Who is feeding on the pear psylla? Applying molecular ecology for the biological control of <i>Cacopsylla bidens</i>

Valle, Diana; Cabrera, Nuri; Clavijo, Felipe; Mujica, Valentina; González, Andrés; Siri, María Inés; Lavandero, Blas I.

doi:10.1080/09670874.2022.2135181

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Phenology data for natural enemies have now made their way into psyllid control programs (Nottingham et al 2022b). Laboratory assays have quantified rates at which predators consume pear psyllids (Westigard 1973b, Brunner and Burts 1975, Sigsgaard 2010, Petrakova et al 2016, Ge et al 2019), while molecular tools have identified predators which feed on psyllids under field conditions (Unruh et al 2008, Valle et al 2022). Monitoring tools include nonselective devices such as beating trays, tree bands, or sticky traps (Horton et al 2002, Jones et al 2016, Mills et al 2016b, DuPont and Strohm 2020), as well as tools of higher selectivity such as cardboard refuges for earwigs (Orpet et al 2019).…”

Section: Pest Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity, biology, and management of the pear psyllids: a global look

Civolani,

Soroker,

Cooper

et al. 2023

Annals of the Entomological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pear psyllids (Cacopsylla Ossiannilsson; Hemiptera: Psylloidea: Psyllidae) are a taxonomically difficult group of at least 24 species native to the Palaearctic region. One or more species occur in most pear-growing regions, in some cases as invasive introductions. Existing reviews of this group are primarily of taxonomic focus with limited overviews of biology. The earliest biological studies of the pear psyllids centered on a core group of a few western European species. In part, this focus arose because diversity of the pear psyllids was poorly understood. As taxonomic understanding has advanced over the last 3 decades, research has expanded taxonomically. Increasing difficulties in controlling the pear psyllids additionally has contributed to growth in research. Here, we review a now-extensive literature on diversity, biology, and management of the pear psyllids. Three broad observations emerged from this synthesis. First, large gaps in biological understanding of the pear psyllids persist for several geographic faunas, most notably for psyllids of the Eastern Palaearctic region. Second, taxonomic diversity is accompanied by biological diversity. Despite the commonality in host use among the pear psyllids, with each species being limited to development on Pyrus, striking differences exist among species in life cycles, wintering, and other biological traits. Third, many of the tools being used to manage pear psyllids today are in existence because of the long history of basic research which has targeted these pests. These tools include new insecticides of higher selectivity, various cultural and horticultural tactics, and practices that conserve natural enemies in orchards.

show abstract

Section: Pest Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity, biology, and management of the pear psyllids: a global look

Civolani,

Soroker,

Cooper

et al. 2023

Annals of the Entomological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such reduction in response times to locate the prey's habitat plays a primary role in the foraging e ciency of natural enemies, and consequently in their tness, since the energy and predation risks associated with searching are reduced(Bell 1990;Mills and Heimpel 2018). Our previous studies have shown that C. externa readily preys on C. bidens (Valle et al 2022…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Herbivore-Dependent Induced Volatiles in Pear Plants Cause Differentialattractive Response by Chrysoperla Externa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)

Valle¹,

Mujica²,

González

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While chemical control is still the primary strategy for insect pest management in fruit production, alternative strategies such as biological control need to be incorporated. Biological control may benefit from the behavioral manipulation of natural enemies using volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Among these, herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) provide potential tools for attracting or retaining predators and parasitoids of insect pests. In southern South America, the pear psylla Cacopsylla bidens (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) has become a major pest in pear orchards. In this study, we identified VOCs emitted by pear plants in response to attack by C. bidens and compared these with VOCs induced by a leaf-chewing insect, Argyrotaenia sphaleropa (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Moreover, we evaluated the behavioral response of Chrysoperla externa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) to HIPVs from pear plants damaged by either herbivore. Plants damaged by the pear psylla emitted VOC blends with increased amounts of aliphatic aldehydes. In contrast, leafroller damage resulted in increased amounts of benzeneacetonitrile, (E)-4,8-dimethylnona-1,3,7-triene, ꞵ-ocimene and caryophyllene. In olfactometer bioassays, larvae of C. externa were attracted to herbivore-damaged plants when contrasted with undamaged plants. When plant odors from psylla-damaged were contrasted with those of leafroller-damaged plants, C. externa larvae preferred the former, also showing shorter response lag-times and higher response rates when psylla-damaged plants were present. Our results suggest that psylla-induced aliphatic aldehydes may be used as prey-specific chemical cues by chrysopid larvae. Our findings contributes to the general notion of using semiochemicals as tools for attracting and retaining natural enemies in agroecosystems.

show abstract