Release of native <i>Trichogramma minutum</i> to control grape berry moth

Nagarkatti, Sudha; Tobin, Patrick C.; Saunders, Michael C.; Muza, Andrew J.

doi:10.4039/n02-099

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several field studies successfully demonstrated that the presence of buckwheat enhanced parasitism in broccoli (Lavandero et al. 2005), vineyards (Nagarkatti et al. 2003; Berndt, Wratten & Scarratt 2006) and an apple orchard (Irvin et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attract and reward: combining chemical ecology and habitat manipulation to enhance biological control in field crops

Simpson

Gurr

Simmons

et al. 2011

Journal of Applied Ecology

113

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. An increase in pesticide resistance in many pest species is promoting interest in biological control. Much remains to be learned about natural enemy immigration into and persistence within crops at specific times and how to maximize suppression of pest populations. Therefore this study was conducted to test a novel biological control approach, 'attract and reward' which combines two aspects of applied insect ecology: synthetic herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) to improve immigration of beneficial taxa into crops and nectar plants to maintain their populations. 2. The 'attract and reward' approach was tested in sweetcorn, broccoli and wine-grapes with several HIPV formulations at 1AE0% (v ⁄ v) as attractants and buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) as reward. Abundance of insects was assessed with non-attractive sticky traps for up to 22 days after the HIPV spray application. 3. In sweetcorn, Eulophidae were more numerous in the attract treatments: methyl anthranilate, methyl jasmonate (MeJA), methyl salicylate (MeSA) and HIPV mix. Encyrtidae were more abundant near MeJA-treated plants. In broccoli, Scelionidae were more abundant in MeSA treatments with reward and near cis-3-hexenyl acetate-treated plants without reward whilst Ceraphronidae were more numerous near MeSA and predators were more abundant near HIPV mix-treated plants. Nectar plant reward increased catches of parasitoids from several families in all three tested crop species and increased predators in sweet corn and broccoli. 4. Increases in natural enemy numbers were correlated with effects at the first and second trophic levels. Significantly fewer larvae of the sweetcorn pest Helicoverpa spp. were found on sweetcorn plants from plots with reward and significantly less Helicoverpa spp. damage was evident to cobs for one of the HIPV treatments. 5. Synthesis and applications. Results suggest that applications of synthetic HIPVs can enhance recruitment of natural enemies and buckwheat was a suitable resource subsidy plant for increasing abundance and residency. Whilst both of these approaches offer potential to enhance biological control, further work is required to realize fully synergistic effects from their combination as an 'attract and reward' approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attract and reward: combining chemical ecology and habitat manipulation to enhance biological control in field crops

Simpson

Gurr

Simmons

et al. 2011

Journal of Applied Ecology

113

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(6) Junta de Andalucı´a, (2004), (7) Kenis and Kloosterman (1999), (8) Lewis et al (1976), (9) Llorens (1990b), (10) Llorens and Garrido (1992), (11) Massa et al (2001), (12) Nagarkatti et al (2003), (13) Neale et al (1995), (14) Oatman and Platner (1985), (15) Pomerinke and Stansly (1998); (16) Prinsloo and Samways (2001), (17) Smith et al (1990), (18) Sta´ry (1975), (19) Sta´ry and Cermelli (1989), (20) Stibick (2003), (21) Stiling (2004), (22) Stinner et al (1974), (23) Stuart and Polavarapua (2000), (24) Thorpe (1931), (25) Twine and Lloyd (1982), 1999), as well as in areas with a similar climate, such as Australia, California, or South Africa (UC, 1991;Smith et al, 1997;Charleston et al, 2003).…”

Section: Main Crops and Target Pests For Biological Controlmentioning

confidence: 97%

History and Future of Introduction of Exotic Arthropod Biological Control Agents in Spain: A Dilemma?

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first documented introduction of an exotic invertebrate biological control agent (IBCA) in Spain occurred in 1908. Sixty-four additional species have been introduced since then. Information, both previously recorded and original data, on the species introduced for pest control is summarized. Most of the introduced IBCAs focused on citrus pests and homopterans clearly predominate among target phytophagous species. Success has been more frequent for IBCAs used in seasonal inoculative strategies (50.0% of cases) than in classical biological control programs (17.1% of cases). Concerns about potential non-target effects of such species are increasing, but post-release evaluation has often been insufficient to draw any conclusions about them. Most of the beneficial species introduced in Spain were parasitoids (n = 53), and the remaining species were predators (n = 12). Only four parasitoids are considered specialized monophagous natural enemies. The mean number of host species parasitized by parasitoids is 15.2, whereas the mean number of prey species attacked by predators is 21.2. Therefore, polyphagy appears to be quite common among the IBCAs that have been introduced in Spain. The rationale guiding many of these introductions in the past would not be acceptable nowadays. Since classical biological control is such a valuable strategy for pest control, straightforward protocols to evaluate exotic candidate species are urgently needed.

show abstract

“…The main reasons being that the moth eggs are easily mass produced and inexpensive, and the resulting larvae provide an efficient level of biocontrol against other moth pests (e.g., the European corn borer). They were first used in 1980 against GBM eggs (Barnay et al 1999;Reda Abd el Monsef 2004;Hommay et al 2011;Walton et al 2012), the American grape berry moth Endopizza viteana (Nagarkatti et al 2003), and also against the light brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana in Australian vineyards (Glenn and Hoffmann 1997). Several species of Trichogramma, such as T. brassicae Bezdenko, T. cacoeciae Marchal, T. dendrolimi Matsumura, and T. minutum Riley, have been used with significant but varying pest reduction results.…”

Section: Parasitoidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological protection against grape berry moths. A review

Thiéry

Louâpre

Muneret

et al. 2018

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grape is a major crop, covering 7.5 M ha worldwide, that is currently being confronted with three main challenges: intensive pesticide use that must be reduced, invasion by new pests/diseases, and climate change. The biological control of pests and vectors would help address these challenges. Here, we review the scientific literature on the biological control of grape moths by macroorganisms (excluding nematodes). Two components, biological control with an active human role, mainly using biocontrol agents through inundation or inoculation, and conservation biological control, are considered. The major points are the following. (1) Tortricid grape moths seriously damage grapes worldwide, causing yield losses and quality reduction. The more geographically widespread species, Lobesia botrana, continues to extend its range, invading South American and, more recently, North American vineyards. (2) Parasitoids and predators (including arthropods, birds, and bats) that can control grape pests are very diverse. (3) Different methods exist to assess pest control efficiency in the field but some of them remain to be developed. (4) Environmental factors, including host plants, landscape, grass or floral covers, and organic practices, affect the natural control of grape moths. (5) Pest resistance to parasitoids strongly depends on their immune system, which is controlled by the host plant. Future climate changes may modify this tritrophic interaction and thus affect biological control strategies. We conclude that biological control has a great deal of potential in viticulture and that addressing these key factors would improve the efficiency levels of biological control strategies. This would help growers and stakeholders to significantly reduce insecticide use in vineyards.

show abstract

Release of native Trichogramma minutum to control grape berry moth

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

Attract and reward: combining chemical ecology and habitat manipulation to enhance biological control in field crops

Attract and reward: combining chemical ecology and habitat manipulation to enhance biological control in field crops

History and Future of Introduction of Exotic Arthropod Biological Control Agents in Spain: A Dilemma?

Biological protection against grape berry moths. A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About