1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multiple Mating in the Citrophilous Mealybug Pseudococcus calceolariae: Implications for Mating Disruption

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The citrophilous mealybug Pseudococcus calceolariae (Maskell) (Hemiptera, Pseudococcidae) is a primary pest of various crops, including grapevines. The use of insecticides against this species is difficult in most cases because its life cycle includes an extended duration of eggs, juveniles, and adults under the bark and on the roots. Pheromone-based control strategies can present new eco-friendly opportunities to manage this species, as in the case of Planococcus ficus (Signoret) and Planococcus citri (Risso). With this aim it is critical to understand behavioral aspects that may influence pheromone-based control strategies. Herein, the capability of males to fertilize multiple females was investigated, trying to understand whether this behavior could negatively impact the efficacy of mass trapping, mating disruption, or the lure and kill technique. Results showed that a P. calceolariae male can successfully mate and fertilize up to 13 females. The copulation time in subsequent mating events and the time between copulations did not change over time but the number of matings per day significantly decreased. In a further experiment, we investigated the mate location strategy of P. calceolariae males, testing the attractiveness of different loadings of sex pheromone on males in a flight tunnel. Males constantly exposed to 16 rubber septa loaded with the sex pheromone showed a significant decrease in female detection at 1 and 30 μg loadings (0.18 and 0.74 visits per female for each visit per septum, respectively), whereas in the control about 9.2-fold more of the released males successfully detected the female in the center of the array of 16 septa without pheromone. Male location of females in the control (45%) was significantly higher than in the arrays with surrounding pheromone (5% and 20% at 1 and 30 μg loadings, respectively). Mating only occurred in the control arrays (45%). This study represents a useful first step to developing pheromone-based strategies for the control of citrophilous mealybugs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Insect host location: a volatile situation.

          Locating a host plant is crucial for a phytophagous (herbivorous) insect to fulfill its nutritional requirements and to find suitable oviposition sites. Insects can locate their hosts even though the host plants are often hidden among an array of other plants. Plant volatiles play an important role in this host-location process. The recognition of a host plant by these olfactory signals could occur by using either species-specific compounds or specific ratios of ubiquitous compounds. Currently, most studies favor the second scenario, with strong evidence that plant discrimination is due to central processing of olfactory signals by the insect, rather than their initial detection. Furthermore, paired or clustered olfactory receptor neurons might enable fine-scale spatio-temporal resolution of the complex signals encountered when ubiquitous compounds are used.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Potential of mass trapping for long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species.

            Semiochemical-based pest management programs comprise three major approaches that are being used to provide environmentally friendly control methods of insect pests: mass trapping, "lure and kill," and mating disruption. In this article, we review the potential of mass trapping in long-term pest management as well as in the eradication of invasive species. We discuss similarities and differences between mass trapping and other two main approaches of semiochemical-based pest management programs. We highlight several study cases where mass trapping has been used either in long-term pest management [e.g., codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.); pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders); bark beetles, palm weevils, corn rootworms (Diabrotica spp.); and fruit flies] or in eradication of invasive species [e.g., gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.); and boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis grandis Boheman). We list the critical issues that affect the efficacy of mass trapping and compare these with previously published models developed to investigate mass trapping efficacy in pest control. We conclude that mass trapping has good potential to suppress or eradicate low-density, isolated pest populations; however, its full potential in pest management has not been adequately realized and therefore encourages further research and development of this technology.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Potential of "lure and kill" in long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species.

              "Lure and kill" technology has been used for several decades in pest management and eradication of invasive species. In lure and kill, the insect pest attracted by a semiochemical lure is not "entrapped" at the source of the attractant as in mass trapping, but instead the insect is subjected to a killing agent, which eliminates affected individuals from the population after a short period. In past decades, a growing scientific literature has been published on this concept. This article provides the first review on the potential of lure and kill in long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species. We present a summary of lure and kill, either when used as a stand-alone control method or in combination with other methods. We discuss its efficacy in comparison with other control methods. Several case studies in which lure and kill has been used with the aims of long-term pest management (e.g., pink bollworm, Egyptian cotton leafworm, codling moth, apple maggot, biting flies, and bark beetles) or the eradication of invasive species (e.g., tephritid fruit flies and boll weevils) are provided. Subsequently, we identify essential knowledge required for successful lure and kill programs that include lure competitiveness with natural odor source; lure density; lure formulation and release rate; pest population density and risk of immigration; and biology and ecology of the target species. The risks associated with lure and kill, especially when used in the eradication programs, are highlighted. We comment on the cost-effectiveness of this technology and its strengths and weaknesses, and list key reasons for success and failure. We conclude that lure and kill can be highly effective in controlling small, low-density, isolated populations, and thus it has the potential to add value to long-term pest management. In the eradication of invasive species, lure and kill offers a major advantage in effectiveness by its being inverse density dependent and it provides some improvements in efficacy over related control methods. However, the inclusion of insecticides or sterilants in lure and kill formulations presents a major obstacle to public acceptance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Insects
                Insects
                insects
                Insects
                MDPI
                2075-4450
                05 September 2019
                September 2019
                : 10
                : 9
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, via del Borghetto 80, 56124 Pisa, Italy
                [2 ]The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, PB 4704, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
                [3 ]School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Tamaki Campus, PB 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: giovanni.benelli@ 123456unipi.it ; Tel.: +39-050-221-6141
                Article
                insects-10-00285
                10.3390/insects10090285
                6780847
                31491887
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article