or aphids are causing damage and and drop prematurely.
    [Show full text]
  • "Virus Transmission by Aphis' Gossypii 'Glover to Aphid-Resistant And
    J. AMER. Soc. HORT. SCI. 117(2):248-254. 1992. Virus Transmission by Aphis gossypii Glover to Aphid-resistant and Susceptible Muskmelons Albert N. Kishaba1, Steven J. Castle2, and Donald L. Coudriet3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Boyden Entomology Laborato~, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521 James D. McCreight4 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Agricultural Research Station, 1636 East Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93905 G. Weston Bohn5 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Irrigated Desert Research Station, 4151 Highway 86, Brawley, CA 92227 Additional index words. Cucumis melo, watermelon mosaic virus, zucchini yellow mosaic virus, melon aphid, melon aphid resistance Abstract. The spread of watermelon mosaic virus by the melon aphid (Aphis gossypii Glover) was 31%, 74%, and 71% less to a melon aphid-resistant muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) breeding line than to the susceptible recurrent parent in a field cage study. Aphid-resistant and susceptible plants served equally well as the virus source. The highest rate of infection was noted when target plants were all melon-aphid susceptible, least (26.7%) when the target plants were all melon-aphid resistant, and intermediate (69.4%) when the target plants were an equal mix of aphid-resistant and susceptible plants. The number of viruliferous aphids per plant required to cause a 50% infection varied from five to 20 on susceptible controls and from 60 to possibly more than 400 on a range of melon aphid- resistant populations. An F family from a cross of the melon aphid-resistant AR Topmark (AR TM) with the susceptible ‘PMR 45’ had significantly less resistance to virus transmission than AR TM.
    [Show full text]
  • Aphid-Transmitted Viruses in Vegetable Crops Department of Departmentof Integrated Virus Disease Management
    Agri-Science Queensland Employment, Economic Development and Innovation and Development Economic Employment, Aphid-transmitted viruses in vegetable crops Department of Departmentof Integrated virus disease management The majority of viruses infecting plants are spread by Non-persistent transmission insects, and aphids are the most common group of • It takes less than one minute of feeding for an virus vectors or carriers. All potyviruses (the largest aphid to acquire the virus and the same short time group of plant viruses) are transmitted by aphids. to infect another plant when feeding. Aphids are sap-sucking insects and have piercing, • Viruses remain viable on aphids mouthparts for a sucking mouthparts. Their mouthparts include a few hours only. needle-like stylet that allows the aphid to access • When an aphid loses the virus from its mouthparts and feed on the contents of plant cells. During when feeding it has to feed again on another feeding, aphids simultaneously ingest sap contents infected plant to obtain a new ‘charge’ of virus and inject saliva, which can contain viruses if the before it can infect other plants. aphid has previously fed on an infected plant. Persistent transmission The structure of aphid mouthparts, their searching • It takes several hours of feeding for an aphid to behaviour for host plants, the range of available acquire a virus. host plants and high reproductive rates contribute to • The virus must circulate through the aphid’s body the efficiency of aphids to act as virus carriers. to the salivary glands before transmission can Aphid transmission occur. This period is at least 12 hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinach Chlorotic Spot Uirus: a New Strain of Beet Yellows Uirus
    rfl/8 t o — • • Q n t h e e / g e p t e d roa ..... /, COljy rA? pr p l a c e d i h i ^ b z a r y . x* h oF NAmOBt U N W E R S H ^ UBRAfr? KABE.U m is T1IE3IS HAS PEEN ACCEPTED FOE THE DEGREE OF................................................... AND A COPY 'TAY BE PLACED lfl ffHL CMVEBB1TY LIBRARY. UNIVERSITY OF NAiKUH) LIBRARY SPINACH CHLOROTIC SPOT UIRUS: A NEW STRAIN OF BEET YELLOWS UIRUS BY ANNE ADHIAMBO A thesis submitted to the University of Nairobi in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in plant pathology June 1985 l ii DECLARATION This thesis is my own original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other university. n Is I § £ A, A. OSANO DATE This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as university supervisors* PROF. D. M. MU10JNYA DATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. E. M. Gathuru and Prof. D. M. Mukunya, for their devotion, guidance, advice, criticisms and constant encour a geni ent during the course of this investigation and preparation of this manuscript. I gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance I received from the technical staff of Crop Science, Food Science, Pathology and Public Health departments of the College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences. In particular, I wish to recognise Mr. F. Ngumbu, formerly of Plant Virology Unit, for his special technical assistance and Messrs D. N. Kahara and J. G. Uaweru for their help in taking the electron micrographs.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control of Aphids by the Predatory Midge Aphidoletes Aphidimyza in the Presence of Intraguild Predatory Bugs and Thrips
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Wageningen University & Research Publications Biological Control of Aphids by the Predatory Midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza in the Presence of Intraguild Predatory Bugs and Thrips G.J. Messelinka, C.M.J. Bloemhard and R. Vellekoop Wageningen UR Greenhouse Horticulture P.O. Box 20, 2265 ZG Bleiswijk The Netherlands Keywords: Myzus persicae, Orius laevigatus, Orius majusculus, sweet pepper, intraguild predation, hyperpredation, apparent competition, mixed diets Abstract In organically grown sweet peppers, aphids are the most important pest. The wide range of natural enemies of aphids, that are commercially available, is not a guarantee for successful control but rather an indication that this problem is difficult to tackle. Strategies for control vary among organic growers and it is still not known which natural enemy complexes give the best results. When releasing natural enemies for aphid control, it is important to consider the possible interactions with other pest species and natural enemies present. Within man-made natural enemy communities for multiple pest control, direct and indirect interactions occur which can enhance or disrupt biological control, such as predators eating other predators, behavioural changes, plant responses or apparent competition. Here we investigated the effects of the generalist predatory bugs Orius laevigatus and Orius majusculus on biological control of green peach aphids, Myzus persicae, by the predatory midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza in the absence or presence of thrips. Our results showed that intraguild predation of aphidophageous midges by generalist predatory bugs is a realistic phenomenon, but the risk of disruption of aphid control seems to be limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Pathology Circular No. 261 Fla. Dept. Agric. & Consumer Serv. July 1984 Division of Plant Industry PEANUT STRIPE VIRUS
    Plant Pathology Circular No. 261 Fla. Dept. Agric. & Consumer Serv. July 1984 Division of Plant Industry PEANUT STRIPE VIRUS C. L. Schoultiesl During the 1982 peanut growing season, virus symptoms previously unknown to the United States were observed in new peanut germplasm obtained from the People's Republic of China (3). This germplasm was under observation at the regional plant introduction station at the University of Georgia at Experiment. J. W. Demski (2) identified this virus as peanut stripe virus (PStV), which may be synonymous with a virus described recently from the People's Republic of China (5). In 1983, surveys of some commercial fields and many experimental peanut plantings of universities from Texas to Virginia and Florida indicated that the virus problem was predominantly limited to breeding plots (4). In early 1984, at least 40 seed lots from the Florida peanut breeding programs at Marianna and Gainesville and a limited number from foundation seed lots were indexed by J. W. Demski in Georgia (4). Four of the 40 lots were positive for PStV and were not planted this year. The virus was not detected in foundation seed, however. Concurrent with seed indexing, infected peanut plants from Georgia were received in the quarantine greenhouse at the Florida Division of Plant Industry. D. E. Purcifull of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida, inoculated healthy peanuts with the virus. The virus was isolated and purified, and antiserum to the purified virus was produced (D. E. Purcifull and E. Hiebert, personal communication). During June 1984, PStV-infected plants were found in IFAS experimental plantings in Gainesville and Marianna.
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence of Aulacorthum Solani on Potato: a Vector of Potato Virus Yo and Potato Leafroll Virus in India
    20133A-- Jandrajupalli Sridhar Indian Journal of Entomology 83 (2021) Online published Ref. No. e20133A DoI No.: 10.5958/0974-8172.2020.00262.X OCCURRENCE OF AULACORTHUM SOLANI ON POTATO: A VECTOR OF POTATO VIRUS YO AND POTATO LEAFROLL VIRUS IN INDIA JANDRAJUPALLI SRIDHAR1*, VALLEPU VENKATESWARLU5, NEELAM KUMARI, ANUJ BHATNAGAR2, BASWARAJ R, RAVINDER KUMAR, M NAGESH3, JAGESH K TIWARI, AND S K CHAKRABARTI ICAR- Central Potato Research Institute (CPRI), Shimla 171001, Himachal Pradesh 1Present address: ICAR- National Institute of Biotic Stress Management, Baronda, Raipur 493225, Chhattisgarh 2ICAR- CPRI Centre, Modipuram, Meerut 250110, Uttar Pradesh 3ICAR- National Bureau of Agricultural Important Insect Resources, Post Bag No. 2491, H A Farm P O, Bellary Road, Bangalore 560024 5ICAR- Central Tobacco Research Institute, Bhaskarnagar, Rajahmundry 533105 Andhra Pradesh *Email: [email protected] (corresponding author) ABSTRACT Foxglove aphid Aulacorthum solani is a polyphagous pest causing direct and indirect losses to crops, and potato is its important host. Its incidence and distribution have extended manifolds in potato growing regions of India especially in seed production areas. In the recent past, it has been occurring on potato in the four agroecosystems of Shimla, Jalandhar, Modipuram and Gwalior. This study determines species distribution and its viruliferous nature with respect to most predominant viruses viz., Potato virus Yo (PVYo) and Potato leafroll virus (PLRV). Adults of A. solani (prestarved) were given an acquisition feeding of 24 hr on pure culture of PVYo and PLRV, and then released on to tissue culture raised healthy potato seedlings for inoculation. These plants were allowed for expression of external visual symptoms and were PCR tested at weekly intervals for 35 days.
    [Show full text]
  • IPM for High Tunnel Vegetables: Practical Pathways for Organic Crop Production Focusing on Insect and Mite
    IPM for High Tunnel Vegetables: Practical Pathways for Organic Crop Protection Focusing on Insect and Mite Pest Issues MOFGA Farmer to Farmer Conference November 2019 Who Are We? • Margaret Skinner, UVM Entomologist Biological Control of Key Pests Western Flower Thrips (greenhouses) Aphids (high tunnel vegetables) • Ron Valentin, Bioworks, Technical Specialist Biological Control of Key Pests Banker plants Beneficials • Pooh Sprague, Edgewater Farm, Grower Owner/Operator Vegetable market garden Greenhouse ornamentals Who Are YOU? Wisdom from Benjamin Franklin • TELL Me and I FORGET • TEACH ME and I may Remember • INVOLVE ME and I LEARN Today’s Multi- Faceted Program • Step-by-step IPM approach to insect pests: Me • Success with Biological Control: Ron • Welcome to the “Real World”: Pooh • Open discussion us us us us Lao Tzu, 4th Century BC Appearance of Insects 350 300 250 200 150 100 Millions of years Millions 50 0 Homo erectus: 6 million years Homo sapiens: 200,000 years So what? So… How can we DEAL WITH IT? IPM What is IPM? IPM = Integrated Pest Management Integration of several strategies to reduce pests using pesticides as little as possible A Step-by-Step Process for Tackling Pests To succeed with IPM, follow these words of wisdom: Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster. Sun Tzu, 1753-1818 The Corner Stones Pest ID What is it? I What does it do? Scouting P How many are there? Where are they? M Biology How does it do it? When does it do it? What’s in a NAME? • Class Insecta is separated into Orders • Insect Orders are separated into FAMILIES • Families are separated into GENERA • Each Genus is separated into SPECIES Scientific Name Genus Species Author Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Order Hemiptera, Family Aphididae) Common Names green peach aphid or peach-potato aphid Some Dead and Some Alive Know your friends and your enemies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Family Closteroviridae Revised
    Virology Division News 2039 Arch Virol 147/10 (2002) VDNVirology Division News The family Closteroviridae revised G.P. Martelli (Chair)1, A. A. Agranovsky2, M. Bar-Joseph3, D. Boscia4, T. Candresse5, R. H. A. Coutts6, V. V. Dolja7, B. W. Falk8, D. Gonsalves9, W. Jelkmann10, A.V. Karasev11, A. Minafra12, S. Namba13, H. J. Vetten14, G. C. Wisler15, N. Yoshikawa16 (ICTV Study group on closteroviruses and allied viruses) 1 Dipartimento Protezione Piante, University of Bari, Italy; 2 Laboratory of Physico-Chemical Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia; 3 Volcani Agricultural Research Center, Bet Dagan, Israel; 4 Istituto Virologia Vegetale CNR, Sezione Bari, Italy; 5 Station de Pathologie Végétale, INRA,Villenave d’Ornon, France; 6 Imperial College, London, U.K.; 7 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, U.S.A.; 8 Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, U.S.A.; 9 Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, USDA, Hilo, Hawaii, U.S.A.; 10 Institut für Pflanzenschutz im Obstbau, Dossenheim, Germany; 11 Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Thomas Jefferson University, Doylestown, U.S.A.; 12 Istituto Virologia Vegetale CNR, Sezione Bari, Italy; 13 Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Tokyo, Japan; 14 Biologische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig, Germany; 15 Deparment of Plant Pathology, University of Florida, Gainesville, U.S.A.; 16 Iwate University, Morioka, Japan Summary. Recently obtained molecular and biological information has prompted the revision of the taxonomic structure of the family Closteroviridae. In particular, mealybug- transmitted species have been separated from the genus Closterovirus and accommodated in a new genus named Ampelovirus (from ampelos, Greek for grapevine).
    [Show full text]