FILE: <bc-35.htm> Pooled References GENERAL INDEX [Navigate to MAIN MENU ]
BIOLOGICAL
CONTROL IN GLASSHOUSES
(Contacts)
---- 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 that 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),
many researchers (Chant 1961, Bravenboer & Dosse 1962 have demonstrated
the efficiency of this predator. 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 that 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 (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 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 damage 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 that 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 Pests in The Netherlands. Pudoc., Wageningen. van
Lenteren, J. C., J. Woets, N. van der Poel, W. van Boxtel, S. van de
Merondonk, R. van der Kamp, H. Nell & L. Sevenster-van der Lelie. 1977.
Biological control of the greenhouse whitefly Trialeurodes vaporariorum
(Westwood) (Homoptera: Alyrodidae) by Encarsia
formosa Gahan (Hymenoptera:
Aphelinidae) in Holland, an example of successful applied ecological
research. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 42: 1333-43. Vet, L. E. M., J. C. van Lenteren &
J. Woets. 1980. The parasite-host
relationship between Encarsia
formosa (Hymenoptera:
Aphelinidae) and Trialeurodes
vaporariorum (Homoptera:
Aleyrodidae). IX. A review of the biological control of the greenhouse
whitefly with suggestions for future research. Z. ang. Ent. 90: 26-51. Vlak, J. M., E. den Belder, D. Peters
& M. van de Vrie. 1982. Bekämpfung eines eingeschleppten Schädlings Spotoptera exigua in Gewachshausen mit den autochtonen virus. Meded.
Proefst Aalsmeer. No. 81: 1005-16. Wardlow,
L. R. 1984. Monitoring the activity of tomato leafminer (Liriomyza trifolii
Kalt.) and its parasites in commercial glasshouses in Southern England. Med.
Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 49: 781-91. Wardlow,
L. R. 1985a. Leafminers and their parasites, pp. 61-65. In: N. W. Hussey & N. E. A. Scopes (eds.), Biological
Pest Control - The Glasshouse Experience. Blandford, Poole, Dorset. Wardlow,
L. R. 1985b. Chrysanthemums, p. 180-85. In:
N. W. Hussey & N. E. A. Scopes (eds.), Biological Pest Control - The
Glasshouse Experience. Blandford, Poole, Dorset. Wardlow,
L. R. 1986. Adapting integrated pest control to work for ornamentals. Grower
6: 26-29. Whitcomb,
W. D. 1940. Biological control of mealybugs in greenhouses. Mass. Agric.
Expt. Sta. Bull. 375. 22 p. Woets,
J. 1973. Integrated control in vegetables under glass in The Netherlands.
Bull. OILB/SROP 73/4: 26-31. Woets,
J. 1976. Progress report on the integrated pest control in glasshouses in
Holland. Bull. OILB/SROP 76: 34-38. Woets,
J. 1978. Development of an introduction scheme for Encarsia formosa
Gahan (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) in greenhouse tomatoes to control the
greenhouse whitefly Trialeurodes
vaporariorum (Westwood)
(Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 43: 379-85. Woets, J. 1983. Observations
on Opius pallipes Wesmael (Hym.:
Braconidae) as a potential candidate for biological control of the tomato
leafminer Liriomyza bryoniae Kalt. (Dipt.:
Agromyzidae) in Dutch greenhouse tomatoes. Bull. OILB/SROP 1983/VI/3: 134-41. Woets,
J. & J. C. van Lenteren. 1976. The parasite-host relationship between Encarsia formosa (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Homoptera:
Aleyrodidae). VI. The influence of the host plant on the greenhouse whitefly
and its parasite Encarsia formosa. Bull. OILB/SROP 76:
125-37. Woets, J. & A. van der Linden. 1982.
On the occurrence of Opius pallipes Wesmael and Dacnusa sibirica Telenga (Braconidae) in cases of natural control
of the tomato leafminer Liriomyza
bryoniae Kalt. (Agromyzidae)
in some large greenhouses in The Netherlands. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 47: 533-40. Woets, J. & A. van der Linden. 1985.
First experiments on Chrysocharis
parksi Crawford (Hym.:
Eulophidae) as a parasite for leafminer control (Liriomyza spp.) (Dipt.: Agromyzidae) in European
greenhouse tomatoes. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 50: 763-68. Wyatt, I. J. 1965. The
distribution of Myzus persicae (Sulz.) on year-round
chrysanthemum. I. Summer season. Ann. Appl. Biol. 56: 439-59. Wyatt,
I. J. 1969. Factors affecting aphid infestation of chrysanthemums. Ann. Appl.
Biol. 63: 331-37. Wyatt, I. J. 1970. The distribution of Myzus persicae
(Sulz.) on year-round chrysanthemums. II. Winter season: the effect of
parasitism by Aphidius
matricariae Hal. Ann. Appl.
Biol. 65: 31-41. |