DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparativo De Insecticidas Para El Control De Prodiplosis Long-Ifila

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparativo De Insecticidas Para El Control De Prodiplosis Long-Ifila UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AGRARIA LA MOLINA FACULTAD DE AGRONOMIA Comparativo de insecticidas para el control de Prodiplosis longifila Gagné (Diptera : Cecidomyiidae) en el cultivo de papa (Solanum tuberosum) Var. Canchán. Tesis para optar el Título de: INGENIERO AGRONOMO Erika Iris Fernández Kohatsu. Lima- Perú 2016 Dedicatoria A la memoria de mi madre, Isabel por todo el amor y dedicación que diste a tus padres, hijos y sobrinos. A mi preciosa ñañi Alejandra Saori la luz de mi camino. AGRADECIMIENTOS • Al Ing. Agr., Mg. Sc. Guillermo Sánchez, por haberme brindado la oportunidad de realizar el presente trabajo de tesis, por su imprescindible apoyo durante la redacción del mismo y por las enseñanzas y formación brindada durante los años de estudio. • Al Centro Internacional de la Papa por apoyar y financiar este proyecto de investigación. • A los Ing. Norma Mujica y Felizardo Fabián por su invaluable colaboración durante de la instalación y conducción de los campos de cultivo de papa donde se realizaron los ensayos. • A mis amigos Jackelin Hop, Sara Robles y Angelo Soto, compañeros invalorables quienes me apoyaron desinteresadamente a lo largo de toda la fase experimental de la tesis. • A Mónica Narrea, Ronald Barboza, Keiko Yangali e Ivon Yangali amigos que de una u otra manera incentivaron y me apoyaron en la conclusión del presente trabajo de tesis. INDICE RESUMEN ..……………………………………………………………………………………..…...1 ABSTRACT ……………………………………………...…………………………………..………2 I. INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS ........................................................................................... 3 1.1 INTRODUCCIÓN ................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 OBJETIVOS .......................................................................................................................... 4 II. REVISIÓN DE LITERATURA ................................................................................................. 5 2.1 BREVES REFERENCIAS SOBRE CECIDOMYIIDAE EN EL PERÚ ............................. 5 2.2 ESPECIES RELACIONADAS ............................................................................................. 6 2.3 MORFOLOGÍA Y BIOLOGÍA ............................................................................................ 7 2.4 ECOLOGÍA Y DAÑOS ........................................................................................................ 8 2.5 PRINCIPALES HOSPEDEROS DE P. longifila ................................................................ 10 2.6 CONTROLADORES BIOLÓGICOS ................................................................................. 10 2.7 CONTROL CULTURAL .................................................................................................... 11 2.8 CONTROL QUÍMICO DE P. longifila Y ESPECIES RELACIONADAS ....................... 11 III. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS ................................................................................................. 15 3.1 UBICACIÓN ....................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 CARACTERIZACIÓN DEL ÁREA EXPERIMENTAL ................................................... 15 3.3 DESCRIPCIÓN DE P. longifila Gagné. ............................................................................. 16 3.4 CARACTERÍSTICAS DE LA VARIEDAD CANCHÁN ................................................. 17 3.5 CONDICIONES CLIMÁTICAS ........................................................................................ 18 3.6 ALGUNAS CARACTERÍSTICAS DE LOS INSECTICIDAS EMPLEADOS ................ 20 3.7 DISEÑO EXPERIMENTAL ............................................................................................... 25 3.8 DISTRIBUCIÓN DE TRATAMIENTOS .......................................................................... 27 3.8.1 Ensayo 1 ...................................................................................................................... 27 3.8.2 Ensayo 2 ...................................................................................................................... 29 3.9 APLICACIÓN DE LOS TRATAMIENTOS ...................................................................... 30 3.10 CALENDARIO DE APLICACIONES ............................................................................... 32 3.10.1 Ensayo 1 ...................................................................................................................... 32 3.10.2 Ensayo 2: ..................................................................................................................... 33 3.11 PARÁMETROS DE EVALUACIÓN ................................................................................. 33 3.11.1 Grado de infestación de los brotes.............................................................................. 33 3.11.2 Número de larvas por brote ........................................................................................ 34 3.11.3 Número de predadores y parasitoides ......................................................................... 34 3.11.4 Presencia de Liriomyza huidobrensis Blanchard, Tuta absoluta Meyrick y Phthorimaea operculella Zeller .................................................................................. 34 3.12 ANÁLISIS ESTADÍSTICO Y TRANSFORMACIÓN DE DATOS.................................. 35 IV. RESULTADOS Y DISCUSION ............................................................................................... 36 4.1 ENSAYO 1 .......................................................................................................................... 36 4.1.1 Número de brotes infestados: ...................................................................................... 36 4.1.2 Número de Brotes Dañados ......................................................................................... 40 4.1.3 Población de larvas ...................................................................................................... 44 4.2 ENSAYO 2 .......................................................................................................................... 50 4.2.1 Número de brotes infestados ....................................................................................... 50 4.2.2 Número de Brotes Dañados ......................................................................................... 53 4.2.3 Población de larvas ...................................................................................................... 56 4.3 DISCUSIÓN GENERAL .................................................................................................... 61 4. 4 OCURRENCIA DE PREDADORES Y PARASITOIDES ................................................ 64 4.4.1 Ensayo 1 ...................................................................................................................... 64 4.4.2 Ensayo 2 ...................................................................................................................... 69 4.5 OCURRENCIA DE POLILLAS Y MOSCA MINADORA ............................................... 74 4.5.1 Ensayo 1 ...................................................................................................................... 74 4.5.2 Ensayo 2 ...................................................................................................................... 77 V. CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES ...................................................................... 80 5.1. CONCLUSIONES .............................................................................................................. 80 5.2. RECOMENDACIONES ..................................................................................................... 81 VI. BIBLIOGRAFIA ....................................................................................................................... 82 VII. ANEXOS ..................................................................................................................................... 85 INDICE DE CUADROS x CUADRO Nº 1: Resultados del análisis de caracterización (Lab. De Suelos UNALM)…………………………………………………………………………………..16 x CUADRO Nº 2: Promedios mensuales de temperatura y humedad relativa (Máximas y mínimas). Agosto-diciembre 1997………………………………………………...............19 x CUADRO Nº 3: Características del diseño experimental de los ensayos 1 y 2 ………………...………………………………………………………...…………...…….26 x CUADRO Nº 4: Ensayo1, dosis y cantidades empleadas por aplicación de cada tratamiento……………………………………………………………………………...….31 x CUADRO Nº 5: Ensayo2, dosis y cantidades empleadas por aplicación de cada tratamiento……………………………………………………………………..……….….32 x CUADRO Nº 6: Número de brotes infestados por P. longifila Gagné, en 20 brotes por parcela en cuatro repeticiones, 24 horas antes, 3 y 6 días después de la primera aplicación, 3 y 6 días después de la segunda y tercera aplicación. Ensayo 1 Cañete-Imperial. Lima- Perú, 1997…………………………………………………………………………………38 x CUADRO Nº 7: Número de brotes dañados por P. longifila Gagné, en 20 brotes por parcela en cuatro repeticiones, 24 horas antes, 3 y 6 días después de la primera aplicación, 3 y 6 días después de la segunda y tercera aplicación. Ensayo 1 Cañete-Imperial. Lima- Perú, 1997……………………………………………………………………………….…42 x CUADRO Nº 8: Número promedio de larvas de P. longifila Gagné, en 4 brotes por parcela con cuatro repeticiones, 24 horas antes, 24, 48 y 72 horas después de cada aplicación, Ensayo 1. Cañete-Imperial. Lima-Perú
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dipterists Forum
    BULLETIN OF THE Dipterists Forum Bulletin No. 76 Autumn 2013 Affiliated to the British Entomological and Natural History Society Bulletin No. 76 Autumn 2013 ISSN 1358-5029 Editorial panel Bulletin Editor Darwyn Sumner Assistant Editor Judy Webb Dipterists Forum Officers Chairman Martin Drake Vice Chairman Stuart Ball Secretary John Kramer Meetings Treasurer Howard Bentley Please use the Booking Form included in this Bulletin or downloaded from our Membership Sec. John Showers website Field Meetings Sec. Roger Morris Field Meetings Indoor Meetings Sec. Duncan Sivell Roger Morris 7 Vine Street, Stamford, Lincolnshire PE9 1QE Publicity Officer Erica McAlister [email protected] Conservation Officer Rob Wolton Workshops & Indoor Meetings Organiser Duncan Sivell Ordinary Members Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD [email protected] Chris Spilling, Malcolm Smart, Mick Parker Nathan Medd, John Ismay, vacancy Bulletin contributions Unelected Members Please refer to guide notes in this Bulletin for details of how to contribute and send your material to both of the following: Dipterists Digest Editor Peter Chandler Dipterists Bulletin Editor Darwyn Sumner Secretary 122, Link Road, Anstey, Charnwood, Leicestershire LE7 7BX. John Kramer Tel. 0116 212 5075 31 Ash Tree Road, Oadby, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE2 5TE. [email protected] [email protected] Assistant Editor Treasurer Judy Webb Howard Bentley 2 Dorchester Court, Blenheim Road, Kidlington, Oxon. OX5 2JT. 37, Biddenden Close, Bearsted, Maidstone, Kent. ME15 8JP Tel. 01865 377487 Tel. 01622 739452 [email protected] [email protected] Conservation Dipterists Digest contributions Robert Wolton Locks Park Farm, Hatherleigh, Oakhampton, Devon EX20 3LZ Dipterists Digest Editor Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Host Association in Platygaster Latreille, 1809 (Hymenoptera, Platygastridae)
    Phylogeny and host association in Platygaster Latreille, 1809 (Hymenoptera, Platygastridae) Peter Neerup Buhl Buhl, P.N.: Phylogeny and host association in Platygaster Latreille, 1809 (Hy­ menoptera, Platygastridae). Ent. Meddr 69: 113-122. Copenhagen, Denmark 2001. ISSN 0013-8851. An examination of the known midge host/midge plant host associations for species of Platygasterparasitoid wasps seems to indicate a number of natural par­ asitoid species groups restricted to specific plant families. Midge hosts seem less indicative for platygastrid relationships, but several exceptions from this rule exist. The possible reasons for this are discussed. It is also shown that species of Platy­ gaster with known host associations generally prefer midges on plant families which are not the families generally prefered by the midges. Furthermore, a com­ parison of the known midge host/midge plant host associations for the genera of the "Platygaster-cluster" and the "Synopeas-cluster" shows great differences in the general preferences of the clusters. P.N. Buhl, Troldh0jvej 3, DK-3310 0lsted, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected] Introduction The phylogeny of the very large platygastrid genus Platygaster, tiny parasitoids on gall midges (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae), is mostly unresolved. The great problems which meet the investigator are primarily - as in all platygastrids - the few external characters avail­ able in a phylogenetic analysis. A further obstacle in the revisionary work is that many species are known only from short dated original descriptions (unknown or unrevised type material). Aspects of the biology (midge host or host plant of midge) are, however, known for about half the described species, so perhaps this could enlighten aspects of the parasitoid taxonomy- as was successfully done e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture No 3 PESTS of SORGHUM, PEARL MILLET and FINGER MILLET
    Lecture No 3 PESTS OF SORGHUM, PEARL MILLET AND FINGER MILLET I. PESTS OF SORGHUM More than 150 species of insects have been reported to damage sorghum. However over a dozen species are very serious and constitute a major constraint in sorghum production. Shoot fly, stem borers, shoot and ear head bug and aphids are serious pests that bring reduction in the yield. Major pests 1. Sorghum Shootfly Atherigona soccata Muscidae Diptera 2. Stem borer Chilo partellus Crambidae Lepidoptera 3. Pink stem borer Sesamia inferens Noctuidae Lepidoptera 4 Shoot bug Peregrinus maidis Delphacidae Hemiptera 5. Earhead bug Calocoris angustatus Miridae Hemiptera 6. Sorghum midge Contarinia sorghicola Cecidomyiidae Diptera Rhopalosiphum maidis, 7. Plant lice (Aphids) Aphididae Hemiptera Melanaphis sacchari Minor Pests 8. Earhead web worm Cryptoblabes gnidiella Pyraustidae Lepidoptera 9. Gram caterpillar Helicoverpa armigera Noctuidae Lepidoptera 10. Plant bug Dolycoris indicus Pentatomidae Hemiptera 11. Stink bug Nezara viridula Pentatomidae Hemiptera 12. Mirid bug Creontiades pallidifer Miridae Hemiptera 13. Slug caterpillar Thosea apierens Cochlididae Lepidoptera 14. Leaf roller Marasmia trapezalis Pyralidae Lepidoptera Cryptocephalus 15. Flea beetle schestedii, Monolepta Chrysomelidae Coleoptera signata Red hairy Amsacta albistriga, 16. Arctiidae Lepidoptera caterpillar A. moorei 17. Semilooper Eublemma silicula Noctuidae Lepidoptera Myllocerus maculosus 18. Weevils Curculionidae Coleoptera M. discolor,M. subfaciatus Wingless 19. Colemania sphenaroides Acrididae Orthoptera grasshopper MAJOR PESTS 1.Sorghum Shootfly: Atherigona soccata (Muscidae: Diptera) Distribution and status Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka Host range: Maize, ragi, bajra, rice, wheat and grasses Damage symptoms The maggot on hatching migrates to the upper surface of leaf and enters between the leaf sheath and stem.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Lithuanian Diptera
    Acta Zoologica Lituanica. 2000. Volumen 10. Numerus 1 3 ISSN 1392-1657 CHECKLIST OF LITHUANIAN DIPTERA Saulius PAKALNIÐKIS1, Jolanta RIMÐAITË1, Rasa SPRANGAUSKAITË-BERNOTIENË1, Rasa BUTAUTAITË2, Sigitas PODËNAS2 1 Institute of Ecology, Akademijos 2, 2600 Vilnius, Lithuania 2 Department of Zoology, Vilnius University, M.K. Èiurlionio 21/27, 2009 Vilnius, Lithuania Abstract. The list of 2283 Lithuanian Diptera species of 78 families is based on 224 literary sources. Key words: Diptera, Acroceridae, Agromyzidae, Anisopodidae, Anthomyiidae, Anthomyzidae, Asilidae, Athericidae, Bibionidae, Bombyliidae, Calliphoridae, Cecidomyiidae, Ceratopogonidae, Chama- emyiidae, Chaoboridae, Chironomidae, Chloropidae, Coelopidae, Conopidae, Culicidae, Cylindroto- midae, Diastatidae, Ditomyiidae, Dixidae, Dolichopodidae, Drosophilidae, Dryomyzidae, Empididae, Ephydridae, Fanniidae, Gasterophilidae, Helcomyzidae, Heleomyzidae, Hippoboscidae, Hybotidae, Hypodermatidae, Lauxaniidae, Limoniidae, Lonchaeidae, Lonchopteridae, Macroceridae, Megamerinidae, Micropezidae, Microphoridae, Muscidae, Mycetophilidae, Neottiophilidae, Odiniidae, Oestridae, Opo- myzidae, Otitidae, Pallopteridae, Pediciidae, Phoridae, Pipunculidae, Platypezidae, Psilidae, Psychod- idae, Ptychopteridae, Rhagionidae, Sarcophagidae, Scathophagidae, Scatopsidae, Scenopinidae, Sciaridae, Sciomyzidae, Sepsidae, Simuliidae, Sphaeroceridae, Stratiomyidae, Syrphidae, Tabanidae, Tachinidae, Tephritidae, Therevidae, Tipulidae, Trichoceridae, Xylomyidae, Xylophagidae, checklist, Lithuania INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera, Cecidomyiidae), with Description of a New Species from Japan and a Taxonomic Key to Worldwide Species
    ZooKeys 958: 1–27 (2020) A peer-reviewed open-access journal doi: 10.3897/zookeys.958.54300 RESEARCH ARTICLE https://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Revision of the birch-associated genus Massalongia (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae), with description of a new species from Japan and a taxonomic key to worldwide species Ayman Khamis Elsayed1,2, Marcela Skuhravá3, Kazuki Ohta4,5, Satoshi Yoshida4, Makoto Tokuda4,5 1 The Botanical Gardens, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 112–0001, Japan2 De- partment of Applied Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt 3 Bítovská 1227, Praha 4, Czech Republic 4 Laboratory of Systems Ecology, Faculty of Agriculture, Saga University, Saga 840–8502, Japan 5 The United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima 890–0065, Japan Corresponding author: Ayman Khamis Elsayed ([email protected]) Academic editor: Netta Dorchin | Received 15 May 2020 | Accepted 10 July 2020 | Published 11 August 2020 http://zoobank.org/F1D6AF59-839A-4197-8276-6AAB6B3669D8 Citation: Elsayed AK, Skuhravá M, Ohta K, Yoshida S, Tokuda M (2020) Revision of the birch-associated genus Massalongia (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae), with description of a new species from Japan and a taxonomic key to worldwide species. ZooKeys 958: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.958.54300 Abstract Betula (Betulaceae), or birch, is a Holarctic genus of trees and shrubs whose species have ornamental, industrial, and medical importance. Gall midges of the genus Massalongia (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae: Cecidomyiidi) are exclusively associated with birches in the Palearctic region. In 2018, an undescribed Massalongia species was discovered forming leaf galls on the midveins of B.
    [Show full text]
  • Host-Plant Preference and Oviposition Responses of the Sorghum Midge, Stenodiplosis Sorghicola (Coquillett) (Dipt., Cecidomyiidae) Towards Wild Relatives of Sorghum
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ICRISAT Open Access Repository JAE 125 (2001) J. Appl. Ent. 125, 109±114 (2001) Ó 2001 Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin ISSN 0931-2048 Host-plant preference and oviposition responses of the sorghum midge, Stenodiplosis sorghicola (Coquillett) (Dipt., Cecidomyiidae) towards wild relatives of sorghum H. C. Sharma2 and B. A. Franzmann1 1Department of Primary Industries, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia and 2 International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India Abstract: Sorghum midge, Stenodiplosis (Contarinia) sorghicola (Coquillett) is an important pest of grain sorghum world-wide. Considerable progress has been made in screening and breeding for resistance to sorghum midge. However, some of the sources of resistance have become susceptible to sorghum midge in Kenya, in eastern Africa. Therefore, the wild relatives of Sorghum bicolor were studied as a possible source of new genes conferring resistance to sorghum midge. Midge females did not lay eggs in the spikelets of Sorghum amplum, Sorghum bulbosum, and Sorghum angustum compared to 30% spikelets with eggs in Sorghum halepense when infested with ®ve midge females per panicle under no-choice conditions. However, one egg was laid in S. amplum when infested with 50 midges per panicle. A larger number of midges were attracted to the odours from the panicles of S. halepense than to the panicles of Sorghum stipoideum, Sorghum brachypodum, S. angustum, Sorghum macrospermum, Sorghum nitidium, Sorghum laxi¯orum, and S. amplum in dual-choice olfactometer tests. The dierences in midge response to the odours from S.
    [Show full text]
  • Informe De Trabajo De Titulación Previa La Obtención Del Título De Ingeniero Agrícola
    i ESCUELA SUPERIOR POLITÉCNICA AGROPECUARIA DE MANABÍ MANUEL FÉLIX LÓPEZ DIRECCIÓN DE CARRERA: AGRÍCOLA INFORME DE TRABAJO DE TITULACIÓN PREVIA LA OBTENCIÓN DEL TÍTULO DE INGENIERO AGRÍCOLA MODALIDAD: PROYECTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN TEMA: RELACION ENTRE INTENSIDAD DE DAÑO DE Prodiplosis longifila Gagné (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) Y ASPECTOS FISIOLOGICOS DEL CULTIVO DE TOMATE AUTOR: CRISTHIAN RODRIGO DIAZ SÁNCHEZ. TUTOR: ING. GONZALO CONSTANTES TUBAY, MG. CALCETA, DICIEMBRE 2019 ii AGRADECIMIENTOS El amor recibido, la dedicación y la paciencia con la que cada día se preocupaban mis padres por mi avance y desarrollo de esta tesis, es simplemente único y se refleja en la vida de un hijo. Gracias a mis padres por ser los principales promotores de mis sueños, gracias a ellos por cada día confiar y creer en mí y en mis expectativas, gracias a mi madre por estar dispuesta a acompañarme cada larga y agotadora noche de estudio, agotadoras noches en las que su compañía y la llegada de sus cafés era para mí como agua en el desierto; gracias a mi padre por siempre desear y anhelar siempre lo mejor para mi vida, gracias por cada consejo y por cada una de sus palabras que me guiaron durante mi vida. Gracias a Dios por la vida de mis padres, también porque cada día bendice mi vida con la hermosa oportunidad de estar y disfrutar al lado de las personas que sé que más me aman, y a las que yo sé que más amo en mi vida, gracias a Dios por permitirme amar a mis padres, gracias a mis padres por permitirme conocer de Dios y de su infinito amor.
    [Show full text]
  • National Program 301 Plant Genetic Resources, Genomics, and Genetics Improvement
    APPENDIX 1 National Program 301 Plant Genetic Resources, Genomics, and Genetics Improvement ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORT 2006 – 2011 Research Projects in National Program 301* [By Action Plan Component and Problem Statement] Component 1: Plant and Microbial Genetic Resource Management Problem Statement 1A: Efficiently and Effectively Manage Plant and Microbial Genetic Resources. 1230-21000-133-00D EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES AT THE U.S. NATIONAL ARBORETUM – Nancy Luria (P); U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, D.C. 1230-21000-135-00D ESTABLISH PUBLIC DISPLAY GARDENS FOR WOODY AND HERBACEOUS LANDSCAPE PLANTS – Scott Aker (P); U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, D.C. 1230-21000-137-00D GENETIC RESOURCES, EVALUATION, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OF WOODY LANDSCAPE PLANT GERMPLASM – Richard Olsen (P), Kevin Conrad, and Mark Roh; U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, D.C. 1275-21000-226-00D NATIONAL RHIZOBIUM GERMPLASM RESOURCE COLLECTION, GENETIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, SYSTEMATICS, AND BIOINFORMATICS – Peter Van Berkum (P); Beltsville, Maryland 1275-21000-227-00D PLANT EXPLORATIONS TO ACQUIRE CROP GENETIC RESOURCES – Karen Williams (P) and Edward Garvey; Beltsville, Maryland 1275-21000-228-00D EXCHANGE OF CROP GENETIC RESOURCES AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION FOR THE U.S. NATIONAL PLANT GERMPLASM SYSTEM – Edward Garvey (p), John Wiersema, and Karen Williams; Beltsville, Maryland 1275-21220-226-00D OPERATING AND DEVELOPING THE GERMPLASM RESOURCES INFORMATION NETWORK FOR THE U.S. GENETIC RESOURCES PROGRAM – Gary Kinard (P); Beltsville, Maryland 1275-22000-268-00D THE U.S. NATIONAL FUNGUS COLLECTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF ON-LINE RESOURCES ABOUT FUNGI – Amy Rossman (P); Beltsville, Maryland * Because of the nature of their research, many NP 301 projects contribute to multiple Problem Statements and are listed accordingly.
    [Show full text]
  • Melaleuca Gall Midge (Suggested Common Name) Lophodiplosis Trifida Gagné (Insecta: Diptera: Cecidomyiidae: Cecidomyiinae: Cecidomyiini)1 Matthew R
    EENY655 Melaleuca Gall Midge (suggested common name) Lophodiplosis trifida Gagné (Insecta: Diptera: Cecidomyiidae: Cecidomyiinae: Cecidomyiini)1 Matthew R. Moore, James P. Cuda, Paul D. Pratt, and Min B. Rayamajhi2 Introduction Woodburn, Roy’s Road, and the Brisbane suburb of Indooroopilly (Gagné et al. 1997; Goolsby et al. 2002; The melaleuca gall midge, Lophodiplosis trifida Gagné, is a Gagné 2010; Wineriter Wright and Center 2008) (Figure natural enemy of the invasive plant melaleuca (Australian 2). In 2008, the melaleuca gall midge was approved for field broadleaved paperbark), Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) release into Florida. It was subsequently released at 24 sites S.T. Blake (Myrtales: Myrtaceae) in Florida (Figure 1). This across southern Florida in 13 counties (Broward, Charlotte, species’ ability to form galls on and damage melaleuca trees Collier, Hendry, Hillsborough, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, led to its study as a possible biological control agent and its Orange, Palm Beach, Polk, Sarasota, and St. Lucie) (USDA eventual release in the United States. 2008; Pratt et al. 2013) (Figure 3). The released melaleuca gall midges survived at all release locations except one, due to a freeze at the site (Pratt et al. 2013). This locality was recolonized by melaleuca gall midges from nearby areas and the midge has subsequently spread to other areas in Florida where Melaleuca quinquenervia occurs (Pratt et al. 2013). The melaleuca gall midge has spread from the initial release sites at an average of 6.0 km/year (Pratt et al. 2013). Figure 1. Lophodiplosis trifida Gagné adult resting on vegetation. A) Red dots visible on the plant are eggs.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogo De Los Diptera De Nicaragua. 10. Cecidomyiidae (Nematocera)
    Rev Rev. Nica. Ent., (1990) 14B:33-41. CATALOGO DE LOS DIPTERA DE NICARAGUA. 10. CECIDOMYIIDAE (NEMATOCERA). Por Jean-Michel Maes.* Resumen. Este catálogo presenta las 8 especies de Cecidomyiidae (Diptera : Nematocera) reportadas de Nicaragua. Para cada especie se cita la sinonimia, la distribución geográfica, los hospederos y los enemigos naturales. La bibliografía conocida está agregada. Abstract. This catalogue presents the 8 species of Cecidomyiidae (Diptera : Nematocera) reported from Nicaragua. The geographical distribution, synonyms, hosts and natural enemies are given for each species. A bibliography of the Nicaraguayan species is included. * Museo Entomológico, S.E.A., A.P. 527, León, Nicaragua. file:///C|/My%20Documents/REVISTA/REV%2014B/14B%20Cecidomyiidae.htm (1 of 10) [11/11/2002 08:37:16 p.m.] Rev Introducción. Los Cecidomyiidae son Diptera Nematocera de tamaño pequeño, más conocidos por las agallas que producen sobre las plantas que por los insectos en sí. Los adultos son zancuditos muy pequeños, delicaditos, con patas y antenas largas. Las venas del área costal son fuertes, las demás, cuando existen son delgadas. Las larvas de la mayoría de las especies producen agallas en las plantas, las otras son fitófagas (algunas viven en agallas producidas por otros insectos) y algunas son saprófagas (ejemplo los Lestermiinae). Algunas especies son depredadoras de áfidos, escamas e insectos pequeñitos. Las larvas son gusanitos delgaditos con una marca en forma de T sobre el lado ventral del protórax. Son de coloración amarilla, anaranjada, roja o rosada. Las agallas producidas pueden ocurrir sobre cualquier parte de la planta y pueden tener muchas formas diferentes pero por una especie solo existe un tipo de agalla, siempre situado en el mismo lugar de una planta dada.
    [Show full text]
  • CARIBBEAN FOOD CROPS SOCIETY 37 Thirty Seventh Annual Meeting 2001
    ^fOOD CROps CARIBBEAN FOOD CROPS SOCIETY 37 Thirty Seventh Annual Meeting 2001 Trinidad and Tobago Vol. xxxvn Proceedings of the Caribbean Food Crops Society. 37:104-109. 2001 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE TAXONOMY OF THE GALL MIDGES (DIPTERA: CECIDOMYIIDAE) AFFECTING CAPSICUM SP IN JAMAICA Juliet Goldsmith, Ministry of Agriculture, Bodies Research Station, Old Harbour, St. Catherine, Jamaica ABSTRACT: Persistent interception of a Dipteran larva in shipments of hot pepper (Capsicum chinense) from Jamaica to the United States of America (USA) in recent years, has led to the imposition of mandatory fumigation of the commodity prior to export. The insect has been identified both as Contarinia lycopersici, a tomato pest of quarantine importance to the USA and Prodiplosis longifilia a citrus pest restricted in that country to Florida. The present study compares the pepper midges in Jamaica with C. lycopersici and P. longifilia based on morphological characteristics and host infestation. Preliminary results derived from comparative morphological examination of adult males, suggest that the pepper gall midges of Jamaica are distinguishable from C. lycopersici and P. longifilia. There is an urgent need to identify and or describe the species present in order to develop a management strategy for the pest. INTRODUCTION In February 1997, USD A-APHIS reported the interception of a Dipteran larva in shipments of hot pepper from Jamaica to the United States of America (USA). The insect was declared of Quarantine importance, as the USA has a zero tolerance for dipterans. Persistent interception of the pest led to a mandate, effective October 1998, that all hot peppers for export from Jamaica to the USA be fumigated with Methyl Bromide.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Pests of Economic Importance on Cereal Crops in the Senegal River Basin, West Africa
    AN ABSTRACT- OF THE THESIS OF Adama Sy for the degree ofMaster of Science in Entomology presented on June 10, 1977 Title: INSECT PESTS OF ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE ON CEREAL CROPS IN THE SENEGAL RIVER BASIN, WEST AFRICA Redacted for Privacy_ Abstract approved R. E. Berrybnd J. P. iattin Cereal crops cultivated in Mali, Mauritania and Senegal consist primarily of sorghum, millet, rice and maize. They form the gramin- eous crops that, are programmed for the agricultural improvementof the Senegal River Basin. Twelve economically important insect pests on these crops were selected for study and treated with regard to their potential hazard to crop production. The selection of these insect pests was based on entomological investigations carried out in Senegal, Mali and the Senegal River Valley. Information was gathered from similar ecological areas in the Paleotropic region. The following insect pests were selected: Diptera: Atherigona spp (Muscidae), Contarinia sorghicola (Coquillet) (Cecidomyiidae) and Orseolia oryzae (Wood-Mason) (Cecidomyiidae); Lepidoptera: Acigona ignefusalis (Hampson), Chilo zacconius Bleszynski, Maliarpha separa- tella Ragonot (Pyralidae), Heliothis armigera (Hubner), Sesamia calamistis Hampson, Spodoptera exempta (Walker) and Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) (Noctuidae); and Orthoptera: Locusta migra- toria migratorioides (Reiche and Fairmaire) and Schistocerca americana gregaria (Forskal) (Acrididae). Information pertaining to the identi- fication, distribution, host-plants, biology and control strategies, including agronomical and mechanical controls, varietal resistance, biological control and chemical control are presented for each pest. The physical environment in the Senegal River Basin and agricultural production of the Senegal River Valley are described. An overall assessment of the pest complex of cereal crops is given and the pre- sent status of insect pest control in the Senegal River Basin is discussed.
    [Show full text]