Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:07:01.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ATTEMPTS ON POME FRUIT (APPLE AND PEAR) IN NORTH AMERICA, 1860–1970

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

E. J. LeRoux
E. J. LeRoux
Affiliation:
Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biological control attempts on pome fruit in North America, 1860–1970, are summarized and successes and failures reviewed. In all cases, save two, claims in support of successes are lacking. It is concluded that a modern research approach to the study of biological control—including a study of the population dynamics of the host species and of the biotic agent used in control—must be taken. Claims of successes of biotic agents—parasites and predators—in control of pome fruit insect pest populations (stage or generation) must be supported by quantitative multifactor studies. Otherwise the scientific requirements and exigencies (e.g. manipulation of biotic agents with predictability) will not be satisfied.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 103 , Issue 7 , July 1971 , pp. 963 - 974
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1971

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

Alden, C. H. and Webb, J. E.. 1937. Control of injurious insects by a beneficial parasite. Ga St. Bd ent. Bull. 79, 23 pp.Google Scholar
Baird, A. B. 1958. Biological control of insect and plant pests in Canada. Proc. 10th int. Congr. Ent., Vol. 4, pp. 417–420.Google Scholar
Bethune, C. J. S. 1871. Insects affecting the apple. 1st A. Rep. Noxious Insects Prov. Ont., pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Boyce, H. R. 1936. Laboratory rearing of Ascogaster carpocapsae Vier., with notes on biology and larval morphology. Can. Ent. 68: 241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, H. R. 1941. Biological control of the codling moth in Ontario. 71st A. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. (1940), pp. 40–44.Google Scholar
Brittain, W. H. 1914. Report for the Okanagan District, Insect pests of the year in the Okanagan. Proc. ent. Soc. Br. Columb., Vol. 4, pp. 14–33.Google Scholar
Brittain, W. H. 1915. Some Hemiptera attacking the apple. Proc. ent. Soc. N.S. 1: 7–46.Google Scholar
Brittain, W. H. 1919. An infestation of the apple sucker (Psyllia mali Schmidb.) in Nova Scotia. Agric. Gaz. (Ottawa) 6(9): 8–23.Google Scholar
Brodie, W. 1907. Parasitism of Carpocapsa pomonella. 37th A. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont., pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1956. Biological control of insect pests in the continental United States. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1139, 753 pp.Google Scholar
Coronado, R. 1955. Control quimico y biologica del pulgon lanigero del manzano. Agricultura tecnica (Mexico), 1(2): 9–10, 47–48.Google Scholar
Cox, J. A. and Daniel, D. M.. 1935. Ascogaster carpocapsae Vier. in relation to arsenical sprays. J. econ. Ent. 28: 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBach, P. 1954. Relative efficacy of the red scale parasites Aphytis chrysomphali Mercet and Aphytis ‘A’ on citrus trees in southern California. Boll. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici 33: 134–151.Google Scholar
DeBach, P. (Ed.). 1964. Biological control of insect pests and weeds. 844 pp. Reinhold,New York.Google Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1948. Effect of codling moth sprays on natural control of the Baker mealybug. J. econ. Ent. 41: 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1958. Vice, virtue and the Vedalia. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 4: 119–123.Google Scholar
Doutt, R. L. and Hagen, K. S.. 1949.Periodic colonization of Chrysopa californica as a possible control of mealybugs. J. econ. Ent. 42: 560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doutt, R. L. and Hagen, K. S.. 1950. Biological control measures applied against Pseudococcus maritimus on pears. J. econ. Ent. 43: 94–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driggers, B. F. and O'Neill, W. J.. 1938. Codling mothparasitism under different spray treatments. J. econ. Ent. 31: 221–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dustan, A. G. 1923. The control of the European apple sucker by means of a parasitic fungus. 59th A. Rep. Fruit Growers' Ass. Nova Scotia, pp. 100–104.Google Scholar
Dustan, A. G. 1924 a. Studies on a new species of Empusa parasitic on the green apple bug (Lygus communis var. novascotiensis Knight) in the Annapolis Valley. Proc. Acadian ent. Soc. 9: 14–36.Google Scholar
Dustan, A. G. 1924 b. The natural control of the green apple bug (Lygus communis var. novascotiensis Knight) by a new species of Empusa. A. Rep. Queb. Soc. Prot. Pl. 1922–1923, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
Dustan, A. G. 1925. A study of the methods used in growing entomophthorous fungi in cages prior to their artificial dissemination in the orchards. 55th A. Rep. Ent. Soc. Ont., pp. 63–67.Google Scholar
Ferris, G. F. 1918. The California species of mealy bugs. Stanford Univ. Publ., Univ. Ser., p. 20.Google Scholar
Fitch, A. 1956. Sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth reports on the noxious beneficial and other insects of the State of New York, Albany, N.Y.259.pp.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1930. Evaluation of Trichogramma liberations. J. econ. Ent. 23: 886–887.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1955. Principles and practices of biological control utilizing entomophagous insects. [Extract from series of lectures presented at the University of Naples, Italy.] Univ. California Libraries, Davis and Riverside.Google Scholar
Fletcher, L. 1895. Report of the Entomologist and Botanist (1894). In Annual Report on the Experimental Farms, pp. 183–226. Canada Dep. Agric., Ottawa.Google Scholar
Gilliatt, F. C. 1935. A mealy bug, Phenacoccus aceris Signoret, a new apple pest in Nova Scotia. Can. Ent. 67: 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilliatt, F. C. 1939. The life history of Allotropa utilis Mues., a hymenopterous parasite of the orchard mealy bug in Nova Scotia. Can. Ent. 71: 160–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Given, B. B. 1963. Prospects for biological control of insects. N.Z. Sci. Rev. 22: 2–4.Google Scholar
Glendenning, R. 1931. The program of parasite introductions in British Columbia. Proc. ent. Soc. Br. Columb. 28: 29–32.Google Scholar
Graham, A. R. 1944. The establishment of some imported parasites of the larch casebearer, Haploptilia laricella Hbn., in Ontario. 74th A. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. (1943), pp. 48–52.Google Scholar
Graham, A. R. 1949. Developments in the control of the larch casebearer, Coleophora laricella (Hbn.). 79th A. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. (1948), pp. 45–50.Google Scholar
Haeussler, G. J. and Clancy, D. W.. 1944. Natural enemies of the Comstock mealybug in the eastern States. J. econ. Ent. 37: 503–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausmann, T. 1802. Beiträge zur den Materialien für eine künftige Bearbeitung der Gattung der Blattlaüse. Mag. Insektenkunde 1: 426–445.Google Scholar
Hewitt, C. G. 1917. Natural control of insects. Can. Dep. Agr. Rep. Dominion Entomologist 1916, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
Hough, W. S. 1925. Biology and control of the Comstock mealy bug on umbrella catalpa. Va agric. Exp. Stn Tech. Bull. 29.Google Scholar
Jaques, R. P. and Patterson, N. A.. 1962. Control of the apple sucker, Psylla mali Schmidb., by the fungus Entomophthora sphaerosperma (Fresenius). Can. Ent. 94: 818–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaynes, H. A. and Marucci, P. E.. 1947. Effect of artificial control practices on the parasites and predators of codling moth. J. econ. Ent. 40: 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuwana, S. I. 1902. Dactylopius comstocki. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 111(3): 52.Google Scholar
Lekic, M. B. 1950. The biology of the codling moth on the territory of the Serbian's People's Republic and measures for its control. (In Serbian with English summary.) Plant Prot. (Yugoslavia) 1: 32–65.Google Scholar
(Abstr. in Rev. appl. Ent. (A) 41: 104, 1953.)Google Scholar
LeRoux, E. J. 1960. Importance and control of the codling moth, Carpocapsa pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), on apple in Quebec. Rep. pomol. Soc. Queb. (1959), pp. 45–60.Google Scholar
LeRoux, E. J. (Ed.). 1963 a. Population dynamics of agricultural and forest insect pests. Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 32, 103 pp.Google Scholar
LeRoux, E. J., Paradis, R. O., and Hudon, M.. 1963 b. Major mortality factors in the population dynamics of the eye-spotted budmoth, the pistol casebearer, the fruit-tree leaf roller and the European corn borer in Quebec. In LeRoux, E. J. and others, Mern. ent. Soc. Can., No. 32, pp. 67–82.Google Scholar
Lintner, J. A. 1882. The apple tree case-bearer. In 1st A. Rep. State Entomologist on the injurious and other insects of New York, 1881. pp. 163–167.Google Scholar
Lintner, J. A. 1891. Work of Coleophora sp. to pears. In 7th A. Rep. State Entomologist on the injurious and other insects of New York, 1890, p. 348.Google Scholar
Lord, F. T. 1947. The influence of spray programs on the fauna ofapple orchards in Nova Scotia: 11. Oystershell scale, Lepidosaphes ulmi (L.). Can. Ent. 79. 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, H. F. and Hoyt, S. C.. 1958. Investigations with new insecticides for codling moth control. J. econ. Ent. 51: 422–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maheux, G. 1924. Insects of the season in Quebec in 1923. 54th A. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. (1923), pp. 71–73.Google Scholar
Marshall, J. 1952. Applied entomology in the orchards of British Columbia, 1900–1951. Proc. ent. Soc. Br. Columb. 48: 25–31.Google Scholar
Marshall, J. 1953. A decade of pest control in British Columbia orchards. Proc. ent. Soc. Br. Columb. 49: 7–11.Google Scholar
McEwen, F. L., Glass, E. H., Davis, A. C., and Splittstoesser, C. M.. 1960. Field tests with Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner for control of four lepidopterous pests. J. Insect Path. 2: 152–164.Google Scholar
McLeod, J. H. 1954. Status of some introduced parasites and their hosts in British Columbia. Proc. ent. Soc. Br. Columb. 50: 19–27.Google Scholar
Michelbacher, A. E. and Borden, A. D.. 1944. Two introduced insects attacking the woolly apple aphid in California (Scientific notes). J. econ. Ent. 37: 715–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevskii, V. 1937. On the causes of fluctuations in population density of the codling moth (Cydia pomonella L.). (In Russian.) Trudy Sredneaziatziat. Gosudarst. Univ. (Tashkent) (8, Zool.) Fasc. 37, 14 pp.Google Scholar
(Abstr. in Rev. appl. Ent. (A) 27: 587–588, 1939.)Google Scholar
Pepper, B. B. and Driggers, B. F.. 1934. Non-economic insects as intermediate hosts of parasites of the oriental fruit moth. A. ent. Soc. Am. 27: 593–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. M., Bucher, G. E., and Stephens, J. M.. 1953. Note on preliminary field trials of a bacterium to control the codling moth. Can. Ent. 85: 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putman, W. L. 1963. The codling moth, Carpocapsa pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): A review with special reference to Ontario. Proc. ent. Soc. Ont. (1962), pp. 22–60.Google Scholar
Riley, C. V. 1893. Parasitic and predaceous insects in applied entomology. Insect Life 6: 130–141.Google Scholar
Samarasinghe, S. and LeRoux, E. J.. 1966. The biology and dynamics of the oystershell scale, Lepidosaphes ulmi (L.), on apple in Quebec. Ann. ent. Soc. Queb. 11: 206–259.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. 1882. Address of the President of the Entomological Society of Ontario. Can. Ent. 14: 147–150.Google Scholar
Simmonds, F. J. 1944. Observations on the parasites of Cydia pomonella L. in southern France. Scient. Agric. 25: 1–30.Google Scholar
Slingerland, M. V. 1898. The codling moth. Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn Bull. 142.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1919. On some phase of insect control by the biological method. J. econ. Ent. 12: 288–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. S. and Armitage, H. M.. 1920. Biological control of mealy bugs in California. Calif. Dep. Agric. mon. Bull. 9: 104–158.Google Scholar
Stephens, J. M. 1952. Disease in codling moth larvae produced by several strains of Bacillus cereus. Can. J. Zool. 30: 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. 1879. Noxious and beneficial insects of the State of Illinois. 8th A. Rep. State Entomologist, 1878 (3rd A. Rep. by Cyrus Thomas, Ph.D.) 16: 126–135.Google Scholar
(Trans. Dep. Agric. St. Ill. 1879, Vol. XVI.)Google Scholar
Tothill, J. D. 1919. Some notes on natural control of the oyster-shell scale (Lepidosaphes ulmi L.). Bull. ent. Res. 9: 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treherne, R. C. 1916. Report from the Vancouver district; insects economically important in the lower Fraser Valley. Proc. ent. Soc. Br. Columb. 4: 19–33.Google Scholar
Turnbull, A. L. and Chant, D. A.. 1961. The practice and theory of biological control of insects in Canada. Can. J. Zool. 39: 697–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venables, E. P. 1931. Aphelinus mali Hald., a parasite of the woolly apple aphis. Proc. ent. Soc. Br. Columb. 28: 16–20.Google Scholar
Venables, E. P. 1937. Further notes on the woolly aphis parasite, Aphelinus mali Hald. Proc. ent. Soc. Br. Columb. 34: 333–335.Google Scholar
Webb, J. E. and Alden, C. H.. 1940. Biological control of the codling moth and the oriental fruit moth. J. econ. Ent. 33: 431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. 1960. The future of biological control. 7th Commonw. ent. Conf. Rep. (London), pp. 72–79.Google Scholar
Wishart, G. 1946. Important reduction of three introduced pests in British Columbia by introduced parasites. 77th A. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont., pp. 35–37.Google Scholar