DOCSLIB.ORG

Download/Standard/682/Pm5-008-1-En.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download/Standard/682/Pm5-008-1-En.Pdf EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION EUROPEENNE ET MEDITERRANEENNE POUR LA PROTECTION DES PLANTES 20-25492 Pest Risk Analysis for Naupactus xanthographus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), South American fruit tree weevil Image: Adult Naupactus xanthographus (R. Ripa Schaul) September 2020 EPPO 21 Boulevard Richard Lenoir 75011 Paris www.eppo.int [email protected] The risk assessment follows EPPO standard PM 5/5(1) Decision-Support Scheme for an Express Pest Risk Analysis (available at http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOStandards/pra.htm), as recommended by the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures. Pest risk management (detailed in Annex 1) was conducted according to the EPPO Decision-support scheme for quarantine pests PM 5/3(5). The risk assessment uses the terminology defined in ISPM 5 Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (available at https://www.ippc.int/index.php). Cite this document as: EPPO (2020) Pest risk analysis for Naupactus xanthographus. EPPO, Paris. Available at https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/NAUPXA/documents Based on this PRA, Naupactus xanthographus was added to the EPPO A1 List of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests in 2020. Measures for host plants for planting and host fruits are recommended. Pest risk analysis for Naupactus xanthographus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), South American fruit tree weevil PRA area: EPPO region Prepared by: Expert Working Group (EWG) on Naupactus xanthographus Date: 26-29 March 2019. Further reviewed and amended by EPPO core members and Panel on Phytosanitary Measures (see below) Composition of the Expert Working Group (EWG) AVENDAÑO GARCIA Nuria (Ms) Tecnologias y Servicios Agrarios, Madrid, Spain. FRANCO Giulio (Mr) Agenzia regionale per lo sviluppo rurale del Friuli Venezia Giulia, Pozzuolo del Friuli, Italy. KORYCINSKA Anastasia (Ms) Plant and Animal Health, Defra, York, United Kingdom. LANTERI Analia Alicia (Ms) Museo de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina. RIPA SCHAUL Renato (Mr) Centro de Entomología Aplicada Ltda, Quillota, Chile VAN DER GAAG Dirk Jan (Mr) National Plant Protection Organization, Wageningen, Netherlands. WILSTERMANN Anne (Ms) Julius Kuehn-Institute, Braunschweig, Germany ZEKIRI Mentor (Mr) Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Water Economy, Skopje, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia EPPO GROUSSET Fabienne (Ms) OEPP/EPPO, 21 boulevard Richard Lenoir, 75011 Paris, France TANNER Rob (Mr) [email protected] Observer ARIFKHANOVA Dilafruz (Ms) State Plant Quarantine Inspection under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan The first draft of the PRA was prepared by the EPPO Secretariat. Ratings of likelihoods and levels of uncertainties were made during the meeting. These ratings are based on evidence provided in the PRA and on discussions in the group. Each EWG member provided a rating and a level of uncertainty anonymously and proposals were then discussed together in order to reach a final decision. Following the EWG, the PRA was further reviewed by the following core members: Björkdund N, Boberg J, Guitian Castrillon J M M (with the help of Fernández Gallego M M), Hannunen S and MacLeod A. The PRA, in particular the section on risk management, was reviewed and amended by the EPPO Panel on Phytosanitary Measures on 2019-10-22/24 and 2020-03-24/26. The EPPO Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations and Council agreed that Naupactus xanthographus should be added to the A1 List of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests in 2020. 1 CONTENTS Stage 1. Initiation .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Stage 2. Pest risk assessment ............................................................................................................................................ 5 1. Taxonomy ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Pest overview .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Morphology .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Life cycle ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Temperature and humidity requirements ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Dispersal capacity of adults .......................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Nature of the damage .................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.6 Detection and identification .......................................................................................................................................... 8 3. Is the pest a vector? ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 4. Is a vector needed for pest entry or spread? .................................................................................................................... 9 5. Regulatory status of the pest ......................................................................................................................................... 10 6. Pest distribution ............................................................................................................................................................ 10 7. Host plants and their distribution in the PRA area ........................................................................................................ 12 8. Pathways for entry ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 8.1 Pathways studied ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 8.2 Pathways with a very low likelihood of entry ............................................................................................................. 27 8.3 Overall rating of the likelihood of entry: .................................................................................................................... 28 9. Likelihood of establishment outdoors in the PRA area ................................................................................................ 29 9.1 Host plants in the EPPO region .................................................................................................................................. 29 9.2 Climatic suitability ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 9.3 Biological considerations ............................................................................................................................................ 32 9.4 Conclusion on the likelihood of establishment outdoors ............................................................................................ 33 10. Likelihood of establishment in protected conditions in the PRA area ........................................................................ 33 11. Spread in the PRA area ............................................................................................................................................... 34 11.1 Natural spread ........................................................................................................................................................... 34 11.2 Human-assisted spread ............................................................................................................................................. 35 11.3 Conclusion on spread ................................................................................................................................................ 35 12. Impact in the current area of distribution .................................................................................................................... 35 12.1 Nature of the damage ................................................................................................................................................ 35 12.2 Direct and indirect impact on fruit and other host production .................................................................................. 36 12.3 Impact on export markets ......................................................................................................................................... 36 12.4 Environmental impact ............................................................................................................................................... 36 12.5 Existing control measures ......................................................................................................................................... 36 13. Potential impact in the PRA area ...............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arthropod Pests of Citrus Roots
    lds. r at ex­ ual to ap ­ ila­ red t is een vi­ Clayton W. McCoy fa­ University of Florida ks Citrus Res ea rch and Educati on Center, Lake Alfred )0­ Ily I'::y les Ill­ up 10 Arthropod Pests of Citrus Roots 'ul r-J!l 'Ie '](1 cc The major arthropods that are injurious to plant roots are Geographical Distribution members of the classes Insecta and Acari (mites). Two-thi rds of these pests are members of the order Coleoptera (beetles), Citrus root weevi ls are predominantly trop ical ; however, a which as larvae cause serious economic loss in a wide range few temperate species are important pests in the United States, of plan t hosts. Generally, the larvae hatch from eggs laid by Chile. Argentina. Australia. and New Zealand (Table 14.1). adults on plan ts or in the soil and complete part of their life The northern blue-green citrus root weevil, Pachnaeus opalus; cycle chewing on plant roots, and in many cases as adults the Fuller rose beetle, Asynonychus godmani: and related spe ­ they feed on the foli age of the same or other host plan ts. A cies in the genus Pantomorus are found in temperate areas. Ap ­ number of arthropods inhabit the rhizosphere of citrus trees. proximately 150 species have been recorded in the Caribbean some as unique syrnbionts, but few arc injurious to the roots. region, including Florida. Central America, and South America, Only citrus root weevils. termi tes. and ants. in descending or­ feeding as larvae on the roots of all species of the genus Citrus.
    [Show full text]
  • Autographa Gamma
    1 Table of Contents Table of Contents Authors, Reviewers, Draft Log 4 Introduction to the Reference 6 Soybean Background 11 Arthropods 14 Primary Pests of Soybean (Full Pest Datasheet) 14 Adoretus sinicus ............................................................................................................. 14 Autographa gamma ....................................................................................................... 26 Chrysodeixis chalcites ................................................................................................... 36 Cydia fabivora ................................................................................................................. 49 Diabrotica speciosa ........................................................................................................ 55 Helicoverpa armigera..................................................................................................... 65 Leguminivora glycinivorella .......................................................................................... 80 Mamestra brassicae....................................................................................................... 85 Spodoptera littoralis ....................................................................................................... 94 Spodoptera litura .......................................................................................................... 106 Secondary Pests of Soybean (Truncated Pest Datasheet) 118 Adoxophyes orana ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • White Fringed Weevil and Young Vine Damage
    However, you are not guaranteed to find one as it White fringed weevil and depends on the time of the year and number of grubs. There may have only been one grub, so they can be young vine damage easy to miss. Nick Hoskins, Viticulturist Typical symptoms of white fringed weevil damage alongside healthy vines White fringed weevil damage is not a common occurrence but occasionally I see symptoms similar to those shown here. These vines are in the second growing season but vines are susceptible in their first growing season and I have visited properties over the years where this has been the case. White fringed weevil can cause severe damage to the underground parts of the vine. By the time symptoms like the above become apparent the vines are generally completely ring barked and not likely to recover, or if they do, they are severely compromised and open to infection from root and trunk inhabiting fungi. vine Typical white fringed weevil symptoms The distribution of the symptoms is often random and isolated to individual or clusters of vines which gives a clue to start looking for the underground damage caused by white fringed weevil. The damage is apparent and normally close to the surface once you start to dig around the vine. Sometimes it is possible to find the active grubs in the Underground white fringed weevil damage on the same vine soil as you remove it from around the vine. Riversun Nursery Limited. PO Box 1199. Gisborne 4040, New Zealand Freephone: 0800 11 37 47 Phone: +64 6 867 1120 Fax: +64 6 867 8800 Email: [email protected] Web: www.riversun.co.nz • Signs roots growing at the surface above damage White fringed weevil beetle There are a number of weevils that have white fringes.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular and Morphological Phylogenetic Analysis of Naupactus Dejean (Curculionidae: Entiminae) and Allied Genera: the Dilemma of Classification
    diversity Article Molecular and Morphological Phylogenetic Analysis of Naupactus Dejean (Curculionidae: Entiminae) and Allied Genera: The Dilemma of Classification Maria G. del Río 1 ID , Marcela S. Rodriguero 2, Viviana A. Confalonieri 2 ID and Analía A. Lanteri 1,* 1 División Entomología, Museo de la Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Paseo del Bosque s/n, B1900 FWA La Plata, Argentina; [email protected] 2 Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, IEGEBA (UBA-CONICET), Intendente Guiraldes y Costanera Norte s/n, 4o Piso, Pabellón II, C1428EHA Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina; [email protected] (M.S.R.); [email protected] (V.A.C.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +54-221-425-7744 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FE1EFC78-23A0-4407-8805-C01C2B7AD749 Received: 31 May 2018; Accepted: 5 July 2018; Published: 10 July 2018 Abstract: Naupactus (Curculionidae: Entiminae) is the most speciose weevil genus of the tribe Naupactini. The main objective of this work is to recognize species groups within Naupactus and to analyze the relationships between this and other Neotropical genera. For this purpose, we compiled a combined data matrix of 60 terminal units corresponding to 40 species for which we recorded 812 molecular and morphological characters (763 and 49 respectively), which were analyzed by Maximum Parsimony and Bayesian analyses. The single tree obtained from each analysis was rooted with Cyrtomon inhalatus. The species of Naupactus were recovered as different monophyletic groups, some of them closer to other genera of Naupactini (Lanterius, Teratopactus, Pantomorus and Parapantomorus) than to species of the same genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Universidad De La República Facultad De Agronomía
    UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA FACULTAD DE AGRONOMÍA FLUCTUACIÓN DE LAS POBLACIONES DE PULGONES Y PROSPECCIÓN DE SUS ENEMIGOS NATURALES EN AVENA Y TRIGO por Victoria BARTABURU DEBALI María Magdalena RICCIARDI ETCHEVERRY TESIS presentada como uno de los requisitos para obtener el título de Ingeniero Agrónomo MONTEVIDEO URUGUAY 2016 Tesis aprobada por: Director: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ing. Agr. Adela Ribeiro ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Agr. Horacio Silva ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Agr. Silvana Abbate Fecha: 27 de julio de 2016 Autor: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Bartaburu Debali ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- María Magdalena Ricciardi Etcheverry II AGRADECIMIENTOS Se agradece a la Ing. Agr. Adela Ribeiro por su apoyo incondicional y la conducción de este trabajo. A todo el personal del Departamento de Protección Vegetal, Unidad Entomología, de la EEMAC especialmente al Ing. Agr. Horacio Silva y el Sr. Noel García por su apoyo y ayuda permanente. Al Ing. Agr. Oscar Bentancourt, quien integra el Departamento de Biometría, Estadística y Computación cuya ayuda fue de suma importancia. A la familia y amigos que supieron apoyarnos en este proceso. III TABLA DE CONTENIDO Página PAGINA DE APROBACIÓN…………………………………………………II AGRADECIMIENTOS……………………...………………………………..III
    [Show full text]
  • EPPO Reporting Service
    ORGANISATION EUROPEENNE EUROPEAN AND ET MEDITERRANEENNE MEDITERRANEAN POUR LA PROTECTION DES PLANTES PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION EPPO Reporting Service NO. 4 PARIS, 2018-04 General 2018/068 New data on quarantine pests and pests of the EPPO Alert List 2018/069 Quarantine lists of Kazakhstan (2017) 2018/070 EPPO report on notifications of non-compliance 2018/071 EPPO communication kits: templates for pest-specific posters and leaflets 2018/072 Useful publications on Spodoptera frugiperda Pests 2018/073 First report of Tuta absoluta in Tajikistan 2018/074 First report of Tuta absoluta in Lesotho 2018/075 First reports of Grapholita packardi and G. prunivora in Mexico 2018/076 First report of Scaphoideus titanus in Ukraine 2018/077 First report of Epitrix hirtipennis in France 2018/078 First report of Lema bilineata in Italy 2018/079 Eradication of Anoplophora glabripennis in Brünisried, Switzerland 2018/080 Update on the situation of Anoplophora glabripennis in Austria Diseases 2018/081 First report of Ceratocystis platani in Turkey 2018/082 Huanglongbing and citrus canker are absent from Egypt 2018/083 Xylella fastidiosa eradicated from Switzerland 2018/084 Update on the situation of Ralstonia solanacearum on roses in Switzerland 2018/085 First report of ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma fragariae’ in Slovenia Invasive plants 2018/086 Ambrosia artemisiifolia control in agricultural areas in North-west Italy 2018/087 Optimising physiochemical control of invasive Japanese knotweed 2018/088 Update on LIFE project IAP-RISK 2018/089 Conference: Management and sharing of invasive alien species data to support knowledge-based decision making at regional level (2018-09-26/28, Bucharest, Romania) 21 Bld Richard Lenoir Tel: 33 1 45 20 77 94 E-mail: [email protected] 75011 Paris Fax: 33 1 70 76 65 47 Web: www.eppo.int EPPO Reporting Service 2018 no.
    [Show full text]
  • EPPO Reporting Service
    ORGANISATION EUROPEENNE ET MEDITERRANEENNE POUR LA PROTECTION DES PLANTES EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION EPPO Reporting Service NO. 10 PARIS, 2020-10 General 2020/209 New additions to the EPPO A1 and A2 Lists 2020/210 New data on quarantine pests and pests of the EPPO Alert List 2020/211 New and revised dynamic EPPO datasheets are available in the EPPO Global Database 2020/212 Recommendations from Euphresco projects Pests 2020/213 First report of Spodoptera frugiperda in Jordan 2020/214 Trogoderma granarium does not occur in Spain 2020/215 First report of Scirtothrips dorsalis in Mexico 2020/216 First report of Scirtothrips dorsalis in Brazil 2020/217 Scirtothrips dorsalis occurs in Colombia 2020/218 Update on the situation of Megaplatypus mutatus in Italy 2020/219 Update on the situation of Anoplophora chinensis in Croatia 2020/220 Update on the situation of Anoplophora chinensis in Italy 2020/221 Update on the situation of Anoplophora glabripennis in Italy Diseases 2020/222 Eradication of thousand canker disease in disease in Toscana (Italy) 2020/223 First report of tomato brown rugose fruit virus in the Czech Republic 2020/224 Update on the situation of tomato brown rugose fruit virus in Greece 2020/225 Update on the situation of tomato brown rugose fruit virus in the Netherlands 2020/226 New finding of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ in Estonia 2020/227 Haplotypes and vectors of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ in Scotland (United Kingdom) 2020/228 First report of wheat blast in Zambia and in
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control of Gonipterus Platensis
    BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF GONIPTERUS PLATENSIS: CURRENT STATUS AND NEW POSSIBILITIES CARLOS MANUEL FERREIRA VALENTE ORIENTADORA: Doutora Manuela Rodrigues Branco Simões TESE ELABORADA PARA OBTENÇÃO DO GRAU DE DOUTOR EM ENGENHARIA FLORESTAL E DOS RECURSOS NATURAIS 2018 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF GONIPTERUS PLATENSIS: CURRENT STATUS AND NEW POSSIBILITIES CARLOS MANUEL FERREIRA VALENTE ORIENTADORA: Doutora Manuela Rodrigues Branco Simões TESE ELABORADA PARA OBTENÇÃO DO GRAU DE DOUTOR EM ENGENHARIA FLORESTAL E DOS RECURSOS NATURAIS JÚRI: Presidente: Doutora Maria Teresa Marques Ferreira Professora Catedrática Instituto Superior de Agronomia Universidade de Lisboa Vogais: Doutora Maria Rosa Santos de Paiva Professora Catedrática Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa; Doutora Manuela Rodrigues Branco Simões Professora Auxiliar com Agregação Instituto Superior de Agronomia Universidade de Lisboa; Doutor José Carlos Franco Santos Silva Professor Auxiliar Instituto Superior de Agronomia Universidade de Lisboa; Doutor Edmundo Manuel Rodrigues de Sousa Investigador Auxiliar Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária. 2018 À Susana e à Leonor i Em memória da minha Avó, Maria dos Anjos Valente (1927-2017) ii Agradecimentos Agradeço, em primeiro lugar, à Professora Manuela Branco, pelo apoio incansável na orientação desta tese, a total disponibilidade e os inúmeros ensinamentos. Ao RAIZ, pelo financiamento do doutoramento, e à sua Direção, em particular ao Engenheiro Serafim Tavares, ao Engenheiro José Nordeste, ao Professor Carlos Pascoal Neto, à Engenheira Leonor Guedes, ao Gabriel Dehon e ao Nuno Borralho, pelo voto de confiança e incentivo que sempre me transmitiram. Deixo um especial agradecimento à Catarina Gonçalves e à Catarina Afonso, pela amizade, por terem ajudado a manter os projetos do RAIZ e a biofábrica a funcionar, pelas horas infindáveis passadas no laboratório e pelos excelentes contributos científicos que muito melhoraram a qualidade desta tese.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuller Rose Beetle (Naupactus Godmani) Biology and Management
    Fuller Rose Beetle (Naupactus godmani) biology and management Beth Grafton-Cardwell and Joseph Morse Dept of Entomology, UC Riverside Kearney Ag Center and Lindcove REC Small gray beetles with a weevil snout. Slow moving and flightless – active at night. The ovipositor is nearly as long as the body of the female Eggs Eggs The eggs may be attached to the calyx (button) Less commonly the eggs may be attached to the fruit Because they like to tuck eggs in tight places, they can plug up sprinkler emitters FRB eggs Eggs are laid in clusters of 10-20 and each female produces 100-1000 over her lifetime of 3-5 months The eggs hatch and the tiny, legless ‘neonate’ larvae drop to the ground and wriggle into cracks and crevices of the soil in search of tiny root hairs to feed on. Larvae live in the soil feeding on roots The larvae are active in 3-24” of soil. The larvae molt multiple 5-8? times over a 6-8 month period gradually growing larger and advancing to larger roots as they increase in size. In California, they are not considered damaging to citrus, however, combined with other root damaging factors like Phytophthora, HLB etc. it is possible the combination could lead to tree decline. Larva forming its earthen cell Pupa (upper) and late stage larva (lower) for comparison When the larvae are fully mature, they move towards the soil surface, prepare an earthen cell, and pupate. The pupa resides in the soil for 1.5-2 months before the adult emerges.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring Within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘I: Synthesis Report
    Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘i: Synthesis Report Prepared by Francis G. Howarth, David J. Preston, and Richard Pyle Honolulu, Hawaii January 2012 Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘i: Synthesis Report Francis G. Howarth, David J. Preston, and Richard Pyle Hawaii Biological Survey Bishop Museum Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817 USA Prepared for EKNA Services Inc. 615 Pi‘ikoi Street, Suite 300 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96814 and State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Airports Division Bishop Museum Technical Report 58 Honolulu, Hawaii January 2012 Bishop Museum Press 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i Copyright 2012 Bishop Museum All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America ISSN 1085-455X Contribution No. 2012 001 to the Hawaii Biological Survey COVER Adult male Hawaiian long-horned wood-borer, Plagithmysus kahului, on its host plant Chenopodium oahuense. This species is endemic to lowland Maui and was discovered during the arthropod surveys. Photograph by Forest and Kim Starr, Makawao, Maui. Used with permission. Hawaii Biological Report on Monitoring Arthropods within Kahului Airport Environs, Synthesis TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents …………….......................................................……………...........……………..…..….i. Executive Summary …….....................................................…………………...........……………..…..….1 Introduction ..................................................................………………………...........……………..…..….4
    [Show full text]
  • EU Project Number 613678
    EU project number 613678 Strategies to develop effective, innovative and practical approaches to protect major European fruit crops from pests and pathogens Work package 1. Pathways of introduction of fruit pests and pathogens Deliverable 1.3. PART 7 - REPORT on Oranges and Mandarins – Fruit pathway and Alert List Partners involved: EPPO (Grousset F, Petter F, Suffert M) and JKI (Steffen K, Wilstermann A, Schrader G). This document should be cited as ‘Grousset F, Wistermann A, Steffen K, Petter F, Schrader G, Suffert M (2016) DROPSA Deliverable 1.3 Report for Oranges and Mandarins – Fruit pathway and Alert List’. An Excel file containing supporting information is available at https://upload.eppo.int/download/112o3f5b0c014 DROPSA is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (grant agreement no. 613678). www.dropsaproject.eu [email protected] DROPSA DELIVERABLE REPORT on ORANGES AND MANDARINS – Fruit pathway and Alert List 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background on oranges and mandarins ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Data on production and trade of orange and mandarin fruit ........................................................................ 5 1.3 Characteristics of the pathway ‘orange and mandarin fruit’ .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Trophic Ecology of Citrus Pests Based on Stable Isotope Analysis
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-992X-2016-0496 ISSN 1678-992X Trophic ecology of citrus pests based on stable isotope analysis Adelino de Santi-Júnior, Victor Wilson Botteon*, Thiago Mastrangelo, Marcelo Zacharias Moreira Research Article Research University of São Paulo/CENA, Av. Centenário, 303 – 13416- ABSTRACT: Macrodactylus pumilio Burm. (Coleoptera: Scarabeidae) and Naupactus cervinus | 000 – Piracicaba, SP – Brazil. (Boh.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) are considered primary pests in citrus crops in Brazil, causing *Corresponding author <[email protected]> damage to plants and decreasing productivity. However, few studies investigate the ecology of these insects. In this context, the use of stable isotopes analysis (SIA) emerges as an alternative Edited by: Alberto Soares Corrêa technique to conventional studies of behavioral ecology because it is faster and may explain feeding behavior based on the food source for each species. Field sampling and laboratory Received December 15, 2016 experiments were carried out to examine the changes of carbon and nitrogen stable isotope 13 15 Accepted July 31, 2017 ratios (δ C and δ N) among pests and host plants (C3 citrus and C4 grasses), providing means Entomology to examine trophic interactions. Beetles were collected at the municipality of Gavião Peixoto, São Paulo State, identified and kept at 5 °C in saturated saline solution until the SIA. Two patterns for both species were found: δ13C value for N. cervinus was -23.6 ‰ and -13 ‰ for M. pumilio, indicating similarity between the results of δ13C of N. cervinus and citrus plants (-26 ‰) and dependence on grasses (-12 ‰) for M. pumilio individuals. The mean δ15N value was 4.3 and 5.8 ‰ for citrus plants and grass leaves, respectively, and the mean δ15N value was 4.4 ‰ for N.
    [Show full text]