z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Adding a Natural Enemy to Respond to Pest Immigration and Delayed Natural Enemy Releases in Augmentative Biological Control
Author(s) -
Erfan Vafaie,
H. Brent Pemberton,
Mengmeng Gu,
David L. Kerns,
Micky D. Eubanks,
Kevin M. Heinz
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
environmental entomology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.749
H-Index - 89
eISSN - 1938-2936
pISSN - 0046-225X
DOI - 10.1093/ee/nvab007
Subject(s) - biology , aphelinidae , whitefly , poinsettia , phytoseiidae , biological pest control , pest analysis , botany , ecology , parasitoid , predation , inflorescence , bract , predator
Whether increased natural enemy density or adding a second natural enemy species will provide superior pest suppression in greenhouse augmentative biological control is unknown for many commercially available natural enemy species. In this study, we use sweetpotato whiteflies, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), on poinsettias, Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd. ex Klotzsch (Malpighiales: Euphorbiaceae), to determine whether adding Amblyseius swirskii (Athias-Henriot) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) to Eretmocerus eremicus Rose and Zolnerowich (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) is better for B. tabaci suppression compared with either natural enemy alone, both with and without challenges with whitefly immigration or delayed natural enemy releases. The number of whiteflies on caged poinsettias treated with different natural enemy release rates (single or double rate), natural enemy species (one or two species), natural enemy delayed release (weeks 4 and 8), and whitefly immigration treatments (introduced at week 4 or week 8) was censused biweekly for 16 wk. Both species used in combination provided similar or better suppression of whiteflies compared with either natural enemy alone. Both species combined also provided superior suppression of whiteflies when challenged with whitefly immigration or delays in natural enemy releases compared with E. eremicus alone. Whitefly immigration or delays in E. eremicus releases did not increase whitefly populations, suggesting that suppression of whiteflies by E. eremicus alone is relatively robust. This study found no evidence for negative interactions between E. eremicus and A. swirskii for suppressing B. tabaci.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom