FILE: <bc-35.htm> GENERAL INDEX [Navigate to MAIN MENU ]
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL IN GLASSHOUSES
---- Please CLICK on desired
underlined categories [ to search for Subject Matter,
depress Ctrl/F ]:
|
Tetranychus urticae Control with Phytoseiulus persimilis |
|
|
Greenhouse Whitefly Control with Encarsia Formosa |
|
|
Overview Parrella & Hansen (1996) estimated that the world
glasshouse area is 100-150,000 ha., divided equally between vegetable crops
and ornamentals (van Lenteren 1987, van Lenteren & Woets 1988). Natural
enemies may be more easily manipulated in the glasshouse environment because
of the relatively uniform environment. Presently biological control is
regularly implemented on ca. 3,000 ha. of glasshouses devoted primarily to
vegetable production, although there is probably a much greater total world
area involved, but data is lacking. Greathead (1976), Hussey (1985) and Lipa
(1985) have reviewed the use of biological control in glasshouses. Western Europe houses a large concentration of
glasshouses, where there is a long tradition for practical application of
biological control, and most information available originates in that area.
The following treats in detail the use of biological control in vegetables
and ornamental crops. Biological
Control in Glasshouse Vegetable Crops Biological control here is applied by the seasonal inoculative
release method (van Lenteren 1983). Limited numbers of parasitoids or
predators are liberated periodically in short term crops of 6 to 9 months, in
order to build up the population of beneficial organisms for control
throughout the growing season. In some cases large number of natural enemies
are released, in an inundative style, to obtain the immediate reduction of a
pest population. The two systems which have been used extensively involve Phytoseiulus
persimilis Athias-Henriot to control the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus
urticae Koch and Encarsia formosa Gahan to control the
greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood).
Recently efforts have also included leafminers, thrips and aphids. Biological
control was traditionally applied on cucumber and tomato crops, which rank as
the largest volume of vegetables grown in glasshouses, but has also expanded
to include peppers, eggplants and melons. Biological control is the favored
control method in Europe because chemical control interferes with harvesting
schedules (Ramakers 1980a) and there is a higher risk of phytotoxicity during
winter months (van Lenteren et al. 1980b). Young vegetables planted in winter
are generally less vigorous and especially susceptible to pesticides. This
conditions is aggravated by the application of carbon dioxide to improve
yields (Hussey & Scopes 1977). In cucumber, yield increases of 20-25% are
common in glasshouses using biological control compared to those with
chemical control (Gould 1971). Tetranychus urticae Control with Phytoseiulus persimilis A principal pest of glasshouse crops is Tetranychus
urticae (Hussey & Huffaker 1976). Spider mites are generally
common on cucumber throughout the world, but their importance on tomatoes and
sweet petter varies. These mites feed on the cell chloroplasts which causes a
reduction in leaf photosynthetic activity. Damaged areas merge as the mite
populations increase, causing the leaves to die. Biological control of T. urticae is well
suited to cucumber because the crop may tolerate damage up to 30% of leaf
surface without a yield reduction (Hussey & Parr 1963). Since the
discovery of P. persimilis by Dossee (1959), the efficiency of
this predators has been demonstrated by many researchers (Chant 1961,
Bravenboer & Dosse 1962. Hussey et al. 1965. Legowski 1966, Gould 1968,
Dixon 1973, French et al. 1976, Gould 1977). Acaricide in twospotted spider
mites resistance further stimulated a reliance on this predator (Pruszynski
1979, Petitt & Osborne 1984, Osborne et al. 1985). Phytoseiulus persimilis
possesses several attributes which make it an ideal predator under glasshouse
conditions. AT temperatures of 15-35°C its
developmental time is shorter than that of the prey, T. uriticae.
At 20°C, P. persimilis
and T. urticae increase at a rate of 4.6 and 2.7 times per
week, respectively (Scopes 1985). Bravenboer & Dosse (1962) reported that
the optimal temperature for developmental time, reproduction and feeding of P.
persimilis was 25-30°C. Force (1967)
obtained optimal control of T. urticae at a constant
temperature of 25°C, where stable
los density populations of both prey and predator were obtained, thus
ensuring survival of the predator. However, at 30°C
prey regulation ceased and at 20°C the prey was
too quickly eradicated. In glasshouse environments there is considerably
greater complexity than in the Force (1967) experiment), and both species
tend to survive generally. Stenseth (1979) reported satisfactory control at
temperatures of 15-27°C. Several advantages of P. persimilis are (1)
a high mobility, (2) voraciousness, (3) wholly dependent on T. urticae
for food and (4) an avoidance of prey free environments (Chang 1961). Females
do not feed on spider mite eggs, but migrate from a leaf when all active prey
are eaten, but not before depositing their own eggs among those of T. urticae.
Dispersal within a glasshouse is great, every colony of
spider mites in a glasshouse with cucumbers is associated with a predator
only 18 days after introducing P. persimilis onto every 10th
plant (Bravenboer 1971). The predator has been observed to spread to 10
tomato plants in 10 days (Hussey & Scopes 1977). Specific kairomones
deposited on the leaves by the prey are attractive to the predator (Sabelis
& van der Baan 1983). Within one spider mite colony P. persimilis
detects its prey by random contact (Jackson & Ford 1973), but the
predator remains in the colony until all prey are eliminated (Sabelis et al.
1984). Phytoseiid predators have relatively low minimum food
requirements for development and reproduction when compared with other
natural enemies of spider mites. This accounts for their efficiency even at
low prey densities (Hussey et al. 1965, McMurtry et al. 1970). Control is
usually achieved rather rapidly, as shown by Chant (1961) who obtained
control in 35 days, Hussey et al. (1964) in 22-33 days, by Force (1967) in 22
days at a predator:prey ratio of 8:20, and Stenseth (1979) within two weeks
at an initial predator:prey ratio of 1:10. The initial density of T. urticae for
successful control of P. persimilis is very important (Hussey
et al. 1965). An estimate of the pest density is obtained by the leaf damage
index (Hussey & Par 1963) which relates the number of mites feeding per
leaf to a visual ration. When predators are introduced at low densities,
reduction of the pest population density is achieved before the economic
injury level is attained. If plants are damaged to a mean density of 1.0
before predator introduction, reduction of the mite population occurs more
quickly, but the economic injury level is exceeded. Phytoseiulus
persimilis is adversely affected by low relative humidities. Stenseth
(1979) found that survival of the egg stage dropped from 99.7% at 80% RH to
7.5% at 40% RH and 27°C. Few predators
were found to complete their larval development at 50% RH or lower over a
range of temperatures (Pralavorio & Almaguel-Rojas 1980). Also at low RH
adult longevity and fecundity of P. persimilis are encumbered.
This predator tends to avoid excessive heat which normally occurs at the tops
of cucumber plants in midsummer. They leave the apical foliage and hide
beneath the lowest leaves, leaving T. urticae free to increase
at the upper halves of the plants (Hussey & Scopes 1977). The problem can
be averted by timing the original introduction of predators so as to achieve
almost complete control of spider mites before warm temperatures occur
(before June). Introduction
Methods For Phytoseiulus persimilis. Three different methods of introducing the predatory
mites on vegetables are used. In the Patch method, predaceous mites
are introduced at the site of the initial spider mite infestation which may
be increased by diapausing female T. urticae. This is followed
by introductions of P. persimilis on cucumber plants infested
with T. urticae on which no predators have been discovered
through sampling (Gould 1968, 1970, Stenseth 1980). This method is not too
time consuming if inspections are conducted routinely during general plant
care. In Denmark cucumber growers spend about eight hours a year per 1,000 m2
in this procedure (Hansen et al. 1984a). In the Pest-in-first method, cucumber plants are
deliberately infested with T. urticae immediately after
planting. After ca. 10 days P. persimilis is introduced on the
same plants. This method gives the most predictable control (Hussey et al.
1965, Legowski 1966, Gould 1970, Dixon 1973, Hussey & Scopes 1977). The Simultaneous Introduction method produces a
uniform distribution of T. urticae and P. persimilis
either before spider mite infestations are observed (Legowski 1966, Stenseth
1980) or at the first sign of leaf damage (French et al. 1976, Stenseth
1980). This method is preferred when large numbers of ex-diapausing females
are expected in the glasshouse (Stenseth 1985). Greenhouse Whitefly Control With
Encarsia formosa The greenhouse whitefly, T. vaporariorum has
a wide host range, having been found on plants from 249 genera in 84 plant
families (Russel 1977). Vet et al. (1980) provided a thorough review of
whitefly pest problems and the use of E. formosa. This whitefly
is considered a principal pest of vegetable crops in glasshouses, and is also
very serious on tomatoes and cucumbers. Trialeurodes
vaporariorum feeds on the phloem of the plant, but the principal
injury arises from the excretion of honeydew by all developmental stages. The
honeydew gives rise to sooty molds, Cladosphaerospermum spp., which
reduces photosynthesis and interferes with respiration (Hussey et al. 1958). Encarsia formosa
has been used commercially in Europe since 1927 with mixed success (Speyer
1927). The advent of synthetic organic pesticides in the 1940's temporarily
discontinued its usage, however. Later with the development of resistance in
another pest, T. urticae, growers were again dependent on
predacious mites which also required an elimination of whitefly control of
pesticides. More precise recommendations concerning the use of E. formosa
then became available (Woets 1973, 1976, 1978, Parr et al. 1976). The
efficiency of E. formosa is demonstrated by examining the rapid
increase in the area on which this parasitoid was used during the 1980's. Biological characteristics which make E. formosa
a valuable biological control agent are is high searching capacity, parasitization
efficiency, and host feeding behavior (Nell et al. 1976, van
Lenteren et al. 1977, Hussey & Scopes 1977, Vet 1980, Eggenkamp-Rotteveel
et al. 1982). The parasitoid may migrate over considerable distances (>10
m) from release sites, being attracted to volatile chemicals emitted by
immature whiteflies and their honeydew. Infested plants are clearly preferred
as 90% of landings have been observed to be on infested leaves. In fact a single
infested plant in a group of 28 can be singled out. There is a discrimination
between parasitized and healthy hosts, which decreases superparasitism. Host
feeding occurs on unparasitized hosts only. In the early 1970's when petroleum prices soared, it
became necessary for growers to reduce average temperatures in glasshouses
and to find tomato varieties that were suited to the lower temperatures (18/7°
C D/N). The lower temperatures were at first considered harmful to
parasitization efficiency of E. formosa whose intrinsic rate of
natural increase was thought to be lower than the host at temperatures below
20°C. However, further research showed that temperatures
between 12-25°C were still
optimum for the parasitoid's performance (van Lenteren & Hulspas-Jordan
1983). There is a robust functional response of E. formosa
to its whitefly host on tomato (van Lenteren et al. 1977) on which successful
biological control is easily achieved. In the case of cucumbers, however,
parasitization is less efficient (Woets & van Lenteren 1976, van Lenteren
et al. 1977). The longer surface hairs on cucumber retain honeydew which
reduces the searching efficiency of Encarsia, which must spend much
time preening. Light in the form of sunshine is an important stimulus to Encarsia,
and RH of 50-70% is desirable (Milliron 1940, Parr et al. 1976). When the
host gathers in dense patches, the accompanying honeydew interferes with
parasitoid performance (Ekbom 1977). Encarsia formosa
is cultured in large quantities at small cost. It is able to survive handling
and cold storage well. Parasitoids are introduced into glasshouses as pupae,
which are highly protected by the larval skin of the host. It is important to
introduce the parasitoid when whitefly densities are still low. An initial
density of 10 adult hosts per 100 m2 is already too high (Ekbom
1977). A parasitization rate of >50% is necessary for control. Introduction
Methods For Encarsia formosa.--The Pest-in-first
method involves deliberate infestation of the plants with whiteflies followed
by several introductions of the parasitoid. This permits precise timing of
parasitoid introductions to coincide with development of preferred 3rd instar
hosts. Although reliable control may be obtained with this method (Gould et
al. 1975, Parr et al. 1976), resistance of growers to introducing whiteflies
into their crops has prevented its widespread adoption (Ekbom 1977, Stacey
1977). The Multiple Introduction or Dribble method involves
successive, introductions of parasitoids starting right after planting. Four
to 10 introductions of parasitoids are required to achieve success (Parr et
al. 1976, Gould et al. 1975, Woets 1978, de Lara 1981). In cases where
whiteflies are already apparent in glasshouses, other release rates are
recommended (Ekbom 1977, Stenseth & Aase 1983, Hansen et al. 1984a).
Sometimes plants with established populations of T. vaporariorum
and E. formosas ( = Banker plants) are placed at
intervals throughout the glasshouse (Stacey 1977). Leafminer Control With Parasitoids There are several species of leafminer pests found in
glasshouses. The tomato leafminer, Liriomyza bryoniae
Kaltenbach, is found on tomato, cucumber and melon crops in Western Europe.
The pest status of this species increased after the mid 1970's when a change
of growing substrate from soil to artificial media caused growers to abandon
soil disinfection, which was largely responsible for controlling leafminer
pupae. Therefore, leafminers began to overwinter in glasshouses. A relatively
high infestation (15 mines per leaf) may be tolerated on tomato without yield
loss (Wardlow 1985a), however young plants may be killed by the miners. Three common parasitoids have given satisfactory control
of leafminers in The Netherlands, England and Sweden. These are Dacnusa
sibirica Telenga (Nedstam 1983), D. sibirica combined
with Opius pallipes Wesmael (de Lara 1981, Woets & van den
Linden 1982, Woets 1983), or D sibirica combined with Diglyphus
isaea Walker (Wardlow 1984). The parasitoids overwinter in the
glasshouse if soil disinfection is absent, such sources giving control in up
to 60% of tomato glasshouses in the Netherlands. Diglyphus isaea
often migrates into the glasshouses in July and August and can eradicate the Liriomyza
bryoniae population through intensive host feeding activity (Woets
& van den Linden 1985). Both D. sibirica and O. pallipes,
both endoparasitoids, have a shorter developmental time and lay more eggs
than the host, and are able to recognize parasitized leafminer larvae
(Hendrikse & Zucchi 1979, Hendrikse et al. 1980). Diglyphus isaea
is an ectoparasitic species and is more difficult to handle and transport. In
tomatoes, endoparasitoids are introduced as pupae within leafminer puparia
when the first host larvae are observed. The numbers introduced must be
sufficient to obtain a 90% parasitization of the second leafminer generation
(Wardlow 1985a). Woets & van den Linden (1982) maintain that an
introduction of O. pallipes corresponding to 3% of the total
larvae in the first leafminer generation is necessary to achieve control. Other leafminer species are problematic in North America.
Of these Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess) and the vegetable
leafminer, L. sativae Blanchard are most severe. Insecticide
resistance is especially serious in the United States (Parrella 1987), and
several researchers have investigated the potential of parasitoids to control
L. trifolii (Lindquist & Casey 1983) and L. sativae
(McClanahan 1980) on tomatoes. Early in the 1980's L. trifolii invaded
Europe and became established in glasshouses in The Netherlands and southern
France. Promising results have been obtained in The Netherlands with the
parasitoid Chrysocharis parksi Crawford introduced from
California in combination with D. isaea (Woets & van den
Linden 1985). A Mediterranean strain of D. isaea provides good
control on tomato in southern France (Parrella & Robb 1985, Minkenberg
& van Lenteren 1986, Parrella 1987). Biological
Control of Aphids Many genera of aphids are present in glasshouses, some of
which are polyphagous like the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae
(Sulzer), the melon or cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover, the
potato aphid, Macrosiphus euphorbiae (Thomas) and the
glasshouse or potato aphid, Aulacorthum solani Kaltenbach. All
species exhibit rapid reproduction, with the species just named being capable
of increases at rates of four to eight times per week at 20°C
(Rabasse & Wyatt 1985). Damage results primarily by sucking plant juices,
in particular from young developing plant tissue, leading to bud and leaf
distortion. There is also severe damage caused by excretions of honeydew. Despite numerous studies of aphidophagous insects, only a
few species have been shown useful in glasshouses (Mackauer & Way 1976).
The parasitoid Aphidius matricariae Hal. has given satisfactory
control of M. persicae (van Lenteren et al. 1980b, Rabasse et
al. 1983). This species is well adapted to glasshouse conditions and is often
found to be the principal parasitoid when parasitoids have migrated naturally
into a glasshouse. Ephedrus cerasicola Stary is another
parasitoid that has shown promise (Hofsvang & Hagvar 1982). In spite of such promising results, the commercial use of
aphid parasitoids has not gained wide adoption (van Lenteren 1985). Perhaps
this is because the outcome is unpredictable as the balance between aphids
and their parasitoids is often upset by hyperparasitoids during early summer
(van Lenteren et al. 1980b). Hussey & Bravenboer (1971) found that
control can only be obtained when the rate of aphid population increase is
suboptimal due to crowding or host plant resistance. The cecidomyiid Aphidoletes aphidimyza
(Rond.) is being used commercially to control aphids on vegetable crops in
Finland, Denmark, Canada, the United States and the Soviet Union. Commercial
mass production of this predator is on a large scale. Its success is due to
its habit of feeding on all species of aphids, exhibiting a good functional
response to increasing aphid density, its ease of mass production and
transport, its ability to overwinter in glasshouses and a high adult mobility
(Markkula & Tittanen 1985). The predator requires only seven M. persicae
to complete development (Uygun 1971), and thus is able to survive during
periods of prey scarcity. At high host densities it is able to kill up to 10
times this number of aphids. Diapause is stimulated in A. aphidimyza by
short daylengths (<15 hrs), which poses a problem in northern Europe
(Hansen 1983). However, diapause is facultative and may be prevented by a L:D
regime of 16:8 hrs. Gilkeson (1986) reports on selecting a strain of A.
aphidimyza with a critical daylength of 9 hrs, allowing for its use as
a predator during winter months. Aphidoletes
aphidimyza pupae are introduced into glasshouses when aphids are first
observed at rates of one pupa per three aphids or 2-5 pupae per m2
(Markkula et al. 1979). Such introductions are repeated after 2-4 weeks in
order to avoid synchronization of generations. The effect of A. aphidimyza
on M. persicae on sweet pepper is often superior to chemical
control. The "Banker plant" method is also used occasionally with
this predator (Hansen 1983). Thrips Control With Predatory
Mites Thrips have become increasingly more problematic in glasshouses
in recent years, especially on cucumbers and sweet peppers. This increase in
importance is also related to the adoption of artificial media and the
subsequent lack of soil disinfection. Therefore, thrips are more often
present in a glasshouse when a young crop is planted. Also there have been
great reductions in blanket treatments of insecticides for other pests which
used to aid thrips control. Drip irrigation systems with consequent drier
atmospheric conditions in glasshouses and the raising of slow growing
cucumber varieties may also explain the recent greater importance of thrips
as pests. Thrips tabaci
Lindeman is the most common species on vegetables in Europe, whereas in North
America the most common species on tomatoes and cucumbers is Frankliniella
occidentalis. Thrips feed on plant sap after piercing tissues with the
maxillary stylets and mandible, resulting in desiccated plant tissue. A
relatively high density (<25 thrips per leaf) of thrips may be tolerated
on cucumber (Hansen 1988). Here too chemical control of T. tabaci
became impractical as Phytoseiulus persimilis became more
important for spider mite control. Therefore there is presently widespread
research being conducted to develop biological controls for thrips. This work
is still at the experimental stage, with some progress already evident. Ramakers (1980b) and Ramakers & van Lieburg (1982)
reported promising results with native phytoseiid mites, Amblyseius barkeri
(Hughes) (= A. makenziei Sch. & Pr.) and A. cucumeris
(Oud.). Both predaceous mites show a pronounced association with thrips. In
The Netherlands if mixed populations of both predaceous mites are introduced
on sweet pepper, A. cucumeris consistently is the dominant
species (Ramakers 1983). Amblyseius cucumeris is more difficult
to culture, but seems to give better control on sweet pepper (Ramakers &
van Lieburg 1982). In 1985 A. cucumeris was introduced on 68
ha. of sweet pepper by releasing predators early in the season and before the
occurrence of thrips (Klerk & Ramakers 1986). Since A. cucumeris
is a nonspecific predator, thrips need not be present at the time of predator
introduction. In 83% of the nurseries control of thrips was completely
successful. By 1986, the acreage on which A. cucumeris was
applied was doubled to 140 ha. (Ravensberg & Altena 1987). Amblyseius
barkeri is the more promising predator on cucumber, and in seven
commercial glasshouses satisfactory control of T. tabaci was
achieved using large numbers (Hansen 1988). Typically the thrips population
increased during the first weeks after predator introduction, but then
quickly crashed to low densities where it remained for the next few months.
Predator densities were relatively constant throughout the sampling period
and probably survived on other food sources. Control success seems independent of release rates above a
minimum of 3-400 predators per m2, and initial thrips densities
seem rather important. In 13 commercial glasshouses with cucumber,
introductions of large numbers of predators gave satisfactory control in only
nine (Hansen 1988). Predators which had been established successfully in all
13 glasshouses were not significantly lower in density in those cases with
unsatisfactory control, which may be explained by the increase rate of thrips
on different varieties of cucumber. Generally, most of the beneficial species
used for biological control of glasshouse pests are introduced in small
numbers when the pest is first observed on the crop; the density usually in
the order of 1-5 m2. With Amblyseius spp. for thrips
control much large quantities are necessary, however. Klerk & Ramakers
(1986) introduced an average of 24 A. cucumeris per m2
on sweet pepper, while on cucumber introductions of 300-600 A. barkeri
per m2 provided satisfactory control of T. tabaci
(Hansen 1988). This thrips disperses more quickly in the glasshouse than the
predator, hence the difference in numbers of predators needed compared with
other systems. Furthermore such nonspecific predators may be less efficient
searchers at low prey densities, which is nevertheless compensated by low
mass production costs. Biological
Control in Ornamental Crops Ornamentals are also attacked by many of the same pests
which attack vegetable crops in glasshouses, but the number of pests on
ornamentals is actually greater which is related to the diversity of crops in
this category. Parrella & Hansen (1996) discuss why strategies developed
for using natural enemies in vegetables cannot be directly transferred to
ornamentals for several reasons. Most important is that ornamentals have a
much lower economic threshold for insect damage, thereby placing serious
constraints on natural enemies. Pesticides are, therefore, applied on a
regular scheduled basis to a variety of crops year-round. Such practices are
not conducive to biological control. The higher value of ornamental crops
together with the potentially large losses associated with even moderate
insect damage justifies the indiscriminant use of insecticides to many
growers (Newman & Parrella 1986). Additionally, biological control
alternatives are more costly than growers are willing to pay as they must be
applied more often than chemicals. Hussey & Scopes (1985) stated that
there have been a number of attempts to use biological control on short term
crops but these have not been supported by basic research and most
introductions failed. Although growers may be willing to try biological
control, without specific guidelines for their situation, success is
doubtful. However, there are several factors which actually favor
the adoption of biological control methods in ornamentals, particularly in
the production of chrysanthemums and roses. Chrysanthemums are one of the
major floricultural crops grown throughout the world, with ca. 2,350 ha. in
Japan, The Netherlands, Germany, Colombia and the United States (Anonymous
1982). They are grown either for cut flowers, garden bedding plants or potted
flowering plants. Biological control is usually only possible for cut flowers
because of the longer duration of growth in glasshouses (Scopes 1970). Leafminers, aphids and thrips are the major insect
problems, with minor pests including mealybugs, several Lepidoptera,
plant bugs and spider mites. Relatively few comprehensive studies have been
made for biological controls of these pests integrated into overall IPM
strategies (Scopes & Biggerstaff 1973, Price et al. 1980, Wardlow 1985b,
1986, Parrella & Jones 1987). Aphid species of major importance that attack chrysanthemums are
M. persicae, A. gossypii, the leaf curling plum
aphid, Brachycaudus helichrysi (Kaltenbach), and the
chrysanthemum aphid, Macrosiphoniella sanborni (Gillette).
Because of the broad-spectrum insecticides applied to chrysanthemums in the
United States, the last named species is rarely a problem there. Natural
enemies investigated for biological control have included Coccinellidae,
Chrysopidae, Cecidomyiidae, Syrphidae and fungi (Gurney & Hussey 1970,
Scopes 1969, Hall & Burgess 1979, Markkula & Tittanen 1985, Chambers
1986). Rabasse & Wyatt (1985) determined that the
distribution of aphids varies vertically on chrysanthemum plants as well as
between varieties for each of the aphid species. Therefore, to establish a
uniform density of predators over an entire chrysanthemum crop requires
regular predator releases, which are usually prohibitive in cost. Some
success was obtained with the predatory midge, Aphidoletes aphidimyza
Rond. because of its high searching ability and relatively low cost of
culture. A disadvantage with this predator has been its low fecundity, which
may not be as important as at first believed (Gilkeson 1987). The syrphid
fly, Metasyrphius corollae (F.) has also been promising
(Chambers 1986), even though a pollen source is required to initiate
gametogenesis and both adults and larvae respond poorly to low aphid
densities. Both of these predators are more likely to succeed in biological
control when they are combined with other control options such as the use of
fungi and parasitoids. Many species of parasitoids are commonly associated with
aphids that develop on chrysanthemums, but natural migration into the
glasshouse is too slow for them to reduce damage significantly (Wyatt 1970).
In California it has been observed that Diaretiella rapae
(M'Intosh) and Lysiphlebus spp. migrate into chrysanthemum glasshouses
in response to M. persicae populations but satisfactory control
was never observed. Inundating with parasitoids has not been evaluated
although Scopes (1970) tried to establish Aphidius matricariae
early in the life of a chrysanthemum crop by distributing parasitized aphids
on aphid-infested cuttings in the boxes of cuttings prior to planting. Wyatt
(1965) found that biological control was more feasible on those cultivars
which are not especially good hosts for aphids. The fungus Cephalosporium lecanii (VertalecR)
is widely used to control aphids on chrysanthemums in Europe (Hall 1985);
however it is not commercially available in the United States as of 1991
(Markle 1985). This fungus is not equally effective against all species of
aphids, with decreasing order of sensitivity found in M. persicae,
B. helichrysi, A. gossypii and M. sanborni.
It is thought that the registration of Vertalec in the United States is of
paramount importance for the success of biological control on chrysanthemums.
Registration for the selective aphidicide, primiarb, has been lost and the
only materials available to growers which control aphids are broad spectrum
biocides. In Europe this material is primarily used during April to September
because pulling shade cloth during this period increases RH and favors the
development of epizootics. In coastal areas where most of the chrysanthemum
industry is located in California, RH may be high enough all year for the
fungus to be effective (Parrella & Hansen 1996). Zoophthera erinacea
is another potentially important aphid specific fungus, which has been found
on chrysanthemum in Colombia, but no culture procedure has been developed
(Hall 1985). Lepidoptera commonly attack chrysanthemums (Jarrett 1985) with the beet
armyworm, Spodoptera exigua Hübner and the tomato moth, Lacanobia
oleracea being most severe. Research has focused on biological
insecticides (e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner var.
Kurstaki) with special emphasis on formulations and strains that are
particularly effective against Spodoptra. There is also a promising
granulosis virus for S. exigua (Vlak et al. 1982). Lygus bugs will migrate into glasshouses in Europe and the United
States (Wardlow 1985b, Jones et al. 1986) where they feed on developing
terminals and young buds, thereby virtually destroying the crop. There are no
tested biological control options for these insects. Spider mites, especially Tetranychus urticae Koch, can
cause problems on chrysanthemums, with some cultivars being more sensitive
than others. Application of the predator Phytoseiulus persimilis
Anthias-Henriot at the rate of one per 50 plant cuttings gave excellent
control (Scopes & Biggerstaff 1973). Wardlow (1986) recommended releasing
this predator every week at the rate of 10 predators for every 200 plants.
(also see Osborne et al. 1985). Citrus mealybug, Planococcus citri (Risso) has been a
problem on chrysanthemums (Whitcomb 1940). The predaceous coccinellid Cryptolaemus
montrouzieri Mulsant was successfully used with releases at the rate
of one adult predator for every two plants. Experiments with the coccinellid
and the parasitoid Leptomastix dactylopii Howard have shown
that this combination can successfully control P. citri on
crotons, Pilea, Clivia and Cattleya (Copeland et al.
1985). Leafminers attacking chrysanthemum include two important species, Liriomyza
trifolii (Burgess) and Chromatomyia syngenesiae (Hardy),
the latter having invaded North America from Europe (Spencer 1973). Although C.
syngenesiae is resistant to insecticides (Hussey 1969), L. trifolii
is still tolerant to a wide range of pesticides (Parrella & Keil 1985,
Lindquist et al. 1984). Liriomyza trifolii is currently
spreading throughout Europe (Powell 1982). In England the braconid Dacnusa
spp. are applied at the rate of 3 adults per 1,000 chrysanthemum plants one
week after planting, followed by introduction of the eulophid, Diglyphus
isaea at 3 adults per 1,000 plants six weeks after planting (Wardlow
1985b, 1986). The use of Diglyphus spp. has also been recommended for L.
trifolii, with regular weekly releases necessary for control (Jones et
al. 1986, Gaviria et al. 1982). Cultural controls are regularly integrated
with parasitoids for leafminer control (Price et al. 1980, Wardlow 1985b,
1986, Parrella & Jones 1987). Integrated pest management including biological controls
is prevalent on roses grown in glasshouses. Parrella & Hansen (1996)
estimated that roses are grown on about 2,900 ha. in Holland, Germany, United
States, Italy, France, Japan and Israel. The culture is essentially perennial
as budded stock plants are used which produce roses for many years. The same
plant can be productive for >10 yrs. Thus although a relatively stable
environment is created, roses are susceptible to many diseases which require
almost regular applications of fungicides (Hasek 1980), and little is known
of the compatibility of such fungicides with natural enemies. The principal
arthropod problems are twospotted spider mites, flower thrips, aphids and
leafrollers. In France IPM involves releases of P. persimilis
for control of T. urticae (Pralavorio et al. 1985). But because
environmental conditions in glasshouses vary considerably from one locality
to another, there is no general guideline possible for IPM (van Lenteren et
al. 1980a). Parrella & Hansen (1996) disagreed with Smith & Webb
(1977) that biological control is less likely to be successful in North
America than in Europe in glasshouses, pointing out that specific programs
for roses and other crops must be developed for different growing areas. Phytoseiulus
persimilis was found to give consistent results on roses in the United
States when an economic threshold of 10 mites per leaflet was established
(Boys & Burbutis 1972). In California good results were obtained with Metaseiulus
occidentalis (Nesbitt) for T. urticae control on
glasshouse roses. This predators was integrated into the pest control program
because of an insecticide resistance capability, and it persisted in
glasshouses for more than two years (Field & Hoy 1984). REFERENCES:[ Additional references may be found at MELVYL Library ] Anonymous. 1982. Aalsmeer flower auction. Flowers...unlimited.
International developments in floriculture. Vereniging Verenigde
Bioemenueilingen Aalsmeer, Aalsmeer, The Netherlands. Anonymous.
1987. Proceedings Working Group Integrated Control in Glasshouses. In:
B. Nedstam, L. Stengard Hansen & J. C. van Lenteren (eds.). Bull.
OILB/SROP 1987/X/2. 202 p. Addington,
J. 1966. Satisfactory control of red spider mites on cucumbers. Grower 66:
726-27. Bellows,
T. S., Jr. & T. W. Fisher, (eds) 1999. Handbook of Biological Control:
Principles and Applications. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1046 p. Bombosch,
S. 1963. Untersuchungen zur Vermehrung von Aphis fabae Scop. in
Samenrubenbestanden unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schwelfliegen. Z.
angew. Ent. 52. 52: 105. Boys,
F. E. & P. B. Burbutis. 1972. Influence of Phytoseiulus persimilis
on populations of Tetranychus urticae at the economic threshold
on roses. J. Econ. Ent. 65: 114-17. Bravenboer,
L. 1963. Experiments with the predator Phytoseiulus riegeli
Dosse on glasshouse cucumbers. Mitt. Schweiz. Ent. Ges. 36: 53. Bravenboer,
L. & G. Dosse. 1962. Phytoseiulus riegeli Dosse als
Prädator einiger Schadmilben aus der Tetranychus urticae
gruppe. Ent. Exp. Appl. 5: 291-304. Burnett,
T. 1960a. An insect host-parasite population. Canad. J. Zool. 38: 57-75. Burnett,
T. 1960b. Effects of initial densities and periods of infestation on the
growth-forms of a host and parasite population. Canad. J. Zool. 38: 1063-77. Burnett,
T. 1964. Host larval mortality in an experimental host-parasite population.
Canad. J. Zool. 42: 745-65. Chambers,
R. J. 1986. Preliminary experiments on the potential of hoverflies (Dipt.:
Syrphidae) for the control of aphids under glass. Entomophaga 31: 197-204. Chant,
D. A. 1961. An experiment in biological control of Tetranychus telarius
(L.) (Acarina: Tetranychidae) in a greenhouse using the predacious mite Phytoseiulus
persimilis Athias-Henriot (Phytoseiidae). Canad. Ent. 93: 437-43. Copeland,
M. J., C. D. Tingle, M. Saynor & A. Panis. 1985. Biology of glasshouse
mealybugs and their predators and parasitoids, p. 82-86. In: N. W.
Hussey & N. E. A. Scopes (eds.), Biological Pest Control - The Glasshouse
Experience. Blandford, Poole, Dorset. Dixon,
G. M. 1973. Observations on the use of Phytoseiulus persimilis
Athias-Henriot to control Tetranychus urticae Koch on tomatoes.
Plant Path. 22: 134-38. Dosse,
G. 1959. Uber einige neue Raubmilbenarten (Acar. Phytoseiidae). Pfl. Sch.
Ber. 21: 44-61(6?). Doutt,
R. L. 1951. Biological control of mealybugs infesting commercial greenhouse
gardenias. J. Econ. Ent. 44: 37-40. Doutt,
R. L. 1952. Biological control of Planococcus citri on
commercial greenhouse Stephanotis. J. Econ. Ent. 45: 343-44. Eggenkamp-Rotteveel
Mansveld, M. H., J. C. van Lenteren, J. M. Ellenbroeck & J. Woets. 1982.
The parasite-host relationship between Encarsia formosa
(Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and Trialeurodes vaporariorum
(Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). XII. Population dynamics of parasite and host in a
large commercial glasshouse and test of the parasite introduction method used
in The Netherlands. Z. ang. Ent. 93: 113-30. Ekbom,
B. 1977. Development of a biological control program for greenhouse
whiteflies (Trialeurodes vaporariorum Westwood) using its
parasite Encarsia formosa (Gahan) in Sweden. Z. ang. Ent. 84:
145-54. Field,
R. P. & M. A. Hoy. 1984. Biological control of spider mites on greenhouse
roses. Calif. Agric. 38: 29-32. Force,
D. C. 1967. Effect of temperature on biological control of two-spotted spider
mites by Phytoseiulus persimilis. J. Econ. Ent. 60: 1308-11. French,
N., W. J. Parr, H. J. Gould, J. J. Williams & S. P. Simmonds. 1976.
Development of biological methods for the control of Tetranychus urticae
on tomatoes using Phytoseiulus persimilis. Ann. Appl. Biol. 83:
177-89. Gaviria,
J. D., F. Gafaro, A. J. Prieto, J. Escobar, J. H. Garcia & H. Ruiz. 1982.
Avances en el control integrado de los insectos plagas del cultivo de
chrisontemo Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat & Henfl, en el
departamento del Cuaca. Proc. IX Congr. de la Sociedad Colombiana de
Entomologia. Gerling,
D. 1966. Biological studies on Encarsia formosa. Ann. Ent. Soc.
Amer. 59: 142-43. Gilkeson,
L. 1986. Genetic selection for and evaluation on non-diapause lines of
predatory midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Rondani) (Diptera:
Cecidomyiidae). Canad. Ent. 118: 869-979. Gillkeson,
1987. A note on fecundity of the aphid predator, Aspidoletes aphidimyza
(Rondani) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) 119: 1145-46. Gould,
H. J. 1968. Observations on the use of a predator to control red spider mite
on commercial cucumber nurseries. Plant Path. 17: 108-12. Gould,
H. J. 1970. Preliminary studies of an integrated control programme for
cucumber pests and an evaluation of methods of introducing Phytoseiulus
persimilis Athias-Henriot for the control of Tetranychus urticae
Koch. Ann. Appl. Biol. 66: 505-13. Gould,
H. J. 1971. Large scale trials of an integrated control programme for
cucumber pests on commercial nurseries. Plant Path. 20: 149-56. Gould,
H. J. 1977. Biological control of glasshouse whitefly and red spider mite on
tomatoes and cucumbers in England and Wales 1975-76. Plant Path. 26: 57-60. Gould,
H. J. & H. G. Kingham. 1964. The efficiency of high-volume spraying with
acaricides on cucumbers under glass. Plant Path. 13: 60-4. Gould,
H. J., N. W. Hussey & W. J. Parr. 1969. Large scale commercial control of
T. urticae on cucumbers by the predator Phytoseiulus riegeli.
Proc. 2nd Intern. Congr. Acarol. (1967). p. 383-88. Gould,
H. J., W. J. Parr, H. C. Woodville & S. P. Simmonds. 1975. Biological
control of glasshouse whitefly (Trialeurodes vaporariorum on
cucumbers. Entomophaga 20: 285-92. Greathead,
D. J. 1976. A review of biological control in western and southern Europe.
CIBC Tech. Comm. 7, Commonw. Agric. Bur., Slough, England. p 52-64. Gurney,
B. & N. W. Hussey. 1970. Evaluation of some coccinellid species for the
biological control of aphids in protected cropping. Ann. Appl. Biol. 65:
451-58. Hall,
R. A. 1985. Aphid control by fungi, p. 138-41. In: N. W. Hussey &
N. E. A. Scopes (eds.). Biological Pest Control - The glasshouse Experience.
Blandford, Poole, Dorset. Hall,
R. A. & H. D. Burgess. 1979. Control of aphids in glasshouses with the
fungus Verticillium lecanii. Ann. Appl. Biol. 93: 235-46. Hansen,
L. S. 1983. Introduction of Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Rond.)
(Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) from an open rearing unit for the control of aphids
in glasshouses. Bull. OILB/SROP 1983/VI/3: 146-50. Hansen,
L. S. 1988. Control of Thrips tabaci (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)
on glasshouse cucumber using large introductions of predatory mites Amblyseius
barkeri (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Entomophaga 33: 33-42. Hansen,
L. S., J. Jakobsen & J. Reitzel. 1984a. Extent and economics of
biological control of Tetranychus urticae and Trialeurodes
vaporariorum in Danish glasshouses. EPO Bull. 14: 393-99. Hansen,
L. S., O. C. Pedersen & J. Reitzel. 1984b. Skadedyr og Nyttedry. Handbog
om biologisk bekaempelse i drivhuset. De danske Haveselskaber, Rolighedsvej
26, 1958 Kobenhavn. Harris,
M. A. 1988. Current recommendations for leafminer control, p. 138-42. In:
A. D. Ali et al. (eds), Proc. 4th Conf. Insect & Disease Management on
Ornamentals. Soc. Amer. Florists, Alexandria, Virginia. Hasek,
R. F. 1980. Roses, p. 81-105. In: R. A. Larson (ed.), Introduction to
Floriculture. Academic Press, New York Hendrikse,
A. & R. Zucchi. 1979. The importance of observing parasite behaviour for
the development of biological control of the tomato leafminer (Liriomyza
bryoniae Kalt.). Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 44: 107-16. Hendriikse,
A., R. Zucchi, J. C. van Lenteren & J. Woets. 1980. Dacnusa sibirica
Telenga and Opius pallipes Wesmael (Hym.: Braconidae) in the
control of the tomato leafminer Liriomyza bryoniae Kalt. Bull.
OILB/SROP 1980/III/3: 83-98. Hofsvang,
T. & E. B. Hagvar. 1982. Comparison between the parasitoid Ephedrus
cerassicola Stary and the predator Aphidoletes aphidimyza
(Rondani) in the control of Myzus persicae Sulzer. Z. ang. Ent.
94: 412-19. Huffaker,
C. B. & C. E. Kennett. 1956. Experimental studies on predation: Predation
and cyclamen mite populations on strawberries in California. Hilgardia 26:
191-22. Hurpin,
B. 1967. Symposium sur l'action des mins et champignons entomopathogenes
surbs vertebres. Entomophaga 12: 321-23. Hussey,
N. W. 1966. Aspects of the development of resistance to chemicals in British
insect and acarine pests. Proc. 3rd. Br. Insectic. & Fingic. Conf. p.
28-37. Hussey,
N. W. 1969a. Greenhouse whitefly. Rep. Glasshouse Crops Res. Inst. (1968). Hussey,
N. W. 1969b. Differences in susceptibility of different strains of
chrysanthemum leafminer (Phytomyza syngenesiae) to BHC and
diazinon. Proc. 5th Br. Insectic. Fungic. Conf. p. 93-7. Hussey,
N. W. 1985. History of biological control in protected culture. Western
Europe, p. 11-22. In: N. W. Hussey & N. E. A. Scopes (eds.),
Biological Pest Control - The Glasshouse Experience. Blandford, Poole,
Dorset. Hussey,
N. W. & L. Bravenboer. 1971. Control of pests in glasshouse culture by
the introduction of natural enemies, p. 195-216. In C. B. Huffaker
(ed.), Biological Control. Plenum Press, New York & London. Hussey,
N. W. & B. Gurney. 1962. Host selection by the polyphagous species Phytomyza
atricornis Mg. (Dipt. Agromyzidae). Ent. Mon. Mag. 98: 42-7. Hussey,
N. W. & C. B. Huffaker. 1976. Spider mites, p. 179-228. In: V. L.
Delucchi (ed.), Studies in Biological Control. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Hussey,
N. W. & W. J. Parr. 1963. The effect of glasshouse red spider mite Tetranychus
urticae Koch) on the yield of cucumbers. J. Hort. Sci. 38: 255-63. Hussey,
N. W., W. J. Parr & H. J. Gould. 1965. Observations on the control of Tetranychus
urticae Koch on cucumbers by the predatory mite Phytoseiulus riegeli
Dosse. Ent. Exp. Appl. 8: 271-81. Hussey,
N. W., W. J. Parr & B. Gurney. 1958. The effect of whitefly populations
on the cropping of tomatoes. Glasshouse Crops Res. Inst. Ann. Rept. (1958).
79-86. Hussey,
N. W. & N. E. A. Scopes. 1977. The introduction of natural enemies for
pest control in glasshouses: ecological considerations, p. 349-77. In:
R. L. Ridgway & S. B. Vinson (eds.), Biological Control by Augmentation
of Natural Enemies. Plenum Press, New York & London. Hussey,
N. W. & N. E. A. Scopes. 1985. Biological Pest Control. The Glasshouse
Experience. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 240 p. Jackson,
G. J. & J. B. Ford. 1973. The feeding behaviour of Phytoseiulus persimilis
Athias-Henriot (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) particularly as affected by certain
pesticides. Ann. Appl. Biol. 75: 165-71. Jarrett,
P. 1985. Experience with the selective control of caterpillars using Bacillus
thuringiensis, p. 142-44. In: N. W. Hussey & N. E. A.
Scopes (eds.), Biological Pest Control - The Glasshouse Experience.
Blandford, Poole, Dorset. Jones,
V. P. & M. P. Parrella. 1986. Development of sampling strategies for larvae
of Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in chrysanthemums.
Environ. Ent. 15: 268-73. Jones,
V. P., M. P. Parrella & D. R. Hodel. 1986. Biological control of Liriomyza
trifolii on greenhouse chrysanthemums. Calif. Agric. 40: 10-12. Khalifa,
A. & N. Sharaf El-Din. 1965. Biological and ecological study of Aphis
gossypii. Soc. Ent. Egypt Bull. 48: 131-53. Klerk,
M.-L. J de & P. M. J. Ramakers. 1986. Monitoring population densities of
the phytoseiid predator Amblyseius cucumeris and its prey after
large scale introductions to control Thrips tabaci on sweet
pepper. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 51: 1045-48. Kring,
J. B. 1959. The life-cycle of the melon aphid, Aphis gossypii
Glover, an example of facultative migration. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 52: 284-86. Lara,
M. de. 1981. Development of biological methods of pest control in the United
Kingdom glasshouse industry. Proc. 1981 British Crop Protect. Conf., p.
599-607. Legowski,
T. J. 1966. Experiments in predator control of the glasshouse red spider mite
on cucumbers. Plant Path. 15: 34-41. Lindquist,
R. K. & M. L. Casey. 1983. Introduction of parasites for control of Liriomyza
leafminers on greenhouse tomato. Bull. OILB/SROP 1983/VI/3, p. 108-15. Lindquist,
R. K., M. L. Casey, N. Heylar & N. E. A. Scopes. 1984. Leafminers on
greenhouse chrysanthemum: control of Chromatomyia syngenesiae
and Liriomyza trifolii. J. Agric. Ent. 3: 256-63. Lipa,
J. J. 1985. History of biological control in protected culture. Eastern
Europe, p. 23-33. In: N. W. Hussey & N. E. A. Scopes (eds.),
Biological Pest Control - The Glasshouse Experience. Blandford, Poole,
Dorset. Mackauer,
M. & M. J. Way. 1976. Myzus persicae an aphid of world
importance, p. 51-117. In: V. L. Delucchi (ed.), Studies in Biological
Control. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Markkula,
M. & K. Tittanen. 1985. Biology of the midge Aphidoletes and its
potential for biological control, p. 74-81. In: N. W. Hussey & N.
E. A. Scopes (eds.), Biological Pest Control - The Glasshouse Experience.
Blandford, Poole, Dorset. Markkula,
M., K. Tittanen, N. Hamalanen & A. Forsberg. 1979. The aphid midge Aphidoletes
aphidimyza (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae) and its use in biological control
of aphids. Ann. Ent. Fenn. 45: 89-98. Markle,
G. M. 1985. IR-4 Newsletter. Biorationals Program 16: 4-5. McClanahan,
R. J. 1980. Biological control of Liriomyza sativae on
greenhouse tomatoes. Bull. OILB/SROP 1980/III/3, 135-40. McLeod,
J. H. 1937. Some factors in the control of the common greenhouse aphid Myzus
persicae Sulz. by the parasite Aphidius phorodontis
Ashm. Ann. Rep. Ent. Soc. Ont. 67: 63-4. McMurtry,
J. A., C. B. Huffaker & M. van de Vrie. 1970. Tetranychid enemies: their
biological characters and the impact of spray practices. Hilgardia 40(11):
331-90. Milliron,
H. E. 1940. A study of some factors affecting the efficiency of Encarsia
formosa Gahan, an aphelinid parasite of the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes
vaporariorum (Westw.). Mich. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 173: 1-23. Minkenberg,
O. P. J. M. & J. C. van Lenteren. 1986. The leafminers Liriomyza bryoniae
and L. trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) their parasites and host
plants: a review. Agric. Univ. Wageningen Pap. 86(2): 50 p. Müller-Kögler,
E. 1967. On mass cultivation, determination of effectiveness and standardization
of insect pathogenic fungi, p. 339-53. In: P. A. van der Laan (ed.),
Insect Pathology. Proc. Intern. Colloq. Wageningen (1966). Nedstam,
B. 1983. Control of Liriomyza bryoniae Kalt. by Dacnusa sibirica
Tel. Bull. OILB/SROP 1983/VI/3: 124-27. Nell,
H. W., L. A. Sevenster-van der Lelie, J. C. van Lenteren & J. Woets.
1976. The parasite-host relationship between Encarsia formosa
(Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and Trialeurodes vaporariorum
(Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). II. Selection of host stages for oviposition and
feeding by the parasite. Z. angw. Ent. 87: 372-76. Newman,
J. P. & M. P. Parrella. 1986. A license to kill. Greenhouse Manager 5:
86-92. Osborne,
L. S., L. E. Ehler & J. R. Nechols. 1985. Biological control of the
twospotted spider mite in greenhouses. Agric. Exp. Sta., Instit. Food Agric.
Sci., Univ. of Florida Bull. 853. Parr,
W. J. 1968. Biological control of greenhouse whitefly (Trialeurodes vaporariorum
by the parasite Encarsia formosa on tomatoes. Rep. Glasshouse
Crops Res. Inst. (1967): 137-41. Parr,
W. J. & N. W. Hussey. 1966. Diapause in the glasshouse red spider mite (T.
urticae): A synthesis of present knowledge. Hort. Res. 6: 1-21. Parr,
W. J. & N. W. Hussey. 1967. Biological control of red spider mite on
cucumbers: Effects of different predator densities at introduction. Rep.
Glasshouse Crops Res. Inst. (1966): 135-39. Parr,
W. J., H. J. Gould, N. H. Jessop & F. A. B. Ludlam. 1976. Progress
towards a biological control programme for glasshouse whitefly (Trialeurodes
vaporariorum) on tomatoes. Ann. Appl. Biol. 83: 349-63. Parrella,
M. P. 1987. Biology of Liriomyza. Ann. Rev. Ent. 32: 201-24. Parella,
M. P. & L. S. Hansen. 1996. Biological Control in Glasshouse
Environments. In Bellows, T. S., Jr. & T. W. Fisher, (eds) 1999. Handbook
of Biological Control: Principles and Applications. Academic Press, San
Diego, CA. Parrella,
M. P., G. D. Christie & K. L. Robb. 1983. Compatibility of insect growth
regulators and Chrysocharis parksi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)
for the control of Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae).
J. Econ. Ent. 76: 949-51. Parrella,
M. P. & V. P. Jones. 1985. Yellow traps as monitoring tools for Liriomyza
trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in chrysanthemum greenhouses. J. Econ.
Ent. 78: 53-56. Parrella,
M. P. & V. P. Jones. 1987. Development of integrated pest management
strategies in floriculture. Bull. Ent. Soc. Amer. 33: 28-34. Parrella,
M. P. & C. B. Keil. 1985. Toxicity of methamidophos to four species of
Agromyzidae. J. Agric. Ent. 2: 234-37. Parrella,
M. P. & K. L. Robb. 1985. Economically important members of the genus Liriomyza
Mik: a selected bibliography. Misc. Publ. Ent. Soc. Amer. 59: 1-26. Passlow,
T. & M. S. Roubicek. 1967. Life-history of the cucurbit aphid (A. gossypii).
Queensland J. Agr. Anim. Sci. 24: 101-02. Petitt,
F. L. & L. S. Osborne. 1984. Selected bibliography of the predacious
mite, Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acarina:
Phytoseiidae). Bibliographies of the Ent. Soc. Amer. 3: 1-11. Powell,
D. F. 1982. The eradication campaign against American serpentine leafminer, Liriomyza
trifolii at Efford Experimental Horticultural Station, Hampshire,
England. U. K. Plant Path. (London) 30: 195-204. Pralavorio,
M. & L. Almaguel-Rojas. 1980. Influence de la temperature ed de
l'humidite relative sur le developpement et la reproduction de Phytoseiulus
persimilis. Bull. OILB/SROP 1980/III/3: 257-62. Pralavorio,
M., P. Millot & D. Fournier. 1985. Biological control of greenhouse
spider mites in southern France, p. 125-28. In: N. W. Hussey & N.
E. A. Scopes (eds.), Biological Pest Control - The Glasshouse Experience.
Blandford, Poole, Dorset. Price,
J. F., A. J. Overman, A. W. Englehard, M. K. Iverson & V. W. Yingst.
1980. Integrated pest management demonstrations in commercial chrysanthemums.
Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 93: 190-94. Pruszynski,
S. 1979. Phytoseiulus persimilis A.-H. bibliografia. Brochur of
Instytit Ochrony Roslin, ul. Miczurina 20, 60318-Poznan, Poland. Rabasse,
J. M. & I. J. Wyatt. 1985. Biology of aphids and their parasites in
greenhouses, p. 66-73. In: N. W. Hussey & N. E. A. Scopes (eds.),
Biological Pest Control - The Glasshouse Experience. Blandford, Poole,
Dorset. Rabasse,
J. M., J. P. Lafont, I. Delpuech & P. Silvie. 1983. Progress in aphid
control in protected crops. Bull. OILB/SROP 1983/VI/3: 151-62. Ramakers,
P. M. J. 1980a. Biological control in Dutch glasshouses; practical
application and progress in research. Symp. Integr. Crop Protec., Valence,
June 1980. Ramakers,
P. M. J. 1980a. Biological control in Dutch glasshouses; practical
application and progress in research. Symp. Integr. Crop Protec., Valence,
June 1980. Ramakers,
P. M. J. 1980b. Biological control of Thrips tabaci
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) with Amblyseius spp. (Acari: Phytoseiidae).
Bull. OILB/SROP 1980/III/3: 203-07. Ramakers,
P. M. J. 1983. Mass production and introduction of Amblyseius mckenziei
and A. cucumeris. Bull. OILB/SROP 1983/VI/3: 203-06. Ramakers,
P. M. J. & M. J. van Lieburg. 1982. Start of commercial production and
introduction of Amblyseius mckenziei Sch. & Pr. (Acarina:
Phytoseiidae) for the control of Thrips tabaci Lind.
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in glasshouses. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv.
Gent 47: 541-45. Ravensberg,
W. J. & K. Altena. 1987. Recent developments in the control of thrips in
sweet pepper and cucumber. Bull. OILB/SROP: 1987/X/2: 160-64. Richardson,
H. P. & P. H. Westdal. 1965. Use of Aphidius semiflavus
Howard for control of aphids in a greenhouse. Canad. Ent. 97: 110-11. Russel,
L. M. 1977. Hosts and distribution of the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes
vaporariorum (Westwood) (Hemiptera: Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). USDA
Coop. Plant Pest Rep. 2: 449-58. Sabelis,
M. W. & H. E. van de Baan. 1983. Location of distant spider mite colonies
by phytoseiid predators: demonstration of specific kairomones emitted by Tetranychus
urticae and Panonychus ulmi. Ent. Exp. Appl. 33: 303-14. Sabelis,
M. W., J. E. vermaat & A. Groeneveld. 1984. Arrestment responses of the
predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis to steep odour gradients
of a kairomone. Physiol. Ent. 9: 437-46. Scopes,
N. E. A. 1968. Mass-rearing of Phytoseiulus riegeli Dosse in
commercial horticulture. Plant Path. 17: 123-26. Scopes,
N. E. A. 1969a. The potential of Chrysopa carnea as a
biological control agent of Myzus persicae on glasshouse
chrysanthemums. Ann. Appl. Biol. 64: 433-39. Scopes,
N. E. A. 1969b. The economics of mass-rearing Encarsia formosa,
a parasite of the whitefly Trialeurodes vaporariorum, for use in
commercial horticulture. Plant Path. 18: 130-32. Scopes,
N. E. A. 1970. Control of Myzus persicae on year round
chrysanthemums by introducing aphids parasitized by Aphidius matricariae
into boxes of rooted cuttings. Ann. Appl. Biol. 66: 323-27. Scopes,
N. E. A. 1985. Red spider mite and the predator Phytoseiulus persimilis,
p. 112-15. In: N. W. Hussey & N. E. A. Scopes (eds.), Biological
Pest Control - The Glasshouse Experience. Blandford, Poole, Dorset. Scopes,
N. E. A. & S. M. Biggerstaff. 1973. Progress towards integrated pest
control on year round chrysanthemum. Proc. 7th British Insectic. Fungic.
Conf., p. 227-34. Smith,
F. F. & R. E. Webb. 1977. Biogeographic and agronomic problems related to
the utilization of biocontrol organisms in commercial greenhouses in the
continental United States. Proc. Symp. XV Intern. Congress Ent. 19-27 Aug.,
1976, Washington, D. C. ARS-NE-85, 1977. p. 89-93. Spencer,
K. A. 1973. Agromyzidae (Diptera) of economic importance. Ser. Ent. 9. Dr. W.
Junk, The Hague. 418 p. Speyer,
E. R. 1927. An important parasite of the greenhouse whitefly. Bull. Ent. Res.
17: 301-08. Stacey,
D. L. 1977. "Banker" plant production of Encarsia formosa
Gahan and its use in the control of glasshouse whitefly on tomatoes. Plant
Path. 26: 63-66. Stenseth,
C. 1979. Effect of temperature and humidity on the development of Phytoseiulus
persimilis Athias-Henriot and its ability to regulate populations of Tetranychus
urticae Koch (Acarina: Phytoseiidae, Tetranychidae). Entomophaga 24:
311-17. Stenseth,
C. 1980. Investigation of uniform introduction technique for use of Phytoseiulus
persimilis for control of Tetranychus urticae on
cucumber. Meld. Norg. Landbrukshogsk. 59(7): 12 p. Stenseth,
C. 1985. Red spider mite control by Phytoseiulus persimilis in
Northern Europe, p. 119-24. In: N. W. Hussey & N. E. A. Scopes
(eds.), Biological Pest Control - The Glasshouse Experience. Blandford,
Poole, Dorset. Stenseth,
C. & I. Aase. 1983. Use of the parasite Encarsia formosa
(Hym.: Aphelinidae) as part of pest management on cucumbers. Entomophaga 28:
17-26. Uygun,
N. 1971. Der Einfluss der Nahrungsmenge auf Fruchtbarkeit und Lebensdauer von
Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Rondani 1847) (Diptera: Itonididae). Z.
ang. Ent. 69: 234-58. van
Emden, H. G. 1966. The effectiveness of aphidophagous insects in reducing
aphid populations. In: I. Hodek (ed.), Ecology of Aphidophagous
Insects. W. Junk, The Hague. 227 p. van
Lenteren, J. C. 1983. The potential of entomophagous parasites for pest
control. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 10: 143-58. van
Lenteren, J. C. 1985. Data on application areas of biological control in
greenhouses. Sting 8: 17-24. van
Lenteren, J. C. 1987. World situation of biological control in greenhouses
and factors limiting use of biological control. Bull. OILB/SROP 1987/X/2:
78-81. van
Lenteren, J. C. & P. M. Hulspas-Jordan. 1983. Influence of low
temperature regimes on the capability of Encarsia formosa and
other parasite in controlling greenhouse whitefly. Bull. OILB/SROP 1983/VI/3:
54-70. van
Lenteren, J. C. & J. Woets. 1988. Biological and integrated pest control
in greenhouses. Ann. Eve. Ent. 33: 239-69. van
Lenteren, J. C., H. W. Nell, L. Sevenster-van der Lelie & J. Woets. 1976.
The parasite-host relationship between Encarsia formosa
(Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and Trialeurodes vaporariorum
(Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). I. Discrimination between parasitized and
unparasitized hosts by the parasite. Z. ang. Ent. 81: 377-80. van
Lenteren, J. C., P. M. J. Ramakers & J. Woets. 1980a. World situation of
biological control in greenhouses, with special attention to factors limiting
application. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 45: 537-44. van Lenteren, J. C., P. M. J. Ramakers & J. Woets. 1980b. Integrated control of vegetable pests in greenhouses, p. 109-18. In: A. K. Minks & P. Gruys (eds.), Integrated Control of Insect |