DOCSLIB.ORG

Pesticide Use in Cocoa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pesticide Use in Cocoa Pesticide Use in Cocoa A Guide for Training Administrative and Research Staff (Third Edition, 2015) Roy Bateman 0 Pesticide Use in Cocoa A Guide for Training Administrative and Research Staff 1st Edition: August 2008 2nd Edition: December 2009 (revised March 2010) 3nd Edition: draft December 2013: revisions finalised September 2015 © Roy Bateman 2008‐2015 www.dropdata.org/cocoa Published online by: International Cocoa Organization (ICCO) Westgate House Ealing, London W5 1YY, UK www.icco.org/SPS Initially sponsored by cocoa / chocolate industries under the auspices of the ICCO, the author is indebted to the following organisations with their support for this third edition of the manual. Guide to Pesticide Use in Cocoa: 3rd edition (Aug. 2015) 1 A Guide to Pesticide Use in Cocoa Preface More than seven years have now passed since the changes to legislation in the European Union (EU) and Japan which have so ‘concentrated minds’ over crop protection practices in cocoa sector (and other commodity crops). From the 1st September 2008, assessment of the quality of cocoa imported into the EU included measurement of traces of substances that have been used upstream in the supply chain, including pesticides used on farms or in storage. The issue was originally laid‐out by the ECA/CAOBISCO Pesticides Working Group§, with a paper1 that identified the need for “the cocoa sector as a whole act[ing] quickly to ensure that the appropriate Maximum Residue Limits are in place.” Far from being the “potential disaster to farmers”, predicted by some, these measures have produced real benefits ‘on the ground’: not least the removal of many of the most toxic pesticide products that were reported as being a serious cause of illness in rural cocoa growing communities. Nevertheless cocoa, like other tropical crops, continues to be attacked by insects, diseases and other pests that must be controlled effectively and safely. Crop losses have been quoted as a contributory factor in recent industry and media reports bemoaning elevated cocoa prices and warning of a “potential chocolate shortage by 2020”. At the time of writing this third edition, reports of residue exceedance continue to be a concern, but supply‐chain managers and consumers should not be surprised if they fail to understand the concerns and constraints of cocoa farmers. For example, the risk of Phytophthora megakaryia black pod disease in the most humid parts of central and West Africa, may account for treatments near to harvest and high residues in cocoa beans. However, from the farmers’ point of view, potential crop‐losses of more than 80% make such decisions appear rational. The possibilities that the pesticide spray has been poorly applied as well as ill‐timed are almost certainly as important as the selection and dosage of the product itself. Pesticides can provide practical control solutions, but must be approved and used on the basis of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and specifically, Integrated Pest Management (IPM). How will GAP/IPM be implemented and certified (see sections 1.8 & 1.9)? Many ‘issues’ continue to be raised: notably the recent concerns that certain insecticides have on pollinators, leading to a moratorium in the EU for four insecticides. What impact might this have on cocoa (section 2.8)? In this third edition, I have also devoted a whole chapter to information on application, since this remains one of the most neglected and ‘weakest links’ in pesticide use. It is not an exaggeration to § The Joint Pesticides Working Group, is coordinated by the European Cocoa Association (ECA) and CAOBISCO and was tasked to: . compile a list of pesticides currently used on cocoa in producing countries. develop a joint position on pesticides MRLs for cocoa and for cocoa products, with scientific information to support the position. adopt an action plan to defend the joint position from a regulatory (EU Commission and EU national authorities) and producing country/field point of view. implement a Joint Action plan at EU and national level together with producing countries. Guide to Pesticide Use in Cocoa: 3rd edition (Aug. 2015) 2 state that many smallholder cocoa farmers are now using 19th century technology to apply 21st century crop protection products. Attempts to introduce effective GAP will always be confounded while farmers are equipped with sprayers that are impossible to calibrate accurately (section 4.3). The purpose of this manual is to: 1. Summarise important underlying policymaking (Chapter 1) and technical issues with pesticides. Chapters 2 ‐ 4 will be of particular interest to GAP practitioners seeking more background information on pesticide science relating to the cocoa crop. 2. Help define a ‘road map’ for establishing good crop pest management, storage and distribution practices for bulk cocoa. A summary of GAP in the field crop is given Chapter 5, with drying and storage issues examined in Chapter 6. Finally, recommendations relating to pesticide use are made in Chapter 7, with various terms and lists of key pesticides included in the Appendices. My approach continues to be to provide: (a) a concise overview of the technical issues with ‘problems and solutions’; (b) emphasis on practicality; (c) specific reference to compounds that are or may be used on cocoa, but neither naming nor recommending individual commercial products; (d) emphasis on the needs of smallholders and (e) linkages to web‐based and other resources: including lists of the status of key active ingredients (Appendix 3), which are updated regularly. The last point is important and you are encouraged to visit the ICCO site: www.icco.org/SPS/, with updates for Appendix 3 on http://www.dropdata.org/cocoa/cocoa_SPS_blog.htm . I have also broadened the scope of this edition by including more information on the pesticides themselves, including rodenticides, and issues affecting the Americas and Asia (with 70% of the world’s production, the focus was originally on Africa). Yet again, I find myself having to summarise many important issues, so I strongly encourage reference to further sources of information. Yet again I must thank the increasing number of colleagues who continue to send me their valuable comments and of course welcome further comments and suggestions. Although the Guide continues to be a ‘dynamic document’, now finalised, it is our intention to increase its impact by translating it into other languages of cocoa‐growing countries. RPB, IPARC. Revision: 12 August 2015 Guide to Pesticide Use in Cocoa: 3rd edition (Aug. 2015) 3 Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Pest management and cocoa production world‐wide ................................................................ 6 1.2 The need to understand and address pest and pesticide issues in cocoa .................................. 7 1.3 Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 8 1.4 Risk and Hazard ............................................................................................................................ 9 1.4.1 Risks with chemical pest control ................................................................................... 10 1.4.2 Other SPS Risks .............................................................................................................. 10 1.5 International pesticide regulation ............................................................................................ 11 1.5.1 National regulations ...................................................................................................... 11 1.5.2 Prior Informed Consent: pesticides ................................................................................. 11 1.5.3 The Codex Alimentarius ................................................................................................ 12 1.6 Global trade and cocoa SPS regulations ................................................................................... 13 1.6.1 EU regulations for pesticides and commodities ........................................................... 14 1.6.2 Regulations in the United States of America ................................................................ 15 1.6.3 Regulations in Japan ...................................................................................................... 17 1.6.4 Proposed Regulation in the PR China ............................................................................ 17 1.7 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) ............................................................... 17 1.8 What do IPM and GAP mean in practice? ................................................................................ 19 1.8.1 Sustainable Use Directive 2209/128/EC .......................................................................... 19 1.8.2 A Farmer’s Perspective? ................................................................................................ 20 1.8.3 Responsible Pesticide Use (RPU) as a component of GAP ............................................ 21 1.9 Certification ............................................................................................................................... 22 1.9.1 Criteria of certifiers ........................................................................................................ 24 1.9.2 Organic Cocoa ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • Towards the Development of an Integrated Pest Management
    MARDI Res.l. 17(1)(1989): 55-68 Towards the developmentof an integrated pest managementsystem of Helopeltis in Malaysia [. Azhar* Key words: Helopeltis,Integrated Pest Management (IPM), cultural control, chemical control, biological control, ants, early warning system Abstrak Helopeltisialah perosakkoko yangpenting di Malaysia.Oleh itu pengurusannyasangatlah penting untuk mendapatkanhasil koko yang menguntungkan.Memandangkan koko ialah tanamanbaru di Malaysia penyelidikandalam pengurtsan Helopeltis masih berkurangan. Kebanyakan pendekatanpengurusan perosak ini berpandukanpengalaman di Afrika Barat, keranabanyak penyelidikan telah dijalankandi negaratersebut. Namun demikian,cara pengurusannyamasih berasaskan kimia, yang menjadipendekatan utama dalam pengurusan Helopeltis di Malaysia. Perkembangankawalan kimia dibincangkan. Perkara-perkarautama dalam pengawalan biologi dan kultur juga dibincangkan.Kecetekan kefahaman terhadap prinsip-prinsip yang merangkumikaedah kawalan tersebut menyebabkan kaedah ini jarang digunakandalam pengurusan Helopeltis. Namun demikian,peranan utama semutdalam mengurangkanserangan Helopeltis, terutamanya dalam ekosistemkoko dan kelapapatut diambil kira dalam menggubalsistem pengurusanperosak bersepadu (PPB) untuk Helopeltistidak kira samaada untuk kawasanpekebun kecil ataupunladang besar. Sebagaimatlamat utama untuk mengurangkanpenggunaan racun kimia, pengawasanpopulasi Helopeltis dan kefahamanterhadap ekologinya telah menjadipenting dalam pelaksanaan PPB. Penggunaansistem amaran awal adalahsalah satu carauntuk
    [Show full text]
  • Insecticide Recommendations for Arkansas Peanuts
    PEAnut InSECt COntROl Restricted Minimum days Entry From last Interval Application Insect Insecticide Formulation/Acre lb ai/Acre Acres/Gallon Application/Comments (hours) to Harvest thrips acephate 0.375-0.75 DO NOT graze or feed vines treated with 24 14 Orthene 97 6-12 oz Orthene. (of digging) Treat with foliar insecticides when gamma-cyhalothrin (R) 0.01-0.015 24 14 25% of newly emerged Prolex/Declare 1.25 CS 1.02-1.54 oz 83-125 leaflets show damage imidacloprid In-furrow application/ 12 14 from thrips. Admire Pro 4.6F 7-10.5 fl oz lambda-cyhalothrin (R) 0.02-0.03 DO NOT graze or feed vines treated with 24 14 Warrior II 2.08 CS 1.28-1.92 oz 66.6-100 Warrior. (See Generic Insecticides) phorate (R) DO NOT apply more than 7.5 lb/acre. DO 48 90 Thimet 20 G 5.5 oz/1,000 ft of row NOT graze or feed treated hay or forage to livestock. threecornered beta-cyfluthrin (R) 0.014-0.019 12 14 Alfalfa Hopper Baythroid XL 1 EC 1.8-2.4 oz 53.3-71 bifenthrin (R) 0.033-0.1 DO NOT graze or feed treated hay or forage 12 14 Brigade 2 EC 2.1-6.4 oz 20-60 to livestock. (See Generic Insecticides) carbaryl 1 DO NOT apply during bloom. 12 14 Sevin XLR or 4 F 1 qt 4 Sevin 80 S 1.25 lb esfenvalerate (R) 0.015-0.03 DO NOT graze or feed treated hay or forage 12 21 Asana XL 0.66 EC 2.9-5.8 oz 22-44 to livestock.
    [Show full text]
  • Chocolate Under Threat from Old and New Cacao Diseases
    Phytopathology • 2019 • 109:1331-1343 • https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-18-0477-RVW Chocolate Under Threat from Old and New Cacao Diseases Jean-Philippe Marelli,1,† David I. Guest,2,† Bryan A. Bailey,3 Harry C. Evans,4 Judith K. Brown,5 Muhammad Junaid,2,8 Robert W. Barreto,6 Daniela O. Lisboa,6 and Alina S. Puig7 1 Mars/USDA Cacao Laboratory, 13601 Old Cutler Road, Miami, FL 33158, U.S.A. 2 Sydney Institute of Agriculture, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, the University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 3 USDA-ARS/Sustainable Perennial Crops Lab, Beltsville, MD 20705, U.S.A. 4 CAB International, Egham, Surrey, U.K. 5 School of Plant Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A. 6 Universidade Federal de Vic¸osa, Vic¸osa, Minas Gerais, Brazil 7 USDA-ARS/Subtropical Horticultural Research Station, Miami, FL 33131, U.S.A. 8 Cocoa Research Group/Faculty of Agriculture, Hasanuddin University, 90245 Makassar, Indonesia Accepted for publication 20 May 2019. ABSTRACT Theobroma cacao, the source of chocolate, is affected by destructive diseases wherever it is grown. Some diseases are endemic; however, as cacao was disseminated from the Amazon rain forest to new cultivation sites it encountered new pathogens. Two well-established diseases cause the greatest losses: black pod rot, caused by several species of Phytophthora, and witches’ broom of cacao, caused by Moniliophthora perniciosa. Phytophthora megakarya causes the severest damage in the main cacao producing countries in West Africa, while P. palmivora causes significant losses globally. M. perniciosa is related to a sister basidiomycete species, M.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Evaluation of Insecticides for Management of Spotted Stem Borer
    Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2017; 5(5): 1719-1723 E-ISSN: 2320-7078 P-ISSN: 2349-6800 Field evaluation of insecticides for management of JEZS 2017; 5(5): 1719-1723 © 2017 JEZS spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) Received: 09-07-2017 Accepted: 10-08-2017 (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on maize Arunkumara CG Department of Agricultural Arunkumara CG, Bheemanna M and Shaila HM Entomology, Raichur College of Agriculture, Raichur, India Abstract Bheemanna M Management of spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) on maize by insecticides was conducted in Department of Agricultural the Agricultural research station, Hagari (Ballari) UAS, Raichur, Karnataka during Kharif 2016. The Entomology, Raichur College of results revealed that, the insecticide viz., imidacloprid 60 FS - chlorantriniliprole 0.4 G, imidacloprid 60 Agriculture, Raichur, India FS - fipronil 0.3 G, imidacloprid 60 FS - carbofuran 3 G were found to be effective molecules against Chilo partellus. Next superior treatments in order of priority were chlorantriniliprole 0.4 G > Shaila HM imidacloprid 60 FS + flubendiamide 39.35 SC > fipronil 0.3 G > carbofuran 3 G > flubendiamide 39.35 Department of Agricultural SC > imdacloprid 60 FS. Entomology, Dharwad University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur College of Keywords: Insecticides, Maize, Spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus Agriculture, Raichur, India Introduction Maize or corn (Zea mays Linn.) is one of the important cereal crops in the world after wheat and rice and it is cultivated for food, fodder and as raw material for many industries. In India, maize is the third most important food crops after rice and wheat. It is cultivated over an area -1 of 8.69 m ha with a production of 21.80 m t and productivity of 2509 kg ha .
    [Show full text]
  • Ingleby Prohibited Pesticides May 2018
    1[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Acaricides Cyhexatin Acaricide Parathion-ethyl Acaricide/Insecticide Tetradifon Acaricide Tebufenpyrad Acaricide Fumigants 1,2-Dibromoethane Fumigant 1,2-dichloroethane Fumigant Fungicides 2-Aminobutane (aka sec-butylamine) Fungicide Allyl alcohol Fungicide Benomyl Fungicide Binapacryl Fungicide Bitertanol Fungicide Blasticidin-S Fungicide Cadmium Fungicide Captafol Fungicide Chloranil Fungicide Chloromethoxypropyl-mercuric-acetate (CPMA) Fungicide Chlozolinate Fungicide Di(phenylmercury)dodecenylsuccinate (PMDS) Fungicide Diammonium ethylenebis Fungicide DNOC Fungicide / Herbicide /Insecticide Edifenphos Fungicide Fenarimol Fungicide Fentin acetate Fungicide Flusilazole Fungicide Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Fungicide Hexaconazole Fungicide Iminoctadine Fungicide Leptophos Fungicide Maneb Fungicide Mercuric oxide Fungicide Mercurous chloride (calomel) Fungicide Mercury compounds Fungicide Nickel bis Fungicide Nuarimol Fungicide Oxadixyl Fungicide Penconazole Fungicide Ingleby Farms & Forests May 2018 Prohibited Active Ingredients 2[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Fungicides (continued) Phenylmercury acetate Fungicide/Herbicide Phenylmercuric oleate [PMO] Fungicide Prochloraz Fungicide Procymidone Fungicide Propineb Fungicide Pyrazophos Fungicide Pyrifenox Fungicide Tecnazene Fungicide Tricyclazole Fungicide Tridemorph Fungicide Vinclozolin Fungicide Zineb Fungicide Herbicides 2,4,5-T Herbicide Acifluorfen Herbicide Alachlor Herbicide Arsenic
    [Show full text]
  • Maximum Entropy Niche Modelling to Estimate the Potential Distribution of Phytophthora Megakarya Brasier & M
    European Journal of Ecology, 6.2, 2020, pp. 23-40 MAXIMUM ENTROPY NICHE MODELLING TO ESTIMATE THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPHTHORA MEGAKARYA BRASIER & M. J. GRIFFIN (1979) IN TROPICAL REGIONS Maxwell C. Obiakara1 (ORCID: 0000-0002-0635-8068), Peter M. Etaware1 (ORCID: 0000-0002-9370-8029), Kanayo S. Chukwuka1 (ORCID: 0000-0002-8050-0552) 1 Plant Ecology Unit, Department of Botany, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria 1 Plant Pathology Unit, Department of Botany, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Abstract. Background: Phytophthora megakarya is an invasive pathogen endemic to Central and West Africa. This species causes the most devastating form of black pod disease of cacao (Theobroma cacao). Despite the dele- terious impacts of this disease on cocoa production, there is no information on the geographic distribution of P. megakarya. Aim: In this study, we investigated the potential geographic distribution of P. megakarya in cocoa-produc- ing regions of the world using ecological niche modelling. Methods: Occurrence records of P. megakarya in Central and West Africa were compiled from published studies. We selected relevant climate and soil variables in the indigenous range of this species to generate 14 datasets of climate-only, soil-only, and a combination of both data types. For each dataset, we calibrated 100 candidate MaxEnt models using 20 regularisation multiplier (0.1−1.0 at 0.1 interval, 2−4 at 0.5 interval, 4−8 at 1 interval, and 10) and five feature classes. The best model was selected from statistically significant can- didates with an omission rate ≤ 5% and the lowest Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small sample sizes, and projected onto cocoa-producing regions in Southeast Asia, Central and South America.
    [Show full text]
  • 20 Pest Management in Organic Cacao
    20 Pest Management in Organic Cacao Régis Babin* International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Nairobi, Kenya Introduction Americas produced around 14% of total world production of cocoa (FAOSTAT, 2014). General information on cacao Cacao crop expansion in Africa and Asia came with the emergence of major pests Cacao, Theobroma cacao, is a small tree and diseases, which have adapted to the from the family Malvaceae, and originated crop from their local host plants. The most in different forest areas of South and Central infamous examples are the cocoa mirids America (Wood, 1985). During the 20th cen- Sahlbergella singularis Hagl. and Distantiel- tury, the cacao-growing belt spread consid- la theobroma Dist. (Hemiptera: Miridae), and erably over tropical areas of America, Africa the black pod disease due to Phytophthora and Asia, and is around 10 million ha today palmivora Butler and Phytophthora mega- (FAOSTAT, 2014). Cocoa beans are pro- karya, which became major threats for West duced for butter and powder that are used African-producing countries in the 1960s mainly in chocolate manufacture. In 2014, and 1970s, respectively (Entwistle, 1985; chocolate confectionery produced revenues Lass, 1985). In Latin America, witches’ of around US$120 bn, and these are ex- broom disease due to the basidiomycete fun- pected to grow with the developing markets gus Moniliophthora perniciosa highly im- in countries with rising middle classes pacted production of cocoa in Brazil in the (Hawkins and Chen, 2014). At the same time, 1990s (Meinhardt et al., 2008), while the cocoa world production rose constantly for frosty pod rot, due to Moniliophthora roreri, decades and reached 5 million t in 2012 that is widely spread in Latin America, cur- (FAOSTAT, 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Synopsis and Keys to the Tribes, Genera, and Species of Miridae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) of Minas Gerais, Brazil Part I: Bryocorinae
    Zootaxa 2920: 1–41 (2011) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2011 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Synopsis and keys to the tribes, genera, and species of Miridae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) of Minas Gerais, Brazil Part I: Bryocorinae PAULO SERGIO FIUZA FERREIRA1 & THOMAS J. HENRY2 1Museu de Entomologia, Departamento de Biologia Animal, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, 36570-000, Viçosa, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] 2Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, c/o National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. E-mail: [email protected] Table of contents Abstract . 3 Introduction . 3 Material and methods . 4 Minas Gerais geography . 4 Taxonomic synopsis . 5 Subfamily Bryocorinae Baerensprung . 5 Key to Minas Gerais Tribes of Bryocorinae . 5 Tribe Bryocorini Baerensprung . 6 Genus Monalocoris Dahlbom . 6 Key to species of Monalocoris of Minas Gerais . 6 Monalocoris carioca Carvalho and Gomes . 6 Monalocoris pallidiceps (Reuter) . 6 Tribe Dicyphini Reuter . 7 Key to the genera of Dicyphini of Minas Gerais . 7 Genus Campyloneuropsis Poppius . 7 Key to Minas Gerais species of Campyloneuropsis . 7 Campyloneuropsis infumatus (Carvalho) . 7 Campyloneuropsis nigroculatus (Carvalho) . 8 Genus Engytatus Reuter . 8 Key to the Minas Gerais species of Engytatus . 8 Engytatus modestus (Distant) . 8 Engytatus varians (Distant) . 9 Genus Macrolophus Fieber . 9 Key to Minas Gerais species of Macrolophus . 9 Macrolophus aragarsanus Carvalho . 10 Macrolophus basicornis (Stål) . 10 Macrolophus cuibanus Carvalho . 10 Macrolophus praeclarus (Distant) . 11 Genus Tupiocoris China and Carvalho . 11 Key to the Minas Gerais species of Tupiocoris. 11 Tupiocoris cucurbitaceus (Spinola) .
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Environmental Factors, Chemical Fungicide and Biological Control on Cacao Pod Production Dynamics and Black Pod Disease (Phytophthora Megakarya) in Cameroon
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Biological Control 44 (2008) 149–159 www.elsevier.com/locate/ybcon Impact of environmental factors, chemical fungicide and biological control on cacao pod production dynamics and black pod disease (Phytophthora megakarya) in Cameroon P. Deberdt a,b,*, C.V. Mfegue c, P.R. Tondje c, M.C. Bon d, M. Ducamp e, C. Hurard d, B.A.D. Begoude c, M. Ndoumbe-Nkeng c, P.K. Hebbar f, C. Cilas g a CIRAD, UPR Bioagresseurs de Pe´rennes, Saint Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago b CIRAD, UPR Bioagresseurs de Pe´rennes, Montpellier, F-34398, France c IRAD, Regional Biological Control and Applied Microbiology Laboratory, P.O. Box 2067, Yaounde´, Cameroon d USDA-ARS-EBCL, Campus International de Baillarguet, 34980 Montferrier le Lez, France e CIRAD, UMR BGPI, TAA-54K, Campus International de Baillarguet, Montpellier F-34398, France f MARS Inc./USDA-ARS, Sustainable Perennial Crops Laboratory, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA g CIRAD, UPR Bioagresseurs de Pe´rennes, Montpellier F-34398, France Received 14 February 2007; accepted 30 October 2007 Available online 5 November 2007 Abstract The impact of environmental factors and microbial and chemical control methods on cacao pod production dynamics and spread of black pod disease caused by Phytophthora megakarya was assessed over three consecutive years in a smallholder’s plantation. Significant positive correlations were found between rainfall records and pod rot incidence when assessed after a 1-week lag. Disease distribution across various pod developmental stages showed that immature pods were the most susceptible to P. megakarya attack. Weekly obser- vations of the pod distribution and disease progression at various developmental stages on cacao trees sprayed with fungicide Ridomil, Trichoderma asperellum biocontrol agent (strain PR11), or untreated control trees indicated that the total pod production and the inci- dence of black pod rot was significantly different between the treatments.
    [Show full text]
  • Predicting Lifestyle and Host from Positive Selection Data and Genome Properties in Oomycetes
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.12.426341; this version posted March 25, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. G´omez-P´erez and Kemen RESEARCH Predicting lifestyle and host from positive selection data and genome properties in oomycetes Daniel Gomez-P´ ´erez* and Eric Kemen *Correspondence: daniel.gomez- [email protected] Abstract Zentrum fur¨ Molekularbiologie der Pflanzen, Auf der Morgenstelle 32, Background: Host and niche shifts are a source of genomic and phenotypic 72076 Tubingen,¨ Germany diversification as evidenced in parasitism. Exemplary is core metabolism reduction Full list of author information is as parasites adapt to a particular host, while the accessory genome often available at the end of the article maintains a high degree of diversification. However, selective pressures acting on the genome of organisms that have undergone lifestyle or host change have not been fully investigated. Results: Here, we developed a comparative genomics approach to study underlying adaptive trends in oomycetes, a eukaryotic phylum with a broad range of economically important plant and animal parasitic lifestyles. Our analysis reveals converging evolution on biological processes for oomycetes that have similar lifestyle. Besides, we find that certain functions, in particular carbohydrate metabolism, transport, and signaling, are important for host and environmental adaption in oomycetes. Discussion: Given the high correlation between lifestyle and genome properties in our oomycete dataset and the convergent evolution of fungal and oomycete genomes, we have developed a model that predicts plant pathogen lifestyles with high accuracy based on functional annotations.
    [Show full text]