Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:54:28.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parasitisme de Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) en cultures maraîchères en tropique sec nicaraguayen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2007

Claudio Nunes ,
Éric Lucas  and
Daniel Coderre
Claudio Nunes
Affiliation:
Escuela de Agricultura y Ganadería de Estelí, Km 166.5 Carretera Panamericana Norte, Estelí, Nicaragua Département des Sciences Biologiques, Groupe de Recherche en Écologie Comportementale et Animale, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888 Succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3P8
Éric Lucas*
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences Biologiques, Groupe de Recherche en Écologie Comportementale et Animale, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888 Succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3P8
Daniel Coderre
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences Biologiques, Groupe de Recherche en Écologie Comportementale et Animale, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888 Succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3P8
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The parasitism of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) was evaluated on three horticultural crops in the Nicaraguan dry tropic: tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill; squash, Cucurbita argyrosperma (Huber); and sweet pepper, Capsicum annuum L. Parasitoid species were identified and their abundance recorded on the three crops. The study was carried out during both the rainy and dry seasons between 2001 and 2002. The nymphs of B. tabaci were counted weekly and parasitism rates evaluated. During the rainy season, the predominant parasitoids in squash and tomato crops were Encarsia pergandiella Howard and E. nigricephala Dozier. Parasitism rates of 17 and 10% were recorded for squash and tomato, respectively. In sweet pepper, the parasitoid species were E. pergandiella, E. nigricephala, E. desantisi Viggiani and Amitus sp. with a parasitism rate of 12%. During the dry season, the parasitoids in squash were E. pergandiella and E. nigricephala with a parasitism rate of 57%. Encarsia pergandiella was the only species noted in tomato with a parasitism rate of 58%, while in sweet pepper the species noted were E. pergandiella and E. nigricephala, with a 42% rate of parasitism. The abundance of parasitoids remained stable during both sampling seasons. Our results suggest that the parasitism rate is independent of B. tabaci densities. This is the first mention of E. pergandiella, E. nigricephala, E. desantisi and Amitus sp. as parasitoids of B. tabaci in Nicaragua.

Keywords

Bemisiawhiteflyparasitoidbiological controltomatosquashsweet pepperNicaragua
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 57 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 2006

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

Bográn, C. A., Obrycki, J. and Cave, R. (1998) Assessment of biological control of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on common bean in Honduras. Florida Entomologist 80, 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. K., Frohlich, D. R. and Rosell, R. C. (1995) The sweetpotato or silverleaf whiteflies: Biotypes of Bemisia tabaci or a species complex?. Annual Review of Entomology 40, 511–534.Google Scholar
Cave, R. D. (1995) Manual para el Reconocimiento de Parasitoïdes de Plagas Agrícolas en América Central. Honduras Zamorano Academia Press, Zamorano. 202 pp.Google Scholar
Gerling, D. (1985) Parasitoids attacking Bemisia tabaci (Hom. Aleyrodidae) in eastern Africa. Entomophaga 30, 163–165.Google Scholar
Gerling, D. (2002) Una reinterpretación sobre las moscas blancas. Manejo Integrado de Plagas (Costa Rica) 63, 13–21.Google Scholar
Greathead, D. J. (1991) Biological control in the tropics: Present opportunities and future prospects. Insect Science and Its Application 12, 3–8.Google Scholar
Hilje, L. (1995) Aspectos bioecológicos de Bemisia tabaci en Mesoamérica. Manejo Integrado de Plagas (Costa Rica) 35, 46–54.Google Scholar
Hoelmer, K. A., Kira, A. A. and Simmons, G. S. (1999) An overview of natural enemy explorations and evaluations for Bemisia in the U.S., pp. 689–696. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Animal Pests in Agriculture, Montpellier, France. Association Nationale de Protection des Plantes, Paris.Google Scholar
INTA (1999) Guia tecnologica 22. Cultivo del tomate. Departamento de servicios técnicos de apoyo (DSTA) Managua, Nicaragua 55 pp.Google Scholar
Joyce, A. L. and Bellows, T. S. (2000) Field evaluation of Amitus bennetti (Hymenoptera: Platygasteridae), a parasitoid of Bemisia argentifolii (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), in cotton and bean. BioControl 17, 258–266.Google Scholar
Maes, J. -M. (2000) Insectos asociados con cultivos tropicales Museo entomológico de León Nicaragua versión CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Manzano, M. R., Van Lenteren, J. C. and Cardona, C. (2003) Influence of pesticide treatments on the dynamics of whiteflies and associated parasitoids in snap bean fields. BioControl 48, 685–693.Google Scholar
Markham, P. G., Bedford, I. D., Liu, S., Frolich, D. R., Rosell, R. and Brown, J. K. (1996) The transmission of geminivirus by biotypes of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius), pp. 69–75. In Bemisia 1995: Taxonomy, Biology, Damage, Control and Management (edited by Gerling, D. and Mayer, R. T.). Intercept, Andover, UK.Google Scholar
McAuslane, H. J., Johnson, F. A. and Knauft, D. A. (1994) Population levels and parasitism of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on peanut cultivars. Environmental Entomology 23, 1203–1210.Google Scholar
Perring, T. M. (1996) Biological differences of two species of Bemisia that contribute to adaptive advantage, pp. 1–16. In Bemisia 1995: Taxonomy, Biology, Damage, Control and Management (edited by Gerling, D. and Mayer, R. T.). Intercept, Andover, UK.Google Scholar
Polaszek, A., Evans, G. A. and Bennett, F. D. (1992) Encarsia (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) parasitoids of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae): A preliminary guide to identification. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82, 375–392.Google Scholar
Riley, D. G. and Ciomperlik, M. A. (1997) Regional population dynamics of whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) and associated parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Environmental Entomology 26, 1049–1055.Google Scholar
Ryckewaert, P. and Alauzet, C. (2002) The natural enemies of Bemisia argentifolii in Martinique. BioControl 47, 115–126.Google Scholar
SAS Institute (2003) JMP ® 5.1.2 statistical analysis software, for windows. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Schuster, D. J., Evans, G. A., Bennett, F. D., Stansly, P. A., Jansson, R. K. and Leibee, G. L. (1998) A survey of parasitoids of Bemisia spp. whiteflies in Florida, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. International Journal of Pest Management 44, 255–260.Google Scholar
Simmons, A. M. (1998) Survey of the parasitoids of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in coastal South Carolina using yellow sticky traps. Journal of Entomological Science 33, 7–14.Google Scholar
Simmons, A. M. and Jackson, D. M. (2000) Evaluation of foliar-applied insecticides on abundance of parasitoids of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in vegetables. Journal of Entomological Science 35, 1–8.Google Scholar
Smith, H. A., Evans, G. A. and Mcsorley, R. (2000) A survey of parasitoids of Trialeurodes vaporariorum and Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in eastern Guatemala. Florida Entomologist 83, 492–496.Google Scholar
Smith, H. A., Mcsorley, R. and Izaguirre, J. A. S. (2001) Effect of intercropping common bean with poor hosts and nonhosts on numbers of immature whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in the Salama Valley, Guatemala. Environmental Entomology 30, 89–100.Google Scholar
Van Lenteren, J. C., Noldus, L. P. J. J. (1990) Whitefly–plant relationships: Behavioural and ecological aspects, pp. 47–89. In Whiteflies: Their Bionomics, Pest Status and Management (edited by Gerling, D.). Athenaeum, Newcastle, UKGoogle Scholar