Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:41:24.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference by ants in biological control of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Ghana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. R. Cudjoe ,
P. Neuenschwander  and
M. J. W. Copland
A. R. Cudjoe
Affiliation:
Plant Protection and Quarantine Unit, Department of Agriculture, Accra, Ghana
P. Neuenschwander*
Affiliation:
Biological Control Program, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Cotonou, Republic of Benin
M. J. W. Copland
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London, UK
*
Dr. P. Neuenschwander, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, B.P.08-0932, Cotonou, Republic of Benin.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In surveys of cassava fields in the coastal savanna and rain forest zones of Ghana, eight species of ants, mostly in the genera Camponotus, Crematogaster and Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), were found attending cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti Matile-Ferrero. Ant densities were much higher in the rain forest than in the savanna and, in most zones, positively correlated to mealybug population densities. Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius) was the only species more abundant in the interior of fields, whereas the other species preferred the edges of fields or, like Camponotus spp., did not respond to edge effects. Weediness of the fields did not clearly influence the presence of ants. Crematogaster sp. and P. megacephala spent most of the time on cassava tips, where they built carton tents. Ants of the three genera reduced parasitism rates by the exotic Epidinocarsis lopezi (De Santis) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) to half, compared to the rates observed on mealybug colonies of equal size that were not attended. Hyperparasitism by Prochiloneurus insolitus (Alam) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and Chartocerus hyalipennis Hayat (Hymenoptera: Signiphoridae) and predation by the indigenous Exochomus troberti Mulsant (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) were similarly reduced. Where ants were excluded experimentally by insectcide barriers, parasitism was 32%, compared to only 10% in the control, and predator densities were reduced three-fold. In a 24 h experiment, Pheidole megacephala was observed to remove about half the E. troberti larvae; Crematogaster sp. and Camponotus spp. were less efficient. The results show the locally strong interference of ants with biological control of the cassava mealybug. Despite this interference, mealybug populations in the rain forest were judged to be below damaging levels.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 15 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartlett, B.R. (1978) Pseudococcidae. pp. 137–170 in Clausen, C.P. (Ed.) Introduced parasites and predators of arthopod pests and weeds. A world review. Washington, ARS USDA Agricultural Handbook 480.Google Scholar
Beardsley, J.W., Su, T.H., McEwen, F.L. & Gerling, D. (1982) Field investigations on the interrelationships of the bigheaded ant, the gray pineapple mealybug and pineapple mealybug wilt disease in Hawaii. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 24, 51–87.Google Scholar
Campbell, C.A.M. (1983) The assessment of mealybug (Pseudococcidae) and other Homoptera on mature cocoa in Ghana. Bulletin of Entomological Research 73, 137–151.Google Scholar
Carter, W. (1960) A study of mealybug population (Dysmicoccus brevipes) (Ckl.) in an ant-free field. Journal of Economic Entomology 53, 296–299.Google Scholar
Cornwell, P.B. (1958) Movement of the vector of virus disease of cocoa in Ghana. I. Canopy movement in and between trees. Bulletin of Entomological Research 49, 613–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBach, P. & Bartlett, B.R. (1964) Methods of colonization, recovery and evaluation. pp. 402–426 in DeBach, P. & Schlinger, E.I. (Eds.). Biological control of insect pests and weeds. London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Greathead, D.J. (1971) A review of biological control in the Ethiopian region. Technical Communication Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control 5, 162 pp.Google Scholar
Herren, H.R. & Neuenschwander, P. (1991) Biological control of cassava pests in Africa. Annual Review of Entomology 36, 257–283.Google Scholar
Hammond, W.N.O. & Neuenschwander, P. (1990) Sustained biological control of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti (Hom.: Pseudococcidae) by Epidinocarsis lopezi (Hym.: Encyrtidae) in Nigeria. Entomophaga 35, 515–526.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, B. & Wilson, E.O. (1990) The ants. 732 pp. Cambridge Md., The Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, H.T. & Yang, P. (1987) The ancient cultured citrus ant. BioScience 37, 665–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leston, D. (1973) The ant mosaic - tropical tree crops and the limiting of pests and diseases. PANS Articles & News Summary 19, 311–341.Google Scholar
Majer, J.D. (1976) The influence of ants and ant manipulation on the cocoa farm fauna. Journal of Applied Ecology 13, 157–175.Google Scholar
Majer, J. D. (1986) Utilising economically beneficial ants. pp. 314–331 in Vinson, S.B. (Ed.). Economic impact and control of social insects. New York, Praeger.Google Scholar
Melville, A.R. (1958) Biological control of insect pests in coffee. Coffee and Tea Industries and the Flavour Field 11. 1958, 121–126.Google Scholar
Neuenschwander, P., Borowka, R., Phiri, G., Hammans, H., Nyirenda, S., Kapeya, E.H. & Gadabu, A. (1991) Biological control of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti (Hom.; Pseudococcidae) by Epidinocarsis lopezi (Hym., Encyrtidae) in Malawi. Biocontrol Science & Technology 1, 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuenschwander, P. & Hammond, W.N.O. (1988) Natural enemy activity following the introduction of Epidinocarsis lopezi (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) against the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae), in southwestern Nigeria. Environmental Entomology 17, 894–902.Google Scholar
Neuenschwander, P., Hammond, W.N.O., Ajuonu, O., Gado, A., Echendu, N., Bokonon-Ganta, A.H., Allomasso, R. & Okon, I. (1990) Biological control of the cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti (Hom., Pseudococcidae) by Epidinocarsis lopezi (Hym., Encyrtidae) in West Africa, as influenced by climate and soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 32, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuenschwander, P., Hammond, W.N.O., Gutierrez, A.P., Cudjoe, A.R., Baumgärtner, J.U., Regev, U., & Adjakloe, R. (1989) Impact assessment of the biological control of the cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti Matile-Ferrero (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) by the introduced parasitoid Epidinocarsis lopezi (De Santis) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 79, 568–579.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. (1951) The association of ants with aphids and coccids. 34 pp. London, Commonwealth Institute of Entomology.Google Scholar
Phillips, S.S. (1934) The biology and distribution of ants in Hawaiian pineapple fields. Experiment Station of Pineapple Producers, Cooperative Association Bulletin 15, 1–57.Google Scholar
Réal, P. (1959) Le cycle annuel de la cochenille Dysmicoccus brevipes Cokll., vectrice d´un ‘wilt’ de l´ananas en basse Côte d´lvoire; son déterminisme. Revue Pathologie Végétale Entomologie Agricole, France 38, 1–111.Google Scholar
Reimer, N.J. & Beardsley, J.W. (1989) Control of big-headed ant in pineapple. pp. 69–70 in Edelson, V. (Ed.) Insecticide and acaricide tests Vol. 14. Lanham Md., Entomological Society of America.Google Scholar
Room, P.M. (1971) The relative distribution of ant species in Ghana´s cocoa farms. Journal of Animal Ecology 40, 735–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H.S. & Armitage, H.M. (1931) The biological control of mealybugs attacking citrus. Berkeley, California, University of California Printing Office, Bulletin 509, 1–74.Google Scholar
Stradling, D.J. (1987) Nutritional ecology, pp. 927–969 in Slansky, F. & Rodriguez, J.G. (Eds.) Nutritional ecology of insects, mites, spiders, and related invertebrates. New York, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Strickland, A.H. (1951a) The entomology of swollen shoot of cocoa. I. The insect species involved with notes of their biology. Bulletin of Entomological Research 41, 725–748.Google Scholar
Strickland, A.H. (1951b) The entomology of swollen shoot of cocoa. II. The bionomics and ecology of the species involved. Bulletin of Entomological Research 42, 65–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, T.H., Beardsley, J.W. & McEwen, F.L. (1980) AC-217 300, a promising new insecticide for use in baits for control of the big-headed ant in pineapples. Journal of Economic Entomology 73, 755–756.Google Scholar
Way, M.J. (1963) Mutualism between ants and honey-dew producing Homoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 8, 307–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zöbelein, G. (1957) Die Rolle des Waldhonigtaus im Nahrungshaushalt forstlich nützlicher Insekten. Forstwissenschaftliches Zentrablatt 76, 24–34.Google Scholar