Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:24:40.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combinations of applications of a chitin synthesis inhibitor and inundative releases of egg parasitoids against the false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), on citrus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Philip J. Newton
Philip J. Newton
Affiliation:
Citrus and Subtropical Fruit Research Institute, Private Bag X11208, Nelspruit, 1200, South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A commercial trial of different strategies for suppressing damage by Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) to citrus was made in the Transvaal lowveld, South Africa. Different regimes tested were applications of the chitin synthesis inhibitor teflubenzuron at 60 mg a.i./litre and ca 30 litres/tree, inundative releases of the egg parasitoid Trichogrammatoidea cryptophlebiae Nagaraja, and a combination of the two. One objective was to examine whether application of the insecticide earlier in the season than usually recommended would enhance the subsequent impact of parasitoids, native or released. It was found that parasitoid releases throughout the season (1.3 million/ha in total) produced the best overall reduction in damage by C. leucotreta. This was due largely to their better performance than that of any other strategy early in the season. Their impact in the later part of the season was not significantly different from that of release programmes which had begun at a later stage (0·6 million/ha). Very early applications of the teflubenzuron had no apparent impact on crop losses and did not enhance the impact of subsequent parasitoid releases to a significant degree. Teflubenzuron application at a recommended time later in the season was the most successful short-term approach, but its overall impact on crop loss was diminished by damage during the unprotected period before its application. A more appropriate management programme against C. leucotreta might therefore be to combine inundative releases of parasitoids early in the season with later applications of teflubenzuron if economic thresholds show they are required. The two approaches should not be concurrent since parasitoid activity was suppressed by the chitin synthesis inhibitor.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 507 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Angelini, A. & Labonne, V. (1970). Mise au point sur l'étude de Cryptophlebia (Argyroploce) leucotreta (Meyr.) en Côte d'Ivoire.—Coton Fibr. trop. 25, 497–500.Google Scholar
Bedford, E. C. G., Vercueil, S. W. & Deacon, V. (1985). A general guide to the integrated control of citrus pests with red scale under biological control.—Fmg S. Afr., Leaft. Ser., Citrus no. H. 47, 16 pp.Google Scholar
Catling, H. D. & Aschenborn, H. (1974). Population studies of the false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta Meyr., on citrus in the Transvaal.—Phytophylactica 6, 31–37.Google Scholar
Catling, H. D. & Aschenborn, H. (1978). False codling moth Cryptophlebia leucotreta Meyr.—pp. 165–170in Bedford, E. C. G. (Ed.). Citrus pests in the Republic of South Africa.—Sci. Bull. Dep. Agric. Tech. Serv. Rep. S. Afr. no. 391, 253 pp.Google Scholar
Cibc (Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control) (1984). Possibilities for the biological control of the false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Lep., Tortricidae).—Biocontrol News and Inf. 5, 217–220.Google Scholar
Cie (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology) (1976). Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyr.).—Distrib. Maps Insect Pests no. 352.Google Scholar
Cohen, E., Podoler, H. & El-Hamlauwi, M. (1987). Effects of the malathion-bait mixture used on citrus to control Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on the Florida red scale, Chrysomphalus aonidum (L.) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), and its parasitoid Aphytis holoxanthus DeBach (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae).—Bull. ent. Res. 77, 303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, C. (1901). The Natal codling moth, Carpocapsa sp.—First report of the Government Entomologist, 1899–1900.—pp. 48–51. Natal Dep. Agric.Google Scholar
Hassan, S. A. (1983). Ergebnisse der Laborprüfung einer Reihe von Pflanzenschutzmitteln auf Eiparasiten der Gattung Trichogramma (Hymenoptera, Trichogrammatidae).—Nachrβl dt. PflSchutzdienst 35, 21–25.Google Scholar
Hoy, J. B. & Dahlsten, D. L. (1984). Effects of malathion and Staley's bait on the behavior and survival of parasitic Hymenoptera.—Environ. Entomol. 13, 1483–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Croix, E. A. S. & Thindwa, H. Z. (1986). Macadamia pests in Malawi. III. The major pests. The biology of bugs and borers.—Trop. Pest Management 32, 11–20, 80, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarajan, P. (1988). Toxicity of different pesticides to parasitoids of the genus Trichogramma.—pp. 423–432 in Trichogramma and other egg parasites.—644 pp. Paris, INRA (Les Colloques de'INRA no. 43).Google Scholar
Newton, P. J. (1986). Performance of CME 134, cypermethrin, deltamethrin and SIR 8514 against false codling moth on citrus in South Africa.—Ann. appl. Biol. 108 (Suppl.), 6–7. (Tests of Agrochemicals and Cultivars no. 7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, P. J. (1988a). Inversely density-dependent egg parasitism in patchy distributions of the citrus pest Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and its agricultural efficiency.—J. appl. Ecol. 25, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, P. J. (1988b). Movement and impact of Trichogrammatoidea cryptophlebiae Nagaraja (Hymemoptera: Trichogrammatidae) in citrus orchards after inundative releases against the false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae).—Bull. ent. Res. 78, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, P. J, Anderson, T. & Vercueil, S. W. (1986). Crop losses due to false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyr.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), on citrus in South Africa from 1983 to 1985.—Subtropica 7, 10–12.Google Scholar
Reed, W. (1974). The false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta Meyr. (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae) as a pest of cotton in Uganda.—Cott. Grow. Rev. 51, 213–225.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. (1972). Population explosion (for purposes of research only) of false codling moths.—Citrus Grower and Sub-Trop. Fruit J. no. 466, 5, 7, 9, 24.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. (1977). 'n Tegniek vir die massateling van die eierparasiet Trichogrammatoidea luteum Girault, op die eiers van valskodlingmot.—Citrus and Subtrop. Fruit J. no. 526, 5–7.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A, Marais, A. & Van Der Koou, M. D. H. (1982). Beheer van valskodlingmot in Citrusdal deur grootskaalse vrylating van 'n eierparasiet.—Subtropica 3, 17–20.Google Scholar