Fruitpiercing Moths and Fruitspotting Bugs: Intractable Pests of Tree Fruits in a Reduced-Insecticide Environment

Fay, H. A. C.

doi:10.17660/actahortic.2002.575.56

Cited by 15 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The problems posed by fruit-spotting bugs and fruit-piercing moths in certain horticultural crops (Fay 2002) and redlegged and blue oat mites in broad-acre canola crops , are examples of co-occurring pests that can confound the development of IPM programs. Nevertheless in some cropping systems, particularly in high value crops, such as cotton and Brassica vegetables, at least tactical IPM is considered to be widely practiced (see below).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of IPM: whither or wither?

Zalucki

Adamson

Furlong

2009

Australian Journal of Entomology

157

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acronym IPM (integrated pest management) has been around for over 50 years and now not only supposedly guides research and extension in pest management but also markets pesticides, is claimed to be undertaken by many growers, and even resonates with public perceptions and politicians. Whether or not IPM programs are sustainable in the longer term under the conflicting stresses and strains of the modern agricultural environment is debatable. We analyse three case studies of IPM development in Australia: citrus IPM in central Queensland, Brassica IPM in southeast Queensland and Helicoverpa management in cotton in eastern Australia. Many management practices for these pests have changed over time. In the more stable citrus system classical biological control along with changed practices (reduced pesticide use) have effectively controlled imported scale insect pests. In Brassicas and cotton, IPM is predominantly of the sample and spray variety where, increasingly, less broad-spectrum insecticides are used and, in cotton, Helicoverpa management includes the deployment of transgenic plants. We question whether or not IPM principles are always consistent with market forces and whether or not the approach is universally applicable for all pest insects when implemented at the small (field or farm) scale. Farmers will adopt cost-effective approaches that minimise their financial risks. For Australia as a whole over the last 30 years insecticide input costs per hectare have increased faster than the price index, reflecting more costly insecticides, changes to the combinations of crops grown and an increase in the overall area of crops cultivated together with possible concomitant changes in pest abundance. Any pest crisis will ensure rapid changes in practice and adoption of technologies, in order to mitigate the short-term financial stresses caused. However, regression to former practices tends to follow (e.g. in Brassica crops). In most cases, we cannot objectively test if changed management practices are responsible for changes in pest abundance, as is often claimed, or if the latter is simply a consequence of the weather and/or related large-scale landscape features (e.g. area of host plants). We argue that for many systems the future of pest management practice will require a change to landscape or area-wide approaches. We suspect, given how entrenched the acronym has become, whatever the nature of the approach it will be called IPM.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of IPM: whither or wither?

Zalucki

Adamson

Furlong

2009

Australian Journal of Entomology

157

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Surprisingly, many aspects of the basic biology and ecology of both A. nitida and A. l. lutescens have not been studied, and both crop and non-crop host-plant relationships are poorly understood. Fay (2002) suggested that long-term improvement of fruitspotting bug management depended on five critical areas of study to determine: (1) the significance of native host plants in undisturbed areas as sources of fruitspotting bug populations in crops; (2) the utility of trap crops to intercept invading adult insects; (3) the effectiveness of selective insecticides; (4) field effectiveness of lures derived from male sex pheromones and plant volatiles; and (5) the potential of inoculative releases of egg parasitoids.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A. nitida and A. l. lutescens both feed on flowers and fruit. Amblypelta lutescens lutescens also feeds on terminal growth of papaya, mango, cashew and macadamia plants (Fay 2002). Coreids have a unique feeding mechanism that is driven by osmosis and allows them to withdraw nutrients from plant cells without actually mechanically rupturing them (Miles 1987).…”

Section: Feeding Mechanisms and Plant Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fruitspotting bug feeding in avocados results in dark sunken marks, the skin cracking as the fruit matures (Fay 2002); however, early feeding damage that may result in 'blind stings' is often not detected as it is not visible without dissection of damaged fruit. Similarly in macadamias, feeding lesions on the surface of nut husks can be difficult to identify and may be invisible on the shell surface, but the damaged kernel becomes transparent and jelly-like, and finally shrivels to become dry and brown within the husk (Brimblecombe 1948).…”

Section: Feeding Mechanisms and Plant Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both A. nitida and A. l. lutescens feed on flowers and fruit, and A. l. lutescens also feeds on the terminal growth of papaya, mango, cashews and macadamia plants (Fay 2002). When feeding, fruitspotting bugs inject salivary sucrose into the plant tissue, which generates an osmotically driven outflow from the surrounding cells, often leaving sunken lesions from the collapsed cells (Miles 1987, Miles & Taylor 1994.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Australian fruitspotting bugs, Amblypelta nitida Stål and A. lutescens lutescens Distant (Hemiptera: Coreidae), and the potential for their biologically based management in macadamia orchards

Govender¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Australian fruitspotting bugs, Amblypelta nitida Stål and A. lutescens lutescens Distant (Hemiptera: Coreidae), are major economic pests of macadamia nuts in Australia. They are also pests of approximately a dozen other tropical and subtropical horticultural crops, and minor pests of many more. They are endemic to the east and northern coastal regions of Australia and as such are distributed across the entire growing region of Australia's macadamia industry. Although the industry is reliant on synthetic pesticides for several major pests and diseases, including fruitspotting bugs, biological control of a major pest, the macadamia nutborer, Cryptophlebia ombrodelta Lower (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), has been successful and is widely adopted. This success has set a precedent within the macadamia industry and provided incentive for research and development of other biological control agents for other important pests. In the early 1990s, a hymenopteran egg parasitoid, Anastatus sp. (Eupelmidae), was identified as having potential as a biological control agent for fruitspotting bugs in Australia, and in 2010, mass rearing began. No formal studies on Anastatus sp., apart from initial releases conducted after its discovery, had been done prior to this thesis.A study on the potential for conservation biological control of fruitspotting bugs in macadamia orchards using habitat management was conducted over two years in northern New South Wales.Traditionally, trees in macadamia orchards are spaced such that the orchard canopy closes over when the trees reach maturity, shading out any existing ground-cover vegetation. In recent years, macadamia growers have been encouraged to adopt wider spacing and/or pruning techniques to increase light into their orchards for improved tree health and nut production. In this situation, common practice is to grow the shade-tolerant sweet smother grass in the mid-row; this provides ground-cover but does not increase floral diversity. In this study, open mid-row canopies, with resident, weedy, flowering mid-row ground-cover vegetation, were compared to closed mid-row canopies with no ground-cover vegetation in terms of a) pest and beneficial invertebrate abundance, b) predation levels of sentinel A. nitida eggs and c) levels of nut damage by A. nitida. The results showed a stark contrast between 'light' and 'dark' orchards; open canopy orchards ('light' orchards) harboured a significantly higher abundance of beneficial invertebrates than denser canopy orchards ('dark' orchards), whereas in 'dark' orchards the abundance of a major pest, the macadamia lace bug, Ulonemia concava Drake (Hemiptera: Tingidae), was significantly higher.Not a single fruitspotting bug was sampled during this experiment; however, damage levels to nuts were significantly lower in 'light' orchards compared to 'dark' orchards. Levels of predation on ii sentinel A. nitida eggs were variable and did not show any clear pattern that could be attributed to orchard management type. In two field release experiments, the...

show abstract